C06__Attachment_1_-_USBR_OCAP_Plan_Formulation_Report_0001.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior April 2021

Plan Formulation Report for the Newlands Project Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) Update

Newlands Project, Nevada Interior Region 10 - California-Great Basin

Mission Statements The Department of the Interior (DOI) conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Plan Formulation Report for the Newlands Project Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) Update

Newlands Project, Nevada Interior Region 10 - California-Great Basin prepared by Bruce F. Goff, PhD, GeomorphIS, LLC

CeCe Aguda, DockIt Consulting, LLC

For Information Contact Ms. Laurie Nicholas, P.E., PMP Bureau of Reclamation, Lahontan Basin Area Office 705 North Plaza Street, Suite 320 Carson City, NV 775-884-8360 lnicholas@usbr.gov

Cover Photo: Lake Tahoe Dam. (Reclamation)

This page intentionally left blank.

i

Contents

Contents .............................................................................................................. i

Introduction

Background

The Scoping Process

Limitations of the Plan Formulation

Plan Formulation Workshops

Problems and Opportunities

Planning Goals and Objectives

Planning Constraints

Stand-alone Actions (Measures)

Screening Criteria

Screening Stand-alone Actions

Final Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions

Alternatives Development

Summary of Plan Formulation Process

Appendix

Introduction

Background The United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation or USBR), Lahontan Basin Area Office (LBAO), has initiated an effort to review and potentially update the Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the Newlands Reclamation Project (Project), Nevada. The current version of the OCAP (43 CFR 418) was published in the Federal Register in 1997 (referred to as the 1997 Adjusted OCAP or 1997 OCAP). The purpose of the OCAP is to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s fiduciary responsibilities to minimize Project use of Truckee River water and increase reliance on Carson River water. (See https://www.usbr.gov/mp/lbao/aboutus/criteria.html.) A map of the Newlands Project area is shown in the Appendix, Figure 1.

Project water use, regulations, and operations have changed since the 1997 OCAP went into effect, necessitating a potential update to the 1997 OCAP. These changes include establishment of the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) and municipal uses of Project water. The passage of time has also revealed ambiguities and problems in the 1997 OCAP language that need to be clarified or resolved.

Reclamation administers the OCAP, in consultation with Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe (PLPT), Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (FPST), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Federal Water Master, as well as other interested parties. Reclamation asked these entities to participate in a series of early scoping workshops that would help to define the scope of the OCAP update and identify technical work needed to evaluate alternatives. The workshops were conducted remotely via videoconference; each virtual workshop consisted of one to six 2-hour sessions, scheduled as closely together as possible to achieve continuity. Each subsequent workshop built on the previous workshops.

The Scoping Process Reclamation follows the planning guidance of the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) “Agency Specific Procedures for Implementing the Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies” (DOI 707 DM 1 Handbook, November 10, 2015). This DOI procedure states that a “…scoping effort should be undertaken to evaluate the level of effort needed to analyze the full range of potential effects.” This initial project scoping is to be done prior to the formal scoping requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and does not have a set timeline. Results of Reclamation’s initial scoping for the OCAP Update will inform the subsequent NEPA planning and public scoping effort. The workshop activities described below refer to this initial project scoping.

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/lbao/aboutus/criteria.html

Limitations of the Plan Formulation Several steps are typically followed to develop a full plan formulation for a proposed action, including:

1) Define Problems and Opportunities.

2) Define Constraints.

3) Define Planning Goals and Objectives.

4) Inventory and Define Forecast Conditions (i.e., define Existing and Future without Plan).*

5) Develop Measures (Stand-alone Actions).

6) Develop Screening Criteria for Measures (Stand-alone Actions).

7) Screen Measures and assign Measures (Stand-alone Actions) to Objectives.

8) Develop strategies to combine Measures into Alternatives.*

9) Combine Measures into Alternatives (i.e., develop Initial Array of Draft Alternatives).*

10) Develop evaluation criteria for Alternatives.*

11) Screen Initial Array of Draft Alternatives (i.e., develop Final Array of Alternatives).*

(* steps not taken during this scoping effort)

Because this is a scoping effort to identify possible updates to the existing 1997 OCAP, which is a federal “rule” codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), not all the formulation steps are relevant at this stage of the planning process. Consequently, the planning steps for inventory of forecast conditions, and the development and screening of action alternatives were not included in this initial planning activity.

Plan Formulation Workshops Three scoping workshops were held by Reclamation as part of the OCAP Update plan formulation, as summarized below.

Workshop Dates Key Topics Workshop # 1 22, 28, 29 October 2020 Problems and Opportunities with OCAP

OCAP Update Goals and Objectives Workshop # 2 1, 14, 15, 16 December

OCAP Update Goal Statement OCAP Update Objectives OCAP Update Constraints OCAP Update Screening Criteria OCAP Update Stand-alone Actions

Workshop # 3 25 January 2021 Final OCAP Screening Criteria and Constraints Final OCAP Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions

Representatives from all OCAP parties participated in the plan formulation workshops. Several other interested agencies or entities attended the workshops as observers. A list of workshop participants and observers are shown in Appendix, Table 1.

Problems and Opportunities Workshop #1 participants identified several problems in the use of the 1997 OCAP, as well as opportunities that exist for improvement. Often, these comments were expressed in converse terms:

an opportunity was the solution to a problem. In general, problems/opportunities could be categorized in five basic groups: unclear language in the existing OCAP; use of current science and technology in forecasting; operational flexibility; transparency in the decision-making process; and the need to include the current legal and regulatory framework. These problems and opportunities became the basis for developing the OCAP Update planning goals and objectives, described below.

Goals and Objectives There was some background discussion on the definitions and distinctions between a “goal” and an “objective.” It was important to recognize that the goal being discussed was not the goal of the OCAP but rather the goal of the OCAP update process. Similarly, the objectives developed to accomplish the goal, were those of the update process and not the OCAP itself. Several goal statements were proposed and discussed; each new statement building on consensus made in previous statements. The goal statements were written interactively in an onscreen Word document, to allow for rapid writing and editing by the group. Polls were taken to determine agreement or disagreement with the near-final and final goal statement.

The final goal statement was prefaced by a sentence that emphasized the original purpose of the 1997 Adjusted OCAP, followed by a general goal, then qualified with a set of goal areas that could be used for categorizing the objectives. Once the final goal statement for the OCAP Update was agreed upon, the group discussed proposed objectives needed to accomplish the goal.

Many objective concepts and action items were stated and captured under the goal statement but, due to time constraints, these ideas could not be consolidated into actual objective statements. To facilitate the discussion, Reclamation managers developed proposed objective statements based upon the group’s ideas. These objective statements were presented to the group for further discussion and revision to incorporate the group’s input at the start of Workshop #2. The final goals and objectives are provided in the Final Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions section, below.

Constraints The OCAP implements many legal requirements, previous agreements, and court decrees, therefore the nature and extent of any updates are highly constrained. The participants indicated that the OCAP Update “must”:

1) Not change the purpose of OCAP.

a. The purpose of the 1997 Adjusted OCAP is to minimize diversions of Truckee River water through the Truckee Canal and maximize the use of Carson River water, while serving valid Newlands Project water rights.

2) Be in accordance with Alpine and Orr ditch decrees, as recognized in the 1988 and 1997 Adjusted OCAP.

3) Fulfill the Secretary of the Interior’s fiduciary duties to the FPST and PLPT.

4) Be consistent with TROA.

5) Comply with applicable Federal and State law.

6) Not increase diversions from the Truckee River above what would occur under the 1997 Adjusted OCAP.

7) Not reduce ability to provide water deliveries sufficient to serve the water right entitlements of Project water users, subject to availability.

8) Comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

9) Comply with applicable provisions of Nevada water law.

10) Not decrease project target efficiencies tabulated in the 1997 Adjusted OCAP, beyond what occurs naturally.

11) Not increase storage targets in Lahontan Reservoir beyond those recognized in the 1997 Adjusted OCAP, subject to possible refinement.

12) Not increase the number of water-short years as compared to the 1997 Adjusted OCAP.

Note on Constraint # 11: Although the group accepted the general concept of this constraint, some participants noted that once the caveat of “subject to possible refinement” was added, this is no longer a constraint or written as a constraint.

Stand-alone Actions (Measures) The OCAP incorporates conservation “measures”(e.g., water measurement), therefore a decision was made to use the term “stand-alone action” in place of “measure” or “management measure” for plan formulation purposes. A list of draft proposed Stand-alone Actions, based on Workshop #1 brainstorming sessions, was presented to participants prior to Workshop #2. The draft Stand-alone Actions had each been pre-assigned to one of the five Objectives (see below). The participants reviewed these proposed Stand-alone Actions and began the process of modifying and refining the proposed Stand-alone Actions while concurrently applying the Screening Criteria. The draft document was interactively edited online during the web meeting session.

The screened Stand-alone Actions decided at the end of Workshop #3, are presented in the Final Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions section, below.

Screening Criteria Workshop participants discussed and agreed to the following Screening Criteria for the Stand-alone Actions. A Stand-alone Action:

1. Must not violate Constraints.

2. Must satisfy one or more project Objectives.

3. Must be an action that would be a proposed update to the OCAP.

4. Must be technically/practically feasible to implement/administer.

Screening Stand-alone Actions After the final Screening Criteria and Constraints were agreed to by the workshop participants, the group screened the proposed Stand-alone Actions, eliminating some and modifying others. Some minor issues were identified and discussed during the review of the Stand-alone Actions and resolved with additional wordsmithing. The group was reminded that this initial OCAP Update scoping effort was a “pre-NEPA” planning activity and that additional input from OCAP parties and a formal “public scoping” process would occur in the future before any actual update decisions were made. It was also noted that the “review” activities indicated in the Stand-alone Actions did not obligate Reclamation or any other party to act upon the results of the reviews. The results of the reviews are intended to inform the subsequent planning steps.

The final, screened, Stand-alone Actions are provided in the Final Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions section, below.

Final Goal, Objectives, and Stand-alone Actions The following text represents the outcome of the workshop participant screening of the OCAP Update Goal, Objectives, and associated Stand-alone Actions.

Goal Statement

The purpose of the 1997 Adjusted OCAP is to minimize diversions of Truckee River water through the Truckee Canal and maximize the use of Carson River water, while serving valid Newlands Project water rights.

The goal of this effort is to evaluate the 1997 Adjusted OCAP, and to discuss where updates may be needed, without changing its purpose, based on experience gained from implementation and to reflect changed conditions that may have occurred since 1997.

The effort may include the following: clarifying the language, using best available science, evaluating operational flexibility, increasing transparency of the decision-making process, and including current legal and regulatory framework.

Objectives and Stand-alone Actions

Objectives are the numbered items, while Stand-alone Actions are subitems identified by letters under each Objective.

1. Ensure the language of OCAP is objective, includes definitions of key terms, describes technical concepts in a non-technical manner, flows logically, avoids catch-all phrases, and provides examples when appropriate – as determined by a review completed by individuals that do not routinely work with OCAP.

a. Review OCAP sections for objectivity and readability, and identify potential improvements to the organization, terminology, flow, and style of the document.

b. Review current forecasting methodology to identify potential improvements and provide the ability to build more informed forecasts.

c. Review key terms and clarify definitions.

d. Review normalization in determining incentive credits/debits during years with precautionary drawdowns or flood operations.

e. Recognize the Water Master’s determinations to characterize bottom and bench lands.

f. Specify potential consequences for non-compliance with OCAP provisions.

2. Incorporate best available science and technology to support well-informed decision-making, allowing for adjustments to sources of scientific information and technology when more accurate, reliable and/or relevant information is available without requiring revision to the regulation.

a. Review current forecasting methodology to identify potential improvements.

b. Review losses and other parameters in Truckee River Diversion (TRD) calculation (OCAP 418.20), and update if required.

c. Review the efficiency calculations to ensure they are based on historical data, and update if required.

d. Clarify precautionary drawdowns and spills.

e. Review information from operational limitations that affect diversions, that have happened since issuance of the 1997 OCAP, to consider development of a decision-making process to provide guidance, including during planned outages or emergencies, but not limited to, recoupment repayment and OCAP credit storage.

f. Review OCAP operations during stresses to the system, such as extreme conditions (e.g., drought, flood, and operational outages) to determine if it meets the original purpose and operational objectives; and if not, consider enhancing the OCAP to meet extreme conditions.

g. Review the whole measurement program (e.g., USGS, Water Master, USBR gauges, and TCID gauges and headgate measurement technologies), and evaluate use of best technologies, by updating the OCAP, to achieve accuracy in measurement.

h. Review the current models and methods used to estimate parameters used in the OCAP calculations; review those on a regular interval to ensure use of the best technology and methodology.

i. Review potential effects of climate change on project operations and consider methods to meet requirements consistent with the purpose of OCAP.

j. Evaluate methods to improve recognition of farm units and subdivisions in the delivery accounting process under OCAP.

k. Review water rights mapping data for inclusion in OCAP.

3. Provide for the appropriate amount of operational flexibility, while ensuring the OCAP is administered in a non-subjective manner.

a. Review the administration of OCAP and determine the need for additional flexibility in decision-making during changed conditions which affect river flows and deliveries.

4. Ensure the decision-making process is transparent, and clearly outlined, and that data used in the decision-making process are accessible to interested parties.

a. Provide information on the sources of data used in making OCAP determinations (could include info in letter provided with determinations; or provide a website).

b. Maintain a repository of historic OCAP-generated data, including graphs of river flows, and make available to the parties.

c. Clearly describe within OCAP the decision-making process and the process for consultations for each of the components used in the calculations. To include:

Maximum Allowable Diversions (MAD), irrigated acreage, storage targets (monthly basis), credits/debits, precautionary drawdowns, monthly diversion decisions, valid and enforceable headgate deliveries (how defined, determined, calculated), conveyance efficiency.

d. Provide to parties records of water ordered and water delivered. (TCID currently keeps the records and shares with USBR.)

5. Ensure OCAP addresses relevant changes in law, regulations, agreements, and conditions, since the effective date of the 1997 Adjusted OCAP.

a. Account for M&I water usage within the Project.

b. Review the inclusion of municipal credit water in OCAP.

c. Review precautionary drawdown criteria to ensure public health and safety are protected.

d. Review, and clarify if needed, language of precautionary drawdowns from Lahontan reservoir (Sec 418.24 of 1997 Adjusted OCAP).

e. Review the need to include TROA provisions of Newlands Project credit water in

OCAP.

f. Include expanded purposes of Newlands Project, flood control, wildlife, recreation, etc. (included in PL 101-618).

Alternatives Development As mentioned in the Introduction, Reclamation decided that this initial phase of plan formulation to inform the scope for the OCAP Update would not include Alternatives Development or related steps. Alternatives Development will be considered at a later date.

Summary of Plan Formulation Process Reclamation LBAO initiated a scoping process for the Newlands Project OCAP Update by holding a series of web-based workshops with OCAP parties and other interested entities in 2020-2021. The workshops provided a forum for OCAP parties to express their concerns and interest in the proposed update of the nearly 25-year-old OCAP document. Ideas for how to update OCAP were identified, recorded, and organized into a goal, objectives, and actions that may be undertaken to meet those objectives. These initial planning products will be used by Reclamation in the eventual development and assessment of planning alternatives, followed by a formal NEPA analysis, and rule-making process.

Appendix

Figure 1. Newlands Project Area.

Table 1. OCAP Update Workshops Participants and Observers (Videoconference).

First

Name Last Name Name/Email Agency

Bruce Goff bfgoff@geomorphis.com GeomorphIS - Lead Facilitator Eileen Goff egoff@geomorphis.com GeomorphIS - Facilitator CeCe Aguda caguda@dockitconsulting.com DockIt - Facilitator Michelle Adams madams@dockitconsulting.com DockIt - Facilitator

Amy Aufdemberge Amy.Aufdemberge@sol.doi.gov US Department of the Interior, Office of the

Solicitor - Observer AnnaLaura AverillMurray AnnaLaura_AverillMurray@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Rena Ballew RBallew@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Jim Barbee jbarbee@churchillcounty.org Churchill County Jon Benedict jbenedict@water.nv.gov Nevada Division of Water Resources Chad Blanchard cblanchard@uswatermaster.org US District Court Water Master's Office Derek Bloomquist derek_bloomquist@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Lee Ann Carranza lee_carranza@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Chestnut bchestnut@ziontzchestnut.com Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe / Ziontz

Chestnut Rachel Dahl publisher@thefallonpost.org Fallon Post Shane Dyer sdyer@jub.com Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe Jim Eto james.eto@water.ca.gov California Dept. of Water Resources Terri Edwards TEdwards@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Scott Fennema sfennema@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Ted Ford tedford@phonewave.net City of Fallon Pat Fritchel pfritchel@uswatermaster.org US District Court Water Master's Office Wyatt Golding wgolding@ziontzchestnut.com Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe / Ziontz

Chestnut Leanna Hale landwaterdir@fpst.org Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe Lisa Heki Lisa_G_Heki@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Kelly Herwick kherwick@tcid.org Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Daphne Hooper dhooper@CityofFernley.org City of Fernley Marc Jackson marc_jackson@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Rusty Jardine Rusty@tcid.org Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Brent Kolvet bkolvet@cityoffernley.org City of Fernley Daniel Lahde dlahde@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Curtis Lawler curtisl@stetsonengineers.com Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe / Stetson Tim Loux tim_loux@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Carl Lunderstadt carl_lunderstadt@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Michael Mackedon mackedon@phonewave.net City of Fallon Robert Martinez rkmartinez@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Evelyn McDonald Evelyn.Mcdonald@usdoj.gov US Dept. of Justice – Observer mailto:bfgoff@geomorphis.com mailto:egoff@geomorphis.com mailto:caguda@dockitconsulting.com mailto:madams@dockitconsulting.com mailto:Amy.Aufdemberge@sol.doi.gov mailto:AnnaLaura_AverillMurray@fws.gov mailto:RBallew@usbr.gov mailto:jbarbee@churchillcounty.org mailto:derek_bloomquist@fws.gov mailto:bchestnut@ziontzchestnut.com mailto:james.eto@water.ca.gov mailto:tim_loux@fws.gov

First Name

Last Name Name/Email Agency

Chad Mellison chad_mellison@fws.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service Chris Mixson CMixson@wrslawyers.com Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe / Kemp Jones

Attorneys at Law Jill Nagode JNagode@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Laurie Nicholas lnicholas@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Donna Marie

Noel dnoel@plpt.nsn.us Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

Eric Olsen eric@hillsidemilk.com Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Robert Owen rowen@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Kenneth Parr parr04@charter.net US Dept. of Justice – Observer Allan Richards allanr@stetsonengineers.com Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe / Stetson David Rigdon david@legaltnt.com City of Fernley / Taggart & Taggart Scott Schoenfeld sschoenfeld@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Tom Scott Thomas.Scott@water.ca.gov California Dept. of Water Resources Ali Shahroody Alis@stetsonengineers.com Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe/ Stetson Marc Slonim mslonim@ziontzchestnut.com Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe / Ziontz

Chestnut Don Springmeyer d.springmeyer@kempjones.com Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe / Kemp Jones

Attorneys at Law David Stix dkstixjr@att.net Truckee-Carson Irrigation District Adams Sullivan asullivan@water.nv.gov Nevada Division of Water Resources Paul Taggart Paul@legaltnt.com City of Fernley / Taggart & Taggart Eli Trimble etrimble@water.nv.gov Nevada Division of Water Resources Michael VanZandt mvanzandt@hansonbridgett.com Truckee-Carson Irrigation District /

HansonBridgett Jason Villarreal jvillarreal@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Joshua Voorhees jvoorhees@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation Dave Whalen dwhalen@cityoffernley.org City of Fernley Catherine Wilson catherine.wilson@bia.gov US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Jack Worsley jworsley@usbr.gov US Bureau of Reclamation mailto:sschoenfeld@usbr.gov mailto:Thomas.Scott@water.ca.gov mailto:d.springmeyer@kempjones.com mailto:catherine.wilson@bia.gov