[0:00] And um so thank you all for coming. Um

[0:04] and great to see you all again.

[0:06] Hopefully your summers are going well.

[0:07] Um we've got a I think a I think a very

[0:11] interesting agenda um here just with

[0:14] we'll have our our typical updates.

[0:16] There's a lot lot to update lot that's

[0:18] happened so far this summer. Um and then

[0:22] uh Christine's been working hard and

[0:25] really trying to help us um

[0:28] understand you know what is happening

[0:30] there with flows through the breach and

[0:33] changes in the south arm. So um so she's

[0:37] going to review those things and and

[0:39] then I want to make sure that we talk

[0:42] through some of the members things at

[0:44] the end. Um and but [snorts] that's the agenda. Um, [clears throat]

[0:50] I'll get tapped in here shortly. Um, but

[0:54] I think the first thing that we had on

[0:56] our agenda was just we'll do an

[0:58] introductions. We'll just go around the

[0:59] table and and online and um, so I'm Jeff

[1:03] Bener with Jacob's Engineering.

[1:06] >> Christine Ramsey, USGS,

[1:08] >> Ryan Roland, USGS, Joe Compass, Greg

[1:11] Miller, water resources,

[1:15] >> Lindfredo friends of Great Salt Lake and

[1:17] Mrs. part

[1:19] [laughter]

[1:22] of Andrew Utah

[1:26] resources for state

[1:45] US officer. Hold

[1:48] your privacy.

[1:50] >> Andy Carlson US

[1:53] division water quality

[1:54] >> Vernon water resources

[1:57] >> Anderson salt.

[2:01] » All right. And then online I see Jake

[2:04] Alexander with forestry fire lands. Jess

[2:07] Stern with UGS. Um Justin Hipple and

[2:12] Kyle Stone. Leila Motti. Bill Brown, Rob

[2:17] Deuke,

[2:20] and Craig Miller. There

[2:22] >> I'm here, too. [laughter]

[2:25] >> He's everywhere.

[2:28] >> There's two of them.

[2:31] >> Wonder how many.

[2:34] [laughter]

[2:40] » All right. So, I I think the the first

[2:42] thing on our agenda is just um reviewing

[2:45] our um

[2:48] our meeting summary. And so, if you

[2:52] remember, we had a meeting in in May, I

[2:54] think May 27th, um which is our normal

[2:56] meeting, went through our normal agenda,

[2:59] and one of the things that came out of

[3:00] there were um some recommendations that

[3:03] we should consider modifications to the

[3:05] BM. Um then we met again in June um for

[3:09] an hour and out of that came a

[3:12] recommendation

[3:13] um to the to division of water quality

[3:16] and forestry fire and state lands to

[3:18] look into actually modifying the burn.

[3:21] Um, and so the summary I sent out this

[3:25] time was just for the um, the June

[3:27] meeting and wanted to just see if

[3:29] anybody had any comments um,

[3:33] that any they'd like to change or

[3:38] [clears throat] any gaps in it. And I

[3:39] guess if not take a entertain a motion

[3:42] to approve that summary.

[3:47] » So move

[3:50] Thomas.

[3:50] We have a second.

[3:52] >> Second,

[3:54] >> thank you, Joe.

[3:55] >> All right. All those in favor approving

[3:58] the summary say I.

[4:00] >> I.

[4:01] >> Any opposed?

[4:03] All right. It carries unanimously. Thank

[4:06] you. Um All right. Well, the next thing

[4:10] on our agenda is just an update on the

[4:12] lake.

[4:14] I don't know if Ryan

[4:15] >> Yeah, I'm sorry. You got to put it with

[4:16] me again. Um I think I start this off.

[4:19] Um Christine's reading the slides.

[4:23] [snorts]

[4:30] » Okay, we're gonna jump in. Go ahead.

[4:32] We'll just jump right in.

[4:33] >> Great.

[4:35] >> There's our disclaimer. Um this is

[4:38] important. There's a lot of provisional

[4:39] data. There's a lot of assumptions that

[4:41] we uh are open with. So, um keep that in

[4:44] mind. Here's our official disclaimer.

[4:47] All right. Let's just start off with

[4:48] what you guys already all know. I'm

[4:50] hoping you guys are always looking at

[4:52] the great salt lake hydro mapper or

[4:54] looking at our data through the national

[4:56] water dashboard etc. South arm great

[4:58] salt lake elevations [clears throat] I'm

[5:00] showing data from October 1st 2021 in

[5:03] the current period. Uh the period of

[5:05] record low is 4188.5 set in uh 2022.

[5:10] Um the most recent data here at the end

[5:13] of the plot, the daily value on August

[5:15] 5th came in at 4190.6.

[5:19] That's down 1.7 feet [clears throat]

[5:21] since the seasonal high that was not

[5:23] influenced by the sesh. That little blue

[5:26] peak right there is a was a sesh event.

[5:29] Okay, I'm not counting that. So we're [clears throat] we're saying the

[5:33] seasonal high was um about 310 of a feet

[5:37] lower. Um, and so the bottom line is

[5:40] since that seasonal peak, the lake is

[5:41] down about 1.7 ft. All right. Um, this

[5:46] puts us 2.1 ft above the period of

[5:49] record low. All right. So, something to keep in mind going forward as we

[5:55] anticipate, you know, snowpack,

[5:57] [clears throat] you know, next season's

[5:59] evaporation, etc. All right. Similarly,

[6:02] for the north arm, the daily value

[6:04] computed for August 4th came in at

[6:06] 4190.2.

[6:08] That's down about 1.4 ft since the

[6:11] seasonal peak,

[6:13] this guy back here. Um, and that's 1.7

[6:16] ft above the period of record low, which

[6:18] is also 4188.5.

[6:21] Both the north and south have the same

[6:23] period of record low. Okay, so that's

[6:26] the lake elevation data. Now, let's get

[6:28] into major surface water inflow at our

[6:30] on our stream gauges.

[6:32] >> [clears throat]

[6:32] >> First I just want to remark that these

[6:34] cumulative flow hydrographs are coming

[6:37] from a relatively new USGS software

[6:40] package called high swap. That's the

[6:42] hydraologic surface water analysis

[6:44] package. [clears throat] This is a a

[6:46] package of Python code that helps you

[6:48] visualize USGS data publicly available.

[6:52] Just Google it and you'll find it.

[6:54] That's what was used to make these

[6:55] plots. So here we have a plot of

[6:56] cumulative discharge in acre feet.

[6:59] [clears throat]

[7:00] Y axis is or the excuse me the Y axis is

[7:03] in acre feet. It's a linear

[7:05] [clears throat] axis and the X axis is a

[7:07] water year. The bold black line is the

[7:09] current water year. Uh this top dash

[7:12] line is the highest ever measured

[7:14] cumulative flow for this site. That was

[7:16] in 1984.

[7:18] Uh small dash line at the bottom. Lowest

[7:20] measured cumulative flow 1992. And then

[7:23] the green shaded zone is the 25th to

[7:26] 75th percentile range. And so the the

[7:29] middle of that green zone would be the

[7:31] right the 50th percentile. Um, as

[7:34] [clears throat] of August a couple of

[7:36] days ago, the total volume of water

[7:38] passing this gauge was at 541,000 acre

[7:41] feet plus or minus a little bit. Next

[7:44] slide or hit the next button. Exact same

[7:48] format plot. This is for the Weaver

[7:50] River near Plane City. Um, and first of

[7:53] all note where the black line is

[7:56] relative to those benchmarks. So at this

[7:58] site we're we're hugging the the lowest

[8:01] uh measured cumulative flow. Currently

[8:03] we're at 54,000 acre feet of the Weber

[8:06] River near Plane City. All right, next

[8:09] slide or next plot. Dog and drain. I

[8:13] made a huge error on this guy last time

[8:16] we met. I had added a zero to this total

[8:19] here. You might remember some very

[8:21] surprised faces in there. You guys knew

[8:23] I was wrong. you were just being nice to

[8:25] me for not saying, "Hey, you're there's

[8:27] something really wrong." Yes, I made a

[8:29] mistake. I apologize. Um anyway, as of

[8:32] early August, the total volume of water

[8:34] passing this gauge is 46, uh 882

[8:38] um acre feet and you know, we're we're

[8:41] just below the the 25th percentile. And

[8:44] then the Farmington Bay outflow gauge,

[8:46] same [clears throat] format plot

[8:48] currently, or at least as of July 29th.

[8:51] There's some more recent data um that

[8:53] are incomplete, some rating things we're

[8:55] trying to tweak. So we we only have

[8:57] daily values up to July 29 to compute

[8:59] that bold black line, but close enough

[9:01] to the current period, it's about

[9:03] 195,000 aces

[9:07] within this 25th to 75th percentile

[9:10] range. Um, if you add [clears throat]

[9:12] all these numbers up,

[9:14] uh, and also to put this in perspective

[9:17] with the historic data, um, I have this

[9:19] bar chart. So, here's the current water

[9:22] year, 2026. If you add up those

[9:24] cumulative flows for all those gauges,

[9:26] we're at about 837,000

[9:28] acre feet.

[9:30] But I have the previous water years here

[9:33] going back to 2014 on this bar chart.

[9:36] All right. So last water year 2025 we

[9:39] had uh 1,161,000

[9:42] acre feet. I'm rounding as you can tell.

[9:44] Uh 2024

[9:46] 2,100,000 acre feet. 2025 2.3 million

[9:51] acre feet and so on. But you can see

[9:54] currently um we are above 2021 or 2022

[9:58] um which were really really bad years.

[10:01] Um, but anyway, this plot gives you a

[10:03] nice perspective on what the total line

[10:05] of flows look like at these gauges back

[10:08] to 2014. Are there any questions?

[10:11] >> Very cool.

[10:13] >> Yeah. Um, okay. And then, um, we'll wrap

[10:17] up my little segment here before we do a

[10:19] little more a little later in the

[10:20] meeting, but just recent discharge

[10:22] measurements at the Great Salt Lake

[10:23] Bridge at Lakeside. So, this is the Far

[10:25] West. This is not the new breach. Uh

[10:28] basically we've had zero flows at this

[10:30] site since uh April. Um and that's

[10:33] indicated with this flat line here at

[10:35] the zero mark on uh the cubic foot per

[10:38] second scale on the y axis there. This

[10:40] is showing data from October 1st to the

[10:42] current period. So basically we're high

[10:44] and dry at the site right now. And we'll

[10:46] have more as proof of the agenda.

[10:50] >> Okay. Quick update on salinities. We

[10:53] actually the last set of samples we got

[10:56] was in view. So, I'm going to show those

[10:58] real fast and then I'll show you some

[10:59] updated salinities from other locations.

[11:02] But from our um Southarm monitoring

[11:05] network, as of June 22nd, 2026, the

[11:08] salinities ranged from 122 to 124 grams

[11:12] per liter. Um that's up about four or

[11:14] five since our seasonal low in April.

[11:18] And uh the water column is pretty well

[11:20] mixed at this point. Our more recent

[11:23] salinities we have uh from the new

[11:25] breach. We measured salinity yesterday

[11:27] and we're getting 131 gram per liter. So

[11:29] that's kind of what we're seeing uh at

[11:32] the brereech north to south flow which

[11:34] we are seeing now is 273 grams per

[11:36] liter. And then we also got a

[11:38] measurement from saltier our where the

[11:41] lake elevation gauge is for the south

[11:42] arm that was also 131 gram per liter. of

[11:45] that based on those if we assume those

[11:47] are representative of the south arm

[11:49] which this time of year is pretty good

[11:50] assumption um we're up 13 grams per

[11:53] liter since April and actually I'll use

[11:56] those August measurements for the fall

[11:59] and uh spring predictions just because

[12:02] it's I would rather rely on our more

[12:04] recent measurement rather than trying to

[12:06] estimate from June forward. So just just

[12:09] to give you a little info on that um the

[12:12] volume weighted methodology requires

[12:14] measurements from our four sites from

[12:17] where GU collects samples. So um the

[12:20] most recent volume weighted salinity

[12:21] estimate we have is from June 22nd and

[12:24] that is 123 grams per liter for the

[12:27] upper bion layer volume weighted and the

[12:29] full depth. But Gle did go out

[12:31] yesterday. So we have a new fresh set of

[12:33] samples and we're working on getting

[12:35] those salinities uh measured right away.

[12:37] So I can send out an updated volume

[12:40] weighted salinity probably later today

[12:42] or tomorrow for everybody.

[12:46] Looking at our salt south arm salt mass

[12:48] trend. So this is from 2022 to the

[12:51] present. Southarm salt mass is in

[12:54] millions of tons on the y- axis. And our

[12:57] most recent again measurement which we

[13:00] uh I used the um the G slept sample set

[13:04] from June 2nd was 856 million tons as of

[13:08] June 22nd. You can see you can see we're

[13:11] kind of still following that that same

[13:14] trend of uh decreasing 27 million tons

[13:18] per year roughly. If we look at uh those

[13:21] values in the context of elevation and

[13:24] mass, you can kind of see where we fit

[13:26] as of June 22nd 123 856 million tons and

[13:30] we were sitting at 4191.4 at that point

[13:33] kind of clustered right around um this

[13:35] black dot cluster. If I just put on our

[13:38] August 4th measurement from those two

[13:41] locations again salinities are 131 gram

[13:44] per liter 864 million tons. If I

[13:47] extrapolate that concentration across

[13:49] the volume of the south arm at that

[13:51] time, which the lake was at 4190.6.

[13:54] So I think that's our best estimate of

[13:56] what current conditions are right about

[13:58] now. I'm sitting at 131 grams per liter.

[14:02] >> Okay. And I think that's our first

[14:05] segment, the end of our first segment.

[14:07] Great.

[14:08] >> Thank you.

[14:09] >> Unless there's any questions.

[14:14] » Well, great. Well, Ben, could you you're

[14:17] next on the agenda. Just an update on

[14:19] the Burm that's been going on there.

[14:21] >> Well, we lowered the recommendation of

[14:24] the committee. I want to give a shout

[14:27] out to water resources for helping uh

[14:29] with construction

[14:32] uh oversight. So, Eric and BJ did a

[14:35] great job making that happen. And then

[14:38] also to Union Pacific, they also

[14:40] volunteered their time and labor and

[14:42] everything to the gym. So that was

[14:44] awesome. We were able to get that done

[14:45] within days of asking them. So [cough]

[14:49] everything [clears throat] went as

[14:50] planned. I think they got it down to the

[14:52] elevation 4183 as uniform as possible

[14:56] for Craig's request. I guess we'll have

[14:57] to see if uh surveys represent that, but

[15:02] we tried to get it down to a nice

[15:03] uniform elevation. And right now it's

[15:07] Yeah, it's open. We're looking forward

[15:08] to understanding, you know, what type of

[15:10] flows we're seeing through that and

[15:11] reconvening as we get more information,

[15:14] but we did work with USGS to increase

[15:17] monitoring. So, I think that's also well

[15:18] underway so we can keep tabs under the

[15:21] on this. That's all I have anybody has

[15:25] questions about it. So, building the BM

[15:28] seemed pretty easy for the railroad.

[15:31] This seemed like it would be more

[15:33] difficult. Did they say anything about

[15:35] how

[15:35] >> I think they were pretty good. I mean,

[15:37] um, they got it done in like two days,

[15:39] so I think it was pretty simple for

[15:41] them. So, I expected it might be a

[15:44] little more challenging to to get down,

[15:46] but they

[15:48] >> awesome.

[15:48] >> We do have one slight issue, which is uh

[15:53] there's a there was a cation order of

[15:55] their quarry based on some requirements

[15:58] that need to be met. So, if we end up

[16:02] needing to raise the B again, we're

[16:04] going to have to probably source some

[16:05] rock. figure that out. But we're trying

[16:08] to work through that and [clears throat]

[16:09] figure out what can be done or how we

[16:11] can help on that. But

[16:13] >> strong

[16:15] pit

[16:16] >> uh [clears throat]

[16:19] strong is is just about a mile away from

[16:22] Lakewood.

[16:26] » Nice. Yeah, I don't think it's

[16:28] insurmountable. I think just ends up not

[16:30] being free, which we've been pretty

[16:31] accustomed to lately and that's pretty

[16:33] nice.

[16:34] allows us to invest into other

[16:36] activities. So

[16:39] anyway, that's all I have for

[16:41] >> Okay, any questions?

[16:43] >> Maybe you can give them some cookies.

[16:46] >> I didn't like that. I think the first

[16:48] time we took them to to cook dinner. So,

[16:52] >> I was amazed when like, oh my goodness,

[16:54] you got it. It's done.

[16:55] >> Yeah, that included everything. The

[16:57] making sure everybody needed to know

[16:59] knew and all of the other pieces. So

[17:02] there's a lot of work in between a lot

[17:04] of help from water resources and

[17:08] [snorts]

[17:09] >> what you said you said the the sesh

[17:12] thing

[17:13] >> would you kind of help me understand

[17:16] um uni Pacific is concerned about that

[17:19] at a certain level help me

[17:22] >> well I mean as I don't know what

[17:25] conversation you're referring to but I

[17:26] think in general these sessions have

[17:28] been known to take out rail cars if they

[17:30] don't protect the costway proply so

[17:32] they're constantly like rebuilding rock

[17:35] walls or stabilizing them and keeping

[17:37] the railroad from sinking.

[17:38] >> But in our case the you know I think we

[17:42] all agree that a session is what took

[17:44] out the burm the first time it lowered

[17:46] and made its own v notch and then

[17:48] subsequent lowering of that has been

[17:50] through just erosion based on like

[17:52] didn't have all the protective rod would

[17:54] have been in there. So now uh you know

[17:56] one of the things that we're considering

[17:58] and discussing is you know one through

[18:00] the Jacob's proposal when we asked about

[18:02] like a more intelligent structure that

[18:04] could you know go up and down from the

[18:06] bottom and all the things and we realize

[18:08] that's going to be really expensive. But

[18:09] one thing that did come with that is the

[18:11] geotech was the big question mark on

[18:13] that. But we could probably learn a lot

[18:15] about what's necessary for the

[18:17] geotechnical um you know stabilization

[18:20] of that and what what support structure

[18:22] um just by simply uh starting that

[18:25] project by doing a component of putting

[18:26] in like jetties uh in front of the burm

[18:29] and I think that even if we stuck with a

[18:31] rockill structure uh those jetties would

[18:34] protect from siches and make it so we're

[18:36] more um I guess diligent or intentional

[18:40] about lowering the burm and not just

[18:41] letting session should, you know, catch

[18:44] us on, you know, flat fling

[18:46] it by accident. This time it worked out

[18:48] great. We've got a great lucky track

[18:51] record on the B, but we want to be more

[18:53] intentional for the future.

[18:55] >> Thank you.

[18:56] >> Yeah.

[18:58] >> Great. And then do you have any other

[19:00] updates?

[19:01] >> Um, no, nothing too crazy. I think just

[19:03] maybe an update on the CMP. We're going

[19:06] to incorporate, you know, salinity

[19:08] management that we've discussed here as

[19:10] a group into that. But one of the things

[19:12] that we're doing in our CMP and

[19:14] hopefully everybody's heard this like a

[19:16] hundred times is we're kind of

[19:17] segregating out these, you know,

[19:19] management activities from the CMP. So

[19:21] the CMP is really how we make decisions

[19:23] when someone's asking to use sovereign

[19:25] lands. And then because we don't want

[19:26] these things to get, you know, dried up

[19:28] and dusted sitting on a shelf over 10

[19:30] years, we're taking the like day-to-day

[19:32] management, the information, the kind of

[19:35] book report aspect of our old CMPS and

[19:37] putting that on our website um and

[19:39] making an interactive, you know, here's

[19:41] the lake level, here's the salinity,

[19:44] here are the things that we're doing

[19:45] today. It doesn't really makeision.

[19:49] It's just more about transparency for

[19:51] the public so people can see like what

[19:52] we're doing and then as we learn new

[19:54] information or like you know develop

[19:56] protocols for like the firm or

[19:57] management of that we don't have to wait

[20:00] 10 years before we can tell people how

[20:01] we're doing that we can update the

[20:03] website immediately and show people how

[20:05] that works. So we're really excited

[20:07] about that. I think it'll have a there

[20:08] will be a lot of the work that we've

[20:10] done as a committee that shows up you

[20:12] know there there will also be a lot of

[20:14] other agency partner information. We'll

[20:15] try to filter people to the appropriate

[20:17] places so they can go to the right spot

[20:19] to get the information so we're not

[20:21] having to retell any of your stories and

[20:23] we can direct people to the the right

[20:24] spots. So that's probably the the

[20:27] biggest thing there and I don't think we

[20:30] have much else to update.

[20:32] >> You know anybody has specific questions?

[20:34] >> One of the u the ideas that Envision

[20:38] Utah is incorporating in the VIP is for

[20:40] these various scenarios an if then

[20:43] >> kind of thing. And it I think it helps

[20:45] the public understand that if we don't

[20:48] do something then this could be the

[20:50] outcome.

[20:51] >> Sure.

[20:51] >> If we do do something in a timely manner

[20:54] then this is what the benefit of that

[20:56] management decision gives.

[20:58] >> So I don't know.

[21:00] >> That's great. I think we can try to

[21:01] consider that. We have you know kind of

[21:05] a limited amount of funding and time to

[21:07] finish this. It's already gone a little

[21:09] longer than than more expensive than we

[21:12] would like. But um I think those are the

[21:14] kinds of things that you know given the

[21:15] fact that we're taking that component

[21:17] out of the plan. We don't have to wait

[21:19] 10 years to do that. We can work on that

[21:20] now [clears throat]

[21:21] >> and develop that tool out. So you know

[21:24] division or someone else is doing that.

[21:25] This is that's the beauty of segregating

[21:27] these things is we can be more. Um, one

[21:29] thing I actually did just think of that

[21:31] I would like to update on that may be

[21:33] something we need to discuss later is,

[21:34] you know, we are working through the New

[21:37] Ballet Basin project. That's something

[21:38] that's still chugging forward and we're

[21:40] trying to convene all of our agency

[21:41] partners to, you know, help and work

[21:43] through, you know, collecting data and

[21:45] making sure that's a good project. That

[21:48] will likely have some solidity impacts,

[21:50] you know, based on what comes back to

[21:51] the lake and also, you know, any water

[21:54] source we get is going to change these,

[21:56] you know, dynamics and it's going to

[21:57] increase the need to to measure. And I

[21:58] think we're going to, you know, work

[22:00] with USGS and others to make sure that

[22:01] we're measuring inflows and chemistry of

[22:04] water that comes out of that. And then,

[22:06] uh, and then the other one is, uh, you

[22:09] know, our purchase of the US Magnesium

[22:11] facility. We also have all of the water

[22:14] that gets stopped in Stanbury Bay that

[22:17] we think will, you know, amount to a

[22:21] pretty significant amount of water, but

[22:23] also there's a ton of accumulated salts

[22:25] in Stanbury Bay. And so we're working

[22:27] through different angles to figure out

[22:29] just exactly how this will work out, how

[22:31] we could potentially return water that

[22:32] would otherwise make it through Stanbury

[22:34] Bay to get to Gritzell Lake. Um we did

[22:37] get I think it's finished. Well, I guess

[22:39] we'll see. It's we don't have it till

[22:40] the checks in our hand, but I think

[22:41] we've got a $4.5 million appropriation

[22:44] from Congress to uh implement this

[22:47] project. So, we're hoping that we can

[22:50] start to do some of this work and and

[22:52] get, you know, find another source of

[22:54] water that doesn't have intermediable

[22:57] break. So, it would lots of cool stuff

[23:00] happen out there.

[23:03] >> Yeah, there's a lot going on.

[23:04] >> Yeah.

[23:06] >> And then Jim from DW updates any

[23:09] updates? Uh no nothing [clears throat]

[23:12] different uh than you know just to

[23:13] reiterate there were some questions

[23:15] about our rule and how this would apply

[23:18] um with increasing salinity and um just

[23:22] I'm not sure exactly what I informed

[23:24] this group on but um we did have some

[23:26] conversations [clears throat]

[23:28] and uh you know our rule is kind of what

[23:31] it is if if the lake does reach 150

[23:33] there is a um you know a limit to um

[23:37] allowing additional discharges to the

[23:40] So, um, you know, it's our hope is that,

[23:43] you know, management is careful not to

[23:46] do that so that we're not put in that

[23:47] position. Um, but, uh, other than

[23:50] flexibilities, there really aren't any,

[23:53] um, with the exception of some of the

[23:56] built-in um, offramps for dimminimous

[23:59] discharges. So, if there's any questions

[24:02] about that.

[24:06] » Any questions for them? Um,

[24:11] if not, I think we can move on to

[24:14] proceeding.

[24:15] >> Cool.

[24:16] >> Ryan's gonna give us the lowdown on

[24:18] recent

[24:20] monitoring, recent observations since

[24:22] the BM has been forwarded.

[24:31] All

[24:34] » [clears throat]

[24:38] » right, this is what we've all been

[24:40] waiting for. So, um, next slide, please.

[24:43] All right, before we get into the data,

[24:45] let's just review um, uh, the setup at

[24:48] the at the new brereech. Okay, so we

[24:51] have the south side of the lake. This is

[24:53] the causeway bridge here. So, we're

[24:54] looking at a cross-section, the bridge

[24:56] deck, south side of the lake on the left

[24:59] side, right, north side of the lake to

[25:01] the right. Um, [clears throat] we're

[25:03] indicating the lake bottom with this

[25:05] brown color. Um, and the burm is

[25:07] indicated here, uh, on the north side of

[25:10] the bridge. And then we have an

[25:12] uplooking acoustic Doppler um current

[25:15] profiler um mounted to an anchor and

[25:19] it's measuring velocities at 10

[25:21] different cells or 10 depths throughout

[25:23] the water column. So cell one is close

[25:26] to the bottom and cell 10 is is the

[25:29] shallowest depth. Keep that in mind as

[25:31] we as we look at data um going forward.

[25:34] So the cell width, so [snorts] this it's

[25:37] measuring velocities in the center of

[25:39] these cells and the width of each cell

[25:41] is 1.3 ft. We're making measurements um

[25:45] calculating measurements every 15

[25:46] minutes and there's a five minute

[25:48] averaging interval and these data are

[25:50] available to you via uh the natural

[25:52] water dashboard. Um it's updated about

[25:55] hourly um uh there. Uh so the station

[25:59] number associated with that data is 100

[26:02] 125.

[26:04] Okay. So, just kind of keep this um

[26:06] schematic in mind and we all know that

[26:08] we have south to north flow um

[26:10] overalking the uh north to south flow.

[26:14] So, everybody's clear on that. All

[26:15] right, let's let's move into um data

[26:19] from that uplooking velocity meter. So,

[26:21] on [clears throat] the y- axis we have

[26:22] velocity and feet per second. Here's the

[26:25] zero mark. This is 3 feet per second at

[26:27] the top. It's negative five feet per

[26:28] second at the bottom of the plot. and

[26:30] we're showing data from July 2000 uh or

[26:34] excuse me July 9th uh [clears throat]

[26:37] 2026 through the through the current

[26:39] period and I've indicated where you see

[26:42] a big difference in the data leading

[26:44] into the burn modification. So prior to

[26:47] burn modification you had the cells

[26:50] these [clears throat] cells in the in

[26:51] the positive territory above the zero

[26:54] mark uh on the plot these are the south

[26:57] and north flows. Okay, so those

[26:59] velocities are hug hugging around 0.5

[27:02] feet per second. [clears throat] The

[27:03] velocities that are measured closer to

[27:05] the bottom, they're hugging around the

[27:08] zero foot per second or slightly

[27:10] negative. Uh and then we modify the burn

[27:13] and it's completed sometime on the on

[27:15] the 16th. I think the burn modification

[27:18] complete. But anyway, you can we can

[27:20] even see when they started working on it

[27:21] in this data set, we see those shallower

[27:24] velocities jump up to over, you know,

[27:27] between one and two feet per second and

[27:29] we see some of these velocities that are

[27:31] measured closer to the bottom going to [clears throat] larger negative

[27:34] values around one foot. Okay, so the big

[27:38] picture with this data is that when we

[27:41] modified this BM when it was lowered in

[27:43] 4183,

[27:45] south to north velocities increased a

[27:46] little bit and north to south velocities

[27:50] increased a little bit. Okay. Well, that

[27:52] was the intent of this, right? Was to

[27:54] get more north to south water to the

[27:56] south of the of the lake. And we we see

[28:00] evidence that that is happening by these

[28:02] more negative north south velocities

[28:05] measured in those deeper cells. Does

[28:07] that make sense to everybody? Okay,

[28:10] that's observation one. [clears throat]

[28:13] Um observation two, we still see these

[28:16] big um

[28:19] spikes in this data that are happening

[28:20] periodically. So after burn modification

[28:24] the velocity response to wind events is

[28:26] still very evident in this data. These

[28:29] are the result of wind events causing in

[28:31] this case uh we had a wind event blowing

[28:35] um out of the north and all the and at

[28:38] some point the the dynamics of that at

[28:41] that causeway changed so that north arm

[28:43] water was all north arm water starting

[28:45] to move south and so all the velocities

[28:48] measured throughout [clears throat] the

[28:48] water column are dipping down into this

[28:51] negative territory. A negative velocity

[28:54] is a north south direction. Does that

[28:57] make sense? Okay. And we see many wind

[29:00] events impacting the data through this

[29:02] period, including a wind [clears throat]

[29:04] event um that was pushing uh water into

[29:07] very positive velocities

[29:09] uh south and north flows. So almost

[29:11] uniform flows south to north. Um so

[29:16] the entire water column then starts to

[29:18] shift um and blows uh to the south from

[29:21] the north to the south in an event like

[29:23] this. And it's just vice versa on an

[29:25] event like this. Does that make sense?

[29:28] Okay, we saw these wind events impacting

[29:31] the velocity [clears throat]

[29:32] data set here previously. So, we still

[29:35] see that.

[29:37] Next slide. All right. Now, let's just

[29:40] zoom in on um a two-day period in that

[29:44] data set. So from July 18th to July 20th

[29:48] and let's take a really close look at

[29:51] the complex nature of these uh velocity

[29:55] measurements throughout the water

[29:56] column. So these uh numbers well first

[29:59] of all the zero velocity line is

[30:01] indicated with the bold black line.

[30:03] Anything above is a positive velocity

[30:06] south to north. Anything below is a

[30:08] negative velocity north south. All

[30:11] right. Um the blue line in indicated

[30:15] with the number one here that's that

[30:17] first cell measured by that uplooker.

[30:19] That's the deepest cell that we measure.

[30:23] So that velocity at that blue line or

[30:26] represented by the blue line is hugging

[30:28] is close to this zero um mark zero line

[30:32] on this plot. Now working our way up the

[30:34] water column [clears throat] as we step

[30:37] up um into uh the next layer of water.

[30:41] uh above layer 1, the velocities are

[30:44] slightly more negative. So that water is

[30:47] moving a little bit faster

[30:49] uh heading to in the north direction. As

[30:52] we go further up, the water velocities

[30:56] heading in the north direction are even

[30:57] stronger, higher velocities.

[31:00] Okay, so close to the uplooker, the

[31:03] north to south velocities are slow and

[31:05] as we work our way up, those north south

[31:06] velocities start to pick up. All right,

[31:11] here's cell four. So, [clears throat]

[31:13] working our way up the water column.

[31:14] Still in the negative territory here.

[31:17] Pretty strong negative velocities at

[31:18] time, but pretty big fluctuation. This

[31:21] is four up here and this is four down

[31:23] there. We're starting to get into the

[31:25] transitions though where we're getting

[31:28] out of just that north highly brine

[31:31] water and we're working our way up the

[31:32] water column into the south water. So by

[31:35] the time we get to cell five, it's way

[31:38] above the zero line and it can

[31:40] [clears throat] come significantly below

[31:41] the zero line. So we're in that

[31:43] transition zone, okay? Where the north

[31:46] to south water, you know, it's just

[31:48] cruising over each other. But this cell

[31:50] five, four, and five, mostly five in

[31:53] that transition zone. That's at about

[31:55] 4185,

[31:57] by the way, in terms of the the data,

[32:01] the Great Salt Lake elevation data that

[32:03] we're all familiar with. Now we work our

[32:05] way up the water column. Cell six, uh,

[32:07] these are strongly positive velocities.

[32:09] That's 08 feet per second. And then, you

[32:13] know, uh, cell,

[32:16] uh, stronger velocity still. Cell nine

[32:19] or eight, stronger velocity. And then as

[32:22] we get close to the top of the lake

[32:26] where we're measuring velocities, cell 9

[32:28] and 10, the velocities are actually a

[32:29] little bit a little bit lower, at least

[32:31] in this little slice we're talking about

[32:34] right here. The point here is it's a

[32:36] complex velocity profile. Um, but in

[32:42] general, we're uh accomplishing what we

[32:45] wanted to accomplish with with this uh

[32:47] BM obation. We're seeing stronger

[32:49] velocities in the north south direction.

[32:52] Pulse burner modification.

[32:54] >> Question.

[32:55] >> What was the elevation difference

[32:56] between each of those different

[32:58] profiles? You say

[32:59] >> 1.3 ft. Well, 1.3 ft is the cell width.

[33:03] Yeah, it's 1.3 ft distance between them.

[33:06] >> Yeah.

[33:07] So where So just

[33:10] to make sure I'm understanding the those

[33:13] one, two, three, and four would be

[33:15] representative of like five feet of

[33:17] north to south flows.

[33:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's at that's at

[33:22] depth.

[33:23] >> Yep.

[33:23] >> And we only had during this time period,

[33:25] we only had like less than half of a

[33:27] foot of difference.

[33:29] >> Less than a half a foot between that

[33:31] difference north and south.

[33:33] >> Yeah. I haven't looked into that in

[33:35] detail. So It's just it's interesting

[33:38] because I think one of the things that

[33:39] we were working off of back when we were

[33:42] looking at like you know how when we can

[33:44] see north to south flows is like you

[33:47] know this much of a head difference you

[33:48] can see that north to south flow. It's

[33:50] just interesting that we're seeing you

[33:52] know such an increase in that flow at

[33:55] those lower depths. I don't know if that

[33:57] matters or maybe the difference in head

[33:59] difference is what drives that but I

[34:01] think you know before when we were

[34:02] looking at things like you know siphons

[34:04] or you know other ways to do that I I

[34:06] recall that maybe there [snorts] was

[34:07] like a two or three feet of difference

[34:10] that could be

[34:12] worked into that but maybe I'm not

[34:13] thinking of that the right way. I I

[34:16] think right around 12 to 16 inches is

[34:20] kind of the if we're below that we see

[34:24] much more north water coming down. Um

[34:28] and so I think where we are with that 6

[34:30] in differential is probably the the most

[34:35] north to south flow that we see.

[34:38] >> Um

[34:39] because now the density is much more

[34:42] important. We don't have enough head

[34:44] differential to push water north, but

[34:47] you get more differential now that south

[34:49] to north becomes more important.

[34:54] [clears throat]

[34:56] >> Okay. Well, uh these these uplookers,

[34:58] this technology is it's been around a

[35:00] while and I still I find it very

[35:02] remarkable technology and um so this gives us some pretty precise uh

[35:08] information on on what's happening with

[35:09] the flow dynamics. You know, I one one

[35:12] uh thing to keep in mind that cell one.

[35:16] So, we have the uplooker. It's sitting

[35:18] on an anchor that's about a foot thick.

[35:21] And then there's the uplooker sitting on

[35:23] top of the anchor. And then there's a

[35:24] blanking distance where the the uplooker

[35:27] can't measure velocity. There's some

[35:28] distance right above the sensor where it

[35:30] can't measure velocity. And then we hit

[35:32] cell one. So, we've had a distance of

[35:38] from here. Yeah, this blanks space, you

[35:41] know, from the blue up to uh the number

[35:44] one, that's a blanking distance where we

[35:46] don't have data. Um, let's go back to

[35:50] the velocity slide. But even with that,

[35:54] we know that that cell one that where we

[35:56] are getting data, which is can be almost

[35:58] like potentially three feet above the

[36:00] bottom, those velocities in cell one are

[36:03] really low, really low. But we have a

[36:07] lot of uncertainty. what happens below

[36:08] cell one because we see these really

[36:10] velocity really low velocities in cell

[36:13] one. Um we think that water right now is not moving quickly. It's almost like

[36:21] there's a um the water's coming over the modified BM and just kind of

[36:26] shooting through represented by these

[36:30] Let's go to the velocity slide.

[36:33] represented by these higher velocities

[36:35] here.

[36:37] But the water um that's deeper than

[36:39] cells three and four is relatively

[36:42] quiet. Does that make sense?

[36:45] >> Yeah. So in that um kind of redder area

[36:47] right at the bottom, Mike Freeman is his

[36:50] observations are that that's relative

[36:52] like a stagnant pool and it's actually

[36:54] advantageous that we have our instrument

[36:56] where it is because just that's pretty

[36:58] quiet water right there.

[37:06] Okay. Um next slide. All right. So,

[37:09] let's look at the actual field

[37:10] measurements of discharge that we're

[37:12] making with the downlooking ABC mounted

[37:14] to a little boat that we can tow across.

[37:17] Um, so we have discharge in cubic feet

[37:20] per second on the y- axis going from

[37:23] about 300 cfs at the bottom to 900 cfs

[37:25] at the top showing data from October

[37:27] 1st, 2025 out [clears throat] to

[37:29] yesterday. So, these are field

[37:31] measurements of south to north flow

[37:33] shown on this plot. Um let's

[37:35] [clears throat] just kind of get over

[37:37] here to the right side of the plot where

[37:38] all the action is. Um the measurement

[37:41] made on July 10th just before the burm

[37:43] was lowered. So this is indicated of

[37:45] July 16th right when the burm was

[37:49] lowered. So that measurement just prior

[37:51] to that event was 500 cfs. July 17th the

[37:55] day after the burn modification was

[37:57] completed uh we measured 376 cfs. July

[38:03] 24th back up to 928 cfs, but there was a

[38:06] south to north wind event. So water's

[38:09] pushing or wind is pushing water from

[38:10] the south to the north. Uh causing a

[38:13] higher discharge on that day, August

[38:15] 5th, couple days ago, very quiet

[38:19] conditions. Um or was that yesterday?

[38:21] Thank you. Yesterday, quiet conditions,

[38:24] the discharge measurement came in at 542

[38:27] cfs. So, just kind of looking at these

[38:30] versus these,

[38:32] not a not a huge dramatic change. Um,

[38:35] you know, just kind of order of

[38:36] magnitude. Uh, but right now we're about

[38:40] 540 CFS just as of yesterday. South to

[38:44] north. Next.

[38:47] All right. North to south. Um, same uh

[38:51] axes definitions.

[38:53] um other than the this is a zero at the

[38:56] bottom and this is 200 CFS towards the

[38:58] top of the plot and let's just go right

[39:01] to the right side of the plot get into

[39:03] the action on July 10th we measured 23

[39:06] CFS remember there's higher uncertainty

[39:08] with respect to these north and south

[39:10] numbers part of it's due to the blanking

[39:12] distance we just talked about but there are some other factors at play as

[39:15] well um on July 17th the day after

[39:21] 84 CFS s not a huge jump. Um on July

[39:28] 24th, 16 CFS back down, but this July

[39:32] 24th is the when we had that significant

[39:34] south um southern wind south to north

[39:38] wind event. It's not surprising that value is suppressed because of that wind event. August 5th, this is

[39:47] quiescent conditions. We feel pretty

[39:49] good. We feel like the uncertainty

[39:51] related to this August 5th measurement

[39:53] is is less than the uncertainty related

[39:56] to July 17th and July 24th. August 5th

[39:58] came in at 233 CFS. All right, this is

[40:03] great. This is a big jump from where we

[40:06] were. So, uh I think the story here is

[40:10] right now it's looking like this B

[40:12] modification is doing what we wanted it

[40:15] to do. flows have increased

[40:17] significantly from the north direction

[40:20] towards the south moving salt moving

[40:22] nutrients um to the south and I think

[40:25] that was the objective right all right

[40:28] so [clears throat]

[40:29] the uncertainty that I keep I mentioned

[40:31] it last meeting with these north to

[40:33] south flows um we're going to have much

[40:36] more to say about this in the coming

[40:38] months um we're doing a lot of work to

[40:41] try to pin this down but for Now, the

[40:45] uncertainty is higher for these north to

[40:47] south values um relative to the south to

[40:51] north values on the previous plot, but

[40:54] we're working through it. And we think

[40:55] this this August 5th measurement is is

[40:58] the better of the the three we've made

[40:59] since the burn was was

[41:03] that

[41:08] a question?

[41:13] Okay, great.

[41:15] >> And then I just threw in um salt fluxes

[41:19] like what this would mean for salt flux.

[41:20] So this the orange line here represents

[41:24] July 16th and then to the right of that

[41:26] represents the period where the BM is

[41:28] lowered to 4183. And um these I mean

[41:32] this is largely controlled by the

[41:34] discharge. So you see like these two

[41:36] we're still getting a lot of um net

[41:38] south to north transport of salt because

[41:41] those discharges were high. For this one

[41:43] we have most confidence in the discharge

[41:45] reading that was made yesterday. We're

[41:47] approaching kind of this um net zero

[41:51] flux and we'll be curious to see if this

[41:54] we start trending into import territory

[41:56] where we're starting to get salt from

[41:58] the north to the south. So, we'll be

[42:01] building out this data, but just

[42:02] preliminarily, it does look like based

[42:04] on the measurements that were made

[42:05] yesterday, we're trending toward um

[42:08] certainly lower net fluxes to the north

[42:10] and potentially starting to import salt.

[42:18] That's great.

[42:21] Any any questions on that?

[42:26] I was just curious, you know, with your

[42:29] what you're seeing on the flux of south

[42:33] to north and anticipating whether or not

[42:35] we get a north to south or that just

[42:36] that maybe stabilizes is that in line

[42:39] with what you had anticipated would

[42:41] happen with the you know the flourishing

[42:43] that we're seeing from north to south

[42:45] these reestablishment of those

[42:46] >> close yeah it is that certainly that

[42:49] trending down toward zero net flux of it

[42:53] being equal is is what I would expect

[42:54] because we removed a physical obstacle

[42:57] and now we're getting a lot more salt in

[42:58] from the north. Um, and so yeah, I would

[43:02] expect, you know, us to be trending

[43:04] toward net gaining of salt. It and

[43:07] especially this time of year because

[43:09] we're getting kind of the elevations to

[43:11] be more equalized and as Jess said, it's

[43:13] kind of dominated by density at that

[43:15] point and you get flow from the north.

[43:17] But I will say then I've been looking at

[43:20] kind of how this current these current

[43:21] measurements fit into like 2021 and 2022

[43:25] and there's some variability in the

[43:27] patterns we saw in 2021 and 2022 that I

[43:29] can show you. Um that kind of

[43:32] complicates the story because like and I can get into that but um it kind of

[43:38] depends. It depends on water surface

[43:40] elevation differences. It depends on the

[43:41] density differential, but right now we

[43:44] have a really large density differential

[43:45] between the south and the north because

[43:47] the salt is so much pressure. Um, so

[43:49] that will also drive flow to the south

[43:51] from the north. So yes, this is this is

[43:54] what I would expect, but it it's kind of

[43:57] a complicated

[43:59] >> because I know you all were probably

[44:00] thinking about like taking bets or doing

[44:03] what the flows were going [laughter] to

[44:04] be. Did you guys anticipate the any

[44:07] certain flow with that lowering or did

[44:09] you was it what you expected.

[44:12] >> No, I mean I hadn't

[44:15] >> didn't have an office pool.

[44:19] » Guess

[44:22] we

[44:25] can ask a question about this. I mean,

[44:27] even if it was at net zero, you're still

[44:28] exporting more volumetric water. So, you

[44:31] would still expect concentrations to,

[44:34] you know, you just had a net was at net

[44:36] zero in terms of mass exchange, but

[44:38] you're still exchanging water. expect

[44:40] concentrations to shift

[44:42] >> in the southire

[44:43] >> in both arms I guess because you're moving

[44:46] >> water fast.

[44:46] >> Yeah. Yep.

[44:49] So Christine,

[44:50] >> yeah,

[44:51] >> when you say the the trend is a downward

[44:53] trend, but then what are the factors

[44:55] that would,

[44:56] >> you know, allow that trend to continue?

[44:59] Is it I mean, obviously the head

[45:01] difference is one of them, but if we're

[45:02] getting to already close to that minimum

[45:04] head difference, what other factors

[45:06] would still um have that trend continue?

[45:10] >> That's a good question. I don't know. I

[45:12] think really just Yeah, you're right.

[45:15] the physics are what they are and that

[45:17] the water surface elevation if if the

[45:18] south arm continues to come down more

[45:20] that would drive more flow to the north

[45:22] um wind events this is something also

[45:24] that is I'm really curious to look more

[45:27] into but these episodic north wind

[45:29] events where you can get full flow

[45:31] reversal transport a lot of mass so it

[45:33] can also depend on weather um because

[45:36] during those events we just managed to

[45:38] get these huge slugs of salt into the

[45:40] south arm that would also help us trend

[45:42] more into negative territory um and I

[45:45] think just getting more measurements of

[45:47] like is that 233 cfs representative is

[45:50] that really kind of what we're seeing

[45:51] and getting more paired measurements

[45:53] will help us distinguish that because

[45:54] there are there's quite a bit of

[45:56] uncertainty in those first two

[45:57] measurements made

[45:59] >> as we continue to look at this salt flex

[46:02] flux as long as we compare it to the

[46:04] actual salt mass and potential changes

[46:07] in the salt mass right

[46:08] >> that would give us a way to confirm or

[46:12] deny what we're calculating Yeah, and I

[46:14] think that's what's really great about

[46:16] our monitoring program is because we

[46:17] have two completely independent sets of

[46:19] data. One from the south arm of of the

[46:22] samples that Gub collects and then one

[46:24] at the breach. And so we can kind of

[46:25] corroborate both of those stories.

[46:30] » You're you're doing more monitoring now

[46:32] than what you typically do, right? Can

[46:34] you describe what you're doing?

[46:38] >> Yep. We're doing roughly every other

[46:40] week. Um, we hit it right after the BM

[46:43] was lowered as Ryan said. Then we did a

[46:45] week after because we were just trying

[46:46] to capture any, you know, conditions

[46:49] right after the change. And now we're on

[46:51] an every two week interval. So, and

[46:53] we'll do that until we raise the B.

[46:56] >> Yeah. If if

[46:58] >> you're capturing the salinity and the

[47:00] nitrogen.

[47:02] >> Yes. Um, we're getting nutrient samples,

[47:05] right? Yes. I'm pretty sure we're

[47:08] definitely we're definitely comparing

[47:09] the water quality.

[47:11] >> Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. We're

[47:13] comparing the we're getting a water

[47:15] quality sample every time they get a

[47:16] measure for this more intensive and I'm

[47:18] almost positive nutrients are

[47:20] >> that's what we discussed. But we're not

[47:22] going to see the results of the

[47:23] nutrients.

[47:23] >> Correct. For a much longer Yes, exactly.

[47:26] Y

[47:28] >> great.

[47:30] I think that's exciting. I think that's

[47:31] what we were hoping we would see

[47:35] something along Zero Netflix.

[47:37] [clears throat]

[47:40] » Yeah. And there's many other like the

[47:42] interface um the depth to the interface

[47:44] is changed. It's probably a two to three

[47:48] feet higher than it was before. So we're

[47:49] just getting the cross-sectional area of

[47:51] north to south flow has grown along with

[47:53] increases in velocity. So multiple lines

[47:56] of evidence to suggest there's more flow

[47:58] and constituent flux coming in from the

[48:00] north.

[48:04] » Great.

[48:07] » So any other questions on on what

[48:09] they've been observing after the BM?

[48:13] >> Sorry. Did you say the interface drop?

[48:16] Is that

[48:17] >> um It's higher. Sorry if I said sorry if

[48:19] I misspoke. It's higher now. So it's

[48:21] probably five to six feet below the

[48:23] water surface and before it was like 8 n

[48:25] 10. So yeah, it's it's the north to

[48:28] south cross-section is has grown.

[48:37] » All right. Well, good. Well, now with

[48:40] all these things that we've learned in

[48:41] the last couple weeks, you've been

[48:42] crunching numbers,

[48:44] >> right? Um right. Okay. Let's see what we

[48:47] get. All right. So taking the kind of I

[48:50] have calculated the fall salinities

[48:52] using a couple of different approaches.

[48:54] One is this kind of standard water salt

[48:56] balance model. Um and kind of the

[48:59] results of that I only did predictions

[49:02] for a dry warm scenario and an average

[49:04] given the conditions that we're under.

[49:06] Um and the resulting salinity and I'm

[49:09] predicting through October. So roughly

[49:12] November kind of salinity or a seasonal

[49:14] high uh estimated using this method is

[49:18] 138 grams per liter for a dry condition,

[49:20] dry warm condition and 133 for an

[49:23] average. Um and not much you know not

[49:27] much change in the salt mass really

[49:29] given the short amount of time between

[49:31] now and the seasonal low.

[49:35] I kind of kept in this simplified way of

[49:39] estimating uh fall salenities also which

[49:42] is essentially saying from our spring

[49:44] peak elevation to our fall low elevation

[49:47] what is kind of a typical decline in

[49:50] surface elevation what are the

[49:52] associated volumes and then backing out

[49:55] um the fall salinity based on based on

[49:58] that and this assumes no real change in

[50:00] salt mass but using this this approach

[50:03] you get a range of 138 243 gram per

[50:06] liter. So those methods, both two

[50:08] different methods are fairly consistent,

[50:11] around 140 grams per liter for the fall

[50:13] low. And again, our most recent

[50:15] measurements made Tuesday and yesterday

[50:17] were 131 grams per liter.

[50:21] Okay. So now for the spring, um we know,

[50:25] you know, moving from fall to spring,

[50:27] these these salinity predictions are

[50:30] really controlled by the amount of

[50:31] water. that has the largest lever on the

[50:33] estimates we get for the spring. It's

[50:35] the amount of water coming into the

[50:36] system. But Jeff asked me to kind of

[50:38] play around with a couple of scenarios

[50:40] and I hope that this captures what

[50:42] you're after. But um one is to raise the

[50:44] burm on October 1, that's arbitrary. Um

[50:48] really if you were to raise it when the

[50:49] south arm hits 4190, that would probably

[50:52] honestly be beginning of September based

[50:54] on the current rate of change in the

[50:56] south arm. But if we raise it on October

[50:58] 1st, um

[51:01] that's one scenario. And then the second

[51:03] scenario is to raise it not to keep it

[51:05] open and raise it in the spring. And

[51:06] that's just a scenario that Jeff is that

[51:09] right

[51:11] out a lot of things.

[51:12] >> Okay.

[51:13] Hopefully hopefully that captures

[51:15] it. Um and then there's also the burm

[51:17] height to consider. If it's a 4190,

[51:20] there's a higher likelihood that they

[51:21] will be over topped in the spring at a

[51:23] certain point. So I estimated that based

[51:26] on previous rates of change to be around

[51:28] February 1st is when we might see overt

[51:30] topping from south to north and then

[51:32] again start to lose solar mass. So these

[51:34] are the kinds of um factors that I was

[51:37] working with. So and I'm going to

[51:38] display this all using our um iso mass

[51:41] plots which integrate elevation the

[51:43] salinity and the mass. So starting with

[51:45] our most recent measurements on August

[51:47] 4th again 131 grams per liter sitting at

[51:51] 4190.6 six feet in the south arm and an

[51:54] estimate of 864 million tons of salt.

[51:57] Moving forward to then um the fall

[52:00] prediction and kind of just walking

[52:01] through this is a slightly different

[52:04] approach that I took on the previous

[52:05] two, but the this results on 147 grams

[52:08] per liter and that's assuming that's

[52:10] trying to account for the amount of salt

[52:12] mass we gain due to the um the breach

[52:14] being open. And that's based on previous

[52:18] conditions. Uh almost 20 million tons

[52:20] between now and October is the amount of

[52:22] salt mass um that I'm estimating might

[52:25] be added.

[52:28] And then kind of moving forward into

[52:30] May, again, this is largely controlled

[52:32] by the amount of water being added

[52:35] between the fall and the spring. So the

[52:38] different water conditions that I um

[52:40] consider are basically a repeat of 2026

[52:44] runoff. So that would put us at 4190.6.

[52:46] That's the lowest kind of horizontal

[52:49] dashed line you see here. For a mean

[52:51] runoff condition, that's about 2.2 feet

[52:53] of gain. That's 4191.5

[52:56] here. this middle line and then kind of

[52:58] an extreme uh end of the spectrum if we

[53:01] repeat 2023 runoff which is that high

[53:04] end and um and then we have these kind

[53:07] of different salt mass configurations if

[53:09] we over top the burm on February 1 if we

[53:12] assume no over topping because in some

[53:14] of these instances if it's at 4192 you

[53:17] would not over top and then um and then

[53:20] kind of just assuming a median rate of

[53:22] net flux the scenario two is where we

[53:24] keep it open and so actually in this

[53:26] scenario

[53:26] And I'll show plots of this, but in this

[53:28] scenario, if you keep it open, you

[53:30] actually end up losing losing salt, a

[53:32] net loss because of how um because when

[53:37] you get a pulse of water into the south

[53:38] arm, you end up having kind of a net

[53:40] loss of salt to the north and during

[53:42] these seasons of winter and uh spring.

[53:45] So the results of this is really in you

[53:48] know what the take-home for all of you

[53:50] are in these summarized in these boxes.

[53:52] So for a dry warm condition estimate of

[53:55] 130ish gram per liter in the spring it

[53:58] really these different scenarios of this

[54:00] salt mass exchange don't change it a

[54:01] whole lot maybe by 2 to three gram per

[54:03] liter according to these calculations

[54:04] it's really driven by the water.

[54:06] [snorts] So average conditions you're

[54:08] sitting more at about 122 to 125 grams

[54:11] per liter and then for a very wet

[54:13] condition 122 to 105 g. That gives you

[54:17] some idea of um what spring could be

[54:20] like.

[54:23] But I wanted to um to just make it clear

[54:26] that I I based these estimates of the

[54:29] flux and the amount of mass change in

[54:31] the south arm on a median condition. So

[54:34] on a distribution of when the breach was

[54:37] at for the breach condition was similar

[54:38] to what it is now. So when the burm was

[54:40] at 4183. This is the period from 2018 to

[54:43] 2022. And then for each month I

[54:46] basically just calculated the daily the

[54:48] net daily flux. So for the box plots

[54:51] that are above zero that's a net salts

[54:54] export from the south arm. So basically

[54:56] net loss of salt and then for um for

[55:01] values below zero that's a net import.

[55:03] And just so you can see kind of the

[55:04] seasonality of this

[55:07] and that this is really driven by

[55:08] conditions in like 2019 and 2020.

[55:12] Based on kind of all this data clumped

[55:14] together, you really kind of get an

[55:16] import of salt during these months from

[55:18] May to October. That's when you start to

[55:20] get um the large surface elevations

[55:22] getting closer together and you get a

[55:24] net import of salt during that those

[55:27] seasons. So, keeping it open longer may

[55:30] not be beneficial um because you have a

[55:33] net export of salt anyway, at least for

[55:35] the purposes of wanting to get salt to

[55:37] the um south arm.

[55:40] But it varies and um so for 2021 this is

[55:45] so same similar plot monthly for 2021 um

[55:49] based on the conditions of that year we

[55:51] actually estimate a net import during

[55:54] most of that year. Contrast that with

[55:57] 2022 lake elevations were really low

[56:00] salinities were really high in the south

[56:01] arm and we actually had um much more

[56:04] frequent salt export. So this is what

[56:07] I've been racking my brain for the last

[56:09] few days of like what are the conditions

[56:11] now most represent what do they match

[56:13] most closely 2021 2022

[56:16] um we have water [clears throat] surface

[56:18] elevations similar to 20 2022 but the

[56:21] density differential is much different

[56:23] in 2022 we had really high salinities in

[56:26] the south arm um and so that difference

[56:29] between the south and the north was less

[56:31] now we have much fresher conditions so

[56:33] the physics should dictate that we get

[56:35] much more flow

[56:36] um from the north coming in because of

[56:38] that that density different. So um just

[56:42] something to keep in mind as we try to

[56:44] anticipate what the flux is going to be

[56:46] now uh is that it can be quite

[56:48] complicated. And another factor of

[56:50] course is like wind. What if 2021 was a

[56:54] particularly windy year with a lot of

[56:57] wind out of the north that would drive

[56:59] um a lot of salt into the south. So,

[57:02] those are kind of a few other factors we

[57:04] need to be considering as we try to like

[57:06] think about what this year is going to

[57:08] bring. Or at least that's what I've been

[57:10] thinking about. Um,

[57:13] this is just a time series of that same

[57:15] data net salt flux from 2019 to 2022.

[57:18] You can really see how um in these years

[57:23] we had, you know, kind of this nice

[57:26] seasonality 2022 or sorry, sorry, 2021

[57:29] dominated by net flux to the north and

[57:32] then in 2022 it really begins to break

[57:34] down even though the water surface

[57:35] elevations were similar. Um, so yeah,

[57:39] maybe this is too much information as I

[57:42] try to problem solve it myself, but um

[57:45] these are just yeah and then water

[57:47] surface elevation I just overlaid in

[57:48] this black dotted line. So really

[57:50] matches closely when we get these big

[57:52] swings in water surface elevation you

[57:54] see that salt flux sort of following

[57:56] that pattern and then these two years

[57:58] are just responding very differently to

[58:01] that very same um variable which is the

[58:04] water surface elevation difference. I

[58:06] think this is mostly driven by increase

[58:08] in density in the cell farm, but we got

[58:11] to look at the wind too and just see

[58:13] what the effect of that is too. And I

[58:16] will say these are based on um daily

[58:18] discharge estimates by S made by S and

[58:21] Eric, his previous grad student.

[58:23] [clears throat]

[58:25] Um and with that, I'll just I'm happy to

[58:27] take questions. I just kind of wanted to

[58:30] run folks through um you know as we try

[58:33] to predict what salt flux might be it's pretty complicated and there's a

[58:37] number of factors to consider but that

[58:40] the spring predictions again are really

[58:43] driven by water so yeah

[58:47] >> excellent yeah

[58:51] » doesn't sound like it got simpler

[58:53] [laughter]

[58:54] >> I know I was hoping you would

[58:57] but yeah

[58:58] >> I I think you identified a lot of key

[59:00] factors.

[59:00] >> I guess they have a well

[59:02] >> key variables that help

[59:04] >> drive it.

[59:05] >> Yeah. And I did have a call with some

[59:07] this morning to just try and make sense

[59:08] of all this stuff and it was he had a

[59:10] lot of great insights. And so if you

[59:12] want us to try and get to more precise

[59:15] predictions about the salt flux, I think

[59:17] he would have some really good insight

[59:20] in how to do that um just given his

[59:23] expertise of the physics of reach. So,

[59:26] we can we can keep working on that if

[59:27] that's of use. And I think I would yeah

[59:29] try to bring some into trying to figure

[59:31] out some of those methods and things.

[59:34] >> Yeah.

[59:35] >> Christine, can you bring that slide back

[59:37] up?

[59:39] >> I don't have a question. I just want to

[59:41] look at it again.

[59:42] >> All [laughter] right.

[59:43] >> There you go.

[59:44] >> No, the one right before this.

[59:46] >> Oh,

[59:47] >> it shows the predictions. Yeah. Thank

[59:49] you.

[59:49] >> Okay.

[59:52] So with the in the next two months or

[59:54] next couple month or month or two um we

[59:57] reach open or burn low

[1:00:02] we have a a bigger density

[1:00:05] gradient between the two and so that's

[1:00:08] where you're saying we should see more

[1:00:09] north to south

[1:00:12] >> so we'd be mimicking more the 20 21

[1:00:17] pattern like you saw

[1:00:19] >> I think so but I would have also

[1:00:20] expected the same thing to happen in

[1:00:21] 2022 and for whatever Well, you're

[1:00:23] right. The density was different.

[1:00:25] >> Yeah, maybe it's closer to 2021.

[1:00:30] » In the previous meeting, I thought you

[1:00:31] had like an October 27.

[1:00:33] >> We did that.

[1:00:37] >> Well, it seems like there's maybe too

[1:00:39] many variables, right? when we raise a

[1:00:42] whether it's now then what kind of

[1:00:43] weather

[1:00:48] » I mean just one general comment is

[1:00:51] regardless of what happens according to

[1:00:53] your predictions we're in a good spot

[1:00:56] that's just a general comment I would

[1:00:58] make but the other one is um when we

[1:01:00] look at salt mass it's it's a tool for

[1:01:03] us to verify if you know what we thought

[1:01:06] was going to happen is actually

[1:01:07] happening but in order to try anticipate

[1:01:10] what's going to happen at least towards

[1:01:12] the future and refine that ability. I do

[1:01:15] agree with you. Um I think at least

[1:01:17] that's what you're uh you were saying is

[1:01:19] that we could benefit from Psalms's

[1:01:22] expertise and continue

[1:01:25] to model that. I would certainly highly

[1:01:28] recommend that if funds are available to

[1:01:31] do that.

[1:01:35] » Yeah. Yeah. especially his computational

[1:01:38] fluid dynamics model which is based on

[1:01:40] physics and I think he would be able to

[1:01:43] um give much more insight into flow

[1:01:46] dynamics. We did also did you mention

[1:01:48] this? We surveyed the bethimemetry

[1:01:50] yesterday also of the kind of the breach

[1:01:52] opening. Um, and so that would also help

[1:01:54] feed it into a model for someone like

[1:01:57] SAM or water resources to say, well,

[1:01:59] okay, how is this 4183 condition

[1:02:01] different than 2021 2022 because it it

[1:02:04] might be slightly different and um Craig

[1:02:06] was just mentioning how there could be

[1:02:08] other factors that are controlling the

[1:02:10] flow that we may not be aware of

[1:02:12] >> because right now there's beimemetry,

[1:02:14] there's um density um and then there's

[1:02:18] lake elevation and the head difference.

[1:02:21] I mean that's

[1:02:23] factors that are playing into this

[1:02:25] >> and there might be other exampations

[1:02:36] you talked about how if I remember right

[1:02:39] when there is no burn we expect to see a

[1:02:41] deep layer

[1:02:43] >> do do we know what time frame that would

[1:02:47] expect to happen if we keep this open

[1:02:49] how that affect

[1:02:52] What did we measure the last time? Like

[1:02:54] six six months.

[1:02:55] >> Yeah, there was like a sixmon lag. Yeah,

[1:02:59] this is based on the what were the years

[1:03:02] for that study?

[1:03:03] >> 2016

[1:03:05] well no 2015 to 2017

[1:03:08] >> and that's published by one of Bill

[1:03:10] Johnson's graduate students in a

[1:03:12] journal. So we would point you to it but

[1:03:13] it seems like that was a

[1:03:17] last time

[1:03:17] >> and we haven't observed it yet. There

[1:03:19] are Mr. Buys up there that might be able

[1:03:22] to catch a thermocline. If we can get a

[1:03:24] water quality measurement associated

[1:03:25] with that, we be able to see when it

[1:03:26] develops. Um, another factor to consider

[1:03:30] is how shallow the cell farm is. Right

[1:03:32] now, you get a lot of wind action that

[1:03:34] can actually mix that out. So, we'll see

[1:03:37] what we see.

[1:03:37] >> If we do see that, do we expect a change

[1:03:40] in the way that the BM actually flows?

[1:03:46] Expect a difference in the transfer from

[1:03:48] north to south, right?

[1:03:51] um with the deep grind layer.

[1:03:53] >> Yeah,

[1:03:54] >> not to my knowledge.

[1:03:56] >> I think that

[1:03:58] that's putting up that schematic

[1:04:01] use.

[1:04:09] » Yeah, maybe not not so useful, but we we have we we have kind of a deep

[1:04:14] [clears throat] pool where our uplooker

[1:04:15] is right right now. Um I don't know.

[1:04:20] Let's let's just do the monitoring and

[1:04:22] see how it holds out. Yeah.

[1:04:25] >> Curiosity.

[1:04:26] >> Yeah.

[1:04:30] So I think one of the I think one of the

[1:04:32] hopes or things that we had talked about

[1:04:35] was

[1:04:36] that we saw this decline in nitrogen

[1:04:39] flux to the south arm that if we were

[1:04:43] able to lower the burm and open that

[1:04:45] breach up, we could get reestablish the

[1:04:47] birectional flow hopefully get to a net

[1:04:50] zero salt flux. But um the big question

[1:04:56] is going to be just the nitrogen flux.

[1:04:59] We're getting more nitrogen now coming

[1:05:01] from the north arm, but are we exporting

[1:05:04] nitrogen?

[1:05:06] Does that offset the birectional flow?

[1:05:10] >> Yep.

[1:05:10] >> We don't know.

[1:05:13] >> I guess historically when we had

[1:05:15] birectional flow, the nitrogen

[1:05:18] was okay, right? So, so maybe

[1:05:25] » it was maintained at certain levels.

[1:05:26] Yeah. And it as we know the breach is

[1:05:29] the largest source of nitrogen and

[1:05:31] phosphorus to the south farm. So,

[1:05:36] » fantastic. Any other questions or

[1:05:38] comments on that? Thank you.

[1:05:42] >> Takes a lot of wizardry.

[1:05:45] >> Yeah. And if there I if there are more

[1:05:48] um if there are specific questions or

[1:05:50] specific scenarios I think we could we

[1:05:52] could tackle it you know just need a

[1:05:54] little more just probably some time um

[1:05:56] to chew on things but if if any of this

[1:05:59] if you like any of it in more depth I

[1:06:01] think it's possible and we can learn a

[1:06:02] lot.

[1:06:05] » Great.

[1:06:07] Thank you. Um Craig I don't want to mean

[1:06:10] to put you on the spot but I know you

[1:06:12] you've been working with Psalm and state

[1:06:16] on just the hydraulic modeling. Do you

[1:06:19] want to speak to that or do you want to

[1:06:21] we can do it next time too?

[1:06:23] >> We're we're still developing things.

[1:06:26] It's getting closer. I I I'm hoping that

[1:06:30] the time will come when regardless of

[1:06:33] the salinity difference, regardless of

[1:06:35] the elevation of of the burm, we'll have

[1:06:39] a more reliable way of quickly

[1:06:43] estimating the flows through the the

[1:06:45] bridge, but I I don't have anything for

[1:06:48] you right now. Okay. We're looking

[1:06:51] forward to it. USGS is is telling us

[1:06:54] that soon they'll have additional data

[1:06:56] for us and they told us that a couple of

[1:06:58] months ago and uh we're we're still

[1:07:01] looking forward to some additional data

[1:07:03] to help us with that.

[1:07:04] >> Yeah, once once again uh we're kind of

[1:07:07] holding the show up a little bit. Um

[1:07:09] this has this gets to the uncertainty um

[1:07:12] in in the build measurements

[1:07:14] particularly the the north to south. Um

[1:07:16] but also we've been doing a lot of work

[1:07:19] um Andy and Mike Freeman on developing

[1:07:22] an index velocity rating for both flow

[1:07:24] directions. And so that's just that's a

[1:07:26] standard you know way USGS

[1:07:29] uh will develop um discharge ratings for for gauges that are unusual or you

[1:07:36] can't get by with a simple stage

[1:07:37] discharge rating. So these guys have

[1:07:39] been working really hard on this and um

[1:07:44] we're getting close. Um but the the um

[1:07:48] the field measurements of discharge uh

[1:07:51] the uncertainty there that that's

[1:07:52] something we want to um

[1:07:55] make sure we completely understand

[1:07:56] before we lay out our progress on index

[1:07:59] velocity uh ratings because everything's

[1:08:03] sort of based on the field measurements

[1:08:05] of discharge. So, SAS is about ready to

[1:08:08] finish up her work on this uh another

[1:08:11] week or so and uh

[1:08:15] and her dissertation won't be done for

[1:08:17] another two years. So, we'll we'll have

[1:08:20] I suspect we'll have her back again next

[1:08:22] summer and kind of complete this with

[1:08:25] the uh wonderful data that you will be

[1:08:27] providing us and we look forward to

[1:08:30] that.

[1:08:32] >> Fantastic.

[1:08:33] >> All right,

[1:08:34] >> that's about it. Okay. Well, thank you.

[1:08:38] So, I I think that was I mean I have one

[1:08:43] more thing on the agenda was just to

[1:08:45] discuss the salinity management

[1:08:47] framework or the [snorts] guide on the

[1:08:49] plan and that's been I don't know what

[1:08:53] direction if you know I don't know that

[1:08:56] anybody's reading that again and again. Um but that's still on the

[1:09:02] agenda. um in terms of things that we're

[1:09:06] working on as a committee um and I think

[1:09:10] the la the last change was made um in

[1:09:13] April and mostly was just to make sure

[1:09:15] that it was flexible for such issues

[1:09:17] like nitrogen

[1:09:19] um you know that that that it wasn't too

[1:09:23] prescriptive that we would be able to

[1:09:25] adapt for things like that that come up

[1:09:29] um but I think what we want to try to do

[1:09:33] is um we want to be able to reference it

[1:09:35] in the CMP and and as a as a I guess

[1:09:39] another document that that the CMP is um

[1:09:44] can rely upon. So we'd love to get it

[1:09:47] finalized and is that Ben do you think

[1:09:50] that's something we can move forward

[1:09:52] with? You want to move forward?

[1:09:54] I mean, I'm comfortable with it, but I

[1:09:56] think uh you know, I think ideally we

[1:09:58] probably need to nudge people before the

[1:10:00] meeting, give them a reminder that we're

[1:10:02] going to, you know, tell that

[1:10:05] just knowing how busy everybody is. I

[1:10:06] would imagine not a lot of people were

[1:10:08] looking at it right before this meeting.

[1:10:09] So maybe it's something that we, you

[1:10:12] know, unless someone feels strongly

[1:10:14] maybe we table this till the next

[1:10:16] meeting and then a week or so before the

[1:10:18] meeting we remind people that they need

[1:10:19] to pop in and provide any final comments

[1:10:23] or concerns

[1:10:25] unless anybody uh is ready to roll.

[1:10:30] Sounds like we should just wait.

[1:10:32] >> Yep, let's do that.

[1:10:33] >> Okay,

[1:10:34] great. Well, I I think then all that's

[1:10:37] left is to schedule our next meeting. Um

[1:10:40] I think the you know, if we go by our

[1:10:43] typical pattern, it would be Thursday,

[1:10:46] October 22nd.

[1:10:49] Um unless you want to meet before then.

[1:10:52] >> I suggest we meet before them just

[1:10:53] because it's I think there's a crucial

[1:10:55] time period in October that we need to

[1:10:58] decide if we're going to you know raise

[1:11:01] the BM. That would be probably at least

[1:11:03] one of the decision points is whether we

[1:11:05] do it at the end of October as Christine

[1:11:07] kind of model or if we're waiting and I

[1:11:10] think we're going to need a little bit

[1:11:11] of be time to figure out if we're going

[1:11:14] to get a freebie again or we're going to

[1:11:15] have to contract it or how that'll pan

[1:11:17] out.

[1:11:20] So um so September probably in a month

[1:11:24] from now

[1:11:24] >> maybe

[1:11:26] is there like any um sampling dates that

[1:11:29] correspond where we could you know get

[1:11:31] the most fresh recent data that we could

[1:11:35] say you know let's meet this many days

[1:11:37] after that gives you a chance to do your

[1:11:39] modeling so we're not like

[1:11:41] >> for the south

[1:11:42] >> yeah I mean like this time we're looking

[1:11:43] at June 22nd is there a time frame so we

[1:11:45] could be like a little further along and

[1:11:46] get a little more

[1:11:48] >> recent I know Gle was trying to get out

[1:11:50] last week. It really I [clears throat]

[1:11:52] mean it was wind. They couldn't get out

[1:11:53] and get samples. So

[1:11:55] >> yeah, I can try to work with Kyle to see

[1:11:57] when um we we don't know their sampling

[1:12:01] schedule. So we kind of just respond

[1:12:02] once they give us the samples, but I can

[1:12:05] try to So no, at this time I don't have

[1:12:07] the samples.

[1:12:08] >> I was just going to say if if like it'd

[1:12:10] be really nice to have the most recent

[1:12:12] stuff so we make a decision or

[1:12:14] recommendations pretty fresh. But I

[1:12:16] would I would suggest it's somewhere

[1:12:17] like that first week of October. I think

[1:12:19] that would be a you know good time frame

[1:12:21] and we would know what we do or maybe

[1:12:23] last week of September at the earliest

[1:12:27] >> they try to go out we'll say G tries

[1:12:29] correct me if I'm wrong but they try to

[1:12:31] go out at the first of the month. So 1

[1:12:33] of October if Gle goes out that week

[1:12:35] that won't give us enough time to look

[1:12:36] at the data. So maybe second week of

[1:12:38] October um would be good.

[1:12:42] Just looking at October 8th. Um

[1:12:46] October 1st is the first Thursday.

[1:12:49] October 8th is the actually the first

[1:12:51] week. So maybe that might not be enough

[1:12:53] time.

[1:12:58] » This is Kyle. I can chime in on this if

[1:13:00] you guys want.

[1:13:02] >> Yeah, that'd be great.

[1:13:03] >> Yeah. So we just try to keep our

[1:13:06] nutrient sampling once a month and in

[1:13:09] that kind of four-w week time span. If

[1:13:13] we need to sample the last week of

[1:13:15] September so that we can have a meeting

[1:13:16] in the first week of October, we can put

[1:13:18] that on the calendar now and just sample

[1:13:21] a little earlier and that would be fine

[1:13:23] with us.

[1:13:26] » I think Thursday the 8th sounds good.

[1:13:28] that gives maybe enough time that works

[1:13:30] for me.

[1:13:33] >> So, and then I guess does the we

[1:13:37] historically we met at 10:00 in the

[1:13:39] morning till noon and today we're at

[1:13:42] 1:00. Um does 10 still work in the

[1:13:46] morning work better?

[1:13:48] >> Okay, we'll plan on 10 10 to 12 on the

[1:13:53] 8th then.

[1:13:56] So then I guess in terms of agenda

[1:13:58] items, we'll just have our updates on it

[1:14:01] and we'll just be thinking about whether

[1:14:05] we need to make adjustments to the BM

[1:14:08] and and how much

[1:14:09] >> we calendar the solenity management plan

[1:14:13] and make sure we send out like a

[1:14:15] >> yeah update I'll send

[1:14:18] a reminder the night before maybe two

[1:14:20] hours before as well. [laughter]

[1:14:25] Do you want us to kind of dig into these

[1:14:27] calculations a bit more of trying to

[1:14:29] predict what fluxes might be or what

[1:14:32] might be at the breach? Can we can we

[1:14:34] give you I mean do you how far in

[1:14:35] advance do you need to know like what we

[1:14:38] want to model what

[1:14:40] >> I mean honestly for something like this

[1:14:43] probably like three weeks

[1:14:46] >> something like

[1:15:01] Great. Well, if there isn't anything

[1:15:04] else, entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:15:06] >> Actually, weren't you going to discuss

[1:15:10] the comp?

[1:15:10] >> Oh, the membership. Yes. Thank you. Um,

[1:15:14] I did update. So, in in the agenda that

[1:15:18] I sent out, um, we had,

[1:15:23] um, some changes that we talked about

[1:15:25] last time and

[1:15:31] There we go. Um,

[1:15:36] and so the changes that we had talked

[1:15:37] about, uh, Bonnie had pointed out that

[1:15:39] what we have on online still says

[1:15:41] Westminster College. So, we'll update

[1:15:43] that. And then um Paul Juel had asked to

[1:15:49] be to withdraw as a um alternate and

[1:15:53] then we had a switch between Andrew and

[1:15:56] Elliott in terms of their roles on the

[1:15:58] committee and then um then Ryan Dhy was

[1:16:02] going to be our member with Travis our

[1:16:06] alternate for our mineral traction.

[1:16:09] >> Did that work out between

[1:16:11] >> you guys?

[1:16:13] Um, and then I think we want to follow

[1:16:16] up. Um, see if we if there's another

[1:16:20] university representative we could add

[1:16:22] to the committee as well.

[1:16:24] >> Hey Jeff, u we were going to I was going

[1:16:26] to take this offline, but since you're

[1:16:28] discussing it, we're going to suggest if

[1:16:30] Phil Brown could become my alternate

[1:16:32] rather than Tim Hawks.

[1:16:34] >> Okay.

[1:16:34] >> Yeah,

[1:16:37] for sure. I was actually wondering about

[1:16:39] that. Phil's here every time. So, um,

[1:16:43] >> and then you and Kyle. Okay.

[1:16:47] >> I had that and then I went back to the

[1:16:49] notes and I didn't see it that we talked

[1:16:52] about it, but we must have talked about

[1:16:53] it afterwards.

[1:16:54] >> We talked about it in an email

[1:16:55] afterwards.

[1:16:56] >> Will you be Kyle's alter?

[1:16:58] >> Yeah,

[1:17:00] you have to have an IQ to write this,

[1:17:02] right? I don't know why.

[1:17:07] So I I think the way our our charter is

[1:17:10] we just as a committee we make

[1:17:11] recommendations for changes and then

[1:17:15] the divisions make the final decisions

[1:17:17] on that. But I think I would um

[1:17:20] entertain a motion. Let's change this to

[1:17:26] I'm assuming Kyle's more than happy to

[1:17:28] serve in that role.

[1:17:31] And

[1:17:31] >> that is correct.

[1:17:33] [laughter]

[1:17:35] >> Thanks Kyle. And then if you can make

[1:17:36] that change for too.

[1:17:38] >> Oh yes.

[1:17:45] » So make those changes and I entertain a

[1:17:48] motion to make that recommendation of

[1:17:51] these changes.

[1:17:54] >> So move.

[1:17:55] >> Thanks. Second.

[1:17:56] >> All right. Thanks. Would you please

[1:17:58] remind me what the role of the Great

[1:18:00] Salt Lake Commissioner is with the

[1:18:04] salinity advisory committee or how if

[1:18:08] when kind of

[1:18:12] >> That's a great question. [laughter]

[1:18:14] I'll take that one. Uh so when we are

[1:18:18] making recommendations to modify the BM

[1:18:20] there the commissioner plays a role in

[1:18:21] that. So they we inform the commissioner

[1:18:25] who has ties into the senate and the you

[1:18:28] know the house and the governor. So all

[1:18:30] of those folks are notified and

[1:18:32] understand what's happening because this

[1:18:34] has become a very important issue. One

[1:18:36] of the you know

[1:18:38] I guess one of the things that's moved

[1:18:40] the needle a lot on how we manage the

[1:18:42] lake. So, they're very interested, but

[1:18:44] um but that is they've historically

[1:18:47] they're invited to come join, but we

[1:18:49] we've talked about having them on as a

[1:18:51] member and I think they prefer the role

[1:18:53] of being in the seat of like we don't

[1:18:55] vote our position as water quality and I

[1:18:57] think they like the arrangement,

[1:18:59] >> right?

[1:19:00] >> At least when Brian was there. So, we

[1:19:02] can revisit with that that with Hannah

[1:19:03] and ask her if she's interested in

[1:19:06] participating as a book member, but I

[1:19:08] anticipate she'll have the same time

[1:19:10] constraints that Brian did. Sure. Yeah.

[1:19:13] But that's a that's a perfect

[1:19:15] transitional communication.

[1:19:17] >> Yeah. I think it works well. It gives

[1:19:18] the you know since she or you know Brian

[1:19:21] was there they have that in and it helps

[1:19:24] us to make sure we have all those

[1:19:25] necessary communications. So I think it

[1:19:27] works out pretty well.

[1:19:28] >> But it's it's still water quality and

[1:19:32] forestry fire and state lands that

[1:19:34] approve that recommendation and then you

[1:19:37] communicate it

[1:19:38] >> the commissioner. How does that work?

[1:19:40] It's a consultation.

[1:19:41] >> Who decides?

[1:19:41] >> So I I call up like, "Hey yo, Brian,

[1:19:45] here's here's what we're thinking."

[1:19:46] >> Exactly.

[1:19:46] >> You know, but no, it's it's just a it's

[1:19:48] a consultation and typically between

[1:19:50] >> the three of you.

[1:19:52] >> Um yeah, like when with this one, we met

[1:19:54] with uh water quality and we had a

[1:19:58] discussion and then uh sat down with the

[1:20:00] commissioner at the time. And this was

[1:20:02] kind of in a weird time where there was

[1:20:03] a transition going on, but we met with

[1:20:05] the [snorts] commissioner and said,

[1:20:06] "Here's what we're planning to do. do

[1:20:08] you have any issues or you know any

[1:20:10] comment explained it

[1:20:12] >> and then you know the rest of it

[1:20:14] happened organically but uh I think you

[1:20:17] know ideally ideally they have someone

[1:20:20] from the commissioner's office here

[1:20:21] that's able to report out on each of

[1:20:23] these and so that's the intend to have

[1:20:25] them involved in here but and we'll work

[1:20:28] on trying to get someone here whether

[1:20:31] it's Anna or one of her folks I'm sure

[1:20:33] she'll hire a deputy at some point that

[1:20:35] can help so

[1:20:36] >> PS Ben I I'm here.

[1:20:38] >> Oh, there's Hannah. Awesome.

[1:20:42] >> Sorry, I had a meeting run long and I

[1:20:44] didn't want to disrupt the inerson

[1:20:45] meeting, but I joined. And uh I I would

[1:20:48] just add like I appreciate the

[1:20:50] communication that we've had. Um you all

[1:20:53] are certainly the experts on this and so

[1:20:55] I appreciate um Ben's done a really good

[1:20:57] job looping me in and I've been trying

[1:20:59] uh to be a more regular presence at your

[1:21:01] meetings and to be in the loop as these

[1:21:03] decisions are made and so I'm happy to

[1:21:05] remain in that role. I don't think that

[1:21:07] I need a voting role. Um I just like to

[1:21:10] be advisory and and know what's going on

[1:21:12] so I can speak um well to the subject.

[1:21:16] >> And I' I'd also just add one other

[1:21:18] thing. You know, the commissioner's

[1:21:19] office has the ability to, you know,

[1:21:22] tell any division to do something or not

[1:21:24] do something. And so I think it's also

[1:21:26] important that, you know, they maintain

[1:21:28] that ability. We've never run into a

[1:21:29] situation yet where we've had to where I

[1:21:31] think they've had to use that power. But

[1:21:33] I think that that gives them an option

[1:21:34] if they're not in a voting capacity here

[1:21:36] to be able to, you know, exercise that

[1:21:38] role as well. So I think it's a good

[1:21:40] set.

[1:21:41] >> Is that within the DNR or across the

[1:21:44] state?

[1:21:45] >> I don't have to answer that, but the the

[1:21:47] code originally I think was it excluded

[1:21:49] certain agencies, but I think was you

[1:21:51] know obviously relation

[1:21:53] they have some authority that

[1:21:56] >> Yeah. The legislation just reads state

[1:21:58] agencies.

[1:22:03] I don't know. Hannah Hannah told me I

[1:22:06] need to rip out all my grass, so I did

[1:22:07] it. [laughter]

[1:22:12] [clears throat]

[1:22:14] >> That's beautiful.

[1:22:16] >> Thanks, Hannah. Um, Ben. Um, so I think

[1:22:20] we had a motion on the table and just um

[1:22:23] all those in favor of of the motion to

[1:22:27] make these recommended committee changes

[1:22:30] say I.

[1:22:32] >> Any opposed?

[1:22:35] No. All right. I'll pass unanimously.

[1:22:37] So, we'll um I'll get this over to where

[1:22:40] she fire and say lands and they can

[1:22:43] approve it and we'll update the website

[1:22:46] with this updated list. So,

[1:22:49] >> so that does leave one that we should

[1:22:51] talk about at some point again which is

[1:22:52] another university

[1:22:55] position and I think if I remember

[1:22:58] correctly Brian Krookton had some

[1:23:00] interest but maybe some capacity

[1:23:02] limitations like coming in person and I

[1:23:04] think you know I think our charter now

[1:23:06] says that we prefer folks to be here you

[1:23:08] know in person participating

[1:23:11] so we should discuss you know if there's

[1:23:13] any holes in our you know expertise or I

[1:23:16] guess our

[1:23:17] committee on work that we would like to

[1:23:19] fill. So maybe save that agenda if we

[1:23:22] need to.

[1:23:23] >> Yeah, I know there were I think in the

[1:23:26] May meeting um there were

[1:23:30] that's not not scrolling for me. Um

[1:23:33] there we go. There were several names

[1:23:36] that were brought up. Um

[1:23:39] Michael Warner, Brian Krookton, and

[1:23:41] David Tarbotton. Um,

[1:23:44] and Brian and David, I don't know,

[1:23:46] Michael.

[1:23:48] Um, but Brian and David certainly bring

[1:23:51] that hydraology, hydraulics component of

[1:23:54] it.

[1:23:56] So,

[1:23:57] >> maybe I can just reach out again and

[1:23:59] just find out from them. Last time I

[1:24:01] talked to Brian, he seemed willing to do

[1:24:03] that, but find out from them if they

[1:24:05] have the capacity.

[1:24:06] >> Yeah. Great. Great.

[1:24:09] >> All right. Well, anything else? If not,

[1:24:12] Oh yes, maybe this is silly, but it's

[1:24:15] never been explicitly told me

[1:24:17] alternative.

[1:24:21] » What's my role?

[1:24:24] >> You hear her when she's not here. So you

[1:24:26] can go

[1:24:28] >> and you should sit at the table next.

[1:24:32] You got to have a cookie. Sit at the

[1:24:34] table. Bonnie usually brings two

[1:24:36] requirements.

[1:24:38] >> It's actually

[1:24:41] cookies.

[1:24:42] >> I usually

[1:24:44] [laughter]

[1:24:44] >> I didn't bring much, but I did bring a

[1:24:46] sticker,

[1:24:49] » but that's good to know. It was just

[1:24:51] never explicitly. [clears throat]

[1:24:54] Yeah, I think we hope that the if the

[1:24:57] member is not here that the alternate

[1:24:59] would be here and then the alternate can

[1:25:01] communicate what was discussed back and

[1:25:05] um and then the alternate would also be

[1:25:09] voter if we needed to vote on anything

[1:25:11] at that meeting. So glad you're here.

[1:25:16] So all right well I think that is all.

[1:25:20] We will adjourn.

[1:25:23] Thanks everybody. You'll see October

[1:25:24] 8th.

Great Salt Lake Salinity Advisory Committee Meeting 8/6/2026

Transcript