[0:00] Yeah, you want to start? We'll buy a

[0:02] second here by just doing some quick

[0:03] introductions. You want to start over

[0:05] there, Ryan?

[0:06] >> Yeah, I'm Ryan Roland. I'm the data

[0:07] chief for the USGS Utah Water Science

[0:09] Center.

[0:11] Christine Rumpy hydraulysis

[0:14] public

[0:26] resources

[0:28] forestry and state

[0:31] division wildlife resources start back

[0:33] there for you.

[0:36] >> Emma Whitaker for St.

[0:42] Travis Anderson

[0:45] students

[0:46] >> um

[0:49] corrupt

[0:51] USGS

[0:53] >> AK USGS.

[0:56] >> Awesome. Um let's see. So Christine, are

[1:00] you ready to do yours? Maybe we can just

[1:02] start by hopping into that and then

[1:03] we'll Okay.

[1:08] I think I also can't share.

[1:24] » Thank you.

[1:42] All right. So, I believe we're going to

[1:45] start with lake updates. So, Ryan's

[1:47] going to walk us through lake elevation

[1:48] at each.

[1:50] >> Okay. And then we'll transition uh to

[1:53] Christine a little a little bit later.

[1:55] So, go ahead. Next slide. All right.

[1:57] Lake surface elevation south arm showing

[2:00] data from October 1st 2021 through the

[2:03] current period. Y ais is elevation in

[2:06] feet. Um and the the um the dash line

[2:10] horizontal dash line is a period of

[2:12] record low 4188.5 that was set in 2020

[2:15] late 2022. Um the most recent daily

[2:19] value that came in for May 25th. Uh you

[2:21] know we made these slides yesterday. So

[2:23] the most recent daily value we could

[2:24] compute was for the 25th. It came in at

[2:26] 41 91.9 ft. That's about 0.8 ft higher

[2:30] than the north arm right now and about

[2:33] 3.4 feet above this creative record low

[2:36] uh for this site. Um so you see we had a

[2:39] seasonal decline of about 2.7 uh feet in

[2:43] the south arm and we came up 1.6 six

[2:47] feet. If you include this this little

[2:49] spike um on in the most recent data uh

[2:53] which was really related to a multi-day

[2:55] session event, if we if we take that

[2:57] spike out, we came up about 1.3. We that

[3:00] was our seasonal rise. That's due to

[3:03] spring runoff. And you can see water

[3:04] levels are currently appear to be

[3:06] starting to decrease. Next slide. Okay.

[3:10] Same uh type of plot for the north arm

[3:13] uh gauge. The daily value uh for May

[3:15] 25th came in at 4191.1

[3:18] ft. Um that's 2.6 feet above the period

[3:21] of record level or 4188.5.

[3:24] So 4188.5 is the period of record low

[3:26] for both the north arm and the south

[3:28] arm. So we're only about 2.6 feet above

[3:30] that right now. Next slide. Major

[3:33] surface water inflows. These are um uh

[3:37] these graphs show the daily discharge in

[3:39] cubic feet per second on the y- axis.

[3:41] The bold black line are the computed

[3:42] daily values. Um the shaded zones are

[3:45] the percentile uh classes based on the

[3:48] period of record for the gauge. Um and

[3:51] I'm showing data from October 1st, 2024

[3:53] through uh the current period. So um you

[3:57] can get these uh plots very easily now

[3:59] from each gauges real time page. We call

[4:02] that the monitoring location page. It's

[4:04] very simple to to bring these types of

[4:06] plots up which are very useful. You used

[4:08] to be able to access those through

[4:09] water. that website's gone away. Um, and

[4:12] you can learn more about uh data updates

[4:14] or the way we present data on the web um

[4:18] using USPS uh water data blog website. I

[4:22] encourage you to take a look at that.

[4:24] Um, the most uh recent uh daily values

[4:28] coming in the bold black line to this

[4:30] site river near Kurin you can see are

[4:32] well below the normal range which is

[4:34] this kind of light green shaded zone.

[4:36] We're currently in this fifth 5 to 10th

[4:39] percentile range. So much below normal

[4:41] flows at Bear River. Um the little note

[4:44] top right um the cumulative flow passing

[4:47] that gauge for water year 2026. Um

[4:51] for this time of year comes in at

[4:53] 491,000 acre feet. Um that's just below

[4:58] 25th percentile for this site. Uh so

[5:01] well below normal timber flows at this

[5:04] site uh for this water year. Next slide.

[5:07] Same kind of plot for the Weber River

[5:09] near Plain City. The most recent daily

[5:12] values go down by the bold black line.

[5:14] They're they're they're well below the

[5:16] below normal or the normal range. So now

[5:19] we're in again that five to 5 to 10

[5:22] percentile range for current flows. Um

[5:25] the cumulative flow passing this gauge

[5:28] for water year 2026 um is about 48,000

[5:31] acre feet and that's just above the

[5:33] lowest um we've recorded this year for

[5:36] this time of year. Okay. Next plot is

[5:40] for the Goen drain near Magna

[5:44] Utah. And you can see the low flows at

[5:46] this or the current flows at this site

[5:48] are well below what we've seen

[5:51] historically. This full black line is

[5:53] below any of the shaded regions. So,

[5:55] we're setting record lows right now. Uh,

[5:58] but the cumulative flow of this gauge so

[6:00] far this year is 436,000 acre feet,

[6:04] which is about the um the 25th

[6:06] percentile. Uh, so current flows are

[6:09] really bad. Um, but you know, overall

[6:13] for the the water year, we're about the

[6:15] 25th percentile. Next slide. Okay, this

[6:18] is Great Salt Lake Farmington Bay

[6:20] outflow. uh current flows below the

[6:23] normal range, you know, in the fifth to

[6:25] 10th percentile range. Um cumulative

[6:28] flow at this site so far for this water

[6:30] year is about 191,000 acre feet. And

[6:33] that's about at the median for this site

[6:36] um so far this year. So if you add all

[6:40] those acre feet values up for water year

[6:43] 2026, I get 1,166,000

[6:47] acre feet. Relative to last year, the

[6:50] value was 1,27,000

[6:53] acre feet. So um this year we're

[6:57] actually 139,000 ft um above what was

[7:01] measured last year. Okay.

[7:04] All right. um at the new breach. As you

[7:07] all know, we make field measurements of

[7:09] discharge uh on a monthly basis during

[7:12] um calm conditions. So, this is uh

[7:15] showing the field measurements for the

[7:16] south to north flow. So, on the y- axis,

[7:19] it's cubic feet and um on the uh x-axis,

[7:24] we're showing data from October 1st,

[7:25] 2024 through the current measurements.

[7:28] The last few measurements listed on the

[7:31] last two bullet items here have come in

[7:33] at about 770 cubic feet per second. AK

[7:38] does a lot of this work. That's why he's

[7:40] here today. So you all

[7:44] » um and so those those last two

[7:46] measurements shows have leveled off

[7:48] slightly. Uh probably in agreement with

[7:51] lake levels kind of leveled off and now

[7:53] they're kind of on a slight downtrend.

[7:55] The most recent measurement was May 12th

[7:57] at 7 771 acre feet. Yes sir.

[8:00] >> Just a quick question on the figure of

[8:02] the 130ish,000 acre feet extra that we

[8:05] have this year. Is that for this date or

[8:07] is that a total of what?

[8:08] >> No, that's for this date for this time

[8:10] of year.

[8:10] >> Yep.

[8:10] >> And that's Ryan. That's surprising

[8:12] though. Is that a timing issue you think

[8:14] that we got that late snow last year?

[8:16] >> Is that conservation efforts that are

[8:19] >> Yeah, we were we were wondering about

[8:21] this on the car ride over. Um, one one

[8:23] thing that sticks out is the um the go

[8:25] and plane. So, uh, this year 436,000

[8:29] acre feet, last year 111,000 acre feet.

[8:33] >> So, significant jump at that site.

[8:36] >> Yeah.

[8:37] >> Did the runoff seem later last year like

[8:41] it looks like it's more or less

[8:42] concluded for this year.

[8:44] >> Yeah, likely for sure. For for sure.

[8:47] Yeah, without a doubt. Yeah, runoff was

[8:50] dismal this year. was was not good this

[8:52] year statewide, right?

[8:55] We talked to uh um people in the know

[8:59] for what's happening at the Gogen Green

[9:02] and there was some some water management

[9:04] um that was happening. Um so

[9:09] big big picture

[9:12] uh more water passing the dog and drain

[9:14] relative to uh last year and there were

[9:17] some water management activities uh

[9:19] related to that. I don't have a lot more

[9:21] detail on that. It was related to the I

[9:23] think the duck clubs.

[9:24] >> Off the top of your head, do you recall

[9:25] what the total was for last year's water

[9:28] year was

[9:29] >> for the full water year?

[9:31] >> I don't recall that.

[9:37] » All right. Um similar plot. Now these

[9:39] are discharge values at the new breach.

[9:41] Now we're looking at north to south

[9:43] flow. So same type of plot. Y axis is

[9:46] cubic feet per second in the same period

[9:48] October 1st 2024 through the most recent

[9:50] measurement that we have at the site.

[9:52] the last two measurements. Um, April

[9:55] 2020, April 24th came in at 38 CFS. Um,

[10:00] and then May 12th came in at 35 CFS.

[10:03] And, um, all the all the values shown on

[10:05] this plot are relatively low, kind of in

[10:07] this range. And I want everybody to keep

[10:10] in mind that there's very, very high

[10:12] uncertainty associated with these

[10:14] measurements. We think they're biased

[10:16] high. Um, so these these true values

[10:19] could be significantly lower than this.

[10:22] So keep that in mind. Uh next slide.

[10:24] Okay. As you know, we're operating a

[10:26] gauge um at the lakeside breach on the

[10:29] far left side of the uh of the Del

[10:31] Causeway. Um so the plot is showing uh

[10:35] the discharge values at that site in

[10:37] cubic feet per second on the y- axis and

[10:39] showing data from October 1st, 2024 to

[10:42] the current period. Um the the recent

[10:46] data, you know, this water, a lot of the

[10:48] data, most of the data for this water

[10:50] here are showing basically no um south

[10:53] to north flow at this at this site. We

[10:55] do see some periods of north to south

[10:58] flow. That's um these values that are

[11:00] below the zero the zero line is right

[11:02] here. The negative values are north to

[11:04] south flow. So you see some some north

[11:06] to south flows um in the in the data for

[11:09] this water year. Uh the last couple of

[11:11] measurements at this site, March 9th,

[11:13] 2026, we measured 151 CFS north to

[11:17] south. April 2024,

[11:19] pardon me, April, about one CS north to

[11:22] south. Um and and note the effort to get

[11:26] this measurement on this big north to

[11:29] south flow event um in March. That was a good effort to to get that uh

[11:35] confirm that that 150 cfsish cfsish

[11:39] north to south flow. Uh but basically no

[11:42] south to north this cycle.

[11:45] Okay, that's it for me. Any questions?

[11:48] So the reason why there's no south

[11:51] elevation is 4193

[11:54] that's usually when we start seeing flow

[11:56] going across the bridge and all that

[11:58] water

[12:02] it's not

[12:10] for

[12:14] » just on the stuff that you're seeing

[12:15] from the bas Is it have you guys

[12:18] attempted to quantify that at all or

[12:20] just do you just have those point in

[12:22] time flows?

[12:24] >> We're basically taking those screen

[12:27] measurements and trying to estimate it

[12:29] based off the elevation of the gau.

[12:44] It's not as accurate as adding a

[12:46] velocity sensor

[12:48] velocity to determine what the discharge

[12:50] is. So

[12:57] » thank you. We're in discussions right

[12:59] about

[13:02] >> it. Thanks. [laughter]

[13:06] All right. Quickly still where we're

[13:07] sitting at now. Um here's a plot of our

[13:10] the last three or four years or so on

[13:13] the starting in October 2022. Uh our

[13:16] lowest

[13:18] for this spring were on April 7th

[13:20] measured on April 7 around 113 to 118

[13:23] gram per liter. Um and relative to our

[13:26] fall high weed about 8 g per liter at

[13:29] our site 3510 in Bay and 11 g per liter at our site in Carington Bay.

[13:35] Um and then we have our most recent

[13:37] measurements are from May 20th. So last

[13:39] week we was out collecting water samples

[13:41] and just ticked up ever so slightly and

[13:45] relative to last May were up anywhere

[13:47] from 1 to six per year till this time

[13:50] last year.

[13:53] Uh our volume weighted salinity values

[13:56] uh are were pretty similar April 7th and

[13:58] May 20th. So for our upper brine sitting

[14:00] at 117 grams per liter. We consider the

[14:03] full depth all the way to the to the

[14:06] bottom of the lake. We're getting 117

[14:09] grams per liter also for April and it

[14:11] ticked up slightly for the May estimate

[14:13] or May measurements to 118 g per liter.

[14:17] Looking at salt mass, we continue to go

[14:19] down. So our most recent estimate May

[14:21] 20th is 847 million tons and we're still

[14:25] following that same trajectory. We've

[14:27] been on a decline of about 28 million

[14:29] tons per year.

[14:31] And just integrating all of that into

[14:33] our isomass plot, you can see we're sort

[14:35] of at the low end of the masses that

[14:39] we've observed

[14:40] a low end of salinity as well. 118 rooms

[14:43] per meter, 847 million sitting at

[14:45] 4191.9T

[14:48] on May 20th. So that's our salinity

[14:52] update. So I will stop sharing and then

[14:56] also other unless there's question.

[15:04] » Thank you.

[15:05] I apologize I was late. Um

[15:09] >> yes

[15:09] >> same meeting.

[15:12] >> Um and it went late. Um so did we

[15:17] >> but that was

[15:19] >> okay. All right.

[15:20] >> Thank you very much. So, um, thank you

[15:24] for the update on the lake conditions.

[15:27] Um, the our primary objective today with

[15:30] this meeting is we we really want to try

[15:32] to get our arms around this nitrogen

[15:34] issue and um, we think about what kinds

[15:39] of options we might have in the short

[15:40] term. Um, you know, what kinds of

[15:43] recommendations can we make to forestry,

[15:45] fire, and state lands and water quality

[15:48] regarding the burn? I think it's

[15:50] probably to be more even more focused.

[15:53] Um, and so we've got our with our

[15:56] agenda. Um,

[16:01] the intent was to first talk about what

[16:03] the problem is, you know, so we

[16:05] understand why we're doing this. You

[16:07] know, what what are the conditions we're

[16:08] seeing today? Um, I think from what

[16:13] Christine was just talking about with

[16:14] the salinity, we see, you know, our

[16:15] salinity is right where we want it. I

[16:18] mean at this stage and um um but what we

[16:23] want to talk about is the nitrogen and

[16:25] you know how significant is that and

[16:27] then um you know ask Christine to do her

[16:31] magic and run through a number of

[16:32] different scenarios to look at try try

[16:34] to bracket some what if some concepts

[16:38] what if we do this or that and um you

[16:41] know there's still lot a fair amount of

[16:43] uncertainty in all in all of this but I

[16:46] think um with the information we have

[16:49] what we have and um and so I think we

[16:52] want to just try to look at what what

[16:54] kind of trajectory have we been on and

[16:55] what kind of trajectory do we want to be

[16:57] on going forward. So that's that's

[17:00] really what we're hoping to cover today

[17:03] and ideally we can have a recommendation

[17:06] at the end of this meeting but if not

[17:08] you know hopefully we'll have some clear

[17:10] action items on what we need

[17:12] [clears throat] to investigate you know

[17:15] prep work that so that next month in

[17:17] June when we meet uh we can we can um

[17:22] make some recommendations. So, um, so I

[17:26] know I had circulated our our summary

[17:29] from our meeting in March and just

[17:31] wanted to see if there's any comments on

[17:33] that.

[17:37] » Just a maybe just a quick comment on the agenda. if if the I mean I want to

[17:44] make sure that the today's discussion we

[17:46] kind of discuss you know where we're at

[17:49] today and then also maybe if we needed

[17:50] to if you would consider making a

[17:52] recommendation prior to that that's on

[17:54] the table because I think like with this

[17:56] whole nutrient issue you know we really

[17:58] ought to think about whether we want to

[18:00] do something this year and I think we

[18:01] wait till our June meeting you know

[18:03] those are the few weeks that delay you

[18:05] know any import of nutrients and salts

[18:08] that we may want to you know see in the

[18:10] breach and so if that's

[18:12] I think we should discuss that today and

[18:14] see if that's as early as we think or if

[18:16] it's you know the group thinks that it's

[18:18] not then obviously you know we you know

[18:21] we can wait but I think if you were to

[18:22] talk about modifying the firm waiting

[18:24] for June we're raise it right back up

[18:28] short

[18:31] so anyway I just want to throw that out

[18:32] there consider whether or not any action

[18:35] is more urgent to want to consider that

[18:42] Great. Well, thank you. Um, so just I

[18:46] guess this is just a point of order in

[18:48] terms of our meeting summary from last meeting. Were there any comments on

[18:53] that?

[18:56] And if not, entertain a motion to

[18:58] approve them.

[19:02] » Thank you. Second.

[19:04] >> Thank you. And any so I guess um like

[19:08] vote for to approve them.

[19:12] Say I

[19:17] » not want to approve them or have

[19:18] questions on them. All right. Well,

[19:22] they've been approved unanimously.

[19:24] So let's let's jump back in. Sorry

[19:28] through that stuff. Um did you talk

[19:32] about membership or should we

[19:36] >> we haven't and I do it's I think we you

[19:38] know discuss having some

[19:43] time to discuss that again

[19:46] >> well um we we've had some changes in

[19:51] and some proposed changes and here you

[19:54] can see the um

[19:57] you know who are current standing

[20:00] committee is we have a member

[20:04] and then a voting member. We have a

[20:06] couple of non- voting members and then

[20:08] everybody or most everybody has an

[20:10] alternate and um one of the proposed

[20:14] changes was for Andrew and Elliot to

[20:18] switch. Um Andrew is currently our our

[20:21] voting member. Elliot spann our

[20:23] alternate

[20:24] >> and um and they had suggested or asked

[20:29] even um if they could make that switch

[20:32] but Elliot would now become our our

[20:34] voting member.

[20:35] >> You guys are okay.

[20:37] >> I I don't know why this but

[20:42] » love you all.

[20:44] What's that?

[20:47] >> Oh, yes. This is January 25.

[20:52] >> Yeah.

[20:53] >> Um,

[20:56] so I I guess any

[21:00] concerns with that?

[21:04] » As long as they start bringing cookies

[21:06] as well.

[21:16] Do we need a vote on these things or are

[21:18] we good? I think this just seems like a

[21:21] >> we're good.

[21:22] >> I I would also suggest Well, not suggest

[21:24] I'd like to take off Mark Reynolds from

[21:26] US Magnesium. I don't think they need

[21:27] that anymore. But I would suggest that

[21:29] based on you know with us or excuse me

[21:31] with Cargill and Morton still you know

[21:33] attending these regularly perhaps you

[21:35] guys can talk together about

[21:38] manage or I guess represent South AR

[21:42] mineral industry among the two of you

[21:44] and maybe it's a you know primary

[21:46] alternate kind of relationship we all

[21:48] have but maybe you all can propose how

[21:50] you'd like to handle that. Yeah. And I

[21:52] don't have a pretty young spot here

[21:53] today, but maybe that's okay for the

[21:55] next meeting, but that's okay.

[21:56] >> Yep. Exactly. So, um, so if you guys can

[22:01] talk about that, I we can chat offline

[22:04] too if we need to. Um, and then the

[22:06] third one, um, Phil Johnson

[22:10] mentioned to Angela that, um, Paul Juel

[22:13] has asked to be taken off the list as as

[22:15] his alternate at University of Utah. Um

[22:18] I don't think he proposed another

[22:21] alternate yet.

[22:22] >> He go for names. Um but he he said it

[22:26] was more a matter of what kind of

[22:31] so he suggested

[22:33] and I don't think he's

[22:36] mind but he suggested Michael

[22:41] the microbial biochemist or at US

[22:47] or David Tarbot who's a hydraologist. So

[22:49] I think it just depends on the

[22:51] community.

[22:58] » Great. So we'll follow up with on that.

[23:02] Um and then Ben, you mentioned adding

[23:04] somebody from Utah State.

[23:06] >> I think that just given the amount of

[23:08] work that they do in this sphere, it

[23:10] would make sense to have someone from

[23:11] Utah State represented. We also

[23:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. But we also have you know

[23:16] the other research universities pretty

[23:18] well represented. So I think Utah State

[23:20] just is a natural fit for Brian right

[23:22] now. But I think uh in the past Brian

[23:24] Krookton had expressed interest but

[23:26] probably can't make it in person. So as

[23:28] long as we're okay with him joining

[23:30] virtually I think we should probably

[23:32] reend that invite him in attendance but

[23:36] I think you know David Tarb.

[23:39] He was gonna say David was mentioned by

[23:41] Bill and he'd be good.

[23:43] >> So maybe we can revisit that and then at

[23:45] our next meeting figure out the south

[23:47] arm industry

[23:48] state and fields replacement.

[23:51] >> Yeah. Does that work?

[23:54] >> Perfect. So we we primarily today just

[23:57] wanted to make you aware of some of

[23:59] these changing some shifts and

[24:04] where we're headed there. So if you have

[24:06] any ideas or other people or that you

[24:10] think should be included in these

[24:11] conversations

[24:15] or other than then

[24:21] » All right.

[24:23] Well, let's let's move on to the the

[24:26] issue at hand. Um, I asked Kyle if he

[24:30] could kind of give us a an overview of

[24:33] the observations that the that Glept had

[24:37] been making and their researchers and

[24:39] TAG have been talking about over the

[24:41] last six months. um because I think

[24:44] really the monitoring work that they've

[24:46] done you know amongst that whole group

[24:50] um had identified this concerning trend

[24:54] and I wanted to make sure you all

[24:57] haven't had a chance to watch the video

[24:59] or been involved

[25:07] All

[25:19] right. So, one of the things that we

[25:22] were seeing this year is in respect to

[25:29] » Sorry, that was

[25:36] okay. So our um portfoly

[25:45] was a great word to put into this and

[25:47] trend is probably a strong word to use

[25:50] it. Um so these are the graphs that we

[25:54] present at our tag meeting. So most of

[25:56] you have probably seen some version of

[25:58] this. Uh this is for the current year

[26:00] 2026.

[26:02] And so the um y- axis is going to be

[26:05] concentration in micrograms per liter by

[26:08] month. And then we have our minimum and

[26:10] maximum are going to be the the gray

[26:12] dashed lines. The solid gray box is our

[26:14] 25th to 75th percentiles. The dark

[26:19] dashed line is the five-year average.

[26:22] The bold line is the long-term average

[26:24] going back to 1994.

[26:26] And then we have our current year in

[26:28] red. And then 2025 is going to be in the

[26:31] gold kind of yellowish color. And the

[26:33] thing that is concerning and it's hard

[26:35] to see on this graph is the steep

[26:37] decline in December in forest LA values

[26:41] and then that kind of bottoming out in

[26:44] January and then that steep rise. And

[26:47] it's one of those where if anybody

[26:49] remembers back to the tag meeting uh in

[26:51] April, we actually didn't have this

[26:53] bottom point because we measured we went

[26:56] from it was roughly 70 micrograms per

[26:59] liter in late November. It was 36 in mid

[27:03] December. It bottomed out to six in

[27:06] early January and then went back to 75

[27:11] by late January. So in the span of from

[27:14] I think it was December 18th to January

[27:17] 20th, we went from 70 to six back to 75

[27:22] with very few shrimp in.

[27:26] So that was the concern that caused us

[27:28] to investigate a little bit more. So if

[27:30] we look at this is our same basic data.

[27:34] This is the average concentration kind

[27:37] of spread out on that multi-year scale.

[27:39] So 2013 to 2026, the vertical lines that

[27:44] you can see kind of making up the grid

[27:46] square, it's going to be centered on

[27:47] January because it's really that mid-

[27:50] winter period is where we're seeing this

[27:52] kind of concerning trend. And if you

[27:55] look at kind of the historic record, you

[27:57] know, the 90s up prior to 2013, they

[28:01] really tend to look almost like 2017

[28:04] where it's kind of an average year where

[28:05] there's some variability and we do see

[28:08] some decreases. We do see some

[28:10] increases. This is likely sampling

[28:13] errors going out every two weeks. This

[28:15] could be solar exposure changes.

[28:19] We're not sure what's driving these

[28:21] things. There could be several factors

[28:23] that go on. Uh you can definitely see

[28:26] the influence of big runoff here on 2023

[28:30] how it's you know over here and very

[28:32] steep and dramatic but even then we do

[28:34] see drops at certain times. Um 2014 is

[28:40] another example of like a really good

[28:42] kind of normal year of what we expect to

[28:45] see over the long-term average. And then

[28:48] we get into some of these more

[28:50] concernings like 2026 over here. This

[28:52] really steep decline in January. Uh we

[28:55] saw this similar effect in 2021 and in

[28:58] 2015. So it's not a new thing by any

[29:02] means. The most alarming thing is the

[29:06] degree to which the variation is. I

[29:09] mean, you know, if you look in like

[29:10] relative percentage, we lost roughly

[29:13] half in 2015,

[29:15] maybe twothirds in 2021, and almost 80%

[29:20] in 2026.

[29:23] And the other thing that goes along with

[29:25] this is the water clarity stays the

[29:27] same. So the lake is garden green just

[29:31] like we would expect, but for some

[29:33] reason there have been degradation or

[29:36] loss of chlorophyll a

[29:38] for essence. And

[29:42] as we scratch our heads and talk about

[29:43] this internally, talking with Gary,

[29:46] talking with other different people,

[29:48] we've kind of determined that

[29:51] floor is not being consumed and changed

[29:53] like we see in the summer months where

[29:57] you know all these dips in the summer

[30:00] months and the bottoming out the lake

[30:02] goes your second transparency goes from

[30:05] you know 2.3 meters to

[30:08] four and a half five meter depth.

[30:10] And during this time period in January,

[30:13] we're staying in that same 3.4,

[30:17] but our core values are viable. So it's an odd response that we're not.

[30:25] >> So was that one measurement that bottom

[30:27] out?

[30:28] >> Yes.

[30:28] >> And in 2021, can we see two measurements

[30:31] that

[30:31] >> Yes. And that's and these are averages

[30:34] of our 17 different sites. So this is an

[30:36] average across the south.

[30:38] >> But yes, that is one measurement and

[30:41] that's why we didn't present it in tag

[30:42] is because we thought we messed

[30:44] something up somewhere in our process.

[30:46] We do we run everything against two

[30:49] chlorometers now. So we have the old

[30:50] TD700 that we had some user error with

[30:54] several years ago and that forced us to

[30:56] buy the new uh the new trilogy.

[31:00] [snorts]

[31:01] And so we actually run every sample in

[31:03] both and they were both in agreement and

[31:07] they were both very low.

[31:09] >> Do how many samples do you take in the

[31:12] field? Can you do a standard deviation

[31:13] or

[31:14] >> 17?

[31:15] one for each site and then we're

[31:18] averaging.

[31:20] >> Yeah.

[31:20] >> One for each site.

[31:22] >> Okay.

[31:23] >> So could you do three for each site so

[31:25] you can or is that too much too? It's

[31:30] that's a lot of cost.

[31:31] >> Yeah.

[31:32] >> So these are averaged over sites

[31:36] and uh so these numbers up here.

[31:38] >> Yeah. So these numbers is going to be

[31:40] the average for the entire length of

[31:41] that.

[31:42] >> Gotcha.

[31:42] >> And looking at the data for this one, we

[31:45] only had one that was above 20 micro.

[31:49] Oh,

[31:49] >> everything was bottomed out in that six

[31:51] to five month.

[31:52] >> So, it'd be great if you could put error

[31:54] bars on those just so we could see and

[31:57] you'd be averaging them for different

[31:59] sites, but still it would be

[32:00] >> Yeah, and we could probably do that, but

[32:02] um for the most part, these are going to

[32:03] be fairly smaller.

[32:04] >> Yeah. Okay, cool.

[32:06] >> Yeah, we can.

[32:07] >> Thanks for getting into the weeds there.

[32:08] >> Yeah, no problem. Um, and that's one of

[32:11] those things where we kind of chalk it

[32:12] up to, okay, well, maybe it's a one-time

[32:14] thing or it's a fairly quick rebound,

[32:18] but the thing that seems the most likely

[32:21] is some sort of nutrient limitation to

[32:25] the phytolanin themselves because it's

[32:27] not a grazing pressure response. It

[32:29] seems to be a okay carrying capacity

[32:33] and then population tanking response.

[32:37] Not really sure that part of that

[32:39] uncertainty because we don't fully

[32:41] understand nutrient cycling in the way

[32:44] whether that's south arm, north arm, DBL

[32:46] president, DBL as

[32:49] you have

[32:51] microscopy for that.

[32:53] >> Okay.

[32:54] >> Yes. So when we collect these samples,

[32:56] we collect five samples at five of the

[32:59] sites. one sample at five sites that

[33:02] then are looked at in microscopy

[33:04] and

[33:05] the cells there's not a shift in

[33:09] phytolantic community

[33:11] >> so it's still dominated by deniala

[33:13] and the cell counts go down but not this

[33:17] dramatically so that's another odd thing

[33:20] where our cell counts aren't changing a

[33:23] whole lot

[33:25] but our detected delay

[33:28] is

[33:29] >> you said at like 25% and roughly

[33:34] >> it's it's definitely smaller. It's not

[33:36] the 80%. So yeah, it's

[33:40] >> a little closer

[33:43] nitrogen for 2021.

[33:46] >> We should. Yeah,

[33:49] >> sort of against

[33:54] » something we just haven't had time with

[33:56] our schedules to connect.

[33:58] >> That was going to be an ask

[34:01] overlay this sort of

[34:03] >> the other thing to remember is the the

[34:04] nutrient data is once a month at best.

[34:08] So a lot of times it averages out about

[34:09] every six weeks. So if these are such a

[34:13] short, you know, they can recover in one

[34:17] to two weeks,

[34:19] we may not be capturing that. That's and

[34:23] that's one of those things is maybe in

[34:24] 2014 2017 maybe we miss how drastic the

[34:29] decline was

[34:31] that speaks to all that uncertainty with

[34:33] just that

[34:36] cross plotting any physical parameters

[34:39] like climate temperature

[34:42] >> we looked at all

[34:42] >> just to see if anything is

[34:44] >> there's there's no there's no clear

[34:46] indication

[34:48] of anything salinity temperature

[34:53] weather's

[34:55] hard because it's hard to get old

[34:57] weather data. So that's why I like

[35:00] saying solar exposure is an unknown.

[35:05] >> Kyle, did that happen in 2022? I mean, I

[35:08] know it's not exactly the same.

[35:10] >> Yeah. And I I purposely didn't highlight

[35:12] 2022 because there's so much going on in

[35:16] 2022

[35:17] that it's hard to pin it down to just

[35:19] this decline and and quick response.

[35:24] 2022 was highly variable, but this is

[35:27] all before we modified the burn in 20

[35:31] because we didn't modify the BM until

[35:34] late summer in July.

[35:36] Um so we would have been dealing with

[35:38] higher salinity issues. we would have

[35:40] been dealing with similar or lower lake

[35:43] elevations than we have currently. But

[35:46] when you look at

[35:48] magnitude, amplitude, everything, when

[35:50] you think about salinity levels being

[35:53] closer to 180 g per liter at that time

[35:57] versus the current, you know, 120ish.

[36:01] I don't know that salinity is really

[36:03] going to be the driving factor because

[36:05] they're so decoupled like you know so

[36:08] separated in those two years

[36:09] specifically.

[36:11] >> But the reason I'm asking is we do have

[36:13] three data points there that are really

[36:14] low. Yes.

[36:15] >> Which might you know I mean interesting

[36:18] to see how the nitrogen overlaps.

[36:20] >> Yeah. And that's kind of what we get to

[36:23] later in in the talk with some of Gary

[36:26] some patients.

[36:28] Um, so how active are the phytolanin at

[36:31] this time of year? I mean, are they

[36:32] actively

[36:33] >> They seem to be the most active from the

[36:35] lab experiments that Gary's lab has been

[36:37] running. The cold temperature and the

[36:41] lack of grazing pressure when they seem

[36:43] to do best. So they they actually prefer

[36:46] the winter for whatever reason.

[36:49] >> I actually have to put an asterisk here

[36:51] because if you're looking at

[36:52] chlorophyll, you're not looking at

[36:53] photosynthesis. So when we do carbon

[36:56] fixation experiments and I've said this

[36:57] before,

[36:58] >> yeah,

[36:58] >> they're not doing photosynthesis because

[37:01] any any kind of biochemistry proceeds

[37:03] more slowly when it's cold. So um that

[37:08] there there is chlorophyll

[37:09] >> there is chlorophyll present but it may

[37:11] not be active.

[37:11] >> Correct.

[37:12] >> Perfect.

[37:12] >> Correct. They are not doing

[37:14] photosynthesis at the rate they would be

[37:16] when it's warm.

[37:17] >> And that makes sense.

[37:18] >> Right. So they're not fixing carbon

[37:19] >> but from a population standpoint.

[37:21] >> Correct. They are

[37:23] >> it's a good growing.

[37:25] >> Yeah.

[37:28] » And that's the other thing is maybe this

[37:30] is setting off a warning bell that it

[37:33] shouldn't because maybe this is not the

[37:34] metric to to study, but this is data

[37:37] that we collect and have collected for a

[37:39] lot of years and it's doing things that

[37:41] we don't expect it to do

[37:43] >> and it's doing it to a higher degree

[37:46] this year relative to other.

[37:49] So I think that's kind of where that

[37:51] came from. Then we're just looking at

[37:52] these individual years a little closer.

[37:55] So you can see that in 2015 where we

[37:58] dropped from, you know, the mid50s to

[38:00] the mid20s.

[38:05] Looking at the 2021

[38:08] data, we're dropping, you know, from the

[38:11] 60s to the 15s, you know, the mid teens.

[38:15] pretty significant drop head. It remains

[38:17] there for a two week period. So sample

[38:21] collected and then two weeks later

[38:22] another sample collected and it remained

[38:24] low.

[38:27] Looking at this 2026, I have 25 and 26

[38:30] here because they almost look opposite

[38:34] where 2025 has like kind of some it

[38:37] starts up, dips down, really gets shot

[38:40] up, and then starts to dip down. And the

[38:43] shrimp don't come in in 2025 until more

[38:45] of that April time frame. And then in

[38:48] 2026, which are going to be in the next

[38:50] couple graphs where we're going to

[38:51] overlay some trend data over here, we

[38:53] see this really steep drop through

[38:56] December and January. Kyle, do you have

[38:59] you guys like tried to correlate this

[39:01] data with like just things like

[39:03] precipitation pattern, snow pack, fm

[39:06] opening and closing just like

[39:07] >> we haven't

[39:10] that's kind of why we ask other people

[39:13] have a little bit more time. Yeah, I was

[39:14] thinking about Elliot's question.

[39:17] What if we can look at like session

[39:19] event on the ledge

[39:22] >> because like you might see some I mean

[39:25] I'm looking at your data in January

[39:26] that's when we have some of our

[39:28] strongest northwest

[39:30] setups and session.

[39:35] >> Yeah, exactly.

[39:38] take your sample dates bottom on like

[39:41] the hydrograph there see what's

[39:44] happening yeah

[39:47] >> I'm open

[39:48] >> because that would basically tell you

[39:49] weather right you said weather is really

[39:51] difficult and I think I totally agree

[39:54] elevation yeah

[39:57] those big

[40:04] » you didn't I mean with that like just

[40:06] giving your kind of an oxid layer the

[40:08] bottom stirred up because I think

[40:09] >> previous researchers have seen this

[40:11] really stark changes in DO when you get

[40:14] absolutely big stirring up kind of

[40:16] bottom anoxic down the bottom anox stuff

[40:19] and even with the deep brine layer

[40:20] there's I think some suggestion that if

[40:22] you get sulfur into the upper brine

[40:24] layer they think it consumes oxygen so

[40:26] there's no mechanisms that could stir up

[40:29] those bottom sediments exactly and kind

[40:30] of have a maybe a temporary diet or two

[40:33] >> yeah you sent us the date we could

[40:35] collaborate on

[40:39] and see where it

[40:48] » I don't know if it's coincidence but

[40:49] each of those three years happened after

[40:53] two to three consecutive years of the

[40:55] lake drop

[40:56] >> right

[40:57] >> so that and that winter is that low

[41:00] point so it might just be a new set of

[41:04] microbial that are exposed

[41:06] now and not contribute.

[41:08] >> That's very possible.

[41:10] >> But this is this is in the water.

[41:15] So this is taken it's an integrated

[41:17] sample to six meters of depth. So below

[41:20] six feet you go to the bottom with about

[41:23] a 2 in hose tap the end of it. Bring

[41:26] that back up kind of modulize it in a

[41:29] bucket and then take sample.

[41:32] Just a quick note on the style. Um, we

[41:35] sampled on the 13th of January and our

[41:39] chlorophyll is about 85. So, a bit of a

[41:41] dip is a very short one.

[41:43] >> It was very short this year because we

[41:44] did the same thing. Like I say, we got

[41:46] that six. We were going back out on a

[41:48] shrimp only run. We weren't scheduled to

[41:49] collect any and we took kind of a random

[41:52] sample, four or five of them and we're

[41:54] right back to 65 78 where we would have.

[41:58] Yeah, that that's curiously quick. But

[42:00] you know on another note in 2025 that

[42:03] mid- winter dip without heria present

[42:06] and we see that too. That's multiple

[42:08] dates. That's a curiosity through

[42:10] >> and so

[42:12] and it could be all these things right

[42:14] because everything's going to have a

[42:16] little bit of

[42:18] smoke and oxid layers and that's why

[42:21] it's not maybe the we have to do this

[42:24] right now. It's a

[42:27] there's a lot we don't know. Should we

[42:29] combine our data sets so that you know

[42:32] because we don't always go out from the

[42:34] same date. So

[42:39] look at you have to look into you know

[42:41] for any of this we have to look into

[42:42] data sharing agreements and some of that

[42:44] stuff we'd be okay with that

[42:49] >> I think there's capacity there we just

[42:53] >> data is your data not public

[42:55] >> it is but it's protected right so it's a

[43:00] we have an extra layer of some of it for

[43:02] the raw data but we just have

[43:05] talk to our administrator and make sure

[43:07] what the are

[43:11] » I think we've done that in the past when

[43:13] you guys couldn't go out.

[43:14] >> Yeah, you22

[43:19] » it's just an all.

[43:26] So when we overlay the shrimp numbers

[43:28] because this is the other thing that

[43:30] we're out collecting is brine shrimp

[43:31] sampling. So these are total adults or

[43:35] not total adults. This is total shrimp.

[43:36] So this includes nap eye and most of

[43:39] these peaks are going to be driven by

[43:41] eye 2025 and then again six. And so

[43:47] I had to go back and actually look at

[43:49] the physical numbers because

[43:51] 60 shrimp per liter seemed like a lot

[43:54] and it was accurate. We had a huge patch

[43:58] this last year in 2025.

[44:00] And you can see this midwinter dip early

[44:04] in January well before there was any

[44:07] sort of established recruitment or any

[44:10] sort of meaningful hatch coming and then

[44:13] that persists into the late winter

[44:17] because we tend to see these

[44:18] oscillations, different generation peaks

[44:21] and then they kind of graze it down. it

[44:23] rebounds, the shrimp rebounds, the

[44:24] chlorophyll rebounds, and they just kind

[44:26] of chase each other like we see through

[44:27] the summer months here in 25. And then

[44:30] as the shrimp start to be suppressed

[44:32] with temperature drops and that grazing

[44:35] pressure goes away, we see this rebound

[44:37] through November. And then we hit this

[44:40] curious decline in December and there is

[44:43] a tiny bump there. We get a little extra

[44:45] hatch because December was abnormally

[44:47] warm,

[44:50] >> but it's not enough grazing pressure to

[44:52] explain it all.

[44:54] >> But this is just going to be the

[44:56] continuation of this graph into 2026. So

[44:59] the green line's going to come down,

[45:01] contact with the bottom point, and that

[45:03] red line's going to extend up into that

[45:06] first little bump in January. And then

[45:08] we have our initial hatch. I wasn't I

[45:11] didn't have time to update the graph to

[45:13] current conditions, but we're starting

[45:14] to see more peaks that are going to be

[45:17] suppressing this

[45:19] perhaps established.

[45:25] So, it's a bit uncertain. And then for

[45:28] anybody that hasn't watched the tag

[45:30] meeting, I definitely recommend you go

[45:32] back and get the better version of this

[45:34] where you can get everything that Gary

[45:36] says and all his caveats about being a

[45:38] hydraologist.

[45:41] I'm going to do my best to summarize

[45:43] some of the key points of that

[45:47] when we put the BM in place, it did its

[45:50] job and it blocked north to south flow.

[45:52] And that's what the little graph shows

[45:54] here in the bottom right hand corner.

[45:56] flow from north to south functionally

[45:58] stopped for a very long time and is now

[46:01] slowly starting to come back with the

[46:03] erosion the burn session

[46:09] USGS is collecting some outflow on there

[46:13] again we don't understand enough of that

[46:15] because we don't continuous monitoring

[46:17] for all the reason we're talking

[46:21] » seeing this Gary looked at some of the

[46:23] data ran it through the ecosystem model.

[46:26] They could build it for us, come up with

[46:28] some numbers.

[46:30] Very general back in the end

[46:32] calculations. These are not hard

[46:34] numbers, but they get to the trend of

[46:38] without the BM, we get a state of

[46:40] equilibrium where there's about two and

[46:43] a half times the concentration in the

[46:46] north arm than there is in the south

[46:47] arm. And that falls in line with what we

[46:50] measure with the nutrient samples.

[46:54] Since putting the burm in, that has

[46:58] shifted slightly because we're not

[47:00] seeing that north arm return. And it

[47:03] seems that the nitrogen pool in the

[47:06] south arm is starting to export into the

[47:09] north arm.

[47:11] Again, it falls in line with the

[47:13] observations. You know, the model's

[47:15] predicting 3.7 observations are about

[47:17] 3.9, which is pretty close.

[47:23] There again, I don't know how much stock

[47:25] you want to put in these hard numbers,

[47:28] but it really does kind of show that we

[47:31] are exporting nutrients and nitrogen to

[47:34] the north arm.

[47:36] At what rate? We're not sure. Like say

[47:39] the cycling in the south arm versus the

[47:41] cycling in the north arm is not well

[47:44] understood.

[47:47] could be contributing to some of these

[47:49] issues.

[47:52] But it does show up in some of our data

[47:55] as we look at it a little closer

[47:58] to where we do see um a bit of a

[48:01] suppression in

[48:03] the microbialite biomass

[48:07] and in the phytolankton biomass

[48:12] where we're starting to see that maybe

[48:15] numbers have come down and then that

[48:17] we're also seeing that

[48:20] what word you want to put comments, but

[48:22] the chlorophyll content per cell, which

[48:26] is not something that we tracked

[48:27] explicitly. We didn't measure cell size.

[48:30] We do cell counts and we do.

[48:34] And so, but we're starting to see maybe

[48:36] a separation at what it once was in the

[48:39] high salinity years versus what it is

[48:41] now in the lower SL maybe not as many or

[48:46] class per cell.

[48:48] What what did Gary's data go back to on

[48:52] nitrogen imports like yeah that graph

[48:55] showed that the firm

[48:58] apologiz

[49:04] uh okay he goes back pretty far

[49:06] >> so yeah he goes back pretty far so the

[49:07] 97 and then there's that gap from 99 to

[49:10] 2020 they were all pretty similar so he

[49:13] didn't really worry about including

[49:15] those there was no statistical

[49:17] difference between

[49:18] in 2020.

[49:19] >> So this kind of shows that it's not

[49:22] actually a data gap. You have data

[49:24] >> the data is there. It's not a data gap

[49:26] and it's not a difference. So it's even

[49:28] from 97 to 0.2 there really wasn't a

[49:32] huge difference.

[49:34] >> So like when we first put in the breach,

[49:38] wouldn't you think there would be a

[49:39] statistical difference or some or

[49:41] significant difference with that huge

[49:43] flux from the north or the south during

[49:46] that time period? So whether you'd see

[49:48] it delayed even with the deep brain

[49:49] layer,

[49:50] >> we didn't see it. It wasn't observed in

[49:52] that time frame in 2016 and the working

[49:55] theory or hypothesis the idea is we had

[49:58] an established brine layer at that time

[50:00] but took a while to

[50:03] which would have held more nutrients

[50:06] during that time frame because it was

[50:08] more similar to more water. And that

[50:11] slow release of that deep right layer

[50:14] erosion

[50:16] could have offset that W because by the

[50:19] time we had that huge what had different

[50:22] south to north and as that

[50:26] declined and then we started getting

[50:27] north to south flow that's about the

[50:30] same time frame that

[50:33] you know we've been trying to look a

[50:34] little bit at this oursel taking a

[50:36] slightly different approach using USGS

[50:39] total nitrogen

[50:40] And if you look at the 10-year period

[50:43] before that breach was opened in 2016

[50:45] and just correlate total nitrogen versus

[50:47] like elevation because it's more

[50:49] conservative nutrient is kind of like

[50:51] salt. Um and then do the same for the

[50:54] period 2017 to 2023 when they stop

[50:57] taking water samples.

[51:00] um the two lines are in parallel but bit

[51:03] lower from each other and the difference

[51:05] is that which correlates with that but I

[51:09] think it would be worth taking a deeper

[51:11] dive and potentially trying to do what

[51:13] was done with salt and maybe use

[51:17] volutric means and try to estimate a

[51:19] total nitrogen mass in itself and see if

[51:22] that clears up some variation in that

[51:25] regression line. Maybe it makes it even

[51:27] more clear.

[51:32] Just another thing on your plate.

[51:34] >> I did it. I already did.

[51:37] >> That's kind of why we started this

[51:38] consultation.

[51:40] >> We needed people with more capacity and like better expertise

[51:46] in this particular field. Right.

[51:49] >> Question online.

[51:50] >> Yeah. Question.

[51:54] The rapid January chlorophyll declines

[51:57] tend to follow relatively high

[51:59] chlorophyll in November, December.

[52:09] » I mean,

[52:10] >> does that make sense what I'm asking?

[52:13] >> It seems like you've got a high

[52:15] chlorophyll in the the fall months

[52:17] preceding those big drops in January.

[52:20] And so I'm just wondering if like

[52:21] nitrogen's acting as a limiting uh

[52:24] nutrient

[52:26] and you're seeing that in that time

[52:28] series data.

[52:29] >> Yeah. And that's and that's what we're

[52:31] wondering is if if that's what the

[52:34] response is is that the population

[52:35] reaches a maximum. There's no more

[52:37] available nitrogen. They die off. Uh

[52:41] they decay with within half a week. So

[52:45] you know two three days that nitrogen

[52:47] gets cycled. they're able to pick that

[52:49] back up with, you know, the few that

[52:51] aren't yet pick that up and it bloom

[52:54] again. Um, that's kind of the working

[52:57] idea. That's the question that we're

[52:59] trying to ask.

[53:00] >> Yeah. Okay.

[53:01] >> Because the fear is

[53:04] what if that drop shifts, right? Because

[53:07] if that drop shifts out of

[53:11] January when we don't expect to have

[53:13] brine shrimp and shifts maybe more to

[53:17] February, March, we are seeing more and

[53:20] more brine shrimp hatch in these warmer

[53:23] spring months. Um,

[53:28] >> yeah. Are we going to lose the food

[53:30] source temporarily for the shrimp and

[53:32] then they're going to hatch and we're

[53:33] going to potentially mismatch that green

[53:36] up and potentially lose a crop of brine

[53:39] shrimp? It would be food for birds and

[53:42] also impact the industry.

[53:44] >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

[53:46] >> Y

[53:50] uh this presentation is asking more

[53:52] questions than it answers. Let's go with

[53:54] that. Another little caveat for us. So

[53:57] um based on all of this running things

[54:01] through the model. So this is the nice

[54:02] part of where we have multiple lab

[54:04] experiments. We have kind of what we

[54:07] expect things to do based on lab

[54:09] experiments versus observed data. We run

[54:12] into this. If you just look at the

[54:14] nitrogen decline and assign it a 6% loss

[54:18] and we run that out for for a couple of

[54:21] years, we do expect to see some very

[54:24] large impacts on the shrimp numbers and

[54:29] the brinefly larvae numbers where th

[54:32] those populations are going to be

[54:33] suppressed. the unique response to brine

[54:36] shrimp and kind of this little caveat

[54:37] about the uh the harvest industry and

[54:40] the cysts. When brine shrimp are

[54:42] stressed, they're more likely just to

[54:44] produce cits. That's what that shows is

[54:47] that that response of we observe a

[54:50] little bit more maybe some more cyst

[54:53] production in times of stress and that

[54:56] just gets amplified when you add in both

[54:59] the nitrogen decline and a salinity

[55:01] increase. So, as we continue to go down

[55:04] in lake elevation and we potentially

[55:09] start increasing our salinity, right, we

[55:12] run into that issue. It just shows that

[55:14] it's going to be exacerbated with both

[55:18] effects. So,

[55:20] >> well, um, Gary's model doesn't consider

[55:22] phosphorus, right?

[55:25] I think that's what he said.

[55:26] >> I think Yeah, I don't think so.

[55:32] And then just the basic wrap-ups of this

[55:34] that the systems are linked. They both

[55:38] have a huge impact on one another

[55:41] whether that's through salinity.

[55:44] It looks like there's some kind of

[55:46] nutrient connection

[55:48] and we should have differential impacts.

[55:50] But we're definitely going to see

[55:51] negative impacts on the shrimp and the

[55:54] larvae. eventually those are going to

[55:56] accumulate to where

[55:58] you know we may

[56:02] [laughter]

[56:02] >> so I just wanted to make a comment here

[56:05] because I made that comment Gary as well

[56:07] is the differential impacts are

[56:09] temporary

[56:10] >> temporary

[56:11] >> because as your nitrogen declines

[56:13] ultimately you get an oligotropic system

[56:15] and you won't have a lot of brine shrimp

[56:17] and you won't have a lot of cyst

[56:19] >> correct

[56:21] so it doesn't matter that your cyst for

[56:24] shrimp freezes when you receive

[56:27] >> certainly no benefit to keep this. There

[56:30] is a benefit. It's temporary. is temp

[56:32] and it's and it should serve as a

[56:34] warning sign

[56:37] and then dairy included just a little

[56:40] commercial. It's not nice to mother

[56:42] nature.

[56:46] I think we can try it. [laughter]

[56:51] » No sound.

[56:52] >> Sound is important.

[56:53] >> Yeah.

[56:55] I'm just excited that Gary's progressed

[56:58] beyond the comic sands font to videos.

[57:05] » That's pretty much all I had.

[57:07] >> Still got that.

[57:09] >> So, so I guess to summarize is we're observing a decline in nitrogen

[57:15] concentrations in the south arm. We're

[57:17] seeing a response um from that in the

[57:20] phytolanton.

[57:21] we're seeing then and then we're seeing

[57:24] what the model would

[57:27] predict would happen with a decline in

[57:29] nitrogen is where we would see an

[57:31] increase in brine shrimp cysts initially

[57:34] because the brine shrimp are are

[57:36] stressed

[57:37] >> um but then we would see a decline on

[57:40] the brine shrimp and then also with

[57:43] brine flies

[57:45] >> when that's the concern

[57:47] >> that's the concern

[57:48] >> is that if if this trend of

[57:57] what does that mean? and and the model

[58:01] doesn't it's not fit. Um and so that's

[58:05] where we want to why

[58:13] you know it appears that the BM while it

[58:16] has cut off the north arm flow and the

[58:18] salt load as as intended and it's

[58:21] functioning very well for from slimy

[58:23] standpoint. It appears there might be an

[58:26] unintended consequence is that it's also

[58:29] blocking off the nitrogen level that's

[58:31] al

[58:44] nitty-gritty of nutrient.

[58:46] Um,

[58:48] and I was excited about this and then I

[58:52] quickly got overwhelmed.

[58:54] So bear with me. I'm going to show you a

[58:56] lot of data and please jump in as we go.

[59:00] Ask questions, ask for clarification. Um

[59:04] because it's a lot to kind of introduce

[59:06] this new set of constituents to what

[59:09] we're already thinking about salt. So

[59:13] as uh Kyle sort of outlined, um

[59:15] nutrients are kind of the foundation of

[59:17] the ecosystem in the south, leaving our

[59:19] brine shrimp and brine fly food webs.

[59:22] And nutrients are cycle differently than

[59:26] salts. They're biologically active. They

[59:28] are chemically reactive and they also

[59:30] respond to hydrarology like salt does.

[59:32] So there's many many processes have that

[59:35] would affect a nitric nitrogen or a

[59:38] phosphorus concentration at any time. So

[59:40] I think it's important to keep this

[59:41] complexity in mind and also keep in mind

[59:43] there's a lot that we don't understand

[59:45] about these cycling processes that are

[59:47] actively uh you know always actively.

[59:51] And I wanted to just give this group a

[59:53] kind of a just a overview of the

[59:55] nutrient monitoring program that we run

[59:57] in collaboration with the crate

[59:59] decreases program. So we collect or

[1:00:01] produce lab collects water samples

[1:00:03] monthly at four sites in the south farm.

[1:00:05] This is also these are also the same

[1:00:06] samples where we measure that we measure

[1:00:08] salinity from. Um, we also monitor the

[1:00:11] nutrient inflows coming in from our

[1:00:13] major service water inflows on the bear,

[1:00:14] the weaver, the farmington bay outflow

[1:00:16] and aten drain and also monitor the

[1:00:19] exchange at the causeway breaches at the

[1:00:21] new breach and at lakeside. So you have

[1:00:23] some idea of the data set we're working

[1:00:25] with these data go back up about 2010

[1:00:28] for inflows and for the south arm uh

[1:00:32] monitoring and for nutrients there's

[1:00:35] many to consider. It's not just like for

[1:00:37] salinity we have one for nutrients we

[1:00:39] have many for nitrogen we're looking at

[1:00:41] both total and dissolved forms of

[1:00:42] nitrogen including inorganic forms of

[1:00:45] ammonia nitrate and nitrite and for

[1:00:46] phosphorus we deal with total which is a

[1:00:49] raw form dissolves phosphorus and

[1:00:51] phosphate and so just to give you kind

[1:00:54] of an idea orient you to the kind of

[1:00:56] ranges of concentrations you see in the

[1:00:58] cell farm on the left I plotted total

[1:01:00] dissolved nitrogen from 2010 to present

[1:01:02] on the right is total dissolved

[1:01:03] phosphorus just to give you kind

[1:01:06] ballpark for the upper brine. Those are

[1:01:08] shown in kind of the light blue, these

[1:01:09] colors are um color coded by depth. So

[1:01:12] for the light bluish colors, that's

[1:01:13] representative of our upper brine layer

[1:01:15] concentration. And then these darker

[1:01:17] purples are um indicative of when we

[1:01:20] have a deep brine layer present. And

[1:01:22] it's really important to keep this in

[1:01:23] mind. So when we have a deep rind layer

[1:01:26] presence present, uh nutrients tend to

[1:01:28] be what we I guess we could say

[1:01:30] sequestered in that layer. they're much higher concentrations and along

[1:01:35] with that we see decreases decreased

[1:01:38] concentrations in the upper brine layer.

[1:01:40] So when the deep brine layer is present

[1:01:42] what's what's um available to the biota

[1:01:45] in the upper brine layer that

[1:01:46] concentration goes down. So that's a kind of an important feature

[1:01:50] that I think is important to keep in

[1:01:51] mind um because the concentrations we've

[1:01:55] observed recently in terms of nitrogen

[1:01:57] are not unique. We've observed these in

[1:01:59] the especially when we're deep in there

[1:02:04] and just to give you I don't you don't

[1:02:06] need to need to go into a lot of this

[1:02:08] but to just show you kind of the

[1:02:09] magnitude of the data reflecting all

[1:02:12] these different species and it's quite

[1:02:13] complex and when we think about what's

[1:02:15] being taken up by phytolankton it's

[1:02:17] really these inorganic species of

[1:02:19] nutrients ammonia nitrate nitrite and

[1:02:21] phosphate so this is what's most

[1:02:23] bioavailable also what's most difficult

[1:02:25] to measure many of these are below the

[1:02:27] detection limit often because they're

[1:02:29] being taken up actively. Um, but just to

[1:02:31] keep in mind what a lot of the analyses

[1:02:33] we do for looking at nutrients are

[1:02:36] really focused on these total forms and

[1:02:38] in this case the subsequent analyses I

[1:02:40] will show you will focus on total

[1:02:41] dissolved nitrogen and nitrogen is

[1:02:44] thought to be the limiting nutrient in

[1:02:46] the south arm. um that's based on I

[1:02:49] think bioassides from the 70s probably

[1:02:51] other studies studies as well but to my

[1:02:54] knowledge there hasn't been kind of a

[1:02:56] recent look at you know nutrient

[1:02:58] limitation

[1:03:00] for for the purposes of this analysis

[1:03:02] we'll be focusing on total wellness um

[1:03:05] and just to give you some context uh

[1:03:07] Hannah Min in our office did an analysis

[1:03:09] of kind of the nutrient mass balance for

[1:03:11] the south farm this plot is showing

[1:03:13] sources of nutrients to the south farm

[1:03:15] so where is the cell farm getting all of

[1:03:17] its nitrogen and the phosphorus from so

[1:03:19] values above zero are indicative of

[1:03:21] what's coming into the lake so nutrient

[1:03:23] imports those are from our and we

[1:03:25] considered major surface water inflow so

[1:03:28] we liberation bay and then also what's

[1:03:31] coming in from the new breach so south

[1:03:33] to north flow that's shown in purple

[1:03:36] >> can I ask a quick question about total

[1:03:39] dissolved nitrogen so that's including

[1:03:41] ammonia nitrites and

[1:03:45] >> all three

[1:03:47] Yep. So in this plot uh what's what I

[1:03:50] want us to focus on is the period 2017

[1:03:52] to 2021. So this would be the period

[1:03:54] when the new breach was open um for

[1:03:56] about five years when we did this mass

[1:03:57] balance and during this time the

[1:04:00] greatest source of nutrients to the

[1:04:01] south arm was the new breach and that

[1:04:03] flow that's coming from south and these

[1:04:06] numbers at the top of these kind of bar

[1:04:08] plots show the fraction of input

[1:04:10] nitrogen coming in. So for example in

[1:04:12] 2020 and 2021 we estimate 62% of the

[1:04:16] dissolved nitrogen coming into the south

[1:04:18] arm was from the new breach north to

[1:04:20] south flow. So it's a significant source

[1:04:23] of nitrogen to the south arm in addition

[1:04:26] to the um kind of the sum of all water

[1:04:28] flows

[1:04:30] and during this time we saw a net gain

[1:04:32] in nitrogen mass. If we consider these

[1:04:34] inflows and outputs we were seeing um

[1:04:37] net during that time

[1:04:41] here is a volume weighted develop

[1:04:43] nitrogen concentration. So this is

[1:04:45] considering the full water column and

[1:04:47] this is for those of you familiar with

[1:04:48] how the methodology we developed for

[1:04:51] salinity by applied the same method to

[1:04:53] our total nitrogen concentration. So

[1:04:55] this is shown from 2010 to present and

[1:04:58] these lines um denote when the burn was

[1:05:01] modified in July 2022 and then in July

[1:05:04] or sorry February 2023. And here is kind

[1:05:07] of the um the concentrations we're

[1:05:09] seeing now. One thing to really keep in

[1:05:11] mind is that um it's much more variable.

[1:05:14] Nutrients are harder to measure. They're

[1:05:16] more u labile. They're more active. So

[1:05:18] there they really just are more variable

[1:05:20] constituent in the system. It's not as

[1:05:23] clean as solidity data. I

[1:05:26] >> Good question. So, are you filtering out

[1:05:28] the cells before you determine the

[1:05:31] nitrogen or does it include the cellular

[1:05:33] nitrogen?

[1:05:34] >> So, are does all nitrogen are filtered

[1:05:37] at 045

[1:05:38] >> 45? Okay. So, some microbes are going to

[1:05:41] get through, but that's pretty okay.

[1:05:44] >> You're filtering out algae, but maybe

[1:05:46] nuts and cyan.

[1:05:49] Um and I did a just a statistical

[1:05:52] comparison between the period before the

[1:05:54] book was modified and after trying to

[1:05:56] get um bracketing the same number of

[1:05:58] samples on each side and there is a

[1:06:00] statistically lower concentration we're

[1:06:02] observing now around four milligrams per

[1:06:04] liter relative to the time immediately

[1:06:06] before modification from about 2020 to

[1:06:08] 2022. However, it's important to keep in

[1:06:10] mind that these concentrations you see

[1:06:12] now are not unique. they had been

[1:06:14] observed previously and even kind of in

[1:06:17] 2011 2012 uh concentrations were even

[1:06:20] lower.

[1:06:22] If we look at the mass, uh it's no

[1:06:24] longer looking at concentration, we're

[1:06:25] looking at mass. The order of mass we

[1:06:27] see total of nitrogen is on the order of

[1:06:30] 30 to 35,000 tons of nitrogen. Um and we do see, you know, pretty consistent

[1:06:36] um stable mass prior to worm

[1:06:39] modification. And I believe we did a

[1:06:41] trend analysis as part of Hannah's

[1:06:43] analysis and there was no statistically

[1:06:44] significant trend up to 2021.

[1:06:48] Um, if I compare the masses after burn

[1:06:51] modification to before burn

[1:06:53] modification, we're seeing a

[1:06:54] statistically significant decrease of

[1:06:55] around 3,000 tons. So, the nitrogen mass

[1:06:59] appears to be going down in the south

[1:07:01] arm. All right. So, that was really

[1:07:03] focused on South Farm data.

[1:07:06] And now I'm going to focus on what we

[1:07:08] measure at the brereech. So, um, Andy

[1:07:10] measures discharge monthly. Then we

[1:07:13] collect water samples monthly through

[1:07:15] the runoff season and every other month

[1:07:16] during non-runoff season. So we have a

[1:07:19] nice data set to look at clear. Um and

[1:07:21] huge thanks to Scott for putting these

[1:07:23] fluxes together for the breach. And um

[1:07:26] so here we're looking at total nitrogen

[1:07:29] for south to north flows in green and

[1:07:32] then north to south. So first thing the

[1:07:34] really the takehome here is that the

[1:07:37] north to south concentrations of total

[1:07:39] dissolve nitrogen are higher. on average

[1:07:41] they're around seven milligram per liter

[1:07:43] whereas our south to north is around

[1:07:45] four milligram per liter and for from

[1:07:48] some of Scott's um exploration of ratios

[1:07:52] of nitrogen to salt and ratios of

[1:07:54] nitrogen to um other nutrient species it

[1:07:58] appears that this the concentrations in

[1:08:00] the north arm are not a function of

[1:08:03] purely of a vapo concentration if they

[1:08:05] if it were just a vapo concentration

[1:08:07] occurring in the north arm we'd expect

[1:08:08] these total dissolved nitro concent

[1:08:10] concentrations to be higher. So there

[1:08:12] appears to be some evidence that

[1:08:14] nitrogen is being sequestered in the

[1:08:16] north arm even though it might be um

[1:08:18] fixed. It's it appears that there's some

[1:08:21] amount of nitrogen being fixed in the

[1:08:22] north. Bottom line is that when we put

[1:08:24] nitrogen in the north arm, we're not

[1:08:25] always getting it all back. So just

[1:08:27] important to keep that in mind. And

[1:08:28] that's really illustrated by the flux

[1:08:30] rates. So here now we're looking at flux

[1:08:32] of total nitrogen in tons per day at the

[1:08:35] breach for south to north in green again

[1:08:37] and north to south in red. And for the

[1:08:41] period prior to burm occupation right

[1:08:43] about about right about here I'll just

[1:08:46] there we really do tend to see um and

[1:08:49] these are discrete measurements so we're

[1:08:51] not interpolating anything in between

[1:08:53] the periods where we have measurements

[1:08:54] it it appears that we do have a net

[1:08:57] export from south to north of nutrients

[1:09:00] most of the time even without burn

[1:09:02] modification and certainly after the

[1:09:04] burm was modified we saw fluxes from

[1:09:07] coming in from the north they went to

[1:09:09] zero you might expect just cut off the

[1:09:11] discharge. And so there's been a huge

[1:09:13] amount of export happening from south to

[1:09:15] north postbification.

[1:09:17] Um

[1:09:19] and Scott estimates that

[1:09:23] we would be getting uh that's about a

[1:09:25] 2,000 ton per year reduction in what

[1:09:28] we're getting from.

[1:09:31] We look at that a slightly different

[1:09:32] way. I just kind of summarize the

[1:09:34] distributions of those calculations. um

[1:09:36] for 12 nitrogen. This is a net nutrient

[1:09:39] flux in tons per day with a positive

[1:09:41] value being an export. So pre-burner is

[1:09:44] in this kind of bluish color and postbm

[1:09:47] is in this salmon color. So we're just

[1:09:49] we have more export as you might expect

[1:09:51] happening right now after burn

[1:09:53] application. And if we compare this and

[1:09:57] I just want to highlight this is these

[1:09:58] are using distributions median

[1:10:00] distributions because the precision of

[1:10:02] these measurements is so much lower. So

[1:10:04] the uncertainty in this is is greater.

[1:10:06] Okay. But um comparing these two median

[1:10:09] values in response to burn modification

[1:10:12] we estimate about a 1,200 ton per year

[1:10:14] reduction. And and what we we're

[1:10:17] basically we're sending 1,200 tons per

[1:10:19] year more to the south arm now than we

[1:10:22] were pre modification. And per year that

[1:10:24] would result in a total dissolve

[1:10:26] nitrogen decrease of an estimated an

[1:10:28] estimated.14 to 21 million

[1:10:32] in the south farm. That's just assuming

[1:10:34] some volume you know that we've observed

[1:10:36] recently.

[1:10:38] So gives you some idea of the magnitude

[1:10:41] of concentration change that might have

[1:10:42] happened per year in response to what

[1:10:44] happened at the breach specifically the

[1:10:46] mass flux changes that happened at the

[1:10:48] breach specifically.

[1:10:51] Um, another way to look at this, which

[1:10:55] was suggested in one of the tag

[1:10:56] meetings, is that what would happen if

[1:10:59] we were to dial in the new breach and

[1:11:02] say we get zero salt flux at happening

[1:11:05] at the brereech, what would that do to

[1:11:07] nitrogen or plastics flux? And so I did

[1:11:10] this calculation um and I'm happy to go

[1:11:12] through the details if anyone is

[1:11:13] interested but I assume or not. But the

[1:11:15] take-home message is that if we were to

[1:11:18] arrange the breach so that we're getting

[1:11:20] basically no and and net zero salt flux

[1:11:23] exchange you get greater nitrogen uh

[1:11:26] export pretty much all the time.

[1:11:29] So there's it's just kind of seems to be

[1:11:32] what's happening at the breach is that

[1:11:34] we we export nitrogen.

[1:11:37] It be interesting to look at not just

[1:11:39] the export of nitrogen but also the

[1:11:41] import to see if the balance is in it.

[1:11:43] What the balance?

[1:11:44] >> This is the net.

[1:11:45] >> The net including the import.

[1:11:46] >> Yes.

[1:11:47] >> I mean import from other sources. No no

[1:11:50] um from river.

[1:11:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. No, that's

[1:11:52] very very important. So yeah, this is

[1:11:54] just net at the reach. The imports from

[1:11:57] the rivers are very important for kind

[1:11:59] of tipping the balance to any kind of

[1:12:01] net gain in

[1:12:04] uh

[1:12:08] I mean we can it's that's a quite an

[1:12:10] intensive analysis but yeah

[1:12:14] >> and then I had another question

[1:12:16] Christine and I don't know what the

[1:12:17] answer is but maybe should we be looking

[1:12:20] at dissolved nitrogen total nitrogen or

[1:12:22] both because when we look at dissolved

[1:12:24] nitrogen there may be much more dynamics

[1:12:26] going on and much more fluctuation when

[1:12:29] we look at total nitrogen that may be a

[1:12:31] little bit more stable.

[1:12:32] >> Yeah.

[1:12:33] >> I don't know. I don't know what the

[1:12:34] answer is. I I think we might have to

[1:12:36] look at both.

[1:12:37] >> I agree. Yeah, I think No, that's

[1:12:38] exactly right. And that's why I said,

[1:12:40] hey, we're looking at kind of one piece

[1:12:41] of this puzzle, keeping all the the

[1:12:43] other options open in our minds, but we

[1:12:47] have confidence in these total dissolved

[1:12:49] nitrogen measurements. And honestly, the

[1:12:51] total nitrogen measurements we're

[1:12:52] getting now from Biological Lab are a

[1:12:54] little troubling. They're just a little

[1:12:56] bit um greater differences than we would

[1:12:58] see at our national water quality USGS

[1:13:01] lab. So for this analysis, we really

[1:13:03] decided to go with what the constituent

[1:13:05] we had a lot of confidence in that, but

[1:13:08] I think we're going to as well, you

[1:13:10] know, getting at the totals might be a

[1:13:12] more complex

[1:13:15] and and then the dissolution also kind

[1:13:17] of gets us closer to

[1:13:19] whereas the the raw and whole fraction

[1:13:21] you're kind of dealing with particulates

[1:13:23] that are available that

[1:13:26] >> you've got really pretty good agreement

[1:13:28] then between the National Quality Lab

[1:13:31] Chess EDM

[1:13:33] >> we're getting decent not great it is I

[1:13:35] think chess college as a lab it's a

[1:13:37] little bit lower if I recall um but but

[1:13:40] it's certainly better than the total

[1:13:43] >> okay so maybe it becomes more clear

[1:13:45] might be some slight adjustment in this

[1:13:47] calculation since one lab it's after the

[1:13:50] other one's

[1:13:50] >> correct and that is a confounding

[1:13:52] variable in all of this which is why I

[1:13:53] tried to keep the be clear about the

[1:13:56] labs we're using because that is a

[1:13:58] confounding variable

[1:14:00] That's really interesting.

[1:14:04] » Um, all right. So, I'll just kind of

[1:14:05] wrap up this this set of analyses. We're

[1:14:08] seeing a statistically significant

[1:14:10] decrease in the total dissolved nitrogen

[1:14:11] mass in the south arm after the BM was

[1:14:14] modified. We're also seeing decreased

[1:14:16] flux from north to south of the new

[1:14:18] breach. So, and those estimates from

[1:14:20] both of those changes seems to be in

[1:14:22] pretty good agreement. The magnitude of

[1:14:24] change seems to be in agreement from

[1:14:25] those two independents.

[1:14:29] Oh, right. Right. And then I did develop

[1:14:33] is

[1:14:35] dissolved nitrogen in the full water.

[1:14:38] >> Um, and I again I don't know the utility

[1:14:40] of this, but since it's been a helpful

[1:14:42] framework for salinity, I thought I'd

[1:14:43] just try it out. So, we have south arm

[1:14:46] elevation on the y axis, volume weighted

[1:14:48] total bulb nitrogen concentrations on

[1:14:50] the x-axis. And this is the full water

[1:14:53] column. So in periods where we have a

[1:14:54] deep frying layer, this is not

[1:14:56] representative of what's actually

[1:14:57] available to the biota. Um this is just

[1:15:00] an example of what this might look like.

[1:15:01] Our most recent measurements are on

[1:15:03] January 14th of this year and we were

[1:15:05] getting about 3.9 million per liter

[1:15:07] nitrogen 27,000 tons. I think it it is

[1:15:11] interesting to um Okay. Right. And then

[1:15:13] I wanted to show this is the blue dot

[1:15:15] where we are. And if if we kind of just

[1:15:17] look at the distribution of

[1:15:19] concentrations where we've been kind of

[1:15:20] middle of the road of where a previous

[1:15:23] observation

[1:15:25] in terms of mass we're kind of on this

[1:15:26] lower end the kind of lines

[1:15:30] perpendicular to our XMass lines. We're

[1:15:31] kind of at the low lowish end of mass

[1:15:35] and then certainly of elevation. I I

[1:15:38] think it's important to actually look at

[1:15:39] the upper grind layer uh in addition to

[1:15:43] that. So this is representative of

[1:15:45] what's you know available to the biota

[1:15:48] to the phytolankton and then

[1:15:49] subsequently the branch. So if we just

[1:15:52] consider upper brine layer volume

[1:15:54] weighted total low nitrogen estimates

[1:15:56] this is what that would look like. So

[1:15:58] the masses are different obviously

[1:16:00] because we're just looking at the brown

[1:16:01] and the first thing I want to point out

[1:16:02] is kind of how I arrange these colors.

[1:16:05] So the purple um this is light purple is

[1:16:08] when the culberts were open and we had a

[1:16:10] deep brown there. The dark dark colors

[1:16:12] are also when we had a deep gran layer

[1:16:14] that's under a new breach paradon those

[1:16:16] tend to be lower. So these upper grind

[1:16:18] layer total dissolve nitrogen

[1:16:20] concentrations when we have a deep gran

[1:16:22] they're present tend to be color

[1:16:24] concentration and then these green these

[1:16:26] kind of green colored dots represent

[1:16:28] when there is no deep in there. So we

[1:16:30] have that nitrogen at depth that's being

[1:16:32] mixed into the water column that

[1:16:34] increases the concentration. So looking

[1:16:36] at this upper brine layers of nitrogen

[1:16:39] were kind of um middle of the range for

[1:16:42] the mass and in that section of the

[1:16:44] water column and low range of oh middle

[1:16:49] of the range of concentration and

[1:16:52] then I also considered ammonia. So this

[1:16:54] might be more interesting um ammonia

[1:16:56] that's what we might think of we can

[1:16:58] measure this way better than we can

[1:16:59] nitrate and nitrite. This is what might

[1:17:01] be available is available to the the

[1:17:03] phytolankton directly and we're seeing

[1:17:06] pretty low concentrations of ammonia

[1:17:09] elongated

[1:17:11] magnet and low masses relative to what

[1:17:13] we've observed in the past. So this is

[1:17:16] just an initial effort to try and put

[1:17:18] what we're observing now into the

[1:17:20] context of this about 15year data set.

[1:17:26] Um,

[1:17:27] >> so you're you're saying like chemical

[1:17:30] destratification,

[1:17:32] you're pretty much consistent with

[1:17:38] when when it's not stratified, no deep

[1:17:41] layer, things are pretty much

[1:17:43] >> correct. When we happen to serve the

[1:17:45] deep grinder, the concentrations we've

[1:17:46] seen now are similar to that if not a

[1:17:49] little bit higher than than a sorry when

[1:17:53] it when we have a deep layer present.

[1:17:56] We're seeing concentrations now that

[1:17:58] have been higher than the upper binary

[1:18:00] when there was when we when we have it

[1:18:03] all mixed in the concentrations tend to

[1:18:05] be higher than these.

[1:18:06] >> Yeah. Trying to think of like the

[1:18:08] feedback making something without

[1:18:11] chemical certification and what is

[1:18:16] affecting

[1:18:18] >> right

[1:18:18] >> that seasonal change.

[1:18:20] >> That's so you're thinking about if we

[1:18:21] were to open the BM get a you know get

[1:18:24] north arm flow and you put form a deeper

[1:18:27] in there how long might that lag be

[1:18:28] before you see that in

[1:18:30] >> right and then that's just the part of

[1:18:31] the turnover for the population.

[1:18:38] natural. I mean my bet is you know deep

[1:18:41] brown layer disappear

[1:18:43] one

[1:18:46] layer disappears maybe I mean the

[1:18:49] nutrients it's difficult because you

[1:18:50] have cycling

[1:18:52] also leave them in those

[1:18:54] >> yes

[1:18:55] >> and there's so much we don't know about

[1:18:57] if I can say the function of the deep

[1:18:59] brine layer and facilitating release of

[1:19:01] nutrients from the sediment and so it

[1:19:03] could be that the deep brine layer

[1:19:04] presence is actually a way of getting

[1:19:07] nutrients out of the sediment and

[1:19:08] subsequently releasing. I think when we

[1:19:11] think about mixing the back in of

[1:19:13] nutrient deeper, we also need to think

[1:19:15] about lake elevation

[1:19:16] >> because we're getting really shallow and

[1:19:19] >> the shallower it is the more

[1:19:21] >> deep stratification

[1:19:22] >> and we actually we actually saw the deep

[1:19:25] disappear when we still have the bridge

[1:19:27] open our hypothesis

[1:19:30] >> that this was like

[1:19:33] >> the contribution of or not of the

[1:19:35] microbial as the lake you know decreases

[1:19:39] of

[1:19:42] right if they come offline. Yeah.

[1:19:46] But I still wonder if we should still

[1:19:49] look at total nitrogen when we're

[1:19:51] looking at the net loss or net gain

[1:19:57] because long term I think total nitrogen

[1:20:00] is going to be important and looking at

[1:20:03] net loss and net

[1:20:07] form and

[1:20:10] >> I think mass curves are going to be

[1:20:13] decent on that Phil created were they

[1:20:17] were distinctly distinct groups

[1:20:22] but again with a lot of variability

[1:20:24] which you see also but maybe with less

[1:20:26] variability than looking at just so

[1:20:30] >> okay so using

[1:20:32] >> he was using total

[1:20:36] » but but I agree with you I mean the the

[1:20:39] old nitrogen is what's important

[1:20:42] sort of to look at the immediate

[1:20:44] the lungs.

[1:20:52] » That's kind of all I have for the

[1:20:54] nutrient stuff.

[1:20:55] >> Oh, see one of your plots where you look

[1:20:57] at um total dissolve nitrogen since like

[1:21:02] 2012 when the coverts were closed.

[1:21:05] Um

[1:21:14] » the concentrations.

[1:21:18] » Yeah, I I guess and we had low

[1:21:23] total dissolve nitrogen concentrations

[1:21:25] when the coverts were closed.

[1:21:28] um which would be I guess an analog for

[1:21:31] where we shut off the the north and

[1:21:33] south.

[1:21:37] » So I guess

[1:21:38] >> exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I've been really

[1:21:40] curious about kind of looking at the

[1:21:42] phytolanting data we have from those

[1:21:44] previous time periods and seeing if

[1:21:46] there if there is a response in the

[1:21:48] phytolant

[1:21:52] that's why you know idents

[1:22:03] like the 2015 concentrations were

[1:22:05] similar if not a little higher

[1:22:10] So I guess the good news is opening up

[1:22:12] the breach nitrogen back online

[1:22:20] systems

[1:22:22] doing

[1:22:24] but [snorts]

[1:22:26] something that I wonder if it was worth

[1:22:28] looking into more short term it was a

[1:22:31] net benefit I mean for the upper brine

[1:22:36] long term there's a risk and that's what

[1:22:38] I think we need to assess.

[1:22:41] I

[1:22:42] >> I don't want to derail the BM

[1:22:44] conversation, so I I'll put an asterisk

[1:22:46] in this, but um I I mean, who is

[1:22:49] processing the nitrogen or the microbes?

[1:22:53] And um it's not just um cyanobacteria.

[1:22:57] That's the old ecology model. But we

[1:23:00] know that archaanogens

[1:23:02] that make methane are are processing.

[1:23:05] There's ammonia oxidizing archa. We know

[1:23:08] that they're also cycling um so there's

[1:23:10] some heterotroes that aren't being

[1:23:12] powered by the sun that are also cycle

[1:23:15] cycling nitrogen and we have evidence of

[1:23:17] them from the tar seeds to the north arm

[1:23:20] water to the sediment um as well as in

[1:23:23] the water column the south arm and we

[1:23:26] also know that cyanobacteria are um you

[1:23:31] know also of course very involved and

[1:23:33] they're in the water column so when you

[1:23:35] talk about phytolanton I'm assuming

[1:23:37] you're talking about large algae and not

[1:23:40] cyanos. Um and you are filtering out

[1:23:43] denala etc. the other algae that are in

[1:23:46] the south but um but they aren't they

[1:23:50] aren't fixing nitrogen anyway the the

[1:23:53] cyanos and the aria would be the fixing

[1:23:56] um and they are going through your

[1:23:58] filter. So the question is about how

[1:24:02] much biological nitrogen you're getting

[1:24:04] in your fil in your samples. Um and I

[1:24:08] would love to I mean we use a 22 filter

[1:24:12] as well as a point46. So um it would be

[1:24:16] really interesting experiment and again

[1:24:18] just asteris we don't need to derail the

[1:24:19] conversation but to send a sample that

[1:24:22] was filtered with the smaller filter

[1:24:26] send a sample that was filtered the way

[1:24:27] you do it and then send a sample that

[1:24:29] wasn't filtered to see how much is a

[1:24:31] biological component of the nitrogen

[1:24:33] measurements.

[1:24:34] >> Yeah.

[1:24:35] >> Do you think that I tend to think of the

[1:24:37] organic nitrogen as the difference

[1:24:39] between inorganic nitrogen and the

[1:24:41] dissolved nitrogen? So that is that kind

[1:24:43] of what you're getting at?

[1:24:45] >> So they're they're excreting it and

[1:24:47] trading metabolites. You don't know

[1:24:49] what's inside a cell and what's outside

[1:24:51] of a cell. So it might be biologically

[1:24:53] available but being sequestered in a

[1:24:56] granle that is associated with cell

[1:24:58] membrane inside or it might be being

[1:25:00] released by a cell. And so it's very

[1:25:03] complicated nitrogen metabolism in

[1:25:06] microbes. And so the the question is,

[1:25:08] you know, I I'm so excited that we're

[1:25:11] finally on this committee talking about

[1:25:13] microbial metabolism.

[1:25:15] I've been waiting my whole life for this

[1:25:17] and the validity of the microbes in the

[1:25:20] north arm.

[1:25:21] >> Yes. Anyway, I Yeah, I I think that that

[1:25:25] would be a really easy experiment. Um if

[1:25:27] you want to do that sometimes, do so.

[1:25:30] Cool.

[1:25:30] >> Awesome. Thank you, Bill.

[1:25:34] Yeah, just to to add to that, um, you

[1:25:36] know, the cell sizes are in that range

[1:25:39] of those cutoff filters. So, what Bonnie

[1:25:41] is saying makes a lot of sense. You you should you play with those a bit to

[1:25:45] see how that changes the concentrations.

[1:25:49] Um, what I wanted to point out is that,

[1:25:51] you know, the BMS may not be our only

[1:25:53] tool here. Um, you know, has anybody

[1:25:57] been looking at the possibility of uh

[1:26:00] changing the nutrient flu influxes using

[1:26:02] the wastewater treatment plants and

[1:26:05] their treatment technologies?

[1:26:11] » Yeah.

[1:26:18] EPA.

[1:26:23] So that's the in terms of how much

[1:26:25] nitrogen is coming in.

[1:26:26] >> Yeah.

[1:26:29] And I'm asking that question

[1:26:30] completely out of the bounds of

[1:26:32] regulation, right? Just understanding

[1:26:34] whether or not that's even a potential

[1:26:38] um a potential knob,

[1:26:40] >> right?

[1:26:42] Well, I think it's a good question and I

[1:26:44] don't know that we have the answer here

[1:26:46] and Jim, I don't know.

[1:26:48] >> I'll just say within the bounds of

[1:26:49] regulation, it's it's not necessarily

[1:26:52] feasible. Um unless you were pipe all of

[1:26:55] it

[1:26:57] taking it you know allowing it to

[1:26:59] discharge into the water

[1:27:03] but in the case of

[1:27:06] pipe it directly

[1:27:11] off from technology they set them

[1:27:17] depend on the context in which you're

[1:27:19] talking about this but I you look at

[1:27:21] some of the [clears throat] graphs

[1:27:23] Excuse me. And uh just looking at the

[1:27:26] magnitude of what's coming into the

[1:27:27] rivers versus the north arm and that and

[1:27:30] the rivers include so much more uh

[1:27:33] nutrient sources from other other things

[1:27:35] other than waste water.

[1:27:41] » Absolutely.

[1:27:43] She would be worth looking at um

[1:27:47] seasonal discharges of nutrients. There

[1:27:50] are periods of time where we get high

[1:27:54] runoff

[1:27:56] we would allow more nutrient discharge

[1:27:58] on

[1:28:00] that runoff as as a tool to potentially

[1:28:04] bring nitrogen into the lake were that

[1:28:06] necessary.

[1:28:10] Yeah, I mean I you'd have to look at

[1:28:12] that and see what effect it has on the

[1:28:14] nutrient pool again within a river

[1:28:15] system and how much it would get cycled

[1:28:18] in within the river and causes effects

[1:28:21] that

[1:28:24] >> we have to look at it but I mean would

[1:28:26] it make sense

[1:28:27] that

[1:28:30] >> um you get off

[1:28:36] the river

[1:28:48] It's an experiment. I'm not sure

[1:28:53] answer that question.

[1:28:54] >> We I mean we can definitely do it at our

[1:28:56] gauges for our main surface water

[1:28:59] gauges. We can look at that and you

[1:29:02] would expect higher loads certainly run

[1:29:04] off periods of runoff discharge is

[1:29:06] higher. But the relationship between

[1:29:08] nutrients and discharge is something I

[1:29:09] know. Is it is it actually the

[1:29:12] concentration going up as we flushing or

[1:29:14] is it

[1:29:16] and we proposed in our GLU agreement for

[1:29:19] next year to quantum update the endow

[1:29:21] load.

[1:29:23] That would be a first approach

[1:29:27] that we don't regulate nitrogen.

[1:29:30] We do regulate phosphorus.

[1:29:33] I just keep in mind boundaries if we

[1:29:36] regulate ammonia for factor we don't

[1:29:38] want to see which case we probably

[1:29:41] continue to do that regardless of when

[1:29:43] we started

[1:29:46] so we're not really putting limits on

[1:29:50] the result of putting limits on false

[1:29:57] » everybody else

[1:30:00] >> Jim to summarize that Because I mean

[1:30:03] you're from a regulatory standpoint,

[1:30:05] you're protecting the receiving water

[1:30:07] body,

[1:30:07] >> right?

[1:30:08] >> And so you know, there's a lot that happens in

[1:30:12] the receiving water body as and then as

[1:30:14] that water travels through the lake and

[1:30:18] so if the Jordan River was a pipe that's

[1:30:22] different than given that it's a has its

[1:30:26] own ecology.

[1:30:28] So one final remark on that. I'm sorry.

[1:30:31] Go ahead. Um, so we have some new gauges

[1:30:33] that are closer to the lake on the

[1:30:34] Weaver River. Um, a new gauge on on Leed

[1:30:37] Creek. So, um, especially the the Weaver

[1:30:40] River, I would think it would be

[1:30:41] important to sample those lower gauges

[1:30:44] now, the North Fork, the South Fork, uh,

[1:30:47] that are closer to the lake to see how

[1:30:48] the concentrations of nutrients at those

[1:30:50] two sites compared to the plane city

[1:30:52] gauge

[1:30:54] >> and how those concentrations correlate

[1:30:56] with, you know, the Ramoff. Yeah, I

[1:30:59] think would be very interesting. would

[1:31:01] be a verse approach in looking at

[1:31:02] potentially using that as a as a

[1:31:04] technique to manage nitrogen inflows

[1:31:07] into the lake.

[1:31:10] I I know when we sampled the the

[1:31:13] northeus delta discharge and their

[1:31:18] nutrients were down to background levels

[1:31:20] before after it ran through, 1200 acres

[1:31:22] of wetlands before it got to farming

[1:31:25] today. So I mean farming bay is just a

[1:31:29] small part of your overall budget

[1:31:31] >> but with the lower lake with all the

[1:31:33] wetlands in between those wetlands are

[1:31:37] nutrients too

[1:31:39] >> consume

[1:31:42] let's and let's look at options

[1:31:47] >> okay

[1:31:47] >> scenarios

[1:31:49] >> all of it taken with a grain of salt

[1:31:52] that is what we do on this we take care

[1:31:55] of just like to make a couple comments,

[1:31:58] Jeff. I I think before we look at

[1:32:00] options, I think we need to look at

[1:32:03] overall balance. I think we need to look

[1:32:05] at nitrogen inflow through uh rivers and

[1:32:09] see how that may or may not balance the

[1:32:12] net losses we had through the breach.

[1:32:14] And I think that's a really important um

[1:32:17] mechanism that we need to look at in

[1:32:19] terms of our total nitrogen budget. The

[1:32:23] other thing I believe we need to do is

[1:32:25] also look at total nitrogen because I

[1:32:28] think at long term the total nitrogen

[1:32:30] may be more important where short term I

[1:32:32] would totally agree that the salt total

[1:32:35] dissolved nitrogen may be much more

[1:32:37] significant. I don't think we can make a

[1:32:40] lot of recommendations before we have

[1:32:43] that data set but that's my opinion.

[1:32:46] Well, that I think just real quick on

[1:32:48] that same regard, Alice, because I I it

[1:32:51] does seem like maybe we need to wait

[1:32:53] until the next staffing recommendation,

[1:32:56] but we should try to line out at least

[1:32:57] like what information we want to have

[1:32:59] ready before then. But one thing I think

[1:33:01] we do need to consider is, you know,

[1:33:02] just in general, you know, thinking

[1:33:04] through nitro, not even considering

[1:33:06] nitrogen, but also while considering

[1:33:08] nitrogen, you know, what what we may

[1:33:10] want to do like this fall like we have,

[1:33:12] they have a special session. I think

[1:33:14] there's some expectations that we're

[1:33:15] looking at, you know, more than just

[1:33:17] solenity. Now, we're also trying to

[1:33:19] manage for like, you know, quite a few

[1:33:21] other specific proofs, you know, as it

[1:33:23] relates to the firm. And so, you know,

[1:33:25] the expectation is is that, you know, we

[1:33:27] want to protect these other functions of

[1:33:29] the lake like one would be like, you

[1:33:30] know, we think we're going to have

[1:33:32] another bad year. We're going to go much

[1:33:34] further below 402. We know we're going

[1:33:36] to expose a bunch of microbial lights.

[1:33:37] Maybe the move is that you know in

[1:33:39] November we raise it up and try to

[1:33:40] compound you know we are so prepared for

[1:33:43] that we want to consider importing a

[1:33:46] bunch of salt but we can also

[1:33:47] potentially import a bunch of nutrients

[1:33:48] at the same time. So I think we just

[1:33:51] like I think we got to think through

[1:33:53] this a little bit like what the next

[1:33:56] look like. Well, and I think the good

[1:33:58] news is that we could even for a little

[1:34:00] while longer just manage on um salinity

[1:34:05] because we know that with an increase in

[1:34:09] dissolved nitrogen due to the loss of

[1:34:12] the iron layer. So we are sort of in a

[1:34:15] situation right now where the total

[1:34:16] dissolved nitrogen is actually higher

[1:34:18] than it was historically.

[1:34:22] Now that's a temporary potentially a

[1:34:25] temporary situation. really sweet

[1:34:26] science experiment too to even lower it

[1:34:29] and see what happens as we measure what

[1:34:31] you know what fluxes back to the south

[1:34:33] we're looking at the

[1:34:34] >> mass

[1:34:38] is a

[1:34:39] really nice plot to show like we're

[1:34:41] actually maybe not critical point yet

[1:34:45] but it's good to have these

[1:34:46] conversations ahead

[1:34:49] >> so yeah and maybe just adding like four

[1:34:52] months isn't a lot of time but like

[1:34:54] we're gonna open it up and say let's run

[1:34:56] to the end of the the low point of the

[1:34:58] year which was usually like end of

[1:35:00] October early November you know we ran

[1:35:02] through that that's not a lot of time to

[1:35:04] have to breach lower and I think that

[1:35:06] this is something I think we've all

[1:35:07] talked about either separately like on

[1:35:10] oneoffs on what we should do but I think

[1:35:12] the concept right now is maybe we should

[1:35:14] bring back a little bit of salt in

[1:35:15] preparation for wanting to you know

[1:35:17] raise it and to keep some other

[1:35:19] functionality on the south arm going for

[1:35:21] that limited amount of time we have with

[1:35:22] the you know what the laws allow us to

[1:35:24] do with the confirm. But again, this is

[1:35:26] where I think this conversation probably

[1:35:28] needs to be more robust over the next 23

[1:35:30] minutes. So, doing

[1:35:34] >> I was just going to say the flies as

[1:35:36] well as the shrimp had a robust year

[1:35:38] last year. Like this would be a great

[1:35:40] year to play with this, you know,

[1:35:43] population

[1:35:44] >> and try to maintain that, right? Like

[1:35:45] who can you buy off one extra year while

[1:35:48] we're doing extra things, right? Like

[1:35:50] there's all these different efforts

[1:35:51] happening water to the lake. So if we

[1:35:53] can like band-aid fix a couple things

[1:35:55] while we're trying to work on these

[1:35:56] broader more systemic issues, you know,

[1:35:58] like that, I think it's worth trying.

[1:36:00] >> And if we could do some additional

[1:36:01] experiments during that time to drill

[1:36:03] into the nitrogen. So

[1:36:05] >> let's go to Bill and then I think

[1:36:08] >> her scenarios bracket things really

[1:36:11] nicely um and gives us some idea of what

[1:36:14] happens if we block things up or if we

[1:36:17] open things up and does is there a

[1:36:20] response? We try to keep like 10 minutes

[1:36:22] for homework assignments so we know that

[1:36:24] next time we come we all have things to

[1:36:27] be decisions.

[1:36:28] >> No.

[1:36:29] >> Yeah. Just a real quick um if if we're

[1:36:32] getting more serious about a mass

[1:36:33] balance on these nutrients across the

[1:36:35] lake. A lot of it's going to come down

[1:36:38] to increased um sampling and monitoring

[1:36:41] uh at the inflows presumably by USGS.

[1:36:44] And I don't know where we are compared

[1:36:45] to back in the day when we when we

[1:36:47] beefed that up in the Selenium project,

[1:36:50] but you know that's that's a significant

[1:36:53] uh budgetary uh piece. And so I just

[1:36:57] want to put that as a placeholder that

[1:36:59] it's not as simple as it's going to take

[1:37:01] some real increased monitoring and

[1:37:03] eventbased monitoring. The problem is is

[1:37:05] that as the uh river inflow increases,

[1:37:08] you tend to flush things much more than

[1:37:11] on the on the tailing limb of the

[1:37:13] discharge curve and and so it's also an

[1:37:16] event based kind of monitoring too as

[1:37:18] well as regular monitoring.

[1:37:21] >> Bill, I can speak to that. The USGS

[1:37:23] monitors the inflow major surface water

[1:37:25] inflows every six weeks. So we get about

[1:37:27] eight to nine samples per year and we do

[1:37:29] try to hit high flows. That's part of

[1:37:31] our monitoring routine. It's to try and

[1:37:33] capture high flows, really low flows,

[1:37:35] trying to capture a range of hydraologic

[1:37:37] conditions.

[1:37:38] >> No. And that's great that let you

[1:37:40] correlate things on Loadash or whatever

[1:37:42] uh software you use to to create these

[1:37:44] correlations um for things that aren't

[1:37:47] being monitored, but but also on the

[1:37:50] rising versus the falling limb,

[1:37:53] even though you get the same discharge

[1:37:55] on either side of that limb, the

[1:37:56] concentrations could be be quite

[1:37:58] different. So there's an event based

[1:37:59] piece to this that also has to fall into

[1:38:02] place in addition to just doing this

[1:38:04] across a bunch of different discharges.

[1:38:07] >> Yeah.

[1:38:10] » Is just have a question for Christine

[1:38:13] before we look at what next. Is there a

[1:38:16] way with the current information that we

[1:38:19] have and the modeling that is available

[1:38:21] to us that we could u

[1:38:27] create a preliminary model where what

[1:38:29] would happen if we open up the bur let's

[1:38:31] say when you think

[1:38:33] >> oh I I mean

[1:38:36] the longer we wait the smaller the

[1:38:38] benefit

[1:38:38] >> that's exactly what Christine just meant

[1:38:40] is what if we open it now what we open

[1:38:43] it later what if we close it.

[1:38:47] >> Those are the things that are tried to

[1:38:48] bracket.

[1:38:49] >> Yeah. And then we can kind of build that

[1:38:51] out more. So, yes, Jeff asked me to come

[1:38:54] up with a few scenarios to kind of build

[1:38:55] on what we shared previously. Um, I'm

[1:38:57] just going to, you know, how I try to do

[1:39:00] this. Um, the fall predictions for fall

[1:39:03] using a mass balance approach for dry

[1:39:06] warm conditions 134 grams per liter for

[1:39:08] salinity and for average conditions 125.

[1:39:11] I am really not satisfied with this

[1:39:13] approach. So I did another one um which

[1:39:15] is basically to say we're getting an

[1:39:17] average of around 2.7 feet decline

[1:39:19] during what I call the evaporation

[1:39:21] season. You could also call season of

[1:39:23] net water loss. And then I take kind of

[1:39:25] a 95th percentile kind of confidence

[1:39:27] interval to just look at a range of

[1:39:29] declines. Um just if we remove that

[1:39:31] water over the season um getting a range

[1:39:34] of elevations from 4189.9 to 4189.4 for

[1:39:38] um and those would result in fall

[1:39:40] concentrations that are a little bit

[1:39:42] higher than the other method 138 to 143

[1:39:44] grams per year and that's kind of a

[1:39:46] starting condition is the low April 7th

[1:39:49] measurements of salinity that we so

[1:39:52] ballpark fall salinity. Um so then uh

[1:39:57] walking through a few scenarios of what

[1:39:59] we might expect six to 12 to 18 months

[1:40:01] into the future. Okay, the first

[1:40:03] scenario is and I did June 1st. I know

[1:40:05] that's probably aggressive, but to get

[1:40:07] at this, you know, five months of

[1:40:09] change, lower berm on June 1st. Um, and

[1:40:12] that I'm assuming would mimic what we

[1:40:14] had the cross-section had previously. So

[1:40:15] that allows me to look into historic

[1:40:17] data when the breach was open and try to

[1:40:19] look at flux and discharge rates that

[1:40:21] were measured previously. So lower the

[1:40:24] vermune first, import salts and

[1:40:26] nutrients and whatever else from the

[1:40:27] north farm during summer 2026, and then

[1:40:30] raise it on November 1st, 2026. And what

[1:40:32] I and all of these we raise it on we

[1:40:35] raise it and I'm assuming that just

[1:40:36] basically disconnects and I know that

[1:40:39] that's oversimplifying it but it's very

[1:40:41] hard to predict what fluxes might be at

[1:40:43] a range of burm heights and I just I

[1:40:45] didn't want to go there. So scenario two

[1:40:48] we lower the burm on June 1st 2026

[1:40:51] through January 2027. So we would raise

[1:40:54] the burm on February the 1st of 2027. So

[1:40:57] just extending the period to which the breach is open. And then scenario

[1:41:01] three is we don't modify the farm over

[1:41:03] the summer, but we still raise it on

[1:41:05] November 1st. And please feel free to

[1:41:07] jump in if you have time in any. So now

[1:41:10] we're looking at this isomass plots of

[1:41:13] salinity. These are all going to be at

[1:41:14] salinity. This is our measured values on

[1:41:17] May 20th, 2026. So this is kind of where

[1:41:19] we are roughly right now. 118 g per

[1:41:21] liter, 4191.9 ft, and 847 million tons

[1:41:25] of salt. So going into the fall uh

[1:41:29] predictions on November 1st, I assume

[1:41:32] that we're going to drop three feet. So

[1:41:34] you're all aware that's that's the

[1:41:36] assumption made here. And so that gets

[1:41:38] us to an elevation of 4189.3 ft with the

[1:41:41] two scenarios we have. first one um

[1:41:44] scenarios one and two with the firm open

[1:41:46] over the summer estimating that we'd get

[1:41:48] u I think it's 32 million tons over the

[1:41:51] summer that we import that would get us

[1:41:52] to 879 million tons of salt by the fall

[1:41:56] scenario one and two are the same for this time step um if we leave the

[1:42:00] burn open we continue to lose salt on

[1:42:03] the order of I think it's around 14

[1:42:05] million tons for this fivemon time

[1:42:07] period and you get 835 million so you

[1:42:10] get these kind of salt mass has changed

[1:42:12] for these two scenar scenarios. For the

[1:42:14] scenario as is, I estimate about 140

[1:42:16] grams per liter. Um, and then for the modified firm, 147 g per liter. So,

[1:42:23] a little bit of a increase for the

[1:42:25] scenario where we open the door. Fast

[1:42:28] forward. Okay. And then for nitrogen,

[1:42:30] very very estimates of what this would

[1:42:32] do to nitrogen, but for the instances

[1:42:34] where we leave the the um breach open,

[1:42:37] if we open it, we would import an

[1:42:40] estimated 570 tons. And those are based

[1:42:42] on very crude kind of median rate flux

[1:42:45] rates we've observed in the past

[1:42:47] relative to the resident salt nitrogen

[1:42:50] mass in the south arm. That would be

[1:42:51] about a 0.1 milligram per liter

[1:42:53] increase. That is not measurable. That

[1:42:55] is within you know the uncertainty of

[1:42:57] what we can measure with our methods. So

[1:42:59] we should not be able to plan to measure

[1:43:01] that. But um

[1:43:02] >> is that a net import? Net import, yes,

[1:43:05] net import of nitrogen. And then for the

[1:43:08] kind of asinis scenario, we would lose

[1:43:11] about the same amount, 500 tons tons of

[1:43:14] total blood nitrogen over this roughly

[1:43:16] five month time period. Just huge

[1:43:18] distance. All right. So if we fast

[1:43:20] forward to May, all right. And then

[1:43:22] again on November 1st, we raise it. We

[1:43:24] raise the burn for scenarios one and

[1:43:26] three. So cutting off the

[1:43:30] >> I'm sorry. I know this is a lot.

[1:43:32] >> It's great. That's a lot.

[1:43:39] » All right. Gets even more complicated.

[1:43:41] So May 30th, 2027, about 12 months from

[1:43:44] now, I considered three elevations. This

[1:43:49] is the most difficult kind of period to guess what you know the lake will do.

[1:43:54] It's all about water. So we've got a

[1:43:57] scenario where we repeat 2026 runoff and

[1:44:00] gain about 1.3 feet. That's this low

[1:44:03] horizontal line. Um mean runoff is about

[1:44:06] 2.2 feet of rise. That's kind of this

[1:44:08] middle range. And then 2023 just as a

[1:44:10] high end. So that represents our wet,

[1:44:12] average, and dry warm scenarios. And

[1:44:15] then salt associated salt masses with

[1:44:17] each of these um scenarios. So I want to

[1:44:20] point out for the second scenario where

[1:44:21] we raise it on February 1, you lose mass

[1:44:25] salt and nutrient mass. And that's

[1:44:27] because we have a season of net import

[1:44:30] of constituents from the north farm.

[1:44:32] this roughly from June to October and

[1:44:35] November, December, January, you start

[1:44:37] to have net export of those things at

[1:44:39] the new breach. So it's from the

[1:44:40] analysis that I've done, it's not

[1:44:42] advantageous to leave it open longer

[1:44:44] than

[1:44:45] >> if you there's a point in time based on

[1:44:49] the elevation differences between the

[1:44:51] north and south arm where you can import

[1:44:52] things from the net import. But after

[1:44:55] the lake starts to rise, the south arm

[1:44:57] starts to rise, you then get into kind

[1:44:58] of a net export hairline.

[1:45:01] Um, let's see. So, if we kind of just

[1:45:04] walk through some of these ranges, we

[1:45:05] observe for the very wet condition,

[1:45:07] you're getting into some of these around

[1:45:09] 100 grams per liter, average around 120

[1:45:12] grams per liter, and for dry warm around

[1:45:15] 130 g per liter. There's not a ton of

[1:45:18] difference in salinity around 5 grams

[1:45:20] per liter. In each of these scenarios,

[1:45:22] um, it's really driven by water volume

[1:45:24] and what we kind of stretch in terms of

[1:45:26] a wet or a dry. So that's

[1:45:29] >> anyone any either scenario. I don't see

[1:45:32] a high risk for the branching

[1:45:34] population. I think we could just sit

[1:45:35] here

[1:45:36] >> nor the flies

[1:45:37] >> and nor the flies and check what what we

[1:45:40] think would be the most useful as an

[1:45:43] experiment. I think that's what we were

[1:45:46] indicating.

[1:45:47] >> I'm just trying to

[1:45:48] >> Yeah. Well, that's that's one experiment

[1:45:50] that I don't think we've ever done is

[1:45:52] we've never tried to bridge.

[1:45:55] >> I mean, it's done naturally

[1:45:58] like but like we haven't actually tried

[1:45:59] to go in and

[1:46:03] square

[1:46:04] >> presents like other issues, construction

[1:46:06] issues, removing the giant boulders to

[1:46:08] be placed and things. They're pretty

[1:46:10] large and it's going to be hard to get

[1:46:11] to the center of the firm with a long

[1:46:13] arm and other things, but I think it's

[1:46:15] doable. It's just different than putting

[1:46:17] box in build your way out.

[1:46:23] Um I have a question about timing. So

[1:46:27] just as you said about uh you know

[1:46:29] raising it you know in February versus

[1:46:32] like November you know once you the lake

[1:46:34] starts to inflow start to come in that

[1:46:37] benefit kind of goes away. We actually

[1:46:38] have a loss. It would seem to be like

[1:46:40] right now is we kind of have that head

[1:46:42] difference. The benefit's not going to

[1:46:44] be realized until really later in the

[1:46:46] summer when those things equalize out.

[1:46:47] Am I

[1:46:48] >> mischaracterizing that? Like it's not as

[1:46:50] urgent as like let's do this tomorrow or

[1:46:52] is it

[1:46:52] >> a good question. What is it Ryan or 0.9

[1:46:54] head difference right now?

[1:46:55] >> Yeah. 0.9.8.

[1:46:57] >> It's still about I mean this would be a

[1:46:59] question for some because even though

[1:47:01] there's a head difference, what's the

[1:47:02] pressure differential? It's really not a

[1:47:05] ton of head differential especially for

[1:47:07] springtime. Yeah.

[1:47:08] >> Um and the fact is we have seen net

[1:47:10] import during previous June. And so from

[1:47:14] what m from what I've looked at

[1:47:15] previously, as soon as the the south arm

[1:47:18] kind of stops increasing and that you're

[1:47:20] still getting flow into the north, you

[1:47:22] get a good drive from the north to the

[1:47:24] south, it really starts to equalize.

[1:47:26] >> Okay. And then another thing I just

[1:47:28] wanted to pose to the group because I

[1:47:29] think that we have a little bit of extra

[1:47:32] flexibility built into the the statue um

[1:47:35] from the special session. So we now have

[1:47:37] 18 months that we could look at to like

[1:47:39] raise and lower this. And so I think

[1:47:41] that um you know like thinking through

[1:47:44] this is you know I know that normally

[1:47:46] when we lower the or when we raise the

[1:47:47] burm and then we lower it we're like

[1:47:49] also then pushing and exporting you know

[1:47:51] everything we collect we're going to

[1:47:52] have this huge flux to the north arm.

[1:47:54] And I don't know that this necessarily

[1:47:56] like captures all of that, you know,

[1:47:58] during that the course of that, but what

[1:47:59] if, you know, if we thought that we were

[1:48:01] going to be in another drought year,

[1:48:02] what if we, you know, impounded that,

[1:48:05] you know, for like a full season, like

[1:48:06] an evaporative season, waited till

[1:48:08] November of 2027 to lower it and then

[1:48:12] released it to the point where you could

[1:48:13] like superize levels and then raise it

[1:48:15] in February. you've gotten a dynamic

[1:48:17] where you're like trying to maximize,

[1:48:19] you know, imports and exports in the

[1:48:21] most beneficial ways, but also

[1:48:23] maximizing benefits of like, you know,

[1:48:25] things like microbialite exposure, you

[1:48:27] know, dust hotspots, all the things that

[1:48:29] we're like trying to manage for.

[1:48:31] >> I know that's probably way too far out

[1:48:33] to look at the the crystal ball that you

[1:48:36] access to, but I think it's just things

[1:48:38] that we should be thinking about is like

[1:48:40] what do we do in the spring of next year

[1:48:42] as well?

[1:48:43] >> Exactly. Right. And like if you raise

[1:48:44] the firm, the way I'm thinking about it

[1:48:46] is you kind of set yourself up, well I

[1:48:48] guess not necessarily, but you kind of

[1:48:50] potentially set yourself up for an

[1:48:52] export situation. So even if you like

[1:48:54] hug these higher salinities, like we

[1:48:57] know we can export salt and other things

[1:48:59] really effectively, you know. So

[1:49:01] >> in my and from what I observe, we follow

[1:49:04] observed, it's a one, it's a we can

[1:49:06] create a valve in which we can lower and

[1:49:09] so you're right. thinking about all

[1:49:10] these different lags and levers, but

[1:49:13] this could be complicated. And then it

[1:49:15] is like what should we what should

[1:49:17] nitrogen do? What should XY Z A B C be

[1:49:21] labile are the species that are

[1:49:24] biologically available to you know in

[1:49:26] salt water

[1:49:30] bile with nitrate or nitrate try to be

[1:49:35] my sense is that they're very very

[1:49:37] taking up because they're very hard to

[1:49:38] measure and many many times it's low. So

[1:49:41] what we're moving back in

[1:49:44] are microbes that can cycle or what

[1:49:47] we're moving back in is nitrogen. In

[1:49:49] what form?

[1:49:51] Is it ammonia that needs to be

[1:49:53] processed? Is it like what what exact

[1:49:56] what exactly is the source of nitrogen?

[1:49:59] Do we have

[1:50:01] opening the breach?

[1:50:04] What we're predicting that nitrogen will

[1:50:06] come back in just based on this nebulous

[1:50:09] nitrogen. But where's the nitrogen

[1:50:11] coming from? And in what species? I

[1:50:14] don't mean species of bacteria.

[1:50:17] >> I mean species of nitrogen comp. Yeah,

[1:50:20] we can look at that

[1:50:22] >> in detail. I'm just curious.

[1:50:24] >> And I think that like these questions, I

[1:50:26] think this is where, you know, if we did

[1:50:27] this for five months,

[1:50:28] >> we would learn a lot and we would also

[1:50:30] learn a lot about how much salt we can

[1:50:32] bring back and what the net flux would

[1:50:33] be when we lower the BM again. and it

[1:50:35] would kind of let let us prove up on

[1:50:36] this idea that we can

[1:50:39] mess with the salt balance either

[1:50:40] direction because right now I'm always a

[1:50:42] little nervous that like if we start

[1:50:44] coming up past it and we'll have a great

[1:50:46] way to bring salt back and so we need to

[1:50:47] get up a method of like keeping

[1:50:49] ourselves right in the right in that

[1:50:52] good spot on the iceman's crew. Right.

[1:50:53] >> Exactly.

[1:50:54] >> Does the state have the funding to do

[1:50:56] these extra experiments?

[1:50:59] >> Um but we have some funding and we can

[1:51:01] always ask the commissioner office to

[1:51:03] dig deeper into their pockets. I'm

[1:51:05] getting pretty good at that. So,

[1:51:07] >> whatever that nebulous person is.

[1:51:09] >> Yeah. Is the state in favor of doing an

[1:51:13] experiment like this?

[1:51:14] >> Well, I think the I mean, when you say

[1:51:16] state, I'm I can speak on behalf of

[1:51:18] forestry and state lands. I think we

[1:51:20] really want to understand, you know, how

[1:51:22] we do best damage to this berm. I mean,

[1:51:23] we, you know, like we're we're tasked

[1:51:26] with several different public interests

[1:51:28] such as like, you know, the the

[1:51:31] brine shrimp, flies, recreation, all

[1:51:34] these other things. So, we're we're

[1:51:35] constantly, you know, trying to be

[1:51:38] testing what we can do in this this

[1:51:40] realm because we can't really our

[1:51:41] division is need to decide like what

[1:51:43] kind of influence we get to create. So,

[1:51:45] this is like one tool where we can kind

[1:51:47] of have some influence on what the

[1:51:49] different outcomes are. So I would say

[1:51:51] like our division is very interested and

[1:51:53] we would push for you know like having

[1:51:55] information that allows us to determine

[1:51:58] like what is possible but I think the

[1:52:00] state in general not speaking for

[1:52:02] everybody I think the state in general

[1:52:04] looks at this as being one of the most

[1:52:06] effective tools that we have in you know

[1:52:09] being able to manage different outcomes.

[1:52:10] So I think you know I think they'd be

[1:52:13] very interested in understanding what's

[1:52:14] possible but but also like with some

[1:52:17] side guards especially with being low

[1:52:20] risk now and not be in a situation

[1:52:26] high pressure.

[1:52:30] Also we're we have a mandate at 4190 to

[1:52:33] raise the BB. So like yeah,

[1:52:36] >> you know, this year we're probably going

[1:52:37] to have to raise the burb in November

[1:52:39] anyway based on what the statute says.

[1:52:41] So I think to prepare for the fact that

[1:52:43] we're going to be exporting salt come

[1:52:45] November, no matter what, we're not

[1:52:46] going to have the option to allow for,

[1:52:48] you know, any imports of nitrogen or

[1:52:51] salt. My my inclination is like to

[1:52:53] prepare for that and then maybe even

[1:52:55] maximize the benefits we get. You know,

[1:52:57] for other purposes, maybe what we should

[1:52:59] be thinking about is let's let's import

[1:53:01] some stuff because we know we can get

[1:53:02] rid of it. if we air on the side of like

[1:53:04] too much like it's gonna be it have to

[1:53:06] be a really damn bad year for us not to

[1:53:08] be able to you know what we need to so

[1:53:11] >> that's my inclination but I also there's

[1:53:13] a lot of smart people in service that's

[1:53:15] why that's why we have these

[1:53:17] conversations

[1:53:19] and this is not a driver but I do want

[1:53:22] to highlight the fact there are our

[1:53:25] seance

[1:53:27] our

[1:53:30] permit where you

[1:53:33] minimal return is not going to be

[1:53:34] allowed with 15%

[1:53:37] >> if we're if we're doing if we're trying

[1:53:39] to solve for something else.

[1:53:40] >> Yeah.

[1:53:41] >> Um you know I' I'd want to consider some

[1:53:44] flexibility on that since we're just

[1:53:45] kind of an artificial we're creating

[1:53:48] management action. You're exposed to

[1:53:50] natural conditions.

[1:53:51] >> Can you remind me again on the mineral

[1:53:52] repair? Does that is that all based off

[1:53:54] of a point in time or is it like a

[1:53:56] certain date that the solidity has to be

[1:53:59] at 15% or above or like We want to the

[1:54:02] time of discharge.

[1:54:03] >> The way I read the rule is when it's

[1:54:04] above 15% return.

[1:54:06] >> Okay. So,

[1:54:07] >> so you guys normally do your mineral

[1:54:09] return though in the spring, right?

[1:54:10] >> We do it from November through April.

[1:54:13] >> Okay.

[1:54:14] >> It's based on June 15, right?

[1:54:18] >> That's elevation. Um

[1:54:20] >> yeah cuz I like to in in my mind this is

[1:54:23] one of those things where like if that

[1:54:24] was not captured well in the rule and we

[1:54:27] you know we obviously we all discuss

[1:54:29] this when we drafted when that rule is

[1:54:30] drafted but if there was some need to

[1:54:33] modify the rule to reflect the fact that

[1:54:35] maybe that should be considered you know

[1:54:37] based off of like spring salinities if

[1:54:40] we're going to be doing these things

[1:54:41] because like I think that the I think

[1:54:42] that's fair to consider that the

[1:54:44] management of the firm shouldn't really

[1:54:46] affect how you're going to do your

[1:54:48] discharge then honestly if we're If this

[1:54:50] goal of the state is to import salt at

[1:54:52] some certain time and then we're

[1:54:53] limiting your discharge of salt, it's a

[1:54:56] little counter to so it sounds to me

[1:54:58] like maybe we need to think through

[1:55:00] the rule was set up, you know, based on

[1:55:02] information we had two years ago.

[1:55:05] >> And I think we all we all did our best

[1:55:07] to try to make something that work for

[1:55:08] industry and then also to balance things

[1:55:10] like but I think that's why rules can be

[1:55:12] modified through administrative

[1:55:14] processes

[1:55:16] make that change if we do. Well, and the

[1:55:18] rule is just going to thread through our

[1:55:20] updates permit which is coming up for

[1:55:21] renewal. So, you know, we can build in

[1:55:26] some flexibility for, you know,

[1:55:27] purposeful management actions that

[1:55:30] not not trying to speak on behalf of

[1:55:31] another agency, but I would assume that

[1:55:33] water quality would be like looking at

[1:55:36] the rule. There's a real

[1:55:39] issue with that. I know Candace is

[1:55:41] always looking for renovations and so I

[1:55:43] would assume he gets to

[1:55:49] And you know those those who attended

[1:55:51] the issues form I presented when the

[1:55:53] lake is below 4194 like we're not

[1:55:55] operating the west pond right

[1:55:57] >> just because we're kind of meeting our

[1:55:58] heads against the wall evaporation

[1:56:00] exceeds pumping rate

[1:56:01] >> right

[1:56:01] >> so we're less sensitive than we were

[1:56:03] like in 22 on on north elevation we just

[1:56:07] pulled point which has a a very low

[1:56:11] intake so lake elevation isn't isn't the

[1:56:14] primary

[1:56:16] I just wanted to raise

[1:56:17] >> Well, I just because I think we're

[1:56:19] probably at two minutes away from being

[1:56:21] out of time here. What do you have,

[1:56:23] Jeff? When's our next meeting in June?

[1:56:25] >> June 25th.

[1:56:26] >> So, we have a little bit of time. I'm

[1:56:28] just wondering if it makes sense just

[1:56:30] because of the, you know, the benefits

[1:56:32] that we're going to receive from opening

[1:56:33] the firm. If it makes sense to try to

[1:56:36] find a time that's sooner than that to

[1:56:38] be able to just do any of the last

[1:56:39] minute homework we want to do and then

[1:56:41] try to make a decision soon. I don't

[1:56:42] know that we even need to like fully

[1:56:44] convene in person. I I wonder if this is

[1:56:46] something where we could just have a

[1:56:47] quick, you know, meet in person's always

[1:56:50] better in my opinion, but if we even

[1:56:51] needed to hop online for half an hour,

[1:56:53] run through some, you know, any further

[1:56:55] analysis that we think is necessary, if

[1:56:57] there's any additional homework that

[1:56:58] needs to be done, and then try to get to

[1:57:00] brass tax and get a recommendation or

[1:57:03] >> I don't think we need another meeting. I

[1:57:05] think we could take a vote and then if

[1:57:08] the vote is mixed, maybe we need another

[1:57:10] meeting, but I think the data that we

[1:57:13] have on hand is not going to change

[1:57:17] drastically

[1:57:18] >> um

[1:57:20] in that time.

[1:57:21] >> Yeah, Bill had Bill, you had your hand

[1:57:23] up, too.

[1:57:24] >> Well, just I'm a little confused because

[1:57:27] Christine's analysis, very nice

[1:57:28] analysis, Christine. It basically says,

[1:57:31] "Look, we're at the mercy of climate

[1:57:32] weather and we can tweak it, but I'm not

[1:57:35] even sure we can definitively measure

[1:57:37] the benefit

[1:57:38] uh between, you know, the options." And so my take-home is look, we wait and

[1:57:45] see what happens because it's really all

[1:57:48] dependent on how the weather how the

[1:57:50] inflows evolve this year.

[1:57:53] >> Well, we have a short window between

[1:57:55] June and November. Right. And and I

[1:57:58] think the other I think another thing

[1:57:59] that Ben brought up is that

[1:58:03] changing the BM now allows us to

[1:58:06] understand how we can move salt. So the

[1:58:10] you know when we look at your scenario

[1:58:13] results next for next year our salinity

[1:58:16] is okay. Um there's not much risk on the

[1:58:20] salinity standpoint. We may not be able

[1:58:22] to measure the nitrogen change but we

[1:58:27] can measure flux. Yes, exactly. I was

[1:58:29] gonna say that we can't we won't we will

[1:58:31] not be able to measure in the south arm.

[1:58:32] We will be able to measure the change in

[1:58:34] flux at the breach. We'll be able to

[1:58:35] measure those concentrations. We have

[1:58:37] the discharge. We can measure that.

[1:58:39] >> Just to go back, I think we're know

[1:58:41] we're going to be raising the bum that

[1:58:44] it's a shallow like we don't even have

[1:58:46] an option. We don't even have a meeting

[1:58:47] for that. We're just going to be raising

[1:58:49] the BM. Sure.

[1:58:50] >> Do we want to prepare by bringing back,

[1:58:53] you know, some some nutrients and some salt? I think that's maybe just

[1:58:57] like in my mind, it just seems like

[1:58:58] there's not a whole lot of issues doing

[1:59:01] so.

[1:59:04] » Take a vote.

[1:59:05] >> It's just a cost benefit analysis.

[1:59:07] What's it cost to do that lowering of

[1:59:09] the burm in the meantime versus the

[1:59:11] benefit?

[1:59:12] >> Yeah, it's probably free to be honest. I

[1:59:15] has been really cooperative and I guess

[1:59:17] will be part of the equation and and you

[1:59:19] know again the solidity committee makes

[1:59:20] a recommendation. So if you all

[1:59:22] recommend to our division of water

[1:59:23] quality that we should lower the BB and

[1:59:26] see if we can transfer that back. We'll

[1:59:27] go do our work and see if we can get the

[1:59:28] railroad in and you know if it's cost

[1:59:30] prohibitive or if it's going to be too

[1:59:32] hard to be able to get a long boom out

[1:59:33] we could come back and you know have

[1:59:35] that discussion. There may be some

[1:59:36] issues with it. To be honest we haven't

[1:59:38] like you said we haven't lowered the

[1:59:39] verb yet. So

[1:59:40] >> one elevation.

[1:59:43] >> Well, did you do your modeling based on

[1:59:45] 4187?

[1:59:46] >> I just I assume that the cross-section

[1:59:47] is the same as it was pre monthly

[1:59:50] >> was. Oh, that was 4183.

[1:59:53] >> So we raised the 87 the first

[1:59:56] >> increment at 87. I believe

[1:59:59] a lot of money did. Yeah. Did all unless

[2:00:03] there was a Yeah. So that might so there

[2:00:07] may be like I mean there may be some

[2:00:09] real issues trying to figure out how we

[2:00:10] get it down to 4183. That's going to be

[2:00:12] hard for a piece of equipment to do

[2:00:14] that. So we'll have to see what the

[2:00:16] possibilities are.

[2:00:17] >> Well I think I mean I guess I want to

[2:00:20] ask if someone wants to make a motion

[2:00:22] for

[2:00:24] >> well to what are we going to vote

[2:00:26] >> to vote on?

[2:00:29] No, but I guess I'm bringing up your motion to vote and saying, okay,

[2:00:34] does somebody want to make a motion to

[2:00:35] vote upon?

[2:00:36] >> Okay.

[2:00:37] >> Um

[2:00:38] >> because I I think what

[2:00:40] >> what we're hearing is that we have an

[2:00:42] opportunity to run an experiment um

[2:00:46] where we would remove the burm, we would

[2:00:48] be able to test the birectional flow.

[2:00:52] What happens to the salt flux? What

[2:00:54] happens to the nitrogen flux during this

[2:00:57] five month period?

[2:00:58] >> What was the burm elevation when we

[2:01:01] >> when we first opened up the brereech? 83

[2:01:07] model was based off.

[2:01:09] >> So we'd be coming down quite a bit. So

[2:01:12] Christine, this these scenarios

[2:01:15] basically lowering the burn

[2:01:18] that

[2:01:19] >> um

[2:01:21] no um the flux estimate of prem like

[2:01:25] when I when I think about okay when I

[2:01:27] estimate these numbers and what we get

[2:01:30] back it's really using data that were

[2:01:32] collected from 2018 to 2022 which is

[2:01:35] kind of a pre-burn modification

[2:01:36] cross-section and so yes in a sense yes

[2:01:39] I'm assuming that we get that ex that in

[2:01:42] reality which I mean there's there's the burl like the bottom

[2:01:46] elevation and also the sides I mean but

[2:01:48] I guess that's less of a

[2:01:54] » make it worse

[2:01:57] lower

[2:02:01] I mean right now I think we're already

[2:02:03] seeing some north to south flow based on

[2:02:05] the anything we lowered I think would

[2:02:07] have the same wouldn't be as much of a

[2:02:10] greater

[2:02:13] >> a lesser flux of nitrogen

[2:02:16] and salt back into the south, but it

[2:02:18] would still be more than what it is

[2:02:20] today.

[2:02:20] >> Based on the fact that we're we are

[2:02:22] seeing some return,

[2:02:23] >> this is where it is. Okay,

[2:02:25] >> for the record, this is the precise

[2:02:26] reason that we wanted to have something

[2:02:28] besides just a rock structure because

[2:02:30] the challenge of lowering the BM or

[2:02:32] getting out and doing these

[2:02:33] modifications both ways. Like it's easy

[2:02:35] to pile rocks, but it's not so easy to

[2:02:37] move these rocks or figure this out.

[2:02:39] this is going to be like maybe not free

[2:02:41] because I don't think people will have

[2:02:42] the right equipment to do something like

[2:02:44] this. So this is where having like a

[2:02:46] little bit more of an intelligence

[2:02:47] structure, you know, come into play.

[2:02:48] Just for the record too, we are still

[2:02:50] looking at different options, but we

[2:02:52] want to do some geotech to better

[2:02:53] refine, you know, whether what's

[2:02:55] possible just because it's important to

[2:02:58] be able to manage both directions.

[2:03:00] >> Would the motion include a consideration

[2:03:03] for the U for what Joe brought up the

[2:03:07] issue with discharge from mineral

[2:03:10] companies?

[2:03:13] Well, I think so. You're saying like we

[2:03:15] would need to do some analysis about

[2:03:18] where we think the solidity would end up

[2:03:20] to see if it's going to affect.

[2:03:21] >> No, what I'm saying is that if we make a

[2:03:23] motion to lower the burm, but include in

[2:03:26] that motion that forestry, fire, and

[2:03:28] state lands would consider the issues

[2:03:32] related to discharge.

[2:03:33] >> I don't think we can do that in a motion

[2:03:35] from the solidity committee because

[2:03:36] that's in the rule. So we would have to

[2:03:38] go back and work with water quality to

[2:03:40] modify their uppiece permit or their

[2:03:42] rule to do that. So I think that this

[2:03:44] decision has to be based on what we

[2:03:47] think we need to do today and then if we

[2:03:49] need to look at rule changes that would

[2:03:51] be something Jim got to take back to his

[2:03:55] figure.

[2:03:58] But I I would also say that I would

[2:03:59] think that the you know if we were to

[2:04:01] get up to the 15% and is it percent or

[2:04:05] >> 150 grams per liter because I mean we're

[2:04:08] just like I guess worst case we're like

[2:04:11] trying to we're maybe getting into that

[2:04:13] scenario or I guess

[2:04:15] >> well I guess actually most cases

[2:04:18] >> but we're going to be barely edging on

[2:04:19] that right and and come November once

[2:04:23] the burmis race we're going to start to

[2:04:24] see that sort of drop as we get fresh

[2:04:26] water in from the the runoff that at

[2:04:28] that point it'll be pretty temporary.

[2:04:30] It'll be ephemeral.

[2:04:32] >> But

[2:04:34] yeah, I've found comfort, you know, with

[2:04:36] the smithy certain paradigm that we're

[2:04:40] in. Um yeah, you know, we could continue

[2:04:42] to operate and then we're, you know,

[2:04:44] taking a fraction of we normally,

[2:04:46] >> but this is why industry is on the the

[2:04:49] committee is so you get to say how you

[2:04:51] think this will affect you and if

[2:04:52] there's an operational change you can

[2:04:54] make where you can say, yeah, we can

[2:04:55] hold off for two months and not do our,

[2:04:57] you know, flushing for those two months.

[2:04:59] Maybe that's okay. I don't know how that

[2:05:00] affects you all, but this is where you

[2:05:02] guys get to decide how you want to

[2:05:05] represent yourself. So, I I just say

[2:05:06] like I I could see why you would take

[2:05:08] that position because that does be this

[2:05:10] operational change. And I also think

[2:05:12] that it would be worth exploring

[2:05:15] rule changes or whatever other things we

[2:05:18] do as a state to make sure we're like

[2:05:19] really thinking this through

[2:05:20] >> our application's under review right now

[2:05:24] of October. So, I think we can I plan

[2:05:27] with the team. So I I would just say

[2:05:31] like that's you I would I would totally

[2:05:33] understand if you were not uh you know

[2:05:36] supportive of this or if we needed other

[2:05:40] more evaluation but

[2:05:42] >> I think your concern is definitely noted

[2:05:45] and and I think it's something that um

[2:05:49] that the committee you know would

[2:05:51] consider. you know, we're are making an

[2:05:54] artificial change to the burm and

[2:05:57] there's going to, you know, we're going

[2:05:58] to see what happens to the we're

[2:06:00] experimenting to see how the salinity is

[2:06:02] affected.

[2:06:02] >> Can I make a suggestion? I don't vote on

[2:06:05] this committee. I just try to give my

[2:06:07] thoughts and they're usually not very

[2:06:08] well founded, but uh but can we because

[2:06:13] there's these different issues, these

[2:06:14] different regulations have kind of

[2:06:16] sprouted up and also just a whole lot of

[2:06:18] other complicating factors. could we

[2:06:20] have some time to maybe meet with water

[2:06:23] quality, talk about like what the

[2:06:25] horizon looks like for a potential rule

[2:06:28] change or maybe an exception and then

[2:06:30] try to come back and smoke another time

[2:06:33] because also we're we're out we're

[2:06:34] actually out of time and I feel like

[2:06:36] this deserves a little more conversation

[2:06:37] as well. But um can we also maybe just

[2:06:40] consider doing that

[2:06:43] halfway in between?

[2:06:44] >> Sounds like it but it's field season so

[2:06:46] it's hard to get people in meetings.

[2:06:48] Yeah. So we could try to alter the time

[2:06:50] like maybe we could start earlier of the

[2:06:52] day so it doesn't like end up ruining

[2:06:54] the whole day. It's just like from 8 to

[2:06:55] 9 or maybe we do it virtually. I don't

[2:06:58] think there's any reason we can't do

[2:06:59] that but I think just getting

[2:07:01] >> or if we get vote by email maybe

[2:07:03] >> yeah is

[2:07:06] >> I don't know I think we're just kind of

[2:07:08] talking about maybe doing something.

[2:07:11] So the outstanding question is is how

[2:07:13] does this affect the salinity rule that

[2:07:16] PW

[2:07:17] >> I think that's probably the big thing

[2:07:18] whether or not there's any exceptions to

[2:07:20] be made you know because if our goal is

[2:07:22] to import salt it seems pretty

[2:07:23] counterproductive to prevent compass

[2:07:27] from doing their flushing.

[2:07:30] >> So maybe revisiting that and I know that

[2:07:32] was a huge way of putting that rule and

[2:07:34] we all tried to like capture that. So

[2:07:36] maybe just talking through what that

[2:07:37] might look like and it sounds to me like

[2:07:39] a couple weeks especially when there's a

[2:07:41] difference maybe it's not the most

[2:07:43] crucial time to slow down and we could

[2:07:45] also and during that time period as well

[2:07:47] we could also try to get a hold of and

[2:07:49] figure out like what they think is

[2:07:50] possible whether we'd have to put this

[2:07:52] out for procurement I think there's some

[2:07:53] like challenges about lowering it that

[2:07:55] much that I would like to request you

[2:07:58] know it's possible so we can do a little

[2:07:59] more leg work between now and then

[2:08:01] >> right so we'll get a doodle poll out

[2:08:03] here today tomorrow and try to look for

[2:08:07] something next week and the following

[2:08:08] week.

[2:08:09] >> Will you can you uh look at email

[2:08:13] possible as well? Maybe this is as

[2:08:15] simple as just

[2:08:16] >> right,

[2:08:16] >> you know, we send an email out and say

[2:08:18] here's what we found here are the three

[2:08:20] options, but we'll we'll try to think.

[2:08:26] » Yep. Is that okay with everyone?

[2:08:29] >> Do you want more things to look at or

[2:08:31] just show what we have?

[2:08:32] >> I don't know. I think that most of what

[2:08:34] we need to look at has been pretty well

[2:08:35] represented. I think it's now just kind

[2:08:37] of like some logistics and maybe talk

[2:08:39] about water quality on rules unless

[2:08:41] anybody else has anything they think

[2:08:42] needs to be analyzed. I mean not to make

[2:08:46] this decision but to look at the

[2:08:48] long-term

[2:08:50] issues I think the nitrogen the almost

[2:08:55] suggest. So I think those action items

[2:08:56] were to look at the overall nutrient

[2:08:58] balance look at total nitrogen

[2:09:01] consider sampling intensity capture the

[2:09:05] balance and then look at the form of

[2:09:07] nitrogen and the north south.

[2:09:13] So those are ongoing things we can work

[2:09:16] be working on. I think the the key thing

[2:09:19] here is just to think about cons

[2:09:21] potential concerns about and I think the

[2:09:24] way this is framed is as as an

[2:09:26] experiment

[2:09:27] um for a number of months before

[2:09:29] November 1st assuming that we have to

[2:09:32] raise the burm to 4190 in November

[2:09:35] um

[2:09:37] and we lower the burm down to 4183

[2:09:40] to to look at how the flux changes and I guess we'll have I think looking

[2:09:46] at the monitoring intensity to

[2:09:48] understand the flux changes.

[2:09:50] >> Actually a good point too, Jeff. Maybe

[2:09:51] one thing I would ask that if there's a

[2:09:53] way to look at this, Christine, and I

[2:09:54] know this is like pretty hypothetical,

[2:09:56] but at what point, you know, knowing

[2:09:58] that we would go down to like 41, what

[2:10:01] was it? 90, what was the elevation we

[2:10:03] would hit at the bottom? Was it 4189.3?

[2:10:07] >> Yes.

[2:10:08] So maybe like at what date if it's

[2:10:12] possible you would anticipate that we've

[2:10:13] hit 4190 because it may be that we have

[2:10:15] to raise the burden in like September

[2:10:17] and maybe this is a little too much just

[2:10:19] to consider two months worth of import

[2:10:23] again we shall raise it to 4190 or at

[2:10:26] 4190. So I don't think a whole lot of

[2:10:28] discretion there. So, so maybe just

[2:10:30] understanding that as well.

[2:10:32] >> Honestly, I mean, I don't know how I

[2:10:34] could I could look at previous rates of

[2:10:36] decline, but I mean this year we're

[2:10:38] think I'm thinking about evaporation and

[2:10:39] also just like the abysmal runoff. Yeah.

[2:10:42] >> And so it's like what are influencing?

[2:10:44] Are they going to be impounded upstream?

[2:10:45] There's like a lot of things I can't

[2:10:46] really predict that would affect the

[2:10:48] slope of decline.

[2:10:49] >> Um

[2:10:50] >> well, and no, I don't you don't need to

[2:10:51] like put out a number. Just put out a

[2:10:53] number. I think maybe that's just

[2:10:54] something else we need to consider is

[2:10:55] that we may need to think about the fact

[2:10:58] that we may not be able to wait till

[2:10:59] November to actually raise it. It may

[2:11:01] have to happen like

[2:11:03] >> you know August, September like who

[2:11:05] knows whether will happen soon.

[2:11:08] >> Put together one thing based on previous

[2:11:09] rates of decline and give you some idea

[2:11:12] but

[2:11:13] >> yeah if you think it makes sense then

[2:11:15] that'd be awesome but if it doesn't seem

[2:11:17] like it's a ton of value it's not very

[2:11:20] fine. So then and I think the last

[2:11:22] action item is just logistics on moving

[2:11:24] rock.

[2:11:25] >> Yeah,

[2:11:26] >> we'll we'll do that on our end. We'll work with the UP and others to see

[2:11:31] what it is. Christine, could you put

[2:11:33] your memo up there so we can all take

[2:11:35] you? [laughter]

[2:11:39] I'll bring it to

[2:11:41] >> give a raise.

[2:11:48] I know.

[2:11:49] [laughter]

[2:11:55] » Thanks for all your

[2:11:58] USGS and the state funding. Great.

[2:12:02] All right. Well, thank you everybody.

[2:12:27] Okay.

[2:12:33] Thank you.

Great Salt Lake Salinity Advisory Committee Meeting 5/27/2026

Transcript