WATER SUPPLY AND
WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BIG WALNUT RESERVOIR
BIG BLUE RESERVOIR
DOWNEYVILLE RESERVOIR
WABASH RIVER BASIN
INDIANA
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
REGION m. CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA
MARCH (966
-------
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BIG WALNUT, BIG BLUE, AND DOWNEYVILLE RESERVOIRS
WABASH RIVER BASIN
INDIANA
Abstract
A study has been made which discloses a need for storage in the
proposed reservoirs for municipal vater supply and for water quality
control. These conclusions are based on analysis of existing water
quality information and hydrologic, economic, and demographic analyses.
Future needs are projected to the year 2020.
Prepared at the request of the District Engineer
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE
Corps of Engineers
Louisville, Kentucky
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Ohio River Basin Project
Evansville Field Station, Indiana
March 1966
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
I. INTRODUCTION
Request and Authority 1-1
Purpose and Scope •• 1-1
Acknowledgments ..... 1-2
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Findings II-l
Conclusions II-2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location III-l
Streamflow III-l
Water Quality Ill-2
Pertinent Data III-9
IV. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
Location and Boundaries • IV-1
Geography and Topography IV-1
Climate IV-2
Principal Communities and Industries IV-2
V. WATER RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA
Quantity of Water Available V-l
Quality of Water Available V-5
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page No.
VI. THE ECCUOMY
Introduction VI-1
Present VI-1
Future VI-U
VII. WATER REQUIREMENTS - MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
Present Water Use VII-1
Existing Sources of Supply - Surface and Ground Water . . Vll-k
Future Municipal and Industrial Water Requirements. . . . VII-8
VIII. WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Municipal and Industrial Pollution VIII-1
Water Quality Criteria VIII-U
Flow Regulation VIII-7
IX. BENEFITS
Water Supply Benefits H-l
Water Quality Control Benefits DC-1*
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
Tables (Pages A-l thru A-29)
Figures (Pages A-30 thru A-36)
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
m-i
III-2
in-3
m-4
III- 5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
111-10
III-ll
V-l
VI-1
VI- 2
VI-3
(Tables Included in Appendix)
Surface Water Quality, Eel River (Lower White
River Basin), Worthington - 1964
Surface Water Quality, Big Blue River,
Surface Water Quality, Big Blue River,
Surface Water Quality, Big Blue River,
Shelbyville - 1964
Surface Water Quality, White River, Muncie -
1964
Surface Water Quality, White River,
Anderson - 196k .
Surface Water Quality, White River, Noblesville
- 1961*
Surface Water Quality, White River, Nora -
1964
Surface Water Quality, White River, Antrim -
1964
Surface Water Quality, White River,
Martinsville - 1964
Surface Water Quality, Flatrock River - 1964 . .
Raw Water Quality - Ground Water Supplies . . .
Number and Baployment Size of Manufacturing
Number and Bnployment Size of Manufacturing
Number and Employment Size of Manufacturing
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A- 5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A- 12
A-13
A-14
A-15
iv
-------
LIST OP TABLES (Gftot'd)
Table Ho. PMt Bo.
VI-U Output by Manufacttxrlng Industry la Thousands
of I960 Dollars and Index of Output
1960-100, Eel Hirer Subarea A-l6
VI- 5 Output by Manufacturing Industry in Thousands
of I960 Dollars and Index of Output
1960=100, East Fork White Hirer Subarea . . . A-17
VI-6 Output by Manufacturing Industry in Thousands
of 1960 Dollars and Index of Output
1960=100, White River Subarea A-18
VI-7 Historical and Projected Study Area Population • A-20
Vn-1 Study Area Municipal Water Supplies A-22
VIII-1 Study Area Municipal Waste Treatment
Facilities A-2 5
VIII-2 Study Area Industrial Waste Treatment
Facilities A-28
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Mo. Page No.
I Study Area Map A-30
II Eel River Subarea Map A-31
III East Fork White River Subarea Map A-32
IV White River Subarea Map A-33
V Percent Occurrence for Shelbyville and Carthage,
Indiana Water Quality Monitor Stations 1957-196U . . A-31*
VT Draft-on-storage for Water Quality Control Needs
vs Recurrence Interval for the Years 1980 and
2020—Big Walnut Creek below Greencastle and
White River below Anderson A-35
VII Draft-on-storage for Water Quality Control Needs
vs Recurrence Interval for the Years 1980 and
2020—Big Blue River below Shelbyville A-36
vi
-------
Irl
I. INTRODUCTION
Request and Authority
The Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, is preparing a
comprehensive study of the Wabash River Basin concerning the development
of water and related land resources. This study, as outlined in the
"Plan of Survey, Wabash River Basin," September 23, 1963 (revised
May 196U), requests the Public Health Service to determine present and
future needs for and value of storage for municipal and industrial water
supply and for regulation of streamflow for the purpose of water quality
control.
This study has been made in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement dated November k, 1958, between the Department of the Army
and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, relative to the
Water Supply Act of 1958 as amended (U3 U.S.C. 390b) and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. U66 et seq.).
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study is to determine the need for and value
of storage of water for the purpose of municipal and industrial water
supply and for water quality control, which could be served by the
proposed Big Walnut, Big Blue, and Downeyville Reservoirs in the White
River Basin of Indiana.
-------
1-2
Die period of study for this report is from the present to the
year 2020. This is the period for which the economic guidelines were
established by the Corps of Engineers Ohio River Division "Projective
Economic Study of the Ohio River Basin" and consequent economic studies
of the Wabash River Basin.
The area studied includes 16 counties in central Indiana which
most nearly approximate the drainage boundaries of the upper White
River Basin and upper East Fork White River Basin.
Acknowledgments
Completion of this study was made possible by the cooperation and
assistance of Federal and State authorities and by local authorities in
the basin. Information and data were furnished from their publications,
records, and files.
Acknowledgment is made of the assistance given by the following
agencies:
U. S. Geological Survey - Indianapolis, Indiana
U. S. Soil Conservation Service - Indianapolis, Indiana
U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife - Lebanon, Ohio
Indiana State Board of Health
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indianapolis Water Company
Indianapolis Sanitary District
City of Greencastle
-------
II-l
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Findings
1. The proposed Big Walnut, Big Blue, and Downeyville Reservoirs
in the Wabash River Basin, Indiana, are being studied by the Corps of
Engineers for the purposes of flood control, general recreation, fish
and wildlife recreation, water conservation, and water quality control.
The reservoir sites are, respectively, on Big Walnut Creek, a tributary
of Eel River in the White River Basin, five miles northeast of
Greencastle, Indiana; on Big Blue River near the Rush-Hancock County
lines; and on Flatrock River, approximately seven miles northwest of
Greensburg, Indiana. The latter two reservoir sites are on major
tributary streams of East Fork White River.
2. The study area consists of approximately 5*200 square miles in
central Indiana, generally centering on Indianapolis, and includes 16
counties which most nearly correspond to the hydrologic boundaries of
the upper White and upper East Fork White River Basins.
3. The I960 population of the study area was approximately 1,3^0,000,
of which 980,000 were in the 3 counties of Marion, Delaware, and Madison
which include the cities of Indianapolis, Muncie, and Anderson.
^. Water use from central water supply systems serving the area
is 118 million gallons per day (mgd). This is approximately 121 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd) for the 978,000 people served by these systems.
-------
II-2
After adjusting for 32 mgd of the centrally supplied vater utilized by
industry, 88 gpcd is vater used for domestic, commercial, and general
public use. Self-supplied industrial water use is estimated at 575 mgd,
of which 506 mgd is for thermal power plant cooling water.
5. The major communities in the area have secondary treatment
plants. An estimated 735>000 people are served by municipal waste
treatment plants. These plants have a raw Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(B.O.D.) of 1,620,000 population equivalent, indicating a significant
industrial waste loading, much of which is concentrated in Indianapolis.
After treatment, these wastes have a population equivalent estimated at
270,000. In addition, self-discharging industries discharge treated
wastes with a population equivalent estimated at ^1,000.
6. The surface water in the study area is of the calcium-
magnesium carbonate type with hardness generally in the range of 200
to 370 mg/1 and alkalinity from 150 to 300 mg/1, which can be typified
as hard and having a high alkalinity. Water quality is acceptable for
all legitimate uses except below sources of waste discharges where
insufficient flow exists to assimilate residual organics.
Conclusions
1. The population of the study area is projected to increase to
approximately 1,720,000 by 1980 and to 2,515,000 by 2020. The urbanized
area of Indianapolis is projected to increase in population to 900*000
by 1980 and to 1,300,000 by 2020.
-------
II-3
2. Water requirements for municipal and industrial purposes,
i
exclusive of that for thermal power plant cooling, are expected to
increase to 265 mgd by 1980 and to 522 mgd by 2020. Approximately 90
percent of this requirement is expected for the metropolitan areas of
Indianapolis, Muncie and Anderson, and the immediately adjoining counties.
3« Storage proposed for conservation purposes in these reservoirs
is capable of supplying some of the water supply needs for the year
2020. Big Walnut Reservoir storage can supply such needs for 1.0 mgd
at Putnamville State Farm and 78 mgd for the Indianapolis metropolitan
area. Big Blue Reservoir conservation storage is capable of providing
approximately 28 mgd for the Indianapolis area. Downeyville Reservoir
storage is capable of providing an anticipated need for 2.h mgd of
additional water supply at Greensburg.
k. Provision of water quality control from the Big Walnut and
Big Blue Reservoirs will serve to protect existing sport fishing values,
protect the public health aspects of use of the stream for public water
supply and general recreation, result in a better and more economical
source of water supply, thereby serving to encourage municipal and
industrial development, protect downstream land values, and protect
and enhance esthetic values. The benefits of providing water quality
control are widespread.
5. To maintain adequate water quality in downstream reaches
through 2020 is estimated to require annual draft-on-storage*, at the
point of need, of 1,UOO acre-feet for Big Walnut Creek below Greencastle,
*Annual draft-on-storage is the sum of the incremental excesses of needed
releases over inflows during a climatic year.
-------
II-U
12,000 acre-feet for Big Blue River below Shelbyville, 80,000 acre-feet
for White River below the Muncie-Anderson area, and 11,000 acre-feet
for East Fork White River below Columbus.
6. Thermal stratification may be expected to occur in the
Big Walnut, Big Blue, and Downeyville Reservoirs with reduction of
dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion. To assure discharge of good
quality water below the dams, it is recommended that sufficient
multiple-level outlets be provided to insure selection of the best
quality water available.
J. In determining releases for water quality control, the quantity
and quality of release should be based on use of a water quality
monitoring system and use of anticipated flows from the U. S. Weather
Bureau River Forecast Section.
8. The minimum annual value of storage in Big Walnut Reservoir
for water supply purposes is $553*500. Of this, $3,500 is for meeting
a 2020 need of 1.0 mgd additional water supply at Putnamville State
Farm and $550,000 for meeting 78 mgd of the water supply need in the
Indianapolis metropolitan area. The minimum annual value of storage
in Big Blue Reservoir is $8l,000 for meeting 28 mgd of the water supply
need for the Indianapolis metropolitan area. The minimum annual value
of storage in Downeyville Reservoir is $6,500 for meeting a 2.U mgd
additional water need in 2020 for Greensburg. Needs for additional
water supply exist for the New Castle and Muncie-Anderson areas.
-------
II-5
However, since annual pipeline and pumping costs vould exceed nearby
reservoir development costs, no benefit exists for satisfying these
needs from the proposed reservoirs.
9. The minimum annual value of the benefits of supplying reservoir
storage for vater quality control in Big Walnut Reservoir for the
Big Walnut Creek and Eel River is $22,300. The minimum annual value of
benefits of providing water quality control from Big Blue Reservoir for
Big Blue River below Shelbyville is $75,000.
10. The benefit values used are based on the most likely alternate
to providing storage in the proposed reservoirs. Annual benefits are
based on a 50-year amortization of capital costs at 3 1/8 percent plus
estimated operation and maintenance costs.
11. These needs and the value of benefits are based on the best
estimates that can be made at this time and are subject to review and
revision based on information and data from the Ohio River Comprehensive
Study by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare when it
becomes available.
-------
m-1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location
Potential reservoir sites in the study area are on Big Walnut Creek
in Putnam County, Indiana, approximately 5 miles northeast of the city
of Greencastle; on Big Blue River aear the Hancock-Rush County lines
and about 21 miles southeast of downtown Indianapolis; and Downeyville
Reservoir on Platrock River in Decatur County approximately 7 miles
northwest of Greensburg, Indiana. These potential reservoir site
locations are shown in Figure I at the end of this report. All reser-
voir sites are in the White River Basin which is a major tributary of
the Wabash. Big Walnut Creek is a tributary of Eel River in the main
stem White River Basin. Big Blue and Platrock Rivers are major head-
water streams of the East Fork White River Basin.
Streamflow
The drainage area above the Big Walnut Creek damsite is 197 square
miles. The only gaging station on Big Walnut Creek is at Reelsville
about 22 miles below the proposed damsite. At the gage the drainage
area is 338 square miles. Based on the use of calculated flow
frequencies at Reelsville and miscellaneous flow information, the
following is the flow expectation at the damsite:
Mean streamflow 20^ cfs
Minimum 7 consecutive day mean flow Less than 2 cfs
with a 10 year recurrence
Minimum 1 day once in 30 year mean flow Less than 1 cfs
-------
III-2
The drainage area above the Big Blue damsite is 268 square miles.
Flow records are available from USGS gaging stations on Big Blue River
at Carthage, with a drainage area of 18? square miles, since 1950; and
at Shelbyville, with a drainage area of 1*25 square miles, since
Flows expected at these stations are listed "below:
Big Blue River
Flow in cfs
Carthage Shelbyville
Mean streamflow 196 U63
Minimum 7 consecutive day mean 19 37
flow with a 10 year recurrence
Minimum daily discharge during 18 32
period of record
The drainage area above the Downeyville damsite is 28U square
miles. A USGS gaging station on Flatrock River has been in operation
at St. Paul since 1931. The drainage area at the gaging station is
298 square miles. Flows expected at this station are:
Mean streamflow 315 cfs
Minimum 7 consecutive day mean flow 1.3 cfs
with a 10 year recurrence
Minimum 1 day mean flow with a 30 0.5 cfs
year recurrence
Water Quality
Water quality records are not available on Big Walnut Creek.
Quality records are available, from the Indiana State Water Monitor
Network, for the period since 1957 at Worthington at the mouth of the
-------
III-3
Eel River (drainage area approximately 1,100 square miles). Table III-l
(see Appendix) shows the record at this station for the year 196U. "The
sanitary vater quality at the project site may be expected to be better
than at Worthington, since the treated wastes of Greencastle, Brazil,
and Jasomrille enter the stream between the two points. Untreated
sewage from Jamestown (1960 pop. 827) and North Salem (1960 pop. 626)
is discharged into tributaries of Big Walnut Creek approximately 20
miles upstream from the project site. The area above the damsite is
almost completely rural at present with no population centers over 1,000
and no significant industry. Adverse effects of organic wastes would
not be expected in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir.
Water quality records are available on the Big Blue River at
Carthage approximately 8 stream miles above the project site, at
Morristown approximately 2 miles below the project site, and at
Shelbyville approximately 12 stream miles below the project site.
Indiana Water Quality Monitor Station records for 196U are shown in
Tables III-2, III-3, and III-U for these stations. In addition, percent
occurrence plots for B.O.D., D.0., chlorides, nitrates, and coliform
are shown for the Carthage and Shelbyville stations for the period 1957
to 196U in Figure V. The Shelbyville station shows higher D.O. and
B.O.D. levels, while the Carthage station has higher levels for chlorides,
nitrates, and coliform. New Castle (1960 pop. 20,3^9) near the headwaters
of Big Blue River is by far the largest community introducing wastes
above the Shelbyville station (both the Shelbyville and Carthage stations
are above the point of local treated waste discharges); therefore, domestic
-------
Ill-k
vastes are a more predominant feature for the upstream Carthage station
w
and serve to explain the higher chloride and coliform concentrations at
Carthage. The higher B.O.D. levels at Shelbyville are presumed to be due
largely to the discharge of treated industrial vastes from a paper mill
at Carthage. The company uses pulp vood to manufacture paper for corrugated
media. The wastes from this process consist mainly of cooking liquor and
machine water. The cooling liquor is burned in a thermoreactor and the
ash is reclaimed. The machine water is treated in a Sveen-Pedersen
flotation unit, and the effluent is discharged to the river during the
period of about October to May. During the remainder of the year, the
company discharges this water to a 55~acre lagoon system for release
at periods of high streamflow in accordance with dilution rates
established by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board. The company
monitors the river daily to show the effect of waste discharges and
submits the data to that Board. As a free flowing stream, the river can
assimilate the treated wastes from the paper mill. Reservoir construction
would convert this stream stretch to an impounded area with lower
assimilative characteristics. Construction of a pipeline to carry the
treated wastes of this paper mill to a point below the dam should be
considered. If this were not done, the treated effluent would discharge
approximately one mile above the head end of the Big Blue Reservoir.
With such a pipeline the nutrient load from municipal and industrial
wastes (mostly from New Castle) should not be sufficiently great to
cause other than a localized problem in the upper arm of the reservoir,
and then only during low flow periods. The State of Indiana specifies
secondary treatment with chlorination of wastes upstream from
-------
III-5
" reservoir areas. Treatment facilities in close proximity to reservoirs
vill be required to provide chlorination and holding ponds or other
treatment beyond secondary. Under these conditions of a high level of
upstream treatment and bypassing of the paper mill effluent, quality in
Big Blue Reservoir should be satisfactory to allow use of the reservoir
for general recreation, fish and wildlife recreation, and water supply.
Without the bypass pipeline, use of reservoir storage for water
supply would be impaired by higher treatment costs. Use for general
recreation would be impaired by possible color problems and nutrients
creating a less esthetically desirable pool area. Use for fish and
wildlife recreation would be somewhat impaired by a possibly significant
portion of the upstream reservoir volume being deficient in D.O. and
having suspended solids in sufficient concentration to interfere with
fish life. In addition during winter stratification, zero or low
dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoir would extend further up in the
hypolimnion.
The maximum mean sea level flow elevation of the existing lagoons
is about 863. The proposed flood control pool elevation is 880. These
lagoons are constructed in the glacial sand and gravel deposits along
the stream and have sealed themselves. Hydrostatic pressure from the
head differential during storage of floodwaters could cause infiltration
from the reservoir into the lagoons and a disruption of the bottom seal
of the ponds and consequent pollution of the reservoir. It is
-------
III-6
therefore believed that It will be necessary to replace the existing
lagoons at an elevation above the influence of the proposed reservoir.
It vill also be necessary that the organic solids be buried above
elevation 880 and sealed with at least 6 inches of compacted clay.
The lagoons which have a storage volume of U40 acre-feet (55 acres
surface area and 8 feet of depth) could be replaced either at a point
below the proposed reservoir or near the present Container Corporation
site. The latter would more conveniently keep the lagoons under the
operating control of the Corporation. Means to provide a significant
lagoon discharge during release of flood waters would be necessary.
With lagoons near the plant, a reregulation lagoon would be necessary
below the dam. A capacity of 90 acre-feet should be sufficient for a
reregulating lagoon.
Since present operation of the lagoon system is directly related
to the stream hydrograph, regulation will require a different operation
and close cooperation. Problems to be considered include B.O.D. and
resulting D.O. and color. The effects of the reservoir on these
pollutants are discussed separately below.
B.O.D.
Introduction of treated wastes with a residual B.O.D. demand at a
point approximately six miles further downstream should not in itself
cause a stream problem. Stream gradients and reaeration capabilities
are believed to be approximately equal to that in the reach where
-------
III-7
assimilation is now accomplished. Since the critical point will be at
a point with a drainage area of 290 square miles rather than 268 square
miles, a greater volume of flow will be available annually at the new
critical reach. This additional flow will not all be available for
assimilation because lagoon releases are normally made only during the
cooler months, and some of the winter and spring flow will be stored
for water quality releases mainly in summer and early fall (see water
quality storage needs in Chapter VIII). During the more severe drought
years there will be no gain of volume of flow at the critical point by
discharging at a further downstream point. However, in most years
there should be a marginally greater volume of flow for assimilation
of treated wastes. Perhaps more important is a net gain from
regulation in synchronizing assimilative flov to lagoon release by
having a more predictable hydrograph. Purely from a consideration of
assimilation of B.O.D., the reservoir should have no adverse effect
on the Big Blue River if the wastes are diverted around the reservoir.
Color
Color is a more critical problem than B.O.D. Present operation
limits downstream color to 38 units during nonturbid conditions. As
for B.O.D., a marginally greater volume of assimilative flow and a
greater ability to synchronize lagoon and streamflows should assist in
protecting legitimate stream uses. Less turbidity during periods of
high runoff from clarification in the reservoir will hinder discharge
-------
III-8
of colored wastes since D.O. is presently the only criterion necessary
during periods of high turbidity. The reservoir, however, because of
site limitations will have a relatively small storage for the drainage
area involved and much turbidity can still be expected in release
flows of stored floodwaters. Study of color and turbidity in the
streamflow below Mansfield Reservoir in Indiana indicates an apparent
decrease in color and turbidity since reservoir construction. Reduction
of color will benefit assimilation of colored wastes while, as
previously discussed, reduced turbidity will be detrimental to the
present type of operation.
Based on an analysis of the many factors enumerated above, it is
believed that construction of Big Blue Reservoir can be accomplished
and wastes from the Container Corporation Plant accommodated as
satisfactorily after reservoir construction as at present with
unregulated streamflow. It will be necessary in advanced planning
stages that reservoir operation schedules be devised in such a manner
that all legitimate stream uses can be protected to the utmost.
Federal, State, and local interests should cooperatively formulate an
operating schedule to effect this objective.
Water quality information in the Flatrock River Basin is limited.
The State of Indiana does not have a water quality monitor station in
this basin. Water quality data during low flow periods of 196U,
obtained by the Evansville Field Station, Ohio River Basin Project, are
shown in Table III-ll. The results indicate a nondegraded condition
with relatively high hardness, typical of base flow from the glacial
-------
m-9
sands and gravels of the region. Above the proposed Downeyville
Reservoir, the only major community is Rushville (1960 pop. 7,26U).
Organic vastes from Rushville are attributable to the resident sewered
population. Rushville has a secondary sewage treatment plant. The
major industry in Rushville is furniture manufacturing and the produc-
tion of piston rings, neither of which would contribute a noticeable
organic waste loading. It is concluded that under existing upstream
residential and industrial development, no adverse effects of organic
wastes or nutrients would result in Downeyville Reservoir. Upstream
waste control policies of the Indiana State Board of Health should
prevent future waste loadings from appreciably changing these conditions.
Pertinent Data
The proposed projects are being considered for flood control,
municipal and industrial water supply, water quality control, general
recreation, and fish and waterfowl recreation. Pertinent data based on
preliminary planning information are given below.
Fool Elevation Capacity in Acre-Feet
Big Big Big Big
Walnut Blue Downeyville Walnut Blue Downeyville
Flood Control 782-808 863-880 895-910 160,000 75,100 71,300
Conservation 726-782 850-863 857-895 153,000 31,500 75,500
Minimum 726 850 857 10,000 13,500 15,100
Total Storage 323,000 120,100 l6l,900
-------
111-10
The drainage areas at the three proposed damsites are 197 square
miles at Big Walnut, 269 square miles at Big Blue, and 276 square miles
at Downeyville.
-------
IV-1
IV. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
Location and Boundaries
The study area consists of the counties of Clay, Putnam, Owen,
Hendricks, Morgan, Marion, Johnson, Hancock, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware,
Randolph, Boone, Henry, Shelby, and Rush in central Indiana. This area
includes essentially the entire Eel River Basin, the entire East Fork of
White River Basin above Columbus, and the White River Basin from its
headwaters through the downstream reach below the Indianapolis metro-
politan area.
The area under study consists of approximately 5,200 square miles,
of which 1,100 square miles are in the Eel Basin; 1,692 square miles
are in the East Fork White River Basin above Columbus; and 2,^00 square
miles are in the White River Basin between the Eel and East Fork drainage
basins (see Figure I in the Appendix for a study area map). In addition,
subarea maps for the Eel, East Fork White River, and White River areas are
designated Figures II, III, and IV, respectively. (See Appendix.)
Geography and Topography
The northern two-thirds of the study area including all of Hendricks,
Marion, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, Randolph, Boone, Hancock, and Henry
Counties and northern portions of Putnam, Morgan, Johnson, Shelby, and
Rush Counties are in the Tipton till plain physiographic region. The
Tipton till plain is a great glacial plain occupying nearly one-third of
the State of Indiana. It is characterized by a variable covering of
glacial material, the surface of vhich is mainly flat or very gently
-------
IV-2
rolling. Stream gradients are generally in a range greater than three
feet per mile. The White River in Marion and Morgan Counties is about
IT5 feet below the till plain. The plain has a general westward slope.
The southern edge of the Tlpton till plain is the general limit of
2
Wisconsin glaciation.
The southern third of the study area is divided between six
physiographic regions. The terrain in this area is generally more
rugged than in the Tipton till plain area. Southern Putnam County,
Owen County, and southern Morgan County areas are from moderately to
very rugged, while the Clay County area to the west and Johnson, Shelby,
and Rush County areas to the east have generally level to moderately
rolling terrain.
Climate
The study area has a humid continental type climate. There is a
sharp contrast between winter and summer temperatures. The annual mean
temperature during 33 years of record at the Indianapolis Airport is
o 0
52.1 P. Mean monthly temperatures have a range of from 75• 2 P in July
o
to 29.1 P in January. Average annual precipitation at the Indianapolis
Airport is 39*25 inches. Mean monthly precipitation ranges from 2.28
inches in February to U.62 inches in June.
Principal Communities and Industries
In the Eel River-Big Walnut Creek Basin, there are only two
communities of over 2,500. These are Greencastle (1960 pop. 8,506) and
-------
IV-3
' Brazil (1960 pop. 8,853). Greencastle is a farm market town and is the
site of a "business form production plant and an electronic capacitor
plant. DePauv University is situated here. Brazil has a clay products
industry and is influenced "by Terre Haute IT miles away. There are
active coal mines near Brazil as well as throughout southern Clay
County and western Owen County.
In the East Fork of White River Basin above Columbus there is a
well-diversified industrialization. Canning, Pharmaceuticals, fabricated
metals, electrical machinery, automotive machinery, and paper products
are important. The major communities are New Castle, Shelbyville,
Greenfield, Rushville, and Franklin, all with a population of between
7,000 and 21,000 in I960. In addition to the industrial base, there
is a well-diversified agricultural development and most of the
communities are within a reasonable commuting distance to Job oppor-
tunities in Indianapolis.
In the White River Basin area, Indianapolis is the dominant popula-
tion and industrial center. Indianapolis is located in Marion County and
is the capital of Indiana. In 1960, Indianapolis had a population of
476,000 while Marion County had a population of nearly 700,000.
Indianapolis is a major industrial and commercial area and is a trans-
portation hub. Food processing, fabricated metals, Pharmaceuticals, and
automotive and electrical machinery are major industries.
-------
iv-U
Anderson (i960 pop. U9,100) has over half of its industrial employ-
ment in the electrical machinery and equipment categories* Another
important category is fabricated metals.
Muncie (i960 pop. 68,600) is highly industrialized. Major
industries are automotive transmissions and batteries, meat packing,
food and beverage containers, and metal fabrication. Muncie is also
the site of Ball State University.
Other communities in this White River area are Greenwood,
Mooresville, Martinsville, Brovnsburg, Danville, Noblesville, Plainfield,
Speedway, Beech Grove, and Lawrence, all with a I960 population of
from 3»000 to 11,000. These communities are either suburban to
Indianapolis or within a 30-mile commuting distance. They are
generally showing a distinct growth pattern due to job opportunities
in nearby Indianapolis. Some of these communities in addition have
a small industrial base. Alexandria, Elwood, Tipton, and Winchester,
all with a 1960 population in the 5,000 to 12,000 range, are in the
northern portion of the study area and are within 30 miles of either
Muncie or Anderson. In these latter communities as well as in the
smaller communities near Anderson and Muncie, canning, glass
containers, and building products are major industries.
-------
V-l
V. WATER RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA
Quantity of Water Available
The mean streamflov in the study area is equal to an average annual
runoff of from 12 to 15 inches. During low flow periods considerable
variation exists between various streams, depending largely on local
geology. The following tabulation shows the dependable flow at gaging
points on various streams in the study area. There is a considerable
variation in dependable low flow yields on a cfs per square mile basis.
The variation is largely dependent on local geology and the thickness
and permeability of glacial deposits. Inflow from and loss to pre-
glacial stream valleys greatly affects lov flows. The Big Blue River
and White River have relatively high low flow yields. These streams
have an origin in a more northernly area than the Eel River and Flatrock
River, vhich have moderate and relatively small low flow yields
respectively.
The largest existing reservoir in the study area is the Corps of
Engineers Cagles Mill Reservoir on Mill Creek, a tributary of Eel River
(see Figure I in the Appendix). This reservoir provides flood control
and recreation benefits. No water supply or vater quality control storage
is included in the storage allocation. Operation does not provide for
flow augmentation for water supply or water quality control.
The Indianapolis Water Company has impoundments on two tributaries
of White River. Morse Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 21,000
acre-feet, supplements natural flows in the White to provide an estimated
-------
V-2
Lowest Average Flow in cfs
for Indicated Number of Con-
Years of Drainage Area Mean Flow secutive Days for Indicated
Location Record Square Miles cfs Recurrence Interval in Years*
Eel River at
Bowling Green
Big Walnut Ck.
near Reelsville
White River
near Centerton
White River
near Nora
Blue River
at Carthage
Blue River
at Shelbyville
Driftwood River
near Ediriburg
Flatrock River
at St. Paul
Sugar Creek
1931-63
1950-63
1930-32
19U6-63
1930-63
1950-63
19^3-63
19UO-63
1930-63
191*2-63
Qkh
338
2,U35
1,200
187
1*25
1,05U
298
U62
853
350
2,366
1,077
196
U63
1,129
315
U90
7 Day 3 Day
Once in Once in
10 Years 20 Years
17.0 12.0
6.1 h.k
125.0 93.0
70.0 55«0
19.0
37.0 33.0
60.0 1*2.0
1.3 0.6
16.0 11.0
3 Day
Once in
30 Years
11.0
51.0
0.5
near Edinburg
* All indicated values are from "Low-Flow Characteristics of Indiana Streams,"
U. S. Geological Survey and State of Indiana.
-------
v-3
firm yield of 75 mgd at the water company's diversion canal about 2 miles
south of Nora in Marion County. Geigt Reservoir, with a storage capacity
of 21,000 acre-feet, supplements natural flows in Fall Creek to provide
an estimated firm yield of 20 mgd. The estimated firm yields are based
on engineering appraisals for the Indianapolis Water Company and reflect
the dependable ensured flows during the worst drought of record.
The Muncie Water Company has a 21,000 acre-foot impoundment on
Prairie Creek. This impoundment plus natural flows in Buck Creek and
White River provide a IT mgd firm water supply yield. Ground water is
a significant source of existing and potential water supply. Except for
Muncie and Indianapolis Water Company, virtually the entire public water
supply in the study area is from ground water sources. Most of the
self-supplied industrial water supply is from ground water sources.
Outwash deposits of Wisconsin age and to a lesser extent of
Illinoian age occur along the Eel River, White River, Sugar Creek, Blue
River, Brandywine Creek, and Platrock River. The outwash is capable of
moderate to large yields of water. Most of the length of the outwash
filled valleys is occupied by perennial streams. Ground water pumpage
in these areas reduces streamflow. In the headwater stretches of the
smaller tributaries the amount of induced infiltration is small, especially
during dry weather. At such times the streamflow represents ground water
discharge. Within the study area quantities of ground water capable of
significant development exist in the Bel River Basin from the valley of
Big Walnut Creek about two miles north of Greencastle to the mouth of
-------
v-u
Eel River, along White River throughout the entire length vithin the
study area, and along the major streams in the East Fork Basin.
Estimated use in 19^3 from these sources in the study area was 92 mgd,
of vhich 58 mgd was for municipal and industrial water supply in Marion
County.
In addition to the major ground water resource from outwash deposits,
"bedrock development of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age generally
yield sufficient water for farm and stock use and locally enough for
municipal and industrial supply. Developed use of municipal and
industrial water supply in the study area from these sources is small,
and future development will probably be limited by the greater water
availability from surface supplies and from ground water originating in
outwash deposits.
From the ground water literature researched, an estimate of maximum
potential yield from ground water sources in the study area was obtained
only for Marion County. Tlie ground water quantity in Marion County
believed to be perennially available is about 235 mgd. Perennially
available has been defined as not necessarily "economically developable."
Development of ground water in Marion County decreases surface flow in
the White River because of some recharge that would occur from the river
to the adjoining sand and gravel and bedrock aquifers.
Considerably less ground water is available in Randolph,
Hendricks, and Boone Counties than in Marion County because of more limited
glacial outwash deposits. In Clay, Putnam, Johnson, Hancock, Shelby, and
-------
V-5
Rush Counties ground water is assumed to be available in considerable
quantities but less than that available in Marion County. In these
counties outwash deposits exist but appear to be of lesser magnitude and
are adjacent to smaller streams than the White River in Marion County.
Northeast Putnam County, central Johnson County, and southern and central
portions of Rush County would not appear to be favorably located for
obtaining large quantities of ground water. Delaware, Madison, Hamilton,
Morgan, and Cwen Counties have significant quantities of ground water
available along the White River.
Quality of Water Available
The quality of surface water in the study area is quite variable.
The surface water supply can be characterized as hard (generally
200-^00 mg/1 hardness as CaCOg). Quality of the surface supply below
Indianapolis and Muncie is seriously affected by lack of sufficient
streamflow to assimilate treated wastes. A similar though less severe
situation occurs below New Castle on the Big Blue River, below Rushville
on Flatrock River, and below Greenwood, Greenfield, Danville, Brownsburg,
Brazil, Elwood, Alexandria, and Franklin on small tributaries during
dry periods of the year. The streams generally have good assimilative
and self-purification properties. The Eel River and the Big Blue River
below Shelbyville generally have a water quality acceptable for all
legitimate uses. Acid mine drainage is a problem on some small
tributaries of the Eel River Basin. The acid mine drainage is not
-------
v-6
great enough to noticeably affect the water quality of the Eel River as
shown by records of the Indiana Water Quality Monitor station at
Worthington at the mouth of Eel River (see Table III-l in the Appendix).
The Indiana Water Quality Monitor Station Network has been in
operation since 1957 • For water quality Information for 196U on Eel
River at Worthington, Big Blue River at Carthage, Morristown, and
Shelbyville, and White River at Muncie, Anderson, Noblesville, Nora,
Antrim, and Martinsville, see Tables III-l through 111-10 in the
Appendix. The Antrim station is about 6 miles downstream from the
discharge of Indianapolis' treated wastes,* while the Martinsville
station is about 30 miles downstream from Antrim. The Carthage,
Shelbyville, Muncie, and Anderson stations are above the discharge of
the local waste treatment plants.
Ground water quality is shown in Table V-l for various municipal
supplies in the study area. Ground water sanitary quality is generally
high. Chemical quality is typified as generally hard with some wells
having objectionable quantities of iron or sulphur.
* A second Indianapolis waste treatment plant is scheduled for
completion in mid 1966 and will discharge to the river Just above
the Antrim station.
-------
VI-1
VI. THE ECONOMY
Introduction
An investigation of the population and economic characteristics and
a projection of the probable growth of the area of concern of the reser-
voir projects provide a basis for determining the water requirements in
terms of both quantity and quality for the area. The growth of an area
depends not only on the characteristics of the area itself but, also, in
varying degrees, on the type and extent of the growth of the Nation and
the region of which it is a part. This discussion of the economy has
been prepared within the general framework of the Projective Economic
h
Study for the Ohio River Basin prepared by the A. D. Little Company, Inc.
To supplement that work, a special study has been conducted by the
Louisville District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, utilizing
historical employment data from the unemployment insurance program of the
Bureau of Employment Security, U. S. Department of Labor. This study
covered the Wabash and White River Basins as delineated in the Projective
Economic Study of the Chio River Basin.
Present
The area of economic influence of the proposed Big Walnut, Big Blue,
and Downeyville Reservoir projects encompasses 16 counties in central
Indiana. The economic areas are in central Indiana and are divided into
three hydrologic basins. The economic area of the Eel River Basin is made
up of the counties of Clay, Owen, and Putnam. The economic area of the
East Fork of the White River is made up of the counties of Hancock, Henry,
-------
VI-2
Rush, and Shelby. The largest economic area is the White River Basin
proper and is made up of the following counties: Boone, Delaware,
Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, and Randolph.
Between 1950 and I960, all the counties in the areas had a population
increase except Owen County in the Eel River Basin. Estimates for the
period 1960 through 196k show a slight population decrease in Owen County.
In this same period, all the counties in the East Fork Basin except Rush
County increased. All of the counties of the White River Basin proper also
increased between 1960 and 196U. In general, the rural counties are Just
holding their own while the urban areas are showing large population
increases.
The terrain is no handicap to the transportation network system.
Indianapolis is the dominant urban city in central Indiana. Four major
railroads service Indianapolis: The New York Central, Pennsylvania,
6
Illinois Central, and the Baltimore and Ohio. The highway system is
excellent. Four interstate routes pass through Indianapolis. Tlie
interstate routes are 65, 69, 70, and 7^« There are six major highways
that crisscross Indianapolis.
In the White River Basin, only 5 percent of total employment is in
agricultural pursuits. Less than 2,000 acres were under irrigation in
Y
1959 out of 6|- million. Approximately Uo percent of the value of farm
products is from field crops, 50 percent from livestock products, and the
remainder from dairy and poultry products.
-------
VI-3
In I960, the 3 counties making up the study area in the Eel River
Basin had lU percent of the total employment engaged in agricultural
pursuits. The U counties in the East Fork study area had 12 percent
and the 9 counties in the White River Basin proper had only 3 percent.
Agriculture continues to be an important industry in Indiana but it
will require less employment. The total value of farm products is
increasing in Indiana. While the value of field crops declined from
195^ to 1959* value of livestock and poultry increased. In 1959> the
total value of farm products sold approached one billion dollars. It
is this farm base that will provide increased farm income in the future.
The total value of mineral production has remained fairly constant
for the past 10 years. In the study area, only 3 counties employ more
than 100 persons in mining: Clay, 200; Marion, 200; and Owen, 100.
Clay and Owen are in the coal mining area. The mining employment in
Q
Marion County is sand, gravel, and limestone.
In the Eel River study area, there is one large International
Business Machines Corporation plant employing over 1,000 employees.
The IBM plant engages in die-cutting purchased paper and paperboard.
This plant is not a heavy water user due to the fact that it does not
manufacture the paper. There is a brick and tile plant with over 500
employees in Clay County. Stone and clay products plants are the most
numerous for the Eel study area. (See Table VI-1 for the other plant
sizes.)
-------
VI-U
The East Fork study area has a heavy concentration of plants in
primary metals, fabricated metals, non-electrical machinery, and
transportation equipment. (See Table VI-2 for plant size.)
A major manufacturing center is Indianapolis. Table VI-3 shows the
diversity and depth of the manufacturing categories in the counties
around the urban areas of Indianapolis, Anderson, and Muncie. There are
28 plants with over 1,000 employees. The main categories of plants in
the urbanized areas of Anderson, Indianapolis, and Muncie are food and
kindred products, transportation equipment, fabricated metals, machinery
(both electrical and nonelectrical), primary metals, plastics, and
9
chemicals. It is this industrial complex in central Indiana that
provides the base for future economic growth and expansion of the urban
areas.
Future
The projected prosperity of the study areas depends upon the
continued expansion of the diverse industrial base concentrated along the
White River. This industrial area encompasses the three major urban
areas of Anderson, Indianapolis, and Muncie.
The indices of output projections (see Tables VT-U, VT-5, and VT-6)
were compiled from the employment data supplied by the Louisville District
Office Corps of Engineers and productivity per employee data for the years
1976 and 1985 from the National Planning Association. Extrapolations of
the indices were made from 1980 to 2020.
-------
VI-5
Urban area projections are based upon historical relationships between
the urban areas and the county within which the area is contained. These
projections, as veil as county projections, are shown in Table VI-J.
Total study area population is projected to increase by 88 percent from
1,3^0,000 in I960 to 2,514,000 by 2020.
Projected growth rates by subarea show the Eel River subarea
increasing its population by slightly more than 50 percent from 1960 to
2020, with an accompanying slight percentage Increase in urbanization.
In the East Fork White River subarea, population is expected to increase
by 8? percent between 1960 and 2020. In the White River subarea,
population is expected to increase by 90 percent between I960 and 2020,
with the urbanized area of Indianapolis increasing its percentage of the
subarea population only slightly.
The Federal Bower Commission has projected electric power capacity
to increase 183 percent from 1963 to 1980 in the White River Basin. Most
of the increase will be used by the industrial complex of Anderson,
Indianapolis, and Muncie.
The projections in this section have been used for calculating
future water supply and water quality needs in subsequent sections of
this report.
-------
VII-1
VII. WATER REQUIREMENTS-MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
Present Water Use
Table VII-1 (see Appendix) lists the municipal supplies for the
three stibareas comprising the study area* A summarization of these
data is shown below.
Subarea
Eel River
East Fork
White River
Totals
Population
Served
29,000
76,000
873,000
978,000
Total
Municipal
Use mgd
2.9
7.8
107.6
118.3
Ground
Water
Use mgd
2.6
7-7
21.6
31-9
Surface
Water
Use mgd
0.3
0.1
86.0
86. k
Average
Demand
gpcd
100
103
1§2
121
Average water use by municipality varies from 30 to 162 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). The average of 121 gpcd is strongly influenced
by the consumption from the Indianapolis Water Company system which
serves 615,000 people and has an average use of 123 gpcd. The communities
of less than 5,000 population have an average use of 77 gpcd. These
average use figures Include some associated business and commercial use
and an estimated 32 mgd industrial water use from public water supplies.
Most of this indicated industrial water use is in the Marion County
(Indianapolis) area. By subtracting the above estimated industrial water
use, an average water use of 88 gpcd is obtained solely for domestic,
commercial, and general public use.
-------
VII-2
Total estimated industrial water use in the study area is shown in
the following tabulation. Of this total, 32 mgd is estimated to originate
from public water supply sources and 575 mgd from self-supplied industrial
water sources.
Total Estimated
Industrial Water
Subarea Use for 1963 in mgd
Eel River 0.6
East Fork 8.0
White River
Thermal Power Plant Cooling Water 506.0
Other Industrial Uses 92.0
Totals 607.0
In the Eel River subarea only small quantities of water are utilized
by industry. Some coal mining companies utilize ground water in their
operations. The two industrial firms in Greencastle that employ the
largest number of employees utilize water from the municipal system.
The major industrial water use locations in the East Fork White
River subarea are at New Castle, Shelbyville, and Carthage. Self-
supplied surface water is the dominant source of industrial supply.
The greatest amount of industrial water use is by the pulp and paper,
canning, primary metals, and pharmaceutical industries.
-------
VII-3
In the White River Basin subarea the greatest use of water by
industry, exclusive of cooling water for thermal power plants, is in
Indianapolis with an estimated 76 mgd total from public and self-
supplied sources. That obtained from public supplies originates mostly
from surface water sources, while that which is self-supplied is mostly
from wells or Ranney collectors along White River. Industries utilizing
large quantities of water in the Indianapolis area include meat packing,
Pharmaceuticals, paper manufacturing, primary metals, fabricated metals,
and machinery.
Other areas of considerable industrial water use in the White River
subarea are at Anderson and Muncie. Electrical machinery, meat packing,
batteries, and fabricated metals are major industries in these communities
which are within 19 miles of each other. Estimated industrial water use
in this area is 16 mgd, of which about one-half is estimated to come from
municipal sources and half from self-supplied sources.
Water use for irrigation purposes is limited in the study area as
a whole. A limited amount of water is used for truck crops in Marion
County. No estimate of actual use could be obtained..
Ihe U. S. Economic Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture submitted a preliminary report to the Louisville District
Corps of Engineers dated June 25, 1965. This report stated that there
is presently no irrigation in the Big Walnut Creek Reservoir area.
There are about 1,000 acres presently irrigated in the Big Blue Reservoir
area from above the Shelby-Hancock County line to the confluence of
-------
vn-u
Driftwood and Flatrock Rivers near Columbus. In the area from the
Downeyville damsite to the confluence of Clifty Creek and East Fork of
the White River, about 900 acres of land are now irrigated. About
half of this acreage is irrigated from the river and half from wells.
Existing Sources of Supply-Surface and Ground Water
Quantity
In the Eel River Basin the four largest communities (Greencastle,
Brazil, Jasonville, Clay City), serving about 2^,700 persons, are
obtaining their water supplies from well fields in glacial outwash
deposits paralleling or near to the Eel River or Big Walnut Creek. The
largest developed well is 1,000 gpm at Greencastle. Brazil and Jasonville
abandoned wells closer to the community and went some miles to reach this
relatively good aquifer. Smaller communities, serving about 2,800
persons in this basin, utilize wells in aquifers with less potential than
the outwash deposits.
In addition to the ground water resources, there exists a relatively
untouched surface water potential from the Eel River and its tributaries.
Minimum daily flows are l.U cfs at Reelsville on Big Walnut Creek
(drainage area 338 square miles) during a period of record from 19^9 to
196^, and 11 cfs at Bowling Green on Eel River (drainage area 8UU square
miles) during a period of record from 1931 to 196k.
The Putnamville State Farm, a correctional institution of the State
of Indiana, has a low head impoundment on Deer Creek. During drought
years Deer Creek has flows insufficient to meet the needs of the
-------
VII-5
institution. Wells have been drilled in the Deer Creek valley floor
and are pumped during emergencies* The problem of a reliable vater
supply has not been solved, and several methods of obtaining wore water
have been investigated including storage reservoirs in the Deer Creek
Basin and a veil field in the Big Walnut Creek valley which is
approximately four miles away.
In the East Fork of White River subarea, the total existing
municipal water supply is from ground water sources except for 0.08
mgd at Princes Lake. Estimates of potential yields from ground water
sources are unavailable. However, considerable undeveloped potential
exists and, particularly in areas near Big Blue River, significant
quantities of ground water can be developed. Surface water has not been
developed as a significant source of supply because of this general
availability of ground water. Base flows are relatively good on Big
Blue and Driftwood Rivers. The minimum daily flow of the Big Blue
River at Shelbyville (drainage area k25 square miles) was 32 cfs during
the period of record from I9^k to 196^. On Sugar Creek near Edinburg
(drainage area U6"2 square miles), the minimum daily flow from 19^3 to
196U was 9.2 cfs. On Flatrock River at St. Paul (drainage area 298
square miles), the minimum daily flow from 1931 to 1964 was 0.6 cfs.
In the White River area, Muncie's present sources of supply are
the White River and Buck Creek. In addition, a 21,500 acre-foot impound-
ment has been constructed on Prairie Creek, an upstream tributary of
White River. This system provides an estimated firm yield of 13.8 mgd.
-------
VII-6
The city also has eleven veils which are not normally used at this time
but are available for emergencies. The estimated firm yield of these
wells is 3 mgd, providing a total present installed system capability
of 16.8 mgd.
The city of Anderson utilizes wells as a primary source of supply.
A Ranney well collection system near the mouth of Kilbuck Creek serves
as a major source of supply. This system is recharged to a considerable
extent from the streamflow. A low head impoundment on White River is
used during times when the well system is incapable of meeting the
needs. This is usually during periods of low streamflow and high
demands. The firm capabilities of the present supply sources are 7»5
mgd from surface sources and 10.5 mgd from ground water for a total of
18 mgd.
The privately owned Indianapolis Water Company utilizes the
White River and Pall Creek as its major sources of supply. Impoundments
on Cicero Creek, an upstream tributary of White River, and on Fall Creek
supplement the natural streamflow to provide a firm yield from surface
sources of 95 mgd. Forty wells are available but are pumped only
occasionally. The water company does not presently pump these wells
for extended periods and considers their prime function that of providing
for flexibility of operation and as an emergency source rather than as
an addition to their firm supply.
-------
VII-7
The town of Speedway, in 19^5, went to Eagle Creek as its major
source of water supply. The town has retained its six wells, which
have a firm yeild of 3»0 mgd, to supplement the creek flow when needed.
The Eagle Creek Reservoir, now under construction, will have
storage for water supply. The reservoir has a firm yield of about
16 mgd. It is anticipated that both the city of Indianapolis and
the town of Speedway will purchase water from this source.
The other public water systems in the White River subarea utilize
wells for their sources of water supply as do most self-supplied
industries in the area. These sources of supply are generally adequate
for short-term future needs. In many instances, inadequate testing
and evaluation of ground water potential result in an inability to
assess present sources of supply. Generally for moderate and small-
sized communities, obtaining adequate quantities of water is largely
a matter of well field expansion and exploration to determine the most
favorable areas for ground water development.
Quality
Tables III-5 and III-8 show the water quality generally available
to the two major surface water users (Indianapolis and Muncie) in the
study area. The hardness generally ranges from 200 to 370 mg/1 and the
alkalinity from 150 to 300 mg/1. These levels are generally typical of
the surface water in the area which can be typified as hard and having
a high alkalinity.
-------
VII-8
Above points of major organic pollution, the surface vater is of
a quality amenable to normal treatment consisting of coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination.
Ground vater quality is shown in Table V-l. Hardness ranges from
200 to UT5 mg/1 and alkalinity from 2UO to 390 mg/1. This can be charac-
terized as very hard with a high alkalinity. Many of these veils are at
a relatively shallow depth and base streamflow results from ground vater
contribution, so, as would be expected, these are similar quality
characteristics to that for the surface vater in the area. Iron is a
problem from some well supplies and iron removal is a common practice.
In addition, softening is practiced at some of the treatment plants.
Future Municipal and Industrial Water Requirements
Current water use levels are discussed at the beginning of this
chapter. The current use was evaluated to determine as nearly as
possible the amount utilized by industry and the amount utilized for
domestic, commercial, and general public use. This evaluation was used
as a base from which projections for future water use vere made. The
industrial water use was projected on the basis of economic output
projections in Chapter VI with an assumed increasing efficiency in
water use per unit of product. Domestic, commercial, and general public
use was projected on the basis of a continuing trend of increased per
capita use. The assumed values are shown on the following page for
the study area.
-------
vil-9
Gallons per
Year Capita per Day
1963 88
1980 95
2020 120
Based on the above described methods, total projected water use by
subarea vas obtained and is summarized below.
Study Area Water Use in mgd _
1950 2020
Eel River Subarea
Industrial 0.6 1.3 3.5
Dom., Com., & Gen'l. 2.3 3.5 6.8
Total 2.9 O 10.3
East Pork Subarea
Industrial 8.1 12.0 25.0
Dom., Com., & Gen'l. 6.3 8.8 21.0
Total T77E
White River Subarea
Industrial 92.0 13^.0 261*. 0
Dom., Com., & Gen'l. 78.0 105.0 202.0
Total 170.0 239.0 U66.0
Study Area Totals 187.0 265.0 522.0
These projected water use figures do not include cooling water needs
for thermal electric power generation. At present, an estimated 506 mgd
is used for this purpose. This is the total use at four generating
plants on White River. During low flow periods a successive reuse of
the streamflow for cooling and other purposes results. The A. D. Little
"Protective Economic Study of the Ohio River Basin" relates future power
production location to areas with coal resources. Significant coal
resources exist in an area generally west and southwest of the study
-------
vn-io
area. It is therefore concluded that the future power needs of the study
area will for the most part be generated outside the area and cooling
vater needs within the study area vill not be a controlling water supply
factor.
In the Eel River subarea, the present water needs are being met
almost exclusively by ground water. Bie outwash sand and gravel deposits
along Big Walnut Creek, in the Greencastle area and below, and along the
Eel River should be capable of significantly increased levels of
development. In addition, natural streanflow could be used to supple-
ment ground water if necessary to meet the projected water supply need
of 10.3 mgd by the year 2020. In the upstream areas, the communities
all have less than 1,000 population and use ground water from sources
with less apparent potential than the downstream outwash deposits. It
is believed the future needs of these communities can be met by expansion
of existing well fields and, should the need develop, by exploration to
develop additional or better yielding nearby ground water sources. The
northeastern portion of this subarea is close enough to the Indianapolis
metropolitan area (22 to 30 miles) to support future major bedroom or
commuter communities. 13iis possibility is enhanced by two interstate
highways, one of which will traverse this area and one which will be
near this area. Locations of such possible communities cannot be
determined and possible storage needs for such a development cannot be
logically evaluated. Water supply for such a community might very
-------
VII-11
possibly be from expansion of the Indianapolis Water Company's service
area or by a water district purchasing water from an existing supply.
Needs for the Indianapolis metropolitan area are included in the White
River subarea totals and, to the extent that this metropolitan area may
spread into the upper Eel River Basin, water use therefrom is included
in the White River subarea totals.
She Putnamville State Farm was estimated to have a 1980 water
requirement of 0.68 mgd in a 1956 Investigation by the Indiana Flood
Control and Water Resources Commission. This would require an
additional O.U8 mgd of water supply to supplement its present estimated
firm supply of 0.2 mgd. Projections beyond the year 1980 are unavailable
and normal protective techniques are not applicable to this type of
institution. Assuming the institution population paralleled the State
population projections and that the 1980 projected water use level of
290 gpcd for the institution continued, a projected water use by 2020
of 1.2 mgd is obtained or 1.0 mgd more than the present firm yield.
Based on this projected need, there is a potential need for storage in
Big Walnut Creek Reservoir to meet water supply needs of 1.0 mgd in the
Eel River subarea.
The East Fork subarea obtains virtually all of its municipal supply
from ground water sources. These existing sources along with the natural
flow of the streams are expected to be sufficient to meet the projected
water supply needs in all except upper headwater areas. Should existing
ground water sources of supply prove inadequate for future needs,
-------
vn-i2
supplementation with the natural flow of Big Blue River will be sufficient
to meet needs at Franklin, Shelbyville, Rushville, Ediriburg,
New Whiteland, Whiteland, Knightstown, Carthage, Morristown, and
Greenfield, and supplementation with natural flow in Flatrock River
will be sufficient to meet needs at St. Paul. For some of these
communities, pipelines would have to be constructed to intake points on
the Big Blue River in the stream reach from Knightstown to Edinburg.
•Hie upstream communities of New Castle, Lewisvllle, Shirley, and
Spiceland are not as favorably situated to allow potential use of
natural flow to supplement ground water development. The latter three
communities, however, are all small enough (less than 1,100 population)
that nearby ground water development should be capable of meeting future
needs. At New Castle present municipal and self-supplied industrial
water use is estimated to be ^.2 mgd and is expected to increase to 7 mgd
by 1980 and 16 mgd by the year 2020. While existing ground water potential
cannot be accurately estimated from existing information, a previous
report on ground water in the area concluded that the community would
12
very possibly have to eventually use surface sources of supply.
Based on past and projected growth, it is concluded that these sources
must be utilized some time during the 1980 to 2020 period. If available
ground water sources can be economically developed to a level of 7 mgd,
9 mgd of surface water supply will have to be provided to meet 2020 needs,
with a first need occurring in the year 1980.
-------
vii-13
Reservoir storage is capable of satisfying a water supply need
established for Greensburg, Indiana, in a previously published report
entitled, "Water Resources Study, Clifty Creek Reservoir, Wabash River
Basin, Indiana," by the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, January 196U. Greensburg's projected vater needs are for an
additional 2.U mgd by the year 2020, with the year 1982 the estimated
time of first need. TSiis need would most logically be met by storage
for water supply in Downeyville Reservoir. Greensburg presently has a
low head impoundment on Flatrock River approximately one mile below the
location selected for the Downeyville damsite.
The White River subarea is expected to need about U66 mgd to
satisfy its municipal and industrial water supply needs for the year
2020. Approximately 86 mgd of this is projected for the upper portion
of the subarea centering around Muncie and Anderson and including the
counties of Madison, Delaware, Randolph, and part of Tipton County.
The other 380 mgd is projected for the area centering on Indianapolis
and including Marion, Hamilton, Hendricks, Morgan, and portions of Boone
and Johnson Counties* Two portions of the subarea are tabulated below.
Muncie-Anderson Area
(Madison, Delaware, Randolph, and Tipton Counties)
1980 2020
(mgd) (mgd)
Projected Municipal and Industrial ^8 86
Water Supply Need - - - - - „
Existing Dependable Draft (Ground Water) 2k 2k
Existing Flow plus Storage 23 23
Totals ~W ~W
-------
Muncie-Anderson Area (Corrt'd)
(Madison, Delaware, Randolph, and Tlpton Counties)
Additional Municipal and Industrial Need
Utilizing White River Flow at Anderson
Not Utilizing White River Flow at
1980
(mgcQ
1
8.5
2020
(mgd)
39
1*6.5
Anderson
Even though the above area tabulation shows 23 mgd from streamflow
plus storage, T»5 mgd of this indicated existing water supply is from
the White River and a low head impoundment on White River at Anderson.
This is a secondary source of supply for Anderson and is only IT stream
miles below the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes from
Muncie. Because of limited base flow, the nearness to Muncie and the
high level of industrialization, much of which is in metals where plating
wastes present a potential hazard, the White River at Anderson is a
dubious source of future water supply.
Indianapolis Area
(Marion, Hamilton, Hendricks, Morgan, and portions of
Boone and Johnson Counties)
Projected Municipal and Industrial
Water Supply Need
Existing Flow plus Storage (White
River, Fall Creek)
Existing Ground Water Development
Augmented Streamflow from Upper
Basin Water Supply Development
Total Available Supply
Additional Water Supply Required
1980
(mgd)
191
95
TO
—
165
26
2020
(mgd)
380
95
TO
30
195
185
-------
vn-15
Some of the projected need for additional water supply can be expected
to result from increased development of ground vater by industries and
the 22 public water systems presently utilizing ground water sources of
supply. The Indianapolis Water Company has further development of
surface water from both upstream and downstream sources included in its
long-range plans. This company foresees a possible need for an additional
capability (in excess of present firm sources of supply) of 25 mgd by
1980 and 100 mgd by the year 2010.
Of the total estimated additional 185 mgd water supply needed by
the year 2020, it is estimated that from 100 to 150 mgd will be developed
from surface water sources and the remainder from ground water, depending
on the relative economics and availability of supply from the two sources.
It is therefore concluded that a need for reservoir storage to yield a
minimum of 100 mgd is needed to satisfy municipal and industrial water
requirements in Indianapolis and the surrounding area by the year 2020.
The required storage should be provided, to the extent consistent with
optimum use of water resources, in the Big Walnut and Big Blue Reservoirs.
The U. S. Economic Research Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture in a report dated June 25, 1965, stated that: "...Preliminary
analysis of the supply of and demand for agricultural products in the
Wabash Basin indicates that there will not be a significant shortage of
land and water resources needed for food and fibre production in 1980
-------
vn-i6
and 2010. Therefore, further expansion of irrigation and other forms of
resource development vould not be necessary to meet production require-
ments. Increases in irrigation can be expected, however, if per unit
costs of production can be decreased by its use. ...In general, the
volume of water used for irrigation is likely to remain small relative
to the amounts used for other purposes."
The needs for storage for water supply indicated in this report are
in addition to that which may be required for irrigation as indicated
in the previous paragraph.
The following tabulation briefly summarizes the municipal and
industrial water supply needs which have been identified in the previous
text. Excluded from this listing are areas where expected economic
development of ground water or where ground water plus base streamflow
will be sufficient to meet future needs.
Summary of Water Needs (in mgd)
Not Satisfied by Present Firm Sources of Surface
Supply or by Expected Development Capabilities
of Ground Water
Putnamville State
Farm
New Castle Area
Greensburg***
Water
Supply
Require-
ments
ite 0.7
7.0
2.8
1980
*Firm
Supply
0.2
7.0
3-0
Addi-
tional
Need
0.5
—
...
Water
Supply
Require-
ments
1.2
16.0
5-U
2020
*Firm
Supply
0.2
7.0
3-0
Addi-
tional
Need
1.0
9.0
2.U
-------
VII-17
Summary of Water Needs (in agd)
Not Satisfied by Present Firm Sources of Surface
Supply or by Expected Development Capabilities
of Ground Water (Cont'd)
Monde-Anderson
Area
Indianapolis Area
Water
Supply
Require-
ments
U8.0
, 191.0
1980
*Firm
Supply
39-5
165.0
2020
Addi-
tional
Need
8.5
26.0
Water
Supply
Require-
ments
86.0
380.0
*Firm
Supply
39-5
195-0
Addi-
tional
Need
U6.5
185.0-
*Firm supply is present dependable surface water supply and ground water
development. For Indianapolis area augmented streamflow from Muncie-
Anderson area is considered part of 2020 dependable surface supply.
**An estimated 100-150 mgd is expected to be required from surface water
sources with the remainder from further development of ground water.
***Figures for Greensburg are extrapolated from Clifty Creek Report.
-------
VIII-1
VIII. WATER QUALITY CONTROL
The control of water quality centers around economic and public
health aspects of instream and withdrawal uses. Benefits accrue from
the possible use of water for recreational activities, public and
industrial water supply, and esthetic enjoyment. Economic benefit is
reduced if water quality is such as to restrict these uses, make treatment
for beneficial uses more costly, result in the necessity of substituting
more remote and therefore possibly more expensive water based recreational
activities, result in corrosion or scaling of watercraft, domestic,
navigation, and industrial equipment and facilities. Economic benefit
is also lost if obnoxious fumes result in damage to painted surfaces,
loss of esthetic enjoyment and reduced land values.
Municipal and Industrial Pollution
Table VIII-1 (see Appendix) shows the present status of municipal
waste facilities in the study area. Generally for communities greater
than 1,500 in population, secondary treatment has been provided. The
following is a summarization of data by subarea. Unless information was
available to indicate a different percentage removal of 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (B.O.D.), this report is based on the usual observation
that secondary treatment provides 85 percent B.O.D. removal and primary
treatment 30 percent B.O.D. removal.
-------
VIII-2
Treatment Facilities
Population
Served
Eel River Subarea
Secondary Treatment
Primary Treatment
Severed vith no
Treatment
Total
East Fork White River
21,800
1,UOO
23,200
Subarea
Secondary Treatment 68,900
Primary Treatment
Severed vith no
Treatment 5,1+00
Total 7^,300
White River Subarea
Secondary Treatment 699,UOO
Primary Treatment 11,200
Severed vith no
Treatment 2^,800
Total 735,^00
Study Area Totals 833,000
Population Equivalent
Baaed on B.O.D»
Wastes
Raw Discharged
Wastes to Streams
21,800
1,UOO
23,200
63,^00
5,^00
68,800
2U,8oo
3,300
1,UOO
U,700
9,800
15,200
1,58U,000 238,300
10,900 7,800
2U,800
1,619,700 270,900
1,712,000 291,000
Table VIII-2 (see Appendix) shovs a tabulation of industrial vaste
treatment facilities vith separate discharges (not discharging to public
sever systems). As a general rule, industries vith discharges containing
high levels of B.O.D. are connected to city severs. The total population
equivalent based on B.O.D. is estimated to be Ul,100.
-------
VIII-3
As noted in Chapter V, seriously degraded conditions exist on the
White River below Muncle and below Indianapolis. During drought periods
there is less dilution water in the White River than the discharge volume
from the Indianapolis sewage treatment plant. The same is true below
Muncie. Zero dissolved oxygen levels were observed on occasion in these
stream reaches during a 1965 sampling program by the Evansville Field
Station of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Project. Water quality is
generally good below the proposed Big Walnut, Big Blue, and Downeyville
damsites.
In addition to waste loadings from the municipal and industrial
sources previously described, pollutants enter streams from agricultural
and other sources. During periods of surface runoff, pollution from
insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers, and from barnyard and pasture
runoff in rural areas would occur. Also, urban street washings and
storm water flow would contribute significant waste loadings to
streams. The net loading from such sources would be difficult to measure
and estimate; however, solids that might accumulate in the stream's
channel would contribute to sludge deposits. Nutrients derived from
these and other sources would contribute to algal growths.
Ballution from the above sources as well as from treated municipal
and industrial wastes contains biodegradable organic materials.
Stabilization of these organic materials results in a demand on the
dissolved oxygen in the stream. If the quantities of these materials
exceed the assimilative capacity of the stream, lowered dissolved oxygen
-------
YIII-U
levels vill result. Lowering of D.O. levels "below requirements for the
fish life vill result in fish kills or, in less severe cases, vill
result in environmental conditions unfavorable for growth and/or
reproduction. A stream vill eventually recover from such a condition
if no additional waste loadings are introduced and sufficient time
elapses for natural atmospheric reaeration to replace the oxygen
demanded to stabilize the organic wastes.
Some pollutants are nondegradable or very slowly degradable in
nature. In this category are most strictly chemical pollutants such
as chlorides, sulfates, acidity, and excess alkalinity. Pesticides and
herbicides are not normally considered subject to Immediate degradation
on being introduced into stream systems. Inflow of water containing a
lower concentration of non-degradable pollutants results in a dilution
effect, and the pollutional characteristic is partially or possibly
completely eliminated.
Water Quality Criteria
The quality of water determines the uses that can be made of it and,
unless proper quality is maintained, possible economic benefits of its
use will be lost and public health endangered. Withdrawal and instream
uses determine the water quality objectives applicable to a stream. The
objectives used in evaluating quality conditions in the study area have
been based on use of Big Walnut Creek, Eel River, and Big Blue River as
-------
VIII-5
a potential source of raw water supply for the communities located nearby,
general recreational use including fishing, and on preventing loss of
esthetic environment from degraded streamflov conditions.
The Manual of Recommended Water Sanitation Practice of the Public
Health Service has been used as a guide to acceptable raw water quality
and is used here to select objectives for the maximum coliform concen-
trations in the raw water at water treatment plants' intakes. Coliform
densities in excess of 5,000 per 100 ml in 20 percent of the samples in
any month or 20,000 per 100 ml in more than 5 percent in any month should
be avoided, even with coagulation, filtration, and post chlorination.
Ghlorination of the effluent from waste treatment plants is considered
a more economical control method than regulation of streamflow.
However, it should be recognized that bacteria in uncollectable wastes
such as emanate from storm water overflows or street washings are not
affected by chlorination of waste treatment plant effluents.
Raw waters, in addition to meeting bacterial requirements, should
be free of excessive toxic, taste producing, or otherwise harmful
substances. Raw waters should contain no organisms not readily or
completely removable by ordinary water treatment and should be free of
excessive amounts of acid, microscopic organisms, and organic matter
causing any interference with normal operation and efficiency of water
treatment processes.
The 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, which
applies to finished drinking water on interstate carriers, limits total
-------
VIII-6
dissolved solids to 500 mg/1 where other more suitable supplies are or
can be made available. This same standard has a similar recommended
limit of 250 mg/1 for both chlorides and sulfates.
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board has by Regulation SPC 1
established the following standard for receiving waters, "...Generally
the oxygen content of the receiving water, after being mixed with and
affected by the waste, shall be no less than 50 percent saturation.
A lower concentration will be tolerated temporarily, but only so long
as it is not injurious to aquatic life, and in no case shall it fall
below 25 percent saturation." At present the flow of the White River
below Muncie and Indianapolis is insufficient to allow maintenance of
this standard even with adequate treatment of wastes.
A water quality goal was established after considering a number of
water quality indicators. It was found that maintaining a water quality
goal of 5 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen resulted in levels of total dissolved
solids, chlorides, and sulfates within the recommended limits previously
referred to in the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
The water quality goal of 5 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen was selected
on the basis of anticipated municipal and industrial water supply,
aquatic life, esthetics, and recreational use. In selecting dissolved
oxygen goals for streams to protect aquatic life, mere survival is not
enough. The minimum level selected should be suitable for the
continuance of satisfactory fish life and fish food organisms. On the
basis of studies by the Public Health Service on Lytle Creek in the
-------
VIII-7
Cincinnati area, it was concluded that for a well-rounded, warm-water
fish population dissolved oxygen concentrations should not be below
5 mg/1 for more than 8 hours of any 2U-hour period and at no time should
it be below 3 ng/l« Since the study area is within about 150 miles
geographically of Lytle Creek and similar species of fish abound in
both streams, the above statement of necessary oxygen concentrations
was the basis of the water quality goal for this study.
Flow Regulation
In the future, increased waste discharges in the Eel River and Big
Blue River Basins will, even after adequate treatment, result in reduced
water quality during low flow periods. In the Sugar Creek Basin (a
tributary of East Fork White River, see Figure III), which drains a
portion of eastern Marion County as well as western Shelby and Hancock
Counties, expansion of the urban Indianapolis area will probably result
in major increases in population and-in wastes discharged. It is
expected that with increased population a sewage treatment plant will be
built to serve this area. Presently, lift stations are utilized to pump
sewage for a limited population in eastern Marion County into the
Indianapolis sewerage system. After treatment, this sewage is discharged
to the White River Basin. Below Indianapolis and Muncie-Anderson in the
White River Basin, and below New Castle in the Big Blue Basin, water
quality is degraded below the established goal during low flow periods.
For each of these areas, needs for water quality control exist which could
be satisfied by reservoir storage.
-------
vni-8
In addition to the above needs, a January 196U study of the proposed
13
Clifty Creek Reservoir established water quality control needs on the
East Fork White River below Columbus. These flow needs were established
as from k8 to 55 mgd in 1976 and from 103 to 113 mgd in 2010. For the
purposes of this report, the higher 1976 value of 55 mgd was accepted
for the expected 1980 need and the higher 2010 value of 113 mgd "was
accepted for the expected 2020 need.
The aforementioned critical stream reaches are tabulated below with
flow needs for water quality control. These flow needs are based on
adequate control of wastes at the source and adequate treatment, which
is defined as conventional secondary treatment providing 85 percent
removal of B.O.D. If quality is maintained throughout the critical
reaches, quality is expected to be insured in the stream as a whole.
Summer Flow Needed
Critical Reaches by Stream System Design Flow* to Receive Treated Wastes
"
(mgdj
Big Walnut Creek-Eel River System
(l) Big Walnut Creek below <2 8 12
Greencastle
Upper Tributaries East Fork
White River System
(1) Big Blue River below New Castle <12 lU 25
(2) Big Blue River below Shelbyville 2U 2U 70
(3) East Fork White River below 1*9.5 55 113
Columbus (based on Clifty
Creek Reservoir report)
White River-Main Stem
(1) White River below Muncie-Anderson <39 120 195
(2) White River below Indianapolis 80 5^0 975
*The design flow is defined as the minimum 7 consecutive-day mean flow with
an expected 10-year recurrence interval.
-------
viil-9
Needs for other months of the year are expected to be the following
percentages of the summer flow needs: May and October, 80 percent;
April and November, 70 percent; December, January, February, and March,
50 percent.
The indicated flow needs should not be interpreted as an operating
schedule. Each period of deficient streamflow would be characterized
by different temperature levels. The temperature and waste loadings that
materialize would affect the actual needed releases during the period of
drought.
Of previously tabulated critical reaches, a complete evaluation was
made for Big Walnut Creek below Greencastle, Big Blue River below
Shelbyville, and White River below Muncie-Anderson. Needs as previously
outlined below Columbus in the Clifty Creek report were not specifically
re-evaluated but are shown in this report for a more complete understanding
of total area needs. For the critical stream reach below New Castle,
storage from the subject reservoirs was not seriously considered. The
proposed Big Blue Reservoir is about 25 miles downstream and pumping to
below New Castle would not involve a significant demand on storage since
the pumped flow would be returned undiminished except for perhaps a small
loss to evaporation and/or recharge to alluvium in the stream channel.
A "Watershed Work Plan" for a P.L. 566 project in the upper headwater
areas of the Big Blue River Basin has been submitted to a Congressional
Committee in Washington. Two structures in the work plan include storage
for water quality control. Under present legislation the cost of providing
such storage cannot be at Federal expense.
-------
VIII-10
Because of a lack of sufficient storage in potential reservoir sites
above Indianapolis, vater quality control for the White River below
Indianapolis cannot be attained by this method alone, even vith adequate
treatment of vastes. Until such a time as a complete field study to
determine stream characteristics is completed and a thorough evaluation
of alternates is completed, a definitive recommendation cannot be made.
However, reservoir storage from the proposed structures can be a partial
solution. In the benefits section, cost of storage in alternate reser-
voirs upstream from Indianapolis is used to place a value on the
contribution of this partial solution.
For those needs that can be evaluated at this time, a draft-on-storage
has been determined by comparing vater supply and waste return flow
conditions expected in 1980 and 2020 with streamflows in each year of
the past record. The results of these calculations were arrayed in order
of magnitude and are presented graphically in the Appendix. The results
of these analyses are tabulated belov. These represent draft-on-storage
at the point of need with no allowance for evaporation or transmission
losses. The values given should maintain water quality in nine out of
ten years. For needs for other recurrence intervals, see Figures VI and
VII in the Appendix.
Draft-on-Storage in Acre-Feet
19502020
Big Walnut Creek below Greencastle 600 1,1*00
Big Blue River below Shelbyville 0 12,000
White River below Muncie-Anderson 3^,000 80,000
East Fork White River below Columbus 0 11,000
-------
VIII-11
The expected adequately treated waste flows to Flatrock River belov
Downeyville Reservoir can be adequately assimilated by natural flovs
in an expected seven consecutive day once in ten year mean low flow
condition. Therefore, no storage is requested in Downeyville Reservoir
for water quality control in Flatrock River. The Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Lebanon, Chio, in a report has requested a
minimum April to September flow of 50 cfs below the proposed reservoir
to maintain fish habitat.
The proposed reservoirs are expected to be subject to the detrimental
influence on water quality of thermal density stratification. Under
such conditions the epilimnion of the impoundment remains aerobic due
to vind mixing and contact with the atmosphere, but the water in the
hypolimnion is trapped below the thermocline and is prevented from
undergoing atmospheric reaeration. The oxygen demand in these waters
consumes the original dissolved oxygen content. After anaerobic
conditions have developed, other detrimental reactions take place;
iron, manganese, and color may go into solution and the pH may decline.
Release of this water through outlet works could cause harmful down-
stream effects. Design of the reservoir should include features to
avoid these difficulties. Multiple-level outlets are recommended to
allow the selection of the most suitable quality of water. Outlets
should be provided with a vertical spacing of approximately 10 feet in
the conservation and seasonal pools. Installation of recording
instruments to indicate water quality at the several levels would
facilitate operation of the flow release structures.
-------
VIII-12
Consideration of anticipated flow from unregulated areas, such as
is provided by the Weather Bureau River Forecast Section and frequent
observation of downstream conditions including establishment of a water
quality monitoring system, will allow determination of the required
quantity and quality of releases to maintain water quality objectives.
The above recommendations for flow needs and draft-on-storage are
based on limited data. A more detailed analysis will be possible when
information from the Chio River Basin Comprehensive Project by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is available.
-------
EC-1
IX. BENEFITS
Water Supply Benefits
As previously outlined in Chapter VII, needs for municipal and
industrial vater supply that could be satisfied by reservoir storage exist
in the study area* The areas of need vere determined to be in the Eel
River subarea at Putnamville State Farm, in the East Fork White River
subarea at New Castle and at Greensburg, and in the White River subarea
in two multi-county areas, one centering on Muncie and Anderson and one
centering on Indianapolis.
For the New Castle area and the Muncie-Anderson area, estimated costs
of pumping and amortization of transmission facilities from the reservoirs
under study exceed the costs of possible single-purpose reservoir develop-
ment near the points of need. Therefore, there is no value for storage
in the Big Walnut, Big Blue, or Downeyville Reservoirs to satisfy water
supply needs in the New Castle or Muncie-Anderson areas.
For the Putnamville State Farm, an additional 1.0 mgd of vater supply
is expected to be required to meet needs for the year 2020. This need
could be satisfied by utilizing base flow plus storage releases at a point
directly below Big Walnut Creek Dam and utilizing a 2-mile pipeline to
transport the water to an upstream tributary of the Farm's Deer Creek
vater supply source. Alternates to providing for the need in the above
manner include an Impoundment upstream in the Deer Creek watershed or a
pipeline to the Big Walnut Creek valley about four miles west. At this
point, either wells in the alluvium or use of base streamflov might serve
-------
DC-2
to satisfy the need* The latter vas considered the most economical
alternate. Based largely on the difference in pipeline costs, the
annual benefit of storage in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir for satisfying
this need is estimated at $3>500 per year.
For Greensburg, the municipal and industrial water supply need for
2020 is projected to be 5»h mgd. A total of 3*0 mgd is available from
the present ground water development and the reliable flow from
Flatrock River as augmented by storage from a low head dam. The addi-
tional 2.U mgd need could be supplied from storage releases from the
proposed Downeyville Reservoir, which would be located one mile upstream
from Greensburg *s present low head dam. The benefit of providing for
this need based on the cost of the most economical alternate, which is
a single-purpose reservoir, on a small stream near Greensburg with an
estimated first cost of $lUo,000 is $6,500 per year. This benefit is
discounted from 1982, the time of estimated first need, to 1970 and
includes operation and maintenance costs.
For the Indianapolis area, a need for 185.0 mgd of additional water
supply by the year 2020 is projected. Some of this need is expected to
be satisfied from more extensive ground water development. However, at
least 100.0 mgd is expected to be developed from surface water supplies.
Big Walnut Creek Reservoir is capable of satisfying approximately 78.0 mgd
of this projected need from conservation storage not allotted to water
quality control needs in the Eel River Basin. By developing facilities
-------
H-3
to provide 78.0 mgd of water supply to the Indianapolis area, the
benefit of storage in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir is estimated at
$575*000 per year. This is based on the most economical alternate of
providing single-purpose storage in upstream portions of the White
River Basin.
The computation of annual benefit includes yearly operation and
maintenance costs and amortization of investment at the Federal interest
rate of 3 1/8 percent. Operation costs included pumping costs for the
pipeline to Big Walnut Creek Reservoir and expected savings in treatment
costs from use of a better quality vater from Big Walnut Creek Reservoir.
Determinations of treatment cost savings vere based on present costs
reported by the Indianapolis Water Company of $25.62 per MG (million
gallons) for White River vater and $13*58 per MG for Fall Creek water.
Since Big Walnut Creek Reservoir water is expected to be of better
quality than either White River or the Fall Creek supplies, an estimated
treatment cost of $11.00 per MG was used for this potential source.
Storage in Big Blue Reservoir is also capable of satisfying a
portion of the future water supply needed for the Indianapolis area.
Based on a similar calculation to that outlined for Big Walnut
Reservoir an annual benefit of providing 28 mgd was determined to be
$81,000. This method of satisfying water supply needs requires a
pipeline of approximately nineteen miles to Fall Creek and utilizing
the existing Geist Reservoir for equalizing purposes. Since the
-------
quality of water in Big Blue Reservoir is expected to be approximately
equal to that presently obtained from White River, no benefit from
lower treatment costs as considered in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir
was calculated.
Water Quality Control Benefits
Storage of water for quality control will result in benefits to
downstream water supplies for municipal and industrial use, to those
interested in fishing in the stream, to those who might desire to use
the stream and shore for picnicking and boating, and to property owners
along Big Walnut Creek, and Eel, Big Blue and East Fork White River
because of esthetic and direct use benefits. Public health would be
protected by providing a better quality of water for existing and
potential future public water supplies and for general recreational use.
Some of the benefits associated with these uses are tangible and can
be assigned a dollar value; however, in many cases such dollar values
are difficult to accurately define. Other benefits are largely
intangible and often relate to esthetic values which are difficult to
assign a direct dollar value.
Use of the stream and shore for general outdoor recreation is
dependent on a number of factors including accessability, amount of
leisure time generally available, alternate recreational areas and
area population. With a present population of over 1,300,000 and
significant growth projected for the study area many people are and
-------
ix-5
vill be living within easy access of the stream reaches. Esthetic
enjoyment will in part depend on water quality. Degraded quality
could be expected to decrease this use and result in the substitution
of more remote and therefore more expensive water oriented general
recreation. Ihe value of such benefits foregone, or participated in
at more cost at more remote locations in the absence of quality control,
would be a partial measure of the values of releases attributable to
this beneficial use.
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, has a report in preparation on fish and
wildlife resources of the Ohio River Basin including the White River
Basin. Based on provisional figures, the total number of anglers in
the White River Basin is expected to increase from 208,500 in I960 to
285,300 in 1980 and to 361,300 in 2010. Actual man-hours of fishing
are expected to increase from l,UUo,000 in 1960 to 2,29k,000 in 1980
and to 2,905,000 in 2020. Existing fishery capability is 77,600
man-hours in excess of the 1980 needs, but 533,500 short of the 2010
needs. The provisional values further consider 1,000 acres of free
flowing stream in the White River Basin as having a potential commer-
cial fishery habitat. Approximately UOO stream miles in Big Walnut
Creek, Eel, Big Blue, White, and East Fork White Rivers are below the
proposed reservoirs.
-------
DC-6
Many of the benefits previously described are tangible but
difficult to accurately evaluate. Other benefits are intangible and
valuation is dependent on personal esthetic considerations. In the
absence of developed techniques to determine the value of many of the
benefits, the cost of the most likely and economical alternate to
providing water quality control from storage in the project reservoirs
is considered the minimum value of the benefits assignable to the
project.
Benefits as calculated below are based on a 50-year amortization
of costs at the Federal interest rate of 3 1/8 percent and include
operation and maintenance costs.
The minimum annual value of the benefit of providing water quality
control below Greencastle from storage in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir
was determined to be $22,300. This evaluation is based on the
estimated annual cost of an upstream single-purpose water quality
control structure, which is considered the most economical alternate
to providing sufficient storage in Big Walnut Creek Reservoir to yield
the 1,UOO acre-feet draft-on-storage to meet 2020 requirements at the
point of need. The first cost of the alternate structure is estimated
at $380,000 and is based on a reservoir storage of 1,800 acre-feet to
allow for storage and transmission losses to the point of need.
The minimum annual value of the benefit of providing water quality
control below Shelbyvllle from storage in Big Blue Reservoir was
determined to be $75,000. This evaluation is based on the estimated
-------
rx-7
annual cost of an upstream single-purpose vater quality control structure,
which is considered the most economical alternate to providing sufficient
storage in Big Blue Reservoir to yield the 12,000 acre-feet draft-on-
storage to meet 2020 requirements at the point of need. The first cost
of the alternate structure is estimated at $1,500,000 and is based on
a reservoir storage of 15,000 acre-feet to allow for storage and
transmission losses to the point of need.
A 196U report on Clifty Creek Reservoir ^ estimated the benefit
of providing water quality control storage in Clifty Creek Reservoir
as being $1^3,000 per year. This benefit was based on providing water
quality control on Clifty Creek and the East Fork White River below
Columbus. Storage in the reservoirs under study in this report would
not provide any water quality control benefit to Clifty Creek, unless
water were pumped from Downeyville Reservoir to the upper end of the
Clifty Creek drainage basin. A value for using pumped storage would
accrue to Downeyville Reservoir only if storage costs were enough
lower in Downeyville Reservoir than in Clifty Creek Reservoir to more
than offset pumping and pipeline costs. Storage in Big Blue Reservoir
to satisfy water quality control needs below Shelbyville is a partial
alternate to storage in Clifty Creek Reservoir in providing water
quality control benefits on East Fork White River below Columbus.
However, operation to satisfy needs below Shelbyville cannot be
expected to coincide exactly with the timing of needs below Columbus.
-------
H-8
Clifty Creek Reservoir, by being much closer to the stream reach below
Columbus, would provide considerably more flexibility than trying to
adjust flows by storage in Big Blue Reservoir. Provision of storage in
both Big Blue and Clifty Creek Reservoirs would allow meeting all
expected water quality control needs in Clifty Creek and East Fork
White River and those needs on Big Blue River below Shelbyville.
For the 80,000 acre-feet of storage required for water quality
control needs below Muncie and Anderson, the annual cost of pipelines
to the proposed reservoirs was found to exceed the annual cost of
storage in a potential reservoir site at Parker City above Muncie.
Therefore, no benefit for storage to provide for this need has been
attributed to the reservoirs under study. However, this need remains
unmet and possibilities of meeting this need from a reservoir at
Parker City or other upstream locations should be further studied.
As noted in Chapter VIII, reservoir storage is capable of meeting
a portion of the water quality need for the stream reach below
Indianapolis. Benefits of providing this storage from Big Walnut Creek
Reservoir were found to be $280,000 using the same alternates indicated
in evaluation for water supply for the Indianapolis area. The lesser
benefit for water quality control ($280,000 rather than $550,000) is
due to the treatment savings that are expected to be of benefit to
water supply but not water quality control and because some of the
pumping head which is lost in transport to the White River for water
-------
BC-9
quality control can be utilized by taking advantage of the higher
terrain in the rapidly growing area vest of Indianapolis and constructing
new treatment facilities at an elevation to take advantage of head
gained in pumping from Big Walnut Creek Reservoir. Storage in a
reservoir at Parker City, as noted in the previous paragraph, would
also have an additional benefit of being a partial solution to providing
water quality control in the White River below Indianapolis.
The benefit of providing water quality control in the Big Walnut
Creek, Eel, White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers is widespread.
The benefits will continue downstream on the Wabash River and to a
lesser extent to the Chio and Mississippi Rivers. All storage require-
ments are based on adequate treatment at the source of wastes and,
therefore, are not in lieu of adequate treatment or other control
measures at the source.
The needs and value of benefits as outlined in this report are
based on the best estimates that can be made at this time and are
subject to review and revision based on information and data from the
Chio River Basin Comprehensive Study by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.
-------
X-l
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Low-Flov Characteristics of Indiana Streams," U. S. Geological
Survey and State of Indiana, 1962.
2. "Bulletin No. 1, Indiana's Water Resources," Division of Water
Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
3. "Water Resources of the Indianapolis Area Indiana," U. S. Geological
Survey Circular 366.
h. "Protective Economic Study of the Ohio River Basin," Arthur D.
Little Company, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 196U.
5. "Estimated Population 196k, Public Health Statistics," Indiana
State Board of Health, 196U.
6. "The Indiana Industrial Directory, 196^-65," Indiana State Chamber
of Commerce, Indianapolis, Indiana, 196U.
7. "Census of Agriculture 1959 > " Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department
of Commerce.
8. "Minerals Yearbook 196l, Volume III Area Reports," Bureau of Mines,
U. S. Department of the Interior.
9. "Location of Manufacturing Plants by County, Industry, and
Employment Size, Census of Manufacturers 1958," Bureau of the
Census, U. S. Department of Commerce.
10. "Report of Investigation, Indiana State Farm, Water Supply, "
Report No. 8, Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission,
May 1956.
11. "Water Resources Activities in the United States, Committee Print
No. 5> Population Projections and Economic Assumptions," Senate
Committee on National Water Resources, United States Senate.
12. "Ground Water Resources of Henry County Indiana," Preston McGrain,
Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings, Volume 58,
13. "Water Resources Study, Clifty Creek Reservoir, Wabash River Basin,
Indiana," U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
January
lh. "Indiana Water Quality Monitor Station Records-Rivers and Streams,"
Indiana State Board of Health and Stream Pollution Control Board
Annual Report,
-------
A-2
•
_t-
-^
ON
r~t
ble III-2
ER, CARTHAGE
WATER QUALI1]
ta > w
EH H O
OS <
L_3 ro
PQ
O
a
•SJ.3 AOTIi
^ o **J""S %
r-l «J
O W
s| ^
g «*TI/
• 0 — a j;nq.8j:adu» ji
( spuBsnoqj,
ui) »i0 ooi aad
aaq.fi/3K QOS
aaq.fi/Sni
aaq.q.ityi 'dstig
jC-j.ip'j.aat'ij,
^oioo
co ITNVO on ITNVO
CM i-t UA^t CM rH i-4 ,-)
^T r-T
on onco J- t^ t~--4- t- t- on b- LT\ j- o VD i^ o> t- Ico ONVD W vo O O
t— co t- ON WN CO O co t— co ON ON ON ONCO CM ONCO |H \O vo vo vc MD t~-
i~n r"' rH
a>ooir\OHOCMt— Oonont-^cot— oi^O ocOtHco-a-voon
OHHonCOCMHONCOCOONCOCOt— t— HONCO CUt^t^VOONOOO
r~^ i™n i~H p^ ^H r~"l r~^ ^^ r™^
HrHr-IHr-ICMCMCMOJCMHCM rHHrHr-4
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVOOOoOcor-LfNOOvoO
CMOJHCMHonHOOCMHCMCMCMHCM on CU HH CM
OonoifNCOt-t—onoONONOHi-ioOvoonojj-CMLrNonvDvc ON
onCMCMCM^onOCMCMOHHCMHCMOHCMHHCMHHHHCM
O OnONONCO LTNLfNOnMD IfNl/A-^T f— t— O ONOCOCOCO O ^O CMCO iT\On
CMCMOnHOOOOOOOOOOf-4OCMOOOr-IOHOOO
onr-i Lf\H onCM ont-b--s ononvoco ifNoncovoco ITN t— on on on CM ^
on H CM
t— r-HJ-b-H H H i-l HCMHr-IH
OO H VO VOOnHr-IHCMrH^l- CMOnrH
on on on f-i I
H H H CM On-J- Hr-l r-4r-l H HrHi-tr-lr-4
r-HO^tOCOOOCMCOVOOOOVOCM-cl-CMVOOVOOOCOVOOOCMCO
on on on onr-i oncu CM onononononcvj ononononononononononon
f— t— i— 1-3'VOonCMCOCMr—lr-l-ct'OvOCO IrH COVD CM onVD ONl^NOCO
h-t— COt— t— CMt— _d-_a-VDVDVOt~-VDlTs |[— VDVOOOt~-t— VDt— t— t>-
OVDOt-ONHOOOxVOt-COOOOt-^CO^COH^^^OVOrH
CC b-CO t-f-h-C— [-t-C- t- CO CO CO t— CO t- t— N- CO t-CO C-CO t-00
on ~3 t" — vo t/> rH LTN QN co CM CM o co -3" vo i^ on LTN i — i vo ON-J" ON f-n vo t —
CMCUCUt^HCMCUJiHr-
CMonCMCMCM CVJr-lr-4CMCMCMCVJCVlCMCUCMCMCMOnCMonCMOJCMCM
onvc CM j- r-t
CMr-IOnr-ICM(-lCMt— CM-J-OJJ-iHOOHOnr-ICMr-^CM 1 1 1 1 1 1
llllllllllllllllllllOOr-lr-ICMCM
-------
A-l
C/3
«
rH
rH^
M M
I—I SC
W
-H-COONOCMOOONOOr-COJ-rACOCO OrH O O
O
a a
I'ITI/S'JU
CMrArACAONrHOOr^-COCVJrHNOr- COONGOON
CNJrHrHrHrH rH rHrH
[spuecnoq^ uj)
_
rHrHrHC\IC\JOJC\JCMC\iC\JCNjrHHiHrHrH
rHCOHOOO!v-C\JOOOOOOOOCNjOC--CM(\JOOrHrH O
Iiu 001
lOS
1 l_r\
H
I
rHOl^-rHOOOOOOOi—lOOOOOOrHO IrHOO i o
dang' 'TO A
T3jfTI/2tU ^00 EQ
SB SSOUpJEJJ
' soqut
O Ox CN V\ ON t
O CM o~\ O
XA XANO *LA oo
O
tr\ o crj rM
CM
-l rH rH rH
LA o
CM
o o XA o o o o c. o o o o o XA o XA <
rH C.1N CJ NO CO ' XA O O r—1 _* CO CO 0~\ C*- CM '
rH CM r-H rr,
O XA O O XA O XA XA o XA XA xr\ i r\ cj o o o o XA XA o r - XA XA cj> i
OJ OJ O-J CM CM CM rH CM rH rH CM r>-\ OJ CN) OJ r^\ CNj r^ m CM rH OJ O^ OJ CV1 O.J
r-1 NO OJ CM CO NO CM CO rH rH O O 'O OD ro 1 'A XA O CO -TJ O'l XA Ox CO f- r.H
vO CO r- CO O r-H ON rA O c^i CA XrA o -) v J XA XO ON r°\ NO XA _-j O NO NO _r* NO
XA NO ~- _— XA XA _nr XA XJA ro r-\ x ^ XA XA NO x.-\
O ^H O O _^r —i NO ^- NO NC: o o c_i -;•, XA ON _^t NO rn CM r-- o •'-•N o
r> co co co co r— r-- r~- 0s- r-- oo a~> 0.3 c— a'j r— co t- co co ^- CD r- < j
co
- CM o O CM CA o O XA r- CM
OHrHrHCCMOJCVOrHO
r^-
(~j
LA NO NO CM _3 CO CO ON _3- XA co XA CO i • -, r— r H CN CO O CX CN1 (" 'N r— i _: r -r
rH rH rH CM rH CVJ o 1 r— 1 rH r— 1 r- r -1 i— 1 CN;
CM CO OJ CO .^ NO CM C -if OO . ~ CO C .^f NO O CNJ _TJ CO CM O a 1 NC} O- O O
CA XA CO XA C-- CM rH CO CN r-H H CM U\ 1A O NO r^ NO O XA XJ\ f, r*\ r^i QV (yj
CM rH rH rH rH H rH .—I r-1 OJ Cxi rH rH O., OvJ CM CM CM CM r-' CM CM CM rv rH
Is- rH _CT CO CA r— rH _^T CO OJ NO C»N r^ [^- ,- < oo Cvl XA _rj NO C ^ r - (-
CM
r-H CN, rH CM O I OJ r '
Vv
OJ CM rH -H rH CM
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! r
i—I rH CM CM C--\ rA c<>_rT_^ XA XA^O s? r- >' CO ON ON ON O O r-1 rH CM c\j CJ
H r-' r ^ r H rH rH r-(
-------
A-3
o
E n
co
<" ,jr;
tr ]
r" M
rri
CD
> C
H CO
O bO
'r> pp (V
+Kb ,1)
- ajnaeaaduiai
a ad
'dsns • to A
.10100
-10 se sa
ICMCNCNXAOO 1C— COU\vOCOcO 1 r-l C*- Os Co -CI
I OrHir\_3CMr^r--_3''L/\CM
5 INOOCOCNrrvc^CMOOf—iCMr-Hi—(CMOOOOrHCM
NO rH fA CM
i i o XA CM i o o o rH co in NO \o fA o o rH r-- _3- NO
- XA
r o CM IA XA i—i O —zt CA * A NO o O <~A ~^ XA o\ CM NO XA f^ cc
?: £- ,^ rH O O (-> O O C O O O rH CM w. r-i O G O C C CM CM O C
-1 tNJ O
DO Crf
r1 cr! vQ r""\ CO _^ CMI CM XA cA XT\ XA r-~ CO O", O _rj CO XA CO _^j X/A XT, r> \ r^
PL, fc, Q rH r-l rH
W
ft; D-; o
fx4 O
t- rr\ CA O\ 1^1 rH CO O XA :"" CO '-t/' X A i r\ ro r—' _3- _ct rH t^- C^ C1^ r -I vC, NO
M >—' r—I XA XA r—J -H CM rH _1J O.I r-l rH rH rH rH
r-' c1 &-,
I I
I I XT O LA I O O o O O CJ o XA O XA o L
I I —I I r-i CO r^y ,—i r-H M f , i— -~^ f"\ r
r-H
I I C- LJ\ I I XA I I I LA C LAXAXA O U\ O O XA. O XA, \J\ XA C,' Xj\
I I c*\ r\ I I CNJ I I I CM r—t i—I rH CV r-n CM r-l CM CM' i~l CM c\l C
i i r- co c~- i o\
I I ro CM rA I CM
ON r^ rH CMJ _T CO _TT ^ .
CM CA f~\ rA fA c\: P"\ CM
I I —' * x ON I [~— CM CJ r—I
I XA C\ CM I NO O Os O
i i o-, -- r— i ON XA fA NO
i i CM NO co i CM _rf c
II ... I .
i i co r-- f— i cc r- r-
_•* 1A 1 C '•G CM r^\ r~\ O CM ''^ f C
f~\ SO 1 ^r- 1A \O r^~ 1A 1-f \ tr UN cXJ en
o xrx i u\ t^ \o r- r^- t^- ^o r-- vo r~-
* co
r~- c~- co r^ co r - co (• - co
o
i
i r^ _cr r~> rH o
I I '^ CV O I
I I A: CM CM I
I I O C? NO I CM CO CM NO NO _T CM O CO i) C' CM NO NO O CO CM v- NO M:
I I CM CO CO ICOf— _^_r-'"'-AC?NO\rr,r- ^ -^ C O^ rH _^J r-< O- CO -„
I I ("A CM CM I CM rH rH C\; CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CA CM r"v r"\ C \ CM CM i" \
rH r» > r—, CM r— CM CM CM r—I -H <^ N r-i O J rH CM |H CM r-H CV CM
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
3 I— rH r-H CM CM
_rT .-3 Lj \ 1A vO
-------
A-J4
sO
Os
s co
£ Q?'
^
HI
en
g
Zi
CQ
O
M
CQ
W
O
iS
sjo
T!
0)
> a
rH 0)
O ho
OOC\)C\jD\COOO\'Lr\COr-tC\jOOOO\i— IO
rH r-( rH p-lp-lrH,— (^ HrH
rHCMCMONlAsOr^CMCOOOOXACNJCO^l-lAjOrH
aaiTI/3'Ji
0 -
(spUGsnoqj, uj) "[m
001 J3d uuojT-[oo
aoa
XAQ O O n~\r~-r"^mO i— lO
cvisO O CM CM^O r^a\lArH CN
-1-rv_^j'Lol1Lr\i^ ovco
IT\
CSJ^-sOrHrHrHOlAODCNr-lCNOOCOCOOCN
rHr- IrHrHrHrHH rH rH
O^v CO _ZJ r- ' r- SO '-O
r-Hi— IrHCMCMi— ICMCMCVJCMCMCM IrHr— i
CXjOOOOrHCOrHCMOO-^rHOOOCsir^r-IOOOC O
CM rH C\J eg
I l_r\ r
OsvO o-\ao c\j
rH _CJ G rH _cr XA rA CO rH _3 CM CAXAOsO LA I— rA rA _ZI CA _T CM CM C-— A!
^H -=T -H O O O O r-H O G O* G G O o O* O O O O G* G* C* G" G*
\ CM
C\j _J^
Li \ l/\
XA
O. CM CO XA
CO rH _;:
CM
O O G G
XA rH c^- r--
XA r-i
1_ \ r"\ O _~J
r- - XA so XA co _r _n
O s *.
O u\ C O
c\j CVI rH rH
C XA X, -
-- rH r— 1 CM XA r-H
r- > A, CNj CT) f-- C („•> Cs CM i_ A' r- CM
co ;o co i^- r-co 03 t-- cc ^~c • '•- co
r- r- IACO ^- G r- C
•*} r ru .-^\CL^ -
• • • • •
r-l . C rH • ' !•
CM CM C\j C\ C\ CX O,
rH C s^.' sO _3- G -3- sO V-C) o _3 CM . - Csl CM aj aT CJ SO sQ SG _zr su CO c\ c\
iHooco_3-r--cjsr-\o-cM_^r--sOsOiv-oj -• C so c-- r-H co — ( en c~- co o\
CM CM CM' CM CM rH r-J CV' C\ C\C\!C\lr-tCMCMCMCSirACMro,rMCMCMC\l
r j LA G G >- O Xf\
1 '
CM CM
"\ _-zf o co <^", sc oj _ • r - r-H
C\ rH r-1 f^> r-H CM ^H A) r-n CM .- i O A,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
i XAOU\ i i o i i i A G XA o xr* XA xr\ XA XA XA XA XA XA G IA C
I CM rA OJ I I rH I I I r—I r I rH r-t rH Ai rH rH rH ,—I CM ^H r-J A C\
CA O GO G _cr CM CM sO CC 03 CM SO _JT sO sO o '^J G cr sO CM CO uO _^ so sC
. -J-LAO-O'rHOfA - C CM rH '' - CM sO C_) XA CM ^rHOAXA X'\ -•—!-- ,
pO fv•^ CA ro rA r—i rA CM "A CA fA oj o", CM rA CM CA r"\ CA rA rA rA rA f»"^ r»~\ '
I sO G lA sO O r- -LA AJ ,H rA I --O O - CM I CMC\CMsOCOC\'CO-4.iO f'-1
I G rH CM O so CO CM -CJ O CO I O CO CM lrHsO_3''>.C^-CO_-jGOOr'-
I (— CO SO r-- CM sO XA rA sQ O I r— XA UA I IA sO so 0 SO sO sf > "• - sO ^
-------
w
H
O
4>
O
<
to
A-5
•9JO
• 0 —
jnq.8 a adu» j,
( spuBsnoqj,
iw 001
ssq.eqdsoqj
'dsng
asq.fi/8ui
SB
•rao/ • soqairf
SB
TO SB
aaq.1I/Sm
aaq.ft/Sui 00^0 SB
H H r-ICO
OJ
r-l r-l OSOO r-l
- co
r-l r-l r-l H
oo t- O -* co i
OVDr-JVOJ-
r-l r-l r-l H r-l
oo oo co
CO O ITN_* OOJHir\CMH_*Lf\OJCOCMOU-NUNv£>OOOOJ-3-r-4r-IOO>\
onoHd^cui4cAcOd^oovocopocr\rocnt^-HVDOJt^-cAoo
H H r-4 H HiH r-l r-4 r-l H r-l r-4 r-l H r-4
oo CM oooouM^f-ooooONOMJ-MrNOco ON UAUJ VO\D-* t^t—VCMD ifN t~- t— b- ^- t-MD LO> C— t^-VD t~- CO C^-
t— OO t--CO S- t— C^CO t^COCOOOCO C—t-CO b- CO CO t~-CO t— ^-CO CO CO CO
-I O OO CM CM OO O LfN-zfr O VO CO t— ^^O r-4 i—1 U"N £— -j- VO CO
H-^fCO OCO t— J- CO t— t~ CO VO OOITNO-*
CM CM
OO
r-4r-4CMCMHCMCMCMOJr-lr--lr-ICOCMOJCMOOCMCMCMCMCMCM
ON U3 O -* CO r-l -* CM ON
CO
O - -
ONCMVOOJI/Nr-ICMr-IOOHCMr-ICMaOOJ^r-l-d-r-ICM I I I I I I I
llllllllllllllllllllOOrHr-IOJCMCVl
— CXDOOONCJ\ONHr-lr-IHr-l r-
-------
NO
ON
s
NO
I
H
H
H
V
r-4 -
k •
i
i
g
K
A-6
•sjo
1
aaq.fi/2ut
( sptresnoiii
-ira 001
aaq.fi/8ut
aaq.q.Bw -dsng
a8q.fi/2in
-dsns
act oo
aaq.fi/Soi
SB
•rao/ • soipmrf
aouBq.onpuoo • oadg
M SB
10 SB sapfaomo
aaq.fi/Sni SoO'BO SB
ir\ t— t— o>t— c—
|t~-^i^O-3-C\JOOcoco-3-aocMt— i-icvj in NO ON »-i co oj o m moo
O O t— UN t-- VD oo-* t-oooovo rnosoo t^h-i
H H lT\_d- CVJCVJJ-OJHr-IHlA
|O OS OJ NO OJ ON OS i
It- t- O -=t irscoco c
ITN OS O IT\ r-t NO CO tTN-d" OJ ,d" VO VO U _ . _
irsoni/sont— ITNOJ-*NO OJ o ITS ir\ on t— NO t—
<-\ iH r-t OJ CM on H
HCO
CD OSCO
|O _* CVI M3 UN
r-l H
OO OS ON
OJ
OS CO
00
[OOOOOOOOOOOOOt-OOOOOO ^OOOsO
O HNO H
ITS H onr-iHOJNOonon L/SI
oo H O irs
H H CM
U*
N£D
cot-c
t-c onroo_*j--co OJ t--^t vo co o -
OJ c-l H r-l OJ H
O vo vo v£> O OH irsco I/N on Os t— LTS o O It— ON irs o
c
ir\ ir\ O
It— J- OOOO COt-LfNt~-COt— OvOU-Nf-
CM H r-IHr-I
-
HHrO t— NO r-l
g
OsOfnOOHPnHO-4-OSOONO
CM CO r-l H OJ CO H H r-l
-=f
ONOOOJ- OOHO
C—t-CJHCJr-l
CU
r-ivDOJHrHro
PC
ICXJCVIOJOJH Hr-(HC\JrHr-lC\Jr-f
HCVJr-t-ONDt— OOOCM 0s.
coco t— t-^^t-r-aocococo c-cococococooooc) t- t— co oo co t-
OCO OSO fOONONONO HJ- ONCO-3NO t—U^CO r-l O^NOONO H OOO
OJ
_
LTNNO -4- IT\NO
-4- t— LfS
LTN J- OO
CVJ ITNN-irNOJ-d- t—
OJOJOJr-ICMOJOJr-1
, O O co onvo NO
CO
H CO t-
on O NO NOOJ-COr-l-c}- CM ON t-OJOOCM-d-HOJr-l
ONOJNOOJUNr-IOJr-IOnrHOJi-IOJCOOJNOi-IJ-i-ICVJl I I I I I
r-IHCvJCVIOOOOj-^l-^)-ir\
vot-C-COCOONOsONHr-lt-IHH H H
-------
H I
H I
M
&
I
H
O
<
A-7
•SJO AOI.J
*£>O-3-COOOt-CT\O\ON POOO t—MO t— UN on O OM^ONOxOO OCO U
f— O t^O\LT\ONt^J-^OVO OVO-it [— IT\ tr-)VO CO
• 0 —
( spiresnoqj,
iro 001
aaq.fi/Sra (jog
aaq.fi/Sra
*dsns
JLaq.fi/3ui
dsng
10 SB
aaq.fi/Sui
oadg
Hd
aaq.fi/gra
SB saq.Bjq.fu
aaq.fi/8ra
0)
ON ON O O UN UN
__ UN CO rH rH O V£> '
H r-l H MD CO UN t- I
VDMDOJU>Hrnr-(i-lr-< H
O N- H ITv t—
r-l i-l H r-< r-l
t— IA J- t^-l
ir\t— COOOOODHVDCVI
r-l r-4 H
COV£) I/NO OJOO IfXOCOJ- ONOO O
CTMr\ONCOr-l
r-l r-l
O CM CVJ
r-l H rH
O UNMD CO t— CJNVO -* ON CM CM
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMr-ICMH
CO
OOCO
on
O UN\O UN OOVO H H CJ\VD OO OO UN CM
i O CM OO UN ON-* OM33 OJ-^c-lOOUNOOHONOUNUN UN\£) OOCO
t—CM^OCOOVDONMDC—OOOCM
HH HH HHHH
ON
OJ
HOJr-l^-ICOrOHCMUNmCUHOOOOCUCMrH H
CM J- CM OJ
UN
UNOUNUNOOUNOOOUNUNOOOLr\OOOOOOOOUNir\LfN
OH HOO H-^-J-r-fr-IUNUNrnHJ-r-lmr-li-IHHr-t
00 H
OOOOOUNUNOUNUNt/NOOUNUNUNLfNUNUNOOUNUN |OO
rOC\JCMCMCMr-l HCMr-IHHHr-IHCMCMHrHCMOJCMH |CMCM
O
CVJO-*CM\OOO^J-vocMQOOJOCMCO-d-VD-^COCOCOOOOCMCX3-^
~ Ot-CM\DUNOOOoO>.5^)-OVO. ~ ~
OOOOONOOOOCM OOOOCM OOOOOOOOOOOOCM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
r-l CM , _ . ._
OJ UN CM VO r-l CO
ONCO '- ' -- ' -
t--covo t--vo
-
j-oo
cococo
OOO
ooao UNCO ONCO c—
t^-rHONOCOONUNCOCOr-(Or-(CXDf— OOJ-OOOCOONr— COOH OON
t— co t—cot-t-t— h-t^-cccocot~-cococot^-cocot-t^-t-c— cococot-
OHOHHUNOOOOCMrHCMrHOOOf-IHi-IHOOi-ICVHOr-l HH
UNCO UNM3CMCOCO O t-SP-3- t-UN_d-V£)\OCOCM UNMD ON ^ -3" LT\CO
CM
CM CM
CVIHCMCMHCM
CMCVJCMCM
mCMPOrOOOCM
oj co VD ON
CM ON CO LrNONPOCOO-3- CM O VQr-lt--CMUNr-|CMf-lCM
CMUNr-l^l-Hr-IHCMr-ICMi-lCMr-ICMUNOJOOrHCMl I I I I I I
lllltllllltlllllllllOOHr-4CM(MCVJ
-------
A-
oo
H IZi
t- H poo m OJV.O j- t-oo o
(-IH i-lr-ti-IOJHHH
t-
CVJ
O
00
-
r-IOJrOOJCOaJrHCJVQOJOO OOOJJ-OJCVJ HH
r-10OOJrHHj*-r-lr-(t-Lr\OOOJ-*OJJ-OJHr-Ir-lrH
H
LT\O
. O IJTN O U"N ILTN O
OJ OJ OJ OJ |r4 OJ
O O VO O O O O VD CO -d" -^t VO O O CM CO O OJ OJ CO -^ OJ O -^f O -^ O
OOVO 1/NVO -* POOO O P r—I -4" OOVO OO O b— IT\ ITV rH-3" U"Nt^-OVOVO t—VO
OOOOOOOOOOOJ CM OOCM OOOOOOOJ OOOOOJ OOOOOOOOOOOO-^- OOOOOOOO
,. - _ . .
X5 CO OO OO
r-t CM OJ OO OOVO VOr-IO-=tVOVOCMOO LfN_:f O CO CO O OO O
lOO-d-VOOOOONOOO-J-LrN^-pOOHOOt-COVOrH O -*
• l/NVO VOJ-VO t^t^VO OOVO b-t^OOVOCO U^OOOOCOCO ONt—
iH CO 00 t— 00 OOOO 00 H OJ OJ 00 O ITN J- ^OlTNOJOJr-ft— t^OONt-O
c— oo t-t-r-b-c-f-cococooo t-~cocooooooococ6co t-t--co t— t--co
X) -4- OO ON t--* r-*OONO-=tOJOoO-a- irxco -4- H ON ON LTN O oov£> O O
oovo co Lf\vo moo co OvC ojcoco H r-ico
t— O ^VD moo -3- vo OJ
-
OVO-J-OJCO-d-OJVpCOOJOOOVOO-J--d-pOOCOOOOCp^tO-d-CO
3D vo t— ON I/NVO p O vo oovo vo ON ir\vo P co as t— t— co OJ c5 co oo ON oo
'OvlCMCMOJr^OJOJr^CMOJOJHOJOJOJOJOJCMOJOJOOfOOJOJ OJOJ
OJ
OO CO MD ON
OJ ON OO tr\ONOOCOO-* OJ O VQHt—CMir\r-IOJi-IOJ
llllllllllllllllllllOOHHOJCMCM
i-l r-l OJ OJ 00 00 J- J- -4- ITN l/NVO VOt-t-COCOONONONHrHHHr-l r-i rH
-------
I
H
$
w
o
A-9
• 0 —
'Ira GOT
•S'S'V
*dsng
'dsng
SB
• soqnmr
SB
10 SB
O OJ t- ^ r
on H -* cvi cu o\ o\oo co oo
aNOJOOJONOOi-lr-lt-MDV£)Hpr-ltr P>2
vo t— oo -* o\ao oo H t- co u\ co ai on-* tyJ-
ONOOCUO1AOIAHOOJOOOOJ-O-4- OOOO OCVJH
ooH trsoocvi o r-i OJ ONCO t— LT\ I/NV£> oo t— ITN\O OOMD ro_* OJ
cotr\
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC3OO
CM
OJ
rOCOH
t— H
a\c
t- ON
CM
C\J
O OOOOOOJ H
iAd c
b-Ot— OVDO
t^- H t^d
H i-4
c
O O PO O IA O "> IAVO LTvOHLrNOJOOCOOonOOOO IQOO
H OJVO H O H H H H H lA H OOO !>• OOC3 »^-VO CO CO tA CO
ONO\CVJCOCOV£> ONJ--d-VO H-d- OJCO O CVI-d" t— H-*OO
H r-lHHHHHH
uMf\rocMC\OJoo'vOOOHH
cu H oo ^ irv.4- co cvj o\ cu i^ w vq
-CVJ r-fHr-l H OO HH
H OOOOOOOOH OJ ?J CM CO OO OO OJ CM OO OO H OOOOCM OOOOOOCM OOOOOO
OOO~\CM
ONOO LTN
CM O>CO
IT\ O ^O '
CM
IfN t>-00 r-l
CO
CM LTN O CMCO t— PO t— U"N CNSP M3 t/\-^-U3 OOV£> ON1
CMMDHCOONCOr-IOJOJHCMOOUAOOJ-OOCOCMi
r-l H H I
, t— ON CO O '
(-H
CO
00 H N-CO ^1- CM CM
OO OO CM CM CM OO r-t
iCOCMCMCOOOCMCOCOCM
i_^_d-S—LfNOOJQVOLfS
IHOJCMCMOJOJCMOJr-l
Ho
on
CM
NO CO CO CO CM ^ O
O CO CM O '—' O CO
OO OJ OO CM OO OO CM
IT.O t^- VOOOON-HLfN OO H CO l/\_*V£)OJOJH'-li-4C\l
CMr-IOOOOt-tOJr-IOOi-ICMi-IOJONCMt—CM^l-i-ICMr-IOJl I I I • J. »
I I I I I I I ~ ~
I I l I ,'7 ', 7 I I i l i O O H H CVJ OJ CM,
-------
3
og
,H >
H
r-l
H
flJ
H
•S H
EH K
M
K
w
O
•SJO
.« __
J
001
rt«rr
003
saq.m[dsott3
*dsns
'dang
-
- co ON co co I/N t— t— co oo r-i CM oo ON ON-* vovo ON oo ON OJ fr--*
- LTN PO oo c\u OJ oo oj co oo J-
O\ ONOO
OC O
OJ
lf\ir\VD
co VD
r-i oo t— ir\ t— oo vo
no CM
OOHOOt-osvOOOOOmOOpHOJOO iA_* CVlt-i^VD I/MTN OMA t—
(TvOO C^CO CO ON C3 t^- t^- lAvD lA^D QC3 U3 t^- H lA C^- lA.jj J- CO CM
H cu t-
o\
ONOO oo
OtD O
CO
\O
ON
IAONCU
HvoO\rnrooOooOOt^-OOOOOOOonOON
OO VD VO O »fN lA ITNOO t^- OO t— U) OO 00-* ON UA OO OO
O
r-l
O O
ooooi/Non
ITN i/\xO CM*vD OJ O^ _
H HOOJJ-_*CUOJirNOJ^t-lPvmCVICM(MC\JHH
O CO
pHCVj
O VO O
SB
•rao/ • soqrarr
«
OJ O ON O ON_*
s«
10
SB
r-i oo ^d-
I™"1
r-lr-l
OJ OJ CVJ <-*
0r)
OJHl-IOJ-cl-H
C\JC\JVDC\JC\JVOCO
OONOOJOOOOVO
OOOOOOOOOOOJ OJ OOOJ OOOOCVJ
OJ OCVJCOcOVjpVDVO OJ-OOOJOO O
\t-ooo ooifNoS mvo f-t^ojvo oj r-i
OJ oooooorooorooorooooooooooo
r-IUArHOOOJlfNOOOCOVQiHOOCOOOUAOJOO
OJ oovo OJ-d-r-looooirst"— r-iir\N-~~ ~~
~ ~ * VDj-^tt-t^-"A[~-Lr\f—
OJ ONfOVD CO t^<
vo ON ON ON CO vo
O OO -d- O OO
r-1 ITN ON t- O
r-i ON O\ ON t^
OJ ONOO O ON ON C~- CO oo O
- >-t~-[^VOOO OJ ITNr-l OJ ITNt^-OJOOVD H OU) OOlT\t— OOVO
OOO-4-OOOOJOJ<-IOJOJOJr-IOJr-lr-(OJOJr-IHCMr-lr-IOOOr-l
fHOJt—ONC~-r-IOJOJOJOO-d-?\J^JOJuSOJC^OOOOt--ONO t--cbcOLr\
OJOO-4-OJMDVOVOOO-^-oOOJOO'
HOMAN-VOOJOOJ U^>_d- LTN O r-l
rOOJOJOJOJHOJOJMOJOJOJOJ
-d-OJLT\COVOOOr-IOVOOLr\r-l
OJOJOJOJOJOOCViOOOOOJOOOJOJ
ITN
o c^-
H OO t1— r-l -4- OO VD OO H OJCO UA-d- VJD OJ OJ r-4 r-( r-l CVJ
t— OJJ-r-HOOr-IOOr-IOJCUONOJt~-OJ-^-r-IHOJr-IOJl I I I I I I
IlllllllllllllllllllOOr-li-tCvlOJCVl
HHOJOJoOOOOOj-_d- tTNVDVJ3N-t—ODCOCOONONONHHHHr-l rH r-H
-------
A-ll
Table III-ll
FIATROCK RIVER
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Specific Dissolved Alkalinity Chlorides Hardness B.O.D.
Temp. Conductance Oxygen as CaCO^ as Cl as CaCOo 5-day
Pate C. mhos./I cm. mg/1 ^ Sat, mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 p_H
Flatrock River at UOO N. Road, Columbus, Indiana
9-7-6U 20 500 8.1 88 212 16 3.5 7-5
9-8-6U 20 500 8.2 89 200 17 278 2.5
9-9-6U 21 510 8.2 91 222 20 3.6
9-10-6U 21 500 7.0 78 218 15 272 6.U
Flatrock River - County Road South St. Paul, Indiana at USGS gaging station
7-7-6U 2U 560 7-^ 87 8.0
-------
co
CO
I
-p
•H
S3
VD OJ
• •
O H
I i
O O
co g
CO CO
CO ^3
t-5-p
H CM OJ
wcwfl cod wg
coco cocom coco coca
^43 v^-p o !-q-P
OJ
•
rH
H
O*
CO
CM
H
co d
w 3
t^^
A-I;
H
w C co
W co co
i-3 -P t-3:
co
co
•8
W
O O
vo m
i i
o o
in oo
i
in
O
in
3
in
-d-
O
CM
in
oo
&
in
oo
H
O
CM
H
in
CM
CO
CO
I
^- b
0*
H
I '
-p
•H
i
O"
a;
-P
o
s
t- o c- in o
H in in H
ii ii
CM CM VO m
fn ro _* o
co ... oo H
-P C
3 8
H
H 00 CO •
III CM OO
00 O II
O O OJ VD
. * • •
CO O H H O
PL*
W
M -P
M -H
•H OOC
H O -H
C " r-j
o o o in o
ON ON VO _* -*
CM CM OO OO OO
III II
O in o o O
C~ -cf in O J-
CM CM OO OO OJ
C
0 H
•H -•>.
-P M
cd g ca
^ w
CO Tj
O tj
£3 ro
O p"!
O in in O O
in ro ON o in
oo oo oo -* _*
ill ii
in o O in o
ON >• o H t>-
CM CM 00 OO OJ
o
K| ON in vo O vO
pj ... . .
C-- t-- 0- CO !>-
03
CO
^H
dj <3
fl 1
C
o
•H
-P
j^
Q
P^t
O ft
H H -P 0
CO CO W CO
> > OJ
03 co B M
t-i JH -rl
Cy *H
cu rt
fLi
< cu
1 CO -P
£> H CO -H
3 -P hC je
-P
•H
E
g
0
0
03 -H
M 0 H ^ ^4
CO C -H ,0 J-(
S> CO N C O
•H CO 03 -H pt,
K, (H S-i CO
O CQ CQ p
H w
(LJ cti
&3 pr*]
1
1
1
CO
H 0)
1 3
0 £
SH -H cu
S 3 «H >
r& fQ C3 *H
H G CO CK
CO >H 0)
*£-< r^ ^ (y
CO W C3 P
•f— )
f *
s
-* co o H
H OO OJ H CO J-
1 III 1 H
CM CO CO -d- -*
CM t- ON VO ON CM
• « * • • •
OJ H OO OJ H H
1 III II
O CM CM CO O O
H O* O* H
in O O O O O
H in J- ON CM vO
oo oo oo oo oo oo
i lit ii
in in in o O O
!>- O m co O CM
CM OO CM OO OO OO
O m in o O
ON VD C^- m VO
OO OO J- CM O -3"
1 1 1 l O 1
80 o o c\i o
OJ O -d- co
OO OO OO OJ OO
in oo vO co ro _d"
. ... * *
t*- CO t— C*- C*- C~-
rfj
G co
co C
T< O
H 2 .p H H
CO CO CO CO CO
> W CO > > ^1 X
ct3 E o3 d o o
S-i T-I ti ^ O O
o ^ o o os en
CO
rl (5.0 C5
•H ^ -H
J>j CO f> 3 CO ^
Cti O W O , — j r^J
> C fl M rH 2
Tj CO -H CJ -H CO
CO f-t -P ? J> H
CO ? $H O C CO
CO i-3 H PQ f3 S;
-------
to
0)
A-13
ONrHH-rtHHr-trHrHrHXAHCN
oo
IA
o\
0\
Ox
1A
en
-p
c
to
rH
O,
M
C
•rH
rH
r^
fJ
•P
O
to
Q)
CD N
rH -H
,0 CO
TO
EH -P
C
Q)
E
>»
ff
rH
Q
ft
T)
G
to
?H
0)
JO
, — v
CO
G
CO
•iH
T3
G
P_J
vt
to
>, CD
•O -H
3 -P
-P C
cog
.3°
co 6
jo co
« C
-P
rH 3
CD nu
>
•H T)
Pi c
to
H
CD n
W C
0)
3
•\
t>>
CO
,r^J
n
0
N*_^-
ON
ON
_=r
i
o
XA
C\J
ON
-*
— -J
CM
1
8
rH
ON
ON
1
O
XA
ON
_3
O
C\J
*
ON
rH
1
J
r^
o
XA
C\J
t— rH
Products
ts
-o cj
CD 3
*-. TJ
t3 O
C rH
•H OH
«
O
eg o
o
•8S
0 0
PK EH
ted Products
Products
CO
"CD "o
tt 0
;s
««
<*)
rH
CD t*
f-c M
CO
rH
O
•*
CD
§
-p
CO
CO
H
CO
4->
CD
sc
to
•H
rH
OH
Machinery
rH
to
O
•H
*H
-P
O
CD
rH
W
G
0
ss
fr
CD
•S
J^
o
to
a
rH
CO
o
•H
rH
-P
O
CD
rH
W
CO
o
CD
C
to
rH
rH
CD
0
cn
•H
a
rH
CO
-P
O
H
>,
5?
>
rH
0
CO
, — 1
H
•H
CC
Z
CO
^
O
o
S
E
O
rH
CM
CO
tn
CD
4i
£
o
• n
CO
£H
CD
^i
r<
rJ
-P
O
CO
C rH
CD 3
ECO
15s rH
rH (H
D.-H
e EC
W 1
*
TJ CO
C 5-i
co O
o
•v ^r*
£
f
-p CD
CO CJ
3 SH
T3 CD
c e
M e
0
•>o
>._
-fJ C»H
q o
g ^
LJ -+J
0 C
CD
K^ Pi
j^J
V,
to co
-(-> Q.
10 (H
rH
DH •
CO
to
5«
ED
fn
3 •>
-P CO
CJ 3
CO to
CM G
3 CD
G 0
CO
a
-------
rH
CO
t?
r«"\ H
QO
7?
oo
IA
ON
H
A-l
CD
O
O
ON
ON
ON
I
O
O
u\
*
1A
to
-p
c
re
PL,
no
.5
*H
j3
-P
0
'*H
j3
c
re
CM S
1
• 1 f,^
fc> o
CD Q)
rH CQ
,0 -H
re co
-p
c
Q)
s
e?
rH
a.
E
W
TJ
C
re
p
CD
o
£
3
•z.
re
re
• H
C
to
CD
C -H
•rl +5
CO C
re 3
CQ 0
u
5
> £>
•H H
te CD
rjj
0) CO
-p
•H T3
£ c
ts re
_>jj ^
^ ^d
O CO
pr r^
cn
-P
to •<
re fc^s
W £,
d
CD
JT^
*>
O
0
o
c
re
DC
ON
ON
"~\
O
U>
CM
ON
CM
1
O
O
rH
ON
ON
|
Q
UN,
ON
~
O
CM
}|C
ON
rH
|
H
CM
CO
CM
OJ CM
CM
rH
CM .
CM r-H
r- H rH O UN. vQ
CM rH rH
O NO
rH rH -O-
CQ
O CNJ r*~\ ^"^ U\ NO [^—CO O CM
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
OD ON
O
rH
rH
rH
O
re
•P
o
t-,
co
re
S-,
0
§
f-,
CM
to
f-,
0)
^:
to
(D
CJ
re
I
re
S
o
to
to
C
0)
O
03
ON
g
to
-P
d
re
rH
a,
ON
H
co •
Q) NO
r< ON
3 rH
-P
CJ •>
CO CO
C dJ
CO rH
^g^ f^^
CM r-t
O CO
•H
W f-i
0 -P
to to
c &
0) T)
O C
CD CM
N O
•H
-P >
C f-.
CD S
6 co
Ct-rl
-------
CO
C
co
•rl
•E
in
CD
•H
-P
o
o
a.
C\J
Os O -3 O sO f\ C"-
XA f\ MO XA XA CM O
CM m
A-15
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
Os
Os
Os
I
O
o
XA
rH CM rH _3 rH rH
IA
r^\
1
M
>
Q)
rH
,0
CO
H
O
T)
CO
A-f
ffi
in
-P
c
CO
rH
OL,
tO)
•3
rj
3
-p
o
co
fH
3
C
CO
a
(0 C
CO O
w in
•rH
J-1 T3
CD CO
> s
•H
a; -
c
CD O
-p in
•H q
rd r«
Sfo
-3
»\
in
>;
0
•H
SH
T3
C
CD
W
»v
c
0
.p
rH
•rl
CO
K
CD
fn
re
?
CO
,— i
CD
Q
*>
%
O
Q
«
Os
Os
-3
O
XA
CM
rH
rH
Os
-3
CM
8
rH
M3
CM
OS
Os
|
O
XA
CM
CM
Os
_3;
O
CM
Os
CM
*
Os
H
rH
H
rH
rH
W
-P
O
3
"8
^
CU
-o
CD
S^
•a
c
•rl
fcd
=8
•8
0
lx*
rH
H
in
-P
o
3
"8
^
PL,
rH
H
•H
s
CD
H
•H
•P
X
CD
EH
XA_3 CM rH rH
rH CM_3_JO O-3XA
rH rH
rH rH CM r-H XA CM
rH rH _3 rH -3
COC O\MO_acOCAXA
CM -a CM SO _3 rH
rH
1C
in cn -P
•P -p O
o o 3
3 in 3 -u
•b in +J TJ O
0+3 o o ^
IH 0 W 3 ^ (X
PL, 3 CD T) D-,
*C fn O T3 bO
•O O 3 ^ Tl CD C
Q) ^i H-> P-i Q) -H -rl cn
+3 a, x -H H c -P
CO -H T) rH rH -H O
rHtifx, CDrH, .p
C C
CD CD in
C E -P
tn -r1 {>,, CL c
in .d S~> -rH CD
CO O Q) 3 6
rH w co c cr 3
in O rH £ -rl H f-,
•P co .C -P
Ooain-PrH o C w
3 M CD CO CO O C
T3 " CO S O E -H M
0 (>, 4J ** -H ** -P
^COCDT3S-.rHCCrH
D-irHS CD-P CO-P CO
o -p o o tt u
!-, !>-, CO Q) -H O -H
CD ^t'OrH^Q-C
x:Q)co-r-i[£i-pinco
-P C E JH 1 0 C ,C
coO-HXJCCDfOO
CD-Pf-,coOrHf-)(D
hJcOO-. foZWEHig
f^
r^\
O
rH
0
XA
CO
D
O
CD
C
CO
rH
rH
CD
O
W
•H
s
XA
XA
XA
CM
rH
r-
O
rH
Os
r—
rH
m
rr\
o
^
rH
r-H
CO
-P
O
r-i
O
•
M
O CM
CM CM CM CM
>>
CD
>
t-<
CO
rH
rH
•iH
X
&
CO
?H
o
o
a
cr*
8
t.
«H
to
f-i
0)
x:
-P
0
• w\
in
f<
0)
FH
3
-P
O
nj
H
3
c
CO
SJ
f. ,
»M
O
CO
3
en
C
CD
O
CO
XA
Os
rH
Q
t,
CM
in
•p
C
co
rH
O,
1
Os
rH
1
rH
*
OO
XA
Os
r-t
•%
in •
fn-3-
0) sO
JH Os
3 i — I
-p
O •.
CO 10
CM -P
3 C
C CO
CO rH
SB cu,
§*3
I10
O rH
rH rH
CL-H
e a
W 1
»
T3 CO
C ^
CO O
O
sT*
b«
-P Q)
10 O
r-J •
P ^*
•O Q)
C £
M e
•>o
>CM
4— ' ^H
C 0
3
0 -P
o c
CD
fc> E
J?-P
IH
CO CO
-P a.
C Q)
co Q
r-H
OH •
CO
k.A
CUJ
c •
•H £D
f-,
3 •>
-p in
o 3
co en
H C
P CD
C 0
co
X*
6-i +3
o
CM
C O
O
•rH 3
-P CO
10 (D
0 t-
,3c§
1— ' M-(
CD
O
t,
3
O
CO
-------
A-l
I
•P
s§
w Vi n
poo
cu ^
ss
•5
a
M
a
H
H
a
ol
H
*%H
o
€
g
o
!J
H -P
11
C
M
•H
^j
J
O
«
1
,a
-P
g
CO
t
s§
ON O O
H \D
X ON
O X-N
c? o ^ o
O \O O O
G\ t5
CO
0 H
•H PM
-P H
03 d
•rl 3
fi 0
OJ -P
r-l itf
r-l fc
CO O
•rl £
0
V -H
.£3 -P
•P Oi
>> E
10 <§
C -H
tl
•P ft
co fi
a
O Vi
•H U
+> P)
O
^•H
&l
•g £}
-------
A-17
03
5
ON
H
CH
O
§
«H3
rH +>
8
ON
I
§§
,
§
r-l
0)
s
r^
§
••»
•§
s
•v
H
ci
0)
W
•\
X
CJ
o
o
rt
9
H"f
Vi
0
to
a
•p
-p a
Xti
P
•P H
10 0}
•H S
P 0
4) -p
H C3
r-l K
•H
CO O
•H £-<
M C
0
0) -H
•^ -H
-p cfl
^1
0)^
C -H
5 -
V
^^
?t H
-P ft
W§
C!
O b
•H «J
•P ft
0
V ^
•o +>
O -H
^ >
ft-H
-P
-P 0
C 0
0) rtf
3 O
0 &
r-H
g.
d •
V (0
fn
r-l tt)
0) V
•H C
O -H
0} M
Pi fi^
to W •
cr}
cd CH -p
« ° iS
P ft fl
HH H O
O -H
•d o -P
-------
88
8
VO
QQQQOQQQQQC Q Q Q Q Q
OOOOtfNlr\OOOOQ O Q O O O
oo t»- t— ^cvj HJ- ir\ ro-3- C\J vo OJ vo ir\ c— <
A-l
VD
rH -P
If
M
O
5
S
i
-ti
Is
c? CH 'n
o\ o o
H VQ
X O>
r
H
I
O I* '
^8:
r-H H*
3
g
V
g
fcl
•P
M
•
CO
8
^H
8
00
C\J
O Q
\o
ir\
O IAO
OOOJ OOH H
o o
ir\ ir\ i
CM rH
:§
8
m
88
j- on
!§
' c— H
88
rH CO
888
OJ -^ rH
88
-* rH
00 OJ
HOOCViOJt-OJOJOOONOJON
^ cvi I-H t-n
OO
r-l CO
888
CO CO H
t-
-
CO O
O OO
OJ CU
oo
J-
CVJ
H j- ir\ oovo t— OJir\oJv
U~\\O t-CX3 O O
-------
A-19
«
f
"
to
Dollar
o
VO
H
O
-9
3
3
o
fcH
c
j?
CO
T)
H
{jfl
O
•H
1
cd
CQ
jgj
§
O
M'
8
H
O
£
o
43
§
1
H
CO TH d>
to J3 H
tt) O O
0 ti vH
US d
^^H $
^J OO W tt
C o d> Vi
0) IQ -H -H O
| 4J P H 4i
ft C -P & O
•H 0) O ftg
a1|3fi-5
. B 08 to Ti
COO) OJ oj
O O 2 ^H ft
•H O -P O
4J 0 <1J (3 tH eg
g-ass-s^
•H OH P<> *H
Q li H -rl 03
3 H^ ^ rJ ^ JH
a o o Q< o o
g 4) W (3 HJ fn
O H *rl O 'H
o W s S<
^
ps
^
H
•
to
VQ [•- ON H OJ
VD VO *>D t— t—
OO OO OO CO OO
•d
§
«t
g
be
£
*
•\
j3
O
•H
)LJ
jn
*
•*
O
(Q
•H
•\
C
o
g
*s
^
to
•^
•H
(j
rd
s
•v
C
o
•p
•rl
3
ffi
•\
0)
s
H
a
*\
o>
§
s
-rl
fl -d
•H C
H
H •>
•s-a
Hi H
O
to *d
•fH £4
c^ fA
EH re
5)
4> H->
*H C
O O
•H
Q> -P
O 0)
4_J tat
•pi *n
J-) O
4H O
O to
to
•p <
o
•H tf
•P -H
to c
Sl
i-l
H H
"> C
tQ O
•H -H
?i -P
Q Oj
> O
•d SH
?> B
4^ -H
to
0)
C CU
0 >v
•H 0
HJ H
& Q
S TJ
5
O
m a spe
ineers .
0 M
j^ H^
-------
A-?0
Table VI-7
Historical and Projected Study Area Population
Eel River Subarea
Clay County
Brazil Urban Area
Owen County
Putnam County
Greencastle Township
Subtotal
East Fork White River Subarea
Hancock County
Center Township
Henry County
Henry Township
Rush County
Rushville Township
Shelby County
Addis on Township
Subtotal
White River Subarea
Boone County
Lebanon Urban Area
Delaware County
Muncie Urban Area
Hamilton County
Noblesville Township
Clay Township
1950
23,918
8,U3*
11,763
22,950
9,^53
58,631
20,332
7,989
^5,505
23,633
19,799
8,090
28,026
13,857
113,662
23,993
7,71^
90,252
58,^79
28,1*91
9,125
2,311
I960
2U,207
8,853
11,1+00
2^,927
10,5^2
60,53^
26,665
11,356
H8,899
25,896
20,393
9,131
3^,093
16,90^
130,050
27,5^3'
9,650
110,938
77,501*
Uo,132
11,651
10,215
1980
28,000
13,000
9,700
32,100
12,000
69,800
36,800
17,000
60,800
3^,000
20,000
11,500
33,500
19,000
151,100
25,600
10,600
157,800
126,000
U7,200
13,000
20,000
2020
U0,800
21,000
io,Uoo
U0,900
18,000
92,100
66,900
35,000
105,600
60,000
2U,200
lU,500
U6,900
25,000
21+3,600
U3,700
2U,000
2^U,800
220,000
71,900
15,000
143,000
-------
A-21
Table VI-7
Historical and Projected Study Area Population (cont'd)
Lte River Subarea (cont'd)
Hendricks County
Guilford, Lincoln, and
Washington Townships
Johnson County
Franklin Township
Pleasant Township
Madison County
Anderson Township
Marion County
Morgan County
Brown Township
Washington Township
Randolph County
Wayne Township
White River Township
Urbanized Area of
Indianapolis*
Subtotal
Study Area Total
1950
2k, 59k
9,758
26,183
8,^29
5,211
103,911
57,023
551,777
23,726
3,181
8,625
27,11+1
U,890
7,935
517,3*6
900,068
1,072,361
1960
Uo,896
22,817
l*3,70U
10,578
lU,282
125,819
67,305
697,567
33,875
5,673
10,912
2Q,k3k
5,332
8,1*03
676,439
1,11*8,908
1,339,^92
1980
50,600
33,000
63,000
ll*,000
26,000
19*1,600
100,000
895,600
33,^00
7,500
15,000
32,UOO
6,500
9,500
900,000
1,500,200
1,721,100
2020
101,800
73,000
108,700
19,000
75,000
296,200
150,000
1,206,500
58,500
21,000
20,000
U6,500
10,000
13,000
1,300,000
2,178,600
2,51^,300
*Marion County plus the surrounding townships of Clay in Hamilton County;
Guilford, Lincoln, and Washington in Hendricks County; and Pleasant in
Johnson County.
-------
A-22
Table VII-1
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
Location and Name of Estimated Population Average Use Demand
Municipality Served - 1963 MGD gpcd
Eel River Subarea
Greencastle 9,000 1.2 133
Brazil 2 10,1*50 1.0 96
Jasonville **,300 0.187 1*3
Bainbridge 600 0.03 50
North Salem 650 0.022 3!*
Jamestown 830 0.03 36
Clay City 960 0.0l*5 1*7
Cloverdale 760 0.035 1*6
Putnamville State Farm 1300 0.31 gl*0
Subarea Total 28,850 2.86 99
East Fork White River Subarea
Franklin 8,000 1.1 138
Greenfield 11,000 1.1 100
New Castle 21,000 1.65 78
Shelbyville 12,500 1.59 127
Rushville 7,000 0.70 100
Edinburg ^,000 0.60 150
New Whitelan^ 3,^90 0.20 57
Princes Lake- 570 0.08 lUO
Whiteland 1,000 0.10 100
Knightstown 2,500 0.35 1^0
Lewisville 650 0.037 57
Shirley 1,0**0 0.05 U8
Spiceland 865 0.017 20
Carthage 1,100 0.16 ll*5
Morristown 800 0.039 ^9
St. Paul 500 0.030 60
Subarea Total 76,000 7.8 103
-------
Location and Name of
Municipality
White River Subarea
j.
Indianapolis
Speedway
Lawrence
Clermont
Cumberland
Whitestown
Brownsburg
Danville
Pittsboro
Plainfield
Mooresvilie
Greenwood
Bargersville
Bethany
Brooklyn
Martinsville
Noblesville
Cicero
Sheridan
Carmel
Westfield
Zionville
Fortville
Pendleton
Elwood
Tipton
Arcadia
Winchester
Farmland
Parker City
Muncie
Yorktown
Gaston
Mt. Summit
Middletown
Chesterfield
Anderson
Edgewood
Summitville
Alexandria
Frankton
Orestes
Lapel
Table VII-1 (Cont'd)
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
Estimated Population
Served - 1963
615,000
10,500
10,200
1,100
900
650
5,000
3,500
830
6,000
*,000
A-23
650
65
850
8,000
8,ooo
1,290
1,260
i.UUo
1,250
1,900
2,300
2,500
13,000
5,600
1,260
5,7*0
1,200
1,200
71,000
1,200
810
Uoo
2,100
2,500
62,000
2,120
900
5,580
1,*50
Average Use
MGD
Demand
gpcd
1,780
Subarea Total 873,000
75.5
1.7
0.9
0.055
07025
0.35
0.35
0.03
0.32
0.26
0.5
0.087
0.003
0.03
0.76
0.75
0.06
0.159
0.17
0.075
0.126
0.22
0.13
0.905
0.60
0.05
0.50
0.08
0.065
11.50
0.069
0.03
0.025
0.18
0.20
9.03
0.20
0.08
0.70
0.20
0.025
0.08
107.6
123
162
87
50
39
70
100
36
53
65
125
13*
*6
35
95
9*
*7
126
118
60
66
96
32
70
107
l+O
87
67
5*
162
58
37
63
86
80
1*6
9^
89
125
138
56
*5
123
-------
Table VII-1 (Cont'd)
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
Sources: "1963 Inventory of Municipal Water Facilities, U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare."
"Data on Indiana Water Supplies, Bulletin No. S. E. 10., Indiana
State Board of Health, I960."
1. Brazil also serves the communities of Harmony and Knightsville.
2. Jasonville also serves the communities of Coalraont and Hymera.
3. Princes Lake also serves the community of Ninevah.
U. Indianapolis also serves the communities of Beech Grove, Ben Davis,
Homecroft, Mars Hill, Meridian Hills Southport, Warren Park and Williams
Creek. Figures for Indianapolis are for year 196U.
All communities utilize wells as their source of supply except Indianapolis,
Speedway, Princes Lake, Muncie, Anderson and Putnamville State Farm.
Indianapolis in addition to their surface supply from White River and Fall
Creek has ^2 wells utilized as an emergency and occasional source of supply.
Estimated ground water use by the Indianapolis Water Company is an average of
3 mgd. Princes Lake uses impoundments, Putnamville State Farm uses a low head
impoundment on Deer Creek. Muncie uses low head impoundments on Buck Creek
and White River along with a 21,500 acre-foot impoundment on Prairie Creek,
supplemented by wells. Anderson uses wells supplemented by a low head impound-
ment on White River. Speedway uses a low head impoundment on Big Eagle Creek
and has six wells for emergency use.
-------
Table VIII-1
Municipal Waste Treatment
A-25
Facilities
Community
Eel River Subarea
Jamestown
North Salem
Greencastle
Brazil
Cloverdale
Putnaniville
State Farm
Jasonville
Sewage
Treatment
Facilities
Sewers
No Treatment
n
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Receiving
Stream
West Fork
Big Walnut Ck.
East Fork
Big Walnut Ck.
Big Walnut Ck.
Birch Creek
Rabbit Creek
Deer Creek
Trib. to Eel R.
Total
Estimated
Population
Served
800
600
8,500
8,800
7^0
1,300
2,U30
23,170
Population Equivalent
Based on B.O.D.
Raw Treated
E
800
600E
8,500E
8,800E
7UOE
1,300E
2;U30E
23,170
E
800
600E
1,275
1,320
110
200E
360
^,665
East Fork White River Subarea
New Castle
Carthage
Morristown
Shelbyville
Edinburg
Greenfield
Franklin
New Whiteland
Rush vi lie
Shirley
Spiceland
Knightstown
New Palestine
Glenwood
Secondary
Secondary
Oxidation
Ponds
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Oxidation
Ponds
Sewers
No Treatment
"
n
"
Big Blue R.
Big Blue R.
Big Blue R.
Big Blue R.
Big Blue R.
Brandywine Ck.
Youngs Creek
Grassy Creek
Flat Rock R.
Six Mile Ck.
to Big Blue R.
Tributary to
Big Blue River
Big Blue River
Big Sugar Ck.
Ben Davis Ck.
Total
20,000
1,000
705
1*1,300
3,660
9,000
9,^50
3,^80
7,260
1,030
867
2,1(90
600
380
7^,215 '
21,200
I,OOOE
705E
7,820
3,660E
9,oooE
13,695
3^80E
2,885
i,030E
860E
2,l+90E
6ooE
38oE
68,805
2,970
150E
105E
2,885
550E .
l,350E
1,060
520E
220
150E
860E
2,^90
6ooE
1^,290
-------
Table VHI-1 (Cont'd)
Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities
A-?6
Community
Sewage
Treatment
Facilities
Receiving
Stream
Estimated
Population
Served
Population Equivalent
Based on B.O.D.
Raw Treated
White River Subarea
Winchester
Parker City
Muncie
Yorktown
Chesterfield
Anderson
Edgewood
Summitvllle
Gaston
Alexandria
Elwood
Lapel
Carmel
Westfield
Zionsville
Middletovn
Pendleton
Fortville
Lawrence
Beech Grove
Secondary
Sewers
No Treatment
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Sewers
No Treatment
Sewers
No Treatment
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Oxidation
Ponds
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
White River
White River
White River
ii it
it it
it tt
Tributary
White River
Mud Creek
Pipe Creek
ii it
Duck Creek
Stony Creek
Cool Creek
it it
ii ii
Fall Creek
it ii
ii it
ti ii
Lick Creek
5,7l*0
1,180
68,600
1,130
2,585
63,000
2,110
1,01*5
770
5,200
11,000
1,770
1,M*0
1,210
E
1,820
2,030
2,1*70
2,200
10,100
10,950
5,7l*0E
1,180E
153,000E
E
1,130
2,585E
5l*, 330
2,110E
1,OU5E
770E
E
5,200
2,820
1,770E
1,1*1*0
1,210E
1,820E
2,220
, E
2,1*00
2,200E
9,990
5,575
870E
1,180E
E
26,000
E
790
l,8lOE
11,61*0
2,lioE
i,ol*5
115E
E
790
1,055
265E
215E
180E
E
275
1*10
E
300
E
330
1,1*1*5
310
-------
Table VIII-1 (Cont'd)
Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities
A-27
I
Community
Clermont
Noblesville
Indianapolis
Speedway
Homecroft
Southport
Brownsburg
Danville
Plainfield
Mooresville
Greenwood
Tipton
Arcadia
Cicero
Sheridan
Bargersville
Martins ville
Sewage
Treatment
Facilities
Sewers
No Treatment
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Sewers
No Treatment
Sewers
No Treatment
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Sewers
No Treatment
Sewers
No Treatment
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Receiving
Stream
Eagle Creek
White River
White River
Eagle Creek
Little Buck
Creek
Little Buck
Creek
White Lick Ck
West Fork
White Lick Ck
White Lick Ck
White Lick Ck
Pleasant Run
Cicero Creek
Cicero Creek
Cicero Creek
Cicero Creek
Stotts Creek
White River
Total
Estimated Population Equivalent
Population Based on B.O.D.
Served Raw Treated
1,050
7,800
^76,260
9,600
950
890
. M75E
. 3,200
. 5,^60
. 3,800
7,170
5,600
1,260
1,280
2,165
580
7,500
735,390
1,050
3,300E
1,310,000
5,365
950E
890E
M75E
3,200E
5,^60E
3,800E
M05
5,600
1,260E
1,280E
2,165
58oE
7,195
1,619,510
1,050E
180E
202,700
1,690
950E
890E
/- E
670
WOE
820E
E
570
695
8UOE
1,260E
1,280E
325E
E
90
5,225
270,850
Footnotes:
1. Wastes of 53,715 given secondary treatment and lU,885 no treatment.
E. Indicates an estimated value.
-------
Table VIII-2
Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities
(Self -discharging industrial waste treatment
facilities for industrial plants utilizing
over 10 million gallons of water a year)1
S.I.C.
Code
Eel River
East Pork
2653
3229
283U
Type of Plant & Location
Subarea
None self -discharging and over 10
White River Subarea
p
Pulp and paper mill-Carthage
Fiberglass products -She Ibyville
U
Biologicals -Greenfield
Employment
(1962)
mg/yr.
160
32
300
Pop. Equiv.
Based on B.O.D
28,000
900
50
White River Subarea
283U
28lU
2^91
2911
20U1
3713
3^61
3351
3722
3531
^7PQ
Biologicals-Zionsville
Wood treating and coal ,-
tar chemicals -Indianapolis
7
Petroleum refinery- Indianapolis
8
Corn milling- Indianapolis
8
Truck body parts-Indianapolis
9
Brass products -Indianapolis
Aircraft engines and products -
Indianapolis10
Uco
150
220
130
3,500
1,200
^,300
120
2,800
1,080
5,950
U20
280
1,500
Total 1*1,100
Footnotes:
1. Plants whose discharge is essentially only cooling water or which have
wastes not characterized as producing a B.O.D. are not included.
-------
A-29
Table VIII-2 (Cont'd)
Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities
(Self-discharging industrial waste treatment
facilities for industrial plants utilizing
over 10 million gallons of water a year)1
Footnotes cont'd.
2. Paper machine water is discharged to clarifier and lagoon. Results
are for combined waites of boiler blowdown, log washing and power
plant cooling waters. Since collection of these data, extensive
waste treatment facilities have been added. Effluent is discharged
to Big Blue River.
3. Sanitary wastes and starch and chrome binder wastes are discharged
to the municipal sewer system. Effluent is discharged to Little
Blue River.
U. Treatment is by a trickling filter plant with postchlorination.
Effluent is discharged to Brandywine Creek via Leary Ditch.
5. Wastes from animal quarters are treated by Imhoff tank followed by
slow sand filtration. Serum area and cafeteria wastes are given
activated sludge treatment and sand filtration. Effluent is discharged
to Eagle Creek.
6. Process wastes are treated in API (American Petroleum Institute)
separator and effluent is discharged to Eagle Creek. Has connected
to municipal sewer since these data were collected.
7. Treatment consists of ion exchange tower for phenols, sulfides and
flue gas. Process water is treated in an API separator, accelator
and oxidation ponds. Effluent is discharged to Little Eagle Creek.
8. Sanitary wastes are discharged to municipal sewer system. Process and
cooling waters receive no treatment. Effluent is discharged to the
White River.
9« All wastes are treated in an aerated lagoon preceded by an oil skimming
basin. Effluent is discharged to Eagle Creek.
10. Sanitary wastes are discharged to municipal sewer system. Process
wastes are treated by three API separators, clarifiers, chemical
treatment and a stabilization pond. Effluent is discharged to
Eagle Creek.
11. Data obtained from joint U. S. Public Health Service-Indiana State
Board of Health survey in 1962 and 1963.
-------
A-30
A N 0 O L P H
WAYNE
\
N
T T E
SCALE IN MILES
• g « in
WATER SUPPY & WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BIG WALNUT, BIG BLUE & DOWNEYVILLE RESERVOIRS
WABASH RIVER BASIN-INDIANA
LOCATION MAP
;^^owc*Twwimw^
SSSttff^
-------
A-31
X-S
PROPOSED
DAM SITE
£:::£
HENDRICKS I
|
f
N
SCALE IN MILES
0 5 10
IS
WATER SUPPLY 4 WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BIG WALNUT. BIG BLUE & DOWNEYVILLE RESERVOIRS
WABASH RIVER BASIN-INDIANA
EEL RIVER SUBAREA
LOCATION MAP
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, tWELFARE
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
EVANSVILLE FIELD STATION, INDIAN* OHIO RIVER BASIN PROJECT
FIGURE 01
-------
A-33
_•' unnitvill**
/ DELAWARE
RANDOLPH
0 C K H E N R Y
SCALE IN MILES
5 0 » 10 13
INDIANA!
KALC IN MHO
^"^l^J^IJ
VICINITY MAP
WATER SUPPLY & WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
BIG WALNUT, BIG BLUE &, DOWNEYVILLE RESERVOIRS
WABASH RIVER BASIN—INDIANA
WHITE RIVER SUBAREA
LOCATION MAP
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
F«d»ral Water Pollution Control Administration
EVANSVILE riEt.0 STATION. INDIANA OHIO RIVER BA5N PROJECT
FIGURE DC
-------
A-34
o >
Sf
\\j\j
80
60
40
20
ft
\
\
\
\
\
\
A
\
\
\
\
^^s
. — .
=aM
2 4 6 8
BOO (ing/I)
10
Ul
0>
UJI-
IUU
80
60
40
20
ft
^"
/
/
L^
X
f
/ S
/
s'
*' /
/
7 8 9 10
D.O. (mg/l)
100
°7o EQUAL TO OR GREATER
THAN GIVEN VALUE
\\i\j
80
60
40
20
ft
\^
\
\
\
X
\x
\
\
\
\
V \
\ \
\\
\ \
0 25 50
Chlorides
(rng/l)
10° I01 I02
Collform per ml
cr
UJ
o>
OI
LU»-
I?
100
80
60
40
20
\
0 ! 2 3
Niiro + es (mg/l)
LEGEND
SHELBYVILLE
CARTHAGE
NOTE:
THE ABOVE PER CENT OCCURENCES
REPRESENT ABOUT 195 SAMPLES AT EACH
STATION. EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH-
OUT THE YEAR.
PERCENT OCCURENCE FOR SHELBYVILLE AND
CARTHAGE, INDIANA WATER QUALITY MONITOR
STATIONS 1957-1964
FIGURE 7
-------
A-35
m *,uuu
cr —
^ 3.000= = : =
z ::::
U 2,006 -'-'--
O :-•--
^t
(£
O_
H"
Z *
o£ ::"
F- 700 -
O C f\ A - - -
DUU - - - -
^ 4OO -- - -
± 300
9ftO-
<
yf
1
> 1
^
,,
n
$<
,/
,
^
J H
^
. /
**
^r *"'
!--
-
V
5<
L^
^«
^
k'
X
^
><
1
x-
;
f
--
*-
^
^
M
^
^
^
X
^
^*
^«
^
(
^
E"" ! •••''
1 O AO
r , , ••'
=**' I
* ' ~*~
........ J
|U[ i
1 1
T
t
(T ITT
± 30"
OAfV - ^
1.5
3WJ,C/uO
u
b.
U) -~ 4.
at I r
o
2 1 00 000 4- i-
UJ L *
O -U4-4.
a ii
O
L*. ^c\rtc*r\ - -- *-•
\^ 3O,OOO
Q£
<
3
Z
Z
<
in AAn -t- -- -
1.5
V '
^
2 3 456789 10 20
RECURRENCE INTERVAL IN YEARS
BIG WALNUT CREEK BELOW GREENCASTLE
I
f j
y>^pr**fi "
.-tr
tt'rr"
Z 3
r
j
I
i
-
*<*
£'•*'"*
1
^i'-X
-— *
\~-
**•
X
fr
**
ff
•>
X
\
1
^J-1
j
,
4 56789
, [_
\
1
•^
< *
h
r
\- — •
h-
^
**
—
-
10
**
^
__[._!_ J..+1
1!
JlJ-1
' 20 20 j
K 1
'
1 980
T< "^,;;
-------
A-36
V-
UJ
uj
u.
UI
OC
o
UJ
o
<
(T
O
Z
O
I
u.
<
--,
s
•- •
2
t
r
si
F
I
1
• -
0
ro
•o
N- • 9 (
1
RAG
R 1
i
i
1-
E
)80
t
.1
- l"t r
* ! '
- • * *
j
... i
• • V
1 . 1
t »•!••"
- ——
1
. . ..
1.3 I 5
5 6 7 8 9 |0
20
30 40 5O
RECURRENCE INTERVAL IN YEARS
BIG BLUE RIVER BELOW SHELBYVILLE
DRAFT-ON-STORAGE FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL NEEDS
VS RECURRENCE INTERVAL FOR THE YEARS OF I960 AND 2020
FIGURE YE
------- |