Agenda packet — Sutter Creek City Council, December 2, 2024

City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, December 02, 2024 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available via Zoom and in person.

Join Zoom meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81685890182?pwd=jNxsS1HWAyjCT1SfPqwCKWb6T1I6NZ.1 Please note: Zoom participation is only available for VIEWING the Council meeting. *Public Comment will not be taken from Zoom*
Or Dial by phone: 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 816 8589 0182 Passcode: 186036 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

3. Public Forum
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda.

Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2. Public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.

4. City Manager’s Report
This section is an opportunity to provide Council members with a brief status update on staff activities. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
1 A. 2024 Year in Review

5. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of Nov 18, 2024
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.

6. Consent Agenda
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and shall be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.

7. Presentations

8. Ordinances and Public Hearing
A. Approval of Resolutions to Implement 1% Local Transaction and Use Tax (Measure P) Action item to approve two resolutions authorizing agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to Implement the City's 1% local transaction and use Tax (Measure P)

9. Administrative Agenda
A. Notice of upcoming hearing on Solid Waste rate increases Information report on multi year rate increase
B. Capital Infrastructre Plan (CIP)
This Item has been continued to date uncertain. It is continuing to be updated and refined, and should be available early in 2025

10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present updates on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.

A. Proposed plan for Bike/Ped Route
Upate to Council from Council Member Sierk showing proposed road markings.

11. City Attorney’s Report
This section provides an opportunity for the City Attorney to report on any activities or upcoming legislation of importance to the City. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.

12. Future Agenda Items
This section provides an opportunity for Council members to request items to be added to the agenda in the future with a majority Council vote.

13. Information and Correspondence
A. Draft Response Letter to Regional Water Board
ARSA Water Balance Analysis
2 14. Closed Session
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager

15. Report from Closed Session

16. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Dec 16th, 2024
3 City Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 18, 2024 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting was available via Zoom and in person.

1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting Council members Feist, Gunselman, Riordan, and Swift present in chambers.

Council member Sierk was present on zoom.

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

3. Public Forum
No speakers

4. City Manager’s Report
City Manager DuBois presented an update attached. He reviewed some emergency ARSA repairs, update on a potential company coming to Sutter Creek, and a County emergency preparation meeting.

5. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of Nov 4, 2024 and October 21, 2024 Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.

Motion: Council member Riordan, Seconded by Council member Swift Motion passed 5-0

6. Administrative Agenda
A. Amador County Tourism Marketing District
Kathleen Mahan and Tracey Berkner presented the process to form a special business district, which will notify all lodgings including AirBNB. They are presenting to each City Council, and will then present to 4 Section 5, Item A.
the County at a County public hearing, and a second hearing. To pass they mush have 51% of lodging units. They reported that the Kiota Inn is on the board. Expect to get much more than 50%. The process will likely take until Feb. THe special district fee will sunset in 5 years. They funds will be spent on marketing the area to compete with others counties in California. Their goal is to get tourism up to 7 days a week for the business community. Council members asked followup questions:

CM Sierk - 2% fee for business district? Yes. Where does it go? Goes to marketing and generating visitors.

Mayor Gunselman - Was the Wine heritage district approved? Yes, it passed County, now mailing vote to the Vitners. Dissolving Vintners association and forming a new group. ACT will remain but be an administrator. The Tourism lodging district will have its own board. Currently 100% volunteer board, hope to hire an executive director.

Council member Riodan: - only lodging folks who pay? Yes Council member Swift - clarified the difference between an assessment vs tax. HGL will be hired to collect the fees
Motion made by Council member Sierk, Seconded by Council member Feist Motion passed by 5-0 vote
B. Short Term Rental Policy Discussion
Staff explained that we have had seven applications in the last 2 years for a total of 19. In addition to short term rentals, there are hotels, making a total of 26 establishments from which the City collected TOT. 3 former short term rentals are currently inactive. Staff would like to collect more information when people register such as safety information and reviewing the renter manuals.

Council member discussion ensued.

Council member Sierk: Any kind of audit process? The city tried a company, reported rentals matched the information the city had. We can also look on airbnb periodically to see if anyone is not registered. .

Council member Riordan: Commented that we are barely hitting 20th. Doesn’t seem to be an issue Council member Feist: How many houses in Sutter Creek? 1428 housing units. Nearly 50% are rentals.

Council member Sierk: What is considered short-term? Anything less than 30 days by state law.

Mayor Gunselman: Suggested a staw poll on whether there is council interest to work on Short term rental ordinance now or not? Polling was 4 - 1 Not interested now.

Council member Swift: Suggested Council pick up the issue when a percentage of the housing stock is short term rentals such as 4 -5%. We have requirements for parking, contact. Requirement on response time could be more clear, whether that is by phone or in person. . 5 Section 5, Item A.

Mayor Gunselman commented that she disagreed with waiting until later.

Council member Riordan: Felt it not a problem at the moment, agreed with updating safety requirements Council member Sierk agreed with waiting until we hit a percentage target. Also agreed about adding safety requirements now.

Planner Ventura discussed other cities having initial inspections and renewal inspection, only good for 3 years, non-transferable. Feels we need to update Safety information during submission process.

Council began discussing more substantial changes such as restrictions by zoning, owner vs whole house, density on a block, and looking at ordinances in other cities.

There was a suggestion that perhaps the fire district could inspect for alarms.

Current application fee is $600 plus staff costs, this has been sufficient. There is alsto the business license charge. In Plymouth they charge less - 2 -3 hours of staff time. Renewal is 1 hour.

PUBLIC comments - a Member of the public commented that hotels are not subject to inspections, the only requirements are by the health department. The City should require insurance, insurers will require safety elements.

Council resumed discussion. City code requires a CUP outside of the downtown district, commercial zones, and mixed use zones. This drives the cost, sending it to the planning commission. The City could update its ordinances to alow staff approval with appeal of the decision. Currently the planning commission has no real decisions to make, staff ensures the applications meet the requirements before bringing them to the commission.

Council spent significant time on a complicated ordinance in the past that was shelved.

There was a council consensus to do the following:
a. Have staff improve the application process to require insurance, a floor plan, and the clear directions on safety equipment such as fire alarms, fire extinguisher, and utility cutoff. b. Staff will send out the last draft of the previous ordinance and current ordinance. c. During 2025, Staff will come back with an outline of an ordinance update to address some of the concerns raised and look at staff level processing of applications.

C. California Jobs First Grant
Motion: Direct staff to apply for Catalyst grant and for Mayor to sign a letter of support Staff presented the report and Council discussed
Council member Swift commented he liked it. Other council members agreed.

Motion to support effort made by Council member Swift, seconded by Council member Fiest Motion passed 5-0
D. Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP)
6 Section 5, Item A.

This Item has been continued to the Dec 2, 2024 Council Meeting

7. Mayor and Council Member Reports
Council Member Swift: There are updated ideas on the bike/ped project. Will be shared at next meeting.

Mayor Gunselman: Duck race planning is moving along. Benefit foundation is supporting financially and the Native sons paid for the ducks. Jackson Rancheria has made a donation. Invitations will go out to Sutter Creek non-profits to participate. .

Council member Swift - Giving Tuesday is coming up on Nov 26th.

8. City Attorney’s Report
None

9. Future Agenda Items
None

10. Information and Correspondence
A. Treasurer's Report - Note all accounts now returning over 4.6% interest B. Finance Monthly Reports
C. Planning Monthly Report
D. Public Works Monthly Report
E. Police Monthly Report
F. Engineering Monthly Report

11. Adjournment
Adjourned at 7:43
The next regularly scheduled meeting is December 2, 2024 7 Section 5, Item A.
1 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
FROM: DEREK COLE, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS WITH

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE

ADMINISTRATION FOR PREPARATION, ADMINISTRATION,

COLLECTION, AND EXAMINATION OF RECORDS RELATED TO
THE CITY’S ONE-CENT TRANSACTION AND USE TAXES (MEASURE
P)
Background and Analysis
Measure P, which enacts a City transaction and use (“sales”) tax, was approved by more than a majority of voters in the November 2024 General Election. As of the date of this memorandum, the County had not completed its canvass of that election, but the margin of votes by which the Measure was leading was too great to be overcome.

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) will administer the collection of and transmittal of the Measure P revenues to the City. As a condition for doing so, it requires the City to enter into two agreements, for which City Council approval is sought.

Preparatory Agreement. This agreement will authorize CDTFA to prepare for the collection of the newly approved sales tax and to calculate the associated costs CDTFA will incur – and that the City will be obligated to pay CDTFA – for its collection of the tax on the City’s behalf.

Administration Agreement. This agreement will govern how CDTFA administers and collects the sales tax revenue for the City. This detailed agreement would identify the CDTFA and City responsibilities and the timing and terms of transfers of revenue to the City following the collection of taxes from within the City.

CDTFA also requires that cities identify the staff members who are authorized to inspect the records that agency gathers from vendors who collect the sales tax. (These records are otherwise 8 Section 8, Item A.
2 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer confidential under applicable law.) The proposed resolution specifies that the City Manager and Finance Supervisor would have these authorities.

Fiscal Impact
The proposed actions will not themselves have measurable financial impacts, but they will allow the City to collect the annual revenue Measure P is expected to generate, which is estimated to be $579,000. CDTFA will require reimbursement from the City for the services it performs. The amount of such reimbursement is not known at this time.

Recommendation
The City Council should adopt the resolutions (1) authorizing execution of the Preparation and Administration Agreements, and (2) authorizing the examination of records.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Preparation and Administration Agreements, including attachments:

A. Preparation Agreement
B. Administration Agreement

2. Resolution Authorizing the Examination of Records
9 Section 8, Item A.

RESOLUTION 24-25-*

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND

FEE ADMINISTRATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOCAL TRANSACTIONS

AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, at the General Election that occurred on November 5. 2024, the voters of the City of Sutter Creek approved by more than a majority vote Measure P, which approved Ordinance No. ___, enacting a transaction and use tax in Chapter 4.06 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“Department”) administers and collects the transactions and use taxes for all applicable jurisdictions within the state;
WHEREAS, the Department requires that the City enter into a “Preparatory Agreement” and an “Administration Agreement” prior to implementation of said taxes; WHEREAS, the Department requires that the City Council authorize the agreements; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act is not applicable to the adoption of these agreements because their approvals are not “projects,” as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15378(a), and because of the exceptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), section 15378(b)(3) and (4) for proposals submitted to voters and fiscal decisions.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the “Preparatory Agreement” attached as Exhibit A and the “Administrative Agreement” attached as Exhibit B.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 2nd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
______________________________________
Mason Peters, Deputy City Clerk
10 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 07/24) 1

AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION TO ADMINISTER AND OPERATE

CITY'S TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE
In order to prepare to administer a transactions and use tax ordinance adopted in accordance with the provision of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the CITY OF SUTTER CREEK, hereinafter called City, and the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, hereinafter called Department, do agree as follows:

1. The Department agrees to enter into work to prepare to administer and operate a transactions and use tax in conformity with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code which has been approved by a majority of the electors of the City and whose ordinance has been adopted by the City.

2. City agrees to pay to the Department at the times and in the amounts hereinafter specified all of the Department's costs for preparatory work necessary to administer the City's transactions and use tax ordinance. The Department's costs for preparatory work include costs of developing procedures, programming for data processing, developing and adopting appropriate regulations, designing and printing forms, developing instructions for the Department's staff and for taxpayers, and other appropriate and necessary preparatory costs to administer a transactions and use tax ordinance.

These costs shall include both direct and indirect costs as specified in Section 11256 of the Government Code.

3. Preparatory costs may be accounted for in a manner which conforms to the internal accounting and personnel records currently maintained by the Department. The billings for costs may be presented in summary form. Detailed records of preparatory costs will be retained for audit and verification by the City.

4. Any dispute as to the amount of preparatory costs incurred by the Department shall be referred to the State Director of Finance for resolution, and the Director's decision shall be final.

5. Preparatory costs incurred by the Department shall be billed by the Department periodically, with the final billing within a reasonable time after the operative date of the ordinance. City shall pay to the Department the amount of such costs on or before the last day of the next succeeding month following the month when the billing is received.
11 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 07/24) 2

6. The amount to be paid by City for the Department's preparatory costs shall not exceed one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7272.)

7. Communications and notices may be sent by first class United States mail or through email at [email protected]. If and when communications and notices may include confidential information, communications and notices must be sent through encrypted email at [email protected] or by mail. Communications and notices to be sent to the Department shall be addressed to:

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration
P.O. Box 942879 MIC: 27
Sacramento, California 94279-0027
Attention: Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Communications and notices to be sent to City shall be addressed to:

City of Sutter Creek
Attention: City Manager
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek, California 95685

8. The date of this agreement is the date on which it is approved by the Department of General Services. This agreement shall continue in effect until the preparatory work necessary to administer City's transactions and use tax ordinance has been completed and the Department has received all payments due from City under the terms of this agreement.

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX

AND FEE ADMINISTRATION
By By
Tom DuBois Administrator
City Manager Local Revenue Branch

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ 12 Section 8, Item A.

AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION

OF CITY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES
The City Council of the City of the City of Sutter Creek has adopted, and the voters of the City of Sutter Creek (hereafter called “City” or “District”) have approved by the required majority vote, the City of Sutter Creek Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance (hereafter called “Ordinance”), a copy of which is attached hereto. To carry out the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the Ordinance, the California State Department of Tax and Fee Administration, (hereinafter called the “Department”) and the City do agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS
Unless the context requires otherwise, wherever the following terms appear in the Agreement, they shall be interpreted to mean the following:

1. "District taxes" shall mean the transactions and use taxes, penalties, and interest imposed under an ordinance specifically authorized by Revenue and Taxation code Section 7262.2, and in compliance with Part 1.6, Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

2. "City Ordinance" shall mean the City's Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance referred to above and attached hereto, Ordinance No. , as amended from time to time, or as deemed to be amended from time to time pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7262.2.

ARTICLE II

ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION

OF CITY TAXES
A. Administration. The Department and City agree that the Department shall perform exclusively all functions incident to the administration and operation of the City Ordinance. 13 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 2
B. Other Applicable Laws. City agrees that all provisions of law applicable to the administration and operation of the Department Sales and Use Tax Law which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall be applicable to the administration and operation of the City Ordinance. City agrees that money collected pursuant to the City Ordinance may be deposited into the State Treasury to the credit of the Retail Sales Tax Fund and may be drawn from that Fund for any authorized purpose, including making refunds, compensating and reimbursing the Department pursuant to Article IV of this Agreement, and transmitting to City the amount to which City is entitled.

C. Transmittal of money.

1. For the period during which the tax is in effect, and except as otherwise provided herein, all District taxes collected under the provisions of the City Ordinance shall be transmitted to City periodically as promptly as feasible, but not less often than twice in each calendar quarter.

2. For periods subsequent to the expiration date of the tax whether by City’s self-imposed limits or by final judgment of any court of the State of California holding that City’s ordinance is invalid or void, all District taxes collected under the provisions of the City Ordinance shall be transmitted to City not less than once in each calendar quarter.

3. Transmittals may be made by mail or electronic funds transfer to an account of the City designated and authorized by the City. A statement shall be furnished at least quarterly indicating the amounts withheld pursuant to Article IV of this Agreement.

D. Rules. The Department shall prescribe and adopt such rules and regulations as in its judgment are necessary or desirable for the administration and operation of the City Ordinance and the distribution of the district taxes collected thereunder.

E. Preference. Unless the payor instructs otherwise, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Department shall give no preference in applying money received for state sales and use taxes, state-administered local sales and use taxes, and District transactions and use taxes owed by a taxpayer, but shall apply moneys collected to the satisfaction of the claims of the State, cities, counties, cities and counties, redevelopment agencies, other districts, and City as their interests appear. 14 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 3
F. Security.

The Department agrees that any security which it hereafter requires to be furnished by taxpayers under the State Sales and Use Tax Law will be upon such terms that it also will be available for the payment of the claims of City for district taxes owing to it as its interest appears. The Department shall not be required to change the terms of any security now held by it, and City shall not participate in any security now held by the Department.

G. Records of the Department.

When requested by resolution of the legislative body of the City under section 7056 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Department agrees to permit authorized personnel of the City to examine the records of the Department, including the name, address, and account number of each seller holding a seller’s permit with a registered business location in the City, pertaining to the ascertainment of transactions and use taxes collected for the City. Information obtained by the City from examination of the Department's records shall be used by the City only for purposes related to the collection of transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to this Agreement.

H. Annexation.

City agrees that the Department shall not be required to give effect to an annexation, for the purpose of collecting, allocating, and distributing District transactions and use taxes, earlier than the first day of the calendar quarter which commences not less than two months after notice to the Department. The notice shall include the name of the county or counties annexed to the extended City boundary. In the event the City shall annex an area, the boundaries of which are not coterminous with a county or counties, the notice shall include a description of the area annexed and two maps of the City showing the area annexed and the location address of the property nearest to the extended City boundary on each side of every street or road crossing the boundary. 15 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 4

ARTICLE III

ALLOCATION OF TAX
A. Allocation. In the administration of the Department's contracts with all districts that impose transactions and use taxes imposed under ordinances, which comply with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

1. Any payment not identified as being in payment of liability owing to a designated district or districts may be apportioned among the districts as their interest appear, or, in the discretion of the Department, to all districts with which the Department has contracted using ratios reflected by the distribution of district taxes collected from all taxpayers.

2. All District taxes collected as a result of determinations or billings made by the Department, and all amounts refunded or credited may be distributed or charged to the respective districts in the same ratio as the taxpayer's self-declared district taxes for the period for which the determination, billing, refund or credit applies.

B. Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft. For the purpose of allocating use tax with respect to vehicles, vessels, or aircraft, the address of the registered owner appearing on the application for registration or on the certificate of ownership may be used by the Department in determining the place of use.

ARTICLE IV

COMPENSATION
The City agrees to pay to the Department as the State's cost of administering the City Ordinance such amount as is provided for by law. Such amounts shall be deducted from the taxes collected by the Department for the City.
16 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 5

ARTICLE V

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Communications. Communications and notices may be sent by first class United States mail to the addresses listed below, or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time designate or through email at [email protected]. If and when communications and notices may include confidential information, communications and notices must be sent through encrypted email at [email protected] or by mail.

Communications and notices to be sent to the Department shall be addressed to:

California State Department of Tax and Fee Administration P.O. Box 942879
Sacramento, California 94279-0027
Attention: Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Communications and notices to be sent to the City shall be addressed to:

City of Sutter Creek
Attention: City Manager
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek, California 95685
Unless otherwise directed, transmittals of payment of District transactions and use taxes will be sent to the address above.

B. Term. The date of this Agreement is the date on which it is approved by the Department of General Services. The Agreement shall take effect on April 1, 2025. This Agreement shall continue until December 31 next following the expiration date of the City Ordinance, and shall thereafter be renewed automatically from year to year until the Department completes all work necessary to the 17 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 6
administration of the City Ordinance and has received and disbursed all payments due under that Ordinance.

C. Notice of Repeal of Ordinance. City shall give the Department written notice of the repeal of the City Ordinance not less than 110 days prior to the operative date of the repeal. 18 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 7

ARTICLE VI

ADMINISTRATION OF TAXES IF THE

ORDINANCE IS CHALLENGED AS BEING INVALID
A. Impoundment of funds.

1. When a legal action is begun challenging the validity of the imposition of the tax, the City shall deposit in an interest-bearing escrow account, any proceeds transmitted to it under Article II. C., until a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final and non-appealable judgment that the tax is valid.

2. If the tax is determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the City shall transmit to the Department the moneys retained in escrow, including any accumulated interest, within ten days of the judgment of the trial court in the litigation awarding costs and fees becoming final and non-appealable.

B. Costs of administration. Should a final judgment be entered in any court of the State of California, holding that City's Ordinance is invalid or void, and requiring a rebate or refund to taxpayers of any taxes collected under the terms of this Agreement, the parties mutually agree that:

1. Department may retain all payments made by City to Department to prepare to administer the City Ordinance.

2. City will pay to Department and allow Department to retain Department's cost of administering the City Ordinance in the amounts set forth in Article IV of this Agreement.

3. City will pay to Department or to the State of California the amount of any taxes plus interest and penalties, if any, that Department or the State of California may be required to rebate or refund to taxpayers.
19 Section 8, Item A.
(Rev. 7/24) 8

4. City will pay to Department its costs for rebating or refunding such taxes, interest, or penalties. Department's costs shall include its additional cost for developing procedures for processing the rebates or refunds, its costs of actually making these refunds, designing and printing forms, and developing instructions for Department's staff for use in making these rebates or refunds and any other costs incurred by Department which are reasonably appropriate or necessary to make those rebates or refunds. These costs shall include Department's direct and indirect costs as specified by Section 11256 of the Government Code.

5. Costs may be accounted for in a manner, which conforms to the internal accounting, and personnel records currently maintained by the Department. The billings for such costs may be presented in summary form. Detailed records will be retained for audit and verification by City.

6. Any dispute as to the amount of costs incurred by Department in refunding taxes shall be referred to the State Director of Finance for resolution and the Director's decision shall be final.

7. Costs incurred by Department in connection with such refunds shall be billed by Department on or before the 25th day of the second month following the month in which the judgment of a court of the State of California holding City's Ordinance invalid or void becomes final. Thereafter Department shall bill City on or before the 25th of each month for all costs incurred by Department for the preceding calendar month. City shall pay to Department the amount of such costs on or before the last day of the succeeding month and shall pay to Department the total amount of taxes, interest, and penalties refunded or paid to taxpayers, together with Department costs incurred in making those refunds.

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX

AND FEE ADMINISTRATION
By By
Tom DuBois Administrator
City Manager Local Revenue Branch

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ 20 Section 8, Item A.

RESOLUTION ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK

AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES OR TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX

RECORDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. ____, the City of Sutter Creek (“City”) entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“Department”) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of sales or transaction and use taxes;
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act is not applicable to the adoption of this resolution because its approval is not a “project,” as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15378(a), and because of the exceptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), section 15378(b)(3) and (4) for proposals submitted to voters and fiscal decisions.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED
Section 1.

That the City Manager and Finance Supervisor, or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, is hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department.

Section 2.

The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City:
(a) Sales, transaction, or use tax collection or administration; (b) Budgeting and forecasting of revenue;
(c) Capital improvement projects;
21 Section 8, Item A.
(d) Community and economic development; and
(e) Detection of misallocations and deficiencies.

The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above.

Section 3.

This resolution supersedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 2nd day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
______________________________________
[Name], City Clerk
22 Section 8, Item A.
1 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer

STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
FROM: DEREK COLE, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: INITIATION OF PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF SOLID-WASTE RATE

INCREASES
Background and Analysis
Republic Services, the City’s solid-waste hauler, is proposing a new rate schedule for 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028, following a detailed rate review performed earlier this year. The proposed rate schedule is attached to this staff report. They are proposing a multiple year adoption.

The City follows Proposition 218 in setting solid-waste collection rates. A “majority protest” procedure is held in which ratepayers have the ability to object to the proposed increases. If no such protest is made, the Council considers the adoption of the proposed rate schedule, which would take effect on March 1, 2025 (rate reflects 9 month period for 2025, 12 months for the rest).

The Council will hold the hearing and consideration of adoption of the rate increases in February.

Mailed notices of the rate increase will be sent to all ratepayers in accordance with Proposition 218. Timeline:
 Dec 2025 – Mail/postmark Prop 218 notices, start 45-day period  Feb 2025 – End of 45-day period
 Feb 2025 – City Council Meeting, Public Hearing, review protests  March 1 effective date
Fiscal Impact
None associated with this report.

Recommendation
The City Council should receive the report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed solid waste rate increase schedule
23 Section 9, Item A.

Current Monthly
Rate (thru
12/31/2024)
Monthly Rate
Adjustment
New Rate
3/1/2025 -
12/31/2025
New Rate Year 1*
1/1/2026 -
12/31/2026
New Rate Year 2*
1/1/2027 -
12/31/2027
New Rate Year 4*
1/1/2028 - 12/31/2028
Residential Services
32-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 38.01 $ 1.82 $ 40.20 $ 43.82 $ 48.20 $ 53.02 64-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 49.15 $ 2.36 $ 51.98 $ 56.66 $ 62.33 $ 68.56 96-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 66.80 $ 3.21 $ 70.65 $ 77.01 $ 84.71 $ 93.18 Senior Rates
32-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 34.21 $ 1.64 $ 36.18 $ 39.44 $ 43.38 $ 47.72 64-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 44.23 $ 2.12 $ 46.77 $ 50.99 $ 56.09 $ 61.70 96-Gallon Weekly Pick-up $ 60.12 $ 2.89 $ 63.58 $ 69.31 $ 76.24 $ 83.86 Commercial Service
1-Yard Bin Weekly $ 173.63 $ 8.33 $ 183.63 $ 200.16 $ 220.18 $ 242.19 2-Yard Bin Weekly $ 289.09 $ 13.88 $ 305.74 $ 333.26 $ 366.59 $ 403.25 3-Yard Bin Weekly $ 404.16 $ 19.40 $ 427.44 $ 465.92 $ 512.51 $ 563.76 4-Yard Bin Weekly $ 519.43 $ 24.93 $ 549.35 $ 598.80 $ 658.68 $ 724.55 6-Yard Bin Weekly $ 692.26 $ 33.23 $ 732.13 $ 798.04 $ 877.84 $ 965.63 7-Yard Bin Weekly $ 866.07 $ 41.57 $ 915.96 $ 998.41 $ 1,098.25 $ 1,208.07 * Not to Exceed 10% * Not to Exceed 10% * Not to Exceed 10% City of Sutter Creek
Republic Services - Solid Waste Services
Proposed Rate Increases
V:\Public\Aces\Contracts\SUTTER CREEK\Rate Increases\Sutter Creek Proposed multi-year year adjustment_compressed rate eff 3.1.2025 24 Section 9, Item A.
25 Section 10, Item A.
26 Section 10, Item A.
27 Section 10, Item A.
28 Section 10, Item A.
29 Section 10, Item A.

Technical Memorandum
Sacramento • Berkeley • San Jose
www.hydroscience.com
To: Tom DuBois, ARSA General Manager
From: Hydroscience Engineers, Inc.

Prepared By: Steven Whittlesey, PE
Reviewed By: Bill Slenter, PE
Subject: ARSA Water Balance Update
Date: November 25, 2024
This Technical Memorandum (TM) provides the water balance and supporting documentation for the Amador Regional Sanitation Agency (ARSA) disposal system in joint operation with the Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Facility (COWRF) and the Castle Oaks Golf Course (COGC) which receive secondary disinfected effluent from the Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This TM is organized into the following sections:
• Background Information
• WWTP Flow & Population Data
• Climatological Data
• Storage Facilities Characterization
• Disposal Facilities Characterization
• Water Balance Results
Background Information
The ARSA, City of Ione (City), and Portlock International Ltd. (Portlock) are all permittees under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Reclamation Requirement Order 93- 240 (WRRs). The WRRs permit the ARSA system, the COWRF, and the COGC land application areas (LAAs). ARSA operates the storage and disposal facilities downstream of the Sutter Creek WWTP, however the City operates the COWRF and Portlock operates the COGC.

ARSA’s system includes conveyance infrastructure, three storage reservoirs and two LAAs. The system receives secondary disinfected effluent from the Sutter Creek WWTP and disposes of it on the Bower’s Ranch and Hoskin’s Ranch LAAs. Storage is provided in the ARSA system by the Henderson Reservoir, Preston Forebay and Preston Reservoir. Remaining effluent that is not disposed in the ARSA system is conveyed to the COWRF to receive tertiary treatment before it is disposed at the COGC. ARSA also owns a siphon from Jackass Creek that may divert surface water to meet irrigation demands when inadequate volume of Sutter Creek WWTP effluent is available. The Jackass Creek siphon is in need of repair and ARSA continues to seek cost effective bids for the work expected to occur in 2025 at the earliest.

Under a 2007 contractual agreement with the City, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) has sent effluent to the COWRF either through Preston Reservoir or directly via an interconnection pipe. The discharge from MCSP to the COWRF is not described in the WRRs and is an agreement between ARSA, the City, and the CDCR. This agreement is the three Parties’ effort to manage the interconnected system to the maximum benefit possible. The flow diagram of the interconnected system is illustrated in Figure

1. DRAFT
30 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 2 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Figure 1: ARSA Storage and Disposal System Flow Diagram DRAFT
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 3 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
On August 14, 2024, the SWRCB issued a Water Code Section 13267 Order to requiring ARSA, MCSP, and the City to verify their abilities and capacities to adequately convey, treat, and dispose of the wastewater generated by their own respective collection systems without impacting beneficial uses. This Order requires ARSA, the City, and Portlock to submit an updated water balance by December 13, 2024. This TM provides all required information in response to the August 14, 2024, Water Code Section 13267 Order.

WWTP Flow & Population Data
This section documents the existing wastewater flows to the Sutter Creek WWTP, and wastewater flows over the next 5 years based on population growth as required by the Water Code Section 13267 Order item 1.A. Daily flow data from January 2017 through September 2024 for the Sutter Creek WWTP and monthly status reports from January 2016 through July 2024 for ARSA facilities were provided by Sutter Creek and ARSA Staff. Population data was sourced from the California Department of Finance. Population and flow data is included as Attachment A for reference.

Current Flow Conditions
An analysis of the daily flow data indicates the Average Dry Weather Flow (average of flows from July through September) from 2017 through 2024 was typically 0.31 MGD.

Table 1: Sutter Creek WWTP ADWFs from 2017 Through 2024 Year ADWF
(MGD
2017 0.291
2018 0.305
2019 0.342
2020 0.269
2021 0.326
2022 0.327
2023 0.328
2024 0.318
Average 0.313
Throughout the months of December through April, Sutter Creek WWTP effluent flows can increase from infiltration and inflow (I/I) due to significant rainfall events. Precipitation data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sutter Hill CDF station was collected and compared to the Sutter Creek WWTP flow data. Data shown in Figure 2 indicates that once surface soils become saturated from initial rainfall, I/I increases significantly during subsequent rainfall events further into the periods of December
DRAFT
through April.
32 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 4 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Figure 2: Sutter Creek WWTP Effluent Flows and Rainfall 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Jun
Aug
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Aug
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Aug
Oct
Dec
Feb
Apr
Jun
Aug
Oct
Dec
Feb
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Precipitation (inch/month)
Monthly Flows (Mgal/month)
Total Monthly Precipitation (inch) Total Monthly Flows (Mgal/month) Total Monthly ADWF (Mgal/month) DRAFT
33 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 5 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
To benchmark the Sutter Creek WWTP I/I, the historical wet years of 2016/17 and 2022/23 were compared to the estimated RP100 total wastewater flows. In 2016/17 water year there were 14.2 inches of precipitation from October through December before 15.1 inches of precipitation occurred in January when the peak flow of 94.8 Ac-ft also occurred. In the 2022/23 water year, there were 11.8 inches of precipitation in October through December and only 0.39” in Jan and the peak flow for the month of Jan resulted in 86.2 Ac-ft/month.

Due to the estimation of the I/I being a function of monthly precipitation, the first calibration step is adjustment of the monthly distribution of RP100 precipitation as described in the Climatological Data section. Next, to bring the modeled RP100 flows within range of the 2016/17 and 2022/23 flows, a 25% increase in I/I from December through April was applied. This results in a January modeled peak flow of 87.4 Ac-ft which is within 8% of the 2016/17 WY peak flow. Due to the high variance and potential errors in estimating the precipitation vs I/I data, this 25% multiplier during the wet months can be considered a calibration to adjust the modeled RP100 WY flows to be consistent with historical data. The uncalibrated and calibrated RP100 flows and their comparative 2016/17 and 2022/23 Sutter Creek WWTP effluent flows are illustrated in Figure 3 for reference.

Figure 3: Calibration of Sutter Creek WWTP I/I for RP100 Conditions

15.0 25.0

35.0 45.0

55.0 65.0

75.0 85.0

95.0 105.0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
WWTP Effluent (Ac-ft)
Month
Wet Year - 2016/17 Water Year Wet Year - 2022/23 Water Year RP100 Water Year - Uncalibrated RP100 Water Year - Calibrated DRAFT
34 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 6 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Future Projected Flows & Population
In recent years the City of Sutter Creek has taken steps to reduce the I/I from the Sutter Creek WWTP collection system which included sealing of manholes within and adjacent to creek beds.

Future I/I reduction efforts are expected to continue to be taken by the City of Sutter Creek, as documented in the Draft 2023 Sutter Creek WWTP I/I Analysis Update Technical Memorandum from Carollo Engineers provided as Attachment B for reference. This analysis involved flow monitoring of the collection system and modeling of the effects of I/I mitigation efforts on peak hour influent flows to the WWTP.

I/I mitigation efforts considered included manhole rehabilitation, sewer main rehabilitation or replacement and lateral rehabilitation that were recommended for sewer shed areas that have the highest I/I rates per foot of sewer pipe, which are 18% of the collection system by length. The Carollo Draft Technical Memorandum estimated the I/I reduction projects in the targeted 18% of the collection system may result in the peak hour influent flow to be reduced between 30% to 65%.

However, the results of I/I reduction projects may have a more modest effect upon the peak month flows because, unlike during a peak hour event, over a peak month there may be enough time for infiltration to occur at a low rate that may still result an increased monthly influent volume. To conservatively estimate the effect of the I/I reduction efforts on future I/I, it is assumed that the lower estimated 30% reduction in flow would occur. This reduction applies to 18% of the collection system, resulting in overall peak month flow reduction of 5.4%. To achieve the peak month flow reduction, an overall I/I reduction of approximately 8.18% is applied to future water balance calculations. The future total peak month flow reduction due to I/I reduction is also offset by ADWF increases due to population growth.

Population data provided by ARSA is sourced from the California Department of Finance population projections, which estimates in the next five years, by 2029, the population of Amador County will increase 2.17 percent.1 The population of Sutter Creek, Martell, and Amador City are expected to increase proportionally to the projected Amador County population growth rate. The projected increases in population and flow are summarized in Table 2. ADWFs in 2029 are anticipated to reach 0.319 MGD, which is the basis of ADWF for Future Water Balance Results.

Table 2: Future Sutter Creek WWTP Flow Projections
Based on Population Growth and I/I Reduction Projects
Year ADWF
(MGD)
Model Peak
Month Flow
(MGD)
2024 0.313 2.819
2029 0.319 2.687
Total Change +2.17% -4.7%
1 CA Department of Finance Population Projections P-2A, November 2024: Projections | Department of Finance
DRAFT
35 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 7 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Climatological Data
This section discusses the climatological data sources and their characteristics that were used for uncalibrated and calibrated water balance calculations. Statistical depth-duration-frequency data for the 1-in-100 Return Period (RP100) frequency at 1-Year duration are referenced from the California Department of Water Resources, Ione station (station number B00 4283 00).2 Precipitation for the RP100 water year totals 41.11 inches based on the Ione station. Monthly precipitation patterns and totals are based on the Western Regional Climate Center Comparative Tables for Ione.3 Average-year precipitation totals approximately 21.41 inches annually, resulting in a RP100 to average-year ratio of 1.92.

During initial water balance calculations, it became apparent that precipitation patterns during RP100 water years did not follow the same trend as the monthly precipitation distribution during average years. The most recent historical data of a water year similar to the RP100 is the 2016/17 water year which saw 105% of the RP100 total precipitation (43.37 inches) with 15.1 inches occurring in January 2017 alone. To better fit the historically significant 2016/17 data, the RP100 precipitation pattern was adjusted to fit the monthly pattern of the 2016/17 water year, but with reduced amounts to match the statistical RP100 precipitation of 41.11 inches. The adjusted data is illustrated in Figure 4. The adjustment of the distribution of monthly precipitation for the RP100 water year is a calibration element, as mentioned in the Water Balance Results section.

Figure 4: Calibration of RP100 Monthly Precipitation Patterns to Match 2016/17 Water Year 2 Ione Rainfall Depth Duration Frequency Table, California Department of Water Resources, November 2024: DDF Ione CA
3 Western Regional Climate Center Precipitation Comparative Tables, November 2024: WRCC: Precipitation Comparative Table (dri.edu)

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Precipitation (inches)
Month
Uncalibrated RP100 Precipitation WY 2016/17 Precipitation Calibrated RP100 Precipitation DRAFT
36 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 8 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Pan evaporation data stations within the project vicinity are limited, therefore the Camp Pardee station was the closest selected station from the Western Regional Climate Center Pan Evaporation Comparative Tables (located within approximately 9 miles from Ione and 10 miles from Sutter Creek).4 Pan evaporation from the Camp Pardee station totaled 57.88 inches per year, and a typical pan coefficient of 0.75 was applied to the monthly pan evaporation data to estimate the effective lake evaporation from Henderson and Preston Reservoirs and the Preston Forebay. Additionally, a weather correction factor reduction of 25% was applied to the months of November through March during the RP100 water year to account for reduction in evaporation during a wet year wet season.

Reference evapotranspiration (Eto) data were acquired from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) for the Shenandoah station 81, which is within 6.5 miles of Sutter Creek, and 9.5 miles of Ione and located within the Sierra Foothills, CIMIS Zone 13. The Shenandoah station reported an annual Eto total of 49.4 inches. Crop coefficients (Kc) consistent with pasture grasses for CIMIS Zone 13 were applied to the reference Eto of CIMIS station 81 to calculate crop evapotranspiration (Etc) rates at the LAAs.5 Wet year Kc values were used to calculate the RP100 water year Etc, and typical year Kc values were used to calculate average year Etc values. The difference between the monthly rainfall depth and the Etc resulted in the agronomic crop irrigation demand values. Rainfall efficiency is conservatively estimated at 100%, meaning all precipitation over the LAAs reaches the ground surface and is not evaporated to atmosphere. Finally, the irrigation efficiency is estimated at 85% which approximates a highly efficient irrigation system minimizing potential for overestimation of irrigation demands.

A summary of the climatological data used for the uncalibrated and calibrated water balance calculations is provided in Table 3: Estimated Climatological Parameters for Water Balance Calculations.
4 Western Regional Climate Center Pan Evaporation Comparative Tables, November 2024: WRCC: Pan Evap Comparative Table (dri.edu)
5 California Crop and Soil Evapotranspiration, ITRC Report 03-001, January 2003, www.itrc.org/reports/pdf/californiacrop.pdf
DRAFT
37 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 9 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Table 3: Estimated Climatological Parameters for Water Balance Calculations Climatological Parameters Units Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep WY Total Precipitation – Avg. Year Inch 1.20 3.47 3.50 3.83 3.10 3.01 2.06 0.47 0.15 0.10 0.19 0.33 21.41 Precipitation – Uncalibrated RP100 Inch 2.30 6.66 6.72 7.35 5.95 5.78 3.96 0.90 0.29 0.19 0.36 0.63 41.11 Precipitation - Calibrated RP100 Inch 5.98 2.42 5.10 14.28 4.48 3.21 3.88 0.50 1.21 0.00 0.02 0.02 41.11 Effective Lake Evap. – Avg. Year Inch 2.83 1.05 0.54 0.54 0.84 1.74 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 43.41 Effective Lake Evap. – RP100 Inch 2.83 0.79 0.41 0.41 0.63 1.31 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 42.23 Reverence Evapotranspiration – CIMIS
Station 81 Inch 3.60 1.75 1.21 1.19 1.83 3.10 4.42 5.67 6.88 7.56 7.02 5.17 49.40 Pasture Grass Agronomic Application –
Avg. Year Ft/Ac 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.63 0.69 0.64 0.41 2.96 Pasture Grass Agronomic Application –
Uncalibrated RP100 Ft/Ac 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.54 0.69 0.72 0.65 0.45 3.21 Pasture Grass Agronomic Application –
Calibrated RP100 Ft/Ac 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.07 0.58 0.60 0.74 0.69 0.51 3.36 DRAFT 38 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 10 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Storage Facilities Characterization
This section describes the Henderson Reservoir, Preston Forebay and the Preston Reservoir, which are the ARSA system’s effluent storage facilities as illustrated in the Figure 1 flow diagram.

Detailed information including topographical survey data from November 7, 2008, for Henderson Reservoir, the stage-storage curve data (for Henderson and Preston Reservoirs) and dam embankment data sheets for the reservoirs are provided in Attachment C.

Henderson Reservoir
Henderson Reservoir is reported to have a variable usable storage volume with a minimum 2 feet of freeboard from spillway ranging from 27.5 ac-ft to 392.8 ac-ft, and surface area (8.5 ac to 29 ac) based on the reservoir being at a minimum pool (approximately 5 ft stage) at the end of the dry season and at a maximum at the end of the wet season. The reservoir is described as providing seasonal storage but never to be empty. Therefore, an initial volume in any scenario was assumed to be 27.5 ac-ft and the goal of the water balance is to reach 27.5 ac-ft at the end of the dry season.

Percolation and evaporation rates are functions of the water surface area of the reservoirs; however the percolation rates are uncertain and have not been recently studied. Reservoir surface area was back-calculated from the month-to-month accumulated storage volume in the reservoir and then multiplied by the evaporation or percolation rate. The reservoir also accumulates precipitation throughout the entire acreage of 29 acres. Sutter Creek is diverted around the reservoir but a catchment area of 4.3 acres is assumed to add runoff to the reservoir with a very conservative runoff coefficient of 1.

Since Henderson Reservoir is the first reservoir in the system, the operational strategy taken in the water balance is to retain as much effluent and precipitation runoff in the reservoir throughout the wet season until full, at which point effluent would be sent from Henderson to Preston Reservoir.

Preston Forebay
The disposal capacity of the Preston Forebay is calculated as if it were only a pass-through system as the water flows through the reservoir and it maintains a constant water surface elevation and surface area. The percolation rate is reportedly zero leaving only evaporation as a means of disposal. The surface area is 2 acres with no discernible runoff catchment area.

Preston Reservoir
Preston Reservoir is reported to have a variable usable storage volume with a minimum 2 feet of freeboard from spillway ranging from 0 ac-ft to 235 ac-ft, and surface area (0 ac to 18 ac) based on the reservoir often being empty at the end of the dry season. Therefore, the initial volume in water balance scenarios was assumed to be 0 ac-ft and the goal of the water balance is to reach 0 ac-ft storage at the end of the dry season.

DRAFT
39 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 11 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Similar to the Henderson Reservoir calculations, percolation and evaporation rates are a function of the water surface area of the reservoir, however the percolation rates are assumed to be negligible due to a lack of percolation studies. Reservoir surface area was back-calculated from the month-to-month accumulated storage volume in the reservoir and then multiplied by the evaporation rate. The reservoir also accumulates precipitation throughout the entire acreage of 18 acres. Preston Reservoir also has a catchment area of 14 acres that adds runoff to the reservoir with a very conservative runoff coefficient of 1.

Since Preston Reservoir is the final reservoir in the system, the operational strategy taken in the water balance is to receive any excess effluent and precipitation runoff from upstream components when Henderson Reservoir does not have available storage capacity. As a result, Preston Reservoir quickly receives large effluent volumes later in the wet season but does not reach its maximum capacity in any evaluated scenario.

DRAFT
40 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 12 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Disposal Facilities Characterization
This section describes the Bower’s Ranch, Hoskin’s Ranch and the COGC, which are the ARSA system’s effluent disposal facilities as illustrated in the Figure 1 flow diagram. Disposal capacity of each site is evaluated based on the Climatological Data section. Although Noble Ranch is described, it is not currently in use as a LAA.

Bower’s Ranch
ARSA has a 40 acre land application (flood irrigation) disposal easement upon Bower’s Ranch.

The disposal facility was recently expanded from 60% constructed (24 acres) to fully utilizing the 40 acre site. As Bower’s Ranch is the first LAA in the ARSA system, it is often fully utilized to take almost all of the Sutter Creek WWTP effluent for the months of June through October. Due to the site topography, any tailwater from the site is received by Henderson Reservoir and there is little to no risk of tailwater leaving the site. The site primarily consists of pasture grass that is used for cattle grazing.

Hoskin’s Ranch
ARSA has a 60 ac LAA at Hoskin’s Ranch that is used for spray land application. The disposal facility was recently expanded from only 40% constructed (24 acres) to 60% constructed (36 acres). This LAA is primarily used for pasture grasses and for grazing cattle. Application rates are carefully monitored by ARSA Staff to prevent any overspray and to maintain but not exceed agronomic application rates.

Noble Ranch
Sutter Creek has an existing land application disposal easement for this site for 1,300 ac-ft/yr.

This facility is not yet constructed nor is the site in use. Therefore, this site was not characterized or evaluated for water balance calculations.

Castle Oaks Golf Course
Disinfected secondary effluent from the ARSA system is exported from Preston Reservoir to the COWRF for tertiary treatment and subsequent water recycling at the COGC. The COGC includes a total irrigable acreage of 130 acres and contains nine lakes with only one lake (Lake I) totaling

3.1 acres that is typically filled with recycled water during the irrigation season. Demands to be met by ARSA’s effluent include both the COGC irrigation demands and backwash flows at the COWRF which are necessary to maintain the COWRF system operation. These demands total approximately 420 Ac-ft during the RP100 water year and 478 Ac-ft during the average year. The capacity evaluation of the COWRF and COGC was completed by West Yost Engineers, and their 2024 COGC Recycled Water Demands Technical Memorandum is included as Attachment D for further reference.

DRAFT
41 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 13 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Water Balance Results
This section discusses water balance calculations that were completed for uncalibrated current flow conditions, calibrated current flow conditions, and calibrated future flow conditions. All water balance calculations consist of evaluation of system operations during a RP100 water year followed by an average year water year.

As discussed in the WWTP Flow & Population Data section, calibration of the flow data included increasing the I/I volume by 25% from December through April to be consistent with 2016/17 and 2022/23 water year flow data. Calibration of precipitation in the Climatological Data involved adjusting the monthly distribution of RP100 annual precipitation based on 2016/17 water year precipitation data. These calibrations result in increased effluent reservoir storage volumes and increased flow I/I flow volumes. Calibrated future flow conditions account for I/I and climate calibrations and 2.17% population growth, as well as 5.4% peak month flow and general 8.18% I/I reduction discussed in the Future Projected Flows & Population section.

The strategy of the water balance calculations incorporates the following logic:
1) Fully meet all irrigation demands at the LAAs (Bower’s Ranch, Hoskin’s Ranch, and COGC) utilizing Sutter Creek WWTP effluent to the maximum agronomic rate for each given month.
2) Any shortfall of irrigation demands would be made up by diversion from the Jackass Creek siphon. Since these diversions are conveyed through the ARSA system to meet monthly irrigation demands, they are added to the inflows and storage volumes. These are figurative estimates of possible diversion volumes, however the current siphon is in need of repair so there may be an actual shortfall of irrigation demands (which is also an excess of LAA disposal capacity) if repairs are not completed. 3) Henderson Reservoir is assumed to maintain a minimum dead pool of 27.5 Ac-ft at 5 ft stage, whereas Preston Reservoir is allowed to reach 0 Ac-ft storage (empty). 4) Any excess of Sutter Creek WWTP effluent or precipitation / runoff not used to meet irrigation demands is stored in Henderson Reservoir first and then, once it reaches full capacity of 392.8 Ac-ft at 2 ft freeboard, any excess volume is sent to Preston Reservoir.

Runoff and precipitation within Henderson Reservoir or its catchment area is retained in it. All other runoff and precipitation in the system in excess of monthly irrigation demand is retained in Preston Reservoir. The resulting final storage volumes for the month are then carried over as the beginning storage volume for the following month.

Water balance calculations completed for all scenarios indicate the ARSA system in combination with the COWRF and COGC can adequately contain and dispose of all Sutter Creek WWTP effluent, precipitation, and runoff for the RP100 water year without violation of storage capacity or agronomic application rates. Due to the I/I reduction efforts, the total future WWTP effluent flows during the RP100 water year are approximately 3 Ac-ft/year less than current flows despite the population growth.

The overall water balance results for each scenario are summarized in Table 4. Detailed water balance calculations are provided in Attachment E for further reference.

DRAFT
42 Section 13, Item A.

Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA)
Water Balance Update
November 2024

Page 14 of 14 ends

www.hydroscience.com
Table 4: Summary of Water Balance Calculation Results
Calculation Parameter
Water Balance Scenario Results
Uncalibrated Current Flows Calibrated Current Flows Calibrated Future Flows Climate Conditions RP100
(Year 1)
Avg Year
(Year 2)
RP100
(Year 1)
Avg Year
(Year 2)
RP100
(Year 1)
Avg Year
(Year 2)
Inflow Results
WWTP Effluent (Ac-ft) 503.2 442.7 529.8 457.4 526.5 459.7 Precipitation and Runoff (Ac-ft) 230.6 120.1 230.6 120.1 230.6 120.1 Jackass Creek Siphon (Unmet Irrigation Demands) (Ac-ft) 73.6 162.7 83.2 188.3 77.5 188.8 Storage Facilities Results
Henderson Reservoir Max Storage Volume (Ac-ft) 392.8 281.9 392.8 294.3 392.8 291.5 Preston Reservoir Max Storage Volume (Ac-ft) 135.2 47.3 166.1 51.4 157.3 51.4 Henderson Reservoir Evaporation (Ac-ft) 66.8 53.9 67.3 55.7 67.5 55.5 Preston Reservoir Evaporation (Ac-ft) 33.5 43.1 42.6 18.7 41.3 18.7 Disposal Results
Bower’s Ranch Irrigation Demands (Ac-ft) 128.3 118.6 128.3 118.6 128.3 118.6 Hoskin’s Ranch Irrigation Demands (Ac-ft) 115.5 106.7 115.5 106.7 115.5 106.7 COWRF & COGC Irrigation Demands (Ac-ft) 419.0 476.8 419.0 476.8 419.0 476.8 Overall Calculation Results
Total Inflows (Ac-ft) 733.9 562.8 760.4 577.5 757.2 579.8 Total Outflows (Ac-ft) 763.1 799.1 772.7 776.5 771.7 776.2 Jackass Creek Siphon (Unmet Irrigation Demands) (Ac-ft) 73.6 162.4 83.2 188.3 77.5 188.8 Maximum Storage Volume Required (Ac-ft) 528.0 412.3 558.9 430.6 550.1 428.0 Unutilized Storage Capacity at Peak Storage (Ac-ft) 99.8 215.5 68.9 197.2 77.7 199.8 DRAFT
43 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
44 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

ATTACHMENT A
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency
2024 Individual Water Balance Update
DRAFT
Sutter Creek WWTP Population and Flow Data
45 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
46 Section 13, Item A.

CA Department of Finance
Population Projection by County
Report P-2A: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2020 to 2070 Estimates Projections
FIPS Geography 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 20306000 CALIFORNIA 39,541,722 39,246,702 39,146,273 39,109,070 39,119,734 39,155,670 39,243,572 39,340,965 39,451,269 39,568,558 39,694,9606001 ALAMEDA 1,680,487 1,657,465 1,649,975 1,656,037 1,654,334 1,654,555 1,660,187 1,666,430 1,673,310 1,680,926 1,689,2256003 ALPINE 1,202 1,180 1,175 1,165 1,163 1,163 1,165 1,170 1,174 1,172 1,1766005 AMADOR 40,440 40,262 40,105 40,122 40,198 40,298 40,429 40,615 40,828 41,070 41,327 DRAFT

Page 1 of 1 ends

47 Section 13, Item A.

ARSA Facilities Monthly Status Reports - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Month
Sutter
Creek
WWTP
(mg)
Sutter
Creek
WWTP
(ac ft)
Bowers
Irrigation
(mg)
Bowers
Volume
irrigated
(ac ft)
Henderson
Freeboard
Volume in
Henderson (af)
Capacity
Remaining in
Henderson (af)
Henderson
Outflow (mg)
Henderson
outflow (ac ft)
Hoskins
Irrigation
(mg)
Hoskins
Volume
irrigated (ac
ft)
Mule Creek
Inflow (mg)
Mule Creek
Inflow (ac
ft)
Preston
Freeboard
Volume in
Preston (af)
Capacity Remaining
in Preston (ac ft)
Outflow to
Ione (mg)
Outflow to
Ione (ac ft)
TOTAL Ac Ft
of Effluent in the
system
TOTAL
Remaining
Capacity for
Winter (ac
ft)
TOTAL

USED FOR

IRRIGATI
ON (ac ft)
2016
1/31/2016 Jan 19.0 58.3 0.0 0.0 12'1" 155.8 237.2 12.4 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11'4" 94.7 140.3 3.9 12.0 250.47 377.5 12.0 2/29/2016 Feb 10.7 32.8 0.0 0.0 10'9' 180.9 212.1 17.8 54.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8'7" 128.4 106.6 4.0 12.3 309.27 318.7 12.3 3/31/2016 Mar 17.7 54.3 0.0 0.0 8'7" 225.7 167.3 15.1 46.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5'7" 171.0 64.0 3.4 10.4 396.64 231.4 10.4 4/30/2016 Apr 10.7 32.8 0.0 0.0 8'5" 229.3 163.7 13.7 42.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5'7" 171.0 64.0 9.1 27.9 400.29 227.7 27.9 5/31/2016 May 9.3 28.5 0.0 0.0 9'9" 201.0 192.0 23.0 70.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7'7" 141.9 93.1 27.3 83.8 342.85 285.2 83.8 6/30/2016 Jun 8.3 25.5 2.9 8.9 14'4" 117.6 275.4 32.2 98.8 2.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 9'8" 114.5 120.5 36.0 110.5 232.06 395.9 126.1 7/31/2016 Jul 9.0 27.6 9.0 27.6 20'1" 43.8 349.2 25.4 77.9 5.3 16.3 35.9 110.2 7'6" 143.1 91.9 40.9 125.5 186.84 441.2 169.4 8/31/2016 Aug 9.2 28.2 9.2 28.2 22'3" 24.9 368.1 8.7 26.7 3.2 9.8 32.9 101.0 8'3" 132.8 102.2 44.1 135.3 157.68 470.3 173.4 9/30/2016 Sep 8.3 25.5 6.3 19.3 25'8" 5.0 388.0 10.8 33.1 2.2 6.8 10.3 31.6 13'2" 75.1 159.9 37.5 115.1 80.06 547.9 141.2 10/31/2016 Oct 11.0 33.8 2.5 7.7 23'2" 18.4 374.6 5.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 12.3 14'4" 63.8 171.2 6.4 19.6 82.18 545.8 27.3 11/30/2016 Nov 11.2 34.4 0.0 0.0 20'8" 38.2 354.8 5.3 16.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14'2" 65.4 169.6 0.0 0.0 103.6 524.4 0.0 12/31/2016 Dec 16.5 50.6 0.0 0.0 16'8" 83.5 309.5 10.4 31.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11'6" 92.8 142.2 0.0 0.0 176.32 451.7 0.0 Total: 140.9 432.4 29.9 91.8 180.7 554.5 12.9 39.6 83.1 255.0 212.6 652.4 783.8 2017
1/31/2017 Jan 30.9 94.8 0.0 0.0 9'3" 211.4 181.6 10.7 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6'8" 154.9 80.1 245.8 0.0 366.25 261.8 0.0 2/28/2017 Feb 26.5 81.3 0.0 0.0 4'1" 334.2 58.8 10.2 31.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4'4" 190.6 44.4 136.3 0.0 524.72 103.3 0.0 3/31/2017 Mar 15.5 47.6 0.0 0.0 1'5" 408.4 43.6 14.1 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1'5" 240.4 29.6 90.8 4.7 648.74 73.3 4.7 4/30/2017 Apr 16.1 49.4 0.0 0.0 1'6" 405.9 46.1 34.9 107.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1'8" 235.9 34.1 104.6 18.2 641.82 80.2 18.2 5/31/2017 May 9.6 29.5 0.0 0.0 3'7" 347.5 45.5 38.0 116.6 2.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 1'2" 244.9 25.1 77.0 83.9 592.42 70.6 92.2 6/30/2017 Jun 8.9 27.3 8.0 24.6 6'7" 271.3 121.7 36.0 110.5 8.8 27.0 0.0 0.0 3'2" 209.8 25.2 77.3 111.2 481.07 146.9 162.8 7/31/2017 Jul 8.6 26.4 8.7 26.7 11' 176.1 216.9 35.0 107.4 10.7 32.8 0.0 0.0 6'11" 151.3 83.7 256.9 128.3 327.34 300.7 187.8 8/31/2017 Aug 8.8 27.0 8.7 26.7 13'9" 127.0 266.0 20.6 63.2 8.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 7'6" 143.1 91.9 282.0 37.3 270.02 358.0 90.4 9/30/2017 Sep 8.7 26.7 8.7 26.7 16'2" 90.3 302.7 18.3 56.2 11.9 36.5 0.0 0.0 6'10 152.5 82.5 253.2 0.0 242.81 385.2 63.2 10/31/2017 Oct 8.0 24.6 8.1 24.9 17'4" 74.8 318.2 13.8 42.4 9.4 28.8 0.0 0.0 9'7" 115.5 119.5 366.7 52.6 190.33 437.7 106.3 11/30/2017 Nov 11.5 35.3 0.9 2.8 14'10" 121.6 271.4 9.7 29.8 7.4 22.7 0.0 0.0 11'1" 97.5 137.5 422.0 83.5 219.1 408.9 109.0 12/31/2017 Dec 9.5 29.2 0.0 0.0 12'9" 143.9 249.1 0.0 6.3 19.3 0.0 0.0 10'6" 104.4 130.6 400.8 0.0 248.26 379.7 19.3 Total: 162.6 499.0 43.1 132.3 241.3 740.5 65.8 201.9 0.0 0.0 2713.5 519.7 853.9 2018
1/31/2018 Jan 13.6 41.7 0 0.0 9'7" 206.1 186.9 8.4 25.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 8'8" 128.4 106.6 0.0 0.0 334.5 293.5 0.0 2/28/2018 Feb 8.7 26.7 0 0.0 7'10" 240.4 152.6 5.1 15.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 8'3" 133.9 101.1 0.0 0.0 374.3 253.7 0.0 3/31/2018 Mar 22.1 67.8 0 0.0 4'1" 332.9 60.1 8.00 24.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 5'11" 164.1 70.9 0.0 0.0 497 131.0 0.0 4/30/2018 Apr 14.1 43.3 0 0.0 3'9" 342.6 50.4 23.8 73.0 6.0 18.4 0 0.0 3'3" 200.9 34.1 1.2 3.7 543.5 84.5 22.1 5/31/2018 May 9.3 28.5 0 0.0 3'10" 340.6 52.4 16.9 51.9 9.9 30.4 0 0.0 8'2" 133.9 101.1 27.7 85.0 474.5 153.5 115.4 6/30/2018 Jun 8.4 25.8 5.3 16.3 5'8" 295.1 97.9 21.2 65.1 9.6 29.5 0 0.0 15'1" 59.6 175.4 37.7 115.7 354.7 273.3 161.4 7/31/2018 Jul 9.3 28.5 9.2 28.2 10'0" 193.7 199.3 35.4 108.6 9.5 29.2 0 0.0 22'0" 17.0 218.0 42.9 131.7 210.7 417.3 189.0 8/31/2018 Aug 9.7 29.8 9.7 29.8 11'7" 163.6 229.4 12 36.8 5.8 17.8 0 0.0 20'9" 22.0 213.0 0.0 0.0 185.6 442.4 47.6 9/30/2018 Sep 9 27.6 9 27.6 13'11" 123.9 269.1 16 49.1 10.7 32.8 0 0.0 19'3" 36.2 198.8 0.0 0.0 160.1 467.9 60.5 10/31/2018 Oct 8.9 27.3 8.9 27.3 15'2" 106.0 287.0 16.2 49.7 10.0 30.7 0 0.0 11' 45.6 189.4 0.0 0.0 151.6 476.4 58.0 11/30/2018 Nov 10.5 32.2 5.8 17.8 15'1" 107.2 285.8 14.9 45.7 5.6 17.2 0 0.0 14'10" 60.9 174.1 0.0 0.0 168.1 459.9 35.0 12/31/2018 Dec 11.7 35.9 0 0.0 13'6" 131.2 261.8 15.2 46.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11'2" 94.9 140.1 0.0 0.0 226.1 401.9 0.0 Total: 135.3 415.2 47.9 147.0 193.1 592.6 67.1 205.9 0.0 0.0 109.5 336.0 689.0 2019
1/31/2019 Jan 17.4 53.4 0 0.0 10'5" 185.4 207.6 36.7 112.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 8'3" 132.8 102.2 0 0.0 318.2 309.8 0.0 2/28/2019 Feb 23.3 71.5 0 0.0 6'6" 271.9 121.1 4.8 14.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 6'6" 157.3 77.7 0 0.0 429.22 198.8 0.0 3/31/2019 Mar 20.2 62.0 0 0.0 3'6" 350.4 42.6 7.6 23.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4'8" 185.2 49.8 0 0.0 535.64 92.4 0.0 4/30/2019 Apr 11.9 36.5 0 0.0 2'9" 271.4 121.6 15.8 48.5 4.2 12.9 0 0.0 3'2" 209.8 25.2 2 6.1 481.19 146.8 19.0 5/31/2019 May 12.7 39.0 0 0.0 3'6" 350.4 42.6 24.0 73.7 5.8 17.8 0 0.0 4'8" 185.2 49.8 20.9 64.1 535.64 92.4 81.9 6/30/2019 Jun 10 30.7 5.2 16.0 5'10" 288.5 104.5 26.5 81.3 12.3 37.7 0 0.0 7'3" 146.6 88.4 29 89.0 435.06 192.9 142.7 7/31/2019 Jul 7.6 23.3 9.9 30.4 8'11" 217.9 175.1 22.9 70.3 13.8 42.4 0 0.0 14'7" 61.5 173.5 40.6 124.6 279.44 348.6 197.3 8/31/2019 Aug 10 30.7 10 30.7 10'7" 184.2 208.8 13.4 41.1 11.8 36.2 0 0.0 17'2" 40.3 194.7 6.2 19.0 224.52 403.5 85.9 9/30/2019 Sep 9.6 29.5 9.4 28.8 12'6" 148.3 244.7 13.7 42.0 10.4 31.9 0 0.0 17'1" 40.9 194.1 0 0.0 189.23 438.8 60.8 10/31/2019 Oct 9 27.6 9 27.6 14'3" 119.6 273.4 0.0 12.2 37.4 0 0.0 16'5" 46.0 189.0 0 0.0 165.61 462.4 65.1 11/30/2019 Nov 7.2 22.1 5.1 15.7 14'1" 121.6 271.4 9.3 28.5 5.7 17.5 0 0.0 14'11" 58.5 176.5 0 0.0 180.14 447.9 33.1 12/31/2019 Dec 12.6 38.7 0 0.0 12'3" 152.2 240.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13'2" 75.1 159.9 0 0.0 227.3 400.7 0.0 Total: 151.5 464.9 48.6 149.1 174.7 536.1 76.2 233.8 0.0 0.0 98.7 302.9 685.9

Page 1 of 3 ends

DRAFT
48 Section 13, Item A.

ARSA Facilities Monthly Status Reports - Provided by ARSA Staff Date
Sutter
Creek
WWTP
Flow
(mg)
Sutter
Creek
WWTP
(ac ft)
Bowers
Irrigation
(mg)
Bowers
Volume
irrigated
(ac ft)
Henderson
Freeboard
Volume in
Henderson (af)
Capacity
Remaining in
Henderson
Henderson
Outflow (mg)
Henderson
outflow (ac ft)
Hoskins
Irrigation
(mg)
Hoskins
Volume
irrigated (ac
ft)
Mule Creek
Inflow (mg)
Mule Creek
Inflow (ac
ft)
Preston
Freeboard
Volume in
Preston (af)
Capacity Remaining
in Preston (ac ft)
Outflow to
Ione (mg)
Volume sent
to Ione (ac ft)
TOTAL Ac Ft
of Effluent in the
system
TOTAL
Remaining
Capacity for
Winter (ac
ft)
TOTAL

USED FOR

IRRIGATI
O
N (ac ft)
1/31/2020 Jan 10.3 31.6 0 0.0 11'2" 172.9 220.1 8.5 26.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 12'2" 85.5 149.5 0 0.0 258.4 369.6 0.0 2/29/2020. Feb 8 24.6 0 0.0 10'7" 184.2 208.8 3.5 10.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 11'7" 91.9 143.1 0 0.0 276.08 351.9 0.0 3/31/2020 Mar 12.85 39.4 0 0.0 8'11" 214.9 178.1 7.4 22.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 10'1" 109.4 125.6 0 0.0 324.26 303.7 0.0 4/30/2020 Apr 12.61 38.7 0 0.0 7'8" 246.1 146.9 6.3 19.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 10'8" 102.4 132.6 8.84 27.1 348.5 279.5 27.1 5/31/2020 May 8.2 25.2 1.4 4.3 8'6" 227.5 165.5 4.2 12.9 7.5 23.0 0 0.0 13'11" 67.8 167.2 23.9 73.3 295.3 332.7 100.7 6/30/2020 Jun 8.3 25.5 8.3 25.5 11'6" 166.5 226.5 6.3 19.3 5.7 17.5 0 0.0 19'6" 25.1 209.9 28.9 88.7 191.6 436.4 131.7 7/31/2020 Jul 8.3 25.5 8.3 25.5 14'11" 108.5 284.5 19.2 58.9 3.9 12.0 0 0.0 15'10" 50.7 184.3 0 0.0 159.2 468.8 37.4 8/31/2020 Aug 8.3 25.5 8.3 25.5 17'11" 67.6 325.4 13.3 40.8 2.3 7.1 0 0.0 14'0" 67.0 168.0 0 0.0 134.56 493.4 32.5 9/30/2020 Sep 8.2 25.2 8.2 25.2 19'2" 53.3 339.7 8.4 25.8 2.3 7.1 14 43.0 13'0" 76.8 158.2 13.9 42.7 130.09 497.9 74.9 10/31/2020 Oct 8.8 27.0 8.8 27.0 21'2" 33.7 359.3 11.9 36.5 2.4 7.4 0 0.0 17'9" 36.2 198.8 23.4 71.8 69.86 558.1 106.2 11/30/2020 Nov 9.1 27.9 3.5 10.7 22' 26.8 366.2 7.62 23.4 2.3 7.1 0 0.0 18'8" 30.1 204.9 30.7 94.2 56.89 571.1 112.0 12/31/2020 Dec 9.9 30.4 0 0.0 21'0" 35.9 357.1 8.8 27.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16'8" 44.1 190.9 0 0.0 79.97 548.0 0.0 Total: 112.9 346.4 46.8 143.6 105.4 323.4 26.4 81.0 14.0 43.0 129.6 397.9 622.5 2021
1/31/2021 Jan 12.6 38.7 0 0.0 17'6" 72.7 320.3 3.9 12.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15'3" 55.6 179.4 0 0.0 128.3 499.7 0.0 2/28/2021 Feb 10.9 33.5 0 0.0 16'1" 91.5 301.5 2.6 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14'9" 60.0 175.0 0 0.0 151.49 476.5 0.0 3/31/2021 Mar 11.9 36.5 0 0.0 13'1" 138.2 254.8 3.5 10.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14'7" 61.5 173.5 0 0.0 199.65 428.4 0.0 4/30/2021 Apr 10.2 31.3 0 0.0 14'7" 113.7 279.3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16'11" 42.2 192.8 20.7 63.5 155.85 472.2 63.5 5/31/2021 May 10.7 32.8 6.6 20.3 19'10" 46.3 346.7 27.2 83.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21'4" 15.7 219.3 36.2 111.1 61.97 566.0 131.3 6/30/2021 Jun 10.4 31.9 7.4 22.7 21'5" 31.6 361.4 8.7 26.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 20'10" 18.0 217.0 1.9 5.8 49.6 578.4 28.5 7/31/2021 Jul 10.2 31.3 7.1 21.8 22'1" 26.2 366.8 3.9 12.0 0.2 0.6 0 0.0 21'0' 17.2 217.8 0 0.0 43.39 584.6 22.4 8/31/2021 Aug 10.1 31.0 6.9 21.2 22'6" 23.0 370.0 5.6 17.2 2 6.1 0 0.0 21'6" 15.0 220.0 0 0.0 37.96 590.0 27.3 9/30/2021 Sep 9.7 29.8 5.2 16.0 23'8" 15.2 377.8 6.9 21.2 1.7 5.2 0 0.0 21'0" 17.2 217.8 0 0.0 32.38 595.6 21.2 10/31/2021 Oct 13.8 42.4 3.6 11.0 20'5" 40.6 352.4 5 15.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 19'1" 27.5 207.5 0 0.0 68.06 559.9 11.0 11/30/2021 Nov 11.7 35.9 0 0.0 18'11" 56.0 337.0 7.9 24.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 18'1" 33.9 201.1 0 0.0 89.89 538.1 0.0 12/31/2021 Dec 21.2 65.1 0 0.0 14'2" 120.2 272.8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14'8" 60.8 174.2 0 0.0 180.98 447.0 0.0 Total: 143.4 440.1 36.8 112.9 75.2 230.8 3.9 12.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 180.5 305.4 2022
1/31/2022 Jan 12.9 39.6 0 0.0 12'9" 142.9 250.1 6.2 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13'9" 69.4 165.6 0 0.0 212.25 415.8 0.0 2/28/2022 Feb 10.6 32.5 0 0.0 12'0" 157.3 235.7 5.5 16.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 12'10" 78.5 156.5 0 0.0 235.79 392.2 0.0 3/31/2022 Mar 11 33.8 0 0.0 11'8" 163.4 229.6 2.7 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12'1" 86.4 148.6 1.6 4.9 249.83 378.2 4.9 4/30/2022 Apr 12.7 39.0 0 0.0 11'3" 171.3 221.7 9.1 27.9 0 0.0 0 0 10'1" 109.4 125.6 0.1 0.3 280.62 347.4 0.3 5/31/2022 May 12.1 37.1 0 0.0 12'2" 154.3 238.7 11.7 35.9 0 0.0 0 0 9'0" 122.9 112.1 1.7 5.2 277.21 350.8 5.2 6/30/2022 Jun 11.2 34.4 10.1 31.0 14'3" 118.9 274.1 11.2 34.4 7.2 22.1 0 0 8'11" 124.0 111.0 5 15.3 242.9 385.1 68.4 7/31/2022 Jul 11.6 35.6 11.6 35.6 16'3" 89.2 303.8 9.4 28.8 8.1 24.9 0 0 9'3" 119.7 115.3 0 0.0 208.9 419.1 60.5 8/31/2022 Aug 9.8 30.1 9.8 30.1 18'1" 65.6 327.4 8.4 25.8 7.7 23.6 0 0 9'8" 114.5 120.5 0.5 1.5 180.1 447.9 55.2 9/30/2022 Sep 8.5 26.1 7.6 23.3 9'8" 48.9 344.1 8.6 26.4 6.5 19.9 0 0 9'9" 113.4 121.6 0.9 2.8 162.3 465.7 46.0 10/31/2022 Oct 9.3 28.5 9.3 28.5 22'0" 26.8 366.2 9.8 30.1 8.7 26.7 0 0 11'8" 91.0 144.0 4.5 13.8 117.8 510.2 69.0 11/30/2022 Nov 9.9 30.4 0 0.0 19'7" 48.8 344.2 3.3 10.1 0 0.0 0 0 15'2" 56.6 178.4 11.3 34.7 105.4 522.6 34.7 12/31/2022 Dec 20.3 62.3 0 0.0 13'10" 125.6 267.4 2.8 8.6 0 0.0 0 0 13'0" 76.8 158.2 0 0.0 202.41 425.6 0.0 Total: 139.9 429.3 48.4 148.5 88.7 272.2 38.2 117.2 0.0 0.0 25.6 78.6 344.3 2023
1/31/2023 Jan 28.1 86.2 0.0 0.0 7'6" 249.9 143.1 3.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9'8" 114.5 120.5 0.0 0.0 364.4 263.6 0.0 2/28/2023 Feb 14.5 44.5 0.0 0.0 5'7" 295.7 97.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9'4" 118.7 116.3 0.0 0.0 414.4 213.6 0.0 3/31/2023 Mar 24.3 74.6 0.0 0.0 3'9" 343.0 50.0 18.3 56.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4'10" 235.0 0.0 0.0 343.0 285.0 0.0 4/30/2023 Apr 9.5 29.2 0.0 0.0 3'2" 358.8 34.2 8.2 25.2 6.3 19.3 0.0 0.0 5'0" 180.0 55.0 2.1 6.4 538.8 89.2 25.8 5/31/2023 May 8.9 27.3 0.0 0.0 3'8" 345.3 47.7 10.9 33.5 10.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 8'2" 133.9 101.1 18.8 57.7 479.2 148.8 88.4 6/30/2023 Jun 9.2 28.2 5.7 17.5 6'2" 281.3 111.7 21.5 66.0 9.7 29.8 0.0 0.0 11'1" 97.5 137.5 25.8 79.2 378.8 249.2 126.4 7/31/2023 Jul 9.1 27.9 9.1 27.9 11'4" 169.7 223.3 31.0 95.1 2.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 11'5" 93.8 141.2 29.5 90.5 263.5 364.5 125.2 8/31/2023 Aug 10.6 32.5 10.6 32.5 17'11" 67.6 325.4 29.6 90.8 4.9 15.0 0.0 0.0 13'6" 71.8 163.2 26.9 82.6 139.4 488.6 130.1 9/30/2023 Sep 10.5 32.2 10.5 32.2 20'0" 44.6 348.4 9.7 29.8 8.8 27.0 0.0 0.0 16'0" 49.3 185.7 5.3 16.3 93.9 534.1 75.5 10/31/2023 Oct 11.2 34.4 7.9 24.2 19'10" 46.3 346.7 5.4 16.6 3.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 16'2" 48.0 187.0 0.0 0.0 94.3 533.7 34.1 11/30/2023 Nov 10.3 31.6 0.0 0.0 18'7" 59.7 333.3 3.6 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15'11" 50.0 185.0 0.0 0.0 109.7 518.3 0.0 12/31/2023 Dec 10.9 33.5 0.0 0.0 17'0" 79.1 313.9 5.2 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15'1" 57.1 177.9 0.0 0.0 136.2 491.8 0.0 Total: 157.1 482.1 43.8 134.4 146.4 449.3 45.1 138.4 0.0 0.0 108.4 332.7 605.5 2020

Page 2 of 3 ends

DRAFT
49 Section 13, Item A.

USED FOR

IRRIGATI
O
N (ac ft)
2024
1/31/2024 Jan 14.2 43.6 0.0 0.0 14'3" 118.9 274.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13'5" 71.8 163.2 0.0 0.0 190.7 437.3 0.0 2/29/2024 Feb 17.1 52.5 0.0 0.0 10'11" 177.7 215.3 4.4 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11'9" 90.0 145.0 0.0 0.0 267.7 360.3 0.0 3/31/2024 Mar 17.8 54.6 0.0 0.0 8'5" 229.3 163.7 4.4 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10'8" 102.4 132.6 0.0 0.0 331.7 296.3 0.0 4/30/2024 Apr 13.1 40.2 0.0 0.0 7'8" 246.1 146.9 3.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9'7" 115.5 119.5 0.5 1.5 361.6 266.4 1.5 5/31/2024 May 10.9 33.5 0.0 0.0 9'0" 216.7 176.3 18.2 55.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11'5" 93.8 141.2 18.9 58.0 310.5 317.5 58.0 6/30/2024 Jun 10.1 31.0 9.4 28.8 13'1" 138.2 254.8 24.6 75.5 1.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 15'7" 52.8 182.2 31.8 97.6 191.0 437.0 131.7 7/31/2024 Jul 10.0 30.7 10.0 30.7 19'11" 45.4 347.6 28.7 88.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19'2" 27.0 208.0 31.8 97.6 72.4 555.6 128.3 8/31/2024 Aug 0.0 393.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 628.0 0.0 9/30/2024 Sep 0.0 393.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 628.0 0.0 10/31/2024 Oct 0.0 393.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 628.0 0.0 11/30/2024 Nov 0.0 393.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 628.0 0.0 12/31/2024 Dec 0.0 393.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 628.0 0.0 Total: 93.2 286.0 19.4 59.5 83.3 255.6 1.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 83.0 254.7 319.5

Page 3 of 3 ends

DRAFT
50 Section 13, Item A.

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/1/2017 329,600
6/2/2017 315,000
6/3/2017 312,600
6/4/2017 292,400
6/5/2017 324,400
6/6/2017 297,400
6/7/2017 346,000
6/8/2017 311,400
6/9/2017 310,600
6/10/2017 284,600
6/11/2017 297,000
6/12/2017 296,000
6/13/2017 328,300
6/14/2017 301,700
6/15/2017 296,000
6/16/2017 293,000
6/17/2017 282,600
6/18/2017 269,400
6/19/2017 310,400
6/20/2017 304,200
6/21/2017 296,400
6/22/2017 311,600
6/23/2017 293,000
6/24/2017 260,000
6/25/2017 258,000
6/26/2017 314,200
6/27/2017 282,400
6/28/2017 289,600
6/29/2017 268,800
6/30/2017 267,600
7/1/2017 193,000
7/2/2017 353,800
7/3/2017 310,600
7/4/2017 242,800
7/5/2017 286,400
7/6/2017 295,600
7/7/2017 275,000
7/8/2017 232,400
7/9/2017 238,800
7/10/2017 280,200
7/11/2017 278,400
7/12/2017 262,000
7/13/2017 310,800
7/14/2017 338,000
7/15/2017 260,800
7/16/2017 256,200
7/17/2017 275,000
7/18/2017 283,200
7/19/2017 340,600
7/20/2017 293,400
7/21/2017 276,000
7/22/2017 265,200
7/23/2017 252,000
7/24/2017 307,300
7/25/2017 275,700
7/26/2017 276,800
7/27/2017 290,600
7/28/2017 291,400
7/29/2017 261,200
7/30/2017 260,600
7/31/2017 299,400
8/1/2017 290,000
8/2/2017 264,600
8/3/2017 293,400
8/4/2017 308,600
8/5/2017 257,200
8/6/2017 250,600
8/7/2017 348,800
8/8/2017 304,200
8/9/2017
8/10/2017
8/11/2017 266,000
8/12/2017 332,400
8/13/2017 346,000
8/14/2017 415,400
8/15/2017 416,200
8/16/2017 454,000
8/17/2017 315,000
8/18/2017 272,000

Page 1 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/19/2017 259,400
8/20/2017 254,200
8/21/2017 300,000
8/22/2017 255,600
8/23/2017 281,400
8/24/2017 271,400
8/25/2017 326,600
8/26/2017 271,000
8/27/2017 271,800
8/28/2017 296,000
8/29/2017 296,400
8/30/2017 289,200
8/31/2017 275,600
9/1/2017 303,600
9/2/2017 267,400
9/3/2017 249,800
9/4/2017 276,600
9/5/2017 248,800
9/6/2017 269,000
9/7/2017 300,200
9/8/2017 278,800
9/9/2017 279,000
9/10/2017 266,000
9/11/2017 307,200
9/12/2017 279,400
9/13/2017 300,400
9/14/2017 294,200
9/15/2017 288,600
9/16/2017 236,400
9/17/2017 235,200
9/18/2017 291,000
9/19/2017 279,200
9/20/2017 284,000
9/21/2017 268,200
9/22/2017 300,600
9/23/2017 313,000
9/24/2017 289,000
9/25/2017 314,000
9/26/2017 289,400
9/27/2017 304,600
9/28/2017 329,600
9/29/2017 482,000
9/30/2017 297,400
10/1/2017 280,000
10/2/2017 284,400
10/3/2017 261,800
10/4/2017 265,400
10/5/2017 304,600
10/6/2017 282,600
10/7/2017 315,500
10/8/2017 280,300
10/9/2017 276,400
10/10/2017 310,400
10/11/2017 273,600
10/12/2017 299,400
10/13/2017 268,600
10/14/2017 251,400
10/15/2017 274,000
10/16/2017 304,000
10/17/2017 267,800
10/18/2017 249,600
10/19/2017 263,600
10/20/2017 288,600
10/21/2017 233,600
10/22/2017 242,200
10/23/2017 17,600
10/24/2017 39,400
10/25/2017 226,000
10/26/2017 289,900
10/27/2017 239,500
10/28/2017 238,000
10/29/2017 243,800
10/30/2017 403,000
10/31/2017 377,000
11/1/2017 427,200
11/2/2017 442,800

Page 2 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
11/3/2017 390,600
11/4/2017 337,800
11/5/2017 321,400
11/6/2017 344,200
11/7/2017 360,400
11/8/2017 291,800
11/9/2017 319,000
11/10/2017 278,400
11/11/2017 226,800
11/12/2017 231,600
11/13/2017 265,600
11/14/2017 261,000
11/15/2017 437,600
11/16/2017 963,800
11/17/2017 476,000
11/18/2017 347,600
11/19/2017 278,000
11/20/2017 310,400
11/21/2017 309,000
11/22/2017 372,200
11/23/2017 304,000
11/24/2017 368,600
11/25/2017 354,600
11/26/2017 772,600
11/27/2017 642,200
11/28/2017 420,000
11/29/2017 341,400
11/30/2017 353,200
12/1/2017 319,000
12/2/2017 335,000
12/3/2017 335,200
12/4/2017 312,600
12/5/2017 344,400
12/6/2017 319,400
12/7/2017 370,600
12/8/2017 308,400
12/9/2017 297,600
12/10/2017 297,000
12/11/2017 306,800
12/12/2017 304,800
12/13/2017 320,200
12/14/2017 297,000
12/15/2017 287,800
12/16/2017 283,800
12/17/2017 280,200
12/18/2017 324,400
12/19/2017 347,000
12/20/2017 374,600
12/21/2017 322,800
12/22/2017 355,800
12/23/2017 288,400
12/24/2017 259,000
12/25/2017 244,000
12/26/2017 340,600
12/27/2017 325,400
12/28/2017 335,600
12/29/2017 284,800
12/30/2017 265,400
12/31/2017 252,400
1/1/2018 256,800
1/2/2018 321,600
1/3/2018 318,200
1/4/2018 301,000
1/5/2018 368,400
1/6/2018 400,000
1/7/2018 316,200
1/8/2018 1,023,000
1/9/2018 1,096,000
1/10/2018 630,800
1/11/2018 485,400
1/12/2018 455,400
1/13/2018 364,400
1/14/2018 348,200
1/15/2018 360,800
1/16/2018 360,400
1/17/2018 344,000

Page 3 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
1/18/2018 417,600
1/19/2018 442,600
1/20/2018 353,800
1/21/2018 336,800
1/22/2018 385,600
1/23/2018 353,000
1/24/2018 511,600
1/25/2018 567,600
1/26/2018 474,000
1/27/2018 413,600
1/28/2018 390,200
1/29/2018 364,400
1/30/2018 516,000
1/31/2018 370,800
2/1/2018 357,200
2/2/2018 328,600
2/3/2018 332,000
2/4/2018 302,200
2/5/2018 340,000
2/6/2018 332,800
2/7/2018 366,200
2/8/2018 322,400
2/9/2018 332,800
2/10/2018 299,800
2/11/2018 264,800
2/12/2018 282,800
2/13/2018 323,600
2/14/2018 269,000
2/15/2018 289,600
2/16/2018 277,200
2/17/2018 265,600
2/18/2018 249,400
2/19/2018 274,200
2/20/2018 275,800
2/21/2018 301,400
2/22/2018 306,000
2/23/2018 313,600
2/24/2018 283,800
2/25/2018 275,600
2/26/2018
2/27/2018
2/28/2018
3/1/2018 734,400
3/2/2018 983,800
3/3/2018 872,600
3/4/2018 597,800
3/5/2018 499,000
3/6/2018 451,600
3/7/2018 404,400
3/8/2018 409,200
3/9/2018 356,800
3/10/2018 325,600
3/11/2018 352,200
3/12/2018 443,800
3/13/2018 1,304,400
3/14/2018 1,205,800
3/15/2018 1,243,200
3/16/2018 1,391,400
3/17/2018 934,600
3/18/2018 745,600
3/19/2018 700,600
3/20/2018 659,000
3/21/2018 1,046,000
3/22/2018 1,412,200
3/23/2018 931,400
3/24/2018 728,600
3/25/2018 656,200
3/26/2018 566,200
3/27/2018 476,600
3/28/2018 457,200
3/29/2018 427,200
3/30/2018 393,000
3/31/2018 391,800
4/1/2018 355,000

Page 4 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
4/2/2018 377,200
4/3/2018 384,200
4/4/2018 393,600
4/5/2018 448,600
4/6/2018 1,042,800
4/7/2018 1,126,600
4/8/2018 745,800
4/9/2018 640,600
4/10/2018 556,500
4/11/2018 503,300
4/12/2018 479,400
4/13/2018 451,000
4/14/2018 431,000
4/15/2018 420,400
4/16/2018 497,800
4/17/2018 466,000
4/18/2018 447,000
4/19/2018 418,400
4/20/2018 375,800
4/21/2018 362,000
4/22/2018 359,800
4/23/2018 409,800
4/24/2018 379,800
4/25/2018 364,000
4/26/2018 371,000
4/27/2018 350,200
4/28/2018 317,800
4/29/2018 309,000
4/30/2018 365,400
5/1/2018 353,400
5/2/2018 344,400
5/3/2018 337,600
5/4/2018 293,000
5/5/2018 272,400
5/6/2018 265,600
5/7/2018 313,000
5/8/2018 297,200
5/9/2018 181,000
5/10/2018 308,200
5/11/2018 291,000
5/12/2018 260,400
5/13/2018 316,200
5/14/2018 238,400
5/15/2018 284,200
5/16/2018 307,600
5/17/2018 291,600
5/18/2018 300,200
5/19/2018 286,800
5/20/2018 254,600
5/21/2018 323,800
5/22/2018 325,600
5/23/2018 311,200
5/24/2018 319,600
5/25/2018 330,200
5/26/2018 297,800
5/27/2018 294,600
5/28/2018 324,800
5/29/2018 310,200
5/30/2018 298,200
5/31/2018 342,183
6/1/2018 296,200
6/2/2018 273,800
6/3/2018 272,400
6/4/2018 287,600
6/5/2018 295,800
6/6/2018 296,600
6/7/2018 278,800
6/8/2018 288,400
6/9/2018 249,800
6/10/2018 266,400
6/11/2018 299,800
6/12/2018 314,800
6/13/2018 305,800
6/14/2018 324,800
6/15/2018 299,800
6/16/2018 283,400

Page 5 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/17/2018 241,400
6/18/2018 294,200
6/19/2018 313,600
6/20/2018 285,200
6/21/2018 275,000
6/22/2018 274,400
6/23/2018 234,600
6/24/2018 229,200
6/25/2018 282,600
6/26/2018 298,800
6/27/2018 190,000
6/28/2018 293,800
6/29/2018 317,400
6/30/2018 257,200
7/1/2018 267,200
7/2/2018 325,600
7/3/2018 321,400
7/4/2018 259,000
7/5/2018 319,200
7/6/2018 336,400
7/7/2018 262,000
7/8/2018 271,800
7/9/2018 273,400
7/10/2018 305,400
7/11/2018 302,200
7/12/2018 301,000
7/13/2018 305,400
7/14/2018 271,000
7/15/2018 276,800
7/16/2018 317,200
7/17/2018 328,800
7/18/2018 310,600
7/19/2018 311,200
7/20/2018 329,800
7/21/2018 272,400
7/22/2018 281,500
7/23/2018 300,500
7/24/2018 292,800
7/25/2018 290,600
7/26/2018 306,000
7/27/2018 345,800
7/28/2018 285,400
7/29/2018 288,200
7/30/2018 313,800
7/31/2018 322,600
8/1/2018 295,800
8/2/2018 314,200
8/3/2018 311,800
8/4/2018 281,800
8/5/2018 313,400
8/6/2018 328,600
8/7/2018 311,200
8/8/2018 337,800
8/9/2018 350,200
8/10/2018 318,200
8/11/2018 295,600
8/12/2018 322,400
8/13/2018 336,400
8/14/2018 331,000
8/15/2018 360,000
8/16/2018 297,400
8/17/2018 314,200
8/18/2018 294,600
8/19/2018 283,800
8/20/2018 342,800
8/21/2018 351,400
8/22/2018 364,800
8/23/2018 335,000
8/24/2018 298,600
8/25/2018 291,400
8/26/2018 277,000
8/27/2018 302,200
8/28/2018 275,400
8/29/2018 299,600

Page 6 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/30/2018 295,200
8/31/2018 317,600
9/1/2018 209,800
9/2/2018 244,200
9/3/2018 284,200
9/4/2018 316,600
9/5/2018 306,000
9/6/2018 334,000
9/7/2018 354,400
9/8/2018 294,000
9/9/2018 272,400
9/10/2018 321,600
9/11/2018 304,600
9/12/2018 303,400
9/13/2018 318,200
9/14/2018 263,200
9/15/2018 263,800
9/16/2018 280,600
9/17/2018 329,200
9/18/2018 246,800
9/19/2018 276,800
9/20/2018 274,800
9/21/2018 298,400
9/22/2018 246,000
9/23/2018 333,800
9/24/2018 355,800
9/25/2018 404,200
9/26/2018 355,000
9/27/2018 356,400
9/28/2018 331,000
9/29/2018 257,000
9/30/2018 268,000
10/1/2018 273,200
10/2/2018 258,000
10/3/2018 286,200
10/4/2018 322,200
10/5/2018 304,800
10/6/2018 256,000
10/7/2018 266,600
10/8/2018 337,600
10/9/2018 298,200
10/10/2018 266,000
10/11/2018 236,600
10/12/2018 270,200
10/13/2018 236,800
10/14/2018 232,200
10/15/2018 252,200
10/16/2018 299,800
10/17/2018 303,800
10/18/2018 305,000
10/19/2018 279,400
10/20/2018 258,800
10/21/2018 291,800
10/22/2018 330,400
10/23/2018 336,600
10/24/2018 316,600
10/25/2018 313,000
10/26/2018 305,600
10/27/2018 290,600
10/28/2018 293,600
10/29/2018 321,800
10/30/2018 300,200
10/31/2018 305,600
11/1/2018 303,800
11/2/2018 287,600
11/3/2018 287,400
11/4/2018 301,800
11/5/2018 296,400
11/6/2018 263,600
11/7/2018 305,000
11/8/2018 289,000
11/9/2018 299,000
11/10/2018 251,200
11/11/2018 255,200
11/12/2018 304,000
11/13/2018 253,600

Page 7 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
11/14/2018 302,400
11/15/2018 313,400
11/16/2018 278,800
11/17/2018 270,000
11/18/2018 269,600
11/19/2018 312,800
11/20/2018 310,400
11/21/2018 365,600
11/22/2018 386,400
11/23/2018 591,200
11/24/2018 453,600
11/25/2018 367,600
11/26/2018 338,800
11/27/2018 329,200
11/28/2018 470,200
11/29/2018 794,800
11/30/2018 647,600
12/1/2018 616,800
12/2/2018 480,000
12/3/2018 472,000
12/4/2018 407,400
12/5/2018 384,200
12/6/2018 373,600
12/7/2018 280,800
12/8/2018 270,200
12/9/2018 280,000
12/10/2018 298,600
12/11/2018 326,000
12/12/2018 299,000
12/13/2018 298,800
12/14/2018 298,200
12/15/2018 272,400
12/16/2018 338,000
12/17/2018 427,000
12/18/2018 375,600
12/19/2018 309,000
12/20/2018 327,400
12/21/2018 378,000
12/22/2018 352,800
12/23/2018 325,800
12/24/2018 673,600
12/25/2018 593,600
12/26/2018 457,000
12/27/2018 451,400
12/28/2018 370,000
12/29/2018 317,000
12/30/2018 313,400
12/31/2018 342,200
1/1/2019 277,000
1/2/2019 365,800
1/3/2019 342,800
1/4/2019 200,200
1/5/2019 470,800
1/6/2019 612,000
1/7/2019 647,800
1/8/2019 628,400
1/9/2019 821,200
1/10/2019 576,900
1/11/2019 532,100
1/12/2019 367,600
1/13/2019 348,600
1/14/2019 394,000
1/15/2019 582,600
1/16/2019 1,117,000
1/17/2019 1,489,200
1/18/2019 905,200
1/19/2019 621,200
1/20/2019 889,000
1/21/2019 707,200
1/22/2019 586,000
1/23/2019 514,800
1/24/2019 467,200
1/25/2019 449,600
1/26/2019 478,800
1/27/2019 398,200
1/28/2019 418,400

Page 8 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
1/29/2019 393,600
1/30/2019 370,200
1/31/2019 385,600
2/1/2019 387,000
2/2/2019 666,400
2/3/2019 1,032,600
2/4/2019 1,338,200
2/5/2019 988,600
2/6/2019 752,200
2/7/2019 646,400
2/8/2019 540,600
2/9/2019 966,000
2/10/2019 980,600
2/11/2019 694,200
2/12/2019 759,400
2/13/2019 1,284,600
2/14/2019 1,395,400
2/15/2019 1,479,400
2/16/2019 1,139,200
2/17/2019 1,157,600
2/18/2019 889,200
2/19/2019 830,200
2/20/2019 778,000
2/21/2019 596,200
2/22/2019 609,400
2/23/2019 487,000
2/24/2019 443,200
2/25/2019 419,000
2/26/2019 521,200
2/27/2019 771,000
2/28/2019 720,600
3/1/2019 642,000
3/2/2019 1,206,200
3/3/2019 1,674,000
3/4/2019 1,128,000
3/5/2019 966,200
3/6/2019 1,169,000
3/7/2019 1,258,600
3/8/2019 1,017,200
3/9/2019 703,800
3/10/2019 607,600
3/11/2019 559,000
3/12/2019 497,600
3/13/2019 487,600
3/14/2019 458,000
3/15/2019 408,000
3/16/2019 379,800
3/17/2019 369,000
3/18/2019 376,800
3/19/2019 431,600
3/20/2019 434,200
3/21/2019 405,800
3/22/2019 492,400
3/23/2019 742,000
3/24/2019 514,400
3/25/2019 481,600
3/26/2019 483,600
3/27/2019 531,400
3/28/2019 487,800
3/29/2019 491,200
3/30/2019 412,400
3/31/2019 397,400
4/1/2019 469,200
4/2/2019 657,400
4/3/2019 544,800
4/4/2019 494,200
4/5/2019 499,600
4/6/2019 462,600
4/7/2019 385,200
4/8/2019 400,600

Page 9 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
4/9/2019 381,600
4/10/2019 378,800
4/11/2019 379,400
4/12/2019 338,400
4/13/2019 302,800
4/14/2019 313,800
4/15/2019 376,200
4/16/2019 529,800
4/17/2019 445,600
4/18/2019 406,800
4/19/2019 424,200
4/20/2019 349,400
4/21/2019 353,000
4/22/2019 389,800
4/23/2019 366,200
4/24/2019 361,600
4/25/2019 370,000
4/26/2019 331,200
4/27/2019 304,400
4/28/2019 303,800
4/29/2019 327,200
4/30/2019 295,000
5/1/2019 318,600
5/2/2019 316,200
5/3/2019 288,200
5/4/2019 284,400
5/5/2019 293,200
5/6/2019 347,400
5/7/2019 356,800
5/8/2019 256,000
5/9/2019 302,200
5/10/2019 275,800
5/11/2019 270,200
5/12/2019 272,800
5/13/2019 344,600
5/14/2019 339,200
5/15/2019 420,200
5/16/2019 596,800
5/17/2019 441,600
5/18/2019 463,000
5/19/2019 739,000
5/20/2019 566,600
5/21/2019 687,800
5/22/2019 602,400
5/23/2019 546,400
5/24/2019 482,400
5/25/2019 413,600
5/26/2019 419,800
5/27/2019 410,600
5/28/2019 436,800
5/29/2019 416,800
5/30/2019 375,600
5/31/2019 398,600
6/1/2019 334,200
6/2/2019 349,600
6/3/2019 404,000
6/4/2019 411,800
6/5/2019 396,600
6/6/2019 404,800
6/7/2019 421,000
6/8/2019 367,600
6/9/2019 287,800
6/10/2019 339,800
6/11/2019 315,600
6/12/2019 344,800
6/13/2019 351,600
6/14/2019 353,800
6/15/2019 276,800
6/16/2019 292,200
6/17/2019 352,800

Page 10 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/18/2019 336,600
6/19/2019 363,400
6/20/2019 343,200
6/21/2019 352,400
6/22/2019 292,800
6/23/2019 294,800
6/24/2019 350,000
6/25/2019 329,600
6/26/2019 270,400
6/27/2019 271,600
6/28/2019 316,800
6/29/2019 259,400
6/30/2019 263,000
7/1/2019 323,800
7/2/2019 325,400
7/3/2019 327,800
7/4/2019 257,200
7/5/2019 325,400
7/6/2019 304,600
7/7/2019 271,200
7/8/2019 332,000
7/9/2019 348,400
7/10/2019 320,400
7/11/2019 322,200
7/12/2019 310,800
7/13/2019 268,200
7/14/2019 280,200
7/15/2019 330,600
7/16/2019 314,400
7/17/2019 330,200
7/18/2019 316,000
7/19/2019 314,000
7/20/2019 289,200
7/21/2019 275,600
7/22/2019 299,600
7/23/2019 449,600
7/24/2019 353,400
7/25/2019 420,000
7/26/2019 792,600
7/27/2019 1,661,600
7/28/2019 245,400
7/29/2019 303,800
7/30/2019 290,200
7/31/2019 441,600
8/1/2019 316,894
8/2/2019 347,800
8/3/2019 294,100
8/4/2019 306,256
8/5/2019 331,544
8/6/2019 338,231
8/7/2019 334,719
8/8/2019 334,744
8/9/2019 317,500
8/10/2019 291,093
8/11/2019 284,319
8/12/2019 348,694
8/13/2019 333,312
8/14/2019 313,575
8/15/2019 357,100
8/16/2019 312,713
8/17/2019 270,562
8/18/2019 299,213
8/19/2019 328,606
8/20/2019 324,094
8/21/2019 323,544
8/22/2019 348,787
8/23/2019 338,456
8/24/2019 296,269
8/25/2019 287,588
8/26/2019 336,987

Page 11 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/27/2019 326,088
8/28/2019 332,343
8/29/2019 361,444
8/30/2019 363,513
8/31/2019 303,081
9/1/2019 300,675
9/2/2019 320,369
9/3/2019 356,425
9/4/2019 324,681
9/5/2019 379,031
9/6/2019 327,956
9/7/2019 302,738
9/8/2019 311,125
9/9/2019 371,812
9/10/2019 339,725
9/11/2019 370,425
9/12/2019 324,888
9/13/2019 334,875
9/14/2019 299,744
9/15/2019 295,018
9/16/2019 378,163
9/17/2019 350,325
9/18/2019 353,050
9/19/2019 329,987
9/20/2019 308,100
9/21/2019 268,657
9/22/2019 268,425
9/23/2019 304,762
9/24/2019 323,081
9/25/2019 322,988
9/26/2019 322,275
9/27/2019 325,500
9/28/2019 296,056
9/29/2019 284,419
9/30/2019 361,569
10/1/2019 305,318
10/2/2019 325,925
10/3/2019 315,919
10/4/2019 322,756
10/5/2019 269,619
10/6/2019 289,581
10/7/2019 317,882
10/8/2019 337,718
10/9/2019 172,068
10/10/2019 243,851
10/11/2019 332,738
10/12/2019 281,721
10/13/2019 262,562
10/14/2019 317,314
10/15/2019 312,843
10/16/2019 325,946
10/17/2019 302,608
10/18/2019 281,119
10/19/2019 269,859
10/20/2019 278,593
10/21/2019 333,014
10/22/2019 339,241
10/23/2019 291,573
10/24/2019 315,899
10/25/2019 313,845
10/26/2019 244,313
10/27/2019 195,000
10/28/2019 220,800
10/29/2019 288,800
10/30/2019 289,800
10/31/2019 350,600
11/1/2019 221,400
11/2/2019 155,200
11/3/2019 177,600
11/4/2019 209,600

Page 12 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
11/5/2019 103,600
11/6/2019 146,000
11/7/2019 241,200
11/8/2019 134,600
11/9/2019 119,400
11/10/2019 182,800
11/11/2019 268,600
11/12/2019 258,600
11/13/2019 209,000
11/14/2019 280,400
11/15/2019 289,000
11/16/2019 237,000
11/17/2019 244,800
11/18/2019 305,000
11/19/2019 232,600
11/20/2019 188,000
11/21/2019 222,600
11/22/2019 237,000
11/23/2019 216,800
11/24/2019 239,200
11/25/2019 276,400
11/26/2019 366,000
11/27/2019 410,800
11/28/2019 368,800
11/29/2019 379,600
11/30/2019 319,400
12/1/2019 695,200
12/2/2019 556,400
12/3/2019 424,000
12/4/2019 674,200
12/5/2019 647,000
12/6/2019 553,800
12/7/2019 685,400
12/8/2019 627,000
12/9/2019 464,000
12/10/2019 388,600
12/11/2019 367,600
12/12/2019 387,400
12/13/2019 424,600
12/14/2019 421,200
12/15/2019 354,000
12/16/2019 348,600
12/17/2019 264,600
12/18/2019 304,000
12/19/2019 296,000
12/20/2019 327,200
12/21/2019 289,000
12/22/2019 330,000
12/23/2019 386,600
12/24/2019 307,200
12/25/2019 256,800
12/26/2019 319,800
12/27/2019 310,600
12/28/2019 258,800
12/29/2019 283,900
12/30/2019 309,100
12/31/2019 322,000
1/1/2020 261,400
1/2/2020 334,200
1/3/2020 309,600
1/4/2020 247,000
1/5/2020 269,200
1/6/2020 296,000
1/7/2020 300,800
1/8/2020 288,600
1/9/2020 373,600
1/10/2020 335,600
1/11/2020 337,000
1/12/2020 286,200
1/13/2020 342,400

Page 13 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
1/14/2020 334,800
1/15/2020 357,200
1/16/2020 466,800
1/17/2020 353,000
1/18/2020 300,400
1/19/2020 305,600
1/20/2020 340,200
1/21/2020 326,600
1/22/2020 354,600
1/23/2020 393,200
1/24/2020 303,600
1/25/2020 261,400
1/26/2020 382,800
1/27/2020 368,200
1/28/2020 346,800
1/29/2020 410,000
1/30/2020 398,400
1/31/2020 331,400
2/1/2020 208,000
2/2/2020 181,200
2/3/2020 238,200
2/4/2020 231,000
2/5/2020 245,200
2/6/2020 295,000
2/7/2020 297,000
2/8/2020 204,200
2/9/2020 179,800
2/10/2020 227,600
2/11/2020 294,600
2/12/2020 281,600
2/13/2020 280,400
2/14/2020 296,200
2/15/2020 227,000
2/16/2020 193,400
2/17/2020 269,400
2/18/2020 324,000
2/19/2020 303,400
2/20/2020 286,400
2/21/2020 297,800
2/22/2020 236,600
2/23/2020 223,800
2/24/2020 280,800
2/25/2020 286,800
2/26/2020 314,400
2/27/2020 306,200
2/28/2020 456,200
2/29/2020 594,400
3/1/2020 266,000
3/2/2020 282,200
3/3/2020 318,000
3/4/2020 229,000
3/5/2020 208,400
3/6/2020 208,200
3/7/2020 222,200
3/8/2020 201,600
3/9/2020 190,200
3/10/2020 173,000
3/11/2020 243,400
3/12/2020 201,000
3/13/2020 201,000
3/14/2020 489,200
3/15/2020 1,035,200
3/16/2020 1,767,400
3/17/2020 995,600
3/18/2020 725,000
3/19/2020 545,600
3/20/2020 501,400
3/21/2020 380,600
3/22/2020 341,100
3/23/2020 353,100

Page 14 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
3/24/2020 399,600
3/25/2020 411,200
3/26/2020 380,000
3/27/2020 339,800
3/28/2020 309,000
3/29/2020 310,800
3/30/2020 313,800
3/31/2020 308,200
4/1/2020 328,600
4/2/2020 309,400
4/3/2020 285,400
4/4/2020 366,800
4/5/2020 1,285,200
4/6/2020 1,192,200
4/7/2020 730,200
4/8/2020 615,800
4/9/2020 492,600
4/10/2020 436,000
4/11/2020 402,000
4/12/2020 351,400
4/13/2020 369,000
4/14/2020 373,800
4/15/2020 362,600
4/16/2020 376,400
4/17/2020 350,000
4/18/2020 299,800
4/19/2020 295,000
4/20/2020 314,600
4/21/2020 363,200
4/22/2020 142,800
4/23/2020 360,800
4/24/2020 421,200
4/25/2020 336,200
4/26/2020 271,200
4/27/2020 298,800
4/28/2020 317,600
4/29/2020 319,800
4/30/2020 244,600
5/1/2020 308,400
5/2/2020 186,200
5/3/2020 190,800
5/4/2020 269,800
5/5/2020 264,000
5/6/2020 295,400
5/7/2020 272,200
5/8/2020 300,200
5/9/2020 196,000
5/10/2020 181,200
5/11/2020 303,700
5/12/2020 258,700
5/13/2020 259,000
5/14/2020 286,000
5/15/2020 307,200
5/16/2020 276,400
5/17/2020 482,000
5/18/2020 568,400
5/19/2020 400,800
5/20/2020 358,000
5/21/2020 297,800
5/22/2020 315,200
5/23/2020 215,400
5/24/2020 232,800
5/25/2020 536,800
5/26/2020 313,800
5/27/2020 328,600
5/28/2020 281,225
5/29/2020 273,750
5/30/2020 244,375
5/31/2020 296,600
6/1/2020 275,926

Page 15 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/2/2020 283,875
6/3/2020 288,700
6/4/2020 257,844
6/5/2020 269,481
6/6/2020 252,138
6/7/2020 255,143
6/8/2020 279,525
6/9/2020 319,150
6/10/2020 346,282
6/11/2020 349,493
6/12/2020 277,100
6/13/2020 224,119
6/14/2020 233,694
6/15/2020 270,525
6/16/2020 290,887
6/17/2020 288,213
6/18/2020 267,006
6/19/2020 285,231
6/20/2020 234,675
6/21/2020 237,857
6/22/2020 294,843
6/23/2020 264,125
6/24/2020 272,688
6/25/2020 279,044
6/26/2020 271,718
6/27/2020 285,432
6/28/2020 255,162
6/29/2020 279,756
6/30/2020 305,013
7/1/2020 303,906
7/2/2020 295,369
7/3/2020 253,137
7/4/2020 242,244
7/5/2020 243,131
7/6/2020 296,675
7/7/2020 270,719
7/8/2020 307,300
7/9/2020 264,431
7/10/2020 282,819
7/11/2020 231,225
7/12/2020 235,994
7/13/2020 263,062
7/14/2020 262,188
7/15/2020 282,919
7/16/2020 276,762
7/17/2020 290,019
7/18/2020 239,025
7/19/2020 238,775
7/20/2020 287,419
7/21/2020 269,837
7/22/2020 286,063
7/23/2020 273,256
7/24/2020 268,450
7/25/2020 224,531
7/26/2020 219,900
7/27/2020 269,694
7/28/2020 271,019
7/29/2020 276,075
7/30/2020 283,112
7/31/2020 243,594
8/1/2020 230,856
8/2/2020 226,550
8/3/2020 267,894
8/4/2020 289,819
8/5/2020 279,743
8/6/2020 278,988
8/7/2020 276,481
8/8/2020 233,275
8/9/2020 230,250
8/10/2020 284,106

Page 16 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/11/2020 286,438
8/12/2020 298,706
8/13/2020 280,106
8/14/2020 269,150
8/15/2020 235,600
8/16/2020 242,194
8/17/2020 293,288
8/18/2020 274,731
8/19/2020 287,756
8/20/2020 267,800
8/21/2020 281,413
8/22/2020 243,206
8/23/2020 248,406
8/24/2020 299,638
8/25/2020 279,450
8/26/2020 248,300
8/27/2020 291,737
8/28/2020 271,082
8/29/2020 239,951
8/30/2020 253,157
8/31/2020 278,472
9/1/2020 282,828
9/2/2020 305,253
9/3/2020 288,473
9/4/2020 268,512
9/5/2020 237,345
9/6/2020 233,074
9/7/2020 262,933
9/8/2020 258,364
9/9/2020 284,871
9/10/2020 272,706
9/11/2020 278,049
9/12/2020 245,169
9/13/2020 243,672
9/14/2020 278,430
9/15/2020 284,736
9/16/2020 278,000
9/17/2020 293,689
9/18/2020 290,178
9/19/2020 253,719
9/20/2020 251,135
9/21/2020 280,676
9/22/2020 270,898
9/23/2020 291,187
9/24/2020 282,218
9/25/2020 282,218
9/26/2020 270,501
9/27/2020 255,724
9/28/2020 284,200
9/29/2020 292,003
9/30/2020 287,510
10/1/2020 267,834
10/2/2020 293,377
10/3/2020 260,220
10/4/2020 259,539
10/5/2020 313,763
10/6/2020 295,309
10/7/2020 292,223
10/8/2020 293,897
10/9/2020 313,689
10/10/2020 253,814
10/11/2020 250,657
10/12/2020 301,911
10/13/2020 284,219
10/14/2020 291,862
10/15/2020 314,592
10/16/2020 273,453
10/17/2020 255,828
10/18/2020 279,360
10/19/2020 296,243

Page 17 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
10/20/2020 284,813
10/21/2020 276,816
10/22/2020 273,359
10/23/2020 282,595
10/24/2020 252,864
10/25/2020 254,138
10/26/2020 295,106
10/27/2020 287,533
10/28/2020 294,847
10/29/2020 264,719
10/30/2020 314,751
10/31/2020 280,261
11/1/2020 274,027
11/2/2020 288,375
11/3/2020 292,317
11/4/2020 314,937
11/5/2020 274,844
11/6/2020 311,819
11/7/2020 267,570
11/8/2020 275,514
11/9/2020 315,828
11/10/2020 289,649
11/11/2020 348,509
11/12/2020 301,677
11/13/2020 316,301
11/14/2020 315,305
11/15/2020 248,126
11/16/2020 315,461
11/17/2020 400,499
11/18/2020 363,183
11/19/2020 352,203
11/20/2020 329,683
11/21/2020 267,070
11/22/2020 273,569
11/23/2020 296,704
11/24/2020 305,833
11/25/2020 318,445
11/26/2020 258,846
11/27/2020 298,103
11/28/2020 267,831
11/29/2020 276,827
11/30/2020 309,586
12/1/2020 290,509
12/2/2020 326,588
12/3/2020 297,709
12/4/2020 302,287
12/5/2020 268,266
12/6/2020 277,938
12/7/2020 311,359
12/8/2020 326,519
12/9/2020 331,662
12/10/2020 338,725
12/11/2020 345,331
12/12/2020 307,379
12/13/2020 382,590
12/14/2020 358,269
12/15/2020 319,150
12/16/2020 356,022
12/17/2020 374,312
12/18/2020 331,969
12/19/2020 296,250
12/20/2020 304,547
12/21/2020 333,037
12/22/2020 326,010
12/23/2020 346,231
12/24/2020 304,397
12/25/2020 273,734
12/26/2020 319,816
12/27/2020 297,800
12/28/2020 347,553

Page 18 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
12/29/2020 325,675
12/30/2020 340,431
12/31/2020
1/1/2021 279,313
1/2/2021 292,900
1/3/2021 298,087
1/4/2021 366,316
1/5/2021 345,616
1/6/2021 331,493
1/7/2021 316,872
1/8/2021 347,813
1/9/2021 280,087
1/10/2021 291,472
1/11/2021 309,563
1/12/2021 347,518
1/13/2021 303,747
1/14/2021 324,031
1/15/2021 337,257
1/16/2021 294,359
1/17/2021 293,966
1/18/2021 342,437
1/19/2021 352,825
1/20/2021 295,385
1/21/2021 331,337
1/22/2021 351,828
1/23/2021 300,053
1/24/2021 377,778
1/25/2021 430,388
1/26/2021 414,559
1/27/2021 822,560
1/28/2021 1,414,122
1/29/2021 852,506
1/30/2021 519,659
1/31/2021 438,585
2/1/2021 439,775
2/2/2021 563,225
2/3/2021 453,168
2/4/2021 396,282
2/5/2021 386,634
2/6/2021 329,603
2/7/2021 333,075
2/8/2021 355,313
2/9/2021 345,437
2/10/2021 359,625
2/11/2021 482,263
2/12/2021 526,731
2/13/2021 438,431
2/14/2021 390,775
2/15/2021 515,769
2/16/2021 420,425
2/17/2021 387,050
2/18/2021 382,556
2/19/2021 385,513
2/20/2021 358,762
2/21/2021 335,063
2/22/2021 356,056
2/23/2021 343,281
2/24/2021 340,913
2/25/2021 328,400
2/26/2021 357,268
2/27/2021 301,350
2/28/2021 301,132
4/1/2021 334,987
4/2/2021 331,419
4/3/2021 313,606
4/4/2021 293,125
4/5/2021 372,182
4/6/2021 331,162
4/7/2021 336,813
4/8/2021 372,456

Page 19 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
4/9/2021 300,725
4/10/2021 290,637
4/11/2021 309,938
4/12/2021 356,075
4/13/2021 340,575
4/14/2021 395,031
4/15/2021 368,725
4/16/2021 365,669
4/17/2021 326,031
4/18/2021 335,638
4/19/2021 364,281
4/20/2021 343,088
4/21/2021 347,887
4/22/2021 345,650
4/23/2021 337,181
4/24/2021 307,250
4/25/2021 328,519
4/26/2021 375,500
4/27/2021 376,187
4/28/2021 349,275
4/29/2021 353,369
4/30/2021 373,581
5/1/2021 293,107
5/2/2021 335,143
5/3/2021 354,963
5/4/2021 355,581
5/5/2021 357,444
5/6/2021 410,531
5/7/2021 343,819
5/8/2021 328,969
5/9/2021 310,068
5/10/2021 387,657
5/11/2021 374,737
5/12/2021 375,150
5/13/2021 357,444
5/14/2021 370,081
5/15/2021 322,038
5/16/2021 327,493
5/17/2021 355,232
5/18/2021 355,412
5/19/2021 333,663
5/20/2021 345,825
5/21/2021 356,875
5/22/2021 299,381
5/23/2021 313,612
5/24/2021 347,744
5/25/2021 366,044
5/26/2021 372,175
5/27/2021 363,056
5/28/2021 363,944
5/29/2021 298,475
5/30/2021 304,131
5/31/2021 318,075
6/1/2021 351,063
6/2/2021 361,562
6/3/2021 344,575
6/4/2021 353,444
6/5/2021 310,831
6/6/2021 313,938
6/7/2021 375,737
6/8/2021 349,156
6/9/2021 354,863
6/10/2021 370,287
6/11/2021 336,738
6/12/2021 325,525
6/13/2021 308,956
6/14/2021 373,081
6/15/2021 383,625
6/16/2021 359,482
6/17/2021 370,050

Page 20 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/18/2021 341,418
6/19/2021 311,463
6/20/2021 312,152
6/21/2021 351,487
6/22/2021 348,915
6/23/2021 361,912
6/24/2021 365,716
6/25/2021 355,226
6/26/2021 304,982
6/27/2021 337,139
6/28/2021 355,487
6/29/2021 332,677
6/30/2021 346,808
7/1/2021 366,675
7/2/2021 349,132
7/3/2021 290,578
7/4/2021 280,508
7/5/2021 319,094
7/6/2021 350,209
7/7/2021 347,771
7/8/2021 375,469
7/9/2021 333,906
7/10/2021 285,509
7/11/2021 285,791
7/12/2021 339,873
7/13/2021 358,260
7/14/2021 346,276
7/15/2021 329,902
7/16/2021 338,827
7/17/2021 291,967
7/18/2021 294,703
7/19/2021 313,600
7/20/2021 362,271
7/21/2021 348,297
7/22/2021 331,852
7/23/2021 339,969
7/24/2021 295,907
7/25/2021 293,597
7/26/2021 341,681
7/27/2021 319,928
7/28/2021 346,766
7/29/2021 355,681
7/30/2021 318,806
7/31/2021 298,833
8/1/2021 301,740
8/2/2021 352,868
8/3/2021 338,704
8/4/2021 342,360
8/5/2021 321,581
8/6/2021 353,714
8/7/2021 304,658
8/8/2021 290,787
8/9/2021 342,657
8/10/2021 306,073
8/11/2021 366,997
8/12/2021 316,761
8/13/2021 360,258
8/14/2021 322,623
8/15/2021 303,580
8/16/2021 330,653
8/17/2021 326,306
8/18/2021 352,595
8/19/2021 330,844
8/20/2021 354,722
8/21/2021 303,719
8/22/2021 311,914
8/23/2021 324,441
8/24/2021 336,601
8/25/2021 329,938
8/26/2021 352,046

Page 21 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/27/2021 310,319
8/28/2021 271,333
8/29/2021 278,539
8/30/2021 294,292
8/31/2021 332,011
9/1/2021 321,174
9/2/2021 386,317
9/3/2021 340,084
9/4/2021 309,136
9/5/2021 290,694
9/6/2021 322,330
9/7/2021 333,232
9/8/2021 315,738
9/9/2021 315,206
9/10/2021 357,460
9/11/2021 286,506
9/12/2021 297,434
9/13/2021 314,063
9/14/2021 342,290
9/15/2021 325,647
9/16/2021 348,313
9/17/2021 315,186
9/18/2021 298,817
9/19/2021 289,381
9/20/2021 341,325
9/21/2021 331,781
9/22/2021 337,775
9/23/2021 352,069
9/24/2021 327,609
9/25/2021 304,235
9/26/2021 289,665
9/27/2021 354,413
9/28/2021 316,941
9/29/2021 341,828
9/30/2021 328,565
10/1/2021 329,547
10/2/2021 281,556
10/3/2021 298,847
10/4/2021 327,678
10/5/2021 360,454
10/6/2021 334,984
10/7/2021 370,084
10/8/2021 338,941
10/9/2021 306,412
10/10/2021 303,319
10/11/2021 327,603
10/12/2021 342,350
10/13/2021 328,785
10/14/2021 356,000
10/15/2021 327,653
10/16/2021 302,494
10/17/2021 335,737
10/18/2021 368,750
10/19/2021 348,122
10/20/2021 350,081
10/21/2021 380,769
10/22/2021 380,356
10/23/2021 354,678
10/24/2021 1,731,788
10/25/2021 1,480,584
10/26/2021 657,094
10/27/2021 558,809
10/28/2021 440,660
10/29/2021 441,797
10/30/2021 407,003
10/31/2021 373,781
11/1/2021 384,791
11/2/2021 410,665
11/3/2021 419,153
11/4/2021 363,603

Page 22 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
11/5/2021 325,991
11/6/2021 340,128
11/7/2021 336,219
11/8/2021 410,072
11/9/2021 575,972
11/10/2021 426,734
11/11/2021 423,175
11/12/2021 426,022
11/13/2021 375,734
11/14/2021 383,819
11/15/2021 422,750
11/16/2021 369,656
11/17/2021 406,957
11/18/2021 393,918
11/19/2021 398,819
11/20/2021 344,000
11/21/2021 360,200
11/22/2021 395,756
11/23/2021 398,000
11/24/2021 372,632
11/25/2021 332,575
11/26/2021 369,156
11/27/2021 357,519
11/28/2021 374,031
11/29/2021 384,231
11/30/2021 414,419
12/1/2021 428,287
12/2/2021 380,682
12/3/2021 385,881
12/4/2021 380,244
12/5/2021 365,518
12/6/2021 375,707
12/7/2021 407,237
12/8/2021 390,519
12/9/2021 502,362
12/10/2021 380,275
12/11/2021 352,257
12/12/2021 711,600
12/13/2021 1,276,425
12/14/2021 1,073,893
12/15/2021 824,369
12/16/2021 855,506
12/17/2021 604,663
12/18/2021 502,887
12/19/2021 471,282
12/20/2021 485,262
12/21/2021 441,494
12/22/2021 572,437
12/23/2021 1,376,307
12/24/2021 937,900
12/25/2021 1,110,175
12/26/2021 989,600
12/27/2021 1,566,568
12/28/2021 919,132
12/29/2021 898,475
12/30/2021 677,037
12/31/2021 583,794
1/1/2022 493,656
1/2/2022 465,925
1/3/2022 493,331
1/4/2022 478,807
1/5/2022 481,300
1/6/2022 466,056
1/7/2022 489,287
1/8/2022 425,194
1/9/2022 421,525
1/10/2022 449,363
1/11/2022 441,975
1/12/2022 418,343
1/13/2022 419,532

Page 23 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
1/14/2022 409,137
1/15/2022 388,450
1/16/2022 398,944
1/17/2022 431,831
1/18/2022 387,338
1/19/2022 410,393
1/20/2022 407,788
1/21/2022 385,519
1/22/2022 358,850
1/23/2022 353,250
1/24/2022 383,600
1/25/2022 386,037
1/26/2022 376,569
1/27/2022 404,219
1/28/2022 357,887
1/29/2022 345,069
1/30/2022 359,319
1/31/2022 381,456
2/1/2022 370,912
2/2/2022 386,488
2/3/2022 394,781
2/4/2022 368,188
2/5/2022 354,606
2/6/2022 514,081
2/7/2022 420,944
2/8/2022 440,106
2/9/2022 438,150
2/10/2022 376,506
2/11/2022 372,432
2/12/2022 351,631
2/13/2022 354,744
2/14/2022 416,537
2/15/2022 384,075
2/16/2022 371,456
2/17/2022 362,771
2/18/2022 359,552
2/19/2022 338,289
2/20/2022 349,258
2/21/2022 369,009
2/22/2022 362,382
2/23/2022 344,981
2/24/2022 372,675
2/25/2022 372,924
2/26/2022 336,096
2/27/2022 333,406
2/28/2022 371,913
3/1/2022 359,463
3/2/2022 363,627
3/3/2022 375,536
3/4/2022 379,576
3/5/2022 358,708
3/6/2022 354,003
3/7/2022 387,659
3/8/2022 363,116
3/9/2022 382,587
3/10/2022 361,466
3/11/2022 107,911
3/12/2022 268,566
3/13/2022 276,454
3/14/2022 320,623
3/15/2022 373,206
3/16/2022 379,536
3/17/2022 345,794
3/18/2022 367,818
3/19/2022 332,534
3/20/2022 346,611
3/21/2022 395,014
3/22/2022 376,457
3/23/2022 385,324
3/24/2022 394,829

Page 24 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
3/25/2022 404,906
3/26/2022 338,553
3/27/2022 358,991
3/28/2022 406,297
3/29/2022 385,162
3/30/2022 386,941
3/31/2022 387,570
4/1/2022 376,909
4/2/2022 353,132
4/3/2022 366,156
4/4/2022 395,156
4/5/2022 378,730
4/6/2022 388,825
4/7/2022 385,340
4/8/2022 375,060
4/9/2022 339,312
4/10/2022 352,500
4/11/2022 417,411
4/12/2022 391,230
4/13/2022 390,286
4/14/2022 477,253
4/15/2022 411,956
4/16/2022 522,683
4/17/2022 386,847
4/18/2022 414,356
4/19/2022 429,510
4/20/2022 436,942
4/21/2022 1,044,439
4/22/2022 291,487
4/23/2022 499,078
4/24/2022 463,902
4/25/2022 502,116
4/26/2022 466,175
4/27/2022 427,656
4/28/2022 423,709
4/29/2022 278,107
4/30/2022 305,768
5/1/2022 349,169
5/2/2022 346,794
5/3/2022 397,462
5/4/2022 398,419
5/5/2022 405,453
5/6/2022 407,956
5/7/2022 371,529
5/8/2022 365,334
5/9/2022 393,484
5/10/2022 394,850
5/11/2022 417,991
5/12/2022 418,812
5/13/2022 400,919
5/14/2022 376,813
5/15/2022 377,889
5/16/2022 409,436
5/17/2022 412,543
5/18/2022 410,954
5/19/2022 400,490
5/20/2022 375,816
5/21/2022 390,222
5/22/2022 372,575
5/23/2022 421,722
5/24/2022 407,084
5/25/2022 391,378
5/26/2022 395,588
5/27/2022 387,512
5/28/2022 364,266
5/29/2022 343,718
5/30/2022 358,444
5/31/2022 415,572
6/1/2022 391,506
6/2/2022 421,750

Page 25 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
6/3/2022 387,944
6/4/2022 376,828
6/5/2022 369,913
6/6/2022 413,197
6/7/2022 381,400
6/8/2022 393,437
6/9/2022 425,181
6/10/2022 321,085
6/11/2022 313,178
6/12/2022 344,140
6/13/2022 437,785
6/14/2022 373,159
6/15/2022 339,710
6/16/2022 381,390
6/17/2022 408,535
6/18/2022 342,743
6/19/2022 339,425
6/20/2022 405,247
6/21/2022 379,806
6/22/2022 368,888
6/23/2022 374,000
6/24/2022 372,869
6/25/2022 317,234
6/26/2022 324,934
6/27/2022 387,107
6/28/2022 375,025
6/29/2022 376,290
6/30/2022 366,657
7/1/2022 406,743
7/2/2022 323,085
7/3/2022 315,340
7/4/2022 346,357
7/5/2022 411,731
7/6/2022 408,787
7/7/2022 419,057
7/8/2022 370,093
7/9/2022 337,194
7/10/2022 352,888
7/11/2022 420,612
7/12/2022 382,988
7/13/2022 380,062
7/14/2022 389,150
7/15/2022 324,287
7/16/2022 364,788
7/17/2022 325,675
7/18/2022 400,081
7/19/2022 392,219
7/20/2022 383,806
7/21/2022 370,944
7/22/2022 392,106
7/23/2022 339,925
7/24/2022 354,019
7/25/2022 381,569
7/26/2022 417,456
7/27/2022 389,663
7/28/2022 399,575
7/29/2022 378,268
7/30/2022 356,519
7/31/2022 369,994
8/1/2022 403,181
8/2/2022 426,325
8/3/2022 368,156
8/4/2022 324,050
8/5/2022 349,005
8/6/2022 338,105
8/7/2022 347,596
8/8/2022 297,895
8/9/2022 304,456
8/10/2022 167,125
8/11/2022 390,944

Page 26 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
8/12/2022 351,310
8/13/2022 324,330
8/14/2022 343,763
8/15/2022 367,595
8/16/2022 430,865
8/17/2022 327,828
8/18/2022 324,980
8/19/2022 306,059
8/20/2022 262,434
8/21/2022 257,371
8/22/2022 268,292
8/23/2022 304,686
8/24/2022 297,028
8/25/2022 286,939
8/26/2022 305,556
8/27/2022 252,858
8/28/2022 268,216
8/29/2022 292,654
8/30/2022 298,215
8/31/2022 292,000
9/1/2022 296,299
9/2/2022 306,621
9/3/2022 235,865
9/4/2022 237,366
9/5/2022 260,255
9/6/2022 282,911
9/7/2022 277,756
9/8/2022 297,989
9/9/2022 309,174
9/10/2022 258,772
9/11/2022 274,229
9/12/2022 274,770
9/13/2022 297,913
9/14/2022 271,269
9/15/2022 322,007
9/16/2022 283,719
9/17/2022 271,362
9/18/2022 298,075
9/19/2022 315,002
9/20/2022 305,254
9/21/2022 288,111
9/22/2022 304,769
9/23/2022 284,827
9/24/2022 252,032
9/25/2022 278,408
9/26/2022 296,369
9/27/2022 290,591
9/28/2022 283,201
9/29/2022
9/30/2022
10/1/2022 266,252
10/2/2022 284,550
10/3/2022 317,787
10/4/2022 316,272
10/5/2022 321,424
10/6/2022 320,433
10/7/2022 308,322
10/8/2022 278,628
10/9/2022 281,053
10/10/2022 289,007
10/11/2022 293,530
10/12/2022 332,945
10/13/2022 294,405
10/14/2022 293,564
10/15/2022 281,669
10/16/2022 299,866
10/17/2022 313,506
10/18/2022 325,562
10/19/2022 309,321
10/20/2022 326,790

Page 27 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
10/21/2022 307,678
10/22/2022 274,571
10/23/2022 281,454
10/24/2022 307,600
10/25/2022 271,382
10/26/2022 310,317
10/27/2022 296,894
10/28/2022 320,256
10/29/2022 254,547
10/30/2022 290,251
10/31/2022 323,289
11/1/2022 335,830
11/2/2022 351,931
11/3/2022 318,169
11/4/2022 316,572
11/5/2022 319,862
11/6/2022 318,629
11/7/2022 364,009
11/8/2022 530,594
11/9/2022 361,781
11/10/2022 344,207
11/11/2022 331,418
11/12/2022 290,044
11/13/2022 294,750
11/14/2022 326,156
11/15/2022 330,103
11/16/2022 333,353
11/17/2022 321,716
11/18/2022 326,762
11/19/2022 292,322
11/20/2022 309,747
11/21/2022 348,847
11/22/2022 341,531
11/23/2022 352,169
11/24/2022 266,331
11/25/2022 293,181
11/26/2022 290,713
11/27/2022 301,537
11/28/2022 330,632
11/29/2022 334,762
11/30/2022 335,056
12/1/2022 574,341
12/2/2022 377,250
12/3/2022 1,015,050
12/4/2022 632,497
12/5/2022 526,737
12/6/2022 453,050
12/7/2022 371,647
12/8/2022 416,928
12/9/2022 379,544
12/10/2022 1,337,988
12/11/2022 1,337,787
12/12/2022 653,360
12/13/2022 681,731
12/14/2022 388,422
12/15/2022 415,093
12/16/2022 401,988
12/17/2022 374,609
12/18/2022 394,607
12/19/2022 387,831
12/20/2022 411,265
12/21/2022 386,663
12/22/2022 404,703
12/23/2022 385,075
12/24/2022 352,366
12/25/2022 317,753
12/26/2022 454,306
12/27/2022 1,370,588
12/28/2022 640,537
12/29/2022 727,638

Page 28 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
12/30/2022 2,057,212
12/31/2022 1,662,733
1/1/2023 1,166,036
1/2/2023 990,525
1/3/2023 913,794
1/4/2023 825,312
1/5/2023 1,407,831
1/6/2023 1,154,582
1/7/2023 1,025,135
1/8/2023 1,227,827
1/9/2023 1,509,094
1/10/2023 1,287,631
1/11/2023 941,500
1/12/2023 744,381
1/13/2023 1,466,875
1/14/2023 2,130,232
1/15/2023 1,521,593
1/16/2023 1,603,325
1/17/2023 1,024,725
1/18/2023 829,019
1/19/2023 664,556
1/20/2023 580,888
1/21/2023 562,018
1/22/2023 529,225
1/23/2023 455,244
1/24/2023 507,425
1/25/2023 507,425
1/26/2023 449,325
1/27/2023 434,188
1/28/2023 404,187
1/29/2023 392,613
1/30/2023 398,893
1/31/2023 428,682
2/1/2023 392,631
2/2/2023 420,625
2/3/2023 407,350
2/4/2023 431,712
2/5/2023 489,613
2/6/2023 448,556
2/7/2023 453,431
2/8/2023 411,482
2/9/2023 417,087
2/10/2023 405,281
2/11/2023 369,744
2/12/2023 372,350
2/13/2023 366,544
2/14/2023 378,131
2/15/2023 353,925
2/16/2023 362,438
2/17/2023 359,493
2/18/2023 335,663
2/19/2023 354,487
2/20/2023 394,750
2/21/2023 380,813
2/22/2023 348,656
2/23/2023 378,063
2/24/2023 779,656
2/25/2023 601,737
2/26/2023 914,332
2/27/2023 1,387,218
2/28/2023
3/1/2023 1,004,413
3/2/2023 697,493
3/3/2023 612,105
3/4/2023 595,808
3/5/2023 862,405
3/6/2023 654,217
3/7/2023 612,267
3/8/2023 680,162
3/9/2023 1,272,686

Page 29 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
3/10/2023 1,636,981
3/11/2023 911,705
3/12/2023 852,385
3/13/2023 1,193,776
3/14/2023 1,581,664
3/15/2023 839,272
3/16/2023 676,145
3/17/2023 553,194
3/18/2023 514,082
3/19/2023 734,558
3/20/2023 684,725
3/21/2023 711,058
3/22/2023 760,066
3/23/2023 639,870
3/24/2023 579,913
3/25/2023 515,196
3/26/2023 509,883
3/27/2023 471,305
3/28/2023 855,556
3/29/2023 801,413
3/30/2023 685,729
3/31/2023 560,935
4/1/2023 435,400
4/2/2023 392,200
4/3/2023 368,800
4/4/2023 404,200
4/5/2023 376,200
4/6/2023 309,600
4/7/2023 326,400
4/8/2023 341,200
4/9/2023 273,000
4/10/2023 323,200
4/11/2023 338,600
4/12/2023 386,200
4/13/2023 298,400
4/14/2023 304,400
4/15/2023 253,600
4/16/2023 258,000
4/17/2023 294,400
4/18/2023 266,400
4/19/2023 287,400
4/20/2023 308,000
4/21/2023 272,400
4/22/2023 255,600
4/23/2023 280,400
4/24/2023 348,000
4/25/2023 299,800
4/26/2023 254,800
4/27/2023 299,200
4/28/2023 400,316
4/29/2023 239,800
4/30/2023 259,400
5/1/2023 254,600
5/2/2023 315,200
5/3/2023 289,400
5/4/2023 276,800
5/5/2023 303,000
5/6/2023 376,000
5/7/2023 293,000
5/8/2023 305,800
5/9/2023 308,400
5/10/2023 299,000
5/11/2023 292,800
5/12/2023 258,400
5/13/2023 215,200
5/14/2023 235,600
5/15/2023 286,800
5/16/2023 291,000
5/17/2023 285,400
5/18/2023 300,200

Page 30 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
5/19/2023 322,600
5/20/2023 297,000
5/21/2023 325,600
5/22/2023 286,800
5/23/2023 297,200
5/24/2023 329,400
5/25/2023 265,000
5/26/2023 261,400
5/27/2023 239,800
5/28/2023 231,800
5/29/2023 248,000
5/30/2023 264,000
5/31/2023 343,400
6/1/2023 325,200
6/2/2023 345,200
6/3/2023 325,800
6/4/2023 259,800
6/5/2023 278,600
6/6/2023 311,200
6/7/2023 318,800
6/8/2023 313,200
6/9/2023 354,400
6/10/2023 310,600
6/11/2023 315,400
6/12/2023 349,400
6/13/2023 304,000
6/14/2023 299,400
6/15/2023 348,400
6/16/2023 299,800
6/17/2023 266,600
6/18/2023 263,600
6/19/2023 304,400
6/20/2023 292,200
6/21/2023 313,000
6/22/2023 289,600
6/23/2023 309,200
6/24/2023 265,800
6/25/2023 281,200
6/26/2023 303,800
6/27/2023 324,600
6/28/2023 314,000
6/29/2023 321,000
6/30/2023 298,200
7/1/2023 241,400
7/2/2023 255,800
7/3/2023 288,200
7/4/2023 245,800
7/5/2023 307,200
7/6/2023 323,800
7/7/2023 319,200
7/8/2023 259,400
7/9/2023 270,200
7/10/2023 319,400
7/11/2023 300,400
7/12/2023 319,000
7/13/2023 310,400
7/14/2023 293,000
7/15/2023 276,800
7/16/2023 286,400
7/17/2023 327,800
7/18/2023 325,800
7/19/2023 300,400
7/20/2023 302,800
7/21/2023 318,000
7/22/2023 270,800
7/23/2023 289,200
7/24/2023 301,000
7/25/2023 306,400
7/26/2023 296,800
7/27/2023 308,400

Page 31 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
7/28/2023 303,000
7/29/2023 267,800
7/30/2023 273,200
7/31/2023 304,200
8/1/2023 290,800
8/2/2023 286,000
8/3/2023 296,000
8/4/2023 259,200
8/5/2023 286,200
8/6/2023 318,200
8/7/2023 336,000
8/8/2023 358,350
8/9/2023 385,425
8/10/2023 378,662
8/11/2023 353,788
8/12/2023 332,825
8/13/2023 338,800
8/14/2023 378,363
8/15/2023 378,363
8/16/2023 401,075
8/17/2023 355,650
8/18/2023 376,512
8/19/2023 320,800
8/20/2023 337,757
8/21/2023 362,168
8/22/2023 377,482
8/23/2023 354,637
8/24/2023 359,775
8/25/2023 326,881
8/26/2023 324,582
8/27/2023 329,843
8/28/2023 355,275
8/29/2023 345,082
8/30/2023 343,493
8/31/2023 369,644
9/1/2023 369,513
9/2/2023 326,625
9/3/2023 322,412
9/4/2023 350,219
9/5/2023 358,594
9/6/2023 384,312
9/7/2023 393,844
9/8/2023 373,031
9/9/2023 330,994
9/10/2023 324,681
9/11/2023 346,131
9/12/2023 410,394
9/13/2023 367,538
9/14/2023 395,925
9/15/2023 366,131
9/16/2023 329,431
9/17/2023 337,150
9/18/2023 375,000
9/19/2023 336,669
9/20/2023 354,794
9/21/2023 355,331
9/22/2023 364,544
9/23/2023 310,920
9/24/2023 313,092
9/25/2023 354,719
9/26/2023 152,456
9/27/2023 350,838
9/28/2023 362,006
9/29/2023 379,569
9/30/2023 357,618
10/1/2023 328,650
10/2/2023 371,857
10/3/2023 357,300
10/4/2023 331,900
10/5/2023 382,500

Page 32 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
10/6/2023 341,518
10/7/2023 339,182
10/8/2023 332,425
10/9/2023 366,537
10/10/2023 355,913
10/11/2023 340,081
10/12/2023 345,512
10/13/2023 406,375
10/14/2023 352,307
10/15/2023 339,981
10/16/2023 314,575
10/17/2023 350,287
10/18/2023 353,850
10/19/2023 353,007
10/20/2023 362,706
10/21/2023 328,937
10/22/2023 506,369
10/23/2023 392,419
10/24/2023 418,100
10/25/2023 396,216
10/26/2023 359,859
10/27/2023 368,548
10/28/2023 336,450
10/29/2023 325,877
10/30/2023 358,976
10/31/2023 350,410
11/1/2023 349,656
11/2/2023 386,860
11/3/2023 381,792
11/4/2023 342,374
11/5/2023 356,019
11/6/2023 392,784
11/7/2023 349,712
11/8/2023 340,591
11/9/2023 356,977
11/10/2023 345,601
11/11/2023 312,927
11/12/2023 978,804
11/13/2023 978,804
11/14/2023 346,300
11/15/2023 346,423
11/16/2023 366,622
11/17/2023 359,661
11/18/2023 379,770
11/19/2023 337,479
11/20/2023 323,533
11/21/2023 323,459
11/22/2023 353,200
11/23/2023 276,494
11/24/2023 349,589
11/25/2023 310,689
11/26/2023 310,469
11/27/2023 307,228
11/28/2023 340,780
11/29/2023 326,094
11/30/2023 311,853
12/1/2023 373,780
12/2/2023 312,299
12/3/2023 301,146
12/4/2023 313,904
12/5/2023 374,850
12/6/2023 330,667
12/7/2023 379,150
12/8/2023 318,986
12/9/2023 370,272
12/10/2023 300,353
12/11/2023 335,086
12/12/2023 307,483
12/13/2023 370,579
12/14/2023 400,929

Page 33 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
12/15/2023 385,392
12/16/2023 364,776
12/17/2023 304,889
12/18/2023 422,652
12/19/2023 421,495
12/20/2023 414,610
12/21/2023 350,150
12/22/2023 359,398
12/23/2023 325,638
12/24/2023 265,559
12/25/2023 234,094
12/26/2023 290,817
12/27/2023 307,976
12/28/2023 401,904
12/29/2023 387,304
12/30/2023 534,061
12/31/2023 295,246
1/1/2024 273,164
1/2/2024 483,243
1/3/2024 536,383
1/4/2024 415,064
1/5/2024 418,583
1/6/2024 392,136
1/7/2024 353,686
1/8/2024 343,916
1/9/2024 340,165
1/10/2024 364,006
1/11/2024 374,913
1/12/2024 356,625
1/13/2024 582,800
1/14/2024 483,900
1/15/2024 444,819
1/16/2024 570,618
1/17/2024 538,875
1/18/2024 478,391
1/19/2024 384,847
1/20/2024 535,591
1/21/2024 758,193
1/22/2024 818,591
1/23/2024 543,072
1/24/2024 566,200
1/25/2024 500,615
1/26/2024 420,860
1/27/2024 383,553
1/28/2024 387,366
1/29/2024 330,590
1/30/2024 354,338
1/31/2024 449,575
2/1/2024 734,827
2/2/2024 911,148
2/3/2024 662,887
2/4/2024 765,447
2/5/2024 797,644
2/6/2024 648,284
2/7/2024 818,903
2/8/2024 632,163
2/9/2024 597,144
2/10/2024 438,196
2/11/2024 418,891
2/12/2024 419,916
2/13/2024 404,978
2/14/2024 472,015
2/15/2024 458,629
2/16/2024 412,696
2/17/2024 489,907
2/18/2024 750,768
2/19/2024 858,460
2/20/2024 774,306
2/21/2024 708,300
2/22/2024 563,875

Page 34 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
2/23/2024 513,141
2/24/2024 453,909
2/25/2024 433,656
2/26/2024 448,275
2/27/2024 405,113
2/28/2024 396,119
2/29/2024 693,868
3/1/2024 1,520,063
3/2/2024 1,233,994
3/3/2024 1,156,906
3/4/2024 798,325
3/5/2024 664,225
3/6/2024 535,956
3/7/2024 500,600
3/8/2024 482,288
3/9/2024 447,937
3/10/2024 416,900
3/11/2024 430,063
3/12/2024 466,581
3/13/2024 409,294
3/14/2024 416,112
3/15/2024 390,319
3/16/2024 374,130
3/17/2024 387,676
3/18/2024 427,131
3/19/2024 414,757
3/20/2024 412,043
3/21/2024 394,913
3/22/2024 593,356
3/23/2024 667,988
3/24/2024 676,487
3/25/2024 540,838
3/26/2024 481,762
3/27/2024 488,575
3/28/2024 511,350
3/29/2024 578,200
3/30/2024 523,369
3/31/2024 420,000
4/1/2024 472,475
4/2/2024 473,312
4/3/2024 459,750
4/4/2024 640,463
4/5/2024 673,637
4/6/2024 492,794
4/7/2024 455,444
4/8/2024 129,200
4/9/2024 741,737
4/10/2024 420,132
4/11/2024 404,768
4/12/2024 407,069
4/13/2024 653,963
4/14/2024 501,925
4/15/2024 452,193
4/16/2024 428,200
4/17/2024 409,913
4/18/2024 395,044
4/19/2024 383,612
4/20/2024 354,000
4/21/2024 357,644
4/22/2024 382,481
4/23/2024 416,506
4/24/2024 406,569
4/25/2024 417,094
4/26/2024 369,919
4/27/2024 339,337
4/28/2024 331,156
4/29/2024 351,444
4/30/2024 409,563
5/1/2024 250,000
5/2/2024 204,400

Page 35 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
5/3/2024 247,600
5/4/2024 332,600
5/5/2024 256,400
5/6/2024 340,200
5/7/2024 464,400
5/8/2024 411,600
5/9/2024 379,000
5/10/2024 233,200
5/11/2024 279,400
5/12/2024 276,800
5/13/2024 235,200
5/14/2024 253,200
5/15/2024 292,400
5/16/2024 286,000
5/17/2024 240,000
5/18/2024 222,600
5/19/2024 271,000
5/20/2024 229,600
5/21/2024 295,800
5/22/2024 231,000
5/23/2024 1,371,400
5/24/2024 320,200
5/25/2024 275,200
5/26/2024 255,200
5/27/2024 340,000
5/28/2024 1,159,200
5/29/2024 222,200
5/30/2024 276,400
5/31/2024 420,000
6/1/2024 357,060
6/2/2024 329,509
6/3/2024 384,351
6/4/2024 388,477
6/5/2024 386,655
6/6/2024 372,454
6/7/2024 392,656
6/8/2024 329,524
6/9/2024 317,214
6/10/2024 353,788
6/11/2024 319,672
6/12/2024 358,449
6/13/2024 330,927
6/14/2024 281,070
6/15/2024 303,452
6/16/2024 285,869
6/17/2024 325,500
6/18/2024 321,651
6/19/2024 303,523
6/20/2024 368,003
6/21/2024 352,665
6/22/2024 295,968
6/23/2024 310,856
6/24/2024 354,438
6/25/2024 335,048
6/26/2024 329,302
6/27/2024 670,097
6/28/2024 297,337
6/29/2024 322,211
6/30/2024 329,786
7/1/2024 329,786
7/2/2024 339,692
7/3/2024 325,353
7/4/2024 323,780
7/5/2024 316,123
7/6/2024 293,202
7/7/2024 305,367
7/8/2024 318,019
7/9/2024 335,375
7/10/2024 374,305
7/11/2024 337,884

Page 36 of 38 ends

DRAFT
Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
7/12/2024 347,164
7/13/2024 294,373
7/14/2024 313,094
7/15/2024 323,982
7/16/2024 323,982
7/17/2024 332,486
7/18/2024 338,955
7/19/2024 345,831
7/20/2024 297,508
7/21/2024 306,319
7/22/2024 285,671
7/23/2024 313,341
7/24/2024 338,246
7/25/2024 319,393
7/26/2024 333,719
7/27/2024 297,572
7/28/2024 298,759
7/29/2024 322,761
7/30/2024 353,793
7/31/2024 335,279
8/1/2024 337,500
8/2/2024 320,636
8/3/2024 303,335
8/4/2024 296,478
8/5/2024 292,559
8/6/2024 338,372
8/7/2024 314,666
8/8/2024 303,796
8/9/2024 324,710
8/10/2024 344,862
8/11/2024 359,366
8/12/2024 344,050
8/13/2024 341,181
8/14/2024 350,203
8/15/2024 341,257
8/16/2024 294,968
8/17/2024 306,650
8/18/2024 323,035
8/19/2024 359,618
8/20/2024 362,507
8/21/2024 346,531
8/22/2024 332,459
8/23/2024 206,957
8/24/2024 248,371
8/25/2024 279,047
8/26/2024 325,313
8/27/2024 362,806
8/28/2024 382,816
8/29/2024 318,390
8/30/2024 311,982
8/31/2024 284,215
9/1/2024 283,072
9/2/2024 276,463
9/3/2024 349,118
9/4/2024 362,841
9/5/2024 327,491
9/6/2024 299,496
9/7/2024 266,019
9/8/2024 304,866
9/9/2024 317,990
9/10/2024 312,947
9/11/2024 283,641
9/12/2024 320,209
9/13/2024 291,066
9/14/2024 262,034
9/15/2024 286,750
9/16/2024 315,710
9/17/2024 306,706
9/18/2024 299,606
9/19/2024 307,391

Page 37 of 38 ends

Compiled Sutter Creek WWTP Daily Effluent Flow Data - Provided by ARSA Staff Date Sutter Creek
Effluent Flow
(GPD)
9/20/2024 310,740
9/21/2024 263,616
9/22/2024 262,938
9/23/2024 286,134
9/24/2024 312,700
9/25/2024 286,053
9/26/2024 284,784
9/27/2024 273,932
9/28/2024 252,803
9/29/2024 259,765
9/30/2024 294,210

Page 38 of 38 ends

DRAFT
www.hydroscience.com

ATTACHMENT B
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency
2024 Individual Water Balance Update
Draft 2023 Sutter Creek WWTP I/I Analysis Update
DRAFT
by Carollo Engineers
61 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
62 Section 13, Item A.
pw://Carollo/Client/CA/Sutter Creek/12029A60/Deliverables/PM_I/I Analysis Update/PM_IIAnalysisUpdate DRAFT / 1

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project
Project No.:

Date:

Prepared By:
12029A60
October 10, 2023
Michael Wetterau, PE
Reviewed By: Ryan Orgill, PE; Louis Lefebvre, PE; Christina Romano, PE Subject: Infiltration and Inflow Analysis Update
Background and Purpose
As part of the 2020 to 2021 Project Report efforts, Carollo Engineers (Carollo) developed a simple model of the collection system to estimate wet weather flow (WWF) design criteria. This information was used to conceptually size project alternative facilities evaluated in the Project Report. A typical peak wet weather flow (PWWF) factor ranges from three to six times the average daily flow (ADF). By comparison the City of Sutter Creek’s (City’s) PWWF is approximately 16, an order of magnitude higher than typical.

The City has been implementing infiltration and inflow (I/I) mitigation projects with the goal of reducing I/I impacts on its wastewater system. In the winter of 2023, the City performed sewer flow monitoring to help determine the areas with the highest I/I flows to further focus I/I reduction efforts. Some of the most common sources of I/I are shown on Figure 1.

Carollo was asked to review the data collected and incorporate it into the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) project rescoping efforts. This memorandum includes the following:
▪ Verification of existing WWF factors.
▪ Identification of potential priority zones within the existing wastewater collection system for potential future I/I reduction projects.
▪ Development of ranges of possible WWF reduction if I/I reduction projects are implemented.

These three items are important because they could affect the size and cost of the WWTP upgrade project, as well as optimize the value of any future I/I reduction efforts. WWF factors could be used to size pumping facilities, sewage screens and grinders (i.e., headworks facilities, equalization tanks and sewer pipes). With lower WWFs, these facilities could be smaller and less costly. Understanding the areas that could be prioritized for I/I mitigation projects will increase the value of resources spent on those projects while decreasing the amount of time to observe benefits (i.e., reduced WWFs). Furthermore, I/I mitigation projects have the potential to increase the service life of existing sewers without costly replacement.

Lastly, understanding the range of WWF reduction the City could see by undertaking future I/I reduction projects sets the level of expected benefit. The analysis considered historical WWTP influent flow along with temporary flow monitoring data to determine the expected WWTP influent flow during a design storm event.

DRAFT
63 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 2
Figure 1 Typical Sources of I/I
Methods
Historical influent plant data was used to determine the dry weather flow (DWF) and WWF conditions during the monitoring period. A hydraulic model was developed using InfoSWMM1to model the influent flow at the WWTP for historical events. The hydraulic model’s parameters were adjusted to match historical flow monitoring data.

For this project, DWF monitoring was determined based on historical plant data. Figure 2 shows the weekday and weekend hourly DWF multipliers for the entire system. A multiplier equal to 0.5 indicates at that hour of the day the flow is equal to one-half of the ADF. 1 InfoSWMM is a fully dynamic, geospatial wastewater and stormwater modeling and management software application, which is built to run within the ESRI ArcGIS software platform. The hydraulic modeling engine for the InfoSWMM software package uses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which is widely used throughout the world for planning, analysis, and design related to stormwater runoff, combined sewers, sanitary sewers, and other drainage systems. InfoSWMM routes flows through the model using the Dynamic Wave method, which solves the complete Saint Venant, one dimensional equations of fluid flow.

DRAFT
64 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 3
Figure 2 Weekday and Weekend DWF Hourly Multiplier
The WWF calibration consists of using actual influent WWTP flow data recorded during wet weather events, for which we have rainfall data, and adjusting model parameters so that the modeled flows match the actual flows. The model parameters are discussed later. The WWF calibration consisted of five periods with storm events. The amount of I/I is essentially the difference between the WWF and DWF components. The storm events were identified between the following dates:
▪ Period 1: January 2, 2017, through January 15, 2017.
▪ Period 2: February 5, 2017, through February 12, 2017. ▪ Period 3: March 12, 2018, through March 24, 2018.
▪ Period 4: March 1, 2019, through March 8, 2019.
▪ Period 5: March 9, 2023, through March 16, 2023.

The main step in the WWF calibration process includes creating a custom unit hydrograph for the City service area using the “RTK Method,” which is widely used in collection system master planning. Using the RTK Method, the I/I unit hydrograph is the summation of three separate triangular hydrographs (short term, medium term, and long term), which are each defined by three parameters: R, T, and K. R represents the fraction of rainfall over the sewer basin that enters the collection system; T represents the time to peak of the hydrograph; K represents the ratio from time to peak to time of end of hydrograph. Therefore, there are a total of nine separate variables associated with a unit hydrograph. Figure 3 shows the shape of an example unit hydrograph. The WWF calibration sheets show figures comparing the measured data and model results for flow in response to rainfall. The WWF calibration sheets are included in Attachment A. DRAFT 65 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 4
Figure 3 Example Rainfall Dependent Infiltration and Inflow (RDII) Unit Hydrograph Design Storm
Design storms are rainfall events used to analyze the performance of a collection system under select wet weather events. The City’s design storm was routed through the collection system model to determine PWWFs. The first step in the development of the design storm is to define its recurrence interval and rainfall duration. The recurrence interval is based on the probability that a given rainfall event will occur or be exceeded in any given year. For example, a “100-year storm” means there is a 1 in 100 chance that a storm as large as or larger than this event will occur at a specific location in any year.

Duration is the length of time in which the rainfall occurs. It is industry standard in California to use the 10-year, 24-hour design storm for analyzing wastewater collection system performance during PWWF conditions and for sizing some WWTP facilities (e.g., equalization tanks and pump stations). The 10-year, 24-hour design storm depth is 3.98 inches as document by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14.

Once the design storm recurrence interval, duration, and associated rainfall volume have been determined, the next step in defining the design storm is to distribute the total rainfall over the duration of the storm. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Type 1A rainfall distribution was used.

Figure 4 shows the 10-year, 24-hour design storm. DRAFT 66 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 5
Figure 4 10-year 24-hour Design Storm Event
Hydraulic Evaluation
Following the DWF and WWF calibration of the model the design storm was applied to forecast sewer flow. The hydraulic analysis assumes all flow is conveyed to the WWTP and no flow is restricted or escapes the collection system. Figure 5 shows the peak influent flow based on the design storm at the WWTP. The model predicts that a peak hour WWF of 5.36 million gallons per day (mgd) could be observed if there were no restrictions in the collection system and if no wastewater escapes the collection system.

Additionally, the model predicts that a peak day WWF of 3.16 mgd could be observed at the WWTP as a result of the 10-year, 24-hour design storm event.

Figure 5 Modeled Influent PWWF
DRAFT - 10-year, 24-hour Design Storm
67 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 6
Temporary Flow Monitoring Program
The City completed a temporary flow monitoring program between March 8, 2023, and April 6, 2023. The flow monitoring program consisted of ten flow meters installed throughout the collection system in hopes of identifying areas in the collection system with high amounts of I/I. Table 1 summarizes the measured flow data.

Table 1 Temporary Flow Monitoring Data Summarized
Basin Measured DWF (mgd) Measured Peak Flow (mgd) Peaking Factor Pipe Length (feet) 1 0.04 0.17 4.1 0
2 0.23 1.97 8.5 18,670
3 0.07 0.16 2.3 8,010
4 0.07 0.21 3.1 7,000
5 0.01 0.13 17.9 2,960
6 0.01 0.12 9.6 3,470
7 0.18 0.76 4.1 14,480
8 0.07 0.33 5.0 4,300
9 0.08 0.46 5.5 7,020
10 0.02 0.10 5.4 10,900
Notes:
(1) Source: Flow monitoring program March 8, 2023, through April 6, 2023.

I/I Reduction
The adverse effects of I/I are that it increases both the flow volume and peak flow rate. If the City were to implement an I/I reduction program this may allow for reducing the size of some WWTP facilities (e.g., pump stations and equalization tanks). An efficient I/I reduction program will target rehabilitating the portions of the sewer collection system with the highest I/I rates. The City’s sewer collection system was broken down into portions, referred to as basins (see Figure 6). I/I rates within the different basins were calculated per length of pipe in that basin. Basins 5, 6, 8, and 9 have the highest I/I rates per foot of sewer pipe and could be targeted for I/I reduction efforts. Collectively these basins account for approximately 18 percent of the total sewer collection system by length. DRAFT 68 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 7
Figure 6 Meter Basins Map
DRAFT
69 Section 13, Item A.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 8
There are a variety of I/I reduction techniques that can be used. I/I reduction projects can range from manhole rehabilitation to sewer main replacement/rehabilitation and lateral rehabilitation. Implementing an I/I reduction program is no guarantee that the desired I/I reduction will be achieved. However, there is a baseline benefit to rehabbing existing facilities because it would extend their life. For this analysis 30 percent and 65 percent I/I reduction in the selected basins was assumed to estimate the potential reduction in peak flows. Table 2 summarizes the potential reduction of peak influent flow at the WWTP for the range of I/I reduction assumed. Based on a review of historical literature and Carollo’s experience in order to achieve an I/I reduction of 65 percent, the City may need to incorporate pipe, manhole, and service laterals rehabilitation.

Table 2 Peak Influent Flows
Scenario Peak Influent Flow (mgd)
No Reduction 5.36
30% Reduction in Basins 5, 6, 8, and 9 4.74
65% Reduction in Basins 5, 6, 8, and 9 4.03
Conclusion
This memorandum verified existing WWFs, identified basins with highest I/I, and identified potential reductions in WWFs if I/I reduction projects are implemented in the priority basins. The planned WWTP upgrade project could expect a peak hour flow of 5.36 mgd and a peak day flow of 3.16 mgd as a result of the 10-year, 24-hour design storm.

Basins 5, 6, 8, and 9 could be prioritized for I/I reductions because I/I rates are highest in these basins.

Approximately 18 percent of the total sewer collection system length is in these basins. If I/I is reduced in these basins between 30 percent and 65 percent a reduction in peak hour flow between 0.62 mgd and

1.33 mgd could be realized.

DRAFT
70 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

ATTACHMENT C
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency
2024 Individual Water Balance Update
DRAFT
ARSA Storage Reservoirs Supporting Documentation
71 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
72 Section 13, Item A.

HENDERSON RESERVOIR AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA

PROVIDED BY ARSA STAFF AND GARY GHIO
DRAFT

SITE PLAN
PROJECT No.: 2457
PROJECT NAME:

Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc.

Professional Engineers
394 East Saint Charles P.O. Box 251 SAN ANDREAS, CALIFORNIA 95249

HENDERSON RESERVOIR

RUNOFF AREA
0 300 600
WATERSHED RUNOFF AREA, (4.3 ACRES)
LEGEND:
76 DRAFT
74 Section 13, Item A.

SITE PLAN
0 300 600
PROJECT No.: 2457
PROJECT NAME:

Weber, Ghio & Associates, Inc.

Professional Engineers
394 East Saint Charles P.O. Box 251 SAN ANDREAS, CALIFORNIA 95249

PRESTON RESERVOIR

RUNOFF AREA
WATERSHED RUNOFF AREA, (14.0 ACRES)
LEGEND:
77 DRAFT
75 Section 13, Item A.

Dam Information Summary
Preston Dam, No. 2029.003, Area 6, Amador County
State of California
California Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Division of Safety of Dams
Quad Book 2C-37A3
Quad Map IONE
Latitude 38.3698°
Longitude -120.9398°
Stream Tr Mule Creek
Tributary To
Year Built 1949
Parapet Code None
Total Freeboard, Ft 5.00
Oper. Freeboard, Ft 5.00
National Forest N.I.N.F.

NID Number CA00012
FERC Number
Fed. Hazard Class Significant
Hazard Class 2B
Total Class Weight 14
Barrier Height, Ft 35.00
Crest Elevation, Ft 360.00
Crest Width, Ft 20.00
Dam Height, Ft 40.00
Dam Length, Ft 647.00
Volume, CY 86,519.00
MPWS Elev., Ft 355.00
MPWS Capacity, AF 268.00
Use(s) SEW, IRR
Purpose(s) STO
Dam Dimensions
Parapet Height, Ft 0.00
Location
Dam Information
Status Certified
Exempt Desc. (Unselected)
Issue Date 10/6/1980
Max Cert. Elev., Ft 355.00
Type Earth
US Public Land Survey System
Hazard Potential
Jurisdiction
Certificate Information
Hydrology
Seismic Parameters
Restrictions
Restriction None
Reason
Restricted Elev., Ft
Start Date
Outlet Works
Attributes
No
No
Inoperable
Receives Spillway Letter
Instrumentation No
Reservoir
Name Primary Reservoir
Surface Area, Ac 17.00
at Cert Elev. 268.00
at Dam Crest 0.00
at SW Crest 0.00
Storage Capacities, AF
Primary Spillway
Crest Elev, Ft 355.00
Type (Unselected)
Estimate Date 8/18/1948
Drainage Area, Sq Mi 0.12
Mean Annual Precip, In 0.00
Est. Type DWR
Peak Inflow, cfs
Peak Outflow, cfs
Residual Freeboard, Ft 0.00
Max Stage, Ft
Type
Short Term
Long Term
Estimate Date
Fault
Max Magnitude
Shear Wave Vel., m/s
Peak Ground Acc., g
Arias Intensity, m/s
Deterministic Level
Drawdown Estimates, Days
-¼, S24, T6N, R9E, MD B&M
Duration
Gates Ungated
Duration Year Round
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
Printed: Tuesday, February 28, 2017, by: Dhillon, Param 110
DRAFT
76 Section 13, Item A.

Dam Information Summary
Preston Forebay Dam, No. 2029.002, Area 6, Amador County State of California
California Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Division of Safety of Dams
Quad Book 2C-37A1
Quad Map IRISH HILL
Latitude 38.3754°
Longitude -120.9233°
Stream Offstream
Tributary To
Year Built 1892
Parapet Code None
Total Freeboard, Ft 4.00
Oper. Freeboard, Ft 4.00
National Forest N.I.N.F.

NID Number CA00006
FERC Number
Fed. Hazard Class Low
Hazard Class 1C
Total Class Weight 6
Barrier Height, Ft 36.00
Crest Elevation, Ft 624.00
Crest Width, Ft 0.00
Dam Height, Ft 40.00
Dam Length, Ft 176.00
Volume, CY 22,400.00
MPWS Elev., Ft 620.00
MPWS Capacity, AF 30.00
Use(s) SEW, IRR
Purpose(s) REG
Dam Dimensions
Parapet Height, Ft 0.00
Location
Dam Information
Status Certified
Exempt Desc. (Unselected)
Issue Date 10/6/1980
Max Cert. Elev., Ft 620.00
Type Earth
US Public Land Survey System
Hazard Potential
Jurisdiction
Certificate Information
Hydrology
Seismic Parameters
Restrictions
Restriction None
Reason
Restricted Elev., Ft
Start Date
Outlet Works
Attributes
No
No
Inoperable
Receives Spillway Letter
Instrumentation No
Reservoir
Name Primary Reservoir
Surface Area, Ac 2.00
at Cert Elev. 30.00
at Dam Crest 0.00
at SW Crest 0.00
Storage Capacities, AF
Primary Spillway
Crest Elev, Ft 620.00
Type (Unselected)
Estimate Date 4/19/1940
Drainage Area, Sq Mi 0.00
Mean Annual Precip, In 0.00
Est. Type 1000
Peak Inflow, cfs 20.00
Peak Outflow, cfs 20.00
Residual Freeboard, Ft 2.20
Max Stage, Ft 2.20
Type
Short Term
Long Term
Estimate Date
Fault
Max Magnitude
Shear Wave Vel., m/s
Peak Ground Acc., g
Arias Intensity, m/s
Deterministic Level
Drawdown Estimates, Days
-¼, S18, T6N, R10E, MD B&M
Duration
Gates Ungated
Duration Year Round
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
Printed: Tuesday, February 28, 2017, by: Dhillon, Param 111
DRAFT
77 Section 13, Item A.

Dam Information Summary
Henderson Dam, No. 2029.000, Area 6, Amador County
State of California
California Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Division of Safety of Dams
Quad Book 2C-37A1
Quad Map IRISH HILL
Latitude 38.3856°
Longitude -120.8771°
Stream Jackass Creek
Tributary To
Year Built 1923
Parapet Code None
Total Freeboard, Ft 3.00
Oper. Freeboard, Ft 3.00
National Forest N.I.N.F.

NID Number CA00005
FERC Number
Fed. Hazard Class Significant
Hazard Class 2B
Total Class Weight 12
Barrier Height, Ft 53.00
Crest Elevation, Ft 86.50
Crest Width, Ft 8.00
Dam Height, Ft 56.00
Dam Length, Ft 630.00
Volume, CY 70,000.00
MPWS Elev., Ft 83.50
MPWS Capacity, AF 500.00
Use(s) SEW, IRR
Purpose(s) STO
Dam Dimensions
Parapet Height, Ft 0.00
Location
Dam Information
Status Certified
Exempt Desc. (Unselected)
Issue Date 10/6/1980
Max Cert. Elev., Ft 83.50
Type Earth
US Public Land Survey System
Hazard Potential
Jurisdiction
Certificate Information
Hydrology
Seismic Parameters
Restrictions
Restriction None
Reason
Restricted Elev., Ft
Start Date
Outlet Works
Attributes
No
No
Inoperable
Receives Spillway Letter
Instrumentation No
Reservoir
Name Primary Reservoir
Surface Area, Ac 31.00
at Cert Elev. 500.00
at Dam Crest 595.00
at SW Crest 500.00
Storage Capacities, AF
Primary Spillway
Crest Elev, Ft 83.50
Type Sharp Crested Weir
Estimate Date 5/2/1971
Drainage Area, Sq Mi 1.00
Mean Annual Precip, In 0.00
Est. Type 1000
Peak Inflow, cfs 752.00
Peak Outflow, cfs 489.00
Residual Freeboard, Ft 1.30
Max Stage, Ft 785.30
Type
Short Term
Long Term
Estimate Date
Fault
Max Magnitude
Shear Wave Vel., m/s
Peak Ground Acc., g
Arias Intensity, m/s
Deterministic Level
Drawdown Estimates, Days
-¼, S9, T6N, R10E, MD B&M
Duration
Gates Ungated
Duration Year Round
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
Printed: Tuesday, February 28, 2017, by: Dhillon, Param 112
DRAFT
78 Section 13, Item A.

Cumulative Cumulative Incremental
Elev Area Volume Volume Volume Volume Increase
(ft) (ac) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (MG) (ac-ft)
780 30.06 14.96 451.83 147.22 14.96 Spillway
779.5 29.80 14.84 436.86 142.34 14.84
779 29.57 14.70 422.02 137.51 14.70
778.5 29.22 14.53 407.33 132.72 14.53
778 28.88 14.34 392.80 127.99 14.34 2 ' Freeboard
777.5 28.47 14.14 378.46 123.31 14.14
777 28.07 13.92 364.33 118.71 13.92
776.5 27.62 13.70 350.41 114.17 13.70
776 27.17 13.47 336.71 109.71 13.47
775.5 26.69 13.23 323.24 105.32 13.23
775 26.23 12.97 310.01 101.01 12.97
774.5 25.67 12.69 297.04 96.78 12.69
774 25.11 12.39 284.34 92.65 12.39
773.5 24.46 12.10 271.95 88.61 12.10
773 23.96 11.83 259.84 84.66 11.83
772.5 23.34 11.53 248.02 80.81 11.53
772 22.78 11.20 236.49 77.05 11.20
771.5 22.01 10.86 225.29 73.41 10.86
771 21.41 10.54 214.44 69.87 10.54
770.5 20.73 10.18 203.90 66.44 10.18
770 19.99 9.85 193.72 63.12 9.85
769.5 19.40 9.55 183.87 59.91 9.55
769 18.79 9.24 174.33 56.80 9.24
768.5 18.17 8.94 165.09 53.79 8.94
768 17.57 8.64 156.15 50.88 8.64
767.5 16.97 8.33 147.51 48.06 8.33
767 16.34 8.03 139.19 45.35 8.03
766.5 15.79 7.79 131.15 42.73 7.79
766 15.36 7.57 123.37 40.20 7.57
765.5 14.93 7.36 115.80 37.73 7.36
765 14.52 7.16 108.43 35.33 7.16
764.5 14.11 6.96 101.28 33.00 6.96
764 13.73 6.74 94.32 30.73 6.74
763.5 13.25 6.53 87.57 28.53 6.53
763 12.86 6.34 81.05 26.41 6.34
762.5 12.51 6.16 74.71 24.34 6.16
762 12.13 5.91 68.55 22.34 5.91
761.5 11.52 5.67 62.64 20.41 5.67
761 11.15 5.47 56.97 18.56 5.47
760.5 10.75 5.26 51.50 16.78 5.26
760 10.30 5.03 46.23 15.06 5.03
759.5 9.83 4.80 41.20 13.42 4.80
759 9.37 4.57 36.40 11.86 4.57
758.5 8.91 4.35 31.83 10.37 4.35
4/21/2015

HENDERSON RESERVOIR VOLUME

AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY
114

HENDERSON RESERVOIR STAGE-STORAGE DATA

BASED ON AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA

PROVIDED BY ARSA STAFF AND GARY GHIO
DRAFT
79 Section 13, Item A.
758 8.48 4.12 27.48 8.96 4.12
757.5 8.00 3.89 23.36 7.61 3.89
757 7.57 3.65 19.47 6.34 3.65
756.5 7.03 3.40 15.82 5.16 3.40
756 6.59 3.15 12.42 4.05 3.15
755.5 6.01 2.88 9.27 3.02 2.88
755 5.49 2.55 6.39 2.08 2.55
754.5 4.70 2.20 3.85 1.25 2.20
754 4.12 1.34 1.64 0.54 1.34
753.5 1.23 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.31
753 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* spillway elevation = 780'
Volume established from 11-07-08 aerial topo
115
DRAFT
80 Section 13, Item A.

Preston Reservoir
Elevation Area Capacity Elevation
(AC) (AC-FT)
325 0 0 325
330 3 5 330
335 6 25 335
340 8 60 340
345 12 110 345
350 16 175 350
353 18 235 353 2' Freeboard
355 20 270 355 Spillway
116

PRESTON RESERVOIR STAGE-STORAGE DATA

PROVIDED BY ARSA STAFF AND GARY GHIO
DRAFT
81 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

ATTACHMENT D
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency
2024 Individual Water Balance Update
Draft 2024 COGC Recycled Water Demands TM
DRAFT
by West Yost Engineers
82 Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
83 Section 13, Item A.
1001 Galaxy Way
Suite 310
Concord CA 94520
925.949.5800 phone
925.949.5845 fax
westyost.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 14, 2024 Project No.: 988-50-24-10
SENT VIA: EMAIL
TO:

CC:

FROM: Allie Ahern
REVIEWED BY: Kathryn Gies, PE, RCE #65022
SUBJECT: Castle Oaks Golf Course Recycled Water Demands This technical memorandum (TM) provides information and supporting documentation related to water needs of the Castle Oaks Golf Course (golf course), which received recycled water from the Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Facility (COWRF). The purpose of this TM is to inform development of a water balance for the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) wastewater disposal system. The following topics are addressed:
 Background Information
 Golf Course Irrigable Acreage
 Golf Course Storage Ponds
 Golf Course Agronomic Water Demands
 COWRF Influent Flows
 Golf Course Tailwater and Overspray Control and Monitoring

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This section provides background information relevant to this TM. The following topics are addressed:
 Regulatory History
 Applicable Regulatory Standards for Water Balances
 Golf Course Demands vs. COWRF Influent Flows
DRAFT
84 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 2 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Regulatory History
The City of Ione (City), Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) and Portlock International Ltd. (Portlock) are the three entities permitted under Water Reclamation Requirement Order 93-240 (WRRs), which permits the land application of recycled water from the COWRF to the golf course. The City owns and operates the COWRF that provides the recycled water to the golf course. The City also owns the golf course, which is leased and operated by Portlock. ARSA is permitted to supply water to the COWRF to meet the irrigation needs of the golf course.

On August 14, 2024, the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) issued a 13267 Order Letter to the three WRRs permittees that requires the submission of an updated water balance for the ARSA system to the Regional Board by December 13, 2024. The letter specifies six items (A through F) that must be provided. This TM addresses the requirements under Item B of this letter, which states:

The acreage and agronomic rate at which recycled water can be applied to the Castle Oaks Golf Course without violating setback requirements, Title 22 requirements, impacting groundwater, or causing runoff to surface water. These numbers and calculations should be provided and certified by Ione and Portlock International LTD. Supporting documentation and references must be included in the submittal. Information regarding tailwater control/return and monitoring plans for compliance with applicable land application area requirements must also be included.

Applicable Regulatory Standards for Water Balances
The 13267 Order also states that the water balance must be in compliance with the requirements and guidance of the Regional Board’s guidance document, Requirements for Water Balance Update and Calibration, which is provided as Attachment A to the 13267 Order. Several of the procedures defined in this guidance document are applicable to the development of this TM, as follows:

Requirements for Water Balance Update and Calibration, Section 4:

The normal operations and maintenance of land application areas should be considered. O&M Manuals should be referenced as well as historical monitoring data (i.e. percolation rates, observed standing water). Specific conditions of the WDRs should also be taken into account. The following should be taken into consideration:

A. Recycling area/land application area/disposal system hydraulic loading rates should be distributed monthly in accordance with expected seasonal variations based on crop evapotranspiration rates.

B. The distribution of precipitation (i.e. storm intensity, light rain over a lot of days or heavy rain over a few days), as well as other factors such as wind and saturated conditions must be taken into account when determining the number of days a disposal system can be operated each month. The most reliable way to estimate this is based off of historical records from a water year of intensity similar to that which is being modeled.

C. It should be specified whether the tailwater is collected, and if so if it is returned to the sprayfields directly or to one of the ponds.

D. If applicable, storm water runoff shall be accounted for in the tailwater return calculations.

DRAFT
85 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 3 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
E. Maximum disposal capacity of land application areas should be based on soil studies, cropping plans, percolation studies, and/or operator notes.

Requirements for Water Balance Update and Calibration, Section 5:

A. All water balances shall start on 1 October and end on 30 September. …
C. The water balance should include an assessment of the facility’s capacity and performance during a normal water year and during a year with a total annual precipitation for a return period of 100 years.

D. Local precipitation data for the 100-year annual return period, distributed monthly in accordance with mean monthly precipitation patterns shall be used. However, periods of high intensity storms should also be considered in the calculations.

E. All water balances should be based on all available data. All data should also be quality controlled and used with discretion.
…
G. For each wastewater treatment, storage, or disposal pond and containment structure, provide the following information:
a. Identification (name) and function of the pond.
b. Surface area, depth, and volumetric capacity at two feet of freeboard. c. Height (relative to surrounding grade), crest width, interior slope, and exterior slope of each berm or levee.
d. Materials used to construct each berm or levee.
e. Description of engineered liner, if any. Include a copy of the Construction Quality
f. Estimated steady state percolation rate for each unlined pond. g. Depth to shallow groundwater below the base and pond inverts. h. Precipitation and evapotranspiration data shall be from recognized stations.

The source of this information shall be provided, including a link to the data. i. Overfilling/overflow prevention features.
j. Operation and maintenance procedures.

Golf Course Demands vs. COWRF Influent Flows
The influent flow to the COWRF needs to be greater than the agronomic water demand of the golf course to accommodate the losses due to filter backwash. During the tertiary treatment process, a fraction of the influent to the COWRF is discarded as filter backwash and sent to the City of Ione’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The remaining influent to the COWRF is treated to tertiary standards and recycled at the golf course. Therefore, the ARSA water balances need to include the portion of influent that is sent as filter backwash from the COWRF to the WWTP.

The City of Ione is also in the process of preparing a water balance for its WWTP in accordance with a separate 13267 Order. This WWTP water balance will need to account for in the COWRF backwash flows.

Accordingly, this TM presents calculations that define both the COWRF influent flows needed to meet the golf course agronomic demands for use in the ARSA water balance and the backwash flow from the COWRF to the WWTP for use in the
DRAFT
WWTP water balance.
86 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 4 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP

GOLF COURSE IRRIGABLE ACREAGE
The irrigable acreage of the golf course was determined based on inspection of the golf course irrigation system and discussions with staff. This area was mapped and quantified using GIS mapping and data processing tools. The map created can be seen on Figure 1. The following areas of the golf course were not included in the calculated irrigable acreage:
 “natural” areas surrounding Mule Creek and Sutter Creek  areas abutting residences surrounding the golf course; some of these areas are irrigated by residents while others remain unirrigated
 hardscape and permanent water features
The total irrigable area of the golf course was determined to be 130 acres.

GOLF COURSE STORAGE PONDS
The Golf Course has nine (9) lakes that can be filled with recycled water during the irrigation season that act as water hazards on the Golf Course and store recycled water to supply the irrigation system. The lakes are hydraulically connected to each other and fed via gravity from the highest elevation lake or Lake A to the lowest elevation lake called Lake I. Floats between the lakes control the elevation of the water between the lakes. Lake A or Lake I are able to receive recycled water directly from the WWTP/COWRP.

Lake A can also receive water via the irrigation system to assist in moving water within the system. Lake I feeds into the booster pumps that provides pressure for irrigation.

The Lakes also serve as rainwater catchment and have potential for overflow during heavy rain events.

Therefore, recycled water is only delivered to the Golf Course for the irrigation season between April to October. Prior to the rain season beginning, the volume of recycled water in the lakes is removed.

Due to the complexities with managing the stormwater system, recycled water is only delivered to Lake I.

The other Lakes only received stormwater during the non-irrigation season. Details regarding Lake I are as follows:
 Total Area = 3.1 acres

AS MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION, AS POSSIBLE, WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DRAFT b. depth, and volumetric capacity at two feet of freeboard. c. Height (relative to surrounding grade), crest width, interior slope, and exterior slope of each berm or levee.
d. Materials used to construct each berm or levee.
e. Description of engineered liner, if any. Include a copy of the Construction Quality f. Estimated steady state percolation rate for each unlined pond. g. Depth to shallow groundwater below the base and pond inverts. h. Precipitation and evapotranspiration data shall be from recognized stations. The source of this information shall be provided, including a link to the data. i. Overfilling/overflow prevention features.
j. Operation and maintenance procedures.

DRAFT
87 Section 13, Item A.

DRAFT
88 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 6 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP

GOLF COURSE AGRONOMIC WATER DEMANDS
Calculation Procedures
The steps and major assumptions used to determine the rate at which recycled water can be supplied to the golf course are described below.

Climate Data
a. Rainfall data reported by the Ione National Climate Data Center (NCDC) weather station was used to define the average annual rainfall, 1-in-100-year annual rainfall, and the monthly distributions of rainfall, as follows:
— The average rainfall year was defined as having a total rainfall of 22.1 inches. — The 1-in-100 rainfall year was defined as having a total rainfall of 44.1 inches. — The monthly distributions were defined based on the 1906 to 1997 monthly normal rainfall distribution values.

These values were defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). This information is documented in Attachment A and summarized in Table 1.
b. Reference Evapotranspiration (ET) for each month is based on long-term monthly average ET values for the Plymouth California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Station (#227), located approximately 13 miles northeast of the golf course. This information is documented in Attachment A and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Applicable Climate Data
Month
Average Rainfall
(a),
inches
1-in-100 Year Rainfall(a),
inches
Reference ET (b),
inches
October 1.15 2.15 3.24
November 2.81 5.24 1.68
December 3.54 6.58 1.21
January 5.09 9.48 1.48
February 3.14 5.86 1.95
March 3.2 5.95 3.02
April 1.75 3.26 4.57
May 0.63 1.18 5.97
June 0.23 0.43 7.19
July 0.07 0.13 7.64
August 0.13 0.24 6.98
September 0.33 0.62 4.99
Total 22.1 41.1 49.9
(a) NCDC weather station (#044283)
(b) Plymouth CIMIS station (#227)
DRAFT
89 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 7 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Crop ET
a. Monthly crop ET for the golf course was calculated by multiplying the reference ET values by a representative crop coefficient. According to the 2003 Recycled Water Distribution and Use Engineering Report, grasses grown on the golf course include:
— perennial rye grass
— poa annua
— creeping bent grass
— tall fescue
— Bermuda grass
Apart from Bermuda grass, all grasses used on the golf course are considered cool season grasses. Monthly crop coefficients for cool season grasses in Riverside, CA were determined by Meyer and Gibeault in 1986 (Attachment B, Table 3). The average of the monthly crop coefficients for April to October, calculated to be

0.88, was used as a representative crop coefficient.

Pond ET
a. Monthly ET for the storage pond, Lake I, was set equal to the monthly reference ET values.

Historical Recycled Water Demand
a. To properly maintain the greens, recycled water is delivered to the COWRF and golf course solely based on golf course demands.
b. Golf course flow data is tracked by golf course and is shown in Table 2. Data for the months of May 2023 and January to June 2024 was not available for this Draft TM but will be included in future calculations as it is made available. c. The average monthly historical recycled water delivered was used to calibrate and confirm the theoretical recycled water demand for the golf course.

DRAFT
90 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 8 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 2. Historical Golf Course Recycled Water Demand
Month
Volume of Recycled Water Used, million gallons (MG)(a)
Average,
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average acre-feet October 16.5 8.4 16.7 14.5 8.2 9.1 11.9 12.2 37.4
November 0 3.2 13.9 6.1 0 9.1 0 4.6 14.1
December 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
April 0 0 0 1.1 12.7 8.1 0.9 - 3.3 10.0
May 18.1 19.1 15.1 14.1 25.2 12.1(b) - - 18.3 56.3
June 25.6 26.5 21.1 19.6 21.4 10.8(b) 22.0 - 22.7 69.7
July 29.4 29.0 27.2 26.6 31.7 20.4 25.1 29.0 27.3 83.8
August 29.1 29.8 26.5 25.8 23.3 21.0 22.0 26.8 25.5 78.4 September 23.0 24.1 24.1 16.2 9.0(c) 15.7 15.0 - 19.7 60.4 Total, MG 141.7 140.2 144.6 123.9 131.5 106.3 97.0 55.8 133.6 410.2 (a) “-“indicate data that is currently unavailable.
(b) Values excluded from average calculation. There was limited recycled water supply from ARSA during the period of May to June 2022.

In general, water deliveries to the COWRF are made according to golf course irrigation demand, but there are times when there are not sufficient water deliveries to the COWRF to meet golf course demands. (c) Value is excluded from average because it is anomalous when compared with September recycled water use volumes of other years.

Operations staff responsible for this data are not available to confirm its accuracy.

Theoretical Recycled Water Demands
a. Theoretical agronomic demands for the golf course are calculated by multiplying the difference between the calculated monthly crop ET and monthly rainfall values by the total area of the golf course (130 acres) and dividing by an irrigation efficiency factor. — For months with more precipitation than ET, the irrigation demand was set equal to zero.
— Irrigation efficiencies for solid set spray irrigation systems like that used on the golf course can range from 60 to 85 percent (Attachment C, Table 8.2b). A calibration process, described below, has been used to define the irrigation efficiency for this site. b. Theoretical agronomic demands for the storage ponds are calculated by multiplying the difference between the reference ET and monthly rainfall values by the total area of the impoundment.
— As noted previously, recycled water is only sent to and pumped from Lake I. Therefore, only losses from Lake I (3.1 acres) are included.
— Losses are only calculated for months when recycled water is delivered to the golf course.
— There have been no attempts to quantify percolation losses from Lake I. Therefore, percolation losses are assumed to be zero (0).
c. Total theoretical demands are the sum of the theoretical monthly golf course agronomic demands and the theoretical monthly evaporative losses from Lake I.

DRAFT
91 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 9 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Average Year Theoretical Recycled Water Demand Calibration a. The site-specific irrigation efficiency factor used to calculate the theoretical irrigation demand is determined by adjusting the irrigation efficiency value used in the averageyear theoretical recycled water demand calculation, so the demand matches the historical recycled water supplied.
b. The resulting irrigation efficiency is 85 percent, which falls at the upper end of the typical range for spray irrigation cited above. This calibration process demonstratesthat the golf course irrigation system is very efficient and experiences limited losses. 1-in-100 Year Recycled Water Demand
a. The 100-year theoretical recycled water demand is calculated using the procedures described above but applying 1-in-100-year rainfall values.

Agronomic Water Demands
The calculated average rainfall year theoretical demand to be used in the water balance analysis is shown in Table 3. The calculated average 1-in-100-year theoretical demand to be used in the water balance analysis is shown in Table 4.

As shown, the historical data indicates that there have been irrigation demands in November. However, the theoretical demands do not indicate there is a need for irrigation water in this month. This discrepancy likely reflects the fact that rainfall typically does not begin until late November in this area, while there are still irrigation demands early in the month. Despite this discrepancy, the annual theorical demand matches closely to the historical values for the average year. Therefore, the methodology applied provides an accurate estimate for purposes of developing an annual water balance.

DRAFT
92 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 10 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 3. Monthly Golf Course Recycled Water Demand for an Average Rainfall Year Month
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Climate Values, inches Historical
Demand,
acre-feet
Theoretical Average-Year Demand, acre-feet
Rainfall
Reference
ET
Irrigation
Demand
Pond
Losses
Total
Demand
October 1.15 3.24 37.4 21.7 0.50 22.2
November 2.81 1.68 14.1 0 0 0
December 3.54 1.21 0 0 0 0
January 5.09 1.48 0 0 0 0
February 3.14 1.95 0 0 0 0
March 3.2 3.02 0 0 0 0
April 1.75 4.57 10.0 29.0 0.70 29.7
May 0.63 5.97 56.3 58.9 1.40 60.3
June 0.23 7.19 69.7 77.7 1.80 79.5
July 0.07 7.64 83.8 84.8 2.00 86.8
August 0.13 6.98 78.4 76.6 1.80 78.4
September 0.33 4.99 60.4 51.8 1.20 53.0
Total,acre-feet
per year (AFY) 22.1 49.9 410.1 400.5 9.4 409.9
Notes:
(1) 1906-1977 monthly rainfall normals for Ione NCDC weather station (#044283) (2) Long-term monthly average reference ET from Plymouth CIMIS station (#227) (3) Average of monthly irrigation volumes applied to the golf course from 2017 to 2022 (4) = (irrigated area of 130 acres) x [Col. 2 x (crop coefficient of 0.88) - Col. 1] / (irrigation efficiency of 0.85) / 12 (5) = (storage pond area of 2.5 acres) x (Col. 2 - Col. 1) / 12 (6) = Col. 4 + Col. 5
DRAFT
93 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 11 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 4. Monthly Golf Course Recycled Water Demand for a 1-in-100 Rainfall Year Month
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Climate Values, inches Theoretical 100-Year Demand, acre-feet Rainfall
Reference
ET
Irrigation
Demand
Pond
Losses
Total
Demand
October 2.15 3.24 8.9 0.3 9.2
November 5.24 1.68 0 0 0
December 6.58 1.21 0 0 0
January 9.48 1.48 0 0 0
February 5.86 1.95 0 0 0
March 5.95 3.02 0 0 0
April 3.26 4.57 9.7 0.3 10.0
May 1.18 5.97 51.9 1.2 53.1
June 0.43 7.19 75.2 1.7 76.9
July 0.13 7.64 84.0 1.9 85.9
August 0.24 6.98 75.2 1.7 76.9
September 0.62 4.99 48.1 1.1 49.2
Total, AFY 41.1 49.9 353.0 8.2 361.2
Notes:
(1) = 100-year return period annual total distributed monthly in proportion to 1906-1997 monthly normals for Ione NCDC weather station (#044283)
(2) Long-term monthly average reference ET from Plymouth CIMIS station (#227) (3) = (irrigated area of 130 acres) x [Col. 2 x (crop coefficient of 0.88) - Col. 1] / (irrigation efficiency of 0.85) / 12 (4) = (storage pond area of 2.5 acres) x (Col. 2 - Col. 1) / 12 (5) = Col. 4 + Col. 5

COWRF INFLUENT FLOWS
Calculation Procedures
The theoretical rate at which the COWRF can receive influent, accounting for backwash losses, without exceeding the agronomic water demand of the golf course are defined below.

Historical COWRF Flows
a. Historical monthly influent flows to the COWRF are shown in Table 5. Influent flows beginning in April 2022 are reported in the monthly COWRF discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). Prior to 2022, COWRF DMRs did not present influent flows. However, the influent flows were determined from available golf course demand data and backwash flow data.1. b. Historical monthly filter backwash flows from the COWRF are shown in Table 6. 1 To determine influent flows prior to April 2022, monthly COWRF effluent flows from the DMRs were compared to golf course flows and filter backwash flows. If the reported COWRF effluent flow was larger than the golf course flow, it was confirmed to be actual influent flow by verifying that it was equal to the sum of the golf course influent flow and the filter backwash flow. If the reported COWRF effluent flow was equivalent to the golf course flow, the COWRF influent flow was calculated by summing the COWRF effluent flow and filter backwash flow. 2017 COWRF influent flows were calculated by summing monthly golf course influent flows and filter backwash flows because COWRF DMRs wer DRAFT
e not available.
94 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 12 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 5. Historical COWRF Influent Flows
Month
Volume of COWRF Influent Flow (MG)(a)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
October 19.5 10.3 20.7 17.9 10.5 10.9 19.2 15.6
November 0 4.8 15.8 7.8 0 11.3 0 5.7
December 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
April 0 0 0 0.9 14.4 12.7 2.1 - 4.3
May 20.4 21.6 17.1 16.8 29.1 14.0 - - 19.8
June 29.1 30.1 23.7 23.0 24.7 13.1 25.8 - 24.2
July 34.1 33.5 31.2 30.2 35.7 23.1 29.5 32.1 31.2
August 33.3 36.9 33.3 30.1 27.0 23.2 27.4 29.6 30.1
September 27.1 27.7 28.1 20.2 11.2 18.5 21.4 - 22.0
Total, MG 163.4 164.9 169.7 146.7 152.7 128.8 125.4 61.7 153.1 (a) “-“ indicate data that is currently unavailable.

Table 6. Historical COWRF Filter Backwash Flows
Month
Volume of COWRF Filter Backwash Flow (MG)(a)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
October 3.0 1.9 4.0 3.4 2.4 - 7.5 3.9
November 0 1.1 1.9 1.7 0 - 0 0.9
December 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
April 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.0 - - 0.8
May 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.7 3.9 1.9 - - 2.6
June 3.4 3.6 2.5 3.8 3.4 2.0 - - 3.0
July 4.7 4.4 3.9 3.6 4.0 2.7 4.4 3.8 3.8
August 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.3 3.8 2.7 5.4 4.7 4.1
September 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.6 - 6.6 - 4.1
Total, MG 21.7 20.9 22.1 23.4 21.9 11.3 23.9 8.4 23.2
(a) “-“ indicate data that is unavailable
DRAFT .
95 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 13 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Filter Backwash Flow Percentage
a. The percentage of COWRF influent flow that was discarded as backwash flow to the WWTP each month was calculated by dividing the backwash flow by the influent flow. b. Table 7 shows the results of this calculation. From these percentages, a monthly average was calculated. Monthly average backwash percentages range from 12 to 20 percent.

Table 7. Historical COWRF Filter Backwash Flow Percentage Month
Filter Backwash Flow as a Percentage of Influent Flow (percent) (a)(b)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
October 15 18 19 19 23 - 39(c) 19
November 23 12 22 - 19
December -
January -
February -
March -
April 14 16 - - 15
May 11 12 11 16 13 13 - - 13
June 12 12 11 16 14 15 - - 13
July 14 13 13 12 11 12 15 12 13
August 13 11 12 14 14 12 20 16 14
September 15 13 14 20 23 - 31(c) - 17
(a) Blank cells indicate there were no flows to the COWRF (b) “-“ indicate data that is unavailable.
(c) Anomalous value not used in calculated average.

Theoretical COWRF Influent Flow
The theoretical influent flow to the COWRF is calculated for each month using the following formula:

Golf Course Irrigation Demand/(1-backwash percentage)
Theoretical COWRF Influent Flow
The calculated average rainfall year theoretical flow to the COWRF to be used in the water balance analysis is shown in Table 8. The calculated average 1-in-100-year theoretical flow to the COWRF to be used in the water balance analysis is shown in
DRAFT
Table 9.
96 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 14 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 8. Monthly COWRF Influent Demand for an Average Rainfall Year Month
Average-Year Golf Course
Recycled Water Demand(a),
acre-feet
COWRF Backwash Flow as a
Percentage of Influent Flow(b),
Percent
Average-Year
COWRF Influent Flow(c),
acre-feet
October 22.2 19 27.4
November 0 19 0
December 0 - 0
January 0 - 0
February 0 - 0
March 0 - 0
April 29.7 15 34.9
May 60.3 13 69.3
June 79.5 13 91.4
July 86.8 13 99.8
August 78.4 14 91.2
September 53.0 17 63.9
Total, AFY 409.9 - 477.9
(a) From Table 3
(b) From Table 7
(c) =Col. 1/(1 - Col. 2)
Table 9. Monthly COWRF Influent Capacity for a 1-in-100 Rainfall Year Month
1-in-100-Year Golf Course
Recycled Water Demand(a),
acre-feet
COWRF Backwash Flow as a
Percentage of Influent Flow(b),
Percent
1-in-100-Year
COWRF Influent Flow(c),
acre-feet
October 9.2 19 11.4
November 0 19 -
December 0 - -
January 0 - -
February 0 - -
March 0 - -
April 10.0 15 11.8
May 53.1 13 61.0
June 76.9 13 88.4
July 85.9 13 98.7
August 76.9 14 89.4
September 49.2 17 59.3
Total, AFY 361.2 - 420.0
(a) From Table 4
(b) From Table 7
(c) Col. 1 / (1 - Col. 2)
DRAFT
97 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 15 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Theoretical COWRF Backwash Flow
The calculated average rainfall year theoretical backwash flow from the COWRF to the WWTP to be used in the water balance analysis for the Ione WWTP is shown in Table 8. The calculated average 1-in-100- year theoretical flow from the COWRF to the WWTP to be used in the water balance analysis for the Ione WWTP is shown in Table 9.

Table 10. Monthly COWRF Influent Demand for an Average Rainfall Year Month
Average-Year
COWRF Influent Flow(a),
acre-feet
COWRF Backwash Flow as a
Percentage of Influent Flow(b),
Percent
Average-Year
COWRF Backwash to WWTP(c),
acre-feet
October 27.4 19 5.2
November 0 19 0.0
December 0 - 0.0
January 0 - 0.0
February 0 - 0.0
March 0 - 0.0
April 34.9 15 5.2
May 69.3 13 9.0
June 91.4 13 11.9
July 99.8 13 13.0
August 91.2 14 12.8
September 63.9 17 10.9
Total, AFY 477.9 - 68.0
(a) From Table 8
(b) From Table 7
(c) =Col. 1x Col. 2
DRAFT
98 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 16 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP
Table 11. Monthly COWRF Influent Capacity for a 1-in-100 Rainfall Year Month
1-in-100-Year
COWRF Influent Flow(a),
acre-feet
COWRF Backwash Flow as a
Percentage of Influent Flow(b),
Percent
1-in-100-Year
COWRF Backwash to WWTP(c),
acre-feet
October 11.4 19 2.2
November - 19 0.0
December - - 0.0
January - - 0.0
February - - 0.0
March - - 0.0
April 11.8 15 1.8
May 61.0 13 7.9
June 88.4 13 11.5
July 98.7 13 12.8
August 89.4 14 12.5
September 59.3 17 10.1
Total, AFY 420.0 - 58.8
(a) From Table 9
(b) From Table 7
(c) Col. 1 x Col. 2
DRAFT
99 Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 17 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP

GOLF COURSE TAILWATER AND OVERSPRAY CONTROL AND MONITORING

THIS SECTION WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DRAFT
Describe the BMPs based on discussion with Courtney. Monitoring would include daily inspections during irrigation periods, looking for off-site runoff or damage to tailwater system.

DRAFT
100
Section 13, Item A.

TM – City of Ione
October 14, 2024

Page 18 ends

N-C-988-50-24-10 as needed-WP

REFERENCES
Meyer, J.L. and Gibeault, V.A., 1986. “Turfgrass Performance under Reduced Irrigation.” California Agriculture, Vol. 40, Issue 7, p. 19-20.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), University of California Cooperative Extension, 2000. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California. August 2000.

DRAFT
101
Section 13, Item A.

Rainfall and Reference ET Data
Attachment A
DRAFT
102
Section 13, Item A.

IONE, CALIFORNIA (044283)
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary
Period of Record : 03/01/1906 to 06/30/1977
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.

Temperature (F) Insuff icient Data
Average Min.

Temperature (F) Insuff icient Data
Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 5.08 3.14 3.19 1.75 0.63 0.23 0.07 0.13 0.33 1.15 2.81 3.53 22.04 Average Total
SnowFall (in.) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Snow Depth
(in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record.

Max. Temp.: 0% Min. Temp.: 0% Precipitation: 99.9% Snowfall: 99.9% Snow Depth: 99.8% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness.

Western Regional Climate Center, [email protected]
10/10/24, 2:42 PM IONE, CALIFORNIA Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca4283 1/1
DRAFT
DRAFT
103
Section 13, Item A.

Rainfall Depth Duration Frequency at Ione
Station Number Station County Latitude Longitude Elevation Years Recorded B00 4283 00 Ione Amador 38.348 -120.938 284.0 89
Rainfall Statistics 1-Day 2-Day 3-Day 4-Day 5-Day 6-Day 8-Day 10-Day 15-Day 20-Day 30-Day 60-Day 1-Year Pr=0.5 1.92 2.55 3.01 3.38 3.70 3.99 4.48 4.91 5.79 6.51 7.68 10.19 21.28 Pr=0.2 2.55 3.37 3.98 4.47 4.89 5.27 5.92 6.48 7.64 8.58 10.11 13.39 27.84 Pr=0.1 2.92 3.87 4.55 5.11 5.60 6.02 6.76 7.40 8.71 9.78 11.52 15.23 31.54 Pr=0.04 3.36 4.44 5.22 5.86 6.40 6.89 7.73 8.45 9.94 11.16 13.13 17.32 35.70 Pr=0.02 3.66 4.83 5.67 6.36 6.96 7.48 8.39 9.17 10.78 12.09 14.22 18.74 38.51 Pr=0.01 3.94 5.19 6.10 6.84 7.47 8.04 9.01 9.84 11.57 12.97 15.23 20.06 41.11 Pr=0.005 4.21 5.54 6.51 7.29 7.96 8.56 9.59 10.48 12.31 13.79 16.19 21.31 43.57 Pr=0.002 4.54 5.97 7.01 7.85 8.58 9.22 10.33 11.28 13.23 14.82 17.40 22.87 46.64 Pr=0.001 4.79 6.29 7.38 8.26 9.02 9.69 10.85 11.85 13.90 15.57 18.26 23.99 48.84 Pr=0.0001 5.53 7.26 8.50 9.52 10.39 11.15 12.48 13.62 15.96 17.87 20.94 27.46 55.66 Annual Maxima 1-Day 2-Day 3-Day 4-Day 5-Day 6-Day 8-Day 10-Day 15-Day 20-Day 30-Day 60-Day 1-Year 2007 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2006 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2005 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2004 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2003 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2002 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2001 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2000 1.85 2.80 4.29 4.74 4.99 4.99 5.22 5.79 7.52 9.05 10.35 11.82 21.39 1999 2.02 2.44 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 4.17 5.51 5.72 8.41 10.90 15.39 1998 2.37 3.55 4.11 4.36 4.98 5.85 6.61 7.31 8.07 10.05 14.21 21.25 30.46 1997 2.37 3.55 4.11 4.36 4.98 5.85 6.61 7.31 8.07 10.05 14.21 21.25 43.59 1996 3.75 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 4.74 5.27 6.16 11.53 22.80 1995 2.90 4.71 5.05 5.33 5.58 5.71 7.45 8.02 9.08 9.83 12.42 16.90 35.50 1994 1.27 1.70 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.42 2.55 2.55 3.45 3.67 5.27 5.87 15.52 1993 1.81 2.26 2.26 2.84 3.18 4.50 4.91 5.13 7.10 7.52 10.16 16.58 29.21 1992 2.30 3.18 3.18 3.24 4.11 5.17 5.97 6.06 6.98 7.16 9.13 10.62 20.43 1991 1.60 2.28 2.88 3.52 3.52 3.52 4.08 5.15 6.28 7.38 10.07 11.94 16.59 1990 1.82 2.35 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.90 2.90 3.33 6.23 17.33 1989 1.05 1.90 2.05 2.06 2.26 2.41 2.52 2.82 3.36 3.75 5.85 7.67 16.85 1988 1.55 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 2.05 2.13 2.75 3.47 4.78 6.57 11.67 1987 1.81 2.43 2.54 2.54 2.87 2.87 3.38 3.62 3.62 5.31 5.31 9.80 13.86 1986 2.75 4.85 5.65 6.65 6.85 6.95 7.90 8.00 8.00 9.45 12.97 18.47 33.02 1985 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17.93 1984 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23.39 1983 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 41.81 1982 --- --- --- 4.62 5.24 5.24 5.53 5.53 7.29 8.43 9.95 15.59 39.56 1981 2.04 2.94 3.80 4.17 4.32 5.01 6.02 6.02 6.21 6.21 6.62 11.24 17.15 1980 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 26.42 D
10/10/24, 2:23 PM Rainfall Depth Duration Frequency
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/webapp/precipitation/frequenciesTable.jsp?id=1100428300&t=D&v=1&source=B195# 1/4 DRAFT
104
Section 13, Item A.
1979 1.54 2.28 2.83 3.82 3.82 3.82 4.02 4.97 5.49 6.53 7.09 12.65 20.87 1978 1.54 2.28 2.83 3.82 3.82 3.82 4.02 4.97 5.49 6.53 7.09 12.65 20.87 1977 0.92 1.03 1.09 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.24 1.26 1.26 1.26 2.18 3.32 8.73 1976 0.78 1.23 1.70 1.70 1.91 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.18 3.21 3.73 5.00 11.87 1975 1.97 2.56 3.14 3.27 3.38 3.52 4.84 6.08 7.82 8.47 8.50 15.06 28.24 1974 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 33.80 1973 2.48 2.76 3.51 4.54 4.86 4.86 6.09 7.38 8.60 9.26 12.09 19.82 35.95 1972 3.05 3.88 3.92 3.98 3.98 5.03 5.90 5.96 6.05 6.73 7.92 9.62 16.80 1971 3.05 4.40 5.02 5.13 6.25 6.57 6.57 7.61 8.20 8.22 9.81 13.34 21.20 1970 2.94 2.94 3.48 3.48 3.72 3.72 4.97 5.90 6.37 7.01 9.55 12.27 21.13 1969 2.75 3.15 3.15 3.23 3.31 3.54 5.63 6.09 8.33 8.80 9.89 16.66 30.23 1968 1.76 2.12 2.12 2.43 2.43 2.48 2.51 3.20 3.20 3.49 4.61 8.77 17.12 1967 2.52 4.13 4.15 4.63 4.97 4.99 5.38 6.53 7.36 7.36 7.89 11.44 29.07 1966 1.79 1.95 2.46 2.48 3.27 3.74 4.03 4.13 5.17 5.17 5.17 9.69 16.47 1965 --- 3.43 --- --- --- --- --- 7.18 8.10 --- --- --- 25.01 1964 1.98 2.44 2.86 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.25 3.45 5.45 6.58 6.84 9.13 18.12 1963 2.88 3.52 4.20 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.65 6.07 6.38 6.38 10.35 24.44 1962 1.25 2.08 2.93 3.02 4.05 4.53 6.47 7.17 7.61 7.75 9.09 11.98 18.00 1961 1.38 1.68 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.26 2.40 2.77 2.93 3.23 4.81 6.51 13.82 1960 1.33 1.53 1.86 1.86 2.09 2.42 2.82 3.25 3.67 5.03 6.18 7.86 16.68 1959 1.65 2.09 2.09 2.55 2.88 3.22 3.68 4.01 4.01 4.75 6.13 10.54 13.45 1958 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 41.69 1957 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 18.93 1956 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 28.58 1955 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 18.28 1954 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16.40 1953 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15.10 1952 2.21 3.15 3.68 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 4.06 4.68 6.56 7.47 13.11 27.05 1951 4.65 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.55 5.70 6.24 6.25 6.25 8.87 10.85 14.60 28.76 1950 2.70 2.70 2.70 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 5.05 5.05 5.55 9.52 10.41 18.30 1949 1.76 2.71 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.72 3.86 4.87 5.45 6.93 10.49 17.23 1948 1.28 1.41 1.70 1.83 2.03 2.03 2.43 2.43 4.08 4.39 6.67 8.68 17.76 1947 2.16 3.12 3.20 3.20 3.91 3.91 3.91 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.82 7.33 14.54 1946 1.90 1.90 3.20 3.38 4.37 4.98 5.16 5.42 5.70 6.31 7.49 11.80 20.14 1945 2.68 3.88 4.78 4.78 4.98 5.27 5.27 5.27 5.66 5.66 5.66 9.58 23.66 1944 2.25 2.41 2.53 2.53 3.23 3.39 3.93 4.28 5.68 5.68 7.47 10.20 19.25 1943 2.05 2.78 3.58 3.81 4.43 4.77 5.38 5.42 7.10 8.03 10.13 15.90 27.61 1942 2.00 3.48 4.20 4.60 5.32 5.81 5.91 5.91 7.68 8.17 8.17 12.92 26.67 1941 1.85 2.40 2.46 3.46 5.46 5.46 4.17 4.52 7.17 8.59 11.13 14.00 25.17 1940 1.65 2.72 3.46 3.76 4.20 4.79 5.24 5.54 5.95 6.00 8.96 16.37 24.86 1939 1.72 2.40 2.55 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.17 3.42 5.93 14.01 1938 2.30 3.65 4.05 4.55 4.80 4.80 5.25 6.95 9.40 10.35 12.10 16.00 27.25 1937 4.40 4.65 5.85 6.15 6.60 6.95 7.70 8.15 8.70 9.50 10.10 19.90 34.99 1936 2.00 2.30 3.50 4.20 4.35 4.50 6.05 6.40 10.33 10.33 13.28 19.99 28.29 1935 2.50 2.72 2.72 2.72 3.25 4.30 4.52 4.52 5.22 5.65 6.35 9.47 23.94 1934 1.70 2.85 2.85 4.05 4.52 4.52 4.52 4.52 4.52 6.40 8.77 9.67 17.86 10/10/24, 2:23 PM Rainfall Depth Duration Frequency
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/webapp/precipitation/frequenciesTable.jsp?id=1100428300&t=D&v=1&source=B195# 2/4 DRAFT
105
Section 13, Item A.
1933 1.20 1.72 1.72 1.72 2.32 3.12 3.12 3.82 3.82 3.82 5.07 7.87 12.77 1932 1.75 1.92 2.59 3.58 3.75 3.80 4.49 4.97 5.58 5.88 6.60 10.05 19.99 1931 1.65 1.65 1.65 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 3.92 6.39 12.62 1930 1.39 2.25 2.25 2.57 2.57 2.78 3.35 3.71 5.17 5.33 5.62 10.86 17.07 1929 1.91 2.98 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.57 4.07 4.07 4.07 6.57 15.52 1928 1.68 2.60 3.40 4.06 4.79 4.92 4.92 4.92 5.92 6.10 6.27 9.09 18.80 1927 1.50 3.00 3.00 4.25 4.25 4.51 5.46 5.96 6.26 6.91 7.41 10.51 24.11 1926 2.55 2.80 2.90 3.55 3.55 4.55 5.10 5.10 6.48 8.99 10.04 10.29 21.54 1925 1.95 3.05 3.27 3.27 3.52 3.74 4.27 5.79 5.94 7.79 8.41 11.84 28.60 1924 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 2.35 3.00 3.00 4.95 10.50 1923 2.20 3.00 4.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.50 6.10 6.70 6.70 9.30 14.15 26.07 1922 2.17 2.52 3.45 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 4.44 7.09 7.16 9.46 14.80 24.30 1921 3.85 3.95 4.50 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 5.72 6.62 7.02 7.72 13.51 26.57 1920 2.10 3.55 3.90 4.05 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.31 4.82 5.19 7.04 9.26 15.46 1919 2.25 3.55 3.90 4.00 4.05 4.40 4.60 4.70 5.00 6.45 8.15 10.35 18.75 1918 1.60 2.35 2.35 2.35 3.45 4.25 4.70 4.70 6.50 6.50 8.10 11.30 15.50 1917 1.30 2.30 2.60 2.90 3.25 3.55 4.10 4.35 4.55 4.55 5.35 7.25 17.70 1916 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 20.00 1915 1.50 1.95 2.15 2.30 2.83 3.03 3.88 4.20 5.88 6.20 7.77 10.87 22.80 1914 2.26 3.11 3.49 3.61 3.99 3.99 3.99 4.48 5.47 6.96 9.81 13.52 22.90 1913 1.20 1.84 2.22 2.72 2.95 3.36 3.36 3.55 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.86 14.26 1912 0.69 1.04 1.15 1.22 1.30 1.45 1.86 2.16 2.47 2.86 3.43 5.36 12.68 1911 2.17 3.57 5.27 6.12 6.45 7.30 7.80 8.42 10.82 15.51 18.06 24.30 30.46 1910 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.45 3.88 3.88 3.93 3.93 4.00 4.69 5.92 8.90 20.89 1909 1.45 2.60 3.80 4.42 4.54 5.07 5.99 6.39 7.99 9.21 12.66 19.24 26.01 1908 1.30 1.60 1.60 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.83 3.03 3.63 3.63 5.51 9.04 14.27 1907 4.37 6.79 7.38 7.53 8.38 8.53 8.53 8.53 8.53 10.60 12.20 18.04 33.82 1906 2.40 2.54 3.22 3.62 3.85 3.85 3.85 5.03 7.47 9.20 10.45 15.43 30.93 1905 2.90 2.90 2.90 3.20 4.20 4.20 4.55 4.85 5.55 5.55 5.50 9.65 25.95 1904 1.51 2.62 3.12 3.15 3.15 3.25 3.75 4.86 6.07 6.42 7.20 12.05 21.42 1903 1.85 2.92 3.58 4.10 5.01 5.03 5.03 5.53 5.53 7.54 9.71 10.34 22.39 1902 1.21 1.79 2.09 2.61 3.01 3.41 3.87 4.41 5.03 6.03 7.72 9.29 20.19 1901 2.05 2.79 3.61 4.03 4.03 4.72 5.54 5.52 5.54 7.35 7.69 11.29 25.48 1900 1.85 2.34 2.41 2.80 2.86 2.86 2.86 3.88 4.82 5.66 6.45 9.69 21.51 1899 1.93 2.56 3.20 3.54 4.04 4.04 4.94 7.17 7.80 7.93 9.00 9.22 20.03 1898 3.60 4.47 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.76 5.11 5.11 5.23 7.30 13.77 1897 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1896 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1895 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1894 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1893 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1892 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1891 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1890 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1889 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1888 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10/10/24, 2:23 PM Rainfall Depth Duration Frequency
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/webapp/precipitation/frequenciesTable.jsp?id=1100428300&t=D&v=1&source=B195# 3/4 DRAFT
106
Section 13, Item A.

California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Rendered in ENGLISH Units.Printed on Wednesday, August 31, 2022Average ETo Values by StationMonthly Average ETo Report Stn Id Stn Name CIMIS Region Jan
(in)
Feb
(in)
Mar
(in)
Apr
(in)
May
(in)
Jun
(in)
Jul
(in)
Aug
(in)
Sep
(in)
Oct(in)
Nov
(in)
Dec
(in)
Total
(in)
227 Plymouth SFH 1.48 1.95 3.02 4.57 5.97 7.19 7.64 6.98 4.99 3.24 1.68 1.21 49.92 CIMIS Region Abbreviations
BIS - Bishop CCV - Central Coast Valleys ICV - Imperial/Coachella Valley LAB - Los Angeles Basin MBY - Monterey Bay NCV - North Coast Valleys NEP - Northeast Plateau SAV - Sacramento Valley SBE - San Bernardino SFB - San Francisco Bay SJV - San Joaquin Valley SFH - Sierra Foothill SCV - South Coast Valleys DRAFT

Page 1 ends

Section 13, Item A.

Turfgrass Performance Under Reduced Irrigation
Meyer and Gibeault
Attachment B
DRAFT
108
Section 13, Item A.

Class A Weather Bureau evaporation pan
measured evapotranspiration from experimental turfgrass plots at the UC South Coast Field Station at Irvine.

Turfgrass performance
under reduced irrigation
Jewel1 L. Meyer 0 Victor A. Gibeault
Turf grass in California requires irrigation during all or most of the year. Water restrictions imposed during the drought in
1976 and 1977 forced turf managers to
reexamine many concepts about irrigation. Turfgrass managers had to make drastic cuts in water use and hope that the
turf would survive. One significant result
of the drought was the realization that
lower levels of turf quality were acceptable in many situations and that large water savings could be achieved. No information was available, however, on the best conservation practices or on the
minimum amounts of water needed to
keep the turf alive.

Research was begun in 1979 to produce irrigation methodology that could be used to develop water-saving irrigation
practices anywhere in California and in
other arid and semiarid regions. The
three-year study showed that major savings of water can be achieved, especially with warm-season grasses, with no appreciable loss of turf quality.

Turf-irrigation study
Specifically, the objectives of the research were to: (1) investigate the effects of applying reduced amounts of irrigation
water calculated as a percentage of evapotranspiration of applied water on coolseason and warm-season turfgrasses; (2) evaluate a below-ground system as a potentially more efficient method of turf irrigation than standard sprinkler application; and (3) develop a set of crop coefficients that California turfgrass
managers can use to determine on-site
water use by both cool- and warm-season
turfgrasses.

The study was conducted at the University of California South Coast Field Station, Irvine. The variables tested included: two irrigation methods, sprinkler application of water and a subterranean
or buried trickle/drip water application
(8-inch depth, 23-inch spacing); three irrigation regimes, 100,80, and 60 percent of calculated evapotranspiration; and six
commonly used turfgrasses, three coolseason varieties (Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and tall fescue) and three warm-season types (hybrid bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, and Seashore Paspalum).

The field plot was a randomized splitblock design. The area was divided into two turf blocks, one for cool-season
grasses and the other for warm-season
grasses. Each block consisted of four replications, and within each replication were six randomized irrigation plots measuring 15 by 24 feet. Irrigation plots were divided into three turf subplots of 8 by 15
feet. The three sprinkler and three subterranean irrigation plots per replication were installed in September 1979 for
above- and below-ground water application. Each sprinkler irrigation plot contained six high-pop brass sprinkler heads designed to apply 10 gallons of water per
minute at a pressure of 35 pounds per
square inch. The coefficient of uniformity
was 87 percent.

Tensiometers at 3- and 6-inch depths in
the cool-season grasses and 8- and 12-inch
depths in the warm-season grasses indicated soil water status; neutron probe access tubes were installed in plots to a depth of 4 feet in the cool-season and 6
feet in the warm-season grasses. Scheduling was by the water budget technique calculated weekly using wind-modified
pan evaporation data. State-of-the-art
controllers were programmed with this
irrigation scheduling information. The
amount of irrigation was modified so that
water did not pass below the +foot and 6-
foot depths of the neutron probe access
tubes during the irrigation season.

Annual crop coefficients, determined
from previous research using applied water and evaporation pan data, were 0.7 annually for warm-season grasses and 0.8
for cool-season grasses. Monthly crop coefficients were developed in this experiment to evaluate responses of the six turfgrass species to 60 percent and 80 percent of replacement evapotranspiration for
water conservation.

Turf performance
Overhead sprinkler irrigation provided acceptable performance of some turfgrass species, even when less than the
optimum amount of water was applied.

Subterranean irrigation did not provide
acceptable turf with the shallow-rooted
cool-season species, at the system depth
and spacing used in this study. The very
deeply rooted hybrid bermudagrass was
the best-performing species with subterranean irrigation.

Under sprinkler irrigation, there was
no significant difference in cool-season
grass performance between the 100 percent and 80 percent regimes (table 1). This could be described as a potential level of
water conservation amounting to 21.1
percent savings (77.2 inches versus 61
inches). The savings could be tenuous,
however, because of more weed and disease activity (such as Gerlachia patch on Kentucky bluegrass) when irrigated with
less than the optimum amount of water.

The 60 percent regime significantly reduced the turf quality of the three coolseason grasses tested.

In the warm-season grasses, the appearance of hybrid bermudagrass and Seashore Paspalum was not significantly
different under any of the irrigation regimes. As irrigation amounts were reduced, zoysiagrass appearance ratings declined because of nematode activity obCALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JULY-AUGUST 1986 19 DRAFT
109
Section 13, Item A.
served on the roots. Both Santa Ana hybrid bermudagrass and Adalayd (Excalibre) Seashore Paspalum had very good color, density, texture, uniformity, and
freedom from weeds and diseases, irrespective of irrigation regimes. Clearly there is potential for considerable water
savings with these grasses. This study
showed a 40 percent reduction in actual
water applied between the optimum and
lowest irrigation regime (65.5 versus 39
inches).

Because of the field plot design necessary for this study, it wasn't possible to compare statistically the turf performance results between the warm- and cool-season grasses. Hybrid bermuda and
Seashore Paspalum performed very well,
however, with 52.7 inches of water applied (60 percent irrigation regime), whereas the cool-season grasses needed
at least 82.4 inches (80 percent irrigation
regime). Thirty-six percent less water
was applied to the warm-season species
than to the cool-season species for acceptable turf quality. If applied water in the 60 percent irrigation treatment in warmseason grasses (52.7 inches) is compared with that in the 100 percent treatment in
cool-season grasses (104.4 inches), the
saving in water is 49.5 percent.

Water application
The cool-season grass in the 100 percent regime received 43 inches of water in 1982 (table 2). Warm-season grasses received only 34 inches. Rainfall of 18.45 inches occurred primarily from November to March. The soil profile held about 10 inches depth of water in the top 6 feet.

Rainfall did not appreciably affect the applied water during the primary growing season, April through November. Likewise, the 34 inches applied to the warmTABLE 1. Cool- and warm-season turfgrass appearance ratings and water applied for the duration of the study (August 1981 to December 1983).

Irrigation Water appliregime Turf appearance 8/61 - 12/83' cation (actual) ET.,...t % of ET in.

Cool season Ken. blue Per. rye Tall fesc.
100 5.5 y 6.2 y 5.8 y 104.4 77.3
80 5.3 y 5.9 y 5.7 yz 82.4 61 .O
60 4.8 z 5.0 z 5.3 z 62.7 46.4
100 6.5 ns+ 5.8 ns 5.6 x 88.4 65.5
80 6.5 5.8 4.8 y 69.4 51.4
60 6.4 5.4 4.2 z 52.7 39.0
Warm season Bermuda Paspalum Zoysia
* Rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 indicating worst appearance and 9 best. Values followed by common letters are not t ETgrass equals the actual applied water divided by the extra water factor (EWF,,). which is 1.35. $ No significant difference.
significantly different at the 5% level of probability.

TABLE 2. Actual water applied in 1982 (1/1/82 to 12/31/82) and 1983 (1/1/83 to 12/31/83) Sprinkler
DlOtS
% of ET
Cool season
100
80 60
100
80 60
Warm season
1982 1983
Water applied' Rainfall Water appliedt Rainfall

43.2 35.0

26.6 34.0

27.4 21.6

18.45 38.7 31.78

31.9 24.5

33.0 25.8

19.6 ' Class A pan evaporation 55.0 inches for 1982.
t Class A pan evaporation 55.63 inches for 1983.

TABLE 3. Turfgrass crop coefficients (Kp and Kc) of warm- and cool-season grasses.

KD' Kc+ ..

Month Warm Cool Warm Cool
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0 N
D
.44
.43
.61
.58
.63
54 57
.57
.50
.43
.46
.44
.49
.51
.60
.83
.76
.70
.75
.69
59 .60
.55
.48
.55
.54
.76
.72
.79
.68
.71
.71
.62
54 58
55 .61
.64
.75

1.04 .95
.88
.94
.86
.74
.75
.69
.60
' Monthly crop coefficient (Kp) is used with a Class A Weather Bureau evaporation pan with the equation ETgrass = t The crop coefficient Kc is used with reference evapotranspiratlon (ETo) from a ClMlS weather station with the equation ETpan X KP
ETgrass = ETo x Kc
20 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JULY-AUGUST 1986
season grasses was not appreciably affected by, nor was there evidence of, deep percolation during the primary growing
season, when only 4 inches of rain fell.

The rainfall is subtracted from the original evaporation pan reading and is therefore reasonably accounted for in the calculated applications.

In 1983, a higher than normal rainfall
of 32 inches occurred. The soil profile was
filled during the winter, however, and
only 9 inches of rain fell from April to
October 30, of which 4 inches occurred in
early April. Water moved below the root
zone only on June 29, August 29, October
5, and October 17 in all plots of 100 and 80
percent irrigation in 1983. Even during a
season of higher than normal rainfall, the
applied water, 38.7 inches in cool-season
grasses (1983), was similar to that of the
drier year (1982) with 43 inches applied.

Most of the 5 inches of implied higher use
by cool-season grasses may have moved
through deep percolation.

The water applied to warm-season
grasses was 34 inches in 1982 and 33
inches in 1983. This small difference indicates that managers can schedule carefully and conserve water in a wet or dry season.

Conclusions
The monthly crop coefficients (table 3)
calculated and used for nearly three years
proved to be very accurate for both
warm- and cool-season turfgrasses. Crop
coefficients can be used with reference
evapotranspiration from the Department
of Water Resources California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS) program. Turfgrass managers can use these crop coefficients to determine
on-site water use by turfgrasses from either a Class A Weather Bureau evaporation pan or from a computerized weather station that gives reference evapotranspiration with the equation given in table 3.

In conclusion, warm-season turfgrasses have a greater potential for water conservation than do cool-season turfgrasses. Under the conditions of this study, sprinkler irrigation was superior to
subterranean irrigation for water conservation and turfgrass performance. And lastly, a well-designed, uniform irrigation
system is necessary to maximize water
conservation in turfgrass management.

Jewel1 L. Meyer is Irrigation and Soils S ecialist and
Victor A. Cibeault is Environmental drticulturist,
Cooperative Extension, University of California,
Riverside. Financial support for this study was granted by the Metropolitan Water District of South- ern California, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Municipal Water District of Orange County, and the San Diego County Water Authority. Also the support of the Southern California Turfgrass Council, the Lloyd Foundation, and the
Golf Course Superintendent's Association of Southern
California is appreciated. The authors acknowledge
the assistance of Ralph Strohman and Mark Mahody,
DRAFT
Staff Research Associates. UC Riverside.
110
Section 13, Item A.

Water Application Efficiency,
Bill Kranz, University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension
Irrigation Specialist,
Northeast Research and Extension Center
Attachment C
DRAFT
111
Section 13, Item A.

Plant & Soil Sciences eLibrary (/) Lessons(/list/lesson) Collections & Categories(/list/community) Media(/view/media) LESSON: IRRIGATION HOME STUDY COURSE (/VIEW/LESSON/BDA727EB8A5A) / PAGE 8: IRRIGATION CHAPTER 8 - IRRIGATION EFFICIENCIES Irrigation Chapter 8 - Irrigation Efficiencies
Author: Bill Kranz, University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension Irrigation Specialist, Northeast Research and Extension Center, Norfolk, NE.

Water Application
The ability to manage an irrigation system is contingent on an accurate estimate of the percentage of water pumped that becomes available for crop use. No irrigation system delivers water at 100 percent efficiency. Water may be lost through delivery systems or pipelines and some water may remain in the , but not be used by the crop. Some water may run off the soil surface into lowland areas. Still other water may be lost to evaporation in the air, or from the soil and plant surfaces. Figures 8.1a and 8.1b show the major losses for sprinkler and surface irrigation systems. To know how much water to pump, these losses must be totaled and added to the amount of water needed by the crop.

Figure 8.1. a) Potential water losses during irrigation with a center pivot. b) Potential water losses during irrigation with a system.

In most cases, the goal is to insure that all areas of the field receive a amount of uniformly applied water. Consider the catch can test data shown in Figure 8.2. The cans recording application depths below the horizontal line are not receiving enough water — catches are less than the desired 0.85 inches. Another application will be needed to insure that the entire field receives at least 0.85 inches of water. This will require using more water and energy than is necessary. If this pattern occurs during each irrigation, plants in the areas receiving less than 0.85 inches eventually could experience water stress.

The cans recording application depths above the line receive at least 0.85 inches of water. Any extra water applied could lead to surface or deep .

Efficiency
soil
furrow irrigation
set
runoff
DRAFT
percolation
112
Section 13, Item A.

Figure 8.2. Example of catch-can data from a center pivot with low pressure spray nozzle, mounted at 10 foot intervals and 7 feet above the soil surface.

Water application efficiency accounts for how uniformly the water is applied and can be used for other assessments. If the center pivot owner is trying to decide whether switching to a new sprinkler package would be economical, the change in water application efficiency could be a major factor. If water becomes limited, changing to a system with a higher water application efficiency will provide more useable water to the crop and reduce pumping costs.

To maximize irrigation water use, it must be uniformly applied in the right amount and at the right time. Reaching these objectives requires knowledge of water delivery characteristics, field soils and slopes, and the expected crop water use rates.

Mathematical relationships have been developed to help quantify the amount of applied water that becomes available for plant use.

Water application efficiency refers to the amount of water applied that is stored in the crop root zone. This value is determined by water distribution characteristics, system management, soil conditions, the crop, and weather conditions.

Water application efficiency pertains to an individual irrigation event.

Equation 8.1 is used to determine water application efficiency.

Equation 8.1 E = [Depth of water stored in the rootzone (d ) x 100 Depth of water pumped (d ) ]
where:

E = Average water application efficiency, %
Depth of water stored in the rootzone (d ) = Average depth of water stored in the rootzone, inches Depth of water pumped (d = Average depth of water delivered from source, inches Irrigation efficiency refers to the amount of water removed from the water source that is used by the crop. This value is determined by irrigation system management, water distribution characteristics, crop water use rates, weather and soil conditions. Irrigation efficiency pertains to the use of water for an entire growing season. a s
p
a
s
DRAFT
p)
113
Section 13, Item A.

Depth Stored
The depth of water stored in the root zone can be estimated based on field observation of what happens to the water during an application event. Field observation reports should note if runoff occurs and estimate the amount of runoff. With experience, you’ll begin to know where and when runoff is likely to occur. For example, runoff from center pivot systems will likely occur first near the outside edge of the irrigated area because the water application rate is greatest there. Other factors include low rate soils, steep slopes and lack of plant residue cover.

Another more accurate method is to record the content before and after an irrigation event using one of the methods discussed in Chapter 3, Soil Water. If the hand-feel method is used, the will need to be recorded at enough locations to develop accurate estimates of the water stored in the crop root zone. The depth of water applied is found by subtracting the reading taken before the irrigation.

Equation 8.2 d = [“After” reading – “Before” reading]
Where:
d = Depth of water stored in the rootzone
Example 8.1
A center pivot irrigation system is supplied with enough water to apply 1.1 inches of water to an irrigated area. Soil water content readings recorded before the irrigation event showed an average water content of 3.5 inches in the top 3 feet of soil.

Soil water content readings after the irrigation showed an average of 4.4 inches in the top 3 feet of soil. To find the average depth of water stored in the crop rootzone we subtract the before irrigation reading from the after irrigation reading.

Using Equation 8.2 d = [“After” reading – “Before” reading] d = [ 4.4 inches – 3.5 inches ]
d = 0.9 inches
Depth Pumped
The depth of water pumped can be determined using the procedures presented in Chapter 7, Flow Measurements and Basic Water Calculations. The information needed includes an accurate estimate of the pumping rate in gallons per minute. This information can be recorded using a flow meter installed as part of the system or periodically using an attached flow meter (ultrasonic flow meter, pilot tube type meter, etc.).

The average flow rate can be determined by recording the accumulator reading prior to and after each irrigation event.

Subtracting the reading recorded prior to the irrigation from the reading after the irrigation event will result in the total volume of water pumped. Taking the total volume and dividing by the irrigation time will give the average pumping rate. For this estimate to be accurate, the irrigation time must be accurate to the nearest hour if possible. A more precise record of the total irrigation time will improve the estimate of the pumping flow rate. (The hour meter on the motor or center pivot is accurate enough to estimate the pumping time.) Equations 8.3 and 8.4 are used to make these calculations. The following example shows how to incorporate field data into the equations.

Equation 8.3 Pumping rate = [ Reading 2 – Reading 1 ] / [ Time ] where:

Pumping rate = Water deliver rate, gallons per minute or acre-inches per minute infiltration
soil water
soil water content
s
s
s
s
s
DRAFT
114
Section 13, Item A.

Reading 1 = Totalizer reading before the irrigation event, gallons or acre-inches Reading 2 = Totalizer reading after the irrigation event, gallons or acre-inches Time = Time required to complete the irrigation event, minutes Example 8.2
The meter also has an accumulator at the bottom that registers total gallons pumped. Before the irrigation event, the accumulator reading was 6,553,300 gallons, and after the irrigation event the meter read 10,167,500 gallons. The irrigation event required 77 hours and 15 minutes.

Using Equation 8.3
Pumping rate = [ Reading 2-Reading 1 ] / [ Time ]
Pumping rate = [ 10,167,500 - 6,553,300 ] gallons [(77 hr x 60 min/hr ) + 15 min ] Pumping rate = [ 3,614,200 ] gallons / [ 4620 + 15 ] minutes Pumping rate = 780 gallons per minute
If the accumulator records flow in acre-inches, the same process is used unless the desire is to determine the flow rate in gallons per minute. To convert acre-inches per minute to gallons per minute, multiply the result from Equation 8.3 in acreinches per minute by 27,154 gallons per acre-inch.

To convert the flow rate in gallons per minute to the gross depth of water pumped, we use Equation 8.4. If the result from Equation 8.3 is in acre-inches per minute, the constant 27,154 gallons per acre-inch is not used.

Equation 8.4 d = [flow rate x time ] / [area irrigated x 27,154] where:
d = Depth pumped = Average depth of water pumped, inches Flow rate = Average water delivery rate, gallons per minute Time = Total irrigation time, minutes
Area irrigated = Total irrigated area, acres
27,154 = Conversion factor, gallons per acre-inch or gal / ac-in Example 8.3
Let’s assume that the field area for Example 8.2 was 123 acres. We calculated the flow rate at 780 gallons per minute and the total irrigation time at 4635 minutes. Using Equation 8.3:

Depth pumped (d ) = [ Flow rate x time ] / [ Area irrigated x 27,154 ] Depth pumped (d ) = [ 780 gal/min x 4635 minutes ] [ 123 acres x 27154 gal / ac-in ] Depth pumped (d ) = [ 3,615,300 ]gallons / [ 3,339,942 ] gallons / inch Depth pumped (d ) = 1.08 inches
p
p
p
p
p
p
DRAFT
115
Section 13, Item A.

To complete the calculation of the water application efficiency, use Equation 8.1 to compare the amount of water pumped with the increase in water stored in the crop rootzone.

Example 8.4
From Example 8.1 we found that 0.9 inches of water was stored in the three-foot crop rootzone. From Example 8.3 we found that 1.08 inches of water was pumped from the water source into the center pivot. To find the application efficiency we use Equation 8.1.

E = [ Depth of water stored in the rootzone (d ) x 100 Depth of water pumped (d ) ] E = [ 0.9 inches / 1.08 inches ] x 100
E = 83%
In these examples it was determined that only 83 percent of the water pumped from the irrigation source reached the soil and was usable by the crop. That means that 17 percent of the water was lost during application.

Potential Delivery Losses
The amount of water loss due to irrigation depends of the type of irrigation system — sprinkler or surface. In addition, the magnitude of each type of loss may be different. Let’s begin by listing some major sources of water loss during irrigation. To keep the losses for surface and sprinkler irrigation separate, Table 8.1 lists the potential losses for each type of system.

Table 8.1. Potential sources of water loss during an irrigation event for surface and sprinkler irrigation systems.

Sources of water losses Surface Irrigation Sprinkler irrigation Distribution system Yes
Yes
Air evaporation No Yes
Plant interception No Yes
Soil evaporation Yes Yes
Deep percolation Yes Yes
Runoff Yes Yes
Surface Irrigation Systems
The major losses for surface irrigation systems are deep percolation and surface runoff. These two losses could cause the water application efficiency to be reduced to less than 50 percent if the system is not managed properly. Ways to minimize these losses are discussed in Chapter 11, Furrow Irrigation Management (https://passel2.unl.edu/view/lesson/bda727eb8a5a/11).
a s p
a
a
DRAFT
116
Section 13, Item A.

Another source of water loss is in the distribution system. If the water flows across the head of the field in an open ditch, each foot of ditch loses water to soil infiltration and water surface evaporation. The best way to eliminate these losses is to transport the water through an enclosed pipeline. For many furrow irrigated fields this will require a small pumping plant to overcome the friction loss associated with forcing water through the pipeline.

Surface irrigation implies that surface evaporation will contribute to water loss. One way to limit soil evaporation loss is to wet less of the soil surface. For fields with slopes less than 1 percent, irrigating every other furrow is a viable option. This effectively cuts surface evaporation losses by nearly 50 percent without sacrificing crop production. Irrigating every other furrow also will reduce the amount of water lost to deep percolation and surface runoff.

Pipelines can have losses too. Worn gaskets or loose fitting pipeline connections could produce leaks at each joint. These losses are usually small in comparison to other losses, but by their sheer number could add up to substantial water losses.

This kind of loss is the easiest to eliminate by replacing gaskets.

Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
Sprinkler irrigation systems, especially center pivots, typically have greater water application efficiencies than surface systems. While they may have more potential sources of loss, the magnitude of each loss is generally quite low. Table

8.1 shows that sprinkler irrigation systems may experience loss from all six of the potential water loss sources while surface irrigation systems lose water from only four. This is because most sprinkler irrigation systems spray water into the air to deliver water to the entire soil surface with an upright crop canopy located between the sprinkler and soil.

Developments in sprinkler technology have reduced the amount of water lost between the sprinkler/nozzle and soil surface.

The irrigation time or the accumulated time that water is applied to the crop canopy causes the major loss during sprinkler irrigation events. Applied water evaporates off the leaves of the crop canopy. Thus, the longer water droplets are delivered to the crop, the greater the total evaporation loss. Lowering the sprinkler/nozzle pressure reduces the wetted diameter of the sprinkler/nozzle thus reducing irrigation time and total canopy evaporation losses. In addition, lower wetted diameters reduce water evaporation losses in the air and wind drift losses.

Proper management of sprinkler irrigation systems can greatly reduce deep percolation losses. An irrigation system managed to keep the soil profile completely full at all times will experience some deep percolation losses. This is because the system does not apply water at 100 percent uniformity. Some areas will receive more water than others due to sprinkler pressure differences caused by soil elevation differences. Pressure regulators or flow control nozzles help insure that water delivered to the soil surface is as uniform as possible. Other portions of the field could be affected when wind distorts the water application pattern. Such distortion can be reduced by avoiding operation when winds exceed 10 mph.

How do I Evaluate Losses?
There are two main ways to evaluate water loss during irrigation: 1) take detailed field measurements; and 2) visually estimate losses. In some cases it may be necessary to combine these methods to develop an accurate estimate of where losses occur and how significant they are to the system’s application efficiency. For example, to estimate water losses during irrigation, measure the flow rate of water entering the system with a flow meter. Visually estimate how much of the water is lost to runoff. This amount, however, will not account for other potential losses. Table 8.2 presents the potential magnitude of some of these losses for different irrigation systems. For furrow irrigation systems record how long it takes for the water to reach a certain point in the field or record flow rates into the furrow and how long it takes water to reach the end of the furrow.

When coupled with soil types and furrow slopes, a computer model can be used to estimate how efficiently the water is being applied.

Table 8.2a. Percent irrigation water losses for different furrow irrigation systems.

DRAFT
117
Section 13, Item A.

Type of
irrigation
system
Distribution
system
Air
evaporation
Soil
evaporation
Canopy
evaporation
Deep
percolation
Surface
runoff
Overall
efficiency
Every row 1-5 <1.0 1--5 0.0 10-20 10-35 40-75
W/Surge
valve
1-5 <1.0 1-5 0.0 5-15 5-15 60-85
W/Reuse 1-5 1-2 1-5 0.0 10-20 0 55-90
Siphon
tube
5-10 1-2 1-5 0.0 15-25 15-25 40-75
Alternate
row
1-5 <0.5 1-5 0.0 5-15 10-20 60-85
Table 8.2b. Percent irrigation water losses for different Sprinkler Irrigation systems.

Type of
irrigation
system
Distribution
system
Air
evaporation
Soil
evaporation
Canopy
evaporation
Deep
percolation
Surface
runoff
Overall
efficiency
Handmove <1.0 3-5 1-5 10-15 5-10 0-5 60-80
Solid set <1.0 3-5 1-5 10-15 0-10 0-5 60-85
Traveler <1.0 1-3 1-5 1-5 0-5 5-10 55-75
High
pressure
impact
<0.5 1-3 0-1 1-5 0-5 0-5 70-80
Low
pressure
impact
<0.5 1-3 0-1 1-3 0.5 0-10 75-85
Low
pressure
spray
<0.5 1-3 0-1 1-3 0-5 0-20 70-90
Low
pressure
bubble
<0.5 0.0 0-0.5 0.0 0-5 20-40 60-95
Drip
irrigation
<0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5-30 0.0
DRAFT
70-95
118
Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

ATTACHMENT E
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency
2024 Individual Water Balance Update
Draft 2024 ARSA Detailed Water Balance Calculations
DRAFT
119
Section 13, Item A.
www.hydroscience.com

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT
120
Section 13, Item A.

Water Balance Update - ARSA Storage & Disposal Facilities Scenario 1: Current Flows & Facilities, Uncalibrated
November 2024 By: Bill Slenter/Steven Whittlesey, HydroScience Henderson Reservoir 392.8 ac-ft
Daily Average Wastewater Influent Flow 312,636 gpd Preston Reservoir 235.0 ac-ft 100-YR Multiplier 1.92 unitless Total System 627.8 ac-ft Pan Evap Coefficient 0.75 unitless No. Days 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 Units October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year

CLIMATE INPUTS
Precipitation in 2.30 6.66 6.72 7.35 5.95 5.78 3.96 0.90 0.29 0.19 0.36 0.63 41.11 1.20 3.47 3.50 3.83 3.10 3.01 2.06 0.47 0.15 0.10 0.19 0.33 21.41 2016/2017 WY Precipitation in 6.31 2.55 5.38 15.07 4.73 3.39 4.09 0.53 1.28 0.00 0.02 0.02 43.37 Pan Evaporation in 3.77 1.40 0.72 0.72 1.12 2.32 4.18 7.04 9.43 11.17 9.50 6.51 57.88 3.77 2.10 1.50 1.50 2.20 3.70 5.60 7.40 8.60 9.40 8.30 6.60 60.67 Effective Water Surface Evaporation in 2.83 0.79 0.41 0.41 0.63 1.31 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 42.23 2.83 1.05 0.54 0.54 0.84 1.74 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 43.41

WASTEWATER GENERATION
Facility Wastewater Effluent (ADWF) MG 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.4 114.1 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.4 114.1 I/I Contributions MG 3.0 7.4 7.5 8.1 6.7 6.5 4.7 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.4 49.9 1.9 4.2 4.2 4.6 3.8 3.7 2.8 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 30.1 TOTAL Wastewater Effluent ac-ft 39.1 51.5 52.6 54.6 47.4 49.7 43.2 34.7 31.9 32.6 33.1 33.0 503.2 35.7 41.7 42.7 43.7 38.6 41.2 37.3 33.4 31.5 32.3 32.6 32.0 442.7 2016/2017 WY Effluent Flow Values ac-ft 33.8 34.3 50.6 94.9 81.3 47.6 49.4 29.5 27.3 26.5 33.8 33.8 542.8

WATERSHED CONTRIBUTING AREAS
Precipitation into Henderson Reservoir ac-ft 5.5 16.0 16.2 17.7 14.3 13.9 9.5 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.5 98.9 2.9 8.4 8.4 9.2 7.5 7.2 5.0 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 51.5 Run-off into Henderson Reservoir ac-ft 0.8 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.1 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 14.8 0.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 7.7 Precipitation into Preston Forebay ac-ft 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.9 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 Precipitation into Preston Reservoir ac-ft 3.5 10.0 10.1 11.0 8.9 8.7 5.9 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 61.7 1.8 5.2 5.3 5.7 4.7 4.5 3.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 32.1 Run-off into Preston Reservoir ac-ft 2.7 7.8 7.9 8.6 7.0 6.8 4.7 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 48.3 1.4 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.6 3.5 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 25.2

STORAGE RESERVOIRS
Henderson Reservoir Volume ac-ft 27.5 53.1 122.3 193.0 267.3 329.9 392.7 392.8 315.5 192.1 57.5 27.5 27.5 33.8 84.4 136.3 189.9 235.7 281.9 276.8 196.7 77.0 27.5 27.5 Henderson Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -0.6 -0.5 -0.7 -1.3 -2.9 -7.5 -12.6 -15.6 -14.2 -6.1 -3.0 -1.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.7 -1.4 -3.3 -6.5 -10.9 -12.1 -8.3 -4.4 -3.0 Henderson Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Volume ac-ft 0.0 6.5 25.3 44.2 64.9 81.4 96.8 135.2 132.8 127.0 120.2 34.3 0.0 1.2 10.2 19.7 30.1 38.1 44.9 47.3 42.8 35.7 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 -2.8 -5.0 -6.5 -7.4 -5.9 -3.9 -2.2 -0.8 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 -1.8 -3.4 -5.8 -7.5 -8.5 -6.8 -4.4 Preston Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Beginning Water Storage ac-ft 27.5 59.6 147.6 237.3 332.2 411.3 489.5 528.0 448.3 319.1 177.7 61.8 27.5 35.1 94.7 156.0 220.0 273.8 326.8 324.1 239.5 112.7 27.5 27.5 Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -0.9 -0.7 -0.9 -1.7 -3.9 -10.3 -17.6 -22.1 -21.6 -12.0 -6.9 -100.3 -4.0 -1.5 -1.0 -1.2 -2.2 -5.1 -9.9 -16.7 -19.7 -16.8 -11.2 -7.5 -97.0 Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LAND APPLICATION DISPOSAL DEMANDS
Bowers' Ranch ac-ft -3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.5 -21.5 -27.5 -28.9 -26.1 -18.2 -128.3 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.5 -18.2 -25.3 -27.6 -25.6 -16.3 -118.6 2016/2017 WY Bower's Ranch ac-ft -7.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -24.6 -26.7 -26.7 -26.7 -112.4 Hoskins' Ranch ac-ft -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.3 -19.4 -24.7 -26.0 -23.5 -16.4 -115.5 -1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.2 -16.4 -22.8 -24.9 -23.1 -14.6 -106.7 2016/2017 WY Hoskin's Ranch ac-ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -8.3 -27 -32.8 -26.4 -36.5 -131.0 Castle Oaks Golf Course ac-ft -11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.8 -61.0 -88.4 -98.7 -89.4 -58.6 -419.0 -27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -34.9 -69.3 -91.4 -99.8 -91.2 -63.1 -476.8

RAW WATER MAKE-UP
Blend Raw Water ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.2 14.4 73.6 85.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 39.6 10.4 162.4

MONTHLY STORAGE BALANCE
Total Inflows (including Raw Water) ac-ft 52.0 88.9 90.3 95.8 80.8 82.2 65.4 39.8 33.5 33.6 94.3 50.9 807.5 127.9 61.1 62.4 65.2 56.0 58.1 48.9 36.1 32.3 59.7 73.2 44.3 725.2 Total Outflows ac-ft -19.8 -0.9 -0.7 -0.9 -1.7 -3.9 -26.9 -119.5 -162.7 -175.1 -151.0 -100.1 -763.1 -34.8 -1.5 -1.0 -1.2 -2.2 -5.1 -51.5 -120.6 -159.2 -169.1 -151.2 -101.5 -799.1 Beginning Storage Volume ac-ft 27.5 59.6 147.6 237.3 332.2 411.3 489.5 528.0 448.3 319.1 177.7 121.0 27.5 120.6 180.2 241.6 305.6 359.3 412.3 409.7 325.1 198.2 88.8 10.9 Change in Water Volume ac-ft 32.1 88.0 89.7 94.9 79.1 78.2 38.5 -79.7 -129.2 -141.5 -56.6 -49.1 93.1 59.6 61.3 64.0 53.8 53.0 -2.6 -84.6 -126.9 -109.4 -78.0 16.6 Final Storage Volume ac-ft 59.6 147.6 237.3 332.2 411.3 489.5 528.0 448.3 319.1 177.7 121.0 71.9 120.6 180.2 241.6 305.6 359.3 412.3 409.7 325.1 198.2 88.8 10.9 27.5 Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 528.0 172.0 Mgal Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 412.3 134.4 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 0.0 0.0 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 110.9 36.1 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 99.8 32.5 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 187.7 61.2 Mgal

WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOW MAX STORAGE CAPACITIES OTHER INPUTS 100-YEAR ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD

Page 1 of 3 ends

DRAFT
121
Section 13, Item A.

Water Balance Update - ARSA Storage & Disposal Facilities Scenario 2: Current Flows & Facilities, Calibrated
November 2024 By: Bill Slenter/Steven Whittlesey, HydroScience Henderson Reservoir 392.8 ac-ft
Daily Average Wastewater Influent Flow 312,636 gpd Preston Reservoir 235.0 ac-ft 100-YR Multiplier 1.92 unitless Total System 627.8 ac-ft Pan Evap Coefficient 0.75 unitless No. Days 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 Units October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year

CLIMATE INPUTS
Precipitation in 5.98 2.42 5.10 14.28 4.48 3.21 3.88 0.50 1.21 0.00 0.02 0.02 41.11 1.20 3.47 3.50 3.83 3.10 3.01 2.06 0.47 0.15 0.10 0.19 0.33 21.41 2016/2017 WY Precipitation in 6.31 2.55 5.38 15.07 4.73 3.39 4.09 0.53 1.28 0.00 0.02 0.02 43.37 Pan Evaporation in 3.77 1.40 0.72 0.72 1.12 2.32 4.18 7.04 9.43 11.17 9.50 6.51 57.88 3.77 2.10 1.50 1.50 2.20 3.70 5.60 7.40 8.60 9.40 8.30 6.60 60.67 Effective Water Surface Evaporation in 2.83 0.79 0.41 0.41 0.63 1.31 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 42.23 2.83 1.05 0.54 0.54 0.84 1.74 3.14 5.28 7.07 8.38 7.13 4.88 43.41

WASTEWATER GENERATION
Facility Wastewater Effluent (ADWF) MG 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.4 114.1 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.4 114.1 I/I Contributions MG 6.7 3.1 7.3 18.8 6.5 4.9 5.8 1.2 1.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 58.5 1.9 4.2 5.3 5.7 4.8 4.7 3.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 34.9 TOTAL Wastewater Effluent ac-ft 50.3 38.4 52.1 87.4 46.9 44.9 46.5 33.5 34.7 32.0 32.0 31.1 529.8 35.7 41.7 46.0 47.2 41.6 44.1 39.5 33.4 31.5 32.3 32.6 32.0 457.4 2016/2017 WY Effluent Flow Values ac-ft 33.8 34.3 50.6 94.9 81.3 47.6 49.4 29.5 27.3 26.5 33.8 33.8 542.8

WATERSHED CONTRIBUTING AREAS
Precipitation into Henderson Reservoir ac-ft 14.4 5.8 12.3 34.4 10.8 7.7 9.3 1.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.9 2.9 8.4 8.4 9.2 7.5 7.2 5.0 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 51.5 Run-off into Henderson Reservoir ac-ft 2.2 0.9 1.8 5.2 1.6 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 7.7 Precipitation into Preston Forebay ac-ft 1.0 0.4 0.8 2.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 Precipitation into Preston Reservoir ac-ft 9.0 3.6 7.6 21.4 6.7 4.8 5.8 0.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.7 1.8 5.2 5.3 5.7 4.7 4.5 3.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 32.1 Run-off into Preston Reservoir ac-ft 7.0 2.8 6.0 16.8 5.3 3.8 4.6 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 1.4 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.6 3.5 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 25.2

STORAGE RESERVOIRS
Henderson Reservoir Volume ac-ft 27.5 74.5 118.9 184.6 310.9 368.8 392.8 392.8 313.2 195.2 59.3 27.5 27.5 33.8 84.4 139.5 196.6 245.3 294.3 291.2 210.9 90.6 27.5 27.5 Henderson Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -1.4 -3.1 -7.5 -12.6 -15.5 -14.3 -6.2 -3.0 -1.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.8 -1.4 -3.4 -6.7 -11.2 -12.6 -9.1 -4.4 -3.0 Henderson Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Volume ac-ft 0.0 17.0 23.6 38.0 78.4 90.6 125.4 166.1 160.8 155.5 145.3 55.8 0.0 3.4 13.2 23.0 33.6 41.6 48.5 51.4 48.5 44.2 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 -1.1 -3.4 -6.7 -8.8 -10.2 -8.3 -3.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -1.6 -3.0 -4.2 -4.8 -3.8 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Beginning Water Storage ac-ft 27.5 91.5 142.5 222.6 389.3 459.4 518.2 558.9 474.0 350.7 204.7 83.3 27.5 37.3 97.6 162.5 230.2 286.9 342.9 342.6 259.4 134.8 27.5 27.5 Total Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -1.0 -0.7 -0.9 -1.9 -4.2 -10.8 -19.3 -24.3 -24.5 -14.5 -6.1 -109.9 -1.8 -0.8 -0.7 -1.1 -2.2 -5.0 -9.7 -15.4 -17.4 -12.9 -4.4 -3.0 -74.4 Total Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

RAW WATER MAKE-UP
Blend Raw Water ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.7 2.5 83.2 87.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.9 32.8 14.8 188.3

MONTHLY STORAGE BALANCE
Total Inflows (including Raw Water) ac-ft 83.9 52.0 80.7 167.5 72.0 62.9 68.2 36.3 41.5 32.0 112.8 33.7 843.6 130.1 61.1 65.6 68.7 58.9 61.0 51.0 36.1 32.3 85.8 66.4 48.7 765.8 Total Outflows ac-ft -19.8 -1.0 -0.6 -0.9 -1.9 -4.2 -27.5 -121.2 -164.9 -178.1 -153.5 -99.2 -772.7 -32.6 -0.8 -0.7 -1.0 -2.2 -5.0 -51.3 -119.3 -156.9 -165.2 -144.4 -97.0 -776.5 Beginning Storage Volume ac-ft 27.5 91.5 142.5 222.6 389.3 459.4 518.2 558.9 474.0 350.7 204.7 163.9 27.5 125.0 185.4 250.3 317.9 374.7 430.6 430.4 347.2 222.6 143.1 65.2 Change in Water Volume ac-ft 64.1 51.0 80.1 166.7 70.2 58.7 40.7 -84.8 -123.3 -146.1 -40.7 -65.5 97.5 60.3 64.9 67.7 56.7 56.0 -0.2 -83.2 -124.6 -79.4 -78.0 -48.4 Final Storage Volume ac-ft 91.5 142.5 222.6 389.3 459.4 518.2 558.9 474.0 350.7 204.7 163.9 98.4 125.0 185.4 250.3 317.9 374.7 430.6 430.4 347.2 222.6 143.1 65.2 16.8 Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 558.9 182.1 Mgal Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 430.6 140.3 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 0.0 0.0 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 98.5 32.1 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 68.9 22.5 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 183.6 59.8 Mgal

WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOW MAX STORAGE CAPACITIES OTHER INPUTS 100-YEAR ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD

Page 2 of 3 ends

DRAFT
122
Section 13, Item A.

Water Balance Update - ARSA Storage & Disposal Facilities Scenario 3: Future Flows & Facilities, Calibrated
November 2024 By: Bill Slenter/Steven Whittlesey, HydroScience Henderson Reservoir 392.8 ac-ft I/I Reduction Factor 8.18% unitless Daily Average Wastewater Influent Flow 319,420 gpd Preston Reservoir 235.0 ac-ft 100-YR Multiplier 1.92 unitless Total System 627.8 ac-ft Pan Evap Coefficient 0.75 unitless No. Days 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 Units October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year October November December January February March April May June July August September Water
Year

WASTEWATER GENERATION
Facility Wastewater Effluent (ADWF) MG 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.9 8.9 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.9 9.6 116.6 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.9 8.9 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.6 9.9 9.9 9.6 116.6 I/I Contributions MG 6.2 2.9 6.7 17.2 6.0 4.5 5.3 1.4 2.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 55.0 1.8 3.9 4.9 5.2 4.4 4.3 3.2 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 33.2 TOTAL Wastewater Effluent ac-ft 49.3 38.3 50.9 83.31 45.8 44.3 45.6 34.7 36.2 32.9 33.0 32.0 526.5 35.8 41.2 45.3 46.5 40.9 43.6 39.2 34.6 32.5 33.3 33.6 33.1 459.7 2016/2017 WY Effluent Flow Values ac-ft 33.8 34.3 50.6 94.9 81.3 47.6 49.4 29.5 27.3 26.5 33.8 33.8 542.8

STORAGE RESERVOIRS
Henderson Reservoir Volume ac-ft 27.5 73.5 117.7 182.2 304.4 361.3 392.8 392.8 314.4 197.9 62.9 27.5 27.5 34.0 84.2 138.6 194.9 243.0 291.5 288.2 209.0 89.9 27.5 27.5 Henderson Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 -1.4 -3.0 -7.5 -12.6 -15.5 -14.4 -6.4 -3.0 -1.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.8 -1.4 -3.4 -6.6 -11.1 -12.6 -9.1 -4.4 -3.0 Henderson Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Volume ac-ft 0.0 17.0 23.6 38.0 78.4 90.6 117.3 157.3 152.3 147.2 137.3 52.4 0.0 3.4 13.2 23.0 33.6 41.6 48.5 51.4 48.5 44.2 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 -1.1 -3.2 -6.5 -8.5 -9.9 -8.1 -2.9 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.8 -1.6 -3.0 -4.2 -4.8 -3.8 0.0 0.0 Preston Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Beginning Water Storage ac-ft 27.5 90.5 141.3 220.2 382.8 452.0 510.1 550.1 466.7 345.1 200.2 79.9 27.5 37.4 97.3 161.5 228.4 284.6 340.0 339.6 257.6 134.1 27.5 27.5 Total Reservoir Evaporation ac-ft -1.8 -1.0 -0.7 -0.9 -1.9 -4.2 -10.7 -19.1 -24.0 -24.3 -14.4 -6.0 -108.8 -1.8 -0.8 -0.7 -1.1 -2.2 -5.0 -9.7 -15.3 -17.3 -12.9 -4.4 -3.0 -74.2 Total Reservoir Percolation ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

RAW WATER MAKE-UP
Blend Raw Water ac-ft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.2 77.5 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 31.7 15.9 188.8

MONTHLY STORAGE BALANCE
Total Inflows (including Raw Water) ac-ft 82.9 51.8 79.5 163.5 71.0 62.3 67.4 37.5 43.1 32.9 110.4 32.4 834.7 130.5 60.7 64.9 67.9 58.3 60.4 50.8 37.2 33.3 87.1 66.4 50.9 768.6 Total Outflows ac-ft -19.8 -1.0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.8 -4.2 -27.3 -121.0 -164.6 -177.9 -153.4 -99.1 -771.7 -32.6 -0.8 -0.7 -1.0 -2.2 -5.0 -51.3 -119.2 -156.8 -165.2 -144.4 -97.0 -776.2 Beginning Storage Volume ac-ft 27.5 90.5 141.3 220.2 382.8 452.0 510.1 550.1 466.7 345.1 200.2 157.2 27.5 125.3 185.2 249.5 316.4 372.5 428.0 427.5 345.5 222.0 143.9 66.0 Change in Water Volume ac-ft 63.0 50.8 78.9 162.6 69.1 58.1 40.0 -83.4 -121.6 -144.9 -43.0 -66.7 97.9 59.9 64.2 66.9 56.1 55.5 -0.5 -82.0 -123.5 -78.1 -78.0 -46.2 Final Storage Volume ac-ft 90.5 141.3 220.2 382.8 452.0 510.1 550.1 466.7 345.1 200.2 157.2 90.5 125.3 185.2 249.5 316.4 372.5 428.0 427.5 345.5 222.0 143.9 66.0 19.8 Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 550.1 179.3 Mgal Maximum Seasonal Storage Used (ac-ft) 428.0 139.4 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 0.0 0.0 Mgal Henderson Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 101.3 33.0 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 77.7 25.3 Mgal Preston Unutilized Capacity (ac-ft) 183.6 59.8 Mgal

WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOW MAX STORAGE CAPACITIES OTHER INPUTS 100-YEAR ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION RETURN PERIOD

Page 3 of 3 ends

DRAFT
123
Section 13, Item A.

Sutter Creek City CouncilDecember 2, 2024

Sutter Creek City Council
December 2, 2024