1. Report 2 Review of the EAHCP Summary of the National Academy’s 2
Presentation to the IC
EAHCP Program Manager
February 2017

2. Big Picture
The EARIP Steering & EAHCP Implementing committees committed to EAHCP review by the National Academy Sciences (NAS) for two main purposes:
To improve the HCP and its implementation methods, &
To validate the HCP, and the resources dedicated to it

3. NAS Contract Effective September 11, 2013
Terminates on December 31, 2018
NAS selects & forms Committee
Deliverable:
3 independent scientific reports, evaluating and reviewing select EAHCP programs
Not to exceed $1,429,500

4. NAS Reports Sequenced to complement HCP’s Adaptive
Management Process (AMP) from Phase 1 to 2
Report 1:
Modeling, Monitoring, & Applied Research
Report 2
Review of ongoing progress & development of modeling scenarios
Report 3
Do the Conservation Measures meet the Biological Objectives?
Do the Biological Objectives meet the Biological Goals?

5. #2 Report Report 2 Overview Contents Summary Introduction
Hydrologic Modeling
Ecological Modeling
Biological & Water Quality Monitoring
Applied Research Program
Minimization & Mitigation Measures
Acronyms
Appendices: Interim Ecomodel Report, SRP Biosketches

6. Report 2 Takeaways
“The EAA has now provided a scientifically sound basis for the development of a generalized ecosystem-based conceptual model.”
“The Committee applauds the changes made by the EAA regarding the procedures to identify, solicit, and review the projects in the Applied Research Program.”
“The Committee is supportive of EAA’s attempts to develop an effective database management system that will provide data storage, curation, and access into the future.”
“In general, the Committee feels that implementation of key minimization and mitigation measures is moving in the right direction, with the various programs being characterized by competent project teams, sustained effort, and adequate initial performance monitoring.”

7. Report 2 Takeaways
“The resulting water quality and biomonitoring programs are better integrated, more targeted to the species of concern, more efficient, and provide more standardized monitoring of the overall health and quality of the aquatic ecosystems.”
“The Committee applauds the changes made by the EAA regarding the procedures to identify, solicit, and review the projects in the Applied Research Program.”

8. Report 2 Hydro Recommendations
Categories
Uncertainty Analysis
Recharge Estimation
Model Updates
Future Predictions (Modeling Scenarios)

9. Report 2 Hydro Recommendations
MODFLOW should be used to test a variety of scenarios to improve the confidence in the model itself once current improvements to the model are complete (Validation)
The groundwater model should be tested against the 2011 to 2015 period, which was not used in model calibration (Validation)
The EAA should undertake an optimization analysis of various combinations of the four spring flow protection measures bottom-up package.

10. Report 2 Hydro Recommendations
Overarching
The model is done
We must use the model we have for Phase II
The EAA will start updates again in the future

11. Report 2 Eco Recommendations
Categories
Keep building the model
Use model beyond compliance requirements
Conservation Measure efficiencies & sustainability

12. Report 2 Eco Recommendations
Test new SAV Regime
A scenario could be run to force FD population reductions (simply remove individuals on a day in certain areas) and determine the time period that the population remains below a threshold and the subsequent rate of recovery of the population to a healthier value.
The EAA should explore the diagnostic abilities of this mechanistic model to better understand the environmental forcings that influence vegetation, and to identify future applied research questions that might best serve management goals.

13. Report 2 Monitoring Recommendations
Categories
Monitor for Conservation measure efficiencies
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Overarching
Changes can be made at rebid in 2019
Time needed to evaluate latest modifications

14. Report 2 Applied Research Recommendations
Categories
CSRB population
Overarching
Should not be everything—only what is needed for compliance, or for Phase 2
Scientific Exercise

15. Report 2 M&M Recommendations
Much of SAV recommendations were addressed in SAV AMP
Much of ASR recommendations are applicable to SAWS, not HCP
ASR performance is not tied to the HCP—SAWS forbearance is

16. Report 2 Overarching Conclusions
Program Manager:
NAS has been hired to review and evaluate the scientific initiatives underway to support the EAHCP, not to determine compliance with the ITP
The NAS Report 2 is clearly a year behind us
NAS has been hired to review and evaluate the scientific initiatives and not market conditions and socioeconomic factors

17. #2 Report Report 2 Review Matrix
Draft Implementation Plan in the form of a Matrix
Approximately 150 NAS recommendations
Organized by report chapter (Hydro, Eco, Applied Research, Monitoring, M&M)
Input from today’s meeting, the workshop,
discussions with Permittees and subject
matter experts, will be incorporated
Report #2

18. Report 2 Evaluation Metrics #2
Required for Compliance with ITP or HCP
Fatal Flaw of Program
Does a recommendation correct something that prevents us from achieving Biological Objectives or Goals in the HCP?
Does a recommendation correct something that would cause us to exceed Take limits?
Implementation Duration
Immediate
Phased or Delayed; requires implementation or multiple years
Status (Done, In Progress, TBD, No, Future)
Operationally Feasible
Politically Feasible
Fiscally Feasible

19. Report #2
EAHCP
Report 2
Implementation

20. Report 2 Review Process Overview Report
A process for EAHCP’s review of Report 2 was approved at the January 19, 2017 Implementing Committee (as was done for Report 1)
This included the creation of a Report 2 NAS Work Group (NASWG2)
The Work Group will provide advice concerning the Report 2 Implementation Plan
It will also provide representation for the EAHCP committees in the process
Report #2

21. Report 2 Workshop Purpose Date Location Workshop Format:
To document relevant Report 2 input from the Stakeholder & Science committees, & public.
Final input will be used by Implementing Committee (through Work Group) in implementation.
Date
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Location
SAWS Customer Service Bldg.
Workshop Format:
Information Presentation
Small Group Discussions
Written Comment
Public Comment

22. Report 2 Work Group Report charge Date Location Membership #2
Attend Feb 16 IC, to familiarize with Report 2 & review process
Attend workshop to learn stakeholders’ issues related to Report 2
Review the Program Manager’s evaluation of Report 2
Recommend a Report 2 Implementation Plan to the IC
Date
First meeting - TBD
Location
TBD
Membership
Cindy Loeffler TPWD
Mark Enders City of New Braunfels
Kerim Jacaman Bexar County
Patrick Shriver San Antonio Water System
Julia Carrillo EAA
Report #2

23. Report 2
Summary
Thank you! Questions?