[0:00] started.
[0:01] We've got a lot to get through here in the hour that we have. So, I want to
[0:04] respect everybody's time.
[0:07] Thank you all for being flexible and
[0:09] rescheduling for this afternoon.
[0:13] And we just had have some rules that we
[0:16] have to follow and we're following them. So,
[0:20] it looks like based on who who we have
[0:22] here, we've got a quorum for the
[0:24] committee, which is fantastic.
[0:27] And I guess let's just do some quick
[0:29] introductions for the folks online.
[0:33] Jeff St. Bliker Jacobs
[0:35] >> John West, Division of Wildlife
[0:37] >> Ben Sherman, Forest Preserve District of
[0:39] Lake County
[0:40] >> Anna Freeze, Commissioner's Office
[0:42] >> Christine Ramsey, USGS
[0:43] >> Brian Rowland, USGS
[0:45] >> Angela Gong, Forest Preserve District of
[0:46] Lake County
[0:48] >> All right, and then I saw Rob DeBuke
[0:51] online,
[0:53] Tim Hawks
[0:55] and Jake Alexander
[0:59] Jim Harris, Illinois EPA
[1:04] and Craig Miller
[1:09] and Ted Ballew
[1:12] All right.
[1:14] Great. Well,
[1:17] both are there. Okay.
[1:23] All right. Fantastic. So, the the
[1:26] purpose of today's meeting at our last
[1:29] meeting on May 27th, we had a great
[1:32] discussion talking about the burn and
[1:36] specifically talking about the
[1:39] reduction or decline in nitrogen
[1:41] concentrations in the South Arm and what
[1:44] and talked about the significance of
[1:46] that, what have the historical patterns
[1:49] been that we observed, and then what are
[1:51] some options given the concern with
[1:55] declining nitrogen,
[1:57] what are the options that we have for um
[2:01] mitigating that or at least slowing it
[2:02] down. And the the option that we talked
[2:05] about um at the end of the last meeting
[2:08] was to run an experiment here for
[2:10] several months um
[2:13] where we would remove the berm or lower
[2:15] the berm back down to its original um
[2:18] configuration and elevation at 4183
[2:21] uh
[2:22] for several months until we have to
[2:23] raise it again to 4190 um when the lake
[2:26] level drops
[2:28] that low. Um
[2:29] and so there
[2:31] a number of homework items that we had
[2:33] that action items that came out of that have here in the agenda. Um one is
[2:38] there was a good question with regard to
[2:40] you know we saw the results with total
[2:42] dissolved nitrogen.
[2:44] Um
[2:45] but Thomas had asked if if there was a
[2:48] similar pattern with regard to total
[2:49] nitrogen. Um and
[2:52] the base I guess the background there is
[2:54] just are we measuring cellular nitrogen
[2:57] in the phytoplankton or not.
[3:01] So is there a change does that affect
[3:03] the outlook? Um
[3:05] you know the second number three there
[3:07] is what is the best estimate of when the
[3:08] lake hits 4190. Um
[3:11] so are we going to have to raise the
[3:12] berm here in a month or are we going to
[3:14] have until November
[3:16] uh for an experiment that will inform
[3:18] that.
[3:19] Um one concern that was raised um was
[3:22] with regard to the salinity rule that um
[3:25] DWQ helped um
[3:27] I guess in response to the legislature
[3:30] and and Joe's question was you know if
[3:33] we we lower the berm and the salinity in
[3:35] the south arm goes up um that's an
[3:38] artificial change in the salinity and
[3:41] does the rule have any latitude in
[3:43] there. Um
[3:44] so that they're not now if the if the
[3:47] salinity does go above 150 that now they
[3:49] have to change the operation because of
[3:51] an experiment that this committee
[3:53] recommended.
[3:54] Um, and then just the little logistics
[3:57] of
[3:58] getting permits and you know, making the
[4:01] actual making the modification. Um,
[4:03] so that's all kind of preamble to kind
[4:05] of updates on some of these things, um,
[4:08] homework items. And really the
[4:10] discussion, um,
[4:12] that we want to be able to make sure
[4:13] we've got time to talk about is is to
[4:15] answer the question, should the burn be
[4:17] modified now as an experiment? Um,
[4:21] and I took the language, you know, that
[4:23] we had talked about at the last meeting
[4:25] and and drafted a motion. You know,
[4:28] there was several different attempts to
[4:29] start a motion and so I kind of stitched
[4:32] them all together into this text that's
[4:33] in the agenda here. Um,
[4:35] and we can review that when we get
[4:37] there. So.
[4:38] >> Jeff, just one quick, uh, thought. Just
[4:41] because this is so important to me, do
[4:43] we really want to consider it an
[4:45] experiment? Because I really think this
[4:46] is just testing our ability to bring
[4:48] back salt, but I think we know what the
[4:49] goal is. So if we know what the likely
[4:51] outcome would be,
[4:53] I just think maybe framing it as an
[4:55] experiment makes it sound like we're,
[4:56] you know,
[4:57] a test tube in the Great Salt Lake a
[4:59] little bit.
[5:01] » That's a good question. I I mean, I
[5:03] think that's
[5:07] you know, I mean, what does the rest of
[5:08] the committee think? I mean, I think the
[5:11] perception and perception is is a
[5:13] definite consideration.
[5:15] >> I I just like my personal thought on
[5:18] this is that
[5:19] to me this isn't much of an experiment
[5:21] cuz I think we know what the desired
[5:22] outcome is and I think we know what
[5:24] we're trying to really what we're
[5:25] testing here is like, are we able to
[5:27] bring the salt back, you know, and and
[5:29] what could the potential impact on
[5:31] nutrients be along with that so we can
[5:33] determine, you know, how we balance this
[5:35] out in the future. And it's more of a
[5:36] finding this, but I I just would hate to
[5:38] think like the, you know, seeing a
[5:40] headline that's like state's
[5:41] experimenting on this cuz that's really,
[5:42] like we've had we've come a long ways to
[5:44] get to this point and I don't want it to
[5:46] seem like we're not we don't know what
[5:47] we're doing cuz I think we do.
[5:49] So I just want to make sure that like
[5:51] that's not how this gets phrased later
[5:53] as
[5:54] we're performing an experiment. So I
[5:56] don't know. Just wanted
[5:58] I don't know that it matters that much,
[6:00] but
[6:01] >> Well, I I agree. I think it's it's a
[6:03] database it's a data-backed decision,
[6:06] you know? Like we have a lot of data to
[6:09] suggest this path forward.
[6:11] >> Spent five or six years developing that,
[6:12] right? So now we're asking we're
[6:14] flexing. We're going to see how well we
[6:15] can
[6:16] do what we think we can do, which we we
[6:18] haven't quite done yet on the
[6:20] north to south coast, so
[6:22] Okay.
[6:23] Cool. So maybe if we get to the point of
[6:25] making a recommendation, we don't use
[6:27] the word experiment.
[6:28] >> Manage.
[6:29] >> Yes.
[6:30] >> So may I
[6:31] ask if this is material?
[6:33] >> Mhm.
[6:34] >> Is there Do you have a feel for how
[6:39] much the railroad is going to be so
[6:44] generous with their efforts and time and
[6:49] to do some of these things to a point
[6:52] where they just say
[6:54] now now it's up to you.
[6:55] >> Yeah, I That's a good question. I I was
[6:57] going to touch on that a little bit, but
[6:59] I'll just
[6:59] throw that out there now that um Eric
[7:01] Gibson from water resources has had a
[7:04] good working relationship with these
[7:05] guys, so we've all kind of stayed in
[7:06] contact as the construction and whatnot
[7:08] has happened. Um
[7:10] and he reached I asked him if he would
[7:12] reach out after our last meeting just to
[7:14] gauge interest from them on whether they
[7:15] could do this if we if we got to go
[7:17] through procurement, and they said that
[7:18] they they would be willing to lower it
[7:20] and raise it. Um so they're willing to
[7:22] do that work at this point. I We
[7:24] obviously have to work with their
[7:25] schedule, but it sounded like they were
[7:26] willing to help out again. Um it sounds
[7:28] like they're also busy, you know, right
[7:30] now, so we'll have to figure out when
[7:31] they can get out there, but it sounds
[7:33] like they would be willing to both raise
[7:36] and lower it, and then we also have
[7:38] ongoing funding we can use if we have to
[7:39] procure something
[7:41] um to do that. So I think we're we're in
[7:43] good shape that way. But they but
[7:45] honestly, like they'll get it done
[7:47] faster too cuz they have people, they
[7:49] have equipment, they have rock. And free
[7:52] is also a price I really like. So,
[7:55] Yeah.
[7:55] >> Thanks.
[7:57] Great. That's great news.
[7:58] >> Yeah.
[7:59] >> Well, good. Well, Christine, do you want
[8:01] to
[8:02] kick us off and just uh
[8:04] bring us back up to speed on the
[8:06] nitrogen data and
[8:11] » Question.
[8:12] >> Thanks, Eric.
[8:15] Yes.
[8:18] Cool.
[8:27] Okay. So, I'm just going to jump into
[8:29] calculations like I showed last time.
[8:31] Um, I did kind of a
[8:33] series of analyses looking at total
[8:35] dissolved nitrogen in the South Arm and
[8:37] then comparing that to flux at the new
[8:38] gradation. So, I'm just repeating that
[8:40] essentially but looking at total
[8:41] nitrogen instead.
[8:43] And I'm putting this giant disclaimer
[8:45] um, because these are all preliminary
[8:47] results subject to revision and we're
[8:48] doing this for time to meet the need for
[8:51] time revised science. So, take it with a
[8:53] grain of salt but it's
[8:55] Um, I'm doing my best to put all of it.
[8:57] So, with South Arm, here just a kind of
[8:59] a plot of raw data that we collect in
[9:01] the South Arm from 2010 to present. And
[9:04] these Sorry. These are nutrient
[9:06] concentrations um, in milligrams per
[9:08] liter. On the left is total nitrogen and
[9:10] this is total dissolved nitrogen.
[9:12] Just to kind of show you the raw data
[9:14] set. Again, when we have presence of the
[9:16] deep run there, we see higher
[9:17] concentrations at depth for both total
[9:19] nitrogen and dissolved nitrogen. And the
[9:21] vast or the a large fraction of nitrogen
[9:24] in the system is dissolved fraction. So,
[9:26] just a little bit of context there. And
[9:28] then these two lines represent when the
[9:30] berm was modified.
[9:32] After that point, many of you know we
[9:33] had to switch labs. So, there is also a
[9:35] change in
[9:37] analytical labs that have had to be used
[9:39] which is important when you talk about
[9:40] total nitrogen in particular. And that
[9:42] is because they're much it's much more
[9:45] difficult to analyze than the total
[9:47] dissolved nitrogen has been. So, if we
[9:48] just focus on this top left plot, the
[9:51] take home is that if I compare our
[9:54] nutrient nutrient record from
[9:56] International Water Quality Lab up to
[9:57] about 2023-2024
[10:00] versus just the biological lab results
[10:02] after that time prepared samples where
[10:04] we have prepared samples.
[10:06] Chusty Biological Lab is measuring about
[10:08] 24% higher than National Water Quality
[10:10] Lab. So, keep that in mind for the
[10:12] subsequent analyses. That's why we've
[10:15] really honed in on total dissolved
[10:17] nitrogen for the last analysis which
[10:19] compares much better between the two
[10:22] labs. So,
[10:24] that this is um
[10:25] yeah, just keep that in mind when we
[10:27] start look at masses and concentrations.
[10:29] And then kind of I know it's hard to see
[10:31] on the right plot, but essentially we've
[10:33] also done tests at the lab to look at
[10:36] spike recoveries which is essentially a
[10:37] technique to see how well an analysis is
[10:40] performing in total dissolved nitrogen
[10:42] performs or sorry, total nitrogen
[10:44] performs the worst. So, just keep that
[10:47] in mind. I wanted to address Thomas's uh
[10:50] question here, but the data there was a
[10:52] reason we haven't used total nitrogen
[10:54] previously.
[10:55] So, just looking at volume weighted
[10:58] total nitrogen concentration in
[11:00] milligrams per liter for the South Arm
[11:02] in 2010 to present, if I do statistical
[11:06] analyses kind of on a total time before
[11:08] and after berm modification, there is no
[11:10] statistically significant difference
[11:12] between after berm modification and
[11:14] before berm modification for total
[11:17] nitrogen. There was for total dissolved
[11:18] nitrogen. And keep in mind again that
[11:20] we're dealing with kind of a biased
[11:22] after berm the berm was modified because
[11:24] of that new lab we had to switch to.
[11:27] If we look at masses, this is total
[11:30] nitrogen mass. You can visually see how
[11:32] it looks like there's kind of a drop
[11:34] after berm was modified so that would
[11:35] indicate less total nitrogen in the
[11:38] South Arm after berm modification.
[11:40] However,
[11:41] the statistical tests were not
[11:42] significant indicating that before and
[11:44] after berm modification total nitrogen
[11:46] masses are the same. Again, keep in mind
[11:49] the bias that are present in the data
[11:51] set.
[11:52] If we pivot to the nutrient flux at the
[11:54] New Reach,
[11:56] I basically repeated the analysis that
[11:57] Scott had done. So on this plot on the
[11:59] right, we're looking at total nitrogen
[12:01] concentrations in milligrams per liter
[12:03] since the time the New Reach has been
[12:05] opened, so about 2017 to present. Um
[12:08] just context, South to North
[12:10] concentrations of total nitrogen are
[12:12] around 4 and 1/2 milligrams per liter
[12:15] and then for North to South, they're
[12:16] much higher around 9 to 10 milligrams
[12:18] per liter
[12:19] for total nitrogen.
[12:21] Um so what we're kind of getting back
[12:23] from the North is a much higher
[12:24] concentration of the nutrient.
[12:27] Um and if you look at fluxes, this also
[12:29] is very similar to what we saw for total
[12:31] dissolved nitrogen.
[12:33] Um the red dots are North to South, the
[12:35] green dots are South to North. And so
[12:37] after berm modification, that kind of
[12:39] orange dash line, you can see how the
[12:41] fluxes of North to South
[12:43] uh input of nutrients just really drop
[12:45] off. And comparing the two time periods
[12:48] from about 2017 to 2022, we estimate
[12:50] that we were getting about 7.59
[12:54] uh tons per day of
[12:56] nu- of nitrogen coming in from the North
[12:58] Arm and after the berm was modified,
[13:00] that was reduced to about 0.9 uh tons
[13:03] per day. So a really substantial
[13:05] decrease in load coming in from the
[13:07] North Arm estimated to be around 2,400
[13:10] tons per year if we were actually to
[13:11] extrapolate that rate to an annual
[13:13] basis.
[13:15] And just looking at the net flux, so
[13:17] that's kind of comparing what's going
[13:19] out um of the South Arm to what's coming
[13:22] in from the North Arm at the New Reach.
[13:24] On the right shows the condition before
[13:27] the berm was modified. And these
[13:28] positive values just indicate that
[13:30] there's kind of always a loss of
[13:31] nitrogen at the breach, but after the
[13:33] berm was modified, we see a much greater
[13:35] loss of nitrogen. That loss of nitrogen
[13:38] to the to the North Arm. And we're not
[13:40] just again not getting uh much flux
[13:42] back. So, that's really all I had um
[13:45] prepared for that, Jeff. If you have any
[13:46] other questions, I can answer it, but
[13:48] essentially the data are less reliable.
[13:50] Um they're not showing a change between
[13:53] pre- and post-berm, but again, I have
[13:55] the highest confidence in the total
[13:56] nitrogen values that I showed last time.
[13:59] >> But it's not in conflict with the story
[14:01] we're seeing from the total dissolved
[14:03] nutrients.
[14:04] >> Not necessarily. It's just less
[14:06] statistically robust, but yeah.
[14:10] >> Any questions from from anybody?
[14:15] » Uh I have a just a general question
[14:18] about,
[14:19] you know, making sure that if we go over
[14:21] the berm, that we're tracking the right
[14:23] information,
[14:24] you know, in the time period when it's
[14:25] low, so we can kind of validate some of
[14:27] these assumptions. Do we feel like we
[14:29] have the right monitoring right now
[14:31] um for nutrients, you know, between the
[14:34] breach, or is there any additional
[14:36] sampling, testing, monitoring, anything
[14:37] that we need to be considering to make
[14:39] sure we take this
[14:40] valuable time that we're
[14:43] >> I would consider monitoring more
[14:44] frequently. So, typically you know, she
[14:46] has what we do is we monitor during
[14:49] runoff every month to try and capture
[14:51] kind of a more hydrologically dynamic
[14:52] period, and then we have to back off
[14:54] after runoff is over. But if we do
[14:56] something like this, I would suggest
[14:57] that we just get more measurements
[14:59] during that time, maybe the two or three
[15:01] months in which it's able to be open,
[15:02] whether that's monthly or even every few
[15:04] weeks, to just make sure we're correctly
[15:07] measuring all the nutrient constituents.
[15:09] In terms of measuring more nutrient
[15:11] constituents, if there's any analyte
[15:13] we're missing, I don't think so. We're
[15:14] kind of doing the full suite, but given
[15:16] the uncertainty, especially in total
[15:18] nitrogen values, if we're interested in
[15:19] that, I do think more samples would be
[15:22] useful.
[15:22] >> Okay. I I think that that would be
[15:24] useful even if it's not just for
[15:25] nitrogen or, you know, nutrients. I
[15:27] think like understanding what's going on
[15:30] out there
[15:30] >> Mhm.
[15:31] >> and then doing more frequent sampling
[15:32] and monitoring would be
[15:33] >> Definitely.
[15:34] >> good to know and deal with this in the
[15:36] future.
[15:36] >> I don't know Ryan's thoughts on this,
[15:37] but even just being able to get more
[15:39] discharge measurements, if you open up
[15:41] the breaches and if we're going to have
[15:42] bi-directional flow again, and my crew
[15:45] member tells me this all the time, who
[15:46] is very familiar with new breach
[15:47] discharge, every time we modify that
[15:49] cross section, we basically have to
[15:51] start from scratch in trying to build a
[15:52] relationship between discharge reading
[15:55] and a and a late stage. And so, we're
[15:57] kind of starting from scratch in our
[15:58] ability to kind of develop a continuous
[16:00] uh relationship there. So, I would say
[16:02] just more the more measurements the
[16:04] better in terms of discharge. And
[16:06] really, because you have to understand
[16:07] every time we go out there, it's a it's
[16:09] one point in time. And, you know, that's
[16:11] it's pretty good during stable, you
[16:12] know, um
[16:14] I can say calm conditions, where, you
[16:15] know, the physics are what they are and
[16:17] the flow's going to flow how it is. But,
[16:19] the more conditions we can capture, the
[16:21] windier it is, um there's slightly more
[16:23] north-south flow for some reason, I
[16:24] think.
[16:26] >> Totally. Yeah. No,
[16:27] she's yeah. I think that I'm just
[16:29] thinking out loud. I
[16:31] Every couple of weeks we probably want
[16:33] to do a discharge measurement.
[16:37] Schedule samples as well, so
[16:39] We need to hire a bridge troll who lives
[16:42] under there and continuously monitors
[16:43] and samples.
[16:45] We need a future close. We need to
[16:47] invent a drone uh acoustic Doppler
[16:49] current profile.
[16:52] » [laughter]
[17:00] >> Uh all right. Thanks. Thanks, Christine.
[17:01] I appreciate that.
[17:03] >> When you had
[17:05] the nitrogen values sample you
[17:06] collected, are those from the actual
[17:09] deep brine flowing through the breach,
[17:11] or is that a sample from the north arm?
[17:15] >> It's it's off the breach. So, what we do
[17:17] is we have what's called a Nansen
[17:18] sampler, so you kind of lower it as it's
[17:20] closed and then you lower it and then
[17:22] open it and then fill it up.
[17:25] Um and that we weren't able to do that
[17:26] for a long time cuz there just actually
[17:28] wasn't enough
[17:29] water and it was flowing, but we've been
[17:31] doing that recently.
[17:32] >> Okay.
[17:34] Any other questions?
[17:38] All right.
[17:40] Okay. All right. Well, let's um move on
[17:44] to the next one. And Christine, question
[17:47] we had was with regard to when do we
[17:49] think we might hit 4190?
[17:51] >> Yes.
[17:51] >> Get your crystal ball out.
[17:53] >> Of course. Yes. And I immediately was
[17:55] like, yeah, sorry.
[17:56] >> The Christine ball.
[17:57] >> Oh, right.
[17:58] >> [laughter]
[18:00] » If your rooting index is low, you cross
[18:02] fire.
[18:06] » I still got it. I would love that.
[18:08] Um all right. So, yeah, then I kind of
[18:11] initially said, "No, we can't do that."
[18:12] And then Brian and Mike and everyone was
[18:14] like, "Yeah, you can do that." Okay,
[18:15] sorry. I don't know. Um so, but anyway,
[18:18] >> [laughter]
[18:18] >> what I did was I because the like the
[18:21] rate of decline changes throughout the
[18:22] season, right? So, during June 15th to
[18:25] September 15th, the slope of that
[18:26] decline is the is kind of steepest and
[18:28] that's where we're headed into. So, I
[18:30] what I did I know that's overwhelming.
[18:32] We don't have to look at this slide too
[18:33] much, but it's just for me. But from
[18:35] June 15th to September 15th, I basically
[18:37] said for every year during that time
[18:39] period, I'm going to calculate how much
[18:41] we're dropping every day in like
[18:42] elevation. And kind of so, that those
[18:44] black dots are the distribution of that
[18:46] from 1960. So, it's just been going up
[18:48] steadily over time. And then that um
[18:50] blue line is kind of an average
[18:52] condition of all those trend lines.
[18:54] Um and then looking at this
[18:56] distribution, I considered three three
[18:58] scenarios. So, one is like the average
[19:01] rate of decline, that kind of number
[19:03] one. Uh the second one is a higher end
[19:06] cuz I think we all can all kind of guess
[19:08] that this might be a kind of a we might
[19:09] lose a lot of water this year in the
[19:11] South Park. So,
[19:12] kind of a higher end and then the the
[19:14] third one I I I chose was the highest
[19:15] observed ever to just give you a range.
[19:17] So,
[19:18] um doing the math on all of that, which
[19:20] I showed in the slide, but I won't go
[19:21] through um for at an average condition
[19:23] I'm
[19:24] we're estimating about September 10th is
[19:26] when we'd hit 4190
[19:28] or a kind of a highish end rate of
[19:31] decline August 23rd and then for the
[19:33] highest we've ever observed August 15th.
[19:36] And I have to say, looking at the data,
[19:37] that highest observed
[19:40] um
[19:43] I think that was 2024 or even 2023.
[19:46] Anyway, I got the impression that it
[19:48] kind of happened on years that we had a
[19:50] lot of water coming in in the spring cuz
[19:52] we had a lot of water to come.
[19:53] So, that might have been due to the
[19:54] breach. So, take that highest observed
[19:57] the grain of salt. Um it might kind of
[19:59] be in a condition where it actually
[20:00] froze a lot and then
[20:03] >> Yeah. Just out of curiosity, could you
[20:05] look [clears throat] at the rise or the
[20:08] decline this year to see if there's any
[20:10] trend based on whether we're average or
[20:12] below or above based on the data?
[20:14] >> It kind of followed the shapes that it
[20:16] has over the last like 10 years or so, it's kind of hard to kind of isolate it where it might be.
[20:24] >> Is it a confounding variable that we
[20:27] don't have any of our prior data below?
[20:30] Um
[20:30] or we haven't in the past a lot of this
[20:33] data, right? Or a lot of that data
[20:34] that's plotted up there. So, that introduces some more
[20:37] uncertainty into the excess volume.
[20:39] Well, that's okay though. I think that
[20:41] the bottom line is it's probably going
[20:42] to fall below 4190 before the we hit
[20:46] bottom this year, right? I mean, that's
[20:49] in any scenario that's likely the case.
[20:51] >> that is the
[20:52] >> Okay.
[20:54] Um I would just a point on that is I'd
[20:56] like to make sure that in the
[20:57] recommendation, you know, we we normally
[20:58] talk about like a plan for, you know,
[21:00] when we would raise it, but I think here
[21:03] it's going to be based off of an
[21:04] observation that we see in the breach,
[21:06] like how well it's salt. Maybe it
[21:08] imports salt so well that we need to
[21:10] think about doing it sooner, but I think
[21:11] just like you know, constant um
[21:14] observation and maybe ramping up on our
[21:17] um testing and sampling to understand
[21:18] what's going on there.
[21:19] And then reconvening, but
[21:21] I think that's something we should
[21:22] consider
[21:24] if we're going to make any
[21:25] recommendations today.
[21:28] » I I guess the question is is
[21:31] you know,
[21:32] is is 4190 the trigger where we
[21:34] literally
[21:35] >> have to go out and
[21:37] release it right away, or how urgent is
[21:39] it?
[21:39] >> we need to figure that out, too. I mean,
[21:41] I know what the law says, but I think we
[21:42] have some things to work out on our end.
[21:45] Got to make sure that we're interpreting
[21:46] it the right way. So, I think that's
[21:47] what I think this is just, you know,
[21:49] what the goal is now, which I think is,
[21:51] you know, we wanted to import salt right
[21:53] now.
[21:54] Um and we stick with that, and then
[21:56] we'll we'll probably have some
[21:58] discussion items that need to happen
[22:00] sooner than later.
[22:02] >> Okay.
[22:05] Great. Then our um so,
[22:08] moving on, um the next question was for
[22:11] Jim
[22:12] Harris, um
[22:13] just with regard to the the salinity
[22:15] rule,
[22:17] and uh the concern that
[22:19] um
[22:20] if we're importing salt,
[22:22] or if if we're artificially importing
[22:24] salt, and that raises the salinity of
[22:26] the South Arm uncomfortably high, then
[22:29] does that will that affect operate
[22:31] mineral operations?
[22:35] » Yeah, um well, as you're all aware, as
[22:38] it's written,
[22:39] um
[22:41] in a 90-day window,
[22:43] which would which would would define the
[22:45] most recent current salinity,
[22:47] if it goes above the 150,
[22:50] um
[22:52] the way it's written, there'd be um
[22:54] prohibition on any discharge of salts to
[22:57] the South Arm.
[22:59] Um there is one
[23:01] off-ramp to that is if
[23:04] it is considered to be a de minimis
[23:07] impact and we wrote those into the rule
[23:10] to allow for operational uh maintenance
[23:13] and and things like that um so that uh
[23:18] um compasses facilities can actually
[23:20] continue to run and not not necessarily
[23:23] flush the ponds but allow for their
[23:26] processing to continue.
[23:28] Um so you know what we haven't had a
[23:31] chance to um
[23:32] meet with our AG on this but um as it's
[23:35] written it's not something that could be
[23:37] necessarily
[23:39] deferred. Um
[23:41] I I I think we ought to we still haven't
[23:42] had a chance to consult with Forestry
[23:44] Fire and State Lands on this either so
[23:47] I think we
[23:48] I'd like to better understand what their
[23:49] limitations are um and what kind of
[23:52] flexibilities we might have
[23:54] um in that documentation.
[23:57] And then ultimately, you know, one of
[23:59] the concerns I have is seeing exactly
[24:01] how much salt are we bringing in, how
[24:03] high are we going to let the lake go in
[24:05] terms of the salinity and will that
[24:09] potentially rebound before say
[24:11] um
[24:12] that uh
[24:14] you know um it's might discharge into the lake
[24:18] cuz I I just you know there's some
[24:21] side effects of this obviously that I
[24:23] wouldn't want a management to
[24:25] necessarily impair um somebody's ability
[24:28] to operate.
[24:31] >> Hey Jim, but I just a quick thought and
[24:33] I know you and I haven't talked more
[24:34] than what we did in the last
[24:36] you know sort of last second meeting or
[24:39] during but you know it seems to me like
[24:41] the de minimis impact um it was really
[24:43] targeted on like releases that wouldn't
[24:45] negatively affect the salt balance in
[24:48] the lake and to me when we're actively
[24:49] trying to import salt and that's the
[24:51] whole goal of the management, I I wonder
[24:54] if there's a way to squeeze that into
[24:55] the de minimis impact side of things and
[24:57] just say, you know, the impact isn't
[24:58] there because we're actually trying to
[25:01] bring back salts. And then, if that
[25:02] can't happen,
[25:04] I would say that it would be really
[25:05] interesting to explore the rules, and
[25:07] just see if maybe we ought to consider
[25:10] adding to that de minimis impact, just
[25:11] like when the state is actively managing
[25:14] the burn for import of salt from north
[25:16] to south, that this, you know, that
[25:18] would also be a time where they would
[25:19] not be,
[25:21] you know, regulated for discharge of
[25:22] salt. Because I think it's just, you
[25:24] know, I obviously, the intent was to
[25:27] limit discharges of salt at times we're
[25:29] trying to manage to keep it fresher on
[25:31] the the south arm. In this case, it's
[25:33] the same thing. So, I I know that
[25:36] doesn't resolve anything for today.
[25:38] >> Right.
[25:39] >> We're going to make a recommendation
[25:40] that might put some of the mineral
[25:41] companies in a hard spot, but I do think
[25:42] like
[25:43] I think it's really obvious what the
[25:45] goal is, and so I think that, you know,
[25:47] I'd recommend we find a solution, so
[25:49] we're not hamstringing ourselves over
[25:51] such a I don't know, weird thing that is
[25:54] counterintuitive to what we're actually
[25:55] trying to do.
[25:57] >> Correct. Great. And I And I think
[26:00] you know, one thing we might need to
[26:01] have in line is map out exactly
[26:04] that, um,
[26:06] that proposed salinity um,
[26:12] adjustment, so that we can we can have a data-based decision for our director
[26:19] to make in terms of what is de minimis,
[26:21] what is not.
[26:22] >> [clears throat]
[26:22] >> Um, so anyways, go ahead.
[26:25] >> Yeah, uh, you you you're right, Jim. Um,
[26:28] you know, the de minimis was, um, you
[26:29] know, it was intended to, uh, you know,
[26:32] allow for continued plant water
[26:33] discharge, which in you know, is orders
[26:36] of magnitude smaller than, you know,
[26:37] mineral return. Um, by by volume, and, you know, mass is that's that's
[26:42] being sent back to the lake. It It seem
[26:44] It seems like, you know, what Ben had
[26:46] just suggested, you know, could be
[26:49] integrated into, you know, the UPDES
[26:51] permit. Um
[26:55] you know,
[26:56] I think that would be pretty pretty
[26:58] straightforward. Um
[27:01] You know, to allow for allow for you
[27:03] know, all discharges when when there's
[27:05] active measures being taken to um
[27:07] >> [clears throat]
[27:08] >> you know, import salt to the South Arm.
[27:13] » Yeah, and I and I'll I'll I just want to
[27:14] make sure Jim I don't put you guys in a
[27:16] hard spot cuz I know that's like it's
[27:17] not our rule to make. Just debated in
[27:19] the writing but I just think it's
[27:21] important for us to like go back and try
[27:22] to
[27:23] um you know, problem solve this and I I
[27:25] really think like at this point it um
[27:28] I I think it'd be worth hitting the
[27:30] books again and I Joe, I know that's not
[27:31] going to make it easy for you to like
[27:32] make a vote today but I think it um you
[27:34] know, if we get to that point but I do
[27:36] think like again, this is going to I
[27:38] don't want to get held up just because
[27:40] we can't figure out this weird you know,
[27:42] this weird nuance. So
[27:45] >> Bill
[27:46] >> Yeah, in the in the many meetings we had
[27:48] discussing the rule
[27:50] this came up, right? We we talked about
[27:53] needing to look at at loads
[27:57] and expected impacts of the loads.
[28:01] And and Jim, are you effectively I I
[28:03] agree with it that the rule has also had
[28:06] to be simple.
[28:09] But we we had recognized this could
[28:11] happen and we thought at the time that
[28:13] there'd be enough wiggle room
[28:15] to address a case like this. So whether
[28:17] it's UPDES permit or or what I but we we
[28:20] anticipated this kind of a uh
[28:23] you know, a shortcoming of the
[28:24] simplicity of the rule. So we should
[28:27] Jim, I can't remember what exactly that
[28:29] out is but it seems like we designed it
[28:31] to allow an out.
[28:35] » Well, well like I mentioned, the one off
[28:37] ramp was was the de minimis
[28:39] determination. The other off ramp was
[28:41] having um
[28:42] where for those operations that were
[28:44] actually removing salt from their upper
[28:47] so the South arm operations were allowed
[28:51] them to discharge back in the lake when
[28:53] it was above 150 cuz in essence they're removing salt mass from the lake
[28:58] and they're and they're um
[29:00] operations but those are the two
[29:04] off-ramps.
[29:06] And we added also a provision that
[29:08] allowed the director to determine if
[29:11] this group forecasted a future
[29:15] that
[29:16] um where you were certain that it was
[29:18] going to go above 150 that they could
[29:21] preventatively
[29:23] uh preemptively sort of so to speak
[29:25] stop any additional discharges to the
[29:27] lake so
[29:28] >> Right and this is the other side of
[29:30] that.
[29:30] >> Yes yeah.
[29:31] >> Yeah. No that's good. That that is what
[29:33] it was. Thank you for reminding me.
[29:35] >> Yeah.
[29:36] Right then just put a note in there
[29:38] yeah. The other off-ramp is
[29:40] when it's still is below 150 so that was what kind of one of my
[29:44] fundamental questions was
[29:46] can we do this operation and keep it
[29:47] below 150? Uh I I don't know that I was seeing a good
[29:52] projection
[29:55] would allow
[29:56] rotation of the nutrients and still
[29:59] prevent it from going above 150
[30:02] say this winter. Um
[30:06] >> The the other the other um aspect that
[30:10] you know
[30:11] that's on my radar is our voluntary
[30:13] agreement. And and this is admittedly an
[30:16] extreme um condition but if on June 15th
[30:20] uh in future years um the lake is 4190
[30:23] or below um
[30:25] we're effectively shut down.
[30:26] So
[30:28] uh
[30:28] you know I I I
[30:30] in my view I
[30:32] you know I I see that as not not a not a
[30:34] possibility in 2028 but but you know if we had another poor snowpack and
[30:40] followed by another we we we you know
[30:42] very well could be in that paradigm. So,
[30:45] um I I I look at maintaining um
[30:49] elevation in the South Arm is is you
[30:51] know
[30:52] as important and and this action will you know it'll reduce elevation um
[30:56] in South Arm um
[30:59] it'll it'll accelerate it from from
[31:01] status quo, I guess.
[31:04] We're going to we're going to take more
[31:05] from the South Arm and and move it to
[31:06] the north and you're you're going to be
[31:07] at a faster rate of decline if I'm
[31:09] thinking about it.
[31:11] >> Well, maybe temporarily. I think it's
[31:13] preparing us for the other side of that
[31:15] coin though, right, Joe?
[31:17] So, and we can't I think that you know,
[31:19] we've discussed this in depth, but
[31:22] you know, like we can't leave it where
[31:24] it's at. We know we're going to have to
[31:25] probably raise it at some point based on
[31:28] what this
[31:28] process so do we do what we can right
[31:31] now to prepare to raise it so we can
[31:32] maximize the benefits of raising it and
[31:34] I think that's where, you know, if you
[31:36] really want to talk about offsetting
[31:38] potential curtailment or you know, those
[31:40] reductions like that that's where you're
[31:43] going to we're going to see that you
[31:45] know, that benefit. But, another thing I
[31:47] just wanted to point out as well as that
[31:49] >> [clears throat]
[31:49] >> um you know, the salinity forecasts were
[31:51] like hovering right around 150. It's not
[31:53] like we were like blowing that out of
[31:54] the water. So, I would anticipate that
[31:57] this is going to be fairly temporary in
[31:59] nature. Like immediately once we um you
[32:03] know, raise that berm again and stop the
[32:05] bidirectional flows, it's it's
[32:07] immediately going to become dropping I
[32:10] would assume you know, especially if
[32:12] we're raising it at the you know, the
[32:13] end of the evaporation season as we
[32:15] start to see more inflows from the Bear
[32:17] River and whatnot. So, I would imagine
[32:19] that's going to be very temporary. So,
[32:20] another thing I would say is like if
[32:22] there's an operational efficiency that
[32:24] you guys have Joe where you know, maybe
[32:26] you don't do that for those couple of
[32:27] months and in the meantime we also work
[32:30] with DEQ to see if there's like
[32:32] exceptions in the rules for when we're
[32:33] actively trying to do this and we just
[32:35] It's work in good faith to figure out
[32:37] you know, what a solution looks like.
[32:38] There I think I think we all know what
[32:40] you know, what the intent is. It's just
[32:42] trying to figure out like how do we
[32:43] actually arrive at that solution. So.
[32:47] >> Yeah, and and I I offered before Ben
[32:49] last meeting, you know, we're actively
[32:52] negotiating the you know, our up these
[32:54] renewal. Um, you know, by end of
[32:56] October. So, I think we can you know,
[32:59] engage you know, on on this and the
[33:01] other other aspects of this.
[33:03] >> Okay.
[33:04] >> And and to just just to be clear, I'm
[33:06] not sure if I mentioned it in front of
[33:07] this group, you know, we've temporarily
[33:10] um
[33:11] uh
[33:13] temporarily terminated operations on on
[33:15] the west side
[33:16] when the lake is below 4190
[33:19] four. Uh we just can't operate enough
[33:22] pumps and evaporation rate exceeds pumping rate. And so it's it's a it's a waste of resource and and
[33:28] time and effort. So, um
[33:31] uh Compass is less sensitive to South
[33:33] Arm I'm sorry, North Arm elevation as we
[33:36] were you know, in 2021 22 time frame.
[33:40] So, I just wanted to throw that data
[33:41] point out there.
[33:45] » Okay.
[33:46] >> Great. Well, I So, I guess to try to
[33:49] summarize, um
[33:51] we don't have a clear answer um
[33:54] on this um flexibility of the rule. It sounds
[33:58] like we will probably have to
[34:00] have some more discussions um
[34:03] to find where the flexibility is. So,
[34:05] that we recognize the fact that we are
[34:08] if we modify the berm, we're making this
[34:11] the choice to
[34:12] um modify the salinity that um we will
[34:15] be importing salt into the South Arm.
[34:17] And so, we recognize we're doing that.
[34:19] Um but sounds like the common you know,
[34:22] the conversation will need to continue
[34:24] um you know,
[34:26] to find the flexibility perhaps through
[34:28] the um up these permit that um Compass
[34:31] is negotiating now.
[34:33] Um perhaps you know via the rule.
[34:39] But we don't we don't have it's not
[34:43] black and white but there's sounds like
[34:45] the intent is that recognizing that we
[34:48] are modifying the salinity
[34:50] and we don't want to have to affect
[34:52] their operation.
[34:54] >> Well, I think we don't want to affect
[34:55] their operation but we also don't want
[34:56] to let this lake
[34:58] salinity time period you know, the the
[35:01] time period in which they wouldn't be
[35:02] able to discharge dictate how we're
[35:03] going to manage the bird because I think
[35:04] that's also
[35:06] that you know, could be have a massive
[35:08] impact into the future on how we how we
[35:10] do this. So
[35:12] both nutrients and salt mass.
[35:14] >> Okay.
[35:17] Great. Well, let's um
[35:19] I guess touch on the last question with
[35:21] regard to regulatory and construction.
[35:23] >> Yeah, we've already covered Yeah, I
[35:25] think Union Pacific can get out there
[35:26] soon. We will have to talk with them
[35:28] about specifics once we have a little
[35:30] bit of official, you know, plan and
[35:31] whatnot. And the other thing too is I
[35:34] don't know that they'll they're going to
[35:35] be able to I don't know that we should
[35:37] even make a an attempt to say we want it
[35:39] at this level. I think we want to be a
[35:40] little bit loose on that because they're
[35:42] going to be doing this with equipment
[35:43] that they own. They're not going to
[35:44] have, you know, getting down to 4183
[35:47] might be pretty challenging and then
[35:48] measuring that. Also
[35:50] Yeah, it's it's it's something where I
[35:52] think we're going to have to be a little
[35:53] bit loose about. You know, let's try to
[35:54] make it as flat as possible, you know,
[35:56] uniform and flat as possible for
[35:57] monitoring and being able to measure
[35:59] those things but also understanding that
[36:01] like they're going to have to do this
[36:03] all from the bank cuz you know, before
[36:04] when they've done this they've been able
[36:05] to walk out the equipment as they build
[36:07] it but never have we like lowered it
[36:09] like this. So it'll be a little bit
[36:11] different than what we've done before.
[36:12] So hopefully they can get out there, do
[36:14] what they got to do but I think you
[36:16] know, any potential recommendation ought
[36:17] to be based on like getting it as close
[36:19] to 4183 as possible
[36:21] or whatever elevation we decide and then
[36:24] also the timing will have to be because
[36:26] procurement will take a hell of a lot
[36:28] longer than
[36:29] um working with the railroad. We would
[36:31] have to be at the whim of their
[36:32] schedule.
[36:34] You know, same thing with on raising. I
[36:35] think we can we can leave that up in the
[36:37] air right now about based on regulation
[36:40] monitoring and also
[36:43] the status of the elevation of the lake
[36:44] so we can just make that determination
[36:47] further off the day. That's that's my
[36:49] sense and then as far as other
[36:51] regulations, Army Corps we've been down
[36:52] this path before.
[36:54] They already evaluated impacts of this
[36:56] permit area so we know there's nothing
[36:57] we need to do with them. I didn't even
[36:58] check because last time we did they said
[37:00] no because we've done this before. So,
[37:02] I'm going to assume we're still in the
[37:03] same graces of the Army Corps and that's
[37:06] the only okay. The only other one that I
[37:09] can think of that we'd have to check the
[37:10] box on.
[37:11] >> Great.
[37:12] Super, well thank you. So, then I I
[37:14] think that the question is is should the
[37:16] burn be modified now?
[37:19] We'll drop the experiment of modifying
[37:20] the burn.
[37:22] And and the intent is that it's a
[37:23] short-term modification
[37:25] uh recognizing that the lake is likely
[37:28] going to drop below 4190 this fall and
[37:31] um
[37:32] so we'll have to raise the burn back up
[37:34] this fall.
[37:36] >> And I and if we again just like I if we
[37:38] can stay away from timing on the raising
[37:40] of that, I think we need to be flexible
[37:42] based off of what's observed in the
[37:43] conditions. So, right now if we can
[37:46] you know, focus on the recommendation of
[37:47] the you know, what it is that we're
[37:49] trying to do and I think right now it's
[37:51] important to solve the preparation for
[37:53] you know, future years. So,
[37:55] um I think we just make a recommendation
[37:57] of what the elevation we want to target
[37:59] on the lowering then we can continuously
[38:02] monitor perhaps put together a you know,
[38:04] a
[38:04] meeting time where we can go over the
[38:06] results of what we've observed over the
[38:08] you know, summer months maybe it's
[38:10] sometime in late August or late July or
[38:13] something after we've done a few rounds
[38:14] of bi-weekly monitoring and then decide
[38:17] what the next step looks like and we'll
[38:19] be closer on the elevation and then
[38:20] what's going on there.
[38:24] » Great. Any Any discussion or questions
[38:27] from the rest of you?
[38:38] » So, I
[38:40] um
[38:42] I think the the draft motion that's on
[38:44] the table I you know is what I had I had
[38:46] drafted based on the previous
[38:48] discussion.
[38:49] Um
[38:51] you know, we could delete
[38:54] that part because
[38:58] it doesn't sound like it's
[38:59] >> So, Jeff, if we can delete that part,
[39:01] here's here's what I'd like to see out
[39:03] of this is we can delete that part
[39:04] because we obviously need to have more
[39:06] discussion with water quality on you
[39:08] know, what's possible
[39:09] and then you know, I would assume like
[39:11] right now let's operate under the status
[39:13] of what the existing rule is in the
[39:15] existing NPDES permit. I wouldn't
[39:17] anticipate the change, but I think we
[39:18] can agree that we'll like all in good
[39:20] faith Jim, Joe, myself, and others who
[39:23] are interested work to to make sense of
[39:25] that rule and then also can we get rid
[39:28] of the last sentence um about like when
[39:32] we're going to do that. I think right
[39:33] now because there's some interpretation
[39:35] there. I'd like to leave that open and
[39:37] we'll work through that on our end to
[39:38] see what is going to be required and
[39:40] when.
[39:41] >> And that work can start.
[39:43] >> Yeah, and the
[39:45] relation to experiment we can
[39:48] You could have if you if it's necessary
[39:50] we could have some information there
[39:51] about like helping to refine our
[39:53] knowledge of like that
[39:54] but I think that's the only thing that
[39:56] we're really trying to better understand
[39:57] right is like the nutrients
[40:01] that that are coming through. But even
[40:02] that I think it sounds like it's a good
[40:04] idea what's going on.
[40:08] Other than that I think
[40:09] I'm good.
[40:11] I guess
[40:12] Any
[40:14] How about
[40:17] » Yeah, the the only thing I'd add to it
[40:18] is that there's a downside risk here
[40:21] because there's a limited flux that we
[40:23] can even get through the
[40:25] through this mechanism,
[40:27] you know, over the time period we're
[40:28] looking at. So,
[40:31] you don't want people to think oh this
[40:32] is a dramatic shift. I mean we're going
[40:34] to measure what comes through and and
[40:35] the impact it has, but it's limited. So,
[40:38] there is a low downside risk. I would I
[40:40] would emphasize that.
[40:43] >> Agreed.
[40:45] Also, one other thing I noticed on there
[40:46] is we have that
[40:48] configuration and elevation of 4183. I
[40:50] think we should soften that a little bit
[40:52] just knowing that it's going to be
[40:53] difficult to like survey that and say
[40:55] this is you know, the target of 4183 or
[40:58] something.
[41:05] It'd be picking three, I believe.
[41:17] I think that could do it. So, target near the
[41:20] original as constructed configuration.
[41:23] Maybe as constructed isn't
[41:27] Yeah, I think just configuration is
[41:28] great.
[41:31] That makes sense to me.
[41:33] All right.
[41:36] » [clears throat]
[41:36] >> So,
[41:37] I think Phil's point is well taken is,
[41:41] you know, the
[41:42] if we're operating this
[41:44] even up until November, I think those
[41:47] are the numbers I gave
[41:48] on last the last meeting.
[41:52] And we we should be able to measure and
[41:55] then estimate what the flux is through here. We probably won't be able
[41:59] to measure a difference in the lake
[42:00] itself.
[42:02] But we can we can measure the flux and the risk of and then I guess the
[42:07] estimates that we have as Bill noted is,
[42:10] you know, the risks
[42:12] are
[42:13] pretty low at at this for that short
[42:15] period of time.
[42:16] >> Just another thought, do you want to put
[42:18] something in there, maybe a
[42:19] recommendation that increased monitoring
[42:21] occurs during the time of the
[42:22] modification?
[42:24] Just so we are collecting data that may
[42:27] be valuable or useful
[42:29] as we make these decisions in the
[42:31] future.
[42:34] Unless anybody disagrees with that.
[42:38] >> I like that idea.
[42:51] » We'll We'll work with Christina and her
[42:53] team to see what's possible.
[42:56] Okay.
[42:57] >> A caveat to be transparent, that we will
[43:00] not get the nutrient results back in
[43:02] time to kind of reconvene after this
[43:03] works, so that'll have to be kind of
[43:05] >> We'll collect that, so we'll we'll be
[43:06] able to do it.
[43:07] >> Yeah, that's good. The turnaround time
[43:08] just isn't there.
[43:09] >> Okay.
[43:11] All right.
[43:12] So, I any concerns?
[43:17] Anything
[43:18] >> from our I mean, I I you know, I think I
[43:20] think our concerns are, you know,
[43:22] obvious. Jeff Jeff's willing to spend
[43:23] time on that. Just because of a lot of
[43:25] these things aren't buttoned down.
[43:27] >> Right.
[43:27] >> It's a fact. I just have to say that.
[43:29] >> Yeah.
[43:30] No, I don't want to give you a chance to
[43:32] say that.
[43:33] Um
[43:34] So, if not, then I guess
[43:38] I Yeah, it's him.
[43:41] » Yeah, hi guys. Just
[43:43] I don't want to overcomplicate the
[43:44] motion, and maybe we don't need it here,
[43:45] but um
[43:48] obviously we'd like to
[43:50] somehow communicate the reason why. I
[43:52] mean, as I read the motion right now, it
[43:53] really doesn't say
[43:55] it says we're going to do it,
[43:57] and we're going to monitor this stuff.
[44:00] It doesn't really speak to the why.
[44:02] So,
[44:03] um anyway, I don't know if we Do you to
[44:05] work that into the motion, or just be
[44:07] cognizant of the fact that if that this
[44:08] is just read to a layperson, that they
[44:10] don't really know why we're doing what
[44:11] we're doing.
[44:16] » Have any thoughts?
[44:19] Others?
[44:24] Thinking in the past we've
[44:27] had a letter, um we've had a motion to
[44:30] do this and then we
[44:32] drafted letter that provided
[44:35] basis for it.
[44:36] Um
[44:38] >> I think anything that can that context
[44:41] doesn't need to be in the motion, but if
[44:42] it's in the letter or other
[44:43] communication, I think that would be
[44:46] um valuable to just state the the why of
[44:49] it.
[44:51] >> Okay.
[44:52] So
[44:53] adequate, um and Craig?
[45:00] uh I think we lost Craig.
[45:03] >> Well, we're waiting for Craig to come
[45:04] back. But would it be Tim, do you think
[45:06] it would capture that if we just put
[45:08] Oh, there's Craig. Go ahead, Craig.
[45:10] >> I'm sorry. I didn't unmute myself. So,
[45:13] uh along with the why, it might be useful to put in if as long
[45:18] as you're monitoring things, what are
[45:20] your targets? What are what are these uh
[45:23] salinity and the nitrogen concentrations
[45:26] that you would like to see that would uh
[45:29] require the the the berm to be
[45:32] reconstructed as a block.
[45:35] You know, there's something something
[45:36] like that uh
[45:37] the additional anal- analysis might be
[45:40] required for that, but
[45:41] that would be something that I think
[45:43] would be helpful.
[45:45] >> If you just
[45:47] Okay.
[45:49] » So,
[45:50] one quick thought on this and it was
[45:52] kind of stated before, but I think we
[45:54] agreed that the results are not going to
[45:57] be monumental. We're going to get a
[45:59] limited amount of salt return or I mean
[46:02] inflow
[46:03] or flux from the north arm. And so I
[46:05] think like we're going to understand a
[46:06] little bit about the concentrations, but
[46:08] it's more about like figuring out what
[46:09] the salt mass is that comes back. And so
[46:12] to Tim's point, I think, you know, maybe
[46:14] discussing that, you know, we we're we
[46:16] become we become really efficient at
[46:19] exporting salt. But that's a limited
[46:22] salt return. So we have an opportunity
[46:23] right now as we're considering what the,
[46:26] you know, what may be future actions to
[46:29] raise the berm.
[46:30] You know, we we're we basically have an
[46:32] opportunity right now to import salt for
[46:34] a temporary time period that will
[46:36] prepare us for future modifications that
[46:38] might,
[46:39] you know,
[46:41] related to raising the berm or continued
[46:43] export of salts. But it's kind of like a
[46:46] rebalancing. And so I think just not
[46:48] knowing exactly where we're heading with
[46:49] it. Um knowing that this is we're just
[46:52] attempting to kind of rebalance that to
[46:53] allow us to have a little bit more of a
[46:54] buffer so we can continue with, you
[46:56] know, normal operations or, you know,
[46:58] additional modifications. And I think
[47:00] that could be done with the letter as
[47:01] well.
[47:03] » So does that
[47:05] I can draft a letter after this meeting
[47:07] and get it back out to everybody. And we
[47:09] have a meeting next week on the 25th.
[47:11] Um
[47:12] does that slow you down if if we were to
[47:15] vote and to approve this?
[47:17] >> Could we do without the meeting on the
[47:20] 25th if we do this?
[47:22] I'm just wondering if we need to turn
[47:23] around and have a meeting in in like a
[47:25] week. But this is going to be
[47:29] >> Um I guess the other agenda items were
[47:32] just talking about flows. We wanted to
[47:34] talk about the hydraulic modeling that
[47:37] Craig at Water Resources has been doing.
[47:40] And we also had some membership changes
[47:42] that we wanted to
[47:43] talk about.
[47:44] So
[47:46] I agree. There's We probably don't need
[47:48] another update on lake conditions this
[47:51] quickly. Um
[47:53] and I think like those were the three
[47:56] other agenda items we had in the agenda
[47:57] that
[47:58] we pushed off. All right.
[48:00] >> My My thought is if it's possible to
[48:02] just uh
[48:03] you know, prove base the letter off of
[48:06] the recommendation today
[48:07] and vote and then if anybody feels that
[48:09] the letter doesn't capture the
[48:10] recommendation, we can reconvene, but I
[48:13] think I would rather skip the 25th and
[48:15] just have a meeting when it's timely and
[48:17] we can go through the whole thing and
[48:18] just put that to the next agenda. Should
[48:21] have
[48:22] um discussion on what not.
[48:24] >> Yeah, Greg.
[48:25] >> Yeah, uh
[48:26] our presentation was going to be trying
[48:28] to promote leveling out the berm, but it
[48:30] sounds like that's going to be happening
[48:32] anyway.
[48:33] So, uh our presentation isn't that
[48:35] important.
[48:36] >> Um Greg, we we I would acknowledge the
[48:39] um I think we've
[48:40] and Eric will be involved in this as
[48:42] well, but we'll we'll work with Union
[48:43] Pacific to try to keep it as level and
[48:45] uniform as possible. I think it's going
[48:46] to be kind of based on, you know, what
[48:48] they can do with their equipment, but I
[48:49] think, you know, you talked with Eric
[48:51] from your division, I think he's going
[48:52] to be involved in this. And so he can uh
[48:55] hopefully help guide them or come up
[48:56] with some strategies to measure and make
[48:59] sure that stays uniform.
[49:04] » All right. Well, as one quick option, if
[49:06] I add the the phrase that as they see
[49:09] the Seliner Advisory Committee
[49:11] recognizes an opportunity
[49:13] short-term opportunity to measure the
[49:15] flux
[49:17] and with bi-directional flow.
[49:19] Period. The SAC recommends this.
[49:24] With that,
[49:25] I guess
[49:26] then do we need a letter?
[49:27] Or is a motion sufficient for the
[49:30] agencies or the nations?
[49:32] >> I think a motion is good enough for me,
[49:33] especially if we just draft it now. I
[49:35] don't think we need [clears throat] an
[49:35] official letter from the SAC.
[49:37] I think a motion we can just take that
[49:39] and run with it. I don't know, Jim, do
[49:41] you feel differently?
[49:45] » I still think we need to have that
[49:47] discussion.
[49:48] Um and maybe we should have a meeting
[49:49] soon to talk about what flexibilities we
[49:53] have.
[49:55] Again, it may not be it may be a moot
[49:57] point if we're not
[49:59] if it's not anticipated to change
[50:00] salinity that dramatically or that
[50:03] urgently
[50:04] to to to trigger anything, then it's you
[50:06] know
[50:08] it's probably not
[50:09] uh
[50:10] >> I think we
[50:11] see conjunction, right? Like they could
[50:13] be we could do this in tandem where we,
[50:15] you know, work on the berm modification
[50:16] then work through the, you know,
[50:18] whatever potential interpretations of
[50:21] you know, de minimis or rule changes or
[50:23] whatever else we need to do, but I think
[50:25] at the end of the day, you know,
[50:27] we'll we'll have to come to some
[50:29] I guess get comfortable with the idea
[50:31] that like the rule's not going to be
[50:32] changed today. So, we ought to operate
[50:34] under the current rule and if, you know,
[50:36] Joe if you don't like where it's at, you
[50:38] know, your vote could reflect that and
[50:39] we could, you know, we'll we'll
[50:40] definitely consider that. I think it's
[50:41] part of the conversation, but I think
[50:43] the, you know, the end of the day as
[50:44] well like I think solidity target
[50:47] projections were like 147, am
[50:50] >> I correct Christine? 147 ish?
[50:52] >> That was actually for the scenario where
[50:54] we take the berm out. So, just as is no
[50:57] berm modifications are 140.
[50:58] >> 140, but if we take the berm out with
[51:01] the modification we're coming out close
[51:02] to 150, but we're maybe not even
[51:05] we may not even exceed 150. So, we don't
[51:07] know that we're going to exceed it by
[51:09] doing this action. We're talking 7 g per
[51:11] meter based on projections. We all know
[51:13] that that's not perfect like there's
[51:14] other things can happen. Evaporation can
[51:17] increase. We don't know when we'll have
[51:18] to raise the berm if we have to etc. But
[51:22] the idea of being that like immediately
[51:24] as we hit the low, we're likely going to
[51:27] start dropping on salinity based off of
[51:28] inflows of Bear River. So, it's going to
[51:30] be likely be temporary and it's also to
[51:32] prepare us for the continued export of
[51:34] salt to the North Arc. So, it's really
[51:36] kind of trying to, you know, keep the
[51:37] model the machine running and keeping
[51:39] everything you know, well balanced. So,
[51:42] again, I I think we operate under that
[51:44] status, but Jim, I guess my question was
[51:46] more about like, you know, do you need a
[51:48] letter from the salinity committee for
[51:49] your division to take a recommendation
[51:51] cuz usually they recommend it back to
[51:53] our division and your division and I
[51:55] think for our purpose
[51:56] if we were to write this now and it's
[51:59] just simply uh you know uh
[52:01] us taking this recommendation as
[52:03] drafted, that would be good enough for
[52:05] me. I don't need it to be re-stated on
[52:07] the letter. So, I'm wondering if that
[52:08] would be good enough for you as well.
[52:10] Then then we don't have to worry about
[52:11] voting on a letter later.
[52:13] >> Yeah. Uh yeah, I don't
[52:16] No, I know I know traditionally we have
[52:18] done letters, I think, but um
[52:21] you know, this is
[52:23] That's a I don't know. I don't have an
[52:25] answer to that question, to be honest.
[52:26] Um if it's good enough for you, I
[52:27] suppose it's sufficient as long as
[52:29] there's some
[52:31] communication to our division.
[52:33] >> Good enough for you too, I guess you're
[52:34] saying. [laughter]
[52:37] No, I That makes sense to me. I We can
[52:39] if we need to put it on a letterhead as
[52:41] stated, we could do that, right? Jeff,
[52:43] you could always do that and it'd just
[52:44] be as stated. We don't have to add
[52:46] anything to it. So,
[52:48] that that'd be fine as well if it's not
[52:51] >> So, I mean
[52:53] Hopefully you all can see it on the
[52:54] screen, but I just added the sentence
[52:56] the salinity committee recognizes a
[52:58] short-term opportunity to modify
[53:00] adaptive management berm in the new
[53:02] breach of the UP causeway to measure and
[53:06] better understand changes in salt and
[53:07] nitrogen flux due to bidirectional flow.
[53:11] The committee recommends that the berm
[53:13] should be lowered as soon as practical
[53:15] to a
[53:17] target near the original configuration
[53:19] and elevation of 41.83. It is intended
[53:22] that this modification is temporary and
[53:24] will enable close monitoring and
[53:25] evaluation of the water salt and
[53:27] nitrogen flux through the breach
[53:29] opening.
[53:30] Monitoring intensity should be increased
[53:32] during this period.
[53:38] I captured everything.
[53:40] >> [clears throat]
[53:40] >> I think that works for me.
[53:42] >> All right. Well, then I think um
[53:45] there isn't any more discussion on that.
[53:47] I think let's
[53:49] I guess I need somebody from the
[53:50] committee to make the motion.
[53:54] » So moved.
[53:55] >> Don, thank you. Second?
[53:58] Anybody like to second it?
[53:59] >> Second.
[54:01] >> Bill, great.
[54:02] Um so then I will just run through the list of
[54:08] committee members and you can vote
[54:10] yes or no.
[54:13] record um
[54:15] So Christine and Ryan, you are cannot
[54:18] vote
[54:19] as per USGS rules. So Bonnie and Baxter.
[54:26] >> I I vote yay.
[54:28] >> Um I guess Thomas isn't here, but Tim Hawks.
[54:33] >> Yes.
[54:35] >> Travis Feeney.
[54:37] >> No.
[54:39] >> Bill Johnson.
[54:40] >> Yes.
[54:43] >> Tom Loftus.
[54:44] >> Yes.
[54:45] >> Craig Miller.
[54:47] >> Yes.
[54:49] » And I think Andrew is not here, so
[54:51] Elliot is not here. Elliot, yes.
[54:54] And then
[54:57] Ryan or Travis.
[55:01] I think I saw a Travis Anderson on
[55:07] » Yes.
[55:09] >> Okay.
[55:11] And I think that is
[55:15] Yeah, so we have seven yes and one no.
[55:20] Um and so I think just with the the way
[55:23] we've operated in the past um Joe, if
[55:25] there's something you want to provide to
[55:27] the agencies as well
[55:32] to document your concern then then like
[55:34] consider that as well. Um
[55:36] but the motion carries and
[55:40] I will forward this motion
[55:42] to the DEQ and Porsche and say lands.
[55:48] Good. Great.
[55:50] So any So I guess path forward
[55:53] and that's
[55:56] » So I think once we get this
[55:57] recommendation we'll make a decision
[56:00] you know on the burn and then work with
[56:03] Union Pacific to get this going.
[56:05] And then I think we should probably I'd
[56:08] love to meet with you and Christina on
[56:11] what this monitoring looks like and
[56:13] figure out how we ramp that up based on
[56:16] this recommendation and then I I would
[56:18] also suggest we cancel the meeting next
[56:20] week and reschedule so we can
[56:24] do that when we have something more to
[56:26] report there.
[56:27] >> The next regularly scheduled meeting is
[56:29] August 27th and then after that it was
[56:32] October 22nd.
[56:33] >> Could we do one like the first week of
[56:34] August?
[56:36] Just cuz if we're our projections are
[56:38] showing that like mid to late August
[56:41] could be when we're approaching 41 idea
[56:43] I think it'd be good to kind of wrap up
[56:44] or ramp up
[56:47] you know after our ramp up monitoring
[56:48] kind of provide those results and make a
[56:50] decision then on
[56:51] whether or not when
[56:53] anything else should happen.
[56:55] >> Like Thursday the 6th. August 6th.
[56:58] >> You're planning your life out that far.
[57:01] I like certainly like that other part
[57:02] but I'm wondering do you think we could
[57:04] just do a dual
[57:05] for that rather than pair to schedule
[57:08] since there's only 1 minute left in our
[57:09] scheduled meeting.
[57:10] >> And then I guess the other thing is just
[57:12] that you and and DEQ talk about the
[57:17] >> Yeah and I
[57:18] Joe like as Jeff offered you know with
[57:20] your concern which we I think we all
[57:22] understand the concern. I think that'd
[57:24] be appropriate if you reached out and
[57:25] just asked to you know to discussion
[57:27] based on that to see what kind of you
[57:29] know flexibility or or how that gets
[57:31] covered and then we can take it from
[57:33] there and see what we can do in the
[57:34] interim, because it sounds like that is
[57:35] the the primary concern. So, okay.
[57:38] >> Yeah, sounds good. Sounds good, man.
[57:40] >> All right. Perfect.
[57:42] >> All right.
[57:43] So, we'll um Angela's going
[57:46] to pass out a doodle poll to schedule
[57:48] our next meeting. The intent is the
[57:49] first part of August. We're canceling
[57:52] next week's meeting, so we'll get that
[57:53] off everybody's calendar.
[57:55] And um
[57:58] I think with that Is there a motion to
[58:00] adjourn?
[58:02] >> Yes.
[58:03] >> Don.
[58:04] >> I'll pass. No motion to adjourn.
[58:06] >> Second.
[58:10] >> All right, thank Bonnie. All right, I
[58:11] think we'll adjourn. Thank you,
[58:13] everybody.