20051457 Ver 1_RE Draft Presentation for Nov ERC.msg_20121106

Strickland, Bev
From: Peele, Linwood [linwood.peele @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:23 PM
To: Reeder, Tom; Fransen, Tom; Mcmillan, Ian; Rayno, Don; Brady, Harold M.; Ogallo, Toya
Subject: RE: Draft Presentation for Nov ERC
Tom — A few comments that may help...
1. Text (format) is different throughout the document, it may be intentional...
2. With our current political climate, we may want to consider moving Slide 5 up ahead of Slide 4 and
specifically add industrial water supply to the slide since we are to be business friendly. Then focus
on why managing items on slide 4 is important to maintain items on slide 5.
3. On Slide 8 we discuss ecological integrity for the first time in the presentation. Do all members of
the ERC understand that concept or should he consider putting it in clearer terms?
4. On Slide 9, we says Policy will determine response. We should explain who will make the policy.
5. On Slide 10, we discuss what other States are doing. Should we say what (if anything) EPA is
currently requiring or considering requiring?
6. Slide 12 says that NC has a comprehensive, scientific approach similar to Va. Then we say that
"the approach explores the relationship between flow metrics and biometrics of fish and benthic
species ". Then we say 23,000 statistical relationship. Is this wording too complex for an ERC
presentation? Can we put it in simpler terms? We have a fear that some members heads will spin
and think we are too complicated compared to most other southern states. We also may want to
consider explaining why the VA and NC way is better.
7. On Slide 17, we say that withdrawals less than 20% of the 7Q10 should be minimally affected.
Since some withdrawals have cumulative effects, should we say that "cumulative" withdrawals of less
than 20% should be minimally affected? We would hate to see someone (and their Representative)
get upset if a new withdrawal is requested next to an existing withdrawal that is already at or near
20% and we cannot recommend that it be approved. Or that if two existing withdrawals already
exceed 20% of the 7Q10 and someone wants to place a withdrawal within that reach of stream.
8. On Slide 22, we list the PWS Facilities with Run -of Rover intakes. The intakes for Cleveland
County Water, GUC, LCFSASA, CFPUA and others are not on the list. Are we missing something?
Are there other ROR intakes missing? The heading may be misleading.
9. On Slide 37, it would be good if in the title we could say something like "Systems with a history
of greater than 30% of Unaccounted -for water ". That way if someone wants to object to being on
the list since they say they are now less than 30 %, we can point to their history based on their LWSP
submittals.
10. On Slide 39, will they understand the meaning of AgWRAP? At least, please spell out the
acronym.
Thanks

Linwood Peele, Supervisor
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
919-707-9024 fax: [phone]
email: linwood.peele(a)ncdenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to andfi-om this address mat/ besubiect to the North Carolina Public Records Lam
and may be disclosed ho third parties.
From: Reeder, Tom
Sent: Monday November 05, 2012 ]:1] PM
To: Fnansen,Tom; McmiUan, Ian; Pee|e, Linwood; Rayno, Don; Brady, Harold M.; OoaUc\7oya
Subject: Draft Presentation for Nov ERC
Attached ismy draft presentation for the Nov 15ERCmeeting. |6o have one place holder slide (#44)in the draft. Please let
me know if you have any comments or suggested changes. Thanks.
Tom Reeder
Director, NC Division of Water Resources
Phone: 919'707'9027
email: tom.needer(oncdenr.00v
E-mail correspondence 0o and from this address may bo subject 0o the North Carolina Public Records Law and may bo disclosed 0o
third parties.