WEBVTT 00:01.021 --> 09:38.143 (BACKGROUND NOISE) 14:28.971 --> 14:29.388 KRISTIE: Good morning. 14:29.388 --> 14:30.327 Can you all hear me OK? 14:38.823 --> 14:38.985 EVAN: Yeah. 14:38.985 --> 14:39.799 We can hear you fine. 14:39.799 --> 14:40.964 KRISTIE: Thanks, Evan. 14:44.366 --> 14:51.433 (CLICKS MOUSE) Well, good morning. 14:51.433 --> 14:54.219 Thanks for attending our BGPZ Amendment guidance 14:54.219 --> 14:56.208 meeting for stakeholder feedback today. 14:56.208 --> 15:01.381 I know you probably have many other things you can be doing now, 15:01.381 --> 15:05.758 so I appreciate you taking the time out to be here. 15:05.758 --> 15:10.135 FYI, my portion of this presentation is about 20 minutes long. 15:10.135 --> 15:12.125 My name is Kristie Laughlin. 15:12.125 --> 15:14.910 I am the new BRACS program manager. 15:15.416 --> 15:20.451 I was the project manager for the Blossom and Nacatoch BRAC Studies 15:20.451 --> 15:24.630 a few years ago when I was with LBG-Guyton and Associates. 15:24.810 --> 15:29.110 I have been with TWDB BRACS program for about three years, 15:29.110 --> 15:34.195 and I've been the manager for about three months. 15:34.195 --> 15:44.795 (CLICKS MOUSE) Well, sorry, slide mishap. 15:44.795 --> 15:46.250 OK. 15:46.250 --> 15:54.530 So, first I'll give you a brief overview of TWDB BRACS and BGPZs. 15:54.530 --> 15:57.700 Then we will review the general amendment guidance, 15:57.700 --> 16:00.560 and the previous poll feedback from last year. 16:00.920 --> 16:03.460 I have a couple o' new polls for you today, 16:03.460 --> 16:07.550 and would like your ideas also for some new web content. 16:08.420 --> 16:10.790 And I will be asking for additional questions you 16:10.790 --> 16:13.281 may have a few times during this presentation. 16:13.281 --> 16:19.220 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, what is the Texas Water Development Board? 16:19.550 --> 16:22.700 We were created in the 1950s after the drought 16:22.700 --> 16:25.130 of record to research our water sources, 16:25.130 --> 16:28.190 plan for drought and growth, and provide the funds 16:28.190 --> 16:31.310 to implement the strategies in the plans. 16:31.550 --> 16:35.308 Flood planning in response to Hurricane Harvey 16:35.308 --> 16:39.065 is the newest program for the agency. 16:39.065 --> 16:43.360 We're not a regulatory agency like the TCEQ. 16:43.360 --> 16:47.118 Our science focuses on groundwater, surface water, 16:47.118 --> 16:48.728 innovative water technologies, 16:48.728 --> 16:51.949 conservation, flooding, and groundwater-surface water interaction. 16:51.949 --> 16:55.707 For planning, we assist with regional water, 16:55.707 --> 16:57.854 flood, and drought planning, 16:57.854 --> 17:02.686 which are all incorporated into the state water plan. 17:03.586 --> 17:04.705 And funding. 17:04.705 --> 17:09.748 We assist the implementation of numerous flood, water infrastructure, 17:09.748 --> 17:12.549 and conservation projects with funding. 17:12.549 --> 17:15.349 (CLICKS MOUSE) The BRACS program. 17:15.349 --> 17:20.391 We aim to map groundwater salinity zones and estimate 17:20.391 --> 17:24.311 the in-place storage volumes in brackish aquifers. 17:24.311 --> 17:29.353 Our purpose is to provide our stakeholders basic information 17:29.353 --> 17:31.594 about brackish groundwater resources, 17:31.594 --> 17:35.515 such as production zones and volume estimates. 17:35.515 --> 17:39.686 Using the public process we solicit data 17:39.686 --> 17:42.666 from stakeholders for our studies, 17:42.666 --> 17:48.625 and solicit input for guidance documents like we're doing today. 17:48.625 --> 17:52.200 Our mapping data is publicly available. 17:52.200 --> 17:56.968 Reports, project GIS pages, and the BRACS database are 17:56.968 --> 18:01.006 available for download from our BRACS web pages. 18:01.006 --> 18:04.119 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, the background on brackish 18:04.119 --> 18:05.906 groundwater production zones. 18:05.906 --> 18:12.096 In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 30, 18:12.096 --> 18:17.666 which established statutory mapping criteria and directed the TWDB 18:17.666 --> 18:22.618 to identify and designate brackish groundwater production zones. 18:22.618 --> 18:26.950 In 2016, four contracted studies were completed, 18:26.950 --> 18:30.045 and eight brackish groundwater production 18:30.045 --> 18:33.759 zones were designated by the TWDB. 18:35.308 --> 18:41.600 The four contracted studies were done for the Blaine, 18:41.600 --> 18:44.970 the southern portion of the Carrizo-Wilcox, 18:44.970 --> 18:47.630 and the, the Gulf Coast aquifer, 18:47.630 --> 18:51.450 excluding the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Rustler. 18:51.450 --> 18:55.512 The Blaine did not have any BGPZs designated. 18:55.512 --> 18:57.060 SPEAKER: (AUDIO DISTORTS) (INAUDIBLE) do anything here. 18:57.482 --> 18:59.406 KRISTIE: At that time. 18:59.406 --> 19:01.330 (CLICKS MOUSE) Alright. 19:01.330 --> 19:01.971 OK. 19:01.971 --> 19:09.665 So, in 2019 there were 23 more BGPZs designated by the TWDB. 19:09.665 --> 19:16.078 Those were done in three aquifers, which are the Blossom, 19:16.078 --> 19:20.566 the Nacatoch, and the Northern Trinity aquifers. 19:20.566 --> 19:25.696 Senate Bill 1041 was passed in 2019 also, 19:25.696 --> 19:29.542 which extended our deadline to complete 19:29.542 --> 19:37.238 all our BRAC studies and designate BGPZs for all of our studies. 19:37.238 --> 19:38.576 (BACKGROUND CHATTER) 19:38.576 --> 19:41.500 KRISTIE: It extended it to December 2032, 19:41.500 --> 19:47.346 and we definitely needed that extra ten years to complete this work. 19:47.346 --> 19:52.912 House Bill 722 was passed in 2019 as well, 19:52.912 --> 19:59.174 which established a permitting framework for GCDs to develop 19:59.174 --> 20:03.869 water supplies from brackish groundwater production zones. 20:03.869 --> 20:07.773 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, what is a BGPZ? 20:07.773 --> 20:10.784 A brackish groundwater production zone 20:10.784 --> 20:12.670 has the potential for moderate to high 20:12.670 --> 20:18.670 volume production in areas that meet House Bill 30 statutory criteria. 20:18.670 --> 20:22.474 (BACKGROUND NOISE) 20:22.474 --> 20:27.157 KRISTIE: Could everybody please mute their microphones? 20:27.157 --> 20:28.720 Thank you. 20:29.758 --> 20:30.986 SPEAKER: Muted, right? 20:30.986 --> 20:32.830 (AUDIO DISTORTS) (INAUDIBLE). 20:32.830 --> 20:37.986 KRISTIE: So, a brackish groundwater production zone has defined boundaries 20:37.986 --> 20:43.143 such as the footprint and depth boundaries as well. 20:43.143 --> 20:47.727 And it also has an annual production volume. 20:47.727 --> 20:52.311 So, for example, the 2016 BRAC study of 20:52.311 --> 20:56.321 the Rustler designated a BGPZ called Rus1, 20:56.321 --> 21:00.332 which encompasses the Magenta and Culebra Dolomites, 21:00.332 --> 21:04.916 and the Los Medanos limestones of the Rustler 21:04.916 --> 21:07.781 aquifer within the BGPZ footprint. 21:08.080 --> 21:12.378 The annual production volume from this zone 21:12.378 --> 21:16.061 is approximately 2500 acre-feet per year. 21:16.061 --> 21:20.974 And the Rus1 shapefile with the elevation, depth, 21:20.974 --> 21:25.273 and thickness attributes for each grid cell 21:25.273 --> 21:30.185 is available on the BRACS, BGPZ web page. 21:30.185 --> 21:35.097 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, moving on to the amendments, 21:35.097 --> 21:38.167 Texas Administrative Code Rule 356.70(d) 21:38.167 --> 21:43.079 allows the TWDB to initiate amendments to BGPZs 21:43.079 --> 21:46.148 with full disclosure of justification, 21:46.148 --> 21:49.219 and outreach for stakeholder input. 21:49.219 --> 21:54.060 But we likely won't initiate any amendments on our side until 21:54.060 --> 21:59.520 after we complete all our work that's due by 2032. 22:00.330 --> 22:03.270 That would be all the studies and brackish 22:03.270 --> 22:05.910 groundwater production zone designations. 22:06.869 --> 22:10.410 The rule allows GCDs to request amendments 22:11.040 --> 22:13.710 to brackish groundwater production zones, 22:13.710 --> 22:17.160 which shall include a justification and documentation 22:17.160 --> 22:18.990 supporting the requested amendment. 22:19.920 --> 22:23.040 There are also states that the agency will publish guidance 22:23.040 --> 22:25.940 discussing the timing for considering amendments. 22:25.940 --> 22:29.520 We would like to revisit stakeholder input today 22:29.520 --> 22:33.457 regarding the timing for amendment decisions. 22:33.457 --> 22:38.760 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, what is a BGPZ amendment? 22:39.060 --> 22:41.790 Well, basically, it's a change to the boundary. 22:41.790 --> 22:45.890 It can be the footprint boundary or depth boundaries, 22:45.890 --> 22:48.900 which could make the zone larger or smaller. 22:49.350 --> 22:52.560 It could be changes to the annual production volume, 22:53.369 --> 22:55.640 which may increase or decrease. 22:55.650 --> 23:00.313 And any amendment is subject to the statutory criteria 23:00.313 --> 23:03.940 that is established by House Bill 30. 23:03.940 --> 23:08.085 (CLICKS MOSUE) Who may request the BGPZ amendment? 23:08.085 --> 23:11.712 It can be a groundwater conservation district, 23:11.712 --> 23:14.821 a group of districts, an individual, 23:14.821 --> 23:20.002 a driller, or any other entity working through a district. 23:20.002 --> 23:25.183 For BGPZs that span multiple districts, we will require documented 23:25.183 --> 23:29.328 consensus of the request from all associated GCDs. 23:29.328 --> 23:34.510 And this actually, applies to most of the designated BGPZs. 23:34.510 --> 23:39.761 The only exceptions are the Blossom and the Nacatoch aquifers, 23:39.761 --> 23:43.830 because there are no GCDs overlying those aquifers. 23:43.830 --> 23:49.212 (PUNCHES KEYBOARD) (CLICKS MOUSE) So, why would you wanna amend a BGPZ? 23:49.212 --> 23:52.888 You may have newly available aquifer data 23:52.888 --> 23:56.039 like pump tests or water levels. 23:56.039 --> 23:59.189 You may have identified agricultural, domestic, 23:59.189 --> 24:02.865 or municipal wells that were not identified 24:02.865 --> 24:06.540 prior to the designation of the BGPZ. 24:07.173 --> 24:10.811 There may be additional injection or disposal well 24:10.811 --> 24:14.451 data permitted under Texas Water Code Chapter 27. 24:14.451 --> 24:18.544 There could be an injection zone buffer radius change, 24:18.544 --> 24:23.547 which is something we will be working on in the future. 24:23.547 --> 24:28.096 You could have data showing that there is insufficient hydrogeological 24:28.096 --> 24:32.644 barrier between the brackish and freshwater portions of the aquifer. 24:32.644 --> 24:36.282 Or you may have improved models to estimate 24:36.282 --> 24:37.647 brackish groundwater production. 24:38.739 --> 24:43.172 (CLICKS MOUSE) So, what documentation should you submit? 24:43.172 --> 24:48.160 It could be well construction information, water quality analyses, 24:48.160 --> 24:51.100 water level measurements, geophysical logs, 24:51.100 --> 24:55.840 pump test results, groundwater models, and any other non-proprietary 24:55.840 --> 24:59.410 data that supports the amendment request. 24:59.410 --> 25:05.320 (PUNCHES KEYBOARD) (CLICKS MOUSE) The documentation must support 25:05.320 --> 25:10.270 your reason for your request, and it should be non-confidential. 25:10.660 --> 25:14.020 So, for example, if the request is due to not having 25:14.020 --> 25:17.750 a complete water well inventory of existing domestic, 25:17.750 --> 25:23.867 municipal, or agricultural wells at the time of the BGPZ designation, 25:23.867 --> 25:26.920 we would need well reports with information 25:26.920 --> 25:30.880 including drill dates, water use, 25:31.090 --> 25:35.190 location, total depth, and well construction information. 25:35.190 --> 25:39.720 (CLICKS MOUSE) Does anybody have questions 25:39.720 --> 25:42.330 before we move on to the poll results? 25:43.020 --> 25:46.440 You could type them in the chat, or unmute and just ask. 25:51.450 --> 25:52.755 JAMES: Can I ask 'em verbally? 25:52.755 --> 25:53.230 KRISTIE: Sure. 25:53.705 --> 25:54.109 JAMES: OK. 25:54.109 --> 25:57.757 So, this is James Harcourt with the Railroad Commission... 25:57.757 --> 25:58.211 KRISTIE: Hey, James. 25:58.941 --> 25:58.993 JAMES: Hey. 25:58.993 --> 26:02.800 So, with these BGPZs, so in a county that doesn't 26:02.800 --> 26:05.720 have a GCD that doesn't matter, right? 26:05.720 --> 26:09.475 'Cause I, I think like, half the counties have GCDs, 26:09.475 --> 26:11.143 half the counties don't. 26:11.143 --> 26:12.811 That's irrelevant though, right? 26:13.974 --> 26:14.366 KRISTIE: Correct. 26:14.366 --> 26:14.751 JAMES: OK. 26:14.751 --> 26:18.598 And then the next one was when you drill wells... 26:18.598 --> 26:21.804 When wells are drilled into brackish production zones, they, 26:21.804 --> 26:25.907 they then hit your water data interactive map pretty quickly. 26:25.907 --> 26:27.061 Is that right? 26:27.061 --> 26:29.371 As part of the completion process? 26:30.770 --> 26:31.967 KRISTIE: Just say that again. 26:32.001 --> 26:35.239 JAMES: OK So, right now, when water wells are drilled, 26:35.239 --> 26:38.118 the only way that the Railroad Commission knows 26:38.118 --> 26:42.436 they're there is we see 'em on the water data interactive map, 26:42.436 --> 26:43.516 which TWDB maintains. 26:43.516 --> 26:45.675 It's a layer that we include... 26:45.675 --> 26:46.782 KRISTIE: Correct. 26:47.025 --> 26:47.355 JAMES: OK. 26:47.355 --> 26:51.647 And so, my assumption is you do the same thing for brackish wells. 26:51.647 --> 26:55.278 It doesn't matter when a well is drilled, if it's brackish, 26:55.278 --> 26:58.580 it goes, it goes in that water data interactive, right? 26:59.570 --> 27:00.380 KRISTIE: Yes. 27:00.859 --> 27:01.295 JAMES: OK. 27:01.295 --> 27:01.729 Good. 27:01.729 --> 27:04.773 And then, obviously, these BGPZs are not 27:04.773 --> 27:08.251 a category or class of aquifers of Texas. 27:08.251 --> 27:11.294 They're a, a different animal entirely, right? 27:13.255 --> 27:16.317 KRISTIE: Well, they would be (UNKNOWN) from the designated 27:16.317 --> 27:18.614 aquifer boundaries that we have now. 27:18.614 --> 27:21.993 JAMES: So, I asked that question for a reason. 27:21.993 --> 27:27.063 And that is that we protect minor and major aquifers of Texas, 27:27.063 --> 27:30.442 but we don't protect brackish groundwater production zones. 27:30.442 --> 27:34.244 So, if those were suddenly to become something of 27:34.244 --> 27:38.468 a class or a category of major or minor aquifers, 27:38.468 --> 27:41.848 I don't know how that would affect things. 27:41.848 --> 27:45.086 But right now we don't protect 'em, and, 27:45.086 --> 27:47.339 and that's just a statement, so. 27:47.339 --> 27:47.720 KRISTIE: OK. 27:47.720 --> 27:51.532 Oh, I do have an update for you, though, James. 27:51.532 --> 27:55.724 We did request that the BGPZs be added to the WDI, 27:55.724 --> 27:57.248 the water data interactive. 27:57.248 --> 28:00.297 So, those will become available as soon as 28:00.297 --> 28:02.965 IT gets around to getting those uploaded. 28:02.965 --> 28:05.252 So, that should help you all... 28:05.252 --> 28:05.336 JAMES: Yes. 28:05.336 --> 28:07.204 KRISTIE: With (AUDIO DISTORTS) (INAUDIBLE). 28:07.204 --> 28:07.631 JAMES: Thank you. 28:09.179 --> 28:11.204 KRISTIE: Any other questions? 28:11.204 --> 28:12.554 Oh, Tim. 28:12.554 --> 28:19.305 'How is the annual production amount for a zone calculated? 28:19.305 --> 28:24.031 How does that value relate to MAGs? 28:24.031 --> 28:29.432 Are zone designations limited to GeM model layers?' 28:29.432 --> 28:38.208 The annual production amount is in addition to the value of a MAG. 28:38.208 --> 28:42.934 How they're calculated is with specific storage, 28:42.934 --> 28:46.309 store activity values, thicknesses, porosity. 28:46.309 --> 28:52.385 'Are zone designations limited to, to GeM model layers?' 28:52.385 --> 28:55.760 We make our own layers. 28:57.650 --> 28:58.569 TIM: Hi, this is Tim Andrews. 28:58.569 --> 29:01.470 Maybe I can add some clarity to those questions. 29:01.470 --> 29:05.090 So, for example, in the previous slide you indicated 29:05.090 --> 29:07.493 one of the zones had a production... 29:07.493 --> 29:10.280 Annual production volume of 2500 acre- feet. 29:11.930 --> 29:15.320 I guess my question is, what impact, if that volume of 29:15.320 --> 29:18.170 water was produced annually on a continual basis, 29:18.170 --> 29:21.790 what impact would that have on aquifer conditions? 29:21.800 --> 29:26.540 Presuming that an aquifer was the DFC, 29:26.540 --> 29:29.450 desired future condition for an aquifer was based on, 29:29.930 --> 29:31.970 let's say, drawdown values? 29:33.200 --> 29:40.670 KRISTIE: Well, the models were set up to assume that there would be no impact. 29:40.670 --> 29:41.860 TIM: Yeah. 29:41.860 --> 29:46.843 KRISTIE: And those could change in the event that, like I said, 29:46.843 --> 29:50.921 if we find out that there is no hydrogeological 29:50.921 --> 29:52.733 barrier between those portions, 29:52.733 --> 29:56.810 then that would be subject to an amendment request. 29:56.810 --> 29:57.680 TIM: Oh, OK. 29:57.680 --> 30:02.029 So, the designation of these zones presumes that there are 30:02.029 --> 30:05.074 confining barriers between the designated zone depths, 30:05.074 --> 30:10.293 and the other portions of the aquifer if it, if it lies within... 30:10.293 --> 30:11.408 KRISTIE: Correct. 30:11.408 --> 30:12.240 TIM: Yeah? 30:12.240 --> 30:13.073 OK. 30:13.073 --> 30:14.531 Pretty good. 30:14.531 --> 30:15.780 I understand. 30:16.894 --> 30:18.572 KRISTIE: Any other questions? 30:18.572 --> 30:22.487 OK, So, moving on to poll results, 30:22.487 --> 30:28.081 This is the poll we conducted in June last year. 30:28.081 --> 30:30.504 Alisa did that meeting. 30:30.504 --> 30:37.030 And (INAUDIBLE) just wanted to go through the questions and the results. 30:37.030 --> 30:43.183 Question one was just, if you would anticipate requesting an amendment. 30:43.183 --> 30:48.776 And the reason we ask this is just to kinda 30:48.776 --> 30:54.369 get an idea of what might be coming at us. 30:54.369 --> 30:55.488 (CLICKS MOUSE) 30:55.488 --> 31:00.412 Question two was, if amendments were gonna be decided by 31:00.412 --> 31:04.352 a board member action or executive administrative action. 31:04.352 --> 31:08.784 A board action kinda is logical because the board 31:08.784 --> 31:11.323 designates the BGPZs, but the, but the... 31:11.323 --> 31:13.216 It has less flexible timelines. 31:13.216 --> 31:17.156 Whereas executive administrator action would be more flexible. 31:17.156 --> 31:23.066 (CLICKS MOUSE) Question three was, do you prefer option A or B? 31:23.066 --> 31:26.020 Option A was major, minor split. 31:26.020 --> 31:29.117 You could submit 'em at any time. 31:29.117 --> 31:32.215 Option B was a more structured timeframe, 31:32.215 --> 31:36.197 with a five-year cycle, and no major, minor split. 31:36.197 --> 31:40.621 (CLICKS MOUSE) And then the other two questions had to 31:40.621 --> 31:45.046 do with the proposed timeframes for option A and B. 31:45.046 --> 31:49.470 Option A was six months for a minor amendment request 31:49.470 --> 31:52.125 decision after complete data was obtained. 31:52.125 --> 31:56.107 And then two years for a major amendment request 31:56.107 --> 31:58.762 decision after complete data is obtained. 31:58.762 --> 32:04.341 (CLICKS MOUSE) And option B is a five-year cycle, 32:04.341 --> 32:07.832 with the first two years focused on obtaining complete data, 32:07.832 --> 32:11.617 and amendment decisions delivered at the end of the cycle. 32:11.617 --> 32:16.160 So, those are the five questions that you all were polled on. 32:18.428 --> 32:23.300 SPEAKER: And those results were that 20% of participants said 32:23.300 --> 32:25.640 that they anticipate requesting an amendment. 32:25.640 --> 32:28.797 So this is really good information for us to have. 32:28.797 --> 32:37.070 As far as being decided by a board member action, nearly 70% said no. 32:37.220 --> 32:40.475 So it will be an executive administrator action. 32:40.475 --> 32:48.045 It'll be structured as an addendum to the BGPZ documentation. 32:48.045 --> 32:54.305 Option A or option B, over 80% preferred option A. 32:54.305 --> 32:59.270 So that we are gonna go with the major minor amendment split 33:00.200 --> 33:03.730 regarding the time proposed timeframes for option A, 33:03.770 --> 33:08.300 which was six months for a minor amendment request 33:08.300 --> 33:13.340 and two years for a major amendment request. 33:14.810 --> 33:17.210 50% said that was too long. 33:17.210 --> 33:20.810 And then question five isn't applicable now since 33:20.810 --> 33:24.380 nobody who's really thrilled about option B. 33:30.030 --> 33:36.750 So, the considerations that we had were trying to determine major 33:36.750 --> 33:41.565 and minor amendment timeframes were reasonable timeframes. 33:41.565 --> 33:45.436 We retained six-month and two-year decision time 33:45.436 --> 33:48.420 windows based on airing conservatively. 33:48.420 --> 33:53.730 Wanted to make sure we have adequate time to address all the impacts, 33:53.730 --> 33:56.850 whether they're obvious or somewhat nuanced. 33:56.850 --> 34:00.487 And then we also wanna stay on track with our existing workload, 34:00.487 --> 34:04.470 which is significant given the amount of time 34:04.470 --> 34:06.690 we have left and the amount of work we have. 34:06.690 --> 34:11.790 But we would also like to get your input as another consideration 34:11.790 --> 34:14.969 before we finalize the guidance document. 34:18.540 --> 34:23.372 Are there any questions about the poll results? 34:31.404 --> 34:36.250 OK, so I'd like to give you an example of what a major 34:36.250 --> 34:38.820 or minor amendment example might look like. 34:38.820 --> 34:44.800 So, an example of a minor amendment would be a relatively 34:44.800 --> 34:50.347 insignificant footprint change due to agricultural, 34:50.347 --> 34:54.520 domestic, or municipal laws that were not identified 34:54.520 --> 34:57.735 prior to the designation of the BGPZ. 34:57.735 --> 35:03.960 So, if there was existing use that got left out, that was not excluded, 35:03.960 --> 35:07.825 then that would be a good candidate as a minor amendment. 35:07.825 --> 35:11.410 An example of a major amendment would be newly 35:11.710 --> 35:15.850 available data like water levels, pump tests, 35:15.850 --> 35:19.480 porosity data, that would significantly 35:19.480 --> 35:22.330 change the model production volume. 35:23.110 --> 35:30.680 So that would require modelling, that would be likely a major amendment. 35:30.680 --> 35:45.145 So, new poll question one, excuse me, my phone is ringing. 35:46.780 --> 35:51.670 So, let me know if you can see these. 35:54.100 --> 35:56.360 Oh, it's like right in the middle of my slide. 35:56.380 --> 36:00.940 So anyways the first one is we'd like your opinion on what 36:00.940 --> 36:06.925 is a reasonable decision timeframe for a minor request. 36:06.925 --> 36:09.700 And keep in mind that the clock for this 36:09.700 --> 36:12.460 decision window starts after all 36:12.460 --> 36:18.327 the data has been received that would be needed to make the decision. 36:18.327 --> 36:25.310 So, y'all can go ahead and vote on, I have two months, 36:25.310 --> 36:30.590 four months, and six months there. 36:30.590 --> 36:39.931 Are y'all able to see the poll? 36:52.631 --> 37:01.007 OK, y'all can keep answering. 37:01.007 --> 37:05.710 I will move on to the next one. 37:05.860 --> 37:12.130 So this one is about the timeframe for a major amendment request. 37:12.130 --> 37:14.800 And your choices are one year, 37:14.800 --> 37:20.404 one year plus an option for a six-month extension or two years. 37:20.404 --> 37:30.830 Let me launch that poll. 37:30.830 --> 37:38.506 OK. 37:38.506 --> 37:45.247 OK. 37:45.247 --> 38:05.950 I'm gonna keep going. 38:05.980 --> 38:08.440 Y'all can keep voting if you haven't. 38:10.690 --> 38:13.900 I have a request for input from y'all. 38:14.260 --> 38:18.790 So once I announced the meeting about a month ago, 38:18.790 --> 38:24.980 I got several questions that came up and I'd like to 38:24.980 --> 38:30.260 compile them into a FAQ section for our webpage. 38:30.260 --> 38:34.760 And so if you have any questions that can be pretty 38:34.760 --> 38:38.719 simple or highly nuanced, they're all good. 38:38.960 --> 38:42.590 You can type them in the chat box or you could email 38:42.590 --> 38:48.556 them to the public-comment@twdb.texas.gov 38:48.556 --> 38:56.360 email address and include BGPZs in the subject line. 38:57.920 --> 39:01.934 Right now I have about 10 questions compiled, 39:01.934 --> 39:06.170 but I'd like to have more for the FAQ section. 39:06.170 --> 39:09.750 So anything you have please share it. 39:09.770 --> 39:12.858 You can also email it to me. 39:12.858 --> 39:19.300 Does anybody have any additional questions? 39:38.090 --> 39:41.714 Going once, going twice. 39:41.714 --> 39:44.380 Excuse me. 39:44.380 --> 39:53.080 So next steps are for you to provide any feedback or comments you may 39:53.080 --> 39:58.930 have about this process or your input to the process by April 5th, 39:58.930 --> 40:05.058 which is in two weeks to public-comment@twdb.texas.gov. 40:05.058 --> 40:10.495 Please include BGPZS in the subject line 40:10.495 --> 40:12.700 and we'll consider your feedback for 40:12.700 --> 40:18.640 the final guidance document and the proposed BGPZ FAQs for our webpage. 40:23.980 --> 40:26.965 The guidance document is linked online and 40:26.965 --> 40:31.870 the final will hopefully be posted by June 22nd. 40:32.860 --> 40:34.517 And thanks for attending. 40:34.517 --> 40:37.480 I appreciate you taking the time out to join 40:37.480 --> 40:41.189 us today and enjoy the rest of your day. 40:41.198 --> 40:41.198 SPEAKER: Thank you. 40:41.198 --> 40:41.198 SPEAKER: Bye all.