grand calumet river area of concern's delisting targets for beneficial use impairments

8/9/2019 Grand Calumet River Area of Concern's Delisting Targets for Beneficial Use Impairments

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/grand-calumet-river-area-of-concerns-delisting-targets-for-beneficial 1/60

DDEELLIISS T TIINNGG T T A A R R GGEE T TSS FFOOR R T THHEE GGR R A A NNDD CC A A LLUUMMEE T T R R II V V EER R A A R R EE A A OOFF

CCOONNCCEER R NN:: FFIINN A A LL R R EEPPOOR R T T

Submitted to

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

August 1, 2008



AACCKKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGMMEENNTTSS

We would like to thank the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lakes National Program Office(GLNPO) for funding, and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for successfullyimplementing this important initiative. Thanks are due to Mr. Tony Kizlauskas (GLNPO’s ContractManager) and Mr. John Perrecone (GLNPO’s Remedial Action Plan RAP liaison) for facilitating variousadministrative components of this project.

Many experts contributed their time, effort, and talent toward the preparation of this report. We would liketo thank the following people for serving on the Technical Committee, and helping prepare this report:

• Ms. Beth Admire, Indiana Department of Environmental Management• Mr. Thomas Anderson, Save the Dunes• Mr. Pete Baranyai, East Chicago Sanitary District• Mr. Dave Behrens, U.S. Steel• Professor Young Choi, Purdue University – Calumet• Mr. John Fekete, Citizen• Ms. Anne Kominowski, Indiana Department of Environmental Management

• Ms. Hala Kuss, Indiana Department of Environmental Management• Professor Gary Lamberti, University of Notre Dame

• Ms. Vicky Meretsky, Indiana University• Mr. Mike Molnar, Indiana Department of Natural Resources• Mr. Dan Plath, NiSource

• Dr. Alan Resetar, Field Museum – Chicago• Ms. Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – GLNPO• Dr. Robin Scribailo, Purdue University – North Central• Mr Jim Smith Indiana Department of Environmental Management



TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

SSeeccttiioonn PPaaggee

1.0 Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

2.0 Project Introduction and Rationale-------------------------------------------------------------------3

3.0 Grand Calumet River: Background ------------------------------------------------------------------63.1 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------63.2 Existing Beneficial Use Impairments --------------------------------------------------------------73.3 Sources of Environmental Stress ------------------------------------------------------------------103.4 Trends in Water Quality-------------------------------------------------------------------------------143.5 Trends in Biotic Communities -----------------------------------------------------------------------163.6 Developments Towards Delisting ------------------------------------------------------------------18

4.0 Delisting Targets: Where We Want To Be ---------------------------------------------------------254.1 Applicability of State Water Quality Standards to Delisting Targets ----------------------254.2 Summary of Delisting Targets Adopted in Other Areas of Concerns

and Their Relevance to Grand Calumet River AOC ------------------------------------------264.2.1 Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption ----------------------------------------284.2.2 Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor--------------------------------------------------------294.2.3 Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption, or Taste and Odor ----------------294.2.4 Added Costs to Agriculture and Industry-------------------------------------------------30

4.2.5 Fish Tumors and Deformities ---------------------------------------------------------------314.2.6 Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproduction Problems-------------------------------324.2.7 Degradation of Benthos ----------------------------------------------------------------------334 2 8 Restrictions on Dredging Activities 34



5.1 Basic Implementation Concepts--------------------------------------------------------------------44

5.2 Timeline of the Implementation ---------------------------------------------------------------------45

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations -----------------------------------------------------------------46

7.0 References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47

LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS

3-1: Summary of Fourteen Beneficial Impairments in the Grand Calumet River AOC -------------73-2: Metal Concentrations in the Grand Calumet Area of Concern in mg/kg -------------------------113-3: Detected Sample Results, Indiana Harbor and Canal, East Chicago, Indiana-----------------133-4: Beneficial Use Impairments Guidelines for Listing and Delisting ----------------------------------194-1: Grand Calumet River AOC BUIs and Indiana Designated Uses-----------------------------------254-2: Muskegon Lake & Bear Lake Delisting Targets for Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae --35

LLIISSTT OOFF FFIIGGUURREESS

3.1: The Grand Calumet River AOC-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A-13.2: Grand Calumet River AOC: 1951 Land Use-------------------------------------------------------------A-23.3: Grand Calumet River AOC: 1990 Land Use-------------------------------------------------------------A-33.4: Grand Calumet River AOC: NPDES Outfall Locations -----------------------------------------------A-43.5: Grand Calumet River AOC: June 1992 Ground Water Levels--------------------------------------A-53.6: Grand Calumet River AOC: September 1992 Ground Water Levels -----------------------------A-6

3.7: Grand Calumet River AOC: Sediment Sampling Locations -----------------------------------------A-6



1111

11..00 EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARR Y Y

This report summarizes the development of delisting targets for the Grand Calumet River Area of Concern(AOC). The goal of this project was to establish endpoints that define a rehabilitated watershed and allowthe delisting of the Grand Calumet River AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Delistingtargets also support and reinforce planning and implementation of watershed rehabilitation efforts, thusproviding positive social and economic impact for the region. The process of delisting AOCs is defined bypolicies and guidance established by The International Joint Commission (IJC), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA), and Environment Canada. These policies are, in turn, carried out by thestates and provinces wherein the AOCs reside. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM) has collaborated with the Citizens Advisory for the Remediation of the Environment (CARE)Committee, various local and regional governments, universities, and citizens within the Grand Calumet AOC in addressing the impairments to the watershed and in the development of these targets.

Changes in land use within the river basins feeding the Grand Calumet River since European settlement of the region around 1830 have redefined the watershed and resulted in degradation to natural features and

functions. The cumulative effects of this long term degradation resulted in portions of the Grand CalumetRiver watershed being listed as a Great Lakes AOC. The Grand Calumet River AOC - consisting of theeast branch of the river, a portion of the west branch, the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, and the near shorearea of Lake Michigan - was listed in the mid 1980s based on the identification of all fourteen BeneficialUse Impairments (BUIs) that had been defined by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as potentiallyapplying to Great Lakes. The fourteen Beneficial Use Impairments for the Grand Calumet River AOC areas follows:

• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption• Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor • Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor • Added costs to agriculture or industry



2222

The IDEM and its local collaborators have already made progress toward addressing many of these

impairments. Significant milestones include the completion of a Stage One Remedial Action Plan in 1991;submittal of a Stage 2 Plan in 1997; development of a Stage 2.5 Plan; completion of a Grand CalumetRiver Natural Resources Damage Assessment that culminated in a settlement agreement in 2004;establishment of programs to reduce combined sewer overflows and implement storm water BMPs toreduce discharge impacts; and the investigation and remediation of contaminated sediments at severallocations in the watershed.

This project to develop delisting targets has drawn from previous efforts within the Grand Calumet River and its tributaries, as well as from efforts in other Great Lakes AOCs. The project team reviewed IndianaWater Quality Standards and the delisting/restoration targets that have been developed in other states todetermine the applicability of these targets to the Grand Calumet River AOC. During this review, it becameapparent that although targets developed in other AOCs and generic state-wide criteria were good startingpoints, the final targets developed for an AOC had to be site specific and adapted to the specificcircumstances associated with the watershed under consideration. This philosophy was utilized in tailoringthe Grand Calumet River AOC delisting targets that were reviewed and adopted by members of the

steering committee for this project. Draft delisting targets for eleven of the fourteen BUIs within the AOCwere initially developed by Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT), the project consultants.The project also reviewed the current state of the river based on existing data and available reports. Noadditional data was collected as a part of this project. The delisting targets were then reviewed bydesignated technical experts and refined for presentation to the project steering committee beforeincorporation into this document.

The delisting targets presented in this report are measurable and definable endpoints established

specifically for the Grand Calumet River AOC. In some cases, the targets are conditional, offeringalternative methods of evaluation to achieve restoration goals. The discussion of the targets identifiesspecific actions necessary to apply the target and determine when the criteria have been met. The nextgeneration RAP, and subsequent iterations, will help identify and prioritize BUIs that can be most easily



3333

22..00 PPRROOJJEECCTT IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN AANNDD RRAATTIIOONNAALLEE

Throughout the Great Lakes, there is renewed interest in determining goals and targets for “delisting” Areasof Concern (AOCs) (i.e. determining at what point impaired beneficial uses can be considered restored). Although the process of listing and delisting AOCs has been largely defined by the International JointCommission (IJC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), this renewed interest in delisting isespecially relevant for the Grand Calumet River AOC, where active involvement by the IDEM, CARE,various local and regional governments, universities and citizens’ groups has resulted in significant

progress. This collaborative effort has resulted in several reports and initiatives that have established thefoundation upon which this current delisting effort is based. Specifically, the 1991 and 1997 Stage 1 andStage 2 Remedial Action Plans and the current draft Stage 2.5 Plan, the Grand Calumet River NaturalResources Damage Assessment (NRDA) settlement document and related studies/documents, and theTMDL technical documents have, among others, provided valuable site specific information to support thedevelopment of meaningful restoration endpoints.

It is important to note that the development of delisting targets is a culmination of efforts at the international,

federal, state, and community levels. Thus, the development of delisting targets that are accepted byIndiana, the USEPA, other agencies, regional and local governments, and the public was the major goal of this project.

The process of delisting AOCs is defined by policies and guidance established by the IJC, USEPA, andEnvironment Canada. These policies are, in turn, carried out by the states and provinces wherein the AOCs reside. The original listing of Great Lakes AOCs was based on the presence of beneficial useimpairments within each candidate area. The IJC lists fourteen Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that

may apply to Great Lakes Areas of Concern, all fourteen of which were identified as impaired in the GrandCalumet River AOC Remedial Action Plan. Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement(GLWQA) provided no guidance for listing or delisting BUIs. The first set of guidance for delisting targetwas put forth in 1991 by IJC These criteria were fairly general and led to a more specific set of guidance



4444

• Beach closings

• Degradation of aesthetics*

• Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat*

*not part of this project or report

The goal of developing delisting targets is to provide an endpoint definition of “how clean is clean” that willlead to the creation of a plan for the restoration of the watershed. There are environmental, social, andeconomic consequences of the current BUIs of the Grand Calumet River AOC that can be addressedthrough the delisting of the AOC. For example, a 2003 study by the Northeast-Midwest Institute estimatedthat remediation of contaminated sediment in Waukegan Harbor, Illinois could increase individual propertyvalues by a range of $21,000 to $53,000. In Thunder Bay, Sustainable Futures et al. (1996) estimated that$50 million in investments in economic development would ensue from cleanup of contaminated sedimentsin this AOC (Sediment Priority Action Committee 2000).

Restoration of the Grand Calumet River AOC will result in benefits that can be described both qualitativelyand quantitatively (e.g., in terms of economic benefits). Restoration is expected to enhance the beneficialuses of the watershed, including swimming, boating, transportation, tourism, fish for recreational catch andconsumption, wildlife viewing, clean and healthy drinking water, biodiversity and genetic preservation. Inaddition, the quality of life is improved with enhanced aesthetics from the natural beauty of the watershed.Many people experience the environment in positive ways, such as a relief from the stresses and pressuresof urban life or by having a spiritual experience or a connection with nature. In general, we can attributemany social and psychological benefits to preserving the natural beauty of our environment.

There are measurable and immeasurable benefits to restoring the AOC in terms of human health effects. Atbeaches with degraded water quality associated with storm water runoff or sewage discharges, bacterialand parasitic infections can be measured in direct medical costs or in sick days off of work for afflicted



5555

result from ingestion exposure to chemicals in drinking water since the Grand Calumet River AOC drains

into Lake Michigan which is a source of drinking water for many communities.

A high biological loading associated with nutrients from fertilizers, storm water runoff, and erosion can leadto undesirable algal blooms which can affect boating and water quality. Algae can increase the naturalorganic matter content of drinking water source water, which upon disinfection with chlorine, may form toxicdisinfection byproducts. Algae can also add an undesirable taste-and-odor to the water.

Ecosystem health is important to humans as well as to the fish and wildlife. Maintaining genetic diversityand healthy populations of fish and wildlife will result in immediate as well as long term beneficial uses.

Restrictions on dredging directly and indirectly impact navigational uses of the AOC related to recreationaluses and commercial transportation.

Lastly, the development of delisting targets for the BUIs within the AOC is an essential part of the next RAPupdate. These targets will be utilized to specify measurable endpoints that will enable the IDEM and

associated stakeholders to know when the remediation in the AOC has accomplished the specified RAPgoals. Each BUI will be evaluated with respect to the applicability of that BUI to each of the AOC sub-watersheds as part of this project. This information will be utilized in the RAP update to determine whichtargets should be applied where within the AOC.



6666

33..00 GGRRAANNDD CCAALLUUMMEETT RRIIVVEERR:: BBAACCKKGGRROOUUNNDD

3.1 INTRODUCTIONThe Grand Calumet AOC is located approximately fifteen miles south of Chicago in the most northwesternportion of Indiana (see Figure 3.1). The AOC is roughly thirteen square miles and encompasses the eastbranch of the Grand Calumet River, a small segment of the west branch, and the Indiana Harbor ShipCanal. As the River flows through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond itpasses through the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal eventually draining into Lake Michigan (EnvironmentalProtection Agency). For this reason, the near shore of the Lake is also included in the AOC. As mentioned,a considerable portion of the land surrounding the aforementioned water bodies consists of highlyindustrialized land use, primarily dominated by the steel industry with three steel manufacturers contributing90% of all industrial point source discharges. Contrasting the land use in 1951 (Figure 3.2) and 1990(Figure 3.3), urbanization seems to have resulted in a remarkable loss of non-forested wetlands in the AOC(Environmental Protection Agency). Within this AOC there are five Superfund Sites, more than 400Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites, 23 companies which either treat, store, or disposeof hazardous waste, 462 underground storage tanks, of which 150 are reporting to be leaking, four oil

refineries, six crude oil pipelines, and 18 petroleum product companies (The Remedial Action Plan for theIndiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River, and the Nearshore Lake Michigan Stage I 9). Today, 90%of the river's flow originates as municipal and industrial effluent, cooling and process water, and stormwater overflows (Figure 3.4). Although there has been a reduction in the amount discharged, a number of contaminants continue to impair the AOC. The region’s groundwater levels show seasonal changes andare much lower in summer (Figure 3.5) than in early fall (Figure 3.6) (Environmental Protection Agency).

The natural resources that have contributed to the region’s diversity have been severely impacted by

human interference. Ecological succession and hydrological interconnects have been altered by suchstresses as habitat fragmentation, hydrologic modification, introduction of exotic species, shorelinealternation, and environmental contamination. As a result, water quality in the Grand Calumet River andIndiana Harbor Ship Canal system continues to be a serious concern Cyanide unionized ammonia and E



7777

Another contributor to the overall degradation of water quality is contamination of groundwater in the area.

Because groundwater and surface water are hydrologically linked and the area has a high water table,groundwater often becomes surface water (Remedial Action Plan Stage II 41).

Water contamination in the Grand Calumet AOC is adversely affecting aquatic species and macro-invertebrate communities in the system, as showcased by low levels of biodiversity. This type of speciescomposition is typical of a degraded environment that consists of pollution tolerant species. Multipleindicators point to increased levels of contamination beyond just the presence of pollution tolerant indicator species including higher incidence of disease and low growth rates. Studies indicate that degradation of water quality, rather than loss of habitat, is most likely the limiting factor contributing to the degradation of aquatic communities. Furthermore, many of the contaminants present, such as PCB and mercury, arebioaccumulating. As a result, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) has advised against theconsumption of fishes from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Lack of foodresources, low dissolved oxygen, and toxic stress also contribute to the instability of biotic communities(Remedial Action Plan Stage II 43).

Water contamination relates to all fourteen of the beneficial uses of the AOC. It seriously alters fish andwildlife populations, drinking water quality, aesthetics, deformities, agriculture, and industrial work. Theproductivity of the ecosystem is altered by contaminated sediment from municipal and industrial pointsources, combined sewer overflows, and urban runoff. Combine the problem of point source pollution withnon-point contributors such as land development, erosion, runoff, and air emissions and the beneficial usesof the area become severely limited. All of the above-mentioned inducers of stress add to the reduction of the fourteen beneficial uses and increased degradation of the ecosystem (Remedial Action Plan Stage II43).

3.2 EXISTING BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTSBased on the 1991 Remedial Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, the Grand Calumet River, andthe near shore Lake Michigan, a total of fourteen beneficial uses are considered impaired. The following



8888

Tainting of Fish

and WildlifeFlavor

IDEM staff has identified degraded fish

populations. Tainting of the fish has occurred.

• Contaminated Sediments• Industrial and Municipal

Effluents

• Combined Sewer Overflows• Urban Runoff

• Input from Industries andMunicipalities

• Spills• Groundwater Contamination

Degradation of Fish andWildlifePopulations

Extremely pollution tolerant forms of fish such asCarp and Oligochactes are dominant. There is alack of a stable fish community in the river andharbor. As of yet, wildlife surveys have not beenconducted.


Effluents• Combined Sewer Overflows• Urban Runoff • Input from Industries and

Municipalities• Spills• Groundwater Contamination

Fish Tumorsand other Deformities

IDEM Environmental scientist have discoveredriver and canal carp (bottom dwellers) with erodedfins, swollen eyes, swollen abdomens, deformedlower jaws, and bloody fins. The bloody fins maybe caused by internal hemorrhage.

• Contaminated Sediments• Input from Industries

Bird or AnimalDeformities or ReproductionProblems

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife will be conductingwildlife studies in this area in the near future. GreatLakes studies have found deformities in migratorybirds. The AOC has many migratory species.

•

Toxics• Contaminated Fish Tissue• Degraded Water Quality• Contaminated Sediments



9999

Activities occurred in several years.

Eutrophicationor undesirablealgae

Species of diatoms, which favor eutrophicconditions, have increased in abundance in thenear shore Lake Michigan waters. The waters of the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal have persistent water quality problemsas well as decreased water clarity.

• Combined Sewer Overflows

• Urban Runoff • Input from Industries and

Municipalities

Restriction onDrinking Water Consumption,or taste andodor problems

The AOC is serviced by public drinking water supply from Lake Michigan waters. There appearsto be no public safety problems with this water.The CARE Committee unanimously voted thatthere were restrictions with drinking water from theGrand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor ShipCanal, although this is not a public water supply.


Effluents• Combined Sewer Overflows• Urban Runoff • Input from Industries and

Municipalities

• Spills

• Groundwater ContaminationBeach Closings Due to poor water quality, swimming is not

recommended in the river or canal. Along the near shore waters of Lake Michigan, the Hammondbeach has been closed for several years.In 1990, Chicago beaches and the Indiana DunesNational Lakeshore were closed due to high coliform counts, but the source may or may not have

been from the AOC.

• Combined Sewer Overflows

Degradation of anesthetics

Debris litters the banks of the Grand Calumet River and the Canal. The banks of the harbor appear tob t t d ith t l Th i d th

• Combined Sewer Overflows• Groundwater Contamination



10101010

Loss of Fishand WildlifeHabitat

A combination of lack of food resources, lowdissolved oxygen, and toxic stress has resulted inthe lack of a stable resident fish community in theIndiana Harbor Ship Canal and the Grand CalumetRiver. The wildlife has greatly diminished thiscentury.

• Industrialization

• Draining and Filling of Wetlands

• Degraded Water Quality• Contaminated Sediments

3.3 SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSMultiple types of stress negatively affect the environment in the Grand Calumet AOC. These sources of environmental strain have resulted in the destruction of many stable ecological communities and includephysical (such as sedimentation, loss of beach nourishment or loss of access to habitat), biological (suchas pathogen or parasite infestation), and chemical impairments (such as too few or too many nutrients). Allfourteen of the beneficial use impairments can be attributed to contamination of some sort. Contaminationis the primary impairment that results in restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, tainting of fish and

wildlife flavor, and fish tumors and other deformities. It is also responsible for bird and animal deformitiesor reproductive problems, restrictions on dredging activities, restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste or odor problems, beach closings, degradation of aesthetics, and added cost to the agricultural andindustrial industries. Furthermore, in combination with other factors, contamination works to causedegradation of fish and wildlife populations, degradation of benthos, eutrophication or other undesirablealgae, degradation of zooplankton and phytoplankton populations, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

Contaminated Sediment

Critical habitat for aquatic organisms exists in the sediment on the bottom of rivers and lakes. Unfortunatelythis sediment is also a major repository for many persistent chemicals that have been introduced intosurface waters. The biological viability of the Grand Calumet AOC has been severely degraded due tomultiple spills municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and Combined Sewer Overflows In total



11111111

The Hoke study also found concentrations of the majority of the metals analyzed present in the Grand

Calumet AOC. In general, iron, magnesium, and manganese were present in high to low concentrations insolid phase sediments. Of those metals that present a toxicological concern in aquatic systems, zinc, lead,and chromium were found at concentrations of 5.23, 3.94, and 1.22 gm/kg (or parts per thousand),respectively. Concentrations of copper, nickel, and cadmium were found at concentrations below 500mg/kg. At these levels there is a real risk of causing adverse ecological effects (qtd. in Remedial ActionPlan Stage II 28).2

In 1994 the IDEM Office of Water Management conducted a sediment contamination study and found a

variety of pollutants including Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), PCB’s, and metals. The studycollected surficial aquatic sediment samples at Bridge Street, Cline Avenue, Kennedy Avenue, IndianapolisBoulevard, and at Dickey Road on the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. PAH’s of the highest concern includechrysene, pyrene, fluoranthene, phenanthreme, and benzo (a) pyrene (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan StageII 34).3 Metals of concern had the following concentrations:

Table 3-2: Metal Concentrations in the Grand Calumet Area of Concern in mg/kg

METAL LOW HIGH STATE MEAN95TH

PERCENTILE

Cadmium 3.0 29.2 0.37 7.09

Copper 105 879 20.2 120

Lead 230 4350 24.1 197

Mercury 0.220 12.4 0.057 0.34

Nickel 1.7 418 13.2 64.7Zinc 1080 4860 84.0 460 Arsenic 20.5 101 6.43 22.2

Chromium 185 696 16.1 97.9



12121212

and East Chicago should have their LTCP approved within the next couple years, however at the time of

this report these sources continue to be a source of sediment to the AOC.

In relation to the amount of sediment entering the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,there are differences of opinion as to the extent of contamination. A study conducted by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers in its Comprehensive Management Plan for dredging the Indiana Harbor Ship Canalestimated the total annual loading to be 152,000 cubic yards. Another study, conducted by Mark W.Tenney, ScD, P.E., on the behalf of the Grand Calumet Task Force, estimated the total loading fromsediment to be in the 15,000 to 26,000 cubic yards range. One potential explanation for the difference in

findings may be attributed to the use of different methodologies. Alternatively, it may be due to the fact thatthe study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was produced in the early 1980’s, prior toTenney’s study, when better management practices to control loading had not yet been developed (qtd. inRemedial Action Plan Stage II 46).5

Based on monthly IDEM discharge reports conducted from August 1993 to July 1995, nineteen NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System permittees in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor ShipCanal discharged an average total flow of 833 million gallons per day or 1,291 cubic feet per second. Inprospective, this amount of effluent accounts for the entire flow of the river system during dry weather months. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the soil and sediment loss due to stormwater runoff to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal is 20,000 pounds annually. The Grand CalumetRiver and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal system have reached a steady-state condition with a balancebetween the amount of sediment deposition and scour/transport. As a result, there is a loading of 100,000to 200,000 cubic yards of sediment to Lake Michigan from the mouth of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canalannually. Furthermore, it has been estimated that this load contains an estimated 67,000 pounds of

chromium, 100,000 pounds of lead, and 420 pounds of PCB’s (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 47).6

In, “An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and IndianaHarbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River Lagoons, and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake



13131313

portion of the Assessment Area…. Based on the information provided in the Indiana FCA, PCBs

and mercury were the substances responsible for issuance of FCAs in the GCR/IHC between 1986and 2002 …. Therefore, it is concluded that mercury and total PCBs are the principal COCs in theGCR/IHC …. Insufficient information (e.g., lack of tissue residue data or chemical benchmarks for fish tissues) was available to determine if certain other tissue-associated COPCs, such as PAHs,PCDDs/PCDFs, other metals, pesticides, chlorinated benzenes, chlorophenols, or phthalatesoccurred at concentrations in fish tissues sufficient to injure human uses of fishery resources in thisportion of the Assessment Area (i.e., it was not possible to determine if these substances wereCOCs) (An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River

and Indiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River Lagoons, and Indiana Harbor and theNearshore Areas of Lake Michigan 2002).

In 2003, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) was contracted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to conduct sediment sampling and analysis at the Indiana Harbor and Canal in East Chicago,Indiana. The purpose of these tests was to obtain chemical data for the sediments to be dredged from theLake George Branch of the canal. Five sediment samples, and one duplicate, were analyzed for toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), TCLP semi-volatile organiccompounds (SVOCs), TLCP Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals, TCLPpesticides/herbicides, close-up flashpoint, reactive sulfides, and total PCBs. The following table depicts theresults of the sediment survey. Note: None of these detections exceeded the EPA TCLP regulatory levels.

Table 3-3: Detected Sample Results, Indiana Harbor and Canal, East Chicago, Indiana

CompoundRegulatory

Level

IHC03-

C1

IHC03-

C1-D

IHC03-

C2

IHC03-

C3

IHC03-

C4

IHC03-

C5TCLPVOCS(g/L)

Benzene 50011

12 ----- 20 ---- -----



14141414

(a) = Total PCB Toxic Substances Control Act Regulatory level is 50,000 g/Kg

Non-Point and Point Sources of PollutionDocumented point source discharges in the Grand Calumet AOC include direct discharges from steel mills,oil refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and three municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Inaddition to these point sources, studies indicate that many pollutants reach the waterways of the AOCthrough non-point source discharges originating from Combined Sewer Overflows, stormwater discharges,lagoon leakage, landfill drainage, and non-permitted outfalls (The Remedial Action Plan for the IndianaHarbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River, and the Nearshore Lake Michigan Stage I 9).

The U.S. EPA classifies industrial point sources as either minor or major dischargers. National PollutantDischarge Elimination System records indicate that five major industrial dischargers discharge into theRiver, Harbor, and near shore areas include Amoco Corporation, Mittal (formerly Inland Steel Corporation),LTV Steel Company (historical discharger – no longer in business), USS-Gary Works, and DuPontCorporation. Minor dischargers to the Grand Calumet Area of Concern include: Vulcan MaterialsCompany, American Steel Foundries, Blaw Knox Foundry, Industrial Disposal and Explorer PipelineCompany, and Citco Petroleum Corporation (The Remedial Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Canal, the

Grand Calumet River, and the Nearshore Lake Michigan Stage I 43-51).

Combined Sewer Overflows discharge an average of 11 billion gallons of raw waste water into the GrandCalumet Area of Concern each year. This includes significant quantities of toxic pollutants from industrialdischarges contributing to the sewer system upstream of the overflow. Although roughly one-third of theproblem can be attributed to each of the three sanitary districts, the impact of each sub-area depends morestrongly on which pollutant loads are associated with each Combined Sewer Overflows and CombinedSewer Overflows locations relative to areas of oxygen deficiencies and sediment accumulation (TheRemedial Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River, and the Nearshore LakeMichigan Stage I 51).



15151515

A 1994 IDEM monitoring report of the waters of the Grand Calumet and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal from

1992 to 1993 shows the water bodies have persistent water quality problems, including elevatedconcentrations of cyanide and E. coli . In three out of seven sampling stations cyanide concentrationssurpassed acceptable criterion thirty-three (33) percent of the time. Eighty-six (86) percent of the time, E.coli bacteriological levels exceeded acceptable levels. A similar study conducted from 1994 to 1995showed similar water quality violations for both cyanide and E. coli . The 1994 to 1995 study also found thatunionized ammonia failed to meet criteria in twenty-eight percent of surface water quality samplescollected. Based on these findings, both the East and West branches of the Grand Calumet River and theIndiana Harbor Ship Canal have been labeled as non-supporting for both aquatic life and recreational use

(qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 27).7

Metals including mercury, copper, and lead are often found at concentrations that exceed promulgatedwater quality standards in the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. In the near shoreLake Michigan area copper, cadmium, and mercury were occasionally present at levels that exceededacceptable standards. Although little data has been collected concerning the concentration of organicsubstances in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and the Grand Calumet River, a 1998 IDEM study found thatof 145 organic parameters, only 35 were found at detectable levels in either ambient water or effluentsamples. An alternative study analyzed samples from ten locations along the Grand Calumet River andthree in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. This study demonstrated toxicity by analyzing the inhibition of weight gain in the test organism. The results demonstrated an average growth inhibition of 91.9 percentindicating a significant increase in toxicity (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 36).8

1988 to 1989 IDEM surveys of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and the Grand Calumet River showedexisting problems involving dissolved oxygen, ammonia bacteria, and dissolved solids. Ammonia levels

were found to have frequently exceeded acceptable water quality standards in the upper portion of the EastBranch of the Grand Calumet River, the West Branch of the Grand Calumet River, and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Dissolved oxygen levels in the West Branch were measured at 0.0 mg/l on multiple occasionsand were frequently below applicable standards in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Although these



16161616

The AOC is composed of complex, shallow groundwater flow connected to the surface water. Numerous

excavations have disrupted the uppermost bedrock area; the slight contamination in that aquifer isattributed to leaks from wells and borings in surface and shallow groundwater. As described in a USGSstudy conducted from 1988-89 by Fenlon and Watson water quality is worst at steel and petrochemicalfacilities, moderate near light industry and commerce, and best in residential and park areas. Furthermore,the USEPA estimates that 16.8 million gallons of oil float on top of the groundwater beneath the AOC. A1996 study by Kay et al. found that groundwater contributes more than ten percent of the ammonia,chromium, and cyanide in the AOC. Waste disposal sites near the AOC also contribute to groundwater contamination. Furthermore, crushed and hot slag, poured to create land along the shores of lakes in the

AOC has been studied by the USGS and USEPA. Results provide an understanding of problems at specificsites, but not of the relation between sites, or between a site and the AOC as a whole (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 41).10

3.5 TRENDS IN BIOTIC COMMUNITIES A number of studies on the biological integrity of fish communities have been conducted in the GrandCalumet AOC. Through these monitoring efforts a better understanding of the collective measurements of all stresses acting on the ecological community has been reached. An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is usedto score the ecological integrity of a fish community and is based on the compositional, structural, andfunctional makeup of the aquatic community. This indicator is then compared to a calibrated reference onthe best attainable conditions in order to obtain a characterization of the biotic community under study.Studies of biotic communities are especially important as biological communities tend to imprint into their composition a collective measurement of all of the stresses on the ecosystem, not just those stressespresent at the immediate site of testing (Remedial Action Plan Stage II 36).

During the mid 1980’s, fish community surveys were conducted by IDEM in conjunction with USEPARegion V on the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. They consisted of 500-meter river reaches sampled in the near shore regions of both shores. Fish in this study were identified, measured for length, weighed, and enumerated in the field. Results showed that the East Branch of the Grand Calumet



17171717

Fish tissue monitoring is an alternative tool for assessing the biological integrity of an aquatic community.

For some contaminants, the concentrations may be greater in the tissue of aquatic organisms due tobioaccumulation than in the surrounding water. For this reason, fish tissue monitoring can be used as a toolthat can measure contamination that cannot otherwise be measured in the water or air. Since 1986, theBiological Studies Section of the Office of Water Management at IDEM has been collecting fish samplesfrom the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. In the 1994 sample, 95 percent has PCBconcentrations that exceeded 2.0 parts per million. Of the common carp sampled, PCB levels ranged from0.8 parts per million to 27 parts per million with an average of 10.3. The Grand Calumet River and IndianaHarbor Ship Canal contain the most contaminated fish and the most different kinds of pollutants in the

state. Other contaminants of concern include the organochlorine-based pesticide aldrin, DDT, chlordane,lindane, dieldrin, and Hexachlorobenzene (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 38). 13

In 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authored a study entitled, “Past, Present, and Potential of Fish Assemblages in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal Drainage with Emphasis on Recoveryof Native Fish Communities.” Results of this study suggest a recovery of the fish community present in theGrand Calumet River. The fish community was found to be dominated by pollution tolerant detrivores, anon-indigenous species. The study found the highest levels of species richness and biological integrity inthe East Branch Grand Calumet River. In the Grand Calumet Lagoons, sensitive species such as Iowadarter and lake chubsucker could still be found. In the West Branch of the Grand Calumet River, severalperiod of collection yielded zero fish. Biological Integrity scores show that the communities possess “poor”to “very poor” integrity levels.Tissue consumption advisories were also issued at this time due to highlevels of contaminations from PAHs, mercury, and inorganic metals (Simon 83).

IDEM is also responsible for sampling of the aquatic macro-invertebrates present in the Indiana Harbor

Ship Canal, the Dickey Road Bridge, and several studies of the Grand Calumet River in the mid-to-late1980’s. In these studies aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled through the use of artificial substrateswhich have been suspended into the water. After six to eight weeks, the sampler is retrieved and theorganisms on it are counted, identified, and used to assess the biological integrity of the community.



18181818

geographic areas. There is evidence that in the last fifty years sediment quality has improved, likely due to

pollution controls. In the stretch that includes the Grand Calumet River lagoons east of U.S. Steel; speciesthat are not considered particularly pollutant tolerant were found with the highest overall amount of speciesdiversity. In the reach that borders the USX property, all sites were classified as having a very poor to poor invertebrate biotic integrity. The trophic structure of this reach was also found to contain an unbalancedtrophic structure dominated by gathering collectors, an indication of degraded environmental conditions. Inthe Gary Sanitary District reach, the Macro-invertebrate Biotic Indices were quite poor, indicating pollutionstress. In addition, the investigators noted a strong petroleum and sulfur odor and an anoxic appearance of the sediments. In the section that covers the East Branch of the Grand Calumet River from Cline Avenue to

the Indiana Harbor canal, species diversity and richness were fair despite a poor macro-invertebrate bioticindex rating of poor. From the section that spans the West Branch of the Grand Calumet River from theHammond/East Chicago boundary east to Indianapolis Boulevard species sampled were pollution tolerantsuggesting very poor habitats. In the East Chicago Sanitary District reach the most common species wereaquatic earthworms and crane flies, two slightly pollution tolerant species. Finally, in the Federal DredgingProject reach, an increase in richness and diversity was seen from 1979 to 1988, with a peak in 1986. Although the invertebrate community in this range is degraded, as shown by a dominance of pollutiontolerant earthworms, the region is not the most impaired (Lake 2000).

In 1991, an additional study conducted by the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated SedimentsProgram looked at the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal specifically and the effects of contamination of invertebrate communities. The results indicated an invertebrate community dominated by the Oligochaetafamily Tubificidae, an indicator species present in ecosystems dominated by heavy organic pollution. All of the species identified in this study are known to be very tolerant of organic pollutants. Furthermore,Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, one of the most pollution tolerant species, was the most abundant organism found

in the collected samples (qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II 38).16

3.6 DEVELOPMENTS TOWARDS DELISTINGThe IJC has adopted generalized listing and delisting target that can be applied to AOCs (Table 3-3 below).



19191919

Table 3-4: Beneficial Use Impairments Guidelines for Listing and Delisting

IMPAIRMENT ENDPOINT LISTING GUIDELINE DELISTING GUIDELINE

Restriction on fishand wildlifeconsumptions

Similar across the AOC

When contaminant levelsin fish or wildlifepopulations exceedcurrent standards,objectives, guidelines, or public health advisories

are in effect for humanconsumption of fish or wildlife. Contaminantlevels in fish and wildlifemust be due tocontaminant input fromthe watershed

When contaminant levels in fishand wildlife populations do notexceed current standards,objectives or guidelines.Contaminant levels in fish andwildlife must not be due to

contaminant input from thewatershed.

Tainting of fishflavor


When ambient water quality standards,objectives, or guidelines,for the anthropogenicsubstance(s) known tocause tainting, are beingexceeded or surveyresults have identified

tainting of fish or wildlifeflavor.

When survey results confirm notainting of fish or wildlife flavor.

Degradation of fishand wildlife

Each reachwill have a

When fish and wildlifemanagement programs

When environmental conditionssupport healthy, self-sustaining



20202020

significant toxicity from water

column or sedimentcontaminants.

Fish tumors andother deformities


When the incidence ratesof fish tumors or other deformities exceed ratesat un-impacted controlsites or when survey dataconfirm the presence of

neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumorsin bullheads or suckers.

When the incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformitiesdo not exceed rates at un-impacted control sites andwhen survey data confirm theabsence of neoplastic or

preneoplastic liver tumors inbullheads or suckers.

Bird or animaldeformities or reproductiveproblems


When wildlife survey dataconfirm the presence of deformities (e.g. cross-billsyndrome) or other reproductive problems(e.g. egg-shell thinning) insentinel wildlife species.

When the incidence rates of deformities (e.g. cross-billsyndrome) or reproductiveproblems (e.g. egg-shellthinning) in sentinel wildlifespecies do not exceed levels ininland control populations.

Degradation of Benthos


When the benthic macro-invertebrate communitystructure significantlydiverges from un-impacted control sites of

comparable physical andchemical characteristics.In addition, this use will beconsidered impaired when

When the benthic macro-invertebrate communitystructure does not significantlydiverge from un-impactedcontrol sites of comparable

physical and chemicalcharacteristics. Further, in theabsence of communitystructure data, this use will be



21212121

undesirable algae will have a

differentendpoint

persistent water quality

problems (e.g. dissolvedoxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisancealgal blooms or accumulation, decreasedwater clarity, etc.)attributed to culturaleutrophication.

water quality problems (e.g.

dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algalblooms or accumulationdecreased, decreased water clarity, etc.) attributed tocultural eutrophication.

Restriction ondrinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems


When treated drinkingwater supplies areimpacted to the extentthat: (1) densities of disease causingorganisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxicchemicals or radioactivesubstances exceedhuman health standards,objectives, or guidelines;2) taste and odor problems are present; or 3) treatment needed to

make raw water suitablefor drinking is beyond thestandard treatment usedin comparable portions of

For treated drinking water supplies: 1) when densities of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioactivesubstances do not exceedhuman health objectives,standards, or guidelines; 2)when taste and odor problemsare absent; and 3) whentreatment needed to make rawwater suitable for drinking doesnot exceed the standardtreatment used in comparableportions of the Great Lakes

which are not degraded (i.e.setting, coagulation,disinfection).



22222222

agriculture and

industry

similar across

the AOC

costs required to treat the

water prior to use for agricultural purposes (i.e.including, but not limitedto, livestock watering,irrigation, and crop-spraying) or industrialpurposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial

application and non-contact food processing).

costs required to treat the water

prior to use for agriculturalpurposes (i.e. including, but notlimited to, livestock watering,irrigation, and crop spraying)and industrial purposes (i.e.intended for commercial or industrial applications and non-contact food processing).

Degradation of phytoplankton andzooplankton

Each reachwill have adifferentendpoint

When phytoplankton or zooplankton communitystructure diverges fromun-impacted control sitesof comparable physicaland chemicalcharacteristics. Inaddition, this will beconsidered impaired whenrelevant, field-validated,phytoplankton or zooplankton bioassays(e.g. Ceriodaphnia; algal

fractionation bioassays)with appropriate qualityassurance/quality controlsconfirm toxicity in ambient

When phytoplankton andzooplankton communitystructure does not significantlydiverge from un-impactedcontrol sites of comparablephysical and chemicalcharacteristics. Further, in theabsence of communitystructure data, this use will beconsidered restored whenphytoplankton and zooplanktonbioassays confirm nosignificant toxicity in ambient

waters.



23232323

The overall objectives of establishing these indicators are described below:

• General Objective: Future development in the AOC should progress with the goals of protectingand restoring the beneficial uses as described in Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

• Aquatic Community Objectives: The AOC should be able to sustain diverse, healthy,reproducing, and self-sustaining wildlife communities.

• Habitat Objectives: The AOC should be able to sustain a diverse, healthy, reproducing, and self-sustaining wildlife community representative of southern Lake Michigan.

• Sustainable Development Objective: The waters of the AOC are a community resource; one thatshould provide healthy recreational access in an aesthetically pleasing environment. Pastdevelopment has negatively affected the ecosystem; future development must only progress if theintent is to preserve the natural capacity of the area’s ecosystem, its biodiversity, and its ability toprovide for future generations.

Remedial Action Plan Development and Status

In 1991 the first stage of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process was developed. In December of 2007,the State submitted a Stage 2 document to the IJC. Stage 2 works to link physical, biological, and chemicalstresses to use impairments (Environmental Protection Agency).

Stage 2.5 of the Remedial Action Plan is going through the revision process for submittal to theInternational Joint Commission. Stage 2.5 was developed to explain the process in which regulatory,voluntary, and enforcement activity work to restore beneficial uses. By tracking the restoration activities thatare underway, the CARE committee and State have begun to track that progress of the Stage 3

implementation phase of the project (Environmental Protection Agency).

RAP Implementation and AchievementsIn 2004 nine responsible parties were held accountable for their contributions to the contamination of the



24242424

Industry Pollution Prevention Project in order to educate local steel makers on minimizing waste and their

environmental footprint (Environmental Protection Agency).

Progress in reducing Combined Sewer Overflows has already begun with Consent Decrees requiringsanitary districts to implement Combined Sewer Overflow Operation Plans.

The RAP process has also developed an Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Control program to addressurban non-point sources of pollution. This project demonstrates best management practices by increasingthe amount of cooperation between public and private landowners (Environmental Protection Agency).

Biodiversity and habitat restoration is being improved through the establishment of a volunteer stewardshipgroup, the establishment of a new nature preserve, and the initiation of a RAP Right of Way Project thatworks with right of way owners to manage their land in an ecological friendly way (Environmental Protection Agency).

Other Achievements:• Five river miles were dredged on the Each Branch of the Grand Calumet River.• IDEM has completed the required technical work for the Total Maximum Daily Load assessment.• The First Biannual Grand Calumet River: Science in the Area of Concern Symposium at Indiana

University Northwest was held by IDEM and Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Sponsor.• The Sediment Injury report for the Grand Calumet River was released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service as part of the Natural Resource damage Assessment.• The EPA and IDEM approved a permit for a Passive Dewatering Facility for the U.S. Steel

Dredging project.

• Fourteen technical teams have been established to develop indicators for the RAP.• IDEM is working with USEPA/GLNPO in developing the Lake Michigan Monitoring and

Coordinating Council.



25252525

44..00 DDEELLIISSTTIINNGG TTAARRGGEETTSS——WWHHEERREE WWEE WWAANNTT TTOO BBEE

4.1 APPLICABILITY OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO DELISTING TARGETSThe Grand Calumet River AOC shall be considered restored when there are no significant impairments tothe beneficial uses of the area which have been caused by human activities. The relationship of GrandCalumet River BUIs and Indiana Designated Uses is presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Grand Calumet River AOC BUIs and Indiana Designated Uses

USE IMPAIRMENT INDIANA DESIGNATED USE

Restrictions on fish and wildlifeconsumption

• NA

Tainting of fish flavor • NA

Fish tumors and deformities • Aquatic Life

Bird or animal deformities or reproductiveproblems

• NA

Degradation of benthos • Aquatic Life

Restrictions on dredging activities • Aquatic Life

Eutrophication or undesirable algae • Aquatic LifeRestrictions on drinking water consumption,or taste and odor problems

• Public Water Supply



26262626

levels can be caused by “food chain biomagnification”, water column contamination, or sediment

contamination.

While Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae is not directly evaluated by application of an IWQS, interferencewith Designated Uses established under 327 IAC 2–1.5-5 and unacceptably depressed dissolved oxygenconcentrations compared to 327 IAC 2-1.5-8 can be used to determine if undesirable algae growths areevident in the watershed. The presence of specific algal species is also indicative of a BUI. This BUIresults from excessive nutrient discharges associated with storm water runoff (both point and non-pointsources), point source discharges from WWTPs, combined sewer overflows, nutrient release from

contaminated sediments, and low base flows resulting in extended detention times in the watershed.

Degradation of Benthos is another BUI that is measured by guidance used by the IDEM but is not directlyrelated to established IWQSs. The BUI is normally a result of excessive and/or contaminated sedimentwithin the watershed and/or deteriorated water quality which can be evaluated through the use of IWQSsbut is more a cause-effect relationship than a direct standards comparison.

Specific determinations on handling of dredge spoils are made by the USACE and the IDEM at the time of dredging. When the dredge spoils must be handled in a special manner or disposed of at a confineddisposal facility due to the level of contaminants in the sediment then the Restrictions on Dredging Activitiesis considered to be a BUI.

4.2 SUMMARY OF DELISTING TARGETS ADOPTED IN OTHER AREAS OF CONCERNS AND THEIRRELEVANCE TO GRAND CALUMET RIVER AOC

Delisting targets developed and/or proposed in other AOCs were reviewed for relevance to the GrandCalumet River AOC during development of the recommended restoration/delisting targets for thewatershed. These targets from other AOCs are summarized in this section of the report. Progress towarddelisting has been made in the following AOCs:



27272727

• Waukegon Harbour AOC may be close to being delisted and fish advisories have been

removed.• Spanish Harbour AOC is in recovery.• Detroit River AOC on the Canadian side has developed delisting targets that have been

approved by the Canadian side PAC.

The Canadian side of the Detroit River AOC developed delisting targets that have been reviewed andapproved by their PAC (May 2005). The targets report has been endorsed by the Canadian PAC as theCanadian delisting targets for the Detroit River until bi-national delisting targets can be developed. This is amultiple BUI and multiple parameter AOC and review of their targets may be useful in evaluating anddeveloping Grand Calumet River AOC delisting targets.

Torch Lake AOC is a Superfund Site and somewhat irrelevant to the Grand Calumet River AOC because itis a single issue AOC focusing specifically on mine tailing waste. Most other AOCs have similar issues thatrelate to the Grand Calumet River AOC.

Legacy pollutants associated with contaminated sediments (mainly PCBs, metals, and PAHs) are a major problem in the Grand Calumet River AOC that affect the restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption,degraded fish and wildlife populations, fish tumors and deformities, degradation of benthos, and restrictionson dredging activities BUIs.

Kalamazoo River in the Kalamazoo AOC (Michigan) is a site similar to portions of the Grand Calumet River AOC with restoration activities focused primarily on PCB contaminated sediment remediation. Temporarymeasures implemented to contain leaching of PCBs from landfill sites in the Kalamazoo AOC include

installing sheet steel piling to slow erosion of PCB-contaminated soil into the river. A record of decision(ROD) for remediation has not been issued, yet. One ”lesson learned” from Kalamazoo to be avoided if possible in the Grand Calumet River AOC is that delays can be costly and that stakeholders need to getinvolved in order to achieve progress



28282828

conducted to evaluate surficial sediments that may impair benthos and that may help determine the

feasibility of remediation.

Further details of information gathered from other AOCs and their relevance to specific BUIs are discussedbelow:

4.2.1 Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife ConsumptionIJC recommends that this BUI is restored “when contaminant levels in fish and wildlife populations do notexceed current standards, objectives or guidelines and no public health advisories are in effect for human

consumption of fish and wildlife. Contaminant levels in fish and wildlife must not be due to contaminantinput from the watershed.” The limitation to using this criterion is that contaminants in other sites can betransported to the AOC by atmospheric deposition, and thus will stay in the food chain. A potentially morerational approach is reflected in the Delisting Targets for Ohio AOCs document (2005) that bases thisdelisting target on “no fish and wildlife consumption advisories attributed to sources within the AOC.” Additionally, the proposed milestones include not only tracking changes in fish tissues and advisories, butalso set fish tissue contaminant maximums for PCBs (50 ppb), mercury (50 ppb) and lead (86 ppb).

The Four Agency Framework (FAF) recommends basing delisting targets for this BUI on appropriateassessment programs and reporting for a suite of most at risk chemicals and consumption guidelines (onthe most current and restrictive guidelines).

The Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force limit for “no consumption” is for PCB levels above2000 ng/g, which only applies to lake trout in Lake Michigan. Coho salmon sometimes fall into lesser categories such as “one meal per month” up to “no more than six meals per year.”

Michigan Guidance (2006) is silent with respect to wildlife because there are no AOCs in Michigan withadvisories for wildlife. The fish advisories are set by the Michigan Department of Community Health(MDCH). The Michigan guidance states that the BUI is considered restored when “the fish consumption



29292929

site should be considered in the Grand Calumet River AOC. However, reference sites have to be carefully

chosen and agreed upon by the IDEM, USEPA and stakeholders.

4.2.2 Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor The 1991 IJC General Delisting Guideline for this BUI states that the BUI can be delisted when surveyresults confirm no tainting of fish or wildlife flavor.

Three of Michigan’s AOCs are listed as either impaired or unknown for fish and wildlife tainting – DetroitRiver, Saginaw River/Bay, and St. Clair River. The impairment in all of these AOCs is fish, not wildlife,

tainting. The delisting guidance established under the January 2006 Michigan Guidance for DelistingMichigan’s Great Lakes Areas of Concern is that this BUI will be considered restored when:

• No more than three reports of fish tainting have been made to the MDNR or MDEQ for a period of three years;

OR, if there have been reports of tainting:

• A one-time analysis of representative fish species in an AOC in accordance with MDEQ SurfaceWater Assessment Section (SWAS) Procedure #55 for conducting taste and odor studies indicatesthat there is no tainting of fish flavor.

None of the four Ohio AOCs list this BUI as impaired in their RAP documents. Ohio has however developed a delisting target for this BUI in their guidance document that states the BUI can be delisted if there are no WQS exceedences of compounds associated with tainting within the AOC (phenol, 2-

chlorophenol,2,4-dichlorophenol) or there are no reports of tainting from wildlife officials.

The Detroit River has adopted a delisting target that if survey results confirm no tainting of fish or wildlifeflavor then the BUI can be delisted. The Saginaw River/Bay AOC delisting goal for this BUI states that



30303030

• Meet the current and most stringent human health standards, objectives, or guidelines (at the point

of distribution into the water system) for levels of disease-causing organisms, hazardous or toxicchemicals, or radioactive substances; and

• Treatment needed to make raw water potable and palatable does not exceed standard methodsin those supplies. In the event a public drinking water intake must be closed due to contaminationof surface water, standard treatment methods are considered to have been exceeded.

The Maumee River AOC is the only one of the four Ohio AOCs considered to be impaired for this BUI.Ohio delisting guidance for this BUI indicates that the BUI can be delisted if:

• No consumption advisories or taste or odor complaints on the finished water, due to degradation of raw water quality caused by human activities within the AOC, for any community water systemusing "standard or conventional" treatment and drawing water from the AOC.

Additional AOCs indicating this BUI is impaired include Lower Green Bay and Fox River, and the Rochester Embayment. The Detroit River delisting targets reflect the Michigan guidance in requiring that delisting canonly occur if densities of disease-causing organisms, or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioactive substances in treated drinking water supplies do not exceed applicable human healthobjectives, standards, or guidelines. Taste and odor problems are absent. Treatment needed to make rawwater suitable for drinking does not exceed the standard treatment used in comparable non-degradedportions of the Great Lakes. The Saginaw Bay taste and odor problems were historically associated withundesirable forms of algae and have been addressed through nutrient reduction programs, which may notbe germane to the problems associated with the Grand Calumet River AOC influence on drinking water intakes but should be considered and monitored for to determine the phosphorus:nitrogen ratio in the lake

intake areas. Rochester Embayment delisting targets for this BUI indicate that if there are no taste andodor problems associated with the drinking water that can be traced back to contributions from the AOCthen the BUI can be delisted.



31313131

driven target and has indicated that this BUI can be delisted in the St. Clair River when there are no plant

shutdowns attributable to water quality over a 2-year period.

The Grand Calumet River AOC was considered to be impaired for this BUI based on the reduction inshipping capacity due to the accumulated sediment in the harbor and the difficulty associated with dredgingand sediment disposal due to environmental considerations. The approach used in the above two AOCs islikely not applicable to the Grand Calumet River AOC as the causes for listing the BUI as impaired are sodivergent. This BUI is closely related to the Restrictions on Dredging Activity BUI and can likely be delistedwith that BUI. Consideration will be given to linking this BUI delisting target to the delisting target for the

dredging BUI.

4.2.5 Fish Tumors and Deformities About half the AOCs (including the fourteen US/binational) have fish tumors/deformities as a BUI. Most AOCs report declines in the incidence of tumors due to natural attenuation of contaminated sediments andby addressing source reduction. For example, Presque Isle Bay in Pennsylvania, a U.S. AOC in therecovery stage, addressed contaminants with a $100 million sewage treatment expansion and a pollutionprevention plan. The class of chemicals thought to contribute the most to tumors and deformities are

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and related compounds such as nitro-PAHs and nitrosamines that arefound in urban runoff from the combustion of fossil fuels. PCBs and dioxins can also be a cause for thisBUI.

The major limitation to delisting is the lack of data needed to substantiate tumor rates and compare them toan appropriate background rate in a reference site. This BUI was considered to be impaired based onlimited fish observation data within the Grand Calumet River AOC coupled with the potential for fish tumorsbased on concentrations of PAHs in sediments that are known to be associated with effects. Niagara River AOC used the same approach of coupling with the existence of PAHs with observed data on fish tumors.The approach of evaluating sediments for contaminants related to fish tumor and deformities incidence is agood first round screening tool until funds become available to do a more extensive survey, if appropriate.



32323232

The Ohio Delisting Target is “DELT (deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors) levels in fish do not

exceed 0.5%.” An optional criterion noted in the delisting document is that “low tumor prevalence isdocumented in brown bullhead age three years and older over a series of years. Current guidelinessuggest that a 5% incidence of liver tumors and a 12% incidence of external tumors are acceptable toconsider the area to be in recovery. Great Lakes regional final targets are under development but will beless than 5% liver tumors and 12% overall external tumors.”

The MDEQ guidance considers the BUI restored when “no reports of fish tumors or deformities due tochemical contaminants have been verified through observation and analysis by the MDNR or MDEQ for a

period of 5 year” OR, in the cases where any tumors have been reported, “a comparison study of residentbenthic fish (e.g., brown bullheads) of comparable age and at maturity (3-years), or of fish species whichhave historically been associated with this BUI, in this AOC and a non-impacted control site, indicates thatthere is no statistically significant difference (with a 95% confident interval) in the incidence of liver tumorsor deformities.”

The Detroit River’s delisting target is that the incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities do notexceed rates at non-impacted control sites for a minimum of three sampling periods spaced two to three

years apart, and should demonstrate a downward trend. At a minimum, no more than 5% of 3-year oldDetroit River brown bullhead fish should have liver tumors, and less than twelve percent should haveexternal tumors or lesions.

The St. Mary’s River AOC delisting target is that concentrations of persistent toxic substances in fish will bebelow no observable adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) for reproductive, population, and teratogeniceffects. Any noted effects will be the same as control populations from unaffected areas that may includeLakes Superior and Huron.

A recent workshop in Ohio hosted by the Great Lakes National Program Office was convened for thepurpose of discussing the fish tumor targets. Two important recommendations coming out of the workshop



33333333

In Kalamazoo, the delisting target is to “remediate contaminated sediments so that there are no

reproductive or other negative health effects on wildlife or benthos.” In River Raisin, the proposed delistingcriterion (2002 RAP Update) is “reduce bird deformities due to causes within the Area of Concern.” In theSaginaw AOC, the delisting target is “for bald eagles - the reproductive success of bald eagles in theSaginaw Bay area is equivalent to that found in other Lake Huron coastal areas in Michigan and, for herringgulls, PCB levels in eggs taken from Saginaw Bay area nest sites are not significantly higher than thosefound in other Lake Huron sampling locations.” According to a 1999 survey, PCBs in the affected site areabout five times higher than the reference site. This survey is cited in a report by Public Sector ConsultantsInc. (2000).

In New York, the Rochester Embayment set the delisting targets as “Representative samples of water donot exceed NYSDEC ambient water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life and/or for protectionof wildlife, and mink are present and are reproducing, or levels of PCBs, dioxin/furans, mirex and mercurymeasured in the tissue of resident prey are below those known to be associated with mink reproductivefailure.”

The Ohio AOCs do not have this BUI.

4.2.7 Degradation of BenthosThe degradation of benthos in the Grand Calumet River AOC is demonstrated by a lack of biodiversity, adominance of pollution tolerant species, a low number of individuals, and a dominance of Tubificidea. Thedegradation is caused by metal toxicity and anoxic conditions in some cases, as well as sedimentcontamination. Thus, addressing contaminated sediments and nutrients will aid in the restoration.

The IJC delisting target is when the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure does not significantlydiverge from unimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. Further, in theabsence of community structure data, this use will be considered restored when toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants is not significantly higher than controls.



34343434

test sites should not be significantly higher than controls. The Canadian RAP specifies the criteria for

evaluating if the benthic community is degraded.

In the Saginaw AOC, the delisting targets require that samples of mayfly nymphs collected in the openareas of Saginaw Bay exceed 30-square meter for two consecutive years based on established samplingmethods. Mayfly nymphs were used as an indicator organism because they are important to fisheries andtheir populations have been severely impacted since early 1950s.

Severn Sound also has as a partial delisting target, “to maintain and enhance presence of the mayfly

Hexagenia as an indicator of ecosystem health.”

The delisting target approach utilized for Hamilton Harbour, Ontario AOC could be considered relevant toGrand Calumet River AOC. Specifically, these targets are: biomass estimates for mesotrophic conditionsto range from 25 to 50 gram per cubic meters of wet weight of benthos; shift in oligochaete assemblagesfrom indicators of eutrophic environments to mesotrophic indicators; an increase in the contribution of other species such as midges, fingernail clams, mayflies, and the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi; reduction inoligochaete density from an average 10,000 animals per square meter found in 1984 to between 2,000 and

3,000 per square meter in profundal sediments; appearance of crustaceans, such as freshwater shrimp inthe deep water basin and the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi in the surficial sediments throughout thehypolimnion; and absence of acute and chronic toxic effects attributable to trace metals or organics inbenthic macroinvertebrates throughout the harbor.

The Manistique River in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which feeds into Lake Michigan, has beenrecommended for delisting and is awaiting final approval by USEPA. The basis for delisting was mainlythat sediments contaminated with PCBs and other chemicals have been remediated.

Since the Grand Calumet River AOC has several BUIs related to contaminated sediments, the first priorityis to move forward with the remediation of the known contaminated sites. Since most of the PCBs are in



35353535

The Canadian Detroit River AOC delisting targets are based on contaminants in sediments not exceeding

applicable standards, criteria, or guidelines. As such, there would be no restrictions on dredging or disposal activities.

The Presque Isle Bay AOC depends on natural attenuation rather than formal remedial action to alleviatecontaminated sediment and be delisted.

4.2.9 Eutrophication or Undesirable AlgaeThe Ohio delisting target for this BUI is “when waters meet the minimum dissolved oxygen criteria listed in

the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) AND no nuisance growths of algae, such as filamentousCladophora, or blooms of blue-green algae exist. There are no nuisance growths of aquatic weeds thatmay be hindering recreational use or contact with the water body.”

The MDEQ Guidance (2006) states that this BUI will be considered restored when “no water bodies withinthe AOC are included on the list of impaired waters due to nutrients or excessive algal growths in the mostrecent Clean Water Act Water Quality and Pollution Control in Michigan: Section 303(d) and 305(b)Integrated Report , which is submitted to U.S. EPA every two years.” In addition, MDEQ is in the process of

developing nutrient criteria for surface waters that will be adopted by Michigan’s Water Quality Standards.

Targets used for delisting the Oswego AOC are based on survey results indicating phosphorusconcentrations and loadings, chlorophyll, ammonia, water clarity, dissolved oxygen and other ambientwater quality levels are consistently better than standards, criteria, and guidelines. The observation of algalblooms in the AOC or downstream needs to be evaluated as to the cause, the undesirable nature, and anyproposed remedial action. Suggested thresholds for ambient water quality comparisons in the AOC includelake parameters and values: phosphorus concentration < 20 ug/l (lake), Secchi disc transparency > 1.2meters, dissolved oxygen > 6 mg/l, unionized NH3 < 0.02 mg/l.

The relevant delisting targets for the Muskegon Lake AOC (MI) are:



36363636

The following AOCs also have specific measures for delisting this BUI. Collingwood Harbour used the

specific delisting targets of: all harbour waters have persistent phosphorus concentrations of less than 0.02mg/L, a Secchi disc transparency of greater than 1.2 meters, dissolved oxygen at saturation, chlorophyllconcentrations of less than 10 ug/L, unionized ammonia of less than 0.02 mg/L, and phosphorus load fromthe sewage treatment plant of less than 2760 kilograms per year. Saginaw River/Bay used the delistingtargets of: the average concentration of total phosphorus is 15 10 ug/L or less, in accordance with thesupplement to Annex 3 of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (as amended). The Rochester Embayment targets were: total phosphorus concentrations for near (11 to 12-meters) and near-nearshore(1-meter) are less than or equal to 15 parts per billion and 20 parts per billion, respectively; and chlorophyll

a concentrations for the near (11 to 12-meters) and near-nearshore (1 meter) are less than or equal to 3.8parts per billion and 5 parts per billion, respectively; and Secchi disk measurements in the nearshore (12-meters) are greater than or equal to 4-meters.

4.2.10 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton PopulationsIn Michigan, the only AOC impacted by this BUI is Saginaw. The MDEQ Guidance (2006) states that thisBUI will be considered restored when “the Statewide delisting targets for the Eutrophication or Undesirable

Algae BUI have been met in Saginaw River/Bay/AOC.”

The only other AOCs impacted besides the Grand Calumet River AOC and Saginaw are the Rochester Embayment, (New York), Cuyahoga River (Ohio), the Milwaukee River Estuary (Wisconsin), andWaukegan Harbor (Illinois).

For the Rochester Embayment, the delisting target is: “Ninety percent of ambient water samples (collectedmonthly for one year), compared to a control, cause no chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia.”

The Waukegan Harbor (Illinois) delisting target is: “Provide water and sediment quality throughout theharbor and nearshore lake area which is not detrimental to the development and growth of phytoplanktonand zooplankton populations ”



37373737

Many of the Michigan AOCs have adopted this guidance for their delisting target or are in the process of

adopting the guidance.

The Ohio Guidance (2005) document has delisting targets as follows:

Total Body Contact:For Bathing Waters - Geometric mean E. coli content, based on not less than five samples within a 30-dayperiod, exceeds 126 per 100 ml.; or E. coli content exceeds 235 per 100 ml. in more than 10% of thesamples taken during any 30-day period.

For Primary Contact - Geometric mean E. coli content, based on not less than five samples within a 30-day period, exceeds 126 per 100 ml.; or E. coli content exceeds 298 per 100 ml. in more than 10% of thesamples taken during any 30-day period; or geometric mean fecal coliform content, based on not less thanfive samples in a 30-day period exceeds 1000 per 100 ml; or fecal coliform content exceeds 2000 per 100ml in more than 10% of the samples taken in any 30-day period.

Partial Body Contact:Secondary Contact - E. coli exceeds 576 per 100 ml. in more than 10% of the samples taken during any

30-day period; or fecal coliform exceeds 5000 per 100 ml in more than 10% of the samples taken in any 30-day period.

The St. Louis River AOC anticipates that this impairment can only be met when the entire AOC attains thetarget rather than just designated beach areas. The St Louis River AOC target considers control of sanitaryand stormwater sources, absence of impaired water listings, and establishment of an effective bacterialmonitoring program.

The Canadian side of the Detroit River based its delisting targets generically that total or partial bodycontact standards, guidelines and objectives not be exceeded, and that there are no beach closures as aresult of water quality problems for two years.



38383838

Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report (submitted to US EPA every two years)

and/or the most recent Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory; and• Waters within the Grand Calumet River AOC do not have special fish consumption advisories

due to mercury from controllable man-made sources within the AOC and/or tributary watershedin the most recent Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory.

Or if the above is not achievable within 5 years:

• All known man-made sources of BCCs (including PCBs, mercury, dioxins, and furans) within

the AOC and tributary watershed have been controlled or eliminated; and• A multi-year comparison study of fish tissue contaminant levels demonstrates that there is no

statistically significant difference (with a 95% confidence interval) in fish tissue BCCconcentrations in the AOC compared to fish tissue BCC concentrations in a representativenon-impacted control site within the Lake Michigan Basin.

Actions • Determine appropriate fish species for tissue concentration trend analysis.• Implement an appropriate monitoring program within the AOC that will isolate on-going sources

of BCCs (PCB/Mercury/etc) to the AOC.• Establish appropriate control/comparison sites within the AOC or a similar watershed for

evaluating relative progress toward attaining the restoration criteria utilizing comparativecontaminate analysis. The studies should be designed to control variables known to influencecontaminant concentrations such as species, size, age, sample type, lipids, and collectiondates. The control site should be chosen based on physical, chemical, and biological similarityto the AOC.

4.3.2 Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor This BUI can be considered for delisting when:



39393939

• A reevaluation of this BUI indicates that the initial basis for listing the BU as impaired was in

error; or • There are no complaints of taste and/or odor in the raw water intake source as a result of

contaminants originating within the AOC for a period of three consecutive years; and• There are no taste and/or odor problems associated with raw water intakes as a result of

excessive algae and/or algal species that would cause taste and/or odor problems in the water;and

• There is no additional raw water treatment that needs to be supplied specifically for control of taste and/or odor problems in the finished water supply.

Actions • Determine if this BU should be listed as a BUI.• Establish a complaint/report receipt and tracking process/procedure.

4.3.4 Added Costs to Agriculture and IndustryThis BUI can be considered for delisting when:

• There is no increased cost of shipping due to the inability to dredge in the harbor and shipping

canal for environmental reasons.

Action • Track increased costs to industry due to the need to lighten cargo loads in ships because of

lack of dredging due to environmental concerns regarding contaminants in the sediment.

4.3.5 Fish Tumors and DeformitiesThis BUI can be considered for delisting when:

• All known sources of PAHs and chlorinated organic compounds within the AOC and tributarywatershed have been controlled through issuance of the appropriate regulatory controldocument or eliminated; and



40404040

• Establish a complaint/report receipt and tracking process/procedure

• Determine species that will be used for studies and comparison studies• Establish comparison site(s) if needed• Track changes in tumor/deformity incidents over time• Track contaminant levels in sediment for related chemicals

4.3.6 Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproduction ProblemsThis BUI can be considered for delisting when:

Approach 1 – Observational Data and Direct Measurements of Birds and Other Wildlife• Deformity or reproductive problem rates are not statistically different than inland background

levels (at a 95% confidence interval), or no reproductive or deformity problems are identifiedduring the two successive monitoring cycles. If the rates are statistically different, it mayindicate a source from either within or from outside the AOC. Therefore, if the rates arestatistically different or the amount of data is insufficient for analysis, then:

• Contaminant levels in egg, young, and/or adult wildlife are lower than the Lowest ObservableEffect Level (LOEL) for that species or are not statistically different than inland control

populations (at a 95% confidence interval).

Data for a comparison study must come from a control site which is agreed to by the IDEM, in consultationwith IDNR. It will be chosen based on physical, chemical, and biological similarity to the AOC and the twosites must be within the same U.S. EPA Level III Ecoregions for the Conterminous U.S. (see references).

Where direct observation of wildlife and wildlife tissue data is not available, the following approach can beused:

Approach 2: Fish Tissue Contaminant Levels as an Indicator of Deformities or Reproductive Problems• Fish tissue concentrations of PCBs, dioxins, DDT, or mercury (as determined in the RAP)



41414141

• All remedial/restoration actions for specific impacted benthic communities are completed

(except for minor repairs required during operations and maintenance) and monitoredaccording to the approved plan(s); and• Known contaminant sources within the AOC contributing to sediment contamination and

degraded benthos have been identified and control measures implemented; and• The macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI) at all sampling sites is a minimum of

1.4 for samples collected with an artificial substrate; and• Acute sediment toxicity survival is at least 80% at all sampling locations; and• No sample locations show chronic toxicity.

Actions • Determine appropriate sampling locations within the AOC based on historical sampling

locations and sites of known impact.• Sediment monitoring will need to included toxicity test, both acute and chronic, when

delisting is near.

4.3.8 Restrictions on Dredging Activities

This BUI can be considered for delisting when:

• When there have been no restrictions on routine navigational and/or recreational/privatedredging done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or private dredging companies, basedon the two most recent dredging events, such that special handling or use of a confineddisposal facility is required for dredge spoils due to chemical contamination originating fromcontrollable sources impacting the AOC.

Actions • Track dredge spoil disposal requirements for projects within the AOC to determine when

criteria is being met through review of issued dredging permits.D t i th d f t i ti i th i di t d t k t d i th l l f



42424242

• No water bodies within the AOC are included on the list of impaired waters due to nutrients or

excessive algal growths in the most recent Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report submitted to U.S. EPA every two years; and• There are no beach closures in the AOC due to excessive/nuisance algal growths; and

• There are no taste and/or odor problems associated with raw water intakes as a result of excessive alga and/or algal species that would cause taste and/or odor problems in the water.

Actions • Establish appropriate monitoring locations within the AOC to determine baseline conditions

and trends.• Determine if concentrations are at the appropriate level.• Develop scientifically based monitoring program to establish trends and determine when

concentration criteria have been accomplished.

4.3.10 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton PopulationsThis BUI can be considered for delisting when:

• Phytoplankton or zooplankton bioassays confirm no toxicity in ambient waters and thecommunity structure is diverse and contains species indicative of clean water; and

• Waters within the Grand Calumet River AOC are not listed as impaired due to degradation of phytoplankton or zooplankton in the most recent Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report (submitted to U.S. EPA every two years) and/or the most recent IndianaFish Consumption Advisory.

Actions • Identify the appropriate species and community structure that should exist in the Grand

Calumet River AOC under non-impaired conditions.• Develop appropriate scientifically based monitoring scenarios to establish a baseline and



43434343

mutagenic) in the most recent Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report

which is submitted to U.S. EPA every two years; and• No local or state contact advisories related to the presence of a chemical contaminant have

been issued within the AOC during the previous five years.

Actions:

• Continue ongoing bacterial monitoring programs within the AOC and expand as necessary.• Conduct annual review of the data collected to determine if sample numbers and/or locations

should be increased or decreased.• Document implementation effectiveness of Phase II storm water programs within the AOC.• Conduct periodic public surveys to determine effectiveness of public education campaigns.



44444444

55..00 PPAATTHHWWAA Y Y TTOO RREESSTTOORRAATTIIOONN——HHOOWW DDOO WWEE GGEETT TTHHEERREE??

5.1 BASIC IMPLEMENTATION CONCEPTSSetting Restoration GoalsThis project is a first step towards establishing delisting targets that are locally derived and measurable andmeet the criteria for the frequency and longevity of monitoring that is consistent with federal and stateregulations & GLWQA Annex 2. These goals should focus both on the overall watershed and the individualsub watershed areas as appropriate.

Evaluate Delisting on the Basis of Outside or Natural FactorsBUIs should be evaluated for factors outside the watershed. If restoration of a BUI is not possible becauseof factors outside the AOC, or is typical of lake-wide or region-wide conditions, recommend delisting on thisbasis and refer BUI to Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). If the BUI is due to natural causes, not humansources, recommend delisting on this basis.

Implementing Restoration Goals

The vehicle for ultimate implementation of the delisting/restoration efforts within the AOC focused onachieving the delisting targets is the RAP. This next generation RAP, and subsequent iterations, will helpidentify and prioritize BUIs that can be most easily delisted and identify the steps necessary to worktowards implementing restoration for all BUIs. This next generation RAP constitutes a restoration workplan that must include:

• Establishment of a realistic restoration budget• Selection of reference sites where needed

• Establishment of a timeline for implementation including such major milestones as:o contaminant removalo point source pollution monitoring and prevention



45454545

A long-term monitoring plan must be written. Restoration must be completed or well underway and

meeting restoration goals at all sites before an AOC can be delisted. Resources are needed for long-termmonitoring and protection must be in place to prevent future degradation from occurring.

5.2 TIMELINE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION• Adopt proposed delisting targets for the Grand Calumet River watershed by October 2008.• Complete RAP Update by September 2010.• Develop baseline monitoring network by September 2009.• Begin implementation of all BUIs restoration programs within the AOC and sub-watersheds by

2012.• Achieve delisting/restoration status of at least one BUI annually starting in 2012.



46464646

66..00 CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN AANNDD RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

Delisting targets have been developed to address eleven of the fourteen BUIs within the Grand CalumetRiver AOC as part of this project. The targets were reviewed and adopted by the IDEM and the projectsteering committee. These targets were developed specifically for the Grand Calumet River AOC.

Recommendations:

• The delisting targets need to be incorporated into the process of goal setting in the next iteration of

the watershed planning.• Specific actions necessary to implement the delisting targets have been identified for the fourteen

Grand Calumet River AOC BUIs. Many of these actions relate to the identification of target speciesfor tracking trends, the establishment of control sites or the establishment of baseline conditions.The appropriate agencies and/or organizations should be identified to best carry out these actionsand allow for the tracking and monitoring necessary to apply the delisting target.

• The next generation RAP update that will be initiated shortly needs to utilize the delisting target indeveloping the overall goals and action plans for the watershed.

• The RAP steering committee should periodically review the status of restoration efforts within thewatershed and determine the degree of progress toward attainment of the delisting targets.



47474747

77..00 RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

NOTES

1 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Hoke, Toxicity of Sediments and SedimentPore Waters from the Grand Calumet River-Indiana Harbor, Indiana Area of Concern (1993), qtd. inRemedial Action Plan Stage II: 28.2 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Hoke, Toxicity of Sediments and SedimentPore Waters from the Grand Calumet River-Indiana Harbor, Indiana Area of Concern (1993), qtd. in

Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 28.3 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Indiana 305(b) Report 1992-1993 (1994), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 34.4 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pre-Remedial Biological and Water Quality Assessment of the East Branch Grand Calumet River Gary, Indiana(1994), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 34.5 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Comprehensive Management Plan (Early 1980s), qtd, in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 46.6 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Grand Calumet River Basin BMP Demonstration (1995), qtd. in Remedial Action PlanStage II: 47.7 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Indiana 305(b) Report 1992-1993 (1994), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 27.8 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Hoke, Toxicity of sediments and sedimentPore Waters from the Grand Calumet River-Indiana Harbor, Indiana Area of Concern (1993), qtd. inRemedial Action Plan Stage II: 36.9 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement, Unpublished Results of Macroinvertebrate Sampling (1989), qtd. in the Remedial Action Planfor the Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River and the Nearshore Lake Michigan Stage I: 43



48484848

14 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Fullner, A Comparison of

Macroinvertebrates Collected by Basket and Modified Multiple-plate Samplers (1971), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 37.15 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Sobiech, Pre-Remedial Biological andWater Quality Assessment of the East Branch Grand Calumet River Gary, Indiana, June, 1994 (1994), qtd.in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 37.16 Examples are available in Remedial Action Plan Stage II. See Brinkhurst, Aquatic Earthworms in C.W.(1974), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 38, and Brinkhurst, Interspecific Interaction and SelectiveFeeding of Tubificid Oligochaetes (1972), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 38, and Cook, Benthic

Macroinvertebrates of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes (1974), qtd. in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 38, andKennedy, The Distribution and Habitat of Limnodrilus claparede and its Adaptive Significance (1965), qtd.in Remedial Action Plan Stage II: 38.

WORKS CITED

CDM. Indiana Harbor and Canal Sediment Sampling East Chicago, Indiana Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District. November 2003.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The Remedial Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River, and the Nearshore Lake Michigan Stage I. Indianapolis: Indiana, 1991.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Remedial Action Plan Stage II. Indianapolis: Indiana,1991.

Last, Laurel and Richard Whitman. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Grand Calumet River. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 108/109:45-81. 2000.

MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Smorong, R.A. Lindskoog, D.W. Sparks, J.R. Smith, T.P. Simon, and



APPENDIX A: FIGURES



Delisting Targets

Grand Calumet Area of Concern

I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d

0 1 20.5

Miles

®

Map Data Provided by State of Indiana


Figure 3.1 - Area of Concern

Lake Michigan



Lake Michigan

Delisting Targets


I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d

0 1 20.5

Miles

®



Bays and Estuaries

Beaches

Commercial and Service

Cropland and Pasture

Deciduous Forest Land

Forested Wetland

Industrial

Open Water

Mixed Urban or Built-up Land

Other Urban or Built-up Land

Nonforested Wetland

Residential

Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits

Transitional Areas

Transportation, Communications, Utilities

Unspecified

Figure 3.2 - 1951 Land Use



Delisting Targets


I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d

0 1 20.5

Miles

®



Bays and Estuaries

Beaches

Commercial and Service

Cropland and Pasture

Deciduous Forest Land

Forested Wetland

Industrial

Open Water

Mixed Urban or Built-up Land

Other Urban or Built-up Land

Nonforested Wetland

Residential

Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits

Transitional Areas

Transportation, Communications, Utilities

Unspecified

Figure 3.3 - 1990 Land Use

Lake Michigan



Delisting Targets


I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d

0 1 20.5

Miles

®


NPDES Outfall Locations


Figure 3.4 - NPDES Outfall Location

Lake Michigan



Delisting Targets


I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d

580

5 9 55 90

5 8 5

5 8 2 .5

600

5 8 0

5 8 2 . 5

5 8 5

5 9 0

5 8 0

5 8 5

5 8 5

5 8 0

5 9 5

5 8 2 . 5

5 8 2.5

0 1 20.5

Miles

®


Ground Water Level, September 1992


Figure 3.6 - September 1992 Ground Water Level

Lake Michigan



I- 9 0

5th

C a

l u m e

t

C l i n e

I n d i a

n a p o

l i s

4th

Chicago

D u n e s

I n d u s t r i a l

Michigan

I - 6 5

Melton

Columbus

B r o a d w a y

D i c k e y

G u t h r i e

129th

US Hw y 12

I - 8 0

S h

e f f i e l d



Chemical Only

Matching

Tox Only

Lake Michigan

grand calumet river area of concern's delisting targets for beneficial use impairments

Documents