NC0001422_Fish Monitoring Email_20040518

!ZE: Fisb monitoring - Sutton
�641
Subject: RE: Fish monitoring - Sutton
From: "Garrett, Reid W." <reid.garrett ®pgnmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:51:08 -0400
To: "Susan Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Susan
One thing I see as a problem is if the letter is worded in such a way
that if the 120 day requirement is met on the last day of the year or in
the last few days of the calendar year, then it would be impossible for
us to meet the annual requirement. Also, if we meet the 120 days of
discharge early in the year, then that gives us the rest of the year to
sample. If we go offline for a long period of time, then the fish in the
river could depurate any selenium that they might have accumulated. In
other words, we could wait until a more opportune time to sample, not
that we would. Additionally, something to consider is that prior to
writing up the approved study plan, Mark Hale and I agreed about fish
availability and the best time for sampling is more in late spring to
late fall timeframe. That caveat was incorporated into the original
study plan. I'm not at work so I don't have the plan with me to look
at the wording, but the fish availability caveat is in there I'm pretty
sure. The caveat may come into conflict with the wording of the letter
if the 120 days occurs in the latter half of the year and we are force
to sample when fish are hard to get late in the year. What I was
thinking when I suggested a window was that the time for sampling should
be in the warmer months and it would not allow much time for fish to
depurate selenium if the plant stopped discharging.
If you still want to go with a minimum 120 days of discharge within the
calendar year as the requirement to sample, maybe we could add some
wording that says that if the 120 days is met then you have 60 of days
to sample thereafter, even if it goes into the next calendar year. That
would get around the problem of meeting the requirement too late in the
calendar year to sample. What do you think?
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Susan Wilson [ mailto :[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:55 AM
To: Garrett, Reid W.
Cc: Mark Hale
Subject: Re: Fish monitoring - Sutton
No - I didn't write anything up yet. Just wanted to run the idea past
you first. If you have no objections (Mark and I are in agreement with
this), I'll move forward with a letter. Thanks.
Garrett, Reid W. wrote:
Susan
Was there supposed to be an attachment with this? If so I didn't get
it so I have not reviewed it yet. I was out in the field myself Friday
and will be in a class the rest of the week but I may have access to my
e -mail.
k
µ�
wKDs Soor
1 of 2 5/19/2004 8:52 AM

C,,/l /�
�1to N ?y 'j Wt Ga f N ol►J E
(F -0iy 1 *A-cA Is t!1-,r- I a Zoo-'5- 7 7At4 $,(«,PLC-
oN T ,,jL C&oX, 17owJS
I j lyg*g- SA-rk PLIN C dam' �'2-s Lars
N yam.

J2B: Fish monitoring - Sutton
Reid
Bell Line (919) 362 -3280
Vnet 772 -3280
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Susan Wilson [ mailto :[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 3:28 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Mark Hale
Subject: Fish monitoring - Sutton
Reid - did you get this that I sent the other day? Have you had time
to
look this over? I just don't want it to get too far down in my piles
of
things to do. If you have questions for Mark - he'll be out in the
field on Monday and Tuesday (but I believe back on Wed.).
Reid,
After speaking with Mark, I think we'd feel more comfortable if the
language was such that the fish monitoring was required if the
discharge
occurred any 120 days within the calendar year. Let us know what you
guys think about that (and probably discuss with Mark if you have
issues
with it). Thanks.
Susan
2 of 2 5/19/2004 8:52 AM