THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of California, Davis Libraries http://archive.org/details/placercountyinve10cali Bear River Canal Near Colfax Credit: Pacific Gas and Electric Company STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOODWIN J. KNIGHT GOVERNOR PUBLICATION OF STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD Bulletin No. 10 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION June, 1955 LIBRARY UNIVF^ ■ • Y OF C \UFOXW* TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 10 ORGANIZATION, STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD 11 ORGANIZATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUB- LIC WORKS, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 12 ORGANIZATION, COUNTY OF PLACER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 13 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 15 Authorization for Investigation 15 Related Investigations and Reports 15 Scope of Investigation and Report 16 Area Under Investigation 17 Natural Features 18 Drainage Basins 18 Climate 18 Geology 19 Soils 19 Present Development 20 CHAPTER II. WATER SUPPLY 23 Precipitation 23 Precipitation Stations and Records 23 Precipitation Characteristics 25 Quantity of Precipitation 27 Runoff 27 Stream Gaging Stations and Records 27 Runoff Characteristics 29 Quantity of Runoff 30 Imported and Exported Water 32 Underground Hydrology 32 Ground Water Geology 32 Specific Yield and Ground Water Storage Capacity in Valley Unit 33 Ground Water Levels in Valley Unit 33 Change in Ground Water Storage in Valley Unit 35 Subsurface Inflow and Outflow in Valley Unit 35 Yield of Wells in Vallev Unit 36 Safe Ground Water Yield of Valley Unit 37 Quality of Water 38 Standards of Quality for Water 39 Quality of Surface Water 40 Quality of Ground Water 40 CHAPTER III. WATER UTILIZATION AND SUP- PLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 41 Water Utilization 42 Present Water Supply Development 42 Valley and Foothill Units 42 American River Unit 43 Bear River and Yuba River Units 43 Tahoe Unit 47 Appropriation of Water 47 Dams Under State Supervision 49 Land Use 49 Present Pattern of Land Use 49 Probable Ultimate Pattern of Land Use 50 Unit Use of Water 52 Consumptive Use of Water 52 Consumptive Use of Applied Water 54 Present Water Requirements 55 Probable Ultimate Water Requirements 56 Nonconsumptive Water Requirements 57 Hydroelectric Power Production 57 Flood Control 57 Recreation and Fish and Wildlife 58 Page Demands for Water 59 Application of Water 59 Irrigation and Water Service Area Efficiencies 60 Conveyance Losses 60 Gross Diversion of Water 61 Monthly Demands for Water 61 Return Flow 61 Permissible Deficiencies in Application of Irrigation Water 62 Supplemental Water Requirements 62 Present Supplemental Water Requirement 62 Probable Ultimate Supplemental Water Requirement 63 CHAPTER IV. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOP- MENT 65 The California Water Plan 66 American River Basin 66 Bear and Upper Yuba River Basins 67 Truckee River Basin 67 Plans for Initial Local Development 68 Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units 69 Jackson Meadows Project 70 Lake Valley Project 73 Cisco Project 76 Comparison of Lake Valley and Cisco Projects 80 Rollins Project 80 French Meadows Project 85 1. French Meadows Dam and Reservoir 87 2. Duncan Creek Diversion and Conduit 88 3. French Meadows-Deep Canyon Conduit 88 4. Deep Canyon Power House 88 5. Deep Canyon Diversion and Conduit 88 6. Lost Canyon Diversion and Tunnel 88 7. Secret Canyon Diversion and Tunnel 89 8. El Dorado Creek Diversion and Tunnel 89 9. Bullion Creek Diversion and Conduit 89 10. Foresthill Canal 89 11. Sugar Pine Canal 89 12. Pagge Reservoir Tunnel 89 13. Pagge Dam and Reservoir 90 14. Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir 90 15. Big Reservoir 91 16. Iowa Hill Canal 91 17. Iowa Hill Pumping Plant and Pipe Line 92 18. Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit 92 19. Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit 94 20. Pickering Bar Tunnel 94 21. Pickering Bar Power House 94 Foresthill Divide Project 94 1. Secret Canyon Diversion and Canal 97 2. Black Canyon Diversion and Canal 98 3. El Dorado Creek Diversion and Canal 98 4. Bullion Creek Diversion and Canal 98 5. Forbes Dam and Reservoir, and Forbes Reservoir Canal 98 6. Enlarged Morning Star Dam and Big Reservoir, and Big Reservoir Canal 99 7. Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir, and Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal . 100 Valley Unit 102 Camp Far West Project 103 Coon Creek Project 107 Doty Ravine Project 111 Lincoln Project 114 Auburn Ravine Project 118 Whitney Ranch Project 120 Clover Valley Project 123 Auburn Ravine Power Development Project 126 Discussion of Plans for Water Supply Development 128 CHAPTER Y. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS _. 131 Summary of Conclusions 131 Recommendations 133 ( 5) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued APPENDIXES Page A. Agreements Between the State Water Resources Board, the Countv of Placer, and the Department of Public- Works 135 B. Geology of Placer County 143 C. Comments of Concerned Agencies on Preliminary Draft of Bulletin No. 10, "Placer County Investigation" 153 D. Records of Monthly Precipitation in Placer County Not Previously Published 163 E. Records of Monthly Runoff in Placer County Not Previ- ously Published 169 F. Records of Depths to Ground Water at Measurement Wells in and Adjacent to Placer County 173 G. Records of Mineral Analyses of Waters in and Adjacent to Placer County 187 H. Existing Power Houses in and Adjacent to Placer County 195 I. Applications to Appropriate Water in Placer County. Filed With Division of Water Resources, Department of Public Works, Under Provisions of Water Code, State of California 197 J. Existing Dams in and Adjacent to Placer County 207 K. Report of Board of Review on the Land Classification Survey of Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties 209 L. Records of Application of Water on Selected Plots and Watersheds in and Adjacent to Placer County 215 M. Reservoir Yield Studies 223 N. Estimates of Cost 235 TABLES Table No. Page 1. Climatological Data at Selected Stations in or Ad- jacent to Placer County 18 2. Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Seasonal Precipi- tation at Selected Stations in or Near Placer County 24 3. Recorded Seasonal Precipitation at Sacramento, Auburn, and Blue Canyon 26 4. Mean Monthly Distribution of Precipitation at Au- burn 27 5. Estimated Weighted Seasonal Depth and Total Quantitv of Precipitation on Valley and Foothill Units of Placer County 27 6. Stream Gaging Stations in and Adjacent to Placer County 28 7. Recorded and Estimated Natural Seasonal Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks 30 8. Estimated Seasonal Natural Flow of North Fork of American River Near Colfax and of American River at Fair Oaks, 1948-49 Through 1951-52__ 30 9. Estimated Average Monthly Distribution of Aver- age Seasonal Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks. 1904-05 Through 1951-52 30 10. Estimated Mean Seasonal Natural Runoff of Streams in and Adjacent to Placer County 31 11. Measured and Estimated Seasonal Surface Inflow to and Outflow From Foothill and Valley Units, 1948-49 Through 1950-51 31 12. Estimated Specific Yield and Ground Water Stor- age Capacity in Valley Unit of Placer County 33 13. Measured Fall Depths to Ground Water at Repre- sentative Wells in Valley Unit of Placer County 34 14. Estimated Average Fall Depth to Ground Water in Valley Unit of Placer County 34 15. Estimated Weighted Average Monthly Depth to Ground Wafer in Valley Unit of Placer County 35 16. Estimated Weighted Average Seasonal Changes in Fall Ground Water Elevation in Valley Unit of Placer County 35 17. Estimated Weighted Average Seasonal Changes in Ground Water Storage in Valley Unit of Placer County 35 18. Estimated Excess of Seasonal Subsurface Outflow Over Subsurface Inflow in Valley Unit of Placer County 36 Table No. Page 19. Estimated Average Yield of Wells in Valley Unit of Placer County, 1951_ 37 20. Estimated Safe Seasonal Ground Water Yield in Valley Unit of Placer County 38 21. Selected Complete Mineral Analyses of Representa- tive Surface Waters in Placer County 40 22. Summary of Complete Mineral Analyses of Repre- sentative Ground Water by Classes in Valley Unit of Placer County 40 23. Area Served by Surface and Ground Water in Valley Unit of Placer County During Investiga- tional Seasons 42 24. Estimated Quantity of Surface Water Distributed for Municipal and Industrial Use in Valley and Foothill Units by Pacific Gas and Electric Com- pany in 1950 43 25. Patterns of Land Use in Valley Unit of Placer County During Investigational Seasons 49 26. Present Pattern of Land Use in Units of Placer County 50 27. Classification of Lands in Units of Placer County 51 28; Probable Ultimate Pattern of Land Use in Units of Placer County 52 29. Estimated Unit Values of Seasonal Consumptive Use of Water in Valley Unit of Placer County 54 30. Estimated Unit Values of Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in Valley Unit of Placer County 54 31. Estimated Unit Values of Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in Selected Watersheds of Placer County 55 32. Estimated Unit Values of Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in Foothill, American River, and Yuba River Units 55 33. Estimated Present Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Water in Valley Unit and Use During Base Period and Investigational Seasons 55 34. Estimated Present Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Surface and Ground Water in Valley Unit and Use During Base Period and Investigational Seasons 56 35. Estimated Present Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in Foothill. American River. Bear River, Yuba River, and Tahoe Units 56 36. Estimated Total Seasonal Consumptive Use of Water in Foothill Unit During Base Period and Investigational Seasons 56 37. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Water in Valley Unit 57 38. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water in Foothill. American River, Bear River, Yuba River, and Tahoe Units 57 39. Estimated Monthly Requirements for Water for Generation of Hydroelectric Energy 57 40. Recorded and Estimated Flood Flows on Principal Streams in Vallev Unit During Investigational Period 58 41. Measured Average Seasonal Application of Ground Water on Representative Plots of Principal Crops in and Adjacent to Valley Unit 59 42. Measured Average Application of Surface Water on Representative Plots of Principal Crops in Foothill Unit in 1949-50— 59 43. Estimated Total Seasonal Application of Irriga- tion Water in Units of Placer County During Investigational Seasons 60 44. Estimated Water Service Area Efficiency in Se- lected Watersheds in Placer County, 1950-51 60 45. Gross Seasonal Diversion of Irrigation Water to Selected Watersheds of Placer County, 1950-51 61 46. Estimated Average Monthly Distribution of De- mand for Irrigation Water in Valley Unit 61 47. Estimated Average Monthly Distribution of De- mands for Water in Placer County 61 48. Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Supplemental Water Requirements in Units of Placer County 63 (6) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Table 40 .-,11 :,1 53 54 55 56 57. 58, 59. GO, 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 71. 72 73. 74. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. SI. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. No. Page Estimated Safe Seasonal Yield of Jackson Mea- dows Reservoir With Haypress Diversion, Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-2] Through 1934-35 71 Areas and Capacities of Jackson Meadows Reser- voir 71 General Features of Jackson Meadows Project 72 Estimated Safe Seasonal Yield of Lake Valley Res- ervoir. With Fordyce Lake, Rattlesnake Creek, and South Fork Yuba River Diversions, Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 74 Areas and Capacities of Lake Valley Reservoir 74 General Features of Lake Valley Project 7(i Estimated Safe Seasonal Yield of Cisco Reservoir, With Fordyce Lake and Rattlesnake Creek Di- versions, Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 ___ 77 Areas and Capacities of Cisco Reservoir 78 General Features of Cisco Project 79 Comparison of Lake Valley and Cisco Projects 80 Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Rollins Reservoir P.ased on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 _ 82 Areas and Capacities of Rollins Reservoir 83 General Features of Rollins Project 84 Estimated Mean Seasonal Runoff at Dam Sites and Diversion Points of French Meadows Project 86 Esimated Seasonal Y'ield of French Meadows Proj- ect. Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-2] Through 1934-35 86 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demands for Water From French Meadows Project 86 Areas and Capacities of French Meadows Reservoir 87 Areas and Capacities of Pagge Reservoir 90 Areas and Capacities of Sugar Pine Reservoir 91 General Features of French Meadows Project 92 Estimated Mean Seasonal Runoff at Dam Sites and Diversion Points, and Tributary to Canals of Foresthill Divide Project 95 Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Reservoirs of Foresthill Divide Project, Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through ]!)34-35__ 97 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demands for Water From Reservoirs of Foresthill Divide Project 97 Areas and Capacities of Forbes Reservoir 98 Areas and Capacities of Enlarged Big Reservoir 99 General Features of Foresthill Divide Project 101 Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Y'ield of Camp Far West Reservoir, Based on Critical Drv Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35___ 104 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Camp Far West Project 104 Areas and Capacities of Camp Far West Reservoir 105 General Features of Camp Far West Project 106 Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Coon Creek Reservoir With Bear River Diversion. Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 107 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Coon Creek Project 109 Areas and Capacities of Coon Creek Reservoir 109 General Features of Coon Creek Project 111 Possible Seasonal Distribution of Winter Releases of Water From Wise Power House to Proposed Reservoirs in Placer County 112 Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Doty Ra- vine Reservoir. Based on Critical Drv Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 _ 112 Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Doty Ravine Project _ 112 Areas and Capacities of Doty Ravine Reservoir 113 General Features of Doty Ravine Project.- _ 114 Table No. Page 88. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Lincoln Reservoir With 15,00(1 Acre-foot Capacity, Based on Critical Drv Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 114 89. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Lincoln Project 115 90. Areas and Capacities of Lincoln Reservoir 115 '.M. Genera] Features of Lincoln Project 116 02. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Auburn Ravine Reservoir. Based on Critical Dry Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 118 93. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Auburn Ravine Project 119 94. Areas and Capacities of Auburn Ravine Reservoir 119 95. General Features of Auburn Ravine Project 120 96. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Whitney Ranch Reservoir. Based on Critical Drv Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35- 121 97. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Whitney Ranch Project-. 121 98. Areas and Capacities of Whitney Ranch Reservoir 122 00. General Features of Whitney Ranch Project 123 100. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Yield of Clover Re- ervoir With Auburn Ravine Diversion, Based on Critical Drv Period From 1920-21 Through 1934-35 124 101. Estimated Monthly Distribution of Demand for Water From Clover Valley Project 124 102. Areas and Capacities of Clover Valley Reservoir 124 103. General Features of Clover Valley Project 125 104. General Features of Auburn Ravine Power Devel- opment Project 128 105. Economic Comparison of Potential Water Devel- opment Projects for Placer County 128 PLATES Plates Xos. 1-28 are Bound Following Page 133 Plate No. 1. Location of Placer County 2. Hydrographic Units, Water Agencies, and Existing Water Conservation Works, 1953 3. Lines of Equal Mean Seasonal Precipitation 4. Recorded Seasonal Precipitation at Auburn 5. Accumulated Departure From Mean Seasonal Precipi- tation at Auburn 6. Estimated Seasonal Natural Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks 7. Accumulated Departure From Mean Seasonal Natural Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks 8. Lines of Equal Depth to Ground Water, Valley Unit, Fall of 1952 0. Lines of Equal Elevation of Ground Water, Valley Unit, Fall of 1952 10. Measured Fall Depths to Ground Water at Representa- tive Wells. Valley I 'nit 11. Average Fall Depth to Ground Water, Valley Unit 12. Lines of Equal Change in Ground Water Elevation, Valley Unit, Fall of 104S to Fall of 1052 13. Irrigated and Irrigable Lands. 1951 14. Plans for Water [Development 15. Jackson Meadows Project 16. Lake Valley Project 17. Lake Valley Project, Plan and Profile IS. Cisco Project ISa. Rollins Projed 10. French Meadows Project. Plan. Profile, and Project Area 20. French Meadows Project, Dams 21. Foresthill Divide Project 22. Foresthill Divide Project. Dams 23. Camp Far West Project 24. Coon Creek Project 25. Doty Ravine Project 25a. Lincoln Project 26. Auburn Ravine Project 27. Whitney Ranch Project 27a. Clover Valley Project 28. Auburn Ravine Power Development Project Plate B-l Follows Appendix B B-l. Geologic Map of Valley and Part of Foothill Units, 1953 (7) TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued ILLUSTRATIONS Pase Sprinkler Irrigation of Pasture West of Roseville, Water Page Supply Pumped From Underground 53 Bear River Canal Near Colfax Frontispiece Rollins Dam Site. and Bear River Canal Intake 81 Roseville and Surrounding Area, Looking Northeast 22 Young Apple Trees on Foresthill Divide 96 Spaulding Power Houses Nos. 1 and 2, Spaulding Dam in Big Reservoir 96 Background 44 Coon Creek Dam Site 108 Drum Canal 46 Doty Ravine Dam Site 117 Rock Creek Dam 48 Auburn Ravine Dam Site 117 Combie Dam 48 South Canal at Tunnel 11 127 Pump Irrigation of Rice West of Lincoln 53 Halsey Power House 127 (8) Goodwin J Knight governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING SACRAMENTO 5, CALIFORNIA CLAIR A. HILL. Chairman, redding R. V. MEIKLE. VICE CHAIRMAN. TURLOCK A. D. EDMONSTON. STATE ENGINEER SECRETARY June 30, 1955 A. FREW, King city C. A. GRIFFITH, AZUSA W. P. RICH, MARYSVILLE W. PENN ROWE. San Bernardino PHIL □. SWING, San diego ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SECRETARY Honorable Goodwin J. Knight, Governor, and Members of the Legislature of the State of California Gentlemen: I have the honor to transmit herewith Bulletin No. 10 of the State Water Resources Board, entitled "Placer County Investigation," as author- ized by Chapter 1514, Statutes of 1945, as amended. The Placer County Investigation was conducted and Bulletin No. 10 was pre- pared by the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Public Works, under the direction of the State Water Resources Board. Bulletin No. 10 contains an inventory of the surface and underground water resources of Placer County, estimates of present and probable ultimate supple- mental water requirements, and preliminary plans and cost estimates for water development works. Very truly yours, &4 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 2 MEAN, MAXIMUM, AND MINIMUM SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT SELECTED STATIONS IN OR NEAR PLACER COUNTY Map reference number Station Elevation, in feet Period of record Source of record Mean seasonal precipitation, in inches Maximum and minimum seasonal precipitation Season Inches 5-77_ _. 5-78 __ 5-79___ 5-80 _ . 5-83. .. 5-85_ _. 5-86-- 5-87__. 5-88 __ 5-89. .. 5-90. .. 5-91 __. 5-92 __ 5-93 _. 5-98- .. 5-99.. 5-99A 5-100_. 5-107- . 5-108_. 5-109 5- 109 A 5-109B 5-109C 5-110_ 5-111. . North Bloomfield Bowman Dam Lake Spaulding Fordyce Dam Grass Valley Gold Run Deer Creek Power House Towle Drum Forebay Blue Canyon Emigrant Gap Cisco Soda Springs Donner Summit Wheatland Colfax __ Applegate [owa Hill___ Nicolaus Newcastle . Auburn Werner Ranch Mount Pleasant Cranston Ranch ( leorgetov n Pilot Creek 3,160 5,347 5,075 6,500 2,690 3,222 3,700 3,704 4,563 5,280 5,220 5,800 6,752 6,871 84 2,418 2,130 2,970 47 970 1,234 1,200 500 1,225 2,210 4,000 1870-1944* 1871-1955 1894-1955 1894-1929 1872-1955 1899-1955* 1871-1920* 1916-1955 1899-1955 1870-1945* 1870-1955 1930-1955 1871-1951* 1887-1952* 1870-1955* 1906-1929 1879-1955* 1912-1955 1891-1940* 1871-1955 1933-1955 1944-1955 1948-1955 1872-1955* 1894-1914 f.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. P.G.&E. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. Private U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. Private Private Private U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. 51.11 66 . 50 65.31 64.47 52.62 48.65 64.46 59.12 55 . 56 57.60 48.96 45.36 20.84 46.22 47.23 48.93 18.32 28.38 33.12 29.40 50.97 i. is: 1906-07 1923-24 1903-04 1887-88 1903-04 1923-24 1894-95 1923-24 1889-90 1923-24 1950-51 1907-08 1937-38 1923-24 1913-14 1876-77 1950-51 1923-24 1951-52 1923-24 1 906-07 1 874-75 1889-90 1874-75 1951-52 1930-31 1879-80 1923-24 1889-90 1887-88 ISS9-90 1923-24 1910-11 1923-24 1889-90 1897-98 1940-41 1912-13 1906-07 1938-39 1906-07 1911-12 1940-41 1916-17 1 SSI 1-9(1 193S 3(1 1903 III 1897-98 77.84 21.47 142.07 29.40 102.56 34.39 116.52 35 . 78 89.82 24.55 82.72 28.06 103.89 28.89 85.86 32.34 101.67 28.04 94.30 17.35 97.63 28.19 79 . 45 26.23 80.10 20.76 33 . 69 11.07 89 . 80 20.40 71.87 18.69 91.04 29.47 32.46 7.07 48.05 16.63 56.73 12.63 43.39 21.00 95.27 ,'S Ii3 95.54 37.46 WATER SUPPLY 25 TABLE 2- Continued MEAN, MAXIMUM, AND MINIMUM SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT SELECTED STATIONS IN OR NEAR PLACER COUNTY Map reference Station Elevation, in feet Period of record Source of record Mean seasonal precipitation, in inches Maximum and minimum seasonal precipitation number Season Inches 5-119- 160 1926-1955 Private 17.12 1951-52 1938-39 25 34 10.78 5-120 Rocklin 239 1870-1955 U.S.W.B. 23.14 1906-07 1923-24 38.63 10.42 5-120A 160 380 1946-1955 1947-1955 Private 5-120B 5-120C Penrvn . 600 1948-1955 Private 5-121 Represa . . . 305 1893-1955* U.S.W.B. 23.94 1906-07 1923-24 43.12 11 .54 5-122 1,425 1849-1955* U.S.W.B. 30.04 1861-62 1897-98 79 24 14.60 5-123 Placerville _ 1,925 1874-1955 U.S.W.B. 38.55 1889-90 1923-24 78.23 20.13 5-131 Sacramento 25 1849-1955 U.S.W.B. 16.37 1852-53 1850-51 36.35 4.71 5-134 Folsom__ . . 252 1871-1955 U.S.W.B. 23.70 1889-90 1876-77 43.31 10.19 5-0136 200 6,225 1898-1900 1913-1918* U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. 5-0137 McKinney 5-0138 Michigan Bluff 3,200 1940-1955 U.S.W.B. 5-0139- __ 970 565 6,000 1936-1939 1897-1901 1870-1955 Private U.S.W.B. U.S.W.B. 25.39 1889-90 1887-88 .5-0142 Wirebridge _ Truckee _ .. 6-6 54.84 9.35 6-7 Boca. ._. _. 5,535 1870-1955 U.S.W.B. 19.88 1889-90 1876-77 52.15 7.60 6-8 __ Tahoe 6,230 1910-1955 U.S.W.B. 30.60 1951-52 1923-24 54.87 14.18 * Broken record. U.S.W.B.— United States Weather Bureau. P.G.&E. — Pacific Gas and Electric Company. eipitation. In those instances where it was necessary to estimate the mean seasonal precipitation, the avail- able records were extended to cover the 50-year mean period by comparison with records of nearby stations having records covering this period. Precipitation Characteristics The general precipitation pattern in Placer County, as indicated on Plate 3, increases from west to east with increasing elevation. Because of the large differ- ences in precipitation on the area, no single station is representative of rainfall over the county. However, the seasonal rainfall measured at Sacramento was con- sidered to be a suitable index of general precipitation over the Valley Unit. Similarly, Auburn was con- sidered to be a representative index of general pre- cipitation on the Foothill and Bear River Units. Rec- ords of precipitation at Sacramento and Auburn are available since 1849-50 and 1871-72, respectively. A record of precipitation is available at Blue Canyon since 1899-1900, and was considered to be a repre- sentative index of general precipitation on the Ameri- can River, Yuba River, and Tahoe Units. Recorded seasonal precipitation at these stations is presented in Table 3, and is shown for Auburn on Plate 4, entitled "Recorded Seasonal Precipitation at Auburn." Precipitation on the Valley and Footbill Units con- sists almost entirely of rainfall. However, heavy snow- fall is general in the winter at elevations above about 3,500 feet. Depths of snowfall in the Sierra Nevada are exceeded in few parts of the United States. In March, 1907, and again in 1911, 308 inches of snow were measured at Donner Summit. Depth of snow on markers at railroad stations on the transcontinental 26 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 3 RECORDED SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT SACRAMENTO, AUBURN, AND BLUE CANYON (In inches) Season Sacramento Auburn Blue Canyon Season Sacramento Auburn Blue Canyon 1849-50-. 36.00 4.71 17.98 36.35 20.06 18.62 13.76 10.46 14.99 16.04 22.06 16.18 36.10 11.59 7.79 22.59 17.91 25.32 32.79 16.64 13.57 8.47 23.65 14.19 22.92 17.70 26.30 9.19 24.86 17.85 26.47 26.57 16.51 18.11 24.78 16.58 32 . 27 13.97 11.56 19.95 33.80 15.81 15.18 23.95 16.35 24.11 23.23 17.32 10.51 15.04 20.24 20.21 17.27 16.62 16.87 39.98 25.19 34.55 27.73 44.15 18.86 36.11 34.94 41.55 37.18 33.60 25.64 40.96 25.56 42.32 27 . 59 21.68 26.75 48.68 24.78 32.17 40.79 35.31 44.42 35.78 39.89 20.36 29.77 37.32 36.96 40.53 36.30 44.72 61.35 65.47 65.41 58.98 98.94 1904-05 21.98 23.93 24.04 12.20 21.78 12.18 21.98 9.55 8.03 20.44 17.20 18.29 12.95 10.61 17.20 8.90 16.80 14.16 15.69 7.99 17.70 16.05 17.75 11.60 10.39 13.62 8.43 12.57 8.12 1 1 . 58 21.10 20.53 19.76 24 . 83 9.74 25.07 31.83 24.94 19.98 17.58 17.06 13.91 11.59 15.44 14.87 14.31 19.54 26.58 18.33 16.24 16.37 18.08 35.35 46.57 56.73 22.66 44.44 36.12 39.59 12.63 16.12 29.79 27.86 29.98 29.99 25.29 34.95 25.61 45.10 37.87 39.40 14.77 31.99 23 . 80 39.05 28.60 23 . 39 24.87 19.68 33.18 20.38 28.12 36.75 41.99 38.93 40.74 21.48 43.00 50.35 49.13 43.16 27.13 34 . 22 32.10 27.38 32.16 29.61 30.13 51.55 50.61 34.0.3 37.10 33.12 33.78 58.32 50-51 51-52 52-53 05-06 06-07 07-08 93 . 26 100.47 49.05 1854-55 08-09 1909-10 87.07 64.11 55-56 56-57 57-58 10-11 11-12 12-13 73.86 41.17 52 . 59 58-59 13-14 82.77 1859-60 - 1914-15 78.89 60-61 15-16--. 65.12 61-62 16-17 55.09 62-63 17-18 40.78 63-64 18-19 49.34 1864-65 _ 1919-20 _ 36.26 65-66 20-21-- 77.44 66-67 21-22 71.10 67-68 22-23_ 54.91 68-69 23-24 28.04 1869-70 1924-25 64.66 70-71 25-26 41.06 71-72 . 26-27--- 63.59 72-73 - 27-28 46.42 73-74 - 28-29 33.36 1874-75 - 1929-30 24.87 75-76 30-31 31.73 76-77 31-32 53.89 77-78 32-33 29.18 78-79 33-34 32.87 1 879-80 1934-35 53.60 80-81 _ 35-36 57.84 81-82 36-37 41.74 82-83 37-38 63.98 83-84 38-39 36.03 1 884-85 1939-40 77.74 85-86 40-41 41-42 81.75 86-87 78.54 87-88 42-43 73.26 88-89 43-44 39.41 1 889-90 1944-45 47.70 90-91 45-46 60.44 91-92 46-47 47.49 92-93 47-48 57.80 93-94 48-49 44.68 1 894-95 1949-50 66.10 95-96 50-51 94.28 96-97 51-52 101.67 97-98 52-53 76.56 98-99_ - . Average for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 Mean. 1899-1900 00-01 68.35 01-02 02-03 57.60 03-04 Average for period of record 62.10 railroad crossing the Sierra Nevada indicated that dur- ing the season of 1879-80 and 1889-90 the snowfall was 370 inches. On March 20,1952, a new official record of snowfall was estahlished when a snow depth of 314 inches was measured at Donner Summit. The foregoing figures of snowfall are given for snow depth at time of measurement. Seasonal precipitation in Placer County increases with elevation from west to east, as is shown on Plate 3. Mean seasonal depth of precipitation ranges from about 18 inches at Nicolaus, about six miles west of the county line, to about 65 inches at Lake Spaulding where the elevation is 5,075 feet. Short-term pre- cipitation records, measurements of snow depth, and WATER SUPPLY runoff considerations indicate that mean seasonal depths of precipitation in excess of 70 inches occur on the higher watersheds of the American River. Precipitation varies over wide limits from season to season, ranging at Auburn from about 38 per cent of the seasonal mean to about 171 per cent. Maximum seasonal precipitation at Auburn occurred in 1906-07 when 56.73 inches of rain were recorded. In 1911-12, the minimum season at this station, precipitation was only 12.63 inches. Long-term trends in precipitation in Placer County are indicated on Plate 5, entitled "Accumulated Departure Prom Mean Seasonal Pre- cipitation at Auburn." Nearly 80 per cent of the seasonal precipitation in Placer County occurs during the five months from November through March on the average, and the summers are dry. Mean monthly distribution of pre- cipitation as recorded at Auburn is presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 MEAN MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION AT AUBURN .Month July August September October November December . Precipitation In inches 0.01 0.01 0.43 1.72 3.44 5.66 In per cent of seasonal total 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.2 10.4 17.1 Month January February March April May June TOTALS Precipitation In inches 6.30 5.96 5.07 2.86 1.25 0.41 33.12 In per cent of seasonal total 19.0 18.0 15.3 8.7 3.8 1 .2 Quantity of Precipitation Determination of seasonal quantity of precipitation in Placer County was limited to the Valley and Foot- hill Units. As discussed later in this chapter, the Valley Unit was the only unit for which determina- tions of safe ground water yield and overdraft were made, requiring an estimate of the quantity of pre- cipitation. A determination of seasonal quantity of precipitation on the Foothill Unit was required for derivation of seasonal consumptive use in the unit, as presented in Chapter III. The mean seasonal quan- tity of precipitation on the Valley and Foothill Units was estimated by plotting mean seasonal depth of pre- cipitation at stations in or adjacent to Placer County on a map. Lines of equal mean seasonal precipitation, or isohyets, were then drawn, as shown on Plate 3. By planimetering the areas between these isohyets, the weighted mean seasonal depths and total quantity of precipitation for the two units were estimated. The estimated value of weighted mean seasonal depth of precipitation on the Valley Unit was found to agree closely with the arithmetic average of mean seasonal rainfall at Rocklin, Roseville, and Sacra- mento, Avhile the value of weighted mean seasonal depth of precipitation on the Foothill Unit was found to agree closely with the arithmetic average of mean seasonal rainfall at Auburn, Rocklin, and Roseville. The seasonal depth and quantity of precipitation for the two units during the investigational seasons were therefore determined as the arithmetic averages of the recorded precipitation at the above stations for the selected seasons. The results of these estimates for the investigational seasons, and base and mean periods, are presented in Table 5. The precipitation index for each of the investigational seasons is also shown in Table 5. The term "precipitation index" refers to the ratio of the amount of precipitation during a given season to the mean seasonal amount, and is expressed as a percentage. TABLE 5 ESTIMATED WEIGHTED SEASONAL DEPTH AND TOTAL QUANTITY OF PRECIPITATION ON VALLEY AND FOOT- HILL UNITS OF PLACER COUNTY Valley Unit Foothill Unit Season Pre- cipi- tation index Precipitation Pre- cipi- tation index Precipitation Depth, in inches Quantity, in acre-feet Depth, in inches Quantity, in acre-feet 1948-49 1949-50 87 85 113 95 100 16.4 16.1 21.4 18.0 18.9 149,600 146,900 195.200 164,200 172,400 87 87 130 102 100 21.4 21.3 31.9 24.9 24.5 251,700 250,500 1950-51 Average for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 375,300 293,600 Mean .. 287,900 RUNOFF Runoff from the highly productive watersheds of the Sierra Nevada constitutes the most important source of water supply available to Placer County. Portions of the watersheds of the American, Yuba, and Bear Rivers, together with those of numerous minor streams, and a part of the Lahontan Basin east of the crest of the Sierra Nevada, are included within Placer County. A substantial portion of these water resources is largely unregulated and undeveloped, and is a potential source of water to meet further require- ments not only in Placer County but in water-defi- cient areas in other parts of California. Stream Gaging Stations and Records Available records of runoff of the principal streams of Placer County were sufficient in number, length, and reliability for purposes of required hydrographic 28 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 6 STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Map reference number 5-243A.. 5-243 B* 5-243C*. 5-243D* 5-243E. 5-243F. 5-243G. 5-243H* 5-263*-. 5-264.. 5-265.- 5-265A 5-266 _ - 5-267-. 5-268. _ 5-269... 5-270. .. 5-271--. 5-278_-. 5-279.- 5-280 ... 5-281 ... 5-281 A. 5-282_- 5-283*_. 5-284 __ 5-309- - 5-233B. 5-235-- 5-236.. 5-237-- 5-238.. 5-239* 5-240*_. Stream Valley and Foothill Units Coon Creek Diversion to Gold Hill from South Canal Diversion to Gold Hill Auburn Ravine Canal Auburn Ravine Pleasant Grove Creek Linda Creek Reclamation District 1001 Channel American River Unit Lake Valley Canal North Fork of American River North Fork of American River Middle Fork of American River Rubicon River Little Rubicon River Gerle Creek Little South Fork Ditch Little South Fork of Rubicon River Little South Fork of Rubicon River Little South Fork of Rubicon River Rubicon River Rubicon River Pilot Creek Pilot Creek Ditch Georgetown Ditch Georgetown Ditch Middle Fork of American River South Canal North Fork of American River American River Boar River Unit Dry Creek Bear River Bear River Bear River Bear River Boardman Canal Lake Valley Canal Station at U. S. Highway 99E at Wise Power House. at Tunnel 11 _ at head at U. S. Highway 99E at Lincoln Road at Roseville at Pacific Avenue at intake near Colfax at North Fork Dam.. at French Meadows. .. at Rubicon Springs near Rubicon Springs . near Rubicon Springs - at Sawmill.. at Sawmill below Gerle Creek at mouth near Quintette near Georgetown near Quintette near Quintette near Georgetown above Pilot Creek near Auburn near Newcastle at Rattlesnake Bridge at Fair Oaks near Wheatland near Colfax near Auburn at Van Trent near W heatland near intake near Emigrant Gap Drainage area, in square miles 84 32 13 85 222 308 343 198 198 15 619 999 1,921 140 295 Period of record 1947-55 1939-55 1939-55 1939-55 1947-55 1950 1948-55 1949-55 1930-37 1911-41 1941-55 1951-55 1910-14 1911 1910-14 1910-13 1910-14 1010-14 1909-1 1 1909-14 1943-55 1910-14 1946-55 1910-14 1947-55 1947-55 1911-55 1930-55 1930-37 1938-55 1904-55 1946-55 1912-17 1949-55 1922, 25 28, 29, 33 1940-55 1904-28 1928-55 1930-55 1930-55 WATER SUPPLY 29 TABLE 6— Continued STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Map reference number Stream Station Drainage area, in square miles Period of record Source of record 5-241 Bear River Unit — Continued Drum Canal (Towle Canal) Bear River Canal .... _.._ Bear River Canal - . .... Gold HiU Canal. . 19 32 50 519 548 1930-55 1912-55 1938-55 1930-55 1920-30 1920-30 1928-30 1931-55 1927-55 1927-55 1942-55 1930-55 1941-55 1930-55 1933-55 1900-43 1944-55 PG&E 5-242 near Colfax . ... USGS, PG&E 5-242A* near Halsey Forebay . PG&E 5-243* NID 5-209 Yuba River Unit above Jackson Creek USGS 5-210 at mouth USGS 5-211 USGS 5-212 USGS 5-213 Canyon Creek USGS 5-214 near Cisco. . ..... USGS. USBR 5-215* near Lake Spaulding .... PGAE 5-216* at Lake Spaulding_ . PG&E 5-217* at Lake Spaulding . .. PG&E 5-219* PG&E Tahoe Unit at Tahoe ._ . USGS 0-25 near Truckee _ . USGS DWR — Division of Water Resources. NID — Nevada Irrigation District. PG&E — Pacific Gas and Electric Company. I'SGS— United States Geological Survey. TSBR — United States Bureau of Reclamation. * Records of runoff in Placer County not previously published. studies. With respect to certain of the smaller streams, however, records of runoff were nonexistent or con- fined principally to measurements made during the investigational seasons. By comparison with records of nearby stations, estimates were made of runoff of these smaller streams. Table 6 lists those stream gaging stations pertinent to the hydrography of Placer County, together with their map reference numbers, drainage areas above stations where significant, and periods and sources of records. These stations are also shown on Plate 3. The map reference numbers for most stations listed corre- spond to those used in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 1, "Water Resources of California." New ma j) reference numbers were assigned to stations installed, operated, and maintained as a part of the Placer County Investigation. Most of the records listed in Table 6 have been published by the United States Geological Survey in its Water-Supply Papers, or by the Division of Water Resources in its Reports of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision, or in Bulletin No. 6 of the State Water Resources Board, "Sutter- Yuba Counties Investigation." Runoff rec- ords not published elsewhere are included in Ap- pendix E of this bulletin. Runoff Characteristics An excellent continous record of flow of the Ameri- can River at Fair Oaks is available for the period since November, 1904, when a stream gaging station was established at Fair Oaks by the United States Geological Survey. Although this record does not pro- vide an exact measure of runoff from watersheds in Placer County, it is the most important record of the American River system, and does reflect character- istics of tributary mountain runoff in Placer County. Flow of the American River to the valley floor is impaired by operation of upstream reservoirs and by operation of hydroelectric power plants. An estimate of the natural runoff of the American River at Fair Oaks, as it would be if unaltered by upstream diver- sion, storage, import, export, or change in upstream consumptive use of water caused by development, is included in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 1, "Water Resources of California." This esti- mate extended to include the season of 1951-52, to- .'!() PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION gether with recorded seasonal runoff of the American River at Fair Oaks, is presented in Table 7. The esti- mate of natural flow is also shown graphically on Plate 6, entitled "Estimated Seasonal Natural Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks. ' ' TABLE 7 RECORDED AND ESTIMATED NATURAL SEASONAL RUNOFF OF AMERICAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS (In acre-feet) Estimated Season Recorded natural Season Recorded runoff runoff runoff runoff 1894-95 5,182,000 1925-26 1,370,000 1,386,000 95-96 3,5 4,000 26-27 3,630,000 3,652,000 96-97 3,064.000 27-28 2,530.000 2,521,000 97-98 !I3S,(I(MI 28-29 1.160,000 1,147 000 98-99.. 1,854,000 29-30 1,580,000 1,652.000 1899-1900. . 3,297,000 1930-31 655,000 716,000 00-01 3,396,000 31-32 2,570,000 2,595,000 01-02 2,592,000 32-33 1,330.000 1.270 000 02-03 2,515.000 33-34 1.130,000 1.124.000 (13-04 5,390.01111 34-35.. 2,572,000 2.581.000 1904-05 *1, 960, 000 2,174,000 1935-36 3,415,000 3,393,000 05-06 4,762,000 4,838,000 36-37 2,401,000 2,328,000 06-07 5,710,000 5,786,000 37 38. . 4,552,000 4,507,000 07-08 1 .450,000 1,526,000 38-39 1,086,000 1,040,000 08-09 4,540,000 4,624,000 39-40.. 3,442,000 3,403,000 1909-10 3,540,000 3,614,000 1940-41 3,213,000 3,142,000 10-11 6,480,000 5,554,000 41-42 3.991,000 3,914,000 11-12 1 .260.000 1.338,000 42-43 3,931,000 3,875,000 12-13 1,430.000 1,513.000 43-44 1,537,000 1,462,000 13-14 3.950,000 4,045,000 44-45.. 2,564,000 2,514,000 191 1-15 3.060.000 3,154,000 1945-46 2,858,000 2,866,000 15-16.. 3,850.000 2,940,000 46-47 1,419,000 1,417,000 16-17 2.830.000 2.923,(100 47-48 2,262,000 2,239,000 17-18 1,420,000 1.503,000 48-49 1.906,000 1,857,000 18-19 2,150,000 2,229,000 49-50. . 2,705,000 2,664,000 1919-20 1,390,000 1,467,000 50-51 4,667,000 4,631,000 20-21 3,220,000 3,204,000 51-52 5.028,000 4,974,000 2U22 3,350,000 3.279,000 22-23 2,750,000 2,751,000 Mean sea- 23-24 530,000 543,000 sonal natu- 24-25 2,760,000 2,717,000 ral runoff . 2.774,000 * Partial record. Estimates of natural flow of the North Fork of the American River near Colfax and of the American River at Fair Oaks indicate that average seasonal runoff during the three-year base period approxi- mated the seasonal mean during the 53-year period. The estimates of natural flow for each season of the three-year base period and for 1951-52 are presented in Table 8, together with runoff indices for natural flow at both stations. The term "runoff index" refers to the ratio of the amount of runoff during a given season to the mean seasonal amount, and is expressed as a percentage. Discharge of streams of the American River system varies between wide limits from season to season, and within the season. This is indicated by flow of the American River at Fair Oaks, where the maximum recorded seasonal runoff occurred in 1910-11, and amounted to more than 6,480,000 acre-feet. The mini- TABLE 8 ESTIMATED SEASONAL NATURAL FLOW OF NORTH FORK OF AMERICAN RIVER NEAR COLFAX AND OF AMERI- CAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS, 1948-49 THROUGH 1951-52 (In acre-feet) North Fork of American Season Runoff American Runoff River at index River i ndex Fair near Oaks Colfax 1948-49 67 393,000 68 1.857,000 97 568.000 972,000 1,106.000 'ill 2,664,000 4,631,000 1 950-5 1 166 190 167 179 1951-52 4.974.000 Werage for 3-year base period, 1948-49 th ■ough 1950-51.. ... 110 644,000 110 3,051 .000 Mean. 100 584.000 100 2,774,000 mum seasonal runoff recorded at this station occurred in 1923-24, and was about 530,000 acre-feet. Maximum recorded instantaneous discharge was 169,000 second- feet on November 21, 1950, and the minimum dis- charge was about 3.6 second-feet on August 16, 1924. Estimated average monthly distribution of seasonal runoff of the American River at Fair Oaks for the period of record is presented in Table 9. Long-term trends in runoff of this stream are indicated on Plate 7, entitled "Accumulated Departure From Mean Seasonal Natural Runoff of American River at Fair Oaks." TABLE 9 ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF AVER- AGE SEASONAL RUNOFF OF AMERICAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS, 1904-05 THROUGH 1951-52 Month Runoff, in acre-feet I'd cent of seasonal total October ... _ _ November.. . . . December January. _ . _ _ February ... 20.000 60.000 1 30.000 270.000 330.000 420,000 490,000 540,000 310.000 80,000 20,000 10,000 0.9 2 2 4.9 9.9 1 .' . 5 15.6 April . . May 18.1 20.0 11 .7 July 3.0 0.7 0.5 TOTALS 2,680,000 100.0 Quantity of Runoff Available records of stream flow, including those obtained from measurements made in connection with the investigation, were sufficient to permit estimates of the amount of runoff of various streams in and adja- cent to Placer County. The mean seasonal quantity of runoff was determined for the more important stations in the Valley, Foothill, American River, Bear River, WATER SUPPLY 31 Yuba River, and Tahoe Units. For purposes of re- quired hydrologic analysis, it was necessary to make detailed study of measured or estimated runoff of the various streams and canals in the Valley and Foothill Units during the investigational seasons. Jn general, mean seasonal natural runoff of streams in and adjacent to Placer County was estimated from available records, from correlation with runoff of nearby streams having records over long periods, and from correlation with precipitation indices. Estimates of seasonal natural runoff of the Bear, American, and Truckee Rivers were taken from State Water Re- sources Board Bulletin No. 1. Mean seasonal natural runoff of the Bear River near Wheatland and of the American River at Fair Oaks was computed by extending their periods of record back over the remaining seasons of the 53-year mean period by cor- relation with precipitation indices of adjacent stations. Mean seasonal natural runoff of the South Fork of the Yuba River near Cisco was obtained by correla- tion with the runoff of the South Fork of the Yuba River at Langs Crossing and the Yuba River at Smartville. Estimates of seasonal natural runoff of the North Fork of the American River near Colfax, and of the Middle Fork of the American River near Auburn were obtained by correlation with seasonal natural runoff of the American River at Fair Oaks. Mean seasonal natural runoff of the Truckee River at Tahoe was obtained by correlation with runoff of the Tuolumne River near La Grange. Mean seasonal na- tural runoff of Coon Creek and of Auburn Ravine was estimated by correlation with the Bear River at Wheatland. The results of the above estimates of mean seasonal natural runoff are presented in Table 10. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF OF STREAMS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Unit and stream Drainage area, in square miles Runoff, in acre-feet Valley and Foothill Units Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E American River Unit North Fork of American River near Colfax Middle Fork of American River near Auburn 84 32 308 619 1,921 295 50 519 50,400 36,300 584,000 1.178,000 2,774,000 Bear River Unit 356,000 Yuba River Unit South Fork of Yuba River near Cisco Tahoe Unit 135,000 173,000 and of the Gold Hill Canal of the Nevada Irrigation District, measured below Combie Dam. Outflow from the Foothill Unit was taken as the sum of flows of the South Canal of the Pacific Gas and Electric Com- pany measured above spill to the American River, Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E, Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E, and Linda Creek at Roseville. The flow of water in the Boardman Canal entering the unit, and the flow of water in the Shirland Ditch leav- ing the unit, were omitted, since the flow in each is about equal. Inflow to the Valley Unit was taken as the sum of the flows of Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E and Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E. Outflow from the Valley Unit was taken as the sum of the flows of Reclamation District 1001 Channel at Pacific Avenue, Yankee Slough at Sutter county line, and Pleasant Grove Creek at Fifield Road, and the runoff from the TABLE 11 MEASURED AND ESTIMATED SEASONAL SURFACE IN- FLOW TO AND OUTFLOW FROM FOOTHILL AND VALLEY UNITS, 1948-49 THROUGH 1950-51 (In acre-feet) Inflow to the Foothill Unit was taken as the sum of flow of the Bear River Canal of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, measured at Halsey Forebay, Average Sl'll-'il! for 3-year base Source period, 1948-49 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 through 1950-51 FOOTHILL UNIT Inflow Bear River Canal at Halsey Forebay . 251,700 227.200 235,200 238.000 Gold Hill Canal below Combie Dam _ — 25,700 30,700 24,000 26,800 TOTALS 277,400 257,900 259,200 264,800 Outflow South Canal above spill- 139,100 135,100 124,700 133,000 Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E 36,300 39,500 90,400 55,400 Auburn Ravine at U. S. High- way 99E 47,400 34,600 67.600 49,900 Linda Creek at Roseville **30,000 34,900 65.500 43,500 TOTALS 252,800 244,100 348,200 281,800 VALLEY UNIT Inflow Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E 36,300 39,500 90,400 55,400 Auburn Ravine at U. S. High- way 99E 47,400 34,600 67,600 49,900 TOTALS 83,700 74,100 158,000 105,300 Outflow Reclamation District 1001 Channel at Pacific Avenue *64,800 **53.300 165,600 94.600 Yankee Slough at Sutter county *2,200 *1,000 *7,300 *3,500 Pleasant Grove Creek at Fi- *3.400 * 1,800 *1.600 *800 *1 1,400 *6,000 *5,500 *2.900 TOTALS .. 72,200 56,700 190,300 106,500 * Estimated. ** Partially estimated. 32 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION portion of Linda Creek drainage area contained within the Valley Unit. Measured and estimated seasonal surface inflow to and outflow from the Foothill and Valley Units during the investigational seasons and base period are pre- sented in Table 11. IMPORTED AND EXPORTED WATER Water is imported to Placer County through the Bowman-Spaulding System of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, for irrigation of lands in the Valley and Foothill Units and for power development. The Drum Canal, owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, con- veys water from Lake Spaulding to the Drum Power House forebay, where limited amounts of water are occasionally spilled into Canyon Creek, and thence to the Boardman Canal which conveys irrigation water to areas of use. Water imported through the Drum Canal in 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51 amounted to about 285,100 acre-feet, 276,800 acre-feet, and 348,800 acre-feet, respectively. From the Drum Power House afterbay water is conveyed through a pressure tunnel to the Dutch Flat Power House. Water returned to the Bear River from the Dutch Flat Power House is diverted to Placer County at the Bear River Canal intake near Colfax. Water was formerly exported from Placer County through the North Fork Ditch of the North Fork Ditch Company, for domestic and irrigation use in Sacramento County. This water was diverted from the North Fork of the American River and delivered to areas of use in Sacramento County through a ditch and steel pipe line. However, since the completion of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, the diversion is made at the dam. Although accurate data are not avail- able, it is estimated that from 25,000 to 30,000 acre- feet of water per season are exported through the North Fork Ditch at the present time. UNDERGROUND HYDROLOGY Detailed studies of underground hydrology in Placer County were limited to the Valley Unit, which overlies a portion of the Sacramento Valley ground water basin. Preliminary examination and study re- vealed that the relatively small yield of ground water obtainable from ground water basins in the other units of the county was generally limited to that re- quired for domestic use and, furthermore, would be of little importance in meeting probable ultimate water requirements of those units. For these reasons the ensuing discussion of underground hydrology has been limited to the Valley Unit. Ground water pumped from storage in the basin underlying the Valley Unit presently serves nearly two-thirds of the lands irrigated in the unit. Percola- tion of stream flow and of the unconsumed portion of applied irrigation water is the most important source of ground water replenishment. However, it is prob- able that direct rainfall penetration and subsurface inflow constitute minor sources of ground water re- plenishment. The term "free ground water," as used in this bulletin, generally refers to a body of ground water not overlain by impervious materials, and moving under control of the water table slope. "Confined ground water" refers to a body of ground water over- lain by material sufficiently impervious to sever free hydraulic connection with overlying water, and mov- ing under pressure caused by the difference in head between intake and discharge areas of the confined water body. In areas of free ground water the ground water basin provides regulatory storage to smooth out fluctuations in available water supplies, and changes in ground water storage are indicated by changes in ground water levels. Data and information collected during the Placer County Investigation indicate that free ground water exists in present zones of pumping in the Valley Unit. However, a relatively unbroken and extensive layer of hardpan appears to limit percolation of stream flow or of the unconsumed portion of applied water to the water table in portions of the unit. Study of recent fluctuations of the water table in the Valley Unit, under varying conditions of draft and replen- ishment, permitted a determination of changes in ground water storage in the underlying basin, and its safe yield of water under stated conditions. Ground Water Geology Geologic features of a portion of the Valley Unit of Placer County were investigated by the Ground Water Branch of the United States Geological Survey as part of an investigation of the Sacramento Valley con- ducted in cooperation with the Division of Water Resources. The results of this investigation have been published in part as a report entitled ' ' Ground-Water Storage Capacity of the Sacramento Valley, Cali- fornia," which is included as an appendix to "Water Resources of California," Bulletin No. 1 of the State Water Resources Board. The results of addi- tional cooperative geologic investigation by the United States Geological Survey, covering portions of Placer County, are contained in an appendix to the ' ' Sutter- Yuba Counties Investigation," Bulletin No. 6 of the State Water Resources Board. The foregoing investi- gations, supplemented by additional geologic inves- tigation by the Division of Water Resources, were utilized in preparation of the geologic report included as Appendix B of this bulletin. Appendix B comprises a report of the geologic features of Placer County, and an estimate of ground water storage capacity of the ground water basin underlying the Valley Ujiit withjn WATEK SUPPLY 33 given pumping lifts. An abstract of the geologic re- port follows : Placer County lies in the Sierra Nevada and Great Valley geomorphic provinces of California. The Sierra Nevada, which consists of a huge tilted fault block, covers most of the county and looms above the flat alluviated low-lying bottom of the Sac- rament o Valley which lies to the west. This portion of the Great Valley has been subdivided into dissected alluvial uplands, low alluvial plains and fans, and flood plains. The geologic formations of Placer County range from Paleo- zoic to Recent in age. The nonwater-bearing group includes granitic rocks and greenstones, as well as metamorphics of the Calaveras group. Sailor Canyon formation, and Mariposa for- mation. The water-bearing group includes all formations of Tertiary or Quaternary age occurring in the county, although only in the Sacramento Valley do these materials serve as ground water aquifers. The materials comprising these forma- tions consist of volcanics of widely varying types, and con- tinental and marine sediments. The sedimentary formations which are water-bearing include Tertiary stream gravel of the Sierra Nevada, mixed sediments of the deltaic lone formation, "old alluvium" and "intermediate alluvium" of the Sacramento Valley, and recent active stream channel deposits. Specific Yield and Ground Water Storage Capacity in Valley Unit The term "specific yield," when used in connection with ground water, refers to the ratio of the volume of water a saturated soil will yield by gravity to its own volume, and is commonly expressed as a per- centage. Ground water storage capacity is estimated as the product of the specific yield and the volume of material in the depth intervals considered. In the investigation of the ground water basin underlying the Valley Unit, the specific yield of dif- ferent depth zones was estimated after study of some 50 well logs. The estimates were based on previously determined characteristics of various types of material classified in the well logs. Ground water storage ca- pacity of the Valley Unit was estimated for depth intervals from 20 to 50 feet, 50 to 100 feet, 100 to 200 feet, and for the entire interval from 20 to 200 feet below ground surface. Storage capacity of the ground water basin underlying the Valley Unit, and the weighted average specific yield, are shown in Table 12. TABLE 12 ESTIMATED SPECIFIC YIELD AND GROUND WATER STOR- AGE CAPACITY IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY Depth interval. in feet from ground surface Weighted average specific yield, in per cent Ground water storage capacity, in acre-feet 20 to 50 50 to 100 5.1 4.9 5.3 5.2 168.000 270 000 100 to 200 20 to 200... 584.000 1 022 000 Supply Paper No. 495. No indications of a depression cone were found to exist in the "round water table at that time. The slope of the ground water table was uniformly westward from the higher lands located along the edge of the valley toward the Feather and Sacramento Rivers. Three wells west of Lincoln were located by Bryan, serving 20 acres of irrigated land. The average depth to ground water measured in 1913 at two of these wells was 11.3 feet. In 1951 there were about 130 operating irrigation wells in the Valley Unit of Placer County. The Division of Water Resources has measured fall water levels at a series of control wells throughout the Sacramento Valley during most years from 1929 through 1940, and each year from 1947 to date. Ten of these control wells are in Placer County. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company furnished records of standing and operating ground water levels meas- ttred during pump tests, together with results of the tests. A complete series of measurements of static ground water levels at approximately 180 wells in Placer County was made in the spring and fall of each year during the period of the investigation, beginning with the fall of 1948 and continuing through 1952. The grid of measuring Avells included nearly all operating irri- gation wells, and certain domestic and abandoned wells in areas where irrigation wells could not be found. In addition, monthly measurements were made in most months during the investigation at approxi- mately 35 uniformly distributed control wells, in order to observe behavior of the ground water table under conditions of draft and recharge. Available records of depth to ground water at wells in or adja- cent to the Valley Unit are included as Appendix F. "Wells were numbered by the system utilized by the United States Geological Survey, according to town- ship, range, and section. Under this system each sec- tion is divided into 40-acre plots which are lettered as follows : D C B A E F G H M L K .1 N P Q R Ground Water Levels in Valley Unit The first study of ground water conditions in Placer County was made by Kirk Bryan in 1913, and reported in United States Geological Survey Water- Wells are numbered within each of these 40-acre plots according to the order in which they are located. For example, a well having a number 12N/5E-2B1 would be found in Township 12 North, Range 5 East, and 2 shi.'T 34 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION in Section 2. It would be further identified as the first well located in the 40-acre plot lettered B. Depths to ground water throughout the Valley Unit, as measured each fall from 1948 through 1952, were plotted on maps and Hues of equal depth were drawn. Depths to ground water in the fall of 1952 are shown on Plate 8, entitled "Lines of Equal Depth to Ground Water, Valley Unit, Fall of 1952." Plate 9 entitled "Lines of Equal Elevation of Ground Water, Valley Unit, Fall of 1952," was prepared from the data used for Plate 8, depths to ground water being subtracted from elevations of the measuring points above sea level to obtain elevations of the water table. Table 13 shows depths from the surface of the ground to the water table at selected representative wells during the fall of most years from 1929 through 1952. The measurements were generally made follow- ing the summer period of irrigation pumping draft and prior to recovery in ground water storage result- ing from winter rains. Fluctuations in depth to ground water at these wells are depicted graphically on Plate 10, entitled "Measured Fall Depths to Ground Water at Representative Wells, Valley Unit. ' ' TABLE 13 MEASURED FALL DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT REP- RESENTATIVE WELLS IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feet) TABLE 14 ESTIMATED AVERAGE FALL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feet) Well number Year 12N/5E-2B1 12N/5E-19R1 12N/5E-20M1 12N/6E-19A1 13N/5E-35M1 1929.- 18.0 17.3 1930__ 17.3 17.3 1931_. 19.1 17.4 16.3 1932.. 18.5 17.5 16.5 1933.. 23.6 19.6 .... 16.9 1934. _ 23.3 19.5 17.8 16.2 1936.. 19.9 17.3 17.4 16.2 1937.. 20.0 17.5 18.7 14.8 1938. . 19.2 16.6 18.7 13.6 1940.. 18.7 _..- 16.1 12.8 13.0 1947. . 21.2 18.3 16.0 14.5 1948. . 23.3 19.8 16.2 18.0 1949. _ 24.3 23.3 19.0 1950. . 26.9 26.3 21.4 1951.. 28.9 ..__ 31.8 22.7 1952.. 36.1 26.6 1953.. 40.4 39.8 37.5 From study of all available well measurements, estimates were made of the approximate average depth to ground water in the Valley Unit in the fall of most years from 1929 through 1952. These estimates are presented in Table 14, and are illustrated graphi- cally on Plate 11, entitled "Average Fall Depth to Ground Water, Valley Unit." It is indicated that from 1929 until 1940 depth to »round water generally varied with differences in Year Depth to ground water Year Depth to ground water 1929 23.4 23.2 23.1 23.2 24.1 25.3 24.6 24.0 22.4 21.0 1942 1930 1943 1931 __ 1944 1945 1946 1947 1932.-. 1933 . 1934 21.1 1935 1936 1937 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 30.0 31.7 33.1 1938 1939 1940 1941 35.1 37.8 45.5 51.5 seasonal precipitation. Although no measurements are available from 1941 through 1946, records of meas- urements made in Sutter and Yuba Counties indicate that the water table continued to rise during a gen- erally wet series of years until 1943. Since 1943, coin- cidental with several dry years and expansion of irri- gation, a continuous lowering of the water table has occurred, reaching its greatest average depth in the fall of 1954. Estimates were made of the average deptli to ground water in the Valley Unit in most months of the investi- gation. For all months except November, these esti- mates constitute arithmetical averages of measure- ments of a group of wells chosen to be as uniformly distributed as possible throughout the Valley Unit. In order to estimate more accurately weighted aver- age depths for November, when complete series of measurements were available, maps were drawn show- ing lines of equal change in ground water elevation during each season from 1948-49 through 1951-52. By planimetering the areas between lines of equal change, the weighted average change in elevation of water levels was estimated. These estimates together with average depths from more recent measurements are presented in Table 15. Table 15 shows that maximum elevations of the water table were reached in March or April, after replenishment of the ground water basin by winter rainfall had occurred, and that ground water levels then lowered during the pumping season, reaching their lowest points during August or September, near the end of the irrigation season. Average changes in ground water elevations in the Valley Unit during the three-year base period and each investigational season were determined from the aforementioned maps showing lines of equal change in ground water elevation. An example of these maps is presented as Plate 12, entitled "Lines of Equal Change in Ground Water Elevation, Valley Unit, Fall WATER SUPPLY 35 TABLE 15 ESTIMATED WEIGHTED AVERAGE MONTHLY DEPTH TO GROUND WATER IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feel) Month 1948-49 1949-50 1(150 51 1951-52 1952-53 11)53-54 1954-55 October November. December. January___ February _. March April May June July August September 30.0 28.2 31.3 34.8 34.2 35.5 34.0 31.7 31.5 31.3 31.9 34.8 36.1 37.0 37.6 36.2 33.1 33.2 32.2 31.1 30.5 31.7 32.8 36.1 37.6 38.3 38.5 35.1 33.7 32.4 32.5 37.8 35.2 45.5 51.5 of 1948 to Fall of 1952," which shows the changes over the four-year period of measurements made for the current investigation. The results of these estimates for the Valley Unit are presented in Table 16. TABLE 16 ESTIMATED WEIGHTED AVERAGE SEASONAL CHANGES IN FALL GROUND WATER ELEVATION IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feet) Average, 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 —1.7 —1.7 —1.4 —2.0 —2.7 Change in Ground Water Storage in Valley Unit In an area of free ground water, the volume of soil unwatered or resaturated over a period of time, when multiplied by the specific yield, measures the change in ground water storage during that time. Available data on fluctuations of water levels at wells in the Valley Unit were sufficient to estimate the volume of soil unwatered or resaturated during the base period, and during the investigational seasons. Changes in ground water storage were estimated by multiplying TABLE 17 ESTIMATED WEIGHTED AVERAGE SEASONAL CHANGES IN GROUND WATER STORAGE IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In acre-feet) Area, in acres Average, 3 year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 110,000 —9,500 —9,500 —7,900 —11,200 —15,200 changes in elevation of ground water, presented in Table 16, by the total area of the Valley Unit and by the weighted average value of specific yield of 5.1 per cent, for the depth interval from 20 to 50 feet below ground surface, presented in Table 12. The results of these estimates are presented in Table 17. It is indicated that an average seasonal net decrease in ground water storage in the Valley Unit of about 9,500 acre-feet occurred during the three-year base period, during which conditions of water supply and climate were approximately equivalent to conditions during the mean period. The estimated net decrease in ground water storage during the three investigational seasons was approximately 9,500 acre-feet in 1948-49, 7,900 acre-feet in 1949-50, and 11,200 acre-feet in 1950-51. Additional measurements made in November, 1952, indicated that a further decrease in ground water storage of about 15,200 acre-feet had occurred during the 1951-52 season. It may be noted from Plate 12 that a general lowering of water levels occurred during the period from- the fall of 1948 to the fall of 1952, and that the lowering was particularly pronounced in a limited area south of Auburn Ravine and west of U. S. Highway 99E, and also along the western edge of the county. Subsurface Inflow and Outflow in Valley Unit Lines of equal elevation of ground water in the Valley Unit in the fall of 1952 are shown on Plate 9. Slopes of the water table as defined by these ground water contours, together with information on the permeabilities of the various subsurface geologic for- mations, indicate that the greatest portion of subsur- face inflow to the unit probably came from the north- east. The slope of the ground water table is generally westward from the higher land toward the Feather and Sacramento Rivers, with subsurface outflow indi- cated across the county line into Sutter County. A ground water trough is indicated on Plate 9 in an area south of Auburn Ravine and west of U. S. Highway 99E. Seasonal recovery of water levels is 36 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION slow in this area, and replenishment is probably re- stricted by a barrier of less permeable material im- mediately to the east. A cone of depression in the water table is also indicated several miles south of Pleasant Grove. The depression is probably the result of heavy pumping for irrigation of rice in the imme- diate vicinity of the eone. Plate 8 indicates that there is some contribution to the ground water basin from surface streams of the Valley Unit in spite of the extensive layer of hardpan generally underlying the ground surface throughout the unit. Ground water gradients shown on Plate 8 indicate that there was subsurface outflow across the western boundary of Placer County into ►Sutter County even during 1951-52, which was the season of heaviest pumping draft and lowest water levels during the current investigation. Maps of lines of equal elevation of ground water, drawn for each fall of the period of investigation, indicated that this condition also existed in 1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951. Sufficient data were not available for years prior to the beginning of the in- vestigation to enable the determination of accurate contours of ground water elevation. Information ob- tained in areas adjacent to the Valley Unit, and meas- urements from a few wells in the unit prior to the time of substantial pumping draft, indicate that under natural conditions ground water moved across the western boundary of Placer County into Sutter County. It is probable that this was a significant source of replenishment to the ground water basin underlying Sutter County. Subsequent to 1948, Avhich marks the approximate beginning of heavy agricul- tural use of ground water in the Valley Unit, ground water levels have been lowered and subsurface out- flow to Sutter County has been reduced. Continued increase in pumping draft in the Valley Unit will fur- ther reduce subsurface outflow and will probably result in further lowering of water levels not only in the Valley Unit but also in Sutter County. An indirect method was used to estimate the net effect of subsurface inflow to and outflow from the Valley Unit. This involved evaluation of the differ- ence between subsurface inflow and outflow as the item necessary to effect a balance between water sup- ply and disposal. The sum of the items comprising the water supply of a given hydrologic unit or area must be equal to the sum of the items of water disposal. This is a statement of what is referred to as the "equation of hydrologic equilibrium." In the case of the Valley Unit, values for pertinent items other than the difference between subsurface inflow and outflow, including surface inflow and outflow, precipitation, change in ground water storage, and consumptive use of water, w 7 ere quantitatively measured or estimated. Determination of values for consumptive use of water is explained in Chapter III. The difference between subsurface outflow and inflow was the remaining nn- TABLE 18 ESTIMATED EXCESS OF SEASONAL SUBSURFACE OUT- FLOW OVER SUBSURFACE INFLOW IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In acre-feet) Item A\ erage for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 Water supply Precipitation 164,200 105,300 9,500 149,600 83,700 9,500 146,900 74,100 7,900 195.200 158 000 Decrease in ground water- storage 11,200 TOTALS Water disposal Surface outflow. . ._ Consumptive use of water 279.000 106.500 159.100 242.800 72,200 147.700 228.900 56.700 162.500 364,400 190,300 166,500 TOTALS- L>(i.'),(iO() n,400 219.900 22,900 219,200 9,700 356,800 REMAINDER— EXC'KSS OF SUBSURFACE OUT- FLOW OVER SUBSUR- FACE INFLOW. _ 7.600 known quantity in the equation. Table 18 sets forth this equation for the Valley Unit of Placer County. Certain of the values in the equation presented in Table 18 are of large magnitude as compared to the derived excess of subsurface outflow over subsurface inflow. Small percentage errors in these larger quan- tities might introduce relatively large errors in the derived remainders. However, the derived remainders for the base period and for the investigational seasons appear to be of about the proper order and sequence, based upon general knowledge of ground water levels and pumping drafts. It is indicated in Table 18 that the contribution to the subsurface outflow from the water supply available to the Valley Unit was about 13,400 acre-feet per season during the three-year base period. It is also showm that the contribution to the subsurface outflow was about 22,900 acre-feet, 9,700 acre-feet, and 7,600 acre-feet during the three investi- gational seasons, respectively. From these values it may be noted that, coincidental with the increase in pumping draft during the base period and during the investigational seasons, the contribution to the sub- surface outflow from within the Valley Unit progres- sively decreased. Yield of Wells in Valley Unit Yield of wells is an important factor in the use of ground water in Placer County. In certain small areas, ground water is not utilized for irrigation because of inability to obtain wells of adequate capacity to meet agricultural requirements. On the other hand, throughout most of the Valley Unit adequate irriga- tion wells can be obtained. WATER SITL'LY 37 Yield of wells in the Valley Unit was analyzed by the Division of Water Resources, as reported in Ap- pendix B, utilizing data obtained from well pumping lists made in 1951 by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and by the Division. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 19, which shows the number of wells of known depth which were tested, average discharge, average specific capacity, average depth. and average yield factor. The term "specific capac- ity" refers to the number of gallons of water per minute produced by a pumping well per foot of draw- down. "Drawdown" refers to the lowering of the water elevel in a well caused by pumping, and is measured in feet. The "yield factor" reflects the pro- duction of water per foot of depth of well, and is determined by multiplying the specific capacity by 100 and dividing by the depth of the well, in feet. TABLE 19 ESTIMATED AVERAGE YIELD OF WELLS IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY, 1951 Average Average specific Number dischai { ••. capacity, \\ erage Average of wells in in gallons depth of yield tested gallons per minute per minute per foot of drawdown wells, in feet factor 13 752 35 . (i 486 7.3 A comparison of the average yield factors shown in Table 19 with factors derived in connection with the Sutter- Yuba Comities Investigation for neighboring zones to the north and west, reveals that it is gen- erally necessary to drill wells to greater depths in Placer County to obtain equivalent yields. The aver- age yield factor for the portion of Yuba County to the north was determined to be 16.7, and for the por- tion of Sutter County to the west was 14.7. No signif- icant variations in yield factors were noted between the various sections of the Valley Unit. There are, however, large parts of the Valley Unit where deep wells have not yet been drilled, and other areas as previously stated where wells of adequate capacity to meet agricultural requirements have not been found. Safe Ground Water Yield of Valley Unit The term "safe ground water yield" refers to the maximum rate of extraction of water from a ground water basin which, if continued over an indefinitely long period of years, would result in the maintenance of certain dsirable fixed conditions. Commonly, safe ground water yield is determined by one or more of the following criteria : 1. Mean seasonal extraction of water from the ground water basin does not exceed mean seasonal replenishment to the basin. 2. Water levels are not so lowered as to cause harm- ful impairment of the quality of the ground water by intrusion of other water of undesirable quality, or by accumulation and concentration of de^radants or pol- lutants. 3. Water levels are not so lowered as to imperil the economy of ground water users by excessive costs of pumping from the ground water basin or by exclusion of users from a supply therefrom. Safe ground water yield, as derived in this bulletin, was measured by net extraction of water from the Valley Unit ground water basin, as differentiated from total pumpage from the basin. Since the Valley Unit overlies what is considered to be a free ground water basin, the unconsumed portion of total pumpage may return to the ground water basin and become available for re-use. The net rate of extraction, therefore, was considered to be only that portion of total pumpage from the ground water basin which was consumptively used. Under natural conditions, ground water is expended by consumptive use from seep lands and from lands where the water table is close to the ground surface, by effluent stream flow, and by subsurface outflow. Ar- tificial development and utilization of ground water salvages all or a portion of such natural disposal, by lowering ground water levels. This, in turn, affords opportunity for additional replenishment of ground water. With the present general patterns of water utiliza- tion in the Valley Unit, the extraction of water from the ground water basin might be increased. Such increase in draft would undoubtedly be accompanied by recession of ground water levels in areas of pump- ing and in adjacent areas. However, this lowering of the water table would probably induce increased sub- surface inflow to the areas of pumping and reduce natural disposal of the ground water, the probable effects of which would be to increase replenishment in an amount approximately equal to the increase in draft, although adjustment of water levels in adjacent areas would probably take place. For this reason, the first of the foregoing criteria for determination of safe yield was not considered to be applicable in the Valley Unit. The second of the foregoing criteria is not con- sidered presently applicable, since the mineral quality of surface and ground waters is generally well suited for nearly all uses. However, there is some evidence that saline deterioration in mineral quality of ground water in the extreme western portion of the investiga- tional area might occur with substantial lowering of water levels. Because of expressed local concern over recent pro- gressive lowering of pumping levels, the third of the foregoing criteria for determination of safe ground 38 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION water yield was adopted as applicable to the Valley I'nit. Therefore, it was arbitrarily assumed that sea- sonal net extraction of ground water in 1950-51, with ground water levels prevailing at that time, defined the desirable limit beyond which net extraction should not be increased at the expense of further lowering of ground water levels. As previously stated, consumptive use of ground water was considered to be equal to net extraction of water from the Valley Unit ground water basin. An estimate of average seasonal consumptive use of ground water in the Valley Unit during the three- year base period is presented and explained in Chap- ter III. After correction for average seasonal change in ground water storage, this value was considered to represent average seasonal replenishment of the ground water basin during the base period. When further corrected for the increase in replenishment during 1950-51, over and above the base period aver- age, as measured by decrease in subsurface outflow, the value was considered to be equal to safe seasonal ground water yield. The estimate of safe seasonal ground water yield is presented in Table 20. TABLE 20 ESTIMATED SAFE SEASONAL GROUND WATER YIELD IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY Item Average seasonal consumptive use of ground water for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 Average seasonal decrement in ground water storage for base period Average seasonal replenishment of ground water basin for base period Increase in replenishment in 1950-51 over base period seasonal average SAFE SEASONAL GROUND WATER YIELD Acre-feet 23,900 9.500 14.400 5.800 20,200 Certain of the items included in the estimated safe ground water yield are based on the assumption that present practices of irrigation by surface water sup- plies in and adjacent to the Valley Unit will continue indefinitely. Under such circumstances, adjacent por- tions of the common ground water basin, together with an indicated movement of underground water from the east and northeast, will remain the sources of sufficient subsurface inflow to areas of ground water pumping in the Valley Unit to meet reasonable in- creases in pumping draft. While there is no assurance that surface irrigation practices will continue indefi- nitely as at present, there is reason to believe that any changes will not be of material significance to the estimated vield for several vears in the future. The foregoing estimate of safe seasonal ground water yield may be considered to represent the net seasonal extraction from the ground water basin that might be maintained without permanent lowering of the water table beyond conditions prevailing in 1950- 51. Having so chosen the determining criterion, esti- mated safe seasonal ground water yield may be con- sidered to be a property of the ground water basin, not affected by changes in irrigation efficiency, pat- terns, or practices. The indicated value of safe yield of 20,200 acre-feet has been determined from studies of the three-year base period for which data on water supply and utili- zation were available. Although it would have been desirable to use a longer base period to reduce the variability in results due to possible errors in meas- urements of values during a single year of observa- tion, there had been no substantial use of ground water for agricultural purposes prior to 1947-48. This lack of data therefore precluded the use of a longer base period. It is also desirable to point out that the development in the use of ground water in the Valley Unit has been rapid since 1947-48, and consequently it has not been possible to study water supply and disposal during a season or a period when conditions of supply and disposal were essentially stabilized. For these reasons, it is felt that further examination of ground water conditions in the Valley Unit is neces- sary in the future, and that such may suggest revision of the value of safe seasonal ground water yield de- rived herein. QUALITY OF WATER The surface water supplies of Placer County are of excellent mineral quality and well suited from that standpoint for irrigation and other beneficial uses. Ground water of good mineral quality occurs in all parts of the Valley Unit except in scattered areas ad- jacent to the foothills. The principal objectives of the water quality investigation were to investigate the general conditions with respect to quality of water and to determine, if possible, the location and extent of areas presently affected by saline ground water. It is desirable to define certain terms commonly used in connection with discussion of quality of water : Quality of Water — Those characteristics of water af- fecting its suitability for beneficial uses. Mineral Analysis — The quantitative determination of inorganic impurities of dissolved mineral constit- uents in water. Degradation — Impairment in the quality of water due to causes other than disposal of sewage and indus- trial wastes. WATER SUPPLY 39 Contamination — Impairment of the quality of water by sewage or industrial waste to a degree which creates a hazard to public health through poisoning or spread of disease. Pollution — Impairment of the quality of water by sewage or industrial waste to a degree which does not create a hazard to public health, but which ad- versely and unreasonably affects such water for beneficial uses. Complete mineral analysis included a determina- tion of three cations, consisting of calcium, magne- sium, and sodium; four anions, consisting of bicar- bonate, chloride, sulphate, and nitrate; total soluble salts; boron; and computation of per cent sodium. Partial analysis included determination of chlorides and total mineral solubles only. With the exception of boron, the concentrations of cations and anions in a water sample are expressed in this bulletin in terms of "equivalents per million." This was done because ions combine with each other on an equivalent basis, rather than on basis of weight, and a chemical equivalent unit of measurement pro- vides a better and more convenient expression of con- centration. This is especially true when it is desired to compare the composition of waters having variable concentrations of mineral solubles. In the case of boron, concentrations are expressed on a weight basis of "parts per million" of water. In order to convert equivalents per million to parts per million, the con- centration, expressed in equivalents per million, should be multiplied by the equivalent weight of the cation or the anion in question. Equivalent weights of the common cations and anions are presented in the following tabulation : Equivalent Equivalent Cation weight Anion weight Calcium . 20.0 Bicarbonate 61.0 Magnesium 12.2 Chloride 35.5 Sodium . _ 23.0 Sulphate _ 48.0 Nitrate 62.0 Data used to determine the quality of water in Placer County included complete mineral analyses of 39 surface water samples and 29 ground water sam- ples. The data also included partial analyses of 44 surface water samples and 218 ground water samples. Other data used during the course of the investigation included analyses reported in United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 495, dated 1923, and en- titled ' ' Geology and Ground Water Resources of Sac- ramento Valley, California." Results of mineral anal- yses of water are presented in Appendix G of this bulletin. Standards of Quality for Water Investigation and study of the quality of surface and ground waters of Placer County, as reported herein, were largely limited to consideration of min- eral constituents of the waters, with particular refer- ence to their suitability for irrigation use. However, it may be noted that, within the limits of the mineral analyses herein reported, a water which is determined to be suitable for irrigation may also be considered as being either generally suitable for municipal and domestic use, or susceptible to such treatment as will render it suitable for that purpose. The major criteria which were used as a guide to judgment in determining suitability of water for ir- rigation use were the following: (1) chloride concen- tration, (2) total soluble salts, (3) boron concentra- tion, and (4) per cent sodium. 1. The chloride anion is usually the most trouble- some element in most irrigation waters. It is not con- sidered essential to plant growth, and excessive con- eeutration will inhibit growth. 2. Total soluble salts furnishes an approximate indi- cation of the over-all mineral quality of water. It may be approximated by multiplying specific electrical con- ductance (Ec X 10° at 25° C.) by 0.7. The presence of excessive amounts of dissolved salts in irrigation water will usually result in reduced crop yield. 3. Crops are sensitive to boron concentration, but require a small amount, less than 0.1 part per million, for growth. They will usually not tolerate more than 0.5 to 2 parts per million, depending on the crop in question. 4. Per cent sodium reported in the analyses is the proportion of the sodium cation to the sum of all cations, and is obtained by dividing sodium by the sum of calcium, magnesium, and sodium, all expressed in equivalents per million, and multiplying by 100. Water containing a high per cent sodium has an ad- verse effect \ipon the physical structure of the soil by dispersing the soil colloids and making the soil "tight," tjius retarding movement of water through the soil, retarding the leaching of salts, and making the soil difficult to work. The following excerpts from a paper by Dr. L. I). Doneen, of the Division of Irrigation of the University of California at Davis, may assist in interpreting wa- ter analyses from the standpoint of their suitability for irrigation : "Because of diverse climatological conditions, crops, and soils in California, it has not been possible to establish rigid limits for all conditions involved. Instead, irrigation waters are divided into three broad classes based upon work done al the University of California, and at the Rubidoux, and Regional Salinity lab- oratories of the t T . S. Department of Agriculture. "Class 1. Excellent to good — Regarded as safe and suitable for most plants under any condition of soil or climate. "Class 2. Good to injurious — Regarded as possibly harmful for certain crops under certain conditions of soil or climate, par- ticularly in the higher ranges of this class. "Class 3. Injurious to unsatisfactory — Regarded as probably harmful to most crops and unsatisfactory for all hut the most tolerant. "Tentative standards for irrigation waters have taken into account four factors or constituents, as listed below. 40 PI. ACER Coi'XTY INVESTIGATION Class 1 Class 2 H.inlh ni Good to Factor to good injurious ( 'onductance ( Eo x 10 9 at 25°C.) _ Less than 1000 1000:5000 Boron, ppm Less than 0.5 0.5-2.0 Per cent sodium Less than 60 60-75 Chloride, epm Less than 5 5-10 i cud of quotation) Class 3 Injurious to unsatisfactory More than 3000 More than 2.0 More than 75 More than 10 Quality of Surface Water Analyses of surface water samples, collected in May, 1952, from the American River and three of its branches, showed that at that time the waters in these streams were of excellent mineral quality and well suited for irrigation and other beneficial uses. The waters were characterized by a very low content of total mineral solubles, chloride, and boron, and by low per cent sodium. The occurrence of excellent qual- ity water in the American River is also indicated by analyses of water from that stream which are presented in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision Reports of the Division of Water Resources, dating from 1946. Analyses of surface water samples from minor streams and canals in the county indicate that these waters contain higher concentrations of mineral solubles than waters of the American River, but that they are well within the limits of Class 1 irrigation water. Selected mineral analyses of representative surface waters in and adjacent to Placer County are presented in Table 21. Additional analyses of repre- sentative surface waters are presented in Appendix F. Quality of Ground Water In the course of the present investigation surveys were made of the mineral quality of ground water throughout the Valley Unit. The general mineral qual- ity of water from wells was found to be good. How- ever, in an area east of and adjacent to IT. S. High- way 99E, and extending to about six miles south from the City of Lincoln, waters from several wells and a spring were found to contain excessive concentrations of mineral solubles. Analyses of water from two wells west of Sheridan also showed moderately high concen- trations of mineral solubles. Since other mineral analy- ses of water from wells in the same vicinities indicate low concentrations of mineral solubles, no definite area could be delimited which only yielded ground water of poor mineral quality. In this connection, ground water analyses collected in connection with other in- vestigations indicate that waters containing high con- centrations of mineral solubles are found at other scattered localities along the eastern edge of the Sac- ramento Valley. Analyses of water samples collected from wells in the Valley Unit, grouped into the three broad classes described by Dr. Doneen, are presented in Appendix F. A summary showing the arithmetical average of the mineral constituents of each group of ground water analyses falling within a given class is given in Table 22. TABLE 21 SELECTED COMPLETE MINERAL ANALYSES OF REPRESENTATIVE SURFACE WATERS IN PLACER COUNTY Station Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E Linda Creek at Rosevil'e. Big Reservoir, tributary to Forbes Creek Middle Fork American River near junction with North Fork Bear River near Auburn Truekee River at Truckee Date of sample :, I! :,1 .", 11 :,1 9/_./49 5/ 8/52 5/14/51 5/14/51 Con- duct- ance, Ec \ in ai 25 (' 204 171 37.8 27.4 44.7 71.3 Boron, 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 Ca 0.24 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.38 Mg 0.98 0.64 0.11 0.07 0.23 0.22 Mineral constituents, in equivalents per million Na 0.32 0.48 0.25 0.02 0.06 0.14 HCCh + CO.i 1.80 1.38 0.12 0.26 0.36 0.66 CI 0.13 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 SO, 0.11 0.20 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.10 NO ., 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Per cent sodium 15 25 69 12 18 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF COMPLETE MINERAL ANALYSES OF REPRESENTATIVE GROUND WATER BY CLASSES IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY Number of samples Con- duct- ance. Ec x 108 at 25°C. Boron, in ppm Mineral constituents, in equivalents per million Per Class Ca Mg Na HCO:i -t-COa CI SO, no 3 cent sodium Excellent to good - 16 7 5 1* 268 750 1,494 20.200 0.23 1.40 2.06 32.00 0.84 1.81 3.10 47.45 0.75 0.91 1.15 1.56 1.18 4.28 9.63 180.43 1.90 1.75 1.20 0.33 0.59 4.54 11.44 202.25 0.16 0.58 1.48 27.50 (1 111 0.05 0.10 0.02 40 60 Injurious to unsatisfactory. ..._._. Unsatisfactory _..... 68 78 Spring. CHAPTER III WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The nature and extent of water utilization and of requirements for supplemental water in Placer County, both at the present time and under probable conditions of ultimate development, are considered in this chap- ter. In connection with the discussion, the following- terms are used as defined : Water Utilization — This term is used in a broad sense to include all employments of water by nature or man, whether consumptive or nonconsumptive, as well as irrecoverable losses of water incidental to such employment, and is synonymous with the term "water use." Demands for Water — Those factors pertaining to rates, times, and places of delivery of water, quality of water, losses of water, etc., imposed by control, development, and use of the water for beneficial purposes. Water Requirement — The amount of water needed to provide for all beneficial uses of water and for irrecoverable losses incidental to such uses. As used in this bulletin, the term refers only to consump- tive uses of water unless otherwise specified. Supplemental Water Requirement — The water re- quirement over and above the sum of safe ground water yield and safe surface water yield. Consumptive Vse of Water — This refers to water con- sumed by vegetative growth in transpiration and building of plant tissue, and to water evaporated from adjacent soil, from water surfaces, and from foliage. It also refers to water similarly consumed and evaporated by urban and nonvegetative types of land use. Applied Water — The water delivered to a farmer's headgate in the case of irrigation use, or to an individual's meter in the case of urban use, or its equivalent. It does not include direct precipitation. Ultimatt — This te r m is used in reference to conditions after an unspecified but long period of years in the future when land use and water supply develop- ment will be at a maximum and essentially stabil- ized. It is realized that any present forecasts of the nature and extent of such ultimate development, and resultant water utilization, are inherently sub- ject to possible large errors in detail and apprecia- ble error in the aggregate. However, such forecasts, when based upon best available data and present judgment, are of value in establishing long-range objectives for development of water resources. They are so used herein, with full knowledge that their re-evaluation after the experience of a period of years may result in considerable revision. The present water requirement in Placer County was estimated by the application of appropriate fac- tors, of unit water use to the present land use pattern as determined from survey data. The probable ulti- mate water requirement was similarly estimated, by use of an ultimate land use pattern projected from the present pattern on the basis of land classification data, the assumption being made that under ultimate conditions of development all irrigable lands would be irrigated. As indicated by the foregoing definition, the present supplemental requirement for water in the Valley Unit of Placer County was estimated as the difference between derived values of safe yield of the ground water basin and present consumptive use of ground water. The probable ultimate requirement for supple- mental water in the Valley Unit was evaluated as the difference between present and probable ultimate con- sumptive use of water, plus the present requirement for supplemental water. In other units of Placer County the present development is to a large extent determined by the available water supplies, and no present supplemental requirements are generally ap- parent. However, in some local areas further develop- ment is restricted because of limited water supplies and works. These minor present supplemental require- ments were not subject to evaluation within the scope of the current investigation. Ultimate supplemental requirements in units of Placer County other than the Valley Unit were evaluated as the difference be- tween present and probable ultimate consumptive use of applied water, adjusted to account for estimated re-use of return flows and losses in conveyance and application. Certain possible nonconsumptive requirements for water, such as those for hydroelectric power genera- tion, flood control, conservation of fish and wildlife, recreation, etc., will be of varying significance in the design of works to meet supplemental consumptive requirements for water in Placer County. In most instances, the magnitudes of such nonconsumptive requirements are relatively indeterminate and de- pendent upon allocations made in design after con- sideration of factors of economics. For these reasons, water requirements for hydroelectric power, flood con- ( 41 ) 42 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION trol, conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreation are discussed in general terms in this chapter, but not specifically evaluated. Water utilization is considered and evaluated in this chapter under the general headings "Present Water Supply Development," "Land Use," "Unit Use of Water," "Present Water Requirements," "Probable Ultimate Water Requirements," "Non- consumptive Water Requirements," and "Demands for Water." Supplemental water requirements are similarly treated under the two general headings "Present Supplemental Water Requirement" and "Probable Ultimate Supplemental Water Require- ment. WATER UTILIZATION Of the total amount of water presently utilized in the Valley Unit of Placer County, approximately 25 per cent is consumed in the production of irrigated crops, while the remainder is consumed by dry-farmed crops and fallow lands, native vegetation, and lands given over to miscellaneous types of use including domestic and municipal. Of the total amount of water presently applied within remaining units of the county, some 55,000 acre-feet, or about 90 per cent, is applied to irrigated lands. Of the total area of about 916,000 acres in Placer County, it is indicated that ultimately about 212,000 acres will require organized water service. The re- mainder, of approximately 704,000 acres, comprises national forests and lands not considered suitable for irrigation. It is probable that the predominant impor- tance of irrigated agriculture, as related to utiliza- tion of water in the county, will continue to prevail in the future. Present Water Supply Development Although there has been considerable development of the water resources of Placer County in the past, there remains a large amount of unregulated water susceptible of development for water conservation and use, hydoelectric power production, recreation, and other beneficial uses. Recently there has been an ac- celeration in irrigation development in the Valley Unit, and a resultant increase in the use of ground water pumped from wells. Substantial agricultural development has also taken place in the Foothill Unit. The agricultural areas of the Foothill Unit are served with water from canals and ditches of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Present water supply developments in the several units of Placer County are described in the following sections, and are shown on Plate 2. Valley and Foothill Units. Water developments and conservation facilities in the Foothill Unit include the canals and ditches of the Nevada Irrigation Dis- trict and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These canals and ditches form an intricate network which crosses or intercepts most of the streams of the unit. Many small reservoirs are located in the Foot- hill Unit, serving as forebays or afterbays to regulate the flows of the Drum power system, or to provide storage and regulation of municipal and irrigation water supplies. As has been stated, there has been a recent increase in the irrigation of lands in the Valley Unit by pump- ing from the underlying ground water basin. The irri- gated lands utilizing ground water are served by in- dividually owned wells and pumps. As of November, 1951, there were 137 wells with pumping' plants of heavy draft, powered with motors of five horsepower or more, and of this number 129 were used for irriga- tion. The eight remaining wells supplied water for urban and industrial uses. A number of additional wells of light draft supplied water for domestic pur- poses. The beginning of the recent increase in use of ground water approximately coincided with the ini- tiation of this investigation. During the investiga- tional seasons an accurate record was obtained of the acreages irrigated with ground water. This record is given in Table 23, which also shows acreages served by surface water. TABLE 23 AREA SERVED BY SURFACE AND GROUND WATER IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY DURING INVESTI- GATIONAL SEASONS (In acres) Type of service 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 4,130 4.800 3.800 5,160 3,710 7.020 TOTALS 8.930 8.960 10.730 Water used for municipal, industrial, and domestic purposes in the Valley and Foothill Units is obtained almost entirely from reservoirs and canals, except that farmsteads and some small communities in the Valley Unit are served from privately owned wells. The largest nonagrieultural use of water occurs in the vicinity of Roseville where that city, the Southern Pacific Company, and the Pacific Fruit Express Com- pany utilize relatively large amounts of water. The amount of surface water distributed in the Valley and Foothill Units by the Pacific Gas and Electric Com- pany to industrial and municipal users in 1950 is shown in Table 24. In addition to the quantities of surface water listed in Table 24, the Pacific Fruit Express Company pumped about 3,150 acre-feet from wells in 1950. The City of Roseville also maintains emergency stand-by wells. WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 43 TABLE 24 ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTED FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE IN VALLEY AND FOOTHILL UNITS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COM- PANY IN 1950 (In acre-feet) User Quantity 1 260 1 150 80 130 180 2,860 Southern Pacific C ompany _ 1,310 TOTAL 6 970 American River Unit. Most of the existing water resource developments on the American River alter the natural regimen of the stream, and so affect the American River Unit of Placer County. The principal upstream development is on the South Fork of the American River and consists of a hydroelectric power system, as well as a small irrigation project. The North and Middle Forks of the American River are largely undeveloped at the present time. Existing developments on the North Fork of the American River above its confluence with the South Fork consist of two small storage reservoirs. One of these, the Lake Valley Reservoir, with a stream bed elevation of 5,779 feet, is located about four miles east of Emigrant Gap on a tributary of the North Fork, and stores about 8,100 acre-feet of water. The stored water is conveyed from the American River Basin to the Bear River Basin for use in the Drum power sys- tem of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The other reservoir, created by the North Fork Dam, with a stream bed elevation of 571 feet, is located about two miles above the mouth of the Middle Fork of the American River, and is operated by the California Debris Commission. Total storage capacity created by the North Fork Dam is about 14,600 acre-feet, which is dedicated to storage of mining debris. The only significant development on the Middle Fork of the American River is the water supply sys- tem of the Georgetown Divide Water Company, which serves irrigation, mining, and domestic consumers on the Georgetown Divide in El Dorado County. The company operates Loon Lake Reservoir, with a ca- pacity of about 8,000 acre-feet and a stream bed eleva- tion of 6,305 feet, located on Gerle Creek in the upper Rubicon River watershed in El Dorado County. Con- veyance of water from Loon Lake to the Georgetown Divide service area is accomplished by some 40 miles of ditch, flume, and tunnel. Additional water is inter- cepted enroute by diversion of the natural flows of Pilot Creek and Little South Fork of Rubicon River. The average seasonal discharge of the Georgetown Ditch near Georgetown was about I), 500 acre-feet dur- ing the period from 1946-47 through 1948-49. Developments on the South Fork of the American River are all situated outside of Placer County. The hydroelectric power system of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company on the South Fork includes several small reservoirs, a minor diversion from the Upper Truckee River, conduits and penstocks, and two power plants. The El Dorado Irrigation District serves agri- cultural, mining, industrial, and domestic water to consumers in the vicinity of Placerville. It receives a large part of its water supply from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company system, and another portion from a small reservoir on Webber Creek, a tributary of the South Fork. It also imports some water from the Cosumnes River Basin. Existing developments on the main stem of the American River include the recently completed Fol- som and Nimbus Dams and their reservoirs. Both are federally owned and operated and discharge through power houses located at the dams. A federally owned and state-operated spawning station and hatchery for salmon and steelhead has been constructed below Nimbus Dam to replace spawning beds made inacces- sible to these fish. The main section of Folsom Dam is located in Sac- ramento County about two miles upstream from the town of Folsom and impounds a reservoir of 1,000,000 acre-foot capacity. Diversions from Folsom Reservoir are made at the dam by pump and pipe line to Hinkle and Baldwin Reservoirs, which are located immedi- ately below the right abutment. From these reservoirs further conveyance of the water is made by several agencies which serve agricultural, municipal, and domestic users in the area south of Roseville and north of the American River. From the same diver- sion at Folsom Dam additional water is conveyed by pipe line to the existing Natomas Ditch of the Na- tomas Company and which is located south of the American River. Nimbus Dam, located about seven miles down- stream from Folsom Dam, impounds Lake Natoma, which serves as an afterbay for Folsom Power House and as a forebay for Nimbus Power House, and has a gross storage capacity of about 8,900 acre-feet. A proposed main canal, the Folsom South Canal, would divert from Lake Natoma to a service area south of the American River. Bear River and Yuba River Units. Many of the existing water resource developments on the Bear and Yuba Rivers relate to all units of Placer County ex- cept the Tahoe Unit. The joint project of the Ne- vada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Elec- tric Company on the Bear River, the upper South Fork of the Yuba River, and the Middle Fork of the Yuba River, utilizes a portion of the available hydroelectric Spaulding Power Houses Nos. 1 and 2 Spaulding Dam in Background Credit: Pacific Gas and Electric Company WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 45 power resources in the upper watersheds of these streams. To a large extent this project has been de- veloped from the complicated network of reservoirs and ditches originally built for hydraulic mining. Al- though the principal source of water utilized by the project is the Yuba River, most of the power plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, through which the Yuba River waters pass, are located on the Bear River. Under the present contract between the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Nevada Irrigation District, the regulated flow from works of the district is delivered to the Drum power system of the company for use through its power plants, and is then returned to the district at downstream points for irrigation use. A list of existing power houses located in Placer County, together with pertinent in- formation, is presented in Appendix H of this bulletin. Works of the Nevada Irrigation District under the joint project with the Pacific Gas and Electric Com- pany include a diversion of about 500 second-foot capacity from the upper Middle Fork of the Yuba River at Milton. The stream bed elevation at the diversion point is 5,663 feet. The diverted water is conveyed through 4.1 miles of tunnel to Bowman Lake. Bowman Lake, with a capacity of 68,000 acre- feet and a stream bed elevation of 5.396 feet, is located on Canyon Creek, a tributary to the upper South Fork of the Yuba River. Several other reser- voirs are located on Canyon Creek above Bowman Lake. Of these, French Lake is the largest with a capacity of 12,500 acre-feet. Its stream bed elevation is 6,564 feet. The controlled discharge from Bowman Lake is conveyed southerly in the Bowman-Spaulding Conduit, nine miles in length, and of 250 second-foot capacity, to Fuller Lake on Jordan Creek. This reser- voir, owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, has a stream bed elevation of 5,343 feet and a capacity of 1,130 acre-feet. The present contract between the district and the company requires that a total sea- sonal water supply of 135,500 acre-feet be delivered to the company by the district. About 73,000 acre-feet of this water is conveyed through the company's Drum System along the Bear River and returned to the district for irrigation in its service area in Placer County. The remainder of the water is conveyed in the company's South Yuba Canal to the Deer Creek Power House on Deer Creek, a tributary of the Yuba River, and is returned to the district for irrigation in its service area in Nevada County. Works of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company include Lake Van Norden, located near the head- waters of the South Fork of the Yuba River at a stream bed elevation of 6,743 feet, with a capacity of about 5,900 acre-feet and Fordyce Lake on Fordyce Creek, a tributary of the South Fork of the Yuba River, with storage capacity of about 47,000 acre-feet, and at a stream bed elevation of 6,341 feet. The principal storage reservoir of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company under the joint project is Lake Spaulding, on the South Fork of the Yuba River, with a capacity of about 75,000 acre-feet and at a stream bed elevation of 4,739 feet. From Fuller Lake, previously mentioned, water delivered by the Nevada Irrigation District system is conveyed in a conduit with a capacity of 250 second-feet for a distance of about 1.5 miles to a point 318 feet above the high- water level of Lake Spaidding. Here it enters the pen- stock of Spaulding Power House No. 3, which has an installed capacity of 5,200 kilowatts. The company's system also includes Lake Valley Reservoir, previ- ously described in the American River Unit. Releases from Lake Valley Reservoir are conveyed to the Drum Canal by means of a conduit which joins the canal near Emigrant Gap. Some 13 other small reservoirs owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company are scattered throughout the watershed of the South Fork of the Yuba River and in the Texas Creek and Fall Creek basins. Water from Texas and Fall Creeks is conveyed to Lake Spaulding by the Bowman-Spauld- ing conduit. Most of these small reservoirs are formed by low dams built in the mining days to raise the level of natural lakes, and their aggregate capacity is about 14,500 acre-feet. The principal withdrawal of water from Lake Spaulding is made through Spaulding Power House No. 1, one of two power houses located just below Lake Spaulding Dam. After passing through the power plant, the released water is conveyed through a tunnel with a length of about one mile to the Drum Canal. The power plant operates under a maximum static head of 197 feet and has an installed capacity of 6,400 kilowatts. The Drum Canal, with a length of about eight miles and a capacity of about 500 second-feet, passes from the South Fork of the Yuba River across the low gap at the head of the Bear River and follows along the ridge on the south bank of the Bear River. The canal terminates at the fore- bay to the Drum Power House, which is located on the Bear River at an elevation of about 3,400 feet. This power plant operates under a maximum static head of 1,375 feet, and has an installed capacity of about 52,000 kilowatts. A pressure tunnel from the afterbay of the Drum Power House conveys released water a distance of four miles along the left bank of the Bear River to the penstock of the Dutch Flat Power House. This power plant operates under a maximum head of 643 feet and has installed capacity of about 22,000 kilowatts. From the afterbay of the Dutch Flat Power House, the released water is conveyed in the natural channel of the Bear River to the diversion headworks of the Bear River Canal, located on the left bank of the river near Colfax. The Bear River Canal has a capacity of about 490 second-feet, and extends about 23 miles Drum Canal Credit: Pacific Gas and Electric Company WATBB UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 47 to the forebay and penstock of the Halsey Power House, which is located about six miles northeast of Auburn. The Halsey Power House, located on upper Dry Creek, operates under a maximum static head of 331 feet and has an installed capacity of about 10,600 kilowatts. From the afterbay of the Halsey Power House the water is conveyed in a southwesterly direc- tion about six miles in the Wise Canal, with capacity of 450 second-feet, to the Wise Power House forebay. Enroute the water is regulated in Rock Creek Reser- voir. The Wise Power House, located on Auburn Ra- vine near Auburn, operates under a maximum static head of 519 feet, and bas an installed capacity of about 12,600 kilowatts. During the irrigation season, releases from the Wise Power House into Auburn Ravine are diverted downstream for use in service areas of the Nevada Irrigation District, the Pacific Cas and Electric Com- pany, and other users. During the remainder of the year most of the released water is spilled to the Amer- ican River through the South Canal. The Boardman Canal diverts from the Bear River about one mile west of Emigrant Gap, and spills into Canyon Creek near the Drum Power House forebay. Spill from the Boardman Canal and the Drum Power House forebay is diverted from Canyon Creek and conveyed in the Boardman-Towle Canal for a dis- tance of about 3.5 miles to the Alta Power House. The Alta Power House, located about one mile west (if Baxter, has a capacity of about 2,000 kilowatts, and operates under a maximum static head of 660 feet. Water discharged from the Alta Power House may be spilled to the Bear River and diverted downstream at the intake of the Bear River Canal for power gen- eration. On the other hand, it may be conveyed in the Boardman Canal for distribution for irrigation along the watershed divide between the American and Bear Rivers, and in the vicinity of the Halsey Power House forebay. In addition to the water discharged from Lake Spaulding through Spaulding Power House No. 1 and into the Drum Canal, water is also released through Spaulding Power House No. 2, located just below Lake Spaulding Dam. The power plant operates under a maximum static head of 344 feet and has an installed capacity of 3.750 kilowatts. Water released from Spaulding Power House No. 2 discharges into the South Yuba Canal which lias a capacity 600 TOTALS... lini.iTO 141,140 4119.730 42,050 1?,530 *1 10,080 *U 10.000 * Does not include 48,900 acres of water surface of Lake Tahoe. By use of the land classification data a probable ultimate pattern of land use for Placer County was forecast. The general assumption was made that under an increasing pressure of demand for agricultural products all irrigable but presently dry lands would eventually be provided with irrigation service. Provi- sion was also made for probable increase in lands devoted to farmsteads, roads, urban, and other miscel- laneous purposes under conditions of probable ulti- mate development. The estimated ultimate land use pattern of Placer County, summarized by general classes of land use and by units of the county, is presented in Table 28. Irrigable lands, as determined by the land classifica- tion survey data and as indicated by the probable ultimate land use pattern, are shown on Plate 13. Unit Use of Water The second step in evaluation of water require- ments involved the determination of unit values of consumptive use of water for each type of land use. Estimates of these unit values were based on the results of studies in the investigational area and of prior investigations in other areas. A procedure suggested in part by Harry P. Blaney and Wayne D. Criddle of the Soil Conservation Serv- ice, United States Department of Agriculture, in their reports entitled "A Method of Estimating Water Requirements in Irrigated Areas from Clima- tological Data," dated December, 1947, and "Deter- mining Water Requirements in Irrigated Areas From Climatological and Irrigation Data," dated August, 1950, was generally utilized for adjustment of availa- ble data on unit consumptive use by irrigated crops in other localities to correspond with conditions exist- ing in Placer County. This method involved correla- tion of the data on the basis of variations in average monthly temperatures, monthly percentages of annual daytime hours, precipitation, and lengths of growing season. It disregarded certain generally unmeasured factors such as wind movement, humidity, etc. Certain modifications were made in this procedure to meet the needs of the current investigation. Unit values of consumptive use and irrigation demand for rice in the Valley Unit were derived by independent analysis, utilizing data obtained during the investiga- tion. Unit use of water factors applicable to urban and miscellaneous types of land use in the Foothill, American River, Bear River, and Yuba River Units were estimated, using values determined in connection with studies for the Survey of Mountainous Areas. The total amount of such use of water is small in com- parison with agricultural requirements. Unit use of water factors for the Tahoe Unit was not estimated during the current investigation. Estimates of present and probable ultimate water requirements of the Tahoe Unit were obtained from the "Joint Report on the Use of Water in the Lake Tahoe Watershed," prepared by the State Engineers of Nevada and Cali- fornia, dated June, 1949. The procedures utilized for estimating unit values of consumptive use of water and unit values of consumptive use of applied water are outlined separately herein. Consumptive Use of Water. The following is an outline of the procedure utilized for estimating unit values of consumptive use of water : 1. The unit value for each irrigated crop during its growing season was taken as the product of available heat and an appropriate coefficient of consumption, where: la) the available heat was the sum of the products of average monthly tempera- tures and monthly per cent of daytime hours, and (b) the coefficient of consumption was one which has been selected as appropriate for California by Harry F. Blaney as a result of his studies for the Soil Conservation Service. Certain excep- tions involved the use of coefficients estimated from consumptive use data available from other sources. 2. The unit value for each irrigated crop during its non- growing season was taken as the amount of precipitation available, hut not exceeding one to two inches of depth per month, depending upon the type of crop and cover crop. .'->. The seasonal unit value for each irrigated crop was taken as the summation of values determined under items 1 and 2 for thai type. 4. Unit seasonal values for rice were taken as .">4 inches of depth of water per year, plus precipitation available during the nongrowing season up to but not exceeding one inch of depth per month. 5. Unit seasonal values for native annual grasses were taken as equal to the available precipitation up to hut not exceeding two inches of depth per month. 6. Unit seasonal values for native vegetation other than annual grasses were estimated on the basis of available data on corresponding consumptive use in similar localities, due con- sideration being given to density and type of vegetation and depth to ground water. Pump Irrigation of Rice West of Lincoln Sprinkler Irrigation of Pasture West of Roseville Water Supply Pumped From Underground 54 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION 7. Unit seasonal values for free water surfaces were esti- inated from available records of evaporation. 8. I nit seasonal values for remaining miscellaneous types of land use were estimated mi the basis of available data i>n corresponding consumptive use in similar localities. Estimated unit seasonal values of consumptive use of water in the Valley Unit, including' consumption of precipitation, are presented in Table 29. In view of the indicated water supply and climatological simi- larities of the mean and base periods, the estimated average unit seasonal values of consumptive use for the base period were considered to approximate cor- responding values for the mean period. TABLE 29 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feet of depth) Class and type of land use Irrigated lands Hops Orchard Pasture Rice Truck Vineyard- _ Dry-farmed and fallow lands Fallow Grain Orchard Rice, idle Vineyard Native vegetation Brush and trees Native grass Wasteland Miscellaneous Airports County and farm roads Farm lots and urban Highways and railroads Average for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 2.9 2.8 3.7 5.0 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.0 4.0 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 1948-49 3.0 2.8 3.7 4.9 2.2 2.3 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 4.0 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.0 2.0 1.0 1949-50 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 4.0 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 1950-51 2.9 2.8 3.7 5.0 2.3 2.2 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.1 4.0 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 Consumptive Use of Applied Water. The con- sumptive use of applied water in the Valley Unit was computed as the difference between total seasonal consumptive use of water and that portion of the sea- sonal consumptive use met by precipitation. Estimated unit seasonal values of consumptive use of applied water in the Valley Unit of Placer County are pre- sented in Table 30. Little information is available regarding actual values of consumptive use of applied water by irri- gated crops in mountain and foothill areas of Cali- fornia. Organized agencies distributing irrigation water are few, and such records as are available gen- erally do not permit the determination of quantities of applied water consumed by irrigated lands. Valid- ity of the described method for estimating unit con- TABLE 30 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY (In feet of depth) Average for 3-year Class and type of land use base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 Irrigated lands 1.7 1.6 2.6 4.3 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.7 4.3 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.7 4.3 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.5 2.5 4.1 1.5 1.1 Miscellaneous Farm lots and urban 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 sumptive use of applied water in such areas in Placer County was confirmed by the results of detailed inflow- outflow studies conducted on four small watersheds in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units. The watersheds are located in highly developed orchard areas, and include a portion of Eden Valley in the Bear River Unit, Penryn Valley and the upper portion of the Sailor Ravine watershed in the Foot- hill Unit, and the Mormon Creek watershed in the American River Unit. Areas of the watersheds vary from 360 to 6,025 acres, and the average elevations range from about 500 to about 2,300 feet above sea level. Locations of the watersheds are shown on Plate 13. Field surveys and studies were conducted on these watersheds throughout the irrigation season of 1950-51. The water supplies consisted of precipita- tion and diversions from canals of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Nevada Irrigation Dis- trict. Records of inflow to and outflow from the water- sheds were obtained from measurements. Precipitation data were obtained from United States Weather Bu- reau records at Auburn, Colfax, and Rocklin. Of a total irrigated area of about 5,400 acres in the four watersheds, approximately 3,300 acres are orchards, about 1,200 acres are water-loving native vegetation, and the remaining 900 acres are pasture and vineyard. The results of the studies are shown in Table 31, which also shows, for comparison, the values of unit con- sumptive use of applied water computed for 1950-51 culture and climatological conditions. Data obtained in connection with the watershed inflow-outflow studies are given in Appendix L. Table 31 indicates that the computed 1950-51 unit values of consumptive use of applied water agree closely with values derived from the inflow-outflow studies in all watersheds except Eden Valley. In this WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 55 TABLE 31 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN SELECTED WATERSHEDS OF PLACER COUNTY Consumptive use of applied water, in inches of depth Irrigated Average Watershed area, elevation, 1950-51 in acres in feet (from inflow- outflow 1950-51 (com- puted) studies) Eden Valley 113 2,350 16 21 3,240 500 24 22 Sailor Ravine 209 1,500 23 22 Mormon Creek - ... 687 1,050 20 19 watershed, the smallest of the four, the computed value is considerably higher than that from the inflow- outflow studies. Tn view of the close agreement of results from the three larger watersheds, subsequent estimates of present mean seasonal consumptive use of applied water in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units were derived by computing the unit values of seasonal consumptive use by the method described previously. Estimated unit values of seasonal consumptive use of applied water in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units, together with average temperature and mean annual precipitation on the units, are pre- sented in Table 32. In view of the indicated water supply and climatological similarities of the mean and base periods, the estimated average unit seasonal values of consumptive use of applied water for the base period were considered to approximate cor- responding values for the mean period. TABLE 32 ESTIMATED UNIT VALUES OF SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN FOOTHILL, AMERICAN RIVER, AND YUBA RIVER UNITS Unit Average temper- ature, in degrees F. Mean annual precipita- tion, in inches Consumptive use of applied water In inches In feet Foothill American River.. 62 59 61 27 48 24 22 18 22 1.8 1.5 1.8 Present Water Requirements The total amount of the present water requirement in the Valley Unit of Placer County Avas estimated by multiplying the acreage of each type of land use by its respective unit value of consumptive use of water. The present requirements for water on irri- gated, urban, and miscellaneous lands in the Foothill. American River, Bear River, and Yuba River Units were estimated by multiplying the respective present acreages by appropriate unit values of consumptive use of applied water. The total present requirement for water in the Tahoe Unit was derived from values re- ported in the "Joint Report on the Use of Water in the Lake Tahoe Watershed," prepared by the State Engineers of Nevada and California, dated dune, M4fl. The results of the estimates of water requirements in the Valley Unit during the base period and the investigational seasons are presented in Table 33, sum- marized by general classes of land use. An estimate of the mean seasonal water requirement in the Valley Unit, as it would be with present land use but under mean conditions of water supply and climate, is also presented in Table 33. The estimate was based on the land use pattern determined by the 1950-51 survey, and on estimated average unit seasonal values of con- sumptive use of water for the three-year base period which were considered to approximate those for the mean period. The estimates in Table 33 include con- sumptive use of precipitation. TABLE 33 ESTIMATED PRESENT MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN VALLEY UNIT AND USE DURING BASE PERIOD AND INVESTIGATIONAL SEASONS (In acre-feet) With Average for 3-year present land use under mean Class of land use base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 condi- tions of water supply and climate 40,100 52,000 61,600 5,300 37,800 49,100 54.500 5,300 37,100 59,700 60,400 5,300 45.000 45,400 70.700 5,400 45.000 Dry-farmed and fallow lands !."..< 65,900 5,400 TOTALS 159,100 147,700 162,500 166,500 161,300 In order to facilitate certain phases of the analysis of ground water hydrology, presented in Chapter II, and to permit derivation of irrigation efficiencies, it was desirable to estimate seasonal consumptive use of applied water from surface and ground water supplies in the Valley Unit of Placer County. To this end, appropriate unit seasonal values of consumptive use of applied water were multiplied by the acreages of each type of land use served by surface water and ground water during the respective periods. The esti- mates of consumptive use of surface water and ground water are summarized in Table 34 by general classes of land use. The results of the estimates of present mean sea- sonal consumptive use of applied water in the Foot- 56 PLACE K COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 34 ESTIMATED PRESENT MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED SURFACE AND GROUND WATER IN VALLEY UNIT AND USE DURING BASE PERIOD AND INVESTIGATIONAL SEASONS (In acre-feet) Class of land use Average for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 1948-49 1949-50 1950-5] With present land use under mean condi- tions of water supply and climate Surface water 12.100 1.400 13,500 1,400 1 1 .800 1.400 10.800 1,200 11,400 1,200 Miscellaneous 13,500 19.500 4.400 14,900 17.300 4,400 13.200 17.400 4,400 12,000 22,900 4,500 12,600 24 000 Ground water Miscellaneous- _ ... 4,500 Subtotals 23,900 21,700 21,800 27,400 28,500 TOTALS 37,400 36.600 35,000 39,400 41 100 TABLE 35 ESTIMATED PRESENT MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN FOOTHILL, AMERICAN RIVER, BEAR RIVER, YUBA RIVER, AND TAHOE UNITS (In acre-feet) Unit I rrigated lands Urban and mis- cellaneous Totals Foothill American River . __ Bear River. . . 44,500 3,600 2,600 3.200 200 100 400 47.700 3,800 2.600 Yuba River. ... 100 Tahoe 400 Sulitotals .-,0,700 3.900 900 54,600 900 TOTALS . .-,0,700 1,800 55,500 hill, American River, Bear Biver, Yuba Biver, and Tahoe Units are presented in Table 35. Although the results are not utilized in subse- quent analyses in this bulletin, the total consumptive use of water in the Foothill Unit was estimated as a matter of interest. This was done for each of the investigational seasons by evaluating the difference between water supply and disposal. The method was the same as that used for the Valley Unit to evaluate the difference between subsurface inflow and outflow. as explained in Chapter II, except that total con- sumptive use of water was the unknown quantity. Tn the case of the Foothill Unit, values for pertinent items other than consumptive use of water, including surface inflow and outflow, and precipitation, were quantitatively measured or estimated. Table 36 sets forth the equation of hydrologic equilibrium for the Foothill Unit. The estimate of total consumptive use of water includes consumptive use of precipitation. TABLE 36 ESTIMATED TOTAL SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN FOOTHILL UNIT DURING BASE PERIOD AND INVESTIGATIONAL SEASONS (In acre-feet) Item 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 Average for 3-year base period, 1948-49 through 1950-51 Water supply Bear River Canal at Halsey Forebay. Gold Hill Canal below Combie Dam- Precipitation - 251,700 25,700 251,700 227,200 30,700 250,500 235,200 24,000 375,300 238,000 26,800 292,500 TOTALS Water disposal South Canal above spill Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E._ Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E 529,100 139,100 30,300 47,400 30,000 508.400 135.100 39.500 34,600 34,900 634,500 124,700 90,400 67,600 65,500 557.300 133,000 55,400 49,900 43,500 TOTALS 252,800 276,300 244,100 204,300 348.200 286.300 281,800 REMAINDER— TOTAL CON- SUMPTIVE USE 275,500 Table 36 indicates that total consumptive use of water in the Foothill Unit during each of the three investigational seasons did not vary materially. Dur- ing 1950-51, when rainfall was about 50 per cent greater than that during either 1948-49 or 1949-50, the amount of retained water increased by only about 10 per cent, and the additional rainfall was largely disposed of as runoff. The seasonal utilization of precipitation can be estimated by subtracting the consumptive use of applied water, presented in Table 35, from the total consumptive use. Based on this computation, it is indicated that the seasonal con- sumptive use of precipitation was about 229,000 acre- feet, 217.000 acre-feet, and 239,000 acre-feet in 1948- 49, 1949-50, and 1950-51, respectively, Avhich amounts to average depths of about 19 inches, 18 inches, and 20 inches, based on the gross area of 141,140 acres. Probable Ultimate Water Requirements The total water requirement in the Valley Unit was estimated as it would be with the probable ulti- mate pattern of land use and under mean conditions of water supply and climate. This was accomplished by multiplying acreages of land use types, derived in the forecast of the ultimate land use pattern, by corresponding average unit seasonal values of con- sumptive use of water for the base period. It was considered that unit consumptive use during the WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 57 base period was equivalent to that under mean con- ditions of Avater supply and climate. The estimate of the probable ultimate water requirement in the Valley Unit is summarized in Table 37 by general land use classes. The estimate includes consumptive use of precipitation. TABLE 37 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN VALLEY UNIT Class of land n>e Acre-feet 286,200 Dry-farmed and fallow lands Native vegetation Miscellaneous- - - - Hi 110(1 12,200 27,900 TOTAL 342,300 The total seasonal consumptive use of applied water on irrigable, urban, and miscellaneous lands in the Foothill, American River, Bear River, Yuba River, and Tahoe Units was similarly estimated as it would be under probable ultimate conditions of land use and under mean conditions of water suply and cli- mate. The estimates for the Tahoe Unit were based on those presented in the previously referred to joint report by the State Engineers of Nevada and Cali- fornia on use of water in the Lake Tahoe watershed. The estimates are summarized in Table 38. TABLE 38 PROBABLE ULTIMATE MEAN SEASONAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF APPLIED WATER IN FOOTHILL, AMERICAN RIVER, BEAR RIVER, YUBA RIVER, AND TAHOE UNITS (In acre-feet) Unit Irrigated lands Urban and mis- cellaneous Totals goothill- 118,100 30,400 10,800 14,800 500 200 200 2,000 132,900 American River 30,900 11 000 200 Tahoe. _ 2,000 Subtotals - 159,300 17,700 3,400 177,000 3,400 TOTALS 159,300 21,100 180,400 Nonconsumptive Water Requirements As has been stated, certain nonconsumptive require- ments for water, such as those for hydroelectric power generation, flood control, recreation, and conservation of fish and wildlife, will be of significance in the de- sign of works to meet consumptive requirements for water in Placer County. In most instances the magni- tudes of the nonconsumptive requirements are rela- tively indeterminate and dependent upon allocations made during design of the works and after considera- tion of economic factors. Water requirements for hydroelectric power production, flood control, recrea- tion, and conservation of fish and wildlife are dis- cussed in general terms in this section, but not spe- cifically evaluated. Hydroelectric Power Production. The principal nonconsumptive requirement for water in Placer County is that which pertains to the generation of hydroelectric power. Although this requirement gen- erally does not result in the consumption of water nor in the depletion of runoff, it is a fundamental con- sideration in the development and distribution of water. Revenues from the sale of hydroelectric power, generated in connection with possible new projects to meet supplemental consumptive water requirements of Placer County, will serve in many instances to make irrigation and other features of the projects financially and economically feasible. In subsequent yield studies involving the operation of hydroelectric power plants included in new projects under consideration, the schedule of monthly require- ments for water for generation of energy presented in Table 39 was utilized. The schedule represents the esti- mated monthly energy requirements to be realized in 1960 for northern California, and results from studies conducted by a group of engineers drawn from vari- ous state and federal agencies. These studies are pre- sented in a publication entitled "Central Valley Proj- ect Studies, Problem 7," published in 1947 by the United States Department of the Interior. TABLE 39 ESTIMATED MONTHLY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER FOR GENERATION OF HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY Month Per cent of seasonal total Month Per cent of seasonal total October November December 8.57 7.42 8.30 8.13 7.21 8.02 April _. . Mav 8.13 8.45 8.62 July August September TOTAL 9.41 February _ March 9.25 8.49 100.00 Flood Control. Destruction and havoc caused by floods in California have frequently been accompanied by the economic anomaly of wastage of large amounts of water from areas of deficient water supply. Storage of such flood waters in upstream reservoirs would have accomplished the dual purpose of conservation of needed water and reduction of flood damages. Furthermore, results of the State-wide Water Re- sources investigation to date indicate that if Califor- nia is to attain growth and development commensurate with her manifold resources, nearly all of the potential reservoir storage capacity of the State must be con- 58 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION structed and dedicated to operation for water con- servation purposes. This in itself will result in a sub- stantial increase in downstream flood protection. How- ever, any portion of the available reservoir storage capacity that is operated wholly or partially for solely flood control purposes will correspondingly reduce the capacity available for conservation. Historical damages from floods of the American, Yuba, and Bear Rivers have been very large on the flat floor of the Sacramento Valley, and extensive channel improvements and levees have been built for protection of the valley lands. Folsom Reservoir, re- cently constructed by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, will provide substantial flood protection for valley floor lands along the American River. Above the valley floor, historical flood damages have been generally limited to local washouts of roads and bridges, and minor erosion of agricultural lands. The only lands in the Valley Unit subject to serious flood damage at the present time are located adjacent to the south bank of the Bear River as it emerges from the foothills. Although the channel of the Bear River in this reach is leveed to prevent damage from all but major floods, during the flood of November 20, 1950, the south levee failed, the washout occurring down- stream from the U. S. Highway 99E bridge. Minor flood damages in the Foothill and Valley Units result from major rain floods. Heavy rain storms result in localized damage along streams in both units, and inundation of narrow strips of agricultural land adja- cent to stream channels in the Valley Unit. Prelimi- nary studies made in connection with the current State-wide Water Resources Investigation indicate that additional stream channel alignment and leveeing is desirable on Coon Creek, Markham Ravine, Auburn Ravine, Pleasant Grove Creek, and Linda Creek. Records and estimates obtained during the present investigation of peak flood flows on Auburn Ravine and Coon and Linda Creeks are included in Table 40. Damages from floods occur in the Tahoe Unit around the shore line of Lake Tahoe and along the Truckee River from Lake Tahoe to Donner Creek. TABLE 40 RECORDED AND ESTIMATED FLOOD FLOWS ON PRINCI- PAL STREAMS IN VALLEY UNIT DURING INVESTIGA- TIONAL PERIOD Stream Location Drain- age area, in square miles Date Instan- taneous dis- charge, in second- feet Coon Creek Auburn Ravine. _ Linda Creek U. S. Highway 99E U. S. Highway 99 E 84 32 85 11/20/50 1/15/52 1 12/52 5,200 *1,100 *5,500 * Estim:iti'il. Floods on the Truckee River also cause considerable damage downstream from Farad to Pyramid Lake in the State of Nevada, including the Cities of Reno and Sparks. Damages suffered as a result of floods in the Truckee River watershed differ appreciably for rain and snowmelt type of floods. A large rain flood on the Truckee River causes heavy damage to the City of Reno where high-value properties are con- centrated, and damage to agricultural lands, roads, and railroads, and loss of livestock. In the case of a snowmelt flood, the Lake Tahoe area, which is not normally damaged during a rain flood, suffers major damage as a result of sustained lake stages above an elevation of 6,228 feet where damage to lake shore property begins. The damage around the lake is principally to resorts, summer residences, beaches, and piers. In preliminary design of works to meet the supple- mental water requirements of Placer County, no con- sideration was given to additional provisions for flood control and protection, although such might be desira- ble in certain instances. The provision of reservoirs for flood control and channel improvement for flood protection purposes was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. Recreation and Fish and Wildlife. By virtue of its climatic advantages and wide variety of natural attractions, Placer County enjoys an outdoor recrea- tional opportunity of great importance to her growth and economy, and of significant importance to the State as a whole. With anticipated continued growth in population, it is expected that the public demand for preservation and enhancement of recreational facilities will be sufficient to assure the provision of water supplies necessary for such purposes. In the aggregate, the amount of water presently used for domestic and service facilities in recreational areas in Placer County is relatively small. As for waters employed for boating, sailing, swimming, and other water sports, most are available naturally or as a result of works constructed and operated for other purposes, and the nonconsumptive recreational use of the water is incidental to the other uses. Of considera- ble importance among the many uses of water for recreational purposes in Placer County are those associated with the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife. So far as is known, no artificial lakes in Placer County are utilized exclusively for fish life, such use being incidental to the primary purposes for which the reservoirs were constructed. However, the levels of a few small natural lakes at the headwaters of streams have been raised by the State Department of Fish and Game, and releases are made to maintain downstream flow conditions favorable to the preserva- tion and propagation of fish life. It is considered WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 59 probable that in the future more reservoir storage capacity will be allocated to this purpose, and that in some instances reservoirs will be constructed ex- clusively to augment naturally low summer and fall stream flows in the interest of fish life. Water released down a stream to maintain the mini- mum flow required for fish life does not constitute a consumptive use of the water. The demands of fish life, however, are frequently incompatible with hydro- electric development and diversion and use of the water for other beneficial purposes. Nevertheless, it is believed than an improved and adequate stream fish- ery can be developed and maintained by the dedica- tion of certain streams, and certain reaches of other streams, to recreation and fishing, and by the con- struction of upstream storage to improve low stream flow conditions. In addition, reservoirs constructed to regulate stream flow for other purposes will provide a greatly increased lake fishery. In connection with most reservoir yield studies made for the Placer County Investigation, about three per cent of the yield of water was allocated to the inter- ests of fish, wildlife, and recreation. Releases of water within this allocation generally would provide down- stream flows in excess of the minimum requirements for fish life as determined by the State Department of Fish and Game and the United States Forest Service. Demands for Water The term "demands for water," as used in this bulletin, refers to those factors pertaining to rates, times, and places of delivery of water, losses of water, quality of water, etc., imposed by the control, devel- opment, and use of water for beneficial purposes. Irri- gation practice in Placer County, as determined by rates of application, irrigation efficiencies, conveyance losses, gross diversions, monthly demands, return flow, and permissible deficiencies in application of water, must be given consideration in preliminary design of works to meet supplemental water requirements. These demand factors, which were not measured or con- sidered in the foregoing estimates of water require- ments, are discussed in the following sections. Application of Water. During each of the three seasons of the investigation, measurements were made of the amount of water applied for irrigation of selected plots of principal crops grown in Placer County. Records of such application of water pumped from wells in Placer County were obtained for 9 plots during 1948-49, 26 plots during 1949-50, and 44 plots during 1950-51. The 1949-50 and 1950-51 studies in- cluded most of the irrigated land in the Valley Unit. In 1950-51, ,36 additional studies were made in eastern Sutter County which were utilized in connection with the investigation. Records of application of water diverted from canals in the Foothill Unit were ob- tained for 11 plots in 1949-50. Results of the studies of water pumped from wells, which may be considered representative of prevailing ground water irrigation practice in the Valley Unit, are summarized in Table 41. Detailed results of the studies of plots using ground water are presented in Appendix L, and loca- tions of the plots are indicated on Plate 13. TABLE 41 MEASURED AVERAGE SEASONAL APPLICATION OF GROUND WATER ON REPRESENTATIVE PLOTS OF PRINCIPAL CROPS IN AND ADJACENT TO VALLEY UNIT Weighted average Number of plots application of water, Crop in feet of depth 1948-49 1948- 1949- 1950- Total 1948- 1949- 1950- through 49 50 51 49 50 51 1950-51 Valley Unit Almond - 3 1 1 5 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.0 Ladino 1 4 6 11 3.8 3.4 2.9 3.3 Pasture 7 13 20 4.0 3.5 3.6 Rice _ _ 3 14 24 41 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.1 Vineyard 2 2 0.3 TOTALS 9 26 44 79 Adjacent to Valley Unit Pasture 14 3.8 Rice 22 6.3 TOTALS 36 Results of the 1949-50 plot studies of water di- verted from canals in the Foothill Unit are summa- rized in Table 42. Detailed results of the studies are presented in Appendix L, and locations of the plots are shown on Plate 13. TABLE 42 MEASURED AVERAGE APPLICATION OF SURFACE WATER ON REPRESENTATIVE PLOTS OF PRINCIPAL CROPS IN FOOTHILL UNIT IN 1949-50 Number of plots Weighted average application of water Crop Inches of depth Feet of depth Orchard Orchard and cover crop 6 1 3 1 47 49 52 30 3.8 4.1 4.3 2.5 Iii the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units, water for irrigation is diverted from canals and conduits by means of miner's inch boxes. The diversion is made on a continuous flow basis for about 150 days, and the water is measured in miner's inches. The number of miner's inches per acre is generally 60 PLACEB COUNTY INVESTIGATION used ;is ;i measure of duty of water. The general prac- tice is to buy one-half miner's inch of water per acre of pasture, whether irrigated by sprinkler or flooding. This amounts to an application of about 45 inches depth of water during the season from May through September. On orchard land, irrigation practice is varied, with applications ranging from one miner's inch for six acres to one miner's inch per acre. Gen- erally, less water is applied with furrow irrigation, because even a minimum rate of application results in a high rate of runoff. Irrigation practice and crop production are improved by use of sprinklers, which permit better control and application of greater amounts of water. The use of cover crops on orchard lands has also resulted in increased application of water to these lands. Estimates were made of the total amount of irriga- tion water applied to lands in Placer County during the investigational seasons, utilizing results of the plot studies and other pertinent available informa- tion. The summary of these estimates is given in Table 43. TABLE 43 ESTIMATED TOTAL SEASONAL APPLICATION OF IRRIGA- TION WATER IN UNITS OF PLACER COUNTY DURING INVESTIGATIONAL SEASONS (In acre-feet) Unit 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 Valley 18,900 21,500 15,700 21,500 16 600 "i 300 Subtotals .. Foothill American River Bear River- 10,1011 102,800 9,900 5,800 37,200 95.400 9,200 5,800 45,900 96,600 9,400 5,800 Subtotals 118.500 110,400 111,800 TOTALS I5S.900 147,1100 157 70(1 Irrigation and Water Service Area Efficiencies. Studies were made to determine irrigation efficiency realized from application of water in Placer County. Irrigation efficiency is defined as the ratio of con- sumptive use of applied water to the total amount of applied water, and is commonly expressed as a per- centage. It was estimated that the irrigation efficiency realized from application of ground water in the Valley Unit during 1948-49 and 1949-50 was about 81 per cent, and during 1950-51 about 78 per cent. It was further estimated that the irrigation efficiency real- ized from application of surface water in the Valley Unit during the three seasons was about 71 per cent, 75 per cent, and 65 per cent, respectively. The indi- cated irrigation efficiencies in the Valley Unit are un- usually high when compared with those experienced in many other parts of California. This may be partly due to the relatively unbroken and extensive liardpan layer underlying the Valley Unit. The western edge of the liardpan layer is approximately along the western boundary of Placer County. The apparent effect of the hardpan layer in reducing application of water is indicated by a comparison of the values for appli- cation of water to pasture and rice in Placer County and in eastern Sutter County, as presented in Table 41. There is little information available regarding irri- gation efficiencies in Placer County other than in the Valley Unit. Water service area efficiencies, however, were calculated from data resulting from the four previously discussed watershed studies in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units. Water service area efficiency is defined as the ratio of consumptive use of applied water in a given service area to the gross amount of water delivered to the area, expressed as a percentage. The estimates of water service area efficiency realized in the four watersheds in 1950-51 are shown in Table 44. TABLE 44 ESTIMATED WATER SERVICE AREA EFFI- CIENCY IN SELECTED WATERSHEDS IN PLACER COUNTY, 1950-51 (In per cent) Watershed Efficiency EOden Valley 51 Penrvn Vallev . - .__._. 56 55 Mormon Creek _ - ~>~t It is considered that the foregoing estimates of irrigation and water service area efficiencies reflect present irrigation practices in Placer County. Even with increasing demands for water, efficiencies sub- stantially higher than the high values now obtained in the Valley Unit are not anticipated in the future. However, some improvement in future irrigation practice may be expected in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units. Conveyance Losses. No estimates were made of conveyance losses under present irrigation practices in Placer County. In addition to the main conduits conveying water, many distribution canals and ditches are concrete-lined in those places where large losses have occurred in the past. Study of records of meas- urements made at various locations on conduits of the Nevada Irrigation District indicate thai convey- ance losses are not excessive. Conveyance losses from conduits and canals are sometimes recovered in na- tural streams or by canals at lower elevations. More often, however, the water lost is consumed by native vegetation, especially where the irrigated lands occur WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 61 as isolated parcels. In the Valley Unit a considerable portion of the seepage from unlined canals, together with most of the nnconsnmed portion of applied irri- gation water, probably accrues to ground water and is subject to recovery by pumping. In the selection of sizes of conservation works to serve the Valley Unit, it was assumed that conveyance losses would approximate 25 per cent of the diverted water supply. In the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units, where lined conduits or tunnels were generally specified, it was assumed that conveyance losses would approximate 10 per cent of the diverted supply. Gross Diversion of Water. Total seasonal diver- sion of irrigation water to the four previously dis- cussed watersheds in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units was measured during the in- vestigation. The measured amounts so diverted in 1950-51, together with the computed unit values of gross diversion per acre of irrigated land, are given in Table 45. TABLE 45 GROSS SEASONAL DIVERSION OF IRRIGATION WATER TO SELECTED WATERSHEDS OF PLACER COUNTY, 1950-51 Watershed Irrigated land, in acres Total diversion, in acre-feet Unit diversion, in acre-feet per acre Eden Valley 113 3,240 209 087 280 11.770 740 2,020 2.5 3.6 3.5 3.0 Monthly Demands for Water. Because of differ- ences in water utilization by various crops grown in Placer County, there is considerable variation in both rate and period of demand for irrigation water. On the average, the irrigation demand in the Valley Unit occurs during the months of April through No- vember. In the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units, irrigation demand occurs during May through September. Based on analysis of measurements of application of ground water for irrigation made in 1949-50 in the Valley Unit, the estimated average monthly dis- tribution of demand for irrigation water is as pre- sented in Table 46. Inspection of records of application of water in the four selected watersheds, discussed previously, indicates that the monthly diversion of surface water in 1950-51 to the three smaller watersheds was a nearly constant amount and was fixed by the maxi- mum capacity of conduits to convey water. In Pen- ryn Valley, however, a monthly variation in the amount of the total surface diversion was observed, as shown in Table 47. This table also presents demand TABLE 46 ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR IRRIGATION WATER IN VALLEY UNIT Month April.. May_. June_ - July.. August Per cent of seasonal total 1 14 21 25 23 Month September... October November TOTAL Per cent of seasonal total 12 3 1 100 schedules of the Nevada and El Dorado Irrigation Districts based on records of canal discharge, together with the schedule of distribution of monthly demand of the Nevada Irrigation District during the irriga- tion season. The demand schedule of the Nevada Irri- gation District was assumed to be representative of the distribution of demand for water in Placer County other than in the Valley Unit, and was so utilized in yield studies for the design of water conservation works. TABLE 47 ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMANDS FOR WATER IN PLACER COUNTY (In per cent of seasonal total) Month January February March April May June July August September October November- - December TOTALS Irrigation demand In Penryn Valley 15 20 22 23 20 100 In Nevada Irrigation District 15 20 24 23 18 100 Total demand In Nevada Irrigation District 2 1 1 3 12 16 20 111 15 7 2 100 In El Dorado Irrigation District 14 19 21 19 13 5 2 1 100 Return Flow. In the previous discussion of water service area efficiency it was indicated that the average quantity of water delivered to irrigated lands in cer- tain watersheds of the Foothill Unit was almost twice the quantity of water consumed by the irrigated crops. In the same manner it was shown that the amount of water applied to irrigated crops in the Valley Unit was also considerably greater than the water consumed by these crops. Most of the unconsumed water con- stitutes return flow which generally reaches surface streams or ground water basins and may be available for rediversion or for pumping. Return flow is an im- portant source of water supply, and in many instances may be recovered and re-used within the water serv- 62 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ice area itself. Such return flow as cannot be recov- ered within the area where it originates accrues to downstream users as a source of water supply. In the design of water conservation works to serve the Valley Unit it was assumed that the unconsumed portion of water applied to irrigation would percolate to the ground water basin and would be available for re-use, and that half of the conveyance losses would be available for re-use in a similar manner. No present attempt was made to evaluate the occurrence and use of return flow in connection with the design of water conservation works to serve the other units of Placer County. Permissible Deficiencies in Application of Irriga- tion Water. Studies to determine deficiencies in the supply of irrigation water that might be endured without permanent injury to perennial crops were not made in connection with the Placer County Investiga- tion. However, the results of past investigation and study of endurable deficiencies in the Sacramento River Basin are believed to be applicable to Placer County. In this respect, the following is quoted from Division of Water Resources Bulletin No. 26, "Sacra- mento River Basin," 1931. .. * * * ^ f u jj irrigation supply furnished water not only for the consumptive use of the plant but also for evaporation from the surface during application and from the moist ground sur- face, and for water which is lost through percolation to depths beyond the reach of the plant roots. Less water can be used in years of deficiency in supply by careful application and by more thorough cultivation to conserve the ground moisture. In these ways the plant can be furnished its full consumptive use with much smaller amounts of water than those ordinarily applied and the yield will not be decreased. If the supply is too deficient to provide the full consumptive use. the plant can sustain life on smaller amounts but the crop yield will probably be less than normal. "It is believed from a study of such data as are available that a maximum deficiency of 3~> per cent of the full seasonal require- ment can be endured, if the deficiency occurs only at relatively long intervals. It is also believed that small deficiencies occur- ring at relatively frequent intervals can be endured." In the selection of sizes of conservation works for design purposes to serve Placer County, it was as- sumed that deficiencies in the amount of 35 per cent of the average seasonal requirement for irrigation water may be endured in seasons of critically deficient water supply, provided that such deficiencies do not occur frequently and in no case in consecutive sea- sons. It was further assumed that requirements for urban water and hydroelectric power would be met at all times without deficiency. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENTS The previously presented data, estimates, and dis- cussion regarding water supply and utilization in Placer County indicate that present and probable fu- ture water problems of the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units of Placer County are largely limited to those connected with supply and distribu- tion of surface water, and that their effects are re- lated to irrigated agriculture and municipal use. These problems may be largely eliminated if adequate supplemental water supplies are developed and util- ized on lands above the present service areas of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The present and probable future water problems of the Yuba River and Tahoe Units, as well as those of lands situated in the national for- ests, are of a minor nature since their present and future water needs are small and may be met with local small-scale conservation works. As for present and probable future water problems of the Valley Unit, it is indicated that they are largely limited to those connected with ground water, and that their effects are largely related to irrigated agriculture. The ground water problems in the Valley Unit, created by progressive lowering of water levels and low yield of wells, may be eliminated or prevented if adequate sup- plemental water supplies are developed and utilized in the unit. The estimated present and probable ulti- mate requirements for supplemental water in Placer County are discussed and evaluated in the following sections. Present Supplemental Water Requirement in the Foothill, American River, Bear River, and Yuba River Units, with the exception of the Forest- hill Divide in the American River Unit, all presently developed lands are served or can be served by exist- ing works of either the Nevada Irrigation District or the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. There is no apparent shortage of water in the service area of the Nevada Irrigation District, nor in the Wise service area of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. How- ever, in some localities above the foregoing service areas, on the Foresthill Divide, and in the Tahoe Unit, development is presently restricted because of limited water supplies and works. Such present deficiencies are not readily susceptible to evaluation and are be- lieved to be small. For these reasons, present supple- mental water requirements of the Foothill, American River, Bear River, Yuba River, and Tahoe Units were not estimated, but for purposes of the present studies were considered to be negligible. The present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit was evaluated as the difference be- tween safe yield of the ground water basin and pres- ent consumptive use of ground water. It might be argued that this evaluation fails to give consideration to possible inadequacies in service of surface water to portions of the unit. However, in the equation of hydrologic equilibrium presented in Table 18, upon which the estimate of safe ground water yield was based, the unit consumptive use factors chosen as- sumed a full and sufficient application of water on all irrigated lands whether from surface sources or ground water. It follows that any possible present inadequacy in surface water service was taken into WATER UTILIZATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 63 account and provided for in the estimate of safe ground water yield. It was estimated in Chapter II that safe seasonal ground water yield in the Valley Unit amounted to 20,200 acre-feet. This was determined as the seasonal net extraction of water from the ground water basin that might be maintained, under mean conditions of water supply and climate, without further progres- sive lowering of the water table below average levels prevailing in 1950-51. Seasonal consumptive use of ground water, with present culture and under mean conditions of water supply and climate, was estimated to be about 28,500 acre-feet, as shown in Table 34. The estimated present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit is, therefore, about 8,300 acre-feet per season. Probable Ultimate Supplemental Water Requirement The probable ultimate requirement for supple- mental water in the Valley Unit was evaluated as the difference between present and probable ultimate con- sumptive use of water, plus the present requirement for supplemental water, since it was assumed that in this unit the conveyance and application losses would return to the ground water basin. Development and utilization of a supplemental water supply in the amount of this forecast would assure an adequate supply of water for lands presently irrigated in the Valley Unit, as well as for those irrigable lands not presently served with water. Furthermore, present problems in the Valley Unit, resulting from progres- sive and permanent lowering of water levels and low yield of wells, would be eliminated. In other units the probable ultimate requirement for supplemental water was evaluated as the differ- ence between present and probable ultimate consump- tive use of applied water, and adjusted to account for estimated re-use of return flows and losses in convey- ance and application. In the Foothill, American River, Bear River, Yuba River and Tahoe Units the requirement will be satisfied principally by stream diversions or reservoir releases. A part of the re- quirement may be satisfied, however, by recoverable return flows. In addition, a portion of the developed water supply will be lost in conveyance and applica- tion. Therefore, in these units the ultimate supple- mental water requirement does not signify either required stream diversion or draft on a reservoir, which quantities can only be estimated with knowl- edge of physical features. Since the ultimate supple- mental water requirement in these units will be af- fected by the location of project features, an accurate estimate can only be made when the basic framework of the water supply project is established. Neverthe- less, preliminary estimates of ultimate supplemental water requirements are considerably more realistic and more useful for project planning purposes than are estimates of consumptive use of applied water. As a first step in deriving such estimates, it is assumed that, in connection with future water development, the demands for and the cost of water will be such that conveyance and application losses will be reduced to a minimum, and that every effort will be made to recover return flows. On this basis, it is considered reasonable to assume that average irrigation efficien- cies of about 75 per cent will prevail, and that return flow will be recovered in quantities sufficient to bal- ance the conveyance loss. Under these conditions, the probable ultimate supplemental water requirement in the Foothill, American River, Bear River, Yuba TABLE 48 PROBABLE ULTIMAIE MEAN SEASONAL SUPPLEMENTAL WATER REQUIREMENT IN UNITS OF PLACER COUNTY (In acre-feet) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unit Present consumptive use of water Probable ultimate consumptive use of water Probable increase in consumptive use of water (2 — 1) Probable increase in water requirement (3X1.33) Present supplemental water requirement Probable ultimate supplemental water requirement (4 + 5) Valley 161,300" 47,700'' 3,800'' 2,600'' 100 b 400 b 342,100" 132,900 >> 30,900 b 11.000'' 200 b 2,000'' 180,800 85,200 27,100 8,400 100 1,600 180,800 113,300 36,000 11,200 100 2,100 8,300 189,100 Foothill -.. 113,300 36,000 11,200 100 2,100 215,900 900 b 519,100 3,400'' 303,200 2,500 343.500 3,300 8,300 351,800 3,300 TOTALS-. 216,800 522,500 305,700 346,800 8,300 355,100 1 Includes consumptive use of precipitation. ' Consumptive use of applied water only. 64 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION River, and Tahoe Units will be equivalent to the probable increase in consumptive use of applied water plus 33 per cent. Such estimates computed on this basis, together with the estimate for the Valley Unit, are presented in Table 48. With certain qualifications, the foregoing estimates can be used in project planning as a basis for deter- mining probable stream diversions or drafts on reser- voirs. Where appropriate, the possibility of recovering return flow from upstream areas should be considered as a means of satisfying a part of a service area water requirement, and thereby reducing the required stream diversion or draft on the reservoir. Moreover, the situation in any given water service area may be such that relatively large quantities of return flow originating within the area may be recovered and re-used. On the other hand, the conveyance loss be- tween the service area and the proposed diversions or reservoirs constitutes an additional requirement for water. Under the most unfavorable conditions the stream diversion or draft on reservoir storage to satisfy the probable ultimate supplemental water re- quirement would be somewhat larger than the quan- tities given in Table 48 by the amount of water lost in transit between the diversion or reservoir and the service area. Under favorable conditions, where return flows from upstream areas can be used to satisfy a part of the water requirement, the diversion or draft on storage could be considerably less than the quantity listed in Table 48. CHAPTER IV PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT It has been shown heretofore that present critical water problems of the Valley Unit in Placer County largely consist of progressive lowering of ground water levels, and low yield of wells in certain areas. In the Foothill, American River, Bear River, and Yuba River Units, where existing water service is generally adequate for current demands, desirable expansion of irrigated agriculture is impeded by the insufficiency of developed water supplies. "Water sup- ply is not at present a critical problem within the Tahoe Unit, but recreational property along the shore of Lake Tahoe is subject to flood damage at times of high water levels, and new water supplies will be needed in the future to meet anticipated Browing demands for recreational and agricultural purposes. Elimination of present critical ground water problems in the Valley Unit, and provision of water for irrigable and potentially urban and rec- reational lands in Placer County not presently served with water, will require further conservation develop- ment of the available water resources. In the preced- ing chapter, estimates were presented as to the amount of supplemental water required for these purposes. It has been shown that large surplus flows of water are presently available to Placer County from the watersheds of the Yuba, Bear, American, and Trnekee Rivers and from many minor streams within the county. This surplus water is available during the snowmelt period of every season. Studies which are described in this chapter indicate that the surplus flows, if properly controlled and regulated, would more than meet the present and probable ultimate water requirements of Placer County. Furthermore, reduction of flooding around the shore of Lake Tahoe would be attained. As was stated in Chapter I, the Division of Water Resources is presently conducting surveys and studies for the State-wide Water Resources Investigation, under direction of the State Water Resources Board. This investigation has as its objective the formulation of The California Water Plan, for full conservation, control, and utilization of the State's water resources, to meet present and future water needs for all bene- ficial purposes and uses in all parts of the State, inso- far as practicable. Surveys and studies are also being conducted by the Division of Water Resources for the Survey of Mountainous Areas. This investigation, which is coordinated with the state-wide investigation, has as its primary objective the determination of probable ultimate water requirements of certain coun- ties of the Sierra Nevada, and the formulation of plans for projects which will meet those require- ments. Although these investigations are still in prog- ress, they are sufficiently advanced to permit tenta- tive description of certain major features of The California Water Plan which would provide supple- mental water to meet the probable ultimate require- ment of Placer County. The projects would also provide supplemental water supplies for other water- deficient areas of California. In addition, benefits from the projects would include hydroelectric power, flood and salinity control, mining debris storage, and benefits in the interests of recreation and preservation of fish and wildlife. In general, the major features of The California Water Plan which were mentioned in the preceding paragraph would be large multipurpose projects re- quiring relatively large capital expenditures. Their scope, with regard to both location of the works and benefits derived from their operation, would not be limited to Placer County, but would embrace other portions of California as well, and in some instances, of Nevada. Additional study will be required to deter- mine possible means of financing, constructing, and operating these large projects, and of coordinating them with other major features of The California Water Plan. In connection with the Placer County Investigation, therefore, surveys and studies were made in order to estimate costs of supplemental water supplies for Placer County under localized portions of the major projects, that might be suitable for cur- rent financing, construction, and operation by appro- priate local public agencies. It was desirable that these plans for initial development be such that the works could be readily integrated into the future major proj- ects. For this reason the purposes of the initial plans were not limited merely to conservation of new water sufficient to meet present water requirements of Placer County and provide for limited future growth. Rather, the works proposed for initial development would yield supplemental water to meet the probable ultimate requirements in many portions of Placer County, as well as furnish limited amounts of water and hydroelectric power for export from the county. Major features of The California Water Plan which would be pertinent to full development of the water resources of Placer County are described in general terms in this chapter under the heaiV>r«- "The Cali- fornia Water Plan." These projec Plvvill be more specifically described in future reports of the State Water Resources Board. The several plans for possible 3 — 81627 ( 65) 66 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION initial local development of supplemental water sup- plies which were given consideration in connection with the Placer County Investigation are described in this chapter under the heading "Plans for Initial Local Development." All such plans considered would be subject to vested rights. Specific plans are presented for the more favorable local projects, to- gether with estimates of capital and annual costs and unit costs of the developed supplemental water sup- plies. Locations of the principal features of the possible plans for both initial and future construction are shown on Plate 14, entitled "Plans for Water Development." THE CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN To enable orderly and logical presentation, tenta- tive plans for major projects of The California Water Plan pertinent to full development of the water re- sources of Placer County are presented separately for the American, Bear and Upper Yuba, and Truckee River Basins. Locations of the works described are shown on Plate 14. American River Basin The California Water Plan as it relates to the American River Basin will be described in detail in a future publication of the State Water Resources Board. For present purposes, there follows a brief description of works on the Middle and North Forks of the American River which would not only provide supplemental water to meet the probable ultimate re- quirements of lands in Placer County, but which also would provide large amounts of regulated water for other beneficial purposes both inside and outside of Placer County. Tentative plans for development of the Middle Fork of the American River contemplate the construction of a diversion dam at a site on the Upper Rubicon River immediately east of Rockbound Lake, and about eight miles southwest of Meeks Bay, and construction of a canal and tunnel to convey the diverted water via Rockbound and Buck Island Lakes, into an enlarged Loon Lake Reservoir. Water from a diversion on the Little South Fork of the Rubicon River would also be conveyed to the enlarged Loon Lake Reservoir by means of a conduit about 0.7 mile in length. Water released from Loon Lake Reservoir would flow west- erly through a proposed tunnel for about two miles to the penstock of the Loon Lake Power Plant, to be located near the flow line at the upper end of Gerle Reservoir. This reservior would be created by con- struction of a dam on Gerle Creek, about 4.5 miles downstream if i the existing Loon Lake Dam, owned by the Georgetown Divide Water Company. Releases of water would be made from Gerle Reservoir through a proposed tunnel, 2.7 miles in length, to the penstock of the Gerle Power House, to be located near the flow line at the upper end of the proposed Parsley Bar Reservoir, which would be created by construction of a dam at a site on the Rubicon River about five miles above its junction with the little South Fork of the Rubicon River. The tentative plans also contemplate construction of a diversion dam on Duncan Creek and conveyance of the diverted water southeasterly in a tunnel for a distance of about 1.4 miles to French Meadows Reser- voir, to be created by construction of a dam at a site on the Middle Fork of the American River approxi- mately 18 miles upstream from its junction with the Rubicon River. The water thus conserved would be conveyed in a tunnel for a distance of about 2.8 miles to the French Meadows Power House, to be located near the flow line on the right bank of the proposed Lower Hell Hole Reservoir. Lower Hell Hole Reser- voir would be created by construction of a dam at a site on the Rubicon River about one mile upstream from the previously mentioned Parsley Bar Reservoir. Under the foregoing plans, all power releases from the upstream reservoirs would be re-regulated in Pars- ley Bar Reservoir. Water released from Parsley Bar Reservoir would be conveyed westerly in a proposed tunnel about 4.5 miles in length, and released into the natural channel of Long Canyon. Immediately down- stream the water would be diverted, together with a portion of the natural runoff of Long Canyon, into a proposed canal which would extend along the south bank of Long Canyon below Ralston Ridge for a dis- tance of about nine miles to the forebay and penstock of the proposed Ralston Power House. This power house would be located on the Rubicon River and near the flow line at the upper end of the proposed Ameri- can Bar Reservoir, which would be created by con- struction of the American Bar Dam at a site on the Middle Fork of the American River about 1.5 miles below the junction with the Rubicon River. Water released from American Bar Reservoir would be con- veyed in a tunnel in a westerly direction for a dis- tance of about 2.7 miles to the penstock of the pro- posed American Bar Power House, on the left bank of the Middle Fork of the American River below Foresthill, and thence into the pool of the proposed Auburn Reservoir, which would be created by con- struction of a clam on the American River about two miles south of the City of Auburn. The proposed Auburn Power House would be located on the right bank of the American River about 0.5 mile down- stream from Auburn Dam, and would be connected to the reservoir by means of a tunnel. Water dis- charged from the power plant would flow downstream to Folsom Dam and Reservoir, where it would be re-regulated and available for development of hydro- electric power and for other beneficial purposes at downstream points. Consideration is also being given to plans including construction of a tunnel from Au- burn Reservoir to Auburn Ravine which would perl PLANS FOE WATER DEVELOPMENT 67 mit delivery of water to lands below Wise Power House. Other tentative plans for development of the Middle Fork of the American River would provide water to meet the probable ultimate requirements of the For- estall Divide. These plans include construction of facilities for diversion and conveyance of water from Secret Canyon, Black Canyon, El Dorado Creek, and Bullion Creek to a proposed Forbes Reservoir on Forbes Creek, and to an enlarged Big Reservoir lo- cated on a tributary of the same stream. Additional water, including spill from an enlarged Big Reservoir and Forbes Reservoir, would be conserved in the pro- posed Sugar Pine Reservoir, to be created by con- struction of a dam on North Shirttail Canyon. Water conserved in each of the three reservoirs would be re- leased to and conveyed in canals to serve lands on the Foresthill Divide. Tentative plans for development of the North Fork of the American River contemplate the dedication of this stream above Pickering Bar principally to the in- terests of fish, game, and recreation. Construction of a small dam and reservoir is proposed at The Cedars, about five miles south of Norden. This reservoir would insure a minimum stream flow of about seven second- feet in the North Fork below this point. Bear and Upper Yuba River Basins The California Water Plan as it relates to the Bear and Upper Yuba River Basins will be described in detail in a future publication of the State Water Re- sources Board. For present purposes, there follows a brief description of certain of the works which relate directly or indirectly to provision of supplemental water for Placer County. In general, the tentative plans for development of the waters of the Bear and Upper Yuba Rivers in- volve works which would be integrated into, or oper- ated in conjunction with, the existing systems of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The proposed works would supple- ment the foregoing systems and in some cases would result in the increase of capacities and yields of ex- isting works. The plans contemplate the construction of a dam and reservoir at the Jackson Meadows site, located on the Middle Fork of the Yuba River about five miles northeast of Bowman Lake Reservoir and about two miles upstream from the existing Milton Diversion of the Nevada Irrigation District, Jackson Meadows Reservoir would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, plus water diverted from Haypress Creek which would be conveyed in a proposed tunnel for a distance of about three miles to the reservoir. The conserved waters of both the Middle Fork of the Yuba River and Haypress Creek, after release from Jackson Meadows Reservoir, would flow into Bow- man Lake by way of the existing Milton-Bowman Tunnel, and thence through the existing Bowman- Spaulding Conduit and Spaulding Power House No. 3 into Lake Spaulding and the Drum System of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The tentative plans also contemplate the construc- tion of an enlarged dam and reservoir upstream from the site of the existing Lake Valley Dam owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which is lo- cated on the North Fork of the North Fork of the American River about three miles west of Cisco. Lake Valley Reservoir, thus created, would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, and would receive water from the existing Fordyce Lake, which presently dis- charges into Lake Spaulding, and from Rattlesnake Creek and the South Fork of the Yuba River. As an alternative to the Lake Valley Dam and Reservoir, consideration is also being given to construction of a dam and reservoir at a site near Cisco on the South Fork of the Yuba River. Water conserved in either the Lake Valley or Cisco Reservoirs would be dis- charged through conduits, 2.0 and 3.6 miles in length, respectively, into a power house on the flow line of Lake Spaulding. This and other water discharged from Lake Spaulding into the Drum System, and through the existing Drum and Dutch Flat Bower Houses, would be conveyed from the afterbay of the latter plant in a new conduit, including about six miles of canal, to the proposed Chicago Park Power House. The Chicago Park Power House would be located 0.75 mile upstream from the flow line of the proposed Rollins Reservoir, which would be created by construction of a dam on the Bear River at a site about 2.5 miles north of Colfax and immediately above the intake of the existing Bear River Canal. AVater conserved in Rollins Reservoir would be di- verted into the Bear River Canal. The plans under study for development of the Bear River also contemplate the construction of a dam and reservoir for conservation purposes at the Garden Bar site, about 10 miles east of Wheatland on the Bear River. In addition, plans have been made for an enlarged Camp Far West Dam and Reservoir at the site of the existing development, about six miles east of Wheatland on the Bear River. Truckee River Basin Features of The California Water Plan pertaining to Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River Basin will be more specifically described in a future publication of the State Water Resources Board. For present pur- poses, however, there follows a brief description of certain of the works which not only would provide supplemental water to meet the probable ultimate re- quirements of lands in Placer County, but which also would provide regulated water for other beneficial purposes both inside and outside of Placer County, and a large measure of flood control. Tentative plans for the development of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River contemplate the operation of 68 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Lake Tahoe within the presently prescribed range of lake stage of 6.1 feet provided in the Truckee River Decree and the Truckee River Agreement, except that the upper water surface elevation would be reduced from 6,229.1 feet to 6,228 feet to alleviate flood dam- age. The Truckee River Decree, the so-called "1915 Decree," on record in the office of the United States Federal Court, San Francisco, provided that the nat- ural outlet of Lake Tahoe, which is at an elevation of 6,223 feet, shall not be disturbed. The Truckee River Agreement of 1935, having as its parties the United States of America, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Washoe County Water Conservation District, and the Sierra Pacific Power Company, provided that the Lake Tahoe level shall not be permitted to rise above an elevation of 6,229.1 feet. Water conserved in Lake Tahoe would be consumed around the lake, released to the Truckee River for support of fish life, or would be diverted at a point on the northeast edge of Lake Tahoe to the proposed Washoe Reservoir in Washoe Valley in Nevada by means of the Washoe Diversion Tunnel. The Washoe Diversion Tunnel would extend northeasterly for a distance of about 3.3 miles to Franktown Creek, and to the intake of a tunnel 0.35 mile in length leading to the penstock of the proposed Franktown Power House. This power house would be located near the flow line of the proposed Washoe Reservoir, which would be created by construction of an earthfill dam on Steamboat Creek at the north end of Washoe Val- ley. In addition to storage of water diverted from Lake Tahoe, the natural runoff to Washoe Reservoir would be augmented by intercepting the flow of Thomas, Whites, and Galena Creeks, which originate on the water-productive easterly slopes of Mount Rose, southwest of Reno. Operation studies for Lake Tahoe conducted through the 53-year period from 1894-95 through 1946-47 indicate that under the foregoing plan the lake would not be drawn down below an elevation of 6,223 feet more than once during the period, and that such drawdown would have occurred after September 1st near the end of the summer recreation season. The absolute minimum level reached during the period would have been at an elevation of 6,222.1 feet, and the lake would have filled to above an elevation of 6,223 feet by the following May 1st. Under the tentative plan of operation, Lake Tahoe would yield an estimated 62,000 acre-feet of water seasonally, with no deficiency during the 53-year pe- riod. It was estimated that about 2,000 acre-feet of this seasonal yield would ultimately be consumed around the lake largely for recreational and domes- tic purposes, and that an additional 5,000 acre-feet would be released down the Truckee River for the support of fish life. Under the plan, the remaining 55,000 acre-feet of dependable seasonal supply, to- gether with a portion of the surplus water available during years of heavy runoff, would be diverted from Lake Tahoe to the Franktown Power House by means of the Washoe Diversion Tunnel. The water would be discharged from the plant for regulation and con- servation in Washoe Reservoir, and released there- from for beneficial uses in lower areas in Nevada. Tentative plans of development of the Truckee River below Lake Tahoe include construction of the proposed Stampede Dam and Reservoir, at Stampede Valley about 10 miles north of Truckee on the Little Truckee River. The natural runoff to Stampede Res- ervoir would be augmented by intercepting the flow of Cold, Donner, Trout, Alder, and Prosser Creeks. It is anticipated that seepage from the unlined por- tions of the canal intercepting these streams, plus spill from these diversions, would serve in a large measure to replenish the water-bearing sediments underlying irrigable lands in the Prosser Creek-Little Truckee River area north of Truckee. Water con- served in Stampede Reservoir would be released through a pressure tunnel about 5.7 miles in length to the penstock of the proposed New Verdi Power House, located on the Truckee River two miles up- stream from Verdi, Nevada, and would be available for beneficial uses in lower areas in Nevada. PLANS FOR INITIAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT Possible plans for initial local development of sup- plemental water supplies for Placer County, together with cost estimates, are described in this section. Design of features of the plans was necessarily of a preliminary nature and primarily for cost estimat- ing purposes. More detailed investigation, which would be required in order to prepare plans and specifications, might result in designs differing in detail from those presented in this report. However, it is believed that such changes would not result in significant modifications in estimated costs. In connection with the ensuing discussion of sur- face water development works the following terms are used as indicated : Safe Yield — The maximum sustained rate of draft from a reservoir that could have been maintained through a critically deficient water supply period to meet a given demand for water. For purposes of this bulletin, safe yield was determined on the basis of the critical period that occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35. New Safe Yield— That portion of the safe yield result- ing from a proposed new water supply develop- ment and method of operation thereof, over and above the safe yield of existing works. Irrigation Yield — The maximum sustained rate of draft from a reservoir that could bave been main- tained through a critically deficient water supply period to meet a given irrigation demand for water, PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 69 with certain specified deficiencies. For purposes of this bulletin, irrigation yield was determined on the basis of the critical period that occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35. New Water — The seasonal yield of water resulting from a proposed new water supply development and method of operation thereof, that would have been wasted without the proposed works, including all conserved water, whether available on a safe yield, irrigation yield, or other basis. Dependable Power Capacity — The minimum kilowatt capacity of the hydroelectric generating equipment when meeting an assumed load requirement. In tli is bulletin the load requirement for typical plants was assumed to have the characteristic of 5,550 kilowatt-hours per kilowatt of annual peak demand, approximately representative of the present north- ern California power market. In the case of plants located on a reservoir affording large afterbay capac- ity the load requirement was assumed to have the characteristic of 4,235 kilowatt-hours per kilowatt of annual peak demand, which approximately rep- resents the energy production of a hydroelectric plant when operated to serve a portion of the peak demand of the present northern California power market under conditions of minimum hydroelectric production. Installed Power Capacity — The kilowatt name plate rating of the hydroelectric generating equipment, In this bulletin, which deals only with high or con- stant head plants, the installed power capacity was determined as the optimum capacity which would develop the available water supply, and was taken as the capacity necessary to utilize twice the safe yield, equivalent to a minimum plant factor of 0.5. Firm Energy Output — The energy in kilowatt-hours that would have an assured availability to the cus- tomer to meet his load requirements. For purposes of this bulletin, it was determined as the energy produced by discharge of the safe yield through the hydroelectric, generating equipment. Average Energy Output — The energy in kilowatt- hours generated by the hydroelectric generating equipment, with the available water supply, that would be usable under the assumed system load. For purposes of this bulletin, all of the energy output was assumed to be usable. Capital costs of dams, reservoirs, diversion works, conduits, pumping plants, power plants, and appur- tenances included in the considered works were esti- mated from preliminary designs based largely on data from surveys made during the current investigation. Approximate construction quantities were estimated from these preliminary designs. Unit prices of con- struction items were determined from recent bid data on projects similar to those in question, or from manu- facturers ' cost lists, and are considered representative of prices prevailing in April, 1953. The estimates of capital cost included costs of rights of way and con- struction, and interest during one-half of the esti- mated construction period at both 3 and 4 per cent per annum, plus 10 per cent for engineering and 15 per cent of construction costs for contingencies. Esti- mates of annual costs included interest on the capital investment at both 3 and 4 per cent, amortization over a 50-year period on both a 3 and 4 per cent sinking fund basis, and replacement, operation, and main- tenance costs. Estimates of revenue derived from proposed hydro- electric power plants were based on an annual value of $22.00 per kilowatt of dependable power capacity, plus 2.8 mills per kilowatt-hour of average energy output, A value of 2.8 mills per kilowatt-hour also was assigned in the cases where new energy was produced by existing power plants. Because of geographical considerations and respec- tive types of water service and water supplies in the several units of Placer County, possible plans for ini- tial water development are presented separately for the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units, and for the Valley Unit. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the present and future water needs of the Yuba River and Tahoe Units are small and may be met with local small-scale conservation works. For these reasons no plans for initial local development are presented in this bulletin for these units. Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units In Chapter III it was shown that the probable ulti- mate requirement for supplemental water in the Foot- hill, American River, and Bear River Units totals about ] 60,000 acre-feet per season. The principal areas of irrigable land in these units are in the valleys and foothills of the Foothill Unit, on the watershed divide between the American and Bear Rivers, and on the Foresthill Divide between the North and Mid- dle Forks of the American River. In the following dis- cussion four plans are presented to provide additional regulatory storage capacity on the Upper Middle Yuba River, on the South Fork of the Yuba River, and on the Bear River, and for conveyance of the conserved water and its discharge through the exist- ing Milton-Bowman-Spaulding-Drum hydroelectric power system. The new water developed by these works would be made available for conveyance in existing Nevada Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company conduits for use in the Foot- hill, American River, and Bear River Units, and, if not consumed above Wise Power House, would be available for use in the Valley Unit after discharge from this plant. These plans are hereinafter referred to as the "Jackson Meadows Project," "Lake Valley 70 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Project," "Cisco Project" and "Rollins Project." The Lake Valley and Cisco Projects are alternative developments. In addition, two alternative plans are presented in- volving conservation of water in the American River Basin. The first of these plans involves construction of dams and reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Ameri- can River, Pagge Creek, and North Shirttail Canyon. The water conserved under this plan would be dis- charged through two hydroelectric power plants, and conveyed to the Foresthill Divide in the American River Unit to meet the ultimate requirements of that area. The project would also provide a large amount of new water in the North Fork of the American River at Pickering Bar. This plan is hereinafter re- ferred to as the "French Meadows Project." The sec- ond of the alternative plans would involve the con- struction of dams and reservoirs on Forbes Creek, a tributary of Forbes Creek, and North Shirttail Can- yon, and conveyance of the conserved water to the Foresthill Divide to meet the ultimate requirements of that area. This plan is hereinafter referred to as the "Foresthill Divide Project." Jackson Meadows Project. This project includes tlic diversion of water from Haypress Creek into the proposed Jackson Meadows Reservoir on the Mid- dle Fork of the Yuba River, and conveyance to and discharge of the conserved waters through the exist- ing Milton-Bowman-Spaulding-Drum hydroelectric power system. The project would provide a new safe yield of about 17,000 acre-feet per season, which could be made available in the existing Nevada Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company con- duits for use in the Valley, Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units. The project would also pro- vide about 54,000,000 kilowatt-hours of new firm energy output seasonally if all of the new safe yield were discharged through all power plants of the existing Drum System. Smaller amounts of energy would be produced, dependent upon allocation of the new water to particular water service areas above "Wise Power House. Principal features of the project are delineated on Plate 15, entitled "Jackson Meadows Project." The proposed Jackson Meadows Dam would be located on the Middle Fork of the Yuba River about two miles upstream from the existing Milton Diver- sion, in Section 18, Township 19 North, Range 13 East, M. D. B. & M. The stream bed elevation at this point is 5,865 feet. Flows of Haypress Creek would be diverted at a stream bed elevation of 6,253 feet, in Section 32, Township 20 North, Range 13 East, M. D. B. & M., and conveyed by a tunnel to Jackson .Meadows Reservoir. The waters of both Haypress Creek and the Middle Fork of the Yuba River would be released from Jackson Meadows Reservoir, and rediverted at the existing Milton Diversion into the Milton-Bowman Tunnel of the Nevada Irrigation District, from where they would flow into Bowman Lake. The waters would be discharged from Bowman Lake through the existing Bowman-Spaulding Con- duit to Lake Spaulding. From Lake Spaulding the, waters would be available for use in the Drum Sys- tem of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and to meet municipal, domestic, and agricultural water re- quirements as they occur. In subsequent descriptions of the Jackson Meadows, Lake Valley, and Cisco Projects, no specific alloca- tions of new water are made to particular service areas. The amounts of water that may be made avail- able to the Valley, Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units will depend upon the growth of water requirements and upon yield of the constructed works. It is considered probable, however, that in the case of water developed on the Upper Yuba River for use in Placer County the following general pattern of distribution would prevail : Such water as would be re-regulated in Lake Spaulding would be dis- charged either through Spaulding Power House No. 1 to the Drum Canal, or through Spauldinj}' Power House No. 2 to the Boardman Canal by way of the South Yuba Canal. However, in order to develop the maximum amount of hydroelectric energy, water would be discharged to the Boardman Canal, the sole source of supply to lands on the Colfax Divide above the Bear River Canal and Halsey Forebay, only as the water requirements develop. The remaining water, after discharge into the Drum Canal, would be con- veyed through the Drum and Dutch Flat Power Houses, and then diverted into the Bear River Canal, from which diversions Avould be made to serve scat- tered lands in the Bear River Unit as the water re- quirements develop. Remaining water in the Bear River Canal would be discharged through the Halsey Power House. From the Halsey Afterbay, from which location all lower lands in the Foothill and Valley Units can be served, a portion of the water would be diverted to the north and along the Bear River. The remaining water would be conveyed in the Wise Canal and through the Wise Power House, or diverted en- route to serve adjacent lands. Releases from the Wise Power House would be diverted downstream for use in service areas of the Nevada Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In Chapter III it was estimated that the ultimate seasonal requirement for supplemental water in the American River Unit will be about 36,000 acre-feet, The portion of, this requirement for irrigable lands on the divide between the Bear and North Fork of the American Rivers, which could be served by the Jackson Meadows Project, probably will be about 11,300 acre-feet per season. Water could be served to these lands, and to all other irripable lands in the Bear River, Foothill, and Valley Units, which have a probable ultimate seasonal supplemental water re- PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 71 quirement totaling' about 314,000 acre-feet, from the existing systems of the Nevada Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. As a first step in determination of the size of the project, estimates were made of yield of the pro- posed works for various reservoir storage capacities. It was estimated that mean seasonal runoff from the approximately 38.4 square miles of watershed above the Jackson Meadows dam site is about 79,000 acre- feet. Estimated mean seasonal runoff of Haypress Creek, from the approximately 15.9 square miles of watershed above the proposed point of diversion, is about 28.700 acre-feet. Based upon records and estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacra- mento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, monthly yield studies were made of five sizes of reservoir at the Jackson Meadows site. Demands on the reservoir were assumed to be constant, but with no diversions in August in order to permit maintenance. A sum- mary of results of the yield studies is presented in Table 49. TABLE 49 ESTIMATED SAFE SEASONAL YIELD OF JACKSON MEADOWS RESERVOIR WITH HAYPRESS DIVERSION, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Reservoir storage capacity Safe yield 22,500 32.500 45.000 52,500 62,500 33,200 39,100 45.100 47.100 49,900 After consideration of results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 45,000 acre-foot storage capacity, with estimated safe sea- sonal yield of 45,100 acre-feet, was chosen for pur- poses of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. A summary of the vield study for this size of reser- voir is included in Appendix M. Since Bowman Lake at present receives runoff from the Middle Fork of the Yuba River by means of the Milton Diversion, it was next necessary to operate the proposed Jackson Meadows Reservoir jointly with Bowman Lake in order to determine the new safe yield resulting from the Jackson Meadows Project. This method of operation indicated a new safe yield of about 17,000 acre-feet per season. It is estimated that the present capacity of 250 second-feet of the existing Bowman-Spaulding Conduit would be suffi- cient to carry the additional conserved water. Topographic data required for the calculation of storage capacities and surface areas flooded at various water surface elevations of Jackson Meadows Reser- voir were taken from an existing United States Bu- reau of Reclamation reservoir survey map, with scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet and with contour interval of 10 feet. Storage capacities of Jackson Meadows Reser- voir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 50. TABLE 50 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF JACKSON MEADOWS RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation. U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 5,865 5.900 5.920 5.940 5,960 5,980 6,000 6,010 15 80 240 450 605 825 890 35 400 55 1,250 75 4,500 95 11,500 115 22,000 135 36,500 145 45,000 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Jackson Meadows dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill dam of any height up to about 200 feet. Bedrock in the vicinity consists chiefly of a meta- sedimentary formation which is generally hard and massive. This material is part of the Milton formation of Jurassic age. Bedding attitudes can still be deter mined despite the metamorphism, and the series ap- parently strikes slightly east of north. Jointing is prominent and in sets, but joint seams are tight and relatively tin weathered. Rhyolitic lava flow T s outcrop in this vicinity and morainal deposits also occur nearby. In some cases the lavas overlie ancient stream gravels locally. Stripping from the abutments and from the channel section for the impervious section of an earth dam should not exceed three feet of jointed bedrock beneath a few feet of overburden. Some impervious fill material is available from the meadows of the reservoir area, but considerable fur- ther exploration would be necessary to determine the extent and the suitability of such deposits. Borings would have to be made, and compaction and permea- bility tests run on samples of material thus obtained as a major part of this exploration program. Coarse gravels containing some fines are available in large quantities, also from within the reservoir area. These could be used as pervious fill, or, from selected small areas, as concrete aggregate. Suitable rock which could be quarried for use either in a blanket section or as riprap is also available locally in virtually un- limited quantities. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 145 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 6,024 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Jackson Meadows 72 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Project. The dam would have a crest Length of aboul 1,530 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 2.5:1 up- stream and downstream slopes. The upstream face of the dam would be covered with coarse rock, and rip- rap would not be required. The dam would be con- structed with a rolled earth impervious core having a 10-foot crest width and 0.7 : 1 side slopes. The total volume of till would be an estimated 1,458,000 cubic yards. The chute-type spillway would be located in the right abutment around the end of the structure. It would have a capacity of 19,000 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 495 second-feet pei- square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into the Middle Fork of the Yuba River below the dam. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 10 feet, and an additional 4 feet of free- board would be provided. ( Mitlet works would consist of a 60-inch diameter welded steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in rock beneath the dam, and encased in concrete. Re- leases from the reservoir would be controlled at the upstream end of the outlet by two 48-inch diameter hydraulically controlled butterfly valves, located in a submerged inlet structure. Hydraulic control lines would extend up the face of the dam from the inlet structure to a control house located on the crest of the dam. The outlet would be controlled at the down- stream end by a 60-inch diameter hollow jet valve, discharging directly into the natural channel of the river. Several county roads and a United States Forest Service cabin would be inundated by the Jackson Meadows Reservoir. The quantity of merchantable timber within the reservoir area is estimated by the United States Forest Service to be approximately 25,000,000 board feet. The proposed Haypress diversion structure would be located in Section 32, Township 20 North, Range 13 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on Haypress Creek about 5.5 miles upstream from Sierra City. The site was examined and cross sections taken during the course of the investigation. The proposed weir would consist of a concrete gravity OA'erpour section, with a crest 160 feet in length and 12 feet in height above st ream bed. An opening at the left end of the weir would provide entrance to a side channel leading downstream about 75 feet to the headworks of the conduit. The side channel would have a concrete grav- ity parapet wall of the overpour type, and two 4- by 4-foot sluice gates would be provided for sand clear- ance. The headworks would consist of a concrete head- wall across the end of the side channel, in which there would be tw r o 5- by 5-foot slide headgates. The diver- sion conduit would consist of a tunnel, 3.0 miles in length, with a capacity of 350 second-feet. About 20 per cent of the length of the tunnel would be lined and would have a diameter of 7.0 feet. The unlined portion of the tunnel would have a diameter of 8.3 feet. The tunnel would discharge directly into Jackson Meadows Reservoir. Pertinent data with respect to the general features of the Jackson Meadows Project, as designed for cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 51. TABLE 51 GENERAL FEATURES OF JACKSON MEADOWS PROJECT .Jackson Meadows Dam Type--earthfill Crest elevation — (i,024 feet Crest length — 1,530 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 145 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 upstream and downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 14 feet Elevation of stream bed — 5,865 feet Volume of fill— 1,458,000 cubic yards Jackson Meadows Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 890 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 45,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Middle Fork of Yuba River — 38.4 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Middle Fork of Yuba River — 79,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Haypress Creek — 15.9 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Haypress Creek — 28,700 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 45,100 acre-feet Estimated new safe seasonal yield — 17,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — chute-type cut in right abutment Spillway discharge capacity — 19.000 second-feet Type of outlet — (iO-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam Diversion Works Hypress Creek — concrete gravity weir with ogee overpour section, HiO feet in length, and 12 feet in height above stream bed elevation of 0,253 feet Conduit Type — tunnel Length — 3.0 miles Portion lined — 20 per cent Diameter lined portion — 7.0 feet Diameter unlined portion — 8.3 feet Capacity — 350 second-feet Inlet elevation — oo 1 30,000.000 112.000,000 $31,239,000 $31,445,000 $1.:> 19.000 $1,780,000 S8.00 .$11.70 $0.20 $1.75 $5.40 Rollins Project. This project includes the con- struction of a dam and reservoir on the Bear River at the site of the existing Bear River Canal intake, a power house immediately upstream from the reservoir created by the dam, and a diversion works with a con- veyance canal which would divert the flow of the Bear River below the existing Dutch Flat Power House and convey it to the penstock of the proposed power house. The project would provide a new irrigation yield of about 182,000 acre-feet, which could be made available in existing and proposed conduits of the Nevada Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Elec- tric Company, for use in the Valley, Foothill, and Bear River Units of Placer County and to lands in Nevada County below about 2,000 feet in elevation. The project would also provide about 88,000,000 kilo- watt-hours of average energy output seasonally and 20,700 kilowatts of dependable power capacity from discharge of flow of the exist ing Drum System through Rollins Dam Site and Bear River Canal Intake VJ PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION the proposed Chicago Park Power House. Principal features of the project are delineated on Plate 18a, entitled "Rollins Project," The proposed Rollins Dam would be located on the Bear River about one-half mile upstream from the crossing of the highway connecting Colfax and Grass Valley, and in Seel ion 22, Township 15 North, Range 9 East, M. D. B. & M. The stream bed elevation at this point is about 1,950 feet. Inflow to the reservoir would include natural flow in the Bear River plus the regulated How of the Drum System. These waters would be diverted from the Bear River immediately below the Dutch Flat Power House tailrace and would be conveyed along the north bank of the Bear River in a lined canal and bench Hume and returned to the Bear River by discharge through the proposed Chicago Park Power House, which would be located about three-fourths of a mile upstream from the flow line of the proposed Rollins Reservoir. In subsequent descriptions of the Rollins Project no specific allocation of new water is made to particu- lar service areas. The amounts of water that may be made available to the Valley, Foothill, and Bear River Units and to adjacent service areas in Nevada County will depend upon the growth of water re- quirements and upon yield of the constructed works. It is considered probable, however, that the following general pattern of distribution would prevail during the irrigation season: Such water as would be eon- served or regulated in Rollins Reservoir would be discharged into the existing Bear River Canal. A por- tion of the water would be released therefrom to the Bear River to Combie Reservoir or a proposed conduit to Nevada County. Remaining water in the Bear River Canal would serve lands in the Bear River Unit or would be discharged through the existing Ilalsey Power House. From the Halsey Afterbay a portion of the water could be diverted to lower lands adjacent to the Bear River. The major portion would be con- veyed, as at present, in the existing Wise Canal to Rock Creek Reservoir. From Rock Creek Reservoir further diversions could be made to the Foothill Unit, The remaining water would continue in the Wise Canal and be discharged through the Wise Power House or diverted enroute to serve adjacent lands. Releases from Wise Power House would be diverted downstream for use in service areas of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Releases made to the proposed conduit to Nevada County would be on an irrigation schedule. The water would be available to lands below the 2,000- foot contour and would be served as the demand develops. During the nonirrigation season the major portion of the release from Rollins Reservoir would he available below Wise Power House for storage in foothill reservoirs. Releases made to the Bear River would insure the filling of Lake Combie to meet the (In acre-fee t) Reservoir storage capacity Irrigation yield 60,000 70,000 75,000 90,000 239,000 272,000 275,000 278.000 requirements of lands which are more readily served from that existing reservoir. In Chapter III it was estimated that the ultimate seasonal requirement for supplemental water in the Bear River, Foothill, and Valley Units will be about 314,000 acre-feet. Water from Rollins Reservoir could be served to these lands from the existing systems of the Nevada Irrigation District and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and to the previously men- tioned lands in Nevada County which have an ulti- mate supplemental water requirement of about 44,000 acre-feet. As a first step in determination of the size of the project, estimates were made of the yield of proposed works for various storage capacities. It was estimated that mean seasonal runoff from the approximately 104 square miles of watershed above the Rollins dam site is about 184,000 acre-feet, Additional inflow to the reservoir was determined from records of the Drum System of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Based upon records and estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacra- mento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, monthly yield studies were made of four sizes of reservoir at the Rollins site. Demands on the reservoir assumed use of the existing Bear River Canal to full capacity during the months of maximum irrigation demand and on a constant flow basis during the remaining months of the year. The chosen demand schedule rep- resents a compromise between hydroelectric and irri- gation demands and was selected after inspection of records of flow in the Drum System under present operating criteria. The schedule would furnish an approximately uniform discharge to Wise Power House. In each yield study 5,000 acre-feet of reservoir space was allocated to storage of debris. A summary of the results of the yield studies is | presented in Table 59. TABLE 59 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF ROLLINS RESERVOIR BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 After consideration of results of the yield studies together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 70,000 acre-foot storage capacity, with estimated irrigation yield of 272,000 acre-feet, Avas chosen for purposes of PLANS POP WATER DEVELOPMENT 83 cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. A sum- mary of the yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. Additional yield studies were made to determine the safe seasonal yield and the new safe seasonal yield of the Rollins Project. Since the flow in the Bear River at the dam site includes regulated discharge from Lake Spaulding and other upstream reservoirs, it was necessary to determine the new safe yield of the Rol- lins Project as the difference between the present safe yield of the Drum System at this point and the safe yield of the system with Rollins Reservoir in opera- tion. The present safe yield of the Drum System at this point was taken as the minimum sum of the diver- sion to Bear River Canal and the flow of Combie Ophir-Gold Hill Canal and was determined to be 90,000 acre-feet. The safe seasonal yield of the Rollins Project with a reservoir of 70,000 acre-foot storage capacity was determined to be about 225,000 acre-feet. Thus the new safe seasonal yield of the project would be about 135,000 acre-feet. It is estimated that the existing Bear River Canal, with capacity in excess of 450 second-feet, could convey the additional conserved water. Topographic data for determination of storage capacities of Rollins Reservoir at different water sur- face elevations, together with areas flooded, were taken from a United States Bureau of Reclamation reservoir survay map, with scale of 1 inch equals 800 feet and with contour interval of 10 feet, and from the Chicago Park quadrangle map with a scale of 1 inch equals 2,000 feet and with contour interval of 40 feet. Storage capacities of Rollins Reservoir and areas flooded at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 60. Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Rollins dam site is considered suitable for a con- crete gravity, earthfill, or rockfill dam of any height up to approximately 300 feet. Bedrock at the Rollins TABLE 60 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF ROLLINS RESERVOIR Depth Water surface Water Storage of water elevation, surface capacity, at dam. U.S.G.S. datum, area, in in feet in feet in acres acre-feet 1,950 25 1,975 25 100 50 2,000 80 1,500 75 2.025 150 4,700 100 2,050 235 9,500 125 2,075 310 16,500 150 2.100 410 26,000 175 2.125 545 38.400 200 2,150 710 54,200 220 2,170 2,175 900 905 70,000 225 74,800 250 2,200 1,125 100,000 275 2,225 1,395 130,600 300 2,250 1,700 169,500 325 2,275 2,090 217,000 330 2,280 2,190 228,000 site consists essentially of a highly variable greenstone, probably a meta-andesite, which occurs over the en- tire right and most of the left abutment. This rock is green in color, very hard where fresh, relatively resistant to weathering, and slightly porphyritic with a fine-grained matrix. Foliation or flow planes are generally obscure but may possibly dip steeply down- stream into the right abutment. Jointing, which is of moderate importance on the surface, can be expected to tighten rapidly with depth. A major fault of the region probably underlies the gully which crosses the abandoned railroad right of way about 300 yards northeast of the trestle. Stripping from the abutments for the impervious section of an earth dam should not exceed 3 feet of bedrock beneath a few feet of overburden. In the channel section an estimated 30 feet of river gravels would be stripped for the im- pervious section of an earthen dam but the under- lying bedrock need only be shaped. Impervious fill material is available from flats about 1 mile north- west of the dam site. These flats are partly cultivated at the present time. Large quantities of stream gravels with admixed sand are available locally for the pervious section or concrete aggregate. Suitable rock which could be quarried or salvaged from a spillway cut for use either in a blanket section or as riprap is also available locally in virtually unlimited quantities. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary economic analysis, an earthfill dam 220 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 2,185 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Rollins Project. The dam would have a crest length of about 1,100 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 3 : 1 upstream and 2.5 : 1 downstream slopes. The upstream slope of the (lain would be faced with riprap. The dam would be constructed with a rolled earth impervious core hav- ing a 10-foot crest width and 1 : 1 side slopes. The total volume of fill would be an estimated 2,789,000 cubic yards. The chute-type spillway would be located on the right abutment around the end of the dam. It would have a capacity of 35,000 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 340 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into the Bear River below the dam. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 8.75 feet and an additional 6.25 feet of freeboard would be provided. The outlet works would include a horse- shoe-type tunnel, 10 feet in diameter and 1,400 feet in length, excavated through the left abutment and concrete-lined. The tunnel would be used to divert flow of the Bear River during the construction period. After completion of the dam a concrete plug would be placed in the tunnel at a point inside the inlet portal where the rock overburden is approximately 50 feet. Immediately upstream from the concrete plug 84 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION a vertical shaft 7 feel in diameter would be cut to ground surface at an approximate elevation of 2,015 Eeet. This vertical shaft would contain the outlet con- duit, a 60-inch steel pipe encased in concrete, which would have an inlet elevation of 2,025 feet and would extend through the concrete plug into the tunnel and terminate at the Bear River Canal intake. Releases would be controlled at the upstream end by a 60-inch butterfly valve operated from within the tunnel and at the downstream end by a 48-inch hollow jet valve. The reservoir area consists of about !)()() acres, of which 400 acres are streambed or bare slopes. The remaining 500 acres would require clearing. Existing improvements within the reservoir area include about one-fourth mile of existing Highway 40 which will be realigned out of the reservoir area under an adopted freeway program. There are also 18 cabins within the reservoir area and an estimated 1 mile each of steel tower and wood pole power transmission lines. The proposed diversion works for the Chicago Park Power House on the Bear River would be located in Section 27, Township 16 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M., at stream bed elevation of 2,700 feet and about 400 feet downstream from the existing Dutch Plat Power House. The diversion weir would consist of a gravity concrete overpour section and apron. The crest of the overpour would be 15 feet in height above stream bed and some 175 feet in length. Two radial gates, each 20 feet in length and 7 feet in height, would be installed in the dam near the right abutment to permit sluicing of an approach to a side channel overpour section. The side channel overpour section would consist of a weir with a crest elevation of 2,718 feet and 200 feet in length, extend- ing upstream from the dam along the right bank of the river. Water diverted over the weir would enter a side channel 20 feet in width, 8 feet in depth below the overpour crest, and 450 feet in length, extending from the upstream end of the overpour weir to a point about 250 feet downstream from the right abutment of the dam. The side channel downstream from the dam would be provided with a wasteway to the Bear River for flows in excess of about 700 second-feet, two 5- by 5-foot slide gates at the lower end for sluicing, and a submerged right side wall to retain silt in the main side channel while allowing desilted water to spill to the right over into the headworks of a con- crete canal. The canal, with a capacity of 700 second- feet, would be of concrete construction, rectangular in section, with a bottom width of 15.3 feet, a depth of 7.65 feet, and a freeboard of 1.0 foot, and would extend along the right bank of the Bear River for a distance of 5.75 miles to the inlet of the penstock of the proposed Chicago Park Power House. The steel penstock with a diameter of 7.0 feet would have its inlet in Section 6, Township 15 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M.. at an elevation of 2,691 feet, and would extend a distance of 2,020 feet to the pro- posed Chicago Park Power House. The power house would be located at elevation 2,220 feet on the right bank of the Bear River just upstream from Steep Hollow Creek in Section 6, Township 15 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M., and would have an installed capacity of 25,000 kilowatts. Porebay storage, if desirable, could be obtained by extending the conduit by siphon, canal, and tunnel for a distance of about 3.5 miles to Poorman Creek. Under such arrangement the power house would be located on the right bank of the reservoir in Section TABLE 61 GENERAL FEATURES OF ROLLINS PROJECT Rollins Dam Type of dam — earthfill Crest elevation — 2.185 feet Crest length— 1,100 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 220 feet Side slopes, upstream — 3.0:1 downstream — 2.5:1 Freeboard above spillway lip — 15 feet Elevation of stream bed — 1,950 feet Volume of fill— 2,789,000 cubic yards Rollins Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 900 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 70,000 acre-feet Drainage area of Bear River at Rollins dam site — 104 square miles Estimated mean seasonal natural runoff of Bear River at Rollins dam site — 184,000 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 272,000 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 225,000 acre-feet Estimated new safe seasonal yield — 135,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete weir with chute-type channel Spillway discharge capacity — 35,000 second-feet Type of outlet — 60-inch diameter steel pipe supported in a 10-foot diameter tunnel, and extending through a concrete tunnel plug to a vertical intake Diversion Works Type of dam — concrete weir with gated sluiceway and overpour weir to side channel Crest elevation — 2,720 feet Crest length — 175 feet Crest width — 6 feet Height, crest above stream bed — 15 feet Side slopes, upstream — vertical downstream — .7:1 Elevation of stream bed — 2,705 feet, Volume of fill — 1,010 cubic yards Elevation of crest of weir to side channel — 2,718 feet Length of weir crest — 250 feet Conduits Item Type Length, in miles Width, in feet__ Depth, in feet Diameter, in feet Capacity, in second-feet Inlet elevation, in feet-. Outlet elevation, in feet- Chicago Park Canal Rectangular section bench flume 5.75 15.3 7.65 700 2.707 2,691 Chicago Park Power House penstock steel pipe 0.38 7.0 700 2.691 2,220 Chicago Park Power House Average static head — 477 feet Installed power capacity — 25,000 kilowatts Dependable power capacity — 20,700 kilowatts PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT s;> 12, Township 15 North. Range 9 East, M. D. B. & M. The additional facilities, although not included in the described plan, would have a capital cost of about $2,300,000 and would make available an increased pro- ductive head of about 50 feet from fluctuating reser- voir levels. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Rollins Project, as designed for cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 61. The capital costs of the Rollins Project, on both a 3 and 4 per cent interest basis and based on prices prevailing in April, 1953, were estimated to be about $9,437,000 and $9,506,000, respectively. Correspond- ing annual costs were estimated to be about $562,400 and $688,300. The resultant estimated average unit costs of the 182,000 acre-feet of new 7 irrigation sea- sonal yield, excluding consideration of possible reve- nues from power and costs of power facilities, were about $1.10 and $1.60 per acre-foot for interest rates of 3 and 4 per cent, respectively. If an annual value of $22.00 per kilowatt of de- pendable power capacity is assigned to the Chicago Park Power House and a value of 2.8 mills per kilowatt-hour is assigned to the estimated 88,000,000 kilowatt-hours of average energy output per season that would be produced by this plant, the average power revenue would amount to about $701,000, re- sulting in net annual revenues for the project of about $138,600 and $12,700, respectively, with inter- est rates of 3 and 4 per cent. Additional revenues from discharge of the new safe yield through the existing downstream power houses would amount to about $260,000. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Rollins Project on a 3 per cent basis are summarized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are pre- sented in Appendix N. Estimated Costs Capital Annual Rollins Dam and Reservoir $4,582,000 $205,500 Chicago Park Diversion 240,000 12,700 Chicago Park Canal 1,641,000 102,200 Chicago Park Power House 2,974,000 242,000 Totals $9,437,000 $562,400 French Meadows Project. This project contem- plates the construction of a reservoir on the Middle Fork of the American River and conveyance of the conserved water in a westerly direction in a conduit, consisting generally of tunnel, which would intercept and divert water from various streams enroute and would terminate in a proposed reservoir on Pagge Creek. The project, which would include construction of one other reservoir and two hydroelectric power plants, would provide water in the amount of about 25,000 acre-feet per season, largely on a safe yield basis, to meet the probable ultimate requirements of the Foresthill Divide. It would produce about 250,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours of average energy output sea- sonally, plus 39,900 kilowatts of dependable power capacity, and about 90,000 acre-feel of safe yield per season, delivered on a power demand schedule to the North Fork of the American River at Pickering Bar. It would also provide sustained minimum flows for the enhancement of fish life, wildlife, and recreation. Principal features of the project are delineated on Plates 19 and 20, entitled "French Meadows Project. Plan, Profile, and Project Area," and "French Mead- ows Project, Dams," respectively. The proposed French Meadows Dam would be coin stiucted on the Middle Fork of the American River 0.5 mile downstream from the lower end of French Meadows. A diversion structure and conduit would divert runoff from Duncan Creek southerly to French Meadows Reservoir. From the reservoir a conduit would extend westerly to the proposed Deep Canyon Power House, located at the junction of Deep and Antone Canyons. From the afterbay of the power house a conduit consisting largely of tunnel would extend in a general westerly direction to Bullion Creek, intercepting flows from Lost Canyon, Secret Canyon, El Dorado Creek, and Bullion Creek enroute. On Bullion Creek the combined flows would be di- verted into the reconditioned Breece-Wheeler Ditch, in which they would be conveyed southerly and then into a tunnel, from which they would discharge into Sugar Pine Canyon. In Sugar Pine Canyon a turnout would divert a portion of the water into the proposed Foresthill Canal, which would extend southerly to serve lands on the Foresthill Divide south of Shirttail Canyon. The remaining water would be conveyed northwesterly in the proposed Sugar Pine Canal and through a tunnel to the proposed Pagge Reservoir. Pagge Dam would be constructed on Pagge Creek about 7 miles north of the town of Foresthill. The proposed Sugar Pine Dam would be constructed ad- jacent to and north of Pagge Reservoir at a site in North Shirttail Canyon below the mouth of Sugar Pine Creek. Additional water conserved in the exist- ing Big Reservoir would be released to flow into Sugar Pine Reservoir. The spill from Sugar Pine Res- ervoir would flow into Pagge Reservoir through a cut made in a saddle on the ridge between the two reser- voirs. Downstream releases of water would be made from Sugar Pine Reservoir to the proposed Iowa Hill Canal, which would extend southwesterly to provide water to serve lands north of Shirttail Canyon and below an elevation of about 3.400 feet. Higher lands north of Shirttail Canyon would be served from Sugar Pine Reservoir by pumping. Water discharged from Pagge Reservoir would be conveyed northwesterly in a pipe conduit, and into a pressure tunnel to the penstock of the proposed Pick- ering Bar Power House. Sugar Pine Reservoir won hi also be connected with the pressure tunnel by means of a pipe conduit. The power house would be located Nli PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION on the left bank of the North Fork of the American River at Pickering- Bar. In Chapter III it was estimated that the probable ultimate requirement for supplemental water in the American River Unit will be about 27,000 acre-feet per season. The estimated portion of this requirement for lands on the Foresthill Divide will be about 18,500 acre-feet per season. In design of the French Meadows Project it was considered desirable to plan to meet this supplemental requirement fully. As a first step in determination of the size of the French Meadows Project, estimates were made of yield of the proposed works for various reservoir storage capacities. To accomplish this, estimates were made of mean seasonal runoff of watersheds above the various dam sites and diversion points. These esti- mates are shown in Table 62. TABLE 62 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL RUNOFF AT DAM SITES AND DIVERSION POINTS OF FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT TABLE 63 ESTIMATED SEASONAL YIELD OF FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Mean Drainage Stream Location seasonal runoff, in area, in square acre-feet miles Duncan Creek .. .. at diversion 24,000 9.2 Middle Fork of American River site_ 112,000 47 . 5 51,000 24.9 Secret Canyon . 16,000 8.7 El Dorado Creek at diversion 9,100 5.5 Bullion Creek . ■ at diversion at Pagge dam site at Sugar Pine dam site 8,400 5.0 North Shirttail Canyon... 13,000 7.8 Tributary to Forbes Creek 2,500 1.5 Based on estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, monthly yield studies were made of the French Meadows Project with two sizes of reservoir at French Meadows. Monthly water demands for the Deep Canyon and Pickering Bar Power Houses were assumed to be proportional to estimated distribution of hydroelectric power de- mands, as presented in Table 39. Monthly demands for water from the Foresthill Canal, and from Sugar Pine and Big Reservoirs, were assumed to be propor- tional to the estimated monthly distribution of de- mand of the Nevada Irrigation District, as presented in Table 47. A summary of the results of the yield studies is presented in Table 63. After consideration of the results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam sites and Yield Storage capacity, French Meadows Reservoir* 50,000 74,000 Safe seasonal yield From French Meadows — Pagge Conduit To Deep Canvon Power House . To Foresthill Canal __ __ _.. ___ 54,000 17,500 78,000 3,400 3,800 5,800 64,000 17,500 From Pagge Reservoir To Pickering Bar Power House Seasonal irrigation yield From Sugar Pine Reservoir** To Iowa Hill Canal 89.000 3,400 To Iowa Hill Pumping Plant and Pipe Line To Pickering Bar Power House 3,800 5,800 * Other reservoirs of the French Meadows Project would have capacities as follows: Pagge Reservoir, till. 000 acre-feet; Sugar Pine Reservoir, 10,000 acre-feet; Big Reservoir, 2, 'Jim acre-feet. ** Includes 1.500 acre-feet per season attributable to Big Reservoir. cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 74,000 acre-foot storage capacity at French Meadows, operated in conjunction with Pagge Reservoir with a capacity of 69,000 acre-feet, Sugar Pine Reservoir with a capacity of 10,000 acre-feet, and existing Big Reservoir with a capacity of 2,200 acre-feet, was chosen for purposes of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. A summary of the project yield study for these sizes of reservoirs is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that return flow from the applica- tion of irrigation waters would be recovered in quanti- ties sufficient to equal the conveyance losses, and that an average irrigation efficiency of 75 per cent would prevail. From this, it was estimated that 25 per cent of the seasonal irrigation supply of 24,700 acre-feet per season, or about 6,200 acre-feet, would be irre- coverably lost. The remaining 18,500 acre-feet per season of water for irrigation would be available to TABLE 64 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMANDS FOR WATER FROM FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT (In acre-feet) Month Pow r er generation, Deep Canyon Power House Irrigation, Foresthill Divide Power generation. Pickering Bar Power House October November December January February March 5,500 4,800 5,300 5,200 4.600 5,200 5,200 5,400 5,500 ill 5,900 5,400 1,700 600 500 500 200 200 700 3,000 4,000 4.900 4,700 3,700 7,700 6,700 7,500 7.300 6,500 7,200 7,300 Mav 7.600 7,800 July 8,500 8,300 September 7.600 TOTALS 64,000 24,700 90,000 PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT meet the probable ultimate requirements of some 13,100 net irrigable acres on the Foresthill Divide. These lands are presently unirrigated and lie within the service area shown on Plate 18. Based on the fore- going assumptions and estimates, monthly demands on the French Meadows Project would be as shown in Table 64. The various features of the French Meadows Proj- ect are described in some detail in the following sec- tions. (1) French Meadows Dam and Reservoir. The proposed French Meadows Dam would be located in Section 36, Township 15 North, Range 13 East, M. D. B. &M., at a site on the Middle Fork of the American River at a stream bed elevation of 5,010 feet, about 20 miles east of Foresthill and about 0.5 mile downstream from the lower end of French Meadows. A topographic map of the dam and reser- voir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 800 feet, and with contour interval of 10 feet, was furnished by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Storage capac- ities of French Meadows Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 65. TABLE 65 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF FRENCH MEADOWS RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 30 50 70 90 110 5,010 5,040 5,060 5,080 5,100 5,120 5,140 5,160 5,180 5,200 5,210 1 10 50 200 370 540 700 850 980 1,050 20 300 1,200 3,600 8.000 130 150 170 190 200 17,500 30,600 46,000 64,000 74,000 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the French Meadows dam site is considered suitable for a concrete gravity or rockfill dam up to a maxi- mum height in excess of 500 feet. Foundation rock at the site is a granite which is basic in composition and which has been jointed into great, massive blocks. These joints apparently extend to considerable depth. Spading in thick and extensive sheets is common. There is a tendency for talus piles to accumulate at the base of steep slopes. Glacial till occurs in scattered patches on both abutments. The abutment slopes are inconsistent, being disrupted by several old bench levels, and average only between 15 and 30 per cent. The channel width is approximately 100 feet. Strip- ping of about 3 feet of soil, till, and loose rock from the channel section would be necessary to prepare a suitable foundation for a rockfill dam. About 8 feet of stripping on the abutments, and 6 feet in the chan- nel section would be necessary to prepare the same foundation for a concrete gravity dam. The flats of French Meadows are covered almost entirely by old and slightly silty gravels. Glaciers have stripped the soil cover from the surrounding hills in comparatively recent geologic times, and there is now no supply of earth suitable for impervious fill con- struction in the vicinity. The granitic rock could be quarried locally for use as riprap, and possibly also in some selected locations for use in a rockfill section. Gravel and sand from the reservoir area flats could be used in a pervious fill, or for aggregate after washing. There are no low saddles in the reservoir area. The spillway, therefore, would either have to be of an overpour type, or placed around the end of the struc- ture across either abutment. With a side-channel spill- way, only light lining would be necessary in the spillway channel where cut into the hard granitic bed- rock. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary economic analysis, a rockfill dam 200 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 5,220 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the French Meadows Dam and Reservoir. The dam would have a crest length of 1,500 feet, a crest width of 20 feet, and 1.4 :1 upstream and 1.5:1 downstream slopes. The upstream impervious face of the dam would be formed by a 12- inch to 24-inch blanket of concrete. The dam would be constructed of rock obtained from a quarry adja- cent to the dam site, and would have an estimated volume of fill of 1,165,000 cubic yards. The concrete weir spillway would be excavated in rock through the left abutment of the dam. It would have a capacity of 17,400 second-feet, determined from a flood routing study assuming a once-in-l,000-year flood, with a discharge of 500 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into the Middle Fork of the American River below the dam. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. The outlet works would include a horseshoe-type tunnel, 8 feet in diameter and 700 feet in length, ex- cavated through the right abutment and concrete- lined. The tunnel would be used to divert flow of the Middle Fork of the American River during the con- struction period. After completion of the dam a con- crete plug would be placed in the tunnel at a point just upstream from the concrete facing of the dam, and a 5.5- by 5.5-foot, high-pressure slide gate would be installed to control releases from the reservoir. A 66-inch diameter steel pipe would convey the water through the tunnel, and would terminate in a 60- inch diameter butterfly valve at the tunnel portal. This valve would control discharges into the French PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Meadows-Deep Canyon Conduit. A 48-inch diameter hollow jet valve also would be installed in the steel outlet pipe at the tunnel portal, and would permit discharge directly into the Middle Fork of the Ameri- can River. "Within the area inundated by French Meadows Reservoir are located a Forest Service cabin and garage, two small campgrounds, and a private cabin. A portion of the Georgetown-Soda Springs road would also be inundated and would require relocation. This probably could best be accomplished by constructing a new road which would cross the Middle Fork of the American River on the crest of the proposed dam and would extend about 2 miles along the north shore of the proposed reservoir. This realignment would con- nect with the existing road near the east quarter corner of Section 29, T. 15 N, R. 14 E., M. D. B. & M. The United States Forest Service estimates the quan- tity of merchantable timber within the proposed reser- voir to be approximately 35,000,000 board feet. Access to this timber could be had by extending an existing lo»gino' road which extends from Foresthill to within 1 mile of the proposed dam. (2) Duncan Creel- Diversion and Conduit. The proposed diversion works on Duncan Creek would be located in Section 24, Township 15 North, Range 13 East, M. D. B. & M., at a stream bed elevation of 5,390 feet. The diversion weir would consist of a con- crete gravity overpour section and apron, 25 feet in height above stream bed and some 30 feet in length. An opening at the left end of the weir would provide entrance to a side channel leading downstream about 75 feet to the headworks of the conduit. The side channel would have a concrete gravity parapet wall of the overpour type, and two 2- by 2-foot sluice gates would be provided for sand clearance. The head- works would consist of a concrete headwall across the end of the side channel, with two 4- by 4-foot slide gates and a trash rack. The conduit, with a capacity of 100 second-feet, would include about 2.4 miles of shotcrete-lined, trapezoidal section canal, with 3-foot bottom width, 0.5 : 1 side slopes, and water depth of 4 feet. It would also include about 0.4 mile of unlined tunnel, with a diameter of 8.3 feet. The conduit would discharge at an elevation of 5,210 feet into French Meadows Reser- voir. (3) French Meadows-Deep Canyon Conduit. Water from French Meadows Reservoir would be discharged directly into the proposed French Mead- ows-Deep Canyon Conduit. With a capacity of 200 second-feet, tins conduit would consist of 5.6 miles of pressure tunnel, with diameters of 8.3 feet and 7.0 feet for the unlined and lined portions, respectively, and 0.42 mile of steel pipe siphon with diameter of 7.0 feet. It was estimated that about 20 per cent of the tunnel would he concrete-lined. Tins conduit would discharge into the penstock of Deep Canyon Power House. (4) Deep Canyon Power House. The steel pen- stock of this power house would have a steel surge tower at its inlet. The penstock, with an inlet eleva- tion of 4,910 feet, would have a diameter varying from 7.2 to 6.0 feet, a capacity of 200 second-feet, and would be 2,450 feet in length. The power house would be located on the right bank of Deep Canyon, at the junction of Deep and Antone Canyons, in Section 25, Township 15 North, Range 12 East, M. D. B. & M.. at an elevation of 4,020 feet. The plant would operate under an average static head of about 1,150 feet, and would have an installed power capacity of 15,000 kilowatts. (5) Deep Canyon Diversion and Conduit. Water discharged from Deep Canyon Power House would be rediverted from Deep Canyon immediately down- stream, together with water from Deep Canyon and Antone Creek. The diversion works would create the afterbay of the power house, and would be located at a stream bed elevation of 4,000 feet, immediately below the junction of Deep Canyon and Antone Creek. The proposed diversion weir would consist of a concrete gravity overpour section and apron, 20 feet in height above stream bed and some 65 feet in length. An opening at the right end of the weir would provide entrance to a side channel leading down- stream about 75 feet to the headworks of the conduit. The side channel would have a concrete gravity para- pet wall of the overpour type, and two 2- by 2-foot sluice gates would be provided for sand clearance. The headworks would consist of a concrete headwall across the end of the side channel, equipped with two 5- by 5-foot slide gates and a trash rack. The conduit, with capacity of 400 second-feet, would con- sist of a 7-foot diameter steel pipe line for the first 0.1 mile. Water from the pipe line would discharge into a tunnel, 0.7 mile in length, and thence into Lost Canyon at a stream bed elevation of 3,983 feet. It was estimated that about 20 per cent of the tunnel would be lined. Diameter of the lined section would be 7.5 feet, and of the unlined section, 9.0 feet. (6) Lost Canyon Diversion and Tunnel. Water discharged from Deep Canyon Tunnel into the natu- ral channel of Lost Canyon would be rediverted im- mediately downstream, together with flow from Lost Canyon, and would be conveyed in the Lost Canyon Tunnel to Secret Canyon. The diversion works on Lost Canyon would be located at a stream bed eleva- tion of 3,960 feet. The proposed diversion weir would be located in Section 23, Township 15 North, Range 12 East, M. D. B. & M., and would consist of a con- crete gravity overpour section and apron, 20 feet in height above stream bed and some 30 feet in length. Remaining features of the weir and side channel would be similar to those described for Deep Canyon. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 89 The conduit would consist entirely of tunnel, with a capacity of 400 second-feet, and would be about 1.3 miles in length. Its inlet elevation would be 3,970 feet, and it would discharge into Secret Canyon at a stream bed elevation of 3,955 feet. An estimated 10 per cent of the tunnel would be eoncrete-lined. The lined section would have a diameter of 7.5 feet, and the unlined section. 9.0 feet. (7) Secret Canyon Diversion and Tunnel. Water discharged from Lost Canyon Tunnel into the natural channel of Secret Canyon would be rediverted imme- diately downstream, together with flow from Secret Canyon, and would be conveyed in the Secret Canyon Tunnel to El Dorado Creek. The diversion works on Secret Canyon would be located at a stream bed ele- vation of 3,935 feet. The proposed diversion weir would consist of a concrete gravity overpour section and apron, 20 feet in height above stream bed and some 90 feet in length. Remaining features of the weir and side channel would he similar to those described for Deep Canyon. The conduit would consist entirely of tunnel, with a capacity of 450 second-feet, and would be about 2.8 miles in length. Its inlet elevation would be 3,945 feet, and it would discharge into El Dorado Creek at a stream bed elevation of 3,900 feet. An estimated 10 per cent of the tunnel would be concrete-lined. The lined section would have a diameter of 7.9 feet, and the unlined section, 9.4 feet. (8) El Dorado Creek Diversion and Tunnel. Water discharged from Secret Canyon Tunnel into the natu- ral channel of El Dorado Creek would be rediverted immediately downstream, together with flow from El Dorado Creek, and would be conveyed in the El Dor- ado Creek Tunnel to Bullion Creek. The diversion works on El Dorado Creek would be located at a stream bed elevation of 3,860 feet. The proposed di- version weir would consist of a concrete gravity over- pour section and apron, 30 feet in height above stream bed and some 30 feet in length. Remaining features of the weir and side channel would be similar to those described for Deep Canyon. The conduit would consist entirely of tunnel, with a capacity of 500 second-feet, and would be about 1.8 miles in length. Its inlet elevation would be 3,880 feet, and it would discharge into Bullion Creek at a stream bed elevation of 3,832 feet. An estimated 10 per cent of the tunnel would be concrete-lined. The lined section would have a diameter of 8.5 feet, and the unlined section, 10.0 feet. (9) Bullion Creek Diversion and Conduit. Water discharged from the El Dorado Creek Tunnel into the natural channel of Bullion Creek would be redi- verted immediately downstream, together with flow from Bullion Creek, into the Bullion Creek Conduit. The water would be conveyed in the conduit for a distance of about 4.2 miles, where a portion would be diverted for use on the Forest hill Divide, while the remainder would be discharged into Sugar Pine Can- yon. The diversion works on Bullion Creek would be located at a stream bed elevation of 3,818 feet at the site of the diversion of the abandoned Breece-Wheeler Ditch. The proposed diversion weir would consist of a concrete gravity overpour section and apron, 20 feet in height above stream bed and some 30 feet in length. Remaining features of the weir and side channel would be similar to those described for Deep Canyon. For the first 1.6 miles the conduit, with a capacity of 500 second-feet, would consist of concrete-lined canal and flume following the alignment of the Breece- Wheeler Ditch. This canal would discharge into the Bullion Creek Tunnel at an iidet elevation of 3,790 feet. The tunnel, with a capacity of 500 second-feet, would be about 2.6 miles in length, and would dis- charge into Sugar Pine Canyon at an elevation of 3,660 feet. An estimated 10 per cent of the tunnel would be concrete-lined. The lined section would have a diameter of 8.5 feet, and the unlined section, 10.0 feet, (10) Foresthill Canal. About 17,500 acre-feet of the water discharged seasonally from the Bullion Creek Tunnel into Sugar Pine Canyon would be diverted into the Foresthill Canal to serve about 9,300 acres of irrigable land on the Foresthill Divide south of Shirttail Canyon. The Foresthill Canal would be about 7.6 miles in length, shotcrete-lined, and of trapezoidal section, with 1 : 1 side slopes. At the intake it would have a bottom width of 3.0 feet, depth of 2.4 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 13.5 feet per mile, its velocity about 6.0 feet per second, and at the intake its capacity would be about 75 second-feet. The canal would ter- minate in Section 18, Township 14 North, Range 11 East, M. D.,B. & M. Releases of water for use on the Foresthill Divide would be made along the canal and at its terminus. Detailed design of works for distribu- tion of the water was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. (Hi Sugar Pirn Canal. Water discharged from the Bullion Creek Tunnel into Sugar Pine Canyon would be diverted into the Foresthill Canal, or con- veyed in the Sugar Pine Canal to be discharged through Pagge Reservoir Tunnel into Pagge Reser- voir. The Sugar Pine Canal would have a length of 0.7 mile, a capacity of 500 second-feet, and would be shotcrete-lined. It would be of trapezoidal section, with a bottom width of 7 feet. 1 : 1 side slopes, depth of 6.4 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. (12) Pagge Reservoir Tunnel. Pagge Reservoir Tunnel, with a capacity of 500 second-feet, woiild be 0.8 mile in length, and would discharge into Pagge Reservoir at an elevation of 3,640 feet. The tunnel inlet elevation would be 3,657 feet. An estimated 10 per cent of the tunnel would be concrete-lined. The 90 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION lined section would have a diameter of 8.5 feet, and the nnlined section, 10.0 feet. (13) Pagge Dam and Reservoir. The proposed Pagge Dam would he located in Section 25, Township 15 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on Pagge Creek at a stream bed elevation of 3,360 feet, about 7 miles north of Foresthill. An auxiliary dam would be required across a low saddle about 2, 500 feet upstream from the left abutment. A topo- graphic map of the Pagge dam and reservoir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 500 feet and with contour interval of 10 feet, was prepared in 1952 by the Divi- sion of Water Resources by photogrammetric meth- ods. Storage capacities of Pagge Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 66. TABLE 66 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF PAGGE RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum. in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet . . 3,360 3,380 3,420 3,460 3,500 3,540 3,580 3,620 3,640 3 21 90 210 350 460 570 630 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 280 200 500 2,800 8,600 19,800 36.200 57.000 69,000 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Pagge dam site is considered suitable for an earth- fill, rockfill, or concrete gravity dam up to a height of about 280 feet, where the reservoir would spill over the south rim into Snail Canyon. Foundation rock in the vicinity of the site consists of a dark-colored, fine- grained, hard amphibolite schist. No serpentine was noted at the axis, although a contact with a large ser- pentine zone occurs just upstream therefrom, and serpentine outcrops widely throughout most of the reservoir area. At least two prominent joint sets occur here. However, the joint seams are relatively tight, and no faults or shears of consequence have been found. Quartz veining occurs along many of the planes of schistosity. The abutment slopes average 60 to 80 per cent. Stripping of an average of 3 feet of soil and loose rock, and 6 feet of jointed bedrock from the abutments; and 3 feet of gravel and boul- ders, and 4 feet of jointed bedrock from the channel section would be necessary beneath an impervious sec- tion of a fill-type dam. Earthfill occurs locally in sufficient quantity for use in construction of an impervious fill at this site, but the material is far from being of best quality. The local bedrock is suitable for quarrying for any ordinary construction use. Local supplies of aggre- gate are thin and laden with detritus, so crushing or importation to the vicinity from outside sources might prove desirable. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, a rockfill dam 280 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 3,650 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of Pagge Dam and Reser- voir. The clam would have a crest length of about 950 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 2:1 upstream and downstream slopes. The impervious section would have a crest width of 10 feet and 0.8 :1 side slopes. The dam would have an estimated volume fill of 2,791,000 cubic yards. The auxiliaiy dam would be an impervious earth- fill structure, with maximum height of abotit 40 feet. Its crest length would be about 770 feet, its crest width 20 feet, and its side slopes 2:1. The auxiliary dam would have an estimated volume of fill of 41,400 cubic yards. The concrete weir spillway would be located in an open cut through the ridge adjacent to the auxiliary dam above the left abutment. It would have a capac- ity of 6,800 second-feet, determined from a flood rout- ing study assuming a once-in-1, 000-year flood with a discharge of 690 second-feet per square mile of the combined drainage areas above Pagge, Sugar Pine, and Big Reservoirs, and would discharge into Snail Canyon. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. The outlet works would consist of a 72-inch diam- eter welded steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in rock beneath the right abutment of the dam and encased in concrete, and would discharge directly into the Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit. Releases from the reservoir would be controlled at the downstream end by a 4- by 4-foot hydraulieally controlled high-pres- sure slide gate. A 48-inch diameter hollow jet valve at the downstream end of the outlet pipe would per- mit discharge directly into Pagge Creek. The proposed reservoir would inundate the Pinning Mill Road and the Marall Chrome Mine. (14) Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir. The pro- posed Sugar Pine Dam would be located in Section 24. Township 15 North. Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M.j at a site on North Shirttail Canyon at a stream bed elevation of 3,510 feet and adjacent to the proposed Pagge Dam and Peservoir, previously described. A topographic map of the Sugar Pine dam and reser- voir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 500 feet and with contour interval of 10 feet, was prepared in 1952 by the Division of Water Resources by photogrammetric methods. Storage capacities of Sugar Pine Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 67. Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Sugar Pine dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill or rockfill dam up to a height of about 15(1 PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 91 TABLE 67 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF SUGAR PINE RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam. in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area. in acres Storage capacity. in acre-feet 10 30 50 __ 7(1 90 110 3,510 3,520 3,540 3,560 3,580 3,600 3,620 3,640 3,641 3.660 3,670 3,680 3 12 35 85 120 154 197 202 247 272 300 30 180 660 1 ,900 3,600 6,300 130 131 150 160 170 9,800 10.000 14,300 17,000 18.800 feet, where the reservoir would spill over the rim to the south into the proposed Pagge Reservoir. Two additional saddle dams, however, would permit an in- crease in the height up to about 170 feet. Foundation rook at the site consists of a lightly metamorphosed ultrabasic igneous rock. Flow structures are still in evidence throughout the mass, with phenocrysts of hornblende orientated along the flow planes. The lat- ter closely resemble bedding planes. They stand nearly vertical, and strike across the channel and slightly upstream on the left abutment, Serpentine does not appear to be as closely associated with the ultrabasic rock here as elsewhere in the vicinity. Minor separation occurs along surficially opened joints, but these probably tighten rapidly with depth. Stripping of about 6 feet of soil and 2 feet of bed- rock from under an impervious section would be nec- essary on the abutments. About 3 feet of silt and 1 foot of bedrock would have to be removed from the channel section. The spillway could be placed through the aforementioned saddle into Pagge Reser- voir, which, in turn, would spill over another saddle farther south into Snail Canyon. Much of the exposed bedrock in the reservoir area is serpentinous, although none was noted at the dam site. There is a large quantity of red clayey soil within the reservoir area which could probably be used in construction of an impervious fill. This soil may con- tain a high percentage of fines and probably is of light density, but nevertheless should be usable to some degree with or without blending. Local bedrock could be quarried for roekfill or riprap or for crush- ing to aggregates if needed. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 131 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 3,650 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir. The dam would have a crest length of about 620 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 3:1 up- stream and 2:1 downstream slopes. The upstream face of the dam would be protected by a 3-foot blanket of riprap. The dam would have an estimated volume of fill of 656,000 cubic yards. The unlined earth cut spillway would be located in a saddle 1.3 miles upstream from the main dam on the left bank. It would have a capacity of 4,700 sec- ond-feet, required for an assumed maximum dis- charge of 600 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into Pagge Reservoir. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 5 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works would consist of a 72-inch diameter steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated beneath the right abutment of the dam and encased in concrete. The outlet would be controlled at the downstream end by a 4- by 4-foot high-pressure slide gate, and would discharge at an elevation of 3,515 feet directly into the Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit, A 48-inch diameter hollow jet valve at the downstream end of the outlet pipe would also permit discharge directly into North Shirttail Canyon for downstream diver- sion into the Iowa Hill Canal. Sugar Pine Reservoir would inundate the dirt road and bridge over Shirttail Creek and the campground downstream from the bridge. The reservoir area has a light to moderate forest cover, although there are few salvageable trees since the area has generally either been logged out in the past or burned over. (15) Big Reservoir. Big Reservoir is created by the Morning Star Dam, which was constructed in 1870 and is owned by the McGeachin Placer Gold Mining- Company. The dam is a hydraulic fill structure about 39 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and is located at a stream bed elevation of 4,026 feet on a tributary of Forbes Creek, in Section 17, Township 15 North, Range 11 East, M. D. B. & M., some 8 miles northeast of Poresthill. The dam has a crest length of 835 feet, a crest width of 18 feet, and 2 :1 upstream and downstream slopes. The reservoir has a capacity of 2,200 acre-feet. There is a concrete-lined spillway placed in the right abutment of the dam. The outlet works include a 3.5- by 6.0-foot unlined tunnel, and hand-operated lift gates. The outlet tunnel discharges directly into the stream channel below the dam. Runoff from its own watershed conserved in Big Res- ervoir would be released to flow downstream for a distance of about 3 miles to the proposed Sugar Pine Reservoir, where the water would be re-regulated and released for beneficial use. (16) Iowa Hill Canal. About 3,400 acre-feet of the water released seasonally from Sugar Pine Reser- voir would be diverted into the natural channel of North Shirttail Canyon at a point immediately down- stream from the dam. The water would be conveyed in the channel for a distance of about 0.5 mile, where it would be diverted into the Iowa Hill Canal. The diver- 92 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION sion works on North Shirttail Canyon would be lo- cated at a stream bed elevation of 3,440 feet. The proposed diversion weir would consist of a concrete gate structure about 30 feet in width, with flash- boards. A diversion box at the right end of the struc- ture would provide entrance to the conduit. The diver- sion box would have a 4- by 5-foot slide gate. The Iowa Hill Canal would serve about 1,760 acres of irrigable land on the Foresthill Divide north of Shirttail Canyon and below an elevation of about 3,400 feet. The canal would be about 6.8 miles in length, shotcrete-lined, and would have a capacity of about 15 second-feet at its intake. It would be of trapezoidal section, with 1.5:1 side slopes, and at its intake would have a bottom width of 2 feet, depth of 1.4 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 5 feet per mile, and its velocity about 2.6 feet per second. Detailed design of works for dis- tribution of the water was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. (17) Iowa Hill Pumping Plant and Pipe Line. About 3,800 acre-feet of the water released seasonally from Sugar Pine Reservoir would be pumped in a series of three lifts to serve about 2,000 acres of irri- gable land on the Foresthill Divide between elevations of about 3,400 feet and 4,000 feet. The site for the diversion and the first pumping plant, as selected for cost estimating purposes, is at a point immediately downstream from Sugar Pine Dam. The first pump would divert directly from the Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit, at an elevation of 3,515 feet, and would lift the water 85 feet to a sump. A portion of the water would be diverted from the sump for gravity conveyance and distribution to adjacent lower lands. Two additional pumps would lift the remaining water to sumps at elevations of 3,800 and 4,000 feet, respec- tively, for diversion, conveyance, and distribution to other adjacent lands. Detailed design of works for con- veyance and distribution of the water was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. (18) Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit. Water con- served in Pagge Reservoir would be discharged into the Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit and conveyed to the Pickering- Bar Tunnel. The conduit, with an inlet TABLE 68 GENERAL FEATURES OF FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT French Meadows Dam Type — rockfill Crest elevation — 5,220 feet Crest length— 1,500 feet ( Irest width— 20 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 200 feet Side slopes — 1.4:1 upstream 1.5:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 5,010 feet Volume of fill — 1,165,000 cubic yards French Meadows Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 1,010 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 74,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Middle Fork of American River — 47.5 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Middle Fork of American River — 112,000 acre-feet Estimated mean seasonal diversion from Duncan Creek — 16,000 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 64,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — chute behind left abutment, with concrete weir control and unlined channel Spillway discharge capacity — 17,400 second-feet Type of outlet — 8 foot diameter pressure tunnel and 66-inch diameter steel pipe, through right abutment Pagge Dam Type — rockfill Crest elevation — 3,650 feet Crest length— 950 feet Crest width — 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 280 feet Side slopes — pervious 2:1 impervious 0.8:1 Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 3,363 feet Volume of fill— 2,791,000 cubic yards Auxiliary earthfill dam Crest length— 770 feet Crest width— 20 feet Side slopes — 2:1 Maximum height — 40 feet Volume of fill — 41.000 cubic yards Pagge Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 600 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 69,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Pagge Creek — 5 square miles Pagge Reservoir — continued Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Pagge Creek — 6,200 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield from Pagge Creek, plus water imported in conduit from French Meadows Conduit — 84,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete weir in open cut Spillway discharge capacity — 6,800 second-feet Type of outlet — 72-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam Sugar Pine Dam Type — earthfill Crest elevation — 3,650 feet Crest length— 620 feet Crest width — 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 131 feet Side slopes — 3:1 upstream 2:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 9 feet Elevation of stream bed — 3,510 feet Volume of fill — 656,000 cubic yards Sugar Pine Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 202 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 10,000 acre-feet Drainage area, North Shirttail Canyon — 7.8 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, North Shirttail Canyon — 13,000 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 9,500 acre-feet Type of spillway — earth cut Spillway discharge capacity — 4,700 second-feet Type of outlet — 6-foot diameter steel pipe beneath dam Existing Morning Star Dam and Big Reservoir Type — hydraulic fill Crest elevation — 4,070 feet Crest length— 835 feet Crest width— 18 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 39 feet Side slopes — 2:1 Elevation of stream bed — 4,026 feet Storage capacity at spillway lip — 2,200 acre-feet Drainage area above reservoir — 1.5 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff above reservoir — 2,500 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 1,500 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete-lined Type of outlet — 3.5- by 6.0-foot unlined tunnel with hand-operated lift gates PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 93 TABLE 68— Continued GENERAL FEATURES OF FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT Conduits Type Length, in miles Capacity, in second- feet Diameter, in feet Percentage lined [nlet elevation, in feet Outlet elevation, in feet Name Concrete- lined and supported TJnlined 2.4 0,4 5.6 0.42 0.17 0.7 1.3 2.8 1.8 0.9 0.7 2.6 0.8 0.83 0.34 1.7 100 100 200 200 400 400 400 450 500 500 500 500 500 300 300 300 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.9 8.5 8.5 8.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 8.3 8.3 9.0 9.0 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 "o 20 20 10 10 10 100 10 10 100 5,400 5,035 4,010 3,970 3,945 3,880 3,818 3,790 3,657 3,400 3,515 3,390 5 210 French Meadows-Deep Canyon Conduit- tunnel steel siphon steel pipe line. tunnel tunnel tunnel . ... tunnel 4,910 Lost Canyon Tunnel . Secret Canyon Tunnel El Dorado Creek Tunnel 3,983 3,955 3.900 3,832 3,790 3,660 3,640 3,390 3,390 3,366 Pagge Reservoir Tunnel Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit.. Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Con- duit Pickering Bar Tunnel tunnel tunnel steel pipe line steel pipe line tunnel .. Name Type Length, in miles Capacity, in second- feet Side slopes Bottom width, in feet Depth, in feet Free- board, in feet Slope, in feet per mile Velocity, in feet per second Inlet eleva- tion, in feet Outlet eleva- tion, in feet Foresthill Canal Sugar Pine Canal Iowa Hill Canal trapezoidal shotcrete- lined section trapezoidal she terete- lined section . _ trapezoidal shotcrete- lined section _ . _ 7.6 0.7 6.8 75 500 15 1:1 1:1 1.5:1 3.0 7.0 2.0 2.4 6,4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 13.2 3.7 5.0 6.0 6.0 1.6 3,660 3,660 3,440 3,657 Sugar Pine Pumping Plant and Pipe Line Pumps First stage — double suction, centrifugal type, 16 second-foot capacity Second stage — double suction, centrifugal type, 10 second-foot capacity Third stage — double suction, centrifugal type, 3 second-foot capacity Intake elevation, first stage — 3,515 feet Discharge elevation, third stage — 4,000 feet Pumping lifts First stage — 85 feet Second stage— 200 feet Third stage— 200 feet Sugar Pine Pumping Plant and Pipe Line — Continued Motors First stage — 300 horsepower Second stage — 300 horsepower Third stage — 125 horsepower Estimated gross seasonal diversion — 4,800 acre-feet Discharge lines — 12-inch diameter for first and second stages, 6-inch diameter for third stage, welded steel, placed in trench Power Houses Name Inlet elevation of penstock, in feet Tailrace elevation, in feet Average static head, in feet Installed power capacity, in kilo- watts Dependable power capacity, in kilo- watts 4,910 3,366 4,020 1,486 1,150 2,100 15,000 37,000 11,300 Pickering Bar Power House 28,600 94 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION elevation of 3,400 feet, would consist of a steel pipe, 6 feet in diameter, 0.83 mile in length, and with a capacity of 300 second-feet. It would discharge at an elevation of 3,390 feet into the Pickering Bar Tunnel. (19) Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit. Water would be released from Sugar Pine Reservoir directly into the Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit. With an inlet elevation of 3,515 feet, the conduit would con- sist of a steel pipe, 0.34 mile in length, 6 feet in dia- meter, and with a capacity of 300 second-feet, It would discharge at an elevation of 3,390 feet directly into the Pickering Bar Tunnel. (20) Pickering Bar Tunnel. Water released from Pagge and Sugar Pine Reservoirs for discharge through the Pickering Bar Power House would be conveyed in the Pickering Bar Tunnel to the penstock of the power house. The conduit, with an inlet eleva- tion of 3,390 feet, would be a pressure tunnel about 1.7 miles in length. It would be concrete-lined through- out, and would have a diameter of 7.0 feet. The tun- nel would have a capacity of about 300 second-feet, and would discharge at an elevation of 3,366 feet directly into the penstock of the Pickering Bar Power House. (21) Pickering Bar Power House. The steel pen- stock of the Pickering Bar Power House would have a steel surge tower at its inlet. The penstock, with an inlet elevation of 3,366 feet, would have a 6.5- to 5.0-foot variable diameter, a capacity of 300 second- feet, and would be 4,800 feet in length. The power house would be located on the left bank of the North Fork of the American River at an elevation of 1,486 feet, in Section 15, Township 15 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M. The plant would operate under an average static head of about 2,100 feet, and would have an installed power capacity of 28,600 kilowatts. Pertinent data with respect to the various features of the French Meadows Project, as designed for cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 68. The capital cost of the French Meadows Project, at a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices pre- vailing in April, 1953, was estimated to be about $48,718,000, and corresponding annual costs were esti- mated to be about $2,432,000. If an annual value of $22.00 per kilowatt of dependable power capacity is assigned to the Deep Canyon and Pickering Bar hydroelectric generating plants, and a value of 2.8 mills per kilowatt-hour is assigned to the estimated 250,000,000 kilowatt-hours of average energy output per season that would be produced by these plants, the seasonal power revenue would amount to about $1,628,000, thus reducing the estimated average unit cost of the 119,000 acre-feet of safe seasonal yield to about $6.80 and $10.00 per acre-foot for interest rates of 3 and 4 per cent, respectively. The estimated unit costs of the 119,000 acre-feet per season of safe yield of the project, excluding consideration of possible revenues from power and costs of power facilities, were about $14.00 and $16.40 per acre-foot for in- terest rates of 3 and 4 per cent, respectively. Estimated capital and annual costs of the French Meadows Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are summarized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Estimated Costs Capital Annual Duncan Creek Diversion and Conduit $663,000 $29,000 French Meadows Dam and Reservoir 6,863,000 303,000 French Meadows-Deep Canyon Conduit 5,619,000 240,000 Deep Canyon Power House .._ _ 3,619,000 252,000 Deep Canyon Diversion and Conduit 927,000 40,000 Lost Canyon Diversion and Tunnel— 1,424,000 62,000 Secret Canyon Diversion and Tunnel 2,944,000 128,000 El Dorado Creek Diversion and Tunnel 2,151.000 94,000 Bullion Creek Diversion and Conduit 3,352.000 152,000 Foresthill Canal 273,000 14,000 Sugar Pine Canal _ 148,000 8,000 Pagge Reservoir Tunnel __ 895,000 38,000 Pagge Dam and Reservoir__ 7.622,000 335,000 Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir 1.571.000 67,000 Iowa Hill Canal— 231,000 12,000 Iowa Hill Pumping Plant and Pipe Line . 36,000 20,000 Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit— 440,000 24.000 Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit 100.000 11,000 Pickering Bar Tunnel _ _ 2,014.000 86,000 Pickering Bar Power House— _ 7,725.000 517.000 TOTALS _. $48,716,000 $2,432,000 Foresthill Divide Project. This project is pre- sented as an alternative to the French Meadows Proj- ect, The project is susceptible to staged development, and when completed through the final stages would conserve the runoff of Secret Canyon, Black Canyon, El Dorado Creek, and Bullion Creek in reservoirs on Forbes Creek, on North Shirttail Canyon, and in an enlarged Big Reservoir on a tributary to Forbes Creek. The project would also include construction of facilities for conveyance and distribution of the water conserved in the three reservoirs to serve irri- gable lands on the Foresthill Divide. Principal fea- tures of the projects are delineated on Plates 21 and 22, entitled "Foresthill Divide Project," and "For- esthill Divide Project, Dams." Under the project, waters of Secret Canyon, Black Canyon, El Dorado Creek, and Bullion Creek would be diverted and conveyed in a general westerly direc- tion, in an unlined canal about 39 miles in length, to the proposed Forbes Reservoir, into which a portion of the conserved water would be discharged. The re- maining water would be conveyed for an additional distance of about 1 mile, and discharged into a pro- posed enlarged Big Reservoir on a tributary to Forbes Creek. Water discharged from the conduit into Big Reservoir in excess of the capacity of this reservoir would be spilled and conserved downstream in the proposed Sugar Pine Reservoir on North Shirttail Canyon. Water conserved in Forbes Reservoir and in Sugar Pine Reservoir would be released to lined PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 95 canals to serve irrigable lands on the Foresthill Divide south of Shirttail Canyon, while the water conserved in Big Reservoir would be released to a lined canal to serve such lands on the Foresthill Divide in the vi- cinity of Iowa Hill and generally west of North Shirt- tail Canyon. The project would provide sufficient water to meet the ultimate requirements of the Forest- hill Divide. Furthermore, it could be constructed in a succession of stages to provide water as the require- ments develop. The order in which the various fea- tures would be constructed would depend upon the growth of water requirements in various portions of the area and upon the yield of the constructed works. It is considered probable, however, that the following general pattern of development would prevail. As an initial feature, to serve irrigable lands south of Shirttail Canyon, the Forbes Dam and Reservoir together with the canal from Bullion Creek would be constructed. Water conserved in the reservoir would be released and conveyed to a point about 5 miles northeast of Foresthill, from which point the water would be distributed to lower lands by means of a canal and ditch system. As an initial feature, to serve remaining irrigable lands on the Foresthill Divide, which lie generally west of North Shirttail Canyon, the existing Big Reservoir would be enlarged, and additional water would be obtained by extending the diversion canal discharging into Forbes Reservoir. The water thus conserved would be released to a canal and conveyed to a point about 4 miles northeast of Iowa Hill, from which point the water would be dis- tributed to lower lands by means of a canal and ditch system. As a second step, to provide additional water to the two reservoirs, the canal from Bullion Creek would be extended up to El Dorado Creek, to Black Canyon, and then to Secret Canyon, in stages as the require- ments develop. At this point in the project develop- ment, the estimated yield of the enlarged Big Reser- voir would be sufficient to meet the probable ultimate requirement of its service area, while the yield of Forbes Reservoir would be sufficient to meet only about 40 per cent of the ultimate requirement of its service area. However, construction of a canal about 2 miles in length would permit transfer of water dis- charged from Big Reservoir to supplement the yield of Forbes Reservoir. This feature is not further de- scribed because it would serve only as a temporary measure, pending completion of the final project units. As a final step. Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir would be constructed and would conserve tributary runoff together with water spilled from Big Reser- voir. The water thus conserved would be released to and conveyed in a canal which would extend in a general southerly direction for a distance of about 17 miles to a point about 1 mile northeast of Forest- hill, from which point it would be available in a canal and ditch system to serve lower lands. If it should become necessary to provide water above that furnished by the described project, a pro- gram of additional canal lining could be undertaken. In this respect, allowance was made in the yield studies for percolation losses from the unlined canals. Concrete, shotcrete, or clay lining would reduce the percolation losses and increase the usable yield of the project. Additional water could also be obtained by extending the canal above Secret Ravine, or by con- structing a canal from Humbug Creek to Big Reser- voir. In Chapter III it was estimated that the probable ultimate requirement for supplemental water in the American River Unit will be about 27,000 acre-feet per season. The estimated portion of this requirement for lands on the Foresthill Divide is about 18,500 acre-feet per season. In design of the Foresthill Divide Project it was considered desirable that the project with all features constructed should meet this require- ment. As a first step in determination of the size of units of the Foresthill Divide Project, estimates were made of yield of the works for various reservoir storage capacities. To accomplish this, estimates were made of mean seasonal runoff of watersheds above the vari- ous dam sites and diversion points. Where considered feasible, portions of the drainage area tributary to main diversion canals were also included as con- tributing runoff to the project. These estimates are shown in Table 69. Based on estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, monthly yield studies were TABLE 69 ESTIMATED MEAN SEASONAL RUNOFF AT DAM SITES AND DIVERSION POINTS, AND TRIBUTARY TO CANALS OF FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT Stream Location Mean sea- sonal runoff, in acre- feet Drain- age area, in squpre miles at Forbes dam site at Big Reservoir Dam. at Sugar Pine dam site-- - - 3,700 2,500 13,200 10,200 4,300 5,300 1,700 10,200 4,100 1,000 3.400 2.2 Tributary to Forbes Creek-- North Shirttail Canyon 1.5 7.8 5.0 at diversion point at diversion point at diversion point above Black Canyon Canal _ above El Dorado Creek Canal . __. above Bullion Creek Canal above Bullion Creek Canal. 2. 1 3.1 1.0 Secret Canyon and El Dorado Creek . . _ — El Dorado and Bullion Creeks - - - Volcano Creek 5.1 2.4 0.6 2.0 Young Apple Trees on Foresthill Divide Big Reservoir PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 97 made of tlic various reservoirs of the Poresthill Divide Project to aid in determining- the proper sizes. Monthly water demands were assumed to be propor- tional to the estimated monthly distribution of de- mand of the Nevada [irrigation District, as presented in Table 47. It was further assumed that losses from the earthen diversion canals would be of the order of 1 per cent of the gross diversion per mile of canal. A summary of the results of the yield studies of the selected sizes of reservoirs is presented in Table 70. TABLE 70 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF RESER- VOIRS OF FORESTHILLL DIVIDE PROJECT, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Feature Reservoir storage capacity Irri- gation yield 5,300 5,300 5,300 2,200 6,500 6,500 17,000 2,500 Forbes Reservoir with Bullion Creek diversion Forbes Reservoir with Bullion and El Dorado Creek and Black and Secret Canyon diversions less 5,100 7,100 Big Reservoir (existing). _ _ 1,500 1,800 Enlarged Big Reservoir with Bullion Creek diversion. 7,200 10,400 It was stated in Chapter III that seasonal irriga- tion deficiencies in the amount of 35 per cent may occasionally be endured. In the case of the initial units of the Foresthill Divide Project, Forbes and enlarged Big Reservoirs, maximum seasonal defi- ciencies of 27 per cent are indicated. Yield studies of Sugar Pine Reservior, the final unit of the project, indicate that the maximum seasonal irrigation defi- ciency would be about 41 per cent. This would be of serious consequence only if the ultimate water re- quirement were actually realized. Even in this event, it is probable that the predominant orchard crops would endure the deficiency better than most other crops. After consideration of the results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam sites and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, reservoirs with the above indicated capacities were chosen for pur- poses of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. A summary of the yield studies for these sizes of reservoirs is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that the canals from the reservoirs would be shotcrete-lined, that within the service areas return flow from the application of irrigation water would be recovered in quantities sufficient to balance the conveyance losses, and that an average irrigation efficiency of 75 per cent would prevail. From this, it was estimated that 25 per cent of the irrigation yield of 24,700 acre-feet per season, or 6,200 acre-feet, would be irrecoverably lost. The remaining 18,500 acre-feet per season would be available to meet the probable ultimate requirements of some 13,100 net irrigable acres on the Foresthill Divide. These lands are pres- ently unirrigated and lie within the service area shown on Plate 21. Based on the monthly distribution of demands for water in the Nevada Irrigation District, as shown in Table 47, monthly demands on the three reservoirs of the Foresthill Divide Project are given in Table 71. TABLE 71 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMANDS FOR WATER FROM RESERVOIRS OF FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT (In acre-feet) Month Forbes Reservoir Big Reservoir Sugar Pine Reservoir 500 200 100 100 100 100 200 900 1,100 1,400 1,300 1,100 500 200 100 100 100 100 200 900 1,100 1,400 1,400 1,100 700 November December . . January . February .. 200 200 200 100 100 April. . May June . . July . August . . September. 300 1,200 1,700 2,100 2,000 1,600 TOTALS 7,100 7,200 10,400 The various features of the Foresthill Divide Proj- ect as designed for cost estimating purposes are de- scribed in some detail in the following sections : (1) Secret Canyon Diversion and Canal. The proposed diversion works on Secret Canyon would be located in Section 11, Township 15 North, Range 12 East, M. D. B. & M., at a stream bed elevation of 4,430 feet. The diversion works would consist of a concrete gravity overpour weir and apron, 15 feet in height above stream bed and some 50 feet in length. An opening at the right end of the weir would pro- vide entrance to a side channel leading downstream about 25 feet to the head works of the Secret Canyon Canal. The side channel would have a concrete grav- ity parapet wall of the overpour type, and a 3- by 3-foot sluice gate would be provided for sand clearance. The headworks would consist of a concrete headwall across the end of the side channel, equipped with a 3- by 3-foot slide gate and trash rack. The proposed Secret Canyon Canal, with a capacity of 75 second-feet, would be about 0.5 mile in length, unlined, and of trapezoidal section with 1:1 side slopes. It would have a bottom width of 3.0 feet, depth of 3.8 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 8.0 feet per mile, and its velocity about 3 feet per second. The canal would discharge at an elevation of 4,425 feet into Black Canyon. 4—81627 98 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION (2) Black ('(union Diversion and Canal. The pro- posed diversion works on Black Canyon would be located in Section 10, Township 15 North, Range 12 East, M. D. B. & M., at a stream bed elevation of 4,41.") feet. The diversion works would consist of a concrete gravity overpour weir and apron, 10 feet in height above stream bed and some 50 feet in length. Remaining features would be similar to those de- scribed for Secret Canyon. The proposed Black Canyon Canal, with a capacity of 125 second-feet, would be about 17.0 miles in length, unlined, and of trapezoidal section with 1:1 side slopes. It would have a bottom width of 5.0 feet, depth of 4.5 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 6.5 feet per mile, and its velocity about 3 feet per second. The canal would convey the combined diverted flows of Secret and Black Canyons, would intercept the runoff from about 5.1 square miles of drainage area tributary to Secret Canyon and El Dorado Creek above the canal, and would discharge at an elevation of 4,300 feet into El Dorado Creek. (3) El Dorado Creek Diversion and Canal. The proposed diversion works on El Dorado Creek would be located in Section 17, Township 15 North, Range 12 East, M. D. B. & M., at a stream bed elevation of 4,290 feet. The diversion works would be similar to those described for Secret Canyon. The proposed El Dorado Creek Canal, with a ca- pacity of 125 second-feet, would be about 8.5 miles in length, unlined, and of trapezoidal section with 1 : 1 side slopes. It would have a bottom width of 5.0 feet, depth of 4.5 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 6.5 feet per mile, and its velocity about 3 feet per second. The canal would convey the combined diverted flows of Secret Canyon, Black Canyon, and El Dorado Creek, would intercept the runoff from about 2.4 square miles of drainage area tributary to El Dorado and Bullion Creeks above the canal, and would discharge at an elevation of 4,230 feet into Bullion Creek. (4) Bullion Creek Diversion and Canal. The pro- posed diversion works on Bullion Creek would be located in Section 23, Township 15 North, Range 11 East, M. D. B. & M., at a stream bed elevation of 4,220 feet. The diversion works would consist of a concrete gravity overpour weir and apron, 10 feet in height above stream bed and some 25 feet in length. Remaining features would be similar to those de- scribed for Secret Canyon. The proposed Bullion Creek Canal, with a capacity of 150 second-feet, would be about 14.0 miles in length, unlined, and of trapezoidal section with 1 : 1 side slopes. For the first 13.0 miles it would have a bottom width of 5.0 feet, depth of 5.0 feet, and free- board of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 5.5 feet per mile, and its velocity about 3 feet per second. The canal would convey the combined diverted flows of Secret Canyon, Black Canyon, El Dorado Creek, and Bullion Creek, and would also intercept the runoff from about 2.6 square miles of drainage area tributary to Volcano and Brimstone Creeks above the canal. A portion of the flow would be discharged at an elevation of 4,142 feet into the proposed Forbes! Reservoir. Beyond this point the canal would continue in a northerly direction for a distance of about 1.0 mile, and would discharge at an elevation of 4,137 feet into Big Reservoir. (5) Forbes Dam and Reservoir, and Forbes Reser- voir Canal. The proposed Forbes Dam would be located in Section 20, Township 15 North, Range 11 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on Forbes Creek some 8 miles northeast of Foresthill. The stream bedi elevation at this location is 3,875 feet. A topographic map of the Forbes dam and reservoir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals ">(>(> feet, with contour interval of 10 feet, was prepared in 1953 by the Division of Water Resources by photogrammetric methods. Storage ca- pacities of Forbes Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 72. TABLE 72 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF FORBES RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 3,875 3.920 3,930 3,940 3,960 3,980 4.000 4,010 10 20 30 62 97 138 159 45 100 55.. . - 300 65.. 500 85.. 1.400 105.. 3,000 125 . 5.300 135 6,800 . Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Forbes dam site is considered suitable for either j an earthfill or an earthfill and rockfill dam up to a maximum height of about 170 feet. The foundation! bedrock consists of metamorphic rock for the most part. This is a quartzitic and schistose sandstone, con- taining many quartz veins which occur especially along the old bedding planes. The rock is hard and; resistant where unweathered, as in the channel sec tion, and probably is not seriously affected by joints or shears at depth. Volcanic rocks, including some tuff and much fragmental obsidian, occur at an unde- termined height on the right abutment at the site. However, these rocks are probably located high enough on the abutment so as not to affect the feasi bility of constructing a dam at this site. Other vol- canics occur throughout much of the proposed reser- voir area. Stripping from under the impervious sec- tion of a dam here, normal to the surface, should not PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 99 exceed an average of (» feet from the abutments and 3 feet from the narrow channel section. Only the oose overburden, averaging 4 feet in depth, would lave to be removed to prepare the abutment f omnia - ions for the pervious sections of a zoned dam. The spillway could be located in either of two saddle ireas upstream from the left abutment, or around the eft end of the main dam. It would seem advisable to ivoid the right end of the dam for a spillway location mtil more is known concerning the nature and extent >f the volcanic rocks mentioned previously which out- ■rop in that area. Earth suitable for use in an im- itervious fill section could be obtained from the top »f the narrow ridge lying between Forbes Creek and 3ig Reservoir to the northeast. Depth of soil at any me point on this ridge would not be great, but even Considering this, the average haul for impervious till it this site should not exceed 1 mile downhill. The ocal bedrock would serve as a source for pervious fill naterial, or for rockfill or riprap, as the occasion remanded. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, ind preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 125 'eet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and vith a crest elevation of 4,010 feet, was selected to llustrate estimates of cost of the Forbes Dam and leservoir. The dam would have a crest length of tbout 1,160 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 2.25 : 1 ipstream and downstream slopes. The central imper- vious core would have a top width of 10 feet and ).8 : 1 slopes. A saddle dike on the left side of the ■eservoir would have a crest length of about 620 feet, i crest width of 20 feet, a maximum height of 16 feet. ,nd 2:1 upstream and downstream slopes. The dam nd saddle dike would have an estimated volume of ill of 656,000 cubic yards. The concrete weir and chute spillway would be ocated adjacent to the saddle dam, and about 1,000 eet upstream from the left abutment. The spillway rould have a capacity of 2,400 second-feet, required or an assumed maximum discharge of 1,000 second- eet per square mile of drainage area, and would Bscharge into Pagge Creek. The maximum depth of rater above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an Bditional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works would consist of an 18-inch diameter teel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in the left ibutment of the dam and encased in concrete. Re- eases from the reservoir would be controlled at a sub- nerged concrete box inlet structure by two 12-inch liameter hydraulically controlled butterfly valves op- rated from a control house on the crest of the dam. rhe outlet would be controlled at the downstream end >y a 12-inch diameter hollow jet valve discharging nto a concrete-lined stilling basin, from which water vould enter the Forbes Reservoir Canal at an eleva- ion of 3.920 feet. A 2.0- by 2.5-foot slide gate would permit discharge from the stilling basin into the natu- ral stream channel below the dam. The Forbes Reservoir Canal would be shotcrete- Lined and of trapezoidal section, with 1:1 side slopes. bottom width of 2.0 feet, depth of 1.8 feet, and free- board of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be about 12 feet per mile, its velocity about 4.5 feet per second, and its capacity at the inlet would be 30 second-feet. It would convey the water in a southerly direction for a dis- tance of !).() miles to a point about 5 miles northeast of Foresthill. where the elevation is about 3,800 feet. The conserved water would be diverted enroute and distributed by means of an unlined canal and ditch system. Detailed design of the distribution system was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. (6) Enlarged Morning Star Dam and Big Reser- voir, and Big Reservoir Canal. The proposed enlarged dam would be an earthfill structure at the site of the existing Morning Star Dam, which was described in the earlier section on the French Meadows Project, and which is located on a tributary of Forbes Creek in Section 17, Township 15 North, Range 11 East, M. D. B. & M., some 8 miles northeast of Forest hill. The stream bed elevation at this point is 4,026 feet. The existing dam, about 39 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, creates a reservoir with a storage capacity of 2,200 acre-feet and a water sur- face elevation of 4,065 feet. A topographic map of the dam and reservoir site, above this elevation, and at a scale of 1 inch equals 500 feet, with contour interval of 10 feet, was prepared in 1953 by the Division of Water Resources by photogrammetric methods. Stor- age capacities of enlarged Big Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 73. TABLE 73 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF ENLARGED BIG RESERVOIR Water surface Depth of water elevation, Water surface Storage at dam, U.S.G.S. area, capacity, in feet datum, in feet in acres in acre-fee( 4,026 14 4,040 30 500 39 4,065 65 2,200 44_ 4.070 78 2.600 54 4.080 90 3.400 64 4,090 103 4,400 74 4.100 120 5,500 82 4,108 140 6,500 84 4,110 144 6,800 92 4,118 160 8,000 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill or rockfill dam with a height in excess of 100 feet. Con- siderable leakage occurs through the existing struc- ture, possibly through the foundation, and in the cost estimate it was therefore assumed that all of the exist- 100 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ing dam would be razed and stockpiled in order to properly investigate and eliminate this leakage. The earth from the old hydraulic fill dam could probably then be used in the construction of an impervious sec- tion for the new dam at the same site. An alternative and topographically similar axis occurs within the present reservoir area, utilizing essentially the same left abutment but with the right abutment moved slightly upstream. Bedrock at either axis consists of a very hard meta- sandstone on the left abutment and of a softer ultra- basic rock on the right abutment. The contact be- tween the two formations trends approximately at right angles to the axis of the existing dam and crosses the line of the dam in the saddle area north of the channel knob around which the present dam was built. The leakage observed through the dam may be, at least in part, associated with this contact. Much jointing was noted in the bedrock where exposed to weather- ing, but this probably does not continue at depth. A heavy soil cover overlies most of the right abutment, and the average depth of this soil is estimated to be about 10 feet. Stripping on the left abutment and in the channel section at either axis would be less than on the right abutment. The spillway cut, if placed in a saddle 2,000 feet up- stream from the left abutment, would be partly in soil and partly in hard bedrock. Lining would be neces- sary in a short control section. Ample quantities of suitable impervious fill material are located within a mile of this site, chiefly in the north abutment area, and the local bedrock could be quarried for use in rockfill sections of the dam. Metamorphic rock from the south side of the reservoir area should prove bet- ter material for this use than the ultrabasic rock out- cropping generally on the north side of the reservoir. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 92 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 4,118 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the enlarged Big Reser- voir. The dam would have a crest length of about 1,470 feet, a crest width of 20 feet, and 3.5:1 up- stream and 3: 1 downstream slopes. It would have an estimated volume of fill of about 831,000 cubic yards. The concrete weir, control section, and unlined spillway would be located in a saddle 2,000 feet up- stream from the left abutment. The spillway would have a capacity of 1,800 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 1,200 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into a tributary of Forbes Creek below the proposed Forbes Dam. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 5 feet, and an additional 5 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works would consist of an 18-inch diameter steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in the left abutment of the dam and encased in concrete. Releases from the reservoir would be controlled at a sub- merged concrete box inlet structure by two 12-inch diameter hydraulically controlled butterfly valves operated from a control house on the crest of the dam. The outlet would be controlled at the downstream end by a 12-inch diameter hollow jet valve discharging into a concrete-lined stilling basin, from which water would enter the Big Reservoir Canal at an elevation of 4,040 feet. A 2.0- by 2.0-foot slide gate would per- mit discharge from the stilling basin into the natural stream channel below the dam. The Big Reservoir Canal, with a capacity of 25 second-feet, would be shotcrete-lined and of trape- zoidal section, with 1 :1 side slopes, bottom width of 2.0 feet, depth of 1.6 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be about 13 feet per mile and its velocity about 4.5 feet per second. It would convey water in a westerly direction for a distance of 5.2 miles to a point about 4 miles northeast of Iowa Hill, where the elevation is about 3,900 feet. The con- served water would be diverted enroute and dis- tributed by means of an unlined canal and ditch system. Detailed design of the distribution system was considered to be outside the scope of the current in- vestigation. (7) Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir, and Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal. The proposed Sugar Pine Dam would be located in Section 24, Township 15 North, Range 10 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on North Shirttail Canyon some 2 miles west of Big Reservoir. The site was described in detail in an earlier section on the French Meadows Project. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill and rock- fill dam 160 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 3,680 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir. The dam would have a crest length of about 790 feet, and a crest width of 30 feet. The impervious earthfill section would have 3 :1 up- stream and 1 :1 downstream slopes. The rockfill sec- tion, placed on the downstream face of the impervioiis section, would have a 2 :1 downstream slope. The up- stream face of the dam would be protected above an elevation of about 3,570 feet by a 3-foot blanket of riprap. A saddle dike on the left side of the reservoir would have a crest length of about 1,200 feet, a crest width of 20 feet, a maximum height of 25 feet, and 2 :1 upstream and downstream slopes. The dam and saddle dike would have an estimated volume of fill of 1,334,- 600 cubic yards. The concrete weir and chute spillway would be located adjacent to the saddle dam, and about 1.00C feet upstream from the left abutment. The spillway would have a capacity of 4,700 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 600 second-feel per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 101 into a tributary of North Shirttail Canyon. The maxi- mum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works would consist of a 36-inch diameter steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in the left abutment of the dam and encased in concrete. Re- leases from the reservoir would be controlled at a submerged concrete box inlet structure by two 30-inch diameter hydraulically controlled butterfly valves operated from a control house on the left bank of the reservoir. The outlet would be controlled at the down- stream end by a 36-inch diameter needle valve dis- charging into a concrete-lined stilling basin, from which water would enter the Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal at an elevation of 3,510 feet. Two 2.5- by 3-foot slide gates would permit discharge from the stilling basin into North Shirttail Canyon. The Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal would be shot- crete-lined and of trapezoidal section, with 1 : 1 side slopes, bottom width of 2.0 feet, depth of 1.8 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be about 12 feet per mile, its velocity about 4.5 feet per second, and its capacity at the inlet would be 30 second-feet. It would convey water in a southerly direction a dis- tance of about 17 miles to a point approximately one mile northeast of Foresthill, where the elevation is about 3,300 feet. The conserved water would be TABLE 74 GENERAL FEATURES OF FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT Forbes Dam Type — earthfill Crest elevation — 4,010 feet Crest length— 1,160 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 125 feet Side slopes — 2.25:1 upstream and downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 3,875 feet Volume of fill— 656,000 cubic yards Forbes Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 138 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 5,300 acre-feet Drainage area, Forbes Creek — 2.2 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Forbes Creek — 3,700 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield from Forbes Creek, plus water imported in canal from Bullion Creek — 7,100 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete weir with chute Spillway discharge capacity — 2,400 second-feet Type of outlet — 18-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam Enlarged Morning Star Dam Type— earthfill Crest elevation — 4,118 feet Crest length — 1,470 feet Crest width — 20 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 82 feet Side slopes — 3.5:1 upstream 3:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 4,026 feet Volume of fill— 831,000 cubic yards Enlarged Big Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 140 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 6,500 acre-feet Drainage area above dam — 1.5 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, above dam — 2,500 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield including water imported in canal from Bullion Creek — 7,200 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete weir and control section with unlined spillway Spillway discharge capacity — 1,800 second-feet Type of outlet — 18-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam Sugar Pine Dam Type — earthfill and rockfill Crest elevation — 3,680 feet Crest length— 790 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 160 feet Side slopes — 3:1 upstream 2:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 3,510 feet Volume of fill— 1,334,600 cubic yards Sugar Pine Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 272 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 17,000 acre-feet Drainage area, North Shirttail Canyon — 7.8 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, North Shirttail Canyon — 13.200 acre-feet Estimated safe seasonal yield — 10,400 acre-feet Type of spillway — concrete weir with chute Spillway discharge capacity — 4,700 second-feet Type of outlet — 36-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam 'onduits Name Type Length, in miles Capacity, in second- feet Side slopes Bottom width, in feet Depth, in feet Free- board, in feet Slope, in feet per mile Velocity, in feet per second Inlet eleva- tion, in feet Eleva- tion of terminus, in feet Secret Canyon Canal Trapezoidal, unlined section 0.5 75 1:1 3.0 3.8 1.0 8.0 3.0 4,430 4,425 31ack Canyon Canal Trapezoidal, unlined section 17.0 125 1:1 5.0 4.5 1.0 6.5 3.0 4,410 4,300 ■;i Dorado Creek CanaL_ Trapezoidal, unlined section 8.5 125 1:1 5.0 4.5 1.0 6.5 3.0 4,285 4,230 bullion Creek Canal Trapezoidal, unlined section 14.0 150 1:1 5.0 5.0 1.0 5.5 3.0 4,215 4,137 Forbes Reservoir Canal. _ Trapezoidal, shotcrete-lined section . . 9.0 30 1:1 2.0 1.8 1.0 12.0 4.5 3,920 3,816 3ig Reservoir Canal Trapezoidal, shotcrete-lined section and 2 siphons 5.2 25 1:1 2.0 1.6 1.0 13.0 4.5 4,035 3,919 Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal _ _ . Trapezoidal, shotcrete-lined section and 8 siphons 17.0 30 1:1 2.0 1.8 1 .0 12.0 4.5 3,520 3,256 102 PLAOEP OOl'XTY IXVESTKi ATI* >.\ diverted enroute and distributed by means of an unlined canal and ditch system. Detailed design of the distribution system was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. Pertinent data with respect to the various features of the Foresthill Divide Project, as designed for cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 74. The capital cost of the Foresthill Divide Project, at a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices pre- vailing in April, 1953, was estimated to be about $6,081,000, and the corresponding annual cost was estimated to be about $317,000. The resultant esti- mated unit cost of the 24,700 acre-feet of irrigation yield per season was about $12.80 per acre-foot. On a 4 per cent interest basis the estimated unit cost was about $14.50 per acre-foot. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Forest- hill Divide Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are summarized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Estimated Costs <'ai>itf the Bear River waters, studies indicated that flood flows in an estimated mean seasonal amount of about 35,700 acre-feet could be diverted to Coon Creek Reservoir, through the existing Combie-Opliir Canal of about 106 second-foot capacity, during the months of November through April. Based on records and estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacra- mento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, yield studies were made of two sizes of reservoir at the Coon Creek site. It w T as assumed that a seasonal irri- gation deficiency up to 35 per cent could be endured in one season of the period. Monthly demands on the reservoir were assumed to be proportional to the esti- mated distribution of irrigation demands in the Val- ley Unit of Placer County, as presented in Table 4li. except for modification in April and May to permit greater irrigation of rice. A summary of the results of the yield studies is presented in Table 79. TABLE 79 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF COON CREEK RESERVOIR WITH BEAR RIVER DIVERSION, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Reservoir storage capacity Irrigation yield 2.-.. 500 .V.i, 000 34.000 56,000 After consideration of the results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 59,000 acre-foot capacity, with estimated seasonal ir- rigation yield of 56,000 acre-feet, was chosen for pur- poses of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that canal and ditch losses, pins the unconsumedy portion of the supplemental water ap- plied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served in the Valley Unit and in adjacent areas in Sutter County. It was estimated that seasonal losses in conveyance and distribution of the 56,000 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield would be about 25 per cent, or 14,000 acre-feet, leaving some 42,000 acre-feet for application to irrigation. It was assumed that the average seasonal application of water would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was estimated that the imported supply would be applied to some 12,000 acres, in a service area lying generally adjacent to Coon Creek and Auburn Ra- vine, and easterly of the boundaries of Reclamation Districts 1000 and 1001, as shown on Plate 24. Eleva- tion of this service area ranges from about 125 feet along the eastern boundary to about 50 feet on the west. Of the lands which would be served with the supplemental water, about 3,300 acres are presently irrigated by ground water, and 8,700 acres are irri- gable lands presently not irrigated. v3 ' ■?*f?m ' 'J s M /' i ...... Coon Creek Dam Site PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 10!) Aii estimate of the monthly distribution of demand for irrigation water in the Valley Unit of Placer County was presented in Table 46. Based on these data, with modification to permit greater irrigation of rice, monthly demands on the Coon Creek Project would be as shown in Table 80. TABLE 80 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM COON CREEK PROJECT Month April May June July August September October November- - TOTALS 1 00 Per cent of Gross release, seasonal total in acre-feet 10 5,600 16 0,000 17 9,500 22 12,300 17 9,500 11 6,200 5 2,800 2 1,100 56,000 A topographic map of the Coon Creek dam and res- ervoir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 425 feet, with contour interval of 20 feet, was made by the Division of Water Resources in 1951, using photogrammetric methods. Topography of the dam site was shown on the map up to an elevation of 580 feet, while topog- raphy of the reservoir site was shown up to an eleva- tion of 500 feet. Reservoir topography above that ele- vation was estimated. Storage capacities of Coon Creek Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 81. TABLE 81 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF COON CREEK RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum. in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 0__ . . . . ... 345 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 550 552 560 5 25 65 110 180 260 360 500 610 740 810 820 880 15 _ 50 35 300 1,200 75 95 115. . 3,000 5,800 10,300 16 600 135 . 155 175 195 205 25.500 37.600 51.000 58,000 207 _ . 215 59,000 65,000 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Coon Creek dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill dam of any height up to a maximum of about 220 feet. Foundation rock at the site consists essen- tially of amphibolite schist. In the vicinity of the site the rock varies between schistose and massive mate- rial, striking across the channel and dipping verti- cally. The foundation bedrock as a whole is relatively hard and unweathered where exposed in outcrops. Joints are prominently developed in several sets, with a horizontal joint set predominating. Some faulting and shearing serves to further complicate the struc- tural picture. The rock is locally porphyritic and contains many phenocrysts of hornblende. The stream has cut a narrow, steep-walled gorge through the relatively resistant rock at this site. Sad- dles exist on either side of the main dam which would necessitate the use of auxiliary dikes. One of these saddles could readily be adapted for use as a spillway location. It is probable that stripping under the impervious section of an earthfill dam at the Coon Creek site would be relatively heavy, due to the jointed blocky nature of the rock. Required stripping is estimated at 2 feet of overburden and 15 feet of weathered rock from the abutments, and 4 feet of boulders and 5 feet of jointed bedrock from the channel section. In addi- tion, removal of about 12 feet of talus which occurs in a cone over the lower 60 feet of the right abutment would be necessary. Soil suitable for use in the con- struction of an impervious core is available at this site only in limited quantities. Deposits of residual clayey soil are scattered and thin in the the vicinity. However, based on a preliminary sampling program, sufficient material is believed to be available within 2 to 3 miles of the dam site to provide for a minimum impervious earth section. Materials for the pervious sections of the dam could be obtained from salvage from stripping, and from stream bed gravels of Coon Creek and the Bear River. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 207 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a, crest elevation of 560 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Coon Creek Project. The dam would consist of three earthfill structures, a main dam across Coon Creek and two auxiliary saddle dams. The main dam would have a crest length of about 1,420 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 3 : 1 upstream and 2.5 : 1 downstream slopes. The south saddle dam would have a crest length of about 1,450 feet and a maximum height of about 64 feet. The north saddle dam would have a crest length of about 550 feet and a maximum height of about 39 feet. Both saddle dams would have crest widths of 20 feet, and 2.5:1 upstream and downstream slopes. The central impervious cores of all dams would have top widths of 10 feet and 0.8 : 1 slopes, and would be blanketed with sand and gravel filters. The outer pervious zones of the dams would consist of stream bed "ravels and materials salvaged from stripping and excavation. The upstream face of the main dam would be pro- tected by a 3-foot blanket of riprap, and similar blankets 2 feet thick would protect the upstream faces of the saddle dams. The main dam would have an no PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION estimated volume of fill of 2,201,000 cubic yards, and the estimated volume of fill of the two saddle dams would be 449,000 cubic yards. The concrete spillway would be of the ogee weir type, located in a saddle between the main dam and the north saddle dam. It would have a capacity of 14,000 second-feet, required for an assumed discharge of 350 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into a tributary of Coon Creek. The maximum deptli of water above the spillway lip would be 4 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diameter steel pipe placed in a trench excavated in rock be- neath the clam and encased in concrete. Releases from the reservoir would be controlled at the upstream end by two 30-inch hydraulic-ally controlled high- pressure slide gates, located at a submerged inlet up- stream from the dam, and operated by hydraulic controls from a house on the left abutment. The out- let would be controlled at the downstream end by a hollow jet valve. Coon Creek Reservoir would inundate the present county road which crosses the lower end of the reser- voir area. The reservoir would also inundate a small amount of irrigated pasture. However, most of the reservoir area is unimproved grazing land. The proposed diversion works on Coon Creek would incorporate remaining features of an abandoned di- version structure at a site approximately 3.3 miles upstream from U. S. Highway 99E. The site was ex- amined and surveyed during the course of the investi- gation. The existing works consist of a concrete gate structure with concrete abutments. An earthen dike which formerly completed stream closure of the left abutment has been destroyed. Stream bed elevation at the site is 140 feet, and the gate structure is 17 feet in height above stream bed. The gate opening is :{.") feet in width, and contains 7 bays to hold Dashboards, each with an opening 4 feet in width, For cost estimating purposes, it was planned to utilize the old concrete gate structure by installing removable Dashboards to a height of 7 feet above stream bed elevation. The earthen dike would be re- placed from the left abutment of the gate structure to the natural bank of Coon Creek, a distance of about 100 feet, to complete the stream closure. This embank- ment would be approximately 10 feet in height, with 2 : 1 side slopes and a crest elevation of 150 feet. A similar dike with crest elevation of 155 feet, portions o!' which are already in place, would extend upstream along the low left bank of Coon Creek for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. At a point about 50 feet upstream from the main axis of the diversion struc- ture, a concrete headwall would be placed in the left side embankment, containing a 4- by 4-foot slide gate to control releases into a proposed canal. It was esti- mated that spillway capacity of the existing gate structure, after removal of the Dashboards, would be in excess of 2,000 second-feet. It was considered that infrequent flood flows in Coon Creek in excess of this amount would wash out the closing earth embank- ment, and that the embankment would have to be replaced after such floods. The proposed canal, with a capacity of 100 second- feet, would extend from the headgate in a general southerly direction a distance of approximately 5.5 miles to Markham Ravine. The conserved water woxdd then be conveyed in the natural channel of Markham Ravine for a distance of about 1.1 miles, where it would be diverted by a flashboard clam and conveyed in a canal for a distance of about 1.2 miles and dis- charged into Auburn Ravine. For an initial distance of about 0.5 mile from the headgate, the canal would be shotcrete-lined and of trapezoidal section, with 1 : 1 side slopes, bottom width of 4.0 feet, depth of 4.0 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 2.5 feet per mile, and the velocity would be about 3.5 feet per second. The remaining portion of the constructed canal would be of an un- lined trapezoidal section, with 2: 1 side slopes, bottom width of 7.0 feet, depth of 3.7 feet, and freeboard of 1.0 foot. Its slope would be approximately 2.5 feet per mile, and the velocity would be about 1.9 feet per second. At a distance of about 1.3 miles before reach- ing Markham Ravine, the conduit would cross IT. S. Highway 99E and the Southern Pacific Railroad. The structure to carry the water underneath the highway and railroad tracks would be a steel pipe 48 inches in diameter. Cost estimates for the canal were based on designs utilizing data obtained by a reconnaissance field loca- tion survey. Detailed design of the distribution sys- tem, however, was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. Cost estimates for the system were based on known costs of similar irriga- tion works elsewhere in California, adjusted to cor- respond with conditions prevailing in Placer County. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Coon Creek Project, as designed for cost estimat- ing purposes, are presented in Table 82. The capital cost of the Coon Creek Project, on a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices prevailing in April, 1952, was estimated to be about $5,575,000, and the corresponding annual cost was estimated to be about $283,000. The resultant estimated average unit cost of the 56,000 acre-feet per season of irriga- tion yield was about $5.00 per acre-foot. The esti- mated unit cost of the 42,000 acre-feet of supplemen- tal water per season applied for irrigation in the service area considered was about $6.70 per acre-foot. On a 4 pei- cent interest basis these unit costs were $5.80 per acre-foot and $7.70 per acre-foot, respec- tively. These estimates of cost do not include possible charges for use of the existing' diversion works on the PLAN'S KOIJ WATER DEYKLC )PMENT 111 TABLE 82 GENERAL FEATURES OF COON CREEK PROJECT Coon Creek Dam Type — earthfffl Crest elevation — 560 feel Crest length— 1,420 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 207 feet Side slopes — 3:1 upstream 2.5:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 8 feet Elevation of stream bed — 345 feet Volume of fill— 2,201.000 cubic yards Auxiliary Dams Type— earthfUl South saddle dam Crest length— 1,450 feet Crest width— 20 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 Maximum height — 64 feet North saddle dam Crest length — 550 feet Crest width — 20 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 Maximum height — 39 feet Volume of fill, both dams — 449,000 cubic yards Coon Creek Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 820 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 59,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Coon Creek -40 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Coon Creek — 32,800 acre-feet Estimated seasonal diversion of Bear River water through Combie-Ophir Canal— 35,700 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 56,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — ogee weir, concrete-lined Spillway discharge capacity — 14,000 second-feet Type of outlet — 48-inch diameter steel pipe beneath dam Diversion Works Bear River Coon Creek. Conduits Bear River Diversion - -Existing concrete gravity weir, with overpour section, approximately 300 feet in length, and approximately 15 feet high above stream bed elevation of about 1,500 feet; side channel diversion box, with overpour parapet wall and sluice gate; headgates in concrete headwall. -Existing concrete diversion structure for dashboard control, with opening 35 feet in width and 17 feet in height above stream bed elevation of 140 feet; to be rehabilitated by installation of dashboards to height of 7 feet, construction of auxiliary earthen dikes, and installation of concrete head- wall and 4- by 4-foot slide headgate. Existing conduit with estimated capacity of 106 second-feet, 2.4 miles in length, comprised of concrete-lined and unlined canal sections, wooden Hume, and steel pipe siphons. Coon Creek Diversion Type Length in miles Side slopes Bottom width, in feet Depth, in feet Freeboard, in feet Slope, in feet per mile Velocity, in feet per second Capacity, in second-feet Trapezoidal, Trapezoidal. shotcrete- unlined canal lined canal 0.5 5.0 1:1 2:1 4.0 7.0 4.0 3.7 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.9 100 100 Bear River and the canals of the Nevada Irrigation District. They do, however, include estimated costs for acquiring the existing abandoned diversion struc- ture on Coon Creek below the dam. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Coon Creek Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are sum- marized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Estimated Costs Capital Annual Coon Creek Dam and Reservoir __$5,045,000 $224,000 Coon Creek Diversion and Conduit— 230,000 13,000 Distribution system 300,000 46,000 TOTALS $5,575,000 $283,000 Doty Ravine Project. The proposed Doty Ravine Dam would be located in Sections 30 and 31, Town- ship 13 North, Range 7 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on Doty Ravine, a tributary of Coon Creek, some 4.3 miles northeast of Lincoln and 6.2 miles upstream from U. S. Highway 99E. Stream bed elevation at this site is 225 feet. For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that Doty Ravine Reservoir would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, as well as water dis- charged from the Wise Power House of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company during the winter. This latter flow would be available in Auburn Ravine for diversion to and conveyance in the existing Auburn Ravine Canal of the Nevada Irrigation District. -The water would be released into the Doty Ravine water- shed at a point some 4 miles above the dam site. The conserved waters, after release from the reser- voir, would flow down the channels of Doty Ravine and Coon Creek for downstream diversion and use. In Chapter III it was estimated that the present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit is about 8,300 acre-feet per season. However, in design of the Doty Ravine Project, it was considered desirable to provide some capacity for future growth in water requirements. As a first step in determina- tion of the size of the Doty Ravine Project, estimates were made of yields of the proposed works for various reservoir storage capacities. In studies of the Doty Ravine, Lincoln, Auburn Ravine, Whitney Ranch, and Clover Valley Projects, subsequently described, it was considered that the natural runoff of the watersheds above the proposed reservoirs would be supplemented by water dis- charged from Wise Power House, located on Auburn Ravine, during the six winter months from November through April. Records of spill from Wise Power House to the American River, measured as flow of the South Canal below Tunnel 16, southeast of Newcastle, indicate that during the period from 1932-33 through 1949-50 the minimum flow during these six months was 52,000 acre-feet, which occurred in 1945-46. In yield studies made for the five projects, therefore, it was assumed that this amount of water could have been diverted each season during the six winter months from the South Canal into Auburn Ravine at Wise Power House, for downstream storage or redi- version to off -stream storage. Allowance was made for an estimated conveyance loss of 15 per cent, or about 8,000 acre-feet per season, and the remaining 44,000 112 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION acre-feet of water per season was assumed to be avail- able to supplement the natural runoff. Tentative allo- cations of water were made to the five projects, as shown in Table 83. It will be noted that the sum of the allocations to the projects exceeds the amount of water presently available since it was assumed that all projects would not be constructed. TABLE 83 POSSIBLE SEASONAL SUPPLY OF WIN- TER RELEASES OF WATER FROM WISE POWER HOUSE TO PROPOSED RESER- VOIRS IN PLACER COUNTY Reservoir Distribution, in acre-feet 23,000 Lincoln Auburn Ravine Whitney Ranch _ Clover Valley __ _ 9,000 10,000 11,000 22,000 In yield studies for the Doty Ravine Project, it was estimated that mean seasonal runoff of Doty Ravine, from the approximately 18.3 square miles of water- shed above the dam site, is about 10,800 acre-feet. As previously mentioned, it was assumed that an addi- tional 23,000 acre-feet of water per season, discharged from Wise Power House, would be imported to the Doty Ravine watershed by means of the Auburn Ravine Canal. Based on records and estimates of run- off during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, yield studies were made of three sizes of reservoir at the Doty Ravine site. It was indicated that Doty Ravine Reservoir could be operated with only small irrigation deficiencies during the critical period. Monthly demands on the reservoir were assumed to be proportional to the estimated distribution of irri- gation demands in the Valley Unit, as presented in Table 46, except for modification in April and May to permit greater irrigation of rice. A summary of the results of the yield studies is presented in Table 84. Any releases that might be made to Doty Ravine Reservoir from the Wise Power House after the end TABLE 84 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF DOTY RAVINE RESERVOIR, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre -feet) Reservoir storage capacity Irrigation yield 9,800 32,000 42,400 10,000 28,000 29,000 of April and during the irrigation season would re- sult in corresponding increases in yield. After consideration of the results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 32,000 acre-foot capacity, with estimated seasonal irri- gation yield of 28,000 acre-feet, was chosen for pur- poses of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that conveyance losses, plus the un- consumed portion of the supplemental water supply applied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served and adjacent areas. It was estimated that seasonal losses in conveyance and dis- tribution of the 28,000 acre-feet of seasonal irriga- tion yield would be about 25 per cent, or 7,000 acre- feet, leaving some 21,000 acre-feet per season for sur- face application to irrigation. It was also assumed that the average seasonal application of water would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was estimated that the supplemental water would be applied to some 6,000 acres of irrigable land presently not irrigated. The lands are in a service area lying generally adja- cent to Doty Ravine and Coon Creek, and east of Reclamation District 1001, and are shown on Plate 25. An estimate of the monthly distribution demand for irrigation water in the Valley Unit was presented in Table 46. Based on these data, with modification to permit greater irrigation of rice, monthly demands on the Doty Ravine Project would be as shown in Table 85. TABLE 85 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM DOTY RAVINE PROJECT Montli April May... June July August September. . October. November TOTALS Per cent of seasonal total 6 14 20 23 22 11 3 1 Gross release, in acre-feet 1,700 3.900 .j.600 fi.400 l),200 3.100 800 300 28.000 A topographic map of the Doty Ravine dam and reservoir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 440 feet, and with a contour interval of 20 feet, was made by the Division of Water Resources in 1952, using photo- grammetric methods. Storage capacities of Doty Ravine Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 86. Based upon preliminary geologic reconnaissance, the Doty Ravine dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill dam of the moderate heights considered. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 113 TABLE 86 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF DOTY RAVINE RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam. in feet Water surface elevation. U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 15 35- _ 225 240 260 280 300 320 330 340 (5 72 210 418 792 1,026 1,296 100 800 55 75 3.600 9.800 95 105 115 22,000 32,000 42,400 Foundation rock of the site consists essentially of a decomposed granitic rock. Outcrops occur in limited areas, chiefly in the upstream half of the reservoir area. Weathering of the rock is quite pronounced, often exceeding 15 to 20 feet where exposed in road cuts. When weathered the rock has a typical, light red ferruginous color, and is very friable. Large crystals of feldspar are common ; biotite is present in variable amounts; and crystals of hornblende are moderately common. In exposed sections, random jointing is com- mon and quite pronounced. Generally the rock ap- pears to be a light-colored granodiorite, although variations from this frequently occur. Stripping be- neath the impervious section would not be great, averaging 4 feet of earth and weathered rock, in- cluding the root zone. Stripping in the spillway sec- tion may average slightly greater across the crest of the ridge. Investigation of potential borrow sources disclosed considerable amounts of earth located within the res- ervoir area. Material suitable for the impervious sec- tion of an earthfill dam exists within a 1-mile haul, and similar additional material is located still farther upstream. This material has the appearance of a dark brown clay and is located in the flat pasture lands bordering Doty Ravine. Material suitable for the pervious section is avail- able from tailings which are located northwest of the dam site but which would probably require some processing. In addition, decomposed granite is avail- able in abundant quantity in the reservoir area and this could also be utilized for the pervious section. Riprap could be obtained by opening quarry pits and utilizing the hard granitic rock occurring in places within the reservoir area. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 105 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 340 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Doty Ravine Project. The dam would consist of 8 earthfill struc- tures, a main dam across Doty Ravine and 7 auxiliary saddle dams. The main dam would have a crest length of about 6,590 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 2.5:1 upstream and downstream slopes. The saddle dams would vary in length from about 131) feet to 600 feet, and would vary in height from about 5 feet to 60 feet. The saddle dams would have crest widths of 30 feet to accommodate a roadway, and 2.5 : 1 up- stream and downstream slopes. The central impervi- ous core of the main dam would have a top width of 10 feet, and 1 : 1 slopes. The outer pervious zones of the main dam would consist of stream bed gravels, dredger tailings, and other gravel materials. The up- stream face of the main dam would be protected by a 3-foot blanket of riprap, and a similar blanket 2 feet thick would protect the downstream face. The total estimated volume of fill of the main dams and the saddle dams would be 1,926,000 cubic yards. The concrete spillway would be of the ogee weir type with a concrete-lined open chute, and would be located on the left abutment of the dam. The maxi- mum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. The spillway would have a capacity of 10,800 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 590 second-feet per square mile of drain- age area, and would discharge into a stilling basin in a draw that joins Doty Ravine downstream from the toe of the dam. The outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diam- eter welded steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in rock beneath the dam and encased in concrete. Re- leases from the reservoir would be controlled at a sub- merged concrete box inlet structure by two 36-inch diameter hydraulically controlled butterfly valves, operated from a house on the crest of the dam. The outlet would be controlled at the downstream end by a 36-inch diameter hollow jet valve, discharging on tlie right bank of Doty Ravine downstream from the toe of the dam. The conserved water would be con- veyed in the natural channels of Doty Ravine and Coon Creek for diversion by downstream users. Within the reservoir are several miles of county road, a few small farm houses and buildings, and the Mount Pleasant Grange Hall. Most of the land is na- tive grass and brush, with about 75 acres of irrigated pasture. Detailed design of the distribution system required to serve water to users was considered to be outside (he scope of the current investigation. Cost estimates for the system were based on known costs of similar irrigation works elsewhere in California, adjusted to correspond with conditions prevailing in Placer County. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Doty Ravine Project, as designed for cost esti- mating purposes, are presented in Table 87. The capital cost of the Doty Ravine Project, on a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices prevail- ing in April, 1953, was estimated to be about $3,352.- 000, and the corresponding annual cost was estimated 114 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 87 GENERAL FEATURES OF DOTY RAVINE PROJECT Doty Ravine Dam Type — earthfil] Crest elevation -340 feet Crest length— 6,590 feet ( treat width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 105 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 225 feet Volume of fill— 1,786,000 cubic yards Auxiliary Dams Type — earthfill Total crest length, seven dams — 2,310 feet Crest width— 30 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 Total volume of fill, seven dams — 140,000 cubic yards Doty Ravine Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 1,026 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 32,000 acre-feet Drainage area, Doty Ravine — 18.3 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Doty Ravine — 10,800 acre-feet Estimated maximum seasonal diversion of water from Wise Power House through Auburn Ravine Canal — 23,000 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 28,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — circular ogee weir, concrete-lined open chute Spillway discharge capacity — 10,800 second-feet Type of outlet — 48-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam to be about $170,000. The resultant estimated average unit cost of the 28,000 acre-feet of irrigation yield per season conserved by Doty Ravine Reservoir was about •+(5.10 per aere-foot. The estimated unit cost of the 21,000 acre-feet of supplemental water per season supplied for irrigation in the service area considered was about $8.10 per acre-foot. On a 4 per cent interest basis these unit costs were $6.90 per acre-foot and $9.. '50 per acre-foot, respectively. These estimates of cost do not include possible charges for use of the Auburn Ravine Canal and the existing diversion works on Auburn Ravine, or the cost of water at Wise Power House. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Doty Ravine Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are sum- marized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Doty Ravine Dam and Reservoir Distribution system Estimated Costs Capital Alumni $3,202,000 $143,000 150,000 27.01)0 TOTALS $3,352,000 $170,000 Lincoln Project. The proposed Lincoln Dam would be located in Sections 14 and 15, Township 13 North, Range 6 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site on Coon Creek, some 5.5 miles north of Lincoln and 5.0 miles upstream from U. S. Highway 99E. Stream bed eleva- tion at this site is 175 feet. The Lincoln Dam would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, or, in the event Coon Creek Dam were constructed as heretofore described, it would conserve the runoff of the Coon Creek watershed between the two dams. It was assumed that, in either case, the natural runoff w T ould be supplemented with water discharged from tic Wise Power House of the Pacific lias and Electric Company, as discussed in connection with the Doty Ravine Project, This latter flow would be available in Auburn Ravine for diversion to and conveyance in the existing Auburn Ravine Canal of the Nevada Irrigation District. The diverted water would be re- leased from the Auburn Ravine Canal into the Doty Ravine Avatershed at a point some 4 miles above the Doty Ravine dam site, then rediverted downstream, from Doty Ravine by a diversion structure and con- veyed in a canal to Coon Creek. The conserved waters, after release from the reservoir, would flow down the natural channel of Coon Creek for down- stream diversion and use. In Chapter III it was estimated that the present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit is about 8,300 acre-feet per season. However, in design of the Lincoln Project, it was considered de- sirable to provide some capacity for future growth in water requirement which would occur through devel- opment of irrigable lands not presently irrigated. As a first step in determination of the yield of the Lincoln Project, estimates were made of the yield of a 15,000 acre-foot reservoir under various conditions of water supply. It was estimated that the mean seasonal run- off of Coon Creek, from the approximately 53 square miles of watershed above the dam site, is about 38,200 acre-feet, and that the runoff from the approximately 13 square miles of watershed between the Coon Creek and Lincoln dam sites is about 5,400 acre-feet. It was assumed that an additional supply up to 17,500 acre- feet of water per season discharged from Wise Power House, could be imported to the Coon Creek water- shed by means of the Auburn Ravine Canal, enlarged and extended. Based on records and estimates of run- off during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, yield studies were made of a 15,000 acre-foot reservoir, under three possible conditions of runoff or diversion into the reservoir. It was indicated that in each case Lincoln Reservoir could be operated with only minor deficiencies during the critical period. Monthly de- mands on the reservoir were assumed to be propor- TABLE 88 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF LINCOLN RESERVOIR WITH 15,000 ACRE-FOOT CAPACITY, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Inflow Irrigation yield Full natural flow of Coon Creek _ 14 000 Full natural flow of Coon Creek, plus 9,000 acre-foot di- version from Auburn Ravine 17 500 Natural runoff between Coon Creek Dam and Lincoln Dam plus 17.500 acre-foot diversion from Auburn Ravine 17,500 PLANS FOE WATEE DEVELOPMENT 115 tional to the estimated average monthly distribution of irrigation demands in the Valley Unit, as presented in Table 46, except for modification in April and May to permit greater irrigation of rice. A summary of the results of the yield studies is presented in Table 88. Eeleases to the Lincoln Project from Wise Power House after the end of April and during the irriga- tion season would result in corresponding increases in yield. After consideration of topography of the dam site, yield studies, and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 15,000 acre-foot storage capacity, with a 9,000 acre-foot diversion from Auburn Eavine and with an estimated seasonal irrigation yield of 17,000 acre-feet, was chosen for purposes of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that conveyance losses, plus the anconsumed portion of the supplemental water supply applied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served and adjacent areas. It was estimated that seasonal losses in conveyance and dis- tribution of the 17,500 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield would be about 25 per cent, or 4,400 acre-feet, leaving some 18,100 acre-feet per season for surface application to irrigation. It was also assumed that the average seasonal application of water would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was estimated that the supplemental water would be applied to some 3,700 acres of irrigable land not presently irrigated. The lands are in a service area lying generally ad- jacent to Coon Creek, and east of Eeclamation Dis- trict 1001, and are shown on Plate 25a. An estimate of the monthly distribution demand for irrigation water in the Valley Unit was presented in Table 46. Based on these data, with modification to permit greater irrigation of rice, the monthly de- mands on the Lincoln Project would be as shown in Table 89. A topographic map of the Lincoln dam and reser- voir sites, at a scale of 1 inch equals 425 feet, and with a contour interval of 10 feet, was made by the TABLE 89 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM LINCOLN PROJECT Montli Per cent of seasonal total Gross release, in acre-feet 6 14 20 23 22 11 3 1 1,100 Maj _ 2.400 June 3,500 July ._ _ 4,100 August. _. 3,800 1,900 500 200 TOTALS 100 17.500 Division of Water Eesources in 1952, using photo- grammetric methods. Storage capacities of Lincoln Eeservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 90. TABLE 90 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF LINCOLN RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, U.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 175 185 195 ' 205 215 225 235 240 245 32 100 217 330 485 675 800 930 10__ _ . 200 20 30 850 2,500 40 5,200 50. _ 9,250 60 15,000 65 _ 18,780 70 22,400 Based upon preliminary geologic reconnaissance, the Lincoln dam site is considered suitable for an earthfill dam of the moderate heights considered. Slopes at this site are very gentle. Both abutments appear to be granite rock ridges with an estimated moderately heavy mantle of Pliocene deposits. Gran- ite rock is also exposed in a borrow pit located at the edge of the road immediately north of the stream about a quarter of a mile upstream from the site. This rock is badly decomposed at the surface and is high in chlorite, probably an alteration product of horn- blende. Stripping for the impervious section would consist of 3 feet of earth and gravel on the right abutment, 4 to 5 feet of earth and gravel on the left abutment, and in the channel section a minimum stripping of 10 feet near the bases of the abutments to 30 feet in the active channel. This material would consist of gravel and fines. Material for the impervi- ous core is readily available within easy hauling dis- tance and consists of decomposed granite and fines. Dredger tailings are available for the peiwious sec- tion. Due to the gravelly structure of the dam site foundation and reservoir area, leakage may be a prob- lem if not properly countered. A side channel spill- way could be cut in the left abutment at about 60 feet above the stream bed. The abutments and reservoir area have a light brush cover with scattered oak and cottonwood trees. The land is presently used for cattle grazing. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and consideration of topography and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 60 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest eleva- tion of 245 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Lincoln Project. The dam would con- sist of three earthfill structures, a main dam across Coon Creek and two small auxiliary dikes in sad- dles at either end of the main dam. The main dam 116 PLACEB COUNTY INVESTIGATION would have a crest Length of about 3,400 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 2.5 :1 upstream and downstream slopes. The two saddle dikes would have an over-all length of about 1,500 feet, and would be about 7 feet in height with 2.5 :1 side slopes. The 30-foot crest width would accommodate a roadway to replace that portion of the county road which would be inundated by the reservoir. The central impervious core of the main dam would have a top width of 10 feet and 1 : 1 slopes. The outer pervious zones of the main dam would consist of stream bed "ravels, dredger tailings, and other gravel materials. The upstream face of the main dam would be protected by a 3-foot blanket of riprap. The downstream slope would have pervious fill of the heavier grades on the surface. The total esti- mated volume of fill of the main dam and the two saddle dikes would be about 920,000 cubic yards. The concrete spillway would be of the ogee weir type with a concrete-lined open chute, and would be located between the main dam and a saddle dike on the left abutment. The maximum depth of water above the spillway lip would be 5 feet, and an addi- tional 5 feet of freeboard would be provided. The spillway would have a capacity of 18,500 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum discharge of 350 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into a draw that joins Coon Creek downstream from the toe of the dam. The outlet works would consist of a 42-inch diame- ter welded steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in rock beneath the dam and encased in concrete. Re- leases from the reservoir would be controlled by two 36-ineh high-pressure slide gates operated manually from the crest of the dam. The conserved water would be conveyed in the natural channel of Coon Creek for diversion by downstream users. Within the reservoir are 2 miles of meandering county road, most of which could be replaced by using the dam crest as a roadway. Lands within the reservoir area have little use except for grazing. The proposed diversion works on Doty Ravine would be located at an elevation of about 280 feet, about 1 mile upstream from the proposed Doty Ra- vine Dam. A concrete and dashboard dam, 6 feet in height from stream bed and 25 feet in length, would be constructed to divert flows to the inlet of a canal. The canal, with a capacity of 60 second-feet and 8 miles in length, would be unlined. It would have a trapezoidal section, 3-foot bottom width, 1.5 :1 side slopes, and a water depth of 3.2 feet. The canal would discharge into Coon Creek approximately 1.000 feet upstream from the Lincoln dam site. Detailed design of the distribution system required to serve water to users was considered to be outside the scope of the current investigation. Cost estimates were based on known costs of similar irrigation works elsewhere in California, adjusted to correspond with conditions prevailing in Placer County. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Lincoln Project, as designed for cost estimating purposes, are presented in Table 91. TABLE 91 GENERAL FEATURES OF LINCOLN PROJECT Lincoln Dam Type — earthfill Crest elevation — 245 feet Crest length— 3,400 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 60 feet Side slopes — 2 .5:1 Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 175 feet Volume of fill— 895,000 cubic yards Auxiliary Dikes Type— earthfill Total crest length, two dikes — 1,500 feet Crest width — 30 feet Side slopes — 2.5:1 Total volume of fill, two dikes — 25,000 cubic yards Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 675 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 15,000 acre-feet Drainage area. Coon Creek — 53 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Coon Creek — 38,200 acre-feet Estimated maximum seasonal diversion of water from Wise Power House through enlarged and extended Auburn Ravine Canal — 9,000 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 17,500 acre-feet Type of spillway — straight ogee weir, concrete-lined open chute Spillway discharge capacity — 18,500 second-feet Type of outlet — 42-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam Diversion Works Flashboard dam with concrete abutments, wingwalls and apron, approxi- mately 25 feet in length and 6 feet high above the stream bed elevation of 280 feet Conduit Type — trapezoidal, unlined Length, in miles — 8.0 Side slopes — 1 .5:1 Bottom width, in feet — 3.0 Depth, in feet — 3 . 2 Freeboard, in feet — 1.0 Slope, in feet per mile — 4 . 2 Velocity, in feet per second — 2.3 Capacity, in second-feet — 60 The capital cost of the Lincoln Project, on a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices prevailing in April, 1953, was estimated to be $1,321,000 and the corresponding annual cost was estimated to be about $66,000. The resultant estimated average unit cost of the 17,500 acre-feet of irrigation yield per season was about $3.80 per acre-foot. The estimated unit cost of the 13,100 acre-feet of supplemental water per season applied for irrigation in the service area considered was about $5.00 per acre-foot, On a 4 per cent basis these unit costs were about $4.30 per acre-foot and $5.80 per acre-foot, respectively. These estimates of cost do not include the cost of water at Wise Power House. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Lincoln Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are summarized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Doty Ravine Dam Site I L Auburn Ravine Dam Site 118 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Estimated Costs Capital Annual Lincoln I>;iin and Reservoir $1,190,000 $50,000 Duty Ravine diversion and canal 38,000 2,000 Distribution .system 93,000 14.0(10 $1,321,000 $60,000 Auburn Ravine Project. Preliminary investiga- tions were made of two dam sites on Auburn Ravine, a lower and an upper site, referred to as the Gold Hill and Ophir sites, respectively. Topographic con- siderations limit the Gold Hill site to a dam with a maximum height of 45 feet from stream bed to spill- way lip. Capacity of the reservoir with such a dam would be only about 1,700 acre-feet, and the esti- mated seasonal irrigation yield would be only about 1,650 acre-feet. Preliminary cost estimates indicated that capital and annual costs of dam and reservoir at the Gold Hill site would be excessive, as would be the resultant unit cost of conserved water. Because of limited yield and high unit cost of water at this site, it was given no further present consideration. The proposed Auburn Ravine Dam would be lo- cated in Sections 11 and 14, Township 12 North, Range 7 East, M. D. B. & M., at the Ophir site on Auburn Ravine some 2 miles west of the town of Ophir and some 8 miles east of Lincoln. Stream bed elevation at this site is 465 feet. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that Auburn Ravine Reser- voir would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, plus additional water in the amount of 10,000 acre- feet per season from Wise Power House, as discussed in connection with the Doty Ravine Project. During the irrigation season the conserved waters, after re- lease from the reservoir, would flow down Auburn Ravine and be available in the natural channel for downstream diversion and vise. In Chapter III it was estimated that the present re- quirement for supplemental water in the Valley I 'nit is about 8,300 acre-feet per season. However, in de- sign of the Auburn Ravine Project, it was considered desirable to provide some capacity for future growth in water requirement which would occur through de- velopment of irrigable lands not presently irrigated. As a first step in determination of the size of the Auburn Ravine Project, estimates were made of yield of the proposed works for various reservoir storage capacities. It was estimated that the mean seasonal runoff of Auburn Ravine, from the approximately 14.2 square mill's of watershed above the dam site, is about 15,800 acre-feet. As mentioned above, it was as- sumed that runoff of Auburn Ravine would be sup- plemented by additional water in the amount of 10, 000 acre-feel per season released into Auburn Ra- vine from Wise Power House. Based on records and estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacra- mento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, yield .Millies were made of two sizes of reservoir at the Ophir site. The limited number of sizes for which yield studies were made was largely determined by topographic considerations. It was indicated that the proposed Auburn Ravine Reservoir could be operated with only negligible irrigation deficiency during the critical period. Monthly demands on the reservoir were assumed to be proportional to the estimated dis- tribution of irrigation demands in the Valley Unit, as presented in Table 46, except for modification in April and May to permit greater irrigation of rice. A summary of the results of the yield studies is pre- sented in Table 92. TABLE 92 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF AUBURN RAVINE RESERVOIR, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Reservoir storage capacity Initiation yield 7.300 11,700 8.000 13,000 Releases to the Auburn Ravine Project from Wise Power House after the end of April and during the irrigation season would result in corresponding in- creases in yield. After consideration of the results of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 11,700 acre-foot storage capacity, with estimated sea- sonal irrigation yield of 13,000 acre-feet, was chosen for purposes of cost estimates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that conveyance losses, plus the un- consumed portion of the supplemental water supply applied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served and in adjacent areas. It was estimated that seasonal losses of water in conveyance and distribution of the 13,000 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield would be about 25 per cent, or 3,300 acre-feet, leaving some 9,700 acre-feet per season for surface application to irrigation. It was also assumed that the average seasonal application of water would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was esti- mated that the supplemental water would be applied to some 2,800 acres, including 700 acres presently served with ground water, and 2,100 acres of irrigable land presently not irrigated. These lands are in a service area lying generally adjacent to Auburn Ra- vine and easterly from Reclamation District 1001, and are shown on Plate 26. An estimate of the monthly distribution of demand for irrigation water in the Valley Unit was presented PLANS FOR WATEB DEVEL< WWIKXT 11!) in Table 46. Based on these data, with modification to permit greater irrigation of rice, monthly demands on the Auburn Ravine Project would be as shown in Table 93. TABLE 93 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM AUBURN RAVINE PROJECT Month April .May June July August September October November TOTALS Per cent of seasonal total 14 20 23 22 11 3 1 100 Gross release, in acre-feet 800 1.800 2.600 3,000 2,900 1,400 400 100 13,000 Topographic maps of the Auburn Ravine dam and reservoir sites, at scales of 1 inch equals 200 feet and 1 inch equals 425 feet, respectively, with contour intervals of 20 feet, were made by the Division of Water Resources in 1952. using photogrammetric methods. Storage capacities of Auburn Ravine Reser- voir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 94. TABLE 94 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF AUBURN RAVINE RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation, TJ.S.G.S. datum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 465 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 4 12 27 49 76 114 173 260 50 200 35 55 75 600 95__ . 1.350 2,650 4,500 7,300 11,700 115 135 155 175 Based upon preliminary geological reconnaissance, the Auburn Ravine dam site is considered suitable for a concrete gravity dam or for an earthen or rock- fill structure. Any height of dam up to nearly 200 feet would be feasible at the site, with the maximum height being topographically limited by a broad sad- dle a few hundred feet north of the crest of the right abutment. The axis of the proposed earthfill dam chosen for cost estimating purposes was located a short distance downstream from the best topographic location, in order to assure that the impervious sec- tion of the structure would not lie on the granitic- metamorphic contact hereinafter described. This chosen location provides a foundation of granitic rock for the most part. The granitic rock is a very slightly metamorphosed, hornblende-rich material which is quite hard and fresh where exposed in channel out- crop. Relatively unweathered rock extends from the stream bed to heights of about 25 feet on either abut- ment. Jointing is of minor importance, except in the area of the contact described in the following para- graph. The contact, between granitic rock downstream and a schistose amphibolite upstream, crosses the stream a short distance above the chosen axial location, and would extend only beneath the pervious section of the dam. The contact strikes northwesterly across the channel and trends downstream into the right abut- ment. It closely follows a clearly denned gully, which is tributary to the main stream course at an acute angle downstream. This feature, coupled with the pro- nounced schistosity, and with the several sheared zones noted in the contact area, leads to the supposi- tion that the concealed contact may actually be one of a fault nature. The spillway could well be cut through the top of the hill forming the right abutment. An auxiliary dike of low height would have to be provided in the saddle occurring north of the spillway. Stripping under the impervious section of an earthfill dam at this site should not exceed 6 feet of soil mantle and loose rock on the right abutment and about 3 feet in the channel section on the left abutment. Bed- rock in the vicinity of the site is hard, and could readily be quarried for use as rockfill, riprap, or crushing for aggregates. No stream "ravels suitable for use either as concrete aggregates or as pervious fill occur in the area locally. Although further ex- ploration and testing of potential earthfill sources and materials would be required, it seems likely that by stripping a thin cover of residual soils from a nearby large hilly area, it would be possible to obtain the required quantities of suitable impervious fill ma- terial. Pervious fill might also be obtained from a similar source, or, in lieu of this, quarried rock could be used for this purpose. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnais- sance, and preliminary cost estimates, and earth- fill dam 175 feet in height from stream bed to spill- way lip, and with a crest elevation of 650 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Auburn Ravine Project, The dam would consist of two earth- fill structures, a main dam across Auburn Ravine and an auxiliary dam in a low saddle north of the right abutment. The main dam would have a crest length of about 620 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 3.25 : 1 upstream and 3:1 downstream slopes. The central impervious core of the main dam would have a top width of 10 feet, and 1 : 1 slopes. The outer pervious zones of the main dam would consist of decomposed granite, and a 3-foot blanket of gravel riprap would protect the upstream face. The saddle dam would lie constructed of impervious material, and would have 121) PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION a crest length of about 415 feet, crest width of 20 feet, a maximum height of about 26 feet, and 2 : 1 upstream and downstream slopes. The main dam would have an estimated volume of fill of 1,631,000 cubic yards, and the estimated volume of fill of the saddle dam would be 14,400 cubic yards. The concrete spillway would be of the ogee weir type with a concrete-lined open chute, and would be located between the main dam and the auxiliary dam. It would have a capacity of 9,400 second-feet, re- quired for an assumed maximum discharge of 660 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into Auburn Ravine some 1,000 feet downstream from the dam. The maximum deptli of water above the spillway lip would be 6 feet, and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. Outlet works wordd consist of a 48-inch diameter steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated beneath the right abutment of the main dam and encased in con- crete. Releases from the reservoir would be controlled at the upstream end by two 30-inch diameter butter- fly valves, enclosed in a concrete inlet structure and protected by a trash rack, and operated by hydraulic controls from a house on the right abutment. The outlet conduit would terminate in a 36-inch diameter needle valve. This needle valve would discharge into a concrete-lined stilling basin, from which water would enter the existing Auburn Ravine Canal to supply present users, to be conveyed to Doty Ravine, or to be spilled into Auburn Ravine for downstream diversion. Auburn Ravine Reservoir would inundate the ex- isting Auburn Ravine Canal diversion and about 25 acres of pear orchard. Most of the reservoir area, how- ever, is hillside brush land. Construction of the dam and reservoir would make necessary the relocation of somewhat more than 1 mile of underground toll cable. Detailed design of the distribution system was con- sidered to be outside the scope of the current investi- gation. Cost estimates for the system were based on known costs of similar irrigation works elsewhere in California, adjusted to correspond with conditions prevailing in Placer County. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Auburn Ravine Project, as designed for cost esti- mating purposes, are presented in Table 95. The capital cost of the Auburn Ravine Project, on a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices pre- vailing in April, 1953, was estimated to be about $3,170,000, and the corresponding annual cost was estimated to be about $147,000. The resultant esti- mated average unit cost of the 13,000 acre-feet per season of irrigation yield was about $11.30 per acre- foot. The estimated unit cost of the 9,700 acre-feet of supplemental water per season applied for irriga- tion in the service area considered was about $15.20 per acre-font. On a 4 per cent interest basis these unit TABLE 95 GENERAL FEATURES OF AUBURN RAVINE PROJECT Auburn Ravine Dam Type— eartlifill Crest elevation — 650 feet Crest length— 620 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 175 feet Side slopes — 3.25:1 upstream 3:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 10 feet Elevation of stream bed — 465 feet Volume of fill — 1,631,000 cubic yards Auxiliary Saddle Dam Type — earthfill Crest length — 415 feet Crest width— 20 feet Side slopes — 2:1 Maximum height — 26 feet Volume of fill — 14,400 cubic, yards Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 260 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 11,700 acre-feet Drainage area, Auburn Ravine — 14.2 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff, Auburn Ravine — 15,800 acre-feet Estimated maximum seasonal diversion of water from Wise Power House- 10,000 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 13,000 acre-feet Type of spillway — circular ogee weir, concrete-lined open chute Spillway discharge capacity — 9,400 second-feet Type of outlet — 48-inch diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam costs were about $12.20 per acre-foot and $16.40 per acre-foot, respectively. These estimates of cost do not include the cost of water at Wise Power House. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Auburn Ravine Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are sum- marized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix N. Estimated Costs Capital Annual Auburn Ravine Dam and Reservoir__$3,100,000 $135,000 Distribution system _ 70,000 12,000 TOTALS $3,170,000 $147,000 Whitney Ranch Project. The proposed Whitney Ranch Dam and Reservoir would be located on Pleas- ant Grove Creek, in Section 11, Township 11 North, Range 6 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site some 4 miles north of Roseville and 1.5 miles upstream from L 1 . S. Highway 99E. Stream bed elevation at the site is 128 feet. For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that Whitney Ranch Reservoir would conserve the runoff! of its own watershed, plus additional water in the amount of 11,000 acre-feet per season from Wise Power House. Winter flows from Wise Power House would be spilled into Auburn Ravine and conveyed in the natural channel for a distance of about 7.5 miles to a point on that stream at an elevation of approxi- mately 250 feet. At this point the water would be diverted and conveyed southwesterly in a canal for a distance of about 12 miles, discharging into Whitney Ranch Reservoir. The conserved water would be re- leased from the reservoir to Pleasant Grove Creek, and would be available for downstream diversion and use. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 121 In Chapter III it was estimated that the present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit is about 8,300 acre-feet per season. However, in design of the Whitney Ranch Project it was consid- ered desirable to provide some capacity for future growth in water requirement which would occur through development of irrigable lands not presently irrigated. As a first step in determination of the size of the Whitney Ranch Project, estimates were made of yield of the proposed works. It Avas estimated that mean seasonal runoff of Pleasant Grove Creek, from the approximately 4.8 square miles of watershed above the dam site, is about 2,600 acre-feet. As previously discussed, it was assumed that an additional 11,000 acre-feet of water per season would be conveyed to Whitney Ranch Reservoir from Wise Power House on Auburn Ravine. Based on records and estimates of runoff during the eritical dry period which occurred in the Sacramento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, yield studies were made of two sizes of reservoir at the Whitney Ranch site. It was indicated that the Whitney Ranch Reservoir could be operated with only negligible de- ficiency through the critical period. Monthly demands on the reservoir were assumed to be proportional to the estimated distribution of irrigation demands in the Valley Unit, as presented in Table 46, except for modification in April and May to permit greater irri- gation of rice. A summary of the residts of the yield studies is presented in Table 96. TABLE 96 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF WHITNEY RANCH RESERVOIR, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Reservoir storage capacity Irrigation yield 4,000 10,300 2,800 9,500 Releases to the Whitney Ranch Project from Wise Power House after the end of April and during the irrigation season would result in corresponding in- creases in yield. After consideration of the yield studies, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 10,300 acre-foot capacity, with estimated seasonal irrigation yield of 9,500 acre-feet, was chosen for purposes of cost esti- mates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study for this size of reservoir is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that conveyance losses, plus the unconsumed portion of the supplemental water supply applied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served and in adjacent areas. It was estimated that seasonal losses of water in con- veyance and distribution of the 9,500 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield would be about 25 per cent, or 2,400 acre-feet, leaving some 7,100 acre-feet per season for surface application to irrigation. It was also assumed that the average seasonal application would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was estimated that the supplemental water would be ap- plied to some 2,000 acres, including 1,500 acres pres- ently served with ground water and 500 acres of irrigable land presently not irrigated. These lands are in a service area lying generally adjacent to Pleasant Grove and Curry Creeks, and easterly of the boundary of Reclamation District 1000, as shown on Plate 27. An estimate of the monthly distribution of demand for irrigation water in the Valley Unit was presented in Table 46. Based on these data, with modification to permit greater irrigation of rice, monthly demands on the Whitney Ranch Project would be as shown in Table 97. TABLE 97 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM WHITNEY RANCH PROJECT Month April May June July August September October November TOTALS 100 Per cent of Gross release, seasonal total in acre-feet 6 600 14 1,300 20 1,900 23 2,200 22 2,100 11 1,000 3 300 1 100 9,500 A topographic map of the Whitney Ranch dam site at a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet, with contour inter- val of 10 feet, was made by the Division of Water Resources in 1951, using photogrammetric methods. Topography of the reservoir site is shown on the Markham Ravine Quadrangle of the Corps of Engi- neers, United States Army, at a scale of 1:62,500, with contour interval of 5 feet. Storage capacities of Whitney Ranch Reservoir at various stages of water surface elevation are given in Table 98. The Whitney Ranch dam site is topographically limited to a low dam. The site is suitable, from both the topographic and geologic viewpoints, only for an earthfill dam. Preliminary geologic reconnaissance in- dicates that the bedrock locally consists of a series of reworked volcanics of Tertiary age, interbedded with 1 22 PLACER CorXTV INVESTIGATION TABLE 98 AREAS AND CAPACITIES OF WHITNEY RANCH RESERVOIR Depth of water at dam, in feet Water surface elevation. CJ.S.G.S. (latum, in feet Water surface area, in acres Storage capacity, in acre-feet 12 128 140 150 160 170 173 180 190 193 200 30 105 260 430 470 565 780 840 975 300 22 700 32 1,600 42__ _ 3,300 i:, 4.000 52 5.800 62 65 9,200 10,300 72 13,500 occasional sedimentary strata. Tlie volcanics arc chiefly fine-grained, tight rocks of low to medium density. Overlying this series is a layer of partially cemented gravels varying up to 4 feet in thickness. The latter occurs chiefly on the upper abutment slopes, and gives way to silt lower on the abutments and in the chan- nel section. Throughout the vicinity the topsoil is tight, as evidenced by ponding water following heavy rains. Required stripping from the abutments would be about 3 feet of overburden and 2 feet of weath- ered bedrock, and from the channel section about 2 feet of fill and 2 feet of weathered bedrock. The best location for a spillway would be through a saddle (iccuring southeast of the dam site. The spillway sec- tion would have to be lined due to the moderately soft rocks which underlie shallow overburden in the saddle. The foundation material described above probably is not suitable, due chiefly to low density, for use in construction of an impervious fill at this site. It may also be too clayey for use as pervious fill. However, a supply of both impervious and pervious fill material probably can be obtained within a haul distance of less than 3 miles. Harder rock, quarriable for use as riprap, can be obtained approximately 2 miles upstream from the axis location. As a result of yield studies, geologic reconnaissance, and preliminary cost estimates, an earthfill dam 65 feet in height from stream bed to spillway lip, and with a crest elevation of 200 feet, was selected to illustrate estimates of cost of the Whitney Ranch Project. The dam would have a crest length of about 2,320 feet, a crest width of 30 feet, and 3:1 up- stream and 2.5: 1 downstream slopes. The impervious core would have a top width of 20 feet, and 3 : 1 up- stream and 1 : 1 downstream slopes. The upstream slope would be protected by a 3-foot blanket of rip- rap. The downstream pervious zone would consist of stream bed gravels and materials salvaged from strip- ping and excavation. The volume of fill would be an estimated 673,600 cubic yards. The concrete spillway would be of the ogee weir type, located in a saddle south of the left, abutment, and the spillway channel would be lined. The maxi- mum depth of water above the spillway would be 3 feet and an additional 4 feet of freeboard would be provided. The spillway would have a capacity of 4,400 second-feet, required for an assumed maximum dis- charge of 920 second-feet per square mile of drainage area, and would discharge into a tributary of Pleasant Grove Creek. The outlet works would consist of a 24-inch diameter welded steel pipe, placed in a trench excavated in rock beneath the dam and encased in concrete. Releases from the reservoir would be controlled at a submerged concrete box inlet structure by a 24-inch diameter hydraulically controlled gate valve, operated from a control house on the crest of the dam. The outlet would be controlled at the downstream end by an 18- inch diameter hollow jet valve, discharging into a stilling basin and into Pleasant Grove Creek down- stream from the toe of the dam. The conserved water would be conveyed in the natural channel of Pleasant Grove Creek for diversion by downstream users. The land within the reservoir area is almost entirely native pasture. The Whitney Ranch Reservoir would inundate the ranch headquarters of the Spring Valley Ranch. The proposed diversion works on Auburn Ravine would be located at the previously mentioned Gold Hill site about 4 miles east of Lincoln. A topo- graphic map of the Gold Hill site, at a scale of 1 inch equals 425 feet, with a contour interval of 10 feet, was made by the Division of Water Resources in 1!)51, using photogrammetric methods. The diversion works would consist of a concrete gravity overpour weir with a crest elevation of 252 feet. The weir would be 7 feet in height above stream bed and some 150 feet in length. An opening at the left end of the weir would provide entrance to a side channel and the headworks of the diversion canal. The side channel would have a c ;rete gravity parapet wall of the overpour type, and a 4- by 4-foot sluice gate would be provided for sand flushing. The headworks would consist of a con- crete headwall across the cud of the side channel, in which there would be trash racks and a 4- by 4-foot slide gate. The proposed diversion canal would be about 12 miles in length, extending in a southwesterly direction and discharging into Pleasant Grove Creek. Location of the canal was based on a map study, and was checked in the field. The canal chosen for cost esti- mating purposes would have a capacity of 50 second- feet. It would be unlined and of trapezoidal section, with 2 : 1 side slopes, bottom width of 5 feet, depth of 2.5 feet, freeboard of 1 foot, and a slope of approxi- mately 3.5 feet per mile. The velocity would be about 2 feet per second. PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 123 Detailed design of the distribution system Avas con- sidered to be outside the scope of the current investi- gation. Cost estimates for the system were based on known costs of similar irrigation works elsewhere in California, adjusted to correspond with conditions prevailing in Placer County. Pertinent data with respect to general features of the Whitney Ranch Project, as designed for cost esti- mating purposes, are presented in Table 99. TABLE 99 GENERAL FEATURES OF WHITNEY RANCH PROJECT Whitney Ranch Dam Type — earthfill Crest elevation — 200 feet Crest length— 2.320 feet Crest width— 30 feet Height, spillway lip above stream bed — 6.") feet Side slopes — 3:1 upstream 2.5:1 downstream Freeboard, above spillway lip — 7 feet Elevation of stream bed — 128 feet Volume of fill — 673,600 cubic yards Reservoir Surface area at spillway lip — 840 acres Storage capacity at spillway lip — 10,300 acre-feet Drainage area. Pleasant Grove Creek — 4.8 square miles Estimated mean seasonal runoff. Pleasant Grove Creek — 2.600 acre-feet Estimated maximum seasonal diversion of water from Wise Power House — 11.000 acre-feet Estimated seasonal irrigation yield — 9,500 acre-feet Type of spillway — ogee weir Spillway discharge capacity — 4,400 second-feet Type of outlet — 24-incli diameter welded steel pipe beneath dam Diversion Works — concrete gravity weir with ogee overpour section, 150 feet in length, and 7 feet in height above stream bed elevation of 245 feet: side channel diversion box with overpour parapet wall, and 4- by 4-foot slide sluice gate; 4- by 4-foot slide headgate in concrete headwall. Conduit Type — trapezoidal, unlined canal Length, in miles — 12 Side slopes — 2:1 Bottom width, in feet — 5.0 Depth, in feet — 2.5 Freeboard, in feet — 1.0 Slope, in feet per mile — 3.6 Velocity, in feet per second — 2.0 Capacity, in seeond-feet — 50 The capital cost of the Whitney Ranch Project, on a 3 per cent interest basis and based on prices prevail- iii»- in April, 1953, was estimated to be $1,318,000, and the corresponding annual cost was estimated to be about $66,000. The resultant estimated average unit cost of the 9,500 acre-feet of irrigation yield per sea- son was about $6.90 per acre-foot. The estimated unit '. cost of the 7,100 acre-feet of supplemental water per season applied for irrigation in the service area con- sidered was about $9.30 per acre-foot. On a 4 per cent interest basis these unit costs were about $8.00 per acre-foot and $10.70 per acre-foot, respectively. These : estimates of cost do not include the cost of water at Wise Power House. Estimated capital and annual costs of the Whitney Ranch Project on a 3 per cent interest basis are sum- marized in the following tabulation. Detailed cost esti- mates are presented in Appendix X. Whitney Ranch Dam and Reservoir. Auburn Ravine diversion works and canal Distribution system Estimated Costs Capital Annual $1,200,000 $54,000 63,000 .-.o.ooo 3,000 9,000 TOTALS $1,313,000 $66,000 Clover Valley Project. The proposed Clover Val- ley Dam and Reservoir would be located on Clover Creek, in Section 18, Township 11 North, Range 7 East, M. D. B. & M., at a site about 1 mile north of Rocklin. Stream bed elevation at the site is 260 feet. For cost estimating purposes it was assumed that Clover Valley Reservoir would conserve the runoff of its own watershed, plus additional water in the amount of 22,000 acre-feet per season from Wise Power House. Winter flows spilled from Wise Power House would be diverted from Auburn Ravine and conveyed in the existing Auburn Ravine Canal of the Nevada Irriga- tion District for a distance of about 1.1 miles. At this point the water would be diverted from the canal and conveyed southerly in a siphon across Auburn Ravine and thence southwesterly in a canal for a distance of about 14 miles, discharging through a tunnel about 0.35 mile in length into Clover Creek about 0.8 mile above the flow line of the proposed Clover Valley Reservoir. The conserved water would be released from the reservoir to Clover Creek, and would be available for downstream diversion and use. In Chapter III it was estimated that the present requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit is about 8,300 acre-feet per season. However, in design of the Clover Valley Project it was considered desirable to provide some capacity for future growth in water requirement which would occur through de- velopment of irrigable lands not presently irrigated. As a firs£ step in determination of the size of the Clover Valley Project, estimates were made of yield of the proposed works. It was estimated that mean seasonal runoff of Clover Creek, from the approxi- mately 3.3 square miles of watershed above the dam site, is about 2,000 acre-feet. As previously discussed, it was assumed that an additional 22,000 acre-feet of water per season would be conveyed to Clover Valley Reservoir from Wise Power House on Auburn Ravine. Based on records and estimates of runoff during the critical dry period which occurred in the Sacra- mento Valley from 1920-21 through 1934-35, a yield study was made of a 21,600 acre-foot reservoir at the Clover Valley site. It was indicated that the Clover Valley Reservoir could be operated with only negli- gible deficiency through the critical period. Monthly demands on the reservoir were assumed to be propor- tional to the estimated distribution of irrigation de- mands in the Valley Unit, as presented in Table 46. except for modification in April and May to permit greater irrigation of rice. The result of the yield study is presented in Table 100. 124 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION TABLE 100 ESTIMATED SEASONAL IRRIGATION YIELD OF CLOVER VALLEY RESERVOIR WITH AUBURN RAVINE DIVERSION, BASED ON CRITICAL DRY PERIOD FROM 1920-21 THROUGH 1934-35 (In acre-feet) Reservoir storage capacity Irrigation yield 21,(>00 22,000 Releases to Clover Valley Reservoir from Wise Power House after the end of April and during the irrigation season would result in corresponding in- creases in yield. After consideration of the yield study, together with topography of the dam site and cost analyses hereinafter discussed, a reservoir of 21,600 acre-foot capacity, with estimated seasonal irrigation yield of 22,000 acre-feet, was chosen for purposes of cost esti- mates to be presented in this bulletin. The yield study is included in Appendix M. It was assumed that conveyance losses, plus the un- consumed portion of the supplemental water supply applied to irrigation, would be effective in preventing progressive and permanent lowering of ground water levels in the area served and in adjacent areas. It was estimated that seasonal losses of water in conveyance and distribution of the 22,000 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield would be about 25 per cent, or 5,500 acre-feet, leaving some 16,500 acre-feet per season for surface application to irrigation. It was also assumed that the average seasonal application would be 3.5 acre-feet per acre. On this basis it was estimated that the supplemental water would be applied to some 4,700 acres of irrigable land presently not irrigated. These lands are in a service area lying generally ad- jacent to Clover and Linda Creeks and easterly of the boundary of Reclamation District 1000, as shown on Plate 27a. TABLE 101 ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND FOR WATER FROM CLOVER VALLEY PROJECT Month April May June July August Septembei October \6.90 ''8.30 Annual power revenue $151,000 836,000 1,375,000 961,000 1,628,000 350,000 Annual excess of power revenue over cost $182,000 163.000 399.000 144,000 Net return on capital investment from sale of power, in per cent 1.80 0.70 4.23 5.20 New sale yield. Irrigation yield. Bounty would be available from future major units 1 The California Water Plan, including works on the luba, Bear, and American Rivers. The major units vill be described in a future publication of the State water Resources Board. Table 105 presents an economic comparison of the mrious projects for initial development of supple- mental water supplies for Placer County. As shown in Table 105, the Jackson Meadows and jake Valley Projects, the latter 's alternative, the 3iseo Project, and the Rollins Project would provide ibout 17,000 acre-feet, 48,000 acre-feet, 71,000 acre- feet, and 135,000 acre-feet, respectively, of new safe leasonal yield of water, with estimated capital costs Imging from about $5,600,000 to $23,000,000, or bughly in proportion to the new safe yields. Annual iosts of the water would range from about $4.00 to &15.00 per acre-foot for the respective projects, ex- cluding consideration of possible revenues from the sale of hydroelectric power. Power revenues from cer- ain projects would exceed annual costs, excluding •onsideration of additional possible revenues from sale of water. From a local point of view, the Foresthill Divide 'roject probably would be more desirable than the French Meadows Project. This is true because it would require a capital investment of only about $6,000,000, c Excluding cost of power facilities. 11 Includes cost of distribution system. rather than the $49,000,000 estimated for the latter project. Furthermore, only a small portion of the yield of the larger project could be utilized on the Foresthill Divide, and unit cost of the developed water would be excessive until such time as the major por- tion of the yield could be put to beneficial use else- where. However, revenues from the sale of hydro- electric power would reduce the estimated animal unit cost of the safe seasonal yield to about $6.80 per acre- foot if all of the yield of water were marketed. The seven Valley Unit developments, the Camp Far West, Coon Creek, Doty Ravine, Lincoln, Auburn Ra- vine, Whitney Ranch, and Clover Valley Projects, would provide supplemental water in amounts rang- ing from 80,000 acre-feet to 9,500 acre-feet per season, and at estimated capital costs ranging from about $5,- 600,000 to $1,300,000, or very roughly in proportion to yield from the developments. Annual unit costs of the seasonal irrigation yield would vary from about $4.00 to about $11.00 per acre-foot. Of the seven proj- ects, it would appear that the Camp Far West Proj- ect, with an estimated capital cost of about $5,300,000 and annual unit cost of seasonal irrigation yield of about $4.00 per acre-foot, is the most favorable. This is emphasized by the fact that seasonal irrigation yield of the Camp Far West Project would be about 80,000 acre-feet — considerably larger than that for any of the other Valley development plans considered. -s:h-j: CHAPTER V SUAAMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of field investigation and analysis of available data on the water resources and water prob- lems of Placer County, and on the basis of the esti- mates and assumptions discussed hereinbefore, the fol- lowing conclusions and recommendations are made. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The present basic water problem in the Foothill, American River, and Bear River Units of Placer |ounty is the limitation on desirable expansion of Irrigated agriculture imposed by the insufficiency of leveloped water supplies. In the Tahoe Unit the pres- ent basic water problem is flood damage to recrea- ;ional property along the shore of Lake Tahoe which )ccurs at times of high lake levels. The present basic pater problems in the Valley Unit are largely con- incd to progressive lowering of ground water levels md to low yields of wells in certain areas. 2. Elimination of the foregoing problems, preven- ;ion of their recurrence in the future, and provision )f water for lands not now served will require further jevelopment of water supplies available to Placer lounty. 3. Direct precipitation, and runoff from the highly Jroductive tributary watersheds of the Sierra Nevada, institute ample sources of water supply for present md future water service areas in Placer County. Mean easonal depths of precipitation over the Valley and foothill Units are about 18.9 inches and 24.5 inches, •espectively. Direct precipitation contributes water in i mean seasonal amount of about 172,000 acre-feet to he Valley Unit, and about 288,000 acre-feet to the foothill Unit. Mean seasonal natural runoff of the Imerican River at Fair Oaks is slightly in excess of !,7 70,000 acre-feet. 4. The ground water basin underlying the Valley T nit of Placer County functions as a natural regula- ory reservoir, and at the present time about two- lirds of the irrigated valley floor lands of the unit ire irrigated with water pumped from this reservoir. ■Storage capacity of the ground water basin is about :,022,000 acre-feet between the levels of 20 and 200 Vet below the ground surface, and its safe seasonal 'ield, with average maintenance of ground water evels prevailing in 1950-51, is about 20,000 acre-feet. 5. The jrross extraction of ground water in the Val- ey Pint during 1950-51 was about 29,000 acre-feet, ibout 9,000 acre-feet in excess of the safe yield. Aver- ige "round water levels fell about 7.8 feet from the 'all of 1948 to the fall of 1952, coincident with rapid development and increased use of ground water. This lowering, which continued to the fall of 1954, has resulted in increased agricultural production costs. 6. Satisfactory Avells with yields sufficient for irri- gation purposes may be obtained in all but certain small areas in the Valley Unit. 7. The surface water supplies of Placer County are of excellent mineral quality. The ground water sup- plies of the Valley Unit are generally of excellent to good mineral quality. However, in scattered wells along the eastern edge of the valley floor, "round water of poor mineral quality has been found. 8. At the present time there are approximately 39,- 000 acres of irrigated land in Placer County, dis- tributed as follows: Valley Unit, 10,700 acres; Foot- hill Unit, 24,500 acres; American River Unit. 2,400 acres; Bear River Unit, 1,400 acres; Yuba River Unit, acres; and Tahoe Unit, acres. 9. The probable ultimate land use pattern of Placer County will include about 160,000 acres of irrigated land, distributed as follows: Valley Unit, 68,300 acres; Foothill Unit, 65,600 acres; American River Unit, 20,200 acres; Bear River Unit, 6,000 acres; Yuba River Unit, acres; and Tahoe Unit, acres. 10. The present mean seasonal water requirement in Placer County, measured in terms of consumptive use of applied water, is about 96,600 acre-feet, dis- tributed among the units as follows : Valley Unit, 41.100 acre-feet; Foothill Unit, 47,700 acre-feet; American River Unit, 3,800 acre-feet; Bear River Unit, 2,600 aere-feet; Yuba River Unit, 100 acre-feet ; Tahoe Unit, 400 acre-feet; and an additional 900 acre-feet for national forests which overlap several of the units. Of the total amount of water including rainfall now consumptively used in the Valley Unit, approximately 30 per cent is consumed in the produc- tion of irrigated crops. Dry-farmed and fallow lands, native vegetation, and lands devoted to miscellaneous uses including urban areas, consume the remaining 70 per cent. 11. Under conditions of ultimate development in Placer County the mean seasonal requirement for water, measured in terms of consumptive use of ap- plied water, will probably increase to about 406,000 acre-feet, distributed among the several units as fol- lows: Valley Unit, 225,000 acre-feet ; Foothill Unit, 133,000 acre-feet; American River Unit. 31,000 acre- feet; Pear River Unit, 11,000 acre-feet; Yuba River Unit, 200 acre-feet; Tahoe Unit, 2,000 acre-feet; and an additional 3,400 acre-feet for national forest lands. ( 131 ) 132 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION 12. The present mean seasonal requirement for supplemental water in the Valley Unit, in order to prevent progressive lowering of ground water levels, is about 8,300 acre-feet. While agricultural growth in remaining units of Placer County has been limited to some extent by the available developed water sup- plies, such present supplemental water requirements as may exist in these units are small and not readily susceptible to evaluation. 13. Under ultimate conditions of development the mean seasonal requirement for supplemental water in Placer County probably will be about 355,000 acre- feet, distributed among the units as follows: Valley Unit, 189,000 acre-feet; Foothill Unit, 113,000 acre- feet; American River Unit, 36,000 acre-feet; Pear River Unit, 11,000 acre-feet; Yuba River Unit, 100 acre-feet; Tahoe Unit, 2,100 acre-feet; and an addi- tional 3,300 acre-feet for national forest lands. 14. Major features of The California Water Plan. which is presently being formulated under direction of the State Water Resources Board, will provide supplemental water to meet the probable ultimate requirements of Placer County. It is feasible, from an engineering standpoint, to so regulate and conserve the relatively large flood Hows of the Yuba, Bear, American, and Truckee Rivers as to yield firm water supplies considerably in excess of the probable ulti- mate supplemental water requirements of the county. 15. An immediate source of supplemental water is available to Placer County in the surface water pres- ently wasting from the area, the salvage of which will require the construction of water storage, con- veyance, and distribution facilities. The estimated capital costs of considered water development projects for the county vary from about $1,300,000 to $49,- 000,000, and the estimated average annual unit costs of new water made available by these developments vary from about $1 to $20 per acre-foot. In the case of certain of the projects these unit costs would he reduced by the sale of hydroelectric power. 16. Xew water sufficient to meet the present and a port ; on of the probable ultimate supplemental re- quirements of the Valley, Foothill. American River, Bear Liver, and Yuba River Units could lie made available by construction of the Jackson Meadows or Lake Valley Projects, or the hitter's alternative, the Cisco Project, or the Rollins Project. The capital costs of these projects were estimated to be about $5.(144.000. $10,110,000, $23,303,000, and $9,437,000, respectively. Excluding consideration of revenues from the sale of power, average unit costs of the 17.0(10 acre-feet. 48,000 acre-feet, 71,000 acre-feet, and 1:55.000 acre-feet of new safe seasonal yield developed by the respective projects would be about $15, $10. $10, and $1. on a :i per cent interest hasis. Power reve nues, however, would exceed annual costs in the case of all but the Jackson .Meadows Project, and would resuli in returns on the capital investments of about 1.8 per cent, 0.7 per cent, and 4.2 per cent, respec- tively, excluding consideration of possible revenues from the sale of water. The four projects are engineeringly feasible, and selection of the most desirable project for initial con- struction would depend upon such factors as present local capacity to finance, the rate at which the project yield could be sold and put to beneficial use, and future growth in water demands. 17. New water sufficient to meet the probable ulti- mate supplemental requirement of the Foresthill Di- vide could be made available by construction of the French Meadows or Foresthill Divide Projects, the capital costs of which were estimated to be about $48,- 716,000, and $5,924,000, respectively. The average unit costs of the 119,000 acre-feet of safe seasonal yield and 25,000 acre-feet of seasonal irrigation yield developed by the respective projects would be about $20 and $P5, on a 3 per cent interest basis. Revenues from the sale of hydroelectric power would reduce the estimated annual unit cost of yield of the French Meadows Project to about $7 per acre-foot if all the yield were marketed. Although both projects are engineeringly feasible, the Foresthill Divide Project probably would be more desirable than the French Meadows Project from a local point of view, because of its much lower capital cost. The indicated capital cost of the latter project is probably greater than present local capacity to finance, and unit cost of the water developed would be excessive until such time as the major portion of the yield could be sold and exported for beneficial use elsewhere than on the Foresthill Divide. 18. New water sufficient to meet the present and a portion of the probable ultimate supplemental re- quirements of the Valley Unit could be made available by construction of one or more of the Camp Far West, Coon Creek, Doty Ravine, Lincoln, Auburn Ravine, Whitney Ranch, and Clover Valley Projects. The estimated capital costs of these projects range from about $1,300,000 to $5,600,000, and the projects would provide supplemental water in amounts rang- ing from 9,500 acre-feet to 80,000 acre-feet per season. The average unit costs of the irrigation yield of water developed by the various projects would range from about $4 to about $11 per acre-foot, on a 3 per cent interest basis. All of the projects are feasible of construction from the engineering standpoint. Of the seven projects, the Camp Far West Project probably would be the most favorable for initial development, because it would have the lowest annual unit cost of water and a sea sonal irrigation yield considerably larger than any of the others. Capital costs of any of the seven proj ects are probably within the present local capacity h finance. 111. Construction of the Auburn Ravine Power I)e velopment Project would result in production of h SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 133 feonsiderable amount of hydroelectric energy from dis- charge of water released from Wise Power House through a new power house that would be located on Auburn Ravine. The capital cost of the Auburn Ra- vine Power Development Project was estimated to be about $2,770,000. The estimated annual net revenue from such a project, on a 3 per cent interest basis, would be about $144,000, or about 5 per cent on the capital investment. 20. The estimated unit costs of new water fox- Placer County, as given in the foregoing paragraphs, are based on current prices of construction, and are illustrative of the costs that may be expected in the development of new water for the various units of the County. Certain of the estimated costs are com- parable with those of surface and ground water pres- ently served within Placer County. In this connection, as a basis for comparison, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company presently sells agricultural water in its service area in Placer County at a rate corresponding to about $7 per acre-foot, with service at canalside. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that : 1. Public districts endowed with appropriate pow- ers be created for the purpose of proceeding with further study of the local water problems and with financing, construction, and operation of projects if found financially feasible. 2. Local development of water resources be accom- plished by an orderly progression of phases of devel- opment and in accordance with The California Water Plan. The proposed plans should be developed in suc- cessive steps, starting with those projects of indicated lowest capital and unit cost of water, and thence pro- ceeding in order of expense to phases of greater unit cost. .'{. Stream gaging stations be constructed and con- tinuous records of stream flow be obtained at strategic points on those streams for which future construc- tion of water conservation works is probable, in order to permit more reliable determination of yield of the projects and their most economic design and construc- tion. 4. Regular periodic observations of ground water levels and sampling of ground water for quality de- terminations in the Valley Unit be made, and records maintained, in order to permit more reliable determi- nation of safe ground water yield and future ground water conditions. 5. Periodic surveys be made of land use and water application as they relate to water utilization, in order to permit evaluation of future water demands and orderly development of water conservation works. 6. A program be initiated for the acquisition of lauds, easements, and rights of way necessary for construction of required water conservation works. 7. Continuing support be given to the investigation and study of major multipurpose development under The California Water Plan, including those on the Yuba, Bear, American, and Truckee River systems. PLATE I DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION PLATE Z PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION fc HYDROGRAPHIC UNlTs, WATER AGENCIES AND EXISTING WATER CONSERVATION WORKS 1953 SCALE OF MILES PLATE 3 LEGEND • PRECIPITATION STATIONS ■« GAGING STATIONS O PRECIPITATION IN INCHES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LINES OF EQUAL MEAN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION SCALE OF MILES PLATE 4 60 V) w I o Z z o o UJ cr a. _i < z o f) o •o o * 9 * 1 * Ol * at c^ f« <0 a> o> o> o o «0 CO •3 (0 03 9 9 9 9 9 — — — — — n — — ~~ — ■o o m o •o o I * 1 ■o * 9 * Ol o> N <\l <•> o> Ol en a Ol RECORDED SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT AUBURN DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE 5 300 270 240 < Z o V) < UJ z < w a >-iu oQ- m z 5- O a: u. LU or I- a. < a UJ Q o UJ $ _l => o o < 210 180 150 120 90 60 30 -30 -60 -90 JT_ ¥ L [ tt Vu t fit m- u n. n h _^_/y i t ajl/«V j t ^V f 1 it W F o I*. I Cv CO o co CO co If) CO I 00 CO m CD I CO o o © I o> co o I -* o I 0) o o CM I o> cm I C\J o o i O) o t o> ^r 0> ■* en o ■o a O) 0> 0> 0) ACCUMULATED DEPARTURE FROM MEAN SEASONAL PRECIPITATION AT AUBURN DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE 6 D « w ui K O < o o J | 2 Z b. o z 3 - K n . . . _ _ _ . < 1694-95 1699-1900 1904-05 1909- 10 1914- 15 1919-20 1924-25 1929-30 1934-35 1939-40 1944-45 1949-50 ESTIMATED SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF OF AMERICAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE 7 500 400 £z300 t° «CE < Id U) n >- «)Z <*> * * o> 9 9 9 9 9 ACCUMULATED DEPARTURE FROM MEAN SEASONAL NATURAL RUNOFF OF AMERICAN RIVER AT FAIR OAKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LINES OF EQUAL ELEVATION GROUND WATER VALLEY UNIT FALL OF 1952 PLATE 10 10 20 30 40 10 ni r""" "■•< 12N/5E-2BI 20 Z 30 O <40 <0 ill?™ 12 N/5E- I9RI I2N/5E-20 M I o Z o a. o o q: u. I I- 0. tu Q 10 20 30 10 ill! 1 ^ ^dg-Tz""---^ 12 N /6E- 19 A I 20 30 ..— O— "* — Y 6 L . ..L..-i^| o in 01 I3N/5E-35MI o w o ___ INTERPOLATED DEPTHS MEASURED FALL DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT REPRESENTATIVE WELLS VALLEY UNIT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLATE II H | 25 ^ )^ ' 30 35 40 45 — — — INTERPOLATED DEPTH AVERAGE FALL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER VALLEY UNIT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES <~s STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LINES OF EQUAL CHANGE GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS VALLEY UNIT FALL OF 1948 TO FALL OF 1952 SCALE OF MILES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION IRRIGATED AND IRRIGABLE LANDS EXISTING WORKS PROPOSED WORKS ™ TUNNEL ~ CANAL STATE OF < DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION PLANS FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT 1954 SCALE OF MILES JACKSON MEADOWS DAM GENERAL PLAN \ -i ^ s ^**s fcv /^^ ^^i^~-£i(^avotlqn Un LENGTH IN fEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM RESOURCES SECTION OF DAM PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION JACKSON MEADOWS PROJECT 1954 SECTION OF DAM DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LAKE VALLEY PROJECT 1954 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LAKE VALLEY PROJECT PLAN AND PROFILE 1954 CISCO DAM GENERAL PLAN SCALE OF FEET 1- CRES r ELEV. 5S4 u! 3 — ^ V yf ^ z5 ^ ! %Sr a p-* o H ^^ ^s^ _l ^ tfr T"°' 1 "" CONCRETE FAC IOOO 1200 LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE Of DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM PROJECT AREA 5CALE OF MILES ON OF DAM PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION CISCO PROJECT 1954 \ / ^ ^f^ ^^ ~?.:z'j£;iz t^f^t^t^t Grass K/alley ' ""fcT J>' SECTION A-A' CHICAGO PARK DIVERSION ;g »> , . ,, . ,..■* ?$? SECTION OF DAM PLAN OF PROJECT PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ROLLINS PROJECT 1955 FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT PLAN. PROFILE AND PROJECT AREA 1954 GENERAL PLAN LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM CHEST ELEV 3650' l°**N sif ^^ ***■, 1° r^. ^rx~ "■'-•■'''-"«"' CR ST LEV 3650' • h S >? 1 Ns f^-?,%ZL%.?%, V v^ ! 1 1 SECTION OF DAM SCALE OF FEET LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM »'H H^ A [~s SECTION OF DAM LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF WING DAM 2500 FEET UPSTREAM FROM LEFT ABUTMENT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION FRENCH MEADOWS DAM SUGAR PINE DAM PAGGE DAM FRENCH MEADOWS PROJECT DAMS 1954 TI4N 1 FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT 954 GENERAL PLAN y e.tsr Eli. ..... s »,.. ~~ .». j;i ^.u „ [S T tlC _. |~". -" "^W^ ' :r;:^;:; ' PLAN OF SUGAR PINE SADDLE DIKE AND SPILLWAY 1000 FEET UPSTREAM FROM LEFT ABUTMENT F> ^L '^N- s^ """>^ ^r^-iziprJ. \^^~^^ cne T EL V ADI " ^ /C~ -s jL_f.\ \. /^Sp f* ..»/,» .-, r*T PLAN OF DIKE AND SPILLWAY 3000 FEET UPSTREAM FROM LEFT ABUTMENT PROFILE OF DIKE AND SPILLWAY SECTION PROFILE OF DIKE AND SPILLWAY SECTION I— ^- , =»r- SECTION OF DAM ENLARGED MORNING STAR DAM TiP FORBES DAM SUGAR PINE DAM DIVISION OF WA PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT DAMS 1954 "> 1 — c. ,T.l ... p= ■ =9 - P^ p^ FV i £ "T"T"" ., 1 T 1 1 PROFILE OF DAM PROJECT AREA S» •/,"/ -i'i *:'tWl '/' '-kftg, SECTION OF DAM PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION CAMP FAR WEST PROJECT 1954 PLATE 24 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION COON CREEK PROJECT 1954 \, ^T-- y \ ' A r-- N k ~^ r" ^ r=r - r^ :r ^r—~ r ^_ ^f^ '* ^ p-^ ^ %J, ^3 - r V/'- / V ~-^ ^t^~^_ / ;*- ^*Mm ****** ""- ~^ L PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DOTY RAVINE PROJECT 1954 % LINCOLN DAM GENERAL PLAN SECTION OF DAMS PROJECT AREA £ "" SI lit S4S' CUE T ELE* 24V ""V""' -REST ELEV «■ rr-*-_ 3 ^>^ _^j^ ^^ ^^~- ''" ***; X, // 'N^ {' fcg£ ££ ■,»• N k. '/ jnt "\ ,'' --. „^ PRO FILE OF DAM " " *> DO 04 ee ?a LOOKING UPST DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION LINCOLN PROJECT 1955 PLATE 26 AUBURN RAVINE DAM GENERAL PLAN SCALE OF FEET HE "< "REST 650' £ 5 600 ?! — JF* ^=rr ^^ — =^ ^^^ ^t? ^" ~~"~~ =**= :; >v / ■- o < „i 500 'X. *v //' -S*C Z ef'o* 'Z, J*> PROJECT AREA SCALE OF MILES ll& EST ELEV 6S0 1 SECTION OF DAM SCALE OF FEET NCTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION AUBURN RAVINE PROJECT 1954 WHITNEY RANCH DAM GENERAL PLAN SCALE Or FEET 150 300 CftCST El LEV , -i F-a-s, (^ — s A- ^Tw *" ^^. fiww **^ "*** r"*s r*~i f=r ^r^ = T"~~~ 7. B 10 30 12 30 13 15 30 ie JO IB 30 IS SO 21 ,. PROJECT AREA SECTION OF DAW LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION WHITNEY RANCH PROJECT 1954 PLATE 27 A CLOVER VALLEY DAM GENERAL PLAN SCALE OF FEET 100 200 PROJECT AREA SCALE OF FEET CRE.S T ELEV 390 ^^^ ^ -fl sy' ^^ ^^ (T^ ^>-^ =* r<< ^ko7«™"J«e 1 600 eoo [600 1600 2000 LENGTH IN FEET PROFILE OF DAM LOOKING UPSTREAM DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION CLOVER VALLEY PROJECT 1955 APPENDIX A AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD, THE COUNTY OF PLACER, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (135) TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD, THE COUNTY OF PLACER, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Page Agreement Between the State Water Resources Board, the County of Placer, and the Department of Public Works, December 23, 1948 __ __ 137 Supplemental Agreement Between the State Water Resources Board, the County of Placer, and the Department of Public Works, November 21, 1949 139 Supplemental Agreement Between the State Water Resources Board, the County of Placer, and the Department of Public Works, November 9, 1950 141 ( 136 ) APPENDIX A 137 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD, THE COUNTY OF PLACER, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS This Agreement, executed in quintuplicate, entered into by the State Water Resources Board, hereinafter referred to as the "Board"; the County of Placer, hereinafter referred to as the "County"; and the Department of Public Works, State of California, act- ing through the agency of the State Engineer, herein- after referred to as the "State Engineer": WITNESSETH: "Whereas, by the State Water Resources Act of 1945, as amended, the Board is authorized to make investigations, studies, surveys, hold hearings, prepare plans and estimates, and make recommendations to the Legislature in regard to water development proj- ects including flood control plans and projects ; and Whereas, by said act, the State Engineer is author- ized to cooperate with any county, city, state agency or public district on flood control and other water prob- lems and when requested by any thereof may enter into a cooperative agreement to expend money in behalf of any thereof to accomplish the purposes of said act ; and Whereas, the County by resolution, dated August 13. 1948, has requested the Board to make an overall comprehensive survey of water and water conditions within said County and has certified that said County will provide monies to the extent of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) within the 1948-49 fiscal year from said County's present appropriation to be used in making said survey ; and Whereas, the Board on October 1, 1948, by formal motion requested the State Engineer to cooperate with the County in making said investigation and report; and Whereas, the County desires and hereby requests the Board to enter into a cooperative agreement for the making of an investigation and report on water resources, both surface and underground, as more par- ticularly set forth hereinafter in Article I ; Now Therefore, in consideration of the premises and the several promises to be faithfully performed by each as hereinafter set forth, the Board, the County and the State Engineer do hereby mutually agree as follows : ARTICLE I— W T ORK TO BE PERFORMED The work to be performed under this agreement shall consist of an investigation and report on the water resources of Placer County, both surface and under- ground, comprising (a) an inventory of the water resources of the county, (b) a classification of lands for agricultural use, (c) a survey of the location, extent and type of use of water under existing condi- tions, (d) an estimate of water requirements under ultimate development of the county, and (e) a general plan for the ultimate development and utilization of the water resources in or available to said county and estimates of the cost of such plan. The work under said items (a) to (d), both inclusive, is to be performed during the first two years and that under said Item (e) including a report on the entire investigation during the third year of the three-year investigation provided for herein. The Board by this agreement authorizes and directs the State Engineer to cooperate in making said investi- gation and report. During the progress of said investigation and report all maps, plans, information, data and records per- taining thereto which are in the possession of any party hereto shall be made fully available to any other party hereto for the due and proper accomplishment of the purposes and objectives hereof. The work under this agreement shall be diligently prosecuted with the objective of completion of the investigation and report on or before December 31, 1951, or as nearly thereafter as possible. ARTICLE II— FUNDS The County, upon execution by it of this agreement, shall transmit to the State Engineer the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for deposit, subject to the approval of the Director of Finance, into the Water Resources Revolving Fund in the State Treasury, for expenditure by the State Engineer in performance of the work provided for in this agreement. Also, upon execution of 149 TABLE B-1 ESTIMATED TOTAL GROUND WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF VALLEY UNIT OF PLACER COUNTY Area, in acres Depth zone All zones 20-50 feet 50-100 feet 100-200 feet 20-200 feet Specific yield, in per cent Storage, in acre- feet Specific yield, in per cent Storage, in acre- feet Specific yield, in per cent Storage, in acre- feet Specific yield, in per cent Storage, in acre- feet i River Hood-plain and channel 3,020 2,060 103,390 13.9 6.5 4.9 12,600 4,000 152,000 6.8 6.0 4.9 10,300 6,200 253,300 5.4 4.4 5.4 16,300 9,100 558,300 7.2 5.2 5.2 39,200 $. Low alluvial-plain deposits 19,300 963,600 TOTALS, . 109,470 5.1 168,600 4.9 269,700 5.3 583,700 5.2 1,022,100 storage group. Old alluvium is the principal lithologie mit in this group, as it occurs not only in the area napped as old alluvium on Plate B-1 but beneath hin deposits of intermediate alluvium in most of the vestern part of the county as well. Table B-1 summarizes the estimated ground water storage capacity, in acre-feet, for the three groups >f the Valley Unit. Ground Water Occurrence The great preponderance of water from wells in the vater-bearing formations underlying the Valley Unit )f Placer County is pumped from deposits of old tlluvium. On the surface these deposits extend west- Yard from the volcanic rocks, small patches of Eocene sediments, and crystalline rocks on the east, to the >dge of the intermediate alluvium. Farther west, as lescribed above, they extend beneath a thin coating >f the intermediate alluvium to and beyond the •ounty line. Their depth below the surface is gener- illy less than 20 feet ; so nearly ad water production ■oincs from the older alluvial deposits. Wells producing water from Eocene sediments southwest of Wheatland and in the Lincoln area and veils producing water from the Sierran volcanic rocks lave already been described. Wells producing water it least in part from the volcanics are quite numerous n the eastern part of the area of old alluvium, par- icularly in the vicinity of Roseville. The intermediate alluvial deposits in extreme west- ern Placer County and the stream channel deposits )f the Bear River channel yield water to a number of >vells at shallow depths. Deep drilling has established the base of the fresh water body at many points on the east side of the Sac- ramento Valley, and contours on the base of the fresh svater have been drawn by the Geological Survey, rhese contours show that the base of the fresh water lips to the west-southwest and that it varies from sea level along a line lying a few miles west of Lincoln to 1.000 feet below sea level near the southwestern corner of the county. Deep oil wells strike Eocene marine sediments below the base of the fresh water, and beneath the Eocene, Upper Cretaceous marine sediments and finally pre-Cretaceous crystalline rocks are encountered. All these formations dip gently to- ward the axis of the Sacramento Valley, and thus occur at greater depth in a westerly direction. The only ground water break or very steep gradient in the water-bearing formations of Placer County occurs about a mile and a half south of Lincoln. The water table is shown dropping 55 feet in three-tenths of a mile on the ground water elevation contour map for fall, 1952, and a similar break is shown on all other maps made during the present investigation. The axis of the break or steep gradient extends in a northwesterly direction, the high water table being on the northeast and the low on the southwest. Wells northeast of the break are domestic and stock wells having low yields, whereas irrigation wells having ample yields occur southwest of the break. There is also a difference in water quality across the break, wells to the southwest producing better quality water. The break or steep gradient appeai-s to represent the difference in levels between water in two different formations, with the higher levels being in Eocene sediments and the lower levels in old alluvium and perhaps also in volcanics. The break probably occurs along a northwesterly -trending fault, northeast of which the Eocene has been uplifted relative to the younger formations to the southwest. The moder- ately water-bearing beds of the Eocene are appar- ently truncated by the fault, or they may possibly pinch out south-westward before the fault is reached, since they are probably deltaic sediments whose source was to the east. The one well log available northeast of the break shows a predominance of clay and "black mud," but includes some "sand rock" and a little sand. Southwest of the break, alluvium and possibly some volcanics are present, although the Eocene may occur at greater depth. The log of a well located one mile south of Auburn Ravine and 100 vards east of 150 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION U. S. Highway 99E contains a large proportion of gravel and bonlders to a depth of 121.5 feet. These deposits probably belong- to the older alluvium. Direction of Movement and Source Of Ground Water Lines of equal elevation of ground water in the fall of 1952, as shown on Plate 9 of the main report, show that movement of ground water in the water-bearing series is generally in a direction slightly south of west toward the central Sacramento Valley. The gradient in the fall of 1952 was about seven feet per mile in most of this area, although the gradient was steeper to the east. The steeper gradient is due to the less permeable material of the eastern area. Slopes of the water table as defined by these ground water contours indicate that subsurface outflow occurs to the west across the county line into Sutter County. The major source of replenishment of ground water in the water-bearing formations of the Valley Unit apparently is percolation both from surface streams and from irrigation water. In addition, it is probable that direct rainfall penetration and subsurface inflow from the area of nonwater-bearing rocks on the east constitute minor sources of ground water replenish- ment. There are, however, indications that percolation of surface water as stream flow, irrigation water, or precipitation is restricted in the Valley Unit of Placer County by shallow layers of hardpan. It was noted, during the period of the investigation, that runoff from precipitation collecting in natural basins and roadside borrows did not percolate but remained to evaporate. The fact that a large part of the return water from irrigation reaches the streams and is avail- able for re-use appears also to substantiate the as- sumption that the hardpan retards and reduces per- colation to the water table. It was also pointed out in Chapter III of the main report, in the section on "Application of Water," that in the case of the use of ground water the hard- pan layer is probably effective in reducing application of water, as indicated by a comparison of the values of application of water to pasture and rice in areas in Placer County with underlying hardpan, and in east- ern Sutter County, outside the hardpan area. Measurements of surface streams in the Valley Unit indicate, however, that there is a net loss of water from these streams. The amount of percolation from Auburn Ravine and Coon Creek can be approximated by comparing the flow of these streams at the gaging stations at U. S. Highway 99E with their combined flow at the Reclamation District No. 1001 Channel at Pacific Avenue, about three miles west of the county line. These comparisons are significant in regard to percolation only during periods when neither rainfall nor diversions for irrigation were large in amount. Table B-2 compares flows for periods when the indi- cated difference could largely be attributed to per- colation : TABLE B-2 INDICATED PERCOLATION LOSSES FROM COON CREEK AND AUBURN RAVINE Combined flow of Flow of Coon Creek and Reclama- Auburn Ravine at tion Dis- U. S. Highway 99E trict No. 1001 Channel Difference, in Loss, Period in Total Average at Pacific acre-feet per cent discharge, daily Avenue, in discharge, in acre-feet acre-feet aere-feet 2/19/50 through 3/16/50 3,220 124 2.516 704 21.9 11/ 5/50 through 11/12/50 972 122 848 124 12.8 3/13/51 through 4/27/51 5,952 129 4,784 1,168 19.6 10/ 5/51 through 10/23/51 2,142 113 1,528 624 29.0 11/ 4/51 through 11/11/51 1,192 149 932 260 21.8 12/13/51 through 12/25/51 2,602 260 1.938 664 25.5 10/16/52 through 11/30/52 1.812 50 1.786 26 1.4 The above table indicates that, except during the last of the above periods, uniform losses occurred ranging between 13 and 29 per cent of the inflow. During the last period the average daily discharge was less than one-half that during the other periods, which fact may account for the near absence of perco- lation loss. Current meter measurements made at various points on Coon Creek, Auburn Ravine, and Linda Creek also indicate percolation losses. These measurements are shown in Table B-3. APPENDIX B TABLE B-3 CURRENT METER MEASUREMENTS SHOWING LOSSES AND GAINS FROM COON CREEK, AUBURN RAVINE, AND LINDA CREEK 151 Stream Date Station Discharge, in second-feet Loss or gain, in second-feet Length of reach, in miles Loss or gain, in per cent Loss or gain, in second-feet per mile ^oon Creek 3/16 :.l Coon Creek at road to McCourtney Crossing Dotj Ravineat road to McCourtney Crossing Total - Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 9PE 33.8 26.8 + 3.2 —8.7 5.0 15.0 + 5.3 —13.6 60.6 63.8 55.1 + 0.6 —0.6 ^oon Creek 3/17/53 Coon Creek at road to McCourtney Crossing Doty Ravine at road to McCourtney Crossing Total Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E Coon Creek above Bunkham Slough Cross Canal below .lopson Ranch Bunkham Slough above Cross Canal . . - Total 27.8 23.7 —4.2 —2.0 —2.4 5.0 4.0 10.0 —8.2 —4.2 —5.3 51.5 47.3 45.3 21.4 21.5 —0.8 —0.5 —0.2 42.9 Unburn Ravine 3/15/51 Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E _ . Auburn Ravine at Pleasant Grove Road 100.9 96.9 —4.0 12.0 —4.0 —0.3 Auburn Ravine 3/18/53 Auburn Ravine above Old Virginiatown 10.0 15.2 20.9 20.0 + 5.2 + 5.7 —0.9 4.5 10.5 4.0 + 52 + 38 —4.3 + 1.2 Auburn Ravine below Brewer Road Auburn Ravine below Western Pacific Railroad . + 0.5 —0.2 6/27/51 15.0 12.7 13.7 —2.3 + 1.0 0.5 6.5 —15.3 + 7.9 Linda Creek below Sewer Plant.. —4.6 + 0.2 PLATE B-l STREAM CHANNEL DEPOSITS SAND. GRAVEL AND SILT IN STREAM CHANNELS AND FLOOD PLAINS HIGHLY PERMEABLE INTERMEDIATE ALLUVIAL 0EPO3ITS SILT, SAND, GRAVEL, AND CLAY IN FORM- ER STREAM CHANNELS AND OLD LAKE: OR FLOOD BASINS MODERATELY TO OLD ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS JVIAT1LE SILT AND SAND WITH SOME AY AND GRAVEL. COMMONLY CEMENT- LOW TO MOOERATE PERMEABILITY. VOLCANIC ROCKS FROM SIERRA NEVADA ANDESITIC AND RHYOLITIC. ASSOC- IATED SEDIMENTS. SEDIMENTS MOO- ERATELY PERMEABLE UNDIVIDED SHALLOW -WAT WATER, DELTAIC VOLCANIC 3IEF PERMEABILITY SHALLOW - WAT AND SILTS TONE EABLE. Te ER MARIN SEOIMEr RAN GRA SEDIMENTS fi, BRACKISH T3, PRE- /ELS. LOW :OUS SEDIMEr E SANDSTONE ELY IMPERM- Ku CRETAC pK PRE-CRETACEOUS CRYSTALLINE ROCH METAMORPHICS AND PLUTONIC3. WEATHERED AND FRACTURED ZONES YIELD SMALL QUANTITIES OF WATER )LOGY BY U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COOPERATION WITH STATE DlVISIOK WATER RESOURCES MAPPING BY OAVIS AND F H OLMSTED PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC MAP OF VALLEY AND PART OF FOOTHILL UNITS 1954 APPENDIX C COMMENTS OF CONCERNED AGENCIES ON PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF BULLETIN NO. 10, "PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION" (153) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Comments of Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, November 2, 1954__ 155 2. Comments of Nevada Irrigation District, November 2, 1954 155 3. Comments of Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, U. S. Department of Agriculture, December 7, 1954 157 4. Comments of Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior, December 13, 1954 158 5. Comments of Forest Service, California Region, IT. S. Department of Agriculture, December 30, 1954 159 6. Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 8, 1955 160 7. Comments of Board of Supervisors, Placer County, June 30, 1955 160 (154) APPENDIX C 155 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY Office of the .District Engineer SACRAMENTO DISTRICT Wright Bldg., 1209 8th St. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 2 November, 1954 The Secretary State Water Resources Board Public Works Building Sacramento 5, California Dear Sir: Reference is made to your letter of 18 October 1954, transmitting' for review and comment a draft of your Bulletin No. 10, entitled "Placer County Investigation," dated July 1954. This report contains valuable information on water supply, land classification, ultimate water require- ments, and plans for supplying future irrigation needs of Placer County, which will be very useful in future studies in this office. A cursory review of the report indicates that none of the plans investigated are in conflict with proposed oi- authorized projects of the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, no specific comments are made at this time. The opportunity to review your report is appreciated. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: Sincerely yours, A. D. Wilder Lt Col, CE Executive Officer NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT 144 So. Auburn Street • GRASS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA November 2, 1954 Mr. A. D. Edmonston, State Engineer State Water Resources Board Public Works Building, P. 0. Box 1079 Sacramento 5, California Subject: Draft of Bulletin No. 10, "Placer County Investigation"— File 625.150 Dear Mr. Edmonston : Attached hereto are my comments on the draft of Bulletin No. 10, which you requested in your letter of October 6th. This bulletin covers a wide territory including much with which I am not familiar. Therefore, the observations are confined to those areas which we have recently been investigating with the object of developing new water to meet the District's mounting needs, to wit : Haypress, the Fpper Middle Yuba, the South Yuba, and the Bear River. The studies contained in Bulletin No. 10 should prove an effective contribution in clarifying our local water problems. They should also enable the residents of both Placer and Nevada Counties to take the neces- sary steps to assure an ample supply for their future needs. Volumes 1 and 2 are being returned under separate cover. Yours very truly, Nevada Irrigation District T. D. Sawyer, Chief Engineer Comments and Suggestions in Regard to the Placer County Investigation by the State Water Resources Board as Outlined in Draft of Bulletin No. 10, Dated July, 1954 Explanation: The following comments and sug- gestions are made pursuant to a request from the State "Water Resources Board dated October 6, 1954, for any comments and/or suggestions from the under- signed which could be included in the final report. The writer's investigations of the areas considered in Bulletin No. 10 have been limited to a study of the Nevada Irrigation District's power potential in the mountain area, together with the development of ad- ditional irrigation water in the lower Bear River. Ac- cordingly, the following comments will be confined to the projects comprehended within this area. Haypress-Jackson Meadows A project somewhat similar to the one proposed in Bulletin No. 10 was developed by the undersigned on behalf of the Nevada Irrigation District for submis- sion to the P. G. & E. and is at present under study by their engineering department. See report dated April 22, 1954, submitted to the Division of Water Resources by letter dated August 25, 1954, in support of the District's water applications. This project, unlike the one in Bulletin No. 10, proposed a small regulation reservoir of 1,500 a.f. capacity located at an elevation of 6,525 feet on Hay- 156 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION press Creek well above its intersection with Tehuan- tepee Creek. A three-mile tunnel, about two miles downstream from the reservoir, at the junction with Long Valley, would convey runoff into the existing Milton Diversion, which would be enlarged from an actual storage of 1,600 a.f. to 11,000 a.f. This would increase the capacity of the Milton-Bowman tunnel by placing it under pressure. A dam of 23,500 a.f. was proposed at Jackson Meadows, but subsequent study of the project suggests the advisability of in- creasing it to 46,000 a.f. with the maximum water surface at an elevation of 6,015, closely approximat- ing the one proposed in Bulletin No. 10. A rock fill dam was used for estimating purposes, as it appeared questionable whether sufficient impervious material could be located in the vicinity for the more economi- cal rolled-fill type. Incidentally, locating the Haypress-Middle Fork tunnel so as to discharge into the Milton Diversion rather than into Jackson Meadows Reservoir enables the tunnel to pick up runoff from two Milton Creek creeks with approximately two square miles of water- shed. It further adds two or more square miles to the watershed from Haypress. The hydrographic study in Bulletin No. 10, Vol. 1, P. K-3, shows the estimated average annual runoff from the Middle Fork at the damsite from 1920 to 1935 to be less than 60,000 a.f., while the average diverted from Haypress is estimated at 28,700 a.f. The measured annual average runoff of the Middle Fork at Milton Diversion (two miles below the dam- site), from 1928 to 1951, inclusive, amounts to 72,100 a.f., which suggests that the 60,000 figure may be unduly conservative. As for the Haypress estimate, this closely approximates the writer's, which amounts to 36,400 a.f. average annual runoff, of which about 31,500 a.f. would be received at Milton. Considering the greater watershed, this about checks with Bulletin No. 10. The District has just installed a recording station at its proposed divei*sion site at Long Valley, and by next year should have a continuous record to correlate with those of the adjoining watersheds. Bowman While no such project appears in Bulletin No. 10, the District also has under consideration the possi- bility of raising Bowman Dam to increase storage from 70,000 a.f. to 100,000 a.f. The economics of this project have yet to be weighed in connection with the Haypress project and Jackson Meadows at three dif- ferent capacities. Raising Bowman would have one advantage in that the Bowman South Arch, which in- volves unduly heavy maintenance expense, would lie covered with a rock fill. The District proposes conveying the new water de- veloped by this program over the Bowman-Spaulding Conduit, doubled in capacity, and dropping it 2,100 feet through a 29.500 IIP power station located on the South Yuba below Fall Creek at an elevation of 3,215. Plans for the disposition of this new water below 3,215 are awaiting P. G. & E. reactions to the project. If financing is possible it can be carried 16-18 miles by ditch along the south side of the South Yuba and dumped into Scott's Flat Reservoir via a If mile tunnel. Or possibly it could be utilized for another South Yuba station which would tail into the Excel- sior Ditch — increased in capacity — for servicing the Beale area and South Sutter district. Details of this have yet to be worked out. Bear River Bulletin No. 10, Vol. 1, Plate 14, shows three pro- posed developments on the Bear River, to wit : At Rollins, Garden Bar, and Camp Far West. No data is shown on the first two, while the Camp Far West enlargement would provide a reservoir witli 104,000 a.f. storage at a cost of $3,726,000 for irrigation below the 150-foot contour. Maximum water surface eleva- tion is 300 feet. The Army Engineers have a project for Garden Bar, concurred in by the Reclamation Bureau, to provide 195,000 a.f. storage, with 42,000 a.f. reserved for flood control. It provides for a concrete gravity section dam at a cost of $22,031,000. Maximum eleva- tion water surface is indicated at 590 and tail water at 288. (The project is contained in House Document No. 367 to the 1st Session of the 81st Congress.) It acknowledges an apparent annual net deficit of $579,- 000 for the Project! The District's engineer, the late Fred II. Tibbetts, reported on several Bear River damsites in his report dated February 15. 1926, to the District's Board of Directors, which presumably the Division of Water Resources must have in their files. These sites, which were, of course, primarily for fulfilling District needs, were called Combie, Parker, Dog Bar, and Rollins. The Combie site was shortly afterwards occupied by the District's Combie Dam for 7,500 a.f. storage, but lie recommended Parker as the site for a dam with an ultimate capacity of 235,000 a.f., rejecting both Dog Bar and Rollins. This decision was predicated largely on the river gradient, which below Combie amounts to 85 feet per mile, drops to 26 feet per mile from Com- bie to near the upper end of the proposed Parker Reservoir, and then rises sharply. He comments in this report on the Rollins site as follows: "The Rol- lins damsite does not appear favorable, and storage there would undoubtedly be more expensive than at the Parker site. The steep gradients on the Greenhorn River above this site would also greatly increase the likelihood of the reservoir quickly filling up with mining debris." As the writer has had no opportunity as yet to investigate these sites in the field, this is offered as information for what it may be worth. The Parker site incidentally, cannot be developed to its ultimate of 235,000 a.f., as its maximum water APPENDIX C 157 level would undermine the P. Gr. & E.'s Bear River Canal over large stretches, and the District could not undertake the expense of relocating it. However, the P. G. & E. engineers have indicated that the Parker Reservoir might be utilized to an elevation sufficiently below the canal level to assure its stability. Just what they consider a safe elevation, they have not as vet advised us. Coon Creek This project, as outlined in Bulletin No. 10, pro- vides for a storage capacity of 59,000 a.f. with maxi- mum water surface at elevation 550. Over half of the water to fill it would come from the Rear River over the existing (or enlarged) Combie-Ophir Canal. It is a considerably more ambitious project than the one which the District has in mind. Its field engi- neers have just completed a field topographic survey of this site, but only up to approximately the 500-foot contour. The storage capacity up to this level has not yet been determined, but judging from the figures on Page 4-109, Vol. 1, it would not be over 26,000 a.f. The District also has under consideration a project for a canal from the Bear River with diversion below Wolf Creek junction, to help in filling the Coon Creek Reservoir. However, with only 26,000 a.f. storage, this canal would hardly be required as the Coon Creek basin runoff alone should be sufficient to fill it. Filling the larger reservoir (59,000 a.f.) by means of the Combie-Ophir as suggested in Bulletin No. 10, could present a problem. During the process of filling Coon Creek, the existing Combie Reservoir would have to be used for regulation to avoid undue loss by spill, but Combie should end the wet season com- pletely full to assure filling irrigation requirements above the Coon Creek level. Difficulty in assuring this might then justify the cost of providing the canal with diversion below Wolf Creek junction. T. D. Sawyer R.E. 5189 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Takoe National Forest State Water Resources Board Public Works Bi. California Gentlemen: Reference is made to your letter of Oc- tober 6, 1954 and to Draft of Bulletin No. 10, "Placer County Investigation" transmitted therewith. We have reviewed the draft of Bulletin No. 10 and have only a couple of suggestions for changes. Page 4-20, paragraph 4. "Several United States Forest Service fire roads, etc., etc." The roads in this area belong to Nevada and Placer counties. The For- est Service has a cabin on Pass Creek that would be Hooded. There would also be approximately 25 MM b.m. of merchantable timber in the reservoir area. Page 4-52, last paragraph. '"There is little of value. etc., etc." There is a good logging road now across Duncan Canyon to the top of Red Star Ridge and a survey for its extension into French Meadows. This road is a'so proposed eventually to cross the top of the Nevada City, California December 7, 1954 French Meadows Dam to connect with the George- town road and also to follow above the flow line of the reservoir to connect with the Soda Springs end of the road at the upper end of the reservoir. There would lie approximately 35 MM b.m. of merchantable timber to remove from the reservoir site. There is also a For- est Service Station (cabin and garage) and two small campgrounds to move as well as a private cabin. There are probably other reservoir sites in the re- port that would cover some valuable timber. However, French Meadows and English Meadows stand out be- cause of the large volumes involved. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Bulle- tin before publication and we're sorry we couldn't find the time to do it sooner and more thoroughly. Very truly yours, L. A. Rickel, Forest Supervisor Bv : J. M. Shock. Acting i:,s PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation regional office. region 2 P. O. Box 2r.ll SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA December 13, 1954 Mr. A. D. Edmonston, State Engineer Secretary, State Walt r Resources Board Public Works Building Sacramento 5, California Dear Mr. Edmonston : In response to your letter of October 18, over Mr. Sam R. Leedom's signature, acknowledged by Acting Regional Director Calland's letter of October 26, we bave reviewed your draft of Bulletin No. 10, Placer County Investigation, dated July 19o4. Completion of our review lias run beyond our estimated thirty days. I hope the delay has not inconvenienced you. Because of limited time and other work require- ments, our attention has been confined to the major findings presented, and further limited to the areas in which we have some background information from studies previously made or now in progress. We have no comments to offer on several of the proposed plans of development because we have not had occasion to study the area or plan involved. These proposed plans include those listed as the Bear River and Upper Yuba River Basins and Truckee River Basin, the Jackson Valley Project, the Lake Valley Project, and the Cisco Project. Our comments on the principal sub- jects covered, including the aspects of plans of devel- opment with which we have some familiarity, follow. Factual Information The factual information on geography, climate, pre- cipitation, surface water supply and present water supply development appears to be adequate and com- plete and forms a valuable source of information for this area. In reviewing this information we did not check figures in detail. Geology, Underground Hydrology and Quality of Water These subjects appear to be adequately treated for this type of report. We have no significant comments. land Use and Supplemental Requirements Derivation of requirements for water supply is by a somewhat different process than used in our own studies, so some of the units are not comparable; however, both methods of derivation seem to result in aboul the same net supplemental water require- ment. Plans for Water Development— General We have two suggestions which, if appropriate, might enhance the total accomplishments of the pro- posed plans. The first concerns the ratio of kilowatt- hours to kilowatts used for estimating dependable hydroelectric capacity. Consideration of the large percentage of steam-electric capacity in Northern California indicates that it might be appropriate to use a somewhat smaller ratio, thereby increasing the dependable-capacity estimates. Second, some of the proposed upstream reservoirs in the American River Basin, particularly those in- volving hold-over storage and power generation, in- crease amounts of usable inflows to Folsom Reser- voir during certain critical dry years. The amount of improvement has not been evaluated by this office, but some value for this potential improvement at Folsom would seem to be properly creditable to these up- stream reservoirs. One other thought concerns the evaluation of power from new and existing plants. For new firm energy generated in existing plants a figure of six mills/kwh is used; unless there is some factor that escapes us, it would seem appropriate to evaluate new energy from existing plants in the same manner as energy from proposed new plants. American River Basin (page 4-4) This section describes a tentative plan for develop- ment of the Middle Fork American River. As you know, this office is currently studying this same area and so far is considering plans generally similar to those described. Our studies have not yet progressed sufficiently to decide whether all proposed features will be similar. French Meadows and Foresthill Divide Projects (pages 4-45 and 4-72) These projects are planned primarily for the pur- pose of providing a water supply to the Foresthill area. In the case of French Meadows Project, this in- cludes generation of power. Our own studies on this problem are incomplete, but it may be of interest to note that we have also developed a plan quite similar to your proposal. We have not yet completed an analysis of a French Meadows Project for Foresthill, nor compared it with possible alternates, such as your Foresthill Divide Project. We are also still looking for new alternates but, because of the high elevation of the Foresthill Divide and its remoteness from a si/able drainage area of equal or higher elevation, it seems unlikely that any more economical means of service could be developed. The French Meadows Project would have highest repayment capacity when most or all of the water is APPENDIX C 159 used for power generation rather than irrigation. This suggests that it might he necessary or desirable to build the project for power operation in advance of irrigation nse to recover a portion of the project costs that could not be borne by irrigation repayment. Foresthill Divide Project has the favorable aspect of permitting stage construction and development to meet irrigation needs. Since costs of providing water to Foresthill Divide will be quite high, presumably the repayment of Foresthill Divide Project would be assisted by integration with a power development project. The question thus arises whether it is more economic to use a portion of the French Meadows Reservoir yield on the Foresthill Divide, as contem- plated by the French Meadows Project, or whether the lowest overall cost would result from a Foresthill Divide Project integrated with a Middle Fork power development that utilizes French Meadows Reservoir. We plan to further explore this possibility in connec- tion with our own studies and will keep you informed of any analyses we make. Valley Unit (page 4-92) You may know that some time ago we gave pre- liminary consideration to the possibility of serving lands west of Highway 99E and south of the Bear River from Folsom Reservoir. We compared the cost of this service with the cost of water stored on the Sacramento River watershed and pumped from the Sacramento or Feather Rivers and found that, for a good portion of the area at least, the cost of service from these rivers was slightly less than from Folsom. We have not put these costs on a price base compa- rable to your costs for service from the Valley Unit Projects, so cannot compare them on a cost basis. However, we can say in general that we strongly favor developments of local water supply, such as those proposed in your Valley Unit, to imports from more distant sources. In connection with the proposed Auburn Ravine power development project, it may be appropriate to note that water conveyed from the Wise powerplant through the proposed 455 foot Auburn Ravine drop would be diverted from an average drop of 300 feet through the Folsom powerplant, so that the net in- crease in power production over conditions prevailing at the time of completion of Folsom would be the difference between the two drops. This decrease in Folsom power production would also attend other plans involving local consumptive use of the AVise spills. However, we are in agreement that all Wise powerplant spills should eventually be reregulated to provide additional water supply for irrigation and other consumptive uses, particularly for areas too remote or too high in elevation to be economically reached from other sources. From this point of view we think that any power that might be generated in connection with such reregulation can, in the long run, be regarded as a net gain. You are probably aware that a small area in south- ern Placer County east of Roseville is a part of the San Juan Suburban AVater District, which is consid- ering service from Folsom Reservoir. This service area would not overlap any of the service areas of your proposed Valley Unit Projects. In conclusion, I very much appreciate the oppor- tunity of reviewing the draft of Bulletin No. 10 and hope that the above comments will be of some inter- est or assistance to you. The Bulletin comprises a valuable addition to information and plans for the development of the water resources of the area. Very truly yours, C. H. Spencer Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE California Region Mr. A. D. Edmonston, Secretary State Water Resources Boarel Public Works Building Sacramento 5, California Dear Mr. Edmonston : By letter of October 6, file 625.150, you transmitted to us copy No. 45 of the draft of Bulletin No. 10, "Placer County Investiga- tion." and Appendixes. You asked that we furnish any comments the Forest Service might have on your publication. 630 Sansome Street San Francisco 11, California December 30, 1954 We greatly appreciate the opportunity to review this report. It appears to be an excellent plan for the development of the water resource potential in Placer County. It will be of considerable value to the Forest Supervisors of the Eldorado National Forest, with headquarters at Placerville, and the Tahoe National Forest, with headquarters at Nevada City, in prepara- tion of their resource use and management plans, par- ticularly as they relate to the maintenance or im- provement of watershed conditions in the interest of providing the maximum amount of usable water. We 160 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION should appreciate it if copies could be made available to the Supervisors of these two Forests. We note that in chapter 4 several references to the details of the Bureau of Reclamation's plans for the Truckee River-Lake Tahoe watershed were probably obtained from an old draft of the Bureau's "Washoe Project." Perhaps when you revise the report you may want to refer to their latest report on the Washoe Project, which is their "Feasibility Report of Sep- tember 1954," since their new report represents a modification of their previous project proposals. Again we thank you for the opportunity to review this report before its publication. Sincerely yours, J. J. Byrne, Chief Division of Engineering Bv John II. Lawrence PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 245 M arret Street SAN FRANCISCO 6, CALIFORNIA February 8, 1955 Division of Water Resources Public Works Building, P. 0. Box 1079 /Sacramento 5, California Attention: Mr. A. D. Edmonston State Engineer Re: (1) Bulletin 10, "Placer County In- vestigation" (2) Plans for Operation of Wise Power House ( ; f.ntlemen : We have received your letter of Feb- ruary 3, 1955, requesting our comments on the pro- posed Auburn Ravine Power Development. Our Engi- neering Department has recently completed a general review of Bulletin 10, and has a few comments con- cerning the Auburn Ravine Development as well as other parts of the report. In brief, these comments are : (1) Company studies indicate that after about 1970, all of the summer flow below Wise Power House will be used for irrigation in the area served by South Canal and that winter flow will be reduced in dry years to about 20,000 acre feet. Thus, a power development in Au- burn Ravine would have no dependable capac- ity and would not be economically feasible. (2) The value of 6 mills assigned to power gener- ated in existing plants with new water could only apply if new dependable capacity were obtained. This is not possible with existing installations, so that a reduction in the value of power appears to be in order. (3) No mention is made in Bulletin 10 of transmis- sion conduits to deliver water developed above Lake Spaulding. Company studies indicate that the capacity of existing canals will limit deliveries within a relatively short time. It is felt that discussion of the above matters may be more profitably carried on in a conference between our engineers and representatives of your office, rather than in extended correspondence. If you are agreeable to such a meeting, would you please contact Mr. H. V. Lutge of our Department of Engineering to arrange a mutually satisfactory time and place. Very truly yours, L. Harold Anderson PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. A. D. Edmonston, Secretary Stale Water Resources Board Public Works Building Sacramento 5, California Dear Mi;. EDMONSTON: Receipt is acknowledged of copies of the draft of State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 10, "Placer County Investigation." This Board, which initiated the investigation, ap- preciates the opportunity to review the findings of the investigation and to transmit to you certain of our comments. When the report was forwarded to the Placer County Board of Supervisors, the Board wanted recommendations on the report and sugges- June 30, 1955 tions as to what action the Board should take, if any. The Board therefore appointed a committee to study or cause to be studied the report and make recom- mendations to the Board. The committee appointed by the Boa i-d is as follows: Win. D. Bethell, New castle, Chairman; Elmer Johnson, Lincoln; Wm Aiken, Foresthill; Donly Gray, Pleasant Grove Chester Gibbs, Colfax ; Mason Gerhart, Roseville Eugene Power, Lincoln; W. J. Moore, Auburn; J. E Little, Foresthill and N. R. Mayfield of Tahoe City The committee, after reviewing the bulletin con- curs, in general, with the findings presented therein, and considers that the bulletin will be a valuable guide and source of information for future plans of APPENDIX C 161 rater development for Placer County. However, upon dvice of the committee, and after consideration, the ioard of Supervisors wish to set down certain reser- ations regarding their acceptance of the estimates of le area of irrigable land in Placer County and esti- lates of ultimate water requirements which are pre- mted in Chapter III. This Board is of the opinion lat. although such estimates may be based upon full onsideration of all present factors, they may, be- luse of unforeseen changes in the economy of this rea and possible technological advances, prove to be i error, to the detriment of the County, if such esti- lates are used as a basis of allocation of water. The water resources of Placer County are vital to Lir development and this Board views with concern le setting at the present time of any limit on the use f waters originating in the County. This Board recently compared, within the area of the Placer County Soil Conservation Service, the land irrigability survey of the Division of Water Re- sources and the land capability survey of the Soil Conservation Service. Within this area the Division of Water Resources had classified 52,800 acres as irri- gable, while within the classification of the Soil Con- servation Service 76,300 acres could be considered to be irrigable. Some of this discrepancy could be at- tributed to differences in standards of the two sur- veys ; nevertheless it illustrates why the Board at this time is not willing to accept or concur in the setting of a limit on the use of our native water resources. Very truly yours, Placer County Board of Supervisors Wesley Waddle, Chairman li SI.IL'7 APPENDIX D RECORDS OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION IN PLACER COUNTY NOT PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED (163) TABLE OF CONTENTS RECORDS OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION IN PLACER COUNTY NOT PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED Station Page Applegate 165 Cranston Ranch 165 Drum Forebay 166 Roseville High School 167 Lincoln 167 Loomis 167 Mount Pleasant 168 Penryn 168 Werner Ranch __. 168 ( 304 ) APPENDIX D RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT APPLEGATE, CALIFORNIA 165 County: Placer Date established: 1906 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 2,130 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: NW ]A, Sec. 10, T. 13 N., R. 9 E., M. D. B. & M. Record obtained from: Mrs. Cook (In inches) Season 1900-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22. 22-23 23-24 1924-.'.V 25-26 26-27. 27-28. 28-29 July Aug 0.03 Tr. 0.75 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 0.38 1 . 25 0.13 2.44 0.13 (I 0.31 5.57 0.50 2.00 2.00 0.38 1.00 2.88 3.44 2.25 1.00 2.32 2.89 0.13 2 . 32 1 .69 5.50 (I 1.63 2.00 3 . 38 1.63 3.00 2.00 0.75 2.50 2.38 10.77 2.51 2.81 3.50 7.82 10.58 2.81 8.50 0.88 3.50 0.50 16.50 6.88 5 . 1 2 13.50 13.28 10.13 12.51 5.38 8.44 10.32 11.19 1.19 2.37 8.52 L2.26 11.75 12.26 1.00 7.69 5.94 6.26 30.51 12.07 37 . 64 9.20 * 35.97 21.33 5.31 1.75 3.82 1.82 10.51 * 25.31 7.63 3.13 1.63 2.32 20.82 * 1 2 . 40 . 6.26 5.38 0.44 * 8.19 26.52 * 12.64 10.58 15.38 2 . 75 4.88 24.14 2.50 2.50 23.26 17.69 21.75 4 . 50 5 . 45 21.00 5.70 3.88 7.94 11.76 5.44 14.76 0.88 2.87 14.64 1.95 * 6.25 11.07 6.82 9.20 5.07 17.44 3.81 2.50 0.94 3.88 4.51 Tr. 2.38 3.13 0.50 13.37 0.44 0.81 12.38 3.50 4.31 7.88 3.64 4.00 2 . 45 0.38 4.88 0.25 1.51 1.38 1.50 2.51 8.14 0.75 3.13 3.31 0.18 Tr. 0.31 2.09 0.44 0.25 0.31 1.51 0.81 1.25 0.19 0.31 2.00 2.44 03.39 32.50 02.68 53.37 71.87 26.42 25.33 59.13 51.99 51.68 36.35. 30.90 38.98 32.48 55.30 51.21 50.32 18.69 56.91 28.08 05.02 44.14 28.59 * Amount carried to next month. RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT CRANSTON RANCH, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: 1948 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 1,225 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: SW Va, Sec. 1, T. 13 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M. Record obtained from: Mr. Grahm Cranston (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1948-49 _ 0.05 0.10 Tr. 0.40 0.10 3.10 4.18 2.40 13.15 4.14 3.00 8.00 2.70 9.39 9.10 8.95 1.90 9.30 9.25 15.40 6.20 2.20 4.40 2.98 5.10 0.60 10.90 5.50 1.80 6.80 3.45 2.10 1.50 1.10 5.40 1.50 1.20 2.75 0.10 1.40 0.70 1.10 49-50 27.70 50-51 . . 51-52 44 . 32 46.60 52-53. .. 30.25 53-54 166 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT DRUM FOREBAY, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: 1915 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 4,563 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Latitude: 39° 15.7' Longitude: 120 46' Record obtained from: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1915-16 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.08 Tr. 0.58 0.04 0.28 0.05 0.66 0.16 0.29 0.19 0.18 0.10 Tr. 0.64 Tr. 1.07 0.12 7.02 1.42 0.80 0.50 0.06 3.76 0.01 1.72 0.07 0.31 0.90 1.17 0.65 0.27 0.56 1.40 0.07 0.40 0.45 0.94 1.55 0.31 0.06 0.78 Tr. 0.04 0.68 1.45 3.88 3.15 2.07 6.46 1.64 2.85 2.15 7.08 3.16 2.61 3.70 0.54 0.34 0.27 5.01 0.35 5.53 3.75 4.66 0.59 2.81 2.94 4.48 2.67 2.33 3.78 8.19 1.90 10.79 0.41 0.23 8.48 9.10 0.03 5.63 3.04 5.36 1.36 11.95 2.43 8.43 0.85 3.30 4.91 15.91 10.95 5.61 8.76 6.74 1.98 0.04 9.72 2.70 0.23 9.80 3.63 1.32 13.45 8.98 10.54 2.30 6.20 5.75 25.27 11.34 5.50 8.51 12.42 4.73 2.81 8.20 11.19 14.24 17.26 4.17 9.51 3.89 3.14 7.42 6.36 15.12 0.85 14.91 3.27 10.00 4.29 4.73 6.79 12.09 3.09 4.20 21.45 6.33 1.44 10.87 5.56 19.71 18.90 16.80 25.43 4.07 1.78 5.00 1.94 12.96 5.51 7.28 3.39 4.26 5.29 10.52 4.88 4.49 10.51 8.51 7.96 6.68 3.66 8.93 16.50 8.52 8.58 8.00 24.01 10.05 4.41 3.13 7.21 4.40 18.67 17.01 22.32 9.22 14.82 13.65 18.98 4.76 5.11 18.94 2.53 5.90 13.19 15.02 19.42 4.12 6.37 5.93 5.31 6.73 1.90 7.81 4.34 21.62 13.04 27.81 5.79 22.44 11.80 17.24 5.89 6.53 6.33 8.10 5.54 8.03 12.55 8.46 3.84 14.20 5.93 12.11 7.51 14.12 0.83 4.17 5.08 0.70 7.24 22.84 6.74 6.82 4.91 2.77 6.58 3.39 7.07 5.79 12.07 23.01 9.05 15.80 6.08 9.72 10.07 12.33 13.73 12.05 11.39 8.05 11.91 1.17 5.73 3.40 2.21 7.35 1.27 1.60 10.54 1.38 6.14 7.94 7.75 5.90 7.18 4.91 2.16 6.92 1.36 2.10 14.25 4.11 3.74 5.40 0.34 2.10 8.61 6.22 2.15 0.21 1.55 18.68 0.62 6.53 3.54 2.94 2.10 1.22 0.28 0.30 0.08 3.69 4.06 1.08 0.03 3.04 2.23 1.66 0.30 0.58 2.57 2.52 5.65 5.09 1.64 0.92 2.11 0.62 1.22 4.36 1.59 2.28 4.64 1.39 1.09 4.82 1.91 3.38 4.19 1.71 0.98 0.61 0.54 1.62 2.02 1.03 0.28 4.89 3.44 0.66 0.07 2.13 3.39 1.71 0.14 0.01 0.08 2.27 2.25 3.57 0.20 0.50 1.77 16-17 52.68 17-18 41.35 18-19 50.76 1919-20 40.27 20-21 62.21 21-22 63.58 22-23 52.54 23-24 25.96 1924-25. 53.63 25-26 45.15 26-27 69.55 27-28 60.70 28-29 43.69 1929-30 46.20 30-31 38.08 31-32 58.00 32-33 27.55 33-34 36.86 1934-35 54.77 35-36.. . . 65.69 36-37 47.72 37-38 90.86 38-39 1939-40 37.66 76.96 40-41 41-42 42-43 43-44 49.15 1944-45 45-46 60.65 46-47 48.33 47-48 65.50 48-49 44.56 1949-50 58.23 50-51 95.00 51-52 92.60 52-53 APPENDIX D RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT ROSEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL, ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 167 County: Placer Date established: 1926 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 160 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Latitude: 38° 45' Longitude: 121 ' 17' Record obtained from: Mr. A. E. Bobb (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1926-27_ 27-28_ 28-29. 1929-30. 30-31. 31-32- 32-33. 33-34. 1934-35. 35-36. 36-37. 37-38. 38-39. 1939-40. 40-41. 41-42. 42-43- 43-44. 1944-45. 45-46. 46-47. 47-48. 48-49. 1949-50. 50-51. 51-52. 52-53. 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.40 0.11 0.25 0.06 0.19 0.28 2.23 1.39 0.60 0.46 0.91 1.24 1.03 1.70 0.45 0.66 1.56 0.91 0.84 1.15 0.14 0.20 1.37 1.76 0.54 2.41 0.36 2.25 1.64 6.16 2.57 3.00 1.58 1.70 0.65 2.82 1.10 3.32 0.72 0.04 1.55 0.84 2.63 0.91 3.59 2.81 2.29 1.26 1.03 1.11 5.00 2.47 1.77 1.25 2.60 3.34 4.16 0.08 5.94 1.61 6.70 2.43 1.81 2.61 2.26 1.05 0.97 5.81 5.99 2.26 2.36 1.55 6.07 1.91 0.89 4.15 1.69 5.00 4.48 5.38 3.55 1.27 3.55 5.06 3.20 1.36 4.00 1.94 5.46 4.12 3.28 2.84 1.93 7.64 4.55 3.65 4.64 2.39 1.38 0.66 0.58 1.24 1.05 4.17 2.98 8.36 3.64 4.94 1.99 1.05 1.48 2.71 2.88 1.39 3.30 2.95 9.06 5.83 7.25 1.15 7.15 6.17 3.51 2.00 6.25 6.28 1.28 2.01 1.44 2.29 2.83 1.86 2.02 0.25 1.36 3.20 2.65 3.33 1.70 0.53 2.69 0.15 2.16 1.17 5.61 4.12 2.57 3.81 1.94 2.27 4.19 1.18 2.93 2.36 3.25 3.39 6.15 2.67 0.81 4.43 1.38 1.78 0.10 3.05 1.38 0.26 1.50 0.19 0.15 5.52 1.58 1.28 1.30 0.05 0.70 3.04 4.27 2.43 1.25 0.36 0.60 3.15 1.21 0.71 1.25 2.45 0.25 0.15 0.85 0.35 1.27 0.47 0.48 0.93 1.59 0.16 0.98 1.40 0.31 0.67 0.74 0.85 0.11 1.95 0.44 0.53 1.16 0.16 1.47 0.56 1.30 0.26 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.55 0.14 0.53 0.61 13.12 17.24 15.56 12.32 15.17 11.80 14.26 22.47 21.17 19.36 22.73 10.78 21.78 24.88 23.08 18.71 15.29 18.32 15.79 12.09 15.73 15.47 14.41 19.96 25.34 17.23 RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: 1946 Type of gage: Non-recording (In inches) Elevation: 160 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: N. Vi, Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M. Observer: Mr. Valjean Austin Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1946-47. . . . 0.05 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.48 0.11 0.48 0.73 3.03 0.35 2.55 2.15 2.83 1.77 1.25 1.39 7.37 2.67 2.45 2.34 1.08 5.08 2.12 6.54 5.97 7.38 0.71 1.27 1.67 5.26 4.06 9.81 5.16 2.44 1.95 2.50 4.77 2.18 2.25 0.35 3.73 4.47 7.82 3.81 1.00 6.09 2.14 0.67 4.37 1.26 1.06 1.24 3.69 0.31 2.48 0.48 0.78 1.65 0.23 0.59 0.60 0.07 0.08 0.72 0.80 14.68 47-48 20.49 48-49 19.15 1949-50 19.61 50-51 26.89 51-52 31.24 52-53 23.09 RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT LOOMIS, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: January, 1948 fype of gage: Non-recording (In inches) Elevation: 380 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: NW corner. Sec. 4, T. 1 1 N., R. 9 E., M. D. B. & M. Record obtained from: Pacific Fruit Exchange — Loomis Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 947-48 48-49.. 6 0.03 Tr. 0.02 0.08 0.39 0.06 2.56 1.94 1.54 1.12 7.06 2.55 2.60 4.10 2.12 5.78 6.20 7.80 2.70 0.60 5.62 4.21 11.92 5.62 2.35 0.96 3.57 2.66 2.47 0.03 3.84 2.47 3.31 1.40 5.40 2.58 3.84 1.24 0.80 1.24 3 . 69 2.10 0.74 1.63 0.07 1.07 0.73 10.06 17.83 50-51 26.10 51-52 31.79 52-53 24.20 53-54. I (IS PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT MOUNT PLEASANT, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: 1944 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 500 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: NE Va, Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M. Observer: Mr. T. V. Doub (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1944-45 45-46 46-47 47-48 48-49 1949-50 50-51 51-52 52-53 53-54 0.06 Tr. 0.65 0.25 0.05 0.25 3.00 1.39 3.26 0.20 2.50 3.15 3.85 3.70 1.99 1.90 1.90 8.75 4.30 2.60 *11.40 8.05 2.50 1.20 5.25 2.30 7.60 6.85 7.90 1.05 1.30 0.90 1.65 1.80 6.25 5.90 12.15 6.35 6.75 2.70 2.90 2.90 2.85 3.95 2.60 3.00 4.80 4.10 5.70 4.95 8.75 3.90 1.95 6.10 3.40 1.00 0.15 0.90 5.35 1.72 1.30 1.05 3.85 0.90 1.35 0.15 2.25 0.80 0.88 2.00 0.40 1.65 0.60 1.10 0.90 1.00 26.50 24.50 19.95 23.55 21.55 20.90 32.85 37.95 27.00 * Season to date. RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT PENRYN, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: November, 1948 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 600 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: NW Va, Sec. 25, T. 11 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M. Observer: Mr. George Perry (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1948-49 1949-50 1.1 0.2 2.8 1.6 1.9 2.1 7.6 4.0 2.6 5.9 1.7 7.5 8.7 7.5 2.9 6.6 5.3 11.9 6.0 3.1 3.9 3.2 2.5 0.4 8.1 4.1 1.0 6.8 3.2 2.2 1.1 1.3 5.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.8 22.1 21.2 50-51 29.6 51-52 37.3 52-53 26.9 RECORD OF MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AT WERNER RANCH, CALIFORNIA County: Placer Date established: February, 1934 Type of gage: Non-recording Elevation: 1,200 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Location: NW Va, Sec. 21, T. 12 N., R. 8 E., M. D. B. & M. Observer: Mr. Charles Werner (In inches) Season July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Total 1933-34 Tr. 0.06 0.03 Tr. 0.01 0.08 Tr. Tr. 0.20 0.01 0.26 0.69 0.28 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.93 0.06 0.26 0.12 1.00 2.41 2.83 0.68 1.59 2.94 0.96 1.70 1.34 0.91 0.27 2.91 3.30 3.28 5.44 0.28 0.05 3.64 3.24 4.19 1.66 5.80 1.00 0.44 2.78 2.72 6.57 1.38 6.15 4.74 4.56 2.28 2.37 1.87 11.74 5.29 2.92 3.27 2.96 5.01 5.15 2.27 2.14 11.46 10.39 5.45 2.94 3.16 9.98 1.71 1.00 6.72 2.05 8.26 9.16 8.59 6.29 9.52 5.71 5.87 4.20 14.65 6.79 6.87 8.72 4.32 3.14 1.71 1.19 2.57 2.15 8.20 7.51 12.63 7.46 5.30 2.65 14.30 9.47 11.80 2.76 10.32 10.13 6.34 3.48 9.61 6 . 77 2.56 3.17 2.78 3.43 4.43 3.39 3.88 0.43 0.51 3.89 2.42 9.97 7.69 5.77 7.91 3.10 3.46 8.13 2.19 4.68 4.76 5.19 5.04 8.95 4.59 3.01 6.53 2.72 0.99 8.46 2.05 2.62 2.68 0.15 1.15 5.16 8.24 2.86 2.16 1.34 0.09 0.83 5.80 1.97 1.53 1.03 4.86 0.42 0.39 0.87 0.28 0.40 3.40 0.36 1.81 2.93 0.92 1.12 1.05 1.18 0.30 3.97 0.62 1.09 2.64 0.29 0.81 1.06 0.74 1.25 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.11 0.81 0.68 0.01 0.23 0.61 1.08 1934-35 31.75 36-37 37.35 35.00 37-38 41.11 38-39 22.76 1939-40 38.61 40-41 43.39 41-42 42.48 42-43 37.04 43-44 24.10 1944-45 30.01 45-46 27.06 46-47 21.00 47-48 28.99 48-49 24.52 1949-50 24.62 50-51 41.92 51-52 42.78 52-53 29.79 53-54 APPENDIX E RECORDS OF MONTHLY RUNOFF IN PLACER COUNTY NOT PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED (169) TABLE OF CONTENTS RECORDS OF MONTHLY RUNOFF IN PLACER COUNTY NOT PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED Station Page Diversion to Gold Hill From South Canal at Wise Power House 171 Diversion to Gold Hill From South Canal at Tunnel 11 171 Flow of Auburn Ravine Canal Near Head 171 Flow of Gold Hill Canal Below Combie Dam 172 ( 170) APPENDIX E DIVERSION TO GOLD HILL FROM SOUTH CANAL AT WISE POWER HOUSE 171 Location: NE Va SE Va, Sec. 17, T. 12 N., R. 8 E., M. D. B. & M. Source of record: Nevada Irrigation District Runoff season Monthly diversion, in acre-feet Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Total 1938-39. 369 1,023 1,430 1,792 618 993 1,574 1,481 1,007 813 1,401 1,842 1,943 116 91 3 55 389 31 229 55 113 120 621 651 951 304 991 273 2,878 1,155 203 2,782 2,277 3,326 3,141 2,872 1,572 3,161 2,015 3,626 3,443 3,132 2,957 2,777 3,398 2,970 3,025 3,155 1,900 2,701 3,334 4,960 4,983 4,434 3,644 3,585 3,426 3,499 3,599 3,547 3,516 3,465 3,463 3,090 3,457 5,385 5,154 5,388 3,109 3,471 3,483 3,587 3,582 3,003 3,020 3,445 2,949 3,065 3,510 5,384 5,095 5,410 2,337 2,876 3.032 3,456 3,271 1,466 3,327 3,077 2,542 2,771 3,216 4,158 3,854 4,352 1939-40. .. 16,540 40-41 15,076 41-42 . . 14,952 42-43 18,515 43-44 14,502 1944-45 . .. 17,861 45-46 --- 18.863 46-47 16,020 47-48 14,206 48-49 18,513 1949-50.. 23,532 50-51 51-52 20,983 25,426 DIVERSION TO GOLD HILL FROM SOUTH CANAL AT TUNNEL 11 Location: NW Va NE Va, Sec. 19, T. 12 N., R. 8 E., M. D. B. & M. Source of record: Nevada Irrigation District Runoff season Monthly diversion, n acre-feet Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Auc. Sept. Total 1939-40 34 41 323 733 ?55 149 1,137 1,609 1,426 1,367 3,022 661 1,870 3,434 641 713 1,054 893 2,011 2,204 1,891 3,353 1,810 3,374 1,538 1,900 1,524 1,206 1,205 1.454 2,492 3,002 3,658 2,805 3.403 3,912 3,447 2,941 2,360 962 985 1,199 1,593 1,918 3,547 2,967 2,772 3,467 3,468 2,999 2.199 2,336 1,283 233 514 424 703 1,856 1,913 1,128 1,791 1,719 486 816 177 300 1940-41 . 3,780 41-42 4,525 42-43 7,143 43-44.. 12,025 1944-45 12,168 45-46 9,997 46-47 15,077 47-48 11,570 48-49 ... 12,499 1949-50 11,661 50-51 6.773 51-52 4,765 FLOW OF AUBURN RAVINE CANAL NEAR HEAD Location: NE Va NE Va, Sec. 14, T. 12 N., R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M. Source of record: Nevada Irrigation District Runoff season Monthly flow, in acre-feet Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Total 1939-40 839 1,023 1,127 931 553 1,284 1,288 1,209 1,187 1,610 2,140 1,981 1,683 510 490 408 412 418 470 345 733 571 458 379 396 766 340 267 453 376 614 397 162 305 400 347 150 207 445 571 297 206 275 360 325 0* 896 602 571 246 309 396 350 0* 462 235 732 129 478 774 566 389 1,102 862 737 1,019 1 ,645 1,004 289 1,008 1,294 1.501 1,539 1,813 1,202 1,934 2.057 1.803 2,265 1,577 1,616 1,147 1,224 1,524 1,715 1,837 2,176 2,005 2,366 2,565 2,730 2,776 1,750 1,957 2,192 1,273 1,966 2,188 2,355 2,370 2,720 2,758 2,930 2,871 2,941 1,760 1.881 2,126 1,277 2,091 1,704 2,437 2,379 2,586 2,480 2,830 2,904 3.032 1.437 1,681 1,666 1,296 2,010 2,079 2,268 2,383 2,450 2,350 2,419 2,441 2,682 12,405 40-41 41-42 12,138 10,196 42-43 7,421 43-44.. 9,438 1944-45 11,401 45-46 14,201 46-47 15,288 47-48 14,246 48-49 15,017 1949-50 16,989 50-51 16,136 51-52 17,219 * Construction dining this period. 17l' PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION FLOW OF GOLD HILL CANAL BELOW COMBIE DAM Location: SE V* NE V*. Sec. 3, T. 13 N., R. 8 E., M. D. B. & M. Source of record: Nevada Irrigation District Runoff season Monthly flow, in acre-feet Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Total 1930-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 1934-35 35-36 36-37 37-38 38-39 1939-40 40-41 41-42 42-43 43-44 1944-45 45-46 46-47 47-48 48-49 1949-50 50-51 51-52 1,334 276 1,365 1,283 898 1,200 1,191 1,415 1,176 1,212 1,176 1,479 2,112 405 1,420 2,766 2,905 2,979 1,799 3,442 2,805 2,156 988 273 678 534 495 747 1,084 1,070 737 737 745 1,295 380 1,128 1,990 0* 1,160 267 805 246 326 501 572 743 1,086 964 659 598 659 278 1,041 2,209 0* 744 252 222 475 547 1,140 920 1,105 475 251 170 745 1,104 0* 489 218 206 426 514 892 700 952 344 145 233 969 2,134 0* 639 258 203 490 573 809 725 1,016 578 373 242 314 238 1,303 3,247 0* 785 594 470 1,152 557 720 766 1,015 1,156 636 446 303 473 1,785 813 1,965 2,660 0* 1,785 3,004 3,595 633 1,258 707 1,429 952 1,299 1,535 1,573 1,550 1.71(1 1,534 1,001 1,954 1,845 2,841 2,993 3,024 3,694 5,215 4,809 5,005 2, HI i:, 387 1,532 1 ,580 1,362 1,434 1,418 1,390 1,708 1,525 1,659 1,649 1,905 1,869 1,863 2.840 2,723 2,559 3,868 4,481 5,550 2,963 5,408 1,694 1,480 1,453 1,539 1,480 1,209 1,759 1,617 1,733 1,985 2,045 2,112 1,932 2,642 2,522 2,413 4,288 4,408 4,765 3,049 4,944 393 1,590 1,368 1,447 1,582 1,624 1,322 1.720 1,853 1,775 2,008 2,097 942 2,038 3,155 2,814 2,478 3,655 4,289 4,548 3,489 2,943 345 1,515 1.308 1,314 1,486 1.571 1,278 1,526 1,834 1,809 1,976 2.133 505 1,842 2,966 2,769 2,593 2,725 3,768 3,450 2,792 2,740 8,028 9,706 9,913 11,866 11,149 13,643 13,206 15,823 13,504 12,775 12,815 12,300 1 1 ,262 1 1 ,948 17,057 23,738 29,316 21,209 25,745 30,728 23,965 21,096 Construction during this period. APPENDIX F RECORDS OF DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY The wells are numbered in accordance Avith a system adopted by the United States Geological Survey. The numbering system indicates the well locations ac- cording to the rectangular land surveys. An explanation of the numbering system is given on page 33 of this bulletin. Reference point elevations given to the nearest foot have been estimated from United States Geological Survey topographic maps. Reference point elevations given to the nearest 0.1 foot have been established by field surveys. (173) APPENDIX F 175 DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Measurements Mode by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 10N/4E-12A1 — Reference point — hole in side of pump, elevation 43.1 feet. 0.10 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.70 mile south of Reigo Road. 12/23/47, 22.0 ; 3/3/48, 20.6 ; 12/7/48, 28.1; 4/6/49, 23.2; 11/23/49, 36.1; 12/1/49, 27.2; 3/15/50, 29.5 ; 3/30/50, 28.7. 10N/5E-2L1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 98.4 feet. 2.53 miles east of Brewer Road, 0.18 mile south of Base Line Road. 3/25/49, 48.8; 5/12/49, 48.9; 6/27/49, 49.3; 7 20 49. 49.8; 8/26/49, 50.1; 10/6/49, 50.5; 11/23/49, 52.0; 2/15/50, 50.4; 3/15/50, 50.5; 4/4/50, 50.5; 11/14/50, 52.8; 3/21/51, 52.0 ; 11/19/51, 55.2 ; 4/2/52, 54.0 ; 11/7/52, 57.7. 10N/5E-3N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 73 feet. 0.50 mile south of Base Line Road, 1.23 miles east of Brewer Road. 5/8/50, 37.7 ; 5/9/51, 38.9 ; 4/2/52, 39.6. 10N/5E-5F1 — Reference point — top of concrete floor in pit, ele- vation 55 feet. 0.45 mile west of Brewer Road, south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 10.1; 3/28/49, 9.5; 11/23/49, 13.1; 4/4/50, 12.7; 11/14/50, 15.7; 3/22/51, 14.1; 11/30/51, 17.0. 10N/5E-5N1 — Reference point — top of concrete base, elevation 52 feet. 0.80 mile west of Brewer Road, 0.53 mile south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 17.7; 3/28/49, 17.2; 11/23/49, 21.2; 4/4/50, 20.0 ; 11/15/50, 26.1 ; 3/22/51, 24.3 10N/5E-6J1 — Reference point — top of wooden shoring for pit. 12.5 feet above casing, elevation 46 feet. 0.12 mile south of Reigo Road, 0.82 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/24/47, 27.1 ; 3/3/48, 27.0 ; 12/7/48, 33.9 ; 4/6/49, 29.6 ; 12/1/49, 33.6 ; 3/30/50, 34.9; 11/9/50, 40.3; 9/5/51, 38.2; 12/5/51, 33.1; 4/8/52, 42.4. 10N 5E-6J2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 45 feet. 0.81 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.25 mile south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 26.0; 3/28/49, 24.5; 11/23/49, 32.7; 4/4/50, 29.1. 10N/5E-6J3 — Reference point — top of bolt plug in well pipe, ele- vation 52 feet. 0.76 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.05 mile s,mth of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 16.7; 4/4/50, 19.4. 10N/5E-6K1 — Reference point — top of 8" x 8" across top of pit, elevation 51.9 feet. 0.53 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.03 mile south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 32.5 ; 3/28/49, 29.0 ; 11/23/49. 39.4; 2/14/50, 36.8; 4/5/50, 35.0; 11/14/50, 40.3; 3/22/51, 3S.7; 11/19/51, 39.1; 4/2/52, 36.3; 11/6/52, 40.9. 10N 5E-6M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 40 feet. 0.03 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.10 mile south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 29.9 ; 4/4/50, 31.4. 10N/5E-8L1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 55 feet. 1.39 miles east of Pleasant Grove Road, 1.22 miles south of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 24.0; 3/28/49, 21.6; 11/23/49, 32.7 ; 4/4/50, 24.0 ; 11/15/50, 26.1 ; 3/22/51, 25.2. 10N/5E-8N1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 51 feet. 1.01 miles east of Pleasant Grove Road, 1.33 miles south of Base line Road. 11/23/48, 26.8 ; 3/28/49, 26.1 ; 11/23/49. 31.1 ; 11/15/50, 31.8 ; 3/22/51, 30.0 ; 11/28/51, 34.5. 10N/5E-9L1 — Reference point — top of concrete base, elevation 67 feet. 2.25 miles east of Pleasant Grove Road, 1.13 miles south of Base Line Road. 11/24/48, 27.5 ; 3/28/49, 27.5 ; 11/23/49, 29.6 ; 4/5/50, 29.4 ; 11/15/50, 31.5 ; 3/21/51, 29.8 ; 11/23/51, 33.4 ; 4/2/52, 32.8 ; 11/7/52, 37.6. 10N/5E-10J1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 87 feet. 0.12 mile southwest of angle point in road at E. \ corner of Sec. 10, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 11/24/48, 42.0 ; 2/24/49, 42.0 ; 3/25 40. 41.5; 11/23/49, 43.5; 4/4/50, 42.6; 11/15/50, 45.4; 3/23/51, 44.6 ; 11/19/51, 48.2 ; 4/2/52, 46.2. 10N 5E-11E1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 89 feet. 0.20 mile northeast of angle in road at W. \ corner of Sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 9/25/50, 53.6 ; 11/19/51, 51.4 ; 4/2/52, 49.7. 10N/5E-11F1 — Reference point — top of steel rim, elevation 93 feet. 0.55 mile northwest of junction of roads at E. \ corner of Sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 11/24/48, 46.3; 3/25/49, 46.4; 11/23/49, 47.6 ; 4/4/50, 47.5 ; 11/15/50, 50.3 ; 3/22/51, 49.3 ; 11/19/51, 52.2 ; 4/2/52, 50.6. 10N/5E-11G1 — Reference point — \" hole above pump base, ele- vation 98.6 feet. 0.40 mile northwest of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 6/1/49, 50.3 ; 7/1/49, 50.6 7/29/49, 50.5 ; 8/31/49, 50.6 ; 10/6/49, 50.8 ; 11/23/49, 51.5 2/15/50, 50.7; 3/15/50, 51.7; 4/4/50, 47.5; 5/8/50, 51.0 6/7/50, 53.9; 7/7/50, 53.0; 8/7/50, 54.6; 9/5/50, 55.2 10/3/50, 55.1 ; 11/15/50, 54.4 ; 12/15/50, 54.2 ; 1/4/51, 53.1 2/6/51, 54.2; 3/8/51, 52.4; 3/22/51, 53.6; 5/9/51, 53.5 6/5/51, 59.4 ; 7/10/51, 60.5 ; 8/23/51, 59.3. 10N/5E-11J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 91 feet. 0.10 mile southwest of junction of roads at E. \ corner. Sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 11/24/48, 51.0 ; 3/25/49, 51.0 ;ll/23/49, 50.7 ; 4/4/50, 50.6 ; 11/15/50, 54.0 ; 3/22/51, 52.8. 10N/5E-12E1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 85 feet. 0.96 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 12/14/48, 50.9 ; 3/25/49, 51.9 ; 8/1/49, 52.5 ; 10/6/49, 52.5; 11/23/49, 52.8; 3/31/50, 53.0; 11/15/50, 55.6; 3/23/51, 55.0; 11/29/51, 57.3; 4/2/52, 55.8; 11/10/52, 59.7. 10N/5E-12M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 93 feet. 0.45 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner, Sec. 12, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 12/13/48, 38.2 ; 3/25/49, 37.6. 10N/5E-12N1 — Reference point — hole in side of pump, elevation 100 feet. 0.20 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 12, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 12/13/48, 68.0 ; 2/24/49, 67.7 ; 3/25/49, 67.5 ; 11/25/49, 67.0 ; 3/31/50, 67.7 ; 11/15/50, 70.1. 10N/6E-3M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 136 feet. 0.05 mile east of and 0.10 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner, Sec. 3, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 2/17/49, 77.3 3/24/49, 76.9 ; 11/25/49, 79.9 ; 4/4/50, 77.7 ; 11/27/50, 83.9 3/20/51, 79.9; 5/9/51, 81.6; 6/5/51, 83.0; 11/28/51, 83.0 4/10/52, 80.7 ; 11/10/52, 84.9. 10N/6E-3P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 148 feet. 0.26 mile east of and 0.42 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 3, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 2/28/49, 94.3 ; 4/4/50, 89,0; 11/28/51, 94.1. 10N/6E-4P1 — Reference point — edge of pump base, elevation 141 feet. 0.45 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of See. 4, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/15/48, 88.8; 4/4/50, 88.0; 11/15/50, 90.1. 10N/6E-5L1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, on southwest side of pump, elevation 130 feet. 0.50 mile west of, 0.18 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 5, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/14/48, 77.4 ; 3/24/49, 76.0 ; 11/23/49, 80.5 ; 11/15/50, 86.6; 3/20/51, 85.1; 4/2/52, 79.7. 10N/6E-7K1 — Reference point — hole in pump base on the north- cast side, elevation 95 feet. 0.63 mile south of and 0.31 mile west of angle in road at northeast corner of Sec. 7, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/13/48, 36.5 ; 3/24/49, 31.7 ; 11/25/49, 35.6 ; 3/31/50, 33.8 ; 11/15/50, 35.1 ; 3/22/51, 33.5 ; 11/29/51, 36.6 ; 4/2/52, 30.6 ; 11/10/52, 37.0. 10N/6E-7Q1 — Reference point — edge of pump base at hole in south side, elevation 121 feet. 1.25 miles cast of Dry Creek School on Dry Creek Road. 12/13/48, 63.7; 3/24/49. 68.2; 3/31/50, 70.3; 3/22/51, 70.1; 11/29/51, 74.4; 4/2/52. 73.5. 10N/6E-8A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 135 feet. 0.12 mile south and 0.07 mile west of junction of roads .-,i ilicisi corner of Sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 5 E. 3/15/50, 71.0; 3/31/50. 70..".. 10N/6E-8B1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 132 feet. 35 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 3. T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/14/48, 74.5; 3/24/49, 74.0; 11/23/49, 78.6; 3/31 '50, 74.1. 176 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 10N/6E-8J1 — Reference point — edge of concrete casing, elevation 114 feet. 0.58 mile south of junction of roads at northeast cor- ner of Sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/14/48, 17.0 ; 3/24/49, 14.5 ; 11/25/49, 16.8; 3/31/50, 17.8; 11/15/50, 16.8; 3/20/51, 14.5; 11/28/51, 16.1 ; 4/2/52, 12.8; 11/10/52, 17.0. 10N/6E-8R1 — Reference point — pipe in base, elevation 143 feet. 0.13 mile north of, 0.04 mile west of junction of roads at south- east corner of Sec. 8, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/13/48, 90.8 ; 2/24/49, 90.3; 3/24/49, 90.1; 11/25/49, 92.9; 3/31/50; 93.5; 11/15/50, 94.6 ; 3/20/51, 92.6 ; 4/2/52, 93.8. 10N/6E-9D1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 141 feet. 0.25 mile east of junction of roads at northwest cor- ner of Sec. 9, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/15/48, 84.1; 3/24/49, 84.0; 5/11/49, 85.2; 6/27/49, 87.5; 7/1/49, 88.9; 7/29/49, 88.1 ; 8/26/49, 87.7 ; 10/6/49, 87.6 ; 11/23/49, 86.7 ; 2/14/50, 85.5; 3/15/50, 85.5; 4/4/50; 85.2; 5/8/50, 85.7; 6/7/50, 87.6; 7/7/50, 90.0; 8/1/50, 89.9; 9/6/50, 90.0; 10/3/50, 89.2; 11/15/50, 88.1; 3/6/51, 86.3; 3/20/51, 86.3; 5/9/51, 86.6 ; 6/5/51, 90.8 ; 4/2/52, 87.8. 10N/6E-9R1 — Reference point — hole in casing under pump, ele- vation 132 feet. 1.0 mile east of, 0.06 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 9, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/13/48, 78.5; 3/24/49, 77.7; 11/25/49, 81.4; 4/4/50, 80.3; 11/15/50, 79.6 ; 3/20/51, 78.8 ; 11/29/51, 80.5. 10N/6E-10C1 — Reference point — hole in north side of 3" x 12" wooden pump support, elevation 151 feet. 0.68 mile west of and 5 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec 10, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/15/48, 89.0 ; 2/17/49, 89.0 ; 3/24/49, 85.5 ; 4/4/50, 88.5 ; 11/27/50, 89.1. 10N/6E-12A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 175 feet. 0.37 mile east of junction of roads at N. \ corner of Sec. 12, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 1/3/51, 87.1 ; 3/20/51, 84.1 ; 5/9/51, 84.6 ; 6/6/51, 84.6. 10N/6E-12D1 — Reference point — hole in plug in top of casing, elevation 140 feet. 0.37 mile west of junction of roads at N. i corner of Sec. 12, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. On Douglas Street, op- posite end of Donner Avenue. 11/9/29, 38.5 ; 9/18/30, 33.6 ; 12/10/31, 33.0; 11/26/32, 33.3; 12/19/33, 34.1; 11/15/34, 33.8; 11/16/36, 32.5; 11/1/37, 32.1; 1/9/39, 31.0; 1/2/41, 31.0 ; 11/11/47, 30.5 ; 12/16/48, 32.5 ; 2/24/49, 31.7 ; 11/25/49, 30.5 ; 4/4/50', 32.6 ; 11/16/50, 29.9 ; 3/20/51, 25.8 ; 1/6/53, 25.4. 10N/6E-17A1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 140 feet. 0.15 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/13/48, 84.3 ; 3/24/49, 80.5 ; 11/25/49, 83.2 ; 3/31/50, 86.2 ; 11/15/50, 85.6 ; 3/20/51, 83.0 ; 11/28/51, 86.0; 4/2/52, 84.4; 11/10/52, 88.3. 10N/7E-7E1 — Reference point — base of movable hand pump, ele- vation 142 feet. 0.31 mile south of Douglas Street on road to Adamson Ranch. 1/5/51, 20.1 ; 3/20/51, 21.0. 11N/4E-1F1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 49.3 feet. 0.80 mile south of Catlett Road, 0.25 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/22/47, 21.5 ; 3/22/48, 19.3 ; 12/18/48, 23.3 ; 3/29/49, 19.5; 12/2/49, 25.9; 3/27/50, 22.8; 11/8/50, 27.0; 11/16/51, 29.6. 11N/4E-12J2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 56.8 feet. 0.58 mile south of Howslev Road, 0.78 mile south of Pleas- ant Grove Road. 12/23/47, 27.3 ; 3/3/48, 25.2 ; 12/8/48, 28.2 ; 3/31/49, 24.7; 11/17/49, 30.8; 11/30/49, 28.9; 4/11/50, 26.9; 11/14/50, 32.4; 4/5/51, 28.9; 11/15/51, 34.0; 4/3/52, 29.2. 11N/4E-12M1 — Reference point — slot in concrete base, elevation 44.7 feet. 0.62 mile south of Howsley Road, 0.07 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/23/47, 22.8 ; 3/3/48, 19.8 ; 12/8/48, 24.6; 3/3/49, 20.4; 11/30/49, 27.2; 3/30/50, 23.1; 11/6/50, 28.2 ; 4/10/51, 23.5 ; 11/14/51, 35.0. 11N/4E-12M2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 40 feet. 0.72 mile south of Howsley Road on west side of Pleasant Grove Road. 11/14/51, 31.8; 4/10/52, 22.8. 11N/4E-13D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 47.6 feet. 0.09 mile south of Fifield Road on west side of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/8/48, 28.5; 4/6/49, 18,0; 11/30/49, 27.0; 3/15/50, 23.3; 3/30/50, 24.1; 11/8/50, 30.1; 4/5/51, 25.0; 11/14/51, 32.6 ; 4/10/52, 25.2. 11N/4E-13M1 — Reference point — top of casing in 12 foot pit, elevation 46 feet. 0.12 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.37 mile north of Keys Road. 12/8/48, 19.1; 3/31/49, 14.0; 11/30/49, 21.7. 11N/4E-23H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 53.1 feet. 0.02 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.46 mile south of Keys Road. 12/23/47, 19.5; 3/3/48, 18.1; 12/8/48, 24.1; 4/6/49, 19.7; 11/30/49, 32.2; 3/15/50, 25.3; 3/30/50, 24.6; 11/8/50, 30.7 ; 4/5/51, 29.6. 11 N/4E-25M1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 37 feet. 0.58 mile south of Sankey Road, 0.06 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/23/47, 19.0 ; 12/8/48, 24.9 ; 4/6/49, 21.0; 12/1/49, 34.6; 4/4/50, 34.9. 11N/4E-36E1 — Reference point — top of concrete wall, elevation 39 feet. 0.07 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.70 mile north of Riego Road. 12/24/47, 22.3; 3/3/48, 23.0; 12/7/48, 28.9; 4/6/49, 24.9 ; 12/1/49, 38.7 ; 3/30/50, 23.2. 11N/4E-36H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 52 feet. 0.50 mile north of Base Line Road, on west side Sutter-Placer County Line Road. 9/25/51, 36.5; 11/16/51, 35.7; 2/27/52, 33.8 ; 4/2/52, 33.2. 11N/5E-1E1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 107.4 feet. 0.60 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 11 N., R 5 E. 12/21/48, 47.5; 3/30/49, 47.2; 11/14/49, 49.7 ; 3/15/50, 49.2 ; 4/7/50, 49.0 ; 11/14/50, 50.4 ; 3/21/51, 49.9; 11/14/51, 52.0; 4/3/52, 51.5; 11/6/52, 53J9. 11N/5E-1N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 106.3 feet, 0.20 mile east and 0.08 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 11 N., R 5 E. 5/12/49, 45.9 ; 6/28/49, 46.8; 7/28/49, 47.6; 8/25/49, 47.7; 9/29/49, 48.0; 11/14/49, 48.1; 2/14/50, 47.9; 3/5/50, 47.7; 4/7/50, 57.9; 5/9/50, 47.8 ; 6/9/50, 48.0 ; 7/7/50, 48.1 ; 8/3/50, 48.2 ; 9/5/50, 48.9; 10/3/50, 48.9; 11/14/50, 49.2; 1/5/51, 48.8; 2/8/51, 48.6; 3/21/51, 48.6; 5/10/51, 48.5; 6/5/51, 48.6; 7/10/51, 49.1 ; 8/23/51, 49.5 ; 9/27/51, 53.7 ; 11/14/51, 50.1 ; 2/28/52. 50.0 ; 4/3/52, 50.3 ; 11/6/52, 51.7. 11N/5E-3H1 — Reference point — pipe in concrete base, elevation 99.4 feet. 0.95 mile east of and 0.67 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 3, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 12/20/48, 45.2 ; 3/30/49, 44.3 ; 11/14/49, 47.9 ; 4/7/50, 46.2 ; 11/14/50, 48.0; 3/21/51, 46.9; 11/14/51, 50.9; 4/3/52, 49.0; 11/6/52, 53.5. 11N/5E-3IV11 — Reference point — pipe in concrete base, elevation 89.3 feet. 0.48 mile north of and 0.23 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 3, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 12/20/48, 37.0; 3/30/49, 36.0; 11/14/49, 39.6; 3/15/50, 38.0; 4/7/50, 37.8; 11/14/50, 39.6; 3/20/51, 38.2; 11/14/51, 42.6; 4/3/52, 40.6. 11N/5E-3M2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 89.4 feet. 0.47 mile north of and 0.23 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 3, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 12/20/48, 37.8 ; 3/30/49, 36.9 ; 11/14/49, 41.3. 11N/5E-3M3 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 90.8. 0.33 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 3, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., on east side of road. 11/14/49, 43.4 ; 3/15/50, 41.9; 4/7/50, 41.8; 10/3/50, 44.1; 11/14/50, 43.5; 3/20/51, 42.0 ; 11/14/51, 46.8 ; 4/3/52, 44.4. 11N/5E-4P1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 106.2 feet. 0.60 mile west of and 0.25 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 4. T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 6/9/49, 61.6: 11/14/49, 61.6; 4/7/50, 59.3; 11/14/50. 61.9; 3/20/51, 59.9 ; 11/14/51. 64.9 ; 4/3/52. 63.8. APPENDIX F 177 DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 11 N 5E-4Q1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 104.0 feet. 0. 35 mile west of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 4, T. 10 N., R. 5 E., on north side of road. 11 30 48, 55.5; 12/20/48, 55.4; 3/30/49, 54.4; 5/12/49, 54.5; (i 28 49, 01 .0; 7/28/49, 61.2; 8/25/49, 62.7; 9/29/49, 61.9; 11/14/49. 58.8; 2/15/50, 57.0; 3/15/50, 56.8; 4/7/50, 56.9; 5/9/50, 56.6 ; 6/7/50, 58.2 ; 7/7/50, 59.2 ; 8/1/50, 59.4 ; 9/5/50, 59.9 ; 10/3/50, 59.3 ; 11/14/50, 58.8 ; 12/15/50, 58.4 ; 1/4/51, 58.0 ; 2/6/51, 59.5 ; 3/20/51, 57.0 ; 5/9/51, 57.5 ; 6/5/51, 60.2 ; 7 10/51, 62.8; 8/23/51, 64.2; 9/25/51, 64.5; 11/14/51, 62.0; 2/28/52, 59.8; 4/3/52, 59.7; 11/6/52, 66.0. 11 N 5E-6A1 — Reference point — pipe in base, 0.6 feet above ground, elevation '. 17.3; .-, 12/49, 18.6; 6/27/49, 22.5; 7/28/49, 25.0; 7/29/49. 25.2; 9/29/49, 28.2; 11/10/49. 21.2; 2/14/50, 19.7; 3/15/50, 19.2; 4/10/50, 19.0; 5/8/50, 20.7; 10/4/50, 24.4; 11/14/50, 22.2; 12/13/50. 21.6; 1/4/51. 20.8; 2/6/51. 19.8; 3/21/51. 10.1; 5/9/51, 21.2; 9/25/51, 29.0; 11/14/51, 25.5; 2/28/52, 22.7; 4/3/52, 21.9; 11/6/52, 28.7. 11N 5E-6G1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 56.2 feet. 0.50 mile west of Brewer Road, 0.52 mile north of Howsley Road. 11/30/48, 24.6; 3/30/49. 20.9; 11/10/49, 26.1 ; 3/15/50, 23.5 ; 4/10/50, 23.1 ; 5/8/50, 61.5* ; 11/14/50. 27.2; 3/20/51, 23.1; 11/14/51. 30.3; 3/31/52. 26.4. 11N/5E-6N1 — Reference point — joint in cover around casing, elevation 53.2 feet. North side of Howslev Road, 0.80 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/23/47, 24.7 ; 3/3/48, 22.6 ; 12/8/48, 25.1; 3/31/49, 22.8; 11/30/49, 25.9; 11/14/50, 28.7; 3/22/51, 26.2. 11N/5E-6Q1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 58.3 feet. 0.48 mile west of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 6, T. 10 N.. R. 5 E., on north side of road. 11/30/48, 24.8 ; 3/30/49, 23.5 ; 6/27/49, 30.0 ; 7/28/49, 65.0 ; 11/10/49, 27.9; 2/14/50, 25.5; 3/15/50, 25.0; 4/10/50, 24.8; 5/8/50, 28.5 : 6/7/50, 29.8 ; 7/3/50, 32.3 ; 8/1/50, 32.9 ; 9/5/50, 32.3 ; 10/3/50, 30.0 ; 11/14/50. 28.8 ; 12/13/50, 27.7 ; 1/4/51, 27.4 ; 2/6/51, 26.5; 3/20/51, 25.7; 4/5/51, 25.6; 5/9/51, 27.7: 6/5/51. 34.8; 7/10/51, 39.3; 8/23/51, 41.7; 9/25/51. 40.3; 11/14/51, 32.2; 2/28/52, 29.0; 3/31/52, 28.5; 11/12/52, 35.0. 11 N 5E-6R1 — Reference point — edge of pump base, elevation 61.0 feet. 0.10 mile north of and 0.03 mile west of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 6, T. 10 N., R. 6 E. 12/17/48, 23.3 ; 3/30/49, 22.2. 11N/5E-7F1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 56 feet. 0.50 mile west of and 0.27 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 7, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/50, 29.7 ; 3/22/51, 26.7. 11N/5E-7P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 52.3 feet. On south bank of Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.60 mile west of road on eastern boundary of Sec. 7, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/30/48, 15.1 ; 11/17/49. 18.3; 4/11/50, 17.3; 11/14/50, 19.4; 3/22/51, 16.3; 11/15/51, 20.2; 4/3/52. 17.7; 11/12/52, 21.5. 11 N 5E-7R1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 60.6 feet. North of Pleasant Grove ('reek and west of road forming eastern boundary of Sec. 7, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/26/48. 21.7; 3/29/49, 20.2; 5/12/49, 21.4; 6/27/49. 25.6; 7/28/49, 28.3; 8/25/49. 29.9; 9/29/49, 28.2; 11/18/49, 24.8; 2/14/50, 23.3; 3/14/50, 23.0; 4/11/50, 22.7; 5/8/50. 63.3*; 6/9/50. 64.7*; 7/3/50, 30.7; 8/1/50. 32.9; 9/5/50, 66.3*; 10/:i 50, 28.9; 11/14/50, 26.3; 12/13/50. 25.4; 1/4/51, 24.6; 2/6/51, 24.7; 3/6/51, 24.2; 3/22/51, 2:;.ti ; 5/9/51, 27.1; 6/5/51, 32.5 ; 7/10/51, 35.0 ; 11/16/51, 29.7 ; 2/28/52, 26.5 ; 4/:\ 52, 26.0; 11/6/52, 31.8. 11 N 5E-8B1 — Reference point — to]) of casing, elevation 68.3 feet. 0.6!) mile east of and 0.10 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/29/48, 25.4 ; 3/29/49, 24.3; 11/14/49, 27.7; 4/11/50, 26.0; 11/14/50, 28.8; .". 22/51. 27.1 ; 11/20/51. 32.0 ; 4/3/52, 29.5. 11N/5E-9K1 — Reference point — edge of pit, elevation 70 feet. 1.5 miles east of road forming boundary between Sees. 7 and 8, T. 11 N.. R. 5 E., and 0.10 mile north of Pleasant Grove Creek. 11/29/48. 25.4; 2/24/49, 25.7; 3/29/49. 24.1 ; 11/18/49, 28.6; 4/7/50, 26.5 ; 11/14/50, 29.0 ; 3/22/51, 26.4 ; 11/15/51, 30.6 ; 4/3/52, 27.2. 11N/5E-10L1 — Reference point — hole in pump base 1 foot above ground, elevation 74.0 feet. 1.50 miles west of road forming boundary between Sees. 11 and 12. T. 11 N., R. 5 E., and 0.62 mile south of Howslev Road. 11/14/49, 26.3; 3/15/50, 25.0 ; 4/7/50, 24.5 ; 11/14/50, 26.4 ; 3/22/51, 25.4. 11IM/5E-11A1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 103 feet. 0.13 mile west of and 0.15 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 11, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 43.2; 3/29/49, 46.0. 11N/5E-14P1 — Reference point — outer edge of 2-foot discharge pipe, elevation 80.3 feet. 0.28 mile southeast of angle in road at W. i corner of Sec. 14. 12/27/48, 29.8 ; 11/18/49, 33.1 ; 4/4/50, 32.6. 11N/5E-14P2 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 83.0 feet. 0.10 mile north of angle in road at S. \ corner of Sec. 14, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 29.7; 2/24/49, 29.3 5/12/49, 28.9 ; 6/27/49, 31.1 ; 7/29/49, 31.7 ; 8/26/49, 32.2 10/6/49, 32.0 ; 11/18/49, 31.6 ; 2/15/50, 30.9 ; 3/15/50, 30.9 4/5/50, 30.7; 5/8/50, 30.8; 7/7/50, 49.0; 10/3/50, 32.6 11/15/50, 33.0 ; 12/15/50, 32.4 ; 1/5/51, 33.1 ; 2/6/51, 31.4 3/7/51, 31.5; 3/21/51, 31.4; 5/9/51, 32.0; 6/5/51, 32.5 7/10/51, 34.3; 8/23/51, 35.2; 9/25/51. 35.3; 11/19/51, 34.3 2/28/52, 33.0 ; 4/1/52, 32.7 ; 11/7/52, 34.0. 11N/5E-15G1 — Reference point — top of casing, 0.7 foot above concrete, elevation 75.4 feet. 0.60 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., and on south bank of Pleasant Grove Creek. 11/29/48, 24.7; 3/29/49, 23.7; 11/18/49, 27.4 ; 4/11/50, 26.1. 11IM/5E-16A1 — Reference point — pipe in base, elevation 77.7 feet. 0.38 mile north of junction of roads at E. \ corner of Sec. 16, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., on west side of road. 11/29/48, 31.0 - 3/29/49, 29.9 ; 11/18/49, 33.4 ; 2/15/50, 32.2 ; 3/15/50, 32.1 4/11/50, 31.8; 5/9/50, 37.0; 6/7/50, 33.7; 7/7/50, 34.1 8/7/50, 35.0; 9/6/50, 36.5; 10/3/50, 35.0; 11/14/50, 34.4 12/15/50, 33.7; 1/4/51, 33.2; 2/7/51, 32.9; 3/21/51, 32.6 5/9/51, 33.3; 6/5/51, 35.6; 7/10/51, 38.7; 8/23/51, 42.9 9/25/51, 40.2; 11/21/51, 37.0; 4/1/52, 34.7: 11/7/52, 40.3. 11N/5E-16f5l — Reference point — top of concrete base, elevation 72.0 feet. 4.33 mile northeast of junction of roads at W. \ corner of Sec. 16, T. 11 X., R. 5 E., on south side of private road. 5/23/49, 28.1 ; 11/18/49, 30.5; 4/11/50, 28.8; 11/14/50, 31.4; 3/21/51, 29.5; 11/15/51, 34.3; 4/1/52, 31.3; 11/7/52, 38.0. 11N 5E-17J1 — Reference point — pipe in base, elevation 68.1 feet. 0.27 mile north of and 0.03 mile west of junction of roads at E. ', corner of See. 17. T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/29/48, 26.1 ; 3/29/49, 24.8; 11/18/49, 29.0; 4/4/50, 27.5; 11/14/50, 26.8; 3/21/51, 27.8; 11/15/51, 32.3; 4/1/52, 30.0; 11/7/52, 36.1. 11N/5E-18H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 62.8 feet. 50 feet west of and 200 feet north of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 18, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/26/48, 24.0 ; 2/25/49, 22.7; 3/29/49, 22.0; 11/18/49, 28.0; 4/11/50, 26.0; 11/14/50, 29.5 ; 3/22/51, 26.9 ; 4/1/52, 29.5 ; 11/6/52, 35.2. 11N/5E-18N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 50 feet. North side of Kevs Road, 0.85 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/24/47. 27.3 ; 3/3/48, 26.5 ; 12/18/48, 30.1 ; 11/30/49, 31.8 ; 11/14/50, 33.1 ; 3/22/51, 31.2. 11N/5E-19A1 — Reference point — hole in top of pump base, eleva- tion 61.6 feet. 0.13 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., on west side of road. 6/27/49. 33.1; 7/29/49, 35.5; 11/18/49, 28.4; 2/14/50, 26.4; 3/14/50, 26.0; 4/11/50, 25.8; 11/14/50, 29.2; 3/22/51, 27.3; 7/6/51. 40.3; 11/16/51, 33.0; 2/25/52, 30.0; 4/1/52, 29.5; 11/6/52, 35.8. 178 J M.ACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 11N/5E-19H1 — Reference point — top of easing, elevation 62.2 feet. 0..''>2 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/21/48, 23.5; 3/29/49, 23.0; 7/29/49, 73.0* ; 11/18/49, 30.1 ; 2/14/50, 28.0 ; 3/14/50, 27.6 ; 4 11/50, 27.4; 5/8/50, 29.5; 6/7/50, 32.2; 7/7/50, 33.4; 8/1/50, 34.5; 9/5/50, 33.9; 10/4/50, 31.8; 11/14/50, 30.7; 12/13/50, 30.0; 1/4/51, 30.6; 2/6/51, 29.1; 3/6/51, 28.8; 3/22/51, 2S.6. 11N/5E-19J1 — Reference point — pipe in base, elevation 51.0 feet. 0.70 mile south of and 0.25 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., on east bank of north branch Curry Creek. 11/26/48, 15.8 ; 3/29/49, 14.1 ; 6/30/49, 27.5 ; 11/17/49, 19.2 ; 3/14/50, 17.4 ; 4/11/50, 17.0 ; 6/27/50, 27.9; 11/14/50. 20.7; 3/22/51, 17.9; 11/16/51, 22.7; 4/1/52, 19.6; 11/6/52, 26.6. 11N/5E-19P1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 54.8 feet. 0.47 mile east of and 0.13 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/17/49, 25.0; 3/14/50, 22.7; 4/11/50, 22.2; 10/4/50, 29.0; 11/14 50, 27.9 ; 3/22/51, 25.9 ; 4/1/52, 25.5. 11 N/5E-21 R1— Reference point — top of casing, elevation 70 feet I 25 miles south of and 0.92 mile east of junction of roads al W. 1 corner of Sec. 16, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 3/31/49, 23.0; 11/17 40. 20.2; 4/11/50, 25.8; 11/14/50, 29.1; 3/22/51, 27.::. 11N/5E-24F1 — Reference point — top of wooden floor covering pit. elevation 105.6 feet. 0.45 mile east of and 0.53 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec 24, T. 11 N., R. 5 E.. south of private road. 12/28/48, 45.6; 11/18/49, 50.0. 11N/5E-28C1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 70 feet. 45 mile north of and 0.45 mile east of junction of roads at W. ! corner of Sec. 28, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/20/51, 33.7 ; 4/1/52, 31. s : 11/6/52, 36.5. 11N/5E-28H1 — Reference point — top of 3" x 3" on north side, elevation 74 feet. 0.13 mile north of and 0.95 mile east of junc- tion of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 28. T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/30/48, 24.3 ; 4/1/49, 27.4 ; 11/17/49, 30.5 ; 4/11/50, 29.6 : 11/15/50, 31.4: 3/22/51, 30.2; 11/29/51, 34.5; 4/1/52, 33.0; 11/6 r._>. :;ii.::. 11N/5E-28P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 72 feet. 0.50 mile south of and 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 28, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 5/16/50, 58.0* ; 5/2/50, 34.7; 10/2/50, 36.0; 11/13/50, 34.4; 3/22/51, 33.1; 5/9/51, 34.4 ; 11/20/51, 37.0 ; 4/1/52, 35.2 ; 11/6/52, 39.8. 11N/5E-29A1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 67 feet. 0.5 mile north of junction of roads at E. J corner of Sec. 20. T. 11 V. R. 5 E., on west side of road. 11/13/50, 31.9; II 20/51, 34.5; 4/1/52, 32.3; 11/6/52, 37.2. 11N/5E-29G1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 51 feet. 0.17 mile north of junction of private road with east-west road al S. 1 comer of Sec. 29, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. Pump #1 by swim- ming pool. 11/26/48, 24.7 ; 4/4/50, 27.1. 11N/5E-29H1 — Reference point — end of 3.5-foot flow pipe, 4.0- foot collection, elevation 62 feet. Northwest of junction of roads ai E. | comer of Sec. 29, T. 11 N.. R. 5 E. 11/13/50, 32.7 ; 3/22/51, 35.2 ; 4/1/52, 33.2. 11N/5E-29K1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 66.2 feet. 0.32 mile west of and 0.05 mile south of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 20. T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/24/48, 22.9; 3/30/49, 24.0; 11/17/49, 27.3; 2/14/50, 26.2; 4/4/50, 26.2; 10/2/50, 30.8; 11/13/50, 29.5; 12/13/50, 28.6; 1/4/51, 28.6; 2/6/51, 28.5 ; 3/22/51, 28.1 ; 11/20/51, 31.9; 4/1/52, 29.9. 11N/5E-29K2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 65.4 feet. 0.28 mile west of junction of roads at E. J corner of Sec. 20. T. 11 X.. R. 5 E., on south side of road. 11/24/48, 24.4; 3 28 10. 22.5; 1117 10. 20.1 ; 2/14/50, 25.1 ; 3/15/50, 25.0; 4/4/50. 27.8; 6/2/50, 39.3; 8/1/50, 58.8*; 10/2/50. 20.5; 11/13/50, 27.8; 12/13 50, 2S.7 ; 1/4/51, 27.3; 2/6/51, 26.7; 3/22 51, 26.3; 11/20/51, 30.3; 4/1/52, 28.2. 11N/5E-30A1 — Reference point — pipe in concrete base, eleva- tion 60.5 feet. 0.05 mile south of junction of section roads at northeast corner of Sec. 30, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., adjacent to road on west side. 11/24/49, 24.7; 3/28/49, 23.5; 5/12/49, 24.2; 8/26/49, 35.2; 11/17/49, 28.6; 2/14/50, 27.1; 3/14/50. 26.8; 4/4/50, 26.5 ; 6/7/50, 31.1 ; 7/7/50, 32.5 ; 8/1/50, 33.8 ; 9/5/50, 34.0 ; 11/14/50, 30.4 ; 1/4/51, 32.0 ; 2/6/51, 28.4 ; 3/6/51, 28.7 ; 3/2/51, 27.8; 5/9/51, 29.7; 6/5/51, 31.8; 7/10/51, 33.1; 8/23/51, 35.7; 9/25/51, 38.6; 11/16/51, 31.8; 4/1/52, 29.8; 11/6/32, 34.2. 11N/5E-30L1 — Reference point — top of casing below surface of ground, elevation 42.9 feet. 0.4 mile east of and 0.08 mile south of junction of section roads at northwest corner of Sec. 30, T. 11 N., R. 5 E. 11/24/48, 23.5 ; 3/28/49, 22.5 ; 11/23/49, 25.2 ; 4/4/50, 24.9; 11/14/50, 25.7; 3/22/51, 27.9; 11/16/51, 31.1; 4/2/52, 28.3. 11N/5E-30M2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 49.0 feet. 1.05 miles east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.51 mile south of Sankey Road. 11/24/48, 22.7; 3/28/49, 20.5; 11/23 40. 25.8; 4/4/50, 25.3; 11/14/50, 28.2; 3/22/51, 25.6; 11/21/51, 29.5. base, elevation on west side of 5/12/49, 20.4 ; 10/4/49, 24.6; ; 4/4/50, 23.1; 10/2/50, 25.9; 3/6/51, 23.8; 7/10/51, 27.8; ; 4/1/52, 25.5; 11N/5E-31A1 — Reference point — top of concrete 55.7 feet. 0.98 mile north of Base Line Road Brewer Road. 11/24/48, 19.6 ; 3/28/49, 18.9 ; 6/27/49. 36.9; 6/30/49, 24.8; 8/31/49, 25.8; 11/23/49, 22.7; 2/14/50, 22.1; 3/15/50, 22.0 5/8/50, 22.7; 6/3/50, 63.0 (operating); 12/13/50, 24.7; 1/4/51, 24.1; 2/6/51, 24.3; 3/22/51, 23.9; 5/9/51, 24.0; 6/5/51, 26.7; 8/23/51, 29.0; 9/25/51, 29.2; 11/10/51, 26.8 11/6/52, 29.7. 11N/5E-31D1 — Reference point — top of abandoned well casing, 6 feet from present w r ell, elevation 51 feet. 0.93 mile west of Brewer Road, 0.25 mile north of Base Line Road. 11/24/48, 24.5 ; 3/28/49, 22.0 ; 11/23/49, 28.5 ; 4/4/50, 26.9 ; 11/15/50, 30.4 ; 3/22/51, 28.1 ; 11/21/51, 31.3. 11N/5E-31E1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 52.2 feet. 0.50 mile north of Base Line Road on east side of Placer- Sutter county line road. 5/9/49, 29.5 ; 11/23/49, 32.5 ; 2/14/50, 31.0 ; 3/15/50, 31.0 ; 4/4/50, 30.0 ; 5/8/50, 30.3 ; 6/7/50, 33.0 ; 7/7/50, 34.2; 8/1/50, 34.5; 9/5/50, 35.5; 10/4/50, 35.0; 11/14/50, 34.4; 12/13/50, 33.6; 1/4/51, 33.4; 2/6/51, 32.7; 3/6/51, 32.1; 3/22/51, 31.7; 5/9/51, 31.4; 6/5/51, 38.6; 11/23/51, 34.0; 2/27/52, 33.1; 4/2/52, 32.7; 11/6/52, 36.8. 11N/5E-31N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 55 feet. 0.82 mile east of Brewer Road, on north side of Base Line Road. 5/12/49, 30.9; 6/27/49, 32.3; 7/29/49, 33.5. 11N/5E-32N1 — Reference point — top of 5-inch casing, elevation 65.0 feet. 200 feet northeast of junction of Brewer Road and Base Line Road. 2/24/49, 19.6; 3/28/49, 28.9; 11/23/49, 31.0; 4/4/50, 32.8. 11N/5E-32N2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 63.8 feet. 0.17 mile northeast of junction of Brewer Road and Base Line Road. 6/1/49, 28.1 ; 11/23/49, 28.5 ; 3/15/50, 28.7 ; 4/4/50,28.4; 11/14/50,31.1; 3/21/50,30.1; 11/19/51,32.5. 11N/5E-32P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 65.5 feet. 0.30 mile east of Brewer Road on north side of Base Line Road. 11/23/48, 27.5: 3/28/49, 27.6; 4/4/50, 29.6; 11/14/50, 31.8 ; 3/21/51, 31.7. 11N/5E-33P1 — Reference point — plugged hole in pump base, ele- vation 75 feet. 1.41 miles east of Brewer Road, 0.25 mile north of Base Line Road. 4/24/50, 33.0; 11/19/51, 38.5. 11N/5E-34R1 — Reference point — top of 6-inch casing at natural ground level, elevation 92.0 feet. 2.17 miles west of Lincoln Road, 0.13 mile north of Base Line Road. 11/20/34, 41.0; 11/16/36, 40.8; 11/3/37, 40.5; 1/10/39, 39.7; 1 4/41, 42.2; 11/11/47. 41.5; 11/24/48, 44.8 ; 3/25/49, 42.5 ; 11/23/49, 44.9. APPENDIX F 179 DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 1N/5E-34R2 — Reference point — top of 2" x 6" sill under pump, elevation 87 feet. 1.21 miles west of Lincoln Road, 0.13 mile north of Base Line Road. 11/9/29, 38.3; 9/18/30, 38.5; 12/10/31, 39.0; 12/5/32, 39.0; 12/21/33, 39.8; 11/20/34, 39.8 ; 1/4/41, 35.4. 1N 5E-36D1 — Reference point — top edge of flange around pump, elevation 105 feet. 0.95 mile west of Lincoln Road, 0.90 mile north of Base Line Road. 12/16/48, 56.6; 3/28/49, 55.6; 11/23/49, 57.3 ; 4/4/50, 57.1 ; 11/15/50, 59.5 ; 3/21/51, 58.6 ; 4/10/52, 60.0. 1N/6E-5J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 141 feet. 1.30 miles east of and 0.28 mile north of junction of roads at S. \ corner of Sec. 6, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 6/29/49, 76.1 11/16/49,75.7; 4/7/50,74.6; 7/7/50,77.1; 11/15/50,77.4 3/22/51, 76.0 ; 6/5/51, 77.1 ; 7/10/51, 77.0 : 8/23/51, 78.6 9/27/51, 78.6; 11/14/51, 78.2; 4/3/52, 77.1. 1N 6E-6L1 — Reference point — ground surface, bottom of broken 2" x 12" across pit, elevation 115.7 feet. 0.30 mile north of Howsley Road on west side of Lincoln Road. 12/21/48, 50.7 3/30/49, 49.2 ; 7/28/49, 52.5 ; 8/25/49, 52.5 ; 10/6/49, 52.8 11/14/49, 51.8 ; 2/14/50, 51.0 ; 3/15/50, 51.3 ; 4/17/50, 51.1 5/9/50, 51.2; 6/7/50, 52.2; 7/7/50, 52.8; 8/3/50, 53.0 9/5/50, 54.6 ; 10/3/50, 54.9 ; 11/15/50, 53.0 ; 1/5/51, 52.7 2/8/51,51.5; 3/7/51,51.8; 3/21/51,52.0. 1N/6E-7F1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 108.5 feet. 0.50 mile south of Howslev Road on west side of Lincoln Road. 12/27/48, 44.8; 2/24/49, 44.5; 3/29/49, 43.8; 11/18/49, 46.8 ; 4/5/50, 45.3 ; 11/15/50, 47.2 ; 3/21/51, 46.6. 1N '6E-15C1 — Reference point — top of casing on north side, ele- vation 117.0 feet. 0.75 mile east of TJ. S. Highway 99 on south bank of Pleasant Grove Creek. 12/20/48, 44.2 ; 7/29/49, 44.6 ; 8/25/49,44.7; 9/29/49,44.8; 11/25/49,44.7; 2/16/50,45.0; 3/15/50, 44.9; 4/5/50, 44.9; 5/10/50, 45.0; 6/7/50, 45.1; 7/7/50, 45.8; 8/1/50, 45.2; 9/6/50, 45.5; 10/3/50, 45.3; 11/17/50, 45.0 ; 12/15/50, 45.4 ; 1/5/51, 45.6 ; 2/7/51, 45.6 ; 3/8/51, 45.6; 3/21/51, 44.4; 5/9/51, 45.7; 6/6/51, 45.7; 7/10/51, 45.7 ; 8/23/51, 45.8 ; 9/27/51, 46.0 ; 11/14/51, 46.0 ; 2/29/52, 45.6 ; 4/9/52, 46.2 ; 11/10/52, 47.0. 1N/6E-15C2 — Reference point — top of pit, elevation 116.0 feet. 0.75 mile east of U. S. Highway 99, near south bank of Pleasant Grove Creek, 100 feet east of well number 11N/6E- 1501. 3/23/49, 7.3 ; 7/29/49, 15.9 ; 8/25/49, 16.1 ; 9/29/49, 16.4 ; 3/15/50, 9.2 ; 11/17/50, 18.2. 1N/6E-17J1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 95.0 feet. 0.63 mile north of and 0.11 mile west of angle in section road at southeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 12/20/48, 32.4; 12/28/48, 32.4; 3/31/49, 32.0; 12/9/49, 33.7; 4/5/50,33.1; 10/3/50,35.5; 11/13/50,35.2; 12/14/50, 34.9; 1/5/51, 34.9; 2/7/51, 34.3; 3/7/51, 34.2; 3/21/51, 34.0 ; 4/4/52, 35.0 ; 11/12/52, 37.1. 1N/6E-18G1 — Reference point — ground surface, elevation 120 feet. 1.38 miles south of Howsley Road, 0.13 mile east of Lincoln Road. 12/27/48, 57.8; 3/29/49, 57.1; 4/5/50, 58.9. 1N/6E-18P1 — Reference point — base of pump at top of casing, elevation 91 feet. 100 feet west of dwelling on west side of road, 1,700 feet east of southwest corner Sec. 18, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 11/9/29, 30.0; 9/18/30, 29.3; 11/11/47, 31.6; 12/22/48, 33.0; 12/9/49, 34.1; 10/17/52, 29.0. 1N 6E-18P2 — Reference point — top of wood cover, elevation 91 feet. North side of dwelling on west side of road, 1,800 feet east of southwesl corner Sec. 18, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 12/11/31, 31.9; 11/26/32, 32.3; 12/21/33, 32.4; 11/20/34, 33.3; 11/16/36,31.3; 11/1/37,30.2; 1/27/39,30.3; 1/2/41,29.5. 1N/6E-19M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 194.8 feet. 0.30 mile north of and 0.23 mile east of junction of Phillips Road and Lincoln Road at southwest corner of Sec. 19, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 12/27/48, 45.5 ; 3/29/49, 44.7 ; 11/18/49, 45.5; 3/15/50,45.8; 4/5/50,46.1; 11/15/50,46.5; 3/21/51, 45.1. 11N/6E-28R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 140.0 feet. 0.25 mile northwest of crossing of U. S. Highway 99 over Southern Pacific Railroad, 1.16 miles north of Base Line Road. 12/20/48, 80.1 ; 3/24/49, 78.4 ; 12/9/49, 81.7 ; 4/4/50, 79.4 ; 11/16/50, 82.5 ; 3/20/51, 80.9 ; 11/28/51, 84.7 ; 4/9/52, 81.8 ; 11/10/52, 85.3. 11N/6E-29B1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 127.0 feet. 1.60 miles east of junction of Phillips Road and Lincoln Road at northwest corner of Sec. 30, T. 11 N., R. 6 E. 12/20/48, 60.4 ; 4/5/50, 62.0 ; 11/28/50, 65.1 ; 3/20/51, 63.2 ; 11/29/51, 66.0 ; 4/9/52, 64.2 ; 11/10/52, 67.2. 11N/6E-30M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 117.0 feet. 0.60 mile south of and 0.15 mile east of junction of Lincoln Road and Phillips Road, on north side of private road. 2/24/49, 64.8 ; 3/28/49, 61.9 ; 5/12/49, 62.1 ; 6/27/49, 62.9 ; 4/4/50, 63.1 ; 11/15/50, 65.6 ; 3/21/51, 64.5. 11N/6E-36L1 — Reference point — top plank of pit cover, eleva- tion 177 feet. Approximately 1 mile east of Roseville, south of U. S. Highway 40 and Southern Pacific Railroad, near spur line of Southern Pacific. 2/27/51, 17.0 ; 3/30/51, 18.2. 12N/4E-1B1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 51 feet. 0.51 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, on south side of Cor- nelius Avenue. 3/11/48, 20.0 ; 12/15/48, 21.4 ; 3/28/49, 20.3 ; 12/7/49, 26.2. 12N/4E-2B1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 53 feet. 0.05 mile south of Cornelius Avenue, 0.50 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/22/47, 19.8; 3/11/48, 21.8; 12/13/48, 27.2; 3/29/49, 20.8; 12/7/49, 26.2; 5/27/50, 22.1 ; 11/6/50, 30.9. 12N/4E-2Q1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 51 feet. 0.46 mile north of Trowbridge Road, 0.34 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road. 3/11/48, 15.7 ; 5/5/48, 13.3 ; 5/31/48, 14.7 ; 6/17/48, 35.2 ; 6/23/48, 38.0 ; 7/2/48, 20.3 ; 12/15/48, 17.9 ; 3/28/49, 11.6 ; 5/26/49, 19.5 ; 6/29/49, 20.9 ; 7/28/49, 21.7 ; 8/26/49, 21.2 ; 12/7/49, 19.0 ; 3/27/50, 15.4 ; 11/6/50, 23.9 ; 11/16/51, 26.3 ; 4/10/52, 13.8 ; 11/12/52, 24.3. 12N/4E-12A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 56 feet. South side of Lee Road, 0.50 mile west of Power Line Road. 12/20/48, lfj.5 ; 4/1/49, 13.4 ; 11/10/49, 21.8 ; 3/15/50, 18.0 ; 4/10/50, 17.8 ; 10/2/50, 29.5 ; 11/13/50, 23.8 ; 3/21/51, 17.8 ; 5/9/51, 26.6; 11/14/51, 27.9; 3/13/52, 21.1. 12N/4E-12D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 52 feel. West side of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.24 mile north of Trow- bridge Road. 3/11/48, 12.5; 12/14/48, 14.0; 3/28/49, 6.9; 12/7/49, 15.8. 12N/4E-13C1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 51 feet. South of Marcum Road, 0.53 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 12/22/48, 12.6; 11/10/49, 18.0; 3/15/50, 13.9; 4/10/50, 13.4; 11/14/50, 19.9; 3/23/51, 12.3; 11/19/51, 23.5 ; 4/10/52, 14.6 ; 11/12/52, 31.5. 12N/4E-13D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 50 feet. 300 feet southeast of intersection of Pleasant Grove Road and Marcum Road. 3/11/48, 12.3; 12/14/48,12.2; 3/29/49,6.6. 12N/4E-24F1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 51 feet. 0.50 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.75 mile north of Stripl in Road. 5/31/48, 11.3; 12/18/48,13.1; 3/29/49,8.7; 12/2/49,16.2; 4/10/50,13.2; 11/13/50,18.2; 3/21/51,11.7; 11/16/51, 21.4 ; 11/7/52, 27.8. 12N/4E-24M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 50.9 feet. 75 feet east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.25 mile north of Striplin Road. 12/22/47, 12.9 ; 3/22/48, 13.1 ; 12/18/48, 14.2 ; 3/29/49, 9.2 ; 12/2/49, 17.2 ; 3/15/50, 14.4 ; 3/27/50, 14.6 ; 11/6/50, 18.8; 11/16/51, 20.9; 4/10/52, 12.2; 11/12/52, 24.6. 180 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 12N/4E-25M1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 51.3 feet. 250 feet east of Pleasant Grove Road, 0.70 mile south of Striplin Road. 12/22/47, 15.7; 3/22/48, 15.1; 12/18/48, 17.4 ; 3/29/49, 13.3 ; 12/2/49, 20.6 ; 3/27/50, 17.5 ; 11/8/50, 22.8. 12N/4E-36Q1 — Reference point — top of casing in bottom of pit, elevation 48 feet at ground surface. 0.47 mile south of Catlett Road, 0.63 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 4/11/51, 22.0 ; 11/16/51, 28.9. 12N/5E-1A1 — Reference point — top of wooden platform over pit, elevation 112 feet. 0.13 mile south of and 0.12 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 1, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 12/23/48, 20.7 ; 3/18/49, 18.0 ; 11/15/49, 21.2 ; 4/5/50, 19.1 ; 11/15/50, 21.1 ; 3/21/51, 16.9 ; 11/20/51, 22.6. 12N/5E-1E1 — Reference point — top of 4' x 6' concrete pit, eleva- tion 101 feet. 0.45 mile south of and 0.05 mile east of junction of section roads at northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 12/28/48, 21.3 ; 11/15/49, 21.S. 12N/5E-2B1 — Reference point — top of concrete pit, elevation 99.2 feet. 2,665 feet west of and 450 feet south of northeast corner of Sec. 2, T. 12 N., R, 5 E. 12/21/33, 23.6; 11/20/34, 23.3; 11/23/36, 19.9; 11/1/37, 20.0; 1/27/39, 19.2; 1/2/41, 18.7; 11/7/47, 21.2 ; 12/22/48, 23.3 ; 3/18/49, 22.2 ; 5/13/49, 21.9 ; 7/28/49, 23.8 ; 8/25/49, 24.3 ; 9/29/49, 24.3 ; 11/10/49, 24.3 ; 2/15/50, 23.5; 3/15/50, 23.0; 4/6/50, 22.7; 5/8/50, 64.7*; 6/9/50, 63.0* ; 11/14/50, 26.9 ; 12/15/50, 25.5 ; 1/5/51, 24.9 ; 2/8/51, 24.6; 3/7/51, 23.2; 3/23/51, 23.0; 5/9/51, 24.0; 6/5/51, 26.1 ; 9/27/51, 68.9* ; 11/15/51, 28.9 ; 2/28/52, 24.0 ; 4/4/52, 24.0. 12N/5E-3A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 95 feet. 1.05 miles west of and 0.10 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 2, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 5/9/50, 24.9; 11/14/50, 33.2; 3/27/51, 29.6; 11/15/51, 35.7. 12N/5E-3A2 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 95.9 feet. 1.02 miles west of and 0.20 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 2, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/50, 33.4 ; 3/27/51, 30.3 ; 11/15/51, 35.6. 12N/5E-4A1 — Reference point — top of wooden base, elevation 91.4 feet. 1.75 miles east of Brewer Road, 0.20 mile south of Cornelius Road. 12/28/48, 35.5 ; 3/18/49, 34.3 ; 11/10/49, 40.5. 12N/5E-4J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 85.5 feet. 1.95 miles east of Brewer Road, 0.65 mile south of Cornelius Road. 11/13/50, 38.6 ; 3/27/51, 34.9 ; 7/11/51, 46.6 ; 8/22/51, 48.4; 9/27/51, 45.8; 11/15/51, 41.6; 4/7/52, 37.0; 11/7/52, 49.6. 12N/5E-5R1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 72.5 feet. 1.05 miles north of Marcum Road, 1.00 mile east of Brewer Road. 6/28/49, 33.0 ; 3/15/50, 28.0 ; 4/21/50. 70.4* ; 5/1/50, 33.8; 10/2/50, 36.9; 11/13/50, 34.4; 3/23/51, 30.0; 11/15/51, 38.0; 3/31/52, 32.7; 11/12/52, 42.3. 12N/5E-6A1 — Reference point — hole in top of pump base, eleva- tion 69.8 feet. 1.80 miles north of Marcum Road on west side of Brewer Road. 12/17/48, 24.0 ; 4/1/49, 20.2 ; 11/10/49, 27.0 ; 2/15/50, 25.8; 3/15/50, 24.9; 4/6/50, 24.0; 5/8/50, 24.6; 6/7/50, 27.4; 9/5/50, 34.0; 10/3/50, 33.0; 11/13/50, 31.1; 12/13/50, 28.8; 1/4/51, 27.9; 2/6/51, 26.7; 3/23/51, 24.5; 5/9/51, 25.6; 6/5/51, 27.9; 7/11/51, 31.0; 8/27/51, 33.9; 9/26/51, 35.2; 11/15/51, 32.8; 2/28/52, 31.1; 4/7/52, 25.4; 11/5/52, 39.8. 12N/5E-6J1 — Reference point — top of casing 1.5 feet above ground, elevation 67.3 feet. 1.33 miles north of Marcum Road, on west side of Brewer Road and on south bank of creek. 12/17/48, 9.7; 4/1/49, 7.0; 5/12/49, 10.3; 6/27/49, 12.0; 7/29/49, 12.5 ; 8/25/49, 12.6 ; 9/29/49, 10.6. 12N/5E-6J2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 65.2 feet. 1.33 miles north of Marcum Road, 0.10 mile west of Brewer Road on south bank of creek. 12/17/48, 17.9; 4/1/49, 15.2; 9/29/49, 29.4; 11/10/49, 24.2; 4/6/50, 18.8; 5/8/50, 23.1; 7/7/50, 33.5; 8/7/50, 35.5; 9/5/50, 36.8; 11/15/50, 25.9; 3/25/51, 18.0 ; 11/15/51, 27.9 ; 4/7/52, 20.2. 12N/5E-6R1 — Reference point — top of casing, 0.6 foot above ground level, elevation 69.0 feet. 1.10 miles north of Marcum Road on west side of Brewer Road. 12/17/48, 21.7 ; 4/1/49, 18.7; 11/10/49, 26.8; 2/15/50, 23.0; 3/15/50, 22.4; 4/6/50, 21.8 ; 10/2/50, 32.5 ; 11/13/50, 29.0 ; 12/13/50, 26.6 ; 1/4/51, 25.7; 2/7/51, 24.7; 3/23/51, 22.7; 5/9/51, 29.4; 7/11/51, 41.1 ; 11/15/51, 31.5 ; 2/28/52, 26.2 ; 4/7/52, 24.7 ; 11/10/52, 35.9. 12N/5E-9P1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 79 ! feet. 0.17 mile north of Marcum Road, 1.48 miles east of ' Brewer Road. 6/27/50, 47.2; 10/2/50, 35.9; 11/14/50, 34.2; 12/13/50, 33.0; 1/4/51, 32.3; 2/6/51, 31.8; 3/21/51, 3(1.7; 5/9/51, 37.3 ; 11/14/51, 39.3 ; 4/17/52, 34.5. 12N/5E-12C1 — Reference point — pipe in base, elevation 10S feet. 0.98 mile north of and 0.48 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 12. T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/50, 26.3; 3/21/51, 23.5 ; 11/13/51, 27.8 ; 4/3/52, 25.0. 12N/5E-12E1 — Reference point — top of casing 1 , elevation 102.8 feet. 0.50 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of See. 12, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., on east side of road. 12/28/48 22.7; 2/25/49. 22.7; 3/18/49, 22.8; 5/13/49, 22.9; 6/28/49, 23.0 ; 7/28/49, 23.1 ; 8/25/49, 23.2 ; 10/6/49, 23.4 ; 11/10/49 23.6 ; 2/15/50, 23.9 ; 3/15/50, 24.0 ; 4/6/50, 23.9 ; 5/9/50, 24.0 6/9/50, 24.5; 7/7/50, 25.0; 8/1/50, 25.7; 9/6/50, 26.6 10/3/50, 26.8 ; 11/14/50, 26.9 ; 12/14/50, 25.9 ; 1/5/51, 26.3 2/8/51, 26.0; 3/7/51, 25.4; 3/22/51, 26.2; 5/9/51, 26.5 6/5/51, 27.3; 7/12/51, 27.8; 8/23/51, 28.9; 9/27/51, 30.0 11/13/51, 29.5 ; 2/27/52, 28.6 ; 4/3/52, 28.4; 11/6/52, 31.5. 12N/5E-12R1 — Reference point — top of tin covering over well, 1 foot above ground, elevation 107 feet. 0.87 mile east of and 0.5 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 12, T. 12 NT., R. 5 E. 12/28/48, 23.7 ; 3/30/49, 22.0 ; 11/15/49, 23.3. 12N/5E-13A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 109 feet. 0.98 mile west of and 0.05 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 13, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 3/15/50, 25.2 4/23/50, 24.7 ; 10/11/50, 28.0 ; 11/15/50, 27.1 ; 12/14/50, 25.9 1/5/51, 25.2; 2/8/51, 24.7; 3/7/51, 25.3; 3/21/51, 25.2 11/13/51, 29.2 ; 2/28/52, 26.4 ; 4/4/52, 27.0 ; 11/6/52, 33.0. 12N/5E-14L1 — Reference point — discharge pipe, 0.6 foot above j top of casing, elevation 97.0 feet. 0.52 mile south of and 0.52 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 14, | T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/15/50, 39.0 ; 3/22/51, 36.5 ; 4/10/52, 49.2. 12N/5E-14R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 104.1 feet. 0.85 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 14, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., 50 feet west of road. 12/21/48, 32.6; 3/30/49, 32.5; 11/14/49, 33.6; 3/15/50, 33.5; 4/6/50, 33.4; 11/15/50, 36.7; 3/21/51, 35.3; 11/13/51, 49.0; 2/28/52, 39.0; 4/13/52, 38.5 ; 11/7/52, 44.1. 12N/5E-16F1 — Reference point — top of wooden cover, elevation 76 feet. 0.43 mile south of and 0.45 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 16, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 12/22/48, 22.3 ; 4/4/49, 22.3. 12N/5E-17A1 — Reference point — discharge pipe 0.7 foot above top of casing, elevation 74 feet. 0.10 mile south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/50, 33.4 ; 3/21/51, 29.1 ; 11/6/52, 40.1. 12N/5E-17B1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 72.5 feet. 0.25 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., on south side of road. 2/15/50, 24.3 5/9/50, 24.9; 10/4/50, 38.2; 11/14/50, 33.9 ; 1/5/51, 30.9 2/6/51, 30.3; 3/21/51, 28.7; 11/15/51, 38.9; 4/7/52, 33.2 11/6/52, 37.2. 12N/5E-17C1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 69 feet. 0.70 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 3/21/51, 24.1; 11/15/51, 34.6; 4/7 52, 28.6; 11/6/52,34.4. APPENDIX F 181 DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measuied from reference point) I2N 5E-19C1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 63.7 feet. 0.51 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., on south side of road. 12 20/48, 15.0 ; 4/4/40, 13.8; 11/10/49, 22.0; 3/15/50, 19.7; 4/10/50, 19.3; 4/21/50, 19.8; 5/1/50, 21.9; 6/2/50, 62.0*; 9 1 50, 28.7; 10/2/50, 30.1; 11/13/50, 26.1; 3/21/51, 20.7; 11 14 51, 31.9; :! 31 52, 24.8; 11/7/52, 38.7. I2N 5E-19D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 58 feet. 0.70 mile west of .junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 10. T. 12 X.. R. 5 E., on south side of road. 11/14/51, 30.2; 3/31/52, 23.3. I2N/5E-19J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 65.7 feet. 0.43 mile north and 0.05 mile west of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 12/17/48, 17.8; 2/25/49, 17.2; 3/30/49, 15.1; 5/12/49, 18.0; 6/27/49, 20.0; 7/29/49, 21.0; 8/25/49, 21.7; 9/29/49, 21.9; 11/10/49, 21.(5; 2/15/50, 20.0; 3/15/50, 19.7; 4/6/50, 19.3; 5/8/50, 20.2 ; 6/9/50, 22.0 ; 7/7/50, 22.0 ; 8/1/50, 24.7 ; 9/5/50, 24.8 ; 10 4/50, 25.2; 11/13/50, 24.8; 12/13/50, 23.4; 1/4/51, 24.2; 2/6/51, 22.8; 3/21/51, 21.0; 5/9/51, 22.6; 6/5/51, 25.0; 7/11/51, 27.8; 8/23/51, 30.9; 9/26/51, 32.6; 11/21/51, 30.9; 2/28/52, 2G.1 ; 4/3/52, 24.9 ; 11/6/52, 34.3. I2N/5E-19R1 — Reference point — floor in pump house, elevation 63 feet. 500 feet north and west of junction of roads at south- east corner of Sec. 19, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/23/29, 18.0 ; 9/26/30, 17.3; 12/11/31, 19.1; 11/23/32, 18.5; 12/20/33, 19.6; 10/27/34, 19.5; 11/23/36, 17.3. I2N 5E-20M1 — Reference point — top of casing 2.2 feet above ground, elevation 68.3 feet. 0.73 mile south and 0.10 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 20, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/2/37, 17.5; 2/1/39, 16.6; 1/2/41, 16.1; 11/11/47, 18.3 ; 12/17/48, 19.8 ; 11/10/49, 23.3 ; 4/6/50, 21.0 ; 11/13/50, 26.3; 3/21/51, 22.5; 11/21/51, 31.8; 10/17/52, 36.1. 12N/5E-21N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 70.5 feet. 1.05 miles east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 20, T. 12 N„ R. 5 E. 12/20/48, 20.6 ; 2/25/49, 19.9 ; 3/30/49, 19.3; 11/14/49, 22.5; 4/6/50, 21.6; 11/15/50, 25.7; 3/21/51, 23.3 ; 11/14/51, 31.4 ; 4/8/52, 27.5. 12N/5E-23H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 103.5 feet. 0.70 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 23, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., on west side of road. 12/21/48, 32.8 ; 3/30/49, 34.1 ; 5/13/49, 33.6 ; 6/28/49, 34.5 ; 7/28/49, 34.8 ; 8/25/49, 34.8 ; 10/6/49, 34.1 ; 11/14/49, 33.9 ; 2/14/50, 33.5 ; 3/15/50, 33.5 ; 4/6/50, 33.4 ; 5/9/50, 33.5 ; 6/9/50, 37.0 ; 7/7/50, 37.6; 8/3/50, 38.4; 9/6/50, 39.2; 10/3/50, 36.6; 11/15/50, 36.2; 12/15/50. 35.6; 1/5/51, 35.4; 2/8/51, 35.1; 3/8/51, 34.9; 3/21/51, 34.8; 11/13/51, 56.5; 4/3/52, 36.7; 10/17/52, 42.1 ; 11/7/52, 42.2. 12N/5E-23J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 102.5 feet. 0.10 mile southwest of junction of roads at E. J corner of Sec. 23, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/49, 34.8; 4/6/50, 33.9; 11/15/50, 35.1 ; 3/21/51, 33.7. 12N/5E-23P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 94.8 feet. 388.0 feet west of and 500 feet north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 23, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., near lone tree. 2/24/49, 32.7 ; 3/30/49, 31.7 ; 11/14/49, 33.9 ; 3/15/50, 33.2 ; 4/6/50, 33.1 ; 5/9/50, 33.1 ; 6/9/50, 37.2 ; 7/7/50, 38.4 ; 8/3/50, 38.9; 9/6/50, 39.3; 10/3/50, 36.4; 11/15/50, 36.0; 12/15/50, 35.0; 1/5/51, 34.7; 2/8/51, 34.2; 3/7/51, 34.2; 3/21/51, 34.1 ; 6/5/51, 41.0. 12N/5E-25E1 — Reference point — top of stone crib, elevation 93 feet. 0.30 mile south of and 0.20 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 25, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., 100 feet north of Auburn Ravine. 12/21/48, 5.5 ; 2/24/49, 4.7 ; 3/30/49, 2.5 ; 11/15/49, 6.0 ; 4/10/50, 3.7 ; 11/15/50, 6.1 ; 3/21/51, 3.3 ; 11/20/51, 6.0 ; 4/8/52, 3.2. 12N/5E-30J1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 64.8 feet. 0.50 mile south of Striplin Road on west side of Brewer Road, on south bank of Auburn Ravine. 11/30/48, 20.1; 3/30/49, 13.7; 11/10/49, 21.3; 3/15/50, 19.2; 4/6/50, 18.9; 11/14/50, 23.6; 3/21/51, 18.9; 5/9/51, 21.2; 6/5/51, 26.9; 11/14/51, 28.6; 4/3/52, 21.6; 11/6/52, 30.8. 12N/5E-34G1 — Reference point — top of brick crib, elevation 81.3 feet. 0.45 mile south of and 0.50 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 34, T. 12 N., R. 5 E., 100 feet north east of house. 12/20/48, 25.1 ; 2/25/49, 25.0 ; 3/30/49, 24.3 ; 11/14/49, 28.5 ; 4/10/50, 26.1. 12N 5E-35E1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 90 feet. 0.25 mile south of and 0.95 mile west of junction of roads .it northeast comer of Sec. 35, T. 12 N., R 5 E. 3/21/51, 36.2 ; 11/14/51, 40.5. 12N '5E-35E2 — Reference point — edge of pump base, elevation 94.3 feet. 0.32 mile south of and 0.78 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 35, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 11/14/49, 38.1; 2/15/50, 37.1; 3/15/50, 36.8; 4/6/50, 28.7; 5/10/50, 36.9 ; 7/7/50, 39.1 ; 8/1/50, 41.2 ; 9/5/50, 39.1 ; 10/4/50, 39.2 ; 11/15/50, 38.9; 3/21/51, 37.4; 5/10/51, 38.2; 6/5/51, 40.8; 7/10/51, 43.0; 8/23/51, 44.2; 11/14/51, 41.9; 4/3/52, 39.9; 11/7/52, 44.7. 12N/5E-35G1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 105.1 feet. 0.45 mile west of junction of roads at E. \ corner, Sec. 35, T. 12 i\\, R. 5 E., on north side of road. 12/21/48, 43.0; 3/30/40, 42.5; 11/14/49, 45.0; 3/15/50, 44.6; 4/6/50, 44.5; 5/10/50, 44.7; 6/9/50, 45.1; 7/7/50, 46.0; 9/6/50, 46.0; 10/4/50, 45.3; 11/15/50, 45.4; 12/15/50, 45.9; 1/5/51, 45.6; 2/8/51, 45.0; 3/8/51, 44.9; 3/21/51, 44.9; 5/10/51, 44.4; 7/10/51, 46.3 ; 8/23/51, 48.5 ; 9/27/51, 48.8 ; 11/14/51, 47.5 ; 1/23/52, 47.3; 2/28/52, 46.9; 4/3/52, 47.0; 11/7/52, 49.5. 12N/6E-2A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 214 feet. 0.42 mile east of junction of roads at N. \ corner of Sec. 2, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 12/21/48, 12.2; 3/23/49, 8.0; 11/22/40, 10.3 ; 4/6/50, 8.3 ; 11/17/50, 9.8 ; 3/29/51, 8.4 ; 11/13/51, 7.5 ; 4/10/52, 10.0. 12N/6E-2R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 200 feet. 0.25 mile east of and 0.75 mile south of junction of roads at N. i corner of Sec. 2, T. 12 N., R. 6 E., on south side of road. 12/21/48, 10.8; 3/23/49, 9.7; 11/22/49, 12.3; 4/6/50, 11.2; 11/17/50, 11.7; 3/29/51, 10.9; 11/13/51, 14.3; 4/9/52, 10.9. 12N/6E-5F1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 133 feet. 0.38 mile south of, 2.38 miles east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 5. T. 12 N., R. 5 E., near U. S. High- wav 90E. 12/28/48, 30.0; 3/18/49, 29.6; 11/15/49, 31.0; 4/6/50, 30.2; 11/15/50, 31.9; 3/23/51, 27.2; 11/19/51, 31.3; 4/7/52, 26.3 ; 11/10/52, 31.2. 12N/6E-6A1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 123 feet. South of junction of private road and road forming boundarv between Townships 12 and 13. 0.30 mile west of U. S. Highway 99. 12/23/48, 27.0; 3/18/49, 24.9: 5/13/49, 2G.8; 6/30/49, 27.5; 8/31/49, 35.0; 11/15/49, 28.0. 12N/6E-11D1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 182 feet. 0.25 mile east of, 0.78 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 11, T. 12 N., R. 5 E. 12/21/48, 12.3; 3/23/49, 3.0; 11/22/49, 15.1; 4/6/50, 5.1; 11/17/50, 9.5; 3/29/51, 4.5; 11/13/51, 15.0; 4/9/52, 3.8. 12N/6E-11L1 — Reference point — top of board covering hole in base of pump, elevation 181 feet. 0.25 mile north of and 0.25 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 11, T 12 N., R. 6 E. 12/21/48, 13.1 ; 3/23/49, 11.8 ; 5/11/49, 11.1 ; 6/29/49, 11.3; 7/28/49, 11.3; 8/25/49, 11.7; 9/29/49, 12.3; 11/22/49, 12.9; 2/15/50, 12.7; 3/15/50, 12.5; 4/6/50, 12.1; 5/10/50, 11.9 ; 6/7/50, 12.0 ; 7/7/50, 11.9 ; 8/3/50, 12.1 ; 9/6/50, 12.3; 10/3/50, 12.8; 11/17/50, 13.0; 12/15/50, 12.7; 1/4/51, 12.3 ; 2/7/51, 11.8 ; 3/7/51, 11.2 ; 3/29/51, 10.8 ; 7/16/51, 11.0 ; 8/22/51, 11.3; 9/26/51, 12.0; 11/13/51, 12.4; 2/27/52, 10.4; 4/4/52, 9.3; 11/12/52, 11.3. 1 SL> PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 12N/6E-11L2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 187 feet. 0.35 mile north of and 0.25 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 11, T. 12 X., R. 5 E. 9/29/49, 19.0 ; 11/22/49, 18.3. 12N/6E-14R1 — Reference point — top of wooden pump support, 3.5 feet above ground level, elevation 188 feet. 0.88 mile south of and 0.88 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 14, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 12/21/48, 19.4; 2/2/49, 19.5; 3/23/49, 16.2; 11/22/49, 18.3; 4/6/50, 17.1; 11/17/50, 18.2; 3/28/51, 12.9 ; 11/13/51, 15.4 ; 4/9/52, 10.2. 12N/6E-16D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 136 feet. 1.50 miles west of IT. S. Highway 99E on south side of Marcum Road. 12/29/48, 38.7; 2/23/49. 39.2; 11/22/49, 40.9; 11/17/50, 33.6; 3/28/51, 40.3; 11/13/51, 43.0. 12N/6E-16R1 — Reference point — top of casing. 1.3 feet above ground, elevation 147.5 feet. 0.90 mile south of Marcum Road and 0.60 mile west of U. S. Highway 99E. 12/29/48, 16.7 ; 3/23/49, 12.5; 11/22/49, 16.8; 4/6/50, 14.4; 11/17/50, 15.1; 3/28/51, 10.5 ; 11/15/51, 16.5 ; 4/9/52, 8.0. 12N/6E-18A1 — Reference point- — top of board at base of pump, elevation 122 feet. 0.22 mile south of and 0.07 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 18, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 12/28/48, 30.4 ; 3/30/49, 2S.2 ; 5/13/49, 29.3 ; 6/29/49, 30.4 ; 7/29/49, 31.0 ; 8/25/49, 31.4 ; 11/15/49, 31.0 ; 2/15/50, 29.7 ; 3/15/50, 30.4; 4/6/50, 29.3; 6/9/50, 30.5; 7/7/50, 31.5; 8/1/50, 32.3 ; 9/6/50, 32.8 ; 10/11/50, 32.5 ; 11/15/50, 32.3 ; 12/15/50, 30.0; 1/5/51, 30.1; 2/8/51, 30.0; 3/7/51, 29.5; 3/21/51, 29.0; 5/9/51, 29.8; 7/12/51, 32.6; 8/23/51, 33.7; 9/27/51, 33.8; 11/6/52, 35.6. 11/13/51, 33.1; 2/28/52, 29.9; 4/7/52, 29.6; 12N/6E-19A1 — Reference point — ground level, elevation 121 feet. 0.75 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 19, T. 12 N., R. 6 E., 12 feet west of road. 11/9/29, 17.3 ; 9/18/30, 17.3 ; 12/11/31, 17.4 ; 12/23/32. 17.5 ; 12/21/33, 16.9 ; 11/20/34, 17.8; 11/23/36, 17.4; 11/2/37, 18.7; 1/27/39, 18.7; 1/2/41, 12.8; 11/11/47, 16.0; 12/22/48, 16.2; 3/31/49, 12.3. 12N/6E-19H1 — Reference point — top of concrete lining, elevation 112 feet. 0.67 mile north of and 0.18 mile west of junction of roads at southeast corner of See. 19, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 11/9/29, 6.0; 9/18/30, 5.8; 12/11/31, 5.4; 11/23/32, 5.9; 12/21/33, 5.1; 11/20/34, 5.6; 11/23/36, 6.6; 11/2/37, 7.2; 1/27/39, 7.0: 3/31/49, 5.1; 1/2/41, 5.0; 11/15/49, 6.0. 11/11/47, 6.5; 12/22/48, 5.5; 12N 6E-20A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 133 feet. 1.15 miles south of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 12 N., R. 6 E., 0.07 mile southwest of angle in road. 12/27/48, 35.9; 3/31/49, 30.3; 11/22/49, 36.0; 4/10/50, 29.7; 11/17/50, 33.5; 3/28/51, 27.7; 11/19/51, 31.5; 4/8/52, 25.1 ; 11/10/52, 34.8. 12N/6E-21J1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 141.6 feet. 0.25 mile west of U. S. Highway 99E, on north side of creek crossing highway, 1.23 miles south of Lincoln. 11/22/49, 69.4; 4/6/50, 46.2; 11/16/50, 75.3; 3/28/51, 68.2. 12N/6E-21L1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 136.8 feet. 0.75 mile west of U. S. Highway 99E, on north side of creek crossing highway 1.23 miles south of Lincoln. 11/22/49, 64.8; 4/6/50, 60.4; 5/10/50, 83.0; 11/28/50, 64.3; 3/28/51, 63.7 ; 11/15/51, 70.8 ; 4/9/52, 65.0. 12N/6E-21N1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 130.5 feet. 0.90 mile west of IT. S. Highway 99E on south side of creek crossing highway, 1.23 miles south of Lincoln. 12/22/48, 53.4 ; 3/23/49, 53.6 ; 11/22/49, 60.0 ; 4/6/50, 56.1 ; 5/10/50, 83.0; 3/28/51, 58.5; 4/9/52, 64.7; 11/10/52, 66.2. 12N/6E-21P1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 132.2 feet. 0.65 mile west of U. S. Highway 99E, 0.25 mile south of creek crossing highway, 1.23 miles south of Lincoln. 11/22/49, 62.1 ; 11/28/50, 65.0; 3/28/51, 60.1 ; 11/15/51, 67.8 ; 4/9/52, 61.4. 12N/6E-22A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 156 feet. 0.38 mile east of IT. S. Highway 99E, at end of private road joining highway, (I. (57 mile south of Lincoln. 12/21 4S, 11.5 ; 3/23/49, 5.9 ; 11/22/49, 10.0 ; 4/6/50, 8.7 ; 11/17/50, 8.7 ; 3/28/51, 8.2; 11/14/51, 9.4; 4/9/52, 7.1. 12N/6E-22L1 — Reference point — edge of pump base, elevation 145.0 feet. 1.30 miles south of Lincoln on east side of U. S. Highway 99E. 12/29/48, 7.0; 3/24/49. 2.4; 5/11/49, 5.1; 7/1/49, 6.0; 7/28/49. 6.7; 8/25/49, 7.2; 9/29/49. 6.6; 11/22/49, 6.4; 3/15/50. 5.3; 4/6/50, 5.5; 11/16/50, 6.5; 3/28/51. 5.5; 7/16/51, 7.0; 8/23/51, 7.8; 9/27/51, 6.9; 11/13/51. 7.4 ; 2/27/52, 3.1 ; 4/4/52, 4.2 ; 11/10/52, 18.1. 12N/6E-22L2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 148.(5 feet. 1.12 miles south of Lincoln and 0.10 mile east of U. S. Highway 99E. 3/8/50, 1.3; 11/27/50, 1.6; 3/28/51, 1.8; 11/13/51, 1.8; 11/10/52, 1.9. 12N/6E-26L1 — Reference point — top of plank cover on east side, elevation 200 feet. 1.40 miles southeast of U. S. Highway 99E, on south bank of creek. 12/21/48. 4.0; 3/23/49, 1.4; 5/13 4!», 9.9; 7/29/49, 10.3; 8/25/49, 10.8. 12N/6E-27D1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 139.7 feet. 75 feet west of railroad tracks, southwest of junc- tion of road and U. S. Highway 99E, 1.65 miles south of Lin- coln. 12/20/48, 61.2; 3/23/49. 59.6; 8/25/49, 81.5; 11/22/49, 67.9; 2/16/50, 67.7; 3/15/50, 65.0; 4/6/50', 64.7; 5/10/50, 66.8; 9/6/50, 82.0; 11/15/50, 67.7; 12/15/50, 73.1; 1/4/51, 70.2; 2/7/51, 69.1; 3/8/51, 68.3; 3/28/51. 67.8; :, !i 51, 70.6; 11/14/51, 75.0: 4/4/52, 70.0; 11/10/52, 7S.5. 12N/6E-28B1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 134.5 feet. 0.38 mile west of angle in road at northeast corner Of Sec. 28, T. 12 X.. R. 6 E. 3/23/49. 55.2; 11/22/49, 64.4; 4/6/50. 61.5; 11/28/50, 63.2; 3/28/51, 62.6; 11/14/51, 70.5; 4/9/52, 63.8. 12N/6E-28M1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 128 feet. 0.95 mile southwest of angle in road at northeast cor- ner of Sec. 28, T. 12 X.. R. 6 E. 5/17/50, 96.0 ; 11/20/50, 60.7 ; 3/28/51, 56.2 ; 11/15/51, 62.2 ; 4/9/52, 57.6 ; 11/10/52, 66.7. 12N 6E-29E1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 114 feet. 0.50 mile south of and 0.25 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 29, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 12/21/48, 39.1; 3/31/49, 37.9; 11/16/49, 41.2; 4/10/50, 40.9; 11/15/50, 45.3 ; 3/22/51, 42.3. 12N/6E-29E2 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 121 feet. 0.12 mile east of and 0.30 mile south of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 29, T. 12 N., R. 6 E. 11/16/49, 46.5; 3/22/51, 49.5. 12N/6E-29G1 — Reference point — top of column inside discharge pipe, elevation 127 feet. 0.20 mile east of and 0.28 mile south of junction of roads at X. } corner of Sec. 29, T. 12 X., R. 6 E. 3/22/51. 47.0; 11/21/51, 55.0 ; 4/9/52, 49.9. 12N/6E-30L1 — Reference point- feet. 0.55 mile south of junct Sec. 30, T. 12 X., R. 6 E., on w 3/31/49, 29.2 ; 10/6/49, 32.2 ; 3/15/50, 31.8; 4/10/50, 31.7 7/7/50, 38.3; 8/3/50, 38.8; 11/15/50, 36.3; 12/15/50, 29. 3/8/51, 26.9; 3/21/51, 32.7; 7/10/51, 38.9 ; 8/23/51, 33.2 ; 1/23/52, 35.0 ; 2/28/52, 34.0 ; 12N 6E-31G1 — Reference point — floor of pump house, elevation 108.1 feet. 0.10 mile east of road, on south bank of creek. 12/27/48, 32.0 ; 11/15/49, 32.2 ; 4/10/50, 32.7. 12N/6E-32Q1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 121 feet. 1 mile east of junction of roads at S. r, corner of Sec. 31, T. 12 X., R. 6 E. 12/27/48, 49.7; 2/25/49, 49.6; 3/30/49, 19.2; 11/16/49, 52.7; 4/7/50, 52.0; 11/15/50, 54.1; 3/22/51, 52.7; 11/14/51, 55.4. —top of casing, elevation 10S.7 ion of roads at X. J corner of est side of road. 12/21/48, 31.0 ; 11/15/49, 33.0; 2/15/50, 29.9; ; 5/9/50, 32.2; 6/7/50, 37.3; 9/6/50, 39.3; 10/3/50, 37.8; 2; 1/5/51. 28.5; 2/8/51, 26.6; 5/10/51, 34.S; 6/5/51, 37.5; 9/27/51, 33.7; 11/20/51. 37.5; 4/3/52, 33.2 ; 11/6/52, 41.3. APPENDIX F isa DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 13N/4E-35Q1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 56.6 feet. 0.4 mile west of Pleasant Grove Road, 132 feet north of Cornelius Avenue. 3/11/48, 19.9; 12/13/48, 25.1; 3/29/49, 21.1 ; 12/7/49, 26.1 ; 11/19/51, 30.4. 13N/4E-36G1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 58 feet. 528 feet north of Hicks Road, 0.6 mile east of Pleasant Grove Road. 3/9/48, 22.6 ; 11/16/48, 26.7 ; 4/4/49, 24.2. 13N 5E-2Q1 — Reference point — slot in pump base, elevation 97 feet. 0.25 mile west of angle in road at southeast corner of Sec. 2, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., 10 feet north of road. 12/27/48, 14.6 3/7/49, 15.6; 11/8/49, 16.8; 3/14/50, 16.8; 4/4/50, 16.7 5/10/50, 16.8; 6/7/50, 17.6; 8/1/50, 27.5; 10/3/50, 21.5 11/16/50, 17.3; 12/14/50, 15.7; 1/5/51, 15.5; 2/7/51, 15.1 3/7/51, 14.8; 3/27/51, 14.8; 5/9/51, 15.3; 6/5/51, 19.4 11/20/51, 17.0; 1/23/52, 16.0; 2/28/52, 15.5; 4/8/52, 15.0 11/5/52, 20.3. 13N 5E-3Q1 — Reference point — top of casing in bottom of pit, 10.6 feet to top of concrete crib, elevation 84 feet. 0.25 mile northeast of U. S. Highwav 99E, 0.20 mile southeast of Bear River. 11/25/47, 4.4; 3/5/48, 5.5; 11/7/49, 6.0; 4/4/50, 4.9; 11/14/50, 5.7 ; 3/27/51, 2.0 ; 11/19/51, 6.3. 13N/5E-9H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 86.4 feet. 0.22 mile north of and 0.10 mile west of junction of roads at E. I corner of Sec. 9, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 2/18/49, 18.0 ; 3/30/49, 14.4 ; 11/7/49, 18.8. 13N 5E-9P1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 80.4 feet. 0.50 mile north of Bear River Drive and 0.70 mile west of Placer Road. 11/26/47, 17.6 ; 11/4/48, 19.5 ; 3/30/49, 15.6. 13N /5E-9R1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 83.6 feet. West side of Placer Road and 0.50 mile north of Bear River Drive. 2/18/49, 16.3 ; 3/16/49, 15.7 ; 7/29/49, 50.5* ; 11/7/49, 19.9; 2/15/50, 17.6; 3/15/50, 17.2; 4/4/50, 16.7; 5/9/50, 18.1; 6/7/50, 20.0; 8/3/50, 21.9; 10/3/50, 22.2; 11/14/50, 20.3; 12/14/50, 16.5; 1/4/51, 15.2; 2/7/51, 13.2; 3/7/51, 12.8; 3/27/51, 12.6; 7/16/51, 23.7; 8/22/51, 24.9; 9/26/51, 19.5; 11/19/51, 19.6; 2/28/52, 13.5; 4/4/52, 12.0; 11/7/52, 21.2. 13N/5E-10K1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 86 feet. 0.60 mile east of junction of roads at W. J corner of Sec. 10, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., on south side of road. 11/19/51, 22.2 ; 4/4/52, 17.9 ; 11/5/52, 24.4. 13N/5E-10P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 85 feet. 0.35 mile south of and 0.30 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 10, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 11/19/51, 24.5; 4/4/52, 17.8. 13N/5E-12D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 108 feet. 0.13 mile south of and 0.04 mile east of angle in road at northwest corner of Sec. 12, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 22.9 ; 3/17/49, 22.4 ; 11/8/49, 24.1 ; 4/4/50, 24.0. 13N/5E-12Q1 — Reference point — edge of pump base on north side, elevation 119 feet. On northwest side of road extending diagonally across SE. \ and 0.65 mile southwest of junction of roads at E. \ corner of Sec. 12, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 38.7 ; 3/17/49, 38.6 ; 11/8/49, 39.1 ; 4/4/50, 39.0 ; 11/16/50, 40.3 ; 3/29/51, 39.2 ; 11/21/51, 41.1 ; 4/8/52, 40.0. 13N/5E-12R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 133 feet. 0.50 mile east of and 0.10 mile north of junction of roads at central \ corner of Sec. 12, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/23/48, 50.3 ; 3/16/49, 51.8 ; 11/8/49, 51.0. 13N/5E-12R2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 137 feet. 0.42 mile east of and 0.10 mile north of junction of roads at S. \ corner of Sec. 12, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 11/8/49, 51.5; 4/5/50, 52.7 ; 11/16/50, 53.0 ; 3/29/51, 53.0 ; 11/21/51, 54.6 ; 4/8/52, 53.5 ; 11/12/52, 55.7. 13N/5E-13E1 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 111 feet. On east side of U. S. Highway 99E, 0.20 mile north- east of junction of roads at W. \ corner of Sec. 13, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/29/48, 34.7 ; 3/16/49, 35.1 ; 11/8/49, 35.5 ; 4/5/50, 37.0 ; 11/17/50, 37.0 ; 3/29/51, 36.0. 13N/5E-22A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 84.8 feet. 1.23 miles west of junction of roads at E. \ corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., 0.10 mile north of road. 12/29/48, 16.2 ; 3/16/49, 15.5; 11/7/49, 19.0; 4/5/50, 16.8; 11/15/50, 20.1; 3/27/51, 15.8 ; 11/19/51, 22.1 ; 4/4/52, 16.3. 13N/5E-22C1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 81.4 feet. 0.72 mile south of and 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 16.5 ; 3/16/49, 15.1 ; 11/7/49, 19.5. 13N/5E-22C2 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 80 feet. 0.50 mile east of and 0.70 mile south of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 5/8/51, 15.0 ; 6/5/51, 22.4 ; 11/15/51, 20.7 ; 4/4/52, 14.0. 13N/5E-22F1 — Reference point — top of casing on south side, ele- vation 76.6 feet. 0.80 mile south of and 0.50 mile east of junc- tion of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/27/48, 10.9; 3/16/49, 8.3; 11/7/49, 13.4: 4/5/50, 10.4; 11/15/50, 14.9 ; 3/27/51, 9.0 ; 11/15/51, 15.9 ; 4/4/52, 6.0. 13N/5E-22P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 78 feet. 1.25 miles south of and 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 5/8/51, 19.0: 11/15/51, 25.5; 4/4/52, 18.6. 13N/5E-23J1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 85.6 feet. 0.25 mile southwest of junction of roads at E. $ corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 8/8/49, 9.1 ; 11/7/49, 9.5. 13N/5E-23P1 — Reference point — top of board over concrete pit, elevation 84 feet. 0.25 mile south of and 0.55 mile west of junc- tion of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., on south bank of creek. 12/29/48, 11.5 ; 11/7/49, 11.8 ; 4/5/50, 11.2; 11/15/50, 13.7; 3/29/51, 8.2; 11/29/51, 15.5; 4/4/52, 7.6 ; 11/5/52, 18.0. 13N/5E-23R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 89.6 feet. 0.25 mile south of and 0.15 mile west of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 8/8/49, 13.0 ; 11/7/49, 13.4. 13N/5E-23R2 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 93.7 feet. 0.30 mile south of and 0.10 mile west of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 11/7/49, 17.5 ; 3/15/50, 15.8; 9/6/50, 20.5; 11/15/50, 19.9; 3/27/51, 15.4; 11/19/51, 21.7 ; 2/28/52, 17.4 ; 4/4/52, 16.4 ; 11/12/52, 25.2. 13N/5E-23R3 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 95 feet. 0.45 mile south of and 0.11 mile west of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 23, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 4/5/50, 15.6; 1/4/51, 17.5 ; 2/6/51, 15.4 ; 3/7/51, 15.6 ; 6/5/51, 24.4 ; 8/22/51, 25.1 ; 9/26/51, 27.3. 13N/5E-24A1 — Reference point — hole in top of casing, elevation 97.6 feet. 0.40 mile north of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 24, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 11/9/49, 12.4; 3/15/50, 11.5; 4/5/50, 11.3 ; 5/10/50, 11.4. 13N/5E-24H1 — Reference point — top of casing, 1.2 feet above ground, elevation 105.5 feet. 0.13 mile west of junction of roads at E. i corner of Sec. 24, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., at end of road, near tt ™ -.--I- i rvA-n -t r» icv-r , Ad OA O- O/10/^ft inc. O /1H. /ACk ±/ t ±/OJ., V.\J i 6/l/Ul, £*.%> , o/l/«-»J-, U.-r , o/— «//^a, **v.\j , v/tz/^j-, 21.8; 6/5/51, 26.9; 7/16/51, 28.0; 8/22/51, 30.1; 9/26/51, 27.1 ; 11/20/51, 27.9. 13N/5E-25D1 — Reference point — top of wall of concrete pit. ele- vation 95.5 feet. 0.53 mile south of and 0.07 mile west of junc- tion of roads at W. \ corner of Sec. 24, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/29/48, 16.7; 3/16/49. 15.3; 11/9/49, 17.9; 4/5/50, 16.2; 11/15/50, 18.9. 184 IM-ACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 13N/5E-25H1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 103.6 feet. 0.50 mile west of and 0.22 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 25, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., on south bank of creek, near U. S. Highway 99E. 12/27/48, 18.3 ; 3/17/49, 17.0 ; 5/3/49, 16.7 ; 5/25/49, 07.0* ; 6/30/49, 69.0* ; 8/1/49, 26.0; 8/3/49, 20.5; 11/9/49, 21.7; 4/5/50. 17.6; 11/15/50, 20.4; 3/28/51, 15.9; 11/19/51, 21.2; 4/4/52, 16.5. 13N/5E-27C1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 80 feet. 1.50 miles south of and 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 5/8/51, 21.5 ; 11/15/51, 28.1 ; 4/4/52, 21.3. 13N/5E-27F1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 82 feet. 1.95 miles south of and 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at W. i corner of Sec. 15, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 5/8/51, 23.2; 11/15/51, 30.0 ; 4/4/52, 23.5. 13N/5E-27R1 — Reference point — edge of pump base, elevation 88 feet. 1.0 mile west of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 25, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/28/48, 20.8 ; 3/16/48, 20.3 ; 11/9/49,22.8; 4/5/50,19.8; 11/14/50,23.3; 3/21/51,18.8; 11/15/51, 25.8 ; 4/4/52, 20.4. 13N/5E-28A1 — Reference point — slot in concrete base, elevation 82.4 feet. South side of Kempton Road, 1.8 miles east of Brewer Road. 11/5/48, 28.2; 4/4/49, 22.4; 5/12/49, 25.7; 7/1/49, 29.5; 7/29/49,31.4; 8/25/49,32.8; 9/29/49,31.1; 11/10/49, 29.4; 2/15/50, 26.3; 3/14/50, 25.9; 4/5/50, 25.1; 5/8/50, 27.5; 6/17/50, 31.5; 7/7/50, 34.2; 8/1/50, 36.5; 9/6/50, 38.0; 10/3/50,34.0; 11/14/50,31.2; 1/4/51,25.8; 2/7/51, 26.0; 3/27/51, 24.3; 5/9/51, 24.8; 11/15/51. 31.3; 2/28/51, 25.4; 3/31/52,24.0; 11/5/52,36.4. 13N/5E-28N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 80.7 feet. North side of Waltz Road, 1.25 miles east of Brewer Road. 11/5/48, 29.8 ; 1/26/49,26.0; 4/4/49,25.0; 11/10/49, 34.S; 3/15/50,28.7; 4/5/50,28.1; 9/5/50,43.9; 10/3/50, 39.0; 11/14/50,35.3; 12/14/50,32.6; 1/4/51,32.2; 3/23/51, 28.7; 11/15/51,36.8; 3/31/52.29.7; 11/5/52,45.0. 13N/5E-28R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 84.7 feet. 0.10 mile north of Waltz Road, 2.00 miles east of Brewer Road. 11/5/48, 31.4 ; 4/4/49, 22.0 ; 9/29/49, 30.3 ; 11/9/49, 28.4; 2/15/50, 25.2; 3/15/50, 24.7; 4/5/50, 24.4; 5/9/50, 25.0; 6/7/50, 28.0; 7/7/50, 30.2; 8/1/50, 32.2; 9/5/50, 35.4; 10/3/50,30.0; 12/14/50,27.7; 1/4/51,27.2; 3/23/51, 24.8; 5/9/51, 25.7; 6/5/51, 33.1; 7/16/51, 38.0; 8/22/51, 40.6; 9/26/51,36.8; 11/15/51,32.9; 2/28/52,27.3; 3/31/52, 26.3; 11/5/52, 40.1. 13N/5E-30R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 71.9 feet. Northwest of intersection of Brewer and Waltz Roads. 11/5/48, 29.5 ; 4/4/49, 24.8 ; 11/9/49, 33.2 ; 2/15/50, 29.5 ; 3/14/50, 29.0 ; 4/5/50, 28.2 ; 11/15/51, 34.7 ; 3/31/52, 28.7. 13N/5E-31G1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 68.9 feet. North side of Hicks Road, 0.35 mile west of Brewer Road. 11/5/48, 27.3 ; 1/26/49,24.3; 4/4/49,22.3; 11/10/49, 30.9; 2/16/50,27.5; 3/14/50,26.8; 3/30/50,26.1; 11/10/50, 33.5. 13N/5E-32C1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 74.0 feet. 0.35 mile east of junction of roads at northwest corner of Sec. 32, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., on south side of road. 2/25/49, 29.6; 4/1/49.25.6; 5/12/49,30.1; 6/27/49,36.2; 7/29/49, 39.8 ; 8/25/49, 41.3 ; 9/29/49, 37.1 ; 11/9/49, 33.8 ; 2/15/50, 30.2; 3/15/50, 29.5; 4/5/50, 29.0; 5/9/50, 30.5; 6/7/50, 35.7; 7/7/50,40.3; 8/__/50, 43.2 ; 9/5/50,45.3; 10/3/50, 40.6; 11/14/50,37.1; 12/14/50,34.8; 1/4/51,34.4; 3/23/51, 27.9; 5/9/51, 33.1; 6/5/51, 36.7; 7/11/51, 39.5; 8/22/51, 42.2; 9/26/51,38.9; 11/15/51,35.8; 2/28/52,31.1; 3/31/52, 29.9; 11/5/52, 42.0. 13N/5E-33L1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 80.1 feet. 0.35 mile north of Cornelius Avenue, 1.30 miles east of Brewer Road. 12/22/48, 27.5 ; 3/18/49,25.3; 11/10/49,34.3; 4/6/50, 28.2 ; 5/8/50, 28.9 ; 11/13/50, 35.0 ; 3/27/51, 29.1 ; 11/15/51,37.8; 4/7/52,30.6. 13N/5E-33P1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 79.3 feet. 100 feet north of Cornelius Avenue, 1.3 miles east of Brewer Road. 12/22/48, 26.0 ; 3/18/49,24.2; 11/10/49,32.2; 4/6/50, 27.3 ; 11/13/50, 34.5 ; 3/27/51, 28.9 ; 11/15/51, 37.0 ; 4/7/52, 30.3. 13N/5E-34R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 94.5 feet. North side of Cornelius Avenue, 2.0 miles east of Brewer Road. 11/23/29, 21.3 ; 9/25/30, 20.4 ; 12/22/48, 25.1 ; 3/18/49, 23.7 ; 11/10/49, 24.0 ; 4/6/50, 24.4 ; 11/13/50, 28.3 ; 3/27/51, 24.2; 11/15/51, 29.8; 4/7/52, 25.0; 1/6/53, 31.8. 13N/5E-35A1 — Reference point — top of concrete pit on cast side. elevation 98.3 feet. 0.88 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., 500 feet west of road. 12/28/48, 20.5; 4/4/49, 18.8; 11/15/49, 22.5; 3/15/50, 20.0; 4/5/50, 19.6; 5/9/50, 19.8; 6/7/50, 21.8; 7/7/50, 22.6; 8/1/50, 23.2; 9/5/50, 23.3; 10/3/50, 23.1; 11/14/50,22.8; 12/15/50,20.9; 1/5/51,20.6; 2/7/51,18.5; 3/7/51, 18.1; 3/23/51, 17.8; 5/9/51, 18.8; 6/5/51, 21.5; 7/12/51, 23.8 ; 8/22/51, 25.3 ; 9/27/51, 25.4 ; 11/15/51, 24.1. 13N/5E-35M1 — Reference point — top of concrete pit. elevation 92.0 feet. 0.75 mile west of and 0.25 mile north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 5 E. 12/11/31, 16.3; 11/23/32, 16.5; 11/20/34, 16.2; 11/13/36, 16.2; 11/2/37,14.8; 1/27/39,13.6; 1/2/41,13.0; 11/7/47,14.5; 12/22/48,18.0; 3/18/49,16.6; 11/10/49,19.0; 4/6/50,16.0; 11/13/50,21.4; 3/27/51,16.9; 11/15/51,22.7; 4/7/52,17.7; 11/7/52, 26.6; 1/6/53, 25.8. 13N/5E-36P1 — Reference point — hole in old pump base, 1.9 feet above ground, elevation 106 feet. 0.50 mile east of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 36, T. 13 N., R. 5 E., on north side of road. 12/28/48, 20.2; 3/18/49, 17.3; 11/15/49,20.6; 4/5/50,18.7; 11/15/50,22.9; 3/21/51,16.3; 11/20/51, 22.7; 4/7/52, 15.6; 11/12/52, 24.7. 13N/6E-5N1 — Reference point — base of pump, elevation 155 feet. 1.25 miles north of junction of roads at southeast corner of Sec. 8, T. 13 N., R 6 E., on east side of road. 12/23/4S, 25.7 ; 3/17/49,26.5; 11/8/49,24.7; 4/4/50.26.7; 11/16/50,27.0; 3/29/51, 25.7; 11/21/51, 25.0; 4/8/52, 32.2. 13N/6E-6M1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 175 feet. 0.20 mile south of angle in road at W. i corner of Sec. 6, T. 13 N., R. 6 E., on east side of road. 12/27/48, 80.4 ; 2/23/49, 80.4 ; 3/17/49, 80.6 ; 11/8/49, 80.1 ; 4/4/50, 81.0 ; 11/16/50, 81.8; 3/29/51, 81.3; 11/21/51, 83.0; 4/8/52, 81.1. 13N/6E-7R1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 116 feet. 100 feet northwest of junction of county roads, 1.75 miles east of Sheridan School. 12/23 4S. flowing; 3/16/49, flowing; 5/13/49,0.0; 6/29/49,0.0; S/25/49, flowing ; 9/29/49, flow- ing ; 10/8/49,0.0; 2/15/50,0.0; 4/4/50,0.0; 5/10/50,0.0; 11/16/50, 0.0; 3/29/51, 0.0; 11/19/51, 0.0 ; 11/12/52, 0.3. 13N/6E-9D1 — Reference point — top of 4" x 4" concrete casing, elevation 160 feet. 1.20 miles east of and 0.88 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/23/48, 3.1 ; 3/17/49, 0.9 ; 11/8/49, 22.3 ; 4/4/50, 1.9 ; 11/16/50, 5.5 ; 3/29/51, 2.6 ; 11/21/51, 1.8 ; 4/8/52, 2.1. 13N/6E-9D2 — Reference point — top of casing. 1.5 feet below ground surface, elevation 160 feet. 1.17 miles east of and 0.87 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/23/48, 3.0 ; 3/17/49, —0.5 ; 4/4/50, 2.7. 13N 6E-9N1 — Reference point — top of wooden covering over well, elevation 192 feet. 1.21 miles east of and 0.6 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 11/11/29, 42.2; 9/18/30, 40.2; 12/11/31, 42.5; 12/10/32, 42.7; 12/19/33, 43.7; 11/20/34, 43.7; 11/23/36, 42.5; 11/22/37,39.2; 1/27/39,39.6; 1/2/41,39.0. APPKXD1X K IS.") DEPTHS TO GROUND WATER AT MEASUREMENT WELLS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Measurements Made by Division of Water Resources (Depths to water in feet measured from reference point) 13N 6E-9N2 — Reference point — top casing, elevation 180 feet. 1.21 miles east of and 0.6 mile north of junction of roads at southwest corner of Sec. 8. T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 11/7/47, 26.8 ; 12/20/48, 26.7 ; 3/17/49, 26.0 ; 11/8/49, 26.2 ; 4/4/50, 26.5 ; 11/16/50, 27.5; 3/29/51, 22.9 ; 11/21/51, 25.6 ; 4/8/52, 19.5 ; 10/15/52, 24.5. 13N 6E-18B1 — Reference point — pump base on south side, above crack in well covering, elevation 143 feet. 0.42 mile west of junction of roads at northeast corner of Sec. 18, T. 13 N., R. 6 E., south of road. 12/23/48, 51.1 ; 3/17/49, 52.0 ; 11/8/49, 52.3; 4/4/50,53.1; 11/16/50,53.8; 3/29/51,53.6; 11/21/51, 54.2 ; 4/8/52, 53.7 ; 11/12/52, 54.9. 13N 6E-19A1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 114.8 feet. 0.60 mile northeast of central % corner of Sec. 19, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 11/9/49, 14.1; 4/5/50, 14.5; 11/14/50, 14.8; 3/27/51, 14.7; 11/20/51, 15.9; 4/8/52, 15.3. 13N 6E-19B1 — Reference point — top of casing, 1.0 foot above ground, elevation 132.4 feet. 0.30 mile north of central \ cor- ner of Sec. 19, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/28/48, 39.7 ; 3/16/49, 40.0 ; 11/9/49, 34.1; 4/5/50, 34.0; 11/14/50, 38.5; 3/29/51, 37.4; 11/20/51, 40.2; 4/8/52, 38.8. 13N '6E-22N1 — Reference point — top of wooden casing, eleva- tion 164 feet. 0.51 mile north of and 0.25 mile west of junction of roads at central i corner of Sec. 27, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/22/48. 2.9 ; 3/17/49, 1.5. 13N 6E-23F1 — Reference point — top of wooden covering, eleva- tion 226 feet. Southeast of angle in road at central \ corner of Section 23, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/23/48, 12.4 ; 2/23/49, 11.8 ; 3/17/49, 8.7; 11/8/49, 13.0; 4/4/50, 11.5; 11/16/50, 13.5; 3/29/51, 10.7. 13N/6E-26K1 — Reference point — top of wooden covering at door 1 foot north of pump column, elevation 263 feet. 0.45 mile north of junction of roads at S. \ corner of Sec. 26, T. 13 N., R. 6 E., on side of road. 12/23/48, 28.9; 3/17/49, 22.6; 11/9/49, 25.9; 4/4/50, 28.0; 11/16/50, 28.4; 3/29/51, 28.3. 13N/6E-27F1 — Reference point — top of tile casing, elevation 187 feet. 1.4 miles northwest of junction of roads at central \ corner of Sec. 27, T. 17 N., R. 6 E. 6/29/49, 19.2 ; 7/28/49, 19.3; 8/25/49, 19.6; 9/29/49, 20.0; 11/9/49, 20.5; 2/15/50, 18.7; 3/15/50, 19.5; 4/4/50, 19.2; 11/16/50, 21.9; 3/29/51, 19.1; 11/19/51, 21.9; 4/8/52, 18.5; 11/12/52, 20.0. 13N 6E-28D1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 138.3 feet. 0.40 mile north of and 0.79 mile west of angle in road at E. i corner of Sec. 28, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/22/48, 8.9 ; 3/17/49, 6.6 ; 11/9/49, 9.8 ; 4/4/50, 7.5 ; 11/16/50, 8.9 ; 3/29/51, 4.6 ; 4/8/52, 3.5. 13N/6E-28N1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 140.0 feet. 0.86 mile west of and 0.47 mile south of angle in road at E. i corner of Sec. 28, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 11/16/50, 18.5 ; 3/28/51, 8.6 ; 11/13/51, 19.9. 13N 6E-28Q1 — Reference point — top of casing 2.5 feet above ground, elevation 157.5 feet. 0.40 mile southwest of angle in road at E. } corner of Sec. 28, T. 13 N., R. 6 E., on south side of road. 12/22/48, 14.6 ; 3/17/49. 14.1 ; 5/13/49, 14.0 ; 6/29/49, 13.9; 7/28/49, 13.9; 8/25/49, 14.0; 9/29/49, 13.0; 11/9/49, 13.8 ; 3/15/50, 14.0 ; 4/4/50, 14.4 ; 5/10/50, 14.0 ; 6/7/50, 14.3 ; 7/7/50, 13.8; 8/3/50, 14.0; 9/6/50, 13.9; 10/2/50, 13.8; 11/16/50, 13.9; 12/14/50, 13.6; 1/4/51, 13.7; 2/7/51, 12.8; 3/7/51, 12.6; 3/29/51, 13.6; 6/5/51, 13.7; 9/27/51, 13.8; 11/20/51, 14.0; 4/8/52, 13.1 ; 11/12/52, 14.0. 13N/6E-30M1 — Reference point — hole in pump base on south- west side, elevation 108.2 feet. On opposite side of U. S. High- way 99E from junction of road and U. S. Highway 99E, 2.75 miles south of Sheridan. 12/27/48, 20.7 ; 3/16/49, 19.0 ; 5/3/49, 18.8 ; 5/11/49, 60.5* ; 5/25/49, 63.0* ; 6/1/49, 63.8* ; 6/30/49, 64.0* ; 8/2/49, 31.4 ; 11/9/49, 24.2 ; 2/16/50, 20.2 ; 3/14/50, 20.0 ; 4/5/50, 20.0 ; 8/7/50, 33.1 ; 9/6/50, 24.2 ; 10/3/50, 22.6 ; * Pump operating. 11/15/50, 22.2; 12/14/50, 20.4; 1/4/51, 20.1; 2/6/51, 18.1; 3/7/51, 18.6; 3/28/51, 17.9; 5/9/51, 19.4; 11/19/51, 22.4; 2/29/52, 18.5 ; 4/4/52, 18.0 ; 11/5/52, 26.3. 13N/6E-32G1 — Reference point — top of casing, 0.5 feet above ground, elevation 126 feet. 0.05 mile east of U. S. Highway 99E on north side of Ewing Road. 12/23/48, 10.6; 2/18/49, 8.2; 3/18/49, 5.3; 11/9/49, 10.4; 2/16/50, 8.2; 4/6/50, 6.7; 11/15/50', 8.2 ; 12/15/50, 1.5 ; 1/4/51, 2.3 ; 2/7/51, 1.6 ; 3/6/51, 2.6; 3/23/51, 3.6; 5/9/51, 4.3; 6/5/51, 6.3; 7/16/51, 7.5; 8/22/51, 7.9; 9/26/51, 6.4; 11/19/51, 6.9; 2/27/52, 1.8; 3/31/52, 2.9 ; 11/12/52, 6.4. 13N 6E-33C1 — Reference point — top of pump base, elevation 142 feet. 1.0 mile north of junction of roads, located at a point 0.25 mile east of southwest corner Sec. 33, T. 13 N., R 5 E., on west side of road. 12/22/48, 21.4 ; 3/18/49, 11.7 ; 11/9/49, 31.9; 2/15/50, 16.2; 3/15/50, 14.9; 4/4/50, 13.6; 11/16/50, 22.6 ; 3/28/51, 11.5 ; 5/9/51, 15.3 ; 4/4/52, 11.2. 13N/6E-33K1 — Reference point — top of pump base on south side. elevation 151 feet. 0.48 mile north of and 0.54 mile east of junction of roads located at a point 0.25 mile east of south- west corner of Sec. 33, T. 13 N„ R. 6 E. 12/22/48, 29.7; 11/9/49, 41.7 ; 4/4/50, 23.8 ; 5/10/50, 64.9* ; 11/16/50, 35.8 ; 3/28/51, 22.0; 11/13/51, 37.3; 4/4/52, 21.5; 11/10/52, 39.2. 13N /6E-33M1 — Reference point — hole in pump base, elevation 147 feet. 0.36 mile north of junction of roads located at a point 0.25 mile east of southwest corner of Sec. 33, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. on west side of road. 12/22/48, 24.2: 5 11/49, 32.6; 6/29/49, 42.0 ; 7/28/49, 68.5* ; 8/25/49, 67.9* ; 9/29/49, 69.0* ; 11/9/49, 39.5 ; 2/15/50, 24.2 ; 3/15/50, 21.1 ; 4/4/50, 19.9 ; 5/10/50, 46.7 ; 10/3/50, 44.0 ; 11/16/50, 30.7 ; 12/14/50, 25.0 ; 1/4/51, 22.1 ; 2/7/51, 19.3 ; 3/7/51, 18.7 ; 3/28/51, 18.1 ; 5/9/51, 20.3; 9/26/51, 49.7; 11/13/51, 31.5; 2/27/52, 19.0; 4/4/52, 17.7; 11/10/52, 39.2. 13N/6E-33M2 — Reference point — hole in base of pump, elevation 140.5 feet. 0.44 mile north of and 0.25 mile west of junction of roads located at a point 0.25 mile east of southwest corner Sec. 33, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/22/48, 29.7; 3/23/49, 14.2; 11/9/49. 34.1; 4/4/50, 15.4; 11/16/50, 25.5; 3/28/51, 13.7; 11/11/51, 27.6; 4/4/52, 13.2. 13N/6E-34F1 — Reference point — top of casing, 4.5 feet above ground, elevation 173 feet. 0.25 mile south of angle in road at N. i corner of Sec. 34, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. at end of private road. 12/2f/48, 12.7; 2/23/49, 12.6. 13N/6E-34P1 — Reference point — top of wood cover, 0.5 feet above ground level, elevation 165 feet. 0.21 mile west of junction of roads at S. } corner of Sec. 34, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 11/9/29, 8.5; 9/10/30, 10.7; 12/11/31, 9.4; 12/10/32, 8.8; 12/19/33, 7.5; 11/20/34, 7.5; 11/23/36, 8.0; 11/22/37, 7.8; 1/27/39, 7.6. 13N/6E-34P2 — Reference point — top of concrete block, elevation 161 feet. 0.21 mile west of junction of roads at S. \ corner of Sec. 34, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 1/27/39, 8.0 ; 1/2/41, 7.7 ; 11/7/47, 6.7 ; 3/23/49, 9.9 ; 10/16/52, 5.8. 13N/6E-35B1 — Reference point — top of wood cover over well, elevation 205 feet. 0.10 mile east of and 0.04 mile south of junction of roads at N. \ corner of Sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/23/48, 23.1; 3/23/49, 20.3; 11/9/49, 22.8; 4/4/50, 21.5; 11/16/50, 23.7 ; 3/29/51, 19.3. 13N/6E-35F1 — Reference point — top of 2" x 12" plank cover- ing, 2.0 feet above ground, elevation 179 feet. 0.10 mile west of and 0.40 mile south of junction of roads at N. \ corner of Sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 6 E. 12/21/48, 9.2; 3/23/49, 8.0; 11/9/49, 8.3 ; 4/6/50, 9.4 ; 11/17/50, 8.9 ; 11/13/51, 8.8. 13N/6E-35N1 — Reference point — top of casing, elevation 182 feet. 0.42 mile west of junction of roads at S. J corner of Sec. 35, T. 13 N., R. 6 E., 100 feet north of road. 12/21/48, 2.0; 3/23/49, 0.9; 11/22/49, 2.3; 4/6/50, 2.1; 11/17/50, 2.0; 3/29/51, 2.2; 11/13/51, 1.7; 4/10/52, 2.1. APPENDIX G RECORDS OF MINERAL ANALYSES OF WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY (187) TABLE OF CONTENTS RECORDS OF MINERAL ANALYSES OF WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Page Mineral Analyses of Representative Surface Waters in and Adjacent to Placer County 189 Complete Mineral Analyses of Ground Waters in Placer County __ 191 Partial Mineral Analyses of Ground Waters in and Adjacent to Placer County 192 (188) APPENDIX (i 189 MINERAL ANALYSES OF REPRESENTATIVE SURFACE WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Con- Mineral constituents, 1 latr duct- Boron, in equivalents pel million Per of ance, EcXIO* in station cent sample at 25° ppm HCOa sodium C. Ca Mg Na + C0 3 CI SO 4 NOj VALI.KV AND FOOTHILL UNIT Gold Hill Dam below Combie Dam 5/14/51 45.3 0.02 0.14 0.31 0.07 0.36 0.01 0.08 0.01 15 6/12/51 47.9 0.43 0.05 8/31/51 62.4 0.10 0.48 0.12 16 10/ 5/51 56.1 0.43 0.34 Bear River Canal, spill to Halsey Forebay 5/14/51 6/11/51 34.3 47.2 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.28 0.30 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 16 8/31/51 33.3 0.09 0.23 0.03 27 10/ 5/51 39.4 0.26 0.00 1/11/52 44 0.30 0.00 Sailor Ravine below Francis Ranch — 5/14/51 6/11/51 159 136 0.02 0.50 0.82 0.30 1.07 0.85 0.07 0.02 0.52 0.01 18 8/31/51 121 0.25 0.84 0.08 20 10/ 5/51 157 1.05 0.06 1/11/52 150 0.88 0.08 Antelope Creek near Rocklin- — _. 5/11/51 6/11/51 132 196 0.02 0.60 0.61 0.23 1.08 1.66 0.08 0.07 0.21 0.01 16 8/31/51 158 0.32 1.31 0.11 20 10/ 5/51 130 0.92 0.06 1/11/52 201 1.21 0.17 Linda Creek at Roseville 3/26/51 233 0.25 0.95 0.82 0.65 1.77 0.37 0.25 . 00 27 5/11/51 174 0.02 0.75 0.64 0.48 1.38 0.22 0.20 0.01 25 6/11/51 131 1.03 0.08 8/31/51 348 1.78 1.61 1.46 53 10/ 5/51 254 1.18 0.90 1/11/52 189 1 . 15 0.25 Pleasant Grove Creek at Lincoln Road 3/28/51 354 0.49 1.15 0.66 1.87 2.03 1.18 0.65 0.00 50 Auburn Ravine at U. S. Highway 99E 3/26/51 214 0.28 0.95 0.80 0.43 1.71 0.23 0.25 0.02 20 5/11/51 120 0.02 0.48 0.55 0.27 1 . 05 0.10 0.16 0.02 20 6/11/51 71 0.52 0.03 8/30/51 06 0.17 0.49 0.05 25 10/ 5/51 131 1.08 0.11 1/11/52 151 1.08 0.14 Coon Creek at U. S. Highway 99E 3 26/51 236 0.08 1.00 1.15 0.35 2.07 0.20 0.25 0.01 14 5/11/51 204 0.00 0.24 0.98 0.32 1.80 0.13 0.11 0.01 15 6/11/51 193 1.67 0.10 8/30/51 159 0.23 1.28 0.09 14 10/10/51 177 1 . 57 0.11 1 11/52 150 1.21 0.11 Reclamation District 1001 channel at Pacific Avenue_ 3/26/51 200 0.24 0.85 0.82 0.48 1.71 0.19 0.23 0.00 22 5/11/51 193 0.08 0.75 0.78 0.43 1.67 0.19 0.21 0.01 22 6/12/51 188 0.23 0.60 0.57 0.65 1.44 0.23 0.21 0.01 35 7/23/51 205 1.01 0.80 0.90 0.56 1.87 0.19 0.16 0.00 25 9/ 5/51 228 0.06 0.80 0.82 0.65 1.93 0.28 0.09 0.02 28 10/10/51 193 1.60 0.17 1/11/52 153 1.11 0.17 A.MERICAN RIVER UNIT El Dorado Creek 25 feet below obsolete diversion of 9/— /49 58.8 0.00 0.23 0.22 0.34 0.57 0.00 0.02 0.00 43 Breece-Wheeler Ditch. Sec. 26, T 15 N, R 12 E, MDB&M Bullion Mine, Sec. 26, T 1.5 N, R 11 E, MDB&M 9/12/49 107 0.00 0.41 0.60 0.34 1.13 0.03 0.10 . 00 25 Big Reservoir, Shirttail Canyon _ 9/— /49 37.8 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.25 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.00 69 Mormon Creek at Pacific Gas and Electric Company South Canal near Auburn _ 5/14/51 6/11/51 131 157 0.02 0.48 0.64 0.22 1 . 05 1.23 0.07 0.02 0.25 0.01 16 8/31/51 144 0.28 1.13 0.08 19 10/ 5/51 100 1.21 0.90 1/11/52 208 1.31 0.23 North Fork American River at bridge 2 miles down- stream from North Fork Dam 5/ 8/52 39 . 7 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.38 0.01 0.03 0.00 6 Middle Fork American River 200 yards upstream from junction with North Fork _ 5/ 8/52 5/ 8/52 27.4 23.5 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.11 . 07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 8 South Fork American River at Coloma Bridge 10 American River at Folsom Bridge 5/ 8/52 35.1 0.00 0.22 0.08 0.02 0.34 0.01 0.02 . 00 7 190 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION MINERAL ANALYSES OF REPRESENTATIVE SURFACE WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Station BEAR RIVER UNIT Eden Valley drain near Colfax - Bear River near Auburn _ Bear River near Wheatland _ TAHOE UNIT Lake Tahoe, north end, (Tahoe Vista) Sec. 14, T 16 N, R 17 E, MDB&M Lake Tahoe, west side, (Tahoe City) at State High- way 89 bridge over Truckee River Truckee River at Truckee Truckee River at Farad Date of sample 5/11/51 6/11/51 8/31/51 10/ 5/51 1/11/52 5/14/51 6/11/41 8/31/51 10/ 5/51 1/11/52 5/11/51 6/11/51 8/30/51 10/10/51 5/15/51 9/19/51 5/19/52 5/15/51 9/19/51 5/20/52 5/14/51 9/19/51 5/19/52 5/14/51 9/19/51 5/20/52 Con- duct- ance, EcXlO" at 25° C. 84 98 101 120 77 44.7 91.6 93.5 101 54 102 180 303 304 101 99 97.5 94 96 89.2 71.3 99 71.2 94 74 61.6 Boron. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.04 0.02 Ca 0.36 0.20 0.55 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.43 0.38 0.50 0.40 0.36 0.44 0.30 Mineral constituents, in equivalents per million Mg 0.40 0.23 0.40 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.15 Na 0.13 0.21 0.06 0.21 0.14 0.32 0.22 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.31 0.26 0.14 0.30 0.18 0.13 0.24 0.13 HCO., 4-COa 0.79 0.80 0.84 0.82 0.49 0.36 0.59 0.56 0.36 0.74 2.26 2.10 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.66 0.90 0.72 0.66 0.84 0.59 CI 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.23 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.02 SO) 0.10 0.08 0.21 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 NOj 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Per cent sodium 14 20 12 24 13 10 22 32 27 22 31 27 18 30 24 18 25 20 APPENDIX G COMPLETE MINERAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATERS IN PLACER COUNTY 191 Class Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of sample Con- duct- ance, EcX10« at 25° C. Boron, in ppm Mineral constituents, in equivalents per million Ca Mg Na HCOa + CCh CI S04 N03 Per cent sodium 10N/5E-9L1 10N/6E-16D1 .. 11N/5E-6A1 HN/5E-10Ll_-_ 11N/5E-19H1 __ 11N/5E-31A1 .. 12N/5E-3A2 12N/5E-5R1_^_ 12N/5E-6R1___- 12N/5E-14L1___ 12N/5E-14L1___ 12N/5E-17B1___ 12N/5E-17B1_^ 12N/5E-23H1 __ 13N/5E-9H1.___ 13N/5E-23R2... AVERAGE 11N/6E-17J1___ 12N/5E-13A1___ 13N/5E-10K1 .. 13N/5E-10P1.__ 13N/6E-33C1... 13N/6E-33C1--- 13N/6E-33C1.^ AVERAGE 12N/6E-27D1 _. 12N/6E-27D1 __ 12N/6E-27D1 __ 12N/6E-28M1.- 12N/6E-28M1__ AVERAGE 12N/6E-23C1__. 385 682 580 652 213 800 630 455 455 870 210 391 391 391 116 116 Spring Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation 7/ 9/51 7/ 6/51 7/ 9/51 7/ 9/51 7/ 9/51 6/27/50 6/29/50 7/ 3/51 9/18/50 9/ 8/50 7/ 5/51 6/27/50 9/13/50 7/ 5/51 9/15/50 7/ 9/51 7/ 5/51 7/ 9/51 7/ 2/51 7/ 2/51 6/27/50 9/15/50 7/ 2/51 9/20/49 6/29/50 7/ 2/51 6/29/50 9/13/50 5/24/51 308 260 321 294 254 340 180 240 199 274 281 180 153 284 370 342 268 627 369 1,400 1,350 510 422 574 750 1,450 1,470 1,650 1,480 1,420 1,494 20,200 0.28 0.10 0.31 0.15 0.10 0.29 0.11 0.20 0.09 0.40 0.76 0.06 0.13 0.56 0.02 0.26 0.85 0.95 0.80 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.60 0.60 0.75 1.75 0.95 0.90 0.82 0.66 0.82 0.57 0.90 0.74 0.68 0.60 0.65 0.68 0.74 0.38 0.71 1.39 0.82 1.39 0.96 1.52 1.22 1.26 1.52 0.96 0.91 0.74 1.56 1.52 1.26 0.52 1.39 0.74 1.48 1.94 2.23 1.97 2.06 2.03 2.10 1.90 1.97 1.20 2.33 2.48 1.71 0.54 2.05 2.21 1.72 1.01 0.42 1.04 0.84 0.51 0.59 0.31 0.48 0.28 0.54 0.45 0.25 0.27 0.79 0.25 1 . 35 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.04 1.44 0.21 0.23 1.42 1.33 0.94 0.84 1.61 1.70 1.98 0.84 1.50 0.65 3.90 3.45 1.30 0.60 1.30 0.75 1.07 0.61 0.61 0.82 1.48 0.56 1.23 1.18 3.09 2.48 7.83 8.09 3.00 2.43 3.04 1.90 1.51 2.13 1.44 1.61 2.51 0.44 2.61 0.59 3.60 1.07 10.49 9.92 2.20 2.25 2.25 0.16 0.54 0.46 0.62 0.69 0.79 0.27 0.71 1.40 2.85 1.88 2.33 1.66 1.60 1.81 3.70 3.70 3.90 3.05 1.15 0.91 1.18 1.23 0.98 1.56 0.81 4.28 10.16 8.61 10.00 10.35 9.05 1.75 1.30 1.39 1.44 1.30 0.56 4.54 11.49 11.50 12.11 11.72 10.41 0.58 1.45 1.50 1.54 1.58 1.35 2.06 32.00 3.10 47.45 1.15 1.56 9.63 180.43 1.20 0.33 11.44 202.25 1.48 27.50 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.27 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.02 44 35 50 42 47 26 39 36 33 52 51 48 30 48 18 45 40 54 66 63 65 52 64 54 60 68 64 67 69 70 68 78 192 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION PARTIAL MINERAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of Conduct- ance, EcXIO 6 CI. in Total solids. Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of Conduct- ance, EcXIO 6 CI, in Total solids, sample at 25°C. epm in ppm sample at 25°C. epm in ppm 11N/5E-17H1 Irrigation 6 27/49 0.84 152 10N/5E-3N1 Irrigation 8/ 7/50 316 1.10 9/12 .".(1 308 1.08 11N/5E-18H1__ 480 Irrigation 7/ 7/49 . 56 160 5/22/51 314 1.08 8/20/49 5/22/51 255 0.38 0.54 170 10N/5E-9L1 Irrigation 5/22/51 300 0.90 11N/5E-19A1__ 338 Irrigation 8/26/49 0.56 190 10N/5E-10.M Irrigation 7/ 7/49 5/22 51 336 0.56 0.51 215 11N/5E-19H1__ 652 Irrigation 8/30/49 7/ 7/49 0.56 0.56 180 152 10N/5E-11E1-- Irrigation 5/18/51 282 0.54 8/30/49 5/22/51 268 0.28 0.62 150 10N/5E-11G1-.- Irrigation 8/ 1/49 1.13 270 11N/5E-19J1... 420 Irrigation 8/ 7/50 262 0.28 10N/5E-12E1-- 250 Irrigation 7/ 1/49 1.41 305 11N/5E-19P1 _ _ Irrigation 6/ 8/49 0.56 182 10N/0E-5L1 Irrigation 5/23/51 258 0.82 8/30/49 6/27/50 281 0.28 0.73 180 10N/GE-9D1 351 Irrigation 9/20/49 0.28 150 9/12/50 292 0.73 10N/6E-11E3___ 400 Irrigation 5/23/51 472 1.69 11N/5E-28P1-.- 562 Irrigation 5/16/50 8/ 1/50 325 315 1.15 1.01 10N/6E-16D1_.- 385 Irrigation 6/ 2/50 256 0.42 8/ 1/50 264 0.45 11N/5E-29AI._ Irrigation 5/22/51 277 0.02 5/22/51 259 0.39 11N/5E-29G2__ Irrigation 5/26/50 291 0.59 11N/4E-10A1._ Irrigation 5/23/51 272 0.45 11N/5E-29H1__ 303 Irrigation 5/17/50 319 0.82 11N/4E-10H1.. Irrigation 5/23/51 260 0.39 8/ 7/50 311 0.82 11N/4E-12J2.... Irrigation 5/23/51 289 0.62 11N/5E-29K1-- Irrigation 8/30/49 0/ 2/50 303 0.28 0.76 170 11N/4E-14D1. Irrigation 5/23/51 302 0.62 8/ 1/50 9/12/50 295 290 0.73 0.73 11N/4E-23J1.... Irrigation 5/23/51 292 0.51 5/22/51 288 0.73 11N/4E-24L1. - Irrigation 5/23/51 282 0.48 11N/5E-29K2... Irrigation 8/30/49 5/17/50 297 0.56 0.84 190 11N/4E-25M1... Irrigation 5/24 :>1 329 0.51 8/ 1/50 9/12/50 290 287 0.82 0.82 11N/5E-3H1 Irrigation 6/27/47 9/13/49 0.84 0.28 172 170 11N/5E-30AU_„ 220 Irrigation 5/22/51 8/ /49 291 0.84 0.56 162 11N'5E-3M3 Irrigation 7/ 7/49 1.97 305 8/30/49 0.28 160 11N/5E-4P1 Irrigation 9/13/49 0.84 190 11N/5E-31A1__ 213 Irrigation 7/ 7/49 8/ /49 1.13 0.56 188 172 11N/5E-6A1 682 Irrigation 7/ 7/49 8/31 1!) 5 29/50 328 1.13 0.56 1.15 200 170 5/26/50 8/ 1/50 295 295 0.68 0.65 8/ 1/50 314 1.01 11N/5E-32N2.__ Irrigation 6 27/49 0.56 172 9/12/50 311 0.99 8/31/49 0.28 170 11N/5E-6G1 315 Irrigation 6/ /49 8/30/49 0.28 0.28 147 130 11N/5E-33P1-. 336 Irrigation 5/22/51 257 0.56 5/ 8/50 242 0.34 11N/6E-17.JC. 210 Irrigation 6/ 2/50 8/ 2/50 061 647 5.55 3.78 11N/5E-6Q1 320 Irrigation 6/ 49 8/30/49 0.28 0.28 106 130 9/15/50 5/24/51 629 634 3.66 3.58 11N/5E-7F1 Irrigation 5/22/51 230 0.39 12N/4E-2H1 Irrigation 5/17/51 220 0.23 11N/5E-7L1 Irrigation 6/15/50 5/22/51 264 215 0.56 0.4.3 12N/4E-2Q1 12N/4E-3A1__ Irrigation Irrigation 5/24/51 5/24/51 269 300 0.24 0.62 11N/5E-7P1 Irrigation 6/15/50 288 0.08 9/12/50 261 0.51 12N/4E-10C1 Irrigation 5/17/51 5/24/51 258 257 0.28 0.28 11N/5E-7R1 Irrigation 5/ 8/50 317 0.90 8/ 7 50 293 0.76 12N/4E-13R1 .. Irrigation 5/24/51 245 0.34 5/22/51 288 0.79 12N/4E-15MU- Irrigation 5/25/51 263 0.31 11N/5E-14P1..- 480 Irrigation 6/ 2/50 288 0.70 12N/4E-24A1-- Irrigation 6/ 2/50 247 0.34 11N/5E-14P2... 532 Irrigation 6/ 7/50 250 0.45 8/ 1/50 322 1.21 12N/4E-24F1 . . Irrigation 5/24/51 232 0.34 9/12/50 341 1.30 12N/4E-25C1-- Irrigation 5/24/51 258 0.45 11N/5E-15G1-. 135 Irrigation 5/16/50 319 0.93 12N/4E-34L1 Irrigation 5/24/51 328 0.45 11N/5E-16D1.__ 510 Irrigation 5 22/51 241 0.51 APPENDIX G 193 PARTIAL MINERAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Conduct- Conduct- Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of ance, EcXlO" CI, in Total solids, Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of ance, EcXlO" CI, in Total solids, sample at 25°C. epm in ppm sample at 25°C. epm in ppm 12N/5E-2B1 220 Irrigation 5/ 8/50 8/ 3/50 5/23/51 230 213 206 0.28 0.25 0.28 12N/6E-21N1... Irrigation 8/ 8/50 9/12/50 5/22/51 514 504 502 1.86 1.89 1.86 12N/5E-3A1 310 Irrigation 5/24/50 6/28/50 206 204 0.25 0.28 12N/6E-21P1___ Irrigation 5/10/50 399 1.52 8/ 8/50 202 0.28 12N/6E-22L2..- 150 Non- operating 6/ 7/50 7,300 60.56 12N/5E-3A2 800 Irrigation 5/24/50 199 0.25 6/28/50 207 0.28 12N/6E-27D1... Irrigation 8/25/49 5/10/50 877 1 1 . 53 5.35 926 12N/5E-4J1 Irrigation 5/24/50 9/12/50 192 207 0.28 0.25 8/ 8/50 5/22/51 1,390 1,813 9.72 7.60 12N/5E-5R1 030 Irrigation 6/ 2/50 8/ 1/50 242 244 0.51 0.48 12N/6E-28A1___ Irrigation 5/22/51 529 2.82 5/23/51 240 0.48 12N/6E-28B1___ Irrigation 5/10/50 8/ 8/50 590 608 3.09 3.21 L2N/5E-6A1 Irrigation 6/ /49 8/31/49 0.28 0.28 133 120 5/22/51 587 5.18 9/13/49 0.28 120 12N/6E-28M1___ 116 Irrigation 5/17/50 8/ 8/50 1,850 1,500 13.87 11.04 L2N/5E-6R1 Irrigation 6/27/49 8/31/49 0.56 0.28 120 130 9/12/50 1,460 10.65 5/ 8/50 207 0.23 12N/6E-29G1__. Irrigation 6/19/50 798 4.48 9/12/50 213 0.28 12N/6E-30L1 _._ Irrigation 6/ /49 0.56 160 12N, 5E-9P1 Irrigation 5/24/50 9/12/50 216 210 0.31 0.28 13N/4E-36J1 ^_ Irrigation 8/31/49 5/25/51 212 0.28 0.20 160 l2N/5E-12Cl.-_ Irrigation 5/17/51 306 0.59 13N/5E-7N1 Irrigation 5/10/50 192 0.28 12N/5E-13A1___ Irrigation 5/16/50 400 1.18 5/17/51 373 1.07 13N/5E-9H1 Irrigation 8/ 8/50 659 2.93 L2N/5E-13D1_._ Irrigation 5/16/50 253 0.39 13N/5E-9H2 715 Irrigation 5/17/50 395 0.51 L2N/5E-14L1___ Irrigation 6/ 9/50 281 0.45 13N/5E-9R1 Irrigation 5/22/51 439 0.28 L2N/5E-14R1___ 653 Irrigation 5/17/51 290 0.73 13N/5E-10K1__ Irrigation 5/22/51 1,899 15.00 12N/5E-17A1___ 475 Irrigation 8/ 7/50 9/12/50 196 188 0.25 0.23 13N/5E-22C2___ 13N/5E-22P1___ 416 465 Irrigation Irrigation 5/23/51 5/23/51 676 193 3.75 0.28 12N/5E-17B1___ 455 Irrigation 8/17/50 199 0.23 9/12/50 190 0.25 13N/5E-23P1.-- 975 Irrigation 5/23/51 172 0.28 12N/5E-17C1_._ Irrigation 9/12/50 206 0.25 13N/5E-23R2.__ Irrigation 6/21/50 5/23/51 383 317 1.52 1.15 2N/5E-18J1 Irrigation 5/23/51 220 0.34 13N/5E-24A1___ 82 Irrigation 5/17/50 395 1.35 12N/5E-19C1___ Irrigation 6/ 2/50 208 0.28 8/ 1/50 207 0.28 13N/5E-25H1___ 240 Irrigation 8/ /49 5/22/51 239 0.51 0.51 162 12N/5E-19D1... Irrigation 5/24/51 208 0.28 13N/5E-27C1-. 442 Irrigation 5/23/51 193 0.34 2N/5E-23H1__. 870 Irrigation 5/17/51 436 2.02 13N/5E-27F1__. 412 Irrigation 5/23/51 169 0.24 2N/5E-23.J1 Irrigation 5/17/51 234 0.54 13N/5E-28NU.. Irrigation 6/27/49 0.56 118 2N/5E-30.I1 Irrigation 7/ 7/49 8/ 7/50 335 0.56 0.39 152 9/13/49 5/ 8/51 204 0.28 0.56 150 2N/5E-35E1___ Irrigation 6/ /49 9/20/49 0.56 0.28 200 170 13N/5E-28R 1 _ _ „ Irrigation 7/ 7/49 0.28 114 8/ 8/50 297 0.45 13N/5E-29Q1.__ Irrigation 6/27/49 0.84 160 12N/5E-35E2___ 252 Irrigation 6/ 9/50 268 0.51 13N/5E-30J1.... Irrigation 5/18/51 223 0.42 12N/6E-6A1 Irrigation 8/ /49 0.28 145 13N/5E-30L1__ Irrigation 5/18/51 197 0.23 12N/6E-19A2 . _ _ Irrigation 5/17/51 321 0.51 13N/5E-30RU__ 470 Irrigation 5/18/51 203 0.34 2N/6E-21L1... Irrigation 5/10/50 8/ 8/50 5/22/51 429 430 423 1.58 1.30 1.21 13N/5E-31G1. _„ Irrigation 7/ 7/49 9/13/49 0.56 0.28 137 150 7—81627 194 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION PARTIAL MINERAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATERS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY-Continued Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of ance, EcXlO" CI, in Total solids, Well number Depth, in feet Use Date of ance, EcX10« CI, in Total solids, sample at 25°C. com in ppm sample at 25°C. epm in ppm 13N 6E-28N1___ 135 Irrigation 5/17/50 5/22/51 364 365 1.01 1.13 13N/6E-33M1___ Irrigation 8/25/49 5/10/50 8/ 8/50 290 284 0.28 0.31 0.28 180 13N/6E-30M1... 270 Irrigation 8/31/49 5/10/50 5/22/51 222 212 0.28 0.37 0.34 120 13N/6E-33M2.__ Irrigation 9/15/50 5/22/51 5/10/50 287 288 249 0.34 0.28 0.23 13N/6E-33C1-- 391 Irrigation 7/14/49 5/10/50 8/ 8/50 1,830 586 2.26 12.55 2.31 330 5/22/51 241 0.25 13N/6E-33K1... Irrigation 9/13/49 5/10/50 8/ 8/50 5/22/51 315 316 302 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.23 210 APPENDIX H EXISTING POWER HOUSES IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY ( 105 ) 196 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION EXISTING POWER HOUSES IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY (Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company) Name Location, M.D.B.&M. Stream Capacity, in kilowatts Average static head, in feet Elevation of tailrace U.S.G.S. datum. in feet Alta T.16N., R.10E., Sec. 25 T.17N., R.10E., Sec. 34 T.16N., R.11E., Sec. 17 T.16N., R.10E., Sec. 27 T.13N., R.8E., Sec. 25- Bear River 2,000 5,700 52,000 22,000 10.600 6,400 3,750 5,200 12,600 660 837 1,375 643 331 197 344 318 519 3,547 3 661 Drum Dutch Flat Bear River 3,397 2,730 Dry Can von . 1 493 T.17N., R.12E., Sec. 20 T.17N., R.12E., Sec. 20_.. T.17N., R.12E., Sec. 16 T.12N., R.8E., Sec. 16 4 829 Spaulding No. 2 Spaulding No. 3.„_ _ _ _ South Yuba River South Yuba River 4.679 5.025 906 APPENDIX I \PPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE WATER IN PLACER COUNTY, FILED WITH DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, UNDER PROVISIONS OF WATER CODE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ( 197 ) APPENDIX I 199 4) UJ O 4) 4) 4) 0) 1> U 4) c G c c c 4) 4) D 4) 4) ►q jjjijj jjjjj oj a; aj c c c g 4) a> . Oh JJJI § *3 S G 4) C 4) uj 1:3 G;3 -JPh^-1 hJJ hJ< 1 ! o o | , -a ■g ' ' ' -a i , e £ S i i ' C8 - - - [ 0) | j C = c c = T3 C a c e a 2 c .9 a 3 5 -w o o o o o S s o u ^ sj .9.3-B-C s is S- t M ** O ai d o d o 5 no o o IG (MO o O O i— o »o M 6 M 6 * H O ^ M a a 90: "3 -t^ "3 ■8 "g § e c 9 .9 £ a is -a e2" s ^ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ w ri c M m n n o^w-.Tfr-r--nnNC')(D ZZ Z ■* -3" i-i ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ Liioi^N--ccrtWS Tf cc ci cm CO -h *tf CM CO CO g 03 CO Z CO ajtcZidZaiaiMZZZZZ z &z Z ZoaoeZcocococo — co co Z Z Z 03 B CO CO CO Z Sz^zzzzzzzSzz a a a *|b|w*.5 -s^aa g£ | co co co coZcoZZco co Z co co Z co Z ■> Otf^> < a ' a n t - - M - a () Q> -a 3 j (jj "3 aa 03 O 4) I- ■go 3 M tw **! £ w O cq ffi ■ , CCr- - - ;.' p G r3 Ph G : c x o g ^- ?3 03 ro « n E fi 3 3 O O OO 03 03 t) -a cj 03 > > V V zz t3 -a B E 03 03 u- 1- > KK o3 d -4-3 a: a> mm < O-j ■CJ 03 ■ i PS <"^ S3 w — i -t - — F ^ *n . 1 tit Z fcn s s : E te : E E » ao ■- .- -r - O >>CS-o Sjel llil £, co < a B =3 C 0) 14 S cs OZ Z C°H =3 a>Sao O S o3 g a ' CJ 03 > -a a § b a o3 -T3 ,q£ I lis — ,. E — 03 03 E^ o IS a o £ •_- " E S a JS • s 2 < ° !> OS-b •a E s B SO 03 =3 " W -ar° -i b a 3 « - o . ■*. 03 ^ O a Z ' c 1 c id Electric Company. - tion District — re .......... . . affiS j e = a is (2 z I pi 2 B t- E -S O 03 J3 ° "^ a S d ° — Z -^ B S ^ O C3 8) o-2^ > — c » — 03 E a »7 « 3^ a CJ co -t; 5 c « 2 0) E t- 03 a £ "a ts E O O ^ '5 E 03 0) Z J o 03 N M Tf N W a: co 10 r, ^-. ec c^j -^ r. ^- cm ee O — 0 iO ..2 c £ 'ft} s- CO »-0 CO CO c C -f N Ol 3". t- t- r^ cj « rH «-l W « CO — ' CO CJ co tc »o X CO 00 -f Ol NCOONXO Cl CN CO CO CO -f -h t.O -ft 00 r- 000- -^ Tt «3 »0 n a w ff. o 00 00 CO CO CM -* M 00 O CO »o iO 00 O (O (O CD cC C -ft r- -^ l^ CD 4D CO >C CD h- Tt CM CO -t «c "O CD t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ t^ X CD »^ CO CJ CJ .'()() PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION co on O CO Q. z UJ -5 I- oc < Q- 1 el £ & >- 3 A »CO a e Ch p* 1- o^ ADS 3 5 •a -a ■ -a -d • hi to e a 'a 'a co £ <£ £ fco _, a -c g -a °2 "a ca -3 £ 3 .2 d ejfojcB '£.5? >> ._ S .2 - 4) ™ £« 5 g s g .g < a h- X h- LU n £ I > Q LU cv —1 LU II h- < >■ £ 1- 7 LL. 3C O U CO Z LU O CO <> n O OL Z a. o *o O O iC CS C^ CO ^h CO e_2 eS. - — - HHHHHHHH W HBHHWW W HHHHH MS ■* co co co co co ■* t*. zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz O --h — < iO »C ■* --f CO 2 ZZZZZZ lO UJ M CJ M CI S 2 ZZZZZ CD Tt< O lO "fl 'P 00 ~h -- C-) CO -M ~- ZZZZZkZkZ ZZZaiZZajosZZiOioaiZ ZcocoZZcoZco 2 zzzSSz (BaiiioZZffiaiZZ ZZZtotcKZaiZtfiZiJaiaiccZai co co co Z co cc 00 Z Z co co Z ZZ Z OO CM z 00 l§*S5 ZZ w z CO CO xw zl & ZZ z i^ ( :££ £ a>-^ £ JO( 3 cx< | o c .£ t, >- a "O ^^HIS^OZ DM a -a P 2 >. a :o rn£ 6u Qpast « S CO * o a o -3 a o ^ 1 o P Cu Z >> a d o o — d acq o p g d >i >i.a O ■?, a a >- 2 d d a ScS g § S. 4-j °^ d djg .3 3 — »t o o a M a co a) ■C c c a g a -I'll" 'a ■a ei as si ~° w a t- t, t- a *a d M bfl M d a a -o -3 -o £ g ^ > >> s ■ a d >h a dO - >>° u , fe « , !" O L» m- ^1 d ra 5 S d ffllZJB Q Z < Q- O a. a. < to Z O 1— < y 1 Q. Q- < H 2 d to o co ^ "B tf Ofe&i 05 dfc, a -^ a a £ 3 H 3 U d a W co Z 2 • » u tOMMjfH '-»Q K dgfc aJ M co5 2tfOZ ^ - a .g a *m t, o t, o M . g d a; .2 d C a B a "3. S cu a. Ph i-3 O O r-c o O CI c c O H< O O iC N ^ X O N- " =a o - o -. o 2 o o o o o o o b- ~ ooo •too:in-^ ci o o ci ci -fOOOOCO i— t »-H -T e* co o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO »0 C "O NO H HWWS1HHHHW H HH HW W Kl « W HHHWHHBHHHHBS HHHHHB aaaHKHSHH N- OOmncCNNOOlOl C) CON. r~ CI (N ^hON- NSttH^NhNi , i , O!C0N -# CO •— O O CO H*-rPCO-PH*CICOClpH a as . ^ IS I 5= -a c — £ ZZZZZZ^^Z Z ZZ 22 Z ZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ .-h WWKiOHH-ttt-f t}< hN i-iiC lO rp (N O O O -fiO O :i M v N N 'f i 1 ^ CO CD lO lO >C lO & fi S |,<5iiiiDi»iaa) tc Z co cote co to << co anotcioZZZMZZZZai toZZ? z z zzzzSz z Sz Sz z mcoZ zzSSzzzzzz^Sz e- £c^W Sr?«2 = £ S.S .s E^ojCdcd^h^e^ ffliJ-o£S£opa£ .^ ™ .2. ™ 3 a. .-) °3 m T3 T3 C C C .2 ^ C > PS — cd cd e 03 a c a 2 s (V 03 h o a zz .Sj= "0 co a c jd aps a £ 5 3 g HHH co <;<; +? +^ a> be 2 a ZZ^PO T3 a "O "0 T3 "O >> E S E So* C3 03 d ca g & fc> Id P J tc pH ^H '3 cj co a s <3 CD O 3 Zps I W PS >.'a a oj ►"' oj -£ a w ?.= j2 03 O 0__ 3.S"3 a ^? a a ^ • > cs >-*■ 03 -o J= r-I ja oj o3 . OPSHffl 03 o .2 J" ^3 X J^ CO CO § CO CO T3 a -3 -3 q; *; CD o> 'a -^ 'c 'a -s'a' i CO CO • T3 -a - A t= SO-a 0. o o°Q Eh§ Si . -?H co M co CO ^ CJ 31 o a to a .2 ■£ .2 "S ,S s Z-^Z OJ . CD |W| i - ^ State, gZZ-^ O CD CD t> QO O ^ aa« 3 Eh Eh£ pq co a «i K C — CCOiO — M -X N 00 a| a t :i N N >0 M -- O. -f M C O C CD »C 0. ^ >0 'M o o - - "i ?i - -;■ i.: CO «C *t iO t^ r^ *i" 00 3S CO t^- r^ oo N CD N O O CO CO ^ O O O O ?! M M ri O 00 00 ** O ^H ._>,,._> PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION OZ. O u CD Q_ o Q3 < Q- LU < = uT £ Q £0 Q° LU Cr - < Z u- 8- Qi O LU — u <2 < > 510 ac DC C£ LU LU O <§ O QZ < 1/5 z o I- < u —I O- Q- < c c c c c a c E a c c c bo bC O &£ O bf bx o a c ti : bC O be c bt O bf C bC C bC 3 e \£ C '^ C '^ Ei a B a ^ a •; 3 S a 3 .e 3 c -j: e - 03 EE ., _^ £ ^ -1 -a ss ■3 -^ , ^^ - CJ CO r. i» ■■§ d -T3 a M C £ '£ d c CJ c E ft! bO-o -a ■O "S a , ~j a .a s , e 03 i o3 ■J- §.§■!.&'•§ Sp.9 o m § a g-c 'E ° o 'E c P. o * [ - "0 13 z c a l a a c .o .2 o .3 ^ rf ni ffJ rn ; be 2 &c § £ "oi a o oj r a u O J. o -a c OJ c 'I e" "■ Ci o t SR a 1 3 OJ cu oj ^ i -- CD 5 0. ' OJ cc.; el o ; '■S c " c o 03 0. £1 — a" ■J -8 . •B M ? a a" rt bfi 'B CJ 3 ■«^ - O o e^-2 » o fi"H i is be a ^ 05 "C CO ^ c cr a c c X T3 C rt o % '- bl > ■-- ^ T C cc c r- 00 c c -t -t l> -t t^ -f •< ^7 -t •t oo a o 00 ■^ -t- — _ — o O — - C ■ O O CC "^ b- b- b- a •3 a .2 a .S3 c Pi 1-1 •" a 0, Z zzzzzzz •z ^ ? z z z z Z z Z Z z z z z^^zz^z^^zz^z^z ^ z cQ.S o EE c CO r- CO C ■; CN *> c o tr IT, »T m If CM CC CO CC CO iO LO >C 'O rf ifj iO iO ^ >-0 lO ^- M C -t iC o -c H to 1*1 cj C O -f 00 00 b- 00 rt ^ c c Tf Cr -t c ^ Cs CN -1- — i— Tj onushhoiohhoconcwu: CO ~-S"3 03 ^ er « cc CV CN CN ^h fr CO CMi-h CNCO N CO HCN tNC ? •s-g § c a » .3 cu « SI Z 02 a; &S c & £ ■s ft " -zz oc Z « K cc z +. ^ o c c c ftl s Za ^ ^^^ i-; h- & (^ ^ CC X ^ ^ ^X^^XiS^^^Hfe^M z z zz 2 z p: p Z HHoi^^WccP^^cc^t: H « -o -o e a 03 03 i oj OJ CJ CJ >. 03 03 ft ft c- ^ a3.D cj*U rt ^ u 'O § oj a u OJ c cu t-t-t-t-i-t-i-ifc, CUCJCUCJCJOJCJCU i_ > > > > > >^.>>>>>> 4) OS Is CN O (5 S ft s £ S Qitftfcc:p:ec:Qic: a e c a c a ccccccioa y c C c c 03 o oc 03 a o3 i — . o3rtrtrtrto3o3rt *3 X fc Z Z V oO t 'C .CJ T e x c. 0) - t CJCJCJCJCJCCJCJOCJ .t: 'B ' "C 'B B 'C 'B 'B H 'B cj u § r i- | CJ £ or £ a a c c CJ +3 a c - ep333sass3o3ee a E > 2 C a a. a > a J( a a. < o< < << §< < ■£<<<<<<<< g'B'B g > oj co s T 1 -*- tr 1 J £ cr K a. 0. E< > >, CO OS ft CO c 03 cj c 03 -a a > X <1 •a a a a 3 O a 3 O T3 T3 5 5 > ■3 CJ ft - I! c c 'e '5 '5 "3 O O aa c 'a ■q P 3 1= P i- U -3 -3 PP ■ P B, 03 < o s « 6 ^ *j *= « a 03 a B ^■*i- C "co «4-. 3 ^ o3 ^ ft C ?E a ■a a a a " O O OJ CJ ai T3 *c u O 03 j- Js Cm %- o a 03 ft ft ft ft ■a 03 I- 1. ■3 03 bi O Q t- o o >>N a ftft &u t c 3 ft 0. 13 E^ a i 03 C s d a t U c; 'a 'o 'o "a 0. a c o u rt cj •- -o o ft "3 z S > 3 ? ft r 5 s a ft a C 3 C 3 S ft re ft 3 S S .2.2 - S •** -♦* CO "O I 1 Zl^^ i >i i-*i Cl - i> OJ c CJ a 3 > . >. o w > *c > 1 "o > 5 iJZ Z z "S z 'o ^ C >>C3 > "o > "o r ,^ >•. 03 z *£ c cu .S c a. CJ OJ *j - *- rt *5 *s *» qj gj 3 -- -w c ^cc 3 c z c a c c c a .3 o c a 3 3 C fi 3 O j &C s 3 S 3 j=, 3 O 3 3 3 O 3 c rf a. 93 c c 8 o '** ofl a a o •""• c O o "" C O rt rt *d 52 '"§ rt c fflC oc O C C H O h Eh H H o c O O C O O [HhHhO H -a oc 00 oc 00 OC 00 oc oc 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 OJ Cl a OJ . -t -V -t -r -r -r Tf Tf ^*< ■<* \ ^-s -^ •*% ^ ■n. "v, -v ■v ^^ ■v "\ \ w\w "■n "^s. 00 Tf OS c - c c -f 00 t* b- t> t^ io if; IO io •* Tt* Tf »o lO CO "— ' -^ OJ O 4) co ^1 -H C-l ^H CM CN CN C-J CN CM CN CM ^ w \*v ~\ ^v ^v **-. >s "V -V \ -v. V V \ \ "^ ww\ ^v, \ sj cc Tf cc CO O" Oi 03 o- OS Oi o o o o o o o O i— 1 i— f-H y— 1 CM C-l CM CO - ~* ^ 1-1 "~ "* 1-1 '~* ,H ,_, HHH - , £ OC CO iC T^ b- en o o Ol CM CO o if) CO t^ 03 CO b- 00 Oh OJ 'f CN b- CO : E - m GO -# ^ X 00 cr OJ CO CO CO CO ■O IO IO 00 00 00 Cl OJ -t ^ iO cC Q.. - - -f ^ iG '- ^ CO CC CO r^ r- t^. b- b- r~ r- t^ t^ 1^ t^ t-- b- N N CO O) OJ CJ — -; e -ft t> cm eg C-l CM ■ c< t> JO ^a as -a -a c 2 03 s a o< o^ m< & a 00— -. -1 CO 00 1-1 rt tM ^H ^-< W rt CN r-l OON ■* ^ ^- --. CN SO CO CO CO fOSOO OS -- 1^ co -e -t co co co CO 01 1-* CO 00 00 r- ^H TJH 10 r^ 04 ^ »c : M 0) 0OCOCCOC0 cccc cc '-^ "S .2 "« .2 .2 V: .2 '-£ .2 .2 2 2 2 2 ^T3 a to d'S'^rt 2 S'S'S'S cj £"S"rf - C y C tl bj Z it z - 1' -' -1 bl . 2 y tl D rt '£ c3 *£ '£ 03 '£ o ■** "C "E '£ 'C *" n _ E O £ £ £ m Q MtHwA wm .2 += « bfl e3 -P -3 A £ 6 f2«M MM < a. LU O LU < £o o U LU Ct _l LU IS O V \ CO 00 O 10 >-H co 00 *ra 000 O CO — — O O O 000 00 CN LO CN ^h o o i-O o r~ o *o cn CO CD ~-< O OO OOO OOOOO a o o -c c 2 c cQ.2 « c £ .2 S C8 IS ■* o zzzz 01 10 >o 10 zzz lO 'O «o z zzzz CO -H f-< ^H CO zz zz CO "# HiO zzzz ON CO ~h CN zzzzz 1— < CO CO 00 CO co wcontOHr^Nwoow f— I -H LO Ol OS 02 09 zzzz »!Crt Z zzzz z zz isiS zz ^r rl zi r? >rr rl ^ r^ ri rr^y^^ xZtZjrfc K Z 35 Z K 02 ZZZcockZZZZ ; w w: a) icZaitc Z ZZJ Z ZZZ03 09 ccaj ZZ Z 09 09 Z 09 02 co co Z Z Z 02 CO Z Z ao BlffiZZ U UO Z <* O < > z°- o: Qi lu lu Q 51 Of Q- o Q. < Z o < O CJ £ cj £ O £H^ 2 « c c1a = 02^J U &«H ■ 2 3 - ■5 c K X o 5-cS -c t: ~w o a; a; ® t- c: c: c: o 5SPfii ^ S ■¥. d c . Li - r- « a £ S OJ M p =- fe 2« 2 £ 08 p ci — c-a - — £ g £=rE rt D s3 -^ rf M M M Mr) M{J M . ffi n't fli ni *^ si! ^* 1-1 = 0000 josooo ; T3 pj T3 Stf g c c c c ; c o o o o c o o o o :,; c c c 5 j 5 ) 09 o o o ^ c ^ £rt oooCjjccc'rCaj « OJ ert r o3 od r. 1 - CO CO CO CO CO CO - "d t3 T3 T3 "^ 13 - V 0) V OJ - & &>£>& OC0 W , S- !- T3 O O g^3 c c c -s is o M ►? air 00 O OOO •^ _ 01 rt-1 CQ ^ zzz S o9 g c pq 2 ■a £ c o «z = is ^ > £ c.2 — — — ~. r» ~i it* ~ 5R«X m ■S51-0 g|lH & •3 >,-. = C -o zoo WHO iO 10 »o CO CO if! IO lO "0 1 M m CO a. < E ■" 2 jo O CO CO o> X 00 CO CO •f Ort -f -# CD Oi Oi 010"-' CO "^ "^ "f (D .-t 00 O Oi O CT> a> x cd a. CN iO t- CO h fO co r- CN CN CO CO 00 00 -r •* TP Tt- Tf Tt- ■^ •* —-«-—»-—*- ^ tj< co >o 10 o © O CN rf CN >C iO iO »C CD CD APPENDIX 1 205 5" « *- seas = a a a a a O bfl O bO +3 _c -^ _g 7v 4) 7v - CO n n o odd to ai cs O riri W H H " 3 -2 - S c BQ.S •2 ■ "2 'w ** "C "o — a) c C3 - o o e a; V .. C3 zzzzz zzzzzzzzz U3 to lO t-H co ooco-^ooooo 2:2; 2; zzzzzz o o o o o o zzzz z o«om o £ H H £ 2 2; 2; 2; 2; oa oa 2:2;2;2;coo3i/j2:a3 03 2. 2, ZZZkhboi 022,032. 03 K- HH HH Z m co 03 03 2i 03 03 03 03 03 2i 2 2; Z 03 2: 2o3 tc o3 03 21 2 Z 2; 2i 03 03 2; » _ - "■ 5 M S S >,! >> — "J a d i :S r-i u "o j: d D i* ■n — -§ sXti-b s« ?£ « 2 s a "^ +- y oj d 5 S_ .? d C C - - r z .- - - 1 - :i oo 1 § o 6 6 6 -5 >, >, ii rrj >. >i >» >. to 44 i 14444 1 cc5S cc S c S ~ - n - u "Km t-i _. fi's ■3 5 -14 ^ _* 0) ',.

>> >. PQQ c cS r. cd OJ — ■0 ~ - d d C! ^ o •* n V i. 0) ^ a (Sal •a •£ -e -^ .S o .5 § j 2; hj 03 Sw c 2 4> — « feoE W £ — Z.& ■- e . d 03 t, e OJ 0) 01 S 8 "2 - ^ s^l X = c ■^ 3 — — - ~i -i OJ OWN •- •". •o '" Ifl '" v.*«^ \ \ W '0 CO •M -H rt O -1 -1 nci-^ ►" 3 H (J) 3 ^ = o -Z m = (5 ° • o a! ^ y n T) • c pq <: - = < 03 o» « CM ^h =' E = = - « «53 x d >o r. ^H CO r-| — i 01 « o 0-1 CO X CM 00 — CO f ^ iO t^ QCiO o o o o Tf Tj< -r -t -r Tf Tf lO "O O O 'O CO b- t^ 00 o: GO CO t* b- O OONW O O -H ^H ^ -H ^-i «5 iO if3 iO >0 'O "0 t^ CM CO 00 OOOMCR HHHfl O iO tO "O APPENDIX J EXISTING DAMS IN AND ADJACENT TO PLACER COUNTY ( 207 ) L.OS PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION o Z o u on LU U < < —i Q < O z < CO < Q O z c C O C C C v c c c c CJ C c c c. c c c .2 2 '■+"> _o 2 2+^22 2 22 '■& 2 '^ .2 '-iS '■3 '43 .2 .2 .2 03 GO C3 rt & rt 5; . M lis .!"£ H S * * S S - ^ S S ojoj«oj4)«a«ojtvfl;«ojj;oj o g c o « : U > > tt bt - > b£: M > > tX > > tf tl > > jj > ■*. > - > > Si > > > - w ? * fc S s s: .5f £ ^J.OJOjrtS3oJOJOJOJOJ 3 s s 1 g.9.31 S E S S 1 t o o 'E "E 5 o 'C "C o o "t o o '£ '£ o o o o o o <5 o o *S o o o £ t-OOOOOOir-i .3 OJ 2Q rt 5 5 r r -C Ph PL, Ph P^ 0) T3 1 0. OJOS rH M«CC!LT»OW»N -f CO ffi O O 00»CC^'*OSCDCDCO N W O H ^ tJ OOO--i^O00C 03 CD CD CD r-" O O to 1 3 o CN b- CN *-» CM— i O OICN M NM CN CN h KJ t» - < 1 1 N "5 CD fl O M CN h |s.^-(C:'-H'-«« ts-ts-cD'OcDt^-CMh- CO t-l Cl rl N ^ T^ ts. iO iO to 3 S OS 00 OS OS osa-vojcoosasaocios ososoocoos osooooosososasos x 01 oo a a> oo gogoqoxooooosco os OS OS OS X OS O 00 00 00 X , ^ IOMO b- OOOiCNOOOOO "OTfOOiOOOO^O'C'fNNOO 00 O Tf N tC C 'fO^'OOCOOC OS O O O O C O b- ts. 00 © CN O « OhNMOOOOO NTttOMOOMOcOOiN-HOitONOO rt"0-^(NIs.C WWOihOOSC ■* S iO W ■* c 00 t- 03 -U COHO o_ ^ hOinm^o w -«t io ^ ^ n q « -^ n cn o ih ^_ q q cc ^. » c rHCO'*i-'00--'CMC> co_ CN iO ©Of r» cdcn to o §• i-Tod iO OS*" r-T i- . N^. w^h tO"^ H« OOiOOO "* cs ■^4 co" cc »— 1. 0, CD r-( rH -^ b- CO CN S o ■u *3 -u tP t)h Is. -^4 OON'fCCiOCiOINN "OCD'J'OI*. OOOC'IOO^'fHcOTf O W s OS CD CD CN 05 O iO O h a O O M 00CCiN--OO-NC;O3;00(N'- O CO Oi lO N C COOOO— 1 iO O O! C ^h CD O ^ O 00 »T OS — ' 00 to 3 « £ CO OS_ "5 CO r->Tt-o r- c OS CD_ Os_ l> Elev cr ab sea ] in IO" to" to* ^h r-. iC CO W "O co^cDiOHCOcDiOCOCJNHCONXO CDCOi-iiOCDCC CO CD CD t- CD «C ^ to" cd" iH to" to" c CD* CD* CD" b-* . v <-* CO h 00 ^h (MCOiO^iOOSOSCNCD OCOOOCN^MHOCOOlCOOiOiCiO'OlO^CN'tNC ts.ts.CMCO'O'CtN^ 1^ a cn co c CN b- O iO *S ij ■* CN NO hh CDCOCO -00 t-t Os i-< OOOOfO'tHMCN'* -CN ■ ^ (N N M O (N H • N CM f rH rH COCN ' " CO Tt ■^ iHHCOCNiOl CN CO CN - oj CO i-l -1 -* H D O b- OS Oi 0^_ iC N "J< rf CO **« O O O O Tt* i-OtNOOCNOOO^w: ^OOONCO'OOOiQNOiOOOOOiOOMONC OcDOOONtCir O >o to ■* c CD O O iO lonooio CD CN 00 O CD O 'O CO "^ C4 C4 O CO CC 33kOO(QU)C»aiOOO(OOtNOO^CO>C lOOOiO^CNh-QOcy ON CM t- 00 CD GO CC GO OS CO 00 «»£ CO CN b- . t- i it., 03 *j i 03 Z 03 +J u 03 OJ i» ' ' ! 3 s o *o oi ■" =3 oi <' — 1=1 0) ' ' "3 cu 2 m-^5 2 t. 3 ■3 M S-i > 1 ^^~^ s "3 .2 3 "rt _ ■a *rt "rt "rt "^ a & J 03 s m 3 2 'g o 2 — i ^ J! 'S 3 ! ! -^ 1 1 b 5 J£ M ^. .i: .i: rt «= •a ^4 ^£ ^ J2 >> o t-. cj X c woo CJ cj *- c. U cj rt cj O CJ CJ CJ f_ o «. • ° ^i T +» 000 «* •- O oi O 0000 - _^ ^ >. ~~ £ >, ^ — e C — - — ; t. >, -- - >i ><3 cl ' ' ^ t-i u 1- - c — £ i- — t. — . It t- U t- J.a"3 ."t; ■IS J J •§ -1 jcT-g 5 S J *S J jd *S js J rff J •? J *S J -S??^ 8 J J J E A A J3 A Jl A •§ £ Jrff-5j3grf: J3 -fl pC -G +- *> -* — ■- '^'-^■^■t-i.-i >*i.s^ , r t r r t ■£ c- .2 j- ^- cj 3 a eJut.i.i.flSfc.t.'S ci-cjfc,fc«cjt,fc,fc J fc,o3^cj^t.Kirti;'tJi- 1 (-ifc-? "£ "£ *3 "£ cj t S-. (- (4 t- a o3 o S t! t-Oc3fliiSi-iJje303 OcSOojojOsJcciiJjflJ^cciOojciji-s-OcSdcclojt' rt rt rt rt rt rt O ^ rt rt rt lII rt O cc wwpi-».o OPiWW>OH>S QHpJHHpitqWHWOH0iH>CODicGHWHC WWWWWWOfC > H W2H tf Cl HHHW M c WW www BHHHWWWy^ WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWS WWWWWWWK w WWWWHK HHWH 03 hMWNCO ©00t*t*00cNNOsec ^^HfOCNOOCNCOCNi*0'001CO»OCNC v 3CNOOI^C33CN'*iC 03 oi 1. t~ co oi oi 1- OS <-< CD 00 CM CN O CN -^ CN -^ PS ^H r-1 i-l r-< ,H *-4 1-1 -H ^ H rt "" zzzzz ZZZZZZZZ2 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz z ^^^^^^ zzzz gpd ^ ON00WN TfCOCNCNMNOOcDb COCOOONmoOffi SNffiSmMNNSSNiO«SS« OOOONrHOOOOOJ"" CO I> -* CO t^ GO CC 00 b- 00 00 c .2 -m c3> m oo o HCDOOCOCN^'OOOC Na;sso5NHiooiio©oi^ooH(oo 9 > g) OJ > OJ OJ > > , ■*J ^* " J ^ > > > > 2 2 K K K £ 3 3 03 03 o3 5 2 2 B 03 2 £2 03 03 ' 03 rt Ih rt et XI -^ ^ ■° ! Sj: oJ XI CJ X > X X A 3 , V C 3 A 'C 3 'C 3 3 3 ^i 3 3 c "? £>< oj -r liHjJ CO a. ^h oj ^h |H t. h h ^ L - a > > > ^222 ■£ xi Xi Xi 3 i 3 P P v OJ A> S^ £ £ •<*',"* l c < 3 J 3 .3 CJ So &•* rt U ° s S 3 oj oj °^ Q C 3 W^> - i a fc CJ > rn c a a J t. TJO ■- 3 oil -* of 1 -2^-S^o w -g W -2 bo 3 . 3 4r ^ ^J ^ Q a. Z t» A ao f> a "is J. 2iO(g £ gO 03 rt "2 . -0 rt 3 3 >; >^ >; >; >, >^r£ c; & & & & & & a* "~ ^ ^ ^ ^ — _ - - c rt u 'C CJ • < a CJ B O J3 rt H OJ J>! 03 40 0, a pi £pS£" Oj=3-= =: t; "S ■£ ^3 3 3 w (B CO »6 d d C cS d |obb>bb^^- >b°ob£ > °&'b&bo u >'oooO*ob?£ & b S c3 £ ^ tj ^ >; di oS dl si +j -+J +:> +i 3 3 S. 3 3 , *a 3 3 , ^ 3 . c 333333-ai OJ _Q -^ -^ ^ >- 3 3 O 3 (Vot-iJ-iCvSt-it-jkC ^^ C'H^^'^^^^rS^^^^^p" "srSs" ;Q jQ ;g ;D ;Q ;Q ^ J jO £ £ £ *n *n rf 'n n eo *C rt q "in 'u ^'u'u'u'u o O "C o q o *-> =-* o u 3 °- 'c 'C "£. u 'c n *j^ '~ 3'C C 3 ei 1 "C *C *C "C HhOHr* CQ^HHCQHc-'QC HHcHc-'Hc-'fSa: z paHrtcrioQ HHHH s 1 os oj ; ! | ~ ~ - r; " d rt c3 i ri kI , i i rt i rt , rt rt rt 'si , , , vi ? rt rt , ~ r. ~z i ! ! ! ' ' . rt' ' 03 03 t- T3 T3 fc. t- t, t- uT3*CC T!' T3 t-"UT3 t-T3T3 t- t- u"0 u"0 t* "O "C "O "B in k. t-."C S rtflJrtrtOJrtdajcucDrt > 2 ^^^u>>>>> >cj,j,o^.>ooc;>o>y>>>>c;c;y^f. f>>.OUb>>i>iC. CJ rt ^ % * ** > > 2 > > C!!rafl]S]BWCi)5)Ci Qjrt^jQjrta^^rtrtrt^irtQjrt^^tuciirtrtrtqj z,- i^i rt ^i z. ■!. ■ ii ^ rt oj rt oj OJ C 5 EZZ S SSSEZZZZ2 ZEZZEZZSEEZSZEZZZZEEEZH ZZEEZZZp- S EEEZZZ ZEZZ >1 >, •s >> >> >> >> X j !>. >> >. >. ^W^-i^^^^^^^ >S >1 >i 1 >> >v >. >. >. >. bj • >•> >i >i >)>.>.>> c c .2 c c C 3 c M 3 3 a a BBS sBBbBBBB 3 B B £ B 3 3 3 B B C B a b 3 B 3 B 03 03 t. 03 03 S g. d 03 03 rio3cOo303c3;3C3o3c3o3 rt rt 03 r rt rt rt rt rt rt rt 03 rt rt rt rt rt a a ■S c- a Q a c a a C.£.CC.aD.c.O.CC-- 0. & £.r° £ £ £° a a c, a a & - .2 a c. a a a 0. a ^2 c ° a 5 S £ Woo S 2 > - 'a £ £ 3 3 £££££££ = £££ £ £ £ £ S S ~ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ a S o cc O O O OOO0OO0OOOO t- 000000 a ° ^ 0000 §o -g O cOO ■Sc3Q o ^oo^oo||uuqoouuuuuo oous uuoooo| t .2 CJ O O 13 t OOOO |.s B >> 3 c- « o3 .2 o o 1 s?-cl i rtejCJ*-^ CJ O "C "C O CJC^UU^UUOU .2r'C 'C "m "C "S "S "S "^ "C C rt"C X o3 'C 'C "C "E ? CJ CJ CJ rt csfoooo'E-^ £ rt cj "C T CJ l. h t< C t. t. EC O +- ■« > .ii ^ +^ .« ^OOQOOQQCJOu!>OCJi> cjOOO'rSOCJO. Hjj^H^jjHH-ij^^^^^^iJj^liij^^DJjCl -tJ+i+J+^+^+J.— ^ js +J -to -*^ +- : OSQ -H Q^SOi O W O O O CJ Q D 1) 1) li 4) (1)H t O 8 £GQ CJ O CJ CJ OJ OJ OJ OJ ; — w c -2 cj " o PC «3S o cd " o ; 5 W W c c P5 co .0 -• -"" 03ji- t pL, UU a OS-'-' o3d £T3T3'^lT3T3'-Z:'-5'OT3T3 u ^ "O tJ 'U'0-T3T!-^'T3'0't3^: rtCCrtCCrtrtCCC^CC^CCCC^CiSCS-H r-ie3c4Mc«dMMeScScJ^aiej!t«)dtid^cSfl3o3 '■^ •"" T 1 m T* CJ O Uu C 9rtrt±;rtrtJ-irtrtrt n ra rtrt n OT rtrtrtrt^-rtrtrt^ „ 03 03 03 •^ — ^ — cjcj-ficjcj-rj-noooo3t;oo3ojcjcjcj-;oooj' X OJ OJ "2 "2 '■§ "■? cc _o G ■" rt S -3 rt 03 tcC bl Slu.tT! ^O^^rtrt ~0 "U "0 "0 ■a §'E § W" OJ - CCCCCGrtP- e c a c rt rt rt rt rt rt _bp 01 M cc co « en '2 c rt rt rt rt co to so w rt rt rt si §5 <& ,*~. m ~ 2 03 rt rt rt rt >> W OOOCJOT3? p^'a "3 'S "3 *o *S > (£ ^i .2 cooc H OTl C3 -OU-Ow(JT! 3 a O -3 rt cj t3 -3 CJ CJ U CJ fe '5 > c E o "3 J > c '3 > t g eg eg ffltctc 03 o3«ggi;fCici3«SSS SSSS 2 Ch '3 "cj f 'tj'tj 5* j* 'S 'cj '0 c 'S o c 'S 'cj 'S 'cj t- 'S 'cj 'S c £ u CB CC rt 03 a « "3 '3 > > cfi cc cc cc CJ CJ CJ CJ d 4) q z£z o oSoSos-^^OJoS^.S OM1.WZOI1.Zj 0303^0303^^0303030^0303^0303030330303030, fcPHZCHPHZZP^&.PL.OPL,pHO&H(lH&HPHmPl,PHpHC rt rt rt rt rt rt , ** ■— 1 ChCmPhPhPhPli^;^ ^ rt O OJ • rt 03 *> OJ O Q PhPhZZ rt rt rt rt Ph CU Ph Ph 1 CN CO ^ ^ ,., 1 a> s~* OJ > 1 1 1 1 t^ 1 6 6 mZZ 1 > 3 M ■* % 1 -^ .5 4 >. J >> 1 1 ^ oj .-a 1-1. ^ ^ :3s 03 JS ^ M ^J ^ ^ si < 5 E 'i — PC a a — EC i c PC "3 L^ 1-1 p CO L. d . ci > c . ^ — > a > a : _ c -: E i c a E c C S '2 -! ?, 1 — 42 .- 03 ^ C C 3 a ooc 1 *- t. a I c e oi 0. < £ z t- P J 3 - 9 >-4 j: c c i rt - 4 c > - 4 c a ^0 oi c c ! r 0, - a, r -c — < OJ - 03 >- ■3 5 B t < < oj a ^ .i h-1 K a > ■c - c W a * oi > > r a B ? tx a at h4 b E r . 1 C a: 1 s c tx 1 — b, | •a CL r h3 CL C CC a cc — c — c a : s a b rt 03 >> OJ OJ .*. M & -1J a a - ►J > OJ a W a c > OJ T = t- S c - .- x Pm ° CD C 3s 2 >>^ ■* ^ C oj e g "° - S2S r 05 bl C E - M P? Z a ,31 j >-l pC _o ri ►J '5 - O 0) <) PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION APPLICATION OF WATER ON PORTION OF EDEN VALLEY WATERSHED, PLACER COUNTY, 1951 WATER USE STUDY "A" Location: T. 14 N., R. 9 E., M. D. B. & M., portions of Sections 16 and 21 Average elevation: 2,350 feet Drainage area: 384 acres (In acre-feet) Irrigated lands: 113 ceres Tules and brush: 1 1 acres Period Regulated inflow to irrigated lands Rainfall on watershed Total inflow Outflow Water retained in watershed Regulated water retained in watershed 5-1 to 5-31 58 56 58 58 56 286 114 114 ) 172 56 58 58 56 400 65 21 15 11 9 121 107 35 43 47 47 279 18* 6-1 to 6-30 35 7-lto7-31_ 43 8-1 to 8-31 47 9-1 to 9-30-.. 47 5 -1 to 9-30 190 Less applied water consumed by tules and brush (estimatec Applied water retained by irrigated lands . 44 146 Average retention of applied water by irrigated lands _ 1 . 3 feet 15.5 inches * Estimated from daily records of inflow, outflow, and precipitation. NOTES: The inflow stations for this study consisted of 15 diversions from the Boaidman Canal regularly measured by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The outflow station consisted of a water stage recorder on a drain, installed, rated, and oper- ated dining the study by the Division of Water Resources. The orchards in this watershed vary in size of trees from large to small. The side slopes are on about an eight per cent grade. Hillside native vegetation is pine forest and manzanita brush. Location: T. 11 N., R. 7 E., 8, 9, and 17; T. 12 N., R 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34 APPLICATION OF WATER IN PENRYN VALLEY, PLACER COUNTY, 1951 WATER USE STUDY "B" M. D. B. & M., portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 E., M. D. B. & M., portions of Sections 26, (In acre-feet) Average elevation: 500 feet Drainage area: 6,025 acres Irrigated lands: 3,240 acres Tules and brush: 1,020 acres Average retention of applied water by irrigated lands. 2.0 feet 24.4 inches Period Regulated inflow to irrigated lands Rainfall on watershed Total inflow Outflow- Water retained in watershed Regulated water retained in watershed 5-1 to 5-31 1,786 2,325 2,631 2,719 2,311 748 2,534 2,325 2,631 2,719 2,311 SOS 95 95 111 250 2,029 2.230 2,536 2,608 2,061 1,236* 6-1 to 6-30 2,230 7-1 to 7-31 2,536 8-1 to 8-3 1 2,608 9-1 to 9-30 _ 2,061 5-1 to 9-30 .. 11,772 748 ) 12,520 1,056 11,464 10,671 4,080 Applied water retained by irrigate 6,591 * Estimated from daily records of inflow, outflow, and precipitation. NOTES : Inflow stations for this study were at the head of the Antelope Canal and on the Red Ravine Canal at the Southern Pacific Railway crossing. The outflow stations were on Antelope Creek near Rocklin, and wastes from the Antelope Canal at Clover Valley Reservoir and at the end of the canal. All stations were installed, rated, and operated by the Division of Water Resources. The lower three-fourths of Penryn Valley has a slope of about one per cent and the upper fourth has a slope of about four per cent. Orchards vary from very good to poor. Hillside native vegetation is oak and brush. APPENDIX L 221 APPLICATION OF WATER ON SAILOR RAVINE WATERSHED, PLACER COUNTY, 1951 WATER USE STUDY "C" Location: T. 13 N., T. 13 N., R. 8 E. R. 7 E., M. D. B. & M., portions of Section 36; M. D. B. & M., portions of Section 31 (In acre-feet) Average elevation: 1,500 feet Drainage area: 360 acres Irrigated lands: 209 acres Tules and brush: 16 acres Average retention of applied water by irrigated lands. 2.0 feet 23.4 inches Period Regulated inflow to irrigated lands Rainfall on watershed Total inflow Outflow \\ uii'i retained in watershed Regulated water retained in watershed 5-1 to 5-31 96 158 164 164 158 740 98 98 ) 194 158 164 164 158 838 71 48 50 51 61 123 110 114 113 97 36* 6-1 to 6-30 110 7-1 to 7-31 114 8-1 to 8-31 113 9-1 to 9-30 97 5-1 to 9-30 281 557 470 64 Applied water retained by irrigat< d lands 406 '■> Estimated from daily records of inflow outflow and precipitation. NOTES: The inflow stations for this study consisted of 3 Nevada Irrigation District diversion boxes on the Vernon Extension Canal and Roehr Pipe Line, regularly measured by the District. The outflow station consisted of a water stage recorder on Sailor Kivint below the Brands Fancli installed rated and operated by the Division of Water Resources. This watershed is characterized by excellent orchards, which are mostly cover- cropped, and have slopes averaging about six per cent. Hillside native vegetation is mostly oak. APPLICATION OF WATER ON SHIRLAND DITCH WATERSHED, PLACER COUNTY, 1951 WATER USE STUDY "D" Location: T. 12 N., R. 8 E., M. D. B. & M., portions of Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 (In acre-feet) Average elevation: 1,050 feet Drainage area: 1,325 acres Irrigated lands: 687 acres Tules and brush: 121 acres Period Regulated inflow to irrigated lands Rainfall on watershed Total inflow Outflow Water retained in watershed Regulated water retained in watershed 5-1 to 5-31 228 465 482 434 415 361 589 465 482 434 415 128 81 56 59 105 461 384 426 375 310 104* 6-1 to 6-30. . 384 7-1 to 7-31 426 8-1 to 8-31 375 9-1 to 9-30 _ 310 5-1 to 9-30 2,024 361 ) 2,385 429 1,956 1,599 Less applied water consumed by tules Applied water retained by irrigate and brush (estimate! d lands - . - 484 1,115 Average retention of applied water by irrigated lands 1.6 feet 19.5 inches * Estimated from daily records of inflow, outflow, and precipitation. NOTES: The inflow station for this study was located on the Shirland Ditch at its head. The outflow stations were located on Mormon Creek above the South Canal and on the Shirland Drain near Scott's Corner. The stations were installed, rated, and oper- ated by the Division of Water Resources. Tlic lands irrigated in this watershed are on eight per cent or steeper slopes. Hill- side native vegetation is mostly oak and brush with scattered pine. APPENDIX M RESERVOIR YIELD STUDIES i 223 I TABLE OF CONTENTS RESERVOIR YIELD STUDIES Page Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Jackson Meadows Reservoir 225 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Lake Valley Reservoir 225 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Cisco Reservoir 226 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Rollins Reservoir 226 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, French Meadows Reservoir 227 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield to Foresthill Divide From French Meadows-Pagge Conduit 227 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Big Reservoir 228 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Sugar Pine Reservoir 228 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Pagge Reservoir 229 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Forbes Reservoir, Foresthill Divide Project 229 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Enlarged Big Reservoir, For- esthill Divide Project 230 Seasonal Summary of Monthly Yield Study, Sugar Pine Reservoir, For- esthill Divide Project 230 Yield Study, Camp Far West Reservoir 231 Yield Study, Coon Creek Reservoir Plus November Through April Combie- Ophir Diversion of 100 Second-Feet 231 Yield Study, Doty Ravine Reservoir Plus November Through April Diver- sion From Auburn Ravine Canal 232 Yield Study, Lincoln Reservoir Plus November Through April Diversion From Auburn Ravine Canal 232 Yield Study, Auburn Ravine Reservoir Plus November Through April Spill From Wise Power House 233 Yield Study, Whitney Ranch Reservoir Plus November Through April Diversion From Auburn Ravine 233 Yield Study, Clover Valley Reservoir Plus November Through April Diver- sion From Auburn Ravine 234 (224) APPENDIX M 225 SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, JACKSON MEADOWS RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) itorage capacity: 45,000 acre-feet Seoso rial yield: 45,100 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Seasun Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Middle Fork Yuba River at dam site Diversion from Haypress ( 'n-rk Total inflow Evapora- tion Fish release Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Diversion to Milton- Bowman Conduit* D20-21 __- 35,600 37,000 36,300 10.800 33,800 30,900 37,000 34,100 31,600 35,000 17,000 36,800 35,000 30,600 80,900 88,200 62,800 17,200 68,200 47,000 111,100 72,300 35,100 68,100 23,100 76,700 43,100 35,200 66,700 36,400 35,900 24,500 7,200 22,100 16,200 38,100 25,900 12,700 21,800 8,800 26,000 12,700 11,100 25,500 117,300 124,100 87,300 24,400 90,300 63,200 149,200 98,200 47,800 89,900 31,900 102,700 55,800 46,300 92,200 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,200 1,700 1,700 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,700 1,200 1,600 1 ,600 1,700 1,700 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3.600 3,600 3,600 3,600 41,700 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 4.5,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 45,100 34,700 72,300 37,600 16,900 15,700 92,600 50,700 36,100 32,600 7,300 300 36,700 35,600 37,000 36.300 10,800 33,800 30,900 37.000 34,100 31,000 35,000 17,000 36,800 35,000 30,600 35,700 76,400 97,400 82,700 22-23 23-24 45,100 24-25 62,000 925-26 60,800 26-27 120,300 27-28 95,800 28-29 29-30 45,100 81,200 930-31 31-32 45,100 77,700 32-33 33-34 52,400 45,400 34-35 81,800 Average .. 59,700 21,700 81,400 1,600 3,600 44,900 28,900 71,300 Yield plus spill up to capacity of conduit. SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, LAKE VALLEY RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) torage capacity: 41,000 acre -feet Seasonal yield: 103,800 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, North Fork of North Fork American River Diversion from Fordyce Lake Diversion from Rattle- snake Creek Diversion from South Fork Yuba River Total inflow Evapora- tion Fish release Yield Spill* Storage, September 30 )20-21 27,600 29,600 28,500 6,500 26,500 22,400 31,200 22,400 18,900 26,200 10,300 27,300 26,300 27,600 10,100 10,500 8,500 1,700 8,200 4,600 12,200 8,000 3,700 5,900 2,200 8,300 4,100 3,600 8,500 57,100 57,100 57,100 54,000 57,100 56,400 59,400 58,700 54,000 58,600 54,000 56,100 55,600 54,000 57,100 7,600 3,200 4,600 4,100 6,100 4,500 7,100 3,000 6,400 5,000 4,800 4,800 4,000 6,700 4,300 70,300 43,800 52,100 23,900 61,400 46,200 80,200 51,800 38,200 60,100 28,900 57,400 41,700 41,900 50,400 145.100 114,600 122.300 83,700 132,800 111,700 1 58,900 121,500 102,300 129,600 89,900 126,600 105,400 100,200 120,300 900 900 900 700 900 900 900 900 800 900 800 900 900 900 900 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 100,400 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,800 103,400 103,800 103,800 103,800 15,000 6,700 17,500 6,900 9,900 44,200 24,400 10.400 4,100 500 4,000 11,500 27,000 21-2'» 29.600 22-23 28,500 23-24. _ 6,500 24-25 26,500 )25-26 22,400 26-27__. 31.200 27-28.. : 22,400 28-29.- 18,900 29-30 20,200 )30-31 _-_ 10,300 31-32_ _ 27,300 32-33. 33-34.. 20,300 22,000 34-35 25,500 Average 6,700 56,400 5,100 49,900 118,100 900 1,200 103,500 10,700 Maximum diversions into Lake Valley Reservoir would not be made when reservoir spills. 8—81627 226 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION Storage capacity: 100,000 acre-feet SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, CISCO RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) Seasonal yield: 145,800 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, South Fork Yuba River :tt dam site Diversion from Fordyce Lake Total inflow Evapora- tion Fish release Yield Spill Storage, September 30 to Spaulding Power House No. 1* 1920-21 70,000 74,900 74,000 18,500 59,200 55,000 77,900 63,400 44,800 70,600 24,900 72,100 63,700 39,700 160,700 153,700 124,800 44,600 138,100 94,000 190.000 145.000 81.800 125,900 54,500 156,800 90,500 76,400 151,600 57,100 57,100 57,100 54,000 57,100 56,400 59,400 58,700 54,000 58,600 54,000 56,100 55,600 54,000 57,100 217,800 210,800 181,900 98,600 195,200 150,400 249,400 203,700 135,800 184,500 108,500 212,900 146,100 130,400 208,700 1,500 1,700 1,700 1,100 1,500 1,600 1,800 1,700 1,400 1,700 1,200 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,600 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 139,100 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 145,800 51,200 28,100 71,700 63,500 4,000 11,100 24,400 70,000 74,900 74,000 18,500 59,200 55,000 77,900 63,400 44,800 70,600 24,900 72,100 63,700 39,700 09,400 145,800 151,200 151,200 145,800 145,800 145 800 21-22 22-23 _ 23-24 24-25 ._. - 1925-26 26-27 151,200 1 55 700 27-28 ... . 28-29 ... . 145,800 148,100 145,800 148,100 145 800 29-30 . _ 31-32 32-33 33-34 145 800 34-35 148,100 Average 119,200 56,400 175,600 1,500 7,200 145,400 16,900 148,000 Yield plus spill up to capacity of conduit. SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, ROLLINS RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) Storage capacity: 70,000 acre-feet including 5,000 acre-feet for debris storage Seasonal yield: 271,500 acre-feet Season Water supply Storage, Octol'i'l I Estimated runoff, Bear River at dam site Inflow from Drum System* Total inflow Distribution of water supply Evaporation Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Deficiency, in percent 1920-21 ._ 21-22. _ 22-23- 23-24 . . 24-25- _. 1925-26... 26-27 . . 27-28. _ 28-29 - 29-30 .... 1930-31- 31-32- 32-33 . 33-34.. 34-35._ Average 38,900 39,900 44,100 5,000 47,400 35,600 65,000 70,000 30,000 59.900 5.000 47,300 15,000 12,100 250,200 224,500 187,700 33,200 138,000 125.100 270.500 169,300 64,400 106,700 33,100 130,600 64,400 62,600 178,500 178.200 144,100 151,200 84.400 154,700 133,500 126,500 213,000 183,800 260,300 178,800 156.800 175,900 207,200 225,800 428,400 368,600 338,900 117,600 292,700 258,600 397,000 382,300 248,200 367,000 211,900 287,400 240,300 269,800 404,300 2.300 2,300 2,500 400 2.500 1,500 2,700 2,700 1,200 2,700 1,100 1,800 1,100 1,200 2,700 259,400 271,500 271,500 156,300 228,400 268,900 271,500 272,200 271,500 271,500 262,800 243,300 271,500 271,500 266,700 127,800 93,800 60,700 19,400 93,400 102,400 15,500 62,900 2,900 78,300 38,900 39,900 44,100 5,000 47,400 35,600 65,000 70,000 30,000 59,900 5,000 47.300 15,000 12,100 68,700 **42.6 **15.9 **1.0 3.2 10.6 1.8 135,900 171.600 307,500 1.900 257,200 43,800 * Record of Drum Canal plus Lake Valley Pipe Line minus Boardman Diversion minus spill to Towle Canal. ** Bowman Reservoir and conduits, constructed in 1927. would have reduced these deficiencies. APPENDIX M 227 SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, FRENCH MEADOWS RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) torage capacity: 74,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 64,000 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of wain supplj Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Middle Fork American River at dam site Diversion from Duncan Creek Total inflow Evaporation Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Release tu Deep Canyon Power 1 louse* )20-21_ . . _. 53,700 55,700 58,500 23,300 57,000 49,800 58,200 51,500 44,300 53,100 22,000 57,100 53,900 40,100 121.500 124,200 112,000 26,800 124,900 54,400 130,100 87,800 49,000 70,200 29,700 109.400 54,900 43,500 100,600 26,200 23,300 23,000 4,000 19.600 11,000 24.800 20.200 9,800 14,700 5,200 19,100 10,200 8,700 18,300 147,700 147,500 135,000 30,800 144,500 65,400 154,900 108,000 58,800 84,900 34,900 128,500 65,100 52,200 118,900 2,000 2.000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2.000 59,500 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64.000 32,500 79,500 66,200 44,800 6,600 80,500 48,700 10,100 27,400 2,300 36,400 53,700 55,700 58,500 23,300 57,000 49,800 58,200 51,500 44,300 53,100 22,000 57,100 53,900 40,100 56,600 72 800 21-22 83,700 84,000 64 000 22-23 23-24 ... 24-25 . .. 79 200 (25-26 70 600 26-27- _ . 81 700 27-28. 79 300 28-29 29-30 64,000 70 400 (30-31. - 64 000 31-32 73 200 32-33 .- _ 66 300 33-34 r,i iiiiii 34-35. 77 100 Average. . . 82,600 15,900 98,500 2,000 63,700 29,000 72,900 Yield plus spill up to capacity of conduit. SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD TO FORESTHILL DIVIDE FROM FRENCH MEADOWS-PAGGE CONDUIT (In acre-feet) Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Release from French Meadows Reservoir Diversion from Deep and Lost Canyons Diversion from Secret Canyon Diversion from Eldorado and Bullion Creeks Total Conduit losses Release to Foresthill Divide Remainder to Pagge Reservoir (20-21 72,800 83,700 84,000 64,000 79.200 70,600 81,700 79,300 64,000 70,400 64,000 73.200 66,300 64.000 77,100 56,300 48,500 50,300 8,500 44,600 23,000 66,200 43,100 20,300 31,200 10.900 47,100 21.000 18,100 46,100 17,200 13,300 15,300 2,400 13,500 6,800 20,300 10.100 6,000 9,500 3,200 14,300 6,300 5,300 13,300 12,600 11,200 11,300 1,400 9,900 4,800 14,400 8,200 4,400 6,900 2,200 10,600 4,400 3.800 10,400 158,900 156,700 160,900 76,300 147.200 105.200 182,600 140,700 94.700 118,000 80.300 145,200 98,000 91.200 146,900 8,000 7,800 8,100 3,900 7,500 5,300 9,100 7,100 4,800 5,900 4,100 7,300 5,100 4.500 7.400 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 17.500 17,500 17,500 133,400 21-22 .. 131,400 22-23 135,300 23-24 .. -. 54,900 122,200 82,400 125-26 26-27. 156,000 27-28 116,100 28-29 29-30 72,400 94,600 (30-31. . . . 58.700 31-32 1 20.400 32-33 75,400 33-34. . 69 200 34-35 1 22,000 Average 72,900 35,700 10.500 7,800 126,900 6,400 17,500 102,900 228 PLACEE COUNTY INVESTIGATION SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, BIG RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) Storage capacity: 2,200 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 1,500 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, North Fork Forbes Creek at dam site Evaporation Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Deficiency, in per cent 1920-21 1,300 1,500 1 ,400 400 1,400 1,000 1,400 1,100 600 600 1,000 600 100 2,900 3,000 2,500 600 2,900 1,300 3,100 2,300 1,100 1,600 700 2,500 1,200 1,100 2,600 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1 ,500 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,400 1,500 1 ,500 1,500 O ^ ^ CO o to o o o o o o ooooo ooooo ooooo 1,300 1,500 1,400 400 1,400 1,000 1.400 1,100 600 600 1,000 600 100 1,100 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 1925-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 1930-31 20 31-32 7 32-33 33-34 34-35 2,000 100 1,500 300 SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, SUGAR PINE RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) Storage capacity: 10,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 7,200 acre-fee? Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Shirttail Creek at dam site Release and spills from Big Reservoir Total inflow Evapora- tion Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Deficiency, in percent 1920-21 6,200 7,000 7,100 3,500 6,700 5,700 6,800 6,200 4,600 5,200 2,000 6,000 5,100 3,500 12,000 12,300 10,400 2,400 11,700 5,500 12,800 9,500 4,400 6,600 3,000 10,100 5,100 4,300 10,800 1,500 2,700 2,500 1,500 1,800 1,600 2,600 2,500 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,500 13,500 15,000 12,900 3,900 13,500 7,100 15,400 12,000 5,900 8,100 4,200 11,500 6,600 5,800 12,300 300 400 400 300 400 400 400 400 300 300 200 300 300 200 400 7,000 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7.200 6,600 5,200 2,700 500 6,700 5,000 1,700 6,200 7,000 7,100 3,500 6,700 5,700 6,800 6,200 4,600 5,200 2,000 6,000 5,100 3,500 0,500 3 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 1925-26 26-27 27-28 ■>8-29 29-30. . 1930-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 8,100 1,800 9,900 300 7,200 1,900 APPENDIX M SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, PAGGE RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) 22! I Storage capacity: 69,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 90,000 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Pagge Creek at dam site Inflow from French Meadows- Pagge Conduit SpUl, Sugar Pine Reservoir Total inflow Evapora- tion Yield Spill Storage, September 30 Release to Pickering Bar Power House* 920-"l 19,0(1(1 50,400 51,000 10,900 51, 100 43,300 53,800 10,100 30,900 39,500 9,600 40,900 35,100 10,800 9,600 9,900 8,300 2.000 9,400 4.400 10,300 7,600 3,600 5,300 2,400 8,100 4,000 3,500 8,700 133,400 131,400 L35.300 54,900 122,200 82,400 156,000 110.100 72,400 94,600 58,700 120,400 75,400 09,200 1 22.000 6,600 5,200 2,700 500 6,700 5,000 1,700 143,000 147,900 148,800 56,900 134,300 87,300 173,000 128,700 76,000 99,900 01,100 128,500 79,400 72,700 132,400 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,200 1,300 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,300 82,700 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90.000 90,000 9,400 55,800 56,800 8,800 3,800 71,100 45,000 9,000 49,600 50,400 51,000 10,900 51,100 43,300 53,800 40.100 30,900 39,500 9,600 40,900 35,100 10,800 48.900 92,100 21-22 _ 115,000 22-23 23-24 24-25 121,300 90,000 98,800 125-26 93,800 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 129,900 122,000 90,000 90,000 930-31 31-32 90,000 90,000 32-33 33-34 90,000 90,000 34-35 99,000 Average 6,500 102,900 1,900 111,300 1,200 89,500 17,300 100,200 Yield plus spill up to cap;::itj of conduit SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, FORBES RESERVOIR, FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT (In acre-feet) itorage capacity: 5,300 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 7,100 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Deficiency, in per cent Surplus Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Forbes 1 'leek Diversion from Bullion 1 ' k Total inflow Evapora- tion Yield Spill Storage, September 30 diverted to Big Reservoir 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 125-26 1,700 1,700 1,800 1,300 200 1,400 700 800 1,400 1,200 4,100 4,200 3,400 700 3,300 1,900 5,000 3,200 1 ,500 2,400 900 3.400 1,700 1,500 3,400 12,900 11.700 12,000 2,900 12,900 6,400 14,700 11,000 5,100 7,200 3,000 11,200 5,900 5,000 1 1 ,000 17,000 15,900 15,400 3,600 16,200 8,300 19,700 14,200 6,600 9,600 4,500 14,000 7,000 0,500 14,400 300 300 200 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 200 200 200 200 6,§00 7,100 7,100 5,300 0,000 7,100 6,800 7,100 7,000 6,500 5,200 o.ooo 7,100 7,100 6,600 8,200 8,500 8,000 8,100 2,100 11,500 7,000 2,100 G.400 500 400 6,400 1,700 1,700 1,800 1,300 200 1,400 700 800 1,400 1,200 1,200 4 25 7 4 1 8 27 7 7 8,200 8,500 7,200 8,100 2,100 ■'0-27 10,700 27-28 0,500 28-29 - 29-30 .. 2,100 J30-31 31-32 6,400 500 33-34. 400 34-35 6,400 2,700 8,900 11,600 200 6,700 4,600 4,500 230 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, ENLARGED BIG RESERVOIR, FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT (In acre-feef) Seasonal yield: 7,200 acre-feet Storage capacity: 6,500 acre-feet (remainder credited to Sugar Pine Reservoir) Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, Diversion from Bullion Creek Total inflow Evapora- tion Yield Spill Storage, September, 30 Deficiency, in pen-cut tributary Forbes Creek Regular Spill 1920-21 21-22 2,500 2,600 2,800 2,000 500 2,200 1.200 1,400 2,200 1,800 300 2,800 2,900 2,400 500 2,200 1,300 3,300 2,200 1,000 1 ,600 000 2,300 1,100 1,000 2,300 17,000 15,500 10,000 3,800 17,200 8,400 19,600 14,600 0,700 9,000 4.700 14,900 7,800 6,600 14,600 8,200 8,500 7,200 8,100 2,100 10.700 0,500 2,100 0,400 500 400 0,400 28,000 20,9(10 .'."..OOO 4,300 27,500 1 1 ,800 33,600 23,300 7,700 13,300 5,300 23,000 9,400 8,000 23,300 300 300 300 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 100 300 300 200 300 8,500 8,800 8,800 0,900 8,200 8,800 8,700 8,800 8,700 8,000 6,600 8,100 8,800 8,800 8,500 10,700 17.700 10.300 17,100 4,300 22,900 15,300 3,700 13,000 700 500 12,900 2,500 2,000 2,800 2,000 500 2,200 1 ,200 1,400 2,200 1,800 300 1,900 ■J 23-°4 .. 22 24-25 1925-26 26-27 7 1 27-28 •'8-29 1 29-30 9 ' 1930-31 25 31-32 8 33-34 34-35 3 1,800 11,800 4,500 18,100 200 8,400 9,400 SEASONAL SUMMARY OF MONTHLY YIELD STUDY, SUGAR PINE RESERVOIR, FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT (In acre-feet) Storage capacity: 17,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 10,400 acre-feet Water supply Distribution of water supply Season Storage, October 1 Estimated runoff, North Shirt- tail Canyon below Big Reservoir Diversion from Big Reservoir Spill from Big Reservoir Total inflow Evapora- tion Yield plus diversion from Big Reservoir Spill Storage, September 30 Deficiency, in percent 1920-21 11,900 12,000 11,900 3,700 11,900 10,500 11,900 10,700 4,400 3,500 10,700 5,300 7,800 8,000 6,500 1,300 6,300 3,500 9,400 0,100 2,800 4,500 1,700 0.400 3,100 J. Slid 6,500 1,600 1,600 1,600 1 ,200 1,600 1,600 1 ,000 1,000 1,000 1,600 1,200 1,500 1,600 1 ,000 1,000 10,700 17,700 10.30(1 17,100 4,300 22,900 15,300 3,700 13,000 700 500 12,900 .'0,100 27,300 24,400 2,500 -'.->.< 9,400 33,900 23,000 4,400 9,800 2,900 20,900 5,400 4,900 21,000 500 500 500 300 500 400 500 400 300 300 100 500 400 200 500 9,900 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 6,300 9,700 10,400 10,000 9,800 3,800 10,300 13,000 5,900 21,000 13,400 11,900 12,000 1 1 ,900 3,700 1 1 ,900 10,500 11,900 10,700 4,400 3,500 10,700 5,300 10,700 5 21-22 •'2-23 23-24 24-25 1925-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 . 29-30 _. 1930-31 . 39 31-32 7 3 7 -33 33-34 . 4 34-35- (i 5,100 1,600 9,400 16,100 400 10,000 5,000 APPENDIX M 231 YIELD STUDY CAMP FAR WEST RESERVOIR (In acre-feet) rapacity: 104,000 acre-feet Yield: 90,000 acre-feet November — May June — October Spill, end of May Defi- ciency, in percent Season Runoff Demand, 30% of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 70% of annual demand Apparent storage, end of October Apparent deficiency, end of October Average summer storage Evapora- tion Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October 920-21 467,000 409,000 364,000 23,000 239,000 223,000 450,000 296,000 112,000 355,000 145,000 234,000 51,000 126,000 354,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 30,800 104,000 104,000 104.000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 58,800 99,000 104,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 41,000 41,000 41,0(10 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 36,000 41,000 32,200 4,200 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 72,500 27,300 67,500 72,500 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 3,100 5,800 6,200 34,800 34,800 34,800 34,800 34,800 34.800 34,800 34,800 34,800 34.800 34,800 30,200 34,800 32,200 7,300 336,000 312,800 267,800 108,000 116,800 353,800 199,800 15,800 258,800 48,800 137,800 253,200 21-22 22-23 23-24 35.8 24-25 925-26 26-27 27-28 28-29-. 29-30 930-31. _ 31-32 . 32-33 8.1 33-34 34-35.. .. Average. 256,000 27,000 63,000 160,600 YIELD STUDY COON CREEK RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL COMBIE-OPHIR DIVERSION OF 100 SECOND-FEET (In acre-feet) lapacity: 59,000 acre -feet Yie Id: 56,000 acre-feet November — May June — October Spill, end of May Season Estimated runoff Diver- sion Demand, 30% of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 70% of annual demand Apparent storage, end of October Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage Evapora- tion Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October Defi- ciency, in percent 920-21.. ... .. 44,600 40,000 33.500 5,900 24,600 22,300 48,200 30,200 11,500 19,000 5,900 23,300 11,500 11,200 31,800 35,700 35.700 35.700 35,700 35,700 35,700 35,700 3.5.700 3.5,700 35,700 35,700 35,700 35,700 3.5,700 35,700 16,800 16.800 1 6,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 n;. sou 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 59,000 59,000 59,000 42.100 44,600 44,600 59,000 59,000 47,700 44,300 27.900 42,200 31,600 30,100 50,700 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 19,800 19,800 1 9,800 2,900 5,400 .5,400 19,800 19,800 8,500 5,100 3,000 11,500 11,300 7,600 9,100 39.400 39.400 39,400 22,500 25,000 25,000 39,400 39.400 28,100 24,700 8,300 22,600 12,000 10,500 31,100 2,500 2,500 2,500 1.800 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,100 2,000 900 1,800 1,200 1,100 2,200 17,300 17,300 17,300 1,100 3.400 3,400 17.300 17.300 6,400 3,100 1,200 9,300 12,200 8.800 10,200 4,500 17,200 10,700 11,500 7,400 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-2.5 925-26 26-27 27-28 ... . 28-29 29-30 930-31 . 21.8 31-32 33-34 15.7 18.2 34-3.5 24,200 35,700 16,800 39,200 3,400 232 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION YIELD STUDY DOTY RAVINE RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL DIVERSION FROM AUBURN RAVINE CANAL (In acre-feet) Capacity: 32,000 acre •feet Yie Id: 28,000 acre-feet November — May June — October Spill, end of May Season Esti- mated runoff I Aver- sion Demand, 20% of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 80% of annual demand Apparent storage, end of October Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage 1' \ a | mi- ration Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October Defi- ciency, in percent 1 920-2 1. . 14,200 17,700 10,500 2,000 7,800 7,000 15,200 9,500 3,600 6,000 1,900 7,300 3,600 3,500 10,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 31,500 31,500 31,500 25,500 26,000 25,600 31,500 31,500 27,100 25,600 20,200 24,700 21,100 20,900 27,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 22,400 9,100 9,100 9,100 3,100 3,600 3,200 9,100 9,100 4,700 3,200 2,300 5,000 2,200 1,300 1,500 20,300 20,300 20,300 14,300 14,800 14,400 20,300 20,300 15,900 14,400 9,000 13,500 9,900 9,700 16,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,300 2,400 2,300 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,300 1,600 2,200 1,700 1,700 2,500 6,100 6,100 6,100 800 1,200 900 6,100 6,100 2,200 900 100 2,500 3,800 3,000 3,200 100 4,700 2,500 2,000 1,500 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 1925-26 26-27., 27-28 28-29 29-30 1930-31 13.6 31-32 32-33 10.7 33-34 11.4 34-35 . Average 7,700 23,000 5,600 22,400 700 YIELD STUDY LINCOLN RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL DIVERSION FROM AUBURN RAVINE CANAL (In acre-feet) Capacity: 15,000 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 17,500 acre-feet November-May June-October Spill, end of May Season Esti- mated runoff Diver- sion Demand, 20% of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 80% of annual demand Apparent storage, end of October Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage Evapo- ration Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October Defi- ciency, in percent 1920-21 52,550 49,910 39,380 7,020 28,970 26,220 56,710 35,520 13,520 22,360 6,960 27,390 13,520 13,160 37,400 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 12,520 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 12,460 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,480 1,540 7,500 7,500 7,500 5,520 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 5,400 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 875 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 870 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,355 2.410 43,050 40,410 29,880 18,470 16,720 47,210 26,020 4,020 12,860 17,890 4,020 3,660 27,900 21-22 22-23 23-24 13.5 24-25 1925-26 26-27 27-28. . . 28-29. 29-30.. 1930-31 13.8 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 Average 28,710 9,000 3,500 14,000 • 19,470 APPENDIX M YIELD STUDY AUBURN RAVINE RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL SPILL FROM WISE POWER HOUSE (In acre-feet) 2X\ Capacity: 11,700 acre -feet Yield 13,000 acre-feet November — May June — October Spill, end of May Season Esti- mated runoff Diver- sion Demand. 20' , of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 80% of annual demand Apparent *tnr:igc>, end of October Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage Evapo- ration Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October Defi- ciency, in percent 1920-21 21,700 19,400 16,100 3,000 11,800 10.800 23.300 14,600 5.500 9,200 2,800 11,200 5,500 5,400 15,300 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2.600 2,600 2,600 11,500 11,500 11,500 10,900 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 10,700 11,500 11,500 1 1 .500 11,500 10,400 10,400 10.400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 1.100 1,100 1,100 500 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 300 1,100 1,100 1,100 1.100 6,300 6,300 6,300 5,700 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 5,500 6,300 6,300 6,300 6,300 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 500 600 600 600 600 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 100 200 17,600 15,800 12,500 7,700 7,200 19,700 11,000 1.900 5,600 7,100 1,900 1,800 11,700 21-22- 22-23 23-24 0.8 24-25 1925-26- 26-27 - 27-28 28-29- 29-30 - 1930-31 31-32 1.5 32-33 33-34 34-35 . 11,700 10,000 2,600 10,400 8,100 YIELD STUDY WHITNEY RANCH RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL DIVERSION FROM AUBURN RAVINE Capacity: 10,300 acre-feet (In acre-feet) Yield: 9,500 acre-feet June — October Spill, end of May Season Esti- mated runoff Diver- sion Demand, 20% of annual demand Storage, end of May Demand, 80% of annual demand Apparent storage, end of October Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage Evapo- ration Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October Defi- ciency, in percent 1920-21 21-22 3,000 3,000 3,900 200 3,100 2,700 2,800 800 1,000 1,900 700 1,800 1,000 1.600 3,200 1 1 ,000 1 1 ,000 1 1 ,000 1 1 ,000 1 1 ,000 11,000 11,000 1 1 ,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1.900 1,900 1,900 1,900 10,000 10.000 10,000 9,400 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10.000 10.000 9,900 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7.600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 2,400 2,400 2,400 1,800 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,300 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 ---- 6,200 6,200 6,200 5,600 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,100 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,200 2,300 2,300 2.300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 2,100 2,200 3,100 2,200 1,900 2,000 200 1,100 900 200 800 2,400 22-23 23-24 . . 6.3 24-25 — 1925-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 — 1930-31 31-32 32-33 33-34 34-35 ... 2,000 11,000 1,900 7,600 1,300 234 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION YIELD STUDY CLOVER VALLEY RESERVOIR PLUS NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL DIVERSION FROM AUBURN RAVINE (In acre-feet) Capacity: 21 ,600 acre-feet Seasonal yield: 22,000 acre-feet Season 1920-21. 21-22. 22-23. 23-24. 24-25. 1925-26- 26-27- 27-28. 28-29. 29-30- 1930-31- 31-32. 32-33. 33-34. 34-35. A vera November-May Esti- mated runoff 2,700 2,400 2,000 400 1,500 1,800 2,900 1,800 700 1,200 400 1,400 700 700 1,900 2,000 Diver- sion 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22,00(1 Demand, 20% of annual demand 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4.400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 Storage, end of May 20,300 21,300 21,300 20,800 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,300 21,100 21,300 20,800 21,300 21,100 20,900 21,300 June-October Demand, sir, ,,i annual demand 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 Apparent storage, end of I letoliei 2,700 3,700 3,700 3,200 3,700 3,700 3.700 3,700 3,500 3,700 3,200 3,700 3.500 3.300 3,700 Apparent defi- ciency, end of October Average summer storage 11,500 12,500 12,500 12,000 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,300 12,500 12,000 12,500 12,300 12,100 12,500 Evapo- ration 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 Storage, end of October Defi- ciency, end of October 1,800 2,800 2,800 2.300 2,800 2,800 2.800 2.800 2,600 2,800 2,300 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,800 Spill, end of May 500 1,100 100 900 2.000 2,000 100 600 500 Defi ciency, in percent APPENDIX N ESTIMATES OF COST ( 235 ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Estimated Cost of Jackson Meadows Dam and Reservoir 237 Estimated Cost of Haypress Diversion and Tunnel 237 Estimated Cost of Lake Valley Dam and Reser- voir . 238 Estimated Cost of Lake Pordyce Diversion Conduit _ 238 Estimated Cost of Rattlesnake Diversion Conduit 239 Estimated Cost of South Fork Yuba River Di- version Conduit 239 Estimated Cost of Lake Valley Pipe Line__ 240 Estimated Cost of Lake Valley Power House__ 240 Estimated Cost of Cisco Dam and Reservoir 241 Estimated Cost of Pordyce Diversion Conduit-- 241 Estimated Cost of Woodchuck Dam and Reser- voir __ 242 Estimated Cost of Rattlesnake Diversion Conduit 242 Estimated Cost of Cisco Power House No. 1 .. 243 Estimated Cost of Cisco Reservoir Tunnel.. 243 Estimated Cost of Cisco Power House No. 2 _ 244 Estimated Cost of Rollins Dam and Reservoir__ 244 Estimated Cost of Chicago Park Canal Diver- sion 24.") Estimated Cost of Chicago Park Canal 245 Estimated Cost of Chicago Park Power House __ 246 Estimated Cost of French Meadows Dam and Reservoir 246 Estimated Cost of Duncan Creek Diversion and Conduit 247 Estimated Cost of French Meadows-Deep Can- yon Conduit 247 Estimated Cost of Deep Canyon Power House __ 248 Estimated Cost of Deep Canyon Diversion and Conduit _ 248 Estimated Cost of Lost Canyon Diversion and Tunnel 249 Estimated Cost of Secret Canyon Diversion and Tunnel 249 Estimated Cost of El Dorado Creek Diversion and Tunnel . 250 Estimated Cost of Bullion Creek Diversion and Conduit _ 250 Estimated Cost of Foresthill Canal ._ 251 Estimated Cost of Sugar Pine Canal 251 Estimated Cost of Pagge Reservoir Tunnel 251 Estimated Cost of Pagge Dam and Reservoir__ 252 Estimated Cost of Sugar Pine Dam and Reser- voir 252 Estimated Cost of Iowa Hill Canal 253 Page Estimated Cost of Iowa Hill Pumping Plant and Pine Line 253 Estimated Cost of Pagge-Pickering Bar Conduit 254 Estimated Cost of Sugar Pine-Pickering Bar Conduit 254 Estimated Cost of Pickering Bar Tunnel— . 254 Estimated Cost of Pickering Bar Power House 255 Estimated Cost of Forbes Dam and Reservoir 255 Estimated Cost of Enlarged Morning Star Dam and Big Reservoir 256 Estimated Cost of Sugar Pine Dam and Reser- voir 257 Estimated Cost of Diversion and Supply Canals, Foresthill Divide Project ' 258 Estimated Cost of Foresthill Divide Distribu- tion System 258 Estimated Cost of Camp Far West Dam and Reservoir 259 Estimated Cost of Bear River Canal 259 Estimated Cost of Siphon, Conduit, and Distri- bution System for Lands North of Bear River 260 Estimated Cost of Conduit and Distribution System for Lands South of Bear River 261 Estimated Cost of Coon Creek Dam and Reser- voir 262 Estimated Cost of Coon Creek Diversion, Con- duit, and Distribution System 263 Estimated Cost of Dotv Ravine Dam and Reser- voir 264 Estimated Cost of Dotv Ravine Distribution System . 264 Estimated Cost of Dotv Ravine Diversion and Canal 265 Estimated Cost of Lincoln Dam and Reservoir 265 Estimated Cost of Lincoln Project Distribution System 266 Estimated Cost of Auburn Ravine Dam and Reservoir . 266 Estimated Cost of Auburn Ravine Distribution System 267 Estimated Cost of Whitney Ranch Dam and Reservoir 267 Estimated Cost of Auburn Ravine Diversion and Conduit _ 268 Estimated Cost of Whitney Ranch Distribution System 268 Estimated Cost of Clover Valley Dam and Res- ervoir 269 Estimated Cost of Clover Valley Diversion and Conduit 269 Estimated Cost of Clover Valley Distribution System 270 Estimated Cost of Auburn Ravine Power Devel- opment Project .- 270 ( 23C ) APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF JACKSON MEADOWS DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) 237 Elevation of crest of dam: 6,024 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 6,010 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 145 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 45,000 acre-feet Capacity at spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 19,000 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Embankment Impervious zone. Pervious zone ._ _. 54,500 cu.yd. 446,000 cu.yd. 1,012,200 cu.yd. 179,000 cu.yd. 1,625 cu.yd. 122,000 lb. 4,650 cu.yd. 50 cu.yd. 1,100 cu.yd. 105,000 lb. 160,000 lb. lump sum $2.00 0.95 0.50 lump sum 3.00 40.00 0.15 4.00 100.00 30.00 0.15 0.30 lump sum $20,000 109,000 423,700 506,100 58,500 $1,117,300 537,000 65,000 18,300 620,300 18,600 5,000 33,000 15,800 48,000 55,500 175,900 Capital Costs Continued Reservoir Land and improvements Public utilities . . Clearing Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% _ Contingencies, 15% Interest during con- struction. . TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- 900 ac. lump sum $200.00 none $75,000 180,000 $255,000 $2,168,500 216,800 Spillway Excavation 325,300 81,300 Reinforcing steel $2,791,900 Outlet Works Excavation . Concrete Structure . Pipe encasement Reinforcing steel Steel pipe, 60-inch di- $83,800 24,800 2.000 7,000 General expense, 0.32% TOTAL 8,900 $126,500 ESTIMATED COST OF HAYPRESS DIVERSION AND TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 6,265 feet, U. S. G. S. datun Height of weir above stream bed: 12 feet Capacity of weir with 7-foot head: 10,000 second-feet Capacity of diversion tunnel: 350 second-feet Length of diversion tunnel: 3 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Unwatering weir site 900 cu.yd. 1,380 cu.yd. 83,000 lb. 12,000 cu.yd. 0.6 mi. 2.4 mi. 20 ac. lump sum $4.00 40.00 0.15 lump sum 3.00 1,100,000 600,000 50 . 00 $2,000 3,600 55,200 12,500 5,100 $78,400 36,000 660,000 1,440,000 1,000 2,137,000 Capital Costs Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% . Interest during construc- $221,500 332,300 Concrete 83,100 Gates and trashrack Diversion Tunnel Excavation, tunnel por- tal _. .. Tunnel Concrete-lined, 7-foot diameter Unlined, 8.3-foot TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- $2,852,300 $85,600 25,300 2,000 1,000 General expense, 0.32% TOTAL 9 100 Subtotal $2,215,400 $123,000 238 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF LAKE VALLEY DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,870 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 5,863 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 150 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 41,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 3,500 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Un watering dam site__ Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Excavation for em- bankment 111,300 cu.yd. 860,000 cu.yd. 1,050,000 cu.yd. 753,100 cu.yd. 1,720,000 cu.yd. o.(.0(l lin.ft. 4. Kill cu.ft. 20.000 cu.yd. 310 cu.yd. 23,000 lb. 87,500 cu.yd. 2,000 cu.yd. 30 cu.yd. 200,000 lb. 131,000 lb. 4,900 lb. 1 ea. lump sum $2.00 0.80 0.75 0.25 0.17 3 . 00 4.00 3.00 10.0(1 0.15 1 . 50 30.00 90.00 0.15 0.25 0.25 Lump sum $5,000 222,000 092,800 1,237,500 188,300 292.400 19,800 17,000 $2,070,000 78,000 12,400 3,500 93,900 131,200 60,000 _',7II(I 30,900 32,700 1,200 33,000 Capital Costs -Continued Outlet Works — Continued Hollow jet valve, 24- inch diameter Reser voi r Land . . 1 ea. 480 ac. none 150 ac. lump sum $300.00 400.00 $5,400 $297,700 144,000 Pervious Embankment Impervious Pervious ._ .. Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting. Spillway Clearing Subtotal 00,000 204,000 $3,271,000 327,200 490,800 98,100 Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion. TOTAL Reinforcing steel . $4,187,700 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- Outlet Works Concrete Pipe encasement- . Structural Reinforcing steel.. $125,000 37,100 2,900 00,000 Trashrack steel High-pressure slide gate 4' x 5' General expense, 0.32%... TOTAL 13,400 $"45,000 ESTIMATED COST OF LAKE FORDYCE DIVERSION CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of flume invert at point of diversion: 6,361 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of flume at tunnel: 6,326 feet Capacity of flume: 100 second-feet Elevation of tunnel invert at inlet: 6,326 feet Elevation of tunnel outlet: 6,300 feet Length of tunnel: 1.14 miles lll'lll Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Flume Inlet structure Flume, 0. 4-foot diameter Right of way 2.8 mi. 17.3 ac 17.3 ac. 1.03 mi. 0.11 mi. lump sum $97,200 50.00 150.00 Lump sum 500,000 810,000 $2,000 272,200 900 2,000 2,000 $279,700 576.800 92,000 068,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% . . Replacement Flume, 1.0%... $36,000 10,601} 3,500 Tunnel, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance Flume, 1.0% . 200 Transition at tunnel 3,500 Tunnel 8.3-foot diameter tunnel Tunnel. 0.05% . . General expense, 0.32% _ . TOTAL 400 3.800 $58,000 Subtotal Administration and engi- $948,500 94.900 142,300 14,200 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- TOT \l. $1,199,900 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF RATTLESNAKE DIVERSION CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) 239 Elevation of conduit invert, at headworks: 5,930 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Elevation of flume at siphon: 5,910 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of conduit: 100 second-feet Elevation of siphon invert at outlet: 5,900 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Length of flume: 1.51 miles Length of siphon: 0.42 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works 110 cu.yd. 116 cu.yd. 45 cu.yd. 10.000 lb. 2.000 lb. 1.51 mi. .42 mi. 12 ac. 12 ac. $5.00 35.00 90.00 0.15 0.25 lump sum lump sum 132,000 316,800 lump sum 50.00 150.00 $600. 4,100 4,100 2,100 500 1,000 600 $13,000 199,300 133,100 3.000 600 1,800 337,800 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- neering. 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion . TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% _ - Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1.0% Operation and mainte- nance Flume, 1% Siphon, 0.5% $35 100 Concrete 52,600 5 300 Reinforcing steel Trashrack 3J^'x 3}4' head gate .. 2' x 2' sluice gate Conduit $443,800 $13,300 3,900 Siphon. 4-foot diameter Transitions Rights of way 4,400 4,400 2 200 General expense, 0.32% _. TOTAL 1,400 Subtotal $350,800 $29,600 ESTIMATED COST OF SOUTH FORK YUBA RIVER DIVERSION CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of conduit invert, at headworks: 5,950 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of canal at tunnel entrance: 5,890 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of tunnel exit: 5,875 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of conduit: 200 second-feet to elevation 5,900 feet and 300 second-feet beyond this point Length of conduit: 6.5 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Excavation Concrete Weir Sluice box Reinforcing steel 100 cu.yd. 250 cu.yd. 45 cu.yd. 1.5,000 lb. 2,000 lb. 1.8 mi. 3.7 mi. 1.0 mi. 34 ac. 34 ac. $5.00 35.00 90.00 0.15 0.25 lump siini lump sum 180,000 94,600 lump sum 580,000 50.00 150.00 $500 8.700 4.000 2.200 500 1,200 600 $17,700 320.000 350.000 3,000 580,000 1,700 5,100 1.259,800 Capital Costs -Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL $127,800 191,600 19.200 $1,616,100 5' x 5' slide gate . _ 2' x 2' sluice gute_ Conduit Flume 300 second-foot ca- pacity . Annual Costs Interest, 3%. Amortization, 0.887% Replacement Flume, 1%.-- $48,500 14.300 16,200 300 16,200 pacity . Transitions Tunnel. 8.7-foot di- Tunnel, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance Flume, 1% Rights of way Tunnel, 0.05% General expense, 0.32% . _ TOT4L 800 5,200 $101,500 $1,277,500 240 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF LAKE VALLEY PIPE LINE (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of pipe line at inlet: 5,750 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of pipe line at terminus: 5,700 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of pipe line: 200 second-feet Length of pipe line: 2.0 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Steel pipe, 5.5 foot dia 60-inch butterfly valve Rights of way 2.0 mi. 1 ea. 14 ac. 14 ac. $215,000 lump sum 100.00 100.00 $430,000 17,500 1,400 2.800 $451,700 45,200 67,800 8,500 Annual Costs Interest, 3% ._ Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1% Operation and maintenance General expense, 0.32% ._ TOTAL $17,200 5,100 5,700 2,900 1 800 S32 700 Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during eonstruc- TOTAL $573,200 ESTIMATED COST OF LAKE VALLEY POWER HOUSE (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 5,700 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of power house tailrace: 5,025 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of penstock: 200 second-feet Length of penstock: 0.7 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs 0.7 mi. 5 ac. 5 ac. lump sum $565,000 100.00 200.00 $1,250,000 396,000 500 1,000 $1,647,500 164,800 247,100 30,900 Annual Costs $62,700 watts, single unit plant- Penstock Rights of way Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1.2% Insurance, 0.12% . Operation and mainte- nance General expenses, 0.32% _ TOTAL 18,500 25.100 2,500 70,000 6,700 Subtotal- . Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion $185,500 TOTAL $2,090,300 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF CISCO DAM AND RESERVOIR 241 (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,840 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 5,828 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 238 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 100,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 15,000 second-feet Item Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation . . Embankment Dumped rock Placed rock Concrete Slab and cutoff Reinforcing steel Drilling grout holes . Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Concrete. Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Tunnel Tunnel portals and approach Concrete Tunnel lining Structural Reinforcing steel Trashrack steel Steel pipe, 60-inch di- ameter Steel supports and tim- ber High-pressure slide gate 4'x4' Hollow jet valve, 48- inch diameter Quantity 54,500 cu.yd. 2,397,900 cu.yd. 176,300 cu.yd. 17,000 cu.yd. 2,500,000 lbs. 5,840 lin.ft. 2,920 cu.ft. 24,400 cu.yd. 600 cu.yd. 45.000 lbs. 6,100 cu.yd 10,000 cu.yd. 1,600 cu.yd. 850 cu.yd. 85,000 lbs. 13.900 lbs. 195,800 lbs. Unit price lump sum $2.10 1.80 8.00 30.00 0.15 3.50 4.00 5.00 35.00 0.15 50.00 3.00 35.00 60.00 0.15 0.25 0.25 lump sum lump sum lump sum Cost $50,000 114,400 4,316,200 1,410,400 510.000 375,000 20,400 11,700 $6,808,100 122,000 21,000 6,700 305,000 30,000 56,000 51,000 12,700 3,500 48,900 62,400 25,000 14,400 149,700 608,900 Item Capital Costs Continued Reservoir Land and improvements Public utilities Telephone lines and cables Power line U. S. Highway 40 Highway Bridges Clearing Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% _ Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32% .. TOTAL Quantity 6 mi. 2 ea. 940 ac. Unit price lump sum lump sum lump sum $200,000 100.000 200 . 00 ( '.,„( s.s.k:, nun 491,300 500,000 1,200,000 200,000 188,000 $3,464,300 $11,031,000 1,103,100 1,654,700 330,900 $14,119,700 $423,600 125,200 9,900 12,500 45,200 $616,400 ESTIMATED COST OF FORDYCE DIVERSION CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of flume invert at point of diversion: 6,361 feet, U. S. G. S. datum '* Elevation of flume at tunnel: 6,326 feet Capacity of flume: 100 second-feet Elevation of tunnel invert at inlet: 6,326 feet Elevation of tunnel outlet: 6,300 feet Length of tunnel: 1.14 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Flume 2.8 mi. 17.3 ac. 17.3 ac. 1.03 mi. 0.11 mi. lump sum $97,200 50.00 150.00 lump sum 560,000 810,000 $2,000 272,200 900 2,600 2,000 $279,700 576,800 92,000 668,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3% _ Amortization, 0.887% Replacement Flume, 1.0%... $36,000 10,600 Flume, 6.4-foot diameter Right of way 3,500 200 Tunnel, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance Flume, 1.0%... Clearing Transition at tunnel 3,500 400 3,800 Tunnel 8.3-foot diameter tunnel Unlined Tunnel, 0.05% General expense, 0.32% .. TOTAL $58,000 Subtotal Administration and engi- $948,500 94,900 142,300 14,200 C'ontingencies, 15% Interest during construc- TOTAL $1,199,900 242 I'LACKl; cnrXTV INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF WOODCHUCK DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevai'ing in July, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 6,300 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 6,290 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 50 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 1,475 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 6,200 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of 2,500 cu.yd. 4,470 cu.yd. 42,230 cu.yd. 4,980 lin.ft. 3.320 cu.ft. 820 cu.yd. 106,200 lbs. 49,300 cu.yd. 370 cu.yd. 27,800 lbs. 600 cu.yd. 430 cu.yd. 130 cu.vd. 9,870 lbs. 13,000 lbs. 2,130 lbs. 2 ea. 1 ea. lump sum $3.00 8.00 0.50 4.00 4.00 50.00 0.15 3 . 00 40.00 0.15 5.00 4.00 100.00 0.25 0.15 0.25 500.00 700.00 $25,000 7,500 35,800 21,100 19,900 13,300 41,000 1.5,900 $179,500 147,900 14,800 4,200 166,900 3,000 1.700 13.000 2,500 2,000 500 1,000 700 24,400 Capital Costs — Continued Reservoir 100 ac. 2 mi. 60 ac. National Forest $20,000 50.00 Highway relocation Clearing reservoir lands Subtotal Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation $40,000 3,000 $43,000 $413,800 41,400 62,100 6,200 Dumped rock Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Administration and engi- neering, 10% _ _ Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07%. .. Operation and mainte- Reinforcing steel Spillway Excavation, rock. _ $523,500 Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation, rock Compacted backfill Concrete, structural $15,700 4,600 400 Reinforcing steel 300 Circular slide gates, 48- inch diameter. General expense, 0.32% __ TOTAL 1,700 $22,700 ESTIMATED COST OF RATTLESNAKE DIVERSION CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of conduit invert, at headworks: 6,253 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of flume, at penstock: 6,248 feet Capacity of flume: 160 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs 1.0 mi. 6 ac. 6 ac. lump sum $76,600 50.00 150.00 lump sum $2,000 76,600 300 900 2,000 $81,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3%_ Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1%- Operation and mainte- nance _ -_ < li-ncial expense. 0.32' , TOTAL - $3,100 Flume, 8.9-foot diameter . Right of way 900 1,000 Clearing Transition to penstock 1,000 300 $81,800 8,200 12,300 1,200 $6,300 Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL $103,500 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF CISCO POWER HOUSE NO. 1 (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 6,248 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Length of penstock: 1,400 feet Diameter of penstock: 5 feet to 4.75 feet •_-i:; Elevation of tailrace: 5,828 feet Installed capacity: 5,000 kilowatts Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Penstock, 5-foot diameter Power house, 5,000 kilo- watts, single unit . 1,400 Unit. $67 . 00 lump sum $93,800 650,000 $743,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1% Insurance, 0.12% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL $28,600 8,300 9,500 1,100 $743,800 74,400 111,600 22,300 Administration and engi- neering. 10% 37,500 3,000 $88,000 Interest during construc- tion TOTAL.. $952,100 ESTIMATED COST OF CISCO RESERVOIR TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of power tunnel, at inlet: 5,588 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Elevation of power tunnel, at outlet: 5,531 feet Length of tunnel: 3.6 miles Capacity of tunnel- 200 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs 3.2 mi. 0.4 mi. $550,000 810,000 lump sum lump sum $1,760,000 324,000 21,600 15,000 $2,120,600 $2,120,600 212,100 318.100 31,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3%.. _. $80,500 L T nlined, 8.3-foot diam- eter _ Lined, 7.0-foot diameter Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, none Operation and mainte- nance, 0.05%. 23,800 1,300 General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL 8,600 Valve chamber. ._ Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $114,200 TOTAL $2,682,600 244 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF CISCO POWER HOUSE NO. 2 (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 5,531 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of power house tailrace: 5,025 feet Capacity of penstock: 300 second-feet Length of penstock: 0.6 mile Installed capacity: 28,000 kilowatts Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Power house, 28,000 kilo- watts, single unit plant. Penstock . Surge tank Right of way 3,200 Unit. 7.4 ac. 7.4 ac. lump sum $250.00 lump sum 100.00 200.00 $2,000,000 800,000 130,000 700 1,500 $2,932,200 Annual Costs Interest, 3%__ Amortization, 0.887%. _. Replacement Power plant, 1.2% Penstock, 1.0%. Insurance, power plant, 0.12% Operation and mainte- nance $111,600 33,000 32,300 10,900 3,200 Subtotal., - $2,932,200 293.200 439,800 55,000 103,000 Administration and engi- Penstock _ . General expense, 0.32% _ . TOTAL 1,400 11,900 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion - $307,300 TOTAI $3,720,200 ESTIMATED COST OF ROLLINS DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 2,185 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 2,170 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 220 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 70,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 6.25-foot freeboard: 35,000 second-feet Item Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Excavation for embank- ment From borrow pits From tailings Embankment Impervious, borrow.. Pervious, tailing Pervious, salvage Riprap Drilling grout holes Pressure grou ti ng Spillway Excavation Common Rock, general Rock, shape Concrete Weir Lining Cutoff wall Reinforcing steel Approach excavation Soil... Rock, shape Rock, general Outlet Works Backfill plug (concrete) Steel pipe Quantity 151,000 cu.yd. 32,000 cu.yd. 1,140,000 cu.yd. 1,367,500 cu.yd. 1,140,000 cu.yd. 1,367,500 cu.yd. 442,000 cu.yd. 49,500 cu.yd. 13,200 lin.ft. 13,200 cu.ft. 32,000 cu.yd. 97,600 cu.yd. 24,400 cu.yd. 900 cu.yd. 10,000 cu.yd. 325 cu.yd. 816,000 lb. 62,000 cu.yd. 50,000 cu.yd. 200,000 cu.yd. 88 cu.yd. 279,000 lb. Unit price lump sum $0.50 1.10 0.35 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.20 3.00 4.00 4.00 0.50 1.00 3.00 35.00 35.00 8.00 0.14 0.45 2.75 1.00 30 . 00 0.25 Cost $433,000 75,500 35,200 399,000 410,000 228,000 205,500 88,400 148,500 52.800 52,800 $2,128,700 32,000 97,600 73,200 31,500 350,000 2.600 114,000 27,900 137,500 200,000 1 ,066,300 2,600 69,800 Item Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued Reinforcing steel Butterfly valve, 60". Hollow jet valve, 48". Trashrack Reservoir Land and improvements Land Cabins Public utilities Clearing Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%. _ TOTAL Quantity 10,000 lb. 27,000 lb. 10,000 lb. 500 ac. 18 ea. 900 ac. Unit price $1.75 0.60 0.20 40.00 2,000 lump sum 200.00 Cost $17,500 5,400 2,000 20,000 36,000 31,000 180,000 $97,300 267,000 $3,559,300 355,900 533,900 133,000 $4,582,100 $137,500 40.600 3,200 9,500 14,700 $205,500 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF CHICAGO PARK CANAL DIVERSION (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) 245 Elevation of crest of dam: 2,720 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of overpour to side channel: 2,718 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of dam to crest, above stream bed: 20 feet Elevation of flowline of side channel at canal intake: 2,707 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Gravel Rock 1,000 cu.yd. 325 cu.yd. 1,010 cu.yd. 2 ea. 17,000 cu.yd. 1,100 cu.yd. 110,000 lb. 2 ea. $1.00 8.50 35.00 7,300 3.00 60.00 0.15 1,000 $1,000 2,600 35,350 14,600 $53,600 51,000 66,000 16,500 2,000 135,500 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL $18,900 28,400 3,500 $239,900 20' x 7' Side Channels and Head- works Excavation Annual Costs Interest, 3% - Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% General expense, 0.32% __ Operation and mainte- $7,200 2,130 200 Semistructural concrete . Reinforcing steel 770 2,400 TOTAL Subtotal $189,100 $12,700 ESTIMATED COST OF CHICAGO PARK CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of canal invert at point of diversion: 2,707 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of canal at penstock: 2,690 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of canal: 700 second-feet Length of canal: 5.75 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Excavation Earth _ 25,000 cu.yd. 50,000 cu.yd. 12,450 cu.yd. 124,500 lb. 5 50 ac. 50 ac. $0.35 3.00 75.00 0.15 1,000 100.00 200.00 $8,800 150,000 930,000 185,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 Capital Costs -Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion . .-_ TOTAL $129,400 Soft rock Canal Concrete 194,100 24,200 $1,641,500 Wasteways Rights of way Land ._ Annual Costs Interest, 3% _ Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1% Operation and mainte- $49,450 14,600 16,400 $1,293,800 16,400 General expense, 0.32% ._ TOTAL 5,250 $102,100 246 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF CHICAGO PARK POWER HOUSE (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 2,690 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of power house tailrace: 2,220 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Capacity of penstock: 700 second-feet Length of penstock: 0.38 mile Item Quantity Unit price i Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Power house, 25,000 kilo- watt, single unit plant.. 0.38 mi. 5 ac. 5 ac. lump sum $1,030,000 100.00 300.00 $1,950,000 392,000 500 1,500 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization. 0.887% Replacement Penstock Power house . - Insurance, 0.12% Operation and mainte- nance Penstock . $89,200 26,400 Rights of way Land Clearing 5,000 30,000 3,600 Subtotal Administration and engi- $2,344,000 234,400 351,600 44,000 1,110 77,500 neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion General expense, 0.32% .. TOTAL 9,500 $242,300 TOTAL $2,974,000 ESTIMATED COST OF FRENCH MEADOWS DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 5,220 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 5,210 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 200 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 74,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 17,400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepar- ation of foundation .. Embankment Dumped rock 52,000 cu.yd. 1,043,000 cu.yd. 122,000 cu.yd. 20,080 cu.yd. 1,763,000 lbs. 45,500 cu.yd. 530 cu.yd. 53,000 lbs. 12,500 cu.yd. 2,080 cu.yd. 910 cu.yd. 230 cu.yd. 23,000 lbs. 88,000 lbs. lump sum $2.00 2.35 8.00 30.00 0.15 lump sum 3.00 40.00 0.15 3.00 45.00 40.00 100.00 0.15 0.25 lump sum $25,000 104,000 2,451,000 976,000 602,400 264,500 126,000 $4,548,900 136,500 21,200 8.000 165,700 37,500 93,600 36,400 23,000 3,500 22,000 110,000 326,000 Capital Costs — Continued Reservoir Land and improvements Public utilities _. _. Clearing- Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10%. _ Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% _ Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32% __ TOTAL 1,010 ac. lump sum $150.00 $5,400 212,000 151,500 $368,900 $5,409,500 Concrete. Reinforcing steel.. 541,000 811,400 Spillway Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Tunnel portal . Tunnel _ . Concrete Tunnel lining 101,500 $6,863,400 $206,000 60,900 4,800 9,500 22,000 Reinforcing steel $303,200 Valves and trashrack APPENDIX N 247 ESTIMATED COST OF DUNCAN CREEK DIVERSION AND CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 5,415 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 25 feet Drainage area, above diversion works: 9.0 square miles Capacity of weir with 1 1 -foot head: 7,000 second-feet Length of weir: 30 feet Capacity of diversion conduit: 100 second-feet Length of diversion conduit: 2.8 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Gates and trashrack 200 cu.yd. 840 cu.yd. 84,000 ll.s. 2 . 4 mi. 0.4 mi. 3.0 mi. S5.00 50.00 0.20 lump sum 32,000 750,000 30,000 none $1,000 42,000 16,800 4,000 76,800 300.000 90,000 $63,800 Hit',. SOU Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance __ . . . General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL $53,100 79,600 Conduit Canal, concrete-lined Tunnel, unlined, 8.2- foot diameter _ Access road and clearing Rights of way $663,300 $19,900 5,900 100 600 2,100 Subtotal- $530,600 $28,600 ESTIMATED COST OF FRENCH MEADOWS-DEEP CANYON CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of tunnel inlet: 5,035 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of tunnel outlet: 4,910 feet Capacity of conduit: 200 second-feet Length of conduit: 6.02 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Conduit Tunnel, unlined, 8.3- foot diameter _ Tunnel, lined, 7 . 0-foot di- ameter Siphon, steel pipe, 7.0- foot diameter 4.5 mi. 1.1 mi. 0.42 mi. $600,000 1,150,000 950,000 $2,700,000 1,265,000 399,000 $4,364,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance, 0.05%-*. General expense, 0.32%._ TOTAL $168,600 49,800 1,100 2,800 18.000 $240,300 $4,364,000 436,400 654,600 163,700 Administration and engi- neering, 10%_ Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- TOTAL $5,618,700 248 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF DEEP CANYON POWER HOUSE (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 4,910 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Elevation of power house trailrace: 4,020 feet Capacity of penstock: 200 second-feet Length of penstock: 2,450 feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Penstock 2,450 lin.ft. 2 mi. 15,000 kw. 3 mi. $223 . 00 30,000 lump sum 125.00 80,000 $546,000 60,000 90,000 $096,000 1,875,000 240,000 2.115,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% _ _ . $108,600 32,200 7 . 2 to 6 . 0-foot diameter Amortization, 0.887%__. Replacement Penstock, 1.00% Power house, 1.20% ... Surge tank, 1.00% Insurance. Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL.. Surge tank Power House 15,000-kilowatt, single 7,000 22,500 900 3.300 66.000 11,600 Subtotal $2,811,000 281,100 421.800 105,400 $252,100 Administration and engi- Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL , $3,619,300 ESTIMATED COST OF DEEP CANYON DIVERSION AND CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 4,020 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 20 feet Drainage area, above the diversion works: 21.4 square miles Capacity of weir with 15-foot head: 13,000 second-feet Length of weir: 65 feet Capacity of conduit: 400 second-feet Length of conduit: 0.9 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works 200 cu.yd. 2,000 cu.yd. 200,000 lbs. 0.6 mi. 0.1 mi. 0.2 mi. $5.00 50.00 0.20 lump sum 650,000 1,200,000 320,000 $1,000 100,000 40,000 5,400 390,000 120,000 64,000 $146,400 574,000 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion . . . TOTAL $72,000 108,000 Reinforcing steel Gates and trashrack 27,000 $927,400 Tunnel, unlined, 9.0- foot diameter Tunnel, lined, 7.5-foot Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% ... Replacement, 0.05% Operation and mainte- $27,800 Steel pipe, 7-foot di- 8,200 500 $720,400 900 General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL 3 000 $40,400 APPENDIX N 24!) ESTIMATED COST OF LOST CANYON DIVERSION AND TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 3,980 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 20 feet Drainage area above diversion works: 1 .9 square miles Capacity of weir with 6-foot head: 1,900 second-feet Length of weir: 3C feet Capacity of conduit: 400 second-feet Length of conduit: 1.3 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Excavation Concrete _ Reinforcing steel- Gates and trashrack Access road . . 100 cu.yd. 720 cu.yd. 72.000 lbs. 3 mi. 1.2 mi. 0.1 mi. $5.00 50.00 0.20 lump sum 50,000 650,000 1,200,000 $500 36,000 14,400 5,400 150,000 $206,300 780,000 120,000 900,000 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies. 15% Interest during construc- tion. TOTAL... $110,600 165,900 41,500 $1,424,300 Conduit Tunnel, unlined, 9.0- foot diameter _ _ Tunnel, lined, 7.5-foot diameter Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.05% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32% __ TOTAL $42,700 12,600 700 1,400 4,600 Subtotal $1,106,300 $62,000 ESTIMATED COST OF SECRET CANYON DIVERSION AND TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 3,955 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 20 feet Drainage area above diversion works: 8.7 square miles Capacity of weir with 6.6-foot head: 5,300 second-feet Length of weir: 90 feet Capacity of conduit: 450 second-feet Length of conduit: 2.8 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Excavation . 300 cu.yd. 1,650 cu.yd. 165,000 lbs. 2 mi. 2.5 mi. 0.3 mi. $5.00 50.00 0.20 lump sum 40.000 i;si i.i mil 1,280,000 SI, 500 82,500 33,000 5,400 80,000 $202,400 1,700,000 384,000 2.084,000 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 13"% Interest during construc- $228,600 342,900 Reinforcing steel ._ _ 85,700 TOTAL Access road S2,943,600 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.05% Operation and mainte- nance . . General expense, 0.32% __ TOTAL Conduit Tunnel, unlined, 9.4- foot diameter Tunnel, lined, 7.9-foot diameter $88,300 26,100 1,500 $2,286,400 2,900 9,400 $128,200 250 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF EL DORADO CREEK DIVERSION AND TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 3,890 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 30 feet Drainage area above diversion works: 4.9 square miles Capacity of weir with 11,2-foot head: 3,900 second-feet Length of weir: 30 feet Capacity of diversion conduit: 500 second-feet Length of conduit- 1.8 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works Excavation Concrete _ Reinforcing steel Gates and trashrack 200 cu.yd. 1.200 cu.yd. 120,000 lbs. 1.5 mi. 1 . 6 mi. 0.2 mi. 1 mi. $5.00 50.00 0.20 lump sum 40,000 750,000 1,400,000 40,000 $1,000 60,000 24,000 5,400 60,000 $150,400 1,200.000 280,000 40,000 1.520,000 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10%__ Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion _ _ TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.05% Operation and mainte- nance -. . General expense, 0.32% _ _ TOTAL $167,000 250,500 62,600 $2,150,500 Tunnel, unlined, 10.0- foot diameter Tunnel, lined, 8.5-foot diameter $64,500 19.100 Access road 1,100 Subtotal $1,670,400 2,200 6.900 $93,800 ESTIMATED COST OF BULLION CREEK DIVERSION AND CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 3,828 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Height of weir above stream bed: 20 feet Drainage area behind diversion works: 1.6 square miles Capacity of weir with 5-foot head: 1,080 second-feet Length of weir: 30 feet Elevation of conduit inlet: 3,818 feet Elevation of conduit outlet: 3,660 feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Works 200 cu.yd. 690 cu.yd. 69,000 lbs. 1 mi. 0.9 mi. 0.7 mi. 2.4 mi. 0.2 mi. 2 mi. s: 50.00 0.20 lump sum 40,000 164.000 316,000 750,000 1,400,000 30,000 $1,000 34,500 13,800 5,400 40.000 $94,700 147,600 221,200 1,800,000 280,000 60.000 2,508,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3% $100,600 Excavation _ . Amortization, 0.887% Replacement Diversion, 0.07% Canal, 0.02%. 29,700 Concrete. Reinforcing steel 100 100 Access road .. Tunnel, 0.02% Flume, 1.00% 500 2,700 Conduit ( 'anal, lined Operation and mainte- nance Flume, canal, and di- version, 1%. Tunnel, 0.05% General expense, 0.32%. . TOTAL Flume Tunnel, Unlined, 10.0- foot diameter Tunnel, lined, 8.5-foot diameter 5,800 1,300 10,800 $151,600 Subtotal . $2,603,500 260,400 390,500 97,600 Administration and en- gineering, 10%. Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL... $3,352,000 I APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF FORESTHILL CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of inlet: 3,660 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Slope of canal: 13.5 feet per mile Velocity: 6 feet per second 251 Capacity of canal: 75 second-feet Length of canal: 7.6 miles Type: Trapezoidal section, shotcrete-lined Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Excavation 32,200 cu.yd. 32,200 cu.yd. 56,100 sq.yd. 2 4 30 ae. 30 ac. 6 $0.75 0.25 3.00 lump sum lump sum 100.00 200.00 lump sum $24,200 8,000 168,000 2,400 2.800 3,000 6,000 4,200 $218,600 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- $8,200 Road embankment 2,400 Main road crossing 2,700 Minor road crossing Right of wav Gcneral expense, 0.32% . _ TOTAL 900 $14,200 Stream crossing Sul .total $218,600 21,900 32.800 Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15%. Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL $273,300 ESTIMATED COST OF SUGAR PINE CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of inlet: 3,660 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of outlet: 3,657 feet Length of canal: 0.7 mile Type of canal: Trapezoidal section, shotcrete-lined Slope of canal: 4.3 feet per mile Capacity of canal: 500 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Canal, lined _ 0.7 mi. $164,000 $114,800 $114,800 Annual Costs Interest, 3%. $4,400 Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- 1,300 none 1,500 Subtotal.. . Administration and engi- $114,800 11,500 17,200 4,300 General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL.. 500 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $7,700 tion.. . _ *■ TOTAL. _ $147,800 ESTIMATED COST OF PAGGE RESERVOIR TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of tunnel inlet: 3,657 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of tunnel outlet: 3,640 feet Capacity of tunnel: 500 second-feet Length of tunnel: 0.8 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Tunnel, unlined, 10.0- 0.7 mi. 0.1 mi. 1.0 mi. $750,000 1,400,000 30,000 $525,000 1 40.000 30,000 $695,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% \n ionization, 0.887% ._- Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- $26,800 7,900 Tunnel, lined, 8.5-foot diameter 200 400 General expense, 0.32%.. T0TAL-- . 2,900 $695,000 69,500 104,300 26,100 $38,200 Administration and engi- Contingencies, 15%. Interest during construc- tion TOTAL $894,900 252 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF PAGGE DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 3,650 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 3,640 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 280 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 69,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 4,400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of 100,200 cu.yd. 976,000 cu.yd. 1,815,000 cu.yd. 41,400 cu.yd. 53,800 cu.yd. 110 cu.yd. 11,000 lbs. 3,800 cu.yd. 1,640 cu.yd. 450 cu.yd. 410,000 lbs. lump sum $2.00 0.75 2.40 1.00 lump sum 1.50 40.00 0.20 5.00 30.00 100.00 0.25 lump sum $5,000 200,400 732,000 4,356,000 41,400 30,400 $5,365,200 80,700 4,400 2,200 87,300 19,000 49,200 45,000 102,500 46,000 261,700 Capital Costs — Continued Reservoir Land .. _ Federally owned 630 ac. lump sum $200.00 $80,000 Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Embankment Impervious . . Pervious- Auxiliary dam . Clearing Subtotal . Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15%. Interest during construc- 126,000 $206,000 $5,920,200 592,000 888,000 222,000 TOTAL- Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% ... Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Concrete Pipe encasement $7,622,200 $228,700 67,600 5,300 9,400 Valves and trashrack General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL 24,400 $335,400 ESTIMATED COST OF SUGAR PINE DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 3,650 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 3,641 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 131 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 10,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 4,600 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- 103.900 cu.yd. 507,200 cu.yd. 126,800 cu.yd. 22,200 cu.yd. 70,000 cu.yd. 2,200 cu.yd. 1,060 cu.yd. 110 cu.yd. 229,200 lbs. 127,800 lbs. lump sum $1.50 0.75 2.00 2.50 0.50 5.00 30.00 100.00 0.25 0.15 lump sum $5,000 155,900 380,400 254,000 55,500 $850,800 35,000 35,000 1 1 ,000 31,800 1 1 ,000 57,300 19,200 38,400 168,700 Capital Costs — Continued Reservoir Land. . Highway relocation Forbes campground Federally owned 2-mile dirt road 220 ac. .$10,000 lump sum 200.00 $20,000 5,000 44,000 $69,000 Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% — Contingencies, 15% Interest during const.ruc- Embankment Impervious _ Pervious Riprap Spillway $1,123,500 112,400 168,500 42,100 TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% — Replacement, 0.07% . Operation and mainte- Outlet Works Excavation $1,446,500 Concrete Pipe encasement Structural .. Steel pipe Reinforcing steel Valves and trashrack $43,400 12,800 1,000 2,000 General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL. ... ... 4,600 $63,800 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF IOWA HILL CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of weir: 3,446 feet, U. S. G. S. datur Height of weir crest above stream bed: 5 feet Slope: 5 feet per mile Velocity: 2.6 feet per second 253 Capacity of canal: 15 second-feet Length of canal: 6.8 miles Type: Trapezoidal section, shotcrete-lined Acreage served: 1,760 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion structure Stripping Reinforced concrete Reinforcing steel Steel frame for flash- boards - 50 cu.yd. 28 cu.yd. 2,800 lbs. 3,460 lbs. 300 bd.ft. 17,730 cu.yd. 42,560 sq.yd. 42,560 sq.yd. 4 cu.yd. 400 lbs. 20 ac. 20 ac. $1.00 50.00 0.15 0.30 0.40 . 75 0.30 3.50 50.00 0.15 lump sum 100.00 200.00 $50 1,400 420 1,010 120 $3,000 13,300 12,770 148,970 200 60 500 2,000 4,000 181,800 Capital Costs Continued Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL $18,500 27,700 $231,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% .__ Replacement, 0.02% General expense, 0.32%__ Operation and mainte- nance, 1% TOT\L Conduit Trimming _ Concrete $0,900 2,100 Inlet structure _. Reinforcing steel Headgate, 4' x 5' . 100 700 2,300 Clearing of right of way $12,100 Subtotal- $184,800 ESTIMATED COST OF IOWA HILL PUMPING PLANT AND PIPE LINE Intake elevation: 3,515 feet, Pumping pla.it capacities: 1st stage: 16 second-feet 2nd stage: 10 second-feet 3rd stage: 3 second-feet (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) U. S. G. S. datum Gross seasonal diversion: 5,000 acre-feet Acreage served: 2,000 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity- Unit price Cost Capital Costs Pump, motor, and elec- trical equipment Pump, motor, and elec- trical equipment Pump, motor, and elec- 1 ea. 1 ea. 1 ea. 570 lbs. 9,760 lbs. 7.000 lbs. 070 cu.yd. 580 cu.yd. 3 ea. $8,150 7,710 3,200 0.25 . 25 0.25 0.75 0.50 1,480 $8,150 7,710 3,200 140 2,430 1,740 500 290 4,440 $28,600 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- $2,900 C'ontingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion. .. - . TOTAL - 4,300 200 trical equipment Steel pipe $36,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization. 0.887%— Replacement, l.'O'; Insurance, 0. 12% . - General expense, 0.32% __ Electric energy (9 mills/ KWH) Excavation for pipe trench- Backfill for pipe trench Pump and motor houses. . $1,100 300 400 100 $28,600 100 17,000 TOTAL $19,600 254 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF PAGGE-PICKERING BAR CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of conduit inlet: 3,400 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of conduit outlet: 3,390 feet Capacity of conduit: 300 second-feet Length of conduit: 0.83 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity- Unit price Cost Capital Costs 4,400 lin.ft. $72.00 lump sum $316,800 24,600 $341,400 Annual Costs Interest, 3% $13,200 Amortization, 0.887% _. Replacement, 1% Operation and mainte- nance, $0.0125 per 3,900 4,400 Subtotal $341,400 34,100 51,200 12,800 1,000 Administration and engi- General expense, 0.32%_- TOTAL 1,400 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $23,900 TOTAL . $439,500 ESTIMATED COST OF SUGAR PINE-PICKERING BAR CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of conduit inlet: 3,515 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of conduit outlet: 3,390 feet Capacity of conduit: 300 second-feet Length of conduit: 0.34 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Conduit, steel pipe, 72- 1,800 lin.ft. $72.00 lump sum $129,600 24,600 $154,200 Annual Costs Interest, 3% . . $6,000 Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 1%-- Operation and mainte- nance, $0.0125 per 1,800 2,000 $154,200 15,400 23.200 5,800 1 500 Administration and engi- General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL 600 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $10,900 TOTAL $198,600 ESTIMATED COST OF PICKERING BAR TUNNEL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of tunnel inlet: 3,390 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of tunnel outlet: 3,366 feet Capacity of tunnel: 300 second-feet Length of tunnel: 1.7 miles Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Tunnel, lined, 7-foot di- 1.7 mi. $920,000 $1,504,000 $1,564,000 Annual Costs $60,400 Amortization, 0.887% ... Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance, 0.05%. 17,900 400 Subtotal $1,564,000 156,400 234,600 58,700 1,000 Administration and engi- General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL 6,400 neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $86,100 TOTAL-- $2,013,700 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF PICKERING BAR POWER HOUSE (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of penstock inlet: 3,366 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of power house tailrace: 1,486 feet 255 Capacity of penstock: 300 second-feet Length of penstock: 0.91 mile Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Power plant 44,000 kilowatts, single 44,000 kw. 4.2 mi. 5 ac. 4,800 lin.ft. 2 mi. $96.00 100,000 200.00 230.00 lump sum 50,000 $4,224,000 420,000 1,000 $4,645,000 1,105,000 150,000 100,000 1,355,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement Penstock, 1.00% Power house, 1.20% Surge tank, 1.00% Insurance, 0.12% Operation and mainte- $231,800 68,500 11,100 63,400 Penstock 6.5 feet to 5 feet vary- 1,500 5,100 111.100 Surge tank... General expense, 0.32% _ _ TOTAL 24,700 $517,200 Subtotal,- - Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $6,000,000 $600,000 900,000 225,000 TOTAL__ $7,725,000 ESTIMATED COST OF FORBES DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 4,010 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 4,000 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 135 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 5,300 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 2,200 second-feet Item Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Common Embankment Impervious fill Pervious fill Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Common Concrete Weir Lining Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Common Rock, trench and structures Concrete Backfill Structural Reinforcing steel Steel pipe Quantity 76,000 cu.yd. 210.000 cu.yd. 446.000 cu.yd. 10,800 lin.ft. 5,400 cu.ft. 7,490 cu.yd. 70 cu.yd. 90 cu.yd. 7,000 lb. 213 cu.yd. 213 cu.yd. 100 cu.yd. 19 cu.yd. 15,000 lb. 27,300 lb. Unit price lump sum $1.00 0.65 0.75 4.00 4.00 2.00 50.00 40.00 0.20 2.00 6.00 35.00 100.00 0.20 0.30 Cost $1,000 76,000 136,000 335,000 43,200 21,600 1 5,000 3,500 3,600 1,400 400 1,300 3,500 1,900 3,000 8,200 $612,800 23,500 Item Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued Trashrack steel Butterfly valve, 12- inch diameter Hollow jet valve, 12- inch diameter Reservoir Clearing Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%- TOTAL Quantity 1,500 lb. 2 ea. 1 ea. 100 acres Unit price $0.50 1,200 1,000 150.00 Cost 2,400 1,000 $22,500 15,000 15,000 $073,800 67,400 101,100 12,600 $854,900 $25,700 7,600 600 1,100 2,700 $37,700 256 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF ENLARGED MORNING STAR DAM AND BIG RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 4,1 18 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 4,108 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 82 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 6,500 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 1,800 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Common Embankment Impervious fill Facing, dumped rock_. Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Common Concrete Weir and control sec- tion Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Common Rock Concrete Backfill Structural Reinforcing steel Steel pipe Operating mechanism _ Control lines Trashrack steel 131,000 cu.yd. 831,400 cu.yd. 34,500 cu.yd. 9,600 hn.ft. 4,800 cu.ft. 0.700 cu.yd. 191 cu.yd. 19,100 lb. 284 cu.yd. 284 cu.yd. 146 cu.yd. 24 cu.yd. 19,950 lb. 26,000 lb. 250 lb. 1,500 lb. lump sum $1.00 0.60 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 40.00 0.20 1.00 6.00 35.00 100.00 0.20 0.30 lump sum 3.00 0.50 s.-,,ooo 131,000 498,800 69,000 38.400 19,200 $761,400 13,400 7.600 3,800 300 1,700 5,100 2,400 4,000 7,800 700 800 800 24,800 Capital Costs -Continued Outlet Works — Continued Butterfly valves, 12- inch diameter.- Hollow jet valve, 12- inch diameter Reservoir Clearing Subtotal- Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32% _. TOTAL 2 ea. 1 ea. 110 ac. SI, 200 1,000 250.00 $2,400 1,000 $27,000 27,500 27,500 $840,700 84,000 126,000 15,800 $1,066,500 $32,000 9,500 800 1,300 3,400 $47,000 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF SUGAR PINE DAM AND RESERVOIR 257 (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 3,680 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 3,670 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 160 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 17,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 4,600 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Common Embankment Impervious fill Pervious fill, rockfill Riprap Auxiliary Dam Stripping Earthfill Spillway Excavation Common Concrete Cutoff wall Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Common Trench Concrete Backfill Structural, inlet and outlet Reinforcing steel Steel pipe Trashrack steel Butterfly valve, 30-inch diameter 84,000 cu.yd. 1,100,000 cu.yd. 208,000 cu.yd. 26,600 cu.yd. 5,000 cu.yd. 53,000 cu.yd. 18,200 cu.yd. 228 cu.yd. 22,800 lb. 140 cu.yd. 900 cu.yd. 600 cu.yd. 50 cu.yd. 69,000 lb. 85,900 lb. 11,800 lb. 2 ea. lump sum 1.50 0.75 1.40 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 35 . 00 0.20 1.50 10.00 30.00 90.00 0.15 0.25 0.25 3,500 $10,000 126,000 825,000 291,000 79,800 SI. 33 1,800 10,000 53,000 36,400 8,000 4,500 260 9,000 18,000 4,500 10,350 21,475 2,950 7,000 63,000 48,900 Capital Costs— Continued Outlet Works — Continued Hydraulic control lines Control house 24" x 24" slide gate 36" x30" slide gate.. Needle valve, 36-inch diameter Reservoir Land, private federal Highway relocation Forbes Campground Clearing Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL '_ Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%_. TOTAL 375 ft. 1 ea. 2 ea. 1 ea. 100 ac. 300 ac. mile dirt road 325 ac. $3.00 Iiiiii|i sum 600.00 1,000 8,000 s.-,u no none 10,000 lump sum 200.00 $1,125 600 000 2,000 8,000 $5,000 none 20,000 5,000 65,000 $85,860 162,500 243,750 30,500 $2,061,400 $61, S00 18,300 1,500 3,400 6,600 $91,600 9—81627 IMS PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF DIVERSION AND SUPPLY CANALS, FORESTHILL DIVIDE PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Secret Canyon Canal Canal Diversion Black Canyon Canal Canal Diversion El Dorado Creek Canal Canal Diversion — Bullion Creek Canal Canal Diversion Forbes Reservoir Canal Canal Road crossings Stream crossings Big Reservoir Canal Canal Siphon Road crossings Stream crossings 2,700 lin.ft. 1 ea. 7,400 lin.ft, 22,400 lin.ft. 58,300 lin.ft. 1 ea. 22,400 lin.ft, 22,400 lin.ft, 1 ea. 42,200 lin.ft. 31,700 lin.ft. 1 ea. 4,700 lin.ft, 4,700 lin.ft, 38,000 lin.ft. 4 ea. 9 ea. 2,500 lin.ft. 22,000 lin.ft. 2,900 lin.ft. 5 ea. 1 ea. $6.00 lump sum 6.00 2.45 2.00 lump sum 2.50 2.00 lump sum 2.25 2.00 lump sum 4.10 4.00 3.90 150.00 1,000 4.00 3.90 20.00 150.00 1,000 $16,200 11,600 44.400 54,900 116,600 9,000 56.000 44,800 1 1 ,600 118,200 63,400 5,800 19,300 18,800 148.200 600 9,000 10,000 85,800 58,000 800 1,000 $27,800 228,900 112.400 187,400 195,900 Capital Costs- Continued Sugar Pine Reservoir Canal Canal Siphon Road crossings Stream crossings Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887%___ Replacement, 0.50% Operation and mainte- nance, 1% General expense, 0.32%_. TOTAL 25,100 Unit. 20.100 lin.ft, 40,100 lin.ft. 4,500 lin.ft. 8 ea. 8 ea. $4.10 4.00 3.90 20.00 150.00 1,000 $102,900 80,400 156,400 90,000 1,200 8,000 $438,900 $1,346,900 134,700 202,000 20,200 $1,703,800 $51,100 15,000 8,500 17,000 5,500 $97,100 155,600 ESTIMATED COST OF FORESTHILL DIVIDE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreage served: 15,400 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Distribution system 15,400 ac. $20.00 $308,000 $308,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot- _ Maintenance charge, $0 . 40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre . TOTAL $11,800 3,500 13,600 6,200 Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- $308,000 30.800 46,200 9,200 7,700 $394,200 $42,800 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF CAMP FAR WEST DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1952) 259 Elevation of crest of dam: 311 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 300 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 155 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 104,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 60,000 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Excavation for em- bankment From borrow pits Stream bed gravel _ _ Rock riprap Embankment Common compacted Pervious From excavation. From salvage Sand and gravel filter Rock riprap DriiUng grout holes Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Tunnel, 8-foot diame- ter Portal, excavation Concrete (intake, gate chamber, saddles, plug, and walkway) _ Reinforcing steel Steel pipe, 66-inch diameter 149,000 cu.yd. 743.600 cu.yd. 1,243,100 cu.yd. 63,100 cu.yd. 649,300 cu.yd. 1,055,600 cu.yd. 112,000 cu.yd. 187,500 cu.yd. 63,100 cu.yd. 4,140 lin.ft. 2,760 cu.ft. 200.000 cu.yd. 7.570 cu.yd. 559,400 lb. 950 lin.ft. 8,500 cu.yd. 280 cu.yd. 28.000 lb. 210,000 lbs. lump sum $1.00 0.65 0.40 2.00 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.50 3.00 4.00 1.00 35.00 0.15 200.00 2.00 60.00 0.15 0.25 $50,000 149.000 483,300 497,200 126,200 162,300 211.100 33,600 93,800 31,600 12,400 11,000 $1,861,500 200,000 265.000 83,900 548,900 190.000 17,000 16,800 4,200 52,500 Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued High-pressure 5' x 5' slidegate Stilling basin Needle valve 60-inch diameter 36-inch diameter Venturi meter Reservoir Private land Relocation of county road Relocation of power line Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887%__. Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL 860 ac. 2.3 mi. lump sum lump sum lump sum lump sum lump sum $54.00 lump sum 30,000 $25,000 8,800 27,500 10,000 5,000 $356,800 $46,400 28,000 69,000 $143,400 $2,910,600 291,100 436,600 87,300 $3,726,100 $111,800 33,100 2,600 12,500 11,900 $171,900 ESTIMATED COST OF BEAR RIVER CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1952) Elevation of stilling basin: 187 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of division box: 183 feet Capacity of canal: 400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Canal Excavation . -_ 43,600 cu.yd. 40,000 cu.yd. 24,000 cu.yd. 3 ea. 230 cu.yd. 87 cu.yd. 4 ea. 18 ac. 18 ac. 3 mi. $1.50 0.50 3.50 lump sum 3.00 60.00 600.00 50.00 100.00 1,500 $65,400 20,000 84,000 1.500 $170,900 700 5,200 2,400 8,300 900 1,800 4,500 7,200 Capital Costs -Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none _ TOTAL $18,600 28,000 Lining, shotcrete .. Drainage structures $233,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.50% Operation and mainte- Concrete Gates and trashracks__ Rights of Way Land $7,000 2,100 1.200 2,300 General expense, 0.32% . . TOTAL 700 $186,400 $13,300 260 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF SIPHON, CONDUIT, AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR LANDS NORTH OF BEAR RIVER (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1952) Capacity of siphon: 200 second-feet Length of siphon: 800 feet Capacity of conduit, initial 2.9 miles: 200 second-feet Capacity of conduit, remaining 0.8 mile: 100 second-feet Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreage served: 8,500 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Siphon Excavation, trench Backfill Concrete Earth __ Steel pipe, 66-inch di- ameter Conduit Excavation Trimming of canal Compacted fill Concrete Shotcrete Flume intake and outlet Road crossings Flume footings Parshall flume Reinforcing steel Timber Road crossings Flume substructure . Flume, metal Flume, hardware Rights of way Clearing Fencing Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL 3,000 cu.yd. 540 cu.yd. 1,800 cu.yd. 140.500 lb. 113,800 cu.yd. 61,420 sq.yd. 16,780 cu.yd. 9,060 sq.yd. 40 cu.yd. 63 cu.yd. 20 cu.yd. 15 cu.yd. 11,800 lbs. 6.37 MBM 14.1 MBM 300 lin.ft. 1,690 Lb. 42 ac. 42 ac. 7.4 mi. S3 . 00 35 . 00 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.30 0.50 3.50 50.00 50.00 80.00 70.00 0.15 350.00 400.00 30.00 1.00 200.00 200.00 1,500 $9,000 18,900 1,800 28,100 $57,800 56,900 18,400 8,400 31,700 2,000 3,200 1,600 1,100 1,800 2,200 5,600 9,000 1,700 8,400 8,400 11,100 171,500 $229,300 22,900 34,400 $286,600 Capital Costs — Continued Distribution System Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construe tion, none TOTAL Annual Costs Siphon and Conduit Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% .. Replacement, 0.50% Operation and mainte- nance, 1.0% General expense, 0.32%. TOTAL.. Distribution System Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% _. Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot. Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL 8,500 ac. $2 $170,000 .$170,000 $170,000 17,000 25,500 $212,500 $8,600 2.500 1,400 2,900 900 $16,300 $6,400 1,900 16,500 3,800 4.200 $32,800 APPENDIX N 261 ESTIMATED COST OF CONDUIT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR LANDS SOUTH OF BEAR RIVER (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1952) Capacity of conduit, initial 11.0 miles: 200 second-feet Capacity of conduit, remaining 7.8 miles: 100 second-feet Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreage served: 8,500 acres Item Capital Costs Conduit Excavation Compacted fill Trimming Concrete Shotcrete Flume transition structures Road crossing Substructure footings Parshall flume Siphon transition structure Reinforcing steel Timber Road crossings Flume substructure. - Flume, metal '. Flume, hardware Pipe, 48-inch corru- gated metal Jacking costs Diversion dam at Mark- ham Ravine Rights of way Fencing Clearing Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Quantity 311,360 cu.yd. 81,840 cu.yd. 330,210 sq.yd. 13,650 sq.yd. 33 cu.yd. 100 cu.yd. 20 cu.yd. 15 cu.yd. 30 cu.yd. 20,000 lbs. 12.5 MBM 11 MBM 420 lin.ft. 1,320 lbs. 150 lin.ft. 100 lin.ft. 190 ac. 37.6 mi. 190 ac. Unit price $0.50 0.50 0.30 3.50 50.00 50.00 80.00 70.00 50.00 0.15 350 . 00 400 . 00 15.00 1.00 20.00 50.00 lump sum 300.00 1,500 200.00 ( ',,.st 8155,700 40,900 99,100 47,800 1,700 5,000 1,600 1,100 1,500 3,000 4,400 4,400 6,300 1,300 3,000 5,000 1,500 57,000 56,400 38,000 $534,700 $534,700 53,500 80,200 $668,100 Item Capital Costs - Continued Distribution System Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Annual Costs Conduit Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% . Replacement, 0.50%—. Operation and mainte- nance, 1 .0% General expense, 0.32' , TOTAL Distribution System Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887%. Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL Quantity 8,500 ac. Unit price 120.00 Cost 8170,000 $170,000 $170,000 17,000 25,500 $212,500 $20,100 5,900 3,300 6,700 2,200 $38,200 $6,400 1,900 16,500 3,800 4,200 $32,800 262 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF COON CREEK DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1952) Elevation of crest of dam: 560 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 552 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 207 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 59,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 14,000 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Iten Quantity- Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation _ _ Excavation for embank- ment Impervious Gravel Embankment Impervious zone, com- pacted Pervious zone From excavation _ From salvage Sand and gravel filter Rock riprap (from salvage) Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Auxiliary Dams Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation _ _ Excavation for embank- ment From borrow pits From quarry Embankment Impervious zone Pervious zone From excavation _ From salvage Sand and gravel filter Rock riprap (from salvage) Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Common Rock Concrete Reinforcing steel 304,200 cu.yd. 903,900 cu.yd. 1,245,230 cu.yd. 780,040 cu.yd. 1,130,730 cu.yd. 128,300 cu.yd. 115,500 cu.yd. 40,500 cu.yd. 8,400 lin.ft. 5,000 cu.ft. 55,260 cu.yd. 180,160 251,410 cu.yd. cu.yd. 156,600 cu.yd. 170,510 22,800 cu.yd. cu.yd. 74,900 cu.yd. 17,900 3,400 2,260 cu.yd. lin.ft. cu.ft. 38,000 cu.yd. 7,130 cu.yd. 7,130 cu.yd. 356,000 lbs. lump sum $1.50 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.50 3.00 4.00 1.50 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.50 3.00 4.00 1.50 5.00 30.00 0.15 $5,000 456,300 677,900 933,900 196,500 226,100 38,500 57,700 20,300 25,200 22.400 $2,659,! 82,900 135,100 188,600 39,200 35,300 6,800 37,400 9,000 10.200 9,000 553,500 57,000 35,700 213,900 53,400 360,000 Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works Excavation Concrete Trench backfill Intake structure Outlet structure Reinforcing steel Steel pipe, 48-inch di- ameter J^-inch plate High-pressure slide gates and controls, 30- inch diameter Hollow jet valve, 42- inch diameter Reservoir Land and improvements Clearing Road relocation Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%. _ TOTAL 2,000 cu.yd. 1,000 cu.yd. 50 cu.yd. 20 cu.yd. 110,000 lbs. 127,500 lbs. 2 ea. 1 ea. 820 ac. $5.00 30.00 100.00 100.00 0.15 0.25 lump sum lump sum lump sum 200.00 lump sum $10,000 30,000 5,000 2,000 16,500 31,900 17,000 7,600 $120,000 39,000 164,000 45,000 248,000 $3,941,300 394,100 591,200 118,200 $5,044,800 $151,300 44,700 3,500 8,500 16,100 $224,100 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF COON CREEK DIVERSION, CONDUIT, AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 263 (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Capacity of conduit: 100 second-feet Length of conduit: 7.8 miles Canal lined for first 0.5 mile Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreage served: 12,000 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price ( ,,-t Capital Costs Diversion Structure Stripping Embankment Timber, flashboards Crane for removing flashboards Levee Stripping Embankment Concrete headwall and wing walls Reinforcing steel Headgate, 4' x 5' Conduit Excavation Compacted fill Trimming Concrete Shotcrete Flume transition structures Road crossings Substructure footings Siphon transition structure Reinforcing steel Timber Road crossings Flume substructure. - Flume, metal Flume, hardware Pipe, 48-inch corru- gated metal Jacking costs Diversion dam at Markham Ravine Rights of way Fencing Clearing Subtotal 320 cu.yd. 900 cu.yd. 1.2 MBM 1,500 cu.yd. 2,000 cu.yd. 22 cu.vd. 2,200 lbs. 72,810 cu.yd. 32,740 cu.yd. 101,830 sq.yd. 5,330 sq.yd. 16 cu.yd. 60 cu.yd. 4 cu.yd. 30 cu.yd. 14,000 lb. 7.5 MBM 2.6 MBM 100 lin.ft. 310 lb. 150 lin.ft. 100 lin.ft. 60 ac. 15.6 mi. 60 ac. $0.50 0.50 250.00 lump sum 0.50 0.50 60.00 0.15 lump sum 0.50 0.50 0.30 3.50 50.00 50.00 80.00 50.00 0.15 350.00 400.00 15.00 1.00 20.00 50.00 lump sum 300 . 00 1,500 200.00 $200 400 300 1 ,000 800 1,000 1,300 300 500 36,400 16,400 30,500 18,700 800 3,000 300 1,500 2,100 2,600 1,000 1,500 300 3,000 5,000 1,500 18,000 23,400 12,000 $1,900 3,900 178,000 $183,800 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Distribution System Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Annual Costs Diversion and Conduit Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887%,. Replacement, 0.50% Operation and mainte- nance, 1.0% General expense, 0.32% TOTAL Distribution System Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887%.. Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot. Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL.: $18,400 27,600 $229,800 12,000 ac. $20.00 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 24,000 36,000 $300,000 $6,900 2,000 1,100 2,300 700 $13,000 $9,000 2,700 23,100 4,800 6,000 $45,600 264 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF DOTY RAVINE DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 340 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 330 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 105 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 32,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 10,800 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Main Dam and Saddle Dams Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation _ _ Excavation for em- bankment Impervious . Pervious Embankment Impervious Pervious Pervious, salvage Riprap Spillway Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Concrete Pipe encasement Structural Reinforcing steel Steel pipe, 48-inch di- ameter Butterfly valve, 36- inch diameter 224,000 cu.yd. 965,300 cu.yd. 852,000 cu.yd. 819,300 cu.yd. 852,000 cu.yd. 225,000 cu.yd. 29,900 cu.yd. 79,700 cu.yd. 1,730 cu.yd. 130,000 lb. 1,000 cu.yd. 425 cu.yd. 40 cu.yd. 50,600 lbs. 61,200 lb. 2 ea. lump sum $1.50 0.45 0.60 0.25 0.20 0.30 2.50 1.50 35.00 0.15 5.00 30.00 90.00 0.15 0.25 6,000 $5,000 336,000 434,400 511,200 204,800 170,400 67,500 74,800 51,804,100 1 19,600 60,600 19,500 5,000 12,800 3,600 7,600 15,300 12,000 199,700 Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued Hollow jet valve, 36- inch diameter Trashrack steel Control house Reservoir Land and improve- ments Public utilities Clearing , Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32% __ TOTAL 1 ea. 11,400 lbs. 400 ac. $9,600 0.25 lump sum lump sum lump sum 400.00 $9,600 2,900 2,000 $70,800 222,000 30,500 160,000 412,500 $2,487,100 248,700 373,000 93,300 $3,202,100 $96,100 28,400 2,200 5,700 10,200 $142,600 ESTIMATED COST OF DOTY RAVINE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Distribution system: Unline d canals and ditches Acreag e served: 6,000 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Distribution System 6,000 ac. $20.00 $120,000 $120,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3%_ Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL $4,500 1,300 $120,000 12,000 18,000 Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none 15,400 2,400 3,000 TOTAL $150,000 $26,600 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF DOTY RAVINE DIVERSION AND CANAL (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Capacity of canal: 60 second-feet Length of canal: 8 miles 265 Canal unlined Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Structure Excavation 50 cu.yd. 19 cu.yd. 1,900 lbs. 0.3 MBM 32,800 cu.yd. 28,160 cu.yd. 86,350 sq.yd. 3 ea. $4.00 100.00 0.15 325.00 lump sum 0.30 0.25 0.05 2,200 $200 1.900 300 100 100 $2,600 9,800 7,000 4.300 6,600 27,700 $30,300 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and engi- $3,000 Concrete Contingencies, 15% . .. Interest during construc- tion TOTAL.. 4,500 600 Reinforcing steel Timber $38,400 Annual Costs Interest, 3%. Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- Excavation Compaction Trimming County road crossings. _ Subtotal - _ _ . $1,200 300 400 General expense, 0.32%.. TOTAL.. 100 $2,000 ESTIMATED COST OF LINCOLN DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 245 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 235 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 60 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 15,000 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 5-foot freeboard: 18,500 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream _ Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation Embankment Impervious, borrow 206,000 cu.yd. 490,000 cu.yd. 428,000 cu.yd. 15,000 cu.yd. 38,000 cu.yd. 30,000 cu.yd. 3,450 cu.yd. 259,000 lbs. 150 cu.yd. 300 cu.yd. 291 cu.yd. 10 cu.yd. 44.600 lbs. 30,000 lbs. 2 ea. lump sum $0.45 0.60 0.50 3.00 0.50 1.00 30.00 0.15 0.50 2.50 30.00 100.00 0.25 0.15 1,500 $5,000 92,700 294,000 214,000 45,000 $650,700 19,000 30,000 103,500 38,900 191,400 70 750 8,730 1,000 11,150 4,500 3,000 29,200 Capital Costs — Continued Reservoir Land and improvements Road relocation Clearing reservoir lands. Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% . Interest during construc- 2 mi. 200 ac. lump sum lump sum $50.00 $100,000 50,000 10,000 $160,000 $1,031,300 Pervious, quarry 103,100 154,700 19,300 Excavation TOTAI $1,308,400 Rock Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Annual Costs Interest, 3% Repayment, . 887 % Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- $39,300 1 1 ,600 900 Rock 2,700 Backfill TOTAL $54,500 Reinforcing steel High-pressure slide gates 30" manual control.. 266 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF LINCOLN PROJECT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Distribution system: Unlinc d canals and ditches Acreag e served: 3,700 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Distribution System 3,700 ac. $20.00 $74,000 $74,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% __ Amortization, 0.887% ... Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot __ Maintenance charge, $0 . 40 per acre ... District overhead, $0. 50 per acre TOTAL $2,800 800 7 200 Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% $74,000 7,400 11,100 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none 1,500 1,900 TOTAL $92,500 $14,200 ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RAVINE DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 650 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of spillway crest: 640 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 175 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 11,700 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 9,400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Diversion and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation .. Excavation for embank- ment Impervious Pervious, borrow Embankment Impervious Pervious Pervious, salvage Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Riprap Auxiliary Dam Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation _ . Excavation for embank- ment. _ Embankment Riprap Spillway Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Spillway crossing Outlet Works Excavation Concrete Structural Pipe encasement Reinforcing steel 110,500 cu.yd. 664,700 cu.yd. 1,126,900 cu.yd. 578,000 cu.yd. 1,126,900 cu.yd. 31,900 cu.yd. 3,720 lin.ft. 1,860 cu.ft. 36,200 cu.yd. 700 cu.yd. 15,600 cu.yd. 13,600 cu.yd. 800 cu.yd. 45,800 cu.yd. 1,349 cu.yd. 101,000 lbs. 7,350 cu.yd. 103 cu.yd. 1,210 cu.yd. 135,800 lbs. lump sum $1.50 0.55 0.60 0.25 0.20 0.30 3.00 4.00 2.50 1.00 0.55 0.25 2.50 1.50 35.00 0.15 lump sum 2.50 90.00 30.00 0.15 $5,000 165,800 365,600 676,100 144,500 225,400 9,600 11,200 7,400 90,500 $1,701,100 700 8,600 3,400 2,000 68,700 47,200 15,200 1,200 18,400 9,300 36,300 20,400 14,700 132,300 Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued Steel pipe, 48-inch di- ameter Trashrack steel Butterfly valve, 30-inch diameter and actua- tors Needle valve, 36-inch diameter Control house Reservoir Land and improvements Public utilities Access road Clearing Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% ... Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance -^ General expense, 0.32%__ TOTAL. 179,000 lbs. 11,800 lbs. 2 ea. 1 ea. 1 mi. 337 ac. $0.25 0.25 4,000 lump sum lump sum lump sum lump sum 25,000 285.00 $44,800 3,000 8,000 8,400 2,000 $150,600 65,000 265,500 25,000 96,000 451,500 $2,450,200 245,000 367,500 36,800 $3,099,500 $93,000 27,500 2,200 2,300 9,900 $134,900 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RAVINE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) 267 Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreag e served: 2,800 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs 2,800 ac. SL'll (III $56,000 $56,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% $2,100 Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL 600 $56,000 5,600 8,400 Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- 7,200 1,100 1,400 TOT\L $70,000 $12,400 ESTIMATED COST OF WHITNEY RANCH DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of crest of dam: 200 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of crest of spillway: 193 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 65 feet Capacity of reservoir to spillway crest: 10,300 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 4-foot freeboard: 4,400 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Unwatering and care of stream Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation.. Excavation for em- bankment Impervious Pervious Embankment Impervious Pervious Pervious, salvage Riprap Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting Spillway Excavation Concrete Reinforcing steel Outlet Works Excavation Concrete Inlet structure Pipe encasement Reinforcing steel Trashrack steel Steel pipe, 24-inch di- ameter Gate valve, 24-inch di- ameter, hydraulic con- trols 125,900 cu.yd. 529,100 cu.yd. 40,000 cu.yd. 460,100 cu.yd. 40,000 cu.yd. 146,000 cu.yd. 27,500 cu.yd. 8,000 lin.ft. 4,000 cu.ft. 35,600 cu.yd. 180 cu.yd. 13,200 lb. 400 cu.yd. 10 cu.yd. 200 cu.yd. 21,000 lb. 500 lb. 14,100 11>. 1 ea. lump sum $1.00 0.55 0.60 0.25 0.20 0.25 2.50 3.00 4.00 1.50 35.00 0.15 5.00 90.00 30.00 0.15 0.30 0.25 lump sum V' (Hill 125,900 291,000 24,000 115,000 8,000 36,500 68.800 24,000 1 6,000 53,400 6.300 2,000 2,000 900 6,000 3,200 200 3,600 2,000 $711,200 61,700 Capital Costs — Continued Gate valve, 18-inch di ameter, manual con trols Control house Reservoir Land Improvements Clearing Subtotal Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construe tion TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3%.. Amortization, 0.887%__. Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- nance General expense, 0.32%_ TOTAL 2 ea. 870 ac. lump sum lump sum $60.00 lump sum $1,000 2,000 $20,900 52,200 100,000 152,200 $946,000 94,600 141,900 17,700 $1,200,200 $36,000 10,600 800 2,300 3,800 $53,500 268 I'LACKH folXTV LWESTKJ ATK >N ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RAVINE DIVERSION AND CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Capacity of conduit: 50 second-feet Length of conduit: 12 miles Canal unlined Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Structure Excavation 330 cu.yd. 152 cu.yd. 15,200 lb. 5,000 lb. 33,400 cu.yd. 28,000 cu.yd. 100,000 sq.yd. 2 ea. 5 ea. $4.00 60.00 0.15 0.60 0.30 0.25 0.05 2,500 1,500 $1,300 9,100 2,300 3,000 .$15,700 10,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 7,500 34,500 Capital Costs — Continued Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3%. Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- $5,000 7,500 Reinforcing steel Slide gates, 4' x 4' Conduit $62,700 Compaction Trimming County road crossings.. Farm road crossings $1,900 600 Subtotal . . $50,200 600 General expense, 0.32% _ _ TOTAL 200 $3,300 ESTIMATED COST OF WHITNEY RANCH DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Distribution system: Unlined canals and ditches Acreage served: 2,000 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Annual Costs Distribution system 2,000 ac. $20.00 $40,000 $40,000 Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- $1,500 400 Subtotal $40,000 Administration and en- gineering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none 4.000 6,000 nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre _ . TOTAL.. 5,200 800 1,000 TOTAL,,. $50,000 $8,900 APPENDIX N ESTIMATED COST OF CLOVER VALLEY DAM AND RESERVOIR (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) I'll! I ■levation of crest of dam: 390 feet, U. S. G. S. datum llevation of crest of spillway: 380 feet Height of dam to spillway crest, above stream bed: 120 feet Capacity of reservoir to crest of spillway: 21,600 acre-feet Capacity of spillway with 5-foot freeboard: 3,100 second-feet Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Dam Stripping and prepara- tion of foundation . . 138,000 cu.yd. 890,000 cu.yd. 1,880,000 cu.yd. 8,700 lin.ft. 11,000 cu.ft. 25,500 cu.yd. 50,800 cu.yd. 500 cu.yd. 30,700 lb. 260 cu.yd. 530 cu.yd. 230 cu.yd. 50 cu.yd. 28,300 lb. 70,200 lb. 2 ea. 1 ea. $0.75 . 7.5 0.70 3.00 4.00 0.50 2.00 35.00 0.15 0.50 2.00 30.00 100.00 0.15 0.25 6,000 10,500 $103,500 007,500 1,310,000 20,000 44,000 $2,1.57,000 12,800 101,000 17,500 5,500 137.400 100 1,100 0,900 ,5,000 4,300 17,500 12,000 10.500 Capital Costs — Continued Outlet Works — Continued Trashrack steel 14,000 lb. 2.9 mi. 500 ac. $0.25 lump sum lump sum lump sum 50.00 $3,800 2,000 $03,200 Embankment Reservoir Land and improvements Relocate telephone cable Clearing reservoir lands- Pervious .. Drilling grout holes Pressure grouting 37,500 105,500 25,000 108,000 spillway $2,525 000 Excavation Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- Rock Concrete, lining Reinforcing steel 252,600 378,800 47,400 Outlet Works TOTAL $3,204,400 Common Rock Annual Costs Interest, 3% Concrete Backfill $90,100 28,400 2,200 5,000 Reinforcing steel. .. _ Steel pipe Butterfly valve, 30-inch Repayment, 0.887% Replacement, 0.07% Operation and mainte- Hollow jet valve, 42- TOTAL $131,700 ESTIMATED COST OF CLOVER VALLEY DIVERSION AND CONDUIT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Capacity of conduit: 75 second-feet ength of conduit: 15 miles Canal unlined Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Diversion Structure 100 cu.yd. 40 cu.yd. 4.000 lb. .5.000 lb. 140,000 lb. 230,000 cu.yd. 195,000 cu.yd. 8.5,000 sq.yd. 8 ea. 4 ea. 3 ea. 1,800 lin.ft. $4.00 00.00 0.15 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.05 0.000 2.000 1,200 120.00 $400 2,400 600 3,000 $6,400 42,000 42,000 69,000 48,800 4.300 48,000 8,000 3.000 181.700 210.000 210,000 Capital Costs —Continued Administration and engi- $44,600 Oontingencies, 1.5% Interest during construc- 06,900 Reinforcing steel- 16,700 TOTAL Annual Costs Interest, 3%_ Amortization, 0.887% Operation and mainte- Auburn Ravine Siphon Welded steel pipe Canal $574,300 Compaction Trimming County road crossings- _ Farm road crossings Stream crossings. $17,200 5,100 5,700 General expense. 0.32%. . TOTAL 1,800 Clover Valley Tunnel Tunnel .. $29,800 $446,100 270 PLACER COUNTY INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED COST OF CLOVER VALLEY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Distribution system: Unlined canols and ditches Acreages served: 4,700 acres Item Quantity Unit price Cost Item Quantity Unit price Cost Capital Costs Distribution System 4,700 ac. $20.00 $94,000 $94,000 Annual Costs Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% _„ Operation and mainte- nance Ditch tender service, $0.55 per acre-foot. _ Maintenance charge, $0.40 per acre District overhead, $0.50 per acre TOTAL $3,500 1,000 12,100 Subtotal Administration and engi- $94,000 9,400 14,100 Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion, none 1,900 2,400 TOTAL $117,500 $20,900 ESTIMATED COST OF AUBURN RAVINE POWER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Based on prices prevailing in April, 1953) Elevation of forebay water surface: 875 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Elevation of power house tailrace: 465 feet, U. S. G. S. datum Capacity of penstock: 170 second-feet Length of penstock: 4,590 feet Item Capital Costs Power House 10,000 kilowatt, single unit plant 1 ,000 kilowatt generator Access road Clearing Penstock Penstock Anchors and piers Concrete Reinforcing steel Butterfly valves Forebay Excavation Compacted fill Outlet Pipe and valve Trashrack Concrete Reinforcing steel Conduit Intake Canal Subtotal Administration and engi- neering, 10% Contingencies, 15% Interest during construc- tion TOTAL Quantity 10,000 kw. 1,000 kw. 1 mi. 5 ac. 2,000 lin.ft. 1,130 lin.ft. 720 lin.ft. 680 lin.ft. 1,380 cu.yd. 104,000 lb. 297,300 cu.yd. 88,900 cu.yd. 000 ft. 7,000 lb. 1,300 cu.yd. 100,000 lb. 13,700 lin.ft. Unit price $108.00 200.00 80,000 200.00 34.00 55.00 80.00 87.00 50.00 0.15 17,500 0.45 0.85 12.00 0.15 35.00 0.15 lump sum 11.00 Cost ,080,000 200.000 80,000 1,000 $1,361,000 70,000 62,200 57,000 59,200 69,000 15,600 35,000 133,800 75,600 368,600 7,200 1,100 45,500 15,000 278,200 5,000 150,700 155,700 $2,163,500 $216,400 324,500 6 1,900 $2,769,300 Item Annual Costs Power House Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% _ Replacement, 1.20%___ Operation and mainte- nance, $5 . 00 per kilo- watt Insurance, 0.12% General expense, 0.32% Penstock Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% _ Replacement, 1.00% Operation and mainte- nance, $0.0125 per sq. ft General expense, 0.32% Forebay Interest, 3% Amortization, 0.887% . Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance, 0.5% General expense, 0.32% Conduit Interest, 3%___ Amortization, 0.887% . Replacement, 0.02% Operation and mainte- nance, 1% General expense, 0.32% TOTAL Quantity Unit price Cost 52,300 15,500 20,900 55,000 2,100 5,600 $151,400 14,200 4,200 4,700 2,100 1,500 26,700 10,700 3,200 100 1,800 1,100 16,900 6,000 1,800 100 2,000 600 10,500 $205,500 81627 6-53 500 printed in California state printing office THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE BOOK i RETURN TO the citation desk of anv Umversity of California Library a " y NORTHERN REGI0 ^r[ IBRARyFAC( University of California 1301 SomMeTslree^'f "' B,d 9- 400 -sooK S ::r R :r: D i F c rr 98 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 1U1697 Call Number TD201 1 Calif. State water resources board. Bulletin . C2 no. 10 VUte TP2 Cl . ' PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY 14189*7