[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.

Great Salt Lake Salinity Advisory Committee Meeting 6/16/2026

Transcript