EFSAB_Index_of_Meeting_Information_Nov 2010 to_Oct_2013

Eflows SAB meeting index cross reference
meeting date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
2/19/2013
3/19/2013
4/16/2013
5/14/2013
6/18/2013
7/16/2013
8/20/2013
9/1/2013
oct 22 2013
Eflows and basin modeling
hydrologic modeling
stream classification
biological stream classification
habitat modeling
habitat modeling results
biological response curves
Eflows science/overview/other states
Eflow scenarios
coastal issues
Eflows and basin modeling
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
intro to work of the SAB, how Eflows will be used in basin models, planning tool
basics, OASIS, WaterFALL
EFS project, general classification
biofidelity, including other factors beyond hydrology
general PHABSIM topics
results of PHABSIM modling for Eflow scenarios
using biological data to evaluate Eflows
Mary Davis, Mary Freeman, Kimberly Meitzen
DWR trial balloon, what Eflow approaches to evaluate
how to evaluate Eflows in the coastal plain, challenges
hydrologic modeling
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
stream classification
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
biological stream classification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
habitat modeling
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
habitat modeling results
X
X
X
x
x
x
biological response curves
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eflows science/overview/other states
X
X
X
x
x
Eflow scenarios
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
coastal issues
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
11/8/2010
Not Available; Meeting Summary is posted online
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
• Agenda and Meeting Logistics
• List of EFSAB Members
• Ecological Flows website ( background information)
• Legislation that describes the SAB and Purpose

• Why We Are Here: HB 1743 Tom Reeder's presentation
(Presentation on the Session Law HB 1743)

• Ecological Flows Background: Jim Mead's presentation
(Presentation on how ecological flows differ from instream flow requirements, and how ecological flows figure into river basin planning).

• Ecological Flows SAB Charter (Draft): Facilitators
• EFSAB: Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board
• "Ecological flow" means the stream flow necessary to protect ecological integrity; eflows are targets to be used for medium and long range planning purposes to evaluate water availability
throughout a basin.
• "Ecological integrity" means the ability of an aquatic system to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity,
and functional organization comparable to prevailing ecological conditions and, when subject to disruption, to recover and continue to provide the natural goods and services that
normally accrue from the system.
• "Groundwater resource": any water flowing or lying under the surface of the earth or contained within an aquifer.
• "Prevailing ecological conditions": the ecological conditions determined by reference to the applicable period of record of the United States Geological Survey stream gauge data, including
data reflecting the ecological conditions that exist after the construction and operation of existing flow modification devices, such as dams, but excluding data collected when stream
flow is temporarily affected by in-stream construction activity.
• "Surface water resource": any lake, pond, river, stream, creek, run, spring, or other water flowing or lying on the surface of the earth.
• Minimum Flows: are minimal threshold intended to maintain aquatic life for relatively short periods of time.
lower the minimum flow – the more it is suited only to allow survival for brief periods. Ecosystems suffer when the minimum flow becomes THE flow for extended periods.
• Flow Regime: Incorporates the following components: Magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, rate of change, and retains some degree of natural stream flow variability
• “Instream flow needs” :a broad generic term referring to the amount of water needed to maintain in-stream uses and is location (habitat type/species of interest/ drainage area/tributary
inflow) and time (monthly/seasonal/inter-annual variation in water availability, critical life stages, recreation season) dependent.
• “Instream flow requirements”: are site-specific, project-specific determinations developed during preparation of environmental documents and permit reviews and incorporated in permits
for water resource projects – FERC, 401/404, Dam Safety, EA/FONSI or EIS, CUA
• Target Flows for Used for River Basin Planning: Ecological planning flows are NOT intended to replace in-depth, site-specific studies for particular water project proposals – especially
those larger projects with more complex environmental concerns. If not included in the basin model, the underlying assumption would be that all flow in the stream – aside from any existing,
specific project-related flow requirements – is available for withdraw
• Stakeholder Advisory Process: anticipated that a stakeholder advisory process will set up to advise DWR and the General Assembly on how to respond to the projected negative effects
on ecology in future years.
Purpose of SAB:
• The SAB will advise DENR on an approach to characterize the ecology of river basins and a method to determine the flows necessary for ecological integrity.
• Board to develop an approach for planning purposes that will help users meet anticipated water needs in the future and address concerns at a watershed level that includes cumulative
effects.
• A board to provide scientific input as part of a broader stakeholder process.

Formation of Second Advisory Group
Anticipation of a second advisory group that will focus on the societal issues of flow management in order to develop policy to balance resource protection with flow-altering water uses,
and human demands with ecosystem needs. EFSAB will focus on the science and technical aspects of ecological flows. Policy makers will consider the output of both advisory bodies in
developing policy.

Introduction of EFS Stream Classification Concept & Eno River Pilot Project

Introduction of Alternate Flow Approaches

SAB – What It Is Not
• Not the final decision maker on this issue.
• Will advise on methods/approaches – not specific flow numbers.
• Not developing a method to replace sites specific studies needed for a specific EA/EIS or permit
review.

• Future Meeting Dates & Times
• Revisions to the EFSAB Charter
• Communication and outreach:
o [e-mail] for planning and communicating purposes between the SAB, alternates, and the project team.
o DWR website and the WRRI listserv will inform a wider audience about the EFSAB process.

The Facilitation Team:
• Will revise and maintain EFSAB Charter
• Will propose a process to make minor decisions by email.
• Will develop a process for handling questions from the public when time allows.
• Will develop process for review of meeting summaries.

The EFSAB:
• If an EFSAB member is unable to attend a meeting, it is the responsibility of their alternate to provide input about the draft meeting summary prior to the deadline for comments and
revisions; it is the responsibility of both to review the previous meeting information in preparation for the upcoming meeting.
• Members may have more than one alternate.
• Members and alternates may participate in the meetings in person or via webinar, including being able to ask questions or to provide comments via the webinar.
• Alternates may participate in meetings when the primary member is present, but only the member participates in any process for decision-making or recommendations.
• Will contribute to establishing a timeline.

The NC DWR:
• Will be responsible for requesting replacements to the EFSAB if a member leaves or if a new Board member is needed to ensure representation as specified in HB 1743. All EFSAB members
were asked to designate an alternate who can serve in their stead as needed.
• Will be responsible for handling press releases about the EFSAB.

Needs list generated by EFSAB members regarding future presentations/presenters.

Introduction of EFS Stream Classification Concept
• Introduction of hydrologic stream classification system for sorting N.C. streams and rivers by hydrology into seven classes. The ultimate goal is to develop a specific technical approach
for determining ecological planning flows for each of the stream classifications. Can use Eno as pilot to determine if this is viable technique for developing other stream classifications
and other basins.

Introduction of Alternate Flow Approaches
• Minimum flows
• Setting a flow target that varies seasonally or monthly, and allowing some variation within bounds above and below this target.
• Percentage of inflow available for withdrawal – may vary by season, include drought protocol with higher
percentage withdrawal
• Setting the threshold for allowable hypothetical withdrawals as the amount that results in a change in the
hydrologic stream classification
• Other approaches suggested by the analysis

None
None
• Revisions required to EFSAB Charter
• Recommendations from EFSAB for how to move forward

Charter (as appendix)
• Stakeholder Advisory Process: anticipated that a stakeholder advisory process will set up to advise DWR and the General Assembly on how to respond to the projected negative effects
on ecology in future years.
1/18/2011
No recording available; Meeting Summary available online
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.
1. Agenda and Meeting Logistics

Two reports related to the hydrologic stream classification software were sent prior to the meeting:
2. Hydrologic Classification System and StreamFlow Software for NC (Henriksen & Heasley)
3. NC OASIS Stream Classification Investigation Project ( Environmental Flow Specialists)

Presentation: An overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific models like OASIS (Fransen)

Tom Fransen gave an overview of hydrologic modeling in North Carolina. The same statute that established the EFSAB (SL 2010-143), also mandated that DENR develop a basin wide hydrologic
model for each of the 17 major river basins in NC. The questions the models need to answer are: 1) “Is there enough water to sustain expected uses now and in the future (DWR does
consider ecologic flows to be part of “expected uses”)?” and 2) “Where, when and for how long could we expect to experience shortages?” The complexity lies in developing the data and
equations to describe inflow, outflow, and storage of the hydrologic system.

The hydrologic models allow planners to vary uses, assuming that inflows stay constant, and predict availability for expected uses. DWR has selected OASIS as their preferred modeling
program. Issues that arise in using OASIS as well as critical assumptions were discussed.

Presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC, provided to the EFSAB by Mead, Pearsall, and Goudreau.

Stream classification can assist in characterizing ecological flows since hydrology and ecology are linked. The development of a class-based flow/response relationship might be possible
if it were possible to: (1) identify streams with similar hydrologic characteristics, which, according to ecological theory, explain major aspects of their organization and structure;
and (2) identify unique hydro-ecological indices (indices that make the class different from the other classes) that best describe the hydrologic signature of the stream class and stream
reaches by addressing the five major components of flow (magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change).

1. OASIS: a unique software program that realistically simulates the routing of water through a water resources system.
2. EFS Hydrologic Stream Classification: 2 products developed from this work: (1) a software package to take any source of daily stream flow data and classify streams (NC StreamFlow),
and (2) seven hydrologic classes of streams.

1. OASIS: a unique software program that realistically simulates the routing of water through a water resources system.
2. EFS Hydrologic Stream Classification: 2 products developed from this work: (1) a software package to take any source of daily stream flow data and classify streams (NC StreamFlow),
and (2) seven hydrologic classes of streams.

OASIS Modeling

EFS Stream Classification

Three primary objectives of the EFSAB:

1. Recommend the best approach to grouping or classifying streams for determining ecological flows.
2. Review other states’ approaches to determining ecological flows.
3. Advise the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on developing an approach for identifying the flow necessary to maintain ecological integrity.

Issues and Concerns for Modeling and Ecological Flows
Historically, the models have focused on water supply (municipal and industrial) reliability. Consequently, they have focused on larger streams and rivers that support the potential
for withdrawals and discharges of 100,000 gallons per day or greater. Furthermore, calibration and validation has concentrated on normal and low flow periods, when the water supplies
are stressed.

Questions About Operations of OASIS
• Questions were raised about the operations of OASIS including the ability of the model to look at smaller streams and where e-flows fit into the model.

Questions About EFS Classifications
• How the data was manipulated before going into the model (how was it normalized).
Impoundments are flow dependent systems and thus are not included; while reservoirs may have eco-systems, the focus of EFSAB is on eflows.

• In the charter, under Decision Process, Level 5 will read “Block (I cannot/will not support the recommendation or decision)”
• The November 8, 2010 Meeting Summary was approved with revisions to the charter.

Presentation by a consultant for Progress Energy on what’s involved in habitat modeling using IFIM —another pillar behind Eno River modeling.
None
None

Modeling Issues that Need to be Reviewed for Modeling and Ecological Flows
Need to ensure a model scale works for the issue being evaluated. Thus a review of the validation process needs to occur if the ecological flow requirements include one or more high
flow statistic.

Continue classification discussion at the March meeting.
??
None
3/15/2011
Available (couple of hours in the afternoon); Meeting Summary available online

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

1. Agenda and Meeting Logistics

2. The Nature Conservancy conducted an interesting study of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. The report titled “Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Susquehanna River Basin”
was released in November 2010 with Appendices. This study includes stream classification, ecological response to flow alteration, and recommendations for ecological flows. May be
useful as the EFSAB figures out how to do things, at least applicable to the next few meetings.
3. Reference book distributed onsite to EFSAB members (share with alternates): Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, 2nd Ed., an Instream Flow Council publication. http://www.instreamflo
wcouncil.org/node/69

4. Two documents distribute included: (R.A. McManamay et al. (2011) and J.G. Kennen et al. (2009) related to classification and instream flow habitat studies. The Kennen paper is available
at http://www.ncwater.org/sab

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)
Ty Ziegler, P.E. from HDR/DTA, introduced a methodology to quantify how flow can change and affect aquatic habitat. He described instream flow and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IFIM). He explained that IFIM is a way to relate: changes in river flow to changes in the amount of aquatic habitat on an incremental basis, by looking at very fine increases or decreases
in flow and the resulting effect on aquatic habitat.

1. Define “biological information” as fish community data and benthic macro invertebrates.

2. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)
IFIM is a way to relate changes in river flow to changes in the amount of aquatic habitat on an incremental basis, by looking at very fine increases or decreases in flow and the resulting
effect on aquatic habitat.

3. Physical HABitat SIMulation Model (PHABSIM
Developed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, PHABSIM is fairly well known and widely used; its limitations acknowledged. PHABSIM is a good tool to help determine what kinds of flows
provide what kinds of habitat. Conceptually the model works by taking a section of river and dividing it into cells (or patterns) of various combinations of substrate/cover, depth,
and velocity. The model figures out the physical features that are located in the river.

EFS Classification System
The EFSAB determined that they would like to move forward using the existing EFS classification system strategy as a starting point, with the opportunity to add or modify additional
classifications as they gain information.
Discussion of How to Treat Smaller Streams, Headwaters, and Coastal Reaches

The importance of considering the base line of the coastal stream as brackish water may be withdrawn for future water supply and significant alteration of the water in the upstream segment
in a different class could violate the base line of a coastal stream.
There was considerable discussion for including coastal waters into the proposal for moving forward although there is no gage data in tidal areas. One consideration for coastal areas
is that the Division of Marine Fisheries has at least 30 years of physical data, at least on salinity. DWQ also has markers for how far up stream salinity is measured. This may be
very useful data for dividing the class; then deciding how to characterize the ecological integrity or baseline in that class is a different challenge.
Start with the hydrologic model and then add the ecological, with the understanding that classifications may be added. This is a starting point; the current model does not include factors
like tidal influence, salinity wedge, etc.
For really small headwater streams, the question is whether there is much data that went into the classification, and the answer is no. The next question raised then is whether the
EFSAB is going to simulate that data and come up with classifications for them. At some point there is just aggregated data beyond some upstream limit. Again, the good news is that
there are usually not a lot of withdrawals beyond that limit, which is part of why the models don’t break things down more finely.

In terms of water withdrawals, the greatest influence in terms of losses of water in headwaters, tend to be farm ponds. There are many of those, and they account for a great many losses
in those headwaters, especially in the piedmont. I think it can be important to note that there can be losses due to regulation, mostly from evaporation and irrigation. Each withdrawal
is not singly so large, but collectively can be huge.

Questions were raised about existing databases:
DWQ database for benthic macroinvertebrates is going to be in relatively small streams, but not very small streams. In terms of fish community information, that database is very small
and not useful to this group.
Questions were raised about how to treat how to treat Smaller Streams, Headwaters, and Coastal Reaches in the EFS Classification System.

Questions were raised about which species to include and about the ecological factors that will go into the IFIM model.

• Three changes were made to the charter: regarding responsibilities of the EFSAB and its authority (reference section VII of the March 15, 2011 Meeting Summary).
• The January 18, 2011 Meeting Summary was approved and posted online.

May, 2011: Field trip to the Eno River State Park in order to see the transects used in the habitat models for the Eno River. DWR hopes to use the Neuse River as a pilot project for
evaluating effects of different flow management approaches on aquatic habitat because they have the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model, and they have existing habitat models for the
Eno River.

For coastal studies: may want to discuss studies being done in Greenville on the Tar River to evaluate the effects on the downstream ecology of removing water from the Tar River. If
coastal streams are spilt into saline and not saline, this study may inform that discussion.

The EFSAB will move forward using the existing EFS classification system strategy as a starting point, with the opportunity to add or modify additional classifications as they gain information.

The May meeting will examine the transects used in the habitat models for the Eno River. As a pilot project, the Neuse River will be used to evaluate the effects of different flow management
approaches on aquatic habitat (given the established hydrologic model for the Neuse River Basin and the existing habitat models for the Eno River).

In the collaboration for which species will be included, choices will need to be made about which ecological factors go into the IFIM model.

None
None
Debrief occurred about the EFS classification but this is part of a larger and ongoing discussion.
None
None
5/17/2011
only for debrief after demonstration
To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
Links to Readings:
1. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: a multiregional assessment. 2010
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pubs/Carlisleetal_FLowAlterationUS.pdf

2. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. 2010
http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/~poff/Public/poffpubs/Poff_Zimmerman_2010_FWB.pdf

3. Evaluating effects of water withdrawals and impoundments on fish assemblages in southern New England streams, USA. 2010
http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/July%2023,%202010%20&Kanno-Vokoun%20on%20flow-ecology%20relationship.pdf

4. Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply Reservoirs in Piedmont Streams. 2006
http://www.southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/Fish%20Assemblage%20Responses%20to%20Withdrawals%20by%20Freeman%20&%20Marcinek.pdf

5. Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity. 2002
http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta_council_meetings/january_2011/Item_8_Attach_2.pdf

For all presentations, go to: presentations on DWR website

•Introduction to Eno River Demonstration Project--Jim Mead
•Review of instream flow methodology--Jim Mead
• Demonstration of instream flow methodology at river--Jim Mead.
• Changes in upstream use could significantly change the habitat.
• We have to look at the drainage areas of the tributaries between gages. The drainage area for a gage will determine the flow there.
• We have a paucity of information about the relationship between cover and different species and groups of species.
• Are there any plans to validate the models relative to the benthic and vertebrate fauna in the streams? How comfortable are you with the information we have, and how confident are
you with extending the models to other places
• Do you predict a difference in species composition by stream type?
• It sounds like we are looking at hydraulics (stream geometry and flow) and hydrology, then we need to bring in the biology.
• You said that you have a list of approximately 30 species/guilds; are you planning to add more?
• Do the guilds represent, in another location, the same kinds of species--a different name but the same functional guild.
• Where is water quality fitting into the biology? Is that data in place for the modeling? It, in addition to flow, has a huge impact.
• I want to respond to the idea of functional groups. Projects are stopped because of endangered species. Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not
part of a guild?
• Most of our discussions have focused on minimum flows to maintain biology, but it is also important to consider high flows to maintain biology. High flows change channel morphology.
Can we address these upper flow issues? How?

• Have some meetings outside the beltline of Raleigh
• Perhaps we should look at WATERFALL (a model) as a way to put land use into the hydrologic models, but this process, as defined by the bill, is not trying to set guidelines for land
use.
• We may need to validate and investigate whether we can extend the preference curves, or whether it is stream specific.
• We need to look more at the biota end—is what the model says is there actually there?
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?
• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?
• Most of our discussions have focused on minimum flows to maintain biology, but it is also important to consider high flows to maintain biology.
6/21/2011
yes
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

• on dwr website--ncwater.org;
•Persinger article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1400/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1400/abstract
• Leonard article http://ebookbrowse.com/emerging-trends-in-environmental-flow-science-leonard-2011-pdf-d143994642
• IFC Book provided to all EFSAB members: pgs. 83-86, 98-101, 129-132

•Debrief Eno River Demonstration Project: Implications of what you saw and heard--Jim Mead
• Scope of EFSAB Work
• What Does Ecological Integrity Mean to You?
• Introduction of Flow Scenarios--Chris Goudreau of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

In his presentation, Chris Goudreau noted a range of options for e-flows:
1) No Protection - No legal ability to keep from drying up the stream. This is rare in NC, but there are examples.
2) Threshold Protection / Minimum Flow - This may be a single value, such as the 7Q10 or it may be a seasonal value (eg. 20/30/40 percent of MAF)
3) Partial Ecologically-Based Protection - This addresses 1-4 riverine components. There are 5 components: hydrology, biology, water quality, connectivity, geomorphology. The
most likely to be addressed in this scenario are hydrology, biology and water quality. In addition, this scenario may address intra-annual variability, but not inter-annual variability.
4) Comprehensive Ecologically-Based Protection - addresses all 5 riverine components and maintains intra-annual and inter-annual variability.
5) Full Protection (hands off) may be seen in wilderness areas or other things that are set aside for other reasons.
6) General Approaches (Richter et al. 2011)
7)Minimum Flow Threshold (basically the 7Q10 concept)
8) Statistically-based Standard
9)Percent of Flow Standard

• The Persinger paper discussed how some of the rare species are hard to fit in. How do you tackle issues about these- they are some of the more sensitive species?
• What are the alternatives to the Eno River model? I’m okay with Eno, but curious about what else is available?
• If the OASIS model is finished for the Neuse, and we try to use that to come up with the hydrologic parameters associated with biomonitoring sites, could you back track over time
since there is 30 years of hydrologic data? There is a rich database on macro invertebrates from the Neuse, it would make sense not as a replacement for the Eno River demo but as a
supplement. Sometime you will have to verify it.
• We’re trying to find simple surrogates for how biology responds. They don’t’ think like that, simply. Most of the databases have been built over time to evaluate pollution tolerance
or intolerance. I’ve not heard that term brought up much with the EFSAB. Changes in biology may or may not be related to flow variation, to natural variability of flow, in addition
to metrics and observations. It’s an incredibly complex system we’re trying to simplify to apply across the state.
• My concern is that the Eno is only one test, even if it works we may jump to wrong conclusions. We should make our knowledge inferences on more than a single exercise- the potential

errors are large. We need to look for a sister evaluation as well. Ideally you want to have multiple sites with multiple approaches.
• I’d like to know if the classification system holds up from a habitat standpoint.
• I encourage you to do invertebrates- if so you should look at some guilds that have been used more for hydrological investigations than what you have now.
• Can you give more info on how these 19 guilds were derived? If you’re dealing with the state, in some cases 4 is better than 19. Are we sold on the 19?
• I think it’s important there is so much variability; we want to capture all inherent variability in the system rather than look narrowly at four coarse categories. Breaking it out
like this may help. There may be specific species in mind, but keep it in mind for how a guild applies.
• We could run Persinger’s general guilds through this model as well.
• From my perspective, this approach seems to be integrated water flow and habitat, without chemistry.
• Are there other sfs’s with similar amounts of transect work done just to get at habitat descriptors, to look at physical aspects?
• What about the source of the water, for example, wastewater discharge may account for a large portion of flow during dry seasons? Water sources will not impact the model output.

1. DWR should move forward with demo effort for the 2 Eno River demo sites to produce results and make sure we’re analyzing those results correctly. DWR can likely get results in 2-3
months.
2. DWR will run the following flow scenarios in the Eno model for the EFSAB’s review:
i. Minimum flow equal to a percentage of average annual flow (MAF). We will look at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, & 60 percent of flow. [This incorporates some of the approaches used by SC
and GA.]
ii. Minimum flow equal to annual 7Q10. [A drought flow used for wastewater discharge assimilation and effluent limits in discharge permits.]
iii. Withdrawal limited to a percentage of ambient flow. We will look at 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30 percent. For the initial evaluation we will let the model adjust withdrawals on a daily
basis, but a more realistic approach for implementation would adjust them once or twice a week. [Approach used by City of Charlottesville, VA.]
iv. Minimum flow equal to monthly 7Q10 – a different flow for each month. [Approach similar to one of three options used in GA.]
v. Monthly minimum flow equal to the monthly median flow.
vi. Minimum flow, year-round, equal to the September median flow. [Approach similar to one option used in TN.]

•We need to validate the habitat models.
Current Meeting
• Issues to address in characterizing ecological integrity:
a. How much “disruption” can occur that still allows “recovery”?
b. What does “comparable to prevailing ecological conditions” mean?
c. Define balance [as used in the legislation]
d. Ecological integrity should account for complexity and for variability in many aspects: thermal, hydrologic, biologic, etc.
e. What if flow is not the determinant factor supporting ecological integrity in a particular classification of stream? Should this be determined?
f. Only address aquatic systems?
• How will monitoring be accomplished?
• It is important to know the changes in the graph, the thresholds where things change.
•How/if to address high flows.
• How/if to address land use change.

Carried Forward from Prior Meeting(s)
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?
• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?

8/16/2011
yes
To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
  https://waterfall.rti.org/
•Presentation on WaterFALL Model
•EFSAB "Path Forward" Conceptual Framework: An Overview
•Habitat-based Approach
•Other approaches
•Biological Approach
•Presentation of Eno River Flow Scenarios
Go to http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20110816/ for presentations
1. Suggestions for How to Most Usefully Present the Eno River Flow Scenario Results for Assessment
a) Do fewer scenarios on more sites for assessing utility of approach
b) Choose representative indices to run on multiple sites in same class.
c) Use a 3-D graph instead of bar charts, overlaying the seasons.
d) Because it appears to be a linear relationship, instead of running 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%...withdrawals, run 10%, 20%, 30%...as a first cut.
e) Show actual numbers for habitat, resulting from various flow scenarios (like the tables presented), rather than just showing percentage changes because a small change can make a large
change in percentage when looking at a small amount of a particular habitat, but that habitat may be important.
f) Use a pie chart.
g) Use data labels with bar charts to show magnitudes.
h) Continue to produce all of the types of results presented at this meeting.
2. in the months remaining in this year, the EFSAB will assess the habitat model approach and begin discussing pros and cons of other approaches.
3. Develop criteria for success in assessing the habitat modeling approach.

1) We need to validate the habitat models.
Current Meeting
•Who is our audience?
• Does the habitat modeling accurately predict the effect on habitat as flow is altered (validate the model)?
•Do changes in habitat translate into something that is biologically meaningful (does habitat predict biology)?
• Is the EFSAB going to characterize the ecology in some way other than habitat?
•Is WaterFALL a substitute for OASIS that could be run in a more timely manner?
•Altered or unaltered.
•if it is altered, is it altered in terms of hydrology or altered in terms of pollution or other reasons.
•Are we going to approach this from an ecology/ecological integrity versus hydrology evaluation or are we simply going to base it on available habitat and flow alteration?
•Do we see these [habitat] models responding to proposed ecological flow recommendations, and does that help us figure out if something makes sense or not?
•Develop a shared definition of the charge of the legislation.
•Are we going to determine threshholds?
•How will monitoring be accomplished?
• Develop criteria for success in assessing the habitat modeling approach.
•How are we going to characterize the ecology?
Carried forward from prior meeting(s)
• Issues to address in characterizing ecological integrity:
a. How much “disruption” can occur that still allows “recovery”?
b. What does “comparable to prevailing ecological conditions” mean?
c. Define balance [as used in the legislation]
d. Ecological integrity should account for complexity and for variability in many aspects: thermal, hydrologic, biologic, etc.
e. What if flow is not the determinant factor supporting ecological integrity in a particular classification of stream? Should this be determined?
f. Only address aquatic systems?
g. How will monitoring be accomplished?
• It is important to know the changes in the graph, the thresholds where things change.
•How/if to address high flows.
• How/if to address land use change.
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?

• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?
9/20/2011
Yes
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
The Eno River Flow Scenarios listed in Presentations.
•Eno River Flow Scenarios (Jim Mead, NCDWR)

• Should subcommittee work on whether stream classes are representative of biological community
• Discussion about charge for characterizing ecology
• Is more habitat better? Need to have more detailed information about ecology
• Are guild representing needs of insects?

Subgroup of EFSAB members to help develop Nov agenda (biology, charge)

Continue with presentations of habitat modeling scenarios
• DWR to conduct habitat modeling scenarios for other small flashy streams
• Add graph > than 120% of unregulated index B Value for all flow scenarios
• EFSAB look at charge and discuss how to tackle the biological questions
• Look at other streams across NC in addition to Eno River
• Establish the ecological variability among the stream classes
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/18/2011
Yes
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
DWR habitat modeling sites map link was sent see ncwater.org EFSAB go to presentations for May 2011.
Updated habitat modeling sites list at http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20111018/Habitat_model_sites_by_classification_1-5-2012.pdf
Spreadsheets were sent (link is in Presentations cell)
•Presentation And Discussion Of Deviations of >20% for Eno River Flow Scenarios; •Existing Habitat Model Sites for Each Hydrologic Stream Classification; •Presentation and Discussion:
Additional Small Flashy Stream Scenarios (Jim Mead) http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20111018/
•NC DWR Annual Report to ERC/General Assembly (Steve Reed)

EFSAB Charge: Framing a Discussion (Mary Lou Addor)
See below under major questions and concerns for other topics discussed

Habitat scenario modeling questions and concerns:
•Can we determine that traditional minimum flow regimes like 7Q10 the worst case scenarios for guilds/species, or do we need to see more sites to decide?
• Do other small flashy streams follow similar patterns to the Eno River site?
• It seem unlikely that Tar and the Eno are in the same class.
• New info on how to add to or test the hydrologic classification will be helpful.
• Classifications should be compared with actual physical habitat measurements.
• The group discussed why the Eno was more sensitive than Buckhorn for % inflow scenarios, and why
the number of species with >120% is higher for Buckhorn (additional species were included for Buckhorn)
• The hydrology reference condition is unregulated but we don’t have unregulated habitat to look at.
• A generalizable strategy that allows the state to make good decisions is needed, using data we have or can get.
• Approaches to meld biology/hydrology include 1) a test of organism fidelity against the classes would help validate the classes and give them a biological aspect, or 2)develop a biological
classification system.
• How do we define a reference stream- one with unaltered or unregulated flow (prevailing conditions- period of record)? How to measure departure from the reference state?
EFSAB Charge questions and concerns:
• What approaches are other states taking (TX, FL, VA)?
• How to move beyond flow to characterize ecology?
• What scale is good enough for characterizing ecology?
• What will be our end result and how will it be measured?
• We need to define the ecological attributes that are desired and measured.

• New information on how to add to or test the hydrologic classification needed- Mary Davis will present on classification in November.
• Mary Freeman or Jonathan Kennen (AFCS Basin, GA) requested to speak regarding relating hydrology to ecology.
For habitat modling scenarios:
• More data points are needed before drawing conclusions or narrowing focus of habitat scenario modeling.
• Treat all four seasons equally, not weighted, when generating bar graphs for comparison purposes.
• Have available individual species’/guilds’ responses under the scenarios presented for a particular stream.
• Provide a “cheat sheet” for each site presented, including: species included, stream cross-section, channel characteristics, percentage of each habitat type that went into the model.

• For each site presented show two charts, one summarizing species/guilds below 80% of unregulated under a given flow scenario and one summarizing species/guilds above 120% of unregulated
for a given flow scenario, rather than combining those into one chart.
• For comparison purposes only, for each class use the same suite of species/guilds for each site.
• Jim Mead will send out reworked charts/summaries per the above suggestions via e-mail for analysis and comment between now and January.
None
None
•We need to define the ecological attributes that are desired and measured.

11/15/2011
yes
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
Webinars on ELOHA and Middle Potomoc River Watershed Assessment
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20111115/
•Environmental Flow Science - Lessons Learned from Selected Environmental Flow Programs (Mary Davis, Technical advisor to SARP);
•Invertebrate traits: Compilations of biological characteristics useful for PHABSIM and ecological flow studies (Tom Cuffney, USGS) ;
•How Ecological Flows Would be Applied to NC River Basin Models (Steve Reed, NCDWR)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20111115/

• Fidelity may be to something other than class, like physiographic regions (MI is example of how to find relationship)
• There is bigotry about which species are of focus- those we know a lot about and can see.
• What resolution is needed to raise red flags when water will be overallocated (during planning)?
• We have to have some yardstick to measure resilience (is typically a species count).
Feedback after Cuffney's presentation
• Getting ecological flows in place relatively quickly at low cost may be a higher priority than better articulating invertebrate taxa.
• Possible ways to investigate invertebrates further include developing preference curve for specific invertebrates, or compositing the 3 EPT curves to examine the results
Feedback after Reed's presentation
• Should EFSAB recommend a presumptive standard as a placeholder for ecological flows in the river basin models since there is nothing yet to represent ecological flows(as suggested
by Mary Davis)?
• River basin models need to identify the yield inadequate to meet all needs, essential water uses and ecological integrity.
• The legislation doesn’t require one particular model to do this work- it can be multiple models.

At next meeting, NCDWR should provide a mid-term presentation on what is needed from EFSAB, and a timeline.
None
None
None
•Presumptive flow idea was put on hold in order to hear from NCDWR about their requests of EFSAB.
•How to address invertebrates in the HSCs was unresolved.
1/17/2012
Recording available online as well as Meeting Summary.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Agenda and Meeting Logistics

USGS Science Thrust Project (Mary Freeman).
It will include: stream ecology and flow relationships based on her work in the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint Basin and transferability of habitat suitability preference curves.
Mary has a lot of experience and expertise in ecological flows and this will be a good opportunity to learn from her (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/staff/profiles/documents/freeman.htm
)

Papers distributed before the meeting:
1. Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply reservoirs in Piedmont Streams, 2006
www.cce.uri.edu/cels/nrs/whl/Teaching/nrs592/2009/Class%206%20Field%20Studies%20of%20Low%20Flow/Freeman_Marcinek_06.pdf
2. Flow and Habitat Effects on Juvenile Fish Abundance, 2001 - http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/Publications/4151/4151.pdf
3. Using habitat Guilds to Develop Habitat Suitability Criteria for a Warm water Stream Fish Assemblage
http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/June%204,%202010%20&%20habitat%20guilds%20for%20suitability%20criteria%20&%20aquatic%20life%20decline%20rate.pdf

Good Powerpoint overview of same - http://fishwild.vt.edu/North_Fork_Shenandoah/NFS_Presentations/Persinger.pdf

Lastly, at the meeting in November DWR offered to provide a copy of our report to the Environmental Review Commission on the efforts to implement session law 2010-143 B and develop basinwide
hydrologic models. A copy of that report is attached.

See you on 1/17.

Please note my new phone number is 919/707-9019.

Jim

Jim Mead, Environmental Supervisor

MY NEW PHONE NUMBER as of 1/5/2012 is 919/707-9019

[e-mail]
919/707-9019 fax - 919/733-3558
*************************************
NC Division of Water Resources - DENR
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
(for overnight mail, UPS, or FedEx - contact me for street address)

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

_______________________________________________
eflows-sab mailing list
USGS Science Thrust Project: Water Availability for Ecological Needs with Mary Freeman: www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/index.php?tabid=1&subtabid=2

Progress Report of the EFSAB to the Environmental Review Commission (ERC) with Tom Reeder
Tom Reeder provided a progress report to the ERC about the unique accomplishments of the EFSAB.

Continuing Biological Discussion

ERC: Environmental Review Commission is a NC legislative body with enabling oversight on state environmental policy in NC.
http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/ERC/Legislation/Authorizing%20Legislation/Authorizing%20Legislation.pdf
USGS Science Thrust Project: Water Availability for Ecological Needs
Presentation focused on three areas:
1. Stream-ecology and flow relationships based on the Appalachian Chattahoochee Flint Basin (ACF) research
2. Transferability of species preferences
3. Defensibility of ACF work in context of controversy (over water use)

All three of these areas are covered in detail. Following Mary’s presentation, the EFSAB discussed the relationship between biology and flow and how to develop a methodology for determining
ecological flow that accurately reflects that relationship. Observations discussed:
1. Mary Freeman’s presentation points to the two tracks that keep coming up: the habitat approach and the approach of trying to assess correlation between biological data and flow alteration.
Each has its pitfalls:
a. Transferability: some comfort extrapolating from one site to another (as would be done with the habitat approach) for fluvial specialists, not so much for the non-specialists.
b. With the biological data track, there is a lot of “noise” in the data, especially since the data were not collected with this particular use in mind.
2. In the habitat approach, look more closely at the riffle dwellers and how they respond to flow.
3. Suggestion is to focus on those most sensitive species and pick out riffle specialists if possible. Shy away from the generalist; get at those species most profoundly affected by
changes in flow.
4. Focus on the base and low flows, not so much on the high flows.
a. If withdrawal dampens the high flow in a way that has implications for populations and the focus is solely on withdrawals at low flow, monitoring results could be skewed.
b. Yes, but it would have to be a big withdrawal and a big withdrawal would be on a stream with a high flood flow.
5. Classification:
a. There was a much better relationship between size of withdrawal and the ecological response in smaller streams than there was in larger streams, so maybe stream size will be important
in how we classify streams. It does with the currently proposed classification system because it is based on hydrologic statistics.
b. The classification system we are using now does not get at persistence; we need to ensure that populations are persisting over time; that reproduction and colonization processes are
sustainable.
c. We need to evaluate our classification scheme and assess:
 What are the habitat characteristics associated with each of the classes?
 What are the biological characteristics associated with those classes?
 What are the responses that you get out of the PHabsim?
d. If the variability within classes is as large or larger than the variability among groups, we need to modify the classification scheme. If the variability within a class is less than
between classes, then the classification scheme is working. We need to assess this before we can make any meaningful progress.
e. We should test out the hydrologic classification system we have for biological fidelity.
 Data from several projects are being pulled together under one initiative to figure out whether or not species and guilds show a strong degree of correlation with our classes. We
are looking at strategies for testing fidelity. In addition to the EFS classification, we are going to look at the Konrad and McManamay classifications.
f. Consider classes based on hydrology and topographic variables, such that class is the independent variable and biological responses are the dependent variable. Then as water is removed,
the change is in the independent variable as a response is considered from the dependent variable.
g. If the EFSAB is not comfortable with the hydrologic classification, may need to consider developing a set of classes based on ecological variables instead.
SEE JAN 2012 MEETING TAB for 2 MORE ROWS of Questions/Discussion- could not fit here

•Will the NC Legislature support the monitoring work necessary to ensure that whatever the EFSAB develops and the state adopts, that a monitoring plan is put into place to make corrections/adjustment
s along the way and build on these efforts and inform DWR?

•How do you foresee a separate stakeholder policy process moving forward? At some point, the General Assembly may need to initiate another stakeholder group that will have to figure
out how to implement a policy that comes out of the scientific process. The EFSAB and DWR is concerned with if future projected uses of NC’s river basins are going to have a negative
impact on the aquatic ecology; a separate stakeholder group can assist the General Assembly to determine the response to avoid the negative impact, which is a policy decision.

Approved the Nov 15, 2011 Meeting Summary.
Continue classification studies
•other efforts are dealing with those very issues such as Mary Davis, Konrad and McManamay, the Northeastern and mid-Atlantic TNC classifications. May want to revisit with Mary to determine
what they have found in looking at various classifications, particularly as it relates to North Carolina and more broadly.
• Process of evaluating the classifications is not just about biofidelity, it’s also about what else do we know about these groups, these classes that might affect the interpretation
of eco-flows. This may include: soil types, land use types, the types of things we normally use to explain biological behavior. What information do we have? Where are the gaps?
Where are the sources? What are the things that would be important for driving hydrology and the ecological responses?

Additional Scenarios from Jim
Color-coded stream regions. If there’s a basin: Neuse, Cape Fear, small portion of the Cape Fear where we could see how frequently we see changes in classification within a given stream
network. Jim will review scenarios and color coded process to determine what can be presented in Feb

Revisit the Charge
• Step 1: review the approach for classification and evaluate fidelity
• Step 2: look at methods to determine flows needed to maintain ecological integrity, which is: What’s an acceptable level of change to maintain integrity? What are we willing to accept
that is “a change” within a habitat or a guild or whatever such that we are in agreement that ecological integrity is maintained? Is it zero or is it 20% or 30%? Whatever the metric
is that’s built into that, recommending the method you have to make that assessment and then we can decide which method gives us the best integrity.
• Break the tasks down and get agreement on them.

•Fidelity Testing
•Additional habitat scenario presentations
none
none
The Fidelity Study for next meeting
• Attempt to determine whether or not, species and guilds show a strong degree of correlation with our classification system.

Continue classification studies
• Process of evaluating the classifications is not just about biofidelity, it’s also about what else do we know about these groups, these classes that might affect the interpretation
of eco-flows. This may include: soil types, land use types, the types of things we normally use to explain biological behavior. What information do we have? Where are the gaps?
Where are the sources? What are the things that would be important for driving hydrology and the ecological responses?

Provide review of the standards other states have adopted and the rationale for why these were not a good fit for NC.

•Will the NC Legislature support the monitoring work necessary to ensure that whatever the EFSAB develops and the state adopts, that a monitoring plan is put into place to make corrections/adjustment
s along the way and build on these efforts and inform DWR?

•How do you foresee a separate stakeholder policy process moving forward? At some point, the General Assembly may need to initiate another stakeholder group that will have to figure
out how to implement a policy that comes out of the scientific process. The EFSAB and DWR is concerned with if future projected uses of NC’s river basins are going to have a negative
impact on the aquatic ecology; a separate stakeholder group can assist the General Assembly to determine the response to avoid the negative impact, which is a policy decision.

2/21/2012
yes
Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
McManamay classification study – 2 papers regarding classification study for 8 southeastern states. This classification approach focuses on hydrology. Pre-distributed PDF of PPT
•Fidelity testing approach (Jennifer Phelan, RTI).
•The Nature Conservance Classification System for the Northeast (Mark Anderson, Mary Davis, TNC)
•River basin hydrologic model update & visual representation of classification (Steve Reed,DWR Michelle Cutrofello, RTI)
•Update on habitat modeling- 7 sites, tweaks to methods and graphs (Jim Mead, DWR)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120221/
Random forest: decision-tree modeling and classification approach
NAHCS- NE Aquatic Habitat Classification System (from TNC)
Southeast Aquatic Partnership (SARP)
LCC (Land Conservation Cooperative)
•Small groups discussed and provided questions/suggestions for fidelity testing methods
From small group discussions about fidelity testing:
•An analysis of similarity should be conducted to incorporate the entire assemblage info and assess whether these communities follow the classifications
•Large, unwadeable rivers- can biological data come from FERC relicensing (utilities companies)?
•Definitions for reference sites- needed for both hydrology and biology
•Is this defensible regarding ecological integrity?
•Whether to include native vs nonnative in fidelity analysis?
•Its important to know which guilds are negatively affected (rather than only seeing them lumped)
After TNC presentation on classification:
•Classification variables' response to changes in flow- do classes change or do descriptors change?
•In NE they did landscape classification 1st, then hydrology.
•In case studies globally, classification for e-flows is not showing up as important factor in determinating flow requirements of a stream
•How to reflect the proportion of a habitat type that is represented in a stream site?

Can we look at Konrad's classification paper- is it done?
•Habitat modeling scenarios may show separate plots with 11 shallow guilds and 8 non-shallow guilds at all sites; will use box plots, and a symbol convention that discriminates by stream

class
•Tom Cuffney may help with addressing a concern about proportional habitat, if Jim requests
•Make the stacked bar charts available on the website

None
None
4/24/2012
yes
see ncwater.org
• Update on Fidelity Testing--Sam Pearsall
• Update on Fidelity Testing: Small Group Discussions
• Introduction to Habitat Modeling Scenarios--Jim Mead
• Small GroupAassessment of Four Sites by Season and Report-out Followed by Large Group Discussion
• Small Group Asessment of All Sites Combined by Season and Report Out Followd by Large Group Discusion
• DWR Trial Balloon--Jim Mead
•Whether to use only data in catchments with impairment ratings of good/excellent or to also include those with good/fair in the Fidelity Testing.
•Is it appropriate to use DWQ's swamp data, at least for the fidelity study, as a way to enhance the data available for the Coastal Plain?
•From the small sample we’ve got now, the way the habitat
responds doesn’t necessarily line up with class. But if you added some additional characteristics that
sorted by class, then maybe it would line up.
•what we’re really talking about here when discussing the difference between
two graphs in the class, is a measure of sensitivity.
•There is significant difference in results of habitat modeling between streams within a class.
•The sample size of results is too small to make judgment about what flow scenarios are best.
•Accept DWR's proposal for scenarios to continue to run for habitat modeling, except recommended to continue running 7Q10.
•Groups assessing results by season had differing opinions on whether to continue to run >120%
6/19/2012
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
•Summary of Fish Flow-Biology Hypotheses
•Overview of 3 ongoing studies by RTI &TNC
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120619/

•Update on Biofidelity analysis of stream classes (J. Phelan)
•Macro invertebrate assemblage correspondence to hydro classes (T. Cuffney)
•RTI internal project: Flow alt-bio response relationships to assist with e-flow determination (J. Phelan)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120619/
•Small groups answered 4 questions about- flow metrics for RTI R&D; evaluating species wtihin a guild to id "canaries"; Process diagram for stream classification; and suggesting pathways
to determine eflows for coast and large rivers.
Comments about fidelity testing included:
•overlay a category such as ecoregion to the hydro classes to help develop subsets
•Its challenging to fit biological systems with hydro systems
•Linking bio to stream classes won't be perfect but will improve over time
Suggestions about RTI internal R&D project:
•Abandon 303(d) as a parameter
•Consider grouping species into guilds and adopt guild metrics as the bio response variable
•Consider using 7Q10 as a flow metric
none
none
In response to trial balloon to stop using >120% habitat…in habitat modeling scenarios:
General support to keep it in winter. Majority EFSAB ok droping it in other seasons, though a few wanted it in spring, and one wanted it in all seasons.
In response to trial ballon to reduce the # flow scenarios analyzed based on table presented in April 2012:
EFSAB agreed to table, with exception that 7Q10 be analyzed in case others need to see it.
none
none
Though EFSAB members weighed in about when to keep the >120% habitat scenario, no final decision was made.
8/28/2012
yes
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
For all presentations go to http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120828/

•Assigning Fish to Guilds for Flow‐ Ecology Analysis (Chris Goudreau)
•Environmental Flow Study for Four NC River Basins (Kimberly Meitzen)
•Coastal Issues for the EFSAB (Bob Christian)
•Biofidelity Project Update Handout Review
•Options for a Path Forward (Fred Tarver)
Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow-Ecology Analysis
•It would be relevant to look at it seaasonally for the different life stages
•Do you consider the non-native species? Whether you do or do not consider non-native species influences relative abundances.
•The data comes from wadeable streams.
•Where we see changes in species abundance or diversity, the cause may be changes in flow or other factors we cannot measure.
•Threatened and endangered species affected by flow may trump these analyses.

TNC Flow Study
•The importance of recognizing the purposes for which the data were collected (water quality conditions within a six-month population recruitment and grow out). If those sites are visited
only once every five years, you are getting a snapshot of the conditions at one point in time, making it risky to discern trends or to extrapolate. Kimberly is hoping that the analysis
using the USGS data will give an indication of extreme events that may have occurred between sampling.
•Many other factors affect biological abundance and diversity, not just flow. It is difficult to tease out what the flow contribution is. This is why Kimberly is analyzing environmental
variables as part of this work.
•There was concern about how/whether to include non-native and invasive species in the analysis.
•The general sentiment appeared to be that this project will aid the EFSAB significantly is determining where gaps are and what questions to address.
•Most of the DWQ data are from “unaltered streams”, but those streams may actually be altered by undocumented withdrawals.
•TNC indicated that they thought that EFSAB would find the low-flow information most helpful, to which there is some truth; however, it is also important to consider the potential effects
of long-term withdrawals that, in some areas, might inhibit the ability to achieve the higher flows needed for spawning cues, for example.
•The EFSAB engaged in discussion about OASIS and WaterFALL: Are they are interchangeable, and if so, what the pros and cons of each?
•OASIS is the model approved by the EMC, and it is unlikely that, for the overall river basin models, they will depart from use of OASIS. The question is whether WaterFALL can be useful
in determining the ecological flow component of the OASIS models.

Coastal Systems and Issues
overarching concerns that challenge application of ecological flow approaches to the coastal plain are:
1. Hydrogeomorphological issues influencing modeling
2. Ecological issues influencing ecological integrity choices
3. Kinds of water withdrawals
In all three of these situations, what is happening in the stream on a daily basis, in a wetland or down in the stream, is that wetlands and their services are inextricably linked to
waterways. Each major area contributes to the challenge of applying procedures used inland to the coastal plain. The EFSAB broke into two groups: hydrogeomorphological and ecological.

How to address uncertainty/scientific defensibility
•Eventually, in order to reach a level of scientific defensibility, some of these things are going to have to be tested and that will take decision-making and time. I think it would
be much easier for the group to come up with some “consensus principles”, come up with why we did something as opposed to trying to defend it. That might be part of our uncertainty
discussions. But it seems to me that consensus principles are different from scientifically defensible. I think we can come up with consensus principles here, that what we do and offer
can be explainable, but we may not be able to defend them.
•If our initial goal here is to come up with a screening tool for planning, then the level of scientific defensibility may not be at the same degree as it would need to be if the recommendations
would support permitting decisions and affect people’s wallets. It may be that after the October meeting we will have a much better picture of the time line going forward because of
the bio-fidelity testing--there is a lot riding on that. With the RTI internal research and development project, whether we hear about that in October or November, if that ends up providing
a useful tool, that could accelerate our timetable.
•I reviewed the session law; it doesn't say anything about “scientifically defensible”, those words are not there but it does say we are advising DWR. It's up to DWR to take whatever
of that information that they choose to take and use that to their benefit.
• In terms of data integrity; it does say that for basin wide models that those basin models be based solely on data that is of public record and open to the public. Therefore, in terms
of data integrity, it just says it needs to be open to the public. It's all defensible; it’s a matter of explicitly defining the uncertainties and the assumptions involved, making those
clear and transparent and linking them to the literature. Being explicit depends on the literature; the literature reflects the science; there has to be a link there somewhere.

Coastal Issues
•The data sets used are fairly old--UNC -Wilmington has completed some recent studies on the lower Cape Fear that might be of value.
•Have a reset button, an event, after which you start over with your poopulation assessment
•How do you identify sensitivities?
•the signal to noise ratio is very low so it’s going to be hard to make predictions or assessments of the impacts of freshwater withdrawals, in light of the fact that these large events
make detecting the impacts of these withdrawals difficult
•Another suggestion is to consider some base point, one that might move (is not fixed). This may be a point on an upstream or downstream scale below which the models that we’ve been
looking at so far, Oasis or WaterFall, might not workP

TNC Flow Study
•. Follow-up presentation on the results of the TNC project early 2013.
•Examine/discuss the OASIS and WaterFALL models, how they differ, how they can enhance each other and EFSAB’s quest to define ecological flows, and arrive at some decision about how
the EFSAB wants to use them in their determination of ecological flows.
•Review literature of freshwater fish or benthos studies conducted in NC for any data that might be includedon the coastal plain.
Coastal Systems and Issues
•review critical literature
• develop a screening threshold relative to the drainage area.
Options for a Path Forward
•review suggestions Fred Tarver offered, particularly for how to approach ecological flows and future studies
•begin to work toward a screening tool for planning
•Develop consensus principles on why the EFSAB makes a recommendation or does not make a given recommendation
•Investigate implications of state and federal olicies on e-flows (threatened and endangered species and coastal issues, and locations)

Develop consensus principles on why the EFSAB makes a recommendation or does not make a given recommendation
1. Coastal Systems and Issues
a. work with Division of Marine Fisheries data due to lack of ecological data.
b. consider role of climate change and sea level rise, how it will influence the impact on the shifting of the salt-water wedge up the freshwater river networks rise and moving that
wedge further inland (look at historical flows).
Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow Ecology
•Is the EFSAB going to use Chris's proposed guilds?
•There will need to be some decision as to whether recommendations are going to be directly related to threatened and endangered species, whether satisfying the need of the guild satisfies
the needs of the threatened and endangered species relative to flow.
•With this also ask if there is a list of species that has requirements that are different from the guild list.

Coastal Systems and Issues
•How to address given that the OASIS models don't work below tide line and given the paucity of datain the coastal plain
•need to identify where the effects are occurring upstream and downstream.

DWR's Proposed Options for a Path Forward
•Does the EFSAB pursue ecological flows as a statewide process or pursue the process, river by river, addressing each river basin as each basin's hydrologic model approaches completiton.
•DWR look at more IFIM studies and present results?
•Use a classification system with an overlay of physiogeographic features?
•Do we develop eflows by class or basin by basin?
A Path Forward
•Does the EFSAB make best attempt now and build into recommendations to reconvene the EFSAB at a later date? What criteria would trigger that?
•Do the recommendations need to be scientifically defensible, which would require experimentation?
•Or do we come up with consensus principles, that what we do and offer can be explainable, but we may not be able to defend them.

1. Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow Ecology
a. Put an asterisk next to those species that are non-native to the state or a basin, to flag for analysis.
b. Given that the sampling techniques used in gathering the data upon which the guilds are based defines the presence of species, document the assumptions and caveats of the current
data and adapt as new data becomes available.
10/23/2012
Recording is available and the August 28 Meeting Summary.
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

1. Participant Agenda and Meeting Logistics
1. Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool with Thomas Payne
2. Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC with Jennifer Phelan
3. Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters with Fred Tarver
4. Thoughts on Stream Classification and EFlows with Fred Tarver & Jim Mead

http://ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20121023/
None
Pros and Cons of using hydraulic habitat modeling to determine ecological flows in NC. Hydraulic habitat modeling results in a habitat index related to discharge. The method has been
used for 30 years, has broad acceptance as a valid approach. Pros include longevity, popularity, defensibility, and reviewability. Cons included insufficient validation for many species,
costly and time consuming nature, intensive field data requirements, and requires high technical knowledge to properly conduct and review studies. The major points of his presentation
were:
• Proper understanding and use of habitat models is critical
• Habitat models are not fish position models, they are frequency analyses
• Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) drive the models
• Site-specific habitat suitability criteria are much better than generic HSC
• Validation procedures for HSC rarely work
• Professional judgment- HSC can work if done with expert knowledge
• Results must make sense!
Biofidelity analysis of stream classe provided. The objective of the presentation was to adopt a stream classification system that represents the distribution of aquatic biota in North
Carolina. The two components of the presentation included:
1. Compare fidelities of aquatic biota in two different stream classification systems for development in the Southeast, with EFS being specific to North Carolina.
a. Environmental Flow Specialists (EFS)
b. McManamay et al., 2011 (McManamay)
2. Adopt the most suitable classification system and/or modify a system to reflect biological assemblages
Seven steps of the project were outlined with conclusions. The research team was able to conduct an analysis through Step 5, which resulted in a comparison of stream classes of EFS
and McManamay using USGS gage and WaterFALL hydrology data based on 147 catchments. This step of the analysis resulted in the conclusion that the two classifications cannot be extrapolated
beyond USGS gage data. The research team did not conduct Step 6, assign stream classes beyond the catchments with USGS gauges given limited confidence in being able to do so. Rather
than pursue Step 6 and 7, one objective was to determine how the EFSAB wants to move forward.
Environmental Flows and Coastal Waters:
After showing a map of where OASIS model’s lowest nodes are, a literature review was presented and compiled specific information regarding other states’ approaches to estuarine inflow
management. Examples included inflow-based (FL Water Management Districts, South Africa), condition-based (San Francisco Bay) and resource based (Texas). Some highlights included:
Most of the FL WMDs tend to choose a 10-15% reduction as a tolerable limit for reduction in flow, targeted allowable reduction in habitat was typically 15% maximum change. FL WMDs
had caveats to verify the model assumptions to see if they are meeting the standards. San Francisco Bay used “near-bottom isohaline position” as habitat indicator. Texas considered
commercial fishery productivity.
SEE Oct 23 2012 MEETING TAB for Discussion of DWR Concept Paper for Path Forward- not enough room here

Regarding Payne presentation:
Some questions from EFSAB included: can streams be classified based on physical characteristics with the assumption preserving geomorphology preserves species? (response (R)- it’s important
to incorporate species responses to hydraulics, since you can’t assume the species will come). How site and/or species specific do the habitat suitability criteria need to be? (R-
surrogates are okay, just look to see if results makes sense). For HSCs- species v guilds, and what about mussels? (R-it’s case specific, no to mussels!). How to include a margin
of safety? (R-there is no one “conservative” flow, as different species respond differently to flows).

Regarding Biofidelity Testing: The EFSAB has received confirmation twice (tests conducted with Henriksen and now with RTI), that when two stream classes are similar (i.e., minor variations
in the variables that distinguish them flip streams back and forth between the classes) then it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to worry about whether they show biological fidelity
or not because it is extremely unlikely that they will. We’re now at the point where we need to consider other options.
Option 1: Proceed without classes and to see if we can come up with a way of developing ecological baselines across the whole state with a modest amount of data - without using classes.

Option 2: If a new classification system can be tested, start with biota and then the other four sub bullets: avoiding classes that are not robust; avoiding classes that have edges that
are easily cropped, that are based on sensitive thresholds; avoiding classes that use variables that models aren’t any good at; models are for the most part not good at extreme and
short-lived events in the life of a stream.
A new classification needs to avoid variables that are difficult to explain, not simply difficult to model. And most difficult of all, this system needs to have application across the
whole state, and we’re not going to get out of the fact that it’s hard to do it in the coastal plain. It will be difficult to come up with a strategy in the coastal plain because
things there are so hydrologically and hydraulically black given the landscape is in such altered shape, and because of tidal influence in the outer coastal plain.

There’s some backwater that needs to be saved out of this effort though. When you work down to the McManamay information and collapse the classifications, if there is stable base flow,
a lot of the hydrology is going to be similar, and if the hydrology is runoff dependent, then the hydrology will be similar. Being able to discern those two features of a given stream
segment I believe is very significant. Curious as to whether there is the ability to determine:
a. stable base flow using USGS gauges.
b. stable base flow or runoff dependent stream segment using WaterFALL because WaterFALL could be extremely powerful to be used all across the state to places where USGS gauges do not
exist.

Regarding the DWR Concept Paper:
Other comments and concerns included- Don’t use “runoff coefficient” when referring to “yield per square mile”, as that has a different meaning. EFSAB should make a statement that mimicking
the natural hydrograph is important. Monthly median should be examined to ensure that the most conservative approach is chosen for the planning tool. The EFS and McManamay classification
systems should not be used going forward. It was suggested that the language used for describing the purpose of developing e-flows should refer to a “planning tool” rather than a
“screening tool”.

Approved the Aug 28 Meeting Summary.
•Explore the SALCC’s work with Henricksen; he is attempting to create a classification system for the entire country –the 50 states and Puerto Rico. He is looking to develop something
that can be explainable, understandable, and makes sense.
Regarding NC's stream classification effort, he recommended continuing with a hydrologic classification process, and supplement it with the following physical characteristics: Channel
width; Channel gradient; Channel elevation; Pool/riffle ratio; and Predominant substrate type. He commented that North Carolina has advanced the science of habitat modeling.

Regarding Biofidelity Analysis of the EFS and McManamay classification determined the need for a classification system with the following criteria:
• Not based on sensitive threshold values
• Consistent and reproducible using USGS stream gage and modeled data
•Easy to understand and implement
• Can be applied throughout state
•Captures the distribution of aquatic biota in North Carolina
It is important to choose a classification system that is not based upon sensitive threshold values that easily jump between stream classes based upon the years that the climate data
is taken from, or whether one uses USGS to model hydrology data. The goal is ensure the classification system is consistent and reproducible using both USGS gauge data and end model
hydrology data, that it’s easy to understand the input from the state perspective, can be applied throughout the state in every single catchment, and captures the distribution consistently
with the overall goal of the biofidelity analysis.
The NC Division of Water Resources is in the process of evaluating other potential approaches; one way to move forward is to use the balance of the fidelity project to pursue an alternative
approach.

For Coastal Waters presentation, EFSAB members commented on level of subwatershed detail needed in the examples, the potential need to address basin by basin or species specific prescriptions
for e-flows in coastal NC.

From DWR Concept Paper:
A useful classification system should be:
1. Meaningful - groups streams according to discernible key characteristics producing an algorithm(s) for determining the EFlows. One would expect the groupings to correspond to different
assemblages of organisms that respond differently to changes in flow, or have different flow needs;
2. Reliable – produces consistent results;
3. Relatively simple and explainable; and
4. Applied using desktop information for a given stream, not requiring field investigations each time a classification is needed.

EFSAB Consensus Principles
A. Working Consensus Principles for Water Resources Planning of E-Flows (note from facilitators- working consensus principles are intermediary agreements of the EFSAB. These set a foundation
of agreements for now as further analysis becomes available. They may be changed or new ones added)
1. Classification system of rivers and streams that incorporate geomorphology, hydrology, and biological characteristics (full support)
2. % of inflow as the preferred family of strategies (lack of base support; some require additional time to process and review some selected information)
3. pure hydrology based classification does not work (full support)

Item 2: – % of inflow as the preferred family of strategies requires additional exploration and discussion. Currently there are concerns about this adopting B as a consensus principle
for Water Resources Planning of E-Flows

1. NCDWR should distribute Hatfield & Bruce meta-analysis to EFSAB as a follow-up from Payne’s presentation.
2. NC DWR: papers referenced in Coastal Waters presentation to be made available to EFSAB.
3. EFSAB to review last habitat modeling results and other materials to be sent by NCDWR, to prepare for a discussion about a 3rd proposed consensus principle, % inflow as a preferred
family of approaches, in November.
4. Look more closely at that SALCC southeast classifications and its potential for North Carolina, specifically what Henriksen is proposing nationally that is: explainable, understandable,
and makes sense (that leads with criteria of flow variables and ties in physiographic variables). This system is fairly flexible in terms of the amount of aggregation that each state
could use with regard to that classification.
5. Follow up with Mary Davis on the timeline for completion of the SALCC classifications
6. Ensure all presenters and EFSAB members are clear that the end product is a planning tool for the NC Division of Water Resources – not a policy instrument.
7. Discuss section A of the DWR Concept Paper.

The EFSAB has received confirmation twice (tests conducted with Henriksen and now with RTI), that when two stream classes are similar (i.e., minor variations in the variables that distinguish
them flip streams back and forth between the classes) then it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to worry about whether they show biological fidelity or not because it is extremely
unlikely that they will. Need to consider other options.

Thomas Payne commented that North Carolina has advanced the science of habitat modeling.
11/27/2012
yes
•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
•New proposal for developing NC Stream classifications [BEC]; Jennifer Phelan, RTI
•WaterFALL data and OASIS Modeling-Panel and EFSAB discussion; Brian McCrodden,Hydrologix; Michelle Cutrofello, RTI; Tom Fransen, Fred Tarver, NCDWR
•Overview of ERC presentation, and how ecological flows will be used in planning by NCDWR; Tom Reeder, NCDWR
•Revisit proposed consensus principle: % inflow should be used as preferred flow metric moving forward; Fred Tarver, NCDWR; EFSAB discussion
•Water Coordination Group- who they are, what they do, how their work relates to EFSAB; Sam Pearsall, Environmental Defense Fund
•Decommissioning of Gauges on Tar-Pam River-- Judy Ratcliffe, NC Natural Heritage Program
•Planning 2013 meetings (agenda for Feb 19 meeting, dates for 2013)
Overview of Presentation to ERC: How Ecological Flows Are a Planning Tool
•An individual commented that the science is not readily available from which the EFSAB can provide recommendations and thus is learning from ongoing experiments being conducted in NC
and in other states.
• The EFSAB has been very successful in making suggestions for exploring new avenues, and thus the work to date has been very valuable.
Panel Discussion with EFSAB on WaterFALL data and OASIS Modeling
•Question was raised about represented inflow data set and if there was a level of departure that can be envisioned in the future from what we know about the past, where we would think

we need to have a reset on what the actual period of record for the inflow should be?
•Regarding the Greensboro slide shown as intermittent flow – caution was raised about interpreting impacts or alterations to the biology solely to withdrawals without considering impacts
of urbanization
•What question you are asking will determine the model you use. There can probably be collaboration between the two models. However, if you want to look at an individual river basin,
use OASIS for its level of detail; if you want to look at a big regional question like the whole southeast, WaterFALL is definitely more appropriate. And if you’re trying to address
questions at a basin level, combining the two may work better. It just depends and goes back to the question you’re trying to ask. WaterFALL may be better for certain applications
where you may not need OASIS to address those questions. Or, you may need the combination of the two or just one. It’s what are you trying to answer as to picking the model. No one
model will do everything.
•What’s the decision that will be informed by comparing the results of the two [in the habitat modeling]? Not necessarily how good is good enough but to obtain some level of confidence.
The WaterFALL periods of record may provide some confidence that actual on-the-ground occurrences are being represented -what is seen if using USGS gauge data.
• There was discussion about whether to invest considerable time to run additional habitat models, especially since habitat models are essentially of monthly flow duration or is there
another way to get at this information without the additional work?
Revisit Proposed Consensus Principle: Percent Inflow Should be Used as Preferred Flow Metric Moving Forward
• There was discussion about the wording of the proposed principle
•Strategies for what?
•Retaining the most habitat is different from being the best or preferred strategy
•The use of "best" gets into policy.
•Is the target here the strategies, or is it the metric, or is this the strategy that retains the habitat, or the greatest potential
for ecological processes that will maintain the habitat? Because the habitat is all over the place..., but it is the ecological
processes that will be maintained with this sort of hydrograph.
*The benefit of using percent flow is that you maintain frequencies and durations. That preserves ecological integrity.
•Percent inflow is not one of the variables that they're using in the BEC project. It is important to link the percent inflow with the variables that they come up with as being important
in distinguishing the classes.
•There is a real chance that we will arrive at the step three of the RTI work and recognize that we’ve come up with some
variables that are themselves not actually manageable by the Division of Water Resources or plannable by the DWR. But
that percent of inflow family of strategies, by maintaining the shape of the hydrograph more perfectly than other
strategies may actually give us an approximate tool for handling the variables that we actually come up with. But we
won’t know that until we get there.
• I think you run into a lot of danger because of accumulation of impacts and translating that to how does that reflect what the percentage of inflow is? And where within a river system
is that point-based percentage defined?
•It’s a model for planning, so it’s something that can be demonstrated in the model, not necessarily as far as like a point in
time or point location.
• Percentage of inflow is a meaningless concept unless it’s tied to a particular size of watershed, in which case you’re saying
that in this particular watershed we’re going to take this percentage of water out based on how much water flows into the
watershed. So it’s a catchment by catchment or stream segment by stream segment strategy.

•At the February, 2013 meeting the EFSAB will develop a timeline and outline for the EFSAB report and will consider providing an interim report to the EMC.
•Postpone using WaterFALL to run habitat scenarios given the considerable work to do this. Instead compare WaterFALL with monthly flow duration to see how closely OASIS lines up. If
something causes concern then consider Fred's proposal, of running the nine existing instream flow study sites that have an OASIS-generated flow record with a WaterFALL generated flow
record. Thus a test of WaterFALL and OASIS flow record interchangeability is possible by comparing the resulting habitat response curves. Otherwise if close enough, don’t go through
the extra work of doing a time series habitat map.
• Small group consisting of Brian, Tom, and Sam, Michele and Kimberly will develop a 3-way comparison to determine if WaterFALL varies in any consistent way and by what order of magnitude
from the other strategies that are available for portions of the state, and thus how WaterFALL varies from OASIS and/or Gauges and whether that variation is consistent or random.
•The facilitators will maintain a list of what the EFSAB indicates needs to be in the final report. The final decisions on what to include, and the wording of them, will be sorted out
during the drafting of the report.
•OASIS, as approved by the EMC, is here to stay in NC as a tool in water resource decision-making.
•Both WaterFALL and OASIS may add value to the investigation of planning for E-Flows.
•How long does it take an ecosystem to recover when the flow drops below the e-flow
•What is the line that if crossed, the system will not recover?
•Investigate the differences in withdrawal and low flow types of impacts versus changes in biological assemblage due to shift in stream class as a result of urbanization.
•Will the EFSAB draft an interim report? When?
• Some EFSAB members discussed finding funds from their own organizations to speed up the work so results may help EFSAB with recommendations in 2013, and/or conduct a simultaneous process
of developing classification system for benthics.
•When is the “red flag” raised? Any time EFlow is breached? Frequency? Duration? %Q? Seasonal?
•How to address that alterations in the upper watershed are attenuated in the lower watershed by intervening drainage and discharges. Nodes in lower watershed may not raise a “red flag”.
•How to address tidal waters?
•How to capture secondary and cumulative impacts
•How to address land use
•Address high-flow skimming? There's a lot of available water during high-flow events
•Do we think that based on science: % inflow maintains a natural hydrograph with the duration and frequency and these pieces tend toward maintaining ecological integrity, whereas the
7Q10 and even mean annual or mean monthly flows, as demonstrated by Fred’s illustrations, cuts that off?

•The 2013 EFSAB report would describe what ecological flows look like and what you need to know to develop them.
a. Provide decision-makers with a clear understanding about the kind of information that is needed in order to make the best decisions possible.
• Our final report would say here’s what we think ecological flows look like and here’s what you need to know to develop them.
•As part of a final report say we’ve developed this recommendation, it’s based on these models and so on which use gages to create them and from a scientific standpoint, it’s in the
best interest of the department and state to have a plan. Adequate gaging stations need to be maintained going forward in order to keep the science relevant and advance the science.

•maintaining gages
2/19/2013
yes
•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology r
OASIS/WaterFALL linear regressions by DWR PHABSIM site
www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20130219/
•Brief update on the biological-environmental classification (BEC) system study & invertebrate ecological flows study (Sam Pearsall)
•Brief status report on 3-way comparison for oasis, waterfall and USGS data (Pearsall)
•Review of findings of waterfall ecoflow metrics as compared to the gage metrics (Michelle Cutrofello, RTI)
•Benefits of having DWR compare the hydrology of 9 habitat sites using WaterFALL (Fred Tarver, DWR)
•Update on The Nature Conservancy’s Environmental Flows Project for North Carolina (Kim Meitzen, TNC)
•Preface To The Path Forward (Fred Tarver)
•Introduction To The EFSAB Assessment (Mary Lou Addor, NCSU)
•Report Outline And Approaches For Completion (Christy Perrin, NCSU)
www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20130219/
Benefits of having DWR compare the hydrology of 9 habitat sites using WaterFALL (Fred Tarver, DWR)
• I hope that we’re not going to be limiting the tools that are available to the Division of Water Resources as we begin focusing on the notion of how do we determine the needs for ecological
flow.
• They are only models, there is not truth in either one of them. They are reasonably in agreement with each other, similar to the way many other models are reasonably in agreement
with each other.
• They are both going to change over time, and the Division of Water Resources, based on site specific permit requests for removal of flow for various reasons, is going to end up using
the best tool that they think fits that particular request and site. They will clearly be using both of these as long as they’re both on the table.
• if WaterFALL had come first, we’d be wondering is OASIS good enough? But because OASIS was done first, we’re wondering if WaterFALL is good enough.
• Buckhorn Creek was one of the worst bits there. Hydrologics had a heck of a time developing the OASIS model for Buckhorn Creek. Most of its record was influenced by Shearon Harris
dam, and they were trying to create an unregulated record for that creek. So they had to try to back out the effects of this massive reservoir upstream of the gage….In the Rocky River,there
was little gaging OASIS had there to base their model on.
• Instead of doing all 9, because it’s going to be an arduous process to try to compare habitat as opposed to what you did with just comparing cfs to cfs, pick 2 to 4. I would not pick
Buckhorn Creek because of problems with OASIS there. But pick a couple and just put the nail in the coffin.
Update on The Nature Conservancy’s Environmental Flows Project for North Carolina (Kim Meitzen, TNC)
• high flows seemed to be higher in recent years, low flows tend lower in recent years, possibly due to greater impervious surface, more people, and agriculture use.
• Yes though the change is highly variable across state, and variable across month, why it’s important to have specific flow recommendations for each month. Changes also vary across
ecoregions, changes may be consistent in smaller basins- some of the smaller basins may need more protective measures.
• We have to be careful to determine cause and effect of change of flows of highs and lows without looking in detail at other variables (dam impacts, land use change, irrigation schedule,
evapotranspiration & infiltration rates, and natural and production food growing seasons.
Preface to the path moving forward (Tarver)
• Are there audiences missing from the presentation who will challenge the science?
• The EFSAB represents the science of the constituent organizations, not necessarily their agendas. They are a science board, not a policy board.
• The definitions in the legislation (essential water use, meeting all needs, etc) are broad.
Regarding final report:
•Does the EFSAB need to write a final report?
•If so, do they approve the outline?
•If the EFSAB decides they should a report, who will write what sections of the report?

•Schedule BEC Presentation for Sept Meeting (possibly a two-day meeting)
•Each member of the EFSAB was asked to read the Assessment, to determine whether their comments were accurately reflected in the summary and to listen to the suggestions and recommendations
being posed by other members
•

•Members of the EFSAB were in support of moving forward without the 3-Way Comparison of Oasis, WaterFALL, and USGS data given the issues the small study team encountered.
•Confidence level of support for WaterFALL: most EFSAB members had a fairly high level of comfort with WaterFALL being used as a tool moving forward, with 2 indicating that they could
live with it, and 1 indicating they did not have strong confidence in supporting WaterFALL but would not block others members from supporting its use. [The level of confidence does
not preclude the use of other models and there is major concern from a member whether DWR will be able to purchase use of the model in the future].
The EFSAB assessed consensus on supporting WaterFALL moving forward. They responded to the following question: How comfortable are EFSAB members with WaterFALL being used as a tool
moving forward in this process? (meaning using it in general regardless of BEC)

Regarding final report:
•Does the EFSAB need to write a final report?
•If so, do they approve the outline?
•If the EFSAB decides they should a report, who will write what sections of the report?
Regarding a consensus principle for WaterFALL:
It was unclear as to whether the consensus principle was passed or not, due to the member who expressed a "4". It's possible to re-write the principle to reflect that member's concern.
Should DWR run PHABSim analyses using WaterFALL to compare with OASIS analyses?
This was not explicitly decided, though EFSAB members did not say they needed this in order to show confidence in WaterFALL- confidence was expressed by most.

EFSAB members to review the EFSAB Assessment and Draft Report Template to prepare for March 2013 meeting.
3/19/2013
yes
•For EFSAB to begin developing preliminary recommendations as prompted by DWR trial balloons, and to determine format of Final report
Habitat scenario graphs were sent as preparation for reviewing DWR trial balloons
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20130319/
• Purpose of today’s meeting: moving from divergent to convergent thinking, by Fred Tarver, DWR
• Deciding an approach to report writing (discussion)
•Brainstorming Recommendations(discussion)
•Discussion about whether to review DWR Trial(discussion)
•Developing a timeline(discussion)

Deciding an approach to report writing (discussion)
• EFSAB should focus entirely on developing recommendations, not on writing background
• The proposed template does not lead reader to make conclusions
• There is a power in brevity, particularly in documents to be read by decision-makers
• Report should include items that EFSAB rejects based on scientific evidence
• Each recommendation should include supporting justification that can be understood by others besides DWR staff, including groups who may follow EFSAB
• The proposed template was intended to include everything discussed so far, to provide a place to start
• Not all supporting information will be peer-reviewed literature as the science is currently underway
• We should begin brainstorming recommendations immediately to get that process underway
Brainstorming Recommendations(discussion)
Four major categories with subcategories were developed by the EFSAB (see meeting summary for subcategories and full details):
1. Refine the Charge
2. Characterize Ecology of Different River Basins
3. Determine Ecological Flows
4. Future Directions/Adaptive Management
Discussion about whether to review DWR Trial(discussion)
• Going into the DWR trial balloons today may detract us from our focus on recommendations- it may not fit into the flow of a potential framework
• Discussing DWR trial balloons could send the group into the weeds
• EFSAB members can present trial balloons of their own the fit into the recommendations framework that will derive from today’s brainstorm session
Developing a timeline(discussion)
• Should we hear interim results and methods from RTI about the BEC, or just wait until final results are available? (when should it be on EFSAB agendas?)
• Should PHABSIM sites in mountains be run to correlate with physical variables?

See above
•The EFSAB decided to review the draft recommendations framework in between the next meeting, to provide feedback on the wording of the recommendations, and to possibly develop and propose
trial balloons of their own regarding recommendations before the April meeting or at the meeting.
•Agendas for meetings following July will need to be developed.
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June.
The EFSAB came to consensus on the following aspects of the Final Report:
•The audience for the report is DWR.
•The report contains recommendations as well as other considerations that were eventually rejected.
•Make clear justifications for recommendations that are accepted and recommendations that were eventually rejected so that they are understood to a broader audience
See rows 7 and 13

•The EFSAB decided to review the draft recommendations framework in between the next meeting, to provide feedback on the wording of the recommendations, and to possibly develop and propose
trial balloons of their own regarding recommendations before the April meeting or at the meeting.
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June (Fred Tarver, Howard Brady)

4/16/2013
yes
Expand a framework of recommendations and determine how BEC results may inform this
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
• Preliminary Results of the Biological - Environmental Classification (BEC) system—Fish Classification and Methods fo Ooptimizing Fish and Macro-intvertebrate Classes (Jennifer Phelan,
Tom Cuffney presentation)
• SARP: River Classification Framework (Mary Davis presentation)
•Combining the Concepts of Eco-deficit and Sustainability Boundaries: A Trial Balloon(Chris Goudreau presentation)
•A Proposed Process and Report Format (Sam Pearsall presentation)
•DWR's Trial Balloons (Fred Tarver presentation)

Preliminary Results of the Biological - Environmental Classification (BEC) system (presentation)
• Instead of doing clustering and moving on to flows, now we’re doing back and forth between the two to get the clusters related to flow variables, so it gets a little more complicated
• In the end it will be a fairly simple set of classes, like 2-3
• Its important to capture in the report that the results show a lack of ability to have very defined categories, so other people don’t have to go back and do this
• There is some chance we’ll decide we can’t classify rivers and streams in NC in a way that provides clear direction on how to set ecological baseline (which is an accomplishment)
• How to set an ecological baseline without classification?

SARP: River Classification Framework (Mary Davis presentation)
• Using physiographic region, size and variability gets down to as few variables as possible, which may help us move forward.
• I think this work is pointing us in a similar direction- we’re not that different from where other folks have trod, it is all coming back to basics.

Review of March 19, 2013 Recommendations List Developed by the EFSAB(discussion)
• Review and sort the recommendations generated from opinions, process for recommendations, and reword partial recommendations into recommendation language.

•Combining the Concepts of Eco-deficit and Sustainability Boundaries: A Trial Balloon(Chris Goudreau presentation)
• talk more about the importance of not looking at seasonality versus looking at seasonality? Because one of the concerns I would add is that that critical period maybe in September.
R: Yes, the example I have up here is January, so I would think you would want to do it, say, like on a monthly or at least on a seasonal basis, not on an annual basis.
• This is a very sophisticated strategy for combining a presumptive standard with the eco-difference concept, and I really like it. The problem is that we’ll have the same problem with
this as we would with any presumptive standard, and that is making the case that a presumptive standard answers the legal question of how the eco-system will react, respond.
• As part of the BEC, is this one of the metrics that RTI is looking at in terms of trying to correlate biological condition to degree of hydrologic alteration information. I don’t
know if eco-change is one that you (RTI) had looked at yet. R: We’ve calculated it but, yes we’re using it. We have eco-surplus, eco-deficit, eco-change, and the eco-deficits and
the eco-surpluses are expressed on an annual basis and on a seasonal basis for the four seasons that you used for PHABSIM.
• What if you relate biology and you find out that the biology itself is plus or minus 30%?
• Can you show us some of the smaller stream systems or wonder what those implications might be? How do we get to that point?
• Could RTI generate these graphs for a number of sites? R: They already have them.
• There are different sustainable boundaries for the different drainage basin sizes. So depending on how much water is actually available, you’ll have different percentages around that
sustainable boundary that you could withdraw in order to stay within a range that would still in theory protect your ecological integrity.
• The eco-deficit analysis is part of the BEC analysis for ecological flows.
A Proposed Process and Report Format (Sam Pearsall presentation)
• You’ve got the question mark beside “Classify” but you don’t have one beside the flow and biological relationships, and that seems to be as much in question as the first one does to
me. R: I think we’re definitely seeing biological responses to flows. Whether we’re able to sort those into classes or have to treat them individually, remains to be seen. But
we know and data support the notion that organisms respond to flows.
• So, when are those results coming? R: As the result of an additional investment from state agencies, RTI should be able to produce results by August.
DWR's Trial Balloons (Fred Tarver presentation)
• If we’re going to use a flat 80% of flow by on the basis of some geographic unit whether it’s a basin of some order, it makes sense to me that that percent of flow-by perhaps should
vary according to season. There may be times when 80% may be inadequate.
• But isn’t that percentage, when you run it through the model, that’s a daily time step. Say it’s 20% of inflow, so if it’s 20% of inflow, it doesn’t matter if it’s—it’s not a seasonal
or monthly thing, right? The percentage of flow-by is done on a daily time step.
• It seems to me that the department has suggested the best member or a member of each of the three large families of implementation strategies and in each case they’ve recommended an
annual approach. I’m thinking that a seasonal approach has merit.
• If you get more data and it says you need to do the Piedmont differently from Mountains, you can potentially have different numbers for them.
• If you can’t show that similar habitats respond to flow in the same way, you can’t talk about statewide application using this method, in my mind.
• In either the Piedmont or the Mountains, what we’ve tried to do is run enough different habitat suitability curves through the program so that we’ve covered anything that would be
there. Then going further, you use the most limiting species or guild and if we’ve got habitat for it, everything else is okay.
• So a suggestion might be taking a flow by approach, but then having some sort of threshold number.
• We need to have what constitutes an allowable excursion and how often can you have one?
• I feel like a monthly median is kind of a nice number. If you model, it looks like you’re cuttng it off at some kind of flat line, but the reality is it would be highly variable,
and the amount of water that you are shooting for in September is going to be higher than the 80% flow by would be.

See above
• A subcommittee is set up to organize and rewrite the recommendations generated from the March 2013 meeting. The group will meet May 1, 2013. An invitation will be sent to those EFSAB
members who were not in attendance to learn about the subcommittee established. A draft of the revisions will be circulated before the May 14 EFSAB meeting
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June.
1. Review and sort the recommendations generated March 2013, from opinions, process for recommendations, and reword partial recommendations into recommendation language (subcommittee)
2. A range of acceptable deviations from unaltered flow would be used if the sustainable boundaries approach were used.
3. Seeing results of this approach on some smaller streams, perhaps ones that also have PHABSIM sites.
4. Run PHABSIM in-stream flow studies on mountain sites (Fred Tarver)

5/14/2013
yes
Expanding a framework of recommendations and determining how BEC results may inform this
Framework of recommendations from writing subcommittee (not posted online)
Knight, R.R., Gain, W.S., and Wolfe, W.J., 2011, Modelling ecological flow regime: An example from the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins: Ecohydrology, DOI: 10.1002/eco.246. (copyrighted,
not posted online)
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Presentation: BEC system and supporting flow–biology relationships in NC – Project Update (Philip Jones, RTI)
Presentation: Flow Alteration/Biological Response Relationships (Jen Phelan, RTI)
Presentation/Discussion – Proposed Framework of Recommendations
Presentation: Introduction to Coastal Flows workgroup (Bob Christian, ECU0
Discussion: Report on Work of Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe, NCNHP)
Presentation Modeling of 80% Flowby (Tom Fransen, NCDWR)

Presentation: BEC system and supporting flow–biology relationships in NC – Project Update
• Using index and using only excellent- fair/good is already going to be capturing tolerance.
• It’s important to look at flow differences in communities in drainage areas in NC.
• Tom thinks affect of land use will override flow.

Presentation: Flow Alteration/Biological Response Relationships
• Regarding reference sites- how do values change when using 70s data rather than PNV? Much discussion occurred about reference sites, pros and cons of the different data.
• How to include nonwadeable streams? A suggestion was made, though while hydrology can be modeled anywhere, the limiting factor is the lack of biology data and difference in sampling
methods.
• Much discussion occurred regarding the ecodeficit metric.

Presentation/Discussion – Proposed Framework of Recommendations
• Several editorial comments were received
• Overall, the framework is adequate to move forward to include additional edits and information, however, it does not include new materials or presentations since the April meeting,
and thus the language is limiting.
• As a large group rather than a subcommittee, the EFSAB would like to discuss and write future changes to the framework of recommendations.
• The subcommittee was asked to meet again (May 30) and draft the preface section. Anyone from the EFSAB can join the drafting subcommittee.
• EFSAB asked toplease email comments to Lou (Mary Lou Addor).

Presentation: Introduction to Coastal Flows workgroup
• Bob sees opportunities with the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and their information on the various fish species along the coast and flow needs of those fish species.
• He sees classification, hydrologic modeling, and availability of the biological information as the greatest issues/ challenges. He believes there are perhaps some classification
schemes to bring in tidal/non-tidal influence of salinity, and there are some models that deal with overbank flow.

Discussion: Report on Work of Endangered Species Subcommittee
• The subcommittee discussed whether listed species are going to be covered or not in the basin plan models and if so, do things like PHABSIM adequately cover those species, or does
the BEC analysis adequately cover those species (things like mussels and fish and plants and other invertebrates).
• For any species not covered by BEC or PHabSIM or whatever approach taken, possibly produce a map that shows where those species occur that DWR could use to assess if endangered species

need to be considered in planning future water withdrawals.
• Could have a post-processor for updating the approach as additions or changes are made to the list.

Presentation Modeling of 80% Flowby
• The introduction of SIMBASE raised much discussion of what should be used to represent “prevailing conditions” and the consequences of using SIMBASE as prevailing conditions:
o The PHABSIM work with various flow scenarios that were diagrammed for their habitat, the varying percentages of flow-by that were put in there were actually not percentage of flow-by
SIMBASE, they were percentage of flow-by unregulated, or unaltered, or whatever . So, that was for one purpose, this is a different way to look at it.
o it will be important to understand what the naturalized flow would look like, because the difference between that naturalized flow and the SIMBASE, that is going to capture the change
in the flow.
o SIMBASE already reflects cumulative historic impacts.
o if it is true that the statute requires SIMBASE to be prevailing conditions, then we cannot change that. We can change the numerator by saying, 80% is not the right number. I do
not think we can say, “Do not use SIMBASE, use natural flow.”
o If you are hanging your hat on 80% because of what PHABSIM said, you would have to re-run all that or somehow factor that amount back into that 80% flow-by instead of making 80%, it
has got to be 90% or 84% or whatever, some other way.
 But that is going to be much more dependent upon the individual reach of the river.
o We have just been saying option two is so great and one of the reasons—and it is not that it is not, but one of the reasons I liked it, besides it having some mechanistic characteristics,
is it was reference based. But the reference conditions were pre-settlement reference conditions which is different than the naturalized flow conditions, which is different than the
SIMBASE conditions.
o That is where the issue is; where is our baseline starting and the impacts, and we can partition where those impacts are coming, to the habitats, to the ecology. We can partition
that out and demonstrate that it is what has already occurred in some basins, in others we may not be in that vulnerable stage yet.
o This flow-by approach using SIMBASE lets me look at that cumulative impact as I go downstream. As I go downstream, I may have withdrawals. I may have some new discharges. I can see
that cumulative impact as I go down. Lets me look at that cumulative impact as I go downstream because you do not always know what is going on. As I go downstream, I may have withdrawals.
I may have some new discharges. So I can kind of see that cumulative impact as I go down. I could actually come back and tell you how much more you could take out of it. With some
of these other techniques, because of the wide range of statistics in them, I would have to do a trial and error method and I can probably back calculate this one directly.
o The engineer in me says by working this approach, I could actually come back and tell you all things being held constant, how much more you could take out of it. With some of these
other techniques, because of the wide range of statistics in them, I would have to do a trial and error method and I can probably back calculate this one directly.

See above
A subcommittee will draft a preface on May 30 and present the draft to the EFSAB at the June 18 meeting.

Table consideration of marine animals on endangered species list in recommendations.

1. Subcommittee produce list of species to address and cross-walk those with the guilds already established by the EFSAB, and then address any species or life stages not covered by those
guilds.
2. Do not include in the list those species that are not flow dependent or marine species that not an integrated part of NC’s fauna.
3. The ES subcommittee will report back in June or July.

6/18/2013
yes
Expanding a framework of recommendations and determining how BEC results may inform this
Report outline from drafting subcommittee sent to EFSAB listserve for review on June 10 (not posted online).
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Presentation:Introduction of Preface Section of the EFSAB Report to DENR (Mary Lou Addor)
Presentation: Report on Work of the Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe)
Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group: Progress Report (Bob Christian)
Presentation: Report Back on Comparison of SIMBASE and PHABSIM Unaltered Flows (Tom Fransen)
Presentation: Biological-Environmental Classification (BEC) Project Update (Jennifer Phelan and Tom Cuffney)
Presentation: A Trial Balloon—20/30/40% or 30/40/50% of Annual Mean Flow or Monthly Mean Flow (Hugh Barwick)
Presentation:Introduction of Preface Section of the EFSAB Report to DENR (Mary Lou Addor)
• In the first paragraph of the Preface ( how the report to DENR will be organized), this section doesn't clearly state whose research assumptions and recommendations are listed. The
section does not include a comprehensive list of the organizations and groups that have advised the EFSAB but rather is limited to the RTI and USGS research.
Presentation: Report on Work of the Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe)
• • If the BEC is not recommended or used, there would likely be additional work needed to determine if threatened and endangered species are being adequately addressed by a different
method
• A lot of additional work would be required to crosswalk the petitioned species with the guilds, including determining which species are flow-dependant.
• The relevant species in the swamps and riparian systems shouldn’t disappear from the petitioned list
Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group: Progress Report (Bob Christian)
• The Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group is working on a three-pronged approach to link stream typology (origin with slope) to a potential Ecological Flows determinant such as discharge
and habitat, downstream salinity, and overbank flow.
Presentation: Report Back on Comparison of SIMBASE and PHABSIM Unaltered Flows (Tom Fransen)
• In the watershed evaluated, the difference between current and projected 2060 demands were not substantial, whereas in some areas, like the Triangle, the differences could be much
more substantial.
•If the EFSAB chooses to use an 80% flow-by approach based on PHABSIM results that used natural flows, it would be important for DWR to do this analysis within each basin. The difference
between natural and SIMBASE and SIMBASE and SIM60 will vary basin to basin.
• if our recommendation is based on PHABSIM results run using natural conditions, even if it’s not 80% flow-by, we need to understand what the implications are when it’s used in a model
with a SIMBASE current and SIMBASE future condition.
•It’s hard to capture what the impact is of using a different baseline flow if it’s going to be different for each basin.
•Do we have any idea how these deficit figures compare to the deficits that RTI calculates? Is an 80% flow-by equal to 20% deficit, or do we not have any idea of that yet?
Presentation: Biological-Environmental Classification (BEC) Project Update (Jennifer Phelan and Tom Cuffney)
• How to determine how long it takes species to recover- the lower you set the bar for the insult, the more likely it will recover. That information can be conveyed in the report.
• It would be good to have similar IBI-based biological condition classes for fish (same as benthic IBI classes). However, the complexity and inconsistency makes the development of
a fish IBI biological class system less feasible
• Trying to understand the relationship of PNV to unaltered flows and SIMBASE in OASIS
• Whether EFSAB should recommend the approach or also determine the threshold that constitutes significant impact
• In the legislation, there was a clear decision to use a definition different than DWQ’s definition for biological integrity
• How to highlight acute as well as chronic eco-deficit impacts during planning
• How to express a level of comfort that changes are affected by flow and not other variables
• Some questions were submitted to the ad hoc research group after the meeting- those are at the end of the summary for this item
Presentation: A Trial Balloon—20/30/40% or 30/40/50% of Annual Mean Flow or Monthly Mean Flow (Hugh Barwick)
1. Although the biota might be able to survive equivalent flows during a drought, they would not be able to withstand those levels over multiple years.
2. Even if you set up a floor, you still have to come up with some way to say how often and how close do you have to get to that floor before some flag goes up.
3. Two of the gages you plotted here are below reservoirs that tend to make the average flows during wet times lower and average flows during dry times higher because that is the way
they are supposed to operate. If you set your threshold or your floor based on monthly means and you are doing it off a gage record that has a big reservoir upstream, we need to be
aware of that, and maybe think about do we want to use the regulated hydrograph, or do we want to use in the model an unaltered hydrograph.
4. I think philosophically, as a planning tool, what you want is something that raises flags earlier rather than later.
5. I think everybody in this room realizes that this planning tool may eventually morph into a permitting tool.
6. What South Carolina ended up with and those numbers were a policy decision. It was not really based on the science, solely.
7. An approach like this has some merit because it is simple, easily understood, but before I could endorse an approach like this, I have to see something that reassures me that ecological
integrity as defined in the Act will not be violated.
8. You talked about balancing the needs for humans and aquatic resources and that is a good thing and DENR needs to do it. But our job is to figure out when ecological integrity is
violated and when it is not.
9. How do we tie this to biological impact?
10. Part of the simplicity of this approach is the use of monthly mean flow as opposed to percent flow by. may be something the currently regulated entities are more familiar with or
are already used to thinking of usage in terms of that.
11. How much time would it take and is it feasible to re-run PHABSIM for a handful of Piedmont sites using 40, 30, 20 as a threshold and tell us what happens to our guild habitats?
RESPONSE: They are already done, but not exactly like this. They were run with 30 all year, 20 all year, 40 all year. You have to pick from the different columns and recombine them,
and do them by season.
12. The reports this was based on were from a minimum flow perspective, not from the perspective of maintaining ecological integrity.
13. If the goal is to not be at that minimum too frequently, then you are already taking a step towards just using a flow-by approach.
14. With an 80% flow by, drought years are worse [than a minimum flow].
15. It would be interesting to see how using this kind of approach would match up against the calculated impact of a flow-by. to use these kinds of numbers to set the level, and then
calculate the percent deficit so we can get an idea of how it works.
16. If we chose to recommend that our strategy should be to prevent increasing eco deficit by more than a certain percentage, minimum flow thresholds and flow-by targets are both viable
tools for achieving that goal. These are not mutually incompatible strategies. It may be that minimum flow is not the best strategy to maintain eco deficit below some threshold, but
it is a potential tool for doing that.
17. The reason why we moved away from these flows, these thresholds to begin with when we first evaluated them was that we were seeing impacts, in general, that we felt were not going
to meet the ecological integrity objectives of the legislation.
18. The surficial simplicity of this actually leads to a greater complexity because you have to have a pretty complex system of if/then statements [to avoid being at too low a flow for
too long]. We move quickly away from simplicity.
See above
Distinguish in the Report (Draft 1) Outline from the EFSAB to DENR/DWR that the research assumptions are currently limited to the RTI and USGS research as well as some sections of the
Recommendations like the protocol conclusions; that the Report will eventually include a comprehensive view of what has transpired and a more comprehensive set of recommendations..

The EFSAB came to full consensus that the following recommendation should be included in their final report:

T&E subcommittee review suggests that flow-habitat relationships for these species are broadly addressed by the PHABSIM approach. Rather than further evaluate the developing research
on T&E species' flow requirements, the SAB recommends that specific, potentially more limiting, flow needs for resident T&E species should be considered on a project specific basis
by the DWR in addition to the more generic recommendations offered by the SAB. For planning purposes, portions of basins (e.g., nodes) that include listed species should be treated
by DWR as needing additional analysis.

1. The EFSAB was asked to email any comments, questions, or proposed edits to Mary Lou Addor before the next EFSAB meeting scheduled for July 16.
2. The EFSAB has asked if the Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group can provide a trial balloon (a series of proposed recommendations) for the July 16 and 17 discussions.
3. Hugh Barwick and his subgroup will analyze PHABSIM data on 5 or 6 sites using 20, 30 and 40% of mean monthly flow by season.
a. See how that relates to flow-by.
4. EFSAB asked for RTI/USGS to conduct one or more examples of applying eco-deficit and benthos condition ranking using site specific data for a river and projecting out for 50 years
(looking at how it impacts a current good-fair relationship was suggested).
5. EFSAB asked RTI/USGS to conduct a log-linear model for the benthos flow-biology relationship so it can be more comparable to fish, and so that the curve is not as flat
6. Based on their discussion, it appears that EFSAB members need to make a decision about whether they should recommend the approach or also determine the threshold that constitutes
significant impact to ecological integrity. This has not been decided yet.
7. If our recommendation is based on PHABSIM results run using natural conditions, we need to understand what the implications are when it’s used in a model with a SIMBASE current and
SIMBASE future condition. This would need to be done on a basin-by-basin basis.
7/17/2013
yes
Complete Expanding Knowledge—Begin developing recommendations
2011 Alberta Report (Water For Life) Chris mentioned in presentation and related to "trial balloon" (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
Clipperton et al. report from 2003 (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE ECOLOGICAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT FISHERIES IN CANADA (emailed Jul 10 by F. Tarver)
Notes from C. Goudreau about EFSAB deliverables (emailed July 13 by Nancy Sharpless)
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Update from the Coastal Subcommittee
Review of EFSAB Charter
EFSAB Report outline discussion
Discussion of key concepts about ecological responses to altered flows
Discussion of Topics for Recommendations
Update from the Coastal Subcommittee
• Whether and how the Roanoke slab shell mussel is representative of benthos- it may not be representative, but has value for bio monitoring
• The coastal plain highlights an area that the EFSAB has not discussed a great deal: goods and services.
• Salt intrusion and DO are both powerfully influenced by flow, and in the coastal plain they may be powerfully influential on the integrity of biological communities
• APNEP and its comprehensive management plan have ecological flows for the Albemarle/Pamlico as a priority item. Dean Carpenter intends to continue the work of this group beyond the
length of this EFSAB.
• Bob concluded that a little more thought needs to be given to benthos.
• There are variations between the basins. We need to be basin-specific when we look at these things.
• Is there a threshold for flow measurement that is noticeable, visible in a surface type of velocity or directional velocity or even measurable with a flow meter? I I want to make
sure we have something to make a meaningful dichotomy between flat and really flat streams, and is there a threshold that has something other than the numeric coefficient that we can
point back to.
• Many estuarine-dependent species spend their first three or four months in fresh water. Their resident time in the fresh water is key.
• in a very low flow system, like a zero flow system, there is a water quantity concern, and that is influenced by water extraction.
• Since we won't be doing OASIS modeling in these reaches, it will require some other methodology for other monitoring or planning for those areas so the post-processing we talked about
in the other part of the basins where OASIS is going to be used, it is going to be another modeling effort that can handle tidal and variations in flows or some sort of spreadsheet
post-processor type of thing.
Review of EFSAB Charter
•members and their alternates who served the EFSAB but are no longer serving should be listed to recognize their participation and contributions. In addition, the full list of EFSAB
members and alternates will be included on the Report to the EFSAB.
•DENR should continue to inform the EFSAB about the status of their recommendations for at least one year following their Report .
EFSAB Report outline discussion
• members commented that the Report Outline is too RTI/USGS centric and that other research that has transpired, been conducted and considered should be included in the Report to DENR.
The EFSAB is currently focused on providing recommendations at the July and August meeting, intending for the writing to occur in an iterative fashion between the August and October
meetings.
•Members of the EFSAB generally support the idea of referencing in the Report to DENR, weblinks to the NCWater.org (DENR site) or other information, when discussing supporting documents,
research, and larger documents.
Discussion of key concepts about ecological responses to altered flows
• This shouldn’t be used as decision-making criteria without more thought and discussion.
• These are things that would go in research assumptions, in preface of the report, as the foundational concepts that research shows, that recommendations are built upon. We need to
communicate this within and beyond the board.
• These also might be of value in helping to evaluate the trial balloons.
Discussion of Topics for Recommendations- please see full summary for bulleted comments

See above
The EFSAB was informed that the Report to DENR will be due by the end of October. Members were still asked to hold the Dec 3 meeting which can be readily cancelled at a later date.

Distinguish in the Report (Draft 1) Outline from the EFSAB to DENR/DWR that the research assumptions are currently limited to the RTI and USGS research as well as some sections of the
Recommendations like the protocol conclusions; that the Report will eventually include a comprehensive view of what has transpired and a more comprehensive set of recommendations..

1. Consensus recommendations generated on July 17 are preliminary until those who missed part or all of the meeting have an opportunity to review the discussion and recommendations
for moving forward.
2. Mark and Chris were tasked with generating draft recommendations for the list of topics discussed on the afternoon of July 17. The proposed recommendations will be inserted in to
the Report Outline and be the major agenda item for discussion at the August meeting. Jamie and Linda will be reviewing the draft recommendations generated by Mark and Chris.
3. Add to the Charter, a list of EFSAB members and alternates who served previously but are no longer serving for various reasons and include in the Charter Appendix and the Report Outline.
The list of previous members and alternates has been included in the Charter and list of members posted online at NCWater.org; the Report Outline will include the EFSAB members and
alternates.
4. Add to the Report Outline, the recommendation about the T&E species developed by the T&E subcommittee with the EFSAB’s approval
5. A number of preliminary recommendations were made during discussion on July 17. These are reflected within the Executive Summary sections relative to their topics, but are not included
here as they have not yet been tested for full consensus with all EFSAB members.

1. Fred will share the mountain PHABSIM analyses when they are completed.
2. Lou will compile and distribute the trial balloons, presentation, and general meeting discussion to the EFSAB the evening of July 16.
3. The ad-hoc group will present examples from the Neuse River of what their method would look like using OASIS.
4. DWR go back and look at some of the manipulated flow records and find out where 10% eco-deficit falls in that spectrum of the work that Jim Mead did.
5. Rebecca Benner will provide the final TNC report to EFSAB when it is completed.
6. Chris Goudreau will go through reports for other key concepts about ecological responses to flows that could be added to the list.
7. Characterize the distinction between a large river, a small catchment, and a wadeable stream.
• Tom Cuffney to email a stream size class distribution table to distribute to the EFSAB (done, this was sent to EFSAB in an email)
8. The bulk of the characterization of the Coastal Plain will be addressed in the proposal from the Coastal Plain subcommittee.
9. Make sure that whatever methods are used in the recommendations for wadeable streams address the issue of extra protection for small streams.
10. Clarify what site-specific evaluation means.

8/20/2013 and 8/21/2013
yes
Complete Expanding Knowledge—testing consensus on draft recommendations, developing further recommendations
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Defining Stream Sizes and Discussion of Headwaters (T. Cuffney)
Framework of Proposed Recommendations for Coastal Streams and Rivers(Bob Christian)
Recommended Framework for Evaluating Ecological Flows in the Streams and Rivers of North Carolina
(Jennifer Phelan, RTI)
EFSAB Report: Draft 3 - Update (C. Goudreau)
Approaches for Setting Protection Standards (C. Goudreau

Defining Stream Sizes and Discussion of Headwaters
• Board wants additional data to determine if it’s five classes or combined classes or some other alternative. Would like to see how the smaller streams fall out from the headwaters.
Tom will separate out and provide new illustration to the EFSAB on Aug 21.
Framework of Proposed Recommendations for Coastal Streams and Rivers
•• what percent are covered by OASIS and not? Almost all of it is not covered by OASIS currently.
• one concern is more about water going into surface waters after being pumped from an aquifer.
• I’m comfortable stating it the way you (the subcommittee) have: In order to move forward, these are the things that are needed.
• Do yourecommend all 4 approaches and that there would be some hierarchy for which approach to apply to a given type of stream?
• One of the challenges is that slope and velocity are not the same; velocity is incredibly important. It is really the velocity that relates to ecological condition. The gradients
may or may not be indicative of velocity.
• I'm supportive of dealing with our coastal areas with if/then statements. If DWR wants to pursue scientific understanding of how to evaluate ecological flows in the coastal plain,
then our advice would be to go through these options.
• I would advocate an integrated whole for the EFSAB report as much as possible. a thorough summary of the coastal work should be includedbecause the coastal subcommittee's work mirrors
the work that the whole board has done.
•put the research needs into qualitative description of your if/then statements.
• When I look at the map of the four classes of streams and the cover slide that shows the OASIS model area, a lot of piedmont, medium-slope will be captured in the OASIS models.
those could automatically go into the statewide approach.
Recommended Framework for Evaluating Ecological Flows in the Streams and Rivers of North Carolina
•Concerns were expressed about using the working rivers philosophy
•The concept is good for reason of discussion, whether or not the specific proposed categories and thresholds are
•Discussion about uncertainty values -- some would like to see them, others point out that the uncertainty is good for biological data.
•Regarding where this could be applied, it was suggested that it could apply everywhere but the tidal areas.
During a discussion, several members of the board expressed concern about taking time to review and develop an agreement about the list versus spending time directly developing recommendations
that would naturally offer context for the discussion.
Concepts and principles Regarding Ecological Responses to Flows
several members of the board expressed concern about taking time to review and develop an agreement about the list versus spending time directly developing recommendations that would
naturally offer context for the discussion.
Discussion on characterization
•Unsure of the relevance of characterization in the way it’s currently reflected in this draft of report, given that EFSAB did not focus upon it in this fashion.
•Make our recommendations and then back up and see what we need to include based on that. A lot of those answers may come after we have recommendations to provide justification.
•RTI and USGS did a lot of work on classification (as a means for characterization). Many various methods were tried that need to be reflected in the document, but it will be hard to
include until the RTI report is written.
•The legislation calls for EFSAB to characterize ecology in the different river basins, so we somehow need to address that charge in the report, or explain how and why we did not address
it.
•DWR staff characterizes the basins when doing basin plans, so we could say that DWR already does this.
•Suggest a different way to characterize ecology by basically discussing the relationships between different flow components and ecology. That stands on its own. We could find this
information in other documents.
•It needs to come out of findings and into a preface section. Its not a finding, but rather it sets stage for characterizing ecology
Continued discussion of flow recommendation
Why not to provide a number or range as a threshold?
Is recommending a % change recommending a policy decision?
As a group we have different understandings and interpretations of the threshold concept of the ecodeficit model.
DENR should have the capacity to determine a threshold themselves
Authors should be able to provide a recommendation and justify it rather than the Board setting that point.
Is it defensible since there is no report from RTI yet, and no publication?
Why provide a number or range as a threshold?
If saying DENR should consider change of biological condition between current and future as a decision criterion, without guidance on how to interpret what is allowable % change, nothing
may happen with it.
PHABSIM approach would also require an allowable % change to be used as a decision criterion.
If x% is recommended as an initial threshold with some explanation of why we chose the #, it’s at least a point of discussion. If it’s ignored, at least we’ve gone down with some number
and some reasoning.
Would allow us to frame it as a risk of change if more than this % change happens, to say further review warranted when this threshold is crossed without defining a specific action of
DENR.
DENR needs some context for what a % change in bio condition would amount to, and risk of change in EPT class is most logical (criteria with which to evaluate the magnitude of change).

See above

1. Regarding Flow Recommendations
A. Recommendation 1: Statewide approach using simultaneously two tools:
-In the basinwide hydrologic models, use 80-90% flow-by as the ecological flow.
- If the basinwide hydrologic models indicate that there is insufficient water available to meet all needs, essential water uses and ecological flows, then further review is recommended.

- The Eco-deficit tool should be used to determine the current and future modeled biological condition of locations in the basinwide hydrologic models.
- DENR should evaluate the change in current and future biological condition as a decision criterion. A 5-10% change in biological condition is suggested as a threshold for further
review by DENR. [section requires further discussion/review by EFSAB to determine if all members can live with/support this statement].
a. The Board tentatively defined flow-by as: The percentage of ambient modeled daily flow that remains in the stream. For modeling purposes this is calculated on a daily basis. [Need
to define somewhere how daily flow is reached].
b. The Board opted to continue fleshing out recommendations and let writers define terms, then address any concerns about that later.
c. RTI will provide an outline of the RTI report to the EFSAB by mid-Sept for a review by the EFSAB; include justifications of the 5, 10, and 15% thresholds to assist with discussion
in Sept about the possible threshold.
B. Recommendation 2: Headwater Streams
There is limited biological and hydrologic data in headwater streams within North Carolina. These streams have a higher vulnerability to disturbance, and the broader statewide approach
may not adequately reflect the potential for impact to ecological integrity. Therefore, DENR should identify the subset of headwater streams to receive alternative analysis. (Note
for further explaining- examples of vulnerability, how and in what way. Less water to start could be converted to intermittent)."
2. Coastal Plain Strategy:
Linda Diebolt will work with Bob Christian to address the coastal plain strategy. This would include the changes that resulted from the Aug 21 discussion and any pertinent rationale/assumptions,
citations, and references to justify what is being proposed in the coastal strategy. Writing teams are asked to include other research and literature that was reviewed and rejected
to arrive as this strategy.

Proposed Actions or Identified Decisions to be made:
Regarding Flow Recommendations
1. Another potential recommendation was proposed: The current SIMBASE2013 should be used as the prevailing condition from now forward.
2. Maybe we should advise DWR on how to assess condition of stream, and there are a couple different ways to do that.
a. Compare against unregulated flow
b. Use eco-deficit tool.
3. When we’re saying to maintain ecological integrity, we’ll at some point define what it is.
4. Whether or not to set a threshold for %biological change in the recommendation, and, if so, what that threshold should be.
5. How to move forward between now and September?
a. Address concerns about defensibility/validity
i. Seek report from RTI as documentation (needed)
ii. Seek additional supporting documentation from other studies, states that could provide references for using indices as evaluations and particular percent changes (would be helpful)
1. MI paper with table that has water management zones
2. Others?
6. Chris Goudreau will find the MI report to use as a possible reference for biological change threshold decision.
7. EFSAB members should share any references from other states, studies that could help with the biological change threshold decision
8. Mark will provide a presentation Sept 24 on how to evaluate the Oasis nodes.
Regarding coastal recommendations:
A. Use if/then statements? For example, if DWR wants to pursue scientific understanding of how to evaluate ecological flows in the coastal plain, then our advice would be to go through
these options.
B. A thorough summary of he coastal work should be included in the report because the coastal subcommittee's work has been so good, and it mirrors the work that the whole board has done.

C. Put the research needs into a qualitative description of the if/then statements. State for your 3 or 4 approaches, how the research needs bolster those. That would help explain
how/why this research is needed.

-RTI will share the proposed outline of their report to the EFSAB for feedback about what should be included, and will complete a description of the biological change threshold methods
and reasoning before the September meeting.
-Chris Goudreau will find MI report to use as a possible reference.
-EFSAB members should share any references from other states, studies that could help with the biological change threshold decision.
Working team assignments
1. Characterization Recommendation: Chris and Linda with Tom Cuffney .
2. Eflow Recommendation 1: Tom Cuffney and Tom Thompson will work on this section. Jennifer Phelan is sending a section of the RTI report that will assist in supporting the choice of
5%, 10% and the 15% thresholds in early Sept.
3. Eflow Recommendation 2 (headwater streams): Judy & Jeff.
4. Coastal Plain Strategy: Linda Diebolt and Bob Christian.
September 24 & 25, 2013
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p57035086/ for September 24
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p57035086/ for September 25
To be introduced to thePHABSIM results for the mountains; work toward finalizing recommendations and the final report
EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.docx;
Concepts_Principals_Recommendations Around Ecological Intregrity_Aug 16 Report.docx
EDF_Report_Outline.docx
Environmental_Flow_Framework_draft.docx
PHABSIM on Mountain Sites Presenter: Fred Tarver
Assessment of OASIS Nodes in headwaters and discussion of how to address headwaters Presenter: Mark Cantrell
PHABSIM on Mountain Sites
•Discussion centered around the slides that showed great increase of species with >120% WUA
under lower flow scenarios.
• Fry and young of year had better response at low flows like 7Q10 o Literature shows in high grade areas, that would likely reduce flow to usable velocity
• Concern that many streams showed little effect at 75% flow-by, which could raise challenges o If the deep and shallow guilds weren’t combined, you could see a shallow group benefiting
• Sensitivity is lost in the graphs because deep and shallow are combined. Looking at other
graphs could help look at specific responses to 80% flow-by in more detail.
• Concern that many streams showed little effect at 75% flow-by, which could raise challenges o If the deep and shallow guilds weren’t combined, you could see a shallow group benefiting
o Sensitivity is lost in the graphs because deep and shallow are combined. Looking at other graphs could help look at specific responses to 80% flow-by in more detail.
• Results still point to more sensitively when you get below 80% flow-by.Results still point to more sensitively when you get below 80% flow-by.
Assessment of OASIS Nodes in headwaters and discussion of how to address headwaters
•Surprise at the number of intakes on first order streams
• OASIS nodes are not georeferenced- this could be a recommendation  The analyses emphasizes the importance of headwater streams for surface water intakes
•Using <10 km2 as a breakpoint for the statewide flow recommendation makes sense given it
captures more of the first order and 1/3rd of the second order streams.
• Moving up to the next break in stream size used by TNC and SARP (75km2) would create many
more evaluations by DWR staff
• Exactly what further evaluation by DWR that the threshold triggers has not yet been fleshed out
by the EFSAB.
Biological Threshold discussion
Context regarding the % flow-by range
Critical low-flow component discussion
What to Use as Prevailing condition?
Discussion on Conditions that Raise a Flag
What Further Analysis Would Happen If Flag Raised
What level of ecological integrity are the recommendations protecting?
Discussion about How DENR should Implement the two strategies for Maximum Benefit
Discussion: Nine New Written Sections for the EFSAB DRAFT Report
Review of Requested Edits to EFSAB Report 4.0
see above
•The EFSAB decided by consensus to use <10 km2 (3.9 sq. mi) as the threshold for
deviating from their statewide flow recommendation. The language for their headwater recommendation is as follows:
There are limited biological and hydrologic data in headwater streams within North Carolina. These streams have a higher vulnerability to disturbance, and the broader statewide approach
may not adequately reflect the potential for impact to ecological integrity. Therefore, for streams with a drainage area < 10km2 (3.9 sq. mi),DENR should conduct additional analyses
to determine the potential for impacts on ecological integrity.
•As the last sentence in statewide flow recommendation, say: A 5-10% change in biological condition is suggested as a criterion for further review by DENR
•Define baseline as the management regime, whether it was modeled or not, extant at the time the legislation passed on 7/22/2010.
•Put the description of what raises a flag into the recommendations [as opposed to putting it into the text following the recommendations].
•Use Tom Fransen's method for defining flag raising.
•Use the same language regarding what “further analysis” means as was developed for
headwaters
•Use the language in lines 134 through 136 in the current master draft, which say:
"Statewide Ecological Flow Evaluation”
“To evaluate flow scenarios in most North Carolina streams, the following two tools are recommended to assess whether ecological flows are maintained:" [9 ones; one 2];
The Board also reached consensus on changing the word in line 145 from "change" to “reduction”.
•Add a descriptor in the report where the mountain PHABSIM information is earmarked
•Consider a recommendation that NCDWR georeference the nodes for OASIS
•Consider adding an outcome criteria in the report [for further analysis], that doesn't get into the suite of tools that DWR may or may not use.
•Ensure we say that the eco-deficit tool is not only for the exceptions in the statewide recommendation.
•Justify in the report why the Board went with 5-10% based on the RTI report but did not use the 15% or the working rivers approach
•Write a section to include in the report accompanying the statewide flow-by
recommendation. This should include: 1) Context for why a range for flow-by (or bio response such as the numbers in the range are found in the literature, PHABSIM results, lack of consensus
on a single value) and implications for how that range plays out.
•In the report, explain EFSAB’s concern about very low flows; Alberta uses 20th percentile adjusted monthly; more in the literature; DENR should investigate the literature and refine
the numerical value. (add to paragraph 167-173) (language was written on Sept. 25)
•Sam will ensure the RTI report addresses the baseline question and documents the date of the eco-deficit calculation.
•Link the conditions for flagging to everything else we are doing in the report.
•Say in the recommendation that we think it is important to understand the frequency and
magnitude of how long, how often you go below the recommended 80-90% flowby.
•Include a paragraph explaining why the Board has emphasized community structure and species richness and not other aspects of the ecology in determining ecological integrity.
Include discussion of resiliency.
October 22 & 23, 2013
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p11888740/ for October 22; https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p74592210/ for October 23
To finalize the EFSAB's recommendations and the final report.
October 22--EFSAB Report Draft 4.2_Changes Requested_Responses.docx and EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.2 MASTER_10212013.docx
October 23-- !!!EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.2 MASTER_10212013_version edited in meeting.docx
Overview of the RTI/USGS Report presented by Jennifer Phelan
Critical Low Flow
Evaluating Potential for Ecological Impacts of Future Water Use (flag-raising
Adaptive Management
Threatened and Endangered Species
Flow-Habitat Relationships
Report Review and Finalization

See the final report at http://www.ncwater.org/files/eflows/sab/EFSAB_Final_Report_to_NCDENR.pdf
See the final report at http://www.ncwater.org/files/eflows/sab/EFSAB_Final_Report_to_NCDENR.pdf
•Chris, Fred, and Linda will revise the Flow-Habitat section and submit it for the EFSAB’s review by 10/31/13.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
11/8/2010
Not Available; Meeting Summary is posted online
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
• Agenda and Meeting Logistics
• List of EFSAB Members
• Ecological Flows website ( background information)
• Legislation that describes the SAB and Purpose

• Why We Are Here: HB 1743 Tom Reeder's presentation
(Presentation on the Session Law HB 1743)

• Ecological Flows Background: Jim Mead's presentation
(Presentation on how ecological flows differ from instream flow requirements, and how ecological flows figure into river basin planning).

• Ecological Flows SAB Charter (Draft): Facilitators
• EFSAB: Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board
• "Ecological flow" means the stream flow necessary to protect ecological integrity; eflows are targets to be used for medium and long range planning purposes to evaluate water availability
throughout a basin.
• "Ecological integrity" means the ability of an aquatic system to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity,
and functional organization comparable to prevailing ecological conditions and, when subject to disruption, to recover and continue to provide the natural goods and services that
normally accrue from the system.
• "Groundwater resource": any water flowing or lying under the surface of the earth or contained within an aquifer.
• "Prevailing ecological conditions": the ecological conditions determined by reference to the applicable period of record of the United States Geological Survey stream gauge data, including
data reflecting the ecological conditions that exist after the construction and operation of existing flow modification devices, such as dams, but excluding data collected when stream
flow is temporarily affected by in-stream construction activity.
• "Surface water resource": any lake, pond, river, stream, creek, run, spring, or other water flowing or lying on the surface of the earth.
• Minimum Flows: are minimal threshold intended to maintain aquatic life for relatively short periods of time.
lower the minimum flow – the more it is suited only to allow survival for brief periods. Ecosystems suffer when the minimum flow becomes THE flow for extended periods.
• Flow Regime: Incorporates the following components: Magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, rate of change, and retains some degree of natural stream flow variability
• “Instream flow needs” :a broad generic term referring to the amount of water needed to maintain in-stream uses and is location (habitat type/species of interest/ drainage area/tributary
inflow) and time (monthly/seasonal/inter-annual variation in water availability, critical life stages, recreation season) dependent.
• “Instream flow requirements”: are site-specific, project-specific determinations developed during preparation of environmental documents and permit reviews and incorporated in permits
for water resource projects – FERC, 401/404, Dam Safety, EA/FONSI or EIS, CUA
• Target Flows for Used for River Basin Planning: Ecological planning flows are NOT intended to replace in-depth, site-specific studies for particular water project proposals – especially
those larger projects with more complex environmental concerns. If not included in the basin model, the underlying assumption would be that all flow in the stream – aside from any existing,
specific project-related flow requirements – is available for withdraw
• Stakeholder Advisory Process: anticipated that a stakeholder advisory process will set up to advise DWR and the General Assembly on how to respond to the projected negative effects
on ecology in future years.
Purpose of SAB:
• The SAB will advise DENR on an approach to characterize the ecology of river basins and a method to determine the flows necessary for ecological integrity.
• Board to develop an approach for planning purposes that will help users meet anticipated water needs in the future and address concerns at a watershed level that includes cumulative
effects.
• A board to provide scientific input as part of a broader stakeholder process.

Formation of Second Advisory Group
Anticipation of a second advisory group that will focus on the societal issues of flow management in order to develop policy to balance resource protection with flow-altering water uses,
and human demands with ecosystem needs. EFSAB will focus on the science and technical aspects of ecological flows. Policy makers will consider the output of both advisory bodies in
developing policy.

Introduction of EFS Stream Classification Concept & Eno River Pilot Project

Introduction of Alternate Flow Approaches

SAB – What It Is Not
• Not the final decision maker on this issue.
• Will advise on methods/approaches – not specific flow numbers.
• Not developing a method to replace sites specific studies needed for a specific EA/EIS or permit
review.

• Future Meeting Dates & Times
• Revisions to the EFSAB Charter
• Communication and outreach:
o [e-mail] for planning and communicating purposes between the SAB, alternates, and the project team.
o DWR website and the WRRI listserv will inform a wider audience about the EFSAB process.

The Facilitation Team:
• Will revise and maintain EFSAB Charter
• Will propose a process to make minor decisions by email.
• Will develop a process for handling questions from the public when time allows.
• Will develop process for review of meeting summaries.

The EFSAB:
• If an EFSAB member is unable to attend a meeting, it is the responsibility of their alternate to provide input about the draft meeting summary prior to the deadline for comments and
revisions; it is the responsibility of both to review the previous meeting information in preparation for the upcoming meeting.
• Members may have more than one alternate.
• Members and alternates may participate in the meetings in person or via webinar, including being able to ask questions or to provide comments via the webinar.
• Alternates may participate in meetings when the primary member is present, but only the member participates in any process for decision-making or recommendations.
• Will contribute to establishing a timeline.

The NC DWR:
• Will be responsible for requesting replacements to the EFSAB if a member leaves or if a new Board member is needed to ensure representation as specified in HB 1743. All EFSAB members
were asked to designate an alternate who can serve in their stead as needed.
• Will be responsible for handling press releases about the EFSAB.

Needs list generated by EFSAB members regarding future presentations/presenters.

Introduction of EFS Stream Classification Concept
• Introduction of hydrologic stream classification system for sorting N.C. streams and rivers by hydrology into seven classes. The ultimate goal is to develop a specific technical approach
for determining ecological planning flows for each of the stream classifications. Can use Eno as pilot to determine if this is viable technique for developing other stream classifications
and other basins.

Introduction of Alternate Flow Approaches
• Minimum flows
• Setting a flow target that varies seasonally or monthly, and allowing some variation within bounds above and below this target.
• Percentage of inflow available for withdrawal – may vary by season, include drought protocol with higher
percentage withdrawal
• Setting the threshold for allowable hypothetical withdrawals as the amount that results in a change in the
hydrologic stream classification
• Other approaches suggested by the analysis

None
None
• Revisions required to EFSAB Charter
• Recommendations from EFSAB for how to move forward

Charter (as appendix)
• Stakeholder Advisory Process: anticipated that a stakeholder advisory process will set up to advise DWR and the General Assembly on how to respond to the projected negative effects
on ecology in future years.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
1/18/2011
No recording available; Meeting Summary available online
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.
1. Agenda and Meeting Logistics

Two reports related to the hydrologic stream classification software were sent prior to the meeting:
2. Hydrologic Classification System and StreamFlow Software for NC (Henriksen & Heasley)
3. NC OASIS Stream Classification Investigation Project ( Environmental Flow Specialists)

Presentation: An overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific models like OASIS (Fransen)

Tom Fransen gave an overview of hydrologic modeling in North Carolina. The same statute that established the EFSAB (SL 2010-143), also mandated that DENR develop a basin wide hydrologic
model for each of the 17 major river basins in NC. The questions the models need to answer are: 1) “Is there enough water to sustain expected uses now and in the future (DWR does
consider ecologic flows to be part of “expected uses”)?” and 2) “Where, when and for how long could we expect to experience shortages?” The complexity lies in developing the data and
equations to describe inflow, outflow, and storage of the hydrologic system.

The hydrologic models allow planners to vary uses, assuming that inflows stay constant, and predict availability for expected uses. DWR has selected OASIS as their preferred modeling
program. Issues that arise in using OASIS as well as critical assumptions were discussed.

Presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC, provided to the EFSAB by Mead, Pearsall, and Goudreau.

Stream classification can assist in characterizing ecological flows since hydrology and ecology are linked. The development of a class-based flow/response relationship might be possible
if it were possible to: (1) identify streams with similar hydrologic characteristics, which, according to ecological theory, explain major aspects of their organization and structure;
and (2) identify unique hydro-ecological indices (indices that make the class different from the other classes) that best describe the hydrologic signature of the stream class and stream
reaches by addressing the five major components of flow (magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change).

1. OASIS: a unique software program that realistically simulates the routing of water through a water resources system.
2. EFS Hydrologic Stream Classification: 2 products developed from this work: (1) a software package to take any source of daily stream flow data and classify streams (NC StreamFlow),
and (2) seven hydrologic classes of streams.

1. OASIS: a unique software program that realistically simulates the routing of water through a water resources system.
2. EFS Hydrologic Stream Classification: 2 products developed from this work: (1) a software package to take any source of daily stream flow data and classify streams (NC StreamFlow),
and (2) seven hydrologic classes of streams.

OASIS Modeling

EFS Stream Classification

Three primary objectives of the EFSAB:

1. Recommend the best approach to grouping or classifying streams for determining ecological flows.
2. Review other states’ approaches to determining ecological flows.
3. Advise the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on developing an approach for identifying the flow necessary to maintain ecological integrity.

Issues and Concerns for Modeling and Ecological Flows
Historically, the models have focused on water supply (municipal and industrial) reliability. Consequently, they have focused on larger streams and rivers that support the potential
for withdrawals and discharges of 100,000 gallons per day or greater. Furthermore, calibration and validation has concentrated on normal and low flow periods, when the water supplies
are stressed.

Questions About Operations of OASIS
• Questions were raised about the operations of OASIS including the ability of the model to look at smaller streams and where e-flows fit into the model.

Questions About EFS Classifications
• How the data was manipulated before going into the model (how was it normalized).
Impoundments are flow dependent systems and thus are not included; while reservoirs may have eco-systems, the focus of EFSAB is on eflows.

• In the charter, under Decision Process, Level 5 will read “Block (I cannot/will not support the recommendation or decision)”
• The November 8, 2010 Meeting Summary was approved with revisions to the charter.

Presentation by a consultant for Progress Energy on what’s involved in habitat modeling using IFIM —another pillar behind Eno River modeling.
None
None

Modeling Issues that Need to be Reviewed for Modeling and Ecological Flows
Need to ensure a model scale works for the issue being evaluated. Thus a review of the validation process needs to occur if the ecological flow requirements include one or more high
flow statistic.

Continue classification discussion at the March meeting.
??
None

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
3/15/2011
Available (couple of hours in the afternoon); Meeting Summary available online

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

1. Agenda and Meeting Logistics

2. The Nature Conservancy conducted an interesting study of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. The report titled “Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Susquehanna River Basin”
was released in November 2010 with Appendices. This study includes stream classification, ecological response to flow alteration, and recommendations for ecological flows. May be
useful as the EFSAB figures out how to do things, at least applicable to the next few meetings.
3. Reference book distributed onsite to EFSAB members (share with alternates): Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, 2nd Ed., an Instream Flow Council publication. http://www.instreamflo
wcouncil.org/node/69

4. Two documents distribute included: (R.A. McManamay et al. (2011) and J.G. Kennen et al. (2009) related to classification and instream flow habitat studies. The Kennen paper is available
at http://www.ncwater.org/sab

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)
Ty Ziegler, P.E. from HDR/DTA, introduced a methodology to quantify how flow can change and affect aquatic habitat. He described instream flow and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IFIM). He explained that IFIM is a way to relate: changes in river flow to changes in the amount of aquatic habitat on an incremental basis, by looking at very fine increases or decreases
in flow and the resulting effect on aquatic habitat.

1. Define “biological information” as fish community data and benthic macro invertebrates.

2. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)
IFIM is a way to relate changes in river flow to changes in the amount of aquatic habitat on an incremental basis, by looking at very fine increases or decreases in flow and the resulting
effect on aquatic habitat.

3. Physical HABitat SIMulation Model (PHABSIM
Developed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, PHABSIM is fairly well known and widely used; its limitations acknowledged. PHABSIM is a good tool to help determine what kinds of flows
provide what kinds of habitat. Conceptually the model works by taking a section of river and dividing it into cells (or patterns) of various combinations of substrate/cover, depth,
and velocity. The model figures out the physical features that are located in the river.

EFS Classification System
The EFSAB determined that they would like to move forward using the existing EFS classification system strategy as a starting point, with the opportunity to add or modify additional
classifications as they gain information.
Discussion of How to Treat Smaller Streams, Headwaters, and Coastal Reaches

The importance of considering the base line of the coastal stream as brackish water may be withdrawn for future water supply and significant alteration of the water in the upstream segment
in a different class could violate the base line of a coastal stream.
There was considerable discussion for including coastal waters into the proposal for moving forward although there is no gage data in tidal areas. One consideration for coastal areas
is that the Division of Marine Fisheries has at least 30 years of physical data, at least on salinity. DWQ also has markers for how far up stream salinity is measured. This may be
very useful data for dividing the class; then deciding how to characterize the ecological integrity or baseline in that class is a different challenge.
Start with the hydrologic model and then add the ecological, with the understanding that classifications may be added. This is a starting point; the current model does not include factors
like tidal influence, salinity wedge, etc.
For really small headwater streams, the question is whether there is much data that went into the classification, and the answer is no. The next question raised then is whether the
EFSAB is going to simulate that data and come up with classifications for them. At some point there is just aggregated data beyond some upstream limit. Again, the good news is that
there are usually not a lot of withdrawals beyond that limit, which is part of why the models don’t break things down more finely.

In terms of water withdrawals, the greatest influence in terms of losses of water in headwaters, tend to be farm ponds. There are many of those, and they account for a great many losses
in those headwaters, especially in the piedmont. I think it can be important to note that there can be losses due to regulation, mostly from evaporation and irrigation. Each withdrawal
is not singly so large, but collectively can be huge.

Questions were raised about existing databases:
DWQ database for benthic macroinvertebrates is going to be in relatively small streams, but not very small streams. In terms of fish community information, that database is very small
and not useful to this group.
Questions were raised about how to treat how to treat Smaller Streams, Headwaters, and Coastal Reaches in the EFS Classification System.

Questions were raised about which species to include and about the ecological factors that will go into the IFIM model.

• Three changes were made to the charter: regarding responsibilities of the EFSAB and its authority (reference section VII of the March 15, 2011 Meeting Summary).
• The January 18, 2011 Meeting Summary was approved and posted online.

May, 2011: Field trip to the Eno River State Park in order to see the transects used in the habitat models for the Eno River. DWR hopes to use the Neuse River as a pilot project for
evaluating effects of different flow management approaches on aquatic habitat because they have the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model, and they have existing habitat models for the
Eno River.

For coastal studies: may want to discuss studies being done in Greenville on the Tar River to evaluate the effects on the downstream ecology of removing water from the Tar River. If
coastal streams are spilt into saline and not saline, this study may inform that discussion.

The EFSAB will move forward using the existing EFS classification system strategy as a starting point, with the opportunity to add or modify additional classifications as they gain information.

The May meeting will examine the transects used in the habitat models for the Eno River. As a pilot project, the Neuse River will be used to evaluate the effects of different flow management
approaches on aquatic habitat (given the established hydrologic model for the Neuse River Basin and the existing habitat models for the Eno River).

In the collaboration for which species will be included, choices will need to be made about which ecological factors go into the IFIM model.

None
None
Debrief occurred about the EFS classification but this is part of a larger and ongoing discussion.
None
None

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
5/17/2011
only for debrief after demonstration
To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
Links to Readings:
1. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: a multiregional assessment. 2010
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pubs/Carlisleetal_FLowAlterationUS.pdf

2. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. 2010
http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/~poff/Public/poffpubs/Poff_Zimmerman_2010_FWB.pdf

3. Evaluating effects of water withdrawals and impoundments on fish assemblages in southern New England streams, USA. 2010
http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/July%2023,%202010%20&Kanno-Vokoun%20on%20flow-ecology%20relationship.pdf

4. Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply Reservoirs in Piedmont Streams. 2006
http://www.southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/Fish%20Assemblage%20Responses%20to%20Withdrawals%20by%20Freeman%20&%20Marcinek.pdf

5. Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity. 2002
http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta_council_meetings/january_2011/Item_8_Attach_2.pdf

For all presentations, go to: presentations on DWR website

•Introduction to Eno River Demonstration Project--Jim Mead
•Review of instream flow methodology--Jim Mead
• Demonstration of instream flow methodology at river--Jim Mead.
• Changes in upstream use could significantly change the habitat.
• We have to look at the drainage areas of the tributaries between gages. The drainage area for a gage will determine the flow there.
• We have a paucity of information about the relationship between cover and different species and groups of species.
• Are there any plans to validate the models relative to the benthic and vertebrate fauna in the streams? How comfortable are you with the information we have, and how confident are
you with extending the models to other places
• Do you predict a difference in species composition by stream type?
• It sounds like we are looking at hydraulics (stream geometry and flow) and hydrology, then we need to bring in the biology.
• You said that you have a list of approximately 30 species/guilds; are you planning to add more?
• Do the guilds represent, in another location, the same kinds of species--a different name but the same functional guild.
• Where is water quality fitting into the biology? Is that data in place for the modeling? It, in addition to flow, has a huge impact.
• I want to respond to the idea of functional groups. Projects are stopped because of endangered species. Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not
part of a guild?
• Most of our discussions have focused on minimum flows to maintain biology, but it is also important to consider high flows to maintain biology. High flows change channel morphology.
Can we address these upper flow issues? How?

• Have some meetings outside the beltline of Raleigh
• Perhaps we should look at WATERFALL (a model) as a way to put land use into the hydrologic models, but this process, as defined by the bill, is not trying to set guidelines for land
use.
• We may need to validate and investigate whether we can extend the preference curves, or whether it is stream specific.
• We need to look more at the biota end—is what the model says is there actually there?
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?
• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?
• Most of our discussions have focused on minimum flows to maintain biology, but it is also important to consider high flows to maintain biology.

Date
Recording available?
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(provide hyperlinks if possible)
Presentations and Presenters
(provide hyperlinks if possible)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
6/21/2011
yes
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

• on dwr website--ncwater.org;
•Persinger article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1400/abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1400/abstract
• Leonard article http://ebookbrowse.com/emerging-trends-in-environmental-flow-science-leonard-2011-pdf-d143994642
• IFC Book provided to all EFSAB members: pgs. 83-86, 98-101, 129-132

•Debrief Eno River Demonstration Project: Implications of what you saw and heard--Jim Mead
• Scope of EFSAB Work
• What Does Ecological Integrity Mean to You?
• Introduction of Flow Scenarios--Chris Goudreau of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

In his presentation, Chris Goudreau noted a range of options for e-flows:
1) No Protection - No legal ability to keep from drying up the stream. This is rare in NC, but there are examples.
2) Threshold Protection / Minimum Flow - This may be a single value, such as the 7Q10 or it may be a seasonal value (eg. 20/30/40 percent of MAF)
3) Partial Ecologically-Based Protection - This addresses 1-4 riverine components. There are 5 components: hydrology, biology, water quality, connectivity, geomorphology. The
most likely to be addressed in this scenario are hydrology, biology and water quality. In addition, this scenario may address intra-annual variability, but not inter-annual variability.
4) Comprehensive Ecologically-Based Protection - addresses all 5 riverine components and maintains intra-annual and inter-annual variability.
5) Full Protection (hands off) may be seen in wilderness areas or other things that are set aside for other reasons.
6) General Approaches (Richter et al. 2011)
7)Minimum Flow Threshold (basically the 7Q10 concept)
8) Statistically-based Standard
9)Percent of Flow Standard

• The Persinger paper discussed how some of the rare species are hard to fit in. How do you tackle issues about these- they are some of the more sensitive species?
• What are the alternatives to the Eno River model? I’m okay with Eno, but curious about what else is available?
• If the OASIS model is finished for the Neuse, and we try to use that to come up with the hydrologic parameters associated with biomonitoring sites, could you back track over time
since there is 30 years of hydrologic data? There is a rich database on macro invertebrates from the Neuse, it would make sense not as a replacement for the Eno River demo but as a
supplement. Sometime you will have to verify it.
• We’re trying to find simple surrogates for how biology responds. They don’t’ think like that, simply. Most of the databases have been built over time to evaluate pollution tolerance
or intolerance. I’ve not heard that term brought up much with the EFSAB. Changes in biology may or may not be related to flow variation, to natural variability of flow, in addition
to metrics and observations. It’s an incredibly complex system we’re trying to simplify to apply across the state.
• My concern is that the Eno is only one test, even if it works we may jump to wrong conclusions. We should make our knowledge inferences on more than a single exercise- the potential
errors are large. We need to look for a sister evaluation as well. Ideally you want to have multiple sites with multiple approaches.
• I’d like to know if the classification system holds up from a habitat standpoint.
• I encourage you to do invertebrates- if so you should look at some guilds that have been used more for hydrological investigations than what you have now.
• Can you give more info on how these 19 guilds were derived? If you’re dealing with the state, in some cases 4 is better than 19. Are we sold on the 19?
• I think it’s important there is so much variability; we want to capture all inherent variability in the system rather than look narrowly at four coarse categories. Breaking it out
like this may help. There may be specific species in mind, but keep it in mind for how a guild applies.
• We could run Persinger’s general guilds through this model as well.
• From my perspective, this approach seems to be integrated water flow and habitat, without chemistry.
• Are there other sfs’s with similar amounts of transect work done just to get at habitat descriptors, to look at physical aspects?
• What about the source of the water, for example, wastewater discharge may account for a large portion of flow during dry seasons? Water sources will not impact the model output.

1. DWR should move forward with demo effort for the 2 Eno River demo sites to produce results and make sure we’re analyzing those results correctly. DWR can likely get results in 2-3
months.
2. DWR will run the following flow scenarios in the Eno model for the EFSAB’s review:
i. Minimum flow equal to a percentage of average annual flow (MAF). We will look at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, & 60 percent of flow. [This incorporates some of the approaches used by SC
and GA.]
ii. Minimum flow equal to annual 7Q10. [A drought flow used for wastewater discharge assimilation and effluent limits in discharge permits.]
iii. Withdrawal limited to a percentage of ambient flow. We will look at 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30 percent. For the initial evaluation we will let the model adjust withdrawals on a daily
basis, but a more realistic approach for implementation would adjust them once or twice a week. [Approach used by City of Charlottesville, VA.]
iv. Minimum flow equal to monthly 7Q10 – a different flow for each month. [Approach similar to one of three options used in GA.]
v. Monthly minimum flow equal to the monthly median flow.
vi. Minimum flow, year-round, equal to the September median flow. [Approach similar to one option used in TN.]

•We need to validate the habitat models.
Current Meeting
• Issues to address in characterizing ecological integrity:
a. How much “disruption” can occur that still allows “recovery”?
b. What does “comparable to prevailing ecological conditions” mean?
c. Define balance [as used in the legislation]
d. Ecological integrity should account for complexity and for variability in many aspects: thermal, hydrologic, biologic, etc.
e. What if flow is not the determinant factor supporting ecological integrity in a particular classification of stream? Should this be determined?
f. Only address aquatic systems?
• How will monitoring be accomplished?
• It is important to know the changes in the graph, the thresholds where things change.
•How/if to address high flows.
• How/if to address land use change.

Carried Forward from Prior Meeting(s)
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?
• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
8/16/2011
yes
To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
  https://waterfall.rti.org/
•Presentation on WaterFALL Model
•EFSAB "Path Forward" Conceptual Framework: An Overview
•Habitat-based Approach
•Other approaches
•Biological Approach
•Presentation of Eno River Flow Scenarios
Go to http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20110816/ for presentations
1. Suggestions for How to Most Usefully Present the Eno River Flow Scenario Results for Assessment
a) Do fewer scenarios on more sites for assessing utility of approach
b) Choose representative indices to run on multiple sites in same class.
c) Use a 3-D graph instead of bar charts, overlaying the seasons.
d) Because it appears to be a linear relationship, instead of running 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%...withdrawals, run 10%, 20%, 30%...as a first cut.
e) Show actual numbers for habitat, resulting from various flow scenarios (like the tables presented), rather than just showing percentage changes because a small change can make a large
change in percentage when looking at a small amount of a particular habitat, but that habitat may be important.
f) Use a pie chart.
g) Use data labels with bar charts to show magnitudes.
h) Continue to produce all of the types of results presented at this meeting.
2. in the months remaining in this year, the EFSAB will assess the habitat model approach and begin discussing pros and cons of other approaches.
3. Develop criteria for success in assessing the habitat modeling approach.

1) We need to validate the habitat models.
Current Meeting
•Who is our audience?
• Does the habitat modeling accurately predict the effect on habitat as flow is altered (validate the model)?
•Do changes in habitat translate into something that is biologically meaningful (does habitat predict biology)?
• Is the EFSAB going to characterize the ecology in some way other than habitat?
•Is WaterFALL a substitute for OASIS that could be run in a more timely manner?
•Altered or unaltered.
•if it is altered, is it altered in terms of hydrology or altered in terms of pollution or other reasons.
•Are we going to approach this from an ecology/ecological integrity versus hydrology evaluation or are we simply going to base it on available habitat and flow alteration?
•Do we see these [habitat] models responding to proposed ecological flow recommendations, and does that help us figure out if something makes sense or not?
•Develop a shared definition of the charge of the legislation.
•Are we going to determine threshholds?
•How will monitoring be accomplished?
• Develop criteria for success in assessing the habitat modeling approach.
•How are we going to characterize the ecology?
Carried forward from prior meeting(s)
• Issues to address in characterizing ecological integrity:
a. How much “disruption” can occur that still allows “recovery”?
b. What does “comparable to prevailing ecological conditions” mean?
c. Define balance [as used in the legislation]
d. Ecological integrity should account for complexity and for variability in many aspects: thermal, hydrologic, biologic, etc.
e. What if flow is not the determinant factor supporting ecological integrity in a particular classification of stream? Should this be determined?
f. Only address aquatic systems?
g. How will monitoring be accomplished?
• It is important to know the changes in the graph, the thresholds where things change.
•How/if to address high flows.
• How/if to address land use change.
• Don’t we want to use guilds then have some endangered species that are not part of a guild?

• How are we going to tie in unregulated streams or smaller streams?

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
9/20/2011
Yes
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
The Eno River Flow Scenarios listed in Presentations.
•Eno River Flow Scenarios (Jim Mead, NCDWR)

• Should subcommittee work on whether stream classes are representative of biological community
• Discussion about charge for characterizing ecology
• Is more habitat better? Need to have more detailed information about ecology
• Are guild representing needs of insects?

Subgroup of EFSAB members to help develop Nov agenda (biology, charge)

Continue with presentations of habitat modeling scenarios
• DWR to conduct habitat modeling scenarios for other small flashy streams
• Add graph > than 120% of unregulated index B Value for all flow scenarios
• EFSAB look at charge and discuss how to tackle the biological questions
• Look at other streams across NC in addition to Eno River
• Establish the ecological variability among the stream classes
NA
NA
NA
NA

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
10/18/2011
Yes
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
DWR habitat modeling sites map link was sent see ncwater.org EFSAB go to presentations for May 2011.
Updated habitat modeling sites list at http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20111018/Habitat_model_sites_by_classification_1-5-2012.pdf
Spreadsheets were sent (link is in Presentations cell)
•Presentation And Discussion Of Deviations of >20% for Eno River Flow Scenarios; •Existing Habitat Model Sites for Each Hydrologic Stream Classification; •Presentation and Discussion:
Additional Small Flashy Stream Scenarios (Jim Mead) http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20111018/
•NC DWR Annual Report to ERC/General Assembly (Steve Reed)

EFSAB Charge: Framing a Discussion (Mary Lou Addor)
See below under major questions and concerns for other topics discussed

Habitat scenario modeling questions and concerns:
•Can we determine that traditional minimum flow regimes like 7Q10 the worst case scenarios for guilds/species, or do we need to see more sites to decide?
• Do other small flashy streams follow similar patterns to the Eno River site?
• It seem unlikely that Tar and the Eno are in the same class.
• New info on how to add to or test the hydrologic classification will be helpful.
• Classifications should be compared with actual physical habitat measurements.
• The group discussed why the Eno was more sensitive than Buckhorn for % inflow scenarios, and why
the number of species with >120% is higher for Buckhorn (additional species were included for Buckhorn)
• The hydrology reference condition is unregulated but we don’t have unregulated habitat to look at.
• A generalizable strategy that allows the state to make good decisions is needed, using data we have or can get.
• Approaches to meld biology/hydrology include 1) a test of organism fidelity against the classes would help validate the classes and give them a biological aspect, or 2)develop a biological
classification system.
• How do we define a reference stream- one with unaltered or unregulated flow (prevailing conditions- period of record)? How to measure departure from the reference state?
EFSAB Charge questions and concerns:
• What approaches are other states taking (TX, FL, VA)?
• How to move beyond flow to characterize ecology?
• What scale is good enough for characterizing ecology?
• What will be our end result and how will it be measured?
• We need to define the ecological attributes that are desired and measured.

• New information on how to add to or test the hydrologic classification needed- Mary Davis will present on classification in November.
• Mary Freeman or Jonathan Kennen (AFCS Basin, GA) requested to speak regarding relating hydrology to ecology.
For habitat modling scenarios:
• More data points are needed before drawing conclusions or narrowing focus of habitat scenario modeling.
• Treat all four seasons equally, not weighted, when generating bar graphs for comparison purposes.
• Have available individual species’/guilds’ responses under the scenarios presented for a particular stream.
• Provide a “cheat sheet” for each site presented, including: species included, stream cross-section, channel characteristics, percentage of each habitat type that went into the model.

• For each site presented show two charts, one summarizing species/guilds below 80% of unregulated under a given flow scenario and one summarizing species/guilds above 120% of unregulated
for a given flow scenario, rather than combining those into one chart.
• For comparison purposes only, for each class use the same suite of species/guilds for each site.
• Jim Mead will send out reworked charts/summaries per the above suggestions via e-mail for analysis and comment between now and January.
None
None
•We need to define the ecological attributes that are desired and measured.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
11/15/2011
yes
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
Webinars on ELOHA and Middle Potomoc River Watershed Assessment
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20111115/
•Environmental Flow Science - Lessons Learned from Selected Environmental Flow Programs (Mary Davis, Technical advisor to SARP);
•Invertebrate traits: Compilations of biological characteristics useful for PHABSIM and ecological flow studies (Tom Cuffney, USGS) ;
•How Ecological Flows Would be Applied to NC River Basin Models (Steve Reed, NCDWR)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20111115/

• Fidelity may be to something other than class, like physiographic regions (MI is example of how to find relationship)
• There is bigotry about which species are of focus- those we know a lot about and can see.
• What resolution is needed to raise red flags when water will be overallocated (during planning)?
• We have to have some yardstick to measure resilience (is typically a species count).
Feedback after Cuffney's presentation
• Getting ecological flows in place relatively quickly at low cost may be a higher priority than better articulating invertebrate taxa.
• Possible ways to investigate invertebrates further include developing preference curve for specific invertebrates, or compositing the 3 EPT curves to examine the results
Feedback after Reed's presentation
• Should EFSAB recommend a presumptive standard as a placeholder for ecological flows in the river basin models since there is nothing yet to represent ecological flows(as suggested
by Mary Davis)?
• River basin models need to identify the yield inadequate to meet all needs, essential water uses and ecological integrity.
• The legislation doesn’t require one particular model to do this work- it can be multiple models.

At next meeting, NCDWR should provide a mid-term presentation on what is needed from EFSAB, and a timeline.
None
None
None
•Presumptive flow idea was put on hold in order to hear from NCDWR about their requests of EFSAB.
•How to address invertebrates in the HSCs was unresolved.

Date
Recording
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(provide links)
Presentations and Presenters
(provide links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items:
Part 1
Major Discussion Items: Part 2
Major Discussion Items: Part 3
Major Issues, Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recommendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignment on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
1/17/2012
Recording available online as well as Meeting Summary.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Agenda and Meeting Logistics

USGS Science Thrust Project (Mary Freeman).
It will include: stream ecology and flow relationships based on her work in the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint Basin and transferability of habitat suitability preference curves.
Mary has a lot of experience and expertise in ecological flows and this will be a good opportunity to learn from her (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/staff/profiles/documents/freeman.htm
)

Papers distributed before the meeting:
1. Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply reservoirs in Piedmont Streams, 2006
www.cce.uri.edu/cels/nrs/whl/Teaching/nrs592/2009/Class%206%20Field%20Studies%20of%20Low%20Flow/Freeman_Marcinek_06.pdf
2. Flow and Habitat Effects on Juvenile Fish Abundance, 2001 - http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/Publications/4151/4151.pdf
3. Using habitat Guilds to Develop Habitat Suitability Criteria for a Warm water Stream Fish Assemblage
http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/category/June%204,%202010%20&%20habitat%20guilds%20for%20suitability%20criteria%20&%20aquatic%20life%20decline%20rate.pdf

Good Powerpoint overview of same - http://fishwild.vt.edu/North_Fork_Shenandoah/NFS_Presentations/Persinger.pdf

Lastly, at the meeting in November DWR offered to provide a copy of our report to the Environmental Review Commission on the efforts to implement session law 2010-143 B and develop basinwide
hydrologic models. A copy of that report is attached.

See you on 1/17.

Please note my new phone number is 919/707-9019.

Jim

Jim Mead, Environmental Supervisor

MY NEW PHONE NUMBER as of 1/5/2012 is 919/707-9019

[e-mail]
919/707-9019 fax - 919/733-3558
*************************************
NC Division of Water Resources - DENR
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
(for overnight mail, UPS, or FedEx - contact me for street address)

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

_______________________________________________
eflows-sab mailing list
USGS Science Thrust Project: Water Availability for Ecological Needs with Mary Freeman: www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/index.php?tabid=1&subtabid=2

Progress Report of the EFSAB to the Environmental Review Commission (ERC) with Tom Reeder
Tom Reeder provided a progress report to the ERC about the unique accomplishments of the EFSAB.

Continuing Biological Discussion

ERC: Environmental Review Commission is a NC legislative body with enabling oversight on state environmental policy in NC.
http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/ERC/Legislation/Authorizing%20Legislation/Authorizing%20Legislation.pdf
USGS Science Thrust Project: Water Availability for Ecological Needs
Presentation focused on three areas:
1. Stream-ecology and flow relationships based on the Appalachian Chattahoochee Flint Basin (ACF) research
2. Transferability of species preferences
3. Defensibility of ACF work in context of controversy (over water use)

All three of these areas are covered in detail. Following Mary’s presentation, the EFSAB discussed the relationship between biology and flow and how to develop a methodology for determining
ecological flow that accurately reflects that relationship. Observations discussed:
1. Mary Freeman’s presentation points to the two tracks that keep coming up: the habitat approach and the approach of trying to assess correlation between biological data and flow alteration.
Each has its pitfalls:
a. Transferability: some comfort extrapolating from one site to another (as would be done with the habitat approach) for fluvial specialists, not so much for the non-specialists.
b. With the biological data track, there is a lot of “noise” in the data, especially since the data were not collected with this particular use in mind.
2. In the habitat approach, look more closely at the riffle dwellers and how they respond to flow.
3. Suggestion is to focus on those most sensitive species and pick out riffle specialists if possible. Shy away from the generalist; get at those species most profoundly affected by
changes in flow.
4. Focus on the base and low flows, not so much on the high flows.
a. If withdrawal dampens the high flow in a way that has implications for populations and the focus is solely on withdrawals at low flow, monitoring results could be skewed.
b. Yes, but it would have to be a big withdrawal and a big withdrawal would be on a stream with a high flood flow.
5. Classification:
a. There was a much better relationship between size of withdrawal and the ecological response in smaller streams than there was in larger streams, so maybe stream size will be important
in how we classify streams. It does with the currently proposed classification system because it is based on hydrologic statistics.
b. The classification system we are using now does not get at persistence; we need to ensure that populations are persisting over time; that reproduction and colonization processes are
sustainable.
c. We need to evaluate our classification scheme and assess:
 What are the habitat characteristics associated with each of the classes?
 What are the biological characteristics associated with those classes?
 What are the responses that you get out of the PHabsim?
d. If the variability within classes is as large or larger than the variability among groups, we need to modify the classification scheme. If the variability within a class is less than
between classes, then the classification scheme is working. We need to assess this before we can make any meaningful progress.
e. We should test out the hydrologic classification system we have for biological fidelity.
 Data from several projects are being pulled together under one initiative to figure out whether or not species and guilds show a strong degree of correlation with our classes. We
are looking at strategies for testing fidelity. In addition to the EFS classification, we are going to look at the Konrad and McManamay classifications.
f. Consider classes based on hydrology and topographic variables, such that class is the independent variable and biological responses are the dependent variable. Then as water is removed,
the change is in the independent variable as a response is considered from the dependent variable.
g. If the EFSAB is not comfortable with the hydrologic classification, may need to consider developing a set of classes based on ecological variables instead.

h. Testing of biological fidelity involves deciding which animal groups. Some will be more canary-like than others meaning they will turn out to be more sensitive to modification of
the variables that define the class than others. If so, the task then is to determine which are the more sensitive species and what the limitations are for them to persist.
I. Let’s look at various possibilities for classification schemes through the work others are doing.
j. I am now persuaded that a pure hydrological classification that does not include topographic variables is inadequate, and I think that we need to do is figure out a way to incorporate
them.
k. There is an infinite number of possible classifications; that’s the nature of classification. The important step is determining what the classifications will be used for and meets
the needs of DWR. It appears what DWR needs is a way to say that if a particular site falls into a class, there are these expectations regarding ecological response to withdrawal for
that class, rather than having to individually assess thousands of sites across the state.
l. Let’s determine what this group [the EFSAB] needs in terms of evidence to be able to buy into the classification system we already have. Questions to explore:
 What do we have in terms of channel geomorphology within these different classes so we know how variable they are?
 What does the biology look like, not just in terms of species, but in terms of functional guilds?
 What habitat suitability curves are available? Are we using the same curves everywhere?
• So far and to a large degree we are going to use the same ones at all the sites. I think it helps if we think about them as not so much what happens to this species but, instead,
how do the physical conditions in the stream change in response to a change in flow.
 Let’s consider the 80 and 120 percentiles in our assessment.
m. Let’s assemble all the information needed about the classes, look at this information and determine what additional information we need.
n. We developed the classification system we have because at lots of places we will not have any on-the-ground data other than what flows the OASIS model produces (hydrologic statistics).
o. There could be advantages to including factors such as channel condition or gradient, but realistically can we gather that for our modeling and planning purposes?
p. How often do we see shifts in classifications within a given stream network? To me if it happens a lot, then the utility of our classes is questionable.
 We are interested in developing a color-coded map that would allow us to see if a given stream maintains its classification so some point then changes to something else.
 Biological fidelity may not change as quickly as stream classification might.
q. I suggest we may need fewer classes, and let’s pair up to biological data.
r. How about a rating system instead of going alphabetical, go numerical?
 We have considered getting away from the narrative descriptors.
s. The whole process of evaluating the classifications is not just biofidelity; it is “what else do we know about these classes that might affect the interpretation of eco-flows?
a. Do we have this information? b.Where are the gaps? Where are the sources?
t. We need to identify which are the most sensitive species and/or guilds for each class (whatever classification strategy we use).
 Use those indicator species to craft the ecological prescription for each class.

Progress Report of EFSAB by Tom Reeder to ERC (12/2011)
•Genesis for this board was because the General Assembly and advisors reviewed standards other states had adopted and determined these were not a good fit for NC. NC wanted to come to
a valid scientific conclusion of what the ecological flow should be.” Therefore, the charge of the EFSAB is difficult – to come up with a purely scientific non-political answer to what
the ecological flow should be for the water bodies of North Carolina (to do something right that is scientifically defensible).
•Timeline, there was no mandate in the original legislation for how long this board could meet. As of Dec 2011, believe the EFSAB might need another two years and then it may take DWR
a year to digest the information and come up with an idea of where we really stood in NC in terms of ecological flow.
•With respect to the concern that DWR is developing models as scheduled without ecological flows. The schedule for modeling the major river basins in North Carolina is expected to be
completed by 2014. It’s true; DWR has a placeholder for ecological flows. However, the timeline for these cities is looking into the future, 20-30 years. Generally, for now, DWR believes
what it is doing is not significantly impacting the ecology on the state. These models will assist cities, communities, and planning organizations, and DWR for looking 20-30 years
in the future. DWR does not believe it is critical at this juncture to have ecological flows in the model 18 months from now or 36 months from now looking out 20 to 30 years into the
future.
•Keep in mind that DWR has a presumptive standard that is currently in use. For any project is going to use more than 20% of the 7Q10 they have to do a site specific study and go through
the SEPA/NEPA process before signing off on the EA or EIS. DWR believes this presumptive standard is very, very conservative (20% of 7Q10, is not a lot of water).

Contributions the EFSAB made in 2011:
• Reviewed a number of presentations and other scientific opinions
• Provided a strong critique and suggestions for improvement to the EFS classification system such as the fidelity testing.
• Developed a parallel path forward for analysis: habitat-based approach, a biological response flow alteration, or literature approach.
• Once a model is determined, then it comes down to determining the threshold of change, meaning that the ecological flow is being degraded and what course of action needs to be taken
to avoid impacting the ecology of North Carolina’s rivers and streams.
• DWR, the leadership of DENR and the General Assembly recognize and appreciate the efforts of the EFSAB.

Biological Discussions
• Ensure the biological perspective as an iterative component is included into the classification systems and compare those back to the hydrologic classification.
• Identify which are the most sensitive species and/or guilds for each of those classes and use those sensitive species or indicator species to craft the ecological prescription for
each class. That way you are writing the most conservative prescription for each class. This strategy has been on the table several times over the last 3-4 months.

•Will the NC Legislature support the monitoring work necessary to ensure that whatever the EFSAB develops and the state adopts, that a monitoring plan is put into place to make corrections/adjustment
s along the way and build on these efforts and inform DWR?

•How do you foresee a separate stakeholder policy process moving forward? At some point, the General Assembly may need to initiate another stakeholder group that will have to figure
out how to implement a policy that comes out of the scientific process. The EFSAB and DWR is concerned with if future projected uses of NC’s river basins are going to have a negative
impact on the aquatic ecology; a separate stakeholder group can assist the General Assembly to determine the response to avoid the negative impact, which is a policy decision.

Approved the Nov 15, 2011 Meeting Summary.
Continue classification studies
•other efforts are dealing with those very issues such as Mary Davis, Konrad and McManamay, the Northeastern and mid-Atlantic TNC classifications. May want to revisit with Mary to determine
what they have found in looking at various classifications, particularly as it relates to North Carolina and more broadly.
• Process of evaluating the classifications is not just about biofidelity, it’s also about what else do we know about these groups, these classes that might affect the interpretation
of eco-flows. This may include: soil types, land use types, the types of things we normally use to explain biological behavior. What information do we have? Where are the gaps?
Where are the sources? What are the things that would be important for driving hydrology and the ecological responses?

Additional Scenarios from Jim
Color-coded stream regions. If there’s a basin: Neuse, Cape Fear, small portion of the Cape Fear where we could see how frequently we see changes in classification within a given stream
network. Jim will review scenarios and color coded process to determine what can be presented in Feb

Revisit the Charge
• Step 1: review the approach for classification and evaluate fidelity
• Step 2: look at methods to determine flows needed to maintain ecological integrity, which is: What’s an acceptable level of change to maintain integrity? What are we willing to accept
that is “a change” within a habitat or a guild or whatever such that we are in agreement that ecological integrity is maintained? Is it zero or is it 20% or 30%? Whatever the metric
is that’s built into that, recommending the method you have to make that assessment and then we can decide which method gives us the best integrity.
• Break the tasks down and get agreement on them.

•Fidelity Testing
•Additional habitat scenario presentations
none
none
The Fidelity Study for next meeting
• Attempt to determine whether or not, species and guilds show a strong degree of correlation with our classification system.

Continue classification studies
• Process of evaluating the classifications is not just about biofidelity, it’s also about what else do we know about these groups, these classes that might affect the interpretation
of eco-flows. This may include: soil types, land use types, the types of things we normally use to explain biological behavior. What information do we have? Where are the gaps?
Where are the sources? What are the things that would be important for driving hydrology and the ecological responses?

Provide review of the standards other states have adopted and the rationale for why these were not a good fit for NC.

•Will the NC Legislature support the monitoring work necessary to ensure that whatever the EFSAB develops and the state adopts, that a monitoring plan is put into place to make corrections/adjustment
s along the way and build on these efforts and inform DWR?

•How do you foresee a separate stakeholder policy process moving forward? At some point, the General Assembly may need to initiate another stakeholder group that will have to figure
out how to implement a policy that comes out of the scientific process. The EFSAB and DWR is concerned with if future projected uses of NC’s river basins are going to have a negative
impact on the aquatic ecology; a separate stakeholder group can assist the General Assembly to determine the response to avoid the negative impact, which is a policy decision.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
2/21/2012
yes
Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
McManamay classification study – 2 papers regarding classification study for 8 southeastern states. This classification approach focuses on hydrology. Pre-distributed PDF of PPT
•Fidelity testing approach (Jennifer Phelan, RTI).
•The Nature Conservance Classification System for the Northeast (Mark Anderson, Mary Davis, TNC)
•River basin hydrologic model update & visual representation of classification (Steve Reed,DWR Michelle Cutrofello, RTI)
•Update on habitat modeling- 7 sites, tweaks to methods and graphs (Jim Mead, DWR)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120221/
Random forest: decision-tree modeling and classification approach
NAHCS- NE Aquatic Habitat Classification System (from TNC)
Southeast Aquatic Partnership (SARP)
LCC (Land Conservation Cooperative)
•Small groups discussed and provided questions/suggestions for fidelity testing methods
From small group discussions about fidelity testing:
•An analysis of similarity should be conducted to incorporate the entire assemblage info and assess whether these communities follow the classifications
•Large, unwadeable rivers- can biological data come from FERC relicensing (utilities companies)?
•Definitions for reference sites- needed for both hydrology and biology
•Is this defensible regarding ecological integrity?
•Whether to include native vs nonnative in fidelity analysis?
•Its important to know which guilds are negatively affected (rather than only seeing them lumped)
After TNC presentation on classification:
•Classification variables' response to changes in flow- do classes change or do descriptors change?
•In NE they did landscape classification 1st, then hydrology.
•In case studies globally, classification for e-flows is not showing up as important factor in determinating flow requirements of a stream
•How to reflect the proportion of a habitat type that is represented in a stream site?

Can we look at Konrad's classification paper- is it done?
•Habitat modeling scenarios may show separate plots with 11 shallow guilds and 8 non-shallow guilds at all sites; will use box plots, and a symbol convention that discriminates by stream
class
•Tom Cuffney may help with addressing a concern about proportional habitat, if Jim requests
•Make the stacked bar charts available on the website

None
None

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
4/24/2012
yes
see ncwater.org
• Update on Fidelity Testing--Sam Pearsall
• Update on Fidelity Testing: Small Group Discussions
• Introduction to Habitat Modeling Scenarios--Jim Mead
• Small GroupAassessment of Four Sites by Season and Report-out Followed by Large Group Discussion
• Small Group Asessment of All Sites Combined by Season and Report Out Followd by Large Group Discusion
• DWR Trial Balloon--Jim Mead
•Whether to use only data in catchments with impairment ratings of good/excellent or to also include those with good/fair in the Fidelity Testing.
•Is it appropriate to use DWQ's swamp data, at least for the fidelity study, as a way to enhance the data available for the Coastal Plain?
•From the small sample we’ve got now, the way the habitat
responds doesn’t necessarily line up with class. But if you added some additional characteristics that
sorted by class, then maybe it would line up.
•what we’re really talking about here when discussing the difference between
two graphs in the class, is a measure of sensitivity.
•There is significant difference in results of habitat modeling between streams within a class.
•The sample size of results is too small to make judgment about what flow scenarios are best.
•Accept DWR's proposal for scenarios to continue to run for habitat modeling, except recommended to continue running 7Q10.
•Groups assessing results by season had differing opinions on whether to continue to run >120%

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
6/19/2012
yes
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
•Summary of Fish Flow-Biology Hypotheses
•Overview of 3 ongoing studies by RTI &TNC
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120619/

•Update on Biofidelity analysis of stream classes (J. Phelan)
•Macro invertebrate assemblage correspondence to hydro classes (T. Cuffney)
•RTI internal project: Flow alt-bio response relationships to assist with e-flow determination (J. Phelan)
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120619/
•Small groups answered 4 questions about- flow metrics for RTI R&D; evaluating species wtihin a guild to id "canaries"; Process diagram for stream classification; and suggesting pathways
to determine eflows for coast and large rivers (see summary for detailed responses).
Comments about fidelity testing included:
•overlay a category such as ecoregion to the hydro classes to help develop subsets
•Its challenging to fit biological systems with hydro systems
•Linking bio to stream classes won't be perfect but will improve over time
Suggestions about RTI internal R&D project:
•Abandon 303(d) as a parameter
•Consider grouping species into guilds and adopt guild metrics as the bio response variable
•Consider using 7Q10 as a flow metric
Some highlights from small group discussion:
The idea of single species to act as "canaries"- need a definition from DWR regarding what that means and how to identify, consider using a count of all species within a guild (with
abundance and richness).
FERC licensing data could be used for large rivers- determine which don't have this available.
For coastal plain, but line on a map to define area below OASIS area. What needs to be addressed- hydrograph, also DO and salinity?
See meeting summary for more detail

none
none
In response to trial balloon to stop using >120% habitat…in habitat modeling scenarios:
General support to keep it in winter. Majority EFSAB ok droping it in other seasons, though a few wanted it in spring, and one wanted it in all seasons.
In response to trial ballon to reduce the # flow scenarios analyzed based on table presented in April 2012:
EFSAB agreed to table, with exception that 7Q10 be analyzed in case others need to see it.
none
none
Though EFSAB members weighed in about when to keep the >120% habitat scenario, no final decision was made.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
8/28/2012
yes
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
For all presentations go to http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20120828/

•Assigning Fish to Guilds for Flow‐ Ecology Analysis (Chris Goudreau)
•Environmental Flow Study for Four NC River Basins (Kimberly Meitzen)
•Coastal Issues for the EFSAB (Bob Christian)
•Biofidelity Project Update Handout Review
•Options for a Path Forward (Fred Tarver)
Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow-Ecology Analysis
•It would be relevant to look at it seaasonally for the different life stages
•Do you consider the non-native species? Whether you do or do not consider non-native species influences relative abundances.
•The data comes from wadeable streams.
•Where we see changes in species abundance or diversity, the cause may be changes in flow or other factors we cannot measure.
•Threatened and endangered species affected by flow may trump these analyses.

TNC Flow Study
•The importance of recognizing the purposes for which the data were collected (water quality conditions within a six-month population recruitment and grow out). If those sites are visited
only once every five years, you are getting a snapshot of the conditions at one point in time, making it risky to discern trends or to extrapolate. Kimberly is hoping that the analysis
using the USGS data will give an indication of extreme events that may have occurred between sampling.
•Many other factors affect biological abundance and diversity, not just flow. It is difficult to tease out what the flow contribution is. This is why Kimberly is analyzing environmental
variables as part of this work.
•There was concern about how/whether to include non-native and invasive species in the analysis.
•The general sentiment appeared to be that this project will aid the EFSAB significantly is determining where gaps are and what questions to address.
•Most of the DWQ data are from “unaltered streams”, but those streams may actually be altered by undocumented withdrawals.
•TNC indicated that they thought that EFSAB would find the low-flow information most helpful, to which there is some truth; however, it is also important to consider the potential effects
of long-term withdrawals that, in some areas, might inhibit the ability to achieve the higher flows needed for spawning cues, for example.
•The EFSAB engaged in discussion about OASIS and WaterFALL: Are they are interchangeable, and if so, what the pros and cons of each?
•OASIS is the model approved by the EMC, and it is unlikely that, for the overall river basin models, they will depart from use of OASIS. The question is whether WaterFALL can be useful
in determining the ecological flow component of the OASIS models.

Coastal Systems and Issues
overarching concerns that challenge application of ecological flow approaches to the coastal plain are:
1. Hydrogeomorphological issues influencing modeling
2. Ecological issues influencing ecological integrity choices
3. Kinds of water withdrawals
In all three of these situations, what is happening in the stream on a daily basis, in a wetland or down in the stream, is that wetlands and their services are inextricably linked to
waterways. Each major area contributes to the challenge of applying procedures used inland to the coastal plain. The EFSAB broke into two groups: hydrogeomorphological and ecological.

How to address uncertainty/scientific defensibility
•Eventually, in order to reach a level of scientific defensibility, some of these things are going to have to be tested and that will take decision-making and time. I think it would
be much easier for the group to come up with some “consensus principles”, come up with why we did something as opposed to trying to defend it. That might be part of our uncertainty
discussions. But it seems to me that consensus principles are different from scientifically defensible. I think we can come up with consensus principles here, that what we do and offer
can be explainable, but we may not be able to defend them.
•If our initial goal here is to come up with a screening tool for planning, then the level of scientific defensibility may not be at the same degree as it would need to be if the recommendations
would support permitting decisions and affect people’s wallets. It may be that after the October meeting we will have a much better picture of the time line going forward because of
the bio-fidelity testing--there is a lot riding on that. With the RTI internal research and development project, whether we hear about that in October or November, if that ends up providing
a useful tool, that could accelerate our timetable.
•I reviewed the session law; it doesn't say anything about “scientifically defensible”, those words are not there but it does say we are advising DWR. It's up to DWR to take whatever
of that information that they choose to take and use that to their benefit.
• In terms of data integrity; it does say that for basin wide models that those basin models be based solely on data that is of public record and open to the public. Therefore, in terms
of data integrity, it just says it needs to be open to the public. It's all defensible; it’s a matter of explicitly defining the uncertainties and the assumptions involved, making those
clear and transparent and linking them to the literature. Being explicit depends on the literature; the literature reflects the science; there has to be a link there somewhere.

Coastal Issues
•The data sets used are fairly old--UNC -Wilmington has completed some recent studies on the lower Cape Fear that might be of value.
•Have a reset button, an event, after which you start over with your poopulation assessment
•How do you identify sensitivities?
•the signal to noise ratio is very low so it’s going to be hard to make predictions or assessments of the impacts of freshwater withdrawals, in light of the fact that these large events
make detecting the impacts of these withdrawals difficult
•Another suggestion is to consider some base point, one that might move (is not fixed). This may be a point on an upstream or downstream scale below which the models that we’ve been
looking at so far, Oasis or WaterFall, might not workP

TNC Flow Study
•. Follow-up presentation on the results of the TNC project early 2013.
•Examine/discuss the OASIS and WaterFALL models, how they differ, how they can enhance each other and EFSAB’s quest to define ecological flows, and arrive at some decision about how
the EFSAB wants to use them in their determination of ecological flows.
•Review literature of freshwater fish or benthos studies conducted in NC for any data that might be includedon the coastal plain.
Coastal Systems and Issues
•review critical literature
• develop a screening threshold relative to the drainage area.
Options for a Path Forward
•review suggestions Fred Tarver offered, particularly for how to approach ecological flows and future studies
•begin to work toward a screening tool for planning
•Develop consensus principles on why the EFSAB makes a recommendation or does not make a given recommendation
•Investigate implications of state and federal olicies on e-flows (threatened and endangered species and coastal issues, and locations)

Develop consensus principles on why the EFSAB makes a recommendation or does not make a given recommendation
1. Coastal Systems and Issues
a. work with Division of Marine Fisheries data due to lack of ecological data.
b. consider role of climate change and sea level rise, how it will influence the impact on the shifting of the salt-water wedge up the freshwater river networks rise and moving that
wedge further inland (look at historical flows).
Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow Ecology
•Is the EFSAB going to use Chris's proposed guilds?
•There will need to be some decision as to whether recommendations are going to be directly related to threatened and endangered species, whether satisfying the need of the guild satisfies
the needs of the threatened and endangered species relative to flow.
•With this also ask if there is a list of species that has requirements that are different from the guild list.

Coastal Systems and Issues
•How to address given that the OASIS models don't work below tide line and given the paucity of datain the coastal plain
•need to identify where the effects are occurring upstream and downstream.

DWR's Proposed Options for a Path Forward
•Does the EFSAB pursue ecological flows as a statewide process or pursue the process, river by river, addressing each river basin as each basin's hydrologic model approaches completiton.
•DWR look at more IFIM studies and present results?
•Use a classification system with an overlay of physiogeographic features?
•Do we develop eflows by class or basin by basin?
A Path Forward
•Does the EFSAB make best attempt now and build into recommendations to reconvene the EFSAB at a later date? What criteria would trigger that?
•Do the recommendations need to be scientifically defensible, which would require experimentation?
•Or do we come up with consensus principles, that what we do and offer can be explainable, but we may not be able to defend them.

1. Assigning Fish Guilds for Flow Ecology
a. Put an asterisk next to those species that are non-native to the state or a basin, to flag for analysis.
b. Given that the sampling techniques used in gathering the data upon which the guilds are based defines the presence of species, document the assumptions and caveats of the current
data and adapt as new data becomes available.

Date
Recording
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(provide links)
Presentations and Presenters
(provide links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items:
Part 1
Major Discussion Items:
Part 2
Major Issues, Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recommendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignment on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
10/23/2012
Recording is available and the August 28 Meeting Summary.
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

1. Participant Agenda and Meeting Logistics
1. Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool with Thomas Payne
2. Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC with Jennifer Phelan
3. Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters with Fred Tarver
4. Thoughts on Stream Classification and EFlows with Fred Tarver & Jim Mead

http://ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20121023/
None
Pros and Cons of using hydraulic habitat modeling to determine ecological flows in NC. Hydraulic habitat modeling results in a habitat index related to discharge. The method has been
used for 30 years, has broad acceptance as a valid approach. Pros include longevity, popularity, defensibility, and reviewability. Cons included insufficient validation for many species,
costly and time consuming nature, intensive field data requirements, and requires high technical knowledge to properly conduct and review studies. The major points of his presentation
were:

• Proper understanding and use of habitat models is critical
• Habitat models are not fish position models, they are frequency analyses
• Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) drive the models
• Site-specific habitat suitability criteria are much better than generic HSC
• Validation procedures for HSC rarely work
• Professional judgment- HSC can work if done with expert knowledge
• Results must make sense!

Biofidelity analysis of stream classe provided. The objective of the presentation was to adopt a stream classification system that represents the distribution of aquatic biota in North
Carolina. The two components of the presentation included:

1. Compare fidelities of aquatic biota in two different stream classification systems for development in the Southeast, with EFS being specific to North Carolina.
a. Environmental Flow Specialists (EFS)
b. McManamay et al., 2011 (McManamay)
2. Adopt the most suitable classification system and/or modify a system to reflect biological assemblages
Seven steps of the project were outlined with conclusions. The research team was able to conduct an analysis through Step 5, which resulted in a comparison of stream classes of EFS
and McManamay using USGS gage and WaterFALL hydrology data based on 147 catchments. This step of the analysis resulted in the conclusion that the two classifications cannot be extrapolated
beyond USGS gage data. The research team did not conduct Step 6, assign stream classes beyond the catchments with USGS gauges given limited confidence in being able to do so. Rather
than pursue Step 6 and 7, one objective was to determine how the EFSAB wants to move forward.

Environmental Flows and Coastal Waters:
After showing a map of where OASIS model’s lowest nodes are, a literature review was presented and compiled specific information regarding other states’ approaches to estuarine inflow
management. Examples included inflow-based (FL Water Management Districts, South Africa), condition-based (San Francisco Bay) and resource based (Texas). Some highlights included:
Most of the FL WMDs tend to choose a 10-15% reduction as a tolerable limit for reduction in flow, targeted allowable reduction in habitat was typically 15% maximum change. FL WMDs
had caveats to verify the model assumptions to see if they are meeting the standards. San Francisco Bay used “near-bottom isohaline position” as habitat indicator. Texas considered
commercial fishery productivity.

DWR Concept Paper for Path Forward
Given the issues identified with the biofidelity tests, a way to move forward with stream classification may include using physio-geographic locations and physical characteristics.
The paper also suggested comparing habitat model results for OASIS and WaterFALL, and to consider focusing on percent inflow as a conservative and protective family of approaches for
a planning tool.

The EFSAB used the concept paper discussion as a jumping off point to discuss how to move forward. They suggested testing for consensus on several “consensus principles” as way to assist
the EFSAB in providing recommendations to the NC DWR. Three principles were developed: the EFSAB reached consensus on two of them and one will require more exploration and discussion.
A graphic showing a possible way to move forward was developed and is included in the complete summary of this agenda item.

The concept paper suggested an alternative approach to stream classification for determining EFlows for streams in North Carolina. This approach would rely heavily on the following map
layers:

1. Physio- or geographic Location – using traditional boundaries, for example: mountains, foothills, piedmont, sandhills, inner coastal plain, outer coastal plain, or using an alternative
approach.
2. Drainage Area – divide streams into 2- or 3-size groupings.
3. Elevation – a surrogate for temperature to subdivide mountain and foothill streams into cold and cool water ecosystems.
4. Gradient – The Division of Water Resources’ (DWR) habitat modeling work indicates this has a significant influence on the physical habitat conditions and how a stream responds to
changes in flow.

Some other points we considered during our deliberations that we wanted to note:
A. Obtain WaterFALL output for the nine habitat model sites DWR has evaluated to date – the full, unregulated flow record with 1970 land cover, then compare habitat model results for
OASIS and WaterFALL.
B. Given the uncertainties that we are dealing with – uncertainties about hydrologic simulation models, stream classification, and ecological response to flow changes – the percent
of inflow approach is desirable from the standpoint of being more conservative and protective. Taking a conservative approach is an appropriate screening tool for planning purposes
because it prevents overestimating water availability for offstream users during the basinwide planning process. ..By being conservative, a percentage of inflow approach might also
help address uncertainties about how coastal stream ecosystems respond to changes in flow.
C. Lastly, the SAB has focused on water removals accomplished by simple withdrawals, not large reservoirs that alter a large portion of the downstream hydrograph. This is justified by
the extensive project-specific studies required of large reservoir projects, and the fact that each reservoir operation is unique and does not lend itself to a generic ecological flow
algorithm. That said, there is a possibility that a percentage of inflow approach for determining ecological flows could be applied to potential reservoirs for basinwide planning purposes,
not just to simple water withdrawals.

Regarding Payne presentation:
Some questions from EFSAB included: can streams be classified based on physical characteristics with the assumption preserving geomorphology preserves species? (response (R)- it’s important
to incorporate species responses to hydraulics, since you can’t assume the species will come). How site and/or species specific do the habitat suitability criteria need to be? (R-
surrogates are okay, just look to see if results makes sense). For HSCs- species v guilds, and what about mussels? (R-it’s case specific, no to mussels!). How to include a margin
of safety? (R-there is no one “conservative” flow, as different species respond differently to flows).

Regarding Biofidelity Testing: The EFSAB has received confirmation twice (tests conducted with Henriksen and now with RTI), that when two stream classes are similar (i.e., minor variations
in the variables that distinguish them flip streams back and forth between the classes) then it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to worry about whether they show biological fidelity
or not because it is extremely unlikely that they will. We’re now at the point where we need to consider other options.
Option 1: Proceed without classes and to see if we can come up with a way of developing ecological baselines across the whole state with a modest amount of data - without using classes.

Option 2: If a new classification system can be tested, start with biota and then the other four sub bullets: avoiding classes that are not robust; avoiding classes that have edges that
are easily cropped, that are based on sensitive thresholds; avoiding classes that use variables that models aren’t any good at; models are for the most part not good at extreme and
short-lived events in the life of a stream.
A new classification needs to avoid variables that are difficult to explain, not simply difficult to model. And most difficult of all, this system needs to have application across the
whole state, and we’re not going to get out of the fact that it’s hard to do it in the coastal plain. It will be difficult to come up with a strategy in the coastal plain because
things there are so hydrologically and hydraulically black given the landscape is in such altered shape, and because of tidal influence in the outer coastal plain.

There’s some backwater that needs to be saved out of this effort though. When you work down to the McManamay information and collapse the classifications, if there is stable base flow,
a lot of the hydrology is going to be similar, and if the hydrology is runoff dependent, then the hydrology will be similar. Being able to discern those two features of a given stream
segment I believe is very significant. Curious as to whether there is the ability to determine:
a. stable base flow using USGS gauges.
b. stable base flow or runoff dependent stream segment using WaterFALL because WaterFALL could be extremely powerful to be used all across the state to places where USGS gauges do not
exist.

Regarding the DWR Concept Paper:
Other comments and concerns included- Don’t use “runoff coefficient” when referring to “yield per square mile”, as that has a different meaning. EFSAB should make a statement that mimicking
the natural hydrograph is important. Monthly median should be examined to ensure that the most conservative approach is chosen for the planning tool. The EFS and McManamay classification
systems should not be used going forward. It was suggested that the language used for describing the purpose of developing e-flows should refer to a “planning tool” rather than a
“screening tool”.

Approved the Aug 28 Meeting Summary.
•Explore the SALCC’s work with Henricksen; he is attempting to create a classification system for the entire country –the 50 states and Puerto Rico. He is looking to develop something
that can be explainable, understandable, and makes sense.
Regarding NC's stream classification effort, he recommended continuing with a hydrologic classification process, and supplement it with the following physical characteristics: Channel
width; Channel gradient; Channel elevation; Pool/riffle ratio; and Predominant substrate type. He commented that North Carolina has advanced the science of habitat modeling.

Regarding Biofidelity Analysis of the EFS and McManamay classification determined the need for a classification system with the following criteria:
• Not based on sensitive threshold values
• Consistent and reproducible using USGS stream gage and modeled data
•Easy to understand and implement
• Can be applied throughout state
•Captures the distribution of aquatic biota in North Carolina
It is important to choose a classification system that is not based upon sensitive threshold values that easily jump between stream classes based upon the years that the climate data
is taken from, or whether one uses USGS to model hydrology data. The goal is ensure the classification system is consistent and reproducible using both USGS gauge data and end model
hydrology data, that it’s easy to understand the input from the state perspective, can be applied throughout the state in every single catchment, and captures the distribution consistently
with the overall goal of the biofidelity analysis.
The NC Division of Water Resources is in the process of evaluating other potential approaches; one way to move forward is to use the balance of the fidelity project to pursue an alternative
approach.

For Coastal Waters presentation, EFSAB members commented on level of subwatershed detail needed in the examples, the potential need to address basin by basin or species specific prescriptions
for e-flows in coastal NC.

From DWR Concept Paper:
A useful classification system should be:
1. Meaningful - groups streams according to discernible key characteristics producing an algorithm(s) for determining the EFlows. One would expect the groupings to correspond to different
assemblages of organisms that respond differently to changes in flow, or have different flow needs;
2. Reliable – produces consistent results;
3. Relatively simple and explainable; and
4. Applied using desktop information for a given stream, not requiring field investigations each time a classification is needed.

EFSAB Consensus Principles
A. Working Consensus Principles for Water Resources Planning of E-Flows (note from facilitators- working consensus principles are intermediary agreements of the EFSAB. These set a foundation
of agreements for now as further analysis becomes available. They may be changed or new ones added)
1. Classification system of rivers and streams that incorporate geomorphology, hydrology, and biological characteristics (full support)
2. % of inflow as the preferred family of strategies (lack of base support; some require additional time to process and review some selected information)
3. pure hydrology based classification does not work (full support)

Item 2: – % of inflow as the preferred family of strategies requires additional exploration and discussion. Currently there are concerns about this adopting B as a consensus principle
for Water Resources Planning of E-Flows

1. NCDWR should distribute Hatfield & Bruce meta-analysis to EFSAB as a follow-up from Payne’s presentation.
2. NC DWR: papers referenced in Coastal Waters presentation to be made available to EFSAB.
3. EFSAB to review last habitat modeling results and other materials to be sent by NCDWR, to prepare for a discussion about a 3rd proposed consensus principle, % inflow as a preferred
family of approaches, in November.
4. Look more closely at that SALCC southeast classifications and its potential for North Carolina, specifically what Henriksen is proposing nationally that is: explainable, understandable,
and makes sense (that leads with criteria of flow variables and ties in physiographic variables). This system is fairly flexible in terms of the amount of aggregation that each state
could use with regard to that classification.
5. Follow up with Mary Davis on the timeline for completion of the SALCC classifications
6. Ensure all presenters and EFSAB members are clear that the end product is a planning tool for the NC Division of Water Resources – not a policy instrument.
7. Discuss section A of the DWR Concept Paper.

The EFSAB has received confirmation twice (tests conducted with Henriksen and now with RTI), that when two stream classes are similar (i.e., minor variations in the variables that distinguish
them flip streams back and forth between the classes) then it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to worry about whether they show biological fidelity or not because it is extremely
unlikely that they will. Need to consider other options.

Thomas Payne commented that North Carolina has advanced the science of habitat modeling.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
11/27/2012
yes
•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
•New proposal for developing NC Stream classifications [BEC]; Jennifer Phelan, RTI
•WaterFALL data and OASIS Modeling-Panel and EFSAB discussion; Brian McCrodden,Hydrologix; Michelle Cutrofello, RTI; Tom Fransen, Fred Tarver, NCDWR
•Overview of ERC presentation, and how ecological flows will be used in planning by NCDWR; Tom Reeder, NCDWR
•Revisit proposed consensus principle: % inflow should be used as preferred flow metric moving forward; Fred Tarver, NCDWR; EFSAB discussion
•Water Coordination Group- who they are, what they do, how their work relates to EFSAB; Sam Pearsall, Environmental Defense Fund
•Decommissioning of Gauges on Tar-Pam River-- Judy Ratcliffe, NC Natural Heritage Program
•Planning 2013 meetings (agenda for Feb 19 meeting, dates for 2013)
Overview of Presentation to ERC: How Ecological Flows Are a Planning Tool
•An individual commented that the science is not readily available from which the EFSAB can provide recommendations and thus is learning from ongoing experiments being conducted in NC
and in other states.
• The EFSAB has been very successful in making suggestions for exploring new avenues, and thus the work to date has been very valuable.
Panel Discussion with EFSAB on WaterFALL data and OASIS Modeling
•Question was raised about represented inflow data set and if there was a level of departure that can be envisioned in the future from what we know about the past, where we would think
we need to have a reset on what the actual period of record for the inflow should be?
•Regarding the Greensboro slide shown as intermittent flow – caution was raised about interpreting impacts or alterations to the biology solely to withdrawals without considering impacts
of urbanization
•What question you are asking will determine the model you use. There can probably be collaboration between the two models. However, if you want to look at an individual river basin,
use OASIS for its level of detail; if you want to look at a big regional question like the whole southeast, WaterFALL is definitely more appropriate. And if you’re trying to address
questions at a basin level, combining the two may work better. It just depends and goes back to the question you’re trying to ask. WaterFALL may be better for certain applications
where you may not need OASIS to address those questions. Or, you may need the combination of the two or just one. It’s what are you trying to answer as to picking the model. No one
model will do everything.
•What’s the decision that will be informed by comparing the results of the two [in the habitat modeling]? Not necessarily how good is good enough but to obtain some level of confidence.
The WaterFALL periods of record may provide some confidence that actual on-the-ground occurrences are being represented -what is seen if using USGS gauge data.
• There was discussion about whether to invest considerable time to run additional habitat models, especially since habitat models are essentially of monthly flow duration or is there
another way to get at this information without the additional work?
Revisit Proposed Consensus Principle: Percent Inflow Should be Used as Preferred Flow Metric Moving Forward
• There was discussion about the wording of the proposed principle
•Strategies for what?
•Retaining the most habitat is different from being the best or preferred strategy
•The use of "best" gets into policy.
•Is the target here the strategies, or is it the metric, or is this the strategy that retains the habitat, or the greatest potential
for ecological processes that will maintain the habitat? Because the habitat is all over the place..., but it is the ecological
processes that will be maintained with this sort of hydrograph.
*The benefit of using percent flow is that you maintain frequencies and durations. That preserves ecological integrity.
•Percent inflow is not one of the variables that they're using in the BEC project. It is important to link the percent inflow with the variables that they come up with as being important
in distinguishing the classes.
•There is a real chance that we will arrive at the step three of the RTI work and recognize that we’ve come up with some
variables that are themselves not actually manageable by the Division of Water Resources or plannable by the DWR. But
that percent of inflow family of strategies, by maintaining the shape of the hydrograph more perfectly than other
strategies may actually give us an approximate tool for handling the variables that we actually come up with. But we
won’t know that until we get there.
• I think you run into a lot of danger because of accumulation of impacts and translating that to how does that reflect what the percentage of inflow is? And where within a river system
is that point-based percentage defined?
•It’s a model for planning, so it’s something that can be demonstrated in the model, not necessarily as far as like a point in
time or point location.
• Percentage of inflow is a meaningless concept unless it’s tied to a particular size of watershed, in which case you’re saying
that in this particular watershed we’re going to take this percentage of water out based on how much water flows into the
watershed. So it’s a catchment by catchment or stream segment by stream segment strategy.

•At the February, 2013 meeting the EFSAB will develop a timeline and outline for the EFSAB report and will consider providing an interim report to the EMC.
•Postpone using WaterFALL to run habitat scenarios given the considerable work to do this. Instead compare WaterFALL with monthly flow duration to see how closely OASIS lines up. If
something causes concern then consider Fred's proposal, of running the nine existing instream flow study sites that have an OASIS-generated flow record with a WaterFALL generated flow
record. Thus a test of WaterFALL and OASIS flow record interchangeability is possible by comparing the resulting habitat response curves. Otherwise if close enough, don’t go through
the extra work of doing a time series habitat map.
• Small group consisting of Brian, Tom, and Sam, Michele and Kimberly will develop a 3-way comparison to determine if WaterFALL varies in any consistent way and by what order of magnitude
from the other strategies that are available for portions of the state, and thus how WaterFALL varies from OASIS and/or Gauges and whether that variation is consistent or random.
•The facilitators will maintain a list of what the EFSAB indicates needs to be in the final report. The final decisions on what to include, and the wording of them, will be sorted out
during the drafting of the report.
•OASIS, as approved by the EMC, is here to stay in NC as a tool in water resource decision-making.
•Both WaterFALL and OASIS may add value to the investigation of planning for E-Flows.
•How long does it take an ecosystem to recover when the flow drops below the e-flow
•What is the line that if crossed, the system will not recover?
•Investigate the differences in withdrawal and low flow types of impacts versus changes in biological assemblage due to shift in stream class as a result of urbanization.
•Will the EFSAB draft an interim report? When?
• Some EFSAB members discussed finding funds from their own organizations to speed up the work so results may help EFSAB with recommendations in 2013, and/or conduct a simultaneous process
of developing classification system for benthics.
•When is the “red flag” raised? Any time EFlow is breached? Frequency? Duration? %Q? Seasonal?
•How to address that alterations in the upper watershed are attenuated in the lower watershed by intervening drainage and discharges. Nodes in lower watershed may not raise a “red flag”.
•How to address tidal waters?
•How to capture secondary and cumulative impacts
•How to address land use
•Address high-flow skimming? There's a lot of available water during high-flow events
•Do we think that based on science: % inflow maintains a natural hydrograph with the duration and frequency and these pieces tend toward maintaining ecological integrity, whereas the
7Q10 and even mean annual or mean monthly flows, as demonstrated by Fred’s illustrations, cuts that off?

•The 2013 EFSAB report would describe what ecological flows look like and what you need to know to develop them.
a. Provide decision-makers with a clear understanding about the kind of information that is needed in order to make the best decisions possible.
• Our final report would say here’s what we think ecological flows look like and here’s what you need to know to develop them.
•As part of a final report say we’ve developed this recommendation, it’s based on these models and so on which use gages to create them and from a scientific standpoint, it’s in the
best interest of the department and state to have a plan. Adequate gaging stations need to be maintained going forward in order to keep the science relevant and advance the science.

•maintaining gages

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
2/19/2013
yes
•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology r
OASIS/WaterFALL linear regressions by DWR PHABSIM site
www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20130219/
•Brief update on the biological-environmental classification (BEC) system study & invertebrate ecological flows study (Sam Pearsall)
•Brief status report on 3-way comparison for oasis, waterfall and USGS data (Pearsall)
•Review of findings of waterfall ecoflow metrics as compared to the gage metrics (Michelle Cutrofello, RTI)
•Benefits of having DWR compare the hydrology of 9 habitat sites using WaterFALL (Fred Tarver, DWR)
•Update on The Nature Conservancy’s Environmental Flows Project for North Carolina (Kim Meitzen, TNC)
•Preface To The Path Forward (Fred Tarver)
•Introduction To The EFSAB Assessment (Mary Lou Addor, NCSU)
•Report Outline And Approaches For Completion (Christy Perrin, NCSU)
www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/presentations/20130219/
Benefits of having DWR compare the hydrology of 9 habitat sites using WaterFALL (Fred Tarver, DWR)
• I hope that we’re not going to be limiting the tools that are available to the Division of Water Resources as we begin focusing on the notion of how do we determine the needs for ecological
flow.
• They are only models, there is not truth in either one of them. They are reasonably in agreement with each other, similar to the way many other models are reasonably in agreement
with each other.
• They are both going to change over time, and the Division of Water Resources, based on site specific permit requests for removal of flow for various reasons, is going to end up using
the best tool that they think fits that particular request and site. They will clearly be using both of these as long as they’re both on the table.
• if WaterFALL had come first, we’d be wondering is OASIS good enough? But because OASIS was done first, we’re wondering if WaterFALL is good enough.
• Buckhorn Creek was one of the worst bits there. Hydrologics had a heck of a time developing the OASIS model for Buckhorn Creek. Most of its record was influenced by Shearon Harris
dam, and they were trying to create an unregulated record for that creek. So they had to try to back out the effects of this massive reservoir upstream of the gage….In the Rocky River,there
was little gaging OASIS had there to base their model on.
• Instead of doing all 9, because it’s going to be an arduous process to try to compare habitat as opposed to what you did with just comparing cfs to cfs, pick 2 to 4. I would not pick
Buckhorn Creek because of problems with OASIS there. But pick a couple and just put the nail in the coffin.
Update on The Nature Conservancy’s Environmental Flows Project for North Carolina (Kim Meitzen, TNC)
• high flows seemed to be higher in recent years, low flows tend lower in recent years, possibly due to greater impervious surface, more people, and agriculture use.
• Yes though the change is highly variable across state, and variable across month, why it’s important to have specific flow recommendations for each month. Changes also vary across
ecoregions, changes may be consistent in smaller basins- some of the smaller basins may need more protective measures.
• We have to be careful to determine cause and effect of change of flows of highs and lows without looking in detail at other variables (dam impacts, land use change, irrigation schedule,
evapotranspiration & infiltration rates, and natural and production food growing seasons.
Preface to the path moving forward (Tarver)
• Are there audiences missing from the presentation who will challenge the science?
• The EFSAB represents the science of the constituent organizations, not necessarily their agendas. They are a science board, not a policy board.
• The definitions in the legislation (essential water use, meeting all needs, etc) are broad.
Regarding final report:
•Does the EFSAB need to write a final report?
•If so, do they approve the outline?
•If the EFSAB decides they should a report, who will write what sections of the report?

•Schedule BEC Presentation for Sept Meeting (possibly a two-day meeting)
•Each member of the EFSAB was asked to read the Assessment, to determine whether their comments were accurately reflected in the summary and to listen to the suggestions and recommendations
being posed by other members
•

•Members of the EFSAB were in support of moving forward without the 3-Way Comparison of Oasis, WaterFALL, and USGS data given the issues the small study team encountered.
•Confidence level of support for WaterFALL: most EFSAB members had a fairly high level of comfort with WaterFALL being used as a tool moving forward, with 2 indicating that they could
live with it, and 1 indicating they did not have strong confidence in supporting WaterFALL but would not block others members from supporting its use. [The level of confidence does
not preclude the use of other models and there is major concern from a member whether DWR will be able to purchase use of the model in the future].
The EFSAB assessed consensus on supporting WaterFALL moving forward. They responded to the following question: How comfortable are EFSAB members with WaterFALL being used as a tool
moving forward in this process? (meaning using it in general regardless of BEC)

Regarding final report:
•Does the EFSAB need to write a final report?
•If so, do they approve the outline?
•If the EFSAB decides they should a report, who will write what sections of the report?
Regarding a consensus principle for WaterFALL:
It was unclear as to whether the consensus principle was passed or not, due to the member who expressed a "4". It's possible to re-write the principle to reflect that member's concern.
Should DWR run PHABSim analyses using WaterFALL to compare with OASIS analyses?
This was not explicitly decided, though EFSAB members did not say they needed this in order to show confidence in WaterFALL- confidence was expressed by most.

EFSAB members to review the EFSAB Assessment and Draft Report Template to prepare for March 2013 meeting.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters
(with links)
Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recomemendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
3/19/2013
yes
•For EFSAB to begin developing preliminary recommendations as prompted by DWR trial balloons, and to determine format of Final report
Habitat scenario graphs were sent as preparation for reviewing DWR trial balloons
http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/documents/20130319/
• Purpose of today’s meeting: moving from divergent to convergent thinking, by Fred Tarver, DWR
• Deciding an approach to report writing (discussion)
•Brainstorming Recommendations(discussion)
•Discussion about whether to review DWR Trial(discussion)
•Developing a timeline(discussion)

Deciding an approach to report writing (discussion)
• EFSAB should focus entirely on developing recommendations, not on writing background
• The proposed template does not lead reader to make conclusions
• There is a power in brevity, particularly in documents to be read by decision-makers
• Report should include items that EFSAB rejects based on scientific evidence
• Each recommendation should include supporting justification that can be understood by others besides DWR staff, including groups who may follow EFSAB
• The proposed template was intended to include everything discussed so far, to provide a place to start
• Not all supporting information will be peer-reviewed literature as the science is currently underway
• We should begin brainstorming recommendations immediately to get that process underway (group then adjusted the day's agenda and had a brainstorm session)
Brainstorming Recommendations(discussion)
Four major categories with subcategories were developed by the EFSAB (see meeting summary for subcategories and full details):
1. Refine the Charge
2. Characterize Ecology of Different River Basins
3. Determine Ecological Flows
4. Future Directions/Adaptive Management
Discussion about whether to review DWR Trial(discussion)
• Going into the DWR trial balloons today may detract us from our focus on recommendations- it may not fit into the flow of a potential framework
• Discussing DWR trial balloons could send the group into the weeds
• EFSAB members can present trial balloons of their own the fit into the recommendations framework that will derive from today’s brainstorm session
Developing a timeline(discussion)
• Should we hear interim results and methods from RTI about the BEC, or just wait until final results are available? (when should it be on EFSAB agendas?)
• Should PHABSIM sites in mountains be run to correlate with physical variables?

See above
•The EFSAB decided to review the draft recommendations framework in between the next meeting, to provide feedback on the wording of the recommendations, and to possibly develop and propose
trial balloons of their own regarding recommendations before the April meeting or at the meeting.
•Agendas for meetings following July will need to be developed.
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June.
The EFSAB came to consensus on the following aspects of the Final Report:
•The audience for the report is DWR.
•The report contains recommendations as well as other considerations that were eventually rejected.
•Make clear justifications for recommendations that are accepted and recommendations that were eventually rejected so that they are understood to a broader audience
See rows 7 and 13

•The EFSAB decided to review the draft recommendations framework in between the next meeting, to provide feedback on the wording of the recommendations, and to possibly develop and propose
trial balloons of their own regarding recommendations before the April meeting or at the meeting.
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June (Fred Tarver, Howard Brady)

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
4/16/2013
yes
Expand a framework of recommendations and determine how BEC results may inform this
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
• Preliminary Results of the Biological - Environmental Classification (BEC) system—Fish Classification and Methods fo Ooptimizing Fish and Macro-intvertebrate Classes (Jennifer Phelan,
Tom Cuffney presentation)
• SARP: River Classification Framework (Mary Davis presentation)
•Combining the Concepts of Eco-deficit and Sustainability Boundaries: A Trial Balloon(Chris Goudreau presentation)
•A Proposed Process and Report Format (Sam Pearsall presentation)
•DWR's Trial Balloons (Fred Tarver presentation)

Preliminary Results of the Biological - Environmental Classification (BEC) system (presentation)
• Instead of doing clustering and moving on to flows, now we’re doing back and forth between the two to get the clusters related to flow variables, so it gets a little more complicated
• In the end it will be a fairly simple set of classes, like 2-3
• Its important to capture in the report that the results show a lack of ability to have very defined categories, so other people don’t have to go back and do this
• There is some chance we’ll decide we can’t classify rivers and streams in NC in a way that provides clear direction on how to set ecological baseline (which is an accomplishment)
• How to set an ecological baseline without classification?

SARP: River Classification Framework (Mary Davis presentation)
• Using physiographic region, size and variability gets down to as few variables as possible, which may help us move forward.
• I think this work is pointing us in a similar direction- we’re not that different from where other folks have trod, it is all coming back to basics.

Review of March 19, 2013 Recommendations List Developed by the EFSAB(discussion)
• Review and sort the recommendations generated from opinions, process for recommendations, and reword partial recommendations into recommendation language.

•Combining the Concepts of Eco-deficit and Sustainability Boundaries: A Trial Balloon(Chris Goudreau presentation)
• talk more about the importance of not looking at seasonality versus looking at seasonality? Because one of the concerns I would add is that that critical period maybe in September.
R: Yes, the example I have up here is January, so I would think you would want to do it, say, like on a monthly or at least on a seasonal basis, not on an annual basis.
• This is a very sophisticated strategy for combining a presumptive standard with the eco-difference concept, and I really like it. The problem is that we’ll have the same problem with
this as we would with any presumptive standard, and that is making the case that a presumptive standard answers the legal question of how the eco-system will react, respond.
• As part of the BEC, is this one of the metrics that RTI is looking at in terms of trying to correlate biological condition to degree of hydrologic alteration information. I don’t
know if eco-change is one that you (RTI) had looked at yet. R: We’ve calculated it but, yes we’re using it. We have eco-surplus, eco-deficit, eco-change, and the eco-deficits and
the eco-surpluses are expressed on an annual basis and on a seasonal basis for the four seasons that you used for PHABSIM.
• What if you relate biology and you find out that the biology itself is plus or minus 30%?
• Can you show us some of the smaller stream systems or wonder what those implications might be? How do we get to that point?
• Could RTI generate these graphs for a number of sites? R: They already have them.
• There are different sustainable boundaries for the different drainage basin sizes. So depending on how much water is actually available, you’ll have different percentages around that
sustainable boundary that you could withdraw in order to stay within a range that would still in theory protect your ecological integrity.
• The eco-deficit analysis is part of the BEC analysis for ecological flows.
A Proposed Process and Report Format (Sam Pearsall presentation)
• You’ve got the question mark beside “Classify” but you don’t have one beside the flow and biological relationships, and that seems to be as much in question as the first one does to
me. R: I think we’re definitely seeing biological responses to flows. Whether we’re able to sort those into classes or have to treat them individually, remains to be seen. But
we know and data support the notion that organisms respond to flows.
• So, when are those results coming? R: As the result of an additional investment from state agencies, RTI should be able to produce results by August.
DWR's Trial Balloons (Fred Tarver presentation)
• If we’re going to use a flat 80% of flow by on the basis of some geographic unit whether it’s a basin of some order, it makes sense to me that that percent of flow-by perhaps should
vary according to season. There may be times when 80% may be inadequate.
• But isn’t that percentage, when you run it through the model, that’s a daily time step. Say it’s 20% of inflow, so if it’s 20% of inflow, it doesn’t matter if it’s—it’s not a seasonal
or monthly thing, right? The percentage of flow-by is done on a daily time step.
• It seems to me that the department has suggested the best member or a member of each of the three large families of implementation strategies and in each case they’ve recommended an
annual approach. I’m thinking that a seasonal approach has merit.
• If you get more data and it says you need to do the Piedmont differently from Mountains, you can potentially have different numbers for them.
• If you can’t show that similar habitats respond to flow in the same way, you can’t talk about statewide application using this method, in my mind.
• In either the Piedmont or the Mountains, what we’ve tried to do is run enough different habitat suitability curves through the program so that we’ve covered anything that would be
there. Then going further, you use the most limiting species or guild and if we’ve got habitat for it, everything else is okay.
• So a suggestion might be taking a flow by approach, but then having some sort of threshold number.
• We need to have what constitutes an allowable excursion and how often can you have one?
• I feel like a monthly median is kind of a nice number. If you model, it looks like you’re cuttng it off at some kind of flat line, but the reality is it would be highly variable,
and the amount of water that you are shooting for in September is going to be higher than the 80% flow by would be.

See above
• A subcommittee is set up to organize and rewrite the recommendations generated from the March 2013 meeting. The group will meet May 1, 2013. An invitation will be sent to those EFSAB
members who were not in attendance to learn about the subcommittee established. A draft of the revisions will be circulated before the May 14 EFSAB meeting
•DWR should move forward with running PHABSIM for mountain sites for discussion in June.
1. Review and sort the recommendations generated March 2013, from opinions, process for recommendations, and reword partial recommendations into recommendation language (subcommittee)
2. A range of acceptable deviations from unaltered flow would be used if the sustainable boundaries approach were used.
3. Seeing results of this approach on some smaller streams, perhaps ones that also have PHABSIM sites.
4. Run PHABSIM in-stream flow studies on mountain sites (Fred Tarver)

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
5/14/2013
yes
Expanding a framework of recommendations and determining how BEC results may inform this
Framework of recommendations from writing subcommittee (not posted online)
Knight, R.R., Gain, W.S., and Wolfe, W.J., 2011, Modelling ecological flow regime: An example from the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins: Ecohydrology, DOI: 10.1002/eco.246. (copyrighted,
not posted online)
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Presentation: BEC system and supporting flow–biology relationships in NC – Project Update (Philip Jones, RTI)
Presentation: Flow Alteration/Biological Response Relationships (Jen Phelan, RTI)
Presentation/Discussion – Proposed Framework of Recommendations
Presentation: Introduction to Coastal Flows workgroup (Bob Christian, ECU0
Discussion: Report on Work of Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe, NCNHP)
Presentation Modeling of 80% Flowby (Tom Fransen, NCDWR)

Presentation: BEC system and supporting flow–biology relationships in NC – Project Update
• Using index and using only excellent- fair/good is already going to be capturing tolerance.
• It’s important to look at flow differences in communities in drainage areas in NC.
• Tom thinks affect of land use will override flow.

Presentation: Flow Alteration/Biological Response Relationships
• Regarding reference sites- how do values change when using 70s data rather than PNV? Much discussion occurred about reference sites, pros and cons of the different data.
• How to include nonwadeable streams? A suggestion was made, though while hydrology can be modeled anywhere, the limiting factor is the lack of biology data and difference in sampling
methods.
• Much discussion occurred regarding the ecodeficit metric.

Presentation/Discussion – Proposed Framework of Recommendations
• Several editorial comments were received
• Overall, the framework is adequate to move forward to include additional edits and information, however, it does not include new materials or presentations since the April meeting,
and thus the language is limiting.
• As a large group rather than a subcommittee, the EFSAB would like to discuss and write future changes to the framework of recommendations.
• The subcommittee was asked to meet again (May 30) and draft the preface section. Anyone from the EFSAB can join the drafting subcommittee.
• EFSAB asked toplease email comments to Lou (Mary Lou Addor).

Presentation: Introduction to Coastal Flows workgroup
• Bob sees opportunities with the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and their information on the various fish species along the coast and flow needs of those fish species.
• He sees classification, hydrologic modeling, and availability of the biological information as the greatest issues/ challenges. He believes there are perhaps some classification
schemes to bring in tidal/non-tidal influence of salinity, and there are some models that deal with overbank flow.

Discussion: Report on Work of Endangered Species Subcommittee
• The subcommittee discussed whether listed species are going to be covered or not in the basin plan models and if so, do things like PHABSIM adequately cover those species, or does
the BEC analysis adequately cover those species (things like mussels and fish and plants and other invertebrates).
• For any species not covered by BEC or PHabSIM or whatever approach taken, possibly produce a map that shows where those species occur that DWR could use to assess if endangered species
need to be considered in planning future water withdrawals.
• Could have a post-processor for updating the approach as additions or changes are made to the list.

Presentation Modeling of 80% Flowby
• The introduction of SIMBASE raised much discussion of what should be used to represent “prevailing conditions” and the consequences of using SIMBASE as prevailing conditions:
o The PHABSIM work with various flow scenarios that were diagrammed for their habitat, the varying percentages of flow-by that were put in there were actually not percentage of flow-by
SIMBASE, they were percentage of flow-by unregulated, or unaltered, or whatever . So, that was for one purpose, this is a different way to look at it.
o it will be important to understand what the naturalized flow would look like, because the difference between that naturalized flow and the SIMBASE, that is going to capture the change
in the flow.
o SIMBASE already reflects cumulative historic impacts.
o if it is true that the statute requires SIMBASE to be prevailing conditions, then we cannot change that. We can change the numerator by saying, 80% is not the right number. I do
not think we can say, “Do not use SIMBASE, use natural flow.”
o If you are hanging your hat on 80% because of what PHABSIM said, you would have to re-run all that or somehow factor that amount back into that 80% flow-by instead of making 80%, it
has got to be 90% or 84% or whatever, some other way.
 But that is going to be much more dependent upon the individual reach of the river.
o We have just been saying option two is so great and one of the reasons—and it is not that it is not, but one of the reasons I liked it, besides it having some mechanistic characteristics,
is it was reference based. But the reference conditions were pre-settlement reference conditions which is different than the naturalized flow conditions, which is different than the
SIMBASE conditions.
o That is where the issue is; where is our baseline starting and the impacts, and we can partition where those impacts are coming, to the habitats, to the ecology. We can partition
that out and demonstrate that it is what has already occurred in some basins, in others we may not be in that vulnerable stage yet.
o This flow-by approach using SIMBASE lets me look at that cumulative impact as I go downstream. As I go downstream, I may have withdrawals. I may have some new discharges. I can see
that cumulative impact as I go down. Lets me look at that cumulative impact as I go downstream because you do not always know what is going on. As I go downstream, I may have withdrawals.
I may have some new discharges. So I can kind of see that cumulative impact as I go down. I could actually come back and tell you how much more you could take out of it. With some
of these other techniques, because of the wide range of statistics in them, I would have to do a trial and error method and I can probably back calculate this one directly.
o The engineer in me says by working this approach, I could actually come back and tell you all things being held constant, how much more you could take out of it. With some of these
other techniques, because of the wide range of statistics in them, I would have to do a trial and error method and I can probably back calculate this one directly.

See above
A subcommittee will draft a preface on May 30 and present the draft to the EFSAB at the June 18 meeting.

Table consideration of marine animals on endangered species list in recommendations.

1. Subcommittee produce list of species to address and cross-walk those with the guilds already established by the EFSAB, and then address any species or life stages not covered by those
guilds.
2. Do not include in the list those species that are not flow dependent or marine species that not an integrated part of NC’s fauna.
3. The ES subcommittee will report back in June or July.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
6/18/2013
yes
Expanding a framework of recommendations and determining how BEC results may inform this
Report outline from drafting subcommittee sent to EFSAB listserve for review on June 10 (not posted online).
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Presentation:Introduction of Preface Section of the EFSAB Report to DENR (Mary Lou Addor)
Presentation: Report on Work of the Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe)
Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group: Progress Report (Bob Christian)
Presentation: Report Back on Comparison of SIMBASE and PHABSIM Unaltered Flows (Tom Fransen)
Presentation: Biological-Environmental Classification (BEC) Project Update (Jennifer Phelan and Tom Cuffney)
Presentation: A Trial Balloon—20/30/40% or 30/40/50% of Annual Mean Flow or Monthly Mean Flow (Hugh Barwick)
Presentation:Introduction of Preface Section of the EFSAB Report to DENR (Mary Lou Addor)
• In the first paragraph of the Preface ( how the report to DENR will be organized), this section doesn't clearly state whose research assumptions and recommendations are listed. The
section does not include a comprehensive list of the organizations and groups that have advised the EFSAB but rather is limited to the RTI and USGS research.
Presentation: Report on Work of the Endangered Species Subcommittee (Judy Ratcliffe)
• • If the BEC is not recommended or used, there would likely be additional work needed to determine if threatened and endangered species are being adequately addressed by a different
method
• A lot of additional work would be required to crosswalk the petitioned species with the guilds, including determining which species are flow-dependant.
• The relevant species in the swamps and riparian systems shouldn’t disappear from the petitioned list
Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group: Progress Report (Bob Christian)
• The Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group is working on a three-pronged approach to link stream typology (origin with slope) to a potential Ecological Flows determinant such as discharge
and habitat, downstream salinity, and overbank flow.
Presentation: Report Back on Comparison of SIMBASE and PHABSIM Unaltered Flows (Tom Fransen)
• In the watershed evaluated, the difference between current and projected 2060 demands were not substantial, whereas in some areas, like the Triangle, the differences could be much
more substantial.
•If the EFSAB chooses to use an 80% flow-by approach based on PHABSIM results that used natural flows, it would be important for DWR to do this analysis within each basin. The difference
between natural and SIMBASE and SIMBASE and SIM60 will vary basin to basin.
• if our recommendation is based on PHABSIM results run using natural conditions, even if it’s not 80% flow-by, we need to understand what the implications are when it’s used in a model
with a SIMBASE current and SIMBASE future condition.
•It’s hard to capture what the impact is of using a different baseline flow if it’s going to be different for each basin.
•Do we have any idea how these deficit figures compare to the deficits that RTI calculates? Is an 80% flow-by equal to 20% deficit, or do we not have any idea of that yet?
Presentation: Biological-Environmental Classification (BEC) Project Update (Jennifer Phelan and Tom Cuffney)
• How to determine how long it takes species to recover- the lower you set the bar for the insult, the more likely it will recover. That information can be conveyed in the report.
• It would be good to have similar IBI-based biological condition classes for fish (same as benthic IBI classes). However, the complexity and inconsistency makes the development of
a fish IBI biological class system less feasible
• Trying to understand the relationship of PNV to unaltered flows and SIMBASE in OASIS
• Whether EFSAB should recommend the approach or also determine the threshold that constitutes significant impact
• In the legislation, there was a clear decision to use a definition different than DWQ’s definition for biological integrity
• How to highlight acute as well as chronic eco-deficit impacts during planning
• How to express a level of comfort that changes are affected by flow and not other variables
• Some questions were submitted to the ad hoc research group after the meeting- those are at the end of the summary for this item
Presentation: A Trial Balloon—20/30/40% or 30/40/50% of Annual Mean Flow or Monthly Mean Flow (Hugh Barwick)
1. Although the biota might be able to survive equivalent flows during a drought, they would not be able to withstand those levels over multiple years.
2. Even if you set up a floor, you still have to come up with some way to say how often and how close do you have to get to that floor before some flag goes up.
3. Two of the gages you plotted here are below reservoirs that tend to make the average flows during wet times lower and average flows during dry times higher because that is the way
they are supposed to operate. If you set your threshold or your floor based on monthly means and you are doing it off a gage record that has a big reservoir upstream, we need to be
aware of that, and maybe think about do we want to use the regulated hydrograph, or do we want to use in the model an unaltered hydrograph.
4. I think philosophically, as a planning tool, what you want is something that raises flags earlier rather than later.
5. I think everybody in this room realizes that this planning tool may eventually morph into a permitting tool.
6. What South Carolina ended up with and those numbers were a policy decision. It was not really based on the science, solely.
7. An approach like this has some merit because it is simple, easily understood, but before I could endorse an approach like this, I have to see something that reassures me that ecological
integrity as defined in the Act will not be violated.
8. You talked about balancing the needs for humans and aquatic resources and that is a good thing and DENR needs to do it. But our job is to figure out when ecological integrity is
violated and when it is not.
9. How do we tie this to biological impact?
10. Part of the simplicity of this approach is the use of monthly mean flow as opposed to percent flow by. may be something the currently regulated entities are more familiar with or
are already used to thinking of usage in terms of that.
11. How much time would it take and is it feasible to re-run PHABSIM for a handful of Piedmont sites using 40, 30, 20 as a threshold and tell us what happens to our guild habitats?
RESPONSE: They are already done, but not exactly like this. They were run with 30 all year, 20 all year, 40 all year. You have to pick from the different columns and recombine them,
and do them by season.
12. The reports this was based on were from a minimum flow perspective, not from the perspective of maintaining ecological integrity.
13. If the goal is to not be at that minimum too frequently, then you are already taking a step towards just using a flow-by approach.
14. With an 80% flow by, drought years are worse [than a minimum flow].
15. It would be interesting to see how using this kind of approach would match up against the calculated impact of a flow-by. to use these kinds of numbers to set the level, and then
calculate the percent deficit so we can get an idea of how it works.
16. If we chose to recommend that our strategy should be to prevent increasing eco deficit by more than a certain percentage, minimum flow thresholds and flow-by targets are both viable
tools for achieving that goal. These are not mutually incompatible strategies. It may be that minimum flow is not the best strategy to maintain eco deficit below some threshold, but
it is a potential tool for doing that.
17. The reason why we moved away from these flows, these thresholds to begin with when we first evaluated them was that we were seeing impacts, in general, that we felt were not going
to meet the ecological integrity objectives of the legislation.
18. The surficial simplicity of this actually leads to a greater complexity because you have to have a pretty complex system of if/then statements [to avoid being at too low a flow for
too long]. We move quickly away from simplicity.
See above
Distinguish in the Report (Draft 1) Outline from the EFSAB to DENR/DWR that the research assumptions are currently limited to the RTI and USGS research as well as some sections of the
Recommendations like the protocol conclusions; that the Report will eventually include a comprehensive view of what has transpired and a more comprehensive set of recommendations..

The EFSAB came to full consensus that the following recommendation should be included in their final report:

T&E subcommittee review suggests that flow-habitat relationships for these species are broadly addressed by the PHABSIM approach. Rather than further evaluate the developing research
on T&E species' flow requirements, the SAB recommends that specific, potentially more limiting, flow needs for resident T&E species should be considered on a project specific basis
by the DWR in addition to the more generic recommendations offered by the SAB. For planning purposes, portions of basins (e.g., nodes) that include listed species should be treated
by DWR as needing additional analysis.

1. The EFSAB was asked to email any comments, questions, or proposed edits to Mary Lou Addor before the next EFSAB meeting scheduled for July 16.
2. The EFSAB has asked if the Coastal Ecological Flows Work Group can provide a trial balloon (a series of proposed recommendations) for the July 16 and 17 discussions.
3. Hugh Barwick and his subgroup will analyze PHABSIM data on 5 or 6 sites using 20, 30 and 40% of mean monthly flow by season.
a. See how that relates to flow-by.
4. EFSAB asked for RTI/USGS to conduct one or more examples of applying eco-deficit and benthos condition ranking using site specific data for a river and projecting out for 50 years
(looking at how it impacts a current good-fair relationship was suggested).
5. EFSAB asked RTI/USGS to conduct a log-linear model for the benthos flow-biology relationship so it can be more comparable to fish, and so that the curve is not as flat
6. Based on their discussion, it appears that EFSAB members need to make a decision about whether they should recommend the approach or also determine the threshold that constitutes
significant impact to ecological integrity. This has not been decided yet.
7. If our recommendation is based on PHABSIM results run using natural conditions, we need to understand what the implications are when it’s used in a model with a SIMBASE current and
SIMBASE future condition. This would need to be done on a basin-by-basin basis.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
7/16/2013
yes
Complete Expanding Knowledge—Begin developing recommendations
2011 Alberta Report (Water For Life) Chris mentioned in presentation and related to "trial balloon" (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
Clipperton et al. report from 2003 (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
Notes from C. Goudreau about EFSAB deliverables (emailed July 13 by Nancy Sharpless)
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Presentation: PHABSIM on Mountain Sites, by Fred Tarver
Presentation: The Alberta Method for Ecological Flows, by Chris Goudreau
Presentation: Biological/Environmental/Flow Relationships—Recommendations of the Ad-hoc Group, by Bob Dykes, RTI
Presentation: 20/30/40% & 30/40/50% of AMF and MMF -Updates
Comparison of minimum flow and 80% flow by approaches, by Tom Fransen
Presentation: TNC Final Report and recommendations, by Kim Meitzen
Presentation: General Discussion of the 5 Methods Presented
Presentation: EFSAB Deliverables & Proposing a Framework for Characterization
Presentation: The Alberta Method for Ecological Flows, by Chris Goudreau
• The river used in the graphs is hypothetical.
• The water that flows by is available to the next downstream user. It's riparian.
• That's one of the good things about having it as a cumulative because then it allows not only the critters, but also the users, downstream to have water.
Presentation: Biological/Environmental/Flow Relationships—Recommendations of the Ad-hoc Group, by Bob Dykes, RTI
• The riffle-run guild, were well represented across all regions in the state with the exception of the coastal plain.
•The data represented a broad range of drainage areas.
•how we envision this might be used by DENR is that it would be relatively straightforward. so when DENR sees that a change of 10% or more in fish species diversity or benthic species
richness looks like it is probably going to occur as a result of a proposed alteration in flow or future demand or for that matter, climate change, then DENR has some motivation to
do additional research and additional analysis for that change in that basin. the ecological integrity is surely challenged by a 10% change in the biota.
•a lot of these numbers that Kimberly is throwing out and other folks have thrown out are very similar through different avenues of investigation.
•What would help me understand this is if we could see one of the PHABSIM sitesin OASIS where you evaluate eco-deficit with this method and evaluate is that flow going to look like
20% of mean annual flow, does it look like 80% flow by.
•The quantity of water that will produce a change varies enormously according to basin.
•The reason there are 4 lines [seasonal eco-deficits] instead of 1 is because a proposed flow alteration could change one of those variables much more than any of the others.
•When DWR goes to modeling these and using an approach for not having biological impacts or safe yield and things like that, do you think they can use the same,10% approach in dealing
with those large systems? Or do you want to put some kind of caveats on this and say it is good up to whatever you just said for your drainage area, 1,000 square miles or something
like that? Response: Well the largest one we have is over 9,000. So I am not sure where we put the caveat.
•Maybe we ought to use this strategy on the 88% of North Carolina that is a) the most vulnerable, and b) for which we have the most data; and on the other 12%, which is the main stem,
some sort of other strategy such as a flow by standard complemented by a minimum standard.
•I think there is a lot of merit, but it is incomplete. we should also recommend to DENR strategies for making it better, for operating in big rivers, for minimum releases so that
when flow by standards and/or this strategy do not work out , there is a safety net. a toolbox.
•my impression is that everyone is sort of converging on a similar type of common denominator - is that true or not.
•I do not think it is necessarily our job to pick a specific number.
• if we created flow duration curves on the spectrum of hypothetical flow byscenarios Jim created, these eco-deficit may within.
Presentation: 20/30/40% & 30/40/50% of AMF and MMF -Updates
• Concerned was raised about the significant shift in the type of habitat for the winter months using the Buckhorn Creek presentation. It is believed that this shift will have ecological
implications, whether it’s through sediment transport or ecological functions.
Comparison of minimum flow and 80% flow by approaches, by Tom Fransen
•how will DWR implement an EFSAB recommendation as a planning tool? Will not override existing permits, such as FERC license.
Will not replace site specific studies. Will not change the SEPA minimum criteria – 20% 7Q10
Presentation: TNC Final Report and recommendations, by Kim Meitzen
• Abundance could be normalized with diversity since abundance would have an impact on diversity, (Shannon Weaver evenness scale), though since that method works best with individuals
and she was doing community diversity and abundance, this was not done.
• While the 5% and 10% for fish community impacts is a good starting point discussion, statistical evidence in this study is pretty weak.
• Significant evidence in the literature review for supporting less than 10% mean annual flow for impacts, though a study using statewide (more) data points would need to be done to
give the NC specific study a stronger analysis.
• Concerns about attributing fish diversity declines to water withdrawals without looking at land use were expressed.
• Why drought years should use a different percentage and how to recognize a drought year.
Presentation: General Discussion of the 5 Methods Presented
• smaller drainage areas need more protection than the larger drainage areas
• consider a toolbox not an equation with 4 basic tools
• need to be conservative for planning purposes to provide a level of certainty. Certainty is an issue for the developer who wants to borrow money, the bank who plans to loan him the
money, the municipality that wants people to live there, or for zoning board that wants to provide fire services during drought years. They want to know the water will be there.

• one size does not fit all; different sized streams, geography on streams will affect the threshold by whatever definition...
• each presenter believes is he/she is proposing a conservative strategy, and everyone is thinking about 2 things:
the dangerous thresholds we don’t want to cross and how to measure what’s happening to avoid crossing the thresholds
• proposals are essentially the same in there is a % of water distributed over a period of time. how much and over what time?
• in areas where data are lacking, we conservatively recommend a protective percentage and then the subsequent recommendation is to ask the state to go out and gather information to
increase the certainty of our recommendations.
Presentation: EFSAB Deliverables & Proposing a Framework for Characterization
•Characterization is not the key part of the work. Let’s spend a minimal amount of time on it. Here’s what we think and then move onto the additional discussions.
• Give them what we want to tell them and lay all the data out there . This helps us explain why and gives us an in-road to justify why we think small streams should be treated one way,
main stems another way, coastal streams another way.
• It is not the EFSAB’s job tounderstand what the legislative intent was at the time that the legislation was drafted.

See above
The EFSAB was informed that the Report to DENR will be due by the end of October. Members were still asked to hold the Dec 3 meeting which can be readily cancelled at a later date.

Distinguish in the Report (Draft 1) Outline from the EFSAB to DENR/DWR that the research assumptions are currently limited to the RTI and USGS research as well as some sections of the
Recommendations like the protocol conclusions; that the Report will eventually include a comprehensive view of what has transpired and a more comprehensive set of recommendations..

1. Consensus recommendations generated on July 17 are preliminary until those who missed part or all of the meeting have an opportunity to review the discussion and recommendations
for moving forward.
2. Mark and Chris were tasked with generating draft recommendations for the list of topics discussed on the afternoon of July 17. The proposed recommendations will be inserted in to
the Report Outline and be the major agenda item for discussion at the August meeting. Jamie and Linda will be reviewing the draft recommendations generated by Mark and Chris.
3. Add to the Charter, a list of EFSAB members and alternates who served previously but are no longer serving for various reasons and include in the Charter Appendix and the Report Outline.
The list of previous members and alternates has been included in the Charter and list of members posted online at NCWater.org; the Report Outline will include the EFSAB members and
alternates.
4. Add to the Report Outline, the recommendation about the T&E species developed by the T&E subcommittee with the EFSAB’s approval
5. A number of preliminary recommendations were made during discussion on July 17. These are reflected within the Executive Summary sections relative to their topics, but are not included
here as they have not yet been tested for full consensus with all EFSAB members.

1. Fred will share the mountain PHABSIM analyses when they are completed.
2. Lou will compile and distribute the trial balloons, presentation, and general meeting discussion to the EFSAB the evening of July 16.
3. The ad-hoc group will present examples from the Neuse River of what their method would look like using OASIS.
4. DWR go back and look at some of the manipulated flow records and find out where 10% eco-deficit falls in that spectrum of the work that Jim Mead did.
5. Rebecca Benner will provide the final TNC report to EFSAB when it is completed.
6. Chris Goudreau will go through reports for other key concepts about ecological responses to flows that could be added to the list.
7. Characterize the distinction between a large river, a small catchment, and a wadeable stream.
• Tom Cuffney to email a stream size class distribution table to distribute to the EFSAB (done, this was sent to EFSAB in an email)
8. The bulk of the characterization of the Coastal Plain will be addressed in the proposal from the Coastal Plain subcommittee.
9. Make sure that whatever methods are used in the recommendations for wadeable streams address the issue of extra protection for small streams.
10. Clarify what site-specific evaluation means.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
7/17/2013
yes
Complete Expanding Knowledge—Begin developing recommendations
2011 Alberta Report (Water For Life) Chris mentioned in presentation and related to "trial balloon" (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
Clipperton et al. report from 2003 (emailed July 16 by Fred Tarver)
FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE ECOLOGICAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT FISHERIES IN CANADA (emailed Jul 10 by F. Tarver)
Notes from C. Goudreau about EFSAB deliverables (emailed July 13 by Nancy Sharpless)
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Update from the Coastal Subcommittee
Review of EFSAB Charter
EFSAB Report outline discussion
Discussion of key concepts about ecological responses to altered flows
Discussion of Topics for Recommendations
Update from the Coastal Subcommittee
• Whether and how the Roanoke slab shell mussel is representative of benthos- it may not be representative, but has value for bio monitoring
• The coastal plain highlights an area that the EFSAB has not discussed a great deal: goods and services.
• Salt intrusion and DO are both powerfully influenced by flow, and in the coastal plain they may be powerfully influential on the integrity of biological communities
• APNEP and its comprehensive management plan have ecological flows for the Albemarle/Pamlico as a priority item. Dean Carpenter intends to continue the work of this group beyond the
length of this EFSAB.
• Bob concluded that a little more thought needs to be given to benthos.
• There are variations between the basins. We need to be basin-specific when we look at these things.
• Is there a threshold for flow measurement that is noticeable, visible in a surface type of velocity or directional velocity or even measurable with a flow meter? I I want to make
sure we have something to make a meaningful dichotomy between flat and really flat streams, and is there a threshold that has something other than the numeric coefficient that we can
point back to.
• Many estuarine-dependent species spend their first three or four months in fresh water. Their resident time in the fresh water is key.
• in a very low flow system, like a zero flow system, there is a water quantity concern, and that is influenced by water extraction.
• Since we won't be doing OASIS modeling in these reaches, it will require some other methodology for other monitoring or planning for those areas so the post-processing we talked about
in the other part of the basins where OASIS is going to be used, it is going to be another modeling effort that can handle tidal and variations in flows or some sort of spreadsheet
post-processor type of thing.
Review of EFSAB Charter
•members and their alternates who served the EFSAB but are no longer serving should be listed to recognize their participation and contributions. In addition, the full list of EFSAB
members and alternates will be included on the Report to the EFSAB.
•DENR should continue to inform the EFSAB about the status of their recommendations for at least one year following their Report .
EFSAB Report outline discussion
• members commented that the Report Outline is too RTI/USGS centric and that other research that has transpired, been conducted and considered should be included in the Report to DENR.
The EFSAB is currently focused on providing recommendations at the July and August meeting, intending for the writing to occur in an iterative fashion between the August and October
meetings.
•Members of the EFSAB generally support the idea of referencing in the Report to DENR, weblinks to the NCWater.org (DENR site) or other information, when discussing supporting documents,
research, and larger documents.
Discussion of key concepts about ecological responses to altered flows
• This shouldn’t be used as decision-making criteria without more thought and discussion.
• These are things that would go in research assumptions, in preface of the report, as the foundational concepts that research shows, that recommendations are built upon. We need to
communicate this within and beyond the board.
• These also might be of value in helping to evaluate the trial balloons.
Discussion of Topics for Recommendations- please see full summary for bulleted comments

See above
The EFSAB was informed that the Report to DENR will be due by the end of October. Members were still asked to hold the Dec 3 meeting which can be readily cancelled at a later date.

Distinguish in the Report (Draft 1) Outline from the EFSAB to DENR/DWR that the research assumptions are currently limited to the RTI and USGS research as well as some sections of the
Recommendations like the protocol conclusions; that the Report will eventually include a comprehensive view of what has transpired and a more comprehensive set of recommendations..

1. Consensus recommendations generated on July 17 are preliminary until those who missed part or all of the meeting have an opportunity to review the discussion and recommendations
for moving forward.
2. Mark and Chris were tasked with generating draft recommendations for the list of topics discussed on the afternoon of July 17. The proposed recommendations will be inserted in to
the Report Outline and be the major agenda item for discussion at the August meeting. Jamie and Linda will be reviewing the draft recommendations generated by Mark and Chris.
3. Add to the Charter, a list of EFSAB members and alternates who served previously but are no longer serving for various reasons and include in the Charter Appendix and the Report Outline.
The list of previous members and alternates has been included in the Charter and list of members posted online at NCWater.org; the Report Outline will include the EFSAB members and
alternates.
4. Add to the Report Outline, the recommendation about the T&E species developed by the T&E subcommittee with the EFSAB’s approval
5. A number of preliminary recommendations were made during discussion on July 17. These are reflected within the Executive Summary sections relative to their topics, but are not included
here as they have not yet been tested for full consensus with all EFSAB members.

1. Fred will share the mountain PHABSIM analyses when they are completed.
2. Lou will compile and distribute the trial balloons, presentation, and general meeting discussion to the EFSAB the evening of July 16.
3. The ad-hoc group will present examples from the Neuse River of what their method would look like using OASIS.
4. DWR go back and look at some of the manipulated flow records and find out where 10% eco-deficit falls in that spectrum of the work that Jim Mead did.
5. Rebecca Benner will provide the final TNC report to EFSAB when it is completed.
6. Chris Goudreau will go through reports for other key concepts about ecological responses to flows that could be added to the list.
7. Characterize the distinction between a large river, a small catchment, and a wadeable stream.
• Tom Cuffney to email a stream size class distribution table to distribute to the EFSAB (done, this was sent to EFSAB in an email)
8. The bulk of the characterization of the Coastal Plain will be addressed in the proposal from the Coastal Plain subcommittee.
9. Make sure that whatever methods are used in the recommendations for wadeable streams address the issue of extra protection for small streams.
10. Clarify what site-specific evaluation means.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
8/20/2013 and 8/21/2013
yes
Complete Expanding Knowledge—testing consensus on draft recommendations, developing further recommendations
All powerpoint presentations are posted here: http://ncwater.org/?page=366
Defining Stream Sizes and Discussion of Headwaters (T. Cuffney)
Framework of Proposed Recommendations for Coastal Streams and Rivers(Bob Christian)
Recommended Framework for Evaluating Ecological Flows in the Streams and Rivers of North Carolina
(Jennifer Phelan, RTI)
EFSAB Report: Draft 3 - Update (C. Goudreau)
Approaches for Setting Protection Standards (C. Goudreau

Defining Stream Sizes and Discussion of Headwaters
• Board wants additional data to determine if it’s five classes or combined classes or some other alternative. Would like to see how the smaller streams fall out from the headwaters.
Tom will separate out and provide new illustration to the EFSAB on Aug 21.
Framework of Proposed Recommendations for Coastal Streams and Rivers
•• what percent are covered by OASIS and not? Almost all of it is not covered by OASIS currently.
• one concern is more about water going into surface waters after being pumped from an aquifer.
• I’m comfortable stating it the way you (the subcommittee) have: In order to move forward, these are the things that are needed.
• Do yourecommend all 4 approaches and that there would be some hierarchy for which approach to apply to a given type of stream?
• One of the challenges is that slope and velocity are not the same; velocity is incredibly important. It is really the velocity that relates to ecological condition. The gradients
may or may not be indicative of velocity.
• I'm supportive of dealing with our coastal areas with if/then statements. If DWR wants to pursue scientific understanding of how to evaluate ecological flows in the coastal plain,
then our advice would be to go through these options.
• I would advocate an integrated whole for the EFSAB report as much as possible. a thorough summary of the coastal work should be includedbecause the coastal subcommittee's work mirrors
the work that the whole board has done.
•put the research needs into qualitative description of your if/then statements.
• When I look at the map of the four classes of streams and the cover slide that shows the OASIS model area, a lot of piedmont, medium-slope will be captured in the OASIS models.
those could automatically go into the statewide approach.
Recommended Framework for Evaluating Ecological Flows in the Streams and Rivers of North Carolina
•Concerns were expressed about using the working rivers philosophy
•The concept is good for reason of discussion, whether or not the specific proposed categories and thresholds are
•Discussion about uncertainty values -- some would like to see them, others point out that the uncertainty is good for biological data.
•Regarding where this could be applied, it was suggested that it could apply everywhere but the tidal areas.
During a discussion, several members of the board expressed concern about taking time to review and develop an agreement about the list versus spending time directly developing recommendations
that would naturally offer context for the discussion.
Concepts and principles Regarding Ecological Responses to Flows
several members of the board expressed concern about taking time to review and develop an agreement about the list versus spending time directly developing recommendations that would
naturally offer context for the discussion.
Discussion on characterization
•Unsure of the relevance of characterization in the way it’s currently reflected in this draft of report, given that EFSAB did not focus upon it in this fashion.
•Make our recommendations and then back up and see what we need to include based on that. A lot of those answers may come after we have recommendations to provide justification.
•RTI and USGS did a lot of work on classification (as a means for characterization). Many various methods were tried that need to be reflected in the document, but it will be hard to
include until the RTI report is written.
•The legislation calls for EFSAB to characterize ecology in the different river basins, so we somehow need to address that charge in the report, or explain how and why we did not address
it.
•DWR staff characterizes the basins when doing basin plans, so we could say that DWR already does this.
•Suggest a different way to characterize ecology by basically discussing the relationships between different flow components and ecology. That stands on its own. We could find this
information in other documents.
•It needs to come out of findings and into a preface section. Its not a finding, but rather it sets stage for characterizing ecology
Continued discussion of flow recommendation
Why not to provide a number or range as a threshold?
Is recommending a % change recommending a policy decision?
As a group we have different understandings and interpretations of the threshold concept of the ecodeficit model.
DENR should have the capacity to determine a threshold themselves
Authors should be able to provide a recommendation and justify it rather than the Board setting that point.
Is it defensible since there is no report from RTI yet, and no publication?
Why provide a number or range as a threshold?
If saying DENR should consider change of biological condition between current and future as a decision criterion, without guidance on how to interpret what is allowable % change, nothing
may happen with it.
PHABSIM approach would also require an allowable % change to be used as a decision criterion.
If x% is recommended as an initial threshold with some explanation of why we chose the #, it’s at least a point of discussion. If it’s ignored, at least we’ve gone down with some number
and some reasoning.
Would allow us to frame it as a risk of change if more than this % change happens, to say further review warranted when this threshold is crossed without defining a specific action of
DENR.
DENR needs some context for what a % change in bio condition would amount to, and risk of change in EPT class is most logical (criteria with which to evaluate the magnitude of change).

See above

1. Regarding Flow Recommendations
A. Recommendation 1: Statewide approach using simultaneously two tools:
-In the basinwide hydrologic models, use 80-90% flow-by as the ecological flow.
- If the basinwide hydrologic models indicate that there is insufficient water available to meet all needs, essential water uses and ecological flows, then further review is recommended.
- The Eco-deficit tool should be used to determine the current and future modeled biological condition of locations in the basinwide hydrologic models.
- DENR should evaluate the change in current and future biological condition as a decision criterion. A 5-10% change in biological condition is suggested as a threshold for further
review by DENR. [section requires further discussion/review by EFSAB to determine if all members can live with/support this statement].
a. The Board tentatively defined flow-by as: The percentage of ambient modeled daily flow that remains in the stream. For modeling purposes this is calculated on a daily basis. [Need
to define somewhere how daily flow is reached].
b. The Board opted to continue fleshing out recommendations and let writers define terms, then address any concerns about that later.
c. RTI will provide an outline of the RTI report to the EFSAB by mid-Sept for a review by the EFSAB; include justifications of the 5, 10, and 15% thresholds to assist with discussion
in Sept about the possible threshold.
B. Recommendation 2: Headwater Streams
There is limited biological and hydrologic data in headwater streams within North Carolina. These streams have a higher vulnerability to disturbance, and the broader statewide approach
may not adequately reflect the potential for impact to ecological integrity. Therefore, DENR should identify the subset of headwater streams to receive alternative analysis. (Note
for further explaining- examples of vulnerability, how and in what way. Less water to start could be converted to intermittent)."
2. Coastal Plain Strategy:
Linda Diebolt will work with Bob Christian to address the coastal plain strategy. This would include the changes that resulted from the Aug 21 discussion and any pertinent rationale/assumptions,
citations, and references to justify what is being proposed in the coastal strategy. Writing teams are asked to include other research and literature that was reviewed and rejected
to arrive as this strategy.

Proposed Actions or Identified Decisions to be made:
Regarding Flow Recommendations
1. Another potential recommendation was proposed: The current SIMBASE2013 should be used as the prevailing condition from now forward.
2. Maybe we should advise DWR on how to assess condition of stream, and there are a couple different ways to do that.
a. Compare against unregulated flow
b. Use eco-deficit tool.
3. When we’re saying to maintain ecological integrity, we’ll at some point define what it is.
4. Whether or not to set a threshold for %biological change in the recommendation, and, if so, what that threshold should be.
5. How to move forward between now and September?
a. Address concerns about defensibility/validity
i. Seek report from RTI as documentation (needed)
ii. Seek additional supporting documentation from other studies, states that could provide references for using indices as evaluations and particular percent changes (would be helpful)
1. MI paper with table that has water management zones
2. Others?
6. Chris Goudreau will find the MI report to use as a possible reference for biological change threshold decision.
7. EFSAB members should share any references from other states, studies that could help with the biological change threshold decision
8. Mark will provide a presentation Sept 24 on how to evaluate the Oasis nodes.
Regarding coastal recommendations:
A. Use if/then statements? For example, if DWR wants to pursue scientific understanding of how to evaluate ecological flows in the coastal plain, then our advice would be to go through
these options.
B. A thorough summary of he coastal work should be included in the report because the coastal subcommittee's work has been so good, and it mirrors the work that the whole board has done.

C. Put the research needs into a qualitative description of the if/then statements. State for your 3 or 4 approaches, how the research needs bolster those. That would help explain
how/why this research is needed.

-RTI will share the proposed outline of their report to the EFSAB for feedback about what should be included, and will complete a description of the biological change threshold methods
and reasoning before the September meeting.
-Chris Goudreau will find MI report to use as a possible reference.
-EFSAB members should share any references from other states, studies that could help with the biological change threshold decision.
Working team assignments
1. Characterization Recommendation: Chris and Linda with Tom Cuffney .
2. Eflow Recommendation 1: Tom Cuffney and Tom Thompson will work on this section. Jennifer Phelan is sending a section of the RTI report that will assist in supporting the choice of
5%, 10% and the 15% thresholds in early Sept.
3. Eflow Recommendation 2 (headwater streams): Judy & Jeff.
4. Coastal Plain Strategy: Linda Diebolt and Bob Christian.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
September 24 & 25, 2013
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p57035086/ for September 24
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p57035086/ for September 25
To be introduced to thePHABSIM results for the mountains; work toward finalizing recommendations and the final report
EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.docx;
Concepts_Principals_Recommendations Around Ecological Intregrity_Aug 16 Report.docx
EDF_Report_Outline.docx
Environmental_Flow_Framework_draft.docx
PHABSIM on Mountain Sites Presenter: Fred Tarver
Assessment of OASIS Nodes in headwaters and discussion of how to address headwaters Presenter: Mark Cantrell
PHABSIM on Mountain Sites
•Discussion centered around the slides that showed great increase of species with >120% WUA
under lower flow scenarios.
• Fry and young of year had better response at low flows like 7Q10 o Literature shows in high grade areas, that would likely reduce flow to usable velocity
• Concern that many streams showed little effect at 75% flow-by, which could raise challenges o If the deep and shallow guilds weren’t combined, you could see a shallow group benefiting
• Sensitivity is lost in the graphs because deep and shallow are combined. Looking at other
graphs could help look at specific responses to 80% flow-by in more detail.
• Concern that many streams showed little effect at 75% flow-by, which could raise challenges o If the deep and shallow guilds weren’t combined, you could see a shallow group benefiting
o Sensitivity is lost in the graphs because deep and shallow are combined. Looking at other graphs could help look at specific responses to 80% flow-by in more detail.
• Results still point to more sensitively when you get below 80% flow-by.Results still point to more sensitively when you get below 80% flow-by.
Assessment of OASIS Nodes in headwaters and discussion of how to address headwaters
•Surprise at the number of intakes on first order streams
• OASIS nodes are not georeferenced- this could be a recommendation  The analyses emphasizes the importance of headwater streams for surface water intakes
•Using <10 km2 as a breakpoint for the statewide flow recommendation makes sense given it
captures more of the first order and 1/3rd of the second order streams.
• Moving up to the next break in stream size used by TNC and SARP (75km2) would create many
more evaluations by DWR staff
• Exactly what further evaluation by DWR that the threshold triggers has not yet been fleshed out
by the EFSAB.
Biological Threshold discussion
Context regarding the % flow-by range
Critical low-flow component discussion
What to Use as Prevailing condition?
Discussion on Conditions that Raise a Flag
What Further Analysis Would Happen If Flag Raised
What level of ecological integrity are the recommendations protecting?
Discussion about How DENR should Implement the two strategies for Maximum Benefit
Discussion: Nine New Written Sections for the EFSAB DRAFT Report
Review of Requested Edits to EFSAB Report 4.0
see above
•The EFSAB decided by consensus to use <10 km2 (3.9 sq. mi) as the threshold for
deviating from their statewide flow recommendation. The language for their headwater recommendation is as follows:
There are limited biological and hydrologic data in headwater streams within North Carolina. These streams have a higher vulnerability to disturbance, and the broader statewide approach
may not adequately reflect the potential for impact to ecological integrity. Therefore, for streams with a drainage area < 10km2 (3.9 sq. mi),DENR should conduct additional analyses
to determine the potential for impacts on ecological integrity.
•As the last sentence in statewide flow recommendation, say: A 5-10% change in biological condition is suggested as a criterion for further review by DENR
•Define baseline as the management regime, whether it was modeled or not, extant at the time the legislation passed on 7/22/2010.
•Put the description of what raises a flag into the recommendations [as opposed to putting it into the text following the recommendations].
•Use Tom Fransen's method for defining flag raising.
•Use the same language regarding what “further analysis” means as was developed for
headwaters
•Use the language in lines 134 through 136 in the current master draft, which say:
"Statewide Ecological Flow Evaluation”
“To evaluate flow scenarios in most North Carolina streams, the following two tools are recommended to assess whether ecological flows are maintained:" [9 ones; one 2];
The Board also reached consensus on changing the word in line 145 from "change" to “reduction”.
•Add a descriptor in the report where the mountain PHABSIM information is earmarked
•Consider a recommendation that NCDWR georeference the nodes for OASIS
•Consider adding an outcome criteria in the report [for further analysis], that doesn't get into the suite of tools that DWR may or may not use.
•Ensure we say that the eco-deficit tool is not only for the exceptions in the statewide recommendation.
•Justify in the report why the Board went with 5-10% based on the RTI report but did not use the 15% or the working rivers approach
•Write a section to include in the report accompanying the statewide flow-by
recommendation. This should include: 1) Context for why a range for flow-by (or bio response such as the numbers in the range are found in the literature, PHABSIM results, lack of consensus
on a single value) and implications for how that range plays out.
•In the report, explain EFSAB’s concern about very low flows; Alberta uses 20th percentile adjusted monthly; more in the literature; DENR should investigate the literature and refine
the numerical value. (add to paragraph 167-173) (language was written on Sept. 25)
•Sam will ensure the RTI report addresses the baseline question and documents the date of the eco-deficit calculation.
•Link the conditions for flagging to everything else we are doing in the report.
•Say in the recommendation that we think it is important to understand the frequency and
magnitude of how long, how often you go below the recommended 80-90% flowby.
•Include a paragraph explaining why the Board has emphasized community structure and species richness and not other aspects of the ecology in determining ecological integrity.
Include discussion of resiliency.

Date
Recording available
Purpose of Meeting
Pre- Meeting Materials Titles and Authors to Review
(with links)
Presentations and Presenters

Key Definitions and/or New Acronyms
Major Discussion Items
Major Questions and Concerns
Decisions/recommendations:
Meeting process
Decisions/Recommendations:
New presenters or presentations
Decisions/Recomemendations:
Methods of studies, convergence and alignement on new methods or procedures
Decisions/Recommendations:
Elements of the Planning Tool for E-Flows
Decisions/Recommendations:
Consensus Principles
Unresolved Issues: Current and Prior Meetings
2013 Report to ERC: Subject Matter
Issues for Eflows 2014 and Beyond
Action items and responsible person
October 22 & 23, 2013
https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p11888740/ for October 22; https://denr.ncgovconnect.com/p74592210/ for October 23
To finalize the EFSAB's recommendations and the final report.
October 22--EFSAB Report Draft 4.2_Changes Requested_Responses.docx and EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.2 MASTER_10212013.docx
October 23-- !!!EFSAB Report DRAFT 4.2 MASTER_10212013_version edited in meeting.docx
Overview of the RTI/USGS Report presented by Jennifer Phelan
Critical Low Flow
Evaluating Potential for Ecological Impacts of Future Water Use (flag-raising
Adaptive Management
Threatened and Endangered Species
Flow-Habitat Relationships
Report Review and Finalization

See the final report at http://www.ncwater.org/files/eflows/sab/EFSAB_Final_Report_to_NCDENR.pdf
See the final report at http://www.ncwater.org/files/eflows/sab/EFSAB_Final_Report_to_NCDENR.pdf
•Chris, Fred, and Linda will revise the Flow-Habitat section and submit it for the EFSAB’s review by 10/31/13.

Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Date
11/8/2010
1/18/2011
3/15/2011
5/17/2011
6/21/2011
8/16/2011
9/20/2011
10/18/2011
11/15/2011
1/17/2012
2/21/2012
4/24/2012
6/19/2012
8/28/2012
10/23/2012
11/27/2012
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not

policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to

best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not

policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to

best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not

policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to

best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not

policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to

best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not

policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to

best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.
Purpose of Meeting
Initial Meeting: introduction to the purpose and rationale for convening the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB)
The purpose of the January meeting was to review the EFSAB Charter and the purpose of the EFSAB. Two concepts were introduced: an overview of Hydrologic Modeling, including specific
models like OASIS, and a presentation of Hydrologic Classification System Software for NC, formally known as StreamFlow NC.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue to discuss and explore the value of using the EFS Classification system, to review the revisions made to the Charter, and participate in a
presentation on Instream Flow Habitat Studies.

To introduce the Eno River Demonstration Project, Review of instream flow methodology and Demonstate instream flow methodology at river
To debrief the Eno River Demonstration Project; gain greater clarity on the scope of the EFSAB work; gain understanding of approaches to eco-flows and gain understanding of what ecological
integrity means to the various EFSAB members

To learn about WaterFALL Model and its potential for informing EFSAB's work; to discuss options for approaching development of ecological flows; to provide Jim Mead feedback on how to
best present the Eno River Flow Scenarios
View and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios using the Eno River State Park site, continuing from August 2011.
See and provide feedback on habitat modeling scenarios for Eno and Buckthorn with <80% and >120% deviations in habitat for guilds/species. Discuss EFSAB charge.
To learn about scientific methods that other states/agencies (FL, GA, MI, Potomac River Comm) are using to determine ecological flows; to consider invertebrate issues of habitat suitability
curves, and to better understand how ecological flows will be used in NC River Basin models.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
1. explore the USGS Science Thrust Project - Water Availability for Ecological Needs (with Mary Freeman)
2. ensure discussion about biological aspects of Eco-Flows
3. Mid-Course Report to ERC with Tom Reeder

Examine the status of Fidelity Testing, discuss and provide feedback on it. Expand knowledge about different stream classifications being used by other entities, learn about classification
system used by TNC. Learn about DWR color coding classification within river basins. Provide feedback on new habitat modelingscenario approaches being developed and tested.
see ncwater.org
•Hear EFSAB reactions and implications of BioFidelity •Analysis and species community analyses to EFSAB.
•Gain understanding of RTI internal R&D project and how relates to EFSAB
•Revisit results of Trial Balloon discussion
• http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/sab/analyses/Background_Overview/
Purpose of the October meeting is to:
1. reflect on the Pros and Cons of Habitat Modeling as a Planning Tool
2. discuss the results of the Biofidelity Analysis of Stream Classes in NC
3. continue the discussion about Environmental Flows And Coastal Waters
4. discuss the proposed NCDWR Concept Paper and its contributes in providing a Path Forward for the EFSAB.

•Hear about a proposed approach to develop a biological-environmental classification system (BEC) and suppporting flow-biology relationships in NC, being conducted by RTI
•To hear an overview of the presentation that Tom Reeder gave to the ERC and receive clarity from Tom Reeder on DWR's expectations for the EFSAB: The work/focus of the EFSAB is not
policy but a review of scientific information to assist NC DWR with future planning; for the purposes of the NC DWR, the flow metrics will be placed into the models to help identify
areas that would be adversely impacted; then information of adverse impacts will be brought back to the ERC to determine what action to take as a result of areas that would be severely
impacted.
•To hear a panel discussion on WaterFALL and OASIS modeling withBrian McCodden, Michele Cutrofello Eddy, Tom Fransen and Fred Tarver
•To revisit the formerly proposed consensus principle that percent inflow should be used as the preferred flow metric moving forward
•To develop understanding of who the Water Coordination Group is, what they do and how that relates to the EFSAB
•To learn of the decommissioning of some USGS gages in NC and discuss the significance of that to the EFSAB and its work.