[0:00] It's just after 10:00.
[0:04] Glad you all found the place.
[0:06] This is definitely
[0:08] fancier digs than we're used to.
[0:12] Um
[0:14] Well, let's get Let's get started. Um I
[0:16] see we've got a number of folks online
[0:18] as well and uh we've got a pretty full
[0:22] agenda here, so
[0:24] um
[0:25] the the primary things that we we want
[0:27] to try to accomplish in today's meeting
[0:30] um we've got two different things that
[0:33] um that we've been working on over the
[0:35] last year. Want to try to move those
[0:36] forward. One is the protocol for
[0:39] calculating salinity um that Christine's
[0:42] been working on for quite a while and um
[0:46] so hoping that can move forward and then
[0:48] also we have the long-term salinity management plan
[0:52] that's a draft and talk about that and
[0:55] see if that's something ready that's
[0:57] move to move forward to and and then
[0:59] also we we have our our typical updates
[1:02] on conditions at the lake and talking
[1:05] about the where we are with salinity and
[1:08] um and if and where we want to go with
[1:09] that. So
[1:11] lots of things to cover. Anything else
[1:12] anybody wants to add
[1:15] to the agenda? Uh Jeff, I'd like to have
[1:18] a little bit of a discussion just about
[1:20] um
[1:21] perhaps thresholds, things that we we
[1:23] may want to consider this uh summer or
[1:25] spring as we consider if we need to
[1:27] alter the berm or just anything else
[1:28] that we need to think Okay, fantastic.
[1:33] Will do.
[1:35] All right, so let's let's just start
[1:37] with introductions. I guess
[1:39] we all have a microphone. That's
[1:41] different than normal, so please all you
[1:43] have to do is hit the button and then
[1:45] we'll pass a microphone around the back
[1:47] as well um for those folks. Um I'm Jeff
[1:50] Den Blakeer with Jacobs um facilitating
[1:53] the Salinity Advisory Committee.
[1:56] I'm Angela Gong with Forestry, Fire, and
[1:58] State Lands.
[2:00] Phil Brown, Great Salt Lake Brine Shrimp
[2:01] Cooperative.
[2:03] Thomas Bosteels, Great Salt Lake Brine
[2:05] Shrimp Cooperative.
[2:09] Elliot Jagnecki, Utah Geological Survey.
[2:12] Andrew Rupke, Utah Geological Survey.
[2:16] Joe Havassey, Compass Minerals.
[2:18] Mike Freeman, USGS.
[2:22] Christine Ramsey, USGS.
[2:25] Kyle Stone, Wildlife Resources.
[2:27] Ben Starman, Forestry, Fire, and State
[2:29] Lands.
[2:31] Emma Whitaker, Forestry, Fire, and State
[2:33] Lands.
[2:35] Travis Anderson, Morton Salt.
[2:38] Jake Alexander, Forestry, Fire, and
[2:39] State Lands.
[2:41] Ryan Doughty, Cargill Salt.
[2:44] Lynn de Freitas, Friends of Great Salt
[2:45] Lake.
[2:47] Laura Vernon, Water Resources.
[2:51] Great. Well, thank you. Oh, and then
[2:53] online,
[2:54] um we have a number of folks as well. Um
[2:57] see, Leila Madie with Water Resources,
[2:59] um Jim Harris with the Division of Water
[3:02] Quality.
[3:03] Jory Kirk Corkery and Bonnie
[3:08] Just got a lot of feedback here. Oh,
[3:10] there we go. Thank you, whoever fixed
[3:12] that. Um and Bonnie Baxter from
[3:14] Westminster.
[3:17] Uh Rob Dubuc with Friends and Bill
[3:20] Johnson at the University of Utah.
[3:23] Did I miss anybody?
[3:28] I don't know if we have an open
[3:29] microphone or I guess we'll figure it
[3:32] out.
[3:34] All right.
[3:35] So, this first part of the agenda, what
[3:38] we want to Oh, I actually let me back
[3:40] up. Um we sent out a meeting summary. We
[3:43] last met in October.
[3:45] Um sent that out back in February and
[3:48] now hopefully you had a chance to review
[3:50] that. I wanted to just if anybody had
[3:52] any comments or changes that they wanted
[3:55] to make to that that summary.
[4:00] And if not, if you have um
[4:04] entertain a motion to approve approve
[4:06] those that summary.
[4:08] Thank you, Thomas. And a second?
[4:11] And Kyle, thank you.
[4:14] All those um in favor of approving them,
[4:17] say I.
[4:19] Any opposed?
[4:21] Any further discussion?
[4:24] Oh, Bonnie says I as well. Thank you.
[4:28] Um so they're approved unanimously.
[4:31] So the first thing I wanted to do um is
[4:34] just go through some updates.
[4:36] Um Christine has agreed again to give us
[4:39] an update on on lake conditions.
[5:24] Good morning, everybody. I made it here
[5:26] um
[5:27] to give you an update. And we will talk
[5:29] about Mike Freeman's here. Has everybody
[5:31] met Mike in very another places? Mike is
[5:34] our field office chief for uh Salt Lake
[5:36] City office. So he coordinates a lot of
[5:37] our stream gagers um that work locally
[5:39] and knows a lot about the lake. He has a
[5:40] ton of experience on the lake. So
[5:42] excited to have him here today.
[5:43] He's going to present what Ryan usually
[5:45] does on lake elevation, stream flow
[5:47] updates, and then I'll I'll jump in with
[5:50] the salinity update, and then I think
[5:52] that's it for this first segment, so.
[5:56] Sure.
[6:02] Okay, so this is
[6:05] the Salt Air gauge, so this is South
[6:07] Arm. The daily value last Friday was
[6:11] 4192.4.
[6:12] Our seasonal low occurred in like
[6:14] October at 4191.
[6:17] We've came up about 1.4 ft since that
[6:20] seasonal low. Looking at the hydrograph,
[6:23] I think we're maybe peaked for the year,
[6:27] maybe like
[6:29] March 22nd is when I think we kind of
[6:31] have the peak. We'll see how it kind of
[6:32] shakes out the next little bit.
[6:36] But I don't think it's going to go up
[6:38] that much. It might just kind of level
[6:40] out. This is the North Arm, so this is
[6:44] at the Saline gauge.
[6:46] Daily value last Friday was 4191.5.
[6:49] Seasonal low is in October-December. We
[6:51] kind of flattened out at 4190.7.
[6:55] We're up about 8/10 of a foot. And the
[6:58] difference right now between the North
[7:00] Arm and South Arm is about 9/10 of a
[7:02] foot.
[7:04] And that is probably
[7:06] that might come up just a little bit
[7:08] more as we get more
[7:10] discharge through the the new breach.
[7:15] Here's some of the the major inflows,
[7:18] and this is kind of just a cumulative
[7:19] discharge plot of kind of how conditions
[7:22] vary over the course of the period of
[7:25] record. So this is the Corrine gauge, so
[7:28] you can see we're kind of in that
[7:30] much
[7:32] below normal right now,
[7:34] I guess below normal, so kind of in that
[7:36] 10 to 25% range. Black line is a current
[7:40] hydrograph.
[7:42] If we look at the Weber River near Plain
[7:45] City, we're getting in that much below,
[7:47] so kind of that 5 to 10% um really low
[7:50] conditions on on the Weber River right
[7:52] now, at least lower down.
[7:56] Um Farmington Bay, it's been actually
[7:59] um
[8:00] kind of in that normal condition. Uh I
[8:02] think the rain has really we've kind of
[8:04] noticed some pretty elevated base flows.
[8:06] You can even see in uh when we had that
[8:07] record October, we were really high,
[8:10] kind of
[8:11] seasonal highs. And um the the rain in
[8:15] March also kind of had a nice long
[8:17] gradual
[8:19] um
[8:20] sustained flow, but it's starting to
[8:21] drop pretty quick.
[8:25] And then lastly, the Goggin Drain, it's
[8:27] kind of up in that normal condition.
[8:28] This is basically I I've kind of changed
[8:31] the operations of the Surplus Canal, so
[8:32] that's why it is up a little higher
[8:34] right now.
[8:35] Um
[8:36] but again, the Surplus is also kind of
[8:38] flowing quite well, probably due to
[8:41] low elevation rain that we've had, so.
[8:45] Um here's some of the new breach flows,
[8:47] so um we measure every month. Um there
[8:50] was no measurements in October and
[8:51] November due to the the government
[8:53] furlough. Um our most recent
[8:55] measurements here on December, January,
[8:58] February, March, so you can see that
[9:00] kind of came up in January. Flows have
[9:03] been kind of just hovering around that
[9:05] five six five 600 to 700 cfs.
[9:10] If we look at the north to south flow,
[9:13] um again, no measurements in October,
[9:15] November, but we have very little flows
[9:18] kind of
[9:19] sneaking past that um
[9:23] the breach there with the berm, so quite
[9:25] low flows.
[9:29] Um this is the the um
[9:32] topography of the of the um the berm.
[9:35] You can see that the low point from the
[9:38] most recent survey has a an elevation of
[9:40] 4186
[9:42] um and there's been some pretty
[9:43] substantial erosion
[9:45] um especially on that right side of the east side of the berm um
[9:51] probably due to
[9:53] my guess is having been out there quite
[9:55] a bit wave action that kind of comes in
[9:57] with the north wind events. So, it kind
[9:58] of crashes in and kind of erodes that
[10:00] berm.
[10:05] Great Salt Lake at Lakeside. Um so, this
[10:07] is the far western breach, the old
[10:09] breach. Um
[10:12] we have kind of some
[10:15] we we we've been making discrete
[10:16] measurements. Uh I'm going to talk a
[10:18] little bit about some of the problems we
[10:20] have at Lakeside, but most of the water
[10:22] now is coming from the Newfoundland
[10:23] basin and so, we had a pretty
[10:27] wet March or beginning of March anyway
[10:29] and we saw quite a bit of um elevated
[10:32] flows. We measured 151 cfs going through
[10:35] the Lakeside breach. So, that's north to
[10:36] south flow and it's pretty much stayed
[10:40] north to south flow due to the low
[10:42] elevation of of um
[10:44] the south arm of the Great Salt Lake.
[10:46] So, just to kind of I I think I've
[10:48] presented on this before like maybe a
[10:50] year or two ago,
[10:51] but um we get these pretty heavy precip
[10:54] events that occur out in the
[10:55] Newfoundland basin and then it kind of
[10:57] goes across where those blue arrows are
[10:59] pointing
[11:00] and we get these large sediment
[11:02] deposition events that actually occur in
[11:05] our um in the Lakeside gauge pool and we
[11:08] typically see these in the winter and
[11:10] the fall when the lake elevation is
[11:12] really low and you don't have the kind
[11:14] of the south arm of to push that water
[11:16] to the north.
[11:19] Um
[11:20] we'll see if these work, but this is
[11:22] kind of the flows that we were observing
[11:24] when we were out there
[11:26] um
[11:27] on March uh 9th.
[11:30] Um this is all this water is coming from
[11:32] the Newfoundland basin and then here's a
[11:35] Let's see if it goes to the other one.
[11:37] Yep.
[11:39] Maybe.
[11:44] And then this is so this is looking
[11:47] south like southwest and it kind of
[11:50] pulls in and then this is where it kind
[11:52] of comes down this dike and all this
[11:54] water eventually makes its way over to
[11:56] the Lakeside gauge.
[11:59] And oop.
[12:00] Here we go. And so
[12:02] it goes north across the railroad
[12:04] causeway and then it has a tendency to
[12:06] kind of dive
[12:08] south again and the water
[12:10] kind of splits. Some of that goes into
[12:12] the north arm and some of it goes into
[12:13] the south arm. Um, when it goes into the
[12:16] south arm of the lake and past the the
[12:19] Lakeside gauge it creates
[12:21] it brings a lot of sediment and um,
[12:23] we've had issues with this since 2016
[12:26] when the lake got below 4193
[12:29] and what that does is from a gauging
[12:31] standpoint is it deposits all the
[12:34] sediment and it seems like we've also
[12:36] now started to collect a bunch of
[12:37] tumbleweeds and so this is a problem for
[12:41] us because our I think I oop.
[12:46] Our um,
[12:47] velocity sensor there's a little pole
[12:50] kind of on the bottom of the screen where you can see the pole
[12:53] sticking out. Our sensor goes just a
[12:56] little bit more
[12:59] streamward of that point right in the
[13:01] middle of those where all those um, kind
[13:03] of right here.
[13:05] And now you can see this is like full of
[13:07] tumbleweeds and it's full of about 2 ft
[13:10] of sediment and so we're unable to put
[13:12] our velocity sensor in there to actually
[13:14] measure flow in a real-time aspect. Um,
[13:19] due to the low lake levels I think we're
[13:21] going to see very little scour as the
[13:23] north I don't think the north arm is or
[13:24] the south arm is going to get above 4193
[13:26] where we typically see those flows that
[13:28] scour that sediment out. So, this could
[13:31] be a problem for gauging um at the
[13:34] Lakeside gauge for USGS with this these this sediment there.
[13:40] Um one of the things that I I believe
[13:42] maybe Jeff mentioned this at a previous
[13:44] meeting is we've talked about solutions
[13:46] of how we can maybe try to improve this this condition.
[13:50] Um you know, possibly a a a jetty that
[13:53] would push the water all to the north
[13:55] arm of the Great Salt Lake. This would
[13:56] reduce the the sedimentation in the
[13:59] Lakeside gauge
[14:01] um and then we could easily
[14:03] report accurate flow um
[14:06] south to north. Um but that is a water
[14:10] source that is you know, then just
[14:12] pushed to the to the north the north arm
[14:13] of the Great Salt Lake rather than the
[14:14] south. Um
[14:17] but it would improve our gauging
[14:19] operations.
[14:20] Uh
[14:22] if people are interested in the the
[14:24] Newfoundland basin and how much water
[14:25] that's contributing, um I think that
[14:28] there could be a potential gauging
[14:29] location
[14:31] um kind of right there on the south side
[14:33] of the causeway at that pinch point. And
[14:36] um we could measure the flow, but it
[14:39] this would be if the jetty was put in
[14:41] place, then it would all go to the like
[14:42] kind of the north arm rather than the
[14:43] south arm. But um
[14:46] it just kind of
[14:48] looking for solutions to improve the
[14:50] gauging at the Lakeside gauge and maybe
[14:52] somehow quantify flow coming in from the
[14:55] Newfoundland basin, um but I guess
[14:57] having talked to Christine and Ryan in
[14:59] the past, they wanted to bring kind of
[15:01] this issue back to this group and and
[15:03] have people start thinking about it as
[15:05] far as what we can do as far as
[15:06] quantifying the source of water.
[15:09] Cuz essentially we can't we
[15:11] right now we don't have continuous
[15:12] discharge at Lakeside. Correct.
[15:15] >> export of you know, whatever goes to
[15:16] Lakeside breach, we really can't
[15:18] quantify that at this time. Do we Do you
[15:20] what the salinity is of that water? It's
[15:22] similar to
[15:23] Could you please repeat that with the
[15:25] microphone for those online?
[15:32] Um I Okay, I'll repeat what I said,
[15:34] which is basically we don't have
[15:35] continuous measurements of discharge at
[15:37] the Lakeside breach, so we can't
[15:39] quantify any exchange occurring there
[15:41] from south to north or that's really
[15:43] coming from the Newfoundland basin other
[15:45] than these discrete measurements. And
[15:46] then the question was what's the
[15:47] salinity of that water um from north to
[15:50] south from the Newfoundland basin. And
[15:52] did you Did you measure the density? I
[15:54] kind of forget what We did measure it. I
[15:56] can look it up, Thomas. We did collect a
[15:57] sample
[15:59] and we recently collected like a full
[16:00] sample for analysis. I We can get back
[16:02] to you on that. We We should be able to
[16:04] figure that out. Um and in the past
[16:06] we've measured, I think it was that did
[16:07] that time we were out, it was like
[16:09] around I think 80,000 microsiemens per
[16:11] centimeter, so that's like half of what
[16:13] the South Arm would be in terms of
[16:14] salinity. But we're quantifying the
[16:16] chemistry of it um as well as the
[16:18] salinity, so. From a mineral standpoint
[16:21] historically,
[16:22] that water looks a lot like South Arm.
[16:24] Right. Yeah, okay. Uh cuz you're getting
[16:27] uh daylight of of shallow ground water.
[16:30] Um
[16:30] >> Um that
[16:31] it kind of runs up against the other the causeway um essentially and then it daylights in that in that trench.
[16:39] Okay.
[16:40] Good to know.
[16:41] The Just to point out that the plot on
[16:44] the screen, the green is actually
[16:47] measured um
[16:49] measured discharge in a continuous
[16:51] standpoint, so we're measuring every 15
[16:53] minutes using a velocity sensor. The the
[16:55] red is actually just estimated flow
[16:59] based off of our discrete measurements
[17:01] that we make and kind of looking at the water level at the Lakeside gauge,
[17:06] but the reason the data is estimated is
[17:08] because we can't put that velocity
[17:10] sensor in because of the sedimentation
[17:12] problem.
[17:13] Um we have left it in in the past. It
[17:15] was buried by 3 ft of sediment and it
[17:17] took it over a year to daylight.
[17:20] Um so, what we've been doing in a
[17:23] similar to this condition in 2025 is we
[17:26] pull it out so it doesn't get buried,
[17:28] and then we wait for the lake to come
[17:29] up. And when the lake gets comes up to
[17:31] 4193, we then
[17:33] basically put our sensor out on kind of
[17:35] a floating
[17:37] system that kind of rides the sediment
[17:39] as it as it scours. So, that's kind of
[17:41] how we've been doing it in the past.
[17:43] That has seemed to work well. We haven't
[17:44] lost our instrumentation,
[17:46] but um it does provide a discrete kind
[17:49] of estimated unreliable record.
[17:52] So,
[17:53] Mike, um
[17:54] when you were doing this, I mean,
[17:56] obviously, you had some maps up there
[17:57] that kind of was showing where this is
[17:59] coming from.
[17:59] >> Mhm. Um
[18:01] it's my understanding that there's some
[18:03] uh
[18:04] topographic features that are kind of
[18:06] prohibiting water from necessarily
[18:08] flowing from the entire basin uh back to
[18:10] the lake. Is some of this groundwater
[18:13] that's coming back in um to those low
[18:15] spots? Cuz it kind of looked like it was
[18:16] like, you know, in the canal there. Do
[18:19] you have any thoughts on
[18:21] Are you looking at um
[18:25] this one? Is this the one you're kind of
[18:26] talking about? Yep. Cuz every that there
[18:29] is like that's everything to the north
[18:30] of the train tracks, right? Right.
[18:32] So, it's north of the train
[18:33] tracks, but it kind of comes down. You
[18:35] can see the arrows are kind of pointing,
[18:36] and then it fans out. There's almost
[18:38] like a delta there that some of the
[18:40] water goes to the north, but the low
[18:42] point is actually south where most of
[18:45] the water does go.
[18:46] >> we uh we had done a
[18:49] uh a study internally with uh UGS helped
[18:52] out with some ET data, and they'd
[18:54] estimated that there could be upwards of
[18:56] 60,000 acre-feet evaporating out of the
[18:58] basin each year. And so, there's uh this
[19:01] 60,000 acre-feet that could be uh
[19:03] evaporating. That that would be on like
[19:05] a a bigger year. There's, you know,
[19:07] small years it could be, you know,
[19:08] 10,000 acre-feet. I If anybody's
[19:10] interested, we can send you the um up
[19:12] the Utah State Water Research Lab did
[19:15] the study and then Mark Hadwin
[19:18] right is that the right name? Mark
[19:20] Hadwin, okay. Thank you.
[19:21] Ran the ET data, but anyway, the idea is
[19:23] that there may be some way to influence
[19:26] the flows to
[19:28] you know, get it to the lake rather than
[19:30] let it just simply evaporate with maybe
[19:33] little to no harm to the you know, to
[19:36] the basin. I mean, I think there's other
[19:37] things we need to think about like
[19:39] scouring of salts and whether there's
[19:41] any wildlife that uses that, but I think
[19:43] the initial glance is that there's
[19:45] likely not a lot prohibiting us from
[19:47] doing something like that and getting a
[19:48] real return on that water.
[19:51] But one thing that folks have talked
[19:53] about is you know, that
[19:55] perhaps some of that is infiltrating
[19:56] into the ground. I'm just curious if you
[19:58] think any of this could be connected to
[20:00] groundwater movement that is helping
[20:02] with those flows or if that's all
[20:03] surface runoff just from the north side
[20:05] of the tracks. I think we'll see some of
[20:07] the groundwater this time of year when or
[20:11] earlier I guess maybe more in the winter
[20:13] we'll see some some flows coming in, but
[20:15] generally we see the biggest flows after
[20:17] big rain events and
[20:19] in 2017 there was a rain on snow event
[20:21] that actually
[20:23] I think the railroad had quite a bit of
[20:24] damage to the Lucin
[20:27] bridge and I think we had that was our
[20:30] biggest deposition event and so kind of
[20:32] rain rain on snow is generally what I've
[20:35] observed when I've been out there, but
[20:36] I'm sure there is groundwater that's
[20:37] coming in especially now. I mean, it's
[20:40] been really dry and we haven't had a lot
[20:42] of rain, but I think it's probably still
[20:44] slowly making it through the system.
[20:46] It'd be really interesting. I think one
[20:48] of the thoughts that we had
[20:50] you know, on the return into the lake if
[20:52] we were ever to complete a project like
[20:54] this is that there could be some type of
[20:56] control structure that could be involved
[20:58] where we could
[20:59] either choose to send it to the South
[21:01] Arm or the North Arm depending on what
[21:03] our goals are with salinity and lake
[21:05] levels and you know, everything else. I
[21:07] think we could achieve different
[21:08] management objectives, but I think it'd
[21:10] be really interesting to get a
[21:12] like you said you're doing, but get the
[21:14] results of that characterization of the
[21:16] chemistry of that water, so we could
[21:18] kind of understand what opportunities
[21:20] exist.
[21:22] I think most of the sediment is coming
[21:24] kind of right north of the lakeside um
[21:28] bridge. It seems like it kind of comes
[21:30] through an old canal and then it hits
[21:32] that playa and I feel like that's where
[21:36] it's picking up most of the the
[21:37] sediment. You have a lot of kind of
[21:40] loose
[21:41] oolitic sands that are available that
[21:44] are on the surface in that area.
[21:46] It's probably that.
[21:48] There is a bunch of clay on the delta in
[21:50] front too.
[21:52] Oh.
[21:53] Okay.
[21:55] All right.
[21:56] That's your findings, so
[21:58] Okay.
[22:00] Anyway, I
[22:02] it's it has presented quite a challenge
[22:04] for the the gauge there, so just so
[22:06] people are aware.
[22:11] Any other thoughts on that stuff or I'll
[22:13] move on to salinity?
[22:16] Okay, let's move on.
[22:17] Um okay. Thinking about salinity in the
[22:20] South Arm, here's the plot of salinity
[22:23] from about the fall of 2022 our high
[22:25] salinity condition to present. Uh our
[22:28] most recent salinities were measured on
[22:30] March 4th and they ranged from 112 g per
[22:33] liter to 118 g per liter at the surface.
[22:36] Our site 2267, which is really close to
[22:38] the bear north of Fremont Island, is our
[22:40] freshest as we usually see.
[22:42] And we are seeing some a little bit of
[22:44] um heterogeneity in the water column
[22:46] where it our site in Carrington Bay and
[22:48] this 2267 we're seeing fresher
[22:50] conditions at half a meter below surface
[22:52] as
[22:53] uh relative to our measurements at 3 m
[22:55] deep or at
[22:56] 2 to 3 m deep.
[22:58] And this plot just uh illustrates, you
[23:01] know, how we've been on a gradual
[23:02] decline relative to this time last year
[23:05] we're anywhere from 5 to 10 g per liter
[23:07] higher, so a little bit higher than we
[23:09] were last spring. And as Mike said, uh
[23:12] we may have peaked in the South Arm, so
[23:13] these may be approximately the the
[23:15] spring low salinities we observe.
[23:19] Relative to last fall um in Carrington
[23:21] or sorry, yeah, in Carrington Bay at our
[23:23] site 2565 we are 13 g per liter fresher
[23:26] and at from relative to our site in uh
[23:29] Gil Gilbert Bay 3510 we're 8 g per liter
[23:32] fresher than we were last fall. So just
[23:34] to give you an idea of the the change
[23:35] we've seen seasonally. In the context of
[23:38] our historical record back to 2010, you
[23:41] can see we're, you know, really hovering
[23:43] around this 120 the low range of the low
[23:45] end of our 120 to 160 g per liter um
[23:48] kind of optimal range that's been
[23:50] identified. These conditions are similar
[23:52] to what we've seen in 2020, 2013, so um
[23:55] you know, it's a
[23:57] you know,
[23:59] we've seen it before.
[24:01] Uh other recent salinities we've
[24:02] measured uh outside of the South Arm are
[24:04] at the new breach, so well it's still
[24:06] the South Arm, but 118 g per liter.
[24:09] And then at Saltair we have a
[24:10] measurement as recent as last week on
[24:12] the March 26th that was 117 g per liter.
[24:15] So that's where we're sitting right now.
[24:18] Um I've started computing our volume
[24:20] weighted salinities uh at the request of
[24:23] Jeff, so on the left looking at our what
[24:25] we call the upper brine layer volume
[24:27] weighted salinity. This is considering
[24:29] the top 4 m of the South Arm uh both in
[24:32] Carrington Bay and Gilbert Bay. That uh
[24:35] value is 118 g per liter. And then if we
[24:38] consider the full depth volume weighted,
[24:40] which goes to the bottom of the lake
[24:42] bottom bottom of the bottom of the South
[24:43] Arm, we're looking at 119 g per liter.
[24:46] Very similar as we're not seeing a lot
[24:47] of variability in the water column.
[24:51] Um looking at these values in the
[24:52] context of our salt mass as well as our
[24:55] elevation, um that kind of line is
[24:57] pointing to our most recent measurement
[25:00] and uh the mass we have at the at that
[25:03] time was an estimated 874
[25:06] million tons. So, again, we're kind of
[25:08] at this uh that low end of the 120 to
[25:10] 160 g per liter range and um not as low
[25:14] in terms of elevation as we've seen
[25:15] before, but it sort of at the low low
[25:17] end.
[25:19] And then our salt mass, so this plot
[25:21] shows salt mass South Arm salt mass in
[25:23] millions of tons on the Y axis from the
[25:25] time of our
[25:27] uh historic low fall of 2022 to present
[25:30] and you can kind of see we were hovering
[25:32] around about a billion metric tons of
[25:33] salt during that time during the fall of
[25:35] 2022 after berm modifications that
[25:38] really set us up into uh kind of an
[25:40] export paradigm where we were losing 134
[25:43] million tons per year
[25:45] up until the point we started to see
[25:47] backwater effects at the breach that was
[25:49] observed by um Andy Carlson back August
[25:52] September of 2024. Since that time we've
[25:54] really kind of seen a step change in the
[25:57] rate of loss of salts and uh more
[25:59] recently like last year maybe last year
[26:01] and a half we've seen the declines in
[26:03] the South Arm of about 28 million tons
[26:05] per year.
[26:08] And I'll leave it there until we get to
[26:10] the kind of spring forecast
[26:13] section unless anyone has any questions.
[26:20] Any So, no questions?
[26:25] All right. Heard a click. Bill.
[26:29] Yeah, just
[26:30] Christine, could you go back to that
[26:32] plot showing the lake elevation and
[26:33] salinity data?
[26:38] Yes.
[26:39] Once I don't know why this is so difficult
[26:42] for me. Appreciate your patience.
[26:44] Sh- sharing.
[26:46] Okay. Hang on, Bill.
[26:51] Okay, this one?
[26:55] The one that actually shows the lake
[26:56] elevation time series um with the
[26:59] salinity values in the time series. Ah,
[27:01] okay. I think a couple before that.
[27:04] Yeah. The back to 2010 or back to last
[27:07] year? Okay, you got it. There you go.
[27:10] Yeah, the one with the most recent. Um
[27:13] So,
[27:14] our lake elevation isn't so so bad
[27:18] now.
[27:21] And I'm just trying to understand
[27:24] whether we as a group
[27:26] can explain that,
[27:29] you know, given the the climate aspect.
[27:33] Is it
[27:34] most
[27:36] What can we attribute this to? How much
[27:38] of this is due, I guess,
[27:40] Do we have a sense of how much of this
[27:41] is due to the negotiated water returns
[27:44] that have been coming through Farmington
[27:45] Bay?
[27:48] Has anybody kind of done that analysis?
[27:54] You're Just to clarify, you're talking
[27:55] about the water level?
[27:58] Yeah.
[28:01] Uh Bill, we haven't. USGS has not looked
[28:03] at that. No.
[28:07] Cuz you know, we haven't had great
[28:09] runoff.
[28:12] And yet we're not sitting too badly,
[28:14] relatively speaking.
[28:16] And I just would like to have a sense of
[28:17] whether or not
[28:20] what the magnitude of those negotiated
[28:23] returns are
[28:25] in that.
[28:27] And it's okay if nobody has that sense.
[28:28] I just That's something I think we
[28:30] should get a handle on, but I'm not
[28:32] quite sure how to do that. Um
[28:34] but uh I just wanted to check and see if
[28:36] anybody had that on the top top of their
[28:38] head.
[28:39] It sounds like we don't at this point.
[28:41] Th- This is Joe. I I I think that the
[28:43] trust is is working to quantify
[28:46] um you know, what's what's
[28:48] been delivered
[28:51] certainly you have you know what was
[28:52] negotiated on on paper but you know the
[28:54] actual measurements
[28:56] to follow through with that
[28:58] I do believe the trust in Marcel are
[29:00] working on something like that.
[29:03] Okay. All right, great. I just I just
[29:05] wanted to
[29:06] get a sense of that. Thank you.
[29:07] All right, Bill and then this is Kyle
[29:08] and then just another kind of anecdotal
[29:12] accessory to this is we noticed water
[29:16] temperature in the lake especially in
[29:17] the South arm all of last summer was
[29:20] kind of on the lower end than what we
[29:22] would expect from our 30-year data set.
[29:25] So I'm wondering if this has something
[29:27] to do with that high runoff of 2023 and
[29:30] then not losing it as quickly as we
[29:32] would expect and so that's you know kind
[29:35] of a saving grace that just for some
[29:37] reason we weren't as hot this last
[29:40] summer and so we're holding on to some
[29:42] of that water that we were given in the
[29:44] big runoff here.
[29:46] So another thread to pull on for
[29:48] somebody who wants to look at all this.
[29:50] Never heard that one before Kyle. I like
[29:52] that.
[29:53] There's also for your information Bill
[29:56] there's water rights has a accounting
[29:59] tool on their distribution plan that
[30:02] talks about
[30:03] what the saved water or I guess
[30:06] dedicated water on approved change
[30:08] application
[30:09] applications accounts for so you can
[30:11] look at there and they have already done
[30:12] this quantification. It doesn't get to
[30:14] what you know Joe was talking about
[30:16] which is
[30:17] you know what water could have been
[30:18] going there already versus new water but
[30:21] it does give a little bit of an insight.
[30:28] Great.
[30:29] I I appreciate your optimism
[30:32] and what you're seeing there.
[30:34] I am
[30:36] so last month's agenda we had
[30:39] asked Jordan Clayton from NRCS to come
[30:42] and give us a presentation.
[30:44] Um and
[30:46] I asked him specifically if he could
[30:47] talk about how NRCS does their
[30:49] forecasting. Um
[30:51] and you know, what's their methodology
[30:53] in developing
[30:55] um an an estimate or forecast of what
[30:58] the spring runoff would be and what the
[30:59] inflows to the lake and then how does he
[31:02] how has he been getting to that his
[31:04] forecast for the lake level um for the
[31:06] summer.
[31:08] And so he um unfortunately we had to
[31:11] postpone our meeting and but we um but
[31:15] he did send and then he couldn't make it
[31:17] today. Um
[31:18] his his final for forecast is comes out
[31:24] first, I guess that's on the on
[31:26] Wednesday. Um and so he's really busy
[31:29] getting that done and finishing up with
[31:31] some field work for that. So he wasn't
[31:33] able to come, but I wanted to I thought
[31:35] it was well worth highlighting some of his slides
[31:40] um for you.
[31:43] And so this is you know, just to preface
[31:45] this, this is all Jordan's information.
[31:48] Um but I thought I think there are is
[31:50] some, you know, as we're looking at how
[31:52] we forecast salinity for the year, I
[31:54] thought this is some good background.
[31:57] Because so much of this comes down to
[31:59] how much water do we expect, um how high
[32:01] do we expect the lake to come up this
[32:03] year. Um and then that drives how we
[32:06] think salinity salt might move through
[32:08] the breach and um and the mass that we
[32:12] have to work with.
[32:14] So he had quite a few slides and I'm
[32:16] going to um skip through a lot of them,
[32:19] but um just in in terms of his
[32:23] you know, just providing an overview, we
[32:26] know the watershed is is large and I
[32:28] think um I think what is impressive is
[32:31] the number of snow tel sites and snow
[32:33] courses that they monitor throughout the
[32:36] basin.
[32:37] Um so it's SNOTEL sites measuring the
[32:40] meteorological information, how much
[32:42] snow is falling. The snow courses where
[32:44] they go up on snowmobiles um up to the
[32:47] site and they're actually measuring um
[32:50] the depth of the snow.
[32:52] And so they've got um they feel like a a
[32:55] really good representation
[32:57] um across the basin looking at um as you
[33:01] know high as well as medium elevation
[33:03] sites, low elevation sites uh really to
[33:06] help um forecast what the inflows or
[33:09] what the available water supply is. And
[33:12] this isn't just used and just recently
[33:14] we've been using this to look at
[33:16] forecasting the the lake level, but this
[33:19] is the data set that's that water
[33:21] suppliers are using and they plan most
[33:24] of their reservoir operations on on
[33:26] these types of forecasts.
[33:30] So um here you can just see a
[33:33] distribution of the of the SNOTEL sites
[33:35] and stream gauging sites um all done in
[33:39] cooperation with USGS.
[33:42] Um
[33:43] you know, in terms of um you know,
[33:46] inflows where they've got measurements
[33:48] um and then
[33:50] uh there you can see the rep the areas
[33:53] that are represented by their sites in
[33:55] red.
[33:56] Uh so in a lot of our mountain areas
[33:58] they've got really good coverage
[34:00] um for precipitation data, same same
[34:03] type of thing. Really for trying to
[34:05] forecast because our system is snow um
[34:09] snowmelt dominated um they're really
[34:11] focusing on trying to understand what
[34:13] what's happening at those higher
[34:14] elevations that hold our snow. This I
[34:17] thought this graph was was interesting
[34:20] just showing the distribution of where
[34:22] they have SNOTEL sites um at different
[34:24] elevations. So you can see with the the
[34:26] blue curve that's that's what I what I'm
[34:29] referencing. All those triangles
[34:31] represent their sites that they're
[34:33] measuring. So we're not just measuring at high
[34:36] elevations. We've we've got SNOTEL sites
[34:39] throughout
[34:40] all of the elevations.
[34:45] Let's see. I touched on this. Um
[34:48] you know, one thing he noted was that
[34:50] most of the precipitation falls between
[34:52] 7,000 and 9,000 ft. And and they really
[34:56] don't feel like we're missing uh too
[34:58] much information there. We can always
[35:00] have more gauges, but for the most part
[35:02] we've covered it.
[35:03] Um current conditions, I think we all
[35:06] know are not good. Um
[35:09] Let's see. Comparison to
[35:12] I did take the liberty to add that
[35:14] straight line in there. Um that was just
[35:17] from
[35:18] So what you see the dash lines, so he
[35:20] was going to present this on February
[35:22] 26th. So his forecast then were based on
[35:25] the information they had on February
[35:26] 1st. And um and so
[35:30] you can go on to their website today,
[35:32] and that's what I did this morning, and
[35:34] you can get their current, you know,
[35:36] where are we today based on SNOTEL data.
[35:39] Um all of those dash lines you see there
[35:41] are are forecasts or projections that
[35:44] they can make um based on where we were
[35:46] on February 26th. And you can see the
[35:49] bottom one there is the minimum
[35:51] projection, um which is even lower than
[35:54] the 10% projection. Um and that black
[35:57] line you see going from upper left to
[35:59] lower right, um there, this is where we
[36:03] are
[36:04] um today um in terms of our snow water
[36:08] or
[36:09] snow water equivalent measurements on um
[36:12] at this um SNOTEL sites throughout the
[36:15] basin. So a lot can change between these
[36:19] forecasts. Um that was this is data
[36:21] based on February 1st. Uh we should be
[36:24] getting another update uh forecasts on
[36:27] April 1st.
[36:29] So, they're
[36:31] constantly updating, trying to figure
[36:33] out what's happening in in the basin.
[36:36] I'm going to jump through a lot of
[36:37] these. Um I think from a precipitation
[36:40] standpoint, um at couple weeks ago at
[36:44] the Utah Water Users Conference, uh
[36:46] Jordan gave a presentation and just
[36:48] noted that overall our precipitation's
[36:50] been pretty normal. Um what's different
[36:53] is just the temperature paradigm that
[36:55] we've been in where we just haven't seen
[36:57] the snow accumulation and and now
[36:59] especially we're seeing the snow melt
[37:01] happening very quickly.
[37:04] Um soil moisture has been above normal.
[37:08] Um and I and and I believe what Jordan
[37:11] had explained is just with more more
[37:13] precipitation coming as rain, that's
[37:15] really helped our soil moisture
[37:17] um in in the watershed. But without the
[37:20] snow, you know, typically a higher snow
[37:23] or soil moisture helps with runoff
[37:25] efficiency, meaning that more of that
[37:27] snow comes into our streams and down to
[37:29] the lake.
[37:30] Um but without the snow, it's it's not
[37:34] helping our our over overall supply.
[37:38] Um I think our air temperatures have
[37:41] been above normal.
[37:43] Um reservoirs are filling with what available snow we
[37:49] do have. Um but we're below where we
[37:53] were last year.
[37:55] Um so, you can see here as of February
[37:56] 1st, we're 68% capacity compared to 80%
[37:59] the the previous year.
[38:02] Um
[38:04] Let's see. So, in terms of of Great Salt
[38:06] Lake inflow and lake level rise
[38:08] forecast,
[38:10] um they are using these four primary
[38:12] gauges, USGS gauges. And um
[38:17] and what they're doing is they're taking
[38:18] the they're estimating their the runoff volume um and and then
[38:25] looking at where we are today or at the
[38:27] particular day in the lake and then
[38:29] they're adding that volume to that to to
[38:31] understand what's what's going to happen
[38:33] to what the water level.
[38:34] So that part I think is fairly
[38:37] straightforward. I think a lot of the
[38:38] magic happens in in forecasting how
[38:41] runoff how the snow's going to melt and
[38:44] how that's going to translate into um
[38:46] flow coming to the lake.
[38:49] So they've got um a lot of data um from
[38:52] prior years. I think one of the key
[38:54] challenges that they have is that every
[38:56] year is different. Um they highlighted in
[39:00] 2023 we had the all-time highest
[39:04] snowpack or snow water
[39:06] um equivalent SWE. Um and then this year
[39:10] we have the all-time low. So in just the
[39:12] span of 3 years we've swung from an
[39:14] all-time high to an all-time low.
[39:16] So that obviously it gives it adds to
[39:20] the data set um but when we're operating
[39:23] on the extremes it's really hard for
[39:25] them to predict um what's going to
[39:28] happen.
[39:30] So they they've got a number of
[39:32] processes that they um that they're
[39:35] using with their with their forecast
[39:37] modeling system. Uh they're using
[39:39] machine learning to constantly try to
[39:41] recalibrate the model to try to
[39:43] understand what's happening um and
[39:46] really starting to work towards and
[39:48] they've got a number of methods that
[39:49] they use to to work towards using an
[39:51] ensemble or an average from those
[39:54] different um forecasts and then
[39:57] reporting those values.
[39:59] Um if you haven't been to their website
[40:02] it's amazing the information that that
[40:04] you have available um to look at. Um
[40:09] let's see.
[40:11] So they're combining what their modeling
[40:13] forecasts are but then they're also
[40:14] looking at um just doing some hand
[40:17] calculations, looking at um
[40:21] you know, what's the 50th um percentile
[40:23] exceedance value that they have and then
[40:26] adding and you can see here they in this case he looked at the February
[40:31] 1st lake elevation uh what the volume of
[40:34] the water was in the lake at that time.
[40:36] And one note is they don't account for
[40:38] the berm. Um they're assuming that the
[40:41] lake is at one level.
[40:44] And um but then they look at what's the lake level associated with the new
[40:49] volume accounting for the inflow
[40:51] forecast. And I think this is I
[40:54] and I think um Bill
[40:56] I think there is something to what you
[40:58] were observing because on February 1st
[41:01] the inflow forecast was only 290,000
[41:04] acre feet. Um which is horrible when you
[41:08] look at what we've typically see.
[41:11] Um and so by when they added that the forecast for the lake um we would
[41:17] all
[41:18] um would have been
[41:20] um
[41:21] I think 4192.2.
[41:24] Um
[41:25] so on the website here and please stop
[41:29] me if you have questions. I'm blasting
[41:31] through this pretty quick. Um but
[41:33] typically what they're looking at is the
[41:35] in in um there's all kinds of these
[41:38] charts. You can look at every stream and
[41:40] see what their forecasts are.
[41:42] Um but then what they've done in the
[41:43] last 5 years is is they've added those
[41:46] all together to come up with the Great
[41:47] Salt Lake inflow.
[41:49] The number that I think is most useful
[41:51] is um
[41:52] in in the green right in the middle
[41:54] there 290,000
[41:56] acre feet of inflow.
[41:59] Um and then you can see the range that's
[42:02] the potential range um and it's a it's a
[42:05] very wide range.
[42:06] But it gives you kind of an idea of the uncertainty that's there.
[42:12] So when when he added that, I guess
[42:14] let's see
[42:15] I was wrong. The based on the February
[42:17] 1st forecast, the the prediction was
[42:21] um
[42:22] Let's see, lake level rise.
[42:25] So, it it was 4190 um 191.8
[42:30] on February 1st. As of March 1st, which
[42:33] is what he's using here,
[42:35] um it was 4192.4.
[42:37] And what he reported at Utah water users
[42:40] 2 weeks ago was that 4192.5.
[42:44] Um
[42:45] And so, one of the reasons that's that
[42:47] it's coming up here
[42:49] is just
[42:51] um
[42:52] Let's see.
[42:54] And I'll I'll email this these slides to
[42:57] you so you can peruse them.
[43:00] Um but the the latest forecast that they
[43:03] have is that we'll have a um
[43:05] uh inflow about 325,000 acre feet. Um
[43:09] so, it's it's been coming up since over
[43:12] the last couple months.
[43:13] Um but one I think this slide is
[43:15] important in just noting that this does
[43:17] not account for management actions. So,
[43:20] on a on a poor year, I think
[43:24] historically, um water managers if if
[43:27] their reservoirs are low, they're going
[43:28] to store as much as they can to to get
[43:30] those reservoirs up to where they can get. Um if if they're already starting out
[43:36] pretty full, then that they may actually
[43:37] dump water um
[43:39] at point to make room for a spring
[43:41] runoff. So, there's a lot of interplay
[43:44] there with um with water managers. And
[43:48] um
[43:50] And you know, he notes here is lower
[43:52] than typical percent of variability is
[43:54] explained by the runoff models. There's
[43:56] poor correlation.
[43:58] Um but a lot of that is just due to a
[44:00] lot of the decisions water management
[44:02] decisions that are happening in the
[44:03] watershed. And so, we can try to
[44:06] calibrate models to USGS gauge data, Uh
[44:10] but just depending on what the needs
[44:12] are, those you know, water managers can
[44:14] change their reservoir operations to
[44:16] meet their needs and and then that can
[44:18] throw off our calibrations
[44:21] because it's not based on natural
[44:23] processes anymore. It's it's now we're
[44:26] trying to have we're having to
[44:27] incorporate
[44:29] management decisions as well. So that adds a lot to the uncertainty here.
[44:35] Um and then they don't account for
[44:36] evaporate evaporative losses
[44:39] um and really trying to just focus on
[44:42] the 50th percentile
[44:44] um
[44:45] when they're doing this.
[44:47] Let's see.
[44:48] Um
[44:52] So generally, you know, they're
[44:53] typically 75 to 80% accurate and I think
[44:58] a few years ago they they nailed the the
[45:01] lake level prediction and last year they
[45:03] were off a bit. Um but I think when when
[45:06] you consider the uncertainty that there
[45:09] is across the the board here,
[45:12] what they're doing is pretty remarkable.
[45:15] Um
[45:17] And so they're they're constantly
[45:18] working to try to make improvements. So
[45:21] here that's where the machine learning
[45:24] is a big thing that they're investing
[45:26] into to try to incorporate a lot more
[45:29] parameters into it to try to understand
[45:31] what's really driving these systems.
[45:34] The longer the period, the better
[45:35] statistical representation that they can
[45:37] get. They've been adding new SNOTEL
[45:40] sites and and really trying to
[45:42] incorporate more parameters. So I think
[45:45] soil moisture is something that's
[45:48] um
[45:49] been I guess when I think about even my
[45:51] career relatively recent
[45:54] addition into the forecasting
[45:57] that I think has made a big improvement
[45:59] in and their accuracy.
[46:02] But there's a lot more that they're that
[46:03] they're working on. And you can see
[46:05] here, I mean even dust impacts on the
[46:07] snow can affect how the snow
[46:10] melts. And those aren't things that we
[46:12] have in our in our snow melt models.
[46:15] Um
[46:15] so there's a lot of things that are
[46:17] moving here.
[46:22] So I think that is the gist of it. Um so
[46:26] there's there's about 50 slides here. So
[46:28] I'll I'll forward that this to you all
[46:30] and you can look through them. Um and
[46:33] Jordan's certainly open to answering
[46:34] questions. Um he but apologized for not
[46:37] being able to be here today. So
[46:40] I guess any questions
[46:42] that I
[46:43] almost hesitate to try to answer.
[46:47] I have an elementary question. Mhm.
[46:49] 325,000
[46:52] estimate
[46:54] for a year.
[46:56] That's for spring runoff. That's for
[46:58] spring runoff. Yeah.
[47:00] Um
[47:02] And what
[47:03] Could we have that repeated for those
[47:05] online?
[47:06] Oh, can you I'm sorry.
[47:10] I'm asking about the period for the 325,000 acre foot
[47:15] inflow. Yeah. So that'll cover what
[47:18] January to July. July, okay.
[47:21] Yeah.
[47:23] So you can go to his their website and
[47:26] um
[47:29] Let's see.
[47:30] How did I get the answer here before? Um
[47:47] Oh, shoot. It's not coming.
[47:52] But um Oh, this is all the stream flows.
[47:54] Um
[47:55] but
[47:56] this is where you can come to um
[48:00] to their website and you can get those
[48:02] graphs to find out exactly what their update is.
[48:06] Um,
[48:08] Oh,
[48:09] I just had to scroll down. So, here's
[48:11] Great Salt Lake inflow. There's the 325
[48:14] value.
[48:15] Um,
[48:16] and then you can go through that's April
[48:18] to July is the forecast period.
[48:21] Um,
[48:22] and then you can go through every one of
[48:26] their gauges in the system
[48:28] to see what that means. Um, or how they
[48:31] get to that.
[48:35] But, when you consider 325,000
[48:37] acre-feet, that's you know, I think an
[48:40] average year was used to be 1 million.
[48:44] Um,
[48:45] you know, acre-feet, so it's not good. Um,
[48:51] and it's a really low year. Um,
[48:53] that said, I think you know, Bill, that
[48:56] the fact that we're getting more flow
[48:57] through the the Jordan River system
[49:00] um, is is a is a good note. Um, you
[49:03] know, is that because they are
[49:06] um, transferring some of those water
[49:07] supplies?
[49:09] Um, I don't
[49:11] I just drove past the Jordan River up by
[49:13] Utah Lake yesterday and it didn't I
[49:16] mean, the Jordan River was not flowing
[49:19] much at all. It was really low. So,
[49:20] they're not moving water from the Utah
[49:22] Lake system.
[49:23] So,
[49:25] you know,
[49:26] I don't know.
[49:32] All right.
[49:34] Um,
[49:35] so, any I guess any questions there?
[49:37] Else we'll move on.
[49:39] Um, yeah, Bill.
[49:42] Yeah, thank you, Jeff. Um,
[49:44] yeah, so I think most of that delivery
[49:47] from Utah Lake was occurring in the
[49:48] fall.
[49:50] And I think it showed up actually in um,
[49:53] Christine's
[49:54] um,
[49:55] you know image.
[49:56] And so
[49:58] I guess the the the take home point is
[50:01] that we're we're now about to face a
[50:04] period that is
[50:06] you know, going to be challenging. Mhm.
[50:09] And the water deliveries that have been
[50:11] negotiated, we'll see how much of that
[50:14] actually materializes in a stressed year
[50:17] like this year.
[50:19] Where the water shed demand is going to
[50:21] be you know, very much dictating what's
[50:23] available to bring into the lake
[50:25] relative to what's been negotiated.
[50:27] Right.
[50:28] >> Um so we're going to learn a lot this
[50:30] summer. Mhm.
[50:34] For sure.
[50:37] Um
[50:38] Great. Well, thank you. Um so Jim, did
[50:41] you have anything to update us with what
[50:45] you know, in terms of what DWQ is doing?
[50:49] Um I just have a brief update. Just um
[50:52] we're in the midst of reviewing um water
[50:55] lease proposed
[50:57] um lithium extraction facility in the
[51:00] North Arm. And as you might recall, we
[51:02] had to develop some rules a couple of
[51:03] years ago that regulate um new
[51:07] extraction um operations. Uh they have to demonstrate that there's no
[51:11] negative impact to the biota or the
[51:13] chemistry of the lake. And so
[51:15] phased approach. The first phase
[51:17] happened last spring where they
[51:18] collected about 6 months worth of data
[51:21] and um rolled that into um
[51:24] certification application that we're
[51:26] reviewing right now. Um where they're
[51:29] kind of self-certifying that they're not
[51:31] going to have an impact or negative
[51:32] impact.
[51:34] And um we've been working with Four
[51:35] Seasons and Empire State Lands very
[51:37] closely on this and um should in the
[51:39] coming few weeks, couple of weeks have
[51:42] um some decisions made on on that, but
[51:44] we're still negotiating some of the
[51:45] details of that application.
[51:48] Uh keep in mind there will be an
[51:49] opportunity for public review and
[51:51] comment. The next steps would be if
[51:53] approved that we would issue a discharge
[51:56] permit and then they'll have a public
[51:58] comment um period associated with that.
[52:00] So, uh look
[52:03] no promises, but look for something
[52:04] sometime this spring. So,
[52:08] that's all I got for now. All right.
[52:10] Thank you.
[52:11] Yep. Any questions
[52:14] for him?
[52:16] If not, Ben, you want to give us an
[52:18] update? Yeah. Uh so, a couple of couple
[52:21] of things I think the last time we met
[52:23] was October. So, it's been pretty slow
[52:25] for us since then. We bought a factory
[52:28] and uh
[52:29] it's that's that's been keeping us on
[52:31] our toes, but um as far as salinity is
[52:33] concerned, I think that's going to be
[52:35] something that I would love to you know
[52:36] discuss with
[52:37] um this group
[52:39] you know, eventually. We're working with
[52:41] Cargill and um some of the other small
[52:43] operators to figure out, you know,
[52:44] exactly what that looks like to keep
[52:46] them, you know, going. Um but with that
[52:48] they're not going to need the same
[52:49] amount of uh water
[52:51] uh and then also they'll have a return
[52:53] flow and I think there's a an
[52:54] opportunity there to think about how we
[52:57] use salinity um that's accumulated in
[52:59] that pond to also buffer, you know, uh
[53:02] what we do between the breach and the
[53:04] north arm and then also how we restore
[53:06] that portion of
[53:07] uh of the bay.
[53:09] So, a lot to come there and but right
[53:11] now we're kind of focused on dealing
[53:12] with the bank and how to let people come
[53:15] in and get their collateral and all of
[53:16] those issues. So, it's been a full-time
[53:19] job or seven
[53:20] um on top of what we're already doing.
[53:23] Um and then we are also still working on
[53:25] our uh comprehensive management plan and
[53:28] mineral leasing plan.
[53:29] Um Jacobs is helping us with those
[53:31] plans. We're making great progress and I
[53:33] think we'll have a draft out probably in
[53:36] the next
[53:38] Well, it'll be we're aiming for July for
[53:41] the public draft.
[53:42] >> Perfect. Um I know we have a few things
[53:44] we're reviewing now, but we're uh
[53:46] we're looking forward to getting that
[53:47] out so we can um move on on getting that
[53:50] plan finalized. There's some updates to
[53:52] the elevation matrix and some other
[53:54] things that um I think will be of
[53:56] interest for everyone. We're also
[53:58] working to finish this salinity
[54:00] management plan so we can reference that
[54:02] in this as well. And with that, I think
[54:04] Jeff will talk about it later, but I
[54:06] think we're thinking more about broad
[54:08] goals and not uh
[54:09] you know, when this happens, here's
[54:11] exactly what we do cuz we know that all
[54:13] these different dynamics um change and
[54:15] that's kind of how it is on Great Salt
[54:17] Lake cuz I think we uh
[54:19] we know what we know right now and then
[54:20] next year we're going to know a hell of
[54:21] a lot more, hopefully.
[54:23] Um and then as far as the water leaf uh application goes, just like Jim said,
[54:28] we're making great progress on that. Um
[54:30] Jake, who's sitting there in the back,
[54:32] he's been doing the bulk of the work for our division and has done a a
[54:35] tremendous job uh coming through that
[54:37] combing through that with a fine-tooth
[54:39] comb. Um but we I think
[54:41] in coordination with water quality
[54:43] should have decisions here in the next
[54:45] few weeks.
[54:46] Um and then the last thing that I wanted
[54:49] to discuss was I I think I kind of piped
[54:51] up and said I wanted to add this to the
[54:53] um
[54:55] to the agenda, but I want to discuss
[54:57] what and how we should be thinking about
[54:59] berm modifications this year, you know,
[55:01] if any. There was some legislation that
[55:03] happened in the special ses- session
[55:05] back in October that um kind of changed
[55:07] the dynamic of how we can consider
[55:08] modifying the berm. It allows us to
[55:10] consider things besides salinity um such
[55:12] as like uh some examples would be you
[55:15] know, microbialite coverage. Like if we
[55:16] were, you know, a couple feet from
[55:18] dropping below 4192 and we want to
[55:20] consider, you know, keeping that South
[55:22] Arm wetted so we could keep those
[55:23] microbialites wetted, there may be some
[55:24] advantage and maybe we can do that in a
[55:26] way that doesn't um harm the salinity as
[55:29] much. Um however, it does put a cap on
[55:31] raising the berm to 4192, at least the
[55:33] way I read it. I think there's been some
[55:35] folks that have had different
[55:36] interpretations, but as we go back and
[55:38] forth, I think we've all uh ended up
[55:40] settling on 4192 as the maximum. We
[55:42] still have to raise it if there's if it
[55:44] goes below 4190. So, there's not a whole
[55:47] lot of room where we get to make
[55:49] discretionary changes to the berm, but
[55:52] it does exist. So, I guess what I wanted
[55:54] to make sure we were thinking about is
[55:57] um I I assume we're going to fall below
[55:59] 4192. I think everybody can probably
[56:01] agree that's going to happen this year.
[56:03] And
[56:04] we might be in a position where we're
[56:05] fall falling below 4190 and we have to
[56:07] raise the berm anyway.
[56:09] So, what I wanted to discuss was whether
[56:11] or not um anybody has any thoughts on
[56:14] whether we should consider, you know,
[56:15] once we start dropping down, should we
[56:17] raise the berm up and try to, you know,
[56:19] impound inflows so we keep what we have
[56:22] in the South Arm this year? Should we
[56:24] let it drop and focus more on fall of
[56:27] this coming year? I mean, I think the
[56:29] one concept would be that we raise it up
[56:31] to 4192
[56:33] um at the end of this water year and
[56:35] then capture everything moving into the
[56:36] next year just knowing that if we
[56:38] continue on a downward trend, we could have some issues. But, I'm sure
[56:42] we'll have some different meetings
[56:43] between now and October, but I just want
[56:45] to make sure that
[56:46] at least right now, we're thinking
[56:48] through what the next step is. So, I
[56:50] don't know if anybody has any thoughts
[56:52] on, you know,
[56:53] what we should be considering here with
[56:55] spring runoff and as we enter into the summer season,
[56:58] you know, with lake levels declining and
[57:00] salinity levels probably rising, um if
[57:03] there's any threshold
[57:05] times or I guess
[57:07] uh yeah, lake levels where we ought to
[57:09] reconvene or consider
[57:12] raising that. Any any thoughts from
[57:13] anybody?
[57:17] Then I did um include those slides that
[57:19] I had shared with you. Oh, perfect. So,
[57:21] I'm kind I kind of walk folks through
[57:23] what it might look like. I don't know if
[57:24] that's helpful, but that might help
[57:25] facilitate the conversation.
[57:26] >> Yeah, I think that would be awesome if
[57:27] that's
[57:28] Yeah. That might I think that would be
[57:30] good. We can just jump into the next
[57:31] agenda item and talk about the estimate
[57:34] or estimates for this year and
[57:36] for Kyle. And then just one thought
[57:38] outside of salinity,
[57:40] um we're going to talk about this a lot
[57:41] more at our TAG meeting coming up on
[57:42] Wednesday. So, if any of you guys can
[57:44] attend that, but some of the emerging
[57:46] research that we're seeing out of Gary
[57:48] Belovsky's lab is a nutrient limitation.
[57:52] And while we're exporting a lot of salt
[57:54] to the North Arm, we're also exporting a
[57:55] lot of nitrogen.
[57:57] And in an already limited system,
[58:01] having all that nitrogen decoupled from
[58:02] the South Arm is becoming a problem.
[58:05] And so, I may, you know, kind of suggest
[58:08] that we may have look at maybe s-
[58:11] cutting a hole in the berm, you know,
[58:12] kind of cleaning it out a little bit now
[58:15] and allow some North Arm water exchange
[58:17] for the summer and then yeah, come back
[58:19] in at the end of the water year and then
[58:21] build that berm back up just to allow
[58:23] some of that nitrogen to come back to
[58:24] the South Arm and maintain productivity
[58:27] for the biota that's there.
[58:30] Um just a thought and I'm willing to
[58:31] discuss it. Like I said, we'll have some
[58:34] finer details on that on Wednesday that
[58:36] I can't speak to yet cuz I'm not as
[58:38] smart as Gary, but
[58:41] maybe the industry has some thoughts on
[58:42] that.
[58:49] I mean, I'll just mention that it's something
[58:53] that we've been discussing for a while
[58:54] now that, you know, we could use we
[58:56] could lose quite a bit of those nutrients.
[59:00] And we haven't really
[59:02] um determined, you know, what those
[59:04] losses are.
[59:06] Um so, it's certainly something we're going to have to focus on.
[59:10] Um
[59:12] And, you know, on the other hand,
[59:15] if we leave the berm open, we keep
[59:17] exporting salt. We may come to a point
[59:20] where that salinity becomes too low.
[59:23] Luckily, we're not there.
[59:25] Well, I I think right now I
[59:28] my opinion is similar to Ben's is we we
[59:31] look at what is happening and
[59:34] during the fall when we start to see the
[59:35] lake or
[59:37] when we get it when the lake reaches its
[59:40] uh
[59:41] its lowest point then we increase the
[59:43] size of the berm to really capture that
[59:45] water.
[59:46] That would be, you know,
[59:48] but it's
[59:50] that's kind of an intuitive
[59:52] approach.
[59:53] I'm a little bit leery of opening up
[59:55] that berm if we don't really know how
[59:57] much
[59:59] um nutrients we can re-import and if we
[1:00:02] don't really know how much salt we're
[1:00:05] going to re-import. So,
[1:00:07] it's um
[1:00:08] I mean, I guess it
[1:00:10] we could look at it as an experiment
[1:00:13] and make sure we measure everything
[1:00:15] carefully, but
[1:00:16] it's a big experiment. Oh, for sure. And
[1:00:21] that's why it's a a conversation right
[1:00:23] now of, you know, I think we're in a
[1:00:24] good position where we're on the bottom
[1:00:27] end of salinity that we have a little
[1:00:28] bit of range to
[1:00:32] absorb some of that salt
[1:00:35] with the potential benefit of bringing
[1:00:37] back some nutrients. So, and that's
[1:00:39] where, you know, cleaning out what's
[1:00:42] left of the berm. I mean, it sounds like
[1:00:43] it's severely eroded based on the most recent topographic images of
[1:00:47] the uh
[1:00:48] of the berm itself. So, maybe cleaning
[1:00:50] some of that out and creating a a space
[1:00:53] for to facilitate North Arm water
[1:00:55] trickling back in, which
[1:00:57] won't be ideal because there's not a
[1:00:58] mixing mechanism and we are going to
[1:01:00] potentially create a deep run layer in
[1:01:03] the in the North Basin of Farmington
[1:01:05] Bay, but
[1:01:07] is that beneficial? And I think that's a
[1:01:08] conversation that would be a good thing
[1:01:10] to have at this time moving forward so
[1:01:14] that we have some opportunities to see
[1:01:16] what's available, look at some of the
[1:01:18] content. And I think some of the
[1:01:20] measurements there it's just we need
[1:01:21] some people to look at the data and
[1:01:24] you know, look at it as an option and
[1:01:26] see what's going to be best for the
[1:01:27] system.
[1:01:29] Carl, did did Gary tell you how much
[1:01:31] nitrogen he thinks the bay the South Arm
[1:01:35] has lost in
[1:01:37] as a whole? I think he mentioned some
[1:01:39] numbers based on some of Christine's
[1:01:41] calculations and that's why
[1:01:44] I'm hesitant to give a number because I
[1:01:46] don't remember what those were.
[1:01:48] But like I say, that's going to be a
[1:01:49] good question on Wednesday.
[1:01:52] And Bill, you had your hand up.
[1:01:55] Yeah, I just want to clarify I'm really
[1:01:57] surprised to hear that that would be
[1:01:59] significant, the nitrogen coming from
[1:02:01] the North Arm would be significant
[1:02:02] compared to all the South Arm inflows
[1:02:04] that are you know, many of which are
[1:02:05] wastewater dominated.
[1:02:08] Um
[1:02:09] So I I'd really like to get a sense of
[1:02:11] confidence level
[1:02:13] that the North Arm is a significant
[1:02:15] contributor of nitrogen compared to
[1:02:16] those sources.
[1:02:19] Um we're very confident that the North
[1:02:21] Arm is a substantial source of nitrogen
[1:02:23] to the system. It's about when it when
[1:02:25] the berm yeah, when the berm was not
[1:02:28] there and we just had bidirectional flow
[1:02:30] from our mass balance analysis from
[1:02:32] about 2017 to 2022, we estimate that the
[1:02:35] North Arm is supplying about half of the
[1:02:37] nitrogen input to the South Arm. So
[1:02:39] that's it relative to the surface water
[1:02:41] gauges. So we know the North Arm is a
[1:02:42] really important source of nitrogen. The challenges with our records at the
[1:02:48] breach is
[1:02:50] and the challenges we've had with the
[1:02:51] nutrient labs is stitching together
[1:02:54] what that nutrient flux has been from
[1:02:56] north to south. We have estimates and
[1:02:58] essentially when you raise the berm, you
[1:02:59] just cut off that supply which we know
[1:03:01] is really important and I'm trying to
[1:03:03] find my email to Gary where we estimated
[1:03:05] this so I can give you a number, but we
[1:03:07] were basically able to say based on our
[1:03:09] estimates of flux that have been cut off
[1:03:11] and relative to the nutrient mass in the
[1:03:13] South Arm nitrogen mass, Um, it's
[1:03:16] decreased the concentration it would
[1:03:17] have decreased the concentration in the
[1:03:18] South Arm by some amount and that's what
[1:03:20] I'm trying to to look up. But, yeah, but
[1:03:22] we know it's a really important source
[1:03:23] of nitrogen, but it has been pretty
[1:03:24] difficult for us to quantify, especially
[1:03:27] after 2023. We just don't have a lot of
[1:03:29] data to work with. Um, but we're
[1:03:32] continuing to think about that and we'll
[1:03:33] be presenting at the TAG on this of like
[1:03:36] our best estimates of the flux and
[1:03:37] relative to, you know, when we modify
[1:03:40] the berm and we change the um the
[1:03:42] magnitude of flux of salt, what is kind
[1:03:44] of a proportional change in nutrient
[1:03:46] flux we're seeing. So, yeah, we're going
[1:03:48] to be discussing that more at the TAG.
[1:03:50] So, Christine, did I hear you right that
[1:03:52] you were saying 50% of the of the
[1:03:55] nitrogen inflow
[1:03:57] into the South Arm would be coming from
[1:04:00] in the past, historically, had become
[1:04:02] >> Roughly about half. Yeah.
[1:04:03] About half and that would be an average
[1:04:05] or that would be a maximum?
[1:04:07] >> That's an like I think an average and I
[1:04:08] can check those calculations, too, but
[1:04:10] that's based on just a kind of an annual
[1:04:12] look at the nitrogen coming into the
[1:04:14] South Arm and it's it's substantial.
[1:04:16] Yeah.
[1:04:17] And to further build on that, some of
[1:04:19] the
[1:04:20] you know, the the suggestion that Gary
[1:04:22] made is that the North Arm has now
[1:04:24] become a giant sink for nitrogen. So,
[1:04:26] while we're exporting everything, all
[1:04:27] the nitrogen goes into the North Arm,
[1:04:29] the water evaporates, the nitrogen
[1:04:31] stays. With the limited return flow from
[1:04:33] North to South, all that nitrogen's
[1:04:35] getting concentrated up there, uh just
[1:04:38] like the way the salt is. And so, we're
[1:04:41] kind of net exporting
[1:04:43] uh nitrogen out of the South Arm. So,
[1:04:45] even though we do have inflow from
[1:04:48] the freshwater sources, it's it pales in
[1:04:50] comparison to what's being kind of
[1:04:53] stuck in the North Arm.
[1:04:55] Yeah, and how conservative nitrogen is
[1:04:57] in the North Arm is another question and
[1:04:59] Bonnie's been um wondering about this, the nitrogen cycling that's
[1:05:03] happening in that hypersaline
[1:05:04] environment. Is it merely concentrating
[1:05:07] or is it also being transformed and
[1:05:08] being removed in some way? We don't I
[1:05:10] don't There's a lot of unknowns there,
[1:05:11] but
[1:05:15] I think um Bonnie and
[1:05:18] um Scott have had some comments there in
[1:05:20] the in the chat here, just acknowledging
[1:05:22] that
[1:05:23] um
[1:05:24] that we do have nitrogen I guess
[1:05:26] nitrogen fixers in the in the north arm
[1:05:29] that would be
[1:05:30] um bringing that nitrogen in.
[1:05:36] So, I think
[1:05:38] So, it's always great to find out that
[1:05:41] things are even more complicated than
[1:05:42] what we thought.
[1:05:44] But, I think the I guess what I'm
[1:05:47] hearing is that not only is that north
[1:05:50] arm
[1:05:51] flow
[1:05:53] have
[1:05:54] you know, 50% of the load into the lake,
[1:05:56] we've cut that off. So, now we've lost
[1:05:58] that load into the south arm, but we're
[1:06:01] also exporting likely exporting some
[1:06:04] nitrogen to the to the north arm. So,
[1:06:06] that
[1:06:07] is affecting that balance even more in
[1:06:09] the south arm.
[1:06:11] So, yeah. Um
[1:06:14] I know a lot of these calculations stem
[1:06:16] on flow and measuring flow and and USGS
[1:06:19] has tried to
[1:06:21] The breach is a is a really tough place
[1:06:23] to measure. And um one of the things I
[1:06:25] just threw this out to Ryan the other
[1:06:27] day cuz I heard that there was potential
[1:06:28] modifications to the to the um the berm.
[1:06:32] Um
[1:06:33] I've spent the last 2 weeks looking at a
[1:06:35] lot of that data. And when the berm's in
[1:06:37] place, we actually have um and I know
[1:06:39] some and USU has been working on this.
[1:06:42] There's I think the modeling as far as
[1:06:45] predicting flow becomes a little better.
[1:06:47] And I think USGS has methods where we
[1:06:49] could probably have a fairly confident
[1:06:51] number from south to north.
[1:06:53] When we blow that berm out or move that
[1:06:55] berm, that kind of adjust that whole
[1:06:58] computation and makes it a little more
[1:06:59] difficult. And one of the things I I
[1:07:01] mean, just throwing this out there, um
[1:07:04] one One things I thought about is if you
[1:07:06] move that berm, you have erosion, It's
[1:07:08] cons- pretty dynamic, it's hard to to
[1:07:10] quantify that flow.
[1:07:13] Would something like pumping the water
[1:07:16] from the north arm into the south where
[1:07:18] you can have more substantial calculations, you can quantify that flow a little bit
[1:07:24] better. Would would definitely improve
[1:07:27] your numbers going from south to north
[1:07:29] and then north to south as well to kind
[1:07:31] of maybe get a cuz I know there's a lot
[1:07:33] of uncertainty in our flow measurements.
[1:07:35] So, I'll I'll just say that we we
[1:07:37] actually had the Jacobs run some
[1:07:38] engineering on putting in a more
[1:07:40] intelligent structure to see about like
[1:07:43] maybe having something more uniform
[1:07:44] that's more easily adjusted. We also had
[1:07:46] them explore the thought of like maybe
[1:07:48] we put in pumps and you can run it both
[1:07:51] ways and you don't have to worry about
[1:07:52] gravity and elevation and all that fun
[1:07:54] stuff or siphons or other things. Um it
[1:07:57] gets really really really expensive and
[1:07:59] also the pumping uh
[1:08:01] just getting enough electricity and the
[1:08:03] size of the pumps, I mean, any of these
[1:08:04] projects end up up at like 30, 40
[1:08:06] million dollars. And so, I think that
[1:08:09] when we discussed it here at the
[1:08:10] salinity committee, it was kind of like,
[1:08:11] well, you know, this rock berm that's
[1:08:13] basically free um is working good
[1:08:16] enough, but I think that this is still
[1:08:18] something that we're interested in to
[1:08:20] see if we can refine that. And we are
[1:08:22] still working to incorporate some
[1:08:25] components of what Jeff's team came up
[1:08:27] with which one of them was uh a
[1:08:29] protective structure, so seiches and
[1:08:31] wave action don't affect the um you
[1:08:34] know, the berms so we don't have like
[1:08:35] accidental blowouts. We're a little more
[1:08:37] informed and can like be more precise
[1:08:39] with our adjustments and I think for
[1:08:41] monitoring and measuring um having
[1:08:43] something that's more uniform and not
[1:08:44] constantly moving will also help, but um
[1:08:47] that's yeah, we're we're still working
[1:08:49] on that, but I think there's going to be
[1:08:50] core permitting and um other other
[1:08:53] issues along with that. And then I also
[1:08:55] just had a quick question as well. Has
[1:08:56] anybody looked to see if salinity, like
[1:08:59] the actual concentration and nutrients
[1:09:01] are are they correlated? Cuz I would
[1:09:03] assume that
[1:09:05] they've got to be somewhat in the same
[1:09:06] realm, right?
[1:09:08] I haven't looked at that directly, Ben,
[1:09:10] but I'm the nutrient concentrations tend
[1:09:13] to be fairly stable over time.
[1:09:16] Um and while while we kind of see these
[1:09:18] step changes in salinity based on
[1:09:20] changing mass, but I mean recently, so I
[1:09:23] found the email that we sent to Gary and
[1:09:26] uh
[1:09:26] yeah, we are seeing some changes in the
[1:09:28] South Arm nutrient mass more recently.
[1:09:30] Um so yeah, that's a good question. It's
[1:09:32] just how how tightly coupled are they,
[1:09:34] which is part of the analysis we're
[1:09:35] doing at the the breach of just looking
[1:09:37] at those fluxes and how their relative
[1:09:39] changes are.
[1:09:39] >> I mean I would think that assuming that
[1:09:41] you know, when we have big infusions of
[1:09:43] North Arm brines and our salinity goes
[1:09:44] up and whatnot, that we would also have
[1:09:47] big infusions of nutrients as well. And
[1:09:49] so I think it'd be really interesting
[1:09:51] before we start making decisions on
[1:09:53] modifying the berm, like Thomas said,
[1:09:55] you know, like can we refine that and
[1:09:57] understand more closely like what how
[1:09:59] that's related, but also you know, did
[1:10:02] we look back and see like the last time
[1:10:04] that we were 120 g per liter in the
[1:10:06] spring, what was our nutrient where were we at on nutrients? Cuz it's
[1:10:10] just it seems to me like it'd be really
[1:10:11] interesting to know if we're just not
[1:10:13] used to being at this kind of
[1:10:14] concentration. I mean, we we were at
[1:10:15] like 90 g per liter last spring coming
[1:10:18] into this if I remember correctly. And
[1:10:20] so, you know, we're we're kind of slowly
[1:10:22] going back up and that also is what
[1:10:23] makes me a little nervous about allowing
[1:10:26] too much North Arm inflow is that you
[1:10:28] know, we're one really heavy
[1:10:31] evaporative, you know, summer, we could
[1:10:34] be right back up at 150 g per liter, 155
[1:10:37] and we're like, you know, right on the
[1:10:38] cusp of being where we've been trying to
[1:10:39] manage, you know, to keep it below that.
[1:10:41] So, I don't know. It's a little nerve-racking to think
[1:10:45] that we're going to get
[1:10:46] too close, especially
[1:10:48] and we also might be coming into another
[1:10:49] like 10-year longer plus drought, so we
[1:10:53] really got to think about, you know,
[1:10:54] what we do today for the next 10 years.
[1:10:57] I had two questions um Bill and then
[1:11:00] Phil um and then I think it would be
[1:11:02] really good to see what Christine's
[1:11:04] numbers are. I think that'll help
[1:11:05] provide a lot of context to this. Go
[1:11:08] ahead Bill.
[1:11:09] I'm just wondering whether the shortcut
[1:11:11] load during runoff is exporting a lot of
[1:11:14] nitrogen
[1:11:16] and that it is that a major part of the
[1:11:18] problem? And Christine, you may or may
[1:11:19] not have a sense of that, but I'm just
[1:11:20] throwing that out there.
[1:11:22] Yeah, I you know, the Bear I think at
[1:11:24] certain I'll have to look at the the um
[1:11:27] the estimates we generated Bill and
[1:11:29] maybe I can prepare that for Wednesday.
[1:11:30] I don't know if you'll be at the TAG.
[1:11:31] The Bear is being the largest inflow
[1:11:33] carries a lot of mass, but some of our
[1:11:35] other inflows like the Goggin and
[1:11:37] Farmington Bay actually have high high
[1:11:39] concentrations of nutrients, so they
[1:11:41] actually contribute a large portion of
[1:11:43] the nutrient mass, but I think yeah,
[1:11:45] anytime, you know, you think about
[1:11:46] contributions from the Bear, there's a
[1:11:48] risk of it being lost due to that short
[1:11:49] circuiting. So, it's an important thing
[1:11:52] to consider.
[1:11:55] And Bill, those uh
[1:11:57] flows coming into the Bear, they might
[1:11:59] be more dilute than what's in the South
[1:12:02] Arm brine itself because
[1:12:05] if I'm remembering the 2017 NAWQS
[1:12:07] report, on an annual basis, river
[1:12:10] inflows are contributing about 8%
[1:12:13] of the nitrogen. Soluble nitrogen.
[1:12:16] So,
[1:12:19] uh it you know, the river inflow may be
[1:12:21] more dilute than what the South Arm
[1:12:23] brine is. It's delivering nutrients
[1:12:25] because they stick in the lake, but it
[1:12:27] might be more dilute than the brine
[1:12:28] itself. So, that shortcutting,
[1:12:30] ironically, could be exporting less than
[1:12:33] if it was just straight South Arm brine,
[1:12:36] but
[1:12:37] I can't be certain of that.
[1:12:39] The the way the numbers stick out in my
[1:12:40] mind is that the
[1:12:43] nitrogen inflow from the runoff is
[1:12:46] basically offset by atmospheric loss.
[1:12:49] Those are kind of
[1:12:51] they kind of cancel each other out every
[1:12:53] year and so the long-term model that
[1:12:56] Gary's been building for us treats
[1:12:58] nitrogen as just a stable pool
[1:13:00] and it dilutes when you in increase with
[1:13:04] runoff and it concentrates as things are
[1:13:07] evaporating and now what the berm has
[1:13:09] done it's it's just decoupled where that
[1:13:12] nitrogen sits. So the amount of nitrogen
[1:13:14] is kind of the same it's just so much
[1:13:17] more of it is in the north arm than the
[1:13:18] south arm and when the south arm is what
[1:13:21] relies on that nitrogen
[1:13:23] to the effectiveness of industry and
[1:13:27] avian population
[1:13:29] that's kind of hurting us is is kind of
[1:13:32] the the thought that I'm putting out
[1:13:34] there that I want to have a conversation
[1:13:35] about in the future. And that concept of
[1:13:38] a
[1:13:39] somewhat stable nitrogen pool being
[1:13:41] diluted or concentrated is present in
[1:13:44] USGS data while the water quality
[1:13:46] laboratory is still willing to run the
[1:13:48] samples you could develop a pretty good
[1:13:50] correlation between lake elevation and
[1:13:52] total nitrogen concentration
[1:13:55] um but the open question is has that
[1:13:57] relationship changed the way it did with
[1:13:59] salinity and part of the problem with
[1:14:02] the water quality lab not running these
[1:14:03] samples anymore is that happened um
[1:14:06] during a period where you'd notice that
[1:14:08] step change and we don't have the data
[1:14:10] and uh Christine's presented on that in
[1:14:12] TAG before it's a bit of a
[1:14:14] um
[1:14:15] bad timing to have a data gap so that's
[1:14:17] kind of the open question but prior to
[1:14:20] um a lot of berm modification it was
[1:14:22] fairly tightly coupled elevation and
[1:14:25] total nitrogen in USGS data so but
[1:14:27] that's
[1:14:28] I want to make sure we've got um cuz
[1:14:30] that it sounds like Wednesday and this
[1:14:33] nutrient issues going to be the main
[1:14:35] event and
[1:14:37] um and so we'll have all of that I mean
[1:14:39] a lot of you will be there. Did you
[1:14:42] some quick Yeah I just wanted to make
[1:14:43] one more comment is that in in a little
[1:14:45] bit of research we did on nutrient
[1:14:47] cycling, which was Christine and the
[1:14:49] USGS did that work.
[1:14:51] We found that it was a lot of
[1:14:52] sequestration of nutrients in the in the
[1:14:55] benthic portion of the lake. And you
[1:14:57] know, one wonders as we lost the deep
[1:15:00] brine layer, how that may or may not
[1:15:02] have contributed to nutrients. So, I
[1:15:04] think there's an added complexity with
[1:15:06] nutrients in that the cycling, you know,
[1:15:09] creates a much more complex situation
[1:15:11] than let's say with minerals in the
[1:15:13] lake. So, Yeah, what I agree. There's
[1:15:15] multiple chemical and biological
[1:15:16] processes happening with nutrients that
[1:15:18] is not necessarily happening happening
[1:15:20] with salinity. But, I I will be sharing
[1:15:22] on more on that Wednesday. Also, maybe
[1:15:23] there won't be time cuz we'll be talking
[1:15:25] about the firm the whole time, but um
[1:15:27] and I did look up our email chain with
[1:15:29] Gary and I had estimated about 0.1 to
[1:15:32] 0.2 mg per liter nitrogen decrease in
[1:15:35] the South Arm. So, that's concentration
[1:15:37] per year. And so, but it's important to
[1:15:39] consider the cumulative effects of what
[1:15:40] that might be. So, each year which we're
[1:15:42] cutting off that nitrogen supply from
[1:15:44] the North Arm by three year by by year
[1:15:47] three, then I estimate about half a
[1:15:49] milligram per liter decline of nitrogen
[1:15:50] in the South Arm. And these are very rough estimates based on limited
[1:15:54] data we have. Um but, that's gives you
[1:15:56] some sense of from what you know,
[1:15:59] conversations with Gary and looking at
[1:16:00] our data with you know, Scott and I
[1:16:02] looking at the data. So, And then just
[1:16:03] for context for those online, half a
[1:16:05] milligram per liter, what is that as
[1:16:07] like a percentage of total nitrogen?
[1:16:08] Percentage, it's like the the South Arm
[1:16:11] nitrogen concentrations around four,
[1:16:13] like four four and a half. So, fair to
[1:16:15] say Five, yeah, so Cool. Just anywhere,
[1:16:17] yeah.
[1:16:18] All right, let's get into the forecast
[1:16:21] and
[1:16:37] Okay.
[1:16:38] Well, I followed the norm the approach
[1:16:40] we normally do, but um as mentioned, we
[1:16:42] may have already peaked. So, these may
[1:16:44] not be super meaningful. Again, our most
[1:16:46] recent uh estimate for as of March 4th
[1:16:48] was 119 g per liter based on observed
[1:16:51] data. I'm and then I I kind of only
[1:16:53] carry this to April 30th, just assuming
[1:16:56] that this is not going to be a long run
[1:16:57] off-season. And so, any precipitation
[1:17:00] coming in during that time, evaporation,
[1:17:02] inflows, all that stuff is considered.
[1:17:05] And I'll just
[1:17:06] cut to the chase here. Here's a table of
[1:17:08] predictions for April 30th. Um I include three climate uh scenarios.
[1:17:13] So, starting at the top row is our dry
[1:17:15] warm, middle is our average condition,
[1:17:17] and then uh the bottom one is a wet cool
[1:17:19] condition. So, ranging from 112 to 118.
[1:17:23] I kind of put in a little plug there um
[1:17:25] just showing what the NRCS forecast at
[1:17:27] 4192.4
[1:17:29] is what they forecast for the seasonal
[1:17:30] peak, and that would result in a uh
[1:17:33] salinity of 117 g per liter. So, just a
[1:17:35] little bit
[1:17:36] lower than than our um volume weighted
[1:17:39] salinity we calculated for March 4th.
[1:17:41] So, that not much change from what we're
[1:17:43] already seeing, unless we get a lot more
[1:17:46] precipitation coming in.
[1:17:48] Is my Okay, mic's on. Okay.
[1:17:51] So, um and then I just did a really This
[1:17:54] is my back-of-the-envelope calculation
[1:17:56] for fall of 2026 and what that might be.
[1:17:59] Um this is a plot showing the annual
[1:18:00] drop in elevation from a spring peak to
[1:18:03] fall low back to 1960, approximately. We
[1:18:06] could to show that the um elevation
[1:18:07] decline each year has been going up.
[1:18:10] That's a
[1:18:11] significant trend we're seeing. And so,
[1:18:13] then I just sort of took that average um
[1:18:16] decline, 2.66 ft, and then applied a
[1:18:19] confidence interval to get a range. Um
[1:18:21] so, anywhere from 2.9 to 2.4 ft foot
[1:18:25] decline from our spring high to our fall
[1:18:27] low. Using the NRCS uh spring peak
[1:18:31] forecast of 117 g per liter, that gets
[1:18:34] us to a fall concentration ranging from
[1:18:36] like around 140 g per liter.
[1:18:38] I did also try this with volume looking
[1:18:41] at the trend in um South Arm volume
[1:18:43] decline. There's still a trend um
[1:18:46] but the elevations the the fall
[1:18:49] elevations
[1:18:50] kind of were not as reasonable. So here
[1:18:53] we're kind of looking at around 3 ft
[1:18:54] decline high twos, which is in line with
[1:18:57] our historical record. If I apply a the
[1:18:59] volume volume approach, I'm getting more
[1:19:01] into like the 3 and 1/2 ft decline.
[1:19:03] Maybe that's reasonable for this year,
[1:19:04] but it's not something we've observed uh
[1:19:07] before. And those concentrations, if I
[1:19:10] do that, that's around 145 to 150 g per
[1:19:13] liter for the fall. So just giving you
[1:19:14] some sense of the different approaches
[1:19:16] that um
[1:19:17] can be used, but this is gives us some
[1:19:20] idea.
[1:19:22] Okay, so now I'm going to walk us
[1:19:24] through these couple of different
[1:19:25] scenarios. And please jump in at any
[1:19:27] time if there's questions, cuz I'm going
[1:19:29] to be using our iso mass plot, which I
[1:19:30] realize can be a bit of a a mind game.
[1:19:34] But the first scenario is that we lower
[1:19:36] the berm. Basically uh Ben asked, you
[1:19:39] know, reached out maybe a a month ago or
[1:19:41] so and said, "Can we just start to think
[1:19:43] about what how salinity would change
[1:19:45] under a couple of different scenarios?"
[1:19:47] The first being we want to import salt
[1:19:49] during the summer because we're kind of
[1:19:51] getting in you know, maybe we're
[1:19:53] flirting with low range. What would
[1:19:55] happen if we open the berm and imported
[1:19:56] some salt over the summer time? So
[1:19:58] that's our first scenario. We lower the
[1:20:00] berm in May um to import salt from the
[1:20:02] north during the summer and then we
[1:20:04] raise the berm in November-ish
[1:20:07] to uh to trap all spring inflows. So and
[1:20:09] this analysis is assuming when we raise
[1:20:11] the berm, we disconnect the north and
[1:20:13] the south arm. So assuming that we stay
[1:20:15] below that 4192 if that's the highest we
[1:20:17] can go for the berm uh construction. The
[1:20:20] second scenario is we don't change the
[1:20:23] berm until November of 2026. So we
[1:20:25] continue in the paradigm we are now,
[1:20:26] which is uh seems to be a net export of
[1:20:29] salt. So salt will continue to ratchet
[1:20:31] down. So those are the two things we're
[1:20:32] considering.
[1:20:34] Um all right, so here we can get
[1:20:35] familiar with where we are now as of
[1:20:37] March 4th our measurements
[1:20:39] are we have our South Arm elevation on
[1:20:41] the Y axis and our volume weighted
[1:20:42] salinity um on the X axis. And we're as
[1:20:46] of March 4th we were sitting 118 and
[1:20:48] 4192.2 ft. So that's our starting
[1:20:51] condition. And these kind of dashed
[1:20:53] lines just kind of mark um how I
[1:20:56] triangulate to see to get to these these
[1:20:59] points these estimates that I'll be
[1:21:00] getting at. And all these are based on a
[1:21:02] spreadsheet mass balance calculation as
[1:21:04] well, but these plots actually
[1:21:05] illustrate really well how we move
[1:21:07] through these three variables. And that
[1:21:10] the dashed uh ice mass line that's kind
[1:21:12] of curved that's in between the 800
[1:21:14] million tons and the billion ton, that's
[1:21:16] kind of our current mass. So you can see
[1:21:18] how I'm triangulating between the dashed
[1:21:21] line that is the mass, the dashed line
[1:21:22] that's elevation, and then salinity.
[1:21:24] That gets us to our salinity.
[1:21:26] So
[1:21:27] uh assuming that we peak around May 1st,
[1:21:31] um this is the NRCS estimate. So
[1:21:33] assuming we get up to 4192.4 which we've
[1:21:36] actually kind of already hit um and that gets our salinity to 117 g per
[1:21:40] liter. At that time I'm estimating
[1:21:42] around a mass of 870 million tons.
[1:21:46] So then moving forward I introduce these
[1:21:48] berm management modifications. So for
[1:21:51] the first scenario we're lowering the
[1:21:52] berm on May 1st. So what happens with
[1:21:54] that?
[1:21:55] Um
[1:21:57] as of November 1st, 2026 we've got two
[1:21:59] different scenarios. The kind of
[1:22:01] orangish uh yellowish scenario is that
[1:22:04] we import salt over the summer. So
[1:22:06] that's the situation where we would have
[1:22:08] lowered it and we would have imported
[1:22:10] salt um on the order of 35 million tons
[1:22:13] over the summer.
[1:22:15] That raises that would raise our mass uh
[1:22:17] to 905 million tons. That's the kind of
[1:22:20] the um higher dashed line. And then the
[1:22:23] blue box and the blue dot represent what
[1:22:25] if we don't change the berm at all? We gradually export salt so that those
[1:22:30] two lines, that's really the key. Those
[1:22:32] two dashed isomath lines are offset and
[1:22:35] that gives us our range in salinity. So,
[1:22:37] 141 g per liter for not modifying the
[1:22:39] berm in May and 149 g per liter in the
[1:22:42] fall for modifying the berm in May.
[1:22:45] Again, because we're just importing more
[1:22:46] salt and that's the effect on the South
[1:22:48] Arm.
[1:22:49] So, after this point, for both of these
[1:22:51] scenarios, we raise the berm completely
[1:22:53] so we're up to we're disconnecting the
[1:22:55] North and the South Arms. The mass stays
[1:22:58] the same from here moving forward. So,
[1:22:59] we have our two scenarios, one at 900
[1:23:02] and 5 million tons, one at 856 million
[1:23:04] tons.
[1:23:06] So, taking us forward to May 30th of
[1:23:08] 2027,
[1:23:10] um this is now these very variations we
[1:23:12] see are really based on estimates of
[1:23:15] inflow from the climate. So, the um
[1:23:18] the orangeish color, that's the scenario
[1:23:20] where we have the import salt and a
[1:23:22] really dry warm uh climate condition.
[1:23:25] That would get us to 135 g per liter in
[1:23:28] the spring.
[1:23:29] If we don't modify the berm, we have
[1:23:31] really wet cool condition, the model
[1:23:32] indicates we would be at 110 g per liter
[1:23:35] in the spring of 2027. Huge range, but
[1:23:38] gives you some idea of um the effect of
[1:23:41] the berm modification, the effect of
[1:23:42] climate different climates. And I guess
[1:23:44] I'll point out that for the scenario
[1:23:46] where you do raise lower the berm, this
[1:23:49] kind of orangey one,
[1:23:51] that one alone, given um kind of a wet
[1:23:55] Wait, that would take us Okay, I'm not
[1:23:56] going to try to do this do this on the
[1:23:58] fly. There's that big range you can kind
[1:24:00] of see there.
[1:24:02] And then we'll get going further to
[1:24:03] October 30th of 2027, still assuming the
[1:24:06] mass has been the same, that things are
[1:24:08] disconnected. Um
[1:24:10] you can kind of see where that would
[1:24:11] shift everything. So, for the scenario
[1:24:13] where we did import salt over the summer
[1:24:16] of 2026, that gets us to 165 g per
[1:24:19] liter. And then for the
[1:24:21] condition where the berm was not
[1:24:23] modified in May um for a wet cool
[1:24:25] condition you get 125 grams per liter.
[1:24:27] And so again, I just highlighted the
[1:24:28] kind of the extremes of what these could
[1:24:30] be just to give you a sense, but I will
[1:24:33] say
[1:24:34] in both of these if if the berm is
[1:24:36] raised in November this you know this
[1:24:38] November what you have to consider is
[1:24:41] the
[1:24:41] then you're setting yourself up for a
[1:24:43] head differential. So why while we're
[1:24:45] exceeding um 100 you know this 160 grams
[1:24:49] per liter optimal in this kind of
[1:24:50] extreme condition that's highlighted in
[1:24:53] orange
[1:24:55] you are going to be in an export
[1:24:58] paradigm um
[1:24:59] from here on out without the ability to
[1:25:01] import salt from the north arm. And
[1:25:03] that's just something Ben and I kind of
[1:25:05] discussed is like when you modify the
[1:25:07] berm maybe you're shifting your salinity
[1:25:09] range in the south arm but you're also
[1:25:11] um kind of setting yourself up for a
[1:25:13] certain condition moving forward which
[1:25:15] is that
[1:25:16] you know when you lower the berm or
[1:25:18] whatever you were going to going to do
[1:25:19] you're going to have a head differential
[1:25:20] so that the south is going to be
[1:25:22] exporting um into the north arm. You're
[1:25:24] going to be in a paradigm where you lose
[1:25:26] salt mass after modification of the berm
[1:25:29] raising of the berm I should say.
[1:25:31] So this is these are the this is it. So
[1:25:33] if you guys have any questions or um
[1:25:36] this helps facilitate what could happen.
[1:25:39] Does that make sense? The walking this
[1:25:41] okay.
[1:25:45] So we need to crystal ball see what the
[1:25:47] next 5 years
[1:25:48] Exactly. Yes. Can we work on that?
[1:25:54] I I do think though
[1:25:56] you know this erosion that's happened
[1:25:59] like we're
[1:26:00] we've been pretty lucky that we're now
[1:26:02] only exporting did you say 28 million
[1:26:04] tons a year?
[1:26:06] And so we're this kind of like
[1:26:07] equilibrium and I think it'll continue
[1:26:09] to
[1:26:10] probably erode from time to time. And so
[1:26:12] part of me just thinks that maybe we
[1:26:14] just
[1:26:15] leave it where it's at and continue to
[1:26:17] monitor and then react if it seems like
[1:26:20] things are not going the way we want it
[1:26:21] to, but you know, like when Christine
[1:26:24] and I discussed this, I think the idea
[1:26:26] of being able to get it, you know, bring
[1:26:28] back some of that salt and nutrients,
[1:26:31] you know, like this is another portion
[1:26:32] of that that we need to consider and I
[1:26:34] think we're highly considering changing
[1:26:35] this committee's name to snack so we can
[1:26:38] incorporate nutrients into the uh
[1:26:40] salinity.
[1:26:41] But uh but those are some of the things
[1:26:43] that I think we have to seriously
[1:26:45] consider, but it does put us into a
[1:26:46] position where, you know, if we in 2027,
[1:26:49] which it's kind of crazy to think about
[1:26:51] um that far out right now, it does put
[1:26:53] us in a position where then we would
[1:26:55] continue in that export paradigm, but
[1:26:57] then are we just set ourselves up for
[1:26:58] just doing this all the time and forever
[1:27:01] or can we find that stable condition
[1:27:02] where the berm
[1:27:04] you know, we get just enough from the
[1:27:06] north arm, but not too much. I mean, I I
[1:27:09] tend to think that maybe that's where we
[1:27:10] want to go is maybe lowering it just
[1:27:12] enough to try to keep the export uh at
[1:27:15] zero.
[1:27:17] I don't know.
[1:27:24] Yeah, that's a real problem, Evan,
[1:27:26] because if we continue in this drought,
[1:27:29] then we know that unless we can get a
[1:27:31] significant amount of
[1:27:34] uh additional leased water into the
[1:27:35] lake, the lake's going to keep going
[1:27:37] down and the only way to prevent that is
[1:27:41] to reduce the evaporative surface, which
[1:27:43] is making it a smaller lake shutting off
[1:27:45] the north arm.
[1:27:47] Then we lose that tool.
[1:27:51] Between a rock and a hard place here.
[1:27:53] >> I'll say too that I mean, there's quite a bit of regulatory uh you know,
[1:27:58] oversight on on this. Like we can't keep
[1:28:01] the north arm, you know, segregated from
[1:28:03] the south arm and and make a lower
[1:28:05] smaller lake by by uh
[1:28:08] you know, recommendation or just by
[1:28:09] doing that. It
[1:28:11] There's a There's a lot of strings tied
[1:28:12] to that. So, we can only do that I think
[1:28:14] for 18 months and then we have to lower
[1:28:16] it again. So, there's there's things that we have
[1:28:20] to consider, but I do think when we can
[1:28:21] buy ourselves like another like if we're
[1:28:23] entering into a drought year, if we can
[1:28:25] buy an extra year of keeping you know my
[1:28:27] curly lights wetted, keeping the
[1:28:29] salinity where we wanted, keeping boat
[1:28:31] harbors functional, keeping you know,
[1:28:34] all these things intact.
[1:28:36] Like that's something we have to
[1:28:37] consider as well and that's not
[1:28:39] something that we were able to really
[1:28:40] talk about or consider
[1:28:42] prior to the legislation in the special
[1:28:44] session.
[1:28:46] And And don't don't forget
[1:28:49] we can reverse flow like come September.
[1:28:53] You know, we shut our our pumps off on
[1:28:55] Promontory Point. You can reverse flow
[1:28:58] and
[1:28:59] you know, continue to move North Arm
[1:29:01] brine
[1:29:03] you know,
[1:29:04] controlled
[1:29:05] you know, into the South Arm if there
[1:29:07] was a
[1:29:08] dire nitrogen need. You know, so so that
[1:29:11] could operate.
[1:29:13] I'll say October through through March.
[1:29:17] You know, so that's not an insignificant
[1:29:19] quantity.
[1:29:25] So, So, for for now though, just to make
[1:29:28] sure we're all on the same page, we're
[1:29:30] not doing anything until we all get back
[1:29:34] together and decide we need to do
[1:29:35] something or does anybody feel like
[1:29:36] there's something that needs to be done
[1:29:38] between now and the next SAC meeting
[1:29:40] because I
[1:29:42] personally I feel like I'm I'm just like
[1:29:44] on the fence could go either way
[1:29:46] and there's a lot of benefits pros and
[1:29:47] cons on either either way we look at it,
[1:29:50] but I don't know that we have enough
[1:29:51] information to make decisions based on
[1:29:52] nutrients yet and I also don't know that
[1:29:55] it makes a ton of sense to do anything
[1:29:57] before we know you know, what this next
[1:30:00] storm looks like or you know, how hot
[1:30:02] and dry the summer was. I mean, there's
[1:30:03] just so many variables that it seems to
[1:30:05] me like waiting this out a little bit
[1:30:07] and reconvening if we think there's
[1:30:08] something to do would be the the way
[1:30:10] that I'd like to go forward.
[1:30:13] Yeah, I'm definitely on board with that.
[1:30:15] I just wanted nitrogen in the
[1:30:17] conversation and I think we're I think
[1:30:19] we're there because I mean this speaks
[1:30:21] to Thomas's trepidation and mine of like
[1:30:23] we're right back to 165
[1:30:26] if everything shakes out in the negative
[1:30:28] way like we think it might. So.
[1:30:31] But as long as we have, you know, I
[1:30:33] agree with Ben that finding kind of that
[1:30:35] middle ground of maybe we
[1:30:37] lower the berm to some
[1:30:39] lower than it is now but not all the
[1:30:41] way. Maybe there is some middle ground
[1:30:43] and then we can tighten up this range a
[1:30:45] little bit and that's kind of the
[1:30:47] homework for this group is
[1:30:51] run what numbers we have and
[1:30:53] get back together and see what's going
[1:30:54] to be the best option going forward.
[1:30:56] >> Is there a way to, you know, with the erosion that's occurred, is there a
[1:31:00] way to model what a uniform, you know,
[1:31:03] berm would look like at 4186, 4187 just
[1:31:07] to know if we were able to modify that
[1:31:08] and see if, you know, what would that
[1:31:10] look like? Like could we try to figure
[1:31:12] out what that zero export looks like
[1:31:14] where it's communicating just enough
[1:31:16] that we're maybe getting some nutrients
[1:31:17] back but during runoff we're, you know,
[1:31:19] exporting a little bit like
[1:31:22] do you think there's any way to try to
[1:31:23] figure out how we balance the checkbook
[1:31:25] on this one and
[1:31:29] Um yeah, we can definitely run the
[1:31:31] hydraulics. Jeff, you guys have done
[1:31:32] that, right?
[1:31:33] Jacobs?
[1:31:34] >> We Yeah, with the CFD model.
[1:31:37] Um I think that can be done.
[1:31:39] Um
[1:31:41] it's just a matter of identifying
[1:31:43] all defining all the different variables
[1:31:45] that go into it.
[1:31:46] Um but I think that I guess that's what
[1:31:48] I
[1:31:49] I'm just thinking over the next month or
[1:31:51] two.
[1:31:52] I mean this week there will be a lot of
[1:31:54] discussion at the TAG meeting on on
[1:31:56] nutrients and
[1:31:58] which hopefully the outcome from that
[1:32:00] can be, you know, what's the sense of
[1:32:02] urgency
[1:32:04] on this and, you know, what's
[1:32:07] what might the trajectory be over the
[1:32:09] next year or two? Um,
[1:32:11] cuz we're
[1:32:13] So, nutrients just adds another variable
[1:32:15] to the mix, you know, where we're we've
[1:32:17] been focused on well, what might the
[1:32:19] inflows be
[1:32:21] and how do we manage the salinity based
[1:32:23] on that? And now now we have another
[1:32:26] variable that works in opposite of
[1:32:29] salinity.
[1:32:30] And so, that makes our fine line even
[1:32:35] narrower um, to try to balance all those
[1:32:37] different things.
[1:32:39] Um, so I think the key to bracketing
[1:32:41] that is just trying to understand well,
[1:32:43] how urgent are we? And I think what you
[1:32:45] did here with the salinity is fantastic
[1:32:47] cuz it gives us an idea of
[1:32:50] what's the worst that could be um,
[1:32:52] and where might be a more probable
[1:32:54] approach to it.
[1:32:56] And I think if we could somehow
[1:33:00] take the nutrient and follow the same
[1:33:02] assumptions you did to see, you know,
[1:33:05] what might happen if we do these two
[1:33:07] scenarios
[1:33:08] for the nutrients and then we can and
[1:33:11] then it's going to come down to what's
[1:33:13] worse.
[1:33:15] I I think um,
[1:33:18] cuz unless
[1:33:20] So, I I mean, I think it over the next
[1:33:22] month So, this week we have the tag
[1:33:23] meeting and then if if we can try to
[1:33:27] estimate well, what would the berm need
[1:33:28] to be to try to back to get to a net
[1:33:30] zero flux? Um,
[1:33:33] cuz that would help bring some nutrients
[1:33:35] back into it. And
[1:33:38] So, my where I'm going with this is that
[1:33:39] perhaps rather than having a meeting our
[1:33:42] next meeting in June, we might need to
[1:33:44] have a a meeting in between just to to focus on this specific question.
[1:33:51] And
[1:33:52] just to try to grapple with, you know,
[1:33:55] how how can we balance this? And do we
[1:33:57] want to make a a change of the berm now
[1:34:00] or should we just wait till November?
[1:34:03] Jeff. Should Christine should should we
[1:34:06] make a calculation that would bring us
[1:34:08] somewhere in between on a berm
[1:34:10] modification?
[1:34:11] Where we would lower the berm but not
[1:34:15] entirely to a level where we end up
[1:34:19] between the orange and the blue.
[1:34:22] Is that
[1:34:23] something we can do?
[1:34:24] >> Meaning a specific berm elevation?
[1:34:27] >> berm elevation?
[1:34:28] >> I think we would need to talk to Sam or Jeff because I think it's it's about there's a number of factors
[1:34:35] but it's all about hydraulic head, you
[1:34:36] know, the concentration in each side of
[1:34:38] the arm, you know, the difference in
[1:34:40] elevation between the two arms and
[1:34:42] really it's predicting flow and and each
[1:34:44] side. And so I can look at historic our
[1:34:47] historical record and and
[1:34:49] but really nothing is going to be
[1:34:51] representative of another berm
[1:34:52] condition. And so I think it really will
[1:34:55] be working with Sam and his team to say,
[1:34:57] "Okay, what if we had a berm at 4186 or
[1:35:00] something straight and then how might
[1:35:02] that affect our north to south flow and
[1:35:04] our south to north flow?" And really the
[1:35:05] calculation is easy. We just need net
[1:35:08] salt flux and we can assume a certain
[1:35:10] amount of what we can measure the the
[1:35:12] salt in the north arm. We can easily
[1:35:13] measure the salt fluxes. It's just
[1:35:15] dialing in, you know, what the dis you
[1:35:18] know, what the discharge will actually
[1:35:20] be estimating discharge under that
[1:35:21] condition. That's the hard part. The
[1:35:23] salt flux calculation isn't hard but you
[1:35:25] know, making that salt flux a net zero
[1:35:27] essentially I think is what I'm hearing.
[1:35:28] Um and then seeing if Sam has insight in
[1:35:31] how we you know, what what cross section
[1:35:34] shape gets us there for the conditions
[1:35:36] we have at a given moment.
[1:35:39] Mhm.
[1:35:41] Jeff, I I like your idea of reconvening
[1:35:43] before our June meeting um since we know
[1:35:46] that the runoff is probably going to end
[1:35:48] much sooner than it normally would. I
[1:35:50] would suggest maybe we should
[1:35:52] you know, shoot for something
[1:35:54] maybe at the issues forum. We all sit
[1:35:55] down and discuss this at lunch. But
[1:35:58] or maybe the week after. But
[1:36:00] something where we can have the time of
[1:36:02] kind of seeing when peak runoff is or
[1:36:04] when runoff is finished and know if you
[1:36:07] know, what the summer's looking like.
[1:36:08] We'll probably have a better forecast of
[1:36:09] weather and know what the spring
[1:36:11] precipitation looked like. So, maybe we
[1:36:13] get together then and then come ready to
[1:36:16] discuss whether or not like focus on
[1:36:18] that whether we want to decide if we're
[1:36:21] going to modify the berm leave it the
[1:36:23] same or do it in the fall. Mhm. And
[1:36:26] that'll I think that should just be the
[1:36:28] really the sole discussion. Maybe some
[1:36:29] forecasts and then jump right into what
[1:36:32] we all think we need to do. Right.
[1:36:34] And a nutrient iso-mass plot. Oh, yeah.
[1:36:37] We're going to enter a new world
[1:36:38] together with a nutrient iso-mass plot.
[1:36:41] Which is going to be hard cuz it's not
[1:36:43] conservative and we don't know all the
[1:36:44] nutrient cycling mechanisms, but we can
[1:36:46] try.
[1:36:48] And I think that net zero salinity
[1:36:52] scenario just in my mind if we find
[1:36:54] that, you know, whether it's 86 or 87,
[1:36:56] whatever where we're importing just as
[1:36:59] much salt as we're exporting, we'll
[1:37:00] actually
[1:37:03] if everything shakes out the way it is
[1:37:04] in my head
[1:37:06] and that what I understand in my limited
[1:37:08] understanding of it is we should be a
[1:37:09] net import of nitrogen from north to
[1:37:11] south, which would benefit the South
[1:37:14] arm.
[1:37:15] Yeah. So, I think if we can run those
[1:37:17] models and have that for a meeting in
[1:37:20] you know, the next before June. Yeah. I
[1:37:22] think that would be a good conversation
[1:37:24] to have and a timely conversation to
[1:37:26] have. And then yeah, we can make a
[1:37:27] decision based on those later and Right.
[1:37:30] maybe it is leave it alone.
[1:37:32] But then we'll know.
[1:37:33] Right.
[1:37:34] Great.
[1:37:36] Well, let's um
[1:37:38] we'll we'll we'll schedule the next
[1:37:39] meeting here in a little bit. Um
[1:37:41] but I guess moving on
[1:37:43] there's and there's so much that we
[1:37:45] could talk about with that. Um but let's
[1:37:47] given the discussion that's going to
[1:37:49] happen on Wednesday
[1:37:50] um, and the modeling questions that we
[1:37:52] have, I think that'll really help inform
[1:37:55] the next our next time where we discuss
[1:37:57] this. So,
[1:37:58] I think that's a good move. Um, I think
[1:38:01] I guess I I'm looking at the time here
[1:38:04] and wanted to just make sure we can
[1:38:06] touch on the last few agenda items. Um,
[1:38:09] the the next one was was the protocol
[1:38:12] that
[1:38:13] Christine's been using
[1:38:15] that we've been using and just wanted to
[1:38:18] see if if there were any remaining
[1:38:20] comments. And Christine, now that this
[1:38:22] has gone through the full USGS review
[1:38:25] and approval process, correct?
[1:38:28] Yes, this is um, ready to be published
[1:38:30] whenever this group is says it's ready.
[1:38:33] Great.
[1:38:34] So, any I guess any questions from the
[1:38:36] committee on this?
[1:38:42] Any concerns with approving it? And if not, entertain a motion to approve
[1:38:48] it.
[1:38:51] Thomas?
[1:38:52] Move. So moved. And Andrew second it.
[1:38:56] All right. And I guess the vote with the
[1:38:58] committee members, um,
[1:39:00] all those in favor say I.
[1:39:03] I.
[1:39:06] And any any
[1:39:10] one within
[1:39:12] does not want to approve it?
[1:39:16] Or any any further discussion? I guess
[1:39:17] this is the last chance you got if you
[1:39:19] have any more questions or concerns.
[1:39:24] All right. Well, I think it's passed
[1:39:26] unanimously and so we will approve that
[1:39:29] and
[1:39:30] um,
[1:39:31] so I guess from a logistics standpoint,
[1:39:33] and USGS will publish this, correct? And
[1:39:36] then that'll be available. That's the
[1:39:38] question I had, actually. Is if we want
[1:39:40] to put it on a state website or if you
[1:39:42] if we need USGS to host it. Technically,
[1:39:45] anything that gets published by USGS
[1:39:46] needs to be publicly available. So,
[1:39:48] either we figure out a place to host it
[1:39:50] or if there's a centrally located
[1:39:52] website that Forestry, Fire, and State
[1:39:53] Lands or another entity would like to
[1:39:55] host it, then
[1:39:56] that's great. Right.
[1:39:58] I guess I think previous publications
[1:40:01] that we've approved from this committee
[1:40:03] have gone on the USGS or UGS.
[1:40:07] Yeah, we'd be happy to
[1:40:08] publish that. Great. We just I just sent
[1:40:10] it to you, Andrew. Sure. Okay. Awesome.
[1:40:12] Thanks. Great.
[1:40:13] >> I did and may I um
[1:40:15] >> Mhm. share one thing. I did prepare
[1:40:17] slides in case anybody wants to go
[1:40:18] through the method for like the seventh
[1:40:20] time. But, one thing that you had asked
[1:40:22] me to do, Jeff, was to kind of mock up
[1:40:25] what this would look like on the
[1:40:26] hydromapper. Mhm. So, this is I had our
[1:40:29] web developer or maintainer do that. And
[1:40:31] so, currently, this is kind of what you
[1:40:33] see on the homepage. I know this is
[1:40:34] small, but this top plot is what we have
[1:40:36] now, which is salinity showing at 3510
[1:40:39] and at Saltair. These are just raw
[1:40:41] measurements of salinity. Um and if we
[1:40:44] wanted to put in this upper brine layer
[1:40:46] volume weighted estimate, which is the,
[1:40:48] you know, the calculated value, um and
[1:40:50] put that on the hydromapper, I just
[1:40:52] wanted to show you that's what this
[1:40:53] would look like. Um and it and ask if we
[1:40:55] wanted to make that change on the
[1:40:57] hydromapper website. Instead of using
[1:40:59] Saltair, use this kind of calculated
[1:41:02] value.
[1:41:05] So, or you don't have to decide now, but
[1:41:07] it's an option and this is what it looks
[1:41:09] like.
[1:41:12] Any comments or
[1:41:14] thoughts?
[1:41:17] I think we discussed this at the last
[1:41:19] SAC or maybe the one before that when we
[1:41:21] started this, but
[1:41:22] uh you're able to do that for all that
[1:41:24] data going all the way back for the
[1:41:27] hydromapper, right? So, nobody would be
[1:41:28] confused by a change in Yep, exactly.
[1:41:31] Yeah, especially for this upper brine
[1:41:32] layer cuz it's just taking the top 4 m.
[1:41:35] It's less computationally subjective,
[1:41:37] I'll say, because you don't have to
[1:41:38] worry about the interface. So, yes. Mhm.
[1:41:41] I think that's where a lot of folks that
[1:41:43] are, you know, just your everyday person
[1:41:45] who's worried about that goes. So, I
[1:41:47] think as long as it can go back and be
[1:41:48] kind of retroactive, I think that's a
[1:41:51] good idea to do it this way. Okay.
[1:41:53] Mhm.
[1:41:54] Great. And I think I mean the the actual
[1:41:57] data is still available. Mhm.
[1:41:59] Definitely. And if people want to plot
[1:42:01] that as well. Mhm. So, I think
[1:42:05] on the salinity management plan, that
[1:42:07] was one of the
[1:42:08] um
[1:42:09] that one of the goals of calculating
[1:42:11] this upper brine layer number was so
[1:42:13] that the public could kind of have a better understanding of what's
[1:42:17] happening.
[1:42:18] Um
[1:42:19] because of the different spatial
[1:42:20] differences and everything. So.
[1:42:25] I I guess do we need to vote on that?
[1:42:28] Should we vote? I guess any concerns
[1:42:30] with
[1:42:31] using that upper brine layer on the
[1:42:33] hydro mapper? Just making that the
[1:42:35] default number that people can see.
[1:42:38] All right. We'll do that. Sounds good.
[1:42:40] We will implement it.
[1:42:43] Great.
[1:42:45] So, um
[1:42:46] as the the the other thing I wanted to
[1:42:49] touch on and and I think is and I guess in light of the nutrient question, I guess it's a question I wanted to make sure we
[1:42:58] have a chance to think about or talk
[1:43:00] about. We have this draft salinity
[1:43:02] management plan that um we've been
[1:43:05] bouncing around for since last summer, I
[1:43:07] think, and
[1:43:08] um you know, is that something that the
[1:43:11] committee would like to approve now? Um
[1:43:13] we've had Now that we have an approved
[1:43:16] protocol, we're using that in the as
[1:43:19] part of the salinity management plan.
[1:43:22] Um
[1:43:26] I think the, you know, I've got the
[1:43:27] slides. I don't know if we want to go
[1:43:29] through I I I've gone through this a
[1:43:31] couple times with with you all over the
[1:43:32] last 6 months.
[1:43:34] Um but is that something that you think
[1:43:36] the plan is ready to be approved um as,
[1:43:39] you know, for March 2026 or is that
[1:43:42] something that we want to wait
[1:43:45] Just before we talk about the approval,
[1:43:47] can you just maybe remind everybody
[1:43:49] again
[1:43:50] um the, you know, the premise of like
[1:43:53] what this management plan does because
[1:43:54] one of the things that I was a little
[1:43:55] concerned about is with the
[1:43:57] ever-changing dynamic of like
[1:43:58] legislation and things that happen, you
[1:44:00] know, with the berm or other things that
[1:44:02] might influence salt. Um you know, even
[1:44:05] just reclamation of the US Mag ponds or,
[1:44:09] you know, Newfound and Basin, Newfound
[1:44:11] and Basin I think everybody calls it. Um
[1:44:14] we need to think about all those things.
[1:44:16] So, you ended up with just more
[1:44:19] broad 30,000-ft level things, right?
[1:44:21] Like we want to either import salt or
[1:44:23] export salt and do these types of things
[1:44:25] and that. So, I think that was a good
[1:44:27] change cuz I think originally we were a
[1:44:29] little more nuanced in what we want to
[1:44:31] do, but this just gives the direction of
[1:44:32] like when we should be exporting versus
[1:44:34] importing and it's just kind of a a good
[1:44:37] reminder. But Jeff, I guess one other
[1:44:39] question I have is
[1:44:40] you know, in the discussion we've had
[1:44:41] today with this, should we leave it,
[1:44:44] should we touch it, what do we want to
[1:44:45] do? Do you feel like the this salinity
[1:44:48] management plan still kind of stands the
[1:44:50] test of time and would allow for, you
[1:44:53] know, whichever way we want to go cuz
[1:44:54] right now I think we're kind of
[1:44:56] maybe at the like a neutral position.
[1:44:59] Yeah.
[1:45:00] I mean, I I I think the management plan
[1:45:03] is is
[1:45:05] fairly general. I think it provides some
[1:45:07] sideboards.
[1:45:09] Um
[1:45:10] I mean, I think, you know, we have the
[1:45:12] ISOMASS plots that um
[1:45:15] that Christine's developed. You know,
[1:45:17] this
[1:45:19] points more directly toward um you know,
[1:45:21] if
[1:45:22] for if
[1:45:23] you know, what should we do? And so, I
[1:45:26] mean, just I and this is very crude. I
[1:45:28] just took the mass that she just
[1:45:30] reported and and threw a star on here to
[1:45:33] kind of give you an idea of where we
[1:45:34] are.
[1:45:35] So, this gives us an idea that, okay,
[1:45:37] we're you know, we're right in the
[1:45:38] middle of the range where we want to be.
[1:45:41] And and I think last fall we were just
[1:45:43] below that. So,
[1:45:45] this give kind of gives us an idea of
[1:45:47] the trajectory we want where we want to
[1:45:49] go. And I think more importantly is that
[1:45:52] if if the lake is fairly stable year to
[1:45:54] year, it gives us guidelines, kind of
[1:45:57] direction, a vision of what to do if the
[1:45:58] lake is declining.
[1:46:00] You know, here broadly is, you know, we
[1:46:03] want to reduce salt import or, you know,
[1:46:05] we want to export more. So, it's pretty
[1:46:08] So, as we're discussing this, you know,
[1:46:10] and fine-tuning the berm, um
[1:46:13] I think the management plan gives us an
[1:46:15] idea of
[1:46:16] our, you know, broadly what we can do,
[1:46:19] but it doesn't give us the input that we
[1:46:21] need to answer these questions that
[1:46:23] we're wrestling with right now. Um so,
[1:46:26] it gives us some sideboards, and but it
[1:46:28] doesn't give us specifics, which I think
[1:46:30] is what our goal was.
[1:46:33] Is we wanted to we wanted to know what
[1:46:35] are the options? Um what are some
[1:46:38] things, you know, generally how do we
[1:46:40] want to move salt um
[1:46:43] you know, for different conditions. And
[1:46:46] um
[1:46:47] And I think it does that.
[1:46:51] Maybe uh one thing to,
[1:46:53] you know, say on this is that with the
[1:46:55] ability and the also the
[1:46:58] uh
[1:46:59] you know, the the concept of managing
[1:47:00] the berm now for more than just salinity
[1:47:03] and, you know, doing some of these other
[1:47:04] management activities, I think the
[1:47:06] salinity management plan, so long as it
[1:47:08] can kind of stand on its own, like this
[1:47:09] is kind of a guiding principle that when
[1:47:11] we're here and the lake is trending in,
[1:47:13] you know, this direction or this
[1:47:14] direction, it gives us some thoughts on
[1:47:16] what we'd want to do to manage salinity,
[1:47:18] but knowing that there may be other
[1:47:19] influences, and this is not the
[1:47:21] playbook, this is the guidebook that
[1:47:23] kind of says this is how we generally
[1:47:25] want to move, but there may be other
[1:47:26] factors or ways that we can manage salt
[1:47:29] or other things that we need to
[1:47:30] consider.
[1:47:31] Um so long as that's you know,
[1:47:33] understood, I think that's the you know,
[1:47:34] my my take on this is that it's pretty
[1:47:37] good and does that.
[1:47:40] Yeah, any other thoughts
[1:47:43] from the committee?
[1:47:49] I guess one thought I had is just we
[1:47:51] don't I don't think the plan speaks to
[1:47:54] the fact that there are other variables
[1:47:57] such as nitrogen or nutrients, and who
[1:48:00] knows what else comes up in the next 10
[1:48:03] years. Um
[1:48:05] and so perhaps adding a caveat
[1:48:08] to it just to state state that there are other factors that will
[1:48:12] need to
[1:48:14] that may need to be considered.
[1:48:16] Uh and maybe just one other thing too is
[1:48:18] we may want to consider what frequency
[1:48:20] we want to revisit this because, you
[1:48:22] know, having 120 g per liter as our fall
[1:48:26] target. Um you know, if we find out that
[1:48:29] nutrients are going to be an issue, then
[1:48:30] maybe we want to readjust that thought
[1:48:33] and think about where we want to be.
[1:48:35] Maybe we want to be a little bit higher
[1:48:36] so that we lowered the spring, you know,
[1:48:38] target salinity and also allow for those
[1:48:41] you know, nutrient um
[1:48:42] imports.
[1:48:43] Um
[1:48:45] I think we should at least make some
[1:48:47] mention of some of those other variables
[1:48:48] that we would want to manage for, but
[1:48:50] also I don't think we need to keep on
[1:48:52] punting this to the next meeting every
[1:48:54] time. It may be something we want to,
[1:48:56] you know, just amend from time to time
[1:48:57] like we do with our bylaws or our
[1:48:59] charter or, you know, other things that
[1:49:01] we do.
[1:49:01] Right.
[1:49:03] Jared, do you
[1:49:06] Is there any harm in
[1:49:08] I'm sorry, you you just said this, Ben,
[1:49:10] but is there any harm in in voting on
[1:49:12] this on in May? The May meeting. Just just so we can kind of all refr-
[1:49:17] it's it's fresh in my mind.
[1:49:18] >> Yeah.
[1:49:18] I I think In the context of this
[1:49:20] discussion. I don't I don't think
[1:49:21] there's any harm. I think the one reason
[1:49:23] that we wanted to get this somewhat
[1:49:25] wrapped up is we would love to be able
[1:49:26] to reference this in our management
[1:49:28] plan. Like we're finishing our CMP, you
[1:49:31] know, to to not have this finished and
[1:49:34] have something that we can point to is a
[1:49:36] little problematic for my my
[1:49:37] perspective. Um but, you know, May, that
[1:49:40] puts us into a position where I think we
[1:49:41] could still do it, right, Jeff? Yeah.
[1:49:43] So, so long as we didn't have
[1:49:45] substantial changes. But maybe what we
[1:49:46] could do is just plan to mail or email
[1:49:49] this out to the uh committee a couple
[1:49:51] weeks in advance and give one last
[1:49:53] chance to look at it. Maybe we can just
[1:49:54] make those modifications now Yeah. to
[1:49:56] discuss the need to evaluate nutrients
[1:49:58] and maybe, you know, re-evaluate this
[1:50:00] plan every, you know, year or so often
[1:50:03] to make sure that we're, you know, still
[1:50:06] uh in accordance with Right. these
[1:50:08] guiding principles. Right. Okay.
[1:50:10] I think that'd be good.
[1:50:12] Okay.
[1:50:13] Great. Well, um
[1:50:16] I'll take I'll read through the plan
[1:50:18] again and just I think you made a great
[1:50:20] point and you know, we have a specific
[1:50:22] date I we changed it to October 15th.
[1:50:25] Um I think Joe made that recommendation
[1:50:28] last time.
[1:50:29] And but we can say, you know what, these
[1:50:31] are principles that should be
[1:50:34] re-evaluated on a consistent basis and
[1:50:38] um and I think it would be good to add
[1:50:41] uh
[1:50:42] at least note that there are other
[1:50:43] factors that to be considered other than
[1:50:46] just salinity.
[1:50:48] So.
[1:50:50] I I will do that. I'll get that out
[1:50:52] to everybody before our next meeting.
[1:50:54] Um any anything else from anybody on
[1:50:57] that?
[1:50:59] If not, let's schedule our next meeting.
[1:51:02] Um
[1:51:04] So, the the Issues Forum is the first
[1:51:06] week of May.
[1:51:09] And
[1:51:10] >> going to say that. I she to say that.
[1:51:12] I'm sorry.
[1:51:13] Linda, do you have any announcements?
[1:51:23] So,
[1:51:25] let me get my calendar out quick. Um
[1:51:28] so that would is would it be more
[1:51:30] helpful to have it the last week of
[1:51:32] April, the week before?
[1:51:38] Does that give us enough time to
[1:51:40] actually finish runoff and make the
[1:51:42] calculations? I would think we'd want to
[1:51:44] kind of air on the week after, maybe,
[1:51:46] but
[1:51:48] happy to do the week before if everybody
[1:51:50] thinks that's better.
[1:51:53] I think I mean that gives us there's
[1:51:55] definitely more time to consider the
[1:51:57] possibilities there. So, I guess we're looking at the week of
[1:52:01] May 11th.
[1:52:03] And
[1:52:05] um if we keep our traditional
[1:52:08] Thursdays, you know, that'd be May 14th
[1:52:11] from 10:00 to 12:00.
[1:52:14] Does that work for everybody online as
[1:52:16] well?
[1:52:19] All right. We will plan on that. We'll
[1:52:22] get a
[1:52:24] an announcement out and get the room
[1:52:25] scheduled and
[1:52:27] perfect.
[1:52:29] So,
[1:52:30] does this
[1:52:32] I don't know how often this room is
[1:52:33] available. Does this room work better
[1:52:35] than the Soldier Hollow?
[1:52:38] If it's available.
[1:52:41] Okay.
[1:52:42] All right. Well, we'll see.
[1:52:46] if we can we can arrange that
[1:52:48] for the future. Um
[1:52:50] depends on
[1:52:51] who else has the room scheduled. So,
[1:52:55] great. Anything I guess anything else
[1:52:57] that we any other action items? Um
[1:53:01] And just to recap the action items that
[1:53:03] are
[1:53:04] have here in my notes is just we the tag
[1:53:06] meeting on Thurs Thursday
[1:53:09] or Wednesday, I'm sorry. Um
[1:53:12] so we'll learn what comes up from the
[1:53:14] nutrients and
[1:53:18] I'm just trying to remember if there's a
[1:53:20] you don't usually publish the summary
[1:53:22] until the next meeting.
[1:53:25] Is that
[1:53:27] I'm just wondering for those who can't
[1:53:28] make it. Yeah, summary from last meeting
[1:53:30] should come out tomorrow and then the
[1:53:33] video recording of tomorrow's meeting
[1:53:35] will be available before. So.
[1:53:37] >> All right. So, you'll be able to
[1:53:41] watch or listen to that if you can't
[1:53:42] make the meeting on on Wednesday.
[1:53:45] Um and then we'll also
[1:53:47] connect to try to figure out how we can
[1:53:49] model the the berm and see if there's a
[1:53:51] way we can
[1:53:53] reconfigure that at all to get to that
[1:53:55] net zero flux um over the summer.
[1:53:59] And um and then we've approved um
[1:54:02] Christine's protocol, so we'll get that
[1:54:05] And then Andrew is going to look into
[1:54:06] having UGS publish that.
[1:54:09] And then I will get some minor modifications to the plan and
[1:54:14] get that back out to the committee
[1:54:16] before our next meeting as well.
[1:54:18] And then lastly, we're meeting on May
[1:54:20] 14th at 10:00 a.m.
[1:54:23] So.
[1:54:24] All right. If nothing else, oh, yes,
[1:54:27] Lynn? I'm finished big, right? Yeah.
[1:54:29] Okay. I'm sending you an invitation You
[1:54:31] got a microphone? Oh, so the online
[1:54:33] folks
[1:54:36] Thanks.
[1:54:38] Thank you. Um
[1:54:39] I'd like to extend an invitation to all
[1:54:41] of you to come to the Great Salt Lake
[1:54:43] Issues Forum May 6th, 7th, and 8th on um
[1:54:48] Thursday, May 7th, first thing in the
[1:54:51] morning, we're actually having a session
[1:54:54] that Ben is going to moderate and uh
[1:54:57] Christine and Phil and Kyle are going to
[1:55:01] be a part of that and the title is worth
[1:55:03] its salt. And pretty soon we'll be
[1:55:06] adding uh
[1:55:07] nutrients. But anyway, and then Gary is
[1:55:10] going to be on the same day later on in
[1:55:12] the afternoon. So, that being said, uh
[1:55:15] there's a lot more and there's um
[1:55:18] you know, a great opportunity to get
[1:55:19] together and talk with others and to uh
[1:55:22] you know,
[1:55:23] extend the reach of what this important
[1:55:26] work and this important commitment that
[1:55:29] we're all involved with um
[1:55:31] is is meaning. So, thank you very much.
[1:55:34] Great.
[1:55:36] All right, thanks Lynn. Chris? Could I
[1:55:38] um
[1:55:39] did we land anywhere with the Lakeside
[1:55:41] breach? And just like I mean, how can
[1:55:43] that conversation move forward? Just in
[1:55:45] keeping in mind that we can't gauge that
[1:55:47] given current conditions. And from Mike
[1:55:49] you know, what Mike has said,
[1:55:51] uh you know, we might need to think
[1:55:52] about some kind of modification given
[1:55:54] low lake levels in the South Arm to be
[1:55:56] able to gauge it. So, I just want to I
[1:55:58] don't know if we need follow-up there in
[1:55:59] some fashion um or not. But thought I
[1:56:02] would remind everybody that that's an
[1:56:03] issue. Yes.
[1:56:06] Do you have anything on that, Ben? I I
[1:56:08] don't have any answers for that. I think
[1:56:09] that it's really important and I think
[1:56:11] it'd be awesome to gauge it, but I just
[1:56:13] think that there's so much happening out
[1:56:15] there that it may be something we have
[1:56:16] to incorporate into a
[1:56:17] like a future project. But right now, I
[1:56:20] think there's some pretty big priorities
[1:56:22] like, you know, the protective structure
[1:56:23] on the berm itself. And I think that
[1:56:26] would
[1:56:27] at least in my mind would rise above,
[1:56:29] you know,
[1:56:30] the protective structure to um support
[1:56:33] the gauging out there. So, I I do think
[1:56:34] that there's a huge opportunity and it's
[1:56:37] something that we can incorporate into
[1:56:39] any future work that would happen out
[1:56:40] there for sure.
[1:56:42] Yeah.
[1:56:44] All right, well
[1:56:45] with that, I'd entertain a motion to
[1:56:47] adjourn.
[1:56:52] And Joe, all right. And Thomas second
[1:56:54] it.
[1:56:55] Um I'll just assume it's approved. Thank
[1:56:57] you, everybody.
[1:57:00] We'll see you May 14th. Actually, we'll
[1:57:02] see you at the Issues Forum.