r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and
Quality Assurance
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/4-86/010
December 1986
Research and Development
Eastern Lake Survey
Phase I
Field Operations
Report
-------
Upper Midwest
Southern New England (1D)
Upper Peninsula of Michigan (2B)
Northcentral Wisconsin (2C)
Upper Great Lakes Area (2D) ^-^ ~j/)
Regions and Subregions, Eastern Lake Survey-Phase I
-------
EPA 600/4-86/010
December 1986
Eastern Lake Survey
Phase I
Field Operations Report
A Contribution to the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Acid Deposition and Atmospheric Research Division
Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality Assurance
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon 97333
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3249 and 68-03-3050 to Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., No. 68-02-3889 to Radian Corpor-
ation, No. 68-03-3246 to Northrop Services, Inc., and Interagency Agreement No. 40-1441 -
84 with the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of corporation names, trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document has been published previously. As part of the AERP Technical Information
program, this document has been repackaged and retitled to clearly identify its relation-
ship to other documents produced for the Eastern Lake Survey. The document contents
and reference number have not changed. Proper citation of this document remains:
Morris, F.A., D.V. Peck, M.B. Bonoff, K.J. Cabbie, and S.L. Pierett, National Surface Water
Survey, Eastern Lake Survey (Phase I - Synoptic Chemistry) Field Operations Report.
EPA600/4-86/010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV, 1986.
-------
ABSTRACT
The National Surface Water Survey is a three-phase program designed to address increas-
ing concern over potential acidification of U.S. surface waters by atmospheric deposition.
Phase I of the Eastern Lake Survey was conducted during autumn 1984 as asynoptic chemi-
cal survey to characterize lakes located in regions of the eastern U.S. believed to be suscept-
ible to the effects of acidic deposition. This document describes planning activities and
summarizes field operations of the Eastern Lake Survey Phase I.
Prior to Phase I field operations, preliminary experiments and pilot field studies were con-
ducted to test field sampling methodology and assumptions, laboratory procedure and
methodology, and logistical constraints. Eight locations in the eastern U.S. were subse-
quently chosen as field station sites. Lake water samples and in situ chemical and physical
data from 1798 lakes were collected using helicopters. Field sampling methodologies are
described in the report. Water samples were returned to mobile laboratories located at the
field stations. Certain analyses were performed at the mobile laboratories, and the sam pies
were split into aliquots and preserved for later analyses at contract analytical laboratories.
In general, field sampling and field laboratory activities proceeded smoothly. Pertinent
results, observations, and recommendations for improvement regarding field operations
are included. These recommendations and observations may be valuable to planners of
similar projects.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of contracts 68-03-3050 and 68-03-3249 by
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
Figures / v
Tables vi
Acknowledgment / vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Preliminary Activities 5
Pilot Studies 5
Comparability for Samples Collected Using Boats and Helicopters 5
3. Preparation for Field Operations 7
Procurement 7
Personnel Training 7
Field Station Site Selection 8
Laboratory Transportation and Set Up 8
4. Field Station Operations 9
Field Station Organization 9
Field Station Communications 9
Remote Base Sites 10
5. Field Sampling Operations 11
Field Sampling Equipment 11
Field Sampling Personnel 11
Daily Sampling Activities 11
6. Field Laboratory Operations 15
Field Laboratory Specifications 15
Field Laboratory Personnel 15
Daily Field Laboratory Activities 16
7. Results 21
Field Station Operations 21
Field Sampling Operations 22
Field Laboratory Operations 22
Cost Summary 23
8. Recommendations and Observations 24
References 26
Appendix A. Field Operation Forms
National Surface Water Survey Form 1 (Lake Data) A-1
National Surface Water Survey Form 2 (Batch/QC Field Data) A-2
National Surface Water Survey Form 3 (Shipping) A-3
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Geographic regions targeted for sampling during the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 4
2 Field station organizational structure, Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 9
3 Flowchart showing helicopter sampling crew activities,
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 12
4 Flowchart of daily activities at field laboratory, during the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 17
5 Flowchart of field sample processing and analyses conducted
at field laboratory during Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 19
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Problems Encountered and Corrective Actions Implemented,
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I, Spring Pilot Study 2
2 Analysis of Data for Samples Collected from Boat and from Helicopter
from Long Pond, New Jersey 6
3 Summary of Field Personnel Training Program for
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 7
4 Field Stations and Remote Base Sites
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 8
5 Dates of Operation, Number of Days Active, Flight Time,
and Percent Down Time by Field Station During the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 21
6 Numbers of Regular Lakes Selected for Sampling, Visited
by Sampling Crews, and Sampled During Eastern Lake
Survey Phase I by Region and Subregion 22
7 Number of Regular Lakes Sampled at 0.5 m and Thermally
Stratified Lakes Among the Regular Lakes Sampled During
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I by Region and Subregion 22
8 Number of Samples, Number of Batches, and Mean Numbers of
Samples per Batch by Field Stations During
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 23
9 Selected Cost Estimates for the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I 23
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
P. Kellar (Radian Corporation) contributed to the early development of the field operations
plan for the Eastern LakeSurvey. S. Simon (Lockheed Engineering and Management
Services Company, Inc.) and E. P. Meier (Environmental Monitoring Systems Labor-
atory Las Vegas) were involved with the design of the field laboratories. D. Hillman
(Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.), R. Cusimano
(Northrop Services, Inc.) and W. L. Kinney (Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory Las Vegas assisted in the development of the training program for field
sampling and field laboratory personnel
J. Baker, G. Filbin, A. Groeger, K. Asbury, S. Pierett, M. D. Best, and S. K. Drouse' (Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.), W. Fallon (Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories) and E. P. Meier (Environmental Monitoring Systems Labor-
atory Las Vegas) provided comments on earlier drafts of this report.
M. Faber (Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.) served as
technical editor. J. H. Carroll (R. B. Russell Project Laboratory, Program Manager,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Calhoun Falls, South Carolina),
D. E. Canfield, (Center for Aquatic Weed Research, Gainesville, Florida), and W.
Kretser (Adirondack Lake Survey Corporation) served as external reviewers.
R. Sheets and L. Gruzinski (Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company,
Inc.) were responsible for preparing many of the figures and illustrations.
L. Steele (Computer Sciences Corporation) was responsible for typing this document.
vii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) is a three-
phase program designed and implemented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP)
to address the increasing concern over potential acidifica-
tion of U.S. surface waters by atmospheric deposition. As
part the of NSWS, Phase I of the Eastern Lake Survey (ELS-I)
was conducted during autumn 1984 as a synoptic chemical
survey to characterize, at one point in time, lakes located in
regions of the eastern United States believed to be suscept-
ible to the effects of acidic deposition. The regions targeted
for sampling are shown in Figure 1. The criteria used to iden-
tify regions and subregions are described in Linthurst et
al. (1986).
The EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in
Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV) has been charged with
management responsibility for NSWS field operations.
Logistics support for ELS-I was provided by Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc.
(Lockheed-EMSCO).
Planning for the National Surface Water Survey began in
October, 1983. A research plan for the National Lake Survey
was developed that included project objectives, statistical
design, sampling and analytical methodologies, and a quality
assurance plan. This plan was reviewed by over 100 scien-
tists of various disciplines in the fall of 1984. A workshop was
held in December, 1983 involving 50 scientists and policy
makers to comment on and revise the research plan. The
plan was revised, and the field operations divided into the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I and the Western Lake Sur-
vey Phase I to be conducted in successive years. The
revised research plan for the ELS-I was released in March,
1984.
Sampling and analytical protocols were developed based
on the research plan, and a quality assurance program was
designed. These methodologies and quality assurance pro-
gram were reviewed and discussed at a workshop meeting
held in the spring of 1984. The statistical design of the ELS-I
was reviewed by the American Statistical Association in
June, 1984 and the plan for data analysis was reviewed in
October, 1984.
The methodologies and plan of operations presented in this
report were developed based on the comments from and
discussion among many scientists during the lengthy review
process of the research plan for the ELS-I.
In this document we describe planning activities and
summarize field operations of ELS-I. Field sampling method-
ologies are described in this report. Laboratory analytical
methods are described in Hillman et ai. (1986). The quality
assurance (QA) program is described in Drouse' et al. (1986).
The design and results of the ELS-I are presented in Linthurst
et al. (1986). Results of the QA program are summarized in
Bestetal. (1986). Observations and recommendations from
ELS-I field operations are offered for consideration by plan-
ners of future efforts of similar size and purpose.
Theobjectives of ELS-I required sampling a large number of
lakes over a wide geographic area within a short time period.
To minimize chemical and biological changes occurring in a
sample after collection, they had to be transported from the
lake to a field ^laboratory within 16 hours for processing and
preservation, the preserved samples then had to be delivered
to contract analytical laboratories within 54 hours of collec-
tion to allow time for analysis within required holding times
(Drouse'etal., 1986).
To satisfy these requirements, three options for collecting
samples (boats, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters) were
considered during the planning of sample collection
operations.
Boats are commonly used as sampling platforms in lim-
nological studies. Their use in ELS-I was rejected for the
following reasons:
The lack of road access limited the number of lakes
that could have been readily sampled by boat.
Sample holding times would have been exceeded
owing to long travel times between lakes and field
stations, y
It would have been impractical to train, equip, and
coordinate enough qualified boat teams to sample the
proposed number of lakes during the brief autumn
turnover period.
Fixed-wing aircraft equipped with pontoons were con-
sidered to be the quickest means of reaching the lakes and
returning samples to a field station laboratory. This option
was rejected because landing area requirements for fixed-
wing aircraft would have placed unacceptable lower limits
on the size of a lake that could be sampled. The ELS-I ob-
jective of sampling a random selection of lakes that were
represented on 1:250,000 scale U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) topographic maps would have been jeopardized.
-------
TABLE 1, PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED, EASTERN LAKE SURVEY PHASE I,
SPRING PILOT STUDY
Problem
Corrective Action
Logistical Activities
nel and field base coordinators.
Communication was poor between field laboratory person- Telephones were installed in field laboratories. Laboratory
coordinators attended daily briefings with field base co-
ordinator. Daily activity summaries were prepared. Co-
ordinated delivery of samples and forms was established.
The potential for material shortages was too high.
Field sampling crews had difficulties obtaining equipment
and supplies.
Sample transfer from coolers to field laboratory was
inefficient.
Field laboratory was cluttered.
Field laboratory personnel were interrupted.
Field sampling and field laboratory crews were too small for
efficient operation.
Field sampling crews could not operate efficiently at
remote sites.
Audit samples were not tracked adequately.
Materials were stocked in a warehouse for overnight ship-
ment if needed.
Field stations were provided with a storage area, a calibra-
tion room, and freezer space.
Refrigerators were installed in laboratories for interim
storage.
Additional shelving was installed.
All visits were prearranged through the field base co-
ordinator.
One additional person was assigned to both field and
laboratory crews.
Samples from remote sites were transported to field station
by fixed-wing aircraft. Additional calibration gear and sup-
plies were provided to remote sites.
A better communications plan was established at the Las
Vegas communications center.
Technical Activities
Of lakes visited, 21% were too shallow or boggy to be
sampled.
Technical expertise at central site was needed to answer
analytical or instrument-related questions.
Depth recorder was too bulky for helicopter.
Brass sounding lines and Secchi disk lines were un-
manageable.
Cameras were too complex; automatic date/time recorder
in camera malfunctioned.
Dissolved oxygen parameter was unnecessary and time
consuming.
Closed-system pH measurement in a helicopter was too
time consuming.
Hydrolab unit QC checks required documentation of tem-
perature, pressure, and solution age.
Criteria for selecting regular lakes and alternate lakes were
revised (Linthurst et al., 1986).
Arrangements were made for techni cal staff at EMSL-LV
and factory representatives to be on 24-hour call.
Smaller units were purchased.
Dacron lines with coiling racks or buckets were used.
Simpler automatic cameras were used. Lake identification
cards were photographed at each lake.
Protocol was eliminated.
Protocol was eliminated from on-lake activities, measure-
ment was conducted in field laboratory.
Table of theoretical values based on chemical equilibria and
experimental results was developed.
-------
TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)
Problem
Corrective Action
Operator variation in pH analysis time was observed in
field laboratory.
Sample integrity was compromised by warming or freezing.
Two of three methods used for fluoride analyses were
biased or inconsistent.
Sample-bottle washing procedure introduced nitrate
contamination.
Errors occurred on field data and field laboratory data
forms.
Field laboratory supervisors received additional training.
Improvements were made in pH sample chamber
designs.
Additional coolers were supplied. Uniform number of
chemical refrigerant packs per cooler were used.
Two methods were eliminated.
Bottle-washing protocol was revised {Hillman et al., 1986).
Additional training was provided to field sampling and labor-
atory personnel. Data forms were simplified.
A third option was to sample lakes from helicopters equipped
with floats. This option was considered to be appropriate to
the objectives of the ELS-I. Helicopters could access lakes
that were not accessible either by ground or by fixed-wing
aircraft. Helicopters could also access the lakes quickly
enough to ensure that the required number of lakes would
be sampled within the autumn turnover period. Samples
collected from helicopters could be quickly transported to
the field stations for processing, preservation, and analysis
within the required holding times.
Another consideration in achieving the scientific objectives
of ELS-I was the time of year that sampling activities would
occur (sampling windows). The most suitable time of year is
the period when the lakes are mixed (i.e., not thermally
stratified). This condition occurs during the spring and again
during the autumn to early winter. Early winter, when lakes
are essentially mixed but are under ice cover, is a desirable
period to sample because pH fluctuation is minimal and
biological activity is reduced. The relative merits of the
spring and early winter sampling windows were evaluated
as part of two preliminary field operations (pilot studies)
during 1984.
-------
Figure 1. Geographic regions targeted for sampling during the
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I. (Numerals identify
NSWS regions. Letters designate subregions.)
DULUTH, MM
RHINELANDER, Wl
LAKELAND, FL
BANGOR, ME
LEXINGTON, MA
MI. POCONO, PA
ASHEVILLE. NC
~T
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
PILOT STUDIES
Two pilot studies were implemented to identify and minimize
unforeseeable problems in a project the size and scope of
ELS-I. The studies were designed to (1) test all proposed
sampling and analytical methods, (2) provide initial estimates
of the range in concentration for each chemical variable to
be tested, (3) provide estimates of the range in chemical
variability among lakes, and (4) serve as training exercises
for field sampling and field laboratory personnel. The studies
were conducted during early winter and spring 1984. These
periods were selected so that the relative merits of these two
sampling windows could be assessed with respect to ELS-I
objectives and proposed logistics.
During the pilot studies, all aspects of the ELS-I research
plan were evaluated, including lake selection, proposed
sampling protocols, QA/QC procedures, and data manage-
ment. On the basis of pilot study results, certain features of
the research plan were modified. The feasibility of the pro-
posed logistics plan (e.g., helicopter support, personnel
requirements, sample processing and shipment, field com-
munications, and project management) was also assessed
during the pilot studies, and appropriate modifications were
made prior to the initiation of ELS-I field activities.
Winter Pilot Study
Sixty frozen lakes were sampled in Maine, New Hampshire,
and Vermont during January 1984. A modified motor home
supplied by EPA Region 2 was stationed at Bangor, Maine,
and served as a mobile laboratory.
During the winter pilot study, numerous logistical problems
indicated that sampling lakes through ice was not an effect-
ive procedure for use in the Eastern Lake Survey. The dif-
ficulty of locating lakes in areas of cover, the hazards of
exposure and hypothermia, the risk of damaging aircraft
and floats by breaking through ice, the increased hazards of
winter flying, and the increased time required to collect
samples and data at low temperatures all argued against
winter sampling.
Spring Pilot Study
The information acquired from the winter pilot study was
used to design a second pilot study that was conducted in
the spring when lakes were thermally mixed. A field station
was established at Lexington, Massachusetts, and 137 lakes
were sampled in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu-
setts, and New York. Field observations and analytical data
collected during the spring pilot study proved extremely
useful in revising the draft research and logistics plans for
ELS-I. Table 1 summarizes the problems encountered
during the spring pilot study and the corrective actions
implemented for ELS-I. The data were obtained under uni-
que experimental conditions and were not subjected to the
quality assurance plan eventually developed for ELS-I. Con-
sequently, the pilot study data were not included in the final
ELS-I data base.
COMPARABILITY OF SAMPLES
COLLECTED USING BOATS AND
HELICOPTERS
The possibility of sample contamination from the helicop-
ters was a major concern raised during the review of the
sampling methodologies. As a result, an experiment was
conducted to determine whether sampling from helicopters
would affect the chemical composition of lake water sam-
ples of low ionic strength.
On September 12, 1984, personnel from EPA Region 2
collected samples from Long Pond in northwest New Jersey
using both an unmotorized boat and a Bell 206 Jet Ranger
helicopter. The pond had a maximum depth of 7 m and was
isothermal when sampled. Seven samples were collected
. from each craft at the same depth (1.5 m) and location.
Samples were collected by boat first to evaluate lake water
contamination by the helicopter. Sampling and analytical
protocols were identical to those subsequently used in ELS-I
(Hillmanetal., 1986).
The mean values (n=7) for 22 chemical parameters (Table
2) were compared for samples collected using the boat and
the helicopter. Of the 22 parameters, calcium and sodium
showed significantly different variances (p <0.001) by Bar-
tlett's test (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). The means for these two
parameters were compared using an analysis of variance
for unequal variance (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Variances for
all other parameters were not significantly different (a=0.05)
and means for samples collected using the boat and the
helicopter were compared using an unpaired t-test (Sokal
and Rohlf, 1981). For each parameter, the null hypothesis
tested was that no significant difference (p <0.05) existed
between mean values obtained for the seven samples of
each collection type. Results from these tests (Table 2) showed
no significant difference between the means for any of the
parameters compared, supporting the argument that the
ELS-I helicopter sampling protocol did not significantly affect
the analytical results.
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BOAT AND FROM HELICOPTER FROM LONG POND,
NEW JERSEY
Boat(n=7)
Parameter; (Units)
Ca; (mg/L)
Mg; (mg/L)
K; (mg/L)
Na; (mg/L)
Mn; (mg/L)
Fe; (mg/L)
Al, extractable; (mg/L)
CI-; (mg/L)
SCX,-2; (mg/L)
NOa-; (mg/L)
SiOj; (mg/L)
F-, total; (mg/L)
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC); (mg/L)
NH44+; (mg/L)
pH, air-equilibrated
Base neutralizing capacity (BNC); ( eq/L)
Acid neutralizing capacity (ANC); ( eq/L)
Conductance; ( S/cm)
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG), closed-system; mg/L
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG) open-system; (mg/L)
P, total; (mg/L)
Al, total; (mg/L)
X
1.19ฐ
0.55
0.45
0.56
0.09
0.03
0.34
0.86
8.65
2.54
0.25
0.051
0.44
0.05
4.53
38.5
27.6
37.8
0.16
0.28
0.017
0.309
SD
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.06
2.20
0.03
0.010 .
0.08
0.01
0.01
1.4
2.4
0.3
0.02
0.03
0.006
0.063
Helicopter (n=7)
X
1.20
0.54
0.44
0.55
0.10
0.02
0.34
0.86
8.66
2.90
0.24
0.051
0.44
0.05
4.53
37.1
27.2
37.7
0.15
0.29
0.022
0.337
SD
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04
2.83
0.02
0.001
0.18
0.01
0.02
1.8
1.9
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.007
0.041
NSDbo
NSD
NSD
NSD=
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
a One outlier not included in x calculation (n=6), x including outlier is 1.30
b NSD = No significant difference.
c Data analyzed using ANOVA for unequal variance.
0.32 (n=7).
-------
SECTION 3
PREPARATION FOR FIELD OPERATIONS
PROCUREMENT
Procurement of all equipment and supplies for ELS-I began
in June 1984 and was accomplished through Support
Contractor Purchase Requests (SCPRs) initiated in Las Vegas.
A leased warehouse facility (7,200 ft.2) was used to store
supplies for the field stations. Each item received a unique
identification number. The equipment and supplies ordered
were tracked by computer to identify appropriate vendors
and to monitor availability and delivery schedules. The
computer-based inventory system also tracked the receipt
and subsequent disbursement of equipment and supplies
from the Lag Vegas warehouse to each field station during its
operation. An inventory control form was developed to
provide a format for updating the inventory data base.
PERSONNEL TRAINING
The simultaneous operation of ELS-I field stations required
a large number of support personnel. Many of these person-
nel were hired as temporary employees based on prior field
experience and on academic or professional qualifications.
These new employees were trained in ELS-I field sampling
and field laboratory protocols by personnel who had been
involved in the pilot studies.
An intensive technical and safety training program (Table 3)
for these personnel was conducted over a 6-day period in
September 1984 at the EMSL-LV. Additional training activities
were conducted at selected field stations.
Las Vegas Training Activities
Field and laboratory personnel were initially briefed by
members of the NSWS management team on overall goals
of ELS-I, field communications and coordination of activities,
duties of personnel, and organizational roles. The actual
training program consisted of a series of presentations, dis-
cussions, and practice sessions on the various methods and
procedures to be used in ELS-I. All trainees were tested to
ensure their proficiency with sampling methods and, when
necessary, remedial training and retesting were conducted.
All personnel attended a defensive driving course and were
trained and certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and
first aid. Laboratory personnel were given medical
surveillance physical examinations, and were fitted for
respirators to be used when methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
was used in the laboratory. Laboratory personnel were also
instructed in laboratory safety practices. All sampling per
sonnel were given preflight physical examinations.
Practice sampling was conducted on Lake Mead, Nevada,
to give field and laboratory personnel experience under
actual field conditions. Samples were collected using motor-
boats, in a manner procedurally similar to sampling from a
helicopter. As a cost-containment measure, actual training
in sampling from helicopters was conducted at the field
stations prior to the initiation of field sampling. Samples
were then processed by field laboratory personnel. Data
from the practice sampling were sent to Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for evaluation
of data management procedures. Following this training,
personnel were deployed to each of the field stations, where
they assisted in training EPA regional and state personnel,
who also served as field samplers.
Field Station Training Activities
Field sampling personnel selected from EPA regional offices
and participating state agencies were trained over a 2-day
period at the field stations in Bangor, Maine; Duluth, Min-
nesota; and Lake Placid, New York. All field sampling per-
sonnel were instructed in helicopter safety by a representative
from the Federal Aviation Administration's, Office of Aircraft
Safety (OAS). A practice sampling run using helicopters was
conducted on the second day. Samples collected during the
practice run were processed at the field laboratory, provid-
ing additional practice for laboratory personnel.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF FIELD PERSONNEL TRAINING
PROGRAM FOR EASTERN LAKE SURVEY, PHASE I (ELS-I)
Field Sampling
map reading and lake verification
lake photography
equipment use and calibration
data form completion and verification
sample types (routine, duplicate, and blank)
sample collection (Cubitainer and syringe)
sample transfer to field laboratory
Fielding Laboratory
sample receipt from sampling personnel
sample batch organization and initial processing
sample filtrations and preservation
aluminum extraction
equipment use, calibration, and troubleshooting
measurement of pH and DIG
measurement of true color and turbidity
completion and verification of forms
sample packing and shipment
-------
FIELD STATION SITE SELECTION
The geographic distribution of lakes to be sampled (Figure
1) required eight operating field stations be used to com-
plete ELS-I within the autumn turnover sampling period
(Table 4).
The primary concern in selecting a base for helicopter oper-
ations was locating it at a site that would allow the largest
number of lakes to be sampled within a 150-mile radius.
When a group of target lakes was beyond this sampling
range, a remote base site was established as a satellite to the
main field station. The criteria used to select the primary field
station sites are presented below.
TABLE 4. FIELD STATIONS AND REMOTE BASE SITES,
EASTERN LAKE SURVEY PHASE I
Region3 Field Station Remote Base Sites
1
1
1
Bangor, ME
Lake Placid, NY
Lexington, MA
Auburn, ME
Greenville, ME
Presque Isle, ME
Glens Falls, NY
Edison, NJ
Springfield, MA
Rutland VT
1
2
2
3
3
Ml. Pocono, PA
Duluth, MN
Rhinelander, Wl
Asheville, NC
Lakeland, FL
Ely, MN
Marquette, Ml
Newberry, Ml
Gainesville, FL
Personnel Support Requirements
Suitable lodging, restaurant, and parking facilities near the
field station were required. Because the field laboratory
operated during late evening hours, access to restrooms
during these extended hours was necessary. Paging sys-
tems were required to ensure that key personnel could be
contacted on a 24-hour basis. Field stations were located
near emergency medical care facilities. Arrangements were
established with a local bank to allow field personnel to cash
out-of-town travel checks.
LABORATORY TRANSPORTATION AND
SETUP
Five gooseneck-design mobile laboratory trailers were con-
structed in Las Vegas for ELS-I. (Laboratory specifications
are described in Section 6.) These mobile laboratories were
first transported on flatbed trailers to Lansdale, Pennsylvania,
for installation of laminar flow hoods. They were then trans-
ported to the respective field stations. A tow-behind mobile
laboratory trailer constructed for the spring pilot study had
been stored in Lexington, Massachusetts, and was subse-
quently used at the Lexington field station. Two methods
were used to load the mobile laboratories onto the flatbed
trailers. The best method was to use two forklifts to lift the
mobile laboratory from under the frame. The second method
was to use a large crane with a spreader. The latter method
consistently resulted in cosmetic damage to the trailers and
was used only as a last resort. Once the laboratory trailer
was positioned at the field station and utilities were con-
nected, field personnel required 3 to 6 days to make the
laboratory and its instrumentation fully operational.
"Refer to Figure 1 for the geographic location of regions.
Field Station Requirements
Airport access was the primary consideration. All field stations
(and remote base sites) were located at or near airports to
facilitate the landing, refueling, communications, and main-
tenance of the contract helicopters. Field sampling operations
required a room near the helicopter landing area for storage
of supplies and calibrating instruments.
Field Laboratory Requirements
Each field laboratory was located in a secure area near the
helicopter landing area to facilitate the transfer of samples.
The proper electrical service was required, as was a
telephone line. A minimum water pressure of 50 psi and a
sewer drain were also required for the proper operation of
the field laboratory (see Section 6).
Full-service overnight courier pickup and delivery, and major
airline or commuter airline service were required to accom-
modate sample transport at each field station. These ser-
vices were also required for shipments of equipment and
supplies to field stations from the Las Vegas warehouse.
Charter airplane service at each field station was required to
transport samples and supplies between remote base sites
and the field station.
-------
SECTION 4 .
FIELD STATION OPERATIONS
FIELD STATION ORGANIZATION
Operation of a field station required a well-defined organiza-
tion. A total of 15 people, including pilots, mechanic, field
base coordinator, duty officer, and laboratory and field crews
were based at each field station (Figure 2). All personnel
reported to the field base coordinator, who was responsible
for the overall operation of the field station.
In addition to coordination of daily sampling and laboratory
activities, the field base coordinator acted as on-site project
officer for the Office of Aircraft Services helicopter contracts.
Other duties included coordinating management team and
press visits, scheduling fixed-wing aircraft services between
field stations and remote base sites, and obtaining permis-
sion to access privately owned lakes.
The duty officer was directly responsible to the field base
coordinator and was chiefly responsible for planning daily
sampling activities. These activities included preparing a list
of lake coordinates, receiving flight plans from pilots, and
providing sampling crews with the necessary flight maps
and lake data forms. The duty officer also assisted the field
base coordinator in updating the master sampling plan,
debriefing helicopter sampling crews, and overseeing remote
base site operations. The duty officer also acted as field base
coordinator in the coordinator's absence.
Responsibilities and duties of field sampling personnel are
described in Section 5 of this report. Responsibilities and
duties of field laboratory personnel are described in
Section 6.
Figure 2. Field station organizational structure,
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I.
BASE COORDINATOR (1)
PILOT (2)*--
MECHANIC (1)<
AND
FUEL TRUCK
Field Lab Coordinator (1)
Lab Supervisor/Chemist (1)
Analysts (3)
DOTY OFFICER
HELICOPTER TEAM 1 (2)
i ME
GROUND MEMBER (1)
TOTAL POSITIONS = 15
HE6JCOPTERTEAM2(2)
FIELD STATION COMMUNICATIONS
The establishment of communications centers and the i mple-
mentation of communications plans enabled field operations
to proceed in a coordinated and consistent manner, although
field stations were located over a wide geographic area.
Field sampling activities had to be closely monitored each
day for reasons of safety and coordination. Moreover, regular
communication between and among the field stations and
Las Vegas was necessary. Consequently, a local com-
munications center, staffed by the field base coordinator
and duty officer, was established at each field station, and a
central communications center was established in Las
Vegas.
Generally, the local centers were located in motel suites
equipped with two private telephone lines, one of which was
exclusively for helicopter communications. Each local
center was the coordination point for field station activities.
-------
The central communications center in Las Vegas served a
variety of purposes. It was an information clearinghouse on
the number and type of lakes sampled, sample shipment
schedules, helicopter flight hours, and long-range weather
forecasts. Communications center personnel coordinated
and tracked shipment of QA and analytical samples to con-
tract laboratories. These personnel were also responsible
for shipping supplies to field stations. The Las Vegas com-
munications center also served as the primary point of con-
tact for the many technical and logistical questions that
arose throughout the ELS-I. During the first two weeks of
field sampling operations, the center was staffed 24 hours
per day. It was later determined that peak communications
periods were from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. PST, and work
schedules were adjusted accordingly.
Computer software utilized by the central communications
center to track the progress of lake sampling activities was
developed before sampling began. Maps for the daily track-
ing of field activities were inventoried and displayed by
region. Bulletin boards and chalkboards were installed to
effectively monitor field activities.
Each field laboratory coordinator made a daily telephone
report to the Las Vegas communications center on the
number of lakes sampled, lake status (i.e., isothermal,
stratified, not sampled, frozen, etc.), total helicopter hours
(flight and running time on lake), sample shipments, equip-
ment and supply requests, and miscellaneous problems. At
the Las Vegas center, all communications were logged on a
field communication form. Sampling progress was graphi-
cally displayed on regional maps with color-coded flags to
indicate lakes sampled and remaining to be sampled. Pro-
gress reports were made by telephone, and a written report
was made twice weekly to the NSWS management team.
REMOTE BASE SITES
It was necessary at some field stations to establish remote
base sites (Table 4). During periods when sampling activities
were conducted from remote base sites, the field base co-
ordinator or duty officer traveled to the remote base site to
oversee operations. Water samples were flown by fixed-
wing aircraft to the field laboratory at the field station. Fixed-
wing aircraft were also used to transport supplies from the
field laboratory to the remote base site. Activities were co-
ordinated between a field station and a remote base site via
a remote communications center in a manner similar to the
coordination between field stations and Las Vegas. The
remote site updated the field stations regarding the pro-
gress of sampling activities and the scheduled arrival of
samples at the field laboratory.
10
T~
-------
SECTION 5
FIELD SAMPLING OPERATIONS
FIELD SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Bell 206 Jet Ranger helicopters equipped with floats were
used as the sampling platforms. This helicopter had a range
of approximately 100 miles with the projected payloads and
normally visited three to six lakes per day. Site depth was
determined with an electronic depth finder mounted on the
float. On the first lake sampled each day, the accuracy of the
depth sounder was checked using a sounding line cali-
brated in meters. Lake transparency was measured with a
20-cm diameter black and white Secchi disk. Hydrolab 4041
units, leased from the U.S. Geological Survey, were used for
in situ measurement of pH, temperature, and conductance.
Each sonde was retrofitted by the manufacturer with a glass
combination pH electrode and Beckman Lazarin reference
pH electrode. This configuration was recommended for use
in waters of low ionic strength. The units were equipped with
50-m cables. Samples were collected in a 6.2-L Van Dorn
sampler (Wildco model 1160-TT) that was modified to accept
a nylon Leur-Lok fitting. This modification allowed syringe
samples to be taken for laboratory analyses of pH and DIG
without atmospheric contact.
FIELD SAMPLING PERSONNEL
Personnel assigned as field samplers were responsible for
collection of water samples, accurate recording of field data
and observations, and calibration and maintenance of field
equipment. Five personnel were assigned as field samplers
at each site. On a given day, four were assigned duties as
field samplers (two per helicopter) and the fifth was designated
as the ground crew member.
The ground crew member was responsible for all preflight
and postflight sampling activities. Prior to departure of the
helicopters, the ground crew member calibrated the
Hydrolab units and assembled the field equipment and
expendable supplies for that day's sampling. After depar-
ture, the ground crew member assisted the duty officer in
preparing for the next day's sampling. These tasks included
organizing lake maps, completing appropriate parts of the
field data forms (lake name, coordinates, and lake sketch)
and completing of the lake coordinates form.
Upon return of the helicopters, the ground crew member
received field samples, verified completeness of the field
data forms, performed a QC check on the Hydrolab units,
and verified that equipment and supplies were ready for the
next day.
Sampling crew duties were divided between "observer" and
"sampler." The observer sat in the front of the aircraft and
was responsible for final identification of the lake and
recording of field data on the lake data form. The sampler,
stationed in the rear of the helicopter, collected the samples
and made the necessary field measurements following es-
tablished protocols. Both crew members assisted the pilot in
locating potentially hazardous conditions (e.g., other air-
craft, power lines, boats) throughout the flight. Personnel
were rotated between sampling and ground crew duties to
reduce boredom and fatigue.
DAILY SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
The protocols for collecting water samples and field data
during ELS-I were implemented in three phases: preflight
preparation, lake site activities, and postflight operations.
These activities are summarized in Figure 3.
Quality Assurance
Strict QA measures were followed to maintain consistency
in sampling protocols and to ensure that field data and water
samples would yield results of a high and known quality.
Additional QA measures were included in the sampling
protocol to minimize contamination of lake water samples,
many of which were of low ionic strength. Details of the QA
plan are presented in Drouse' et al. (1986).
Field Instrument Calibration
The Hydrolab unit was the only field instrument that required
regular calibration. This instrument was calibrated daily by
the ground crew member, prior to use, and was checked for
drift following completion of the day's sampling. Proper
operation of the Hydrolab temperature probe was checked
against a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) traceable
thermometer. Thermometer and meter values were required
to agree within 2.0ฐC or the unit was replaced. Standards
used in the pH electrode standardization were NBS-traceable,
color-coded buffers (pH 4.00 and pH 7.00). The Hydrolab
conductivity probe was standardized using a 0.001 M KC1
solution with a specific conductance of 14?nS/cm.
Following the calibration of pH and conductivity probes, the
instrument was tested with a quality control check sample
(QCCS). The QCCS provided a standard of low ionic strength
for pH and conductance measurements applicable over a
range of temperatures and barometric pressures. The QCCS
was prepared by bubbling COz through deionized water
(American Society for Testing and Materials, Type I) at a rate
11
-------
Figure 3. Flowchart showing helicopter sampling crew activities,
Eastern Lake Survey Phase I.
Field Station
Excursion 1
Enroute
Lake
Site
1. Calibrate Hydrolab units
2. Check list of equipment and
supplies for day's sampling
3. Load craft
4. Check list of lakes to be
sampled and file flight plan
with station supervisor
1. Unload samples
2. File lake data forms
with ground member
3. Check calibration of
Hydrolab and record on
lake data form
4. Debriefing with base
coordinator or duty
officer
5. Plan and prepare for next
day's sampling
1. Site description
2. Aerial photographs
3. Land on lake,
locate sampling site
4. Site depth
measurement
5. Set bouy
6. Profile conductance,
temp, and pH
7. Secchi transparency
determination
8. If necessary, prepare
a blank sample
9. Sample collection
with Van Dorn
10. Obtain DIC and pH
syringe samples
11. Transfer remaining
sample to a 4-liter
container
12. If necessary, prepare
a duplicate
sample
13. Verify that forms
and labels are
correctly filled out
14. Depart from the
lake site
of 1 to 2 L/min for 20 rnin. At standard temperature and
pressure, this solution has a theoretical pH of 3.91 and a
specific conductance of approximately 50 S/cm. Tables of
theoretical values for pH and specific conductance at dif-
ferent temperatures and barometric pressures were used to
determine the accuracy of calibration. If the value for the
QCCS differed by more than 0.15 pH unit or 20 S/cm, the
unit was recalibrated. If the recalibration did not work main-
tenance was performed on the unit following procedures
recommended by the manufacturer.
A freshly prepared QCCS was used to check the stability of
the instrument after each day of use. Calibration data were
recorded on a calibration form and were submitted to the
field laboratory coordinator at the end of the day. The initial
and final QCCS values for pH and conductance were
recorded on all field data forms used that day.
Preflight Activites
Pref light activities began with a brief meeting where the duty
officer or field base coordinator distributed maps(USGS7.5
or 15 min maps) and field data forms for each lake to be
sampled to the sampling crews. The field data forms were
partially completed by the ground crew member using infor-
mation obtained from the USGS maps. After calibration of
the Hydrolab units by the ground crew member, field crews
loaded the required equipment and supplies into the heli-
copter. The pilot filed an in-house flight plan with the field
base coordinator and an official flight plan with the local FAA
flight service station. The pilot then entered the coordinates
of the lakes to be sampled into the helicopter's LORAN-C
guidance system and departed for the first lake. Time of
departure was dependent on local weather conditions, and
crews were often delayed due to morning fog, rain, snow, or
high winds.
12
-------
Lake Site Activities
Lake Verification and Aerial Observations
Prior to landing, the lake identity was verified by the pilot and
crew members using a LORAN-C guidance system and a
USGS map. The crew member in the rear of the helicopter
{the sampler) then took three photographs. The first photo-
graph was of a card showing the lake name, lake identifica-
tion number (ID), date, crew ID, and frame number. This
photograph was used for later identification of the lake
photographs. The directions from which the lake photo-
graphs were taken were noted and recorded on the field
data form by the crew member in front (the observer), who
was responsible for data recording. Shoreline disturbances,
such as roads and dwellings, were noted and recorded on
the field data form. Other irregularities, such as culverts
entering the lake, livestock grazing near shore, and logging
activity, were recorded as comments on the field data form.
If a lake was classified as "non-target" (Linthurst et al., 1986)
when visited, afield data form was completed identifying the
lake as "non-target". The crew then proceeded to the next
lake. If a target lake was found to be inaccessible, it was
classified as "not visited", and a field data form was
completed.
Selection of Sampling Site
The pilot then determined whether the lake was accessible,
and if so, landed as close as possible to the apparent deepest
part of the lake. The pilotthen moved the helicopter over the
surface for 3 to 5 min until the depth sounder showed a con-
stant maximum depth. While on the lake, the pilot main-
tained position by visual reference either to landmarks or to
a buoy positioned at the sampling site, depending on local
conditions. Latitude and longitude of the lake were read
from the LORAN-C unit and were recorded on the field data
form. The lake depth at the sampling site was determined
using the depth recorder, and was recorded on the field data
form. Periodic checks of the depth recorder were made
using a calibrated sounding line.
The following operations were performed sequentially by
the crew member in the rear of the helicopter (the sampler).
Observations were recorded on the field data form by the
crew member in the front of the helicopter (the observer). A
field data form was completed for each lake visited, even if
no samples or measurements were collected. Criteria for
not sampling are presented in Linthurst et al. (1986).
In situ Measurements
Secchi transparency was determined by lowering the Secchi
disk into the water in the calm area between the aircraft and
the pontoons. All Secchi disk measurements were con-
ducted on the shaded side of the helicopter. The depths
wherethedisk disappeared upon lowering, and reappeared
upon raising, were recorded. These depths were later
averaged to yield the Secchi transparency value.
In situ measurements of temperature, pH, and conductance
were always made at 1.5 m. This depth was chosen arbi-
trarily, and was selected to be below the influence of the pon-
toons and rotor wash of a helicopter. The data from the
helicopter vs. boat sampling experiment (Table 2) support
this assumption. If the site depth was ฃ3 m, and a water
sample free of debris or sediment could not be collected,
measurements were made at 0.5 m.
A second set of in situ measurement were taken at 1.5 m
above the bottom (depth permitting) to determine the
thermal (or chemical) stratification status of the lake at the
sampling site. If the temperature difference between 1.5 m
and 1.5m above the bottom was less than 4ฐC, the lake was
classified as isothermal (i.e., thermally homogeneous). If the
temperature difference was greater than 4ฐC, a third set of
measurements were made at a depth equal to 60% of the
site depth. The temperature difference between 1.5 m and
this depth were compared. If the difference was less than
4ฐC, the lake was classified as "weakly" stratified. If the dif-
ference was equal to or greater than 4ฐC, the lake was
classified as "strongly" stratified.
Temperature and conductance profiles were conducted in
all strongly stratified lakes. If the site depth was ^20 m,
measurements were taken at 2-m intervals, beginning at 4
m. If the site depth was greater than 20 m, measurements
were taken at5-m intervals, beginning at 5 m, to a maximum
depth of 50 m (the length of the cable).
Collection of Water Samples
Field Blank Samples A field blank sample was obtained
by first rinsing the Van Dorn bottle with three 200-to 300-mL
portions of deionized water. The Van Dorn bottle was then
filled with deionized water, and a clean 4-L Cubitainer was
thoroughly rinsed with deionized water from the Van Dorn
bottle. The Cubitainer was then filled with deionized water
from the bottle, compressed to remove headspace, capped
securely, labeled, and stored in a cooler at 4ฐC.
Lake Water Samples Regardless of the stratification
status, lake water samples were obtained from 1.5 m. Sam-
ples and in situ readings were obtained at a depth (0.5 m in
lakes too shallow to collect a debris-free sample from 1.5 m).
The Van Dorn bottle was lowered to depth, triggered to
collect a sample, raised to the surface, and set on the pon-
toon platform in a vertical position, the sample of water in the
Van Dorn bottle was subsequently collected in two 60-mL
syringes and a 4-L Cubitainer.
For DIG and pH measurements, a 60-mL syringe was rinsed
with 20 mL of sample withdrawn through the Luer-Lok fitting
on the Van Dorn bottle. A 60-mL aliquot was then drawn into
the syringe from the Van Dorn bottle. The syringe was sealed
with a syringe valve, labeled, placed in a Ziploc bag, and
stored in a cooler at 4ฐC. This procedure was repeated for a
second syringe.
To collect a bulk water sample, a clean, 4-L Cubitainer was
thoroughly rinsed three times with 300 to 400 mL of sampie.
The Cubitainer was then filled with sample from the Van
Dorn bottle, compressed to remove headspace, capped
securely, labeled, and stored in a cooler at 4ฐC.
13
-------
Field Duplicate Sample Duplicate lake water samples
were obtained by collecting a second lake water sample in
the Van Dorn bottle from a depth of 1.5 m and filling two
syringes and a Cubitainer as described above.
Data Recording
Standardized field data forms (Appendix A, Figure A-1)
were used to record field observations, in situ measurements,
and any data qualifiers associated with observations or
measurements made at each lake. These multicopy forms
were checked and verified at the field station. A copy of each
form was sent to ORNL for entry into the ELS-I data base. A
second copy was sent to QA personnel in Las Vegas, and a
third copy was filed at the field laboratory to assist in data
management.
Departure
The Hydrolab unit and Van Dorn sampler were secured, and
the buoy was retrieved. The crew member who was record-
ing data (the observer) then verified that the field data form
was complete and that all containers were correctly labeled.
The helicopter then proceeded to the next lake, or returned
to the field station or remote base site.
Postflight Activities
Upon return of the helicopters to the field station or remote
base site, the calibration of the Hydrolabs was checked by
the ground crew member. The ground crew member also
checked field data forms for completeness.
Samples were transported to the field laboratory in coolers
at approximately 4ฐC. Fixed-wing aircraft were used to
shuttle samples (held at approximately 4ฐC) and supplies
between remote base site and field stations.
At the end of each sampling day, a debriefing was held
during which the pilots, sampling crew members, and ground
crew member reported to the duty officer on that day's
activities. This debriefing was also an opportunity to discuss
problems and to schedule fueling and other activities for the
next day.
14
-------
SECTION 6
FIELD LABORATORY OPERATIONS
FIELD LABORATORY SPECIFICATIONS
The need to process and preserve samples as soon as poss-
ible after collection required that a field laboratory be estab-
lished at each field station. The field laboratories provided a
contamination-free environment for preparing samples for
later analysis at a contract analytical laboratory. Use of a field
laboratory also allowed certain analyses to be conducted
shortly after collection.
Six laboratory trailers were constructed for ELS-I. The pro-
totype trailer was of tow-behind design, and was24ft. long, 8
ft. wide, and 12 ft. 5 in. high. The other five trailers were of
gooseneck design, with a fifth-wheel hitch. These trailers
were 31 ft. long, 8 ft. wide, and 12 ft. 8 in. high. Inside
workspace was 24 ft. long, 7 ft. 6 in. wide, and 7 ft. 6 in. high.
There was 480 ft.3 of compartment storage. Approximately
18 linear ft. of counter space was available, and storage
cabinets were located above and below the counter tops. A
polypropylene wet sink and cup sink were installed. Each
trailer required both 110 V and 220 V AC, single-phase 80-
amp electrical power, a minimum water pressure of 50 psi,
and access to a sewer drain or leach field.
Each trailer was equipped with a 6-ft.-wide laminar flow
hood containing high efficiency purification apparatus (HEPA)
filters (0.3 m pore size) and capable of delivering ASTM
Class 100 air with a balanced flow vent (inflow equals out-
flow). This provided a clean work area to eliminate con-
tamination during sample processing.
Deionized water was produced using a Millipore Milli-RO
reverse osmosis purification system (4 L/h output). This sys-
tem was connected to a 95-L reservoir. Water from the
reservoir was additionally treated on demand to meet ASTM
Type 1 specifications using a Millipore Milli-Q system.
Each fifth-wheel trailer was also equipped with two 8 ft.3
freezers, and one 30-ft.3 refrigerator/freezer. The tow-behind
trailer was equipped with one freezer and one refrigerator/
freezer. Temperature control inside the laboratory was pro-
vided by two roof-mounted venting/air conditioning units
(5,000-BTU heating capacity and 13,200-BTU cooling ca-
pacity per unit).
Safety features of each laboratory included an eye wash sta-
tion, firstaid kit, two fire extinguishers, a storage cabinet for
flammable solvents, a vented cabinet for concentrated acids,
and a safety shower located outside the trailer.
Laboratory instrumentation included a Xertex Dohrman
model DC-80 carbon analyzer, an Orion model 611 pH
meter with Orion Ross model 81-52 epoxy-body combina-
tion electrode, an Ohaus Brainweigh model 300D electronic
balance, a Monitek model 21 nephelometer, a Hach CO-11
color test kit, and a Clay-Adams centrifuge. Equipment for
sample filtration included a Millipore oil-free vacuum pump,
Fisher low-form filtration bases, and Nalgene filter holders.
Other laboratory supplies used are described in Hillman
etal. (1986).
FIELD LABORATORY PERSONNEL
Each field laboratory was staffed by five persons: a laboratory
coordinator, a laboratory supervisor, and three laboratory
analysts.
The field laboratory coordinator was responsible for the
overall operations at each field station, including set up of
the field laboratory and associated support facilities (e.g.,
calibration room, local communication center, and training
facilities). The field laboratory coordinator served as a point
of contact between field sampling operations (field base
coordinator, duty officer, and sampling crews) and field
laboratory operations (field laboratory supervisor and ana-
lysts). The field laboratory coordinator received samples
and field data forms from the ground crew member, and
organized them, along with QA audit samples received daily,
into a batch for processing by the field laboratory. The ship-
ment of processed sample aliquots to analytical laboratories
and completed data forms to data management and QA
personnel was the responsibility of the field laboratory co-
ordinator. Each field laboratory coordinator filed adailytele-
phone report with the central communications center in Las
Vegas that summarized each day's sampling activities, pro-
vided information regarding sample shipment and tracking,
and included requests for equipment and supplies.
The field laboratory supervisor was responsible for the daily
operation of the field laboratory, ensuring that samples were
handled, analyzed, and processed in accordance with
approved methodologies and QA guidelines. The field labo-
ratory supervisor analyzed all samples for DIG and pH. Data
from all analyses conducted each day in the field laboratory
were transcribed from laboratory logbooks to a standar-
dized field laboratory data form (Appendix A) by the field
laboratory supervisor. Additional responsibilities of the field
laboratory supervisor included laboratory safety, cleanli-
ness, and security; tracking the laboratory equipment and
supply inventory; troubleshooting laboratory instrument
malfunctions; and supervising the packing of equipment
and materials prior to the relocation of the field laboratory.
15
-------
The three analysts (referred to as analysts 1,2, and 3) were
responsible for all other field laboratory activities. Analyst 1
performed aluminum extractions and analyzed samples for
turbidity and true color. Analyst 2 filtered samples and pre-
pared aliquots for later analysis at the contract analytical
laboratory. Analyst 2 also assisted field crews in obtaining
reagents and other necessary supplies. Analyst 3 was re-
sponsible for preparing sample aliquot bottles and labels
prior to processing, and for preserving sample aliquots with
acid as they were prepared. Other duties included assisting
with turbidity and true color determinations, and assisting
the field laboratory coordinator with preparing processed
sample aliquots and completed data forms for shipment.
Prior to the start of ELS-I field operations, all laboratory
personnel underwent an intensive training program in Las
Vegas that covered all aspects of field laboratory operations
(see Section 3). Each person was trained in every laboratory
position, and analysts rotated duties at some field stations.
DAILY FIELD LABORATORY ACTIVITIES
The daily activities associated with the operation of the field
laboratory began with a daily briefing meeting and con-
cluded with the shipment of samples and data forms from
the field laboratory (the following day). A flowchart of these
activities is presented in Figure 4. A detailed discussion of
the field laboratory analytical and sample processing method-
ologies is presented in Hillman et al. (1986). The QA pro-
tocols used in each field laboratory are described in Drouse'
etal. (1986).
Preparatory Activities
Daily Briefing Meeting
The field laboratory coordinator attended a daily meeting
with the field base coordinator and duty officer. This meeting
was convened after the departure of field sampling crews.
The purpose of the meeting was to inform the field laboratory
coordinator of the expected sample load for that day and the
estimated time of arrival of samples at the field station.
Problems which had developed during the previous day's
sampling or laboratory operations were also discussed.
Receipt of Audit Samples
To monitor the performance of field laboratories and
contract analytical laboratories, water samples of known
chemical composition (termed audit samples) were pre-
pared by Radian Corporation, (Austin, Texas), and were
shipped daily via overnight courier service to each field
laboratory. Thefield laboratory coordinatorwasresponsible
for receiving the audit samples and storing them at 4ฐC until
they were incorporated into a sample batch for processing
and analysis. Details on the chemical composition and pre-
paration of audit samples can be found in Drouse' et al.
(1986). Audit samples were shipped daily to each field labo-
ratory (Drouse1 et al. 1986).
Audit samples were subjected to two treatments ("field" and
"laboratory") at the field laboratory. Field audit samples
were sent to each field laboratory in 2-L wide-mouth Nalgene
bottles. Field audit samples were labeled, analyzed, and
processed by each field laboratory in the same manner as
lake water samples. A field audit sample represented a
sample known to be an audit sample but having a composi-
tion unknown to an analyst at the field laboratory, but the
sample was of unknown sample type and composition when
received at a contract analytical laboratory.
Laboratory audit samples were prepared, processed, and
split into sample aliquot bottles by Radian Corporation. A
laboratory audit sample thus consisted of seven aliquots
that were processed and preserved following the same pro-
tocols used in the field laboratory for lake water samples.
These aliquots were in containers identical to those used by
the field laboratory. Laboratory audit samples received by
the field laboratory were not processed but were relabeled
and incorporated into a sample batch. Thus, the laboratory
audit samples shipped from the field laboratory were indis-
tinguishable from regular samples when received at a con-
tract analytical laboratory. Upon receipt of audit samples,
the field laboratory coordinator completed sample tracking
forms later returned to Radian Corporation. Each audit
sample was assigned a sample ID number and was incor-
porated with lake water samples into a batch for that day's
processing. The batch and sample ID numbers were
recorded on the audit sample labels (for each field audit
sample and each aliquot of a laboratory audit sample). The
audit sample labels were then removed and were placed in a
logbook by the field laboratory coordinator. The batch and
sample ID numbers were written on the 2-L field audit sam-
ple container. Aliquots of a laboratory audit sample were
labeled with the appropriate sample aliquot labels. Field
audit samples were processed exactly like lake water sam-
ples, but laboratory audit samples received no treatment at
the field laboratory other than relabeling and shipping.
Work Station and Equipment Preparation
The field laboratory staff began preparing for daily operation
1 to 2 hours prior to the arrival of samples from the field.
Each day prior to any sample processing or analyses, the
field laboratory floor was mopped, and all counter surfaces
were wiped down. Benchkote absorbent counter covering
was replaced if necessary.
All instrumentation in the field laboratory was left on or was
left in stand-by mode at all times while the field laboratory
was on site. The field laboratory supervisor prepared calib-
ration standards and QCCS solutions (Hillman et al., 1986)
for DIG analysis. The carbon analyzer was calibrated, and its
operation was checked using these solutions. The pH meter
was standardized with pH 4.00 and 7.00 NBS-traceable buf-
fers. The standardization was subsequently checked with
fresh buffers and a freshly prepared QCCS (Hillman et al.,
1986). The field laboratory supervisor collected syringe
samples for pH and DIC from each field audit sample.
16
-------
Figure 4. Flowchart of daily activities at field laboratory during
the Eastern Lake Survey Phase I.
FIELD LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Ground crew
member transfers
forms, samples
to coordinator
Laboratory
coordinator contacts
EMSL-LV
communcations center
(previous day)
EMSL-LV
contacts
audit preparation
laboratory
17
-------
Analyst 1 prepared reagents, equipment, and labels for use
in aluminum extraction. Reagent dispensers were checked
for accuracy of delivery, and a logbook for aluminum extrac-
tion was prepared for recording observations. The nephe-
lometer was calibrated and checked for proper operation,
the color test kit was assembled, and the logbook for tur-
bidity and true color was prepared for data recording by
analyst 1. Analyst 2 assembled and organized all equipment
and supplies required for sample filtration and prepared a
logbook to check off sample aliquots as they were prepared
and preserved. Analyst 3 prepared all necessary aliquot
bottles and aliquot labels forthe sample batch and prepared
materials necessary for aliquot preparation. Sample aliquot
bottles and labels were prepared beforehand to minimize
the possibilities of error in filling the bottles.
Sample Receipt from Field Crews
Three types of water samples were received by the field
laboratory from field sampling crews: routine samples, field
duplicate samples, and field blank samples. The collection
of these samples is described in Section 5.
The sample containers (Cubitainer and syringes) and field
data forms collected during each day's sampling operation
were received by the field laboratory coordinator. The field
laboratory coordinator checked the temperature (ฐC) of
each cooler containing samples upon receipt and recorded
this temperature on the appropriate field data forms.
All sample containers were inspected for leakage, and poss-
ible contamination, and the syringes were checked for the
presence of air bubbles. All comments regarding samples
were recorded on the appropriate field data forms. The field
crew observers and ground crew members were also deb-
riefed by the field laboratory coordinator on all problems
encountered during sampling activities (e.g., suspect or
missing samples, equipment failures, or suspect measure-
ments).
Organization of Samples into a Batch
Once lake water samples and audit samples had arrived at
the field laboratory, the field laboratory coordinator organized
them into a batch for processing and analysis. A batch was
defined as all samples processed by afield laboratory on a
given day. Each batch from a particular field laboratory was
sequentiafiy assigned a unique batch ID number.
Each sample in the batch (routine, field duplicate, field blank,
and audit samples) was then randomly assigned a unique
sample ID number. The batch and sample ID numbers were
recorded on all field sample container labels (Cubitainers
and syringes). These numbers were also recorded on the
labels of corresponding sample aliquots prepared from
each Cubitainer sample.
Once batch and sample ID numbers were recorded on field
sample labels, the field laboratory coordinator entered batch
information, lake ID numbers, and sample codes from all
samples on the batch/QC field data form for that day's
operation (Appendix A). The lake ID number and sample
code for each sample were entered on the field laboratory
data form on the line corresponding to its assigned sample
ID number. In the case of an audit sample, no lake ID
number was entered. The audit sample code was entered in
the "sample code" column.
During the organization of a batch, and until the batch was
processed by the field laboratory, all samples were held at
4ฐC, either in the field laboratory refrigerator or in a cooler
containing frozen chemical refrigerant packs. When the
assignment of sample ID numbers was complete, the field
laboratory coordinator informed the field laboratory super-
visor.
While the samples were being organized into a batch, the
field laboratory supervisor and analysts made preparations
to process and analyze samples.
Transfer of Samples to Field Laboratory
Once the batch was organized and all field sample con-
tainers were properly labeled, one syringe from each field
sample was placed in the laboratory refrigerator for use in
DIG analysis. The other syringe from each field sample was
placed on a shelf in the laboratory to warm to room tempera-
ture prior to pH determinations. The field laboratory super-
visor collected two syringes from each field audit sample
and labeled them with batch and sample ID numbers. One
audit sample syringe was placed in the refrigerator for DIG
analysis, and the other was placed on the shelf with those
syringes used for pH determinations.
Sample Analysis and Processing
The flow of samples through the field laboratory is dia-
grammed in Figure 5. Aliquots from three Cubitainer
samples were filtered or otherwise prepared simultaneously.
An aliquot of filtered water from each field sample was pre-
pared for aluminum extraction. The remaining prepared ali-
quots were preserved and refrigerated. After aliquoting,
closed Cubitainers, were placed on the floor to warm prior to
turbidity and true color determinations. When the Cubitainer
samples had warmed to room temperature, subsamples
were prepared for turbidity and true color determinations.
While the samples were being processed, the refrigerated
syringe samples were analyzed for DIG concentration. When
these analyses were completed, pH determinations using
syringes that had warmed to room temperature were
conducted.
One routine sample in each batch was designated as the
"trailer duplicate." Two aliquots of this sample from each
syringe were analyzed for DIG, and pH. Two subsamples of
the trailer duplicate sample were analyzed for turbidity and
true color.
18
-------
Figure 5. Flowchart of field sample processing and analyses conducted at field laboratory
during Eastern Lake Survey Phase I.
L
Routine Field blank Field duplicate Fiel
lake samples sample auc
samples ] |
F eld laboratory
Daily hntnh
of samples 1
w
F
i
Analysis Aliquot preparation
DIG, pH, Turbidity, True Color)
QC ched
samples
1 1 Aluminum extractor
ซ Batch Trailer Preservation
1 sample
Shipm
Analytical
Analytical
"
entto
aboratory
aboratory
,
d/laboratory
lit sample(s)
elabelling
I
i
Analysis
Internal Ba
QC samples sam
Laboratory blank,
matrix spike,
QC check sample
L
Raw
set
1
ch
pies
1
Laboratory
duplicate
19
-------
When sample processing operations were completed, pre-
served aliquots were prepared for shipping. Refrigerated
aliquots were checked after 1 to 2 hours to ensure that con-
tainer caps were tight. The cap of each aliquot bottle was
taped to the bottle using electrician's tape wrapped clock-
wise around the seal. Each bottle was placed in a plastic bag
that was sealed with a twist tie. A set of six aliquots from each
sample (not including the aliquot for analysis of extractable
aluminum) was placed in a 1-gallon Ziploc bag. All aliquots
were refrigerated at 4ฐC. The aliquots for extractable aluminum
analysis were taped and bagged separately. They were then
stored in a Styrofoam cooler with frozen chemical refriger-
ant packs.
When all analyses were completed and while the analysts
finished wrapping and bagging the aliquot bottles, DIG, pH,
turbidity, and true color data from laboratory logbooks was
transcribed to the field laboratory data form. Work areas
were cleaned and organized before the staff left the laboratory
each night. A safety check list was used to complete a close-
of-day inspection prior to departure.
Sample, Data Form, and Film Shipment
Sample Shipment
The following morning, preserved aliquots were packed into
containers for shipment to the contract analytical laboratory.
Aliquots were placed in 30-qt. Styrofoam shipping con-
tainers (Freeze-Safe) that were lined with six frozen chemi-
cal refrigerant packs to maintain aliquots at 4ฐC during
shipment. Each container held six to seven sets of aliquot
containers. The 10-mL centrifuge tubes containing aliquots
for extractable aluminum analysis were taped to the inside
of the shipping container.
Afour-part shipping form (Append!^ A) was prepared, iden-
tifying the sample aliquots packed in each container. Two
copies of this form were placed in a plastic bag that was
taped to the lid of the shipping container. A copy of each
form was sent to the NSWS sample management off ice (Viar
and Company, Alexandria, Virginia), and a copy was retained
in the field laboratory. The two copies inside the container
served as a receiving form and a tracking form. The tracking
form was returned to the sample management office by the
contract analytical laboratory. Containers were shipped to
contract analytical laboratories via overnight courier ser-
vice, Monday through Friday. Samples requiring shipment
on Sundays were sent by commercial airfreight service. The
field laboratory coordinator also perpared copies of field
data forms, field laboratory data forms, and shipping forms
for delivery to the data entry center, (ORNL) and to QA
personnel. The field laboratory coordinator also contacted
the Las Vegas communications center and provided a report
on the day's sampling activities (including number and ID
codes of lakes visited, information on sample shipment,
requests for supplies, problems encountered, and subse-
quent corrective actions).
Data Form and Film Shipment
Copies of the completed field data forms and the field labo-
ratory data form completed during each day's operation
were sent to ORNL for data entry, and to the Quality Assurance
Support Group at EMSL-LV for review. A copy of each form
was also retained in the field laboratory.
Film used by sampling crews to photograph lakes was sent
weekly to EMSL-LV for processing and preparation of
slides.
Sample Analytical Splits
In an effort to compare methodologies and results of ELS-I
with other major international studies, analytical split
samples were produced from a substantial number of lake
water and audit samples. Split samples were produced as
additional aliquots from batch samples. Certain split
samples were sent to research agencies in Norway and
Canada. Additional split samples were prepared at all field
laboratories for elemental analysis using inductively coupled
plasma emission spectroscopy. Split samples for elemental
analysis were sent via overnight courier to the EPA's Environ-
mental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. Samples
collected for Norway were sent to the Norwegian Institute for
Water Research in Oslo by 2-day air courier service.
Samples collected for Canada were sent to the Ontario
Ministry for the Environment in Rexdale, Ontario, and to the
Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, Ontario.
Initially, the field laboratory at Bangor, Maine prepared split
samples for shipment to Norway. These samples were
destroyed during shipment. Subsequently, the field labora-
tory at Asheville, North Carolina, prepared split samples for
shipment to Norway. Unfiltered and unpreserved aliquots
(500 mL) from 15 samples were shipped to Norway. Thefield
laboratory at Lake Placid, New York prepared split samples
for shipment to Canada. A set of four aliquots was prepared
from each of 115 samples. Three of the aliquots were 500-
mL portions of unfittered sample with no preservatives. The
fourth aliquot was a 250-mL aliquot of unfiltered sample
acidified to pH <2with HNOs. Each split sample was assigned
the same batch and sample ID numbers as the sample from
which the split was prepared. Split samples were noted on
the batch/QC field data form by the use of one letter codes.
All split sample aliquots were refrigerated at 4ฐC until ship-
ment. Further description and the results of the analysis of
split samples will be presented in a separate report.
20
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS
FIELD STATION OPERATIONS
Weather problems impeded sampling at two of the field
stations. The Duluth, Minnesota, site was inhibited in com-
pleting the sampling because of ice cover on the site of the
lakes and the expiration of helicopter contract hours in the
final week of operation. Sampling crews from the Rhinelander,
Wisconsin, site were able to sample 12 of the remaining
lakes by breaking through the thin ice with the helicopter.
This maximized the number of possible lake samples.
The Lexington, Massachusetts, field laboratory was able to
accept samples from the sampling crew in Greenville, Maine,
at the direction of the field base coordinator who controlled
both the Bangor and Lexington sites. The Lexington site also
processed samples from Edison, New Jersey, when deterio-
rating weather caused closure of the Lake Placid, New York,
field laboratory earlier than originally planned. Sampling at
other field stations was completed as scheduled.
Table 5 shows the dates of operation at each field station, the
NSWS regions sampled, number of days active, helicopter
flight and run times, and percent down time for each site.
Nonoperational time ranged from 0 percent at Bangor, Maine,
to 41.2 percent at Mt. Pocono, Pennsylvania. The mean
down time for all sites was 26 percent. Totals of 681.7 heli-
copter flight hours and 479.6 run hours (on lake) were
accumulated. Rhinelander, Wisconsin, had the longest period
of operation (27 days) and Asheville, North Carolina, the
shortest (7 days). The total number of active days for all sites
was 125.
Field operations were very successful in obtaining samples
and field data consistent with the ELS-I research plan. The
majority of data were collected in a highly consistent manner
in all subregions. Only 5 percent of the lakes sampled were
thermally stratified, thus 95 percent of all samples were
acceptable in terms of the research plan objective that a
single water sample be collected during a period when the
lake was isothermal.
TABLE S. DATES OF OPERATION, NUMBER OF DAYS ACTIVE, FLIGHTTIME, AND PERCENT DOWN TIME BY FIELD STATION
DURING THE EASTERN LAKE SURVEY PHASE I
Dates of Helicopter Hours
Region(s) Operation Number of
Site Sampled8 (1984) Days Active Flight Run % Down Time
Bangor, ME
Presque Isle, ME"
Greenville, MEb
Auburn, MEb
1C, 1E
10/15-10/25
10
60.4
48.6
0.0
Lake Placid, NY
Glens Falls, NYb
Lexington, MA
Rutland, VTb
Springfield, MAb
Edison, NJ"
Mt. Pocono, PA
Duluth, MN
Rhinelander, Wl
Marquette, Ml"
Newberry, Mlb
Asheville, NC
Lakeland, FL
Total
1A
1C, 1D
1B
2A, 2D
2B, 2C, 2D
3A
3B
10/8-11/9
10/16-11/18
10/31-11/16
10/7-11/8
10/7-11/13
11/17-11/29
12/2-12/14
18
21.
10
22
27
7
10
125
89.0
113.4
41.0
156.0
119.3
61.1
41.4
681.7
64.7
82.0
27.7
98.9
95.3
37.1
25.3
479.6
36.0
38.2
41.2
21.0
18.0
36.0
16.7
x = 25.9
" See Figure 1 for explanation of region codes.
b Remote base site.
21
-------
FIELD SAMPLING OPERATIONS
Table 6 shows the numbers of regular lakes that were selec-
ted, visited, and sampled in each ELS-I subregion. Regular
lakes were those lakes randomly selected for inclusion in
ELS-I. An additional 199 lakes were selected as "special
interest" lakes based on recommendations from federal
and state agencies (Linthurst et. al., 1986). Samples were
collected from 186 special interest lakes. Special interest
lakes, were not among the randomly selected lakes that are
the basis for the ELS-I data base. Although data collected at
special interest lakes are pertinent to the goals of ELS-I, and
are included in the data base, they were not used in deriving
population estimates(Linthurstetal., 1986). Of 1,876 regular
lakes initially selected for sampling, 1,763 (90 percent) were
visited by field sampling crews. Some selected lakes were
not visited because of logistic time restrictions (e.g., the
consumption of all available helicopter contract flying hours)
or if conditions prevented the helicopter from landing. Of the
1,763 regular lakes visited, 91 percent were sampled.
Water samples were usually collected from 1.5 m below the
surface. However, if the sampling location was less than 3 m
deep, a sample free of debris or sediment could not always
be obtained from the specified depth. In such cases,
samples and field measurements were taken from 0.5 m
below the surface and the fact was noted on the field data
form. Table 7 shows the number of lakes sampled at 0.5 m
by subregion. These lakes comprised 18 percent of all regular
lakes sampled. Regionally, lakes sampled at 0.5 m comprised
20,17, and 12 percent of lakes sampled in the Northeast,
Upper Midwest, and Southeast, respectively.
The stratification status of lakes sampled in each subregion
is summarized in Table 7. The sampling windows for ELS-I
were selected to ensure that the maximum number of sam-
pled lakes would be thermally mixed. Regionally, the per-
centages of stratified lakes were 6,6, and 4 percent for the
Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Southeast, respectively.
The selected sampling windows were, therefore, appropri-
ate for the objectives of ELS-I.
FIELD LABORATORY OPERATIONS
The field laboratories delivered 2,399 samples to the con-
tract analytical laboratories during ELS-I. Table 8 shows the
distribution of samples by field station during ELS-I. The
Rhinelander laboratory processed the largest number of
samples by virtue of its longer running time. The Bangor
laboratory had the largest number of samples per batch,
although there was not a great deal of variation between
laboratories in the average size of batches. Three field and
laboratory crews were used at two sites each. The Bangor
crew moved to Mt. Pocono after the Bangor site closed. The
Lake Placid crew moved to Asheville upon completion of
sampling activities in New York. The Lexington, Massa-
chusetts crew moved to Lakeland, Florida, and processed
the largest number of batches (31) and samples (616) during
ELS-I operations. Staggering the sampling windows pro-
vided greater continuity in sampling and field analysis by
utilizing the same personnel at more than one site.
TABLE 6. NUMBERS OF REGULAR LAKES SELECTED
FOR SAMPLING, VISITED BY SAMPLING CREWS, AND
SAMPLED DURING EASTERN LAKE SURVEY PHASE I
BY REGION AND SUBREGION
Number of Lakes
Subregion
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
Region 1 Total
2A
2B
2C
2D
Region 2 Total
3A
3B
Region 3 Total
ELS-I Total
Selected
171
169
183
162
201
886
169
177
170
174
690
121
121
300
1,876
Visited
167
156
176
153
199
. 851
160
165
162
146
633
113
113
279
1,763
Sampled
155
144
164
129
178
768
150
146
155
141
592
102
102
252
1,612
TABLE 7. NUMBER OF REGULAR LAKES SAMPLED AT 0.5 m
AND THERMALLY STRATIFIED LAKES AMONG THE REGULAR
LAKES SAMPLED DURING EASTERN LAKE SURVEY
PHASE I BY REGION AND SUBREGION
Number of Lakes
Subregion
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
Region 1 Total
2A
2B
2C
2D
Region 2 Total
3A
3B
Region 3 Total
ELS-I Total
Sampled
155
144
164
127
178
768
150
146
155
141
592
102
150
252
1,612
Sampled at
0.5m
13
38
32
40
34
157
29
36
5
28
98
7
22
29
284
Stratified
18
5
12
1
8
44
10
18
5
5
38
7
0
7
89
22
-------
COST SUMMARY
Certain costs associated with completing the Eastern Lake
Survey Phase I may be of interest to individuals or groups
planning similar operations. We provide some of the more
pertinent cost estimates in Table 9. Costs associated with
personnel support (e.g. salaries or travel expenses) are
not presented.
The use of helicopters greatly facilitated the collection of
samples during ELS-I, and allowed a more unbiased
sampling of lakes to be conducted. Each 2-man sampling
crew required approximately $2,500 in equipment, which
included safety equipment such as Nomex fire-resistant
flight suits. This cost does not include cost of the Hydrolab
units. These units were on loan from the U.S. Geological
Survey, and were retrofitted at a cost of $500 each. A
complete unit, including the retrofitting and a 50-m cable,
cost approximately $5,000.
The mobile laboratories cost approximately $20,000 each to
construct. The cost of laboratory equipment and supplies
required to operate a field laboratory during the ELS-I
(Hillman et al., 1986) was approximately $40,000. The mobile
laboratories provided a controlled environment to prepare
and preserve water samples for later, more detailed analyses
of parameters present in very low concentrations. These
laboratories could be relocated easily and required only 2
days to become fully operational.
The use of contract laboratories was necessary in order to
complete theahalyses of the large number of samples within
required holding times. The cost of analyzing asamplefor all
of the parameters measured in the ELS-I was approximately
$300 per sample. The ELS-I analysis plan required a rigorous
cleaning procedure for all sample containers. This pro-
cedure is described in Hillman et al. (1986). The cost of
cleaning a set of containers used for one lake sample was
approximately $30. This work was contracted out to a labo-
ratory for the ELS-I because of the large number of con-
tainers required. Holding times for a number of parameters
measured during the ELS-I required analysis as soon as
possible after collection or preservation. The cost of ship-
ping preserved samples from afield laboratory to a contract
analytical laboratory via overnight courier was approxi-
mately $100 per container. Each container could hold 7 sets
of sample aliquots.
TABLE 8. NUMBER OF SAMPLES, NUMBER OF BATCHES, AND
MEAN NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER BATCH BY FIELD STATION
DURING EASTERN LAKES SURVEY PHASE I
Number of Number of Mean Number
Field Station Samples* Batches of Samples
Bangor, ME
Lexington, MA
Lake Placid, NY
Mt. Pocono, PA
Duluth, MN
Rhinelander, Wl
Asheville, NC
Lakeland, FL
Total Samples
214
410
334
206
397
470
162
206
2,399
10
21
18
10
22
26
10
10
127
22.4
20.7
19.8
21.5
19.0
19.0
17.5 '
21.3 .
20.2
Grand Mean
Includes field and laboratory audits, duplicates
and blanks.
TABLE 9. SELECTED COST ESTIMATES3
FOR THE EASTERN LAKE SURVEY PHASE I
Cost ($SK)
Field Sampling
Helicopter use 0.60 per day
Sampling equipment 2.5 per crev/
and supplies
Field Laboratory
Construction of mobile lab 20.00 per laboratory
Laboratory equipment
and supplies
Analytical Support
Sample analysis
Container cleaning
Shipping cost
40.00 per laboratory
0.30 per sample
0,03 per sample
0.10 per container (7 samples)
"Approximate based on information supplied by ELS-I
procurement and QA personnel.
bDoes not include cost of Hydrolab 4041 units ($5K each).
23
-------
SECTION 8
RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
To improve the field operations of future NSWS activities
and similar surveys, each field base coordinator provided
the management team with a summary of field operations at
his field station. A debriefing was held for all field base co-
ordinators and members of the management team in Plant
City, Florida, in December 1984. Many of the temporary
employees hired as field sampling and field laboratory
personnel also provided summary letters shortly after
completion of ELS-I. Recommendations and observations
provided by the field base coordinators and by other
personnel actively involved in ELS-I have been incorporated
in the following discussion.
The pilot studies conducted in the winter and spring of 1984
proved extremely valuable; similar pilot studies are recom-
mended for future surveys. The pilot studies provided an
onsite evaluation of the proposed logistics plan, including
helicopter support, sample processing and shipment, field
communications, and project management. The changes
implemented in ELS-I as a result of the pilot studies are listed
in Table 1.
A critical aspect of the procurement effort for ELS-I in terms
of field operations was the accurate tracking of equipment
and expendable supplies. Tracking was accomplished
efficiently using a computer-based inventory system which
tracked receipt and disbursement of supplies to the field
stations from the Las Vegas warehouse. The warehouse
provided a centralized storage facility for overnight ship-
ment of supplies if needed.
Training of laboratory analysts in Las Vegas prior to the
beginning of field activities gave personnel the necessary
background in use of equipment and survey protocols.
Personnel trained in Las Vegas were involved in training EPA
and state personnel and remained onsite throughout the
project. This procedure was necessary to ensure consis-
tency with and adherence to established protocols, given
that EPA and state personnel rotated in as field samplers on
a regular (approximately 2-week) basis.
The criteria used to determine the suitability of a particular
site proved adequate for both personnel and the mobilefield
laboratories. One criterion that should not be overlooked in
future surveys is the available water pressure at potential
laboratory locations. A minimum pressure of 50 psi is
particularly important given the large quantities of deionized
water required daily by each field station. Additional pumps
or other presure-boosting systems may be required to
operate in some locations.
Additional laboratories (converted motor homes) supplied
by EPA for equipment calibration at the Mt. Pocono and
Lake Placid field stations proved very successful. With the
addition of telephones, they also functioned as onsite com-
munication centers; this arrangement was preferable to
using a hotel suite located some distance from the laboratory.
An additional room or building near the field laboratory
would serve a similar purpose.
The use of remote base sites greatly improved the cost
effectiveness of helicopters. It was suggested at the Plant
City meeting that sampling operations begin first at the field
station to allow personnel to become comfortable in their
duties and to establish clear lines of communication before
moving to a remote site. The use of fixed-wing aircraft to
shuttle samples and supplies between field stations and
remote sites should be mandatory for an operation of this
size and scope.
In general, the field laboratories performed as planned
during ELS-I, delivering an average of 20 processed
samples per operating day. There were no major operational
problems; however, the following observations should be
useful in future efforts:
The gooseneck design worked well for the mobile
field laboratory. The trailer was easily towed, thereby
increasing the mobility required for a field operation.
ซ Once at the field station, the field laboratory was
operational within 2 to 3 days. The laboratory could be
shut down and could be prepared for moving within
1 day.
When necessary, a field laboratory could receive up
to 24 samples from the field and could deliver the
completed batch including audit samples to the courier
service the morning after processing.
In Region 3A, the Asheville, North Carolina, field
laboratory was inadvertently located near an agri-
cultural/equine facility which created considerable
dust and odor. Because of the concern about sample
contamination, the laboratory was moved to a cleaner
location. This experience points out the need to carefully
select sites for mobile laboratories to avoid potential
contamination from the surroundings.
Problems associated with small equipment failures
were resolved through coordination with the com-
munication center in Las Vegas. The rapid response
provided confirms the need for a communication
center and an automated inventory system to ensure
day-to-day control of supplies and equipment.
Shipment of samples to the contract laboratories was
a problem on weekends, especially when there was
no service by overnight courier. Weekend shipments
by commercial air service required close coordina-
tion between the field laboratory and the contract
analytical laboratory to ensure that the samples were
received by the contract laboratory within the required
time frame.
No routine samples were lost during shipment; how-
ever, one batch of samples was temporarily lost in
, shipment. The Norwegian splits from the Bangor field
station were inadvertantly destroyed by Federal
24
-------
Express. This required another station, Asheville, to
collect a second set of splits. This episode emphasizes
the need for the communication center to follow the
shipment of samples and ensure that the samples
reached their destination.
Overall, the ELS-I was completed in a timely manner, and
data of high quality (Best et al., 1986) were collected in a
consistent manner throughout the operation. There were no
major interruptions in field operations owing to accidents,
weather, or equipment failure. The sampling and laboratory
protocols were successful and should serve as a guide for
future field studies of a similar nature.
25
-------
REFERENCES
Best, M. D., S. K. Drouse', L. W. Creelman, and D. J. Chaloud.
National Surface Water Survey - Eastern Lakes
Survey, Phase I. Quality Assurance Report. EPA 600/
4-86-011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1986.
Drouse', S. K., D. C. Hillman, L. W. Creelman, J. F. Potter and
S. J. Simon. National Surface Water Survey - Eastern
Lake Survey, Phase I, Quality Assurance Plan, EPA-
600/4-86-008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada, 1986.
Hillman, D. C., J. F. Potter and S. J. Simon. National Surface
Water Survey - Eastern Lakes Survey, Phase I. Analyti-
cal Methods Manual. EPA-600/4-86-009, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1986.
Linthurst, R. A., D. H. Landers, J. M. Eilers, D. F. Brakke, W.
S. Overton, E. P. Meier, and R. E. Crowe, (Eds). Charac-
teristics of Lakes in the Eastern United States. Volume
I: Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical
Relationships. EPA-600/4-86-007A, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. Biometry, 2nd Edition. W. H.
Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California,
1981.
26
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD OPERATIONS FORMS
-------
NATIONAL SURFACE WATER SURVEY
FORM1
LAKE DATA
D D M M M
SAMPLING TIME , . , p.. . i , h
STATE
LATITUDE i_
LAKE ID
LAKE NAME
HYDROLAB ID i i i i
INITIAL , i i p.i PI i
LORAN READINGS Q
_p i p i p i p i i.i i i p LONGITUDE i 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 i.i 1 1_
PHOTOGRAPHS
FRAME ID AZIMUTH
i_.i_, LAP CARD
,_,,_,
,_,,_,_/
D
D
FIN/
INITI/
_i FIN/
\L i ii i.
U. 1 11 PL
i 1 1 i
i i i .
pH
pH
_^S
DISTURBANCES WITHIN 100 METERS OF SHORE
ROADS d LIVESTOCK d MINES/QUARRIES
DWELLINGS D INDUSTRY D LOGGING
SITE DEPTH (ft) X 0 3048 m/ft = i_
j i i.i i m
AIR TEMP
+/-
i p i
O _
J 1 1 C
SITE DEPTH:
,*o
SECCHI DEPTH: DISAPPEAR i
.o
REAPPEAR I I i i.l im
o
LAKE STRATIFICATION DATA
BOTTOM -1.5m
DEPTH
1.5m
,_,,_,,_,
ATฐC (1 5, B-1.5m).
TฐC
i ii i.i \\ ) i ii
I II I.I 'V.J ' (1 '
,s
i ii i.i i v_y i
__o -
IFA>4ฐ C PROCEED
IF NOT, STOP HERE
PH
-i i i.i ii 1{_)
-ii__i.i_ii_i(_J
0.6 DEPTH
TฐC
//S
pH
ATฐC (1.5. 0.6 DEPTH) i PI i.i i
LAKE DIAGRAM #
Hfivatinn ft Outlets
IM (nlets
N
1 s
OIF AT > 4ฐ
FOLLOWING
\<
LAKE DEPTH
CHECK ONE
DsSOm D>20m TฐC
6 10 i 1 i i.i i
8 15 i i i i.i i
10 20 i ii i.i i
1? ?e; ,_
14 30 i PI i.i i
16 35 i i i i.i p
18 40 p i i i.i i
20 45 i__;i_-j.i :
50 i p p p.! i
_W i.-,..-..-,^/
C FILL IN
DATA BLOCK
V
ปs
C_y i i i i i i i 1.1 i (_)
\^) i i i i i i i _i. i i {^j
(*_) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 i Q
\_J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.l 1 (^}
O ,-_,,_,,_,_.,_ O
O i ii PI .i i.i iQ
o ,_,,_,,_,,_,.,_, o
o ,_,_,,_,,_,.,_, o
COMMENTS: D NOT SAMPLED, SEE BELOW
DATA QUALIFIERS
@ INSTRUMENT UNSTABLE
ฎ REDONE FIRST READING NOT
ACCEPTABLE
ฉ INSTRUMENTS, SAMPLING GEAR
NOT VERTICAL IN WATER COLUMN
ฉ SLOW STABILIZATION
(ง) HYDROLAB CABLE TOO SHORT
ฎ OTHER (explain)
NOTSsฐANMLp;LED O FLOWING WATER d INACCESSIBLE D NO ACCESS PERMIT DURBAN/INDUSTRIAL
(CHECK) DHIGHCOND. (>WOyS) DNON-LAKE DTOO SHALLOW dOTHER_
FIELD LAB USE ONLY
TRAILER ID
BATCH ID
SAMPLE ID
FIELD CREW DATA
CRPW in
OBSERVER
SAMPLER
OBS. SIGN
GROUND CREW MEMBER
SIGN
WHITE COPY ORNL
PINK COpy EMSL-LV
YELLOW COPY FIELD
National Surface Water Survey Form 1 (Lake Data)
A-1
-------
NSWS
FORM 2
BATCH/QC FIELD DATA
DATE RECEIVED
B'f DATA MGT.
ENTERED
RE-ENTERED
BATCH
NO. SA
IN BAT
STATIC
SAMPLE
ID
0 1
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DUP
u
ID R
MPUES D
CH
\B TO W
HTCH SE
ATE SHI
HIGH
'NT
PPED
IN ID r.RFW in
LAKE
ID
SAMPLE
CODE
TD
DIC (mg/L)
QCCS LIMITS
UCL - 2.2
LCL-_I.8
VALUE QCCS
STATION pH
QCCS LIMITS
IICL 4-'
LCI -3.9
VALUE QCCS
OATE SA
AIR-BILL
FIELD ST
MANAGE
MPLED
NO.
ATION
R
TURBIDITY (NTU)
QCCS LIMITS
i|r| - 5.5
1 01 - 4.5
VALUE QCCS
COLOR
CAPHA
UNITS)
VALUE
SPLIT
CODES
(E,C,N,)
COMMENTS:
WHITE - ORNL COPY
YELLOW - FIELD COPY
PINK - EMSL-LV COPY
National Surface Water Survey Form 2 (Batch DC/Field Data)
A-2
-------
NATIONAL SURFACE WATER SURVEY
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
P.O. BOX 8 I 8
ALEXANDRIA. VA 22314
NSWS
FORM 3
SHIPPING
RECEIVED BY
IF INCOMPLETE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY:
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
(703) 557-2490
FROM
(STATION ID):
SAMPLE
10
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TO
(LAB):
BATCH
ID
DATE SAMPLED
ALIQUOTS SHIPPED
(FOR STATION USE ONLY)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DATE SHIPPED DATE RECEIVED
AIR RILL N<\
SAMPLE CONDITION UPON LAB RECEIPT
(FOR LAB USE ONLY)
QUALIFIERS:
V.- ALIQUOT SHIPPED
M: ALIQUOT MISSING DUE TO DESTROYED SAMPLE
WHITE - FIELD COPY
PINK - LAB COPY
YELLOW - SMO COPY
fioi n - i AR rrey FOR RFTIIRN TO SMO
National Surface Water Survery Form 3 (Shipping)
ft U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 987 -748 -121/67061
A-3
-------
Southern New England (1D)
Upper Peninsula of Michigan (2B)
Nortncentral Wisconsin (2C)
Upper Great Lakes Area (2D)
Regions and Subregions, Eastern Lake Survey-Phase I
------- |