WEBVTT 00:00.590 --> 00:01.886 SPEAKER: Dr Paul Montagna. 00:01.886 --> 00:05.775 Dr Montagna is the Harte Research Institute Chair for 00:05.775 --> 00:08.800 HydroEcology at Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi. 00:08.800 --> 00:11.392 Currently, he is the Editor-in-Chief for 00:11.392 --> 00:13.984 the scientific journal 'Estuaries and Coasts' 00:13.984 --> 00:17.873 and he is a member of the Texas Environmental 00:17.873 --> 00:19.602 Flows Science Advisory Committee. 00:19.602 --> 00:22.626 He has been studying inflow needs of 00:22.626 --> 00:25.219 Texas bays and estuaries since 1986. 00:25.219 --> 00:29.107 And as a result, he has gained valuable insights 00:29.107 --> 00:31.268 into ecosystem change over time, 00:31.268 --> 00:35.156 as well as the evolution of freshwater inflow science, 00:35.156 --> 00:37.317 management and policies in Texas. 00:37.317 --> 00:39.476 Please welcome Dr Paul Montagna. 00:39.476 --> 00:43.366 Paul, thank you so much for being here today. 00:43.366 --> 00:45.526 The mic is all yours. 00:45.526 --> 00:47.101 PAUL MONTAGNA: Thank you, (UNKNOWN). 00:47.101 --> 00:51.302 Thank you for the introduction and thank you 00:51.302 --> 00:55.503 for inviting me to be the kickoff speaker. 00:55.503 --> 00:57.604 It's a real honor. 00:57.604 --> 01:00.754 Let me just make sure my... 01:00.754 --> 01:05.480 so, I assume you can see my screen right. 01:06.120 --> 01:07.590 SPEAKER: It looks great. 01:07.610 --> 01:08.120 Yes. 01:09.130 --> 01:10.459 PAUL MONTAGNA: I'm going to go ahead and get started. 01:12.020 --> 01:19.583 I want to start out with a dedication and that's to Gary Powell. 01:19.583 --> 01:24.360 Gary is the one who introduced me to freshwater 01:24.360 --> 01:29.220 inflow studies (CHUCKLES) way back in 1986. 01:30.840 --> 01:33.614 He spent 28 years at the Water Board. 01:33.614 --> 01:37.440 He ran what at the time was called the Environmental Division. 01:38.250 --> 01:42.690 And this is a quote about him I read a long time ago. 01:42.690 --> 01:45.810 He essentially pioneered the use of advanced technology 01:45.819 --> 01:49.470 to evaluate inflow needs of coastal bays and estuaries. 01:56.640 --> 02:00.345 And really, Gary started it all for me. 02:00.345 --> 02:07.296 Way back in the summer of '88, myself, Ed Buskey, Ken Dunton, 02:07.296 --> 02:10.320 we were all brand-new assistant professors at 02:10.320 --> 02:12.717 the University of Texas Marine Science Institute. 02:12.717 --> 02:17.280 Terry Whitledge had come in at a higher level, but he was also new. 02:17.280 --> 02:21.690 Gary convened a group of us with some existing 02:21.690 --> 02:23.256 staff - Tony Amos, Scott Holt, 02:23.256 --> 02:25.970 Rick Kalke, and Peter Thomas - and he 02:25.980 --> 02:27.919 asked us all a very simple question. 02:28.060 --> 02:31.700 He said, I have to figure out how much freshwater has 02:31.700 --> 02:34.320 to go in San Antonio Bay to maintain estuary health. 02:35.280 --> 02:37.560 And you would think that's a simple question, 02:37.560 --> 02:40.889 but it actually took us quite a while to 02:40.889 --> 02:42.630 figure out how to answer it correctly. 02:43.860 --> 02:48.850 The important thing is that project he led ultimately 02:49.389 --> 02:53.350 wound up being compiled into this book, 02:53.350 --> 02:56.290 'Freshwater Inflows to Texas Bays and Estuaries'. 02:56.290 --> 03:00.550 It was the very first comprehensive compilation of 03:00.550 --> 03:04.120 this kind of science that had ever been done. 03:05.200 --> 03:07.510 One of the interesting things is those original 03:07.510 --> 03:10.120 studies he commissioned were only 03:10.120 --> 03:13.180 for Nueces and Guadalupe Estuaries, so literally, 03:13.180 --> 03:14.590 case studies in the book. 03:15.280 --> 03:18.076 Ultimately, the book was edited by Bill Longley. 03:18.076 --> 03:22.352 He was assisted by Cindy Loeffler and Kathy Mills. 03:22.352 --> 03:25.897 This was really a project that was joint between 03:25.897 --> 03:28.654 the Water Board and Parks & Wildlife. 03:28.654 --> 03:34.168 And the Parks & Wildlife was represented at the time, led by Al Green. 03:34.168 --> 03:39.288 And there are a lot of different people who contributed to the chapters 03:39.288 --> 03:44.014 in this book - Norman Boyd, David Brock, Wen Lee, Greg Malstaff, 03:44.014 --> 03:46.377 Ray Matthews, Gary Matlock, Junji Matsumoto, 03:46.377 --> 03:49.036 Larry McKinney - who's here at HRI still, 03:49.036 --> 03:51.497 today - Warren Pulich and Ruben Solis. 03:51.497 --> 03:55.042 And one of my students has famously called this 03:55.042 --> 03:57.405 the Bible for Freshwater Inflow (CHUCKLES), 03:57.405 --> 04:00.950 and it's something I made all of my students, 04:00.950 --> 04:04.888 when they started working with me, take a look at. 04:04.888 --> 04:10.071 But I want to show you one more thing that Gary taught me. 04:10.071 --> 04:14.457 I'm not sure if this was something he created or someone 04:14.457 --> 04:18.444 else at the Water Board or Parks & Wildlife created. 04:18.444 --> 04:23.228 But Gary used to always like to talk about the "Hydro-Illogical Cycle." 04:23.228 --> 04:26.019 And it's absolutely true that we alternate 04:26.019 --> 04:28.809 between panic and concern - excuse me, 04:28.809 --> 04:32.796 apathy and concern, depending on whether it's wet or dry. 04:32.796 --> 04:37.182 And to me, the most important thing about this little cartoon 04:37.182 --> 04:39.972 is understanding how different our attitudes are, 04:39.972 --> 04:43.162 and really, how bimodal our climate cycle is. 04:43.162 --> 04:47.946 It seems to either be raining a lot or it's completely dry. 04:47.946 --> 04:51.534 And I always like to joke about South Texas. 04:51.534 --> 04:57.116 You know - we only get 25 to 30 inches of rain a year, 04:57.116 --> 05:01.900 but you really ought to be here the day we get it. 05:04.690 --> 05:09.010 So, let me get directly into my talk here. 05:09.279 --> 05:12.400 I wanted to briefly give you the inflow legislation, 05:12.910 --> 05:15.279 and as (UNKNOWN) pointed out, 05:16.240 --> 05:21.150 the Texas Water Planning Act of 1957 was the first one that 05:21.150 --> 05:24.430 said we need to be concerned about downstream estuaries. 05:24.880 --> 05:31.070 But it wasn't until the Water Plan, which was not adopted until '69, 05:31.070 --> 05:36.180 that we actually came up with some numbers. 05:36.180 --> 05:40.670 And in the very first Water Plan, it was recommended that 2.5 05:40.670 --> 05:45.220 million acre-feet go into all 11 major rivers, 05:45.400 --> 05:48.407 so that eventually it would find its way downstream. 05:49.390 --> 05:52.396 Then, in '75 we had Senate Bill 137. 05:52.396 --> 05:57.281 And that was the first time that there was a mandate for comprehensive 05:57.281 --> 06:02.166 studies on the effects of inflows on bays and estuaries in the state. 06:02.663 --> 06:06.815 Then, in '77 the Water Code was amended again. 06:06.815 --> 06:12.351 And that directed Parks & Wildlife and the Water Board to cooperate, 06:12.351 --> 06:15.580 to establish and maintain a continuous bay 06:15.580 --> 06:17.887 and estuary data collection program. 06:17.887 --> 06:22.039 And one of the important things is - oops, 06:22.039 --> 06:24.807 I spelled "determine" wrong here (CHUCKLES) 06:24.807 --> 06:27.575 - determine conditions necessary to support 06:27.575 --> 06:29.420 a sound ecological environment. 06:29.420 --> 06:32.863 And that word - "sound ecological environment" 06:32.863 --> 06:38.275 - popped up again in 1985 in House Bill Two. 06:38.275 --> 06:42.867 House Bill Two also established a data collection program - 06:42.867 --> 06:46.147 and again - necessary to support a sound ecological environment. 06:46.147 --> 06:50.083 And that's actually what led to the publication 06:50.083 --> 06:55.003 of that book I was just talking about in '94. 06:55.003 --> 06:59.370 In '97, there was Senate Bill One that created 06:59.370 --> 07:02.767 the regional and local water planning process. 07:02.767 --> 07:06.164 In 2001, Senate Bill Two came along, 07:06.164 --> 07:09.561 which established the instream flow data program, 07:09.561 --> 07:13.443 similar to the bay and estuary studies program. 07:13.443 --> 07:18.249 And then, in 2003 there was a real interesting bill. 07:18.249 --> 07:21.612 Notice how big that number is - 1639. 07:21.612 --> 07:24.976 If you know anything about the legislature, 07:24.976 --> 07:29.301 you know that bills get numbered based on priorities. 07:29.301 --> 07:34.586 So, somehow, something with a very low priority still got passed. 07:34.586 --> 07:39.872 But this created the Study Commission on Water for Environmental Flows. 07:39.872 --> 07:45.639 And again, the goal here was not only to deal primarily with 07:45.639 --> 07:49.483 the growing population and understanding that we needed 07:49.483 --> 07:54.288 to have consideration for the downstreams of bays and estuaries, 07:54.288 --> 07:58.132 but there is also something else in there. 07:58.132 --> 08:04.379 And it was a little provision that TCEQ could not issue a permit 08:04.379 --> 08:08.864 for instream or freshwater inflows as a stand-alone permit. 08:08.864 --> 08:13.029 Permits can only be issued essentially for diversions. 08:13.029 --> 08:16.171 And then, finally, what we're operating 08:16.171 --> 08:19.837 under today is 2007 Senate Bill Three. 08:19.837 --> 08:24.026 And Senate Bill Three required environmental flow regimes 08:24.026 --> 08:27.692 for different geographic segments within the state, 08:27.692 --> 08:32.405 both on the freshwater and on the bay side. 08:32.405 --> 08:36.595 But the most important thing, in my mind, 08:36.595 --> 08:43.403 about Senate Bill Three is how we changed the definition from a sound 08:43.403 --> 08:48.116 ecological environment to a standard that must be adequate 08:48.116 --> 08:52.304 to support not only a sound ecological environment, 08:52.304 --> 08:54.924 but to maintain the productivity, 08:54.924 --> 08:58.590 extent and persistence of key aquatic habitats. 08:58.590 --> 09:03.303 That addition to the definition really changed things dramatically. 09:04.470 --> 09:10.684 And so, what I'm telling you is that there are really two eras. 09:10.684 --> 09:16.899 There is an era between 1985 and 2007 dominated by House Bill Two, 09:16.899 --> 09:21.679 where a beneficial flow was defined as the salinity, nutrient, 09:21.679 --> 09:25.025 and sediment loading regime adequate to maintain 09:25.025 --> 09:26.937 an ecologically sound environment, 09:26.937 --> 09:29.327 and maintain economically important sport 09:29.327 --> 09:32.195 or commercial fish and shellfish species. 09:32.195 --> 09:36.497 So, what I want to point out here is, 09:36.497 --> 09:40.799 and seven specific species were mentioned - white shrimp, 09:40.799 --> 09:45.580 brown shrimp, blue crab, oyster, red drum, seatrout, black drum. 09:45.580 --> 09:50.838 And what I want to point out here is that this 09:50.838 --> 09:53.706 is essentially a species-based approach, OK? 09:53.706 --> 09:59.920 And of course, this is what culminated in the publication of that book, 09:59.920 --> 10:03.266 'Freshwater Inflow to Texas Bays and Estuaries'. 10:04.502 --> 10:11.372 And then, of course, we had Senate Bill Three passed in 2007. 10:11.372 --> 10:18.815 This really started a new era in the way we think about inflow, 10:18.815 --> 10:26.830 both from a policy point of view and from a scientific point of view. 10:26.830 --> 10:31.410 Again, the important thing was replacing this concept 10:31.410 --> 10:35.418 of seven species with maintaining the productivity, 10:35.418 --> 10:38.280 extent and persistence of habitats. 10:38.280 --> 10:45.151 So, we moved into a habitat goal, which meant we now have 10:45.151 --> 10:48.014 essentially an ecosystem management-based approach. 10:48.014 --> 10:55.456 Of course, there are the caveats - to the "maximum extent" possible and, 10:55.456 --> 10:58.892 you know, "after considering public interest." 10:58.892 --> 11:04.065 The other thing important about Senate Bill Three is 11:04.065 --> 11:08.089 how it created essentially a stakeholder process. 11:08.089 --> 11:12.687 And the other important thing was a follow-up 11:12.687 --> 11:14.412 adaptive management process. 11:14.412 --> 11:21.884 But, again, the key thing here is that Senate Bill Three changes from 11:21.884 --> 11:27.058 a species management approach to an ecosystem-based management approach. 11:27.058 --> 11:31.480 And so, the current legal framework for environmental flows. 11:31.480 --> 11:35.902 And again, this is all from Senate Bill Three. 11:35.902 --> 11:40.816 The standards have to be adequate to support sound ecological 11:40.816 --> 11:43.764 environment to the maximum extent possible. 11:43.764 --> 11:48.186 And TCEQ must apply these standards to develop appropriate 11:48.186 --> 11:50.643 conditions for water permits statewide. 11:52.802 --> 11:55.706 The standards were finally adopted after 11:55.706 --> 11:58.609 a long process within each basin. 11:58.609 --> 12:03.932 And these are all currently in something called Chapter 298. 12:03.932 --> 12:09.739 And you can see that the first standards were developed in 2011. 12:09.739 --> 12:14.578 Now, Senate Bill Three also contains the adaptive management process, 12:14.578 --> 12:18.933 in which the standards are supposed to be reviewed 12:18.933 --> 12:21.837 and revisions recommended after ten years. 12:21.837 --> 12:28.611 And so, if you think about it, for at least the top two basins, 12:28.611 --> 12:31.030 we're in that period today. 12:31.030 --> 12:36.354 In 2012, we had standards for the Lavaca and Colorado system 12:36.354 --> 12:41.676 and finally San Antonio and the Mission, Aransas system in 2012, 12:41.676 --> 12:45.548 the Nueces system and Baffin Bay in 2014, 12:45.548 --> 12:51.355 Brazos River and Rio Grande and Lower Laguna Madre, also in 2014. 12:51.355 --> 12:54.616 And so, that's where we sit today. 12:54.616 --> 12:59.740 I'm not going to get into what these standards look like. 12:59.740 --> 13:03.001 That would take an hour in itself. 13:03.001 --> 13:04.399 They're incredibly complex. 13:04.399 --> 13:06.727 They're essentially a three-dimensional cube, 13:06.727 --> 13:11.852 where there are different values for different parts of the bay. 13:11.852 --> 13:14.648 So, there's space, different seasonal conditions, 13:14.648 --> 13:17.909 and then, finally, wet versus dry years. 13:17.909 --> 13:20.239 So, that's the third dimension. 13:20.239 --> 13:23.966 And I think probably a whole another day, 13:23.966 --> 13:27.227 a whole another seminar can be looking 13:27.227 --> 13:30.022 at the differences between them all. 13:30.992 --> 13:37.859 So, the point is if we just want to look at the histories of 13:37.859 --> 13:41.292 freshwater inflow studies and freshwater inflow science, 13:41.292 --> 13:46.687 I think we really need to talk about these two eras 13:46.687 --> 13:51.102 - the era between '85 and the early 2000s, 13:51.102 --> 13:56.497 which I like to call HB2 era, and then since 2007, 13:56.497 --> 14:00.421 which I like to call the SB3 era. 14:00.421 --> 14:04.344 And I think the important thing is when 14:04.344 --> 14:07.778 we first started doing this - again, 14:07.778 --> 14:12.682 going back to that first meeting that I had with Gary Powell back 14:12.682 --> 14:18.078 in 1986 - we were very strongly influenced by river studies. 14:18.078 --> 14:22.982 And of course, we were influenced by the species-based approach. 14:22.982 --> 14:27.397 And our basic concept was that inflow was gonna 14:27.397 --> 14:29.849 drive these living marine resources. 14:29.849 --> 14:33.773 We had this kind of linear-regression approach 14:33.773 --> 14:36.225 or multiple-linear-regression approach. 14:36.225 --> 14:39.658 And that changed, of course, later on. 14:39.658 --> 14:44.073 But let me explain to you a little bit 14:44.073 --> 14:47.015 why that had to eventually change. 14:47.015 --> 14:53.651 So, we probably were making a mistake back in the day. 14:53.651 --> 14:57.522 And the reason is an instream environmental 14:57.522 --> 15:00.287 flow approach and an estuary 15:00.287 --> 15:06.923 inflow approach have to be different because the habitats are different. 15:06.923 --> 15:11.900 In rivers and streams, flow literally defines habitat. 15:12.850 --> 15:15.323 SPEAKER: You know, look at these pictures here with rapids, 15:15.323 --> 15:17.090 riffles, runs and pools. 15:17.090 --> 15:21.480 You find different species that are adapted to living in these 15:21.500 --> 15:26.185 different places and both the flow rate and the elevations... 15:26.185 --> 15:29.000 Elevation in particular, and flow rate that 15:29.000 --> 15:31.000 drives elevation because of gravity, 15:31.000 --> 15:33.275 that they really drive habitats. 15:33.275 --> 15:38.225 But that's just not true in estuaries around the Texas coast. 15:38.225 --> 15:43.378 If all of our estuaries were like the San Bernard or maybe a Rio Grande, 15:43.378 --> 15:46.970 meaning just a river flowing directly in the Gulf of Mexico, 15:47.780 --> 15:49.370 maybe that approach would have worked. 15:50.920 --> 15:54.138 But as this little satellite image of a flooded 15:54.138 --> 15:58.082 Lavaca and Matagorda Bay shows you, 15:58.082 --> 16:01.150 flow really defines the conditions of the bay. 16:01.810 --> 16:07.270 And also, it's those conditions that create the habitats. 16:07.760 --> 16:11.440 If you look at this image on the bottom of the slide here, 16:12.010 --> 16:16.960 the dark brown are the turbidity plumes by those river. 16:17.380 --> 16:20.770 But what I want to point out to you is look how different 16:20.770 --> 16:23.860 the colors are and look how the mixing is. 16:24.430 --> 16:26.470 And what it's telling you is that there are 16:26.470 --> 16:31.330 gradients within the bay that are driven by 16:31.330 --> 16:33.970 the interaction of both the tidal water from 16:33.970 --> 16:36.490 the ocean and the river flow from above. 16:36.490 --> 16:39.670 So, it's not only the river flow that's driving 16:39.670 --> 16:42.970 it and the conditions along these axes 16:43.450 --> 16:49.210 from the rivers all the way to the mouth of the estuary, 16:49.210 --> 16:51.340 where we get tidal exchange, 16:51.340 --> 16:56.740 it's kind of different, but it's gonna drive different communities along 16:56.740 --> 17:00.640 these axes that's gonna drive different conditions within the bays. 17:01.210 --> 17:04.260 And this is the kind of thing, I think, 17:04.260 --> 17:06.550 that Senate Bill 3 really recognized 17:07.119 --> 17:10.420 that we didn't really recognize very well in the early days. 17:13.170 --> 17:17.850 And so, what we began to realize is that what 17:17.850 --> 17:20.580 really happens when we alter freshwater 17:20.580 --> 17:23.483 inflow is we change not only the hydrology, 17:23.483 --> 17:25.830 but the nutrient sediment loading. 17:26.460 --> 17:33.450 But more importantly, we're seeing salinity change within the bay 17:34.200 --> 17:38.970 because of the differences in the amount of water coming in, 17:39.359 --> 17:43.140 and that can sometimes change habitat diversity, 17:43.140 --> 17:46.170 productivity and even ecosystem services. 17:48.750 --> 17:54.119 And this was recognized by the 2009 Science 17:54.119 --> 17:55.950 Advisory Committee when we started 17:56.520 --> 18:02.648 the Senate Bill 3 process - and I was a part of that group as well. 18:02.648 --> 18:07.460 And they recognized this, what I like to call the domino theory. 18:07.460 --> 18:12.090 That inflow is really driving primarily salinity change, 18:12.090 --> 18:20.609 but is also changing nutrients and particulate matter in the estuaries. 18:20.609 --> 18:23.090 This particular matter is not only sediment, 18:23.570 --> 18:25.310 but it could also be organic matter, 18:26.540 --> 18:28.670 which is very important, we now realize. 18:29.150 --> 18:32.023 And in those days they were trying this dotted line, 18:32.023 --> 18:34.690 that I don't think this dotted line exists, really. 18:34.700 --> 18:39.080 I think only these solid lines exist. 18:39.590 --> 18:44.435 And this is something that later on, we called the... 18:44.435 --> 18:47.510 And so, this is why the salinity zone is so important. 18:48.170 --> 18:53.359 But prior to that, this is something I like to call the domino theory. 18:54.530 --> 19:00.665 And this conceptualization that flow drives condition, 19:00.665 --> 19:04.155 condition drives the resources, 19:04.155 --> 19:10.180 this was first drawn as a picture by a lady 19:10.180 --> 19:12.880 named Merryl Alber way back in 2002. 19:13.510 --> 19:16.840 If any of you know the earlier representation of this, 19:17.320 --> 19:18.940 I would love to know about it. 19:19.820 --> 19:24.310 I always credit hers putting this all together at one place at once. 19:24.910 --> 19:29.410 I think going back to the 60s with Copeland's original work, 19:30.040 --> 19:34.890 it was clear that people understood the importance of salinity, 19:34.890 --> 19:39.340 but to put these together as an indirect effect 19:39.640 --> 19:41.800 rather than a direct effect of flow, 19:42.100 --> 19:43.869 I think the first time really was then. 19:43.869 --> 19:46.210 And, again, this was adopted later on 19:46.210 --> 19:49.900 and modified several times by both (UNKNOWN), 19:49.900 --> 19:53.930 Terry Palmer and I kind of reconfigured it 19:54.070 --> 19:56.470 to this basic configuration later on. 19:57.609 --> 20:05.330 And we reproduce this and redefine it a bit more in 2013. 20:05.750 --> 20:10.993 But, finally just recently I published something talking about how... 20:10.993 --> 20:14.590 And there's one more domino and it's climate. 20:14.590 --> 20:19.460 So, in fact, the domino is probably four fold and we can 20:19.460 --> 20:23.540 actually see climate effects of estuary resources, 20:23.960 --> 20:28.760 but only as it is driven through these other three boxes. 20:28.760 --> 20:33.950 So, today, what's really different is we now 20:33.950 --> 20:36.320 have a completely different representation 20:37.070 --> 20:42.800 that I think represents the differences of the science over these years. 20:43.600 --> 20:51.230 And I'm really summarizing decades worth of 20:51.230 --> 20:55.395 work in each one of these representations. 20:55.395 --> 21:02.619 And one of the things I've always liked to say is that the Texas coast, 21:03.010 --> 21:04.780 there's probably no better place in the world 21:04.780 --> 21:07.780 to study freshwater inflow effects 21:08.590 --> 21:12.100 because the inflow gradient is so strong 21:13.720 --> 21:18.190 from incredibly positive estuaries, 21:18.190 --> 21:22.744 Sabine-Neches and the Trinity-San Jacinto 21:22.744 --> 21:25.119 at the northeastern part of the coast, 21:25.690 --> 21:28.030 leading to more neutral estuaries, 21:28.510 --> 21:31.518 particularly the Mision Aransas and the Nueces, 21:31.518 --> 21:34.630 which have virtually a zero inflow balance, 21:35.410 --> 21:39.910 meaning that we lose as much water to evaporation 21:40.330 --> 21:42.323 as we're getting an inflow every year, 21:42.323 --> 21:44.260 to finally a negative estuary. 21:44.830 --> 21:49.250 And they all lie within essentially one climatic zone. 21:49.960 --> 21:52.315 The geography is very... 21:52.315 --> 21:54.470 And geology is very similar. 21:54.970 --> 21:57.970 The estuaries all run perpendicular to the coast. 21:58.990 --> 22:04.030 You couldn't find a better, more constrained, 22:04.630 --> 22:09.850 perfect natural experiment that exists here on the Texas coast. 22:10.300 --> 22:12.880 And the colors I'm representing are salinities. 22:12.880 --> 22:17.560 And you can see the salinity is typically lowest 22:18.640 --> 22:21.340 in the upper parts or in the secondary bays, 22:21.340 --> 22:25.435 and it gets saltier towards the primary bays. 22:25.435 --> 22:29.560 And I think this is why we've been very successful 22:29.560 --> 22:33.730 over the past in Texas at evolving new science. 22:34.090 --> 22:36.310 The other thing that's really important, I think, 22:36.880 --> 22:43.930 is that this is why it was important that we 22:43.930 --> 22:48.920 have different approaches and different recommendations 22:48.920 --> 22:51.109 set for the different bay systems. 22:51.109 --> 22:54.820 So, as a result of the Senate Bill 3 process, 22:55.720 --> 23:03.850 we had the seven major bay systems all created seven different reports. 23:04.450 --> 23:06.875 And if you review all those reports, 23:06.875 --> 23:09.450 it's really interesting to look at what 23:09.450 --> 23:11.565 they use as their indicator species. 23:11.565 --> 23:17.850 In every case you'll notice they use both the creatures, 23:17.850 --> 23:24.930 particular bivalves, oysters, rangia everywhere. 23:25.320 --> 23:27.150 In fact, the only two places where they 23:27.150 --> 23:29.940 weren't used was the Brazos River, 23:30.510 --> 23:35.100 which of course, is really just that river pipe that we've talked about, 23:35.100 --> 23:38.280 and Lower Laguna Madre, which is very high 23:38.280 --> 23:40.300 swimming and dominated by sea grasses. 23:40.300 --> 23:44.670 So, we don't have a true estuarine community down there, 23:44.670 --> 23:47.130 we have more of a marine community. 23:47.550 --> 23:49.410 Seagrass is in the state of Texas, 23:50.070 --> 23:52.830 primarily like high salinity environments, 23:53.310 --> 23:58.600 and they're found primarily in lagunes and the primary bays. 23:58.600 --> 24:09.420 But you'll see also some other (UNKNOWN), critters, like brown shrimp, 24:09.420 --> 24:16.910 white shrimp, blue crab, also here, even (UNKNOWN). 24:17.280 --> 24:19.440 So, the bottom line is we've noticed 24:19.440 --> 24:22.619 that these (UNKNOWN) indicators have 24:22.619 --> 24:28.510 been very important and independently derived in all of the BBEST. 24:28.510 --> 24:32.520 And in a way that kind of didn't surprise me because 24:32.910 --> 24:34.920 that's my favorite thing to study as well. 24:36.220 --> 24:39.040 And as you probably know, I've been conducting long 24:39.040 --> 24:42.670 term studies since Gary got me involved with 24:42.670 --> 24:46.082 this back in '86 and we started sampling in '87 24:46.082 --> 24:48.540 and we actually stopped sampling in 2019. 24:48.540 --> 24:52.840 So, we've got about 32 years worth of data. 24:52.840 --> 24:56.380 Primarily in these three estuaries we have about 24:56.380 --> 24:59.308 20 years worth of data in Laguna Madre, 24:59.308 --> 25:03.430 but we stopped studies there in the year 2000, 25:03.430 --> 25:09.082 primarily because there wasn't a major inflow story there, 25:09.082 --> 25:11.200 it's intermittent creeks and things like that. 25:11.560 --> 25:15.100 But again, as this picture shows you - I showed you this part of 25:15.100 --> 25:19.960 it earlier - there's an incredible gradient along the coast. 25:19.960 --> 25:25.900 And look, during the same flood how, because it's so much smaller, 25:26.619 --> 25:29.050 the sediment plume fills that whole bay. 25:29.050 --> 25:34.354 But as you move to Copano and Nueces Bay, those plumes are less. 25:34.354 --> 25:38.912 And by the time you get to Corpus Christi Bay and even Aransas Bay, 25:38.912 --> 25:42.205 even a big flood has a small effect on those bays. 25:42.205 --> 25:47.390 So, the point is comparative studies between the bays is 25:47.390 --> 25:51.515 really how we've learned a lot over the last 30 years. 25:51.515 --> 25:55.880 And one of the reasons why those are so important, 25:55.880 --> 25:58.220 there are these two functional groups. 25:58.790 --> 26:04.540 We have the guys who are directly dependent on the water 26:04.540 --> 26:07.390 column for food and we have those who are not. 26:07.900 --> 26:10.300 These are feeding on the grazing food chain, 26:10.300 --> 26:14.290 these are feeding all of the detrital food chain. 26:15.190 --> 26:18.955 And I like to say that the sediments are the memory 26:18.955 --> 26:22.369 of ecosystem because of (UNKNOWN) and gravity, 26:22.369 --> 26:24.318 everything winds up there eventually. 26:24.318 --> 26:30.910 And the guys who can't move when the conditions are ideal for 26:30.910 --> 26:34.220 them are the benthos (UNKNOWN), they're just stuck there. 26:34.220 --> 26:37.570 So, that means they're also integrating over time. 26:39.680 --> 26:42.560 And so, what have we learned over the last 30 years? 26:42.950 --> 26:45.109 I'm gonna cycle through this rather rapidly. 26:48.070 --> 26:51.100 Again, as I've mentioned before, our approach evolved, 26:51.100 --> 26:53.125 that's probably the most important thing. 26:53.125 --> 26:58.119 Rather than adopting the freshwater paradigm of a direct approach, 26:58.119 --> 27:01.720 we have this indirect or domino theory approach. 27:02.619 --> 27:06.130 We've gone from a species to an ecosystem based management approach. 27:07.869 --> 27:10.450 When we started, we really didn't have many tools. 27:11.440 --> 27:15.010 Since then, we've developed a whole bunch 27:15.010 --> 27:17.619 of different both mathematical, 27:17.619 --> 27:21.520 statistical and ecosystem modeling approach, 27:22.359 --> 27:25.210 something I like to call a max-bin regression 27:25.210 --> 27:27.859 approach I developed and Evan Turner. 27:27.859 --> 27:31.420 We've got the percent of flow approach, we've got productivity models. 27:32.109 --> 27:34.000 We understand how community structure 27:34.000 --> 27:36.530 and diversity changes with habitat, 27:36.530 --> 27:39.119 that's probably one of our most important 27:39.119 --> 27:41.205 indicators for a simple reason, 27:41.205 --> 27:44.369 diversity is the most sensitive indicator of ecosystem 27:44.369 --> 27:47.609 change because when the environment changes, 27:48.240 --> 27:51.690 sensitive species will either decline or disappear, 27:52.109 --> 27:54.520 tolerant species will stay the same or increase. 27:54.520 --> 27:59.250 So, the relative contribution of those two kinds of groups will change, 27:59.670 --> 28:01.940 and that is very easy to depict, 28:01.940 --> 28:08.250 very easy to pick up and detect when we do community structure studies, 28:08.490 --> 28:09.510 biodiversity studies. 28:09.510 --> 28:11.550 We have water quality modeling. 28:11.550 --> 28:16.680 And we can also crop of water quality to flow, physical conditions. 28:20.690 --> 28:24.342 What we've learned is that inflow controls community structure, again, 28:24.342 --> 28:28.145 because of these salinity zones and it controls productivity. 28:28.145 --> 28:31.750 More flow means communities with more functional diversity, 28:31.750 --> 28:33.109 we've learned over time. 28:33.740 --> 28:36.570 You can get both the grazing and the detrital 28:36.570 --> 28:39.377 food chains in these secondary bays, 28:39.377 --> 28:44.511 but primarily just the detrital food chain in the primary bays. 28:44.511 --> 28:48.890 We've learned that the important driver really is residence time, 28:49.820 --> 28:53.210 how quickly water flows through the environment seems 28:53.210 --> 28:56.930 to really be driving the process for it themselves. 28:57.410 --> 29:01.040 And when it comes to management implications, again, 29:01.040 --> 29:04.310 we've got all these tools I mentioned in a previous slide. 29:05.060 --> 29:09.440 We understand how community and functional change can be dramatic. 29:10.010 --> 29:13.370 We've also done two restoration programs 29:13.370 --> 29:16.475 and understand that we can restore (UNKNOWN) 29:16.475 --> 29:23.215 estuaries and bring back environments that were severely degraded. 29:23.215 --> 29:25.710 But one of the things we deserve too, 29:25.710 --> 29:28.750 is how important it is to manage those refuges 29:29.200 --> 29:31.420 or the nursery habitats on the upper parts 29:31.420 --> 29:32.740 of the estuary during droughts. 29:33.390 --> 29:35.560 And that means a small amount of water matters. 29:36.860 --> 29:41.810 And I wish I'd reverse that slide, the next one is a better one. 29:42.470 --> 29:45.380 And so, what we're working on today and over 29:45.380 --> 29:48.020 the next four years is a better output. 29:48.740 --> 29:51.020 I'm planning on a new edition called Fresh 29:51.020 --> 29:52.977 Water Inflow to Texas Bays and Estuaries. 29:52.977 --> 29:56.260 I'm gonna steal the title, but it's not gonna be a second edition, 29:56.260 --> 30:00.350 it's gonna go really a whole new approach. 30:00.740 --> 30:04.100 It will be the approach that has been depicted 30:04.100 --> 30:07.326 by the Senate Bill 3 era and not the HB2 era. 30:07.326 --> 30:10.400 Our management goals are different, our methodologies are different. 30:10.850 --> 30:16.670 What we didn't have in the 94 edition was 30 30:16.670 --> 30:18.965 years worth of data that we have today. 30:18.965 --> 30:24.110 And we also have adaptive management mandate today. 30:24.110 --> 30:26.420 So, today we have a new goal, 30:26.420 --> 30:29.270 which is how much water is needed for the whole bay. 30:29.810 --> 30:31.610 And we're also gonna take more of a. 30:33.600 --> 30:37.000 PAUL: Texas coast one approach comparative approaches 30:37.000 --> 30:39.210 that are outlined and I've got 30:39.210 --> 30:41.430 a team of 10 different Co-PI's and many 30:41.430 --> 30:43.890 other people working with me on this. 30:43.890 --> 30:46.440 And I really think one of the big things 30:46.440 --> 30:48.000 is going to be a better outcome. 30:49.550 --> 30:51.380 Something I like to call focused flows, 30:51.380 --> 30:53.630 we are really starting to understand 30:53.630 --> 30:58.550 that if we can maintain those natural nurseries during droughts, 31:00.560 --> 31:03.590 it's going to make a big difference in how quickly 31:03.590 --> 31:07.550 the system can can revive and respond afterwards. 31:08.660 --> 31:12.380 The whole idea is that everything is 31:12.380 --> 31:14.300 fine during average and wet periods. 31:15.110 --> 31:18.020 I'm trying to come to a conclusion actually really 31:18.020 --> 31:20.900 even needed flow standards during average 31:21.680 --> 31:26.740 and wet periods which are part of that cube I was talking about the, 31:26.740 --> 31:28.966 period part of a cube. 31:28.966 --> 31:34.250 But if nursery function is protected then the bay will populate 31:34.250 --> 31:36.898 very rapidly when it does start to rain again. 31:36.898 --> 31:39.440 And what we've discovered is it's incredible 31:41.000 --> 31:42.830 what a small amount of water in 31:42.830 --> 31:47.090 these parts of a base can really do in 31:47.090 --> 31:48.650 terms of environmental protection. 31:49.400 --> 31:52.880 So that's my presentation. 31:54.920 --> 31:57.710 I'm going to go ahead and wrap it up there. 31:59.870 --> 32:01.490 And turn it back to you. 32:01.490 --> 32:03.800 And I know we'll deal with Dave right now, 32:03.800 --> 32:07.340 and then we'll have questions for both of us at the end as I recall. 32:09.860 --> 32:14.270 SPEAKER: Paul, thank you so much for grounding us with this important review of 32:14.270 --> 32:17.780 the history and evolution of freshwater inflows, science and policy. 32:18.110 --> 32:19.840 Thank you so much for being here. 32:19.840 --> 32:23.840 Now as a reminder to our audience, you may enter your questions 32:23.840 --> 32:26.600 or comments at any time in the chat box of the go 32:26.600 --> 32:30.560 to webinar panel and we will be sure to address them in 32:30.560 --> 32:33.680 the Q&A session at the end of the next presentation. 32:34.940 --> 32:39.020 So now we will shift gears to our next feature presentation 32:39.530 --> 32:42.380 and our distinguished guest is Mr. 32:42.410 --> 32:44.110 David Buzan. 32:44.110 --> 32:49.400 Dave is a biologist at Freese and Nichols in Austin. 32:49.640 --> 32:52.340 He has worked on water quality and quantity issues 32:52.340 --> 32:56.120 in Texas throughout his career since 1978. 32:56.870 --> 33:00.200 Dave is chair of the Texas Environmental Flows Basin, 33:00.200 --> 33:04.130 Bay Area Expert Science Team in the Colorado and La Bocca Basin, 33:04.790 --> 33:07.670 and he is also a member of other expert science 33:07.670 --> 33:10.010 teams in the Trinity and San Jacinto, 33:10.250 --> 33:13.040 new (UNKNOWN) and Lower Rio Grande basins. 33:13.640 --> 33:15.043 Please welcome Mr. 33:15.043 --> 33:16.048 Dave Buzan. 33:16.048 --> 33:17.720 Dave, the mic is all yours. 33:21.320 --> 33:22.430 DAVID BUZAN: Kemmy, thank you very much. 33:22.880 --> 33:28.220 And thanks to the board for creating this meeting, facilitating it. 33:28.790 --> 33:34.220 Thanks also to Paul, it was really a great presentation and great ideas. 33:34.220 --> 33:36.530 I really appreciated that. 33:37.520 --> 33:42.890 I'm going to talk, I feel very dumb and I really 33:42.890 --> 33:46.430 like Paul's point that he made 20 years 33:46.430 --> 33:50.630 ago when we first started having these rather 33:50.630 --> 33:53.300 informal freshwater inflow work groups. 33:53.810 --> 33:58.760 We were very focused on freshwater inflow and what you're 33:58.760 --> 34:03.560 communicating both in Paul's presentation and y 'all's 34:03.560 --> 34:08.360 meeting title is that it's important to look holistically 34:08.810 --> 34:12.140 at bay systems and so I really appreciate that. 34:12.620 --> 34:14.450 Can you all see my slides? 34:15.610 --> 34:16.900 SPEAKER: Yes, looks great. 34:17.480 --> 34:17.920 DAVID BUZAN: OK. 34:21.400 --> 34:23.980 I work as a biologist for Freese and Nichols, 34:23.980 --> 34:28.030 and we're doing a couple of projects that I'm going 34:28.030 --> 34:32.469 to discuss briefly and both of those projects 34:32.469 --> 34:36.950 are supported by the General Land Office. 34:36.950 --> 34:43.286 They are the project manager and so let me get started with that. 34:43.286 --> 34:48.640 Are my sides advancing? 34:50.230 --> 34:50.590 OK. 34:51.280 --> 34:55.120 And maybe the most important thing I can say that 34:55.120 --> 34:57.820 you may recall after this presentation is, 34:57.820 --> 35:00.370 there are kind of three items of information 35:00.370 --> 35:03.010 that I think are really critical for me. 35:03.610 --> 35:08.380 One is the General Land Office's Coastal Resiliency Master Plan. 35:08.860 --> 35:13.510 This is a comprehensive collection of needs 35:13.510 --> 35:16.390 identified coastline by stakeholders 35:16.390 --> 35:20.830 for things like sediment management, shoreline protection, 35:21.489 --> 35:27.340 oyster reef creation, and it gives you a great overview of what 35:27.340 --> 35:31.150 the public perceives needs to be done along the Texas coast. 35:31.780 --> 35:36.219 The second item is the board's surface water web page. 35:37.450 --> 35:41.350 It's a fantastic resource for hydrological information, 35:41.350 --> 35:46.780 water quality information and the library, the literature, 35:46.780 --> 35:50.770 the great literature that's available back into the 60s about 35:50.770 --> 35:55.840 work done on estuaries is certainly a valuable resource. 35:57.070 --> 36:00.969 From a newer perspective, Parks and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Team 36:00.969 --> 36:05.965 is really putting a lot of effort into mapping oyster, seagrass, 36:05.965 --> 36:11.200 important habitat on the Texas coast and that's a growing new 36:11.200 --> 36:14.890 resource that's going to help all of us in the future. 36:17.210 --> 36:22.280 First project I want to talk about is one done for the natural 36:22.280 --> 36:26.795 resource damage assessment trustees for the Deepwater Horizon. 36:26.795 --> 36:30.920 As I'm sure you know, oysters were impacted 36:30.920 --> 36:34.160 by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. 36:34.910 --> 36:38.870 Funding through that resource damage assessment 36:38.870 --> 36:44.030 came to Texas and the trustees wanted 36:44.030 --> 36:48.770 to focus some of their money on creating 36:48.770 --> 36:53.180 an intertidal reef and the subtitle Reef in 36:53.180 --> 36:57.110 the Galveston Bay system and they hired us to 36:57.110 --> 37:00.710 help with that project and our instructions 37:00.710 --> 37:03.230 were to look at areas in Trinity Bay, 37:03.230 --> 37:06.920 East Bay and Upper and Lower Galveston Bay. 37:08.030 --> 37:11.870 And what you're seeing on your screen, 37:11.870 --> 37:15.830 I hope, are these violet polygons. 37:16.940 --> 37:21.620 And the first part of this project involved identifying where 37:21.620 --> 37:27.311 it would be best to put oyster reefs and Anchor, QEA, 37:27.311 --> 37:33.010 our team mate on this project developed habitat suitability 37:33.010 --> 37:37.630 algorithm for oysters specifically for this project. 37:38.320 --> 37:46.400 And these purple polygons represent the locations that came out of 37:46.400 --> 37:52.400 that algorithm as optimal locations for oyster reef creation. 37:54.230 --> 38:01.550 The red ellipse shows the intertidal reef location we chose, 38:02.120 --> 38:07.010 the red circle shows the subtitle reef location that we chose. 38:07.910 --> 38:17.239 So that's kind of the end of the story but the value was in that habitat 38:17.239 --> 38:21.530 suitability algorithm developed by Anchor QEA and applied by them. 38:24.260 --> 38:26.330 And I put this graph up. 38:26.900 --> 38:29.600 This graph comes from Water Development 38:29.600 --> 38:33.320 Board data and this is their calculated 38:33.320 --> 38:42.170 annual freshwater inflow from 1941 to 2018 for the Galveston Bay system. 38:43.520 --> 38:49.810 The y axis shows that the values represent millions of acre feet per 38:49.810 --> 38:55.910 year and the columns represent those annual values for each year. 38:56.690 --> 39:08.160 And as you can see, 2016, '17, '18 are very high inflow years. 39:08.640 --> 39:11.400 And we know that most of this freshwater inflow 39:11.400 --> 39:14.010 is going into the Trinity Bay system. 39:14.969 --> 39:17.562 The yellow columns on the far right capture 39:17.562 --> 39:20.400 river flow from the Trinity River 39:20.400 --> 39:25.560 at (UNKNOWN) which is upstream from the tidal reach but it represents 39:26.040 --> 39:30.719 fresh water that's probably going to end up in the Galveston Bay system 39:30.719 --> 39:36.239 and I put it on there because the 2019 is also a high inflow year. 39:36.239 --> 39:42.750 So we had very high inflow for that period of four years and in fact, 39:42.750 --> 39:46.800 Hurricane Harvey, freshened the bay for a month, 39:46.860 --> 39:50.700 caused massive oyster mortality and it 39:51.120 --> 39:53.670 kind of goes to the point Paul made 39:53.670 --> 39:58.650 earlier of the importance of climate as a driver for what's going on. 39:58.650 --> 40:01.650 But this slide also reflects the value that 40:01.650 --> 40:04.739 the board brings to the work that we do. 40:08.739 --> 40:10.930 Oh, the red line, while I'm trying to 40:10.930 --> 40:12.850 figure out how to advance my slides, 40:13.420 --> 40:22.590 the red line represents the recommended annual freshwater inflow 40:23.250 --> 40:28.469 produced by the board and Texas Parks and Wildlife around 2000, 40:28.469 --> 40:34.350 that was 5.22 million acre feet a year and that was 40:34.350 --> 40:38.130 the freshwater inflow recommendation at that time. 40:43.190 --> 40:45.920 The other thing and this goes back to the point 40:45.920 --> 40:49.219 Carla made about tricky scientific questions, 40:49.219 --> 40:54.620 and these are the things that we love to have 40:54.620 --> 40:59.239 in our lives because we plan to go out 40:59.239 --> 41:02.390 and look for intertidal reefs thinking that 41:02.390 --> 41:04.640 if we could find out where they're located, 41:05.330 --> 41:08.450 we could see the type of circumstances they were in and we 41:08.450 --> 41:11.690 could duplicate that with this intertidal reef design. 41:12.290 --> 41:16.969 And what we found out was if you look around 9th September, 41:16.969 --> 41:23.860 15th through September 17th and these are 2019 data, 41:23.860 --> 41:27.660 you see that the water level was about 41:27.660 --> 41:31.725 two feet above predicted water levels. 41:31.725 --> 41:35.920 And we found out we were in a relative sea level anomaly 41:35.920 --> 41:39.030 and relative sea level anomalies are periods 41:39.030 --> 41:45.210 of five to six months where sea levels are persistently 41:45.210 --> 41:48.480 one or more feet above predicted levels. 41:50.489 --> 41:56.580 We talked to a lot of folks and nobody knows or we did not find anybody 41:56.580 --> 42:01.500 who knew what these relative sea level anomalies were caused by, 42:01.920 --> 42:05.550 caused by a multitude of complex factors. 42:07.219 --> 42:11.870 We talked to the folks at NOAA who are revising the title effort data, 42:11.870 --> 42:15.860 which will be issued in 2025 for the period 42:15.860 --> 42:22.219 from 2000 to 2020 and they told us that 42:23.120 --> 42:25.969 because of the sea level rise and the sea 42:25.969 --> 42:28.430 level anomalies that we've been seeing, 42:29.150 --> 42:36.400 they expect the mean sea level for Galveston Bay to be four 42:36.400 --> 42:42.400 inches higher in the new tidal datum than it is right now. 42:46.440 --> 42:49.398 This slide shows you black and green polygons. 42:49.398 --> 42:53.370 The black polygons are what are commonly referred to 42:53.370 --> 42:57.090 as oyster leases operated by commercial oystermen. 42:58.290 --> 43:00.900 They used to be places where they transplanted 43:00.900 --> 43:04.260 oysters for purging but now they're 43:04.260 --> 43:07.739 more commonly used really for oyster farming, 43:07.739 --> 43:10.450 they're commercial industry plants, 43:10.450 --> 43:14.685 coach, river rock one to three inches in size, 43:14.685 --> 43:18.750 they'll let that coach sit there for a year to two years, 43:18.750 --> 43:21.500 and they'll harvest the oysters off that rock. 43:23.260 --> 43:28.000 The green polygons represent places where parks 43:28.000 --> 43:31.840 and wildlife have restored oyster reefs. 43:31.840 --> 43:37.960 And so we think in our choices in East Bay along the North 43:37.960 --> 43:42.820 shore and in the middle of East Bay are good locations. 43:42.820 --> 43:47.080 Hopefully they are in good company with oysters being produced 43:47.080 --> 43:51.400 by the commercial industry and parks and wildlife reefs. 43:53.500 --> 43:58.960 Final slide for this project, the image on the left gives you an idea 43:58.960 --> 44:02.620 of what the structures are going to look like when they're built. 44:03.040 --> 44:06.340 They're not going to be the sharp pyramids that you see in 44:06.340 --> 44:11.400 the drawing because the horizontal scale is exaggerated. 44:13.170 --> 44:16.320 But the point we're making and the values 44:16.320 --> 44:19.170 here on this figure are in feet. 44:19.170 --> 44:22.515 So I've put an ellipse around. 44:22.515 --> 44:26.340 The height of the reef is intended to be 44:26.340 --> 44:28.500 about three feet from the bottom of 44:28.500 --> 44:34.800 the bay up into the water column and that vertical relief has been found 44:34.800 --> 44:37.469 to be very important for the ecological 44:37.469 --> 44:40.320 function of oyster reefs and this is 44:40.739 --> 44:46.620 a feature that agencies are more interested in seeing in their designs. 44:47.950 --> 44:53.942 The photo on the right shows concrete pipes, these are new, clean, 44:53.942 --> 44:57.450 cured concrete pipes but they have failed 44:57.450 --> 44:59.850 inspection for their desired use. 45:00.360 --> 45:04.739 And what we found is that the manufacturer of these pipes is willing 45:04.739 --> 45:09.660 to give these pipes away for free and whoever the user is, 45:09.660 --> 45:13.440 it just has to pay the cost of transporting the pipes. 45:14.810 --> 45:17.270 Why we're interested in this is because 45:17.600 --> 45:20.540 the mass distribution in these pipes, we think, 45:20.540 --> 45:25.370 is such that they'll be less likely to settle 45:25.370 --> 45:29.030 into the bottom if you want to use them for 45:29.030 --> 45:33.820 oyster substrate and the other advantage is 45:33.820 --> 45:37.040 that the surface area to mass ratio is much 45:37.040 --> 45:40.630 greater and so you have an inside and an outside 45:40.630 --> 45:41.620 of the pipe that can be colonized. 45:43.330 --> 45:46.180 SPEAKER: both by oysters and other organisms. 45:46.210 --> 45:49.330 And so if these reefs get built, 45:49.330 --> 45:51.880 hopefully there will be free pipe available 45:53.080 --> 45:55.840 to be experimented for that purpose. 45:57.920 --> 46:00.260 Second project we're working on with 46:00.260 --> 46:04.820 the GLO is at the mouth of Carancahua Bay. 46:04.820 --> 46:08.920 Carancahua Bay is a secondary bay to Matagorda Bay. 46:08.930 --> 46:12.890 I've kind of covered up the name Matagorda Bay there. 46:13.730 --> 46:14.960 Here are partners. 46:14.960 --> 46:18.590 GLO, again is providing (UNKNOWN) funding 46:19.370 --> 46:21.080 at the National Fish and Wildlife 46:21.080 --> 46:26.719 Foundation is providing health benefit funding from the Restore Act. 46:27.469 --> 46:30.830 Fish and Wildlife has thrown in money. 46:31.710 --> 46:37.370 We're working with Texas A&M Rusty Fagan's team out of College Station. 46:37.370 --> 46:39.110 They're doing a lot of data collection 46:39.110 --> 46:41.870 and modeling around the mouth of the bay. 46:42.410 --> 46:44.930 And the Matagorda Bay Foundation is important 46:44.930 --> 46:47.540 because if a structure is going to be built, 46:48.560 --> 46:53.060 we need a non-state entity to hold the permit 46:53.060 --> 46:56.060 and the Matagorda Bay Foundation 46:56.060 --> 47:00.070 and Bill Balboa have volunteered to play that role in this project. 47:00.080 --> 47:04.580 But the goal of the project and what you can see in this image, 47:05.000 --> 47:08.480 the blue line represents the 1995 shoreline. 47:09.290 --> 47:12.830 The yellow line represents the 2005 shoreline, 47:13.370 --> 47:16.670 and the Red Line represents the 2018 shoreline. 47:16.670 --> 47:20.060 And what you see is this is an area where there is 47:20.060 --> 47:24.344 a lot of shoreline loss and erosion occurring. 47:24.686 --> 47:30.200 And our job this is to work with the team 47:30.200 --> 47:33.680 and try to figure out a structure that 47:33.680 --> 47:36.530 will help protect the ecological condition 47:36.530 --> 47:38.870 in Salt Lake and Redfish Lake. 47:39.950 --> 47:46.100 And also stop or minimize erosion of those 47:46.640 --> 47:50.420 substantial areas of land and marsh. 47:52.980 --> 47:55.890 So this is what the system looked like in 1858, 47:55.890 --> 47:58.469 and just to try to give you an idea 47:58.469 --> 48:02.114 that Salt Lake and Redfish like where this 48:02.114 --> 48:04.980 semi-enclosed system Schicke Point, 48:04.980 --> 48:07.170 which you'll see us refer to later, 48:07.170 --> 48:12.070 is the east side of the mouth of Carancahua Bay. 48:12.090 --> 48:15.500 You see Matagorda Bay in 1858, 48:15.510 --> 48:20.400 the mouth of Carancahua Bay was about 670 feet wide. 48:21.980 --> 48:25.070 Salt Lake and Redfish Lake are important because up until 48:25.070 --> 48:30.110 the 70s or even the early 80s, these lakes were shallow. 48:31.590 --> 48:35.100 They had seagrass oyster beds. 48:35.460 --> 48:40.500 They were popular places for Wade fishing and supposedly 48:41.070 --> 48:45.239 are relatively unusual place to encounter sharks. 48:45.989 --> 48:50.460 So how very unique ecosystems on this part of the bay? 48:52.010 --> 48:55.100 This is an approximation of what the mouth 48:55.130 --> 48:57.380 of Carancahua Bay looks like right now, 48:57.560 --> 49:03.800 instead of 670 feet wide, its 6,700 feet wide, ten times this wide. 49:08.640 --> 49:14.310 And this illustrates some of the erosion that we're seeing 49:14.310 --> 49:19.110 the yellow line represents the 1995 shoreline. 49:21.070 --> 49:23.980 And you see that the Matagorda Bay shore 49:24.550 --> 49:28.570 is eroding towards the northwest. 49:29.230 --> 49:36.610 And what is now redfish point is eroding to the west from the East. 49:37.980 --> 49:42.930 The erosion rate in 1995 to 2018 was about 17 49:42.930 --> 49:47.250 feet per year along the Matagorda Bayshore. 49:48.030 --> 49:51.360 The Green Line represents the 2008 shoreline, 49:52.140 --> 49:55.380 and we see that the erosion rate from 2008 to 49:55.380 --> 50:01.560 2018 was about 22 feet per year and quicker 50:01.560 --> 50:05.050 or greater erosion rates from east to west. 50:05.070 --> 50:06.780 You see that point eroding. 50:07.810 --> 50:15.580 The dashed red line is kind of our estimate of the current point in 50:15.580 --> 50:20.290 the current shoreline based on July drone imagery that we took. 50:23.390 --> 50:28.100 So we care a lot about the ecological condition of Salt 50:28.100 --> 50:31.270 Lake and Redfish Lake and how they're changing 50:31.270 --> 50:35.030 and really how this mouth opening is going 50:35.030 --> 50:38.137 to change the condition of Carancahua Bay. 50:38.137 --> 50:45.480 But just as importantly, there are coastal communities like Port Alto, 50:46.320 --> 50:49.590 and we know that the prevailing winds are 50:49.590 --> 50:52.800 from the southeast and historically Port 50:52.800 --> 50:55.710 Alto had about two to three miles of 50:55.710 --> 50:59.850 fetch for those southeast prevailing 50:59.850 --> 51:05.800 winds to build up before wave wind-generated wave struck that community. 51:06.420 --> 51:09.570 As the mouth of Carancahua Bay continues to open up. 51:10.980 --> 51:14.880 And as the bay deepens over time, and this isn't something 51:14.880 --> 51:19.469 that's gonna happen soon, it's gonna take a long time. 51:19.469 --> 51:22.770 But as the system opens up and deepens, 51:23.520 --> 51:27.760 that coastal community is going to be exposed to wind-generated 51:27.760 --> 51:32.250 waves over about 15 miles of fetch instead 51:32.250 --> 51:34.020 of two to three miles of fetch. 51:34.030 --> 51:37.980 So there are concerns not just about ecological condition, 51:37.980 --> 51:42.840 but potential economic and societal impacts. 51:45.390 --> 51:49.530 So what's what's going on and (UNKNOWN) phrased it well 51:49.530 --> 51:55.300 with these tricky scientific questions and this 51:55.300 --> 51:58.600 is a drone photograph of that Redfish Peninsula, 51:59.200 --> 52:02.060 you see Redfish Lake in the background, Matagorda Bay. 52:02.469 --> 52:07.989 And what you see on the shore is this very large shell hash 52:07.989 --> 52:13.120 berm that's being continually pushed up onto marsh. 52:13.120 --> 52:18.070 And so the marsh is disappearing, not from the Redfish Lake side, 52:18.310 --> 52:22.000 the marsh is disappearing because this shell hash 52:22.000 --> 52:27.610 berm is getting pushed up onto the marsh. 52:28.600 --> 52:33.730 And Paul made a great point about sediments kind 52:33.730 --> 52:35.860 of being the graveyard and where everything ends 52:35.860 --> 52:39.790 up and I kind of wish the shells would stay on 52:39.790 --> 52:43.270 the bottom and not be washing up on our marsh. 52:44.600 --> 52:49.790 But one of the questions is, where was this show hash before 52:49.790 --> 52:53.390 and why is it showing up now and causing problems? 52:55.650 --> 52:57.690 This is looking at the east side of the mouth, 52:57.690 --> 53:00.270 and this is Schicke point in 1958, 53:00.270 --> 53:04.140 at that turquoise line is the 2016 shoreline. 53:04.739 --> 53:07.950 The Red Line is the 1995 shoreline, 53:07.950 --> 53:11.400 and that blue line that's too smooth to be 53:11.400 --> 53:15.330 natural represents the breakwater that 53:15.330 --> 53:19.380 we oversaw construction of in 2017. 53:20.040 --> 53:23.790 And so it's doing part of what it's intended to do. 53:23.820 --> 53:27.360 It's allowing sediment to accumulate back 53:27.360 --> 53:30.510 behind the living shoreline breakwater. 53:31.110 --> 53:33.420 And what we find when we sample in front 53:33.420 --> 53:35.730 of the breakwater is that this is where 53:35.730 --> 53:38.610 a lot of that shell hash is now accumulating 53:39.030 --> 53:41.219 is on the bay side of that breakwater. 53:41.219 --> 53:44.820 It's not being transported on to the marsh. 53:49.360 --> 53:57.940 And I put this in because Paul made the point that climate 53:58.090 --> 54:02.830 is an important driver and we look at freshwater inflow, 54:02.830 --> 54:04.960 and again, this is from the Water Development Board, 54:04.960 --> 54:09.910 and the real beauty of this is that there are no gauged streams 54:09.910 --> 54:14.035 in the Carancahua Bay watershed that this is modeled, 54:14.035 --> 54:18.610 calculated freshwater inflow that the Water Development 54:18.610 --> 54:21.940 Board generated and it's information 54:21.940 --> 54:27.847 that we did not have otherwise when we just relied 54:27.847 --> 54:32.550 on USGS gauges to provide a flow data, 54:32.550 --> 54:35.880 but we can see that the flow varies a lot, 54:37.050 --> 54:41.219 but there doesn't at least visually seem to be a significant 54:41.370 --> 54:44.880 trend either in increasing or decreasing flow. 54:48.800 --> 54:52.587 And so I think about how... 54:52.587 --> 54:55.060 What are the broader causes? 54:55.080 --> 55:01.294 And I want to show you these two, 55:01.294 --> 55:08.310 polygons represent the Matagorda Bay system as it existed in the 1850s. 55:09.330 --> 55:16.200 And in the 1850s, the only title exchange threw in into 55:16.200 --> 55:22.313 and out of the Matagorda Bay system, was through Pass Cavallo. 55:22.313 --> 55:27.050 And what we know happened is that in... 55:27.050 --> 55:30.030 And I don't know if I can get my cursor down there. 55:31.340 --> 55:38.480 But we know that in the 1930s, a log jam was demolished on 55:38.480 --> 55:43.070 the Colorado River and the sediment accumulated with that log 55:43.070 --> 55:50.540 jam flowed down into a Matagorda Bay and it actually split off 55:50.540 --> 55:54.920 what is now east Matagorda Bay from west Matagorda Bay. 55:54.920 --> 55:59.710 That sediment delta formed all the way to the Gulf shoreline. 56:01.310 --> 56:04.180 And so what we know happened is that the tidal 56:04.180 --> 56:08.540 prism going into and out of Pass Cavallo that 56:08.570 --> 56:12.080 substantially reduced because the volume of 56:12.080 --> 56:16.760 the bay was substantially reduced in the 1930s. 56:17.690 --> 56:21.440 We also know that in the 1960s, in '65, 56:21.440 --> 56:24.830 the Matagorda ship channel was completed and that 56:24.830 --> 56:28.520 became another location for tidal exchange 56:28.520 --> 56:32.300 to occur and tidal prism to be affected. 56:33.950 --> 56:36.750 We know sea level rise is occurring. 56:37.219 --> 56:40.850 There's not a sea-level trend gauge in this area, 56:40.850 --> 56:45.920 but we know that at Freeport it's averaged about 4.5 millimeters a year. 56:46.088 --> 56:50.764 In Rockport, it's averaged about 5.5 millimeters a year. 56:50.764 --> 56:56.479 We just roughly guessed that this is averaging about 5 millimeters 56:56.479 --> 57:01.154 a year of relative sea-level rise in this area. 57:01.154 --> 57:05.830 But this is why I wonder about tidal prism, 57:05.830 --> 57:10.505 and this is a graph from a report from 57:10.505 --> 57:15.701 Kraus et al in 2006 and the y axis on 57:15.701 --> 57:21.415 the graph is tidal prism and tidal prism one definition is 57:21.415 --> 57:27.130 the volume of water leaving the estuary on the ebb tide. 57:27.130 --> 57:33.883 And so it's in billions of cubic feet per tidal exchange. 57:33.883 --> 57:37.520 And the red squares represent tidal prism 57:37.520 --> 57:40.637 attributed to the Matagorda ship channel, 57:40.637 --> 57:43.754 and the white squares represent tidal 57:43.754 --> 57:46.352 prism attributable to Pass Cavallo. 57:46.352 --> 57:53.105 And what we see is that in the 1850s on the far left 57:53.105 --> 57:58.301 that the tidal prism was about 13illion cubic feet. 57:58.301 --> 58:02.976 And it didn't change much, and they calculated that 58:02.976 --> 58:07.652 the tidal prism maybe was a little bit less. 58:07.652 --> 58:12.327 And by the way, the mouth of Carancahua Bay 58:12.327 --> 58:16.484 in the 1850s was nearly two miles wide. 58:16.484 --> 58:20.120 In the 1930s, the tidal prism attributable 58:20.120 --> 58:24.276 to Pass Cavallo had reduced a little bit, 58:24.276 --> 58:29.471 but then we see a big drop in the tidal 58:29.471 --> 58:33.108 prism from the 1930s to the 1960s. 58:33.108 --> 58:39.342 And that drop in title prism again is associated with the decreasing 58:39.342 --> 58:45.576 volume of the bay as that east Matagorda Bay was cut off. 58:45.576 --> 58:51.811 And what we see in the 1960s, we see Matagorda ship channel 58:51.811 --> 58:55.967 contributing to the tidal prism in Matagorda Bay, 58:55.967 --> 59:01.681 but what we see also is that contribution of the Matagorda 59:01.681 --> 59:05.837 ship channel has doubled since the 1960s, 59:05.837 --> 59:13.111 and we know that's the case in part because of relative sea-level rise, 59:13.111 --> 59:17.786 but also in part because that Pass has scoured 59:17.786 --> 59:21.942 their areas where it's over 100 feet deep. 59:21.942 --> 59:27.657 Tidal velocities can range from six to eight feet per second. 59:27.657 --> 59:31.813 And so the tidal prism is increasing again, 59:31.813 --> 59:37.008 and it now exceeds what it was when Pass Cavallo 59:37.008 --> 59:41.684 was the tidal exchange point for the entire system, 59:41.684 --> 59:44.801 including what's now East Matagorda Bay. 59:44.801 --> 59:47.918 So we have more tidal prism, 59:47.918 --> 59:54.152 more tidal exchange in a smaller volume, a smaller area of bay. 59:54.152 --> 59:58.308 And what research indicates is that as tidal 59:58.308 --> 01:00:00.386 prism increases tidal velocities, 01:00:00.386 --> 01:00:03.503 tidal amplitudes and the estuaries increase 01:00:03.503 --> 01:00:07.659 and that these systems become more ebb dominated. 01:00:07.659 --> 01:00:12.335 And so kind of my final question, 01:00:12.335 --> 01:00:18.569 what I'm thinking about is is tidal prism in this changing tidal 01:00:18.569 --> 01:00:23.245 prism is that what is triggering changes like those 01:00:23.245 --> 01:00:29.333 we're seeing in the mouth of Carancahua bay? 01:00:29.333 --> 01:00:37.140 Oh and and that's kind of where we're starting 01:00:37.140 --> 01:00:38.850 this project with the General Land 01:00:38.850 --> 01:00:42.800 Office and and trying to explore those questions 01:00:42.800 --> 01:00:46.140 and with that, all I conclude.