Assign Annual Demand for a Purpose CALSIM Simulation Compare the Long-term Average Annual Friant Unit Delivery to Benchmark Study CALSIM Simulation Completed Increased Increase Annual Demand Decrease Annual Demand Decreased Same Single Purpose Analysis Iterative Process for Single Purposes – WQ and RF

Single Purpose Analysis Millerton Lake Water Budget Components Available Storage Forecasted Inflow Available Water NOT TO SCALE River Loss Available Water for Canal Delivery Allocation Canal Loss Evaporation WQ Demand RF Demand Rain Flood Release Annual Reservoir Dynamic allocated based on hydrologic conditions and reservoir storage D/S Water Rights Prescribed based on constant or year-type varying demand patterns

Multi-Purpose Analysis Millerton Lake Water Budget Components Available Storage Forecasted Inflow River Loss Available Water for Canal Delivery Allocation Canal Loss Evaporation WQ Demand RF Demand Rain Flood Release Annual Reservoir Available Water River Loss Available Water for Canal Delivery Allocation Canal Loss Evaporation WQ Demand RF Demand Rain Flood Release Reservoir with Carryover Storage Carryover Requirement NOT TO SCALE Dynamic allocated based on hydrologic conditions and reservoir storage D/S Water Rights

Initial Evaluation Approach for USJRBSI, Phase 1  Friant Enlargement Concept – Evaluation scenario only – not an alternative  Increase Millerton Lake by 700 TAF  Simulate operations with additional storage  Identify how problems and opportunities could be addressed.  Use results to guide definition of “Functional Equivalence”  Initial Modeling Assumptions – Based on existing conditions and honoring current laws, rules, and regulations.

 Initial analysis – Identify the potential water that could be available from a Friant enlargement to address a single problem area  Water quality, supply reliability, or restoration – Identify how other problems and opportunities could be affected  Water quality  River restoration  Water supply reliability  Flood control  Hydropower  Delta inflow Initial Evaluation Approach for USJRBSI, Phase 1 Single Purpose Analysis Approach

Initial Evaluation Approach Single Purpose Analysis  Single Purpose Analysis – Operate to address one goal only – Single Purpose - Water Supply (WS) – Single Purpose - Water Quality (WQ) – Single Purpose - Restoration Flow (RF) – Same water supply allocation logic – Maximize the annual water supply to each purpose while maintaining long-term annual total delivery.

Single Purpose Analysis (Preliminary Assumptions) Scenarios Scenario Friant Unit Delivery Water Quality Demand Restoration Flow Demand Benchmark Allocations based on a 520 TAF storage NoNo Single Purpose – WS Allocations based on a 1,220 TAF storage NoNo Single Purpose – WQ Constrained by Average annual total delivery from Benchmark Study Maximized Annual Demand by an Iterative Process Maximized Annual Demand by an Iterative Process No Single Purpose – RF Constrained by Average annual total delivery from Benchmark Study No Maximized Annual Demand by an Iterative Process Maximized Annual Demand by an Iterative Process

Single Purpose Analysis (Preliminary Assumptions) Demand Development CALSIM Impact Evaluation Initial (preliminary) Yes Constant CompleteOngoingYes Demand Development for Single Purposes – WQ and RF Phase of Demand Pattern Development Status Annual Demand Needed for Single Purpose Analysis ? Operating Friant as an Annual Reservoir? Refined Yes Variable by year type Variable by year typeOngoing –Yes FutureUndecided Dynamic Not in Phase 1 No

Single Purpose Analysis (Preliminary Results) Summary of CALSIM Results Water Supply Water Quality Restoration Flow Benchmark1,24200 Single Purpose – WS 1,376 i.e., at Friant Dam 00 Single Purpose – WQ 1, at Mendota Pool distributed uniformly in July through September. i.e., at Friant Dam 0 Single Purpose – RF 1, at Mendota Pool distributed in unimpaired flow monthly pattern i.e., at Friant Dam Scenario Average Annual Water Allocations for Each Purpose (TAF)

Single Purpose Analysis (Preliminary Results) Annual Average Friant Unit Delivery Scenario Class 1 Class 1 Class 2 Class Water 215 Water Total Benchmark 745 ( 0 ) 352 ( 0 ) 145 ( 0 ) 1,242 ( 0 ) Single Purpose – WS 758 ( 13 ) 570 ( 218 ) 48 ( - 97 ) 1,376 ( 134 ) 134 Single Purpose – WQ 728 ( - 17 ) 476 ( 124 ) 44 ( ) 1,249 ( 7 ) 7 Single Purpose – RF 725 ( - 20 ) 477 ( 125 ) 44 ( ) 1,245 ( 3 ) 3 Delivery in TAF (Difference from Benchmark)

Single Purpose Analysis Next Steps  Introduce year-type dependent demands for water quality and restoration flow; Options include – Annual quantity based on predetermined proportion  Benchmark Study water delivery amounts by year type  Unimpaired flow amounts by year type  Option to include reductions in a multi-year drought – Refine approach to preserve long-term average delivery  Annual average deliveries by year type  Water supply reliability similar to that of the Benchmark Study  Develop guidelines for evaluating impacts – Ecosystem, water quality, water delivery, economics, etc.