Assessment Comments
Assessment is based on: (1) the results from the IDNR/UHL ambient monthly monitoring station downstream from Sac City in Sac County (STORET station 10810001 (formerly station 423014)) located approximately 5 miles south of Sac City from 2006-2008, (2) results of IDNR/UHL stream REMAP biological monitoring in 2005, and (3) results of 2006 fish contaminant monitoring conducted as part of the IDNR/UHL REMAP biological monitoring project (REMAP Site 164).
Basis for Assessment
[Note: This assessment is also used, in part (except for the assessment of fish consumption uses) for the adjacent upstream segment (IA 04-RAC-0040-6).]
SUMMARY: The Class A1 (primary contact recreation) uses are assessed (monitored) as "not supported" due to levels of indicator bacteria (E. coli) that violate state water quality standards. The Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses remain assessed (evaluated) as "partially supporting" based on results of IDNR/UHL stream REMAP biological monitoring in 2005. The fish consumption uses are assessed as “fully supporting” based on fish contaminant monitoring in 2006. The sources of data for this assessment include (1) the results from the IDNR/UHL ambient monthly monitoring station downstream from Sac City in Sac County (STORET station 10810001 (formerly station 423014)) located approximately 5 miles south of Sac City from 2006-2008, (2) results of IDNR/UHL stream REMAP biological monitoring in 2005, and (3) results of 2006 fish contaminant monitoring conducted as part of the IDNR/UHL REMAP biological monitoring project (REMAP Site 164).
Note: A TMDL for pathogen indicator (E. coli) impairments in the Raccoon River basin was prepared by IDNR and approved by EPA in June 2008. Because this TMDL covers the primary Section 303(d) impairment identified for the 2006 assessment/listing cycle, this waterbody was moved from IR Category 5a from the 2006 assessment/listing cycle to IR Category 4a (impaired; TMDL approved) for the 2008 cycle. This waterbody remains in IR Category 4a for the current (2010) cycle.
EXPLANATION: The Class A1 uses are assessed (monitored) as "not supported" due to levels of indicator bacteria (E. coli) that exceed state water quality criteria. The geometric mean level of indicator bacteria (E. coli) in the 21 samples collected during the recreational seasons of 2006, 2007, and 2008 (201 orgs/100ml) exceeded the Iowa Class A1 water quality criterion of 126 orgs/100ml. In addition, seven of the 21 samples (33%) exceeded Iowa’s single-sample maximum criterion of 235 orgs/100 ml. According to U.S. EPA guidelines for Section 305(b) reporting, and according to IDNR’s assessment/listing methodology, if the geometric mean of E. coli is greater than the state criterion of 126 orgs/100 ml., the primary contact recreation uses should be assessed as "not supported" (see pgs 3-33 to 3-35of U.S. EPA 1997b).
The Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses remain assessed (evaluated) as “partially supporting” based on biological data collected in 2005 IDNR/UHL stream REMAP biological monitoring project. A series of biological metrics which reflect stream water quality and habitat integrity were calculated from the biocriteria sampling data. The biological metrics are based on the numbers and types of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa and fish species that were collected in the stream sampling reach. The biological metrics were combined to make a fish community index of biotic integrity (FIBI) and a benthic macroinvertebrate index (BMIBI). The indexes rank the biological integrity of a stream sampling reach on a rising scale from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). The 2005 FIBI score was 50 (fair) and 2005 BMIBI score was 48 (fair). The aquatic life use support was assessed (evaluated) as partially supporting (=PS), based on a comparison of the FIBI and BMIBI scores with biological impairment criteria (BIC) established from a statistical analysis of data collected at stream ecoregion reference sites from 1994-2004. The non-riffle FIBI BIC for this ecoregion is 32 and the BMIBI BIC for this ecoregion is 62. This assessment is considered evaluated because the drainage area (829 mi2) above this sampling site was greater than the maximum limit (500 mi2) that was used to calibrate the Iowa wadeable stream impairment criteria. Even though this site passed the FIBI BIC and failed the BMIBI BIC, it is uncertain as to whether or not this segment is meeting the aquatic life criteria because it doesn’t fall in the calibrated watershed size. The results of this sampling thus do not meet IDNR guidelines for developing a “monitored” assessment of support of the aquatic life uses that is appropriate to support addition of this waterbody to Iowa's Section 303(d) list. The assessment type for these waters will be considered "evaluated" (indicating an assessment with relatively lower confidence) as opposed to “monitored" (indicating an assessment with relatively high confidence). Such waters will be placed in either Category 2b or 3b of the IR and thus will be added to the state’s list of “waters in need of further investigation.”
Results of IDNR/UHL ambient chemical/physical water quality monitoring at the Sac City station during the 2006-2008 assessment period, however, suggest relatively good water quality in this river segment. Results of this monitoring show no violations of Class B(WW1) (aquatic life) water quality criteria in the 33 samples analyzed for dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and pH or in the two samples analyzed for toxic metals
Fish consumption uses remain assessed (monitored) as “fully supported” based on results fish contaminant monitoring conducted in this assessment segment in October 2006 as part of the IDNR/UHL REMAP project (Site 164). This monitoring showed low levels of the primary contaminants in the composite samples of common carp fillets: mercury: 0.222 ppm; total PCBs: 0.09 ppm; and technical chlordane: <0.03 ppm. The existence of, or potential for, a fish consumption advisory is the basis for Section 305(b) assessments of the degree to which Iowa’s lakes and rivers support their fish consumption uses. The fish contaminant data generated from the 2006 REMAP sampling conducted in this assessment segment showed that the levels of contaminants do not exceed any of Iowa’s advisory trigger levels, thus suggesting no justification for issuance of a consumption advisory for this waterbody.
