[0:01] We call implementing committee meeting to order

[0:07] at 11, 18.

[0:15] With that, if we could conduct roll call.

[0:22] I'm here for the City of San Marcos.

[0:28] Rowland.

[0:28] here for EAA and and new brothels is represented day by Amy Niles Amy Niles

[0:44] and

[0:45] Patrick Schraper for Donovan Burton for Salis Donovan Stinson and we are lacking

[0:58] membership from Texas State this this morning so we will not have them present for

[1:04] today's meeting. And unfortunately, the alternate was unable to attend also. So we're sure to

[1:10] quorum that we can still, you know, get information and receive reports and discuss items,

[1:16] we just won't be able to take formal votes because of the quorum or requirement in the rules.

[1:26] So with that, do we have any public comment, David? No, sir. At this point, we have no comments

[1:31] on the public.

[1:35] So with that, we'll move on to the

[1:37] hydrologic update from Chad.

[1:44] And you folks have any questions regarding

[1:46] hydrologic update. I noticed everyone was here for the stakeholder committee meeting will use this

[1:51] I now if there's any questions.

[1:56] Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much and

[1:59] appreciated your presentation earlier.

[2:07] So EACP program announcements,

[2:09] So I

[2:14] wanted to give a couple of, can you know, hear me?

[2:19] I got double buttoned this.

[2:22] I wanted to give a couple of financial related kind of housekeeping things.

[2:26] Of course, you should have gotten the budget reports for April May in June of 2024 in your

[2:32] packet.

[2:33] So if you have any questions, let me know, or if you don't have any right now, come some

[2:39] come to my later.

[2:39] Just let me know and send me an email, those for you.

[2:43] And also for the budget work group, we have scheduled that that will be held here at the EA office on August 28th from 10 a.m. to noon.

[2:52] So that'll be available obviously on teams as well for those who can attend in person, but again it will be here just here in the conference room to your right to your left.

[3:02] And again, the agenda will be available a week prior on August 20th. So that will be sent out to all and on our list service.

[3:08] Well,

[3:12] thank you. Any questions for David?

[3:16] Thank you, David.

[3:24] I'm up.

[3:27] So we would like to introduce the EHCP intern for this summer and fall.

[3:34] Some messers.

[3:36] Her name is Sarah Garcia.

[3:38] Give us a wave, Sarah.

[3:39] Thank you.

[3:40] She is a student at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

[3:44] She's studying for her bachelor's of arts and environmental studies.

[3:48] and her expected graduation is in fall 2025.

[3:52] So she's been a wonderful asset to our program and staff

[3:56] and she's been diligently taking notes

[3:59] for all of our exciting conservation measures,

[4:02] subcommittee meetings.

[4:05] So we look forward to having her for the rest of the summer

[4:07] and getting her more into some GIS components

[4:11] of the HCPE and other HCP world activities.

[4:17] so welcome Sarah.

[4:21] Next I would like to remind the implementing committee and everybody that we have a

[4:26] national HCP coalition coming up is actually the 10th annual meeting. So please join us for that.

[4:35] It will be in December 10th through the 12th and Margaritaville Resort Palm Springs, California.

[4:42] So if you have any questions about that, please email me or go to the nafcpcollision.org website for more information.

[4:52] I would like to announce that abstracts for this to attend this conference are open today.

[5:02] So please, excuse me an email if you have any questions or if you need extra time to submit those

[5:09] abstracts and I can see if we can work that in. But yes, if you have any questions about

[5:15] attendance event, it's going to be highly attended. There's several topics that I think are very specific to this program,

[5:23] for example, recreation on conservation lands.

[5:27] So that should be very interesting to hear from

[5:29] what other ACPs are doing to combat that issue.

[5:38] All right, thank you, Olivia.

[5:39] So we wanted to let the implementing committee know

[5:42] that our very own Edwards Aquifer Refugia program,

[5:46] the EARP with the US Fish and Wildlife,

[5:50] won the 2023 Southwest Region Team of the Year Award.

[5:54] So they were able to travel up there.

[5:55] I believe in May to receive that award.

[5:57] It was quite an honor.

[6:00] This went to the entire Refugia program, both in New Valley and Sam Marcus.

[6:04] So we wanted to have a few of them by at the year in meeting when we have all three committees

[6:09] present, so we can congratulate them then, they'll be presenting some of the work from this

[6:14] last year.

[6:15] And we're going to run a steward news story on them, so we've been doing interviews and what

[6:19] not.

[6:19] But this is quite an honor.

[6:21] As I understand it, there's many applications from across the region each year.

[6:25] and they were able to come away victorious this year.

[6:28] So, look for that story to run sometime in July or August in the steward newsletter,

[6:34] and make sure to congratulate this group when we have members by at our year-in meetings.

[6:40] And I believe that wraps it up for the program announcements, and we're going to move to

[6:44] new brothels. They're saying markers first. Let's make it a surprise.

[6:48] They're brothels.

[6:49] I think it's new brothels.

[6:51] Thank you, Chad.

[6:52] Yes, go ahead.

[6:53] And Sarah, welcome.

[7:01] Great, thank you.

[7:02] I'm

[7:06] going to provide a quick update for New Bromvis today.

[7:14] As the picture shown earlier, indicated, the spring runs in land

[7:19] apart there, and for the command spring system

[7:21] are pretty dry right now.

[7:23] This one has no surface flow present as of July 22nd.

[7:28] And then spring run three, as you can see from the pictures

[7:31] and one shared earlier, it was running

[7:32] about at 6 to 7 CFS currently.

[7:39] Quick updates on the programming.

[7:42] The merge aquatic vegetation, restoration activities are moving along.

[7:47] A lot of maintenance and upkeep happening right now due to condition M.

[7:50] There isn't any new areas being worked on or garden riparian restoration is continuing along

[7:57] just as planned.

[7:59] And then you can see the annual or year to date species removal stats for an Africa to update that it should read June 2024.

[8:18] As far as this biofiltration system that's being designed at the moment, currently we're doing some extra work with Amatera to perform archaeological surveys that are additional archaeological surveys that are required

[8:32] for additional excavation space to be allowed for the bio filtration bed that is planned

[8:40] to those activities are planned to occur later this month or at the beginning of next month

[8:46] I should say and I should have a better plan of action by the next meeting if you guys

[8:53] on this project here.

[8:57] Lastly, I wanted to plug our annual watershed cleanup.

[9:01] the ATANUAL DOES REO SWATTER SHED CLINUP on the side of the screen there. You can see

[9:07] right here. This is Snake Peak at this year's logo for the event. To citywide annual river

[9:15] watershed cleanup this year will be held on excuse me October 12th the headquarters for the event will

[9:22] be at Prince Som's Park. Generally we have it at the headwaters facility but since they're doing

[9:27] going major construction there at the M.B.U. Headwaters facility we're going to hold it on

[9:33] City property at Prince Hans Park and it's a rain or shine event. So mark a calendar.

[9:40] Any questions?

[9:45] Thank you. Thank you.

[9:51] Thank you.

[9:51] And Mark Anderson will be presenting the update for the City of San Marcos and Texas State.

[10:00] I just wanted to provide a just an overview of some of the ongoing conservation measure work, and the same markets river system.

[10:08] With respect to aquatic veg restoration, we're continuing to move forward with this as we usually do every year.

[10:15] Our focus with this measure again is a lot of effort on controlling non-native species in the river system.

[10:21] You know, watercress, water spread, hydrolla, and hygrophila, you know, mainly to minimize impacts

[10:28] to a lot of the native vegetation and Texas wild rise that we're trying to protect and

[10:32] just trying to limit the expansion and proliferation of those non-natives of a chicken

[10:36] cause negative impacts to the native species.

[10:39] We're trying to protect our founder Habitat.

[10:42] We've done a fair amount of bulk removal this year, bulk non-native removal, primarily downstream

[10:47] of I-35 in Cape Stam, a lot of that was funded through the Texas Parks and Wildlife

[10:53] Habitat Inglar Access Program.

[10:57] I'm so grateful for that grant to kind of move efforts forward outside of the HCP to

[11:02] complement what we're doing through the HCP.

[11:05] We've also done a fair amount of planting of native SAV, aquatic vegetation primarily

[11:10] Cabamba in La Duigia, in the Sam Marcus River, again to expand the available quality

[11:16] fountain daughter habitat in the river system.

[11:19] To date, it planted close to 6,000 native plants in the river system.

[11:25] About half of that was done through the HCP, half of it was done through the TPWD

[11:30] HAP grant program.

[11:33] As of June 27th, flows in the Sam Marcus River system did decrease below 120 CFS, which

[11:39] put us under condition and restrictions, so a lot of the measures that are a little more intensive

[11:48] as far as bulk removal of non-native species and planting of natives has been basically

[11:53] suspended until flows do increase back above 120, which hopefully this rain that we

[11:58] got will kind of will see some increases in spring flow at Sam Marcus, so we can continue

[12:03] a lot of these measures that have really been limited in the last couple of years with low

[12:07] is being under condition and for an extended period of time.

[12:13] With respect to litter management, definitely this river season is no different than past river seasons.

[12:19] We have pretty heavy recreational pressure on the river system, which in itself brings litter to our rivers.

[12:27] I would say there's just a huge effort to manage litter in the same market river system.

[12:32] Whether that be city staff or city contractors picking up litter within our riverfront parks.

[12:38] or, you know, our HCP contractor that does, you know, in-channel, you know, picking up

[12:43] glitter from the, you know, better the river or from the banks, just again a huge effort

[12:48] to try to combat the amount of litter that does end up, you know, in the waterway and on the banks of the river.

[12:55] I think I've informed this group previously, but the city council has passed a disposable beverage container ban,

[13:02] that prohibits having disposable beverage containers immediately along the banks of the river.

[13:07] This is the first year of that ordinance, which is, you know, we're focusing on education this year, I will say it's been slow to get that message out to the, you know, the folks who are visiting the river, especially folks from out of town, who this is, you know, brand new ordinance, you know, they've been coming to the river saver 20 years, you know, as an example, and this is the first year that they've had this restriction, so again, the push this year has just been to try to educate river users that this ordinance is in place next year.

[13:35] we'll kind of step up enforcement, hopefully.

[13:37] Hopefully we can get more staff on board,

[13:39] park arrangers, city marshals

[13:41] to help enforce this ordinance, gain a little more compliance,

[13:45] once folks are educated,

[13:46] and we'll continue on with our education campaign

[13:48] to get the word out.

[13:50] I'd like to say it is having a positive effect.

[13:52] It's hard to tell at this point,

[13:54] because we're still seeing a lot of litter,

[13:57] but really it's you'd be expected this ordinance will take time

[13:59] to really get the message out to River users.

[14:03] I'd certainly want to give a shout out

[14:05] all the volunteer groups and all the volunteers who come out time after time to help manage

[14:10] the litter on the river system. So for instance, over the 4th of July week and we had

[14:15] several nonprofits and volunteer groups come out to the river, you know, on their Friday Saturday

[14:21] Sunday mornings throughout the 4th of July holiday, you know, getting out there at 8 o'clock on

[14:25] your weekend to help pick up litter after a busy, you know, day on the river. So, you know, that effort

[14:31] as well as every teen recurring Monday morning,

[14:35] letter cleanup effort.

[14:36] So volunteers are showing up Monday mornings

[14:38] to start picking up litter that has been left over

[14:42] as a result of the weekend.

[14:44] So while it is discouraging to continue to see

[14:47] litter left behind by river users,

[14:50] there's just a huge effort out there.

[14:51] And I think it is really helping to keep our river clean.

[14:55] After a lot of this cleanup is done,

[14:58] there's still litter accumulations out there.

[15:00] With the pressure and the amount of visitors and what do we have in the river, these efforts really are, I think, combating the amount of litter that does end up in the river.

[15:10] Again, mention this again, I think I presented the IC a couple of meetings ago on how river recreation is being managed to minimize impacts to endangered species habitat in the river.

[15:22] I'll go over that again real quick, but again, we have a HP conservation crew, it's 10-12

[15:29] part-time staffers that are basically patrolling up and down the river, educating river users on

[15:34] park rules about the endangered species we're trying to protect, so just trying to educate river users

[15:41] to have a good conservation effort in good stewardship of the river.

[15:45] So, letter management, I mentioned that, again, probably our most effective habitat protection

[15:52] measure and recreational management measure in my opinion is this river access control where

[15:56] we basically have stabilized access points where folks can access the river in between those

[16:02] access points.

[16:03] You know, we essentially have fencing that prohibits access to a good portion of the river.

[16:06] And that's both on Texas State property and throughout city riverfront parks.

[16:10] So just a huge, a huge measure that is very effective on one protecting kind of the riparian

[16:17] vegetation, but also, you know, anywhere people are accessing, there's habitat degradation

[16:22] of the aquatic vegetation and the fountain-dartar habitat, you know, in stream that we're

[16:26] protecting through this measure.

[16:29] Last but not least, the PPWD State Scientific Area Exclosures.

[16:35] So again, these are buoys that are put, you know, around stands of Texas wild rise in aquatic

[16:39] vegetation to basically prevent or limit access into certain areas that we're trying to protect,

[16:45] you know, Texas walled right stands, you know, so that coupled with signage has been a fairly

[16:50] effective tool on keeping folks out of sensitive areas. And that's one measure that, you know,

[16:54] going forward in the future that we can probably grow and extend to try to protect more area.

[17:02] I did want to give an update on some signage upgrades. They're underway for Texas state properties,

[17:08] So namely, soil park and what folks refer to as the Kirby laying area or the head of water's

[17:14] area, the upper soil area, you know, it's that area, just below the spring lake dam, upstream

[17:18] of the walker in the spring drive bridge.

[17:21] So both of those parks have existing signage that does pertain to the endangered species,

[17:27] the signs on the left or the signage signs that have been in place for some time.

[17:33] I think the messages on the signs that are existing are still pertinent, but they're just

[17:38] out of date. They don't really pop. It's just some text, you know, some of the photos are

[17:42] washed out. As you can see on that photo in the middle, I think that photo used to have

[17:45] a, you know, an image of Texas wilder ice. I think the sun has just beat that down. And again,

[17:50] good message on the existing signage. But we have been able to work with EAA's communications team

[17:57] in a shout out to Micah Myers, who works with Edward Zucker Authority, who was basically took the lead

[18:02] on taking input from myself from Christina Tolman and the EAHCP team as well as a couple other

[18:10] university departments and groups.

[18:14] So, took all of our input on what needed to be included in a sign.

[18:18] And basically put the other sign that you see on the right.

[18:22] Again, I think it pops a little more.

[18:23] Hopefully it catches folks' attention a little more.

[18:27] You know, the main message we wanted to convey is that this

[18:30] The endangered species that are present in areas, you know, if so apart in the upper spring run area, or I'm sorry the upper spring area.

[18:40] But then also trying to convey some messages, you know, not just our park rules like no glass, you know, no alcohol rules like that, but just specific messages that help to protect habitat.

[18:51] You know, do not disturb wildlife aquatic vegetation or remove rocks in the river, you know, all of which can impact, you know, the endangered species.

[18:59] the Texas Walderized directly or the Fountain Darden or the St. Marcus Salamander.

[19:04] So, again, we have that language there in English and Spanish and then also some icons

[19:08] that basically reiterate what the wording says.

[19:11] Try not to trample a aquatic vegetation, don't pull a aquatic vegetation out, don't make

[19:16] the rock care and so they're rotten dans in the river.

[19:19] So, trying to get this message out to river users, we've got final approval from Texas State,

[19:24] the powers to be a Texas state to install this signage,

[19:28] so we'll be working with a resort for a authority team

[19:31] in Texas state to get these signs in the ground.

[19:33] I would hope that we can have them in place by the end of August.

[19:38] I was wanting to have these in May before the recreation season

[19:42] began, but nonetheless, the process is taking some time.

[19:44] And all the better we've got a lot of input at these signs.

[19:48] And I think you would agree with me these signs,

[19:50] I think, are a good addition.

[19:51] We're looking to put five of these signs in school park,

[19:53] get all the entries into the park, and then one at the, the, at the, at the, at the head

[19:57] water area.

[20:04] One more slide here.

[20:09] All right. Last but not least, I presented on this before, but the Army Corps of Engineers has basically sponsored the Sam Marcus River aquatic ecosystem restoration project. So they've over the last couple years have been putting forth a lot of resources to remove non-native species from the banks. Really are riparian area, removing non-native species and planting native species. So as far as they're non-native removal efforts, it's been targeted towards

[20:37] of Lagustrum, Chinese, Palo, China berries, and Elefineers.

[20:41] So over the last couple years,

[20:42] they've been doing a lot of treatments

[20:43] of those non-native species.

[20:46] Primarily downstream of 35,

[20:47] where the HCP program work has not yet extended for the most part.

[20:52] And so recently, they've been doing some follow-up

[20:55] Elefineer treatment downstream of 35 in Cape Stam

[20:59] to kind of hit some still prolific stance

[21:01] of Elefineers downstream of 35.

[21:04] The work that they still have left

[21:06] includes just subsequent native planting, which they've been doing of the last couple of years,

[21:11] but they'll be doing a couple of rounds of native planting along the river banks.

[21:14] This fall and next spring, and after that it'll kind of conclude this project.

[21:19] After their finish here, through the HCP program, we aim to kind of maintain some of these areas

[21:25] that have been worked through this project.

[21:31] And that's all I have for you. Any questions on

[21:33] happenings in San Marcos. Questions from Mark?

[21:39] Seeing none. Thank you, Mark.

[21:44] So without we'll move on to approval of our meeting

[21:47] minute from the May 23rd, 24 implementing committee meeting.

[21:52] And I will need a motion for approval of those minutes.

[21:57] Given lack of quorum, can we approve minutes?

[22:03] No, we're not able to do that, I see. So

[22:07] Well, we'll punt the minutes, he's still next meeting.

[22:14] Thank you, Roland, for catching that.

[22:23] So with that, I believe we'll move on to a presentation by Lucas Bear in relation to the Spring

[22:31] Flow Simulation for the initial take assessment.

[22:50] Hello, everybody. Lucas here. Can you all hear me?

[22:56] Yes.

[22:57] Great, and the screen is up, I presume?

[23:01] Yes, we see the presentation.

[23:02] Fantastic. I'll get started then.

[23:08] So as was noted earlier last at the IC meeting in May,

[23:16] we discussed the climate modeling and Springflow projections completed and Paul vertediate

[23:24] present in those results. And then we talked about moving ahead and into the next phases of the

[23:33] permit renewal, which include starting in on the initial take assessment. So I'm going to continue with

[23:41] that information sharing in next steps today.

[23:54] Let me make sure I can get my slide to advance.

[24:00] Here we go. Okay. So in overview here what I'm going to cover, I'll briefly talk about where

[24:09] we are in the permanent renewal process. And then I'll do a recap of the temperature

[24:16] and precipitation future projections, a brief recap just to set some context here. And then

[24:24] I'll continue to talk about why the take assessment is needed for the permanent renewal

[24:28] And what the purpose of this initial take assessment is at this stage, and then I'll go into talking about considering spring flow simulations for this initial take assessment, including the consideration of the 1947 to 76 simulation and comparing that with forward simulations, and then wrap up with some next steps.

[24:55] They've already seen this earlier today.

[24:58] This is the overall...

[25:00] Schedule of the permit renewal available on the permit renewal website. And we are in the analyzing sign-off phase, where we're developing the key elements of a technical nature for the permit renewal. And this phase goes through the beginning of 2025.

[25:26] after which we'll go into the document phase where we'll actually start to prepare the renewed

[25:34] HCP and the Incental Take Perman Application that will be submitted to the U.S.

[25:38] Fish and Wildlife Service at the end of that document phase, which we anticipate to be around the end of 2025.

[25:46] And then of course there's a draft review period by the service as well as a public review period

[25:53] through the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA that will run through 2027 when we anticipate

[26:02] in Q3 the permit decision by the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service.

[26:14] This is a more zoomed in look at where we are in the analyze and sign off phase.

[26:22] The sort of the middle track with the blue arrows is corresponds to our proceeding through

[26:30] phase here and you can see we've we've done preliminary biology goals and objectives and we have

[26:37] done climate change and Springflow modeling and so the the next step in this process is an

[26:47] initial habitat suitability analysis and impact assessment

[26:56] and after this thing

[27:03] or step I should say, we will then move ahead into considering changes to the conservation measures

[27:10] as well as monitoring, and then we'll move into the documentation phase of the amended

[27:18] EHCP, and you can see the various steps along the way that have committees reviewed

[27:24] draft of technical memo, these various components.

[27:31] And just to note that this initial take assessment is not the final take assessment that

[27:40] would go into the amended HCP and the internal take permit application.

[27:46] That really won't come until the conservation measures are and really holistically the conservation

[27:53] strategies is completed and that actual HCP is submitted to the service at the end of that documentation phase.

[28:10] We're just talking about an initial take assessment at this point.

[28:16] And I'll talk more about why we want to do that at this step in the process here and later in the presentation.

[28:22] But

[28:28] I'm just going to switch gears a little bit to talk about a recap of future temperature

[28:33] and precipitation projections.

[28:35] And again, this is a wealth of information that's been presented really over the last

[28:40] probably 18 months through various committee's meetings, but I'm going to just give a little

[28:46] recap to make sure that the proper context is set for the topic of discussion today.

[28:52] So,

[28:57] the EAA, and as Scott mentioned earlier in the stakeholder meeting, the Casc, the

[29:05] Cell Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, developed customized statistical down-scale

[29:11] global climate models for the Edward Dock for Regent,

[29:16] those were selected,

[29:21] they selected

[29:22] high and intermediate,

[29:26] and the intention there was to capture a spread of projected change

[29:30] due to climate change in the region.

[29:35] It's really to get an idea of what the possible outcomes

[29:37] are from these global climate models downscale to our area of interest. And all those simulations

[29:46] project temperature increase consistently,

[29:52] but they are more variable when it comes to

[29:54] precipitation, some simulations, predicting a drier or...

[30:00] Excuse me, a wetterfuture and others, a dryerfuture.

[30:05] So looking more closely at the predictions

[30:10] out of that 19 model scenario, that is the 19 global climate model selected across two emission

[30:18] scenarios. First at precipitation, and we're looking from 2030 through 2059 in terms of the projections

[30:30] here,

[30:34] and both in the middle scenario of emissions and the high, the mean value of these

[30:45] 19 models suggest a slight a drying trend in the region across most of the region except

[30:52] for that southern tip of the noise is basin.

[30:58] Now that's not to say some models don't predict

[30:59] wetter but if you're to take a look at them all you see a slight drying trend which which may

[31:05] suggest that a slight drying and precipitation across across the Edward's region maybe more likely.

[31:25] As I mentioned earlier temperature much more consistent across all of the models.

[31:31] All models predict warming. 2030 that's through 259.

[31:39] Warming is supposed to be

[31:42] greater under the high emission scenario, which is what we would predict.

[31:47] So under the middle or mid emission scenario, we're looking at more in the two and a half to

[31:56] three, maybe upper end three and a half degrees Fahrenheit increase, whereas in the high emission scenario,

[32:07] we're looking more into the 3.3.5 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit increase with warming being

[32:17] greatest in the north-western portion of the Edwards Arc for region.

[32:25] Those are the general trends in precipitation and temperature.

[32:31] We also looked at throughout in a couple different ways, being that that's really important

[32:37] component to consider in the the permit renewal process as it relates to conditions in the

[32:42] brings for covered species.

[32:45] So, we looked at drought by first comparing it to a 1981 to 2020 historical period to the future period of 2021-2060.

[33:01] And what we did is we looked at the future projections, and we binned the drought periods from 1 to 1,

[33:12] two, three, four, and seven and a half years.

[33:17] And then we looked at the precipitation totals

[33:21] in those dry period durations

[33:25] and compared that to historical period.

[33:33] So what we found is lowest precipitation

[33:35] totals projected to decrease for most drought durations

[33:39] except for the one and seven and a half year droughts.

[33:42] This has compared to again, 1981 to 2020.

[33:49] So we're seeing a range here, and again, this is because we see a real high variability

[33:56] in precipitation prediction.

[33:59] So for drought lengths of two to four years compared to that 1981 to 2020 period, we're

[34:06] seeing when compared to future, a slightly drier period over droughts of that span, but when

[34:12] we look at single year droughts or the longer drought of seven and a half years we're

[34:18] a slight increase in precipitation or droughts of that period

[34:27] and just to emphasize there's

[34:29] a high uncertainty between climate models on the magnitude and direction of these trends.

[34:39] So, I talked about comparing future to this more recent 1981 to 2020, we also wanted to

[34:46] look at what comparing to a period that includes the drought of record would look like.

[34:53] So, the way we did that is in order to capture that longer period of record.

[35:00] Anyway, international airport weather station that has precipitation records that go back to 1950 that

[35:06] capture that drought or record. And so we did a similar exercise with that historical

[35:12] observed data set. We looked, we compared that data to the future projections. And what

[35:19] you see there is projections for drought, for drought precipitation at the San Antonio

[35:26] international airport weather station indicate that precipitation tunnels may increase for all drought

[35:31] scenarios.

[35:34] In other words, the drought of record was really, really quite dry. And if you include,

[35:41] you know, comparing a period that includes that drought of record with the future projections,

[35:46] you're not seeing precipitation as low in the future as what was experienced in that

[35:52] throughout a record time period.

[35:56] But again, what you're seeing on the chart is, you know,

[36:00] wide uncertainty. And so, just want to remember that we do have some, some,

[36:08] wide uncertainty with these predictions.

[36:16] So conclusions, the Edwards Arc for Region is more likely

[36:20] to experience drying trends through 259 relative to recent history.

[36:27] The magnitude of future

[36:28] precipitation trends vary by model, due to uncertainty in climate model

[36:32] predictions for precipitation.

[36:35] The models are consistent when it comes to temperatures, which are predicted

[36:39] to increase and may lead to increased risk of drought in the future during

[36:42] period of anomalously low precipitation.

[36:45] Obviously, temperature and precipitation as they're associated with drought

[36:50] are related.

[36:51] And so you hire temperatures will increase the chances of drought during

[36:57] low precipitation periods. However, downscale, the downscaled ensemble of global climate models

[37:02] does not project a period with lower precipitation than the drought or records occurring

[37:07] by 2060.

[37:18] So that concludes the recap of our climate and our excuse me, our pre-sip and temperature

[37:23] projections. And now I'm going to shift this back to the take assessment where we are in the

[37:38] The HCP must specify the, quote, impact that will result from the taking to covered species in order to meet endangered species access

[37:50] and 10 permit requirements.

[37:52] So that's straight from the statute there.

[37:56] The HCP will, therefore, calculate the amount of take to occur to each covered species over the proposed permit term for the next 30 years.

[38:04] The ECP also then needs to describe the impact of the taking to the species considering

[38:11] context intensity and duration.

[38:17] And the reason the ECP needs to do this is because the service considers impact of the

[38:22] taking in relation to its permit issuance criteria.

[38:27] Two of those are listed here below.

[38:29] This is not all the permit issuance criteria, but the two that are specifically relevant

[38:33] to impact of the taking.

[38:34] And those are that the applicant will, to the maximum extent practical, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking.

[38:42] And that the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild,

[38:49] which is also known as the jeopardy standard.

[38:55] So that's where this take assessment fits into the instantile take permit renewal process from a regulatory context perspective.

[39:06] So, what's the purpose of an initial take assessment at this stage?

[39:10] As I said earlier, we're not considering any type of final take assessment here.

[39:15] That won't come into later until we know what the conservation strategy is going to be.

[39:21] But we want to do this at this stage because what we can do is we can establish methods for

[39:27] estimating take. So interestingly, in the current HCP, the take assessment was actually done

[39:37] by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the current Insult Take Permit that is not

[39:42] in any way standard. Current practice is that the service expects the applicant to provide

[39:50] a estimate of take, which of course the Fish and Wildlife Service has to concur with and stand

[39:56] but it's definitely the role of the applicant.

[40:00] That information. And that's what we intend to do in the permit renewal process.

[40:07] So it will allow us to establish methods for estimating take, something we can make progress on now.

[40:14] It will also help us estimate the amount of take with the existing EACP conservation measures to serve as a point of reference, as we move ahead to consider changes to those conservation measures.

[40:31] But as I mentioned, the ultimate amount of take requested in the permit renewal application will be calculated after all proposed conservation measures are determined for their renewed EHCP, which really won't happen until even the end of the document phase before the ITP submittal.

[40:58] So, we created a model 1947 to 76 spring flow simulation, and I'm going to talk a little

[41:08] bit about why we did that.

[41:12] So, we presented on this back in, during the May and Permanent Committee meeting.

[41:21] The forward spring flow simulations developed from the 19 down-scaled global climate models,

[41:26] created 19 different spring flow simulations that had very very

[41:32] characteristics. So Paul talked about this in May, but we saw, you know,

[41:39] some being highly variable in amount of spring flow, some having, you know,

[41:44] more consistent or less variability. Certain projections had much lower long-term

[41:51] flows while others were subject to more spiky predictions or very, very low short duration

[42:01] minimum flows.

[42:03] But in looking at all those, those 19, none of them, no forward simulation, contained

[42:11] a long-term drought as severe as the drought or record.

[42:17] So the existing HCP is based on planning for a repeat of the drought or record.

[42:22] And we looked at the effects of climate change on Springflow and we didn't find a forward

[42:29] simulation that looked worse in terms of a long-term drought in that drought record.

[42:36] So what we wanted to do then was we created a 1947-76 model simulation to create a 30-year

[42:45] Springflow simulation that includes that drought record.

[42:49] And that allows us to, for Apple's taples comparison of Spring Flow Simulation over the

[42:55] Drouter Record with those Ford simulations, and it creates a 30 or hydrograph for using

[43:00] in the Tate calculations.

[43:11] These are what the, I'll start with Komal.

[43:14] This is what this 1947-76 model Spring Flow simulation looks like with the EAA Critical Period Management

[43:22] and EACP Spring Flow Protection Measures.

[43:24] So again, this has the existing conservation measures or spring flow protection measures, I should take in it.

[43:32] And you can see the draw to record in the really that 1947-48 through 56-period

[43:42] CFS for Kamal Springs.

[43:46] And then looking at St. Marcus similarly,

[43:51] you have a period of long period of low spring flow

[43:57] from 47 all the way to 57 and then you have more variable spikes of increased spring flow,

[44:07] but also some low spring flows as well through 76.

[44:25] As I mentioned this, creating this simulation allows for comparison with the forward simulations.

[44:34] And so we did a little bit of that and what we found is that minimum average spring flow for timeframes from 1 to 10 years.

[44:42] are lower in the 47 to 76 simulation than any of the forward simulations.

[44:56] So, you see that in the tables below where you have...

[45:00] 766 simulation

[45:03] with minimum 1 year average, 2 year average, 3 year average, 5 year average and average and 10 year average. You can see how those are lower than any than the lowest of the forward simulations, the lowest average of the forward simulations.

[45:28] So estimated spring flow with future projected temperature and precipitation does not indicate a drought impacting spring flow as severely as the drought record.

[45:38] Over these time periods, and the drought of record remains

[45:41] can serve the conservative worst case to assess effects

[45:44] of covered activities and conservation measures

[45:46] to the covered species.

[45:58] A couple of other notes in comparing the historical simulation

[46:01] to these forward simulations.

[46:03] There are some sub-annual minimum spring flows

[46:06] in the one to nine-month time periods

[46:11] that are lower.

[46:14] so then the historical. So to put that conversely the 47 to 76 simulation has lower minimum

[46:25] spring flows than 18 out of the 19 forward simulations and

[46:32] the 47 to 76 simulation has

[46:34] lower minimum spring flows than 17 out of the 19 forward simulations.

[46:43] So again,

[46:45] come all two percent markets that have those these lower sub-annual in a

[46:50] mums. And then note that the ASR was not triggered in the simulations in these

[46:56] four insimulations with sub-annual minimums lower than the 47 to 76

[47:00] simulation. And that's because these minimums occurred without triggering the

[47:04] 10-year 500,000 acre-fit rolling average for the ASR.

[47:18] Okay, conclusions here to start

[47:21] wrap-up. The 1947-1976 simulation has lower minimum average spring flow for timeframes from

[47:32] one to ten years than any of the forward simulations with forecasted temperature and precipitation

[47:39] through 2058.

[47:44] The 1947-76-76 spring flow simulation has lower sub-annual minimum average

[47:50] inflow than the majority of forward simulations, but there are a few forward simulations that

[47:55] have lower sub-annual in a mums.

[48:01] Long-term drought is a greater threat to covered species than

[48:05] sub-annual minimum spring flows. That is droughts along over multiple years are a bigger threat

[48:13] than short-term droughts with those sub-annual minimum spring flows.

[48:24] So we conclude that

[48:25] the drought a record remains the most conservative drought period from which to base an initial

[48:30] take assessment.

[48:41] So next steps are now July through October to move ahead to conduct an initial

[48:48] habitat suitability analysis and take assessment and that would mean that in October there

[48:54] would be a draft technical memo for review that would provide this information and focus on the

[49:03] methods for this initial take assessment and then moving ahead from October through March

[49:12] of next year, we'll have that initial take assessment and also then we'll be able to use that

[49:19] to evaluate effects of considered changes to conservation measures.

[49:33] So the President action

[49:35] then would be the implementing committee directive to proceed for using the 1947-76 Spring

[49:40] simulation as the basis for an initial take assessment in the permit renewal process.

[49:46] And I believe that is the last slide I have before questions.

[49:55] Make sure my screen is such that I can see people.

[50:01] All right. And just for the purpose of clarity and to catch you up to speed, Deluca said, the fact that we don't have quorum today and are not able to vote on actually accepting and recommending this to move forward.

[50:17] until we have a full quorum that may affect some of the calendar there as you showed there at the end.

[50:24] But that's something I guess it will still need to be, you know, worked through until we can get a formal vote of proving this.

[50:33] Yes, understood. I heard that Tom.

[50:37] Yeah.

[50:37] Well, we could take this time to, you know, answer any questions or of the presentation and it may be happy to do that.

[50:45] Right, and we are able to discuss and ask questions and, you know, get further information on this, we just can't take a formal action one way or the other on this today.

[50:55] With that or there are any questions or discussion with Lucas on this.

[51:10] Have some genuine else volunteering.

[51:13] I do have a couple of comments that I would make, and I did have some communication with the Texas state and they did have a comment or two.

[51:21] they asked that I indicated I could share today, you know, on this topic.

[51:30] You know, this, this one's a, this one's a tough one because I think the information that we've received,

[51:36] at least for my perspective, the information we've received and we've received an awful lot of information in relation to climate,

[51:43] and how that's going to downscale to our area, and how that will affect flows going forward.

[51:49] we've seen a lot of modeling results,

[51:51] and we've been given a lot of information about this.

[51:54] Unfortunately, as often the case with a large amount of data,

[51:57] not necessarily all of that indicates the same trend

[52:03] or same set of circumstances may be the best under a future scenario.

[52:10] The data, at least in my mind,

[52:12] seems to kind of go both ways in relation to the drought

[52:15] record. I very much appreciate the period we're looking at here being inclusive of that in relation

[52:23] to our analysis. Those are some comments that we had made earlier that are may not have

[52:28] been enough focus early on in relation to conditions there in the draw to record being considered

[52:35] and moving forward with a renewed ITP.

[52:42] But we've actually now included information that in

[52:46] corporations, you know, the situation regarding draw to record and the flows that we saw then.

[52:51] I do think, you know, EAA and Lucas for the additional work that's been done in relation

[52:57] to that.

[52:58] However, I guess the concern that I have, you know, I mean, it still comes down to we're saying

[53:03] that the future modeling with higher temperatures and lower precipitation related to climate

[53:11] change that we would not in the next 30 years expect to see a repeat of the drought

[53:16] record. And, you know, recognizing, and I mean, we've restated today in a couple

[53:22] different cases, you know, the high uncertainty in relation to a lot of these models

[53:27] and a lot of the information. And I guess the ultimate question in my mind is, is, is, is

[53:35] relying on not having a drought or record condition over the next 30 years that we would

[53:41] to have this ITP. Are we being conservative enough when we're looking at the climate changes

[53:49] that we're witnessing going forward? And I think that's the thing that I've struggled with

[53:53] most in relation to this is for a 30-year period and recognizing that models are models.

[54:01] I think the information is very useful. I think it is basically scientifically on what has happened

[54:06] before. On the other hand, we know there's a huge amount of variability in weather and we know

[54:14] that in many cases the modeling isn't correct and we're only going to be sure on what's

[54:19] correct after it's actually transpired. I think in relation to this I'm encouraged on the one hand

[54:27] that the data is showing this could be a reasonable basis to calculate take based on and apparently

[54:35] And Lucas, I'll ask this question of you.

[54:38] I think you'd send an email to me earlier this week

[54:41] that in response to a question that I had asked in relation to that.

[54:49] If you would share what you'd sent the email on earlier this week

[54:53] with the group, I think that would help show additional information

[54:58] in relation to this.

[55:00] Sure. And just one point of clarification, based on what you said there, Tom, is we are, so we looked at future projections, and we didn't see a long-term drought period affecting spring flow as severely as the drought or record.

[55:20] So our direction now is not to plan for one of those future simulations that doesn't look as bad as the drought or record.

[55:28] What we're saying is, no, we're going to maintain the drought or record as the planning scenario, I'll call it, to be conservative, because that's what we think could happen.

[55:43] So we're not deciding to plan for something less severe than the drought a record.

[55:48] We are saying, let's continue to maintain the assumption that a drought of record could

[55:56] repeat over the next 30 years, even though the global climate model ensemble is not showing

[56:05] something as severe.

[56:06] So that's the one one point of clarification the other one I I wanted to to note or upon your request

[56:14] Tom is that

[56:16] We did meet with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

[56:20] July 11th and

[56:22] presented

[56:23] the service with the same

[56:25] information that I've provided today in discussing

[56:29] a path to move forward in

[56:32] conducting this initial take assessment and the service was supportive at this stage

[56:36] of continuing to use the drought of record in that assessment, and therefore to use the

[56:43] this 1947 to 1976 modeled simulation as the basis for an initial take assessment.

[56:55] Thank you, Lucas.

[56:58] In relation to your first comment, I understand and agree with what you've said as far as,

[57:04] I have full understanding of that.

[57:06] I think the point I'm making is not that that we're considering not using the

[57:13] draw-to-record at all.

[57:15] I think the point that I've been making simply is that are we comfortable enough that

[57:20] the draw-to-record is the most concerning, most severe draw that we could see within

[57:28] this next 30-year period.

[57:30] That's the real, I think, crux of this as weather in a situation where we've already

[57:36] had a broader record occur in a situation where we didn't have the factors associated

[57:42] with climate change that we're currently wrestling with being developed at that point in

[57:47] time.

[57:49] Obviously, going forward, I think, the question this simply is, you know, we knew we had

[57:53] a broader record when we didn't have the climate change issues and the temperatures warming

[57:58] to the degree we've had and expected to continue and the question simply is is the modeling

[58:05] indicates that we shouldn't expect a repeat of that in the next 30 years. I'm just simply

[58:09] saying is that a conservative enough thought given the fact we've already had a rather

[58:14] draw to record when we didn't have the higher temperatures and the lower precipitation numbers.

[58:19] So I mean those two things seem to kind of run, you know, not in parallel, but they're they're

[58:28] us at some point in ways of deciding what we're comfortable with and approaching this.

[58:35] So I did understand that we weren't rejecting or changing from the draw to record and

[58:39] that's the proposal that you're bringing forward.

[58:41] I'm simply saying that given what we've seen in the climate change science, are we comfortable

[58:49] enough with that looking forward that we couldn't have a more severe drop when there are

[58:56] other things that were aware of certainly to indicate we've had historic

[59:00] crowds that were worse than a drought record even.

[59:03] So I think that's my concern, and that's basically what I wanted to

[59:08] voice today.

[59:11] You know, I mean, I think we need to make sure we've got enough safety

[59:14] margin built into this that we think we're going to have a realistic

[59:18] chance of calling this correctly.

[59:22] because the effects of being wrong on the modeling

[59:25] of, you know, it's not an academic exercise.

[59:27] After we build this program around it,

[59:31] and, you know, try to work through 30 years of,

[59:34] you know, all the pressures on these systems

[59:36] under the climate change scenario.

[59:41] Yeah, if I would chime in with,

[59:43] I think that our benchmark for this or goal

[59:47] is to renew the incidental take permit.

[59:50] And if I'm hearing what Lucas has saying,

[59:52] And if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that this is conservative enough.

[1:00:00] I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that our goal is to get an incidental take from it for the next 30-year period. Period. Now, if there are, to Tom to your point of your saying, you know, is this, say, built-in safety enough, I think that's why we have the refusia, why we've invested in that. In the event, everything all goes to hell. You know, we've, we've got that in play as well.

[1:00:27] But I would say that if fishing wildlife service is okay with it, then I'm going to feel comfortable with it.

[1:00:38] Thanks, and that's one reason I asked Lewis specifically shared that information.

[1:00:42] I'd asked for it to last meeting whether we'd approach fish and what the method on that would be.

[1:00:50] It is good, and I think that is good information to have, and I think it is reassuring to some extent that fish is willing to accept that.

[1:00:57] I don't think that absolves us of the responsibility of making that decision independently though.

[1:01:06] Patrick?

[1:01:08] Yeah, I just want to say usually when I'm asked to fill in or sit in on this panel that I see.

[1:01:17] I jot down a number of things that I'm thinking about as I've seen this presentation probably three to four times.

[1:01:24] And, like everyone else, obviously critical kind of in the beginning and then get more comfortable as I see it multiple times and see the science or, you know, the information behind the modeling.

[1:01:38] So, I kind of want to start with one of the points I wrote down, which was like my last point actually, is again, an initial permit, and I know I'm not going to take a lot of time because we're not making a policy decision today, but if you'll just give me a couple minutes.

[1:01:54] We made a lot of decisions in good faith.

[1:01:58] We've made a lot of investments from different partners across the region.

[1:02:04] I mean, I just want to remind people of that.

[1:02:06] There were obviously placeholders.

[1:02:08] We put in place.

[1:02:09] You know, as we took that endeavor,

[1:02:12] I have to say, we could be in the repeat of the drought or record.

[1:02:17] We were all watching the trends.

[1:02:21] They have went up a bit and conditions are probably different today than they were in the 50s.

[1:02:28] So that uncertainties always going to be with us as we're making decisions or policy decisions.

[1:02:34] This is a kind of an area too where for me, you know, having been with saws for, you know, a big portion of my career.

[1:02:41] the planning that we do, all of us, is iterative, we just released our water management

[1:02:48] planning, it's out for review for the public.

[1:02:51] The investments we make, whether it's adhering to the critical period, changing our conservation

[1:02:58] roles, adding an enforcement, adding in all of these other items across the region, you

[1:03:05] know, are for the benefit of what we're trying to accomplish, which is minimum continues.

[1:03:10] sprinkle in protection of the species in their habitats.

[1:03:14] I just think we have to keep reminding ourselves of that.

[1:03:18] As we make policy decisions, there's going to be some give and take.

[1:03:21] I mean, one of the major considerations that I think about

[1:03:25] is the commitments that have to be made

[1:03:29] that are actually kind of physical part of the agreement.

[1:03:35] You know, a sauce cuts back beyond the 44% with an engineered solution that is not necessarily understood by everyone or easy to operate unless you're part of our organization.

[1:03:47] We operate that ASR system outside of even the depth of drought.

[1:03:53] Today, something I heard that was a really interesting and Lucas's presentation I really appreciate it is that deep drought threat.

[1:04:01] because I keep hearing, well, one of the observations

[1:04:04] against statistically off the highly uncertain data

[1:04:07] is when the aquifer isn't being mined,

[1:04:10] there was a trigger that was worse,

[1:04:13] which is now calling for, I think, some folks

[1:04:15] to think that, well, you just operate the SR quicker,

[1:04:19] or faster, or on a shorter rolling recharge.

[1:04:23] But that's not necessarily how it works, if you look

[1:04:26] at hydrographs, you can see the effects of rainfall,

[1:04:30] even in the past, as it slowly starts to climb and crescendo again,

[1:04:36] too bad we spent too much time in that lower period sometimes,

[1:04:39] but you've said it, we don't know exactly what it's going to do.

[1:04:43] But what this information has told me is that the best information that's out there

[1:04:48] tells us what we know today and that's what we're going to have to make a policy decision with at some point.

[1:04:55] And I'm just kind of, again, I jotted these down as I was preparing for this.

[1:05:00] More times, I wasn't always 100% comfortable.

[1:05:05] I know, as you guys consider it and figure out how to move forward, we'll keep that in mind.

[1:05:13] Thank you, Patrick. I think those are very good comments. I will share what Robert Mays had had, you know, discussed with me briefly in relation to something that may help in relation to, you know, considering this 30-year period.

[1:05:31] of the permit and some of our uncertainties around what we may or may not actually experience

[1:05:39] in relation to climate change and the associated effects on our systems.

[1:05:50] In Robert and looking at this, I mean, you know, he feels that rather than having a single

[1:05:58] 30-day period, 30-year period, I should say, for the new permit that it may make sense to build in,

[1:06:06] similar to what we had, I guess in the first incidental take permit, where we had phasing,

[1:06:12] you know, approached in that, that we may, in the 30-year period, take a look at building in,

[1:06:18] adaptive decision points to where we take a look at what we've experienced in relation to climate

[1:06:24] change, and that 10 year period versus what we expected, and decide whether we need to make

[1:06:32] any changes in the program at that point in time to build that into the program at front

[1:06:37] so that we have to actually consider that question a couple of times over that 30 year period.

[1:06:45] We're going a lot longer than we went in the first permit, double the length of time.

[1:06:52] We've learned a lot in the period of time that we've actually, you know, been involved with the program now since 2013.

[1:07:01] But we also haven't seen every conceivable, you know, a circumstance, and certainly not all the weather, you know, situations that we could under climate change.

[1:07:12] But he thinks that if we built in those decision points or at least double checks in relation

[1:07:21] to where we're at in the program, you know, he understands and I think I understand too.

[1:07:26] I mean, because of the great degree of uncertainty and predicting some of these future

[1:07:31] occurrences in relation to weather and precipitation and temperature, none of us are ever

[1:07:36] going to guess those right.

[1:07:38] And you're not sure when you're trying to make a decision 30 years in advance, whether

[1:07:41] you're actually hitting the right spot in a decision or not, simply because it's very difficult

[1:07:48] to predict the future that way. This would be a way for us to build in something that we're

[1:07:53] pretty familiar with. We've already done the first go round and in terms of the permit.

[1:07:59] And that would give us a chance to take a look at this issue a couple of times over the course of

[1:08:04] this next permit right now if we try to figure out, we're not going to be able to guess what the right

[1:08:08] answer is on this. And science isn't going to tell us what the right answer is. We may have

[1:08:14] a lot of models with the point is we're going to have to make decisions, you know, now,

[1:08:19] if we try to debate that and figure that out in relation to working through this schedule for

[1:08:25] ITP renewal, I mean, we could burn a lot of time here and, you know, potentially not be in the

[1:08:37] may not know all those answers perfectly up front and make sure we build in something that makes

[1:08:43] us focus on that again so we can, you know, validate that as we go through that period.

[1:08:48] So that was his suggestion that we consider at some point.

[1:08:51] I don't know that it's appropriate for today.

[1:08:54] Obviously, they'll be much more work on this.

[1:08:57] Yes, Patrick.

[1:08:59] Three more minutes for me.

[1:09:02] Kind of in response to that, I wish you were here to hear it today.

[1:09:04] It's just a different offering I'm making, is that it's not the third of your permit that scares me.

[1:09:10] It's again, if we go through this process, I'll probably be sitting in the audience or listening online next time.

[1:09:17] As Donovan has to hash this out across with all of you guys.

[1:09:23] I'm just saying that there are other ways to approach it, as we do this preliminary assessment.

[1:09:29] You know, we still have to get through the Spring Club protection measures, which Roland

[1:09:33] and kind of alluded to, everybody has to get those back in place to get the protectiveness

[1:09:39] that we're seeing under the current permit.

[1:09:43] And so I'm not opposed to saying that once we know what those are and we see how they are,

[1:09:48] that there aren't, like kind of, bi-modal, we're seeing bi-modal things that we have to do

[1:09:52] with drought and non-drow as water planners.

[1:09:56] But what I heard and what I saw today.

[1:10:00] So the three or four times I've seen this presentation is again, your planning is for what you can do and then there are times that you may have to adapt a bit and be a little more aggressive, but it doesn't mean that your triggers have to always be aggressive.

[1:10:17] So, you know, it's not that the third year scares me or the 15 or how many check-ins we have with it.

[1:10:24] It's just getting, again, that potential adaptive need during the focus period, correct.

[1:10:31] So, I would add to that, I guess I assumed, and I think it's more than assumption

[1:10:36] that this next incident will take permit, we would continue to carry forward the opportunity

[1:10:41] to have adaptive management as a standard part of that process.

[1:10:46] And so long as we maintain an adaptive management process within the HCP, I think it helps

[1:10:51] satisfy what Roberts concerned may be because absent any arbitrary check-in I think we're

[1:10:59] going to be because just as we did during this first state incidental type permit we're

[1:11:02] going to be continually monitoring and reporting and analyzing whether the thing is working

[1:11:07] and whether we need to modify something and that's what the adaptive management program is for.

[1:11:13] So while I mean in principle I agree with the Robert that we may need to have a need

[1:11:21] to look at it, midstream.

[1:11:25] I don't know that an arbitrary check-in period achieves that

[1:11:28] as much as having an adaptive management process

[1:11:31] clearly identified in the HCP because,

[1:11:33] but that's just my, today, that's just my thought.

[1:11:40] So, yes, I just had, I guess, some questions regarding

[1:11:44] the adaptive management because that's what was in my mind

[1:11:46] as we were talking about this and maybe Lucas or others,

[1:11:49] you know, what changed conditions provisions

[1:11:51] are in this ITP and what do those triggers, I guess.

[1:11:55] Roland look like maybe that we would consider on this look back because, you know, obviously our

[1:12:04] sensitivity is a little different than everybody else is at the table, but Leis Patrick was saying,

[1:12:09] it's minimum spring flow and species protections, so on that minimum spring flow side,

[1:12:14] you know, that's obviously where my sensitivity kind of comes in in this conversation at this table.

[1:12:21] And so I feel a little better that the drought of record is still the drought of record.

[1:12:29] I can't believe I believe it, you know, and I think that level of uncertainty has

[1:12:34] those all questioning that, you know?

[1:12:36] And so again, I guess really my question is what Lucas or others, what change conditions

[1:12:42] trigger or adaptive management provision would we be looking at in our minds moving forward

[1:12:48] when things get worse on a sub-annual level

[1:12:51] because that's where our sensitivity's also, you know.

[1:12:55] Well, and I would go back to again,

[1:12:57] to Fish and Wildlife Service,

[1:12:59] what will fish require of us?

[1:13:02] And if they're telling us,

[1:13:03] no, we want you to have these periodic checkings,

[1:13:06] if we're gonna issue an incident,

[1:13:08] they don't take permit for 30 years,

[1:13:10] I think that trumps everything.

[1:13:14] But short of that, I guess we would establish

[1:13:17] those trigger points ourselves as we, as we contemplate moving forward. I would think I don't

[1:13:26] all differ to Lucas and see what he has to say.

[1:13:31] Yes, I would agree with you, Roland, that some of this will come down to negotiation with

[1:13:40] the Fish and Wildlife Service and making sure they feel comfortable with the conservation

[1:13:46] measures that are described in the, in the, in the HCP as they relate to spring flow protection.

[1:13:56] To answer Jonathan's question, I will say I can't answer that yet, but I did bring up the,

[1:14:01] the flow chart to indicate where we're going to be taking the hard look at monitoring an adaptive

[1:14:08] management at towards the end of this analyze and sign-off phase in 2025, where we will

[1:14:15] closely consider the adaptive management program, especially as it relates to climate change

[1:14:22] effects. And listening to the implementing committee members discuss the matter, I think you all

[1:14:29] have clear everybody, I'm hearing everything everybody's saying, and it's all making sense

[1:14:37] to me as things that will address through this permutinal process, adaptive management being

[1:14:43] really one of the primary tools that the Fish and Wildlife Service instruct applicants to

[1:14:51] consider when addressing the effects of climate change because they are so uncertain and we

[1:15:00] The climate change, you know, as we move forward through this permit term, so we have to be adaptive in our management.

[1:15:09] Thank you, Lucas. I think the only real difference in between, you know, what Robert had suggested, you know, as a potential item that we should look at versus what roll ended had, you know, discussed in relation to it.

[1:15:24] You know, I think adaptive management is going to need to be in their regardless, you know, I think on the specific topic of climate change.

[1:15:31] The only difference here is that I think what Robert's saying is that we should build in up front.

[1:15:37] You know, rather than waiting for something that we can clearly, like right now, we'd use adaptive management if something falls off the cliff and we can see in the systems that there's some new significant problem that we have to deal with that actually the program as it sits right now would not successfully address.

[1:15:55] That's what adaptive management was, and anybody, if I'd misstated that in any way in terms of the intent.

[1:16:02] Like that was the intent of having it end there in the first place was to be able to address those things that were,

[1:16:07] you know, became known to is during that process.

[1:16:10] I think the only difference here is that we're recognizing, I think with Robert's comment,

[1:16:15] he's recognizing the climate change issue, there's enough uncertainty associated with and enough unknown

[1:16:21] And then at over 30 year period, we should build in up front the thinking that we should take a look at this because of the level of uncertainty with it, and not wait for do we actually have something fall off the cliff first, you know, as the triggering incident to do it.

[1:16:37] He's just saying, build that in because we know we're making a decision, we don't have, you know, necessarily, you know, the best forward view on simply because there's so many unknowns about the weather and other things that occur there.

[1:16:50] So, in my point is, I would want us to be careful that we're not negotiating against ourselves

[1:16:58] before we even get to negotiations with fish, because ultimately it's legal protection

[1:17:04] for the region that we're looking for, and I mean, I know Robert from a scientific perspective

[1:17:11] is probably looking at it a little differently that, you know, from his understanding of water

[1:17:16] management and such and his experience historically. But at the end of the day, this is

[1:17:23] we're looking for legal coverage for the region so that we can continue to use the

[1:17:27] Edwards. So I just remind people of that.

[1:17:35] Thank you. I don't think any of us have lost sight of that.

[1:17:40] Tom, can I make a comment?

[1:17:43] Yeah. I'd like to make a few comments. This analysis is the best available science.

[1:17:49] And this coming from expertise from people that are way smarter than everybody in this room.

[1:17:55] And I've just got to make this point as a program manager because the skepticism that I've heard is not warranted.

[1:18:02] It's not warranted. It's not fair to the staff. It's not fair to this team.

[1:18:07] And I'm frustrated with it as the program manager because we understand that there's uncertainty.

[1:18:12] but to say that we don't have an adequate review of the data and an adequate analysis at this stage,

[1:18:21] I think is not being quite correct with what's happening and another comment is,

[1:18:29] I don't think we're going to fall off the cliff because adaptive management is also helped us be predictive.

[1:18:34] We have experience as a 12-year-old program and we don't fall off cliffs.

[1:18:39] we anticipate through monitoring programs that we're having an issue.

[1:18:44] We anticipate through program implementation that we're having an issue,

[1:18:48] but we don't fall off cliffs and I don't think we're going to fall off a cliff based on the analysis.

[1:18:53] Because we're using the most conservative information available,

[1:18:57] best technology, best science on the team that we've hired.

[1:19:01] And this is what we're going to use.

[1:19:03] We're not going to use something more conservative.

[1:19:05] We're going to use this as our baseline.

[1:19:06] as the program manager making it clear, this is what we're using.

[1:19:13] I think in relation and I don't want my comments mischaracterized.

[1:19:17] I'm not saying that the science is faulty in relation to this.

[1:19:21] I'm saying there's a lot unknown about it.

[1:19:23] I think the only point I've made in relation to some of this modeling

[1:19:27] and I think the concern that Dr. Mays may have and I'll let him speak for himself

[1:19:31] but there have been many models done in Texas in relation to the effects of climate change

[1:19:36] And in relation to those models, other than this one,

[1:19:42] they say that there will be drops that are more severe

[1:19:46] than the drop of record had been.

[1:19:48] Our findings in relation to the modeling that we've done

[1:19:51] differ from those.

[1:19:52] That's the only point that Dr. Mase has really focused on here,

[1:19:57] not saying...

[1:20:00] Seeing that this effort hasn't been good or that the scientists and folks working on this with

[1:20:04] EA and the others have not done a good job. I don't think that's the issue at all. I think

[1:20:09] the issue is there is a difference in results between many, many of these models. We don't

[1:20:16] know which ones of these will be the most accurate in terms of producing, and matching what

[1:20:22] the future conditions will actually be. We'll know that after the fact. But I think what Dr.

[1:20:28] Mesa simply had pointed out is that some of the modeling results that we are relying on

[1:20:35] are not born out by other models.

[1:20:38] And I think that's typical in modeling.

[1:20:40] I don't think there's any big surprise in that.

[1:20:42] I think we've all worked with models before.

[1:20:44] I think that's the thing that I believe we're trying to focus on here.

[1:20:47] It's not a criticism of the work that's been done.

[1:20:50] It's not a criticism of EA staff or a VCF or of any of the scientists working on this.

[1:20:56] Like it's simply just looking at there are a lot of different models out there.

[1:21:00] There's a lot of different information on this.

[1:21:02] We want to make sure we do make the best decisions we can using the best available science.

[1:21:07] I think that's what this inquiry and these discussions are aimed at.

[1:21:11] It's not trying to be the best science for the region.

[1:21:14] It's being done by our team.

[1:21:17] The best available science as being done at the statewide perspective is the statewide analysis.

[1:21:24] As far as regional what is impacting the Edwards Aquifer and the stakeholders and the

[1:21:29] permitties is being done by our team, I would offer.

[1:21:33] I think when we go statewide, we use that data that's important as a reference point.

[1:21:39] And we've gone back as a team and we've analyzed the reports that Robert has requested us

[1:21:45] to look at.

[1:21:46] And I don't know if Lucas might want to share some of that analysis, but it might help

[1:21:50] provide some context to what Robert's comments were made during the last meeting, and things

[1:21:56] he asked his thoughts.

[1:21:58] Yeah, I can speak a bit to that, and they are important points.

[1:22:08] So if anybody's thinking about this and wondering, okay, so what did our work show as it relates

[1:22:17] to springflow projections versus what folks might be hearing or reading for future climates

[1:22:24] in Texas or beyond. There are some key points to keep in mind. So, one is how long into

[1:22:32] the future are you looking? So, or is the analysis considering? So, in this work, we're just

[1:22:40] looking to 258. A lot of the climate modeling or climate planning efforts look beyond that

[1:22:51] through the end of the century, 2100. And what happens or what starts to happen in mid-century

[1:22:58] right around the mid-2050s is climate models really do start to diverge quite a bit. So your

[1:23:05] level of uncertainty really starts to increase a lot, your severity of effects especially in high

[1:23:11] emissions scenarios get drastically worse. So that's an important point to think about.

[1:23:18] You can't just look at one climate assessment through 2,100 and compare it to in 1,2,20,

[1:23:26] 58 or mid-century and compare those apples to apples, they're different. The other thing to think

[1:23:32] about as we start to consider various climate projections or planning efforts is what, you know,

[1:23:41] what are the questions being asked?

[1:23:44] So in our work, we focused on spring flows, because that is the most important question

[1:23:53] that we have to answer as it relates to the listed species that we're looking for to get

[1:23:59] up a permit renewal for.

[1:24:03] But a lot of other climate assessments look at a whole host of potential

[1:24:07] effects. And specifically as it relates to drought, there are different ways to measure drought.

[1:24:15] So a lot of drought is measured through water balance metrics or you probably have all heard

[1:24:21] of the Palmer drought index, which those deal with soil moisture. And they are very important

[1:24:27] drought metrics, but they're not the same as Springflow.

[1:24:32] And in our work, we looked at, and I'm saying, are, but really, if EIAs and the

[1:24:37] casts and Pauls looked at, okay, what are the effects of Recipant Temp on Springflows?

[1:24:46] And really, what came out of that is that precipitation is a very important forcing agent

[1:24:52] on spring flows. And that was born out through the recharge model that the EAA did, where they used, you know, artificial intelligence.

[1:25:00] Intelligence to align projected sprinkles with the U.S. G.S. Historical Methods and show that

[1:25:08] temperature is really important. So again, I just want to emphasize the point that you know,

[1:25:17] and I think it's related to what you're saying too, Tom. There's a lot of different models out there,

[1:25:22] and there's a lot of different questions that you can ask as it relates to climate change.

[1:25:26] and our works focused on through the permit period,

[1:25:30] so 2058, and looking at spring flows.

[1:25:33] And so if you're looking at other climate assessments,

[1:25:36] just remember that you don't want to be comparing

[1:25:40] apples to oranges and there's different questions

[1:25:43] being asked in some of those.

[1:25:49] So, thank you, Lucas.

[1:25:52] Other comments?

[1:25:53] Discussion?

[1:25:55] I definitely have a comment.

[1:25:56] I think one thing I'd like to say too is that for the implementing committee we are here to

[1:26:01] provide that input and to voice our opinion. And so it's again not to say that we don't have

[1:26:07] confidence in what we're receiving, but we do have a rule to voice our opinions as well.

[1:26:13] I do feel more comfortable with the presentation on the second hearing of it after hearing

[1:26:17] that U.S. Fish and Wildlife was comfortable with using the drought of record as kind of the bottom line here for us to look at.

[1:26:23] I do hear the voice and the concern too that I mean, just my gut reaction is like, is the

[1:26:30] drought of record really going to be a drought of record forever?

[1:26:34] I mean, probably not, but I appreciate the science that we've received so far that says this

[1:26:39] is what we can look at moving forward.

[1:26:41] Sounds like this is a launching point for us, and so we can kind of get through the next steps

[1:26:47] and start evaluating how this data kind of bounds up to what we're looking at.

[1:26:53] So I guess one of my questions is, like, what is this process look like if we get through these next steps and we see that some of the data we're receiving today doesn't work well with some of the conservation measures and stuff like that that we've started putting into discussion.

[1:27:09] I'd like to respond to you.

[1:27:11] I'm not saying that you all don't have a role in making your opinions, but I do feel that

[1:27:17] it was important that I stand up for the work that's been done, because this is the best

[1:27:22] available science.

[1:27:24] This is the best available technology that's been utilized for this aquifer and for the

[1:27:30] species and spring flow.

[1:27:31] There's no one else that's done anything close to this.

[1:27:35] And so we've compared it, you've heard some additional contextual feedback, but I just want to

[1:27:42] make it clear that that's where it is. I'm not criticizing that you don't have a role in a voice,

[1:27:48] but as the program manager, I do have a place where I do need to step in and make sure that everybody

[1:27:53] understands where we are, what we're using, and what we will use going forward. That's where I am.

[1:28:07] Any other comments? Questions?

[1:28:10] I think just a day. Responding. I think if Lucas could chime in on the question of, if we get over the next couple of steps here and we go through the conservation measures and we compare then to the take analysis and all that and we realize that we need to, you know, revisit some things. How does that look like in the process?

[1:28:30] Yeah,

[1:28:34] it's a good good question, Roland, and I think I would just answer it simply with, you know,

[1:28:43] as we move through designing any potential changes to conservation measures,

[1:28:50] and then those will need to be going through review with this with committees and approval

[1:28:57] approval in terms of conservation measures with this implementing committee or

[1:29:02] directive to proceed, I should say, then we'll go through looking at monitoring

[1:29:08] an adaptive management, they'll be review of that as part of the adaptive management phase.

[1:29:12] Then we get into the documentation phase, and that's where all of this comes together.

[1:29:19] And in an administrative draft, HCP, and at that point in the process, they're very well

[1:29:25] maybe some negotiation that needs to happen with the Fish and Wildlife Service and amongst

[1:29:30] the permatees, and I would just note that, you know, we can take, you know, we can

[1:29:42] always look and adjust the take assessment to make sure it reflects best available information

[1:29:48] as if it becomes available and make sure that, you know, all permatees are comfortable with

[1:29:54] whatever's submitted to the FishWall live service and that, you know, there aren't any

[1:30:00] Crisis from the Fish and Wildlife Services side, because they will have been working with us

[1:30:06] along as we go. So I think to sum up, I would say, we're out of about, yeah, I think someone

[1:30:16] said we're out of a launching point with this, and there's more work to come, and anything that

[1:30:22] would directly relate to a change in a conservation measure that would be reflected in the

[1:30:29] and I'll take permanent self would be very clearly communicated to all permitties and carefully

[1:30:35] considered before that's brought forward to the FishWild Service.

[1:30:45] Thank you, Lucas.

[1:30:48] Anything else?

[1:30:52] All right, well thank you very much and appreciate your comments.

[1:31:00] So I guess we, I'm sorry.

[1:31:03] Yes,

[1:32:11] I won't speak for either Mark Hamilton or Paul Bertetti. I'll ask them to come to

[1:32:15] and elaborate. But I don't think we're ever done. We're never done so it's there was we had a

[1:32:25] modeler who always like to use the word that it's all iterative and so we learn and then we build

[1:32:31] upon that and then you learn some more and then you build upon that. So to your point I don't think we're

[1:32:37] ever done refining the data and the modeling capabilities but Paul I don't want to speak out of

[1:32:44] here.

[1:32:48] So I think that's particularly difficult kind of question to answer. Certainly we would

[1:32:56] want to continue developing an understanding of the system, revising things based on new

[1:33:02] information,

[1:33:06] and you know, reassessing our ability to understand what might change into the future,

[1:33:12] what's changing now.

[1:33:14] But this process is also finite.

[1:33:18] You can't continue to work on stuff

[1:33:22] while you have a deadline and need to get information pulled together

[1:33:27] and assembled for review as part of a licensing application process.

[1:33:33] If you do that then you're in 2030

[1:33:35] and you're still working on the latest data.

[1:33:38] And so, you know, there are decisions that had to be made to, you know, collect a number of models that we could process in a reasonable timeframe, develop this recharge model, get the model runs done, in tongue name for people to look at it, make some decisions about what's best and go forward with that.

[1:33:58] And so, you know, the models do show

[1:34:00] repeat of the drought of record.

[1:34:03] The point is, some don't, and some do.

[1:34:07] The issue is, drought of record seems like

[1:34:09] a reasonable approach based on what we know

[1:34:13] for analysis of a 30-year period,

[1:34:16] because the drought of record is 70 years ago now.

[1:34:20] And so, you know, I think we're in the right time frame.

[1:34:23] So what I would say is,

[1:34:26] Yeah, I'd love to run 100 models, working on with everything that we know, developing a new

[1:34:35] sort of system approach.

[1:34:37] But in a practical sense, we had to be able to get to a point where we can assemble an

[1:34:42] application, put together our best effort in terms of what that means, put it in front

[1:34:48] of Fish and Wildlife for them to review and for us to do the analysis, and it kind of

[1:34:55] point, you have to, you know, get to the practicalities of how you're going to implement.

[1:35:00] And then take the opportunity once that's in place to revise that as necessary, going forward.

[1:35:07] No, we don't know what the future will hold. We could have the drop of record seven times before we get to 2050.

[1:35:16] None of us really know that. What we do know is, based on everything that we've seen, the drop of record still seems like the best scenario for us to evaluate

[1:35:29] in terms of worst case conditions, could it be worse historically, has it been worse

[1:35:35] properly? But we're not looking at 100 years, or 200 years, we're looking at about a

[1:35:41] three-decade period in which we can make some assumptions of what's going on, using the best

[1:35:45] available models that we have, and as many as we could process in the time that we were given to do that.

[1:35:53] And so, we have every intention of continuing with our understanding, developing better sets of models coming up with a new set of groundwater flow models that might help us better understand a better predict spring flow.

[1:36:08] But in a practical sense, we also need to have a target for assembling some data in an application to move the process forward.

[1:36:18] So, that would be my responsibility.

[1:38:09] I understand that, but I'm certainly not the person to answer that question, so yeah.

[1:38:16] I think I understand where you're going with that, but it's, I view it as almost

[1:38:25] the car before the horse or whatever other tailwagging the dog.

[1:38:32] I think that our modeling program, our science program with the EA, is going to continue to evolve

[1:38:38] And we're going to continue to put the appropriate resources in place so that we know as much as we can know about the system and how it works and how we can mitigate negative impacts to it.

[1:38:50] So I would hesitate to put a timeline on it in the sense that there are so many other issues that hand right now in this region from a water supply perspective.

[1:39:03] We have entities across the region that have done a great job of diversifying their water supplies and their

[1:39:10] Edwards supplies are becoming they're better able to manage that through droughts, but then we have other areas like to the west where

[1:39:19] the Edwards remains a soul source, and so we're working in that respect to shore up the Edwards as a water supply

[1:39:29] and so some of our efforts scientifically and modeling

[1:39:33] are going to naturally take into account all that that's happening.

[1:39:40] So it's not just about this effort, but it's a little bit broader.

[1:39:46] It's a little bit more global.

[1:39:48] But as we do that wherever those efforts fit into

[1:39:51] solidifying and showing up to HP, we're going to do that because that's naturally also.

[1:40:00] So that's not really a hard answer for you or like just to say that it's happened not to overuse the

[1:40:09] word iteratively, but that's kind of how science works. And so we've done that in this first

[1:40:16] permit as we've learned. I think we've enhanced the science that's there and certainly we've

[1:40:22] enhanced the resources within our organization. And I think that's going to continue to happen, at

[1:40:27] that's my intent. I will not be the general manager for the next 30 years. I can tell I

[1:40:34] that I can tell you for sure. But in the time that I'm here, that's going to be a focal point.

[1:40:44] I don't know of that.

[1:40:58] So I think it's important to make sure that those assurances are documented going

[1:41:03] forward, in particular as these positions change with the EHCP participants and those involved.

[1:41:13] So I think it's more just looking, making sure that there is a strong assurance for those moving forward.

[1:41:18] Yeah, and so to that point, what I would defer to our science group is, you know, they have

[1:41:23] a research plan and a science plan and it'll be important that they have that for the future

[1:41:28] And in that sense, that captures what their goals,

[1:41:32] our goals are for the next five, 10 years beyond that.

[1:41:37] And so, but those plans could change as we learn things.

[1:41:41] So that's where I say that's kind of an iterative process,

[1:41:45] but no, the commitment is there how we capture that commitment,

[1:41:50] I guess, is what you're asking, and we're certainly always wanting

[1:41:56] to demonstrate that in whatever way we can.

[1:41:59] Thank you.

[1:42:00] Yeah, so maybe even an update on what those plans are

[1:42:03] in terms of the kind of a near term in the long term

[1:42:07] with the science group and the modeling efforts,

[1:42:09] I think, would be really helpful.

[1:42:12] Thank you.

[1:42:17] Daryl?

[1:42:18] Carol Patterson and I chair the Research and Technology Committee

[1:42:22] for the Edward Talka for Authority.

[1:42:24] This Tuesday, we approved a greater than $1,000,000, $3,000 annual contract with USGS, especially

[1:42:36] to collect spring flow information that is a major portion of it.

[1:42:43] And that is ongoing, and has been ongoing for 45 years, that contract with USGS, and every

[1:42:51] year, it's looked at again. We also approved a contract. I had to miss the meeting, so I'm

[1:43:00] speaking out of turn, because I'm sure we approved it, but I wasn't there. With San Antonio

[1:43:06] River Authority to look at the impacts of water quality on civil oak creek and what's

[1:43:15] and how that will be affected by future development.

[1:43:20] And I think that incorporated in that is a collaborative beyond just the water quality

[1:43:27] that EAA will be participating with their staff and getting help from helping them

[1:43:33] and getting help from them on what's happening in water quality.

[1:43:36] We have a field research park where we are looking at future ways to start at the top

[1:43:44] the watershed but to quantify the benefits of how you can absorb more water into the ground

[1:43:52] so that you both temper the droughts and temper the floods for everybody from the top of

[1:43:58] the watershed to the coast. But I also know that our scientific staff has such integrity

[1:44:06] that they will not tell you or even venture, I guess, as to the outcome at this point.

[1:44:13] So, thank you for that, Carol.

[1:44:16] Thank you for letting me sound all.

[1:44:21] Are there any other comments or questions in relation to this item?

[1:44:28] Thank you.

[1:44:33] So, we won't be taking a formal action on that today, but I believe that will be shown on the next agenda for action.

[1:44:44] With that, we're at the future meetings and items for consideration item,

[1:44:49] And I did ask that wording this change a little bit this time so we don't just speak about what the date for the future meeting is but this would also

[1:45:00] Would like to see any additional information, this would be a good place to ask for a future agenda presentation or information in relation to that.

[1:45:09] I just wanted to make sure we had an area that we could ask for additional information on and capture that at these meetings.

[1:45:18] So with that, our next meeting is scheduled for the 19th of September.

[1:45:26] And I don't think there's any other items that I have at this point in time I'd ask for an addition to that.

[1:45:33] So any other thoughts?

[1:45:36] All right.

[1:45:38] With that, Damon, do we have any questions or comments from the public?

[1:45:43] We do not have any comments online.

[1:45:45] I'll ask for one last time if we have any comments in the room.

[1:45:48] Thank

[1:45:50] we're good. Seeing none. I think we're at the item for adjournment. If I could have motion to adjourn.

[1:45:57] So moved.

[1:45:58] I'll second that in the objections.

2024-07-25-eahcp-implementing-committee

Agenda

Transcript