NC0001422_Fish Monitoring Language_20040608

RE; Fish rnonitoring language
Subject: RE: Fish monitoring language
From: "Garrett, Reid W." <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:17:50 -0400
To: "Susan Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Susan
We can live with this language if we can add that if the sampling gets
pushed to the following sampling season because the 120 day requirement
was met too late in the current calendar year, then the resulting data
meets the requirement for the calendar year in which the sampling
actually occurred as well. In other words, we wouldn't have to sample
twice in the same year which would be a lot of effort and expense.
Reid
Bell Line (919) 362 -3280
Vnet 772 -3280
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Susan Wilson [ mailto :[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 2:57 PM
To: Garrett, Reid W.
Cc: Mark Hale
Subject: Fish monitoring language
Reid -
How about this -
Fish monitoring is required should a discharge occur from Outfall 004
any 120 days within a calendar year. Should the 120 days be met after
the field season of spring to fall, then fish monitoring shall commence
during the next field season (i.e., during the spring - fall of the next
calendar year).
If you have questions or concerns about this language - let me and /or
Mark know. (Mark will be in the office this week). If you guys want to
tweak the above language to clarify - feel free to take a shot at it.
Mark and I were trying to retain the 120 day language, while not being
in conflict with the study plan (while also allowing time during the
next calendar year to sample if the 120th discharge day comes near the
end of the year). We believe this should give us the information we
need.
Susan
I of 1 6/11/2004 11:49 AM