RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 16, 2018 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, RESOURCE AGENCY LATE FILING, AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION ATTACHMENT D

Transcription

1 RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 1, 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, RESOURCE AGENCY LATE FILING, AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION ATTACHMENT D MODELING RESULTS FOR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) PROPOSED INSTREAM FLOWS AND RELATED MEASURES NMFSREA PROJECT OPERATIONS MODELING GENERATION PRODUCTION WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS DON PEDRO RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE MODELING LOWER TUOLUMNE RIVER TEMPERATURE MODELING

2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

3 Modeling Results for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project Operations Modeling Generation Production Water Supply Impacts Don Pedro Reservoir Temperature Modeling Lower Tuolumne River Temperature Modeling 1

4 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project Operations Model

5 Summary Description of Modeling Inputs Base Case is the current FERC required minimum flows and reservoir operations simulated to represent the Districts general operational rules consistent with those implemented historically over the period of record. Under Base Case conditions, the Districts are responsible for meeting 1% of the FERC license minimum flows. For a complete description of the Base Case, see W&AR- documentation provided in the AFLA. NMFSREA represents the series of instream flows and related measures proposed by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as documented in their response to Ready for Environmental Analysis 1 and with CCSF Hetch Hetchy system operations contributing 1.7 percent of the required releases greater than the current FERC license flows. The modeled contents of the NMFS proposal are summarized below. 1. In Section 1.1 of their proposal, NMFS defined the following five Water Year Types (WYTs) to be implemented in the determination of their proposed instream flow requirements and were implemented in the modeling as follows: a. The WYTs are based on the DWR Bulletin using the % exceedance estimate of annual unimpaired flow for the Tuolumne River at the La Grange gage. WYTs are to change within 1 day of the issuance of the DWR Bulletin (modeled as changing within 1 day of the th of the month B- issuance) for the months of February through May. The May WYT is retained until the following February. Threshold values for defining the WYTs are shown in Table 1 below. For modeling purposes, when the B- value is less than 3 TAF, an Extra Critical Dry (ECD) WYT is implemented which has minimum flows without pulsing, since NMFS proposed no specific recommendations for this situation. Table 1 Water Year Type Definition Table. In Section 1. of their proposal, NMFS defined a series of instream flow measures with compliance points at both the La Grange gage (USGS 19 TUOLUMNE R BL LAGRANGE DAM NR LAGRANGE CA) and a proposed flow gage just downstream of the infiltration galleries (IGs) near RM. Table below shows the proposed minimum instream flows at both compliance points. The instream flows in Table were implemented as proposed without accounting for accretions or depletions that may occur 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 9, 1. 3

6 between the locations. When the difference between the proposed flows at the two locations allowed the IGs to operate, this occurred up to the flows outlined in the District s Preferred Plan (DPP-1r). During operations modeling, IGs were operated July 1 -October 1 at flow rates of cfs (W, AN, BN), or cfs (D, CD). There were no IG operations in ECD WYT. Table La Grange Gage and Below IG Minimum Instream Flow Requirement 3. In addition to the instream flows, in Section 1.3 of their proposal, NMFS also defined a series of pulse flow volumes. a. The NMFS fall pulse flow volumes above their minimum instream flows are shown in Table 3. These pulses are modeled to start on October 7 and complete on or before October of each WYT except for ECD. b. The NMFS spring pulse flows above their minimum instream flows are shown in Table. The spring pulse occur during the February to June period, and will be released as measured below IGs. Note: Table volumes match the February to

7 June volumes in Table so there was no additional modeling actions required for this portion of the NMFS proposal. For ECD WYT, 3 cfs is maintained yearround. Table 3 La Grange Gage and Below IG Minimum Fall Pulse Flow Volumes Table Below IG Total February to June Volumes for Potential Reshaping. In section 1.7 of their proposal, NMFS also proposed both ramping rates and pulse flow recession rates. These flows are modeled as written in the NMFS proposal: a. Up Ramping: i. Up ramp rate of cfs/day change measured at both compliance points. b. Down Ramping: i. When flows below La Grange Dam are below, cfs during April 1 to July 31 in W, AN and BN WYTs, flows are reduced by a maximum of 7% of the previous -hour average flow, unless required due to flood control operations or emergency. ii. When flows below La Grange Dam are below, cfs during April 1- June 3 in D WYTs, flows are reduced by a maximum of 1% of the previous -hour average flow, unless required due to flood control operations or emergency. iii. Otherwise, maximum down-ramping rate of cfs per -hour period applies. iv. Operations model did not perform any ramping for ECD WYT.. The Contingency for Temperature Management Objectives NMFS proposed are not evaluated as part of this modeling analysis as these were not specified as being requirements.. No multiple dry year contingencies are modeled. The NMFS proposal references a Contingency for Multiple Dry Water Years in section 1. of their proposal, but the text does not provide a specific plan.

8 Districts Response to NOAA Comment for use of Tuolumne River Water Year Unimpaired Flow for Designating Minimum Flow Requirements. In NOAA s January 9, 1 comments and recommendations 1 it has specifically recommended in Section 1.1 (Page 1) a year type classification for minimum flows. The year type classification is to be determined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin median estimates of annual unimpaired flow at La Grange and will be categorized as follows: NOAA recommendation would require the Districts to modify the water year type within one day of the issuance by DWR of the Bulletin in February, March, April and May, and after its issuance in May maintain the May s designation through February of the following year. NOAA recommends default minimum flow schedules in Section 1. (Page ) associated with the year type designations stated above. The schedules correspond generally to monthly or midmonth flow regimes. NOAA recognizes the potential occurrence of consecutive dry and critical dry years in Section 1. stating: In the event that three or more, consecutive, dry and/or critically dry water years occur, operations of the Projects would be modified. By March 1 of the second or subsequent dry and/or critically dry water year, the Districts shall notify the Resource Agencies of the Districts concerns. By May 1 of the same year, the Districts shall consult with the Resource Agencies to discuss the Projects operational plans to manage the drought conditions. If the parties specified above agree on a revised operational plan (Drought Plan), then the Districts may begin implementing the Drought Plan as soon as it files documentation of the agreement with FERC. If unanimous agreement is not reached, then the Districts shall submit the revised Drought Plan (that incorporates as many of the Resource Agencies' issues as possible and any assenting and dissenting comments) to FERC, and implement the proposed Drought Plan upon FERC s approval. (Page ) The Districts respond to several elements of NOAA s recommendations as being incomplete, illinformed and irresponsible. A Water Year Type Classification based on water year unimpaired flow is a poor indicator for water supply commitment and management. 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 9, 1.

9 NOAA s recommendation for use of water year unimpaired runoff as the classification of water year type is not advised for a metric, and would be potentially irresponsible for the management of available water supply. This topic is not new to the discussion of resource management and the establishment of regulatory requirements for California streams. Nor is it new to FERC from the viewpoint of the Districts. The Districts have previously commented to FERC on the metric of a minimum instream flow requirement determined by a year type classification based on water year (October-September cumulative volume) unimpaired flow. In the Merced River FERC proceedings Merced Irrigation District provided substantive comments and evidence to FERC countering a similar metric proposed by the Resource Agencies for the Merced River. The Districts responded by comments (M/TID May 7, 1) echoing similar concerns of the metric s non-consistency with basin-wide coordination of flows, accuracy of the determination of current year available water supplies, and the metric s exclusion of a component to recognize sequential dry and critical water conditions. The Districts support FERC s current direction shown in the Merced River s FEIS to use a -- type metric for the water year classification process. The Districts note to FERC that the Districts have been providing analysis and results to FERC regarding proposed flow schedules and actions based on the -- approach to water year typing for several years, and the -- year typing is currently the standard for current Tuolumne River requirements. The discussion is not simply one of the metric to determine year type. The discussion must also be inclusive of the schedules and volume of water associated with each year type. We take affront to a late proposal to change the fundamental element of the year type designation combined with a vague, undefined consecutive dry year reassessment. Such an approach should have been vetted collaboratively with us prior to its submittal to FERC by NOAA. Specifically regarding the recommendations of NOAA, NOAA cited several downsides of using the -- classification metric. One is that it is based on hydrologic conditions in three watersheds (Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced), rather than being specific to the Tuolumne. The value of a watershed-specific water year type outweighs the convenience of having the same water year type designation in all three major San Joaquin tributaries in any given year. (Page ) NOAA did not provide any analysis regarding differences in year typing of an individual stream using its specific runoff parameters within a -- classification metric or the currently utilized -- basin-wide classification metric. There would be few, if any differences in year typing between an individual stream year typing and the basin-wide year typing. Recognizing no substantive differences occur the advantage of having a common methodology can only be helpful within the San Joaquin River basin. Previous years, like 199, have been classified as critically dry by the -- Index have actually had more runoff in the Tuolumne than some years classified as dry due to the difference in conditions between the watersheds. (Page ) 7

10 The runoff of 199 was not extremely critical; however, within the critically dry sequence of years 197 through 199 the -- classification metric determined the year to be critical. This phenomenon has nothing to do with NOAA s statement that due to the difference in conditions between the watersheds but has everything to do with the choice of metrics to determine year type. The -- Index also places great emphasis on April-July runoff (the in --). Although the Spring snowmelt timeframe is when the majority of runoff occurs, rain events occurring in the Winter will become a more significant part of annual runoff under an increasingly warmer climate. Therefore, NMFS believes the estimated median value for annual unimpaired flow at La Grange Dam to determine water year type is a better indicator of hydrologic conditions in the Tuolumne River. (Page ) Here, NOAA seems to be arguing for use of the unimpaired flow metric over the -- approach. However, citing to the phenomenon of a year s runoff potentially occurring more in the period prior to April July is actually providing additional argument for support of the - - metric in being a better reflection of available water for the ensuing year. As describe in our comments of May 1 the use of the entire year s runoff is still flawed in that it does not account for the pattern in which the year s runoff occurs. The weighting of a year s temporal distribution of runoff (within the -- metric) recognizes that some of a year s runoff may not be effective in meeting the upcoming year s water supply needs, including instream flow requirements. The portion of the runoff cited by NOAA as potentially increasing falls into the temporal period of annual runoff that may be ineffective as it may additionally spill from the reservoir due to reservoir flood control constraints. Thus, NOAA s rationally actually bodes against the use of its proposed metric. The Districts strongly urge FERC to reject NOAA s proposal and others advocating an alternative year type classification method other than a -- metric. We provide in Table a representation of an anticipated distribution of year types assuming the water year unimpaired runoff classification metric and the basin-wide -- metric. The years (19-17) have been ranked ordered individually for each the SJR Index -- metric and the WY Unimpaired Total metric, with the associated year type classification highlighted for each metric. The year type classification for the SJR -- metric is consistent with methodology developed for State Water Resources Control Board Decision 11. The methodology was developed in an open collaborative process involving many agencies and water districts including California Fish and Wildlife, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Water Resources. Notes and findings of the workgroup are available. We have highlighted and noted in Table the years which the workgroup specifically called out to be critical either individually or due to their inclusion within periods of stressed water supply. We have extrapolated their call out of years to include additional years post their analysis period we consider critical. Table also shows the classification of years using NOAA s classification metric. For both the SJR Index and the WY Unimpaired metric we have illustrated results assuming hindsight knowledge of the year s runoff parameters. We discuss the real-time challenges of forecasting runoff later in these comments. As seen in the side-by-side display of results specific years sensibly called out, and determined to be critical under the -- metric do not always get

11 determined as critical under the WY Unimpaired Total metric. Specifically the years 193, 199, 1991 and 13 do not classify as critical. As discussed above, this result is due to simply using the WY Unimpaired Total metric which does not include components to account for previous years or current year s distribution of hydrologic conditions. Table. Illustrations of Water Year Classification SJR WY SJR WY Index Year Unimpaired Year Index Year Unimpaired Year Year Class Year Total Class Year Class Year Total Class 193 7, 17,7 19, ,7 17, 193,3 1971, 9 1,77 199, ,7 19, 3 1,3 199, , 3, , NOAA,9 19 3, 19,73 BN 19 1, BN 193,9 11 3,9 9, , 199, 193 3, 19,7 1,3 11, 199 3,3 NOAA 19,9 19 1,9 19, 3,3 Wet 19, ,1 197, ,17 199, ,9 19,1 19 3,13 19, ,3 19, ,1 191, 19 1,3,7 19 3, ,1 1,3 19,73 Wet 19,99 19,3 19 1,9 197,3 19,9 1, , 19,,973, ,33 19,3 197,9 19, ,9 19,1 19,73 19, ,1 NOAA 191, 19,3 19,1 1,1 Dry 19,3 19,,11 Dry 19 1, , , 199,9 19 1, 1997,13 191,9 1,7 19 1,11 199, 191,7 1939, ,1 193, 19,71 19, , ,93 193,37 197,13 1 1, ,9 19,3,1 13 1, , 199,3 NOAA 197, ,9 19 3, 197,39 AN, 191 1, 193 3,7 19,13 193,1 19 1, 19 3,9 193,1 199, 19 1, ,9 193,11 199, ,91 193,13 7 1, ,9 1999, , ,73 19, , ,9 197, , ,7 193,1 19 1, 199 NOAA 1 3, AN 197, ,71 C CD 193 3,9 1973, , , , , , , , ,31 1, , ,3 19 1, , , ,9 NOAA 19 1, ,13 1 1,1 BN 191 1, , , , ,73 1 1,3 1 1, , 193 1, , BN 19 1, Years recognized in Roos (1991) as critical, or within critical periods of water supply Additional years that may have been included, post-199 analysis 9

12 The Contingency for Multiple Dry Water Years allowance is ambiguous and uncertain. Although NOAA has proposed a consideration of flow requirement modification during consecutive drought years, the proposal and outcome is ill-described. We are confused by the triggering of the circumstance occurring [I]n the event that three or more, consecutive, dry and/or critically dry water years occur, operations of the Projects would be modified[.] and the required action [B]y March 1 of the second or subsequent dry and/or critically dry water year, the Districts shall notify the Resource Agencies of the Districts concerns[.] And, further confused with [B]y May 1 of the same year, the Districts shall consult with the Resource Agencies to discuss the Projects operational plans to manage the drought conditions[.] Our confusion lies in the timing offered. Is the potential for modified requirements triggered by entering the second or third year of dry or critical water conditions? Further, to make an alternative Drought Plan effective to stressed water conditions specific time frames for submittals, response and approvals are necessary. We note that a specific, defined mechanism (metric) to determine the applicability of a contingency period and its requirements could work in combination with NOAA s year type classification metric to result in similar results of a -- year type classification metric. NOAA s Year Type Classification is incomplete. The Districts note that NOAA s proposed classification designations (NOAA s Table 1, Page 1) do not identify the year type associated with a water year unimpaired runoff less than 3 TAF. For the Districts analysis of NOAA s recommendation we have assumed NOAA intended to classify these years as critically dry (critical). Risk of Forecast. NOAA has recommended use of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin median estimates of annual unimpaired flow at La Grange beginning February and updated thereafter through May for year type classification. The Districts respond that the use of the median estimate of annual unimpaired flow in either NOAA s recommended metric of the Districts recommended -- metric is irresponsible, potentially leading to poor water management. A higher percent exceedance forecast in early months is necessary to avoid over commitment of flow to the river and unreasonable risk to the water supply for both the river and the Districts water deliveries. From a standpoint of the river, the risk occurs in overestimating runoff early in the year, committing and releasing that runoff to the river (potentially from storage), being wrong in the forecast and decreasing the availability of water for later, potentially more beneficial purposes in the river. We note that the Central Valley Project (CVP) in California which is being operated for ESA concerns considers a 9% exceedance risk within it resource allocation procedures. It is impossible to avoid error by using forecast information in any metric; however, the downside consequences due to the magnitude of the error should help guide the selection of an 1

13 appropriate level of risk (exceedance). That consideration and the nexus of year type classification thresholds and the beginning date for the year type application and corresponding flow schedules should be considered together in defining a workable, effective flow requirement. As an example of the sensitivity of the NOAA proposed flow schedule and year type classification metric to early forecast error, consider a February in which the forecast classified a year to be wet and thus required the immediate release of the wet year schedule for February (3, cfs). If a subsequent forecast reclassifies the year simply one lower in classification (above normal), over 1 TAF of water would have already been irretrievably released during February. That water may have been better left in the reservoir for later beneficial purposes in the river or for District diversion needs. Additional consideration also needs to be given to the practical circumstance of the DWR forecast. This current year of 1 illustrates how the DWR February 1 forecast could provide poor guidance as to forecast runoff for the year. DWR s 1 st of Month forecast procedures involve using actual on the ground water content data gathered for cited date of forecast (or very close to the date of forecast). Then, in this instance DWR incorporates metrological parameters into its forecast procedures to project (forecast) runoff for the remainder of the year, including precipitation assumed to occur during February. The DWR forecast was issued February, and was considered outdated at that time since no precipitation had occurred to that date in February, and no precipitation was forecasted to occur into the immediate future. An alternative forecast of runoff provided by the River Forecast Center (RFC-NOAA) provided different guidance with its model projecting literally more than TAF difference in water year runoff at that date, the difference in projections partially explained by RFC using a model that updates conditions daily. The purpose of the illustration is to point out the differences that can occur in using specifically defined forecasted information and the challenges that arise when attempting to craft specific criteria upon with to operate the Project. When crafting terms and conditions to which the Project will operate requires consideration of all forecast information available including updates of information as it becomes available. 11

14 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project Operations Model Generation Production Summary

15 Table 1. Average Generation by Month in MWh for the Period of Record Don Pedro La Grange REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case January,33 1,9 % 1,7,1 137% February 1, 3,9 7% 1,93,7 1% March 7,39 7,37 1%,, 13% April,9,1 1%,9, 13% May 3,7 1,997 1%,9,9 113% June 1,71 79,19 9% 1,3,3 17% July 3,7 77, 93% 1,3,1 3% August,,773 97% 97,7 7% September 31,91 3,11 97% 7, 37% October 1,7 7,99 % 1,39, 1% November 9,3 11,31 119% 1,31, 1% December 1,1 1,3 1% 1,1,1 1% Total,97,93 11% 1,7,7 1% 13

16 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project operations model generation break down by each instream flow component of NMFSREA. 1

17 Break Down of Average Monthly Generation in MWh by Instream Flow Component Table. NMFSREA Proposed Instream Flows (Minimum Release + Pulse + Recession/Down Ramp + Up Ramp) Don Pedro La Grange REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case January,33 1,9 % 1,7,1 137% February 1, 3,9 7% 1,93,7 1% March 7,39 7,37 1%,, 13% April,9,1 1%,9, 13% May 3,7 1,997 1%,9,9 113% June 1,71 79,19 9% 1,3,3 17% July 3,7 77, 93% 1,3,1 3% August,,773 97% 97,7 7% September 31,91 3,11 97% 7, 37% October 1,7 7,99 % 1,39, 1% November 9,3 11,31 119% 1,31, 1% December 1,1 1,3 1% 1,1,1 1% Total,97,93 11% 1,7,7 1% Table 3. Table Minus Up Ramp (Minimum Release + Pulse + Recession/Down Ramp) Don Pedro La Grange REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case January,33,3 1% 1,7, % February 1, 3,3 7% 1,93,1 11% March 7,39 7,77 1%,,7 13% April,9,3 1%,9,9 13% May 3,7 11,3 %,9,9 113% June 1,71 79,7 97% 1,3,3 17% July 3,7 77, 9% 1,3,1 3% August,,9 97% 97,7 7% September 31,91 3,73 9% 7, 37% October 1,7 7,99 % 1,39, 1% November 9,3 11,3 11% 1,31, 1% December 1,1 1, 1% 1,1,1 1% Total,97 1,11 11% 1,7, 13% Difference from Table -, - Percent difference from Table % % 1

18 Break Down of Average Monthly Generation in MWh by Instream Flow Component Table. Table 3 Minus Down Ramp (Minimum Release + Pulse) Don Pedro La Grange REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case January,33 1, % 1,7,13 137% February 1, 3,7 7% 1,93 1,97 117% March 7,39 7, 1%,,3 13% April,9,9 1%,9,9 13% May 3,7 1,1 %,9,1 19% June 1,71 7,3 % 1,3,37 1% July 3,7 7, 9% 1,3,1 3% August, 3, 9% 97,7 7% September 31,91 31,13 97% 7, 37% October 1,7,7 9% 1,39, 1% November 9,3 11,39 119% 1,31, 1% December 1,1 1,73 11% 1,1,1 1% Total,97 1,7 1% 1,7 7,11 1% Difference from Table 3 -,9-1 Percent difference from Table 3 % -1% Table. Minimum Required Flows Don Pedro La Grange REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case REA Base Case NMFSREA % of Base Case January,33 1,7 % 1,7,13 13% February 1, 31,93 7% 1,93 1,9 117% March 7,39 7,33 1%,,3 13% April,9,1 1%,9,9 13% May 3,7 1,13 %,9,1 19% June 1,71 7,7 7% 1,3,37 1% July 3,7, 9% 1,3, 3% August, 3,7 99% 97,7 7% September 31,91 31,3 9% 7, 37% October 1,7, 9% 1,39, 1% November 9,3 11,797 3% 1,31,1 1% December 1,1 1, 13% 1,1,1 1% Total,97 11,1 1% 1,7 7,17 11% Difference from Table -, -19 Percent difference from Table -1% -1% 1

19 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project Operations Model Water Supply Impacts Summary 17

20 Table. TID and MID Water Supply Deliveries (TAF = Thousand Acre Feet) REA Base Case NMFSREA WY SJI Full Demand % of Base % of (TAF) TAF % of Full TAF Case Full 7-77 Drought 1,3 1,9 9% 1,3 % 7% 7-9 Drought,19,9 %, 7% 77% 1971 BN 7 7 1% 7 1% 1% 197 D 9 9 1% 7 79% 79% 1973 AN 1% 1 9% 9% 197 W 1% 1% 1% 197 W % 73 1% 1% 197 C % 7 79% 79% 1977 C % 91% 7% 197 W % 7 99% 97% 1979 AN 7 7 1% 7 1% 1% 19 W 1% 1% 1% 191 D % 91 1% 1% 19 W % 77 1% 1% 193 W % 73 1% 1% 19 AN 9 9 1% 9 1% 1% 19 D 9 9 1% 71 79% 79% 19 W % 9% 9% 197 C 9 9 1% 7 79% 79% 19 C 79 9% % 77% 199 C 7 % 9 7% 77% 199 C % 73 7% 77% 1991 C 1 77 % 7 7% 77% 199 C 7 77% 7 1% 77% 1993 W 3 7 9% 1% 9% 199 C 3 3 1% 7 79% 79% 199 W % 7 9% 9% 199 W 1 1 1% 1 1% 1% 1997 W % 91 1% 1% 199 W % 77 1% 1% 1999 AN 9 9 1% 9 1% 1% AN % 79 1% 1% 1 D 1% 7 1% 1% D 9 9 1% 79 79% 79% 3 BN 1% 99 79% 79% D 9 9 1% 731 7% 7% W 7 7 1% 9% 9% W 3 3 1% 3 1% 1% 7 C 9 9 1% 71 7% 7% C 1% 7 77% 77% 9 BN % 9% 9% 1 AN 1% 1% 1% 11 W 3 3 1% 3 1% 1% D 9 9 1% 9 1% 1% Average Total 9% % 9% 3,19 3,33 9% 3,7 93% 9% 1

21 Table 7. SFPUC Water Supply and San Joaquin Pipeline Deliveries to Bay Area in Thousand Acre Feet Under Current and Estimated Future Demand in Year of MGD. REA Base Case (Current Demand) NMFSREA (Current Demand) Average Total WY SJI SFPUC Total Service Area Demand San Joaquin Pipeline Delivery to Bay Area 1, SFPUC Delivery as % of Total Demand,3 San Joaquin Pipeline Delivery to Bay Area 1, SFPUC Delivery as % of Total Demand, C % 39 7% 7-9 C 1, 1, 9% 1,1 3% 1971 BN 7 3 1% 3 1% 197 D 7 7 1% 9 % 1973 AN % 13 1% 197 W % 19 1% 197 W 7 1% 1% 197 C 7 7 1% 3 % 1977 C 7 9 9% 19 % 197 W 7 1% 17 1% 1979 AN 7 3 1% 3 1% 19 W % 19 1% 191 D 7 1% 1% 19 W % 19 1% 193 W % 17 1% 19 AN 7 3 1% 3 1% 19 D 7 7 1% 7 1% 19 W % 33 1% 197 C 7 1% 3 % 19 C 7 7 9% 1 % 199 C 7 9% 1 % 199 C 7 9% 17 % 1991 C 7 3 9% 19 % 199 C 7 3 9% 13 % 1993 W % 13 1% 199 C 7 1% 1% 199 W % 19 1% 199 W 7 1 1% 1 1% 1997 W 7 1% 1% 199 W % 19 1% 1999 AN 7 1% 1% AN % 19 1% 1 D 7 1 1% 1 1% D 7 3 1% 1 % 3 BN 7 3 1% 1 1% D 7 9 1% 3 % W % 133 1% W % 199 1% 7 C 7 1% % C 7 7 1% 1 % 9 BN 7 1% 131 % 1 AN 7 1% 19 1% 11 W 7 1% 1% D 7 1% 1% 7 3 % 197 7% 11,197 9,7 %,7 7% Notes: 1 - San Joaquin Pipeline deliveries to the Bay Area include direct deliveries to water users in the service area and temporary deliveries to water storage facilities in the Bay Area. -In the table above the Percent of Total Demand is summarized by demand year (July 1 through June 3), and the SJPL delivery is summarized by water year (October 1 through September 3). If the previous Percent of Total Demand and current Percent of Total Demand are not the same, this will result in SJPL deliveries for the water year reflecting a combination of two Percent of Total Demands. 3-Total SFPUC water deliveries include deliveries from the San Joaquin Pipeline and deliveries from Bay Area water supply facilities. 19

22 Table 7 (cont). SFPUC Water Supply and San Joaquin Pipeline Deliveries to Bay Area in Thousand Acre Feet Under Current and Estimated Future Demand in Year of MGD. REA Base Case (Future Demand) NMFSREA (Future Demand) Average Total Notes: WY SJI SFPUC Total Service Area Demand San Joaquin Pipeline Delivery to Bay Area 1, SFPUC Delivery as % of Total Demand,3 San Joaquin Pipeline Delivery to Bay Area 1, SFPUC Delivery as % of Total Demand, C % 1 7% 7-9 C 1,71 1,7 % 99 % 1971 BN 97 1% 1% 197 D % % 1973 AN % 19 1% 197 W % 1 1% 197 W 97 1% 1% 197 C 97 9% % 1977 C 97 % 1 % 197 W 97 1% 17 1% 1979 AN % 7 1% 19 W 97 1% 1% 191 D % 7 1% 19 W 97 1% 1% 193 W % 19 1% 19 AN % 7 1% 19 D % 3 % 19 W 97 1% 177 1% 197 C % % 19 C 97 9% 1 % 199 C 97 9% 13 % 199 C 97 3 % 1 % 1991 C 97 7 % 13 % 199 C 97 1 % % 1993 W 97 1% 1 1% 199 C % 3 % 199 W % 13 1% 199 W % 3 1% 1997 W 97 1% 1% 199 W % 1 1% 1999 AN 97 1% 1% AN 97 1% 1% 1 D 97 1% 1% D % 3 % 3 BN % 11 1% D % % W % 1 1% W % 1 1% 7 C % % C % 1 % 9 BN % 1 % 1 AN 97 1% 171 1% 11 W % 31 1% D % 7 1% 97 3% 7 7%,7 1,3 3%,711 7% 1 - San Joaquin Pipeline deliveries to the Bay Area include direct deliveries to water users in the service area and temporary deliveries to water storage facilities in the Bay Area. -In the table above the Percent of Total Demand is summarized by demand year (July 1 through June 3), and the SJPL delivery is summarized by water year (October 1 through September 3). If the previous Percent of Total Demand and current Percent of Total Demand are not the same, this will result in SJPL deliveries for the water year reflecting a combination of two Percent of Total Demands. 3-Total SFPUC water deliveries include deliveries from the San Joaquin Pipeline and deliveries from Bay Area water supply facilities.

23 , Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF), 1, 1,, Water Year Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF), 1, 1, Water Year, Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF), 1, 1, Water Year REA Base Case Shortages (TAF) NMFSREA Shortages (TAF) REA Base Case Don Pedro Stor (TAF) NMFSREA Don Pedro Stor (TAF) Figure 1. Don Pedro reservoir volume and total TID and MID water supply shortages for NMFSREA 1

24 Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF) 1, 1, Water Year Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF) 1, 1, Water Year Thousands of Acre-Feet (TAF) 1, 1, REA Base Case SJPL Shortages (TAF) Water Year REA Base Case HHTSS + WB Stor (TAF) NMFSREA SJPL Shortages (TAF) NMFSREA HHTSS + WB Stor (TAF) Figure. Hetch Hetchy Total System Storage and Water Bank Storage, and Total SJPL Shortages under NMFSREA

25 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Project Operations Model Instream Flow Results Summary 3

26 Table. Proposed Instream Flows and Resulting Total River Flows at La Grange Gage REA Base Case NMFSREA WY SJI % of Base Case TAF Required TAF Resulting TAF Required TAF Resulting Required % of Base Case Resulting 7-77 Drought 79 13% 17% 7-9 Drought ,7 1,7 1% 1% 1971 BN % 1% 197 D % % 1973 AN % 13% 197 W 31 1, 7 7 1% 1% 197 W % 9% 197 C % 1% 1977 C % 31% 197 W % 1% 1979 AN 31 7 % 9% 19 W 3 1,1 1,1 1,3 33% % 191 D % 199% 19 W,7 9,7 371% 91% 193 W 31 3,9 1,7 3,731 1% 11% 19 AN 3 1,3 97 1, 3% % 19 D % 11% 19 W 37 1, , 1% 1% 197 C % 199% 19 C 9 9 % % 199 C % 39% 199 C % 9% 1991 C % 19% 199 C % % 1993 W % 37% 199 C % 1% 199 W 37, ,77 3% % 199 W 3 1,1 97 1,37 3% % 1997 W 31 1,9 1,1,7 37% % 199 W 31, 1,11 1,3 3% 3% 1999 AN ,19 3% 3% AN % 1% 1 D % 19% D % % 3 BN % 93% D % 1% W 37 1, % 3% W 31,7 1,1,77 339% 1% 7 C % 3% C % 393% 9 BN % % 1 AN % % 11 W 31, ,9 319% 71% D % 17% Average (1971-) Average (19-9) Total (1971-) Total (19-9) % 11% ,1 33% 11% 9,9 3,7,9,7 31% 11%,3 7,3,91 31,17 33% 11%

27 Table 9. February - June Proposed Instream Flows and Resulting Total River Flows at La Grange Gage REA Base Case NMFSREA WY SJI TAF Required TAF Resulting TAF Required TAF Resulting % of Base Case Required % of Base Case Resulting 7-77 Drought % 13% 7-9 Drought % % 1971 BN % 1% 197 D % % 1973 AN 1 1 % 7% 197 W % 3% 197 W % 79% 197 C % 111% 1977 C % 179% 197 W % 37% 1979 AN % 91% 19 W 177 1, 77 1, % 1% 191 D % 1% 19 W 19 1, 71 1,1 % 7% 193 W 17,7 931,19 9% 9% 19 AN % 1% 19 D % 17% 19 W 1 1,3 77 1,1 % 7% 197 C % 19% 19 C % 7% 199 C % 313% 199 C % 9% 1991 C % % 199 C % 71% 1993 W % % 199 C % % 199 W 1 1, % % 199 W 177 1, 71 1, % 93% 1997 W ,3 99% 17% 199 W 17 1,7 1,133 9% % 1999 AN % 119% AN % 9% 1 D % 19% D 7 7 7% 7% 3 BN % % D % 13% W 1 1, % % W 17 1,79 7 1,719 3% 9% 7 C % 33% C % 33% 9 BN % % 1 AN % 1% 11 W 17 1,9 73 1,1 1% 7% D % 3% Average (1971-) Average (19-9) Total (1971-) Total (19-9) % 19% % 1%,11,39,3, % 19% 3,7 19,7 1,91,99 39% 1% The average volume of % of the February - June unimpaired inflow for the period of record is 3 TAF. The total volume of % of the February - June unimpaired inflow for the period of record is,9 TAF.

28 Table 1. Proposed Instream Flows and Resulting Total River Flows Below RM Infiltration Galleries REA Base Case NMFSREA WY SJI TAF Required TAF Resulting TAF Required TAF Resulting % of Base Case Required % of Base Case Resulting 7-77 Drought % 1% 7-9 Drought 713 1,1 1,77,13 9% 19% 1971 BN % 1% 197 D % % 1973 AN % 7% 197 W 31 1, % 79% 197 W % 7% 197 C % 133% 1977 C % 11% 197 W % % 1979 AN % 9% 19 W 3 1, ,9 3% 7% 191 D % 17% 19 W,3 9, 37% 9% 193 W 31 3, 1,1 3, 37% 1% 19 AN 3 1, 933 1,911 39% % 19 D % 19% 19 W 37 1,7 93 1, 39% 79% 197 C % 171% 19 C % % 199 C % 3% 199 C % % 1991 C % 1% 199 C % 1% 1993 W % % 199 C % 1% 199 W 37, ,7 371% 1% 199 W 3 1, ,3 39% 99% 1997 W 31,3 1,1,9 39% % 199 W 31,33 1,9 1,9 3% % 1999 AN 31 1,37 7 1,1 91% 117% AN ,9 9% % 1 D % 17% D % 3% 3 BN % % D % 1% W 37 1, % 3% W 31,3 979,31 3% 9% 7 C % % C % % 9 BN % 31% 1 AN % 19% 11 W 31,9 93 1,73 37% 71% D % 13% Average (1971-) Average (19-9) Total (1971-) Total (19-9) ,3 37% 1% ,91 31% 1% 9,9 3,7,9,7 31% 11%,3 9,7, 3,7 31% 1%

29 Table 11. February - June Proposed Instream Flows and Resulting Total River Flows Below RM Infiltration Galleries REA Base Case NMFSREA WY SJI TAF Required TAF Resulting TAF Required TAF Resulting % of Base Case Required % of Base Case Resulting 7-77 Drought % % 7-9 Drought ,3 % 1% 1971 BN 173 3% 1% 197 D 3 9 9% % 1973 AN 1 9 % % 197 W % 3% 197 W % % 197 C % 1% 1977 C % 13% 197 W % 33% 1979 AN % 91% 19 W 177 1,1 77 1,31 % 1% 191 D % 171% 19 W 19 1,9 71 1, % 7% 193 W 17,3 931, 9% 9% 19 AN % 17% 19 D % 1% 19 W 1 1,3 77 1, % 73% 197 C % 1% 19 C % 1% 199 C % % 199 C % 19% 1991 C % 117% 199 C % 1% 1993 W % 37% 199 C % 117% 199 W 1 1, % % 199 W 177 1,1 71 1, % 93% 1997 W , 99% 1% 199 W 17 1,77 1,19 9% 9% 1999 AN % 11% AN % 9% 1 D % 1% D % 31% 3 BN % % D % 13% W 1 1, % 7% W 17 1, 7 1,7 3% 9% 7 C % % C % 3% 9 BN % 39% 1 AN % 1% 11 W 17 1, 73 1,1 1% 7% D % 119% Average (1971-) Average (19-9) Total (1971-) Total (19-9) The average volume of % of the February - June unimpaired inflow for the period of record is 3 TAF. The total volume of % of the February - June unimpaired inflow for the period of record is,9 TAF % 19% % 1%,11,77,3,3 379% 19% 3,7,7 1,91 1, 39% 1% 7

30 Table. Total River Flows at La Grange Gage - 1 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 1 Day Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of days greater than threshold flow,3 3,73,,7,1 1, Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

31 Table 13. February through June Total River Flows at La Grange Gage - 1 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 1 Day February through June of Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of days greater than threshold flow 3,3 3,71,11, 1,33 1, Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

32 Table 1. Total River Flows at La Grange Gage - Consecutive 7 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 7 Days Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of periods where flow is greater than threshold flow for at least seven consecutive days Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

33 Table 1. February through June Total River Flow at La Grange Gage - Consecutive 7 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 7 Days February through June of Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of periods where flow is greater than threshold flow for at least seven consecutive days Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

34 Table 1. Total River Flow at La Grange Gage - Consecutive 1 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 1 Days Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of periods where flow is greater than threshold flow for at least fourteen consecutive days Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

35 Table 17. February through June Total River Flow at La Grange Gage - Consecutive 1 Day Flow Count NMFSREA Total La Grange Flow Occurrences Of Flows Greater Than or Equal To Threshold Flow Value (cfs) For At Least 1 Days February through June of Water Year 1,,, 3, 3,,,,,,, Total number of periods where flow is greater than threshold flow for at least fourteen consecutive days Number of years flows NOT achieved for threshold period

36 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" Don Pedro Reservoir Temperature Model Reservoir Elevation and Outflow Temperature Results Summary 3

37 Don Pedro Water Surfacec Elevation (ft) Don Pedro Release Temperature ( C) Water Year Water Temperature (left axis) Reservoir Elevation (right axis) REA BaseCase NMFSREA REA BaseCase NMFSREA Don Pedro Release Temperature ( C) Don Pedro Water Surfacec Elevation (ft) Water Year Water Temperature (left axis) Reservoir Elevation (right axis) REA BaseCase NMFSREA REA BaseCase NMFSREA Don Pedro Release Temperature ( C) Water Year Water Temperature (left axis) Reservoir Elevation (right axis) REA BaseCase NMFSREA REA BaseCase NMFSREA Figure 3. Don Pedro reservoir water surface elevation and outflow temperature 3 11 Don Pedro Water Surfacec Elevation (ft)

38 NMFS Proposed Instream Flows and Related Measures "NMFSREA" River Temperature Model Average Daily River Temperature Summary 3

39 1 1 Full POR -RM January Temperature ( C) 1 Full POR -RM February Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM March Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM April Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM May Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM June Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1% 37

40 Full POR -RM July Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM August Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM September Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM October Temperature ( C) % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM November Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM December Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1% 3

41 1 1 Full POR -RM January Temperature ( C) 1 Full POR -RM February Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM March Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM April Temperature ( C) % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 Full POR -RM May Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM June Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1% 39

42 3 3 Full POR -RM July Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM August Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM September Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM October Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM November Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM December Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1%

43 1 1 Full POR -RM 3 January Temperature ( C) 1 Full POR -RM 3 February Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM 3 March Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM 3 April Temperature ( C) % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 Full POR -RM 3 May Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 3 June Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM3 - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM3 - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1% 1

44 3 3 Full POR -RM 3 July Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 3 August Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM 3 September Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 3 October Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM 3 November Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM 3 December Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM3 - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM3 - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1%

45 1 1 Full POR -RM 39 January Temperature ( C) 1 Full POR -RM 39 February Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM 39 March Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM 39 April Temperature ( C) % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 Full POR -RM 39 May Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 39 June Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM39 - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM39 - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1% 3

46 3 3 Full POR -RM 39 July Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 39 August Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 Full POR -RM 39 September Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM 39 October Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM 39 November Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM 39 December Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM39 - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM39 - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1%

47 1 1 Full POR -RM January Temperature ( C) 1 Full POR -RM February Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 Full POR -RM March Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM April Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 3 Full POR -RM May Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM June Temperature ( C) % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1%

48 3 3 Full POR -RM July Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM August Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 3 Full POR -RM September Temperature ( C) 1 1 Full POR -RM October Temperature ( C) 1 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% 1 1 Full POR -RM November Temperature ( C) Full POR -RM December Temperature ( C) 1 % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% % 1% % 3% % % % 7% % 9% 1% Full POR -RM January Temperat ure ( C) Chart Title REA Base Case - RM - Average Daily NMFSREA - RM - Average Daily % 1% % 3% Percent % of Time Value % Met or % Exceeded 7% % 9% 1%