20141127 Ver 1_Emails_20141217 (2)

Baker, Virginia
From: Eaton, Larry
Sent: Wednesday, December l7'ZUl4l:3l PM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: FVV Mud Lick Bugs
Hey Ginny,
FYI. Based on this discussion | was having with Greg, don't be surprised ifEEP comes up with some sort ofproposal for
success by reduction in specific conductance.
From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, December 17,2O14 1:27 PM
To: Eaton, Larry
Subject: RE: Mud Lick Bugs
Thanks again
Greg Melia
�trearn Sciences and Monitoring Specialist I Science & Analysis Section
Ecosystem Enhancement Program I N[ Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3OOOA, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 1 Fax: [phone] Mobile: [phone] http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information
third parties.
From: Eaton Larry
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Melia, Gregory
Cm: Baker Virginia
Subject: RE: Mud Lick Bugs
Hey Greg,
Yes the size of the watershed outside oftherestorationcou|dbeaprob|em,hovveveritmaybethatbygettingthecovvs
out you will have removed so many local nutrients and sediment that the bugs might respond. Might — noguarantees.
As for Susan Gale's conductance work, I was the one who lobbied to get it in NCSAM. | think itisa very interesting
correlation she has there. The biggest issue with it, in terms of NCSAM, was that the assessment would be based on a

single measurement and specific conductance can fluctuate by the hour. Confidence in accuracy of the sp cond numbers
improves with more observations so her correlations based on thousands of specific conductance observations were
pretty solid. It wouldn't catch a spill the month before, like bugs could, but with enough observations over time, a
significant decline in specific conductance could be used to document positive change in a stream.
Larry
From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:22 AM
To: Eaton, Larry; Baker, Virginia
Cm: Russell, Pehann; Schaffer,]eff; ]effKeatnn
Subject: RE: Mud Lick Bugs
Thanks very much to you both!
Yes | recall when you did that Larry. | believe we saw that kind of index response on Lyle [reek, Pur|earand maybe high
The appearance out there plus what Wildlands has observed during the summer months indicates a very depressed
baseline atMud|icknodoubt. These observations are supported by your sample, although we recognize it's not like a
One difference between those older sites and Mud Lick is that Mud Lick has a larger watershed (about 3 SM), but
hopefully the watershed control points will help us interpret what vve observe within the project extent. As a result the
channe|is|argerherecomparedtothoseo|derprojects|'mmentioning,thereforethe"biomass"ofthebufferre|ativeto
the channel may not be able to influence this channel to the same degree as some of those older projects in the typical
monitoring timeframes. However, the cattle usage of this channel has been pretty intense, so we may see a response in
some parameters sooner than vvethink.
Larry, | was also wondering about your thoughts on the Susan Gale report regarding the benthos+zonducdvity
relationship.
I think it was good conversation on site.
Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist I Science & Analysis Section �
Ecosystem Enhancement Program I N[ Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3OOOA, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 1 Fax: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
Parkine and visitor access information
third parties.

From: Eaton Larry
Sent: Wednesday, December 17,2O141O:]7AM
To: Baker, Virginia; Melia, Gregory
Subject: RE: Mud Lick Bugs
MELSM
Just to expand onGinn/s email alittle. |n some work | finished a year ago, | did some reanalysis of sites in the Penrose
box (Ginny has results) and concluded that if you used Biotic Index as the metric, rather than Dominants in Common or
EPTS that Penrose used, that most sites that were not rated Good or Excellent water quality before construction showed
one bioc|ass improvement over the 5-7 years of monitoring (using DVVR small stream biocriteria). Based on this, the |ovv
diversity of tolerant bugs suggest that the site would rate lower than Good and thus benthic monitoring pre and post
construction would have agood chance of demonstrating ecological uplift.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Larry
From: Baker Virginia
Sent: Wednesday, December 17,2O141O:27AM
To: Melia, Gregory
Cm: Eaton Larry
Subject: RE: Mud Lick Bugs
Hi Greg,
Larry took a look at these. Low diversity and what little was found was considered tolerant. There appeared to be one
species of midge (larry had not identified), one or two amphipods, a worm or two and I thought there was one beetle
Ginny
From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: Mud Lick Bugs
Hey Ginny,
Hop you are well.
| was just wondering if you saw anything else beyond those midges and that one amphipod we saw the in the pan the
other day?
Thanks
Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist I Science & Analysis Section �
Ecosystem Enhancement Program I NC Dept of Environment & Natural Resources

Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 1 Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 1 Fax: [phone] Mobile: [phone] http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep
Parkinia and visitor access information
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.