Lytle Creek IA 01-NMQ-95

The Class A1 (primary contact recreation) uses are "not assessed" due to lack of data for indicator bacteria upon which to base an assessment.

The Class B(WW1) aquatic life uses remain assessed (evaluated) as "partially supported." This segment of Lytle Creek was sampled as part of the 1998-99 statewide study of freshwater mussels in Iowa streams and rivers (Arbuckle et al. 2000). As part of this study, sampling results from 1998 and 1999 (Arbuckle et al. 2000) were compared to results from stream sites surveyed in 1984 and 1985 by Frest (1987). On a statewide basis, this comparison showed sharp declines in the numbers of mussel species ("species richness") in Iowa streams and rivers from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s. The results of this sampling on this segment of Lytle Creek, however, do not meet DNR guidelines for developing a monitored assessment of support for the aquatic life uses that is appropriate to support addition to Iowa's Section 303(d) list. That is, 303(d)-level assessment decisions are developed only for those stream segments having an average of four or more species reported in the 1984-85 (Frest) survey due to the difficulty of interpreting status of mussel communities showing relatively low species richness during the both the historical (1984-85) and current (1998-99) surveys. Species richness of freshwater mussels at the one sample site in this segment of Lytle Creek was 3 in the 1984-85 period and was 0 in the 1998-99 period, respectively, for a percent change of minus 100%. Based on these results, the aquatic life uses are assessed (evaluated) as “partially supported." For reasons stated above, the confidence level of this assessment is relatively low; thus the assessment type is considered “evaluated” in the context of Section 305(b) reporting. According to Iowa DNR’s assessment methodology, waterbodies identified as “impaired” based on an “evaluated” assessment are not candidates for Section 303(d) listing. Such waters will, however, 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”. Additional monitoring is needed to better define the biological status of this stream segment as well as the site-specific causes and sources of impairment of these uses that may exist.

The aquatic life use assessment was also based on data collected in 2012 and 2016 as part of the DNR/SHL stream biocriteria project. A series of biological metrics which reflect stream water quality and habitat integrity was 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 2012 FIBI score was 40 (fair) and the BMIBI score was 55 (fair).The 2016 FIBI score was 56 (good) and the BMIBI score was 56 (good).The aquatic life use support was assessed as fully supporting (=FS), based on a comparison of the FIBI and BMIBI scores with biological impairment criteria (BIC) established for previous Section 305(b) reports. The biological impairment criteria were determined 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. This segment passed the FIBI BIC 2/2 times and passed the BMIBI BIC 2/2 times in the last five years.

This aquatic life assessment is now considered "monitored" based on a change in the 2010 DNR assessment methodology. DNR now requires a segment have two or more biological samples collected from the segment in multiple years over a recent five-year period to be considered “monitored”. This segment had multiple samples collected in the previous five years (2012-2016).

Fish consumption uses remain “not assessed” due to the lack of fish contaminant monitoring in this assessment segment.