From: Jeremiah Blondeau - NOAA Affiliate Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:35 AM Subject: Fwd: 0169401 To: Zachary Mason - NOAA Affiliate Zach, Got the scoop on the questions you had about the benthic assessment data. See below from SArah Groves. Cheers J On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Shay Viehman - NOAA Federal wrote: 6 decimal places seems excessive though... On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Sarah Groves - NOAA Affiliate wrote: Shay is correct, the NAs in the FLK data refer to the missing data sheets. The decimal places are due to sites where the entire transect was not sampled so instead of 100 points there were only 92, which would lead to a non whole number when calculating percent cover. S ----------------------- Sarah H. Groves Biologist JHT, Inc. From: Jeremiah Blondeau - NOAA Affiliate Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:20 PM Subject: Re: 0169401 To: Zachary Mason - NOAA Affiliate Zach, We had a diver who had not entered his samples, then moved offices and subsequently lost all his un-entered datasheets. I think the benthic group was making it known we did not have any LPI samples for those specific sites. Cheers Jeremiah