Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. . <br /> <br />SENT BY: BOR-WCAOS SO; <br /> <br />8-16-96 4:45PM; 970 385 6539 -> <br />-. "'wn'"~ ."'i If" <br /> <br />303 866 4474; <br /> <br />#5 <br /> <br />SWQBINMED Summary <br />August 12, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Since there are more violations of tile selenium standard on me l.a Plata lUver than on the Animas, <br />and since the Colorado water quality standard for selenium is le~~ s1ritlgent than that of New Mexico' <br />this compari50n downplay!: the magnitude of the IIClenium prohlem in New Mexico, We DOte: <br />however, that the existing water quality, due to lIDthropogenic impacts, periCldiaUly violates !he <br />water quality standards of both states. <br /> <br />The water quality standard for arsenic used by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Water Quality <br />A,ppendix for the Animas and La Plata rivcn (50 /otgIL) must have been based on a desi~ated use <br />of domestic water supply. These waters are not dcsiinated for domestic water supply in New <br />Mexico, The numeric standard fOT the designated use of irriaation (l 00 ~gIL) should be W1ed <br />instead. <br /> <br />Uft/ortulIale1y the Q..4IQC rlll/iewed datil used;" 11" Burellu of Rtclomaliolf W"u, (1l111lity <br />AHe"m tVe not ;"e/_I turd t/J_ is M wq Ir1 bulepend.ently determin, the odufllllumbe, Df <br />eJCcudtmcu olthe New Mexico _ter quality st4ndords /IS;'" I/Jis rqx"'. While we 11II'1II beel! <br />]JrtroIlded copin of tile raw IUIpllblisll.1l alII, BOR st4IJ lulwlttdictIIetI IlIat there if NtUOII to <br />btliew ilia/ thGe dllld Il1'e IUSJUd dw ItJ rcIJD'1bt8 tlVfRe1l<<S Htwee,. tlljferellt 14borGfqriu. The <br />Water Quality Appew.liJl; lIppcars to reqlriN that the ~c:r take it on faith that all comparisons of the <br />applicable water q~ty standotds to the rllW data were done properly. This is not an caS}' <br />L~5umption to accept since the listina oftbe New Mexico water quality standards is so fraught with <br />eIYOJS. Another major problem with the Water Quality Appendix is that data for different Wl\tcr <br />bodies are presented in difforont ways, For example, one set of data ill presented for the Animas <br />River with certain lltatistical metrics and. . different set with completely different metrics is presented <br />for the La Plata River, <br /> <br />Contaminant Impact Assessment <br /> <br />The entire CD1lta",inCl1lt Impact ASStl55numJ of the A.ni~ La Pluta Project (As:lessment) prepared <br />by Susan F'inaer oftbe National Biological S~ce in Colwnbia, MissDUri has been appended to the <br />Water Quality Appendix. We belim that there are also ml,jor problems with this Assessment. <br />Geometric means of data iI1'C used for comparison to the BP A aquatic life criteria in order to <br />dctennio; potential problems. No comparisons are made with the New Mexico water quality <br />standards and no comparisons are made usina the actual individual sllmple result3. Tile lISe ofll <br />"_1111 WIlII,,"for tile c01flJ1tll'lsOll entin1;p IlllOilhd lJIe JH*"'l6.' GlUt of s/Jort-urm lnfp4CU of Illt <br /><<lite or dlf'OlIIe IIa/UN IW/lIIi"llPOm IIIMC! lm/lvliwd wrlua III tltllllpJH' e,,4 of ,It" obsl!PW!t4 <br />or predlde4, lUIal,ytkal 'fUlle, This Assp$!'IJ'ent also asswne8 that only the dissolvllli liaction of <br />the water "contains those elements that IRl potentially bioavailable and may resull in IOxicologic,al <br />responses in an aquatic ecosystem," Therefore this AssessmentbrtentlollllUy rejects the New <br /> <br />t.1.?~ <br />