Laserfiche WebLink
<br />".......",,,,,,, <br /> <br />- ... ..... ............., <br /> <br />8.16.96 4:46PMj 970 385 6539 -> <br />.>> ~OH-WCAD' 9D; '8 <br /> <br />303 866 4474; <br /> <br />#7/22 <br /> <br />SENT BY: BOR-WCAOS SO; <br /> <br />SWQB.'NMED Summary <br />Augulit 12, 1996 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />nulUeric standards (as is ;onsistently don. throuihout the BOR Water Quality Appendix) is not <br />appropriate-the individual values shOll1d be compared to the Sl..nrl"rW, The Willer quality standards <br />W8R not d.ovclopcd for IlOIIIpll1'i90n to avezaae val\le3. They lIpply to any iDdividual value collected <br />at any time at any location \\-ithin the seament. <br /> <br />Table 5 (page B 1 S) This table lists !hI n\lDlber of OlI.ceedmces of water quality standards at the <br />various Anima, River stations along with the total number of 9lIIIlples collected for the selected trau <br />clements. It is not indicat~ whether the samples are total or diuolwd and it must be accepted on <br />faith that the values Wtte colDp8l'ed to the ;omc.t nummc standards (which is highly doubtful since <br />the water quality standards used were inconect). Elw.n stl11fPlu 0111 of 30 (37%) coll<<ted for <br />_rcruy auedelf th, """"fie statldortls JOf tile two Aninrtu River statilHU. Thirty sampID Dill <br />of31 (97%) COlkcw1.fOf I,lellilu.ll exueded the .,,_Tit: standards/of th. two Animas Rtvo <br />statwllS . <br /> <br />This table also compares the selenium. sample results to the EP A aquatic life chronic criterion (S <br />/'rIL), 8lIsumillS that the criterion;8 for dissolved selenium, Twenty-one of the 31 (68%) samples <br />collected exc<<ded this Ies.~ stringent ~tanda.rd, 5 Throughout the Water Quality Appendix the FoP A <br />aquatic life chronic criterion is assumed to be for dissolved IlCleni1.llTl, although EP A developed these <br />standards based 011 the lotBl recoverable fraction and bas modifie.llhc litandardS when used for the <br />dissolved, <br /> <br />Table Se-2 (page B-95) Thill table liJIts 10llIl Uld dissolved selenium levels in the Animas River at <br />vuiolllllltaUons by month for the years 1992-95, Alii? samples for total selenium co\1ected from <br />the Animu River at Cedar Hill exceed the New Mexico D\lJIlmC water quality standard for lotal <br />recoverable Iiclellium. The average of these measurements is 11_S ~glL. Nineteen of 20 slllllple5 <br />(95%) for tota1 selenium colleeted fi:ool. the Animas Ri,'Ct' at Allee: c:x.c:eod tho Now Mexico IIUmmic <br />water quslity standltd for total recoverable selenium. The average oftheee measurements is 12.8 <br />ullfL, Ten of the 35 sampl" (251o/G) for dissolved selenium collecled from the Anima. Riyt:r at <br />Cedar Hill and at Aztec; exceed the New Mexico nUllleric water quality standard for total Ie<:overable <br />selenium. Tlcra, somewhere between 29% tllUIlfJO" qf the IlUIfIIles woNltlhav. O<<:t!.ded New <br />M6Jtieo'$ totlll Tt!COveftzbk se/tlliJIm stllll4Ju4. <br /> <br />5 CommentS have been made that this proposed project has only recently been viewed as a <br />water quality problem within New Mexico because of the State's roc.ent loWllring D.f its water quality <br />standard fur this polllItaDt These conunmlS are without merit in tbat the State's surface water <br />quality chronic 5tandard had originally been established at the EPA chronic criterion of 5 J.LEIL , <br />Hen" tlrt majority ofthr BOR le16nium _lISllremDltr wlthl. New Ma:ictJ wtJuld violate tlte <br />St/lU'S $llIIIdartl/or lilts pollulJlnt undu cUller tllr Idstorical or the CN"."t r:r;Ier;o", <br /> <br />%3 <br />