Code of Colorado Regulations
1000 - Department of Public Health and Environment
1002 - Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series)
5 CCR 1002-38 - REGULATION NO. 38 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN LARAMIE RIVER BASIN REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN SMOKY HILL RIVER BASIN
Section 5 CCR 1002-38.12 - STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

1. These regulations are not adopted as control regulations. Stream classifications and water quality standards are specifically distinguished from control regulations in the Water Quality Control Act, and it is the view of the Commission that they need not be adopted as control regulations pursuant to the statutory scheme.

2. The Commission has been requested in the public hearings to rule on the applicability of these and other regulations to the operation of water diversion facilities, dams, transport systems, and the consequent withdrawal, impoundment, non-release and release of water for the exercise of water rights. The Commission has determined that any such broad ruling is inappropriate in the context of the present regulations. While the request raises significant issues that must be addressed, the Commission is aware of the current practices of the Division and notes no significant impacts on these activities. In addition, these questions involve complex legal issues currently in litigation. The request does not raise specific questions as to proposed classifications and standards; however, the Commission has taken into account the fact that some issues are unresolved in adopting classifications and standards, as is more fully discussed below. In addition, on January 5, 1981, the Commission adopted a policy statement on quality/quantity issues that addresses a number of concerns.

1. For purposes of adopting classifications and water quality standards, the streams and water bodies are identified according to river basin and specific water segments.

2. Within each river basin, specific water segments are defined, for which use classifications and numeric water quality standards are adopted. These segments may constitute a specified stretch of river mainstem, a specific tributary, a specific lake or reservoir, or a generally defined grouping of waters within the basin (e.g., a specific mainstem segment and all tributaries flowing into that mainstem segment).

3. Segments are generally delineated according to the points at which the use or water quality characteristics of a watercourse are determined to change significantly enough to require a change in use classification and/or water quality standards. In many cases, such transition points can be specifically identified from available water quality data. In other cases, however, the delineation of segments is based upon best judgements of where instream changes in uses or water quality occur, based upon upstream and downstream data.

1. The use classifications have been established in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.1.6 and 3.1.13 of the Basic Regulations. Each proposal classification is based upon actual current uses or existing water quality. In the latter case, even though the use may not be in place, the classification is attached if existing water quality would allow that use.

2. In all cases the regulation has been followed that an upstream use cannot threaten or degrade a downstream use. Accordingly, upstream segments of a stream are generally the same as, or higher in classification than, downstream segments. In a few cases, tributaries are classified at lower classifications than mainstems, where the flow from tributaries does not threaten the quality of mainstem waters and where the evidence indicates that lower classifications for the tributaries is appropriate.

3. The Commission has determined that it has the authority to assign the classification "High Quality Waters - Class 1" and High Quality Waters - Class 2" where the evidence indicates that the requirements of Sections 3.1.13 (e) are met. The validity of the use of this classification has been determined on a case-by-case basis.

4. The classification "High Quality Waters - Class 1" has been assigned where the following factors are present:

5. Not all segments located within wilderness areas have been classified "High Quality -Class 1". In addition, rivers designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and streams providing unique habitats for threatened species of fish have not been classified "High Quality - Class 1". These segments have been classified "High Quality - Class 2" for the following reasons:

6. The "High Quality - Class 2" classification was considered for many segments located on National Forest Service lands and in other instances. These proposals have been rejected and the segments classified for specific uses for the following reasons:

7. Qualifiers - "Goal"

The "goal" qualifier (Section 3.1.13 (a), Basic Regulations) has been used in specific cases where waters are presently not fully suitable for the classified use, but are intended to become so. In all such cases, water quality standards have been established to protect the classified uses and temporary modifications have been granted for specified parameters.

8. Qualifiers - "Interrupted Flow"

The Commission has considered appending the "interrupted flow" qualifier to numerous stream segments in accordance with Sections 3.1.13 (c) of the Basic Regulations; however, numerous questions have arisen as to its meaning and applicability. The insertion of the provision is to allow the Commission to classify certain stream segments according to their water quality despite the existence of flow problems. It has not been included in order to eliminate confusion as to its applicability to diminished, as opposed to interrupted, flows. It has also been eliminated in order to eliminate any misimpression regarding benefits to dischargers: this qualifier is essentially a statement of the obvious, particulary in view of the provision regarding low flow exceptions (Section 3.1.9(1), Basic Regulations.

In addition, where flow characteristics permanently impair the suitability of the stream segment to provide a habitat for a wide variety of aquatic life, the "Class 2 - Cold Water Aquatic Life" classification has been assigned.

9. Recreation - Class 1 and 2

In addition to the significant distinction between Recreation - Class 1 and Recreation -Class 2 as defined in Section 3.1.13 of the Basic regulations, the difference between the two classifications in terms of water quality standards is the fecal coliform parameter. Recreation - Class 1 generally results in a standard of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml; Recreation - Class 2 generally results in a standard of 2000 fecal coliform per 100 ml.

The Commission has heard considerable testimony on the issue of applying these classifications and has deliberated on it at length. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 2" those stream segments where primary contact recreation does not exist and cannot be reasonably expected to exist in the future and where municipal discharges are present which may be unnecessarily affected by the "Recreation - Class 1" classification to their detriment and that of the aquatic life in the stream segment. The Commission has decided to classify as "Recreation - Class 1" those stream segments where primary contact recreation exists or where the fecal coliform standard of 200 per 100 ml. is being met and no point source discharges exist, despite the absence of the primary contact use. The reasons for these decisions are as follows:

1. The water quality standards for classified stream segments are defined as numeric values for specific water quality parameters. These numeric standards are adopted as the limits for chemical constituents and other parameters necessary to protect adequately the classified uses in all stream segments.

2. Not all of the parameters listed in the "Tables" appended to the Basic Regulations are assigned as water quality standards. This complies with Section 3.1.7 of the Basic Regulations. Numeric standards have not been assigned for parameters on which there is no data and no knowledge of their occurrence in the basin.

3. A numeric standard for the temperature parameter has been adopted as a basic standard applicable to all waters of the region in the same manner as the basic standards in Section 3.1.11 of the Basic Regulations.

The standard of a 3° temperature increase above ambient water temperature as defined is generally valid based on the data regarding what is necessary to support an "Aquatic Life - Class 1" fishery. The standard takes into account daily and seasonal fluctuations; however, it is also recognized that the 3° limitation as defined is only appropriate as a guideline and cannot be rigidly applied if the intention is to protect aquatic life. In winter, for example, warm water releases from reservoirs (which might not be subject to the standard in any case) may be beneficial to aquatic life. It is the intention of the Commission in adopting the standard to prevent radical temperature changes in short periods of time which are detrimental to aquatic life.

4. Numeric standards for nineteen organic parameters have been adopted as basic standards applicable to all waters of the region in the same manner as the basic standards in Section 3.1.11 of the Basic Regulations. These standards are essential to a program designed to protect the waters of the state regardless of use classifications because they describe the fundamental conditions that all waters must meet.

It is the decision of the Commission to adopt these standards as basic standards because their presence in not generally suspected. Also, these numbers are not detectable using routine methodology and there is some concern regarding the potential for monitoring requirements if the standards are placed on the particular stream. This concern should be alleviated by Section 3.1.14 of the Basic Regulations but there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of those numbers by other entities. Regardless of these concerns, because these parameters are highly toxic, there is a need for regulating their presence in state waters. Because the Commission has determined that they have uniform applicability here, their inclusion as basic standards for the region accomplishes this purpose.

5. In many cases, the numeric water quality standards are taken from the "Tables" appended to the Basic Regulations. These table values are used where actual ambient water quality data in a segment incases that the existing quality is substantially equivalent to, or better than, the corresponding table values. This has been done because the table values are adequate to protect the classified uses.

Consistent with the Basic Regulations, the Commission has not assumed that the table values have presumptive validity or applicability. This accounts for the extensive data in the record on ambient water quality. However, the Commission has found that the table values are generally sufficient to protect the use classifications. Therefore, they have been applied in the situations outlined in the preceding paragraph as well as in those cases where there is insufficient data in the record to justify the establishment of different standards. The documentary evidence forming the basis for the table values is included in the record.

6. In many cases, instream ambient water quality provides the basis for the water quality standards (See 7 below). In those cases where the classified uses presently exist or have a reasonable potential to exist despite the fact that instream data reflects ambient conditions of lower water quality than the table values, instream values have been used. In these cases, the evidence indicates that instream values are adequate to protect the uses. In those cases where temporary modifications are appropriate, instream values are generally reflected in the temporary modification and table values are reflected in the corresponding water quality standard. (Goals are established for the appropriate classification affected by the parameter).

Cases in which water quality standards reflect these instream values usually involve the metal parameters. On many stream segments elevated levels of metals are present due to natural or unknown causes, as well as mine seepage from inactive or abandoned mines. These sources are difficult to identify and impractical or impossible to control. The classified aquatic life uses may be impacted and/or may have adjusted to the condition. In either case, the water quality standards are deemed sufficient to protect the uses that are present.

7. In establishing standards based on instream ambient water quality, a calculation is made based upon the mean (average) plus one standard deviation (x[BAR] + s) for all sampling points on a particular stream segment. Since a standard deviation is not added to the water quality standard for purposes of determining the compliance, this is a fair method as applied to discharges.

Levels that were determined to be below the detectable limits of the sampling methodology employed were averaged in as zero rather than at the detectable limit. This moves the mean down but since zero is also used when calculating wasteload allocations, this method is not unfair to dischargers.

A number of different statistical methods could have been used. All of them have pros and cons and the approach used is reasonable.

Metals present in water samples may be tied up in turbidity when the water is present in the stream. In this form they are not "available" to fish and may not be detrimental to aquatic life. Because the data of record does not distinguish as to availability, some deviation from table values, as well as the use of x[BAR] + s, is further justified because it is unlikely that the total value in the samples analyzed is in available form.

8. No water quality standards are set below detectable limits for any parameter, although certain parameters may not be detectable at the limit of the standards using routine methodology. However, it must be noted that stream monitoring, as opposed to effluent monitoring, is generally not the responsibility of the dischargers but of the state. Furthermore, the purpose of the standards is to protect the classified uses despite the inconvenience monitoring may impose.

Section 3.1.15 of the Basic Regulations states that "dischargers will not be required to regularly monitor for any parameters that are not identified by the Division as being of concern". Generally, there is no requirement for monitoring unless a parameter is in the effluent guidelines for the relevant industry.

9. The dissolved oxygen standard is intended to apply to the epilimnion and metalimnion strata of lakes and reservoirs. Respiration by aerobic micro-organisms as organic matter is consumed is the primary cause of a natural decrease in dissolved oxygen and anaerobic conditions in the hypolimnion. Therefore, this stratum is exempt from the dissolved oxygen standard.

10. Where numeric standards are established based on historic instream water quality data at the level of x[BAR] + s, it is recognized by the Commission that measured instream parameter levels might exceed the standard approximately 15 percent of the time.

11. Dischargers are not responsible for the removal of pollutants present in their intake water, but may be held responsible for any and all additions of pollutants by such discharger, where necessary, to meet applicable water quality standards.

12. It is the Commission's intention that the Division implement and enforce these water quality standards consistent with the manner in which they have been established.

1. Bioassays performed in the Cache la Poudre River show that a .1 mg/l standard is appropriate in that stream. The results of these bioassays may be appropriately extrapolated to similar plains streams; i.e., those streams that demonstrate similar chemical, physical, and biological characteristics.

2. limited nature of the aquatic life present;

3. limited recreational value of species present;

4. habitat limitations, primarily flow and streambed characteristics, that impose significant limitations on the nature of aquatic life, even if ammonia reductions were attained;

5. rapid dissipation of ammonia in streams, reducing the impact of such discharges downstream; and

6. Economic costs of ammonia removal, especially where such costs would fall primarily on publicly-owned treatment works, and while the availability of construction grant funds is questionable.

1. 40 pCi/l generally reflects background concentrations of uranium that may be found in streams in Colorado and therefore this amount approximates routine human exposure.

2. The statistical risk of human health hazards is small at 40 pCi/l.

3. 40 pCi/l is an interim level, established now pending the outcome of further studies currently underway.

1. Page 1, segments 2a, 2b, and 2c (proposed as page 1, segment 2)

This segment has been re-segmented based on water quality data and other information submitted by the Coors Company indicating that Mosquito Creek and South Mosquito Creek deserve unique treatment. These streams have been subject to channelization, thus impacting aquatic life habitat and the presence of mine drainage results in high levels of heavy metals.

2. Page 2, segment 6 (proposed as page 1, segment 6)

Present water quality and aquatic habitat demonstrates that the proposed classifications are in place and proposed standards currently met. There are trout found here, although there is a question as to whether of not reproduction takes place in this segment. However, given the importance of this segment as part of the Littleton Floodplain Park, efforts of the Division of Wildlife to establish an urban fishery, existing quality, and the lack of any definite impact on dischargers, the proposed classifications standards are deemed appropriate. Since the Mission Viejo Company is planning to install nitrification facilities, the standard for ammonia should be met downstream of their proposed discharge. In the event that this is not the case in fact, the Commission will be able to re-evaluate this situation in full when standards are reconsidered.

3. Page 3, segment 14 (same as proposed)

Although there are large numbers of fish present in this segment, including some game fish, it is believed that there is no spawning in this stretch of stream due to high temperatures. Littleton - Englewood has demonstrated a willingness to increase treatment provided other dischargers do likewise in order to make their own efforts meaningful. Under such circumstances, it may be of measurable benefit to the stream to reduce ammonia levels. Therefore, a temporary modification for ammonia has been established based on existing quality, in the belief that the .06 mg/l standard can be achieved.

4. Page 4, segment 15 (proposed as page 3, segment 15)

The .2 mg/l NH3 standard represents instream quality. The reasons for this standard appear above at part VI, Denver Metro being the affect municipality.

A total ammonia standard has not been adopted based on a lack of necessity for such a standard, the problems involved in defining "point of intake" and applying such standard, as well as the costs involved in meeting the standard.

5. Page 4, segment 17b (proposed as page 3, segment 17)

A goal for Class 1 Aquatic Life has been established since there is a Clean Lakes Program Grant to improve the lake. Data from the Coors Company indicates elevated levels of cadmium, copper, iron, and lead, and therefore standards have been established on that basis for this lake.

6. Page 6, segments 1a, 1b, 1c (proposed as page 5, segment 1)

Existing ammonia levels are sufficient to justify a .02 mg.l standard on all reaches of this segment although population growth may result in future problems. The establishment of appropriate mixing zones should solve any existing problem in attaining the standard and the "footnote" has been attached to the ammonia standard in segment 1b, so that impacts on discharges may be assessed as they develop.

7. Page 8, segment 2 (proposed as page 6 segment 2)

The water supply classification has been removed because such use is not in place. In addition, existing quality may not support such a classification.

Numbers for various metals parameters are elevated based on water quality data submitted by the Coors Company, the City of Golden, and the Climax Molybdenum Company demonstrating higher instream values.

8. Page 8, segments 3a, 3b (proposed as page 6, segment 3)

Segment 3b has been separated out for unique treatment based on water quality data and other information submitted by Coors indicating poor streambed characteristics, limited aquatic life, and poor instream water quality. This reach has been subject to channelization and has a steep gradient. There are few species and numbers of species present. Elevated levels of heavy metals have been recorded.

9. Page 8, segment 4, page 9, segments 5 and 6 (proposed as page 6, segments 4 and 5)

The Commission adopts the rationale contained in Exhibit #1, page 16, of the hearing record on the Upper South Platte except as indicated below.

Numbers for metals parameters have been changed from those proposed based on water quality data submitted by Coors and Climax, as well as additional data developed by the Water Quality Control Division. The mainstem of West Clear Creek has been segmented to recognize the existence of different water quality above and below the confluence with Woods Creek, which has the major impact on water quality in West Clear Creek.

Temporary modifications have not been adopted here, but instead have been assigned on segment 7 where the discharges exist.

10. Page 9, segment 7 (proposed as page 6, segment 6)

The Commission adopts the rationale contained in Exhibit #1 page 17, of the hearing record on the Upper South Platte, except as indicated below.

With the existing segmentation, Upper Woods Creek, from the source to the outlet of Upper Urad Reservoir, is included in segment 6 (tributaries). Segment 7 is highly impacted by active and abandoned mine drainage. Treatment of active mine discharges is desirable primarily to improve water quality in West Clear Creek, where aquatic life habitat is good and could support a greater diversity of aquatic life with improved water quality in Woods Creek. This is attainable with treatment of existing discharges. During periods of low flow, Woods Creek makes up a majority of the flow in West Clear Creek. For these reasons, the standards adopted are the same as those for West Clear Creek. Temporary modifications have been assigned based on existing quality.

Since the City of Golden owns water rights in this segment, which may be affected by treatment requiring consumptive use, the Commission requests to be kept informed of any impacts on such water rights.

11. Page 10, segment 11, segment 14 (proposed as page 6, segment 11 and page 8, segment 14)

Numbers have been changed based on water quality data submitted by Climax and various municipalities.

A phosphorus standard has not been adopted as requested by parties. A study of the lake is needed to determine if a phosphorous problem exists.

A total ammonia standard has not been adopted because of a lack of demonstrated need for any such standard, the low levels of ammonia downstream in Standley Lake, the difficulty of measuring and defining compliance with such a standard, and the high costs associated with treatment to the levels requested.

12. Page 11, segment 15 (proposed as page 8, segment 15)

A goal for Aquatic Life - Class 1 has been established because this segment is a high priority for development by the Division of Wildlife as an urban fishery, and because flow and habitat conditions preclude full attainment of such use at present. Improvements of water quality and habitat may result in attainment of this goal.

The water supply classification and appropriate water quality standards have been adopted because this segment serves as a water supply for the City of Thornton. The .06 mg/l NH

3 standard is adopted in conjunction with the goal for aquatic life, while a temporary modification to .15 mg/l is assigned, reflecting existing quality.

13. Page 11, segment 17 (proposed as page 8, segment 17)

The segment description has been revised to include all three reservoirs located on this segment, all of which serve as municipal water supplies.

A Class 2 - Aquatic Life classification has been adopted because the aquatic life habitat is impacted by low flows and the existence of physical barriers to fish migration upstream from Ralson Reservoir.

Numbers for various metals parameters are elevated from the proposed standards based on instream water quality data.

Temporary modifications for lead, copper and uranium have been adopted to reflect existing quality. The modification is intended to allow the discharger to develop treatment capacity, but is effective only for one year due to the severe impact these parameters can have on the classified uses, namely aquatic life (copper and lead) and water supply (uranium). At the end of that period, the Commission must re-examine the need for the temporary modifications in accordance with the Basic Regulations.

The testimony and other evidence on the uranium issue were made part of the record during the testimony on this segment. Notwithstanding the potential impacts of the standard on the Cotter Corporation mine located in the segment, the rationale that appears above is applicable here. The impact of a polluting discharge should not be included in the calculation of ambient quality where a significant potential public health problems exists. In addition, the burden of pollutant removal should fall on the discharger and not on the downstream municipalities.

The sulfate standard is adopted as necessary to protect the water supply classification. Such action is not, however, deemed to be the adoption of a drinking water standard, since a drinking water standard applies only at the point of delivery to the users, and is enforceable only against supplies of the water to their customers. Compliance with this standard on this segment is to be measured in the reservoirs, not in the stream.

14. Page 12, segment 2 (proposed as page 9, segment 2)

Standards for cadmium, copper, lead and nickel reflect instream levels based upon additional data submitted at the hearing.

A total ammonia standard has been adopted on this segment to protect the water supply classification and to reflect existing quality.

15. Page 13, segments 4a and 4b (proposed as page 10, segment 4)

The Denver Water Board proposed a Class 2 - Aquatic Life classification for this entire segment due to channelization and diversion activities impacting the aquatic habitat. Trout Unlimited proposed a Class 1 classification to reflect existing use and water quality, as well as ongoing efforts to develop a trout fishery in the lower reaches. It is believed that the re-segmentation with a goal for Aquatic Life - Class 1 in segment 4b accomplishes the objectives of the parties and the Commission and reflects existing conditions in the stream.

16. Page 14, segment 6 (proposed as page 10, segment 6)

The water supply classification and appropriate water quality standards have been adopted to protect Great Western Reservoir which serves as a water supply for the City of Broomfield.

17. Page 14, segment 7a, 7b (proposed as page 11, segment 7)

The segment has been re-segmented and a Class 2 - Aquatic Life classification assigned to segment 7b in recognition of limited aquatic life and aquatic habitat in the lower segment due to low flows and streambed characteristics.

18. Page 16, segment 3 (proposed as page 12, segment 3)

The Aquatic Life - Class 1 classification has been retained based on the data and information submitted by the Water Quality Control Division as part of its special studies. This information indicates that the existing water quality, aquatic habitat, as well as numbers and varieties of aquatic species, support the proposal. Although there has been some historic channelization in this segment, the stream has regenerated into a good aquatic habitat.

19. Page 17, segment 2 (proposed as page 13, segment 2)

Water quality standards adopted in this segment reflect instream values measured upstream. The reason for not combining this with segment 1 is the existence of a hardness change where the Big Thompson River enters the South Platte.

20. Page 17, segment 4 (proposed as page 13, segment 4)

The record indicates that this reservoir is subject to great fluctuations in water levels and that it is eutrophic; therefore, a Class 2 - Aquatic Life classification has been assigned.

21. Page 18, segments 4 and 5 (proposed as page 14, segments 4 and 5)

The record on these segments supports the Class 2 - Aquatic Life classification and the standards to protect that use, due to streambed and flow characteristics.

Water quality standards are based on instream levels, and in some cases, extrapolations from water quality information from Cache la Poudre River studies. Such extrapolations are justified due to the following similarities between the streams:

The water supply classification was deleted

22. Page 22, segment 11,12 (proposed as page 18, segments 11, 12)

from segment 11 because the use is not in place or expected to be in place in the future. In addition, treatment for ammonia removal could result in increased nitrate levels, thus rendering the use unattainable.

Copper and silver standards are adopted that reflect the results of bioassays and instream surveys performed in the lower Poudre which are part of the record.

The copper standard in segment 11 is based on the recognition of this segment as a transition zone for hardness and alkalinity. The copper standard in segment 12 is based on bioassays performed in the Poudre, as well as data from the literature and on ambient quality.

The silver standard for both these segments is based upon the proposal, as well as stream monitoring by Kodak/Colorado. The toxic form of silver, the free soluble silver ion, is rarely present in the environment, readily complexes into less toxic forms, and is difficult to measure. For these reasons, levels of silver at the adopted standard can exist without negative impact on the stream or its aquatic life.

A voluminous record on this segment supports the Aquatic Life - Class 2 classification and appropriate standards to protect that use. Aquatic habitat limitations and the historic conditions and uses of the river lead to the conclusion that a wide variety of aquatic life cannot be supported regardless of water quality characteristics.

In addition, extensive biosurveys indicate that the aquatic life in these segments is currently limited, not by water quality but by habitat, and that existing discharges have no significant detrimental impact on the existing aquatic life.

Bioassays performed in the Poudre support a .1 mg/l unionized ammonia standard to protect the existing aquatic life.

FISCAL STATEMENT

Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the South Platte River System Including All Standing Bodies of Water and the Laramie, Republican and Smoky Hill River Systems Including All Standing Bodies of Water in Those Systems

The Water Quality Control Commission is charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, and improve the quality of State waters pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-101 et seq.

The Commission is further charged to classify all waters of the State and to promulgate standards for any measurable characteristics of water (25-8-203 and 25-8-204). The above-titled document assigns use classifications and standards for the State waters in the listed areas in accordance with the "Basic Regulations adopted May 22, 1979.

The measurable fiscal impacts which may be caused by these regulations are as follows:

- Cost of construction of increased or decreased treatment levels of municipal waste treatment facilities;

- Cost of construction of increased or decreased treatment levels of industrial waste treatment facilities;

- Change In cost of Operation and Maintenance of municipal facilities;

- Change in cost of Operation and Maintenance of industrial facilities;

- Cost of in stream monitoring and lab analysis for added by the standards.

Dischargers will not be required to do the stream monitoring. Only those parameters which are limited by a discharge permit will be monitored by the permittee. The state, federal and local agencies now doing in stream monitoring will have some increased cost; however, any additional frequency should be done to improve state surveillance and would be needed regardless of standard changes. In the Basic Standards under the water quality standards system which is being replaced, there was a prohibition of the discharge of toxic materials as follows: