Mad Creek IA 01-NEM-1902
Muscatine Co trib to headwaters
- Cycle
- 2016
- Release Status
- Final
- Overall IR
- 2 - Some of the designated uses are met but there is insufficient data to determine if remaining designated uses are met.
- Trend
- Unknown
- Created
- 8/26/2016 1:58:35 PM
- Updated
- 11/17/2016 2:57:31 PM
The presumptive Class A1 (primary contact recreation) uses remain “not assessed” due to the lack of information upon which to base an assessment (IR Category 3a). The presumptive Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses remain assessed (evaluated) as “fully supporting” based on IDNR/SHL biological sampling conducted in 2004 (IR Category 2a).
The presumptive Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses remain assessed (evaluated) as “fully supported” based on biological monitoring conducted in 2004 (IR Category 2a). This evaluated biological assessment was based on data collected in 2004 as part of the IDNR/SHL stream REMAP project. 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 2004 FIBI score was 48 (fair) and the BMIBI score was 71 (good). The aquatic life use support was assessed (evaluated) as fully supporting (=FS), 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 36 and the BMIBI BIC for this ecoregion is 51. Even though this site passed both the FIBI (1/1) and BMIBI BICs (1/1), it is uncertain as to whether or not this segment is meeting the aquatic life criteria because it is a small presumed BWW1 (formally general use) stream and doesn’t fall in the calibrated watershed size. Also, because these data are now considered too old (greater than five years) to accurately characterize current water quality conditions, the assessment category is considered “evaluated” (indicating an assessment with relatively lower confidence) as opposed to "monitored" (indicating an assessment with relatively higher confidence).