STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY OF THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER, LAKE COUNTY,
INDIANA, AND COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, OCTOBER 1984
By Charles G. Crawford and David J. Wangsness
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4208
Prepared in cooperation with the
INDIANA STA-TE BOARD OF HEALTH
Indianapolis, Indiana
1987 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dallas L. Peck, Director
For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey 6023 Guion Road, Suite 201 U.S. Geological Survey Indianapolis, Indiana 46254 Books and Open-File Reports Box 25425, Federal Center, Bldg. 41 Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: [303] 236-7476) CONTENTS
Page Abstract...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Background...... 2 Purpose and scope...... 2 Acknowledgments...... 3 The Grand Calumet River basin...... 3 Data-collection procedures...... 7 Study duration and sampling frequency...... 7 Selection of sampling stations...... 7 Measurement of streamflow...... 9 Sample-collection procedures...... 10 Sample handling and preservation...... 11 Analytical laboratory procedures...... 12 Biochemical-oxygen demand...... 12 Constituents and properties other than biochemical-oxygen demand 13 Streamflow...... 13 Diel variations in flow...... 27 Flow balance...... 32 East Branch Grand Calumet River...... 32 West Branch Grand Calumet River...... 35 Water quality...... 38 Water-quality characteristics...... 46 Dissolved oxygen...... 46 Specific conductance...... 50 pH...... 54 Water temperature...... 54 Chloride...... 54 Sulfate...... 62 Fluoride...... 62 Hardness...... 62 Dissolved and suspended solids...... 66 Nitrogen...... 69 Phosphorus...... 69 Biochemical-oxygen demand...... 76 Cyanide...... 76 Phenol...... 80 Chromium...... 80 Copper...... 80 Iron...... 84 Lead...... 84 Mercury...... 84 Nickel...... 88 Zinc...... 88 Exceedance of water-quality standards...... 88 Chemical-mass discharge...... 92 East Branch Grand Calumet River...... 120 West Branch Grand Calumet River...... 121 Summary and conclusions...... 122 References cited...... 125 Appendix: Streamflow in the West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985...... 127
-iii- ILLUSTRATIONS
Page Figure 1. Map showing study area and location of sampling stations.... 4 2-65. Graphs showing: 2. Relation of streamflow and time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 28 3. Relation of streamflow to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 29 4. Water levels in Lake Michigan, Calumet Harbor, Illinois, October 2-4, 1984...... 31 5. Relation to cumulative effluent discharge to stream- flow, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 33 6. Estimates of streamflow adjusted for gains or losses used for calculating instream chemical-mass dis charge, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 34 7. Longitudinal variations in dissolved-oxygen concentra tion, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 47 8. Relation of dissolved-oxygen concentration to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 48 9. Relation of dissolved-oxygen concentration to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 49 10. Longitudinal variation in specific conductance, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 51 11. Relation of specific conductance to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 52 12. Relation of specific conductance to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 53 13. Longitudinal variation in pH, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 55 14. Relation of pH to time, East Branch Grand Cilumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 56 15. Relation of pH to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 57 16. Longitudinal variation in water temperature, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 58 17. Relation of water temperature to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 59 18. Relation of water temperature to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 60 19. Longitudinal variation in concentration of chloride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 61 20. Longitudinal variation in concentration of sulfate, (A) East Branch And (B) West Branch Grand Cal.met River, October 3-4, 1984...... 63
-iv- ILLUSTRAT IONS Con t inue d
Page Figure 21. Longitudinal variation in concentration of fluoride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 64 22. Longitudinal variation in hardness of water, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 65 23. Longitudinal variation in concentration of dissolved solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 67 24. Longitudinal variation in concentration of suspended solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 68 25. Longitudinal variation in concentration of total organic nitrogen, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 70 26. Longitudinal variation in concentration of ammonia, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 71 27. Longitudinal variation in concentration of nitrite, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 72 28. Longitudinal variation in concentration of nitrate, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 73 29. Longitudinal variation in concentration of total phosphorus (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 74 30. Longitudinal variation in concentration of ortho- phosphorus (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 75 31. Longitudinal variation in concentration of total biochemical-oxygen demand, (A.) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 77 32. Longitudinal variation in concentration of carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 78 33. Longitudinal variation in concentration of cyanide, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 79 34. Longitudinal variation in concentration of phenol, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 81 35. Longitudinal variation in concentration of chromium, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 82 36. Longitudinal variation in concentration of copper, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 83
-v- ILLUSTRATIONS Con t inue d
Page Figure 37. Longitudinal variation in concentration of iron, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 85 38. Longitudinal variation in concentration of lead, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 86 39. Longitudinal variation in concentration of mercury, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 87 40. Longitudinal variation in concentration of nickel, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 89 41. Longitudinal variation in concentration of zinc, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 90 42. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of chloride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 97 43. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of sulfate, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 98 44. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of fluoride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 99 45. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of water hardness, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984...... 100 46. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of dissolved solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 101 47. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of suspended solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 102 48. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of total organic nitrogen, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984... 103 49. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of ammonia, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 104 50. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of nitrite, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 105 51. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of nitrate, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 106 52. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of total phosphorus, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 107
-vi- ILLUSTRATIONS Con t inue d
Page Figure 53. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of ortho-phosphorus, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 108 54. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of total biochemical-oxygen demand, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 109 55. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 110 56. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of cyanide, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... Ill 57. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of phenol, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 112 58. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of chromium, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 113 59. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of copper, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 114 60. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of iron, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 115 61. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of lead, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 116 .62. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of mercury, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 117 63. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of nickel, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 118 64. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of zinc, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 119 65. Water-level elevations near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7B), West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985...... 137
-vii- TABLES
Page Table 1. Stations sampled in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984...... 8 2. Constituents and properties determined and the detection limits of the methods used...... 14 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984...... 15 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984..... 21 5. Water-quality standards for the Grand Calumet River...... 39 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984...... 40 7. Regression equations for estimating chloride, sulfate, fluoride, hardness, and dissolved-solids concentrations from specific conductance...... 50 8. Exceedance of water-quality standards, Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984...... 91 9. Chemical-mass discharge for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984...... 93 10. Measurements of effluent discharge and stage data used to develop stage-discharge relation for the Hammond wastewater-treatment plant, September 18-19, 1985...... 129 11. Flow measurements at river sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, September 18-19, 1985...... 132 12. Comparison of flow in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984, and September 18-19, 1985...... 134 13. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985...... 134 14. Rhodamine-WT dye-tracer data, West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985...... 135 15. Ldthium-tracer data, West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985...... 135
-viii- CONVERSION FACTORS
For readers who prefer to use metric (International System) units, con version factors for inch-pound units of measure used in this report are listed below:
Multiply inch-pound units by To obtain metric units
acre 0.4047 hectare foot (ft) 0.3048 meter foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d) foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) cubic foot per second (ft3 /s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3 /s) square foot (ft2 ) 0.09294 square meter (m2 ) inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer square mile (mi2 ) 2.59 square kilometer (km2 ) pound per day (Ib/d) 0.4536 kilogram per day (kg/d)
Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:
°F = (1.8 °C) + 32
Notes on the reporting of time, altitude or elevation, and location along the stream channel:
1. Time in hours and minutes is reported in military time for the Eastern Standard Time Zone; for example 0122 is 1:22 a.m. eastern time, 1322 is 1:22 p.m. eastern time.
2. Lake Michigan water-level elevations or altitudes are reported in terms of height above the IGLD of 1955 (International Great Lakes Datum of 1955) which is a geodetic datum referenced to the mean water level at Fathers Point, Quebec, Canada. Water-level elevations for all other points are reported in feet above the NGVD of 1929 (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929), a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called "Mean Sea Level."
3. Locations on the East Branch Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal are in river miles from the point where the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal discharges into the Indiana Harbor, Lake County, Indiana. For this report, the East Branch of the river and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal are considered to be a single drainage. Locations on the West Branch of the river are in river miles from its confluence with the Little Calumet River, Cook County, Illinois.
All water-quality standards referred to in this report are those of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board as stated in 330 IAC 2-2.
-ix- ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Abbreviation or Symbol_____ Description
BOD Biochemical-oxygen demand CaC03 Calcium carbonate CBOD Carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand CL Chloride °C Degrees Celsius DO Dissolved oxygen ds Downstream DS Dissolved solids ECWTP East Chicago Wastewater-Treatment Plant °F Degree Fahrenheit ft Foot ft/d Foot per day ft/s Foot per second ft* Square foot ft3/s Cubic foot per second g Gram GHT Gage Height GRAD Gradient between water-surface elevation in HWTP effluent channel and the water- surface elevation in the stream channel near the Indiana East-West Toll Road GWTP Gary Wastewater-Treatment Plant HWTP Hammond Wastewater-Treatment Plant IAC Indiana Annotated Code IGLD International Great Lakes Datum Ib/d Pound per day mg/L Milligram per liter mi Mile mi 2 Square mile min Minute N Nitrogen n.a. Not applicable n.d. No data NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum P Phosphorus PCB Polychlorinated biphenols pH Negative log base-10 of the hydrogen ion activity, in moles per liter Q Flow RM River mile SC Specific conductance SO^ Sulfate yg/L Micrograms per liter us Upstream
-x- ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS Continued
Abbreviation or Symbol Description
pS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 °Celsius (formerly micromhos per centimeter at 25 "Celsius) USGS U.S. Geological Survey WTP Wastewater-treatment plant
-xi- STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY OF THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER, LAKE COUNTY,
INDIANA, AND COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, OCTOBER 1984
By Charles G. Crawford and David J. Wangsness
ABSTRACT
A diel (24-hour) water-quality survey was done to investigate the sources of dry-weather waste inputs attributable to sources other than permitted point-source effluent and to provide water-quality planners and managers in formation necessary to evaluate the waste-load assimilative capacity of the Grand Calumet River, Lake County, Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois, in October 1984.
Flow in the Grand Calumet River consists almost entirely of municipal and industrial effluents which comprised more than 90 percent of the 500 cubic feet per second flow observed at the confluence of the East Branch Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal during the study. At the time of the study, virtually all of the flow in the West Branch Grand Calumet River was municipal effluent. Diel variations in streamflow of as much as 300 cubic feet per second were observed in the East Branch near the ship canal. The diel variation diminished at the upstream sampling sites in the East Branch. In the West Branch, the diel variation in flow was quite drastic; complete reversals of flow were observed at sampling stations near the ship canal.
Average dissolved-oxygen concentration at stations in the East Branch ranged from 5.7 to 8.2 milligram per liter and at stations in the West Branch from 0.8 to 6.6 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of dissolved solids, suspended solids, biochemical-oxygen demand, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus were substantially higher in the West Branch than in the East Branch. In the East Branch, only the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board water-quality standards for total phosphorus and phenol were exceeded. In the West Branch, water-quality standards for total ammonia, chloride, cyanide, dissolved solids, fluoride, total phosphorus, mercury, and phenol were ex ceeded and dissolved oxygen was less than the minimum allowable.
Some chemical-mass discharges in the Grand Calumet River could not be accounted for by known effluents. Three areas of significant differences between cumulative effluent and instream chemical-mass discharges were identi fied in the East Branch and one in the West Branch. The presence of unidenti fied waste inputs in the East Branch were indicated by differences in the chemical-mass discharges at Virginia Avenue, Industrial Highway, and Cline Avenue. Elevated suspended solids, biochemical-oxygen demand, and ammonia chemical-mass discharges at Columbia Avenue indicated the presence of a source of what may have been untreated sewage to the West Branch during the survey.
1 INTRODUCTION
Background
Water quality in the Grand Calumet River has been a source of public concern for nearly 20 years. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administra tion (1967) sponsored the Calumet Area Surveillance Project in the mid-1960's, one of the first in-depth evaluations of water quality in the river. Investigators at a conference held in 1970 concluded that, although numerous pollution-abatement measures had been initiated in the region, water quality in general had either shown little improvement or deterioration in the Indiana Harbor and West Branch of the river but water quality in the East Branch of the river had improved (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970). It was noted during this conference that water quality in the East Branch of the river had improved. Still, Romano and others (1977) concluded that the Grand Calumet River was a major source of heavy metals to Lake Michigan. Harrison and others (1979) concluded the plume associated with the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal was the primary contributor of contaminants at the water intakes for the Chicago South Water Filtration Plant. Combinatorics, Inc. (1974) recommended advanced waste treatment for removal of suspended solids, BOD (biochemical-oxygen demand), ammonia, and phosphorus. Numerous improvements have been made to treatment facilities in the Grand Calumet River basin in the past 10 years as a result of these recommendations. HydroQual, Inc. (1984), in a study done for the Indiana State Board of Health, reported significant amounts of waste inputs not attributable to known sources. Furthermore, the investigators concluded that water-quality standards would be difficult to attain with existing technology if these sources of waste input were not identified and eliminated.
Purpose and Scope
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Indiana State Board of Health, began a study to investigate the sources of dry-weather waste in-? puts to the Grand Calumet River attributable to other than point-source effluent and to provide water-quality planners and managers with the infor mation necessary to evaluate the waste-load assimilative capacity of the river. Major differences between this study and previous studies were an increased frequency of sample collection and the measurement of effluent dis charge or streamflow at all sampling locations at the time of sample collection. The report contains an analysis of streamflow and water-quality data collected during a 24-hour period of dry-weather flow in October 1984 and the results of a small follow-up study done in September 1985 to answer ques tions about the flow balance in the West Branch Grand Calumet River not re-- solved by the original study.
-2- Acknowledgments
The authors received assistance and cooperation from many people during the study. T. P. Chang and John Winters of the Indiana State Board of Health assisted in planning the study and provided personnel and equipment to help with sample collection. Personnel of DuPont, E. I. DeNemours and Company, Gary Sanitary District, Hammond Sanitary District, and U.S. Steel Corporation provided access to properties or assisted with sample collection. Personnel of the East Chicago Sanitary District assisted with sample collection and provided facilities for a temporary field laboratory during the study.
THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER BASIN
The Grand Calumet River system extends along the southern shoreline of Lake Michigan in northwest Indiana and includes parts of the cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond (fig. 1). The river system drains about 25 mi2 (square miles) and consists of three parts: The East Branch, the West Branch, and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and Indiana Harbor. The East Branch of the river is about 10 mi (mile) long and flows from its headwaters near the U.S. Steel Corporation Gary Works to its confluence with the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The East Branch ranges in depth from about 3-4 ft (feet) in the up stream reaches to about 8-10 ft near its confluence with the ship canal. Average stream velocity is approximately 1 ft/s.
The West Branch Grand Calumet River flows from its confluence with the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal to its confluence with the Little Calumet River in Illinois, a distance of 6 mi. West of Columbia Avenue in Hammond (fig. 1), the river flows to the west. East of Columbia Avenue, the river flows east or west depending on the water level in Lake Michigan, effluent flow in the two branches of the river and the ship canal, and the influence of wind direction and velocity. The West Branch is shallower than the East Branch and has a depth of about 2 ft. Average stream velocity is highly variable and ranges from about 0.2 to 1 ft/s.
The Indiana Harbor Ship Canal flows northward from its confluence with the Grand Calumet River and discharges into Lake Michigan. The ship canal is virtually an extension of the East Branch. Depth of the canal ranges from 5 to 10 ft near its confluence with the river to a depth of about 30 ft down stream from the Lake George Canal (fig. 1). Downstream from the Lake George Canal, the canal is maintained at a 30-ft depth by dredging to enable ship traffic to pass through the canal.
-3- 27'30" 87 ^2'30"
41°40'
41°37'30"|~-
Hammond wastewater treatment plant
Figure 1. Study area and locations of sampling stations.
-4- 25' 22'30" 20' 87°17'30"
Study area
I OGOEN DUNES HAM40ND o ts ** Cu (0 G4LO 41°40' Lake County Porter County 5 10 MILES _L_L., 10 15 KILOMETERS
41°37'3Q"
U 8 8t««l QW12 QW7A
4 MILES ~i ' 2345 6 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION O River sampling station o Industrial effluent outfall o Municipal effluent outfall QW12 Identification number 4- Direction of flow -5- The hydrology of the Grand Calumet River has been greatly altered by human activities. On early maps of the region (circa 1790), the Grand and Little Calumet Rivers of today are shown as a single river (Cook and Jackson, 1978). The river began in what is now Laporte County, Ind., near the head waters of the present-day little Calumet River, and flowed westward into Illinois. The river made a hairpin turn in Illinois, flowed back into Indiana, and discharged into Lake Michigan near present-day Gary, Ind. A second small river drained Lake Calumet into Lake Michigan. By the early ISOO's, a portage connecting the two rivers was shown on at least one map of the area. A canal in the vicinity of the previously mapped portage was shown on a map drawn in 1812 (Cook and Jackson, 1978). The names "Grand Calumet" and "Little Calumet" were used as early as 1821 by John Tipton in his report of the Indiana-Illinois boundary survey (Robertson and Riker, 1942, p. 269). At this time, the river flowed into Lake Michigan at two points, one in Indiana and one in Illinois. During this survey, Tipton reported that the Grand Calumet River had little or no current (Robertson and Riker, 1942, p. 271). The word Calumet derives from Potawatomi and Delaware Indian words signifying a body of deep, still water (Dunn, 1919, p. 87). Both mouths fre quently became clogged with sand, refuse, and weeds. The clearing of the channel during the development of a harbor at the Illinois mouth in the 1870's made it easier for water to flow toward Illinois and the river mouth in Indiana eventually became permanently clogged. Plans for the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal were made in 1877, but the first mile was not completed until 1909 (Romano, 1976). Heavy industry's need of the lake for transport of raw mate rials and finished products, as well as a source of process water and location for waste disposal, brought about industrialization of the area in the late 1800's and the early 1900's. The region is one of the most industrialized areas in the United States, and major industries include American Steel Foundries, Inland Steel Company, LTV Steel Corp., and U.S. Steel Corporation; Amoco Oil Company, and DuPont, E. I. DeNemours and Company.
With the growth of industry came urbanization of the region. The major population centers in the drainage basin are East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Whiting. According to the 1980 census, the combined population of these cities is about 290,000 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982).
Flow in the river system is controlled mainly by the intake and discharge of water by industries and municipal wastewater-treatment plants. During dry weather, streamflow is about 90 percent effluent. Drastic changes (plus or minus 100 percent) in streamflow occur within a few hours because of fluctua tions in effluent discharges. The contribution of surface runoff is relative ly small owing to the small drainage area and sandy texture of the soils. Consequently, seasonal fluctuations associated with more natural river systems (such as flooding or low flows in summer and fall) are small. DATA-COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Study Duration and Sampling Frequency
The Grand Calumet River water-quality survey was a diel survey that began at 0900 on October 3, 1984 (day 1), and ended with the final sampling at 0900 on October 4, 1984 (day 2). At U.S. Steel Corporation outfalls, the effluents were sampled and water discharge measured every 4 to 6 hours. At the remain ing stations, samples were collected and water discharge measured every 2 hours for a total of 13 samples and measurements per station during the 24-hour period.
Selection of Sampling Stations
Sampling stations were selected on the basis of information from previous studies and a reconnaissance of the area in September 1984. Color infrared aerial photographs (scale 1:500) of the river channel were also used to deter mine areas of possible non-point source contributions. Sampling locations were selected to represent conditions upstream and downstream of major efflu ent discharges. Within these locations, sampling stations were selected to meet necessary criteria for accurate measurement of flow and collection of representative water samples. Station security and safety of personnel were also considered.
Eleven sampling stations were chosen on the Grand Calumet River: five on the East Branch (C1A, C3, C4, C5, and C6) and six on the West Branch (C7, C7A, C8, C9, CIO, and Cll). One station (C12) was on the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, immediately downstream from the confluence with the Grand Calumet River. Effluent was sampled at all 23 known municipal and industrial outfalls discharging effluents to the river. The major dischargers are U.S. Steel Corporation (14 outfalls); DuPont, E. I. DeNemours and Company (3 outfalls), and the ECWTP (East Chicago Wastewater Treatment Plant); GWTP (Gary Wastewater Treatment Plant); HWTP (Hammond Wastewater Treatment Plant) (3 effluents) 1 . The locations of all sampling stations and effluent outfalls are shown in figure 1. Stations are described in table 1. For consistency, station iden tifiers used by a previous investigator (HydroQual, Inc., 1984) were retained for this study.
*Use of trade, product, industry, or firm names in this report is for identi fication or location purposes only, and does not constitute endorsement of products by the U.S. Geological Survey, nor impute responsibility for any present or potential effects on natural resources.
-7- Table 1. Stations sampled in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984
Station River River ID Station description mile segment
C1A East Branch Grand Calumet River at Virginia Street 12.4 East C3 East Branch Grand Calumet River at Bridge Street 10.0 East C4 East Branch Grand Calumet River at Industrial Highway 8.5 East C5 East Branch Grand Calumet River at Cline Avenue 6.5 East C6 East Branch Grand Calumet River at Kennedy Avenue 4.7 East C12 Indiana Harbor Ship Canal at 151st Street 3.8 East GW1 U.S. Steel outfall 002 13.5 East GW1A U.S. Steel outfall 005 13.5 East GW2 U.S. Steel outfall 007 13.3 East GW3 U.S. Steel outfall 010 13.1 East GW4 U.S. Steel outfall 015 12.9 East GW6 U.S. Steel outfall 018 12.4 East GW7 U.S. Steel outfall 019 12.3 East GW7A U.S. Steel outfall 020 12.2 East GW10A U.S. Steel outfall 028 11.8 East GW11A U.S. Steel outfall 030 11.6 East GW12 U.S. Steel outfall 031 11.5 East GW13 U.S. Steel outfall 032 11.5 East ST14 U.S. Steel outfall 033 11.3 East ST17 U.S. Steel outfall 034 9.2 East GWTP Gary wastewater-treatment plant 8.8 East VM1 Vulcan Materials outfall 001 6.8 East DPI Dupont outfall 001 5.2 East DP2 Dupont outfall 002 4.9 East DP3 Dupont outfall 003 4.9 East HW1 Harbison-Walker Refactories outfall 001 4.8 East USSL1 U.S.S. Lead outfall 001 4.2 East C7 West Branch Grand Calumet River near Indianapolis Blvd. 5.5 West C7A West Branch Grand Calumet River near Indiana Toll Road 4.8 West C8 West Branch Grand Calumet River at Columbia Avenue 4.1 West C9 West Branch Grand Calumet River at Hohman Avenue 3.0 West CIO West Branch Grand Calumet River at Burnham Avenue 1.8 West Cll West Branch Grand Calumet River near Burnham Park 0.9 West ECWTP East Chicago wastewater-treatment Plant 5.4 West HWTP Hammond wastewater-treatment Plant 4.5 West Measurement of Streamflow
Streamflow measurements on the Grand Calumet River were made from bridges or boats. Velocity was measured with Price AA current meters and stopwatches, depth with sounding weights and cable or wading rods, and width with taglines. At sampling stations on the West Branch where the water was less than 3 ft deep but was unwadable because of thick bottom sediments, flow was measured from a small boat with a Price AA meter, stopwatch, tagline, and wading rod. The wading rod was equipped with an oversized base plate to prevent the rod from sinking into the stream bottom. Effluent outfalls at the U.S. Steel Corporation Gary Works are not equip ped with instream flow measurement equipment. Discharge from these outfalls was calculated from a current meter measurement of velocity and the cross- sectional area of each culvert. An average velocity was determined from point velocities measured in the culvert barrel. All other outfalls were equipped with instream flow measurement devices operated by the discharger, and flows were reported for each sample at the time of collection or as a 24-hour total. Measurement cross sections were selected on the basis of as many of the following criteria as possible: 1. The cross section was within a straight reach and streamlines were parallel. 2. Velocities were greater than 0.5 ft/s and depths were greater than 0.5 ft. 3. Streambed was uniform and free of numerous boulders or heavy aquatic growth. 4. Flow was uniform and free of eddies, slack water, and exces sive turbulence. After the cross section was selected, a tagline was strung across the measurement section perpendicular to the flow lines. Measurement points (verticals) were selected on the cross section so that no more than 15 percent of the total discharge was in one subsection. The method of velocity measurement used was based on the depth of the stream. Velocity measurements were made at two- and eight-tenths of the depth if the depth was greater than 2.5 ft below the water surface or six-tenths of the depth if the depth was less than 2.5 ft. After the meter was placed at the proper depth and was pointed into the current, rotation of the measurement cups was permitted to adjust to the speed of the current. After the meter had become adjusted, the number of revolutions made by the rotor was counted for 40 to 70 seconds (with a stopwatch). The number of revolutions and the number of seconds were then recorded. Velocity was obtained from a standard meter- rating table. If the velocity was to be measured at more than one point in the vertical, the meter was reset for each depth, and the procedure was repeated. The two velocities were then averaged to obtain a mean velocity. The procedure was repeated at each measurement point on the cross section until the entire cross section had been traversed. -9- For each subsection, area (depth times width), mean velocity, and stream- flow (area times mean velocity) were determined. Summation of discharges from individual subsections yielded the total flow for the stream at that cross section. Additional information about the current meter method of determining streamflow is given by Rantz and others (1982).
The individual flow measurements at each station were averaged to obtain an estimate of 24-hour average flow for that station. Because streamflow was measured at approximately uniform intervals of time, the estimate thus obtain ed is virtually a time-weighted average.
Sample-Collection Procedures
Water samples were collected with a Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Project Model USDH-48 handheld sampler, a USDH-S-48 handline sampler, or a USD-76 TM cable-and-reel sampler, depending on the velocity and depth at the sampling stations. Each sampler was equipped with a Teflon nozzle and gasket and was coated with epoxy to prevent contamination of samples.
Field measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance (SC), pH, and water temperature were made with a Hydrolab multiparameter meter (model 4041 or 6000), Yellow Springs Instrument DO meter, Leeds and Northrop or Orion pH meters, Beckman or Lab-Line SC meters, and thermometers. All crews were supplied with pH standards and SC standards.
The instruments were calibrated at the beginning of the survey and check ed at least four times during the survey. More frequent calibrations were done if the operator felt it necessary. Dissolved-oxygen meters were cali brated to saturated air on the basis of atmospheric pressure and water temperature. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations also were determined by the Winkler method as a check against meter calibration. pH meters were calibrat ed to a buffer solution of pH 7.0 and were checked against buffer solutions of pH 4.0 and 10.0. Specific conductance meters used in the East Branch and ship canal were calibrated against solutions of 222, 394, and 606 uS/cm (micro- Siemens per centimeter at 25 °Celsius). Specific conductance meters used in the West Branch were calibrated against solutions of 606, 1,002, and 1,941 pS/cm.
Samples to be analyzed for DO by the Winkler method were collected from the center of flow with a DO sampler. Sampling crews that used the Hydrolab multiparameter instruments measured DO concentration, SC, pH, and water tem perature at 10 equally spaced points in the same river cross section where streamflow was measured. The average of the 10 readings was recorded as the value for the station. Sample crews that used Yellow Springs Instruments DO and temperature meters and separate SC and pH meters averaged dissolved-oxygen readings from 10 points in the river as previously described. Specific con ductance and pH readings were measured from a composite sample collected in a
-10- sampling churn because cables on the probes were too short to allow represent ative instream readings. A single measurement of DO concentration and temper ature of the effluents was taken near the center of flow. Readings were taken at mid-depth except for channel sections whose depths were greater than 5 ft where readings were taken at depths of approximately 25 and 75 percent of the total depth. Water-quality samples were collected by use of the equal-width- increment/ equal-transit-rate (EWI/ETR) method. Ten equally spaced points on the cross section were sampled at each river station. The water sampler was lowered at a uniform rate from the surface to the bottom of the river and was raised to the surface again. The sampler was raised and was lowered the same number of times at each point. A sampling churn was used- to composite the 10 water samples. After a thorough mixing of the water in the churn, a one-liter subsample for chemical analysis was drawn off and kept chilled in an ice chest. The sampling churn was rinsed with sample water before each use and with distilled water after each use.
Sample Handling and Preservation
A field laboratory was established at ECWTP. Water samples and field data were brought to this laboratory following completion of the water-quality survey. Individual samples collected at each station over the 24-hour period were composited; subsamples were drawn off, preserved, and prepared for ship ment to laboratories at the U.S. Geological Survey in Doraville, Ga., or Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. From 10 to 13 L of sample water were collected and composited from each of the 35 sampling stations. Water from each station was handled as follows: 1. If streamflow varied more than 10 percent at a station during the survey, the individual water samples were com posited by flow weighting. Otherwise, samples were com posited on the basis of time. Water was composited in a churn, thoroughly mixed, and the following subsamples were drawn off and preserved:
Sample Constituent volume Method of preservation Biochemical- oxygen demand 2 L Chilled to 4 °C.
Chloride, total dissolved solids, and sulfate 500 mL Filtered, untreated. Chromium, hexavalent 250 mL Nitric acid in acid rinsed bottle.
Cyanide 250 mL Sodium hydroxide added until pH greater than 12. -11- Sample Constituent volume Method of preservation Cont.
Metals, except hexavalent chromium and mercury 1 L Nitric acid in acid rinsed bottle.
Mercury 250 mL Nitric acid in acid rinsed bottle.
Nutrients 250 mL Mercuric chloride in amber bottle, chilled to 4 °C. Phenol 1 L Phosphoric acid and copper sulfate in glass bottle.
Suspended solids and fluoride 1 L Untreated. The churn and the filtering equipment were washed and thoroughly rinsed with distilled water after each set of samples was processed. Samples for chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and hexavalent chromium were fil tered through plate-type 0.45-micrometer porosity membrane filters. A peristaltic pump equipped with silicone tubing was used to pass sample water through the filtering apparatus. 2. Samples for determination of BOD were transported by U.S. Geological Survey personnel to a laboratory at Purdue University as soon as the last sample had been drawn off. Samples were kept on ice until BOD analysis was begun with in 12 hours of the end of the diel survey. 3. Samples for all other analyses were packed in ice in sealed coolers and were air mailed to the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Georgia.
Analytical Laboratory Procedures
Biochemical-Oxygen Demand
Total, uninhibited, ultimate BOD's were run for each sample. Filtered, uninhibited, ultimate BOD's were run on three stations on the West Branch downstream from the WTP's to define the effect of high suspended-solids con centrations observed at those stations. Samples to be analyzed for BOD were dechlorinated and placed into four 300-mL glass bottles (3 replicates and 1 fill bottle) as soon as they were received by the laboratory. The samples
-12- were allowed to reach 20 °C before the initial DO concentration was measured. A Yellow Springs Instrument DO meter and probe equipped with a stirring arm was used to measure the DO concentration in the bottles. Hie meter was cali brated daily by the Winkler method. The sample bottles were sealed, making sure no air bubbles were trapped and were stored in an incubator at 20 °C for the duration of the analysis. The DO concentration of each sample was meas ured at days 0, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80. When there was no longer any change in the DO concentration from measurement to measurement (approximately 80 days), the ultimate BOD was calculated as the cumulative DO consumption. Carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand (CBOD) was estimated by subtracting the nitrogenous biochemical-oxygen demand (calculated as 4.33 times the ammonia concentration in milligrams per liter). The conver sion factor used, 4.33, was determined experimentally by Wezernak and Cannon (1967). Nitrification inhibitors were not used because of problems reported by other investigators (John Bell, Purdue University, oral commun., 1984; McCutcheon and others, 1985) and experienced by the authors in previous work (U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis, Ind., written commun., 1984). The inhibitors have been observed to be completely or partially ineffective in some circumstances. It was also difficult to determine when the inhibitor would fail to inhibit nitrification or to determine the effectiveness of the inhibitor after use.
Constituents and Properties other than Biochemical-Oxygen Demand
Laboratory procedures used to determine constituents other than BOD were methods described by Goerlitz and Brown (1972) or Skougstad and others (1979). Analyses were done by the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Doraville, Ga. Quality-assurance practices used by this laboratory are given in a report by Friedman and Erdmann (1982). A list of constituents and properties determined and the detection limit of the methods used is given in table 2.
STREAMFLOW
The water-quality survey was done during a period of dry-weather flow. Two National Weather Service stations (Hobart and Ogden Dunes, Ind.) near the study area, reported rainfall of less than 0.05 in. in the 7 days prior to the study. Flow data collected during the survey are presented in tables 3 and 4.
-13- Table 2. Constituents and properties determined and detection limits of the methods used
[n.a., not applicable; yg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter]
Constituents and Properties Detection limits
Oxygen and related properties Dissolved oxygen n.a. Five-day biochemical-oxygen demand n.a. Time series ultimate biochemical- oxygen demand n.a. Temperature n.a.
Nutrients
Ammonia 10 yg/L Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 1 mg/L Nitrite plus nitrate 10 yg/L Total and ortho-phosphorus 10 yg/L Metals Copper 1 yg/L Chromium (total) 1 yg/L Chromium (hexavalent) 1 yg/L Iron (total) 10 yg/L Lead (total) 1 yg/L Mercury .1 yg/L Nickel (total) l Zinc (total) 10 yg/L Solids
Dissolved (total) mg/L Suspended mg/L Other
PH n.a. Chloride .1 mg/L Fluoride 1 mg/L Hardness n.a. Sulfate .2 mg/L Cyanide (total) .01 mg/L Phenol 1
-14- Table 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 [All measurements by U.S. Geological Survey; measurements at site C9 were made in the culverts beneath Hohman Avenue, measurements at all other sites were made in the stream channel; ft3 /s, cubic foot per second; ft, foot; ft2 , square foot]
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C1A 1 0900 1015 127 0.8 3.2 49 155 C1A 2 1100 1215 127 .8 3.1 49 154 C1A 3 1300 1430 118 .8 3.1 49 153 C1A 4 1500 1620 128 .9 2.9 49 140 C1A 5 1700 1810 124 .8 3.1 49 154 C1A 6 1900 2015 129 .8 3.3 49 161 C1A 7 2100 2210 128 .8 3.3 49 162 C1A 8 2300 0025 129 .8 3.2 49 159 C1A 9 0100 0230 134 .9 3.2 49 156 C1A 10 0330 0435 128 .8 3.4 49 167 C1A 11 0500 0650 142 .8 3.6 49 175 C1A 12 0700 0830 118 .7 3.4 49 165 C1A 13 0900 1000 121 .7 3.5 49 171 Average 127 .8 3.3 49 159 C3 1 0900 1020 328 . .8 4.5 86 386 C3 2 1120 1240 292 .8 4.5 86 386 C3 3 1315 1420 308 .8 4.6 85 388 C3 4 1500 1615 311 .8 4.6 85 389 C3 5 1710 1815 352 .9 4.6 85 391 C3 6 1910 2015 371 .9 4.6 85 394 C3 7 2110 2220 394 1.0 4.6 86 399 C3 8 2310 0015 381 .9 4.7 86 402 C3 9 0115 0220 405 1.0 4.6 88 409 C3 10 0310 0420 416 1.0 4.6 88 408 C3 11 0515 0630 411 1.0 4.8 87 '410414 C3 12 0715 0820 411 1.0 4.7 87 C3 13 0905 1020 424 1.0 4.7 88 411 Average 370 .9 4.6 86 399
-15- Table 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C4 1 0900 1005 406 1.2 4.3 77 328 C4 2 1055 1145 377 1.1 4.3 77 330 C4 3 1300 1342 440 1.3 4.5 77 347 C4 4 1500 1548 460 1.4 4.3 77 332 C4 5 1650 1735 480 1.5 4.3 77 331 C4 6 1900 1950 475 1.4 4.5 77 350 C4 7 2057 2142 490 1.5 4.3 77 333 C4 8 2300 2342 526 1.6 4.4 77 337 C4 9 0102 0148 542 1.6 4.4 77 336 C4 10 0303 0352 518 1.5 4.5 77 343 C4 11 0503 0547 571 1.7 4.5 77 345 C4 12 0655 0741 535 1.6 4.4 77 339 C4 13 0850 0935 559 1.5 4.9 77 374
Average 491 1.5 4.4 77 340 C5 1 0903 1045 363 .4 5.6 168 940 C5 2 1116 1230 435 .5 5.2 168 881 C5 3 1306 1415 402 .4 5.7 168 958 C5 4 1500 1620 485 .5 5.6 168 934 C5 5 1700 1830 466 .5 5.5 168 922 C5 6 1915 2015 426 .4 5.7 168 953 C5 7 2100 2215 489 .5 5.7 168 956 C5 8 2300 0026 502 .5 5.8 168 975 C5 9 0106 0220 545 .6 5.8 168 979 C5 10 0309 0427 527 .5 6.0 168 1002 C5 11 0502 0625 526 .5 5.8 168 974 C5 12 0700 0823 514 .5 5.6 168 948 C5 13 0900 1000 553 .6 5.9 168 986
Average 479 .5 5.7 168 954
16 Table 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3/s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft*) C6 1 0925 1050 304 0.4 6.2 110 687 C6 2 1100 1150 484 .7 6.2 110 680 C6 3 1300 1355 333 .5 6.1 110 669 C6 4 1500 1550 383 .6 6.0 110 664 C6 5 1700 1750 393 .6 6.1 110 667 C6 6 1900 1950 386 .6 6.1 110 674 C6 7 2100 2150 486 .7 6.1 110 671 C6 8 2300 2355 417 .6 6.1 110 669 C6 9 0100 0150 458 .7 6.0 110 664 C6 10 0300 0355 454 .7 6.0 110 662 C6 11 0500 0600 497 .7 6.1 110 666 C6 12 0700 0750 512 .8 6.1 110 668 C6 13 0900 0950 422 .6 6.1 110 669
Average 425 .6 6.1 110 670 C12 1 0900 1022 275 .5 5.5 110 608 C12 2 1104 1218 574 1.0 5.4 109 586 C12 3 1308 1421 463 .8 5.4 110 590 C12 4 1511 1627 442 .7 5.4 110 594 C12 5 1716 1827 473 .8 5.2 109 572 C12 6 1905 2030 507 .9 5.3 110 588 C12 7 2105 2035 570 1.0 5.2 110 571 C12 8 2305 0024 537 .9 5.3 110 583 C12 9 0105 0218 593 1.0 5.2 110 577 C12 10 0256 0410 513 .9 5.2 110 577 C12 11 0500 0627 554 1.0 5.2 110 573 C12 12 0705 0815 484 .8 5.3 110 584 C12 13 0905 1018 556 .9 5.4 110 591
Average 503 .9 5.3 110 584
-17- Table 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C7 1 0923 1029 41.7 0.3 2.0 62 126 C7 2 1130 1200 -34.1 -.3 2.0 62 125 C7 3 1315 1337 3.5 < .1 2.0 62 124 C7 4 1505 1527 -25.9 -.2 2.0 62 121 C7 5 1705 1730 -3.1 < -.1 2.0 62 123 C7 6 1905 1925 24.6 .2 2.1 62 129 C7 7 2100 2128 -13.8 -.1 2.0 62 124 C7 8 2305 2325 -18.9 -.1 2.1 62 128 C7 9 0100 0125 -11.3 -.1 2.0 62 127 C7 10 0300 0320 -1.3 < -.1 2.0 62 122 C7 11 0455 0515 -9.5 -.1 2.0 62 121 C7 12 0655 0715 -29.5 -.2 1.9 62 120 C7 13 0900 0915 44.1 .4 2.0 62 123
Average -2.6 .0 2.0 62 124 C7A 1 1050 1221 8.1 .1 2.4 50 118 C7A 2 1310 1345 23.6 .2 2.2 50 110 C7A 3 1503 1540 -.2 < -.1 2.2 50 110 C7A 4 1708 1745 11.2 .1 2.2 50 110 C7A 5 1901 1938 31.7 .3 2.2 50 112 C7A 6 2105 2155 -.9 < -.1 2.4 50 118 C7A 7 2305 2340 8.2 .1 2.3 50 115 C7A 8 0114 0152 8.5 .1 2.3 50 113 C7A 9 0311 0344 22.6 .2 2.2 50 112 C7A 10 0516 0550 23.7 .2 2.2 50 111 C7A 11 0707 0750 6.7 .1 2.2 50 110 C7A 12 0902 0940 30.8 .3 2.2 50 111
Average 14.5 .1 2.3 50 113
-18- Table 3. Flow measurements at river sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3/s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C8 1 0920 1020 53.3 0.8 2.1 30 64 C8 2 1100 1154 62.2 .9 2.3 30 69 C8 3 1300 1400 54.8 .8 2.3 30 68 C8 4 1500 1540 52.1 .8 2.3 30 68 C8 5 1657 1735 51.4 .8 2.3 30 68 C8 6 1900 1940 53.1 .8 2.2 30 67 C8 7 2100 2143 59.0 .9 2.3 30 68 C8 8 2300 2345 55.8 .8 2.3 30 70 C8 9 0100 0140 52.6 .8 2.3 30 68 C8 10 0300 0345 48.0 .7 2.2 30 67 C8 11 0500 0540 52.2 .8 2.3 30 68 C8 12 0700 0740 51.9 .8 2.2 30 67 C8 13 0900 0950 47.5 .7 2.2 30 66
Average 53.4 2.3 30 68 C9 1 0900 0950 38.3 Not applicable C9 2 1100 1150 50.7 Not applicable C9 3 1300 1350 49.7 Not applicable C9 4 1500 1550 48.1 Not applicable C9 5 1700 1750 49.8 Not applicable C9 6 1900 1940 48.9 Not applicable C9 7 2100 2140 50.2 Not applicable C9 8 2300 2340 51.3 Not applicable C9 9 0100 0140 49.9 Not applicable C9 10 0300 0340 46.6 Not applicable C9 11 0500 0535 45.1 Not applicable (59 12 0700 0735 44.2 Not applicable C9 13 0900 0935 42.2 Not applicable
Average 47.3 Not applicable
-19- Table 3. Flow measurements at river-sampling stations, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) CIO 1 0915 1020 37.4 0.5 2.2 36 79 CIO 2 1115 1230 51.0 .6 2.3 36 84 CIO 3 1315 1421 55.8 .6 2.5 36 92 CIO 4 1525 1628 54.7 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 5 1705 1814 53.4 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 6 1850 2000 53.8 .6 2.5 36 90 CIO 7 2120 2230 55.8 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 8 2306 0013 56.6 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 9 0110 0222 55.8 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 10 0310 0420 53.1 .6 2.5 36 89 CIO 11 0505 0620 50.4 .6 2.4 36 87 CIO 12 0700 0810 50.4 .6 2.4 36 86 CIO 13 0900 1008 49.0 6 2.4 36 85
Average 52. .6 2.4 36 87
Cll 1 0949 1019 22.7 .4 1.0 50 52 Cll 2 1130 1201 48.0 .9 1.1 50 53 Cll 3 1246 1301 45.2 .9 1.0 50 52 Cll 4 1344 1356 56.2 1.1 1.1 50 54 Cll 5 1445 1500 49.7 .9 1.1 50 56 Cll 6 1527 1541 61.0 1.2 1.0 50 53 Cll 7 1648 1658 45.8 .8 1.1 50 57 Cll 8 1730 1743 68.0 1.3 1.1 50 54 Cll 9 1845 1858 43.1 .8 1.1 50 56 Cll 10 1931 1946 70.2 1.4 1.0 50 50 Cll 11 2154 2108 37.1 .7 1.1 50 54 Cll 12 2140 2156 63.7 1.3 1.0 50 51 Cll 13 2244 2257 49.8 1.0 1.0 50 52 Cll 14 2325 2338 55.2 1.1 1.0 50 53 Cll 15 0050 0100 46.2 .8 1.1 52 57 Cll 16 0143 0155 62.9 1.2 1.0 50 52 Cll 17 0250 0308 42.6 .7 1.1 50 57 Cll 18 0334 0345 58.7 1.2 1.0 50 50 Cll 19 0445 0502 42.5 .8 1.0 50 52 Cll 20 0535 0549 51.0 1.1 .9 50 48 Cll 21 0640 0651 42.6 .9 1.0 50 49 Cll 22 0718 0730 57.8 1.2 .9 50 47 Cll 23 0828 0841 32.3 .7 1.0 50 48 Cll 24 0908 0919 59.8 1.4 .9 50 43
Average 50.5 1.0 1.0 50 52
-20- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at Industrial and municipal outfalls, in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984
[Measurements at U.S. Steel Corporation outfalls by U.S. Geological Survey; all other measure ments by plant operators; all measurements taken at discharge point except at Hammond Wastewater- Treatment Plant where flow was metered at inflow; ft^/s, cubic foot per second]
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge ID number time time (ft3/ 8)
0920 44.9 1600 46.1 2010 43.0 0315 42.0 0715 42.0
Average 43.6 GW1A 0905 0905 1.3 GW1A 1020 1030 2.6 GW1A 1545 1545 2.6 GW1A 0345 0345 .0 GW1A 0730 0730 .0
Average 1.3 GW2 0920 0930 13.0 GW2 1050 1100 10.7 GW2 1615 1625 13.0 GW2 0410 0420 12.6 GW2 0745 0745 12.6
Average 12.4
GW3 1010 1025 6.5 GW3 1135 1135 6.5 GW3 1640 1640 6.6 GW3 0445 0445 6.5 GW3 0800 0810 5.9 Average 6.4
GW4 1055 1055 2.8 GW4 1435 1445 3.1 GW4 1825 1825 2.8 GW4 0500 0500 2.8 GW4 0835 0850 2.8
Average 2.9
-21- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge ID number time time (ft3/s)
1250 46.8 1710 57.0 2350 57.8 0530 56.5 0930 60.9 Average 55.8
GW7 1310 1325 42.0 GW7 1725 1740 68.0 GW7 0020 0035 62.4 GW7 0600 0615 66.4 GW7 0935 0950 49.5
Average 57.7 GW7A 1345 1405 64.6 GW7A 1800 1815 107 GW7A 0115 0140 136 GW7A 0630 0650 138 GW7A 1010 1030 141
Average 117 GW10A 0920 0950 8.2 GW10A 1350 1410 8.0 GW10A 1750 1805 6.3 GW10A 2205 2220 6.4 GW10A 0130 0150 7.0 GW10A 0505 0520 7.4 GW10A 0855 0910 10.5 Average 7.7 GW11A 1000 1041 47.7 GW11A 1420 1435 52.9 GW11A 1815 1830 37.6 GW11A 2235 2250 36.5 GW11A 0200 0215 36.8 GW11A 0530 0545 47.3 GW11A 0930 0940 68.2 Average 46.7
-22- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge ID number time time (ft3/s)
1230 11.7 1545 9.9 2005 10.4 0005 11.2 0330 11.0 0710 10.9 1120 11,3 Average 10.9
GW13 1138 1200 2.5 GW13 1500 1515 2.1 GW13 1920 1935 4.2 GW13 2325 2340 4.9 GW13 0250 0305 6.0 GW13 0625 0640 5.4 GW13 1035 1050 2.5 Average 3.9
ST14 1115 1130 2.2 ST14 1450 1500 2.4 ST14 1855 1910 2.9 ST14 2300 2315 3.1 ST14 0225 0240 2.6 ST14 0605 0620 2.4 ST14 1005 1020 2.8 Average 2.6
ST17 1300 1310 35.5 ST17 1605 1620 32.1 ST17 2020 2030 39.9 ST17 0015 0030 28.0 ST17 0350 0400 42.0 ST17 0725 0740 28.4 ST17 1130 1145 30.5
Average 33.8
-23- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge ID number time time (ft3/s)
GWTP 1 0900 0900 15.4 GWTP 2 1100 1100 15.4 GWTP 3 1300 1300 86.5 GWTP 4 1500 1500 92.6 GWTP 5 1700 1700 80.3 GWTP 6 1900 1900 30.9 GWTP 7 2100 2100 30.9 GWTP 8 2300 2300 77.2 GWTP 9 0100 0100 18.5 GWTP 10 0300 0300 20.1 GWTP 11 0500 0500 77.2 GWTP 12 0700 0700 61.8 GWTP 13 0900 0900 61.8
Average 51.4
VM1 1 1100 1100 .15
DPI 1 0900 0900 6.5 DPI 2 1100 1100 6.5 DPI 3 1300 1300 6.7 DPI 4 1500 1500 7.1 DPI 5 1700 1700 7.1 DPI 6 1900 1900 7.6 DPI 7 2100 2100 7.3 DPI 8 2300 2300 7.3 DPI 9 0100 0100 7.6 DPI 10 0300 0300 7.1 DPI 11 0500 0500 6.7 DPI 12 0700 0700 6.7 DPI 13 0900 0900 6.7
Average 7.0
-24- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River Basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge ID number time time (ft3/s)
DP2 1 0900 0900 1.6 DP2 2 1100 1100 1.4 DP2 3 1300 1300 1.7 DP2 4 1500 1500 1.6 DP2 5 1700 1700 1.7 DP2 6 1900 1900 1.7 DP2 7 2100 2100 2.1 DP2 8 2300 2300 1.9 DP2 9 0100 0100 1.8 DP2 10 0300 0300 1.9 DP2 11 0500 0500 1.9 DP2 12 0700 0700 1.9 DP2 13 0900 0900 1.8 Average 1.8 DP3 1 0900 0900 1.2 DP3 2 1100 1100 1.1 DP3 3 1300 1300 1.0 DP3 4 1500 1500 1.0 DP3 5 1700 1700 1.0 DP3 6 1900 1900 1.0 DP3 7 2100 2100 1.1 DP3 8 2300 2300 1.1 DP3 9 0100 0100 1.1 DP3 10 0300 0300 1.1 DP3 11 0500 0500 1.1 DP3 12 0700 0700 1.2 DP3 13 0900 0900 1.2 Average 1.1 HW1 1 0900 0900 .06 USSL1 1 0900 0900 .01
-25- Table 4. Effluent discharge measurements at industrial and municipal outfalls, Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Station Measurement Beginning Ending Di scharge ID number time time (ft3/s)
ECWTP 1 0900 0900 20.1 ECWTP 2 1100 1100 21.6 ECWTP 3 1300 1300 20.1 ECWTP 4 1500 1500 26.2 ECWTP 5 1700 1700 20.1 ECWTP 6 1900 1900 26.2 ECWTP 7 2100 2100 20.1 ECWTP 8 2300 2300 20.1 ECWTP 9 0100 0100 17.8 ECWTP 10 0300 0300 14.7 ECWTP 11 0500 0500 17.0 ECWTP 12 0700 0700 14.7 ECWTP 13 0900 0900 20.1
Average 19.9 HWTP 1 0900 0900 46.3 HWTP 2 1100 1100 57.1 HWTP 3 1300 1300 57.1 HWTP 4 1500 1500 57.1 HWTP 5 1700 1700 57.1 HWTP 6 1900 1900 55.6 HWTP 7 2100 2100 55.6 HWTP 8 2300 2300 60.2 HWTP 9 0100 0100 57.1 HWTP 10 0300 0300 47.9 HWTP 11 0500 0500 43.2 HWTP 12 0700 0700 43.2 HWTP 13 0900 0900 47.9 Average 52.7
-26- Diel Variations in Flow
Flow at all stations in the East Branch except Virginia Street (C1A) gradually increased throughout the period of the survey. Streamflow measured near the end of the survey was generally 100 to 150 ft3 /s greater than that measured near the beginning of the 24-hour period. These increases reflect changes observed in the effluent flow from several of the U.S. Steel Corporation outfalls. For example, flow from outfall GW6 increased from 47 to 60 ft3 /s and flow from outfall GW7A increased from 65 to 140 ft3 /s. Smaller increases in flow were observed at several other U.S. Steel Corporation outfalls. Extreme diel fluctuations in streamflow were observed at several of the sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River (figs. 2 and 3). The fluctua tions in the East and West Branches were greatest at stations nearest the ship canal. At the station on the ship canal (C12), a change in streamflow of about 300 ft3 /s was observed in one 2-hour period. Fluctuations of 50 ft3 /s between measurements were common. A similar pattern was observed in the East Branch at Kennedy Avenue (station C6) and to a lesser degree at CLine Avenue (station C5). Little diel variation was observed at stations further upstream from CLine Avenue (Industrial Highway, station C4; Bridge Street, station C3; and Virginia Street, station C1A). The most drastic diel fluctuations in streamflow were observed at the two sampling stations in the West Branch nearest the ship canal (near Indianapolis Boulevard, C7; and near the Indiana East-West Toll Road, C7A). Complete re versals of streamflow were observed at station C7 near Indianapolis Boulevard. Streamflow at station C7 ranged from -34 ft3 /s (easterly flow) to 42 ft3 /s (westerly flow). Average streamflow at this station for the period of study was -2.6 ft3 /s. Thus, a small net amount of water flowed from this station into the ship canal during the survey. The same debris was observed to float past the station several times during the reversals in flow, indicating that the same parcel of water virtually flowed back and forth in this reach of the river a number of times before finally discharging into the ship canal. Only two small reversals in flow were observed near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A). Streamflow at station C7A ranged from zero flow to as high as 32 ft3 /s toward the west. Virtually no fluctuation was observed at the first three sampling stations downstream of the Indiana East-West Toll Road (Columbia Avenue, C8; Hohman Avenue, C9; and Burnham Road, CIO) during the 24-hour period, presumably because the fluctuations seen near Indianapolis Boulevard and the Indiana East-West Toll Road were dampened by culverts through which the West Branch flows underneath Columbia Avenue. Significant diel variation was observed at Burnham Park (station Cll) and was probably due to the operation of the Thomas J. O'Brien Lock and Dam on the Little Calumet River 0.6 mi downstream from its confluence with the West Branch of the Grand Calumet River.
-27- /UU i i i r
600 VIRGINIA STREET (C1A) RIVER MILE 12.4 500 -
400 -
Q - 7- 300
0 - O 200 BRIDGE STREET (C3) LxJ RIVER MILE 10.0 CO 100 or n I I I I Id Q_ 700 .-
I- LxJ 600 - Ld 500 -
400 - CD 13 300 - O 200 - I NDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY (C4) CLINE AVENUE (C5) 100 - RIVER MILE 8.5 RIVER MILE 6.5
0 700
< 600 - Ld K 500 -
W 400 -
300 -
200 - KENNEDY AVENUE (C6) SHIP CANAL AT 151ST STREET (C12) 100 - RIVER MILE 4.7 RIVER MILE 3.8 0 - 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 2. Relation of streamflow to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-28- 100
75 NEAR INDIANPOUS BOULEVARD (C7) _ _ NEAR INDIANA EAST-WEST TOLL RIVER MILE 5.5 ROAD (C7A) RIVER MILE 5.4
50
25 o z o 0 o LJ -25 CO -50 100
LJ 75 LJ U_ 50 O m 25 ID O
COLUMBIA AVENUE (C8) HOHMAN AVENUE (C9) -25 RIVER MILE 4.1 RIVER MILE 3.0
-50 100
75 LJ
50
25
0
BURNHAM AVENUE (C10) BURNHAM PARK (C11) -25 RIVER MILE 1.8 RIVER MILE 0.9
-50 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3,1984
Figure 3. Relation of streamflow to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4.1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-29- The reason for the large diel fluctuations in streamflow at sampling stations near the ship canal is not known. They may be due to changes in the water level in Lake Michigan. Water levels in Lake Michigan at Calumet Harbor, Illinois (approximately 6.5 mi northwest of the Indiana Harbor), for the period October 2-4, 1984, are shown in figure 4. Water levels in the lake during the survey fluctuated between 579.7 and 580.1 ft above the IGLD of 1955, changing about 0.2 ft every 4 hours. Prior to the start of the water- quality survey on October 3, the lake water level rose about 0.6 ft in 6 hours. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1985) attribute such short-term fluctuations in Great Lakes water levels to wind and changes in barometric pressure. Lunar tides are negligible in the Great Lakes (Heyford, 1922, p. 113). The true tide at Chicago, 111., has been estimated to produce a range in oscillations of less than 0.14 ft (Harris, 1907, p. 483-486). Whether the variations in streamflow observed in the East and West Branches of the Grand Calumet River are attributable to water-level changes in Lake Michigan is uncertain; given the volume of water in the Indiana Harbor and ship canal and the small hourly water-level changes recorded during the survey, it would seem unlikely, however.
On the basis of visual observations made during a reconnaissance of the river and ship canal in September 1984, the authors doubt -the importance of Lake Michigan water levels as a cause of the fluctuations in streamflow. Reversals of surface flow during this reconnaissance were noted in the ship canal at the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad crossing "(RM 1.9, 0.2 mi downstream from the Lake George Canal) but not at the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad crossing (RM 0.7, 0.5 mi downstream from Dickey Road). Downstream flow was significant at the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad crossing during the flow reversal noted at the Indiana Harbor Railjroad crossing. When downstream flow was observed at the Indiana Harbor Railroad crossing, less flow was ob served at the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad crossing than during the reversal. Both of these railroad crossings constrict the ship canal channel to about 40 percent of its normal width. Flow reversals may be a function of these constrictions and changes in water volume in the canal between and down stream from them. There are a total of 16 effluent outfalls downstream from the Indiana Harbor Railroad crossing. Although flow from these outfalls was not measured during the survey, previous studies have reported average 24-hour flow for these outfalls totaling about 1,350 ft3 /s (HydroQual, 1984). This flow is nearly three times the average flow measured at 151st Street (C12). The flow reversals observed in the ship canal and the river may be due to backwater caused by the interaction of the volume and diel variation of the effluent discharges and the locations of their outfalls in the ship canal with respect to the channel constrictions.
-30- 580.5 z o z n a: o> ^ H 580 . 0 ? o
UJ LJ LJ *
-£ 579.5 £! £ PERIOD OF m O SURVEY LJ
579.0
OCTOBER
Figure 4. Water levels in Lake Michigan, Calumet Harbor, Illinois, October 2-4,1964.
-31- Flow Balance
East Branch Grand Calumet River
Dry-weather flow in the Grand Calumet River is, composed almost exclusive ly of industrial and municipal effluents (fig. 5). Flow upstream from the first effluent discharge in the East Branch was estimated to be less than 0.1 ft3 /s. Effluents accounted for about 93 percent of the 500 ft3 /s average streamflow at the farthest downstream site (151st Street, station C12) in the East Branch. The largest single discharger is U. S. Steel Corporation, which discharged an average of 400 ft3 /s from 14 outfalls (GW1 to GW13, ST14, ST17). Other major dischargers in the East Branch include the GWTP (51 f t3 /s) and DuPont, E. I. DeNemours and Company (9.9 ft3 /s from outfalls DPI to DPS). About 67 percent of the industrial effluent is noncontact cooling water from Lake Michigan. The remainder is process water from the U.S. Steel Corporation Gary Works mill operations and DuPont, E. I. DeNemours and Company chemical production. The approximately 36 ft3 /s increase in streamflow in the East Branch not attributable to effluent was assumed to be ground-water inflow or seepage from adjacent wetlands. None of the small tributary streams were observed to be flowing during the survey. For purposes of estimating chemical-mass dis charges in the East Branch of the river, this additional flow was added uni formly to the reaches where inflow was indicated by streamflow measurements (4.6 ft3 /s between RM 13.8 and 12.4, 25.9 ft3 /s between RM 11.3 and 6.8, and 5.5 ft3 /s between RM 4.8 and 3.8). These rates of inflow are rather high and may be unrealistic. However, data concerning ground-water flow in the study area are presently insufficient to obtain an independent estimate of rates of ground-water inflow. Average streamflow at Kennedy Avenue (station C6) was approximately 50 ft3 /s less than that upstream at Cline Avenue (station C5). This decrease is probably not indicative of an actual loss of water from the river. Rather, the river near Kennedy Avenue has extensive marshy areas along its banks that have thick growths of macrophytes. Streamflow measurements made at Kennedy Avenue reflect only flow in the open channel, not flow through this marshy area. It is likely that the balance of the flow not measured at this site moved through this area, especially since no decrease in flow was observed between Cline Avenue (station C5) and 151st Street (station C12).
The estimate of streamflow adjusted for gains or losses used for calcu lating instream chemical-mass discharges of the East Branch Grand Calumet River is shown in figure 6.
-32- 1 ZUU i 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 K> 1100 -Ax A 0 ^ II W Q. o ^ a: 1000 _ z a Q Q ° tf QL a Z Q
U) 120 u> 01 « 100 o o 0 0 I O UJO (0 80 T MAXIMUM 60 OAVERAGi $ $ 40 + + MINIMUM LJ 20 U 0 + n -20
0 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 5. Relation of cumulative effluent discharge to streamflow, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). IZUU i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1100 AA *0 ~£ ^ ^ v> o * a: 1000 < * Q 0 B - Q£ Q z a < 900 CD Z fc^ < O CM OT OT ^£1 »- *~ & r, *«2l^ . *««? 1 800 VZ UJ (/) (O9Q.OL IO 2 5* P 10 PS^J ^*^^****uj ~ O*3 OXQ 0 O > o to o tnooo oouooooox _ O 700 UJ - - CO 600 500 mm a: 1 , UJ 400 a. 300 - ^ - h- 200 - L UJ - UJ 100 n 1 1 1 1 i i i i t r i i 12 13 14 15 o 7 8 9 10 11 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES 00 160 o 140 - B < u> 120 °- o» to x. 100 o o o tn o 80 _J u_ 60 40
UJ 20 a: h- 0 co -20 -40 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 6. Estimates of streamflow adjusted for gains or losses used for calculating instream chemical-mass discharge, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). West Branch Grand Calumet River
The HWTP and ECWTP were the only active permitted dischargers in the West Branch during the survey and accounted for all of the streamflow in the West Branch (fig. 5). The ECWTP reported an average effluent flow of 19.9 ft3 /s during the study. An average streamflow of 2.6 ft3 /s was measured near Indianapolis Boulevard (station C7) flowing east into the ship canal. An average streamflow of 14.5 ft3 /s was measured near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A) flowing west. These flows total 17.1 ft3 /s or 2.8 ft3 /s less than the flow reported by the ECWTP (19.9 ft3 /s). Thirteen percent of flow from the ECWTP (2.6 ft3 /s) was assumed to flow toward the east (into the ship canal) and 87 percent of the flow (17.3 ft3 /s) was assumed to flow toward the west. These assumptions are based on the observation that some water flowing west was apparently lost from the West Branch between the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A) and Columbia Avenue (station C8). Thus it was assumed that some loss would also occur between Indianapolis Boulevard and the Indiana East-West Toll Road since these two reaches are geomorphically similar. Therefore, the 2.8 ft3 /s difference was attributed to losses in the channel between the ECWTP and the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A).
Flow in the West Branch downstream from the HWTP was substantially less than the sum of the westerly flowing portion of the effluents. The average streamflow at the four sampling stations downstream from the HWTP (C8, C9, CIO, and Cll) was 51 ft3 /s and ranged from 47.3 to 53.4 ft3 /s. This flow is approximately 19 ft3 /s less than the sum of the effluent flow measured by the HWTP (52.6 ft3 /s) and the westerly flowing portion of the ECWTP effluent (about 17 ft3 /s). It is unlikely this difference can be attributed to meas urement error alone.
Some of the difference can be attributed to the fact that the HWTP only measures flow as it enters the plant (unlike the ECWTP and the GWTP which measure effluent flow as it enters the river). Thus, the flow that the HWTP reported may have been greater than the actual effluent flow because: (1) return flow used by the HWTP is added to the incoming wastewater upstream from the plant's flowmeter, (2) evaporation losses from the settling tanks and clarifiers are not taken into account, (3) some water is removed from the system when sludge is pumped from settling tanks to sludge lagoons, and (4) differences that result from the lag between changes in inflow and outflow owing to travel time through the plant. Measurement bias may also account for some of the difference.
Use of the effluent flow reported by the HWTP for estimating chemical-mass discharges results in substantially larger chemical-mass discharges than observed at the four downstream sampling stations. Thus, for purposes of calculating effluent and instreain chemical-mass discharges, the effluent flow from the HWTP and the streamflow immediately upstream from the plant (0.3 mi downstream from C7A) were estimated from a mass balance of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids. This technique was feasible because the effluents from
-35- the two WTP's were considerably different chemically with respect to concen trations of chloride, sulfate and dissolved solids. Least-squares optimiza tion was used to obtain the best fit solution to the following set of equations:
CLds x Qds = CIJWTP x (JJTP + CLus x Qus SO^ds x Qds = SO^WTP x QWTP + SO^us x Qus DSds x Qds = DSWTP x QWTP + DSus x Qus Qds = CWTP + Qus where CL is the chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter; SO^ is the sulfate concentration, in milligrams per liter; DS is the dissolved solids concentration, in milligrams per liter; Q is the flow, in cubic feet per second; and ds, WTP, and us are subscripts indicating the downstream, wastewater-treatment plant, or upstream location. The unknowns in the equations are QWTP and Qus. The concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and DS observed near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A) were used as the upstream concentrations; the concentrations measured in the HWTP effluent were used as the WTP concentrations; and the average flow and concentrations of the four sampling stations downstream from the HWTP were used as the downstream flow and concentrations.
Estimates of 42.3 ft3 /s as the average effluent flow from the HWTP and 8.7 ft3 /s as the average streamflow immediately upstream of the plant were obtained using this procedure. The estimated effluent flow for the HWTP is approximately 81 percent of the 52.6 ft3 /s influent flow. This difference indicates a sizable measurement error or loss of water through the plant. Similar percentages have been noted by the authors in previous studies of other wastewater-treatment plants (U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis, Ind., written commun., 1984'). This estimate of effluent flow is supported by the findings of the follow-up study done in September 1985 (see appendix) during which effluent flow was found to be 77 percent of the influent flow. The estimate of upstream flow indicates a substantial loss of water (as much as 8.6 ft3 /s) between the ECWTP and HWTP a distance of slightly less than 1 mi. This loss is roughly 44 percent of the total effluent flow from the ECWTP.
Insufficient data are available to explain this loss. Between the ECWTP and HWTP, a part of the stream is diverted southward through a small lake that is surrounded by a marshy area with dense macrophyte growth. The surface area of this lake is about 10 acres; the marshy area around the lake totals about 15 acres. Even though there is an outlet from the lake that drains back into the West Branch near the Indiana East-West Toll Road Bridge, some of the water loss in this area may be due to evaporation or seepage or retention of the water as surface storage. The inlet to the lake is upstream from the sampling station located at the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A). Average streamflow measured at the Indiana East-West Toll Road, 14.5 ft3 /s, is 2.8 ft3 /s less than the 17.3 ft3 /s that would have been expected at this station from the ECWTP (19.9 ft3 /s effluent flow minus 2.6 ft3 /s average flow measured
-36- flowing easterly into the ship canal). This 2.8 ft3 /s amount is equivalent to 0.2 ft/d over the 25-acre lake and marsh. Evaporation, seepage, or change in storage could reasonably account for this difference. The loss of an additional 5.8 ft3 /s between the Indiana East-West Toll Road and the HWTP is not so easily explained. Beneath the Indiana East-West Toll Road, the river channel becomes very broad and shallow, probably as a consequence of highway construction. The channel in this reach is several hundred feet wide and only about 0.5 ft deep, instead of the typical 60 to 90- ft width and 2-ft depth. The area of this channel section is about 2.2 acres. On the north side of the channel is another marshy area of approximately 11 acres. Possibly owing to the reduced stream velocity and large surface area to volume ratio for this section of the channel, the marsh acts as an area of substantial ground-water recharge. Such seepage would be equivalent to about 0.9 ft/d over this 13.2-acre area, a seemingly high rate of seepage. However, tracer data obtained during the September 1985 follow-up study support the loss of water in this section of the West Branch. There are several additional explanations for the imbalance between the effluent flows and the flow measured in the West Branch. If one assumes an effluent flow of 50 f t3 /s from the HWTP (95 percent of the reported flow to account for return flow and to allow for some evaporative losses) and an up stream flow of 14.5 f t3 /s (the flow measured near the Indiana East-West Toll Road, station C7A), mass balances on the concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids result in concentrations in the mixed water similar to those observed at Columbia Avenue (station C8). Without an adjustment for the loss of flow, however, the mass discharges of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids would not agree with those observed at Columbia Avenue. For a balance in flows to occur, 13.5 ft3 /s would have to be lost from the river in the 0.4-mi between the HWTP and Columbia Avenue. After field reconnaissance of this section of the channel, the authors concluded that flow losses of this magnitude were improbable.
Another possible explanation is measurement errors in streamflow, espe cially at the two stations on the West Branch nearest the ship canal (C7 and C7A). Flow at these stations was quite unsteady with reversals of flow ob served at station C7. The unsteady flow at these sites could have resulted in considerable error in individual streamflow measurements. However, error in the 24-hour average flow is a function of error in individual measurements and the assumption that flow varied linearly between measurements. The error in the 24-hour average is not a function of the total range in flow of the indi vidual measurements because this includes systematic variability attributable to changes in lake levels, industrial withdrawal and discharge, or other causes as well as measurement error. It is unlikely that measurement error alone could account for the difference. For example, the sum of the 24-hour average flow estimated at stations C7 and C7A (17.1 ft3 /s) agrees reasonably well with the flow reported by the ECWTP (within 85 percent). If the flow reported by the HWTP and that measured at the four downstream stations (C8, C9, CIO, and Cll) are assumed to be equal and the difference is due primarily to measurement errors at stations C7 and C7A, a 24-hour average flow of 19.8 ft3 /s at station C7 would be needed to account for the difference in flow observed in the West Branch. This corresponds to an error of nearly 1,000 percent in the 24-hour average flow at station C7 and zero flow at station C7A. If flow from the HWTP is assumed to be equal to that estimated by the
-37- mass-balance technique (42.3 ft3 /s), then a flow of 11.1 ft3 /s, corresponding to an error of over 400 percent in the 24-hour average flow, would be needed at station C7 to account for the difference. Errors of this magnitude are unlikely, even for highly unsteady flow. These alternative explanations were deemed less likely than the first one presented. However, conclusions drawn should be interpreted within the uncer tainty of the flow system in the West Branch. The only conclusions concerning the flow imbalance known with reasonable certainty are (1) that only part of the effluent discharged by the two municipal WTP's into the West Branch during the survey left the watershed by means of the river channel during the survey, and (2) available data are insufficient to resolve the imbalance. The estimate of streamflow adjusted for gains or losses used for calcu lating instream chemical-mass discharges of the West Branch Grand Calumet River is shown in figure 6.
WATER QUALITY
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board has designated waters of the Grand Calumet River for recreation on or near the body, limited aquatic life and industrial-water supply (330 IAC 2-2-3). A summary of selected water- quality standards for the Grand Calumet River is presented in table 5. The complete standards may be found in 330 IAC 2-2. Water-quality data collected during the October 1984 diel survey are summarized in table 6. A discussion of each of the properties and constitu ents measured follows.
-38- Table 5. Water-quality standards for the Grand Calumet River [Source, 330 IAC 2-2]
Standards in effect Standards in effect since October 1985 Constituent or before October 1985 property East and West Branches East Branch West Branch
pH not to be less than 6.0 or not to be less than 6.0 or not to be less than 6.0 or exceed 9.0 standard units exceed 9. 0 standard units exceed 9.0 standard units Dissolved oxygen not to be less than 4.0 mg/L not to be less than 4.0 mg/L not to be less than 4.0 mg/L Temperature January - March not to exceed 15.6 °C not to exceed 15.6 °C not to exceed 15.6 °C April not to exceed 18.3 °C not to exceed 18.3 °C not to exceed 18.3 °C May not to exceed 23.9 °C not to exceed 23.9 °C not to exceed 23.9 °C June not to exceed 29.4 °C not to exceed 29.4 °C not to exceed 29.4 °C July - August not to exceed 30.6 °C not to exceed 30.6 °C not to exceed 30.6 °C to September not to exceed 29.4 °C not to exceed 29.4 °C not to exceed 29.4 °C October not to exceed 23.9 °C not to exceed 23.9 °C not to exceed 23.9 °C November not to exceed 21.1 °C not to exceed 21.1 °C not to exceed 21.1 °C December not to exceed 15.6 °C not to exceed 15.6 °C not to exceed 15.6 °C Ammonia Total not to exceed 1.5 mg/L as N no standard no standard Unionized no standard not to exceed 0.02 mg/L as N not to exceed 0.05 mg/L as N Chloride not to exceed 125 mg/L not to exceed 125 mg/L not to exceed 125 mg/L Cyanide not to exceed 0.1 mg/L not to exceed 0.05 mg/L not to exceed 0.1 mg/L Dissolved solids not to exceed 500 mg/L not to exceed 350 mg/L not to exceed 500 mg/L Fluoride not to exceed 1.3 mg/L not to exceed 1.3 mg/L not to exceed 1.3 mg/L Phosphorus (total) not to exceed 0. 1 mg/L not to exceed 0. 1 mg/L no standard Sulfate not to exceed 225 mg/L not to exceed 100 mg/L not to exceed 225 mg/L Chromium (total) not to exceed 50 yg/L not to exceed 25 yg/L not to exceed 25 yg/L Iron (dissolved) not to exceed 300 yg/L not to exceed 300 yg/L not to exceed 300 yg/L Lead (total) not to exceed 50 yg/L not to exceed 25 yg/L not to exceed 25 yg/L Mercury (total) not to exceed 0.5 yg/L not to exceed 0.5 yg/L not to exceed 0.5 yg/L PCB's (total) not to exceed 0.001 yg/L not to exceed 0.001 yg/L not to exceed 0.001 yg/L Phenol not to exceed 10 yg/L not to exceed 10 yg/L not to exceed 10 yg/L Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984
[mg/L, milligram per liter; n.d., no data; °C, degree Celsius; pS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 °Celsius; ug/L, microgram per liter]
Determined by meter Determined by Winkler method
Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum dissolved- dissolved- dissolved- dissolved- dissolved- dissolved- oxyg en oxygen oxygen oxygen oxygen oxygen concen concen concen concen concen concen Station tration tration tration tration tration tration ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
C1A 8.2 7.7 9.5 7.8 7.4 8.2 C3 7.4 6.2 8.3 8.0 7.8 8.6 C4 7.4 6.4 8.4 7.3 6.8 7.8 C5 6.7 6.4 7.4 6.0 4.0 7.0 C6 6.1 5.3 6.6 5.9 5.0 6.6 C12 5.7 4.8 6.2 5.7 5.0 6.4 GW1 6.5 6.3 7.2 8.1 8.0 8.4 GW1A 5.5 4.3 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.6 GW2 5.3 4.9 5.7 7.0 6.6 7.4 GW3 5.0 4.5 5.7 6.4 5.8 7.0 GW4 6.4 5.7 6.9 8.0 7.8 8.4 GW6 6.9 6.4 7.4 8.6 8.2 8.8 GW7 6.1 5.4 6.8 8.9 8.4 9.2 GW7A 6.8 6.3 7.1 8.3 7.8 8.6 GW10A 8.0 7.4 9.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 GW11A 9.4 8.4 11.9 8.4 8.0 8.8 GW12 10.3 9.7 11.8 9.1 9.0 9.2 GW13 9.3 8.7 10.0 9.0 8.8 9.2 ST14 4.7 3.8 5.2 4.4 4.2 4.6 ST17 7.5 5.2 11.5 6.1 6.0 6.2 GWTP ' 5.9 4.4 7.7 n.d. n.d. n.d. VM1 n.d. n.d. n.d. 8.0 7.8 8.2 DPI n.d. n.d. n.d. 7.4 7.2 7.6 DP2 n.d . n.d . n.d. 8.5 8.3 9.0 DP3 n.d. n.d. n.d. 7.6 7.4 8.0 HW1 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.3 < .1 6.6 USSL1 n.d. n.d. n.d. 5.5 5.4 5.6 C7 6.6 4.4 7.6 6.3 4.4 7.6 C7A 5.8 4.8 7.0 5.7 4.6 6.6 C8 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.8 4.2 6.0 C9 1.5 .9 3.0 1.3 .8 1.8 CIO .9 .6 1.4 .6 .2 1.2 Cll .8 .6 1.0 .9 .8 1.2 ECWTP 5.7 4.7 7.1 n.d. n.d. n.d. HWTP 7.2 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
-40- Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum temper temper temper specific specific specific Station ature ature ature conductance conductance conductance ID (°C) (°C) (°C) (yS/cm (uS/cm) (yS/cm)
C1A 19.1 17.7 19.7 367 349 420 C3 18.3 16.4 19.5 359 343 380 C4 19.5 18.0 20.7 421 385 480 C5 19.2 17.9 20.7 429 384 478 C6 19.8 18.0 21.5 n.d. n.d. n.d. C12 18.9 17.3 20.2 498 465 579 GW1 21.0 20.0 23.0 356 350 360 GW1A 32.0 28.0 35.0 363 330 420 GW2 27.6 25.0 30.0 420 340 550 GW3 22.0 21.0 23.0 372 340 420 GW4 17.8 17.0 18.0 358 340 380 GW6 17.2 16.0 19.0 359 340 390 GW7 23.2 16.0 28.0 335 320 360 GW7A 16.6 15.0 20.0 345 340 350 GW10A 20.7 20.0 22.0 341 300 380 GW11A 19.8 19.0 21.0 336 320 390 GW12 15.8 15.0 17.0 323 300 400 GW13 16.4 16.0 17.0 285 240 350 ST14 27.8 27.0 28.0 656 530 740 ST17 24.0 23.0 25.0 735 600 800 GWTP 18.8 17.0 20.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. VM1 17.8 16.0 20.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. DPI 26.3 25.0 28.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. DP2 24.3 23.5 25.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. DP 3 29.6 23.5 31.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. HW1 23.7 23.3 24.4 n.d. n.d . n.d. USSL1 23.0 23.0 24.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. C7 17.2 15.0 19.0 1,630 480 2,100 C7A 18.0 15.0 20.0 1,610 1,295 1,950 C8 20.1 18.2 21.0 1,180 1,000 1,320 C9 19.8 18.0 21.0 n.d. 650 n.d. CIO 19.0 17.0 20.3 n.d. n.d. n.d . Cll 18.6 16.8 21.1 1,150 1,010 1,290 ECWTP 18.2 17.5 19.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. HWTP 17.8 16.0 21.0 n.d. n.d. n.d.
-41- Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Average Minimum Maximum PH PH PH Suspended Dissolved Hardness Station (standard (standard (standard solids solids Chloride Fluoride Sulfate as CaCoa ID units) units) units) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
C1A 7.6 7.3 7.8 10 203 25 0.2 33 110 C3 7.9 7.6 8.1 4 186 18 .3 31 110 C4 6.6 6.1 6.9 6 246 43 .3 38 140 C5 7.2 6.8 7.4 < 1 326 44 .4 40 140 C6 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3 306 44 .4 49 140 C12 7.3 7.3 7.5 4 288 52 .5 52 150 GW1A 7.9 7.7 8.2 3 173 13 .2 26 110 GW2 8.1 7.8 8.2 5 254 63 .1 29 130 GW3 7.7 7.4 8.0 4 162 17 .3 26 110 GW4 7.6 7.3 8.1 5 174 15 .2 26 110 GW6 7.7 7.4 8.0 2 168 12 .2 26 130 GW7 7.4 7.1 8.0 2 144 11 .2 22 120 GW7A 7.7 7.4 8.0 2 197 24 1.3 40 130 GW10A 8.1 7.9 8.3 4 167 11 .1 24 94 GW11A 8.3 8.1 8.6 2 193 21 .9 36 120 GW12 7.3 7.1 7.8 3 235 13 .1 36 140 GW13 7.4 7.0 7.6 2 162 11 .1 24 130 ST14 6.8 6.6 7.9 12 399 65 .3 120 250 ST17 6.6 6.4 6.8 2 523 190 .2 47 280 GWTP 7.1 7.0 7.5 4 480 84 .8 28 190 VM1 8.6 8.4 8.9 2 378 124 1.1 32 120 DPI n.d. n.d. n.d. 6 284 44 .4 63 180 DP2 7.6 7.4 8.0 4 1,240 220 1.1 190 120 DPS 7.5 7.5 7.6 4 9,100 32 .7 5,900 320 HW1 n.d. n.d. n.d. 3 166 11 .9 26 110 USSL1 6.7 6.7 7.2 12 712 63 4.7 320 360 C7 7.6 7.5 8.2 12 938 329 2.3 154 200 C7A n.d. n.d. n.d. 11 1,000 335 2.3 162 220 C8 7.1 6.8 7.2 14 684 160 1.3 116 200 C9 7.5 7.4 7.7 16 660 153 1.2 114 220 CIO n.d. n.d. n.d. 16 661 155 1.3 120 190 Cll 7.1 6.9 7.2 16 674 160 1.2 120 140 GW1 7.8 7.7 7.9 4 184 17 .1 28 30 ECWTP 7.1 6.9 7.2 7 1,080 438 3.1 190 220 HWTP n.d. n.d. n.d. 3 593 120 1.1 104 210
-42- Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Five day Total biochemical- biochemical- Carbonaceous Filtered oxygen oxygen biochemical- biochemical- Total Total Station demand demand oxygen demand oxygen demand phenols cyanide ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (ug/L) (mg/L)
C1A 3.8 12.0 5.5 n.d. 17 0.05 C3 1.8 6.5 3.0 n.d. 2 .02 C4 2.6 10.0 6.9 n.d. 34 .01 C5 3.7 11.0 7.7 n.d. 20 .01 C6 2.8 10.0 6.3 n.d. 2 < .01 C12 3.2 11.0 7.4 n.d. 27 < .01 GW1 2.0 6.5 4.0 n.d. < 1 .04 GW1A 1.2 4.5 .5 n.d. 14 .02 GW2 2.4 13.0 5.6 n.d. 64 < .01 GW3 3.3 7.0 4.3 n.d. 13 .05 GW4 1.0 3.0 2.6 n.d. < 1 < .01 GW6 1.5 5.0 2.7 n.d. 17 < .01 GW7 1.8 4.0 3.6 n.d. < 1 < .01 GW7A 1.4 3.0 2.3 n.d. 52 .06 GW10A 2.1 13.0 7.4 n.d. 1 < .01 GW11A 3.0 12.0 7.8 n.d. < 1 .05 GW12 1.0 3.0 2.5 n.d. < 1 < .01 GW13 1.0 3.0 2.8 n.d. < 1 < .01 ST14 1.5 7.0 4.5 n.d. < 1 < .01 ST17 12.0 31 30 n.d. 67 < .01 GWTP 4.0 14.0 11.4 n.d. 2 < .01 VM1 1.0 4.0 3.7 n.d. < 1 < .01 DPI 2.1 12.0 5.9 n.d. 16 .01 DP2 1.0 25.0 19.0 n.d. < 1 < .01 DP3 1.2 4.0 3.4 n.d. 5 < .01 HW1 1.0 4.0 3.1 n.d. n.d. < .01 USSL1 1.0 7.0 3.1 n.d . < 1 < .01 C7 2.5 27 16. n.d. 8 .17 C7A 4.2 31 17. n.d. 11 .04 C8 15.0 48 30 36 7 .02 C9 13.0 50 30 41 2 .02 CIO 12.0 49 28 39 4 .02 Cll 11.5 49 27 n.d. 3 .01 ECWTP 13.0 24 14.0 n.d. 2 .26 HWTP 4.5 36 21 n.d. 1 < .01
-43- Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations In the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Total Total organic Total Total Total ortho- Total Station nitrogen ammonia nitrite nitrate phosphorus phosphorus ID (mg/L as N) (mg/L as N) (mg/L as N) (mg/L as N) (mg/L as P) (mg/L) C1A 0.5 1.50 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.02 C3 .1 .80 .06 .21 .02 .03 C4 .3 .71 .08 1.32 .02 .05 C5 .2 .77 .09 1.51 .04 .13 C6 .5 .85 .10 1.40 .03 .04 C12 .6 .82 .13 1.57 .04 .06 GW1 .1 .58 .02 .21 .03 .04 GW1A < .1 .93 .03 .26 < .01 < .01 GW2 .2 1.70 .03 .26 .01 < .01 GW3 .4 .63 .03 .21 .02 < .01 GW4 .2 .09 .03 .26 < .01 < .01 GW6 .1 .53 .03 .17 < .01 < .01 GW7 .2 .09 .01 .18 .02 .01 GW7A .2 .17 .01 .14 .01 .02 GW10A .1 1.30 .06 .21 < .01 .01 GW11A < .1 .96 .05 .20 < .01 < .01 GW12 .1 .12 .01 .23 .02 < .01 GW13 .1 .05 .02 .26 < .01 < .01 ST14 < .1 .57 .02 .38 .01 < .01 ST17 .4 .22 .18 .11 .02 .03 GWTP 1.5 .61 .07 9.03 .20 .35 VM1 .2 .06 .36 .21 .09 .09 DPI .2 1.40 .12 1.48 .03 .06 DP2 81.7 1.30 .01 .17 < .01 < .01 DP 3 .6 .13 .01 .09 < .01 < .01 HW1 .1 .21 .02 .48 < .01 < .01 USSL1 .4 .91 .08 1.12 < .01 .04 C7 1.6 2.60 1.00 8.10 .05 .18 C7A 1.7 3.20 .98 8.12 .07 .23 C8 2.5 4.10 .43 3.07 .25 .54 C9 2.4 4.70 .37 2.13 .30 .62 CIO 2.6 4.90 .34 1.96 .29 .58 Cll 2.5 5.00 .37 2.13 .29 .44 ECWTP 1.9 2.40 1.80 10.20 .28 .57 HWTP 1.7 3.50 .18 1.52 .28 .35
-44- Table 6. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued
Total Total hex aval en t Total Total Total Total Total Total Station chromium chromium copper iron lead mercury nickel zinc ID (pg/L) (yg/D (yg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (Pg/L) (yg/D (yg/L) C1A 3 < 1 2 1,500 7 0.2 4 30 C3 2 < 1 4 810 6 .2 8 40 C4 2 < 1 1 1,000 4 .2 6 30 C5 2 < 1 8 3,600 42 .2 9 100 C6 2 < 1 3 740 5 .3 7 40 C12 < 1 < 1 3 1,200 6 .2 8 50 GW1 < 1 < 1 < 1 380 1 .5 5 20 GW1A < 1 < 1 4 310 < 1 .7 4 30 GW2 < 1 < 1 1 360 < 1 2.5 10 20 GW3 2 < 1 < 1 410 < 1 .3 7 20 GW4 < 1 < 1 < 1 540 20 .3 5 20 GW6 1 < 1 < 1 250 < 1 .5 5 30 GW7 < 1 < 1 < 1 350 < 1 .3 7 40 GW7A < 1 < 1 3 860 4 1.0 5 20 GW10A 2 < 1 1 470 < 1 .2 6 20 GW11A 1 < 1 < 1 760 3 1.0 7 30 GW12 1 < 1 < 1 490 1 .7 4 20 GW13 2 < 1 < 1 210 1 .4 5 20 ST14 1 < 1 1 6,000 3 1.1 7 30 ST17 1 < 1 < 1 1,100 < 1 .9 8 30 GWTP n.d. n.d. 9 450 1 .4 11 40 VM1 3 < 1 4 190 5 .6 5 20 DPI 1 < 1 1 1,700 15 .3 6 410 DP2 8 < 1 5 1,200 10 .2 12 40 DP3 7 < 1 7 1,000 28 < .1 8 90 HW1 5 < 1 2 290 2 .2 8 20 USSL1 < 1 < 1 61 2,600 n.d. .3 24 380 C7 8 < 1 12 1,900 16 .3 13 100 C7A 4 < 1 6 1,200 14 .6 14 80 C8 4 < 1 7 1,200 12 .6 13 50 C9 3 < 1 2 1,100 15 .6 13 50 CIO < 1 < 1 7 1,200 14 .6 14 50 Cll < 1 < 1 8 1,400 18 .5 13 50 ECWTP 1 < 1 3 700 8 1.3 12 60 HWTP 1 < 1 < 1 330 < 1 .5 11 20
-45- Water-Quality Characteristics
Dissolved Oxygen
Average DO concentrations measured in the East Branch ranged from about 6 mg/L near the confluence of the East Branch with the ship canal to about 8 mg/L at Virginia Avenue (fig. 7). Diel fluctuations in DO concentration were only about 1 to 2 mg/L* The fluctuation during the survey seemed to be random and untypical of fluctuations attributable to aquatic plants (fig. 8). Dissolved-oxygen concentrations were greater than the daily minimum (4.0 mg/L) and the daily average (5.0 mg/L) DO standards in the East Branch. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations were substantially lower in the West Branch than in the East Branch. Average concentrations ranged from about 1 mg/L near the confluence of the West Branch with the Little Calumet River to about 7 mg/L near the confluence with the ship canal (fig. 7). Diel fluctua tions in concentration ranged from about 0. 5 mg/L near the confluence with the Little Calumet River to about 3 mg/L near the ship canal (fig. 9). The large fluctuation in the West Branch near the ship canal is probably more a function of the interaction between waters from the ship canal and West Branch during the reversals of flow than photosynthetic activity. Concentrations at four of the sampling stations west of Columbia Avenue in Hammond (C8, C9, CIO, and Cll) were less than both the daily average and the minimum DO standards.
-46- 17 1 1 1 1 I I I I i i I 16 " A * _ A « £ I £2 15 ^ K a o ifr a: 14 z o 5 UJ 13 i_ *~ ^ imM ^^^z^ ^j5 ^(^- rf^^ 5£j - E> Pfc >0 £*££2c£c ^^>^tC:<£ i^^^^ S 2! c bJ-^ Ij 12 a i 3 OXQ o o > 3 O (0 O MOOO OOOO OOOO X a: UJ 11 a. 10 - - + MAXIMUM 2 9 a: 8 + -1- o AVERAGE - o + ¥ MINIMUM =i 7 j_ Q _j + + 6 _ Hho O - z 5 + z" 4 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 g 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES i-a: 14 1 1 1 LaJ 13 0 ' B Z 12 O , I : 11 o «- o £ £ CL z 10 n & t^ or* x UJ 0 0 8 O X O bib W 9 - X 8 + MAXIMUM o 1 7 + O AVERAGE a 6 UJ + 0 5 o 4 - + + MINIMUM 3 2 - O 1 ~ m O 0 1 1 I I I I 2345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 7. Longitudinal variation in dissolved oxygen concentration, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). IU i i i i 1 1 I 1 9 " ^V^ _ /X\ 8 ^ x - A, / ^s ,.,, ^S 7 - - 1 V 6 - - 5 - - 4 - - u Ij 3 - - VIRGINIA STREET (C1A) BRIDGE STREET (C3) 2 RIVER MILE 12.4 RIVER MILE 10.0 sQ. (A 1 2 0 1 1 1 I I I 1 I O 10 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 d 9 - - /^^^~~~^ - Z 8 z" 7 >/"^\^ " / ^^-^^~""~^-' / " ~"~~- ^ ^ ^^ - O 6 ~ " ~ ~ 1 5 - _ z u 4 _ _ _ _ O z 3 _ _ _ _ O O 2 1 NDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY (C4) CLINE AVENUE (C5) z RIVER MILE 8.5 RIVER MILE 6.5 UJ 1 - - >T 0 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 O 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 9 O _ _ _ _ to 8 CO 7 _ _ _ _ Q _ ^^ s ^^^^ ^- " x ^ - -s 5 - _/^ 4 - - 3 - - KENNEDY AVENUE (C6) SHIP CANAL AT 151ST STREET (C12) 2 RIVER MILE 4.7 RIVER MILE 3.8 1 - - n 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 8. Relation of dissolved oxygen concentration to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-48- 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 5 3 NEAR INDIANPOLIS BOULEVARD (C7) NEAR INDIANA EAST-WEST TOLL 2 RIVER MILE 5.5 ROAD (C7A) RIVER MILE 5.4 ffiCL 1 0 O 10 9 HOHMAN AVENUE (C9) 8 RIVER MILE 3.0 7 6 < ct: 5 o 4 z o 3 o COLUMBIA AVENUE (C8) 2 RIVER MILE 4.1 LJ O 1 o 0 I 10 Q 9 BURNHAM AVENUE (C10) BURNHAM PARK (C11) o 8 RIVER MILE 1.8 RIVER MILE 0.9 C/) t/) 7 Q 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 9. Relation of dissolved-oxygen concentration to time. West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-49- Specific Conductance
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of a substance to con duct an electrical current. Rire water has a very low electrical conductance. However, charged ions in the water make the solution conductive. As the ionic concentrations increase, the specific conductance of the solution increases. Therefore, SC provides an indication of ionic concentration (Hem, 1985, p. 66). Specific conductance was measured at five sampling stations in the East Branch and ship canal and four stations in the West Branch to provide an indication of the diel fluctuation in water quality. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the relation between conductance and concentra tions of chloride, sulfate, fluoride, hardness, and dissolved solids deter mined during this study. The regression equations (table 7) can be used to estimate diel fluctuations in chloride, sulfate, fluoride, hardness, and dis solved solids during the survey. They are not necessarily applicable to data collected at other times.
Average specific conductance in the East Branch ranged from about 360 yS/cm at Virginia Avenue (station C1A) to about 500 yS/cm near the confluence of the East Branch with the ship canal (fig. 10). Diel fluctuations ranged from about 40 to 200 yS/cm (fig. 11).
Specific conductance was substantially higher in the West Branch than in the East Branch. Average conductance ranged from about 1,200 to 1,600 yS/cm (fig. 10). Conductance was highest at stations C7 and C7A. Diel fluctuations ranged from about 300 to 1,500 yS/cm (fig. 12). The diel fluctuation was largest at the station nearest the ship canal (C7) and can be attributed to the interaction of water from the West Branch and ship canal during the rever sals in flow.
Table 7. Regression equations for estimating chloride, sulfate, fluoride, hardness and dissolved-solids concentrations from specific conductance
[Equations predict chloride, sulfate, fluoride, hardness, and dissolved solids in units of milligrams per liter for specific conductance given in units of microsiemens per centimeter at 25 °C; mg/L, milligrams per liter]
Standard Regression Coefficient of error equation determination (mg/L)
Chloride = 0. 229(specific conductance) - 65 0.96 27 Sulfate = 0.099(specific conductance) .99 5 Fluoride = 0. 002(specific conductance) - 0.3 .97 15.1 Hardness = 0.065(specif ic conductance) - 101 .77 21 Dissolved solids = 0. 592(specific conductance) - 1.8 .99 36
-50- CO ID uuu i i i i i i i i i i i
LJ ** O W ^ * (A O 900 Z °- O ^ 0£ CO < ° Q 0 U UJ K O Z O fe LJ 800 (£ 2-^ «j < PL«, M^*<* o ^-, < Qi O UJ 700 u*3 uxoo u > 8 o fc u Uooo oouo oooo x Q in CSI 600 + 500 - ? 400 O O -1- MAXIMUM LJ + + £ Q AVERAGE T ^ MINIMUM p 300 LJ O 200 I I I I I I I i I I I 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES CO z 3500 i i i i i
UJ 3000 B i o fc F Q. o 2500 u u 8 u x D uD in ~
2000 + MAXIMUM LJ O O O AVERAGE 1500
| 1000 $ + Q Z oO 500 + MINIMUM o EZ n 1 1 1 1 1 1 &3 01234567 Q_ CO DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 10. Longitudinal variation in specific conductance, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMANS PER CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS
OJOJ^-^cncno)O4O4-^-^cncno)O4O4-i^-i^cncno ocnocnocnoocnocnocnoocnocnocnc ooooooooooooooooooooc I I I.I I I I I I I 11111
\ Fo i 0 "* L "" ~ ~ o >. / 2i w ^ 00 Z ^^ si . 3 2 0 1| o m o ni 2 ll Z N) ^> |1 o g J| >! 50 0 c e! <" S m I i CO O ^ ° § ^**"^^>«^ ^ '/ I - 5> I i I I i i i i i i i i i i i o o o> o o _. N) o o i! CD CO m o ^J o OBH Ol 0) mo »o CO O 3 00 o 3)3 m oic o bi ni O) o o 1
J____|____I____I____I 9) SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMANS PER CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS -A-^-A-k-ACoco _»-»_»_»-»horo -A-A-A-A_kroiso ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o p 1 i r
p5
3 « 3 g JOO o COD
i bo r^ s g z o 3 o c 55. ^ o> m o£ 2 p ,2 «W c*CD ^^ra o 89 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 «ti £ o o £« « p _* >i ^ o o o 05,»z °?l on x^rr § ?g e:go oo . §i O 0> £?? Si 1> 0^8 II mCJ p I * 523 !D ^ 89 1 r^ CO 00 ^ O 00 O £ C '* ^ *o jS P * « o o 3 F o p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 M The pH of the East and West Branches Grand Calumet River was near neu trality or slightly basic (fig. 13). The pH was not outside the water-quality standard range of pH 6-9 at any of the sampling stations, little diel fluctu ation was observed in pH (figs. 14 and 15) except in the East Branch at Industrial Highway (station C4). Diel fluctuation at this station was nearly 1 standard unit.
Water Temperature
Average water temperature ranged from about 18 to 20 °C in the East Branch and was relatively uniform through the reach (fig. 16). Diel fluctua tions in water temperature ranged from about 2 to 3 °C (fig. 17). In the West Branch, average water temperature ranged from about 17 to 20 °C (fig. 16). Diel water temperature fluctuations in the West Branch were slightly greater than in the East Branch ranging from about 3 to 5 °C (fig. 18). Temperature in the West Branch was highest at stations C8 and C9 and lowest near the con fluences with the ship canal and the Little Calumet River. The water-quality standard for water temperature was not exceeded in either the East or West Branches of the river.
Chloride
Chloride concentrations in the East Branch ranged from about 20 to 50 mg/L (fig. 19). Concentrations were lowest in the upstream reaches and in creased downstream to the maximum value observed at the confluence with the ship canal. Concentration of chloride in the East Branch was less than the absolute maximum allowable standard (125 mg/L) at all sampling stations.
Chloride concentrations in the West Branch ranged from about 150 mg/L to about 330 mg/L (fig. 19). Concentrations at stations C7 and C7A were about twice those at the other stations in the West Branch. The maximum absolute chloride standard (125 mg/L) was exceeded at all stations on the West Branch.
-54- 1 1 I 1 I I i i i i i i i n A g 10 % »- »/) 0 * K 10 1 ° Q 0 UJ ~ Q- O Z Q < CO Z *<<< 5 * 1- J ^ Q. ^,C4»-O < ^ Q 9 £ UJ CO <0£CLCL if) 2 ^ ^ H* 'O P^J^ 3C^^i^^^i2 ~ O * => OXQ 0 O > o o to o cn oo ooooo oooo x
8 - j , MAXIMUM +
I + MAXIMUM Q. 8 Q AVERAGE ^ MINIMIMUM 7
6
01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 13. Longitudinal variation in pH, ^ (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). 9 .\J 1 1 1 I 8.5 _ 8.0 - : "" ' \ : 7.5 ^^~~N^ ~ 7.0 - - 6.5 - -
6.0 VIRGINIA STREET (C1A) BRIDGE STREET (C3) RIVER MILE 12.4 RIVER MILE 10.0 5.5 t/> 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1- 5.0 9.0 z 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 ID 8.5 1 NDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY (C4) RIVER MILE 8.5 CO _ _ o 8.0 or 7.5 - - o 7.0 /^ / ~ - /- ^ - 1- 6.5 - \j^v \/ - C/) 6.0 CLINE AVENUE (C5) z RIVER MILE 6.5 5.5
k X 5.0 1 I I I I 1 1 1 0. 9.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 8.0 - -
7.5 ^ ^-^ - 7.0 NO DATA - 6.5 - -
6.0 KENNEDY AVENUE (C6) SHIP CANAL AT 151ST STREET (C12) RIVER MILE 4.7 RIVER MILE 3.8 5.5 «; n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 14. Relation of pH to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-56- 9 . U i i i i 1 1 1 1 8.5 8.0 " -A 7.5 7.0 ! v ~~ ~ NO DATA 6.5 - -
6.0 NEAR INDIANPOLIS BOULEVARD (C7) NEAR INDIANA EAST-WEST TOLL RIVER MILE 5.5 ROAD (C7A) RIVER MILE 5.4 5.5 £ 5.0 I I I I till Q Q ^ . \j I I I I Z =» 8.5 _ _ ^ 8 0 Q O . U - - ^_^^ ;
< 6.5 : ~" ;
10 6.0 COLUMBIA AVENUE (C8) HOHMAN AVENUE (C9) RIVER MILE 4.1 RIVER MILE 3.0 - 5.5 ="= 5.0 I 1 I I I 1 1 1
°" 9.0 rill 1 1 1 1
8.5 BURNHAM PARK (C11) RIVER MILE 0.9 8.0 7.5 i- - - ' ~~"^\-~\ - 7.0 NO DATA 6.5 - -
6.0 BURNHAM AVENUE (C10) RIVER MILE 1.8 5.5
R O I I I I 1 I I I 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME. IN HOURS STARTING 0600. OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 15. Relation of pH to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4. 1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-57- Z.O I I I I i i i i i i i 27 " I A 1 s i *
20 + O 0 . + MAXIMUM 0 + O AVERAGE LJ 19 0 ° - LJ 18 + + MINIMUM K 17 + - O 16 - + - LJ 15 - - Q 1 A lilt 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES LJ ^o I I I I I 27 26 : B i : Ul - 00 25 £ * °- - £ £ en co ^ ?£ urx x - 24 o o o oxo mo to LJ 23 - - O. 22 - - ^ - LJ 21 + + 4- 20 + 0 ° + - 19 O + MAXIMUM - 01 \J I - LJ 18 + + 0 17 + O AVERAGE - 16 - - 15 + + MINIMUM - 1 A 1 1 1 I 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 16. Longitudinal variation in water temperature, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). 22
21 BRIDGE STREET (C3) RIVER MILE 10.0 20 19 18 17 16 LJ VIRGINIA STREET (C1A) RIVER MILE 12.4 O 15
Ld 14 Ld 22 or o 21 Ld O 20 19
Ld 18 or ID 17
16 I NDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY (C4) CLINE AVENUE (C5) or RIVER MILE 8.5 RIVER MILE 6.5 Ld 15 Q_ 2 14 LJ 22 21 or LJ 20 19 18 17
16 KENNEDY AVENUE (C6) SHIP CANAL AT 151ST STREET (C12) RIVER MILE 4.7 RIVER MILE 3.8 15 14 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 17. Relation of water temperature to time, East Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure l).
-59- 22
21 NEAR INDIANPOUS OULCVAftD (C7) NEAR INDIANA EAST-WEST TOLL RIVER MILE 5.5 ROAD (C7A) RIVER MILE 5.4 20 19 18 ID 17 (f) _J 16 Ld O 15 (f) Ld 14 Ld 22 a: O 21 Ld a 20 19
Ld 18 a: ID 17
16 COLUMBIA AVENUE (Ct) HOHMAN AVENUE (C9) a: RIVER MILE 4.1 RIVER MILE 3.0 Ld 15 o_ 14 22
21 BURNHAM PARK (C11) RIVER MILE 0.9 20 19 18 17
16 BURNHAM AVENUE (C10) RIVER MILE 1.8 15 14 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 TIME, IN HOURS STARTING 0600, OCTOBER 3, 1984
Figure 18. Relation of water temperature to time, West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers given in parentheses refer to locations shown in figure 1).
-60- -19-
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ooooooooooo V/4 i i i i i i i i i
O C12 -^> WEST BRANCH -
W O C6 p HW1 c*3 OCJiOCJiOCJiOCJiOCJiO DP2ANDDP3 ~ ffl £ ^ E: o O C10 z h*« *|| ^ (/) |^ o »D ^- ^^. ^J fr^ ^^ F * ^^ m M a p* z n §00 - *« np i-P om ^ * o p ^ - O C9 Z O C4 ]1 f 2. o °* o O^P 2 >co GWTP z § S g § ST17 I & 0-:-. 5> O C8 oS* ao P ,x ^D p Jl o CD-* ca e o z HWTP oo O C3 ~ O C7A ,^ S* A ° ^ O r*- g m ^ Z ^ a I I I I I I I I I Sulfate Sulfate concentrations in the East Branch ranged from about 30 to 50 mg/L (fig. 20). As with chloride, the values were lowest in the upstream reaches and increased in the downstream direction. Concentrations of sulfate in the West Branch ranged from about 115 to 160 mg/L (fig. 20) and were highest at stations C7A and C7. The absolute maximum standard for sulfate (225 mg/L) was not exceeded at any station in either the East or West Branches of the river. Fluoride Fluoride concentrations in the East Branch ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/L (fig. 21), considerably less than the 1.3 mg/L water-quality standard for fluoride. This standard was equaled or exceeded at four of the six stations in the West Branch where the concentrations ranged from 1.2 to 2.3 mg/L (fig. 21). Hardness Hardness in the East Branch ranged from 110 to 150 mg/L (fig. 22). Upstream from Bridge Street (station C3), where hardness was 110 mg/L, the water is considered moderately hard on the basis of the classification of Durfor and Becker (1964, p. 27). Downstream frofft Industrial Highway (station C4), hardness ranged from 140 to 150 mg/L and is classified as hard. Hardness in the West Branch ranged from 140 to 220 mg/L (fig. 22). Water at all stations except Burnham Park (Oil) is classified as very hard. Water at the Burnham Park station is classified as hard. -62- SULFATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER OOOOOOOOOOO VJ4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O C12 > WEST BRANCH - USSL1 ^ M O C6 Mp -fc-A-k-k-AfoiOy, HW1 DP2 AND DP3 ~ a j-* a a a a o a a DP1 ^ 2 e o w Z 2 1 1 1 1 1 JHK P » P O H- tr w do O) - 0 P P O C11 O C5 a^, r g VM1 |^ I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 . U i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO 0.9 A | 2 * i « - < Q Q ° tf - 0.8 K 0 X Q 5 CD Z ^ ^ < < Z ^ mm ^m | ^ (L pj^ O < ^ Q 0.7 -j (/)(/) *~N »- » H fc i » » » t*^^** * ** ** * < S3 UJ (ft (D^CLO. 0 2 * * H ^ P>** >>^* >»* 2 0.6 O > 3 OZOQ O > O O M O MC9OC9 OOUO O O O O Z _ LJ 0.5 O - 0.4 O O - - - CO 0.3 0 0 0.2 - O - O 0.1 - - n n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES g O . * i i i i i i - 5 3.2 ^ mm ^f 3.0 «. 5 - UJ Oz. 2.8 - ,O sO .O .O 6I gO SUJOB 1M O 2.6 O 2.4 _ _ LJ 0 O Q 2.2 - 2.0 - - 1.8 - - 1.6 - - 1.4 _ _ O O 1.2 0 0 - 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 21. Longitudinal variation in concentration of fluoride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). -S9- HARDNESS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER ^ k_k k_k_k k__k_k_k|Vs C CDOOOOOOOOOC O4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O C12 > WEST BRANCH - g USSL1 W O C6 P -»-»-»-»N3N)ION)Cjj HW1 8- E3hOC7l'N»JOIsOC7l'NJCD DP2 AND DP3 ~ 3tnocnocnocncD DP1 ^^ 2« **j o c ^ ^ Q| ^* ^"^ i i i i i i i 52 5 9 J» o G £ er Jj W O) _ _ o p P P M _ O C11 ,-. a to O C5 O » '3' VM1 Si ^ ° O C10 Z - o «'IP 2~^ £QQ <3 ^ ^ m -n GO tv4 ^^* *ry ^ *i *i S o §00 - » 3 B: m 5? g P -n 2! *1 P- P» ^0 04 O C9 Z O C4 c* ^ ^ O O 0 o 3 ^ GWTP - 3 8 ?- ^ rt 0 *1 ^. o S 5* o > ST17 2. a £ 5> X O C8 5'v* 9nj Q2 2 xD p S- M _ CD -» S g g- z HWTP 00 - O C3 § & O C7A P3 o 2- g S 071 - Z ^ 5d 2* ^ rj ^^* k^ s . ^^ ^i ^3 ~ ECWTP 0 C7 m ~* C* (D ® P M OB CO ST14 tS Q O) SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 GW11A tf f* . GW10A *1 O ^ ^^ N) GW7A ^ HJ n GW7 1 I I 1 I I I 0 C1A CO " GW6 1 _» GW4 OJ GW3 CD GW2 OD GW1 AND GW1A HEADWATERS * I I I I 1 I I 1 I cn Dissolved and Suspended Solids Dissolved-solids concentrations in the East Branch ranged from about 200 to 320 mg/L (fig. 23), considerably less than the absolute maximum standard for dissolved solids (500 mg/L). This standard was exceeded at all stations in the West Branch, where dissolved solids concentration ranged from about 650 to 1,000 mg/L (fig. 23). Suspended-solids concentrations were low in the East Branch ranging from less than 1 to 10 mg/L (fig. 24). Concentrations in the West Branch were higher, ranging from 11 to 16 mg/L (fig. 24). Suspended-solids concentrations at all stations in the West Branch were also higher than those observed in the effluent at either the ECWTP or HWTP. Since these plants are the only known sources of flow to the West Branch, this difference suggests the presence of one or more unknown dry-weather point sources. From a reconnaissance of the area prior to the survey, the authors concluded that the contribution of sus pended solids from such a source is more than a temporary phenomenon. Sludge deposits located just upstream of Columbia Avenue (station C8) were found to be more than 7 ft deep. The presence of these deposits, which were not present farther upstream, indicates that the source of these solids is in the immediate vicinity of Columbia Avenue. -66- ouu i l l l l l l l l l 1 CL 3Z < 550 10 i (/> Q. o oc z Q 500 Q i UJ - oc 0z. Z Q on CD < << Z HEADW, LJ 450 N fc5 pu ^.w?o < w £S u (/) f C to p^^ie ^^5^ >>** 400 o > r> uxoo u > 3 o \n o coooo oouo O O O O t a: LJ o_ 350 _ 0 O - 300 0 < (Z - - o 250 O _ O _ 200 O 150 - - mn i i l l i i i i t 1 I z o 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES a: uuu i i i i i o 1400 - B < - z o 1300 o ^ " o» to t* S* 1ur» ix (/) 1200 O O O O X O UIO W - o _i - o 1100 (/) 1000 o o O LJ 900 800 - 700 0 o 0 ° 600 *nn 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 23. Longitudinal variation in concentration of dissolved solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). £.\J i i i i i i i i i r i K) 18 - A g - 2 °- § 1 Z < ° Q ° s - 16 o» o 2 Q S CD ^_ Z <<< 5 * 14 /si CO (/) ^N «- " *2 Uf OXQ O 0 > Sow o inooo oooo uouo z _ UJ Q. 10 - O - V) 8 - - - - O 6 O 4 O o _ O 2 - - n i i i O l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES |»- ^u r i i i i UJ Oz 19 - B | o o 18 - o 17 ' O, O» .O 0. I O. tUOL (0i ID o 16 O O O - I - - o 15 14 O - UJ - - Q. 13 12 O - 11 o - m 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 24. Longitudinal variation in concentration of suspended solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). Nitrogen Organic-nitrogen concentrations ranged from about 0.1 to 0,6 mg/L as N in the East Branch (fig. 25), and were highest at Virginia Avenue (station C1A) and near the confluence of the East Branch with the ship canal. Concentra tions of organic nitrogen were higher in the West Branch where they ranged from 1.6 to 2.6 mg/L as N (fig. 25), and were highest at stations C8, C9, CIO, and Cll. Ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.71 to 1.5 mg/L as N in the East Branch (fig. 26). The highest ammonia concentration in the East Branch was observed at Virginia Avenue (station C1A). All other concentrations of am monia in the East Branch were less than 0.9 mg/L as N. Ammonia concentrations in the West Branch were higher than in the East Branch and ranged from 2.6 to 5.0 mg/L as N (fig. 26). Concentrations of ammonia in the West Branch exceed ed the water-quality standard for ammonia (1.5 mg/L as N) at all stations. Nitrite concentrations in the East Branch ranged from 0.05 to 0.13 mg/L as N (fig. 27). The concentrations, which increased in the downstream direc tion, were highest at the station in the ship canal (C12). Nitrite concentra tions in the West Branch ranged from 0.34 to 1.0 mg/L as N (fig. 27) and were highest at stations C7 and C7A. Nitrate concentrations in the East Branch ranged from about 0.2 to 1.6 mg/L as N (fig. 28). As with nitrite, concentrations generally increased in the downstream direction. Nitrate concentrations in the West Branch were also higher than in the East Branch, ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 mg/L as N (fig. 28). Nitrate concentrations in the West Branch were highest at stations C7 and C7A. Phosphorus Total phosphorus concentrations in the East Branch ranged from 0.02 to 0.13 mg/L (fig. 29). The highest concentration observed at dine Avenue (station C5), exceeded the absolute maximum water-quality standard for total phosphorus (0.1 mg/L). The standard was exceeded at all stations in the West Branch where total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.18 to 0.62 mg/L (fig. 29). Total phosphorus concentrations were highest at stations C8, C9, CIO, and Cll. However, the 0.1 mg/L standard for total phosphorus is not applicable to water from the West Branch flowing into Illinois. Ortho-phosphorus concentrations in the East Branch were similar to total phosphorus concentrations except at Cline Avenue (station C5), where ortho- phosphorus did not increase as total phosphorus had (fig. 30). Ortho- phosphorus concentrations in the West Branch ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 mg/L (fig. 30) and equaled roughly one-third to one-half of the total phosphorus concentration. -69- -oz- TOTAL ORGANIC-NITROGEN CONCENTRATION. IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER oooooooooo-»-»-» C3 ^hOO.>cno,^oocoo-N 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > O C12 > WEST BRANCH - Ef USSL1 O C6 r 2 -A _» hO NJ O» O» 4k cn HW1 ** 10 DP2 AND DP3 ~ 3 cn o Cn O cn C> DP1 o-s 2 ' o i i i i i B 8» o 00 o> - O C11 § S £ O C5 o f*i VM1 ^ O C10 z o SJ5tt jj, B 8^^ M m 3 tt 3. i - - ~3 2 *SS5. m° i« STT7 9 £L Q C A i O C8 aS* S-s **S .x_ S tf 3 z HWTP oo - O C3 HI*« trB i-«.& =s O C7A 5 ft. 0 r-yi 2 a rn z ^ M ** (/) s_^ »^^_ fa^ 0 g 1 _» o « g- m - GO ST14 2* o S" ^ SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 GW11A 1 |o GW10A 3 f£ io GW7A i^^^ tart C ^ GW7 ^"^ ^9 H . I I 1 I I ^*- ^J 0 C1A i 2 GW6 _» GW4 * r* CJ GW3 CD O GW2 2 0 GW1 AND GW1A ' B __^ HEADWATERS > I I I I I I I 1 I I I Cn -u- AMMONIA CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER CD O -» -^ N) N) C CD en o cn o en c O4 1 1 1 1 1 O C12 4* WEST BRANCH - -p USSL1 w O C6 JN)0404>>U1U10)0)^^ HW1 08 IS N J Ui DP2 AND DP3 ~ a? c3U1OO1OU1OU1OO1OCn DP1 ""1 ""1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1£ § Sow tt O) _ _ 0* p *| O C11 O C5 Si o O g @ 0 VM1 S ^ ^ ^ O C10 Z - o 5* M CL °3 M m W* ^^ ^u * "^J*' -n 08 M 0 Z _ ^U JM « i i *i £1 o goo - - CD 09 m 2. sr 2. § °* O C9 z O C4 o O Q r* ^ GWTP o" 3 o* s -~ z ~ ~ 000 0 ST17 P a -. c . I ?« p i O C8 g P o - CD -> w2 gs* 0° z^ HWTP 00 O C3 70 CTEl 3(D CD2 ^ O C7A ii. w i Cn O 2- rn Z ^ 50 *T o ^^* ^^ ^^ ^ ECWTP F !^ - 0^0* 0 C7 m CO ST14 3! o 0 0) SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 00 *^ O GW11A f^ r* "^ 2 o p GW10A » c^ a N) GW7A ^^ Cft ^^ GW7 *^--' »^ 9 P -«J I I I I I I I 1 1 I 0 C1A CO O GW6 1 £ _ & GW4 * P OJ GW3 CD GW2 00 GW1 AND GW1A s HEADWATERS I I I I I cn \J . £.*J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AS £ ^ co z Q- 0 * K < Q Q ° fc! 0.20 OC Q ffl Z z Q < 1- J < Q. r*i^ O < ^ Q «sl .V> (/> ^M r- <- i h<- * ^ «- rs.rs.^.io * 10 CM »- < S W W io^Q.0. if) 2 -. ^ L. K) t-^*^ **»=* ***^ U 0.15 U^3 OXQQ O > COM O MOOC9 OO OO OOOO X or LJ O K 0.10 O LJ Q_ 0 CO o 2 0.05 - o or o z! 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 z DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES Z o g z ' 0 i i i i i 5 1. 8 - B < - or s 1. 6 LJ ? . . ss L i s ' 4 O O O O I O UJO tO " 8 L 2 - £ 1. 0 o o P 0. 8 - Z 0. 6 - 0. 4 0 o 0 ° 0. 2 - 0. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 27. Longitudinal variation in concentration of nitrite, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). -ez- NITRATE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER o o -» -» N) ro c o 01 o 01 o u\ c OJ i i i i i O C12 £ WEST BRANCH - 'P USSL1 w O C6 P HW1 £ _>_>_> U* DP2 AND DP3 ~ Cd 0*5 DP1 , >, a ^ O i 1 1 1 1 1 1 a O g- tr 10 Gd O) _ _ op? P P 1 _. O C11 ,-. a* t O C5 0 2 '3' o* VM1 p ^ p 5>z. E ^'B. ° O C10 2 S" ^ w o M *"* CL 5> m " S?g g §00 - (D*w p^^ ^^P ni CDI? ^a ^i ii SI M g. § ^D OJ O C9 ^ O C4 rn ^ ? 0 o ° O £* SI GWTP ^- n 5. "Z. CO 0^ P £ SI 0 P 0 0 ST17 g. a. p c^ I o* £* p* .^ O C8 p 1:1 _ CD -> " £ o 2 HWTP 00 -O C3 M 3 p s: ? 2- 2 ^w O C7A O r^ Q m 2 ^ M P CO M G. «* ^ ECWTP - 0 C7 m ~* s$lO u ** *^ J1 M« - CO STH SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 ^ o p °* GW11A d £ O _^ GW10A « cr p ro GW7A i_t (D i GW7 *+-* M <-^ M >,! 1 I t I I I I 0 C1A CO P GW6 ^ » _> GW4 - OJ GW3 CO GW2 OD GW1 AND GW1A HEADWATERS * I I I I I TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER o o o o o c o o -» -» ro N o en o 01 o c OJ i i i i O C12 > WEST BRANCH - ^ USSL1 O C6 a £ _x _», HW1 5^L ^? ^J" DP2 AND DP3 ~ H- O 10 -I* 0> 00 O 10 2? w 0 DP1 1 1 1 1 1 1£8a o 'ii S: tr tL dd O) - 090 000 _ O C11 g« M« W^ O C5 O S* *s S" VM1 0 1^0* -» GW4 O O4 ^^ r^hrf GW3 CO ^ GW2 00 00 GW1 AND GW1A * HEADWATERS 1 I 1 I 01 ORTHO-PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER o o o o o c O O -* -A 10 N o u» o o» o c 1 1 1 1 O C12 -^ WEST BRANCH - *"?^2 USSL1 O C6 ca^ ooooo-*-*^ HW1 ^* DP2 AND DP3 " Q0 GO O IO -^ O> CO O IO DPI x-x 3 ° 0 i i i i i 8- tr t* Gd O> - S* ~ O O 9 p O C11 O C5 Si *"** D » 1£ a, VM1 £ ^ 0 0 O C10 Z »" £ "^ H ^ m0 fA QDind *^Aft "^y^ ^ 5 i i 2. o §» - » P S m S* P «* -n ^ . ^ tr g g w O C9 z O C4 D GWTP -20 « o P ^ Z 000 o ST17 P & ~ C 1^ _ X O C8 oPl -X ;o OD -» SCA &M S^. ^ HWTP - O C3 ^^ * * oo » B g 2 O C7A 2M sft "?& s== ,_, ^ » 2 w z ^ ECWTP Sfc _fc MM S.M 3 o^k 0 C7 m ~* ^ o CO ST14 2! Q HJ O> SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 ? °H ? GW11A ^ o o * GW10A N3 GW7A H* ft *^J GW7 ^^ M ^^« -J I I I I 1 0 C1A CO O GW6 ^ *d _» GW4 5! w GW3 GW2 00 S GW1 AND GW1A S HEADWATERS I I I I en Biochemical-Oxygen Demand The concentration of total biochemical-oxygen demand in the East Branch ranged from 6.5 to 12 mg/L (fig. 31). The concentration of total BOD was generally uniform throughout the reach with five of the six river sampling stations having a BOD concentration between 10 and 12 mg/L. Concentrations of CBOD in the East Branch were estimated to range from 3 to 7.7 mg/L (fig. 32). The estimated concentration of CBOD in the East Branch ranged from 45 to 70 percent of the total BOD. Concentrations of total BOD in the West Branch ranged from 27 to 50 mg/L (fig. 31), about four times higher than in the East Branch. Concentrations at the two river sampling stations near the ECWTP (C7 and C7A) were approximately 29 mg/L. These values are slightly higher than the BOD concentration in the ECWTP effluent (24 mg/L), possibly owing to the contribution of organic material from the marshy area near the river. Concentrations of BOD at the four sites downstream from the HWTP were approximately 50 mg/L. This is about 1.4 times the concentration of BOD in the HWTP effluent (36 mg/L). Estimates of CBOD concentrations in the West Branch ranged from 16 to 30 mg/L (fig. 32). The estimated concentration of CBOD in the West Branch is approximately 55 to 60 percent of the total BOD. Filtered BOD concentrations were approximately 80 percent of the total BOD. The high BOD concentrations observed downstream from Columbia Avenue (station C8) indicate the presence of an unknown point source, as did the suspended-solids data. This source is probably municipal wastewater because a very high BOD (such as that for raw sewage) would be needed to elevate the stream BOD's to the concentration observed without noticeably increasing the streamflow. Cyanide Total cyanide concentrations in the East Branch ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.05 mg/L (fig. 33). The highest concentration was observed at Virginia Avenue (station C1A). The water-quality standard for cyanide (0.1 mg/L) was not exceeded at any station in the East Branch. Cyanide concentra tions in the West Branch ranged from 0.01 to 0.17 mg/L (fig. 33). The highest concentration was observed near Indianapolis Boulevard (station C7). This concentration exceeds the water-quality standard for cyanide. -76- £ * Ld i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 A * *X f\ rf i £ to C£ 20 7 ft- Ld < ° K 0 o B g Q_ m z 18 ^" ^* <^< s 1 H* J CL C>4^ O < ^ Q 16 £ U (O LJ 90 - B Q Z 80 LJ o I O co r<< Ofs- x 70 o o O O UJO U) O 60 I 50 o 40 LJ X o 30 o 20 QD o o 10 ID O LJ 0 O 12345 Z DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES o QD Figure 32. Longitudinal variation in concentration of carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand, O (A) East Branch and (B) Vest Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4.1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). CYANIDE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER ooooooooooc oooooooooo- OJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O C12 -^ WEST BRANCH - 2^^ USSL1 p? ooooooo O C6 HW1 CQ ^ ' *_> L> ro * LJ ^ DP2 AND DP3 ~ £0 OQ* ocnocnooio DP1 ^ 2 § ° i i i i i 55 5 * g. § co td 0) - 0* 0 ^° P C11 p p 1 _ O C5 M. P- 1 * ' O S* *5? o VM1 p & p H "»J - £ a) £. o O C10 Z a'cap <2 ro O *l **" p* ^ m w cd 5* 2 - «*1 9"I glffl mO i* S* g <« -n ^ -O C9 ^ O C4 ^. tr g § " o GWTP M J* __ i ^ I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I en Phenol Total phenol concentrations ranged from 2 to 34 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 34). The water-quality standard for phenol (10 yg/L) was exceeded at four of the six stations in the East Branch. No patterns in phenol concentra tions in the East Branch are apparent. Phenol concentrations in the West Branch ranged from 2 to 11 yg/L (fig. 34). Phenol concentrations in the West Branch were highest at stations C7 and C7A. The x water-quality standard for phenol was exceeded only at the station near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (C7A). Chromium Hexavalent chromium concentrations were less than the detection limit of 1 yg/L for all stations sampled in the East and West Branches Grand Calumet River. Total chromium was detectable at five of the six stations sampled in the East Branch and ship canal and four of the six stations sampled in the West Branch. Concentrations in the East Branch ranged from less than 1 to 3 yg/L (fig. 35) and were highest at Virginia Avenue (station C1A). Concentra tions were slightly higher in the West Branch where concentrations ranged from less than 1 to 8 yg/L (fig. 35). The maximum concentration was observed near Indianapolis Boulevard (station C7). The source of the high levels of chromi um measured near Indianapolis Boulevard is unknown. Copper Copper concentrations ranged from 2 to 8 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 36). The highest concentration was observed at Cline Avenue (station C5) and was twice that at other stations in the East Branch. Copper concen trations in the West Branch ranged from 2 to 12 yg/L (fig. 36). The highest copper concentration in the West Branch was observed near Indianapolis Boulevard (station C7). -80- ou i l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KJ _ A | KJ £ W 70 0. § > Of < Q o o £ Q 60 - CD Z < <« 1 * - PL . CN^ ® j5 K_ in ^.Kiesi ^ C 40 - - o: 0 30 - O (^ _ 20 O 0 a: o 10 - - o a: o n i O 1 1 1 i i (D i i i i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES l l I l i 18 ! B 00 16 _ t * UJ *~ »- o> is* 1 o 14 5 0 0 O I O U1U tf) ~ Z o 12 o O 10 UJ 8 _ O X O a_ 6 _ 4 0 O 2 O - 0 l l l i l l 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 34. Longitudinal variation in concentration of phenol, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). / i i i i r i Y i i i i A g 10 i 5 w 6 2 °- 5 > £ - < ° o 5 5 K Q Z O 5 5 CD ^_ Z 5< < Z J S w 9^*9 2 a: o £ =3 axoo o > o o ft o MOOO oouo o o o o z 5 4 UJ°£ OT O Q_ 3 2 O O O O a: o 1 _ _ 0 ' a: O o2 °« ' i i i i i i I i i i i z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES 2 14 i i i I i S . B g . £ 12 fro* Lu5 } ^Tfc ^^ * i 10 O O O O X & UJ& W ~ o o i 8 o "S c 0 6 a: x ., o 4 O O O 2 - n 0| 0 , , , , , 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 35. Longitudinal variation in concentration of chromium, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). zu i i i i 1 1 II 1 1 1 10 18 - A | jo o§ IB"° y 16 1 0 z o 5 CD Z < _. ^ z * ^ ^ _ < 5 ^^ rf 2T ~ ^ «J ^i C^^^ ^^ ^r ^^ ^^ 14 F ^ "* i2^ ^f^t-rf 10 * K>W«- < £*|3!/> 00 16 UJ o 14 o tn z o o 12 (£ 10 a.UJ a. 8 o o 6 4 2 o 0 1 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 36. Longitudinal variation in concentration of copper, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). Iron Total iron concentrations ranged from 750 to 3,600 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 37). The highest concentration was found at dine Avenue (station C5) and was more than twice the concentration observed at any other station in the East Branch and ship canal. Concentrations in the West Branch ranged from 1,100 to 1,900 yg/L (fig. 37). There was little variation in the concentration of total iron in the West Branch. Lead Lead concentrations ranged from 4 to 42 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 38). The highest value in the East Branch (42 yg/L) was found at Cline Avenue (station C5) and was about 10 times the lead concentrations found else where in the East Branch and ship canal. Kbwever, this concentration does not exceed the water-quality standard for lead (50 yg/L). lead concentrations in the West Branch ranged from 12 to 18 yg/L (fig. 38). The concentration of lead in the West Branch was highest at Burnham Park (station Cll). Mercury Mercury concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 39). The water-quality standard for mercury, 0.5 yg/L, was not exceeded at any station in the East Branch. The concentration of mercury was not ele vated at Cline Avenue (station C5) as were several other metals. Concentra tions in the West Branch were slightly higher than in the East Branch, rang ing from 0.3 to 0.6 yg/L (fig. 39). The water-quality standard was equaled or exceeded at five of the six stations sampled in the West Branch. -84- -S9- IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER oooooooc oooooooc ooooooooc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > O C12 > WEST BRANCH - __ USSL1 £, 0? -* -* K> N3 e*J e»J -f> O C6 u enoenoenoenOfn HW1 r*- OOOOOOOO"1 DP2 AND DP3 ~ w *x] OOOOOOOOO DP1 X-N 2 ^ o 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 tt Cf> . o* p ca p p r2 ^ O C11 ,-. p. 1 O C5 O O hrt I (/) VM1 g. ° ^ ^ ~ s f » § M O C10 o <& S. r* -H m 1 £ > -n M Cd p. Z *1 *1 E- O get, - 2» p 2 m S O C9 z O C4 ^. * $ o 01 o 0 o 2 2: CWTP o* S P] s: z o P £ o STT7 5. a S 5> I ^ ._ n i ^^ O C8 > o S ^. ?= CD -» MILESIN HWTP 00 - O C3 figshowninns nconcentratiol O C7A River,ilumetOc 56 Z ^ ECWTP 2_. 0 C7 m ~* to STH SHIP CANAL 6W12 AND 6W13 CW11A C r* ~^ 6W10A 8 ° ° ^ N3 6W7A i_t & |^. **. «P*»6W7 * "^ ** ** vj 1 I I 1 I I 1 0 C1A cag 6W6 ^ * 6W4 H* 6W3 CD 6W2 CD 6W1 AND 6W1A HEADWATERS > 1 1 1 1 1 I I en ou riiiiiTFiiri M% K A g 10 i - W _ 70 Z °- O £ K < ° 0 ° fcf 60 Si 1 < 1 1 i~ Zj ^ p *^ o ^ ^ o isj 5/J (/) »~ p<) » *~ E"^ ^ r-^ » P^f^^lO <^'OM*~ < 50 ~ O^3 OZOO O > 3 O M O WJOOO OOUO OOOO Z ~ UJ 40 ^ o _i a: 30 - e/> 20 - 2 3: 10 - o 0 0 0 ° ° S o 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 y 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 | DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR. IN MILES 24 1 1 1 1 1 O B < ^ 22 0 « z a: f*» C* ^i § 20 o^ o2 oO» o03 z* of5 tuuOh» wZ - o o 18 o o 25Q 16 o _i o 14 o o - 12 o 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 38. Longitudinal variation in concentration of lead, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). w . o 1 I I T ! ! » IO ^ ^ 0.5 - A 1 1 &o i£.o g - QC C^ m z 50 < HD ^_< << . 5 | F fc l^rS bb<*° ^^M 2 0.4 £w <$ot) o t>o5o Sooo Sooo x LoJ 0.3 0 - LoJ Q_ 0.2 0 0 00 0 QL 0.1 O O QL O n n i i i i i i i i i i i 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES O 1 i i i i i 5 0 0 LoJ O A 1* <5 fop- *z z. 0 o o o OXO bJO Nickel concentrations ranged from 4 to 9 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 40). The concentration of nickel was not elevated at dine Avenue (station C5) as were several other metals. Nickel concentrations were fairly uniform throughout the East Branch. Nickel concentrations in the West Branch were also uniformly distributed and ranged from 13 Nto 14 yg/L (fig. 40). Zinc Zinc concentrations ranged .from 30 to 100 yg/L in the East Branch (fig. 41). Zinc concentrations were elevated at dine Avenue (station C5) and were twice that of any other site in the East Branch. Concentrations in the West Branch were generally higher than in the East Branch and ranged from 50 to 100 yg/L (fig. 41). Exceedance of Water-Quality Standards A summary of the water-quality standards that were exceeded is given in table 8. The standards were exceeded less frequently in the East Branch than the West Branch. In the East Branch, only the water-quality standards for phenol and total phosphorus were exceeded, whereas in the West Branch, the standards for ammonia, chloride, cyanide, DO, dissolved solids, fluoride, mercury, phenal, and total phosphorus were exceeded. -88- 18 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 rO 16 - A g £ §52" Q Q O UJ K O Z O [Based on Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board water-quality standards listed in table 5 in effect at time of survey; n.d., no data] Percent of stations where standard was exceeded Constituent East Branch West Branch pH 0 0 Dissolved oxygen 0 50 Temperature 0 0 Ammonia (total) 0 100 Chloride 0 100 Cyanide 0 17 Dissolved solids 0 100 Fluoride 0 33 Phosphorus (total) 17 100 Sulfate 0 0 Chromium (total) 0 0 Iron (dissolved) n.d. n.d. Lead (total) 0 0 Mercury (total) 0 67 PCB's (total) n.d. n.d. Phenol 67 17 -91- Chemical-Mass Discharge Chemical-mass discharges were calculated by the following equation: Chemical-mass discharge = concentration x flow x 5.39 where the chemical-mass discharge is in pounds per day, the concentration is in milligrams per liter, the flow is in cubic fee£ per second, and 5.39 is a conversion factor. Instream chemical-mass discharges were calculated from the streamflow and concentration measured at the 12 sampling stations. Cumulative effluent chemical-mass discharges were calculated by summing the chemical-mass dis charges calculated for effluent outfalls. The cumulative effluent chemical- mass discharge was assumed to be chemically stable and not subject to changes owing to biochemical or physical processes. Adjustment to flow discussed in the section "Streamflow" were taken into account when calculating the cumula tive effluent chemical-mass discharges. The cumulative effluent chemical-mass discharge immediately upstream of the HWTP was calculated from the flow imme diately upstream of the HWTP estimated by the optimization technique discussed in the section "Streamflow" and the chemical concentration measured near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7A). This was done so that the cumula tive effluent chemical-mass discharge downstream of Columbia Avenue (station C8) would not be greatly distorted by the flow difference noted between the two treatment plants. Chemical-mass discharges for the industrial and municipal effluents and those measured at the river sampling stations are given in table 9. The cumu lative effluent and the instream chemical-mass discharge for constituents measured during the survey are shown in figures 42-64. -92- Table 9. Chemical-mass discharge for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 [Results in pounds per day; loads shown as less than «) are based on estimate of streamflow and detection limit of given constituent or property; numbers are rounded to 3 or less significant figures; n.d., no data] Station ID Suspended solids Dissolved solids Chloride Sulfate Fluoride Hardness C1A 6,850 139,000 17,100 22,600 137 75,300 C3 7,980 371,000 35,900 61,800 598 219,000 C4 15,700 643,000 112,000 99,300 784 366,000 C5 < 2,610 852,000 115,000 105,000 1,050 366,000 C6 8,000 816,000 117,000 131,000 1,070 374,000 C12 10,800 776,000 140,000 140,000 1,350 404,000 GW1 940 43,200 4,000 6,580 23.5 7,050 GW1A 21 1,210 91 182 1.4 771 GW2 334 17,000 4,210 1,940 6.7 8,690 GW3 138 5,590* 586 897 10.3 3,800 GW4 78 2,720 234 406 3.1 1,720 GW6 602 50,500 3,610 7,820 60.2 39,100 GW7 622 44, 800 3,420 6,840 62.2 37,300 GW7A 1,260 125,000 15,200 25,300 822 82,200 GW10A 166 6,930 457 996 4.2 3,900 GW11A 503 48,600 5,290 9,060 227 30,200 GW12 176 13,800 764 2,120 5.9 8,230 GW13 42 3,410 231 505 2.1 2,730 ST14 168 5,590 911 1,680 4.2 3,500 ST17 364 95,300 34,600 8,560 36.4 51,010 GWTP 1,110 133,000 23,300 7,760 222 52,600 VM1 2 306 100 26 .9 97 DPI 226 10,700 1,660 2,380 15.1 6,790 DP 2 39 12,000 2,130 1,840 10.7 1,160 DP3 24 n.d. 190 35,000 4.2 1,900 HW1 1 54 4 8 .3 36 USSL1 1 38 3 17 .3 19 C7 168 13,100 4,610 2,160 32.2 2,800 C7A 860 78,200 26,200 12,700 180 17,200 C8 3,850 188,000 44,000 31,900 357 55,000 C9 4,400 181,000 42, 100 31,300 330 60,500 CIO 4,400 182,000 42,600 33,000 357 52,200 Cll 4,400 185,000 44,000 33,000 330 38,500 ECWTP 751 116,000 47,000 20,400 333 23,600 HWTP 690 136,000 27,600 24,000 253 48,300 -93- Table 9. Chemical-mass discharge for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued Total Carbonaceous Station biochemical- biochemical- Total Total ID oxygen demand oxygen demand phenol cyanide C1A 8,210 3,770 11.6 34.2 C3 13,000 6,060 X 4.00 39.9 C4 26,100 18,100 88.9 26.1 C5 28,800 20,000 52.3 26.1 C6 26,700 16,900 5.3 < 26.7 C12 29,600 20,100 72.8 < 26.9 GW1 1,530 937 < .24 9.4 GW1A 32 3 .10 .1 GW2 869 377 4.28 < .7 GW3 241 147 .45 1.7 GW4 47 41 < .02 < .2 GW6 1,500 814 5.11 < 3.0 GW7 1,240 1,120 < .31 < 3.1 GW7A 1,900 1,430 32.9 37.9 GW10A 540 306 .04 < .4 GW11A 3,020 1,970 < .25 12.6 GW12 176 146 < .06 < .6 GW13 63 59 < .02 < .2 ST14 98 64 < .01 < .1 ST17 5,650 5,470 12.2 < 1.8 GWTP 3,880 3,150 .55 < 2.8 VM1 3 3 < .01 < .1 DPI 453 224 .60 .4 DP2 243 188 < .01 < .1 DP3 24 20 .03 < .1 HW1 1 1 n.d. < .1 USSL1 < 1 < 1 < .01 < .1 C7 378 221 .11 2.4 C7A 2,420 1,340 .86 3.1 C8 13,200 8,320 1.92 5.5 C9 13,700 8,150 .55 5.5 CIO 13,500 7,640 1.10 5.5 Cll 13,500 7,520 .82 2.7 ECWTP 2,600 1,460 .21 27.9 HWTP 8,300 4,800 .23 < 2.3 -94- Table 9. Chemical-mass discharge for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued Station Total organic Total Total Total Total Total ortho- ID nitrogen ammonia nitrite nitrate phosphorus phosphorus C1A 342 1,030 34.2 144 13.7 13.7 C3 199 1,600 120 419 59.8 39.9 C4 758 1,860 209 3,450 131 52.3 C5 601 2,010 235 3,950 340 105 C6 1,470 2,270 267 3,740 107 80.0 C12 1,560 2,210 350 4,230 162 108 GW1 28.2 136 4.7 49.4 9.4 7.1 GW1A < .9 6.5 .2 1.8 < .1 < .1 GW2 13.4 114 2.0 17.4 < .7 .7 GW3 12.8 21.7 1.0 7.2 < .3 .7 GW4 3.3 1.4 .5 4. 1 < .2 < .2 GW6 21.1 159 9.0 51.1 < 3.0 < 3.0 GW7 65.3 28.0 3.1 56.0 3.1 6.2 GW7A 145 108 6.3 88.5 12.6 6.3 GW10A 4.2 54.0 2.5 8.7 .4 < .4 GW11A 10.1 242 12.6 50.3 < 2.5 < 2.5 GW12 4.7 7.1 .6 13.5 < .6 1.2 GW13 3.2 1.1 .4 5.5 < .2 < .2 ST14 .4 8.0 .3 5.3 < .1 .1 ST17 69.2 40.1 32.8 20.0 5.5 3.6 GWTP 413 169 19.4 2,500 97.0 55.4 VM1 .2 < .1 .3 0.2 .1 .1 DPI 7.5 52.8 4.5 55.8 2.3 1.1 DP2 793 12.6 .1 1.6 < .1 < .1 DP3 3.4 .8 .1 0.5 < .1 < .1 HW1 < .1 .1 < .1 0.2 < .1 < .1 USSL1 < .1 < .1 < .1 0.1 < .1 < .1 C7 22.4 36.4 14.0 114 2.5 .7 C7A 133 250 76.6 635 18.0 5.5 C8 687 1,130 118 844 148 68.7 C9 660 1,290 102 586 170 82.5 CIO 715 1,350 93.5 539 159 79.7 Gil 687 1,375 102 586 121 79.7 ECWTP 204 257 193 1,090 61.1 30.0 HWTP 391 806 41.4 350 80.5 64.5 -95- Table 9. Chemical-mass discharge for sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984 Continued Station Total Total Total Total Total Total Total ID chromium copper iron lead mercury nickel zinc C1A 2.05 1.37 1,030 4.79 .14 2.74 20.5 C3 3.99 7.98 1,620 12.0 .40 16.0 79.8 C4 5.23 5.23 2,610 10.5 .52 15.7 78.4 C5 5.23 20.9 9,410 110 .52 23.5 261 C6 5.34 8.00 1,970 13.3 .80 18.7 107 C12 < 2.69 8.08 3,230 16.2 .54 21.6 135 GW1 < .24 < .24 89.3 .24 .12 1.18 4.70 GW1A < .01 .03 2.2 < .01 < .01 .03 .21 GW2 < .07 .07 24.1 < .07 .17 .67 1.34 GW3 .07 < .03 14.1 < .03 .01 .24 .69 GW4 < .02 < .02 8.4 .31 < .01 .08 .31 GW6 .30 < .30 75.2 < .30 .15 1.50 9.02 GW7 < .31 < .31 109 < .31 .09 2.18 12.4 GW7A < .63 1.90 544 2.53 .63 3.16 12.6 GW10A .08 .04 19.5 < .04 .01 .25 .83 GW11A .25 < .25 191 .76 .25 1.76 7.55 GW12 .06 < .06 28.8 .06 .04 .24 1.18 GW13 .04 < .02 4.4 .02 .01 .11 .42 ST14 .01 .01 84.1 .04 .02 .10 .42 ST17 .18 < .18 200 < .18 .16 1.46 5.47 GWTP n.d. 2.49 125 .28 .11 3.05 11.1 VM1 < .01 < .01 .2 < .01 < .01 < .01 .02 DPI .04 .04 64.1 .57 .01 .23 15.5 DP2 .08 .05 11.6 .10 < .01 .12 .39 DP3 .04 .04 5.9 .17 < .01 .05 .53 HW1 < .01 < .01 .1 < .01 < .01 < .01 .01 USSL1 < .01 < .01 .1 n.d. < .01 < .01 .02 C7- .11 .17 26.6 .22 < .01 .18 1.40 C7A .31 .47 93.8 1.09 .05 1.09 6.25 C8 1.10 1.92 330 3.30 .16 3.57 13.7 C9 .82 .55 302 4.12 .16 3.57 13.7 CIO < .27 1.92 330 3.85 .16 3.85 13.7 Cll < .27 2.20 385 4.95 .14 3.57 13.7 ECWTP .11 .32 75.1 .86 .14 1.29 6.44 HWTP .23 < .23 75.9 < .23 .11 2.53 4.61 -96- Z/^ ,uuu 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 250 .000 - **A Ox ^ 9? ***< V) - > 225 ,000 Z ^" (9 ^ 0£ K Q Z O !< o 200 ,000 ~H!J V_ < fci»s * £0 £ i£ f* «> * to N ^ ° 175 .000 or ~* O^OOXOO O > (S O (/) O (/) (9(9 (9(9(9UO(9(9(9(9X ~ UJ 150 ,000 0 Q_ 125 ,000 o o o CO 100 ,000 O Z 75 ,000 ID 50 ,000 - O "" u> Q_ 25 ,000 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES UJ o 80,000 i i i i i o: 70,000 - B < - i 60,000 K I 9b o ^ £ o» «o ^ ?5 or* x CO 50,000 O O O O X O WO OT GO o Q 40,000 UJ O 30,000 or 20,000 - A : O 10,000 - I o 0 w ^ Q______m nnn 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 42. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of chloride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). Z/3 , UUU i i i i i i 1 1 1 I 250,000 - A g x 225,000 z o 5 < 200,000 : I I ^s| < < Q 175,000 5*3 OXOO O > (S<9(/) O MOO (9 OOOOOOOOX ~" * 150,000 a. 125,000 ~_ ° 0 co 100,000 - ° O Q 75,000 ' i - VJ 1 50,000 _ 0 25,000 ^ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 « I 1 z ;5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES o 60,000 i i i \ B < < 50,000 i L U o 40,000 oor * o? o :! CO;g !liJO5(5 *(A CO *tO MO 0 **. o/*\ Q 30,000 £ 20,000 Qs' u- 10,000 - - _i « ° m nnn 1 1 1 1 i 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 43. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of sulfate, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ouuu i i i i i i i riii 2750 -AS 2 i i w ~ >. 2500 a: o z o tc _ < 2250 Q 2000 ^ SSl < 10 ^ ° W C9O C9OOOC9OC9OC9X _ * 1750 O*3 OXOO O > 3 O W O " 1500 0 1250 Q 1000 0 0 - z 750 0 0 13 500 2 25° LQ . , 0 i i i i i i i 1 | 545678 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES LJ o 700 i i r 1 a: -1 < 600 _ B - v£> .aL I v£> o 500 ^2 a, co« »£ r«»< 5or* x1 00 0 O X O bJO (/) - 400 - 0 ° 0 u 300 a 200 - - a: or 0 100 - - ID * " u.J 0 mn I I i I \ \ 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 44. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of fluoride, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 700,000 - A 1 £ §5 HEADWATERS < ° Q ° < 600,000 0 ° Z Q o _ £u w «>£&£ 10 3 * 5 P 10 p££iii: ££^£ ££££ 1I Q, 500,000 O*3 UZOO O > O O ^ 400,000 0 o 0 w 300,000 ! 1 o z 200,000 13 o 100,000 CL - ' ^\_ i I I I I I I I I |^ ^ 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES UJ o 120,000 i i i i i a: B | 100,000 a. o o 5 o . «|<*| 80,000 O O O O I 5 UJO W 60,000 O C/) O ° C/) 40,000 o UJ 20,000 Q-~*^^\ a: < 0 x -20,000 i i i i i i C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 45. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of water hardness, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). < 1,750,000 1 i l l I 1 1 1 I I 1 o 10 A g 10 £ CO K 1,500,000 Q. o O o 8S 1 O z 0 Z <<< il a. 1,250,000 ^_ 2 <- < Q £ w - 250,000 - V "" rt i1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "^-1 1 o 0 a: C5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES X o 350,000 i i i i i 300,000 - B 1 A Q fc O 0 250,000 £ v a» oo * rx or* z o O O O O Z O bJO to 200,000 o e e ° I _J o 150,000 - 1 100,000 Qs^^ o ^1 LJ 50,000 \^ _j 0 O t/1 «;n nnn 1 1 II 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 46. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of dissolved solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ^ ou , uuu i l l l 1 1 1 I I 1 I Q -Ax IO - 27 ,500 ** o to 0. i £ w OH O * OC - 25 ,000 o On O t.U LJ QC. oz. 22 ,500 - CD - Q_ < Jss < i 1 N fcS - 20 ,000 $3u OT Q 2,000 LJ Q 1,000 O Z LJ 0 0_ -1,000 l i i i i i 0 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 47. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharges of suspended solids, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ouuu i i i i i i i i i r i IO _ 2750 **A ox "^ o i a: 2500 < 5 Q 0 W ~ K Q 2250 2 2 i ~ 12345 6 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 48. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of total organic nitrogen, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). t-ouu i i i i i i i i i i i 4000 - AA gi .0 2* 5< <* ~ z< Sb° Q° H» £* 3500 a: Q z Q 5 - < ^~ffl »J- ^^5 P^ C^^^*<< ^5 ^C ^^5 ^3^ Q 3000 ^ «^i ^^ \ft ^~ C^ ^~ ^~ ^~ ^^ ^J ^~^^ ^~ ^v ^v ^^ 4O ^^ 'O ^| ^^ ^f ^ O ^ 13 O X Q Q O> O O O K OO OOOOC9 O O O O Z o: 2500 _ LU o o Q_ 2000 o (n 1500 0 0 o z 3 1000 1__ o - 1 0 500 s Q_ n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' II 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES LU Z3UU O i i i i i on 2250 - B < - 2000 CL <$ X 1750 o O O O O X O UlO (/) 1500 Q 1250 0 ° 0 O < 1000 750 - 500 250 - 0 e 9^n i i i i i i 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 49. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of ammonia, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). / uu i i i i i i i i i i K) A | 0 0. 600 0 i 58 0 » £ 0 m z z Q 5 500 UJ O Q_ 300 - o O 200 O 100 1 O O (III ' 1 >-& 1 1 Q_ 0 1 I I i 5 4 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES UJ oou O 300 - B < CL 50 I/ 0 O i I i i i i 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 50. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of nitrite, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ouuu i i i i i i i i i i i _ A g « i £ OT 7000 Z * O > K 02 a z o tj? 6000 ffl z <^-< z > o cnw -2^ - IT f" -*^?2 ?h. £.^ , VJVJVJ UJ i i i i i Q 22,500 - B i 20,000 fc | £ 17,500 £ ° at to f s or* x - o o o o x o ujo w 15,000 0 0 0 0 S 12,500 10,000 UJ X - o 7,500 5,000 ' 5 2,500 0 e -2,500 i i i i i i () 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 54. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of total biochemical-oxygen demand, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ^ OU , uuu i i i i i i i i i i i Q a: 55 ,000 A 5 !? £; LJ 7 Q- O i K. Q. 50 ,000 < ° Q 0 U 0£ 0 z Q 5 Cfl 45 ,000 Q *~ "^ «- < & f» * N^ o< to * 10 CM < ° z 40 ,000 ID O * ZJ UXQO O > 17,500 o o 8 u z D uD v* o 15,000 - - LJ 12,500 - - oX o 10,000 - - CO 7,500 00 00 - C/) ID 5,000 O LJ O 2,500 z 0 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD -2 , 500 a: 0123456 1 o DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 55. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of carbonaceous biochemical-oxygen demand, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). I^U i i i i i i i i i 1 1 110 -Ag,, i r OT ^ 0£ 100 1< 0 O° O UJ - 90 QC 0 Z H"- - * 5^^ ft- f\i^_<<< <^ SA "^ I** «k ^b V^l^^ V^ ^» -_ ^^ ^k . II»^ «t| V l/l *~ W v ^ t"* v*^* T" f^ p* ^ VD ^ ff^ W ^" ^T «. 80 ^2 liJ |/) (0 ^ Q^ fl^ ^) 2K ^ » C lO C ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3t ^ ^ ^ tftJ O^3 OIQQ O > O (9 (/) U WOOO OOUC9 OOOO Z on 70 UJ 60 Q_ 50 (^ 40 O , O Oz. 30 0 0 1> 20 - - o 10 0 0 I I Q_ n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES UJ hO o 1 I 1 1 1 a: 40 - B | < i 35 « fc 3 ^ «- Ol « 9 K Or* X o 30 U O O U X U UIO W V) 25 A - 20 / - UJ o 15 / - 10 / - O O O / _ 5 O / O o 0 - _ I I i I i 2-^ 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 56. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of cyanide, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). IDU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 140 - A | 2 £ «-«/»_ < ° o 85 at o z o 5 120 CD ^_ 2 <<< 5 > ^ ^ __l ^^ ^L -4-^2 jviv. «> ^ 10 M ^ ° Q £ w i/) LJ AH -T r " ^'1-. U i1 i1 i1 i1 i1 O -J 3.5 * «- - BTk < - 3.0 £ | £ 10 O 2.5 5 O 8 O X D UJO* M 2.0 O 1.5 - o 1.0 o , o 0.5 o L^^^ LJ X 0.0 ^ Q_ -0.5 - 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 57. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of phenol, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 IO *» f » lO o it K 10 1 ° o o uj ~ OH a z o 5 9 ffi Z »- J < ^ c*^ o < ^ a 8 £! UJ (/) O 2.0 ^ «- 01 co £<* S 1or*- Ix O O O O X O UJO (0 a 1.5 1.0 O O 0.5 o 0.0 01 X -0.5 o 1 n I i i i I i 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 58. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of chromium, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). «fU i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 IO i J w 35 - A 1 2 o ^ Q 10 _ _ z O 0 O 13 5\j O - o | °- 0 1 1 i I I I | I i 1 O | | z 345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES uj* 4. i i i i i °a: *4 0 - B < < 3. 5 £ Z 200 o ce 100 0 -100 0 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 60. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of iron, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ^uu i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO - 180 - A g £ j « CO Z IL o i a: < Q o o u - 160 o: a Z Q 00 Z <^< z C" ^ 1 140 _ ^ 2 < ^ a _ £ y to to^a. SI in a * S P ro piii i^^i iS^i 120 O i D UXQQ O > O O CO 0 CO OO OOOOO OOOO i - a: 100 O - UJ 80 - - o_ 60 - - C/) ' Q 40 - - 20 0 o o 0 1 1 1 1 I 2 | | | | O I l Q_ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES IU i i i i 1 UJ _J 9 O - B z 8 PL ^ fc s: a. 7 ~ *~ S a eo i fv orx z ~ X O O O O Z O UJO tO o 6 - - 5 O - Q - 4 0 ° 0 Q 3 - - - UJ 2 1 0 0 - o i 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 61. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of lead, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). t . u i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO A z ^~ ^C 3.5 ** o a. ? o* >g a:(o z a Q o u Q£ o z a 5 3.0 - O N Pi *fl ^l_ _ ft ^^|< <(B LJ 2.0 - - Q_ L 1 1.5 - ^j 1.0 _ h o O O 0.5 0 ° o h Q_ n n 1 I I i i i i i i ° i i i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES LJ O u . uu i i i i i QL 0.45 : B | : 0.40 X O 0.35 ^ «- ai » ^t rx< 1or^ xst 0.30 o o o o x o uju to 0.25 - 0.20 - O O O 0.15 o ID 0.10 O OH 0.05 /6 LJ 0.00 Q___ -0.05 .n m 1 1 1 1 1 1 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 62. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of mercury, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). JU i i i i i i i i i 1 1 10 45 - A | n - i i £ < Q o O UJ 40 Q£ O z Q < eo^_ z <<< z it < Q 35 CM jo in ^t* - » ( CO ^ 10 CM *- < S w M W^OLO. w> 2 30 o ^ =3 ozoo u > o o M o MOOO oo!3o o o o o z _ o: 25 - UJ 0 O o_ 20 O 15 - 1 , 10 - "^ - Z) 5 - - o k i i i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 --I 1 Q_ n 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES UJ 8 O a: 7 - B < oo 6 x o» or- o 5 o o o i o LJO (0 4 3 ui x 2 o 1 0 -1 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 63. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of nickel, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4, 1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). ouu i i i i I i I i I I i 450 -Ax*» f\ fO_ x °- < Q So is° fcf 400 0£ 0 a»^ x 350 n ««(^^ O < 1* JO £ j»! OT «£& £ M a 300 o ^ z> uxoo c5 > <$ o fe u tnooo oooo oooo x 250 O - UJ 200 - - Q. _ 150 O O 100 O I 0 O 50 - "" L, O 0 i i i i i i i i i "Q__ i __ i Q. 34567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES 30 UJ B O 25 QL Q. < o I 20 u o u O CO 15 O 10 o 5 0 -5 12345 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 64. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of zinc, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). East Branch Grand Calumet River During the October 1984 survey, industrial and municipal effluents dis charged an average 467 ft3 /s into the East Branch. Along with this water were 100,000 Ib/d (pound per day) of chloride, 120,000 Ib/d of sulfate, 620,000 Ib/d of dissolved solids, 16,500 Ib/d of ultimate CBOD, 57 Ib/d of phenols, 69 Ib/d of cyanide, 1,160 Ib/d of ammonia, 2,900 Ib/d of nitrate, 135 Ib/d of total phosphorus, 2 Ib/d of chromium, 5.5 Ib/d of copper, 1,600 Ib/d of iron, 5.6 Ib/d of lead, 2 Ib/d of mercury, 16.5 Ib/d of nickel, and 85 Ib/d of zinc. Most water used by dischargers to the Grand Calumet River is obtained from lake Michigan. For comparison, chemical-mass discharges were calculated on the basis of effluent flows measured during the survey and lake Michigan water quality reported by the Indiana State Board of Health. The median value for data collected at four locations (the ECWTP, GWTP, HWTP, and Whiting water-treatment plant raw water intakes) in 1983 were used (Indiana State Board of Health, 1984, p. 57, 58, 59, and 61). Comparable data were available for chloride, sulfate, fluoride, phenol, cyanide, ammonia, and nitrite plus nitrate. This analysis indicates that water discharged to the river has been enriched considerably compared to raw Lake Michigan water with respect to those constituents. In the East Branch, 3 times the chloride, 2 times the sulfate, 3 times the fluoride, 9 times the phenol, 11 times the cyanide, 9 times the ammonia, and 4 times the nitrite plus nitrate were discharged than would have been if concentrations of these constituents in the effluents had been similar to concentrations in Lake Michigan. There are several differences between the chemical-mass discharges from industrial and municipal outfalls and those measured at the river stations in the East Branch. For example, only 76 percent of the chloride, 88 percent of the sulfate, and 89 percent of the dissolved solids discharges measured in the East Branch at 151st Street (station C12) can be accounted for by the known point sources. These two constituents and dissolved solids are generally stable in rivers. Thus the differences in chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids discharges are an indication that additional sources contribute chemi cal discharges to the river. Differences between cumulative effluent and instream chemical-mass discharges were observed at one or more stations in the discharges of chloride, sulfate, dissolved solids, ammonia, nitrate, CBOD, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc. Significant differences between cumulative effluent and instream chemical-mass discharges were observed at three of the six stations sampled in the East Branch. The first significant difference in the discharges was ob served at Virginia Avenue (station C1A). At this station, the known sources can only account for about 74 percent of the chloride, 80 percent of the sul fate, 87 percent of the dissolved solids, 43 percent of the ammonia, 62 per cent of the CBOD, 18 percent of the chromium, 7 percent of the copper, 21 percent of the iron, 11 percent of the lead, and 80 percent of the zinc. -120- A second significant difference was observed at Industrial Highway (station C4). At this station, the known sources plus additional chemical loads from unknown sources observed at Virginia Avenue (station C1A) can only account for 90 percent of the chloride, 86 percent of the sulfate, 83 percent of the nitrate, 51 percent of the chromium, 89 percent of the iron, and 87 percent of the lead. The third significant difference was observed at Cline Avenue (station C5). The differences observed at this station were primarily in the metals discharges. At this station, the known sources plus additional chemical loads from unknown sources observed at Virginia Avenue (station C1A) and Industrial Highway (station C4) can only account for 76 percent of the dissolved solids discharge, 87 percent of the nitrate, 22 percent of the copper, 28 percent of the iron, 10 percent of the lead, 68 percent of the nickel, and 30 percent of the zinc. As seen in figures 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64, the discharges of copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc jump significantly at Cline Avenue (station C5). All but nickel drop back to levels similar to those observed upstream at Industrial Highway (station C4) by the next sampling location downstream at Kennedy Avenue (station C6). The reasons for the differences between the effluent chemical-mass dis charges and those measured instream in the East Branch are not known. Possible explanations for the differences are sampling or measurement error or additional sources of chemical-mass discharges not monitored such as combined sewer overflows, subsurface drainage from landfills, leakage from wastewater-treatment lagoons, effluent from non-permitted outfalls or ground- water inflow. It is unlikely that sampling or measurement error is solely responsible for the observed differences. To allow for this type of error, chemical discharges that balanced within 90 percent were considered to be within an acceptable level of agreement. Some differences between cumulative effluent discharge and instream discharges also were as great as one order of magnitude. Measurement errors in either streamflow or analytical determina tion of chemical concentrations are unlikely to be of this magnitude. West Branch Grand Calumet River Chemical-mass discharges to the West Branch generally were substantially less than to the East Branch because of the much lower effluent flow (about 63 ft3 /s). A total of 74,000 Ib/d of chloride, 44,000 Ib/d of sulfate, 250,000 Ib/d of dissolved solids, 6,200 Ib/d of ultimate CBOD, 0.5 Ib/d of phenols, 29 Ib/d of cyanide, 1,050 Ib/d of ammonia, 1,400 Ib/d of nitrate, 140 Ib/d of phosphorus, 150 Ib/d of iron, 4 Ib/d of nickel, and 11 Ib/d of zinc were dis charged to the West Branch during the water-quality survey. Less than 1 Ib/d of chromium, copper, lead and mercury were discharged into the West Branch. Proportionally, several constituents were discharged in much greater quantities into the West Branch than into the East Branch. Even though efflu ent flow in the West Branch was only about 13 percent of that in the East Branch, 75 percent as much chloride, 37 percent as much sulfate, 40 percent as -121- much dissolved solids, 38 percent as much CBOD, 42 percent as much cyanide, 90 percent as much ammonia, 205 percent as much nitrate, and 105 percent as much total phosphorus were discharged to the West Branch as to the East Branch. An analysis of estimated chemical-mass discharges into the West Branch based on chemical analysis of Lake Michigan water also indicated substantial enrichment of several constituents. In the West Branch, 20 times as much chloride, 5.5 times as much sulfate, 8 times as much fluoride, 36 times as much cyanide, 62 times as much ammonia, and 16 times as much nitrite plus nitrate were discharged than would have been if concentrations of these con stituents in the effluents had been similar to concentrations in Lake Michigan. Less phenol was discharged into the West Branch than if Lake Michigan water had been discharged unaltered. Differences in the chemical-mass discharges in the West Branch are not as evident as those in the East Branch because of problems regarding the stream- flow balance previously discussed in the section, "Streamflow." Chemical-mass discharges were calculated from chemical data and flow data adjusted to ac count for differences in the flow balance. Determining differences in the reaches of the West Branch predominantly controlled by the effluent from the ECWTP is not possible with available data. The apparent loss of streamflow in these reaches has too substantial an effect on the instream discharges to draw any firm conclusions. As previously discussed, concentrations of several constituents were found to be higher in the river than in the known point sources. The differences were not large and the difference may have been due to measurement and sampling error. However, several problems are apparent in the reaches of the West Branch downstream of the HWTP. Differences between effluent and instream chemical-mass discharges were observed at Columbia Avenue (station C8) in the discharge of suspended solids, CBOD, ammonia, total phosphorus, copper, iron, lead, and zinc. Downstream of Columbia Avenue, chemical-mass discharges are rather constant and do not indi cate the presence of any additional sources. At Columbia Avenue, known sources only account for about 30 percent of suspended solids, 70 percent of the CBOD, 70 percent of the ammonia, 75 percent of the total phosphorus, 20 percent of the copper, 35 percent of the iron, 15 percent of the lead, and 60 percent of the zinc. SIMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A diel water-quality survey was done October 3-4, 1984, on the Grand Calumet River, Lake County, Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois. The study was designed to (1) investigate the sources of dry-weather waste inputs not attri butable to permitted point-source effluent discharges and (2) provide informa tion for evaluating the waste-load assimilative capacity of the river. Five sampling stations were selected in the East Branch Grand Calumet River, six in the West Branch, and one in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. -122- The Grand Calumet River system extends along the southern shoreline of Lake Michigan in northwest Indiana and consists of three parts: The East Branch, the West Branch, and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and Indiana Harbor. The West Branch Grand Calumet River flows from its confluence with the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal to its confluence with the Little Calumet River in Illinois. West of Columbia Avenue in Hammond (fig. 1), the river flows to the west. East of Columbia Avenue, the river flows east or west depending on the water level in Lake Michigan, effluent flow in the two branches of the river and the ship canal, and the influence of wind direction xand velocity. The Indiana Harbor Ship Canal flows north from its confluence with the Grand Calumet River and discharges into Lake Michigan. The ship canal is virtually an extension of the East Branch. Flow in the Grand Calumet River is almost entirely municipal and indus trial effluents. Over 90 percent of the 500 ft3 /s flow observed at the con fluence of the East Branch and the ship canal was due to these effluents. The remaining flow in the East Branch was attributed to ground water or seepage from adjacent wetlands. DLel variation in streamflow of as much as 300 ft3 /s was observed in the East Branch near the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The diel variation diminished at the upstream sampling stations. Virtually all the flow in the West Branch was municipal wastewater effluent. During the water- quality survey, approximately 15 percent of the effluent from the ECWTP was measured flowing east into the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The remaining ef fluent from this WTP flowed west into the West Branch. Flow measured in the West Branch at locations west of the HWTP and ECWTP indicates that about 25 percent of the effluent flow reported by these plants was not being measured at downstream sampling stations. This apparent difference was attributed to (1) error in assuming that the effluent flow from the HWTP was equivalent to the flow measured entering the plant, and (2) evaporation, seepage, and stor age of water in a large marshy area near the ECWTP. The effluent flow at the HWTP was estimated to be 80 percent of the influent wastewater flow. In the West Branch, flow reversals were observed at sampling stations near the ship canal. Water quality in the East Branch is generally much better than in the West Branch.- For example, average DO concentrations in the East Branch ranged from 5.7 to 8.2 mg/L. In the West Branch, average DO concentrations ranged from 0.8 to 6.6 mg/L. Dissolved solids concentrations were two to three times higher in the West Branch (660 to 1,000 mg/L) than in the East Branch (185 to 325 mg/L). Concentrations of suspended solids, BOD, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus also were substantially higher in the West Branch than in the East Branch. In the East Branch, only the water-quality standards for phenol and total phosphorus were exceeded, whereas in the West Branch, water- quality standards for chloride, fluoride, dissolved solids, ammonia, total phosphorus, cyanide, phenol, and mercury were exceeded. Dissolved oxygen was less than the minimum allowable at four of the six sampling stations in the West Branch. -123- Chemical-mass discharges in the Grand Calumet River could not all be accounted for by known effluent discharges. Three areas of significant dif ferences between cumulative effluent and instream chemical-mass discharges were identified in the East Branch and one in the West Branch. In the East Branch, differences observed at Virginia Avenue (station C1A), Industrial Highway (station C4), and Cline Avenue (station C5), were an indication of the presence of unidentified waste inputs upstream of these sites. In the West Branch, differences in chemical-mass discharge were more difficult to define because of the imbalance between effluent flow and streamflow. Elevated suspended-solids, BOD, and ammonia discharges are indicative of a source of what may be raw sewage located between the HWTP and Columbia Avenue (station C8). Substantial sludge deposits more than 7 ft deep were observed in this reach of the West Branch. -124- REFERENCES CITED Combinatorics, Inc., 1974, Load allocation study of the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal: Lafayette, Indiana, 100 p. Cook, S. G., and Jackson, R. S., 1978, The Bailly area of Porter County, Indiana: Evanston, Illinois, Robert Jackson and Associates, 110 p. Dunn, J. P., 1919, Indiana and Indianans, v. I: Chicago, 111., American Historical Society, 568 p. Durfor, C. N., and Becker, Edith, 1964, Public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 1812, 364 p. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967, Report on the water quality of lower Lake Michigan, Calumet River, and Wolf Lake: U.S. Department of the Interior, 79 p. Friedman, L. C., and Erdmann, D. E., 1982, Quality assurance practices for the chemical and biological analyses of water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter A6, 181 p. Goerlitz, D. F., and Brown, Eugene, 1972, Methods for analysis of organic substances in water: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water- Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter A3, 40 p. Harris, R. A., 1907, Tides in lakes and wells Manual of tides: U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Report, appendix 6, 487 p. Harrison, W., Me Gown, D. L., Saunders, K. D. , and Ditmars, J. D., 1979, Wintertime raw-water contamination at Chicago*s South Water Filtration Plant: Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, v. 51, no. 10, p. 2432-2446. Hem, J. D., 1985, Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (3rd ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p. Heyford, J. F., 1922, Effects of wind and barometric pressure on the Great Lakes: Washington, Carnegie Institute of Washington Report 317, 133 p. HydroQual, Inc., 1984, Grand Calumet River Wasteload Allocation Study: Mahwah, New Jersey, 262 p. Indiana State Board of Health, 1984, 1983 Water quality monitoring-Rivers and streams: Indianapolis, Indiana State Board of Health, Division of Water Pollution Control, 140 p. -125- REFERENCES CITED Continued McCutcheon, S. C., and others, 1985, Water quality and streamflow data for the West Fork Trinity River in Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4330, 101 p. Rantz, S. E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow: Volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p. Robertson, N. A., and Riker, Dorothy, eds., 1942, The John Tipton Papers, v. I, 1809-1827: Indianapolis, Indiana Historical Bureau, 909 p. Romano, R. R., 1976, A study of selected heavy metals in the Grand Calumet River-Indiana Harbor Canal System: Purdue University, Ph.D. thesis, 202 p. Romano, R. R., Mclntosh, A. W., Kessler, W. V., Anderson, V. L. , and Bell, J. M., 1977, Trace metal discharges of the Grand Calumet River: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 3, no. 1/2, p. 144-147. Skougstad, M. W., and others, 1979, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter Al, 626 p. Smart, P. L. , and Laidlaw, I. M. S., 1977, An evaluation of some fluorescent dyes for water tracing: Water Resources Research, v. 13, no. 1, p. 15-33. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Great Lakes water level facts: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, 15 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982, 1980 Census of population, volume 1, Char acteristics of population, Chapter B, General population characteristics, Part 16, Indiana: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 329 p. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970, Water quality in the Calumet Area - Conference on pollution of lower Lake Michigan, Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and Wolf Lake, Illinois and Indiana: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Technical Committee on Water Quality, 140 p. Wezernak, C. T., and Cannon, J. J. , 1967, Oxygen nitrogen relationships in autotrophic nitrification: Applied Microbiology, v. 15, p. 1211-1215. Wilson, J. F. , Cobb, E. D. , and Kilpatrick, F. A., 1984, Fluorometric proce dures for dye tracing: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-234, 53 p.' -126- APPENDIX: Streamflow in the West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985 As a result of the differences observed in the West Branch Grand Calumet River during the October 1984 survey, a small follow-up study was done on September 18-19, 1985. The study was designed to determine the flow balance in the West Branch near the HWTP and included the following:\ 1. Recording water-level gages were installed at three stations on the river near the HWTP (C7A, C8, and a new station located upstream from the HWTP at RM 4. 6 designated C7B), in the center of the small lake located near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (designated station C7C) and in the HWTP effluent channel just before the channel discharges to the West Branch. The gages recorded water levels at 5-minute intervals. 2. Streamflow at the three river stations was measured at 90-minute intervals for a 24-hour period beginning at 1000 on September 18, 1985. Procedures for measuring Streamflow used in the October 1984 survey previously described in the section, "Data Collection Procedures," were also used during this study. Flow was also measured twice at Hohman Avenue (station C9) and once at Bridge Street (station C3) and Industrial Highway (station C4). 3. Forty-seven flow measurements were made in the HWTP effluent channel during the 24-hour period. Measurements were made over a sufficient range in water level and flow to obtain a relation between the two so that a detailed estimate of the total flow for the 24-hour period could be obtained. The gage height was recorded at the time when individual velocity and depth measure ments were made in the cross section so that the variability in gage height during the measurement could be obtained. 4. Samples for determining concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids were obtained by the procedures used for the October 1984 survey. 5. Rhodamine WT dye (as rhodamine WT, 20-percent solution) and lithium (as lithium chloride, 35-percent solution) tracers were released from Indianapolis Boulevard in a single slug at the start of the 24-hour period. The tracers were used in this study to determine if water was being lost from the stream channel, either as storage in the small lake near the Indiana East- West Toll Road or as ground-water infiltration. Rhodamine WT was used because it is easily measured in the field. Rhodamine WT is not totally stable in the environment, being particularly susceptible to adsorption onto sediments (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977). Lithium is much more stable than rhodamine WT and was used to estimate losses of water from the stream channel. Loss of lithium was assumed to be proportional to the loss of water from the channel. Water samples for the determination of rhodamine WT and lithium concentrations were collected at the two stations near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (stations C7A and C7B) and Columbia Avenue (station C8). Samples were collected during passage of the tracers at each river station until the concentration of rhoda mine WT dropped below 1 percent of the maximum concentration. The procedures of Wilson and others (1984) were used to determine the concentration of -127- rhodamine WT. Samples for determination of lithium were analyzed at the U. S. Geological Survey laboratory, Doraville, Georgia, by the methods of Skougstad and others (1979). Linear regression methods were used to develop a stage-discharge relation for the HWTP effluent channel. Data used to develop this relation are given in table 10. Gage height did not always remain constant during the flow meas urements in the effluent channel. Therefore, the measurements were weighted in the regression calculations on the basis of the inverse of the standard deviation of the average stage during the measurement. Thus, measurements where stage varied little were given more weight than measurements where the stage varied substantially. The following equation best described the ob served data: Q = 69733.941 x In(GHT) + 43.095 x (GRAD) - 192842 where Q is the predicted^flow at the HWTP effluent channel, in cubic feet per second, In(GHT) is the natural logarithm of the water-surface elevation at the HWTP effluent channel, in feet above the NGVD of 1929, and GRAD is the gradient between the water-surface elevation in the HWTP effluent channel and the water-surface elevation in the stream channel near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7B), in feet. This equation reliably predicts effluent flow from water-surface eleva tion for the HWTP. The equation accounts for over 97 percent of the variabil ity observed in the data. The standard deviation of the residuals is 1.8 ft3 /s, and the average absolute prediction error for the 47 observed data points is 1.2 ft3 /s. Estimates of flow for each of the water-surface elevations that were recorded e\rery 5 minutes during the study were obtained from the stage- discharge equation. By use of this equation the mean effluent flow from the HWTP for the 24-hour period beginning at 1000 September 18, 1985, was deter mined to be 38.6 ft3 /s. For the same period, the HWTP reported a flow of 50.1 ft3 /s. The measured effluent flow was 77 percent of the influent flow reported by the HWTP. This percentage compares favorably with the 81 percent obtained by comparing the influent flow and effluent flow estimated by the mass-balance technique for the October 1984 survey. It is unlikely that the difference between the average 24-hour influent and effluent flows is due to the time lag between influent and effluent flow as a consequence of the de tention of water in the plant. The range in average 24-hour flow for the twenty-five 24-hour periods beginning at 1000 September 17 and ending 1000 September 19 (moving average, incremented hourly) was only 1.7 ft3 /s. Use of the minimum average 24-hour influent flow during this period still results in an influent/effluent ratio of 0.78, not significantly different from the ratio calculated previously. -128- Table 10. Measurements of effluent discharge and stage data used to develop stage-discharge relation for the Hammond wastewater-treatment plant, September 18-19, 1985 [All measurements by U.S. Geological Survey] [ft 3 /s, cubic foot per second] Average stage at Average stage Measure HWTP outfall at site C7B Standard deviation Station ment Beginning Ending Discharge (feet above NGVD (feet above NGVD of stage at HWTP ID number time time (ft 3 /s) of 1929) of 1929) during measurement HWTP 1 1040 1050 27.3 580.95 580.82 .13344 HWTP 2 1155 1205 31.7 580.98 580.82 .00522 HWTP 3 1203 1213 39.9 581.08 580.83 .03588 HWTP 4 1239 1244 21.2 580. 88 580. 84 .05711 HWTP 5 1244 1250 18.1 580.87 580.84 .06630 HWTP 6 1333 1339 41.0 581.15 580.94 .04450 HWTP 7 1339 1345 40.7 581.15 580.96 .03264 HWTP 8 1433 1439 42.3 581.18 581.00 .03668 HWTP 9 1439 1445 42.3 581.17 580.99 .03475 HWTP 10 1533 1539 44.8 581.22 581.03 .00647 HWTP 11 1539 1545 40.2 581.18 581.03 .01695 HWTP 12 1633 1639 42.4 581.20 581.02 .02687 HWTP 13 1639 1645 42.6 581.19 581.01 .02359 HWTP 14 1737 1743 37.2 581.14 581.01 .02115 HWTP 15 1743 1749 45.6 581.22 581.01 .01753 HWTP 16 1837 1843 47.0 581.22 581.03 .02933 HWTP 17 1843 1849 41.1 581.17 581.03 .01578 HWTP 18 1945 1955 43.1 581.21 581.02 .05519 HWTP 19 1955 2005 41.6 581.17 581.02 .04569 HWTP 20 2035 2045 43.0 581.18 581.02 .03289 HWTP 21 2045 2055 42.2 581.18 581.02 .04225 HWTP 22 2110 2120 18.1 580. 96 580.98 .05833 HWTP 23 2120 2126 28.0 580.98 580.97 .03477 HWTP 24 2145 2150 39.1 581.12 580. 94 .08000 HWTP 25 2150 2155 47.1 581.20 580.96 .03488 HWTP 26 2155 2200 39.8 581.11 580. 96 .02508 HWTP 27 2200 2206 46.4 581.22 580.97 .01912 HWTP 28 2245 2252 40.7 581.17 580. 98 .05921 HWTP 29 2300 2306 43.9 581.18 580.99 .04277 HWTP 30 2335 2345 42.2 581.16 581.02 .03092 HWTP 31 2345 2351 43.8 581.19 581.02 .04388 HWTP 32 0010 0020 22.3 580.99 581.00 .04519 HWTP 33 0020 0026 31.1 581.05 581.00 .01095 HWTP 34 0035 0045 37.7 581.13 581.01 .05608 HWTP 35 0135 0145 44.1 581.21 581.01 .03488 HWTP 36 0215 0225 23.4 580. 96 580. 95 .02386 HWTP 37 0225 0235 25.4 580.97 580.92 .04020 HWTP 38 0340 0350 41.9 581.15 580.93 .03045 HWTP 39 0435 0442 38.5 581.12 580.96 .04191 HWTP 40 0535 0545 36.6 581.09 580.95 .03297 HWTP 41 0635 0645 36.8 581.07 580.93 .02089 HWTP 42 0735 0745 40.5 581.12 580.90 .03171 HWTP 43 0745 0755 36.5 581.05 580.89 .02601 HWTP 44 0835 0845 41.1 581.13 580.91 .04740 HWTP 45 0935 0945 40.3 581.14 580.95 .03459 HWTP 46 1030 1040 28.8 581.00 580. 90 .08765 HWTP 47 1040 1050 14.7 580.92 580.89 .08837 Average "37.1 581.11 580.96 -129- Flow measurements made in the Grand Calumet River on September 18-19, 1985, are listed in table 11. Flow in the Grand Calumet River during the September 18-19, 1985, study were considerably different than that during the October 3-4, 1984, study. Flow in the East Branch was approximately 10 to 20 percent more than that measured during the previous study. More importantly, the flow in the West Branch was considerably greater than it had been during the October 1984 study (table 12), and there was no evidence of the flow reversals that had been observed during the October 1984 study. The amount of rainfall in the days preceding the September 1985 study was similar to that preceding the October 1984 study, however. The National Weather Service sta tion at Hobart, Ind., reported no rainfall in the 7 days prior to the September 1985 study. (No data were reported for the weather station at Ogden Dunes for September 1985.) Stage-discharge relations could not be developed at the three river sam pling stations (C7A, C7B, and C8) because the range in stage was too small. Therefore, the average flow for the 24-hour period at these stations was cal culated as the average of the 17 flow measurements made at the station. Flow at the stations upstream and downstream from the Indiana East-West Toll Road (C7A and C7B) averaged 59 and 60 ft3 /s, for the 24-hour period. Flow measured at Columbia Avenue (station C8) averaged 106 ft3 /s, about 7 ft3 /s greater than the sum of the HWTP effluent flow and that measured near the Indiana East-West Toll Road. There was no evidence of a source of raw sewage during the September 1985 survey as was found in this reach during the October 1984 survey. No other point source of flow was found in the reach between the HWTP and Columbia Avenue. It is possible that this difference is due entirely to measurement error. The difference is less than 7 percent of the average flow at Columbia Avenue (station C8) and slightly more than 10 percent of the aver age flow at the two upstream stations near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (C7A and C7B). These differences are within the conceivable range of measure ment error given the difficulty of measuring unsteady flow conditions. The mass-balance technique used to estimate the flow balance from chloride, sul- fate, and dissolved solids could not be used to verify the estimated 24-hour average flows because the concentrations were too similar at the four stations (table 13). A summary of the tracer data is given in tables 14 (rhodamine WT) and 15 (lithium). The mass of lithium recovered at the station upstream from the Indiana East-West Toll Road (C7A) was 78 percent of that released. The tracer loss reflects the portion of flow that entered the lake from the West Branch. Eighty-seven percent of the lithium released was recovered downstream from the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7B). The increase in the mass of lithium recovered at this station is an indication that some but not all the lithium-dosed water that entered the small lake reentered the stream channel during the study. Approximately 13 percent of the lithium was retained in the lake. About another 7 percent was lost in the channel of the West Branch between the Indiana East-West Toll Road and Columbia Avenue (station C8) where 80 percent of the mass of the lithium released was recovered. The data for rhodamine WT showed a similar pattern. although the percent recovery figures are smaller, probably reflecting adsorptive losses. -131- Table 11. Flow measurements at river sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, September 18-19, 1985 [All measurements by U.S. Geological Survey; measurements at station C9 were made in the culverts beneath Hohman Avenue; measurements at all other stations were made in the stream channel; ft3 /s, cubic foot per second; ft, foot; ft2 , square foot; n.a., not applicable] Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Discharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C3 1150 1300 448 1.1 4.7 88 412 C4 1 1045 1105 540 1.6 4.0 82 332 C7A 1 1030 1055 53.8 0.4 2.1 65 136 C7A 2 1200 1235 60.5 .5 2.1 65 135 C7A 3 1333 1403 69.9 .5 2.2 65 142 C7A 4 1502 1532 72.3 .5 2.3 65 148 C7A 5 1635 1704 45.2 .3 2.2 65 142 C7A 6 1807 1838 56.3 .4 2.2 65 145 C7A 7 1933 2003 45.2 .3 2.1 65 137 C7A 8 2103 2133 48.4 .4 2. 1 65 135 C7A 9 2234 2305 67.6 .5 2.2 65 145 C7A 10 0004 0036 58.2 .4 2.3 65 146 C7A 11 0136 0207 34.0 .2 2.2 65 144 C7A 12 0312 0343 61.3 .4 2.2 65 143 C7A 13 0439 0512 59.5 .4 2.2 65 142 C7A 14 0605 0638 63.8 .5 2.2 65 142 C7A 15 0734 0803 72.1 .5 2.2 65 142 C7A 16 0907 0936 67.2 .5 2.2 65 145 C7A 17 1033 1104 69.6 .5 2.2 65 144 Average 59.1 0.4 2.2 65 142 C7B 1 1040 1140 38.7 0.2 2.1 83 178 C7B 2 1203 1240 60. 1 .3 2.2 83 185 C7B 3 1334 1412 61.0 .3 2.4 83 196 C7B 4 1500 1543 66.6 .3 2.5 83 204 C7B 5 1631 1710 52.1 .3 2.4 83 201 C7B 6 1800 1843 61.9 .3 2.5 83 206 C7B 7 1930 2020 55.8 .3 2.6 83 214 C7B 8 2105 2154 58.7 .3 2.5 83 204 C7B 9 2235 2330 65.7 .3 2.5 83 207 C7B 10 0005 0050 63.2 .3 2.5 83 208 C7B 11 0135 0220 43.3 .2 2.5 83 211 C7B 12 0305 0352 57.7 .3 2.5 83 206 C7B 13 0435 0524 68.9 .3 2.5 83 208 C7B 14 0601 0642 66.8 .3 2.5 83 207 C7B 15 0730 0809 72.6 .4 2.5 83 205 C7B 16 0902 0942 67.0 .3 2.5 83 209 C7B 17 1033 1110 66.1 .3 2.5 83 206 Average 60.4 0.3 2.5 83 203 -132- Table 11. Flow measurements at river sampling stations in the Grand Calumet River basin, September 18-19, 1985 Continued Average Average Station Measurement Beginning Ending Di scharge velocity depth Width Area ID number time time (ft3 /s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft2 ) C8 1 1005 1030 97.0 1 .2 2,,3 37 85 C8 2 1133 1201 97.6 1 .2 2,,3 37 84 C8 3 1258 1329 103 1 .2 2,,3 37 85 C8 4 1435 1503 109 1 .2 2,,4 37 88 C8 5 1605 1634 114 1 .3 2.,4 37 89 C8 6 1731 1802 112 1 .3 2,,4 37 89 C8 7 1902 1931 114 1 .3 2,.4 37 89 C8 8 2100 2130 104 1 .2 2,,3 37 87 C8 9 2230 2305 108 1 .2 2,.4 37 88 C8 10 0002 0033 110 1.3 2,,4 37 88 C8 11 0130 0202 109 1 .2 2.,4 37 87 C8 12 0300 0329 105 1 .2 2.,3 37 86 C8 13 0430 0458 108 1 .3 2,,3 37 85 C8 14 0602 0633 105 1 .2 2,,3 37 85 C8 15 0733 0800 100 1 .2 2,,3 37 85 C8 16 0901 0929 107 1 .2 2,,3 37 86 C8 17 1030 1057 102 1 .2 2,.4 37 87 Average 106 1 .2 2,,4 37 87 C9 1 1515 1615 101 n a. n,»a. n.a. n.a. C9 2 0930 1015 86.0 n a. n,»a. n.a. n.a. Average 94.0 n a. n,»a. n.a. n.a. -133- Table 12. Comparison of flow in the Grand Calumet River basin, October 3-4, 1984, and September 18-19, 1985 [ft3 /s, cubic foot per second] Average Average flow flow Station River October 3-4, 1984 September 18-19, 1985 ID segment (ft3/s) (ft3/s) C3 East 370 450 C4 East 490 540 C7A West 15 59 C7B West 60 C8 West 53 106 C9 West 47 94 Table 13. Water-quality analyses for sampling stations in the West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985 [mg/L, milligram per liter] Station Chloride Sulfate Dissolved solids ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) C7A 140 99 538 C7B 140 99 541 C8 140 130 615 HWTP 140 170 712 -134- Table 14. Rhodamine WT dye-tracer data, West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985 [min, minute; min-yg/L, minutes-microgram per liter; ft3 /s, cubic foot per second; g, gram; 890 grams rhodamine WT dye released at Indianapolis Boulevard, EM 5.35, 0955 September 18, 1985] Elapsed time Elapsed time to Area of time- Average streamflow Mass of to leading edge maximum dye concentration during passage dye Percentage Station of dye cloud concentration curve of dye recovered of dye ID (min) (min) (min-yg/L) (ft3 /s) (g) recovered C7A 135 170 4,670 65 510 57 C7B 170 210 6,480 61 670 75 C8 260 320 3,260 112 620 70 u> Cn Table 15. Lithium-tracer data, West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19, 1985 [min, minute; min-yg/L, minute-microgram per liter; ft3 /s, cubic foot per second; g, gram; 7900 grams lithium released at Indianapolis Boulevard, KM 5.35, 0955 September 18, 1985] Elapsed time Elapsed time to Area of time- Average streamflow Mass of to leading edge maximum lithium concentration during passage lithium Percentage Station of lithium cloud concentration curve of lithium recovered of lithium ID (min) (min) (min-yg/L) (ft3 /s) (g) recovered C7A 135 170 56,050 65 6,150 78 C7B 170 210 66,800 61 6,880 87 C8 260 320 33,550 112 6,350 80 The lack of complete recovery of the tracers does not necessarily con flict with the flow measurement data that indicated an increase and not a decrease in flow in the reach between the Indiana East-West Toll Road and Columbia Avenue (station C8). The difference in the mass of the tracers re covered at the three sampling stations (C7A, C7B, and C8) may be due in part to measurement and sampling errors. However, the data presented suggests that much of the tracer-dosed water was lost from the stream channel into the- Lake. Further, stage data suggest that some of the dosed water could have been lost to the ground-water system. If the tracer data are accurate, another possible reason for the disagreement could be the duration of the passage of the tracers. Most of the mass of the tracers had passed each of the three sam pling stations within 4 to 10 hours after release of tracers into the stream. The time of passage of the tracer cloud at each sampling station was only a few hours. The tracer data are not representative of the entire 24-hour per iod as are the flow data. The difference between the conclusions drawn from the tracer and streamflow data may mean that a good connection exists between the stream channel and the shallow ground-water system such that relatively rapid exchanges of water through the streambed are possible. Another possi bility would be bank storage and subsequent release of water in relation to the water-level elevation in the river. Water-elevation data collected down stream of the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7B) support these possi bilities. The river stage was highest near the beginning of the study coin ciding with the passage of the tracers (fig. 65). If water was being lost from the channel, it would be associated with higher river stages. -136- 581.2 o 5O so <0> Z CM 2£ 581.0 2fe > 3 o? m < < Q "- F5 25 580.8 CJ* PERIOD OF SURVEY 580.6 18 19 20 SEPTEMBER Figure 65. Water-level elevations near the Indiana East-West Toll Road (station C7B), West Branch Grand Calumet River, September 18-19,1985. -137-1 O 0 s? jr s GWTP 5*3 ff ^ 9 o P o o ST17 PI Q< P C Jy X O C8 o' t? o -1 33 CD 2 ffa z HWTP 00 O C3 "Bos O C7A po oS-8 fi" z ^ « 0 CO p p: j* ~ ECWTP ^ _» M» B 0 C7 1 _k M ^ ?^ m P H »^« _ . . » f\ CO ST14 ** O P °* SHIP CANAL GW12 AND GW13 *5 o _ GW11A C r«- O GW10A *1 O *"* ^^ (D Q* Q| 10 GW7A GW7 ^ * IH,£ «sJ 1 I I 1 1 I 0 C1A CO PI GW6 >L * -» GW4 - " . OJ GW3 CD GW2 CD GW1 AND GW1A HEADWATERS J oo o 0600 6060 x tt 1750 - a! 1500 O g 1250 - - § 1000 - - g 750 O ^ 500 - r» uT 250 o I H i i i i i i i 1 1 *- K-, 1 g 0 £ 345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 g DISTANCE FROM INDIANA HARBOR, IN MILES a 1200 i i i I i _j _ 5 1100 < - B 2 0 1000 - t 900 _ L- 1 t - O : f r*. or*- i ^ 800 - o o o o :C O UJO C/> - - o 700 0 ° 0 O < 600 - g 500 - - 0 400 - - < 300 - g x o U U U U X O UU V) 200 - Q 150 - UJ 100 O n 0 " // - 2. 5 - _ o Q 2. 0 00 a: 1- 5 - ^ 1. 0 - Q. Q. 0. 5 On o 0. 0 o " -0. 5 - 1 n i i i i i i 01234567 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH, IN MILES Figure 59. Relation of cumulative effluent to instream discharge of copper, (A) East Branch and (B) West Branch Grand Calumet River, October 3-4,1984. (Station identifiers refer to locations shown in figure 1). 20,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 K) 18,000 -AS £ § i HEADWATERS < ° Q » 16,000 a: Q z o 00 *- z Q. 5^0 < < - >-14,000