U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5282

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation

A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water
Cover photograph. U.S. Geological Survey Station 034336392 (Slick Rock Hollow Creek near Pewitt Chapel, Tennessee). 

Photograph taken by Shannon D. Williams, April 7, 2005.
A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

By Timothy H. Diehl

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5282

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Diehl, T.H., 2008, A modified siphon sampler for shallow water: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007–5282, 11 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Acknowledgment...........................................................................................................................................3

Design and Operation....................................................................................................................................3

Comparison to DH-48.....................................................................................................................................5

Summary........................................................................................................................................................10

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................10

Figures

1–3. Diagrams showing—

 1. Features of the U-59A, one model of the siphon samplers developed 

by the U.S. Geological Survey in the 1950s .......................................................................1

 2. The siphon sampler of Gray and Fisk (1992), after Bent and others (2001)..................2

 3. One modified siphon sampler bottle showing intake and air vent................................3

4–7. Photographs showing—

 4. Two views of a modified siphon sampler with three pairs of 

bottles mounted to a tall crest-stage gage .......................................................................4

 5. Modified siphon sampler mounted on boards bridging the channel............................6

 6. Modified siphon sampler mounted on a steel frame.......................................................7

 7. Modified siphon sampler mounted on a vertical steel rod.............................................8

8–9. Graphs showing—

 8. Turbidity of paired samples collected with the DH-48 isokinetic 

sampler and with the modified siphon sampler ...............................................................9

 9. Suspended-sediment concentration of paired samples collected with 

the DH-48 isokinetic sampler and with the modified siphon sampler ..........................9

Table

1. Suspended-sediment concentration and turbidity of paired samples collected 

with the DH-48 isokinetic sampler and with the modified siphon sampler.........................8
iv

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

Volume

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3

) 

Flow rate

meter per second (m/s) 3.2808 foot per second (ft/s)

millimeter per second (mm/s) 0.0032808 foot per second (ft/s)

Concentrations of constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Acronyms

CSG Crest-stage gage

NTRU Nephelometric turbidity ratio unit

SSC Suspended-sediment concentration

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Abstract

A modified siphon sampler (or “single-stage sampler”) 

was developed to sample shallow water at closely spaced vertical intervals. The modified design uses horizontal rather than 

vertical sample bottles. Previous siphon samplers are limited 

to water about 20 centimeters (cm) or more in depth; the modified design can sample water 10 cm deep. Several mounting 

options were used to deploy the modified siphon sampler in 

shallow bedrock streams of Middle Tennessee, while minimizing alteration of the stream bed.

Sampling characteristics and limitations of the modified design are similar to those of the original design. Testing 

showed that the modified sampler collects unbiased samples of 

suspended silt and clay. Similarity of the intake to the original siphon sampler suggests that the modified sampler would 

probably take downward-biased samples of suspended sand. 

Like other siphon samplers, it does not sample isokinetically, 

and the efficiency of sand sampling can be expected to change 

with flow velocity. The sampler needs to be located in the 

main flow of the stream, and is subject to damage from rapid 

flow and floating debris.

Water traps were added to the air vents to detect the 

flow of water through the sampler, which can cause a strong 

upward bias in sampled suspended-sediment concentration. 

Water did flow through the sampler, in some cases even when 

the top of the air vent remained above water. Air vents need to 

be extended well above maximum water level to prevent flow 

through the sampler.

Introduction

Siphon (or “single-stage”) samplers provide an inexpensive, reliable way to collect samples automatically from rising 

water at predetermined stages. Such samples have historically been used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for 

suspended-sediment analysis, but can be analyzed for turbidity 

and dissolved constituents as well. Each sampler includes a 

sample container—typically a 0.5- to 1.0-liter (L) bottle—an 

intake tube, and an air vent (fig. 1). When water rises to the 

approximate level of the top of the intake tube, it flows into 

the sample container until the inner end of the air vent is submerged. An air bubble trapped in the upper part of the air vent 

prevents water from flowing through the sampler. Multiple 

samplers typically are used at a site and are spaced vertically 

to collect samples across a range of stages.

A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

By Timothy H. Diehl 

Figure 1. Features of the U-59A, one model of the siphon 

samplers developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the 1950s.

Air vent

Intake tube

 Intake 

nozzle

0.5-liter 

sample bottle

Approximate

water level in

stream at 

beginning of 

bottle filling

Water level in

sample bottle

at end of 

sampling

0 10 CENTIMETERS
2 A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

The siphon sampler was developed in about 1954 by the 

USGS as a low-cost means of automatically collecting water 

samples for suspended-sediment measurement (Inter-Agency 

Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 1961; Edwards and Glysson, 1999). Siphon samplers are 

useful where site remoteness, rapid hydrologic response, or 

the need to sample many sites preclude the use of pumping 

samplers or manual sampling (Edwards and Glysson, 1999; 

John, 2000; Lurry and Kolbe, 2000; Bent and others, 2001; 

Burton and Pitt, 2002). Siphon samplers have been used to 

monitor suspended sediment and other water-quality properties in several studies, most of them involving multiple sites 

on small streams (Gray and Fisk, 1992; Lewis, 1998; Savidge, 

1998; Graczyk and others, 2000; Freihoefer and others, 2001; 

Ely, 2004; Carter, 2005; Garn and others, 2006). 

Several limitations affect the use of siphon samplers 

(Edwards and Glysson, 1999). The stage at which sampling 

begins varies with intake orientation and the velocity and 

turbulence of the stream. The time at which the sample is taken 

is unknown; if the sampler is paired with a continuous stage 

recorder, the uncertainty in the sampling time corresponds to

the uncertainty in the stage at which sampling begins. The efficiency of sand sampling changes with intake nozzle orientation 

(facing upstream or downward) and water velocity; samples 

can contain significantly higher or lower sand concentrations 

than the stream. The sample represents concentration at a single 

point; the sample concentration’s relation to the mean concentration in the stream can only be verified with manual sampling 

along multiple vertical lines. If the sampler is mounted in the 

main channel to get a representative sample, it is exposed to 

debris impact, debris accumulation, and strong hydraulic forces. 

In rapid flow, transitory pressure surges at the intake 

nozzle may be large enough to force the air bubble out of the 

air vent tube of the original (U-59) siphon sampler. Water then 

can flow through the sampler and can enrich a sediment sample many times greater than the concentration in the stream. 

When the water level drops below the air-vent opening, the 

water drains out of the air vent tube, and definite evidence of 

the loss of the air bubble remains. The original design included 

several versions of samplers with tall air vents to minimize 

this problem, but Gray and Fisk (1992) found it necessary to 

extend all air vents well above maximum flood stage (fig. 2). 

Figure 2. The siphon sampler of Gray and Fisk (1992), after Bent and others (2001).

Bank of

single-stage

samplers

Air vents

Intake nozzle flush 

with outside of 

PVC pipe

Bottle cap affixed

to flange

Inside end 

of air vent

Outside end 

of air vent

Inside end 

of intake 

tube

102-millimeter

inside-diameter

polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) pipe

Approximate water level

at which sampling begins
Design and Operation 3

Siphon samplers collect a water sample when water rises 

about to the level of the top of the intake. The minimum stage 

for sampling into a vertical container is about 3 centimeters 

(cm) above the top of the container, typically 19 to 21 cm for a 

0.5-L container. Many sites on ephemeral channels and small 

headwater streams that would otherwise be suitable for siphon 

samplers are shallower than 19 cm during most storms. In a 

study of suspended-sediment concentration in Middle Tennessee (Diehl and Williams, 2006), most of the sampling sites had 

shallow, rapid flow over bedrock or riprap beds. Excavating 

the bed to allow use of a typical siphon sampler was impractical. As a result, a modified siphon sampler was developed that 

could sample water 10 cm deep and be mounted on bedrock. 

This report describes the design and operation of the modified 

siphon sampler and the results of a comparison between this 

modified sampler and an isokinetic point sampler, the DH-48. 

Acknowledgment

The development and initial use of the modified 

siphon sampler was funded by the Tennessee Department 

of Transportation.

Design and Operation

The main modification to the siphon sampler was to turn 

the sample bottle on its side. This reduces the minimum depth 

for sampling and permits more closely spaced sampling depths 

(fig. 3). The water intake tube extends upstream from the sampler and is turned downward to sample 5 cm below the water 

surface (fig. 4). The air vent combines short sections of copper 

tube connected by flexible vinyl tubes. The inner end of the 

air-vent tube is below the inner end of the water intake at a 

level that limits the sample volume to less than about 90 percent of the volume of the bottle to allow for the expansion of 

frozen samples. Bottles are mounted side by side in pairs, with 

intakes offset vertically to sample at 5-cm intervals. Each pair 

of bottle caps is attached to a single assembly that supports 

and protects the intake and air vent tubes and incorporates a 

curved shield that guides flow smoothly around the bottles. 

Leakage around the tubes is prevented by a soft rubber gasket. 

The assembly is fastened around the pipe of a crest-stage gage 

(CSG) with a pipe clamp (Sroka, 2003). One to three pairs 

of bottles were stacked vertically on each pipe, providing a 

sampling range of 5 to 25 cm.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of one modified siphon sampler bottle showing intake and air vent.

Water

 trap

Approximate 

water level in stream 

to begin filling

Filling ends when water 

reaches this level in bottle

Intake

nozzle

0 10 CENTIMETERS

Air vent

Rubber

gasket

Bottle

cap

1-liter sample bottle

 Air 

vent

Intake tube
4 A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

Figure 4. Two views of a modified siphon sampler with three pairs of bottles mounted to a tall 

crest-stage gage.

AIR 

VENTS

CRESTSTAGE

GAGE

PIPE

CLAMP

SHIELD

INTAKE 

NOZZLE

AIR 

VENTS

PIPE

CLAMP

SHIELD

CRESTSTAGE

GAGE

INTAKE 

NOZZLE
Comparison to DH-48 5

The modified siphon sampler has its intake nozzle 

directed downward like the U-59A and is likely to undersample 

suspended sand like the U-59A does, while both samplers 

collect unbiased samples of silt and clay (Inter-Agency 

Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 1961). A sample of 0.8 L is taken in about 2 minutes, with 

a corresponding intake velocity of about 200 millimeters per 

second (mm/s). The fall velocity of coarse (0.062-millimeter 

diameter) silt ranges from about 2 to 4 mm/s depending on 

water temperature (Vanoni, 1975), or about 1 to 2 percent of 

intake velocity. Finer particles fall even more slowly. The high 

ratio of intake velocity to fall velocity suggests that the bias in 

sampling silt concentration is small for the modified sampler, 

as it is for the U-59A (Inter-Agency Committee on Water 

Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 1961), despite the 

fact that this modified sampler does not sample isokinetically. 

In the modified design, several means have been used to 

detect water flowing through the air vent or to keep water from 

flowing through the air vent. A CSG was incorporated into the 

modified siphon sampler to record whether water rose above 

the top of the air vent. Most of the modified samplers included 

water traps in the air vents. If water flowed through the air 

vent, the water trap retained water until the sampler was serviced, recording the flow through the air vent and indicating 

potential bias in the sample. These traps sometimes filled even 

when the top of the air-vent tube remained a few centimeters 

above the water surface. 

Three options were developed for mounting the sampler 

in the middle of the channel to avoid areas out of the main 

flow that may have unrepresentative suspended-sediment 

concentration (SSC). The first method was to drive fenceposts 

on both sides of the channel, bolt two boards across them 

above the maximum anticipated water level, and attach the 

CSG to the boards (fig. 5). This method has the advantage of 

minimizing effects on the channel, can be used to suspend the 

sampler over a mobile particulate bed, and is the easiest way 

to incorporate air vents that extend well above the maximum 

flood elevation. This mounting method has the disadvantages 

of being cumbersome, visually obtrusive, and excessively 

flexible if the fenceposts are more than 4 meters apart. The 

second and third methods involve only a short CSG that may 

or may not reach the maximum flood elevation. In the second 

method, the CSG is mounted to a steel framework anchored 

to the stream bed, which must be approximately level (fig. 6). 

In the third method, suitable only for firm beds, a fencepost 

is driven into the bed or a steel rod is inserted into a drilled 

hole, and a narrow pipe attached to the upstream side of the 

CSG is slipped over it (fig. 7). The second and third types of 

samplers are ballasted to keep them stationary on the bed. 

Regardless of the method of mounting the sampler, streams 

with flood depths greater than 0.5 meter and velocities greater 

than 1.2 meters per second tended to wash away the samplers. 

Problems with accumulation of woody debris also increased 

with the size of the stream.

Servicing the modified sampler involves more tasks than 

servicing the original (U-59A) design. Before recovering 

the samples, the water traps are examined and the maximum 

water level is read from the CSG. To recover the samples, the 

entire sampler, including the CSG and bottles, is removed 

from the stream and rotated to turn the bottles upright. Then, 

as with older designs, full bottles are unscrewed from their 

caps, which remain attached to the CSG. The sampler is rinsed 

and empty bottles are screwed hand-tight into the caps. Air is 

blown into the intake nozzle through a short flexible tube, first 

with the air vent open to check for free flow, then with the air 

vent covered to check for leakage. The sampler is then turned 

upright and put back in the stream.

Comparison to DH-48

A hand-held version of the modified siphon sampler was 

compared with the DH-48, a hand-held, isokinetic sampler 

with a horizontal intake nozzle (Edwards and Glysson, 1999; 

Lane and others, 2003). Testing took place in shallow, rising, rapid, and turbulent flow conditions similar to those that 

the modified siphon sampler is designed to sample. The two 

sampler intakes were immersed simultaneously to the shallowest depth at which the modified siphon sampler would 

sample, and held side by side at points about 8 cm apart while 

sampling. The DH-48, sampling isokinetically in rapid flow, 

always finished sampling before the siphon sampler filled its 

larger bottle. Testing was performed first at one of the field 

sites (USGS Station 03601630, Locke Branch near Bending 

Chestnut, Tennessee), but it proved difficult to reach the site in 

time to sample the first flush. Testing continued at a site nearer 

the Tennessee Water Science Center office with easy foot 

access to a gravel bar with swift, shallow flood flows (USGS 

Station 03433040, Little Harpeth River at Edwin Warner Park 

near Bellevue, Tennessee). This second site was similar to the 

project study area, with karst geology and soils developed in 

clayey residuum, but was more extensively disturbed by residential, commercial, and road construction.

Fifteen pairs of samples were collected using the DH-48 

and the modified siphon sampler. All pairs of samples were 

analyzed for turbidity using a Hach 2100AN turbidimeter, and 

13 pairs were analyzed for SSC by the USGS Kentucky Sediment Laboratory (table 1). Samples covered a range of turbidity and SSC similar to stormwater samples from the study 

area, from 26.2 to 1,587 nephelometric turbidity ratio units 

(NTRU) and from 58 to 1,520 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of 

suspended sediment. The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used 

to determine the significance of differences between the two 

samplers in SSC, turbidity, and the ratio of SSC to turbidity 

(Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977). Samples from the DH-48 

tended to have higher SSC and turbidity than the corresponding siphon samples, but this difference was not statistically 

significant (p = 0.147 and p = 0.174, respectively). The average ratio of SSC to turbidity was higher for DH-48 samples 

(p = 0.015). The paired samples with the largest discrepancy in 

SSC (178 mg/L DH-48, 58 mg/L siphon) also had the highest ratios of SSC to turbidity (table 1), suggesting relatively 

coarse samples. Small-scale eddies of variable turbidity were 

observed in the stream during the sampling; temporal and 

spatial variability in SSC seems a plausible explanation for the 

degree of scatter observed (figs. 8, 9).
6 A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

Figure 5. Modified siphon sampler mounted on boards bridging the channel.
Comparison to DH-48 7

Figure 6. Modified siphon sampler mounted on a steel frame.

CRESTSTAGE

GAGE

AIR 

VENTS

SHIELD

INTAKE 

NOZZLE

STEEL 

FRAME

BALLAST

WATER

TRAP

CRESTSTAGE

GAGE

AIR 

VENTS

SHIELD

INTAKE 

NOZZLE

STEEL 

FRAME

BALLAST

WATER

TRAP
8 A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

Figure 7. Modified siphon sampler mounted on a vertical steel rod.

AIR 

VENTS

BALLAST

STEEL 

ROD

Table 1. Suspended-sediment concentration and turbidity of paired samples collected with the DH-48 isokinetic sampler and with the 

modified siphon sampler.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SSC, suspended-sediment concentration; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio units; —, no data; 

Little Harpeth R., Little Harpeth River at Edwin Warner Park near Bellevue, Tennessee; Locke Branch, Locke Branch near Bending Chestnut, Tennessee]

Sample date

and time 

(yyyymmddhhmm)

Sample

location in 

Tennessee

USGS

station

number

SSC, in mg/L Turbidity, in NTRU Ratio of SSC to turbidity

DH-48

Modified 

siphon 

sampler

DH-48

Modified 

siphon 

sampler

DH-48

Modified 

siphon 

sampler

200604021645 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 1,490 1,520 1,277 1,587 1.2 1.0

200604021655 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 1,130 1,110 1,196 1,198 0.9 0.9

200604021707 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 488 507 306 307 1.6 1.7

200604021719 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 — 1,270 1,145 1,043 — 1.2

200604021742 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 1,240 1,150 712 683 1.7 1.7

200604210941 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 178 58 49 26.2 3.6 2.2

200604210949 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 160 201 122 149 1.3 1.3

200604210959 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 196 204 164 181 1.2 1.1

200604211007 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 213 196 182 180 1.2 1.1

200604211013 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 — — 164 163 — —

200604211021 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 151 149 134 132 1.1 1.1

200604211027 Little Harpeth R. 03433040 127 124 115 112 1.1 1.1

200508171901 Locke Branch 03601630 176 113 62 59 2.8 1.9

200508171931 Locke Branch 03601630 119 96 57 53 2.1 1.8

200508171946 Locke Branch 03601630 95 96 49 50 1.9 1.9
Comparison to DH-48 9

Figure 8. Turbidity of paired samples collected with the DH-48 isokinetic sampler and with the modified 

siphon sampler.

Figure 9. Suspended-sediment concentration of paired samples collected with the DH-48 isokinetic 

sampler and with the modified siphon sampler.

Turbidity, in nephelometric turbidity ratio units 

10

100

1,000

10,000

10 100 1,000 10,000

DH-48

Modified siphon sampler

10

100

1,000

10,000

10 100 1,000 10,000

DH-48

Modified siphon sampler

Suspended-sediment concentration, in milligrams per liter
10 A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water

Summary

The modified siphon sampler with horizontal sample 

containers meets the need for a reliable siphon sampler for 

shallow water. Several means of mounting the sampler are 

effective and produce minimal alteration of the channel bed 

and banks. Based on a comparison with simultaneous isokinetic point samples, the modified design produces unbiased 

samples of suspended silt and clay. The good correspondence 

between simultaneous paired samples suggests that the scatter in the paired samples of Graczyk and others (2000) may 

have been due to differences in the timing of the samples, as 

they conjectured. 

The modified design has several limitations in common 

with other siphon samplers. Flow through the sample containers occurs in versions of the modified sampler with air 

vents that do not extend above the maximum water level. The 

inclusion of a water trap in the air-vent tube prevents compromised samples from being analyzed but does not improve 

the sampler’s ability to collect valid samples. The need for air 

vents above the water surface limits mounting options in large 

streams that carry floating debris. Other limitations include 

biased sampling of suspended sand and uncertainty about the 

time and water level of sampling.

References Cited

Bent, G.C., Gray, J.R., Smith, K.P., and Glysson, G.D., 2001, 

A synopsis of technical issues for monitoring sediment in 

highway and urban runoff: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 00-497, 51 p., accessed March 29, 2004, at 

http://ma.water.usgs.gov/fhwa/products/ofr00497.pdf

Bhattacharyya, G.K., and Johnson, R.A., 1977, Statistical concepts and methods: New York, John Wiley & Sons, 639 p.

Burton, G.A., and Pitt, R.E., 2002, Stormwater effects 

handbook; a toolbox for watershed managers, scientists, and engineers: Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, 

accessed June 19, 2007, at http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/

publications/books/handbook/chp5b.pdf

Carter, M.D., 2005, Stream assessment and constructed 

stormwater wetland research in the North Creek watershed: 

Raleigh, North Carolina, North Carolina State University, 

accessed June 19, 2007, at http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/

available/etd-03142005-103836/unrestricted/etd.pdf

Diehl, T.H., and Williams, S.D., 2006, Spatial and temporal 

variability of turbidity and suspended sediment in southwest Williamson County, Tennessee [abs.], in Tennessee 

Water Resources Symposium, 16th, Burns, Tennessee, 

April 19–21, 2006, Proceedings: Tennessee Section of the 

American Water Resources Association, p. 1C-3.

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

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chap. C2, 80 p., accessed June 19, 2007, at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/twri/twri3-c2/pdf/TWRI_3-C2.pdf

Ely, Eleanor, 2004, Low-cost storm event sampler: The Volunteer Monitor, v. 16, no. 2, Summer 2004, p. 11, accessed 

March 29, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/

volunteer/newsletter/volmon16no2.pdf

Freihoefer, A., Turyk, N., and Shaw, B., 2001, Water quality assessment of the Plover River watershed, Langlade, 

Marathon, and Portage Counties, Wisconsin: Stevens Point, 

Wisconsin, Environmental Task Force Program, University 

of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, accessed June 19, 2007, at 

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/watersheds/Reports_Publications/

UWSP%20Plover%20River%20Water%20Quality%20

Study%202002.pdf

Garn, H.S., Robertson, D.M., Rose, W.J., Goddard, G.L., 

and Horwatich, J.S., 2006, Water quality, hydrology, and 

response to changes in phosphorus loading of Nagawicka 

Lake, a calcareous lake in Waukesha County, Wisconsin: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006-5273, 53 p., accessed June 19, 2007, at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/sir/2006/5273/pdf/SIR_2006-5273.pdf

Graczyk, D.J., Robertson, D.M., Rose, W.J., and Steuer, 

J.J., 2000, Comparison of water-quality samples collected 

by siphon samplers and automatic samplers in Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-067-00, 4 p., 

accessed March 29, 2004, at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/

FS-067-00/FS-067-00.pdf

Gray, J.R., and Fisk, G.G., 1992, Monitoring radionuclide 

and suspended-sediment transport in the Little Colorado 

River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, USA, in Erosion 

and Sediment Transport Monitoring Programmes in River 

Basins: Oslo, Norway, Proceedings of the International 

Symposium, August 24–28, 1992, IAHS Publication 

No. 210, p. 505–516. 

Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 1961, The single-stage sampler for 

suspended sediment: Washington, DC, U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Report 13 of series “A Study of Methods 

Used in Measurement and Analysis of Sediment Loads in 

Streams,” 105 p., accessed June 15, 2007, at http://fisp.wes.

army.mil/Report%2013.pdf

John, F.B., 2000, Collecting water-quality samples for dissolved 

metals-in-water: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, accessed June 19, 2007, at http://www.epa.gov/

earth1r6/6pd/qa/qadevtools/mod5_sops/surface_water_

sampling/low_level_metals/r6wtr-sampling-metals.pdf
References Cited 11

Lane, S.L., Flanagan, Sarah, and Wilde, F.D., 2003, Selection 

of equipment for water sampling (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A2, accessed September 13, 2006, at http://

water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter2/Chapter2_

V2uncompressed.pdf

Lewis, J., 1998, Evaluating the impacts of logging activities on 

erosion and sediment transport in the Caspar Creek watersheds, in Ziemer, R.R., ed., Proceedings of the conference 

on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story: General 

Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

149 p., accessed June 19, 2007, at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

publications/documents/gtr-168/07-lewis.html

Lurry, D.L., and Kolbe, C.M., 2000, Interagency field manual 

for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 00–213, accessed June 19, 2007, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr00-213/pdf/ofr00-213_

eng_v2.pdf

Savidge, Tim, 1998, Management of protected freshwater 

mussels with regard to North Carolina Department of 

Transportation highway projects, in Evink, G.L., Garrett, P., 

Zeigler, D., and Berry, J., eds., Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation 

(ICOWET), February 10–12, 1998, Fort Myers, Florida: 

Tallahassee, Florida, Florida Department of Transportation, 

263 p., accessed June 19, 2007, at http://www.icoet.net/

downloads/98paper19.pdf

Sroka, B.N., 2003, Collecting peak-flow data in Ohio through 

the use of crest-stage gages: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet FS-059-03, accessed June 8, 2007, at http://oh.water.

usgs.gov/reports/fs-059-03.pdf

Vanoni, V.A., ed., 1975, Sedimentation engineering: New 

York, ASCE Task Committee, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, ASCE Manual 54, 745 p.

Prepared by:

USGS Publishing Network

Raleigh Publishing Service Center

3916 Sunset Ridge Road

Raleigh, NC 27607

For additional information regarding this publication, contact:

Timothy H. Diehl, Hydrologist

USGS Tennessee Water Science Center

640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100

Nashville, TN 37211

phone: 615–837–4751

email: thdiehl@usgs.gov

Or visit the USGS Tennessee Water Science Center website at:

http://tn.water.usgs.gov/
Diehl—A Modified Siphon Sampler for Shallow Water—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5282