In cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated with 

the July 2010 Line 6B Spill into the Kalamazoo River, 

Michigan, 2012–14

Open-File Report 2015–1205

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Morrow Lake near Kalamazoo, Michigan (Photo by Tim Hanson)
Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data 

Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill 

into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

By Paul C. Reneau, David T. Soong, Christopher J. Hoard, and Faith A. Fitzpatrick

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Open-File Report 2015–1205

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Reneau, P.C., Soong, D.T., Hoard, C.J., and Fitzpatrick, F.A., 2015, Hydrodynamic-assessment data associated with 

the July 2010 Line 6B spill into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2015–1205, 26 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151205.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Previously Published Data ..................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Reference Points and Vertical Datums ......................................................................................................3

Water Levels...................................................................................................................................................5

Methods..................................................................................................................................................5

Data.........................................................................................................................................................5

Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry .........................................................................................................6

Methods..................................................................................................................................................6

June 2012.......................................................................................................................................9

August 2012...................................................................................................................................9

April 2013.....................................................................................................................................10

Stationary Measurements........................................................................................................12

Model Grid Specific Velocity ...................................................................................................15

Bathymetry..................................................................................................................................20

Data.......................................................................................................................................................20

Estimates of Tributary Inflows ...................................................................................................................21

Methods................................................................................................................................................22

Data.......................................................................................................................................................22

Suspended Sediment ..................................................................................................................................22

Methods................................................................................................................................................23

Data.......................................................................................................................................................24

Summary........................................................................................................................................................24

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................24

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................25

Appendixes (Data downloads available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151205.)

A. Water-Level Data

B. Velocity, Discharge and Bathymetry Data

C. Tributary Inflows Estimates

D. Suspended-Sediment Data
iv

Figures

1. Map showing the location of the approximately 38 miles of the Kalamazoo

River and nearby towns affected by the 2010 Enbridge Line 6B pipeline 

release of diluted bitumen near Marshall, Michigan .............................................................2

2. Example screen shot of how velocity data were processed with VMS 

(Velocity Mapping Software)......................................................................................................7

3. Contour plots generated by using two versions of VMT (Velocity Mapping 

Toolbox). A, Version 2.3 beta. B, Version 4.06...........................................................................8

4. Example of a vertical velocity profile determined from a stationary measurement .......14

5. Map showing velocity data-collection points overlain on the two-dimensional

Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code model grid ...................................................................17

6. Example of a vertical profile plot of raw and averaged velocity data for an 

individual three-dimensional model grid cell.........................................................................18

7. Example of a rose diagram showing the direction and magnitude of the raw 

velocity data relative to the mean flow direction for a three-dimensional model 

grid cell.........................................................................................................................................19

Tables

1. Location, elevation, and description of reference points (RPs) used for 

Kalamazoo River and Morrow Delta and Lake velocity transects .......................................4

2. Locations where the U.S. Geological Survey collected continuous water-level 

data with stage gages, April–August 2013 ...............................................................................5

3. Kalamazoo River discharge measurements between Marshall, Michigan, 

and Morrow Lake during low flow, June 2012.........................................................................9

4. Summary information for each cross section where velocity measurements 

were made in April 2013 ............................................................................................................10

5. Example top, bottom, and averaged file structure for velocity measurements ...............12

6. Summary of all of the stationary measurements made in April 2013.................................13

7. Example of a stationary velocity data file...............................................................................14

8. Derived hydrodynamic roughness length and bed shear stress for the 

stationary data collected in April 2013....................................................................................16

9. Example bathymetry file ............................................................................................................20

10. Summary of available discharge and drainage-area data for the main 

stem and tributary watersheds ................................................................................................21

11. Locations with suspended-sediment concentration and particle-size data....................23

12. Dates sampled for suspended-sediment concentration and particle size 

with instantaneous streamflow for the Kalamazoo at Marshall, Michigan

(U.S. Geological Survey identification number 04103500) streamgage.............................23
v

Conversion Factors

[Inch/Pound to International System of Units]

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2

) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square foot (ft2

) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 megagram per day (Mg/d)

Pressure

pound-force per square inch 

(lbf/in2

)

6.895 kilopascal (kPa)

pound per square foot (lb/ft2

) 0.04788 kilopascal (kPa) 

pound per square inch (lb/in2

) 6.895 kilopascal (kPa) 

Density

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3

) 0.01602 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as:

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Datum

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 

2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 

2012–14

By Paul C. Reneau, David T. Soong, Christopher J. Hoard, and Faith A. Fitzpatrick

Abstract 

Hydrodynamic-assessment data for the Kalamazoo River 

were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) during 2012–14 to augment other hydrodynamic data-collection 

efforts by Enbridge Energy L.P. and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency associated with the 2010 Enbridge Line 6B 

oil spill. Specifically, the USGS data-collection efforts were 

focused on additional background data needed for 2013–14 

updates to Enbridge’s 2012 hydrodynamic and sedimenttransport models for simulating resuspension and deposition 

of submerged oil. The main data-collection activities consisted 

of the following along the Kalamazoo River: (1) a survey done 

by use of a Real-Time Network Global Navigation Satellite 

System, (2) water-level measurements in impounded sections, 

(3) velocity, discharge, and bathymetry measurements at 

transects and stationary points along the oil-affected reach 

of the river and in Morrow Delta and Lake, (4) estimates of 

tributary inflows, and (5) suspended-sediment concentrations 

and particle-size data at USGS streamgages along the Kalamazoo River. The method used to estimate bed shear stress from 

stationary velocity data is described. Averaged transect-based 

velocity data that were processed to match model grids also 

are included. In addition to model inputs and checks, these 

hydrodynamic-related data were used in submerged oil containment and recovery operations focused in impoundments 

and designated sediment traps. This report contains a description of the scope and methods associated with the hydrodynamic data collection and supplementary files of the USGS 

data that were used in modeling activities. 

Introduction

About 38 miles (mi) of the Kalamazoo River were 

affected by the July 2010 Enbridge pipeline release of oil (specifically, diluted bitumen), extending from Marshall, Michigan, at the confluence of Talmadge Creek, to Kalamazoo, 

Mich., and Morrow Lake Dam (fig. 1). A significant proportion of the oil was recovered by using conventional skimming 

techniques, but containment and recovery operations switched 

to a focus on submerged oil and oiled sediment within a month 

after the spill, and submerged oil remained the focus of the 

cleanup through 2014 (Dollhopf and others, 2014). Hydrodynamic-assessment data were collected throughout the cleanup 

by a variety of Enbridge Energy L.P. and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) contractors to assist with containment and recovery of submerged oil. Hydrodynamic modeling, and in particular sediment-transport modeling, was used 

to simulate the potential resuspension and deposition of submerged oil and oiled sediment using a range of flow conditions 

along the 38 mi of the Kalamazoo River that were affected 

by the Line 6B oil release (Dollhopf and others, 2014). Three 

impoundments were of special interest because of considerable submerged oil accumulation and potential release during 

high flows—Ceresco, Battle Creek Millponds, and Morrow 

Lake.

The spill of oil into the Kalamazoo River (and cleanup 

and concern with submerged oil) was one of the first of its 

kind in a freshwater riverine system. Water levels, velocity 

and discharge, tributary inflows, and suspended-sediment 

concentration and particle size represent the types of data 

that are needed to assess and simulate the fate and transport 

of submerged oil over a variety of flow conditions typically 

found in a riverine environment. The Kalamazoo River, with 

its abundant impoundments and a variety of water depths, 

velocities, and sediment-transport characteristics, is typical for 

many lowland streams tributary to the Great Lakes.

Multiple models were needed to be able to simulate 

submerged-oil transport at multiple scales because of the 

hydrodynamic complexities associated with the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge quickly developed hydrodynamic and 

sediment-transport models by use of the two-dimensional (2D) 

Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) in 2011–12, 

using available data for the 38 mi of the spill-affected Kalamazoo River (Hamrick, 2007a, 2007b, and 2007c; Enbridge 

Energy L.P., 2012). A major assumption in this early modeling 

effort was that the submerged oil migrated under the same 

flow conditions as silt-sized particles. 
2 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Figure 1. Location of the approximately 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River and nearby towns affected by the 2010 Enbridge 

Line 6B pipeline release of diluted bitumen near Marshall, Michigan. Morrow Lake is approximately 70 river miles upstream 

of Lake Michigan. U.S. Geological Survey streamgages and stage gages shown with black triangles.

Battle Creek

Kalamazoo

Marshall

Ceresco

Galesburg

Augusta 04105500

04105800

04106000

04105990

CALHOUN

BARRY

EATON

KALAMAZOO

04105000

04103500

Battle

Gull

Creek

Creek

Creek

River

River

04105700

Comstock

Creek

Sevenmile

Creek

Brook

Gull

 Lake

Morrow

Lake

Wabascon

Creek

Augusta Creek

Minges

Harper

Kalamazoo

Kalamazoo

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

85°30' 85°20' 85°10' 85°0' 84°50'

42°30'

42°20'

Map

area

M I C H I G A N

Lake Michigan

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital Data, 1:100,000

Approximate

release site

SR3855SR3780

SR3650

SR1485

SR0585
Reference Points and Vertical Datums 3

Later in 2013–14, the EPA, with a team of scientists 

and engineers from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, University of Illinois, New Jersey Institute of Technology, LimnoTech, Inc.,, and Weston/

START, updated Enbridge’s 2D EFDC hydrodynamic and 

sediment-transport models with additional hydrodynamic data 

(Jones and Lick, 2001). New 2D hydrodynamic and sedimenttransport models using the University of Illinois Ven Te Chow 

Hydrosystems Laboratory’s (VTCHL) HydroSed2D program 

(Liu and others, 2008; Zhu, 2011) were developed for simulating erosion and deposition in four enhanced sediment traps 

along the river. The sediment-trap models have an unstructured triangular mesh that provided a more detailed representation of hydrodynamics compared to the 2D EFDC model for 

backwater areas, side channels, and oxbows, and flows around 

islands and bars of the river that naturally accumulated fine 

sediment and, likely, associated submerged oil. 

Lastly, Morrow Lake, an impoundment at the downstream end of the oil-affected reach of the Kalamazoo River, 

needed a three-dimensional (3D) EFDC model (Hamrick, 

1992) to accurately capture the effects of wind and bottomdraw powerhouse intakes at Morrow Dam. In addition to 

the hydrodynamics of EFDC, VTCHL also implemented a 

Lagrangian particle tracking model into EFDC, similar to what 

has been used on the Chicago River (Sinha and others, 2012; 

2013) to determine the potential flows needed for submerged 

oil and oiled sediment to reach Morrow Dam. 

The spill response lasted for 4 years because of the 

presence of submerged oil and oiled sediment, especially in 

impoundments (Dollhopf and others, 2014). This extended 

time period for the emergency response allowed for additional 

data to be collected to refine and constrain all the models. 

Multiple types of data were collected by Enbridge, EPA 

contractors, and the USGS. This report contains data collected 

by the USGS in 2012–14. These data included (1) continuous 

water-level measurements in impounded sections, (2) velocity 

and discharge1

 measurements with acoustic sensors, (3) calculations of estimated tributary inflows for model inputs, and 

(4) suspended-sediment concentration and particle size at six 

locations along the Kalamazoo River. In addition to containing 

electronic files of these data, this report describes the scope of 

the data-collection efforts and the field and data-compilation 

methods. 

Previously Published Data

Previously published data collected by the USGS were 

used throughout the Enbridge and EPA modeling efforts and 

included continuous streamflow at five streamgages: Kalamazoo River at Marshall, MI (USGS ID 04103500), Battle Creek 

at Battle Creek, MI (USGS ID 04105000), Kalamazoo River 

near Battle Creek, MI (USGS ID 04105500), Augusta Creek 

1

 With respect to flow of water in natural channels, the terms “discharge” 

and “streamflow” are synonymous. They are used interchangeably in this 

report and are expressed as volume per unit time.

near Augusta, MI (04105700), and Kalamazoo River at Comstock (USGS ID 04106000). These streamgages bracket the 

upstream and downstream boundaries of the oil-affected reach 

(Marshall and Comstock, respectively). Battle Creek enters 

the Kalamazoo River about halfway through the spill affected 

reach (fig. 1). These data are available at http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/mi/nwis/rt. 

The USGS developed a HEC–RAS model (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers–Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2010) 

and flood inundation maps for the upper part of the oilaffected reach from Marshall to Battle Creek because the 

pipeline release happened during a flood with an exceedance 

probability of 4 percent (Hoard and others, 2010). The cross 

sections, dam configurations, and water levels used in the 

HEC–RAS model were used in the Enbridge and EPA models 

for inputs, calibration, and validation.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the report is to describe the hydrodynamic datasets, which include water levels, velocity and 

discharge measurements, tributary inflows, and suspendedsediment concentration and particle size that were collected 

from 2012 through 2014 along the oil-spill-affected reach of 

the Kalamazoo River as part of USGS hydrodynamic assessment and modeling activities. Estimated roughness heights 

and bed shear stresses were estimated from vertical profiles 

of velocity from stationary measurements. Reference points 

used for water-level recorders and velocity measurements are 

described. The data were collected during a variety of flows 

and for specific purposes where there were known data gaps 

in existing hydrodynamic data that were needed for hydrodynamic modeling, as well as decision making by the Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator and operations staff regarding submerged oil recovery and containment. 

Reference Points and Vertical Datums 

Surveyed reference points were established by the USGS 

in April 2013 for vertical datums and water levels related to 

the establishment of five water-level recorders and velocity transect measurements along the Kalamazoo River and 

Morrow Lake (table 1). The reference points were surveyed 

with a Real-Time Network (RTN) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Topcon GR-5 running TopSurv software. 

A third-order survey was conducted by using the North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) (Rydlund and 

Densmore, 2012). A third-order survey has vertical accuracies 

of 0.07 meter or about 0.23 foot (ft).

The vertical and horizontal accuracy of the reference 

points was checked against seven control points established 

by Enbridge for the Kalamazoo oil spill response, plus two 

Michigan Department of Transportation benchmarks. Surveys 

of two Enbridge control points were well out of the accuracy 
4 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Table 1. Location, elevation, and description of reference points (RPs) used for Kalamazoo River and Morrow Delta and Lake velocity 

transects. 

[Locations in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in NAD 83 and elevations (ELEV.) in NAVD 88. Abbreviations: d/s, downstream; ft, feet; 

GRP, Gage Reference Point; ID, identification; MP, mile post; REW, right edge of water; RP, reference point; u/s, upstream]

ID UTM East UTM North ELEV. (ft) Description

RP-1.29 665954.864 4679698.957 897.3887 Top of upstream right culvert lip at crossing with 15.5 mile road.

RP-2.22 665107.974 4680404.859 886.3848 Three marks on fifth I-beam from right edge of water downstream 

side of bridge. Marks are located in left downstream side of 

I-beam. At 15 mile road crossing.

RP-5.07 661004.043 4681029.292 870.1791 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-5.62 660140.176 4681420.127 870.1414 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-5.80 659932.552 4681499.541 870.1003 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-7.18 658220.699 4682017.921 853.0865 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-12.05 652857.082 4685655.146 858.1564 Eleventh post from downstream right edge of water. Located on the 

downstream left corner of the post. Raymond Road crossing.

RP-13.77 651003.082 4684424.227 843.1679 Painted square about 68 ft from start of concrete on REW downstream side of bridge. Beadle Lake Road Crossing.

RP-13.89 650842.064 4684437.681 844.9642 Painted square on fifth post from the downstream right edge of 

water. Located on the left downstream corner of the post. Main 

Street crossing.

RP-14.5 650048.136 4684840.646 828.4648 Top of MP 14.5 post. REW.

RP-14.73 649887.785 4685141.311 827.638 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

GRP-14.9 649621.522 4685236.403 826.1371 One-inch rebar used for the gage located in the Mill Pond. 

RP-15.25 649257.966 4685585.98 829.0472 MP15.25 fencepost on REW. 

RP-15.5 649365.807 4685835.02 827.7398 D/s most fencepost off bottom step 80 ft streamward of green bench 

and 300 ft u/s of United Education Credit Union.

RP-18.83 645563.03 4688770.458 820.2923 Three marks on 23rd post from downstream left edge of water. At 

Bedford Road crossing.

RP-21.31 642022.683 4690196.481 814.2752 Painted square about 51 ft from right edge of water on downstream 

side. At Custer Drive crossing.

RP-28.8 636300.416 4688309.346 787.9235 High point on metal rod protruding from large concrete boulder. 

Twenty ft downstream of bridge on right edge of water. 

At Dickman Road crossing.

RP-34.12 631740.789 4683063.763 792.0978 Three marks on third I-post form downstream right edge of water. At 

E. Michigan Ave. crossing.

GRP-36.5 629583.711 4682057.861 775.4727 One-inch rebar used for gage just upstream of 35th street bridge in 

left edge of water.

RP-36.55 629541.251 4682104.373 790.8478 Three marks on fourth downstream I beam from right edge of water. 

At 35th Street crossing.

RP-37.42 628203.803 4681768.301 775.3228 Half-inch inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-37.8 627607.461 4681782.107 774.9029 Half-inch rebar. DESTROYED.

GRP-37.8 627611.774 4681828.727 774.9363 One-inch rebar between 42nd and 43rd concrete boat launch pads 

near downstream edge flush with concrete 4 inches from downstream edge of pad.

GRP-38.5 626443.116 4682290.731 775.0095 One-inch rebar used for Morrow Lake gage.

RP-39.3 625244.522 4682226.006 775.933 Half-inch rebar. DESTROYED.

RP-39.4 625355.351 4682247.837 775.774 Half-inch rebar. DESTROYED.
Water Levels 5

tolerance: CP1024 was −0.45 ft off, and CP36 was −0.36 ft 

off. These points were not used because of either poor satellite 

reception or location of the control point. With these two control points removed, the average error was 0.0839 ft. 

Two Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) 

base stations were used during the survey, one designated 

MIBC and located in Battle Creek, Mich., and the other designated SOWR and located northeast of Portage, Mich. Control 

points shot when using MIBC indicated a 0.128-ft error, and 

control points shot when using SOWR indicated a 0.018-ft 

error. These errors were used to adjust the reference point 

elevations by the error indicated by the two base stations. 

Water Levels

Water-level data were collected from five locations with 

continuous stage gages from April through August 2013 (table 

2, fig. 1). The locations were selected to be in the Ceresco 

impoundment, Battle Creek Millponds, and Morrow Delta and 

Lake to determine how the dam configurations affected water 

levels, velocities, and flows through the three impounded 

reaches and to fill data gaps between the three main river 

USGS streamgages (Kalamazoo River at Marshall, near Battle 

Creek, and at Comstock). Preliminary data suggested that 

stage fluctuations of a few tenths of a foot can happen very 

quickly on Morrow Lake and upstream into the delta from 

powerplant operations at Morrow Dam. 

These data also augmented other water-level data manually collected by Enbridge and EPA staff from visual observations at multiple staff gages along the river. Daily water-level 

fluctuations in the Kalamazoo River were tracked by Enbridge, 

using visual observations from staff gages starting in 2010 and 

continuing through summer 2012. These staff gages were used 

to help with boating conditions and recovery operations.

Methods

 Each stage gage consisted of an In Situ Level Troll 700 

pressure transducer that was mounted to the streambed on 

1-inch (in.) rebar. The access port and atmospheric vent on 

the pressure transducer were enclosed in a locked 6-in. by 

6 in. by 4 in. environmental enclosure mounted to a uni-strut 

well above the water surface. These sensors had an accuracy 

of ± 0.014 ft range in less than 10 ft of head and were capable 

of logging data as well as compensating for changing atmospheric pressure. The gages were installed in April 2013 by 

the USGS and set to record data every 5 minutes. Gages were 

inspected and data were downloaded by Weston Inc., technicians. Datums for the gages were established by using RTN 

GNSS. The five stage gages were removed in August 2013. 

Data

Water-level data are in spreadsheet format in appendix A. 

The spreadsheet contains multiple worksheets:

The first five worksheets contain raw and corrected data 

for each of the five gages. The worksheets are named for each 

site. Column A is the date and time the data were recorded; 

Column B is pressure, in pounds per square inch measured by 

the instrument; Column C is temperature, in degrees Celsius, 

which was not officially analyzed for accuracy; Column D is 

the depth of water over the sensor, in feet; Column E is any 

corrections applied to the depth data (Column D); and Column 

F is the final water-surface elevation, in feet. All columns to 

the right of Column G represent gage verification data collected in the field to ensure the gages were working correctly. 

All Gages Plot: Graphs of stage recorder data for each of 

the five recorders, April–August 2013

38.55 and 37.8 Adjusted Graphs: Graphs showing the 

final data for SR3855 and SR3780. 

Cor. To line up 37.8 and 38.55: Graphic display and corrections used to adjust SR3780 data.

Table 2. Locations where the U.S. Geological Survey collected continuous water-level data with stage gages, April–August 2013.

[Locations in NAD 83 and elevations in NAVD 88. Abbreviations: ft, feet; mi, mile]

Stage gage 

identification code

River mile post 

(MP) Location description

Location latitude and 

longitude

 (decimal degrees)

Datum elevation 

(ft)

SRO585 5.85 Ceresco impoundment, 60 ft upstream of 

Ceresco Dam on right edge of water.

42.27036/−85.06055 866.8 

SR1485 14.85 Battle Creek Millponds, 10 ft down stream 

of I-194 on right edge of water.

42.30496/−85.18454 824.9 

SR3650 36.5 Morrow Lake Delta, 120 ft upstream of 

35th St. Bridge on left edge of water.

42.28000/−85.42839 774.9 

SR3780 37.8 Connecting channel between Morrow Delta 

and Lake on Island at Morrow Lake boat 

launch.

42.27782/−85.45242 774.2 

SR3855 38.55 Morrow Lake 1.25 mi upstream of Morrow 

Lake Dam on right edge of water.

42.28249/−85.46637 774.2 
6 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

No data corrections were applied at any of the stage 

gages except SR3780. It was assumed that during calm days 

when no flow event was taking place, SR3780 and SR3855 

both were measuring Morrow Lake water-surface elevations 

(in other words, a flat pool was assumed for Morrow Lake). 

Corrections to adjust SR3780 to match SR3855 were based 

on those overlapping days. It was assumed that the sensor at 

SR3780 was drifting.

Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry

Velocity and discharge (and related bathymetry) data used 

in the modeling came from two sources: Tetra Tech, Inc., and 

the USGS. Tetra Tech, Inc., collected velocity data in fall 2011 

and June 2012 along transects, as well as at stationary points. 

The fall 2011 measurements were made in Morrow Lake and 

along the Kalamazoo River during high base-flow conditions 

(700–800 cubic feet per second [ft3/s] at the Kalamazoo River 

near Battle Creek USGS streamgage). In June 2012, during 

low flow (about 400 ft3/s), Tetra Tech Inc., again measured 

velocity along transects and at stationary points in Morrow 

Lake and along the Kalamazoo River. 

The USGS subsequently measured velocity and discharge 

in the Kalamazoo River and Morrow Lake three times: June 

25–28, 2012, at flows of about 450 ft3/s; August 27–28, 2012, 

at flows of about 300 ft3/s; and April 12–16, 2013, at flows of 

about 2,000 ft3/s. Stationary velocity profile measurements at 

specific points along a transect also were completed in April 

2013 to estimate near-bed velocities and calculate bed shear 

stresses for modeling entrainment and also for ensuring that 

proper anchors were used for the containment structures. 

Bathymetry data (bed elevations) were generated from water 

depths collected as part of the velocity measurements. The 

acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) has four independent divergent beams that each measure a depth. Files containing an average of the four independent depths and files 

containing each individual depth were produced. The following description is for USGS measurements only.

Methods

Velocity was measured along transects or at stationary 

points by USGS crews in boats or kayaks with four different ADCPs—Teledyne RD Instruments (TRDI) StreamPro, 

2000 kHz; TRDI Work Horse Rio Grande, 600 and 1200 kHz, 

using WinRiver 2.10; and Sontek M9 using River Surveyor 

Live 3.6—depending on water depths. The ADCPs were 

integrated with an external differentially corrected global 

positioning system (DGPS) to georeference the measurements. 

A FlowTracker acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) was 

used for wadeable locations. To ensure data quality standards, 

procedures outlined in “Measuring Discharge with Acoustic 

Doppler Current Profilers from a Moving Boat” (Mueller and 

Wagner, 2009), were adhered to. Standard data-collection 

procedures were used consistently, except for a few times 

because of time constraints. 

Standard collection procedures were often not adhered to 

in the Morrow Lake Delta and in Morrow Lake itself. In order 

to collect all of the data needed before a change in the hydrologic conditions and (or) before sunset, reciprocal transects 

were often not done. When possible, these transects were compared with cross-section transects made upstream or downstream to ensure that the measured discharge was accurate. 

Data from every cross section made was rated good, fair, 

or poor. “Good” indicates that the mean discharge is within 

5 percent of actual; “fair,” within 10 percent; and “poor,” 

greater than 10 percent. When it was felt that the data were 

affected negatively because standard procedures could not be 

followed or field conditions were poor, the data were downrated. At every cross section, two transects were made if possible. If the discharge was different between the two transects 

by more than 5 percent, then additional transects were made. 

In the field, the USGS crews used predetermined RTN GNSS 

locations to retrace previous transect locations. ADCP data 

are typically noisy, especially at low velocities below 0.1 ft/s, 

which were common in Morrow Lake. Raw data were averaged in order to obtain meaningful velocities at certain points 

in the transect.

Two software packages were used to postprocess ADCP 

data: AdMap Version 2.0.0 and Velocity Mapping Software 

1.0 (VMS). Each program was used when needed to provide 

appropriate data to interested parties. AdMap Version 2.0.0 

is a MATLAB script developed by David Mueller (USGS)2

. 

AdMap is able to export ADCP data into a user-friendly 

format, average data together at user-supplied intervals, and 

average top or bottom velocities at user-supplied intervals. 

VMS, a software package developed by U.S Army Corps of 

Engineers in collaboration with the USGS, allows the user 

to average data together at user-determined distances along 

the transect. Unlike AdMap, VMS allows the merging of two 

transects made at the same cross section into one file. Figure 2 

is a snapshot out of the VMS software and shows how the data 

were averaged. The number of averaged points that are created 

and the spatial averaging are determined by two components. 

The averaging interval determines how many points are going 

to be created along the transect. The search radius is how far 

from the predetermined averaging interval point the software 

will search in order to create an averaged point from all data 

located within the search radius.

 VMT version 2.3 beta (Parsons and others, 2013) was 

used to generate preliminary contour plots showing streamwise velocity and transverse velocity. The preliminary contour 

plots were not used in model development or calibration and 

are not included in this report. However, it is worth mentioning that VMT version 4.06 has improved capability for contour plots. Figures 3A and B show contour plots of the same 

data set using VMT 2.3 beta (fig. 3A) and VMT 4.06 (fig. 3B).

2

 AdMap is used within the USGS but is not published for use outside the 

bureau.
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 7

Figure 2. Example screen shot of how velocity data were processed with VMS (Velocity Mapping Software). Red dots 

represent raw data points, yellow dots along the green line show the resulting depth-averaged velocity positions in the 

horizontal (mean velocity), the large light yellow circle shows the search radius and which raw data points were used 

to generate the first mean velocity point, and the blue arrows show the speed and direction of each mean velocity point 

generated. In this example the lengths of the blue arrows are equal to approximately 1 foot per second.
8 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

A

B

Figure 3. Contour plots generated by using two versions of VMT (Velocity Mapping Toolbox) (ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second). 

A, Version 2.3 beta. B, Version 4.06.
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 9

 ADCPs measure the velocity in multiple areas in the 

vertical; each area in the vertical is called a bin. Because the 

ADCP is capable of creating this vertical profile (ensemble) of 

bins, certain bins in the vertical can be pulled from the data to 

better understand velocities at any given depth from the surface. However, because of acoustic interference and possible 

invalid velocities created by the ADCP itself, the top and bottom of the water column cannot be measured and are instead 

estimated. The thickness of these unmeasured layers depends 

on the depth of the ADCP in the water column, the frequency 

of the ADCP, and the way that the ADCP was programmed 

prior to data collection. AdMap was used to produce three 

files: “.vav,” the mean velocity in the vertical; “.top,” the first 

bin collected from the surface of the water column; and “.bot,” 

the last bin collected in the water column. All files can be 

imported into Microsoft Excel® by using the space-delimited 

text file option.

June 2012

The USGS measured discharge at 12 sites along the 

Kalamazoo River and selected tributaries for gathering information about how springs and tributary inflows affected low 

flows in the Kalamazoo River (table 3). All measurements 

were made by using a TRDI Streampro except the two tributary sites, which were measured using a FlowTracker ADV. 

Discharge calculations followed methods in Turnipseed and 

Sauer (2010).

In addition to the discharge measurements, velocity was 

measured at 13 cross sections in Morrow Lake Delta from the 

35th Street Bridge to the narrows, also known as the neck, 

between the wider Morrow Lake Delta and Morrow Lake. 

No more than two transects were made at each cross section 

because of time constraints. 

All velocity data were postprocessed by using AdMap 

Version 2.0.0. The output for each of the 12 discharge measurements consists of a mean velocity (.vav) file (appendix 

B1). The outputs for the 13 transects in the delta consist of 

mean velocity (.vav), top velocity (.top), and bottom velocity 

(.bot).

August 2012

Velocity and discharge data were collected along eight 

cross sections in Morrow Lake Delta (appendix B2). Cross 

sections were selected with the guidance of EPA operations 

staff in terms of maximizing the use of the data for containment designs that included surface booms and bottom half curtains for keeping floating and submerged oil from migrating 

downstream. In addition, velocity data were collected within 

the neck area of Morrow Delta and Morrow Lake along seven 

cross sections. Some of the cross sections were located along 

both sides of containment booms and half curtains deployed in 

early July 2012. 

All data were collected by using a TRDI StreamPro 

tethered to a kayak. AdMap was used to generate top velocity 

(.top), bottom velocity (.bot), and average velocity (.vav) files 

(appendix B2). 

Table 3. Kalamazoo River discharge measurements between Marshall, Michigan, and Morrow Lake during low flow, 

June 2012.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; MP, river mile post]

Site number Start date and time MP Bridge crossing Discharge 

(ft3

/s) Rating

1 6/25/2012 13:57 2.25 15 Mile Road/Saylors Landing 278.4 Fair.

2 6/25/2012 15:07 7.17 11 Mile Road 274.7 Good.

3 6/25/2012 16:21 12.1 Raymond Rd, Hwy 96 299.4 Fair.

3.1 6/26/2012 9:58 13.75 Beadle Lake Road 276.5 Good.

3.2 1/0/1900 11:04 309.9 Fair.

4 6/26/2012 12:16 15.25 East Burnham St. 282.2 Good.

5 6/26/2012 18.75 Bedford Road ---- (Too shallow).

6 6/26/2012 14:41 21.25 Custer Drive 408.5 Good.

7 6/27/2012 11:40 28.75 East Michigan Ave., Hwy 96 417.4 Good.

8 6/27/2012 None ---- ----

9 6/26/2012 17:22 34.17 East Michigan Ave. 461.7 Good.

10 6/27/2012 16:57 36.5 South 35th St. 444.1 Good.

11 6/27/2012 14:03 Gull Lake Outlet Augusta Road 9.88 Fair.

12 6/27/2012 11:41 Augusta Creek At mouth 12.8 Poor.
10 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

April 2013

Forty-three cross-section measurements and 47 stationary 

measurements were made from Talmadge Creek to Morrow 

Lake in April 2013 (table 4, appendix B3). Because of time 

constraints, only one transect was made at cross sections 

38.75, 38.5, 38.25, 38, 38_S, and 38_N. Other than 38_S 

and 38_N, discharges at these cross sections were within 5 

percent of the discharge measured at the next cross section 

upstream (cross section 38.75 was within 4 percent of cross 

section 38.5). Because of time constraints at cross sections 

38_N and 38_S and the relatively low importance of the data 

to the model, only one transect was made. The integrated 

DGPS was used for measurements at every cross section 

except 1.29, 7.18, 12.05, 18.83, and 34.12. The DGPS did not 

work at these locations because of steep banks and (or) tree 

cover. When DGPS data were not available, the initial start 

position of the ADCP for the cross section was established 

from field observations and aerial photos. 

Table 4. Summary information for each cross section where velocity measurements were made in April 2013.—Continued

[Discharge was not calculated for 38_S and 38_N because the velocity measurement was parallel to the river flow direction; EDT, eastern daylight time; ft, feet; 

ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft/s, feet per second; NA, not applicable; G, good; F, fair; P, poor]

Cross 

section 

number

Start (EDT)

Water 

surface 

elevation (ft)

Discharge 

(ft3

/s)

Mean 

velocity 

(ft/s)

Percent 

difference 

between 

transects

Instrument Rating Averaging 

interval

Search 

radius 

(ft)

39.82 4/12/2013 

14:40

775.81 2100 0.34 1.0 600 G 10 20

39.79 4/12/2013 

15:31

775.79 2220 0.31 7.9 600 F 10 20

39.75 4/12/2013 

17:00

775.77 2310 0.15 2.6 600 G 20 40

39.7 4/12/2013 

16:23

775.77 2090 0.15 0.0 600 G 20 40

39.6 4/12/2013 

17:54

775.77 2350 0.17 2.8 600 G 20 40

39.5 4/12/2013 

18:29

775.77 2150 0.12 9.2 600 F 20 40

39.25 4/14/2013 

12:13

775.88 1420 0.06 0.0 600 P 20 40

39 4/14/2013 

13:07

775.88 1350 0.062 4.0 600 P 20 40

39_Repeat 4/15/2013 

16:02

775.86 1930 0.087 9.8 1200 P

38.75 4/15/2013 

17:31

775.86 2052 0.1 *4.2 M9 F 60 30

38.5 4/15/2013 

18:20

775.87 2232 0.12 *2 M9 F 60 30

38.25 4/15/2013 

19:01

775.91 2324 0.16 *1.8 M9 F 60 30

38_S 4/15/2013 

20:54

775.98 NA -0.02 NA M9 P 60 30

38_N 4/15/2013 

19:56

775.95 NA -0.03 NA M9 P 60 30

38 4/15/2013 

20:16

775.98 2408 0.195 *1.8 M9 F 60 30

37.75 4/15/2013 

12:03

775.83 2070 0.57 4.2 StreamPro F 15 30

37.66 4/15/2013 

11:40

775.82 2150 0.88 0.0 StreamPro G 15 25

37.55 4/15/2013 

11:12

775.82 2150 0.84 1.9 StreamPro G 10 20

37.25-37.5 4/15/2013 

9:23

775.84 1120 0.27 17.7 StreamPro G 10 20
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 11

Table 4. Summary information for each cross section where velocity measurements were made in April 2013.—Continued

[Discharge was not calculated for 38_S and 38_N because the velocity measurement was parallel to the river flow direction; EDT, eastern daylight time; ft, feet; 

ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft/s, feet per second; NA, not applicable; G, good; F, fair; P, poor]

Cross 

section 

number

Start (EDT)

Water 

surface 

elevation (ft)

Discharge 

(ft3

/s)

Mean 

velocity 

(ft/s)

Percent 

difference 

between 

transects

Instrument Rating Averaging 

interval

Search 

radius 

(ft)

37.18 4/15/2013 

10:05

775.84 684 1.51 0.1 StreamPro G 10 20

37.14 4/15/2013 

10:36

775.82 263 0.559 6.1 StreamPro F 5 10

36.55 4/14/2013 

11:04

776.12 2070 2.02 3.1 StreamPro G 5 10

34.12 4/13/2013 

14:57

780.92 1760 1.68 3.6 StreamPro G 5 10

28.8 4/14/2013 

12:16

788.12 1840 1.79 3.5 StreamPro G 5 10

21.36 4/14/2013 

13:23

799.52 260 0.489 0.0 StreamPro G 5 10

21.31 4/14/2013 

13:53

799.52 2040 1.17 1.8 StreamPro G 5 10

18.83 4/14/2013 

15:07

800.7 1990 1.89 0.0 StreamPro G 5 10

15.5 4/13/2013 

14:43

826.948 981 0.937 3.6 StreamPro F 5 25

15.24 4/13/2013 

15:15

827.0372 1000 1.57 0.0 StreamPro F 5 10

15.22 4/13/2013 

16:08

827.0372 903 1.34 0.0 StreamPro G 5 10

15.17 4/13/2013 

16:30

827.0372 869 1.39 0.1 StreamPro G 5 10

14.75 4/13/2013 

17:11

827.338 1000 1.49 3.4 StreamPro G 5 10

14.71 4/13/2013 

17:43

827.338 193 1.38 0.0 StreamPro G 5 10

14.52 4/13/2013 

18:30

827.4548 1010 1.33 2.2 StreamPro G 5 10

13.89 4/13/2013 

16:20

828.5 959 1.9 2.1 StreamPro F 5 10

12.05 4/13/2013 

16:59

834.1064 830 2.5 0.0 StreamPro G 5 10

7.18 4/16/2013 

14:01

853.087 689 3.09 2.0 StreamPro G 5 10

5.75 4/13/2013 

10:37

870.1 832 0.551 0.1 StreamPro G 5 10

5.62 4/13/2013 

11:16

870.14 801 0.32 4.0 StreamPro G 5 10

5.32 4/13/2013 

11:52

870.14 822 0.73 4.5 StreamPro G 5 10

5.03 4/13/2013 

12:26

870.18 824 0.791 2.7 StreamPro G 5 10

2.22 4/14/2013 

17:49

874.405 751 1.88 1.6 StreamPro G 5 10

1.29 4/14/2013 

18:24

895.2087 5.6 0.53 2.0 StreamPro P 2 2

*

 Two transects not made for cross sections 38.75, 38.5, 38.25, or 38.0, but the single-transit discharges were within 5 percent of each other.
12 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

All TRDI StreamPro-measured cross sections were 

processed by using VMS. Cross sections measured with the 

Sontek M9 were processed by using AdMap and Excel. Data 

in the vertical were not averaged in order to preserve the 

vertical velocity profile present at each location. Table 4 lists 

how much many data values were averaged in the horizontal 

direction (averaging interval) in order to output the averaged 

data into plots.

Five files were output for each cross section: top velocity, 

bottom velocity, mean velocity, 3_d velocity, and bathymetry 

(appendix B3). The top velocity file represents averages of 

measured velocity in the top of the water column. This is not 

a measure of water surface velocity. The ADCP is not able to 

measure the velocity at the very bottom of the water column 

due to interference, so the bottom velocity is the lowest measured velocity in the water column. The average velocity is the 

average of all the measured velocities in the measured portion 

of the water column.

 The top, bottom, and depth-averaged data Excel files 

have the format shown in table 5. The data for all of the transect were combined into one file for each of the measures (top, 

bottom, and average) (appendix B3).

Stationary Measurements

A minimum of a 5-minute stationary velocity measurement was made at a point along each cross section during the 

April 2013 measurements (appendix B3). The location of the 

stationary point was determined by depth and (or) velocity. 

Based on the ADCP data, the location chosen for the stationary measurement was the deepest and fastest point in the 

section (table 6). The stationary points covered a range of 

velocities in the Kalamazoo River, from a high of 4.46 ft/s in 

the main channel of the Kalamazoo River to 0.03 ft/s in the 

widest part of Morrow Lake. “Distance made good” in table 

6 represents the boat movement; it is the horizontal distance 

or offset between the starting and ending position of the boat 

during the stationary measurement. All TRDI measurements 

were processed by using VMS. The Sontek measurements 

were processed by using the R language/environment (R Core 

Team, 2014). Table 7 contains an example of a stationary data 

file. In the example of the stationary velocity data file, Tran_

ID is the name of the measurement, UTM_N and UTM_E 

represent the Universal Transverse Mercator starting position 

(in meters), T_Depth is the total depth at the starting position, Sample_Depth is the depth the velocity was measured, 

R_Samp_Depth is the depth of the sample referenced to the 

total depth, AveV_E(ft/s) is the east velocity, AveV_N(ft/s) is 

the north velocity, AveV_mag(ft/s) is the velocity magnitude, 

Average_Velocity is the mean velocity for the measurement, 

Rel_Velocity is the measured velocity magnitude divided by 

the mean velocity, and AveV_dir(deg) is the velocity direction. 

The mean velocity column represents the mean velocity for the 

entire measurement. The Average_Velocity and Rel_Velocity 

columns were used to better display the data in ArcMap 10.1.

The vertical velocity profiles from the April 2013 

stationary measurements were used to estimate bed shear 

stress and hydrodynamic roughness for model validation 

and comparison. At each stationary measurement location, a 

LOWESS fit (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002) of the u-component 

(downstream direction) of the velocity in each bin (depth 

interval) of the ensemble was computed first by using MATLAB (http://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/smooth.html, 

accessed May 2013). The entire bin of u-velocity component 

was also fit with the log law. In an ideal case, the vertical 

distribution of velocity magnitude in the water column of an 

open channel is represented by a logarithmic profile (Dingman, 2009). Examining the shape of the LOWESS fit (trend) 

curve and the logarithmic profile provided a first level of 

quality check of the data. In some instances, greater discrepancies showed at the top bins close to the water surface, 

which could result from wind-induced current (a likely case 

in Morrow Lake). When great discrepancies showed, portions 

of the u-velocity data were excluded from the logarithmic 

profile fit until a better fit was reached. In figure 4, the red 

line is the LOWESS trend curve fitted to the each bin of the 

entire ensemble, and the black line is the logarithmic velocity profile fitted to portion of the bin data (in black dots) that 

can represent the less disturbed data. Because not all of the 

external disturbances that affected the data were known, the 

logarithmic profile development had to be evaluated in caseby-case manner. Once a logarithmic profile was determined at 

Table 5. Example top, bottom, and averaged file structure for velocity measurements. 

[Tran_ID, cross-section name; UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator; V_mag [ft/s], is the horizontal velocity magnitude, in feet per second; V_dir, direction 

of the velocity in the horizontal. Vavg (mean velocity for the transect) and V_mag/Vavg (velocity magnitude for the point divided by the cross-sectional mean 

velocity) were used to scale the graphed vectors in ArcMap 10.1]

Tran_ID UTM_X UTM_Y V_mag [ft/s] V_dir Vavg V_mag/Vavg

39.82 624378.81 4682327.08 0.08 208.03 0.34 0.235294

39.82 624381.62 4682325.98 0.11 211.37 0.34 0.323529

39.82 624384.56 4682325.2 0.13 217.67 0.34 0.382353

39.82 624387.56 4682324.67 0.18 224.47 0.34 0.529412
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 13

Table 6. Summary of all the stationary measurements made in April 2013.

[ID, identification number; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; UTM, Universal Transverse Mercator]

Stationary ID Start UTM_X UTM_Y Depth (ft) Mean velocity 

(ft/s)

Distance made 

good (ft)

S_1-39.82 4/12/13 13:59 624403.5 4682215.51 10.47 0.28 18.4

S_2-39.82 4/12/13 14:11 624425.9 4682275.11 19.81 0.31 16.0

S_3-39.82 4/12/13 14:20 624398.9 4682323.12 9.31 0.21 15.6

S_1-39.79 4/12/13 14:48 624409.8 4682356.31 7.62 0.14 13.2

S_2-39.79 4/12/13 14:57 624457.2 4682261.46 15.27 0.26 8.9

S_3-39.79 4/12/13 15:07 624414.1 4682189.8 10.9 0.22 11.4

S-39.75 4/12/13 16:22 624540.5 4682126.43 12.65 0.2 35.0

S-39.70 4/12/13 15:47 624602.1 4682094.36 11.82 0.2 19.4

S-39.60 4/12/13 17:19 624756 4682105.83 10.77 0.19 3.9

S-39.50 4/12/13 17:55 624838.6 4681856.61 9.54 0.16 4.4

S-39.25 4/14/13 11:47 625267.7 4681841.1 8.87 0.07 5.8

S-39.00 4/14/13 12:34 625660.2 4681819.37 7.07 0.08 9.0

S-38.75 4/15/13 17:01 626069.7 4681858.81 6.13 0.03 31.1

S-38.50 4/15/13 17:46 626481.9 4681771.29 6.07 0.19 5.1

S-38.25 4/15/13 18:28 626898.5 4681970.59 5.35 0.13 55.0

S-38.0 4/15/13 19:41 627246.5 4681628.8 4.35 0.24 13.0

S-38_N 4/15/13 19:06 627101.7 4681987.34 5.31 0.04 5.1

S-38_S 4/15/13 20:13 627071.8 4681160.85 4 0.04 0.9

S-37.75 4/15/13 11:22 627696.8 4681680.12 5.96 0.8 24.2

S-37.66 4/15/13 10:51 627832.6 4681708.06 9.19 1.03 3.6

S-37.55 4/15/13 10:25 627998.8 4681736.06 7.28 0.88 6.6

S-37.25-37.5 4/15/13 8:44 628072.6 4681595.12 6.37 1.01 1.6

S-37.18 4/15/13 9:11 628579.3 4681797.85 3.4 1.63 1.6

S-37.14 4/15/13 9:46 628734.9 4681348.71 2.19 0.49 1.2

S-36.55 4/14/13 9:54 629538 4682086.39 10.56 2.16 4.8

S-34.12 4/13/13 13:51 631756.2 4683056.87 8.21 2.45 2.0

S-28.8 4/14/13 11:10 636308.7 4688314.2 9.53 3.11 7.0

S-21.36 4/14/13 12:31 641936.9 4690393.33 5.88 0.56 8.5

S-21.31 4/14/13 12:58 641992.3 4690191.15 10.07 1.81 30.2

S-18.83 4/14/13 14:02 645560 4688779.89 6.07 2.1 1.4

S-15.5 4/14/13 13:55 649495.2 4685869.91 6.71 1.47 6.4

S-15.24 4/13/13 14:23 649236 4685619.46 8.61 2.29 3.0

S-15.22 4/13/13 15:16 649224 4685565.38 6.95 1.57 3.8

S-15.17 4/13/13 15:38 649269.8 4685485.86 4.77 1.72 1.7

S-14.75 4/13/13 16:20 649818.8 4685143.52 5.74 1.73 2.2

S-14.71 4/13/13 16:47 649885.6 4685137.75 4.11 1.62 1.7

S-14.52 4/13/13 17:37 650024.6 4684823.84 5.01 1.79 3.2

S-13.89 4/14/13 15:11 650838.6 4684447.52 5.03 4.46 3.8

S-12.05 4/14/13 15:53 652854.9 4685647.72 3.86 4.07 3.4

S-7.18 4/16/13 12:55 658218.3 4682039.03 2.8 3.34 2.1

S-5.75 4/13/13 9:52 660087.5 4681528.54 5.36 0.89 0.7

S-5.62 4/13/13 10:33 660206.3 4681412.56 5.38 0.82 1.2

S-5.32 4/13/13 11:03 660641.9 4681163.72 4.78 0.83 9.0

S-5.03 4/13/13 11:43 661082.6 4680994.55 7.61 0.72 16.4

S-2.22 4/14/13 16:43 665110.5 4680425.06 4.06 2.16 1.0

S-1.29 4/14/13 17:17 665956.5 4679697.96 1.26 0.93 0.6
14 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Table 7. Example of a stationary velocity data file. 

[Tran_ID, transect number the data point belongs to; UTM_E[m], Universal Transverse Mercator easting coordinate, in meters; UTM_N[m], Universal Transverse Mercator northing coordinate, in meters; UTM_E_FAKE, display velocity data in the vertical; T_Depth, total depth at the starting position; Sample_Depth, 

depth the velocity was measured; R_Samp_Depth, depth of the sample referenced to the total depth; AveV_E(ft/s), east velocity; AveV_N(ft/s), north velocity; 

AveV_mag(ft/s), velocity magnitude; Average_Velocity, mean velocity for the measurement; Rel_Velocity, measured velocity magnitude divided by the mean 

velocity; AveV_dir(deg), velocity direction; ft/s, feet per second; deg, degrees]

Tran_

ID UTM_E UTM_N UTM_E_FAKE T_

Depth

Sample_

Depth

R_Samp_

Depth

AveV_E 

(ft/s)

AveV_N 

(ft/s)

AveV_

mag 

(ft/s)

Average_

Velocity

Rel_

Velocity

AveV_

dir (deg)

1.29 665956.54 4679697.96 665956.5415 1.26 0.95 0.753968254 –0.65 0.71 0.96 0.93 1.032258065 317.81

1.29 665956.54 4679697.96 665959.5415 1.26 0.89 0.706349206 –0.67 0.75 1 0.93 1.075268817 318.12

1.29 665956.54 4679697.96 665962.5415 1.26 0.82 0.650793651 –0.6 0.63 0.87 0.93 0.935483871 316.17

1.29 665956.54 4679697.96 665965.5415 1.26 0.76 0.603174603 –0.63 0.73 0.97 0.93 1.043010753 319.36

Figure 4. Example of a vertical velocity profile determined from a stationary measurement.

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

VELOCITY, IN METERS PER SECOND

T14.75__002_SBT_ASC.TXT

NORMALIZED HEIGHT ABOVE BED, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

Excluded velocity 

 measurements

Included velocity 

 measurements

LOWESS fit

Log law fit
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 15

a stationary measurement location, the hydrodynamic roughness length and bed shear stress were determined with the 

following analysis.

The logarithmic profile (Dingman, 2009) generally has 

the following form:

u (1) u

K

Z

Z = 



 



og  *

0

where u is velocity component in the longitudinal direction 

(downstream, in this case), is the shear velocity u* , K is the 

Von Karman constant, z is the depth variable positive upward, 

and z0 is the hydrodynamic roughness length. Equation 1 is 

expanded to a linear algebra form as 

u

and compared to the linear logarithmic equation y a = ×logx + b

from the mean u-velocity fit, we obtain

a

where ks is the dominant roughness height. An assumption 

made here is that sediment grain sizes are the dominant form 

of roughness that cause the hydrodynamic roughness (with 

recognition that a large portion of the river bottom is covered 

with vegetation during summer months). For rough turbulent 

flows, Nikuradse (1993) derived the hydrodynamic roughness 

k length due to sediment grains as . Because the z s 0 = 30

values of a (slope) and b (intercept) are known from the fitted 

curve, the shear velocity and roughness length can therefore 

be obtained as

u a

Finally, bed shear stress (τoe) is related to shear velocity by the equation u*= (τoe/ρ)

1/2, where ρ is the fluid density. 

The derived hydrodynamic roughness length and bed shear 

stress are presented in table 8. The data were also reported in 

the file April2013_Stationary_analysis&numerical_results042014upate.xlsx in appendix B3.

Model Grid Specific Velocity

In order to more easily calibrate and validate the 2D and 

3D models, the velocity data were further processed to correspond to the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the grid 

cells being used in the modeling. Upstream of the Morrow 

Lake Delta and 35th Street bridge crossing, the velocity data 

were evaluated at the 2D EFDC model grid cells. For Morrow 

Lake Delta and Morrow Lake, the velocity data were evaluated at the 3D EFDC model grid cells. 

Although the basic processing of the velocity data was 

the same as described above, it was grouped differently to 

reflect the two model grids. Raw unaveraged data were output 

from WinRiver 2.10 by using AdMap. These data were then 

loaded into ArcMap 10.1 and spatially joined to the corresponding model grid cells (fig. 5). Each raw velocity data 

point then had a grid cell number associated with it, and the 

data were exported from ArcMap 10.1 and imported into R 

(R Core Team, 2014) for further analysis. For the 3D model 

grid, velocity data were further grouped by relative depths and 

then averaged. Relative depths were calculated by dividing the 

measured depth by the total depth for each velocity data point. 

These data were then assigned and averaged into the eight 

vertical bins used in the 3D model grid. 

A few methods were used to help determine the velocity 

data quality assigned for each grid cell. A simple count was 

done to see how many data points were in each bin. In addition, for data fitted to the 3D model grid, vertical profile plots 

that showed the averaged data as well as the raw data were 

examined (fig. 6). The only difference in the data processing 

for the 2D and 3D model grids was that bins in the vertical 

were not computed for the 2D model except for a relative 

depth of 0.6. The 0.6 relative depth bin was computed to 

compare to the average velocity among grid cells. This was 

done to check and see whether the velocity profile followed 

a standard logarithmic shape, where the velocity at 6/10 

depth should represent the mean velocity for the profile. Rose 

diagrams showing the direction and magnitude of raw data for 

each grid cell also were produced (fig. 7). The rose diagrams 

display the direction of raw velocity data relative to the mean 

flow direction for the grid cell. If all of the raw data are to the 

left and right of the mean flow direction (0 in the graph), the 

pattern would suggest that velocity data in that particular cell 

are highly variable and probably would not be used to check 

the model. The vertical profile plots and the rose diagrams are 

intended only as a reference to the modeler to explain differences in the measured and modeled velocities. 
16 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Table 8. Derived hydrodynamic roughness length and bed shear stress for the 

stationary data collected in April 2013.

[ID, identification number; m, meters; Pa, pascals; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; ––, not analyzed]

Stationary ID

Hydrodynamic 

roughness length 

Z0 (m)

Bed shear 

stress u* (Pa)

Mean depth 

(ft)

Mean velocity 

(ft/s)

S-1.29 – – – – 1.26 0.93

S-2.22 0.0316 8.68 4.06 2.16

S-5.03 0.0394 0.89 7.61 0.72

S-5.32 0.0024 0.34 4.78 0.83

S-5.62 0.0019 0.29 5.38 0.82

S-5.75 0.0021 0.36 5.36 0.89

S-7.18 0.0373 32.89 2.8 3.34

S-12.05 – – – – 3.86 4.07

S-13.89 0.0084 17.29 5.03 4.46

S-14.52 0.0002 0.79 5.01 1.79

S-14.71 0.0018 1.23 4.11 1.62

S-14.75 0.0202 3.57 5.74 1.73

S-15.17 0.0024 1.48 4.77 1.72

S-15.22 0.0030 1.20 6.95 1.57

S-15.24 0.0051 2.86 8.61 2.29

S-15.5 0.0146 1.99 6.71 1.47

S-18.83 0.0026 1.95 6.07 2.1

S-21.31 0.0028 0.99 10.07 1.81

S-21.36 – – – – 5.88 0.56

S-28.8 0.0460 13.98 9.53 3.11

S-37.75 – – – – 5.96 0.8

S-34.12 0.1231 19.16 8.21 2.45

S-36.55 0.5186 53.66 10.56 2.16

S-37.14 – – – – 2.19 0.49

S-37.18 0.0041 1.83 3.4 1.63

S-37.25-37.5 0.0000 0.10 6.37 1.01

S-37.55 0.0005 0.22 7.28 0.88

S-37.66 0.0027 0.43 9.19 1.03

S-39.00 0.0091 0.00 7.07 0.08

S-39.25 0.0008 0.00 8.87 0.07

S-39.50 0.0030 0.01 9.54 0.16

S-39.60 0.0000 0.00 10.77 0.19

S-39.70 0.0334 0.04 11.82 0.2

S-39.75 0.0289 0.06 12.65 0.2

S_1-39.79 0.0004 0.01 7.62 0.14

S_2-39.79 0.0642 0.14 15.27 0.26

S_3-39.79 0.0044 0.03 10.9 0.22

S_1-39.82 0.0504 0.12 10.47 0.28

S_2-39.82 0.0145 0.06 19.81 0.31

S_3-39.82 0.0129 0.05 9.31 0.21
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 17

Figure 5. Velocity data-collection points overlain on the two-dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code 

model grid. 

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS,

AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the

GIS User Community

0 30 60 120 FEET

0 10 20 40 METERS

EXPLANATION

Model Grid

Data Collection Points

^ Location

^

CALHOUN

BARRY

EATON

KALAMAZOO

ALLEGAN

Battle Creek Kalamazoo Marshall

Galesburg

Augusta

85°30' 85°20' 85°10' 85°0' 84°50'

42°30'

42°20'

85°8'44" 85°8'42"

42°18'30"

42°18'28"
18 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Figure 6. Example of a vertical profile plot of raw and averaged velocity data for an individual three-dimensional 

model grid cell. Blue points represent raw velocity; red points are the mean velocities calculated for each bin in the 

vertical. The different shaded and unshaded regions represent the bins in the vertical.

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

−1.57 −1 −0.43 0.14 0.72 1.29 1.86 2.43 3.01 3.58 4.15

Velocity relative to mean flow direction for the grid cell (in feet per second)

Relative depth

322_60
Velocity, Discharge, and Bathymetry 19

Figure 7. Example of a rose diagram showing the direction and magnitude of the raw velocity data relative to the mean 

flow direction for a three-dimensional model grid cell.

0

45

90

135

180

225

270

315

0

300

600

900

Raw velocity in relation to downstream flow direction. 

Bins represent the number and speed of raw velocity points in 

any direction related to downstream flow represented by 0

Count

Feet per second

0−.1

.11−.2

.21−.4

.41−.8

.81−1.6

1.61−3.2

3.21−6.4

Grid cell number: 322_60

EXPLANATION
20 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Bathymetry

Bathymetry data were calculated from the velocity measurements. Before or after each transect measurement, watersurface elevations were recorded at the preestablished reference points. With a known water-surface elevation at the time 

of each measurement, bed elevations could be calculated from 

water depths measured by the ADCP. The ADCP measures an 

individual water depth for each of its four beams; these depths 

were then averaged together to compute a mean water depth 

for every reading. The transect that had the more accurate 

DGPS data was used for the bathymetry data. An example 

bathymetry file is shown in table 9.

Data

Velocity data are in various formats and are organized 

into four appendixes. The first three (appendixes B1–B3) contain raw and processed data collected by date, and the fourth 

(appendix B4) contains raw and processed data fitted to the 2D 

and 3D EFDC model grids. 

Velocity data consist of the following from the June 2012 

measurements (appendix B1):

• Delta Msmts June 2012: 

• Measured Folder: Contains unprocessed ADCP data

• Processed Folder: Contains processed ADCP data

• Discharge Msmts 2012.zip: 

• Measured Folder: Contains unprocessed ADCP data

• Processed Folder: Contains processed ADCP data

• June_2012_Discharge.xlsx: Table of discharge measurements made.

Velocity data files for August 2012 (appendix B2) 

include: 

• Measured.zip: Measured ADCP Data

• Processed.zip: Processed ADCP data.

• August_2012.mpk: ARC Map package showing locations of transects and embedded velocity data output 

for transects

April 2013 data are in appendix B3 and also contain a 

variety of folders and file types:

• MorrowLake_Processed: Folder with files of processed 

stationary and transect data from Morrow Lake.

• Processed: File Folder with files of processed stationary and transect data from the Kalamazoo River.

• April_2013_Kazoo_Final_Survey.mpk: Spatially referenced data.

• April2013_Stationary_analysis&numerical_results042014upate.xlsx: Stationary data and analyses used 

for computing bed shear stress and roughness height.

• Original Data.zip: Raw ADCP data.

The map package (April_2013_Kazoo_Final_Survey.mpk) 

in ArcMap 10.1 was created to summarize all of the data collected. The following is a brief summary of the various layers in 

the ArcMap 10.1 Map Package in appendix B3:

• Kalamazoo_Average_Velocity: Arrow direction 

represents flow direction, arrow color is the velocity 

magnitude, and arrow size is the velocity magnitude 

relative to each individual transect.

• Kalamazoo_Bottom_Velocity: Arrow direction 

represents flow direction, arrow color is the velocity 

magnitude, and arrow size is the velocity magnitude 

relative to each individual transect. 

• Kalamazoo_Top_Velocity: Arrow direction represents 

flow direction, arrow color is the velocity magnitude, 

and arrow size is the velocity magnitude relative to 

each individual transect.

• Kalamazoo_Bathymetry: Points that show the elevation of the bed relative to NAVD 88.

Table 9. Example bathymetry file.

[Tran_ID, transect number the data point belongs to; UTM_E[m], Universal Transverse Mercator easting coordinate, in meters; UTM_N[m], Universal Transverse Mercator northing coordinate, in meters; Mean Depth [ft], 

depth, in feet, at that point; Bed_Elev(ft)_NAVD88, bed elevation, in feet above NAVD 88].

Tran_ID UTM_E[m] UTM_N[m] Mean Depth (ft) Bed_Elev(ft)_NAVD88

39.82 624382.9208 4682212.458 6.02 769.79

39.82 624382.9787 4682212.458 6.08 769.73

39.82 624383.0336 4682212.461 6.08 769.73

39.82 624383.0945 4682212.491 6.19 769.62

39.82 624383.1616 4682212.531 6.07 769.74

39.82 624383.2287 4682212.567 6.24 769.57

39.82 624383.2896 4682212.601 6.24 769.57
Estimates of Tributary Inflows 21

• Kalamazoo_Depth: Points that show the depth from 

water surface for each measurement. 

• Kalamazoo_RP: Points where Reference Points were 

established for the survey.

Model Confirmation Velocities are in appendix B4 and 

also contain a variety of file types:

• 35th Street to Morrow Dam: Contains three folders 

for the three dates when velocity data were collected. 

These contain the data fitted to the 3D EFDC model 

grid. Each folder includes a zip file with the following:

• [DATE]_Graphs: Folder with graphs of the vertical 

profile and rose diagram.

• [DATE]_Final_Data.xlsx: Final computed values for 

each grid cell.

• Averaging Velocity Data_8depths_Zhendou_

April2013_Centroid_I_J_2.r: R script used to 

manipulate raw data.

• Final_Data.csv: Final data in CSV format.

• Talmadge Creek to 35th Street: Folder contains one file 

of velocity data fitted to the 2D EFDC model grid:

• Mean_Velocity.xlsx: Contains final data processed 

for 2D model comparison.

Estimates of Tributary Inflows 

Estimates of tributary inflows were needed for determining flow and sediment influxes to the main stem Kalamazoo 

River for the 2D EFDC model. For unsteady flow and 

sediment-transport modeling, properly determined tributary 

inflow time series were important for model calibration, 

for describing effects of the influx from tributaries, and for 

balancing and assessing the spatial patterns and variations of 

discharge and sedimentation along the modeled reach. Eight 

tributaries were included in the Enbridge 2D EFDC model 

of the Kalamazoo River (Enbridge Energy, L.P., 2012). They 

are, in upstream to downstream order, Talmadge Creek, Bear 

Creek, Minges Brook-Harper Creek, Battle Creek, Wabascon 

Creek, Sevenmile Creek, Augusta Creek, and Gull Creek 

(fig. 1). Among them, Battle Creek and Augusta Creek have 

USGS streamgages; the remaining six tributaries are ungaged 

(table 8). Note that the drainage areas for ungaged tributaries 

reported in table 10 were obtained from a separate watershed 

model of the Kalamazoo River presently being developed by 

the USGS for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative study and 

are slightly different from those reported earlier (Enbridge 

Energy, L.P., 2012). 

Table 10 Summary of available discharge and drainage-area data for the main stem and tributary 

watersheds.

[mi2, square miles]

Stream and streamgage names Drainage area 

(mi2

)

Streamgage number or 

ungaged designation

Kalamazoo River at Marshall 449 04103500.

Talmadge Creek 3.3 Ungaged.

Bear Creek 14.8 Ungaged.

Minges Brook-Harper Creek 54.9 Ungaged.

Battle Creek at Battle Creek1 241 04105000.

Kalamazoo River near Battle Creek 824 04105500.

Wabascon Creek 43.1 Ungaged.

Sevenmile Creek 16.4 Ungaged.

Augusta Creek2 38.9 04105700.

Gull Creek3 39.0 Ungaged.

Kalamazoo River at Comstock4 1,100 04106000.

1

The gage is upstream of the confluence with the Kalamazoo River. The drainage area at the confluence is 282 mi2.

2

The Enbridge Energy L.P. (2012) hydrodynamic modeling report listed the drainage area for Augusta Creek to be 

38.9 square kilometers.

3

The reported drainage area is at the confluence with Kalamazoo River. The drainage area at the USGS streamgage on 

the Gull Creek, number 04105800, is 38.1 mi2.

4

This is the drainage area at the U.S.Geological Survey Kalamazoo River at Comstock streamgage, which is downstream of Morrow Dam. For evaluating tributary areas, it is appropriate to exclude the drainage area for the Crooked Creek 

watershed (about 23 mi2

) and the Comstock watershed (17.5 mi2).
22 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Methods

Approximating flow time series at ungaged tributaries 

consisted of two parts: (1) estimating and assembling daily 

flow time series and (2) disaggregating the daily time series 

into 15-minute time intervals. The latter part is necessary to 

produce time series with the time step used in the hydrodynamic model simulations. 

Two flow-approximation methods based on drainage area 

(DA) were applied to selected index stations for estimating 

flows for the six ungaged tributaries: the DA-ratio method that 

was used in the Enbridge modeling and the Flow Anywhere 

method (Linhart and others, 2012) used in the EPA modeling. 

The two method-index station pairs (models) that produced 

best tributary inflow estimates are (1) the DA-ratio method 

with Augusta Creek near Augusta as the index station, and (2) 

The Flow Anywhere method with Battle Creek at Battle Creek 

as the index station. Based on the goodness-of-fit obtained 

from comparing measured records at three gaged stations (Battle Creek at Battle Creek, Augusta Creek, Wanadoga Creek) 

for the period October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2012, the 

Flow Anywhere method with Battle Creek at Battle Creek as 

the index station, described as equation 5 below, was selected 

for estimating daily flows for the six ungaged tributaries: 

Q C A

A u Q u

I

= I





 





1 1137

0 6994

.

. (5)

where

Qu is the streamflow at the ungaged location,

Au is the drainage area at the ungaged location,

AI is the drainage area at the index streamgage, 

and

QI is the streamflow at the index streamgage.

For the modeling, mean daily time series data at the 

gaged index station at Battle Creek at Battle Creek and 

Augusta Creek were used for the selected simulation period. 

The mean daily flow time series at six other ungaged sites was 

estimated with equation 5. 

There are small watersheds besides the eight tributaries 

in the study, and their total drainage areas are not negligible. 

These unaccounted-for areas, located between the upstream 

and downstream boundary and the eight specified tributaries, 

also contribute flows and sediment to the Kalamazoo main 

channel and potentially can induce imbalance in flows and 

sediment if not considered. Daily flows from unaccounted-for 

areas were also estimated with equation 5 and assigned to the 

nearest tributary. 

Daily flows for the tributaries were disaggregated into 

15-minute intervals for a better match with the time step used 

in the hydrodynamic flow modeling. A daily hydrograph 

was constructed by connecting the midpoint of each mean 

daily mean discharge. Within a day, a finer time interval was 

obtained by adjusting the slope of finer time interval until the 

volume under the slope of the finer time interval matched the 

daily volume. Estimated tributary flows were calculated at 

15-minutes intervals for the five 2D EFDC modeled events: 

• 7/23/2010–8/23/2010 (oil spill)

• 5/13/2011–5/24/2011 (high flow)

• 5/25/2011–6/8/2011 (high flow)

• 10/28/2011–11/9/2011 (high base flow)

• 4/10/2013–4/22/2013 (spring runoff event)

Data

The data file for the tributary inputs is in spreadsheet format with worksheets for each of the five flow 

events (appendix C). The data file is called Appendix C 

disagg_15m_trib_inflows_for_5_events.

Suspended Sediment

Suspended-sediment concentration and particle-size data 

were not available for the oil-affected reach of the Kalamazoo 

River during the 2012 Enbridge modeling, and Tetra Tech 

Inc., applied a discharge/concentration rating from available 

suspended-sediment concentration data collected upstream 

at the South Branch of the Kalamazoo River near Albion, MI 

(04102850) in 1971–72. The regression for the Albion curve 

was

Y = 0.0194x1.239 (6)

where x is equal to discharge (ft3/s) and Y is equal to suspended-sediment concentration (milligrams per liter [mg/L]). 

An upper limit of 120 mg/L was put on the rating (Enbridge 

Energy, L.P., 2012) on the basis of these data and others 

from downstream of the spill-affected reach, indicating that 

the Kalamazoo River is generally a sediment-supply-limited 

system. Tetra Tech, Inc., used a distribution of sand, silt, and 

clay-sized fractions based on average particle-size distribution 

from sediment cores collected from the oil-affected reach of 

the Kalamazoo River in 2011 (Enbridge Energy, L.P., 2012). 

From 2012 through 2014, the USGS collected suspendedsediment concentration and particle-size data within the 

oil-affected reach at six sites (table 11). Each site but one, 

the Kalamazoo River at 35th Street Bridge, was at a USGS 

streamgage, and each site was sampled for suspendedsediment concentration and particle size a total of six times 

between August 2012 and April 2014 during a range of flow 

conditions (table 12). The Kalamazoo River at 35th Street 

was sampled only once, during the last flow event sampled in 

March 2014. Particle-size data were not collected for the January 15, 2013, sampling.
Suspended Sediment 23

Table 11. Locations with suspended-sediment concentration and particle-size data.

U.S.Geological Survey 

identification number

Streamgage name

04103500 Kalamazoo River at Marshall.

04105000 Battle Creek at Battle Creek.

04105500 Kalamazoo River near Battle Creek.

04105700 Augusta Creek near Augusta.

04105820 Kalamazoo River at 35th Street at Galesburg.

04106000 Kalamazoo River at Comstock.

Table 12. Dates sampled for suspended-sediment 

concentration and particle size with instantaneous 

streamflow for the Kalamazoo at Marshall, Michigan

(U.S. Geological Survey identification number 

04103500) streamgage. 

[Only concentration data, not particle size, are available for 

1/15/2013; ft3/s, cubic feet per second].

Date Kalamazoo River at Marshall, MI, 

instantaneous discharge (ft3

/s)

8/16/2012 254

1/15/2013 414

2/1/2013 575

3/18/2013 272

4/22/2013 1,130

3/31/2014 826

Methods

Suspended sediment was collected with a depthintegrated sampler (DH-59) by the USGS, using standard 

procedures for the equal-width-increment (EWI) method 

(Edwards and Glysson, 1999; Nolan and others, 2005). Water 

temperature and specific conductance also were collected with 

a Yellow Springs Instruments 600OMS multiparameter waterquality sonde.

Samples were analyzed for sediment concentration at the 

USGS Kentucky Water Science Center Laboratory, in accordance with standard protocols (Guy, 1969; Shreve and Downs, 

2005). Particle-size analyses were done in the USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center prep laboratory on a LISST-Streamside portable particle-size analyzer. Samples were analyzed 

in a wet state. Particle-size categories range from less than 2 

micrometers to fine to medium sand-sized (356 micrometers). 

The particle-size distributions likely include silt and organicmatter aggregates, especially those in the sand-sized range. 

Two replicates were analyzed from most samples. 

Instantaneous loads were calculated by using equation 7 

(from Porterfield, 1972):

Qs = Qw Cs K (7)

where Qs is sediment discharge, in tons (short tons) per day 

(ton/d); Qw is the instantaneous streamflow (water discharge), in 

cubic feet per second (ft3/s); Cs in the suspended-sediment concentration, in milligrams per liter (mg/L); and K is a coefficient 

(0.0027) to convert units of measurement of water discharge 

and suspended-sediment concentration into tons per day and 

assumes a specific gravity of 2.65 grams per cubic centimeter for 

sediment.

For particle size, Sequoia Scientific’s laser-diffraction-based 

portable LISST instrument was used (Agrawal and Pottsmith, 

2000). Assumptions for the instrument included that the data 

represent a distribution of spheres, and an empirical calibration 

correction was applied to account for random particle shapes.
24 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Data

Suspended-sediment concentration and particle-size data 

are in appendix D in multiple spreadsheets. Concentration data 

are in two files:

• kzoosed_concentration.xlsx: All suspended-sediment 

concentration data with associated discharge, water 

temperature, specific conductance, and instantaneous 

load, collected from August 2012 through March 2014.

• kzoosed_Marshall_susp_sed_ratings.xlsx: Concentration and sediment load data plotted against discharge 

for the Kalamazoo River at Marshall, MI, streamgage. 

These data were used for 2D EFDC model inputs.

Particle-size data are in separate files for each collection 

date and consist of raw particle-size data in volume concentrations per class, cumulative frequency calculations, and 

cumulative frequency graphical plots. Data for random shape 

particles is shown in the graphical displays.

• kzoo.ss.LISST.20120816.xlsx: Particle-size data for the 

August 16, 2012, sampling.

• kzoo.ss.LISST.20130201.xlsx: Particle-size data for the 

February 1, 2013, sampling.

• kzoo.ss.LISST.20130318.xlsx: Particle-size data for the 

March 18, 2013, sampling.

• kzoo.ss.LISST.20130422.xlsx: Particle-size data for the 

April 22, 2013, sampling.

• kzoo.ss.LISST.20140331.xlsx: Particle-size data for the 

March 31, 2014, sampling.

• kzoo.ss.Marshall.LISST.xlsx: Cumulative frequency 

plots of suspended-sediment particle-size data for all 

sampling events for the Kalamazoo River at Marshall.

Summary 

The U.S. Geological Survey collected hydrodynamicassessment data related to the containment and recovery of 

submerged oil in the Kalamazoo River associated with the 

July 2010 Enbridge Line 6b Pipeline release of oil (diluted 

bitumen) in Marshall, Michigan. The data were collected 

during 2012–14 and consisted of the following: (1) a survey 

done by use of a Real-Time Network (RTN) Global Navigation Satellite System, (2) water-level measurements, (3) 

velocity, discharge, and bathymetry data, (4) tributary inflows 

estimates, and (5) suspended-sediment concentrations and 

particle-size data.

The RTN survey was used tie bathymetry and water 

level data into a common vertical datum. Twenty-six reference points were established, all tied into NAVD 88, along the 

reach of the river from Marshall, Michigan to Morrow Lake. 

 Water-level measurements were collected at 5 minute 

intervals from April 2013 to August 2013 at five locations 

including: Ceresco impoundment, Battle Creek Millponds, 

entrance to Morrow Lake Delta, Morrow Delta, and Morrow 

Lake. 

Velocity, discharge, and bathymetry data were collected 

at over 50 locations along the Kalamazoo River. The data were 

collected June 2012, August 2012, and April 2013.

Ungaged tributary inflows were estimated for five events 

during the study period. Three gaged creeks were used to 

develop the estimates: 0410500 Battle Creek at Battle Creek, 

Michigan, 04105700 Augusta Creek near Augusta, Michigan, 

and 04104945 Wanadoga Creek near Battle Creek, Michigan.

Suspended sediment concentration and particle size were 

measured at six locations from 2012 to 2014. 

These data were mainly used in association with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hydrodynamic 

and sediment-transport modeling. In addition to modeling, the 

data were helpful for submerged oil containment and recovery 

operations that were focused in impoundments and designated 

sediment traps. The data also augmented data collections of 

water levels and velocity by Enbridge Energy L.P. and EPA 

contractors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to doubly thank Thomas Weaver, 

Don James, Josh Loewel, and Ryan Oster from the USGS 

Michigan Water Science Center and Timothy Hanson and 

Frank Younger from the USGS Wisconsin Water Science 

Center, who were involved in the data-collection efforts. This 

work required diligent responsiveness to changing flow conditions when weather conditions were not necessarily at their 

most favorable. Long days were the norm. 

Estimation of tributary flow inputs used a version of the 

Flow Anywhere Program modified by the Lamar Sanders, a 

retiree of the USGS. Interpreting mean daily values to hourly 

or 15-minute values was done by using a TDL program developed by Dr. Tom Over at the USGS Illinois Water Science 

Center. Ronald Zelt, USGS Nebraska Water Science Center, 

provided technical comments on the methods. Their assistance 

is sincerely appreciated. 
References Cited 25

References Cited

Agrawal, Y.C., and Pottsmith, H.C., 2000, Instruments for 

particle size and settling velocity observations in sediment 

transport: Marine Geology, v. 168, no. 1–4, p. 89–114.

Dingman, S.L., 2009, Fluvial hydraulics: Oxford and New 

York, Oxford University Press, 559 p.

Dollhopf, R.H., Fitzpatrick, F.A., Kimble, J.W., Capone, D.M., 

Graan, T.P., Zelt, R.B., and Johnson, R., 2014, Response 

to heavy, non-floating oil spilled in a Great Lakes river 

environment—A multiple-lines-of-evidence approach for 

submerged oil assessment and recovery, in Proceedings, 

2014 International Oil Spill Conference, Savannah, Georgia, May 7–9, 2014: p. 434–448.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chap. C2, 89 p. 

Enbridge Energy, L.P., 2012, Kalamazoo River hydrodynamic 

and sediment transport model—Enbridge Line 6B MP 608, 

Marshall, MI: 70 p., attachments.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, accessed June 

13, 2005, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri05C1.

Hamrick, J.M.,1992, A three-dimensional environmental Fluid 

Dynamics Computer code—Theoretical and computational 

aspects: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester 

Point, Va., Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering 

Special Report No. 317, p. 1–64.

Hamrick, J.M., 2007a, The Environmental Fluid Dynamics 

Code user manual: Fairfax, Va., Tetra Tech, Inc.,, version 

1.01, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Hamrick, J.M., 2007b, The Environmental Fluid Dynamics 

Code, theory and computation, Volume 1—Hydrodynamics 

and mass transport: Fairfax, Va., Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Hamrick, J.M., 2007c, The Environmental Fluid Dynamics 

Code, theory and computation, Volume 2—Sediment and 

contaminant transport and fate: Fairfax, Va., Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. A3 , 510 p.

Hoard, C.J., Fowler, K.K., Kim, M.H., Menke, C.D., Morlock, 

S.E., Peppler, M.C., Rachol, C.M., and Whitehead, C.M., 

2010, Flood-inundation maps for a 15-mile reach of the 

Kalamazoo River from Marshall to Battle Creek, Michigan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3135: 

6-p. pamphlet, 6 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

Jones, C., and Lick, W., 2001, SEDZLJ, A sediment transport 

model—Final Report: Santa Barbara, Calif., University of 

California, Department of Mechanical and Environmental 

Engineering, May 29, 2001.

Liu, X., Landry, B.J., and García, M.H., 2008, Two-dimensional scour simulations based on coupled model of shallow 

water equations and sediment transport on unstructured 

meshes: Coastal Engineering, v. 55, no. 10, p. 800–810.

Linhart, S.M., Nania, J.F., Sanders, L., and Archfield, S.A., 

2012, Computing mean daily streamflow at ungaged locations in Iowa by using the Flow Anywhere and Flow Duration Curve Transfer statistical methods: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5232, 50 p.

Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2009, Measuring discharge 

with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3, 

chap. A22, 72 p., accessed March 5, 2015, at http://pubs.

water.usgs.gov/tm3a22.

Nolan, K.M., Gray, J.R., and Glysson, G.D., 2005, Introduction to suspended-sediment sampling: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5077, 

accessed March 2, 2015, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/

sir20055077.

Porterfield, George, 1972, Computation of fluvial-sediment 

discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 3, chap. C3, 66 p., accessed 

March 2, 2015, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3-c3/.

Parsons, D.R., Jackson, P.R., Czuba, J.A., Engel, F.L., Rhoads, 

B.L., Oberg, K.A., Best, J.L., Mueller, D.S., Johnson, K.K., 

and Riley, J.D., 2013, Velocity Mapping Toolbox (VMT)—

A processing and visualization suite for moving-vessel 

ADCP measurements: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 38, p. 1244–1260.

R Core Team, 2014, R—A language and environment for 

statistical computing: Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for 

Statistical Computing, accessed November 2, 2015, at 

http://www.R-project.org/.

Rydlund, P.H., Jr., and Densmore, B.K., 2012, Methods of 

practice and guidelines for using survey-grade Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) to establish vertical datum 

in the United States Geological Survey: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. D1, 102 p. 

with appendixes.

Shreve, E.A., and Downs, A.C., 2005, Quality-assurance plan 

for the analysis of fluvial sediment by the U.S. Geological 

Survey Kentucky Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1230, 

28 p.
26 Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated With the July 2010 Line 6B Spill Into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14

Sinha, S., Liu, X., and García, M.H., 2012, Three-dimensional 

hydrodynamic modeling of the Chicago River, Illinois: 

Environmental Fluid Mechanics, v. 12, p. 471–494.

Sinha, S., Liu, X., and García, M.H., 2013, A three-dimensional water quality model of Chicago Area Waterway 

System (CAWS): Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 

v. 18, p. 567–592.

Turnipseed, D.P., and Sauer, V.B., 2010, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3, chap. A8, 87 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers–Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2010, HEC–RAS River Analysis System, user’s manual, 

ver. 4.1 [variously paged].

Zhu, Z., 2011, Simulation of suspended sediment and contaminant transport in shallow water using two-dimensional 

depth-averaged model with unstructured meshes: University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ill., Master’s Thesis. 

Reneau and others—Hydrodynamic-Assessment Data Associated with the July 2010 Line 6B Spill into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, 2012–14—Open-File Report 2015–1205

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151205