Chemical and Biological Quality of 

Surface Water at the U.S. Army

Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000 through July 2001

By Martin R. Risch

Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Army National Guard

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4149

Indianapolis, Indiana 

2004

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

The use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information, write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

5957 Lakeside Boulevard

Indianapolis, IN 46278-1996

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents

Contents iii

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

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

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Description of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

History and Physical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Topography, Physiography, Geology, and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conceptual Model of Hydrogeology and Contaminant Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chemical and Biological Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Selection of Monitoring Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Instantaneous-Streamflow Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chemical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Selection of Monitoring Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Collection of Surface-Water Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Collection of Streambed-Sediment Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Collection of Fish-Tissue Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Quality-Assurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Biological Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Microbiological Analysis of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fish-Community Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate-Community Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Surface-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Streamflow Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chemical Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Water-Sample Analysis and Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chemical Analysis of Streambed-Sediment Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chemical Analysis of Fish-Tissue Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Biological Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Microbiological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Fish-Community Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate-Community Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Qualitative Habitat Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Contents—Continued

iv Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Short-Term and Long-Term Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Base-Wide Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Microbiological Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Water Quality at the Impact Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Uncertainties of Data and Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2. Characteristics and physical properties of water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3. Concentrations of dissolved and total recoverable major ions and total nutrients in water samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 and July 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4. Concentrations of dissolved and total trace elements in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000 and July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5. Concentrations of Escherichia coli, instantaneous streamflow, and water-quality characteristics in 

water samples collected from monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury, May and June 2001 . . . . . 80

6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp 

Atterbury, September and October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figures

1–5. Maps showing:

1. Study area and surrounding region, Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Physiographic units of Camp Atterbury study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Surficial geology of Camp Atterbury study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Age of bedrock beneath Camp Atterbury study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. Soil regions of Camp Atterbury study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. Cross-section diagram of conceptual model for hydrogeology and contaminant transport at 

Camp Atterbury, September 2000 through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

7. Map showing monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000 through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

8. Illustration of filter plate with Escherichia coli colonies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

9–11. Photographs showing:

9. Fish sorting, weighing, and measuring during a fish-community inventory at Camp Atterbury, 

October 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

10. Surber sampler in use for collection of benthic-macroinvertebrate sample at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

11. Aquatic insects of the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, typical of pollutionintolerant benthic macroinvertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Contents—Continued

Contents v

Figures—Continued

12–13. Hydrographs showing:

12. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on 

Youngs Creek near Edinburgh, Indiana, August 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001, with 

period of water sampling at Camp Atterbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

13. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on 

Youngs Creek near Edinburgh, Indiana, and instantaneous streamflow from monitoring sites 

at Camp Atterbury, September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

14. Map showing monitoring sites and 30-day geometric mean Escherichia coli concentrations in water 

samples collected at Camp Atterbury, May 14 through June 14, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

15. Boxplot of Escherichia coli concentrations in water samples collected from 16 monitoring sites on 

streams at Camp Atterbury, May 14 through June 14, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

16–17. Charts showing:

16. Number of taxa and two numerical indexes for benthic-macroinvertebrate-community inventories 

at Camp Atterbury, September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

17. Concentrations of Escherichia coli and detections of wastewater tracers in water samples collected 

from 14 monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury, May 14 through June 14, 2001. . . . . . . . . . 58

18. Map showing selected monitoring sites with chemical and biological assessment of surface-water 

quality at Camp Atterbury, September and October 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Tables

1. Description of monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury near

Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Coordinates, altitude, and watershed characteristics of monitoring sites for assessment of surfacewater quality at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 through July 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Constituents and analytical methods for water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 

through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Constituent groups and analytical methods for water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 through July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Wastewater tracers analyzed in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, May 14 through 

June 14, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on 

Youngs Creek near Edinburgh, Indiana, and instantaneous streamflow on water-sampling dates at 

Camp Atterbury, September 2000 and July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

7. Summary statistics for water-quality characteristics and physical properties of water samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 and July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8. Radiological determinations for water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 . . . . . . . . . 33

9. Summary statistics for dissolved major ions and nutrients in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000 and July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

10. Summary statistics for trace elements in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, September 

2000 and July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

11. Physical properties of streambed-sediment samples collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000. . . . . . 38
Contents—Continued

vi Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Tables—Continued

12. Concentrations of trace elements detected in streambed-sediment samples collected at Camp Atterbury, 

September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

13. Comparative statistics for concentrations of selected trace elements detected in streambed-sediment 

samples collected at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, September 2000, and from the White River Basin, 

Indiana, 1992 and 1994–96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

14. Characteristics of fish-tissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury, October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

15. Concentrations of trace elements detected in fish-tissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury, 

October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

16. Concentrations of Escherichia coli in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 . . . . . 43

17. Concentrations of Escherichia coli in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury, May 14 through 

June 14, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

18. Species identified during fish-community inventories at Camp Atterbury, September and 

October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

19. Summary of fish-community inventories at Camp Atterbury, September and October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 48

20. Fish-community-integrity classes and attributes for Index of Biotic Integrity and Modified Index of 

Well-Being scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

21. Numerical indexes for fish-community inventories and habitat evaluations at Camp Atterbury, 

September and October 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

22. Benthic-macroinvertebrate-community inventories at Camp Atterbury, September 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

23. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score ranges and water-quality-evaluation ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

24. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index metrics and scores at Camp Atterbury, September 2000 . . . . . . . . . 55

25. Wastewater tracers detected in water samples collected from 13 monitoring sites on streams at 

Camp Atterbury, May 14 through June 14, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

26. Wastewater tracers detected in a water sample collected from monitoring site B5 on Lick Creek 

at Camp Atterbury, May 16, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Conversions vii

Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, and Acronyms

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

square foot (ft2) 0.09294 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 3.7856 liter per minute (L/min)

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

cubic foot per second per square mile (ft3/s/mi2) 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square kilometer (m3/s/km2)

micrometer or micron (μm) 0.000039 inch (in.)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

milliliter (mL) 0.03382 ounce, fluid (oz)

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce (oz)

Temperature is given in degrees Celsius (°C), which may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = 1.8 X °C + 32

Vertical Datum: In this report, vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Abbreviated concentration units used in this report (including appendixes): Chemical concentrations are given in metric 

units, milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), microgram per kilogram (μg/kg), milligram per liter (mg/L), or microgram per liter (μg/L). 

Milligram or microgram per kilogram is a unit expressing the concentration of a chemical in a solid as weight (milligram or 

microgram) of the chemical per unit weight (kilogram) of soil. One mg/kg is equal to 1,000 μg/kg. Milligram or microgram per 

liter is a unit expressing the concentration of a chemical in solution as weight (milligram or microgram) of the chemical per unit 

volume (liter, L) of water. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/kg, the numerical value is the same as for concentrations in parts 

per million; one μg/kg is equivalent to one part per billion. Concentrations of bacteria are given in colonies per 100 milliliters 

(col/100 mL).

Specific conductance of water is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm). This unit is equivalent 

to micromhos per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μmho/cm), formerly used by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) is the unit of measurement for reporting turbidity that is based on use of a standard 

suspension of Formazin. Turbidity measured in NTU uses nephelometric methods that depend on passing light of a specific 

wavelength through the sample.

Radioactivity is expressed in picocurie per liter (pCi/L). A picocurie is one-trillionth (1x10-12) the amount of radioactivity 

represented by a curie (Ci). A curie is the amount of radioactivity that yields 3.7x1010 radioactive disintegrations per second. 

A picocurie yields 2.22 disintegrations per minute.

Volumes of water-quality samples are given in liter (L) and milliliter (mL).

Acronyms used in this report:

Acronym Description

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera

GIS Geographic Information System

HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

IBI Index of Biotic Integrity

IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management

IDNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources

MIWB Modified Index of Well-Being

NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment

QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

RPD Relative Percent Difference

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Abstract 1

Chemical and Biological Quality of Surface Water

at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area, 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001

By Martin R. Risch

Abstract

A base-wide assessment of surface-water 

quality at the U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve 

Forces Training Area near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

examined short-term and long-term quality of 

surface water flowing into, across, and out of a 

33,760-acre study area. The 30-day geometricmean concentrations of fecal-indicator bacteria 

(Escherichia coli) in water samples from all 

16 monitoring sites on streams in the study area 

were greater than the Indiana recreational 

water-quality standard. None of the bacteria 

concentrations in samples from four lakes 

exceeded the standard. Half the samples with 

bacteria concentrations greater than the singlesample standard contained chemical tracers 

potentially associated with human sewage. 

Increased turbidity of water samples was 

related statistically to increased bacteria concentration. Lead concentrations ranging from 

0.5 to 2.0 micrograms per liter were detected in 

water samples at seven monitoring sites. Lead 

in one sample collected during high-streamflow 

conditions was greater than the calculated 

Indiana water-quality standard. With the exception of Escherichia coli and lead, 211 of 

213 chemical constituents analyzed in water 

samples did not exceed Indiana water-quality 

standards. Out of 131 constituents analyzed in 

streambed-sediment and fish-tissue samples 

from three sites in the Common Impact Area 

for weapons training, the largest concentrations 

overall were detected for copper, lead, manganese, strontium, and zinc. Fish-community 

integrity, based on diversity and pollution tolerance, was rated poor at one of those three 

sites. Compared with State criteria, the fishcommunity data indicated 8 of 10 stream 

reaches in the study area could be categorized 

as “fully supporting” aquatic-life uses.

Introduction

The U.S. military has been obtaining assessments of water quality at its training areas nationwide. In some cases, the assessments are tied to 

regulatory requirements, while in other cases, they 

provide information about emerging or undiscovered environmental concerns. The assessments 

typically include a special evaluation of firing 

and bombing ranges for potential effects on surfacewater or ground-water quality. The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) has a history of providing waterquality investigations for the military through its 

Department of Defense Environmental Conservation Program.

The U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces 

Training Area (known as Camp Atterbury) in central Indiana near Edinburgh has been used by the 

Army and the National Guard for more 50 years. 

The Indiana Army National Guard needed a baseline of information about the effects of training 

activities on water quality at Camp Atterbury. 

The Guard requested the USGS to provide an 

assessment of the chemical and biological quality 

of surface water flowing into, across, and out of 

Camp Atterbury, with a more extensive evaluation 

near the firing and bombing ranges used for weapons training of ground and air troops. This study by
2 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

the USGS during September 2000 through July 

2001 was the first surface-water-quality assessment 

ever made at Camp Atterbury.

The objectives of the study were to

• Make a base-wide assessment of the 

short-term and the long-term surfacewater-quality conditions;

• Evaluate potential effects of military 

training on surface-water quality in 

and near the Common Impact Area 

of the firing and bombing ranges;

• Monitor base-wide surface water for 

fecal-indicator bacteria during various 

flow conditions;

• Explore potential relations between 

fecal-indicator-bacteria concentrations, water quality, and streamflow; 

• Identify water-quality constituents and 

locations that would aid in long-term 

monitoring of surface water at Camp 

Atterbury.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents streamflow, chemical, 

and biological data from USGS surface-water 

assessments and monitoring at Camp Atterbury 

during 2000 and 2001. Data were collected during 

three time periods. Methods, data, and interpretations in the report, however, are organized 

according to the type of information (streamflow, 

chemical, or biological) rather than chronological 

order or geographic location. The number and types 

of streamflow, chemical, and biological data for 

each time period follow:

(1) September and October 2000. Chemical and biological data were collected during 

low-streamflow conditions at 13 stream sites 

and 3 lake sites. Instantaneous streamflow was 

measured at the 13 stream sites. The chemical data 

included analyses of 16 surface-water samples, 

7 streambed-sediment samples, and 10 fish-tissue 

samples. Analytical constituents included 9 waterquality characteristics and physical properties, 

17 major ions and nutrients, 20 trace elements, 

14 explosives, and 137 volatile or semivolatile 

organic compounds. The biological data included 

fish-community inventories from 10 stream reaches 

and 2 lakes, benthic-macroinvertebrate-community 

inventories at 13 stream reaches, and qualitative 

habitat evaluations of the same 13 stream reaches. 

(2) May and June 2001. During a 30-day 

period, Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentrations, 

five water-quality characteristics, and instantaneous streamflow were measured five times at 16 

stream sites and 4 lake sites. A total of 100 surfacewater samples and 30 quality-assurance samples 

were analyzed for E. coli concentrations. A total 

of 23 water samples from 13 stream sites were 

analyzed for 66 wastewater tracers.

(3) July 2001. Chemical and streamflow data 

were collected during 2 days of high-streamflow 

conditions at six stream sites near and in the Common Impact Area. The chemical data included 

analyses of 9 water-quality characteristics and 

physical properties, 17 major ions and nutrients, 

20 trace elements, 14 explosives, and 92 semivolatile organic compounds. 

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the 

contributions of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Jones, 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

with the Indiana Army National Guard, who provided valuable guidance and technical input for 

the design and implementation of this study. The 

author and USGS field personnel greatly appreciate 

the assistance of Master Sergeant Russell Reichart, 

Camp Atterbury Range Control Officer, who coordinated scheduling and logistics and personally 

assured our safety during many long days of data 

collection near and in the Common Impact Area. 

Thanks also to Art Howard, the Camp Atterbury 

Land Conditions Trends Analysis manager, who 

helped with site reconnaissance and watercraft 

access, and to Lara Coutinho of the Camp Atterbury 

Environmental Office, who helped with site reconnaissance and fish-community sampling.
Description of the Study Area 3

Description of the Study Area

Physical setting, geology, physiography, 

soils, and climate of the study area are based on 

maps and references in Schnoebelen and others 

(1999) that describe the environmental setting 

and natural factors affecting water quality in the 

White River Basin, Ind. Unpublished data sets for 

the study area, compiled in the National Guard’s 

geographic information system (GIS) for Camp 

Atterbury, supplement the descriptions of geology, 

soils, hydrology, and land cover in this section of 

the report.

History and Physical Setting

Camp Atterbury was a 40,320-acre 

U.S. Army installation from 1942 through 1968. 

The installation was a troop-training, militaryhospital, and prisoner-of-war facility during World 

War II. The installation was deactivated from 

1948 through 1950 and again in 1954 after the 

Korean Conflict. In 1968 and 1969, approximately 

7,000 acres were sold and the remaining U.S. Army 

property was redesignated the Atterbury Reserve 

Forces Training Area. The installation then was 

placed under the control of the Indiana Army 

National Guard (Indiana National Guard, 1995). 

The mission of Camp Atterbury is to support 

individual and unit training of the National Guard, 

as well as training of the active and other reserve 

forces of the U.S. military. The year-round training 

areas and facilities support firing of individual 

and crew-served weapons, artillery, mortars, 

tanks, and wheeled fighting vehicles; maneuvers and qualifications for specialized units and 

vehicles; helicopter air-assault and parachute 

operations; gunnery and bombing practice for jet 

aircraft of the Indiana Air National Guard and Air 

Force Reserve; and training for emergency teams 

and law-enforcement officers of Federal, State, and 

local government.

The study area for the surface-water-quality 

assessment at Camp Atterbury covered approximately 33,760 acresa

, spanning about 4 to 6.5 mi 

by 9.5 mi (fig. 1). The central part of the study 

area contained the approximately 6,300-acre 

Common Impact Areaa (called Impact Area in this 

report), that includes the weapons-firing ranges and 

the aerial gunnery and bombing ranges. Most of 

the study area is in Bartholomew County; a part 

of the northern boundary is in Johnson County; 

and a part of the western boundary is in Brown 

County. Nearby transportation routes include State 

Road 252 to the north, U.S. Highway 31 to the east, 

State Road 46 to the south, and State Road 135 to 

the west. 

Camp Atterbury is in central Indiana about 

30 mi south of Indianapolis (fig. 1). Nearby cities 

and towns include Edinburgh (population 4,505), 

less than 3 mi east; Nineveh, less than 1 mi northwest; Franklin (population 19,463), about 10 mi 

north; and Columbus (population 39,059), about 

6 mi southeast (Indiana Business Research Center, 

2000). Small, rural communities surround Princes 

Lakes, Cordry Lake, and Sweetwater Lake along 

the western boundary. The 1990 population density 

of the rural communities near Camp Atterbury was 

100 to 800 people/mi2 (Indiana Business Research 

Center, 2000). 

Land cover in the study area was forest and 

woodland (53 percent), shrubland (24 percent), 

and grassland (15 percent); the remaining land 

cover was sparsely vegetated or water (unpublished data, Indiana Army National Guard, 2002, 

Geographic Information System [GIS] for Camp 

Atterbury). Developed land in the northern part 

of the installation included firing ranges, training 

areas, an airport, support facilities, and barracks; 

in the southwestern part of the installation was a 

multipurpose training range.

a

Area computed from maps of Camp Atterbury training 

areas and installation boundary (unpublished data, Indiana 

Army National Guard, 2002, Geographic Information System 

for Camp Atterbury), converted from square meters to acres 

by multiplying with a conversion factor of 0.0002471 acres 

per square meter.
JOHNSON COUNTY

BROWN COUNTY

BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY

Hants Lake

East Lake

BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY

BROWN COUNTY

Nineveh

Princes Lakes

Cordry 

 Lake

Sweetwater

 Lake

Columbus

Edinburgh SHELBY COUNTY JOHNSON COUNTY

Franklin

 ATTERBURY RESERVE

FORCES TRAINING AREA

 (Camp Atterbury)

Drif wt oo d Riv er

Big Blue River

Sug ar Creek Lick Creek

Muddy Branch

Hospital Road

Sugar Creek

Yo un gs Cr eek

Cathe rin e Creek

S ad dle Cr eek

Duck 

Pond Puff 

Lake

Mud Creek

31

31

65

65

46

135

252

135

252

Engineer

Pond

New

Lake

East Fork White Ri ver

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16,

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

46

Camp Atterbury study area

Lake or pond

City or town

Road or highway

Stream or river

County boundary

Prince Creek

Common Impact Area

86 07' 30'' 86 

East Fork Salt Creek

0 123 4 56 MILES

0 123456 KILOMETERS

39 25'

39 15'

M ud Creek

U.S. Geological Survey

 streamflow-gaging station,

 Youngs Creek near 

 Edinburgh

SHELBY COUNTY

MORGAN COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

Nineve h

Creek

INDIANA

Study Area 

Indianapolis

Figure 1. Study area and surrounding region, Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana.
Description of the Study Area 5

Topography, Physiography, Geology, and Soils

The surface topography of Camp Atterbury 

includes flat to gently rolling terrain in the north 

and northeast to steep, hilly terrain in the south and 

southwest. Terrain along Nineveh Creek and the 

Driftwood River in the east is lowland flanked by 

terraces. The land-surface altitude ranges from 

about 650 ft near the eastern border to 910 and 

930 ft near the southwestern corner. Altitude in 

the central part ranges from 740 to 820 ft (Defense 

Mapping Agency, 1985).

The study area primarily is in the Norman 

Upland physiographic unit as originally defined 

by Malott (1922), with the northeastern part in the 

Scottsburg Lowland (fig. 2). The Norman Upland 

has westward-sloping, unglaciated upland areas 

with narrow ridge tops and steep slopes. The Scottsburg Lowland is an area of low relief and extremely 

broad, flat valleys.

The surface geology of the study area affects 

topography, runoff, and surface-water quality. From 

west to east, the surface geology (fig. 3) includes 

sandstone, shale, and limestone bedrock; sandy 

loam and loam till; and a stream corridor with 

alluvium and undifferentiated outwash (Gray, 

1989). The advance of the Wisconsinan glaciation 

extended into the northern third of the study area. 

Thickness of the unconsolidated deposits ranges 

from zero to 100 ft (Gray, 1983).

Much of the study area is underlain by siltstone and limestone of the Borden Group (Gray and 

others, 1987). The eastern edge of the study area 

is underlain by the New Albany Shale, a black and 

greenish gray shale formation. Age of bedrock 

beneath the study area is shown in figure 4. The 

bedrock structure primarily is affected by the Illinois Basin; sedimentary strata dip westward and 

south-westward, with a slope of 10 to 30 ft/mi 

(Gutschick, 1966).

The soil regions of the study area are related 

to the surface geology near land surface. Six soil 

regions are present, classified by parent material, 

natural vegetation, and topography (Franzmeier 

and others, 1989). From west to east, the soil

regions include discontinuous loess over bedrock; 

thin or moderately thick loess over loamy glacial 

till, lacustrine deposits, or weathered till; outwash; 

and alluvium (fig. 5).

According to the soil survey that includes 

much of Camp Atterbury (Noble and others, 1990), 

numerous soil types—based on texture, slope, and 

drainage—were mapped. The soil types were 

grouped into soil associations with similar characteristics. Two soil associations are present in the 

Impact Area. The Pekin-Chetwynd-Bartle association primarily consists of fine-textured soils 

on sloping terraces and steep hillsides. This soil 

association is characterized as poorly drained on 

relatively level ground to well drained on steep 

slopes. Surface runoff is rapid, and infiltration is 

low on steep slopes. The Crosby-Miami-Rensselaer 

association primarily consists of fine-textured soils 

on upland terraces to sloping hillsides. This soil 

association is characterized as poorly drained to 

very poorly drained. Infiltration is slow because of 

low-permeability soil texture or impermeable subsoils. This soil information indicates much of the 

precipitation on the Impact Area either runs off 

rapidly or infiltrates slowly. In some areas, the infiltration is intercepted by subsurface drains and 

diverted to surface water.

Climate

The study area has a humid continental 

climate, characterized by distinct winter and 

summer seasons with large annual temperature 

ranges. Mean monthly temperatures at Columbus, 

Ind., about 6 mi southeast of the study area, range 

from about 27°F in January to about 75°F in July. 

At Columbus, mean annual precipitation is 44 in., 

and mean monthly precipitation ranges from about 

2.1 in. for December to about 4.5 in. for May and 

July (National Weather Service, 1997). 

Midwestern Regional Climate Center (2002) 

precipitation data were summarized for the study 

area during the base-wide assessment. Rainfall in 

September and October 2000 was average. About 

1.5 in. of rain fell September 5 through 19, 2000; 

no rain fell on the days of sample collection. About
Camp Atterbury study area

Common Impact AreaStreamsRoads

EXPLANATION

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

AlluviumSandy loam and loam tillLowland silt complexSandstone, shale, limestoneUndifferentiated outwash

Norman UplandScottsburg Lowland

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

86 05 

39 15

39 20

86 05 86

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS

SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

Lake or pond

Figure 2. Physiographic units of Camp Atterbury study area near Edinburgh, Indiana. Figure 3. Surficial geology of Camp Atterbu
Figure 4. Age of bedrock beneath Camp Atterbury study area near Edinburgh, Indiana. Figure 5. Soil regions of Camp Atterbury stud

Camp Atterbury study areaCommon Impact AreaStreamsRoads

EXPLANATION

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Devonian AgeMississsippian AgeThin loess over loamy  glacial till

Outwash depositsModerately thick loess  over weathered till

Moderately thick loess  over lacustrine deposits

Discontinuous loess  over bedrock

Alluvial deposits

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

86 05 86 86 05 

39 15 

39 20

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 19Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 1North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

AGE OF BEDROCK

SOIL REGIONS

Lake or pond
8 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

2.5 in. of rain fell in the week prior to the last sample collection in September. No rain fell on the days 

of data collection in October. During stream monitoring in May and June 2001, rainfall was average: 

about 2 in. of rain fell the second week; 1.5 in. fell 

the fourth week; 3 weeks were dry. During the first 

week of July 2001, from 2.5 to 3.0 in. of rain fell, 

which was 300 percent of the mean for that period. 

Hydrology

The study area (fig. 1) is in the East Fork 

White River Basin. The drainage area of the 

Driftwood River near Edinburgh, Ind., is 1,060 mi2

(Schnoebelen and others, 1999); the river is popular 

for boating and fishing. According to hydrologic 

units in the GIS for Camp Atterbury (unpublished 

data, Indiana Army National Guard, 2002), more 

than 90 percent of the study area drains eastward 

to the Driftwood River. Less than 10 percent of the 

study area, in the southwestern corner, drains to 

the East Fork Salt Creek. The largest stream in the 

study area is Nineveh Creek, with a drainage areab

of approximately 44 mi2. Nineveh Creek originates 

upstream from the study area and is joined by three 

tributaries inside Camp Atterbury, including Prince 

Creek and Mud Creek. All the streams in the study 

area, with the exception of Nineveh Creek, are firstorder streams with drainage areasb

 less than 10 mi2. 

Headwaters of Lick Creek, Muddy Branch, and 

Catherine Creek are inside the study area; drainage 

areasb

 range from 2 to 6 mi2. Four constructed lakes 

in the study area are used for boating, fishing, or 

swimming by military personnel—Puff Lake; Duck 

Pond; Engineer Pond; and a new, unnamed lake 

called New Lake in this report. Large, constructed 

lakes with residential communities are upstream 

from the study area and include Princes Lakes, East 

Lake, Hants Lake, and Cordry Lake.

During this study, the Princes Lakes wastewater-treatment facility, which serves Camp 

Atterbury and nearby residential communities, 

had a permitted outfall to the Driftwood River 

upstream from the confluence of Nineveh Creek 

and the Driftwood River. No permitted outfalls 

were on Nineveh Creek upstream from or inside the 

study area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2001). The training areas in Camp Atterbury 

not connected to the Princes Lakes wastewatertreatment facility were served by vault or chemical 

toilets. During this study, Camp Atterbury was 

served by the Princes Lakes public water-supply 

system, which obtained water from wells in the 

river valley northeast of the study area.

According to the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (2000), 15.8 mi of the 

Driftwood River and 62.3 mi of its tributaries were 

assessed in 1999 for support of full-body-contact 

recreational use and aquatic-life uses defined 

in the Indiana water-quality standards (Indiana 

Water Pollution Control Board, 2001). Data were 

not collected in Camp Atterbury. (The assessment 

methods are discussed in the Chemical and Biological Assessments section of this report.) The 

Driftwood River and its tributaries were rated by 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) as fully supporting aquatic-life uses. 

The Driftwood River was rated as partially supporting recreational use because of fecal-indicator 

bacteria (E. coli). The tributaries were not assessed 

for E. coli.

Ground water was not directly evaluated in 

the study described in this report. A generalized 

description of the hydrogeology of the study area 

was based on Fenelon, Bobay, and others (1994). 

Three aquifer types are present in the study area—

surficial sand and gravel aquifers, a weathered bedrock surface that yields small quantities of water, 

and a deep carbonate bedrock aquifer. Within the 

glaciated part of the study area, where present, 

the surficial sand and gravel aquifers are expected 

to be the most appreciable sources of ground water.

b

Drainage area estimated with data from Hoggatt (1975) 

and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps.
Study Methods 9

The sand and gravel aquifers usually may 

occur in more than one horizontal layer in glacial 

deposits up to 100 ft thick. Clay layers form confining units above or between aquifers. The weathered 

bedrock surface at depths to 150 ft can supply water 

at rates less than 5 gal/min. The carbonate bedrock 

aquifer can be found throughout the study area at 

depths from 100 to 500 ft and can supply water 

at rates of 10 to 50 gal/min. In the unglaciated part 

of the study area, the bedrock aquifers are expected 

to be the most appreciable sources of ground water.

The following discussion of ground-water 

and surface-water interaction is based on Schnoebelen and others (1999). Where glacial deposits 

more than 50 ft thick contain aquifers that discharge water to streams, these streams have a 

sustained base flow during dry weather. Where 

glacial deposits are thin or absent, more steeply 

sloping topography is present. The steep slopes promote surface runoff in which precipitation moves 

quickly over the land surface (rather than through 

the soil or ground water) to reach the streams. 

Where steep slopes, thin glacial deposits, or bedrock with a limited water-yielding capacity are 

present, less water is contributed to base flow during dry weather. On the basis of this discussion, 

in general, Nineveh Creek, Prince Creek, and 

Mud Creek have a greater capacity for sustained 

base flow in dry weather than Lick Creek, Muddy 

Branch, or Catherine Creek. Stream base flow 

sustained by discharge from aquifers may be 

supplemented in some parts of the study area 

by discharge from tile drains and seep springs. 

Study Methods

This section explains the study design 

and selection of monitoring sites and constituents. 

The methods for the chemical assessment are 

described, including collection, analysis, and 

quality assurance of water, streambed-sediment, 

and fish-tissue samples. The methods for the 

biological assessment are described, including 

those for microbiological determinations, 

fish-community and benthic-macroinvertebratecommunity inventories, qualitative habitat 

evaluations, and calculation of numerical indexes 

of biotic integrity. 

Study Design

This study was designed to assess the basewide quality of surface water flowing into, across, 

and out of Camp Atterbury, with a more extensive 

evaluation of water quality at the Impact Area. 

Monitoring sites and constituents were selected 

according to the study objectives.

Conceptual Model of Hydrogeology 

and Contaminant Transport

The study design, especially for the evaluation of the Impact Area, was based on a conceptual 

model of hydrogeology and contaminant transport 

at Camp Atterbury (fig. 6). Above ground, precipitation falls and then moves as overland runoff to 

streams and lakes in a watershed. Surface-water 

contaminants are transported in the water or 

adsorbed to suspended particles of inorganic 

or organic material in the water. Particles with 

adsorbed contaminants accumulate in streambed 

sediments or re-suspend during high streamflow. 

Below ground, water moves vertically from the 

land surface through the unsaturated zone and, 

where present, through low-permeability layers 

(confining units) to recharge water in glacial or 

bedrock aquifers. In some areas, shallow groundwater contaminants are transported to streams or 

lakes by tile drains and seep springs. Ground water 

moves vertically and horizontally through aquifers 

in a local flow system and discharges to streams 

or lakes. In dry weather, streamflow and lake 

levels are maintained by ground-water discharge. 

Ground-water contaminants discharge to streams 

or lakes through the bed sediments or they accumulate in the sediments.
10 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Based on the conceptual model, the following assumptions were made.

• Chemical quality of surface water 

during low streamflow would indicate 

areas with substantial ground-water 

contamination in shallow glacial or 

bedrock aquifers.

• Chemical quality of surface water 

during high streamflow would indicate 

substantial contamination in overland 

runoff and discharge from tile drains 

and seep springs.

• Chemical quality of streambed 

sediment would indicate ground-water 

or surface-water contamination during 

a range of streamflow conditions.

• Regional ground-water-flow systems 

are the least likely to transport

contaminants.

Chemical and Biological Assessments

The Camp Atterbury study used chemical 

and biological assessments to evaluate shortterm (weeks) and long-term (years) water-quality 

conditions. Water samples were collected for 

Glacial Aquifer

Glacial Aquifer

Bedrock Aquifer

Low-Permeability Layer

 (Confining Unit)

Low-Permeability Layer

 (Confining Unit)

Regional Ground-Water Flow

Regional Ground-Water Flow

Recharge to Aquifers

Discharge to Stream

in Local Flow System

Seep Spring

Tile Drain

Overland Runoff

Unsaturated Zone

Precipitation

Stream

Streambed

Sediment

Not to Scale

Figure 6. Cross-section diagram of conceptual model for hydrogeology and contaminant transport at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001.
Study Methods 11

chemical and microbiological analysis to evaluate 

short-term water quality during dry-weather/ 

low-streamflow conditions and wet-weather/highstreamflow conditions. Streambed-sediment and 

fish-tissue samples were collected for chemical 

analysis to evaluate long-term water quality during 

a range of streamflow conditions. Fish and benthicmacroinvertebrate communities were inventoried 

as indicators of long-term water quality because 

chronic exposure to contaminants in water or sediment can affect their numbers, diversity, or health. 

The chemical and biological assessment in this 

study was consistent with the approach used by 

the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program (NAWQA) in the White River Basin, Ind., 

and with methods used by IDEM (2000) to determine if streams in the White River Basin, Ind., 

support their designated use and meet water-quality 

standards.

Selection of Monitoring Sites 

Monitoring sites were selected to address 

the study objectives of base-wide assessment, evaluation of the Impact Area, and E. coli monitoring. 

Sites were located in seven watersheds in Camp 

Atterbury (Nineveh Creek, Prince Creek, Mud 

Creek, Saddle Creek, Muddy Branch, Lick Creek, 

and Catherine Creek) and four lakes (Puff Lake, 

Duck Pond, Engineer Pond, and New Lake). Sites 

in the watersheds were selected to characterize 

water quality upstream and downstream from 

points of stream confluence. Sites on the lakes 

generally were related to areas of recreational 

use. Locations (fig. 7) and characteristics of the 

27 monitoring sites are described in tables 1 and 2.

Six stream sites were selected for the basewide assessment during September 2000—B1, B2, 

and B3 on the upstream side and B4, B5, and B6 on 

the downstream side of the study area. Seven stream 

sites were selected for an evaluation of the Impact 

Area during September 2000—sites A1, A2, and 

A3 inside the Impact Area; A4, A5, and A10 on 

the downstream side. The seventh site (A6) was 

on the upstream side of the Impact Area but also 

was the upstream site for Camp Atterbury in the 

Mud Creek Watershed. Two lakes were selected

because they received ground-water discharge or 

overland runoff primarily from the Impact Area—

Duck Pond (A7) and Puff Lake. The headwater 

pond of Puff Lake (A8) and the main body of Puff 

Lake (A9) were separate monitoring sites because 

the headwater pond was isolated from the open 

water of the main body by an earthen dam and by 

extensive aquatic vegetation. Further evaluation of 

the Impact Area was done at six stream sites during 

July 2001—B1 and E5 upstream from the Impact 

Area and A4, A5, A10, and B5 downstream from 

the Impact Area.

For E. coli monitoring during May through 

June 2001, 16 stream sites and 4 lake sites were 

selected. Nine of the stream sites were described 

previously (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, A4, A5, A6, 

and A10). Among the other seven stream sites (E1 

through E7), two were at the outlets of Hants Lake 

(E1) and East Lake (E2) at Prince Creek (fig. 1).

Sites E3, E4, and E5 were near stream confluences, and two sites (E6 and E7) were upstream and 

downstream from a potential sewer overflow near 

an unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek. The four 

lake sites (selected because of the potential for fullbody-contact recreation) include E8 and E9 on Puff 

Lake, E10 at the swimming beach on New Lake, 

and E11 on Engineer Pond.

Instantaneous-Streamflow Measurements

The amount of water transported in a stream 

can affect water quality and contaminant transport. 

In this report, streamflow was used to describe the 

volume flow rate of water in cubic feet per second. 

Instantaneous streamflow was reported because no 

continuous streamflow-record gaging stations were 

in the study area. Measurements were made with 

a current meter and methods adopted by the USGS 

as described in Rantz and others (1982), Carter and 

Davidian (1968), Buchanan and Somers (1969), 

Laenen (1985), and Smoot and Novak (1968). 

Current velocities, stream depths, and stream width 

were measured at a stream cross section near the 

monitoring sites immediately after sampling was 

completed. The data on current velocity, stream 

depth, and stream width were used to calculate the 

instantaneous streamflow.
12 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Figure 7. Monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000 through July 2001.

Camp Atterbury study area

Stream

Road

Monitoring site and identifier

EXPLANATION

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

A1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

A1

A2 A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A10

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E10

E11

Catherine Creek

Lick Creek

Mud Creek

Prince Creek

Nineveh Creek

Muddy Branch

Saddle Creek

Engineer Pond

New Lake

Puff Lake

Duck Pond

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Common Impact Area

39 15

39 20

86 05 86

Nineveh Creek

Lake or pond
Study Methods 13

Table 1. Description of monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 thro

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Site name

Scope 

of 

monitoring Site location and purpose

B1 Prince Creek at Wilder Road Base wide Upstream from much of Camp Atterbury; downstream from Princes 

and microbiological quality of water entering Impact Area

B2 Nineveh Creek at Hospital Road Base wide Upstream from Camp Atterbury; downstream from town of Nineveh

logical quality of water entering Camp Atterbury

B3 Saddle Creek at Mount Moriah Road Base wide Upstream from much of Camp Atterbury; downstream from Cordry 

and microbiological quality of water entering Camp Atterbury

B4 Nineveh Creek at Wallace Road Base wide Downstream from Camp Atterbury; assess chemical and microbiolog

Camp Atterbury

B5 Lick Creek at Mauxferry Road Base wide Stream originates in Camp Atterbury; assess chemical and microbiol

Camp Atterbury

B6 Catherine Creek at 

Reservation Boundary Road

Base wide Stream originates in Camp Atterbury; downstream from new multi-p

chemical quality of water leaving Camp Atterbury

A1 Mud Creek in Impact Area Impact Area Upstream from confluence with Prince Creek; assess chemical qualitA2 Prince Creek in Impact Area Impact Area Upstream from confluence with Mud Creek; assess chemical quality A3 Nineveh Creek in Impact Area Impact Area Upstream from confluence with Mud Creek; assess chemical quality A4 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh 

Creek at Mauxferry Road

Impact Area Downstream from Impact Area and developed area of Camp Atterbu

Nineveh Creek; assess effects of upstream features on chemical a

A5 Nineveh Creek at Mauxferry Road Impact Area Downstream from confluence with Mud Creek and downstream from 

microbiological quality of water leaving Impact Area

A6 Mud Creek at Mount Moriah Road Base wide and 

Impact Area

Much of Mud Creek originates in Camp Atterbury; upstream from co

upstream from Impact Area; assess chemical and microbiologicaArea

A7 Duck Pond near Lincoln Road Impact Area Public fishing site; water in pond originates as surface runoff or grou

Area; assess chemical quality of water at edge of Impact Area

A8 Puff Lake headwater pond Impact Area Part of Puff Lake isolated by small dam; water originates as surface r

from Impact Area; assess chemical quality of ponded water in Im
14 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana A9 Puff Lake main body Impact Area Public fishing, boating, and recreation site; much of the water in lake 

ground-water discharge from Impact Area; monitoring near the n

quality of ponded water at edge of Impact Area A10 Muddy Branch at Bearrs Road Base wide and Impact Area Stream originates in Camp Atterbury; downstream from Puff Lake; i

quality of water leaving Impact Area and Camp Atterbury E1 Unnamed tributary to Prince Creek at Princes Lake Road Base wide Upstream from Camp Atterbury; near outlet of Hants Lake; assess mentering Camp Atterbury E2 Prince Creek at Princes Lake Road Base wide Upstream from Camp Atterbury; near outlet of East Lake; assess mic

entering Camp Atterbury E3 Mud Creek at Lincoln Road Base wide Downstream from confluence of Saddle Creek and Mud Creek; asses

upstream from confluence with Nineveh Creek E4 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek near Kansas Cemetery Base wide Upstream from confluence with Nineveh Creek; assess microbiologifrom developed area of Camp Atterbury E5 Nineveh Creek at Range Line Road near Kansas Cemetery Base wide Downstream from confluence with unnamed tributary; assess microb

downstream from unnamed tributary; assess chemical quality of w

E6 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek near Hospital Road Base wide Upstream from sewer overflow; assess microbiological quality of waE7 Unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek at County Line Road Base wide Downstream from sewer overflow; assess microbiological quality of 

area of Camp Atterbury

E8 Puff Lake at Foxfire Cabin Base wide Near boat dock at cabin; assess microbiological quality of water near E9 Puff Lake at boat ramp Base wide Near shoreline at boat ramp; assess microbiological quality of water E10 New Lake at swimming beach Base wide Near shoreline between cabins; assess microbiological quality of waE11 Engineer Pond western shore Base wide Near shoreline at potential swimming area; assess microbiological qu

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Site name

Scope 

of 

monitoring Site location and purpose

Table 1. Description of monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 thro
Study Methods 15

Table 2. Coordinates, altitude, and watershed characteristics of monitoring sites for assessment of surface-water quality at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001

[Latitude and longitude: ° , degrees, ’, minutes, ” , seconds (North American Datum of 1983); altitude (North American Vertical Datum of 1988); 

mi2, square mile; n.a., not available]

a

Latitude, longitude, and altitude determined with differentially corrected, satellite-receiver, global-positioning-system data.

b

Altitude at the monitoring site estimated from U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (Edinburgh, Nineveh, and New Bellesville,

Ind., 7.5-minute quadrangles).

c

Drainage area upstream from monitoring site estimated with data from Hoggatt (1975) and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps

(Edinburgh, Nineveh, and New Bellesville, Ind., 7.5-minute quadrangles). 

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Horizontal coordinates 

(latitude and longitudea)

Altitudeb 

(feet) Watershed

Stream 

order

Upstream 

drainage areac 

(mi2)

B1 39o 20’ 12.27” 86o 04’ 30.22” 702 Prince Creek First 5.55

B2 39o 21’ 41.77” 86o 03’ 52.46” 707 Nineveh Creek First 8.82

B3 39o 17’ 58.55” 86o 05’ 19.34” 696 Mud Creek First 2.95

B4 39o 19’ 10.56” 85o 59’ 25.18” 642 Nineveh Creek Third 43.7

B5 39o 16’ 52.01” 86o 00’ 30.01” 655 Lick Creek First 4.18

B6 39o 13’ 34.93” 86o 00’ 24.77” 635 Catherine Creek First 6.26

A1 39o 18’ 44.35” 86o 02’ 48.30” 670 Mud Creek Second 13.6

A2 39o 19’ 22.22” 86o 02’ 32.96” 667 Prince Creek First 7.80

A3 39o 19’ 22.90” 86o 01’ 49.60” 660 Nineveh Creek First 13.4

A4 39o 19’ 37.45” 86o 00’ 34.61” 655 Nineveh Creek First 4.35

A5 39o 18’ 56.86” 86o 00’ 34.25” 655 Nineveh Creek Second 35.3

A6 39o 18’ 38.88” 86o 04’ 11.81” 680 Mud Creek First 4.99

A7 39o 17’ 29.89” 86o 03’ 44.71” 705 Mud Creek Lake .173

A8 39o 17’ 38.21” 86o 02’ 19.99” 693 Muddy Branch Lake n.a.

A9 39o 17’ 28.02” 86o 02’ 08.03” 685 Muddy Branch Lake 1.45

A10 39o 17’ 53.50” 86o 00’ 44.27” 655 Muddy Branch First 2.23

E1 39o 21’ 06.72” 86o 05’ 34.82” 740 Prince Creek First .266

E2 39o 20’ 43.85” 86o 05’ 52.76” 740 Prince Creek First 2.61

E3 39o 18’ 12.74” 86o 03’ 56.21” 680 Mud Creek Second 9.30

E4 39o 20’ 03.40” 86o 02’ 07.19” 690 Nineveh Creek First .953

E5 39o 19’ 50.39” 86o 02’ 04.74” 690 Nineveh Creek First 13.0

E6 39o 21’ 29.61” 86o 01’ 34.20” 700 Nineveh Creek First 2.18

E7 39o 20’ 43.85” 86o 01’ 31.14” 690 Nineveh Creek First 3.22

E8 39o 17’ 19.19” 86o 01’ 51.85” 690 Muddy Branch Lake 1.45

E9 39o 17’ 25.13” 86o 01’ 57.49” 690 Muddy Branch Lake 1.45

E10 39o 21’ 31.58” 86o 00’ 42.48” 750 Nineveh Creek Lake n.a

E11 39o 19’ 49.66” 86o 07’ 07.31” 670 Nineveh Creek Lake n.a.
16 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Chemical Assessment

The chemical assessment included collection and analysis of samples of water, streambed 

sediment, and fish tissue. This section describes 

methods for selection of monitoring constituents, 

sample collection, field and laboratory analysis, 

and quality assurance.

Selection of Monitoring Constituents

Monitoring constituents were selected to 

address the study objectives of base-wide assessment, evaluation of the Impact Area, and E. coli

monitoring. As many as 213 constituents were analyzed in environmental samples collected during 

the study. Names and laboratory reporting limits 

for these constituents are in appendix 1.

Monitoring constituents for water samples 

in the base-wide assessment were based on the 

USGS NAWQA guidelines in Shelton (1994). 

The base-wide assessment required 9 water-quality 

characteristics and physical properties, 17 dissolved major ions and nutrients, and 20 dissolved 

trace elements (table 3). These 46 base-wide 

monitoring constituents were determined in water 

samples from16 sites listed in table 1 (B1 through 

B6 and A1 through A10). Water samples from 

seven of these sites (B1 through B6 and A6) 

included four supplementary constituents (table 3). 

To evaluate surface water in the Impact Area, 

the 46 base-wide monitoring constituents were 

required, plus constituents based on the chemical 

components and potential residues of munitionsc

used in the Impact Area. The components and residues of these munitions were obtained from the 

Munitions Items Disposition Action System 

(MIDAS) data base, maintained by the U.S. Army 

Defense Ammunition Center (2000). A list of 

munitions components and residues that potentially

could be found in water samples affected by 

activities in the Impact Area was compared with 

available analytical methods. The monitoring 

constituents selected for the Impact Area evaluation 

included 14 explosives; 53 volatile organic compounds; 92 semivolatile organic compounds; and 

total recoverable lead, magnesium, potassium, 

and sodium (table 4). These 163 constituents were 

determined in water samples from 10 sites in and 

near the Impact Area (A1 through A10). 

A further evaluation of the Impact Area was 

made with samples of streambed sediment from 

six sites (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A10) and fish 

tissue from stream reaches near nine sites (A1, A2, 

A4, A5, A7, A9, A10, B4, and B5). Determinations 

for 131 constituents were made in streambedsediment and fish-tissue samples, including 25 total 

recoverable trace elements, 14 explosives, and 92 

semivolatile organic compounds (table 4).

The E. coli monitoring required waterquality characteristics (table 3), 66 organic 

chemical compounds called “wastewaters tracers” 

(table 5), and the E. coli fecal-indicator bacteria. 

The wastewater tracers included caffeine, cholesterol, contraceptives, detergent metabolites, 

fragrances, flavorings, plastics, pesticides, preservatives, and other compounds known to be present 

in human sewage. Wastewater tracers were used to 

infer whether human sewage was a potential source 

of E. coli in some samples.

Collection of Surface-Water Samples

Surface-water samples were collected, using 

methods consistent with USGS guidelines (Wilde 

and Radtke, 1998) and with the USGS NAWQA 

Program (Shelton, 1994). Methods are described 

for collection of stream-water and lake-water 

samples during the base-wide assessment and 

during E. coli monitoring.

Stream-water samples for chemical analysis 

were collected during low streamflow with a technique that provided a well-mixed, representative 

sample with minimal disturbance of the streambed 

sediment. During low-flow conditions, sample sites

c

Munitions at Camp Atterbury include, for example, 

small arms and artillery ammunition, mortar rounds, 

missiles, grenades, flares, and smoke agents (Lieutenant 

Colonel Richard Jones, Indiana Army National Guard, 2000, 

written commun.).
Study Methods 17

Table 3. Constituents and analytical methods for water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 

2000 through July 2001

[UVP, ultraviolet-promoted; ICP, inductively coupled plasma; AA, atomic absorption]

a

Field measurement or determination at the temporary laboratory with methods from Wilde and Radtke (1998).

b

U.S. Geological Survey laboratory determination with methods from Fishman and Friedman (1989).

c

U.S. Geological Survey laboratory determination with methods from Thatcher and others (1977).

d

U.S. Geological Survey laboratory determination with methods from Brenton and Arnett (1993).

e

U.S. Geological Survey laboratory determination with methods from Sholar and Shreve (1998).

f

Laboratory determination by use of method SW6010B from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986).

Constituent group or constituent name Type of analytical method Type of determination

Water-quality characteristics and physical properties

Alkalinity as calcium carbonate Incremental titration Temporary laboratorya

Dissolved oxygen Electrometric (multimeter) Field measurementa

Dissolved solids Gravimetric Fixed-base laboratoryb

Gross alpha radioactivity Scintillation counting Fixed-base laboratoryc

Gross beta radioactivity Scintillation counting Fixed-base laboratoryc

pH Electrometric (multimeter) Field measurementa

Specific conductance Electrometric (multimeter) Field measurementa

Turbidity Optical meter Field measurementa

Water temperature Electrometric (multimeter) Field measurementa

Supplementary constituents

Escherichia coli Membrane filtration Temporary laboratorya

Organic carbon, total and dissolved UVP persulfate oxidation Fixed-base laboratoryd

Suspended sediment Gravimetric Fixed-base laboratorye

Dissolved major ions in water

Calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, silica ICP atomic emission spectrometry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Potassium AA flame spectrometry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Chloride, sulfate Ion chromatography Fixed-base laboratoryb

Fluoride Colorimetry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Nutrients in water

Nitrogen, dissolved: ammonia, nitrate+nitrite, organic Colorimetry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Nitrogen, total: ammonia plus organic Colorimetry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Phosphorus and orthophosphate, dissolved Colorimetry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Phosphorus, total Colorimetry Fixed-base laboratoryb

Dissolved trace elements in water

Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, 

boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, 

molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, 

thallium, tin, vanadium, zinc

ICP atomic-emission spectrometry Fixed-base laboratoryf
18 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 4. Constituent groups and analytical methods for water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001

[AA, atomic absorption USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ICP, inductively coupled plasma; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

a

U.S. Geological Survey laboratory determination with methods from Fishman and Friedman (1989).

b

Constituent analyzed in water samples from September 2000 only.

c

A list of the individual elements or compounds is in appendix 1.

d

Laboratory determination by use of methods from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986).

e

Prior to analysis, water samples were prepared with solid-phase extraction; sediment and tissue samples were extracted by sonification.

Table 5. Wastewater tracers analyzed in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 through 

June 14, 2001

Constituent groups Type of method Analytical method

Total recoverable lead in water AA graphite-furnace spectrometry USGS methoda

Total recoverable magnesium in waterb Colorimetry USGS methoda

Total recoverable potassium in waterb AA flame spectrometry USGS methoda

Total recoverable sodium in waterb ICP atomic-emission spectrometry USGS methoda

25 Total recoverable trace elementsc 

in sediment or fish tissue

ICP atomic-emission spectrometry USEPA method SW6010Bd

53 Volatile organic compoundsc in water Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry USEPA method SW8260d

92 Semivolatile organic compoundsc in 

water, sediment or fish tissue

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry USEPA method SW8270Cd

14 Explosivesc in water, sediment or fish tissue High-performance liquid chromatographye USEPA method SW8330d

Wastewater tracer

Acetophenone 1,4-dichlorobenzene 2,6-dimethylnapthalene 

Acetyl hexamethyl tetra-hydronaphthalene Dichlorvos Naphthalene

Anthracene d-limonene Para-cresol

9,10-anthraquinone Equilenin Diethoxynonyl phenol (total)

Benzo(a)pyrene 17-alpha-ethynyl estradiol Diethoxyoctyl phenol

Benzophenone 17-beta-estradiol Monoethoxyoctyl phenol

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole Estrone Para-nonyl phenol (total)

3-beta-coprostanol Ethanol,2-butoxy-phosphate Pentachlorophenol

Beta-sitosterol Ethyl citrate (triethyl citrate) 4-cumylphenol 

3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole (BHA) Fluoranthene 4-n-octylphenol

Bisphenol A Hexahydro hexamethyl cyclopenta benzopyran 4-tert-octylphenol 

Bromacil Indole Phenol

Bromoform Isoborneol Phenanthrene

Caffeine Isophorone Prometon 

Camphor Isoquinoline Pyrene 

Carbaryl Menthol Skatol(3-methyl-1H-indole) 

Carbazole Metalaxyl Stigmastanol 

Chlorpyrifos Methyl salicylate Tetrachloroethylene 

Cholesterol Metolachlor Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

Cotinine N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide Tri(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate 

Cumene (isopropylbenzene) 1-methylnapthalene Tributylphosphate 

Diazinon 2-methylnapthalene Triclosan 
Study Methods 19

at some first-order streams had well-mixed flow 

regimes in water less than 1 ft deep. To collect 

samples, a location was selected where the streamflow effectively integrated water from the full width 

and depth of the stream. A Teflon hose was fixed in 

the horizontal and vertical center of flow and connected to a peristaltic pump on a platform on the 

streambank. Another Teflon hose was connected to 

the outlet of the pump and clamped in a stand. The 

Teflon hose was flushed with stream water before 

sample containers were filled with water that did 

not require filtration. Next, the hose was connected 

to a 0.45-μm filter clamped in the stand and the 

remaining sample containers were filled.

Stream-water samples for chemical analysis 

were collected during high streamflow by personnel 

while wading, using an equal-width increment 

technique. A 3-L Teflon bottle with an isokinetic 

nozzle, attached to a wading rod, was used to 

composite a water sample from a minimum of 10 

vertical sections. Each vertical section was sampled 

by lowering the bottle with the rod at the same transit rate. Each vertical section was in the center of an 

increment of equal width across the stream channel. 

A peristaltic pump and Teflon hose were used to 

transfer aliquots from the 3-L sample bottle into 

individual sample containers. The 3-L bottle was 

shaken between each aliquot.

Lake-water samples for chemical analysis 

were collected by personnel in a boat, using a 

depth-integrated technique to obtain a 3-L composite sample from three locations per lake (sites A7, 

A8, and A9). At each location, depth to the lake 

bottom was measured with a weighted tape and 

the distance divided into two or three equal increments. A Teflon hose connected to a peristaltic 

pump was lowered to the middle of each increment 

with a pole. An equal portion (0.5 or 0.33 L) was 

pumped from each increment at a location; the three 

1-L samples were combined in a 3-L Teflon bottle. 

A peristaltic pump and Teflon hose were used to 

transfer aliquots from the 3-L sample bottle into 

individual sample containers. The 3-L bottle was 

shaken between each aliquot.

Samples for chemical analysis were 

preserved in the field, chilled, and shipped by overnight freight to the USGS laboratories in Colorado. 

Samples for suspended-sediment analysis were 

shipped as a group to the USGS Sediment Laboratory in Kentucky.

Stream-water samples for E. coli monitoring were collected by personnel while wading, 

using an equal-width increment technique (Wilde 

and Radtke, 1998) to obtain a composite sample 

throughout the water column across the stream. 

Water samples from lakes also were collected by 

personnel while wading and were depth-integrated 

from three locations to obtain a composite sample. 

Water samples were collected in 300-mL glass bottles. Prior to use, the bottles were washed and then 

sterilized by autoclaving. Samples were kept on ice 

until processed.

For the chemical analysis of wastewater 

tracers during the E. coli monitoring, a grab sample 

of stream water was collected in the center of flow 

with a new, 1-L, amber glass bottle. The sample was 

kept refrigerated until the microbiological analysis 

was completed. Selected samples for chemical 

analysis were shipped on ice by overnight freight 

to the laboratory for analysis within 30 days of 

collection.

Collection of Streambed-Sediment Samples

Streambed-sediment samples were collected 

at six monitoring sites (A1 through A5, and A10) 

and processed with methods adapted from Shelton 

and Capel (1994) and Renn (1998). At each monitoring site, a composite sample of streambed 

sediment was collected for analysis. Areas with 

slow water (less than 0.2 ft3

/s) and accumulation of 

fine-grained sediments were targeted for sampling. 

Sediment samples were collected approximately 

30 ft or less from where water samples were 

collected. To obtain the composite sample, approximately 10 subsamples were collected with 

a 250-mL glass beaker from the top 4 to 6 in. of 
20 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

streambed sediment. The subsamples were combined and mixed in a glass dish; 500 mL of the 

unprocessed, mixed sediment were removed for 

particle-size analysis. The remaining sediment was 

processed through a 200-μm screen-size sieve to 

obtain a 500-mL composite sample containing clay, 

silt, and fine sand for chemical analysis. For total 

recoverable trace-elements analysis, a polypropylene sieve was used; for explosives and semivolatile 

organic compound analysis, a stainless-steel sieve 

was used. Sediment samples were placed in new 

glass jars, chilled, and shipped by overnight freight 

to the USGS laboratory in Colorado. Analysis of 

particle-size distribution was done at the USGS 

Indianapolis office by drying, sieving, and weighing the 500 mL of unprocessed sediment.

Collection of Fish-Tissue Samples

Fish-tissue samples were collected in stream 

reaches near seven monitoring sites inside of and 

downstream from the Impact Area (A1, A2, A4, 

A5, A10, B4, and B5) and in Puff Lake and Duck 

Pond near the Impact Area. Creek chub (Semotilus 

atromaculatus) were targeted as the primary species for collection in first-order streams, consistent 

with guidelines for a sentinel species of environmental contamination used in Indiana (Stahl 

and Sobat, 2000). When creek chub were absent, 

such as in second-order streams or lakes, species 

targeted were largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) or spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), 

consistent with USGS NAWQA Program guidelines (Crawford and Luoma, 1993) and with previous NAWQA fish-community data for the White 

River Basin in Indiana (Baker and Frey, 1997). 

Samples were collected in late summer through 

early fall to minimize seasonal physiological 

changes in the target fish species that could affect 

organic-compound concentrations. (The lipid 

content of fish increases prior to spawning, accompanied by a temporary increase in hydrophobic 

organic compounds.)

Fish were collected with backpack, bargemounted, or boat-mounted electroshocking 

equipment. Electroshocking is described in the 

Fish-Community Inventories section of this report. 

Fish collection for tissue analysis was done as part 

of fish-community inventories at five sites downstream from the Impact Area. At three sites inside 

the Impact Area, fish collection was done specifically for tissue samples. If the required number and 

total weight of a targeted species were obtained in 

the 450-ft reach of the fish-community inventories 

outside the Impact Area, no further fish collection 

was done. If additional fish were needed, another 

reach downstream from the community inventory 

was electroshocked. Inside the Impact Area, a reach 

upstream and downstream from the monitoring site 

was electroshocked. 

Once fish were collected in a reach, individuals were selected and tissue samples were prepared. 

For creek chub, at least nine of the largest (assumed 

to be the oldest) individuals from the electroshocking were selected to obtain a minimum 300-g, 

whole-fish, composite sample. For largemouth bass 

or spotted bass, at least four of the largest individuals from the electroshocking were selected to obtain 

a minimum 300-g composite sample composed of 

at least eight skin-on, scaleless fillets (including 

belly flap). Tissue samples were wrapped in aluminum foil, placed in a labelled plastic bag, and 

quickly frozen on dry ice for overnight shipment 

to the USGS laboratory in Colorado. At the laboratory, fish-tissue samples were kept frozen until 

all samples had arrived; then, the samples were 

thawed, processed, and analyzed as a group.

Analytical Methods

Four water-quality characteristics (pH, 

specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and water 

temperature) were determined in the field with an 

electronic multimeter to evaluate the mixing or 

stratification of the water column at the monitoring 

sites. Turbidity was determined in the field with 

an optical turbidimeter. Alkalinity was determined 

in a mobile-laboratory van by incremental titration 

(Wilde and Radtke, 1998).
Study Methods 21

Water samples were analyzed at the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory in Colorado for 

three physical properties, organic carbon, total 

recoverable trace elements, major ions, and nutrients by analytical methods listed in tables 3 and 4. 

Chemical analysis of wastewater tracers (table 5) 

was done by the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory, where the method was developed. 

Samples were processed through continuous liquidliquid extraction and analyzed with selected-ionmonitor gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples 

were analyzed for trace elements, explosives, volatile organic compounds, and semivolatile organic 

compounds at the USGS laboratory in Colorado for 

the Department of Defense Environmental Conservation Program. Samples were analyzed by USEPA 

methods listed in table 4. Names and laboratory 

reporting limits for the constituents in tables 3, 4, 

and 5 are listed in appendix 1. Suspended-sediment 

analysis of water samples was done by the USGS 

Sediment Laboratory in Kentucky.

Quality-Assurance Program

A quality-assurance program was implemented for sampling equipment and supplies used 

in the chemical assessment. The multimeter, 

turbidimeter, and pH meter (for alkalinity determinations) were checked with laboratory-grade 

standard solutions each day before use, following 

manufacturer’s procedures and USGS methods in 

Wilde and Radtke (1998). Water-sampling equipment was cleaned before each use by pumping 

a dilute solution of phosphate-free detergent, 

followed by a deionized-water rinse, a nitric-acid 

rinse (to remove inorganics), and a methanol rinse 

(to remove organics). Streambed-sediment sampling and fish-tissue filleting equipment were 

cleaned before each use with a deionized-water 

rinse followed by a nitric-acid rinse and a methanol 

rinse. Field blanks to assess whether equipment 

cleaning was adequate were prepared by pumping 

deionized, carbon-filtered water (obtained from 

the USGS Indianapolis office laboratory) through 

the Teflon tubing into the sample containers. Tripblank samples consisting of organic-free water 

from the analytical laboratory were transported 

with empty and filled sample containers to assess 

whether volatile organic compounds were introduced during storage and transport.

The USGS laboratories provided qualityassurance data with the analytical data. Matrixspike duplicate samples consisting of two extra 

sets of water samples were collected at one site 

and submitted to the laboratory. At the laboratory, 

the samples were spiked with known amounts of 

selected constituents to determine if the sample 

matrix interfered with the analysis. Laboratory 

quality assurance included control samples to 

assess analytical accuracy, duplicate samples 

to assess analytical precision, and method blanks 

to assess sample representativeness. USGS personnel used the quality-assurance data to validate and 

qualify analytical results presented in the Chemical 

Quality section of this report.

Biological Assessment

This section explains the biologicalassessment methods. Included are microbiological 

analysis of water samples, inventories of 

benthic-macroinvertebrate and fish communities, 

calculation of numeric indexes for the benthicmacroinvertebrate and fish communities, and 

calculation of a numeric index for stream habitat 

quality.

Microbiological Analysis of Water

The microbiological analysis of water 

samples determined the concentrations of E. coli

in colonies per 100 mL of sample (col/100 mL). 

This section describes how the water samples were 

collected and analyzed and how quality assurance 

was provided. These methods were used by the 

USGS for E. coli monitoring throughout Indiana 

in a project with IDEM (Silcox and others, 2000, 

2001, 2002). 
22 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Sample processing and microbiological 

analysis was done by USGS Indianapolis office 

personnel within 6 hours or less of sample collection, according to methods in Wilde and Radtke 

(1998). Prior to use, all sample-processing equipment was washed and then sterilized with an 

ultraviolet lamp. Membrane filters, sterile buffer 

solution, sterile dilution water, and petri dishes 

were quality assured by the USGS Water-Quality 

Service Unit. Agar media kits were quality assured 

by the USGS Ohio District Microbiological Laboratory.

Sample processing involved filtering the 

water, plating the filters on growth media, and 

incubating the filter plates. Five to seven different 

sample volumes were filtered to obtain dilutions 

of 1:1 to 1:100. Dilutions of 1:10 and 1:100 were 

filtered if the extent of possible E. coli concentrations was unknown. This approach assured at least 

one sample volume would produce an E. coli colony count in the ideal range of 20 to 80 colonies 

per filter plate. Sample dilutions were made with 

sterile water. Sterile, disposable pipets or graduated 

cylinders were used to measure and deliver sample 

volumes. A stainless-steel filter-funnel system 

attached to a vacuum pump was used to process the 

sample volume through a 0.45-μm filter designed 

to capture E. coli for incubation and quantification. 

After filtering the sample, a sterile saline buffer 

solution was used to rinse the graduated cylinder 

and filter funnel, and the rinseate was filtered. 

Fresh, membrane-filter thermotolerant agar in 

labeled petri dishes was used to encourage growth 

of E. coli colonies on the prepared filters. The 

filter plates were placed for 2 hours in a pre-heated 

incubator set at 35.0°C and then placed for 22 to 

24 hours in a pre-heated incubator set at 44.5°C. 

Microbiological analysis involved counting 

the colonies on each filter plate (fig. 8) and calculating the E. coli concentration for each site. After the 

second incubation, the filter was transferred to a 

filter pad saturated with urea/phenol red reagent

solution. After 15 minutes at room temperature, 

the yellow to yellow-brown E. coli colonies were 

counted. If the colony count on the filter plate was 

the ideal range (20 to 80), verification was made 

by recounting. E. coli concentrations were reported, 

using one of three methods: 

(1) If a single filter plate had a colony 

count in the ideal range, the concentration was calculated as the 

colony count, multiplied by 100, 

and the product divided by the 

sample volume. 

(2) If multiple filter plates had colony 

counts in the ideal range, the counts 

were summed, multiplied by 100, 

and the product divided by the sum 

of the sample volumes. 

(3) If no filter plates had a colony 

count in the ideal range, the concentration was calculated with 

all the filter plates that had colonies; this was done in a manner 

similar to the multiple-filter-plate 

method in (2) above, and the result 

was noted as an estimate.

Not to Scale

Figure 8. Illustration of filter plate with Escherichia coli colonies.
Study Methods 23

At each monitoring site, five water samples 

were collected in a 30-day period for determination 

of E. coli concentrations. For comparison with the 

Indiana water-quality standards, both the singlesample and geometric-mean concentrations were 

required. The 30-day geometric mean concentration was calculated as the fifth root of the product 

of the five-sample concentrations, using the following equation.

where,

GM is the geometric mean, and

Si is the concentration of E. coli

measured in each of the five samples.

For quality assurance, filter blanks, process 

blanks, field blanks, and duplicate samples were 

analyzed. Filter blanks were processed before every 

set of samples to determine if the processing equipment was clean. Process blanks were made after 

the last sample each day by filtering saline buffer 

solution through the equipment onto a fresh filter. 

Process blanks determined if the rinses following 

each sample were complete. Field blanks consisted 

of saline buffer solution poured into a sample bottle 

and kept with the samples collected in a day. 

Analysis of field blanks determined adequate 

sterilization of sample bottles and potential contamination during sample transport. Duplicate samples 

were collected concurrently with the environmental samples at selected sites and processed like 

the environmental samples. Duplicate samples 

were used to evaluate the natural variability in 

the samples.

Fish-Community Inventories

Fish-community inventories were made 

in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites (B1 

through B6, A4 through A6, A10) in a manner consistent with guidelines for the USGS NAWQA 

Program (Meador and others, 1993). Fish were 

collected by a USGS biologist using pulsed Direct 

Current electroshocking techniques. Backpack or 

barge-mounted shocking equipment was used by 

wading personnel at all stream sites—a Smith-Root

12-A 400-watt Backpack Electrofisher or a SmithRoot SR-6 Electrofisher Tote Barge powered by a 

2.5-GPP Electrofisher generator. (Electroshocking 

for fish-tissue sample collection in Puff Lake and 

Duck Pond was done from a flat-bottomed boat 

with a 110-V AC generator powering a Coffelt 

VVP-2E Electrofisher.)

Stream reaches that averaged 450 ft in length 

were electroshocked in two passes, the first pass 

starting at the monitoring site and proceeding 

upstream to a natural fish barrier, such as a riffle. 

The second pass was made downstream to the starting point. Electrofishing temporarily stunned the 

fish so they could be collected with dipnets and 

accumulated in baskets in the stream. Upon collection, the fish were sorted by species, their length 

and weight were measured, and the fish then were 

released alive (fig. 9). Fish were taxonomically 

identified to species level in the field by a USGS 

biologist. For quality assurance, some voucher 

specimens were photographed or preserved from 

each sampling reach for later identification by an 

icthyologist at Ohio Northern University. Identifications were based on taxonomic keys by Pflieger 

(1975), Trautman (1981), Robinson and Buchanan 

(1992), and Page (1983). Taxonomic nomenclature 

followed Robins and others (1991).

Two numeric indexes (the Index of Biotic 

Integrity and the Modified Index of Well-Being) 

were used to evaluate and compare long-term 

water-quality conditions at the stream reaches 

where fish-community inventories were made.

(1) The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), developed by Karr and others (1986), was adapted to 

specific conditions in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains 

ecoregion of Indiana by Simon and Dufour (1998). 

The IBI uses 11 fish-community concepts called 

“metrics” to obtain a single numeric score. The 

following metrics have three general categories—

species composition, trophic composition, and fish 

condition:

• Total number of species

• Number of darter/madtom/sculpin 

species

• Percent headwater species

• Number of minnow species

GM S1 S2 S3 × S4 × S5 = 5 × × ,
24 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

• Number of sensitive species

• Percent omnivore individuals

• Percent insectivore individuals

• Percent pioneer species

• Catch per unit effort

• Percent simple lithophil individuals

• Percent of individuals with deformities, 

eroded fins, lesions, and tumors. 

The fish-community-inventory data from 

a stream reach was compared to graphs in Simon 

and Dufour (1998) to obtain metric scores. Different graphs were consulted for headwater streams 

(less than 20-mi2

 drainage area; eight reaches in 

the study area) and for wadeable rivers (20- to 

1,000-mi2 drainage area; two reaches in the study 

area). The individual metric scores were summed 

to provide an IBI composite score for the fish inventory in a stream reach. 

(2) The Modified Index of Well-Being 

(MIWB) is based on the Index of Well-Being (IWB), 

developed by Gammon (1976). The IWB is a numeric value that incorporates these measures of a 

fish community—number of individuals, biomass 

(weight), and diversity based on number and weight. 

The IWB was modified by the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Yoder, 1987) to create the 

MIWB. The MIWB retained the same computational formula as the conventional IWB. The difference was that any of 13 highly pollution-tollerant 

Figure 9. Fish sorting, weighing, and measuring during a fish-community inventory at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

October 2000.
Study Methods 25

species, exotic species, and hybrid species were 

eliminated from the numbers of individuals and 

biomass components of the calculation. 

To calculate the MIWB for a stream reach, 

the number of individuals and weight of individuals 

per species were converted to “relative abundance” 

by dividing the numbers and weights by 450 ft, the 

standard distance for electroshocking. The MIWB 

composite score for a stream reach was calculated 

with the equation

MIWB = 0.5 ln N + 0.5 ln B + Hnumber + Hweight ,

where,

MIWB = Modified Index of Well-Being 

composite score;

ln = the natural logarithm;

N = total numbers of individuals 

of all species;

B = total weight of individuals 

of all species;

Hnumber = Shannon Diversity Index for 

number of individuals; and

Hweight = Shannon Diversity Index for 

weight of individuals.

The Shannon Diversity Index was calculated 

twice for the previous equation, once with the number of individuals of each species and once with 

the weight of individuals of each species. The two 

calculations of the index were made with the following equation

where,

H = the Shannon Diversity Index for 

number of individuals (Hnumber) 

or the Shannon Diversity Index for 

weight of individuals (Hweight);

ni = the numbers of individuals 

of the i th species or weight of 

individuals of the i th species;

N = the total number of individuals 

or total weight of individuals;

ln = the natural logarithm.

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate-Community Inventories

Benthic-macroinvertebrate-community 

inventories were made in stream reaches near 

13 monitoring sites (B1 through B6, A1 through 

A6, and A10) in a manner generally consistent 

with guidelines for the USGS NAWQA Program 

(Cuffney and others, 1993). Macroinvertebrate 

samples were submitted to the USGS National 

Water Quality Laboratory Biological Group 

in Colorado for taxonomic identification and 

estimation of abundance.

In this study, richest habitats of streambed 

were targeted for semi-quantitative sampling—

primarily large rocks and cobbles in main-channel 

riffle areas at three locations per reach. (Near site 

A10 on Muddy Branch, no rocks or cobbles were 

in the streambed, so woody debris piles were targeted.) A Surber sampler, consisting of a 1-ft2

sampling frame and 210-μm mesh collection netd, 

was used to collect benthic-macroinvertebrate 

samples. When the sampling frame was placed on 

the streambed, all the enclosed rocks, cobbles, and 

stones were collected into a bucket (fig. 10). As 

the rocks were gathered, organisms that were floating, detached from the rocks, or released from 

the streambed were caught in the collection net. 

The rocks in the bucket were scrubbed gently to 

remove attached organisms. The contents of the 

bucket were strained through a 212-μm sieve. 

Contents of the collection net were removed with 

stream water in the bucket and strained through the 

sieve. Gravel and debris were picked from the sieve 

and the benthic-macroinvertebrate sample was 

placed in a 1-L sample bottle and fixed with a 

10-percent Formalin solution. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates were identified 

by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory 

Biological Group with the quantitative method 

described in Moulton and others (2000). The objective of the quantitative method was to estimate the

H

ni

N

----

ni

N

----

 ln 



1

i

= ∑ ,

dThis mesh size was consistent with a macroinvertebrate 

study in the White River Basin in Indianapolis (Voelker and 

Renn, 2000); Cuffney and others (1993) list a 455-μm mesh 

collection net for semi-quantitative sampling.
26 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

abundance of each taxon sorted from a sample. 

The method was an enhancement of the fixedcount approach described in the USEPA Standard 

Taxonomic Assessment (Barbour and others, 1999) 

and achieved the lowest taxonomic level consistent with the USGS NAWQA Program. 

In general, insects, mollusks, and crustaceans 

were identified to either genus or species; aquatic 

worms were identified to family; and flatworms 

and nematodes were identified to class or phylum. 

Insect life stages (adult, pupae, or larvae) were 

recorded for each insect taxon. 

The quantitative method was done by two 

personnel from the USGS Biological Group. The 

first person sorted organisms by taxa, using a fixedcount approach that targeted a minimum count of 

300 organisms from randomly selected grids of a 

subsampling frame. The second person sorted the 

rest of the subsampling frame for at least 10 percent 

of the time used by the first person and searched 

for large or rare organisms not likely represented 

in the randomly selected grids. The sorted benthic 

macroinvertebrates were identified and enumerated, 

relative abundances were calculated for each sample, and data were quality assured.

For each monitoring site, a numeric index 

of biotic integrity was calculated with a method 

developed by Hilsenhoff (1987) to interpret relative 

abundance and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in the phylum Arthropoda, such as insects. 

Each taxon was assigned a numeric value from zero 

to 10 that indicated the organism’s tolerance to 

organic pollution; zero was the least tolerant and 

10 was the most tolerant. These “tolerance values,” 

taken from Hilsenhoff (1987 and 1978) and supplemented by Bode and others (1996), were based on 

thousands of benthic-macroinvertebrate samples 

that were compared with chemical and physical 

measurements of organic water pollution. In some 

samples from the study area, incomplete specimens 

were identified to the family level and not assigned 

Figure 10. Surber sampler in use for collection of benthic-macroinvertebrate sample at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000.
Study Methods 27

a tolerance value. For calculation of the numeric 

index, these family-level taxa assumed the tolerance value of the most abundant taxon in the sample 

from that family. Indistinct taxa (such as identifications based on incomplete specimens) were 

assumed to include clearly identified taxa, where 

present.

To calculate the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

(HBI), the number of organisms within a taxon 

was multiplied by the tolerance value for that taxon. 

These products were summed for all the taxa identified in the sample, and the sum was divided 

by the total number of arthropods with tolerance 

values in the sample. The calculation resulted in an 

HBI between 1 and 10, which was compared with a 

ranking scale for severity of organic water pollution 

(Hilsenhoff, 1987). 

For each monitoring site, a numeric index 

of pollution-intolerant insect taxa was calculated, 

following a method previously used by the USGS 

for the White River in Indianapolis (Voelker and 

Renn, 2000). The EPT Richness Index (Lenat 

and Penrose, 1996) represents the number of distinct taxa in the pollution-sensitive insect orders 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT) 

(fig. 11). EPT taxa are more intolerant of large 

concentrations of metals or organic compounds 

than are other orders of benthic macroinvertebrates.

 Thus, a high EPT Richness Index reflected a 

diverse community of pollution-intolerant taxa at 

a site, indicating good water quality and abundant 

habitat. The EPT Richness Index was expressed as 

an integer and used to compare benthic-macroinvertebrate data from monitoring sites.

Figure 11. Aquatic insects of the orders Ephemeroptera (A), Plecoptera (B), and Trichoptera (C), typical of pollution-intolerant benthic 

macroinvertebrates. (Photographs modified from Moulton and others, 2000, courtesy of Steven V. Fend and James L. Carter, National 

Research Program, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, and Saelon Renkes, freelance photographer.)

A

B

C
28 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation

The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 

(QHEI) was used to compute a numeric index 

for the physical habitats at the stream sites for the 

fish-community and benthic-macroinvertebrate 

community inventories. Developed by the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency and documented 

by Rankin (1989), the QHEI has been used by 

the USGS and IDEM. To calculate the QHEI, six 

stream-habitat metrics were scored individually 

and a total was summed: (1) substrate type, origin, 

and quality; (2) instream cover; (3) channel 

morphology; (4) riparian zone and bank erosion; 

(5) pool and riffle-run quality; and (6) stream 

gradient and drainage area. A field sheet with each 

metric divided into smaller components for standard scoring was used to calculate the QHEI score 

for each site. 

Surface-Water Quality 

Streamflow conditions during the waterquality study are discussed in the following section. 

Chemical data are presented from analysis and 

quality assurance of water, streambed-sediment, 

and fish-tissue samples. Biological data are presented from bacteria monitoring and inventories of 

fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. The chemical 

and biological data are discussed with regard to 

base-wide water quality, sources of contaminants, 

the Impact Area, and uncertainties of interpretation.

Streamflow Conditions

Typically, streamflow information is 

obtained as a continuous record from USGS 

streamflow-gaging stations, but no stations were 

operated in the study area. Historical and daily 

streamflow data from a nearby USGS streamflowgaging station were used to identify low-streamflow 

and high-streamflow conditions for this study 

(Stewart and others, 2001, 2002; Fowler and 

Wilson, 1996). 

USGS streamflow-gaging station 03362000 

on Youngs Creek near Edinburgh (fig. 1) is about 

4 mi north of the study area. The station on Youngs 

Creek is below a drainage area of 107 mi2

 with 

surface geology (till, alluvium, and outwash), 

bedrock geology (shale and limestone), and physiography (Scottsburg Lowland) similar to most of 

the Nineveh Creek Watershed (fig. 2). Land use 

in the Youngs Creek Watershed is primarily agricultural, compared with forestland for much of 

the Nineveh Creek Watershed (Schnoebelen and 

others, 1999). The period of record for the Youngs 

Creek gaging station is 1942 through the years of 

this study. 

Streamflow conditions in the study area 

during the base-wide assessment were evaluated 

with the Youngs Creek gaging-station data in three 

ways. First, the streamflow hydrograph for August 

2000 through August 2001 (fig. 12) indicates 

two of the three water-sampling periods in September 2000 were during relatively low to moderate 

streamflow (less than 50 ft3

/s); one sampling period 

in September 2000 was during average streamflow 

(less than 100 ft3

/s but more than 50 ft3/s); and the 

water sampling period in July 2001 was during a 

recession from relatively high streamflow (more 

than 250 ft3/s). Water sampling in May and June 

2001 was during streamflow conditions that ranged 

from low to high. 

Second, the daily mean streamflow values 

and instantaneous streamflow values for September 

2000 were divided by the drainage areas so that the 

streamflow from watersheds in the study area with 

drainage areas different from the Youngs Creek 

drainage area could be compared to the Youngs 

Creek streamflow. The resulting units for the 

area-adjusted streamflow values were ft3/s/mi2. 

The area-adjusted daily mean streamflow from the 

Youngs Creek gaging station was plotted with areaadjusted instantaneous streamflow from the study’s 

monitoring sites on the dates of sampling (fig. 13, 

p. 30). The graph indicates instantaneous streamflows in the study area on the September 2000 

sampling dates were less than the annual mean 

streamflow at the Youngs Creek gaging station. 

Most streamflows in the study area were less than 

50 percent of the streamflow values for the Youngs 

Creek gaging station from 1942 through 2000. 
Surface-Water Quality 29

Third, the daily mean streamflow at the 

Youngs Creek gaging station on the September 

2000 and July 2001 sampling dates in the study 

area (Stewart and others, 2001, 2002) were compared with historical streamflow characteristics 

(Fowler and Wilson, 1996) to classify the probable 

streamflow conditions in the study area. Areaadjusted daily mean streamflow at Youngs Creek 

and area-adjusted instantaneous streamflow from 

the study area were classified by comparison with 

historical streamflow characteristics for the Youngs 

Creek gaging station. The comparison (table 6, 

p. 31) indicates most of the streamflow conditions 

in the study area on sampling dates in September 

2000 probably were low to moderate. The sample at 

site B1 on September 5, 2000, and the sample at site 

A1 on September 28, 2000, probably were collected 

during average to slightly above-average conditions. The comparison also indicates the streamflow 

conditions in the study area on sample dates in July 

2001 probably were high. The three preceding evaluations of streamflow support a generalization 

about streamflow conditions for the water-qualitysampling results described in the following section. 

For comparison, the periods of water sampling during September 2000 will be called low-streamflow 

conditions (less than 0.5 ft3

/s/mi2) and the periods 

of water sampling during July 2001 will be called 

high-streamflow conditions (more than 3 ft3/s/mi2).

Figure 12. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on Youngs Creek 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, August 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001, with period of water sampling at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana.
30 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Figure 13. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on Youngs Creek near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, and instantaneous streamflow from monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000 (adjusted to drainage area).

5 10 15 20 25 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

Area-adjusted daily mean streamflow 

at gaging station on Youngs Creek

Area-adjusted instantaneous streamflow at monitoring

site (and identifier) in Camp Atterbury

B1

A5 A2

A3

A6

B4 A4 A10 A1

B2

B3

SEPTEMBER 2000

B5 B6

B1

Area-adjusted annual mean streamflow 

at gaging station on Youngs Creek

Area-adjusted streamflow exceeded by 50 percent 

(1942 through 2000)

of values at gaging station on Youngs Creek

(1942 through 2000)

Chemical Quality

Chemical data were used to evaluate basewide water quality and to examine potential effects 

on water quality, streambed sediment, and fish 

tissue inside of and downstream from the Impact 

Area. This section summarizes chemical data for 

water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples 

collected during September and October 2000. 

Chemical data for water samples collected in 

July 2001 also are included.

Water-Sample Analysis and Quality Assurance

Sixteen water samples were collected from 

streams and lakes, September 9 through September 28, 2000, during low-streamflow conditions; six 

samples were collected July 5 and 6, 2001, during 

high-streamflow conditions. Explosives, volatile 

organic compounds, and semivolatile organic

compounds (table 4 and appendix 1) were not 

detected in any of the samples. The following narrative discusses constituents that were detected—

water-quality characteristics, physical properties, 

major ions, nutrients, and trace elements. 

Water-quality characteristics and physical 

properties of the samples are summarized in table 7 

(p. 32); all the data are in appendix 2. Generally, 

water from streams in the study area contained 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations at more than 

80 percent of saturation at low and high streamflow 

(median 8.8 and 7.0 mg/L); water samples had 

slightly alkaline pH (median 7.8 standard units) at 

low streamflow that increased at high streamflow 

(median 8.3 standard units). Suspended sediment 

and turbidity at low streamflow were small (median 

7.7 mg/L and 5.0 NTUs) but increased by about 

eight times at high streamflow (median 64 mg/L 
Surface-Water Quality 31

Table 6. Daily mean streamflow at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03362000 on Youngs Creek near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, and instantaneous streamflow on water-sampling dates at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and 

July 2001

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; ft3/s/mi2, cubic foot per second per square mile; mi2, square mile; avg., average]

a

Stewart and others (2001, 2002).

b

Type of streamflow conditions based on percent of time daily mean was equaled or exceeded for the period of record (1942 

through 1995) in Fowler and Wilson (1996), with area-adjusted streamflow: very low, 99 to 80 (0.02 to 0.07 ft3/s/mi2); low, 80 to 60 (0.07 to 

0.2 ft3/s/mi2); moderate, 60 to 40 (0.2 to 0.5 ft3/s/mi2); average, 40 to 20 (0.5 to 1.2 ft3/s/mi2); above average (above avg.), 20 to 10 (1.2 to 

2.3 ft3/s/mi2); high, 10 to 2 (2.3 to 7.5 ft3/s/mi2); very high, less than 2 percent (more than 7.5 to ft3/s/mi2).

c

Streamflow divided by 107-square-mile drainage area.

Youngs Creek gaging station 03362000 Camp Atterbury monitoring sites

Date 

Daily 

mean 

streamflowa 

(ft3/s) 

Type 

of 

streamflow 

conditionb 

Areaadjusted 

daily mean 

streamflowc 

(ft3/s/mi2)

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) 

Instantaneous 

streamflow 

(ft3/s) 

Drainage 

area 

(mi2) 

Areaadjusted 

instantaneous 

streamflow 

(ft3/s/mi2) 

Probable 

type 

of 

streamflow 

condition 

9/05/2000 36 Moderate 0.34 B1 4.99 5.55 0.90 Above avg.

9/06/2000 22 Low .21 B2 2.70 8.82 .31 Moderate

9/07/2000 18 Low .17 A2 3.37 7.80 .43 Moderate

9/08/2000 15 Low .14 A3 2.25 13.4 .17 Low

9/14/2000 67 Average .63 A6 1.71 4.99 .34 Moderate

9/15/2000 49 Moderate .46 B4 21.1 43.7 .48 Moderate

9/18/2000 27 Moderate .25 A4 .84 4.35 .19 Low

9/19/2000 24 Moderate .22 A10 .24 2.23 .11 Low

9/28/2000 191 Above avg. 1.8 A1 7.41 13.6 .54 Average

7/05/2001 170 Above avg. 1.6 A10 14.0 2.23 6.3 High

7/05/2001 170 Above avg. 1.6 A4 31.0 4.35 7.1 High

7/06/2001 98 Average .92 B1 16.0 5.55 2.9 High

7/06/2001 98 Average .92 A5 110 35.3 3.1 High

and median 38 NTUs). Values for specific conductance and dissolved-solids concentrations were 

slightly larger at high streamflow (median 

357 μS/cm and 204 mg/L) than at low streamflow 

(median 316 μS/cm and 193 mg/L). Organic-carbon 

concentrations at low flow were small (median 

4.0 mg/L total; 3.4 mg/L dissolved). Water from 

two lake samples (A7 on Duck Pond and A9 on 

Puff Lake) in September 2000 indicated neutral pH, 

similar turbidity, and generally less specific conductance and dissolved solids than did the stream 

samples. Dissolved oxygen was less than 20 percent 

of saturation in the headwaters and near the shore in 

Puff Lake (A8, 1.8 mg/L, and A9, 2.1 mg/L) but was 

more than 80 percent of saturation in Duck Pond 

(7.8 mg/L).

Radiological determinations (table 8, p. 33) 

of gross alpha radioactivity at sites B2 (3.2 pCi/L) 

and B3 (3.6 pCi/L) were greater than the Indiana 

water-quality standard of 3 pCi/L. The confidence 

interval for these measurements of gross alpha 

radioactivity included values for sites B2 and B3 

that are less than the standard. Additional data to 

verify these gross alpha radioactivity values were 

not obtained as part of this study. Gross beta radioactivity reported in samples from sites B2, B3, A3, 

and A5 were less than the Indiana water-quality 

standard of 1,000 pCi/L.

Concentrations of dissolved major ions and 

total nutrients in the 16 water samples from September 2000 and 6 samples from July 2001 are
32 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 7. Summary statistics for water-quality characteristics and physical properties of water samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

[pH, log of hydrogen-ion concentration; s.u., standard unit; μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter; °C, degree, Celsius; 

mg/L, milligram per liter; Std. Dev., standard deviation; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; TOC, total organic carbon; 

DOC, dissolved organic carbon]

Samples from streams (13 during low streamflow and 6 during high streamflow)

pH 

(s.u.)

Specific conductance 

(μS/cm)

Water temperature 

(°C)

Dissolved oxygen 

(mg/L)

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low High

Mean 7.6 8.2 293 330 17.5 21.9 8.6 7.1

Median 7.8 8.3 316 357 16.9 21.2 8.8 7.0

Std. Dev. .37 .2 132 120 2.7 2.6 .94 .80

Minimum 6.9 7.9 109 175 14.4 18.7 5.9 6.3

Maximum 8.0 8.4 568 480 22.9 25.8 9.6 8.3

Dissolved solids 

(mg/L)

Turbidity 

(NTU)

Suspended sediment 

(mg/L)

TOC 

(mg/L)

DOC 

(mg/L)

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low Low

Mean 185 196 6.5 46 11 57 3.9 3.2

Median 193 204 5.0 38 7.7 64 4.0 3.4

Std. Dev. 79.9 63.6 4.8 38 9.4 18 1.2 .84

Minimum 90 122 2.0 12 2.7 25 2.3 1.9

Maximum 346 278 16 120 29 73 5.8 4.3

Samples from lakes (3 during low streamflow and zero during high streamflow)

pH 

(s.u.)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

solids 

(mg/L)

Turbidity 

(NTU)

Mean 7.1 113 22.2 3.9 82.7 11

Median 6.5 129 22.9 2.0 86.0 7.0

Std. Dev. 1.4 38.6 1.8 3.4 7.6 8.0

Minimum 6.1 73.0 20.2 1.8 74.0 5.0

Maximum 8.7 147 23.5 7.8 88 20
Surface-Water Quality 33

Table 8. Radiological determinations for water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000 

[Gross alpha activity reported as thorium-230; pCi/L, picocurie per liter; gross beta activity reported as cesium-137; 

<, less than reporting limit listed]

a

Standards for “water quality for public water supply at the point at which water is withdrawn for treatment” are 

gross alpha radioactivity, 3 picocuries per liter, and gross beta radioactivity, 1,000 picocuries per liter (Indiana Water 

Pollution Control Board, 2001).

b

Range of possible values calculated by subtracting or adding half of the confidence interval to the reported value. 

If the gross alpha or beta radioactivity was less than the reporting limit, the upper limit in the range of possible values was

the reporting limit.

Gross alpha radioactivity Gross beta radioactivity

Monitoring

site 

(figure 7)

Reported 

concentrationa 

(pCi/L)

Confidence 

interval 

(pCi/L)

Range of 

possible 

valuesb 

(pCi/L)

Reported 

concentrationa 

(pCi/L)

Confidence 

interval 

(pCi/L)

Range of

possible 

valuesb 

(pCi/L)

B1 <3.0 1.10 2.4–3.0 <4.0 2.06 2.0–4.0

B2 3.2 1.91 2.3–4.2 7.5 3.18 5.9–9.1

B3 3.6 2.94 2.1 –5.1 4.6 4.20 2.5–6.7 

B4 <3.0 1.30 2.3–3.0 <4.0 2.43 1.8–4.0

B5 <3.0 .69 2.7–3.0 <4.0 1.00 2.5–4.0

B6 <3.0 1.44 2.3–3.0 <4.0 2.12 1.9–4.0

A1 <3.0 .61 2.7–3.0 <4.0 1.17 2.4–4.0

A2 <3.0 .55 2.7–3.0 <4.0 1.69 2.2–4.0

A3 <3.0 .85 2.6–3.0 4.6 2.57 1.7–5.8

A4 <3.0 2.22 1.9–3.0 <4.0 3.87 1.1–4.0

A5 <3.0 1.35 2.3–3.0 4.2 2.42 1.8–5.4

A6 <3.0 .58 2.7–3.0 <4.0 1.23 2.4–4.0

A7 <3.0 .54 2.7–3.0 <4.0 1.01 2.5–4.0

A8 <3.0 1.51 2.2–3.0 <4.0 3.75 1.1–4.0

A9 <3.0 .43 2.8–3.0 <4.0 .98 2.5–4.0

A10 <3.0 .93 2.5–3.0 <4.0 1.52 2.2–4.0
34 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

summarized in table 9; all the data are in appendix 3. Water samples collected during September 

2000 at 10 monitoring sites in and near the Impact 

Area (A1 through A10) were analyzed for total 

recoverable and dissolved concentrations of magnesium, potassium, and sodium. A substantial 

difference between the total recoverable and 

dissolved concentrations was not reported (appendix 3), so dissolved concentrations of magnesium, 

potassium, and sodium are listed in table 9. Generally, concentrations of major ions in streams 

were similar during low and high streamflow. 

Streams and lakes were predominantly a calciummagnesium-bicarbonate water type. Total organic 

nitrogen and ammonia concentrations (table 9) 

during high streamflow were two times the concentration during low streamflow but were less than 

1 mg/L. Total phosphorus concentrations (table 9) 

were about the same during high and low streamflow (less than 0.1 mg/L).

Concentrations of nine trace elements 

detected in at least one surface-water sample are 

summarized in table 10; all trace-element data 

are in appendix 4. Antimony, arsenic, chromium, 

nickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were 

not detected in any sample. Cadmium, copper, 

and molybdenum were detected in water samples 

from streams but not from lakes (sites A7, A8, and 

A9). Cobalt, selenium, and tin were detected in 

water samples from lakes but not from streams 

(appendix 4).

These data indicate detections of lead 

(appendix 4) in water samples downstream from 

the Impact Area and adjacent training areas. During 

low streamflow, an estimated concentration of 

1.5-μg/L dissolved lead was reported in the sample 

from site A3 on Nineveh Creek, downstream from 

firing ranges in the Impact Area. Estimated concentrations of total lead (0.55 μg/L) were reported in 

water samples from sites B5 and B6 downstream 

from training areas with artillery-firing points and 

practice ranges (Defense Mapping Agency, 1985) 

and at site A8 in the Puff Lake headwaters adjacent 

to the Impact Area. During high streamflow, total

lead concentrations were 0.7 μg/L at site E5 upstream from the Impact Area; 0.5 to 1 μg/L at sites 

A4, A5, and A10 downstream from the Impact 

Area; and 2.0 μg/L at site B5 on Lick Creek.

Dissolved lead in these samples during high streamflow was not detected at a reporting limit of 3 μg/L. 

The Indiana water-quality standard for protection of aquatic life against chronic toxicity 

from total lead in water is calculated with the 

calcium-carbonate hardness of the water samplee. 

The calculated water-quality standard for lead of 

1.4 μg/L was exceeded by the 2.0-μg/L total lead 

concentration in the water sample from site B5, 

based on the calcium-carbonate hardness concentration of 50 mg/L (appendix 3). Other water samples with lead detections (from sites A3, A4, A5, 

A8, A10, E5, and B6) did not exceed their calculated water-quality standards for lead.

Indiana water-quality standards were unavailable for iron, manganese, and strontium, 

but substantial concentrations were reported in 

samples from six monitoring sites (appendixes 3 

and 4). Concentrations of dissolved iron increased 

substantially from low to high streamflow at four 

monitoring sites downstream from the Impact Area. 

The increase in iron was more than tenfold, from 

6.8 to 71 μg/L at site A4 and from 7.2 to 120 μg/L 

at site A10; iron concentrations more than doubled 

at sites A5 and B5. The largest concentrations of 

dissolved manganese were in water samples from 

site A3 in the Impact Area (636 μg/L) and site B6 

downstream from training areas with artillery-firing 

points and a practice range (582 μg/L). These manganese concentrations were about 20 times the 

median value of 30 μg/L for all streams during low 

e

The Indiana water-quality standard for total lead is 

calculated with the calcium-carbonate hardness concentration 

in the sample and the following equation from Indiana Water 

Pollution Control Board (2001) subsection 327 IAC 2-1-

6(a)(3)2.

e 1.273 [ln hardness] - 4.705 ,

where, 

e is the base of the natural logarithm, 

ln is the natural logarithm, and 

hardness is the calcium-carbonate hardness 

 concentration in milligrams per liter.
Surface-Water Quality 35

Table 9. Summary statistics for dissolved major ions and nutrients in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

[All concentrations in milligram per liter; low-streamflow samples in September 2000; high-streamflow samples in July 2001; Std. Dev., 

standard deviation; -- , no data; < ; less than reporting limit]

a

Total organic nitrogen and ammonia.

b

Total phosphorus detected in 3 of 13 low-streamflow samples and 5 of 6 high-streamflow samples.

c

Hardness as calcium carbonate.

Samples from streams (13 during low streamflow and 6 during high streamflow)

Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium

Nitrogen 

(total)a

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Mean 39 40 13 13 1.9 1.7 5.5 4.4 0.25 0.46

Median 38 42 13 14 2.0 1.9 5.4 4.4 .25 .44

Std. Dev. 21 16 6.5 5.3 .61 .50 1.6 1.7 .07 .13

Minimum 14 18 6.3 7.0 .95 .90 3.0 2.2 .11 .29

Maximum 85 59 27 21 3.0 2.3 9.2 7.3 .34 .61

Hardness (as 

calcium carbonate) Chloride

Silica 

(as silicon dioxide) Sulfate

Phosphorus 

(total)

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low High Lowb Highb

Mean 140 104 5.9 5.3 7.8 7.6 19 17 0.06 0.06

Median 130 109 5.1 4.9 6.4 7.9 15 17 .03 .05

Std. Dev. 78 61 3.3 4.2 2.4 2.6 8.8 3.9 .05 .03

Minimum 48 22 .75 1.2 5.1 4.0 4.9 12 .03 .04

Maximum 290 180 10 12 13 11 42 24 .12 .11

Samples from lakes (3 during low streamflow and zero during high streamflow)

CalciumMagnesiumPotassium SodiumNitrogen 

(total)a

Hardnessc Chloride Silica Sulfate

Phosphorus 

(total)

Mean 15 5.6 0.94 2.5 0.30 52 0.83 5.0 10 --

Median 14 5.7 .93 2.1 .30 54 .88 3.7 5.9 --

Std. Dev. 4.0 2.2 .03 .70 .10 19 .14 4.5 8.8 --

Minimum 11 3.3 .91 2.0 .30 33 .67 1.3 4.0 <.05

Maximum 19 7.7 .97 3.3 .40 70 .93 10 20 <.05
36 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 10. Summary statistics for trace elements in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 

2000 and July 2001

[All concentrations in microgram per liter; all concentrations for dissolved trace elements unless noted; Std. Dev., standard deviation; 

-- , no data; E, estimated concentration less than reporting limit; < , less than reporting limit listed]

Samples from streams 

Barium Boron Cadmium Copper Iron

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Samples 13 6 13 6 13 6 13 6 13 6

Detections 13 6 13 6 0 5 6 5 13 6

Mean 34 36 29E 27E -- .47 2.7E 4.6E 14 60

Median 28 33 31E 28E -- .47 2.6E 3.5E 12 60

Std. Dev. 13 12 5.6 6.0 -- .04 .46 2.5 9.3 41

Minimum 18 22 17E 18E <.6 .41 2.3E 3.0E 5.6 11

Maximum 58 50 34E 34E <.6 .51 3.3E 9.1E 35 120

Lead Lead (total) Manganese Molybdenum Strontium

Streamflow Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Samples 13 6 13 6 13 6 13 6 13 6

Detections 1 0 2 5 13 6 2 4 13 6

Mean 1.5E -- .55E 1.5 130 53 2.6E 2.1E 97 84

Median 1.5E -- .55E 1.5 30 39 2.6E 2.1E 79 67

Std. Dev. 0 -- .02 .70 220 33 .60 .10 48 37

Minimum <3.0 <3.0 .54E .70E 15 18 2.3E 2.0E 52 58

Maximum 1.5E <3.0 .56E 2.0 640 100 2.9E 2.2E 192 151

Samples from lakes 

Barium Boron

Cadmium Copper Iron LeadLead 

(total)

ManganeseMolybdenumStrontium

Samples 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Detections 3 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 3

Mean 16 26E -- -- 110 -- .55 150 -- 43

Median 15 23E -- -- 26 -- .55 58 -- 45

Std. Dev. 7.9 7.3 -- -- 160 -- 0 210 -- 7.4

Minimum 6.6 19E <.6 <10 17 <3.0 .55 6.9 <20 33

Maximum 26 36E <.6 <10 290 <3.0 .55 400 <20 50
Surface-Water Quality 37

flow (table 10). Manganese concentrations did 

not increase substantially from low to high streamflow; an exception is site A10 downstream from 

the Impact Area where the manganese concentration doubled from 56 to 100 μg/L. Strontium 

concentrations in water samples from three sites 

on Nineveh Creek were more than twice the median 

(table 10). In downstream order, strontium concentrations were 176 μg/L at B2, 151 μg/L at E5, and 

192 μg/L at A3. 

Quality assurance included laboratorycontrol samples and method blanks, along with 

field duplicates, matrix-spike duplicates, field 

blanks, and trip blanks. Laboratory-control samples 

with percent recoveries outside the laboratorycontrol limits resulted in associated water samples 

being re-extracted (if appropriate) and re-analyzed. 

Results from re-analysis are listed in tables and 

appendixes of this report. Aluminum was detected 

in some laboratory method blanks at approximately 

the same concentration as some samples; therefore, 

aluminum was not reported with the trace elements 

in table 10. Cyclohexane and acetone, volatile 

organic compounds, were detected in some laboratory method blanks at approximately the same 

concentration as some samples; therefore, these 

compounds were not listed as detections. 

Concentrations of constituents in sequentially collected, field-duplicate samples were 

evaluated with the relative percent difference 

(RPD)f

. In four pairs of duplicates, the RPD for 

physical properties, cations, anions, and trace 

elements was less than or equal to 10 percent, an 

indication of low natural variability of the sampled 

waters. (The RPD was greater than 10 percent for 

total lead and dissolved molybdenum in a pair 

of duplicates collected during high streamflow; 

however, the RPD was based on estimated concentrations less than 1.0 μg/L.) Matrix-spike duplicates 

had percent recoveries of spike constituents and

RPD between duplicates that were within established laboratory-control limits. These data indicate 

analytical results were not biased by interferences 

in the water samples. Constituents were not detected in the field blanks or trip blanks, which 

indicated cleaning of sampling equipment and 

sample storage did not bias the analytical results.

Chemical Analysis of Streambed-Sediment Samples

Seven streambed-sediment samples were 

collected at six monitoring sites inside of and 

downstream from the Impact Area in September 

2000. Samples were sieved to remove particles 

larger than 200 μm (fine sand) and dried before 

chemical analysis. Streambed sediment before processing was variable in particle-size distribution 

and ranged from 0.6 to 11.2 percent silt and clay, 

46.7 to 93.2 percent sand, and about 4.6 to 51.6 percent gravel (table 11). The largest proportion of 

fine-grained silt and clay particles were in samples 

from sites A1 and A4. Chemical analysis included 

trace elements, semivolatile organic compounds, 

and explosives. Quality-assurance data indicated 

the RPD between duplicate samples was less 

than 10 percent for all detected trace elements, 

with the exception of tin and vanadium. Small 

concentrations of five trace elements were detected 

in method blanks but were less than 1 percent of 

concentrations in the sediment samples. 

Explosives, target semivolatile organic compounds, and three trace elements (antimony, silver, 

and thallium) were not detected. Concentrations 

of 22 trace elements were detected (table 12). The 

largest concentrations of nine trace elements were 

measured in sediment samples from sites A2 and 

A4 (arsenic, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, potassium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc.) Indiana 

does not have regulatory standards for chemicals 

in streambed sediment. For comparison, concentrations of six of the nine trace elements in streambedsediment samples from the study area were compared with fresh-water-sediment-quality criteria 

for protection of aquatic life (Canadian Council 

of Ministers of the Environment, 1995 and 1999).

f

Relative percent difference is the difference of the two 

concentrations divided by the average of the sum of the concentrations, expressed as percent.
38 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 11. Physical properties of streambed-sediment samples collected at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000

a

Particle size 63 to 2,000 micrometers.

bParticle size greater than 2,000 micrometers.

c

Particle size less than 63 micrometers.

dPercent moisture determined for the processed sediment sample submitted for chemical analysis; other 

physical properties determined for the unprocessed sediment sample.

Table 12. Concentrations of trace elements detected in streambed-sediment samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, September 2000

[Concentrations in milligram per kilogram; < , not detected at less than reporting limit concentration; E, estimated concentration is less than reporting limit; concentrations of antimony, silver, and thallium were not detected in all samples]

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Percent 

sanda

Percent 

gravelb

Percent 

silt and clayc

Percent 

moistured

A1 80.4 13.5 6.1 11.0

A2 46.7 51.6 1.7 20.9

A3 92.2 6.8 1.0 18.6

A4 83.8 5.0 11.2 33.2

A5 80.6 18.8 .6 16.0

A10 93.2 4.6 2.2 23.2

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Calcium Chromium Cobalt

A1 2,010 2.0 11.0 0.28E 1.0E 2,730 5.4 3.4

A2 2,290 5.0 13.7 .27E 2.3E 42,300 6.8 2.8

A3 1,170 2.4 11.8 <.61 1.7E 47,900 3.5 1.6

A4 2,420 3.9 19.5 <.75 2.6E 64,200 5.1 2.3

A5 1,530 2.2 13.6 .18E 1.9 41,200 6.6 2.0

A10 1,170 3.8 13.8 <.65 <13 294 5.6 2.1

Monitoring 

site Copper Iron Lead

MagnesiumManganeseMolybdenum NickelPotassium

A1 2.1 5,000 2.4 2,190 92.5 <2.2 6.0 183E

A2 19 7,800 4.7 15,400 249 .65E 6.8 311E

A3 2.2E 4,410 2.7 15,100 150 .38E 3.9E 167E

A4 5.8 6,790 4.6 26,300 245 <3.0 5.4E 282E

A5 2.5 5,490 3.1 14,700 203 .49E 5.2 220E

A10 1.9E 5,380 2.9 227 318 <2.6 2.8E 95E

Monitoring 

site Selenium Sodium Tin Strontium Vanadium Zinc

Number 

detected

A1 <1.5 <562 0.56E 3.20 6.2 11.9 19

A2 <1.6 <632 .54E 30.5 8.4 15.2 20

A3 <1.6 <615 .55E 29.4 5.0 9.40 19

A4 <1.9 <1,748 <15 36.2 8.8 17.5 17

A5 .64E <595 .64E 26.7 7.7 10.9 21

A10 <1.7 165E <13 1.20E 8.1 6.70 17
Surface-Water Quality 39

These criteria are used by the USGS NAWQA 

Program for comparison of trace-element concentrations in streambed sediments. Concentrations 

of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc 

were less than 50 percent of the NAWQA criteria, 

except for arsenic and copper in the sample from 

site A2. In the sample from A2, arsenic was 

5.0 mg/kg, compared with a criteria of 5.9 mg/kg; 

copper was 19 mg/kg, compared with a criteria 

of 35.7 mg/kg. Criteria were not available for 16 

detected trace elements. 

The mean, median, minimum, and maximum 

concentrations for eight trace elements detected in 

the six streambed-sediment samples collected in the 

study area in September 2000 (table 13) were compared with streambed-sediment data for 18 sites 

sampled in 1992 throughout the White River Basin 

in Indiana (Rice, 1999) and for 33 sites sampled 

from 1994 through 1996 on the White River and its 

tributaries in the Indianapolis area (Voelker and 

Renn, 2000). These two sets of streambed-sediment 

data include rural and urban environments, forest 

and agricultural land use, and watersheds generally 

larger than most of those at Camp Atterbury. The 

comparison indicates that concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, 

and zinc in the study area were less than the concentrations throughout the White River Basin. The 

mean, median, and maximum concentrations of 

aluminum, arsenic, and iron in the study area were 

similar to the White River and its tributaries near 

Indianapolis; concentrations of chromium, copper, 

lead, nickel, and zinc were less than those from the 

White River and its tributaries near Indianapolis.

Chemical Analysis of Fish-Tissue Samples

Ten fish-tissue samples were collected 

from seven stream reaches and two lakes in October 

2000 (table 14, p. 41). Site A3 in the Impact Area is 

not listed in table 14 because the minimum number 

of fish from the target species were not collected. 

Whole-fish samples of creek chub (Semotilus 

atromaculatus) were obtained from four stream 

reaches. Fish-fillet samples of spotted bass

(Micropterus punctulatus) were obtained from 

three stream reaches. Fish-fillet samples of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were obtained 

from two lakes. At Puff Lake, two composite 

samples were prepared—one with seven small, 

immature fish; the other with two large, mature fish.

Nineteen trace elements were detected in 

the 10 fish-tissue samples (table 15, p. 42). Detections of aluminum in five samples and lead in four 

samples may be laboratory artifacts because 

the difference between sample concentrations 

and method-blank concentrations was less than 

50 percent. Explosives or semivolatile organic 

compounds were not detected. An exception was 

one semivolatile organic compound, the plasticizer 

di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, reported in five of the 

six fish-fillet samples. Concentrations in four 

of the six samples were estimated to be less than 

the 1.0-mg/L reporting limit; at least these four 

detections could be potential artifacts of sample 

preparation, but no data were available to confirm 

the source of the compound. 

Concentrations of the following eight trace 

elements were larger in whole-fish samples than in 

fish-fillet samples: barium, calcium, copper, iron, 

lead, manganese, strontium, and zinc (table 15). 

The difference may be because of the livers in 

whole-fish samples (trace elements tend to concentrate in the liver). Overall, the largest concentrations 

of barium, calcium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, strontium, and zinc were in fish-tissue 

samples from stream sites in the Impact Area (sites 

A2, A4, or A10). By comparison, the largest concentrations of aluminum, boron, copper, iron, lead, 

magnesium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc were in 

streambed-sediment samples (table 12) from sites 

A2 and A4 in the Impact Area. Fish-tissue samples 

from largemouth bass in Puff Lake (A9) appeared 

to have similar numbers and concentrations of trace 

elements, whether the samples were from small, 

immature fish or large, mature fish.

State or federal regulatory standards or 

assessment criteria were not available for the trace 

elements detected in the fish-tissue samples. Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(1993) lists “levels of concern” in shellfish for 
40 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 13. Comparative statistics for concentrations of selected trace elements detected in streambed-sediment 

samples collected at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, September 2000, and from the White River Basin, Indiana, 

1992 and 1994–96

[mg/kg, milligram per kilogram; 10,000 mg/kg is 1 percent; < , not detected at less than reporting-limit concentration]

a

Rice, 1999.

b

Voelker and Renn, 2000.

Location 

Comparative 

statistics

Aluminum 

(percent)

Arsenic 

(mg/kg)

Chromium 

(mg/kg)

Copper 

(mg/kg)

6 sites in Camp Atterbury Mean 0.18 3.2 5.5 5.6

Median .18 3.1 5.5 2.4

Minimum .12 2.0 3.5 1.9

Maximum .24 5.0 6.8 19

18 sites in White River Basina Mean 5.3 8.1 77 38

Median 5.3 7.9 56 25

Minimum 4.6 4.7 47 15

Maximum 5.7 11 270 120

33 sites on White River and

tributaries near Indianapolisb

Mean

Median

.18

.13

3.3

3.0

8.5

6.0

22

10

Minimum .01 2.0 1.0 10

Maximum .48 9.0 70 97

Location

Comparative 

statistics

Iron 

(percent)

Lead 

(mg/kg)

Nickel 

(mg/kg)

Zinc 

(mg/kg)

6 sites in Camp Atterbury Mean 0.58 3.4 5.0 12

Median .54 3.0 5.3 11

Minimum .44 2.4 2.8 6.7

Maximum .78 4.7 6.8 17

18 sites in White River Basina Mean 2.8 54 35 140

Median 2.8 29 29 100

Minimum 2.1 18 23 72

Maximum 3.2 280 77 360

33 sites on White River and

tributaries near Indianapolisb

Mean

Median

.56

.56

31

20

15

10

40

30

Minimum .04 <10 <10 5

Maximum 1.7 140 30 190
Surface-Water Quality 41

Table 14. Characteristics of fish-tissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, October 2000 

[Creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus; spotted bass, Micropterus punctulatus; largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides]

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) 

near 

stream reach

Sample 

location

Type 

of 

sample

Total weight 

of 

sample 

(grams)

Number 

of 

individuals 

 and 

species

Minimum 

total length 

(centimeters)

Maximum 

total length 

(centimeters)

A2 Prince Creek Whole fish 307 15 Creek chub 11.0 14.0

A4 Unnamed tributary Whole fish 303 9 Creek chub 12.6 16.8

A10 Muddy Branch Whole fish 313 10 Creek chub 13.2 17.5

B5 Lick Creek Whole fish 310 10 Creek chub 12.0 15.5

A1 Mud Creek Fish fillet 388 4 Spotted bass 26.9 29.8

A5 Nineveh Creek Fish fillet 311 4 Spotted bass 22.0 25.0

B4 Nineveh Creek Fish fillet 323 4 Spotted bass 19.2 33.7

A7 Duck Pond Fish fillet 339 6 Largemouth bass 21.1 30.1

A9 Puff Lake Fish fillet 238 7 Largemouth bass 17.0 24.6

A9 Puff Lake Fish fillet 289 2 Largemouth bass 32.2 34.4

three trace elements; concentrations in fishtissue samples were less than those three 

levels of concern—arsenic (86 mg/kg), cadmium 

(3.7 mg/kg), and lead (1.7 mg/kg).

Biological Quality

The data from the biological assessment 

are presented in this section and are compared 

with evaluative criteria. The data are from microbiological analyses in 2000 and 2001 and from 

fish-community inventories, benthic-macroinvertebrate inventories, and qualitative habitat evaluations 

in 2000. Interpretations of these data are in the 

Short-Term and Long-Term Conditions section of 

this report.

Microbiological Data

Typically, E. coli in water is direct evidence of the presence of fecal contamination from 

warm-blooded animals and indicates the possible

presence of pathogens. E. coli is one of the two preferred indicator bacteria used by the USEPA and 

IDEM to determine the suitability of surface water 

for recreational use. The Indiana water-quality 

standardg for full-body-contact recreational use 

requires the E. coli concentration to be less than 

the single-sample standard of 235 col/100 mL and 

less than the geometric mean of 125 col/100 mL 

computed from five samples collected within a 

30-day period.

As part of the base-wide assessment in 

September 2000, six stream-water samples were 

analyzed for E. coli, and four of the six samples 

exceeded the single-sample standard (table 16, 

p. 43). The presence of these fecal-indicator bacteria in water flowing into the study area (sites B1 

on Prince Creek and B2 on Nineveh Creek) and 

in water flowing out of the study area (sites B4 on 

Nineveh Creek and B5 on Lick Creek) prompted 

the E. coli monitoring during May and June 2001. 

gIndiana Water Pollution Control Board, 2001, 

subsection 327 IAC 2-1-6.
42 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 15. Concentrations of trace elements detected in fish-tissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

October 2000

[Concentrations in milligram per kilogram; < , not detected at less than reporting-limit concentration; E, estimated concentration is less than 

reporting limit; B, difference between sample concentration and laboratory method blank is less than 50 percent of the method-blank concentration 

(indicating sample concentration could be biased high)]

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Trace 

elements 

detecteda Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Calcium Cadmium Cobalt

Stream site 

(whole fish)

A2 12 <10 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 12,500 <0.5 <1.0

A4 13 4.0 E,B .38 E <1.0 1.5 4,650 <.5 <1.0

A10 13 4.1 E,B .47 E <1.0 2.2 12,700 <.5 <1.0

B5 13 5.6 E,B .42 E <1.0 1.4 8,660 <.5 <1.0

Stream site 

(fish fillet)

A1 11 <10 <1.0 <1.0 .18 E,B 1,310 <.5 <1.0

A5 14 3.8 E,B <1.0 .54 E .46 E 3,150 <.5 .49 E

B4 12 <10 <1.0 <1.0 .52 E 3,540 <.5 <1.0

Lake site 

(fish fillet)

A7 13 <10 <1.0 <1.0 .21 E 1,270 <.5 <1.0

A9 (smallb) 11 <10 .38 E <1.0 .18 E,B 1,390 .1 E <1.0

A9 (largeb) 12 3.7 E,B .58 E <1.0 .14 E,B 881 <.5 <1.0

Monitoring 

site Copper Iron Lead

MagnesiumManganesePotassium Sodium Selenium

Stream site 

(whole fish)

A2 1.7 E 14 0.25 E,B 439 4.5 2,850 964 0.63 E

A4 1.4 E 20 .32 E,B 316 2.3 2,970 895 .69 E

A10 1.3 E 17 .40 E,B 432 6.2 2,840 1,230 .68 E

B5 .95 E 24 E <.8 371 1.9 2,720 991 .51 E

Stream site 

(fish fillet)

A1 .42 E 3.4 <.8 283 .25 E 3,560 617 .76 E

A5 <2.0 6.6 E <.8 436 .49 E 3,730 772 .79 E

B4 .44 E 4.4 <.8 403 .33 E 3,830 775 .80 E

Lake site 

(fish fillet)

A7 <2.0 3.7 <.8 368 .47 E 3,510 725 1.0 E

A9 (smallb) .33 E <10 <.8 344 .36 E 4,070 627 <1.3

A9 (largeb) <2.0 4.5 E .34 E,B 328 .22 E 3,830 569 .50 E
Surface-Water Quality 43

Table 15. Concentrations of trace elements detected in fishtissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, October 2000—Continued

a

Number does not include trace elements with a 

B qualifier.

b

Lake site A9 fish fillets from small (immature) or large 

(mature) fish.

In May and June 2001, 100 samples from 20 

monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury were analyzed 

for E. coli. The number and location of monitoring 

sites and the 30-day sampling period were intended 

to examine a greater range of streamflow conditions 

and more stream reaches than were examined in 

September 2000. Four of the monitoring sites were 

at lakes that could be used by Camp Atterbury personnel for full-body-contact recreation. Each week 

in this 30-day period, five water-quality characteristicsh were determined at the 20 sites and instantaneous streamflow was measured at the 16 sites on 

streams. 

Table 16. Concentrations of Escherichia coli in water samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000 

[E. coli, Escherichia coli, concentration in colonies per 100 milliliters; 

concentrations in bold are greater than the single-sample Indiana 

water-quality standard for full-body-contact recreation (235 colonies 

per 100 milliliters)]

For quality assurance, 30 samples were analyzed along with the 80 stream and 20 lake samples. 

Quality-assurance data indicated the sterilization 

of sample bottles and sample-processing equipment was effective, the final rinses of filtering 

equipment were adequate, and the difference in 

concentrations of duplicate samples was small. 

The E. coli concentrations for each site for 

each week and the 30-day (five-sample) geometric 

mean are listed in table 17. The monitoring sites 

and the 30-day geometric-mean concentrations 

for samples collected at each site are shown in 

figure 14 (p. 45). None of the lake samples exceeded the Indiana single-sample standard. Each 

week, from 4 to 11 of the 16 stream samples 

exceeded the single-sample standard. The 30-day 

geometric-mean concentrations at all 16 monitoring sites on streams exceeded the Indiana standard 

for recreational use. The weekly E. coli concentrations, instantaneous-streamflow, and water-qualitycharacteristics data for these 16 sites are listed 

in appendix 5. 

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Strontium Tin Thallium Zinc

Stream site 

(whole fish)

A2 14 1.2 E <1.2 23

A4 3.2 1.4 E <1.2 21

A10 9.3 1.5 E <1.2 27

B5 5.7 1.0 E <1.2 23

Stream site 

(fish fillet)

A1 .91 1.0 E <1.2 8.5

A5 4.7 .92 E <1.2 9.4

B4 4.8 .79 E <1.2 12

Lake site 

(fish fillet)

A7 3.2 .71 E .46 E 10

A9 (smallb) .89 E 1.3 E <1.2 12

A9 (largeb) .57 E 1.4 E <1.2 6.4

h

pH, specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, and turbidity.

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Watershed 

and 

location

E. coli 

concentration

B1 Prince Creek, upstream 640

B2 Nineveh Creek, upstream 390

B3 Mud Creek, Saddle Creek 110

B4 Nineveh Creek, downstream 280

B5 Lick Creek, downstream 270

B6 Catherine Creek, downstream 100
44 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 17. Concentrations of Escherichia coli in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 

through June 14, 2001

[E. coli, Escherichia coli, concentrations in colonies per 100 milliliters; concentrations in bold are greater than the single-sample Indiana waterquality standard for full-body-contact recreation (235 colonies per 100 milliliters); concentrations in underlined bold italics are greater than the 

30-day (five-sample) geometric mean Indiana water-quality standard for full-body-contact recreation (125 colonies per 100 milliliters)]

E. coli concentrations in single weekly samples 

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Watershed 

and 

location

May 14 

through 

May 17

May 21 

through 

May 24

May 29 

through 

June 1

June 4 

through 

June 7

June 11 

through 

June 14

30-day 

geometric 

meana

a

The 30-day (five-sample) geometric mean was calculated with the equation

 

where,

GM is the geometric mean, and

Si is the concentration of E. coli measured in each of the five samples.

E1 Prince Creek, Hants Lake 215 470 143 530 188 268

E2 Prince Creek, East Lake 480 380 93 1,400 68 276

E3 Mud Creek, upstream 490 2,650 93 230 200 353

E4 Nineveh Creek tributary 90 360 72 500 1,100 264

E5 Nineveh Creek 67 147 41 1,233 117 143

E6 Nineveh Creek tributary 203 172 967 2,000 500 505

E7 Nineveh Creek tributary 21 170 440 866 670 247

B1 Prince Creek, upstream 187 210 123 477 200 215

B2 Nineveh Creek, upstream 153 240 250 2,767 610 434

B3 Mud Creek, Saddle Creek 900 2,225 43 70 100 226

B4 Nineveh Creek, downstream 54 170 110 2,325 82 180

B5 Lick Creek, downstream 200 862 400 110 110 211

A4 Nineveh Creek tributary 122 132 73 2,225 210 221

A5 Nineveh Creek, downstream 137 230 132 177 180 168

A6 Mud Creek, upstream 510 5,500 100 28 240 285

A10 Muddy Branch, downstream 128 147 113 1,800 120 215

E8 Puff Lake Foxfire Cabin 1b

b

Concentration of zero was adjusted to 1 for calculation of 30-day geometric mean.

4 77 4 4 6

E9 Puff Lake boat ramp 6.7 2 12 3 3 5

E10 New Lake 12 16 1b 140 1b 30

E11 Engineer Pond 3 10 3 10 1b 6

GM S1 × S2 × S3 × S4 × S5 = 5
Surface-Water Quality 45

Camp Atterbury study area

Stream

Road

EXPLANATION

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16,

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

B1

B3

B4

B5

A4

A5

A6

A10

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E9

E10

E11

Lick Creek

Mud Creek

Prince Creek

Nineveh Creek

Muddy Branch

Saddle Creek

Engineer Pond

New Lake

Puff Lake

Common Impact Area

39 17 30

39 20

86 05 86

B1 Monitoring site on stream and identifier

 with 30-day geometric mean 

 Escherichia coli concentration

 (bold number in white box)

E8 Monitoring site on lake and 

 with 30-day geometric mean 

 Escherichia coli concentration

 (bold number in white box)

215

6

226

353

285

276

268

215

6

5

211

215

168

180

221

6

30

247

505

434

264

143

B2

E8

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Lake or pond

Duck Pond

Figure 14. Monitoring sites and 30-day geometric mean Escherichia coli concentrations in water samples collected at 

Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 through June 14, 2001.

Among the 80 water samples collected from 

streams during May and June 2001, the E. coli concentrations ranged from 21 to 5,500 col/100 mL. 

The boxplot of the distribution of the concentrations 

(fig. 15) shows that the median concentration was 

195 col/100 mL. As the boxplot indicates, the 

data distribution was skewed, with half of the data 

values between 195 and 5,500 col/100 mL and half 

between 21 and 195 col/100 mL.

The stream data were grouped and statistical analysis was done to determine if the E. coli

concentrations were related to instantaneous 

streamflow, specific conductance (a measure of 

dissolved solids), or turbidity (a measure of suspended solids). Data for the 16 stream samples 

from each of the 5 weeks were statistically analyzed, as were the data for all 80 water samples 

from streams. Kendall’s Tau correlation coefficients 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995, p. 212) were calculated 

to determine the significance of these potential relations. Kendall’s Tau is a rank-based procedure that 

is resistant to outliers and measures linear and nonlinear correlations, even for small sample sizes. 

At the 5-percent level of significance (α=0.05), 

E. coli concentration and instantaneous streamflow 

were not related for each of the 5 weeks and for 

the 80 stream samples. At the 5-percent level of 

significance, E. coli concentration and specific
46 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Figure 15. Boxplot of Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentrations in water samples collected from 16 monitoring sites on 

streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 through June 14, 2001.

conductance were not related for the 80 stream 

samples. During 2 of the 5 weeks, E. coli concentration increased as specific conductance decreased 

(p = 0.01)i. A statistically significant correlation 

was shown between E. coli concentration and turbidity for the 80 stream samples (p = 0.0005), 

whereby increased turbidity indicated increased 

E. coli. A similar correlation between E. coli

concentration and turbidity (p = 0.001) has been 

reported for the Wabash, Kankakee, and Ohio River 

Watersheds in Indiana in 1998, 1999, and 2000 

(Silcox and others, 2002). 

Fish-Community Inventories

During October 2000, USGS personnel electroshocked nine stream reaches at Camp Atterbury, 

using the technique described in the Study Methods

section of this report. During September 2000, personnel from the Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish and Wildlife 

and the Camp Atterbury Land Conditions Trends 

Analysis Office electroshocked a stream reach near 

site A10, using a similar but undocumented technique. The data for the reach near site A10 are 

included in this report but may not be completely 

comparable to the other nine reaches because of the 

differences in techniques. The number and weight 

of fish by species for the 10 stream reaches are listed 

in appendix 6. 

Among the 10 reaches electroshocked in 

September and October 2000, 45 fish species were 

collected, representing 10 families (table 18), ranging from 10 to 25 species per reach (table 19). 

The total number of individuals at the nine USGS 

electroshocked reaches ranged from 88 to 771, and 

the total weight of individuals ranged from 371 

to 5,322 grams. At site A10, 45 individuals were 

reported. The fewest species, number of individuals, or lowest total weight were in reaches near sites 

B3 and A10.

i

The p-value is the significance level attained by the data 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995, p. 108). The smaller the p-value, 

the more likely there is a correlation between E. coli concentration and the other variable, such as specific conductance or 

turbidity.
Surface-Water Quality 47

Table 18. Species identified during fish-community inventories at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September and 

October 2000 

Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name 

Atherinidae

Labidesthes sicculus

Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni

Erimyzon oblongus

Hypentelium nigricans

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma duquesnei

Moxostoma erythrurum

Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Centrarchidae

Ambloplites rupestris

Lepomis cyanellus

Lepomis gibbosus

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis megalotis

Lepomis microlophus

Micropterus dolomieu

Micropterus punctulatus

Micropterus salmoides

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Cottidae

Cottus bairdi

Cyprinidae

Campostoma anomalum

Cyprinella spiloptera

Cyprinella whipplei

Luxilus chrysocephalus

Silversides

Brook silverside

Suckers

White sucker

Creek chubsucker

Northern hog sucker

Spotted sucker

Black redhorse

Golden redhorse

Shorthead redhorse

Sunfishes

Rock bass

Green sunfish

Pumpkinseed

Bluegill

Longear sunfish

Redear sunfish

Smallmouth bass

Spotted bass

Largemouth bass

Black crappie

Sculpins

Mottled sculpin

Carps and minnows

Central stoneroller

Spotfin shiner

Steelcolor shiner

Striped shiner

Cyprinidae—Continued

Lythrurus umbratilis

Notropis atherinoides

Notropis boops

Notropis buccatus

Notropis photogenis

Notropis stramineus

Phenacobius mirabilis

Pimephales notatus

Pimephales promelas

Rhinichthys atratulus

Semotilus atromaculatus

Esocidae

Esox americanus vermiculatus

Fundulidae

Fundulus catenatus

Ictaluridae

Ameiurus natalis

Percidae

Etheostoma blennioides

Etheostoma nigrum

Etheostoma spectabile

Percina caprodes

Percina maculata

Percina sciera

Petromyzontidae

Lampetra appendix

Carps and minnows—Continued

Redfin shiner

Emerald shiner

Bigeye shiner

Silverjaw minnow

Silver shiner

Sand shiner

Suckermouth minnow

Bluntnose minnow

Fathead minnow

Blacknose dace

Creek chub

Pikes

Grass pickerel

Topminnows

Northern studfish

Bullhead catfishes

Yellow bullhead

Perches

Greenside darter

Johnny darter

Orangethroat darter

Logperch

Blackside darter

Dusky darter

Lampreys

American brook lamprey
48 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 19. Summary of fish-community inventories at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000

a

Fish-community-inventory data from September 2000 provided by personnel from Camp Atterbury Land Conditions Trends Analysis 

Office.

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) 

near 

stream reach 

Date 

of 

inventory 

Method 

of 

electroshocking 

and 

time 

(seconds) 

Length 

of 

stream reach 

inventoried 

(feet) 

Number 

of 

species 

Number 

of 

individuals 

Total weight 

of 

individuals 

(grams) 

B1 October 3 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 1,123; (2nd) 865

450 15 430 3,717

B2 October 3 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 1,166; (2nd) 719

430 15 320 2,341

B3 October 2 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 952; (2nd) 758

484 10 88 371

B4 October 23 Barge, 2 passes

(1st) 1,496; (2nd) 1,247

900 23 240 1,541

B5 October 10 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 1,168; (2nd) 1,440

550 13 133 940

B6 October 25 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 1,431; (2nd) 690

675 22 771 4,635

A4 October 4 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 1,311; (2nd) 747

481 17 442 2,557

A5 October 16 Barge, 2 passes

(1st) 1,886; (2nd) 1,280

635 25 559 5,322

A6 October 2 Backpack, 2 passes

(1st) 844; (2nd) 669

408 13 223 626

A10a September 18 Backpack, 1 pass

no information

450 10 45 729

The most frequently collected fish were in 

the family Cyprinidae (carps and minnows), representing 75 percent of all individuals. The top five 

species based on number of individuals, in order, 

were bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), 

central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), 

spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), creek chub 

(Semotilus atromaculatus), and steelcolor shiner

(Cyprinella whipplei). A single specimen of eight 

species was collected—spotted sucker (Minytrema 

melanops), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), 

pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), silver shiner (Notropis 

photogenis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), and 

fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). One 

species that was collected, the northern studfish 

(Fundulus catenatus), is listed as a species of concern in Indiana (Dufour, 2000).

The fish-community integrity near the 

monitoring sites was described by eight measures, 

including species presence and abundance (appendix 6); species composition, trophic composition, 

and fish condition (the Index of Biotic Integrity or 

IBI); and species diversity, biomass, and numbers 

of individuals (the Modified Index of Well-Being 

or MIWB). Calculations of the IBI and MIWB 

are described in the Study Methods section of this 

report.
Surface-Water Quality 49

The IBI and MIWB scores were ranked in 

a fish-community-integrity class by use of the 

scale in table 20. The IBI and QHEI scores also 

were compared with criteria used by IDEM for 

evaluating whether the scores fit categories of 

“full support,” “partial support,” or “no support” 

(table 21, p. 51) for the aquatic-life use of the Indiana water-quality standards. Evaluative criteria 

for the MIWB were not available from IDEM.

Fish-community integrity based on the IBI 

classification was fair or good near 8 of the 10 monitoring sites; it was exceptional near 9 sites, based 

on the MIWB. The fish-community integrity near 

sites A10 and B3 indicated potential concern. 

Site A10 was not supporting the aquatic-life use 

because the IBI of 28 was less than the IDEM criteria; the IBI class was poor and the MIWB class 

was good. (The lowest MIWB for all of the sites 

was calculated for site A10.) The QHEI for site 

A10 was 67 (fully supporting the aquatic-life use), 

indicating that stream habitat probably did not 

contribute to the low IBI and MIWB. Site B3 with 

an IBI of 34 was rated as partially supporting the 

aquatic-life use, according to the IDEM criteria. 

The IBI class for site B3 was poor, but the MIWB 

was exceptional. The QHEI score for site B3 was 

70, fully supporting the aquatic-life use. 

At least four explanations are possible for 

the poor IBI class near site A10. (1) The different 

sampling technique used by IDNR personnel for 

site A10 (for example, one electroshocking pass 

instead of two) may have contributed to the low 

IBI because fewer fish were collected. (2) The 

upstream drainage area near site A10 (2.23 mi2

, 

table 2) was the smallest of the 10 reaches in the 

fish-community inventory. (3) The reach near site 

A10 was on Muddy Branch downstream from the 

Impact Area; activities in the Impact Area potentially could have affected the fish community. 

(4) The sampling reach was downstream from Puff 

Lake, which had a break in the lake spillway during 

1999, according to Camp Atterbury personnel. During the excessive flow that partially drained Puff 

Lake during the spillway break, Camp Atterbury 

personnel observed predator fish such as largemouth bass from Puff Lake being washed into 

Muddy Branch (Art Howard, Camp Atterbury Land 

Conditions Trends Analysis manager, 2000, oral 

commun.).

At least two explanations are possible for 

the poor IBI class near site B3 on Saddle Creek. 

(1) The upstream drainage area (2.95 mi2, table 2) 

was the second smallest of the 10 reaches in the 

fish-community inventory. (2) Reaches of Saddle 

Creek upstream from site B3 were dry during 

September and October 2000. No precipitation was 

recorded at Columbus or Franklin, Ind., (Purdue 

Applied Meteorology Group, 2001) on the dates 

in October when fish-community inventories were 

done. The dry reaches potentially isolated some fish 

in pools that could have been in the inventory.

The fish-community inventories from 10 

reaches at Camp Atterbury in October 2000 were 

compared with the IDEM fish-community assessment for 32 reaches in the East Fork White River 

Basin in 1997 (Dufour, 2000). The East Fork White 

River data were for 19 headwater reaches (59 percent), 9 wadeable reaches (28 percent), and 4 large 

river reaches; the Camp Atterbury data were for 

8 headwater reaches (80 percent) and 2 wadeable 

reaches (20 percent). Six of the IDEM reaches were 

in the Driftwood River Basin. 

Fish from 9 of the 15 families and 40 of the 

84 species listed by IDEM were collected at Camp 

Atterbury. At Camp Atterbury, the family Cyprinidae (carps and minnows) numerically dominated 

the fish communities (75 percent of the individuals) 

as it did in the East Fork White River Basin (60 percent of the individuals).

Of the 45 species identified at Camp Atterbury (table 18), 5 were not listed in the IDEM 

assessment—brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), silver 

shiner (Notropis photogenis), blackside darter 

(Percina maculata), and American brook lamprey 

(Lampetra appendix). A single specimen of the 

pumpkinseed and silver shiner was collected at 

Camp Atterbury. Of the five fish species identified 

by IDEM in the East Fork White River Basin that 

were considered to be rare, endangered, or of special concern in Indiana, only one of these species 

was identified at Camp Atterbury—the northern 

studfish (Fundulus catenatus), considered a species 

of special concern. 
50 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 20. Fish-community-integrity classes and attributes for Index of Biotic Integrity and Modified Index of Well-Being scores

[IBI, Index of Biotic Integrity (Simon and Dufour, 1998); MIWB, Modified Index of Well-Being (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987);

> , greater than; < , less than]

a

Ranges of scores do not include all values, based on table in Simon and Dufour (1998).

Index

Range

of 

scoresa

Communityintegrity 

class Fish-community attributes

IBI 58 –60 Excellent No human disturbance; most pollution-intolerant species; full array of age classes; 

balanced trophic structure

48 –52 Good Loss of most pollution-intolerant species; less than optimal species abundance and age 

classes; trophic structure stressed

40 –44 Fair Loss of pollution-intolerant species; fewer species; fewer older top predators; skewed 

trophic structure

28 –34 Poor Dominated by omnivores, tolerant species, and habitat generalist; depressed growth 

rates; more hybrids and diseased fish 

12 –22 Very Poor Few fish; mostly introduced and tolerant species; deformities, diseases, parasites, 

fin damage common

MIWB >9.4 Excellent Unusual assemblage of species; sensitive species abundant; exceptional species 

richness; species with endangered, threatened, or special concern status present

 8.6– 9.4 Good Usual association of expected species; sensitive species present; high species richness

 6.4– 8.5 Fair Some expected species absent or in low abundance; sensitive species absent or in 

low abundance; declining species richness; tolerant species beginning to dominate

 5.0– 6.3 Poor Many expected species absent or in low abundance; sensitive species absent; low 

species richness; tolerant species predominate

<5.0 Very Poor Most expected species absent; only most-tolerant species remain; very low species 

richness; community organization lacking

The mean IBI for the 10 reaches at Camp 

Atterbury (table 21) was 39 (fair), with a range from 

28 (poor) to 46 (good). In the East Fork White River 

Basin (Dufour, 2000), the mean IBI was 37 (fair) 

and ranged from 12 (very poor) to 54 (excellent). 

These data indicate that the fish communities at 

Camp Atterbury generally are typical of the larger 

East Fork White River Basin. Habitat at Camp 

Atterbury based on QHEI ranged from 57 to 84 

(table 21), with a mean of 72. In the East Fork 

White River, QHEI ranged from 39 to 83 with a 

mean of 57. These data indicate that stream habitat 

at Camp Atterbury generally was better than in the 

larger basin but the health of the fish communities 

was not better, based on similar mean IBI scores.

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate-Community Inventories

Benthic macroinvertebrates are animals that 

live on or in the streambed sediments and on plants, 

algae, and woody debris of aquatic habitats such as 

streams and lakes. These animals include aquatic 

insects, segmented worms, flatworms, snails, 

clams, and crustaceans. Benthic macroinvertebrates 

frequently are used in water-quality studies to rank 

aquatic habitats according to their biological health 

(Hilsenhoff, 1977 and 1987). Biologists divide animals into taxa, from largest to smallest—phylum, 

class, order, family, genus, and species. 

Some taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates 

identified in samples collected from stream reaches
Surface-Water Quality 51

Table 21. Numerical indexes for fish-community inventories and habitat evaluations at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September and October 2000

[IBI, Index of Biotic Integrity; MIWB, Modified Index of Well-Being; QHEI, Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index]

a

Scoring method and community-integrity class from Simon and Dufour (1998); see table 20 in this report.

b

Criteria for support of aquatic-life use in Indiana water-quality standards from Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

(2000). c

Scoring method based on Gammon (1976) as modified in Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1987), with community-integrity 

class from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1987, p. 8–13). d

Scoring method from Rankin (1989).

e

Fish-community-inventory data from September 2000 provided by personnel from Camp Atterbury Land Conditions Trends Analysis 

Office.

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Index of Biotic Integrity, 

community-integrity classa,

and Indiana criteriab

Modified 

Index of Well-Beingc 

and community-integrity class

Qualitative 

Habitat Evaluation Indexd 

and Indiana criteriab

IBI Class Criteria MIWB Class QHEI Criteria

B1 38 Fair Full support 11.6 Exceptional 84 Full support

B2 40 Fair Full support 11.4 Exceptional 78 Full support

B3 34 Poor Partial support 9.6 Exceptional 70 Full support

B4 46 Good Full support 10.6 Exceptional 66 Full support

B5 38 Fair Full support 10.8 Exceptional 57 Partial support

B6 46 Good Full support 12.4 Exceptional 75 Full support

A4 38 Fair Full support 11.8 Exceptional 74 Full support

A5 46 Good Full support 12.2 Exceptional 80 Full support

A6 36 Fair Full support 10.8 Exceptional 71 Full support

A10e 28 Poor No support 8.7 Good 67 Full support

Mean 39 Fair Full support 11.0 Exceptional 72 Full support

at Camp Atterbury in September 2000, with their 

formal and common names by phylum, class, and 

order, listed by general class abundance, include

Phylum Arthropoda (arthropods)

Class Insecta (insects)

Order Coleoptera (beetles)

Diptera (flies, midges, 

mosquitoes)

Ephemeroptera 

(mayflies)

Megaloptera (alderflies, 

dobsonflies, fishflies)

Odonata (dragonflies, 

damselflies)

Plecoptera (stoneflies)

Tricoptera (caddisflies)

Class Arachnida (ticks, mites)

Amphipoda (scuds, 

sideswimmers)

Decapoda (crayfishes)

Isopoda (sow bugs)

Phylum Annelida (segmented worms)

Class Oligochaeta (earthworms)

Hirudinea (leeches)

Phylum Nematoda (roundworms)

Platyhelminthes (flatworms)

Phylum Mollusca (mollusks)

Class Bivalvia (clams, mussels)

Gastropoda (snails)

The total number of organisms and total number of taxa in samples from reaches near monitoring 

sites are listed in table 22. The largest total numbers 

of organisms were collected from Nineveh Creek 
52 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Table 22. Benthic-macroinvertebrate-community inventories at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000

[HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; EPT, insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera]

a

Total number of organisms collected in 3 square feet of richest targeted habitat.

b

Scores were at limit of range for rating (table 23).

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) 

near 

stream reach

Total number 

of 

organismsa

Total 

number 

of 

taxa

Hilsenhoff 

Biotic Index

Water-qualityevaluation 

rating 

for 

HBI

EPT 

Richness 

Index

A1 3,164 62 5.75 Fair 10

A2 2,116 57 6.09 Fair 10

A3 3,114 45 5.81 Fair 6

A4 1,841 68 5.19 Good 11

A5 13,573 36 5.83 Fair 7

A6 742 53 5.50 Goodb 7

A10 1,237 57 4.93 Good 8

B1 1,453 46 5.51 Fairb 7

B2 17,149 55 5.69 Fair 7

B3 1,169 53 4.61 Good 8

B4 2,424 55 6.08 Fair 8

B5 2,041 51 5.32 Good 8

B6 1,112 54 5.30 Good 7

in wide riffle areas with many large cobbles (sites 

B2 and site A5). The largest number of taxa (68) 

was collected near site A4 on the unnamed tributary 

to Nineveh Creek, whereas the smallest number 

of taxa (36) was collected near site A5 on Nineveh 

Creek. These data also are compared graphically in 

figure 16 (page 54). 

In September 2000, a total of 127 unique taxa 

were found (unpublished data, U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2001). Of these 127 taxa, 27 were found in 

1 reach only, and these single occurrences were 

in 12 of the 13 reaches. Of the 27 taxa with single 

occurrences, 19 were insects (10 of which were the 

pollution-intolerant members of Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and Trichoptera). In contrast, 10 of 

the 127 taxa were found at more than 10 reaches; 

8 taxa were insects; 6 of these were Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) for each 

stream reach near a monitoring site, along with a 

water-quality-evaluation rating, is listed in table 22. 

The degrees of organic contamination based on 

the abundance of pollution-tolerant and pollutionintolerant macroinvertebrate species (HBI scores) 

are explained in table 23. Pollution-tolerance 

values obtained from the literature were used for 

calculating the HBI for arthropods in the samples. 

Generally, less than eight taxa were counted in 

a sample for which a tolerance value was not 

available. 

Other numeric indexes, such as diversity or 

similarity indexes, were available for comparing 

benthic-macroinvertebrate inventories among 

samples. A previous evaluation of 12 numeric 

indexes for data from the White River in Indianapolis by Lydy and others (2000) determined that the 
Surface-Water Quality 53

Table 23. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index score ranges and water-quality-evaluation ratings

a

Hilsenhoff (1987) presented the score ranges, ratings, and “degree of organic contamination” descriptions. 

bThe word used to define the degree of organic contamination has been made consistent with descriptions 

used in the text.

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 

score rangea

Water-quality-evaluation 

ratinga

Degree of 

organic contamination

0.00 – 3.50 Excellent Not apparent

3.51 – 4.50 Very good Slightb

4.51 – 5.50 Good Minimalb

5.51 – 6.50 Fair Moderateb

6.51 – 7.50 Fairly poor Appreciableb

7.51 – 8.50 Poor Severeb

8.51 – 10.00 Very poor Very severeb

HBI was the most accurate for ranking water 

quality and the EPT Richness Index was the most 

descriptive for analyzing differences in water quality. The HBI scores and EPT Richness Index values 

for the stream reaches near monitoring sites in the 

study area are compared in figure 16.

For Camp Atterbury in September 2000, the 

HBI scores ranked water quality as good (minimal 

organic contamination) in six stream reaches and 

fair (moderate organic contamination) in seven 

stream reaches (tables 22 and 23). Inside the Impact 

Area, sites A1, A2, and A3 were rated fair for water 

quality based on the HBI (5.75 to 6.09). Site A3 had 

the lowest EPT Richness Index (6) and had the second fewest taxa (45). Downstream from the Impact 

Area, sites A5 and B4 were rated fair for water 

quality based on the HBI (5.83 and 6.08) and had 

the second and third lowest EPT scores (7 and 8); 

site A5 had the fewest number of taxa (36).

Qualitative Habitat Evaluations

The QHEI scores for 13 monitoring sites on 

streams at Camp Atterbury where chemical and biological assessments of water quality were made are

presented in table 24 (p. 55). Individual metric 

scores and maximum scores allowed by the QHEI 

method are included for comparison. 

Generally, the scores for the substrate, 

instream-cover, and channel-morphology metrics 

were more variable and had the most effect on the 

total QHEI score. Site A1 scored lowest on these 

metrics. Near-maximum scores or maximum scores 

were given for instream cover, channel morphology, 

and gradient/drainage area at many sites.

Criteria (Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 2000) for ranges of QHEI scores 

applied to Indiana water-quality standards are

more than 64—fully supporting 

aquatic-life use;

51 to 64—partially supporting 

aquatic-life use;

less than 51—not supporting 

aquatic-life use.

Among the monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury 

evaluated in September 2000, site A1 in the Impact 

Area ranked the lowest with a QHEI of 45, not 

supporting aquatic-life use; site B5 on Lick Creek 

ranked second lowest with a score of 57, partially 

supporting aquatic-life use. Indexes for the other 

monitoring sites ranged from 64 to 84, fully supporting aquatic-life use.
54 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Figure 16. Number of taxa and two numerical indexes for benthic-macroinvertebrate-community inventories 

at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000.
Surface-Water Quality 55

Table 24. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) metrics and scores at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 

QHEI individual metrics

Monitoring site 

(figure 7)

Total 

QHEI 

score Substrate

Instream 

cover

Channel 

morphology

Riparian 

zone

Pool 

quality

Riffle 

quality

Gradient/

drainage 

area

B1 84 13 19 19 9 8 6 10

B2 78 16 13 17 9 7 6 10

B3 70 11 16 10 9 9 7 8

B4 66 10 15 15 9 7 4 6

B5 57 5 11 18 10 5 2 6

B6 75 9 19 18 9 9 5 6

A1 45 3 4 7 8 9 4 10

A2 70 14 11 16 10 4 5 10

A3 64 8 12 18 6 7 3 10

A4 74 9 20 18 9 7 5 6

A5 80 14 18 18 7 7 6 10

A6 71 12 13 14 9 6 7 10

A10 67 7 19 15 9 7 4 6

Maximum 

possible score 100 20 20 20 10 12 8 10

Short-Term and Long-Term Conditions

Base-wide water quality of the study area 

generally is good in the short term (weeks), except 

for the presence of fecal-indicator bacteria. Sources 

of the bacteria are upstream from and inside the 

study area, based on the presence of chemical tracers for human sewage. Long-term (years) water 

quality in the Impact Area may have been affected 

by military training that increased trace-element 

concentrations in sediment and fish and reduced 

water-quality ratings based on fish and benthicmacroinvertebrate communities.

Base-Wide Water Quality

Water flowing into Camp Atterbury in Nineveh Creek, Prince Creek, Mud Creek, and Saddle 

Creek was shown to contain small concentrations 

of the herbicides prometon and metolachlor, 

concentrations of E. coli greater than the Indiana 

water-quality standards, dissolved inorganic 

constituents, and suspended sediment. Causes outside the study area may have contributed to fewer 

pollution-intolerant species of fish and benthic 

macroinvertebrates at monitoring sites on Prince 

Creek and Saddle Creek near the upstream boundary of Camp Atterbury. Potential sources of human 

sewage that caused bacteria contamination of an 

unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek were a leaking 

sewer near the upstream boundary of the study area 

and a sewer overflow farther downstream.

Water flowing out of Camp Atterbury in 

Nineveh Creek, Muddy Branch, and Lick Creek was 

shown to contain E. coli concentrations greater than 

the Indiana water-quality standard. The sources
56 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

of bacterial contamination were not identified, but 

the headwaters for Muddy Branch and Lick Creek 

are within Camp Atterbury. Effects on the receiving 

stream, Driftwood River, were not measured in this 

study. Because of fecal-indicator bacteria concentrations, IDEM (2000) rated the Driftwood River as 

partially supporting recreational use.

A potential is present for small amounts of 

lead to be transported in water flowing out of 

Camp Atterbury, probably during highj streamflow. 

Small concentrations of dissolved lead and total 

lead were measured in samples from Nineveh 

Creek, an unnamed tributary to Nineveh Creek, 

Muddy Branch, and Lick Creek at sites inside of 

and downstream from the Impact Area. More 

of the total lead detections were in samples collected during high streamflow. At site B5 on Lick 

Creek, total lead concentrations increased from 

0.56 μg/L during lowj

 streamflow to 2.0 μg/L 

during high streamflow (appendix 4). The 2.0-μg/L 

total lead concentration in the site B5 sample 

exceeded the calculated Indiana water-quality 

standard for lead (1.4 μg/L); total-lead detections at 

other sites did not exceed the calculated standard.

Many constituents associated with military 

training, such as explosives, were not detected in 

water samples from the study area during low- or 

high-streamflow conditions. Concentrations of 

inorganic chemical constituents (major ions, nutrients, and trace elements) were less than the Indiana 

water-quality standards.

Microbiological Contamination

The use of chemical tracers to investigate 

bacterial contamination for at least three states 

has been reported by USGS scientists (for example, 

Frick and Gregory, 2000; Gill and Journey, 2000; 

and Schumaker and others, 2000) and in a nationwide study (Barnes and others, 2002). Nationwide, 

at least 1 of 95 organic wastewater contaminants 

such as pharmaceuticals, hormones, detergent

metabolites, and other household chemicals have 

been found in 80 percent of the streams sampled by 

the USGS downstream from areas of intense urbanization and animal production (Barnes and others, 

2002). Consequently, the presence of these chemicals in water samples contaminated by E. coli

fecal-indicator bacteria can indicate human or 

animal waste, or both, as the probable source of the 

bacteria. The specific chemicals detected can serve 

as tracers of the wastewater source of the bacteria.

In this study, 66 wastewater tracers were 

analyzed in 23 of the 80 stream-water samples 

collected in May and June 2001 throughout the 

study area. In these 23 samples, seven wastewater 

tracers were detected two or more times (table 25). 

The most-frequently detected tracers were the 

agricultural herbicides prometon and metolachlor. 

Detections of four tracers (beta-sitosterol, caffeine, 

cholesterol, or phenol) provided a limited indication that some human sewage might have been 

present in the samples. Chemicals most indicative 

of human sewage, however, were not detected in 

samples from the study area—triclosan (an antimicrobial disinfectant), tri 2-chloroethyl phosphate 

(a fire retardant), and 4-nonylphenol (a nonanionic 

detergent metabolite). These three tracers were 

detected in more than half the streams in the U.S. 

(Barnes and others, 2002).

Sample sites were grouped by watershed to 

compare E. coli concentrations and detections of 

wastewater tracers (fig. 17, p. 58). Nine of the 17 

water samples with E. coli concentrations greater 

than the single-sample standard of 235 col/100 mL 

that were tested for wastewater tracers had detections of beta-sitosterol, caffeine, cholesterol, or 

phenol (indicated by red symbols on fig. 17). These 

four wastewater tracers were detected in four samples from a tributary of Nineveh Creek (sites E6 

and E7; E. coli concentrations ranged from 203 to 

967 col/100 mL. According to the Camp Atterbury 

sewer-system maps, a sewer crosses the unnamed 

tributary upstream from site E6. A sewer overflow 

was observed upstream from site E7. These indicate 

potential sources of human sewage may have 

contributed to E. coli concentrations as large as

j

“High” streamflow during July 2001 was more than 

3 ft3/s/mi2; “low” streamflow during September 2000 was less 

than 0. ft3/s/mi2

. See the discussion in the Streamflow Conditions section of this report, p. 29.
Surface-Water Quality 57

Table 25. Wastewater tracers detected in water samples collected from 13 monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 through June 14, 2001 

[μg/L, microgram per liter; PAH, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon] 

Wastewater 

tracer

Number 

of 

detections Description/use

Indicator 

of 

human sewage

Range 

of 

 concentrations 

(μg/L)

Beta-sitosterol 5 Plant sterol; fecal indicator Probable 0.58–1.0

Caffeine 1 Stimulant; beverages Yes .13

Cholesterol 5 Plant sterol; fecal indicator Probable .53–1.1

Diazinon 1 Insecticide; common non-agricultural use No .05

Fluoranthene 3 PAH; in coal tar and asphalt No .05– .93

Metolachlor 10 Herbicide; mostly agricultural use No .01– .27

Phenol 5 Acid; disinfectant, antiseptic Yes .22– .59

Prometon 11 Herbicide; common non-agricultural use No .01– .08

Pyrene 2 PAH; in coal tar and asphalt No .15– .62

2,000 col/100 mL in samples from this tributary, 

including samples that were not tested for wastewater tracers. The tracers beta-sitosterol, cholesterol, or phenol were detected in samples from sites 

E2, A6, B3, E5, and B4 (fig. 17) and from sites B5 

on Lick Creek and A10 on Muddy Branch. For 

these seven sites, the number of samples analyzed 

and the number and type of wastewater tracers 

detected did not provide consistent indications of 

the source of the E. coli concentrations.

As previously discussed in the section, 

Microbiological Data, increased turbidity was an 

indicator for increased E. coli concentrations in 

samples from the study area. Turbidity comes from 

suspended silt, clay, fine organic and inorganic 

matter, plankton, and microbiological organisms. 

Overland runoff from precipitation can transport 

some of the particles that contribute to turbidity. 

Although turbidity does not explain the source(s) 

for increased E. coli concentrations in study-area 

streams in 2001, it may be useful as an indicator 

of potential concentrations exceeding the singlesample Indiana water-quality standard. Based on 

previous studies in Indiana, this standard always 

was exceeded when turbidity was greater than 

83 NTU (Silcox and others, 2002, p. 20).

Water Quality at the Impact Area

Short-term (weeks) and long-term (years) 

water-quality conditions at the Impact Area were 

evaluated in this study. Regarding short-term conditions, lead was detected in water samples during 

low and high streamflow at five monitoring sites 

inside of or downstream from the Impact Area (A3, 

A4, A5, A8, and A10; appendix 4). Also, concentrations of dissolved iron increased more than tenfold during high streamflow at sites A4 and A10 in 

the Impact Area (appendix 3). Regarding long-term 

conditions, the largest concentrations of five trace 

elements (copper, lead, magnesium, strontium, 

and zinc) were measured in fish-tissue samples 

collected near sites A2, A4, or A10 in the Impact 

Area (table 15). Also, the largest concentrations of
58 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Figure 17. Concentrations of Escherichia coli and detections of wastewater tracers in water samples collected from 

14 monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May 14 through June 14, 2001.
Surface-Water Quality 59

these same five trace elements were measured 

in streambed-sediment samples collected at sites 

A2 and A4 in the Impact Area (table 12). The 

lowest IBI score and fish-community-integrity 

class rating of poor was given to site A10 in the 

Impact Area (table 21). HBI scores for benthicmacroinvertebrate inventories near sites A1, A2, 

and A3 in the Impact Area and sites A5 and B4 

downstream from the Impact Area indicated 

moderate organic contamination (tables 22 and 23). 

Monitoring sites with lead in water samples, large 

trace-element concentrations in streambed sediment or fish tissue, poor fish-community integrity, 

or fair water-quality ratings from HBI scores are 

shown in figure 18. 

Data from monitoring site B5 indicated 

short-term effects on water quality potentially 

caused by military training outside the Impact Area. 

Lead was detected in water samples from site B5 

during low streamflow in September 2000 and high 

streamflow in July 2001 (appendix 4). A water sample collected during E. coli monitoring in May 2001 

(table 26, p. 61) contained a total of 2.81 μg/L of 

4 wastewater tracers that were reported in samples 

from other monitoring sites; this sample also contained 3.86 μg/L of 11 wastewater tracers that were 

not reported from other sites. At least 2 of these 11 

wastewater tracers, carbazole and phenanthrene, 

have potential use in the manufacture of explosives 

(although the results from this sample are inconclusive). None of these 15 wastewater tracers were 

reported in a sample collected at site B5 1 week 

later in May 2001. Eight of these 15 wastewater 

tracers were analyzed as semivolatile organic compounds in a water sample collected from site B5 in 

July 2001 (table 26). No semivolatile organic compounds were detected, but the reporting limits for 

the July 2001 analysis were 10 to 20 times higher 

than the reporting limits for the May 2001 wastewater tracers (appendix 1). 

Uncertainties of Data and Interpretations

The firing ranges in the Impact Area are 

potential sources of lead detected in water samples 

during the study. Transport of lead and other trace 

elements in streams may occur in the particulate

phase during high streamflow, as indicated by the 

greater number of detections of total lead than of 

dissolved lead (appendix 4). The difference in the 

reporting limits (appendix 1) for dissolved lead 

(3 μg/L) and total lead (1 μg/L) may have contributed to this observation. Detections of lead in 

streambed sediments were unreliable because 

of analytical problems. Therefore, it is unclear 

whether lead in streambed sediments was related 

to total lead in water during high streamflow. Additional data and interpretation regarding lead in 

water and streambed sediment could help resolve 

these uncertainties.

For this study, it was assumed that low 

streamflow primarily would represent ground 

water discharged through the streambed. The water 

samples collected at sites B2 and A1 during September 2000 were during average streamflow rather 

than during low or moderate streamflow when the 

other sites were sampled (fig. 12). A smaller proportion of ground water may have contributed to 

streamflow at these two sites than at the other 

sites. Chemical concentrations might have been 

different at sites B2 and A1 during lower streamflow, particularly at site A1 in the Impact Area. 

Streamflow conditions in the study area, however, 

were estimated with continuous streamflow-gaging 

data from the Youngs Creek station near Edinburgh, 

which is in a larger, less-forested watershed than 

those in the study area. Continuous streamflow 

data from at least one stream in the study area 

(such as Nineveh Creek) would reduce the uncertainty regarding streamflow conditions. Also, a 

more extensive and direct investigation of groundwater quality would help identify locations and 

streamflow conditions for further monitoring of 

surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury.

In this study, streambed-sediment samples 

consisting of particles in the fine sand, silt, and 

clay-size ranges (less than 200 μm) were analyzed 

for trace elements. According to Horowitz (1991), 

many trace elements tend to concentrate on the 

silt and clay particles (less than 63 μm). A separate 

analysis of streambed-sediment samples consisting 

only of particles less than 63 μm would provide 

a comparison with the results from this study.
60 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Camp Atterbury study area

Stream

Road

EXPLANATION

B1

B3

B4

B5

A4

A5

A1

A10

A2

E5

A3

Lick Creek

Prince Creek

Nineveh Creek

Muddy Branch

Saddle Creek

Puff Lake

Common Impact Area

30

A8

B3

A1

E5 Monitoring site (and identifier) with

 total or dissolved lead in water samples 

 

Monitoring site (and identifier) with 

 largest concentrations of copper, lead,

 magnesium, strontium, and zinc in fish-

 tissue and streambed-sediment samples

A4

Base modified from Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, 1:50,000

Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16, 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Monitoring site (and identifier) with 

 fish-community-integrity class rated poor, 

 based on Index of Biotic Integrity

Monitoring site (and identifier) with 

 benthic-macroinvertebrate community 

 rated fair, based on Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

 0 1 2 MILES

 0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Mud Creek

86 05 86

39 20

39 20

B2

Lake or pond

Engineer Pond

Duck Pond

New Lake

Figure 18. Selected monitoring sites with chemical and biological assessment of surface-water quality at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000.

In this study, water samples at site B5 contained lead, semivolatile organic compounds, and 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that could be 

associated with military training. Site B5 was not 

selected to evaluate quality of water leaving the 

Impact Area (table 1). Most of the chemical constituents analyzed in water, sediment, and fish-tissue 

samples from monitoring sites in or near the Impact 

Area were not analyzed in samples from site B5. 

Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent military 

training affected water quality in the Lick Creek 

Watershed. Future evaluations of water quality in 

the Impact Area that include Lick Creek would 

address this uncertainty.

Gross alpha radioactivity (table 8) greater 

than the 3 pCi/L Indiana water-quality standard was 

reported in the September 2000 water samples from 

sites B2 (3.2 pCi/L) and B3 (3.6 pCi/L). The range 

of possible values for gross alpha radioactivity in 

these two samples, based on the analytical method, 

includes values less than the standard. Additional 

water samples from these two sites were not analyzed for gross alpha radioactivity. Therefore, it is
Summary 61

Table 26. Wastewater tracers detected in a water sample collected from monitoring site B5 on Lick Creek at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, May 16, 2001 

[μg/L, microgram per liter; PAH, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon; SVOC, semivolatile organic compound; E, estimated concentration] 

a

From Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1999; Barnes and others, 2002; and Steven Zaugg, U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory, 2001, written commun. b

Analyzed in water sample collected from site B5 in July 2001.

Wastewater 

tracer Description/usea

Concentration 

(μg/L)

Detections 

at other sites

Anthraceneb PAH; wood preservative; in tar, diesel, or crude oil 0.22E No

Anthraquinone SVOC; manufacture of dyes .51 No

Benzo(a)pyreneb PAH; combustion by-product .46E No

Benzophenone SVOC; fixative for perfumes and soaps .15E No

Carbazole SVOC; manufacture of explosives, dyes, or lubricants .50 No

Cholesterol Plant sterol; fecal indicator 1.00E Yes

Fluorantheneb PAH; in coal tar and asphalt .93 Yes

Isophroneb SVOC; solvent for lacquer, plastic, silicon, or resin .18E No

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole SVOC; antioxidant in antifreeze or deicer .14E No

N,N-diethyltoluamide SVOC; mosquito repellent .06E No

Monoethyloxyoctylphenol Non-ionic detergent metabolite .30E No

Pentachlorophenolb SVOC; wood preservative .93E No

Phenanthreneb PAH; manufacture of explosives; in tar, diesel, or crude .41E No

Phenolb Acid; disinfectant, antiseptic .26E Yes

Pyreneb PAH; in coal tar and asphalt .62 Yes

uncertain whether the samples from sites B2 and B3 

actually exceeded the standard. Future assessments 

of surface-water quality that include analysis of 

specific radioisotopes along with gross alpha radioactivity determinations in samples from sites B2 

and B3 could offer an explanation of the results 

from this study.

Summary

The U.S. Army Atterbury Reserve Forces 

Training Area (known as Camp Atterbury) in central Indiana near Edinburgh has been used by the 

Army and the National Guard for more 50 years.

 The Indiana Army National Guard required 

information about the effect of military training on 

water quality and arranged for the U.S. Geological 

Survey to make a base-wide assessment of surfacewater quality at Camp Atterbury. The assessment 

examined short-term (weeks) and long-term (years) 

quality of surface water flowing into, across, and 

out of a 33,760-acre study area. A more extensive 

evaluation of the surface-water quality was made at
62 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

the 6,300-acre Impact Area that includes firing and 

bombing ranges for weapons training of ground 

and air troops. 

Short-term water quality was evaluated in 

September 2000 and July 2001 by analysis of as 

many as 213 constituents in water samples from 

13 monitoring sites on streams and 3 sites on lakes. 

In this study, concentrations of dissolved and total 

lead as much as 2 μg/L were detected in water 

samples during low (less than 0.5 ft3/s/mi2) and 

high (more than 3 ft3/s/mi2) streamflow at seven 

sites, five inside of and downstream from the 

Impact Area. The lead concentration in one sample 

was greater than the calculated Indiana waterquality standard. Many constituents associated 

with military training, such as explosives, were not 

detected in water samples from the study area during low or high streamflow conditions. Gross alpha 

radioactivity in samples from two sites near the 

upstream boundary of the study area potentially 

was greater than the Indiana water-quality standard, 

but the results were inconclusive. Concentrations of 

other chemical constituents that were detected did 

not exceed Indiana water-quality standards. 

Fecal-indicator bacteria (E. coli) concentrations in water were monitored five times at 16 sites 

on streams and at 4 lakes during May and June 

2001. The geometric mean E. coli concentrations 

at all 16 sites on streams were greater than the 

Indiana water-quality standard. Increases in turbidity are statistically related to increases in E. coli 

concentrations. In samples from two sites on the 

same stream, E. coli concentrations were greater 

than the single-sample Indiana water-quality standard, and chemical tracers associated with human 

sewage were detected. These sites were downstream from a potentially leaking sewer and a sewer 

overflow. The probable sources of the E. coli at 

other sites were not evident. 

Long-term water quality was evaluated in 

September and October 2000 with chemical analysis of streambed sediment and fish tissue and with 

inventories of fish and benthic-macroinvertebrate 

communities. Overall, the largest concentrations 

of copper, lead, manganese, strontium, and zinc 

were detected in streambed-sediment and fishtissue samples from three sites in the Impact Area. 

Detections of lead in streambed sediments were 

unreliable because of analytical problems. Therefore, it is unclear whether lead in streambed sediments was related to total lead in water during high 

streamflow. Additional data and interpretation 

regarding lead in water and streambed sediment 

could help resolve these uncertainties. The lowest 

rating of fish-community integrity (poor), based 

on diversity and pollution tolerance, was computed 

for one of the three sites in the Impact Area that 

had large concentrations of trace elements in the 

streambed sediment. Moderate organic contamination was indicated by numerical indexes of diversity 

and pollution tolerance in benthic-macroinvertebrate communities near two sites inside of and two 

sites downstream from the Impact Area. It is uncertain to what extent military training affected water 

quality in the Lick Creek Watershed near the 

Impact Area. Future evaluations of water quality 

in the Impact Area that include Lick Creek would 

address this uncertainty.

Compared with the larger White River Basin, 

trace-element concentrations in streambed sediment of the study area were smaller, stream habitat 

was better, and fish communities were typical. 

Compared with Indiana Department of Environmental Management criteria, the fish-community 

integrity for 8 of 10 stream reaches in the study area 

fully supported aquatic-life use. 
References 63

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

1999, ToxFAQs fact sheet series for toxic substances: Atlanta, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

accessed September 25, 2001, at URL http://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html

Baker, N.T., and Frey, J.W., 1997, Fish community and 

habitat data at selected sites in the White River 

Basin, Indiana, 1993–95: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 96-653A, 44 p.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, Jeroen, Snyder, B.D., and 

Stribling, J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment 

protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers—

Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish 

(2d ed.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Report, EPA 841-B-99-002 [variously paged].

Barnes, K.K., Kolpin, D.W., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, 

E.M., Furlong, E.T., Zaugg, S.D., and Barber, L.B., 

2002, Water-quality data for pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants 

in U.S. streams, 1999–2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-94, http://toxics.usgs.gov/

pubs/OFR-02-94/.

Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., and Abele, L.E., 1996, 

Quality assurance work plan for biological stream 

monitoring in New York State: New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Report, 89 p.

Brenton, R.W., and Arnett, T.L., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—Determination of dissolved 

organic carbon by UV-promoted persulfate oxidation and infrared spectrometry: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 92-480, 12 p.

Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1969, Discharge 

measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A8, 65 p.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 

1995, Protocol for the derivation of Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic 

life: Winnipeg, Canada, Report CCME EPC-98E, 

45 p.

____1999, Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the 

protection of aquatic life—Summary tables in 

Canadian environmental quality guidelines: Winnipeg, Canada, CCME Publication No. 1229, 5 p.

Carter, R.W., and Davidian, Jacob, 1968, General procedure for gaging streams: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 3, chap. A6, 13 p.

Crawford, J.K., and Luoma, S.N., 1993, Guidelines for 

studies of contaminants in biological tissues for 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-494, 

69 p.

Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, 

Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samples 

as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

93-406, 66 p.

Defense Mapping Agency, 1985, Installation map of 

Indiana Atterbury Reserve Forces Training Area, 

edition 1-DMA, series V751S: Washington, D.C., 

Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic/Topographic Center, scale 1:50,000.

Dufour, Ronda, 2000, Fish community assessment of 

the East Fork White River and Whitewater River 

Basins, Indiana, 1997: Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management, Office of Water 

Management, Assessment Branch, Biological Studies Section, Publication No. IDEM 32/03/003/

1998, 21 p.

Fenelon, J.M., Bobay, K.E., and others, 1994, Hydrogeologic atlas of aquifers in Indiana: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 92-

4142, 197 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and 

fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A1, 545 p.

Fowler, K.K., and Wilson, J.T., 1996, Low-flow characteristics of Indiana streams: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4128, 

313 p.

Franzmeier, D.P., Steinhardt, G.C., Sinclair, H.R., Jr., 

and Hosteter, W.D., 1989, Taxonomic and environmental factor keys to soils of Indiana: West Lafayette, Ind., Purdue University Cooperative Extension 

Service, 20 p.

Frick, E.A., and Gregory, M.B., 2000, Microbial indicators in streams in the Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area Watershed, Metropolitan Atlanta, 

Georgia—Proceedings of the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water Quality Workshop, Building 

capabilities for monitoring and assessment in public health microbiology, March 2000: Columbus, 

Ohio, accessed March 20, 2001, at URL http://

oh.water.usgs.gov/micro.workshop.html

Gammon, J.R., 1976, The fish populations of the middle 

340 km of the Wabash River, Technical Report 

No. 86: West Lafayette, Ind., Water Resources 

Research Center, Purdue University, p. 1–73.
64 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

References—Continued

Gill, A.C., and Journey, C.A., 2000, Monitoring of fecal 

contamination in the J.B. Converse Lake Watershed 

in Mobile County, Alabama—Proceedings of the 

U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water Quality 

Workshop, Building capabilities for monitoring and 

assessment in public health microbiology, March 

2000: Columbus, Ohio, accessed March 20, 2001, 

at URL http://oh.water.usgs.gov/micro.workshop.html

Gray, H.H., 1983, Map of Indiana showing thickness of 

unconsolidated deposits: Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources Geological Survey Miscellaneous map no. 37, scale 1:500,000.

____1989, Quaternary geologic map of Indiana: Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 49, scale 1:500,000.

Gray, H.H., Ault, C.H., and Keller, S.J., 1987, Bedrock 

geologic map of Indiana: Indiana Department of 

Natural Resources Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 48, scale 1:500,000.

Gutschick, R.C., 1966, Bedrock geology, in Lindsey, 

A.A., ed., Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, 

Indiana Academy of Science, p. 1–20.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Statistical methods in water resources: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 

Elsevier Science Publishers, 529 p.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1977, Use of arthropods to evaluate 

water quality of streams: Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 100, 

15 p. 

____1978, Revisions of the biotic index: Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 100, 6 p.

____1987, An improved biotic index of organic stream 

pollution: The Great Lakes Entomologist, v. 20, 

no. 1, p. 31–39.

Hoggatt, R.E., 1975, Drainage areas of Indiana: 

U.S. Geological Survey, 321 p.

Horowitz, A.J., 1991, A primer on sediment trace-metal 

chemistry (2d ed.): Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, Inc., 138 p.

Indiana Business Research Center, 2000, STATS Indiana: Indiana University Kelley School of Business, 

accessed November 2, 2001, at URL http://

www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/pr18081.html and 

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/pr18005.html

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 

2000, Indiana water quality report 2000: Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management Office 

of Water Management, Planning and Restoration 

Branch, Publication IDEM/34/02/001/2000, 94 p.

Indiana National Guard, 1995, Atterbury News: 

Edinburgh, Ind., Indiana National Guard, v. 1, no. 1, 

19 p.

Indiana Water Pollution Control Board, 2001, Indiana 

Administrative Code, Title 327, Article 2, Water 

quality standards, accessed January 20, 2001, at 

URL http://www.ai.org/legislative/iac/title327.html

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., 

and Schlosser, I.J., 1986, Assessing biological 

integrity in running waters—A method and its 

rationale: Illinois Natural History Survey Special 

Publication No. 5, 28 p.

Laenen, Antonius, 1985, Acoustic velocity meter 

systems: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A17, 

38 p.

Lenat, D.R., and Penrose, D.L., 1996, History of the EPT 

taxa richness metric: Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society, v. 13, no. 2, p. 305–307.

Lydy, M.J., Crawford, C.G., and Frey, J.W., 2000, A 

comparison of selected diversity, similarity, and 

biotic indices for detecting changes in benthicinvertebrate community structure and stream 

quality: Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 39, p. 469–479.

Malott, C.A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana, in

Handbook of Indiana geology, Part 2: Indiana 

Department of Conservation Publication 21, 

p. 59–256.

Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993, 

Methods for sampling fish communities as part of 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-104, 

40 p.

Midwestern Regional Climate Center, 2002, Climate 

report for the midwestern region—Selected 

monthly reports from 2000 and 2001: accessed 

February 2, 2002, at URL http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/

Watch

Moulton, S.R., Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F., 

and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Processing, taxonomy, and quality 

control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-212, 

49 p.

National Weather Service, 1997, Historical climate summaries for Indiana: accessed January 12, 2002, at 

URL http://www.nws.noaa.gov

Noble, R.A., Winguard, R.C., Jr., and Ziegler, T.R., 

1990, Soil survey of Brown County and part of Bartholomew County, Indiana: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 190 p.
References 65

References—Continued

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life, Volume 

II, Users manual for biological field assessment of 

Ohio surface waters: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [variously paged]. 

Page, L.M., 1983, Handbook of darters: Neptune City, 

N.J., TFH Publications, Inc., Ltd., 271 p.

Pfleiger, W.L., 1975, The fishes of Missouri: Missouri 

Department of Conservation, 343 p.

Purdue Applied Meteorology Group, 2001, Indiana Climate Page: Department of Agronomy, Plant and 

Soils Lab, accessed November 4, 2001, at URL 

http://shadow.agry.purdue.edu/sc.index.html

Rankin, E.T., 1989, The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation 

Index (QHEI)—Rationale, methods, and application: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 54 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement of stage and 

discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, v. 2, 631 p.

Renn, D.E., 1998, Benthic-invertebrate and streambedsediment data for the White River and its tributaries 

in and near Indianapolis, Indiana, 1994-96: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-533, 159 p.

Rice, K.C., 1999, Trace-element concentrations in 

streambed sediment across the conterminous 

United States, data base, described in Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, no. 15, 

p. 2,499–2,504, available at URL http://co.water. 

usgs.gov/trace/data/est_v33n15_p2499.xls

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., 

Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N., and Scott, W.B., 1991, 

Common and scientific names of fishes from the 

United States and Canada (5th ed.): Bethesda, Md., 

American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 

No. 20, 183 p.

Robinson, H.W., and Buchanan, T.M., 1992, Fishes of 

Arkansas (5th ed.): Fayetteville, Ark., The University of Arkansas Press, 536 p.

Schnoebelen, D.J., Fenelon, J.M., Baker, N.T., Martin, 

J.D., Bayless, E.R., Jacques, D.V., and Crawford, 

C.G., 1999, Environmental setting and natural factors and human influences affecting water quality in 

the White River Basin, Indiana: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-

4260, 66 p.

Schumaker, J.G., Imes, J.L., and Carson, C.A., 2000, 

Identification of sources of fecal coliform bacteria 

and nutrient contamination in the Shoal Creek 

Basin, southwestern Missouri—Proceedings of 

the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water 

Quality Workshop, Building capabilities for 

monitoring and assessment in public health microbiology, March 2000: Columbus, Ohio, accessed 

March 20, 2001, at URL http://oh.water.usgs.gov/

micro.workshop.html

Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and processing stream-water samples for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-455, 42 p.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for 

collecting and processing samples of streambed 

sediment for analysis of trace elements and organic 

contaminants for the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 94-458, 20 p.

Sholar, C.J., and Shreve, E.A., 1998, Quality-assurance 

plan for the analysis of fluvial sediment by the 

Northeastern Region Kentucky District Sediment 

Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98-384, 27 p.

Silcox, C.A., Voelker, D.C., and Willoughby, T.C., 

2000, Concentrations of Escherichia coli in 

the upper Wabash River Watershed in Indiana, 

June–September 1998: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4021, 

52 p.

Silcox, C.A., Robinson, B.A., and Willoughby, T.C., 

2001, Concentrations of Escherichia coli in streams 

in the Kankakee and Lower Wabash River 

Watersheds in Indiana, June–September 1999: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4018, 58 p.

____2002, Concentrations of Escherichia coli in 

streams in the Ohio River Watershed in Indiana, 

May–August 2000: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4064, 45 p.

Simon, T.P., and Dufour, Ronda, 1998, Development 

of Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the 

ecoregions of Indiana—V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain: 

Chicago, Ill., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA 905-R-96-004, 200 p.

Smoot, G.F., and Novak, C.E., 1968, Calibration and 

maintenance of vertical-axis type current meters: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 8, chap. B2, 15 p.

Stahl, S.R., and Sobat, S.L., 2000, Creek chub as a 

sentinel indicator species for relative regional 

assessment of mercury contamination and monitoring pollutant trends in Indiana rivers and streams: 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality Biological Studies 

Section, 25 p.
66 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

References—Continued

Stewart, J.A., Keeton, C.R., Hammil, L.E., Nguyen, 

H.T., and Majors, D.E., 2001, Water resources 

data—Indiana, water year 2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Data Report IN-00-1, 472 p.

____2002, Water resources data—Indiana, water year 

2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

IN-01-1, 700 p.

Thatcher, L.L., Janzer, V.J., and Edwards, K.W., 

1977 (later updates), Methods for determination of 

radioactive substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. 5, 

95 p.

Trautman, M.B., 1981, The fishes of Ohio: Columbus, 

Ohio, Ohio State University Press, 782 p.

U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center, 2000, Munitions Items Disposition Action System (MIDAS) 

data base, accessed August 22, 2000, at URL http:/

/www.dac.army.mil/TD/Midas/Index.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986 [revised 

1996], Test methods for evaluation of solid waste, 

physical/chemical methods: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, EPA-SW-846 (3d ed.) 

[variously paged].

____2000, Drinking Water Regulations and Health 

Advisories, accessed July 22, 2001, at URL 

http://www/epa.gov/ost/drinking/standards/

dwstandards.pdf

____2001, Envirofacts facility information—Facility 

Registry System: accessed July 22, 2001, at URL

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/facility.html

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1993, Guidance 

documents—For selected elements (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) in shellfish: Washington, D.C., 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 

accessed April 5, 2001, at URL http://www.cfsan. 

fda.gov/~frf/guid-sf.html

Voelker, D.C., and Renn, D.E., 2000, Benthic invertebrates and quality of streambed sediments in the 

White River and selected tributaries in and near 

Indianapolis, Indiana, 1994–96: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-

4276, 52 p.

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., eds., 1998, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, available at 

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/.

Yoder, Chris, 1987, A modification of the Index of WellBeing for evaluating fish communities in Appendix 

C-1, Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic 

life, Volume II, Users manual for biological field 

assessment of Ohio surface waters: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [variously paged].
Appendixes

1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected 

at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001

2. Characteristics and physical properties of water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, September 2000

3. Concentrations of dissolved and total recoverable major ions and total nutrients in water samples 

collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

4. Concentrations of dissolved and total trace elements in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

5. Concentrations of Escherichia coli, instantaneous streamflow, and water-quality characteristics in water 

samples collected from monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

May and June 2001

6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000 

Constituent Reporting Limits 69

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp Atterbury 

near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001

[R.L., reporting limit; mg/L, milligram per liter; pCi/L, picocurie per liter; std. unit, standard unit; μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter; NTU, nephelometric 

turbidity unit; °C, degree Celsius; col/100 mL, colony per 100 milliliters of water; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/kg, milligram per kilogram; μg/g, microgram per gram; μg/kg, microgram per kilogram]

Characteristics, major ions, nutrients Trace elements 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

Alkalinity 1 mg/L Water Aluminum, dissolved 100 μg/L Water

Dissolved oxygen .01 mg/L Water Aluminum, total 12 mg/kg Solid

Dissolved solids 10 mg/L Water Antimony, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

Gross alpha radioactivity 3.0 pCi/L Water Antimony, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Gross beta radioactivity 4.0 pCi/L Water Arsenic, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

pH .01 std. unit Water Arsenic, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Specific conductance 1 μS/cm Water Barium, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

Suspended sediment 1 mg/L Water Barium, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Total solids 1 mg/L Water Beryllium, dissolved 5.0 μg/L Water

Turbidity .01 NTU Water Beryllium, total .60 mg/kg Solid

Water temperature .01 °C Water Boron, dissolved 100 μg/L Water

E. coli bacteria 1 col/100 mL Water Boron, total 12 mg/kg Solid

Calcium, dissolved .20 mg/L Water Cadmium, dissolved 5.0 μg/L Water

Chloride, dissolved .29 mg/L Water Cadmium, total .60 mg/kg Solid

Fluoride, dissolved .1 mg/L Water Calcium, total 24 mg/kg Solid

Iron, dissolved .01 mg/L Water Chromium, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

Magnesium, dissolved .014 mg/L Water Chromium, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Manganese, dissolved .0022 mg/L Water Cobalt, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

Potassium, dissolved .24 mg/L Water Cobalt, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Silica, dissolved .09 mg/L Water Copper, dissolved 10 μg/L Water

Sodium, dissolved .09 mg/L Water Copper, total 2.4 mg/kg Solid

Sulfate, dissolved .31 mg/L Water Iron, total 12 mg/kg Solid

Nitrogen, total .1 mg/L Water Lead, dissolved 3.0 μg/L Water

Nitrogen, organic, dissolved .1 mg/L Water Lead, total 1.0 μg/L Water

Nitrate + nitrite, dissolved .05 mg/L Water Lead, total 1.0 mg/kg Solid

Ammonia, dissolved .02 mg/L Water Magnesium, total 24 μg/L Water

Phosphorus, total .05 mg/L Water Magnesium, total 24 mg/kg Solid

Phosphorus, dissolved .05 mg/L Water Manganese, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid

Orthophosphate, dissolved .01 mg/L Water
70 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Trace elements—Continued Explosives 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

Molybdenum, dissolved 20 μg/L Water 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene 0.25 μg/L Water

Molybdenum, total 2.4 mg/kg Solid 2-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Nickel, dissolved 40 μg/L Water 1,3-dinitrobenzene .25 μg/L Water

Nickel, total 5.0 mg/kg Solid 2,4-dinitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Potassium, total 100 μg/L Water 2,6-dinitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Potassium, total 100 mg/kg Solid HMX .25 μg/L Water

Selenium, dissolved 5.0 μg/L Water Nitrobenzene .25 μg/L Water

Selenium, total 1.5 mg/kg Solid 2-nitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Silver, dissolved 10 μg/L Water 3-nitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Silver, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid 4-nitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Sodium, total 180 μg/L Water RDX .25 μg/L Water

Sodium, total 600 mg/kg Solid Tetryl .50 μg/L Water

Strontium, dissolved 10 μg/L Water 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene .25 μg/L Water

Strontium, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene .25 μg/L Water

Thallium, dissolved 10 μg/L Water 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

Thallium, total 1.4 mg/kg Solid 2-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

Tin, dissolved 100 μg/L Water 1,3-dinitrobenzene .30 μg/g Solid

Tin, total 12 mg/kg Solid 2,4-dinitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

Vanadium, dissolved 10 μg/L Water 2,6-dinitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

Vanadium, total 1.2 mg/kg Solid HMX .30 μg/g Solid

Zinc, dissolved 20 μg/L Water Nitrobenzene .30 μg/g Solid

Zinc, total 2.4 mg/kg Solid 2-nitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

3-nitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

4-nitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid

RDX .30 μg/g Solid

Tetryl .60 μg/g Solid

1,3,5-trinitrobenzene .30 μg/g Solid

2,4,6-trinitrotoluene .30 μg/g Solid
Constituent Reporting Limits 71

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Semivolatile organic compounds Semivolatile organic compounds—Continued 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

Acenaphthene 10 μg/L Water 1,2-dichlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water

Acenaphthylene 10 μg/L Water 1,3-dichlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water

Acetophenone 10 μg/L Water 1,4-dichlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water

2-acetylaminofluorene 100 μg/L Water 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine 50 μg/L Water

4-aminobiphenyl 50 μg/L Water 2,4-dichlorophenol 10 μg/L Water

3-methylphenol 10 μg/L Water 2,6-dichlorophenol 10 μg/L Water

Anthracene 10 μg/L Water Diethyl phthalate 10 μg/L Water

Benzidine 10 μg/L Water 3-3’-dimethylbenzidine 20 μg/L Water

Benzo(a)anthracene 100 μg/L Water 2,4-dimethylphenol 10 μg/L Water

Benzo(a)pyrene 10 μg/L Water Dimethyl phthalate 10 μg/L Water

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 μg/L Water 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 50 μg/L Water

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 10 μg/L Water 2,4-dinitrophenol 50 μg/L Water

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10 μg/L Water 2,4-dinitrotoluene 10 μg/L Water

Benzoic acid 50 μg/L Water 2,6-dinitrotoluene 10 μg/L Water

Benzyl alcohol 10 μg/L Water Di-n-octyl phthalate 10 μg/L Water

4-bromophenyl phenyl ether 10 μg/L Water Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 μg/L Water

Butyl benzyl phthalate 10 μg/L Water Fluoranthene 10 μg/L Water

4-chloroaniline 10 μg/L Water Fluorene 10 μg/L Water

Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 10 μg/L Water Hexachlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water

Bis(chloroethyl)-ether 10 μg/L Water Hexachlorobutadiene 10 μg/L Water

Bis(2-chloro-isopropyl)ether 10 μg/L Water Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 50 μg/L Water

4-chloro-3-methylphenol 10 μg/L Water Hexachloroethane 10 μg/L Water

2-chloro-naphthalene 10 μg/L Water Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 100 μg/L Water

2-chlorophenol 10 μg/L Water Isophorone 10 μg/L Water

4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 10 μg/L Water 2-methyl-naphthalene 10 μg/L Water

Chrysene 10 μg/L Water 2-methylphenol 10 μg/L Water

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 10 μg/L Water Naphthalene 10 μg/L Water

Dibenzofuran 10 μg/L Water 2-nitroaniline 50 μg/L Water

Di-n-butyl phthalate 10 μg/L Water 3-nitroaniline 50 μg/L Water
72 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Semivolatile organic compounds—Continued Semivolatile organic compounds—Continued 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

4-nitroaniline 50 μg/L Water Acenaphthene 400 μg/kg Solid

Nitrobenzene 10 μg/L Water Acenaphthylene 400 μg/kg Solid

2-nitrophenol 10 μg/L Water Acetophenone 400 μg/kg Solid

4-nitrophenol 50 μg/L Water 2-acetylaminofluorene 4,000 μg/kg Solid

n-nitroso-di-n-butylamine 10 μg/L Water 4-aminobiphenyl 2,000 μg/kg Solid

n-nitrosodiethylamine 10 μg/L Water 3-methylphenol 400 μg/kg Solid

n-nitrosodimethylamine 10 μg/L Water Anthracene 400 μg/kg Solid

n-nitroso-diphenylamine 10 μg/L Water Benzidine 4,000 μg/kg Solid

n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 μg/L Water Benzo(a)anthracene 400 μg/kg Solid

n-nitrosomethylethylamine 10 μg/L Water Benzo(a)pyrene 400 μg/kg Solid

Pentachlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water Benzo(b)fluoranthene 400 μg/kg Solid

Pentachlorophenol 50 μg/L Water Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 400 μg/kg Solid

Phenanthrene 10 μg/L Water Benzo(k)fluoranthene 400 μg/kg Solid

Phenol 10 μg/L Water Benzoic acid 2,000 μg/kg Solid

Pyrene 10 μg/L Water Benzyl alcohol 400 μg/kg Solid

1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water 4-bromophenyl phenylether 400 μg/kg Solid

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 50 μg/L Water Butyl benzyl phthalate 400 μg/kg Solid

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 10 μg/L Water 4-chloroaniline 400 μg/kg Solid

2,4,5-trichlorophenol 10 μg/L Water Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 400 μg/kg Solid

2,4,6-trichlorophenol 10 μg/L Water Bis(chloroethyl)-ether 400 μg/kg Solid

Bis(2-chloro-isopropyl)ether 400 μg/kg Solid

4-chloro-3-methylphenol 400 μg/kg Solid

2-chloro-naphthalene 400 μg/kg Solid

2-chlorophenol 400 μg/kg Solid

4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 400 μg/kg Solid

Chrysene 400 μg/kg Solid

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 400 μg/kg Solid

Dibenzofuran 400 μg/kg Solid

Di-n-butyl phthalate 400 μg/kg Solid
Constituent Reporting Limits 73

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Semivolatile organic compounds—Continued Semivolatile organic compounds—Continued 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

1,2-dichlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid 4-nitroaniline 2,000 μg/kg Solid

1,3-dichlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid Nitrobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid

1,4-dichlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid 2-nitrophenol 400 μg/kg Solid

3,3’-dichlorobenzidine 2,000 μg/kg Solid 4-nitrophenol 2,000 μg/kg Solid

2,4-dichlorophenol 400 μg/kg Solid n-nitroso-di-n-butylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

2,6-dichlorophenol 400 μg/kg Solid n-nitrosodiethylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

Diethyl phthalate 800 μg/kg Solid n-nitrosodimethylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

3-3’-dimethylbenzidine 800 μg/kg Solid n-nitroso-diphenylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

2,4-dimethylphenol 400 μg/kg Solid n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

Dimethyl phthalate 2,000 μg/kg Solid n-nitrosomethylethylamine 400 μg/kg Solid

4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 2,000 μg/kg Solid Pentachlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid

2,4-dinitrophenol 2,000 μg/kg Solid Pentachlorophenol 2,000 μg/kg Solid

2,4-dinitrotoluene 400 μg/kg Solid Phenanthrene 400 μg/kg Solid

2,6-dinitrotoluene 400 μg/kg Solid Phenol 400 μg/kg Solid

Di-n-octyl phthalate 400 μg/kg Solid Pyrene 400 μg/kg Solid

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 400 μg/kg Solid 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid

Fluoranthene 400 μg/kg Solid 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol 2,000 μg/kg Solid

Fluorene 400 μg/kg Solid 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid

Hexachlorobenzene 400 μg/kg Solid 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 400 μg/kg Solid

Hexachlorobutadiene 400 μg/kg Solid 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 400 μg/kg Solid

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2,000 μg/kg Solid

Hexachloropropene 4,000 μg/kg Solid

Hexachloroethane 400 μg/kg Solid

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 400 μg/kg Solid

Isophorone 400 μg/kg Solid

2-methyl-naphthalene 400 μg/kg Solid

2-methylphenol 400 μg/kg Solid

Naphthalene 400 μg/kg Solid

2-nitroaniline 2,000 μg/kg Solid

3-nitroaniline 2,000 μg/kg Solid
74 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Volatile organic compounds Volatile organic compounds—Continued 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

Acetone 10 μg/L Water 1,2-dichloropropane 1 μg/L Water

Acrolein 20 μg/L Water Cis-1,3-dichloropropene 1 μg/L Water

Acrylonitrile 20 μg/L Water Trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1 μg/L Water

Benzene 1 μg/L Water Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 1 μg/L Water

Bromodichloromethane 1 μg/L Water 1,4-dioxane 200 μg/L Water

Bromoform 1 μg/L Water Ethylbenzene 1 μg/L Water

Bromomethane 2 μg/L Water Ethyl methacrylate 1 μg/L Water

2-Butanone (MEK) 5 μg/L Water Hexane 1 μg/L Water

Carbon disulfide 1 μg/L Water 2-hexanone 5 μg/L Water

Carbon tetrachloride 1 μg/L Water Iodomethane 1 μg/L Water

Chlorobenzene 1 μg/L Water Methylene chloride 1 μg/L Water

Chloroethane 2 μg/L Water 4-methyl-2-pentanone 5 μg/L Water

2-chloroethyl vinyl ether 2 μg/L Water Methyl tert-butyl ether 5 μg/L Water

Chloroform 1 μg/L Water Styrene 1 μg/L Water

Chloromethane 2 μg/L Water 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane 1 μg/L Water

Dibromochloromethane 1 μg/L Water Tetrachloroethene 1 μg/L Water

Dibromomethane 1 μg/L Water Toluene 1 μg/L Water

1,2-dibromomethane (EDB) 1 μg/L Water 1,1,1-trichloroethane 1 μg/L Water

1,2-dichlorobenzene 1 μg/L Water Trichloroethene 1 μg/L Water

1,3-dichlorobenzene 1 μg/L Water Trichlorofluoromethane 2 μg/L Water

1,4-dichlorobenzene 1 μg/L Water 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1 μg/L Water

Dichlorodifluoromethane 2 μg/L Water Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1 μg/L Water

1,1-dichloroethane 1 μg/L Water Vinyl acetate 2 μg/L Water

1,2-dichloroethane 1 μg/L Water Vinyl chloride 1 μg/L Water

1,1-dichloroethene 1 μg/L Water m-Xylene and p-Xylene 2 μg/L Water

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene 1 μg/L Water o-Xylene 1 μg/L Water

Trans-1,2-dichloroethene .5 μg/L Water
Constituent Reporting Limits 75

Appendix 1. Constituent reporting limits for analysis of water, streambed-sediment, and fish-tissue samples collected at Camp 

Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 through July 2001—Continued

Wastewater tracers Wastewater tracers—Continued 

Constituent R.L. Units Media Constituent R.L. Units Media 

Acetophenone 0.5 μg/L Water

Hexahydro hexamethyl cyclopenta

benzopyran (HHCB)

0.5 μg/L Water

Acetyl hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN).5 μg/L Water Indole

Isoborneol

.5

.5

μg/L

μg/L

Water

Water

Anthracene .5 μg/L Water Isophorone .5 μg/L Water

9,10-anthraquinone .5 μg/L Water Isoquinoline .5 μg/L Water

Benzo(a)pyrene .5 μg/L Water Menthol .5 μg/L Water

Benzophenone .5 μg/L Water Metalaxyl .5 μg/L Water

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole 2 μg/L Water Methyl salicylate .5 μg/L Water

3-beta-coprostanol 2 μg/L Water Metolachlor .5 μg/L Water

Beta-sitosterol 2 μg/L Water N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide .5 μg/L Water

3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole (BHA) 5 μg/L Water 1-methylnapthalene .5 μg/L Water

Bisphenol A 1 μg/L Water 2-methylnapthalene .5 μg/L Water

Bromacil .5 μg/L Water 2,6-dimethylnapthalene .5 μg/L Water

Bromoform .5 μg/L Water Naphthalene .5 μg/L Water

Caffeine .5 μg/L Water Para-cresol 1 μg/L Water

Camphor .5 μg/L Water Diethoxynonyl phenol (total, NPEO2) 5 μg/L Water

Carbaryl 1 μg/L Water Diethoxyoctyl phenol (OPEO2) 1 μg/L Water

Carbazole .5 μg/L Water Monoethoxyoctyl phenol (OPEO1) 1 μg/L Water

Chlorpyrifos .5 μg/L Water Para-nonyl phenol (total) 5 μg/L Water

Cholesterol 2 μg/L Water Pentachlorophenol 2 μg/L Water

Cotinine 1 μg/L Water 4-cumylphenol 1 μg/L Water

Cumene (isopropylbenzene) .5 μg/L Water 4-n-octylphenol 1 μg/L Water

Diazinon .5 μg/L Water 4-tert-octylphenol 1 μg/L Water

1,4-dichlorobenzene .5 μg/L Water Phenol .5 μg/L Water

Dichlorvos 1 μg/L Water Phenanthrene .5 μg/L Water

d-limonene .5 μg/L Water Prometon .5 μg/L Water

Equilenin 5 μg/L Water Pyrene .5 μg/L Water

17-alpha-ethynyl estradiol 5 μg/L Water Skatol(3-methyl-1H-indole) 1 μg/L Water

17-beta-estradiol 5 μg/L Water Stigmastanol 2 μg/L Water

Estrone 5 μg/L Water Tetrachloroethylene .5 μg/L Water

Ethanol,2-butoxy-phosphate .5 μg/L Water Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate .5 μg/L Water

Ethyl citrate (triethyl citrate) .5 μg/L Water Tri(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate .5 μg/L Water

Fluoranthene .5 μg/L Water Tributylphosphate .5 μg/L Water

Triclosan 1 μg/L Water
76 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 2. Characteristics and physical properties of water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, 

September 2000

[pH, log of hydrogen ion concentration; std.unit, standard unit; μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter; °C, degree, Celsius; mg/L, milligram 

per liter; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; -- , no data]

September 2000

July 2001

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) 

pH 

(std. unit) 

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm) 

Water 

temperature 

(°C) 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved 

solids 

(mg/L) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Suspended 

sediment 

(mg/L) 

Total 

organic 

carbon 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved 

organic

carbon 

(mg/L) 

B1 7.85 288 15.9 8.09 174 3 5.30 4.0 3.5

B2 7.85 425 16.0 8.90 265 3 2.70 4.3 3.8

B3 6.90 152 17.6 7.97 96 2 2.90 2.3 1.9

B4 7.94 357 16.9 8.95 225 4 4.70 4.3 3.1

B5 7.29 109 16.2 9.15 100 16 9.00 5.8 4.3

B6 7.17 316 15.1 5.92 195 12 7.70 3.9 3.4

A1 7.15 169 14.4 9.56 104 14 -- -- --

A2 7.99 318 22.9 9.01 193 5 -- -- --

A3 7.79 422 21.3 8.39 279 5 -- -- --

A4 7.81 568 15.2 8.82 346 2 -- -- --

A5 7.93 323 21.4 9.59 203 2 -- -- --

A6 7.26 173 17.2 8.74 112 9 18.1 2.6 2.3

A7 8.72 147 23.5 7.76 88 7 -- -- --

A8 6.13 73.0 20.2 1.85 74 20 -- -- --

A9 6.54 129 22.9 2.07 86 5 -- -- --

A10 7.63 185 17.9 8.76 119 8 -- -- --

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

pH 

(std. unit) 

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm) 

Water

temperature

(°C) 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved 

solids 

(mg/L) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Suspended 

sediment 

(mg/L) 

B1 8.4 342 24.0 6.7 196 12 25.2

E5 8.4 480 21.6 7.3 278 23 47.9

A4 8.1 412 20.8 6.4 244 37 64.5

A5 8.4 371 18.7 7.5 211 43 63.9

A10 8.1 201 25.8 6.3 122 38 69.2

B5 7.9 175 20.4 8.3 122 120 73.3
Concentrations of Dissolved and Total Recoverable Major Ions and Total Nutrients 77

Appendix 3. Concentrations of dissolved and total recoverable major ions and total nutrients in water samples collected at 

Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

[Dissolved concentrations unless otherwise noted; Total, total recoverable; mg/L, milligram per liter; μg/L, microgram per liter; CaCO3, 

calcium carbonate; E, estimated concentration less than reporting limit; < , not detected at less than reporting-limit concentration; SiO2, silicon 

dioxide; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus]

September 2000

July 2001

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Calcium 

(mg/L)

Magnesium 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved Total

Potassium 

(mg/L)

Dissolved Total

Sodium 

(mg/L)

Dissolved Total

Iron 

(μg/L)

Manganese 

(μg/L)

Hardness 

(mg/L 

as 

CaCO3)

B1 36 11 12 2.1 2.0 7.0 6.7 <10 15.2 127

B2 58 20 20 3.0 3.2 5.7 5.2 5.6 18.1 221

B3 14 7.1 6.9 1.7 1.8 5.7 5.3 16 28.2 48.0 

B4 50 16 16 2.0 1.9 5.3 4.9 13 29.3 205

B5 15 6.3 6.4 1.6 1.6 4.5 4.4 26 89.9 50.0 

B6 38 14 14 2.5 2.3 9.2 8.7 10 582 120

A1 18 7.5 8.0 1.4 1.3 4.7 5.0 35 79.2 70.0 

A2 41 13 13 2.0 2.0 6.8 6.5 6.8 19.0 141

A3 63 22 22 2.7 2.6 5.2 4.9 5.9 636 230

A4 85 27 27 1.2 1.2 3.7 3.6 6.8 30.4 295

A5 43 14 14 2.4 2.3 5.7 5.2 17 23.1 156

A6 18 7.9 7.6 1.5 1.5 5.4 5.0 21 36.0 62.0 

A7 14 7.7 7.9 .97 .98 3.3 3.2 17.4 6.9 54.0 

A8 11 3.3 3.2 .91 1.1 2.1 2.0 294 397 33.0 

A9 19 5.7 6.1 .93 1.0 2.0 2.1 25.9 57.5 70.0 

A10 27 7.5 7.5 .95 .91 3.0 3.0 7.2 55.6 98.0 

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Calcium 

(mg/L)

Magnesium 

(mg/L)

Potassium 

(mg/L)

Sodium 

(mg/L)

Iron 

(μγ/L)

Manganese 

(μg/L)

Hardness 

(mg/L 

as 

CaCO3)

Chloride 

(mg/L)

Fluoride 

(mg/L)

Silica 

(mg/L 

as 

SiO2)

B1 38 13 1.9 7.3 <10 18 130 12 0.1 E 5.0

E5 59 21 2.0 4.1 11 39 222 7.4 .1 E 8.0

A4 54 15 2.3 2.2 71 34 177 3.2 .1 E 9.5

A5 45 15 1.8 4.8 45 39 157 6.6 .1 E 7.8

A10 24 7.5 1.4 3.2 120 100 87.0 1.2 .1 E 4.0

B5 18 7.0 .90 4.6 57 89 52.0 1.2 <.2 11
78 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 3. Concentrations of dissolved and total recoverable major ions and total nutrients in water samples collected at 

Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001—Continued

September 2000

July 2001

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Chloride 

(mg/L)

Fluoride 

(mg/L)

Silica 

(mg/L)

Sulfate 

(mg/L)

Charge 

balance

Organic 

nitrogen 

(mg/L 

as N)

Ammonia 

(mg/L 

as N)

Nitrate 

and 

nitrite 

(mg/L 

as N)

Nitrite 

(mg/L 

as N)

Phosphorus 

(mg/L)

Orthophosphate 

(mg/L 

as P)

B1 10 0.1 5.1 14 -0.95 0.2 <0.02 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01

B2 9.5 .1 6.4 15 -1.39 .3 <.02 .23 <.01 <.05 .01

B3 5.1 <.1 6.3 19 +2.78 .1 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

B4 6.1 .1 8.3 15 -5.47 .2 <.02 .07 <.01 <.05 <.01

B5 1.4 <.1 8.9 22 + .51 .2 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

B6 4.9 .1 6.2 42 + .88 .2 .05 .17 <.01 <.05 <.01

A1 2.8 <.1 9.6 20 -3.85 .2 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A2 9.9 .1 5.1 13 +1.98 .2 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A3 9.5 .2 6.1 15 +1.00 .2 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A4 4.5 .2 13 27 + .51 .1 <.02 .06 <.01 <.05 .02

A5 7.7 <.1 6.3 14 - .18 .3 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A6 3.8 <.1 11 19 +1.87 .1 <.02 .07 <.01 <.05 <.01

A7 .9 .1 1.3 20 -1.50 .4 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A8 .9 <.1 10 5.9 +9.16 .3 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A9 .7 .1 3.7 4.0 +1.11 .3 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

A10 .8 .1 8.8 4.9 + .84 .3 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 <.01

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7)

Sulfate 

(mg/L)

Charge 

balance

B1 17 +0.68

E5 17 - .89

A4 16 +2.08

A5 17 + .95

A10 12 - .87

B5 24 +4.22
Concentrations of Dissolved and Total Trace Elements 79

Appendix 4. Concentrations of dissolved and total trace elements in water samples collected at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, 

Indiana, September 2000 and July 2001

[All concentrations for dissolved trace elements, unless otherwise noted; concentrations in microgram per liter; iron, manganese, and silica 

reported with major ions; < , not detected at less than reporting limit concentration; E, estimated concentration less than reporting limit]

September 2000

July 2001

Monitoring 

site 

 (figure 7) Barium Boron Cobalt Copper Lead

Total 

lead Molybdenum Selenium Strontium Tin

B1 22.9 30.6E <10 2.9E <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 65.5 <100

B2 42.8 32.5E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 2.9E <5 176.0 <100

B3 19.6 34.1E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 54.0 <100

B4 36.7 28.2E <10 3.2E <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 110.0 <100

B5 25.1 32.7E <10 3.3E <3.0 .56E <20 <5 53.1 <100

B6 48.8 31.0E <10 2.4E <3.0 .54 <20 <5 116.0 <100

A1 25.6 32.9E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 58.5 <100

A2 28.4 30.0E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 79.0 <100

A3 52.1 26.6E <10 <10 1.5E <1.0 <20 <5 192.0 <100

A4 58.3 17.4E <10 2.3E <3.0 <1.0 2.3 E <5 138.0 <100

A5 33.0 33.4E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 104.0 <100

A6 26.7 29.9E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 59.9 <100

A7 6.6E 36.0E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 44.9 4.8E

A8 25.8 18.7E 1.0E <10 <3.0 .55E <20 4.4E 32.7 5.4E

A9 14.6 23.4E <10 <10 <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 50.5 <100

A10 18.2 17.2E <10 2.3E <3.0 <1.0 <20 <5 51.7 <100

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Barium Boron Cadmium Copper Lead

Total 

lead Molybdenum Selenium Strontium Tin

B1 22.7 33.8 E 0.51 E 9.1 E <3.0 <1.0 2.0 E <5 75.9 <100

E5 49.8 24.0 E .49 E 3.4 E <3.0 .70 E 2.2 E <5 151 <100

A4 49.6 32.1 E .47 E 3.5 E <3.0 1.0 2.1 E <5 95.2 <100

A5 38.0 31.2 E .45 E 4.1 E <3.0 .50 E 2.0 E <5 104 <100

A10 22.1 18.2 E <5.0 <10 <3.0 1.0 E <20 <5 58.3 <100

B5 28.9 26.0 E .41 E 3.0 E <3.0 2.0 <20 <5 57.1 <100
80 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 5. Concentrations of Escherichia coli, instantaneous streamflow, and water-quality characteristics in water samples 

collected from monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May and June 2001

[E. coli, Escherichia coli; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter; 

mg/L, milligram per liter; °C, degree Celsius; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit]

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Date

E. coli 

concentration 

(col/100 mL)

Instantaneous 

streamflow

(ft3/s)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Turbidity 

(NTU)

Week 1

E1 5-14 210 0.03 7.7 339 8.2 16.1 82

E2 5-14 480 .31 7.6 312 6.8 16.7 3.7

E3 5-21 490 11 7.2 173 8.5 18.7 20

E4 5-15 90 .03 8.0 515 8.0 15.6 4.5

E5 5-15 67 1.4 7.9 545 7.5 16.2 2.7

E6 5-16 200 .03 7.5 499 6.0 19.4 8.7

E7 5-16 21 .24 7.6 594 6.2 16.8 2.9

B1 5-14 190 .60 8.0 402 9.6 15.6 2.3

B2 5-15 150 .69 7.9 574 7.5 15.2 1.9

B3 5-17 900 .19 6.8 152 7.3 16.2 8.2

B4 5-15 54 4.4 8.0 430 8.5 18.7 3.0

B5 5-16 100 .06 7.5 223 7.7 22.0 19

A4 5-16 120 .58 7.9 572 10 18.6 2.9

A5 5-15 140 3.9 7.9 411 8.3 17.5 3.5

A6 5-17 510 .09 7.3 218 7.0 19.2 16

A10 5-16 130 .01 7.8 263 8.0 19.1 7.0

Week 2

E1 5-21 470 .05 7.7 366 7.9 19.6 64

E2 5-21 380 1.5 7.8 297 6.8 21.5 5.5

E3 5-24 2,600 34 7.2 150 8.4 13.8 170

E4 5-22 360 .29 7.8 602 8.7 14.8 3.4

E5 5-22 150 3.2 7.8 566 8.1 16.6 5.5

E6 5-23 170 .06 7.5 583 5.3 15.0 5.1

E7 5-23 170 .42 7.7 608 6.9 12.4 4.1

B1 5-21 210 2.0 7.9 375 8.1 19.2 3.9

B2 5-22 240 1.2 7.9 546 8.2 16.0 2.0

B3 5-24 2,200 11 7.1 140 8.2 14.4 26

B4 5-22 170 23 8.0 346 8.6 18.3 11

B5 5-23 860 .25 7.8 243 8.8 14.8 34

A4 5-23 130 1.2 7.9 594 8.4 13.4 3.7

A5 5-22 230 19 7.9 321 8.8 18.2 12

A6 5-24 5,500 15 7.2 153 8.4 13.5 120

A10 5-23 150 .33 7.8 240 8.5 14.8 7.2
Concentrations of Escherichia coli, Instantaneous Streamflow, Water-Quality Characteristics 81

Appendix 5. Concentrations of Escherichia coli, instantaneous streamflow, and water-quality characteristics in water samples 

collected from monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May and June 2001—Continued

Week 3

E1 5-29 140 0.07 7.7 344 8.4 18.3 62

E2 5-29 93 3.3 7.9 286 8.3 19.8 5.8

E3 5-30 93 6.9 7.4 178 9.5 16.3 10

E4 5-31 72 .35 7.8 591 9.1 13.6 3.1

E5 5-31 41 7.0 7.8 536 9.1 14.7 3.9

E6 6-1 970 .51 7.5 601 6.2 14.8 3.4

E7 6-1 440 .95 7.7 598 7.6 13.8 4.6

B1 5-30 120 4.1 7.9 369 9.1 17.1 3.5

B2 5-31 250 3.6 8.1 501 10 14.2 2.3

B3 5-30 43 3.3 7.2 160 8.5 17.1 3.8

B4 5-31 110 22 7.9 398 9.0 15.1 6.8

B5 6-1 400 .63 7.6 224 8.8 15.0 17

A4 6-1 73 2.0 7.9 591 9.4 14.1 3.4

A5 5-31 130 23 7.9 380 9.4 15.0 7.2

A6 5-30 100 2.8 7.4 187 9.4 15.5 12

A10 6-1 110 .60 7.7 231 8.6 15.3 6.5

Week 4

E1 6-6 530 2.2 8.0 306 8.8 19.3 280

E2 6-6 1,400 12 7.8 252 8.6 17.5 37

E3 6-7 230 16 7.3 155 9.1 17.0 15

E4 6-5 500 .76 7.8 503 8.9 14.6 4.3

E5 6-5 1,200 12 7.9 487 9.1 14.5 21

E6 6-5 2,000 .78 7.7 534 8.9 15.0 4.8

E7 6-5 870 1.1 7.6 534 7.7 14.0 6.5

B1 6-7 480 19 7.8 303 8.3 18.6 17

B2 6-6 2,800 110 7.7 293 8.6 16.9 540

B3 6-7 70 5.0 7.1 145 8.6 17.8 3.8

B4 6-5 2,300 47 8.0 328 9.5 15.6 19

B5 6-4 110 .31 7.6 221 8.7 14.0 21

A4 6-4 2,200 2.8 7.8 513 8.9 13.7 8.6

A5 6-4 180 14 8.0 404 9.0 14.6 4.6

A6 6-7 28a 8.3 7.3 160 9.2 16.8 12

A10 6-4 1,800 .87 7.6 205 9.0 13.8 150

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Date

E. coli 

concentration 

(col/100 mL)

Instantaneous 

streamflow

(ft3/s)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Turbidity 

(NTU)
Appendix 5. Concentrations of Escherichia coli, instantaneous streamflow, and water-quality characteristics in water samples 

collected from monitoring sites on streams at Camp Atterbury near Edinburgh, Indiana, May and June 2001—Continued

82 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

a

Concentration is estimated because relative percent difference of duplicate samples was greater than 20 percent.

Week 5

E1 6-11 190 0.08 7.8 307 7.6 21.6 45

E2 6-11 68 3.4 8.0 261 7.7 22.3 4.9

E3 6-13 200 1.7 7.9 190 7.5 20.8 13

E4 6-12 1,100 .24 7.9 520 7.9 20.8 2.8

E5 6-14 120 4.2 7.9 494 9.4 25.8 3.2

E6 6-12 500 .49 7.6 539 5.9 18.4 3.4

E7 6-12 670 .83 7.7 540 6.9 17.1 4.3

B1 6-11 200 4.9 7.9 324 8.2 21.4 4.3

B2 6-14 610 2.1 7.9 489 8.1 20.1 2.8

B3 6-13 100 .75 7.0 155 7.4 19.2 3.9

B4 6-14 82 11 8.0 408 8.3 25.0 4.0

B5 6-12 110 .22 7.4 186 7.6 21.3 24

A4 6-12 210 2.0 7.8 533 8.6 18.9 4.7

A5 6-14 180 11 7.9 393 7.7 22.6 5.1

A6 6-13 240 .63 7.4 194 7.7 20.5 12

A10 6-13 120 .16 7.8 238 7.2 23.6 7.6

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Date

E. coli 

concentration 

(col/100 mL)

Instantaneous 

streamflow

(ft3/s)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Turbidity 

(NTU)
Fish Species, Abundance, and Total Weight 83

Appendix 6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Species name Common name

Number 

of 

individuals

Weight 

of 

individuals

(grams)

B1 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 151 1,246

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 25 438

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 2 4

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 111 373

Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose dace 4 9

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 37 335

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 7 706

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 2 203

Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside 27 44

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 2 7

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 16 256

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 2 13

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 23 43

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 18 30

Fundulus catenatus Northern studfish 3 10

B2 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 145 1,168

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 17 416

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 25 55

Notropis stramineus Sand shiner 8 22

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 47 146

Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose dace 1 5

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 9 246

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 2 21

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 1 3

Cottus bairdi Mottled sculpin 13 88

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 1 15

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 2 2.5

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 6 9

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 10 13

Fundulus catenatus Northern studfish 33 132
84 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000—Continued

B3 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 7 57

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 1 4

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 1 7

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 6 13

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 38 113.5

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 2 47

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker 5 43.5

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 7 50

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 1 10

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 20 26

B4 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 4 32

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 6 10

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 30 61.5

Notropis photogenis Silver shiner 1 2

Notropis stramineus Sand shiner 64 120

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 51 143

Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 1 3

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 11 150

Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse 11 654

Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorse 3 145

Cottus bairdi Mottled sculpin 5 30

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 4 10

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 7 45

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 2 14

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 2 8

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 1 4

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 6 7

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 15 14.5

Percina maculata Blackside darter 3 12

Percina caprodes Logperch 1 14

Percina sciera Dusky darter 9 39

Fundulus catenatus Northern studfish 1 4

Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey 2 19

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Species name Common name

Number 

of 

individuals

Weight 

of 

individuals

(grams)
Fish Species, Abundance, and Total Weight 85

Appendix 6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000—Continued

B5 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 12 44

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 8 56

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 5 107

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 3 3

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 17 58

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 38 289

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 11 68

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker 17 59

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 13 95

Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 1 6

Etheostoma caeruleum Rainbow darter 1 1

Percina maculata Blackside darter 3 5

Esox americanus vermiculatus Grass pickerel 4 149

B6 Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 286 676

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 223 980

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 20 179

Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin shiner 4 5

Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 6 17

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 36 69

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 108 211

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 2 45

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 11 641

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker 6 160

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 1 48

Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 1 15

Moxostoma duquesnei Black redhorse 3 91

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 11 358

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 10 98

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 27 353

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 1 16

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 3 84

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 1 14

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 1 1

Percina maculata Blackside darter 2 5

Esox americanus vermiculatus Grass pickerel 8 569

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Species name Common name

Number 

of 

individuals

Weight 

of 

individuals

(grams)
86 Chemical and Biological Assessment of Surface-Water Quality, Camp Atterbury, Indiana

Appendix 6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000—Continued

A4 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 116 472

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 31 70

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 1 3

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 24 250.5

Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin shiner 2 4

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 102 255

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 91 793

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 11 146

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker 4 26

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 2 108

Cottus bairdi Mottled sculpin 14 64

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 2 62

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 3 53

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 1 4

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 4 4.5

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 29 34.5

Esox americanus vermiculatus Grass pickerel 5 208

A5 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 69 600

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 1 1

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner 14 54

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 12 145

Notropis boops Bigeye shiner 100 274

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 5 10

Notropis stramineus Sand shiner 19 27

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth minnow 2 12

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 140 558

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 4 18

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 5 250

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 41 1,176

Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse 14 671

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 3 217

Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass 1 9

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 1 23

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 11 146

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Species name Common name

Number 

of 

individuals

Weight 

of 

individuals

(grams)
Fish Species, Abundance, and Total Weight 87

Appendix 6. Fish species, abundance, and total weight in stream reaches near 10 monitoring sites at Camp Atterbury near 

Edinburgh, Indiana, September and October 2000—Continued

A5–Continued

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 56 666

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 8 275

Etheostoma blennioides Greenside darter 16 63

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 10 16

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 14 15

Percina maculata Blackside darter 8 45

Percina caprodes Logperch 1 18

Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey 4 33

A6 Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller 24 76

Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner 17 48

Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner 2 26

Notropis buccatus Silverjaw minnow 3 8

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow 31 88

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 60 141

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 45 90

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 2 5

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 14 91

Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass 3 11

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 4 6

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 16 25

Percina maculata Blackside darter 2 11

A10 Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 11 301

Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker 3 105

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 2 93

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 4 67

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 17 126

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 1 13

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 1 3

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter 1 1

Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter 1 1

Percina maculata Blackside darter 4 19

Monitoring 

site 

(figure 7) Species name Common name

Number 

of 

individuals

Weight 

of 

individuals

(grams)