The Class A1 (primary contact recreation) uses are assessed (monitored) as "partially supported" based on levels of indicator bacteria that exceeded state water quality criteria. The geometric means of indicator bacteria (E. coli) in the 24 samples collected during the recreational seasons of 2014 through 2016 at the Maple River near Mapleton (STORET station 10670002) were as follows: the 2014 geometric mean was 456 orgs/100 ml, the 2015 geometric mean was 814 orgs/100 ml, and the 2016 geometric mean was 691 orgs/100 ml. All three recreation season geometric means exceeded the Class A1 geometric mean criterion of 126 orgs/100 ml. Seventeen of the combined 24 samples (71%) exceeded Iowa’s Class A1 single-sample maximum criterion of 235 orgs/100 ml. According to U.S. EPA guidelines for Section 305(b) reporting and DNR’s assessment/listing methodology, if the geometric mean is greater than 126 orgs/100 ml., the primary contact recreation uses should be assessed as "impaired" (see pgs 3-33 to 3-35 of U.S. EPA 1997b). Thus, because at least one recreation season geometric mean exceeded criteria for Class A1 uses, these uses are assessed as "partially supported."

Results of chemical/physical water quality monitoring at the Maple River near Mapleton (STORET station 10670002) suggest “full support” of the aquatic life uses. Monitoring showed no violations of Class B(WW1) water quality criteria for 36 Ammonia samples (maximum = 0.1 mg/L), 36 Dissolved Oxygen samples (minimum = 6.9 mg/L), 36 pH samples (range = 7.4 to 9), 36 Temperature samples (maximum = 23.6 °C), 36 Chloride samples (maximum = 29 mg/L), or 36 Sulfate samples (maximum = 110 mg/L) occurred during monitoring from January 2014 to December 2016. According to U.S. EPA guidelines for Section 305(b) water quality assessments (U.S. EPA 1997b, page 3-17), the EPA guidelines allow up to 10% violations of these conventional parameters before impairment of water quality is indicated. Thus, these results thus suggest “full support” of the Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses.

Despite results of ambient physical/chemical monitoring that suggest “full support” of aquatic life uses, results of biological sampling suggest only “partial support” of these uses. This assessment was based on biological data collected in 2003, 2004, 2012, 2013 and 2016 as part of the DNR/SHL REMAP and large river sampling projects. A series of biological metrics that 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 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 2003 FIBI score was 9 (poor) and the 2004 FIBI score was 14 (fair). The 2012, 2013 and 2016 BMIBI scores were 34, 39 (both fair) and 62 (good). 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 1994-2008. The FIBI BIC for this ecoregion is 31 and the BMIBI BIC for this ecoregion is 54. This segment passed the FIBI BIC 0/2 times and passed the BMIBI BIC 1/3 times in the last five years. This assessment is considered “evaluated” because the drainage areas (669, 725 and 732 mi2) above the sampling sites were greater than the maximum limit (500 mi2) that was used to calibrate the Iowa wadeable stream impairment criteria. Even though this segment failed the FIBI and BMIBI BICs, it is uncertain as to whether or not this segment is meeting the aquatic life criteria because the sites used for the assessment don’t fall in the calibrated watershed size. According to DNR’s assessment/listing methodology, impairments based on “evaluated” assessments are of lesser confidence and are thus not appropriate for Section 303(d) listing (Category 5 of the Integrated Report). DNR does, however, consider these impairments as appropriate for listing under either Category 2b or 3b of the Integrated Report (waters potentially impaired and in need of further investigation).