Acronyms and Abbreviations

Home , List of Mad episodes, Rancho del Arroyo Chico

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 803

License Application

Volume IID: Exhibit E (Section 6.9 Land Use) through Section 13.0 Literature Cited

October 2007

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Description Page

6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT(continued)

6.9 Land Use...... E6.9-1 6.9.1 Historical Information...... E6.9-1 6.9.1.1 Land Management Plans and Land Use Management Descriptions ...... E6.9-1 6.9.1.2 Land Use and Management within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary...... E6.9-6 6.9.1.3 Licensee’s Shoreline Permitting Policies...... E6.9-10 6.9.1.4 Land Use and Management Adjacent to Project Affected River Reaches ...... E6.9-11 6.9.2 PG&E Relicensing Studies ...... E6.9-17 6.10 Aesthetic Resources...... E6.10-1 6.10.1 Overview...... E6.10-1 6.10.2 Aesthetic Resources and Related Management Guidelines in the Vicinity of Project Features ...... E6.10-1 6.10.3 Other Scenic Attractions in the Project Area...... E6.10-5 6.10.4 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies...... E6.10-6 6.11 Cultural Resources ...... E6-11-1 6.11.1 Historical Information...... E6.11-1 6.11.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies...... E6.11-2 6.11.2.1 Section 106 Consultation...... E6.11-3 6.11.2.1.1 Pre-Application Document (PAD) Consultation ...... E6.11-3 6.11.2.1.2 Scoping and Study Plan Consultation...... E6.11-5 6.11.2.1.3 Study Plan Implementation...... E6.11-7 6.11.2.1.4 Draft License Application...... E6.11-8 6.11.2.1.5 Summary...... E6.11-9 6.11.2.2 Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties ...... E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.1 Study Objectives...... E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.2 Study Area...... E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.3 Methods...... E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.3.1 Archival Research...... E6.11-11

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

6.11.2.2.3.2 Field Survey and Site Documentation...... E6.11-12 6.11.2.2.3.3 Native American Monitoring....E6.11-13 6.11.2.2.3.4 NRHP Evaluations...... E6.11-13 6.11.2.2.4 Results...... E6.11-14 6.11.2.2.4.1 Supplemental Archival Research...... E6.11-14 6.11.2.2.4.2 Field Survey...... E6.11-15 6.11.2.2.4.3 Site Documentation...... E6.11-16 6.11.2.2.4.4 Native American Monitoring....E6.11-17 6.11.2.2.4.5 Cultural Context...... E6.11-20 6.11.2.2.4.6 NRHP Evaluations...... E6.11-34 6.11.2.2.5 Summary...... E6.11-86 6.11.2.2.6 List of Appendices...... E6.11-86 6.11.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties...... E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.1 Study Objectives...... E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.2 Study Area...... E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.3 Methods...... E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.4 Results...... E6.11-101 6.11.2.3.5 Summary...... E6.11-107 6.11.2.3.6 List of Appendices...... E6.11-107 6.11.2.4 Historic Project Feature Assessment ...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.1 Study Objectives...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.2 Study Area...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3 Methods...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.1 Archival Research...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.2 Field Inventory...... E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.3 NRHP Evaluation...... E6.1-110 6.11.2.4.4 Results...... E6.11-110 6.11.2.4.4.1 Prior Studies of the Project .....E6.11-110 6.11.2.4.4.2 Background and Historical Content...... E6.11-111

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

6.11.2.4.4.3 Field Inventory, Feature Documentation and Definition of Property Types ..E6.11-128 6.11.2.4.5 National Register Evaluations...... E6.11-137 6.11.2.4.5.1 Significance...... E6.11-137 6.11.2.4.5.2 Historic District Boundaries...E6.11-140 6.11.2.4.5.3 Integrity...... E6.11-140 6.11.2.4.5.4 Project Features...... E6.11-143 6.11.2.4.6 Summary...... E6.11-148 6.11.2.4.7 List of Appendices...... E6.11-148 6.12 Socio-Economic Resources ...... E6.12-1 6.12.1 Historical Information...... E6.12-1 6.12.1.1 General Land Use Patterns...... E6.12-1 6.12.1.2 Population Patterns...... E6.12-3 6.12.1.3 Households/Family Distribution and Income ...... E6.12-5 6.12.2 Project Vicinity Employment Sources...... E6.12-7 6.12.3 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies...... E6.12-10 6.12.3.1 Assess Socio-economic Effects of alternative Project Management Actions ...... E6.12-10

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

7.1 Geology and Soils...... E7-1 7.1.1 Effects of Project Operations on Erosion of Soils in Project Reservoirs and Stream Reaches...... E7-1 7.1.2 Effects on Project Spillways on Geology and Soils...... E7-2 7.1.3 Effects on Geology and Soils from Overtopping or Structural Failures of Project Canals or Flumes, or from Landslides and Debris Flows that Intersect project Canals or Flumes ...... E7-4 7.2 Water Resources...... E7-5 7.2.1 Adequacy of existing gages to monitor hydrologic characteristics and compliance of minimum streamflow releases ...... E7-6 7.2.2 Effects from the discontinued use of Project feeder diversions...... E7-6

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

7.2.3 Effects of water loss in canals during transport...... E7-7 7.2.4 Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches...... E7-8 7.2.5 Effects of cleaning Project canals and flumes on water quality ...... E7-16 7.2.6 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused from project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from project roads, and natural landslides...... E7-16 7.2.7 Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on water quality (such as fecal coliform contamination)...... E7-17 7.2.8 Effects of water diversions from Little Butte Creek on the local water supply...... E7-17 7.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources...... E7-17 7.3.1 Effects of erosion caused by Project operations on aquatic species and available aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches...... E7-18 7.3.2 Effects of existing minimum flows, and the potential for enhancement of flows, on aquatic habitat and fish, mollusks, and other benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches...... E7-19 7.3.3 Effects of the discontinued use of four Project feeder diversions on available aquatic habitat and fish and macroinvertebrate populations...... E7-25 7.3.4 Effects of Project operations and Project-related activities on fish populations in the Project reservoirs...... E7-25 7.3.5 Potential for fish passage upstream in Butte Creek ...... E7-26 7.3.6 Effects of project operations on fish entrainment at Project dams and diversions...... E7-27 7.3.7 Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes and canals on aquatic species ...... E7-27 7.3.8 Effects of rapid changes in canal flows on fish stranding ...... E7-27 7.3.9 Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Project canals and downstream of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam in Butte Creek ...... E7-28 7.3.10 Effects of project operations on the transport of large woody debris ...... E7-29

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

7.3.11 Potential for Project operations to coordinate with State and federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within the project reach...... E7-30 7.4 Wildlife Resources...... E7-30 7.4.1 Effects of project operations and facilities on wildlife species and habitat...... E7-30 7.4.2 Effects of project transmission lines on raptors and migratory birds ...... E7-32 7.5 Botanical Resources...... E7-33 7.5.1 Effects of project operations on vegetation ...... E7-33 7.5.2 Effects of project operations on the establishment and spread of noxious weeds...... E7-33 7.5.3 Effects of project operations on special status plant species ...... E7-34 7.5.4 Effects of informal recreation at project reservoirs and stream reaches on special status plants...... E7-35 7.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat...... E7-36 7.6.1 Effects of project operations on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation, including fens, around project facilities and reservoirs...... E7-36 7.6.2 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around project facilities and reservoirs, caused from project operations and structural failures, project spillways, runoff from project roads, and natural landslides ...... E7-37 7.6.3 Effects of informal recreation at project reservoirs and stream reaches on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around project facilities and reservoirs ...... E7-37 7.7 Species Protected under the Endangered Species Act ...... E7-37 7.8 Recreation and Land Use...... E7-39 7.8.1 Effects of erosion and potential erosion caused by recreation activities E7-39 7.8.2 Effects of project operations, including maintenance activities, on public access and recreational opportunities within the project area...... E7-40 7.8.3 Adequacy of existing recreational facilities, parking, and public access within the project boundary and ability of facilities to

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

meet future recreational demands (including affects resulting from the Skyway Project) ...... E7-41 7.8.4 Effects of project operations on quality and availability of flow-dependant river recreation opportunities, including: whitewater boating, fishing, and swimming, and feasibility of future flow-dependant river recreation ...... E7-46 7.8.5 Effects of project operation and recreational activity on Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status...... E7-47 7.8.6 Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on project resources, including affects of littering and sanitation problems ...... E7-47 7.8.7 Potential fire hazards and effects of OHV use in the project vicinity ...... E7-49 7.8.8 Appropriateness of existing project-related interpretative and education/recreation signs...... E7-52 7.9 Aesthetic Resources...... E7-52 7.9.1 Effects of project operations, including facilities and maintenance activities, on aesthetic resources in the project vicinity ...... E7-52 7.9.2 Effects of project operations on the aesthetic attributes of butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status...... E7-53 7.9.3 Effects of facilities, operations, and recreation use on aesthetic character of lands administered by the USFS...... E7-53 7.9.4 Potential for development and/or enhancement of scenic overlooks...... E7-53 7.10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests...... E7-53 7.10.1 Effects of the continued Project operation, including maintenance activities and Project-related activities, on Indian tribal interests and historic properties (defined as all properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) located within the area of potential effect (APE)...... E7-54 7. 10.2 Effects of Project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans) ...... E7-59 7.10.3 Development of a Historic Properties Management Plan to ensure adequate protection of tribal and historic resources from Project operations or Project-related activities ...... E7-59 7.11 Socio-Economic Resources...... E7-60

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

7.11.1 Effects of proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures on project economics ...... E7-60 7.11.2 Economic viability of the Centerville Powerhouse ...... E7-60

8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

8.1 PG&E’s Proposed Resource Management Measures...... E8-2 8.1.1 General Measures...... E8-2 8.1.1.1 Measure 1 – Train Employees Annually ...... E8-2 8.1.1.2 Measure 2 – Consultation ...... E8-3 8.1.13 Measure 3 – Special-Status Species...... E8-4 8.1.2 Geology and Soils...... E8-5 8.1.2.1 Measure 4 – Develop and Implement a Project Transportation System Management Plan...... E8-5 8.1.2.2 Measure 5 – Develop and Implement a Round Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan ...... E8-5 8.1.2.3 Measure 6 – Develop and Implement a Project Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan ...... E8-7 8.1.3 Water Resources...... E8-8 8.1.3.1 Measure 7 – Install and Maintain New Gages...... E8-8 8.1.3.2 Measure 8 – Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Stream during Canal Cleaning...... E8-9 8.1.3.3 Measure 9 – Develop and Implement a Hazardous Substance Plan ...... E8-9 8.1.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources...... E8-10 8.1.4.1 Measure 10 – Develop and Implement a Canal Fish Rescue Plan...... E8-10 8.1.4.2 Measure 11 – Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking ...... E8-11 8.1.4.3 Measure 12 – Maintain a Minimum Pool in Philbrook Reservoir...... E8-11 8.1.5 Wildlife Resources...... E8-11 8.1.5.1 Measure 13 – Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing or Retrofitting Canal wildlife Crossings or Escape Facilities...... E8-12

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

8.1.5.2 Measure 14 – Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals...... E8-12 8.1.6 Botanical Resources and Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitats ...... E8-13 8.1.6.1 Measure 15 – Develop and Implement a Vegetation Management Plan...... E8-13 8.1.6.2 Measure 16 – Develop and Implement an Invasive Weed Management Plan ...... E8-14 8.1.6.3 Measure 17 – Develop and Implement a Fire Prevention, Response and Investigation ...... E8-16 8.1.7 Species Protected Under the Federal Endangered Species Act ...... E8-17 8.1.7.1 Measure 18 – Implement Minimum Stream Flows ...... E8-18 8.1.7.2 Measure 19 – DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan...... E8-22 8.1.7.3 Measure 20 – Develop and Implement Facility Monitoring, Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan...... E8-23 8.1.7.4 Measure 21 – Develop and Implement Long-term Operations Plan...... E8-23 8.1.7.5 Measure 22 – Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Populations ...... E8-24 8.1.7.6 Measure 23 – Annual Report ...... E8-25 8.1.7.7 Measure 24 - Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Protection ...... E8-25 8.1.8 Recreation ...... E8-25 8.1.8.1 Measure 25 - Maintain and Operate Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities...... E8- 8.1.8.2 Measure 26 - Develop and Implement Recreation Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan at Existing Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities...... E8-27 8.1.8.3 Measure 27 - Develop and Implement Project Information and Sign Plan ...... E8-28 8.1.8.4 Measure 28 - Obtain Public Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment ...... E8-28

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

8.1.8.5 Measure 29 - Make Stream flow Information Available to Public...... E8-29 8.1.9 Land Use ...... E8-30 8.1.9.1 Measure 30 – Remove Philbrook Lake Tender House and other Structures No Longer Needed...... E8-30 8.1.10 Aesthetic Resources...... E8-30 8.1.10.1 Measure 31 – Consult with USFS when Painting/Reconstructing Facilities ...... E8-30 8.1.10.2 Measure 32 – Maintain Improvements and Premises on NFSL ...... E8-31 8.1.11 Socio-Economic Resources...... E8-31 8.1.12 Cultural and Tribal Resources ...... E8-31 8.1.12.1 Measure 33 – Develop and Implement Historic Properties Management Plan ...... E8-31 8.2 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Adopted by PG&E...... E8-32 8.3 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Not Adopted by PG&E...... E8-33 Attachment One of Section 8.0: Proposed General Management Measures for Inclusion in Historic Properties Management Plan...... A-1 1.0 Proposed General Management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP ...... A-1 1.1 Avoidance of Impacts to Historic Properties...... A-1 1.2 Public Education and Employee Training ...... A-1 1.3 Signage...... A-3 1.4 Travel Routes and Road Closures...... A-5 1.5 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Controls ...... A-6 1.6 Recreation Development and Improvements...... A-7 1.7 Archaeological Monitoring and Condition Assessment ...... A-8 1.8 Site Stabilization and Erosion Control...... A-9 1.9 Treatment of Human Remains...... A-9 1.10 Unanticipated Discoveries...... A-10 1.11 Emergency Actions...... A-12 1.12 Periodic Reporting and Meetings...... A-13 1.13 Periodic Review and Revision of the HPMP...... A-14.

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

2.0 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP ...... A-14 2.1 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Prehistoric and Historic-Era Archaeological Sites...... A-15 2.1.1 Site-Specific Management Measures...... A-15 3.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Tribal Interests...... A-41 4.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Historical Project System Features...... A-41

9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS...... E9-1

10.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 10.1 Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Project (Existing License)...... E-10-1 10.2 Cost of Constructing, Operating, and Maintaining the Proposed Project (Original License) E10-2 10.3 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation or Enhancement Measures ...... E10-2 10.3.1 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures Proposed by PG&E...... E10-2 10.3.2 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures Proposed by Relicensing Participants...... E10-3 10.4 Developmental Resources...... E10-4 10.4.1 Value of Developmental Resources (Existing License) ...... E10-4 10.4.2 Value of Developmental Resources for Proposed Project (Original License) ...... E10-4

11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... E11-1

12.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION 12.1 Notice of Intent to Relicense...... E12-1 12.2 Pre-Application Document ...... E12-1 12.3 NEPA Scoping...... E12-1 12.4 Study Plan Development...... E12-2 12.5 Study Performance, Review and Plan for Completion ...... E12-2 12.6 Section 106 Consultation of NHPA...... E12-7 12.7 Section 7 Consultation of ESA ...... E12-7

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

12.8 Routing Consultation Meetings ...... E12-7 12.9 Draft License Application...... E12-7 12.10 Continuing Consultation...... E12-8 12.11 List of Interested Parties ...... E12-14

13.0 LITERATURE CITED 13.1 Literature Cited ...... E13-1 13.1.1 Geology and Soils...... E13-1 13.1.2 Water Resources...... E13-2 13.1.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources...... E13-6 13.1.4 Wildlife Resources...... E13-16 13.1.5 Botanical Resources...... E13-19 13.1.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat ...... E13-21 13.1.7 Species Protected Under Federal Endangered Species Act ...... E13-21 13.1.8 Recreational Resources...... E13-23 13.1.9 Land Use and Management ...... E13-30 13.1.10 Aesthetic Resources...... E13-30 13.1.11 Cultural Resources...... E13-30 13.1.12 Socio-Economic Resources...... E13-43

VOLUME IID TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Description Page

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES

Section & Table No. Description Page

6.9 LAND USE Table E6.9.1-1 Land Use Categories Descriptions from the General Plan...... E6.9-1 Table E6.9.1-2 Land Use Categories Developed from the Butte County Zoning Ordinance ...... E6.9-2 Table E6.9.1-3 Lassen LMRP Land Use Management Prescriptions...... E6.9-3 Table E6.9.1-4 BLM’s FOBCRA Land Use Management Direction...... E6.9-5 Table E6.9.1-5 Land Use Management Distribution Within and Adjacent to Canal Project Boundaries ...... E6.9-9 Table E6.9.1-6 Land Use Management Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary along Project Roads ...... E6.9-10 Table E6.9.1-7 Land Use Management Adjacent to Project-Affected Reaches ...... E6.9-12

6.10 AESTHETIC RESOURCES Table 6.10-1 Aesthetic Character of Project Facilities and Features ...... E6.10-11

6.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Table E6.11.2.2-1 Portions of the APE Excluded from Archaeological Survey ...... E6.11-15 Table E6.11.2.2-2 Prehistoric and historic era sites within the APE...... E6.11-18 Table E6.11.2.2-3 Prehistoric Chronology of the Eastern Sierra Front...... E6.11-21 Table E6.11.2.2-4 Standards Considered for Assessing the Significance of Historic-Era Sites Using National Register Criterion...... E6.11-36 Table E6.11.2.2-5 Bottles from DC-12/H with Embossing...... E6.11-44 Table E6.11.2.2-6 CA-BUT-1111-H Bottle Marks and Dates ...... E6.11-63 Table E6.11.2.2-7 DC-7-H Bottle Marks and Dates...... E6.11-69 Table E6.11.2.2-8 DC-29-H Bottle Marks and Dates...... E6.11-78 Table E6.11.2.2-9 DC-34-H, Feature A Bottle Marks and Dates...... E6.11-79 Table E6.11.2.2-10 DC-23-H, Feature B Bottle Marks and Dates...... E6.11-80

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

Table E6.11.2.4-1 DeSabla-Centerville Historic Project Features and/or Proposed Historic District Contributors...... E6.11-130

6.12 SOCIO-ECONOMICS Table 6.12.1-1 Summary of Butte County Land-Use Patterns...... E6.12-1 Table 6.12.1-2 Distribution of Public and Residential Lands in Butte County...... E6.12-3 Table 6.12.1.-3 Population of Butte County and California Comparison...... E6.12-3 Table 6.12-4 Cities of Butte county with Populations of 1000+...... E6.12-4 Table 6.12-5 Butte County Housing Distribution...... E6.12-4 Table 6.12-6 Summary of Butte County Population and Housing Units, 1990-1940...... E6.12-4 Table 6.12-7 Summary of Butte County Population and Housing Density, 1970-1990...... E6.12-4 Table 6.12-8 Summary of Household Units and Income – Butte County/State Comparison...... E6.12-5 Table 6.12-9 Summary of Population by Age, 2000...... E6.12-6 Table 6.12-10 Summary of Population by Gender and Race – County/State Comparison ...... E6.12-6 Table 6.12-11 Summary of Population Education Average, Butte County and State Comparison...... E6.12-7 Table 6.12-12 Total Labor Force, Cities and Butte County, 2002-1990.... E6.12-7 Table 6.12-13 Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for Incorporated Cities and towns in Butte County, 1990-2002...... E6.12-7 Table 6.12-14 Summary of Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for Butte County incorporated Cities and Towns, 2002...... E6.12-8 Table 6.12-15 Summary of Industry Statistics for Butte County (2001 NAICS BASIS)...... E6.12-9 Table 6.12-16 Largest Employers in Butte County (July 2003)...... E6.12-9

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

Table 6.12-17 Total Travel and Tourism Economic Information, 2001...... E6.12-9

7.0 LIST OF DISCUSSION MEASURES – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Table E7.2.4-1 W2 Simulation Results: Difference between base case and simulation from JD 171 (6/19) to JD 220 (8/08) using 2005 hydrology and meteorology ...... E7-9 Table E7.2.4-2 W2 Dry-Hot Year Simulation Results: Difference between base case and simulation from JD 170 (6/19) to JD 220 (8/08) using 2001 (dry) hydrology and 2005 (hot) meteorology (CPH=Centerville Powerhouse)...... E7-10 Table E7.8.3-1 Participation Estimates for the Activities Available at the Project for Butte County, California in 2006-2050...... E7-44 Table E7.8.3-2 Average Participation as a Percentage of Butte County, 2010-2050 ...... E7-44 Table E7.8.3-3 Projected Indexes of Change in Activity Participation for the Project’s Primary Recreational Activities Based on the Pacific Region...... E7-45 Table E7.10.1-1 Identified Impacts to Recommended Eligible or Potentially Eligible Archaeological and Historic-Era Sites...... E7-55

8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Table E8.1.7-1 Comparison between PG&E’s current and proposed minimum stream flow requirement in cfs...... E8-20 Table E8.1-1 GENERAL - Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12 ...... E8-35 Table E8.1-2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-36

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

Table E8.1-3 WATER RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-37 Table E8.1-4 FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2- 1 through E8.2-12...... E8-38 Table E8.1-5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-39 Table E8.1-6 BOTANICAL RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-40 Table E8.1-7 WETLAND, RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL HABITAT – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2- 1 through E8.2-12...... E8-41 Table E8.1-8 ESA SPECIES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-42 Table E8.1-9 RECREATION – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-46 Table E8.1-10 LAND USE – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12 ...... E8-47

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

Table E8.1-11 AESTHETIC RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-48 Table E8.1-12 CULTURAL/TRIBAL RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12...... E8-49 Appendix One of Section 8.0: Table E1.4-1 Proposed Management Measures for Archaeological Sites within the APE ...... A-43 Table E1.4-2 DeSabla-Centerville Historic Project Features Recommended as Eligible to the NRHP, and/or Proposed Historic District Contributors...... A-50 Table E1.4-3 Repair and Maintenance Activities to NRHP-eligible Properties that do not Require SHPO Consultation...... A-51

9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None

10.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Table E10.1-1 Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and No New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Estimated Costs in $2007)...... E10-1 Table E10.3-1 Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and with the Licensee-Proposed New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Costs in $2007)...... E10-2

VOLUME IID LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH QUALIFYING PLANS Table 11-1 List of qualifying Federal and state comprehensive waterway plans potentially relevant to the DeSabla- Centerville Project (extracted from FERC Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, September 2006)...... E11-1

12.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Table ES-1 Status of Relicensing Studies...... E12-3

13.0 LITERATURE CITED None

VOLUME IID LIST OF FIGURES

Section & Figure No. Description Page

6.9 LAND USE Figure E6.9.1-1 Land Use Management Designations within One Mile of Project Area ...... E6.9-19 Figure E6.9.1-2 Round Valley Reservoir Project Adjacent Land Uses...... E6.9-13 Figure E6.9.1-3 Philbrook Reservoir Project Adjacent Land Uses ...... E6.9-14 Figure E6.9.1-4 DeSabla Forebay Project Adjacent Land Uses ...... E6.9-15

6.10 AESTHETIC RESOURCES Figure 6.10-1 Round Valley Reservoir...... E6.10-4 Figure 6.10-2 Round Valley Reservoir...... E6.10-4 Figure 6.10-3 Philbrook Reservoir with dock ...... E6.10-4 Figure 6.10-4 Philbrook Reservoir ...... E6.10-4 Figure 6.10-5 DeSabla Forebay and Dam ...... E6.10-5 Figure 6.10-6 DeSabla Forebay...... E6.10-5 Figure 6.10-7 USFS and BLM Visual Classifications...... E6.10-13 Figure 6.10-8 Hendricks Head Dam...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-9 Hendricks Canal...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-10 Toadtown Canal...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-11 Butte Creek Diversion Dam...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-12 Butte Canal...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-13 Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal...... E6.10-7 Figure 6.10-14 Toadtown Powerhouse Aerial View ...... E6.10-8 Figure 6.10-15 Toadtown Powerhouse Ground View...... E6.10-8 Figure 6.10-16 DeSabla Powerhouse Aerial View...... E6.10-9 Figure 6.10-17 DeSabla Powerhouse Ground View...... E6.10-9 Figure 6.10-18 Centerville Powerhouse Aerial View...... E6.10-10 Figure 6.10-19 Centerville Powerhouse Ground View ...... E6.10-10

VOLUME IID LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Section & Figure No. Description Page

6.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Figure E6.11.2.2-1 Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effects (Maps 1 though 11) ...... E6-11-87

6.12 SOCIO ECONOMICS Figure E6.12-1 Map of Butte County ...... E6.12-2

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Figure E7.2.4-1 July 15 simulation for Lower WBFR 2005 Calibration Model ...... E7-14 Figure E7.2.4-2 July 15 Simulation for Butte Creek 2005 Calibration Model ...... E7-14 Figure E7.2.4-3 July 15 Simulation for Butte Canal 2005 Calibration Model ...... E7-15

8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Figure E8.0-1 Location of Proposed Resource Management Measures...... E8- Appendix One of Section 8.0: Figure 1.3-1 Sensitive Resource Area Sign...... A-3 Figure 1.3-2 No Unauthorized Vehicles Sign...... A-4 Figure 1.3-3 Warning: All Non-Emergency Motor Vehicles Strictly Prohibited Sign...... A-4

9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None

10.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS None

VOLUME IID LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Section & Figure No. Description Page

11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH QUALIFYING PLANS None

12.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION None

13.0 LITERATURE CITED None

VOLUME IID LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Section & Figure No. Description Page

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally]

VOLUME IID LIST OF APPENDICES

Section & Appendix No. Description

6.9 LAND USE None

6.10 AESTHETIC RESOURCES None

6.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES Appendix E6.11.2.2-A Bureau of Land Management Authorization Form Appendix E6.11.2.2-B USFS Special Use Permit Appendix E6.11.2.2-C Tribal Monitor Daily Field Notes Appendix E6.11.2.4-A DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historical Photographs, Maps, and Drawings

6.12 SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES None

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS None

8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES Appendix E8.1.7-A NOAA fisheries draft Biological opinion for Central Valley Spring run Chinook Salmon Appendix E8.1.7-B VELB Biological opinion and PG&E’s VELB Conservation Program

9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None

10.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS None

VOLUME IID LIST OF APPENDICES (continued)

Section & Appendix No. Description

11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS None

12.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION None

13.0 LITERATURE CITED None

Definitions of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations

Term Definition

A A Ampere AA Federal Antiquities Act ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ADA Americans with Disabilities Act An almost vertical pipe or short horizontal passage entering a tunnel, either to add water Adit from a conduit, sluice or other water source, or as a maintenance access tunnel (also referred to as a portal if located at the beginning or end of the tunnel). af acre-foot, the amount of water needed to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. A reservoir located immediately downstream from a powerhouse, sometimes used to re- Afterbay regulate flows to the river or stream. AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Automatic Generation Control. The ability to control the megawatt output of a given AGC powerhouse from remote site, such as the ISO uses to support California electric regulation system. Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation APE Act. An automatic powerhouse can be started, stopped, and have its load and voltage changed from a remote or master station, via supervisory control. A semiautomatic powerhouse Automatic/semi- with SCADA may allow a remote station to change load and/or voltage, and may allow a automatic/manual remote shutdown, but must be started manually. A semi-automatic powerhouse without powerhouses SCADA will send alarms to a remote or master station. A manual powerhouse must have all its functions performed at the powerhouse.

B BA Biological Assessment BAOT Boats at one time Basin Plan CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan BCCER Butte Creek Canyon Ecological Reserve BCHER Butte Creek House Ecological Reserve BCWC Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Black Start The ability of a unit to start up without the use of an external transmission or distribution Capability voltage power source. BLM U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management BMI Benthic Macroinvertebrates BMP Best Management Practice BO / BiOp Biological Opinion BOD biological oxygen demand BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation BP Before present time BSAI BIOSystems Analysis, Inc.

C C Celsius California and federal agencies working cooperatively through the CALFED Bay-Delta CALFED Program to improve the quality and reliability of California’s water supplies while restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem. CalIPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDEC California Data Exchange Center CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation CDSOD California Division of Safety of Dams within the CDWR CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act Cf cubic feet CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CL Carapace length Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPS-1A Plants presumed to be extinct in California CNPS-1B Species considered by the CNPS as rare or endangered in California and elsewhere Species considered by the CNPS as rare or endangered in California but more common CNPS-2 elsewhere CNPS-3 Species that require more information before assigning to other lists – A review list CNPS-4 Species considered by the CNPS as plants of limited distribution A pipe, flume or canal used for diverting or moving water from one point to another, Conduit usually used when there is no existing streambed or waterway CORP California Outdoor Recreation Plan COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Amphibian and reptile species designated as protected under the CDFG sport fishing CP regulations as authorized by the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 CPH Centerville Powerhouse CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSBP California Stream Bioassessment Procedure CVPH Centerville Powerhouse CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Federal Clean Water Act CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program CWSC California Water Services Company

D dbh diameter at breast height DEA Draft Environmental Assessment DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Dependable The maximum dependable MW output of a generator or group of generators during the Capacity critical hydrologic period coincident with peak electrical system load DLA draft license application

DRP Dispute Review Panel

The substations, transformers and lines that convey electricity from high-voltage Distribution System transmission lines to the consumer DO dissolved oxygen DOC dissolved organic carbon DWR California Department of Water Resources

E EA Environmental Assessment EAP Emergency Action Plan EED California Employment Development Department EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Federal Endangered Species Act ESU Ecologically significant unit EVC Existing Visual Condition EWP CALFED Environmental Water Program

F F Fahrenheit FAC Federal Advisory Committee FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act FC A species or subspecies currently proposed as a candidate for listing under the ESA. FE A species or subspecies listed as endangered under the ESA FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration Removable boards installed seasonally in reservoir spillways to temporarily increase Flashboards storage capacity FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act A lined structure, commonly made of wood, metal or concrete, used for conveyance of Flume water, usually where no streambed exists or the topography is not suitable for a canal or tunnel FOBCRA Forks of the Butte Creek Recreation Area A reservoir upstream from a powerhouse, from which water is drawn into a tunnel or Forebay penstock for delivery to the powerhouse A species or subspecies designated as “fully protected” under the California Fish & Game FP Code FPA Federal Power Act FPD A federally listed species currently proposed for delisting from the ESA Francis Turbine A radial-inflow reaction turbine, where flow through the runner is radial to the turbine shaft Special Concern Species, an administrative designation by USFWS (former category 2 FSC species) FSS A species or subspecies designated as “sensitive” by the USFS FT A species or subspecies listed as threatened under the ESA ft Feet FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

G g Gram GIR Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians GIS Geographic Information System Generator A machine powered by a turbine that produces electric current grizzly A metal grating across the entry to a water conduit GWh Gigawatt-hour (equals one million kilowatt-hours)

H H Horizontal A wood pole transmission structure that consists of two wood poles with a horizontal cross “H”-frame structure arm above the conductor HFQLG Act Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act hp Horsepower hr Hour HSI Habitat Suitability Indices Hz hertz (cycles per second)

IFIM FWS Instream Flow Incremental Methodology ILP Integrated Licensing Process in Inch Installed Capacity The nameplate MW rating of a generator or group of generators The broad group of individuals and entities (federal and state resource agencies, local Interested Parties governments, Indian tribes, members of the public, and others) that have an interest in a proceeding. ISO California Independent System Operator ITA Indian Trust Asset

K k kilometer: 1,000 meters kg kilograms: 1,000 grams kg/ha kilograms per hectare kV kilovolts: 1,000 volts kVA kilovolt amperes kW kilowatts: 1,000 watts kWh kilowatt-hour: 1,000 watt hours

L l Liter LCDD Lower Centerville Diversion Dam Application for New License submitted to FERC no less than two years in advance of License Application expiration of an existing license. LNF Lassen National Forest

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan adopted by a National Forest LWD Large woody debris

M µ Micro µg/l micrograms per liter µmhos/cm micromohos per centimeter, a measurement of conductivity m Meter MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCA/T Mandatory conditioning agencies/tribes MCL Maximum contaminant level mgC/m2 milligrams of carbon per square meter mg/l milligrams per liter mi. Mile mills/kWh cents per kilowatt hour MIR minimal implementation requirement, a USFS system MIS USFS Management Indicator Species mm Millimeters MPN Most probable number Must-Run Energy or ancillary services necessary to maintain system reliability MVA megavolt-ampere MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hours

N NAHC California Native American Heritage Council ND no data available NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFSL National Forest System Lands NGO Non-Governmental Organization NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent Normal Operating The maximum MW output of a generator or group of generators under normal maximum Capacity head and flow conditions NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Parks Service NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historical Places NTU nephelometric turbidity unit NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWS National Weather Service

O ORV Off- road vehicle O&M Operation & Maintenance

P PAD Pre-application Document DeSabla-Centerville, FERC No. 803, Pre-Application Document Information PAD Questionnaire Questionnaire PAOT people at one time PCT Pacific Crest Trail Peaking Operation of generating facilities to meet maximum instantaneous electrical demands An inclined pressurized pipe through which water flows from a forebay or tunnel to the Penstock powerhouse turbine pf power factor PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PH Powerhouse PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation System PMF Probable maximum flood PNF Plumas National Forest POAOR California Public Opinions and Attitudes in Outdoor Recreation Survey The ratio of actual power to apparent power. Power factor is the cosine of the phase angle Power Factor difference between the current and voltage of a given phase. Unity power factor exists when the voltage and current are in phase. Project Licensee’s DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Project-affected Directly affected by Project presence, operation or maintenance. Zone of potential, reasonably direct Project impacts. Typically extends 0 to 100 feet out from the FERC Project Boundary. It also includes the following stream reaches which the Project Area Project directly impacts: Butte Creek from Butte Creek Diversion Dam down to, but not including, the non-Project Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam and the WBFR from Round Valley Reservoir down to, but not including, the non-Project Miocene Diversion. The area defined in the Project license issued by FERC as needed for operation of the Project Boundary Project. Project Drainage Combination of the Project’s Butte Creek drainage basin and the Project’s WBFR drainage Basins basin. Project Region The area around the Project on the order of a County or National Forest in size. Roads within Project Boundary primarily used for Project purposes excluding federal, state, Project Roads county, and non-Licensee private roads. Project’s Butte Sub-watershed area that includes headwaters of Butte Creek, and all Project-affected Creek drainage reaches from the Butte Creek Diversion Dam down to Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam. basin Project’s WBFR Sub-watershed area that includes the headwaters of the WBFR, and all Project-affected drainage basin reaches from the Round Valley Reservoir down to the Miocene Diversion Dam. The area extending to about five miles from the Project Boundary. Project Vicinity

All of the relays and other equipment which are used to open the necessary circuit breakers Protection to separate pieces of equipment from each other when trouble develops. A device whose function is to detect defective lines or apparatus, or other power system Protective Relay conditions of an abnormal or dangerous nature, and to initiate appropriate control circuit action. PRPD Paradise Recreation and Park District PSEA Pacific Service Employees Association PSR Pacific Southwest Region of USFS PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act PWC Personal Water Craft

Q A qualifying facility, a cogenerator or small power producer that sells its excess power to a QF public utility.

R The act of increasing or decreasing stream flows from a powerhouse, dam or division ramping structure. Regulated The hydrology of Project-affected streams subsequent to construction of the Project Hydrology The process of acquiring a new FERC license for an existing hydroelectric project upon relicensing expiration of the existing FERC license. Relicensing Participants is a subset of Interested Parties. Relicensing Participants are the Relicensing individuals and entities (federal and state resource agencies, local governments, Indian Participants tribes, members of the public, and others) that are actively participating in a proceeding. Reservoir Useable A volume measurement of the amount of water that can be stored for generation, down to a Capacity minimum level Recreation Day, which equals a visit by a person to a Project development for recreation RD purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period RM River mile as measured along the river course RNA/ACEC Research Natural Area/Area of Critical Environmental Concern ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW Right-of-way rpm revolutions per minute RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RRMP Redding Resource Management Plan Rare, threatened, endangered and special status species, which for purposes of this PAD is defined to include (1) all species (plant and animal) listed, proposed for listing, or RT&E Species candidates for listing under the Federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the California Native Plant Protection Act, and (2) all species (plant and animal) listed by the USFS as sensitive, special status or watch list. Remote terminal unit. A remotely located piece of equipment used for collecting data RTU and/or for operating equipment via SCADA

A hydroelectric project that uses the flow of a stream with little or no reservoir capacity for Run-of-the-river storing water. RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

S SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System SD1 Scoping Document 1 SE A species or subspecies listed as endangered under the CESA. Secchi A method of measuring surface transparency in a reservoir. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State SHPO Historic Preservation Officer. SL Standard length Sluice An artificial channel for conducting water, with a valve or floodgate to regulate the flow. SM Stream mile SNTEMP FWS’ Stream Temperature Model SOHA Spotted Owl habitat areas

Property down gradient from a conduit for which an easement over private property or Spill Channel withdrawal under FERC license has been granted. A spill channel is used when it becomes necessary to release water from a section of conduit. Spillway A passage for releasing surplus water from a reservoir or canal SR A species or subspecies listed as rare under the CESA. SRAC Short Run Avoided Costs ST A species or subspecies listed as threatened under the CESA. state State of California Station Use Energy used to operate the generating facility’s auxiliary equipment. STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database STORET USEPA’s computerized water quality data storage system. SUP Special Use Permit issued by the Forest Service. A structure, similar to a holding tank, located on a tunnel or penstock, which is used to Surge Chamber absorb and attenuate the overflow and prevent any disruption due to a sudden change in water pressure through a tunnel or penstock. The main control center for any given river system, which is responsible for operation of Switching Center the automatic, semiautomatic and manual powerhouses on that river system. The Switching Center is staffed 24 hours a day. SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board

T Tailrace Channel through which water is discharged from the powerhouse turbines. TCP Traditional Cultural Property TDS total dissolved solids THP Timber Harvest Plan TP total phosphorous A mechanism, found on a dam or intake structure, which clears the water of debris before Trash Rack the water passes through the structure. TSS total suspended solids A machine that converts the energy of a stream of water into the mechanical energy of Turbine rotation. This energy is then used to turn an electrical generator or other device. Also called a “water wheel”.

U Unimpaired The hydrology of Project-affected streams prior to construction of the Project Hydrology USBIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

V V volts VFW Veterans of Foreign Wars VQO Visual Quality Objectives, a USFS System VQI Visual Quality Index, a USFS System

VRM Visual Resource Management

W W watts WBFR West Branch Feather River WUA weighted usable area

Y YOY young-of-the-year

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]

6.9 Land Use and Management

6.9.1 Historic Information

This section discusses the land uses and management within the Project Boundary and within 100 feet of the Project Boundary and the shorelines of Project-affected river reaches (the Project Area). Lands within the upper portion of the Project Area are primarily owned by the Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) and the federal government, which are administered by the Lassen National Forest (LNF) (Figure E6.9.1-1). State, PG&E, and private ownership also occur within the upper Project Area. Primary land owners in the lower Project Area include SPI, PG&E, private owners, and the federal government, which are managed by the Plumas National Forest (PNF) along the West Branch of the Feather River (WBFR) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along Butte Creek (Figure E6.9.1-1). State ownership also occurs in the lower Project Area. Primary land uses in the Project Area include Project operation and maintenance, timber harvesting, a variety of outdoor recreation activities, wildlife and resource management, and residential uses.

Butte County establishes land use policies for private land within the Project Area, although FERC has primary jurisdiction within the Project Boundary. The USFS, BLM, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) establish the land use policies for the Federal and state lands that they respectively administer within the Project Area. The management plans and land use management designations for these governmental agencies are summarized in the section below and depicted in Figure E6.9.1-2. Following this section, a description of the land uses and land management designations within and adjacent to the Project Boundary and Project- affected features is also provided.

6.9.1.1 Land Management Plans and Land Use Management Descriptions

Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

Butte County manages private land uses in accordance with the Butte County General Plan (adopted in 1979) and the County zoning ordinance. County land use zoning categories relevant to the Project are identified and summarized in the tables below. Table E6.9.1-1 contains land use category descriptions derived from the Butte County General Plan. Table E6.9.1-2 contains summarized descriptions developed from the Butte County Zoning Ordinance.

Table E6.9.1-1. Land Use Categories Descriptions from the General Plan. Category Primary Uses Secondary Uses Timber Mountain Forest Management, Harvesting & Processing of Animal Husbandry, Forest products Resource Extraction & processing Recreation, Rural dwellings Public and quasi-public uses, Home occupations, Airports Agricultural Residential Agricultural uses, Single-family dwelling at rural Animal husbandry, Forestry densities Intense animal uses, Home occupation, Mining, Outdoor recreation facilities, Environ. Preservation Activities, Airports Utilities, Public & Quasi-public uses Group quarters, Care homes, Transient lodging

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

Table E6.9.1-1 (continued) Category Primary Uses Secondary Uses Public Large facilities owned and operated by government Hospitals and other large quasi-public uses, agencies, including schools, colleges, airports, dams Housing for students or on-site employees, and reservoirs, disposal sites, recreation facilities, Utilities. conservation areas, fire stations and other government buildings and property.

Table E6.9.1-2. Land Use Categories Developed from the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. Land Use Category Purpose/Primary Uses Uses Requiring a Use Permit Timber Preserve (TPZ) Growing and harvesting timber Housing, Watershed Management Fish and wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing management, growing, harvesting and processing of forest products, Erection, construction, alteration or maintenance of gas, electric, water or communication transmission facilities, small hydro generating projects Exploratory seismology testing. Grazing. Mining Foothill Recreational (FR) Single family dwellings, resource extraction and Extraction and processing not exempt from processing exempt from permits and reclamations permits and reclamations plans, kennels, animal plans, protection of lands from various hazards, hospitals, outdoor recreation facilities not less trails, agricultural experimental areas, utilities, day than 5 acres, public and quasi public uses, bed care homes, animal husbandry, food crops. and breakfast homes. Unclassified (U) Unincorporated areas of the County not otherwise A wide range of uses that include multiple zoned. Single-family dwelling, Agricultural uses, dwellings, recreation developments, commercial and small hydro generating plants uses, junk yards, lumber and agricultural processing, country clubs, kennels and airports, Dumping and disposal areas, Manufacturing and Industrial uses, and large hydroelectric generating facilities Commercial Timber Growth, harvest, and production of trees; protection of lands and forests from fire, insects, disease or other such calamities; logging; portable wood processing, livestock grazing, beekeeping, prospecting, hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, riding; and gas, electric, water or communication transmission facilities, and small hydro generating projects Resource Conservation Natural, wilderness, and resource and wildlife Non-native wildlife preserves; rest/vista stops, preserve areas, Agricultural uses, livestock, vista points, trails, historical and archaeological archaeological and historical sites; Recreational uses activities, Permanent improvements from not requiring permanent; and Emergency uses various natural hazards, environmental needed for the protection of land and resources. monitoring stations, mining and quarrying. Watershed Protection Overlay This watershed protection (WP) zone is overlaid Zone onto other zoning districts. The purpose of the WP zone is to protect surface and public water supply resources; (2) reduce future governmental costs by protecting public water supplies (3) recognize that the social and economic welfare of the county is related to the continued vitality of watersheds (4) restrict land use to retain the watershed’s natural balance and integrity. (5) Evaluate the watershed’s various resources to protect the watershed. (6) Identify natural or man-made imbalance in the watershed and to repair or restore the watershed’s natural functions

The policies, procedures, and standards for each watershed are adopted on an individual basis.

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The Lassen LRMP land use management prescriptions are identified and summarized in Table E6.9.1-3.

Table E6.9.1-3. Lassen LMRP Land Use Management Prescriptions.

Prescription Purpose Management Practices

Riparian/Fish (F) Maintain and improve riparian-dependent resources, Road Obliteration including (1) water quality, (2) fish habitat, especially for Fuels Management anadromous fish, (3) wildlife habitat, (4) water-associated Limited Timber Management aesthetics, (5) riparian hardwoods and other vegetation. Visual Resource Management Watershed Restoration & Improvement Wildlife Habitat Management (Threatened and Endangered Species) Wildlife Habitat Management (Other Indicator Species & Special Habitats) Fish Habitat Management Dispersed Recreation Activities Late Successional (L) Provide for vegetative diversity through maintenance of old Fuel & Fire Management growth ecosystems, and to maintain or improve habitat toRoad Maintenance, Obliteration and Closure provide high habitat capability for species that are at least Visual Resource Management partially dependent on old (late successional) timber stands Wildlife Habitat Management with large diameter trees and obvious stand decadence. (Threatened and Endangered Species) Wildlife Habitat Management (Other Indicator Species & Special Habitats) Timber (T) Emphasizes wood production and utilization while Facility Construction/Reconstruction maintaining other resource values. Road Maintenance Fuels & Fire Management Fire Management Full timber Management View/Timber (V) Provide scheduled timber harvests while maintaining and Road Obliteration enhancing scenic qualities in areas that are visually sensitive Fuels & Fire Management or have high scenic value. Range Administration and Management Visual Resource Management Interpretive Facilities and Services Limited and Modified Timber Management

The Plumas National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan

The Plumas National Forest (PNF) manages 0.4 miles of lands along Toadtown Canal and 3.5 miles of lands along the WBFR. These lands are within PNF’s Flea Mountain Management Area and are managed in accordance with PNF’s 1998 Resource Management Plan (Plumas LRMP). The PNF-administered lands are managed for wildlife protection, fire prevention, recreation, and protection of river resources [personal conversation with Mike Taylor, 09/09/04]. Many of these PNF-administered lands are scattered parcels at or near the outer limits of the PNF boundary.

Lassen and Plumas LRMP Updates

The Northwest Forest Plan amended the Lassen LRMP in 1994, 2001, and 2004. Both the Plumas and Lassen LRMPs have been further amended by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) (2003) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (2001) and its amendment approved in 2004.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

The 2004 Sierra Nevada Plan Amendment also serves to re-emphasize the fuels and vegetation management activities outlined in the HFQLG pilot project created under the HFQLG Act. Fuels and vegetation management activities under the 2004 Amendment and HFQLG include the establishment of defensible fuel profile zones, group and individual tree selection, and the establishment of riparian management program. This program prescribes guidelines for Riparian Management Objectives, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, and for the LNF, to establish a long-term strategy for anadromous fish producing watersheds.

BLM’s 1993 Redding Resource Management Plan

BLM administers lands primarily located in the lower portion of Butte Creek drainage and also a small parcel on the WBFR approximately one mile above the Miocine Diversion. The BLM lands in the Project Vicinity fall within the Ishi Management Area of BLM’s Redding Resource Area, which includes the FOBCRA. The Ishi Management Area lands are managed in accordance with BLM’s 1993 RRMP and the FOBCRA lands, in addition, are managed in accordance with the 1990 FOBCRA Management Plan.

The 1993 RRMP (page 12, paragraph 1) directs BLM to manage the Butte Canyon lands for natural resource values and primitive to semi-primitive recreation opportunities. Land uses within the Ishi Management Area are managed in accordance to the following resource condition objectives and land use allocations:

Resource Condition Objectives

• Protect and enhance the scenic quality of the canyon; • Maintain the fisheries habitat; • Improve the quality of riparian vegetation to Class I; • Maintain semiprivate recreation opportunities; • Protect the historic values of the canyon; and • Maintain the long-term sustained yield of forest products from the available commercial forest land outside the Butte Creek canyon.

Land Use Allocations

• Designate Butte Creek canyon from above the Forks of Butte Creek to Helltown as an Outstanding Natural Area/Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ;

• Manage as Semi Primitive Motorized;

• Vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails;

• Withdraw public lands from mineral entry;

• Recreational mineral collection is permitted within the canyon;

• Manage as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II;

• The area is closed to grazing;

• Acquire available, unimproved lands to protect scenic quality and enhance recreational experience; and

• All of the available commercial forest land within Butte Creek canyon would be managed for the enhancement of other resource values. All other available commercial forest land would be managed as restricted.

In addition, to the above land use management policies, land uses within the FOBCRA are managed in accordance to the policies of the FOBCRA Management Plan.

BLM’s Forks of Butte Creek Recreation Area (FOBCRA) Management Plan

The FOBCRA Management Plan identifies Butte Creek as the primary recreation draw to the recreation area with recreational mining, trail use, and dispersed uses as the predominant recreation uses for the area. According to the plan, the FOBCRA is managed according to the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class. Major issues and selected management actions relevant to the Project are summarized below (Table E6.9.1-4).

Table E6.9.1-4. BLM’s FOBCRA Land Use Management Direction. Recreation Area Boundaries • Acquire private lands, on a willing seller basis only, in order to create a contiguous, manageable land pattern within the stream influence area. Motor Vehicle Use • Designate off-road vehicle use as stated in the RRMP. • Close and rehabilitate existing mining claim roads within the recreation area where such roads were built without authorization. Non-motorized Vehicles • Allow non-motorized vehicles only where motorized vehicles are allowed. Access • Extend the trails to the southern and northern boundaries of the recreation area, contingent upon acquisition of needed lands. • Develop no new side or branch trails except where necessary to mitigate environmental degradation. Recreation Mineral Collecting • Prohibit “high-banking”, which involves excavating into the stream bank. • Divide the different types of recreational mining into zones along the stream based upon biological, physical, social and managerial needs of the recreation area. Waste Disposal Facilities • Provide toilets at trailheads and continue the pack in-pack out policy for trash and garbage. Trail Maintenance and Improvement • Maintain all trails to the BLM design and maintenance standards. • Dependent upon funding, construct a pedestrian bridge linking the southeast and southwest trail sections. • Armor or close and rehabilitate stream access spur trails and paths within 0.5 mile of the Ponderosa Way bridge where necessary to reduce adverse environmental impacts or public safety problems. Facility Development • Develop no special facilities for activities such as camping, picnicking, or other facility-dependent activities. Streamflow Maintenance • Apply to the State of California to obtain a water right to maintain a minimum flow consistent with the flow needs for recreational activities within the area such as swimming, fishing and recreational mining (47 cfs minimum).

The California Department of Fish and Game Managed Areas

CDFG manages the Coon Hollow Wildlife Area and the Butte Creek Canyon and Butte Creek House ecological reserves, which either are adjacent to the Project Boundary or affected reaches or otherwise related to the Project.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

The Coon Hollow Wildlife Area

The Coon Hollow Wildlife Area is divided into three units. The Snag Lake unit is located at the upstream end of Round Valley Reservoir. The West Branch Unit lies along approximately one mile of the WBFR, as well as Coon Hollow Creek. The third unit, Snow Mountain, is also located along Coon Hollow Creek. The Coon Hollow Wildlife Area consists of riparian, meadow and upland habitat. These habitats support a wide array of plant and animal species, including many listed as threatened or endangered. The CDFG manages these lands to protect and enhance these habitats, while providing the public with wildlife-related recreational opportunities. Specific management of these wildlife areas ranges from custodial care to protect areas from destructive activities, to annual intensive habitat manipulation to maximize wildlife populations.

The Butte Creek Canyon Ecological Reserve

The Butte Creek Canyon Ecological Reserve (BCCER) located near the Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam, includes approximately one mile of Butte Creek. Ecological reserves are managed to ensure that the reserve’s rare species and their habitats are protected and enhanced. Management activities include research, habitat restoration, monitoring habitats and species, and public use management. Recreational activities permitted at the BCCER include wildlife viewing, fishing, hiking, and hand carried boat launching.

Butte Creek House Ecological Reserve

The Butte Creek House Ecological Reserve (BCHER) is located at the headwaters of Butte Creek, just north of Round Valley Reservoir. PG&E partially funded the acquisition of these lands as part of the Project’s existing license requirements to restore or enhance 100 acres of wet meadow. This reserve is not located adjacent to the Project Boundary nor does it lie along a Project-affected river reach. The CDFG acquired the BCHER in 1986 to preserve and enhance the site’s wet meadow complex and to benefit associated species. The CDFG wet meadow restoration management gives priority to water table and wet meadow-riparian vegetation restoration and the stabilization of stream channels for habitat diversity. The BCHER also provides educational and recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, fishing and hiking.

6.9.1.2 Land Use and Management Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary

Within the Project Boundary, Project operation and recreation activities are the primary uses that occur on Project lands and waters. Project activities include maintaining the Project powerhouses, switchyards, penstock, canals, and other ancillary facilities. Maintenance activities include trail maintenance along canals, vegetation clearing (including for fire prevention), and salvage tree removal (including at recreation areas). In accordance with the existing Project license, PG&E also has granted permission to others non-Project related activities for the use of Project lands. These permitted uses have included water lines, use of roads, telephone lines, canal crossings, bridges, fuel breaks, boat docks, and, culvert crossings. Primary recreation activities that occur within the Project Boundary include fishing, boating, swimming, camping, picnicking, and general shoreline use. Below is a more detail discussion,

by Project feature, of the land uses and land management policies that occur within or adjacent to the Project Boundary. For Project reservoirs, this discussion includes a description of PG&E’s ability to maintain a buffer to ensure reasonable public access and to protect sensitive resources along the reservoir’s shorelines.

Round Valley Reservoir

Lands within and adjacent to the Project Boundary around Round Valley Reservoir are administered by the LNF. Butte County’s Humbug Summit Road and USFS Road 26N22 provide public access to the reservoir (Figure E6.9.1-3). Humbug Summit Road runs along the reservoir’s western shore and FS Road 26N22 provides access to the reservoirs’ the northern and eastern shorelines. No facilities are located around the reservoir. The public can easily access lands within the Project Boundary by foot or by vehicle. LNF has indicated that dispersed camping and deer hunting occur around the reservoir. PG&E’s activities primarily occur on or adjacent to the dam. LNF administers the lands surrounding the Project Boundary and there are no development pressures on Project lands from surrounding private uses. LNF administers the land uses around the northwest shore in accordance with the policies of the Lassen LRMP View/Timber Prescription (Figure E6.9.1-3). Since Project lands are administered by the USFS and pursuant to the FERC license, there is good opportunity to maintain a management buffer to protect sensitive resource while providing reasonable public access to Project lands and waters.

Philbrook Reservoir

Lands within the Project Boundary around Philbrook Reservoir are administered by the LNF and PG&E. LNF lands are generally managed for resource protection, timber, and recreation in accordance with LNF Land Resource Management Plan land use prescriptions. PG&E-owned lands within the Project Boundary are managed in accordance with recreation, cultural, visual, and aesthetic conditions of the Project license. Both LNF and PG&E lands are open for general public recreation use. The LNF prescribes three land use designations around Philbrook Reservoir. The lands along the reservoir’s northern Project Boundary are designated as Late Successional Prescription. The lands along the west boundary are designated as View/Timber Prescription and at the south end, near the dam, are designated Riparian/Fish Prescription (Figure E6.9.1-3). PG&E has developed, within the Project Boundary, a small water craft boat launch, a campground, and a picnic area along the reservoirs the north shore. PG&E lands are zoned as Unclassified by the Butte County Zoning Ordinances. Within the Project Boundary, PG&E’s Project activities are primarily focused at the dam and at its recreational developments. Fishing, boating, camping, picnicking, swimming, private boat dock use, and general shoreline use are the primary recreation activities that occur within the Project Boundary. Limited public use occurs along the majority of the steeper and more heavily wooded south shore, which generally lacks road access, and the majority of the north shore. Outside of the Project Boundary, PG&E leases- out 42 parcels for summer recreational homes on its lands and dispersed camping occurs about 0.2 miles upstream along Philbrook Creek.

In summary, public recreational and private shoreline use within the Project Boundary is localized and relatively minimal in extent. This development pattern has provided good public access to the Project lands and waters while protecting the resources along the vast majority the October 2007 License Application Land Use ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.9-7

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

shoreline and within the Project Boundary. Considering that LNF and PG&E manage the lands within and adjacent to the Project Boundary, there is good opportunity to appropriately manage the reservoir’s existing shoreline buffer for continued public access and protection of sensitive resources.

DeSabla Forebay

Lands within and adjacent to the Project Boundary around DeSabla Forebay are owned and managed by PG&E (Figures 6.9.1-4). The Skyway provides easy vehicular access to forebay area. PG&E’s Project hydroelectric operational activities are primarily located at the dam, the reservoir spillway, and the canal intake. PG&E also maintains, within the Project Boundary, an accessible fishing access, general public shoreline access along the forebay’s eastern shore and dam, and a group picnic area. The primary recreation activities that occur within the Project Boundary are fishing from the shore, a float tube, or a small watercraft. In addition, occasional group picnicking occurs. Just outside the Project Boundary is located a private recreation organizational camp, PG&E’s regional hydro office (Camp 1), and housing for a PG&E employee.

Lands within and adjacent to the DeSabla Forebay area’s Project Boundary are zoned as Timber Mountain by Butte County and fall within the Paradise – Magalia Watershed Protection Overlay Zone (Figure E6.9.1-4).

Approximately 70 percent of the reservoir’s shoreline is easily accessible by foot from its eastern shoreline parking area. . Since PG&E owns all the lands within and adjacent to the Project Boundary, PG&E has a good opportunity to continue to provide reasonable public access to the Project lands and waters per FERC regulations while protecting sensitive resources that may be present on these lands.

Powerhouses

The Project includes three powerhouses, Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville. The Public is not allowed to access the lands around the powerhouse, which are used primarily for Project operations. Occasional informal recreation use, though, occurs near the Project Boundary at the Centerville Powerhouse.

Butte county zoning designations within and adjacent to the Project Boundary at the Toadtown Powerhouse s Timber Preserve, at the DeSabla Powerhouse is Timber Mountain, and at the Centerville Powerhouse is County Foothill Recreational.

Canals

The Project contains approximately 34 miles of canals. The Project canals cross lands owned primarily by SPI, PG&E, and other private owners. The canals cross a few federal parcels administered by either by the USFS or BLM. Within the Project Boundary PG&E operates and maintains the canals. In addition, particularly in the DeSabla area, the canal trails are used by the

public, primarily for hiking. Typical activities adjacent to the Project Boundary canals include timber production, residential uses, and general open space uses.

As the canals are located largely on private lands, Butte County (besides FERC) is the primary agency that governs the lands within or adjacent to the canals Project Boundary. Approximately two thirds of the lands along the canals are zoned for Timber Preserve or Timber Mountain land uses. These lands are generally located in the upper Project Area along the Hendricks, Toadtown, and Butte Canals. The majority of the remaining one third of lands adjacent to canals is zoned for Agricultural or Foothill Recreational land use. These lands are located along the Lower and Upper Centerville canals, in the lower portion of the Project Area. BLM manages lands along about 0.4 miles of the Butte Canal and 0.5 miles of the Lower Centerville Canal and PNF manages lands adjacent to about 0.4 miles of the Toadtown Canal. In addition, Butte County’s watershed overlay zone covers Toadtown Canal and portions of the Hendricks and Butte canals.

Table E6.9.1-5. Land Use Management Distribution Within and Adjacent to Canal Project Boundaries. Miles of Canal Hendricks/ Land Use Management Designations Butte Lower Centerville Upper Centerville Total Toadtown Timber Preserve 8.1 8.9 0.5 17.5 Timber Mountain 1.7 0.8 2.1 0.3 4.9 Commercial Forestry 0.1 0.1 Agricultural-Residential 4.4 4.4 Foothill Recreational 5.2 5.2 Resource Conservation 0.2 0.2 Bureau of Land Management 0.1 0.4 0.5 Plumas National Forest 0.4 0.4 Unclassified 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.0 Total Miles 10.6 10.7 7.9 5.1 34.2

Roads

The Project Roads cross lands owned primarily by SPI, PG&E, and other private owners. In just a few areas the Project Roads cross federal lands administered by the USFS or BLM. The Project Roads are primarily used for hydroelectric operation and maintenance activities and for timber production purposes. In a few locations, Project Roads are used by the public to access a Project hydroelectric feature (i.e. reservoir, canal), a Project recreation site, or a Project-affected river reach. As the Project Roads are located primarily on private lands, Butte County (besides FERC) is the primary agency that governs the lands within or adjacent to the roads’ Project Boundary. There are approximately 26 miles of Project Roads. Butte County has zoned the lands along the roads as Foothill Recreational (4.7 miles), Timber Preserve or Timber Mountain (19.6 miles), Unclassified (0.9 mile) or Agricultural Residential (0.1 mile). The remaining lands along Project Roads are managed by BLM and LNF (Table E6.9.1-6).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

Table E6.9.1-6. Land Use Management Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary along Project Roads. Land Use Management or Agencies Miles of Project Roads Timber Preserve 15.1 Timber Mountain 4.5 Agricultural-Residential 0.1 Foothill Recreational 4.7 Land Use Management or Agencies Miles of Project Roads Bureau of Land Management 0.8 Lassen National Forest 0.1 Unclassified 0.9 Total Miles 26.2

6.9.1.3 PG&E’s Shoreline Permitting Policies

PG&E's general shoreline policy for permitting piers, docks, boat landings, bulkheads, and other shoreline facilities on Project lands and waters is to allow such development when they are (1) consistent with PG&E's operational requirements, public safety, and the Project's recreation and other resource management plans; and (2) comply with all local, state, and Federal regulations. Round Valley Reservoir has no non-Project permitted shoreline development or uses within it Project Boundary. Within the Project Boundary at DeSabla Forebay, PG&E has permitted a courtesy dock to the PSEA CAMP DeSabla, a private organizational campground adjacent to the reservoir’s western shoreline. At Philbrook Reservoir, PG&E has permitted 21 private residential boats. PG&E’s policies for these boat docks are described below.

Philbrook Reservoir Dock Permit Policy

PG&E has issued dock permits to 21 of the 42 recreation cabin lessees at the east end of Philbrook Reservoir. The summer homes are located outside the Project Boundary and the boat docks are located within the Project Boundary. PG&E’s policy is to permit one boat dock or swim platform per lake front lot subject to PG&E’s written approval. In 1989, PG&E met with most of the summer home lessees at Philbrook Reservoir and agreed to the following [March 15, 1989 PG&E letter to FERC]:

• Lessees acknowledge that lands within the Project Boundary are open to the public. This includes all docks located within the Project Boundary; • Lessees will be responsible for repairing or replacing the docks so they are maintained in safe condition; and • Consideration will be given to consolidating the docks, where appropriate, and installing floating docks instead of fixed docks when the existing facilities are in need of major repair or replacements.

In addition, PG&E developed a formal written agreement that is used to manage individual docks around the reservoirs shoreline. This dock agreement requires lessees to:

• Appropriately seal dock floatation devices; • Clearly mark docks with number(s) or letter(s) that are visible from the lakeside or shoreline and corresponding to the lessees’ leased lot; • Maintain dock in a safe and reasonable manner;

• Not post the dock as private property and not erect fences, gates, or other barriers on the land side of the dock that could be construed as denying public access to Project lands and waters; • Construct or maintain the dock so as not to impede reasonable access to Project lands and waters; • Comply with all applicable laws, regulations or ordinances pertaining to the construction, maintenance, and use of the docks; • Use Project lands and waters in a manner that shall not endanger health, create a nuisance or otherwise be incompatible with the overall Project recreation.

6.9.1.4 Land Use and Management Adjacent to Project-Affected River Reaches

Land Uses

West Branch Feather River and Philbrook Creek

Land ownership along the upper reach of WBFR is predominantly USFS upstream of and including Philbrook Creek; however, Butte County and CDFG owns small parcels of land where Coon Hollow Creek flows into the WBFR. Below Philbrook Creek to Hendricks Head Dam, lands adjacent to the WBFR are almost entirely owned by Butte County. Recreation use along the upper reach of WBFR is primarily fishing for rainbow and brown trout; however, some hunting, hiking, camping and other recreation activities do occur along the reach. Philbrook Creek supports rainbow and brown trout fishery, and while access to this reach is steep and difficult, some fishing occurs as well as dispersed camping. Non-recreational uses along the upper reach of WBFR are generally timber-related uses.

Along the lower reach of the WBFR (downstream of Hendricks Head Dam), land ownership is a patchwork of Butte County and USFS-owned lands. Along the lower reach of WBFR, dispersed recreation use occurs in this area such as fishing, camping, recreational mining, and swimming. In addition, a Class IV-V kayaking run occurs at the lower end on this reach near Whiskey Flat. As with the upper reach, non-recreational uses along the lower reach of WBFR are generally timber-related uses.

Butte Creek

The primary land ownership in the upper reach of Butte Creek (Butte Creek Diversion Dam to DeSabla Powerhouse) is split between Butte County-owned lands and BLM-owned lands. The primary recreational activities in the upper reach of Butte Creek are trout fishing, hiking, nature observation, picnicking, and recreational mining. This section of Butte Creek flows through BLM’s 2,000-acre FOBCRA. BLM manages the area for a semi-primitive recreation experience with a pack-in/pack-out policy and does not provide developed recreation facilities, except at north and south end trailheads. Hiking, combined with sightseeing and nature study, recreational mining, fishing, biking, and swimming are the primary recreational activities that occur in the FOBCRA. Some advanced/expert whitewater boating (Class VI) occurs along the upper reach of Butte Creek. Upstream of BLM’s FOBCRA, non-recreational uses of the lands adjacent to Butte Creek predominantly are related to growing and harvesting timber. October 2007 License Application Land Use ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.9-11

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

Land ownership adjacent to the lower reach of Butte Creek (from DeSabla Powerhouse to Parrott-Phelan Diversion) is almost entirely Butte County-owned lands with several parcels of BLM and CDFG-owned lands. The primary recreation activities along the lower reach of Butte Creek (from DeSabla Powerhouse to Centerville Powerhouse) include fishing, swimming, picnicking and whitewater boating (Class III – V). Downstream of Centerville Powerhouse, recreation opportunities are primarily fishing for trout and steelhead, tubing and whitewater paddling. In addition, hiking, car-top boat launching, and nature observation opportunities are available at the Butte Creek Canyon Ecological Reserve. Most of the lands adjacent to the lower reach of Butte Creek are managed for recreational uses; however, there are portions managed for non-recreational uses, which typically used for harvesting and processing forest products.

Land Use Management

Approximately 55 miles of Butte Creek and WBFR are affected by the Project. About half of the lands along these rivers are zoned for Timber Preserve or Timber Mountain land uses. Along about 11 miles of these river reaches, lands are zoned Foothill Recreational. BLM manages land along approximately 5.8 miles of river, LNF manages approximately 3.6 miles, and PNF manages about 3.6 miles. CDFG manages about 1.5 miles of Project-affected river for wildlife purposes (Table E6.9.1-7).

Table E6.9.1-7. Land Use Management Adjacent to Project-Affected Reaches. Miles of River WBFR Butte Creek County Zoning Designation or Round Valley Resource Agency Hendricks Head DeSabla PH to Reservoir to Diversion Dam to Centerville PH to Total Dam to Miocene Centerville Hendricks Head DeSabla PH Parrott-Phelan Diversion Powerhouse Dam County-Timber Preserve 9.6 8.6 5.9 24.1 County-Timber Mountain 0.5 0.5 0.1 2.4 3.5 County-Foothill Recreational 3.4 7.1 10.5 County-Public-Quasipublic 0.6 0.6 BLM 0.2 3.9 1.1 0.6 5.8 LNF 3.6 3.6 PNF 3.6 3.6 Unclassified 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.4 CDFG 0.6 0.9 1.5 14.6 14.1 9.9 6.9 9.0 54.5

Figure E6.9.1-2 Round Valley Reservoir Project Adjacent Land Uses

Figure E6.9.1-3 Philbrook Reservoir Project Adjacent Land Uses

Figure E6.9.1-4 DeSabla Forebay Project Adjacent Land Uses

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally

6.9.2 PG&E Relicensing Studies

FERC’s determination on study plans did not include any studies specifically related to land use.

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally]

6.10 Aesthetic Resources

6.10.1 Overview

The Project lies within two distinct drainages: the WBFR and Butte Creek. The landscape along the WBFR is characterized by steep wall canyons, covered with a conifer forest, with some variations in landforms. Roads, residences, and other man-made developments are infrequent. While a few roads (i.e., the Humbug Summit Road and the USFS West Branch Campground and Retson Road) along the ridge tops provide views into the WBFR canyon, these views are limited by the intervening rugged terrain and steep canyon walls.

Similarly, the upper portion of Upper Butte Creek runs through a deep, narrow incised canyon that is inaccessible for much of its length. The canyon supports a dense vegetation cover ranging from riparian vegetation along Butte Creek at the bottom of the canyon, to foothill woodland along the canyon walls. The steep sloped canyon has limited developments and is typically reached via unimproved roads.

The grade of Butte Creek diminishes downstream of Centerville Powerhouse and is the most heavily settled portion of the watershed. This area is distinctive for canyon views from both the canyon bottom and rim. Unique vistas are significant attractions to the area, particularly the sloping canyon walls capped by cliffs and bluffs for which the county was named. In addition, the riparian stream corridor is attractive for its varied vegetation and water features. There are views of the river, as it flows through the canyon bottom near Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam from Honey Run Road and Humbug Road, as well as from the south rim of the Skyway. Along the north rim, however, views are limited due to inaccessibility.

6.10.2 Aesthetic Resources and Related Management Guidelines in the Vicinity of Project Features

Round Valley Reservoir and Dam

Round Valley Reservoir is located at the upper end of WBFR in hilly volcanic terrain at an elevation of about 5,656 feet (crest of dam). The reservoir is relatively shallow with a maximum depth of about 25 feet and a surface area of about 98 acres. Water is released from Round Valley Reservoir as soon as space is available for the water in Hendricks Canal, which typically occurs in June. Once the water releases are initiated, the reservoir is completely drained in about one month’s time. This exposes a stony shoreline surrounded by a Sierran mixed conifer forest (Figures E6.10-1 and E6.10-2).

Round Valley Dam is an earthen fill dam, 29 feet high and 727 feet long. The upstream slopes are covered with rock riprap with slopes of 2.5 horizontal:1 vertical while the downstream slopes are 2 horizontal:1 vertical.

All lands within and adjacent to the FERC Project Boundary at Round Valley Reservoir are NFSL. According to the Lassen LRMP (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1992), these NFSL are

managed in accordance with the LNF’s partial retention and modified Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) (Figure E6.10-7). Partial Retention (PR) VQO provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. In comparison, under a Modification (M) VQO, management activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land form alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area character type.

Philbrook Reservoir and Dam

Philbrook Reservoir is also located within the LNF, and near the head of Philbrook Creek, a tributary to the WBFR that is roughly 3.5 miles downstream of Round Valley Reservoir. Philbrook Reservoir has a maximum depth of about 60 feet with a surface area of 173 acres (Figures E6.10-3 and E6.10-4). The reservoir is located in a small basin at an elevation of 5,500 feet, with a drainage area of 5 square miles, which extends up to an elevation of approximately 6,700 feet. Dense forests of ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir, Douglas fir and sugar pine live on the well-drained southern slopes of the basin. The northeastern section of the reservoir sustains meadow vegetation bordered by willow thickets and stands of aspen and lodgepole pine. The well-drained, northern slopes support a dense fir forest. At Philbrook Reservoir, heavy snowfall typically forms a snowpack that normally lasts until May or June. The reservoir normally fills in the late spring from snowmelt runoff and water is released throughout the summer and fall for power generation and instream flow releases. As the reservoir is drawn down, the shallow northeastern shoreline becomes exposed. The Philbrook Dams are two adjacent, compacted earthfill dams, constructed in 1926. The main dam is on Philbrook Creek, a tributary of WBFR. About 170 feet to the right of the main dam, in a topographic saddle, is a small auxiliary dam. The main dam is about 87 feet high and 850 feet long; the auxiliary dam is about 24 feet high and 470 feet long. The upstream slopes are partially covered with rock riprap. The upstream slopes are 2.5 horizontal:1 vertical and the downstream slopes are 2 horizontal:1 vertical. In 1971, a berm was added to the main dam downstream slope for stability and seepage control.

About 55 percent of the land within and adjacent to the FERC Project Boundary surrounding Philbrook Reservoir are NFSL. According to Lassen LRMP, these lands are managed in accordance with the LNF’s PR, M and retention VQOs (Figure E6.10-7). The retention (R) VQO provides for management activities that are not visually evident. Under retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture that are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in size, amount, intensity, direction and pattern should not be evident.

The remaining land surrounding Philbrook Reservoir is owned by PG&E, and subject to the Butte County General Plan. The plan zones these lands as Unclassified, which does not include visual quality management goals.

DeSabla Forebay

DeSabla Forebay is located on relatively flat terrain above Butte Creek on Paradise Ridge, which is a major geographical feature in Butte County. A pure ponderosa pine forest on well-drained volcanic soils surrounds the reservoir. DeSabla Forebay has a maximum depth of 30 feet and a surface area of approximately 15 acres at full capacity (Figures E6.10-5 and E6.10-6). The reservoir fluctuates minimally during normal operations. The Forebay contains areas of exposed soil from shoreline recreation use on its east shore and a private organizational camp on its western shore. DeSabla Forebay Dam is a dominant visual feature that forms the southern shore.

PGE owns all land within and adjacent to the FERC Project Boundary around DeSabla Forebay. These lands are subject to the Butte County General Plan. The plan zones these lands as Timber Mountain, which does not include visual quality management goals.

DeSabla Forebay Dam is formed by an earthen embankment roughly 50 feet high and 250 feet thick at the base, with a width of 100 feet at the crest. The dam’s spillway elevation is 2,755 feet and is located at the dam’s north end.

Hendricks Diversion Dam, Hendricks Canal, and Toadtown Canal

The Hendricks Diversion Dam provides up to 125 cfs to the Hendricks canal which flow to Toadtown Powerhouse and then to the Butte Canal, approximately 0.7 miles upstream of the DeSabla Forebay. The 15-foot-high Hendricks Diversion Dam is located at an elevation of 3,256 feet and is comprised of a 98-foot-long concrete gravity dam (Figure E6.10-8). The 8.7 mile Hendricks Canal is composed mostly of earthen ditch with several flume and tunnel sections (Figure E6.10-9). The approximately 2.5-mile-long Toadtown Canal is primarily an earth canal (Figure E6.10-10). Foothill woodland and mixed chaparral vegetation provide shade along the canals. The Skyway is one of the few paved roads in the area, which generally parallels the Hendricks and Toadtown canals. However, because of the rugged topography and dense forest cover, the canals are visible only for a hundred feet or less on each side where they cross the road. Access off the Skyway to the canals is typically by unimproved roads across private lands.

Butte Creek Diversion Dam and the Butte and Centerville Canals

The Butte Creek Diversion Dam, constructed in 1917, is a 95-foot-long, concrete arch structure, with a spillway crest elevation of 2,884 feet (Figure E6.10-11). The dam stands 42 feet above the streambed with sediment filling the area behind the dam. The dam provides up to 91 cfs to the Butte Canal, which is comprised of a siphon and earth berm, gunite, and flume sections. This generally well-shaded canal travels about 11 miles along the contour of the hillside to DeSabla Forebay (Figure E6.10-12).

The Lower Centerville Diversion Dam, a 12-foot-high concrete arch dam, diverts up to 185 cfs to the Lower Centerville Canal (Figure E6.10-13). This approximately 8-mile-long canal is composed of earthen and several flume sections. The Upper Centerville Canal, which originates at DeSabla Powerhouse and is used as an alternate to the lower canal, has not been used for power generation for many years.

The Butte and Centerville canals cut a horizontal band along the eastern side of the Butte Creek Canyon. The canals and powerhouses located at the bottom of the canyon are dominant elements in the landscape. However, due to the limited accessibility of the canyon, a limited number of people see the facilities from the canyon. The Upper Centerville, Hendricks, and Toadtown canals are visible to members of the public who use PG&E’s canal maintenance trails as day use hiking trails.

Project Reservoirs

Figure E6.10-1. Round Valley Reservoir. Figure E6.10-2. Round Valley Reservoir.

Figure E6.10-3. Philbrook Reservoir with Dock. Figure E6.10-4. Philbrook Reservoir.

Project Reservoirs (continued)

Figure E6.10-5. DeSabla Forebay and Dam. Figure E6.10-6. DeSabla Forebay.

The Project canals extend about 34 miles. The majority of the lands on which the canals are located is privately owned and subject to Butte County zoning. About two thirds of the lands (the upper portions of Butte, Hendricks and Toadtown canals) are zoned for Timber Preserve or Timber Mountain land uses, and the majority of the remaining one third of land (along the Lower and Upper Centerville canals) is zoned for Agricultural or Foothill Recreational land use. BLM manages lands along about 0.4 miles of the Butte Canal and 0.5 miles of the Lower Centerville Canal and PNF manages lands adjacent to about 0.4 miles of the Toadtown Canal.

Powerhouses

The Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville powerhouses have low to moderate visibility from public areas. The Toadtown Powerhouse is a concrete block building approximately 28 feet by 44 feet (Figures E6.10-14 and E6.10-15). The DeSabla Powerhouse is a reinforced-concrete structure, approximately 27 feet by 41 feet (Figures E6.10-16 and E6.10-17). The Centerville Powerhouse is a concrete reinforced stone building approximately 32 feet by 109 feet (Figures E6.10-18 and E6.10-19). Public access is not provided to any of these powerhouses and relatively few members of the public see these Project facilities. PG&E owns all land within and adjacent to the FERC Project Boundary around the Project powerhouses. These lands are subject to the Butte County General Plan.

The aesthetic characters of the existing Project features are outlined in Table E6.10-1.

6.10.3 Other Scenic Attractions in the Project Area

The Project provides limited scenic vistas and attractions due to foothills and mountainous terrain dominated by steep canyons and ravines as well as densely forested areas that obscure any expansive views. Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs, located at higher elevations, provide opportunities to view limited scenic vistas. The maintenance trail along the Upper Centerville Canal, which is used as a public hiking trail, may provide scenic vistas into Butte Canyon and its surrounding area. The predominant unique vistas in the Project Region are found

along Butte Creek where the river has created steep, narrow canyons with large pools and drops. Within the Project Vicinity, Colby Mountain (6,200 feet), managed by LNF, provides exceptional views of the upper Butte Creek watershed and the Deer Creek watershed (Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy 2000).

BLM’s Forks of Butte Creek Recreation Area (FOBCRA) lies within this canyon (Figure E6.10- 7). According to BLM’s Redding Resource Management Plan, (U.S. Department of Interior 1993), the FOBCRA’s scenic quality should be enhanced and protected and these lands should be managed as a visual resource management class (VRM) of II. This VRM class indicates that management actions should not be evident in the characteristic landscape and that a contrast may be seen, but should not attract attention. The FOBCRA Management Plan (U.S. Department of Interior 1990) classified the FOBCRA lands as “A” scenic quality, the highest category under the BLM rating system. In addition, The BLM has determined that Butte Creek from its confluence with West Branch Butte Creek to Centerville Bridge, which flows through the FOBCRA, is eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic River System for its scenic qualities (U.S. Department of Interior 1993).

There are no state designated scenic roads within the Project Vicinity (California Department of Transportation 2004).

6.10.4 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies

FERC’s Determination on study disputes directed PG&E to perform one study directly related to aesthetic resources: Study 6.3.7-1: Perform Visual Assessment of Project to Surrounding Landscape. However, Relicensing Participants subsequently agreed the information that would be developed by the study would not be useful to Relicensing Participants when developing resource management measures related to aesthetic resources. The study was not performed.

Project Diversion Dams & Canals

Figure E6.10-8. Hendricks Diversion Dam. Figure E6.10-9. Hendricks Canal.

Figure E6.10-10. Toadtown Canal. Figure E6.10-11. Butte Creek Diversion Dam.

Figure E6.10-12. Butte Canal. Figure E6.10-13. Lower Centerville Diversion Dam & Canal. October 2007 License Application Aesthetic Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.10-7 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

Toadtown Powerhouse

Figure E6.10-14. Toadtown Powerhouse Aerial View.

Figure E6.10-15. Toadtown Powerhouse Ground View.

DeSabla Powerhouse

Figure E6.10-16. DeSabla Powerhouse Aerial View.

Figure E6.10-17. DeSabla Powerhouse Ground View.

Centerville Powerhouse

Figure E6.10-18. Centerville Powerhouse Aerial View.

Figure E6.10-19. Centerville Powerhouse Ground View.

Table E6.10-1. Aesthetic Character of Project Facilities and Features.

Visibility from Number of Outstanding Visual Existing Project Feature Elevation (feet) Form of Access Relationship to Land Form Predominant Vegetation Surrounding Areas Viewers* Features in Area

Innundated valley located in a High - within the Round Valley Reservoir 5,650 Unimproved Road Sierran Mixed Conifer Moderate Surrounding mountains stream channel reservoir area

Innundated valley located in a High - within the Philbrook Reservoir 5,550 Unimproved Road Sierran Mixed Conifer Moderate Surrounding mountains stream channel reservoir area

Hendricks, Toadtown Canals Sierran Mixed Conifer to Little West Fork Feather 3,250 to 2,800 Unimproved Road Along contour Low Relatively few and Toadtown PH Foothill Woodland River

Along contour, side of canyon Sierran Mixed Conifer to Moderate within Butte, Centerville Canals 2,880 to 1,050 Unimproved Road Relatively few Butte Canyon and Creek wall Foothill Woodland canyon

DeSabla Powerhouse 1,250 Unimproved Road Side of canyon at water edge Foothill Woodland and Riparian Moderate Low Butte Canyon and Creek

Centerville Powerhouse 475 Improved Road Side of valley at water edge Foothill Woodland and Riparian Moderate Low Butte Canyon and Creek

* Number of viewers is based on visibility of the component and form of access. Relatively few are used where access is across private land on unimproved roads. Low is used where access is across private land on gravel roads where Licensee's personnel visit daily or recreationists may gain access to the river. Moderate is used where access is by gravel roads across public land to a recreation attraction (reservoirs). Source: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 1985. Application for Amendment of License: DeSabla Powerhouse Unit 2 and Proposed New Centerville Powerhouse.

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally]

6.11 Cultural Resources

6.11.1 Historic Information

During preparation of the Project Pre-Application Document (PAD), PG&E completed a records search and archival research at various federal, state, and local repositories and agencies in California to identify known cultural resources and previously documented cultural resources studies within and adjacent to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The research also served to obtain background information pertinent to the ethnohistory, archaeology, and history of the Project Area.

The research showed that at least 39 previous cultural resource investigations had occurred within or adjacent to the Project’s APE since the late 1970s; 34 of which were completed for timber harvest sales, land transfers, and Project-specific ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, 29 previously documented cultural resources also were identified, of which 16 were determined to be within the current Project APE. A review of historic properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) identified the Magalia Community Church, Honey Run Covered Bridge, Centerville Schoolhouse, and the Forks of Butte Archeological District within the vicinity of the Project but not within the APE. Likewise, the Dogtown Nugget Discovery Site was also identified within the Project vicinity and not within the APE. It is listed as California Historical Landmark No. 771, and included in the California Register of Historical Resources.

PAR Environmental Services, Inc. (Maniery et al. 1985) conducted cultural resource studies for a previous DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric system project in which they informally recommended that previously recorded sites CA-SHA-597/H, CA-SHA-871-H, and CA-SHA- 873-H were potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Likewise, they recommended that sites CA-BUT-872-H, the “Poumeratt Quartz Mine”, and CA-BUT-877-H, a historic mining ditch, were ineligible. None of the other archaeological sites had been formally evaluated.

In addition to the formally documented sites, Maniery et al. (1985) also identified 16 other “potential” sites while reviewing maps and other archival materials for the previous DeSabla- Centerville hydroelectric system project. However, the proposed resource locations were outside their limited survey area and, thus, not confirmed, located or documented at that time.

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), are defined as those cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of their “association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” [NR Bulletin 38, 1998:1). In PAR’s prior study (Maniery et al. 1985), one potential TCP was identified within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project APE. PAR identified this resource as site “TC-1”, described as a historic Native American “massacre” site and camp. As with the other potential sites identified in PAR’s research, the site’s reported location fell outside their survey area and was not investigated at that time. In addition to TC-1, Kroeber (1925: 394, Plate 37) also provides the names for four village sites that potentially lie within the Project APE: Yaukü, Nim-sewi, Otaki,

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 and Tsulum-sewi. As noted in the PAD, information was not available from the records search or archival research to determine if these village sites correlated with any of the previously documented archaeological resources. Additionally, neither the NAHC nor the tribal representatives were aware of any TCPs or other significant resources within the Project APE, although representatives of the Mechoopda Tribe indicated that traditional plant gathering locations could be present in the Project Area.

PG&E’s records search and archival research showed that a potential DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District had not been formally determined eligible for the NRHP by the Office of Historic Preservation. However, several components of the Project had been evaluated by Maniery et al. (1985), who recommended the DeSabla Powerhouse (CA-BUT-868-H), the Hendricks Canal (CA-BUT-869-H), the Centerville Powerhouse (CA-SHA-870-H), and the Lower Centerville Canal (CA-BUT-876-H) as eligible. PAR evaluated the Butte Creek Canal (CA-BUT-874-H) and the Toadtown Canal (CA-BUT-875-H) as ineligible, and did not evaluate the other Project features.

PG&E further prepared a detailed overview of the ethnohistory and archeological and historical background of the Project Vicinity, which was provided in Appendix L of the PAD. Portions of the background also are provided below in Section 6.11.2.2.4.

6.11.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies

FERC’s Study Plan Determination (July 18, 2005) directed PG&E to perform three studies directly related to cultural resources. These included:

• Study 6.3.8-1: Archeological and Historic-Era Properties • Study 6.3.8-2: Traditional Cultural Properties • Study 6.3.8-3: Historic Project Feature Assessment

In addition, PG&E was designated by FERC as the non-federal representative for informal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and it’s implementing regulations at 36 CFR § 800 (FERC acceptance of NOI, December 3, 2004).

The results of Section 106 consultation and each of the three studies listed above are provided below. Each study is divided into the following sections: 1) Study Objective; 2) Study Area; 3) Methods; 4) Results; 5) Summary; 6) Variance from FERC-Approved Study Plan and PG&E Proposed Modifications; and 7) List of Appendices. References for each of these studies are provided at the end of the License Application in section 13.0.

6.11.2.1 Section 106 Consultation

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires an agency to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment (36 CFR 800.1[a]). Participants in the Section 106 process include the lead agency official, other agencies with land-management responsibilities (e.g. USFS and BLM), Native American Tribes, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Consultation is defined as “the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the Section 106 process” (36 CFR 800.16[f]). Key stages of the process require specific consultation. These are (1) determination of the Area of Potential Effects (APE), (2) identification of historic properties, (3) assessment of adverse effects, and resolution of adverse effects. During a hydroelectric relicensing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead agency official and is responsible for Section 106 compliance. However, a lead agency may designate an applicant (Licensee) to initiate and undertake consultation on their behalf (36 CFR 800.4[c][4]).

The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) incorporates Section 106 consultation requirements into its schedule. Consultation is undertaken through the filing of various ILP documents with relicensing participants and through face-to-face relicensing meetings allowing participants opportunities to provide comments, request studies, and ask questions. Typically, the FERC’s Section 106 obligations during a relicensing are fulfilled by entering into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with consulting parties when the new license is issued. This PA would call for the implementation of a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to address or resolve adverse effects of the Project on historic properties. The FERC advises Licensees to prepare this HPMP prior to the new License issuance. If the HPMP is not completed by that time, the PA would specify a time frame for its completion and requirements for the protection of historic properties during the preparation period.

The following discussion provides a brief summary of specific cultural resources Section 106 consultation undertaken from the start of the DeSabla Centerville relicensing process to present. It does not include a discussion of all relicensing correspondence or meetings.

6.11.2.1.1 Pre-Application Document (PAD) Consultation

On February 4, 2004 the Licensee contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to inquire about its knowledge of any documented areas of tribal significance in the Project Vicinity and to obtain a listing of tribal groups who should be contacted regarding the Project. A response letter from the NAHC provided the following tribal contacts:

Mr. Joe Marine Ms. Patsy Seek, Chairperson Ms. Patty Reese-Allan 1025 35th Avenue, Apt. 9 Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Cultural Resources Representative Sacramento, CA 95822 1185 Eighteen Street Berry Creek Rancheria of Oroville, CA 95965 Maidu Indians #5 Tyme Way Oroville, CA 95966

Maidu Advisory Council Mr. Ren Reynolds Maidu Cultural and 2128 Myers Street Butte Tribal Council Development Group Oroville, CA 95966 1693 Mount Ida Road P.O. Box 126 Oroville, CA 95966 Greenville, CA 95947

Mr. Harvey Angle, Chairperson Ms. Clara LeCompte Jesse Kai Enterprise Rancheria Maidu Nation Cultural Resources Representative of Maidu Indians P.O. Box 204 Mechoopda Indian Tribe 1940 Feather River Blvd., Suite B Susanville, CA 96130 of Chico Rancheria Oroville, CA 95965 125 Mission Ranch Road Chico, CA 95926

Mr. Steve Santos, Chairperson Ms. Candice Miller, Mr. Gary Archuleta, Chairperson Mechoopda Indian Tribe Tribal Administrator Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu of Chico Rancheria Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians 125 Mission Ranch Road Indians #1 Alverda Drive Chico, CA 95926 #1 Alverda Drive Oroville, CA 95966 Oroville, CA 95966

The Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians (GIR) also inquired regarding the Project and requesting to be placed on the Tribal contact list.

GIR identified contacts are: Lorie Jaimes Mike Despain Tribal Chair Environmental Office Greenville Rancheria Greenville Rancheria P.O. Box 279 P.O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95974 Greenville, CA 95974

The Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians, the Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians, the Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians, the Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians, and the Mechoopda Indians of the Chico Rancheria are Federally-recognized Tribes. The remaining Native American individuals and organizations identified above are not Federally-recognized, but may have interests in the Project that are important and should be considered.

On May 26, 2004, the Licensee sent letters to Tribes listed on the NAHC letter as well as to all other interested parties, including the USFS, BLM, and California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The purpose of this letter was to inform these parties of the relicensing, request their participation, and to inquire about any existing, relevant and reasonably available information that they might have pertaining to the Project. This information would be used to identify issues and related information needs, develop study requests and study plans, and prepare documents analyzing the license application. A Pre-Application Document (PAD) Questionnaire was also provided.

On June 9, 2004, the Licensee provided the FERC with a copy of the letter received from the NAHC and the names and addresses of both the Federally-recognized and non-Federally- recognized groups.

An initial Project tribal consultation meeting was held by the Licensee on June 24, 2004. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Greenville Rancheria and the Mechoopda Tribe of the Chico Rancheria (Mechoopda Tribe), and did not result in the identification of any known Traditional Cultural Properties or other significant resources within the proposed Project APE, although the attending representative of the Mechoopda Tribe noted that traditional plant gathering locations could be present in the area. Several issues, however, were discussed at the meeting and subsequently identified on responses to the PAD Questionnaire received from the Greenville Rancheria and Mechoopda Tribe of Chico Rancheria.

Other consultation undertaken during PAD development included a September 23, 2004 tribal consultation meeting held by the FERC. Attendees of this meeting included Licensee representatives and representatives of the Greenville Rancheria and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria.

On October 4, 2004, the Licensee filed its Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to relicense the Project. Copies of this report were also submitted to the USFS, participating Tribes, and the SHPO. The PAD contained (1) all existing, relevant and reasonably available information about the Project and resources within the Project Vicinity, (2) resource issues identified during PAD development, and (3) preliminary study plans to address cultural resources information needs: an archaeological study, a study to identify potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), and a study to identify historic Project system features. Additionally, the PAD contained maps of a proposed Project Area of Potential Effects (APE); this APE was limited to the FERC license boundary. In the PAD transmittal letter, the Licensee requested FERC’s authorization to undertake informal Section 106 consultation on the FERC’s behalf in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(4). On December 3, 2004, the FERC acknowledged the Licensee’s PAD and NOI and designated the Licensee as their nonfederal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. On March 9, 2005, the Licensee transmitted a copy of this authorization letter to the SHPO and initiated Section 106 consultation with the SHPO’s office.

On February 2, 2005, the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria filed comments on the PAD pertaining to cultural and other resources with the FERC. Comments on the PAD were also received from the USFS (January 27, 2005).

6.11.2.1.2 Scoping and Study Plan Consultation

On October 20, 2004, the FERC issued their Scoping Document 1 (SD1). This document identified three main Project issues related to historic properties: (1) Effects of project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans), (2) Effects of the continued project operation, including maintenance activities, on historic properties and archeological resources within the area of potential effect (APE) and the potential for project structures to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and (3) Effects of project operations on

Indian tribal interests or traditional cultural properties within the APE. On November 17 and November 18, 2004, the FERC held scoping meetings for all relicensing participants. Written comments on SD1 pertaining to cultural resources were received from the USFS (January 27, 2005).

On December 15, 2004, the Licensee held a cultural resources study plan meeting at office of the Lassen National Forest. Attendees included FERC (by telephone) and Licensee staff, representatives of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests, the Greenville Rancheria, and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria (Mechoopda Tribe).

All relicensing participants were invited by the PG&E to participate in a Study Plan Workshop held January 6-7, 2005 and 10-11, 2005. The meetings were attended by FERC, Licensee representatives, and representatives of the FERC, Plumas and Lassen National Forests, Greenville Rancheria, and Mechoopda Tribe.

On March 18, 2005, the Licensee filed a Proposed Study Plan for the Project. This document contained revised plans based on consultation undertaken since filing of the PAD in October 2004.

Also on March 18, 2005, the FERC issued their Scoping Document 2 (SD2). This document revised and clarified the Project issues identified in SD1. Revised cultural resources issues identified in SD2 were: (1) effects of the continued Project operation, including maintenance activities and project-related activities, on Indian tribal interests and historic properties (defined as all properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) located within the area of potential effect (APE), (2) development of a Historic Properties Management Plan to ensure adequate protection of tribal and historic resources from project operations or project-related activities, and (3) effects of project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans).

On May 12, 2005, the Licensee requested the SHPO’s concurrence with a revised Project Area of Potential Effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1). The APE had been revised based on participant consultation to include additional lands outside of the FERC license boundary. The Licensee also requested the SHPO’s concurrence with the three proposed cultural resources study plans filed with the FERC on March 18. On June 16, 2005, the SHPO responded acknowledging the Licensee’s additions to the APE from the prior version. In their letter, the SHPO commented that the APE “should be applied consistently regardless of ownership and that the entirety of the West Branch of the Feather River should be included in the APE”. Additionally, the SHPO requested clarification regarding how the Licensee would address the potential for cultural resources on lands where survey was not possible due to private property owner’s concerns. On July 18, 2005, the Licensee filed responses to these comments with the FERC.

Between April 6, 2005 and June 2, 2005, the Licensee hosted a total of ten days of study plan meetings. Not all of these meetings were specifically for cultural resources study plan purposes. On May 26, 2005, a cultural resources study plan meeting was held. Attendees included FERC and Licensee staff, representatives of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests, the Bureau of

Land Management, Applied Earthworks, Inc. and Albion Environmental (consultants selected to undertake cultural resources studies), the Greenville Rancheria, and the Mechoopda Tribe. The SHPO was invited to the meeting as well, but did not attend. Written comments on the cultural resources study plans were also received by the USFS (June 15 2005; June 30, 2005; July 29, 2005)

On June 22, 2005, the Licensee arranged for a field visit to the DeSabla-Centerville Project Area for USFS and Tribal representatives. Attendees included representatives of the Greenville Rancheria, the Mechoopda Tribe, and the Lassen and Plumas National Forests.

On July 18, 2005, the Licensee filed revised study plans based on additional participant comments received since April with the FERC. On August 17, 2005, the FERC issued a Study Plan Determination for the Project in accordance with the ILP and approved the Licensee’s three revised cultural resources study plans: Study 6.3.8-1 Archeological and Historic-Era Properties, Study 6.3.8-2 Traditional Cultural Properties, and Study 6.3.8-3 Historic Project Feature Assessment In doing so, the APE as defined by the Licensee was also approved.

6.11.2.1.3 Study Plan Implementation

The Licensee began implementation of the three cultural resources study plans on August 7, 2006 when Project lands had dried sufficiently from winter and spring weather. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4, field identification of archaeological and historic-era properties was undertaken until November of that year. Historic project features were also documented during this period. Interviews with tribal members in order to identify Potential Traditional Cultural Properties were also initiated in August of 2006; additional interviews are pending, but expected to occur in the spring of 2007 (see Section 6.11.2.3.4 below).

An Initial Study Report (ISR) containing study results to date was submitted to the FERC on September 6, 2006. Copies of this report were also submitted to the USFS, participating Tribes, and the SHPO. This report included the results and status of cultural resources studies to date. No comments specific to the preliminary cultural resources study results provided in the ISR were received.

A Supplemental Initial Study Report (SISR) was submitted to the FERC on January 16, 2007. Copies of this report were also submitted to the USFS, participating Tribes, and the SHPO. This report acknowledged that various studies, including cultural resources studies, were still not yet complete. On March 19, 2007, the Licensee sent a letter to the SHPO requesting comments on the January 16 SISR and requesting concurrence that the current level of field effort to identify cultural resources within the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) was adequate in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4. Comments specific to the preliminary cultural resources study results were provided by the U.S. USFS.

An agreement concerning the conduct of Native American consultation associated with Study Description 6.3.8-2 (Traditional Cultural Properties) and the ultimate ownership and control of interview materials was negotiated and signed by Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Albion Environmental, Inc. (Albion) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company on August 8 and

August 15 respectively. The Confidentiality Agreement Between the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Albion Environmental, Inc and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Confidentiality Agreement) addresses the final disposition of fieldnotes audio and video tapes, photographs and any other products of the ethnographic interview process. Development and negotiation of the Confidentiality Agreement began in November 2006. The agreement will bear the signature of any individual respondents who choose to participate in the study. The Mechoopda Tribe has begun providing names and introductions to potential respondents and contacts have been made by the ethnographer. The agreement is currently being forwarded to the Mechoopda Tribe, (September 4, 2007). In anticipation of the MOU the cultural resource staff specialist at the Tribe has prearranged six interviews with respondents potentially knowledgeable about the APE. Albion has contacted these respondents and will begin field interviews at the second week of September, 2007. One additional interview with a non- Mechoopda Maidu respondent will take place in the same week... The Greenville Rancheria did not request an agreement covering the conduct of the investigation; interviews with Greenville Rancheria respondents began in the summer of 2006.

6.11.2.1.4 Draft License Application

On May 14, 2007, the Licensee filed the DeSabla-Centerville Draft License Application (DLA) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of this document were provided to all relicensing participants, including the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Plumas and Lassen National Forests, the Bureau of Land Management, the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria, and the Greenville Rancheria. In accordance with the FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP), relicensing participants were required to provide comments on selected studies included in the DLA no later than July 7, 2007l comments on the DLA in its entirety were due no later than September 5, 2007.

In a letter to the FERC dated July 5, 2007, the Lassen National Forest provided comments on the DLA. Several comments pertained to cultural resources studies and results. On August 6, 2007, the Licensee provided the FERC with responses to all DLA comments. Many of the Lassen National Forest’s comments are addressed in the current document below.

On July 12, 2007, the Licensee contacted the SHPO’s office by phone in order to inquire if the DLA had been received and to remind the SHPO of the ILP comment deadlines. The SHPO’s office stated that they had no record of receiving the DLA. The SHPO stated that they believed that the DLA had not been “logged” into their office because the DLA transmittal letter did not specifically request SHPO’s comments per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, rather, the DLA transmittal letter requested comments per the ILP.

In order to facilitate SHPO review of the DLA, on July 26, 2007, the Licensee transmitted a copy of the Cultural Resources section of the DLA (Volume II[C], Section 6.11) and the Tribal Resources section of the DLA (Volume II[C], Section 6.13) to the SHPO. Also included were set of maps depicting the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and individual resource locations. While it was the Licensee’s recommendation that SHPO review not just the cultural resources sections of the DLA, but all sections, the Licensee pointed out several sections that the

SHPO’s office may find to be particularly helpful in understanding the project and its potential effects on historic properties. In the transmittal letter, the Licensee requested:

(1) SHPO review of the DeSabla-Centerville Relicensing Project Draft License Application (dated May 2007); (2) SHPO concurrence with the level of effort thus far to identify historic properties within the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1); (3) SHPO concurrence with National Register of Historic Places evaluations of 34 historic-era archaeological sites within the APE in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2), and concurrence that issuance of a new license for the DeSabla Centerville Hydroelectric Project will have no adverse effect on 28 of these properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1); and (4) SHPO concurrence with National Register of Historic Places evaluation of 26 resources associated with the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project system in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2), and concurrence that issuance of a new license for the DeSabla Centerville Hydroelectric Project will have no adverse effect on 3 of these properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1).

On July 31, 2007, the FERC received a letter from the Enterprise Rancheria dated July 25 that provided the name and address of the new Tribal Chairperson, Glenda Nelson. The Licensee and the FERC updated their mailing lists with this new information.

On August 29, 2007, the Licensee left a phone message with the SHPO’s office regarding the Licensee’s July 26, 2007 letter and inquiring about SHPO’s review of the DLA. This phone message was followed up with an email on August 30. No response from SHPO’s office was received.

In a letter to the FERC dated August 31, 2007, the Lassen National Forest (LNF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and State Water Resources Control Board provided additional comments on the DLA. Several comments pertained to cultural resources studies and results.

6.11.2.1.5 Summary

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2, the Licensee and the FERC have consulted on a regular basis with the Lassen and Plumas National Forests, the BLM, the Mechoopda Tribe, the Greenville Rancheria, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other relicensing participants regarding cultural resources issues. This consultation has taken the form of written document submittals, a formal MOU with the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria to undertake the Traditional Cultural Properties study, meetings, phone calls and workshops. All comments and concerns received during these consultations have been addressed by the Licensee and by the FERC. To date, few comments have been received by the California State Historic

Preservation Officer. However comments were received from the SHPO on the Project Area of Potential Effects, which is the first step in the Section 106 process. Additionally, the Licensee has requested SHPO concurrence on various other Section 106 requirements, including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluations of specific resources. The next step in the process is further consultation regarding potential historic properties within the APE and identification of appropriate management measures to be included in a Project Historic Properties Management Plan. The Licensee looks forward to working with the SHPO and other participants regarding HPMP development.

6.11.2.2 Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties (Study 6.3.8-1)

6.11.2.2.1 Study Objectives

The objective of the study was to assist the FERC with its regulatory compliance requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA, as noted above, by identifying archaeological and historic-era cultural resources that are eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and documenting all observable Project effects to these properties. For purposes of the study, the term “cultural resources” refers to any prehistoric, historic-era site, feature, or district regardless of its eligibility for listing on the NRHP.

6.11.2.2.2 Study Area

The study area encompassed all lands containing the Project’s system features, as depicted on the Cultural Resources APE Maps (Figure E6.11.2.2-1). The APE is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historical resources if any such properties exist” [36 CFR § 800.16(d)].

As mentioned in Section 6.11.2.1.2 above, on May 12, 2005, the Licensee requested the California State Historic Preservation Officer’s (SHPO’s) concurrence with the APE. On June 16, 2005, the SHPO responded acknowledging the Licensee’s additions to the APE from prior versions. In their letter, the SHPO commented that the APE “should be applied consistently regardless of ownership and that the entirety of the West Branch of the Feather River should be included in the APE”. Additionally, the SHPO requested clarification regarding how the Licensee would address the potential for cultural resources on lands where survey was not possible due to private property owner’s concerns. On July 18, 2005, the Licensee filed responses to these comments with the FERC. On August 17, 2005, the FERC approved the Licensee’s proposed study plans. In doing so, the APE as defined by the Licensee was also approved. The Project APE is shown in Figure E6.11.2.2-1 and includes all lands within the Project Boundary and lands outside of the Project Boundary that may be affected by Project activities.

6.11.2.2.3 Methods

PG&E implemented the methods described below, which include supplemental archival research, an intensive pedestrian survey of the APE, documentation of cultural resources in the APE, and consideration and/or evaluation of NRHP-eligible properties. Each of these activities is described below.

6.11.2.2.3.1 Archival Research

To augment the archival data collected during preparation of the PAD, PG&E performed research at the repositories listed below to develop a better understanding of the prehistoric and historic contexts of the Project Area:

• PG&E DeSabla Division, Rodgers Flat and DeSabla • PG&E Archives, San Bruno/Brisbane • California State Library, California History Room • California State Library, Government Publications • Water Resources Collection Center, University of California, Berkeley • Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • Special Collections, Meriam Library, California State University, Chico • Centerville Museum, Centerville, California • Gold Nugget Museum, Paradise, California • Pacific Service Employees Association (PSEA), Concord, California • PSEA Storage Facility, Martinez, California • National Archives and Record Administration (NARA), San Bruno, California

6.11.2.2.3.2 Field Survey and Site Documentation

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, reasonable measures must be undertaken to identify and document archaeological and historic-era sites within the APE. To accomplish this, the Licensee retained Applied Earthworks, Inc. (Æ) to undertake an intensive cultural resources survey of lands within the APE to: examine all accessible lands not previously surveyed; examine lands previously surveyed to less than adequate standards per current professional methods; verify the locations of previously recorded sites; re-record those sites as appropriate; locate and document “potential sites” discussed in Maniery et al.’s (1985) previous survey report that could be in the Project APE; and document all newly discovered sites encountered. This survey was completed between August 7, 2006 and November 5, 2006.

Prior to the start of fieldwork, a Field Work Authorization form was obtained from the BLM to access and conduct survey on BLM lands. Additionally, a Special Use Permit (SUP) was obtained from the USFS to conduct survey and NRHP evaluations on USFS lands. Copies of the authorization and SUP form are provided in Appendix E6.11.2.2-A and Appendix E6.11.2.2-B respectively. Both permits have since expired and will need renewal should further field studies be required.

Æ’s qualified professional archaeologists employed an intensive survey strategy by walking parallel transects spaced 15-20 meters apart. Areas containing moderately dense vegetation or moderately steep terrain were examined using 20-40-meter transects. All topographical features encountered in moderate areas and considered to be sensitive for cultural resources (i.e., springs, drainages, etc.) were thoroughly inspected.

Newly discovered cultural remains were assigned temporary field numbers using a “DC” (DeSabla-Centerville) designation followed by a number (e.g., DC-1, DC-2, etc.). Numbers were assigned sequentially as cultural materials were encountered. All items encountered were assigned a number. If a discovery was determined to be noncultural, or to be less than 50 years

of age, then the number assigned was retired from the lists of cultural resources. Likewise, if recording demonstrated that multiple sites were portions of the same site, the lowest assigned temporary number was retained and all additional numbers were retired from use. Thus, gaps may be visible in the temporary numbering system listed on the site tables in this section.

Newly discovered and previously recorded prehistoric and historic-era sites were recorded or re- recorded to current United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) standards using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms (523 series). A sketch map was drawn to scale for each site, as appropriate, and the site was photographed. A Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, set to North American Datum (NAD) 83, was used to accurately obtain location information for the sites documented, unless weather or terrain interfered with obtaining accurate readings. All cultural resources were also hand-plotted onto the appropriate 7.5-minute topographic map, and the map’s NAD documented on the site records. All impacts observed at sites were documented on the site records.

6.11.2.2.3.3 Native American Monitoring

Qualified tribal monitors were invited to join the archaeology field crew during the survey. Prior to performing the field work, PG&E developed tribal monitoring protocol specific to the Project. The Greenville Rancheria and Mechoopda Tribe reviewed the protocol, which was finalized on September 15, 2005. In accordance with the monitoring protocol, tribal monitors were responsible for assisting the archaeological field supervisor in identifying potentially sensitive areas, reporting daily monitoring results to the tribes, ensuring that the appropriate parties were contacted if human remains were encountered, and completing Daily Field Logs.

6.11.2.2.3.4 NRHP Evaluations

One of the Licensee’s goals under Study Plan 6.8.3-1 is to undertake formal NRHP evaluations of identified historic-era sites impacted or potentially impacted by Project activities in consultation with appropriate Indian Tribes, federal land management agencies (e.g. USBLM, USFS), the FERC, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer. All strictly historic-era sites were evaluated during the inventory phase of work, unless additional studies (e.g., subsurface test excavations) were deemed necessary to formally evaluate the sites, in which case the need for additional studies is noted. The historic-era sites are evaluated based on site content, detailed feature maps, integrity assessments, and other observations documented during the fieldwork in addition to evaluation of the sites relative to the historic context developed during archival research.

Whenever possible, NRHP eligibility assessments of prehistoric sites or sites containing prehistoric components were undertaken without ground-disturbing archaeological test excavation. Where non-intrusive evaluation was not possible or where test excavation was opposed by Indian Tribes, unevaluated sites were presumed eligible for the NRHP and only informal recommendations of eligibility have been made. However, PG&E and LNF have identified ongoing Project-related impacts at four previously recorded archaeological sites containing both prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains and features. These four sites were later found to be one continuous scatter of cultural remains and were thus newly recorded as a

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-13 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 single resource during relicensing surveys. Inundation of the resource throughout most of the year and annual draw-down of the reservoir may be adversely affecting the site. As a result, the eligibility of the site will be formally evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Formal test excavations may also be warranted at other sites if on-going adverse effects are identified that cannot be avoided, eliminated, or removed, and other evaluation techniques are not feasible. The need for archaeological test excavation to complete NRHP eligibility determinations will be made on a site-by-site basis in consultation with the appropriate federal and state agencies and Tribes.

All formal and informal evaluations are presented below. All identified Project impacts to eligible or potentially eligible prehistoric sites and sites containing both prehistoric and historic- era archaeological deposits are addressed in Section 7.11. These observations will be used to prepare a Historic Properties Management Plan. Formal and informal evaluations will be utilized to develop appropriate protection, management, and/or mitigation measures.

6.11.2.2.4 Results

6.11.2.2.4.1 Supplemental Archival Research

Information gathered during the supplemental archival research was combined with the existing archival data to develop the historic context used to evaluate the historic-era sites. The historic context is detailed below in the NRHP Evaluations section.

LNF cultural resources staff provided reports documenting archaeological excavations and trace element studies completed on Forest System Lands in the Project vicinity. Four separate NRHP eligibility evaluation projects, documented in five technical reports, focused on 16 prehistoric and historic-era sites within 10 miles or less of Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs (Beville et al. 2005; Compas 2003; Dougherty and Compas 2003; and Moore 2002, 2005). Compared to other areas, few cultural studies have occurred in the Project vicinity. Those completed to date have revealed information important to understanding local toolstone procurement and lithic technological processes, settlement and subsistence, and chronological issues. In particular these studies have sought to better clarify the Martis and Kings Beach temporal periods and have highlighted prehistoric use of basalt quarries around the Humbug Summit area just north of the reservoirs, the reliance on local Kelly Mountain obsidian, and the possible trade practice of exchanging basalt for obsidian from northern sources.

Trace element studies have focused on basalt artifacts recovered from sites on Forest System lands (Moore 2006). These ground-breaking studies focus on the identification of basalt sources local to the Project APE. Minimally, the results of these studies will benefit discussions of toolstone procurement and trade practices by prehistoric occupants of the Project Area. The trace element studies thus far have identified basalt sources in the Humbug Summit area, approximately 4.0 miles northeast of Round Valley Reservoir, as primary procurement locations. These studies further suggest that Humbug Summit basalts occur in sites dating from the Early Archaic through the Emergent Period, although use of this toolstone source occurred primarily during the Middle-Late periods (Moore 2006:np). Chronological indicators used during the trace element studies include Northern side-notched, Kingsley Expanding Stem, Elko, Martis series, Rose Springs series, Gunther series, Desert Side-notched, Sierra Side-notched, and Southern

Cascade Serrated projectile points. A discussion of the temporal span during prehistoric occupation in the Project vicinity is provided below in the Prehistoric Archaeological Overview in Section 6.11.2.2.5.

6.11.2.2.4.2 Field Survey

The field survey resulted in the documentation of 46 archaeological and historic-era sites, distributed between 12 previously recorded sites, 3 locations identified from the initial research as potential sites, and 31 newly discovered sites. Four isolated artifacts also were documented within the APE. Locations and records for all archaeological and historic-era sites documented in the APE will be included in a confidential and privileged section of Volume III.

Not all lands within the APE were accessible during the survey, due either to steep terrain, lack of landowner permission in private residential areas, or other unsafe conditions (e.g. entering Project tunnels). Areas not surveyed are shown on the APE maps in Figure E6.11.2.2-1 and listed in Table E6.11.2.2-1.

The majority of lands that could be surveyed were examined using an intensive strategy (15- meter transects). Portions of the Project containing moderately steep slopes or moderate to dense vegetation were examined using a moderate strategy (20-40-meter-wide transects), and other locations of dense brush were surveyed in a cursory fashion using opportunistic transects. All areas surveyed or that could not be surveyed are identified on Figure E6.11.2.2-1.

Survey at Round Valley Reservoir was delayed until the reservoir was empty and the underlying sediments were dry. As a result, all lands within the reservoir were accessible and examined during the survey. The FERC license requires PG&E to maintain a minimum pool of water in Philbrook Reservoir, which precludes emptying the reservoir and eliminates any opportunity to survey within or below the minimum pool level. As a result, only the exposed upper portions of the reservoir and the adjacent lands outside the reservoir were examined.

Table E6.11.2.2-1. Portions of the APE Excluded from Archaeological Survey. APE Map No. Locations Not Surveyed Reason Not Surveyed 1 of 11 Two unsurveyed areas (approximately 1.75 miles) along Too steep WBFR and Philbrook Creek 2 of 11 Two unsurveyed areas along WBFR (approximately 0.25 mile) Too steep and Philbrook Creek (approximately 0.75 mile) 2 of 11 Interior of Philbrook Reservoir Most of reservoir inundated 2 of 11 Approximate 11.5 acre-area on south side of Philbrook Too steep and too much natural tree fall Reservoir 3 of 11 Hendricks Tunnel Unsafe 4 of 11 Hendricks and Lovelock tunnels Unsafe 5 of 11 All portions of the APE on this map are along the WBFR and Too steep were not surveyed, approximately 3.5 miles 6 of 11 Approximately 4.0 miles of the Butte Creek Canal Too steep 7 of 11 Approximately 2.0 miles of Butte Creek Canal Too steep 7 of 11 Lovelock Tunnel, Toadtown penstock, Rapid pipe Unsafe 7 of 11 Approximately 1.5 acres on LNF Dense vegetation 7 of 11 DeSabla Forebay Inundated 8 of 11 Approximately 1.5 acres on LNF Dense vegetation 8 of 11 DeSabla Forebay Inundated

Table E6.11.2.2-1 (continued) APE Map No. Locations Not Surveyed Reason Not Surveyed 8 of 11 Approximately 2.5 miles of the Lower Centerville Canal Too steep 8 of 11 0.75 mile of Emma Road and a section of the Lower Restricted landowner access Centerville Canal, between Emma Road and Chimney Rock Tunnel 9 of 11 1.0 mile of Upper Centerville Canal Dense brush, no private landowners access permission 9 of 11 3.75 mile of Lower Centerville Canal Too steep

6.11.2.2.4.3 Site Documentation

Of the 16 previously recorded prehistoric and historic-era sites identified in the PAD, two were determined to lie outside the APE. Site CA-BUT-860 is recorded as a possible prehistoric petroglyph south of the Forks of Butte, along Butte Creek, and was not encountered within the Project APE. The site was not located or re-recorded.

Site P-04-0001325 is the historical Stirling City Ranger Station Office, known commonly as the Stirling City Forest Fire Station. It is a complex of buildings constructed by the USFS and Civilian Conservation Corps in 1937 and 1938, and has been evaluated as eligible to the NRHP (Thornton 1994). This resource is within Stirling City and an approximately 0.25 mile east of the Project APE. The site was not re-recorded.

During the survey, crew members examined sites CA-BUT-1225/H, -1226, -1227, and -1228 by walking 2–5 meter parallel transects across each site and marking all encountered cultural remains with pin flags. This revealed a long, single, continuous stretch of prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains and features rather than four discreet site areas. As a result, the sites were combined and recorded together as a single site.

Additionally, CA-BUT-868-H, the original site of the DeSabla Powerhouse, was initially included in the system features evaluation. The field work revealed that no architectural features remain at the site, only archaeological deposits. As a result, the site was included in this study.

Thus, a total of 12 documented sites were relocated and re-recorded during the survey. Most of the previously recorded sites contain historic-era artifacts and features associated primarily with mining, water conveyance, and hydroelectricity. Two of the previously recorded sites contain prehistoric cultural deposits.

Only three of the 16 potential historic-era sites discussed in Maniery et al.’s 1985 report were encountered within the APE (Table E6.11.2.2-2). Site numbers for the potential historic-era sites were previously assigned by PAR during their research and are the same as those listed in the PAD. The private landowner of the property encompassing TC-1, a Native American “massacre site” and camp, refused the field crew access. No cultural materials were encountered in the locations given for BCC-1, -2, -3 or CC-1, -2, -3, -5, -6, or -7. Potential site TC-2, a historical homestead above Toadtown, was determined to lie outside the APE.

Sites HC-1 and HC-2 are ditch tenders camps on the Hendricks Canal. Of all the potential sites identified by PAR, these were the only two for which no location information was suggested, other than their association with the canal. Likewise, the 2006 archival research also failed to

provide specific location information, thus it is not known if these sites were found during the 2006 survey. However, the first Project camps (e.g., Camp 1) built on ditches and canals were commonly constructed at the features head dams, with other camps numbered sequentially “downstream.” A 1949 Division of Forestry Map for Butte County shows a “ditch camp” near the Hendricks Canal on Little West Fork, south of the Little West Fork feeder. It is not known if this location represents HC-1 or HC-2. However, the Project APE is limited to the canal in this location and no cultural remains were encountered during the field survey.

PG&E assumed that evidence of these sites no longer exists or that the location information was not accurate.

Newly discovered sites constitute the majority of cultural resources encountered within the APE. These include 4 prehistoric sites, 21 historic-era sites, and 6 sites containing both prehistoric and historic-era remains. As noted above in the methods section (6.11.2.2.3), newly discovered cultural remains were assigned temporary field numbers using a “DC” (DeSabla-Centerville) designation followed by a number (e.g., DC-1, DC-2, etc.) assigned sequentially as each site was discovered.

All 46 archaeological and historic era sites, both previously identified and newly recorded, are shown in Table E6.11.2.2-2.

Four isolated finds also were recorded in the APE. I-DC-25 and -36 contain historic-era cans, I-DC-27 includes cast iron stove parts, and I-DC-37 is a tall, notched tree stump representative of historic-era logging. All of the isolates are located at Philbrook Reservoir.

6.11.2.2.4.4 Native American Monitoring

In response to PG&E’s invitation, the Greenville Rancheria and the Mechoopda Tribe provided qualified monitors during the archaeological field work. As a subcontractor to Æ, the Greenville Rancheria oversaw Tribal monitoring efforts, coordinated field work schedules with the Mechoopda Tribe, monitors, and Æ; and ensured that a monitor was present during each field session. The field crew was assisted by one monitor at a time, with monitors from each Tribe rotating sessions. Copies of the monitors Daily Field Logs were distributed to the Tribes, PG&E, and AE, and are included in Appendix E6.11.2.2-C.

Table E6.11.2.2-2. Prehistoric and Historic-era Sites within the APE. Site No. Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Impacts NRHP4 CA-BUT-XXX 597/H Toadtown Private/SPI Lithic scatter, BRM, historic bottle Logging roads, slash, public access Potentially eligible frags 868-H DeSabla PG&E Original DeSabla powerhouse site: Current powerhouse built on the same site Ineligible foundations, pads, trash deposits 871-H Butte Creek Canal PG&E Camp 2 Butte Creek Canal: Structures removed, erosion Eligible as contributing property foundations 872-H Toadtown Private Poumeratt Quartz Mine: foundation, Vandalism, erosion Ineligible drift, structures 873-H Lower Centerville Canal PG&E Hog Ranch ditch tender’s camp: Trash dump, erosion Eligible as contributing property foundations, pads, trash deposit 877-H Toadtown Private, possible BLM Mining ditch Vegetation, disturbance from roads and Ineligible tailings covering ditch 887-H DeSabla PG&E Orofino Mine entrance Culvert construction, road/creek alterations Ineligible 965-H DeSabla Private Indian Spring Mine Disintegration, looting, modern prospecting Ineligible 1111-H Toadtown Private Corral with refuse scatter Logging, vehicle access Ineligible 1225/1226/ RVR LNF LS, QRY, HTS, HR Fluctuating reservoir levels,. erosion, off-road Potentially eligible 1227/1228/H vehicles 1229-H RVR LNF Mine shaft, tailings ditch Collapsed adit, fire Ineligible 1465-H Butte Creek Canal Private Ditch Erosion, construction, developments Ineligible BCC-4 DeSabla PG&E BCC Camp 3, possible ditch tender’s Vandalism, overgrown Ineligible camp BCC-5 DeSabla PG&E, Private Hupp’s Sawmill and residence Structures removed over 25 years ago Potentially ineligible CC-4 Lower Centerville Private Camp 2, Upper Centerville Canal Private residence built on top of camp Ineligible Canal ditch tender’s camp DC-1/H RVR LNF BRM, LS, HTS, TT No observed impacts Potentially eligible DC-2-H RVR SPI FEN Disintegrating with age Ineligible DC-3/H RVR SPI BRMs, LS, MID, HTS, LOG Logging roads Potentially eligible DC-6-H WBFR SPI HTS Logging skid trail Ineligible DC-7-H WBFR SPI HTS No observed impacts Ineligible DC-8-H WBFR Private HTS Natural tree fall, (probable snow breakage), Ineligible natural erosion DC-9 RVR SPI BRM Slight natural erosion Potentially Ineligible DC-12/H RVR CDFG LS, HTS Erosion, modern trash, recent fire ring Potentially eligible DC-13/H RVR CDFG LS, HTS Logging skid trail, possible natural erosion Potentially eligible DC-15 RVR LNF BRM No observed impacts Potentially ineligible DC-16-H WBFR LNF HTS Modern campground Ineligible DC-17/H WBFR LNF BRM, HTS Modern campground, natural erosion Potentially eligible DC-18-H WBFR LNF HTS Natural tree fall (probable snow breakage) Ineligible recreation use, natural erosion

Table E6.11.2.2-2 (continued) Site No. Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Impacts NRHP4 CA-BUT-XXX DC-20-H RVR LNF HIS USFS Camp Modern campground, horseshoe pits, roads Ineligible DC-21 WBFR Private BRM, LS Modern cabin inhabited on site, road, Potentially eligible possible artifact collecting due to accessibility and vulnerability of surface artifacts to site occupants. DC-22-H WBFR Private Dewey Ditch Portions of ditch filled in and used as road, Potentially eligible slash DC-23-H PBR PG&E HTS Natural tree fall (probable snow breakage), Ineligible possible logging DC-24-H PBR PG&E HTS Public access, natural tree fall, natural Ineligible erosion DC-26-H PBR LNF HTS Slash pile on top of site, fire line Ineligible DC-29-H PBR PG&E HTS Public access, pit manually excavated into Ineligible cultural deposit with artifacts stacked around edge of pit, likely for artifact collection DC-32-H PBR LNF HTS Public access, natural tree fall (possible Ineligible heavy snow breakage) DC-34-H PBR LNF HTS Public access, natural tree fall, natural Ineligible erosion, large pit (approx 3ft deep) excavated into cultural deposit with artifacts stacked around edge of pit (looting) DC-38-H PBR PG&E HTS Natural erosion Ineligible DC-39-H PBR PG&E HTS Public access, natural erosion Ineligible DC-40-H PBR LNF Mining Natural erosion Ineligible DC-43-H PBR LNF Mining Natural tree fall (possible heavy snow Ineligible breakage), possible natural erosion DC-44 PBR LNF BRM No observed impacts Potentially ineligible DC-46-H PBR LNF HTS, Philbrook Gate Tender’s House Recreational use, logging, natural erosion, Eligible as contributing element vandalism, of cabin, natural decay of the hydroelectric district and potential individual eligibility DC-51/H WBFR Private BRMs, HTS, CAB, possible ditch One cabin dismantled Eligible as a contributing element tenders cabin of the hydroelectric district and potential individual eligibility DC-52-H DeSabla PG&E PSEA Camp Modern developments and use of camp Eligible as a contributing element and potential individual eligibility DC-53-H DeSabla PG&E Camp 1 Most original structures and features are Eligible as a contributing element gone 1/PBR = Philbrook Reservoir ; RVR = Round Valley Reservoir; WBFR = West Branch Feather River 2/CDFG = California Division of Fish and Game; LNF = Lassen National Forest; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries 3/BRM = Bedrock Mortars; CAB = Cabin site; HIS = Historic; HTS = Historic Trash Scatter; LOG = Logging; LS = Lithic Scatters; MID = Midden; MIN = Mining; TT = Turpentine Trees; USFS = United States USFS 4/Pending SHPO concurrence

6.11.2.2.4.5 Cultural Context

A brief overview of the Project’s cultural history provides an understanding of past lifeways in the Project Area. The archaeological overview discusses previous investigations that have defined the temporal-cultural divisions of prehistoric occupation in the area. A historic context is provided with specific details about historic-era activities in the Project Area. Understanding the cultural history is critical to interpreting the significance of prehistoric and historic-era sites with regard to their roles in local, state, and/or regional trends or patterns, and ultimately their eligibility for listing on the NRHP.

Prehistoric Archaeological Overview

Geographically, the Project is located near the juncture of the northern Sierra Nevada and the southern Cascade Range. Until recently, archaeological investigations within the Project Area were few and the area’s prehistory poorly understood, relying heavily on the temporal-cultural sequences developed in neighboring locations. Recent studies, as discussed below (cf Beville et al. 2005; Dougherty 2005; Moore 2002, 2005), reveal details about prehistoric human occupation in the Project Area and surrounding vicinity. Most of these sites have been characterized by traits defined within the Eastern Sierra Front sequence for the northern Sierra Nevada. To a lesser degree, some local sites also have been investigated in terms of the southern Cascade cultural sequences. Both cultural-temporal sequences are discussed below.

Northern Sierra Nevada

Development of the prehistoric chronology for the Eastern Sierra Front began more than 50 years ago when R. F. Heizer and A.B. Elsasser (1953) defined the Martis Complex and the Kings Beach Complex from investigations in the Lake Tahoe area (Moratto 1999:82). They suggested that the Martis Complex, identified from surface remains at site CA-PLA-5 in the Martis Valley, dated from 4000 to 2000 years ago, and defined the complex based on the dominate use of basalt over other lithic sources, the use of manos and metates, large, crudely shaped projectile points; atlatl weights, bowl mortars and cylindrical pestles, and abundant flake scrapers. They further suggested that the Martis Complex cultural assemblage revealed the exploitation of floral and faunal resources. Conversely, the Kings Beach Complex was defined by Heizer and Elsasser (1953) by the abundance of non-basalt lithic sources, primarily obsidian and chert, the use of small projectile points with the inferred use of the bow and arrow, and the use of bedrock mortars (BRMs). They dated the Kings Beach Complex to after A.D. 1000, suggesting that it extended to the time of historic contact and the ethnographic culture of the Washoe Indians. They further argued that the cultural remains of the Kings Beach Complex demonstrated reliance on fishing, plant gathering and harvesting, and to a lesser amount, hunting (Moratto 1999:82).

Archaeological investigations throughout the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Elsasser 1960; Elston 1971; Payen and Olsen 1969) expanded on Heizer and Elsasser’s work. Elsasser (1960:19) identified seven phases of occupation that extended throughout the Holocene, demonstrating the longest cultural sequence identified for the Sierra Nevada and it’s importance in correlating with the paleoenvironmental record (Moratto 1999:82),. Following Elsasser’s work, Elston (Elston 1971; Elston et al. 1994; IMR 1995) sought to determine the relationship between the Martis Complex, the

Kings Beach Complex, and the ethnographic Washoe, eventually proposing a revised and expanded cultural sequence (Moratto 1999:82), as shown in Table E6.11.2.2-3.

Table E6.11.2.2-3. Prehistoric Chronology of the Eastern Sierra Front. Adaptive Strategy Phase Age (Years B.P.) Diagnostic Artifacts Late Kings Beach 150-700 Desert Series Points Rosegate and Gunther Series Late Archaic Early Kings Beach 700-1,300 points, seed hullers, M1a (Olivella) shell beads Martis Corner-notched, Elko Late Martis 1,300-3,000 Corner-notched, and Elko Eared Middle Archaic points Martis Contracting Stem and Early Martis 3,000-5,000 Steamboat points Early Archaic Spooner 5,000-8,000 Unknown Great Basin Stemmed Series Tahoe Reach 10,000-8,000 Pre-Archaic points Washoe Lake >10,000 Fluted points (After IMR 1995:Table 2).

The earliest phase of this sequence, the Washoe Lake Phase, has a projected date of between 11,500 and 10,000 B.P. Moratto (1999:83). It is characterized only by large, fluted projectile points, suggesting a small, highly mobile population. The Tahoe Reach Phase provides a regional comparison with the Western Stemmed Complex of the Great Basin, dating from 10,000 and 8000 to 7500 B.P. This phase is defined by large, stemmed, edge-ground, isolated, basalt projectile points. IMR (1995:14-15) suggests this may indicate a highly mobile people or, as Moratto (1999:83) suggests, an initial occupation of the area following Sierran glacial retreats. The Spooner Phase, extending from about 7000 to 4000 B.P., represents an interval of prehistory that is poorly understood because it lacks clear, distinct, diagnostic evidence. Moratto (1999:84) suggests this is due either to a paucity of time-sensitive remains or to low human population, and notes that “Elston et al. (1994) suggested that the temporal range of the still hypothetical Spooner Phase be revised to coincide with our lack of archaeological knowledge between 8000-5000 B.P. (IMR 1995:15).”

Elston et al. (1994) divided the Martis Complex into Early Martis (5000-3000 B.P.) and Late Martis (3000-1300 B.P.), corresponding to the Middle Archaic adaptive strategy of the Great Basin when the archaeological record demonstrates a dramatic increase in human activity (Moratto 1999:84). Early Martis sites are defined by Martis Split Stem, Martis Contracting Stem, and Steamboat Leaf Shaped projectile points manufactured primarily of basalt. Late Martis sites are characterized by Martis and Elko Corner-notched and Elko Eared projectile points.

Paleoenvironmental evidence indicates the Lake Tahoe area suffered severe droughts around 1000- 900 years ago and 600-500 years ago, which appear to have given rise to the Late Archaic adaptive strategies evident in the Kings Beach Phases. The Early Kings Beach Phase (1300-700 B.P.) represents the beginning of this era, as evinced by the use of the bow and arrow, increased used of chert toolstone, smaller tools, shallow bedrock mortars, possible reduction in house size, and the introduction of flat, stone hullers for cracking nuts (Moratto 1999:85). Projectile point styles are represented by the Rosegate and Gunther series, and winter base camps appear in previously unoccupied locations or in areas previously reserved as field camps. Elston (1971) suggested that the Early Kings Beach Phase provides evidence of the early Washoe. The Late Kings Beach Phase (ca. A.D. 1250-historic contact) is defined by temporary or seasonal camps ascribed to the late prehistoric Washoe (Moratto 1999:85). These camps provide evidence of hunting and fishing by

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-21 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 small groups and are defined by Desert Series projectile points, chert cores, small, flaked chert tools, and some millingstones.

Moratto (1999:86) suggests that comparisons between the neighboring Great Basin and Tahoe Reach projectile point styles demonstrates the long term influence of Great Basin culture on the Tahoe Basin and that, with the exception of the Late Kings Beach Phase, the cultural sequence of the Sierran Front reflects adaptations to the eastern front and high country throughout the early and middle Holocene. Human adaptive strategies during these times were strongly connected to, and influenced by, paleoenvironmental conditions (Elston et al. 1977).

Southern Cascade Range

Based on excavations in the early 1950s at Kingsley Cave (CA-TEH-1) and Payne Cave (CA- TEH-193) in Tehama County, Baumhoff (1955; 1957) made the initial attempt to develop a temporal-cultural sequence for the southern Cascade Range. He divided the sequence into the Kingsley (pre-ethnographic Yana) and Mill Creek (ethnographic Yana) complexes.

The Kingsley Complex was generally defined by the equal use of basalt and obsidian toolstone. Projectile points included large, crude, side-notched or square-stemmed projectile points. Thumbnail scrapers, manos, metates, hopper mortars, pestles, bone artifacts and oblong Haliotis ornaments, and flexed burials with rock cairns rounded out the assemblage (Beville et al. 2005:18). The Kingsley Complex was believed to correlate to the Martis Complex (Heizer and Elsasser 1953).

The Mill Creek Complex was defined by the dominance of obsidian and chert over basalt toolstone. Projectile points included Desert Side-notched; small, deeply serrated corner-notched, and tapering stem projectile points. Manos, metates, hopper mortars, pestles, clamshell disk beads, and flexed burials further defined this complex. Beville et al. (2995:18) note that the Mill Creek Complex also includes a proto-historic component distinguished by Euro-American artifacts.

Following Baumhoff’s work, field schools from the University of California, Davis and Califor- nia State University, Sacramento conducted numerous investigations that provided an abundance of data and lead to the expansion of Baumhoff’s two-part sequence (Beville et al. 2005:18). Using this data, Johnson (n.d.) proposed a five phase temporal sequence comprised of the Deadman, Kingsley, Dye Creek, Mill Creek, and Ethnographic Yana complexes (Hamusek 1996:17).

The Deadman Complex (1500 B.C.-500 B.C.) includes the dominant use of basalt over obsidian and chert. Projectile points include side-notched varieties; large, unifacially-flaked leaf-shaped forms, and large stemmed points. Ground stone is limited to manos and metates. Shell artifacts include disk-shaped Haliotis shell beads, large triangular pendants, and scoop Olivella shell beads (Beville et al. 2005:19). Refinement of the Kingsley Complex (500 B.C.- A.D. 500) shows a reliance on basalt for the manufacture of projectile points. Point styles include large, stemmed and corner-notched specimens. During this time, shaped, rectangular manos; slab metates, hopper mortars, flat-ended pestles, and spatulate bone tools were used (Beville et al.

2005:19). Shell artifacts are represented by scoop Olivella shell beads and flat Haliotis disk beads. The use of multi-family structures, tightly-flexed burials, and some graves with rock cairns, appear at this time.

The Dye Creek Complex (A.D. 500 - A.D. 1500) is defined by medium-to-large size serrated projectile points, as well as other types morphologically similar to Columbia Plateau corner-notched and Gunther Barbed series styles (Beville et al. 2005:19; Hamusek 2006:18). This complex is differentiated from earlier ones in that obsidian is the predominant toolstone of choice. Other time markers include rectangular and barrel shaped Olivella shell beads, circular Haliotis ornaments, perforated freshwater clamshell ornaments, deer ulna bone artifacts, slab metates, manos, hopper mortars, flat-ended pestles, and tightly-flexed burials.

The Mill Creek Complex (A.D. 1500 - A.D. 1845) includes the continued use of obsidian over other toolstone; Southern Cascade serrated, small triangular, and Desert Side-notched series projectile points; and hopper mortars, flat-ended pestles, slab metates, and manos. The presence of shell beads and ornaments decreases during this time, but included medium-sized clamshell disk beads, Glycymeri shell beads, and magnesite cylinders. Twined basketry appears for the first time, rock ring features were constructed, and the use of single-family dwellings and earth-covered ceremonial or communal structures appear (Beville et al. 2005:19).

The Proto-Historic-Ethnographic Yana Complex (A.D. 1845 to A.D. 1911) is assigned to the period of time during which the Yana lived in the foothill canyons to escape extermination by Euro-Americans (Beville et al. 2005:20). As a result, the material culture from this era is a mixture of both Native American and Euro-American items. Obsidian remained the preferred toolstone. Projectile points include Southern Cascade serrated, Desert Side-notched, and small triangular specimens. Hopper mortars, flat-ended pestles, slab metates, and manos were still used. Assemblages from this time also includes pine nut beads, whole Haliotis shells, clam shell disk beads; whole, spire-lopped Olivella shell beads , and Glycymeris and Dentalia shell beads, in additional to magnesite cylinders, wooden tubular pipes, twined basketry, tule skirts, and various other items made from plants and animal skins. Items characteristic of Euro-American influence include glass trade beads, metal, buttons, needles, nails, and cloth (Beville et al. 2005:20). Structures were either single-family or larger communal or ceremonial structures. Pitted boulder petroglyphs enter the assemblage as well.

Recent Archaeological Investigations in the Project Vicinity

Recent investigations by LNF in the immediate and surrounding Project Area have begun to shed light on local prehistoric temporal-cultural sequences. Moore (2002) conducted test excavations at CA-BUT-601, a temporary camp and basalt quarry he classified as a Martis site based on the recovery of Elko and Martis series projectile points, obsidian hydration data, the dominate use of basalt toolstone, and an artifact assemblage comparable to other Martis sites identified in the area. Subsequent test excavations by Moore (2005) revealed three periods of occupation at prehistoric site CA-BUT-723, the earliest representing Martis adaptive patterns. The two later periods were dated to post A.D. 800 and the historic-era. Importantly, Moore’s work not only sought to refine the local cultural sequence, specifically with regards to the Martis Complex, but also to explore and define

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-23 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 the use of local basalt sources by the prehistoric inhabitants. Through the same chemical analysis used to source obsidian, the locations of local quarries and other basalt sources are being identified.

Dougherty (Dougherty and Compas 2003) evaluated prehistoric artifact collections recovered by LNF from six archaeological sites in the Project vicinity. He compared the collections to the cultural sequence for the southern Cascades. He concluded that there was insufficient data to interpret the sites, but overall, the sites appeared to date from the Middle to early Late Archaic, with little evidence to support a Late Archaic occupation. He based his analysis on projectile point styles and identified an apparent conflict in the data when he attempted to cross-date the sites using the projectile point typologies with obsidian hydration data. The results of other investigations in the Project vicinity (cf Beville et al. 2005; Moore 2002, 2005) have relied more on the northern Sierra cultural sequence, with some comparisons to the southern Cascade sequence. The conflict encountered by Dougherty may reflect occupation by northern Sierra groups at his study sites rather than people of the southern Cascade.

Beville et al. (2005) completed test excavations at seven archaeological sites near the Project Area. They compared the recovered materials to the cultural sequences of both the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade. Although their analysis includes discussions of artifacts associated with both cultural sequences, their overall study relies most heavily on the northern Sierra sequence. Chronological placement of the sites was determined by radiocarbon dating, projectile point typologies, obsidian hydration analysis, and other time-sensitive artifacts. They identified wide stem projectile points at two sites, representing Middle Archaic Period occupations; evidence for Late Martis Phase (3000 – 1300 B.P.) occupation at six sites containing Martis, Elko, and Southern Cascade Side-notched series projectile points; and Rosegate, Gunther, and Southern Cascade Corner-notched forms representing the Early Kings Beach Phase at two sites. Beville et al. (2005) did not encounter Late Kings Beach Phase cultural materials. Similar to Moore (2002, 2005), Beville et al. (2005) also submitted basalt samples for sourcing, which identified local basalt quarries as the source of basalt at these sites. Moreover, two of the sites proved to be the basalt quarries from where site materials were obtained.

Historic Context

Introduction

Euro-American pioneers first began to settle in the Project vicinity in the 1840s. Influences of the Euro-American lifestyle and technological ventures forever altered the Project landscape as ranching, mining, lumber, transportation, hydroelectric power, turpentine production, organized forestry, and recreation were introduced. Such interests continued for extensive periods of time, with some still actively pursued today. The commodities and benefits gained from these activities are both physically and economically diverse. Nevertheless, they all share one common denominator—to a great extent, most of these pursuits depend on the waters of Butte Creek, the West Branch Feather River, and their various tributaries, as discussed below.

Before miners began flooding into California in the late 1840s, settlers trickled into the state earlier in the decade while it was still a province of Mexico. At the time, the Mexican

government encouraged immigration as a way to settle the then remote regions of the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. In 1841, John Bidwell and John Bartleson led the first pioneer drive to California (Nunis 1998). As part of its policy to develop the hinterlands of California, the Mexican authorities granted large tracts of land to émigrés from the United States or Europe. In 1844, William Dickey and Edward Farwell acquired a grant that included the Butte Creek drainage; five years later, Bidwell purchased this land and incorporated it into his extensive Rancho del Arroyo Chico (CSUC 1998:135). At the time, ranching was California’s dominant industry, and it is possible that the cattlemen used the study area as pasture during the spring and summer months.

The available archival sources do not indicate any Euro-American settlement in the study area before 1848, the year gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill. However, once the news of gold reached the outside world, the formerly peaceful canyons were filled with the clang of the miner’s pick. Bidwell’s mining endeavors apparently did not make use of the waterways in the project Area, although he did find rich deposits on the South Fork of the Feather River at Bidwell’s Bar (Holiday 1999:68). However, others ventured up Butte Creek and the West Branch Feather River, and by early 1853 several communities had been established around the study area, including Helltown, Centerville, Toadtown, Lovelock, Coutolenc, Magalia (Dogtown), and Powellton. Additionally, the Humbug Summit Road also was built in 1853 and extended from Oroville through Dogtown and Inskip to Honey Lake to provide easy access through the Sierra Nevada to the gold fields of California and Idaho (Beville et al. 2003:102; Moore 2005:9).

Mining methods quickly evolved to increase the yield of gold from stream beds. The pan was replaced by the rocker, which in turn was supplanted by the Long Tom and the sluice box. The surrounding conifer forests provided the building materials for these wooden troughs, and in short time a milling industry had emerged to service the needs of the miners and their budding towns. As many as 14 sawmills were operating in Butte Creek Canyon in the 1860s and 1870s, including John Hupp’s mill located at the north end of Lake DeSabla (Maniery et al. 1985:3-18). In 1874, the Sierra Lumber Company built a 33-mile flume down Chico Creek Canyon to deliver lumber to Chico (CSUC 1998:136).

Flumes, as well as earthen canals, were constructed in the study area. Initially, their purpose was to convey water to mining operations. However, many of these features were later obtained for hydroelectric generation and incorporated into the DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric system. The need for greater volumes of water grew as hydraulic mining became more prevalent. Three main canal systems that comprise the water conveyance network in Butte Creek Canyon were built between the 1850s and 1870: the Hendricks Canal, which carries water from the West Branch Feather River to Butte Creek; the Centerville Canal, which combines the Hupp and Bostwick canals; and the Cherokee Ditch, which later become known as the Butte Creek Canal (Maniery et al. 1985; PAS 1988). In 1877 the Cherokee Mining Company damned the West Branch Feather River to create a small reservoir in Round Valley (Butler 1962). Stage stops, including Centerville, Powellton, Nimshew, and Lovelock, grew quickly to support the miners, ranchers, and homesteaders flooding the region. By the 1880s, the river courses throughout the Project vicinity and beyond were choked by the gravel and other by-products of hydraulic mining, and gold was becoming scarce. Small operations at Toadtown, Lovelock, and

Centerville continued through the 1890s (Maniery et al. 1985). However, the 1893 Caminetti Act and subsequent litigation eventually brought an end to hydraulic mining.

The Centerville and DeSabla powerhouses were completed in 1900 and 1903, respectively; before the end of the decade, the Hendricks, Butte Creek, and Centerville canals had been co- opted to convey water to these plants. The lumber industry continued as an important part of the local economy. In 1903 the Diamond Match Company built a steam-powered mill in Stirling City to process the harvest from the company’s large timber holdings. The mill was linked to Chico by the Butte County Railroad.

In addition to the canals, flumes, and other conduits used to transport water from one place to another, water management using the storage of run-off also became important. As the demand for water increased, additional reservoirs were constructed to ensure that a constant flow of water was available from season to season and year to year. In 1926, the Philbrook Dam and Reservoir were constructed to increase the output of the Centerville and DeSabla powerhouses. A dam had been built previously on Philbrook Creek in 1908 but failed the following year (Colby and McDonald 2005:76). The Project Area has also grown popular with valley residents. Aside from impounding water for hydroelectric purposes, Philbrook Reservoir and Round Valley Reservoir (Snag Lake) have become favorite recreational areas for the residents of the Upper Sacramento Valley. PG&E began leasing lots to the public around Philbrook Reservoir possibly as early as the 1930s, with the height of private construction and use by the 1940s to 1950s (Colby and McDonald 2005:76).

For a short period of time during the 1860s, the Dogtown area was tapped for its turpentine resources in support of the Civil War. Pitch from Ponderosa pines was extracted and processed and the resulting turpentine used by the navy’s ships. At the war’s end, turpentine continued to be produced locally for the production of bitters (Moore 2005:9).

The massive depletion of timber resources in the west during the late nineteenth century goaded Congress to pass legislation to reduce timber exploitation. In response, the state created the California State Board of Forestry in 1885 to address education and research for proper timber management (Godfrey 2005:21). In 1891, Congress approved the Forest Reserve Act (Section 24 of the General Revisions Act) which gave the U.S. President the power to establish forest reserves. Lassen Forest was established 1905.

The following discussions provide details of local history as they relate specifically to these trends. An overview of hydroelectric development and use in the APE is provided below. A detailed history of the Project’s development is included in Section 6.11.2.4.5 (Historic Context for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System).

Ranching

Although trappers from the Hudson’s Bay Company were hunting along the rivers of Butte County by 1829 (Chavez 1980:11), ranching appears to be the first Euro-American activity to occur with any consistency within the Project Area. Following the age-old pastoralist cycle, sheep and cattle would graze in the lowlands during the spring. As the vernal growth began

drying-up under the Central Valley summer sun, the animals were herded to the foothills and highlands where grasses were still plentiful. With the arrival of fall, herds and flocks were led back to the valley were they spent the winter. A map of Bidwell’s Rancho de Arroyo Chico, although far from precise, suggests that the study area lay in the eastern part of this vast land holding, and it is certainly possible that his predominantly Native American labor force drove cattle up Butte Creek Canyon and along the West Branch Feather River.

The gold rush and the resulting increase in California’s population pulled at every corner of the region’s economy, including the ranching industry. The demand for beef sent the price of cattle soaring from $2 per head in pre-boom times to as high as $300 in 1849 (Holiday 1999:167-169). Even in 1853, cattle remained an expensive commodity, selling for between $20 and $50 per head. In the Project Area, the development of roads not only improved access to the mines but also facilitated the stockmen’s annual trek up and down the Butte County highlands. Photographs of Magalia show an immense flock of sheep crowding along Neal Road on its way to summer pastures (Colby and McDonald 2005:17, 28). The road followed the path laid out by Samuel Neal in the 1850s to move cattle throughout the year (Estep 1969:35). The town of Powellton, established by R. P. Powel in 1853, sat at the junction of the roads from Oroville and Chico; it was an important stage stop. Thousands of head of livestock, some from as far north as Modoc County or southern Oregon, passed through the town each spring and fall (Chavez 1980:15; Miller 1969).

In a 1973 interview, local resident Ralph Hupp, born in 1889, recalled his experiences of driving cattle along Humbug Road:

When I was a boy, they used to bring the cattle by every year. [The rancher] had barns and a place there—corrals to put his cattle in overnight on his way [to the high county] so they wouldn’t be out in the open—so they could keep tract of them [Hupp 1973:8].

Interestingly, Hupp added that rangeland covered much of the area around Inskip, which was heavily forested at the time of the interview. He explained that the rancher follows a cycle of burning off vegetation in October to encourage thick growth in the spring, which is browsed on by the cattle.

The namesake of Philbrook Valley, Alonzo Philbrook, may have begun grazing his cattle in the area as early as 1857. Christopher Lynch established a summer camp there in 1877, with ranching continuing in the Philbrook drainage into the twentieth century (Colby and McDonald 2005:76; Jones 1984).

Grazing has also been allowed in the Lassen National Forest since its inception.

Grazing is the oldest and best-established use of national forest areas. Until the 1920s, grazing fees were the largest source of income from all national forest system lands. Stockmen were a potent political force in the West and exerted their power whenever the USFS threatened to raise grazing fees or cut back on overgrazing [Roth 1995:9].

Mining

Located at the northernmost part of the Mother Lode, the diggings around the Project vicinity were not exceptional in terms of the volume of gold extracted, particularly compared with Bidwell’s Bar or the other claims farther south. Nevertheless, by 1859 over 70 mines in the Paradise-Magalia area alone had yielded at least $50 million in gold (Chavez 1980:12). It is also notable that the first large gold nugget in California—“The Dogtown Nugget” which weighed 54 pounds—was found near Magalia (Dogtown) in 1859; California Historical Landmark No. 771 marks the site of this discovery on Willard Claim, located northeast of the town on the West Branch Feather River (Colby and McDonald 2005:10).

The popular icon of the Gold Rush has been the solitary 49er with his pan and pick, but in fact most gold mining ventures were cooperative efforts requiring technical know-how, construction of elaborate flumes and other structures, and, in some cases, considerable financial capital. In the early part of the gold boom, claims were staked along existing water courses. In one sense, water from the river was the necessary agent that separated the tailings from the precious ore, yet on the other hand, the same water ran between the miner and gold-bearing stream bed below.

Looking at the rushing, tumbling waters flowing from the Sierra Nevada, peering into the deep green pools of quiet water below granite boulders, many of them imagined the gold that must have washed down through thousands of years to accumulate in submerged deposits… And all of it still untouched, waiting for those with the cunning and the will to accept the river’s challenge [Holiday 1999:144].

The “challenge” here referred to diverting the flow of the river into a wooden flume so that the river bed would be exposed and mined to its fullest extent. Although the Bon Ami Mine, located on Butte Creek about 4 miles upstream from the DeSabla Powerhouse, was worked in 1897 or 1898, it was similar to earlier operations from the 1850s. In the spring when the river level was still high, the miner began constructing the flume measuring several hundred feet; a dam channeled the creek into the flume, which flared out at the head to facilitate the inflow of water (Butler 1969:5-7). With the arrival of summer, the creek subsided leaving the stream bed dry. A water wheel was installed to run pumps for clearing the remaining stream pools and power derricks for lifting gravel and moving boulders. In these cases, the miners had only a few months to extract the gold from the bed, since the first heavy rains of September usually raised the river level and washed away the flume and other machinery. In other cases, like the McLaughlin Golden Feather claim along the Feather River, the prospectors built more permanent structures to divert the flow of water throughout the year, although such projects required a larger capital investment and were more costly to operate.

In due time, miners realized that gold lay not only in existing stream beds but in ancient channels as well. The Sierra Nevada is a relatively young range prone to eruptions and other mountain building events. Albright (1992:5) explains that mud and “subsequent lava flows covered the ancient river and stream channels…[where] the majority of the gold was found.” The Project vicinity is cross-cut by several of these ancient river courses. Located near the DeSabla plant, the Indian Springs mine lies near the confluence of the Emma and Indian Springs channels;

while farther downstream, the Oro Fino Mine sits at the junction of the Emma and Nugget channels (Albright 1992:8). The dominant course in the region is the Magalia Channel, a 15 mile corridor that passes through or near the towns of Centerville, Magalia, and Stirling City (State of California 1949).

To access the gold-laden sediments, the miners again relied on the power of water to blast away the overlying basalt layer. Hydraulic mining began along Paradise Ridge in 1852, and many claims in the study vicinity are associated with this type of mining (Albright 1992). The method involved the transportation of water far from its source and in sufficient volume to create the pressure needed to operate the monitor nozzles, which were capable of washing away an entire hillside. During the initial stages of the gold rush, the appropriation of water rights was similar to documenting a mining claim. One simply filed a claim for a specified amount of water with the county recorder in Oroville; his right to draw from the designated water course was maintained through continual use (PAS 1988:28).

In 1854, W. C. Hendricks and others posted a claim on Little Butte Creek (Butler 1962:3-5). Fifteen years later, he filed another claim on the West Branch Feather River with the intent to channel water from both courses to his mining operations at Morris Ravine. The Hendricks Ditch began at its head gate, Meacham’s Dam, on the West Branch Feather River. Through a series of ditches, flumes, pipes, and natural stream courses, the water was delivered some 35 miles to Hendrick’s diggings located about 3 miles north of Oroville (State of California 1949). In some segments that traversed steep ravines, the rocky slope of the mountain combined with a stone wall to form the sides of the ditch’s channel (McDonald 1995:18). In 1871, while still under construction, the canal was considered “the largest ditch in the State,” measuring 6 feet wide at its base, 8 feet wide at the crest, and 2 feet deep (Butler 1962:4). Built between 1870 and 1872, its construction employed approximately 400 men, who were stationed at three camps: Camp No. 1 was in a small valley 2 miles below Magalia; Camp No. 2 was 4.5 miles above Magalia; a third group was equipped with movable equipment to change location as needed. The upper portion of the canal—from its head on the West Branch Feather River to the junction with Butte Creek Canal—is still in use and was connected with the smaller Toadtown Canal when PG&E acquired the water rights and is still in use; the lower reaches of the Hendricks Ditch have been abandoned.

Sometime in the 1850s, another mining canal commenced bringing water from a point on Butte Creek downstream to Helltown. This ditch—referred to as the “Moss & Co. Ditch” on a 1867 GLO map—was the initial leg of what would become the Centerville Canal (Maniery et al. 1985:3-22). The water rights passed to several owners, including the Bostwick Gold Mining Company and John Hupp, who operated the Red Gravel Mining Company near the town of Centerville (Maniery et al. 1985; PAS 1988). In the late 1890s, the Butte County Electric Power and Lighting Company eventually acquired the ditch to supply the water for its Centerville plant. PG&E later expanded the system, which currently consists of the Upper and Lower Centerville canals.

The Cherokee Mining Company tapped the waters of both Butte Creek and the West Branch Feather River. In 1873, the company acquired the rights to the Dewey and Miners ditches, which diverted water from the West Branch just below Round Valley (Butler 1962; State Mining

Bureau 1904). The two canals were combined above Inskip and channeled southward to the mining claims. In 1877 the company built a reservoir (Snag Lake) in Round Valley, which could store up to 880 acre feet (Bulter 1962). Another ditch begins at its head on Butte Creek, near its confluence with Inskip Creek, and flows southward along the east shoulder of Butte Creek Canyon. This latter canal came to be called the Butte Creek Canal, which feeds water to the DeSabla Powerhouse.

In referring to the powerful effects of hydraulic mining, Hupp once quipped that “[I] do not care a damn whether the claim pays or not; it is fun to watch the huge boulders leap from their beds and go rolling, tumbling, crashing down into the ravine below (Colby and McDonald 2005:62).” In fact its environmental impacts were devastating to the agricultural communities downstream. Hydraulic mining effectively ended with the 1893 Caminetti Act, which prohibited the disposal of mining tailings into river courses. Other methods continued, including dredge mining, which employed barges with large buckets to scoop gravel, extract gold, and return it to the stream (CSUC 1998:140). Shafts also were sunk into the ground to locate and mine the gold-bearing ore. Victor Poumarat owned a quartz mine near Toadtown. The property—which included a ball mill, hoist works and shaft—was purchased by Joseph Richards and later by the Toadtown Mining Company.

Lumber

The California lumber industry arose as a direct result of the demands for building materials created by the gold rush. The Sierra Nevada forests stocked a seemingly inexhaustible quantity of timber, but it took several years until supply could eventually catch up with demand. In 1853, lumber sold for $650 per thousand board feet, an exorbitant price compared with the rest of the county (Holiday 1999:163).

Built in 1853, the Folck Mill on Little Butte Creek near Magalia (Dogtown) was one of the first mills in the Project vicinity (Colby 1999:21). The 1862 Official Map of Butte County depicts five mills—the Doe’s, Kinson’s, Hupp’s, Taggards, and Lovelock’s—in or around the south part of the study area. Maniery et al. (1985:3-18) noted that 14 saw mills operated in Butte Canyon Creek in the 1860s and 1870s.

As mentioned above, John Hupp mined gold in the region, but he was first and foremost a lumber man. Hupp initially set up his saw mill near Mosquito Creek, 2 miles south of the Lovelock Store as shown on the 1862 county map. He acquired a property along Humbug Road near the Forks of Butte in 1859 and, sometime afterward, relocated his business there. As described by Colby and McDonald (2005), the Hupp homestead was a community unto itself.

The complex included a boardinghouse for the workmen, a bar, a store from which all manner of supplies were sold, and for nearly three years, 1909–1911, a post office. Gardens and orchards produced much of the food, and dairy cows provided the milk and cream. Mrs. Hupp had her own section of the house to which she could retire with her children from the noisy crowd of workmen [Colby and McDonald 2005:62].

A map of the Hupp property (circa 1890) in Maniery et al. (1985:Figure 3.3) bears out this complex, which also included a lumber car track with turntable, corrals, an alfalfa field, and a granary. In addition, the Cherokee Ditch (the Butte Creek Canal) flowed just west of the Hupp property.

In both indirect and obvious ways, the stream engine was also associated with the growth of the lumber industry in the Project Area. In the 1860s, the federal government granted to the Central Pacific Railroad (later consolidated as the Southern Pacific Railroad) alternating sections of land as an incentive for the completion of the transcontinental railroad (McDonald 1999:3). These tracts were later purchased by lumber concerns. In the early days of the gold rush, timber was hauled via teams of oxen and cut manually by whipsaw. In 1863, Hupp set up the first steam- powered mill in the area (Miller 1969:86). Steam-driven saws greatly increased the output of board produced by the mills, and in time the new engines were applied in almost every operational aspect of the lumber industry.

In 1903 the Diamond Match Company completed construction of a sawmill in what shortly became Stirling City. A contemporary article described the state-of-the-art facility as “the largest and best equipped saw-mill plant in California” (Adams 1912:408). The unloading, cutting, and movement of timber within the mill was accomplished by an integrated system of pulleys, conveyor belts, and saws—all powered by steam from five large boilers. The Butte County Railroad, which began operations in 1904, was established explicitly for the purpose of hauling cut lumber from the mill to the planning and finishing plant in Chico. The 30-mile line offered passenger service between Stirling City and Chico with stops at Paradise, Magalia, and other towns in between; in 1907, it was purchased by the Southern Pacific Railroad (Chavez 1980; Maniery et al. 1985).

The Diamond Match Company additionally relied on steam engines to harvest and transport trees from their more than 160,000 acres of timberland (Colby and McDonald 2005:77). In the forest, a tree would be felled, tied with a steel cable, and pulled to a central point via a steam donkey. The logs would then be directly loaded onto a rail car or, if located on a high ridge, sent down a lumber chute to the loading area. The company maintained a standard-gauge logging rail system that extended from the Stirling Mill to tracts as far north as Deer Creek (Colby and McDonald 2005:102). In 1927, the company built a double incline rail line through Butte Creek Canyon, which crossed the stream about 1 mile northwest of Powellton. One of the main features of the Diamond Match operations was its mobility. The concept of a portable mill was not a new one, as Hupp’s sawmill was equipped to move from place to place, but the company fully expanded on this capability. In addition to their equipment, bunkhouses, offices, and other buildings could be readily loaded onto cars and railed to the distribution points in the company’s logging network; the base of each structure was fitted with skids so it could be dragged to more remote locations by a steam donkey engine (Colby and McDonald 2005:80).

The use of logging railroads continued until 1953 when transportation by truck, which began in 1939, became a more affordable alternative (Colby and McDonald 2005). Some of the company railroad grades were converted to truck roads. The plant itself closed in 1956. The old Butte County Railroad was dismantled in the 1970s, and portions of this grade were incorporated into the Skyway.

Transportation

Early explorers used Native American trails and unblazed routes to traverse the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range. However, it was the Gold Rush that attracted the first large numbers of travelers into the Project Area. Humbug Summit Road, in the northern portion of the Project, was constructed in 1853 to lure prospectors traveling the Immigrant Trail to the gold fields of Oroville (Moore 2005:9). In 1858, the road was in turn used by prospectors on their way from California to Idaho to try their luck in the gold fields there. Improvements were made to the Humbug Route after the National Wagon Road Act of 1857 was approved and its funds appropriated.

Forest Management

Named for Mount Lassen, the Lassen Peak Forest Reserve was proclaimed in 1905 and renamed in 1908 as the Lassen National Forest. (Godfrey 2005:64, 88). It originally encompassed 897,115 acres compared with the 1.2 million acres managed by LNF today. In March of 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pitched to Congress the idea of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) that would provide work within the forests for unemployed men suffering the demises of the Great Depression. Ten days later, Congress approved a bill to create the CCC, initially called the Emergency Conservation Work (Godfrey 2005:239). A total of 165 CCC camps were selected throughout California forests, but were reduced to 135 in 1933 due to a shortage of men. Lassen National Forest was selected as one of the camp sites. The CCC provided labor for water development, range, and other forest projects. In the 1940s, after the CCC camps had been abandoned, the same camps were reestablished throughout California forests to house conscientious objectors of World War II who had been assigned to “non-combative” service on the forests (Godfrey 2005:318). Additionally, camps also were established on Lassen and other California forests in 1934 as part of a new USFS program to encourage tree reproduction, improve growing conditions, and ultimately increase timber sales (Godfrey 2005:260-261).

Turpentine Production

During the 1860s, South Carolina succeeded from the Union. South Carolina had supplied the turpentine used by navy ships during the Civil War (Compas 2003:10; Moore 2005:9). After the state’s succession, Dogtown Ridge became the heart of the turpentine industry in California (Compas 2003:10). When the war ended, local turpentine was used in the production of bitters. In 1900, a man named Bob Foster oversaw the local turpentine production. His venture was headquartered in Coon Hollow (Moore 1999: 2; 2005:9).

Hydroelectric Generation

The national forests have historically managed a myriad of natural resources, including water power. In 1930, LNF and several other California forests were considered important hydroelectric power locations with at least three federal operating licenses in place under the 1920 Water Power Act (Godfrey 2005:24). By 1931, hydroelectric systems on these forests were

generating 72 percent of California’s energy, and 18 percent of the energy generated throughout the United States.

Hydroelectric development specific to LNF began in the latter part of the 1800s. The end of large-scale hydraulic mining meant the acquisition of local abandoned mining ditches and flumes for the DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric Project. The Miners, Dewey and Inskip ditches were all acquired to transport water from Round Valley Reservoir to the Toadtown Ditch. In addition to the main Project features (i.e., powerhouses, dams, reservoirs, etc.), PG&E construction camps also were built to house workers constructing new system features or performing repairs and maintenance on existing features. Eventually, PG&E consolidated the workers from numerous small camps throughout the Project system to a base camp (Camp 1) at DeSabla from which workers commuted to the Project each work day. Camps or individual residences also were built for the ditch and lake tenders in close proximity to the feature(s) under their care.

Maniery et al. (1985) evaluated the Centerville portion of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System as a district, eligible for listing on the NRHP. It is a mixture of historic architectural features and archaeological sites. They found the powerhouse, Francis turbine and associated equipment, and supporting features to be a discrete complex of sites that possess significance. The DeSabla portion of the hydroelectric system was not within their Project Area and not evaluated as a result.

Details regarding the criteria for districts, Maniery et al.’s (1985) evaluation, and the current evaluation of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project are provide in Section 6.11.2.4.5 (Results).

Recreation

During the days of the gold rush, travelers to the study area had no trouble finding accommodations. Hotels, saloons, and general merchandise stores could be found in Magalia (Dogtown), Powellton, Lovelock, Coutelenc, and other towns in the vicinity (McDonald 1995). The Hooper Hotel in Centerville not only put up guests for the night but also served as the community meeting place (Butte County Historical Society 1994). In the high county, there were rest stops along Humbug Road, such as the Inskip Inn and the Chaparral House.

Since the first decade of the twentieth century, the northern portions of the study area—from Inskip to Round Valley Reservoir—have been under the jurisdiction of the Lassen National Forest. Among other objectives, the USFS has sought to promote hiking, fishing, and other recreational activities.

PG&E began leasing lots around Philbrook Reservoir possibly as early as the 1930s. The high point for construction of private cabins occurred between the 1940s and 1950s. Similar to other PG&E reservoirs, the area developed into a popular vacation spot for local and Central Valley residents (Colby and McDonald 2005:76). A compilation of interviews from long-time vacationers at Philbrook Reservoir recounts the different kinds of recreational activities, including fishing, camping, boating, water and snow skiing, and horseback riding (Joyce 1984).

6.11.2.2.4.6 NRHP Evaluations

The goal of the archaeological and historic-era study is to determine if continued operation and maintenance of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project as a result of a new license issuance may have an adverse effect on historic properties. Formal and informal evaluations of prehistoric and historic-era sites encountered in the APE will be utilized to develop appropriate protection, management, and/or mitigation measures. Where possible, NRHP eligibility assessments have been implemented without ground-disturbing archaeological test excavations. Where test excavations will be required to formally evaluate sites, informal evaluations are offered and the need for testing is noted. Some evaluations are based on whether or not a particular property contributes to a potential DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System district. A discussion of this potential district can be found in Section 6.11.2.4.5 below.

A point worth emphasizing is that National Register eligibility is being assessed and recommendations are being made, but eligibility is not being determined in this chapter. Æ offers professional evaluation recommendations which are subject to concurrence by the FERC, as lead agency responsible for the undertaking, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). If the SHPO and the lead agency agree that a property qualifies for the National Register, it is treated as such for the purposes of Section 106 compliance. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is notified after the lead agency, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined whether or not historic properties will be affected and whether adverse effects can be avoided or reduced.

Additionally, if a particular property is located on lands administered by a federal agency (i.e., BLM, USFS, etc.), those agencies must be given an opportunity to review the evaluation of that property prior to its submittal to the SHPO for concurrence. Accordingly, the present task is to render professional eligibility recommendations rather than administrative determinations, which are then used to seek concurrence from the SHPO. Any final NRHP determinations will be provided in the resulting Historic Properties Management Plan.

Of the 46 archaeological sites encountered in the Project APE, four are strictly associated with prehistoric occupation, nine contain both prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains, and 33 represent historic-era activities. These sites represent several themes in the prehistory and history of the American west. Prehistoric use of the Project Area focused on plant, animal, and stone procurement and processing. Historic-era activities included ranching, mining, logging, transportation, USFS land management, development and construction of hydroelectric systems and technology, turpentine production, and recreational use. Cultural contexts for the sites are presented in Section 6.11.2.2.5. Informal evaluations for prehistoric sites and sites with both prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains, and formal evaluations of sites containing only historic-era cultural deposits are provided in Section 6.11.2.2.6.

Criteria for Evaluation

The National Register eligibility criteria, as described in 36 CFR 60.4, state:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and

(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The NPS (Little et al. 2000) established guidelines for evaluating National Register eligibility. The basic steps in the evaluation process include:

• classifying the property as a district, site, building, structure, or object; • determining the theme, period, and context within which the property is significant; • determining which National Register significance criteria are applicable; • determining whether the property meets any exclusionary considerations; and • determining whether the property retains integrity (Little et al. 2000:3).

Significance

When a site is found to represent an important historical theme, it is evaluated on how well it exemplifies the theme based on the criteria of significance found in 36 CFR 60.4. A property must meet one of the four specific criteria to qualify as a good representative of a significant historical theme or pattern. It must be associated with important historical events or persons (Criteria A and B); convey important technical, aesthetic, or environmental values (Criterion C); or have potential to provide important scientific or scholarly information (Criterion D).

Associative values are identified within the context of local, regional, and national history. Historical research is required to evaluate significant historical associations under Criteria A, B, and C. All archaeological sites in the Project Area were evaluated under Criterion D, which requires specification in terms of a historical context and research design. The history of the Project Area is detailed in Section 6.11.2.2.5, and a research design for evaluating historic-era sites is presented in Section 6.11.2.2.6. Specific archaeological research domains and key

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-35 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 research questions are identified, and the data sources required to investigate those questions specified.

The NPS guidelines specify that “the passage of time is necessary in order to apply the adjective ‘historic’ and to ensure adequate perspective” (Sherfy and Luce 1996:1). NPS recommends that sites or resources must be at least 50 years old to be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Historical remains less than 50 years old must be of exceptional importance to be deemed significant.

For this project, the significance and National Register eligibility of each historic-era site has been assessed with reference to its known historical associations and the presence, quantity, configuration, and quality of data classes described in Section 6.11.2.2.6. Sites are evaluated by comparing their known or potential data classes with the research domains that could be addressed using those data. The evaluations are based on archival research and field observations.

To operationalize the National Register criteria and make them more applicable to the historic- era sites, research questions and data requirements outlined below are linked to the archaeological remains at a particular site via a set of detailed standards of assessment. For this project, eight specific standards are considered when appraising the data potentials of a historic- era site (Table E6.11.2.2-4). The standards are used to assess the adequacy of the association of each site and the nature and content of the archaeological remains, as well as the site’s interpretive potential. The results of the application of these standards guided the judgment for significance under Criterion D.

Generally, sites had to meet all standards to be considered eligible for the NRHP. That is, they had a combination of strong historical associations and well-preserved features that contained useful data that allowed meaningful interpretations. Sites whose features lacked integrity, or whose association was weak, were judged ineligible. Furthermore, artifact deposits had to have sufficient quantity, variety, and association of artifacts to meet the Criterion D threshold of significant data potential.

Table E6.11.2.2-4. Standards Considered for Assessing the Significance of Historic-Era Sites Using National Register Criterion D. Is the site associated with one of the key historical themes operating within the Project Area? Are there temporally discrete archaeological features or artifacts? Can research domains be applied to this site type? Are the data requirements for the assigned domain(s) present? Can the site be dated? Is the defined period at least 50 years in the past? Does the site have integrity? With the above standards taken into account, does the site have the quantity and variety of artifacts, as well as the association, necessary to meet the Criterion D threshold of data potential?

Integrity

To be eligible for the National Register, a site must meet the standards of significance and possess integrity. To possess integrity, the property must retain the physical characteristics it had in the past so it can convey its associations with historic themes, persons, designs, or technology.

Integrity consists of seven separate aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (36 CFR 60.4). Setting and location refer to the physical placement of the property and its relation to surrounding natural and cultural features. If these remain unaltered, then the property has integrity. Design refers to the form, structure, and spatial patterning of a property, and reflects cultural, functional, technological, aesthetic, and stylistic concerns. If these are the same as during the period of significance, the property has integrity.

Materials and workmanship are the physical elements making up the property, as well as the skills of the crafters and the quality of work done. The presence or absence of original materials determines the authenticity of the resource, while the workmanship furnishes evidence of the technology and aesthetic principles in use. In archaeological sites and other properties significant for their information potential, the pattern of deposited materials is the critical issue.

Features, artifacts, and relationships between them must remain sufficiently intact to yield the expected information.

Feeling is the quality a historic resource has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. To have integrity of feeling, a site’s physical characteristics must convey a sense of historical time and place consistent with the site’s relevant themes. Association gauges the connection between a historic property and the events or persons for which it is significant. “A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer (Little et al. 2000:45).

For archaeological sites, location and setting evince the patterns of cultural behavior in the past. If the property does not contain new elements recently moved to the site, or modern developments or intrusions, then it may be considered to have integrity of location and setting. Integrity of design applies to intrasite patterning. Integrity of materials describes the “completeness or quality of the artifact assemblage and feature preservation” (Hardesty and Little 2000). While workmanship may not be applicable to all resources, integrity of feeling is determined by the ability of the features and setting to convey the historic sense of the property. If the relationship between the site’s content and important research questions is strong, the site has integrity of association. Archaeological remains without such contexts have little information value. Hence, the integrity and significance of archaeological resources are directly interrelated.

Integrity not only refers to a physically intact deposit (i.e., with undisturbed stratigraphy), but also to what James Deetz (1977) has termed “focus.” By focus, Deetz refers to the level of clarity with which archaeological remains can be seen to represent a particular deposit, episode, or event. Archaeological remains that represent several activities, events, or themes that cannot be separated from one another are said to lack focus. Where focus is lacking as the result of disturbance, the phenomenon also lacks integrity (Costello et al. 1996:49).

Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites

Bedrock Milling Stations (BRMs)

Three prehistoric sites were encountered in the APE. Each consists of a single bedrock milling feature (BRM). No other surface-visible cultural remains were observed at any of these sites, and excavations would be necessary to determine whether buried cultural deposits are present.

DC-9

DC-9 encompasses approximately 500 square meters on a slope above the West Branch Feather River. It lies on SPI lands at an elevation of 5,540 feet within an overstory of cedar, pine, and cottonwood trees. Whitethorn and gooseberry also grow on site. The BRM is a granite bedrock outcrop with two mortar cups and two milling slicks. A small amount of forest duff and soil covers the milling station, which exhibits signs of natural weathering and erosion. Overall, the milling feature is in good condition.

DC-15

This BRM is on a semi-flat slope on National Forest System Lands (NFSL) at an elevation of 5,740 feet. The site measures approximately 400 square meters and is covered by pine, fir, and chinquapin with a dense ground cover of pine needles, cones, and dead tree branches. The BRM is a granite bedrock outcrop with one mortar cup. Overall, the milling station is in good condition. Free-range cattle and deer tracks were observed within the site boundaries.

DC-44

The DC-44 BRM is at an elevation of 5,760 feet on a moderately flat saddle between two seasonal ponds. The site encompasses about 625 square meters on NFSL and is sheltered by three cedar trees. The site is open, but is surrounded by other cedars, pine, fir, chinquapin, and sparse grasses. The BRM is a granite bedrock outcrop with six mortar cups. It displays signs of natural weathering and erosion, but overall is in good condition.

Significance

BRMs first appear in the northern Sierra cultural sequence during the Early Kings Beach Phase (1300-700 B.P.) and are absent from the cultural assemblages that define the Southern Cascade cultural sequence. Often, subsurface cultural remains are lacking from isolated BRM sits (cf. PAR 2001), and although isolated BRMs are indicative of plant processing activities, they lack diagnostic artifacts and other datable materials to substantiate specific temporal designations, and offer little information toward addressing additional research questions (i.e., resource procurement, lithic technology, social structure, etc.). However, cultural studies conducted by LNF have discovered the opposite in some cases, that for some BRM sites, a lack of surface manifestations does not reflect a lack of subsurface deposits. Sites DC-9, -15, and -44 all retain moderately high levels of integrity. Based on surface observations, they might be preliminarily assessed as lacking significant characteristics that would make them eligible for listing on the

NRHP. However, formal subsurface testing and evaluation are necessary to fully identify the sites eligibility.

BRMs With Lithic Scatters

DC-21

DC-21 is a prehistoric site with three BRMs and a small flaked stone scatter on private land. The site encompasses approximately 2700 square meters on a river terrace at 5,200 feet in elevation. It lies within a meadow covered by pine and cedar, with riparian species lining the river bank. Site boundaries were determined by the extent of surface-visible artifacts and features. The historical Dewey Ditch (Site DC-22) passes through the west side of the site.

The BRMs are located on three separate granite outcrops and contain multiple mortar cups and a grinding slick. The outcrops are covered with moss, pine needles and soil, but are in good condition. Flaked stone consists of one basalt biface, one basalt scraper, and a light scatter of basalt flakes.

Significance

BRMs are indicative of plant processing activities and are associated with the Early Kings Beach Phase (1300-700 B.P.). A modern cabin, storage structures, and an access road have been constructed on top of the site. However, its integrity still appears to be good. The few flaked stone artifacts observed do not include diagnostic materials that could substantiate the temporal placement of the site, and while sourcing could likely shed light on basalt procurement, there is little additional information to address other research questions. Test excavations are required to determine if additional, subsurface cultural materials are present and to formally evaluate the site. However, given the site’s proximity to a major water source, it is likely that additional, buried cultural remains are present, and the site may be eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Evaluation of Sites Containing Both Prehistoric and Historic-Era Cultural Remains

Sites containing prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains are configured variously with regard to their prehistoric and historical contents and themes. As a result, these sites are described and evaluated numerically rather than by theme.

CA-BUT-597/H

This is an extensive lithic scatter with BRMs and the remnants of a historical bottle. It is located on private and SPI lands in a relatively open area surrounded by mixed conifers and an oak canopy; manzanita comprises the understory. The site is at an elevation of 2,860 feet on a gentle, south-facing slope. It encompasses approximately 4800 square meters along the east side of an unnamed, seasonal creek that drains to the south. The site is on private property and is bound on the south by a private dirt road and on the west by the seasonal drainage. The north and east site boundaries are defined by the aerial extent of surface-visible artifacts and features.

CA-BUT-597/H was first recorded by Markley and Smart (1978) as a small lithic scatter containing debitage and flaked and ground stone tools, including a hopper mortar and pestle. PAR redocumented the site in 1984 as a much more extensive lithic scatter, noting basalt as the dominant toolstone with only trace amounts of obsidian (Van Bueren and McCombs 1984). PAR also discovered one basalt Rosegate projectile point, one basalt foliate point, one small, wide-stemmed basalt point, numerous cores, scrapers, as well as two previously unrecorded historical bottle fragments from a single, dark (olive) liquor bottle. The 2006 field survey encountered two previously unrecorded bedrock milling features in addition to the previously documented artifacts, which include basalt and obsidian debitage, a basalt core, a granite pestle, a granite handstone, and a granite hammerstone. Modern debris is also present. Although the site has been disturbed by a logging road that cuts through the site, it retains good integrity.

Prehistoric artifacts and features are evidence of multiple activities that took place on site, including plant processing, hunting, and lithic reduction of obsidian and basalt toolstone. The Rosegate and other small projectile points, and the presence of BRMs, suggest the site was occupied during the Early Kings Beach Phase (700-1300 B.P.). The few pieces of bottle glass recorded by PAR do not provide enough information to interpret historic-era activities that may have occurred there.

Significance

Site integrity is good and the cultural remains appear to have data potential. Minimally, debitage analysis could provide information relevant to tool making or reworking, an analysis of tools may provide details on the types of plant and animal resources utilized, chemical sourcing of the basalt and obsidian could lend insight into toolstone procurement and exchange, and obsidian hydration analysis could provide temporal designations. Maniery et al. (1985) informally evaluated the site as eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. The present study concurs with their informal evaluation.

CA-BUT-1225/1226/1227/1228/H

Originally documented as four separate sites on NFSL, the 2006 study found that cultural remains were continuous from one site to another, resulting in one extensive lithic and historic trash scatter. It lies at an elevation of 4,660 feet and encompasses approximately 100,434 square meters on a very gentle slope at the foot of a saddle. The surrounding area is heavily forested with pines and cedars and supports an understory of manzanita, willow, gooseberry, and ceanothus. The site’s boundaries were determined by the aerial extent of surface-visible artifacts and features, except for the northern boundary which is bordered by historical Humbug Summit Road.

Basalt is the dominant toolstone on site and includes an extensive scatter of debitage, a core, and three bifaces. Additionally, a small basalt outcrop served as a quarry, as evidenced by a large amount of assayed rock. Obsidian is minimally represented by a biface, scraper, Elko Eared projectile point, and a few pieces of debitage. Elko series projectile points are primarily indicative of the Late Martis Phase (3000-1300 B.P.).

This site contains a small, intact section of a dirt road that parallels Humbug Summit Road. Personal communications with Jamie Moore (2006), an archaeologist with LNF, indicates this is a historical wagon road. Other sections of the road are difficult to ascertain, but historical refuse is strewn across the site in a manner suggesting it may follow the path of the road. The Humbug Wagon Road was established in 1853 to connect Oroville and Honey Lake via Humbug Summit (Moore 2005:9). Its purpose was to provide emigrants with easy access to Oroville and the gold mines. Various historical maps dating back to 1869 were reviewed during the archival research and show either Humbug Summit Road or an unnamed route in the same approximate location as the current road. It is likely that the recorded section of road represents an earlier alignment of the Humbug Wagon Road. Two concentrations of historical debris also are present. Historic-era remains include logging cable, a church key-opened tin can; amber, aqua, light green, brown, and colorless bottle and glass fragments, corrugated sheet metal, and a stove pipe fragment.

Significance

The site is inundated throughout the winter and spring and subjected to disturbances by recreationists throughout the rest of the year when it is empty. Additionally, the annual drawdown and filling of the reservoir has caused erosion to the cultural deposit and has relocated surface artifacts as a result. Test excavations are necessary to determine the site’s level of integrity. However, inundation and sedimentation may also protect intact, subsurface deposits, if present. Given the variety of stone tools and the presence of both basalt and obsidian materials, the site has the potential to address research questions about prehistoric occupation. Minimally, this could include data on plant procurement, hunting, the use of local basalt quarries and toolstone reduction, and obsidian procurement or trade. As a result, the prehistoric aspect of CA- BUT-1225/1226/1227/1228/H appears to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D.

Additional archival research and artifact analysis would be necessary to better determine the associations between the section of recorded road, the historical trash, and the Humbug Wagon Road. The recorded section of road is intact and retains good integrity. Its potential association with local and regional developments in the gold mining industry suggests the road is potentially eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A. Additionally, analysis of the historical artifacts may provide insight into the ethnicity, social status, and other questions regarding the lives of the miners and others who used the road. Thus, the historical aspect of the site may also be eligible under Criterion D.

DC-1/H

DC-1/H is an extensive prehistoric and historic-era site on NFSL. It lies at an elevation of 5,640 feet in a moderately open flat surrounded by pines and cedars with an understory of gooseberry and manzanita. The site area encompasses 7,400 square meters on a river terrace amongst a grouping of granite outcrops. Site boundaries were determined by the extent of surface-visible artifacts and features.

Prehistoric cultural remains include 10 BRMs and a large, complete corner-notched projectile point. The point is likely an Elko Corner-notched and is made from a dark, semi-waxy, fine-grained stone.

Elko series projectile points are primarily indicative of the Late Martis Phase (3000-1300 B.P.) and corner-notched projectile points are associated with the Kingsley Complex (500 B.C. – A.D. 500).

Historic-era features include two blazed Ponderosa pine trees used historically to extract turpentine. Blazes occur on the east and west sides of each tree and are scarred over. Additionally, a historic- era USFS Road, shown on the 1949 Division of Forestry map, crosses the site. It leads to a historic- period USFS camp (Site DC-20). A small historic trash dump includes two sizes of matchstick filler milk cans with church key openings, likely dating between 1917 and 1950 (Simonis 1997). It also contains a Log Cabin syrup tin, sardine can, tobacco tin, meat cans, sanitary cans, sheet metal, lantern, spade shovelhead, gas stovepipe, brown bottle glass fragments, and an upright rectangular tobacco tin.

Significance

Despite the fact that modern and historic-era activities not associated with the Project have disturbed the ground surface, the prehistoric element of the site still appears to retain good integrity overall. This is a large milling station. The presence of multiple BRMs and the projectile point suggest the site was actively used and likely contains additional buried data. Moreover, heavy duff may obscure other surface remains. Test excavations would be required to determine if there are subsurface cultural deposits and whether the deposit(s) retain integrity. Until then, the prehistoric element of the site cannot be evaluated. However, given its proximity to a major water source and numerous BRMs, it is likely that a buried deposit is present and that the site may be eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The turpentine industry arose in the Sierra Nevada for a short period during the 1860s when South Carolina could no longer supply the product to the Union (Compas 2003:10). At that point, Dogtown Ridge in Butte County became the heart of the industry, tapping the Ponderosa pines throughout LNF for pitch. The local production of turpentine ceased with the end of the Civil War. The presence of the turpentine trees suggest the historical aspect of the site may be eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with an event that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history.

There are no clear associations of the trash dump with camps, cabins, or formal recreational areas and it is unknown if the deposit was created by an individual or a group. The deposit also does not appear to offer insight in to age, gender, or ethnicity and does not likely contribute to the significance of the site.

DC-3/H

DC-3/H is a large village site with midden, a moderately dense lithic scatter, and BRMs. Historical trash and evidence of historic-era logging are also present. The site is at 5,400 feet in elevation on lands owned by SPI, on opposing river terraces. It extends over an approximate 22,500 square meter area and is heavily forested with cedars and pines. Gooseberry and dense stands of manzanita on and around the site are likely the result of ground-disturbing logging activities, evident from a logging road that passes through the site and historic trash that appears

related to logging activities. Various riparian plants are also prominent understory species on site and occur along the river.

Prehistoric remains include a dense scatter of debitage comprised primarily of basalt with only a few pieces of obsidian. Tools include six bifaces, one core, two projectile points (one corner- notched and one side-notched), one handstone, and one pestle fragment. Four BRMs on granite outcrops contain mortar cups and grinding slicks.

Historic-era remains consist of two trash dumps. Datable artifacts include a brown glass bottle embossed with “Federal Law Prohibits Sale or Re-use of this Bottle,” suggesting a date between 1933-1964 (IMACS 2001). A colorless soda bottle embossed with “NATIONAL NUGRAPE” Co, Atlanta, GA. and makers mark suggests a date after 1954 (Lockhart 2006). A historic logging road bisects the northeast portion of the site in a northeast to northwest direction.

Significance

Although historic-era use of the site has disturbed the prehistoric deposit, it retains good integrity and likely contains subsurface cultural deposits. Test excavations would be necessary to confirm the presence and integrity of additional materials. However, the size and extensive cultural deposit observed on the ground surface indicate that this is a village site. The presence of BRMs further suggests it was occupied at least during the Early Kings Beach Phase (1300-700 B.P.). The presence of diagnostic artifacts indicates there is additional data at the site to address chronological questions about the prehistoric occupants. The varied and extensive artifacts observed indicate the site’s inhabitants were hunting, processing plant resources, and may have been reducing toolstone or making expedient tools on site. Thus, the prehistoric element of the site clearly exhibits data potential and is informally recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D.

Historic-era logging is represented by two trash dumps and a logging road, all of which exhibit good integrity. Although logging activities are evident in the area, the two dumps do not contain enough data to address research questions about the industry, subsistence, or other research questions that could further our understanding of the past. Thus, the historical element of the site does not appear to meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the NRHP.

DC-12/H

This site contains a sparse lithic scatter and historic-era trash dump encompassing about 7210 square meters on a rocky, gently sloping terrace of a south-facing hillside. It lies at an elevation of 5,700 feet in a moderately dense forest of pine and cedar on lands owned by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Understory species include gooseberry and manzanita. An unnamed seasonal drainage flows in a south direction along the eastern site boundary and the West Branch Feather River is not far from the site. The site boundaries were determined by the extent of surface visible artifacts and features, except for the southern boundary, which borders Humbug Summit Road, and the eastern boundary, which meets the creek.

The prehistoric assemblage includes two basalt bifaces and approximately 10 basalt flakes. Test excavations are necessary to determine if additional, buried prehistoric cultural remains are present and whether subsurface materials retain integrity.

The historic-era trash dump contains jar and bottle glass, ceramics, various types of tin cans, a leather hobnail boot, and a brass, center fire cartridge. More than 25 cans are present within the concentration. Rectangular meat tins have been opened with a twist key and sanitary seal cans likely contained fruits, vegetables, and milk. Some of these cans were opened with an ice pick. The aluminum-topped Olympia beer cans date between 1935 and 1963. White improved earthenware is present and is either undecorated or exhibits an orange, blue, and green multicolored floral pattern. The concentration also contains aqua, amber, amethyst, and colorless jar and bottle glass fragments, which also were noted throughout the site. Embossed bottles included a brown liquor bottle marked “4/5 QUA[RT] and a Hazel Atlas bottle (see Table E6.11.2.2-5). An aqua bottle with a 3-inch diameter base, one amethyst bottle finish, and a brown liquor bottle with a brandy finish were also observed. A single center-fire cartridge is marked “Western / 25-35”.

Table E6.11.2.2-5. Bottles From DC-12/H With Embossing. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference 1923-1964 0-7264/ “H” over “A” / 40 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company Oakland, California Cole 2006

Artifacts outside the main concentration include a hobnail boot or shoe, an amber jug with a metal screw cap and stippling on the base that suggests a post-1940 date; a bundle of wire rope, located south of the artifact concentration; and a lard can with a handle and a 4-inch long wire nail. These materials appear to have been deposited between 1940 and 1963.

Significance

Surface materials do not provide enough data to determine whether the prehistoric element of the site meets NRHP eligibility. However, creek-side terraces and other major water sources are generally considered to be sensitive cultural locations, suggesting there is potential for additional buried deposits and, thus, the site remains potentially eligibility for listing on the NRHP.

The historic-era trash dump contains personal and household remains, but has no known associations. Its location adjacent to Humbug Summit Road may have provided opportunistic dumping for travelers or recreationists and residents who occupied cabins in the vicinity. It may also be associated with a corral that was observed in the area. However, without concrete associations, the dump offers no information that addresses the historic-era themes identified in the historic context, or the research questions, and is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP.

DC-13/H

DC-13/H contains a sparse lithic scatter, a diffuse historic-era trash dump, and a logging skid trail. It is on lands owned by the CDFG, within a pine and cedar forest; gooseberry and manzanita comprise the understory. The site encompasses approximately 2100 square meters on a rocky hillside terrace at an elevation of 4,660 feet. Site boundaries were determined by the

extent of surface-visible artifacts, with the exception of the southern boundary, which is defined by Humbug Summit Road. The West Branch Feather River is not far from the site. Basalt rocks and outcrops are prominent in the site vicinity.

The sparse lithic scatter is comprised of one basalt core, one basalt biface fragment, and two basalt flakes. The site retains good integrity overall. However, test excavations would be necessary to determine whether a buried prehistoric deposit is present and if subsurface remains are intact.

The historic-era portion of the site is limited to six tin cans, one jar, and one bottle that represent food consumption but otherwise offer no information specific to historical events or other 1 associations. Tin cans include one MJB coffee can measuring 5 /16 inches in diameter with an external friction lid that dates to the 1920s (Rock 1988:39), and a single milk can with a matchstick filler lid measuring 2 15/16 inches in diameter and 3 7/8 inches tall, likely dating between 1935 and 1945 (Simonis 1997). There is also a sanitary can measuring 3 ¼ inches in diameter and 4 3/8 inches tall, which is a No. 303 can used for vegetables, some fruits and juices, soups, and specialties. Two additional sanitary cans each measure 4 inches in diameter and 4 5/8 inches tall and appear to be No. 2 ½ cans used for fruits, some vegetables, and some juices. One beverage can is also present. One canning jar was recorded and is marked with “Kerr/self Sealing/Reg. US PAT. OFF./Mason;” the base is marked with “8 H K/ 8 /503,” which dates to sometime after 1903. Also recorded is a colorless, slender, handy-shaped bottle embossed with “Duraglass///23 (“I” inside an “O”) 4/8624A / 6A.” This bottle has a small mouth and an external thread finish. This bottle was produced sometime after 1940 (Lockhart 2006).

Significance

Without test excavations, the prehistoric element of the site cannot be evaluated for listing on the NRHP. The small number of prehistoric tools on the surface and the lack of diagnostic data preclude temporal designations and the ability to address relevant research questions. However, if intact, buried cultural remains are present, the prehistoric element may be potentially eligibility for listing on the NRHP

The historical deposit dates to approximately the 1920s and 1940s. Similar to DC-12/H, it does not have an association to any known events or occupations and may represent a single dumping episode or brief camping venture. The site is near a logging skid trail and Humbug Summit Road and may be associated with the use of one of these features. However, without concrete associations, the dump offers no information that addresses the historic-era themes identified in the historic context, or the research questions, and is thus recommended as ineligible to the NRHP.

DC-17/H

This site contains a single BRM, one basalt core, and a historic-era trash scatter on a gentle sloping terrace forested by pine and cedar with an understory of chinquapin and manzanita. It encompasses approximately 2310 square meters at an elevation of 4,840 feet and is situated on NFSL about 60 meters from a major water source. The site is within a USFS campground in the

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-45 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 vicinity of a USFS camp shown on a 1949 Division of Forestry map, suggesting the historic-era debris may be associated with past USFS activities.

The granite BRM contains one mortar cup and is in good condition. No other prehistoric artifacts or features were observed on the ground surface. The site’s historical element consists of domestic habitation debris and refuse such as glass jars and bottles, metal beverage and food cans, window glass, structural hardware, and shotgun and cartridge shells. These items are located in three areas. Two trash deposits, each measuring approximately 2 meters in diameter, are located on an upper terrace of the site. Many artifacts are located in a wash area that extends from the upper terrace to the steeply sloped bank below the west side of the site.

Historic-era artifacts are represented by a variety of materials. This includes a copper center fire cartridge marked “REM UMC / 32 CF ” and a brass shotgun shell marked “REMINGTON 12 GA / EXPRESS.” Glass containers include the base of a shoe polish jar marked with “Bartons 5/Dyanshine,” colorless condiment jars, and unmarked bottles made of amethyst, aqua, amber, cobalt, and colorless glass. A canning jar with a 4 inch diameter base is marked “KERR GLASS [MFG CO] / PAT AUG 31 / 1915 / Sand Sp[rings, Oklahoma]”. A large number of cans were present, including a rectangular meat tin, a tin shaker lid, sanitary and matchstick filler cans in various sizes and shapes, a bucket or can with a handle, upright tobacco tin with hinge, tin beverage cans, and a colorless crown cap soda bottle. Other items include a milk glass canning jar lid; white improved earthenware fragments; cast iron stove parts, a graniteware bucket (8 inches tall and 6 inches in diameter); a redware fragment; metal hardware from the corner of a trunk; leather fragments; and other small hardware such as a nut. Additionally, flat glass is present. A complete 18-inch barrel hoop was observed around the trunk of a pine tree. Historic- era materials appear to post-date 1915, but the presence of amethyst glass suggests the deposit dates to sometime in the late 1910s or 1920s.

Significance

The BRM and the single core do not provide enough information to address research questions regarding prehistoric lifeways. However, terraces and gentle slopes in close proximity to major water sources are generally considered to be sensitive cultural locations, suggesting there is potential for additional buried deposits. Test excavations are necessary to make that determination. As a result, the site may contain significant characteristics that may make it eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The site is easily accessed by the public and it appears that visitors to the site may have moved artifacts from their original location. For example, a cache of glass fragments and metal was located in the worn out stump of a tree in one of the clearings on site. Additionally, two modern depressions were encountered on the site. However, the site still retains good integrity overall. Additional archival research and possible test excavations are required to determine the association of the historic element to events or themes, but the variety of artifacts present suggest the site may be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. It may also meet Criteria A for its potential association to past USFS activities.

DC-51/H

DC-51/H contains two BRMs, historic-era cabins, and associated structural remains and out buildings on privately owned land. The historical Dewey Ditch (Site DC-22-H) passes through the center of the site, which lies on a northwest trending slope along a major water course. The site encompasses approximately 54,252 square meters along the edge of a prominent saddle located immediately west of the site. Historical Humbug Summit Road passes through the north side of the site, which is bound on the east by a perennial drainage. Otherwise, all boundaries were determined from the extent of surface-visible artifacts and features.

Each BRM is a granite outcrop; one is heavily weathered and the other is in good condition. One BRM contains two round cups, a milling slick, and one possible cup. The other BRM contains one oval cup and one conical cup. No other prehistoric cultural remains were encountered.

The cabin straddles the Dewey Ditch and may be a ditch tender’s residence. It is clad with board and flat batten siding and exhibits a 10-foot addition. It sits on sloping land with the left elevation resting on a rock foundation and the rest of the cabin resting on wood piers set on concrete footings. The original fenestration of the front façade consisted of a center door flanked by two windows and a window over the door. Three windows are on the left elevation. All of the windows are covered with wood shutters. The steeply-pitched gable roof is clad with corrugated metal. An interior metal chimney is located near the top of the left roof slope.

Other features include a plywood pile that appears to be a torn down cabin, an earthen pad, a saltbox shed clad with wood shingles, an outhouse, a driveway, and a can dump. The dump contains about 25 cans, including matchstick filler milk cans (ca. 1940s-1950s) and a single 1- quart oil can.

Significance

BRMs first appear in the northern Sierra cultural sequence during the Early Kings Beach Phase (1300-700 B.P.) and are absent from the cultural assemblages that define the Southern Cascade cultural sequence. Often, subsurface cultural remains are lacking from isolated BRM sites (cf. PAR 2001), and although isolated BRMs are indicative of plant processing activities, they lack diagnostic artifacts and other datable materials to substantiate specific temporal designations, and offer little information toward addressing additional research questions (i.e., resource procurement, lithic technology, social structure, etc.). On the other hand, terraces adjacent to major water sources are considered culturally sensitive and it is possible that historic-era use of the site has diminished surface-visible remains associated with prehistoric occupation. Test excavations are necessary to determine whether a buried, intact prehistoric cultural deposit is present and whether this element of the site meets the criteria for listing on the NRHP. Thus, the site may contain data and may be considered potentially eligible.

The Dewey Ditch is evaluated below in Evaluation of Historic-Era Properties as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District. The other historic-era features (e.g., possible ditch tender’s cabin) and artifacts may be associated with the ditch and the hydroelectric

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-47 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 system and, thus, are also considered to be a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District discussed in detail in Section 6.11.2.4.

Evaluation of Historic-Era Properties

Thirty-two sites within the APE contain only historic-era cultural remains. In accordance with the FERC approved Study Plan 6.8.3-1, these sites are formally evaluated below for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Formal evaluations require the development of research topics and questions that are relevant to the cultural history of the area in order to identify a site’s significant qualities. These are provided below, followed by the formal evaluations.

Research Orientation Developing Archaeological research on historic-era sites requires a broad theoretical perspective and framework for asking questions about the historical and archaeological record, as well as the ability to link these questions to the archaeological data. Without an established research strategy, significance evaluations tend to be ad hoc exercises focused on vague or trivial research questions (Hardesty 1986, 1990). Moreover, while most historical archaeological sites in California contain some information, the key to productive archaeology is to assess whether a property is likely to contain important new information.

To create an accurate reconstruction of site history and function, and to understand the processes of development and change occurring, information from published sources, archival documents, oral history, ethnographic sources, and archaeological remains is required. Taken together, these sources assist in the development of an archaeological context that allows researchers to examine the important associations and data potentials of each site (Leone 1988).

A research design outlines the topics or questions that could be asked given the kinds of data that a particular property type is likely to contain and evaluates whether that information can be gained from other sources (Maniery 1995). Such a design has several parts, including a “structure of inquiry” for asking key research questions and an identification of archaeological data requirements for answering each of the key questions. The significance of each resource is then interpreted with reference to the local, state, and national historic context and the potential of each site for meeting the data requirements (Hardesty 1990:43).

As observed by Barker (1990:45), “Historic contexts are the single most important means of developing clear and defensible criteria for evaluating historic archaeological features or the historic properties of which they are a part.” Huston (1990:16) defines a historical context as “an organizational framework that groups information about related historic properties based on a theme, geographic area, and time period.” The NPS (Little et al. 2000:7) states that the three roles that a historic context plays in evaluating historic-era sites include:

• defining the character of the historic archaeological site and its role in relation to other contemporary properties; • integrating images developed by historians, archaeologists, and others into a single

historic context statement; and defining the scale at which comparison among similar sites are to be made. Historic archaeological sites can be linked to contexts defined at the local, state, national, and even international scale (Barker 1990:45; National Park Service 1997).

With these requirements in mind, Æ performed detailed archival research for the DeSabla project. The major goals of the archival research were to describe historic development and land-use patterns within the region generally and the study area specifically; identify known and potentially important buildings, structures, or features based on review of relevant literature; identify the types, range, and period of historic properties and features that may be present within the Project Area; and develop a historic context and research questions to enable determination of the significance of historic-era properties within the Project Area.

To accomplish this, Æ examined local and regional histories, historic and modern maps, reports authored by other researchers, and various other documents to determine key historical themes operating within the Project Area, including:

• Theme A: Spanish/Mexican era exploration and settlement (1841–1848); • Theme B: The Gold Rush and early placer mining (1848–1854); • Theme C: Hydraulic mining (1854–1884); • Theme D: Rise of the lumber industry (1870–1956) • Theme E: Late nineteenth and early twentieth century lode mining; • Theme F: Hydroelectric development (1900–present); • Theme G: USFS (1900–present); • Theme H: Recreational use (1900–present); • Theme I: The Depression era; and • Theme J: Twentieth century growth and development.

Several research domains crosscut these historical themes and must be considered within the framework of local, regional, national, and international interaction.

Archaeological Research Domains and Data Requirements

Scientific or scholarly research values are judged within the context of a research design that provides the framework for examining variability and change in the archaeological record. This research design for evaluation of historic-era sites begins with an outline of research domains presently under investigation by historical archaeologists who have recently conducted work on similar sites in the region.

To identify the kinds of information that may be of value for the current study, Æ will focus on four broad research domains: Chronology, Subsistence, Dependency/Self Sufficiency, Industry, and Recreation.

Research Domain A: Chronology

Chronology is fundamental to the study of most archaeological sites. The chronology of historic-era sites is often obtained from manufacturer’s marks or technological attributes of artifacts. Maniery (2001) has called for researchers to consider temporal and spatial ordering as a research goal while working in this region. Chronology should be addressed both in intrasite and intersite contexts. Issues to be considered within a site include:

changes in technology (placer to hard rock mining), economic factors (resurgence in small placer mining operations during the Great Depression [Maniery et al. 1992]) or construction needs (resurgence of [camps] during…separate dam construction episodes) [Maniery 2001:16]

Additionally, specific site types can be ordered chronologically across the region to allow an understanding of industrial migration, changes in recreational use, and expansion of residential populations.

General questions that could be examined in this domain include:

• Was there seasonal reuse of the site? Was the site occupied by an individual or by a large group? Was there occupation short or long term? • Are there multiple deposits that indicate multiple periods of use? Are there functionally discrete areas that indicate different activities within the site? • Are there contemporaneous mining and logging camps that can be compared? What was life like in these camps? • Are there ethnic groups or gender classes that can be further studied? • What is the relationship of the position of similar site types?

Data Requirements:

• A1: Relatively tight date range • A2: Temporally discrete archaeological features and artifacts associated with extended or multiple occupations • A3: Consumer goods with identifiable product names and manufacturers marks

Research Domain B: Subsistence

Subsistence is also a fundamental component of any human-occupied site. It includes the acquisition, preparation, and consumption of food. Food containers, as well as faunal and floral remains, can provide clues to food acquisition. Tablewares, pots and pans, flatware, and kitchen tools such as sifters and can openers, indicate the culinary needs and habits of the site occupant. It is often discussed in terms of consumer preference, resource availability, ethnic diversity, and communal versus individual food preparation and dining. The wide variety of sites encountered

during this project—including single-use dining sites, recreational camps, work camps, and residential family refuse scatters—necessitates considering subsistence in all of those contexts.

• Is there an evolution in subsistence remains at sites with the same association but dating to different periods? • How does the diet of a miner or logger differ from that of a recreational camper? • What kinds of food were available at work camps? • Is there evidence of ethnic food preferences?

Data Requirements:

• B1: Temporally discrete archaeological features and artifacts associated with extended or multiple occupations • B2: Food refuse, including containers, utensils, tableware, botanical remains, and faunal remains with butchering marks • B3: Consumer goods with identifiable product names and manufacturers marks Personal artifacts specific to particular ages, genders, occupations, social classes, or ethnic groups

Research Domain C: Industry

Mining and logging have been the primary driving forces of the economy of the DeSabla region. Placer mines were generally seasonal sites, driven by the miner’s capacity for controlling the flow of water. The evolution of hydraulic mining allowed miners to investigate ancient channels located away from running streams. Of course, water was needed to wash away the overlying sediment, so ditches were constructed to bring water to the mines. The lumber industry began as soon as the miners arrived. The first lumber mill opened in Magalia (Dogtown) in 1853. At least 14 saw mills operated in Butte Canyon Creek in the 1860s and 1870s. Many of these incorporated new steam engines to increase output. The Diamond Match Company had 50 years of dominance in the DeSabla area, harvesting, transporting, and milling lumber from more than 160,000 acres of timber.

• What kind of mining sites are identifiable in the Project Area? What can they tell us about mining technology? • Do mine sites contain remnants of early technology as well as technological advances? • Do any lumber industry-related sites contain remnants of the technology used by loggers? Do they contain information that is unknown in written or oral histories? • Are there contemporaneous mining and logging camps that can be compared? What was life like in these camps? Are there ethnic groups or gender classes that can be further studied?

Data Requirements:

• C1: Relatively tight date range • C2: Temporally discrete archaeological features and artifacts associated with mining or logging technology • C3: Industry-related machinery, tools, or other technology • C4: Identifiable historical associations

Research Domain D: Recreation.

Recreation in the DeSabla area is associated with both Lassen National Forest and vacation cabins that were constructed in the Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay areas. Recreational uses in these locations have included hiking, fishing, boating, camping, and winter activities. Sometimes, visitors leave trash dumps that can be associated with recreational users.

• Is it possible to differentiate trash dumps created by recreational users and those created by loggers or USFS workers? • Is there a difference between refuse dumped by campers and that dumped by cabin occupants? • Were camp sites revisited by the same individuals over time? Recreational users would have had to bring their own food with them. Is there a change in what these people consumed over time? • Can the deposit yield information about differences in gender? Do deposits differ if women or children are present?

Data Requirements:

• D1: Relatively tight date range • D2: Temporally discrete archaeological features and artifacts associated with extended or multiple occupations • D3: Identifiable historical associations • D4: Personal artifacts specific to particular ages, genders, occupations, social classes, or ethnic groups.

The integrity and significance of historic-era sites in the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project are evaluated in the following sections.

Evaluation of Historic-Era Sites

CA-BUT-868-H

This is the site of the original DeSabla Powerhouse on lands owned by PG&E. It measures 160 meters north-west by 200 meters east-west, encompassing approximately 25,132 square meters across terraces (man-made leveled flats) on a hillside adjacent to Butte Creek. The site sits at an elevation of 1,300 feet within a mixed conifer forest comprised of oak, pine, and toyon. Understory species include manzanita, gooseberry and various grasses. Geologically, the site is within a setting of granitic outcrops and loamy brown soil with decomposing granite.

The site was first recorded in the mid 1980s (Van Buren et al. in 1984). Eighteen features of the powerhouse and its associated camp were recorded at that time. The site was revisited in 2006 and 2007 during field work for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Major changes to site were documented during this effort. The physical remains are nearly gone. Only six previously recorded features are still present and one metal structure was encountered that was not previously documented. The existing features include Feature R, the back wall of the original powerhouse, which is intact and retains fairly good integrity with only slight weathering; and Feature Q, a small ground level concrete pad (pig sty?) in poor condition, that shows cracking and is breaking apart. Also present are Feature M, now only a flat earthen pad covered with gravel, and all that remains of Feature H, the walkway, is a depression. Only three previously recorded ceramic fragments were observed on the ground.

The newly discovered feature does not appear to be an oversight to the previous recording in 1984, but rather appears to have been exposed during a landslide or construction to prevent landslides. The feature is located in the side of the hill by the graveled parking lot of the new DeSabla powerhouse, which sites directly on top of the previous location of the camp hotel (Feature L). The metal feature appears very stable as the three of sidewalls are inset into the hillside. The sidewalls are made of wood and iron supported by iron “T” bars. There also a new slab of concrete on the ground with a modern power box on top.

During the current investigations, John Yeoman, the Chief Operator for Hypower Inc., Fork of Butte Powerhouse, provided information about the site. Mr. Yeoman noted that the only remains of the original DeSabla Powerhouse he was aware of was Feature R, the back wall of the original powerhouse.

Significance

In 1985, PAR noted that the DeSabla Powerhouse facility played an important economic and social role in Butte County (Maniery et al. 1985). PAR recommended that the site was eligible to the NRHP under Criterion B because of its association with Eugene de Sabla, an eminent figure in the hydroelectric field, and Criterion D because of the extensive trash deposits that could contribute information about the powerhouse’s support community. The site had integrity of location, setting, and association. However, this site has significantly changed since that evaluation. None of the buildings remain and there is no evidence of any of the trash scatters recorded by PAR. The site has also lost integrity of setting and association.

This site retains its theme and date in documents only. That is, the site has lost its ability to convey its use, theme, and historic period to an observer. These are the elements that made it significant. Therefore it is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP.

CA-BUT-871-H

This is a PG&E ditch tender’s camp known as Camp 2. Located on PG&E land adjacent to the Butte Creek Canal (BCC), the site contains firs, pines, oaks, maple, oaks, and incense cedars. The understory is composed of mountain lilac, scotch broom, and blackberry.

PAR visited the site in 1980 and recorded three concrete building pads, an extensive trash scatter, mortared and dry-laid rock retaining walls, a drinking water delivery system, and a dirt access road. A large, man-made flat northeast of the site may have once been the location of some of the dozen or so structures that were once located here. The trash dump contains over 2500 cans, bottles, ceramics, and other domestic artifacts that correlate with the documented use period of the site (1902–1950s).

Significance

PAR also indicated a potential for buried deposits. Because of its research potential and good integrity, PAR suggested that this site is eligible to the NRHP as a contributing property to their earlier proposed DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System district (1985). During the 2006 study, Æ found the site to be essentially unchanged since PAR’s investigation. It meets all of the standards and retains integrity of location, setting, and association, and is therefore recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a contributing element. Additionally, buried cultural deposits suggest the site retains data potentials and may also be individually eligible to the NRHP.

CA-BUT-872-H

This is the site of a hard rock mining complex known as Poumeratt Quartz Mine and Mill or the Toadtown mining complex. Victor Poumeratt purchased the property from John Murphy around 1865. In 1885, Joseph Richards, who claimed the 40 acre unpatented mining claim, had a mineral survey performed. The survey documented improvements to the mine by Richards, including a five stamp mill, hoist works, overshot water wheel and a shaft (BLM 1885). The survey report noted that “the bed of Little Butte Creek had been worked for gold in the early years and at that time (1885) there were several cabins occupied by miners who worked other mines in the area” (PAR 1985:5). Curiously, the survey plat indicates that the mill and shaft were on the eastern bank of Little Butte Creek. The shaft, mill foundation, and associated structures of this site are located on the western bank of the Creek. An 1896 State Mineralogist report on the mine stated that the “2’ vein strides N. and S. and dips 45 degrees E., between slate walls. A 6’ x 8’ double-compartment incline shaft has been sunk 100’ without a hoist. At 70’ depth a drift has been run on the vein 100’ N. Two men are at work” (Crawford 1896:91). An 1892 Mining Bureau report noted that a five stamp mill was in operation at the site in the early 1870s, but had been reported as “long idle in 1892” (Gudde 1975:350-351). Ralph Hupp, a resident in the vicinity from the 1890s onward reported that Poumeratt, who owned the quartz mine, had a

“…peculiar set-up. It had originally been operated with a big overshot water wheel that had been abandoned. They had used old traction engines to furnish the power to operate the mine” (Hupp 1974:21). Hupp also described a store and several miner’s cabins in the area that were no longer extant in the 1970s. The Toadtown Mining Company took over the mine between 1927 and 1930. Gudde (1975:350) writes that a new drift mine was opened in Toadtown in 1930. This site may represent that mining event, while earlier activities attributed to this site actually occurred on the other side of the Creek, as shown on the 1885 plat map. In 1930, J. Frazer, H. Mayes, and A. Richards were leasing the mine from the Toadtown Mining Company. A 1930 State Mineralogist report called the site the El Monte (Toadtown) mine and reported that the “old shaft, 150 feet deep on an incline of 45 degrees has been unwatered by the lessees. The north drift, 70 feet long and south drift, 18 feet long were both being advanced early in October 1930, on the 150-ft. level. A strike of high-grade ore was made late in September and has yielded several hundred dollars besides fine specimens” (Logan 1930:372). The report further noted the equipment in use at the mine, which included a 3 ½ foot Huntington mill, 10 horsepower gas engine, air compressor with a 15 horsepower steam engine, and a small pump and hoist operated by a three horsepower gas engine. No further historical information was discovered.

This site is located on private lands, at an elevation of 2,780 feet amsl, and measures 325 feet north-south by 212 feet east-west. The eastern exposure is heavily forested with fir, black oak, incense cedar, dogwood, broadleaf maple, and sugar pine. Blackberry and other groundcover have grown uncontrolled, and have covered most of the structural remains.

This site was recorded by PAR in 1984. That survey documented five features and historical information was gathered from the former landowner Ray Velliquette. A mobile home, carport, and modern barn were present on the property. Feature A was described as a standing, single- gable two-story house that measured 28 feet north-south and 16 feet east-west. The board and batten structure, constructed with wire nails, had a wooden block foundation. It was protected by a tin roof. Fenestrations were composed of wood sash windows and three doors. All door openings were located along the western elevation; one opening had been filled with a store- bought door, while the other two openings were filled with homemade doors. Knob and tube insulators were used to carry electricity through the structure, which was being used for storage. The structure was in good condition. Velliquette identified the structure as the 100-year old Toadtown Hotel that was a stage stop. However, no documentation about this use was located. Additionally, Hupp’s detailed description of 1900s Toadtown does not include a two story building, a hotel or a stage stop. Wire nails observed throughout the feature indicate that it was constructed no earlier than 1891. The electrification of this feature would not have occurred until the DeSabla Powerhouse came online in 1903.

Feature B was a concrete foundation constructed from Portland Cement for the mill. It measured 37 feet north-south and 28 feet east-west, and was devoid of equipment. Velliquette told PAR researchers that this was once a ball mill. A ball mill rotates around a horizontal axis partially filled with the material to be ground plus the grinding medium (such as steel or ceramic balls or pebbles). There is no documentary evidence that the mill at this site was a ball mill.

Feature C was a collapsed structure measuring 22 feet north-south by 46 feet east-west. No foundation was present. It was identified as the ore house. According to Velliquette, this

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-55 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 structure once housed a steam donkey engine that hauled ore up from the mine. If the engine failed, a windlass was used.

Feature D was a standing one story structure constructed of board and batten siding with wire nails. The single gable building is set on concrete pier blocks. A shed roof extension covers the porch. Fenestration is composed of four doors along the eastern wall and wood sash windows. This house, wired for electricity with knob and tube insulators, was being used for storage and was in good shape. Velliquette identified this structure as the change house, constructed around 1935, where miners showered and changed clothes before and after work. The structure was built so that miners, many of whom were Chinese, had to follow a back hallway between the locker room and shower without clothes on, limiting their ability to steal ore.

Feature E was a drift mine that measured 5 feet in diameter. The mine was partially concealed by boards and did not appear to have collapsed. Support timbers were not visible around the drift, which was set at a 45 degree vertical angle into the ground surface. Tailings piles were noted along Little Butte Creek and near Features B and C. The Toadtown Ditch (CA-BUT-877-H), located along the eastern periphery of the site, was once partially diverted to feed the mill’s waterwheel.

Many features of this site indicate that mining activity occurred no earlier than the 1920s or 1930s. Hupp’s description of the site did not include any of the features recorded by PAR, particularly the hotel or stage stop. The mill foundation is composed of Portland Cement, a twentieth-century building material. PAR researchers also believed that the change house was a 1920s or 1930s construction.

PAR found that although the site retained integrity of location and setting, the structures had been modified to an extent where integrity of materials and design, critical components of mining systems, had been lost. Based on the recent dates of the structures and the modern intrusions, PAR judged the site as not significant and it was not recommended for listing in the NRHP.

The 2006 survey found that there has been fire damage to some buildings since the 1984 record was completed. The mobile home, occupied between 1974 and 1981, burned around 1996. The modern barn, constructed by Ray Velliquette in 1975, remains fairly intact (Harper 2006). Feature A, the two story house was destroyed by fire around 1996 and is now covered with blackberry vines. Feature B is intact, but appeared to be a different configuration than mapped in 1984 and was remapped during the recent fieldwork. Feature C has not changed since 1984. Feature D is fairly unchanged, but it has deteriorated in the last 22 years. The doors have been removed and the floors are rotting, which has allowed a tree to grow in the structure and through the roof. Feature E, a drift mine, appears to have changed considerably since 1984. A collapsed structure lies over the shaft entrance. This structure was not present during the previous survey, suggesting it was recently placed there and is not in situ. Also, water and modern trash have accumulated or been placed in the shaft. Additionally, the opening is twice as large as the one depicted on the 1984 map. This indicates that in the last 20 years, there may have been activity to see if the mine was still productive. Ore cart rails noted during the 1984 survey were not found during the current field effort. Three features not mentioned in the 1984 documentation were

recorded during this survey. Feature F is a board and batten building with a corrugated metal roof measuring 16 feet east-west by 36 feet north-south. It has burned and is partially collapsed. This structure was built in 1975 as a one bedroom, one bathroom home with a fireplace (Harper 2006). Feature G is the remains of a small building located south of the carport and east of Feature E. This single gable board and batten structure has corrugated tin roof and ceramic insulators are nailed to the roof joists. This collapsed structure was not recorded in 1984 and may have been moved to this location since that survey. Feature H is a small spring box and associated piping. The spring was noted on the 1984 map, but this box was not. The tailings piles have not changed.

Artifacts not directly associated with the features include an iron wedge fragment located on the mill foundation and window glass fragments scattered throughout the site.

Significance

PAR noted that, although this site possessed integrity of location and setting at the time it was first documented, site modifications and modern intrusions made the site ineligible for the National Register. Æ’s assessment using the evaluation standards is provided below.

The site appears to meet some of the standards. However, it lacks integrity. Modern intrusions have caused a loss of setting. Movement and loss of historic features has degraded integrity of location and design. Materials, workmanship, and feeling are no longer present. The site is associated with a storied mining community, but there is little to make the observer understand that context. Therefore, this site is still evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP.

CA-BUT-873-H

This is a PG&E ditch tender’s camp known as Hog Ranch. It measures 100 feet north-south by 100 feet east-west. Located on PG&E land along the Centerville Canal, the camp includes remnants of three building pads, a possible privy pit, a trash scatter, a drinking water delivery system supplied by the canal, and a fig tree. A separate ditch system was apparently used for hydraulic mining activities not associated with the ditch tender’s occupation. A small trash scatter of tin cans, bottles, ceramics and other domestic artifacts dates to the 1930s and 1940s, and gives insight into life at this rural location.

Significance

PAR suggested that the site, associated with the Centerville Hydroelectric System, retained integrity and should be considered a contributing property of their proposed DeSabla-Centerville system historic district (1985). When Æ visited the site during the current project, it was found unchanged from the 1984 documentation and appears to meet all the evaluation standards. The site gives the observer a true sense of the life of the ditch tender, and the trash scatter contains data important in understanding subsistence activities. There are also likely to be other trash deposits, not visible during the survey, that contain more data. Therefore, this site is recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a contributing property to the newly proposed DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District (see Section 6.11.2.4.5

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-57 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 below). The site contains privies and other features suggestive of buried archaeological deposits that may retain data potentials. Test excavations are required to define the data potentials and thus, the site may also be eligible to the NRHP as an individual property.

CA-BUT-877-H

This is a shallow, abandoned earthen ditch with no apparent associated features. The ditch originates at Little Butte Creek and terminates 1500 linear feet away at CA-BUT-872 (Poumeratt Quartz Mine/Toadtown Mine). It may have been used to power the overshot waterwheel that was reportedly present at the Poumeratt Mine. The ditch begins in a riparian zone dominated by alder, willow, and marsh grasses. It then passes through a transition zone of ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, incense cedar, and oak. The ditch is on private land and may extend onto BLM property.

PAR recorded this ditch in 1984. The initial portion of the ditch was excavated through a rock outcrop and has a stacked rock berm packed with earth. At this initial point, the walls of the ditch were perpendicular to the floor. The berm was 3 feet high and the bottom of the ditch was 7 feet wide. Once through the outcrop, the ditch was earthen with a rounded cross-section, with a berm 3.5 feet tall and 1 foot wide at the base. In 1984, the ditch was overgrown with pine and fir trees up to 6 inches in diameter, and was partially filled with silt and duff. The ditch was reportedly built in 1910, and may be associated with the 1930s mining activities at the Toadtown Mine. Sometime before 1984, Toadtown Way was built across the ditch, destroying a portion of it. The ditch was considered not eligible for the NRHP because of a lack of associated features and the ephemeral natural of the resource.

This site was visited by Æ during the 2006 field project. It was found to be consistent with PAR’s 1984 description, although the earthen portions of the ditch appear to have suffered from some erosion in the past 22 years.

Significance

The association of this site with CA-BUT-872-H is possible, but not documented. Even if an association can be made, there are no features that give the observer a sense of the use of this ditch. Modern intrusions have impacted this ditch. As the site fails to meet important evaluation standards, it is evaluated as ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP. CA-BUT-887-H

This site is the entrance to the Orofino Mine. It has a northern exposure in a pine-chaparral transition zone with a manzanita understory. Dense vegetation covers portions of this hillside site, which lies on PG&E land.

This site was first recorded in 1985 by Chico State during archaeological reconnaissance for the DeSabla Forebay Timber Sale (Dreyer and Kramer 1985). At that time hardware fragments were visible in the mine shaft, but “non-cultural materials” had been dumped into the entrance, making identification and documentation difficult. The collapsed opening to the mine was shown

mapped on the inside of the hairpin curve in the road that leads to the DeSabla Powerhouse. No other information was documented.

Æ’s visit to the site during the 2006 survey found that area to have substantially changed since the 1985 visit. No feature was observed at the location identified in the previous site record. However, a newer road has been constructed in the area where the site was recorded. A culvert, 4 feet in diameter, has been placed under the road and it empties into the previously mapped location of the mine entrance. This culvert does not appear to be more than 20 years old, and was likely placed here after the 1985 recordation.

Feature 1 recorded at the site is a pit surrounded by tailings. The waste rock is serpentine. Feature 2 is the location where five cart rails protrude from the tailings pile. Feature 3 consists of two collapsed rock walls on the south side of Feature 1. The lower wall is 20 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet and the upper wall measures 12 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Heavy vegetation cover obscures these walls and the slumping of tailing piles has caused loss of integrity. A can scatter is located just west of these walls. The walls may represent foundations for buildings or tent pads. There is a linear area just east of the road that appears to have been dug out at the southern end. It is covered with blackberry vines, and may have once been the location of a building. Amethyst glass was observed, suggesting activity between 1880 and the 1920s.

During Æ’s visit, there was no evidence of the mine entrance documented in 1985. This may be the result of the culvert and road construction that appears to have taken place in the intervening years. It is possible that the mine entrance was filled. However, it is unclear why the 1985 survey did not record the features observed during this field effort. The proximity of these new features to the location of the mine entrance mapped in 1985 suggests that the two loci are associated.

The feature recorded during the 1985 field visit as the Orofino Mine appears to have been destroyed or filled. The relationship between that feature and the features recorded during the present field effort is unclear. The ore cart rails protruding from the tailings pile suggest that the newly recorded area could represent a locus of the Orofino Mine that was reused by later prospectors.

Significance

Evaluating the integrity of mining properties is particularly challenging because most historic mines are abandoned and in poor condition. As observed by the NPS, the integrity of a historic mine cannot be evaluated in the same way a building is evaluated:

[T]he passage of time, exposure to a harsh environment, abandonment, vandalism, and neglect often combine to cause the deterioration of individual mining property components. For example, buildings may have collapsed, machinery may have been removed, and railroad tracks may have been salvaged. However, the property may still exhibit a labyrinth of paths, roads, shaft openings, trash heaps, and fragments of industrial activity like standing headframes and large tailings piles. Although these individual components may appear to lack distinction, the combined impact of these separate components may enable the

property to convey the collective image of a historically significant mining operation. In essence, the whole of this property will be greater than the sum of its parts. In such cases, a mining property may be judged to have integrity as a system even though individual components of the system have deteriorated over time [Noble and Spude 1992:19].

This site has integrity of location but the setting has been severely impacted. The powerhouse access road cuts through the site, making it difficult to ascertain the relationship between the upper and lower features. A modern culvert and dirt road were placed through the site, causing erosion and possibly filling the mine and severely impacting the setting. The cultural remains that are present are not sufficient to reconstruct technological processes and their evolution through time. Therefore, the site does not have integrity of design. Additionally, there are no structures or equipment, so materials and workmanship are not well represented. Although some mining features are identifiable, providing some association, the site does not evoke a strong sense of the past. Therefore, feeling is absent.

Because this site lacks focus, data potential, and integrity, it is not recommended as eligible for the NRHP.

CA-BUT-965-H

This is the site of the Indian Springs Mine. It lies on private land and measures 79 meters by 70 meters. The mine is surrounded by pine, oak, fir, bay, and willow trees, as well as manzanita, California laurel, grasses and ferns. Located on a slope in Butte Canyon, the southeasterly exposure is partially sheltered by the surrounding hills. A small perennial creek flows out of the main adit.

PAR recorded this site in 1987 during a survey for Additions and Corrections to a Supplemental cultural resources survey of the Forks of Butte Hydroelectric Project, Butte County, California (Farber 1987). Their documentation states that this drift mine, started in 1860, was worked continuously until the 1890s, and then sporadically until the 1920s and possibly later. The mine once encompassed 6,500 feet of tunnel, including turns, within a 5,200-foot stretch. In the 1880s and 1890s, the mine yielded as much as seven to eight dollars per cartload, but was abandoned by the 1920s because the cost of operation was too high (Logan 1930). This mine, like others in the area, was reworked during the Depression when there was a renewal of interest in prospecting. This mine was not as successful or as prominent as other mines in the Magalia District (Farber 1987).

Feature 1 of the site is a deep pit, measuring 4 feet by 12 feet by 5 feet, that appears to be a portal to a minor adit or perhaps just a locus for gravel washing. The pit has a collapsed frame made from 2 inch by 4 inch lumber, 1 inch by 12 inch wall boards, and corrugated galvanized sheet metal. Feature 2 is a collapsed cabin. A cast iron wood stove marked “United States Stove Co., So. Pittsburgh, Tenn., No. 6495, Kitchen Heater” was documented behind the cabin. The U.S. Stove Company has been producing stoves since 1869. Feature 3 is a shallow ravine adjacent to the cabin that contains stove pipe, sheet metal, amber, aqua, and amethyst bottle glass, ceramics, flat top beer cans, galvanized wash basin, and modern trash. These artifacts appear to date to the

1920s and 1930s. Feature 4 is a pit, measuring 4 feet by 7 feet by 4.5 feet deep, blocked by a broken and corroding ore cart. This pit is partially lined with undressed natural stone cobbles, and may have been a minor shaft. Feature 5 is a concentration of sheet metal, primarily composed of stove pipe. Feature 6 appears to be an area where fill has been imported to construct a flat earthen platform measuring 25 feet by 40 feet. Feature 7 was the main adit. It measures 3 feet wide and approximately 4.5 feet high. Two twisted ore cart tracks were documented that extend into the adit, which are very long and intact. The adit had been cut into rock and no supporting structure is visible. A sizeable flow of water emanates from the adit. This water appears to have been diverted from a natural channel, located parallel to the adit, by a metal conduit. The water re-enters the natural drainage downslope of the adit. Feature 8, shown on the map but not discussed in the site record, appears to have been another flattened area.

Artifacts previously recorded around the site included ore carts, ore cart track, food cans, tobacco cans, beer cans with church key openings, Union Carbide cans (probably kerosene), whiteware with a green makers mark (the mark is not described in the site record but the date is given as 1850s–1860s), mason jar fragments, window glass, wire nails, galvanized screen mesh, and cans with handles. Except for the concentration recorded as Feature 3, there is no trash dump, but rather a trash scatter across the site.

The cabin was recorded as being collapsed and the site in a general state of disintegration. The mining portals were collapsed and/or sealed. Later activity at the site, particularly Depression-era mining and recreational traffic, have obscured or obliterated all signs of earlier mining activity. Evidence of recreational activities, including possible prospecting, suggests that artifact collectors could have easily accessed the site. Modern trash litters the mouth of the adit, again suggesting that this area is heavily used for recreation. About 40 feet northeast of the portal, a BLM cadastral survey marker was also recorded. It was emplaced in 1969, as the quarter section marker for Sections 3 and 10.

When Æ visited this site during the 2006 project, it was found to be essentially the same as the 1987 documentation. Recreational activities have continued in the area, and those, combined with weather and time, have caused continued disintegration of the site. This is most notable in the disappearance of artifacts, particularly the ore cart. However, most features and artifacts recorded in the 1987 record are still present and identifiable.

The primary, or most significant, time period of this site is from 1860 to the 1890s, with some sporadic activity into the 1920s. During the Depression era (1930 to early 1940s), old mine sites such as this one attracted people who hoped to improve their economic condition. This should be considered the secondary period of significance. The later activity obliterated many of the features dating to the primary period of significance. Many of the components of the site, including the ore cart, cart rails, and other mining artifacts are no longer present. Because these components represent the technology, their disappearance has caused a loss of integrity of materials and workmanship. Flattened areas can be identified as potential building pads, but there is no data to show what kind of buildings occupied those areas. With spatial relationships lost, integrity of design is impaired. Feeling and association are present. However, repeated recreational use of the site has deflated both artifact features and the site area itself, affecting setting and data potential.

Significance

The severe loss of integrity and low data potential result in a recommendation that this site is not eligible for the NRHP.

CA-BUT-1111-H

This site is an old corral and chute with an associated artifact scatter. It lies on private land at an elevation of 2,840 feet amsl and measures 60 feet by 60 feet. The area is relatively flat with a canopy of Ponderosa pine, cedar, Douglass fir, and black oak trees. Little Butte Creek is 125 meters to the west.

This site was originally recorded by the BLM in 1989 as having been constructed with split cedar boards, tongue-and-groove boards, hog wire, barbed wire, tin sheeting and cedar posts. The split cedar boards appear to have been taken from the nearby Little Butte Creek ditch and flume. A foundation was present under a portion of the corral and was thought to possibly be an older structure. Four gates were recorded by the BLM. A loading chute, projecting from the southeast corner of the corral, measures 18 ½ inches long by 2 feet wide. The artifact scatter contains sanitary cans, 1930s car parts, beer cans with church key openings, window glass, and cedar posts with 16D nails. At the time of documentation, the corral, which is on BLM land, was still used on occasion by Eldon Duensing of Chico. Duensing informed the BLM that the corral dated to the 1930s or 1940s. The BLM recommended that the corral be preserved because it might possess historic value.

Æ revisited this site during the current project. The corral measures 48 feet by 45 feet by 52 feet by 51 feet. The fence is 5–7 feet tall. The configuration appears to have changed slightly since 1989. The northern and eastern gates have been removed and vehicular traffic patterns are evident through those openings. An interior gate attached to an interior fence division has been removed. A large trash scatter is present under and around the chute. Several marked bottles are present, as listed in Table E6.11.2.2-6.

Other artifacts include various glass fragments, ceramic fragments, leather shoe soles with iron tacks, miscellaneous metal fragments, old car parts, and window glass. These artifacts appear to span a wide range of dates, suggesting that this site has been used from about 1950 until at least the 1970s.

This site is associated with grazing. Although thought to date to the 1930s by locals, the artifacts present support a date only as early as approximately 1950. This site has changed significantly from when it was first recorded. In 1989, the corral was still in use and the site map makes it easy to understand the flow of cattle from initial capture to chute to transport. However, the corral now appears to no longer be in use and it has disintegrated. Portions of the fence have fallen. The interior fence divisions, as well as the gates, have been removed. This eliminates several primary components of the corral and makes it difficult to understand the flow of work once carried out there.

Table E6.11.2.2-6. CA-BUT-1111-H Bottle Marks and Dates. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference 1956? Two amber bottles; Owens-Illinois Various Lockhart 2006 “D11 / 56 (“I” in diamond and circle) /4 1940–1973 Amber bottle base with stipling; “531 Northwestern Seattle, Washington Lindsey 2007; (connected NW) 73/D7”; “PLEASE Glass Co. Toulouse 1971 HELP FIGHT LITTER” embossed around body 1949? Colorless bottle; 3 inches x 1 ½ inches x 6 Owens-Illinois Los Angeles, California Lockhart 2006 inches tall; continuous thread finish; “D 23/101 9” with (“I” in diamond and circle) on base near the heel; “Federal Law Forbids Sale or Reuse of this bottle” on shoulder; “Half Pint” on body near heel 1923–1964 Colorless prescription bottle; “O 7011/ Hazel Atlas Oakland, California Whitten 2006 (“H” over “A”) / 9” 1923–1964 Colorless bottle base; 2 ½ inch diameter Hazel Atlas Oakland, California Whitten 2006 “73/ (“H” over “A”) / 0-863” 1923–1964 Colorless bottle base; 2 inch diameter Hazel Atlas Oakland, California Whitten 2006 “(“H” over “A”) / (stamped in reverse) 4131” Unknown Colorless oval bottle; “R181/90 (“I” in Owens-Illinois Unknown Lockhart 2006 diamond and circle)”

Significance

Although the site has features and appears to meet the 50-year requirement, it lacks important aspects of integrity. Location, setting, and feeling are retained. However, design is the primary data potential for this feature. Removal of key aspects of the corral makes this just another partial enclosure with a chute. The loss of design, the primary aspect of integrity for this site result in a recommendation that this site is not eligible for listing on the National Register.

CA-BUT-1229-H

CA-BUT-1229-H is a historical mining site on NFSL. It contains a horizontal mine shaft with associated tailings, a rock cairn, and a prospect pit. It lies on a west facing mountain slope approximately 5680 feet above sea level in mixed coniferous forest. The site contains dense stands of fir and Ponderosa pine amongst an understory of chinquapin and manzanita. It measures approximately 162 feet by 100 feet.

First recorded in 1986, the site was described as containing three features (Sloper 1986). These included a horizontal mine shaft/ditch with associated tailings (Feature 1), a possible rock cairn (Feature 2), and an exploratory mining hole (Feature 3). No associated artifacts were observed on the site surface. The horizontal mine shaft/ditch measured 46 feet long by 7 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The adit had collapsed and its opening was obscured by brush and recent deposition. Two tailing mounds were visible at the base of the adit. One measured 29 by 20 feet wide and 5 feet high and contained a large Ponderosa Pine in its center. The other measured 9 feet in diameter and surrounded a small stand of fir trees. Feature 2, the rock pile resembling a large cairn, was recorded approximately 50 feet southwest of the tailings. It measured 8 by 8 feet wide and 2.5 feet high. The exploratory mining hole, Feature 3, was observed 96 feet from the cairn in the same southwest direction. It was described as being 8 by 11 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep. Large

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-63 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 boulders were piled up 2.5 feet high around the pit and a large mound of fill measuring 13 feet wide by 2.5 feet high was associated.

The site was revisited by Æ for the 2006 project and found to be fairly consistent with Sloper’s 1986 description; however, some of the site attributes and features could not be relocated. These include the large Ponderosa Pine within the adit’s tailing pile (Sloper’s 1986 site datum) and the exploratory mining pit and associated mound (Feature 3). It is possible that the pine fell victim to a forest fire that swept the area since 1986. Feature 3 may have been obscured by accumulated forest debris, deposition, and vegetation. Also, Æ observed that what Sloper (1986) refers to as a “mine shaft/ditch” is actually the collapsed adit; there is no ditch associated. Æ’s reconnaissance resulted in the discovery of one additional feature, a prospect pit, 6 feet northeast of the collapsed adit portal. It measures 8 by 4 feet wide by 1 foot deep. In addition, the tailing pile appeared to have become more dispersed over the years and was found to extend 15 meters west of the original site boundary. Æ updated the site record to document these changes.

This site has components of a small mining operation. However, the dense duff on the ground makes feature recognition difficult. The fire that went through the area appears to have caused the site to erode. In fact, one feature appears to have disappeared. The only features present at this site are the collapsed adit, prospect pit, and tailings. There are no artifacts that give clues to who mined this site or when activity occurred.

Significance

The site retains integrity of location and its association is clear. However, the dense stand of trees that appear to postdate the mining activity have impacted the site’s setting and feeling. There is also no integrity of workmanship, materials, or design. Because this site lacks data potential, and retains little integrity, it is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP.

CA-BUT-1465-H

This site is a segment of a water conveyance ditch on private land. It is cut into a steep sandstone bank on the west side of Butte Creek. It is 40 to 48 inches wide and between 14 and 30 inches deep and extends approximately 500 feet long, paralleling the creek. It lies within a densely vegetated riparian zone containing sycamore and live oak trees, blackberry thickets, and various grasses. It was likely used to carry water for mining or agricultural activities.

This ditch was first recorded by John Furry in 1997 as a 45-foot discontinuous segment directly under the bridge. The ditch measured 2 1/5 feet wide by 18 inches deep and sustained considerable damage caused by high floodwater and vandalism (Furry 1997). Furry noted that 90 percent of the ditch was destroyed due to erosion and no section longer than 5 feet appeared to remain intact. The site was rerecorded in 1999 by Trudy Vaughan of Coyote and Fox Enterprises. Vaughan relocated the previously recorded segment under the bridge as well as additional segments both north and south of the bridge. Approximately 500 feet of ditch was observed in all; however the 40 foot section under the bridge and to the north was the most intact. Vaughan described the ditch as measuring 40 to 48 inches wide by 14 to 30 inches deep (Vaughan 1999). She noted intermittent draws intersecting the ditch from the bank above and

suggested they may have supported a wooden flume or pipe to carry the water that flowed east from the bank above. An oval pad measuring 6 1/2 inches wide by 47 inches long and 4 feet deep was observed cut into the sandstone north of the bridge and may have served as the flume support base. Much of the ditch was filled in with rocks and vegetation and its outer sandstone wall displayed varying degrees of erosion. Sections of the ditch were completely destroyed by recent construction. Vaughan concluded that the ditch retains little integrity except for the short segment directly below and north of the bridge. Æ’s visit to the site in 2006 found that portions of the ditch were filled in with rocks and vegetation obscuring it from view; however, much of the ditch appears to be in fair condition. Other portions of the ditch are more heavily disturbed by construction of the bridge, road, and neighboring residence.

Significance

Because the date and owner/operator of the ditch could not be determined, its lack of integrity, and the fact that water conveyance ditches of this type are common in this area, Vaughan previously concluded that the site has little data potential and is not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Vaughan 1999). In general, Æ found the site to be consistent with Vaughan’s description and agrees with Vaughan’s recommendation that the site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

BCC-4

BCC_4 is likely a ditch tender’s camp. It is located on PG&E property on the north end of Lake DeSabla, adjacent to the Toadtown Canal. It was identified by PAR (1985) as the site of the PG&E Headquarters Camp. However, maps and other references reviewed during the archival research indicate that Camp 1 (DC-53-H), located on the south end of Lake DeSabla, is the PG&E Headquarters’ Camp. The site is located in a generally flat area with an eastern aspect. The surrounding vegetation is conifer forest with poplar trees and Manzanita understory. The irregular shaped site measures approximately 235 feet north-south by 210 feet east-west. The Toadtown Canal abuts the eastern perimeter. Lake DeSabla (the DeSabla Forebay) lies 30 feet to the northeast.

Several features are extant within the site. Feature A is the perimeter fence, which demarcates the northern, eastern, and western boundaries of the site. It is constructed from recycled lumber, including board and batten siding and sawed-off power poles, and barbed wire. It is approximately 6 feet tall. Feature B is a board and batten garage that sits on a concrete foundation. This front-gabled structure measures 27 feet by 27 feet and has a corrugated metal roof. The original door on the northern elevation has been replaced with a modern metal garage door. A single window, a 3/3 wooden horizontal slider, is present on the southern elevation. A piece of aluminum gutter lies on the ground just west of the structure, but there is no evidence that it was used on this structure. In the garage doorframe, there is a metal placard that reads “Pacific Gas & Electric Company/Building 4516/This plate to be returned to/General Office San Francisco, immediately/This Building is sold or destroyed”. A concrete slab abuts the eastern side of the garage. It measures 25 feet east-west by 40 feet north-south. Feature C is a depression with an associated rock alignment. The shape of the depression indicates a structure may have once been located within the current alignment of the driveway. The single course of rock on the

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-65 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 southern end of the depression may be remnants of a foundation. Feature D is an area of introduced vegetation, including two cherry trees, one plum tree, a lilac, acacia, and ivy.

A light scatter of artifacts was noted across the site. Miscellaneous metal hardware, including bolts, square spikes, and wire, were primarily observed along the fence line. A broken brown insulator is attached to a post on the west side near the north gate has “Illinois / PAT. 1709477” embossed around the circumference. This patent number dates to 1923. A red brick fragment was also observed.

The site is visible to users of the recreational trail along Toadtown Canal. Modern trash is present within the site boundaries.

Significance

Æ believes that the lack of features and artifacts is due to a major cleanup episode that happened sometime in the past, where structures were removed and trash was picked up. That event has left almost no data potential at the site. Additionally, it affected six aspects of integrity. The site no longer conveys its use as a camp, which affects the setting, feeling, and association. Workmanship, materials, and design were affected by removal of features. Although intact subsurface deposits may be present, the removal of surface features has severely impacted the data potential of the spatial layout of the site. Only one artifact of the few that remain on the site was datable. Even so, that artifact merely points to activity on the site after 1923. The one structure on site (Feature B) lacks integrity and retains no other significant characteristics that would make it individually eligible to the NRHP.

Removal of the structures, loss of spatial relationships, lack of features or artifacts, and a loss of integrity result in a recommendation that this site is not eligible for the National Register.

BCC-5

This was the location of Hupp’s Sawmill and residence, in use between 1864 and 1890. It lies on both PG&E and private lands. All structures were removed over 25 years ago. The area is now covered with blackberry bushes and ground vegetation was thick during the field visit. Modern trash has been dumped on the site. Only a few historic ceramics and glass fragments were observed. It is possible that tall, thick vegetation is obscuring artifact concentrations. It is also possible that artifact-bearing hollow features are present, but hidden. These could include privies, trash pits, and industrial features related to the sawmill.

Significance

Because the site is so overgrown, this site is not formally evaluated. Subsurface investigations are necessary to determine the data potential of this site and thus, its significance. A map of all the facilities that once occupied this site could be used to guide that work. A significance evaluation cannot be made at this time and the site remains potentially eligible for the NRHP.

CC-4

CC-4 is a ditch tender’s camp on the Lower Centerville Canal. It is located on private property, south of where the canal intersects with Centerville Road. Based on archival research, this is likely the site of Camp 3. Because this site is on private property, only minimal access to the site was possible. A rock retaining wall was observed next to the house and may be a remnant of the camp, but its exact association is unclear.

Significance

Modern construction and disturbance have affected the overall integrity of the site. Even if subsurface features still exist, the setting, feeling, association, materials, and design have been essentially eliminated. This site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-2-H

This is a corral on SPI lands, located on a flat adjacent to Humbug Road. Pine and cedar trees dominate the site, giving the corral area only 25 percent open exposure. The exposed ground contains sparse grasses, while pine needles and thick duff cover the remainder of the site. Gooseberry is also present in the area. Scattered granite rocks are noted in the site area.

The corral is an irregular pentagon shape with a northeast-southwest orientation. The longest (northwestern) side measures 328 feet in length. The northeast side measures 67 feet and the southwest side is 197 feet long. The southeast side of the corral is comprised of two segments; one measures 82 feet and the other 262 feet. The corral was constructed with wooden posts and barbwire. Ceramic insulators were used to attach and tie the wire.

This corral is in poor condition. Although most of the posts survive, the wire has either fallen down or been removed along most of the fence line. Trees have grown within the corral area.

This site may be related to grazing in the area, but that association is unclear.

Significance

Although some portions of the corral are intact, this feature has lost integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. New forest growth has affected the feeling and setting. This site does not appear to have any data potential and is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-6-H

This site, which contains two trash dumps, is located on a south facing slope under a canopy of pine and cedar trees on SPI land. A skid trail passes through the western portion of the site, which measures 65 feet north-south by 72 feet east-west. Fallen trees, dead branches, and heavy duff litter the area. Granite outcrops were noted inside the site boundaries. The West Branch Feather River is located approximately 272 feet to the south.

Feature A at the site is a trash dump measuring 26 feet by 13 feet. Approximately 100 cans are present, including cone-top beer cans; some matchstick filler milk cans measuring 2 1/2 inches in diameter and 2 1/2 inches in height and some that measure 2 15/16 inches in diameter and 3 15/16 inches in height; large and small sanitary cans; a small pail; rectangular can; flat top beer can with large church key opening; a one-quart Pennzoil can; “Prince Albert” upright tobacco tin; meat cans; sardine tins; spice cans; “Log Cabin” syrup tin, and an external friction lid from a coffee can (Rock 1987). Other artifacts include a Graniteware pot, a white improved earthenware bowl fragment, and a colorless bottle neck and finish exhibiting automatic bottle machine seams (post-1904). The beverage cans date this deposit between 1935 and 1963 (Rock 1987).

Feature B is a trash dump that measures 16 feet by 9 feet. About 30 cans are present, including pull-top aluminum soda and juice cans with steel body, a small propane canister, sanitary cans, and a large ham can. The beverage cans date this deposit to post 1963 (Rock 1987).

A skid trail passes through the western portion of the site. Feature B is located within the skid trail, suggesting that the trail was not in use when that deposit was made.

Two eras of use are present at this site. Feature A, related to a skid trail, may be associated with logging activity. Feature B is a later deposit likely associated with recreational campers.

Significance

Although this site meets most of the evaluation standards, it does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. The association of Feature A is tenuous. There are no documented logging camps in this area. Therefore, if it is associated with the lumber industry, it is a single dump episode likely associated with loggers away from their main camp. Although many food containers are present, it provides only a one-dimensional view into the past. The data potential of this site, the threshold of Criterion D, is low, and therefore the site is evaluated as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-7-H

This site is composed of three trash dumps. Located on an east-facing slope, it is adjacent to the West Branch Feather River on SPI land. A dense stand of pine and cedar trees are within and around the site. Heavy duff and fallen branches litter the ground.

Feature A of the site measures 9 feet east-west by 6 feet north-south. Feature B, located 25 meters from Feature A at a bearing of 240 degrees, measures approximately 23 feet north-south by 26 feet east-west. These features contain a mixture of steel top cans with pull tabs (dating from 1962 to the early 1970s), clear liquor bottles with threaded closures, a can of Liquid Wrench, an upright tobacco can, and a Pepsi bottle with a 1970 makers mark. These two features appear to date to around 1970.

The northernmost dump, Feature C, measures 11 feet east-west and 10 feet north-south and is located 25 meters south of Humbug Road. This feature is the most extensive, containing over 200 items, with additional subsurface deposits. These items include clear glass condiment bottles

and liquor bottles, brown liquor bottles, a 7-Up bottle, evaporated milk cans with matchstick filler lids, cone and flat top beer cans, coffee cans, jelly jars, tumblers, a pickle jar, and a tube of Colgate toothpaste. The datable artifacts suggest that this site dates between 1945 and 1960 (Table E6.11.2.2-7).

Table E6.11.2.2-7. DC-7-H Bottle Marks and Dates. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference Brackenridge, 20 (“I” in diamond and Toulouse 1933-1953 Owens-Illinois Pennsylvania OR Oakland, circle) 3 403-406; Lockhart 2006 California “Federal Law Prohibits 1933-1964 Sale or Re-use of this IMACS 2001 bottle” Knox Glass Bottle 1924-1968 “K” in keystone Knox, Pennsylvania Toulouse :293 Co/Knox Glass Co., Inc. Post 1940 Duraglass (in script) Owens-Illinois Various Lockhart 2006 Glass Containers, Inc/Glass Since 1945 Interlocking GC Various cities, California Toulouse 220 Containers Corp. 1935-late 1950s Cone top beer can Various Various Rock 1987:29

These deposits are undisturbed and appear to retain good integrity. Features A and B may have been created by recreational campers. Feature C may be related to the lumber industry, but that association is unclear.

Significance

Like site DC-6-H, this site meets most of the evaluation standards, but it does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. Again, the association of Feature C to the logging industry is tenuous. There are no documented logging camps in this area. Therefore, if it is associated with the lumber industry, it is a single dump episode likely associated with loggers away from their main camp. Although many food containers are present, it gives us only a one-dimensional view into the past. The data potential of this site, the threshold of Criterion D, is low, and therefore the site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-8-H

This historic-era trash scatter is located on an east-facing terrace overlooking the West Branch Feather River on private property. A canopy of pine and cedar allows 20 percent exposure of the site. Located at 5,280 feet amsl, the site measures 70 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. A dense stand of trees to the north protects the site from travelers on Humbug Summit Road.

Feature A, the trash dump, is 40 feet in diameter. It contains approximately 100 items. Ceramics include white improved earthenware fragments, one marked “WALLACE/20V/ CHINA/LOS ANGELES/CALIFORNIA”. That is the mark for the Wallace China Company, in business from 1931 to 1964 (Lehner 1988). A colorless Karo Syrup bottle has an Owens-Illinois basemark (“7 [“I” in circle and diamond] 9”) suggesting it was produced in 1939 (Lockhart 2006). Matchstick filler milk cans measure 2 15/16 inches by 3 15/16 inches and has raised rings, suggesting a date

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-69 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 of 1945-1950. Other cans include MJB coffee cans, meat cans, sanitary cans, and juice cans. A “Coca-Cola” bottle is also present, and “1956” was marked on its base. The dates of the artifacts are confusing, as they do not appear to be contemporaneous with each other. This may suggest that this site was used over a period of time and is not a single episode deposit.

Fallen trees and dead branches litter the site, and have potentially buried artifactual material. River flooding episodes and water scouring related to an adjacent mining ditch (DC-22) have caused erosion of the terrace bank that is slowly encroaching on the site.

The mix of datable artifacts at this site makes interpretation of the deposit difficult, thus the deposit lacks focus.

Significance

As with sites DC-6-H and DC-7-H, this site meets most of the evaluation standards, but it does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. This site may be associated with logging or recreational camping, but appears to have been disturbed by the introduction of later artifacts. Although many food containers are present, it gives us only a one-dimensional view into the past. The data potential of this site, the threshold of Criterion D, is low, therefore, the site is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP.

DC-16-H

This site is a historic period refuse deposit consisting of bottles, glass, ceramics, enamelware, and cans. It is located on NFSL on a gentle slope within a clearing near a campground access road. It lies at an elevation of 4,800 feet amsl within a mixed conifer forest and manzanita and gooseberry understory. The West Branch Feather River is located approximately 500 meters to the west. Site boundaries, which are 38 meters north-south by 25 meters east-west, were determined by both the surface extent of artifacts and topography.

Although a few artifacts were located throughout the site, most artifacts were concentrated in a 5-foot diameter area in the northeastern quadrant of the site. Artifacts include a white improved earthenware vessel foot or finial; a yellow ware plate rim with “…/WIS.” on the base; a colorless bottle with a brandy finish and “FEDERAL LA[W]…DS SALE / OR RE-USE OF …S BOTTLE” (1933–1964); three beer cans with lapped side seams marked with “OLD DUTCH” and “[G]old[en] Grain”; a brass shotgun cartridge marked “WINCHESTER/No 16/ REPEATER”; a colorless glass bottle, slightly rectangular with “..OW..” on the base; and a red and white enamelware handle. Some bottles exhibit makers marks. Two short amber bottles were marked “20 (“I” in diamond and circle) 0/ 10E / 20075-GB.” A colorless one quart bottle is marked “20 (“I” in diamond and circle) 59// (in circle) M / REG. CAL. // 7037-G 26.” These appear to be liquor bottles, and Owens-Illinois marks on liquor bottles cannot be reliably dated (Lockhart 2006). One aqua bottle base, 3 ¼ inches in diameter, is marked “20 (“I” in diamond and circle) 55,” suggesting it was made by Owens-Illinois in Oakland in 1955 (Lockhart 2006; Toulouse 1971:403–406).

Five sanitary cans with two dimensions were encountered. One size, 3 1/8 inch diameter by 4 3/8

inch tall most closely corresponds with the 303 can which was used for vegetables, some fruits and juices, soups, and specialties. The can measuring 2 1/8 inch diameter by 2 7/8 inches tall appears to correspond with the 5Z can, which was used for baby food or chocolate syrup. A matchstick filler hole-in-top can measures 3 inches in diameter and 4 3/8 inches tall. Also present was a rectangular meat can and an aluminum meat tin with steel key. A tin can with a screw cap and pour spigot in the corner of the top measures 10 inches by 8 inches by 3 1/4 inches, and has an unreadable round brand design on the front and back. One tin can, measuring 4 1/2 inches in diameter and 5 inches tall has an external friction lid pail with lugs. The handle is missing. A slit knife opening is present on the bottom and a hole has been punched near the edge of the base.

This site appears to date to about 1955. It retains good integrity and most of the artifacts appear to be undisturbed, although the nearby campground gives collectors easy access suggesting that other deposits on the site may have been disturbed or removed.

This site may be associated with mid-twentieth century camping at the West Branch Campground. However, this association is unclear. Although the deposit can be dated, and there are artifacts related to subsistence, the data potential is very small.

Significance

The site meets most of the evaluation standards, but there are no personal artifacts that would assist with the site’s association or give clues to age, gender, social class, or ethnic group. The lack of data potential results in a recommendation that the site is ineligible for the National Register.

DC-18-H

This is a historic period refuse deposit composed of bottles, cans, and metal hardware that is located in a clearing near the West Branch Feather River on NFSL. Site boundaries, which measure 25 meters north-south by 23 meters east-west, were determined by the extent of surface artifacts as well as topography. The western boundary is defined by the bank of the West Branch Feather River. The natural contour of the base of an adjacent hill composes the northern and eastern boundaries. The area surrounding the site is thickly forested with pine and cedar trees. Thick duff, as well as many dead trees and limbs, litters the area.

Most of the artifacts, consisting of ceramic, glass, and metal, are concentrated in a 5 meter diameter area in the northwestern quadrant of the site. One ceramic fragment from a white improved earthenware vessel has a green, orange, and blue design of a woman outdoors with blue around the rim. Cans include two matchstick filler milk cans, a rectangular tin can that measures 7 inches by 4 inches by 2 1/2 inches, five sanitary cans, and five cone top beer cans which date between 1935 and the late 1950s (Rock 1987:29). Three cans are marked “Old/Frisco/Extra Pale/Lager Beer.” A colorless condiment jar measures 3 inches tall and has a 2-inch diameter. It has an external thread and is marked “6848 A/23 (interlocking oval and diamond) 7/4,” suggesting it was produced by Owens-Illinois prior to 1954. A colorless condiment tumbler that once displayed an adhesive label measures 2 7/8 inches in diameter and 3 1/2 inches tall. A green quart-sized bottle, displaying a partial adhesive label marked

“…JUICE…” has a base mark of “Duraglass/ 23 (“I” within an oval and diamond) 4 / 2G / 1596- E.” This bottle was produced by Owens Illinois between 1940 and 1954. One milk bottle was made of colorless glass and has an inset finish. Amber and colorless glass bottle fragments are also present. One milk glass canning jar seal was noted.

Hardware includes a Z-shaped metal bracket with five rivets. The bracket is 1 inch wide and 3/16 inches thick. Two legs of the Z each measure 4 inches long, with the third leg measuring 3 inches long. A single wire nail measuring 2 ¼ inch long was also noted.

One Hill Brothers coffee can was noted near the eastern site boundary. The one pound can is marked “Hills Bros / Coffee / Red Can Brand / The Original Vacuum Pack.” This can dates to after 1914 (Rock 1987).

This site appears to retain good integrity, but because of its proximity to the river, it may have been subject to flooding episodes. Based on the artifacts, this site appears to date to between 1940 and the late 1950s.

Significance

The association of the site is unclear. There are no documented work camps in this area, so the deposit appears to be a single dump episode. There is subsistence information present, but with no association, there is little data potential, thus the site is evaluated as not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-20-H

This site, located at 5,600 feet amsl on NFSL, is the USFS Snag Lake Camp, which is shown on a 1949 Division of Forestry map. The site, which measures 137 meters north-south and 119 meters east-west, contains structures and artifacts. Located on gentle terrain at the base of a mountain, and just upslope of the West Branch Feather River, the camp lies in a mixed conifer forest with gooseberry, fern, and manzanita understory. The ground is littered with duff and fallen trees and branches. The vegetation and this ground cover are dense in most locations, potentially hiding features and artifacts. An enormous cascade of rocks is located along the steeper sections of the mountain along the eastern boundary. This site may be associated with DC-1/H, also recorded during this survey, which is located across the river along FS Road #27N11B.

A number of features are located within the site. Feature 1 is a concrete and rock fireplace that measures 4 feet 5 inches by 4 feet by 13 inches. Concrete was used as mortar for the rocks and to face the top and inside of the fireplace. This feature is not intact, as rocks have been removed and the concrete has been broken up. The concrete is still present only on the north side. The northwest corner is collapsed. Some fragments of colorless and green glass are associated with this feature, as is one “Light/Olympia Beer” can with a church key opening. A flat top Coca-Cola can with a church key opening, dating from between 1960 and 1964, was noted nearby to the east.

Feature 2 is a depression with artifacts. This depression appears squared off, suggesting it may be a privy, and measures 7 feet by 6 feet by 14 inches. Artifacts present in this depression include 1/8-inch thick plate glass; green, amber, and colorless fragments of bottles and/or jars; steel wool; a white earthenware plate or platter fragment with a thin red line around the base of the rim, and brown wheat-like stalks and a green design on the rim; a 12-inch diameter metal gas can with two holes on the top (one threaded); sanitary cans; steel beer cans, including one Budweiser can; a barrel hoop; a colorless condiment bottle; and a 1 1/2 inch globular light bulb. Marked bottles include a colorless bottle base, 2 1/4 inches in diameter with “Hires” on the base (post 1893). An amber bottle base, 2 3/8 inches in diameter, is marked with “(in a square) N 66 (underlined) / 50.” It was produced by the Obear-Nestor Glass Company after 1915. A colorless extract bottle, 3 5/8 inches tall with a metal “Sh[illin]g” cap, with “REG PAT / 94 T 47” on the base was produced prior to 1947. This feature dates between 1935 and 1947.

Feature 3 is a well with corrugated metal casing that is capped by a metal plate. The casing, which is 37 inches in diameter, sticks up above the ground to a height of 24 inches. The cap is soldered to the casing, likely as a safety precaution.

Feature 4 is a wooden bridge that crosses the West Branch Feather River. Constructed with milled lumber and wire nails on wooden piers, the bridge appears to have suffered from flooding episodes.

Feature 5 is a rock fire ring with corrugated metal that was used to reflect heat and protect the fire from wind. The single ring of rock measures 4 feet 5 inches in diameter and is 6 inches tall. The flashing is 64 inches long by 16 inches tall by 1/32 inch thick.

Feature 6 is an artifact deposit in a depression that measures 20 inches by 14 inches by 4 inches. A bottle labeled “Catsup” has the Owens Illinois mark “20 I (in a circle) 6 / 3E / Duraglass (in cursive) / 2143-EP” on the base. This bottle was produced after 1954. Many soda cans are present. One readable label is “SHASTA / TRUE FRUIT / BLACK CHERRY / FLAVORED / SODA /HASTA BE SHASTA / DO NOT FREZE”. This can dates to the 1950s. One of the soda cans is labeled “ORANGE / CREAM SODA”. A French’s mustard jar with a screw on cap is also present. Two sanitary cans are 7 inches tall and 4 inches in diameter, corresponding to a No. 3 can that would have been used to package fruit or tomato juices. One sanitary can measures approximately 4 3/8 inches tall and 3 1/8 inches in diameter. It is likely a No. 303 can that was used for juices. This feature dates to the late 1950s.

Feature 7 is another artifact deposit. This deposit, which covers an area measuring 9 feet by 5 feet, lies near a road through the camp. Two aluminum cans marked “Maid Rite Brand/Imitation/ Grape/Soda/Artificially Flavored” are present, as are five Olympia Beer cans, 7-Up cans, rootbeer cans, and Coors and Hamm’s beer cans. The pop-top openings on these cans date them between 1963 and the early 1980s. Several meat containers are present, including an Armour jar top and a rectangular tin marked “Dinty Moore/Sandwich/Loaf.” One plastic coffee mug with handle is marked “VACRON / PATENT NO. 0-192,174 / BOPP-DECKER PLASTICS INC / BIRMINGHAM, MICH” and was likely manufactured in the 1950s or 1960s. This feature appears to date to the period between 1963 and 1980.

Additionally, various artifacts not associated with features, such as sanitary cans, milled lumber with wire nails, and metal flashing, are located throughout the site.

There is evidence that cattle have been pastured and/or moved through the site. Vehicular access roads are located throughout the site boundaries, and there is evidence of recent recreation and camping activities. East of the well, black plastic pipes lay 21 feet apart in a shape resembling a horseshoe pit.

This site appears to be an abandoned USFS campground. There are indications that the campground was once improved with a water cistern and a privy, but these have fallen into disuse. The camp further appears to have first been occupied sometime after 1935 and to have closed prior to 1980. However, recent signs of vehicular access suggest that recreational users continue to use the area.

Significance

This site meets many of the evaluation standards. However, no documentary evidence of the camp was located. It is unclear if this was a USFS work camp that was later turned into a recreation camp, or if its only purpose was recreation. The founding date of the camp is unknown, but artifacts suggest it may have been used for 40 years. If that is true, there appears to be a relative paucity of artifacts for that length of time. The site also shows evidence of modern intrusions, suggesting that features or artifacts may have been removed or destroyed prior to this recordation effort. Because this site does not have enough data potential to meet the threshold for Criterion D, it is evaluated as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-22-H

This is the Dewey Ditch, which is fed by the West Branch Feather River. It lies on private property, parallel Humbug Summit Road. The ditch follows a gentle to moderate sloping hillside, and extends over 2 miles in a south-southeast direction from the West Branch Feather River to FS Road 25N17 at Cuddleback Flat. It is unclear if the ditch currently continues past Cuddleback Flat. It passes through a mixed conifer forest that contains an understory of manzanita, chinquapin, and gooseberry. The top of the ditch is 12 feet wide and the bottom is 4 feet wide. The segment is 2 feet 6 inches deep and 2.1 miles long.

One feature, a penstock frame, is associated with the ditch. The base of the frame, which consists of two concrete foundations, measures 5 feet by 14 inches by 6 1/2 inches and served as a mount for curved iron frames that once held a 3-inch-diameter penstock. The foundations are 8 feet apart and are in situ. The iron frames have been removed and placed a short distance from the foundations.

The ditch was built in 1858 and sold to the Cherokee Mine in 1873. In 1902, Eugene de Sabla purchased the Centerville Powerhouse system and the dams, pipeline, and ditches of the Cherokee Mine, which included the Dewey Ditch (Jackson et al. 1985:141–142). He used the water carried by the old Cherokee ditches to generate power in his new Centerville hydroelectric system. The Dewey, Miner’s, and Inskip ditches worked in tandem to carry water from Round

Valley Reservoir to the Toadtown Canal, then ultimately to the DeSabla Forebay. In 1922, the ditch was 8 ½ feet wide at the top, 4 feet at the bottom, and 2 ½ feet deep. The ditch was decommissioned in 1933. A cabin near the head of the Dewey Ditch at the river (site DC-51/H) straddles the ditch and is likely the remains of a ditch tender’s cabin. The resident at a cabin documented in nearby site DC-21 mentioned to the field crew that the ditch was used for hydraulic mining.

The portion of this ditch near Cuddleback Flat may have been turned into a road for logging. Certain sections of the ditch remain intact along most of its course. Integrity is diminished only in developed areas where roads and cabins are present and the ditch has filled in and used as roads and driveways.

Significance

The Dewey Ditch was originally associated with gold mining at the Cherokee Mine, and with later use for power generation associated with the early development hydroelectric power by the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System. Having been decommissioned in 1933, the ditch is no longer a feature of the hydroelectric system, but is considered individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

DC-23-H

DC-23-H is a historic-era trash dump at an elevation of 5,590 feet amsl on PG&E lands. It measures 58 feet north-south by 57 feet east-west, and is located just west of NFSL land near Philbrook Creek. Exposed granite covers the slope and downed trees are located throughout the site area.

The single feature of this site is a trash dump measuring 18 feet north-south and 17 feet east- west. Approximately 100 items are visible on the surface, with the potential that more items are buried. About 98 percent of the artifacts are cans, including matchstick filler milk cans measuring 2 15/16 inches by 3 14/16 inches (probably Type 18 dating from 1935 to 1945); Log Cabin syrup tins; motor oil cans; meat cans; juice cans; soda cans; various sanitary cans; flat top beer cans with large church key openings (1935–1962); Burgermeister beer cans; and USFS green-colored alcohol fuel cans (similar to Sterno) for heating and cooking. A few bottles were also noted. A 6 ounce light green Coca-Cola bottle, marked “SACRAMENTO, CA,” has an Owens-Illinois base mark “3 I (in a diamond and circle) 47.” It was likely produced in Huntington, West Virginia in 1947. A colorless Peter Pan peanut butter jar has a script Duraglass mark and the base mark “C3786/ 9 “I” (in circle and diamond) 4 / 8.” It was produced in Streator, Illinois, in 1944. A colorless glass bottle base, marked “38819 / Ball (in script) 4”, was manufactured between 1919 and 1969. A brown bottle base is marked “MONTMORENCY DISTILLERY LTD/BEAUPRE P.O. CANADA/MADE IN USA,” with the Owens-Illinois mark “4 / 56 I (in script) 54.” Owens-Illinois marks on liquor bottles are different from those used on food bottles (Lockhart 2006). It is likely that this bottle was manufactured in 1944. An olive green champagne bottle was also present. Overall, this assemblage appears to have been

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-75 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 deposited around 1947. No other artifacts are associated with this site. Some logging has recently occurred in the area, but no other disturbances were noted.

The association of this site is unclear, although the site is located across the West Branch Feather River from the 1949 USFS Snag Lake Camp (DC-20-H). Thus, the site may be related to USFS use or to use of the area by recreationists.

Significance

The deposit appears to have integrity and it contains a variety of food product containers. However, its lack of clear association makes it difficult to place the site into the contextual framework and research domains. This severely limits the data potential of the site and makes it ineligible for the National Register.

DC-24-H

This historic-era trash dump is upslope and approximately 50 feet northeast of a cabin marked as “Atkinson’s Hideaway” and 60 feet northwest of a cabin with a red tin roof. It lies on PG&E land along Philbrook Road. The site is located on a south-facing slope, and is surrounded by pines, cedars, gooseberry, chinquapin, and granitic outcrops. Philbrook Creek is located 470 feet to the south.

The single feature of the site is the trash dump, which measures 29 feet north-south by 34 feet east-west. Approximately 300 items are present. A variety of cans, including milk cans, meat cans, juice cans, sanitary cans, spice cans, Redi-Whip whipped cream can, and a Padre Pale Lager Beer can with church-key opening. Matchstick filler milk cans measure 2 1/2 inches by 2 3/8 inches and have four rings, suggesting a date of 1931–1948. A white improved earthenware plate is marked “DUFF… / DGH (in script) / ROUGE LAM… / PAT… / 184… / MADE IN…”, and could not be identified. A whole brown bottle is marked “Duraglass (in script)/15 I (in circle and diamond) 52/ W-5/5159-6,” and dates between 1940 and 1959 (Lockhart 2006). A colorless ketchup bottle is marked “7454 / (H over A) / 115,” identifying it as a Hazel Atlas jar produced between 1923 and 1964 (Toulouse 1971; Whitten 2006). Other condiment jars also exhibits a portion of a Hazel Atlas mark, while some condiment jars are marked with “C (interlocking GC) 4 / 3507” indicating a Glass Containers, Inc./Glass Containers Corp. container, produced since 1933 (Toulouse 1971; Whitten 2006). One of a number of small jars is marked with a connected “NW,” indicating it was produced by Northwestern Glass Co. in Seattle, Washington, between 1931 and 1973 (Lindsey 2007; Toulouse 1971). A colorless bottle marked with a Ball script dates between 1919 and 1969. A crown cap with a cork lining was produced from 1912 to 1955. A white porcelain-coated wash basin was also noted. This group of artifacts postdates 1940, but was likely deposited between 1940 and 1955. No other artifacts were observed in the site boundaries.

Because this site is located behind a residential cabin, collectors can easily access the area. Downed trees and erosion have also impacted the site.

This feature may be associated with the nearby cabin. However, the large number of items suggests that accumulation occurred over a long period of time or there were occupants from other nearby cabins also using the dump site. This unclear association negatively impacts the focus of the site.

Significance

This deposit gives some insight into subsistence habits. However, it is unclear if this deposit was made by an individual, a group, or multiple unrelated groups. The deposit provides no clues as to ethnicity, gender, or age. These factors limit the site’s ability to provide significant data and the site is evaluated ineligible for listing on the NRHP as a result.

DC-26-H

DC-26-H is a historic-era trash dump on a gentle south-facing slope within an open area currently used for burning slash piles. The site, which measures 26 feet north-south by 28 feet east-west, is on NFSL. It has an open exposure due to tree thinning activities. A dense tree line of pines and cedars separates the exposed site area from an open, grassy meadow is located approximately 300 feet downslope of the site, adjacent to Philbrook Road.

This site contains a single feature, the trash dump, which measures 6 feet north-south by 8 feet east-west. Approximately 20 items are present, including a rectangular olive oil can with spout, sanitary cans, meat cans, a coffee can with a friction lid, matchstick filler milk cans, and a stove pipe fragment. The size of the milk cans indicate that deposition postdates 1950.

USFS activity has impacted the site. Slash piles were placed on top of and adjacent to the artifact dump and a fire line was cut through the feature. The slash piles and other downed trees may be obscuring other artifacts.

There is no clear association for this site as it is not near any cabins, camps, or established recreational areas. Additionally, the quantity of artifacts is very low and the date is tenuous.

Significance

The site meets few evaluation standards. The number of questionable assessment factors further illustrates the lack of focus of the site materials and it is evaluated as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

DC-29-H

This site consists of four trash dumps associated with cabins on PG&E lands along Philbrook Road. The site, located on a south facing gentle slope, measures 200 feet north-south by 35 feet east-west. It has open exposure and many fallen trees litter the site. Pines, chinquapins, various grasses, and granite outcrops are present throughout the area, and a stand of cedar trees is present at the northeastern corner of the site. Philbrook Reservoir is approximately 656 feet to the south. A water tank is present in the southwestern quadrant of the site.

Feature A is a trash dump that measures 38 feet north-south by 39 feet east-west and contains over 300 items. Cans dominate this assemblage, and include paint cans, large ham cans, meat tins, juice cans, soda cans (including Shasta), sanitary cans, aerosol cans, and Olympia, Hamm’s, and Falstaff beer cans with church-key openings. A number of marked glass containers are present (Table E6.11.2.2-8). Aside form the items listed in Table E6.11.2.2-8, two Ball canning jars, a jelly jar, and a champagne bottle were also documented.

Table E6.11.2.2-8. DC-29-H Bottle Marks and Dates. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference Since 1945 Colorless bottle base: Glass Containers, Various cities, California Toulouse 1971:220 A (Interlocking GC) 8 / 3656/T Inc./Glass Containers Corp. Since 1945 Brown bottle base: Glass Containers, Various cities, California Toulouse 1971:220 V (Interlocking GC) 8 /3525/1 Inc/Glass Containers Corp. 1958 Colorless condiment bottle base: 101 (I Owens-Illinois Brackenridge, Pennsylvania OR Toulouse in oval) 58 / D-9/M25 46 Oakland, California 403–406; Lockhart 2006 1939-1957 Colorless bottle base: Latchford-Marble Glass Los Angles, CA Toulouse 1971:332 SAN MARTIN VINEYARDS/ Co. (connected LM in oval) Pat APP…

Structural materials include milled lumber, sheet metal, and various metal fragments. This dump appears to date to 1958, but the large size of the deposit suggests that it is the result of multiple dumping episodes and not a single event.

Feature B is a trash dump that is 6 feet in diameter. It contains approximately 10 items, including sanitary cans and flat top beer cans with church key openings. The latter indicates a deposit date of 1935–1963 (Rock 1987). Feature C also measures 6 feet in diameter. Among the 20 items in this deposit are large and small sanitary cans and flat top beer cans with church key openings. Again a deposition date of 1935-1963 is suggested. Feature D measures 24 feet east-west by 22 feet north-south. This feature includes 20 items, including flat top beer cans, coffee cans, and a rectangular can with a large spout.

Feature A is the only portion of the site that has been disturbed. An excavated pit in the center of Feature A indicates that artifact collecting is likely occurring at the site.

Significance

The association of these features could not be ascertained. Feature A appears to date to 1958, but the collector’s pit in this feature indicates that it has been severely disturbed. Because this feature may be the result of multiple dumping episodes, it is possible that the collecting activity has mixed the feature’s stratigraphy and destroyed its integrity. Features B, C, and D all contain similar items from contemporaneous time periods, and therefore appear to be related. However, these features contain very few items and very little variety. Therefore they have low data potential. Additionally, they may not be 50 years old. This site is evaluated as ineligible for the National Register.

DC-32-H

This historic-era trash dump is located on NFSL above and north of Philbrook Road. It lies on a moderate slope with an open exposure, and measures 131 meters north-south by 164 meters east- west. Cedars, pines, various grasses, and granite outcrops are present in the area.

The trash dump, which measures 22 feet north-south by 30 feet east-west, contains approximately 25 items. Most of the artifacts are cans, including small and large sanitary cans, matchstick filler milk cans, meat cans, and a Mennen talcum powder tin. A single glass jar with a threaded metal lid is marked “Duraglass (in script) / 23 (“I” in circle and diamond) 6 / 4 / 7106F. This suggests that the bottle was produced by Owens Illinois in Los Angeles in 1956 (Lockhart 2006). Other isolated cans are scattered about between the site and Philbrook Road.

Significance

This site cannot be associated with any particular theme and the date is tenuous. Furthermore, this site contains little variety or quantity of artifacts. It has very low data potential and is therefore recommended as ineligible for the National Register.

DC-34-H

This site lies on NFSL. It contains artifacts and features associated with a USFS Camp. The camp, which sits at 5,560 feet amsl, is labeled on the 1949 Division of Forestry, Butte County map. A canopy of pines shades the site, which measures 114 meters north-south by 64 meters east-west. Chinquapin, gooseberry, and granite outcrops are present in the area, which is littered with broken branches, pine needles, and duff.

Feature A is a trash dump that measures 26 feet east-west by 27 feet north-south. It appears to have a depth of 4 feet. Over 300 items were visible, including Shasta soda cans, Padre, Hamm’s, and Coors beer cans, Hill’s Brothers coffee cans, and meat tins. Marked bottles are described in the following table.

Table E6.11.2.2-9. DC-34-H, Feature A Bottle Marks and Dates. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference 1923-1964 Colorless bottle jar: 6716/ (H over A)/0 Hazel Atlas Oakland, California Whitten 2006 30 Since 1945 Colorless liquor bottle: 118 Glass Containers, Various cities, California Toulouse 1971:220 (interlocking GC) 62/L O U -D-2/4111 Inc./Glass Containers Corp. 1931-?? Colorless jar: (connected NW)/ 186 S Northwestern Glass Seattle, Washington Whitten 2006 Company Post 1900 Colorless jar: 16/455-15/Mary Ellen (in Toulouse 1971:67 script)/Ball (in script)

A brown beer bottle had a partial mark that may be an Anchor Hocking mark that postdates 1937 (Whitten 2006). A large colorless Wesson oil bottle and a Log Cabin syrup bottle were also noted. This feature has been impacted by collectors who have dug out the feature and likely removed items. This feature appears to date to the 1940s.

Feature B is a privy that measures 19 feet north-south and 4 feet east-west. The west end of the privy is rock lined. Pits excavated into the feature and artifacts stacked beside it indicate collecting activity. Over 500 artifacts are visible on the surface and it appears that even more are buried. Shoe and boot fragments are present. Ceramic items include white improved earthenware plate fragments, cup fragments. A whole plate is marked “ROYAL CHINA” in a diamond that is superimposed on a rectangle, a mark that dates to the 1930s and 1940s (Lehner 1988:388). Metal containers include flat-top beer and soda cans with church key openings (1935–1963), cone top beer cans (1935–1950s), meat tins, and sanitary cans. Marked bottles are listed in the following table.

Table E6.11.2.2-10. DC-23-H, Feature B Bottle Marks and Dates. Date Range Description Maker Origin Reference Brown bottle: (interlocing MG) / 63 (in 1940-1958 Maywood Glass Co. Compton, CA Toulouse 1971:357 box) Colorless glass bottle: NOT TO BE Glass Containers, Since 1945 REFILLED/ H (interlocking GC) 2/ 10 Inc/Glass Containers Various cities, CA Toulouse 1971:220 FL OZ Corp. Brown bottle base: D126 12 (A in Toulouse 1971:24; 1938-1969 Armstrong Cork Co. Lancaster, PA circle) 47 Whitten 2006 Alexander H. Kerr & Toulouse 1971:44; Post 1944 Colorless bottle base: AHK Los Angeles, CA Company Whitten 2006 Brown bottle base: 20 (I in diamond and 1948 Owens-Illinois Oakland, CA Lockhart 2006 circle) 48/Duraglass (in script)/1-WAY Brown bottle base: 20 (I in diamond and 1947 Owens-Illinois Oakland, CA Lockhart 2006 circle) 47 Light green hobbleskirt bottle: Coca- 1915-1957 Coca-Cola Oakland, CA Coca-Cola 2006 Cola (script) Oakland, CA Light green hobbleskirt bottle: Coca- 1915-1957 Coca-Cola Vallejo, CA Coca-Cola 2006 Cola (script) Vallejo, CA

Feature B dates to the 1940s. Feature C is a dirt road that allowed access to the campground from Philbrook Road. Six rock fire rings are scattered throughout the site.

The features of the site that contain artifacts have been severely affected by looting activities. The privy and the trash pit have both been picked over by collectors.

Significance

This USFS camp dates to the 1940s and appears to have undergone some improvements. Extant rock rings and the presence of a privy give some clues to spatial relationships. However, the most significant aspect of this site is the artifact assemblage. This collection had the potential to contain data directly related to 1940s recreational users. However, these deposits have been impacted to the point that they now lack integrity. This lack of integrity significantly lowers the data potential of the site. These factors result in a recommendation that DC-34-H is ineligible for the NRHP.

DC-38-H

This historic trash dump is located on PG&E lands on a north facing terrace above the flood plain of Philbrook Creek. It measures 15 meters north-south by 15 meters east-west, and is

surrounded by pine, fir and cottonwood trees and other riparian understory. Granite outcrops are present throughout the area as are fallen trees, dead branches, and thick duff.

The site’s single feature is the trash dump. It measures 9 feet by 11 feet and contains approximately 25 items. Artifacts include three Lucky Lager beer cans (1948–1963), two Coors beer cans, two Shasta rootbeer cans, one Hamm’s beer can, five unidentified beverage cans, and a large rectangular can. Also present is a colorless glass jar with threaded metal lid. The Lucky Lager cans and the church key openings on the other cans date the deposit between 1948 and 1963. The deposit appears similar to site DC-39-H. The site has suffered minimal damage from erosion and fallen trees.

Significance

The association of this site is unclear, and the deposit may not be 50 years old. Furthermore, it lacks the quantity and variety of artifacts necessary to address data questions. This site is recommended as ineligible for the NRHP.

DC-39-H

DC-39-H is a historic-era trash dump on PG&E lands, located at the edge of a meadow on a terrace overlooking the Philbrook Creek floodplain. The site measures 8 meters north-south by 8 meters east-west. Densely forested areas surround the site, and pine, cottonwood, willow and fir trees are present. Granite outcrops were noted around the site area.

The singular feature of the site, the trash dump, measures 4 feet by 5 feet. It primarily consists of 12 soda cans, including “Shasta” brand, with church key openings. Also present are three large sanitary cans and a “Kleen Floor” wax remover and cleaner can that is rectangular with a spout. The presence of soda cans with church key openings indicate that this dump was deposited between 1953 and 1963 (Intermountain Antiquities Computer System [IMACS] 2001).

The site has suffered minimal damage from erosion and fallen trees. Additionally, there is easy public access to the site, potentially encouraging collecting activities.

Significance

The association of this site is unclear. The presence of a wax remover bottle suggests that it is related to nearby cabins, but this is uncertain. Additionally, the deposit may not be 50 years old. There is not enough quantity or variety of artifacts at this site to meet the data potential threshold for Criterion D. Therefore the site is recommended as ineligible for the National Register.

DC-40-H

This site, which measures 82 meters north-south by 58 meters east-west, contains features associated with mining and logging. Located at 5,600 feet amsl, the site lies on NFSL on a slope above Philbrook Reservoir, approximately 900 feet southeast of the lake level monitoring building. The southern site boundary is a steep slope, which gradually becomes more moderate

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-81 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 to the north. Pines, firs, chinquapin, manzanita, and various grasses are found in and around the site.

Mining features on the site consist of three prospect pits. Feature A measures 8 feet east-west by 9 feet north-south. Pit B is a linear prospect pit that measures 13 feet east-west by 72 feet north- south. This pit is 2 feet deep. A large pile of tailings, measuring 20 feet by 25 feet, are located at the northern end of the pit. Feature C is a round prospect pit that measures 12 feet north-south by 11 feet east-west. It is 3 feet deep. Feature D appears to be a logging feature and may be unrelated to the mining features. It consists of a logging choker cable, with one end attached to a snag tree and the other end attached to a long piece of milled lumber that measures 48 feet long, 1 foot wide, and 2 inches thick. This site does not seem to have suffered any disturbances.

This site appears to have elements of mining and logging activities. It is unclear if these activities occurred at different times, or if the logging activity was related to the construction and working of the mine.

Significance

The prospect pits and tailings do not provide much information about mining technology. Furthermore, there are not datable artifacts on the site, making it impossible to fit this site into a regional mining chronology. Lack of technological information and data potential results in a recommendation that this site is ineligible for the NRHP.

DC-43-H

This mining-related site is located at 5,740 feet amsl on a steep north facing slope above a small flat on NFSL. It measures 122 feet north-south by 110 feet east-west. Pines, fir, various grasses, and granite outcrops are present in and around the site. Fallen trees and branches litter the site area. A seasonal pond is located approximately 250 feet to the northeast.

Four features are present within the site. Feature A is an adit that measures 38 feet long by 14 feet wide by 4 feet deep. An associated tailing pile, measuring 48 feet long by 33 feet wide by 21 feet tall, is located at the northern end of the adit. Feature B is a prospect pit that is 6 feet in diameter and 1 foot deep. Feature C is a prospect pit that measures 6 feet wide by 4 feet wide by 1 foot deep. A small tailing pile is located on the northern edge of this feature. Feature D is a pile of tailings and waste rock that measures 17 feet long by 12 feet wide by 2 feet tall.

Two artifacts were noted at the site. One is an amber-colored bottle base marked “SB&G Co / 52.” This mark was used by Streator Bottle & Glass Co. and dates between 1881 and 1905. The other artifact is a piece of riveted metal.

Significance

The only artifact present dates the site to the late 1900s. However, this small mining site could not be located on any maps. Because only the mining pit and tailing piles remain, there is very little technological information present, and there is no artifactual information with which to

address research questions. The dearth of data available on the site results in a recommendation that this site is ineligible for the NRHP.

DC-46-H

This site is a lake tender’s cabin and associated features on NFSL below Philbrook Reservoir Dam. This site was occupied by the lake tender from 1926 to 1970. Located at 5,480 feet amsl, the site is surrounded by coniferous forest with sparse, grassy groundcover. The site measures 320 feet north-south by 400 feet east-west.

Thirteen features are present. Feature A is a lake tender’s cabin built in approximately 1926. Feature B, which is a collapsed structure, appears to be the oldest of three outhouses. It is located south of the main cabin. Feature C, which is also collapsed, appears to be the second oldest outhouse. It is located southeast of the main cabin. Feature D is the most recently constructed outhouse. It is also collapsed and is located northeast of the main cabin. Feature E is a well with a corrugated metal casing that measures 1 foot 7/8 inch in diameter. The well platform is 3 feet 11 inches by 3 feet 7 1/2 inches. Feature F is a 13 foot-tall snow gauge located east of the cabin. Feature G is a foot trail, 2 feet 10 inches wide, that angles east from the entrance road to the cabin. Feature H is the dirt road to the cabin. It is 13 feet wide. Feature I is the road to the dam. This dirt road is 11 feet wide and passes through the eastern boundary of the site. Feature J is a can dump that measures 89 feet by 43 feet. It includes one gallon paint cans, five flat top beer cans, an amber Clorox bottle, five sanitary cans, a one-quart oil can, a Marvel Pride picnic ham tin, three Shasta soda cans a Falstaff beer can, and a plank with wire nails that measures 4 inches by 8 inches by 4 feet. Two marked bottles area present. An amber bottle base is marked “73 53 / D-125 / 54-0-25 A / Ball (in script) / Made in USA.” A colorless bottle is marked “9 (I in oval)/H410/8C.” The latter bottle postdates 1952. Feature K is a can dump measuring 40 feet east-west by 12 feet north-south, located south of Feature B and the main cabin. It contains one colorless bottle from an automatic bottle machine (ABM) mold; a condiment jar; a whiteware fragment, a friction lid coffee container; two flat-top beer cans; five medium sanitary cans; milk cans, six small sanitary cans, a meat tin, one cone-top beer can, and a large sardine can. A matchstick filler can measuring 2 1/2 inches by 2 3/8 inches likely postdates 1917 (Simonis 1997). Feature L is a can dump measuring 40 feet east-west by 22 feet north-south. It is located northwest of the main cabin and consists of five medium sanitary cans, one rectangular can of Hershey’s Cocoa, one large sanitary can, a flat top beer can, and a metal basin. Feature M is a can dump of 20 to 30 cans. It measures 10 feet north-south by 5 feet east-west and is located just over the edge of the bank south of Feature L. Features A through I and Features K and L are located in a flat area above the terrace. Feature J is located on the floodplain below the terrace. The slope of the site ranges from flat to steeply banked.

The site has suffered from vandalism, erosion, weathering, recreational use, logging, and collecting. However, it still retains great integrity and clear association. Spatial relationships of features remain intact and there are many trash dumps, deposited over a period of time, that can be directly associated with this cabin.

Significance

The site likely contains subsurface archaeological deposits, given the length of occupation and the presence of outhouses, which often provided information on diet, personal grooming, ethnicity, and other aspects of people’s lives. Test excavations are necessary to make this determination. Thus, the site has a wealth of data potential that can give insight into life at this site, particularly within the framework of rural life, subsistence, and hydroelectric maintenance. This site also meets the 50-year age requirement. While the site appears to contain data potential sufficient to qualify for the NHRP under Criterion D, test excavations are necessary to determine if the site is eligible on an individual basis. However, DC-46-H is considered eligible for listing on the National Register as a contributing property to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District for its ability to relay details of, and a sense about, the life of a Project lake tender. The tender’s cabin is still standing and many other features (e.g., outhouses) help convey the distinctive characteristics of a certain period and possible method of construction (Criterion C), and are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A). PG&E plans to remove the building and will consult with LNF and the SHPO to develop treatment measures prior to its removal.

DC-52-H

This is the site of the Pacific Service Employee’s Association (PSEA) camp. It was built before 1922 on the banks of DeSabla Forebay. In 1916, PG&E employees living at Camp 1 at Lake DeSabla founded the initial PSEA club to organize social events and recreational activities for PG&E employees. A detailed discussion of the PSEA is provided in Section 6.11.2.4.4.2, the historic context for the hydroelectric system. By the early 1920s, PSEA had begun establishing campgrounds at various locations around the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project for its employees, including the one at DC-52-H.

The camp contains a row of single family cabins that face the lake, service buildings in the center of the camp, and multi-family cabins that face the lake along the west side of the camp. The multi-family structures are a later addition, built about 1950. Conifers shade all of the cabins and a playground is situated along the lake. When the camp was built in the early 1920s, it offered platform tents for campers. The single family cabins replaced the platform tents; the multi- family cabins are more recent additions to the camp.

The single-family cabins are approximately 20 feet wide and 14 feet deep, rest on wood piers set on concrete footings, and are clad with board and flat battens. Fenestration on the front façade consists of a door flanked by screened openings that can be closed with shutters. The back elevations have small six-light fixed windows. The hipped roof is clad with corrugated metal. An addition on the back of the cabins houses an indoor toilet. A shed-roofed porch shelters the front façade. Wood steps lead to the wood deck; the balustrade is three horizontal boards, and square wood columns support the roof. Near each cabin is a grill and picnic table.

The multi-family cabins rest on poured concrete foundations and are clad with board and flat battens. Fenestration consists of a front door and aluminum-framed sliding glass windows on the

front façade. The side-gabled roof is clad with corrugated metal. A shed-roofed porch shelters the front façade and wood steps lead to individual doors. The balustrades consist of crossed boards between square columns that support the roof.

Significance

The APE follows the shoreline of DeSabla Forebay. DC-52-H lies outside the APE for the most part, but also extends to the lake’s shoreline and to the APE. The camp was established in the early 1920s by PG&E employees as a means of providing social activities for PG&E employees living at and working on the hydroelectric system. The camp would not have been established if the hydroelectric system had not been built. Thus, the site is eligible to the NRHP as a contributing element under Criterion A because it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Additionally, the camp has been in place for about 85 years and likely retains subsurface deposits. Test excavations are needed to determine if such deposits are present and if they retain integrity. However, if intact deposits are present, the site is likely to yield information on the lives of PG&E employees and others who may have occupied the camp over the years. Thus the site may also be eligible under Criterion D.

DC-53-H, Camp 1

Camp 1 was originally set up as the construction camp for the DeSabla Forebay and Powerhouse. It is located on the south end of DeSabla Forbay. The site straddles the Skyway. It originally contained an office, other work-related buildings, residences for staff, and fruit trees. The bunkhouse for unmarried men is currently used as the office for PG&E workers. The superintendent’s house and the foreman’s house were located across the road from the main camp area, currently on the east side of the Skyway. The superintendent’s house is currently a residence for a PG&E employee. Upon completion of the forebay and powerhouse, Camp 1 served as a residential area for PG&E workers. In 1916, PG&E employees living at Camp 1 founded the initial Pacific Service Employee’s Association (PSEA) club to organize social events and recreational activities for PG&E employees living at DeSabla.

Significance

With the exception of the superintendent’s house, the bunkhouse, and fruit trees, the structures associated with Camp 1 have been replaced by modern PG&E structures. As a result, the Camp does not meet the NRHP criteria for listing as an individual property, but is a contributing element of the hydroelectric system historic district because of its important historical associations. Neither the superintendent’s house nor the bunkhouse qualify individually for the NRHP because they have been modified extensively and no longer reflect the period of significance or the distinctive characteristics of this kind of company architecture. A detailed background on the Camp 1 is provided in Section 6.11.2.4.4.2 (Background and Historical Context).

6.11.2.2.5 Summary

Forty-six sites and four isolated finds were recorded during the field survey. Fourteen of the 16 previously documented sites listed in the PAD, plus the original DeSabla Powerhouse site, are within the APE and were re-recorded. Evidence of only four of the 16 potential sites (Table E6.11.2.2-2) was found and recorded, one of which was determined to lay outside the APE; one other site was inaccessible due to the lack of landowner permission; location information was not available for two others; and no evidence was found for the other potential sites. The 31 newly discovered sites are concentrated at or near Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs and along the section of the WBFR that lies in between, or near the DeSabla Forebay. Four isolated finds also were recorded in the APE at Philbrook Reservoir, and all include historic-era cultural materials.

Thirty-four of the 46 sites containing only historic-era cultural remains were evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Five are evaluated as being eligible to the NRHP (CA-BUT-871-H, CA-BUT- 873-H, DC-22-H, DC-46-H., and DC-51/H), and two sites (BCC-5, DC-22) require further study before an evaluation can be made. The remaining 27 sites are evaluated as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. SHPO concurrence with all NRHP evaluations are pending.

Twelve of the 46 sites contain prehistoric materials. Of these 12 sites, four contain strictly prehistoric remains while eight contain both prehistoric and historic components. Until formal evaluation is undertaken, all of these 12 sites are considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, informal evaluation indicates that three of the sites may be ineligible for listing (DC-9, DC-15, and DC-44), and a fourth (DC-51/H) is evaluated as being eligible as a contributing element to the hydroelectric system as well as potentially eligible as an individual property.

6.11.2.2.6 List of Appendices

• E6.11.2.2-A: Bureau of Land Management Authorization Form • E6.11.2.2-B: USFS Special Use Permit • E6.11.2.2-C: Tribal Monitor Daily Field Notes

6.11.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties (Study 6.3.8-2)

6.11.2.3.1 Study Objectives

The objective of this study was to document and identify Project-related effects on potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) within the DeSabla Centerville Area of Potential Effects. TCPs are a type of historic property that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: 1) are rooted in that community's history; or 2) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (National Park Service 1990). TCPs can also be defined as:

• Locations associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world. • A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents. • An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices. • Locations where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone and are known or thought to go to today, to perform ceremonial cultural rules of practice. • Locations where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. (National Park Service 1990)

6.11.2.3.2 Study Area

The study area is the same as that described for the Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties study, described in Section 6.11.2.2.2. There exists the possibility that TCPs, that is locations of traditional or ceremonial significance, exist outside the current APE (FERC project boundary). To date, such resources have not been located, and the probability of identifying such resources is not yet known. Should it be demonstrated that Project-related activities that are taking place outside of the defined APE are affecting or may affect potential TCPs, the APE for Traditional Cultural Properties may be expanded to include these areas.

6.11.2.3.3 Methods

PG&E implemented the methods described below, which include supplemental archival research, field inventory and documentation of Project features, and NRHP evaluations. Each of these activities is described below.

The TCP study is currently being conducted by cultural resources consultant Albion Environmental (Albion). Albion’s Project staff meets the qualifications for conducting ethnographic work as outlined in National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (National Park Service 1990). In addition to

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-99 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 federal regulations providing for the identification and treatment of TCPs, PG&E and Albion must also consider other applicable professional, State, tribal and local laws, standards and guidelines, and will take into account any confidentiality concerns raised during the study. Detailed property locational information may be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 4702-3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended). In order to protect the confidentiality of any disclosed TCP locations, Study Plan 6.3.8-2 states that such confidential information will only be provided to the appropriate Indian Tribes, federal land management agencies (e.g. USBLM, USFS) within the APE, the FERC, and concurrence of report recommendations will be sought from the SHPO. At the instruction in writing to the PG&E by the participating Tribes, this information may be disclosed to the California State University, Chico, Historic Resources Information Center. Additionally, at the request of the Mechoopda Tribe, PG&E entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Mechoopda Tribe and Albion Environmental that ensures the protection of confidential information gathered by Albion during interviews with Mechoopda Consultants.

Archival Research

Written ethnographic and historical data pertinent to the TCP study have been collected from most of the following repositories initially identified as data sources:

• California State Library, California History Room • California State Library, Government Publications • Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • Special Collections, Merriam Library, California State University, Chico • Centerville Museum, Centerville • Federal archives • Previous ethnographic records

Tribal Consultation and Identification of Resources

TCPs are by definition historic places of traditional and ongoing importance to identifiable communities, in this case, Native American tribes in the vicinity of the DeSabla Centerville Hydroelectric Project APE. Background ethnographic research provides one source to identify potential TCPs, however it is through direct consultation followed by formal ethnographic interviews that TCPs must be identified and assessed. In simplest terms, if TCPs are to be determined to be of importance to a community, they by definition must be known to and used by that community. Ideally, ethnographic interviews to identify potential TCPs are intensive, focused conversations about particular places and associated cultural and historical contexts within which to evaluate the importance of those places. Interviews have been scheduled by Albion Environmental both off-site, and whenever possible, within or near the APE. The aim is to identify potential resources “on the ground,” map and otherwise describe the resource, determine the history of use of the property, and understand the significance of the resource to the present day community. The quality of the evaluation is directly related to the quantity and specificity of the ethnographic data, therefore every attempt is made to conduct field interviews.

NRHP Evaluation

Evaluation of TCPs requires the application of the standard significance criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the specific evaluation criteria applied to TCPs, as specified in NPS Bulletin 38 (National Park Service 1990). If formal evaluation of any identified locations is opposed by participating Tribes and/or land management agencies (e.g. USBLM, USFS), unevaluated resources will be identified as “potential” TCPs, and only informal recommendations of eligibility will be made. An informal recommendation of eligibility is a professional observation made by the ethnographer based on information provided by the Tribal Consultants, and an understanding of the level of integrity for any identified locations, that indicate the potential for such locations to meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP. All potential TCPs will be addressed in the resulting HPMP and the informal recommendations will be utilized to develop appropriate protection and/or management measures for identified Project- related impacts. If identified impacts to potential TCPs cannot be avoided or eliminated, formal NRHP evaluation may be necessary.

6.11.2.3.4 Results

Archival Research

Supplemental archival research is currently in progress. Results to date are provided below, and additional archival information will be provided in the FLA and/or HPMP.

Various attempts were made by early anthropologists to document the aboriginal culture of the Northern Maidu, beginning as early as the 1870s and covering several generations and more than 100 years. Early ethnographic fieldwork conducted by Stephen Powers in 1871-72, Roland Dixon (1899-1905), C. Hart Merriam (1902-06), and A.L. Kroeber (1907-1923) provide the foundation for our understanding of Maidu traditions. Dixon, an academically-trained anthropologist, published The Northern Maidu (1905) that covers virtually every aspect of Maidu lifeways including territory and history, material culture, art, social organization, festivals, mythology, and religion, as well as customs relating to birth, puberty, marriage and death. Additionally, Dixon provided an extensive and valuable record of ethnobotanical information on the Maidu.

C. Hart Merriam, trained as a physician and naturalist, gathered ethnographic, ethnobotanical, and linguistic information on the northern Maidu between 1902 and 1906. The majority of Merriam’s work was never published, and the notes and materials from his Maidu fieldwork are archived at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Another valuable data set on early Maidu demographics was recorded in 1905-06 by Agent C. E. Kelsey of the California Indian Association. Kelsey was given the task of collecting an informal census of California Indians living outside of reservations, providing statistics on population, location and names of

Maidu families that, by the early twentieth century, were relatively few in number and widely scattered.

A.L. Kroeber and his graduate students gathered extensive information on California Indians for several monographs culminating in the comprehensive Handbook of the Indians of California published in 1925. Under Kroeber’s direction Erminie W. Voegelin interviewed a number of Maidu for her Culture Element Distributions: XX Northeast California (1942), which included comparative ethnographic data for 15 northeastern California tribes from three and a half months of fieldwork in 1936. Early researchers also worked with Koncow (Foothill) and Mechoopda (Valley) Maidu elders who, in the 1860s, were forcibly relocated to Round Valley Reservation (Mendocino County). While supervising the work of the Methodist Mission at Round Valley between 1925 and 1931, Leon Loofbourow documented traditional Maidu stories, and in 1926 Helen Heffron Roberts visited Round Valley and gathered information on annual Maidu dances, prayers, and other ceremonies. Their data were later published by ethnographer Dorothy Hill (Hill 1980). Arden King, a student of Kroeber, conducted interviews with Maidu informants in 1941 that record a variety of customs, religious events and genealogy among the Northeastern or Mountain Maidu (King 1941).

Beginning in the 1950s, ethnographers labored to document a changed way of life among the remaining Maidu, working with the now-elderly children and grandchildren of nineteenth century informants. William Shipley began work in 1954 to learn and document the Maidu language. With consultant Lena Thomas Benner, Shipley reconstituted Dixon’s Maidu language texts from the original recordings and published Maidu Texts and Dictionary (1963). In 1962 and 1963, James Whitfield Duncan III conducted an in-depth ethnobotanical study with a number of Maidu individuals. Duncan’s study encapsulated traditional plant use among three major groups of the Maidu. His Master’s thesis, Maidu Ethnobotany (1963) included both scientific and Indian names for the plants with descriptions of their uses. Between the 1950s and the 1970s, Francis Riddell conducted extensive archaeological and ethnographic research on the lifeways of the Maidu. Riddell also interviewed a large number of Indians in the area with a focus on ethnogeography, much of which is housed in the California State Archives. Riddell provided one of the most complete syntheses of the Maidu in the chapter “Maidu and Koncow” in the Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California (1978).

Dorothy Hill, a skilled ethnographer, and her students at Butte College (Durham) conducted extensive fieldwork to produce a Collection of Maidu Indian Folklore of Northern California (Hill 1969), containing myths from Northwestern, Northeastern, and Southern Maidu. Hill worked to preserve Maidu knowledge of plants and fauna by publishing Maidu Use of Native Flora and Fauna gathered from a variety of published sources and interviews with Maidu in the 1960s and 1970s (Hill 1972). Hill also published the most comprehensive history written for any one Maidu group, The Indians of Chico Rancheria (Hill 1978).

In 1977, Maidu elder Marie Potts published her memoir Northern Maidu (1977), a valuable resource offering Potts’ personal insight and experience growing up as a Maidu, and one of the first native Californian ethnographic documents published from an autobiographical perspective.

The Maidu family of languages is classified as California Penutian and can be distinguished into at least three groups that include the Northwestern (Koncow and Mechoopda Maidu), Northeastern (Mountain or Greenville Maidu) and Southern (Nisenan) (Riddell 1978). The Mountain Maidu occupied the high mountain meadows from Lassen Peak east to Susanville, south to Quincy, and

west to Bucks Lake and the Humbug Valley. Koncow and Mechoopda territory encompassed portions of the Feather River, Butte and Chico Creek watersheds, and part of the northern Sacramento Valley, including all or most of the current Project Area. Within each major division existed a number of subdivisions, tribelets and language dialects corresponding to specific locales and communities.

The Maidu lived in village communities which formed the basis of their geography and political organization prior to Euro-American contact. Each community was an autonomous political unit comprised of several family-based villages, one of which contained a headman or chief. Village size varied widely from a single lodge or family house to 20or more. In the foothills, settlements were situated along ridges above water courses and on small flats on the crest of a ridge or part way down the canyon side. Each village community owned its territory in common, including hunting and fishing grounds appropriately proportioned to support its population. Villages contained various types of structures, including conical living houses built of bent poles clad with thatch and earth, a semi-subterranean men’s house or sweathouse, and brush-covered summer ramadas. The headman’s village was typically the location of a large dance-house or community structure where religious ceremonies and social events were held. (Dixon 1905).

The Maidu occupied their permanent villages through the winter months and camped throughout the foothills and mountain areas during seasonal hunting and gathering cycles. Their hunting and fishing areas were well connected to each other with trails, and members of village communities rarely needed to venture outside of their “owned” territories, few of which encompassed a radius of more than 20 miles. For items that they were unable to procure within their territories, the Maidu relied on trade with neighboring Maidu communities and groups in adjacent regions such as the Yana, Nomlaki, Wintu, Patwin, and Nisenan. Trade secured shell beads, pine nuts, and salmon in return for arrows, bows, deer hides and several types of food (Riddell 1978).

Annual cycles of gathering, hunting, and fishing were maintained to procure a wide variety of resources for subsistence and material needs. Plant gathering was one of the most important aspects of Maidu subsistence, and was usually done by women with the exception of fall acorn gathering which was done communally (Shipley 1991). Many types of seeds were collected and winnowed in seed baskets, and fruits and berries including manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens), strawberry (Fragaria sp.), thimble berry (Rubus glaucifolius), service berry (Amerlanchier pallida), elderberry (Sambucus glauca), and gooseberry (Ribes occidentale) were harvested (Dixon 1905). Plant products were processed using both portable and bedrock mortars, and dried for storage in baskets and granaries. Acorns, which were plentiful and stored well, were the staple food on which the Maidu lived during winter months. Though many acorn varieties were recognized and used, the Maidu preferred black oak (Quercus kelloggii), the canyon or golden oak (Quesrus chrysolepis), and the interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) (Dixon 1905). Leached, dried and pounded acorn meal was reconstituted with water and made into griddle cakes or baked as bread. Nuts of the foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana) were collected and ground into flour, while the shells were used for beads (Riddell 1978). Other food sources included yellow jacket larvae, angleworms, locusts, grasshoppers and crickets (Riddell 1978).

Basketry was a critical component of gathering, processing, and sorting subsistence materials. The Koncow made both coiled and twined baskets such as hopper baskets, winnowing baskets, seed beaters, large burden baskets, and smaller burden baskets. Baskets were made from a variety of plants, predominately willow (Salix spp.), redbud (Cercis occidentalis), bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax), common brake (Pteridium acquilinum), maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), hazel shoots (Corylus corunta) and the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (Dixon 1905; Riddell 1978). The Maidu recognized hundreds of species of plants that were used for subsistence, material, and medicinal purposes. Most parts of the plants were used including the roots, stems, leaves and seeds.

Fishing and hunting were largely conducted by men, and village communities relied on the taking of elk and deer during the winter months. These activities necessitated the production of bows and arrows, knives, spears and hooks, and nets and snares (Riddell 1978; Shipley 1991). Bows were commonly made from sinew-baked yew with a fore-shaft of mock orange or cluster rose, while the quivers were made from animal skin (Kroeber 1925). Knives and arrowheads were made from obsidian from the north and local flint (chert) and basalt-like stones (Dixon 1905). Nets and snares were made using a variety of plant materials such as milkweed and wild hemp.

According to Shipley (1991), the only animals not hunted by the Maidu were grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes and dogs. Animal products, including flesh, skins, horns, bones, and hooves were used for shelter, clothing, tools and medicine as well as food (Riddell 1978). Salmon were caught using large seine nets or salmon-gigs made from bone or antler. Spearing occurred in weirs across eastern tributaries of the Sacramento River. Salmon were dried on poles and once dry, pounded into a powder, stored and eaten dry (Dixon 1905).

The religion or spiritual beliefs of the Maidu were most fully represented in their mythology, shamanistic practices and ceremonies. Myths are an effective means of transmitting information and knowledge orally between generations. Myths provide clues to Maidu beliefs about the environment and cosmogony, and many myths comment on places, events, and landscapes of importance that may still have relevance to the present. Researchers such as Roland Dixon (1905), Dorothy Hill (1969) and William Shipley (1991) recorded traditional Maidu myths. Myths and stories were “told” during winter ceremonies and festivals typically held in community dance houses and collectively referred to as Kuksu ceremonies (Riddell 1978). Instrumental music and song were also an important component of these events. Dances involved animal spirit impersonations and included the Waima or Duck dance, Grizzly Bear dance, and the Hesi. Large ceremonial dances such as the Hesi, which signified a years passing, were performed in dance houses and followed by periods of feasting, games and gambling (Riddell 1978). Another type of ceremony was also held in village cemeteries to display and ritually burn baskets and material goods associated with deceased relatives. These mourning ceremonies were performed annually for five years following a death (Hill 1978).

Post-Contact Maidu History

Impacts on the aboriginal Maidu by Euro-Americans began in the early 1800s when Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga entered Maidu territory in 1808 on a scouting expedition to locate

potential sites and native populations for missionization. In 1811, Padre Arbella was exploring the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and encountered a group of Koncow Maidu (Dixon 1905). Over the next 40 years, increasing frequent forays into Maidu territory were made by explorers, fur trappers, and early settlers.

In 1833, an epidemic of malaria occurred in the Sacramento Valley with drastic results to the entire Maidu population, which has been estimated between 9,000 and upwards of 20,000 for the pre-contact period (Cook 1955, Kroeber 1925). The epidemic wiped out entire villages, resulting in a dramatic population reduction between 1833 and 1846 (Cook 1955). In 1848-49, the discovery of gold in California led to a second swift change. The tremendous influx of miners and settlers into the northern Sacramento valley and foothills brought not only additional disease to the Maidu, but displacement and starvation resulting from the collapse of their resource base. As gold miners quickly lined the creeks and water courses, the Maidu were forced to flee their villages and simply had no place to go. Within a decade, the oak and pine forests were cut for lumber, game animals disappeared, and settler’s cattle grazed the Maidu’s hunting and gathering territories. Conflicts between white settlers and the dwindling native population arose as Maidu were reduced to poaching livestock for food. Collectively these pressures permanently altered their aboriginal political and social organization and made traditional subsistence difficult or impossible. In order to survive, the Maidu took menial jobs at mines or on settler’s farms, often working for clothing or beads in place of wages (Hill 1978).

As a result of increasing conflict between American settlers and California Indians, many authorities tried to negotiate treaties to remove the Indians. During 1850-1851, in an attempt to deal with the ‘Indian problem’ in California, three federal treaty commissioners appointed by President Millard Fillmore entered into 18 treaties with various leaders of the California Indian tribes. The treaties were agreements to set aside an area of land for reservations that totaled 8.5 million acres along with educational and economic aid in return for government title to their traditional territory. Koncow and Nisenan Maidu signed treaties with Dr. Wozencraft at Camp Union on July 18, 1851 and Mechoopda Maidu at Bidwell’s Ranch on August 1, 1851 (Heizer 1972). In 1852 the U.S. Senate did not ratify these treaties because of objections from the California legislature and others who had concerns about giving away land that may have agricultural or gold-bearing potential. Conditions worsened in 1855 and again in 1863 when groups of Koncow, Mechoopda and Greenville Maidu were forcibly relocated to Nome Lackie Reservation in Tehema County or to Nome Cult (Round Valley) Reservation in Mendocino County. Conditions on the reservations were poor and provided little opportunity for self-sufficiency. Those who left the reservations and tried to return to their homelands encountered new settlers and continued hostility.

The early twentieth century brought about a growing concern over “landless” Indians in California. As a result, a rancheria system was developed, where patches of isolated land were purchased for various tribes. Koncow Maidu who remained in the area joined rancherias at Mooretown, Enterprise, Berry Creek, and Strawberry Valley. The Chico Rancheria, long established on John Bidwell’s ranch, was populated mostly by Mechoopda Maidu. Most of the Mountain Maidu were concentrated in the Greenville and Big Meadows (Lake Almanor) areas when Greenville was designated a rancheria. In 1953 many rancherias were ‘terminated’ by the Bureau of Indian Affairs due to a changing national policy. It was not until 1983 with the Tillie Hardwick et al. case that 16 rancherias in California were “unterminated.” By 1960 there were an estimated 421 Indians in

Butte County and 240 in Plumas County (Riddell 1978). During this time the socio/economic condition of the Indians was described as “low educational attainment, high unemployment, poor housing and sanitation, a high incidence of alcoholism, violent crimes, and suicide” (Wilson and Towne 1978).

Over the last 30 years there have been significant changes within Native American communities. Rancherias have experienced a resurgence of population and economic development. There has also been a renewed interest in identity and preservation of traditional culture. Most of the rancherias now have health clinics and community centers, and casinos operated by Mooretown and Berry Creek Rancherias provide funding for tribal benefits. Though many native descendants in the area are currently members of a rancheria, a significant population of northern Maidu has not been recognized in the eyes of the federal government. Greenville, Enterprise, Mooretown and Berry Creek groups were the first to achive federal recognition, followed recently by the Mechoopda of Chico. Additional Maidu tribes and bands have attempted to petition the government for recognition, including the United Maidu Nation (Susanville), Koncow Valley Band of Maidu (Oroville) and the Strawberry Valley Band of Maidu (Tehama County). Despite the lack of federal recognition, unrecognized groups are becoming increasingly active in the preservation of their cultural traditions and heritage resources.

Tribal Consultation and Identification of Resources

Tribal consultation to identify Traditional Cultural Properties is currently in progress. Results to date are provided below, and additional information will be provided in the FLA and/or HPMP.

Introductory letters of consultation were sent by PG&E to the following Maidu groups and individuals in February 2004:

• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Chico • Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville • Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville • Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville • Koncow Valley Band of Maidu, Oroville • Maidu Advisory Council, Oroville • Butte Tribal Council, Oroville • Maidu Nation, Susanville • Maidu Cultural and Development Group, Greenville • Joe Marine, Sacramento

The initial phase of the TCP study was consultation with the tribal communities that have maintained a formal interest in the DeSabla Centerville Hydroelectric Project relicensing. These are the Greenville Rancheria and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria (Mechoopda Tribe). The membership rolls of both tribes are predominantly descendants of Maidu (including Koncow Maidu) communities from the region. In August 2006, consultation with the

Mechoopda Tribe began with meetings with the tribal cultural resources representative, followed by a presentation of the TCP Study Plan to the Mechoopda Tribal Council. This resulted in ongoing discussions of potential respondents, and ancillary issues such as data confidentiality, and ownership and rights to information. As mentioned above, an agreement designed to protect the confidentiality of potential TCP locations identified by Mechoopda Consultants was signed in late August of 2007 by the Mechooda Tribe, PG&E, and Albion. Interviews with Mechoopda tribal members have been prearranged, pending the final MOU, and will occur beginning in the second week of September 2007.

Consultation with the Greenville Rancheria has consisted of two meetings with two resource specialists from the Rancheria. This resulted in a verbal agreement to provide copies of information gathered from respondents with the Tribe (based on the willingness of the respondent), and a list of potential respondents. Initial contacts have been made with several of these respondents and one preliminary interview has been conducted which resulted in general information of the project region and potential additional respondents, but did not identify specific Traditional Cultural Properties.

Consultation with the Berry Creek, Enterprise and Mooretown Maidu; the Koncow Valley Band; and the Butte Tribal Council may also be beneficial.. While these groups did not identify an interest in continued participation in the consultation process, they likely have some knowledge of traditional resource use in the APE. Initially, Albion anticipated interviewing respondents from the Berry Creek Rancheria, however to date, respondents have not been identified. Further efforts will be made to include these respondents, however if individual cannot be identified or do not respond, this potential information will not be included in the application, although efforts to identify these sources will be documented

6.11.2.3.5 Summary

In summary, the ethnographic background research, using published and unpublished manuscripts, archived unpublished documents, and primary ethnographic fieldnotes, indicates that the project vicinity is not well represented in the extant literature. The dearth of ethnographic data does not reflect lack of ethnographic period use; rather, it speaks to the effects of rapid Euro-American settlement and disruption of traditional cultures and geographic distribution in the general region. It is possible that Native Americans with ancestral ties to the Project Area, (or possibly just the region) will be identified. The likelihood of identifying TCPs would appear to be low, however this is a purely preliminary assessment pending completion of consultation.

6.11.2.3.6 List of Appendices

None.

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally]

6.11.2.4 Historic Project Feature Assessment (Study 6.3.8-3)

6.11.2.4.1 Study Objectives

The objective of this study was to inventory and document features of the historic hydroelectric system, evaluate identified features for NRHP eligibility, and assess current and potential Project effects on the identified properties.

6.11.2.4.2 Study Area

The study area is the same as that described for the Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties, described in Section 6.11.2.2.2.

6.11.2.4.3 Methods

PG&E retained Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) to carry out supplemental archival research, field inventory and documentation of Project features, and NRHP evaluations. Each of these activities is described below.

6.11.2.4.3.1 Archival Research

To augment the archival data collected during preparation of the PAD, Æ performed research at the same repositories as those contacted or visited for the Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties, as described in Section 6.11.2.2.3. In addition, Æ also consulted the Stirling City Historical Society. The objective of the additional archival research was to identify historical events and persons associated with the development of the Project system; obtain additional information on the construction of or modifications to Project features; and better understand the relationships of various features to the overall development of the DeSabla-Centerville system. Æ obtained reference materials, files, maps, and photographs from the various repositories, which were used in concert with prior NRHP evaluations of Project features to conduct the system evaluation. Æ also interviewed local historians and the Licensee’s staff to gather specific information about the history and operation of individual Project features. All of the information amassed during the PAD and supplemental research was used to develop the historic context of the system, as detailed in Section 6.11.2.4.5.

6.11.2.4.3.2 Field Inventory and Feature Documentation

According to Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations, reasonable measures must be taken to identify and document historic properties within the APE. To accomplish this, an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation conducted field inspections of the Project Area between August 21, 2006, and October 25, 2006. All Project features were recorded or re-recorded to current NPS standards on California DPR Forms (523 series) at that time. Individual elements of the hydroelectric system were photographed in color format, and Project features were located using a Trimble Geo Explorer GEO XH GPS receiver as weather and terrain allowed. The features were compared to historic construction plans and photographs,

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-109 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 when available, to help ascertain integrity and, in part, define the relationships between buildings, other Project features, and the APE. The current condition and physical appearance of the features, as well as any evident impacts, were recorded, and maintenance and/or operation activities with the potential to adversely affect NRHP-eligible features were identified.

The fieldwork was conducted under the same BLM Field Work Authorization and USFS Special Use Permit discussed above in Section 6.11.2.2.3 and provided in Appendix E6.11.2.2-A and E6.11.2.2-B.

6.11.2.4.3.3 NRHP Evaluation

Previous research (discussed below) identified 14 Project features as potentially significant. Seven of these were previously recorded and evaluated by Public Anthropological Research (PAR; Maniery et al. 1985). During the current study, all previously unevaluated features were evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. In addition, some features previously evaluated as non- hydroelectric resources were reevaluated within the context of hydroelectric development. For example, mining ditches evaluated for their role in the history and development of mining were reconsidered and evaluated for their role as DeSabla-Centerville water conveyance systems.

NRHP evaluations were carried out in three steps. First, Æ developed a historic context for the entire system. The age and historical associations of each feature in the APE were identified within this context. Second, the integrity of all components was assessed. Finally, the four NRHP significance criteria described in Section 6.11.2.2.6 above were applied to each feature of the system as well as the system as a whole.

6.11.2.4.4 Results

6.11.2.4.4.1 Prior Studies of the Project

As part of the FERC relicensing effort during the 1980s, PAR completed an inventory and evaluation of portions of the DeSabla-Centerville system (Maniery et al. 1985). The Centerville Powerhouse was judged to be individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register. A Centerville historic district was also proposed, consisting of the powerhouse, Lower Centerville Canal, and associated ditch tenders’ camps. Two archaeological sites also were considered NRHP-eligible: the DeSabla Powerhouse Site (CA-BUT-868) and the Butte Creek Canal Camp 2 (CA-BUT-871). Additionally, a section of the Hendricks Canal that was abandoned after the Hendricks Tunnel was completed in 1953 was also considered eligible (Maniery et al. 1985: 5-1, 5-2). In 1986 the California SHPO concurred that the Centerville Powerhouse and associated penstocks were eligible for the NRHP.

In 1992 PG&E planned to replace the original Centerville Powerhouse. Because this replacement would adversely affect the National Register property, PAR recommended documentation to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. The subsequent report (Maniery 1993) documented the Francis Turbine Generation Unit of the powerhouse. Fifteen years later, the Centerville Powerhouse is still in operation.

6.11.2.4.4.2 Background and Historical Context

Introduction

In 1991 the Edison Electric Institute founded the Task Force on Cultural Resource Management to deal with issues arising from FERC relicensing of hydroelectric facilities and the need to assess them for historic significance. As part of this effort, Duncan Hay, PhD., wrote Hydroelectric Development in the United States, 1880–1940, to be used as a general historical background and context for significance evaluation. This context divides early hydroelectric development into three broad time periods. The first is the pioneering period between 1880 and 1895, characterized by:

a simple union of waterpower and electricity with comparatively little integration of the two technologies. Niagara Falls, and some of its contemporaries, demonstrated the economic viability of hydroelectric development coupled with long distance power transmission, established standards for the industry, and, most importantly, highlighted the fact that hydroelectricity demanded significant changes in hardware and attitudes toward the use of falling water in conjunction with electrical distribution [Hay 1991:xi].

The second time period, that of rapid change, between 1895 and 1915:

saw a number of modifications in waterwheel design, setting and accessories— technologies that had previously plateaud around the 1880s. Similarly, development of stream sites that had heretofore been too remote to harness economically, led to introduction of new dam designs and techniques of water management. Electrical equipment was still in a developmental stage throughout the industry as a whole [Hay 1991:xi].

The beginnings of standardization occurred from 1915 to the 1930s, during which time:

waterpower equipment had been successfully adapted to the specific needs of alternators, and vice versa; a genre of powerhouse architecture had been established. Although more hydroelectric plants were being built than ever before (or since), one could argue that in many sections of the country, they all looked pretty much the same [Hay 1991:xii].

While there was “considerable . . . overlap” between the periods (Hay 1991:xii), this sequence aptly describes hydroelectric development in California and the history of the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric System. Even during the time of standardization, however, there were new ideas and technologies in the world of hydroelectricity. Power plants were constructed on a larger scale, and there was a trend towards mechanization and automation of systems that had been built originally for manual operation. The refinement of hydroelectric system components continues.

Waterpower in the West

The 1848 discovery of gold in northern California was the impetus for a large influx of Americans from eastern states to the gold fields. The early placer mines soon panned out, and gold mining became an industrial enterprise with the evolution of large-scale hydraulic mining. Miners, many of whom had migrated from eastern water powered cities, developed unique methods of harnessing the region’s comparatively scarce stream flow. Extensive systems of ditches and flumes consolidated water, sometimes from entirely different watersheds, feeding it to pipelines, and from there to nozzles appropriately named “giants” operating under several hundred feet of head that washed gold-bearing sand and gravel from hillsides [Hay 1991:4].

In 1884 the Sawyer decision ended large-scale hydraulic mining. However, many of the ditches and flumes built for the mining industry were reused in the burgeoning field of hydroelectricity. Early developers of hydroelectric power plants purchased the ditches and water rights to supply water to power plant sites. Furthermore, the parallel development of long-distance electrical transmission lines allowed such plants to be erected miles from cities that demanded electricity. This Western regional style of hydroelectric development was characterized by “extremely high heads, remote powerhouse locations, and sophisticated point-to-point transmission” (Hay 1991:28). The facilities of Pacific Gas and Electric Company reflect these characteristics.

Genesis of Pacific Gas and Electric Company

John Martin and Eugene de Sabla were entrepreneurs who chanced on hydroelectric development in its infancy. Together they constructed three power plants in Yuba and Nevada counties. In 1900 they incorporated as Bay Counties Power Company. Further “consolidation in central and northern California led to the creation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in 1905. Within a decade, further mergers and acquisitions made PG&E one of the five largest utilities in the country and by far the largest single producer of hydroelectric power” (Hay 1991:108) (Figures E6.11.2.4- A-1 and E6.11.2.4-A-2).

The Butte County Electric Power and Lighting Company incorporated in 1898; its goal was inexpensive local production of electric power. The company purchased the abandoned Bostwick Gold Mining Company ditch and flume, which was constructed in 1887 (Maniery et al. 1985:3). The Hupp mining canal was also acquired (Colman Museum 2007). The Centerville Powerhouse was constructed in 1899, sending electricity to the city of Chico, 15 miles away, and to the Oroville gold-dredging operations, a distance of 32 miles. In 1901 the Chico line was extended 40 miles to Colusa, and a connecting line was constructed from the powerhouse to meet the Chico-Colusa line (Colman Museum 2007).

In 1902, DeSabla was searching for a location for a new power plant in Butte County. After his initial choice proved too expensive to purchase, he decided on the current DeSabla location. In that year he purchased the Centerville Powerhouse system and the dams, pipeline, and ditches of the Cherokee Mine, which included Butte Creek, Dewey, Miners, Inskip and other small ditches (Jackson et al. 1985:141–142). DeSabla organized the Valley Counties Power Company to oversee the project (Coleman 1952:149). While locating the site of the new powerhouse, de Sabla and his associates noticed that

“from the top of the hill he could just about see the in-take of the Centerville Ditch on Butte Creek. He therefore realized that the water of the Cherokee system could be used over again by the Centerville system, thereby increasing very much the value of the property of the company” (Rice 1910:9).

DeSabla built a reservoir, penstocks, and powerhouse, and used the water carried by the old Cherokee ditches to generate power in his new hydroelectric system (Jackson et al. 1985:141). All of the work was carried out simultaneously: building the road to the power plant site, enlarging the canals, rebuilding flumes, and refurbishing the Centerville Powerhouse (Rice 1910:9).

Construction of the DeSabla Powerhouse was “notable for the technical problems it presented and the group of young engineers who solved them” (Coleman 1952:150). These three were the same engineers who later worked on refurbishing the Centerville Powerhouse, namely Frank G. Baum, James H. Wise, and Josiah P. Jollyman. A Stanford University graduate, Baum solved problems regarding uniting in “synchronous operation the scattered generating plants of the partly developed system, problems of long-distance transmission and insulation, high voltage, and substation equipment” (Coleman 1952:151). Wise was a civil and hydraulic engineer. Jollyman “contributed much to the progressive interconnection of the P. G. and E. system of generating plants and transmission lines into a single integrated network” (Coleman 1952:152). When the DeSabla Powerhouse was placed in commission the “high head—the 1,531-foot fall of water—was in itself a step above previous records that called for the best of hydraulic engineering skill to ensure safe operation” (Coleman 1952:150).

In 1905, the company, now officially Pacific Gas and Electric Company, continued to expand its hydroelectric capacities, and also added steam-generated power plants. By 1912 it operated in 32 California counties and “supplied 204 cities, towns and villages containing two-thirds of the entire population of the state” (Maujer 1912:720).

1906-1933: Rapid Changes in the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System

In the immediate years after the formation of PG&E, the company took stock of its holdings, describing and evaluating the components of the hydroelectric systems in order to recommend any needed upgrades. While the basic elements of the DeSabla-Centerville system— powerhouses, ditches, and transmission lines—were in working order, PG&E sought to enlarge its capacity and increase its efficiency. Work first progressed on the Centerville part of the system (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-3).

In 1908 James Wise summarized the changes made in the Centerville subsystem. Before the installation of the Francis turbine, the refurbishing included:

“bringing of various parts of the irregular floor to a uniform level, raising the concrete walls 5 feet, replacing the wooden roof with steel trusses and corrugated iron, placing steel columns and girders the entire length of the building and furnishing a hand operated crane of 60,000 pounds capacity” (Wise 1908).

The Francis turbine and Stanley generator were the main pieces of hydraulic and electrical equipment installed in the powerhouse (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-4). The two penstocks were 36 and 42 inches in diameter. The header box or forebay was built for $5,774.67 (Figure E6.11.2.4-A- 5). Other construction included a blacksmith shop, warehouse, and access roads.

The installation of the Francis turbine attracted the interest of those in the field of electrical engineering. In 1908 James Wise wrote articles about the project for Engineering News and Journal of Electricity, Power, and Gas. This journal had published an article on the subject the previous year, stating that the project “deserves a remarkable place in the history of hydraulic turbine engineering, as never before has a Francis wheel been designed for the extremely high head of 550 feet” (quoted in Maniery 1993:3). Any sand or debris in the water, or uneven flow, could cause problems with the turbine at such high head. Therefore, in conjunction with the turbine installation, cleansing features such as sand boxes a settling basin, and flow-control waste gates were constructed along the Lower Centerville Canal.

In 1919 the Centerville Powerhouse staff included a foreman, lineman, machinist, and three shifts of plant operators (Maniery et al. 1985:3-27). Two operators worked together: the first operator took “readings on the dials half hourly and regulates the speed of the machines” while the second operator kept “the power house in running order” (Milliken 1982 [1912]:16).

Replacement of the log head dam was another upgrade of the old mining ditch system. The new Centerville Canal diversion dam used monolithic concrete; sand and gravel for the concrete were taken from Butte Creek (Figures E6.11.2.4-A-6 and E6.11.2.4-A-7). The new dam was 12 feet high and 90 feet long.

The Lower Centerville Canal was rebuilt and enlarged in 1906 and 1907. This entailed widening and deepening the canal and squaring off the ditch corners, providing a waterway 8.38 miles long with 8,103 feet of flume and 98 feet of tunnel (Figures E6.11.2.4-A-8 and E6.11.2.4-A-9). The grade was 1.26 feet per thousand feet, the capacity 187 second-feet. Work crews used the leftover rock and earth from this procedure to add height and width to the berm. After the work was completed several landslides occurred along its length. In 1908, an engineering survey concluded that because of the location of the ditch in an area of “loose broken shale” the only way to preclude further slide damage was the construction of a closed conduit, which was not considered to be economically feasible (Duryea 1908). It was thought that after a few years the number of slides would lessen but that there could always be trouble on the ditch during the winter.

In 1910, the main conveyance components of the DeSabla division were the Butte Creek Canal, approximately 12 miles long, leading from the point of diversion on Butte Creek to the DeSabla Reservoir (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-10), and the Hendricks Canal, 22 miles long, leading from a point on the West Branch about 3 miles north of Stirling City and conducting water by way of the Lovelock Tunnel and the Toadtown Canal to the Butte Canal, the confluence being about 3,000 feet above the DeSabla Reservoir (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-11).

The Round Valley Reservoir was used for storage and at that time could impound about 40,000,000 cubic feet (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-12). The Miners, Dewey, and Inskip ditches were

used to conduct water from this storage facility to the Toadtown Canal, then ultimately to the DeSabla Forebay (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-13). The penstocks were two 30-inch pipelines, each a little over 6,000 feet long, which extended from the forebay to the DeSabla Powerhouse, developing a static head of 1,531 feet (Wise 1910:14). At that time the DeSabla system had the highest head of any of the PG&E hydroelectric systems.

Wise’s 1910 report recommended cleaning out the 21,000-foot-long Miners Ditch (Figures E6.11.2.4-A-14 and E6.11.2.4-A-15), and abandoning the Dewey Ditch in favor of the Miners Ditch. Not only did the Dewey Ditch leak badly, but the Miners Ditch was at a lower elevation, had a larger catchment area, and traversed a “better [geological] formation” (Wise 1910:27). Wise considered the Butte Creek Canal “one of the best ditches owned” by the company. He recommended enlarging its capacity from 77 to 110 second feet, which would entail replacing the flumes with larger ones. Wise also recommended replacing the log crib head dam with a concrete diversion dam (Wise 1910:27–28). The total cost for upgrading the Butte Creek Canal was $72,540, which did not include the cost of new dam construction.

In 1916, PG&E followed Wise’s advice and replaced the log crib head dam for Butte Creek Canal with a concrete dam (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-16). The new dam was a cyclopean concrete arch 110 feet long and 45 feet high. The dam was 4 feet thick at the top and 8 feet thick at the bottom (Department of Water Resources 1930). It diverted the water from the creek into a tunnel that led to the canal. On the opposite side of the tunnel the residual water was returned to Butte Creek.

In Wise’s 1910 report, several potential storage reservoir locations were explored, one of which was a location near Philbrook. Once owned by the Oro Electric Corporation, the original dam had been destroyed the winter after its completion in 1908. After its destruction, the site was abandoned (Pacific Service Magazine 1928:121). PG&E purchased the site in 1917.

The Philbrook Dam was planned as a rolled fill type of earthen dam. It was anticipated that 5,040 acre feet of water could be impounded in this storage facility, generating an increased power output at DeSabla and Centerville of 6,236,000 kilowatt hours annually. The construction of the dam was approved on June 15, 1926 (PG&E 1926). Kaiser Paving Company, owned by Henry J. Kaiser (who later was instrumental in the construction of Hoover and Grand Coulee dams), was hired to build the dam. Philbrook Dam and Reservoir were the last parts of the system to be installed.

Once the necessary elements were constructed and in good working order, PG&E focused on the efficient operation of the system. Because they were subject to the whims of nature more so than other features, the canals were the system component that required the greatest amount of maintenance. Tenders had a daily routine of walking and observing the condition of the canals, sometimes doing minor cleaning and repairs, to monitor and regulate the flow of water. Ditch tenders also were responsible for minor repairs on flumes and bridges, maintenance of the camps, salvaging material after a fire, and telephone and electric line maintenance (DeSabla Division 1929–1931) (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-19). In the late teens and early 1920s:

Workmen carried their blankets to the jobs on various ditches. There was usually a bunkhouse or cabin where they could throw their blankets on a bunk with a mattress of pine needles or hay. At these ditch camps the ditch tender’s wife would do the cooking for the crew. The men were paid twenty-five cents an hour for a ten-hour day, and they paid seventy-five cents for board. Cecil [Lambert] thought it was good pay—and maybe it was as there wasn’t anywhere to spend it up on the ditches [Butler 1974:4].

Lambert would periodically quit, but DeSabla Superintendent Ike Adams, described by Lambert as “a pretty good ole guy,” would talk him into returning to work (Butler 1974:4).

In addition to the daily maintenance, the canals had an annual spring cleaning which usually lasted two to three weeks. In addition, each spring the canal gauges were checked, and the losses from leaks were calculated. In 1944, between Mile 1 and Mile 5 Butte Creek Canal lost four second-feet per mile, and a total of 33 percent of the water for the entire length of the canal.

Winter maintenance often included cleaning up after snowstorms. In 1916 the DeSabla Reservoir accumulated 105 inches of snow, with 134 inches at the heads of the Butte Creek and Hendricks canals.

Our upper ditches run through a heavily timbered country, and as the snow was wet and heavy it played havoc with the timber, likewise our ditches. As an example of what a heavy snowfall will do to timber, on our Butte ditch in a distance of eleven miles no less than 170 trees fell across and in the ditch, the size of the trees running from six inches up to five feet in diameter.

The men deserve a great deal of credit in trying to keep “Pacific Service” continuous. Frequently, they were at work forty-eight hours at a stretch, wet to the skin the greater part of the time and very often missing their noon meal; but they stood fast and made no complaint (Pacific Service Magazine 1916:357–358).

As part of the mining operations the ditches had been unlined and the flumes had been made of wood. Efficient management of the canals necessitated the use of durable, permanent canal materials. As the wood flumes rotted, causing the canals to leak and become unstable, they were replaced by metal, used both for the supporting framework and the half-barrel flumes. Although the construction material changed, the design did not. It also became apparent that canals lined with concrete resulted in more freeboard. Concrete-lined canals could mean a “savings of 60 per cent in maintenance costs over earth sections” and reduce “seepage losses to less than one-third of those in clay” (Weber 1922:436). Between 1910 and 1920, PG&E lined some of the inner and outer canal walls with rock. As this procedure continued in areas in which a ready supply of such rock was available, the company also began applying gunite to a greater percentage of the canals.

Construction of tunnels along the canals also lowered maintenance costs. While the original ditches had followed the contours of the buttes in the area, tunnels through these hills reduced the length of canal subject to deterioration from exposure to the elements. In 1927, the Slate

Ravine Tunnel on the Lower Centerville Canal was built. It was 1,400 feet long, 9 feet wide on the bottom, 6 feet wide at the top, 7 feet high, and not lined with concrete (PG&E 1927).

1933-1960: Standardization of the DeSabla-Centerville System

In 1933, the Dewey, Miners, and Inskip ditches were decommissioned. Since then the DeSabla- Centerville canal system “has operated in its present configuration” (Jackson et al. 1985:212). Canals continued to be maintained, and durable materials replaced impermanent ones in order to keep repair and maintenance costs down.

There were three main methods of canal repair and upgrade: replacing wood flumes with metal flumes, replacing flumes with concrete L walls, and guniting the canal walls. Hay notes “A variety of semicircular sheet metal flume sections and fastening systems were patented and marketed on the basis of their smooth hydraulic characteristics and the speed with which they could be erected” (1991:55–56). This type of metal flume became a standard feature in the evolution of more permanent canal materials. In the three decades between 1930 and 1960, there was a steady progressive use of standardized materials and design in hydroelectric power plant system use and maintenance.

In 1937, part of the 4/31 wooden flume on the Lower Centerville Canal was replaced with metal flume. However, “it was found advantageous to replace the two ends (totaling 89 feet) of flume #4/3 with sections of ‘L’ wall instead of metal flume” (PG&E 1937a). Form lumber was purchased locally. Cement and reinforcing steel were shipped from Chico. Aggregate came from the Cherokee gravel pits. Materials were transported by road, then hauled to the canal berm and transported to the job sites along the canal. In the 1930s, canal cars on lightweight tracks hauled repair materials to the specific areas (PG&E 1937b). The wood was floated down the canal from the head dam. The work crew stayed at Camp 1. It took approximately three weeks to complete the project.

Gunite protected the canal banks from erosion and leaking. In 1946, 2,733 feet of the outer bank of the Lower Centerville Canal was coated with gunite. The first step in the process was sloping the canal bank; then a layer of wire mesh was laid along the bank, after which the gunite was applied.

Standard practice was followed in guniting the outer bank of the Centerville Canal. The gunite was mixed at the stockpile near the 7/7 flume (old numbering) in a 7 cu ft mixer. The dry gunite was hauled via canal cars drawn by Cletracs to the concretor situated on the canal berm. The gun was moved ahead along the berm as the work progressed. The air for the concretor was transferred from the compressor at the mixing platform to the gun via 2-inch iron pipe laid along the berm. The water for guniting was pumped from water allowed to collect behind earth dams in the canal [PG&E 1945].

1 Individual components along the canals were numbered: 4/3 flume was the third feature in Mile 4.

In this manner, a crew of 23 men placed 24,308 square feet of gunite along the canal. Sloping the bank, guniting, and site clean up took 12 days. Some automated equipment also was installed. Adjustable siphon spillways protected the canals from washouts during storms under the eight hour per day working schedules for ditch patrolmen, and to reduce overtime expense. An estimated saving of $1000 per year is expected from these installations [four siphon spillways along the Lower Centerville Canal] as well as increased safety for the canal (PG&E 1948a).

Access roads were needed to bring in construction and repair materials for the canals. The most notable of these roads was DeSabla Powerhouse Road, a very steep road that was difficult and costly to construct. For the 1946 repairs described above, an access road was built to the northern part of the Lower Centerville Canal to bring in materials purchased in Chico and San Francisco and to provide access to the DeSabla-Colgate 60kV transmission line, which was considered “very inaccessible” (PG&E 1946). The road was approximately 2.5 miles long, from a “temporary road on the Barton property and projects by a devious route in a general northerly direction to the #3/2 flume on the Canal” (PG&E 1946). Blasting was required in several locations, and the topography demanded 17 culverts be installed. Because the terrain near the canal was quite steep, the road stopped before reaching the canal, because during such construction the overburden would have gone into the canal (PG&E 1946).

Upgrades at Philbrook Reservoir included a new log boom in 1939 (PG&E 1939). The following year a new, larger spillway was added, mandated because of severe storms in past years. A radial gate, 10 feet 9 inches high and 14 feet 6 inches wide, was installed next to the original spillway. This doubled the capacity of the spillway (PG&E 1940).

The storage reservoirs were periodically drained or dredged (Figures E6.11.2.4-A-21 and E6.11.2.4-A-22). The first noted instance of draining DeSabla Forebay was in 1911. In 1961 approximately 75,000 cubic yards of “silt and sand and miscellaneous deposits” were dredged. The material was deposited on either side of the penstocks or east of the forebay (PG&E 1960:6, 9).

In 1950, two weeks of stormy weather clogged the Butte Creek, Hendricks, and Lower Centerville canals, among others, and downed power lines. The canals had to be dug out by crews working long hours. Once again trees were blown over and into Butte Creek Canal—this time approximately 200 trees hit the canal (P. G. and E. Progress 1950a: 1–2). Boats were also used to break the ice on the canals (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-20).

Between 1933 and 1960 the configuration of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System remained essentially unchanged, although construction materials were gradually shifted to more durable, efficient, and standardized products. PG&E introduced deer safety features such as bridges over canals and escape ramps in the late 1950s (PG&E 1957b). Although there was some installation of automated equipment, it was still a manually operated system: the powerhouses required operators 24 hours a day, and the canals needed constant patrolling. The following description of canals, taken from a 1959 evaluation of the DeSabla system, provides a

good assessment of their conditions at the point of transition from a manually operated to a mechanized system (DeSabla Division 1959:413–414):

Butte Canal: “Flumes very bad 3 jobs that should be completed. Canal has not had good cleaning for 6 or 7 years. Canal badly choked below flumes causing some to run over.”

Hendricks Canal: “Several bad slides should either be cribbed or cleaned out. Canal very dirty. Flumes not too bad. 2 very old ones but plenty of freeboard. Something should be done with the berm above Cunningham Road. Logs could come into the canal.”

Toadtown Canal: “Lots of brush and low berms.”

Lower Centerville Canal: “Canal should be in very good shape after present outage except for cleaning. Canal only partly cleaned and flumes will probably run heavy with water. Slate Ravine Tunnel in bad shape. Needs to be timbered in places. Collar braces and floor gone” (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-17).

In 1959, the condition of the access roads also was evaluated and they too were considered to be in bad shape. Culverts and “lots of gravel” were needed to return them into good condition (DeSabla Division 1959:413–414).

Life in the Company Camps

All of the components of the hydroelectric system required operators and maintenance staff. PG&E established living facilities, called camps, near the powerhouses, along the canals, and near the reservoirs. Some of these camps had originally served as construction camps. The company built rental housing for its personnel, although employees were not required to live in the company housing. For example, Charles Colman, a Centerville operator, continued to live on his family farm (U.S. Census Bureau 1930).

Through the 1920s, construction workers lived at the canal camps during periods of canal repair. However, by 1937 many workers were housed at Camp 1 and transported to the work sites. Construction camps were still maintained in the more distant and remote areas; in 1940 there was a construction camp about 400 feet from the installation of the new radial gate and spillway at Philbrook (PG&E 1940).

Reference to these construction and maintenance camps may be confusing since they were not consecutively numbered. Camp 1, for example, was originally established for construction of the DeSabla Forebay and Powerhouse. Subsequently, maintenance camps established along each canal had the same numbering sequence, so that Lower Centerville Canal, Butte Creek Canal, and Hendricks Canal each had a Camp 1, and so forth.

Camp 1 (DC_53-H)

Camp 1 was originally set up as the construction camp for the DeSabla Forebay and Powerhouse. It is located on the south end of Lake DeSabla. The camp contained an office, other work- related buildings, and residences for staff. There was a bunkhouse for unmarried men. The superintendent’s house and the foreman’s house were located across the road from the main camp area (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-23).

In the summer of 1904, some of the men occupied tents at the site while working construction. One of these was George W. Lambert, Cecil’s father, who worked as a teamster during the construction of the powerhouse (Butler 1974:1). Lambert later worked as a tender on the Centerville Canal, while his wife was a cook at the DeSabla boardinghouse (Butler 1974:3). In 1920, Ike Adams, the district manager, and his wife lived in a rented house at Camp 1. Other personnel included an accountant, two electricians, the ditch foreman, and four ditch tenders (U.S. Census Bureau 1920). Employees who lived in company housing paid minimal rent. During the Great Depression, Cecil Lambert worked at Camp 1 for $126 a month, and paid $5 monthly for a house “right by the dance hall” (Butler 1974:5). Powerhouse operators paid $10 a month.

The 1952 map of Camp 1 depicts an office, five residences, a boarding house, a dormitory, several garages, a lumber rack, woodshed, and warehouse (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-24). These residences were gradually removed as better roads made it feasible for employees to commute to the camp from Paradise and other communities. In 1960 two residences and two smaller buildings “not economical to rehabilitate” were demolished; two other structures were advertised for sale (PG&E 1960).

In 1916, DeSabla district employees at Camp 1 founded the DeSabla Pacific Service Club (currently PSEA) for social events and recreation. Contributions of $1,000 enabled the group to construct a 40 by 60 foot dance floor and buy a player piano. The inaugural dance was on June 24, 1916, when over 100 couples enjoyed dancing and supper (Kass 1916:89). The following year, a roof over the dance floor transformed it into a hall where biweekly dances were held throughout the summer (Kass 1917:107–108). Two years later, the dances were held weekly, with people attending from Chico and other nearby towns. The dance hall was constructed in such a way that a “constant current of air on the hottest night” breezed through the hall; there was an 8-foot porch on the front and one side, with cedar posts and railings. Live bands provided music until midnight, at which time there was a “brief adjournment for supper” then dancing continued until 3:00 am. (Myrtle 1919:41–43). Residents of the camps also traveled, sometimes on foot, to other communities for dances or baseball games (Butler 1974:6).

At Christmas the single occupants of the boarding house had a communal celebration:

As the majority of the men at DeSabla power house were away from home on Christmas, we tried to make our Christmas seem as homelike as possible. The families of the married men and their relatives visiting them were invited to the Clubhouse, which was decorated as only can be done in the region where holly, ferns and firs are plentiful. Our menu contained everything that goes with a

Christmas dinner. After the dinner we had games and music. We had with us for the occasion two singers of unusual talent who helped to cheer the day, and after the day was over one of our members was heard to say that no one had a better Christmas than we (Compton 1921: 266).

DeSabla Powerhouse Camp

The DeSabla Powerhouse Camp was located along Butte Creek,

“that beautiful stream, gushing among mighty boulders. A picturesque suspension bridge extends from the clubhouse across the cañon to the wooded slopes and to winding pathways under sweet-scented foliage” (Rice 1910:12).

On the west side of the canyon were an unknown number of cabins for married couples (Butler 1986:15). There was also a walkway along the east side of the canyon that led to the Centerville Diversion Dam. Remnant bolts are still embedded in the rock (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-25).

After the camp was established, Eugene de Sabla purchased a gramophone, “with a large collection of records by such celebrities as Caruso, Sembrich and Schuman-Heink” to be enjoyed by all the staff (Milliken 1982 [1912]:16). The operators were expected to return from vacations with more records. In 1916, Leslie Edwards, originally at Centerville, became foreman at the DeSabla Powerhouse Camp, residing in the house behind and to the right of the boardinghouse. At this camp he was in charge of installing a new generator. Edwards remained at DeSabla until 1920; in that year he was listed on the census as the powerhouse foreman (U.S. Census Bureau 1920). In addition to Edwards, Leopold Bergerian, who came from France in 1900, lived in the boardinghouse with nine lodgers: four electrical operators, one electrician, one machinist, two laborers, and a Chinese cook (U.S. Census Bureau 1920).

Gardening was a popular avocation. Leo Kass, who worked at DeSabla before and after World War I, came from a family of fruit growers, and he experimented with budding and grafting fruit trees (P. G. and E. Progress 1950b:5). He lived in the boarding house in 1920. Also, one of the electricians there:

a Frenchman, Paul Bergereau by name, has turned the precipitous hillside surrounding his cottage across the creek into a veritable wonderland of fruit, flower and vegetable cultivation. He is a typical Frenchman, too, for he walks around in wooden sabots while, like Enoch Arden, he digs with his fingers in the wet [Pacific Service Magazine 1919:44].

Other hobbies included panning for gold in the creek and motorcycling up the hill—the 1912 record time was 21 minutes to complete the 5-mile journey (Milliken 1982 [1912]:16–17).

Children went to nearby schools. Those that lived at the DeSabla Powerhouse Camp walked up the hill every day. School was not always held in the winter because of the amount of snow; some children stayed in town to attend school, and returned to the family during vacations (Basset 1978:15).

Centerville Powerhouse Camp

The Centerville Powerhouse Camp was situated east of the powerhouse (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-26). In 1910, Levi Spangler lived in a rented house in the Centerville Powerhouse Camp. Charles

Colman, an operator, owned his house. Two other operators were at the camp; two ditch tenders lived along Centerville Road (U.S. Census Bureau 1910).

Spangler, who was the Centerville Powerhouse foreman in 1914, grew fruit trees along Butte Creek in front of the powerhouse. Spangler also caught a trout and kept it in a spring-fed pool at the side of the road:

Naturally Spangler has been forced to the expedient of feeding the trout. He can hold a grasshopper in his fingers from fourteen to sixteen inches above the water and the fish will rise from the water and invariably snatch the insect from his hand. Another trick of the trout is to circle about a person’s finger when it is placed in the water and to pinch it in his mouth [Pacific Service Magazine 1914:176].

Around 1913 Leslie Edwards, an electrical engineering graduate from Stanford, became an operator at Centerville. As remembered by his daughter:

he and his wife lived in a small house under a digger pine tree. Sometimes a big cone would fall off and make a hole in the roof above the kitchen stove. If it was raining Mom would put an umbrella over the stove while she did her cooking until Dad was able to mend the leak [Phillips 1982:9].

In 1920 Spangler and Colman were still at Centerville. George Adams was the ditch foreman at that time. By 1930 Spangler and his family owned their home. Walter Greenwalt, who had been at Centerville in 1920, also owned his home, as did Colman (U.S. Census Bureau 1920, 1930). George Adams was still the ditch foreman; he lived in a rented house for which he paid $25 per month.

Some of the one-bedroom cottages were remodeled by enclosing the 12 by 12 sleeping porches into bedrooms, particularly when occupied by families with children (PG&E 1942b). When powerhouse operator Harold Oaks moved from Caribou to Centerville in 1949, there were only three houses at the camp. For him and his family the company built a two-bedroom house, with living room, dining room, kitchen, and a storage area under the house. Front and back porches adorned the house. In the late 1950s the three houses were torn down, and the Oaks house moved to Rock Creek (Kenyon 2006).

Ditch Tender’s Camps

A ditch tender’s camp was always at the head dam of a canal. PG&E documentation from 1911 indicates that there were five camps on the Lower Centerville Canal, and four each on Butte Creek and Hendricks canals (Maniery et al. 1985:3-40). Both single men and families lived in

these camps. In the winter the tenders “kept snow out of the water flumes in the freezing winter months,” while their wives cooked for PG&E crews (Bassett 1978:15).

For the tenders, housing was very basic. Many of the cottages were quite small and spartan, with no indoor plumbing or insulation. They were usually constructed of board and batten, with two rooms—a kitchen, with space for a table, and a combination living and bedroom. The cook stove was in the kitchen, with a heating stove in the living room. Outbuildings were a combined garage/woodshed, although at some camps, there were outbuildings for livestock such as barns and chicken houses. In this respect, the ditch tenders’ camps were similar to farmsteads (Hernandez 2007).

Lower Centerville Canal Camps

There were five camps along the Lower Centerville Canal (LCC). Although the precise locations of these camps are sometimes unclear, Maniery et al. (1985:3-40) and others generally place Camp 1 at the head dam. In 1922, a new two-room house was erected at LCC Camp 1 because the existing house was “beyond repair” (PG&E 1922). This new structure remained until 1948, when it was described as a “two room dilapidated cabin” (PG&E 1948c). In that year, an automatic gate was installed, allowing the ditch tender to relocate to the DeSabla Powerhouse Camp, where the gate could be operated remotely (PG&E 1948c). No archaeological or architectural remains were encountered at the Centerville Diversion Dam during the 2006 field studies.

The location of Camp 2 is tenuous. Maniery et al. (1985:3-40) list the LCC Camp 2 at Mile 2 on the canal. No architectural or archaeological remains were encountered at this location. Maniery et al. (1985:4-26) indicate that the Hogg Ranch camp site (CA-BUT-873-H) is possibly an unofficial ditch tender’s camp. Given its location along the canal, CA-BUT-873-H may represent Camp 2. Conversely, the physical remains of Camp 2 may no longer be visible. In 1925, because of “considerable work” along the canal requiring a crew of 40, a new building was erected at Camp 2. It was estimated that the extant house was 30 years old and uninhabitable; the current ditch tender was living in the bunkhouse (PG&E 1925). The camp was formally closed in 1944: “Camp No. 2 on the Lower Centerville Canal has not been used for several years and there is no prospect that it will ever be needed in the future” (PG&E 1944). The house was sold and the bunkhouse and chicken house were burned.

Camp 3 appears to be site CC-4, located where the LCC and Centerville Canal intersect. A modern residence is currently located on the site and only a random section of rock wall or other fragments of historical debris or features are present in this location.

The LCC Camp 4 buildings near Mile #7 went up in 1929, and none were repaired until 1948. At that time “the shingle roof has deteriorated so that it is no longer reliable and the porches are badly in need of repair. The garage and woodshed was built out of second hand lumber and is dilapidated beyond repair” (PG&E 1948b). Repairs included reroofing the cottage:

with 5 v crimp aluminum roofing laid on 1" x 3" strips over the existing shingles, repair front and back porches and exterior siding, replace linoleum and drainboard

in kitchen, sand and refinish floors, and paint interior and exterior surfaces. The garage and woodshed will be rebuilt entirely, reusing the metal roofing (PG&E 1948a).

In 1956 heavy rains hit the camp; it was “necessary to install a concrete wall to hold the hill back from covering the yard and to keep it away from the house” (PG&E 1956). No cultural remains were encountered in this location during the 2006 field study.

At LCC Camp 5 was located near the header box. In 1930, Roy Reedy was one of the Centerville ditch tenders. He paid $20 monthly to rent the house in which he lived with his wife, two sons, and mother-in-law (U.S. Census Bureau 1930). Two buildings, a woodshed, and barn were dismantled in 1945. Salvageable material was used to build a 20 by 20-foot building with a concrete foundation, wood frame, corrugated metal walls and roof, to be used for a combination garage, woodshed and tool room (PG&E 1945). No cultural remains were encountered in this location during the 2006 field study.

Butte Creek Canal Camps

There were three camps along the Butte Creek Canal (BCC). They were located at the head dam (Camp 1), at Hupp’s, south of Clear Creek (Camp 2), and at the north end of the DeSabla Forebay (Camp 3).

The cottage at Butte Creek Diversion Dam Camp 1 (BCC-1):

is situated on top of a knoll, is extremely vulnerable to the weather. This had made the building costly to maintain and repair. The paint on the wood siding has weathered down to the bare wood. This building, first constructed in 1927, was built on concrete piers and due to weather conditions and snow loads the piers have shifted. They were realigned in 1949 and have again shifted causing the building to sag.

It is proposed to apply asbestos shingle siding for protection against the weather and construct a concrete foundation around the perimeter of the building. It is further proposed to enclose the front porch and relocate the front door away from the weather side, paint the exterior trim and interior [PG&E 1957a].

There was also a bunkhouse at the head dam camp, which was destroyed by fire in 1930 (DeSabla Division 1930:297). No cultural remains were encountered in this location during the 2006 field study.

In the 1970s a full-time ditch tender still lived at Camp 2, south of Clear Creek at Hupp’s sawmill and residence (BCC-5), within the APE. Archival research did not produce descriptions of the buildings at Butte Creek Canal Camp 2. All of the structures were removed over 25 years ago. The area is now covered with blackberry bushes and ground vegetation. However, a few historic ceramics and glass fragments were observed during the 2006 field study.

Camp 3 is located on the north side of DeSabla Forebay (BCC-4). It is likely a ditch tender’s camp; although PAR (1985:4-30) cites it as the PG&E Headquarters’ Camp. Archival research indicates that the PG&E headquarters was located at Camp 1 on the south end of Lake DeSabla. Surviving remnants of the DeSabla Forebay camp include a garage and garden. While the PSEA Camp (see PSEA Camps below and DC-52-H above) is near the forebay camp, they appear to be separate entities.

Hendricks Canal Camps

There were three camps along the Hendricks Canal (HC). The first (Camp 1) was at the head dam. In 1942, the cottage there was upgraded because the ditch patrolman had recently married, and the house was considered unfit for a family (PG&E 1942a). Upgrades included:

Install 800 feet of water line from spring to house. Provide septic tank, bath, toilet, laundry tray and kitchen sink. Line one bedroom and closet with plywood. Paint corrugated iron roof and a portion of the interior walls and insulate ceiling [PG&E 1942a].

Precise information on the location of Hendricks Canal Camps 2 and 3 has not been forthcoming. In 1937, the abandoned ditch cottage at Hendricks Canal Camp 2 was torn down and a 10 by 12 foot “shelter cabin” was constructed with salvaged lumber (PG&E 1938). At Camp 3, cottage 1905, which measured 28 by 36 feet, was destroyed by fire. A new cottage (#4206) was constructed in 1941 (PG&E 1941). No cultural remains were encountered during the 2006 field study for any of the three camps along the Hendricks Canal.

Philbrook Lake Tenders Camp

At Philbrook Reservoir, the lake tender lived in a cabin about one-half mile from the dam (DC- 46-H). The dwelling had two rooms and a small plywood addition on the south. There was no indoor plumbing. An outdoor eating and cooking area was set up on the north side of the house. Three privies, two of which are sanitary privies, were located away from the house. Paths led from the house, which still exists, to the dam, the gate on the canal/creek, and from the gate to the dam. Using this circular path the lake tender could visit all the components of the dam in one round trip (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-27). This structure was recorded for relicensing study 6.3.8-1 as site DC-46-H and is discussed in Section 6.11.2 above. PG&E proposes to remove the structure and will consult with the LNF and SHPO about appropriate treatment measures prior to its removal.

PSEA Camps

In the twentieth century the 40-hour work week, labor-saving devices, the economic success of the middle class, and, above all, the automobile gave rise to a new recreational trend: family camping. By the early 1920s the Pacific Service Employees’ Association (PSEA) organized campgrounds on lands along PG&E hydroelectric systems. In 1922, an article in Pacific Service Magazine described the recreational camp on the banks of the DeSabla Forebay (DC-52-H):

This is an ideal, restful camp, situated at an elevation of 2,800 feet among Butte County’s pine-clad mountains. . . . Supplies may be purchased at Chico. The stage driver will take your order on one day and deliver your supplies the next. If desired, meals may be obtained at the private boarding house at fifty cents per plate.

There are many interesting side trips to be taken from DeSabla. Attractive hikes along good trails lead to DeSabla Power House, Centerville Power House, Magalia and the Evening Star Mine. Autos may visit the power houses and also Big Meadows and Lake Almanor.

Excellent fishing is to be found close at hand and there is plenty of small game in the back country. Camp DeSabla affords the following equipment furnished free for your use by your association:

Tents equipped with board floors, single cots with mattresses, cook stove set up outside tent, axe for cutting firewood, broom, washtub and washboard, meat safe and shower bath [Furlong 1922:394].

The article mentioned one other PSEA camp, but did not indicate its location. Both camps provided tents and other camping equipment. The article also mentions other undeveloped campsites for vacationers who could provide their own equipment.

The recreation potential of the Philbrook area was recognized prior to construction. The dam “will create a beautiful little mountain lake that will add to the scenic attractions of a section of the Sierra Nevada territory frequented by campers who enjoy spending their vacations far back in the wilds” (P. G. and E. Progress 1926:4). People who had resided in the area that the lake covered leased land from PG&E:

then we leased a lot from PG&E and began to build another cabin (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-28). We started the main cabin about 1938 then decided to add on what we call the stone room (Jones 1984:26–27) (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-29).

Others petitioned PG&E for lots. One man “talked to PG&E about the area on the north shore where our cabin is now and was able to convince them to survey five more lots” (Jones 1984:33). Lots were small, about 100 by 80 feet. Leaseholders had to provide their own water. The first lots were leased possibly as early as the 1930s, with a large number of lease requests in the 1940s and 1950s (Sanford 2006). These homes are set at the east end of the lake on both sides of the road but mainly at the shore. Many shoreline homes have private docks.

The cabins were mainly used in the summer months, but residents came to Philbrook in the winter too. They usually traveled on skis. One family had to dig down to the second-story window on their cabin in order to enter it (Jones 1984:29). The company also developed public campgrounds around Philbrook Reservoir in the 1960s.

Since 1960: Mechanization and Automation of the System

During this period the DeSabla-Centerville system followed the general trend of automation and mechanization throughout industry. As the eight-hour day was instituted for ditch tenders, the company tried to eliminate overtime by automating many of the tasks that previously had been the responsibility of the tenders. With fewer personnel needed, the number of camps was gradually reduced until all were abandoned. Buildings with economic value were sold.

In 1961, PG&E decided to demolish the original powerhouse at DeSabla and construct a new, semi-outdoor type on the same site (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-18). New penstocks also were constructed, and the forebay was refurbished: a new outlet was built to serve the new penstock and the original outlet was reconstructed as a reservoir drain and headworks for the Upper Centerville Canal. The spillway also was improved (Department of Water Resources 1961). Both the new DeSabla Powerhouse and the Centerville Powerhouse were semi-automated. Around the clock staff was no longer required; therefore the associated camps were closed.

A series of eight overflows along the Butte Creek Canal in a period of five years during the early 1970s cost the company $163,000 and the loss of 10,000 MWH of electric generation. In response, an automatic regulating gate with float control was installed at the Clear Creek Diversion along Butte Creek Canal. This consisted of a side spill, a 96 inch by 60 inch radial gate, a 36-inch slide gate, a weir well, and 6-inch and 2-inch piping and valving. . . . A Solenoid operated valve is to be installed in the piping to facilitate the installation at a future date of remote control equipment which can be used to close the radial gate in the event of a canal problem (PG&E 1975:2).

With this gate, the ditch tender did not have to walk 3 miles in stormy weather to manually adjust the gate. Plans for six other such gates were in readiness if this gate performed as anticipated.

Other automated equipment included radio-controlled spill gates that could dewater the canal if there was a downstream problem. Such gates were installed on the Butte Creek Canal in 1982. Three others had previously been installed at 1/4, 3-3/4, 5/1 and 8-1/4 (PG&E 1982).

Additionally, the company installed a Canal Protection System, a series of alarm sites set in stilling wells, using a float mechanism to sense abnormally high or low water levels.

In 1908, it had been considered too expensive to construct closed conduit where the canals traversed areas subject to landslides. However, in 1986, a modern siphon was installed on Butte Creek Canal, eliminating a section of flume located on a very steep grade. Plywood covers other slide-prone areas.

The DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Today

Operation and maintenance of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System continues, although now helicopters sometimes are used to bring materials to remote areas (Figure E6.11.2.4-A-30). In 1986, the new Toadtown Powerhouse was built. Today many of the canals, particularly in

October 2007 License Application Cultural Resources ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E6.11-127 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 areas close to roads, are used for recreational purposes. People bike, hike, and walk their dogs along the canals. Park benches are located at intervals along the Toadtown Canal. Also, although it is discouraged, some use the canals for inner tubing. Local use of the waters in the canals has been an ongoing problem, as evidenced by a sign on the Lower Centerville Canal that says “The water in this canal is for domestic purposes. Do not bathe or wash clothes in it or in any way contaminate the water” (Figure E6.11.2.4-31).

One of the main concerns in the system is the status of the Centerville components. As mentioned above, in the early 1980s PG&E contemplated abandoning the Upper Centerville Canal and demolishing the Centerville powerhouse. In 1985, PG&E decided to postpone the proposal to abandon the Upper Centerville Canal (Head 1985). However, plans to replace the powerhouse proceeded, along with plans to upgrade DeSabla Powerhouse and refurbish certain canal segments. As a result, PAR completed an inventory and evaluation of portions of the DeSabla-Centerville system (Maniery et al. 1985). The Centerville Powerhouse was found to be individually eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, as well as being part of a potential district including Lower Centerville Canal and associated ditch tender’s camps. Management recommendations included the conversion of the powerhouse into a museum and recordation of the structure and appurtenant features according to HAER standards.

In 1992 PG&E planned to replace the original Centerville. Because this replacement would adversely affect the National Register property, HAER documentation was completed. The subsequent report (Maniery 1993) documented the Francis Turbine Generation Unit of the powerhouse.

6.11.2.4.4.3 Field Inventory, Feature Documentation, and Definition of Property Types

During the field inventory Æ inspected all Project-related canals, dams, powerhouses, and associated features. Only those features 45 years of age or older were documented and evaluated for the current study. These are described in greater detail below. Table E6.11.2.4-1 lists all Project features and details which of these features were recorded and evaluated. The system feature locations are also shown on Figure E.6.11.2.2-1.

The basic workings of a hydroelectric generation system were described in Hydroelectric Development in the United States, 1880–1940 (Hay 1991). Prior NRHP evaluations of licensee hydroelectric systems organized the various historical elements of the systems by following the path of the water. Dams first impound the water in reservoirs. The water then flows through a series of conduits to the powerhouse, where the force of the water turns turbines to generate electricity. Neither Hay (1991) nor PAR (Maniery et al. 1985; Maniery 1993) defined specific property types associated with hydroelectric systems, but properties can be generally divided into feature systems that impound and divert water, systems that convey water from its source to its point of use, and systems that generate and transmit power (Shoup 1988; JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation 2000).

The principal elements of the DeSabla-Centerville system are listed in Table E6.11.2.4-2 and described in detail below. Diversion structures include both earthen and concrete dams that impound water in reservoirs and direct it into the conveyance system. Diversion dams on the

canals also divert water into the system. The elements of the conveyance system are classified by function into four main categories: conduits, flow control elements, cleansing structures, and associated features. Conduits transport the water to the point of use. The canals have both lined and unlined segments and include a combination of open channels and flumes over deep ravines as well as closed conduits such as tunnels, pipelines, and penstocks.

Flow control mechanisms, which maintain and regulate the system and ensure a steady supply of water to the powerhouses, include gates, gauging stations, turnouts, forebays or headboxes, and wasting structures. The canals also contain sand traps, trash grates, grizzlies, and other cleaning and maintenance devices that prevent sand and other debris from damaging equipment in the powerhouses.

The DeSabla-Centerville Project is comprised of three hydroelectric systems that share the same geographic location and watersheds. Two dams and their associated reservoirs, Philbrook and Round Valley Reservoirs, store water for use in the system. Water is diverted from Butte Creek at the Butte Diversion Dam and from the West Branch of the Feather River at the Hendricks Diversion Dam. —Hendricks Canal carries water to the newer Toadtown Powerhouse and then into the Toadtown Canal. The Toadtown Canal merges with Butte Creek Canal, which empties into DeSabla Forebay.

From DeSabla Forebay and Dam, the water flows into the penstocks of the DeSabla Powerhouse. The water is then returned to Butte Creek, and is then diverted once again into the Lower Centerville Canal. The Upper Centerville Canal begins at DeSabla Forebay, and can be used as an alternate source of water, if needed, at the Centerville Powerhouse. The Lower Centerville Canal flows penstocks of the Centerville Powerhouse and then finally returns to Butte Creek. Thus the same water is used to power both DeSabla and Centerville Powerhouses, which was one of the goals of Eugene de Sabla when he first built the DeSabla Powerhouse.

Several other property types are associated with the hydroelectric system, though they are not directly linked to power generation: construction camps and recreation facilities. Table E.6.11.2.4-1 also lists associated features that are not part of the generation system. Construction, maintenance, and work camps housed personnel during the initial development and subsequent operation of the system.

Table E6.11.2.4-1. DeSabla-Centerville Historic Project Features and/or Proposed Historic District Contributors. Contributing Site No. Element of Individually Individually (CA-BUT-XXX) Feature Landowner Components Construction Comments NRHP Eligible Ineligible or Temp No. District 869-H Hendrick’s Canal SPI Tunnels, gates, wasteways, 1871-1906 X X Recommended as eligible (PAR 1985) for a flumes, culverts, L-walls, 12-mile section of the canal that was replaced spillways, gauging stations by a tunnel and is no longer in use 870-H Centerville PG&E Powerhouse, switchyard, 1899 X X PAR (1985) evaluated the site as eligible under Powerhouse campsite Criteria A and B as part of the Centerville Powerhouse District (1985); SHPO concurred in 1986 874-H Butte Creek Canal PG&E, tunnels, gates, wasteways, 1902 X X Originally built for mining purposes and BLM, SPI, flumes, culverts, L-walls, recommended ineligible (PAR 1985) as a Private spillways, gauging stations miner’s ditch; as a hydro feature site is evaluated as individually eligible and a contributing element. Potential slide damage may have affected site integrity. 875-H Toadtown Canal PG&E, L-walls, spillways, flumes, 1871-1903 X X Originally built for mining purposes, it was BLM, LNF, wasteways, gauging stations recommended ineligible (PAR 1985) as a Private miner’s ditch; as a hydro feature site is evaluated as a contributing element. 876-H Lower Centerville PG&E, ditch tender’s camps, 1875-1907 X X Recommended individually eligible as part of Canal BLM, tunnels, gates, wasteways, the Centerville Powerhouse District (PAR Private flumes, culverts 1985). Site is also a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville district. 891-H Upper Centerville PG&E, Canal, gate 1871 X X Not individually eligible because it wasn’t a key Canal Private component of the system. Toadtown Private Powerhouse 1986 X Less than 45 years old. Powerhouse Butte Creek SPI Dam, ditch tender’s camp 1916 X X Excellent representative of the Thin Arch Dam Diversion Dam architectural type and method of construction. Centerville PG&E Dam, ditch tender’s camp 1906-1908 X X Though an integral part of the system, dam Diversion Dam design and materials are not unique or representative. Hendricks Div./ SPI Dam, gates, fishwheel Early 1900s X X Previously evaluated as a wood crib dam rather Diversion Dam than the concrete dam associated with the hydroelectric system Round Valley LNF Reservoir, dam, spillway, 1877 X X Key component of the system but not Reservoir gauging stations, and individually distinctive or representative. associated features

Table E6.11.2.4-1 (continued) Contributing Site No. Element of Individually Individually (CA-BUT-XXX) Feature Landowner Components Construction Comments NRHP Eligible Ineligible or Temp No. District Philbrook Reservoir PG&E, Reservoir, dam, spillways, 1926 X X Key component of the system but not NFSL lake tender’s campsite, and individually distinctive or representative. associated features DeSabla PG&E Powerhouse 1960s X Less than 45 years old. However, may become Powerhouse eligible for the NRHP over any new license term. DeSabla Forebay PG&E Dam, reservoir, ditch 1903 X X Key component of the system but not and Dam tender’s camp site, old and individually distinctive or representative. new intakes, spillway Flumes Various Flumes Various X X Penstocks Various Penstocks Various X X 868-H Original DeSabla PG&E Foundations, pads, trash 1903 X Buildings and associated archaeological powerhouse site deposits destroyed 871-H Camp 2: BCC ditch PG&E Foundations 1902 X ? Potential for buried archaeological deposits; test tender’s camp excavations required to confirm archaeological data potentials 873-H Hogg Ranch camp, PG&E Foundations, pads, trash 1930s-1940s X ? Potential for buried archaeological deposits; test possibly LCC Camp excavations required to confirm archaeological 2 data potentials BCC-4 Possible ditch PG&E Garage, fruit trees, fence, 1920s X Buildings and associated debris removed, tender’s cabin, BCC rock lined depression integrity lost Camp 3 BCC-5 Hupp’s Sawmill; Private Trash 1864-1890 ? Unevaluated; further investigations required possibly BCC Camp 2 CC-4 LCC Camp 3 Private Rock wall remnant X Lacks integrity DC-22-H DC-22-H: Dewey Private Ditch 1858 X No longer part of DeSabla Centerville system Ditch DC-46-H Philbrook Reservoir NFSL Cabin, , other structural 1926 X ? Potential for buried archaeological deposits; test Lake Tender’s remains, trash excavations required to confirm archaeological Cabin Site data potentials DC-52-H PSEA Camp PG&E Cabins and other facilities 1920s X ? Potential for buried archaeological deposits; test excavations required to confirm archaeological data potentials DC-53-H Camp 1 PG&E Original bunkhouse and 1900s X X Structures removed or modified superintendent’s house

Recreational camps developed over time as reservoirs and other elements of the system saw use for leisure activities. There are several cabins on SPI lands near the Dewey and Miners ditches. A ditch tender’s camp was likely built in the vicinity of the ditches. However, archival research did not reveal the location of any Dewey/Miner ditch tenders’ cabins or whether the cabins on SPI lands are associated with the system’s ditch tender(s). Thus, these cabins are not included as associated features.

Cabins around Philbrook Reservoir are privately owned, and many or all are on lands leased from PG&E. However, documentation indicates that tents were used to house the construction crews for Philbrook Dam (Colby 2001:11) and that the cabins are not associated with PG&E or the hydroelectric system.

These properties associated in various ways with the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System are the focus of the NRHP evaluations presented below. The following section describes general history of western hydroelectric development and the specific historical details of the DeSabla- Centerville system, within which context the properties are evaluated. In addition, properties associated with agriculture, logging and mining were recorded within the APE. Specific contexts for their evaluation are presented in Section 6.11.2.4.4.2 above.

DeSabla-Centerville Project History

Round Valley Dam and Reservoir

Built in 1877, the Round Valley Dam is located at the headwaters of the West Branch Feather River. It is an earthen dam approximately 29 feet high, with a crest 850 feet long and 8 feet wide. Both the upstream and downstream slopes are 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. Although built for mining or other uses prior to PG&E’s inception, it was one of the original features acquired by PG&E for the DeSabla-Centerville Project. In 1932 seepage from the dam was noticed. In 1940 the company constructed weirs on the downstream face of the dam to monitor this leakage. In 1965 the dam was repaired and renovated, including removing trees that had grown on the dam, renovating the embankment by replacing it with “proper compacted fill, thus removing all roots and stumps” from the top 15 feet of the dam. In addition the gate stem pedestal and the downstream toe drain were replaced (PG&E 1965). In 1990 the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, stated that the dam needed rehabilitation; this entailed a “combination of a filter blanket with subsurface drains to control seepage and prevent long-term erosion” (Palmer 1994).

The Round Valley Dam was designed to provide a capacity of 1196 acre feet of water by impounding Round Valley Reservoir, also called Snag Lake. The reservoir is drained each summer, then filled with fall and winter rains. The spillway is on the south side of the dam. Curved stone retaining walls lead into the spillway, which is approximately 16 feet wide. Parts of the original fieldstone walls have been replaced with concrete.

DeSabla Dam and Forebay

This earth-filled dam impounds the waters of Butte Creek and the Toadtown and Hendricks canals to form the DeSabla Forebay. Constructed in 1903 and originally referred to as Slater’s Dam, it is approximately 900 feet long and 80 feet high. The spillway is on the west side of the dam. Refurbished in the early 1960s, it winds along the west side of DeSabla Forebay before turning south, then connecting to a natural drainage. When the new DeSabla Powerhouse was built in the early 1960s, the original intake was reconstructed as the drain for the Upper Centerville Canal, and a new intake was constructed. From the intake the water flows into the penstocks and thence to DeSabla Powerhouse. Because the dam is situated close to Camp 1 and Paradise Road, it is a popular spot for fishermen. This location gave impetus to its development as a recreational facility. In the 1920s the PSEA developed a camp for PG&E employees on its northwest bank.

Philbrook Dam and Reservoir

Built in 1926, Philbrook Dam and Reservoir were intended to provide additional storage capacity that was needed to ensure that sufficient water would be available to maintain power production. The rolled-fill earth dam is 87 feet high and 850 feet long. Riprap covers the upstream and downstream slopes. Upstream slopes are 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical; downstream slopes are 2.0 horizontal to 1 vertical. A rockfill berm was added to the downstream slope of the main dam at 2.25 horizontal to 1 vertical to buttress the downstream slope and control seepage (PG&E 1996). The water gauge measures up to 60 feet. The auxiliary dam, located in a topographic saddle to the right of the main dam, is about 24 feet high and 170 feet long. Basalt riprap covers both slopes.

Philbrook Dam impounds water from Philbrook Creek. The dam was planned to impound 5,040 acre-feet of water. The original spillway was located to the right of the auxiliary dam. It is approximately 38 feet wide, with walls that are 15 feet high at the corners. A PG&E survey marker is set on the wall near the auxiliary dam. Originally a flashboard gate regulated the spillway. A metal mesh walkway crosses the original spillway to the new spillway installed in 1940. This radial-gate spillway is approximately 18 feet wide. The poured concrete walls are between 8 and 9 feet high at the corners and 15 feet high in the center. The spillway is designed with an ogee curve on the reservoir side. The spillway is concrete; the channel is connected to a natural waterway. Steps on the downstream side of the dam lead to the outlet structure. A fieldstone retaining wall was constructed behind the building, which is approximately 12 feet long and 8 feet wide. Corrugated metal covers the original board and batten siding. A door is on the dam end; the outlet is on the opposite end. The gabled roof is also clad with corrugated metal. A stone-lined drain is located near the outlet structure. The stone wall behind the drain is about 12 feet long and 3 feet high. The water forms a pool in front of the wall. A metal mesh walkway over the pool begins a path that leads to the gate set on the creek; another path branches off at the top of the steps and leads to the dam tender’s camp.

Centerville Diversion Dam

The Centerville Diversion Dam is a concrete arch structure built in 1907-1908 as part of an upgrade of the original Centerville system. It diverts water from Butte Creek into the Lower Centerville Canal. Set amidst large boulders in Butte Creek, the dam is 90 feet long, 12 feet high, 12 feet wide at the base and 3 feet wide at the crest. The sand and gravel for the concrete were taken from Butte Creek. The poured concrete intake structure, originally regulated by wood gates, is on the right side of the dam. Two sets of stairs lead from the canal to the top of the intake structure. Water travels through the intake into the Lower Centerville Canal. The gauging station that measures the water flow is located along the canal downstream of the dam.

Butte Creek Diversion Dam

The current Butte Creek Diversion Dam is a concrete arch structure that diverts water into the Butte Creek Canal. The structure is 110 feet long, 45 feet high, 4 feet thick at the top and 8 feet thick at the bottom. The poured concrete intake is located on the right side of the dam. It was built in 1916 to replace a log crib dam at the same location. A sliding gate controls the 5 by 6 foot arched opening, which connects to a short tunnel under a knoll. The water travels through the tunnel and into the Butte Creek Canal. Residual water flows back into Butte Creek. A steep concrete stairway, no longer used, begins at the right side of the dam and ends close to the top of the knoll. The stairs were originally connected to a walkway that led to the intake and to the top of the knoll.

Hendricks Diversion Dam

The Hendricks Diversion Dam is located on the West Branch Feather River, and diverts this water to the Hendricks and Toadtown canals. It is a log crib rock-filled dam, now covered in concrete, 100 feet long with concrete abutments. It was constructed in the early 1900s; in 1915 a fish wheel was installed on the right side of the dam. The intake was on the left side.

Because of extensive flooding, this dam has been repaired several times. In the 1930s a wood crib apron was added to protect against erosion. In 1940 the original intake was replaced, although it was left in place and concreted shut. The new intake, which is still in use, was located further to the left of the dam. Two storms in 1986 and 1989 damaged the right abutment and the crib apron. Later in 1989 PG&E decided to replace the dam and fish ladder (Kohne 1989). In the end, the wood crib apron was overlaid with concrete and the fish ladder remained intact.

Butte Creek Canal (CA-BUT-874-H)

The Butte Creek Canal starts at a diversion dam above the confluence of Haw Creek, Inskip Creek, and Butte Creek and transports water south to the DeSabla Forebay. The canal is typically about 8 feet wide at the base, with slightly slanted or vertical walls about 5 feet high. Most of the canal banks have been lined with gunite. The berm is constructed of earth; wood cribbing reinforces the bank under the berm in several places. A siphon was constructed in Mile 6 in the 1980s. Sections of plywood cover the canal in one area subject to landslides. The upper part of Butte Creek Canal travels through difficult topography that demanded numerous flumes and one

tunnel. The lower section of the canal is in more open country with fewer ravines. After its confluence with the Toadtown Canal, it becomes wider, is unlined, and travels along Paradise Road. In this area, the canal banks are used for recreational activities such as jogging and dog walking.

The canal was constructed between 1871 and 1904 (Shoup 1997:13). When Eugene de Sabla first purchased the Butte Canal in 1902, he stated that the ditch was in “comparatively good shape” but the flumes were “practically worthless” (Rice 1910:9). The 1919 PG&E inventory stated that Butte Creek Canal was 61,492 feet long, and had a capacity of 80 cubic feet per second. By 1930 the canal was 11.65 miles, with a capacity of 260 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:15).

A 1951 survey of the canal found it in “good shape” from the head dam to Camp 2, but needing cleaning and repairs below that around flume footings and the berm. The 1951 report also remarked on the number of trees that had fallen over the ditch and needed to be removed; these were probably from the winter storm in 1950 (Machen 1951).

The canal has a history of failures caused by landslides and mudslides. Ice, trees, or mud can block the canal, causing overtopping or side failure; therefore eight overflow structures were constructed along the canal. When such failures occur, these features automatically discharge excess water down ravines or draws to drain the canal system (PG&E 1995).

Hendricks Canal (CA-BUT-869-H)

The Hendricks Canal starts on the West Branch Feather River and travels to the Toadtown Powerhouse, where it joins the Toadtown Canal (PG&E 1995). A 1919 PG&E inventory stated that it was built between 1871 and 1906, was 103,473 feet long, with a capacity of 30 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:13). When it became part of the DeSabla-Centerville system, the Hendricks canal was about 20 miles long and brought water from the west fork of the Feather River through the Toadtown ditch, which connected to the Butte Creek Canal about 1.5 miles above the DeSabla Forebay (Rice 1910:10). PG&E enlarged the canal; by 1930, it was 19.60 miles long with a capacity of 125 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:15). In 1953, a tunnel was constructed on the Hendricks Canal, after which 12 miles of the canal was abandoned.

Toadtown Canal (CA-BUT-875-H)

Toadtown Canal connects the Hendricks Canal to the Butte Creek Canal. The 1919 PG&E inventory stated that it was constructed between 1871 and 1903, was 12,822 feet long and had a capacity of 80–125 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:13). By 1930 the canal was 2.44 miles with a capacity of 125 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:15).

Toadtown is the shortest canal in the DeSabla-Centerville system. The canal is typically about 8 feet wide at the base, with slightly slanted or vertical walls about 5 feet high. Most of the canal is gunited on both banks. There is one spillway on the canal. The most notable feature of the canal is the park benches located along its length, indicative of its use as a recreational feature.

Upper Centerville Canal (CA-BUT-891-H)

The Upper Centerville Canal begins at the DeSabla Forebay Dam and travels south. It was built in 1871 as part of the Cherokee Mining Company’s attempt to bring water from Butte Creek to its mining site. The 1902 official deed described it as “a small branch leading to Helltown” (quoted in Shoup 1997:8). When PG&E bought the canal from the Cherokee Mining Company, it was enlarged in 1903–1904 to provide extra water to both the Lower Centerville Canal, through a natural ravine, or to Hupp’s Canal and therefore to Lime Saddle Power Plant, also through a natural water source (Shoup 1997:9). As described in 1919, the canal was 27,920 feet long; 2220 feet of that length was a natural water course. The canal capacity was 55 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:14). By 1930 the canal was 5.29 miles, with the same capacity as in 1919 (Shoup 1997:15).

Because it was never the main source of water for any of the power plants in the system, the Upper Centerville Canal was never extensively lined with gunite nor were many water control features installed. It is narrower and shallower than the other canals.

Lower Centerville Canal (CA-BUT-876-H)

This canal begins at the Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte Creek below DeSabla Powerhouse, then travels to the Centerville Powerhouse. The 1919 PG&E inventory stated that the canal was built between 1875 and 1907. It was 43,886 feet long, with a capacity of 192 cubic feet per second (Shoup 1997:13). By 1930, it was 8.31 miles long with the same capacity as in 1919 (Shoup 1997:15). The canal is typically about 8 feet wide at the base, with slightly slanted or vertical walls about 5 feet high. The canal has gunited walls along much of its length and also has L-walls. The outer berm is constructed of earth. Near Mile 7, the berm had eroded away, leaving the gunited wall without any support. There are nine overflow structures along the canal (PG&E 1995). Flumes cross the ravines along the canal route.

DeSabla Powerhouse

The original DeSabla Powerhouse was built in 1903 and demolished in 1961. The replacement, located on the same site, is 40 feet long and 25 wide. Power is generated with a horizontal impulse type hydraulic turbine. In conjunction with the new powerhouse, new penstocks and intake were also installed. The powerhouse is remotely controlled, and no longer requires full time operators.

Centerville Powerhouse

The Centerville Powerhouse is located on the east bank of Butte Creek. Built in 1899 in the California Industrial style with Greek Revival elements, it was refurbished by PG&E in 1907 and 1908 by raising its concrete walls to accommodate a new turbine and crane (Van Bueren 1985: 29). The structure has a rectangular footprint and the front façade faces west. The foundation and floor is poured concrete set in two-foot square blocks. The tapered walls are also concrete; a metal truss supports the gabled roof capped with a monitor-styled ventilator. Metal columns

support the traveling crane and delineate six interior bays, each approximately 18 feet long. Pendant lights are attached to the columns.

The pattern of fenestration consists of a double-door asymmetrical entry and paired and single four-over-four light, double-hung windows with a decorative arched lintel of double rowlocks. Single windows are set in the front façade, and double windows on the south gable end, with a fixed four-light window set above them. Such a lintel also caps the entry. The gabled roof and ventilator are clad with corrugated metal. A wood-framed corrugated metal addition is located on the north gable end of the structure. Paired four-over-four light, double-hung windows are on the front façade of the addition. A canted double door is on the northwest corner.

The powerhouse was automated in 1959 and routine maintenance is required to keep the equipment in working order. However, there have been no major changes to the interior or exterior of the building.

Toadtown Powerhouse

The Toadtown Powerhouse was built in 1986 on Little Butte Creek. The Hendricks Canal carries water to the powerhouse and then into the Toadtown Canal, eventually reaching the DeSabla Forebay via the Butte Creek Canal.

6.11.2.4.5 National Register Evaluations

The DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project facilities evaluated herein include the DeSabla and Centerville powerhouses; DeSabla Dam and Forebay; Butte Creek, Hendricks, Toadtown, Lower Centerville, and Upper Centerville head dams and canals; and the Round Valley and Philbrook dams and reservoirs. The Toadtown Powerhouse and DeSabla Powerhouse, while part of the current system, are not evaluated because they was erected in 1986 and 1961 respectively, and have not reached the age threshold to qualify as a historic property. The DeSabla Powerhouse is 46 years old and will need to be evaluated when it turns 50 years of age in 2011. The National Register status of each element of the system is listed in Table E6.11.2.4-1.

For more than 100 years the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project has generated power for communities in Butte County, throughout California, and beyond. The original system comprised two powerhouses, Centerville and DeSabla, and the canals and reservoirs that provided the water to power their equipment. In 1926, Philbrook Reservoir was added to the system. In 1933, three of the smaller original canals were taken out of commission. In 1961, the original DeSabla Powerhouse was demolished and a modern one built on the same site. In 1986 a third powerhouse, Toadtown, was constructed. No other major changes in the system have occurred.

6.11.2.4.5.1 Significance

The NRHP recognizes several categories of historically significant properties: buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts. A district is the most appropriate category for the

DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System because the system is a distinguishable entity with a distinct character and coherence. As defined by the National Park Service:

A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical layout (NPS 1998: 5).

The DeSabla-Centerville system has a significant concentration of powerhouses, canals, reservoirs, camps, and other elements that have been linked in function for more than 100 years and have been directly associated with hydroelectric development since the early 1900s. The buildings, structures, sites, and objects that comprise the historic district are encompassed by but distinguishable from those surrounding it by their age and integrity. All the buildings, structures, and sites that contribute to the historic district date from the 1906-1960 era, are related to the hydroelectric developments of those years, and have reasonably good integrity. Other elements are associated with the system but excluded from the district based on age, integrity, or other aspects that do not include them. The district thus contains spatially discrete significant areas and features separated by others that have been judged to be insignificant.

A prior evaluation of the Centerville portion of the hydroelectric system also concluded that it represented a National Register-eligible district. Van Bueren (1985) concluded that the proposed Centerville Hydroelectric System District was eligible for the NRHP under multiple criteria because of its association with the development of hydroelectric technology in California; its association with individuals instrumental in the development of the technology in the Pacific West; and its potential to yield information important in history. The prior evaluation was limited in scope, focusing exclusively on the Centerville Powerhouse, Centerville Canal, and adjacent properties (including ditch tenders’ camps). It did not consider other elements of the system outside that narrowly circumscribed area. The current study has expanded on that initial investigation and evaluation to encompass the entire DeSabla-Centerville system.

The DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District as currently defined in this report qualifies for the NRHP under Criterion A as a hydroelectric system that has made a significant contribution to the development of hydroelectric power in the United States with a period of significance from 1906 to 1960. The Centerville Powerhouse and its associated features:

are the oldest working major hydroelectric power plant in northern California. Its significance in age alone is compounded by its being the first relatively high-head turbine installation on the Pacific Coast, the success of which encouraged further turbine installations throughout California (Van Bueren 1985: 28).

The system garnered national attention during the first decades of the twentieth century for specific accomplishments that contributed to the developing field of hydroelectricity: developing technologies suitable for the long fall of water typical of the Sierran terrain; synchronizing the operation of multiple, scattered generating plants; integrating small independent systems into a single operating system; and transmitting power over long distances. The DeSabla-Centerville system was “notable for the technical problems it presented and the group of young engineers who solved them” (Coleman 1952:150). For example, industry journals of the period reported

that installation of the Francis turbine in the Centerville Powerhouse “deserves a remarkable place in the history of hydraulic turbine engineering, as never before has a Francis wheel been designed for the extremely high head of 550 feet” (quoted in Maniery 1993:3). When the DeSabla Powerhouse was placed in commission the “high head—the 1,531-foot fall of water— was in itself a step above previous records that called for the best of hydraulic engineering skill to ensure safe operation” (Coleman 1952:150).

The district qualifies under Criterion B for its association with several individuals who were instrumental in the development of the hydroelectric industry during its infancy. Eugene de Sabla was an enterprising entrepreneur who pioneered the conversion of water conveyance systems initially developed for mining into systems suitable for the generation of electric power. He was the first to conceive of the DeSabla-Centerville project and realized that the two systems that make up the project could be linked hydraulically. He was also instrumental in its financing and implementation. Frank G. Baum, James H. Wise, and Josiah P. Jollyman were engineers who designed the DeSabla and refurbished the Centerville powerhouses and solved numerous technical problems related to power generation and transmission in steep, remote, and inhospitable terrain. A Stanford University graduate, Baum solved problems regarding uniting in “synchronous operation the scattered generating plants of the partly developed system, problems of long-distance transmission and insulation, high voltage, and substation equipment” (Coleman 1952:151). Wise was a civil and hydraulic engineer. Jollyman “contributed much to the progressive interconnection of the P. G. and E. system of generating plants and transmission lines into a single integrated network” (Coleman 1952:152).

The district also meets the requirements of eligibility under Criterion C because it “embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction.” The DeSabla- Centerville system is an excellent example of the Western regional style of hydroelectric development characterized by “extremely high heads, remote powerhouse locations, and sophisticated point-to-point transmission” (Hay 1991:28). The Centerville Powerhouse also is architecturally significant as

a reasonably good example of the early California Industrial style with Greek Revival elements in its boxed cornice, tall and narrow windows capped with radiating arched brick lintels, and comparable arched brick door pediments (Van Bueren 1985: 29).

The system also constitutes “a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” By 1933, the configuration of the system was set; although subsequent changes in construction materials and equipment made the system more efficient and required less maintenance, operators and tenders still maintained the system. No major changes were undertaken until 1961.

Finally, the district qualifies for the NRHP under Criterion D because certain archaeological properties within the district have the potential to yield information important to the history of the system, and about the people who built, operated, and maintained it. In particular, questions about the social, cultural, and economic relationships of the system’s builders and operators might be answered through analysis of archaeological remains. This information is not available

from documentary or other sources. Sites potentially eligible under Criterion D include CA- BUT-871-H, CA-BUT--873-H, DC-21-H, DC-46-H, and DC-52-H.

The DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District is of both statewide and national significance. As discussed and documented in detail above, the system is a good representative of an important theme in California history. Key people associated with the DeSabla-Centerville system were important figures in the history of this part of the state and in the development of hydroelectric technology. Since California was the national leader in water power development during the first third of the twentieth century, understanding the history of the district can help in understanding the history of hydroelectric development as a national phenomenon.

6.11.2.4.5.2 Historic District Boundaries

The boundaries of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District include all individually eligible and contributing features of the historic district. This includes the Centerville Powerhouse, dams, reservoirs, forebays, and all significant elements of the conveyance system including canals, berms, tunnels, flumes, gates, spillways, cribbing, control and maintenance features, or any other feature that was associated with the operation of the system. Camp sites and access roads that contribute to the system should also be included.

6.11.2.4.5.3 Integrity

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historical significance. To possess integrity, a property must retain the physical characteristics it had in the past so it can convey its associations with historic themes, persons, designs, or technology. Integrity consists of seven separate aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (36 CFR 60.4). Setting and location refer to the physical placement of the property and its relation to surrounding natural and cultural features. A property retains integrity of location when it remains in the same location that it was in during its period(s) of significance or the place where the historic property was constructed and developed during its period of significance (NPS 1997:44-45).

Design refers to the form, planning, style, structure, and spatial patterning of a property, and reflects cultural, functional, technological, aesthetic, and stylistic concerns. If these are the same as during the period of significance, then the property has integrity (NPS 1997:44).

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period of time. To have integrity of feeling, a site’s physical characteristics must convey a sense of historical time and place consistent with the site’s relevant themes. Association gauges the connection between

a historic property and the events or persons for which it is significant. “A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer (NPS 1997:45).

To be eligible for the NRHP, a significant property must not be totally lacking in any one of the seven aspects of integrity. Thus, integrity is not an all or nothing question. Changes may have been made to a property, impairing one aspect of integrity, while other aspects may be fully retained. Integrity, then, is frequently a matter of degree. As Shoup (1998) points out:

While all of these seven integrity attributes are important, integrity of location, design, workmanship, and materials are especially crucial for a historic hydroelectric system. This is true because what is of particular interest in a hydroelectric complex are the technological aspects, the engineering and industrial techniques used to create and transmit electrical power. This is the central theme which makes hydroelectric complexes interesting and historically significant. Lack of integrity of location, materials, or basic design could make a historic hydroelectric system ineligible for the NRHP (Shoup 1998: 214).

Æ’s analysis of the integrity of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District shows that the integrity of the district is reasonably good, though nowhere near perfect. Each individual aspect of the district’s integrity is discussed below.

Location

With the exception of the original DeSabla Powerhouse, the key buildings, dams, reservoirs, canals, tunnels, penstocks, and other elements of the hydroelectric system are all in their original locations. The new DeSabla Powerhouse, erected in 1961, sits at the location of the original facility. Therefore the DeSabla-Centerville district retains good integrity of location.

Design

The main design elements of the historic DeSabla-Centerville system are intact, with only a few modifications. The original system comprised two powerhouses, Centerville and DeSabla, and the canals and reservoirs that provided the water to power their equipment. In 1926, Philbrook Reservoir was added to the system. By 1933, when three of the smaller original canals were taken out of commission, the form, plan, and spatial arrangement of the system had been finalized. In 1961 the original DeSabla Powerhouse was demolished, but a new facility was erected on the same site. No other changes in the overall design of the system occurred until 1986, when a third powerhouse, Toadtown, was constructed. The structure and style of the historic components also have not changed. Being only minimally impaired, therefore, the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System retains good integrity of design.

Setting

The basic character of the region immediately surrounding the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District has remained much as it was during the early twentieth century. The mountainous northern

Sierra Nevada and foothill region has seen some recreational and residential development, but the area remains largely forested and the topography, vegetation, road system, and areas of settlement remain much as they were during the period of significance. This is particularly true for the areas between the upper reservoirs (Philbrook and Round Valley) and the DeSabla Forebay. Since 1960 the area below DeSabla Forebay has seen scattered development of single-family residences on forest plots. Nonetheless, the integrity of setting is only minimally impaired and the district retains good integrity of setting.

Materials

There have been more changes in the materials of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District than in location, design, and setting. With the exception of the DeSabla Powerhouse, the main buildings and structures have not been rebuilt; however, essential components of the system have been maintained, repaired, and upgraded throughout the life of the system. Frequently, the work has used materials of similar function and appearance, although some upgrades have involved replacement of original fieldstone or wood crib walls with concrete (Round Valley Dam, Hendricks Diversion Dam). Additionally, intakes, drains, and spillways have been rebuilt (DeSabla and Philbrook dams), and canal walls have been lined with gunite or other materials in some areas to reduce leakage. Flow control and cleaning and maintenance structures also have been improved. In most instances these repairs and improvements occurred during the period of significance, and can be said to contribute to the function of this highly technical system. In some sense, these evolutionary changes reflect the development if hydroelectric technology and in and of themselves contribute to the significance of the system. In sum, the district presents a mixture of materials and fabric, some of which is new but much of which is old. Being moderately impaired, the integrity of materials of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System can only be said to be fair.

Workmanship

Like materials, workmanship is also a mixed case. Much physical evidence of the early craftsmen’s labor, skill, and knowledge remains, particularly in the Centerville Powerhouse and the canal grades, dams, tunnels, penstocks, and other equipment that is still in service. Alternatively, the original DeSabla Powerhouse was replaced in 1961. Similarly, new tools and techniques have been used to maintain and repair the key elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District over the years. For example, flow control and cleaning structures that were formerly operated by hand now are automated. Being moderately impaired, therefore, the integrity of workmanship of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System can only be said to be fair.

Feeling and Association

Standing in the interior of the Centerville Powerhouse, or walking the canals, a visitor to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District finds a strong feeling of connection to the early years of the system. There are direct and visible links between this property and the people and events that make it significant, so that the historical district does communicate a sense of what it was

like during its period of significance. These aspects of integrity must therefore be ranked as excellent.

In sum, the overall integrity of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District is good. Considering the importance of the system, the impairments in integrity cited above are not sufficient to diminish the strength of its associations beyond the point where the district can convey its historical significance. For this reason the district is judged eligible for the NRHP. Key features of the system are evaluated below both individually and as contributing elements of the district.

6.11.2.4.5.4 Project Features

Round Valley Dam and Reservoir

Round Valley Dam and Reservoir provide storage capacity needed to ensure that sufficient water is available to maintain power production. This feature system retains integrity of location, setting, feeling and association, though integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are minimally impaired as a result of renovations and repairs since the period of significance. Although associated with the important theme of hydroelectric development, the design of the dam and reservoir, and its materials and workmanship, are not sufficiently unusual or unique to qualify the property individually for the NRHP. Because it is a key component of the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric System necessary for the effective function of the system, however, the dam and reservoir are considered contributing elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

DeSabla Dam and Forebay

DeSabla Dam and Forebay impound water from the northern canals, which then travels from the forebay into the powerhouse penstocks. This feature system retains excellent integrity of location, setting, feeling and association, though integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are minimally impaired as a result of renovations and repairs since the period of significance. Although associated with the important theme of hydroelectric development, the design of the dam and forebay, and its materials and workmanship, are not sufficiently unusual or unique to qualify the property individually for the NRHP. Because it is a key component of the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric System necessary for the effective function of the system, however, the dam and reservoir are considered contributing elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Philbrook Dam and Reservoir

Philbrook Dam and Reservoir were added to the system in 1926 to provide additional storage capacity needed to ensure that sufficient water would be available to maintain power production. This feature system retains excellent integrity of location, setting, feeling and association, though integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are minimally impaired as a result of renovations and repairs since the period of significance. Although associated with the important theme of hydroelectric development, the design of the dam and forebay, and its materials and

workmanship, are not recommended as sufficiently unusual or unique to qualify the property individually for the NRHP. Because it is a key component of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System necessary for the effective function of the system, however, the dam and reservoir are recommended as contributing elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Centerville Diversion Dam

The Centerville Diversion Dam is an integral part of the system that conveys water to the powerhouses. It retains excellent integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The design of the dam and its materials and workmanship are not recommended as sufficiently unusual or unique to qualify the property individually for the NRHP. Because it is a key component of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System necessary for the effective function of the system, however, the dam is recommended as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Butte Creek Diversion Dam

The Butte Creek Diversion Dam diverts water into the Butte Creek Canal, and is thus an integral part of the system that conveys water to the powerhouses. Located on a bedrock foundation within a narrow canyon, the concrete structure is a key component of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System necessary for the effective function of the system, and is considered a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District. The dam retains excellent integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and embodies the distinctive curve, proportion, and other characteristics of the thin arch dam, a distinctive architectural type and method of construction. Because of its thematic association and individual characteristics, the dam also qualifies individually for the National Register under Criteria A and C.

Hendricks Diversion Dam

The Hendricks Diversion Dam diverts water from the West Branch of the Feather River into the Hendricks Canal. In 1990 G. Maniery evaluated the significance of this structure in anticipation of repairs proposed by PG&E. He found that the dam had been repeatedly repaired and renovated over its lifetime. In his judgment, the dam did not meet the NRHP significance criteria, lacked integrity, and was not individually eligible for the NRHP (G. Maniery 1990:18- 19). Æ concurs with this evaluation. However, Maniery did not define a period of significance for the dam and did not consider the dam in the context of the larger hydroelectric system. Within the larger framework and period of significance defined currently for the DeSabla- Centerville system, the dam is associated with the important theme of hydroelectric development. It retains integrity of location, setting, feeling and association. Most repairs and modifications of the dam occurred within the period of significance and can thus be considered part of the on-going maintenance of this complex technical system, embodying the evolution of technology that is a key element of the system’s associative value. Modifications from the 1970s through the 1990s have diminished the integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, but nonetheless, the dam still conveys a sense of connection with the hydroelectric system and the

historical past, and is therefore recommended as a contributing element of the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Butte Creek Canal (CA-BUT-874-H)

Maniery et al. (1985) evaluated the Butte Creek Canal during their assessment of proposed improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville system. They opined that the canal was “85% intact” and retained integrity of location, design, setting, and workmanship (Maniery et al. 1985: Table 4-1). Nonetheless, they concluded that the canal is ineligible for the NRHP (Maniery et al. 1985:5-1).

Æ did not concur with this evaluation. Maniery did not define a period of significance for the canal and appears to be considering its integrity only within the earlier mining context. Within the larger context of hydroelectric system development and period of significance defined currently for the DeSabla-Centerville system, the canal is associated with the important theme of hydroelectric development. Most repairs and modifications of the canal occurred within the period of significance and can be considered part of the on-going development and maintenance of this complex technical system, themselves embodying the historical evolution of the technology. Æ further finds that the canal retains integrity of feeling and association; a walk along the canal evokes a sense of time and place and communicates a strong feeling of association with the early years of the hydroelectric system. For these reasons the Butte Creek Canal is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A both individually and as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Hendricks Canal (CA-BUT-869-H)

Maniery et al. (1985) evaluated the Hendricks Canal during their assessment of proposed improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville system. They concluded that the canal “is eligible for inclusion to the [National] Register under criterion (a)” (Maniery et al. 1985:5-2). They further opined that the canal was “85% intact” and retained integrity of location, design, setting, and workmanship despite modifications in the years since 1905 (Maniery et al. 1985:4-17; Table 4- 1).

Æ concurs with the prior evaluation and further finds that the canal also retains integrity of feeling and association; a walk along the canal evokes a sense of time and place and communicates a strong feeling of association with the early years of the hydroelectric system. For these reasons the Hendricks Canal is recommended as eligible for the NRHP both individually and as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Toadtown Canal (CA-BUT-875-H)

Maniery et al. (1985) evaluated the Toadtown Canal during their assessment of proposed improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville system. They opined that the canal was “85% intact” and retained integrity of location and setting (Maniery et al. 1985: Table 4-1). Nonetheless, they concluded that the canal was ineligible for the NRHP because it lacked distinctive physical or

technological features, particularly in comparison with other canals in the system (Maniery et al. 1985:4-27).

Æ concurs that the Toadtown Canal is not individually eligible for the NRHP. Despite its lack of individual distinction, however, it has played a key role in the hydroelectric system for 100 years, linking the individually eligible Butte Creek and Hendricks canals. Because it is a key component of the system necessary for its effective function, the canal is recommended as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Lower Centerville Canal (CA-BUT-876-H)

Maniery et al. (1985) evaluated the Lower Centerville Canal during their assessment of proposed improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville system and concluded that it is “eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places under 36 CFR 60.4 (a) as part of the Centerville Hydroelectric System District” (Maniery et al. 1985:4-28). They found that the canal was “90% intact” and retained integrity of location, design, setting, workmanship, and association (Maniery et al. 1985: Table 4-1).

Æ concurs with the prior evaluation and further finds that the canal also retains of materials and feeling; although the canal has been regularly repaired and renovated over time, much of its historic fabric remains intact and well preserved. Additionally, a walk along the canal evokes a sense of time and place and communicates a strong feeling of association with the early years of the hydroelectric system. For these reasons the Lower Centerville Canal is recommended as eligible for the NRHP both individually and as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Upper Centerville Canal (CA-BUT-891-H)

Maniery et al. (1985) did not evaluate the Upper Centerville Canal during their assessment of proposed improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville system. However, documentation by California State University, Chico, indicates that “the canal does not appear to be greatly modified from its original construction” (Kallenbach and Huberland 2001). It was not one of the main canals in the hydroelectric system, but provided extra water when needed and was thus important to the consistent production of power at Centerville. The Upper Centerville Canal has retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Because it was not a key component of the system, the Upper Centerville Canal is not recommended as individually eligible for the NRHP. However, because of its function as a component of the system, it is recommended a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District.

Centerville Powerhouse

As part of a previous evaluation, the Centerville Powerhouse and its penstocks were determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and B (Maniery et al. 1985; SHPO 1986). Because the company planned to demolish the structure, HAER documentation was completed for the Francis

Turbine (Maniery 1993). Because it is an integral part of the system, it also contributes to the significance of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District.

DeSabla Powerhouse

Demolition of the original DeSabla Powerhouse built in 1903 marked the end of the manually- operated period of the hydroelectric system. The current DeSabla Powerhouse was placed in commission in the early 1960s, after the end of the system’s period of significance. The current DeSabla Powerhouse does not meet the requirements for individual eligibility for the NRHP, and is not recommended as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District.

Toadtown Powerhouse

The Toadtown Powerhouse, built in 1986, is only 21 years of age and does not meet the age criterion for historic properties. It also does not exhibit any special characteristics that make it eligible to the NRHP on an individual basis or as a contributing element.

Maintenance and Construction Camps

Camp 1 (DC-53-H) was originally set up as the construction camp for DeSabla Powerhouse. It was later used as the maintenance camp for the system, which is its current function. Only two buildings associated with the camp are still extant. One building likely served as the camp’s bunkhouse and is now the main office for the PG&E workers; it has a small apple orchard in front of it and is adjacent to the west side of the Skyway. The superintendent’s house is located across the road, east of the Skyway.

Camp 1 is considered a contributing element of the historic hydroelectric district because of its important association with the district and the people who built and operated it. Because most of the original structures or other features have been removed, Camp 1 does not qualify for listing on the NRHP on an individual basis. Similarly, neither the bunkhouse nor the superintendent’s house qualify individually for the National Register. Neither building is architecturally distinctive, and both have notable modifications that have altered their appearance. As a result, they no longer reflect their period of significance or the distinctive characteristics or this kind of company architecture.

The powerhouse and tenders’ camps no longer have any standing buildings, with the exception of the Philbrook Lake tender’s residence (DC-46-H evaluated above) and Camp 3 on Butte Creek Canal, a possible ditch tender’s camp at BCC-4, though some landscape elements survive. Because these camps may contain intact archaeological deposits, they may be significant under Criteria A and D because of their historical associations and archaeological data potentials. In particular, the Philbrook Lake Tender’s Camp (DC-46-H) and Butte Creek Canal Camp 2 (CA- BUT-871-H) are likely to yield important information about the system and the people who built, operated, and maintained it. The PSEA Camp (DC-52-H), while not a construction camp, was nonetheless a PG&E camp associated with the hydroelectric system. It is evaluated as eligible to the NRHP as a contributing element, and potentially as an individual property. The detailed evaluation of the PSEA Camp is provided in Section 6.11.2.2.4.6 above.

If these camps contain intact archaeological deposits they may also provide important historical information not available in the documentary record. They remain to be evaluated individually for their significance.

6.11.2.4.6 Summary

The historic Project features assessment indicates that the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System has been recommended as eligible for the NRHP as a historic district that has contributed to the broad patterns of state and national history. It is significant under all four NRHP criteria because of its association with the development of hydroelectric technology in California; its association with individuals instrumental in the development of the technology in the Pacific West; its distinctive characteristics that exemplify the Western regional style of hydroelectric development; its and its potential to yield information important in history. It is also a significant and distinguishable entity as a system of interconnected dams, reservoirs, canals and powerhouses. Several elements of the system have also been recommended as individually for the NRHP.

6.11.2.4.7 List of Appendices

• E6.11.2.4-A: DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historical Photographs, Maps, and Drawings

Cultural Resources Appendices On Compact Disc

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

6.12 Socio-Economic Resources

6.12.1 Historic Information

6.12.1.1 General Land Use Patterns

The Project is located near several towns and communities; as a result, the socio-economic effects of the Project are experienced on a regional scale rather than a localized scale. The northern boundary of Butte County is formed by the convergence of Plumas County from the east and Tehama County from the west (Figure E6.12-1). Yuba County forms the southeastern border of Butte County along the South Fork of Honcut Creek. The southernmost boundary of Butte County is the border with Sutter County. Butte Creek and the Sacramento River create the southwestern border of Butte County. The county is divided into two topographical sections: a valley area, which is the northeast portion of the Sacramento Valley, and a foothill/mountain region east of the Sacramento Valley. Local topography includes the relatively flat Sacramento Valley floor and associated alluvial fans, with elevations ranging from 60 to 200 feet. There are also extensive rolling foothills with an elevation range from 200 to 2,100 feet, and the Cascade and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges, with elevations from 2,100 to +6,000 feet.

Founded in 1850 as one of the original 27 California counties, Butte County has an area of 1,068,800 acres or 1,639 square miles, and includes the following designated land use classifications: total land designated for water management, 334,633 acres; public land, 301,562 acres; residential, 209,115 acres (includes foothills at 5,267 acres, high-density at 162,877 acres, medium-density at 32,430 acres, and low-density at 8,539 acres); commercial lands, 155,892 acres; sports and entertainment, 28,149 acres; grazing and open lands, 14,417 acres; orchard and field crop, 9,385 acres; industrial, 2,286 acres; and timber and mountain, 91 acres. The remaining 13,180 acres are unclassified according to the land use maps (Table E6.12-1).

Table E6.12-1. Summary of Butte County Land-Use Patterns. Geography Acres Land area, 2000 (square miles) 1,639 Persons per square mile, 2000 123.9 Water Management 334,633 Public Lands 301,562 Residential Total 209,115 Residential-Foothills 5,267 Residential-High Density 162,877 Residential-Medium Density 32,430 Residential-Low Density 8,539 Commercial Lands 155,892 Sports and Entertainment 28,149 Grazing and Open Lands 14,417 Orchard and Field Crop 9,385 Industrial 2,286 Timber and Mountain 91 Unclassified 13,180 Source: CA Department of Finance, 1990

Figure E6.12-1. Butte County.

The majority of land (82.13%) within Butte County is privately owned. The remaining public lands are divided amongst the following agencies (Table E6.12-2): LNF (4.9%), State Lands Commission (0.01%), Bureau of Indian Affairs (0.01%), BLM (1.51%), CDFG (0.74%), CDPR (3%), PNF (8%), and the USFS miscellaneous (0.02%) (Table E6.12-2).

Table E6.12-2. Distribution of Public and Residential Lands in Butte County. Number of Ave. Acreage of Total Acreage per Public Agency Lands as Public Agency or Private Ownership Parcels Parcels Public Agency a Percentage of County Lassen National Forest 54 967.8 52260.9 4.87 State Lands Commission 1 157.6 157.6 0.01 Bureau of Indian Affairs 3 379.4 113.8 0.01 Bureau of Land Management 122 132.4 16156.8 1.51 CA Department of Fish and Game 1 7984.1 7984.1 0.74 CA Department of Recreation and Parks 14 2267.6 31745.8 2.96 Plumas National Forest 40 2061.2 82447.3 7.69 US Forest Service Misc. 1 213.8 213.8 0.02 Private lands 881076.98 82.13 Source: Butte County Statistics (Retrieved June 10, 2004) http://phobos.lab.csuchico.edu/hosted/sustainable/maps/county/buttes_stat/b_stats.html

6.12.1.2 Population Patterns

Population Size

The population of Butte County based on the 2000 US Census was 203,171 (123.9 persons per square mile). The population grew gradually from 1990 to 2000, recording a percentage growth rate of 11.6% for the county (Table E6.12-3).

Table E6.12.-3. Population of Butte County and California Comparison. Population Butte County California Population, 2002 estimate 209,203 35,116,033 Population, net change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002 6,032 1,244,385 Population, 2000 203,171 33,871,648 Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 11.6% 13.6% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, National Center for Health Statistics, US Census Bureau, 2000 Census as reported by the Center of Economic Development

Towns and Cities

The city of Oroville is the county seat of Butte County and is located at an elevation of 174 feet. Incorporated in 1906, Oroville, according to the 2000 census, had a population of 13,004. In addition to Oroville, the County is relatively rural in nature. There are five incorporated cities, with Chico, Paradise, and Oroville recording the largest populations. Communities with populations of 1,000 or more within Butte County include Biggs (1,793), Chico (59,954), Concow (1,095), Durham (5,220), Gridley (5,382), Magalia (10,569), Oroville East (10,569), Palermo (5,720), Paradise (26,408), South Oroville (7,695), and Thermalito (6,045). These communities are all located along the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley, with the exception of Paradise, which is situated in the Sierra Nevada foothills. While the last US Census was completed in 2000, the California Department of Finance has forecasted that by the year 2020,

Butte County’s population will reach close to 309,000 residents. The nearest major population center outside the county is Sacramento, located approximately 66 miles to the south.

Population and Housing Distribution

Within Butte County, according to the 2000 US Census, there were a total of 79,566 household units occupied, with an average household size of 2.48 persons. Towns of more than 2,500 residents vary in reported housing density per square mile. According to the 1990 Census, of the towns and cities, Gridley had the highest population density (3,308 per square mile), nearly 50% higher in population density than the next highest, found in the community of Chico (1,789 per square mile). Durham reported the lowest population and housing densities (13) in the county (Tables E6.12-4 through E6.12-7).

Table E6.12-4. Cities of Butte County with Populations of +1000. Oroville Biggs Chico Konkow Durham Gridley Magalia Oroville Palermo Paradise S. OrovilleThermalito East 1,793 59,954 1,095 5,220 5,382 10,569 13,004 8,680 5,720 26,408 7,695 6,045 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census

Table E6.12-5. Butte County Housing Distribution. Percent change Land Area Population Housing Units County Population Housing Units Square Total Per sq. Per sq. 1990- 1980- 1970 - 1980 - 1970 - Total miles 2000 mi. mi. 2000 1990 1980 1990 1980 Butte County 1,639.6 203,171 123.91 85,523 52.16 12 26.6 41.1 24 61 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 1990 Census

Table E6.12-6. Summary of Butte County Population and Housing Units, 1990-1940. County Population Housing Units Year 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 Butte 182,120 143,851 101,969 82,030 64,930 42,840 76,115 61,360 38,110 31,494 23,309 14,448 County Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 Census

Table E6.12-7. Summary of Butte County Population and Housing Density, 1990-1970. 1990 Density Cities/ Population Housing Units 1990 Area Housing Towns Population Measurements Units 2,500 or Total Land 1990 1980 1970 1990 1980 1970 Per Square Mile more Area Area Chico 40,079 26,716 19580 16,295 11,156 6,583 22.5 22.4 1,789.2 727.5 Durham 4,784 -- -- 1,766 -- -- 138.8 138.2 34.6 12.8 Gridley 4,631 3,982 3,534 1,810 1,647 1,311 1.4 1.4 3,307.9 1,292.9 Magalia 8,987 -- -- 4,191 -- -- 16.1 16.1 558.2 260.3 Oroville 11,960 8,683 7,536 4,831 4,100 3,291 10.8 10.8 1,107.4 447.3 Oroville E 8,462 -- -- 3,797 -- -- 24.3 21.1 401 180 Palermo 68,842 12,277 8,511 24,400 4,982 2,816 77.8 77.6 887.1 314.4 Paradise 25,408 22,571 -- 11,633 10,123 -- 18.6 18.6 1,366 625.4 S. Oroville 7,463 7,246 4,111 2,771 2,863 1,614 4.5 4.5 1,658.4 615.8 Thermalito 5,646 4,961 4,217 2,184 1,805 1,411 13.1 12.9 437.7 169.3 Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 Census

6.12.1.3 Households/Family Distribution and Income

According to the US Census of 2000, there were 79,566 households of which 28.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 46.7% were married couples living together, 11.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 37.9% were non-families. Just over 27% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.1% had someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.48 persons and the average family size was 3.02 persons. In 1999, the median income for a household in Butte County was $31,924, and the median income for a family was $41,010. Males had a median income of $34,137 versus $25,393 for females. The per capita income for the county was $17,517. Nearly 20% of the population and 12.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, 23.8% are under the age of 18 and 7.3% are 65 or older (US Census Bureau, 2000) (Table E6.12-8).

Table E6.12-8. Summary of Household Units and Income – Butte County/State Comparison. Household Information Butte County California Housing units, 2002 87,850 12,507,767 Housing units, net change, 04/01/00 to 07/01/02 2,327 293,218 Housing units, percent change, 04/01/00 to 07/01/02 2.7% 2.4% Homeownership rate, 2000 60.7% 56.9% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $129,800 $211,500 Households, 2000 79,566 11,502,870 Persons per household, 2000 2.48 2.87 County, Median household income,1999 $31,924 City of Biggs $33,250 City of Chico $29,359 $47,493 City of Gridley $24,368 City of Oroville $21,911 Town of Paradise $31,863 Per capita money income, 1999 $17,517 $22,711 Persons below poverty, 1999 39,148 4,706,130 Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 19.8% 14.2% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, National Center for Health Statistics, US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, as reported by the Center of Economic Development

Age

Within Butte County, the US Population Census of 2000 was widespread, with 23.7% under the age of 18, 13.6% from 18 to 24, 24.8% from 25 to 44, 21.8% from 45 to 64, and 15.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 36 years. For every 100 females, there were 96.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 92.60 males. The population density was 48/km² (124/mi²) and there were 85,523 housing units at an average density of 20/km² (52/mi²) (US Census Bureau, 2000) (Table E6.12-9).

Table E6.12-9. Summary of Population by Age, 2000. Population: Age Butte County California Population under 5 years old, 2000 11,637 2,486,981 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 5.7% 7.3% Persons under 18 years old, 2000 48,767 9,249,829 Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 24.0% 27.3% Persons 65 years old and over, 2000 32,056 3,595,658 Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 15.8% 10.6% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, National Center for Health Statistics, US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, as reported by the Center of Economic Development

Ethnicity

In 2000, the racial diversity of Butte County’s 203,171 residents was as follows: 171,728 were white (84.52%); 21,339 Hispanic or Latino of any race (10.5%), 6,752 were Asian (3.32%); 3,866 were American Indian and Alaska Native (1.9%); 2,816 were Black or African American (1.39%); 296 were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (0.15%); 9,790 were of some other race alone (4.82%); and 7,923 were of two or more races (3.9%) (US Census, 2000) (Table E6.12-10).

Table E6.12-10. Summary of Population by Gender and Race – County/State Comparison. Population: Gender/Race Butte County California Female persons, percent, 2000 51% 50.2% White persons, 2000 (a) 171,728 20,170,059 Black or African American persons, 2000 (a) 2,816 2,263,882 American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 2000 (a) 3,866 333,346 Asian persons, 2000 (a) 6,752 3,697,513 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, 2000 (a) 296 116,961 Persons reporting some other race, 2000 (a) 9,790 5,682,241 Persons reporting two or more races, 2000 7,923 1,607,646 Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 2000 (b) 21,339 10,966,556 White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 84.5% 59.5% Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 1.4% 6.7% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 1.9% 1.0% Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 3.3% 10.9% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) .15% 0.3% Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) 4.8% 16.8% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 3.9% 4.7% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 10.5% 32.4% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 12.5% 39.5% (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, National Center for Health Statistics, US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, as reported by the Center of Economic Development

Education

The majority of the population in Butte County is educated through high school (84%), with a significantly smaller percentage with a Bachelor degree or higher (21.8%). While the rate of

high school graduates is higher than the state average, the rate of college graduates remains nearly 5% lower (Table E6.12-11).

Table E6.12-11. Summary of Population Education Average, Butte County and State Comparison. Other Socio-demographic Information Butte County California High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 82.3% 76.8% Bachelor’s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 21.8% 26.6% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, National Center for Health Statistics, US Census Bureau, 2000, Census as reported by the Center of Economic Development

6.12.2 Project Vicinity Employment Sources

Labor Force

Butte County’s settlement and economy were initially based on the discovery of gold along the Feather River in the Sierra Nevada foothills during 1848. Today, Butte County has a diverse economic base that includes government, trade, transportation and utilities, education and health services, leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, financial activities, manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources, mining, construction, and information (EDD, 2004, p.6). According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the annual average unemployment rate was 7.7% during 2002, which is 1% higher than the State of California average (Tables E6.12-12 and E6.12-13).

Table E6.12-12. Total Labor Force, Cities and Butte County, 2002-1990. Butte Annual Percentage Year Biggs Chico Gridley Oroville Paradise County Change 2002 730 23,510 2,140 4,460 10,700 91,100 3.50% 2001 710 22,930 2,080 4,330 10,450 88,000 0.60% 2000 700 22,420 2,030 4,240 10,210 87,500 1.60% 1999 690 22,270 2,010 4,200 10,150 86,100 0.60% 1998 700 22,100 2,029 4,210 10,050 85,600 1.30% 1997 690 21,800 2,000 4,160 9,900 84,480 1.90% 1996 n/a 21,410 1,960 4,100 9,710 82,900 0.00% 1995 n/a 21,390 1,980 4,110 9,680 82,900 -1.09% 1994 680 21,600 2,010 4,160 9,780 83,700 1.10% 1993 690 21,340 2,020 4,150 9,630 82,800 0.60% 1992 680 21,220 2,000 4,130 9,570 82,300 3.80% 1991 650 20,480 1,900 3,930 9,280 79,300 -0.10% 1990 n/a 20,430 1,870 3,890 9,280 79,400 n/a Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Butte County

Table E6.12-13. Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for Incorporated Cities and towns in Butte County, 1990-2002. Unemployment Year Labor Force Employment Number Rate (%) 2002 91,100 84,100 7,000 7.7% 2001 88,000 82,500 6,300 7.2% 2000 87,500 80,700 6,100 7.0% 1999 86,100 80,300 5,800 6.7% 1998 85,600 78,500 7,100 8.3% 1997 84,480 77,230 7,230 8.6% 1996 82,900 75,500 7,400 8.9%

Table E6.12-13 (continued) Unemployment Year Labor Force Employment Number Rate (%) 1995 82,900 74,600 8,300 10.0% 1994 83,700 75,200 8,500 10.2% 1993 82,800 73,000 9,800 11.8% 1992 82,300 72,600 9,700 11.8% 1991 79,300 71,600 7,700 9.7% 1990 79,400 72,800 6,600 8.3% Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Butte County

The unemployment rates recorded in 2002 place the town of Gridley at the highest, with a rate nearly two times the state and county averages at 14%. Oroville and Biggs follow closely behind at 11.7% and 11% respectively (Table E6.12-14).

Table E6.12-14. Summary of Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for Butte County incorporated Cities and Towns, 2002. Unemployment City Labor Force Employment Number Rate (%) Biggs 730 650 80 11.0% Chico 23,510 21,760 1,750 7.4% Gridley 2,140 1,840 300 14.0% Oroville 4,460 3,940 520 11.7% Paradise 10,700 10,050 650 6.1% Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Butte County

Industry

Within Butte County, agriculture, recreation, and tourism are important economic factors, which are more likely affected by seasonal variation, providing a basis for a higher unemployment rate than the statewide average (6.7%). According to the Labor Market Information Division of the EDD, during the period from 1998 to 2002, Butte County’s largest growth industries were government, financial activities, and professional business services (full reference p. 5). During this period, government jobs increased 15.1% (2,200 jobs), with local government employment accounting for 1,800 jobs (EDD, 2004, p.5). Financial activities were another significant growth area, with an increase of 1,100 jobs, a 35.5% increase over 1998 figures. Professional and business services added 800 jobs during 1998–2002.

During 2002, government, trade, transportation and utilities, education, and health services were the largest employers in Butte County, representing 56% of the total employment in the area (74,800). Most of the jobs came from government (22.5%) with most of these jobs in local government. Trade, transportation and utilities provided 14,100 jobs, accounting for 18.9% of the labor force within Butte County, with the majority of jobs in retail trade. Educational and health services combined to provide just over 15.2% of employment (EDD, 2004) (Table E6.12- 15).

Table E6.12-15. Summary of Industry Statistics for Butte County (2001 NAICS BASIS). Industry Total Businesses Number of Employees Earnings ($1000) Agriculture & Mining 735 (8 Mining) 1,633 38,564 Construction 853 5,261 184,238 Manufacturing 501 4,585 162,622 Transportation & Public Utilities 346 2,825 98,380 Wholesale Trade 411 1,978 64,388 Retail Trade 1,952 12,836 282,655 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 904 8,098 169,754 Services 4,350 34,410 910,897 Government & Public Administration 141 15,662 606,759 Non-classified Establishments 240 n/a n/a Source: Dunn & Bradstreet; US Department Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

As reported during July 2003, the largest employers in Butte County included education and health care institutions, retail (bookstore), and a casino (Table E6.12-16).

Table E6.12-16. Largest Employers in Butte County (July 2003). Employer Number of Employees California State University-Chico 1,000 to 2,499 Chico CSU Research Foundation 1,000 to 2,499 Enloe Medical Center, Incorporated 1,000 to 2,499 Treasures Office (County of Butte) 1,000 to 2,499 Oroville Hospital 1,000 to 2,499 Feather River Home Health Agency (Feather River Hospital) 500 to 999 Associated Students Bookstore 500 to 999 Feather Falls Casino (Mooretown Rancheria) 500 to 999 Butte Community College 500 to 999 United Health Care 500 to 999 Source: Dunn & Bradstreet Business Database, July-September 2003Travel and Tourism

According to the Center for Economic Development (2004), travel and tourism in Butte County claimed the ninth highest travel expenditure as a percentage of travel expenditures among 21 Northern California counties. The average increase in travel and tourism has been 5.6% annually since 1991, compared to a 5.3% increase in California (Table E6.12-17).

Table E6.12-17. Total Travel and Tourism Economic Information, 2001. Butte Co. Avg. Butte CA Avg. Increase Travel and Tourism (2001) Increase since California County since 1991 1991 Expenditures in Butte Co. ($ millions) 201.7 5.6% 74,911 5.3% Total employment (thousands of jobs) 82.50 2.6% 1,044.17 2.0% Total Annual Earnings ($ millions) 54.1 6% 24,760 5.1 Total Tax Revenues ($ millions) 12.8 5.2 4,715 5.6 Note: Travel and Tourism expenditures are estimated in dollars and can include the following: Accommodation, Eating/Drinking, Retail Sales, Transportation, and Recreation. Source: California Travel and Tourism Association, Dean Runyan Associates, Center for Economic Development, Chico State

6.12.3 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies

FERC’s Determination on study disputes directed PG&E to perform two studies directly related to socio-economic resources:

• Study 6.3.9-2: Assess Socio-economic Effects of Alternative Project Management Actions • Study 6.3.11-1: Identify and Evaluate Potential Impacts of Discontinuing Operations of Centerville Powerhouse

Both studies were considered placeholders. Study 6.3.9-2 would be implemented if PG&E proposed changes to Project facilities or operations or resource management measures that could reasonably impact the socio-economic conditions in the Project Area. PG&E proposed deletion of Study 6.3.11-1 because PG&E does not propose to discontinue operations of the Centerville Powerhouse. 6.12.3.1 Assess Socio-economic Effects of Alternative Project Management Actions (Study 6.3.9-2)

This study plan is a placeholder. PG&E does not currently propose any changes in Project operations and maintenance that would impact the socio-economic conditions of the Project Area. If, later in the relicensing process, PG&E proposes any modifications to Project operations and maintenance that may potentially significantly impact the local socio-economic conditions, PG&E, in consultation with the resource agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties will revisit and expand this study plan.

SECTION 7.0 Environmental Analysis

This section provides an analysis of the beneficial and adverse effects of the Project on environmental, recreation and other development resources. Each resource area is organized by issues identified in FERC's SD2. Analysis used historic information in the PAD and information generated by the FERC-approved Relicensing studies. In particular, this section includes, where applicable, a description of anticipated environmental impacts of continued Project operation and maintenance (O&M), and incremental impacts that would result based on proposed changes in Project operation.

7.1 Geology and Soils

Issues related to geology and soils that were identified in FERC’s SD2 are listed below. Each is specifically discussed in this section.

1. Effects of Project Operations on Erosion of Soils in Project Reservoirs and Stream Reaches; 2. Effects of Project Spillways on Geology and Soils; and 3. Effects on Geology and Soils from Overtopping or Structural Failures of Project Canals or Flumes, or from Landslides and Debris Flows That Intersect Project Canals or Flumes.

7.1.1 Effects of Project operations on erosion of soils in Project reservoirs and stream reaches

Project and ancillary roads utilized by Licensee to service the Project provide no specific benefit to existing geology and soil types and may adversely impact these and other resources due to surface drainage from roads during rain events. The Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary Road-Related Erosion Study (Study 6.3.1-1) assessed the distribution and severity of erosion from Project and ancillary roads. Approximately 31 miles of roads were field surveyed for evidence of surface erosion and stability, including an inventory and assessment of culverts and stream crossings associated with Project and ancillary access roads.

Overall, the roads within the Project Boundary are in good condition. The roads are generally stable and do not pose significant erosion concerns, and most of the culverts have little potential for sediment transport to local streams and function without problems. There are, however, a number of localized road-related drainage areas identified in the road surveys that have erosion issues. These roads tend to be a source of sediment production due to their geologic and topographic setting, as they are areas with fine grained native sediments and relatively steep terrain (e.g., Burma Road, Clear Creek Road, Butte Creek Diversion Dam Road).

A ranking of road issues was prepared (Table E6.1.2.1-5) as a means of prioritizing the sites that have the greatest potential for erosion and sediment transport to area streams. The ranking list identified 11 “high” priority sites (8 culverts, 1 stream crossing, and 2 road locations) that pose a

high potential for sediment transport to nearby streams. In addition, 34 culvert sites were ranked as “moderate” priority sites. Culverts identified as “moderate” have problems ranging from partially collapsed inlets, short pipes, and temporary culverts, to outlet plugging and scour below the outlet. Each culvert with a moderate rating is not considered a serious problem regarding sediment transport to area streams, but should be addressed to reduce sediment transport.

Improvements such as increased drainage controls (e.g., additional culverts or rolling dips) on several roads to reduce production of fine sediments, replacing a number of damaged and/or temporary culverts, installing velocity dissipators at culvert outlets; and improved management of side cast materials during annual road blading activities would minimize erosion and sediment transport potential during future Project O&M.

After the above erosion sites are addressed, continued Project O&M is not likely to result in significant adverse effects with respect to road-related erosion and sediment transport.

7.1.2 Effects of Project spillways on geology and soils

Round Valley Dam Spillway

The Round Valley Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey (Study 6.3.1-2) focused on the effects of the Round Valley Spillway (The Philbrook spillway channel study is being conducted as a compliance item under the current license and is not addressed herein). Flow from the Round Valley spillway has the potential to cause erosion from the spillway channel and sediment transport downstream.

Upon construction of the dam in 1877, the Round Valley spillway directed spill flows onto hillslopes primarily composed of weakly to moderately cemented, unsorted glacial till deposits of cobbley to bouldery silty sand. The resulting spillway channel that has developed during 130 years of Project operations currently has the banks slope between about 30 and 60 degrees with a small percentage of the upper banks being near vertical due to tree roots holding the soil together and not allowing the slope to wear back. Spillway flows have caused approximately six feet of incision below the spillway apron, with a total estimate of eroded material of 5,300 cubic yards. This equates to an average incision rate of about 1 foot every 22 years since construction of the dam. The amount of channel incision decreases in the downstream direction; the spillway channel begins in a confined (incised) reach and transitions to an open valley reach of low gradient (aggraded reach) located approximately 120 feet upstream of the confluence with the WBFR.

Based on the geomorphic setting of the spill channel that has developed to this point in time, it is unlikely that the average rate of erosion will increase in the future. The mouth of the spillway channel empties into a relatively wide valley of the WBFR. At this location, flow spreads laterally and deposits the coarse sediments that were entrained in the spillway channel flows, and as a result, there is presently no channel incision through the WBFR valley from spillway flows. This location provides a fixed point that is not expected to erode lower. Assuming that the channel mouth invert stays at a relatively constant elevation, additional downcutting in the upstream reach of the spillway channel will reduce the slope of the channel further as the channel

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-2 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 continues to seek equilibrium with respect to slope, energy and sediment supply. The current channel geometry, with reduced longitudinal channel slope, causes an increase in water depth and a reduction in flow velocities compared to the flow regime in the early years of the spill channel flows. As the channel continues to seek equilibrium, the tendency is a reduction in the rate of future erosion, especially given the resistant materials at the base of the spillway channel. Based on the above argument, the current and future rate of erosion is expected to be less than the historic average rate of erosion of approximately 40 cubic yards/year.

The results of this study indicate the WBFR has been minimally affected by sediment input from the Round Valley Spillway. The rock underlying the spillway channel is relatively hard and indurated, and resistant to erosion. Some coarse alluvial debris has accumulated (deposited) at the mouth of the spillway channel north of the channel of the WBFR. It is likely that other fine- grained sediments eroded from the spillway channel over the past 130 years have been transported farther downstream in the WBFR.

Continued Project O&M is not likely to result in significant adverse effects with respect to the Round Valley spillway channel erosion and sediment transport. The erosion rate has been relatively low (on average about 1 foot of vertical incision every 22 years and limited lateral migration) and because the channel slope has decreased over time and is aggraded in its lowest portion to the WBFR, it is not expected incise below that level. The uppermost end of the channel may benefit from mitigation to reduce flow velocities immediately below the spillway chute to reduce the potential for additional scour and subsequent bank erosion.

Project Canal Spillways

The Canal-Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey (Study 6.3.1-3) focused on the effects of Project canal spillways. These spillways have the potential to create erosion and thus remove the surface soils or intercept geologic formations. Canal spillways will not affect the overall geology or soil types within the Project Area. The most unstable and erosive geologic parent materials in the Project Area were in a reactivated Cenozoic fault zone that was susceptible to landslides (e.g., Butte Creek Canal Spillways 5/1 and 6/1), ancient landslide deposits (e.g., Butte Creek 9/1), and ancient mudflow/lahar material of the Tuscan Formation (e.g., Lower Centerville Spillways 6/5 and 7/6).

Some Project canal spillways are directed onto unstable hillslopes, within unstable drainages, or into drainages that did not exist pre-Project. An existing, pre-Project drainage is a net result of current hydrology. Equilibrium can be established between sediment available to a stream and the energy to transport that sediment. When a canal spillway empties onto a highly erosive slope that has never experienced concentrated flow, the net result is detachment and mobilization of terrestrial sediments as fluvial processes become more important than terrestrial processes. The canal spillway becomes an artificial drainage with attendant high rates of erosion as a balance between the hillslope and water’s erosive energy is achieved. The same applies to drainage paths that have an increase in discharge due to canal spillway additions, which could lead to enhanced sediment transport due to an increase in erosive energy. Canal Spillways also could detach sediment in unstable basins; though the spillway itself is not the cause of the instability, the spillway could transport material from the unstable zone to a main stem stream.

PG&E has taken steps to reduce erosion from spillways discharge through deactivation and canal spillway reinforcement with gunite. These methods have proven to be effective. If the measure has reduced the potential for sediment detachment and transport to a main stem stream, the canal spillway was not considered a likely source of sediment, or a hazard to a main stem stream.

Only a few canal spillways delivered (non-quantified) sediment to an accepting tributary or the main stems of Butte Creek or the WBFR. Due to the high transport nature of these main stems, there was little accumulation of sediment derived from any spillway additions near the source. Sediment added would have been transported to a response reach where stream gradient flattens to less than 1% and gravel and sand accumulate (e.g., below Centerville Powerhouse) or to a reservoir (e.g., Miocene Diversion in the Lower WBFR). In the WBFR, there were no canal spillways that had high sediment availability from unstable or eroding slopes that could be transported to the main stem WBFR. In Butte Creek, there were four spillways (Butte Creek Spillways 5/1 and 9/1, and Lower Centerville Spillways 6/5 and 7/6) in which sediment availability was high within the canal spillway, and there was a high risk of the sediment being transported to a main stem.

The added sediment likely was delivered to storage reservoirs within the active channel below the Centerville Powerhouse, i.e., bars and deep pools and on floodplains of Butte Creek. It would not be practical to separate the background sediment stored at these sites from that delivered from the spillways as the margin of error likely exceeds the amount contributed by these areas, which constitutes a very small percentage of the overall area. Continued Project O&M at the four canal spillways mentioned above will continue to provide a source of gravel and finer sediment to the bars, pools and floodplains of Butte Creek below the Centerville Powerhouse during periodic canal spillway discharge events.

7.1.3 Effects on geology and soils from overtopping or structural failures of Project canals or flumes, or from landslides and debris flows that intersect Project canals or flumes

The Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Assessment (Study 6.3.1-4) specifically addressed the distribution and severity of geologic hazards associated with failure of Project water conveyances (canals and flumes) and related resource impacts.

Project water conveyances provide no specific benefit to existing geology and soil types and may adversely impact these and other resources in the event of failure and a subsequent uncontrolled release of water.

Past failures of Project conveyances are attributable to two main causes: 1) geologic hazards (activation of rockslides and debris flows); and 2) hazard trees (diseased, dead, or dying trees) that present a direct or indirect risk to the conveyances and appurtenant facilities. Project experience shows that most canal and flume failures have occurred during inclement weather and are typically associated with rockslides and hazard trees that breach the conveyance directly or that enter the Project canal, obstruct flow, and result in overtopping of the berm.

Due to their length, landform position, and topographic and geologic setting, the geologic hazards and consequent risks to fisheries are of greatest significance along the Butte Creek and Lower Centerville canals. The Hendricks-Toadtown and Upper Centerville canals, which traverse gentler topography with more favorable geologic conditions, have fewer geologic hazards and collectively represent a lower risk.

Best Management Practices (BMP) implemented by PG&E in the early 1990s have substantially reduced (though not eliminated) the adverse effects of canal failures. The most effective measure has been to reduce water levels in the conveyances before and during storm events to increase available freeboard and reduce the risk of overtopping from a minor rockslide or hazard tree entering the canal. Regular aerial and ground patrols, periodic canal repairs and removal of hazard trees, and the abandonment of passively automatic (though unreliable) siphonic spill equipment, have also proven beneficial in reducing risk.

The continued operation of Project water conveyances, particularly the Butte Creek and Lower Centerville canals, presents an ongoing risk of adverse environmental impacts to mainstem streams. The risk of erosion and sediment transport due to uncontrolled releases of water is an unavoidable consequence of the geographically remote and geologically unfavorable area in which Project conveyances are located. Future conveyance failures during or immediately following inclement weather are of less consequence to fisheries in the mainstem streams of Butte Creek and the WBFR because they occur when these watercourses are already flowing at high velocity with a high carrying capacity for sediment transport. So-called “clear-sky” events are less frequent, but are of greater risk to fisheries because they may occur during low-flow summer conditions and because there are typically no signs of impending failure prior to the event.

PG&E anticipates that continued implementation of its existing management protocols, in conjunction with monitoring and selective mitigation of the most serious geologic hazards would continue to significantly reduce, but not entirely eliminate, these risks.

7.2 Water Resources

SD2 listed eight issues related to water resources:

1. Adequacy of existing gages to monitor hydrologic characteristics and compliance of minimum streamflow releases; 2. Effects from the discontinued use of Project feeder diversions; 3. Effects of water loss in canals during transport; 4. Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches; 5. Effects of cleaning Project canals and flumes on water quality; 6. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides;

7. Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on water quality (such as fecal coliform contamination); and 8. Effects of water diversions from Little Butte Creek on the local water supply.

7.2.1 Adequacy of existing gages to monitor hydrologic characteristics and compliance of minimum streamflow releases

For the development of the hydrology database, the adequacy of the existing stream flow gages was assessed. Currently, flow and lake storage in the Project Area are measured at 23 locations maintained by PG&E in cooperation with USGS (Table E6.2.2.1-1). Two additional gage stations, located outside the Project Area and maintained by PG&E, were also included (BW23 and BW24). Two other gage stations in the area operated by USGS (USGS Gages 11390000 and 11405300) were also included (Figure E6.2.2.1-1).

There are stream flow gages at all the major Project diversions, in the canals and at the powerhouses (Figure E6.2.2.1-1). The stream gages are primarily designed to measure FERC- mandated minimum flows in the bypass stream reaches and diversion flows. Consequently, when stream flows are spilling over the Project diversion dams (late winter through early summer), the flow records in the bypass reaches in Butte Creek and WBFR were incomplete, because these stream flows often exceed the rating curve of the gage. PG&E does estimate spill flows during these periods based on operator observations and extended rating curves. The Project utilizes three canal systems (Butte, Hendricks/Toadtown, and Centerville) for water conveyance for power production. Additionally, the Upper Centerville canal is used for local consumptive uses.

Currently, there are adequate existing gages to determine the diversion levels and minimum instream flow releases.

7.2.2 Effects from the discontinued use of Project feeder diversions

PG&E proposes deletion of five feeder diversions since use of these feeders has been discontinued. These feeder diversions include: Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine feeders on the Lower Centerville Canal; Stevens Creek feeder on the Butte Canal; and Little Butte Creek feeder on the Hendricks Canal. No specific study was conducted for these diversions but at the request of Relicensing Participants, these diversions were surveyed as part of Study 6.3.3-11, Canal Feeder Stream Study Plan.

Since the Project has not used these feeders for many years, removing these feeder diversions for the license would have no environmental effect as compared to current conditions. PG&E’s proposal to remove and facilities or structures related to the discontinued feeder diversions would have no environmental impacts: the structures/facilities are very minor and PG&E would obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to any ground disturbance activity.

PG&E’s water rights for Oro Fino, Emma Ravine, Coal Claim and Stevens Creek feeders were abandoned years ago. PG&E currently has an active water right permit to divert up to 10 cfs into the Toadtown Canal from Little Butte Creek. However, PG&E is only allowed to divert water

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-6 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 from Little Butte Creek when Paradise Reservoir is spilling, which occurs only during large rain events. At such times, the entire watershed is producing high stream flows and PG&E generally does not need any water from Little Butte Creek because water to the Project is already available in excess of canal capacity. Therefore, PG&E rarely exercises its water right on Little Butte Creek and the feeder diversion has not been used in over 10 years. PG&E does not have consumptive rights for Little Butte Creek.

7.2.3 Effects of water loss in canals during transport

No specific study was performed to address this issue, though canal losses were considered during development of the DeSabla-Centerville Project Operations Model. All Project canals are prone to losses (i.e., leakage) of varying magnitude when transporting or holding water. The locations where leakage occurs can be classified as a point or a non-point source of water:

• Point Sources o Leakage at flume seams or holes o Leakage at canal spillway gates/boards o Leakage at capacity restricted portions of canals/flumes (“shearing”) o Leakage at canals caused by burrowing animal holes • Non-point Sources o Leakage along a permeable canal berm

Point sources of leakage which terminate into natural watercourses can potentially have both beneficial and adverse effects on the environment. Point source leakages from canal spillways (likely the largest single source of canal losses) are typically located within natural drainages, and leakage flows are small enough that the channels can pass the runoff without excessive erosion. These losses have a beneficial effect by providing groundwater and/or surface water for channel and riparian habitat. If flows are high enough, erosion caused by channeling of runoff in areas with erodible material could have negative impact. However, due to the velocities involved during leakage, the erosion is more likely to provide an additional small source of fine sediment in stream channels below the canal or flume, a benefit. Likewise, point sources of leakage which do not terminate into natural watercourses can potentially have both beneficial and adverse effects on the environment. Areas with mild slopes or coarse soils can often retain the runoff without channeling and provide unique sources of habitat and/or refuge for area wildlife.

Non-point sources of leakage typically augment local groundwater flows and can artificially raise the local water table, depending on the slope down-gradient of the canal and the permeability of the canal material. One adverse effect of a non-point source in areas with excessive berm seepage and steep slopes is chronic saturation of hillsides. The saturation can add weight and reduce friction between materials on a slope which has the potential to create a stability concern. The beneficial impact of non-point losses is the swath of land which, when saturated, provide habitat and/or refuge for area wildlife.

Maintenance activities include routine inspections of canals and efforts are made to ensure leakage is minimal and repairs are made when leakages could undermine slope stability or cause

erosion. Consequently, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects from water loss during routine transport.

7.2.4 Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches

Two studies were conducted by PG&E to address the effects of continued Project O&M upon water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches: Study 6.3.2-4, Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor Water Temperature; and Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Steam Reaches.

Water Temperature

The Project is operated according to the annual Operations and Maintenance Plan to provide water in lower Butte Creek at a suitable temperature to support habitat for Central Valley spring- run Chinook salmon (Chinook salmon) and Central Valley steelhead (steelhead), both listed as threatened under the ESA. PG&E considers Project operations to provide a beneficial effect upon water temperature. The transfer of cold water from the WBFR provides more water (approximately 40% greater flows in July and August) and significantly cooler water (due to cold springs in WBFR and cold water storage in the Project’s largest reservoir) in Butte Creek than natural flow would provide. PG&E conserves cold water in Philbrook Reservoir for use during heat storm events and utilizes this water through increased releases to reduce temperatures for Chinook salmon holding in Butte Creek. The increased flow from the WBFR also helps minimize heating in DeSabla Forebay by reducing the residence time in this facility. Finally, the shorter travel time of water in Project canals and greater shading than the more open stream channels also conserves cold water temperatures.

To improve on the efficiency of heat storm related releases from Philbrook, PG&E meteorologists develop 10-day forecasts of high temperature events each Monday and Thursday throughout the summer (mid-June through mid-September). Increases in cold water release from Philbrook Reservoir are then coordinated with extreme meteorological events to provide the maximum effectiveness for protecting Chinook salmon in Butte Creek. The proposed schedule and magnitude of such releases are presented to NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS for their approval and concurrence. A detailed discussion is below.

CE-QUAL-W2 Water Temperature Model Simulations

Simulations with the calibrated and validated CE-QUAL-W2 water temperature model (W2) were conducted using the 2005 hydrology (above normal water year) and meteorology (hot conditions climate year) to evaluate alternative Project operational scenarios suggested by the Relicensing Participants. In particular, these operational alternatives were:

• Increase summer time minimum flow in Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to 60 cfs (from its current 49 cfs)

• Increase summer time minimum flow in Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to 80 cfs • Remove 15 cfs from Hendricks Canal (increasing summer time minimum flows in the WBFR to 30 cfs from its current 15 cfs) • Remove 5 cfs from Hendricks Canal

The results of these simulations are shown in Table E7.2.4-1. The approach used to determine the affect of a given alternative was to determine the change in temperature between a base run and the alternative. This is the preferable method for detecting and characterizing the magnitude of change in temperature with models that contain error in their prediction of actual temperatures (Dr. Scott Wells, personal communication). This improves the accuracy of prediction since both model runs (base and alternative) contain the same relative computational error that will then cancel out as one compares the predicted change determined by comparing the two runs. PG&E looked at three change metrics for the hottest period of the summer (June 19 through August 8): the mean difference (degrees C), the maximum hourly difference (degrees C); and the change in Weekly Mean of the daily Maximum Temperature (WMMT) during the hottest week of the summer in 2005 (July 14 through July 21).

Table E7.2.4-1. W2 Simulation Results: Difference between base case and simulation from JD 171 (6/19) to JD 220 (8/08) using 2005 hydrology and meteorology. Mean Difference Maximum Difference WMMT* Difference Simulation Location (degrees C) (degrees C) (JD195-201) Below CPH 0.03 0.25 (JD211) 0.14 60 cfs below LCDD Above CPH -0.27 -1.35 (JD208) -0.66 BC @ Helltown -0.30 -1.12 (JD210) -0.23 Below CPH 0.08 0.67 (JD218) 0.48 80 cfs below LCDD Above CPH -0.58 -1.85 (JD208) -1.08 BC @ Helltown -0.63 -2.06 (JD202) -0.53 Below CPH 0.21 0.47 (JD210) 0.37 Remove 15 cfs @ HHD Above CPH 0.05 0.11 (JD209) 0.06 BC @ Helltown 0.08 0.15 (JD203) 0.08 Below CPH 0.07 0.16 (JD198) 0.13 Remove 5 cfs @ HHD Above CPH 0.02 0.05 (JD211) 0.02 BC @ Helltown 0.03 0.06 (JD201) 0.03 * WMMT = Weekly Mean of the daily Maximum Temperatures during the hottest week of the year (7/14 to 7/21)

The changes below Centerville Powerhouse when minimum flows were increased to 60 cfs are relatively minor: a slight increase in mean and maximum temperatures. There were reductions in all three temperature metrics above Centerville Powerhouse as a result of the increased flows down the natural channel.

When the minimum summer time flows below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam were increased to 80 cfs the changes below Centerville Powerhouse were greater: mean difference increased slightly, but more importantly, the WMMT during the heat storm event of 2005 increased by almost 0.5°C. This is considered a biologically significant increase since Chinook salmon holding below Centerville Powerhouse would be exposed, for at least a week, to much higher daily maximum temperatures during the heat storm event. This could result in higher mortality rates. There was a significant decrease in water temperatures above Centerville Powerhouse at the 80 cfs release level; however, this was offset by the higher risk of thermal mortality to Chinook salmon holding below Centerville Powerhouse (where the highest amount of spawning habitat exists).

When 15 cfs of water was extracted from Hendricks Canal (for the purpose of increasing minimum flow releases below Hendricks Diversion Dam on the WBFR) there was an increase in temperatures below Centerville Powerhouse: mean water temperatures were increased by 0.21°C, the maximum difference was 0.47°C, and the WMMT increased by 0.37°C. These are considered biologically significant increases in temperature. Stream temperatures above the powerhouse were also slightly affected by the extraction of 15 cfs. Consequently, extractions of 15 cfs or higher from Hendricks Canal during the summer holding period for Chinook salmon introduces a significantly higher level of risk for temperature related mortality to that species.

Analysis of a 5 cfs withdrawal from Hendricks Canal had little to no affect on temperatures below Centerville Powerhouse and resulted in a mild increase in WMMT above Centerville Powerhouse.

CE-QUAL W2 Dry Water Year Simulations

To evaluate the affect on water temperature, using the same set of alternatives identified above but during a dry, hot year, the CE-QUAL-W2 model was run with 2001 year hydrology and 2005 year meteorology. The hydrology was obtained by running the operations model to define stream flow, reservoir levels, and powerhouse operation for all modeled reaches and facilities. The 2001 year was identified as a representative dry year by the Relicensing Participants, in coordination with PG&E. The 2005 meteorology was determined, by comparing average July air temperatures at Paradise, CA, to be a 4% exceedance year. Relicensing Participants, in coordination with PG&E, selected 2005 as a representative hot year that contained a significant heat storm event. The operations model used the 2005 operations, containing the increased flow in response to the heat storm event, to define boundary conditions and water balance nodes for the W2 model for a dry year. A W2 base run was conducted from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs all the way through the system modeled by W2 (WBFR, Philbrook Creek, Hendricks Canal, DeSabla Forebay, Butte Creek, Lower Centerville Canal). After the base run was completed, all flow alternatives described in Table E7.2.4-1 were rerun with the dry, hot conditions. Table E7.2.4-2 shows the results of these simulations.

Table E7.2.4-2. W2 Dry-Hot Year Simulation Results: Difference between base case and simulation from JD 170 (6/19) to JD 220 (8/08) using 2001 (dry) hydrology and 2005 (hot) meteorology (CPH=Centerville Powerhouse). Mean Difference Maximum Difference WMMT* Difference Simulation Location (degrees C) (degrees C) (JD195-201) Below CPH 0.12 0.88 (JD219) 0.13 60 cfs below LCDD Above CPH -0.93 -2.50 (JD174) -1.88 BC @ Helltown -0.88 -2.04 (JD174) -0.90 Below CPH 0.21 1.75 (JD219) 0.64 80 cfs below LCDD Above CPH -1.43 -2.96 (JD174) -2.18 BC @ Helltown -1.33 -2.86 (JD174) -0.87 Below CPH 0.27 0.87 (JD216) 0.61 Remove 15 cfs @ HHD Above CPH 0.05 0.14 (JD216) 0.06 BC @ Helltown 0.06 0.16 (JD216) 0.08 Below CPH 0.09 0.28 (JD215) 0.20 Remove 5 cfs @ HHD Above CPH 0.02 0.05 (JD216) 0.02 BC @ Helltown 0.02 0.07 (JD207) 0.03 * WMMT = Weekly Mean of the daily Maximum Temperatures during the hottest week of the year (7/14 to 7/21)

During dry year conditions the changes below Centerville Powerhouse when minimum flows were 60 cfs increased but remained relatively small: an increase in mean and maximum temperatures. There were much larger reductions in all three temperature metrics above Centerville Powerhouse as a result of the increased flows down the natural channel during dry years.

When the minimum summer time flows below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam were increased to 80 cfs the changes below Centerville Powerhouse were even greater: the mean difference increased, but more importantly, the WMMT during the heat storm event of 2005 increased to 0.64°C. This is considered a biologically significant increase since Chinook salmon holding below Centerville Powerhouse would be exposed, for at least a week, to even higher daily maximum temperatures during heat storm events occurring during a dry year. As before, this could result in higher rates of mortality. Similar to the 2005 water year simulations, there was a significant decrease in water temperatures above Centerville Powerhouse at the 80 cfs release level; however, this was offset by the even higher risk of thermal mortality to Chinook salmon holding below Centerville Powerhouse (where the highest amount of spawning habitat exists).

When 15 cfs of water was extracted from Hendricks Canal during a dry year (for the purpose of increasing minimum flow releases below Hendricks Diversion Dam on the WBFR) there was an affect on temperatures below Centerville Powerhouse. The mean temperature increased by almost 0.3°C and the WMMT increased to a biologically significant level of 0.61°C. Conditions above Centerville Powerhouse became only slightly warmer as the minimum flow of 40 cfs was maintained despite the dry year hydrology: mean water temperatures at Helltown (the bottom extent of Chinook salmon holding area) increased by only 0.06°C and the WMMT increased by 0.08°C. Consequently, extractions of 15 cfs or higher from Hendricks Canal during the Chinook salmon summer holding period of dry years introduces a potentially significantly higher level of risk for temperature related mortality to individuals holding below Centerville Powerhouse.

Analysis of a 5 cfs withdrawal from Hendricks Canal during dry years showed a minor increase in mean and WMMT below Centerville Powerhouse with little to no affect on temperatures above CPH (due to the maintenance of the 40 cfs minimum flow in the diversion reach).

In general, these W2 simulation results support the conclusion that PG&E is operating within the range that provides the best benefit for Chinook salmon and that only minor changes in operation can be made without biologically significant effects on the Chinook salmon holding in Butte Creek.

Study on the Reduction of Heating in DeSabla Forebay

A study was performed by Dr. Pat Ryan to evaluate the engineering feasibility of reducing heating within DeSabla Forebay. The DeSabla Forebay (DSF) is an approximately 100-acre- foot-capacity pond connecting the Butte Canal to the DeSabla Powerhouse. Typical flows through DeSabla Forebay are in the 50 to 200 cfs range, and typical residence times are in the 6- 24 hour range. Typical temperature increases range from 0.7oC at 200 cfs to 2oC at 50 cfs. Reducing the residence time in the DeSabla Forebay has been identified as a possible method for reducing the temperature in Butte Creek downstream from the powerhouse.

A study was performed to identify ways to reduce the residence time and hence the temperature increases in the DeSabla Forebay. The objective was to reduce temperature increases (ΔT) in the DeSabla Forebay by 50%.

Eleven options were identified, ranging from sheet pile baffles in the pond, to a pipe system through the pond, to a dredged channel to allow a stratified underflow directly to the plant intake at the deep end of the pond. A model was developed to help assess the performance of the various options. A summary of the conclusions and recommendations arising from the study are provided below:

The existing DeSabla Forebay results in a temperature rise (ΔT) of 0.7oC to 2.0oC for throughflows in the 200 to 50 cfs range, respectively. The high level of mixing between the cold inflows from Butte Canal and the warmer water in the DeSabla Forebay (entrained flow of 110% to 160% of the throughflow) is primarily responsible for the temperature increase. To achieve a 50% reduction in ΔT requires a very large reduction in the mixing, with an entrainment in the 5% to 10% range.

There are a number of options that could reduce heating in DeSabla Forebay by 50% or more, including a direct connection, internal baffles (sheet pile walls), and dredging. A direct connection between Butte Canal and DeSabla Forebay intake could result in unacceptable operational problems for the hydro system, and some level of connection between the throughflow and DeSabla Forebay is important. A dredged channel through DeSabla Forebay to a depth of about 16 feet should allow the colder inflows to pass under a warm water wedge and flow directly to the intake. A skimmer wall in front of the existing intake may be required to make this option work. For low flows, about 50 cfs, there is a reasonable chance that this option will work, but at higher flows it becomes increasingly problematic. Operation and maintenance costs are likely to be in the $3-million.

The most desirable option from both the cost perspective, and lack of operational and environmental impacts, is a partial baffle: a sheet pile wall, which would route the inflow along the right bank (looking downstream) to close to the intake structure. The order-of-magnitude cost for the sheet pile would be the $0.5 million. The major concern is PG&E’s ability to reduce entrainment at the end of the baffle to a low enough level to meet the 50% temperature reduction requirements. Other versions of this option (either along the left bank or two rows of sheet pile down the center of DeSabla Forebay have similar advantages and disadvantages, and involve extra sheet pile, with costs in the $0.75 to $1.5 million range. The complete or closed baffle option (connecting the canal and the intake via a sheet-piled channel) will reduce ΔT, but will require flap gates (or equivalent) to maintain a connection between the throughflow and DeSabla Forebay. Costs for the sheet pile and flap gates are in the $1.0 to $2.5 million range depending on the option. Under long-term steady-state operation of the powerhouse, water quality in the DeSabla Forebay may suffer, and some level of unsteady operation of the hydro system may be important to assist in partial flushing of DeSabla Forebay.

The conclusions given above are based on a series of assumptions. The assumptions are focused in two areas: feasibility and cost. The feasibility concerns are the ability to dredge and/or drive

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-12 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 sheet pile into the bottom of the forebay; the ability to dispose of dredge spoil, the feasibility of keeping the majority of the sediment out of the bypass channel; the feasibility of operating the power station in an unsteady mode; and the feasibility of operating the hydro system during construction of the various options. The cost concerns focus on sheet pile, dredging, piping, floating curtains, and modeling expenses. Specific recommendations are identified in the report to address the series of assumptions (Appendix E6.2.2.3-F).

Upper Butte Creek, Lower WBFR and Butte Canal SNTEMP Water Temperature Model Simulations

PG&E conducted a variety of simulation runs for minimum flow scenarios for the Upper Butte Creek, Lower WBFR and Butte Canal using SNTEMP models. Simulations were produced for flows between 7 and 50 cfs, at semi-monthly intervals during the warm summer period of late June through September 15. Results and illustrations for the complete set of simulations are in Appendix E6.2.2.3-E1 to E6.2.2.3-E3, while simulations for the peak temperature conditions for the three modeled reaches are illustrated in Figures E7.2.4-1 through E7.2.4-3 below.

Consistent with seasonal meteorological conditions and thermodynamic principles, the following results were observed:

• water temperatures peak in mid-July, at the same time as air temperatures • larger flow releases result in slower warming trends as you proceed downstream • thermal changes, per unit of flow, are greater at lower flows than higher flows (due to a smaller thermal mass and longer travel times) • tributary inflows can briefly affect mainstem water temperatures until equilibrium conditions are re-established • tributary inflow has a strong seasonal effect during low flow conditions. Early in the season, tributaries cool temperatures more due to their higher magnitudes relative to the mainstem

The results of the simulation runs can be used to predict the thermal effects of various summer flow regimes in the Upper Butte Creek and Lower WBFR reaches, and estimate warming trends in Butte Canal. For detailed discussion of water temperature in the Project Area, see Section 6.2.2.3.

Lower WBFR Water Temperature Simulations for July 15 Hendricks Dam (RM 29.2) to Upper Miocene (RM 15.0) 22

18 C) ˚

7 cfs Water Temperature Temperature ( Water 15 cfs 14 20 cfs 30 cfs 40 cfs 50 cfs Cold Creek 12 Big Kimshew Fall Creek LWF Empire

10 252627282930 24 212223 20 171819 16 15 WBFR River Mile Figure E7.2.4-1. July 15 Simulation for Lower WBFR 2005 Calibration Model.

Upper Butte Creek Water Temperature Simulations for July 15 Butte Head Dam (RM 72.2) to Forks-of-Butte (RM 64.9) 22

18 C) ˚

7 cfs 15 cfs

Water Temperature Temperature ( Water 20 cfs 14 30 cfs 40 cfs 50 cfs Inskip Creek Kelsey Creek 12 Clear Creek WBBC

10 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 Butte Creek River Mile

Figure E7.2.4-2. July 15 Simulation for Butte Creek 2005 Calibration Model.

Butte Canal Water Temperature Simulations for July 15 Butte Head Dam (RM 72.2) to Toadtown Diversion (RM 60.7) 22

18 C) ˚

16 15 cfs 25 cfs

Water Temperature Temperature ( Water 50 cfs 14 75 cfs 100 cfs Inskip Creek Kelsey Creek 12 Clear Creek

10 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 Butte Canal River Mile

Figure E7.2.4-3. July 15 Simulation for Butte Canal 2005 Calibration Model.

Water Quality

Based on historical information (See Section 6.2.1.7 - Existing Water Quality Data) and results from studies listed above, water quality in the Project Area generally meets Basin Plan Water Quality objectives with minor exceptions. The primary areas for exceedances of Basin Plan criteria identified in 2006 were related to turbidity increases following planned and unplanned canal outages as well as fecal coliform bacteria (Table E6.2.2.4-21). Turbidity impacts due to unplanned canal outages are addressed separately in Sections 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 below, while fecal coliform impacts are addressed in Section 7.2.7.

Consequently, with the exception of turbidity and fecal coliform under specific conditions, PG&E considers Project operations to have a beneficial affect on water temperature, with no significant adverse effect on contaminants and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches with the exception described below.

PG&E proposes to install of a structure at DeSabla Forebay to convey cool water through the forebay for the benefit of Chinook salmon in Butte Creek. Such a structure may result in the unavoidable warming of portions of the forebay, since mixing with cool water entering the forebay would cease. In addition, warmer water may exacerbate bacteria conditions in the forebay in summer. PG&E considers this to be a minor cumulative impact that would occur each year: the impact is considered minor because water contact for recreation is not permitted on DeSabla Forebay. Furthermore, in the balance, the new structure would support a major environmental benefit of the Project - enhanced habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead in lower Butte Creek.

7.2.5 Effects of cleaning Project canals and flumes on water quality

PG&E’s Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project- Affected Steam Reaches, addressed the effects of canal cleaning on water quality. Canals are routinely cleared of herbaceous vegetation and sediments through both mechanical means and judicious application of herbicides, both of which could affect water quality by increasing water turbidity or leaving residual chemicals. Based on historical information (See Section 6.2.1.7 - Existing Water Quality Data) collected by PG&E to evaluate the impacts of planned or unplanned operational outages upon turbidity, temporary exceedances of Basin Plan criteria for turbidity were identified at the discharge of Butte and Hendricks canals (Table E6.2.2.4-21), lasting from under 1 hour to a maximum of 18.5 hours. Because these canals intercept overland flow and feeder tributaries at a number of locations, canal operation tends to concentrate sediment delivery into brief periods during startup and shutdown when the water velocity along the canal bottoms is higher and/or more erosive. During these events, turbidity levels exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective and there is a potential for impacts to beneficial uses.

Sampling for herbicides used along Project canals conducted by PG&E in 2007 (See Section 6.2.2.4) did not identify herbicide residues or degradation by-products following resumption of canal operation (Table E6.2.2.4-30). Use of herbicides within the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects upon water quality.

7.2.6 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides

Several studies were conducted by the Licensee to address the effects of continued Project O&M upon sedimentation and water quality in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches:

• Study 6.3.1-1, Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary Road-Related Erosion • Study 6.3.1-2, Round Valley Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey • Study 6.3.1-3, Canal Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey • Study 6.3.1-4, Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Risk Assessment • Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project- Affected Stream Reaches

Based on historical information (See Section 6.2.1.7 - Existing Water Quality Data) and results of studies listed above, temporary exceedances of Basin Plan criteria for turbidity were identified at the discharge of Butte and Hendricks canals (Table E6.2.2.4-21) due to planned or unplanned operational outages. Butte and Hendricks canals are constructed primarily of earthen materials, intercepting overland flow along the adjacent hillslopes as well as flows from several feeder tributaries. For this reason, sediment delivery to the DeSabla Forebay due to runoff and landsliding above Project canals would have passed through the existing channel network under

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-16 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 natural conditions. During these events, turbidity levels exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective and there is a potential for impacts to beneficial uses.

Erosion and turbidity from Project spillways, roads, and natural slopes can cause turbidity in streams. However, these occurrences are likely during high flow events throughout the water shed and do not result in cumulative effects. If reservoirs spill outside of high flow periods, increased turbidity may occur.

7.2.7 Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on water quality (such as fecal coliform contamination)

PG&E’s Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project- Affected Steam Reaches, examined fecal coliform concentrations in recreation areas. Based on historical information (See Section 6.2.1.7 - Existing Water Quality Data) and water quality sampling conducted by PG&E in 2006 and 2007 (See Section 6.2.2.4), fecal coliform counts exceeding historical ranges and current Basin Plan criteria were found in the DeSabla Forebay consistently from spring through summer 2006 (PG&E 2004 (PAD); Table E6.2.2.4-31). High counts were found during substantial waterfowl presence. During these periods, PG&E inspected the local septic system and found no sources of contamination.

7.2.8 Effects of water diversions from Little Butte Creek on the local water supply

Paradise Irrigation District has senior water rights for Little Butte Creek, and PG&E has junior water rights. PG&E is allowed to divert water from Little Butte Creek only when Paradise Reservoir is spilling, which tends to occur only during large rain events. At such times, the entire watershed is producing high stream flows and PG&E generally does not need any water from Little Butte Creek at such times because water to the Project is already available in excess of canal capacity. Therefore, PG&E rarely exercises its junior water right on Little Butte Creek except on a contingency basis, such as during upstream canal outages. Little Butte Creek can provide an alternative source of water to the Project when Paradise Reservoir is spilling.

Since PG&E is limited to diverting from Little Butte Creek only when Paradise Reservoir is spilling (i.e., when inflows exceed storage capacity for Paradise Irrigation District), Project diversions from Little Butte Creek do not affect local water supply.

7.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources

Issues related to fish and aquatic resources that were identified in FERC’s SD2 are listed below. Each is specifically discussed in this section.

1. Effects of erosion caused by Project operations on aquatic species and available aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches; 2. Effects of existing minimum flows, and the potential for enhancement of flows, on aquatic habitat and fish, mollusks, and other benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches;

3. Effects of the discontinued use of four Project feeder diversions on available aquatic habitat and fish and macroinvertebrate populations; 4. Effects of Project operations and Project-related activities on fish populations in the Project reservoirs; 5. Potential for fish passage upstream in Butte Creek; 6. Effects of Project operations on fish entrainment at Project dams and diversions; 7. Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes and canals on aquatic species; 8. Effects of rapid changes in Project canal flows on fish stranding; 9. Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Project canals and downstream of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam in Butte Creek; 10. Effects of Project operations on the transport of large woody debris; and 11. Potential for Project operations to coordinate with State and Federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within the Project reach.

7.3.1 Effects of erosion caused by Project operations on aquatic species and available aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches

PG&E performed four studies that assessed availability of sediment, though none specifically addressed the affect of that sediment upon the aquatic community:

• Study 6.3.1-1, Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary Road-Related Erosion • Study 6.3.1-2, Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey • Study 6.3.1-3, Canal Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey • Study 6.3.1-4, Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Risk Assessment

Overall, roads within the Project Boundary are in good condition. With the exception of a few localized problems, the roads are stable and do not pose significant erosion concerns. Aside from some localized issues that can be easily addressed, future Project O&M activities are not likely to result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic community of the mainstem Butte Creek or WBFR.

Observation of the WBFR indicates that it has not been affected by sediment input from the Round Valley Spillway. It is likely that other materials eroded from the channel over the past 130 years have been transported down the WBFR. The erosion rate has been relatively low (about 1 foot of vertical incision every 22 years and limited lateral migration) and because the channel is graded in its lowest portion to the WBFR, it will not incise below that level. Future Project O&M activities associated with Round Valley Reservoir Spillway are not likely to result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic community of the WBFR.

In the Project Area, the mainstems of Butte Creek and the WBFR are generally transport reaches, and sediment-supply limited. Even though there are a few canal spillways that are actively eroding and have the potential to add (and likely have added) sediment to Butte Creek or the WBFR, the effects of this added sediment on these mainstems may not be quantifiable. Butte Creek substrate is very coarse, and dominated by bedrock and boulders. In the case of Butte Creek only, the gradient does not decrease sufficiently to allow more alluvial/depositional

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-18 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 conditions until downstream of the Centerville Powerhouse, which may be affected by enhanced sediment input from spillways. WBFR has very few alluvial sections in the Project Area, which reflects limited opportunities for storage of finer material. Future O&M activities associated with the Project canal spillways are not likely to result in significant adverse effects to the aquatic community of Butte Creek or WBFR.

Several different types of hazards were recognized and mapped in the field, including: 1) small landslides and slumps involving colluvial soils, highly to severely weathered bedrock, and/or poorly consolidated sediment of the Cretaceous Chico Formation or of the Pliocene Tuscan Formation; 2) rockfall hazards from hard to moderately hard, jointed and commonly dilated, steep to overhanging bedrock slopes, cut slopes, or outcrops typically composed of metavolcanic rock or flow rocks from the Tuscan Formation; 3) debris flow chutes commonly with source areas underlain by weathered Tuscan Formation and, in a few cases, associated debris-flow deposits; 4) erosional channels having the potential to erode headward or, in the case of the WBFR, along the upper reach of the Hendricks canal, erode laterally possibly to the extent of undermining the canals and flumes; and 5) settlement and/or potential piping of fill materials in the berm and/or of unconsolidated native materials below. As mentioned above, however, there did not appear to be significant storage of sediment in the mainstems that would negatively affect the aquatic community. Future O&M activities associated with the Project water conveyance structures are not likely to result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic community of Butte Creek or WBFR.

As part of the habitat mapping in Studies 6.3.3-2, 6.3.3-8, 6.3.3-9, and 6.3.3-9 (Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte, Upper Butte, Lower West Branch Feather River, and Upper West Branch Feather River), to aid in geomorphic evaluations, areas of channel that showed active incision were identified on field forms. The mapping was descriptive only and this part of the analysis was not developed into a study plan relating incision or erosion to aquatic habitat. Future O&M activities associated with the Project are not likely to result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic community.

7.3.2 Effects of existing minimum flows, and the potential for enhancement of flows, on aquatic habitat and fish, amphibians, mollusks, and benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches

Four instream flow studies addressed this issue specifically:

• Study 6.3.3-2, Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-8, Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-9, Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower West Branch Feather River • Study 6.3.3-10, Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper West Branch Feather River

Four other biological studies are indirectly related to this issue:

• Study 6.3.3-4, Characterization of Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project- affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-3, Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Species Habitat near Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-7, Assess Mollusc Habitat and Presence in the Project Area • Study 6.3.3-5, Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Project-affected Stream Reaches Using CSBP Protocols

The Project includes three reservoirs: Round Valley Reservoir; Philbrook Reservoir; and DeSabla Forebay. Round Valley Reservoir is relatively small and is drained early in the season to support Project operations and water transfer schedules. At the elevation where Round Valley Reservoir is located, the WBFR is an intermittent stream that typically ceases flowing and has isolated pools by summer. As a result, fish that migrate in winter from the WBFR upstream of Round Valley Reservoir into the reservoir would need to find isolated pools for over-summering habitat when the WBFR and reservoir dry up.

Philbrook Reservoir is larger and retains a minimum pool year-round (though it freezes over in the winter), and DeSabla Forebay is maintained at a relatively consistent level year-round. CDFG maintains the trout populations in both Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay through an annual stocking program, and PG&E considers these reservoirs to provide habitat for the trout fishery. In addition, Project operations require that Philbrook Reservoir be managed to maintain a cold water pool that can be drawn upon to transfer cold water from the WFBR to Butte Creek to support the Chinook salmon and steelhead populations in that watershed; the water transfer is believed to be critical for Chinook salmon during periods when water temperatures in Butte Creek reach stressful levels. PG&E considers these reservoirs to provide habitat for, and Project operations and Project-related activities to provide a beneficial effect for the trout and anadromous fishery.

In the Lower Butte Creek subreach (Honey Run Covered Bridge to Centerville Powerhouse), existing habitat for all life-stages of trout is generally decreased compared with unimpaired flow conditions, although habitat for juvenile and adult trout is increased in the summer and fall months (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Existing habitat for spawning steelhead is also decreased compared with unimpaired flow conditions (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Existing habitat for spawning Chinook salmon is increased compared with unimpaired flow conditions, although habitat for juvenile and fry life-stages is decreased (Section 6.3.2.6.4).

Water temperatures in the lower to middle sections of Butte Creek support both anadromous and resident fish communities. The lower reach of Butte Creek, between LCDD and Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam, supports the “pikeminnow-hardhead-sucker assemblage,” and includes a large self-sustaining population of Chinook salmon, as well as a population of steelhead. The mean daily water temperatures at LCDD during the July-August period ranged from 14.4 to 19.6°C for the 2004-2006 monitoring efforts, whereas the mean daily water temperatures at the terminal end of the Centerville Reach (above Centerville Powerhouse) ranged from 17.4 to 23.0°C. The mean

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-20 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 daily water temperatures in Butte Creek immediately downstream of Centerville Powerhouse ranged from 15.8 to 21.2°C. Notably, Butte Creek below the Centerville Powerhouse averaged 1.1°C cooler than the creek above the powerhouse during the July to August period due to water transferred from the Lower Centerville Canal having a lower thermal loading rate (Mean daily water temperatures in Lower Centerville Canal ranged from 14.8 to 20.3°C); as flows move through the natural Butte Creek channel between the LCDD and Centerville Powerhouse, water temperatures can increase substantially (2-4°C per mile thermal loading) compared with flow through the canal.

In the Middle Butte Creek subreach (Centerville Powerhouse to Lower Centerville Diversion Dam), existing habitat for spawning trout is more or less equal or moderately increased when compared with unimpaired flow conditions (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Existing habitat for juvenile and adult trout is moderately increased from unimpaired flow conditions in January through May, and moderately decreased in June through December (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Proposed minimum instream flows would increase habitat for juvenile and adult trout from September 15 through January in normal water years and for the entire year in dry water years. Like spawning habitat, existing habitat for trout fry is moderately increased when compared with unimpaired flow conditions (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Proposed minimum flows would decrease this habitat slightly from September 15 through October, when flows would be augmented to improve conditions for spawning Chinook salmon. Existing habitat for spawning steelhead is slightly decreased compared with unimpaired flow conditions from February through March, decreasing further in May (Section 6.3.2.6.4). Existing habitat for spawning Chinook salmon is slightly decreased compared with unimpaired flow conditions, although the proposed minimum instream flows would increase this habitat to be more or less equal to unimpaired flow conditions. Existing habitat for juvenile and fry life-stages of Chinook salmon are generally slightly increased compared with unimpaired flow conditions, although habitat for juveniles can be decreased in June (Section 6.3.2.6.4).

In Upper Butte Creek (Butte Creek Diversion Dam to DeSabla Powerhouse) existing trout habitat (WUA) for spawning and fry life-stages is the same or better than under unimpaired flow conditions during normal water years (Section 6.3.2.7.4). In dry water years, spawning habitat may be decreased. Juvenile and adult trout habitat under existing flow conditions is decreased during the summer and fall, but is moderately increased in the winter and spring during normal water years (Section 6.3.2.7.4). In dry water years, juvenile and adult habitat is either further decreased or decreased for longer periods of time (Section 6.3.2.7.4). PG&E considers existing minimum instream flows to provide no net beneficial or negative effect on fish habitat availability in the Upper Butte Study Area. Although additional streamflow releases beyond those proposed for the June through October period would increase trout rearing habitat and reduce water temperatures, these increased releases would likely cause negative effects to Chinook salmon and steelhead below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Centerville Powerhouse.

The mean daily water temperatures in the upper reach of Butte Creek, from Butte Creek Diversion Dam to LCDD, support the “rainbow trout assemblage,” consisting primarily of resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). The mean daily

water temperatures in Butte Creek downstream of Butte Creek Diversion Dam ranged from 11.7 to 17.2°C during the July-August period, 15.0 to 20.4°C upstream of the confluence with the West Branch Butte Creek, and 15.8 to 21.5°C upstream of DeSabla Powerhouse with 21°C cited as the typical upper limit to support the trout assemblage (Moyle 2002).

In Lower WBFR (Hendricks Diversion Dam to Miocene Diversion), existing habitat for trout spawning and fry life-stages is consistently (i.e., during normal and dry water year types) greater compared with unimpaired flow conditions (Section 6.3.2.8.4). For juvenile and adult life-stages, existing habitat is generally the same or better than under impaired flow conditions in winter and spring (January–May), and generally decreased in the summer and fall (June–December) when flows are diverted from Hendricks Diversion Dam to Butte Creek to maintain lower water temperatures for Chinook salmon (Section 6.3.2.8.4). PG&E considers existing minimum instream flows to provide no net beneficial or negative effect on fish habitat availability in the Lower WBFR Study Area. Proposed minimum instream flow requirements, designed to increase the guaranteed minimum instream flow all year but particularly during trout spawning, increase available habitat for juvenile and adult trout during the summer and fall in normal water years (Section 6.3.2.8.4). Although additional streamflow releases beyond those proposed for the June through October period would increase trout rearing habitat and reduce water temperatures, these increased releases would likely cause negative effects to Chinook salmon and steelhead below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Centerville Powerhouse.

Below Hendricks Diversion Dam, downstream to the Miocene Diversion, the habitat in the WBFR is characterized as good trout habitat; however, the temperature regime in this reach is similar to the lower Butte Creek and supports both the “rainbow trout assemblage” in the upper sections of this reach and the “pikeminnow-hardhead-sucker assemblage” in the lower sections of the reach. Mean daily water temperatures at the lower end of the reach ranged from 17.2 to 22.7°C which largely exceeds the temperatures cited as optimal for resident rainbow trout growth (15-18°C) (Moyle 2002).

Existing habitat for spawning and juvenile trout in Upper WBFR (Round Valley Reservoir to Hendricks Diversion Dam) is the same or better compared with unimpaired conditions during dry and normal water year types (Section 6.3.2.9.4). Habitat for trout fry is decreased compared to unimpaired conditions in normal and dry water years (Section 6.3.2.9.4). Existing adult trout habitat is the same or only slightly decreased compared with unimpaired conditions most of the year and significantly improved from June through September in response to release of stored water from Round Valley Reservoir (Section 6.3.2.9.4). In Philbrook Creek, existing habitat for spawning trout is the same or slightly decreased compared with unimpaired conditions, while existing habitat for trout fry is significantly increased (Section 6.3.2.9.4). Existing habitat for juvenile and adult life-stages of trout is generally decreased in the winter and spring due to storage of higher spring runoff flows and typically increased in the summer and fall due to release of stored water compared with unimpaired flow conditions (Section 6.3.2.9.4). PG&E considers existing minimum instream flows to provide no net beneficial or negative effect on fish habitat availability in the Upper WBFR Study Area.

Effects of existing minimum flows on fish, amphibian, BMI, and mollusk populations in Project- affected stream reaches also vary widely depending upon the reach and species. Results of the

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-22 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 fish surveys in 2006 indicate that Project operations at Round Valley Dam support a small population of non-native fish species in the downstream reach which is unique compared to other sections of the WBFR. The flow schedules for this reach are similarly unique from the other reaches in the WBFR; current ramping rates and flow releases below Round Valley Dam create a sudden loss of aquatic habitat between Round Valley Reservoir and Coon Hollow Creek. This sudden loss of habitat, and sudden change in water quality and water temperature of any remnant flow, causes deleterious conditions for aquatic organisms. PG&E considers existing minimum instream flow ramping rates to have a negative effect on fish populations in this reach.

The negative effect on aquatic organisms in the reach downstream of Round Valley Dam is a result of the flow release schedule that is managed to enhance critical habitat for listed species in Butte Creek through water transfers. This negative effect partly occurs as a consequence of trade-offs with downstream water temperature control; since Round Valley Reservoir is shallow and heats up quickly in the early summer, delays in draining the reservoir typically result in higher downstream water temperatures. As the water temperature in Butte Creek increases, water releases are decreased at Round Valley Dam (which is typically warm by summer) and increased at Philbrook Dam (which supports a cold-water pool within the impoundment). Releases of the cold water, and subsequent water transfer to Butte Creek, provide a beneficial effect for fish populations in Butte Creek.

The mean daily water temperatures in the upper reach of the WBFR support the “rainbow trout assemblage,” consisting primarily of rainbow and brown trout. However, the mean daily water temperatures immediately below Round Valley Reservoir during the July-August period ranged from 17.5° to 24.1°C which largely exceeds the temperatures cited as optimal for resident rainbow trout growth (15-18°C) (Moyle 2002). The fishery between Round Valley Reservoir and Philbrook Creek is described as “marginal”, but improves below Philbrook Creek in response to increased flow and improved trout habitat.

The water temperature in the WBFR below the confluence with Coon Hollow/Spring Complex ranged from 6.2° to 13.5°C during the same period, which is below the optimal temperature range (15-18°C) cited for resident rainbow trout growth (Moyle 2002). Releases from Round Valley can cause a slight increase (up to about 2°C) in WBFR water temperatures while being utilized to supplement WBFR flows during the early summer period. The water temperatures in the WBFR upstream of Philbrook Creek had mean daily water temperatures during the July- August period that ranged from 7.5° to 13.3°C, and the mean daily water temperatures of added from Philbrook Creek during the July-August period ranged from 8.4° to 18.8°C. Between the confluence of Philbrook Creek and Hendricks Diversion Dam, mean daily water temperatures during the July-August period increase another 2-4°C to 12.4 to 17.0°C which includes temperatures cited as optimal for resident rainbow trout growth (Moyle 2002).

Current minimum flows in Butte Creek and Lower WBFR (Hendricks Diversion Dam to Miocene Diversion) do not appear to negatively affect aquatic foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) breeding habitat (egg deposition and tadpole rearing), as FYLF breeding was observed in all surveyed reaches (Section 6.3.2.1.4). The only reach in which FYLF were not observed was in the Upper WBFR (Round Valley Reservoir to Hendricks Diversion Dam) (Section

6.3.2.1.4). A potential factor for FYLF absence in the reach may be the cold water releases (from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs) that occur in the late spring or summer, during periods when FYLF larvae require warm water temperatures for development (Lind 2005, Kupferberg 1997, Lannoo 2005). However, because access to this reach was limited due to private property, FYLF surveys were only completed on Forest Service lands (Section 6.3.2.1.3).

A FYLF 2D hydraulic modeling study will be conducted by PG&E to evaluate the effects of flows on FYLF egg and tadpole habitat quality and quantity, although results from this study will not be available in time for inclusion in this license application. While the results of the 2D study will inform this assessment, PG&E considers existing minimum flows to negatively affect FYLF populations in the Upper WBFR and to beneficially effect FYLF populations in all other reaches. Any proposed changes to the current minimum flow requirements should take the FYLF breeding period (May–September) into account and avoid sharp increases or decreases in river stage during this time. Sudden changes in river stage may shear egg masses from rocks, flush tadpoles from edgewater areas, or strand egg masses and tadpoles.

Significant adverse effects on benthic macroinvertebrate habitat (as represented by the taxonomic composition of samples collected from Project-affected reaches) related to existing minimum flow were not observed in samples collected from the Lower WBFR subreach or in the Upper, Middle, or Lower Butte Creek subreaches. In Upper WBFR, flow related effects were evident in the samples collected below Round Valley Reservoir. Under existing minimum flows, this stream section goes dry several times a year particularly after Round Valley Reservoir is drafted, which typically happens in late July. The unimpaired flow in this reach would, however, also demonstrate regular intermittency. Nevertheless, the taxonomic composition of benthic macroinvertebrates collected from the two sites immediately below Round Valley Reservoir reflect this intermittent condition with elevated abundance of taxa considered short-lived (bi- or multivoltine) including those specifically adapted to intermittent conditions. In addition, low multi-metric index (MMI) values at these sites are at least partially attributable to the intermittent flow conditions in this reach (Section 6.3.2.3.5). PG&E considers existing minimum flows to negatively affect BMI populations in the Upper WBFR and to beneficially affect BMI populations in all other reaches. The habitat quality for BMI in Project-affected reaches is likely to remain similar under the proposed minimum flow requirements.

Aquatic mollusk diversity and abundance in Project-affected reaches was lower than observed in the North Fork Feather River during similar relicensing studies (Spring Rivers 2002a, 2002b). Diversity and abundance of mollusks, however, was similarly low in reference reaches not affected by Project operations. This indicates that factors other than Project minimum flows have negatively impacted aquatic mollusk habitat in the Butte Creek and WBFR drainages. These factors may include increased sedimentation from roads within and upstream of the Project Area, as well as past and present hydraulic mining activities. PG&E considers existing minimum flows to have no effect on aquatic mollusk populations in the Project Area.

In summary, PG&E considers existing Project minimum flows to provide a net beneficial effect for aquatic biota in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches, or is not likely to cause significant negative effects, depending on the Project stream reach. PG&E considers existing minimum flows to negatively affect populations for some species life-stages in Upper

WBFR while providing a beneficial effect or no effect in other Project-affected stream reaches. The negative effects on some species life-stages are mostly attributable to PG&E’s attempt to manage water to maximize habitat and water temperatures for Chinook salmon in Lower Butte Creek. These results augment existing streamflow-habitat information that has been collected for Project-affected stream reaches and assess the adequacy of existing protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures for aquatic species.

7.3.3 Effects of the discontinued use of four Project feeder diversions on available aquatic habitat and fish and macroinvertebrate populations

PG&E proposes deletion of five feeder diversions since use of these feeders has been discontinued for more than 10 years. These feeder diversions include: Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine feeders on the Lower Centerville Canal; Stevens Creek feeder on the Butte Canal; and Little Butte Creek feeder on the Hendricks Canal. No specific study was conducted for these diversions but at the request of Relicensing Participants, these diversions were surveyed as part of Study 6.3.3-11, Canal Feeder Stream Study Plan.

Since the Project has not used these feeders for many years, removing these feeder diversions for the license would have no environmental effect as compared to current conditions. PG&E proposal to remove and facilities or structures related to the discontinued feeder diversions would have no environmental impacts: the structures/facilities are very minor and PG&E would obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to any ground disturbance activity.

7.3.4 Effects of Project operations and Project-related activities on fish populations in the Project reservoirs

The Characterization of Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project–Affected Stream Reaches (Study 6.3.3-4) specifically addressed the issue of fish in Project reservoirs The Project includes three reservoirs: Round Valley Reservoir; Philbrook Reservoir; and DeSabla Forebay. Round Valley Reservoir is relatively small and is drained early in the season to support Project operations and water transfer schedules. The WBFR, where Round Valley Reservoir is located, is intermittent at the elevation of the impoundment and typically goes dry by summer. Philbrook Reservoir is larger and retains a minimum pool year-round (though it freezes over in the winter). DeSabla Forebay is maintained at a relatively consistent level year-round.

Results of the reservoir fish surveys in 2006 showed populations of both rainbow trout and brown trout in these two reservoirs as well as golden shiner in DeSabla Forebay. Most of the trout observed in Philbrook Reservoir were of catchable size and all of the fish observed in DeSabla Forebay were of catchable size. Round Valley Reservoir was not sampled in 2006 as the reservoir had been drawn down completely prior to the surveys. Trout in Philbrook Reservoir were observed at a higher frequency in shallower water (<10-20 ft) than in deeper water (>30-40 ft). Conversely, trout in DeSabla Forebay were distributed equally at all depths of the reservoir (10-30 ft). Young-of-year brown trout were observed in high densities in isolated pools in Philbrook Creek upstream of Philbrook Reservoir indicating that adults move upstream to spawn. Trout are unable to migrate upstream (into the canals) for spawning out of DeSabla Forebay.

CDFG maintains the trout populations in both Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay through an annual stocking program. The trout population in DeSabla Forebay is maintained as a “put- and-take” fishery with bi-weekly plantings of catchable rainbow trout during the spring and summer months. PG&E considers Project operations and Project-related activities to provide a beneficial effect for the trout fishery in Project reservoirs. The maintenance of these facilities provides perennial, cold-water lentic habitat for trout and other species, and in the case of Philbrook Reservoir, provides a refuge from low flows and high water temperatures in Philbrook Creek upstream of the reservoir. In addition, these impoundments provide a popular recreational fishing opportunity.

However, PG&E’s proposal to install a structure in DeSabla Forebay to convey cool water through the forebay for the benefit of Chinook salmon in Butte Creek may decrease this benefit. Such a structure may result in the unavoidable warming of portions of the forebay, since mixing with cool water entering the forebay would cease. These warmer waters may be less suitable for a put-and-take trout fishery. PG&E considers this to be a minor cumulative impact that would occur each year: the impact is considered minor because a put-and-take fishery could still occur. Furthermore, in the balance, the new structure would support a major environmental benefit of the Project - enhanced habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead in lower Butte Creek.

7.3.5 Potential for fish passage upstream in Butte Creek

Three studies addressed this issue specifically:

• Study 6.3.3-1, Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre-spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement • Study 6.3.3-4, Characterization of Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project – Affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-6, Entrainment of Fish in Project Facilities Affecting National Forest and State of California Resources

Lower Centerville Diversion Dam is the downstream-most Project Dam on Butte Creek. In addition to the dam, there are several natural barriers believed to have prevented anadromous fish from ever being able to pass upstream of the vicinity of the diversion. Anadromous species are typically limited to Butte Creek downstream of Quartz Bowl (approximately 1.2 miles downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam). Surveys conducted in 1995 and 1998 identified eight fish passage barriers within 0.8 miles upstream of the diversion and 22 fish passage barriers within 1.4 miles upstream of the diversion (Study 6.3.3-6). The largest passage barrier identified (35 ft high) occurs 0.58 miles upstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. Further upstream, approximately 10 miles upstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam, Butte Creek Diversion Dam is a barrier to upstream migration. Due to the presence of natural migration barriers downstream, anadromous fish do not migrate as far upstream as Butte Creek Diversion Dam.

At the request of FERC, PG&E completed a feasibility study in 1983 for installing a fish passage facility at Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. The study concluded that there was not enough

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-26 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 suitable spawning and summer holding habitat for Chinook salmon above the diversion to justify the cost (estimated cost $9.1–14.6 million) of constructing a fish passage ladder and associated fish screen (Study 6.3.3-6). Fish species composition upstream of the diversion includes resident trout (rainbow and brown) only. There is no record of winter-run Chinook salmon or anadromous steelhead upstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and therefore no entrainment risk of anadromous species in the Project Area (Study 6.3.3-4). Thus, the current Project facilities on Butte Creek are not expected to cause significant effects to the upstream migration of anadromous fishes.

7.3.6 Effects of Project operations on fish entrainment at Project dams and diversions

As directed by FERC in its May 30, 2007, letter, Project effects on fish due to entrainment at Project intakes will be assessed after all fish population information is available, which will occur in early 2008.

7.3.7 Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes and canals on aquatic species

Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes and canals on aquatic species were assessed as part of Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches. Sampling for herbicides used by PG&E along Project canals was conducted in 2007 prior to and during the first rainfall event following herbicide application. No herbicide residues or degradation by-products were identified at levels above the analytical method detection limits in any samples collected prior to application or following resumption of canal operation (Table E6.2.2.4-30). No adverse impact to aquatic species is expected to occur as a result of continued herbicide use by PG&E along Project flumes and canals.

7.3.8 Effects of rapid changes in canal flows on fish stranding

The Project canals are periodically dewatered for planned and unplanned outages. Planned outages are typically associated with annual maintenance activities while unplanned outages may occur as a result of slides, fallen trees, or intense storm events. When these outages occur, they result in the release of canal system waters to the adjacent stream reaches. When the canals are brought back into service and water is diverted into the canal, fish stranding can occur in the stream reach below the diversion.

Historically, planned outages were scheduled during the summer and fall, after flow had dropped off, to minimize hydroelectric power generation loss. However, since 2004, PG&E has scheduled outages during the winter/early spring months. This change in operation was made to avoid potential impacts to over-summering and spawning Chinook salmon for decreased flows and potentially increased water temperatures.

Newly emerged salmonid fry in Butte Creek and WBFR appear to be most vulnerable to stranding because of their limited swimming ability, their tendency to use the substrate as cover, and their preference for shallow river margins. As juveniles grow, they tend to move to deeper, higher-velocity water associated with main channel habitats where they are less susceptible to stranding. Small fry could be present from as early as mid-November (Chinook salmon) into

July (steelhead and resident trout). This covers the period of time when outages and canal flow reductions for storms and maintenance activities are most likely to occur.

To protect juvenile anadromous salmonids and minimize the risk of stranding in Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam, PG&E and the resource agencies have developed ramping rates that were derived from an analysis that evaluated the stage-discharge relationship for three FWS 2-D instream flow study sites located in the vicinity of Helltown Bridge (see PG&E’s 2007 Operation and Maintenance Plan—Appendix 7.3.8). The stream morphology and noted heavy spawning use in the Helltown Bridge area makes these three sites well suited for evaluating stranding potential. The ramping schedule incorporates the study results for all three study sites combined and identifies a range of flows where ramping can occur without exceeding a 0.1 ft/hr change in water surface elevation. The 0.1 ft/hr ramping rate is supported by the literature and is a rate adopted by the resource agencies and PG&E for the Battle Creek (FERC No. 1121) Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project.

For Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam and the WBFR below Hendricks Diversion Dam, fry emergence is expected to be late May for brown trout and June for rainbow trout. Scheduled maintenance for Butte and Hendricks canals occurs in April or early May and canal flow fluctuations from storm or potentially slide events would typically occur during the November through April period when small trout fry are not present. Therefore there is little risk for stranding this sensitive life stage. There is some risk for stranding small juvenile trout from canal flow fluctuations. However, these fluctuations would also occur during higher winter baseflows associated with winter storm and spring runoff conditions. Therefore the change in water surface elevation and wetted perimeter is expected to be small.

7.3.9 Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Project canals and downstream of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam in Butte Creek

Four instream flow studies addressed flow-related fish habitat downstream of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and one study addressed fish populations within Project canals:

• Study 6.3.3-2, Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-8, Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-9, Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower West Branch Feather River • Study 6.3.3-10, Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper West Branch Feather River • Study 6.3.3-6, Entrainment of Fish in Project Facilities Affecting National Forest and State of California Resources

There is little potential for enhancement of fish habitat in Project canals, as any modifications of flow or shape would inhibit the primary purpose of the canals to efficiently and reliably transport water to the powerhouses. However, habitat conditions provided for trout in the canals appears quite suitable; trout removed from the canals during rescue operations appeared to be in good

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-28 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 condition, having average condition factors ranging from 1.05 to 1.17 with all age classes observed.

There is opportunity for flow changes that will affect habitat suitability for various life stages and species. Please refer to Section 7.3.2 for a discussion of habitat/flow relationships in Project-affected stream reaches.

In-channel enhancement of habitat (e.g., structures) appears infeasible due to high gradients, high flows, lack of channel access, and, in the lower sections below the Centerville Powerhouse, the large amount of private ownership along the river and competing recreation uses such as tubing and rafting where instream structures would pose a danger.

Annual Operations and Maintenance Plans developed in consultation with the resource agencies continue to address maintenance and enhancement of fish habitat conditions below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Centerville Powerhouse. The results from the recent relicensing studies will be used to the extent possible to refine Project operations to enhance habitat for anadromous fish.

7.3.10 Effects of Project operations on the transport of large woody debris

There were no studies designed to exclusively and specifically address this issue. However, as part of the habitat mapping in Studies 6.3.3-2, 6.3.3-8, 6.3.3-9, and 6.3.3-9 (Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte, Upper Butte, Lower West Branch Feather River , and Upper West Branch Feather River), large woody debris (LWD) was quantified in the reaches that were mapped on the ground.

In the mainstems of Butte Creek and WBFR, streams had very low amounts of LWD: 3-44 pieces of LWD within the bankfull channel width/mile of channel (0.3 to 3 pieces/100 m), with the highest amount in the WBFR above Big Kimshew Creek. In the WBFR above Coon Hollow Creek and in Philbrook Creek, numbers were higher at 82 – 105 pieces/mile (5-7 pieces/100 m). There is dense riparian vegetation composed of large conifers and smaller deciduous trees in the Project-affected stream reaches, but there is little to no LWD storage in the mainstem channels. As a comparison, other studies in the Sierra Nevada found 1-805 pieces/mile (1-50 pieces/100 m), whereas the Oregon Coast had 670-982 pieces/mile (26-124 pieces/100 m).

Generally, LWD does not play a role in storing sediment, altering habitat, or providing cover in the mainstems of the WBFR and Butte Creek. Project operations are generally run-of-the river and do not store or inhibit the movement of LWD. Smaller channels (WBFR above Coon Hollow and Philbrook Ck) have much higher amounts of LWD that approach the amounts found in other Sierra Nevada streams. PG&E considers Project operations and Project-related activities not likely to cause significant effects on the transport of LWD.

7.3.11 Potential for Project operations to coordinate with State and Federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within the Project reach

A number of federal and state restoration programs implemented in recent years focus on projects to improve conditions for fish, including listed salmonids in the Central Valley. Restoration actions implemented by these programs address key factors affecting listed salmonids including installation of fish screens and fish ladders, modification of barriers to improve fish passage, water and habitat acquisition, development of watershed planning groups, and instream habitat restoration. The draft Biological opinion (Appendix E8.1.7-A) includes more detailed discussion of ecosystem restoration programs. Many of the key action items proposed by the various restoration programs in the Project Area (e.g., increased flows, fish passage evaluations, operational and maintenance refinements) have already been addressed by PG&E and the resource agencies. PG&E will continue to coordinate with state and federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within the Project Area.

7.4 Wildlife Resources

Two issues related to wildlife resources were identified in FERC’s SD2:

1. Effects of Project operations and facilities on wildlife species and habitat; and 2. Effects of Project transmission lines on raptors and migratory birds.

7.4.1 Effects of Project operations and facilities on wildlife species and habitat

PG&E performed three studies specifically related to the effects of continued Project O&M on wildlife. These included:

• Study 6.3.4-2, Assess Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary • Study 6.3.4-4, Assess Willow Flycatcher Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary • Study 6.3.4-5, Survey RT&E Bats at High Potential Project Facilities

Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon

PG&E’s relicensing studies found bald eagles, osprey and peregrine falcon in the Project Area, as well as suitable nesting habitat for all three birds. Bald eagles and osprey typically nest in trees and peregrines on cliffs, mostly outside the riparian corridor. Project effects on these upland habitats are considered minimal and are generally restricted to existing road and facility maintenance. However, bald eagles and osprey occasionally nest in riparian habitat (e.g., cottonwoods), and hence any Project-related impacts to the riparian corridor (see Section 7.6) have a potential to reduce this type of nesting opportunity. Given the abundance of upland nesting habitat found throughout the Project Area, any impacts would be negligible for eagles and osprey.

Project-related recreational activities (i.e., fishing, boating) have the potential to disturb nesting or foraging behavior by bald eagles and, to a lesser extent, osprey, which are more tolerant to human disturbance. However, the level of recreational public-use is low in the Project Area.

Bald eagles prey mostly upon fish and waterfowl (live and as carrion), osprey take mostly live fish, and peregrines often take water birds or riparian-nesting birds. Consequently, the effects of Project operations on fisheries and other aquatic resources have the greatest potential to affect habitat quality for these three raptor species. Reservoirs have typically provided eagles and osprey habitat for expansion in California, and habitat conditions associated with impoundments generally increase the standing crop of many fish species. Because Round Valley Reservoir is drained each year, it provides no habitat for fish and depending on the timing of seasonal precipitation and drawdown, very little habitat for waterfowl during the fall and winter when migratory bald eagles are most prevalent in California. However, CDFG maintains trout populations in both Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay through an annual stocking program, and both reservoirs therefore provide additional prey-sized trout for osprey and eagles. A nesting pair of osprey was found at Philbrook Reservoir during the study, and a bald eagle was observed at the reservoir during winter surveys. Operations of Philbrook Reservoir as a cold water pool that transfers cold water from the WFBR to Butte Creek to support the Chinook salmon population is ultimately beneficial to bald eagles, which have been observed scavenging Chinook salmon carcasses post spawn (Section 6.4). See Section 7.3.4 for a further discussion of the effects of Project operations and Project-related activities on fish populations in the Project reservoirs.

Willow Flycatcher

No willow flycatcher were identified during relicensing studies. It was also determined that the potential willow flycatcher habitat within the Project Area is marginal. Based on these results, the Project will have no affect on willow flycatcher.

Bats

PG&E relicensing study found no ESA listed bat species, and identified one roost site occupied by yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) at the Centerville Powerhouse. This roost site places Project staff in direct and indirect contact with bats during operation and maintenance activities at the powerhouse. This roost site also exposes bats to human disturbances. However, based on the historic use of the powerhouse by the yuma myotis as a roost site, normal operation and maintenance activities have had no effect on this species.

The study also identified the presence (none roosting) of the Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli), a Forest Service Sensitive Species, at the Hendrix Diversion Dam. The bat was most likely foraging, and normal Project operation and maintenance activities at this facility, which occur during day light hours, would not affect this species.

Deer

As described by PG&E (2006), there has been a substantial decrease in deer mortality at Project canals. Prior to the installation of varies deer protection facilities (fencing, bridges, and escape structures) in 1978, an average of 31.4 deer died in Project canals each year. In recent years, this number has dropped to 2.86 deer deaths annually. The dramatic decrease in deer deaths at Project canals between 1979 and 2006 is partially a function of the effectiveness of the deer protection facilities, but is also attributed to the decrease in population size of the East Tehama deer herd that utilizes the Project Area and Vicinity. CDFG currently estimates the East Tehama deer herd at approximately 15,000 animals. Assuming the deer herd contains 15,000 animals, deer loss (3 deer/year) on Project canals accounts for less than 1/10 of 1% of the total population.

PG&E currently documents all deer losses observed at Project canals and maintains deer escape facilities as needed.

7.4.2 Effects of Project transmission lines on raptors and migratory birds

PG&E did not perform a study related to this issue, mainly because PG&E has not seen significant issues with respect to raptors and other bird species electrocutions resulting from transmission lines. In addition, there is only one 0.25-mile-long section of 60 kV transmission line that connects the DeSabla Powerhouse to the 60 kV Oro Fino Tap transmission line that is included in the Project. The general configuration of transmission lines significantly limits the potential for bird electrocution because conductors (wires) are typically 5 feet apart; a greater distance than a typical raptor wing span.

In cooperation with the USFWS, PG&E developed an Avian Protection Plan to address bird electrocutions on distribution electric lines. Under the plan, if a raptor electrocution occurs on a transmission line pole/tower, PG&E retrofits the pole with avian-safe devices. If the subject transmission line is a 60kV or 70kV wood pole line, then PG&E evaluates adjacent poles within 1,000 feet for their potential to cause a raptor electrocution. Based on the evaluation, additional retrofit work may occur.

Transmission line rights-of-ways are maintained based on guidelines developed and administered by the California Public Utilities Commission and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (newly named “Cal Fire”). PG&E is also responsible for adhering to California Public Resource Codes and California Code of Regulations that describe how vegetation is managed in rights-of-ways. These guidelines and codes describe such things as minimum vegetation vertical clearances from transmission lines, required transmission line right-of-way widths, acceptable vegetation fuel loads within rights-of-ways, hazard tree removal, and right-of- way vegetation inspection policies.

7.5 Botanical Resources

Issues related to botanical resources that were identified in FERC’s SD2 are listed below. Each is specifically discussed in this section.

1. Effects of Project operations on vegetation; 2. Effects of Project operations on the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and exotic plants of concern around Project facilities; 3. Effects of Project operations on special status plant species; and 4. Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on special status plant species.

7.5.1 Effects of Project operations on vegetation

Study 6.3.5-2, Classify and Map Vegetation Communities in the Project Boundary, described vegetation communities within 200 feet of the Project Boundary. Methods and results of this study are addressed in Section 6.5.2.2. PG&E conducts vegetation management within the Project Boundary as required for continued Project O&M. In general, minimal vegetation management is required, and the bulk of the Project Boundary remains unmanaged in a given year. Project vegetation management consists of the removal of approximately 15-25 hazard trees annually, as well as mechanical removal of vegetation along canals, roads, penstocks, and powerhouses so as to maintain a 3-4 foot unvegetated perimeter around these facilities. Approximately 20-25 linear miles of Project facilities are treated in this manner. In some areas, mechanical treatment of shrubs or trees is supplemented with hand-application of herbicides on stumps. No noxious weed management is currently conducted. These activities are limited in scope and focused, and are expected to have a minimal adverse impact.

7.5.2 Effects of Project operations on the establishment and spread of noxious weeds

Study 6.3.5-3, Map and Assess Noxious Weeds in the Project Boundary, addressed the effects of continued Project O&M on the establishment and spread of noxious weeds around Project facilities. PG&E’s study located a total of 213 occurrences of nine species of weeds, comprising a total of 71.95 acres. None of these noxious weeds are rated by California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) as A or B. All weeds located during surveys were either rated by the CDFA as C (widespread species not requiring control efforts), or are CDFA unrated species that are of interest to the LNF, PNF, and/or BLM. Use of Project access roads by PG&E, SPI, and the public likely supports the dispersal of noxious weeds, as seed are transported by vehicles or footwear. In addition, PG&E’s vegetation management efforts may result in localized ground disturbance, potentially providing habitat favorable for the establishment of noxious weeds. However, Project O&M is one of many influences on noxious weeds in the Project Area, and likely limited relative to other sources.

Each of the noxious weeds located during PG&E survey efforts is widespread within California; in particular, French and Spanish broom are distributed commonly along roads and elsewhere throughout the Paradise/Stirling City/Magalia area. Much of the Project Area is used by the

community for informal recreation (e.g., hiking, biking, four-wheel drive vehicles, camping, walking pets, etc.) or transit. Other portions of the Project Area are on public lands or privately owned parcels that are not controlled by PG&E. In some cases, private landowners appear to have used target weed species (particularly English ivy, periwinkle, and French broom) as intentional landscaping plants near private residences that are adjacent to flume corridors. Because public and recreational use of the Project Area greatly exceeds that of PG&E, the degree of Project effects on the establishment and spread of noxious weeds is likely minimal.

7.5.3 Effects of Project operations on special status plant species

Study 6.3.5-1, Map RT&E Plant Species, addressed the effects of continued Project O&M on special status plant species. Methods and results of this study are addressed in Section 6.5.2.1. SPI also performed surveys for special status plant species on parcels under its ownership (SPI 2007).

PG&E surveys of the Project Area located 10 target special status species: Ahart’s sulfur flower (Eriogonum umbellatum var. “ahartii” [Forest Service sensitive]), Butte County calycadenia (Calycadenia oppositifolia [CNPS list 4.2, Forest Service sensitive]), Butte County morning glory (Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. buttensis [CNPS list 1B.2, Forest Service sensitive]), cut- leaved ragwort (Senecio eurycephalus var. lewisrosei, [CNPS list 1B.2, Forest Service sensitive]), Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. humboldtii [CNPS list 4.2, Forest Service special interest]), Jepson’s onion (Allium jepsonii, [CNPS list 1B.2, Forest Service sensitive]), Sanborn’s onion (Allium sanbornii var. sanbornii, [CNPS list 4.2, Forest Service special interest]), Butte County mission bells (Fritillaria eastwoodiae [CNPS list 3.2, Forest Service sensitive]), dissected-leaved toothwort (Cardamine pachystigma var. dissectifolia [CNPS list 3, Forest Service special interest]), shield-bracted monkey-flower (Mimulus glaucescens [CNPS list 4.3, Forest Service special interest]), tall checkerbloom (Sidalcea “gigantea,”[Forest Service special interest]), and white-stemmed clarkia (Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis, [CNPS list 1B.2, Forest Service sensitive]). None of these species are listed as federally or state threatened, endangered, or candidates for such listing.

SPI surveys (SPI 2007) targeted a different list of species than the PG&E surveys. These surveys located six species on the PG&E target list: Mildred’s clarkia (Clarkia mildrediae ssp. mildrediae [CNPS list 1B.3, Forest Service sensitive]), Butte County morning glory, upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens – probable identification, [CNPS list 2.3, Forest Service sensitive]), clustered lady’s slipper, and shield-bracted monkeyflower, and tall sidalcea were observed.

Many of the special status plants known to occur within the Project Boundary are limited to serpentine substrates. These species include Ahart’s sulfur flower, Jepson’s onion, Sanborn’s onion, Butte County calycadenia, cut-leaved ragwort, and shield-bracted monkeyflower. Serpentine substrates are well-represented within the Project Boundary, generally in steep and rocky areas not subject to Project-related activities. Project-associated facilities intersecting serpentine substrates include DeSabla Powerhouse Road and Miocene Dam on the WBFR. These areas are not disturbed during normal Project operations.

Some special-status plants known from the Project Boundary appear disturbance-adapted. For example, members of the genus Clarkia are often found on roadcuts and respond favorably to fire and other canopy-opening events in vegetated areas. During survey efforts, Butte County morning glory and Humboldt lily were most often found in openings such as moderately stable roadcuts and partially disturbed areas adjacent to flume trails. While heavy disturbance likely negatively affects individuals of these species, canopy openings created by Project operations and feature maintenance may support these species.

Two special-status plants known to be within the Project Boundary are believed to be intolerant of disturbance: clustered lady’s slipper and upswept moonwort. These species are typically found in moist, shaded forest conditions; clustered lady’s slipper will sometimes be located on shaded, stable roadcuts. These species are not known to occur in any habitats affected by Project operations and no effects to these two species are anticipated.

7.5.4 Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on special status plants

At low elevation reservoirs and stream reaches, informal recreation occurs in two areas known to support special status plants: 1) DeSabla Reservoir and associated flume areas; and 2) along the WBFR.

DeSabla Forebay and Associated “Flume Trails”

This area is easily accessible and well-traveled. Large occurrences of Butte County morning glory are present; Humboldt lily was also noted at this location. The eastern side of the reservoir and trails to the north experience a great deal of human disturbance, most notably littering, foot traffic, and informal parking on road shoulders and reservoir banks. A formal camp and cabins on the west side of the reservoir may also contribute to disturbance, but effects on the west side of the reservoir appear to be less intense. French broom, a noxious weed species, is also becoming well-established at the DeSabla Forebay and along trails to the north, potentially affecting habitat suitability of rare plants.

WBFR

Informal recreation occurs around the access area at the Miocene Dam at the base of the “Magalia Serpentine.” Several special status plants (Ahart’s sulfur flower, Jepson’s Onion, cut- leaved ragwort, Butte County calycadenia, and shield-bracted monkeyflower) are located in proximity to this dam. The majority of the recreational activity appears to be focused on the river access and little disturbance was noted in rocky upland areas where special status plants were typically observed. An informal camp was noted in proximity to individuals of Jepson’s

onion, and may be impacting individuals of this species found near the WBFR. Noxious weeds, notably Spanish broom, were also mapped at this access point.

At other Project-affected stream reaches at mid- to low-level elevations, informal recreation does not appear to be affecting special status plants because most potentially occurring species are not found in conjunction with water access. Shield-bracted monkeyflower is an exception, occurring commonly in rocky, wet drainages throughout the Project Area. However, informal recreation does not appear to be limiting the distribution or persistence of this species.

No special-status plants were documented near the Project’s high elevation reservoirs (areas in the vicinity of Philbrook Reservoir and Snag Lake), whether in undisturbed or highly-used areas. As a result, the potential for effects of informal recreation on special status plant species in these areas appears low.

7.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat

Three issues related to wetlands, riparian and littoral habitat were identified in FERC’s SD2:

1. Effects of Project operations on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation, including fens, around Project facilities and reservoirs; 2. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs, caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides; and 3. Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs.

7.6.1 Effects of Project operations on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation, including fens, around Project facilities and reservoirs

No specific studies were performed to address this issue. In general, normal ground disturbing activities related to Project O&M do not occur in the vicinity of wetlands, riparian areas or littoral habitat. Project O&M activities that could affect these habitats are related to reservoir drawdown and flow releases. Since Project reservoirs do not support next building fishes that use shallow littoral habitat, reservoir drawdown does not affect these fishes. Few wetlands or riparian habitats are associated with Project reservoirs and PG&E does not propose altering historic drawdown schedules. Since PG&E does not propose any substantial change to minimum flow releases, riparian habitat should not be adversely affected by the Project.

7.6.2 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs, caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides

The environmental effects due to sedimentation and turbidity resulting from Project operations and structural failures, spillways, roads and landslides are discussed in Section 7.1.2, 7.1.3 and 7.2.6.

7.6.3 Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs

The environmental effects due to formal and informal recreation are discussed in Section 7.8.1.

7.7 Species Protected under the Endangered Species Act

Nine issues related, or partly related, to species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA were identified in FERC’s SD21:

1. Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or special status species or critical habitat; 2. Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on rare, threatened, endangered, or special status species or critical habitat; 3. Effects of Project operations and facility failures on water temperatures, turbidity, sedimentation, disease outbreaks, flows, instream habitat, and distribution for Federally- listed salmonids and their habitat; 4. Assessment of the estimated sustainable population sizes for Federally-listed salmonids in the Project Area, based on the current density of each species’ life stage, available habitat, and streamflows; 5. Potential for Project operations to influence water temperatures in Project waters for Federally-listed salmonids during critical time periods; 6. Effects of Project bypass channel flows on juvenile and adult Federally-listed salmonids; 7. Effects of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on the upstream migration of Federally- listed salmonids and the potential for fish passage; 8. Effects of recreational activity within the Project Area on Federally-listed salmonids; and 9. Additional cumulative impacts from non-project sources on Federally-listed salmonids, including upstream disturbance to the aquatic habitat, water quality, and recreational activities.

1 Those portions of the issues that pertain to special-status species that are not listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA are addressed in Sections 7.3, Fish and Aquatic Resources; Section 7.4, Wildlife Resources; Section 7.5, Botanical Resources; and Section 7.6, Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitats.

PG&E performed nine studies that addressed or partly addressed species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. These included:

• Study 6.3.3-1, Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre-spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement • Study 6.3.3-2, Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-3, Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Species Near Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-4, Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-5, Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Project-Affected Stream Reaches Using CSBP Protocols • Study 6.3.3-7, Assess Mollusk Habitat and Presence in the Project Area • Study 6.3.4-1, Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary • Study 6.3.4-5, Survey RT&E Bats at High Potential Project Facilities • Study 6.3.5-1, Map RT&E Plant Species

None of the above studies documented the occurrence of species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA or Critical Habitat as described under the ESA except for Study 6.3.3-4, Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches. This study found that Chinook salmon and steelhead, both listed as threatened under the ESA, occur in Butte Creek downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. Critical habitat in Butte Creek for Chinook salmon was designated in February 2000 and covers the reach downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to the confluence with the Sacramento River (Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 32). Critical habitat in Butte Creek for steelhead was designated in September 2005 and also covers the reach downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to the confluence with the Sacramento River (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 170).

In consultation with NOAA Fisheries, PG&E prepared a draft Biological Assessment (BA) that evaluated the potential effect of the Project O&M on Chinook salmon. The final BA was submitted to NOAA Fisheries by FERC in October 2005 and NOAA Fisheries issued a preliminary biological opinion (BiOp) in December 2006, concluding that FERC's issuance of a new 50-year license for the Project under current operating conditions would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Chinook salmon or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. PG&E believes the proposed Project as described in this application will include only small changes to its existing operations based on the results of its relicensing studies. PG&E intends to consult with NOAA Fisheries to supplement the BA to incorporate findings of its relicensing studies for Chinook salmon and to address steelhead. PG&E plans to file the supplemental BA with FERC in the first quarter of 2008.

The only other ESA-listed species that may be affected by continued Project O&M is VELB. Although PG&E did not find any VELB during its relicensing studies, it did identify nine blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana) in four occurrences below an elevation of 3,000 feet

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-38 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 within the Project Area. These shrubs are considered to be suitable VELB habitat, and are therefore protected under the ESA. Continued Project O&M will not adversely affect these shrubs because in 2003 PG&E developed a programmatic Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Conservation Program in consultation with USFWS. (PG&E and USFWS, March 2003). This conservation program addresses potential harm to VELB habitat associated with PG&E’s routine operation and maintenance activities throughout the PG&E service area, and includes a reporting and monitoring component that tracks impacts to VELB host plants on an annual basis, and requires that monitoring reports be submitted to the USFWS according to a specified schedule.

7.8 Recreation and Land Use

Issues related to recreation that were identified in FERC’s SD2 are listed below. Each is specifically discussed in this section.

1. Effects of erosion and potential erosion caused by recreation activities; 2. Effects of Project operations, including maintenance activities, on public access and recreational opportunities within the Project Area; 3. Adequacy of existing recreational facilities, parking, and public access within the Project Boundary and ability of facilities to meet future recreational demands (including affects resulting from the Skyway Project); 4. Effects of Project operations on quality and availability of flow-dependant river recreation opportunities, including: whitewater boating, fishing, and swimming, and feasibility of future flow-dependant river recreation; 5. Effects of Project operation and recreational activity on Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status; 6. Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on Project resources, including effects of littering and sanitation problems; 7. Potential fire hazards and effects of ORV use in the Project Vicinity; and 8. Appropriateness of existing Project-related interpretative and education/recreation signs.

7.8.1 Effects of erosion and potential erosion caused by recreation activities

PG&E’s Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts, included an assessment of erosion caused by recreation activities.

At DeSabla Forebay, recreation use, primarily angling, occurs at numerous dispersed sites along the east shoreline (approximately 1,000 feet). The area is a combination of forested and riparian vegetation with hardened clay at the shoreline and loose dirt and rocks at the parking area and dirt roads traversing the area (see results of Study 6.3.6-15). The primary parking area for the shoreline starts near the dam and extends several hundred feet to the north and provides enough space for pull-in parking. However, the remainder of the area has no structured parking and informal dirt roads wind through the area between the Skyway and shoreline, where vehicles have created dispersed spurs and pull-offs. Pedestrian access occurs through a network of user- created trails along the exposed clay shoreline and provides access to virtually all of the shoreline. These user-created roads, pull-offs, and trails have encroached on the vegetation,

created deep rutted roads/areas, and exposed the roots of many trees. There are few physical barriers restricting vehicle access. The terrain prevents direct vehicle access to the water, except at the north end adjacent to the Accessible fishing access, where two to three vehicles could park at the water’s edge. Signs of ORV use were evident along the dispersed roads and some trails.

At the Willows Area, dispersed camping occurs on lands administered by LNF with portions on PG&E-owned lands along Philbrook Creek approximately a quarter-mile east of Philbrook Reservoir. This site is accessed off Concow Road (a Butte County road), where a spur road loops to the east between the county road and the southern side of Philbrook Creek. There are no physical barriers preventing access to this area; however, a USFS sign informs users of fire, trash and shooting regulations for the site and surrounding area. A cluster of eight dispersed sites were identified within the Willows Area.

The general area is partially forested with intermittent brush and vegetation and a stretch of riparian vegetation abutting the creek. The entire area is extensively beaten out with most of the ground level vegetation trampled or beaten out completely. The predominant soil/surface is loose dirt and sand and in many areas the soil has been pulverized into a fine, powdery dirt, which will continue to erode due to weather and continued vehicle use. ORV use was evident throughout and extends into the surrounding forest where user-created trails have been constructed with banked turns and jumps, and trails were also evident in the creek bed and across to the north side of Philbrook Creek. The other seven sites showed signs of common use and were situated in more desirable locations adjacent to the creek or in a more forested area.

7.8.2 Effects of Project operations, including maintenance activities, on public access and recreational opportunities within the Project Area

PG&E’s Study 6.3.6-9, Recreation Flow Study, and Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey, included an assessment of visitors’ recreation activities, and whether there were any effects of Project operations on public access and recreational opportunities within the Project Area. The results of Study 6.3.6-9 address access and flow related issues.

Visitors to Project canal areas generally enjoy hiking or walking, relaxing, driving for pleasure, bicycling, and fishing. The results of the visitor and resident surveys identified some access related impacts to their overall recreation experience. For visitors to reservoirs, access impacts included the condition of the roads (county maintained), which made travel to the area difficult; visitors also identified a lack of information on the location of reservoirs.

For visitors to river reaches, some safety issues were raised regarding the behavior of the local landowners and use of fire arms in these areas; rough roads; and lack of information on where to go. Impacts raised relative to access were primarily related to a lack of information on where appropriate public access exists and locked gates on access roads.

Boaters identified several access related impacts in the two drainages. The highest priority access concern was the locked gate on the road into DeSabla Powerhouse, the put-in for the whitewater boating run from DeSabla Powerhouse to the Drag. This road may have been open in the past, but it has been locked in recent years to minimize dumping (distinct from recreational

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-40 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 littering). Boaters claimed it is a significant constraint on use, and they showed interest in any arrangement that might allow access (including “signing out” a key from the DeSabla operations office).

Several other reaches or segments are accessed via roads that cross SPI land and have gates closed to the public (either year round, or during certain parts of the year). For example, boaters reported gaining occasional gate access to WBFR reaches or non-Project affected Kimshew Creek via Retson Road (county road), which provides access to the Hendricks Diversion Dam, in the early spring, but this was apparently though informal arrangements. Boaters also report interest in access to the Butte Creek Diversion Dam when that reach is boatable. Both of these Project dams and access roads are located on SPI lands. SPI maintains a year round gate on the Butte Creek Diversion Dam and a seasonal gate on the Hendricks Diversion Dam gate.

Boaters were also interested in maintaining guaranteed continued access through the private gate located on Licensee’s road that leads to the Centerville Powerhouse and access to the Centerville Powerhouse and the surf wave or “location playboating” feature created by the old CDFG weir footing. Boaters reported that they had access to the powerhouse parking area for launching in the spring of 2006, and that they were interested in formalizing this for future years, but there is apparently continued uncertainty about ownership of the gate that controls access. Boaters report that the gate appears to be closed during the summer tubing/swimming season due to congestion, litter, safety, and sanitation concerns by PG&E and local landowners, but they do not believe this should preclude winter/spring access by boaters. The gate is a privately-owned gate located on the PG&E access road. PG&E had discussions with the gate owner who subsequently opened the gate during spring for boaters’ use. Boaters support existing access to the Drag put-in via a small parking area on Lower Centerville Canal off Hog Ranch Road. The current trail to the Drag put-in is in reasonable condition for boaters, but it has some erosion and dumping impacts. Hog Ranch Road and the Drag trail are located on private lands (per the land ownership map, Figure E6.9.1-1).

7.8.3 Adequacy of existing recreational facilities, parking, and public access within the Project Boundary and ability of facilities to meet future recreational demands (including affects resulting from the Skyway Project)

PG&E’s performed four studies that focused on this issue: Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts; Study 6.3.6-13, Recreation Demand; Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey; and Study 6.3.6-15, Carrying Capacity.

Round Valley Reservoir

Site observations at Round Valley reservoir indicated very low use overall. The annual use estimate was 218 Recreation Days (RDs) from June 24, 2006 through September 19, 2006, the time when the road is open and the weather is conducive to use.

Based on PG&E’s studies (Studies 6.3.6-13, -14, and -15), continued Project O&M will provide an adequate level of recreation opportunities at Round Valley Reservoir. Overall, Round Valley Reservoir receives a nominal amount of recreation visitor use throughout the year; and PG&E’s

use impact assessment (Study 6.3.6-15) of the reservoir also showed a minimal amount of use impact evident with only small use impact areas localized around the four dispersed camping sites identified within or adjacent to the FERC Project Boundary. While ORV use is present at the reservoir, the majority of ORV use is occurring along the surrounding Butte County and Forest Service roads. In addition, crowding, user conflicts and the lack of developed recreation facilities at Round Valley Reservoir were not identified as issues by the visitors surveyed. Moreover, the TNF LRMP recreation management standards and guidelines for this reservoir are to, “…manage the undeveloped camping areas at Snag Lake [Round Valley Reservoir]…as dispersed campsites” (pg. 4-267, USFS 1992), and is consistent with the existing recreation setting under the current Project O&M.

Philbrook Reservoir

Based on the 2006-2007 visitor and resident survey, the top five overall activities at Philbrook Reservoir included swimming, camping, hiking/walking, shore-based fishing, and riding off-road vehicles (ORVs).

Philbrook Reservoir has three developed recreation sites (Philbrook Campground, Angler Access and Picnic and Camping Overflow Area), and one dispersed recreation site (Willows Area). Current Project O&M provides adequate facilities and recreation opportunities to the three developed recreation facilities at Philbrook Reservoir with the exception of ADA-accessible opportunities and facilities for handicapped visitors. All three of the developed facilities lack universally ADA-accessible opportunities. At Philbrook Campground, the designated ADA- accessible campsite and restroom has some ADA components, but not all components are up to current Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG), and fall short of being universally ADA-accessible. At the Philbrook Picnic and Camping Overflow Area, virtually the entire facility does not meet current FSORAG standards. As a result, people with disabilities may have difficulty camping and picnicking. In addition, people with disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate in shoreline fishing, as there is no accessible path to the shoreline from the parking area at the Philbrook Picnic Area. Shore-based fishing was identified by recreation visitors surveyed as one of the top five activities taking place at Philbrook. The Philbrook Angler Access facility is a basic launching facility with gravel parking area, concrete launch ramp and restroom. The facility does not meet current FSORAG for access to the restroom. The launch ramp is inherently steep due to the natural terrain, which may make accessing the water difficult people visiting with disabilities. In addition, people with disabilities who wish to participate in motorized boating activities are limited because of the absence of a loading platform.

Aside from the accessibility inadequacies for people with disabilities (which PG&E proposes to address through development and implementation of a Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan, see Section 8.1.8.2), PG&E’s condition and use impact assessments of the developed facilities did not identify any major safety issues. Routine maintenance and a rehabilitation plan for the facilities will provide for safe and adequate facilities into the future. PG&E’s routine visitor use monitoring program combined with the recreation demand study results at the developed facilities shows that occupancy rates are not yet approaching physical carrying capacity. Philbrook Campground was generally at 30% of capacity in 2005 and 2006.

DeSabla Forebay

The Accessible Fishing Access facilities are in fair condition and provide the necessary parking area, loading/unloading area, accessible route, and fishing platform for persons with disabilities to participate in shoreline fishing; however, several of the facility components are aged and in need of repair. The barrier rails and sidewalk leading to the platform need to be repaired/replaced; and the fishing platform is degrading at the water’s edge, where an extended ground surface beyond the platform railings does not exist and the pavement has eroded.

The facilities at the DeSabla Forebay east shore access are limited to an information panel and three trash receptacles, all of which are in good condition. The remaining areas consist of an undeveloped parking and shoreline/dam access area. Overall, the east shore and dam access areas do not provide an adequate opportunity for people with disabilities to participate in small- craft boating and fishing from float tubes or shoreline fishing from other areas away from the dam, which are the site’s additional primary recreational activities. Based on the facilities and impact evaluation of the DeSabla Forebay east shore and dam access areas, effective vehicle barriers are lacking around the parking area, and formalized trails do not exist to access the shoreline. As a result, numerous user-created trails are the primary means of access to the shoreline for visitors, which has resulted in a broad use impact area along the eastern shoreline evidenced by large, contiguous areas of compacted soils devoid of vegetation and exposed tree roots.

The group picnic area is in very good condition as it received minimal use throughout the past year. In fact, the group picnic area has been at 8% of capacity or less for the past 10 years. While the restroom building does meet FSORAG, there is no accessible route to the restroom from the parking area and picnic areas. The parking area also does not meet FSORAG for the number of spaces, designation of spaces, signage, and slope, and there are no parking spaces marked for accessibility. In addition, while the existing picnic tables are in good condition, the tables do not meet FSORAG for open space, access routes, and knee clearances. PG&E proposes to address all of these issues through development and implementation of a Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan (see Section 8.1.8.2).

Project Canals

Based on the analysis of the visitor and resident use survey, it appears there is inadequate signage at dispersed trail head areas to inform users on safety, littering while hiking along the canals, types of recreation use allowed within canals (e.g., swimming/wading is prohibited), areas that are off limits to public recreation use because of private ownership or safety hazards, and canal areas that are open for public recreation use (e.g., PG&E/BLM/FS owner areas that do not pose significant safety operational concerns).

Future Recreation Demand at Project Facilities

Table E7.8.3-1 displays the current estimated participation rates for activities available at the Project for Butte County, and estimated changes over the next 40 to 50 years.

Table E7.8.3-1. Participation Estimates for the Activities Available at the Project for Butte County, California in 2006-2050. Selected Activities 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Walking 117086 to 124112 137071 to 152178 181252 to 202920 233058 to 270040 290663 to 342461 348303 to 417226 Visit Beach or Waterside 111057 to 121759 130952 to 146866 172826 to 197587 230191 to 259587 289901 to 333895 357371 to 406950 Family Gathering 109469 to 112473 129188 to 135801 171992 to 180068 225761 to 235399 282694 to 297777 346811 to 363985 Sightseeing 101237 to 109826 122487 to 136681 167708 to 188537 223522 to 251066 282003 to 322504 346004 to 395418 Non-Consumptive Wildlife 103191 to 98231 123915 to 120444 168666 to 164200 220637 to 218032 275608 to 279413 335250 to 337857 Picnicking 86921 to 92076 102578 to 111174 137667 to 148547 180577 to 195424 222928 to 243776 270114 to 294366 Non-pool Swimming 68395 to 66968 80069 to 80941 105877 to 107395 139281 to 142480 177118 to 182462 220181 to 228049 Biking 50755 to 56577 60423 to 68381 82317 to 90730 108523 to 118687 138254 to 150221 174114 to 184822 Hiking 41860 to 64115 49443 to 78613 65872 to 104826 85886 to 143244 108403 to 184555 133906 to 230484 Fishing 50705 to 42890 57770 to 49254 75898 to 64592 95493 to 79237 116819 to 97683 140504 to 118300 Developed Camping 35990 to 50804 42546 to 61404 55330 to 83367 72340 to 109600 90221 to 140182 110333 to 174009 Motorboating 41160 to 36714 47755 to 45068 63716 to 59683 82558 to 82251 104383 to 106670 129988 to 135376 Primitive Camping 23806 to 32025 25887 to 37105 32626 to 49434 39422 to 61087 46858 to 61716 54957 to 92171 Off-Road Driving 23721 to 26622 26050 to 30315 32822 to 40478 39655 to 48444 48000 to 59331 57748 to 71448 Backpacking 12923 to 21731 14470 to 24956 18903 to 33545 22827 to 40473 28052 to 51015 34173 to 63413 Horseback Riding 12401 to 13725 14661 to 16606 19706 to 22220 25886 to 30097 33325 to 38712 42356 to 48554 Hunting 15340 to 8703 15834 to 8473 18964 to 9639 22197 to 10659 25600 to 11411 29538 to 12436 Canoeing 12228 to 6928 13939 to 8514 18167 to 11196 23444 to 15564 29330 to 20318 36732 to 25923 Rock Climbing 6568 to 9537 7552 to 10566 10167 to 14153 12671 to 16354 15953 to 20609 20074 to 26037 Rafting/Floating 2053 to 6231 0 to 7740 0 to 9796 0 to 13709 0 to 18199 0 to 23643

Table E7.8.3-2 provides estimated average participation as percentages of the population of Butte County over the next 50 years. In addition to participation rates per decade, an average activity growth rate was also calculated. In summary, hunting is the only activity estimated as negative participation growth (-1%). Picnicking, fishing, horseback riding, primitive camping, backpacking, canoeing, off-road driving, rock climbing and rafting/floating are estimated to increase, but only slightly, at 7% or less. Participation in non-pool swimming, hiking, biking, motor boating, and, developed camping show a higher participation increase ranging from roughly 11% to 20%. The top five activities with respect to largest increases in participation include sightseeing (33%), visiting beach or waterside (31%), walking (28%), non-consumptive wildlife activities (28%), and family gathering (27%). While these figures demonstrate only estimates, they are reflective of demographic trends in Butte County.

Table E7.8.3-2. Average Participation as a Percentage of Butte County, 2010-2050. Average Percent of Population Participation 40 Year Selected Activities 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Change Walking 79% 86% 94% 101% 107% 28% Visit Beach or Waterside (lake) 76% 82% 91% 100% 107% 31% Family Gathering 72% 78% 86% 93% 99% 27% Sightseeing 71% 79% 88% 96% 104% 33% Non-Consumptive Wildlife Activities 67% 74% 82% 89% 94% 28% Picnicking 58% 64% 70% 74% 79% 21% Non-pool Swimming 44% 48% 52% 57% 63% 19% Biking 35% 39% 42% 46% 50% 15% Hiking 35% 38% 43% 47% 51% 16% Fishing 29% 31% 33% 34% 36% 7% Developed Camping 28% 31% 34% 37% 40% 11% Motor-boating 25% 28% 31% 34% 37% 12% Primitive Camping 17% 18% 19% 17% 21% 3% Off-Road Driving 15% 16% 16% 17% 18% 3% Backpacking 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 3% Horseback Riding 9% 9% 10% 12% 13% 4% Hunting 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% -1% Canoeing 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 3% Rock Climbing 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 2% Rafting/Floating 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1%

The following section discusses the existing primary recreation activities at each of these Project resource areas and examines how the composition of these predominant activities may change over the 40-year period 2010 through 2050.

While it is likely that Butte County’s population will drive the overall recreation use levels for the Project, it is important to also examine the primary activities within each major resource area on the Project and examine how different activity participation trends may change the activity composition for an area. To make this tentative assessment, the visitor survey results will be used to inform what primary activities visitors participated in at each major Project resource area; and then examine the projected indexes of change in activity participation for the selected Project activities as developed by Cordell (1999) (Table E7.8.3-3). For a detailed summary of the primary recreation activities by resource, see Section E6.8.2.2.

Table E7.8.3-3. Projected Indexes of Change in Activity Participation for the Project’s Primary Recreational Activities Based on the Pacific Region1. Project Index Activity 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Developed Camping 1.19 1.32 1.45 1.59 1.73 Primitive Camping 1.13 1.23 1.27 1.35 1.34 Hiking 1.23 1.34 1.53 1.69 1.85 Driving ORVs 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.26 1.33 Fishing 1.12 1.20 1.23 1.30 1.38 Swimming 1.19 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.72 Floating/Tubing 1.10 1.19 1.24 1.36 1.52 Picnic and Trailhead 1.20 1.31 1.44 1.54 1.63 Rafting/Floating (Boating) 1.10 1.19 1.24 1.36 1.52 1 Cordell, H. Ken, et al. 1999. Projections of Outdoor Recreation Participation to 2050 in Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing.

At Philbrook Reservoir, the primary activities identified during the 2006-07 visitor survey were camping (31%), relaxing (18%), and riding ORVs (14%) as the top primary activities (10 or more respondents). While approximately 30% of those surveyed at Philbrook had ORVs, ORV activity generally takes place outside the Project Boundary.

Both developed camping (1.73) and hiking (1.85) have substantial participation growth indexes by the year 2050, and will likely have a greater role in recreation use at Philbrook Reservoir compared to fishing and riding ORVs with more modest growth indexes of 1.38 and 1.33, respectively (Cordell 1999). However, physical capacity for developed camping at Philbrook Reservoir would likely prohibit significant increases in developed camping recreation use into the future; whereas the other three activities lack a strong physical capacity limitation. Thus, it is likely that camping will remain a key activity at Philbrook Reservoir, but hiking, shore-based fishing and riding ORVs in the general area will become more prevalent over the next 40 years as they may occur at varied and dispersed locations throughout the reservoir.

At DeSabla Forebay, shore-based fishing was identified as the top primary activity followed by relaxing and tube-based fishing. Respondents from the mailback survey concur with the results of the on-site primary activity list and identified hiking/walking as the top primary activity (see Section E6.8.2.2). However, as noted above, fishing has a relatively low participation growth index of 1.38 compared to hiking/walking (1.85) by 2050, which would likely mean

hiking/walking would become a greater proportion of the overall recreation use over the next 40 years (Cordell 1999).

At Round Valley Reservoir, it is difficult to determine primary activities from the on-site respondents due to a very low number of surveys collected at Round Valley (see Section E6.8.2.2). The response rate for the Mailback survey was much higher, and aside from relaxing (19%), respondents identified riding ORVs (33%, 12 respondents), and hiking/walking (19%, 7 respondents), as the top primary activities (see Section E6.8.2.2). This scenario is similar to DeSabla Forebay. While riding ORVs is currently more popular and still expected to grow positively over the next 40 years, hiking/walking has a much higher participation growth rate over that same period (1.85 compared to 1.33). Thus, it is possible that hiking/walking will become a greater proportion of recreation use at Round Valley Reservoir.

At the Project canals, hiking/walking was identified by 81% of the visitors surveyed as their primary activity on all of the canals combined. Relaxing was the second most common response (32% of visitors surveyed) followed by driving for pleasure (11%) and bicycling (10%). Hiking/walking at the canals is likely to grow steadily over the next 40 years (index of 1.85); and when combined with the ease of access, clear paths and relatively flat trails, hiking is likely to remain the leading activity.

The Butte County population is likely the predominant factor that will drive Project recreation use into the future. Butte County is expected to grow consistently over the next 40 years by a total of 116%. As a result, by the year 2050, the Project recreation use estimate would likely increase to nearly 33,000 visitors. The primary activities on the Project will likely remain the same as they are generally common to the specific resource areas on the Project. Developed and dispersed camping along with swimming and hiking/walking will likely remain popular at Philbrook and Round Valley Reservoirs and the upper reach of the WBFR. Hiking/walking along the Project canals will likely continue to be a popular activity, as the canals lend themselves well to these activities. The water-based activities of swimming, tubing, whitewater boating and fishing will continue to be popular activities along lower Butte Creek and WBFR.

PG&E examined a number of potential events that may alter the future recreational use of the Project Area and determined that one event was reasonably foreseeable and may impact use – the implementation of the Skyway Road improvement project. The paving of the upper Skyway will reduce the travel distance to Philbrook, Round Valley and the upper WBFR areas of the Project by nearly three miles. PG&E recognizes that this event may change use into the future. PG&E will be able to monitor visitor use levels at the reservoirs during the license period via annual occupancy data and the FERC Form 80 Recreation Report data collection process. These data will be used to determine if this road improvement project results in increased recreation use.

7.8.4 Effects of Project operations on quality and availability of flow-dependant river recreation opportunities, including: whitewater boating, fishing, and swimming, and feasibility of future flow-dependant river recreation

PG&E’s Study 6.3.6-9, Recreation Flow Study, informed a portion of this issue relative to whitewater recreation and flows in the reaches.

Flow Information

Boaters were asked to assess flow information needs in the two drainages. As discussed above, boaters currently use the USGS gage on Butte Creek at Chico to estimate flows in both drainages, but the precision of conversions varies depending upon the segment.

In regard to additional gage needs, boaters clearly identified interest in a gage in the WBFR as the highest priority. The most useful location is probably the current gage above non-Project Miocene Diversion (BW 24, active since 1976 but unavailable to the public in real time).

Boaters are also interested in gage information from the reach between DeSabla Powerhouse and Centerville Powerhouse, which reflects conditions for two different boating runs. Water is added and diverted from this reach, but there is only information about the Hendricks Diversion Dam input, so the net effect is unknown (the net diversion can be as high as 185 cfs). There appears to be a PG&E gage in this reach, but providing flow information to the public is not proposed at this location.

7.8.5 Effects of Project operation and recreational activity on Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status

PG&E’s Study 6.3.6-9, Recreation Flow Study, informed a portion of this issue relative to whitewater recreation and flows in the reaches associated with Butte Creek from the confluence with the West Branch of Butte Creek to Centerville Bridge.

Butte Creek from the confluence with the West Branch of Butte Creek to the Centerville Bridge (near DeSabla Powerhouse) is listed in the National Park Service’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory (see Table 5.8-18) for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System for having outstanding scenic, historic, and geological remarkable values. The Project facilities do not affect the geology in the area. From an operational perspective, the Project likely has less than a significant effect on scenic quality of the river flows because use is low on this section of the river (see Demand Study), the limited views of the river from areas generally visited by public (see Aesthetic Affected Environment), minimal affects of the Project on flows in the reach (see Recreation Flow study), and given the wide range of flows the creek experiences during the course of a year. Finally, given low recreation activity on the river, even if the Powerhouse gates and diversion dam gates were open, it is likely that the amount of recreation use would not significantly affect the ORVs. In summary, the Wild and Scenic designation was made with the Project in place and PG&E is not proposing any changes Project operations. Thus, the proposed Wild and Scenic status of Butte Creek will not affect Project operations.

7.8.6 Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on Project resources, including affects of littering and sanitation problems

Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts, and Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey, focused on these issues.

Reservoirs

At Round Valley Reservoir, four dispersed recreation sites were identified and showed minimal signs of use impact at all but one site (below the dam). Very few visitors responded on-site at Round Valley. For those responding to the mailback survey, some visitors indicated that “feeling safe”, picnic facilities, and boat launch facilities were “marginal” overall. Others noted that unacceptable conditions included people dumping trash, and water levels being too low or the reservoir is completely drawn down by August. Visitors to Round Valley Reservoir also noted draw downs, litter, and human waste impacts as problems. Visitors were relatively split on whether ORV trail impacts, noise/discourteous riders, and dumping of trash/appliances are problems.

At Philbrook Reservoir, recreation use impacts were identified primarily at the campground and at the Willows Area. At the campground, virtually all impacts are located within each campsite unit and are most evident immediately at and around the campsite components: table, fire ring/grill, tent pads, and food lockers. The Willows Area, located along Philbrook Creek upstream of Philbrook Reservoir, has eight identifiable dispersed overnight sites. Overall, the area shows clear signs of heavy use and widespread use impacts including trampled vegetation; cutting and chopping down of live trees; and the presence of abandoned camping equipment such as mattresses, foam pads, chairs, nails and ropes in/on trees, and user-created “furniture” made from chopped or standing timbers. For Philbrook visitors and residents, facilities or conditions considered “marginal” to “unacceptable” were items such as the reservoir level, recreation activity conflicts, the amount of litter in the area, and the amount of ORV trails. Open-ended comments were generally focused on issues surrounding restrictions and promotion of ORV use, the poor behavior of other users, the low water levels prior to Labor Day, the need for increased law enforcement, and conflicts with motorized users. When asked about perceived problems at Philbrook Reservoir, visitors identified litter or human waste impacts and competition for campsites as problematic. Residents identified vandalism, crowding, and safety at the Willows area as large problems overall. Discourteous behavior and conflicts between boaters or personal water crafts (PWCs) and anglers were also identified as moderate problems. Drunken behavior, speeding/reckless powerboats or personal water craft, and litter and human waste were also identified as “small” problems by residents overall.

At the DeSabla Forebay area, the Group Picnic Area, Accessible Fishing Access, and dam site have little recreation use impact, whereas the east shoreline has a significant amount of user impacts primarily from shoreline fishing, unmanaged vehicle parking, and user-created trails. Visitors described areas they felt were unacceptable in open-ended responses. These included items such as the unacceptable behavior of other users, lack of some facilities such as picnic tables and restrooms, lack of foot trails to access the shoreline, littering, erosion, loud ORV use, lack of the provision of garbage cans, and aesthetics due to the hydro dam and eroding shoreline. Concerning problems at DeSabla Forebay, visitors generally did not perceive problems overall. Litter and human waste and competition for good fishing areas were perceived as “small” to “moderate” problems.

Canals

Of the nine easily accessible sites along the Project canals, only the Hog Ranch Road site along the Lower Centerville Canal, showed evidence of regular use and impact (fire ring, litter, and bare ground). The remaining eight sites are primarily used for parking purposes and show few, if any, signs of use impact.

For visitors to canals, the majority of respondents rated existing conditions of Project canals as “slightly” to “totally” acceptable. Visitors did not have an opinion overall for many of the items, but did provide some open-ended responses to facilities they felt were unacceptable. The most frequent comments were related to conflicts with other types of users, trespassers, the number of users, litter, and access issues, with some preference to keep access somewhat limited overall. Visitors to canals generally felt that water levels for canals were “about right.”

Overall, visitors to Project canals perceived very few problems. Of those problems identified, dumping of trash and appliances and litter were rated as small problems. Residents also noted “beat out” areas were a moderate to large problem and user-created trails were problems along canals. On the Lower Centerville canal, personal safety was rated as a large problem overall by one resident.

7.8.7 Potential fire hazards and effects of ORV use in the Project Vicinity

Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impact, and Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey, focused on these issues.

Potential Fire Hazards

The fire hazard assessment included field assessments of dispersed recreation sites around Round Valley Reservoir, Philbrook Reservoir, and on NFSL along Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam and along the WBFR from Round Valley Dam to Philbrook Creek.

Round Valley Reservoir

The fire hazard risk at the Inflow Site is low as both fire rings are located on a surface of bare ground and grass with more than adequate vegetation clearances at each ring (of at least 10-foot vertical and 5-foot horizontal). While the overall setting for this site is forested, the fire rings are located in a substantial clearing that provides a vegetation-free buffer of at least 10 and in most cases more than 20 feet of horizontal ground clearance from any ground vegetation or trees. Overall, the only notable fuel is the short grasses since the remaining ground surface is clear of live and dead ground-level fuels.

The fire hazard risk is low at the Northeast Shore Site. The lone fire ring is centrally located on a clearing of bare ground with more than adequate vegetation clearances in all directions. Fuels such as ground level vegetation are not present at the site’s impact area. Surrounding trees are the only noted fuel in the area, but, as mentioned, there is an adequate vegetation-free buffer

between the fire ring and the tree trunks and branches. Fire risk is also limited by the fact that the physical size of the dispersed campsite and parking areas typically allows only a small group.

The fire hazard risk is moderate at the Dam Site. While the lone fire ring is located on a gravel surface (a low fire risk), a string of vegetation (ground level shrubs) at one side of the fire ring has inadequate horizontal clearances. These fuels, if ignited, may spread along a line of ground level shrubs and eventually larger trees towards the spillway. While the spillway may provide a buffer when water is high enough in the spring and early summer, later in the peak season the spillway is dry. Ample fuels (ground-level vegetation and forest cover) are available across the spillway.

The fire hazard risk is low at the WBFR Gauge BW45 site. The lone fire ring is centrally located on a clearing of bare ground with more than adequate vegetation clearances in all directions. Fuels such as ground level vegetation are not present at the site’s impact area. Surrounding trees are the only noted fuel within the site impact area, but, there is an adequate vegetation-free buffer between the fire ring and the tree trunks and branches. Of note, multiple dead tree trunks and branches are downed on the periphery of the site impact area and beyond which may be substantial fuel sources if ignited (but these sources are approximately 20 feet from the fire ring).

Philbrook Reservoir

The fire hazard risk is moderate at the Willows Area. Initially, the presence of adequate vegetation clearances and extensive bare ground at the eight fire rings throughout the Willows Area would typically indicate a low fire risk (although, several of the fire rings are very large and can handle heavy amounts of firewood at one time). However, the group size, parking availability and types of use at the Willows Area indicate a substantial fire risk. Parking is widely available at this area and virtually all of the sites show signs of regular and intensive use. Furthermore, when all eight sites are taken together, a high level of usage is compressed into a small area. When these types of use patterns are combined with the extensive ORV and dirt bike use that occurs at the sites, then the fire risk is moderate for the Willows Area, even with the vegetation clearances and widespread bare ground at the fire rings.

WBFR (Round Valley Dam to Philbrook Creek Confluence)

The fire hazard risk at the WBFR Mile 41 Access site is moderate due to the lone fire ring’s proximity to several fuel sources within a 5-foot radius. First, a downed pine tree lies next to the fire ring, which has dried out significantly and extends into the nearby trees. Second, live riparian vegetation abuts the fire ring along the river’s edge. Vertical clearances are adequate for the surrounding trees and riparian vegetation, but the ground surface is covered with pine needles (atop a dirt surface), which also enhances the fire risk at the site.

The fire hazard risk at the Philbrook Bridge site is low due to the contiguous areas of bare ground and pulverized dirt surrounding the eight rock fire rings dispersed throughout the cluster. Most of the eight fire rings are small, makeshift fire rings and do not appear to be well- established. However, one fire ring is significant and appears to be the area used most commonly. Here, the clearances are adequate, but a nearby tree has several overhanging

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-50 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 branches approximately 12 to 15 feet above the fire ring. Considering the size of the fire ring at this location, the vertical clearance may be marginal. While ORV use is evident throughout this cluster site, the ground surface is predominantly bare ground and pulverized dirt with minimal ground level fuels (such as shrubs and dead/downed trees).

The fire hazard risk at the West Branch Camping Area is low to moderate. At the locations where the pre-existing steel fire rings/grills are located, the fire and smoke clearance areas are generally adequate. However, user-created fire rings and/or the expansion of the pre-existing fire rings had occurred in several locations resulting in clearances that are not adequate. Overall, the ground clearances and established fire areas from the prior developed campground are intact; however, in some areas downed branches, pine needles and other loose debris/fuels are beginning to amass in and around the user-created and pre-existing fire rings.

This study also involved a field assessment by CDF of Project recreation sites on Licensee lands at Philbrook and DeSabla Reservoirs and field assessments by LNF and PG&E personnel for LNF lands around Round Valley and Philbrook Reservoirs. Most of the fire hazard issues are located within and outside the Project Boundary around Philbrook reservoir. These issues are addressed by the Philbrook Reservoir Fuel Hazard Reduction proposal by PG&E dated March 2006 (see Appendix E6.8.2.1-G) which contains measures to address these issues over the next several years. On Licensee lands at Philbrook and DeSabla Reservoirs, the CDF had a few minor recommendations at DeSabla Forebay, but found nothing of major concern. The results of the CDF field visit concerning the DeSabla Group Picnic area included the following CDF recommendations (See Appendix E6.8.2.1-E):

• Cut back vegetation to pavement, and to 15 feet vertically on the access road into the Group Picnic parking and picnic area. • Add a spark arrester screen on the Dutch oven facility located in the picnic area. • Follow the “Fire Restrictions” for smoking in the surrounding forest.

The results of the fire hazard inspection field visit at the DeSabla Forebay included the following CDF recommendations:

• Maintain vegetation clearance around the phone lines running along the skyway. • Replace old power line poles.

Off-Road Vehicle Use

The results of Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts, and Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey, indicate that ORV use is causing ecological and experiential impacts in certain Project recreation areas. Specifically, ORV use is most notable at Round Valley and the Willows Area near Philbrook Reservoir. As identified in section E7.8.6, the Willows Area has extensive user-created ORV use in the area. Visitors and residents identified ORV use as an “unacceptable” condition at Round Valley and Philbrook Reservoirs. Visitors and residents noted not only the environmental impacts evident by tracks and trails of ORV use as a problem, but also the noise in these areas. In addition, based

on the results of the visitor and resident surveys, motorized traffic on canal pathways was strongly opposed.

7.8.8 Appropriateness of existing Project-related interpretative and education/recreation signs

Study 6.3.6-15, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts, and Study 6.3.6-14, Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey, focused on these issues.

The results of the Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts Project address an inventory of Project signs. Overall, the recreation sites included FERC Part 8 signs, site identification signs, recreation regulatory signs, bulletin boards with site regulatory information, water safety signs, accessibility signs, and traffic and parking regulatory signs. No interpretive or education signs were present. The study also identified that directional signage to Philbrook and Round Valley reservoirs is lacking, particularly above Inskip at the road junctions/intersections.

Visitors and residents at Philbrook, DeSabla Forebay, and adjacent to the canals felt that the level of interpretive and educational information was relatively low. Residents also supported better signage to identify public versus private lands, better enforcement, and general use zones.

Visitors to the canals felt that the primary constraint to visiting canal areas was related to the amount of information about public and private access and where the canal system was located. Overall, visitors and residents were supportive of increased education and interpretive information, increased signage to identify public versus private access, and increased signage to minimize litter, dumping, and motorized use.

7.9 Aesthetic Resources

FERC’s SD2 identified four issues related to aesthetic resources:

1. Effects of Project operations, including facilities and maintenance activities, on aesthetic resources in the Project Vicinity; 2. Effects of Project operations on the aesthetic attributes of Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status; 3. Effects of facilities, operations, and recreation use on aesthetic character of lands administered by the USFS; and 4. Potential for development and/or enhancement of scenic overlooks.

7.9.1 Effects of Project operations, including facilities and maintenance activities, on aesthetic resources in the Project Vicinity

PG&E did not perform a specific study related to this issue. A study had been identified, but PG&E suggested measures could be developed without the need for a study. To assist in development of these measures, on August 22, 2006, the Forest Service provided to PG&E a list

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-52 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 of items developed during a Forest Service staff “brainstorming” session. These items identified concerns regarding various Project-related facilities and activities. As a summary, the concerns centered around continued Project O&M impacts due to the visibility of Project structures and facilities (e.g. dams, reservoirs, gates, weather station, gunnited canals/shorelines, powerhouses, penstocks, valve houses and flumes), visual impacts due to reservoir drawdown, lack of interpretive signs, unsightly Project disposal piles and litter, visual quality of spillway channels and fuel loading.

7.9.2 Effects of Project operations on the aesthetic attributes of Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status

BLM has determined that the segment of Butte Creek that runs through its FOBCRA is eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System for its scenic value, and manages its land in that segment to protect this scenic value. Continued Project O&M would not affect the eligibility for this river segment to be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System: PG&E does not currently degrade the scenic quality of the area as demonstrated by BLM’s determination that the area has outstandingly remarkable scenic quality, nor does PG&E propose any modifications to the Project that would affect this area.

7.9.3 Effects of facilities, operations, and recreation use on aesthetic character of lands administered by the USFS

The effects of continued Project O&M on the aesthetic character of the Project Area, including the area on NFSL, is addressed in Section 7.9.1 above.

7.9.4 Potential for development and/or enhancement of scenic overlooks

PG&E did not perform a specific study related to this issue. Nevertheless, PG&E believes that the need for Project overlooks has not been demonstrated, nor is it the responsibility of the Licensee to evaluate such a need. Even if a need were identified, numerous obstacles exist including where to site an overlook for the Project (i.e., few areas that are easily accessible to the public provide a view of Project facilities, and potential areas may be located on private property).

7.10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests

Issues related to cultural resources and Tribal interests that were identified in FERC’s SD2 included:

1. Effects of the continued Project operation, including maintenance activities and Project- related activities, on Indian tribal interests and historic properties (defined as all properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) located within the area of potential effect (APE); 2. Effects of Project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans); and

3. Development of a Historic Properties Management Plan to ensure adequate protection of tribal and historic resources from Project operations or Project-related activities,

7.10.1 Effects of the continued Project operation, including maintenance activities and Project-related activities, on Indian tribal interests and historic properties (defined as all properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) located within the area of potential effect (APE)

PG&E’s Study 6.3.8-1, Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties, Study 6.3.8-2, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Study 6.8.3-3, Historic Project Features Assessment, specifically address Project-effects on cultural sites. Each study sought to inventory the cultural resources within the APE, identify historic properties and potential historic properties (i.e., any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, object, or traditional cultural property [TCP] included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP per 36 CFR 800.16[l]), and assess past, current, and/or on-going effects on historic properties resulting from Project operations or Project-related activities. Table E7.10.1-1 lists each archaeological site identified during implementation of Study 6.3.8-1 and the impacts and issues identified during these studies.

PG&E’s archaeological studies identified 46 archaeological and historic-era sites, including 12 previously recorded sites, 31 newly discovered sites, and 3 potential sites that were identified on historical maps during initial research efforts. Four isolated artifacts also were documented within the APE. Formal evaluations were completed only on historic-era archaeological sites. Of the 31 historic-era sites identified, six are associated with the DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric system and are evaluated as contributing elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Historic District described below. Four of the contributing sites may also be eligible for the NRHP on an individual basis. One other historic-era site, the Dewey Ditch (DC- 22-H), is evaluated independently as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Twenty-three of the remaining 24 historic-era sites are evaluated as ineligible and one site, Hupps Sawmill (BCC-5), could not be evaluated due to dense vegetation. Six prehistoric sites and 8 sites containing both prehistoric and historic-era deposits are preliminarily assessed for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP but not formally evaluated.

Project impacts resulting from recreation activities, shoreline erosion, and roadway use were identified during the study at 11 of the 46 cultural resources within the APE evaluated or assessed as eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. These include sites CA-BUT-597/H, CA-BUT-871-H, CA-BUT-873-H, the combined site of CA-BUT-1225/1226/1227/1228/H, DC- 12/H, DC-17/H, DC-21, DC-46-H, DC-51/H, DC-52-H, and DC-53-H. One site is experiencing impacts associated with fluctuating reservoir levels (erosion) and public access, one site has been impacted by past Licensee removal of structures, and it is not certain whether the Licensee is responsible for the past removal of structures at two other sites. Seven sites are experiencing disturbances from public access, as evidenced by trash dumping, fire rings, and vandalism.

Study 6.3.8-2, Traditional Cultural Properties, is currently pending completion. The goal is to identify and document Project-related effects to properties of traditional value to the Native American community.

Table E7.10.1-1. Identified Impacts to Recommended Eligible or Potentially-Eligible Archaeological and Historic-Era Sites. Site No. Ownership Description NRHP Eligibility2 Observed Impacts Project-Related? CA-BUT-XXXX1 597/H Private Lithic Scatter, Brm, Historic Bottle Potentially Eligible Logging Roads, Slash, Public Logging Roads, Slash and Public Fragments to the NRHP Access as Evidenced by Modern Access is not Project-Related Debris 871-H PG&E Butte Creek Canal Camp 2: Recommended Eligible as Structures Removed, Erosion Past Removal of Structures is Historical Foundations Contributing to Historic Project-Related. No Other Project- Hydroelectric District Related Impacts. Natural Erosion is not Project-Related.

873-H PG&E Hog Ranch Ditch Tender’s Camp: Recommended Eligible as Trash Dump, Erosion Dumping of Recent Trash is Project- Foundations, Pads, Trash Deposit Contributing to Historic Related. Natural Erosion is not Hydroelectric District Project-Related.

1225/1226/1227/1228/H LNF Ls, Qry, Hts, Hr Potentially Eligible to the Fluctuating Reservoir Levels, All Impacts Are Project Related. NRHP Erosion, Off-Road Vehicles BCC-5 PG&E, Private Hupp’s Sawmill And Residence Unevaluated Structures Removed over 25 No Project-Related Impacts. Years Ago DC-1/H LNF Brm, Ls, Hts, Tt Potentially Eligible to the No Observed Impacts No Project Impacts. NRHP DC-3/H SPI Brms, Ls, Mid, Hts, Log Potentially Eligible to the Historic Use, Logging Roads Historic Use And Logging Roads NRHP Not Project-Related.

DC-12/H CDFG LS, HTS Potentially Eligible Natural Erosion, Modern Trash, Trash And Fire Ring May Be to the NRHP Recent Fire Ring Project-Related. Natural Erosion Is not Project-Related. DC-13/H CDFG LS, HTS Potentially Eligible Logging Skid Trail, Possible Logging Trail not Project-Related. Natural Erosion Natural Erosion is Not Project- Related.

DC-17/H LNF BRM, HTS to the NRHP Modern Campground, Natural Impacts as a Result of Use of USFS Erosion Campground are not Project- Related. Natural Erosion is not Project-Related.

DC-21/H PRIVATE BRM, LS, CAB Potentially Eligible Historic-Era Cabin Inhabited On No Project-Related Impacts. Site, Road, Possible Artifact Disturbances are a Result of Private Collecting Due To Accessibility Property Owner Use. and Vulnerability of Surface Artifacts to Site Occupants.

Table E7.10.1-1 (continued) Site No. Ownership Description NRHP Eligibility2 Observed Impacts Project-Related? CA-BUT-XXXX1 DC-22-H PRIVATE DEWEY DITCH Recommended Eligible to Ditch is Filled in At Some No Project-Related Impacts. the NRHP Locations, Used as Road. Disturbances are a Result of Private Property Owner Use. DC-46-H LNF HTS, LTC, PHILBROOK GATE Eligible as Contributing to Recreational Use, Logging, Recreational Use and Vandalism of TENDER’S HOUSE Historic Hydroelectric Natural Erosion, Vandalism of Cabin is Project-Related. Logging, District Cabin, Natural Decay Erosion, and Natural Decay are not Project-Related.

DC-51/H PRIVATE BRMS, HTS, CAB Uevaluated Cabin Dismantled No Project-Related Impacts. DC-52-H PG&E PSEA CAMP Eligible as Contributing to Modern Development, Used As Project-Related Recreational and Historic Hydroelectric Camp Residential Use District DC-53-H PG&E CAMP 1 Eligible as Contributing to Most Original Structures and Project-Related Removal of Historic Hydroelectric Features are Gone Architectural Features; Current Use District of Remaining Historic-Era Buildings for Project Purposes 1 State trinomials pending 2 Potentially = Informal, preliminary assessment of NRHP eligibility; Recommended = Formally evaluated for NRHP eligibility, waiting for SHPO concurrence

The assessment of historic Project features in Study 6.8.3-3 identified 46 elements that together form the significant DeSabla-Centerville Historic District, eligible for listing on the NRHP. The district is a significant and distinguishable entity containing a system of interconnected dams, reservoirs, canals and powerhouses. Eight of these elements contain historic-era archaeological deposits associated with construction or operation of the system and are also included in the inventory for Study 6.3.8-1. Two of the systems features (CA-BUT-869-H and CA-BUT-870-H), and three of the historic-era archaeological sites associated with the system (DC-22-H, DC-46-H, and DC-52-H) are also individually eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Although the Project system was impacted by removal of the original DeSabla Powerhouse, the current powerhouse, erected in 1961, was built in the same location as the original facility, helping to preserve the DeSabla-Centerville district’s good integrity of location. The basic character of the region immediately surrounding the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric District has remained much as it was during the early twentieth century and, while some recreational and residential development has occurred within the Project, the overall integrity of the district’s setting has only been minimally impaired.

More than anything, there have been more changes in the materials used to maintain, repair, and upgrade the district features throughout the life of the system than impacts induced by other, more drastic means, although some upgrades have involved replacement of original fieldstone or wood crib walls with concrete (Round Valley Dam, Hendricks Diversion Dam). Additionally, intakes, drains, and spillways have been rebuilt (DeSabla and Philbrook dams), and canal walls have been lined with gunite or other materials in some areas to reduce leakage. Flow control and cleaning and maintenance structures also have been improved. In most instances these repairs and improvements occurred during the period of significance and can be said to be beneficial impacts that contribute to the function of this highly technical system. In some sense, these evolutionary changes reflect the development of hydroelectric technology and, in and of them, contribute to the significance of the system.

Over the years, new tools and techniques have been used to maintain and repair the key elements of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric District, such as automated flow control and cleaning structures that were formerly operated by hand. These types of changes have only moderately impaired the integrity of workmanship of the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric System to a fair level.

Other sites may be affected by continued Project O&M. Disturbance can be divided into three categories: 1) the operation and maintenance of Project facilities; 2) recreation and other public use of the Project Area; and 3) vandalism.

Project Facilities, Operation, and Maintenance

Water for the Project is diverted from Butte Creek and the WBFR through a series of canals ending at the DeSabla Forebay. Penstocks carry water to the Toadtown and DeSabla powerhouses, which is then returned to Butte Creek. Water from Butte Creek is

diverted once more into the Lower Centerville Canal, which carries it to the Centerville Powerhouse. For the most part, the facilities themselves require only routine maintenance, which has little effect on the lands surrounding the Project. Maintenance and operation of the Project generally focus on the existing facilities and access roads. The area beyond these facilities receives little attention from maintenance crews, with the exception of road upkeep and the disposal of road materials.

Currently, many of the Project access roads are paved. However, several important Project roads are dirt or gravel and several are designated as County or Forest Service roads. PG&E maintains some of these dirt roads as necessary for facility access. Seasonal sediment slides from adjacent slopes must often be cleared from the roadway in order to allow passage.

Dirt access roads within the Project are also maintained by grading which can affect historic properties that may lie buried beneath them. In addition, ditches excavated for roadway drainage may cause further impacts to archeological sites. Vehicular traffic on these dirt roadways can also damage historic properties, depending on the condition of the road, the season of use, and the types of vehicles that travel the roads. The presence of roads makes historic properties more accessible to the public, in some cases increasing their vulnerability.

Fluctuating reservoir levels, particularly along shorelines, can result in Project-related erosion. The regular fluctuation of the reservoir levels can impact archaeological sediments through such erosion and the creation of cutbanks. Round Valley Reservoir is drained in the fall and is at its lowest in the winter in preparation of being refilled by spring flows. This reservoir fluctuation is necessary for Project operations but can result in exposure of the underlying lakebed.

Finally, the dredging of sediment from Project reservoirs can also impact cultural resources. Dredged material is usually disposed of on PG&E-owned lands as close as possible to the reservoir from which it came. Activities associated with dredging and the disposal of dredge material can impact sensitive cultural resource sites.

Recreational or Other Public Use

Recreational activities found throughout the Project Area include boating, fishing, hunting, and camping. The use of PG&E operated or permitted recreational facilities (i.e., Round Valley reservoir, Philbrook Reservoir, etc.), and access to the area by Project-related roads, can greatly impact cultural resource sites if present within or adjacent to the Project. Thus, the susceptibility of sensitive archaeological areas to public use is increased as a result.

In general, it appears that most recreational users of the Project Area do not knowingly impact cultural resource sites. They cross over them as part of off-road vehicle use, to access preferred fishing locations, or to picnic or camp, but most visitors do not

Environmental Analysis License Application October 2007 Page E7-58 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 intentionally impact sites. Nonetheless, impacts occur as a result of recreational or other public use of Project facilities and need to be addressed.

Vandalism

Vandalism can be defined as the obvious intent to knowingly disturb, destroy, or collect archaeological remains from a site that can be clearly observed (e.g. “pothunter’s pits”), or where local residents have reported such actions. Vandalism can also take two forms, depending on intent. While the casual collection of surface artifacts can be considered vandalism according to the above definition, casual collectors often do not know that these activities are unauthorized and can greatly jeopardize archaeological site integrity and data potential. However, in some cases vandals intentionally and maliciously damage archaeological sites or knowingly partake in other unauthorized activities through which cultural resource sites are affected.

Vandalism may be attributed to Project activities if such Project activities or facilities provide the only access to cultural resource sites, and the access results in illicit artifact collection or sites that are intentionally disturbed. Sites containing human remains and burials are particularly susceptible to vandalism and looting. Although intentional and malicious vandalism does not appear to be widespread throughout the Project, the Maidu community has expressed concern regarding such activities. Vandalism potentially threatens all historic properties within the Project APE that are accessible to the public.

7.10.2 Effects of Project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans)

Native American Indians did not provide a list of culturally important plans. However, since the Project does not restrict foot access to any location, PG&E assumes that Native Americans will continue to have access to collecting sites for culturally important plants.

7.10.3 Development of a Historic Properties Management Plan to ensure adequate protection of tribal and historic resources from Project operations or Project-related activities2

As described in Section 8.0, PG&E proposes to develop, in consultation with the Forest Service, SHPO and Indian Tribes, a Project Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that ensures adequate protection for tribal and historic properties in the APE. The results of the Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties study provide the bulk of information to be used to develop the HPMP. However, studies focused on the NRHP evaluation of the hydroelectric system and identification of Traditional Cultural Properties important to Native Americans will also provide information critical in the preparation of the HPMP and subsequent management of important resources.

2 In its September 6, 2007, letter, FERC requested PG&E provide in its application a draft HPMP. As described above, PG&E has not completed consultation, but has provided an overview of what may be included in a draft HPMP. PG&E plans to provide a draft HPMP to FERC by February 15, 2007.

The HPMP is a beneficial tool used to guide PG&E’s key personnel in avoiding or managing impacts to historic properties during routine operations and maintenance, non- routine Project activities that may be necessary during the life of the license, and emergency Project activities that may occur. It is prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines (U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI] 1983, 1997) and typically includes an overview of background information about the project vicinity, recaps the inventory of cultural resources within the APE and summarizes their National Register status, describes existing or potential impacts to historic properties, and outlines general and/or specific measures to protect or treat such properties, including contingency procedures to address unanticipated events such as the discovery of a new archaeological site.

7.11 Socio-Economic Resources

FERC’s SD2 identified two issues related to socio-economic resources:

1. Effects of proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures on Project economics; and 2. Economic viability of the Centerville Powerhouse.

7.11.1 Effects of proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures on Project economics

The effects of PG&E’s proposed PM&E measures on Project economics are described in Exhibit D of PG&E’s application for a new license.

7.11.2 Economic viability of the Centerville Powerhouse

PG&E proposes to continue operation of the Centerville Powerhouse. The economic viability of the powerhouse as part of the overall Project is described in Exhibit D.

SECTION 8.0 Resource Management Measures

Section 8.1 below describes Project facilities and operations and management activities (referred to as resource management measures) PG&E proposes to undertake as conditions of the new license for the purpose of protecting resources or mitigating impacts that would result from, continued Project O&M, or for the purpose of enhancing resources that would be affected by continued Project O&M. Provided for each PG&E-proposed resource management measure is: 1) the measure as proposed by PG&E for inclusion in a new license; 2) a rationale for the measure; and 3) an assessment of whether implementation of the measure would cause an adverse impact. Several of the proposed measures are what PG&E anticipates NOAA Fisheries will include in its ESA Biological Opinion for the protection and enhancement of Chinook salmon and steelhead in Butte Creek. Others are based on anticipated USFS 4(e) conditions. PG&E has noted if its proposed resource management measure is identical to a Section 4(e) term and condition proposed by the USFS in other recent relicensing proceedings. In some cases, rather than developing a Project-specific measure, PG&E identified what it believes to be a reasonable USFS Section 4(e) term or condition that addresses a potential impact. Tables E8.0-1 through E8.0-12 located at the end of this section provide for each proposed measure: 1) a list of related PAD and SD2 issues; and 2) estimated costs to implement the measure including assumptions, capital/one-time costs, operation and maintenance costs for the measure, and current cost.

In addition, since PG&E is still in the process of gathering information for some studies, PG&E has also indicated for each measure if PG&E believes whether sufficient information is available to determine the adequacy of the measure. The measures proposed in this application are based on the information available to PG&E at this time. Because six relicensing studies are still in progress and 11 other studies have not been formally reviewed by FERC as required by 18 CFR §5.15, PG&E will continue to consult with Relicensing Participants to address any new information produced by these studies. Measures that may need to be modified based on additional study information are noted.

Section 8.2 is intended to describe resource management measures specifically recommended by Relicensing Participants in comments filed in response to PG&E’s DLA, and adopted by PG&E in this application.

Section 8.3 is intended to list any resource management measures specifically recommended by Relicensing Participants in comments filed with FERC in response to PG&E’s DLA that were not adopted by PG&E and the reason PG&E did not adopt the measure. Section 8.3 is also intended to include a brief comparison between PG&E’s proposed measure and the alternative measure, where appropriate. Only one measure was recommended by Relicensing Participants and PG&E adopted the sole proposed preliminary measure included in comments on the DLA. However, it is important to recognize that Relicensing Participants stated they were not ready at this time to recommend resource measures and, as noted above, PG&E plans to continue consultation on resource measures with willing Relicensing Participants.

Figure 8.0-1 shows the location of PG&E’s proposed resource management measures in respect to Project facilities and feature existing measures are included.

8.1 PG&E’s Proposed Resource Management Measures

PG&E proposes 33 measures to undertake as conditions of the new license for the purpose of protecting resource from, or mitigating impacts that would result from continued Project O&M, or for the purpose of enhancing resources that would be affected by continued Project O&M. Each measure is described below.

8.1.1 General Measures

The following measures apply to one or more resource area or are general in nature.

8.1.1.1 Measure 1 - Train Employees Annually

Measure: Beginning the first full calendar year after license issuance, Licensee shall perform employee awareness training annually. Licensee shall invite USFS staff to participate in the training. The goal of the training shall be to familiarize Licensee's operations and maintenance (O&M) staff with special-status species, invasive plants, and sensitive areas (special-status plant populations, noxious weed populations, and historic property sites) that are known to occur within the FERC Project Boundary on National Forest System Land (NFSL), procedures for reporting to the USFS, and USFS orders that pertain to the NFSL in the vicinity of the Project. Licensee shall direct its O&M staff to avoid disturbance to these sensitive areas, and to advise all Licensee contractors to avoid these sensitive areas. If Licensee determines that disturbance of a sensitive area is unavoidable, Licensee shall consult with the USFS prior to any ground disturbing activities in the sensitive area to minimize impacts.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E’s studies documented that special-status botanical and wildlife species and cultural sites occur within the FERC Project Boundary. The purpose of Measure 1, Train Employees Annually, is to minimize the possibility that continued Project O&M would directly affect one of those special-status species or cultural sites. The measure requires PG&E to provide training to Project O&M staff when they are assigned to the Project and provide group training to all Project O&M staff annually. Providing training to staff when they are hired will assure new staff are quickly trained, and annual training will serve as a refresher for staff to note any changes since the preceding year. Training would include the general identification of special-status species and their location within the FERC Project Boundary. Training would use existing maps of “sensitive areas” (i.e., areas where special-status plant populations, invasive plants populations, and cultural sites are known to occur) and preferred habitat for special-status species. Training would include methods to avoid these sensitive areas and minimize disturbance of special-status species during critical life stages, and a review of any pertinent USFS orders, rules or policies that pertain to these special-status species that may occur on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary. Training would also include procedures for reporting to PG&E’s management if staff observes any Project activity directly affecting these sensitive areas. To assure training is comprehensive and is accurate, PG&E would invite the USFS to

Resource Management Measures License Application October 2007 Page E8-2 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 assist in the annual training session. This measure does not imply that PG&E’s Project O&M staff will become experts in the identification of special-status species and their habitat or cultural sites, perform studies, or in any other manner “police” Project O&M. Nor does this measure commit the USFS to participating in annual training.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Training would not require work near a watercourse or ground disturbance.

8.1.1.2 Measure 2 - Consultation

Measure: Each year between March 15 and April 15, Licensee shall consult with the USFS with regard to measures needed to ensure protection and utilization of the National Forest resources affected by the Project. Within 60 days following such consultation, Licensee shall file with the Commission evidence of the consultation with any recommendations made by the USFS. The USFS reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for comment, to require changes in the Project and its operation through revision of the 4(e) conditions that require measures necessary to accomplish protection and utilization of National Forest resources.

When USFS section 4(e) conditions require Licensee to file a plan with the Commission that is approved by the USFS, Licensee shall provide the USFS a minimum of 60 days to review and approve the plan before filing the plan with the Commission. Upon Commission approval, Licensee shall implement USFS required and approved plans.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E’s planned Project O&M activities have a potential to affect environmental resources on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary. The purposes of Measure 2, Consult with USFS Annually, are to: 1) assure that PG&E’s planned activities are efficiently coordinated to the extent possible with USFS activities in the same area; 2) make the USFS aware of PG&E’s planned O&M activities on NFSL; and 3) make PG&E aware of all pertinent USFS orders, rules and policies that might affect the planned activities. The measure provides that PG&E will make a good faith effort to meet with the USFS in the first quarter of each year to discuss PG&E’s planned Project O&M activities for that calendar year to the extent they are known. An annual meeting in the first quarter of each year is appropriate since PG&E normally develops an annual maintenance plan early in each calendar year. The measure requires PG&E to file with FERC documentation of the meeting. This measure does not imply that PG&E may not proceed with planned Project O&M activities until PG&E has reviewed the planned O&M activity with the USFS, or relieve PG&E from obtaining all necessary approvals and permits for the planned maintenance work. Nor does this measure commit the USFS to participate in the meeting. PG&E believes adequate information is available to assess this measure.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is the same as Measure 4 recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition for PG&E’s Poe Project relicensing (FERC No. 2107).

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. USFS consultation would not require work near a watercourse or ground disturbance.

8.1.1.3 Measure 3 - Special-Status Species

Measure: Beginning the first full calendar year after license issuance and in consultation with the USFS, Licensee shall annually review the current list of special-status plant and wildlife species (species that are Federal Endangered or Threatened, USFS Sensitive, or on the Lassen or Plumas National Forest Watch Lists) that might occur on NFSL in the Project area directly affected by Project operations. When a species is added to one or more of the lists, the USFS in consultation with Licensee shall determine if the species or un-surveyed suitable habitat for the species is likely to occur on such NFSL. For such newly added species, if the USFS determines that the species is likely to occur on such NFSL, Licensee shall develop and implement a study plan in consultation with the USFS to reasonably assess the effects of the Project on the species. Licensee shall prepare a report on the study including objectives, methods, results, recommended resource measures where appropriate, and a schedule of implementation, and shall provide a draft of the final report to the USFS for review and approval. Licensee shall file the report, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission and shall implement those resource management measures required by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: During the term of the new license, species on NFSL that could reasonably be directly affected by the Project could be added to one of the special-status species lists for which PG&E performed relicensing studies. The purpose of Measure 3, Review and Assess New Special-status Species Annually, is to provide a mechanism for the evaluation of Project effects on any new special-status species on NFSL and implementation of appropriate resource management measures. The measure requires PG&E to make a good faith effort to meet with the USFS annually to review pertinent special-status species lists. An annual review is appropriate because changes to special-status species lists are usually very minor from year to year. The measure describes each of the special-status lists, since the term “special-status” is vague (e.g., can include authorized, unauthorized, formal and informal lists). If a species has been added to the list and has a reasonable likelihood of being directly affected by the Project and adequate information is not available to assess likely Project effects, PG&E would develop a study plan to assess potential Project effects, provide the plan to the USFS for review, and file the plan with FERC. The contents of the study plan would generally follow the study plan requirements in 18 CFR § 5.9(b). The measure provides that PG&E would perform the study as approved by FERC, and develop a report, including recommended measures. PG&E would provide the report to the USFS and other appropriate agencies for review, file the report with FERC, and implement those measures as directed by FERC. PG&E believes adequate information is available to assess this measure.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is the same as Measure 35 recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition for PG&E’s Poe Project relicensing (FERC No. 2107).

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Reviewing the special-status species list would not require any work near a stream course or ground disturbing activities. Should PG&E be required by FERC to perform a study, PG&E would consult with all appropriate agencies and obtain all necessary approvals and permits for the study prior to performing the study.

8.1.2 Geology and Soils

The following measures apply to resources related to geology and soils.

8.1.2.1 Measure 4 - Develop and Implement a Project Transportation System Management Plan

Measure: Within one year following the issuance of a new project license, Licensee shall file with the Commission a Transportation System Management Plan, approved by the USFS, for protection and maintenance of roads associated with this license on NFSL. At a minimum, the plan should include a map showing all roads associated with this project, identify the uses (e.g., recreation, facility access) of the roads, condition surveys, construction/reconstruction needs, road closure, safety, jurisdiction (e.g., county, state), and identify roads with respect to the Project Boundary and maintenance responsibilities.

The Licensee shall, in consultation with the USFS, take appropriate measure to rehabilitate existing erosion damage and minimize further erosion of the project access roads on NFSL. Gates or other vehicle control measures will be installed where necessary to achieve erosion protection.

When construction is in progress adjacent to or on USFS controlled roads open to public travel, Licensee shall furnish, install, and maintain, temporary traffic controls to provide the public with adequate warning and protection from hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions associated with the Licensee’s operations. Devices must be appropriate to current conditions and must be covered or removed when not needed. Except as otherwise agreed, flagmen and devices must be as specified in the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.”

Rationale for Measure: Continued Project O&M has the potential to adversely affect roads used by PG&E for Project access on NFSL. Measure 2 above assures PG&E and USFS will consult at least annually on planned Project and USFS activities that may affect the other party. The purpose of Measure 4 is to clearly identify roads on NFSL that PG&E uses, what party is responsible to maintain the road, the level of maintenance, and a process for coordination regarding road use and maintenance. The plan should be reviewed annually to assure no changes have been made.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is similar to other 4(e) conditions recommended by the USFS.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Development of a plan would not cause any ground disturbing activities. Should the plan require PG&E to perform work, PG&E would obtain all necessary permits and approvals related to the work prior to ground disturbing activities.

8.1.2.2 Measure 5 - Develop and Implement a Round Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan

Measure: Within 1 year of license issuance and in consultation with the USFS and SWRCB, Licensee shall develop a Round Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan. The plan shall include at a minimum: 1) an assessment of areas to be stabilized; 2) feasibility-level design drawings for stabilization measures; and 3) a schedule for implementation of the measures. Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to the USFS and the SWRCB for 60-day review, and file the plan including evidence of consultation with FERC. Licensee shall implement the portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: Continued Project O&M has the potential to result in erosion from the Round Valley Dam spillway channel and sediment transport to the WBFR, although in its current geomorphic condition, the spillway channel is not expected to be a significant source of future erosion and sediment transport to the WBFR. Measure 2 above assures PG&E and USFS will consult at least annually on planned Project and USFS activities that may affect the other party. The purpose of Measure 5 is to clearly identify the reaches of the channel that are most likely to be a future source of erosion and subsequent sediment transport to the WBFR, and to develop plans for stabilizing such areas of the spillway channel to minimize future erosion and sediment transport on the NSFL. PG&E will develop the plan in consultation with the USFS and SWRCB, provide the plan to the USFS and SWRCB for review, file the plan (including evidence of consultation) with FERC, and implement those portions of the plan as directed by FERC.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

8.1.2.3 Measure 6 – Develop and implement a Project Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance and in consultation with the USFS and SWRCB, Licensee shall file with the Commission a Project Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan. The plan shall set forth in detail Licensee’s responsibility for the regular maintenance and inspection of Project canals to address hazard trees and geologic hazards within the FERC Project Boundary that may impact the integrity of Project water conveyances. The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:

• Annual inspections of the Project water conveyance system to identify potential short- term and long-term hazards (e.g., hazard trees, landslides, etc) and to prioritize maintenance and/or mitigation; • Protocols for routine (non-emergency) canal operations and the use of canal spillways; and • Stabilization measures to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic canal failure due to hazard trees and geologic hazards and to mitigate, as appropriate, sources of chronic erosion and sediment transport into canals.

Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to the USFS and the SWRCB for 60 day review, and file the plan including evidence of consultation with FERC. Licensee shall implement the portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: This measure will address the two primary causes of past failure of Project water conveyances: 1) hazard trees (diseased, dead or dying trees); and 2) geologic hazards (activation of rockslides and debris flows) through periodic identification and selective mitigation of the most serious hazards. PG&E anticipates that annual inspections will be accomplished primarily by means of aerial and ground patrols that are already undertaken as part of routine Project O&M (e.g., before and after canal outages, following major storms, etc.).

The measure will formalize existing non-emergency canal operations protocols. The intent of these protocols is to provide a consistent point of reference for routine canal operations (e.g., during spring high flows, use of canal spillways to maintain a prescriptive easement, procedures for scheduled outages), while permitting PG&E personnel the flexibility to operate the Project in accordance with Best Management Practices.

The measure will also address a possible range of options (operational and geotechnical) that may be considered in reducing the risk of a catastrophic failure due to hazard trees or geologic instability. The plan will not commit PG&E to any specific mitigation but will provide a range of options that may be considered in consultation with interested parties in addressing certain problems of mutual concern. Implicit in this measure is recognition that any such mitigation will reduce but not eliminate the risk of future canal failures given that some options, such as driving a tunnel, cannot be supported by current Project economics.

PG&E will develop the plan in consultation with the USFS and SWRCB, provide the plan to the USFS and SWRCB for review, file the plan (including evidence of consultation) with FERC, and implement those portions of the plan as directed by FERC.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Development of the plan would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. This measure does not imply that PG&E is responsible for all hazard tree removal and mitigation of geologic hazards within the FERC Project Boundary, nor does it relieve PG&E from obtaining all necessary approvals and permits for work that may be related to the Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan.

8.1.3 Water Resources

The following measures apply to water resources.

8.1.3.1 Measure 7 – Install and Maintain New Gages

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall install and thereafter maintain a flow data logger for measuring stream flow downstream of Hendricks Diversion Dam on the West Branch Feather River, a real-time flow gaging station upstream of Butte Creek Diversion Dam, and modify the existing stream gaging station near Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for real-time data access. Licensee shall consult with the United States Geologic Service to site, maintain and report information from these gages.

Rationale for Measure: Existing stream flow gages are adequate to document compliance with terms and conditions in the license. However, enhanced gaging would be beneficial given the importance of flow for the benefit of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Chinook salmon) and Central Valley steelhead (steelhead). This measure would provide for additional stream flow gaging at key locations on the WBFR and Butte Creek. The measure also provides that PG&E will consult with the USGS regarding gage location, installation, rating and reporting. PG&E believes adequate information is available to assess this measure.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Installation of stream flow gages is a normal activity in California streams, and occurs with no adverse impacts. PG&E would obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to commencing work in the stream.

8.1.3.2 Measure 8 - Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Stream during Canal Cleaning

Measure: Beginning in the first calendar year after license issuance, Licensee shall conduct water quality monitoring in receiving streams prior to, during, and after returning Project canals to service. Sampling will occur within 24 hours of taking the canal out of service, once in the middle of the canal outage, and within 24 hours of placing the canal back into service. Routine monitoring shall include sampling water quality in the receiving stream at one site upstream and downstream of the location the canal empties water into the stream. Monitoring parameters will include water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity sampled at regular intervals. In the event that herbicides are used along Project canals, Licensee shall include herbicide sampling with the routine monitoring parameters listed above. Laboratory analysis shall include the herbicide’s active ingredients and any degradation byproducts associated with aquatic toxicity in the herbicides used. Licensee shall provide a summary of cleaning and maintenance activities as well as the monitoring results to the SWRCB, and file the summary report with FERC within 30 days of completing the monitoring and any associated laboratory analysis.

Rationale for Measure: Scheduled and unscheduled canal outages have been shown to result in short-term turbidity increases at times when background turbidity levels are low. PG&E also periodically cleans Project canals, and sometimes uses herbicides in the vicinity of the canals to control vegetation. To ensure protection of designated beneficial uses for aquatic species, continued monitoring of water quality conditions surrounding these events is necessary.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Collecting and analyzing water quality samples will not require any ground disturbing activity.

8.1.3.3 Measure 9 - Develop and Implement a Hazardous Substance Plan

Measure: Within one year following the date of license issuance and at least 60 days before starting any activities the USFS determines to be of a land-disturbing nature on NFSL, Licensee shall file with the Commission, a plan approved by the USFS for oil and hazardous substances storage and spill prevention and cleanup.

At a minimum, the plan must require the Licensee to: 1) maintain in the project area, a cache of spill cleanup equipment suitable to contain any spill from the Project; 2) to periodically inform the USFS of the location of the spill cleanup equipment on NFSL and of the location, type, and quantity of oil and hazardous substances stored in the Project area; and 3) to inform the USFS immediately of the nature, time, date, location, and action taken for any spill on or affecting NFSL.

Rationale for Measure: The purpose of this measure is to assure that PG&E adheres to appropriate measures for the storage, transportation, containment, and response to hazardous substance spills on NFSL.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is similar to other 4(e) conditions recommended by the USFS.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Preparing, filing and implementation of the plan would not require any ground disturbing activities or work near a water source.

8.1.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources

The following measures apply to fish and other aquatic resources.1 Measures related to minimum flow releases and other flow-related issues are discussed in Section 8.1.7.

8.1.4.1 Measure 10 - Develop and Implement a Canal Fish Rescue Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance and in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Licensee shall develop a Project Canal Fish Rescue Plan that includes at a minimum those activities currently undertaken during canal fish rescues. These include: 1) definition of activities that would trigger canal fish rescue efforts; 2) prior notification and coordination with CDFG; 3) fish rescue methods including counting fish and placement of fish in active streams; and 4) providing a letter summary of fish rescue activities to CDFG. Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to CDFG for 60 day review, and file the plan with the Commission, including evidence of consultation. Licensee shall implement those portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E routinely performs maintenance of Project canals, which requires partial de-watering of the canal. Such activities have the potential to adversely affect fish in the canals. The purpose of this measure is to formalize historic coordination between PG&E and CDFG during these canal maintenance activities. Implementation of the measure would assure minimal loss of fish during these activities and that the fish are planted in active streams at locations approved by CDFG.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Collecting fish from Project

1 This section address non-ESA listed species. Resource measures related to Central Valley spring-run Chinook and Central Valley steelhead are addressed in Section 8.1.7 below.

Resource Management Measures License Application October 2007 Page E8-10 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 canals would not require any ground disturbing activities. Any impact associated with the planting the fish in natural streams would be minimized by coordination with CDFG.

8.1.4.2 Measure 11 - Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking

Measure: Beginning in the first calendar year after license issuance, Licensee shall fund CDFG up to $10,000 annually in years in which CDFG stocks rainbow trout in DeSabla Forebay.

Rationale for Measure: Under the existing license, PG&E annually funds CDFG $10,000 for stocking rainbow trout in DeSabla Forebay. This measure would continue the existing license measures and assure CDFG has adequate funding for a put-and-take trout fishery in DeSabla Forebay. The measure provides that PG&E will not fund CDFG in any years in which CDFG does not stock rainbow trout in DeSabla Forebay.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts as compared to current conditions. CDFG currently stocks fish in DeSabla Forebay.

8.1.4.3 Measure 12 - Maintain a Minimum Pool in Philbrook Reservoir

Measure: Beginning in the first calendar year after license issuance, Licensee shall maintain a minimum pool in Philbrook Reservoir of 250 acre-feet.

Rationale for Measure: Under the existing license, PG&E maintains a minimum pool of 250 ac-ft in Philbrook Reservoir for fish habitat over winter. This measure would continue the existing license measures and assure winter habitat is available for rainbow trout in Philbrook Reservoir.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

8.1.5 Wildlife Resources

The following measures apply to wildlife resources.

8.1.5.1 Measure 13 - Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing or Retrofitting Canal Wildlife Crossings or Escape Facilities

Measure: Prior to replacing or retrofitting existing wildlife bridge crossings or deer escape facilities along Project canals, Licensee shall consult with the CDFG regarding specifications and design. Licensee shall file the design, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission within 60 days after the crossing or facility has been replaced or retrofitted. Licensee shall also assess existing wildlife bridge crossings and escape structures annually to ensure they are functional and in proper working order. Inspections shall occur during the same time other types of maintenance activities or canal assessments are being conducted.

Rationale for Measure: The measure will ensure that when existing wildlife crossing and escape ramps in Project canals are replaced, PG&E will consult with CDFG regarding the design of replacement facilities that meet current guidelines for such facilities. PG&E believes that up- to-date standards should be applied to ensure continued success of the crossings in providing habitat connectivity for wildlife. This measure does not require PG&E to replace or redirect any existing facilities, add new facilities unless the facility is not in proper working condition, or monitor wildlife occurrences in canals.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: The measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Facilities would be operated in substantially the same manner as they are currently operated. Any maintenance/replacement would be minor in nature (e.g., replacement of one device with another) and occur within the footprint of the existing facility. Such activity is exempt from both NEPA and CEQA review.

8.1.5.2 Measure 14 - Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals

Measure: Beginning in the first calendar year after license issuance, Licensee shall record animal losses in all Project canals. Specifically, Licensee’s operators who conduct daily operations on Project canals shall record in log books all dead animals observed on canal trash racks (grizzlies) and otherwise in the canal. Licensee shall make a good faith effort to record the location of the dead animal (i.e., which Project canal and where in the canal the dead animal was found), species, date of the observation, and other pertinent information. Licensee shall provide this information to the Commission annually by December 31.

Rational for Measure: The measure will ensure that existing wildlife crossing and escape ramps in Project canals are effective in reducing/eliminating animal losses.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: The measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Observations would not require any ground disturbing activities or otherwise effect normal operations of Project canals.

8.1.6 Botanical Resources and Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitats

The following measures apply to botanical resources as well as wetland, riparian and littoral habitats.

8.1.6.1 Measure 15 – Develop and Implement a Vegetation Management Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission a Vegetation Management Plan that is approved by the USFS, and developed in consultation with appropriate State and local agencies. The plan shall set forth in detail Licensee’s responsibility, including a schedule where appropriate, for vegetation management on all NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary. The plan shall include and/or address the following elements:

• Hazard tree removal and trimming • Powerline/transmission line clearing • Vegetation management for habitat improvement, including for visual screening • Revegetation of disturbed sites • Soil protection and erosion control, including use of certified weed free straw • Establishment of and/or revegetation with culturally important plant populations • Use of clean, weed free seed with a preference for locally collected seed.

Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to the USFS and other appropriate agencies for a 60- day review. Licensee shall file the plan, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission and implement those portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: During the term of the new license, PG&E may perform work that could result in disturbance to vegetation on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary. The purpose of this measure is to provide a plan that addresses the manner in which such work would be done to minimize disturbance to vegetation, and for the restoration of disturbed areas. The measure includes planting of appropriate vegetation to screen Project facilities where such screening is appropriate. PG&E would develop the plan in consultation with the USFS and other appropriate agencies provide the plan to the USFS and other appropriate agencies for review, file the plan with FERC, and implement those portions of the plan as directed by FERC. This measure does not imply that PG&E is responsible for all vegetation management on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary, or relieve PG&E from obtaining all necessary approvals and permits for work that may be related to the Vegetation Management Plan.

This measure would also address a number of items identified by the USFS during an August 22, 2006, visual assessment “brainstorming” exercise. In particular, PG&E anticipates that the Vegetation Management Plan will address items such as planting to screen Project facilities and features as needed, development of standard operating procedures related to treatment of Project

October 2007 License Application Resource Management Measures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page E8-13 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 vegetation spoil piles, using plantings to stabilize disturbed channel banks, and fuel loading management including hazard trees.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is the same as a measure recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition for PG&E’s Poe Project relicensing.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. The measure requires PG&E to develop a plan. PG&E would obtain approval for implementation of any measures required by FERC (e.g., brush clearing near Project facilities, and planting) in conformance with the plan prior to commencing the work.

8.1.6.2 Measure 16 – Develop and Implement an Invasive Weed Management Plan

Measure: Within two years of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission an Invasive Weed Management Plan developed in consultation with the USFS, the appropriate County Agricultural Commissioner and California Department of Food and Agriculture. Invasive weeds shall be those weeds defined in the California Food and Agriculture code, and other species identified by the USFS. The plan will address both aquatic and terrestrial invasive weeds within the FERC Project Boundary and adjacent to Project features directly affecting NFSL, including roads and distribution and transmission lines.

The Invasive Weed Plan shall include and address the following elements:

• Inventory and mapping of new populations of invasive weeds using a USFS compatible database and GIS software. The invasive weed GIS data layer will be updated periodically and shared with resource agencies. • Action and/or strategies to prevent and control spread of known populations or introductions of new populations, such as vehicle/equipment wash stations. • Development of a schedule for control of all known A, B, Q and selected other rated invasive weed species, designated by resource agencies. • On-going annual monitoring of known populations of invasive weeds for the life of the license in locations tied to Project actions or effects, such as road maintenance, at Project facilities, O&M activities, new construction sites, etc., to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation and invasive weed control measures. • The plan shall include an adaptive management element to implement methods for prevention of aquatic invasive weeds, as necessary. These actions may include, but may not be limited to: 1) public education and signing of public boat access, 2) preparation of an Aquatic Plant Management Plan approved by the USFS, and in consultation with other agencies, and 3) boat cleaning stations at boat ramps for the removal of aquatic invasive weeds.

New infestations of A and B rated weeds shall be controlled within 12 months of detection or as soon as is practical and feasible (A, B, C, & Q ratings refer to the California Department of Food & Agriculture Action Oriented Pest Rating System). At specific sites where other objectives need to be met, all classes of invasive weeds may be required to be treated.

Monitoring shall be done in conjunction with other Project maintenance and resource surveys, so as not to require separate travel and personnel. Monitoring information, in database and GIS formats, shall be provided to the USFS as part of the annual consultation on affected National Forest resources. To assist with this monitoring requirement, training in invasive plant identification shall be provided to Project employees and contractors by the USFS.

Licensee shall restore/revegetate areas where treatment has eliminated invasive weeds in an effort to eliminate the reintroduction of invasive weed species. Project-induced ground disturbing activities shall be monitored annually for the first 3 years after disturbance to detect and map new populations of invasive weeds.

Licensee shall re-vegetate disturbed areas utilizing only native plant material, guaranteed weed- free. Seed shall come from local collection sites, whenever possible, to protect the local plant genotypes.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E identified existing populations of invasive plants within the FERC Project Boundary, some of which may be spread by continued Project O&M activities. The purpose of this measure is to assist in the control of invasive plants and noxious weeds on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary due to Project O&M. The measure: 1) provides a definition of those weeds that are considered “invasive” or “noxious” by state and federal regulations, 2) provides that PG&E will make a good faith effort to eradicate existing populations of invasive plants caused by Project O&M activities on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary no later than one year after license issuance, and 3) identifies specific actions that PG&E will implement thereafter to control the spread of Project-caused invasive plants and plant pathogens/diseases on NFSL within the FERC Project Boundary. This measure does not commit PG&E to control invasive plant populations outside the FERC Project Boundary that are not contiguous with populations within the boundary, or to eradicate all populations of invasive plants within the FERC Project Boundary, which may be prohibitively expensive.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is the same as a measure recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition for PG&E’s Poe Project relicensing.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. The measure requires PG&E to consult with the USFS and other responsible agencies prior to the application of any control measures. PG&E assumes that the agencies would identify any necessary approvals or permits and/or appropriate measures prior to the application of control measures, and those approvals would not be unreasonably withheld.

8.1.6.3 Measure 17 – Develop and Implement a Fire Prevention, Response and Investigation

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission a Fire Prevention and Response Plan that is approved by the USFS, and developed in consultation with appropriate State and local fire agencies. The plan shall set forth in detail Licensee’s responsibility for the prevention (excluding vegetation treatment as described in Measure 16) reporting, control, and extinguishing of fires in the vicinity of the Project resulting from Project operations.

At a minimum the plan shall address the following categories:

1) Fuels Treatment/Vegetation Management: Identification of fire hazard reduction measures to prevent the escape of Project-induced fires.

2) Prevention: Availability of fire access roads, community road escape routes, helispots to allow aerial firefighting assistance in the steep canyon, water drafting sites and other fire suppression strategies. Address fire danger and public safety associated with project induced recreation, including fire danger associated with dispersed camping, existing and proposed developed recreation sites, trails, and vehicle access.

3) Emergency Response Preparedness: Analyze fire prevention needs including equipment and personnel availability.

4) Reporting: Licensee shall report any Project related fires to the USFS within 24 hours.

5) Fire Control/Extinguishing: Provide the USFS a list of the locations of available fire suppression equipment and the location and availability of fire suppression personnel. Include appropriate measures from Measure 15 and assure fire prevention measures will conform to water quality protection practices as enumerated in USDA, USFS, Pacific Southwest Region, Water Quality Management for NFSL in California Best Management Practices.

Licensee shall fully cooperate with the USFS on all fire investigations. Licensee shall produce upon request all materials and witnesses not subject to the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, over which Licensee has control, related to a fire and its investigation including:

• All investigation reports • All witness statements • All photographs • All drawings • All analysis of cause and origin • All other, similar materials and documents regardless of how collected or maintained

Licensee shall preserve all physical evidence, and give custody to the USFS of all physical evidence requested. The USFS shall provide Licensee with reasonable access to the physical evidence and documents Licensee requires in order to defend any and all claims, which may arise from a fire resulting from project operations, to the extent such access is not precluded by ongoing criminal or civil litigation.

Rationale for Measure: Continued Project O&M has the potential to result in wildfires on NFSL due to normal O&M procedures and recreation at Project facilities. The purposes of this measure are to: 1) assure that PG&E minimizes within reason the risk of wildfires caused by Project O&M; 2) advise the USFS and other interested parties of fire escape routes, helispots, and fire fighting equipment within the FERC Project Boundary; 3) provide a mechanism for reporting of wildfires to the USFS and other fire-fighting agencies; and 4) provide for cooperation between PG&E and USFS for investigating fires that may be related to Project O&M. The measure provides that PG&E, in consultation with the USFS and other appropriate State and local fire-fighting agencies, will develop a Fire Prevention and Response Plan, distribute the plan, and update it as necessary. Inclusion of this measure does not imply that PG&E is responsible for patrolling for wildfires, fighting fires, or responding to fires in any manner. PG&E’s staff has not received the specialized training necessary for such activities. Nor does inclusion of this measure imply PG&E is a priori responsible for the costs of fighting wildfires in the vicinity of the Project or restoring land after a wildfire. Such a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the evidence at hand.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

This measure is the same as a measure recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition for PG&E’s Poe Project relicensing.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. The measure requires PG&E to develop information for the USFS, CDF and other responsible agencies to respond to fires. PG&E is not required to respond to fires. Any measures required by PG&E (e.g., brush clearing near Project facilities) will be approved by the responsible agency prior to the work.

8.1.7 Species Protected Under the Federal Endangered Species Act

The following measures apply to species protected under the ESA. PG&E believes these measures are consistent with those that will be included in NOAA Fisheries’ Biological Opinion for the Project. This section also includes PG&E’s proposed measures related to minimum stream flows and other flow-relates issues since these measures are critical to continued protection and enhancement of ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead.

PG&E intends to continue Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries and file with FERC a revised BA by February 15, 2008. For that reason, PG&E advises FERC and Relicensing

Participants that PG&E may amend the measures below based on continuing consultation. Refer to Appendix F 8.17-A for a copy of the draft NOAA Fisheries’ Biological Opinion

8.1.7.1 Measure 18 – Implement Minimum Stream Flows

Measure: Licensee shall as soon as reasonably feasible and within 3 months of license issuance, maintain the minimum stream flow schedule shown in the table below. The specified minimum stream flow may consist of any combination of regulated flow releases from Project dams, Project powerhouses, spills, accretion, or other sources. The specified minimum stream flows are the mean daily flow. Instantaneous stream flows may deviate below the specified minimum flow releases by up to 10 percent or 3 cfs, whichever is less. However, Licensee shall make a good faith effort to meet the specified minimum stream flows at all times. For compliance purposes, the point of measurement shall be existing United States Geological Service’s (USGS) flow gages. On the West Branch Feather River, these are USGS flow gage 11405100 for Round Valley Dam, USGS flow gage 11405120 for Philbrook Dam, and USGS flow gage 11405200 for Hendricks Head Dam. On Butte Creek, these are USGS flow gage 11389720 for Butte Creek Head Dam, and flow gage 111389780 for Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. For Inskip Creek, Kelsy Creek, Stevens Creek, Little West Fork, Cunningham Ravine, Clear Creek, and Long Ravine, compliance will be achieved using the a fixed discharge pipe configured to release the required amount at minimum water level, or the full flow at the stream, whichever is loss. Such discharge pipes will be routinely checked by Licensee to confirm they are unobstructed.

The minimum flow release schedule (in cubic feet per second) shall be at the rates set forth in the following table, or the actual inflow at the point of diversion, whichever is less:

Minimum Stream flows during Normal and Dry Water Years (1): Minimum Stream flow Requirement Point of Discharge Normal Dry (2) Time Period (3) Round Valley Dam 0.5 0.1 Philbrook Dam 2.0 2.0 (4) 30 20 3/1 – 5/31 Hendricks Head Dam 20 7 6/1 – 2/28 30 20 3/1 – 5/31 Butte Creek Head Dam 16 7 6/1 – 2/28 75 60 9/15 – 1/31 (5) 80 75 2/1 – 4/30 (5) Lower Centerville Diversion Dam 80 65 5/1 – 5/31 (5)

40 40 6/1 – 9/14 Inskip Creek 0.25 0.10 Kelsey Creek 0.25 0.10 Stevens Creek (diversion abandon) Emma Ravine (diversion abandon) Coal Claim Ravine (diversion abandon) Oro Fina Ravine (diversion abandon) Little West Fork 0.25 0.10 Cunningham Ravine 0.25 0.10

Minimum Stream flows during Normal and Dry Water Years (1): (continued) Minimum Stream flow Requirement Point of Discharge Normal Dry (2) Time Period (3) Clear Creek 0.5 0.25 Long Ravine 0.5 0.25 (1) Discharge is in cubic feet per second (cfs) (2) A dry water year is any 12-month period beginning May 1 in which the natural runoff of the Feather River at Oroville for the April 1 to July 31 period, as forecast on April 1 by the State of California Department of Water Resources, and as may be adjusted by the State on May 1, will be 50 percent or less of the average for such period as computed by the State for the 50-year period used at the time. If during a designated dry year the February 1 or later water year prediction indicates that dry year conditions no longer prevail, Licensee will resume normal year flow releases immediately upon notification by California Department of Fish and Game. (3) Unless otherwise noted, the time period is year round. (4) When the inflow to Philbrook Reservoir is less than 0.1 cfs, a minimum flow of at least 0.1 cfs shall be discharged. (5) The Operations and Maintenance Plan implemented in 1999 and updated annually in consultation with the agencies has controlled minimum flow releases below Centerville Diversion. June through January values are current Operations and Maintenance Plan flow targets for Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during normal and dry water years. February through May values are proposed minimum flow requirements for Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to address steelhead spawning during normal and dry water years.

A specific minimum flow release may be temporarily modified if required by equipment malfunction, law enforcement/rescue activity, operating emergencies reasonably beyond the control of the Licensee, or by specific request of the resource agencies. If a specific minimum stream flow is so modified, Licensee shall provide notice to the Commission as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after each such incident, with an explanation why the incident occurred.

Where facility modification is required to implement a specific minimum stream flow, Licensee shall complete such modifications as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 3 years after license issuance. Prior to completion of such required facility modifications, Licensee shall make a good faith effort to provide the specified minimum stream flows within the capabilities of existing facilities.

Rationale for Measure: The concept behind requiring minimum stream flows is to assure that stream flows adequately meet the needs of key species-ecosystem attributes. For the Project, the development of minimum stream flow focused heavily on maximizing the Project’s cool water benefits to support to holding, spawning, and rearing of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the reaches of Butte Creek below the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (below Quartz Bowl Pool) and below the Centerville Powerhouse. Annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans have been developed in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS to enhance conditions in Butte Creek by maximizing the timing and quantity of cooler water diverted from the WBFR. The rationale for minimum stream flow at various discharge points is described below. Table E8.1.7-1 compares PG&E’s proposed minimum flow releases with existing flow releases.

Table E8.1.7-1 Comparison between PG&E’s current and proposed minimum stream flow requirement in cfs. Current Minimum Stream flow Proposed Minimum Stream flow Point of Discharge Requirement Requirement Normal Dry (2) Time Period (3) Normal Dry (2) Time Period (3) Round Valley Dam 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 Philbrook Dam 2.0 2.0 (4) 2.0 2.0 (4) 30 20 3/1 – 5/31 Hendricks Head Dam 15 7 20 7 6/1 – 2/28 Butte Creek Head 30 20 3/1 – 5/31 16 7 Dam 16 7 6/1 – 2/28 75 60 9/15 – 1/31 (5) 9/15 – 10/31; 40 10 80 75 2/1 – 4/30 (5) Lower Centerville 12/15 – 5/31 80 65 5/1 – 5/31 (5) Diversion Dam 30 10 11/1 – 12/14 40 40 6/1 – 9/14 40 40 6/1 – 9/14 Inskip Creek 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 Kelsey Creek 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 (diversion (diversion Stevens Creek 0.25 0.10 discontinued) abandon) (diversion (diversion Emma Ravine 0.25 0.10 discontinued) abandon) (diversion (diversion Coal Claim Ravine 0.25 0.10 discontinued) abandon) (diversion (diversion Oro Fina Ravine 0.25 0.10 discontinued) abandon) Little West Fork 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 Cunningham Ravine 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 Clear Creek 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 Long Ravine 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 (1) Discharge is in cubic feet per second (cfs) (2) A dry water year is any 12-month period beginning May 1 in which the natural runoff of the Feather River at Oroville for the April 1 to July 31 period, as forecast on April 1 by the State of California Department of Water Resources, and as may be adjusted by the State on May 1, will be 50 percent or less of the average for such period as computed by the State for the 50-year period used at the time. If during a designated dry year the February 1 or later water year prediction indicates that dry year conditions no longer prevail, Licensee will resume normal year flow releases immediately upon notification by California Department of Fish and Game. (3) Unless otherwise noted, the time period is year round. (4) When the inflow to Philbrook Reservoir is less than 0.1 cfs, a minimum flow of at least 0.1 cfs shall be discharged. (5) The Operations Plan implemented in 1999 and updated annually in consultation with the agencies has controlled minimum flow releases below Centerville Diversion. June through January values are current Operations Plan flow targets for Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during normal and dry water years. February through May values are proposed minimum flow requirements for Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to address steelhead spawning during normal and dry water years.

West Branch Feather River above Hendricks Head Dam

PG&E proposes to continue the current minimum stream flows below Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs and use Annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans developed in

consultation with the agencies to dictate minimum stream flows below Project reservoirs to minimize water temperatures to benefit anadromous fish in Butte Creek. West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Head Dam

PG&E proposes to increase current minimum stream flows below Hendricks Head Dam to guarantee minimum spawning flows for trout between March 1 and May 31 in both Normal and Dry water years. Additional flows to enhance habitat conditions for adult and juvenile rearing were also evaluated using the W2 water temperature model for incremental stream flow increases ranging from 5 to 15 cfs. The temperature model suggests that flows could potentially be increased by 5 cfs in Normal water years without negatively effecting water temperatures in Butte Creek for anadromous fish (see Section 7.2.7). PG&E intends to consult with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG to confirm that this flow increase below Hendricks Head Dam is acceptable.

Upper Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam

PG&E proposes to increase current minimum stream flows below Butte Creek Diversion Dam to guarantee minimum spawning flows for trout between March 1 and May 31 in both Normal and Dry water years. Temperature modeling data to evaluate potential negative effects on water temperature below Butte Creek Diversion Dam associated with increased minimum stream flows have not been completed at the time of the license application submittal. Therefore no increased minimum stream flows are proposed to enhance juvenile and adult trout rearing below Butte Creek Diversion Dam. PG&E proposes to use the SNTEMP and W2 models to evaluate the potential for increasing stream flows below Butte Creek Diversion Dam during summer months in Normal water years.

Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam

PG&E proposes to maintain current minimum stream flows for Chinook salmon spawning habitat below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam between Sept 15 and January 31 in both Normal and Dry water years as currently provided in operating plans developed in consultation with the agencies. PG&E proposes to increase minimum stream flows between February 1 and May 31 beyond those provided by the current operating plans to guarantee minimum spawning flows for steelhead in both Normal and Dry water years. Additional flows to enhance habitat conditions for Chinook holding salmon and juvenile steelhead rearing were also evaluated using the W2 temperature model for flow increases ranging from 60 to 80 cfs (Section 7.2.7). The temperature model indicated that a 60 cfs minimum stream flow would cause a reduction in all three temperature change metrics [(the mean difference (degrees C), the maximum hourly difference (degrees C); and the change in Weekly Mean of the daily Maximum Temperature (WMMT)] during the hottest week of the summer in 2005 (7/14 to 7/21) above Centerville Powerhouse while changes below Centerville Powerhouse were relatively minor. For the 80 cfs stream flow increase, there was a small mean difference increase and a significant increase in WMMT below Centerville Powerhouse suggesting a higher mortality risk to Chinook salmon. Neither the 60 cfs nor the 80 cfs summertime minimum stream flow release was adopted by PG&E because of the uncertain benefit that these stream flows would have on reducing summer mortality and potential negative effect this increase would have on attracting more Chinook salmon above Centerville Powerhouse.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts, and would provide some increased benefits to trout and anadromous fish over current operations. Implementation of this measure would continue to negatively affect populations for some species life stages inhabiting the Upper WBFR while providing a beneficial effect or no affect in other Project-affected stream reaches (Section 7.3.2).

Besides continuing Section 7 ESA consultation with NOAA Fisheries, PG&E is in the process of collecting and filing with FERC additional information regarding minimum flow releases and plans to consult with Relicensing Participants regarding this measure. The additional information relates to water quality, fish population, and a FYLF 2-D model. PG&E anticipates that this additional information and continuing consultation might result in PG&E amending this measure.

8.1.7.2 Measure 19 – DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan

Measure: Within two years of license issuance and in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS, Licensee shall develop a DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan based on the results of its feasibility study regarding the potential for reducing the thermal loading in DeSabla Forebay. At a minimum, the plan shall include a preliminary design of the proposed facility and a schedule for final design, permitting, and construction of the new facility. Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS for 60 day review, and file the plan including evidence of consultation with FERC. Licensee shall implement the portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: The preliminary Biological Opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries requested PG&E to study the feasibility and effectiveness of reducing the thermal loading in DeSabla Forebay during the months of July and August with a goal of reducing thermal loading by 50 percent. Reducing temperature heating in DeSabla Forebay should help reduce summer mortality of spring-run holding below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Centerville Powerhouse. If cost effective alternatives are identified, PG&E will attempt to implement measures recommended in the DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan as soon as practicable after approval of the plan.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure. The measure provides that PG&E will develop the plan in consultation with NOAA Fisheries and other interested parties. PG&E recognizes that its CE- QUAL-W2 water temperature model, which is in discussion with Relicensing Participants, will be an important tool in selecting a final design.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts on aquatic resources. However, implementation of this measure will likely reduce or eliminate the trout recreational fishery in the forebay by removing or reducing the volume of cold water available for the trout to live. PG&E assumes that the agencies would identify any necessary approvals or permits and/or

appropriate measures needed to minimize construction impacts for the new temperature reduction facility.

8.1.7.3 Measure 20 – Develop and Implement Facility Monitoring, Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS shall develop a Project long-term facility monitoring, maintenance, and refurbishment plan for the purpose of minimizing the potential for facility failures that could cause adverse flow-related impact to Chinook salmon and steelhead. The plan shall be provided to NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS for 60 day review prior to filing the plan with FERC. Licensee shall include a discussion of any comments and recommendations, including a discussion of any measures not included in the final plan. Licensee shall implement the plan within two years of FERC approval.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E has an obligation to maintain and improve Project facilities in good working condition for the duration of the license to minimize the potential for facility failures that can cause adverse flow-related impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead. At a minimum, elements of the plan should include routine inspection and maintenance of the following: 1) canal flow sensors and alarm systems; 2) manual and remotely operated canal spill gates; 3) diversion dam release structures; 4) frequently used spill channel; and 5) canal/flume walls and supporting structures.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Development of a plan would not result in any ground-disturbing activities or work in a streambed. PG&E will obtain all necessary permits and approvals for work prior to ground disturbing activities.

8.1.7.4 Measure 21 – Develop and Implement Long-term Operations Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall prepare a long-term operations plan in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS. The plan shall be for the duration of the license and shall have the primary goal of seeking to provide cold water for holding, spawning, and rearing Chinook salmon and steelhead in Butte Creek upstream and downstream from the Centerville Powerhouse. The plan shall also consider the feasibility of increasing spawning habitat availability by increasing flows in-between the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and the Centerville Powerhouse during the spawning and egg incubation period (i.e., late-September to February), while balancing power production. The plan also may consider modifications to facility operations and maintenance necessary to avoid, minimize, or improve Project-related impacts to Chinook salmon. Licensee shall file the plan, including evidence of consultation, with FERC and implement those portions of the plan approved by FERC.

Rationale for Measure: Since 1999, PG&E has annually consulted with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS to prepare annual operating plans that have had the same goal as above. The long-term plan will take information gained from the previous operating plans and the recent relicensing studies to define long-term procedures and practices that PG&E will follow in the future to enhance and protect anadromous fish habitat in Butte Creek.

8.1.7.5 Measure 22 – Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon Populations

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall develop and implement a long- term upper Butte Creek Chinook salmon monitoring plan in consultation with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG. Elements of the plan shall include an annual snorkel survey to monitor adult distribution and abundance, an annual pre-spawning mortality survey, and an annual carcass survey to monitor spawning. The annual carcass survey may be discontinued if Licensee, NOAA Fisheries and CDFG agree that the monitoring has established a sufficient correlation between the snorkel survey data and the carcass survey data. The plan shall also provide for the consideration of juvenile emergence and outmigration monitoring in extreme drought years. The emergence and outmigration monitoring may be discontinued if Licensee, NOAA Fisheries and CDFG agree that the monitoring has established a sufficient indication of the effect of drought or extreme hot weather on the subsequent brood year. The plan also may consider modifications to facility operations and maintenance necessary to avoid, minimize, or improve Project-related impacts to Chinook salmon. The plan shall be provided to NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and USFWS for 60 day review prior to filing the plan with FERC. Licensee shall include a discussion of any comments and recommendations, including a discussion of any measures not included in the final plan. Licensee shall implement the portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: Information obtained from the various monitoring programs will allow PG&E and the resource agencies to adaptively manage all Project elements and conservation measures throughout the life of the Project to ensure their effectiveness.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. PG&E would obtain all necessary scientific collecting permits prior to performing surveys.

8.1.7.6 Measure 23 – Annual Report

Measure: Within one year of approval of the long-term operations plan and the long-term upper Butte Creek Chinook salmon monitoring plan, Licensee shall develop annual reports summarizing: 11) the prior year’s implementation of the long-term operations plan and the effects of Project operations on Chinook salmon and their habitat; and 2) the results of the prior year’s long-term Butte Creek Chinook salmon monitoring. By December 31 of each year, Licensee shall file the annual report for that calendar year with the Commission and provide a copy of the report to NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and USFWS each.

Rationale for Measure: Annual reports will serve to document methods and results of the monitoring programs and to ensure that PG&E is in compliance with all license conditions.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure. Filing of annual reports will not result in any impacts.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts.

8.1.7.7 Measure 24 - Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Protection

Measure: Licensee shall comply with the March 2003 "Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Conservation Program" developed by Licensee and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as may be modified from time to time by mutual consent of Licensee and USFWS. This conservation program requires Licensee to conduct pre-construction surveys, where necessary, and to provide educational training for construction crews responsible for operation and maintenance activities.

Rationale for Measure: The measure will ensure that any potential impacts to VELB as a result of Project operations are either avoided or adequately mitigated. Refer to Appendix E7.17-B for a copy to the VELB Biological opinion and PG&E’s VELB Conservation Program.

Potential Effect for Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Adherence to the program is designed to protect and/or mitigate impacts to VELB.

8.1.8 Recreation

The following measures apply to recreational resources.

8.1.8.1 Measure 25 - Maintain and Operate Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall develop Recreation Operation Plans for recreation facilities within the FERC Project Boundary at 1) Philbrook Reservoir and 2) at DeSabla Forebay. Licensee shall consult with the USFS in preparation of the Recreation

Operations Plan for Philbrook Reservoir recreation facilities. Licensee shall provide a draft of the Philbrook Reservoir to the USFS for 60 day review prior to filing the plan with the Commission. Licensee shall implement the plan within two years of FERC approval.

Rationale for Measure: As the operator of recreation facilities within the FERC Project Boundary, PG&E will be responsible for routine upkeep and operation of the facilities. The purpose of the measure is to provide a plan for this work. The plan, which must be developed within one year of license issuance, will state that PG&E is solely responsible for the management, operations and routine maintenance of the facilities. For the purposes of the plan, routine maintenance is considered short-term (annual) maintenance activities and defined as repair, prevention and cyclic maintenance, as compared to long-term maintenance (replacement and rehabilitation) which are addressed in Measure 26. The plan will address at a minimum the roles and responsibilities of PG&E (and PG&E’s concessionaire) and the USFS including coordination, user and others fees, control of user conduct, and user health and safety. The plan will also include a provision for annual inspections of the facilities and identification of action items, and provision for the periodic review and update of the plan for adequacy.

PG&E will consult with the USFS when preparing the plan, provide a draft of the plan to the USFS for a 60-day review period, and include evidence of consultation in the final plan filed with FERC. A routine maintenance and operation plan is an appropriate venue for this type of information. Such plans are common on NFSL when a recreation facility is owned or operated by a party other than the USFS. The plan will allow the USFS input into the detailed operations of the facilities on NFSL.

This measure does not imply that PG&E may not perform routine O&M of the recreation facilities until the USFS has reviewed the planned O&M activity or that the USFS must in any way “approve” planned recreation facility O&M activities. This measure does not relieve PG&E from obtaining all necessary approvals and permits for planned O&M work.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts, and would provide for the efficient operation of the existing recreation facilities. Facilities would be operated in substantially the same manner as they are currently operated. Any maintenance would be minor in nature (e.g., replacement of a barrier or table and painting a facility) and occur within the footprint of the existing facility. Such activity is exempt from both NEPA and CEQA review. Any vegetation rehabilitation work that may occur would be consistent with the Vegetation Management Plan measure above.

8.1.8.2 Measure 26 - Develop and Implement Recreation Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan at Existing Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall file with the Commission Recreation Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plans for: 1) Philbrook Reservoir; and 2) DeSabla Forebay. Each plan shall set forth in detail Licensee’s responsibility, including a schedule where appropriate, for the following two elements at Project recreation facilities within the FERC Project Boundary:

• Element 1: Replacement, retro-fit, and upgrade of existing Project recreation facilities at Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay that considers the usable life of the existing elements; • Element 2: ADA facility enhancements necessary to provide ADA access to recreation at the existing Project recreation facilities (as defined by the ABA and FSORAG standards)

Project recreation facilities included in the measure are: 1) Philbrook Campground with 20 campsites, 2 double-unit vault restrooms and an overflow parking area (4 VAOT); 2) Philbrook Picnic and Overflow Area which consists of 5 picnic units, a double unit vault restroom and paved and gravel parking areas (8 VAOT); 3) Philbrook Angler Access consisting of a concrete and gravel launch ramp, a double unit vault restroom and a gravel parking area; 4) DeSabla Forebay Accessible Fishing Access consisting of a single paved ADA parking space/unloading area and fishing platform; 5) East Shore access consisting of an undeveloped parking area (20 VAOT) and informational kiosk; and 6) DeSabla Group Picnic Area for 100 PAOT with a double unit vault restroom, picnic tables, cooking grills/dutch oven, paved parking areas and horseshoe pits.

Licensee shall provide a draft of the plan to the Philbrook Reservoir plan to the USFS for 60-day review. Licensee shall file each plan, including evidence of consultation, with the Commission and implement those portions of the plans approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E’s relicensing studies determined that existing recreational facilities are adequate to meet recreational demand associated with the Project now and in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, some of the facilities are currently in need of replacement or rehabilitation to maintain the proper functioning condition of the facility and to provide for ADA accessibility, or will require replacement or rehabilitation during the term of the new license to maintain the facilities in proper functioning condition. The purposes of this measure are to develop an implementation plan to: 1) describe which recreational facilities will be replaced and rehabilitated over the term of the new license; and 2) provide a schedule for replacement and rehabilitation.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts, and would provide a plan for the orderly replacement/upgrades of existing recreation facilities – which is a substantial enhancement. Replacement of in-kind facilities within the footprint of the existing facilities is exempt from both NEPA and CEQA review. All construction, including the location of construction laydown areas would occur within the current footprint of the facilities. However, Licensee plans to consult with the USFS and any other pertinent agencies prior to any ground disturbing activities to assure that all appropriate protection measures are applied to the work.

8.1.8.3 Measure 27 - Develop and Implement Project Information and Sign Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall in consultation with the USFS develop a Project Information and Sign Plan for signs on NFSL. The plan shall include a list of the location, type, construction and content of each Project sign on NFSL and types of information to be developed to inform the public about accessible recreation areas within the FERC Project Boundary. Licensee shall provide a draft plan to the USFS for 60-day review. Licensee shall file the plan including evidence of consultation with the Commission, and implement those portions of the plan approved by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: Based on relicensing studies, there is a need for more information on the Project facilities available for recreation, information on reservoir draw downs, and publicly accessible versus private non-accessible lands within the Project. Signage is one avenue to provide appropriate levels of information as well as written materials and maps. Information is also needed to assist in the litter and dumping of trash issues raised for all resource areas within the Project.

This measure would also address a number of items identified by the USFS during an August 22, 2006, visual assessment “brainstorming” exercise. In particular, PG&E anticipates that the Sign Plan would address interpretive signs; the location, content, style and quality of Project signs; and other informational items.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Development of a plan would not require any ground disturbing activities or work near surface water. PG&E anticipates that installing signs will require minimal ground disturbance and will occur in the travel way of existing roads and trails.

8.1.8.4 Measure 28 - Obtain Public Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall consult with American Whitewater and appropriate local landowners in an attempt to obtain whitewater boating access to the DeSabla Powerhouse and to Licensee’s Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment (located outside

Resource Management Measures License Application October 2007 Page E8-28 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 of the FERC Project Boundary) areas during the spring season. Licensee shall file the plan, including evidence of consultation, with FERC and implement those portions of the plan approved by FERC.

Rationale for Measure: During Relicensing, a consistent suggestion by whitewater boaters was to obtain access across private land to the DeSabla Powerhouse area and to Miocene Diversion Impoundment. This measure would assure PG&E makes a good faith effort to facilitate discussions.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Development of a plan would not require any ground disturbing activities or work near surface water. PG&E anticipates that facilitating discussions between AW and local private landowners will not require any ground disturbance: access will occur in the travel way of existing roads and trails.

8.1.8.5 Measure 29 - Make Stream flow Information Available to Public

Measure: Beginning as soon as reasonably feasible but no later than one year after license issuance, Licensee shall make the following daily average stream flow information available to the public annually from May 1 through November 30: on the West Branch Feather River at United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow gage 11405200 (below Hendricks Head Dam); and on Butte Creek at USGS flow gages 11389720 (below Butte Creek Head Dam) and 111389780 (below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam).

The flow information shall be available to the public via the Internet, which may be accomplished through a third party. The flow information protocols may be modified upon mutual agreement of Licensee, responsive stakeholders and approval by the Commission.

Rationale for Measure: Based on the results of the relicensing studies, a common suggestion by stream recreationists was to make stream flow information available to the public. The purpose for this measure is to allow stream recreationists the ability to opportunistically recreate in streams affected by the Project at flows that each recreationist deems adequate for their activity. By providing this information publicly, recreationists may utilize the Project’s resources more frequently, particularly when natural run-off or storms provide ample flow for varying levels and preferences of recreationists.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

8.1.9 Land Use

The following measures apply to resources related to land use.

8.1.9.1 Measure 30 - Remove Philbrook Lake Tender House and Other Structures No Longer Needed

Measure: Within three years of license issuance, Licensee shall consult with appropriate agencies for all necessary permits and approvals needed to remove the Philbrook Lake Tender House and other structures no longer needed for Project operations. Licensee shall file the plan for removing the Philbrook Ditch Tender House and other structures no longer needed for Project operations, including evidence of consultation, with FERC and implement those portions of the plan approved by FERC.

Rationale for Measure: PG&E proposes to delete certain existing Project facilities and structures from the Project. This measure assures that these facilities and structures will be decommissioned and removed in a timely fashion.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of the measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. PG&E would consult with appropriate agencies to obtain all necessary permits and approvals for the work prior to any ground disturbing activity.

8.1.10 Aesthetic Resources

The following measures apply to aesthetic resources.

8.1.10.1 Measure 31 - Consult with USFS when Painting/Reconstructing Facilities

Measure: Prior to painting or reconstructing Project facilities or re-vegetating areas on NFSL, Licensee shall consult with the USFS to assure the facilities are consistent with current USFS Visual Quality Objectives

Rationale for Measure: This measure is specifically proposed to address a visual assessment “brainstorming” mitigation measure identified by the USFS, which proposed PG&E “…paint or reconstruct facilities with natural materials to blend with the environment” and suggested PG&E consider the use of colored gunnite and natural material to achieve a more natural landscape.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Consultation would not

involve ground disturbing activities or work near surface water. PG&E would obtain any necessary permits and approvals prior to implementing any ground-disturbing work.

8.1.10.2 Measure 32 - Maintain Improvements and Premises on NFSL

Measure: Licensee shall maintain all its improvements and premises, including disposal piles and dispersed recreation areas within the Project Boundary, on NFSL to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the USFS. Disposal shall be at an approved existing location, except as otherwise agreed to by the USFS. Licensee and the USFS shall discuss any problem areas during the annual consultation meeting (Measure 1).

Rationale for Measure: This measure is specifically proposed to address a visual assessment “brainstorming” mitigation measure: the USFS suggested a number of items including “removing, burn, chip dispose of debris piles in a timely fashion” and “clean-up areas.”

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure.

Potential Effect of Implementing Measure: Implementation of this measure would not result in any direct, indirect or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Consultation would not involve ground disturbing activities or work near surface water. PG&E would obtain any necessary permits and approvals prior to implementing any ground-disturbing work.

8.1.11 Socio-Economic Resources

PG&E does not propose any measures related to socio-economic resources.

8.1.12 Cultural and Tribal Resources

The following measures apply to cultural resources and Tribal interests.

8.1.12.1 Measure 33 - Develop and Implement Historic Properties Management Plan

Measure: Within one year of license issuance, Licensee shall develop a draft Project Historic Properties Management Plan in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), USFS and affected Indian tribes. The plan shall comply with Commission’s Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for Hydroelectric Projects, and address measures for the protection of historic properties, and potential historic properties, within the Area of Potential Effect. Licensee shall provide the draft plan to SHPO, USFS and affected Indian tribes for a 60-day review, and file a plan, including evidence of consultation with the Commission, that addresses any review comments. Licensee shall implement the portions of the plan approved by the Commission.2

2 As described elsewhere in this application, PG&E intends to file with FERC by February 15, 2008, a draft HPMP. Once this HPMP is filed, PG&E will amend Measure 33 as appropriate.

Rationale for Measure: Continued Project O&M has the reasonable potential to affect historic properties. This measure will assure Project O&M staff makes all possible attempts not to impact historic properties, with avoidance the preferred measure, and Measure 2 will assure PG&E and USFS coordinate annually to this regard. The purpose of this measure is to assure that known sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP are protected and, if these sites are or will be disturbed, that procedures are in place to implement appropriate measures. The preliminary draft HPMP measures below also provide a plan to address new sites and burial remains, should they be discovered during normal Project O&M or new ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, the HPMP, once included by FERC as part of a programmatic agreement, will require PG&E to: appoint a HPMP Coordinator; provide training to all O&M staff; routinely monitor known and potential historic properties and, if impacts are observed, implement appropriate measures; and coordinate with the USFS, SHPO, and Indian tribes on cultural resource issues, as appropriate. The HPMP also requires PG&E to periodically review and update the HPMP as necessary.

PG&E believes there is adequate information in the application for FERC and Relicensing Participants to evaluate this measure, and considers the proposed management measures presented below in Attachment 1 to be a preliminary draft of the Project HPMP.

This measure is similar to a measure recommended by the USFS as a final 4(e) condition in recent relicensings in California.

Potential Effect of Implementing the Measure: Implementation of Measure 33 would not result in any direct or cumulative environmental negative impacts. Site monitoring would not require ground disturbance. Access to the sites would be gained over existing roads and by foot. If it was determined that site testing, data recovery or other treatment or management measures were necessary, then any associated ground disturbances would be limited to the minimum necessary to conduct the work and PG&E would consult with FERC and the USFS (if disturbances would occur on NFSL) and any appropriate resource agencies to be sure all necessary environmental protection measures were in place prior to ground disturbance.

8.2 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Adopted by PG&E

On May 14, 2007, PG&E filed with FERC, distributed to Relicensing Participants, and made available to the general public its DLA. The deadline for filing comments on the DLA, including proposed resource management measures, was September 6, 2007. Written comments were filed by:

• Butte Creek Watershed Conservation Board (letter dated August 10, 2007) • USFS, USFWS, NPS, BLM, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and the SWRCB (joint letter dated August 31, 2007)

• California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of Butte Creek, Friends of the River (letter dated August 4, 2008 • FERC (letter dated September 5, 2007)3

None of the Relicensing Participants that filed written comments on the DLA included proposed preliminary resource management measures except for the joint agency letter. On Attachment 2, page 23, the agencies proposed that PG&E’s measure regarding invasive weeds should add that re-vegetation of disturbed areas will utilize only native plant material, guaranteed weed-free. Seed should come from local collection sites, whenever possible, to protect the local plant genotypes. PG&E has adopted this recommendation in Measure 14, Invasive Weed Management Plan.

However, PG&E acknowledges that the comment letters said Relicensing Participants were not ready at this time to propose preliminary resource management measures.

8.3 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Not Adopted by PG&E

PG&E adopted the sole proposed preliminary measure included in comments on the DLA. However, as noted above it is important to recognize that Relicensing Participants stated they were not ready at this time to propose preliminary resource management measures. PG&E plans to continue consultation on resource measures with willing Relicensing Participants.

List of Appendices

• Appendix E8.1.7 –A – NOAA fisheries draft Biological opinion for Central Valley Spring run Chinook Salmon • Appendix E8.1.7 –B – VELB Biological opinion and PG&E’s VELB Conservation Program

3 FERC’s September 5, 2007, letter provided 4 specific additional information requests as well as FERC’s comments on the DLA. The additional information is provided in the application.

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Table E8.1-1. GENERAL – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars GENERAL 1. Train Employees Annually – Annually No specific issue identified. No specific issue identified. Cost assumes preparation for and $0 $1,000,000 $20,000 provide training to Licensee’s Project O&M participation in one 4-hr training session ($20,000/yr for employees regarding location of sensitive annually for 10 Licensee staff by a 50 years) areas (e.g., serpentine areas, cultural, etc.) consultant (with USFS staff in attendance to general identification of special-status describe USFS policies and procedures). species and invasive weeds, processes if Includes preparation of reference material sensitive areas might be disturbed, reporting and follow-up. procedures to USFS and other agencies, and other items. 2. Consultation – Annually meet with No specific issue identified. No specific issue identified. Cost assumes preparation for and $0 $500,000 $10,000 USFS regarding proposed Project O&M for participation in one 4-hr consultation ($10,000/yr for the upcoming calendar year, and file a letter meeting with USFS for 3 Licensee staff, 50 years) report including evidence of consultation preparation of letter report, addressing within 60 days of the meeting. USFS comments after its review, and filing letter report with FERC.

3. Special-status Species- Conduct annual Adequacy of deer protection at Project Effects of Project operations on vegetation. Cost does not include annual review of $0 $480,000 $9,600 review of special-status species lists with canals. special-status species list, which is assumed ($60,000 once every 6 years USFS. If a species has been added to list Effects of Project operation on wildlife to occur during the annual consultation with for 50 years.) and has the potential to occur on NFSL in Potential effects of canals, flumes, and species and habitat. USFS (Measure 1), or implementation of the FERC Project Boundary and to be transmission lines on migration patterns of measures resulting from any studies, since affected by Project, prepare study plan, deer. Effects of the Project on rare, threatened, the possible measures are unknown. Costs consult with USFS, file plan with FERC endangered, or special-status species or include preparation of one study plan once and perform study. File study report with Potential effects on presence and spread of critical habitat. every 5-years (Licensee’s best guess as to FERC. noxious weeds. when new studies would be needed) by a consultant, addressing USFS comments Potential effects on botanical habitat caused after its review, filing plan with FERC, by Project reservoirs. implementing plan, preparing a report, addressing USFS comments and filing Potential effects on RT&E botanical report with FERC. For budget estimating resources. purpose, costs for each study plan and study implementation is assumed to be $60,000.

General Measures subtotal $0 $1,980,000 $39,600 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4. Develop and Implement a Project Potential effects of erosion and sediment Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on Cost assumes that Licensee would follow $15,000 $1,000,000 $20,300 Transportation System Management transport caused by runoff from Project water quality caused from Project format for other recent Transportation Plans ($20,000/yr for Plan – Develop and implement a Project Roads and other hard surface runoff. operations and structural failures, Project developed by Licensee for USFS. Cost 50 years) Transportation Plan for roads on NFSL. spillways, runoff from Project roads, and assumes plan would be discussed during Potential effects of erosion caused by natural landslides. annual meetings (Measure 1). Cost Project construction, operation and assumes, on average, Licensee’s cost to maintenance, and public recreation Effects of erosion caused by Project maintain USFS roads covered in the plan is activities. operations on aquatic species and available $20,000 per year. aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Potential effects on geology and soils from Project-affected stream reaches. overtopping or structural failure of Project canals or flumes, or from landslides and debris flows that intersect Project canals or flumes. No specific measure proposed. Potential for shoreline erosion at Project Effects of Project operation on erosion of ----- $0 $0 $0 reservoirs. soils in Project reservoirs and reaches.

Effects of erosion caused by Project

operations on aquatic species and available aquatic in the Project reservoirs and Project- affected stream reaches. 5. Develop and Implement a Round Potential effects on geology and soils from Effects of Project spillways on geology and Cost assumes that development of the plan $480,000 $0 $9,600 Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan – use of Project spillways. soils. will be performed by a consultant at a cost Develop and implement a Round Valley of about $80,000, and implementation will Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan. Potential effects on water quality from Effects of erosion caused by Project cost $400,000. O&M costs included in sediment related to Project spillways. operations on aquatic species and available normal O&M. aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches.

Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides. 6. Develop and Implement a Project Potential effects on geology and soils from Effects on geology and soils from Cost assumes that Licensee would develop $15,000 $7,500,000 $150,300 Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan, overtopping or structural failure of Project overtopping or structural failures of Project the plan ($15,000). Cost assumes plan ($150,000/yr for Develop and implement a Project Canal canals or flumes, or from landslides and canals or flumes, or from landslides and would be discussed during annual meetings 50 years) Maintenance and Inspection Plan. debris flows that intersect Project canals or debris flows that intersect Project canals (Measure 1), inspections would occur flumes. and flumes. annually, and annual maintenance costs (e.g., implementation of reasonable Potential effects on water quality from Effects of erosion caused by Project measures, including engineering) are sediment caused by overtopping or operations on aquatic species and available estimated to be $150,000/year structural failure of canals or flumes, or aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and from landslides and debris flows that Project-affected stream reaches. intersect Project canals or flumes. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides. Geology and Soils subtotal $510,000 $8,500,000 $180,200 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-3. WATER RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars WATER RESOURCES 7 – Install and Maintain New Gages - Adequacy of streamflow gages to Adequacy of existing gages to monitor Cost of installing a data logger gaging $160,000 $500,000 $13,,200 Install and maintain a flow data logger for accurately measure required streamflows in hydrologic characteristics and compliance station below Hendrix Head Diversion dam ($10,000/yr for measuring stream flow downstream of Project-affected stream reaches. with minimum streamflow releases. is assumed to be $50, 000. Cost to install a 50 years) Hendricks Head Dam, a real time flow real time gaging stations in Butte Creek is gaging station upstream of Butte Creek assumed to be $80, 000. Cost to modify the Head Dam, and modify for real-time access existing gage at Lower Centerville the existing stream gaging station near Diversion Dam to real time data is assumed Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. to be $30,000. The cost to maintain the gages is assumed to be $10,000 per year. See Measure 30 for removal of Project Discontinued use of four of eleven feeder Effects of discontinued use of Project ----- $0 $0 $0 facilities and associated costs. diversions. Feeder diversions.

Effects of discontinued use of four Project feeder diversions on available aquatic habitat and fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. No specific measure proposed.. No specific issue identified. Effects of water loss in canals during ----- $0 $0 $0 transport. No specific measure proposed. No specific issue identified. Effects of water diversions from Little Butte ----- $0 $0 $0 Creek on local water supply. 8. Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Potential effects of herbicide use in Project Effects of cleaning Project canals on water Cost assumes monitoring would include $0 $1,100,000 $22,000/yr Stream during Canal Cleaning – flumes and canals. quality. three canals once each year. Monitoring ($22,000/yr for Monitor water quality in receiving streams assumes that all monitoring occurs in situ, 50 years) prior to, during and after returning Project Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes by Operations staff except for herbicide, for canals back to service. and canals on aquatic species. which a water quality sample is collected by Operations staff and provided to a State- certified lab for analysis ($22,000/yr). 9. Develop and Implement a Hazardous No specific issue identified. No specific issue identified. Cost assumes that Licensee’s existing $0 $50,000 $1,000 Substance Plan – Develop and periodically Hazardous Substance Business Plan, which ($1,000/yr for update a hazardous materials management is provided to the county and periodically 50 years) plan for notifying USFS of any spills on updated as required in consultation with the NFSL. county, is adequate to meet the needs of this measure. Cost assumes copying and responding to some questions by USFS, and filing plan with FERC. No specific measure proposed. Potential effects on water temperature and Effect of Project operations on water ----- $0 $0 $0 quality in Project reservoirs and Project- temperature, contaminants, and other water affected stream reaches. quality parameters in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches Potential effects on water quality of sediment caused by runoff from Project Roads and other Project-related hard surface runoff. Water Resources subtotal $160,000 $1,650,000 $36,200 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-4. FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES 10. Develop and Implement a Canal Fish Potential for fish stranding or displacement No specific issues identified. Cost assumes that Licensee would develop $15,000 $2,000,000 $40,300 Rescue Plan – Develop and implement a in stream channels from rapid changes in the plan, consult with CDFG, and file the ($40,000/yr for 50 years) Project Canal Fish Rescue Plan that Project canal flows. plan with FERC (~$15,000). Cost assumes includes at a minimum those activities annual fish rescue effort will be similar to currently undertaken during canal fish that currently undertaken by Licensee rescues. (~$40,000/year).

11*. Fund CDFG for Fish Stcoking – No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations on Project- Cost assumes funding $10,000 annually to $0 $500,000 $10,000 Annually fund CDFG for stocking fish in related activities on fish populations in CDFG. ($10,000/yr for 50 years) DeSabla Forebay Project reservoirs.

12*.Maintain Minimum Pool in No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations on Project- Cost assumes Licensee must annually direct $0 $50,000 $50,000 Philbrook Reservoir – Maintain a related activities on fish populations in Project O&M staff to monitor pool and ($1,000/yr for 50 years) minimum pool in Philbrook Reservoir for Project reservoirs. adjust release valve. fish

No specific measures proposed No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations on Project- No specific measure proposed. $0 $0 $0 related activities on fish populations in Project reservoirs.

Potential for fish passage upstream in Butte Creek.

Effects of the Centerville Diversion Dam on the upstream migration of Federally listed salmonids and the potential for fish passage. No specific measure proposed Significance of fish entrainment at Project Effects of Project operations on fish No specific measure proposed. $0 $0 $0 diversions. entrainment at Project dams and reservoirs. Fish and Other Aquatic Resources subtotal $15,000 $2,550,000 $51,300 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-5. WILDLIFE RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars WILDLIFE RESOURCES 13. Consult with CDFG Prior to Adequacy of deer protection at Project No specific issue identified. Cost does not include replacement of $0 $50,000 $1,000 Replacing or Retrofitting Deer Escape canals. retrofit of deer escape facilities: only CDFG ($10,000 once every 10 Facilities – Consult with CDFG regarding consultation. Costs assume License staff years for 50 years) specifications and design before, removing, Potential effects on wildlife habitat due to consulting with CDFG once every 10 years replacing or retrofitting any deer escape reservoirs and transmission lines at a cost of $10,000 for each consultation facilities. Potential effects of canals, flumes, and transmission lines on migration patterns of deer. 14. Monitor Animal Loss in Project Adequacy of deer protection at Project No specific issue identified. Cost assumes that Licensee would annually $0 $250,000 $5,000 Canals – Annually monitor animal canals. monitor and report canal mortalities. ($5,000/yr for 50 years) mortality in Project canals. Potential effects of canals, flumes, and transmission lines on migration patterns of deer.

No specific measure proposed. Potential effects on wildlife habitat due to Effects of the Project transmission line on ----- $0 $0 $0 reservoirs and transmission lines. raptors and migratory birds.

Potential effects of canals, flumes, and transmission lines on migration patterns of deer. Wildlife Resources subtotal $0 $300,000 $6,000 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-6. BOTANICAL RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars BOTANICAL RESOURCES 15. Develop and Implement a Vegetation Potential effects on botanical habitat caused Effects of Project operations on vegetation. Cost assumes Licensee develops and files $25,000 $500,000 $10,500 Management Plan – Develop and by Project reservoirs. plans when new license issued and annually ($10,000/yr on average implement a Vegetation management Plan implements measures to re-vegetate areas over 50 years) on NFSL within FERC Project Boundary, Potential effects on RT&E botanical affected by Project O&M. and re-vegetate areas affected by Project. resources.

16. Develop and Implement an Invasive Potential effects on presence and spread of Effects of Project operations on vegetation. Cost assumes Licensee develops and files $25,000 $1,000,000 $10,500 Weeds Management Plan – Make good noxious weeds. plans when new license issued and makes a ($20,000/yr on average faith effort to control invasive weeds on Effects of Project operations on the good faith effort to control populations of over 50 years) NFSL within FERC Project Boundary. Potential effects on botanical habitat caused establishment and spread of noxious weeds invasive weeds when new license issued, by Project reservoirs. and exotic plants of concern around Project and annually implements measures to facilities. control spread of weeds. Cost assumes Potential effects on RT&E botanical survey done within 2 years of license resources. issuance. 17. Develop and Implement a Fire Potential fire hazards from dispersed No specific issue identified. Cost assumes that Licensee’s existing Fire $0 $50,000 $1,000 Prevention, Response Investigation Plan recreation use and Project operation and Prevention Plan, which is provided to CDF ($1,000/yr for – Develop and periodically update fire maintenance. and periodically updated as required by 50 years) prevention and control plan CDF, is adequate to meet the needs of this Potential effects of overcrowding, fire measure. Cost assumes copying and hazards, and enforcement at the Philbrook responding to some questions by USFS, and Creek “Willows Area”. filing plan with FERC.

Botanical Resources subtotal $50,000 $1,050,000 $22,000 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-7. WETLAND, RIPARIAN AND LITTORAL HABITAT – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars WETLAND, RIPARIAN, AND LITTORAL HABITAT Measures 15, 16 and 17 address potential Potential effects on wetland, riparian and Effects of Project operations on wetlands ----- $0 $0 $0 effects to botanical resources. Costs related littoral vegetation community types. and riparian and littoral vegetation, to those measures are provided under those including fens, around Project facilities and measures. reservoirs.

Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on wetlands and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs, caused from Project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from Project roads, and natural landslides.

Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on wetlands and riparian and littoral vegetation around Project facilities and reservoirs. (SD2) Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat subtotal $0 $0 $0 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-8. ESA SPECIES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 18. Implement Minimum Stream Flows - Potential effects on instream habitat for Effects of existing minimum flows, and the Cost assumes no new valves or controls $0 $500,000 $10,000 Implement minimum daily streamflow benthic macroinvertebrates. potential for enhancement of flows, on equipment are needed. Cost assumes ($10,000/yr for schedule, and provide compliance aquatic habitat and fish, mollusks, and other Project O&M staff must manually adjust 50 years) documentation to FERC annually. Potential effects on instream habitat for benthic macroinvertebrate populations in valves for changes in monthly flows. mollusks. the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches. Potential effects on water temperatures in Butte Creek for spring-run Chinook salmon. Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Project canals and downstream of the Potential enhancement of salmon and Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte steelhead passage on Butte Creek Creek. downstream of Project. Potential for Project operations to Potential effects on instream habitat for coordinate with State and Federal resident trout in the Project-affected reaches conservation programs for improving of Butte Creek and WBFR. aquatic habitat conditions within Project reaches. Potential effects on instream habitat for anadromous fish in the Project-affected Potential for Project operations to influence reaches of Butte Creek. water temperatures in Project waters for Federally listed salmonids during critical Potential enhancement of fish habitat time periods. downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. Effects of Project operations and facility failures on water temperature, turbidity, Potential effects on RT&E amphibians. sedimentation, desease outbreaks, flow, instream habitat, and distribution of Federally listed salmonids and their habitat.

Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters 19. DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Potential enhancement of salmon and Potential for fish habitat enhancement in For the purpose of this measure, Licensee $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $70,000 Improvement Plan – Develop and steelhead passage on Butte Creek Project canals and downstream of the assumes the device chosen will be a partial ($30,000/yr for implement a DeSabla Forebay Water downstream of Project. Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte baffle, and cost to prepare the plan, 50 years) Temperature Improvement Plan. Creek. feasibility level design drawings and install Potential effects on instream habitat for the device is $2,000,000, which includes a resident trout in the Project-affected reaches Potential for Project operations to contingency since the final design has net of Butte Creek and WBFR. coordinate with State and Federal been identified. Further, Licensee assumes conservation programs for improving the cost to maintain and operate the device Potential effects on instream habitat for aquatic habitat conditions within Project is $30,000/yr. anadromous fish in the Project-affected reaches. reaches of Butte Creek. Potential for Project operations to influence Potential enhancement of fish habitat water temperatures in Project waters for downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Federally listed salmonids during critical Dam. time periods.

Potential effects on water temperature and Effects of Project bypass channel flows on quality in Project reservoirs and Project- juvenile and adult Federally listed affected stream reaches. salmonids.

Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations and facility failures on water temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, desease outbreaks, flow,

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches. 20. Develop and Implement Facility Potential effects on water temperatures in Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Cost estimate assumes $30,000 to prepare $30,000 $2,000,000 $40,600 Monitoring, Maintenance and Butte Creek for spring-run Chinook salmon. Project canals and downstream of the the plan and annual cost of $20,000 for ($40,000/yr on average Refurbishment Plan – Development and Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte additional condition assessment reviews to for 50 years) implement a Project facilities monitoring, Potential enhancement of salmon and Creek. confirm system conditions and an additional maintenance and refurbishment plan to steelhead passage on Butte Creek $20,000 in minor additional system assure facilities are in good working downstream of Project. Potential for Project operations to maintenance. condition coordinate with State and Federal Potential effects on instream habitat for conservation programs for improving resident trout in the Project-affected reaches aquatic habitat conditions within Project of Butte Creek and WBFR. reaches.

Potential effects on instream habitat for Potential for Project operations to influence anadromous fish in the Project-affected water temperatures in Project waters for reaches of Butte Creek. Federally listed salmonids during critical time periods. Potential enhancement of fish habitat downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Effects of Project bypass channel flows on Dam. juvenile and adult Federally listed salmonids. Potential effects on RT&E amphibians. Effects of Project operations and facility failures on water temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, desease outbreaks, flow, instream habitat, and distribution of Federally listed salmonids and their habitat.

Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches. 21. Develop and Implement Long-term Potential effects on water temperatures in Potential for fish habitat enhancement in The framework for the long term plan will $10,000 $250,000 $5,200 Operations Plan – Prepare and implement Butte Creek for spring-run Chinook salmon. Project canals and downstream of the be provided by the current annual plan. ($5,000/yr on average a long-term operations plan with approval Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte Development, review and completion of the for 50 years) from NMFS and CDFG. The primary goal Potential enhancement of salmon and Creek. final plan are assumed to require $10,000 of the Long-term Operations Plan is to seek steelhead passage on Butte Creek plus an annual cost of $5,000 for to provide cold water for holding and downstream of Project. Potential for Project operations to coordination based on actual conditions. spawning Central Valley Spring-run coordinate with State and Federal Chinook salmon in Butte Creek upstream Potential effects on instream habitat for conservation programs for improving and downstream from the Centerville resident trout in the Project-affected reaches aquatic habitat conditions within Project Powerhouse. of Butte Creek and WBFR. reaches.

Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches. 22. Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Potential effects on water temperatures in Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Development of the plan is assumed to cost $30,000 $6,700,000 $134,600 Spring-run Chinook Salmon Butte Creek for spring-run Chinook salmon. Project canals and downstream of the $30,000. Annual activity assumes a ($134,000/yr on average Populations- In cooperation with NMFS Lower Centerville Diversion Dam on Butte cooperative annual snorkel survey will be for 50 years) and CDFG, develop and implement a long- Potential enhancement of salmon and Creek. conducted in Butte Creek between Lower term upper Butte Creek Central Valley steelhead passage on Butte Creek Centerville Canal and Parrot Phelan Spring-run Chinook salmon monitoring downstream of Project. Potential for Project operations to Diversion Dam each summer to estimate plan coordinate with State and Federal adult escapement of spring-run salmon. Potential effects on instream habitat for conservation programs for improving ($16,000). Snorkeling methods will be resident trout in the Project-affected reaches aquatic habitat conditions within Project similar to those used by CDFG in recent of Butte Creek and WBFR. reaches. years. Licensee will conduct an annual adult pre-spawning mortality survey Potential effects on instream habitat for Potential for Project operations to influence between Quartz Bowl Pool and the anadromous fish in the Project-affected water temperatures in Project waters for Honeyrun Covered Bridge. The will be reaches of Butte Creek. Federally listed salmonids during critical conducted from about mid-June to mid- time periods. September. using a mark-recapture survey Potential enhancement of fish habitat ($75,000). An annual carcass survey will downstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Effects of Project bypass channel flows on be conducted from about mid-September Dam. juvenile and adult Federally listed through October again using mark recapture salmonids. techniques similar to those conducted by Potential effects on RT&E amphibians. CDFG in recent years ($39,000). Carcass Effects of Project operations and facility Survey will be conducted for 5 years. failures on water temperature, turbidity, Outmigration monitoring will be conducted sedimentation, desease outbreaks, flow, between October and April at Parrot Phelan instream habitat, and distribution of Diversion. Trapping will be conducted 7 Federally listed salmonids and their habitat. days per week weather and flow permitting ($104,000). Monitoring will be conducted Effects of Project operations on rare, for up to 5 events. threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters in Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches.

Assessment of estimates sustainable population sizes for Federally listed salmonids in the Project area based on the current density of each species’ life stage, available habitat and stream flows.

Potential for Project operations to coordinate with State and Federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within Project reaches.

Additional cumulative impacts from non- Project sources on Federally listed salmonids, including upstream disturbance to the aquatic habitat, water quality and recreational activities.

PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars Measure 23 – Provide Annual Reports Potential effects on water temperature and Potential for Project operations to Assumes cost for reporting included in $0 $0----- $0----- Provide annual reports regarding operations quality in Project reservoirs and Project- coordinate with State and Federal Measures 20, 21 and 22. and fish monitoring to NOAA Fisheries, affected stream reaches. conservation programs for improving USFWS, CDFG and FERC. aquatic habitat conditions within Project Potential effects on water quality of reaches. sediment caused by runoff from Project Roads and other Project-related hard Potential for Project operations to influence surface runoff. water temperatures in Project waters for Federally listed salmonids during critical Potential enhancement of salmon and time periods. steelhead passage on Butte Creek downstream of Project. Effects of Project operations and facility failures on water temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, desease outbreaks, flow, instream habitat, and distribution of Federally listed salmonids and their habitat.

Effects of Project operations on rare, threatened, endangered, or other special- status species.

Effects of Project operations on water temperature, contaminants, and other water quality parameters. 24. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Potential effects of canals, flumes, and Effects of Project operations on rare, Cost assumes that Licensee would annually $0 $150,000 $3,000 Protection – Comply with USFWS Valley transmission lines on migration patterns of threatened, endangered, or other special- monitor and report canal mortalities. ($3,000/yr for 50 years) Elkerberry Longhorn Beetle Program. deer. status species.

No specific measure proposed. No specific issue identified. Effects of recreation activity within the ----- $0 $0 $0 Project area on Federally listed salmonids. ESA subtotal $2,070,000 $11,100,000 $263,400 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-9. RECREATION – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars RECREATION 25*. Maintain and Operate Philbrook Adequacy of recreation facilities to meet Effects of Project operations, including Costs include maintaining both recreation $25,000 $1,250,000 $25,500 Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay projected Project-induced recreation maintenance activities, on public access and areas using a concessionaire, and assumes ($25,000/yr on average over Recreation Facilities – Costs include demand over the term of the license. recreational opportunities within the Project concessionaire fee short of operating cost 50 years) repair, prevention and cyclic maintenance. area. each year by about $10,000. Costs also Potential effects of Skyway project on include: repair damaged components and increasing recreation use in Project Area. Adequacy of existing recreation facilities, perform normal preventive and cyclic parking and public access within the Project maintenance (estimated to be about $25,000 Public dumping of garbage at the BLM trail Boundary and ability of facilities to meet year) and are not covered by user fees. head adjacent to DeSabla Powerhouse future recreational demands (including Road. affects resulting from the Skyway Project).

Potential effects of dispersed and developed Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on Project resources. recreation use on Project resources, including effects of littering and sanitation Appropriateness of existing Project-related problems. interpretive and education /recreation signs. Appropriateness of existing Project-related interpretive and education/recreation signs. Potential wildfire risk associated with Licensee’s Philbrook recreational cabins. 26. Develop and Implement Recreation Potential wildfire risk associated with Effects of Project operations, including Costs include replacement and retrofitting $60,000 $900,000 $19,200 Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Licensee’s Philbrook recreational cabin maintenance activities, on public access and (including preparation of site development (Capital costs include development of initial (Costs is total construction, Upgrade Plan at existing Philbrook lessees. recreational opportunities within the Project plans, design, specifications, construction plan including site development plans and assuming work will not Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay area. drawings, permitting and construction design specifications in consultation with occur evenly over term of Recreation Facilities – Replace and retrofit management) of facility components over USFS.) new license.) existing recreation facilities at Philbrook Adequacy of existing recreation facilities, term of license on a schedule consistent Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay on a parking and public access within the Project with the life expectancy of the facilities. schedule that considers the useable life of Boundary and ability of facilities to meet Costs include information/education the existing facilities. Retrofits for ADA future recreational demands (including signage. compliance will be given priority. affects resulting from the Skyway Project).

Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on Project resources, including effects of littering and sanitation problems.

Appropriateness of existing Project-related interpretive and education/recreation signs. 27. Develop and implement a Project No specific issue identified. No specific issue identified in PAD. (On Costs include development of a plan in $65,000 $50,000 $2,300 and information Sign Plan –Develop and August 22, 2006, USFS provided to the consultation with USFS, and annual (Capital costs include development of initial (Cost include annual implement a Project Sign Plan for signs on Licensee a list of potential visual quality maintenance of signs. Costs include plan, and installation of 2 new interpretive replacement of damaged NFSL measures, which Licensee agreed to in installation of two new interpretive signs. signs, and replacement/upgrade of some signs @$1,000/yr) concept. Some of the measures dealt in part existing signs.) with signage.) 28. Obtain Public Access to DeSabla No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations, including Capital costs include design and $25,000 $150,000 $3,500 Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam maintenance activities, on public access and construction of tow gates to provide boater Impoundment – Consult with AW and recreational opportunities within the Project access and satisfy local landowners’ appropriate local landowners in an attempt boundary. concerns. Annual costs include gate to provide for whitewater boating access to maintenance and assumes replacement of the DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Effects of Project operations on quality and each gate periodically. Diversion Dam Impoundments availability on flow-dependent river recreation opportunities including: whitewater boating, fishing and feasibility of future flow-dependent river recreation. 29. Make Streamflow Information Availability of streamflow information No specific issue identified. Costs assume Licensee staff will compile $0 $125,000 $2,500 Available to Public – Make streamflow regarding Project-affected stream reaches, streamflow information and provide it to a ($2,500/yr for information available to public on Internet. particularly for whitewater boating. third party that will post the information on 50 years) the Internet at no cost to Licensee for internet use (i.e., third party post information). Recreation subtotal $175,000 $2,475,000 $53,000 Total annualized costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-10. LAND USE – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars LAND USE 30. Remove Philbrook Lake Tender No specific issue identified. No specific issue identified. Costs to remove the facilities is assumed to $250,000 $0 $5,000 House and Other Structures No Longer be $250,000, with no associated annual Needed – Within three years of license costs. issuance, Licensee shall consult with appropriate agencies for all necessary permits and approvals and remove the Philbrook Lake Tenders House and other structures no longer needed for Project operations. Land Use subtotal $250,000 $0 $5,000 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-11. AESTHETIC RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars AESTHETIC RESOURCES 31. Consult with USFS when No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations including No capital costs: assumes consultation $0 $50,000 $1,000 Painting/Reconstructing Facilities – facilities and maintenance activities on occurs during replacement. Minor costs (Costs include annual Licensee shall consult with the Forest aesthetic resources in the Project vicinity. associated with consultation, and assumes consultation: ~$1,000/yr) Se0rvice prior to painting or reconstructing no major Project facilities re-design Project facilities or re-vegetating areas on Effects of Project facilities, operations and required. National Forest System Lands (NFSL) to recreation use on aesthetic character of assure the facilities are consistent with lands administered by the USFS. USFS Visual Quality Objectives.

32. Maintain Improvements and No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations including No capital or annual costs. Assumes labor $0 $0 $0 Premises on NFSL - Licensee shall facilities and maintenance activities on in included in normal O&M. maintain all its improvements and premises, aesthetic resources in the Project vicinity. including disposal piles and dispersed recreation areas within the Project Effects of Project facilities, operations and Boundary, on (NFSL) to standards of repair, recreation use on aesthetic character of orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety lands administered by the USFS. acceptable to USFS. Disposal will be at an approved existing location, except as otherwise agreed by USFS. Licensee and USFS shall discuss any problem areas during the annual consultation meeting (Measure 1). No specific measure proposed. No specific issue identified. Effects of Project operations on the ----- $0 $0 $0 aesthetic attributes of Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status. Aesthetic Resources subtotal $0 $50,000 $1,000 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

Table E8.1-12. CULTURAL/TRIBAL RESOURCES – Resource management measures and estimated costs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Measures are numbered consecutively from Table E8.2-1 through E8.2-12. PG&E’s Proposed Capital & Sum of Annual Costs PAD Scoping Document 2 Cost Current Costa Resource One-time Costs Over 50 Years Issue Issue Assumptions Management Measure 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars 2007 Dollars CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOIURCES 33. Develop and Implement Historic Potential effects on culturally important Effects of continued Project operations, Costs assume the HPMP will require no $25,000 $750,000 $15,500 Properties Management Plan – Develop plants (for Native Americans). including maintenance activities, on Indian additional fieldwork, and Licensee retains a ($25,000 for 14 surveys each and implement a Project Historic Properties tribal interests and historic properties qualified cultural expert to perform surveys and $200,000 for 2 data Management Plan. Potential for evaluation of all identified located within the area of potential effect once each year for the first 5 years of the recovery efforts each) archaeological and historic-era sites and License term and then once every five years individual system features for National Development of a Historic Properties thereafter. Each surveys effort, including Register of Historic Places eligibility. Management Plan to ensure adequate preparing and filing reports costs $25,000 protection of tribal and historic resources (14 surveys times $25,000 - $350,000). Potential disturbance of historical and from Project operations and Project-related Costs also assume two sites over the term of archeological resources by wave action at activities. the license require data recovery costing Project reservoirs. $200,000 each. Effects of Project operations on culturally Potential for identifying areas of traditional important plants (for Native Americans). or spiritual significance to Tribes.

Potential for completing identification of cultural resources within the Project APE.

Adequacy of Project Area of Potential Effects.

Potential for inclusion of specific sites in proposed cultural resource studies.

Potential effects of inundation of cultural sites by Project reservoirs.

Adequacy of access to traditional plant gathering sites. Cultural and Tribal Resources subtotal $25,000 $750,000 $15,500 Current Costs are calculated by summing Capital and One-Time costs and Sum of Annual Costs Over 50 Years, and dividing the sum by 50. An asterisk indicates the proposed measure is essentially the same as a measure in the current license.

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]

ATTACHMENT 1

Proposed General Management Measures for Inclusion in Historic Properties Management Plan

1.0 Proposed General Management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP

Proposed management measures included in the HPMP are based on the premise that preservation of historic properties in place and the avoidance of damage to those properties are the most desirable objectives of management. Additionally, the measures are designed to address both the short- and long-term impacts that may threaten each site. The PG&E is proposing a variety of general management measures whose application will be dependent on the nature of the sites and commensurate with the nature and extent of the anticipated effects.

The management of historic properties within the APE primarily involves maintaining control over human activities either by directing activities away from sensitive areas and focusing them on other locations, or by using restrictive measures to deter damaging activities and inappropriate behavior. Controls may include restricting recreation and vehicle access and parking and controlling areas accessible to livestock grazing. Public and employee education, barricading and monitoring sensitive locations, and prosecuting violators also serve as deterrents. As a result, a variety of measures may be applied to minimize Project effects or provide treatment to eliminate Project effects. Such measures are described below.

1.1 Avoidance of Impacts to Historic Properties

PG&E will appropriately manage historic properties with avoidance being the preferred action during routine operations and maintenance activities. Many of the resources are located near facilities that may at times require maintenance resulting in ground disturbance; thus, the PG&E will institute operating procedures to ensure that cultural resources are taken into consideration during project planning and design and reduce the possibility of inadvertent damage to these properties. This can only be accomplished by apprising the DeSabla-Centerville Generation Supervisor and other key operating personnel of site locations to stay away from during Project activities and by providing the locations to management personnel on a need-to-know basis.

1.2 Public Education and Employee Training

Information can deter negative impacts by informing land users (both PG&E employees and the public) that certain kinds of activities are prohibited, or that the conduct of certain activities is inappropriate at specific locations. This assumes that land users, when provided appropriate information, will act responsibly and conform to proscriptions conveyed by the information, resulting in the protection and avoidance of damage to historic properties. The distribution of information is the least expensive measure in the short-term, although the long-term, cumulative

October 2007 License Application Resource Management Measures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Appendix Page 1 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 costs for continuous distribution of information may be substantial. Information does not provide insurmountable physical barriers, but it is a prerequisite for other treatment options, such as the involvement of law enforcement. By informing land users of the legal prohibitions and restrictions, PG&E will establish a context for effective prosecution.

In order to provide the public and PG&E employees with a better understanding of the importance placed on the Project region by Native Americans, the need for protection of both cultural and natural resources, and measures taken to provide protection, the PG&E will implement programs to promote the following messages: a. The Native American people, the cultural history, and their relationship with the land; b. Importance of cultural resources and the efforts to protect them; and c. Enjoy the land, the resources, and leave them untouched for others to enjoy.

Public Education

PG&E will work closely with the USFS to develop a public education program that informs the public about use restrictions at Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs, and encourages boaters, hikers, campers, and other users to leave the area the way they found it. Without emphasizing public awareness of cultural resources or highlighting their presence in the reservoir areas, the education program will still aid in protecting archaeological and historical sites by encouraging the public to leave the area as they found it. The educational program will be reviewed by representatives of the LNF, SHPO, and, as appropriate, Native American tribes prior its implementation.

PG&E will install new informational signs at designated locations to inform the recreating public about the resources of the area and use restrictions for resource protection. PG&E will invite a designated representative from the Tribes and USFS, as appropriate, to work with PG&E during the development of interpretive information.

The methods for delivering the information to target audiences will be determined by the PG&E in consultation with the USFS and the Greenville Rancheria and Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria (the Tribes). Delivery methods may include, but may not be limited to brochures, signs, and other media. Periodic updates to information may be necessary due to changed conditions or changes in laws and regulations.

Employee Training

It is PG&E’s plan to institute a positive education program for local employees using posters, the PG&E’s cultural resources video, and training sessions for supervisory personnel. Educational materials will emphasize cultural resource preservation, and will be reviewed with the SHPO and LNF prior to distribution. All Project employees and employees of the General Construction Department who work on the Project will be informed that artifact collecting on company property or on public land is grounds for disciplinary action. Tree trimming crews will be instructed not to drive into sensitive areas, to avoid such areas to the degree practical, and to avoid using heavy equipment in sensitive locations.

Figure 1.3- Signage

Two types of signs are proposed for the Project: (1) Regulatory warning signs, and (2) Interpretive signs and displays.

Regulatory Warning Signs

Regulatory warning signs will be clearly posted in protected, sensitive areas to warn the public that violators will be vigorously prosecuted. Signs will be highly visible and placed at access points for potentially vulnerable historic properties. Signs effectively warn the public that they are in a protected area and serve as an enforceable notice of that warning. Careful placement of signs is crucial so as not to increase public knowledge of site locations thereby making the properties more vulnerable to vandalism. Appropriate wording for the signs and their placement will be developed in consultation with PG&E Corporate Security and legal advisors, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the appropriate Native American communities and resource management specialists.

Throughout the Project, historic properties may be subject to various forms of impacts, including vandalism from looters and damage caused by off-highway-vehicles. Adequate signage notifying users about regulations and restrictions in sensitive areas are essential for the successful prosecution of violators. The following signs (Figures 1.3-1 through 3) will be placed at designated locations throughout the Project Area. USFS permission must be obtained prior to placing signs on NFSL.

1. Warning Sign – Sensitive Resource Area: This sign will be posted throughout the Project Area where it is easily viewed from roads and at developed recreation areas.

Figure E1.3-1 Sensitive Resource Area Sign

2. Warning Sign – No Unauthorized Vehicles: This sign will be posted in select locations along public roads where OHV’s have traveled off-road and on Project roads that are used only for administrative purposes by PG&E, resource agencies, and law enforcement personnel.

Figure 1.3-2 – No Unauthorized Vehicles Sign

Figure 1. - Warning Sign – Motor Vehicles Strictly Prohibited: Signs similar to the following example in Figure E8.1.12.1.1.3-3 will be posted throughout the Project Area at all roads and other locations where vehicles are prohibited; emergency vehicles excepted.

WARNING!

(AREA PATROLLED)

ALL NON-EMERGENCY MOTOR VEHICLES ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BEYOND THIS POINT

PLEASE REPORT VIOLATIONS TO (Phone Number)

VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED ACCORDING TO APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL STATUTES YOUR COOPERATION IS APPRECIATED – PG&E

Figure 1.3-3 – Warning: All Non-Emergency Motor Vehicles Strictly Prohibited

Interpretive Signs and Displays

Interpretive signs and displays are intended to convey information to the public regarding the cultural history of the area, the spiritual values of the Tribes, and the importance of natural resources to the lifeways of the Tribes. Interpretive displays may be placed at various locations within the Project area; potential locations include:

a. Philbrook Reservoir; b. DeSabla Forebay; and c. Centerville Powerhouse

The following types of information will be considered for each interpretive sign or display: a map of the Project Area, Project facilities, and location of recreation facilities. Information regarding the area’s natural history and at least one interpretive panel dedicated to cultural history and values should be included. Each interpretive display will be unique and describe features in the vicinity of the interpretive display.

The interpretive displays will be professionally designed, constructed of material compatible with the surroundings, and conform to USFS and other applicable sign standards. PG&E will request that a representative from the Tribes and the USFS, as appropriate, consult on the content and presentation of cultural information during the design phase of the displays. The content and presentation will be reviewed every fifth year following installation and changes will be made as agreed to by the PG&E, the Tribes, and the USFS. Changes to the content and presentation on sign panels will not require modification of any sign structures that are installed for the purpose of the interpretive display. The interpretive displays will be regularly maintained in good condition and will be kept graffiti-free.

1.4` Travel Routes and Road Closures

All vehicle traffic will be restricted to designated roadways except in the event of the following: 1) an emergency requiring access, 2) access for Project-related facility maintenance, or 3) other agency administrative purposes. Unless access is required for emergency purposes, notification will be given to the Tribes and USFS (as appropriate) prior to any necessary travel off of designated roads. Known archaeological sites shall be avoided, if possible. If non-emergency travel is necessary in an area where there is a reasonable potential to impact a cultural site, PG&E shall consult with the Tribes and USFS (if appropriate) regarding appropriate measures to identify and protect such resources, with avoidance of the site being the preferred measure. If sites are unavoidable, PG&E and the USFS (as appropriate) will determine appropriate measures to avoid site impacts and will request that a Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor observe vehicle passage through the area. If damage to a site is unavoidable, PG&E shall comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) to evaluate and, if necessary, mitigate any adverse effects to the site.

PG&E will take measures to post and enforce restrictions on vehicular access below the high water line of the Project reservoirs, for any cultural resources identified within the reservoirs. Access restrictions may not be necessary should cultural resources within reservoirs be evaluated

October 2007 License Application Resource Management Measures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Appendix Page 5 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. In areas of restricted access, vehicles will be permitted in designated areas only. Boulder barricades and other restrictive devices will be used in areas where vehicles are accessing Project lands below the high water line. A plan for specific placement of these barricades will be developed in consultation with the appropriate agencies. Restricting and enforcing vehicular access will eliminate the effects that vehicular access has upon historic properties within the reservoir.

In consultation with all appropriate reviewing agencies and interested parties, the PG&E may install barricades, vegetation, or similar physical obstructions to reduce or limit access to sites. Such barricades will be approved by the LNF, SHPO, FERC, and/or Tribes, as appropriate.

1.5 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Controls

The regular maintenance and periodic rehabilitation of Project roads are necessary for continued safe access to Project facilities, public safety, and prevention of environmental damage. Much of this work is planned in advance, allowing for identification of sensitive resources that may be present in the work area and implementation of appropriate actions to protect resources during the performance of work. At other times road maintenance and rehabilitation is performed on an emergency basis and is necessary to protect life and property, prevent damage to the environment, or maintain access to Project facilities during critical periods. Time for advance planning is not available during emergency circumstances and therefore may require that an assessment of impacts occur after the emergency has ended.

Routine maintenance or rehabilitation of Project roads may have a reasonable potential to impact historic properties. Reasonable potential is defined as: (a) ground disturbing work within 30 meters of any identified site eligible for the NRHP, (b) ground disturbing work within 30 meters of any identified site that has not been evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP, or (c) ground disturbing work in any area that has not been previously surveyed by a qualified archaeologist. “Ground disturbing work” is defined as any work that has the potential to expose subsurface cultural materials or cause an impact to the archaeological context of cultural materials. Routine road maintenance will be regulated to avoid adversely affecting cultural resource sites and historic properties. If road improvement is necessary for continued use, then alternative treatment options, such as fill or rerouting, will be considered.

The following steps shall be taken when planning and implementing Project road maintenance and rehabilitation work involving ground disturbance:

a. PG&E will request a Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor for routine road maintenance and repair in areas where there is a reasonable potential for impact to an archaeological site. Where appropriate, PG&E will notify FS of routine road maintenance and rehab work. This notification can be made during the annual collaborative meeting or, at a minimum, 10 days prior to implementation of work on NFSL.

b. Any road work in areas having a reasonable potential for impact to archaeological sites will be identified and flagged by a PG&E Cultural Resources Specialist to

indicate the location of the sensitive area immediately prior to performing the work. All flagging will be removed immediately following completion of the work.

c. A Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor may not be requested from the Tribe(s) for work being conducted outside of an area having a reasonable potential for impact. However, if cultural materials are discovered during the performance of ground disturbing work, work will stop immediately and the protocol identified in section 4.9, Inadvertent Discoveries will be followed.

1.6 Recreation Development and Improvements

The Project Area is a popular recreation destination for people engaged in activities such as hiking, fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, and hunting. The following steps to protect historic properties are required during the construction of any new recreation facility or any improvements to existing recreation facilities:

1. During recreation planning, PG&E recreation planners and Cultural Resources Specialists will request a meeting and site visit with the Tribes, and where appropriate, the USFS to:

a. Discuss the need and plans for additional recreational site development or improvement to existing recreation facilities; b. Present preliminary recreational site plans; c. Discuss prior cultural resource mitigation measures implemented during previous development; d. Consider site constraints; and e. Discuss avoidance of cultural resources as a preferred action or the need for additional mitigation measures.

2. If it is determined that avoidance of impacts to a historic property is not possible, suitable mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with the SHPO, FERC, the Tribes, and where appropriate the USFS in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended). Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, archaeological site testing to determine formal NRHP eligibility, and data recovery.

3. PG&E will request a Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor from the Tribes to be present during any recreation improvement or development requiring ground disturbing work4 where there is a reasonable potential for impact to a historic property5 in accordance with Section 4.7, Historic Properties Monitoring.

4 “Ground disturbing work” is defined as, work that has the potential to expose subsurface cultural materials or cause an impact to the archaeological integrity of cultural materials. 5 “Reasonable potential for impact” is defined as: (a) ground disturbing work within 30 meters of any identified site eligible for the NRHP, (b) ground disturbing work within 30 meters of any identified site that has not been evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP, or (c) ground disturbing work in any area that has not been previously surveyed by a qualified archaeologist.

4. If unanticipated cultural materials or features are discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with recreation-related work, work in the immediate area shall cease until the material is evaluated and documented by a PG&E Cultural Resources Specialist or designated archaeologist if appropriate, and protection or mitigation measures identified and implemented.

1.7 Archaeological Monitoring and Condition Assessment

Sound management of the resources requires that any progressive degradation of sites be identified. Additionally, the PG&E recognizes the need for a mechanism to identify any accidental damage that may occur. To accomplish these goals, PG&E will establish a program of annual monitoring and condition assessment. The program will include all NRHP-eligible sites within and immediately adjacent to the APE, as well as sites that have not been evaluated. Where the probability of ground disturbance is considered low, monitoring will be the primary or sole site-specific management effort. Where the probability of such disturbance is high, monitoring will be combined with other management procedures. Should unevaluated sites be judged ineligible to the NRHP during the term of the new license, they will be removed from the monitoring list. Similarly, unknown sites that may be encountered during Project actions will be included in the monitoring program unless evaluated as ineligible.

The detailed monitoring plan will call for initial visits to each site by qualified archaeologists retained or hired by PG&E, who will return to each site for annual follow-up visits. Special attention will be paid to unevaluated sites along or within water sources to assess the degree of erosion, if any, which may be occurring at these sites. The physical condition and any existing effects will be documented photographically as well as on site forms and maps and site condition forms. Timber benches, logs, and campfire rings erected by campers within site boundaries will be dismantled and removed as part of the monitoring program. If feasible, archaeological monitoring will be completed in the fall after disturbances from summer activities and following the reservoir drawdown, but prior to winter conditions potentially worsen erosion or other disturbances.

A total of 46 archaeological sites were identified within the Project APE during PG&E’s relicensing surveys. The need for and frequency of site monitoring is determined based on NRHP eligibility, the potential risk for Project induced impacts, the type of management measures implemented or prescribed, and the accessibility of the site. Not all sites will require routine monitoring. Monitoring will be implemented at each site within 1 year of license issuance. A monitoring report and copies of the condition assessments will be compiled into an annual report to be given to the Tribes, FERC, USFS, as appropriate, and SHPO at least 10 business days before the annual meeting described below in Section 1.12.

PG&E will request that the Tribe(s) provide one Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor (Section 1.11) to be present during monitoring efforts at Native American sites to assist the designated archaeologist in evaluating if cultural materials or archaeological integrity of a site are being affected by Project induced activities. The purpose of the Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor is to assist the archaeologist with the identification and documentation of each site’s condition, with particular attention paid to the presence of human remains and changes in a site’s condition

observed during subsequent years of monitoring following the initial monitoring effort. In the event human remains are discovered, the measures identified below in Section 1.13, Treatment of Humans Remains, will be followed.

Tribal Cultural Monitor Qualifications

Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitors shall be appointed by the Tribes, and meet all Tribal and PG&E qualifications for archaeological monitoring. At a minimum, qualified monitors:

a. Must be a member or an authorized representative of the Tribe;

b. Must have completed all training requirements of the Tribe;

c. Must have completed PG&E’s Cultural Monitor Training Program within two years prior to any monitoring work; and

d. Must have demonstrated monitoring skills.

Additional qualifications may be required according to changes in Tribal requirements or state and federal regulations. The PG&E training program will be offered annually.

1.8 Site Stabilization and Erosion Control

Due to the presence of potential historic properties near Project reservoirs, PG&E will develop a stabilization and erosion control program for any sites where monitoring identifies erosion as an adverse effect. Such programs typically employ stone or sediment barriers, hay bale or other organic impediments, or placement of geoweb, native plants, or other materials to lessen the effects of wave action and secure unstable slopes. Limited testing and/or data recovery, archaeological monitoring (on site), archival research, and photo documentation to augment monitoring also may be employed to assess sites or monitor the efficacy of erosion control measures. Site-specific stabilization and erosion control plans, and schedules for their implementation, will be developed in consultation between the USFS, PG&E, and other parties.

1.9 Treatment of Human Remains

Human remains, graves, and cemeteries that may be encountered during Project-related activities are protected by state and/or federal law. Under federal law, and on NFSL, the provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect human graves, associated funerary objects, and the free expression of Native American religious beliefs. On privately-owned lands, the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC, Section 7050.5, 7051, 7054), and California Public Resources Code (CPRC 5097) also prohibit damage, defacement, or disinterment of human remains without legal authority, and establish civil and criminal penalties. These statutes also are applicable to anyone who knowingly loots prehistoric or historical Native American or other graves.

Selecting an appropriate course of action when human remains come to light can be a complex decision-making process. In addition to compliance with federal and state law, various entities such as the County Coroner, the California NAHC, local Native Americans or members of other ethnic, religious, and/or familial groups, archaeological contractors, physical anthropologists, PG&E system operators and Cultural Resources Specialists, USFS, and, in some cases, the SHPO, may be involved. Moreover, human remains and associated funerary objects, if any, are often viewed as sacred and must be treated with respect. Sensitivity toward all interested parties is essential whenever human remains are concerned.

For all Project-related activities, the general policy shall be strict avoidance of all human burials, whether marked or unmarked, whenever possible. Re-interment in-place and avoidance of further disturbance through project redesign will be conducted where feasible. Any Project- related activity in the burial area may continue only after all steps defined by applicable state and federal laws have been completed.

1.10 Unanticipated Discoveries

Project maintenance, erosion, or other factors could expose and damage previously unidentified cultural resources. In addition, previously unknown qualities may be revealed at known cultural resources. If such unanticipated discoveries are made, the cultural resources coordinator and Project Generation Supervisor will be notified immediately. PG&E also will notify the USFS of any new discovery on federal land within 24 hours, will coordinate all subsequent consultations and activities with USFS personnel, and will provide the USFS with all associated documentation.

Newly discovered cultural resources will be examined by a qualified professional archaeologist or historian and recorded according to accepted contemporary standards. Impacts to the site, if any, also will be identified. If impacts are identified, PG&E will consult with the USFS, SHPO, and tribes, as appropriate, to determine the proper course of action. The HPMP will provide the decision-making framework for management. The USFS or SHPO may request, or PG&E may decide, to complete a formal evaluation of the property. When prehistoric archaeological sites are involved, such evaluations will be made in consultation with the appropriate Native American representative. If the resource is not formally evaluated, it will be assumed to be eligible for the NRHP and managed accordingly.

If the discovery occurs during the implementation of a specific Project action and PG&E has followed the terms of the HPMP, PG&E will act on behalf of the FERC in implementing the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800.13(b). Until agency and tribal consultation has been completed, PG&E shall assume NRHP eligibility of the property and shall attempt to prevent any harm to the property.

If unanticipated discoveries are made during any Project related activities (i.e., new construction, facility maintenance, etc.) the following steps will be implemented in consultation with the Tribes and the USFS, as appropriate:

a. All work in the immediate area will cease until PG&E Cultural Resources Specialist (or their designee, who will be a professional archaeologist), the Tribes, and the USFS Archaeologist as appropriate, are able to evaluate the find.

b. If the cultural materials constitute isolated material, or an “isolated find” (e.g. less than five unformed artifacts per square meter, isolated formed tools, isolated historic items, etc.), PG&E Cultural Resources Specialist or their designee will document the material as such to current NPS standards on a Primary Record (Appendix E), a Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor will be invited to monitor subsequent ground-disturbing activity, and the construction activity may continue without any further consultation. Exceptions would be for isolated cultural materials or features that are unique in some way or those that could be eligible for the NRHP on their own merit following application of the National Register criteria.

If the cultural materials constitute a “site” (e.g. greater than five unformed artifacts per square meter) or an isolated find that may be eligible for the NRHP on it’s own merit, PG&E’s Cultural Resources Specialist or their designee will document the property to current NPS standards, and the material will be assumed eligible for the NRHP in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13

Following documentation, where feasible, measures will be taken to protect newly discovered sites from further disturbance. PG&E shall consult with the Tribes and the USFS as appropriate, to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effect

PG&E will notify the SHPO and the Tribes within 48 hours of the new site discovery in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3). The notification will describe any assessment of NRHP eligibility (formal or informal) and the recommended actions to be undertaken to resolve potential adverse effects.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3), the SHPO and the Tribes will have 48 hours to respond to the notification of a new site discovery. Any response will be taken into account by the PG&E and USFS as appropriate. If no response is received within 48 hours, PG&E will assume that no comments are forthcoming, that the SHPO and Tribes concur with the proposed actions, and PG&E may proceed with implementing the actions. Following completion of the actions, work in the vicinity of the find may continue

Following completion of all construction activities, PG&E shall provide to the SHPO, the Tribes, the USFS as appropriate, and the California Historic Resources Information Center at California State University Chico, a report of the actions that were undertaken during construction activities and copies of all field documentation and consultation. This report will describe in detail isolated finds and potential historic properties (sites) identified during construction activities, all measures undertaken to resolve potential adverse effects and copies of all consultation documents.

1.11 Emergency Actions

Natural and other disasters that pose serious threats to life and property may require emergency actions that will affect significant historic properties or unevaluated resources. If an emergency action has the potential to affect historic properties, PG&E will immediately notify the SHPO, the FERC, the appropriate Native American band and LNF, providing them an opportunity to comment regarding such actions within 7 days of notification. If the FERC determines that circumstances do not permit 7 days for comment, PG&E shall notify the SHPO, the appropriate Native American band, LNF and invite any comments within the time available. This procedure will apply only to emergency actions implemented within 30 days after the disaster or emergency. If more than 30 days have passed since the emergency or disaster, PG&E will review the action in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4–800.6.

Emergency work includes: (a) equipment failures requiring immediate repairs, (b) immediate risk to public or employee safety, (c) prevention of loss or damage to property, or (d) unanticipated situations where immediate actions are required to maintain or restore utility service or avoid more serious impacts.

The following steps will be taken following any required emergency work:

a. The work supervisor shall notify the PG&E’s Cultural Resources Specialist within 48 hours of any emergency work performed;

The PG&E’s Cultural Resources Specialist will make a determination if the work was performed within any areas having a reasonable potential for impact to historic properties and will provide this information to the SHPO, the Tribes, and the USFS as appropriate;

If the work was performed within an area having a reasonable potential for impact, a Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor will be requested from the Tribe(s) to assist PG&E’s Cultural Resources Specialist and USFS as appropriate, with surveying the work area for archaeological resources and assessing any impacts to these resources if present; an

If necessary, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and implemented

Emergency repair work will stop immediately should potential human remains be discovered unless there is eminent danger to human safety. Should human remains be identified, the procedures provided in Section 8.1.12.1.1.9, Treatment of Human Remains, will be followed in compliance with applicable state and federal law.

Additional Archeological Investigations

Various kinds of archaeological studies may become necessary in the future. All lands within the FERC project boundaries have been inventoried for cultural resources. Any additional inventory that may become necessary will conform to contemporary professional standards and will be performed in consultation and coordination with the LNF, FERC, SHPO, and tribes, as appropriate.

Effective management of prehistoric and historic-era cultural resources requires information regarding the boundaries, integrity, vertical and horizontal structure, and content of the resources. In some cases, much of this information can be gleaned from careful surface inspection. In some cases, however, archaeological test excavation may be necessary to define a site’s content and vertical or horizontal extent, or to gather sufficient information to evaluate site significance, assess effects, or plan for treatment. Similarly, data recovery excavation is a standard treatment option when significant archaeological properties will be affected by Project actions. PG&E has a long standing commitment to the preservation and protection of cultural resources. In general, PG&E views excavation as a last resort to be employed only in circumstances where impact avoidance or other management measures are ineffective in maintaining and protecting site integrity, and following consultation with the USFS, tribes, and other interested parties. Additional analysis of existing archaeological collections and data from the study area may be an alternative to excavation in some cases.

In the event that excavation is determined to be the appropriate measure, any such work on federal lands will be conducted under the terms of an Organic Act or Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit, as determined by the nature of the work proposed. Any such work will be designed in accordance with the principles, standards, and guidance contained in Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (USDI 1983), the ACHP’s Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites (ACHP 1999), and guidance offered by the SHPO, USFS, and as appropriate, interested Native Americans. A detailed fieldwork plan will be prepared and will include a research design that identifies relevant research questions and data requirements as well as appropriate field, laboratory, and analytic methods for obtaining such data. Any fieldwork plan also will include procedures for consultation with the Native American community, as appropriate, a discussion of the final disposition and curation of any cultural materials recovered during excavation, and a plan for management and dissemination of information gleaned from data recovery. Curation of any prehistoric materials recovered from archaeological sites within the Project will aspire to the standards outlined in 36 CFR§79.

PG&E will retain appropriately qualified personnel for all cultural resources investigations performed under the terms of the FERC-approved HPMP. At a minimum, supervisory personnel will meet specifications set forth in Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards (USDI 1997) for the discipline(s) relevant to the particular study.

1.12 Periodic Reporting and Meetings

Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitors will be required to maintain a standardized Daily Monitoring Log of monitoring activities, observations, recommendations, and actions taken by PG&E. The Qualified Cultural Tribal Monitor will provide a copy of all daily monitoring logs to the job supervisor at the end of each week or at the conclusion of the monitoring effort whichever occurs first. PG&E’s Cultural Resources Specialist will also provide copies of the Daily Monitoring Log to the USFS, where appropriate, and to the Tribe(s) at the end of the monitoring session.

PG&E will prepare an annual report summarizing the results of all historic properties monitoring activities during the preceding calendar year and provide a copy of the report to the Tribe(s),

USFS, FERC, and SHPO by March 15 of each year. The report shall include a description of measures taken to protect historic properties, description of the condition of mitigation structures and recommended maintenance, description of maintenance work performed, and any other relevant information. Copies of all Daily Monitoring Logs kept by the Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitor will be appended to the annual report. The annual report will also describe any management recommendations made by Qualified Tribal Cultural Monitors, which management measures were implemented, and explain the reasons for not implementing recommendations that were not adopted. The report shall be provided at least 10 business days in advance of an annual meeting with the USFS and Tribes. The annual meeting will be scheduled between January 1 and March 30 of each year.

If monitoring detects activities or site damage on NFSL that may need immediate response or law enforcement action, [e.g. signs of looting, OHV use in restricted areas, serious site damage (human or naturally caused), etc.] it must be reported immediately to that appropriate USFS district office so that the USFS may initiate any necessary independent action such as an investigation, or work with the PG&E to develop appropriate mitigation measures. 1.13 Periodic Review and Revision of the HPMP

After five years, PG&E will meet with the LNF and Native American representatives to evaluate the effectiveness of the site monitoring and condition assessment program and evaluate the need for continued monitoring. Once every 10 years, the Cultural Resources Specialist, the SHPO, the USFS, and Native American representatives will review the HPMP to appraise its effectiveness regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of Project effects on historic properties. If necessary, the HPMP will be revised to address comments and concerns raised during this review process. Steps to revise, amend, or otherwise alter the plan will be approached in the same manner as the development and approval of the initial HPMP.

2.0 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP

Site-specific management measures are based on multiple factors that take into account site locations relative to Project-related operation and maintenance activities, site eligibility for listing on the NRHP, and identified on-going or potential Project-related impacts. Management measures may require modifications or revisions during the term of the license due to changes in site conditions, the discovery of new site information, or other conditions necessitating the need for additional or revised site protection measures. Revisions, additions, and modifications to management measures will be developed in consultation with the FERC, SHPO, USFS, BLM, and Tribes, as appropriate.

Management measures specific to the 46 archaeological sites identified within the APE are presented below in section 8.1.12.1.2.1. Section 8.1.12.1.2.2 outlines management measures specific to Tribal properties, and section 8.1.12.1.2.3 presents the management measures for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Historic District and features.

2.1 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Prehistoric and Historic-Era Archaeological Sites

Thirty-two of the 46 archaeological sites identified in the APE are formally evaluated for listing on the NRHP; all contain strictly historic-era deposits. Six of these are associated with the DeSabla-Centerville hydroelectric system and are evaluated as contributing elements of the system’s historic district, described below in Section 8.1.12.1.2.3. Four of the contributing sites may also be eligible to the NRHP on an individual basis. Fourteen additional sites, including 6 with prehistoric deposits and features and 8 with both prehistoric and historic-era cultural remains, have been preliminarily assessed for their eligibility to the NRHP but are not formally evaluated. Table E8.1.12.2-1 presents the management measures proposed for each prehistoric and historic-era archaeological site within the APE. Individual discussions of site-specific management measures are presented below.

2.1.1 Site-Specific Management Measures

Site Number: CA-BUT-597/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private/SPI Site Description: CA-BUT-597/H is an extensive lithic scatter with BRMs and historical bottle fragments. A Rosegate and other small projectile points, and the presence of BRMs, suggest the site was occupied during the Early Kings Beach Phase (700-1300 B.P.) of the Eastern Sierra Front cultural-temporal sequences. The few pieces of bottle glass do not provide enough information to interpret historic-era activities that may have occurred on site. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: A formal evaluation would be necessary to identify the site’s eligibility. It is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the site’s good integrity and data potential apparent in surface-visible remains. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Annual monitoring and condition assessment Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: CA-BUT-868-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E

Site Description: This is the site of the original DeSabla Powerhouse, first recorded in the mid 1980s (Van Buren et al. 1984) as containing 18 features associated with the powerhouse and its camp. In 1985, PAR (Maniery et al. 1985) recommended that the site was eligible for listing on the NRHP. Major changes were noted at the site during the 2006-2007 visit and re- documentation, with the majority of the physical remains removed. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Current powerhouse built on same site as original DeSabla powerhouse NRHP Eligibility: Recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to severe disturbances that have lessened the site’s integrity and ability to convey information relevant to the site’s history and use. Exisitng Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-871-H Other Designations: Butte Creek Canal Camp 2 Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This site is a PG&E ditch tender’s camp known as the Butte Creek Canal Camp 2. It contains three concrete building pads, an extensive trash scatter, mortared and dry- laid rock retaining walls, a drinking water transport system, and a dirt access road. A large, man- made flat northeast of the site may have once been the location of some of the dozen or so structures that were once located at the camp, which was occupied between 1902 and the 1950s. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Buildings have been removed, otherwise the site is in the same condition as originally documented in 1980. NRHP Eligibility: NRHP Eligibility: Recommended eligible as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Historic District. Site may have buried archaeological features and could be individually eligible under Criterion D. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Annual monitoring and condition assessments. Test excavation needed to assess individual eligibility. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: CA-BUT-872-H Other Designations:

Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This is a hard rock mining complex known as Poumeratt Quartz Mine and Mill or the Toadtown mining complex. Many features of this site indicate that mining activity occurred no earlier than the 1920s or 1930s. A mill foundation on site is composed of Portland cement, a twentieth-century building material. A change house on site is purported to have been built in the 1920s or 1930s. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended ineligible due to the site’s lack of integrity. Modern intrusions have caused a loss of setting, movement and loss of historic features has degraded integrity of the site’s location and design. Materials, workmanship, and feeling are no longer present. The site is associated with a storied mining community, but there is little to make the observer understand that context. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None required Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-873-H Other Designations: Hog Ranch Ditch Tender’s Camp Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This is the Hog Ranch ditch tender’s camp located along the Centerville Canal. It includes remnants of building pads, a possible privy pit, a trash scatter, a drinking water delivery system supplied by the canal, and a fig tree. A separate ditch system was apparently used for hydraulic mining activities not associated with the ditch tender’s occupation. A small trash scatter of tin cans, bottles, ceramics and other domestic artifacts dates to the 1930s and 1940s, and gives insight into life at this rural location. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Modern trash dumping NRHP Eligibility: Recommended eligible as contributing element of DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Historic District. Site may have buried archaeological features and could be individually eligible under Criterion D. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Block public access from Hog Ranch Road and post warning signs, include in site monitoring and condition assessments. Test excavation needed to assess individual eligibility.

Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: CA-BUT-877-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private/Possible BLM Site Description: This is a shallow, abandoned earthen ditch with no apparent associated features. It may have been used to power the overshot waterwheel that was reportedly present at the nearby Poumeratt Mine, but no documentation about the ditch was encountered during the archival research. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to the lack of documented associations with other sites/mines and a lack of features that provide an observer with a sense of use. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-887-H Other Designations: Orofino Mine Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This site is the entrance to the Orofino Mine that includes a pit surrounded by serpentine tailings with cart rails protruding from the tailings. Two collapsed rock walls may be associated with previous buildings or tent pads. Also present is a can scatter. No features were encountered at the location identified in the previous site record. However, a newer road has been constructed in the area where the site was recorded. A culvert, four feet in diameter, has been placed under the road and it empties into the previously mapped location of the mine entrance. This culvert does not appear to be more than 20 years old and was likely emplaced after the 1985 recordation. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Culvert installation and road/creek alterations NRHP Eligibility: This site has integrity of location but the setting has been severely impacted. The powerhouse access road cuts through the site, making it difficult to ascertain the relationship between the upper and lower features. A modern culvert and dirt road were placed through the site, causing erosion and possibly filling the mine and severely impacting the setting. The

cultural remains that are present are not sufficient to reconstruct technological processes and their evolution through time, thus the site does not have integrity of design. Additionally, there are no structures or equipment, so materials and workmanship are not well represented. Although some mining features are identifiable that provide some association, the site does not evoke a strong sense of the past. The site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-965-H Other Designations: Indian Springs Mine Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: The Indian Springs Mine was a drift mine started in 1860. It was worked continuously until the 1890s and then sporadically used until the 1920s or later. Recreational activities have occurred in the area and, combined with weather and time, have caused continued disintegration of the site. This is most notable in the disappearance of artifacts, particularly an ore cart originally documented at the site in 1987. However, most features and artifacts recorded at that time are still present and identifiable. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Although Depression-Era mining at the site obliterated many of its features dating to the site’s primary period of use (1860-1890), no Project-related impacts were observed at the site. NRHP Eligibility: Due to the severe loss of integrity and resulting low data potentials, this site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-1111-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This is an old corral and livestock chute with a scatter of historic-era debris dating to 1950-1970s. The artifact scatter contains sanitary cans, 1930s car parts, beer cans with church key openings, window glass, and cedar posts with 16D nails. The corral was documented by BLM, which was informed at the time that it was still used on occasion by Eldon Duensing of

Chico, who informed the BLM that the corral dated to the 1930s or 1940s. The BLM recommended that the corral be preserved because it might possess historic value. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The location, setting, and feeling of the site are retained. However, design is the primary data potential for this feature. Removal of key aspects of the corral makes this a non-descript partial enclosure that offers no information to make it eligible for the NRHP. Based on the loss of design, the primary aspect of integrity for this site, it is recommended as ineligible. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: CA-BUT-1225/1226/1227/1228/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This is an extensive lithic and historic-era trash scatter. Basalt is the dominant toolstone on site and includes an extensive scatter of debitage; a core and three bifaces also were noted. Additionally, a small basalt outcrop on site served as a quarry. Obsidian is minimally represented by a biface, scraper, eared projectile point, and a few pieces of debitage. The projectile point is suggestive of an Elko-series point, which are primarily indicative of the Late Martis Phase (3000-1300 B.P.) associated with the Eastern Sierra Front cultural-temporal periods. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Reservoir wave action, erosion, and recreation use, including ATV activities on site. NRHP Eligibility: Formal test excavations will be completed in September and October 2007 under the existing license to determine the site’s level of integrity and eligibility for listing on the NRHP. The potential exists that inundation and sedimentation may protect intact, subsurface deposits, if present. Given the variety of stone tools and the presence of both basalt and obsidian, the site appears to have the potential to address research questions about prehistoric occupation. Historic-era cultural remains may also provide insight into historic travel activities. Thus the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: On August 31, 2007, PG&E submitted an ARPA permit application and scope of work (research design) to LNF to formally test and evaluate the site under the existing license during the fall of 2007. LNF accepted the scope of work and has indicated that the permit will be issued to PG&E about mid-September 2007. As a result, the test excavation is scheduled to begin immediately following issuance of the permit.

Proposed Management Measures: PG&E will consult with the SHPO, LNF, and Tribes, to develop treatment measures if evaluation indicates the site is eligible for listing on the NRHP. Monitoring Frequency: Annual monitoring if the site is eligible for listing on the NRHP unless treatment measures are developed and implemented as proposed.

Site Number: CA-BUT-1229-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: CA-BUT-1229-H is a historical mining site with a mine shaft and associated tailings, a rock cairn, and a prospect pit. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: The site retains integrity of location and its association is clear. However, a dense stand of trees appears to postdate the mining activity and to have impacted the site’s setting and feeling. There is also no integrity of workmanship, materials, or design. Because this site lacks data potential, and retains little integrity, it is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None Site Number: CA-BUT-1465-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This is a segment of an unnamed water conveyance ditch. A 40-foot section of the ditch extends under a bridge that spans Butte Creek and is the most intact segment of the ditch observed. Much of the ditch has filled with rock and vegetation and its outer sandstone wall displayed varying degrees of erosion. Sections of the ditch have been completely destroyed by construction of the bridge and road as well as a neighboring residential area, overall leaving the ditch in fair condition. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project –related impacts were observed. NRHP Eligibility: Because the date or owner/operator of the ditch could not be determined, its lack of integrity, and the fact that water conveyance ditches of this type are common in this area, Vaughan (1999) previously concluded that the site has little data potential and evaluated the

October 2007 License Application Resource Management Measures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Appendix Page 21 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 ditch as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. In general, the 2006-2007 studies found the site to be consistent with Vaughan’s description and, thus, it is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: BCC-4 Other Designations: Butte Creek Canal Camp-3 Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: BCC-4 is likely a ditch tender’s camp. It was first identified by PAR (1985) as the site of the PG&E Headquarter’s camp. It consists of a light scatter of artifacts, including miscellaneous metal hardware such as bolts, square spikes, and wire, primarily observed along the fence line. A red brick fragment also was observed. A broken brown insulator is attached to a post on the west side of the site near a gate on the north. The circumference of the insulator is embossed with “Illinois / PAT. 1709477.” The patent number dates the insulator to 1923. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: The lack of features and artifacts is believed to have occurred as a result of a major cleanup episode that removed structures and trash, leaving little to no data potential at the site. Additionally, the site no longer conveys its use as a camp, which affects the setting, feeling, and association. Workmanship, materials, and design were affected by removal of the features. Although intact subsurface deposits may be present, the removal of surface features has severely impacted the data potential found in the spatial layout of the site. Only one artifact of the few that remain on site was datable indicating activity after 1923. NRHP Eligibility: The one structure left on site lacks integrity and retains no other significant characteristics that would make it individually eligible to the NRHP. Thus, based the removal of the structures, loss of spatial relationships, lack of features or artifacts, and a loss of integrity, the site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: BCC-5 Other Designations: Hupp’s Sawmill Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E/Private

Site Description: This is the site of Hupp’s Sawmill and residence, in use between 1864 and 1890. The area is currently covered with blackberry bushes and dense ground vegetation and modern trash has been dumped on site. Only a few historic ceramics and glass fragments were observed. Although the structures were removed over 25 years ago, tall, thick vegetation may be obscuring artifact concentrations, and artifact-bearing hollow features may be present but hidden under the vegetation. Hollow features might include privies, trash pits, and industrial features related to the sawmill and other features of the site. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Removal of the structures

NRHP Eligibility: Because the site is so overgrown, this site is not formally evaluated. Subsurface investigations are necessary to determine the data potential of this site and thus, its significance. A map of all the facilities that once occupied this site could be used to guide that work. A significance evaluation cannot be made at this time, thus the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program. Subsurface investigations are necessary to determine the data potential of this site and thus, its significance. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: CC-4 Other Designations: Upper Centerville Canal Camp 3 Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: CC-4 is a ditch tender’s camp on the Lower Centerville Canal. Based on archival research, this is likely the site of Camp 3. The site is on private property and only minimal access to the site was possible. A modern residence has been constructed on top of the Camp 3 location. A rock retaining wall was observed next to the house and may be a remnant of the camp, but its exact association is unclear. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Non Project-related modern construction and disturbances have negatively affected the overall integrity of the site. Even if subsurface features still exist, the setting, feeling, association, materials, and design have been essentially eliminated. Mo Project-related impacts were observed. NRHP Eligibility: This site is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP because it lacks integrity. Existing Site Protection Measures: None

Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-1/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: DC-1/H is an extensive prehistoric and historic-era site containing BRMs, projectile points, a small historic-era trash dump, historical U.S. USFS road, and turpentine trees. Although a formal identification of the projectile points is necessary, those observed on site are similar in form to Elko-eared and Corner-notched styles associated with the Late Martis Phase (3000-1300 B.P.) and the Kingsley Complex (500 B.C. – A.D. 500) respectfully, which are identified in the Eastern Sierra Front cultural-temporal sequences. Ponderosa trees were taped for turpentine in the 1860s, which was shipped back east to support the Civil War. The trash dump indicates the site was used from 1917-1950, and the road is shown on a 1949 Division of Forestry map. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Formal evaluations are necessary to identify the site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. However, surface-visible artifacts and features suggest the site retains significant data potentials that provide insight into prehistoric and historical use of the site and important event both locally and nation-wide. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-2-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: SPI Site Description: This is a corral located on a flat adjacent to Humbug Road. The corral sports an irregular pentagon shape and was constructed using wooden posts and barbwire. Ceramic insulators were used to attach and tie the wire. This site may be related to grazing in the area, but that association is unclear. Potential TCPs:

Site Impacts: Overall, the corral is in poor condition. Although most of the posts survive, the wire has either fallen down or been removed along most of the fence line. Trees have grown within the corral area. However, no Project-related impacts were observed during the c urrent study. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to the loss of integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Additionally New forest growth has negatively affected the feeling and setting of the site. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-3/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: SPI Site Description: DC-3/H is a large prehistoric village site with midden, a moderately dense lithic scatter, and BRMs. The lithics include a dense scatter of debitage comprised primarily of basalt and a few pieces of obsidian, bifaces, a core, projectile points (one corner-notched and one side-notched), a handstone, and a pestle fragment. Historical trash and evidence of historic-era logging are also present, dating to 1933-1964. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. Although historic-era activities have affected the prehistoric deposit, both prehistoric and historic-era deposits retain a high level of integrity overall. NRHP Eligibility: Formal evaluations are necessary to identify the site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. However, based on the data potentials visible in surface-evident artifacts and features, the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-6-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: SPI

Site Description: This site consists of two trash dumps containing tin cans and a small amount of glass and enamelware dating to 1935-1963. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Although this site meets most of the evaluation standards, it does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. The association of the largest can dump is tenuous as there are no documented logging camps in this area. If it is associated with the lumber industry, it is a single dump episode likely associated with loggers away from their main camp, and although many food containers are present, the dump provides only a one-dimensional view of the past. The smaller can dump appears to be related to recreational use. Existing Site Protection Measures: None

Proposed Management Measures: None

Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-7-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: SPI Site Description: This site is composed of three trash dumps. Two of these contain a mixture of steel top cans with pull tabs (dating from 1962 to the early 1970s), clear liquor bottles with threaded closures, a can of Liquid Wrench, an upright tobacco can, and a Pepsi bottle with a 1970 makers mark, indicating they date to around 1970. The other dump contains over 200 items, with additional subsurface deposits. These include clear glass condiment bottles and liquor bottles, brown liquor bottles, a 7-Up bottle, evaporated milk cans with matchstick filler lids, cone and flat top beer cans, coffee cans, jelly jars, tumblers, a pickle jar, and a tube of Colgate toothpaste. Datable artifacts suggest the site dates between 1945 and 1960. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. Overall, these deposits are undisturbed and appear to retain good integrity. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Although the site meets most of the evaluation standards, it does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. Its association to the logging industry is tenuous as there are no documented logging camps in this area. Similar to DC-6-H, if it is associated with the lumber industry, it is a single dump episode likely associated with loggers away from their main camp. Although many food containers are present, it gives us only a one- dimensional view into the past. The data potential of this site, the threshold of Criterion D, is low, and therefore the site is evaluated as ineligible.

Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-8-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This historic-era trash scatter contains approximately 100 items that include ceramic pieces dating from 1931 to 1964, glass bottles produced in 1939, matchstick filler milk cans suggesting a date of 1945-1950, and other cans. Overall, the artifact dates are confusing and do not appear to be contemporaneous, possible suggesting that site occupation occurred over a long period as opposed to a single dumping episode. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. Fallen trees and dead branches litter the site and have potentially buried artifactual material. River flooding episodes and water scouring related to an adjacent mining ditch (DC-22) have caused erosion of the terrace bank. The erosion is slowly encroaching on the site. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Similar to sites DC-6- H and DC-7-H, this site meets most of the evaluation standards but does not contain enough data potential to address research questions about industry or subsistence. It may be associated with logging or recreational camping, but appears to have been disturbed by the introduction of later activities. Although many food containers are present, the site provides only a one-dimensional view of the past. The data potential of this site, the threshold of Criterion D, is low. Therefore, the site is evaluated as ineligible. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-9 Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: SPI Site Description: This site contains a granite BRM with two mortar cups and two milling slicks in good condition. Potential TCPs:

Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: A formal evaluation is necessary to determine the site’s eligibility. However, it is preliminarily assessed as ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to the lack of surface-visible diagnostic artifacts or features that would suggest that a buried cultural deposit is present or whether the site contains data potentials. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual Site Number: DC-12/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: CDFG Site Description: This is a sparse lithic scatter and historic-era trash dump. The prehistoric deposit includes two basalt bifaces and approximately 10 basalt flakes. The historic-era trash dump contains jar and bottle glass, ceramics, various types of tin cans, a leather hobnail boot, and a brass, center fire cartridge, dating to 1940-1963. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: Formal evaluation is necessary to determine if additional, buried prehistoric cultural remains are present and whether subsurface materials retain integrity. However, creek- side terraces and other major water sources are generally considered to be sensitive cultural locations, suggesting there is potential for additional buried deposits. Based on these observations, the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The historic-era trash dump is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. It contains personal and household remains, but has no known associations. Its location adjacent to Humbug Summit Road may have provided opportunistic dumping for travelers or recreationists and residents who occupied cabins in the vicinity. It may also be associated with a corral that was observed in the area. However, without concrete associations, the dump offers no information to address the research questions or historic-era themes identified in the historic context. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program to protect the prehistoric deposit. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-13/H Other Designations:

Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: CDFG Site Description: DC-13/H contains a sparse lithic scatter, a diffuse historic-era trash dump, and a logging skid trail. The lithic scatter includes 1 basalt core, 1 basalt biface fragment, and 2 basalt flakes. The historic-era portion of the site is limited to 6 tin cans, 1 jar, and 1 bottle that represent food consumption but otherwise offer no information specific to historical events or other associations. Diagnostic historic-era artifacts suggest the site was used in 1935-1945.

Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: Formal evaluation is necessary to identify the eligibility of the site’s prehistoric deposit for listing on the NRHP. The surface-evident artifacts are sparse. However, locations near major water sources are considered to be culturally sensitive and intact subsurface deposits may be present. Thus, the prehistoric deposit is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP. The historic-era trash dump contains personal and household remains, but has no known associations. Its location adjacent to Humbug Summit Road may have provided opportunistic dumping for travelers or recreationists and residents who occupied cabins in the vicinity. It may also be associated with a corral that was observed in the area. However, without concrete associations, the dump offers no information that addresses the historic-era themes identified in the historic context, or the research questions, and it is recommended as ineligible to the NRHP.

Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Treatment Measures: Include in a site monitoring and condition assessment program to protect the prehistoric deposit. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-15 Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site is a granite BRM with one mortar cup. Overall, the milling station is in good condition. No other cultural remains were observed during the current study. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: A formal evaluation is necessary to determine the site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Due to the lack of surface visible artifacts or other cultural remains that would suggest whether a buried deposit or data potentials are present, the site is preliminarily assessed as ineligible for the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessment program until or unless formal evaluation is conducted at the site. Monitoring Frequency: Annual Site Number: DC-16-H Other Designations:

Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site is a historical refuse deposit consisting of bottles, glass, ceramics, enamelware, and cans that appear to date to about 1955. It retains good integrity and most of the artifacts appear to be undisturbed, although a nearby campground gives collectors easy access suggesting that site deposits may have been disturbed or removed. This site may be associated with mid-twentieth century camping at the West Branch Campground. However, this association is unclear. Although the deposit can be dated, and there are artifacts related to subsistence, the data potential is very small. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: The site is within a clearing near the campground access road. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The site meets most of the evaluation standards, but there are no personal artifacts that would assist with the site’s association or give clues to age, gender, social class, or ethnic group. The lack of data potential indicates the site is ineligible. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-17/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site contains a single BRM, one basalt core, and a historic-era trash scatter. No other prehistoric artifacts or features were observed on the ground surface. The site’s historical element consists of domestic habitation debris and refuse, such as glass jars and bottles, metal beverage and food cans, window glass, structural hardware, and shotgun and cartridge shells distributed across three loci. Historic-era materials appear to post-date 1915, but the presence of amethyst glass suggests the deposit dates to sometime in the late 1910s or 1920s. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: The prehistoric element of the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Formal evaluation is necessary to identify the eligibility of the prehistoric remains. However, terraces and gentle slopes in close proximity to major water sources such as found at this site are generally considered sensitive cultural locations, suggesting there is potential for additional buried deposits.

The historic-era deposit of the site retains good integrity overall. Additional archival research and possible test excavations are required to determine the association of the historic element to

October 2007 License Application Resource Management Measures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Appendix Page 31 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 events or themes, but the variety of artifacts present suggest the site contains data potentials. It is preliminarily assessed as eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. It may also meet Criteria A for its potential association to past USFS activities.

Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in a site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-18-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This is a historical refuse deposit composed of bottles, cans, and metal hardware. It demonstrates good integrity, but because of its proximity to a river, it may have been subject to flooding episodes. Datable artifacts indicate the site dates between 1940 and the late 1950s. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible fro listing on the NRHP. The association of the site is unclear. There are no documented work camps in this area, so the deposit appears to be a single dump episode. There is subsistence information present, but with no association, there is little data potential. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-20-H Other Designations: USFS Snag Lake Camp Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site contains the remains of the U.S. USFS Snag Lake Camp, which is shown on a 1949 Division of Forestry map. The camp appears to have first been occupied sometime after 1935 and to have closed prior to 1980. However, recent signs of vehicular access suggest that recreational users continue to use the area. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed during the current study.

NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible fro listing on the NRHP. This site meets many of the evaluation standards. However, no documentary evidence of the camp was located. It is unclear if this was a USFS work camp that was later turned into a recreation camp, or if its only purpose was recreation. The founding date of the camp is unknown, but artifacts suggest it may have been used for 40 years. If true, there appears to be a relative paucity of artifacts for that length of time. The site also shows evidence of modern intrusions, suggesting that features or artifacts may have been removed or destroyed prior to this recordation effort. Because this site does not have enough data potential to meet the threshold for Criterion D, it is evaluated as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-21 Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This is a prehistoric site with three BRMs and a small flaked stone scatter. The BRMs are located on three separate granite outcrops and contain multiple mortar cups and a grinding slick. The outcrops are covered with moss, pine needles and soil, but are in good condition. Flaked stone consists of one basalt biface, one basalt scraper, and a light scatter of basalt flakes. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed during the current study. However, a modern cabin, storage structures, and an access road have been constructed on top of the site. NRHP Eligibility: Formal evaluation is required to identify the site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. However the site is preliminarily assessed as eligible for the NRHP. The site’s integrity still appears to be good despite disturbances. Few flaked stone artifacts were observed which do not include diagnostic materials to substantiate the temporal placement of the site and there is little surface-evident information to address other research questions. Regardless, the site’s proximity to a major water source suggests that additional, buried cultural remains are likely present. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in a site monitoring and condition assessment program until or unless formal evaluation is conducted at the site. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-22-H Other Designations: Dewey Ditch

Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: This site is the Dewey Ditch, built in 1858 and sold to the Cherokee Mine in 1873. In 1902, Eugene de Sabla purchased the Centerville Powerhouse system and the dams, pipeline, and ditches of the Cherokee Mine, which included the Dewey Ditch (Jackson et al. 1985:141–142). One feature, a penstock frame, is still on the ditch. The ditch was decommissioned in 1933. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts were observed during the current study. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a mining property. Having been decommissioned in 1933, the ditch is no longer a feature of the hydroelectric system, but is considered individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in a site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-23-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: DC-23-H is a historic-era trash dump dating to ca. early 1910s to the 1960s. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: No project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible to the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-24-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This site is a historic-era trash dump with a variety of food cans, bottles, jars,

Resource Management Measures License Application October 2007 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company AppendixPage 34 Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 and glass fragments dating from the 1910s to the 1950s Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Preliminarily assessed as eligible to the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in a site monitoring and condition assessment program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-26-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site is a historic-era can dump dating to post-1950. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-29-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This site contains four trash dumps associated with cabins on PG&E land dating to ca. 1939-1958. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: Easy public access, manual excavation of cultural deposit, stacking of artifacts. NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-32-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This is a historic-era can dump with one glass jar dating to 1956. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: No Project-related impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-34-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site contains the remains of a U.S. USFS camp shown on a 1949 Division of Forestry Map. Cans and bottles in the site date from 1900 to 1969. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No project impacts observed

NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-38-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: Site contains a historic trash dump of cans and one glass jar dating to 1948-1963. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: No Project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-39-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This site is a historic-era trash dump containing cans dating to 1953-1963. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: Public access NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-40-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest

Site Description: This site contains features associated with mining and logging activities, No time-sensitive cultural remains were encountered at the site and, as a result, it is not possible to define the period of use or association of activities. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: No Project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-43-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This is a mining site with associated tailings, an adit, and a prospect pit. One glass bottle was encountered on site that dates between 1881-1905. The mine was not found on mining maps or in any of the other archival information, there is no technological information left on site, and thus it is not possible to address research questions based on the site contents. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: No project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: None Monitoring Frequency: None

Site Number: DC-44 Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site consists of a single BRM. No other cultural remains were encountered. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: No project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: A formal evaluation is necessary to determine the site’s eligibility but it is preliminarily assessed as ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to the lack of surface-visible diagnostic artifacts or features that would indicate the site’s data potential.

Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include DC-44 in the monitoring and condition assessments. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-46-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Lassen National Forest Site Description: This site is a DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project lake tender’s cabin and associated features that were occupied by the lake tender from 1926 to 1970. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: Public recreation, vandalism to the cabin NRHP Eligibility: The site likely contains subsurface archaeological deposits, given the length of occupation and the presence of outhouses, which often provides information on diet, personal grooming, ethnicity, and other aspects of people’s lives. Subsurface excavations are necessary to determine if the site retains a buried deposit with data potential that would demonstrate the site is eligible for listing on the NRHP on an individual basis. However, the site is recommended as eligible to the NRHP as a contributing property to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District for its ability to relay details of, and a sense about, the life of a Project lake tender.

Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Consult with LNF and SHPO to develop treatment measures to address adverse effects associated with the PG&E’s proposed removal of the lake tender’s cabin. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-51/H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: Private Site Description: DC-51/H contains two BRMs, historic-era cabins, and associated structural remains and out buildings. The historical Dewey Ditch (Site DC-22-H) passes through the center of the site. Although archival research did not reveal information specific to this site, one cabin straddles the ditch and may represent a ditch tender’s cabin associated with the DeSabla- Centerville Hydroelectric project. Potential TCPs:

Site Impacts: No project impacts observed NRHP Eligibility: The historical remains at the site are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a contributing element to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District. As a residence for a ditch tender or other occupants, the site may contain buried cultural deposits. Additionally, it is not known if buried prehistoric cultural remains are present; no surface-visible prehistoric artifacts were encountered. Formal subsurface investigations would be necessary to evaluate the site for it’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP on an individual basis. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include DC-51/H in the monitoring and condition assessments. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-52-H Other Designations: Traditional Tribal Territory: Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This is the site of the Pacific Service Employee’s Association (PSEA) camp. It was built before 1922 on the banks of Lake DeSabla. In 1916, PG&E employees living at Camp 1 at Lake DeSabla founded the initial PSEA club to organize social events and recreational activities for PG&E employees. By the early 1920s, PSEA had begun establishing campgrounds at various locations around the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project for its employees, including the one at DC-52-H. Potential TCPs: Site Impacts: Modern development and use of the camp NRHP Eligibility: Recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP as a contributing property to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historic District. Historic subsurface cultural deposits may be present on site due to the length of its occupation, thus the site may also be eligible to the NRHP on an individual basis. Formal subsurface investigations would be necessary to identify buried deposits. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include DC-52-H in the monitoring and condition assessments. Monitoring Frequency: Annual

Site Number: DC-53-H Other Designations: Lake DeSabla Camp 1 Traditional Tribal Territory: No

Property Ownership: PG&E Site Description: This is the site of the Lake DeSabla Camp 1, originally set up as the construction camp for the DeSabla Forebay and Powerhouse. Upon completion of the forebay and powerhouse, Camp 1 served as a residential area for PG&E workers. As noted above, employees living at Camp 1 founded the initial PSEA club in 1916 to organize social events and recreational activities for PG&E employees living at DeSabla. Potential TCPs: None Site Impacts: Most of the original buildings, structures, and features of Camp 1 have been removed NRHP Eligibility: Recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a contributing element of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System Historical District. Neither the site nor the standing uperintendent’s house and bunkhouse are individually eligible for the NRHP. Existing Site Protection Measures: None Proposed Management Measures: Include in site monitoring and condition assessments program. Monitoring Frequency: Annual 3.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Tribal Interests

Studies to document Tribal interests are currently in-progress

4.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Historical Project System Features

As mentioned in Section 6.11 above, the Project system has been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District and several elements of the system also have also been recommended as eligible on their own merit. The elements recommended as eligible are listed in Table E1.4-2.

Table E1.4-1. Proposed Management Measures for Archaeological Sites within the APE. Trinomial Project-Related Annual CA-BUT-XXX/ Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Management Measure Impacts4 Monitoring Temporary Number 597/H Toadtown Private/SPI Lithic scatter, Casierra Rd via No observed project Potentially eligible Yes No other management BRM, historic Skyway impacts required beyond annual bottle frags monitoring and condition assessment. 868-H DeSabla PG&E Original DeSabla Powerhouse Current powerhouse Recommended No No management required DeSabla Road built on the same ineligible powerhouse site: site foundations, pads, trash deposits 871-H Butte Creek PG&E Butte Creek Camp No. 2 Road Structures removed, Recommended Yes No other management Canal Canal Camp 2: erosion, no current eligible as required beyond annual foundations or on-going project contributing monitoring and condition impacts. property, assessment. potentially eligible individually 872-H Toadtown Private Poumeratt Jaguar Ct. via No observed project Recommended No No management required Quartz Mine: Toadtown Rd impacts ineligible foundation, drift, structures 873-H Lower PG&E Hog Ranch ditch Hog Ranch Road Modern trash Recommended Yes Block public access into Centerville tender’s camp: extends west from dumping eligible as the site from Hog Ranch Canal foundations, Humbug Summit contributing Road and post warning pads, trash Road to the site. property, signs to stop trash deposit potentially eligible dumping; annual individually monitoring and site condition assessments. 877-H Toadtown Private, possible Mining ditch Private drive No observed project Recommended No No management required BLM impacts ineligible 887-H DeSabla PG&E Orofino Mine DeSabla Powerhouse Culvert Recommended No No management required entrance Road construction, ineligible road/creek alterations 965-H DeSabla Private Indian Spring Private No observed project Recommended No No management required Mine impacts ineligible 1111-H Toadtown Private Corral with Private drive No observed project Recommended No No management required refuse scatter impacts ineligible

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number 1225/1226/122 RVR LNF LS, QRY, HTS, Humbug Fluctuating Potentially Yes Site scheduled 7/1228/H HR Summit Road reservoir levels, eligible for formal erosion, off-road evaluation vehicles September 2007 under existing license; consult with SHPO, FERC, LNF, Tribes to develop treatment if site is eligible to the NRHP. 1229-H RVR LNF Mine shaft, USFS Rd. No observed Recommended No No tailings ditch 26N22 via project impacts ineligible management Humbug required Summit Road 1465-H Butte Creek Private Ditch Humbug No observed Recommended No No Canal Summit Road project impacts ineligible management required BCC-4 DeSabla PG&E BCC Camp 3, Skyway/Lake Vandalism, Recommended No No possible ditch DeSabla Road overgrown ineligible management tender’s camp required BCC-5 DeSabla PG&E, Private Hupp’s Sawmill Humbug Road Structures Unevaluated due Yes No other and residence removed over 25 to dense management years ago; no vegetation. required current or on- beyond annual going project monitoring and effects. condition assessment. CC-4 Lower Private Camp 2, Upper Centerville No observed Recommended No No Centerville Centerville Canal Road project impacts ineligible management Canal ditch tender’s required camp

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number DC-1/H RVR LNF BRM, LS, HTS, USFS Rd. No observed Potentially Yes Update site TT 27N11B via impacts eligible record with Humbug LNF Summit Road information on turpentine trees in site and vicinity; include in annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-2-H RVR SPI FEN USFS Rd. No observed Recommended No No 27N11B via project impacts ineligible management Humbug required Summit Road DC-3/H RVR SPI Village, HST SPI Road No observed Potentially Yes No other project impacts eligible management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-6-H WBFR SPI HTS Humbug No observed Recommended No No Summit Road project impacts ineligible management required DC-7-H WBFR SPI HTS Humbug No observed Recommended No No Summit Road project impacts ineligible management required DC-8-H WBFR Private HTS Humbug No observed Recommended No No Summit Road project impacts ineligible management required DC-9 RVR SPI BRM Humbug No observed Potentially Yes No Summit Road project impacts ineligible management required DC-12/H RVR CDFG LS, HTS Humbug No observed Potentially eligible Yes No other Summit Road project impacts management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment.

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number DC-13/H RVR CDFG LS, HTS Humbug No observed Potentially eligible Yes No other Summit Road project impacts management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-15 RVR LNF BRM USFS Rd. No observed Potentially Yes No other 26N22 via project impacts ineligible management Humbug required Summit Road beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-16-H WBFR LNF HTS USFS Road Modern Recommended No No campground ineligible management required DC-17/H WBFR LNF BRM, HTS Campground No project impacts Potentially eligible Yes No other access loop via observed management USFS Rd. required 25N27 beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-18-H WBFR LNF HTS USFS Road No project impacts Recommended No No observed ineligible management required DC-20-H RVR LNF HIS USFS Camp SPI/USFS Road No project impacts Recommended No No observed ineligible management required DC-21 WBFR Private BRM, LS Humbug No project impacts Potentially eligible Yes No other Summit Road observed management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment.

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number DC-22-H WBFR Private Dewey Ditch Humbug No project impacts Recommended Yes No other Summit Road observed eligible management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-23-H PBR PG&E HTS Philbrook No project impacts Recommended No No Reservoir Road observed ineligible management required DC-24-H PBR PG&E HTS Philbrook Public access Recommended No No Reservoir Road ineligible management required DC-26-H PBR LNF HTS No No project impacts Recommended No No observed ineligible management required DC-29-H PBR PG&E HTS Philbrook Public access, pit Recommended No No Reservoir Road manually ineligible management excavated into required cultural deposit with artifacts stacked around edge of pit, likely for artifact collection DC-32-H PBR LNF HTS Philbrook No project Recommended No No Reservoir Road impacts observed ineligible management required DC-34-H PBR LNF HTS Philbrook No project Recommended No No Reservoir Road impacts observed ineligible management required DC-38-H PBR PG&E HTS No No project Recommended No No impacts observed ineligible management required DC-39-H PBR PG&E HTS No Public access Recommended No No ineligible management required DC-40-H PBR LNF Mining No No project Recommended No No impacts observed ineligible management required

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number DC-43-H PBR LNF Mining No No project Recommended No No impacts observed ineligible management required DC-44 PBR LNF BRM No No observed Potentially Yes No other project impacts ineligible management required beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. DC-46-H PBR LNF HTS, Philbrook Philbrook Recreational use, Recommended Yes Block public Gate Tender’s Reservoir Road vandalism of eligible as access to site House cabin contributing and include in element of the annual historic district, monitoring and potentially eligible condition individually assessment. DC-51/H WBFR Private BRMs, HTS, Humbug No project Historical site Yes No other CAB, possible Summit Road impacts observed component management ditch tenders cabin recommended required eligible as beyond annual contributing to the monitoring and historic district, condition potentially eligible assessment. individually DC-52-H DeSabla PG&E PSEA Camp Lake DeSabla Modern Recommended Yes No other Road developments and eligible as management use of camp contributing to the required historic district, beyond annual potentially eligible monitoring and individually condition assessment.

Table E1.4-1 (continued) Trinomial CA-BUT-XXX/ Project-Related Annual Management Location1 Land Owner2 Description3 Vehicle Access NRHP5 Temporary Impacts4 Monitoring Measure Number DC-53-H DeSabla PG&E Camp 1 Skyway Most original Recommended Yes No other structures and eligible as management features are gone contributing to the required historic district beyond annual monitoring and condition assessment. 1/PBR = Philbrook Reservoir ; RVR = Round Valley Reservoir; WBFR = West Branch Feather River 2/CDFG = California Division of Fish and Game; LNF = Lassen National Forest; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; SPI = Sierra Pacific Industries 3/BRM = Bedrock Mortars; CAB = Cabin site; HIS = Historic; HTS = Historic Trash Scatter; LOG = Logging; LS = Lithic Scatters; MID = Midden; MIN = Mining; TT = Turpentine Trees; USFS = United States USFS 4/Only Project–related impacts cited. Non-project related impacts are detailed in Table 7.11.1.3-1 in Section 7.11 5/Potentially = Preliminary assessment of NRHP eligibility; Recommended = Formal evaluation of NRHP eligibility awaiting SHPO concurrence

Resource Management Measures License Application October 2007 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company AppendixPage 48 Table E1.4-2. DeSabla-Centerville Historic Project Features Recommended as Eligible to the NRHP, and/or Proposed Historic District Contributors.

Contributing Individually Individually Site No. Element of Eligible Ineligible (CA-BUT-XXX) NRHP or Temp No. Feature Components Construction District 869-H Hendrick’s Canal Tunnels, gates, wasteways, 1871-1906 X X flumes, culverts, L-walls, spillways, gauging stations 870-H Centerville Powerhouse, switchyard, 1899 X X Powerhouse campsite 874-H Butte Creek Canal tunnels, gates, wasteways, 1902 X X flumes, culverts, L-walls, spillways, gauging stations 875-H Toadtown Canal L-walls, spillways, flumes, 1871-1903 X X wasteways, gauging stations 876-H Lower Centerville ditch tender’s camps, 1875-1907 X X Canal tunnels, gates, wasteways, flumes, culverts 891-H Upper Centerville Canal, gate 1871 X X Canal Butte Creek Dam, ditch tender’s camp 1916 X X Diversion Dam Centerville Dam, ditch tender’s camp 1906-1908 X X Diversion Dam Hendricks Head/ Dam, gates, fishwheel Early 1900s X X Diversion Dam Round Valley Reservoir, dam, spillway, 1877 X X Reservoir gauging stations, and associated features Philbrook Reservoir Reservoir, dam, spillways, 1926 X X lake tender’s campsite, and associated features DeSabla Forebay Dam, reservoir, ditch 1903 X X and Dam tender’s camp site, old and new intakes, spillway Flumes Flumes Various X X Penstocks Penstocks Various X X 871-H Camp 2: BCC ditch Foundations 1902 X ? tender’s camp 873-H Hogg Ranch camp, Foundations, pads, trash 1930s-1940s X ? possibly LCC Camp 2 BCC-5 Hupp’s Sawmill; Trash 1864-1890 ? possibly BCC Camp 2 DC-22-H DC-22-H: Dewey Ditch 1858 Ditch DC-46-H Philbrook Reservoir Cabin, , other structural 1926 X ? Lake Tender’s remains, trash Cabin Site DC-52-H PSEA Camp Cabins and other facilities 1920s X ? DC-53-H Camp 1 Original bunkhouse and 1900s X X superintendent’s house

Throughout the term of the License, activities such as maintenance, repair, alteration, replacement, and new construction may be necessary. Any major repairs or modifications to the NRHP-eligible components of the System or Historic District contributing elements shall be

performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (48 FR 44738-44739) in consultation with the SHPO. The most appropriate treatment for eligible properties and/or contributing components—preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation—shall be part of the consultation. Ideally, all repairs or modifications shall be done utilizing the same design and construction techniques as the original, and matching the existing materials. If repairs, modifications, or replacement are necessary for any of the NRHP contributing electrical or mechanical elements, they shall be replaced in kind by functionally equivalent parts whenever possible.

Table E1.4-2 depicts repair and maintenance activities that may be undertaken on NRHP-eligible or contributing structures that do not require consultation with the SHPO. PG&E will ensure that all Project foremen and supervisors responsible for repairs, maintenance or construction on Project facilities are provided with this Table and are aware of the requirements. If repairs, modifications, or replacement of individually eligible components of the system (including any original mechanical or electrical hardware) becomes necessary and cannot be accomplished in a manner that conserves the historic character and value of the affected component(s), PG&E shall consult with the SHPO regarding alternatives to such actions.

Under extraordinary circumstances (i.e., unusual system outages caused by severe weather, fire, flood, landslide, earthquake or other natural cataclysm) where prompt restoration of electrical service is a vital necessity, reasonable effort shall be made to minimize effects on historic properties during emergency repair work and PG&E will proceed in accordance with Emergency Undertaking provisions identified above.

Table E1.4-3. Repair and Maintenance Activities to NRHP-eligible Properties That Do Not Require SHPO Consultation Element Activity Structural Elements Repair or replacement of trim, or hardware when done in kind to match existing material and design;

Replacement of glass when done in kind to match existing material and design. Windowpanes may be double or triple glazed as long as the glazing is clear and replacement does not alter existing window material and form. This excludes the use of tinted glass, which will require consultation; Maintenance of features such as frames, paneled or decorated jambs and molding through appropriate surface treatments such as cleaning, rust removal, paint removal, and re-application of protective coating systems; Repair or replacement of doors, when done in kind to match existing material and form;

Table E1.4-3 (continued) Element Activity Repair or replacement of roofs or parts of a roof that are deteriorated, when done in kind to match existing material and design. Adequate anchorage for roofing material to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration shall be provided; Repair or replacement of gutters and drain pipes, when done in kind to match existing material and design; Repair or replacement of porches and stairs when done in kind to match existing material and design; Repair of window and doorframes by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing or replacing in kind those parts that are either extensively deteriorated or are missing. The same configuration of panes will be retained; Repair or replacement of window and door screens when done in kind to match existing material and design; Alteration, repair, and/or modification of the interior of buildings/structures, not impacting on exterior appearance; and Demolition of buildings/structures within the DeSabla-Centerville Historic Hydroelectric District boundaries that have been evaluated and found to be ineligible for the NRHP and are not part of a contributing property.

Surfaces Painting or patching exterior surfaces when the new paint or patch material matches the existing or original color/material; Replacement or installation of caulking and weather-stripping around windows, doors, walls, and roofs; and Removal of non-original intrusive surface applied elements such as exterior wall mounted conduit, pipes, wiring, junction boxes, etc.

Utility Systems Installation of mechanical equipment that does not effect the exterior of the buildings/structures; and Replacement, removal, or upgrading of electrical wiring.

Ongoing maintenance of immediately surrounding landscaping, including such modifications as removing diseased or safety- threatening vegetation; Element Activity Utility Systems (cont.) Repair or replacement of street or road surfaces, curbs, driveways and walkways done in kind to match existing materials and design; and Repair or replacement of fencing done in kind to match existing material and design.

New Materials Installation of dry insulation;

Table E1.4-3 (continued) Element Activity Installation of securing devices, including dead bolts, door locks, window latches, and door peepholes. Damage to historic doors and windows should be minimized during installation; Installation of fire or smoke detectors; Installation of securing systems; and Installations of screening or other like materials in order to protect the building/structure from rodents and other intrusive wildlife (e.g. bat screening.

Ground Disturbing Activities Excavations for repair or replacement of building footings or (When no prehistoric materials are present) foundation work within two (2) feet of existing footings and foundations; Tree or shrub planting or removal in areas that have been previously disturbed by these activities; and Installation of landscape sprinkler systems. Removal of non-native weeds.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 SECTION 9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Issuance of a new license for the Project as proposed by PG&E would not result in any short- term or long-term unavoidable impacts with the following exception(s):

• Installation of a structure at DeSabla Forebay to convey cool water through the forebay may result in the unavoidable warming of the remaining portions of the forebay. Given that relicensing studies documented moderate levels of bacteria in the forebay in summer, this proposed measure could result in an unavoidable impact to water temperature, water quality, and recreation in summer in DeSabla Forebay. This cumulative impact would occur each year, and is considered a minor impact since water contact recreation is not permitted on DeSabla Forebay. Furthermore, in the balance, the new structure would support the prime environmental benefit of the Project-enhanced habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead in lower Butte Creek.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]

SECTION 10 Economic Analysis

Economic analysis. The economic analysis must include annualized, current cost-based information. For a new or subsequent license, the Applicant must include the cost of operating and maintaining the project under the existing license. For an original license, the Applicant must estimate the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed project. For either type of license, the Applicant should estimate the cost of each proposed resource protection, mitigation, or enhancement measure and any specific measure filed with the Commission by agencies, Indian tribes, or members of the public when the application is filed. For an existing license, the Applicant's economic analysis must estimate the value of developmental resources associated with the project under the current license and the Applicant's proposal. For an original license, the Applicant must estimate the value of the developmental resources for the proposed project. As applicable, these developmental resources may include power generation, water supply, irrigation, navigation, and flood control. Where possible, the value of developmental resources must be based on market prices. If a protection, mitigation, or enhancement measure reduces the amount or value of the project's developmental resources, the Applicant must estimate the reduction.

10.1 Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Project (Existing License)

The economics include the costs of owning and operating the Project. Project cost components include unrecovered past capital additions, relicensing transaction costs, future capital replacements (including the cost of rebuilding Centerville powerhouse), normal operations and maintenance, FERC fees, taxes, insurance. Table E10.1-1 summarizes the Project’s average annual costs for the existing No Action Case.

Table E10.1-1. Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and No New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Estimated Costs in $2007). Capital, One-Time, or Replacement Power Average Annual Annual Expense Item Description Repeating costs Costs

$1,000s or $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr NO ACTION CASE - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Replacement power costs 4, 5 $-13,405/yr

Net Book Value $31,400 $4,396/yr

FERC License Application 2 $14,500 $2,030/yr

Normal O&M $2,500/yr $2,500/yr

Future Capital Additions 3 $1,900/yr $3,230/yr

FERC Fees $120/yr $120/yr

Total No Action Case Average Annual Costs $12,276/yr

Cost of Project Power, with 155.7 GWh per year average annual energy 7.9 cents/kWh

Net No Action Case Average Annual Costs -$1,129/yr 1 The “No Action Case – Existing Conditions” include the costs of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse under the current license conditions. 2 Cost forecast through completion of relicensing process. 3 Future Capital Additions include the cost of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse. 4 The CPUC-published Energy Purchase Prices for Qualifying Facilities (without time-of-delivery metering) has averaged 8.6097 cents/kWh from September 2006–August 2007. 5 Average annual energy based on actual 1977–2001 energy production. Dependable capacity based on water available in July–September 1977.

10.2 Cost of Constructing, Operating, and Maintaining the Proposed Project (Original License)

This is not an application for an original license. Therefore, an estimate of the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed Project is not applicable.

10.3 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures

10.3.1 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures Proposed by PG&E

The estimated costs of PG&E’s proposed resource management measures associated with a new FERC license are shown in Table E10.3-1.

Table E10.3-1. Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and with the Licensee-Proposed New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Costs in $2007). Capital, One- Annual Replacement Average Time, or Expense Power costs Annual Costs Item Description Repeating $1,000s or $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr LICENSEE PROPOSALS IN FINAL APPLICATION Train Employees Annually $0 $20.0 /yr $20.0 /yr Consultation $0 $10.0 /yr $10.0 /yr Special-status Species $0 $9.6 /yr $9.6 /yr Develop and Implement Project Transportation System $15 $20.3 /yr $22.4 /yr Management Plan Develop and Implement Round Valley Dam Spillway $480 $9.6 /yr $76.8 /yr Stabilization Plan Develop and Implement Project Canal Maintenance and $15 $150.3 /yr $152.4 /yr Inspection Plan Install and Maintain New Gages $160 $13.2 /yr $35.6 /yr Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Stream during Canal $0 $22.0 /yr $22.0 /yr Outages Develop and Implement Hazardous Substance Plan $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Develop and Implement a Canal Fish Rescue Plan $15 $40.3 /yr $42.4 /yr Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking $0 $10.0 /yr $10.0 /yr Maintain Minimum Pool in Philbrook Reservoir $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing or Retrofitting Deer $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Escape Facilities Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals $0 $5.0 /yr $5.0 /yr Develop and Implement Vegetation Manage Plan $25 $10.5 /yr $14.0 /yr Develop and Implement Invasive Plants Management Plan $25 $10.5 /yr $14.0 /yr Develop and Implement Fire Prevention and Response Plan $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Implement a Minimum Flow Release Schedule $0 $10.0 /yr $826.5 /yr $10.0 /yr Develop and Implement DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature $2,000 $70.0 /yr $350.0 /yr Improvement Plan Develop and Implement Facility Monitoring, Maintenance and $30 $40.6 /yr $44.8 /yr Refurbishment Plan Develop and Implement Long-term Operations Plan $10 $5.2 /yr $6.6 /yr Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Spring-run Chinook $30 $134.6 /yr $138.8 /yr Salmon Provide VELB Protection $0 $3.0 /yr $3.0 /yr Maintain and Operate Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla $25 $25.5 /yr $29.0 /yr Forebay Recreation Facilities

Table E10.3-1. (continued) Capital, One- Annual Replacement Average Time, or Expense Power costs Annual Costs Item Description Repeating $1,000s or $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr $1,000s /yr Develop and Implement Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan for Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation $60 $19.2 /yr $27.6 /yr Facilities Develop and Implement Project Sign Plan $65 $2.3 /yr $11.4 /yr Provide Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion $25 $3.5 /yr $7.0 /yr Dam Impoundment Make Streamflow Information Available to Public $0 $2.5 /yr $2.5 /yr Remove Ditch Tender House and Other Structures No Longer $250 $5.0 /yr $40.0 /yr Needed Consult with Forest Service when Painting/Reconstructing $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Facilities Develop and Implement Historic Properties Management Plan $25 $15.5 /yr $19.0 /yr Total Licensee-Proposed Costs $3,255 $673 /yr $827 /yr $1,129 /yr

10.3.2 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement Measures Proposed by Relicensing Participants

On May 14, 2007, PG&E filed with FERC, distributed to Relicensing Participants and made available to the general public a DLA. The deadline for filing comments on the DLA, including proposed resource management measures, was September 6, 2007. Written comments were filed by:

• Butte Creek Watershed Conservation Board (letter dated August 10, 2007) • USFS, USFWS, NPS, BLM, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and the SWRCB (joint letter dated August 31, 2007) • California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of Butte Creek, Friends of the River (letter dated August 4, 2008) • FERC (letter dated September 5, 2007)1

None of the Relicensing Participants that filed written comments on the DLA included proposed preliminary environmental measures except for the joint agency letter. On Attachment 2, page 23 of the letter, the agencies proposed that PG&E’s measure regarding invasive weeds should add that re-vegetation of disturbed areas will utilize only native plant material, guaranteed weed- free. Seed should come from local collection sites, whenever possible, to protect the local plant genotypes. PG&E has adopted this recommendation in Measure 14, Invasive Weed Management Plan.

However, PG&E acknowledges that the comment letters said Relicensing Participants were not ready at this time to propose preliminary environmental measures.

1 FERC’s September 5, 2007, letter provided four specific additional information requests as well as FERC’s comments on the DLA. The additional information is provided in the application.

10.4 Developmental Resources

10.4.1 Value of Developmental Resources (Existing License)

The alternative sources of power currently available to PG&E are increased purchases and new generation developments. Since the Project powerhouses are considered “renewable” small hydroelectric facilities under State law,2 any reduced power production of the Project would need to be replaced by another source of renewable electrical energy. The CPUC periodically publishes “Market Price Referents” (MPRs) which is an estimate of the long-term market price of electricity for use in evaluating bid products received during RPS power solicitations. The most recently published MPR is estimated to be 8.1 cents per kWh. Current costs for replacement renewable energy in California are not available. In keeping with the FERC current-cost economic methodology, the CPUC-published average monthly short run avoided costs are used as a proxy for the value of renewable power. The 12-month average SRAC, from September 2006 through August 2007, of 8.61 cents per kWh will be deemed the current replacement energy cost. The resulting developmental value of the Project under the No Action Case is $13.4 million per year. The developmental value of the Project under the Licensee Proposal case is $12.6 million per year.

10.4.2 Value of Developmental Resources for Proposed Project (Original License)

This is not an application for an original license. Therefore, an estimate of the value of the developmental resources for the proposed Project is not applicable.

2 See California Public Utilities Code § 399.12(b)(1)(A).

SECTION 11.0 Consistency with Qualifying Plans

Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or State comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the Project. On April 27, 1988, FERC issued Order No. 481-A revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987, establishing that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any federal or State plan that:

• Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways;

• Specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and

• Is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

A review of FERC’s Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, dated August 2007, which can be found at FERC’s eLibrary (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen- info/licensing/complan.pdf), shows that federal and California agencies have filed 56 comprehensive plans specifically for California and 26 plans for the United States in general. Of these, 18 are potentially relevant to the Project, as listed below in Table 11-1.

Table E11-1. List of qualifying Federal and state comprehensive waterway plans potentially relevant to the DeSabla-Centerville Project (extracted from FERC Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, August 2007). Resource Area(s)* Comprehensive Plans R&L, SE, AE Bureau of Land Management. June 1993. Redding resource management plan and Record of Decision. Department of the Interior, Redding, California. 55 pp. R&L California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 1988. Restoring the balance: 1988 annual report. Sausalito, California. 84 pp. F&A California Department of Fish and Game. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Marine Fisheries Service. Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. Cooperative agreement to implement actions to benefit winter-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. Sacramento, California. May 20, 1988. 10 pp. and exhibit. F&A California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for California. February 1996. 234 pp. R&L California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California. Sacramento, California. March 1998. R&L California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1994. California outdoor recreation plan-2002. Sacramento, California. 154 pp. and appendices. WR California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California water plan: projected use and available water supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160-83. Sacramento, California. December 1983. 268 pp. and attachments. WR California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California water plan update. Bulletin 160-93. Sacramento, California. October 1994. Two volumes and executive summary. WR, F&A California Department of Water Resources. 2000. Final programmatic environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Sacramento, California. July 2000. Three volumes and CD Rom. R&L California - The Resources Agency. Department of Parks and Recreation. 1983. Recreation needs in California. Sacramento, California. March 1983. 39 pp. and appendices.

Table E11-1 (continued) Resource Area(s)* Comprehensive Plans WR, F&A California State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water Quality control plan report. Sacramento, California. Nine volumes. F&A, WI, BO California – The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan. Sacramento, California. January 1989. 158 pp. Forest Service. 1992. Lassen National Forest land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Susanville, California. Appendices and maps. Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest land and resource management plan. Department of Agriculture, Quincy, California. August 26, 1988. 342 pp. and appendicies. WR, F&A, R&L State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. Water Quality Control Plans and Policies Adopted as Part of the State Comprehensive Plan. April 1999. Three enclosures. WR, F&A, WI, BO, R&L, National Park Service. The nationwide rivers inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. AE http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/rtca/nri. WI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986. F&A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 11 pp.

* Resource Codes G&S = Geology and Soils WR = Water Resources F&A = Fish and Aquatic WI = Wildlife Resources BO = Botanical Resources R&L = Recreation and Land Use AE = Aesthetic Resources CU = Cultural Resources SE = Socio-Economics

It is important to note that many of the Project facilities have been in place for over 50 years, and that the above plans were developed with the Project in existence. As described in Exhibit E, Section 5.0 and Section 8.0, PG&E does not propose any substantial modifications to the Project.

Those plans that apply to the Project and its continuing O&M are discussed in the appropriate resource areas in Section 6.0 of this license application. PG&E has not identified any inconsistencies between the Project and these plans, except for the Basin Plan, which is discussed in Section 7.0.

SECTION 12.0 Consultation Documentation

PG&E is using FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as established at 18 CFR Part 5. As described below, PG&E augmented the ILP with some of the public involvement and collaborative aspects of the FERC’s Alternative Licensing Process to facilitate communications, consultations and exchange of information among PG&E, resource agencies, Indian Tribes, local public agencies, non-governmental organizations and interested members of the public (Relicensing Participants).

This section summarizes major steps that occurred during the DeSabla-Centerville Project Relicensing. In addition, PG&E has developed and maintained a public relicensing website to facilitate consultation. PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project Relicensing Website (http://www.eurekasw.com/DC/relicensing/default.aspx) contains: FERC notices; filings by PG&E and Relicensing Participants; the process plan and schedule; for each meeting, a notice/agenda issued by PG&E and meeting summary; communication protocols; action item log; and other information related to the Relicensings. PG&E will maintain this Website through FERC’s issuance of a new license.

12.1 Notice of Intent to Relicense

Section 5.5 of 18 CFR requires an existing licensee to notify FERC about whether the licensee intends to file or not to file an application for a new license for its project. The notification, referred to as a Notice of Intent, or NOI, must be filed sometime between five and a half years to five years prior to the expiration date of the existing license. The expiration date of the existing license for the DeSabla-Centerville Project is October 11, 2009. In compliance with § 5.5, on October 4, 2004, PG&E filed an NOI with FERC advising that PG&E intended to file for a new license for the Project.

12.2 Pre-Application Document

Section 5.2 of 18 CFR requires that an applicant for a new license file a Pre-Application Document, or PAD, concurrent with the filing of its NOI. The purpose of the PAD is to provide FERC and potentially interested parties with existing, relevant and reasonably available information pertaining to the Project to help identify issues and related information needs, as well as development of study requests and study plans, and preparation of documents supporting the license application. PG&E filed its PAD on October 4, 2004. PG&E exercised due diligence in preparation of its PAD by contacting appropriate governmental agencies, Native American tribes and others.

12.3 NEPA Scoping

As required by Section 5.8, FERC issued a notice of the commencement of the proceeding and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) on December 3, 2004, and October 21, 2004, respectively. FERC

held a site visit on October 27 and 28, 2004, and a NEPA scoping meeting on October 21, 2004. Comments on the NOI, PAD and SD1 were filed with FERC by February 1, 2005, in conformance with 18 CFR § 5.9, and FERC issued Scoping Document 2 (SD2) on March 18, 2005 per 18 CFR § 5.10.

12.4 Study Plan Development

To facilitate study plan development, PG&E began holding a series of study plan development workshops in early 2005. Four workshops (January 6, 7, 10 and 11) were held prior to PG&E filing its Proposed Study Plan on March 18, 2005. That Proposed Study Plan, filed in accordance with 18 CFR § 5.11, included 39 proposed studies and miscellaneous study information.

In conformance with 18 CFR § 5.11(e), PG&E held a series of meetings to clarify its proposed study plans and to resolve any issues with respect to PG&E’s proposed studies. The workshops were held on April 20-21; May 4-5, 18-19 and 26; June 1; and July 7-8, 2005. Based on these meetings and comments on the PAD and SD2, PG&E filed a Revised Study Plan on July 18, 2005 (18 CFR § 5.13), and continued to meet with Relicensing Participants in an attempt to resolve any outstanding study plan issues. Meetings were held on August 4 and October 5, 2005.

FERC issued a Study Plan Determination on August 17, 2005. Since no agencies with mandatory conditioning authority or with the authority to prescribe fishways or an agency or Indian tribe with the authority to issue a Section 401 certification under the CWA filed a dispute with FERC’s determination, the determination was deemed approved on September 6, 2005.

12.5 Study Performance, Review and Plan for Completion

PG&E initiated some studies (e.g., water temperature monitoring) in 2004 prior to FERC’s Determination. Unfortunately, due to difficulty in gaining permission from key private property landowners for access to perform studies and the unusually prolonged spring 2005, implementation of most studies, and subsequent study reviews under 18 CFR § 5.15, was delayed.

As required by 18 CFR 5.15, PG&E prepared an Initial and Updated study report. The Initial Study Report, filed on September 6, 2006, noted that with approval of Relicensing Participants, PG&E planned to file a Supplemental Study Report (SISR) that would address studies. FERC issued a determination agreeing with this approach on September 13, 2006.

In subsequent letters dated March 22, May 14 and May 30, 2007, FERC further modified the Relicensing process plan and schedule regarding study reviews: in effect, FERC established four reviews. Each review process - including PG&E’s filing of the appropriate study report, holding a meeting to discuss the studies, filing a meeting summary, filing of comment and reply letters – is shown (actual dates for the three reviews that have occurred and planned dates for the fourth review) in the updated process plan and schedule at the end of this section.

These reviews have resulted to date in FERC issuing three Study Determination letters. Table 12.5-1 below provides for each study included in FERC’s September 6, 2005 Study Plan Determination: 1) when the study was or is planned for review by FERC under 18 CFR § 5.15; and 2) PG&E’s assessment of status of each study at the time the application is filed. PG&E has categorized studies as “Complete” (all work is done and the results are included in the license application); “Substantially Complete” (all work is done except for follow-up consultation with Relicensing Participants), “Work Remaining” (substantial work, which is described in the text below the table, remains to be completed), or “Deleted (D)/Placeholder (P)” (identifies studies deleted from the Determination and studies used as placeholders in the event that added information is needed or if PG&E proposes changes to the Project).

Table ES-1. Status of Relicensing Studies 18 CFR § 5.15 – Date of FERC’s Licensee’s Assessment of

Study Determination Study Status Deleted Study May 18, July 5, September January Substantially Work (D) / Study Name Complete Plan No. 2007 2007 5, 2007 4, 20083 Complete Remaining1 Placeholer (P) GEOLOGY AND SOIL RESOURCES Inventory and Assessment of Project 6.3.1-1 X X and Ancillary Road- Related Erosion Reservoir Spillway- Related Erosion and 6.3.1-2 X X Sediment Transport Survey Canal Spillway-Related 6.3.1-3 Erosion and Sediment X X Transport Survey Water Conveyance 6.3.1-4 Geologic Hazards Risk X X Assessment WATER RESOURCES Development of a Regulated and Unimpaired Hydrology 6.3.2-1 X X2 Database for Project- Affected Stream Reaches Develop Project 6.3.2-3 X X3 Operations Model Develop Water Temperature Model and 6.3.2-4 X X Monitor Water Temperatures Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project 6.3.2-5 Reservoirs and Project- X X Affected Stream Reaches FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre- 6.3.3-1 X Spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat 6.3.3-2 X X Mapping on Lower Butte Creek 6.3.3-3 Assessment of RT&E X X

18 CFR § 5.15 – Date of FERC’s Licensee’s Assessment of

Study Determination Study Status Deleted Study May 18, July 5, September January Substantially Work (D) / Study Name Complete Plan No. 2007 2007 5, 2007 4, 20083 Complete Remaining1 Placeholer (P) Amphibians and Aquatic Reptile Species Habitat Near Project Reservoirs and Project Affected Stream Reaches Characterize Fish Populations in Project 6.3.3-4 Reservoirs and Project- X X Affected Stream Reaches Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in 6.3.3-5 Project-Affected Stream X X Reaches Using CSBP Protocols Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Upstream Fish Passage 6.3.3-6 X X Issues at DeSabla- Centerville Project Facilities Assess Mollusc Habitat 6.3.3-7 and Presence in the X X Project Area Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat 6.3.3-8 X X Mapping on Upper Butte Creek Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat 6.3.3-9 Mapping on Lower X X West Branch Feather River Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat 6.3.3-10 Mapping on Upper X X West Branch Feather River Canal Feeder Stream 6.3.3-11 X X Study Plan WILDLIFE RESOURCES Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn 6.3.4-1 Beetle Habitat and X X Presence within the Project Boundary Assess Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon 6.3.4-2 X X Habitat and Presence in the Project Area Assess Willow Flycatcher Habitat and 6.3.4-4 X X Presence within the Project Boundary Survey RT&E Bats at 6.3.4-5 High Potential Project X X Facilities Survey RT&E Forest 6.3.4-6 Carnivores Near Project X D Features and Affected

18 CFR § 5.15 – Date of FERC’s Licensee’s Assessment of

Study Determination Study Status Deleted Study May 18, July 5, September January Substantially Work (D) / Study Name Complete Plan No. 2007 2007 5, 2007 4, 20083 Complete Remaining1 Placeholer (P) Stream Reaches Special Status Wildlife 6.3.4-7 X X Species Assessment BOTANICAL RESOURCES Map RT&E Plant 6.3.5-1 X X Species Classify and Map 6.3.5-2 Vegetation X X Communities Map and Assess 6.3.5-3 X X Noxious Weeds RECREATION 6.3.6-9 Recreation Flow Study X X Recreation Needs 6.3.6-12 X X4 Assessment Recreation Demand 6.3.6-13 X X Study Recreation Visitor and 6.3.6-14 X X Resident Survey Inventory and Assessment of 6.3.6-15 X X Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts Recreation Carrying 6.3.6-16 X X Capacity and Suitability AESTHETICS 6.3.7-1 Visual Assessment X X P CULTURAL/TRIBAL INTERESTS Archaeological and 6.3.8-1 X X Historic-Era Properties Traditional Cultural 6.3.8-2 X X Properties (TCPs) Historic Project Feature 6.3.8-3 X X Assessment SOCIO-ECONOMIC Assess Socio-economic Effects of Alternative 6.3.9-2 X X P Project Management Actions TRIBAL RESOURCES Traditional Cultural 6.3.10-1 Properties (TCPs) (same ------as Study Plan 6.3.8-2) OTHER STUDIES Identify and Evaluate Potential Impacts of 6.3.11-2 Discontinuing X D Operation of Centerville Ph

1 The remaining work for these studies as well as PG&E’s plan to complete each is described in the text below. 2 This study required PG&E propose water year types. The application includes a proposal, however, remaining minor work for this study includes continued consultation with Relicensing Participants. 3 PG&E has agreed to make reasonable runs of the Water Balance Model runs for Relicensing Participants. 4 PG&E has agreed to review the recreation information with Relicensing Participants.

5 FERC’s May 18, 2007, letter noted that additional information might be needed if PG&E resource management measures did not address visual impacts.

As described in the above table, substantial work (e.g., other than a commitment to review the study data with Relicensing Participants) remains on six studies. PG&E’s plan to complete each of these studies is described below.

• Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project- Affected Stream Reaches: PG&E collected water quality data in 2006 and included this information in the application. PG&E also collected water quality data throughout the Project area in late summer 2007. The water samples are being analyzed by qualified laboratories, and PG&E expects to have the results by November 2007. PG&E expects to compile the results, discuss them with Relicensing Participants, and file the results with FERC by January 1, 2008.

• Study 6.3.3-4, Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches: PG&E collected fish population data in 2006 and included this information in the application. As required by FERC, PG&E will sample fish at six stream locations in October 2007, compile and analyze the data. PG&E expects to discuss the information with Relicensing Participants, and file the information with FERC by January 1, 2008.

• Study 6.3.3-6, Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Upstream Fish Passage Issues at DeSabla-Centerville Project Facilities: As provided in FERC’s letter dated July 5, 2007, FERC will review and evaluate the results of all additional fish sampling (described above) and make a determination regarding the need for additional work under Study 6.3.3-6.

• Study 6.3.2-4, Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor Water Temperatures: As provided in the Determination, PG&E developed an SNTEMP Water Temperature Model for the lower WBFR. However, at the request of some Relicensing Participants, PG&E monitored water temperature in the lower WBFR through summer/early fall 2007, and is in the process of re-calibrating the lower WBFR SNTEMP model using these data. PG&E expects to provide the revised model to Relicensing Participants and file the model with FERC by February 15, 2008. In addition, PG&E has offered to make reasonable runs of the water temperature models if so requested by Relicensing Participants.

• Study 6.3.3-3, Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Species Habitat Near Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches: PG&E has completed all portions of this study with the exception of developing a foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) two-dimensional flow/habitat model. Habitat Suitability Criteria for use in the model are in the process of being finalized by the Forest Service; site location for modeling was selected on August 23, 2007; and data are scheduled for collection during the period October 1 through December 15, 2007. PG&E plans to compile the model, discuss it with Relicensing Participants, and file it with FERC by February 15, 2008.

• Study 6.3.8-2, Traditional Cultural Properties: Due to execution of a confidentiality agreement with some potentially-affected Indian Tribes, PG&E does not expect to complete its Section 106 informal consultation until late 2007. PG&E expects to file a consultation report including a draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) with FERC by February 15, 2008.

While not a formal study, PG&E is in the process of consulting with the NMFS, USFWS and CDFG regarding a revised Biological Assessment for continued Project operations. PG&E expects to file the revised BA with FERC by February 15, 2008.

12.6 Section 106 Consultation of NHPA

PG&E was designated by FERC as the non-federal representative for informal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementation of regulations at 36 CFR § 800 (FERC acceptance of NOI, December 3, 2004). As described above, PG&E plans to file a draft HPMP by February 15, 2008. The draft HPMP will include a description of PG&E’s informal Section 106 consultation.

12.7 Section 7 Consultation of ESA

As described above, PG&E plans to file a draft Section 7 under ESA by February 15, 2008. The Section 7 will include a description of PG&E’s informal Section 7 consultation.

12.8 Routine Consultation Meetings

During the course of the Relicensing, PG&E and Relicensing Participants have met on a semi- monthly basis, and more frequently when needed. Each of these meetings is listed on the updated process plan and schedule at the end of this section, meeting summaries are included on the Relicensing Website on CD at the end of this section.

12.9 Draft License Application

Pursuant to 18 CFR § 5.16, PG&E filed with FERC a Draft License Application (DLA on May 14, 2007). Written comments were filed by:

• Butte Creek Watershed Conservation Board (letter dated August 10, 2007) • Forest Service, USFWS, NPS, BLM, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and the SWRCB (joint letter dated August 31, 2007) • California Sportingfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of Butte Creek, Friends of the River (letter dated August 4, 2008

• FERC (letter dated September 5, 2007)1

PG&E appreciates the substantial effort required by these Relicensing Participants to prepare the comments, and has considered the comments as PG&E prepared its application. In particular, if the filed comments directly included a recommended resource management measure (i.e., the measure needed to be explicitly recommended), the measure is noted in Section 8 including whether PG&E adopted the measure and, if not, the reason the measure was not adopted.

PG&E has made a good faith effort to consider all comments made on the DLA, and amended the application where appropriate.

12.10 Continuing Consultation

As mentioned above, a number of studies have not been completed and discussed with Relicensing Participants. PG&E emphasizes its commitment to continuing discussions regarding resource management measures with Relicensing Participants as long as meaningful progress is being made. PG&E has scheduled workshops with Relicensing Participants for:

• October 23 and 24, 2007 • November 13 and 14, 2007 • December 11 and 12, 2007

PG&E intends to consult with Relicensing Participants regarding potential meeting dates in 2008. PG&E will keep FERC apprised of these efforts and results.

1 FERC’s September 5, 2007, letter provided four specific additional information requests as well as FERC’s comments on the DLA. The additional information is provided in the application.

Pre-Application Activity Time Frame 2 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish § 5.5 Licensee File Notification of Intent (NOI) (Actual) 10/04/04 § 5.6 Licensee File Pre-Application Document (PAD) (Actual) 10/04/04 § 5.7 FERC Tribal Consultation 10/05/04 11/03/04 Initial Tribal Consultation Meeting (Actual) 09/23/04 § 5.8 FERC FERC Notices NOI/PAD & Issues Scoping Document 1 10/05/04 12/03/04 (Notice of Commencement of Proceeding) (a) FERC issues notice of commencement of proceeding (Actual) 12/03/04 (b)(2) FERC request to initiate informal Section 7 ESA consultation 3 (c) FERC issues Scoping Document 1 (SD1) (Actual) 10/21/04 (b)(3)(viii) FERC Public Scoping Mtg & Site Visit 12/04/04 01/02/05 (Within 30 days of Commencement Notice) (d) Project Site Visit (Actual) 10/27/04 10/28/04 Public Scoping Meeting (Actual) 11/17/04 11/18/04 Licensee Applicant Sponsored Study Plan Workshop 12/04/04 02/01/05 Study Plan Workshop - 4 Days (Actual) 01/06/05 01/11/05 Study Plan Workshop - Day 1 01/06/05 Study Plan Workshop - Day 2 01/07/05 Study Plan Workshop - Day 3 01/10/05 Study Plan Workshop - Day 4 01/11/05 § 5.9 Participants Comments on PAD, SD1 and Study Requests (Actual) 02/01/05 (a) Participants file comments on PAD & SD1 and study requests (Forecast; Within 60 days of Commencement Notice) § 5.10 FERC Scoping Document 2 (Actual) 03/18/05 FERC issues Scoping Document 2 (SD2) (Within 45 days of SD1 comments) § 5.11 Licensee Potential Applicant’s Proposed Study Plan & Study Plan Mtgs 02/02/05 06/16/05 (a) Applicant files w/FERC a proposed study plan (Actual) 03/18/05 Initial study plan meeting (e) 03/19/05 04/17/05 (NLT 30 days after Applicant files study plan) Initial - Study Plan Meeting 1 (Actual) 04/06/05 04/07/05 Conduct Study Plan Meetings 03/19/05 06/16/05 Study Plan Meeting 2 (Actual) 04/20/05 04/21/05 Study Plan Meeting 3 (Actual) 05/04/05 05/05/05 Study Plan Meeting 4 (Actual) 05/18/05 05/19/05 Study Plan Meeting 5 – Tribal (Actual) 05/26/05 Study Plan Meeting 6 (Actual) 06/01/05 Additional Study Plan Meetings 4 Study Plan Meeting 7 (Actual) 07/07/05 07/08/05 Study Plan Meeting 8 – Access (Actual) 08/04/05 Study Plan Meeting 9 – Access (Actual) 10/05/05 § 5.12 Participants Comments on proposed study plan 03/19/05 06/16/05

2 The Time Frame Early Start and Late Finish dates indicate the beginning and end of the time periods allowed by the ILP regulations (18 CFR § 5). If the Late Finish Date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday (Section 6103, Title 5, U.S. Code), then the Late Finish Date is extended until the close of the next FERC business day. (See 18 CFR Section 385.2007) 3 PG&E has been conducting informal consultation under ESA Section 7(a) 2 pursuant to FERC’s November 26, 2002 letter to PG&E. 4 Additional study plan meetings were held beyond time frames specified by the ILP regulations to address issues related to study plans.

Time Frame 2 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish Participants file comments on Applicants proposed study plan 03/19/05 06/16/05 (Within 90 days of Applicant filed plans) § 5.13 Revised study plan and study plan determination 06/17/05 09/06/05 (a) Licensee Applicant files revised study plan w/FERC 06/17/05 07/18/05 (b) Participants Participants file comments on revised study plan w/FERC 07/19/05 08/02/05 (c) FERC FERC issues Study Plan Determination (Actual) 08/17/05 (d) Study plans approved (No Study Plan Dispute Filed; Actual) 09/06/05 § 5.14 Formal study dispute resolution process (Formal Study Plan Dispute)5 08/18/05 11/15/05 (a) MCA/T Mandatory condition agencys/tribes (MCA/T) file Notice of Dispute 08/18/05 09/06/05 (Within 20 days) (d) FERC FERC convenes Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) (Within 20 days) 09/07/05 09/26/05 (i) Licensee Applicant files comments re dispute w/FERC (NLT 25 days) 09/07/05 10/01/05 (k) DRP Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) delivers to FERC finding of dispute 09/07/05 10/26/05 (NLT 50 days) (l) FERC FERC issues written determination re: dispute (NLT 70 days) 09/07/05 11/15/05 (d) Study plans amended/approved (Formal Study Plan Dispute Process) 11/15/05 Preliminary Biological Assessment (Spring-run Chinook) 6 FERC issues preliminary Biological Assessment (BA) - Actual 10/11/05 NOAA NOAA Fisheries prepares and file preliminary Biological Opinion (BO) 10/11/06 02/23/06 Licensee Applicant prepares and files BA in Preliminary Licensing Proposal or 05/14/07 Draft License Application 7 (See 18 CFR § 5.16 below) § 5.15 Conduct studies 09/07/05 01/04/08 (a) Implement Study Plans (Tied to "No study plan dispute") 09/07/05 01/04/07 Licensee Implement Study Plans (1st Season) 09/07/05 09/06/06 (b) Licensee Applicant prepares & files periodic Study Plan progress reports 09/07/05 09/06/06 1st Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 01/31/06 2nd Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 04/28/06 3rd Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 07/31/06 4th Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 10/31/06 5th Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 01/16/07 6th Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 04/30/07 7th Quarterly Progress Report (Actual) 09/06/07 (c)(1) Licensee Applicant prepares & files Initial Study Report (Study Plan 6.3.2-4 01/31/06 06/08/06 Water Temp Model) Initial Study Report Filing Deadline - Actual 01/31/06 (c)(2) Licensee Applicant holds study plan meeting (Within 15 days) - Actual 02/23/06 (c)(3) Licensee Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications 02/24/06 03/10/06 (Within 15 days) (c)(4) Participants Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants 03/11/06 04/09/06 (Within 30 days) (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 04/10/06 05/09/06 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 05/10/06 06/08/06

5 Italicized text indicates timeframes for the Formal Study Dispute Resolution Process set forth in 18 CFR § 5.14. No Federal agency with mandatory conditioning authority filed a notice of dispute with respect to the revised studies. 6 Initiated for early consultation under Section 7(a)(3) of ESA 7 BA for spring-run Chinook included in Preliminary Licensing Proposal or Draft License Application

Time Frame 2 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish (c)(7) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 04/09/06 (No Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 06/08/06 (Disagreement filed by Participants) Applicant prepares & files Initial Study Report (c)(1) Licensee 09/07/05 09/06/06 (NLT 1 year after FERC study plan approval) Initial Study Report Filing Deadline 09/06/06 (c)(2) Licensee Applicant holds initial study plan meeting (Within 15 days) 09/07/06 09/21/06 Applicant holds initial study plan meeting (Scheduled Date) 8 09/26/06 Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications (c)(3) Licensee 9/27/06 10/11/06 (Within 15 days) Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants (c)(4) Participants 10/12/06 11/10/06 (Within 30 days) (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 11/11/06 12/10/06 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 12/11/06 01/09/07 Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved (c)(7) 11/10/06 (No Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 01/09/07 (Disagreement filed by Participants) (c)(1) Licensee Applicant prepares & files Supplemental Initial Study Report 9 01/16/07 05/16/07 Supplemental Initial Study Report Filing Deadline (Actual) 01/16/07 (c)(2) Licensee Applicant holds study plan meeting (Within 15 days) - Actual 01/30/07 Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications (c)(3) Licensee 02/15/07 (Within 15 days) - Actual Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants (c)(4) Participants 03/19/07 (Within 30 days) - Actual (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 03/20/07 04/18/07 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 04/19/07 05/18/07 Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved (c)(7) 03/19/07 (No Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 10 05/18/07 (Disagreement filed by Participants) - Actual (c)(1) Licensee Entrainment Study Report Review 11 12 13 01/16/07 07/04/07 (c)(2) Licensee Applicant holds study plan meeting (Actual) 03/20/07

8 Licensee and Relicensing Participants previously agreed on a series of meeting dates through January 2007 for general Relicensing Participant meetings. Licensee plans to hold the Initial Study Report Meeting on September 26 2006, as agreed during an August 15, 2006 conference call attended by Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Water Resources Control Board, Friends of Butte Creek and FERC staff representatives. Subsequent ILP initial study report milestones are adjusted based on the September 26, 2006 initial study report meeting date. 9 Since the Initial Study Report might not include adequate information regarding the progress of each study so that agencies could make an informed evaluation regarding the need for modifications to ongoing studies or new studies, Licensee requested and received approval from FERC to file a Supplemental Initial Study Report (SISR) in January 2007. The actual filing date of the SISR was January 16, 2007. Subsequent ILP initial study report milestones are added to the Process Plan and Schedule based on the January 16, 2007 SISR filing date. 10 See FERC’s May 18, 2007 letter to Licensee regarding modifications to SISR studies. 11 FERC’s March 22, 2007 letter to Licensee modified the relicensing Process Plan & Schedule to include this ILP study plan review process required under 18 CFR § 5.15 (c) for the Entrainment Study (Study Plan 6.3.3-6) since study results were not available when the SISR was filed. 12 FERC’s May 14, 2007 letter to Licensee modified the Process Plan & Schedule for this ILP study plan review process required under 18 CFR § 5.15 (c) and defined studies to be included as part of this study report review. Also, see FERC’s May 24, 2007 email to Relicensing Participatns regarding studies included in study plan review process. 13 See footnote 11.

Time Frame 2 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications (c)(3) Licensee 04/04/07 (Actual) Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants (c)(4) Participants 04/05/07 05/04/07 (Within 30 days) (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) - Actual 06/04/07 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 06/05/07 07/04/07 Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved (c)(7) 05/04/07 (No Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 07/04/07 (Disagreement filed by Participants) (c)(1) Licensee DLA Study Report Review 14 15 05/14/07 09/05/07 DLA Filing Deadline - Actual 05/14/07 Applicant holds DLA study plan meeting (c)(2) Licensee 05/22/07 05/23/07 (Regularly Scheduled Relicensing Meeting - Actual) Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications (c)(3) Licensee 06/07/07 (Within 15 days) - Actual Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants (c)(4) Participants 06/08/07 07/07/07 (Within 30 days) (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 07/08/07 08/06/07 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 08/07/07 09/05/07 Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved (c)(7) 07/07/07 (No Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 09/05/07 (Disagreement filed by Participants) (f) Updated Study Report 16 09/07/06 01/04/08 Implement Study Plans (2nd Season) - Tied to "No Study Plan Licensee 09/07/06 09/06/07 Dispute" Licensee Applicant prepares & files periodic Study Plan progress reports 09/07/06 09/06/07 Applicant prepares & files Updated Study Report Licensee 09/07/06 09/06/07 (NLT 2 years after FERC study plan approval) Updated Study Report Filing Deadline 09/06/07 Licensee Applicant holds study plan meeting (Within 15 days) 09/07/07 09/21/07 Applicant files study plan meeting summary & plan modifications Licensee 09/22/07 10/06/07 (Within 15 days) Meeting summary & study plan disagreement filing by participants (c)(4) Participants 10/07/07 11/05/07 (Within 30 days) (c)(5) Licensee Applicant files response to disagreement (Within 30 days) 11/06/07 12/05/07 (c)(6) FERC FERC resolves disagreement & amends study plan (NLT 30 days) 12/06/07 01/04/08 Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved (No (c)(7) 11/05/07 Disagreement Filed by Participants) Meeting Summary & Plan Modifications Approved 01/04/08 (Disagreement filed by Participants) § 5.16 Preliminary Licensing Proposal (or Draft License Application) 17 05/14/07 08/12/07

14 See footnote 11. 15 See footnote 11. 16 See footnote 11. 17 FERC’s May 14, 2007 letter to Licensee modified the Process Plan & Schedule by extending the issuance date of FERC’s comments on Licensee’s Draft License Application until September 5, 2007.

Time Frame 2 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish Applicant files Preliminary Licensing Proposal (a)(c) Licensee 05/14/07 (or Draft License Application) - Actual FERC & FERC and Participants issue comments on Preliminary Licensing (e) 05/15/07 09/05/07 Participants Proposal (or Draft License Application) § 5.17 Filing of application (a) Licensee Applicant Files License Application 10/11/07

Post-Filing Activity Time Frame 18 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish § 5.17 Filing of application 10/11/07 10/11/09 (a) Licensee Applicant Files License Application 10/11/07 Applicant publishes notice of Application filing - Twice (NLT 14 (d)(2) Licensee 10/12/07 10/25/07 days) § 5.19 Tendering notice and schedule 10/12/07 11/10/07 FERC issues public notice of License Application filing (Tendering (a) FERC 10/12/07 10/25/07 Notice) (d) FERC FERC issues resolution of pending information requests 10/12/07 11/10/07 § 5.20 Deficient applications 19 10/12/07 11/10/07 FERC Determination of Application Conformance or Notification of (a)(2) FERC Deficiency § 5.22 Notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis 11/11/07 01/09/08 FERC issues notice of acceptance of Application and ready for (a) FERC environmental analysis (a)(3) FERC FERC requests comments, protests, and interventions FERC requests recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, (a)(4) FERC fishway perscriptions FERC notifies Federal office of Application and specific lands (b) FERC affected by Project § 5.23 Response to notice 01/10/08 04/23/08 (a) Participants Comments, interventions, preliminary terms & conditions 01/10/08 03/09/08 (a) Participants Reply comments 01/10/08 04/23/08 (b) Licensee Applicant files water quality certification requirements under § 5.23 01/10/08 03/09/08 § 5. 24 Applications not requiring a draft NEPA document 04/24/08 12/04/08 (a) FERC FERC issues environmental assessment for comment 04/24/08 08/21/08 (c) Participants Comments on environmental assessment, EA (30-45 days duration) 08/22/08 10/05/08 (d) MCA/T Modified mandatory prescriptions or terms & conditions filed 10/06/08 12/04/08 § 5.25 Applications requiring a draft NEPA document. 04/24/08 05/18/09 FERC issues draft environmental impact statement or EA for (a) FERC comment 04/24/08 10/20/08 (c) Participants Comments on draft environmental document (30-60 days duration) 10/21/08 12/19/08 (d) MCA/T Modified mandatory prescriptions or terms and conditions filed 12/20/08 02/17/09 (e) FERC FERC issues final environmental document 02/18/09 05/18/09 § 5.26 Section 10(j) process 12/05/08 10/11/09 (a) FERC FERC analyzes terms and conditions 12/05/08 10/11/09

18 The Time Frame Early Start and Late Finish dates indicate the beginning and end of the time periods allowed by the ILP regulations (18 CFR § 5). If the Late Finish Date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday (Section 6103, Title 5, U.S. Code), then the Late Finish Date is extended until the close of the next FERC business day. (See 18 CFR Section 385.2007) 19 18 CFR § 5.20 only applies if Application is deficient.

Time Frame 18 18 CFR § Lead Action Early Start Late Finish (e) FERC FERC issues License Order 10/11/09

12.11 List of Interested Parties

Throughout the relicensing process, PG&E distributed correspondence to all individuals that requested to be kept informed of relicensing proceedings for the DeSabla-Centerville Project. This group is referred to the Interested Parties and includes members of federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, NGO’s, and members of the public. Contact information for the Interested Parties is listed alphabetically by affiliation below.

American Whitewater Dave Steindorf 1325 Deodora Way Paradise, CA 95969 Anglers Committee, The Robert J. Baiocchi PO Box 1790 Graeagle, CA 96103 Berry Creek Rancheria of the Maidu Indians Albert Martin 5 Tyme Way Patty Reese-Allan Oroville, CA 95966 Bureau of Land Management Gary Diridoni 255 Hemsted Drive Bill Kuntz Redding, CA 96002 Duane Marti Joel Molter Eric Ritter Ron Rogers Butte College Nancy Jensen 3536 Butte Campus Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Ed Chombeau PO Box 1611 William Johnson Chico, CA 95927 Chuck Kutz Sharan Quigley Teri Faulkner Butte County Paul McIntosh 25 County Center Drive Shari McCracken Oroville, CA 95965-3380 Butte County Public Works Shawn O’Brien 7 County Center Drive Bryan Graves Oroville, CA 95965 Butte County Water Resource Conservation Ed Craddock 1 County Center Drive Eric Miller Oroville, CA 95965

Butte Tribal Council Ren Reynolds 1693 Mount Ida Road Oroville, CA 95966 CALFED Bay Delta Program John Lowrie 650 Capitol Mall, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 96814 California Department of Fish & Game Harlee Branch 1701 Nimbus Road Robert Hughes Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4503 Beth Lawson MaryLisa Lynch Tracy McReynolds Kent Smith California Department of Parks & Recreation Knox Mellon Office of Historic Preservation Mike McGuirt 1416 9th Street, Room 1442 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Hydropower Reform Coalition Keith Nakatani 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Fifth Floor Laura Norlander Berkeley, CA 94704 California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Michael B. Jackson PO Box 279 Quincy, CA 95971 1608 Francisco Chris Shutes Berkeley, CA 94703 1673 Kendall Jerry Mensch Roseburg, OR 97470 California Trout Curtis Knight PO Box 650 Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 California Water Service Gary Alt 1908 High Street Anthony Carrasco Oroville, CA 95965 Chico Enterprise-Record Heather Hacking PO Box 9 Chico, CA 95927 Chico Paddleheads Dan Efseaff PO Box 4862 Roland McNutt 580 Vallombrosa Avenue Carolyn Short Chico, CA 95927 Enterprise Rancheria of the Maidu Indians Harvey Angle 1940 Feather River Blvd., Suite B Glenda Nelson, Tribal Chairperson Oroville, CA 96965 Environmental Advocates CSUC Gabriella Messina 25 Main Street Chico, CA 95927

Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne San Francisco, CA 94105 Feather River Ranger District Mike Taylor 875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Emily Carter 888 First Street NE Quentin Lawson Washington DC 20426 Aaron Liberty Friends of Butte Creek Russ Collar 1804 Arroyo Canyon Allen Harthorn Chico, CA 95928 Michael Smith Friends of the River Heidi Avelina 915 20th Street Kelly Catlett Sacramento, CA 95814 Steve Evans Soren Jespersen Greenville Rancheria Mike Despain PO Box 279 Lorrie Jaimes Greenville, CA 95974 Haling & Associates Danielle Cresswell 166 Eaton Road, Suite B Chico, CA 95973 Jones Resort Grant Jones 13487 Achilles Court Magalia, CA 95945 Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Patsy Seek 1185 Eighteen Street Oroville, CA 95965 KZFR Community Radio Jim Brobeck P.O. Box 3173 Chico, CA 95927 Maidu Advisory Council 2128 Myers Street Oroville, CA 95966 Maidu Cultural and Development Group P.O. Box 426 Greenville, CA 95947 Maidu Nation Clara LeCompte P.O. Box 204 Susanville, CA 96130 Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria Chester Conway 125 Mission Ranch Road Marissa Fierro Chico, CA 95928 Rebekah Funes Steve Santos Arlene Ward

Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians Gary Archuleta #1 Alverda Drive Candice Miller Chico, CA 95966 National Park Service Stephen Bowes 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94607 Natural Heritage Institute Richard Roos-Collins 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94104 NOAA Fisheries Steve Edmonson 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Stacy Li Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6515 Steven Thomas 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Howard Brown Sacramento, CA 95814 Eric Theiss 501 West Ocean Blvd., Ste. 4470 Dan Hytrek Long Beach, CA 90802-4221 Regional Water Quality Control Board Stacey Matthews 415 Knollcrest Drive Jim Perdi Redding, CA 96002-0101 Sacramento River Preservation Trust John Merz PO Box 5366 Chico, CA 95927 5 Jerome Place Marty Dunlap Chico, CA 95926 Shasta Paddlers Kevin Lewis 4641 Hornbeck Lane Anderson, CA 96007-2631 Sierra Pacific Industries James Cajun P.O. Box 496028 Redding, CA 96049-6028 State Water Resources Control Board Jim Canaday 1001 I Street, 14th Floor Russ Kanz PO Box 2000 Matt Myers Sacramento, CA 95814 U.S.D.A Forest Service – Pacific Southwest Region Dan Teater 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kathy Brown 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605 Ingram Campbell Sacramento, CA 95825 Amy Fesnock William Foster Mark Gard Deborah Giglio Derek Hilts John Icanberry Justin Ly

U.S. Forest Service Michael Derrig PO Box 767 Ryan Foote 900 East Hwy 36 Thomas Garcia Chester, CA 96020 Jan Goodwin Ken Roby Kurt Sable Al Vazquez 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-200 Bob Hawkins Sacramento, CA 95814-4706 Dennis Smith Julie Tupper 2550 Riverside Drive Craig Odyard Susanville, CA 96130 Judy Perkins PO Box 220 Kathy Turner Fall River Mills, CA 96028 U.S. Forest Service - Plumas National Forest Kevin McCormick 875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 159 Lawrence St. Cheryl Mulder Quincy, CA 95971 Unaffiliated Member of the Public Randy Bailey 3050 Meadow Creek Road Lincoln, CA 95648 P.O. Box 68 Roger Cole Forest Ranch, CA 95942 9551 Cummings Road Lou DeMeyer Durham, CA 95938 1653 Normal Avenue Elaine Ellsmore Chico, CA 95928 3964 Chico River Road Lee Heringer Chico, CA 95928 1271 Calla Lane Kit Kerby Chico, CA 95926 5347 La Playa Court Phil & Judy Larocca Chico, CA 95928 5023 Coleman Rand Road Cal Ling Chico, CA 95928 1025 35th Avenue, Apt. 9 Joe Marine Sacramento, CA 95822 1834 Orroyo Canyon Paul Persons Chico, CA 95928 26 Vermillion Circle Tom Richardson Chico, CA 95928 2137 Honey Run Road John Rudderow Chico, CA 95928

14200 Deerwood Tim Sagraves Red Bluff, CA 96080 5357 Nimshew Run Walt Schafer Chico, CA 95928 14911 Nimshew Road Joyce Simmons Magalia, CA 95954 12702 Merritt Horning Cary Steen Chico, CA 95928 1175 Ceres Manor Court Paul Ward Chico, CA 95926 Unaffiliated Member of the Public Lance Borgden No address on file (email only) Kathleen Campbell Angela Carmine Andrew Harris Nathan Joyner Dale Marsh University of California Davis Sarah Yarnell One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]

SECTION 13.0 Literature Cited

13.1 Literature Cited

This section lists references that are cited in Exhibit E by resource areas.

13.1.1 Geology and Soils

Bateman, P. C. and Wahrhaftig, C., 1966, Geology of the Sierra Nevada, in Bailey, E.H. ed., Geology of Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 190, p. 107-172.

Lydon, P. A., Gay, T. E., Jr., and Jennings, C.W., 1960, Westwood sheet, geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1: 250,000.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1999. Geological Reconnaissance of the Five Mile Landslide, Butte Canal, Butte County. Draft Report Prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Geosciences Department, May 7, 1999.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2000. Assessment of the 1999 Five-Mile landslide, Butte Canal, Butte County. Report Prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Geosciences Department, January 7, 2000.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2003. Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation of the PG&E Butte Canal Siphon. Report prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Piedmont GeoSciences and Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Geosciences Dept, June 3, 2003.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. October 4, 2004. DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 803 Pre-Application Document (PAD). Volume 1: Public Information.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2006, Regulated daily flows, provided by Charles White, September.

Saucedo, G. J., and Wagner, D. L., 1992, Geologic map of the Chico quadrangle: Geologic map of the Sacramento Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 7A, scale 1: 250,000.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2006, HEC-SSP Statistical Software Package User’s Manual, Version Beta 1.0, June.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Flood Frequency Analysis, Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee.

13.1.2 Water Resources

Biofilm Engineering Center at Montana State University, 2005. Modeling Definitions. Webpage: (http://www.erc.montana.edu/Res-Lib99-SW/glossary/gcompm.html).

Buchanan, T.J., and W.P. Somers. 1980. Discharge Measurements at Gauging Stations. Tech. Water Resources Investigations. Book 3, Chapter A8.

Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy (BCWC). 2000. Butte Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report. Prepared by Office of Watershed Projects, CSU, Chico Research Foundation (in collaboration with multiple agencies, corporations, and NGO’s).

CDHS (California Department of Health Services). 2006. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring. Website accessed 12/18/06 from http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/Regulations/regulations_index.htm

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 2000. Title 40: Protection of Environment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register vol 1(1), part 131.11: Water Quality Standards Criteria. Website accessed 11/20/06 from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/40cfr131_00.html

Christensen, V.G., Ziegler, A.C., and Jian, Xiaodong. 2001. Continuous turbidity monitoring and regression analysis to estimate total suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria loads in real time, in Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada: Subcommittee on Sedimentation, v. 1, p. III-94 to III-101. http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/reports/vgc.fisc.html

Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg and R.R. Trussel. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 17th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington. 1325 pp.

CTR. (California Toxics Rule). 2000. Water Quality Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for California Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register vol 65(97). Website accessed 11/17/06 from http://env1.kangwon.ac.kr/project/sdwr2004/litsurv/intwebsites/EPA- OST/www.epa.gov/OST/ standards/ctrindex.html

CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Central Valley Region – Fourth Edition (Revised August 2006) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. Published by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region and the State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. Data transfer water quality and Water temperature data from agency archives.

Frost W.E. and M.E. Brown. 1967. The trout. New Naturalist Series, Collins, St. James Place. London.

Grasshoff, K. 1983. Determination of oxygen (chapter 4). In: Grasshoff, K., Ehrhardt, M., Kremling, K. (eds.). Methods of seawater analysis. Second, revised and extended edition. Verlag Chemie, New York.

NEMI. (National Environmental Methods Index). 2006. Quick/Advanced Search of National Environmental Methods Index for Parameters by Analyte Name. Website accessed 11/17/06. http://www.nemi.gov/.

Oblinger Childress, C.J., W.T. Foreman, B.F. Connor, and T.J. Maloney, 1999. New Reporting Procedures Based on Long-Term Method Detection Levels and Some Considerations for Interpretations of Water-Quality Data Provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193. Reston, Virginia. 24 pp. http://water.usgs.gov/owq/OFR_99-193/.

Packman, J.J., K. J. Comings, and D.B. Booth. 1999. Using turbidity to determine total suspended solids in urbanizing streams in the Puget lowlands. Report to the Center for Water and Watershed Studies (previously the Center for Streamside Studies and the Center for Urban Water Resources Management). 11 pp. http://depts.washington.edu/cuwrm/research/tssturb.pdf

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) 1985. Application for Amendment of License-DeSabla Centerville Project FERC 803.

______. 1994. DeSabla-Centerville Project, Two-Year Water temperature and Stream Flow Monitoring Study.

______. 1998-2006. Unpublished Data. Annual presentation of compliance monitoring results during operations meeting with resource agencies.

______. 1998-2006. DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC No. 803. Project Operations and Maintenance Plan.

______. 2004. DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 803. Pre- Application Document (PAD). Volume 1: Public Information.

______. 2005A. DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC no. 803 Relicensing Study Plan 6.3.2-4. Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor Water Temperature. July 15, 2005.

______. 2005B. Hydrological database provided by MapView Query Guided Map Interface, Computer and Telecommunication Services, Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

______. 2006. Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for Projects Requiring Water Quality and/or Water Temperature Monitoring. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Environmental Services, Water Resources. QAPP Report Number: 026.11.06.12 version 1. Revised February 23, 2006. 23 pp.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2005C. DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC no. 803 Relicensing Study Plan 6.3.2-5. Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoir and Project-affected Stream Reaches. July 15, 2005. 11 pp.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, D. P. Braun, and J. Powell. 1998. A spatial assessment of hydrologic alterations within a river network. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 14:329-340.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163-1174. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wiginton, and D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-349.

Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1970. Aquatic chemistry: an introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters. Wiley Interscience, New York.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2004a. Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List, Adopted September 2004.

SWRCB. 2004b. Recommended Numerical Limits to Translate Water Quality Objectives. May 19 2004. Website accessed 01/02/07 from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/wq_goals/numerical_l imits.xls

The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Version 7 User’s Manual. Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Modeling. Instream Flow Inf. Pap. 16. USFWS. FWS/OBS-84/15.

Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne. 1990. Reservoir Limnology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

United States Army Corps of Engineers – Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2003. HEC- ResSim, Version 2.0 - Users’ Manual.

United States Army Corps of Engineers – Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2006. HEC- ResSim. Web page (http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ressim/hecressim hecressim.htm).

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1993. Land and Resource Management Plan, Lassen National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapters 1 and 2, Volume 1 of 6.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. R5-MB-046.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. September 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California. Best Management Practices.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1993. Land and Resource Management Plan, Lassen National Forest.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels, Method 1669, July 1996.

USEPA. 2000a. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, 40 CFR 131. May 18. Website accessed 01/02/07 .

USEPA. 2000b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations for both Rivers and Streams in Ecoregion 2. EPA 822-B-00-015.

USEPA. 2000c. Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: information supporting the development of state and tribal nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs in nutrient ecoregion II. EPA-822-B-00-007. Prepared by EPA, Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D. C. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/lakes/index.html.

USEPA. 2000d. Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: information supporting the development of state and tribal nutrient criteria for rivers and streams in nutrient ecoregion II. EPA-822-B-00-015. EPA, Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D. C. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/rivers/index.html.

USEPA. 2001. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Office of Water Report No. EPA-823-R-01-001. January. Website accessed 01/02/07 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/

USEPA. 2002. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02- 047, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, November, 33 pp.

USEPA. 2003. Bacterial Water Quality Standards for Recreational Waters (Freshwater and Marine Waters). Office of Water Report No. EPA-823-R-03-008. June. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/local/sum2.html

USEPA. 2004. Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories EPA 822-R-04-005 Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Work Plan for Determining the Occurrence of Glyphosate, Its Transformation Product AMPA, Other Herbicide Compounds, and Antibiotics in Midwestern United States Streams, 2002. Open-File Report 03-69. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Denver, Colorado

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: lake and river ecosystems. 3rd ed. Academic Press. San Diego.

13.1.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources

Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology- Structure and Function of Running Waters. 1st ed. Chapman & Hall. xii, 388pp.

Armantrout, N.B., compiler. 1998. Glossary of aquatic habitat inventory terminology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Bjornn, T. C., and J. Mallet. 1964. Movements of planted and wild trout in an Idaho river system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93: 70-76.

Bjornn, T. C. 1971. Trout and salmon movements in two Idaho streams as related to temperature, food, stream flow, cover, and population density. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100: 423-438.

Bovee, K.D. 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 21. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86(7). 235 pp.

Bovee, K.D. and R.T. Milhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies: theory and techniques. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 5. Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO. FWS/OBS-78/33.

Bovee, K.D. 1978. Probability-of-use criteria for the family Salmonidae. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 4. Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, U.S. fish & Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Brim Box, J. 2002. A survey of the aquatic mollusk species of the Lassen National Forest, Final Report submitted to the USDA/FS, June 21, 2002. Contract FSA 01-IA- 11050650-020, Susanville, CA.

Burch, J. B. 1975a. Freshwater sphaeriacean clams (Molluska: Pelecypoda) of North America. Prepared in 1972 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Identification Manual No. 3 Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 96 pp.

Burch, J. B. 1975b. Freshwater unionacean clams (Molluska: Pelecypoda) of North America. Prepared in 1973 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Identification Manual No. 11 Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.

Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. viii + 365pp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. California stream bioassessment procedure (Protocol brief for biological and physical/habitat assessment in wadeable streams).

CAMLnet (California Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Network). 2002. List of Californian Macroinvertebrate Taxa and Standard Taxonomic Effort. Prepared by California Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA.

CAMLnet. 2003. List of Californian Macroinvertebrate Taxa and Standard Taxonomic Effort. Prepared by California Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. Revision date 27 January.

Cargill, A. S., II. 1980. Lack of rainbow trout movement in a small stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109: 484-490.

CDFG. 2000. Fish Screening Criteria, June 19, 2000.

Chapman, D. W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in streams. The American Naturalist 100: 345-357.

Clapp, D. F., R. D. Clark, Jr., and J. S. Diana. 1990. Range, activity, and habitat of large, free-ranging brown trout in a Michigan stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 1022-1034.

Clarke, A.H. 1973. The freshwater molluscs of the Canadian interior basin. Malacologia 13:1-509.

Cover, M., C. May, V. Resh and W. Dietrich. 2006. Technical Report on Quantitative Linkages Between Sediment Supply, Streambed Fine Sediment, and Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Streams of the Klamath National Forest. University of California, Berkeley, 29pp.

Crump M.L and N.J. Scott, Jr. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84-92 in W.R. Heyer., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster, eds. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Cunjak, R. A., and G. Power. 1986. Winter habitat utilization by stream resident brook trout and brown trout. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1970- 1981.

D’Eliscu, P. N. 1972. Observation of the glochidium, metamorphosis, and juvenile of Anodonta californiensis Lea, 1857. Veliger 15:57–59

Dolloff, A., J. Kershner, and R. Thurow. 1996. Underwater Observation. Pages 533- 554 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Duellman, W. E., and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. New York, NY. 670 pp.

Flosi et al. 1998. California Salmonid Stream Restoration Manual. Prepared for the State of California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division, Third Edition.

Fields, W. C. 2001. An assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of five reaches of the North and Middle Forks of the Feather River, Butte and Plumas Counties, California, September – October 2000. Prepared for MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc., San Ramon, CA.

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1999. Field guide to survey and manage freshwater mollusk species. September 30, 1999. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Forest Service, BLM/OR/WA/PL-99/045+1792. 117 pp.

Frest, T., and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Freshwater molluscs of the upper Sacramento system, California. 1994 yearly report. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, Washington. 175 pp., appendices.

Gerstung, E.R. 1973. Fish Population and Yield Estimates from California Trout Streams. Cal-Neva. Wildlife.

Hampton, M. 1997. Microhabitat suitability criteria for anadromous salmonids of the Trinity River. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA.

Harrington, J.M. 1999 and 2003. California Stream Bioassessment Procedures. California Department of Fish and Game, Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Hartman, G. F. 1965. The role of behavior in the ecology and interaction of underyearling coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 22:1035-1081.

Hawkins, C. P., J. L Kershner, P. A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, L. M. Decker, S. V. Gregory, D. A. McCullough, C. K. Overton, G. H .Reeves. R. J. Steedman, and M. K. Young. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying habitats in small streams. Fisheries. 18(6): 3-12.

Hershler, R. and T. J. Frest. 1996. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Fluminicola (Hydrobidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, Number 583, 41 pp.

Howard, J.K., and K.M. Cuffey. 2003. Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: occurrence, distribution, and controls. Journal of North American Benthological Society 22(1):63-77. Ingram, W. M. 1948. The larger freshwater clams of California, Oregon, and Washington. Journal of Entomology and Zoology 40:72–92.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Foothill yellow-legged frog. Pages 66-69 in Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, M. R. Jennings and M. P. Hayes, editors. Prepared by California Academy of Sciences, Department of Herpetology, San Francisco and Portland State University, Department of Biology,

Portland, Oregon for California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.

Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Kathman, R.D. and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1998. Guide to the Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America. Aquatic Resources Center, College Grove, Tennessee.

Kupferberg, S. J. 1996. “Hydrologic and Geomorphic Factors Affecting Conservation of a River-Breeding Frog (Rana boylii).” Ecological Applications, 6(4): 1332–1344.

Lind, A., H. H. Welsh Jr., and R. A. Wilson. 1996. The Effects of a Dam on Breeding Habitat and Egg Survival of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Northwestern California. Herpetological Review 27(2): 62–67.

Lind, A. 1997. Survey protocol for foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) in streams. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Lind, A. J. 2005. Reintroduction of a Declining Amphibian: Determining an Ecologically Feasible Approach for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) Through Analysis of Decline Factors, Genetic Structure, and Habitat Associations. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Davis.

Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

McCain, M., D. Fuller, L. Decker, and K. Overton. 1990. Stream habitat classification and inventory procedures for northern California. FHR Currents: R-5’s fish habitat relationships technical bulletin, No. 1. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Arcata, CA.

McMahon, R. F. 1991. Molluska: Bivalvia. Pages 315-399 in J. H. Thorp and A. P. Covich, editors. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 911 pp.

McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, and D. J. Orth. 1996. Aquatic habitat measurements. Pages 83-120 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Second Edition. Dendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.

Milhous, R.T., D.L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User's Guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM): Instream Flow Information Paper 11. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81-43 Revised. 475 pp.

Morlock, S.E. 1996. Evaluation of acoustic doppler current profiler measurements of river discharge. U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4218.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 502 pp.

Neves, R. J. 1996. The mussel/fish connection. The Endangered Species Bulletin 21(6):12–13.

Northcote, T. G. 1984. Mechanisms of fish migration in rivers. In J. D. McCleave, G. P. Arnold, J. J. Dodson, and W. H. Neill, editors. Mechanisms of migration in fishes. Plenum Press, NY.

Northcote, T. G. 1992. Migration and residency in stream salmonids—some ecological considerations and evolutionary consequences. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 67:5-17.

Northcote, T. G. 1997. Why sea-run? An exploration into the migratory/residency spectrum of coastal cutthroat trout. In J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and R. E. Gresswell, editors. Sea-run cutthroat trout biology, management and future conservation. American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Corvallis.

Ode, P.R., A.C. Rehn and J.T. May. 2003. A BMI Index of Biotic Integrity for Southern Coastal California. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. Manuscript in review.

Ode, P.R., A.C. Rehn and J.T. May. 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493–504. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Ode, P.R., 2007. Standard operating procedures for collecting macroinvertebrate samples and associated physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessments in California. California State Water Resources Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Bioassessment SOP 001.

Payne, T.R. 1992. Stratified random selection process for the placement of Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) transects. Paper presented at AFS Western Division Meeting, July 13-16, in Fort Collins, CO.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2002. Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project, FERC Project No. 2130. Application for New License: Volume III-B, Exhibit E, Appendix E3- 6: Selection of habitat suitability criteria for use in the Middle Fork and South Fork

Stanislaus Rivers, California. Prepared by Mark A. Allen, Thomas R. Payne & Associates. December.

PG&E. 2002. Upper North Fork Feather River Project FERC NO. 2105. Application for new license, draft. Appendices; Volume 6 of 8.

PG&E. 2004. DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 803. Pre- application document. Volume 1: Public information.

PG&E. Habitat Mapping 2006. Preliminary Habitat Mapping Results and Preliminary Habitat Mapping Results ADDENDUM. Sharepoint website: http://desabla- centerville.wss.bcentral.com/relicensing/Study%20Plan%20Implementation/Forms/AllIte ms.aspx?RootFolder=%2frelicensing%2fStudy%20Plan%20Implementation%2fFish%20 and%20Aquatic&View=%7bEAC0D7A0%2dE7D7%2d4C20%2dA544%2d64B506BC5 B8E%7d

PG&E. 2006. Meeting Notes: “Amphibian Site Selection.” May 15, 2006.

PG&E,1983. Revised Exhibit S, Appendix C, “Feasibility Study for Installing a Fish Passage Facility At Lower Centerville Diversion Dam”.

Petts, G. E. 1984. Macroinvertebrate response to upstream impoundment. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 175- 208

Platts, W.S., W.F Megehan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian and Biotic Conditions. U.S.F.S. Technical Report INT-138.

Platts, W.S. and M.L. McHenry. 1988. Density and Biomass of Trout and Char in Western Streams. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-241. Ogden, UT:U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 17p.

Powers, P. D., and J. F. Orsborn. 1985. Analysis of barriers to upstream fish migration: an investigation of the physical and biological conditions affecting fish passage success at culverts and waterfalls. U. S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Project 82-14. Final Report, Portland, OR.

Quinn, T.P. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmonids. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Rehn, A. C., N. Ellenrieder, and P. R. Ode. 2007. Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Hydropower Projects on Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages: A Review of Existing Data Collected for FERC Relicensing Studies. California Energy Commission, PIER- Energy Related Enviornmental Research Program. CEC-500-2007-040.

Rehn, A. C., N. Ellenrieder, and P. R. Ode. In review. Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Hydropower Projects on Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages: A Review of

Existing Data Collected for FERC Relicensing Studies. California Energy Commission, contract #500-03-017.

Reiser, D.W. 1985. Panther Creek, Idaho. Habitat rehabilitation - final report. Contract No. DE-AC79-84BP17449. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Reynolds, J. B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 83-120 in B. R. Murphey and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

ROD. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. April 13, 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, ii+73 pp., viii+143 pp.

ROD. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and mitigation measures standards and guidelines. January 12, 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, 160 pp.

Sams, R.E., and L.S. Pearson. 1963. The depth and velocity of water over redd sites selected by various salmonid species. Environmental Management Section, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. 365pp.

Seltenrich, C. P. and A. C. Pool. 2002. A standardized approach for habitat assessments and visual encounter surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (L. Haley, Spring Rivers)

Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Shetter, D. S. 1968. Observations on movements of wild trout in two Michigan stream drainages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97: 472-480.

Spring Rivers. 2003. Effects of high test flows on the Malinda Gulch mussel bed in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Pit 3, 4, and 5 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 233). Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Cassel, CA. 19pp.

Spring Rivers. 2002a. Aquatic mollusk surveys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2105). Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Technical and Ecological Services by Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Cassel, CA. 45 pp.

Spring Rivers. 2002b. Aquatic mollusk surveys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Upper North Fork Feather River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2105). Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Technical and Ecological Services by Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Cassel, CA. 45 pp.

Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1993. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). University of North Texas Press, Denton, Texas.

Stillwater Sciences. 2003. South Fork Power Project Fish Population Monitoring 2002. Report prepared by Stillwater Environmental Services for Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. Sacramento, California. August.

Stillwater Sciences. 2005a. Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles Report 2005. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Sacramento, CA by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California, April 1.

Stillwater Sciences. 2005b. South Feather Water and Power Fish Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles Report 2005. Prepared for South Feather Water and Power Agency, Oroville, CA by Stillwater Environmental Services, Davis CA.

Taylor, D. W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California: a distributional checklist. California Fish and Game 67:140–163.

Thorp, J.H. and A.P. Covich (eds.). 2001. Ecology and Classification of North American Invertebrates, second ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Trihey, E.W. and D.L. Wegner. 1981. Field Data Collection Procedures for Use with the Physical Habitat Simulation System of the Instream Flow Group. Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Fort Collins, Colorado.

TRPA (Thomas R. Payne & Associates). 2002. Selection of Habitat Suitability Criteria for use in the Middle Fork and South Fork Stanislaus Rivers, California. Spring Gap – Stanislaus Project (FERC 2130); Beardsley/Donnells Project (FERC 2005). Report prepared by Mark A. Allen for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, California and Tri-Dam Project, Pinecrest, California. December. 93 pp.

TRPA (Thomas R. Payne & Associates). 1994, 1995. RHABSIM 1.1 for DOS Users Manual.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Flow-habitat relationships for spring- run Chinook salmon spawning in Butte Creek. USFWS, the Energy Planning and Instream Flow Branch. Sacramento, CA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frog. Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1976. Discharge measurements at gaging stations. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter A8 by T.J. Buchanan and W.P. Somers.

Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1989. Microcomputer Software System for Generating Population Statistics from Electrofishing. Data-User’s Guide for Microfish 3.0. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-254.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.

Ward, J. V. and J. A. Stanford. 1979. Ecological factors controlling stream zoobenthos with emphasis on thermal modification of regulated streams. International Symposium on Regulated Streams (Ecology of Regulated Streams), Eds. J. V. Ward and J. A. Stanford, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA, Plenum Press, New York. 35-55.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larva of North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera), 2nd ed. University of Toronto, Toronto.

Wilcox, S.D. 1994. South Fork Power Project Fish Population Monitoring 1993. Report prepared by Ebasco Environmental for Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. Sacramento, California. January.

Wilcox, S.D. 1997. South Fork Power Project Fish Population Monitoring 1996. Report prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology for Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. Sacramento, California. March.

Wilcox, S.D. 2000. South Fork Power Project Fish Population Monitoring 1999. Report prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology for Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. Sacramento, California. August.

Wilcox, S.D. 2001. South Fork Power Project Fish Population Monitoring 2000. Report prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology for Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. Sacramento, California. January.

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18:6-22.

Williams, B. 1993. Biostatistics- concepts and applications for biologists. Chapman & Hall, NY.

Young, M. K. 1999. Summer diel activity and movement of adult brown trout in high- elevation streams in Wyoming, U. S. A. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 181-189.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Zippin, C. 1958. The Removal Method Of Population Estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management: 22(1): 82-90; 1958.

13.1.4 Wildlife Resources

Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher. In A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.) The Birds of North America, No. 502. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Beedy, E. C., and W. J. Hamilton III. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In the Birds of North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Bombay, H. L. 1999. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and reproductive success for willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Masters thesis, California State University, Sacramento. 225 pp.

Bombay, H. L., T. M. Ritter, and B. E. Valentine. 2000. A willow flycatcher survey protocol for California. June 6, 2000. 50pp. California Department of Fish and Game Web site (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/spanimals.pdf) accessed October 17, 2006.

Cade, T. J., J. H. Enderson, and J. Linthicum, Eds. 1996. Guide to management of peregrine falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. 7 Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying techniques for common western raptors. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note TN-316. 115 pp.

Call, D. R., R. J. Gutierrez, and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range characteristics of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94:880-888.

CDF (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2006. List of sensitive species. http://www.fire.ca.gov/ResourceManagement/pdf/2005FPRulebook.pdf#page15.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2003. List of California terrestrial natural communities recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database, September 2003 edition. CDFG Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System Version 8.1 Personal Computer Program. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 2006a. State and federally listed endangered and threatened animals of California. October 2006. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf

CDFG. 2006b. California species of special concern. February 2006. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf

CDFG. 2006c. California fully-protected species. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/fullypro/fully_pro.shtml

Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. University California Press, Berkeley.

Craig, D., R. W. Schlorff, B. E. Valentine, C. Pelles, and J. Harris. 1996. Survey protocol for willow flycatchers on National Forest Service lands in the Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished document, 18pp.

Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pages 37-64 in B. A. Giron Pendleton et al., eds. Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

Green, G. A., H. L. Bombay, and M. L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Bothell, Washington, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5. March 2003. 62 pp.

Jackman, R. E., and J. M. Jenkins. 2004. Protocol for evaluating bald eagle habitat and populations in California. Prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Technical and Ecological Services, San Ramon, California. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, California.

Laymon, S. A. 1989. Altitudinal migration movements of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Condor 91:837-841.

Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California.

McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of northern California: an annotated field list. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Berkeley.

Moen, C. A., and R. J. Gutierrez. 1997. California spotted owl habitat selection in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1281-1287.

O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80:11-23.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2004. Desabla-Centerville project FERC No. 803, Pre-Application Document (PAD), October 4, 2004.

PG&E. 2005. Survey RT&E bats at high potential project facilities. Study plan 6.3.4-5.

Pierson, E. D., and W. E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, habitat associations, status and survey methodologies for three molossid bat species (Eumops perotis, Nyctinomops femorosaccus, Nyctinomops macrotis) and the vespertilionid (Euderma maculatum). California Department of Fish and Game. Bird and Mammal Conservation Plan. No. 61.

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. 2003. A protocol for surveying nesting peregrine falcons. University of California, Santa Cruz, California.

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.

USBLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management) 2006. List of sensitive species. http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/pa_pdfs/biology_pdfs/SensitiveAnimals.pdf.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1993. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, appendix O. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USFS. 1998. Region 5 list of sensitive species. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species/sensitive-animals.pdf.

USFS. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Birds of conservation concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. December 2002. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/bcc2002.pdf

USFWS. 2006. Sacramento office species of concern. http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/spp_concern.htm.

Western Bat Working Group Web site (http://www.wbwg.org/species_accounts.htm) accessed October 17, 2006.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 731pp.

Zielinski, W. J., T. E. Kucera, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-112.

13.1.6 Botanical Resources

Berg, Francis. Bureau of Land Management. Phone call with Samantha Hillaire, GANDA biologist, regarding the weeds of interest to BLM, and noting that there is currently no BLM botanist for the Redding District. June 7, 2006.

Bossard, C., J. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive plants of California’s Wildlands. Accessed from http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/index.php.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1984. Guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities. State of California, The Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game. May 4, 1984.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. List of California terrestrial natural communities recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database, September 2003 edition. CDFG Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. California Wildlife Habitats Relationships System. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/wildlife_habitats.html.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2004. Important Notice and Pest Ratings of Noxious Weed Species, January 2004. California State Department of Food and Agriculture Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, Sacramento, CA.

_____. 2006. Encycloweedia Web site. Accessed from http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006a. California Invasive Plant Council Web site. Accessed from http://www.cal-ipc.org/ on June 8, 2006.

___. 2006b. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2000. CNPS Inventory- 6th Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Christofferson, Chris. Assistant Botanist on Plumas National Forest. Phone calls and emails to Samantha Hillaire, GANDA biologist, regarding weed species of interest to the Plumas National Forest. May – June 2006.

____. 2006. CNPS Inventory Online edition, accessed from http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi.

Clifton, G. 2003. Plumas County and Plumas National Forest Flora, 2003 Draft. Unpublished.

Devine Tarbell and Associates. 2005. Helicopter Aerial Photography of DeSabla- Centerville. September 2005.

Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.

Holzmer, Fred, DTA. 2006. Personal communication. Email to David Kelly, GANDA, authorizing DeSabla-Centerville field surveys. Dated June 23, 2006.

Lassen National Forest (LNF). 2005. Lassen National Forest Noxious Weed List, May 25, 2005. From Allison Sanger, Forest Botanist.

Lassen National Forest (LNF). 2006. Proposed Sensitive species list February 2006.

Munz, P.A. and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1681 pp.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Web soil survey, highlighting Butte County. Accessed from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx on October 31, 2006.

Oswald, Vernon. 2002. Selected Plants of Northern California. Studies from the Herbarium number 11. California State University, Chico.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2005. DeSabla –Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Relicensing Study Plan. Modified Study Plan, Map RT&E Plant Species, September 28, 2005.

____. 2004. DeSabla- Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Pre-application Document. Plumas National Forest (PNF). 2003. Plumas National Forest Noxious Weed List.

Plumas National Forest (PNF). 2006. Plumas National Forest Sensitive Plant List. January 18, 2006.

Proctor, Elizabeth, PG&E GIS staff. 2006. Personal communication. Email to Tristan Berlund, GANDA GIS specialist, transmitting DeSabla-Centerville Project files. June 2006.

Sanger, A. Botanist on Lassen National Forest. Emails to Samantha Hillaire, GANDA biologist, regarding weed species of interest to the Lassen National Forest. June 6-8, 2006.

Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Schofield, W. 2004. Buxbaumiaceae: Bryophyte Flora of North America, Provisional Publication, version 1. Missouri Botanical Garden. Dated May 3, 2004.

South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). 2006. Exhibit E, Draft License Application, South Feather Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2088. Oroville, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. USFWS, September 23, 1996.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2006. USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab Vegetation Mapping, CALVEG & EVEG Data http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/mapping/accuracy.shtm

13.1.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat

None.

13.1.7 Species Protected Under Federal Endangered Species Act

Boles, G.L. 1988. Water Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with Emphasis on the Sacramento River, A Literature Review, California Department of Water Resources, January 1988. 42pp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1998. A Status Review of the Spring- run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River Drainage. Prepared by the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, June 1998.

CDFG. 1999. Bald eagle breeding survey instructions. State of California, The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Unpublished database reports. The Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1984. Guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant

Communities. State of California, the Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game. May 4, 1984.

––––––––––. 2004. California natural diversity database. Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California.

––––––––––. 2003. Formal endangered species consultation on the PG&E transmission separation project, located in the Plumas, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests within Butte, Plumas, Madera, and Fresno Counties; in Redding, Folsom, and Bakersfield Districts within Madera, Fresno, Matador, Cleavers, Tuolomne, Nevada, Placer, Butte, Yuba, Shasta, and Tehama Counties; and various other jurisdictions, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. Cited in PG&E. 2005. Assess valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat and presence. DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Relicensing Study Plan. September 28, 2005.

Hill, K.A., and J. D. Webber. 1999. Butte Creek Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Juvenile Outmigration and Life History, 1995-1998. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Admin. Report No. 99-5, 1999. 46 pp.

Hinze, J. A. 1959. Annual Report: Nimbus Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery, fiscal year 1957-58. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Inld. Fish. Div. Admin. Rept. 59-4.

Holzmer, Fred, DTA. 2006. Email to Dave Kelly, GANDA, notification to proceed with surveys. June 23, 2006.

Jackman, R.E., W.G. Hunt, J.M. Jenkins and P.J. Detrich. 1999. Prey of nesting Bald Eagles in northern California. J. Raptor Res. 33:87-96.

------, W.G. Hunt, and N. Hutchins. 2000. Foraging ecology of bald eagles on Shasta Lake. Report by U.C. Santa Cruz, Predatory Bird Research Group for USDA Forest Service, Shasta Lake Ranger District. ------. And J. M. Jenkins. 2004. Protocol for evaluating bald eagle habitat and populations in California. Prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Technical and Ecological Services, San Ramon, California. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, California.

McReynolds, T. R., P.D. Ward, and C. E. Garman. 2006. Butte Creek and Big Chico Creeks Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Life History Investigation, 2004- 2005. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Admin. Report No. 2006-4, 2006. 37pp.

McReynolds, T. R., P.D. Ward, and C. E. Garman. 2007. Butte Creek and Big Chico Creeks Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Life History Investigation, 2005- 2006—Draft. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Admin. Report No. TBD.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2005. Assess valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat and presence. DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Relicensing Study Plan. September 28, 2005.

PG&E. 1982. DeSabla-Centerville project FERC No. 803, rare species surveys for proposed recreation development at Philbrook Reservoir. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Engineer Research Department.

PG&E. 2004. DeSabla-Centerville project FERC No. 803, Pre-Application Document (PAD), October 4, 2004.

PG&E and USFWS. 2003. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle conservation plan. Pacific Gas and Electric Company and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 2003.

Schaefer, M.B. 1951. Estimation of the size of animal populations by marking experiments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bulletin, 52:189-203.

Taylor, S.N.(editor). 1974. King ( hinook) salmon spawning stocks in California’s Central Valley, 1973. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Admin. Report. No. 74-12. 32pp

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Conservation guidelines for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.

USFS. 1992. Land and resource management plan, Lassen National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific

Ward, P.D. and T. R. McReynolds. 2004. Butte Creek and Big Chico Creeks Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Life History Investigation, 1998-2000. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Admin. Report No. 2004-2, 2004. 61 pp.

13.1.8 Recreational Resources

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. 1991.

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Part II). Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines; Final Rule. July 23, 2004.

Baker River Project Relicensing. 2002. Recreational and Aesthetic Resources Working Group. Recreation Needs Analysis (Study Request R-R16), Study Plan, Unpublished work Copyright 2002 Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Retrieved February 05, 2005, http://www.pse.com/hydro/baker/index.html.

Berg, B. L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education. 336 p.

Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance (BCCWA). 2005. Big Chico Creek Watershed Project: Existing Conditions Report. Chico, CA.

Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Forks of Butte Creek Recreation Area Management Plan. May. U.S. Department of the Interior, Ukiah District, Redding Resource Area.

Butte County Planning Department. Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Butte County. Quincy, CA. http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/planning/planning.htm.

Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy (BCWC). 2000a. Existing Conditions Report. Prepared by the Office of Watershed Projects, California State University, Chico Research Foundation.

Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy (BCWC). 2000b. Management Strategy. Prepared by the California State University, Chico Research Foundation.

California Department of Finance. Population Data and Projections from the website: www.dof.ca.gov

California Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries Programs Branch. 2004. Freshwater Fishing Regulations. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/index.html

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2006. California Prisoners And Parolees 2005: Summary Statistics On Adult Felon Prisoners and Parolees, Civil Narcotic Addicts and Outpatients and Other Populations. Offender Information Services Branch, Estimates and Statistical Analysis Section, Data Analysis Unit. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2002. California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2002, An Element of the California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Parks. Sacramento, CA

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California 2002, An Element of the California Outdoor Recreation Planning Program. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Parks. Sacramento, CA

Cassidy, Jim and Calhoun, Fryar. 1990. California Whitewater, A Guide to the Rivers. North Fork Press, Berkeley, CA.

Clark, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. 1979. Determining the acceptability of recreational impacts: An application of the outdoor Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Recreational impact on wildlands conference proceedings. October, Seattle, Washington.

Cole, D. N. 1994. Backcountry impact management: lessons from research. Trends 31(3): 10-14.

Cordell, Ken H. et. Al. 2001. Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America. Venture Publishing. State College, PA. Champaign, IL

Cordell, Ken H. et. Al. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing.

Cordell, H. Ken. 1999. Projections of Outdoor Recreation Participation to 2050 in Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley & Sons.

Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, B. 1992. Measuring backcountry standards in visitor surveys. In B. Shelby, G. Stankey, & B. Shindler (Eds.), Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management – A Workshop Proceedings (pp. 38-52). (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-305). Portland, Oregon: USDA USFS.

Driver, B.L., P.J. Brown, G.H. Stankey, and T.G. Gregoire. 1987. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Planning System: Evolution, Basic Concepts, and Research Needed. Leisure Sciences. 9:201-212.

EDAW, Inc and California Department of Water Resources. November 2003. Final Report Recreational Facility Inventory and Condition Report (R-10). Oroville Facilities Relicensing, FERC Project No. 2100.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1990. Appendix B. Selected Sections of 18 CFR.

Fish First web page. 2006. Fishing reports for Chico area rivers. www.fishfirst.com/

Gangemi, J. 2004. A five-step sequential framework for assessing flow dependent recreation opportunities on regulated rivers. Paper presented at 2004 River Management Society Symposium. Lake Tahoe, CA. May 2004.

Graefe, A. R., Kuss, F. R., & Vaske, J. J. 1990. Recreational impacts and carrying capacity: Visitor impact management: The planning framework (Volume 2), Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Graefe, A. R., Kuss, F. R., & Vaske, J. J. 1990. Visitor impact management: The planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 105 pp.

G. Stankey, & B. Shindler (Eds.), Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management – A Workshop Proceeding (pp. 13-22). (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-305). Portland, Oregon: USDA USFS.

Haas, G., Aukerman, R., Lovejoy, V., & Welch, D. 2004. Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) User’s Guidebook. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver Federal Center, Lakewood Colorado. July 2004.

Haas, G.E. 2001. Visitor Capacity on Public Lands and Waters: Making Better Decisions. Draft report of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands.

Hall, T. E., and Bird, E.R. 2001. Description of existing recreation areas in the Hells Canyon Complex and Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. In: Technical appendices for new license application: Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Idaho Power, Boise, ID. Technical Report E.5-9.

Hammitt, W. E. and Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York: Wiley, 2nd Edition.

Holbeck, Lars and C. Stanley. 1998. The Best Whitewater in California: The Guide to 180 Runs. Third Edition. 107-108, 111-112. Watershed Books. Coloma, CA

Kelly, J.R. & Warnick, R.B. 1999. Recreation Trends and Markets. Sagamore Publishing.

Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Kuss, F. R., Graefe, A. R., & Vaske, J. J. 1990. Visitor impact management: A review of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 256 pp.

Lassen National Forest. 1992. Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Region.

Malvestuto, Stephen P. 1996. Sampling the Recreational Creel Fisheries Techniques (Chapter 20), 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Second edition. Oregon State University Press.

Marion, Jeffrey L. 1991. Developing a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program for Visitor Impacts on Recreation Sites: A Procedural Manual. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06. 59 p.

Marion, Jeffrey L. 1994. Trail conditions and management practices in the National Park Service. Park Science 14(2):16-17.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction, second edition. Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R. E., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Laven, D., and Valliere, W. 2002. Methodological issues in measuring crowding-related norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 24(3-4): 339-348.

McHarg, Ian L. 1992. Design With Nature. John Wiley and Sons, Publisher

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: The visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) framework, a handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: USDI, National Park Service, Denver Service Center.

Norman, Seth. 2004. Flyfisher Guide to Northern California. Wilderness Adventures Press. Belgade, Montana.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1976. FERC 803 – DeSabla-Centerville Project. License Application, Exhibit R. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Francisco, CA

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1983. Fish and wildlife agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and State of California relating to DeSabla-Centerville Project (FERC 803).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1998. DeSabla-Centerville Project, 1998. Recreation Use Monitoring Plan. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Francisco, CA

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2003. Recreation Use Monitoring Report: 1998 to 2002. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Francisco, CA

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2004. 2003 Philbrook Picnic and Overflow Camping Area: Recreation Monitoring Follow-Up Report. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Francisco, CA

Paradise Recreation & Park District. 2001. Master Plan 2002-2016. Prepared by Foothill Associates Environmental Consultants. Paradise, CA.

Parr, Barry. 1999. Hiking the Sierra Nevada. (Centerville Canal). Falcon Publishing, Inc. Helena, Montana.

PLAE Inc. 1993. Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide. MIG Communications, Berkeley, CA.

Pollock, Jones, and Brown. 1994. Roving Creel Survey. Angler Survey Methods and Their Applications in Fisheries Management (Chapter 11). American Fisheries Society.

Recreation Supply Analysis Report September 2002. PacifiCorp Hydro Relicensing Project. (FERC Nos. 2111, 2213, 2071, and 935). (Retrieved February 2005, http://www.pacificorp.com/Article/Article1343.html).

Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. 1986. Social carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Shelby, B. B, Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. 1996. Norms, standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18, 103-123.

Shelby, B. B., Vaske, J. J., & Heberlein, T. A. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11, pp. 269- 291.

Shelby, B., D. Whittaker, and Gangemi, J. 2006. Flows and recreation: A guide to concepts and methods for river professionals.

Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, S. Frissel. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA USFS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Tuthill, Bill. 2004. California Creekin’. A Whitewater and Touring Guide to California: Butte Creek near Chico. Website: http://www.creekin.net/butte-cr.htm.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1993. Land and Resource Management Plan, Lassen National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Wilderness Recreation Use: A Handbook of Methods and Systems, October 2000, USFS RMRS GTR-56 (page 57 -59, Field Sampling Strategy, Method J, The General Recreation Survey, and Method A: Mechanical Counters with Visual Calibration)

USDA Forest Service. Techniques and Equipment for Gathering Visitor Use Data on Recreation Sites (Personal Observation, page 23 -25; Traffic Counters, page 19-23; and Visitor Surveys, page 35-37).

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. August, 2001. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Lassen National Forest, Region 5. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/, retrieved January, 2005.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. August, 2001. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Plumas National Forest, Region 5. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/, retrieved January, 2005.

USDA Forest Service. January 2003. Lassen National Forest Roads Analysis Report, Region 5. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/projects/rap/index.shtml, retrieved April, 2005.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004. Decision Memo – Reduced Campground Service Levels (Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District). Almanor Ranger District. Chester, CA

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Lassen National Forest: Recreation Activities http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/recreation/

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Plumas National Forest: Recreation Activities http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/plumas/recreation/

USDA Forest Service. 2006. USFS Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines. Washington DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Forks of Butte Recreation Area Management Plan. Redding, CA

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Redding Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Redding, CA

USDI Bureau of Land Management. Redding Office. http://www.ca.blm.gov/redding/ Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. 2002. Generalizing the encounter-norm-crowding relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-270.

Watson, A. E., Cole, D. N., Turnery D. L., and Reynolds, P. S. October 2000. Wilderness Recreation Use: A Handbook of Methods and Systems, October 2000, United States USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report-56. Ogden, Utah.

Whittaker, D. 1992. Selecting indicators: Which impacts matter more? In Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. 1988. Types of norms for recreation impacts: Extending the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 261-273.

Whittaker, D. and Shelby, B. 2001. Pit 3, 4, and 5 Hydroelectric Project (FERC 233): Recreation Opportunities & Management Issues in Pit River Canyon and on Lake Britton. Technical Report prepared for PG&E; included in technical documents for license application.

Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby. 2002. Evaluating instream flows for recreation: applying the structural norm approach to biophysical conditions. Leisure Sciences 24:363-374

Whittaker, D., B. Shelby, W. Jackson, and R. Beschta. 1993. Instream flows for recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK

Whittaker, D, Vaske, J., and Manfredo, M. 2002. Choosing actions: Problem definition, identifying strategies, and evaluation criteria. In Manfredo, M. (Ed.) Wildlife viewing: A management handbook. Oregon State University Press.

13.1.9 Land Use and Management

None.

13.1.10 Aesthetic Resources

None.

13.1.11.1 Cultural Resources

Adams, I. B. 1912. The Diamond Match Company’s Plant in Butte County. Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine 3(11): 408–413.

Albright, Lee. 1992. The Mines and Miners of the Paradise Ridge: A Standard Reference Guide.

Barker, Leo R. 1990. Managing the Archaeology of Mining Sites. In Death Valley to Deadwood: Kennecott to Cripple Creek, edited by Leo R. Barker and Ann E. Huston, pp. 44–50. Proceedings of the Historic Mining Conference, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of National Register Programs, Western Regional Office, San Francisco.

Bassett, T. 1978. Early Upper Ridge Yule: It Was Always A Good Christmas. Paradise Post 22 December:15. On file, Stirling City Historical Society.

Baumhoff, M. A. 1955. Excavation of site The-1 (Kingsley Cave). Berkeley: University of California Archaeological survey Reports 30:40-73.

______.. 1957. An Introduction to Yana Archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 40. Berkeley.

Beville, Russell, Elena Nilsson, and Monte Smith. 2005. Archaeological Investigations at Sites FS 05-06-51-157 (CA-TEH-1599), FS 05-06-51-317 (CA-PLU-256), FS 05-06- 51-386 (CA-PLU-404), FS 05-06-51-501 (CA-BUT-727), FS 05-06-51-570 (CA-PLU- 2861), FS 05-06-51-578 (CA-PLU-2911), and FS 05-06-51-932 (CA-LAS-2032), Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest. URS Group, Inc. Chico, California. Submitted to Sierra Cascade Province, Lassen National Forest, Susanville, California.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1885. Mineral Survey Notes, Poumaratt Mine, T24N, R3E, Section 36. Prepared by J. McGann. On file, Bureau of Land Management, Cadastral Survey Department, Sacramento District Office, Sacramento, California.

Butler, Franklin. 1962. Water on the Ridge. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 3(1):2-7.

Butler, Velma. 1969. Fluming on Butte Creek. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 10(1):5-11.

______. 1974. Cecil Lambert: Miner, Logger, Flume Worker. Ms. On file, Stirling City Historical Society.

______. 1986. The DeSabla Powerhouses—Old & New. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 27(1).

Butte County Historical Society. 1994. Centerville. Diggin’s 38 (1, 2):8-12.

California State University, Chico (CSUC). 1998. Butte Creek Watershed Project: Existing Conditions Report. Submitted to the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy.

Centerville Maintenance. 2002. Centerville Powerhouse Maintenance Document. On file, DeSabla Division, Rodgers Flat.

Chavez, David. 1980. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Additions to the De Sabla-Centerville Project, Butte County, California. Mill Valley, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Francisco.

Coca-Cola. 2006. Evolution of the Contour Bottle, http://www.thecoca-colacompany .com/presscenter/img/imagecontour/downloads/bottle_chronology.jpg. Accessed 12 March 2007.

Colby, Robert (editor). 1999. Letters from a Butte Creek Miner. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 40(2):21-29.

Colby, R. 2001. Philbrook Dam, Where Giants Made History. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 42(1).

______. 2004. Goin’ to Philbrook. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 45(2).

Colby, Robert, and Lois McDonald. 2005. Images of America: Magalia to Stirling City. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Cole, Dick. 2006. Hazel Atlas Plant Codes, http://www.fruitjar.org/PlantCodes/ Hazel%20Atlas_files/image002.jpg. Accessed 8 March 2007.

Coleman, C.M. 1952. P. G. and E. of California: The Centennial Story of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Colman Museum. 2007. The Centerville Powerhouse, http://www.colmanmuseum.com/ powerhouse.html. Butte Creek Canyon Web site, accessed February 27, 2007.

Compas, Lynn. 2003. National Register of Historic Places Evaluations, Sites CA-TEH- 1766, CA-TEH-1572, CA-TEH-1435, CA-BUT-1614H, CA-TEH-1733, and CA-TEH- 1615, Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Tehama County, California. PAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC., Sacramento. Submitted to Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Chester, California.

Compton, J.A. 1921. DeSabla Division. Pacific Service Magazine XII(8).

Cook, S. 1955. Epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3). University of California Press, Berkeley.

Costello, Julia G., Judith Marvin, Susan K. Goldberg, Melinda C. Horne, Adrian Praetzellis, Mary Praetzellis, and Grace H. Ziesing. 1996. Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Headquarters Facility Project. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California, Foothill Resources, Ltd., Mokelumne Hill, California, and Anthropological Studies Center, Rohnert Park, California. Prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Submitted to Union Station Partners, Altadena, California.

Crawford, J.J. 1896. Butte County. In 13th Annual Report of the State Mineralogist. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. Deetz, James. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Doubleday, New York.

Department of Water Resources. 1930. Application for Approval of Dam Built Prior to August 14, 1929. On file, Box 6540 DeSabla Collection: Butte Creek Canal and Head Dam 1950–1970, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1961. Application for Approval of Plans for the Repair or Alteration of a Dam (DeSabla Forebay Dam). On file, Box 48590, Document No. 0886, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

DeSabla Division. 1929–1959. Repair Ledger. On file, Stirling City Historical Society.

Dixon, R.B. 1905. The Northern Maidu. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 17(3). Knickerbocker Press, New York. (reprinted in 1983 by AMS Press, New York).

Dougherty, John W., and Lynn Compas. 2003. National Register of Historic Places Evaluations, Sites CA-TEH-1766, CA-TEH-1572, CA-TEH-1435, CA-BUT-1614H, CA- TEH-1733, and CA-TEH-1615, Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Tehama County, California. PAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC., Sacramento. Submitted to Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Chester, California.

Dreyer, B., and J. Kramer. 1985. Site record for CA-BUT-887-H, the Orofino Mine. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico.

Duncan, J.W. 1963. Maidu Ethnobotany. Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Duryea, E., Jr. 1908. Letter to John A. Britton. On file, Box 2617, Folder 4, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

Elsasser, Albert B. 1960. The Archaeology of the Sierra Nevada in California and Nevada. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 51. Berkeley.

Elston, Robert G. 1971. A Contribution to Washoe Archaeology. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Paper No. 2. University of Nevada, Reno.

Elston, Robert G., Jonathan O. Davis, A. Leventhal, and C. Covington. 1977. The Archaeology of the Tahoe Reach of the Truckee River. Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of Nevada, Reno. Submitted to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, Truckee, California.

Elston, Robert G., Susan Stornetta, Daniel P. Dugas, and Peter Mires. 1994. Beyond the Blue Roof: Archaeological Survey on the Mt. Rose Fan and Northern Steamboat Hills. Intermountain Research, Inc., Silver City, Nevada. Submitted to the Toiyabe National Forest on behalf of the American Land Conservancy, San Francisco, California.

Estep, Irene. 1969. Traveler’s Warning. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 10(1):34–36.

Farber, A. 1987. Additions and Corrections to A Supplemental cultural resources survey of the Forks of Butte Hydroelectric Project, Butte County, California. Prepared for McLaren Environmental Engineering, Rancho Cordova, California.

Furlong, H.S. 1922. Ideal Vacation Spots in “Pacific Service” Territory. Pacific Service Magazine XIII(12):394–395.

Furry, J. 1997. Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-BUT-1465H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, California State University, Chico, California.

Godfrey, Anthony. 2005. The Ever-Changing View, a History of the National Forests in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division. Washington, D.C.

Gudde, E. 1975. Gold Camps of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hamusek, Blossom. 1996. A Cultural Resource Survey of the Bend Area, Tehama County, California. Bureau of Land Management. Redding.

Hardesty, D. 1986. Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Gold Bar Mine, Death Valley National Monument. Prepared for Columbus Mines, Inc., Reno, Nevada.

______. 1990. Evaluating Site Significance in Historic Mining Districts. Historical Archaeology 24(2):42–51.

Hardesty, Donald L., and Barbara J. Little. 2000. Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Harper, Renee Velliquette. 2006. Interview with Karin Goetter, 11 September 2006.

Hay, D. 1991. Hydroelectric Development in the United States, 1880–1940. 2 vols. Task Force on Cultural Resource Management, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C.

Head, M. 1985. Letter to Mr. G. M. Willhoit. On file, Box 56283, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

Heizer, R.F. 1972. The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851–1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser. 1953. Some Archaeological Sites and Cultures of the Central Sierra Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 21. Berkeley.

Hernandez, Trish. 2007. Telephone conversation with Peggy Beedle, 23 January 2007.

Hill, D. 1969. Collection of Maidu Indian Folklore of Northern California. Dorothy Hill, Chico, California.

_____. 1972 Maidu Use of Native Flora and Fauna. Dorothy Hill, Chico, California.

_____. 1978 The Indians of Chico Rancheria. California Department of Parks and Recreation Resources Agency, Sacramento.

Hill, D. (editor). 1980. Helen Heffron Roberts: Concow-Maidu Indians of Round Valley, 1926. Association for Northern California Records and Research, Chico, California.

Hinson, Dave. 1996. A Primer on Fruit Jars, http://www.fohbc.com/FOHBC_ References3.html. Accessed 9 March 2007.

Holiday, J. S. 1999. Rush for Riches. Oakland Museum of California, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Hupp, Ralph. 1974. Interview with N. Bleyhl, vol. 2. On file, Special Collections, Meriam Library, California State University, Chico.

Huston, Ann E. 1990. The Survey and Inventory of Mining Properties. In Death Valley to Deadwood: Kennecott to Cripple Creek, edited by Leo R. Barker and Ann E. Huston, pp. 16–19. Proceedings of the 1989 Historic Mining Conference, Death Valley National Monument. Division of National Register Programs, Western Regional Office, National Park Service, San Francisco.

Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS). 2001. IMACS 471. Tin Cans, www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/471-TinCans.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2007.

Intermountain Research, Inc. (IMR). 1995. An Archaeological Treatment Plan for the Mount Rose Land Exchange. Intermountain Research, Inc., Silver City, Nevada. Submitted to the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests on behalf of the American Land Conservancy, San Francisco, California.

Jackson, W.T., R.F. Herbert, and S.R. Wee. 1985. History of the Hendricks, Miocene, Dewey and Miners Ditch Systems: Patterns of Water Development in Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s DeSabla Division, Butte County, California. Jackson Research Projects, Davis, California.

Jones, J. 1984. Philbrook. Joyce Jones, Chico, California.

JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation. 2000. Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures. JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California, and California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office, Sacramento.

Kallenbach, Elizabeth, and Amy Huberland. 2001. Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Paradise Pines/Firhaven Shaded Fuel Break. Archaeological Research Program, California State University, Chico.

Kass, L.M. 1916. DeSabla District. Pacific Service Magazine VIII(2).

______. 1917. DeSabla District. Pacific Service Magazine IX(3).

Kenyon, R. 2006. Telephone conversation with Peggy Beedle, 22 October 2006.

King, A. 1941. Mountain Maidu Fieldnotes. Unpublished ms. (Anthropological Archives No. 216) on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Kohne, Robert E. 1989. Hendricks Head Dam Replacement. On file, Box 59085, Folder: Hendricks Head Dam Correspondence and Photos, Pacific Gas and Electric Archives, Brisbane, California.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of Indians of California. U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (reprinted in 1976 by Dover Publications Inc., New York).

Lehner, Lois. 1988. Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky.

Leone, Mark P. 1988. The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, co-edited with Parker B. Potter, Jr. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Lindsey, Bill. 2007. Beer and Ale Bottles, http://www.blm.gov/historic_bottles/beer.htm. Bottle Typing (Typology) & Diagnostic Shapes Web site, Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area, Oregon, accessed 12 March 2007.

Little, Barbara, and Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl. 2000. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National Register Bulletin 36. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register, History, and Education.

Lockhart, Bill. 2006. Owens-Illinois Glass Company. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 39(2):22–27.

Logan, C.A. 1930. Butte County. In 26th Annual Report of the State Mineralogist. California Division of Mines, Sacramento, California.

Machen, C.R. 1951. Letter to Mr. T. F. Stermer. On file, Box 6540, DeSabla Collection: Butte Creek Canal and Head Dam 1950-1970, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

Maniery, James Gary. 1990. Archaeological and Historical Summary and Significance Evaluation of the Hendricks Head Dam, Butte County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc. Sacramento, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

Maniery, Mary L. 1993. Historic American Engineering Record, Centerville Powerhouse, Francis Turbine Generation Unit (HAER No. CA-127). PAR

Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

______. 1995. Predictive Historic Archaeology Sites Model for the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Solano County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California. Submitted to Engineering Field Activity West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, California.

______. 2001. Historical Archaeology Research Design for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Upper North Fork Feather River FERC Relicensing Project, Plumas County, California (FERC #2105). PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

Maniery, Mary L., James G. Maniery, and Thad M. Van Bueren. 1985. Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for the Proposed Improvements to the Desabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System, Butte County, California (FERC No. 803), with contributions by James C. Williams and Julia G. Costello. Public Anthropological Research, Sacramento, California. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

Mainery, M. L., L. Fryman, and J. Brown. 1992. National Register Evaluation of Site FS No. 05-11-53-110, Butte County, California, Plumas National Forest. On file, Plumas National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Quincy, California. Maujer, A.R. 1912. Power 35(21):720–725.

Markley, R., and G. Smart. 1978. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-597/H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico

McDonald, Lois. 1995. The Golden Ridge 2: A History of Paradise and Beyond in Pictures. Paradise Historical Society, Paradise, California.

______. 1999. The Paradise Depot & Southern Pacific Railroad. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 40(2):2–19.

Miller, Louise Bertha. 1969. Folklore and History of Paradise and the ‘Ridge’: A Source Book for Teachers. A graduate study presented to the faculty of Chico State College.

Milliken, R.L. 1982 [1912]. A Visit to the DeSabla Power House. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 23(2). Reprint of 1912 manuscript from Ralph Milliken Museum, Los Banos, California.

Moore, Jamie. 2002. Archaeological Excavations at CA-BUT-601 on the Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest. Lassen National Forest, Chester, California.

______. 2005. Exploration of the Maiduan Front, Investigation of CA-BUT-723. Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Chester, California.

______. 2006. The Ghost of Procurement Past and the Humbug Basalt Quarries: XRF Identification Along with Spatioal and Temporal Distribution in Portions of Butte, Lassen, and Tehama Counties. Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Chester, California.

Moratto, Michael J. 1999. Cultural Chronology, 1: Regional Context. In Archeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park, California, edited by Kathleen L. Hull and Michael J. Moratto, with contributions by Helen McCarthy, C. Kristina Roper, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Mark R. Hale, and Elena Nilsson, pp. 65-116. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California, and Dames & Moore, Chico, California. Yosemite Research Center Publications in Anthropology No. 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, California.

Myrtle, F.S. 1919. Dancing at DeSabla: An Enjoyable Feature of the “Pacific Service” Recreation Program in the Butte County Hills. Pacific Service Magazine XI(2).

National Park Service. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

______. 1997. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. ______. 1998. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Noble, B. J., and R. Spude. 1992. Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering Historic Mining Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 42. USDI, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D.C.

Nunis, Doyce B. Jr. 1998. Alta California’s Trojan Horse: Foreign Immigration. In Contested Eden: California before the Gold Rush (pp.299-330) Gutiérrez, Ramón A., and Richard J. Orsi, editors. University of Californa Press, in association with the California Historical Society.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 1922. GMO 15272. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1925. GMO 24503. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1926. GMO 27513: Construction of a Dam on Philbrook Creek. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1927. GMO 38629: Agreement Between C. H. Brown and Elmer L. Chase and P G and E for Drilling Tunnel on the Company’s Centerville Canal, County of Butte, California. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1937a. GMO 53214: Construction Notes for Concrete “L” Wall Type Walls #0/3A, 4/3, and 4/5 Lower Centerville Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1937b. GMO 54917: Build Sand Tank and Install 5’ Calco Gate at 3/4 Flume, Lower Centerville Canal.

______. 1938. GMO 56820: Remove Abandoned Ditch Cottage Camp Two Hendricks Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1939. GMO 60304: Philbrook Reservoir Replace Rotted Boom Logs. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1940. GMO 63411: Install Additional Spillway at Philbrook Dam. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1941. GMO 67833: Construct Cottage at Camp Three Hendricks Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1942a. GMO 69603: Install Water Supply, etc. to Cottage No. 1492. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1942b. GMO 71233: Remodel Cottages at the Centerville Power House. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1944. GMO 74849: Removal of Buildings from Camp #2 Lower Centerville Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1945. GMO 77902: Lower Centerville Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1946. GMO 82566: Lower Centerville Road. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1948a. GMO 93492: Lower Centerville Canal Siphon Spillways. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1948b. GMO 100168: Repairs on Lower Centerville Canal Camp 4 Buildings. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1948c. GMO 102763: Lower Centerville Canal Radial Gate & Trash Rake. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1956. GMO 402422: Concrete Wall at Camp 4, Lower Centerville Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1957a. GMO 139649: Repair Bldg. No. 2970 Butte Head Dam, DeSabla Water Collection. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1957b. GMO 404210: Bridges and Escape Ramps for Deer on Butte Creek and Lower Centerville Canals. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1960. GMO 149973: Removal of Buildings at Camp One, DeSabla. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1965. GMO 162825: Renovate Round Valley Dam (Snag Lake). On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1975. L.E. #6889: Install Automatic Regulating Gate on the Butte Creek Canal. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1982. GMO 4292306: Install Radio-Activated Spillgate on the Butte Creek Canal 5/1. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1995. Information Sheet: Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River Canal Maintenance. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 1996. Stability Analysis and Seismic Deformation Assessment Philbrook Dam. On file, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Archives, Brisbane, California.

______. 2004. Appendix L of Desabla-Centerville Project (FERC #803).

Pacific Service Magazine. 1914. DeSabla District. Pacific Service Magazine VI(5). ______. 1916. DeSabla District. Pacific Service Magazine VII(10).

______. 1919. The welfare. . . . Pacific Service Magazine XI(2).

______. 1928. Philbrook Dam and Reservoir in DeSabla Territory. Pacific Service Magazine XVII(4).

Palmer, M. 1994. Round Valley Dam Filter Blanket Installation Construction Report. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Hydro Generation Department.

P. G. and E. Progress. 1926. Dam on Philbrook Creek to Create Mountain Lake. P G and E Progress III(10).

______. 1950a. 1000 Men Battle Furious Storms. P G and E Progress XXVII(3).

______. 1950b. On the Job With the “Old-Timers.” P G and E Progress XXVII(6).

Payen, Louis A., and William H. Olsen. 1969. Archaeological Investigations in Stampede Reservoir, Sierra County, California. Prepared for the National Park Service.

Phillips, H. 1982 Elsa Bille Edwards. Tales of the Paradise Ridge 23(2).

Potts, M. 1977. The Northern Maidu. Naturegraph Publishers, Happy Camp, California.

Professional Archaeological Services (PAS). 1988. An Archaeological and Historical Investigation of Site CA-BUT-868H at the De Sabla Powerhouse, Butte County, California. Professional Archaeological Services, Paradise, California.

Public Anthropological Research (PAR). 1985. Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for the Proposed Improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System, Butte County, California, FERC No. 803. Public Anthropological Research, Sacramento, California. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

Rice, A. 1910. DeSabla and Centerville Power Plants. Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine II(1).

Riddell, F. 1978. Maidu and Koncow. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8. (R.F. Heizer, volume editor). Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Ritter, Eric, Bret Ritter, and Andrius Skucas. 1989. Archaeological Site Record for CA- BUT-1111-H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico, and Bureau of Land Management, Redding, California.

Roth, Dennis. 1995. The Wilderness Movement and the National Forests. 2nd ed. Intaglio Press, College Station, Texas.

Rock, James. 1987. A Brief Commentary on Cans. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Region 5, Yreka, California.

Sanford, Mark. 2006. Telephone conversation with Peggy Beedle, 5 December 2006.

Sherfy, Marcella, and W. Ray Luce. 1996. Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years. Revised. National Register Bulletin 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register, History, and Education, Washington, D.C.

Shipley, W. 1963. Maidu Texts and Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics 33. University of California Press, Berkeley.

______. 1991. The Maidu Indian Myths and Stories of Hánc’ibyjim. Heyday Books, Berkeley.

Shoup, Lawrence H. 1988. “The Hardest Working Water in the World”: A History and Significance Evaluation of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., Fair Oaks, California. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California.

______. 1997. A History of the Upper Centerville Canal and Its Water Users, Butte County, California, 1871–1942. Archaeological/Historical Consultants, Oakland, California. Submitted to PG&E Law Department, San Francisco, California.

Simonis, Don S. 1997. Simonis Milk Can Guide. IMACS 471.Tin Cans, page 9, www .anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/471-TinCans.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2007.

Sloper, Christine A. 1986. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-1229H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Thornton, Mark V. 1994. Archaeological Site Record for P-04-001325. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Toulouse, Julian Harrison. 1971. Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1910. Thirteenth Census of the United States, http://www.ancestry.com.

______. 1920. Fourteenth Census of the United States, http://www.ancestry.com. ______. 1930. Fifteenth Census of the United States, http://www.ancestry.com.

Van Bueren, Thad. 1985. Appendix G: National Register Nomination for the Centerville Hydroelectric System District, with contributions by James C. Williams. In Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for the Proposed Improvements to the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric System, Butte County, California, FERC No. 803, edited by Mary, L. Maniery, Mary L., James G. Maniery, and Thad M. Van Bueren. Public Anthropological Research, Sacramento, California. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.

Van Bueren, Thad, and Diane McCombs. 1984a. Archaeological Site Record for CA- BUT-597/H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

______. 1984b. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-868-H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

______. 1984c. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-872-H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

______. 1984d. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-877-H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Vaughan, T. 1999. Archaeological Site Record for CA-BUT-1465H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Chico.

Voegelin, E.W. 1942. Culture Element Distributions: XX, Northeast California. Anthropological Records 7(2). University of California Press, Berkeley.

Weber, R.C.E. 1922. “Thin Concrete Lining Successful in Irrigation Canals.” Engineering News-Record 88(11):436.

Whitten, David. 2006. Glass Factory Marks on Bottles, http://myinsulators.com/glass- factories/bottlemarks.html. Accessed 8 March 2007.

Wilson, N., and A. Towne. 1978. Selected Bibliography of Maidu Ethnography and Archaeology. California Department of Parks and Recreation Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.

Wise, James M. 1910. Undeveloped Power Possibilities Owned or Controlled by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. On file, Box 2617, Folder 33, Pacific Gas and Electric Archives, Brisbane, California.

13.1.12 Socio-Economic Resources

None.