20080868 Ver 2_Meeting Minutes_20060208

to
VVA
I . ?P? "& ?
sa11- (x+11)
C? ?u 1
0? L
dyl-
1
? , co'5 f u l P,w
a 0
Lj'? 5 u ?C roc Ie-e k
a'Sk 144W )",4,f z? zit
,' 1 Y
/Vov? WO I
VI cam .
ti? ?i. _ z'?? ? ,.n C3 W G???S ?-?-?C ?il? CQ 41'lS
?? ?
it?,m O?.
MN (?a? 00

s
v14
-so
--I? sad
J;Orz)

10
? ecru ? ? a??-a?.,???
?VTJ*N
N rro
3rC PA
IA rD
;-64 OL
-oq
lyj ::D-j
O
Q
C?S
P
l v7UL Tti'2--
`?R ;?1\ sad`, rylt w ) ti,a ?' f aj?,
V9V mk K s e;eb
J
VTA
P?\? qA?? e,\ave, -?>? e,
p e 4
-45 lll?r O? -
[Fwd: PCS Comments]
Subject: [Fwd: PCS Comments] CID
7-
From: Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:23:51 -0500
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]> ? ??%?
Fleeks comments regarding benthos „ J
-------- Original Message
Return-Path:<eric.fleek(,,ncmail.net>
Received:from relayl.ncmail.net (149.168.220.196) by ms0l.ncmail.net
(7.3.120) id 47809BA300116071 for Jimmie. Overton(-,ncmail.net;
Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:23:26 -0500
Received:from relay l.ncmail.net (127.0.0.1) by relayl.ncmail.net (7.3.118) id
4780A59100162817 for Jimmie. [e-mail]; Thu, 24 Jan
2008 10:23:26 -0500
Received:from [10.251.199.188] (207.4.102.2) by relayl.ncmail.net (7.3.118)
(authenticated as eric.fleek) id 4780A53600150EF6 for
Jimmie.Overton(a-,ncmail.net; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:23:26 -0500
Message-ID:<4798AE05.9040904(a,ncmail.net>
Date:Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:25:57 -0500
From:Eric Fleek <eric.fleek a,ncmail.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:Jimmie Overton <Jimmie.Overton a,ncmail.net>
Subject:PCS Comments
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My primary problem with their benthos data is that they make water
quality conclusions based solely on relative abundances and diversities
of benthos between sites *but do not include any analysis of the Biotic
Index between sites*.
To make water quality conclusions based on benthos (particularly where
there are no EPT as is the case here) without any discussion of a BI is
essentially worthless, but they do it anyway.
My secondary problem are the taxa lists for their "timed" sweep samples.
At all of the sites samples using a sweep, their collections were almost
all just chironomids (maximum diversity using timed sweeps was *only 9
taxa*). Although I have never seen these streams, given their ecoregion
and size I would expect at least /some/ Odonate taxa and some
Coleoptera. *NONE* of their samples had any of these taxa. Moreover, I
would expect a much richer Crustacean assemblage.
Bottomline--I think their sampling methods are under sampling the
habitat (and therefore diversity), and (combined with the lack of any BI
analysis) make any conclusions of water quality differences between
sites useless. So, if they are going to use benthos to make water
quality conclusions between reference and impacted sites, both
before/after DBR, they need to do the following:
1) Improve benthos sampling methods so that more taxa are collected,
1 of 2 2/12/2008 9:23 AM
[Fwd: PCS Comments]
thereby improving subsequent comparisons between sites (I'd recommend
swamp sampling).
2) Include an analysis of Biotic Index difference between sites.
I put the report back into your in box.
Let me know if you have questions.
Eric
2 of 2 2/12/2008 9:23 AM