Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

156

APPENDICES
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

157

Appendix A: Workshop Participants List

Tom Aalto

U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18th St.

Mail Code: 8P2-HW

Denver, CO 80202-2413

Phone: (303) 312-6949

Fax: (303) 312-6064

aalto.tom@epa.gov

James Bartolino

U.S. Geological Survey

4501 Indian School Rd., Ste 200

Albuquerque, NM 87110-3929

Phone: (505) 262-5336

Fax: (505) 262-5398 

jbartol@usgs.gov

Katherine Baylor

U.S. EPA, Region 9

RCRA Corrective Action Office

75 Hawthorne St.

Mail Code: WST-5

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 744-2028

Fax: (415) 744-1044

baylor.katherine@epa.gov

Ned Black

U.S. EPA, Region 9

75 Hawthorne St.

Mail Code: SFD-8B

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 744-2354

Fax: (415) 744-1916

black.ned@epa.gov

Randy Breeden

U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18th St., Suite 500 

Mail Code: 8P2-HW

Denver, CO 80202-2466

Phone: (303) 312-6522

Fax: (303) 312-6064

breeden.randy@epa.gov

David Burris

Air Force Research Laboratory

139 Barnes Dr.

Mail Code: AFRL/MLQR

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

Phone: (850) 283-6035

Fax: (850) 283-6090

david.burris@mlq.afrl.af.mil

Allen Burton

Wright State University

Inst. for Environmental Quality

3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy. 

Dayton, OH 45435-0001

Phone: (937) 775-2201

Fax: (937) 775-4997

aburton@wright.edu

Judy Canova

South Carolina Dept. of Environmental Health and Conservation

2600 Bull St. 

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: (803) 896-4046

Fax: (803) 896-4292

canovajl@columb34.dhec.state.sc

Lisa Capron

U.S. EPA , Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Mail Code: DE-9J

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Phone: (312) 886-0878

Fax: (312) 353-4342

capron.lisa@epa.gov

David Charters

U.S. EPA, Environmental

Response Team

2890 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08837-3679

Phone: (732) 906-6825

Fax: (732) 321-6724

charters.davidw@epa.gov

Jungyill Choi

U.S. Geological Survey

430 National Center

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr. 

Mail Code: MS-431

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: (703) 648-5472

Fax: (703) 648-5484

jchoi@usgs.gov

Brewster Conant Jr.

University of Waterloo

Earth Sciences Department

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1

Phone: (519) 888-4567, x2973

bconantj@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca

Martha Conklin

University of Arizona

Department of Hydrology and

Water Resources

P.O. Box 210011

Tucson, AZ 85721-0011

Phone: (520) 621-5829

Fax: (520) 621-1422

martha@hwr.arizona.edu

D. Reide Corbett

Florida State University

Department of Oceanography

P.O. Box 4320 

Tallahassee, FL 32306-4320

Phone: (850) 644-9914

Fax: (850) 644-2581

rcorbett@ocean.fsu.edu
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

158

Cliff Dahm

University of New Mexico

Department of Biology 

Albuquerque, NM 87131

Phone: (505) 277-2850

Fax: (505) 277-5355

cdahm@sevilleta.unm.edu

Kathy Davies

U.S. EPA, Region 3

1650 Arch St. 

Mail Code: 3HW41

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Phone: (215) 814-3315

Fax: (215) 814-3015

davies.kathy@epa.gov

Joe Dlugosz

U.S. EPA, ORD/MED

6201 Congdon Blvd.

Duluth, MN 50408

Phone: (218) 529-5215

Fax: (218) 529-5003

dlugosz.joseph@epa.gov

Maureen Dudley

Denver Department of

Environmental Health

1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 700

Denver, CO 80204

Phone: (303) 285-4063

Fax: (303) 285-5621

dudleym@ci.denver.co.us

Bruce Duncan

U.S. EPA, Region 10

1200 Sixth Ave.

Mail Code: OEA-095

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-8086

duncan.bruce@epa.gov

René Fuentes

U.S. EPA, Region 10

1200 Sixth Ave.

Mail Code: OEA-095

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1599

Fax: (206) 553-0119

fuentes.rene@epa.gov

Gayle Garman

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

7600 Sand Point Way, NE

Mail Code: Bin C15700

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

Phone: (206) 526-4542

Fax: (206) 526-6865

gayle.garman@noaa.gov

Kevin Garon

DuPont Engineering

6324 Fairview Rd.

Charlotte, NC 28210

Phone: (704) 362-6635

Fax: (704) 362-6636

Kevin.p.garon@usa.dupont.com

David Geist

Battelle Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

P.O. Box 999

Mail Code: MS K6-85

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: (509) 372-0590

Fax: (509) 372-3515

david.geist@pnl.gov

Ron Gouguet

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

c/o U.S. EPA, Region 6

1445 Ross Ave.

Mail Code: 6SF-L

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Phone: (214) 665-2232

Fax: (214) 665-6460

Ron_gouguet_crc6@

hazmat.noaa.gov

Chad Gubala

University of Toronto 

The Scientific Assessment

Technologies Laboratory

3359 Mississauga Rd. North 

Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 

L5L 1C6

Phone: (905) 828-3863

Fax: (905) 828-5273

cgubala@credit.erin.utoronto.ca

Jack Guswa

HSI GeoTrans

6 Lancaster County Rd. 

Harvard, MA 01451

Phone: (918) 772-7557

Fax: (918) 772-6183

jguswa@hsigeotrans.com

Mark Hartle

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission, Division of

Environmental Services

450 Robinson Ln. 

Bellefonte, PA 16823

Phone: (814) 359-5116

Fax: (814) 359-5175

mhartle@fish.state.pa.us

S.M. Harrison

Wyoming State Department of

Health

Hathaway Bldg.

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-6186

sharri1@missc.state.wy.us
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

159

Judson Harvey

U.S. Geological Survey

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr.

Mail Code: MS 430

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: (703) 648-5876

Fax: (703) 648-5484

jwharvey@usgs.gov

Susan Hendricks

Murray State University

206 Hancock Biological Station

Murray, KY 42071

Phone: (502) 474-2272

Fax: (502) 474-0120

susan.hendricks@murraystate.edu

James Huckins

U.S. Geological Survey

4200 New Haven Rd.

Columbia, MO 65201

Phone: (573) 875-5399, x1879

James_Huckins@usgs.gov

Richard Jack

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality, Solid

Waste Permitting and Corrective

Action, Solid and Hazardous

Waste Division

250 Lincoln St.

Lander, WY 82520

Phone: (307) 332-6924

rjack@missc.state.wy.us

Jeff Johnson

U.S. EPA, Region 7

726 Minnesota Ave.

Mail Code: ARTD/RCAP

Kansas City, KS 66101

Phone: (913) 551-7849

Fax: (913) 551-7947

johnson.jeff@epa.gov

Briant Kimball

U.S. Geological Survey

1745 W. 1700 S., Rm. 1016

Salt Lake City, UT 84104

Phone: (801) 975-3384

Fax: (801) 975-3424

bkimball@usgs.gov

David Lee

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.

Environmental Research Branch

Mail Code: 51A

Chalk River, Ontario K0J1P0

Phone: (613) 584-8811, x 4710

Fax: (613) 584-1221

leed@aecl.ca

John Lendvay

University of Michigan

219 EWRE Building

Environmental Engineering

1351 Beal Ave.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

Phone: (734) 764-6350

Fax: (734) 763-2275

lendvay@engin.umich.edu

Michelle Lorah

U.S. Geological Survey

8987 Yellow Brick Rd.

Baltimore, MD 21237

Phone: (410) 238-4301

mmlorah@usgs.gov

Vince Malott

U.S. EPA, Region 6

1445 Ross Ave.

Mail Code: 6SF-AP

Dallas, TX 75202

Phone: (214) 665-8313

Fax: (214) 665-6660

malott.vincent@epa.gov

Mary Matta

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

7600 Sand Point Way, NE

Mail Code: Bin C15700

Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 526-6315

Fax: (206) 526-6865

Mary_Matta@hazmat.noaa.gov

Garry McKee

Wyoming PHL

Hathaway Bldg.

Cheyenne, WY 82003

Phone: (307) 777-7431

Gayle Miller

Wyoming Department of Health

2300 Capitol Ave., Rm. 427

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-5596

Fax: (307) 777-5573

gmille@missc.state.wy.us

Scott Miller

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality, Solid

Waste Permitting and Corrective

Action, Solid and Hazardous

Waste Division

250 Lincoln St.

Lander, WY 82520

Phone: (307) 332-6924

smille@missc.state.wy.us

Johnnie Moore

University of Montana

Department of Geology

Missoula, MT 59812-1019

Phone: (406) 243-6807

Fax: (406) 243-4028

gl_jnm@selway.umt.edu
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

160

Mike Montoya

Ute and Ouray Indian Reservation

P.O. Box 190

Fort Duchesne, UT 84066

Phone: (435) 722-0885

Fax: (435) 722-0885

utefish@ubtanet.com

Rich Muza

U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18th St., Suite 500

Mail Code: 8EPR-EP

Denver, CO 80202-2466

Phone: (303) 312-6595

Fax: (303) 312-6065

muza.richard@epa.gov

Paul S. Osborne

U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18th St., Suite 500

Mail Code: 8P-W-GW

Denver, CO 80202-2466

Phone: (303) 312-6125

osborne.paul@epa.gov

Ronald Paulsen

Cornell University/Suffolk

County Health Services

3059 Sound Ave.

Riverhead, NY 11901

Phone: (516) 727-3910

Fax: (516) 369-5944

Dave Petrovski

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd. 

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: (312) 886-0997

Fax: (312) 353-9176

petrovski.david@epa.gov

Alan Polonsky

Denver Department of

Environmental Health

1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 700

Denver, CO 80204

Phone: (303) 285-4060

Fax: (303) 285-5621

polonskya@ci.denver.co.us

Lisa Rosman

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

290 Broadway, Rm. 1831

New York, NY 10007

Phone: (212) 637-3259

Fax: (212) 637-3253

Lisa.Rosman@noaa.gov &

rosman.lisa@epa.gov

Stephen Schmelling

U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr

Environmental Research Center

Ada, OK 74821-1198

Phone: (580) 436-8540

schmelling.steve@epa.gov

Henry Schuver

U.S. EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 5303W

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (703) 308-8656

Fax: (703) 308-8638

schuver.henry@epa.gov

Debbie Sherer

U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18th St., Suite 500

Mail Code: 8P-HW

Denver, CO 80202-2466

Phone: (303) 312-6429

sherer.deborah@epa.gov

Christopher Smith

Cornell Cooperative Extension

3059 Sound Ave.

Riverhead, NY 11901

Phone: (516) 727-3910

Fax: (516) 369-5944

csmith@cce.cornell.edu

Pete Swarzenski

U.S. Geological Survey

Center for Coastal Geology

600 Fourth St. South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Phone: (727) 803-8747, x3072

Fax: (727) 803-2032

pswarzen@cfcg.er.usgs.gov

Jim Schwartz

Wyoming Department of

Agriculture

2219 Carey Ave.

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-6591

Fax: (307) 777-6593

jschwa@missc.state.wy

Guy Tomassoni

U.S. EPA

Office of Solid Waste

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 5303W

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (703) 308-8622

Fax: (703) 308-8638

tomassoni.guy@epa.gov

Patti Tyler

U.S. EPA, Region 1

New England Regional

Laboratory

60 Westview St.

Mail Code: ECA

Lexington, MA 02421

Phone: (781) 860-4342

Fax: (781) 860-4397

tyler.patti@epa.gov
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

161

Luanne Vanderpool

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd. 

Mail Code: SR-6J

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: (312) 353-9296

Fax: (312) 886-4071

vanderpool.luanne@epa.gov

Don Vroblesky

U.S. Geological Survey

720 Gracern Rd.

Columbia, SC 29210-7651

Phone: (803) 750-6115

vroblesk@usgs.gov

Ernie Waterman

U.S. EPA, Region 1

1 Congress St., Suite 1100

Mail Code: HBT

Boston, MA 02114-2023

Phone: (617) 918-1369

Fax: (617) 918-1291

waterman.ernest@epa.gov

Lynn Wellman

U.S. EPA, Region 4

61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Phone: (404) 562-8647

Fax: (404) 562-8628

wellman.lynn@epa.gov

Steve Wharton

U.S. EPA, Region 7

726 Minnesota Ave.

Mail Code: SUPR/FFS

Kansas City, KS 66101

Phone: (913) 551-7819

wharton.steve@epa.gov

Richard Willey

U.S. EPA, Region 1

1 Congress St., Suite 1100

Mail Code: HBS

Boston, MA 02114-2023

Phone: (617) 918-1266

Fax: (617) 918-1291

willey.dick@epa.gov

Dudley Williams

University of Toronto

Surface and Groundwater

Ecology Research Group,

Division of Life Sciences

1265 Military Trail

Scarborough, Ontario, Canada 

Phone: (416) 287-7423

Fax: (416) 287-7423

williamsdd@scar.utoronto.ca

Tom Winter

U.S. Geological Survey

Denver Federal Center

Box 25046

Mail Code: MS 413

Denver, CO 80225-0046

Phone: (303) 236-4987

tcwinter@usgs.gov

Kay Wischkaemper

U.S. EPA, Region 4

61 Forsyth St.

Mail Code: OTS

Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Phone: (404) 562-8641

Fax: (404) 562-8566

wischkaemper.kay@epa.gov

Carol Witt-Smith

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd

Mail Code: DW-8J

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone (312) 886-6146

witt-smith.carol@epa.gov

William Woessner

University of Montana 

Department of Geology

Missoula, MT 59812

Phone: (406) 243-2341

Fax: (406) 243-4028

gl_www@selway.umt.edu
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

162

Appendix B: Discussion Group Focus Issues

A. Hydrogeologic Data Collection

1. What data are needed to estimate or document temporal changes in ground-water discharges to

various surface water bodies? When and at what frequency should the data be collected?

2. How do the methods of measuring ground-water discharge to surface water depend on

hydrogeologic setting and surface water regime?

3. What are the best methods of measuring ground-water discharges to various surface water bodies? 

a. How should measurements be made?

b. Where should measurement be made?

c. Over what area should measurements be made?

d. When should measurements be made?

4. How do we determine the relative proportion of contaminated ground-water flux as a proportion of

the total ground-water flux and/or mass balance for a given area?

B. Chemical Data Collection

1. What are the relevant chemical processes?

2. How should chemical concentrations be measured when determining the flux of contaminated

ground water to a surface water body?

a. Where should the measurements be taken?

b. How should samples be obtained?

c. Over what area should measurements be taken?

d. Over what time period and at what frequency should samples be taken?

3. What are the data quality objectives needed to support an ecological impacts assessment? What are

the proper methods of collecting water and sediment samples to determine ecological impacts?

What is the role of moisture and organic carbon data?

4. How should samples be collected to determine contaminant retention in the biologically active

zone?

5. How should contaminant retention be evaluated in the hyporheic zone and bottom sediments?
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

*

 Asterisks represent priority issues for the biology discussion group.

163

C. Biological Data Collection

1. Is the hyporheic zone considered an ecological habitat to be protected or a “treatment opportunity”

zone for restoration of contaminated ground water discharging into surface water? 

a. How can the hyporheic zone be defined biologically? *

b. What are the ecological endpoints in the discharge or hyporheic zones? What ecosystem

functions occur in these zones? *

c. What are the appropriate scales to measure adverse effects to ecological endpoints in riverine,

estuarine, and lacustrine hyporheic systems? *

d. What modifications to existing Guidance or creation of new Guidance are needed to account

for the unique ecological and hydrological aspects (receptors, functions, and routes of

exposure) of the hyporheic zone? *

2. What is the appropriate biological information (data) needed to assess ecological impacts? 

a. What should be the structure for evaluating adverse impacts to key ecological endpoints? 

(1) What biological monitoring should be performed? Which ecological structures and

functions should be evaluated and why? *

(2) Should it be phased and if so how should priorities be set for the data gathering?

b. How can screening numbers be developed for the hyporheic zone that are protective of

ecological endpoints of concern? Are AWQC and NOAA Sediment Effects Criteria (ER-L and

ER-M data) sufficient as screening numbers for protection of ecological endpoints; or, should

other levels be used or developed for hyporheic zone screening for protection of ecological

endpoints?

3. How should physical biological data be collected? 

a. What are the best sampling methods to characterize the biological endpoints and then measure

these for unacceptable impacts? Under what circumstances should filtered or unfiltered water

samples (groundwater and surface water) be taken for environmental purposes? *

b. What sampling locations are appropriate for biological data collection?

c. When should interstitial water samples from sediment (using semi-permeable membrane

devices or other techniques) or whole sediment samples be collected for environmental

purposes? Is there a role for sediment elutriate to be sampled? 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

164

4. Which ecological endpoints are at risk within the ground water/surface water mixing zone for

different surface water regimes?

D. Monitoring Goals and Objectives

1. Identify and characterize zones of interest associated with surface water bodies susceptible to

impact by contaminated groundwater.

2. Determine if discharge of contaminated groundwater is impacting surface water quality or biota in

the zones of interest.

a. Characterize existing impacts.

b. Evaluate the effect of contaminant loading (including seasonal and temporal variations) on

water quality and ecology.

c. Absent current impact on water quality, determine if long-term contaminant loading within a

discharge zone poses a threat to future surface water quality and/or biota.

3. Determine the impact that different hydrogeologic settings and surface water regimes have on the

selection of monitoring methods.

4. Identify prescriptive standards that must be attained.

a. Evaluate the applicability of applicability of a ‘mixing zone’ to the surface water body

b. Establish regulatory-based (chemical) and/or biota-based compliance standards.

5. Determine the sources of impacts. 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

165

Appendix C: Case Study Summaries

Workshop participants submitted 14 case study summaries of ground water/surface water

investigations for inclusion in this report. The purpose of providing these summaries is two-fold. First,

to provide a resource for further information on the various monitoring methods. The case study

summaries represent a range of contaminated media and contaminants within different hydrogeologic

landscapes. Contact names are provided for further information on the use of such monitoring methods

and their utility in obtaining the desired site data. The case studies are also provided as part of an

informal assessment of what techniques are and are not commonly used. The following four tables

provide this assessment.

Table 1 lists the case study sites and the main contaminant types present as well as the type of

monitoring done at each site (physical, geochemical, or biological). Tables 2, 3, and 4 expand on the

type of physical, geochemical, and biological monitoring being done, to summarize in some detail the

type and number of sites using a given monitoring procedure. The tables include a total for the types of

methods used and the number of total different places all the methods have been used at. They show

that physical and geochemical methods are about equally distributed in use, but bioassays (and related

biological monitoring) are much less widely used at the sites.

This appendix is not meant to be a comprehensive list of sites having ground water/surface water

interaction and contamination problems, but simply a tabulation of the types of sites which were

represented through those attending the Workshop, and also a listing of the types of methods which

have been used in the field when dealing with this type of complex ground water/surface water

interaction and contamination sites. It is interesting to note that while the most used monitoring

methods are wells and piezometers, that there are many other monitoring options that have been used

at sites where there is a ground water to surface water transition zone.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

166

Table 1

GW/SW Case Studies Summary:

Contaminants Studied and Monitoring Methods Used

Contaminants Monitored Monitoring Methods

Site Name

EcoRiskVOCsNO3MetalsPAHsPCBsPesticides orHerbicidesPhysicalGeochemicalBioassay

Alcoa/Lavaca Bay     

Angus, Ontario    

Everglades National

Park

     

Hertel Landfill      

I-85 Manufacturing   

BMI Complex ?  

Ledbetter Cr.      

Peconic Estuary       

Pinal Creek    

St. Joseph     

Union Pacific      

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor       
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

167

Table 2

Case Studies Summary of Data Collection Techniques Used

 Data Collection Techniques Total Site Names

Current meters 2 Everglades National Park

Pinal Creek

Diffusion sampler 1 I-85 Manufacturing

Direct Push Samples 2 I-85 Manufacturing

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Geophysical Measurements 2 Peconic Estuary

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Geoprobe 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

GW Water level surveys 2 Angus, Ontario

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

GW Mini-piezometer 5 Angus, Ontario

Ledbetter Cr.

Peconic Estuary 

Pinal Creek

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

(Continued)...

Ground water monitoring wells 8 Alcoa/Lavaca Bay

Hertel Landfill

BMI Complex

Ledbetter Cr.

 Peconic Estuary

Pinal Creek

Union Pacific

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Ground water multilevel

sampling device

2 Angus, Ontario

St. Joseph

Ground water Waterloo Profiler 1 Angus, Ontario

Ground water piezometers 3 Alcoa/Lavaca Bay

Everglades National Park

Hertel Landfill

In-stream solute tracer 1 Pinal Creek

In-stream auto sampler 1 Pinal Creek

NAPL studies 3 Alcoa/Lavaca Bay

Union Pacific 

 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Potentiomanometer 1 Angus, Ontario

SCAPS survey 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

Table 2

Case Studies Summary of Data Collection Techniques Used

 Data Collection Techniques Total Site Names

168

Sediment sampling 4 Angus, Ontario

I-85 Manufacturing,

Union Pacific

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Sediment probe 2 Angus, Ontario

Ledbetter Cr.

Seepage meters 5 Everglades National Park

Ledbetter Cr.

Peconic Estuary

Pinal Creek

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor 

Slug testing 1 Angus, Ontario

Soil cores onshore 2 Angus, Ontario

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

(Continued)...

Soil cores offshore 3 Angus, Ontario

St. Joseph

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Streambed temperature survey 2 Angus, Ontario

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Surface water monitoring 2 BMI Complex

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Time Domain Reflectrometry 1 Angus, Ontario

Tracer 1 Pinal Creek

Velocity and tracer-dilution

gaging

1 Pinal Creek

27 62
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

169

Table 3

Case Studies Summary of Geochemical Techniques Used

Geochemistry Total Site Names

Age-dating of GW 1 Pinal Creek

Alkalinity 2 Hertel Landfill

Pinal Creek

Ammonia 1 Hertel Landfill

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(BOD-5)

1 Hertel Landfill

Cation/Anion 1 Angus, Ontario

Chemical Oxygen Demand

(COD)

2 Hertel Landfill

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Chloride 2 Hertel Landfill

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Chlorophyll 1 Peconic Estuary

CO2 1 Ledbetter Cr.

Ethene, ethane, methane 3 Everglades National Park

Ledbetter Cr.

Angus, Ontario

Field chemistry tests 1 St. Joseph

(Continued)...

Field Parameters (pH, Temp.,

EH, DO, Elec. Cond.)

9 Alcoa/Lavaca Bay

Angus, Ontario

BMI Complex

Ledbetter Cr.

Peconic Estuary

Pinal Creek

St. Joseph

Union Pacific

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Hydrogen Gas—Dissolved 1 St. Joseph

Isotopes 1 Pinal Creek

Major ions 2 Pinal Creek

St. Joseph

NAPL studies 2 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Union Pacific

Nitrogen–Dissolved 3 Hertel Landfill

Ledbetter Cr.

St. Joseph

Nitrogen–Total 1 Ledbetter Cr.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

Table 3

Case Studies Summary of Geochemical Techniques Used

Geochemistry Total Site Names

170

Nutrients 4 Everglades National Park

Ledbetter Cr.

Peconic Estuary

Pinal Creek

Organic Carbon--Dissolved 2 Angus, Ontario

Hertel Landfill

Phosphate 2 Hertel Landfill

Ledbetter Cr.

Radium isotopes 1 Everglades National Park

Radon-222 1 Everglades National Park

Redox-sensitive metals 1 Everglades National Park

Salinity 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Sediment chemistry 2 Hertel Landfill

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Sulfate 2 Hertel Landfill

Ledbetter Cr.

(Continued)...

Sulfide 3 Angus, Ontario

Hertel Landfill

St. Joseph

Total Dissolved Solids 2 Hertel Landfill

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Total Suspended Solids 1 Hertel Landfill

Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

31 57

Table 4

Case Studies Summary of Biological Techniques Used

Biological Data Total Site Names

Bacteriophages 1 Everglades National Park

Benthic macroinvertebrate 1 Ledbetter Creek

Benthic community analysis 2 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Ledbetter Creek

Biofilm colonization chambers 1 Ledbetter Creek

Biomonitoring of plant effluent 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

Table 4

Case Studies Summary of Biological Techniques Used

Biological Data Total Site Names

171

Brown tide cell counts 1 Peconic Estuary

Diver surveys 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Fish pathology 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Laboratory cultures 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

St. Joseph

Laboratory bioassays 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Sediment chemistry 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Sediment vertical profiler 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

Trawls 1 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

WET testing of plant effluent 1 Union Pacific

14 15
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

172

Case Studies

1) SITE NAME: Alcoa (Point Comfort)/ Lavaca Bay

2) City/State:

 Point Comfort, Texas

5) Surface Water Body: 

Lavaca and Matagorda Bays

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

CERCLA

6) Range of Tidal Variation:

0.5-1.5 ft

Hg, PAHs, DNAPL (Hg and tar)

Soil

4) Contact:

Ron Gouguet

Coastal Resource Coordinator

U.S. EPA, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite # 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Phone: 214-665-2232

Gouguet.Ron@noaa.gov

Gary Baumgarten

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite # 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Phone: 214-665-6749

Baumgarten.Gary@epa.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Fish consumption

Creosote compounds, PAHs, Hg

Surface Water

Rarely detected

Ecological

Fish

Benthos

Shell fish

Pore Water

Hg, MeHg, PAHs 

Sediment

PAHs, Hg

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells, piezometers,

water level surveys, DNAPL

studies

Geochemical Parameters

Field parameters, DNAPL

studies, salinity

Bioassays

Unknown at this time

10) COMMENTS: 

Contributions of contaminated groundwater appear to be responsible for maintaining Hg and PAH

concentrations in surficial bay sediment above risk based levels of concern. Also, this appears to be the

case for maintaining tissue concentration at levels of concern. The remedy (CERCLA) is expected to

curtail the GW release, remove some sediment and stabilize sources. 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

173

1) SITE NAME: Angus Ontario

2) City/State: 

Angus, Ontario, Canada

5) Surface Water Body: 

Pine River

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

Ontario Ministry of

Environment and Energy

6) Range of Tidal Variation:

Not applicable

Chlorinated VOCtetrachloroethylene

Soil

4) Contact:

Brewster Conant Jr.

Hydrogeologist

Department of Earth Sciences

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1

Phone: 519-885-1211 x 2973

bconantj@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca

Dr. John A. Cherry

Professor of Earth Sciences

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1

Phone: 519-885-1211 x4516

cherryja@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca

7) Risk:

Human Health

Drinking water (groundwater)

Sediment contact

tetrachloroethylene

Surface Water

Rare detections of very low

tetrachloroethylene concentrations

Ecological

Benthic and hyporheic aquatic

life

Pore Water

tetrachloroethylene,

trichloroethylene,

cis-1,2-dichloroethylene,

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, vinyl

chloride

Sediment

tetrachloroethylene,

trichloroethylene,

cis-1,2-dichloroethylene

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Drivepoint wells, minipiezometers,

Waterloo Profiler and miniprofiler,

multilevel GW sampling

devices, soil cores (on and off

shore), ground penetrating

radar (GPR), time domain

reflectometry (TDR),

sediment probe (conductance),

streambed temperature surveys,

water level surveys,

potentiomanometer

Geochemical Parameters

Field parameters, dissolved

oxygen, 

sulfide, cations/anions,

ammonia,

dissolved organic carbon,

chlorinated VOCs (PCE, TCE,

DCEs, and VC), ethene,

ethane, methane 

Bioassays 

None
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

174

10) COMMENTS: 

Data collected primarily as part of Mr. Conant’s PhD research. Pine River typically flows at 1.5 to 2.9

cubic meters per second.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

175

1) SITE NAME: Everglades National Park/ Florida Bay

2) City/State:

South Florida

5) Surface Water Body: 

Wetland, estuary, bay

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority: 6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

<10 cm

Nutrients

Metals?

Soil

4) Contact:

Dr. Peter W. Swarzenski

USGS-GD

600 4th Street South

Petersburg, FL 33701

Phone: 727-803-8747 x3072

Dr. Judson W. Harvey

USGS-WRD (NRP)

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

MS 430

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: 703-648-5876

7) Risk:

Human Health

Injection wells? Surface Water

Nutrients

Ecological

Eutrophication-related issues

Pore Water

Nutrients

Metals?

Sediment

Nutrients

Metals?

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Current meters, piezometers,

seepage meters

Geochemical Parameter

Radium isotopes, radon-222,

CH4, nutrients, redox-sensitive

metals

Bioassays 

Bacteriophages

10) COMMENTS: 

A great overview of USGS projects related to South Florida can be found at http://sflwww.er.usgs.gov/
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

176

1) SITE NAME: Exxon Refinery

2) City/State:

 Billings, Montana

5) Surface Water Body: 

Yellowstone River

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

RCRA

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Hydrocarbons

BTEX, SVOC, VOC

Soil

4) Contact:

Tina Diebold

Region 8-Montana Office

Phone: 406-441-1130 x227

7) Risk:

Human Health

Hydrocarbons

BTEX, SVOC, VOC

Surface Water

Benzene

Ecological

Do not know yet

Pore Water

Benzene

Sediment

Benzene

Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Wells, laser induced

fluorescence, grab samples

Geochemical Parameters 

None

Bioassays 

None

10) COMMENTS: 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

177

1) SITE NAME: Hertel Landfill Superfund Site

2) City/State: 

 Plattekill, New York

5) Surface Water Body: 

Wetlands

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

CERCLA

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Primarily arsenic, chromium, iron,

manganese

VOCs and CVOCs

Pesticides

Soil

4) Contact:

Dean Maraldo

Hydrogeologist

U.S. EPA, Region 2

ERRD/PSB/TST

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

Phone: 212-637-3260

maraldo.dean@epa.gov

Sharon Trocher

RPM

U.S. EPA, Region 2

EPA/ERRD/NYRB

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

Phone: 212-637-3965

trocher.sharon@epa.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Touching or drinking

contaminated well water or

accidentally ingesting

contaminated soil

Arsenic, chromium, VOCs

Surface Water

Iron, manganese, pesticides

Ecological

Pollutants have seeped into onsite wetlands, posing a threat to

ecologically sensitive

resources, wildlife, or aquatic

biota.

Pore Water

Sediment

Pesticides, metals

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells, piezometers

Geochemical Parameter

Surface and ground water:

phosphate, COD, nitrate-nitrite,

TOC, ammonia, alkalinity,

BOD-5, TKN, sulfide, sulfate,

chloride, TDS, TSS

Bioassays

None

10) COMMENTS: 

Capping of this 13-acre municipal landfill was completed in the fall of 1998. At this time the primary

COCs are metals in the groundwater and surface. The 1991 ROD remedy included a pump-and-treat

component for groundwater which has been put on hold pending post-cap data evaluation.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

178

1) SITE NAME: I-85 Manufacturing and Distribution Center

2) City/State: 

 Spartanburg, South Carolina

5) Surface Water Body: 

Tributary to Fairforest Creek

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

State Superfund 

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Tetrachloroethylene

Soil

4) Contact:

Judy Canova

Project Manager

SCDHEC

2600 Bull St.

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: 803- 896-4046

canovajl@

columb34.dhec.state.sc.us

7) Risk:

Human Health

Contact

Inhalation

Ingestion

Tetrachloroethylene

Surface Water

Tetrachloroethylene

Ecological

Fish 

Invertebrates

Pore Water

Unknown

Sediment

Pending

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Diffusion samplers, direct push

samplers, grab samples

Geochemical Parameters

None

Bioassays

None

10) COMMENTS: 

The unusual characteristic of this site is the high concentration of tetrachloroethylene observed in

surficial samples from the tributary - up to 10 ppm. It is suspected that NAPL is discharging to the base

of the stream based on groundwater quality data. At the location of highest contamination within the

stream, there is no visible aquatic life, vertebrate or invertebrate. Contamination persists above ambient

water quality criteria for over half a mile. The length of the discharge coupled with extreme

topographic variation reduces possible remedial options for the stream.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

179

1) SITE NAME: Kerr-McGee Chemical/ BMI Complex

2) City/State:

 Henderson, Nevada

5) Surface Water Body: 

Lake Mead, Colorado River

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

State

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Ammonium perchlorate

Soil

4) Contact:

Mitch Kaplan

Environmental Scientist

U.S. EPA, Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415- 744-2063

Kaplan.Mitch@epa.gov

Doug Zimmerman

Chief, Bureau of Corrective

Action

Nevada Dept. of Environmental

Protection

Phone: 775- 687-4670 x3127

7) Risk:

Human Health

Ingestion

Not analyzed

Surface Water

Ammonium perchlorate

Ecological

Unknown (under investigation)

Pore Water

Not analyzed

Sediment

Not analyzed

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells, surface water

monitoring

Geochemical Parameters

Field parameters

Bioassays

None

10) COMMENTS: 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

180

1) SITE NAME: Ledbetter Creek

2) City/State: 

 Murray, Kentucky

5) Surface Water Body: 

Kentucky Lake Reservoir

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

State of Kentucky

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Hydroelectric/Flood Control

Dam operations result in 2-6 ft

change in water depth at stream

site.

Nitrates, herbicides, pesticides,

fecal coliforms

Soil

4) Contact:

Susan P. Hendricks

Hancock Biological Station

561 Emma Drive

Murray, KY 42071

Phone: 502-474-2272

susan.hendricks@murraystate.e

du

David S. White

Hancock Biological Station

561 Emma Drive

Murray, KY 42071

Phone: 502-474-2272

david.white@murraystate.edu

7) Risk:

Human Health

Contact

Nitrates, herbicides, pesticides

Surface Water

Nitrates, herbicides, pesticides,

fecal coliforms

Ecological

Surface-subsurface microbial

communities

Surface-subsurface macroinvertebrate communities

Fish community

Habitat degradation from high

sedimentation/siltation, reduced

surface-subsurface exchange

Pore Water

Nitrates, herbicides, pesticides,

fecal coliforms

Sediment

Nitrates, herbicides, pesticides,

fecal coliforms

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells, water table

heights, mini-piezometers,

sediment temperature probes,

seepage meters

Geochemical Parameters

Dissolved oxygen, turbidity,

pH,

ORP, specific conductance,

NO3+NO2,NH4,SRP, Total N,

Total P,SO4,CO2, CH4

Bioassays

Biofilm colonization chambers

for bacterial productivity, activity,

and diversity; benthic and

hyporheic macroinvertebrate

community structure.

10) COMMENTS: 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

181

1) SITE NAME: Peconic Estuary System

2) City/State:

 Suffolk County, New York

5) Surface Water Body: 

EPA National Estuary ProgramPeconic Estuary System

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

National Estuary ProgramPeconic Bay Estuary, Suffolk

County, New York

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Approximately 2.5-3.5 ft

VOCs, nitrates, pesticides

Soil

4) Contact:

Ron Paulsen

Hydrogeologist

Suffolk County Health

Services-Bureau of Water

Resources

Phone: 516-853-2220

Ronald.paulsen@

co.suffolk.ny.us

Christopher Smith

Cornell University

Cooperative Extension Marine

Program Leader

Phone: 516-727-3910

Csmith@cce.cornell.edu

7) Risk:

Human Health

Estuary is receiving water body

for groundwater discharges that

contains pesticides, VOCs and

elevated nitrates

Surface Water

VOCs, nitrates, pesticides

Ecological

The Peconic Estuary System

has been subjected to the

harmful alga blooms. The HAB

known as brown tide

(Aureococcus anophaefferens)

has plagued the estuary since

1985. Excessive nutrients,

metals, and possibly pesticides

from groundwater seepage are

thought to contribute to the

onset and proliferation of

HABs in the System

.Pore Water

Nitrates, VOCs

Sediment

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Installation of monitoring well

and mini-piezometers with

percussion drill and hollow

augers; geophysical

measurements using logging

techniques including natural

gamma, induction and

resistivity logging; direct

contact resistivity

measurements of bay bottom to

map out groundwater seepage

faces; groundwater seepage

measurements using time

Geochemical Parameters

Field parameters (conductivity,

temperature, dissolved oxygen,

chlorophyll, pH); nutrient

species including inorganic and

organic forms of nitrogen;

metals; volatile organic 

compounds; pesticides

Bioassays

Brown tide (Aureococcus

anophaefferens) cell counts
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

182

10) COMMENTS: 

The Peconic Estuary System is a large estuary system on Long Island, New York that received

National Estuary Status in 1994. Associated with the estuary program are numerous ongoing

investigations and studies. These investigations include studies on the ecological, chemical and

physical properties of the Peconic Bay Estuary. One property being studied is the effect of

groundwater seepage on the chemical and biological conditions in the bay. Direct measurements of

groundwater seepage along with the chemical analysis of coastal groundwater and bay bottom pore

water in the estuary are being made. This information is being used to develop a surface water model

and a groundwater model for the estuary system. The modelling results are being used to developed

guidelines for nutrient loading to the bay especially as they pertain to chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen

levels in the bay. 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

183

1) SITE NAME: Pinal Creek Basin, Arizona

2) City/State:

Globe, Arizona

5) Surface Water Body: 

Pinal Creek, Salt River,

Roosevelt Lake (reservoir for

Phoenix)

8) Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

State- Arizona Dept. of

Environmental Quality

(WQARF)

Federal-CERCLA

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Dissolved iron, aluminum, copper,

manganese, cobalt, nickel, zinc

pH<4 in some portions of ground

water contamination plume

Soil

4) Contact:

Judson Harvey

USGS

430 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: 703-648-5876

jwharvey@usgs.gov

Martha Conklin

Dept. of Hydrology

University of Arizona

Harshbarger Bldg

P.O. Box 210011

Tucson, AZ, 85721

Phone: 520-621-5829

martha@hwr.arizona.edu

Christopher C. Fuller

USGS

345 Middlefield Road, MS465

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Phone: 650-329-4479

ccfuller@usgs.gov

James Brown

 USGS

520 N. Park Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85719

Phone: 520-670-6671x280 

jgbrown@usgs.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Probably minimal. The major

concern is for the small number

of families living in the northern

part of the basin that withdraw

their water from wells emplaced

in the aquifer. For the most part

the affected wells were moved

away from contaminated areas

years ago. There continues to be

concern about downstream

effects of metal pollution in the

basin on water quality in the

Salt River and Roosevelt Lake,

although studies to date suggest

that metals are not reaching the

Lake in appreciable quantities.

Remedial actions are being

undertaken to intercept the

groundwater plume.

Ecological

Largely unstudied at this

location and therefore unknown.

However, the perennial is

within the Tonto National

Forest with abundant wildlife.

Poor in-stream water quality

and manganese oxide deposits

on the stream bed doubtless are

affecting aquatic and terrestrial

organisms that use the stream

and riparian zone.

Surface Water

Manganese, nickel, cobalt, zinc,

aluminum

pH generally > 6 in surface water.

Pore Water

Sediment
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

184

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Velocity and tracer-dilution

gaging of stream discharge; instream solute-tracer

experiments to determine

surface and hyporheic-zone

water exchange; in-stream

auto-samplers; USGS mini

drivepoint sampler; seepage

meters; stainless-steel

drivepoints; conventional

wells; identification of ground

water source areas using water

stable isotopes; age-dating of

ground water using CFCs.

Geochemical Parameters

pH, DO, temperature, alkalinity,

major ions, dissolved metals,

particulate and colloidal metals,

dissolved organic carbon,

nutrients

Bioassays

10) COMMENTS: 

USGS and the University of Arizona have identified natural attenuation processes that remove metal

contaminants due to interactions between surface water and ground water. Hydrologic exchange

between the stream that receives the contaminated ground water and the hyporheic zone beneath the

stream delays the downstream movement of contaminants, and also exposes the contaminants to

unique microbial processes that enhance removal of contaminants in the hyporheic zone. USGS and

the University of Arizona have published more than fifteen journal papers and reports on this topic.

Interested readers are encouraged to contact the lead scientists listed above for reprints and more

information. 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

185

871) SITE NAME: St. Joseph, Michigan

2) City/State:

Stevensville, Michigan

5) Surface Water Body: 

Lake Michigan

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

CERCLA/State

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

<1ft

Chlorinated VOCs

(TCE; cis-1,2-DCE; trans-1,2-

DCE; 1,1-DCE, VC, ethene) 

Soil

4) Contact:

John M. Lendvay

Research Fellow

University of Michigan

217 EWRE Building

1351 Beal Avenue

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

Phone: 734-764-6350

lendvay@engin.umich.edu

Peter Adriaens

Associate Professor

University of Michigan

181 EWRE Building

1351 Beal Avenue

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

Phone: 734-763-1464

adriaens@engin.umich.ed

7) Risk:

Human Health

Contact

Not sampled

Surface Water

None detected

Ecological

Fish 

Shell Fish

Pore Water

Chlorinated VOCs

(TCE; cis-1,2-DCE; trans-1,2-

DCE; 1,1-DCE, VC, ethene) 

Sediment

Not sampled

Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Multi-level sample points,

cores, field chemistry tests

Geochemical Parameters

Cations / Anions, dissolved

hydrogen gas, dissolved iron,

dissolved nitrogen, dissolved

oxygen, dissolved sulfide,

field parameters (O2, Eh, pH,

temperature, specific

conductance)

Bioassays

Laboratory cultures

10) COMMENTS: 

Spatial and temporal studies conducted to evaluate the effect of storm activity on the transformation

potential of contaminants.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

186

1) SITE NAME: Union Pacific Railroad Laramie Tie Plant Site

2) City/State: 

Laramie, Wyoming

5) Surface Water Body: 

None- The Contaminant

Isolation System prevents

releases to the Laramie River

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

RCRA, CERCLA, State

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

Not applicable

Residuum oil, PAHs,

pentachlorophenol (PCP),

benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,

xylene, DNAPL

Soil

4) Contact:

Marisa Latady

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality/Soil &

Hazardous Waste

122 West 25th Street

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: 307-777-7752

mlatad@missc.state.wy.us

Felix Flechas

US EPA

Region VIII

999 18th Street

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303-312-6014

felix.flechas@epa.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Dermal contact

Incidental ingestion

Inhalation of particulates

PAHs, PCP, dioxin, furans

Surface Water

Not applicable

Ecological

Direct exposures via soil

ingestion

Direct exposures via dermal

contact with soil

Indirect exposures via ingestion

of contaminated food items

Inhalation of particulate dust

(considered less significant the

others described above)

Pore Water

Residuum oil, PAHs,

pentachlorophenol

benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,

xylene

Sediment

Not applicable

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells; piezometers;

sediment sampling; monitoring

of the containment systems for

hydraulic control; DNAPL

thickness

Geochemical Parameters

Field parameters

Bioassays

WET testing of the water treatment

plant effluent under an NPDES

permit
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

187

10) COMMENTS: 

UPRR operated the Laramie Tie Plant Site for the treatment of railroad ties and other wood preserving

operations on an intermittent basis from 1886 to 1983.The site borders the Laramie River just south of

the city of Laramie, Wyoming. Waste management practices, such as allowing treated ties to drip dry

onto the ground and discharging wastewater generated in the treating process to an unlined surface

impoundment, are believed to be the causes of contaminated soils and ground water at the site. The

primary contaminants identified at the site include creosote, pentachlorophenol and other residuum

oils.

Contamination at the site was discovered in 1981, and in 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and UPRR signed a CERCLA Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to continue the

remedial investigation already in progress and to conduct site cleanup. The investigation identified

contamination in surface soils and ground water contamination, including the presence of oil in the

subsurface [i.e., Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL)].Some of the early activities conducted

by UPRR to address the contamination identified include:

 1.In 1983, UPRR decommissioned the facility, including demolition of on-site buildings and

shipment of unused wood treatment materials to another facility.

 2.In 1984, UPRR partially closed the unlined Surface Impoundment that received wastewater. The

Surface Impoundment is a regulated unit as defined by the WDEQ/HWRR Chapter 10, Section

6(a) .

 3.In 1987, UPRR installed the Contaminant Isolation System (CIS) to prevent migration of

contaminants to the Laramie River. The CIS consists ofrelocation of the Laramie River to an

uncontaminated channel; construction of a cutoff wall; installation of a water management system

consisting of horizontal drain lines along the exterior and interior of the cutoff wall to maintain an

inward hydraulic gradient; construction of a water treatment plant to remove dissolved

contaminants and implementation of a monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness of the CIS.

 4.In 1988, UPRR installed ground water extraction wells, referred to as the Morrison Contaminant

Withdrawal System (MCWS), outside the western site boundary to address a small area of

contaminated ground water in Morrison bedrock. 

In 1991, EPA and UPRR entered into an AOC under RCRA that required UPRR to conduct a

Corrective Measure Study (CMS) to identify long-term remedies for implementation at the site,

including pilot tests of various techniques to remove DNAPL from the subsurface.

In 1994, EPA selected the remedy to address contamination at the site. The remedy included continued

operation of the CIS and MCWS systems, removal of DNAPL using the waterflood oil recovery

method, covering a portion of the site with topsoil to address contaminated surface soils, installing a

RCRA cap over the former Surface Impoundment area, and maintaining restricted access to the site.

Nine criteria were selected to evaluate the performance of the final remedy. Detailed descriptions of

these criteria can be found in EPA's September, 1994, "Final Decision and Response to Comments.

In 1995, the RCRA AOC was amended to require UPRR to submit an application for a RCRA Permit

for post-closure care and corrective action by September 1, 1995. UPRR submitted an application for a

post-closure care and corrective action permit on September 1, 1995, and revised that application in

May 1996, August 1997 and March 1998.The amendment to the AOC also required UPRR to

implement the final remedy selected by EPA in 1994. The final remedy was amended in 1995 to

include the use of a Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) to consolidate contaminated
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

188

concrete debris and soils in the partially closed unlined Surface Impoundment. The CAMU currently

has an interim soil cover of six inches.

That portion of the final remedy that requires closure (i.e., installation of a RCRA cap) and postclosure care of the Surface Impoundment, as described in Section A of this Fact Sheet, is deferred to

allow implementation and evaluation of phytoremediation, an innovative technology, designed for insitu remediation of waste, contaminated soils and contaminated ground water. Phytoremediation test

plots will be established over a portion of the Surface Impoundment and the western portion of the

facility to determine the effectiveness of this technology. Review of this corrective action program will

be conducted every five (5) years as part of the technical impracticability (TI) determination. The TI

determination is made when ground water restoration to applicable cleanup standards is unattainable

from an engineering perspective. If WDEQ determines, based on the five (5) year review process, that

phytoremediation does not meet the remediation criteria specified in the Permit, UPRR will be

required to implement the closure and post-closure care requirements established in the Permit. Those

portions of the final remedy that are not deferred include continued oil recovery operations in the

Surface Impoundment area until all recovery units have achieved the endpoint criteria, and

implementation of the ground water corrective action program.

As of December 1998 UPRR has recovered approximately 1,500,000 gallons of oil from the

subsurface through the waterflood oil recovery method.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

189

1) SITE NAME: West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground

2) City/State:

Edgewood, Maryland

5) Surface Water Body: 

Wetland and stream

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

CERCLA

6) Range of Tidal Variation:

About 2 ft change in stage in

creek; affects ground-water

flow direction and plume

distribution

Chlorinated VOCs

Possible DNAPL

Soil

4) Contact:

Michelle Lorah

U.S. Geological Survey

8987 Yellow Brick Road

Baltimore, MD 21237

Phone: 410-238-4301

Fax: 410-238-4210

mmlorah@usgs.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Air transport of VOCs

None

Surface Water

Infrequently detected, low

concentrations of chlorinated

VOCs

Ecological

Air transport of VOCs

Possible exposure of benthic

organisms to VOCs in water

and sediment

Pore Water

Chlorinated VOCs

Sediment

Chlorinated VOCs in wetland

sediment

Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Nested piezometers, diffusion

samplers, cores, field chemistry

tests, salinity, pressure

transducers and tide gage 

Geochemical Parameters

VOCs; ethane; ethene;

dissolved organic carbon; total

organic carbon redox speciesmethane, sulfide, Fe(II)/Fe(III),

manganese, dissolved oxygen,

nitrate, ammonia; field

parameters (pH, alkalinity,

temperature, conductance,

salinity, turbidity); major

cations and anions; selected

trace metals

Bioassays

Microcosms to measure

biodegradation rates and daughter

products; DNA/RNA analysis of

microbial communities in wetland

sediment

10) COMMENTS: 

USGS WRIR 97-4171: Report on project results through 1997 available online:

http://md.usgs.gov/publications/online.html
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

190

1) SITE NAME: Wyckoff Eagle Harbor

2) City/State:

Bainbridge Island, Washington

5) Surface Water Body: 

Eagle Harbor Puget Sound

8)Contaminants:

Ground Water

3) Regulatory Authority:

CERCLA

6) Range of Tidal Variation: 

14 ft 

Creosote compounds, PAHs,

pentachlorophenol, fuel oil,

LNAPL, DNAPL

Soil

4) Contact:

René Fuentes

Hydrogeologist

U.S. EPA, Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 206-553-1599

fuentes.rene@epa.gov

Hahn Gold

Remedial Project Manager

U.S. EPA, Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 206-553-0171

gold.hahn@epa.gov

7) Risk:

Human Health

Contact

Inhalation 

Fish consumption

Creosote compounds, PAHs,

pentachlorophenol

Surface Water

Rarely detected

Ecological

Fish 

Shell fish

DNAPL contact

Pore Water

Creosote compounds, PAHs,

Sediment

Creosote compounds, PAHs,

DNAPL

9) Monitoring Methods:

Physical Measurements

Monitoring wells, minipiezometers, sediment probe

(temperature and electrical

conductivity), seepage meter,

off-shore cores, diver surveys

(NAPL), water level surveys,

LNAPL and DNAPL studies

Geochemical Parameters 

Field parameters, LNAPL and

DNAPL studies, salinity

Bioassays

Biomonitoring of treatment plant

effluent

10) COMMENTS:
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

*

 Editor’s Note: Mark Henry presented this material at a meeting of the Ground Water Forum in April 2000. 

191

Appendix D: MHE Push Point Sampling Tools

by Mark A. Henry*

A new tool and sampling methodology have been devised for collecting pore water samples from

beneath beaches and surface water bodies. The use of this technology enables a single investigator or

small team to rapidly gather pore water samples at or near the interface between groundwater and

receiving bodies of water. From a research perspective, the information gained in analyzing these

samples may be very helpful in understanding the geochemical nature of this transition zone and the

biological processes at work. 

This methodology has been used very successfully to locate the expression of contaminated

groundwater venting into several lakes in Michigan. The technique involves the use of an MHE 27-

inch push-point sampling device (PP27), 1⁄4-inch outer diameter by F-inch inner diameter Tygon

tubing, and 50 m5, 100% polyethylene syringes or a peristaltic pump. The PP27 is a rigid F-inch

diameter stainless steel probe that is screened at one end and ported at the other to allow the collection

of pore water with a syringe or peristaltic pump. In this method’s simplest form, the investigator would

walk along a beach or in shallow water paralleling the beach, and at periodic intervals push (by hand) a

decontaminated PP27 into the sand or sediments with a twisting motion until refusal (usually 6-18-

inches). Then the screened zone is exposed and pore water samples are withdrawn at “low-flow

sampling” collection rates using a disposable syringe connected by a length of Tygon tubing. Usually,

only 30-50 m5 of water withdrawal is necessary to develop this miniature well; this equates to

approximately 20-35 volume exchanges through the PP27 . Subsequently drawn water is usually nonturbid and suitable for dispensing directly into sample containers or instruments. A 3-dimensional

sampling array is possible within the sediments and the water column. The PP27 is easily

decontaminated in the field but if the investigator has several of the inexpensive sampling devices onhand, sample collection along a transect can be very rapid. When 100% polyethylene syringes are

employed, samples may be collected and stored temporarily within the syringe by placing the full,

sealed syringe in a cooler. Once the sample collection has been completed, the investigator can process

the samples in a controlled environment. As an added benefit, it is possible to use the sample-filled

syringes for on-site headspace analysis of VOC’s using a field GC—information that be used to direct

an investigation in real time. If the syringe is half-dispensed and refilled with air, resealed, and

agitated, the headspace in the syringe above a known volume of water can be quickly analyzed.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) uses an enhanced variation of this

method. As samples are being collected, some of the pore water is immediately dispensed into field

analytical equipment for measurement of “stabilization parameters” such as dissolved oxygen, pH,

conductivity, redox, and temperature, or analytes such as dissolved iron, sulfide, etc. The MDEQ

investigators were able identify and map the expression of a groundwater plume venting into Lake

Michigan and several inland lakes using this methodology and/or these techniques and SCUBA gear.

Furthermore, the MDEQ couples its sampling with location information obtained using sub-meter

accuracy global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Plotting the geochemical data onto an accurate

GPS representation of the sampling locations and predominant local features produces a precise plume

expression map. GPS technology allows investigators to reliably relocate previous sampling locations

for additional study and accurately combine and compare data from multiple sampling events.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

192

What follows is found in the MHE PP-27 sampler instruction manual. It is presented as additional

information about the sampler and to provide a few practical hints.

MHE PP27" Push-Point Sampling device (Patent Pending) 

Operators Manual, Ver. 1.02, May 13, 2000

INTRODUCTION

The groundwater/surface water interface has been a research interest of mine for the past decade.

This transitional zone is usually rich in biomass and may play a predominant role in the bioattenuation

of contaminated groundwater entering surface water bodies. Usually these biologic processes have

limited effectiveness in attenuating highly contaminated groundwater, leaving a plume of parent

contamination and metabolic byproducts that eventually expresses itself in receiving waters—usually

classified as non-point sources of pollution because of the uncertainty of the discharge area. Part of the

problem in the detection and study of these plumes is that there were no devices on the market for the

rapid, discrete collection of pore water samples. Reliance on conventional technology and techniques

to perform a detailed investigation required extensive effort and burdensome equipment.

Through several iterations, I have evolved a simple device for collecting pore water samples from

beneath surface water bodies or the beach areas surrounding them. Pore water sampling using the PP27

becomes a simple and efficient process, generating a wealth of information and very little waste. The

effective working depth is up to 26 inches below the land or sediment surface. If one collects

groundwater samples in a transect perpendicular to groundwater flow in the suspected area of plume

discharge to an open water body, their analysis yields information about the areal extent of

contaminant discharge to the water body. At this point, additional sampling can complement the initial

data and provide the information necessary to map the plume expression in both magnitude and areal

distribution. This is becoming increasingly important to regulators as they decide the ecological

impacts of discharging contaminant plumes.

Sampling at each location usually takes five minutes, allowing a small crew to collect dozens of

samples in an afternoon. These samples can be analyzed in the field for real-time information useful in

directing field investigations and research. The work that I have conducted at several contamination

sites indicates that many groundwater plumes discharge in surface water bodies in 2-3 feet of water

depth—accessible to investigators wearing hip boots or waders. Many plumes, especially light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) plumes can be delineated by collection of samples in very shallow

water or from under beaches. My initial experience has shown that dense non-aqueous phase liquid

(DNAPL) contaminant plumes express themselves in the shallow, near-shore water as well, even

though the onshore depth of the contaminant mass was deep in the aquifer.

DIRECTIONS

As shown in Figure 1, the PP27 device is a very simple, precisely machined tool consisting of a

tubular body fashioned with a screened zone at one end and a sampling port at the other. The bore of

the PP27 body is fitted with a guard rod that gives structural support to the PP27 and prevents plugging

and deformation of the screened zone during insertion into sediments. The PP27 is made of 316

stainless steel assuring compatibility with most sampling environments. The screened zone consists of

a series of interlaced machined slots which form a short screened zone with approximately 20% open

area.
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

193

Operation of the PP27 is not difficult. Simply hold the device in a manner that squeezes the two

handles towards each other to maintain the guard rod fully inserted in the PP27 body during the

insertion process (as shown in Figure 2). Holding the device in this manner, push the PP27 into the

sediments or beach to the desired depth using a gentle twisting motion. When the desired depth or

refusal is reached remove the guard rod from the PP27 body without disturbing the position of the

deployed sampler. Once the guard rod has been removed from the PP27, it SHOULD NOT be

reinserted into the device until the bore of the PP27 has been thoroughly cleansed of all sand, silt, etc. 

Attach a syringe or (peristaltic) pump to the PP27 sample port (see Figure 3) and withdraw water at

a low-flow sampling rate (50-200 m5/min.). Once non-turbid aliquots have been withdrawn,

representative samples can be collected for on-site and off-site analysis.

HELPFUL HINTS, INFORMATION, AND CAUTIONS

 • Multiple depths can be sampled in one hole if samples are collected from deepest to shallowest.

Insert the sampler using a twisting motion until you reach refusal. Remove the guard rod. Do not

push the sampler further into the sediments once the guard rod has been removed as this

may damage the screened zone and plug the PP27 with sediment. Once sampling has been

completed at this deepest depth, the PP27 can be partially pulled from the hole to a new sampling

elevation. Remember not to insert the PP27 into the sediments without the guard rod inserted to

prevent screened zone damage. Alternately, multiple holes can be used to collect samples from

multiple depths at a particular sampling location. It is recommended that some type be device be

used to prevent lateral movement and slippage of the PP27 as sampling is conducted near the top

of the hole (see Figure 3). This offsets the leverage of the instrument and reduces hole

degeneration. MHE offers an 8-inch diameter., heavy-duty steel sampling platform engineered for

precise sampling depth requirements of field research. A plate of steel with a 3/16-inch diameter.

hole through its center would serve the fundamental purpose of maintaining a rigid hole opening .

If repeated shallow sampling is to be conducted, it may be more convenient to use a shorter

sampler (MHE - PP15”).

 • If you wish to reuse the PP27 sampler at a particular sampling location and want to clean the bore

quickly while you’re there so that the guard rod may be safely reinserted, you can use a syringe

filled with surface water or deionized water to backflush the bore several times before reinserting

the guard rod. Use at least 100 m5 of water. If you have too much trouble reinserting the guard rod

(e.g., due to grit), it will be necessary to use the standard cleaning procedures with cleaning rod

and soap solution.

 • If the screened zone of the PP27 becomes plugged while inserted in the sediments, it is frequently

possible to hydraulically/pneumatically shock the screened zone free of adhering material while it

is inserted into the sediments. Attach a large-volume syringe to the sampling port. In a quick

motion, pull the syringe plunger most of the way back (creating a vacuum) and then immediately

release the plunger—the plunger will slam to a neutral position, sending a shock wave through the

bore of the PP27 and may alleviate the problem.

 • The PP27 can be used as a piezometer to determine the static head of the groundwater and hence,

the potential direction of groundwater movement. To do this, a tube is connected to the sample port

as shown in Figure 5. A continuous stream of water is established from the syringe (or pump) to

the screened zone by pumping out any air remaining in the PP27and tubing. When the tube is
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

194

disconnected from the syringe, the static water level in the tube will represent the static water level

at the depth that the screened zone occupies.

 • It is frequently possible to push the PP27 through thin lenses of low-permeability material and

collect samples from below them and gather valuable geochemical samples. At many of the sites

where the PP27 has been used, sampling from just below a layer of fine sand, silt, or clay, one

occasionally encounters seemingly large pockets of gas that seem to have coalesced and collected

under this less permeable stratum. Analysis of these pockets may provide additional insight to

predominant biological processes. It may true that the concentration of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) in the groundwater has equilibrated with these bubbles (i.e., steady state), which means

that their presence in a sampling stream or syringe would not significantly affect the concentration

of dissolved VOCs. In fact, if one assumes that steady-state conditions exist, the concentration of

VOCs in the bubbles is directly related the concentration in the surrounding groundwater. An

alternate condition may exist if the groundwater is supersaturated with bacterial metabolic waste

gases and the negative pressure exerted by the pump (or syringe) is initiating a degassing of

dissolved gases from the groundwater. In this instance, VOCs would partition from the

groundwater to the bubbles as they are formed in the sampling tubing (this is fairly evident if

occurring). The consequence is that part of the dissolved contaminant mass has partitioned into the

gas phase; unless the gas-phase is captured, quantified, and accounted for, the native VOC

concentration of the groundwater is not reflected by analysis of the groundwater alone. If this

condition exists, the degassing effect can be minimized by decreasing the sampling rate to a rate

more easily yielded by the sampled formation. With experience, it is easy to distinguish which of

these conditions (or combination of conditions) exist and to what extent they affect sample quality.

 • The internal volume of a PP27 is approximately 1.5 m5. A 50 m5 syringe full of distilled water,

decontamination water, methanol, etc. will push about 33 volumes through the bore.

 • When straightening the screened zone it is sometimes helpful to wash out the bore of the device

and then insert the guard rod or the cleaning rod to the area of the bend in the screened zone.

Gently unbend the portion of the screened zone nearest the rod and carefully advance the rod to the

next bend. After the rod has been fully inserted into the screened zone perform the final screened

zone straightening fine-tuning until the guard rod slides freely through it.

 • If the sampling port of the PP27 is above the static level of the water body, each time you remove

the syringe or pump from the PP27 sampling port, air will fill the bore of the PP27 allowing the

water level in the bore to reach its static head. To avoid this plug of air from entering the

subsequent syringe, attach a clamp adapter and or a three-way valve between the sampling port and

the syringe or pump inlet as shown in Figure 7.

 • I have conducted dye tests by injecting concentrated uradine dye under a perforated 1.5-foot

diameter disk through which the PP27 was inserted 3-12-inches into sediments. The goal of these

tests was to determine whether or not surface water and dye is drawn into samples collected in near

surface sediments (i.e., whether a cone of depression is formed). The results indicated that no

surface water is drawn into samples even though sampling was conducted with a peristaltic pump

at a rate of 600 m5/min.

 • I usually couple my field investigations with GPS location of the sampling point. If conditions

permit, a pin flag can be placed at the sampling point for later location by GPS. I usually use sub-
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

195

meter grade GPS for this surveying; GPS can then be used to relocate previously sampled point

even if certain site physical characteristics have changed (eroding shorelines, etc.).

 • Sampling by syringe has many advantages. This is my preferred field method due to its simplicity

and versatility. It is useful to be able to collect several 50 m5 syringes full of groundwater, store

them on ice, and perform the sample transfer to a VOA vial, etc. under more controlled conditions.

To transfer sample to a VOA vial, place the end of the transfer tube (Figure 8) to the bottom of the

VOA vial. Dispense sample into the VOA vial and slowly withdraw the transfer tube from the vial

maintaining the mouth of the transfer tube just below the sample surface. When the transfer tube is

almost out of the vial, continue to dispense sample and leave an “anti-meniscus” of sample above

the rim of the vial. Add several drops of HCl (which will displace a few drops of sample) and cap.

If VOC samples are to be collected and stored temporarily in a syringe, I recommend using 100%

polyethylene (“two piece”) syringes such as those made by Henke Sass Wolf GMBH (NormJect,

50 m5)) configured as shown in Figure 8. From personal experience I have found that small

amounts of aromatic compounds (BTEX) can leach from the rubber parts of the rubber-tipped

plunger found in common medical syringes. Rubber-tipped plunger syringes have less side-wall

resistance and work much smoother than the 100% polyethylene syringes so I use medical syringes

for “development” of the PP27. Standard medical syringes also work well for collecting samples

for non-VOC analysis. I utilize handheld meters for pH, conductivity, redox, dissolved oxygen, etc.

One can dispense sample from the syringe into these types of instruments for field measurements.

 • The 50 m5, 100% polyethylene syringes mentioned above can be purchased directly from MHE,

configured with tubing as was the example syringe included with your order, or customized to suit

your individual needs. If you would to make your own, the syringes that I am currently using are

purchased from National Scientific Company. The tubing is Tygon 1⁄4-inch outer diameter and Finch inner diameter. Be sure to use some type of clamp at the tubing mouth to ensure a good seal at

the sampler port.

 • Headspace GC analysis of VOCs can be easily accomplished using 100% polyethylene syringes.

Dispense all but 20 m5 of the sampled groundwater from the syringe. Refill the syringe to the 40

m5 mark with ambient air (and heat the syringe in a water bath if desired) as shown in Figure 9.

Insert a GC syringe needle through the transfer tube into the syringe headspace and withdraw a

sample for GC analysis.

 • Occasionally a small amount of sand and silt is withdrawn into the syringe or pump sampling

stream, even after proper development of the PP27. This may be due to the nature of the geologic

formation. This fine material is probably already at equilibrium with the surrounding groundwater

and should not influence analysis of VOCs in the groundwater sample. The sample can be

transferred to its shipping container without this silt if the syringe is dispensed in a way that lets

the solid material settle out in the syringe and not carry over to the shipping vial.

 • The PP27 has been used very successfully for underwater investigations using SCUBA equipment

and a series of 100% polyethylene syringes. Once again, GPS equipment was used for location of

the position that the divers collected groundwater samples of contaminant plume expression in the

lake. Underwater notes (temperature, depth, observations, etc.) can be written directly on the

sample syringes if they are pre-prepared with a strip of Scotch Magic Transparent Tape applied

down the syringe body and writing is done with a soft pencil. 
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

196

 • The PP27 may be used to inject nutrients or dyes into the sediments for field trials of biologic or

geochemical testing or tracing groundwater paths. Simply insert the PP27 to the desired depth and

after the guard rod has been removed, connect a syringe or pump and slowly inject the desired

fluid into the sediments, perhaps followed by a small amount of native groundwater to flush the

instrument.

 • These devices can be dedicated as semi-permanent underwater monitoring devices. If a PP-27 is

inserted to the desired depth through a plate (such as the sampling platform mentioned earlier) that

can lock the sampler at the correct insertion depth, a vinyl cap can be placed over the mouth of the

sampler, and the sampler can be dedicated to that location so that future samples can be withdrawn

when desired.

 • It has been useful to carry several samplers in “quivers” made of 2-inch PVC tubing: one tube for

10-15 clean and assembled samplers, and one tube for used samplers and their separated guard

rods. This arrangement protects both the investigators and the instruments.

I hope that users will find many useful and innovative uses for this device. If you have other helpful

information, uses, and advice concerning these samplers, please write or e-mail suggestions to me for

inclusion in future manual revisions. I will be forming a website soon, and posting much of my GSI

research with links to as much GSI field research and related topics as I can find.

Thanks.

Mark Henry

MHE Products

3371 Sherman Rd.

East Tawas, MI 48730

Phone: 517-362-5179 or 517-393-0948

e-mail: markhen@engin.umich.edu
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

197
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

198
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

199
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop July 2000

200