Lahaina Groundwater
Study
Tracer
Lahaina, Maui, Hawai'i
Final Report
Craig R. Glenn, Robert B. Whittier,
Meghan L. Dailer, Henri eta Dulaiova,
Aly I. El-Kadi, Joseph Fackrell,
Jacque L. Kelly, Christine A. Waters
and Jeff Sevadjian
June 2013
Prepared For
State of Hawaii Department of Health
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Principal Investigator: Craig R. Glenn
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822
Mdtn
0 ***} iooo '
t IVonn
South Seep Group BTC'
JC I
10 !
2 35
£ 30
7 25
B
PmL* I "onr«ifratinn
Firs!
Arrival
1
L Average Time of Travel
_i ]
n
5 20
T '5
11\ 1
i #
i
«*¦ I u
5
i t
¦
l
I
0
S'
1
* /
Avg. [TLTl
vV" vV5
— Lxirapolaicd [FLT]
£
<
73
\
PRO^&
0
I^JJTeophysics
-------
-------
LAHAINA GROUNDWATER TRACER
STUDY - LAHAINA, MAUI, HAWAII
Final Report
Craig R. Glenn, Robert B. Whittier, Meghan L. Dailer,
Henrieta Dulaiova, Aly I. El-Kadi, Joseph Fackrell,
Jacque L. Kelly, Christine A. Waters and Jeff Sevadjian
June 2013
PREPARED FOR
State of Hawaii Department of Health
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Principal Investigator: Craig R. Glenn
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Suggested Citation:
Suggested Citation:
Glenn, C.R., Whittier, R.B., Dailer, M.L., Dulaiova, H., El-Kadi, A.I., Fackrell, J., Kelly,
J.L., Waters, C.A., and J. Sevadjian, 2013. Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study - Lahaina,
Maui, Hawaii, Final Report, prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Health, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
Overview ES-1
Introduction ES-4
Submarine Springs and Marine Control Locations of Sampling, Water Quality, and
Fluorescence ES-5
Aerial Infrared Sea Surface Temperature Mapping ES-8
Submarine Groundwater Discharge ES-9
Aqueous Geochemistry and Stable Isotopes ES-12
Fluorescent Dye Groundwater Tracer Study ES-15
Fluorescein Dye Tracer Test ES-15
Sulpho-Rhodamine B Tracer Test ES-17
Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Numerical Modeling ES-18
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1.1 Acknowledgements 1-2
1.2 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 1-3
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE LAHAINA WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY 1-3
1.4 HISTORY OF RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 1-5
1.5 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND BACKGROUND 1-8
1.5.1 Climate 1-8
1.5.2 Land Use 1-9
1.5.3 Geology 1-10
1.5.4 Regional Groundwater Hydrology 1-11
1.5.4.1 Aquifer Properties 1-12
1.5.4.2 Submarine Groundwater Discharge 1-13
SECTION 2: SUBMARINE SPRING AND MARINE CONTROL LOCATION
SAMPLING, WATER QUALITY, AND FLUORESCENCE 2-1
l
-------
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 METHODS 2-1
2.2.1 Submarine Spring Sampling 2-1
2.2.2 Submarine Spring Sampling Frequency and Placement 2-3
2.2.3 Sampling Control Locations 2-4
2.2.4 Field Measurements of Fluorescein and S-Rhodamine-B Fluorescence 2-4
2.2.5 Submarine Spring and Shoreline Surveys 2-5
2.3 RESULTS 2-6
2.3.1 Water Quality of Submarine Springs 2-6
2.3.2 Water Quality of Control Locations 2-6
2.3.3 Field Measurements of Fluorescein and S-Rhodamine-B Fluorescence 2-6
2.3.4 Submarine Spring Survey 2-8
2.4 SUMMARY 2-9
SECTION 3: SUBMARINE SPRING DISCHARGE MAGNITUDE AND
DYNAMICS 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.1.1 Seep Discharge Dynamics Measurements Using an Acoustic Doppler Current
Profiler (ADCP) 3-1
3.2 METHODS 3-2
3.2.1 Study Area 3-2
3.2.2 HR Aquadopp Profiler Deployment 3-2
3.2.3 HR Aquadopp Data Processing 3-2
3.3 RESULTS 3-3
3.3.1 Vertical Fluxes 3-3
3.3.2 Determination of Seep Discharge Using ADCP 3-3
3.3.3 Groundwater-derived nutrient fluxes 3-4
3.4 SUMMARY 3-7
SECTION 4: FLUORESCENT DYE GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.1.1 Tracer Dye Selection 4-2
4.1.2 Preliminary Planning 4-4
li
-------
4.2 THE INJECTION WELLS 3 AND 4 TRACER TEST 4-5
4.2.1 Fluorescein Analysis 4-7
4.2.1.1 Fluorometer 4-7
4.2.1.2 Sample Handling 4-7
4.2.1.3 Laboratory Analysis 4-8
4.2.1.3.1 Fluorometer Calibration 4-8
4.2.1.3.2 Calibration Solutions -Deionized (DI) Water vs. Submarine
Spring Water 4-8
4.2.1.3.3 FLT Method Detection Limit (MDL) 4-9
4.2.1.3.4 Laboratory Quality Assurance 4-11
4.2.1.3.5 FLT Synchronous Scans 4-12
4.2.2 Background Fluorescence Assessment and First Detection 4-12
4.2.3 The Breakthrough Curve - Fluorescein 4-14
4.2.3.1 North Seep Group 4-14
4.2.3.2 South Seep Group 4-14
4.2.3.3 Grab and Control Samples 4-15
4.2.3.4 The Relationship Between Dye Concentrations and Salinity 4-16
4.2.3.5 NSG and SSG Breakthrough Curves 4-17
4.2.4 Breakthrough Curve Analysis 4-18
4.2.4.1 Breakthrough Curve Extrapolation 4-18
4.2.4.2 QTracer2 Breakthrough Curve Analysis Model 4-18
4.2.4.2.1 QTracer2 Model Inputs and Outputs 4-19
4.2.4.2.2 QTracer2 Model Results 4-19
4.2.4.3 FLT Recovery and Treated Wastewater Fraction 4-20
4.2.5 Green Coloration in the South Seep Group Discharge 4-22
4.2.6 Area Survey Sampling and Results 4-25
4.2.6.1 Area Sampling Survey Description and Methods 4-25
4.2.6.2 Area Sampling Survey Results 4-27
4.3 INJECTION WELL 2 TRACER TEST 4-29
4.3.1 Sample Handling 4-30
4.3.2 SRB Analysis 4-31
4.3.2.1 SRB Laboratory Analysis 4-31
in
-------
4.3.2.1.1 Spectrophotometer Calibration 4-32
4.3.2.1.2 SRB Method Detection Limit (MDL) Assessment 4-32
4.3.2.1.3 SRB Laboratory Quality Assurance 4-33
4.3.2.2 Measured Fluorescence in the SRB Wavelength 4-34
4.3.2.2.1 SRB Synchronous Scans 4-34
4.3.3 Possible Causes of the Lack of SRB Detection 4-37
4.4 STARWOOD VACATION OWNERSHIP RESORT (SVO) MONITORING
WELL SAMPLING 4-39
4.4.1 SVO Well Sampling Procedures 4-39
4.4.2 SVO Well Sampling Results and Discussion 4-40
4.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4-41
SECTION 5: TRACER TEST NUMERICAL MODELING 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 MODELING OBJECTIVES 5-1
5.3 MODELING APPROACH 5-2
5.4 TRACER TEST DESIGN MODEL (TTDM) 5-3
5.4.1 Numerical Model 5-3
5.4.1.1 Model Grid 5-3
5.4.1.2 Boundary Conditions 5-3
5.4.1.3 Recharge 5-4
5.4.1.4 Hydrogeologic Parameters 5-4
5.4.1.5 Tracer Test Design Model - Transport Model 5-6
5.4.2 Tracer Test Design Model Results 5-7
5.5 I .A 11A IN A GROUNDWATER TRACER TEST MODEL 5-7
5.5.1 Numerical Model 5-8
5.5.1.1 Model Grid 5-8
5.5.1.2 Boundary Conditions 5-8
5.5.1.3 Recharge 5-8
5.5.1.4 Hydrologic Parameters 5-8
5.5.1.5 Transport Model 5-9
5.5.2 Description of Scenarios 5-9
iv
-------
5.5.2.1 Effects of a Horizontal Flow Barrier 5-9
5.5.2.2 Effects of Bathymetry 5-10
5.5.2.3 Effects of a Preferential Flow Path 5-10
5.5.2.4 Effect of Porosity 5-10
5.5.2.5 Effect of Dispersivity 5-11
5.5.2.6 Effects of Sorption 5-11
5.5.2.7 Effects of Anisotropy 5-12
5.5.3 Model Results 5-13
5.5.3.1 Effects of a Horizontal Flow Barrier (HFB) 5-13
5.5.3.2 Effects of Bathymetry 5-13
5.5.3.3 Effects of a Preferential Flow Path 5-14
5.5.3.4 Effect of Dispersivity 5-14
5.5.3.5 Effect of Porosity 5-15
5.5.3.6 Effects of Sorption 5-15
5.5.3.7 Effects of Anisotropy 5-16
5.5.3.8 Best Fit Model 5-17
5.5.3.9 Fate of SRB 5-18
5.6 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE KAANAPALI GROUNDWATER FLOW
AND TRANSPORT SYSTEM 5-19
5.7 THE BTC TRAILING EDGE 5-22
5.8 ASSUMPTIONS AM) LIMITATIONS 5-24
5.9 CONCLUSIONS 5-25
SECTION 6: REFERENCES 6-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FIELD WATER QUALITY AND FLUORESCENCE
MEASUREMENTS OF SUBMARINE SPRINGS AND CONTROL
LOCATIONS A-l
APPENDIX B: PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THE METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT B-l
APPENDIX C: DYE CONCENTRATIONS: LABORATORY RESULTS C-l
v
-------
APPENDIX D: STARWOOD VACATIONS OWNERSHIP RESORTS (SVO)
MONITORING WELL DATA D-l
APPENDIX E: FINAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS AND UNIVERSITY
OF HAWAII RESPONSES AND CORRECTIONS E-l
APPENDIX E-l: FINAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS FROM COUNTY OF
MAUI E-3
APPENDIX E-2: FINAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE USEPA
REGION IX E-l7
APPENDIX E-3: FINAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE
HAWAII DEPARTMENT 01 HEALTH E-36
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. North and South Seep Group water quality parameters ES-22
Table ES-2. Summary of the June, 2011 Nutrient Data ES-23
Table ES-3. Summary of the September, 2011 Nutrient Data ES-24
Table ES-4. The progressive microbial decomposition of organic matter ES-25
Table ES-5. June, 2011 stable isotope data ES-26
Table ES-6. September, 2011 stable isotope data ES-27
Table ES-7. The output of the QTracer2 BTC Interpretation Model ES-28
Table ES-8. Calculated percent of treated wastewater in the submarine spring
discharge ES-29
Table 1-1. Construction Details of the LWRF Injection Wells 1-14
Table 1-2. Treated wastewater injections rates for April 2011 through March of
2013 1-15
Table 2-1. Submarine spring names and locations 2-11
Table 2-2. North and South Seep Group water quality parameters 2-12
Table 2-3. Control location water quality parameters 2-14
Table 3-1. HR Aquadopp Profiler deployment configuration 3-9
Table 3-2. Vertical velocities at Seep 4 3-9
Table 3-3. Calculated groundwater discharge 3-10
Table 3-4. Groundwater discharge characteristics at SSG and NSG determined
using the time-series radon mass 3-10
Table 3-5.Radon mass-balance derived groundwater discharge at locations
identified as groundwater discharge sites along the Kaanapali coastline 3-11
Table 3-6. Radon mass-balance derived groundwater fluxes and groundwater
discharge per meter shoreline 3-13
Table 3-7. Nearshore coastal surface water (SW) nutrient concentration ranges in
waters affected by groundwater discharge 3-15
vii
-------
Table 4-1. Mixing Schedule for the FLT Calibration Solutions 4-43
Table 4-2. The MDL Results for FLT Using the EPA Method 4-43
Table 4-3. The MDL Results for FLT Using the Hubaux and Vos Method 4-43
Table 4-4. The Turner 10AU calibration scalar, residual, coefficient of
determination, and offset 4-44
Table 4-5. The results of the end of analysis zero baseline check of the fluorometer 4-45
Table 4-6. The results of the end of analysis upscale quality control check of the
fluorometer 4-46
Table 4-7. The results of duplicate analyses ran at the end of each analysis run 4-47
Table 4-8. Table of replicate analyses to evaluate FLT sample degradation during
storage 4-49
Table 4-9. Summary of Background Fluorescence for the NSG 4-50
Table 4-10. Summary of Background Fluorescence for the SSG 4-50
Table 4-11. Background Fluorescence for the Marine Waters 4-50
Table 4-12. Summary of salinity measured at the submarine springs 4-51
Table 4-13. The output of the QTracer2 BTC Interpretation Model 4-52
Table 4-14. Calculated percent of treated wastewater in the submarine spring
discharge 4-53
Table 4-15. The MDL Results for SRB Using the EPA Method 4-54
Table 4-16. The MDL Results for SRB Using the Hubaux and Vos Method 4-55
Table 4-17. Summary of the area survey sample results 4-55
Table 4-18. Hitachi F4500 Spectrophotometer calibration scalar, residual, and
coefficient of determination 4-56
Table 4-19. The results of the end of analysis zero baseline check of the Hitachi
F4500 Spectrophotometer 4-57
Table 4-20. The results of the end of analysis upscale quality control check of the
Hitachi F4500 Spectrophotometer 4-58
Table 4-21. The results of synchronous scans done to evaluate samples for trace
concentrations of SRB 4-59
Table 4-22. SVO Well construction details 4-62
Table 4-23. SVO Well measured pH, SEC, and FLT and SRB concentrations and
water temperatures 4-62
Table 4-24. Nutrient results for the SVO Wells 4-63
viii
-------
Table 5-1. Hydraulic parameter values for the various geologic units used in the
TTDM compared to that of other models 5-27
Table 5-2. A Comparison of the TTDM results and the measured NSG BTC 5-27
Table 5-3. Well injection and dye concentrations for the BTC Evaluation Model 5-28
Table 5-4. Coefficients from Sabatini (2000) used in the sorption simulation 5-28
Table 5-5. A summary of the simulated travel times and peak concentrations of
the preferential flow simulations 5-28
Table 5-6. Results of Porosity and Dispersivity Sensitivity Simulations 5-29
Table A-l. Calibration of the handheld YSI for pH and specific conductivity A-3
Table A-2. Calibration record of the hand held fluorometer A-10
Table A-3. Water quality parameters collected from submarine spring samples in
the South Seep Group (Seeps 3, 4, 5, and 11) A-14
Table A-4. North Seep Group (Seeps 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, and 21) water quality parameters A-31
Table A-5. Water quality parameters collected from control locations (Honokowai
Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Beach Park, and Olowalu) A-47
Table A-6. Submarine Spring, Shoreline Survey, and SVO Well Sampling Results A-49
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group C-3
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group C-35
Table D-l. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentration for
the 7/1/12 SVO well sampling D-3
Table D-2. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentration for
the 4/29/13 SVO well sampling D-4
Table D-3. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentration for
the 6/6/13 SVO well sampling D-6
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1: Western Maui land-use map ES-30
Figure ES-2: Detail of study area showing key locals along the coast ES-31
Figure ES-3: Control and submarine spring sampling locations ES-32
Figure ES-4: Aerial TIR sea surface temperature map thermal anomaly at North
Kaanapali Beach ES-33
Figure ES-5: Infrared SST pictured with 815N values of terrestrial and marine
waters, and the intertidal macroalgae ES-34
Figure ES-6: The FLT concentrations normalize to that at Seep 3 and shown in
relation to the boundaries of the TIR plume ES-3 5
Figure ES-7: Radon activities measured during coastal surveys in June and
September, 2011 ES-36
Figure ES-8: Submarine spring component mix ternary diagram ES-37
Figure ES-9: Submarine spring water FLT breakthrough curves for (a) the NSG
and (b) the SSG ES-3 8
Figure ES-10: The SRB wavelength fluorescence measured by this study at the
NSG (a) and the SSG (b) ES-39
Figure ES-11: Synchronous scans of samples collected in February and March,
2012 compared to solutions spiked with SRB ES-40
Figure ES-12: The conceptual model for the Lahaina Groundwater Study showing
the extent of the submarine layers ES-41
Figure ES-13: The probable downed stream valley shown in relation to the
modeled horizontal flow barrier and the normalized FLT concentrations ES-42
Figure ES-14: The FLT model results showing (a) the measured and simulated
BTCs; and (b) simulated plume 620 days after dye addition ES-43
Figure ES-15: The simulated SRB BTCs (a) and plume 620 days after dye
addition (b) ES-44
Figure ES-16: The simulated SRB BTCs (a) and plume 620 days after dye addition
(b) ES-45
Figure 1-1: Location and topography of the Island of Maui 1-18
Figure 1-2: Map showing the location of the LWRF in West Maui 1-19
Figure 1-3: Location of the LWRF in relation to the coast and the UIC line 1-20
x
-------
Figure 1-4: Borehole stratigraphy for the LWRF injection wells developed from
the driller's logs 1-21
Figure 1-5: Monthly average injection at the LWRF 1-21
Figure 1-6: Detail of study area showing key locals along the coast 1-22
Figure 1-7: Map of the LWRF, submarine springs, and Tetra Tech (1994) ocean
sampling tracts 1-23
Figure 1-8: Western Maui land-use map 1-24
Figure 1-9: West Maui geology and inferred high level/peripheral basal lens
boundary. Geology from Sherrod et al. (2007) 1-25
Figure 1-10: Geologic section of West Maui showing SGD and groundwater
occurrence and movement 1-26
Figure 1-11: Groundwater recharge distribution in West Maui 1-27
Figure 1-12: Calculated fresh submarine groundwater discharge to the ocean for
the Island of Maui 1-28
Figure 2-1: Schematics of submarine spring water sampling locations 2-15
Figure 2-2: Control and submarine spring sampling locations 2-16
Figure 2-3: South Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 3, 4, 5, and 11) 2-17
Figure 2-4: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 1, 2, 6, and 7) 2-18
Figure 2-5: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 8, 9, 10, and 12) 2-19
Figure 2-6: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 13, 14, 15, and
16) 2-20
Figure 2-7: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 17, 18, 19, and
20) 2-21
Figure 2-8: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seep 21) 2-22
Figure 2-9: Control location salinity and fluorescence 2-23
Figure 2-10: Correlation between the Field and the Lab measured FLT 2-24
Figure 2-11: A time series showing the close correspondence between the field
measured FLT concentration and the apparent SRB fluorescence 2-24
Figure 2-12: The handheld fluorometer SRB channel response to FLT (only)
calibration solutions 2-25
Figure 2-13: Area covered at Honokowai Point during the submarine spring
survey 2-26
Figure 2-14: Area covered at adjacent to the Honua Kai during the submarine
spring survey 2-27
XI
-------
Figure 2-15: Area covered south of the Honua Kai and across Kahekili Reef during
the submarine spring survey 2-28
Figure 2-16: Area covered across Kahekili Reef during the submarine spring
survey 2-29
Figure 2-17: Area covered South of Kahekili Reef during the submarine spring
survey 2-30
Figure 2-18: Area covered North of Black Rock during the submarine spring
survey 2-31
Figure 2-19: The location of the flowing submarine springs showing an enveloping
polygon for each seep group and the extent of the boxes used in the Radon flux
calculations 2-32
Figure 3-1: Mounting arrangement for the down looking HR Aquadopp profiler 3-16
Figure 3-2: ADCP vertical velocity spectral analysis graph 3-16
Figure 3-3: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over tidal
intervals 3-17
Figure 3-4: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over
demarcated interval 3-17
Figure 3-5: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over
period between higher tides 3-18
Figure 3-6: Groundwater and surface water nitrogen concentrations 3-19
Figure 4-1: Location and arrangement of monitoring points 4-64
Figure 4-2: The fluorescence in the FLT wavelength of water from various sources
compared to solutions containing FLT 4-65
Figure 4-3: Results of the Tracer Test Design Model 4-65
Figure 4-4: A line diagram of the LWRF showing the FLT dye addition points 4-66
Figure 4-5: Mixing fluorescein in 55 gal. drums 4-67
Figure 4-6: Transferring fluorescein concentrate to 5 gal. buckets for delivery to
wells 4-67
Figure 4-7: Transfer of the dye concentrate into injection well 3 4-68
Figure 4-8: The residual dye was poured directly into the well 4-68
Figure 4-9: The fluorescein concentrate mixing continued until midnight 4-69
Figure 4-10: The fluorescein addition continued until about 02:00 4-69
Xll
-------
Figure 4-11: Effluent injection rates and resulting FLT concentrations for the first
tracer test 4-70
Figure 4-12: Turner 10AU response to DI water based and submarine spring water
based FLT solutions 4-70
Figure 4-13: The location of the background sampling points 4-71
Figure 4-14: The FLT breakthrough curve measured at the NSG for each
submarine spring 4-72
Figure 4-15: The FLT breakthrough curve measured at the SSG for each
submarine spring 4-72
Figure 4-16: The South Seep Group grab samples FLT concentrations normalized
to that of the submarine spring 4-73
Figure 4-17: The relationship between salinity and the FLT concentration 4-73
Figure 4-18: The FLT concentration as measured and corrected for salinity at the
SSG 4-74
Figure 4-19: A comparison of NSG and SSG FLT breakthrough curves 4-75
Figure 4-20: The NSG BTC extrapolated into the future until the FLT
concentration drops below the MDL 4-75
Figure 4-21: The SSG BTC extrapolated into the future until the FLT
concentration drops below the MDL 4-76
Figure 4-22: A laboratory sample with 35 ppb FLT in submarine spring water
shows this dye is visible at concentrations much less than 100 ppb 4-76
Figure 4-23: Two-dimension synchronous scans of a submarine spring sample and
a laboratory sample 4-77
Figure 4-24: The light absorbance characteristics at the peak wavelength of 490
nm were nearly identical for calibration solutions and for samples collected at
Seep 3 4-77
Figure 4-25: The location of points sampled during the area survey and the FLT
concentration normalize to that at Seep 3 4-78
Figure 4-26: The temperature measured in samples collected at the shoreline and at
the SVO monitoring wells during the area surveys 4-79
Figure 4-27: The specific electrical conductivity measured in samples collected at
the shoreline and at the monitoring wells during the area surveys 4-80
Figure 4-28: The results of macroalgae l5N values shown in relation to the
normalized FLT concentrations of area survey 4-81
Figure 4-29: The results of the nearshore radon survey shown in relation to the
normalized FLT concentrations of area survey 4-82
Figure 4-30: A line diagram of LWRF showing dye addition points for SRB 4-83
Xlll
-------
Figure 4-31: Effluent injection rates and the resulting SRB concentration 4-84
Figure 4-32: Synchronous Scans of SRB calibration solutions 4-84
Figure 4-33: Time series graphs showing fluorescence intensity measurements and
emission wavelength synchronous scans of the 1 ppb SRB calibration
solution 4-85
Figure 4-34: Fluorescence in the SRB Wavelength Measured at the NSG 4-86
Figure 4-35: Fluorescence in the SRB wavelength for the SSG 4-86
Figure 4-36: Synchronous scans of samples collected in February and March, 2012
compared to solutions spiked with SRB 4-87
Figure 4-37: Synchronous scans of samples collected in October and December,
2012 compared to solutions spiked with SRB 4-88
Figure 4-38: Graphed are three synchronous scans to show the spectra of
Fluorescein, SRB and fluorescien plus a hypothetical DA-SRB trace 4-89
Figure 4-39: The results of the particle tracking MODPATH model that shows the
possible groundwater pathways injected wastewater 4-90
Figure 4-40: Temperature and specific electrical conductivity profiles for the SVO
wells 4-91
Figure 5-1: A plan view of the Tracer Test Design Model conceptual model and a
cross section of the model grid 5-30
Figure 5-2: The results of the MODPATH particle track simulation used adjust the
conductance of the springs 5-31
Figure 5-3: Results of the Tracer Test Design Model shown as the ratio of the
submarine spring concentration to that at injection wells on the day of dye
addition 5-32
Figure 5-4: The numeric grid used for the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study
model 5-33
Figure 5-5: The conceptual model for the Lahaina Groundwater Study showing the
extent of the submarine layers 5-34
Figure 5-6: The Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study conceptual model and the
nearshore bathymetry 5-35
Figure 5-7: Borehole stratigraphy for the LWRF injection wells developed from
the drillers logs (County of Maui, 2004) 5-36
Figure 5-8: The conceptual model used in the PFP sensitivity simulations 5-37
Figure 5-9: The measured BTCs compare the model results when a horizontal flow
barrier was included in the model 5-38
xiv
-------
Figure 5-10: The measured and simulated BTCs after the model marine boundaries
were modified 5-38
Figure 5-11: The modeled BTCs compared to that measured when a PFP was placed in
Layer 2 5-39
Figure 5-12: The results of the dispersivity sensitivity simulations compared to the
BTC for the NSG 5-39
Figure 5-13: The results of the porosity sensitivity simulations compared to the
BTC at the NSG 5-40
Figure 5-14: Modeled BTC when sorption of FLT was simulated 5-41
Figure 5-15: The simulated and measured BTCs with differing anisotropy ellipse
alignments 5-42
Figure 5-16: FLT plume simulated using and isotropic model (a) and an anisotropic
model (b) 5-43
Figure 5-17: A map and modeled BTC when a PFP and anisotropy are simulated 5-44
Figure 5-18: Simulated SRB BTCs under two different treated wastewater
injection scenarios 5-45
Figure 5-19: The SRB plume 1-year after dye addition under two different treated
wastewater injection scenarios 5-46
Figure 5-20: The study area showing the location of a probable drowned stream
valley relative to the FLT plume 5-47
Figure 5-21: A cross-section of a coastal aquifer comparing the dip of the lava
bedding to the generalized groundwater flow path 5-48
Figure 5-22: The simulated FLT plume 620 days after the dye addition using an
isotopic model (a) and using an anisotropic model (b) 5-49
Figure 5-23: Individual simulated individual BTCs and composites showing a
possible resulting BTC with multiple peaks and a plateau 5-50
xv
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
xvi
-------
ACRONYMS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
|ig microgram
jam micrometer
|iM micromoles
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
asl above sea level
BTC breakthrough curve
C Concentration
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
cm centimeters squared
d day
DA-SRB deaminoalkylated SRB
DI deionized water
DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen
DON dissolved organic nitrogen
DIP dissolved inorganic phosphorus
DOP dissolved organic phosphorus
dpm decays per minute (units of radioactivity)
"3
dpm/m decays per minute per cubic meter
dpm/m2/hour decays per minute per square meter per hour
ex/em excitati on wavel ength/emi s si on wavel ength
222
Ex Rn excess radon isotope with atomic mass 222
FLT Fluorescein
ft feet
ft square feet
ft/d feet per day
ft bgs feet below ground surface
ft msl feet in reference to mean sea level
gal. gallon
GPS global positioning system
HDOH State of Hawaii Department of Health
HDPE high density polyethylene
HFB horizontal flow barrier
HR ADCP high resolution Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
Hz hertz
in inch
in/yr inches per year
xvii
-------
km
kmol/d
L
LxDxW
L/min
lbs
LDPE
LWRF
m
m msl
m/d
m/s
m2
m3
m3/d
m3/m2/d
MDL
mg
mg/L
mgd
MHz
mi
ml
ML & P
mm
m msl
MODFLOW
MODPATH
mmol/m/d
mol/d
mrad
MT3DMS
n
N
NA
NAD-83
nm
NO A A
NSG
P
PFP
ppb
ppm
kilometer
kilomoles per day
liter
Length multiplied by depth multiplied by width
liters per minute
pounds
low density polyethylene
Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility
meter
meter reference to mean sea level
meter per day
meters per second
square meter
cubic meter
cubic meter per day
volume of cubic meter per area of square meter per day
Method Detection Limit
milligram
milligrams per liter
million gallons per day
mega hertz
mile
milliliter
Maui Land and Pineapple
millimeter
meters in reference to mean sea level
Modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model
A particle-tracking postprocessor model for MODFLOW
millimoles per meter per day
moles per day
milliradian
A modular 3-D multi-species transport model for simulation of advection,
dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems
number of samples in a statistical analysis
nitrogen
not available
North American Datum of 1983
nano-meters
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
North Seep Group
phosphorous
preferential flow path
parts per billion
parts per million
xviii
-------
QTracer2 Program for tracer-breakthrough curve analysis for tracer tests in Karstic
aquifers and other hydrologic systems
REV Representative elementary volume
RWT Rhodamine WT
s period or second
sec second
SGD submarine groundwater discharge
SOEST University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
SRB Sulpho-Rhodamine-B
SSG South Seep Group
SST sea surface temperature
TIR thermal infrared
TTDM Tracer Test Design Model
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
US ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
V volume
WGS-84 World Geodetic Survey of 1984
xix
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
xx
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
This project was completed by the University of Hawaii for the State of Hawaii
Department of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U. S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Its purpose has
been to provide critical data about the possible existence of a hydraulic connection
between the injection of treated wastewater effluent at the Lahaina Wastewater
Reclamation Facility (LWRF), Maui County, Hawaii, and nearby coastal waters, confirm
locations of emerging injected effluent discharge in these coastal waters, and determine a
travel time from the LWRF injection wells to the coastal waters. The purpose of this
Final Report is to detail final results of fluorescent dye tracer tests, associated
groundwater modeling, and other results that have been made since the submission of the
project's September 2012 Interim Report (Glenn et al., 2012). The purpose of this
Executive Summary is to present an overview and synthesis of all principal project
accomplishments, including both those presented in the Interim Report, and those of the
new results presented in the Final Report Sections that follow here.
The principal findings of this project included the following key results:
(1) Fluorescein tracer dye (FLT) added to LWRF injection Wells 3 and 4 arrived at
coastal submarine spring sites with a time of first arrival of 84 days; a second dye,
Sulpho-Rhodamine-B (SRB) was added to LWRF injection Well 2, with no
confirmed detection of SRB.
(2) Submarine springs releasing the fluorescein dye to the coastal ocean are located
within two small and adjacent clusters termed the South Seep Group (SSG) and North
Seep Group (NSG)) at North Kaanapali Beach, approximately 0.85 km (0.5 miles) to
the southwest of the LWRF, and within 3 to 25 meters of shore.
(3) The peak concentration of the FLT tracer dye breakthrough curve occurred 9 and
10 months after the LWRF FLT addition at the south and north groups of submarine
springs, respectively. The average travel time to both monitoring locations is in
excess of one year (14 mo. for the SSG; 16 mo. for the NSG).
(4) It is believed that the primary cause for the non-detection of SRB dye is the
displacement of the injectate plume containing this dye away from a direct travel path
from Injection Well 2 to the submarine springs by the greater injection volume into
Wells 3 and 4. This interference further dilutes the SRB-containing plume prior to
ES-1
-------
reaching the submarine springs. In addition, secondary processes such as SRB dye
degradation and sorption may also decrease the concentration to less than detectable
levels.
(5) The oblique FLT travel path from the injection wells to the submarine springs are
mainly attributed to the low hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium associated with
the present and ancestral channel of the Honokowai Stream to the north and west, and
the strong north-south hydraulic conductivity anisotropy caused by the steep west
dipping lava flows relative to the near horizontal flow of the groundwater.
(6) Waters discharging the fluorescein dye from the submarine springs are warm and
brackish, and have a temperature >28°C, and an average salinity of 4.5 and a pH of
7.5.
(7) High-resolution airborne thermal infrared (TIR) mapping identified a large sea
surface thermal anomaly associated with the warm water submarine springs. The
nearshore surface area of this thermal anomaly is ~ 674,000 m2, or about 167 acres in
size.
(8) The extent of shoreline where the FLT-tagged water is discharging is very close to
that of the abnormally warm water identified in the airborne thermographic infrared
mapping survey, and occurs to the southwest of a shortest (perpendicular) travel path
from the point of injection to the coast.
(9) In total, all submarine springs mapped within the South Seep Group (106 seeps)
were contained with an area of 500 m , and all submarine springs mapped within the
North Seep Group (183 seeps) were contained within an area of 1,800 m2, located at
the northeast corner of the large sea surface thermal anomaly. Ocean current flow
likely rafts the thermal plume towards the southwest.
(10) Although numerous in number, individual submarine springs in the South and
North Seep Groups are transitory in nature and small in size (5.4 cm average). In
combination with radon mass balance measurements, scaling the exit velocity of one
vigorous and persistent spring to all springs mapped suggests that of the total output
in the two spring groups, total groundwater discharge from the springs is ca. <10% of
the total groundwater discharge, with diffuse groundwater discharge constituting the
rest.
(11) As based on radon mass balance measurements, average total (fresh + marine)
discharge from the submarine springs and the surrounding diffuse flow was about
2.19-3.33 million gallons per day (mgd) (8,300-12,600 m3/d). The freshwater
component of that flow was about 1.61-2.88 mgd (6,100-10,900 m3/d), or about 73-
87% of the total SGD.
(12) We have estimated that once the tracer dye break through curve has reached
completion, that 64 percent of dye injected into Wells 3 and 4 will have been fully
ES-2
-------
discharged at the submarine spring areas. Thus, as viewed at steady state, it is also
our conclusion based on these calculations that 64 percent of the treated wastewater
injected into these wells currently discharges from the submarine spring areas.
(13) As based on geochemical/stable isotope source water partitioning analysis the
estimated treated wastewater fractions in the submarine spring discharge ranged from
12-96 percent, with an average of 62 percent.
(14) Geochemical mixing analyses indicate that the submarine spring waters are
predominately LWRF treated wastewater which while in transit to the submarine
springs undergo oxic, suboxic and likely anoxic microbial degradation reactions that
consume dissolved oxygen, dissolved nitrate, and organic matter.
(15) The N concentration of the submarine springs is reduced compared to LWRF
treated wastewater, while the P concentration is enriched.
(16) The SSG and NSG seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites
studied in West Maui in the magnitude of DON, DOP and DIP fluxes per meter
shoreline, and their low TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios. The N:P ratios show that the
seeps are enriched in P relative to N, when compared to other SGD sites
In sum, our results conclusively demonstrate that a hydrogeologic connection exists
between LWRF Injection Wells 3 and 4 and the nearby coastal waters of West Maui.
Eighty-four days following injection, FLT tracer dye introduced to these wells began to
emerge from very nearshore seafloor along North Kaanapali Beach, approximately 0.85
km (0.5 miles) to the southwest of the LWRF. As proposed by Hunt and Rosa (2009),
our results substantiate the conclusion that due to geologic controls that include a
hydraulic barrier created by valley fills to the northwest, the main wastewater effluent
plume from the LWRF travels obliquely towards the southwest. An estimated 64 percent
of the Well 3&4 effluent follows this route and discharges at coast. The peak
concentration of the FLT dye occurred 9 to 10 months following injection, with an
average transit time of approximately 15 months. Since the treated wastewater plume is
broad, the injectate travel time takes from about three months to arrive, to over an
estimated four years for the draining trailing edge fully exit the coast. During this time,
there is significant loss of nitrogen due to extensive denitrification and other suboxic to
anoxic microbial degradation processes fueled by a sustained supply of organic matter
transport within by effluent plume. The release of dissolved phosphorus, on the other
hand, is relatively enriched. The treated wastewater discharges from the seafloor mixed
with other marine and fresh waters predominantly as diffuse flow (>90%), but also
through a patchwork of hundreds of very small (ca. 5 cm2) submarine springs. This
central discharge area occurs as two adjacent clusters of diffuse flow and springs with a
combined total seafloor area of 2,300 m . The emerging waters appear well mixed in the
nearshore zone and, being relatively warm and brackish, spread over an area visible by
thermal infrared imagining that covers an ocean surface area more than 167 acres in size.
The lateral distribution of the FLT tracer dye agrees well with the lateral limits of the
ES-3
-------
anomalously warm ocean surface water plume detected by air. These conclusions drawn
from both the Interim Report and this Final Report are summarized and discussed below.
Introduction
The study area is located in the Kaanapali District of West Maui, Hawaii. Current West
Maui land use can be subdivided into (1) an urban center in the Lahaina area, (2) various
diversified agriculture and pasture land on former pineapple and sugarcane fields on the
lower slopes of the West Maui Mountains, (3) residential and resort development
(including golf courses) along the shoreline, and (4) natural evergreen forest in the
interior of the West Maui Mountains (Figure ES-1). Historical changes in agricultural
land use within the western half of West Maui were documented by Engott and Vana
(2007) for use in assessing the effects of rainfall and agricultural land-use changes on
West and Central Maui's groundwater recharge. During the early 1900s until about 1979,
land use was mostly unchanged except for some minor urbanization along the coasts.
However, land-use changes became more significant as large-scale plantation agriculture
declined after 1979. From 1979 to 2004, agricultural land use declined about 21 percent,
mainly from the complete cessation of sugarcane agriculture. The Pioneer Mill Co. was
the major sugarcane cultivator on the west side of the West Maui Mountains, operating
during the late 1800s until 1999, when it ceased sugarcane production on approximately
6,000 acres and some of the land was subsequently converted to pineapple cultivation,
including the area north of Honokowai Stream. The extent of pineapple agriculture in
West Maui decreased extensively since the late 1990s, and stopped entirely in 2009
(Gingerich and Engott, 2012). Today, large portions of the former sugarcane and
pineapple fields remain fallow, while other parcels have been converted to low-density
housing and diversified agriculture.
The LWRF lies about 3 mi north of the town of Lahaina and serves the municipal
wastewater needs for that community, including the major resorts along the coast. It
receives approximately 4 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewage from a collection
system serving approximately 40,000 people. The facility produces treated wastewater
(tertiary treated with filtration and since October 2011 has been disinfected with chlorine
to an R-2 standard), which is disposed of via four on-site injections wells. The tertiary
treatment is biological nutrient removal, sand filtration, and the disinfection mentioned
previously. All effluent undergoes this process. Tertiary treated wastewater that is
disinfected with UV radiation to meet R-l reuse water standards is also produced.
Approximately 0.7 - 1.5 mgd of the facility's R-l water is sold to customers, such as the
Kaanapali Resort to be used for landscape and golf course irrigation. R-l water that is
not sold is discharged into the subsurface via the four on-site injection wells along with
the tertiary treated effluent.
Multiple studies have investigated the nutrient flux to the West Maui waters and the role
of the LWRF in contributing to the nutrient flux. A nutrient balance study of West Maui
(Tetra Tech, 1993) identified the LWRF as one of the three primary nutrient release
sources to Lahaina District coastal waters, in addition to sugarcane and pineapple
ES-4
-------
cultivation. That study ranked the LWRF second in annual nitrogen (N) contribution and
first in phosphorous (P) contribution to these waters. Since that study was completed, the
cultivation of both sugarcane and pineapple has been sharply curtailed, which implies
that the LWRF may now be the primary contributor of nutrients to water in the study
area. As an update, the West Maui Watershed Owner's Manual (West Maui Watershed
Management Advisory Committee, 1997) concluded that the LWRF wastewater injection
wells likely contributed about three times the amount of N, and at least an order of
magnitude more P to the ocean than did any other source. Treatment process
improvements in 1995 and the institution of wastewater reclamation since the release of
the Tetra Tech (1993) study appears to have significantly facilitated an overall reduction
of contributions of N and P to the LWRF injected effluent. However, both the
concentrations and fluxes magnitude appears to remain significant both as a component
of discharge from the submarine springs, as well as from other sources along the west
Maui Coast (Interim Report Section 6; Final Report Section 3).
Over the past five years, researchers have repeatedly observed brackish, warmer-than-
ambient-oceanic water emerging from the seafloor in the nearshore region (< 3 m depth)
of Kahekili Beach Park. These submarine springs (termed freshwater seeps in other
studies) were first found by scuba diving researchers in 2007. The observation that these
submarine springs were noticeably warm, combined with the 2008 discovery of
extremely elevated S15N values of macroalgae in the area (as high as 43.3%o; Dailer et al.,
2010) heightened perceptions that this area might be affected by aquifer drainage from
treated wastewater injection from the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility (LWRF).
Hunt and Rosa (2009) investigated the use of multiple in situ tracers to identify the
mechanisms controlling municipal wastewater effluent discharges to the nearshore
marine environment and their point of release. These researchers sampled the LWRF
effluent, submarine springs, nearshore marine waters, groundwater, and terrestrial surface
water in vicinity of effluent injection sites in Lahaina and Kihei, Maui. In their work, the
most conclusive tracers in the nearshore marine environment were the presence of
pharmaceuticals, organic waste indicator compounds, and highly elevated S15N values in
water samples and in coastal benthic macroalgal tissue. They identified the submarine
springs as the coastal main exit locus of the LWRF injection plume. However,
geochemical evidence from nearshore marine samples collected further south towards
Kaanapali Golf Course showed effluent or effluent-derived irrigation water's influence.
Based on this evidence, Hunt and Rosa (2009) delineated a probable extent of the LWRF
effluent plume (Figure ES-2). The minimum extent of the plume is shown in Figure ES-2
as a red arc. Hunt and Rosa (2009) were less certain of their interpretation for the yellow
arc shown Figure ES-2 that reaches further south because the elevated S15N values in
water samples from dissolved NO3" could have been from irrigation recharge water that
uses reclaimed water from the LWRF.
Submarine Springs and Marine Control Locations of Sampling, Water
Quality, and Fluorescence
Section 2 of the Interim Report and Section 2 of this Final Report details:
ES-5
-------
(1) techniques for sampling warm submarine springs at Kahekili for the injected
tracer dye, radioisotope tracers, and geochemical and stable isotope tracers,
(2) information on in-situ water quality parameters of the submarine springs and
control locations,
(3) field-determined fluorescence of samples collected from submarine springs, shore
line points within the study area, control locations, and from a survey conducted
in July 2012 to assess the quantity, size, and location of potential submarine
springs from Honokowai Point to Black Rock and extending offshore to -27 ft
(~9 m) of depth.
This portion of the study included the installation of sampling infrastructure, collecting
samples for the geochemical surveys, collecting more than 1,200 samples for field and
tracer dye analysis, and deployment and collection of data from instruments for
monitoring temperature and salinity.
The general clustering of the submarine springs were grouped into two groups termed the
North Seep Group (NSG) and the South Seep Group (SSG), as noted above (Figure ES-
3). Samples were collected from both groups and at three control locations. The
submarine springs were sampled directly by drawing on SCUBA diver emplaced
piezometers driven into springs, with the fluids extracted by peristaltic pump. Samples at
other sites were collected as "grab samples." The SSG is located approximately 25 m
offshore and had three initial monitoring points (Seeps 3, 4, and 5). A fourth monitoring
point, Seep 11, was added on November 24, 2011 due to high salinities being measured at
Seeps 4 and 5. The Seep 4 piezometer was relocated in the NSG on April 24, 2012 to
replace piezometers in that area that were covered by migrating sand. A total of 684
submarine spring samples were collected from the SSG from 7/5/2011 through
12/31/2012. The NSG is located approximately 3 to 5 m offshore with three initial
monitoring points (Seep 1, 2, and 6). This location has proven extremely problematic to
maintain throughout the duration of the project. The NSG's close proximity to the
shoreline subjected these piezometers to the persistent littoral migration of sand from the
beach onto the seep group because of large north swells. As a piezometer was buried, it
was replaced with a new one and all replacement piezometers were placed within 2 m of
the original deployments. A total of 606 submarine spring samples were collected from
the NSG from 7/5/2011 through 12/31/2012.
Submarine groundwater samples were also taken from 12/20/2012 through 1/8/2013 and
on 4/29/13 and 5/1/13 at the shoreline adjacent to the North and South Seep Groups,
south of Kahekili Beach Park, and adjacent to Honokowai Point. These samples were
collected through piezometers outfitted with galvanized steel pipe extensions, allowing
for the piezometer to be temporarily installed just offshore of the surge zone. In addition,
on 12/29/2012, submarine springs in North and South Seep Groups and a substantial seep
located between the two groups were sampled for the tracer dye.
Marine control locations for the dye tracer portion of the study were Honokowai Beach
Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park, and Olowalu. Honokowai Beach Park, located -1.8 km
north of the study site, served as a site of possible dye emergence should the LWRF
ES-6
-------
effluent flow path proved to move to the north (Figure ES-3). Wahikuli Wayside Park,
located -4.3 km south of the main study, was targeted because of its proximity to the
submarine spring locations. Olowalu is located -13 km south of the main study area and
was chosen to represent water with minimal anthropogenic impact due to lack of
development and the termination of sugarcane operations in the late 1990's.
Water quality parameters of temperature, pH, specific conductivity, and salinity were
measured on each seep sample (Table ES-1), the readings were taken at the discharge
point of a peristaltic pump on the beach. In most locations, the salinity of the samples
was less than 5, indicating that the captured seep waters were representative of submarine
groundwater with little seawater influence. The pH of seeps in the NSG varied between
7.2 and 7.9 with an average of about 7.5. The pH of seeps in the SSG varied between 6.8
and 7.9 also with an average of about 7.5. The salinity of seeps in the NSG varied
between 2.5 and 23 with an average of about 4.8. Seeps in the SSG had salinities that
were slightly lower, varying between 3.8 and 22s with an average of about 4.1.
The seep water samples were also screened in the field for the presence of the project's
two tracer dyes, Fluorescein (FLT), and Sulpho-Rhodamine-B (SRB). A pre-dye tracer
injection monitoring period was conducted from July 5, 2011 through July 28, 2011,
which was designed to measure the magnitude and variability of in situ fluorescence of
the submarine spring water at the selected monitoring sites. Upon the addition of the dye,
the sampling frequency was increased to two to three times per day. As the study
progressed, the sampling frequency was decreased to one to two times per month when
field sampling ended in December 2012. The SRB and FLT fluorescence measured in
the field remained indistinguishable from background levels until late October, 2011.
Subtle increases in field fluorometry measurements of FLT started to occur in samples
from the NSG in late October, 2011, which provided the first indication that dye was
emerging from the submarine springs. This was followed in mid-November by
increasing FLT fluorescence of samples from the SSG. Beginning in January, 2012, the
SRB wavelength fluorescence as read on the AquaFluor Handheld Fluorometer showed
an increasing trend. Subsequent testing showed this was actually a response of the SRB
channel the strong FLT fluorescence in the samples being analyzed and no SRB was in
the samples being analyzed. As of May 13, 2013 there has been no confirmed detection
of SRB.
A scuba diver survey was conducted in July, 2012 to document all visual submarine
springs from Honokowai Point to Black Rock. The goal of this survey was to provide the
project with information regarding the locations and dimensions (length and width) of
additional submarine springs spanning study area. The survey was conducted by two
scuba divers swimming together, and scanning the ocean floor for emerging submarine
discharge. The locations of all submarine springs and any other areas that showed
evidence of submarine groundwater discharge, such as by the presence of shimmering
waters (a varying refraction of light as seen when fresh and salt or warm and cold water
mix; sometimes referred to as "schlieren"), were mapped. Where encountered, the
submarine springs were sampled directly using diver emplaced syringe sampling, and in
other cases grab samples were collected in the shimmering water, normally near the
ES-7
-------
seafloor. When more than one submarine spring was found per square meter, all
submarine springs were measured, one submarine spring was sampled with a syringe, and
the location was marked with the GPS. Control samples for the North and South Seep
Groups were taken over the main submarine spring areas. The surveys completed a total
of 86 transects of various lengths from Honokowai Point to Black Rock, covering a
combined distance of 20.8 km (12.9 miles).
In general, the divers were not able to find submarine springs other than those near or in
the locations of already identified submarine springs in the North and South Seep Groups
used in the tracer dye-monitoring portion of the project. In this nearshore region of
Kahekili Reef, a total of 289 visible submarine springs were identified. The sum total of
all visibly flowing areas of individually measured submarine springs in the North Seep
Group was 2426.8 cm2 or 0.243 m2 The total of visibly flowing areas of measured
2 2
submarine springs in the South Seep Group was 838.8 cm or 0.0839 m . The combined
total area of visibly flowing submarine springs was 3265.6 cm2 or 0.336 m2 In total, all
submarine springs mapped within the North Seep Group were contained within an area of
1,800 m2, and all submarine springs mapped within the South Seep Group were contained
with an area of 500 m (Figure ES-4). Most of the submarine spring samples collected
through syringes revealed detectable FLT concentrations.
Aerial Infrared Sea Surface Temperature Mapping
The objective of thermal infrared (TIR) mapping portion of this investigation (Interim
Report Section 4) was to determine the locations of both warm and cool emerging fluids
to the coastal waters near the LWRF. For this work, we used high-resolution (2.3 m)
aerial infrared remote sensing techniques to produce sea-surface temperature (SST) maps
which revealed the existence of anomalously warm (~26.5°C), buoyant, emerging fluids
relative to ambient coastal waters (25.5°C), as well as the presence of cooler, natural
submarine groundwater discharge (20-22°C). These data were collected at night to
eliminate the effects of solar surface water heating.
Our aerial thermal infrared methodology is highly accurate and sensitive to
differentiating variations in both natural and anthropogenic surface water temperatures
(Kelly et al., 2013), and we successfully identified a 673,900 m2 (166.5 acre) thermal
anomaly extending from the shoreline to at least 575 m (1886 ft) offshore (Figure ES-5).
The thermal plumes from the springs themselves varied from 140 to 315 m2 (1507 to
3391 ft2). Aside from the large thermal anomaly and the known warm submarine springs
it resides over, no significant new warm water submarine spring locations were
identifiable by the infrared thermography, nor by the regional scuba mapping surveys
reported in Section 2 of this report.
Despite the fact that some thermal contributions from geothermal sources cannot be
completely discounted (Glenn et al, 2012), the co-variance of the thermal anomaly and
the warm effluent discharge from the submarine springs is clearly apparent (compare
Figures ES-5, ES-6 and ES-7). The thermal anomaly is located southwest of the LWRF
and occurs in direct association with the submarine springs (seeps) documented by our
ES-8
-------
tracer tests, groundwater modeling, and stable isotope studies to be hydraulically
connected to the injected warm wastewater effluent from the LWRF. In addition, the
anomaly lies well centered within the projected LWRF effluent plume trajectory
predicted by Hunt and Rosa (2009), as well as that substantiated by our nearshore
recovery of FLT tracer dye and the independently-determined tracer-based modeling
results presented here (Figures ES-7 and ES-14). Furthermore, the spatial covariance
between the TIR thermal anomaly and the 815N in macroalgae appears excellent (Figure
ES-6). Approaching the locus of the submarine springs from the north, the thermal
anomaly's surface water warming incrementally increases (-24.5 to 26.8°C) in agreement
with the progressive increases in the S15N values of benthic macroalgae (+4.8 to +48.8
%o) that reach a maxima centered at the submarine springs (Dailer et al., 2010). Dailer et
al. (2012) found that the discharge from the submarine spring locations rises to the
surface due to its positive buoyancy relative to the seawater column. Once at the surface,
the anomalously warm waters flow in the summer is clearly towards
the south-southwest, along with the most predominant bottom and surface water currents
in the area (Storlazzi and Field, 2008; Swarzenski et al. 2012).
Submarine Groundwater Discharge
Our field observations revealed that visually obvious submarine groundwater discharge
(SGD) within the study area occurs via seeps clustered into two groups, the SSG and
NSG. FLT was identified in all seeps within SSG and NSG, but a proper mass balance of
dye tracer recovery requires that the magnitude of seep discharge in these clusters be
quantified. Thus, the objective of the SGD portions of the study was to quantify
groundwater discharge via discrete seeps and evaluate the temporal variability of this
discharge. In addition, groundwater discharge via diffuse seepage also occurs at these
sites and may be responsible for some tracer fluxes. Our second objective was therefore
to determine what fraction of total groundwater flux discharges via discrete seeps as
opposed to diffuse seepage.
SGD to the nearshore waters in the study area (Interim Report Section 5; Final Report
Section 3) was measured using two technologies. In the first, the groundwater radon
signature was used in a coastal radon mass balance to measure SGD over the expanse of
the study area. In the second, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was used to
measure point discharges of SGD. The ADCP technique measures water velocity
profiles in 3 dimensions by transmitting short acoustic pulse pairs into the water, and
calculating the phase shift between the two return signals.
Both the radon mass balance method and ADCP measurements provide total submarine
groundwater discharge, i.e., freshwater plus recirculated marine water, but neither can
detect or quantify the amount of wastewater effluent. It is, however, possible to calculate
the fraction of fresh groundwater and, in combination with other geochemical
information, also the fraction of the injected LWRF effluent. The relevance of these
methods to the overall objectives of the project is to provide groundwater flux from the
submarine springs to help determine the degree of dye recovery and the discharge of
effluent through the submarine springs as the project progressed.
ES-9
-------
Radon and radium isotopes are highly enriched in groundwater and depleted in ocean
water, and in the absence of other sources, their detection in coastal waters is an
indication of SGD. A mass balance of these tracers can be used to estimate the amount of
groundwater discharge required to supply the observed inventory of these tracers in the
coastal zone. Owing to its short half-life (3.8 days) and the fact that ocean water has very
low levels of radon, this gas has now almost universally become the routinely measured
222
tracer for SGD flow rates, as the decay rate of Rn is comparable to the time scales of
many coastal circulation processes (Burnett et al., 2006). Thus, the dynamics of
groundwater inputs as well as estimates of groundwater discharges may be examined via
radon monitoring of coastal waters (Burnett and Dulaiova, 2003).
A radon mass balance model was constructed to estimate discharge from time series
radon measurements in the surface water. The model accounted for radon evasion to the
atmosphere, inputs by diffusion and from offshore ocean, in-situ production from
dissolved 226Ra, losses by coastal mixing and tidal exchange (Burnett and Dulaiova,
2003). It was found that groundwater discharge from the submarine springs is tidally
modulated with minimal discharge at high tide and increased fluxes at low tide. Due to
this variability, we expressed discharge as a 24-hour average. Figure ES-8 shows the
area where the radon survey identified significant fluxes of groundwater discharge. The
total (fresh + saline) groundwater discharge from the both NSG and SSG submarine
spring groups including the direct discharge from the submarine springs and the
surrounding diffuse flow was 8,300 m3/d (2.19 mgd) and 12,600 m3/d (3.33 mgd) in June
and September of 2011, respectively. Out of this, fresh groundwater discharge amounted
to 6,100 (1.61 mgd) and 10,900 m3/d (2.88 mgd) in June and September 2011,
respectively. Coastal radon surveys that apply a slightly different radon mass balance
based on coastal flushing rates (Dulaiova et al., 2010) resulted in groundwater discharge
of 8,800 m3/d (2.32 mgd) total for NSG and SSG. This was derived from two combined
surveys performed in June and September 2011. The surveys showed that there is
significant groundwater discharge along the coastline north and south of the submarine
springs. We found several sites with a total groundwater discharge ranging from 2,000
(0.53) to 28,000 m3/d (7.4 mgd), the highest flux at 28,000 m3/d (7.4 mgd) was at
Hanakao o Beach Park, the second largest at 15,000 m3/d (3.96 mgd) was at Honokowai
Beach Park. We also used the nearshore-marine radon survey to estimate the coastal
SGD from North Honokowai to south of Hanakao'o Beach (Figure ES-8). This
calculation did not represent the entire shoreline, but rather the areas of the highest
discharge rates shown by the boxes in Figure ES-8. The summed total SGD for the areas
"3
of highest SGD was 54,000 m /d (14.3 mgd). This represents a total (freshwater +
recirculated marine water) SGD of 7.45 m3/m/d (3.17 mgd/mi), as integrated over the
11.8 km of shoreline for this portion of the coast. As this value only represents the areas
contained in the boxes in Figure ES-8, it represents a minimum estimate to total SGD.
The large uncertainties in these estimates are discussed in Section 5 of the Interim
Report.
Our initial ADCP vertical velocity measurement at selected seeps in September 2011
showed that water velocities are very close to the sensitivity of our instrument in an
ES-10
-------
upward looking deployment. In October and November 2012 we restricted our
observations to only one seep, and used a downward-looking ADCP configuration to
accurately measure seep discharge. To do this, the ADCP was mounted on an arm of a
stand and centered above a seep at 1 m above the seafloor (Section 3). Due to the
persistent problems of bottom instability due to sand migration at the NSG, we focused
attention on measuring seep fluxes in the SSG, and selected Seep 4 within it as
representative of all seeps within the two clusters to document discharge dynamics. Seep
4 had dimensions of 13 cm x 7 cm, which is 11% of the sum of the seep areas identified
by the submarine spring survey in the SSG (838.8 cm2) and 3% of the sum of seep areas
in the SSG and the NSG combined (3,265 cm ). We found that discharge varies
throughout the tidal cycle and between tidal cycles. We observed a >100% variation in
discharge between three deployment periods in October and November 2012. Using
Seep 4 measurements to upscale to seep fluxes within SSG and NSG resulted in 21-86
m3/d (0.0056-0.023 mgd) and 83-336 m3/d (0.022-0.089 mgd) for SSG and SSG+NSG,
respectively. When compared to total SGD determined in June and September 2011, the
seep discharge as measured by the HR Aquadopp Profiler only represented <8% of total
SGD determined by Rn methodologies at these two seep clusters, indicating that >90% of
the discharge within the two seep groups is technically occurring as diffuse flow. Based
on these findings we can conclude that the two seep groups consist of porous geology
that allows groundwater to be discharged through discrete vents and other openings that
may or may not be covered by sand or rock. We called the latter "diffuse seepage"
because vents could not be identified. We also note, however, that the vents themselves
are transient in nature and may disappear and reappear due sand migration. The major
discharge areas are confined to two clusters of only a several meters width with very little
discharge in between and around them.
We found that groundwater discharge is responsible for significant nutrient fluxes to the
coastal ocean. Fluxes of dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen (DIN and DON) are
the largest at Hanakao'o Beach (DIN: 2.9 kmol/d or 41,440 g/d of N and DON: 1.7
kmol/d or 23,700 g/d of N. Second largest DIN flux along this coastline is from
Honokowai (1.9 kmol/d or 27,500 g/d of N) and DON flux at SSG (up to 650 mol/d or
9,500 g/d of N). At Hanakao'o and Honokowai groundwater discharges along 1,200 m
and 300 m length, while at the seep clusters the discharge locations are only 50-100 m
long. SSG and NSG alone represent the largest sources of DON, dissolved inorganic and
organic phosphorus (DIP and DOP) per meter coastline amongst all identified sources.
The two seep groups are responsible for fluxes of 100-218 mol/d or 1,400-3,053 g/d of N
as DIN, 120-910 mol/d or 1,670-12,750 g of N as DON, 99-116 mol/d or 3,070-3,600 g/d
of P as DIP, and 16 mol/d or 480 g/d of P as DOP. These inputs impact coastal water
quality and result in elevated nutrient concentrations. At SSG and NSG coastal seawater
DIN ranges are 0.38-0.81 |jM or 5.3-11.3 |j,g/L of N as opposed to offshore levels of <0.1
|jM or <1.4 ng/L, DON ranges are 4.8-12.7 |jM or 67-178 |j,g/L of N as opposed to 4.5-6
|jM or 63-84 ng/L of N offshore, DIP ranges 0.16-0.44 |jM or 5.0-13.6 ng/L of P in
comparison to <0.1 |jM or <3.0 |j,g/L of P offshore, and the DOP concentration range of
0.21-0.27 |jM or 6.5-8.4 |j,g/L of P is comparable to offshore levels (Karl et al., 2001).
SSG and NSG are not the only location with elevated nutrients, however. For
comparison, Hanakao'o Beach coastal ocean DIN concentrations (7.7 jjM or 108 |j,g/L of
ES-11
-------
N) are 10-times and DIP levels (0.84 |jM or 26 |j,g/L of P) are 2-times higher than at the
seep clusters. In comparison to other studied locations along the coastline, SSG and NSG
seep sites had the lowest observed TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios in groundwater (2-8 and 1-
2) and also in coastal ocean water (15-20 and 2).
The SSG and NSG seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites studied in
West Maui in the magnitude of DON, DOP and DIP fluxes per meter shoreline, and their
low TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios. The N:P ratios show that the seeps are enriched in P
relative to N, when compared to other SGD sites and to ambient marine nutrient ratios.
We note that earlier studies identified surface runoff as an important coastal nutrient
source (TetraTech, 1993). This current study did not quantify these inputs.
Aqueous Geochemistry and Stable Isotopes
This portion of the study (Interim Report Section 6) utilized a multi-tracer approach
similar to, but broader in scope than that applied to this study area by Hunt and Rosa
(2009). The purpose of our approach was to determine the proportion of different waters
that exit the submarine springs, ascertain the origins of nutrients in the area's
groundwater, evaluate the down-gradient geochemical evolution of the area's
groundwater prior to its discharge to the ocean, and as possible identify the impact of
land-derived nutrient fluxes on the geochemistry of coastal marine waters. Special
emphasis was placed on determining the geochemical evolution and ultimate fate of the
LWRF effluent after its injection. Data collection for this section was accomplished over
two separate sampling intervals in 2011 (June 19-30 and September 19-25).
Temperature, conductivity, salinity, pH, chloride (CI") concentrations, nutrient
concentrations, and stable isotope ratios of hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) in water, and
nitrogen (N) and O in dissolved nitrate (NCV) were measured in order to characterize the
geochemistry of the study area's groundwater, surface waters, treated wastewater, and
coastal waters. Samples of gas bubbles emanating from the submarine springs and black
precipitates that coat the rocks and coral rubble around submarine spring sites were also
geochemically analyzed. Generally conservative tracers such as the isotopic ratios of H
and O in water and CI" concentrations were used to evaluate mixing between potential
end-members, while N loading was considered together with the isotopic ratios of N and
O in dissolved NO3" to evaluate origin, evolution, and mixing of N species.
Figure ES-6 shows the distribution of 815N values in the samples collected from this
study and compares this data with the intertidal macroalgal 815N values from Dailer et al.
(2010), and the aerial TIR measured sea-surface temperatures obtained at night. Very
highly enriched 815N values of dissolved nitrate from the submarine spring samples
spatially correlates with the most highly enriched 815N values from the intertidal benthic
macroalgae samples presented in Dailer et al. (2010). Tables ES-2 and ES-3 summarize
the nutrient chemistry for the samples collected in June and September, 2011,
respectively.
ES-12
-------
Although a thorough regional quantitative evaluation of nutrient sources was not
accomplished in this study, this work identified several potential nutrient sources to the
coastal zone based on the spatial distribution of nutrient species with respect to current
and former land-use practices. These potential sources are:
(1) Fertilizer applied in support of former agriculture appears to still be contributing
to N and P loading of basal groundwater (though to a lesser extent than in the
past, when these agricultural practices were ongoing). The production wells
upgradient of the past and present agricultural influence had N and P
concentrations of about 30 and 60 |_ig/L, respectively. The production wells most
impacted by agriculture had N and P concentrations of about 2,500 and 180 - 300
Hg/L, respectively.
(2) Injected LWRF effluent appears to contribute significant amounts of N and P to
groundwater (although the concentrations are much less than prior to wastewater
treatment upgrades in 1995), but the temporally variable and non-conservative
behavior of these species complicates the overall assessment of the magnitude of
the source. The N and P concentrations in the LWRF effluent were ca. 7,200 and
700 ng/L, respectively for June, 2011, and ca. 6,200 and 170 ng/L, respectively
for September, 2011. The N concentration of the submarine springs appears to be
reduced compared to the LWRF wastewater effluent, while the P concentration
appears to be enriched. The average N and P concentrations in samples collected
from the submarine springs were ca. 600 and 400 |_ig/L, respectively, for June,
2011, and ca. 1,600 and 450 ng/L, respectively, for September, 2011.
(3) R1 irrigation water and possibly fertilizer appear to contribute to N and P loading
in groundwater supplying Black Rock lagoon. During the June, 2011 sampling
event the N and P concentrations in the Black Rock Lagoon were 3,400 and 190
Hg/L, respectively.
All biological compounds can undergo various forms of alteration and decomposition.
As a result of this decomposition, organic matter is degraded into simpler molecules and
inorganic species, including nutrients. Whether it be in soils, fresh water or marine
conditions, the most important and fundamental of these processes is the microbial
decomposition of organic matter, which generally follows a succession of steps that
depend largely on the nature and availability of the oxidizing agent, as shown in Table
ES-4 (e.g. Froelich et al, 1979; Berner, 1980; Appelo and Potsma, 1993; Berner and
Berner, 1996; Stumm and Morgan, 1996). Thus, as shown in Table ES-4, when provided
with an ample supply of labile organic matter (shown for simplicity as CH2O), such as
the injected wastewater effluent at the LWRF, O2 is first used as the oxidizing agent until
it becomes sufficiently to completely depleted by aerobes. After aerobic O2 depletion,
further decomposition occurs in steps as nitrate reduction, manganese oxide reduction,
iron reduction, and so on. In combining geochemical approaches, we have found
evidence for significant down-gradient oxygen depletion and geochemical evolution of
the groundwaters within the study area including:
ES-13
-------
(1) Mixing analysis using conservative tracers suggests that the submarine spring
water is primarily injected LWRF wastewater effluent (Table ES-8, Figure ES-9).
(2) Although likely subject to temporal variation, the majority of the NO3" present in
the LWRF wastewater effluent has been acutely attenuated via suboxic
denitrification (nitrate reduction) prior to its emergence at the submarine springs
at the time of this study (cf. Table ES-4). A bi-product of these reactions is the
ubiquitous presence of highly N2-enriched gas bubbles that conspicuously vent
from both the submarine springs and nearby unconsolidated sands into the ocean
in this area.
(3) As manganese must be in the reduced state (Mn2+) in order to be aqueous and
mobile, the presence of solid phase Mn-oxide and/or Mn-oxyhydroxide
impregnations and coating rocks and coral rubble surrounding the submarine
springs indicates that the exiting waters have additionally undergone suboxic to
anoxic manganese reduction.
"3
(4) The injected LWRF wastewater effluent is augmented in PO4 " in the subsurface
prior to its emergence at the submarine spring sites. We believe this is likely due
to aquifer conditions promoting the release or dissolution of previously particle-
adsorbed and/or mineral-bound PO43".
(5) Groundwater at, and down gradient of locations subjected to significant artificial
recharge is augmented in SiO/", likely mobilized via accelerated rock weathering.
By analyzing the spatial distribution of various water parameters in the marine
environment, including nutrient concentrations and stable isotope values (Tables ES-5
and ES-6; Figure ES-6), we have located several coastal ocean areas with terrestrial
nutrient contribution. These are:
(1) The marine environment immediately surrounding the submarine springs, which
shows a dissolved NO3" isotopic signature consistent with the heavily 15N-
enriched (very positive 815N) values characteristic of nitrate reduction measured
in the submarine spring water.
(2) The area near the mouth of Black Rock lagoon, which shows generally elevated
nutrient concentrations relative to nearby waters and a dissolved NO3" isotopic
signature consistent with values measured in Black Rock lagoon itself.
(3) The area near Wahikuli Wayside Park, which also shows generally elevated
nutrient concentrations relative to nearby waters, and shows a dissolved NO3"
isotopic signature suggestive of denitrification from fertilizer or natural sources
and/or sewage/manure content. Sugarcane was grown in the Wahikuli area until
1999, and the current community is unsewered with many cesspools and septic
systems.
ES-14
-------
Fluorescent Dye Groundwater Tracer Study
Two tracer dye tests were conducted at the LWRF (Interim Report Section 3, Final
Report Section 4). These tests were aimed at providing critical data about potential
hydrological connections between the injected treated wastewater effluent and the coastal
waters, confirming the locations where injected treated wastewater effluent discharges
into the coastal waters, and determining a travel time from the injection wells to the
coastal waters. In the first tracer test, Fluorescein (FLT) was added to LWRF Injection
Wells 3 and 4 on July 28, 2011. This was followed two weeks later by an addition of
Sulpho-Rhodamine-B (SRB) into Injection Well 2 on August 11, 2011, which has a
significantly higher injection capacity than the other three wells. The second tracer test
was conducted to investigate whether the effluent from this well discharges into the
marine environment at the same locations as Wells 3 and 4.
Fluorescein Dye Tracer Test
The FLT dye from this tracer test started discharging at the nearshore submarine springs
of the NSG in late October, 2011, about 84 days after addition to Wells 3 and 4 (Figure
ES-10). At the NSG, the FLT concentration increased to about 21 ppb then plateaued in
late February 2012 at the NSG. The peak concentration of 22.5 ppb occurred at this seep
group about 306 days after the FLT addition. The BTC at the NSG plateaued from late
February, 2012 to mid-May, 2012. At the SSG, the initial detection of FLT occurred 109
days after the FLT addition. The FLT concentration then increased to a peak of 34 ppb
about 271 days following the FLT addition. Both BTCs exhibit a long trailing edge with
the slope of the descending limb being much flatter than the ascending limb. The field
sampling ended prior the tracer concentrations dropping below the MDL. To compute
the mean time of travel and the percent recovery of the FLT, the remainder of the BTCs
was estimated using an exponential curve fit based on the last three months of measured
data.
Our analysis of the BTC was completed using the EPA's tracer test model Qtracer2 of
Field (2002). This program uses the BTC to analyze the tracer test results providing
critical information, such as the time to first arrival and to the peak concentration, mean
transit time, average tracer velocity, dispersivity, and the percent of the injected dye mass
recovered. The latter calculations require groundwater flux data. Qtracer2 was run at
two discharge points, (1) the NSG and (2) the SSG. This approach was acceptable
because the submarine spring survey showed that these locations were the primary
discharge points for the FLT. The submarine spring survey (Sections 2.3.4 and 4.2.6.2)
showed that the FLT concentrations measured during the long term monitoring were
representative of that from the submarine springs surrounding the monitored submarine
springs. Table ES-7 details the output of the QTracer2 calculations for the NSG and SSG.
Based on the QTracer2 analysis, the first detection of FLT at the NSG occurred on
October 22, 2011, 86 days after FLT addition. At the SSG, the first detection occurred on
November 14, 2011, 109 days after the FLT addition. The time of peak concentration
occurred 306 and 271 days after the FLT addition for the NSG and SSG, respectively.
ES-15
-------
The average time of travel occurred 487 and 435 days after the FLT addition at the NSG
and SSG, respectively.
The percent of dye mass recovery was used to estimate the percent of treated wastewater
in the SGD at the submarine springs (Table ES-8). QTracer2 estimated that 64 percent of
the FLT dye added to Injection Wells 3 and 4 is accounted for by the BTC analysis at the
NSG and the SSG, which represents the fraction of treated wastewater reaching these
areas. The average injection rate into Wells 3 and 4 for the period from April, 2011
through March 2012 (data from Table 1-2 in the interim project report) was 2.47 mgd
"3
(9,340 m /d). Thus, at the combined average Well 3 and 4 injection rate of 2.47 mgd and
a QTracer2 tracer dye recovery rate of 64%, the average delivery rate of treated
wastewater to the ocean at the north and south seep groups for this period of time was
1.58 mgd (5,978 m3/d). In addition, the fraction of treated wastewater as a component of
total SGD at the submarine springs can also be calculated using the FLT percent
recovery. That is, since the volume of treated wastewater discharge at the submarine
springs was 1.58 mgd (5,978 m3/d), the treated wastewater fraction of the 2.32 mgd
(8,800 m3/d) total SGD from the submarine springs is 68 percent.
The fraction of the treated wastewater in the submarine spring discharge was also
estimated by geochemical/stable isotope methods (Figure ES-9). These data and their
critical uncertainties can be found in Table 6-14 and Section 6 in the project Interim
Report (Glenn et al., 2012). Those results are summarized here (Table ES-8) and
compared to the percent of dye mass recovery method. As shown, three sets of mixing
end members were used in geochemical/stable isotope source water partitioning analysis:
(1) 5180 and 82H, (2) 5180 and CI, and (3) 52H and CI, and listed for each are the
minimum, average, and maximum percent of treated wastewater in the submarine
springs. Collectively, the estimated treated wastewater fractions in the submarine spring
discharge as determined in this manner ranged from 12 percent to 96 percent with an
average of 62 percent. The tracer dye percent recovery analysis described above falls
well within the bounds of the isotopic mixing analysis, and is reasonably close to this
average value.
To better define the spatial extent of FLT plume, three rounds of sampling were
conducted throughout the entire nearshore region between Honokowai Point to the north,
and Black Rock to the south (Figures ES-2 and ES-7). In this effort, the seafloor was
surveyed in detail by scuba, submarine spring samples were collected by syringe, grab
sampling where collected from diffuse seepage, and porewater samples were collected
through a piezometer just offshore of the surge zone. Shallow monitoring wells were
also sampled on the Starwood Vacation Ownership Resorts (SVO) property fronting the
area where FLT is discharging. Figures ES-4 and ES-7 shows the location of all samples
collected. Specific electrical conductivity (SEC) measurements were used to correct the
measured FLT concentration for elevated salinity. To reference the results of these
different surveys to a single diagnostic parameter, the FLT concentrations were
normalized to the concentration at Seep 3, this seep being chosen as the point of
maximum FLT concentration. The actual normalization was computed using the ratio
ES-16
-------
Ci/Cmax, where C, is the concentration at sample location "i," and where Cmax is the
maximum concentration of the plume (i.e., the concentration at Seep 3).
Area survey sampling showed that the FLT plume was quite extensive with the northern
and southern extents closely matching that of the TTR plume boundaries (Figure ES-7).
The area survey results also demonstrated that the FLT concentrations in the samples
collected of the long term monitoring program were representative of the concentrations
in the water discharging from the surrounding springs. A sample collected 125 m north
of the NSG had an FLT concentration that was 11 percent of the concentration measured
as Seep 3. The shoreline sampling survey continued 980 m to the north of the location of
that sample, but none tested positive for FLT. Eighteen samples were collected south of
the SSG. Five of these samples had FLT fluorescence that exceeded that of the
background and were evaluated as containing FLT. All of the samples south of the SSG
that tested positive for FLT were at or were north of southern TIR plume boundary.
Sulpho-Rhodamine B Tracer Test
The second dye tracer test was conducted using SRB dye to evaluate whether the effluent
from Injection Well 2 discharges at the same locations as that from Injection Wells 3 and
4. Well 2 has a significantly higher injection capacity than the other wells, indicating that
it may have a hydraulic connection to a preferential flow path. For this second test, SRB
was added to the LWRF effluent on August 11, 2011. To date, there has been no
confirmed detection of the SRB dye in the nearshore marine waters, but there were a
limited number of samples that had a fluorescence spectrum consistent with trace
concentrations of SRB. Figure ES-11 shows a 15 month time series of the SRB analysis
for the NSG and SSG. Plotted are the average SRB wavelength fluorescence and error
bars showing the magnitude of maximum and minimum measured values for each sample
day. The fluorescence measured is that of background plus that of any dye that may be
present. There were no confirmed detections of SRB and the samples with elevated SRB
wavelength were generally isolated occurrences with the sample prior and following
exhibiting baseline SRB fluorescence.
At the time of this writing, in excess of 1.5y have elapsed since SRB was added to the
treated wastewater stream at the LWRF Well 2. Although there were no confirmed
detections of SRB, several samples had fluorescence characteristics indicative of trace
concentrations of this dye, and possible deaminoalkylation shifts of the SRB emission
spectrum to shorter wavelengths (in the direction of the FLT peak) were detected.
Eighty-eight samples were evaluated for DA-SRB and for trace concentrations of SRB
using synchronous scans. Three samples collected from Seeps 3 and 12 during February
and March, 2012 showed elevated fluorescence peaks at 580 nm, the peak emission
fluorescence of SRB. Three samples collected from Seeps 3 and 5 in October and
December, 2012 also exhibited fluorescence peaks at 580 nm. Finally, a sample collected
from SRV Well 2 on July 31, 2012 fronting the study area had a fluorescence peak at 570
nm indicating possible DA-SRB. Figure ES-12 compares: (1) synchronous scans of the
samples collected from Seep 3 and Seep 12, (2) a sample from SVO Well 2, (3) a sample
from Seep 3 on June 14, 2012 and (4) a laboratory solution prepared for this study. The
ES-17
-------
laboratory solution was prepared with a FLT concentration of 35 ppb, similar to that of
the submarine spring samples, and a SRB concentration of 0.05 ppb. This figure
illustrates the similarity between the Seep 3 sample and the sample spiked with 35 ppb
FLT and 0.05 ppb SRB. Still, we consider this as only a "possible" SRB detection,
however, since there have been no subsequent samples collected with similar
fluorescence characteristics. The samples collected from Seep 3 on February 10, 2012
and from Seep 12 on March 14, 2012 displayed only slightly elevated fluorescence in the
SRB emission wavelengths. An additional sample collected from Seep 3 on June 14,
2012 (shown in violet) had no elevated fluorescence in the SRB emission wavelengths
and is presented for reference. The sample collected from SVO Well 2 had emission
wavelength fluorescence similar to that of the laboratory standard, except that its peak
fluorescence occurred at 570 nm rather than 580 nm. This could indicate that SRB
altered by deaminalkylation was present in the SVO Well 2 sample. Due to the failure to
positively detect SRB, and interference with the SRB plume due to the injection in Wells
3 and 4, no conclusions can be made regarding the hydraulic connection between Well 2
and the nearshore waters at Kaanapali.
Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Numerical Modeling
Groundwater modeling was used by this study to aid in the design of the tracer test,
interpret the dye tracer breakthrough curve (BTC), and assess processes that affect the
fate and transport of the injected treated wastewater (Interim Report Section 7, Final
Report Section 5). The specific modeling objectives were to (1) provide critical data
needed to design the tracer test; (2) investigate the role of hydrologic features such as
barriers or preferential flow paths on the dye transport; and (3) assess the impacts of
processes such as sorption and dispersion on the temporal and spatial distribution of the
tracer dye.
Our modeling approach was three fold. First, a basic model was developed to aid in the
design of the tracer test, which was termed the Tracer Test Design Model (TTDM). The
primary purpose of this model was to estimate the tracer dye dilution that would occur as
it traveled from the injection wells to the submarine springs. Second, to aid the sampling
plan, we estimated the time of the first dye arrival and the duration of the BTC. Once the
dye started emerging from the submarine springs, the developing BTC was compared to
the output of the TTDM. As differences were noted, the TTDM was modified to improve
the agreement between the model output and the actual tracer data. Finally, after the
BTC was sufficiently developed, the model output was compared against the actual tracer
data and a comprehensive revision of the model was undertaken. Under data limitations,
the final model was modified to obtain a reasonable match between the main features of
BTC compared to field data. Different hydrogeological processes were then tested to
determine which process may be affecting the tracer dye transport.
The models used in this study neglected density-dependent flow by only considering
freshwater movement. The saltwater interface used to specify the bottom boundary of the
model was based on the density-dependent model developed by Gingerich (2008). Using
this approach was deemed reasonable since models by Hunt (2006), Burnham et al.
ES-18
-------
(1977) and Wheatcraft et al. (1976) indicated that shortly after being injected, the
buoyancy of the wastewater causes it to rise relative the surrounding saline water, placing
it in the freshwater zone. Hence, the majority of the flow is restricted to the fresh water
lens.
The Modular Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model MODFLOW (Harbaugh et al.,
2000) was used for simulating groundwater systems. The flow solution computed by
MODFLOW was used by transport models MODPATH and MT3D-MS to simulate the
movement of dissolved constituents. The MODPATH (Pollock, 1994) model uses the
groundwater flow solution from MODFLOW to track the movement of virtual particles
from cell to cell in the finite difference grid, by only considering advection, and with the
output as a visual track representing the path the virtual particles take from a point of
origin to a point of termination. The point of termination can either be defined by an
elapsed time designated by the modeler, or a boundary or sink in the modeled area. The
model is very useful for evaluation of groundwater flow paths. The solute transport code
Multi-Species Transport Model in Three Dimensions (MT3DMS) (Zheng and Wang,
1999; Zheng, 2006) was used to simulate the fate in transport of both FLT and SRB. The
code simulates the effect of advection, hydrodynamic dispersion retardation (slowing of
the plume transport due to the dissolved species sorbing onto the aquifer matrix), and the
role that hydraulic conductivity anisotropy play in the transport of the dissolved tracer
dye.
Figure ES-13 shows the final model's area coverage and the submarine boundaries.
These boundaries accurately follow the nearshore bathymetry, while those of the
planning model (Tracer Test Design Model = TTDM) were more general. With the
exception of this noted difference, the coverage, geologic distribution, and other
boundaries remained same throughout the modeling process. Initial model runs were
used to plan the amount of the dyes needed, and to estimate the expected arrival time of
the dyes at the submarine springs. With very minimal calibration, the TTDM was
successfully able to estimate the first arrival, time of peak concentration, and, of critical
importance, the expected dye dilution.
After the initial detection of the FLT dye, the results of the developing BTC were
compared to those simulated by the TTDM, and the model was modified to improve
agreement. The TTDM conceptual model was modified to (1) accurately reflect the
addition of two dyes (FLT and SRB), (2) include the average injection rates into each
well rather than injection into a single well, and (3) complete limited sensitivity analyses
to identify the geologic configurations, features, and boundary conditions that produce
the best agreement between the simulated and actual BTCs. Following the model
modifications, the effect of the streambed alluvium to the north and possibly west of the
LWRF was tested on the simulated BTC. Also tested, were the effects of varying the
nearshore bathymetry, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, anisotropy, and sorption. These
tests were performed to identify which factors were most important in controlling the
transport of the dyes (primarily FLT), the primary goal being to explain the oblique travel
path taken by FLT from the injection wells to the submarine springs. A secondary goal
was to identify which processes and factors that might account for the major features of
ES-19
-------
the BTC (i.e., the time of first arrival, time and magnitude of peak concentration, and the
slope of the descending limb).
The groundwater flow and transport modeling completed in this study identified four
major controls on the pathway the injectate takes. These are: (1) the density difference
between saltwater and the non-saline treated wastewater; (2) the low hydraulic
conductivity alluvium and weathered basalt associated with the current and past channels
of the Honokowai Stream; (3) the nearshore bathymetric gradient; and (4) the dominant
north-south hydraulic conductivity of the basalt aquifer.
The low hydraulic conductivity alluvium and weathered basalt associated with current
and past channels of the Honokowai Stream pose a barrier to the transport of the injectate
to the north and probably to the west. Valley fill associated with stream channels are a
well-recognized barrier to groundwater flow (Mink and Lau, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a,
1993b; Nichols et al., 1996; Oki, 2005). The proximity of the submarine valley shown by
the bathymetry in Figure ES-14 to the current Honokowai Stream strengthens the
hypothesis of Hunt and Rosa (2009) and of this study that stream valley fill and
weathered basalt pose a barrier to flow of the LWRF injectate to the north and west.
Modifying model boundaries to more precisely follow actual bathymetry changed the
peak FLT concentration simulated at the SSG from less than 1 ppb to about 15 ppb. Even
though the simulated SSG FLT concentration was about half of that measured, the
improvement over the previous model version was substantial. Modifying the model to
accurately reflect the nearshore bathymetry resulted in a bathymetric gradient that was
steeper near the submarine springs than it was north of the submarine springs. This
placed the specified head boundaries of the submarine layers closer to the shoreline
specified head boundary of layer 1 decreasing the width of the low permeable sediments
which the FLT plume has to transverse to the submarine springs.
The above controls on the FLT plume were instrumental in obtaining a reasonable match
between the simulated and measured BTCs. However, the spatial distribution of FLT
simulated by the model fell well short of the southern extent indicated by tracer sampling
program, the 815N survey, and the TIR survey. To arrive at reasonable agreement
between modeled and measured plume extent, an anisotropy factor of 3 had to be used
with the direction of dominant hydraulic conductivity aligned north-south. This direction
is perpendicular to the dip of the lava flows and contradicts the prevailing assumption
that the direction of dominant hydraulic conductivity is parallel to lava flow dip.
However, there is a difference between the plane of the dip of the lava flows and the near
horizontal to slightly vertical direction of groundwater flow. In West Maui, the lava
flows dip from 5 to 20 degrees with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 100 ft (Stearns and
MacDonald, 1942). By contrast, the water table in the study area is nearly horizontal
relative to the dip of the lava beds. In addition, near the coast, the thinning of the
freshwater zone adds an upward vertical component to the groundwater flow. Figure ES-
15(a) compares the BTC simulated by the model using a dominant north-south hydraulic
conductivity to the measured BTCs. There is good agreement between simulated NSG
BTC ascending limb and initial curve peak and that which was measured. The simulated
ES-20
-------
peak concentration for FLT at the SSG was only about one-third of that measured;
however this model revision produced the intended result. The primary reason to
implement the dominant north-south hydraulic conductivity was to extend the simulated
plume southward to the southern TIR plume boundary and to the location most southerly
that test positive for FLT. Figure ES-15(b) shows the simulated plume 620 days after the
FLT addition extends southward nearly to the southern TIR plume boundary, which is
very close to the southern extent of the FLT detection.
The reason for the lack of SRB detection was also investigated by modeling. Our
conclusion is that the primary injections wells (Wells 3 and 4) displaced the SRB injected
into Well 2 away from the submarine springs monitored by this study. Wells 3 and 4 lie
directly between Well 2 and the identified submarine springs southwest of the LWRF.
Wells 3 and 4 are the primary injection wells, receiving more than 80 percent of the
treated wastewater. Figure ES-16(a) shows that this interference reduces the SRB
concentration at the submarine springs more than an order of magnitude to concentration
values just above the MDL for this dye. Figure ES-16(b) indicates that the core of the
SRB plume is diverted to southeast before it can make its way to the submarine discharge
points. The displacement significantly lengthens the travel path this dye takes and
increases its dispersion. Other processes such as sorption and degradation have a greater
chance to further reduce the concentration due to the increased pathway length and travel
time. To test the true hydraulic connectivity between Well 2 and the nearby coastal
environment, a second tracer test would need to be conducted, with Well 2 as the primary
injection well.
ES-21
-------
Table ES-1. North and South Seep Group water quality parameters.
Data (means ± SD and range) were collected from 7/19/2011 through 5/2/2012 with a
handheld YSI Model 63.
South Seeps Temp. (°C) gH Spec. Cond. (mS/cm) Salinity
Seep 3
28.7 ±2.0
7.52 ±0.12
6.43 ± 2.57
3.25 ± 1.5
24.9 to 34.9
7.22 to 7.94
5.20 to 28.18
2.50 to 16.1
Seep 4
28.6 ±2.0
7.50 ±0.12
8.98 ±6.57
4.77 ±4.0
24.5 to 34.6
7.20 to 7.90
5.63 to 37.70
2.80 to 22.5
Seep 5
28.4 ±2.0
7.53 ±0.20
9.24 ±6.59
4.94 ±4.0
24.9 to 34.9
7.32 to 7.90
5.29 to 34.75
2.90 to 21.8
Seep 11
26.8 ±2.5
7.61 ±0.20
6.48 ± 0.62
3.39 ±0.3
25.2 to 29.0
7.37 to 7.68
5.00 to 8.32
3.10 to 4.5
North Seeps
Seep 1
29.1 ±2.0
7.45 ±0.09
8.33 ± 1.04
4.25 ±0.5
24.8 to 34.4
7.18 to 7.76
7.32 to 14.80
3.90 to 7.3
Seep 2
28.9 ±2.3
7.46 ±0.11
8.47 ± 1.41
4.35 ±0.7
24.0 to 34.9
7.13 to 7.75
7.04 to 17.36
3.80 to 9.9
Seep 6
29.3 ±2.2
7.41 ±0.14
8.33 ±0.90
4.25 ±0.4
23.8 to 35.9
6.90 to 7.94
7.00 to 13.54
3.80 to 7.0
Seep 7
27.5 ± 1.7
7.51 ± 0.19
8.19 ± 1.32
4.31± 0.8
22.4 to 30.3
7.26 to 7.81
7.24 to 15.08
3.90 to 8.2
Seep 8
27.4 ± 1.7
7.35 ±0.18
9.36 ±5.98
5.01± 3.6
24.7 to 31.0
7.09 to 7.90
7.47 to 37.88
4.00 to 22.0
Seep 9
27.4 ± 1.7
7.43 ±0.21
13.65 ± 11.35
7.58 ±6.7
23.3 to 30.5
6.75 to 7.80
7.21 to 42.91
3.90 to 25.3
Seep 10
28.2 ± 1.0
7.60 ±0.15
9.02 ± 1.17
4.70 ±0.6
26.5 to 29.5
7.26 to 7.76
7.99 to 11.85
4.10 to 6.2
Seep 12
28.2 ± 1.1
7.60 ±0.11
8.37 ±0.50
4.35 ±0.2
26.6 to 29.6
7.36 to 7.78
7.88 to 9.55
4.10 to 4.9
Seep 13
28.0 ± 1.9
7.69 ±0.02
8.18 ±0.53
4.27 ±0.1
26.0 to 29.7
7.67 to 7.71
7.69 to 8.74
4.20 to 4.4
Seep 14
27.1 ±2.1
7.67 ±0.05
7.91 ±0.21
4.17 ± 0.1
24.7 to 28.7
7.66 to 7.72
7.67 to 8.02
4.10 to 4.2
Seep 15
28.4 ±2.4
7.58 ±0.10
9.99 ±3.28
5.31 ± 2.1
24.6 to 30.6
7.45 to 7.72
7.86 to 16.54
4.20 to 9.3
Seep 16
30.1 ±0.6
7.63 ±0.12
8.85 ± 0.09
4.47 ±0.1
29.4 to 30.6
7.50 to 7.71
8.79 to 8.95
4.40 to 4.5
ES-22
-------
Table ES-2. Summary of the June, 2011 Nutrient Data
Sample
No. of
TP
TN
po43
Si044
no3
no2
nh4+
Type
Samples
(Hg/L
(Hg/L
(Hg/L
(jig/L as
(Hg/L
(Hg/L
(Hg/L
as P)
as N)
as P)
Si)
as N)
as N)
as N)
Terrestrial
6
Min.
21
88
18
4,852
1
0.8
0.6
Surface
Avg.
161
2,121
75
17,427
1,189
9.0
51
Max.
255
4,043
159
25,679
3,166
31
129
Std. Dev.
91
1,566
50
8,431
1,540
11
49
Production
7
Min.
60
292
48
17,944
205
0.7
0.8
Wells
Avg.
100
1,330
72
19,283
968
1.1
1.4
Max.
184
2,429
105
21,958
1,916
2.0
2.9
Std. Dev.
52
778
25
1,611
731
0.5
0.8
Monitoring
1
91
2,342
52
16,206
1,608
6.2
0.0
Well
Treated
1
206
7,245
102
17,231
2,641
530
1,307
Wastewater
Submarine
4
Min.
350
326
279
11,984
142
14
4
Springs
Avg.
396
486
340
16,948
278
23
6
Max.
421
651
365
20,624
366
31
7
Std. Dev.
32
146
41
4,069
108
9
1
Marine
25
Min.
11
64
3
134
3
0.3
0.0
Surface
Avg.
14
100
6
356
22
0.3
1
Max.
34
306
26
1,249
146
1
10
Std. Dev.
5
57
5
303
34
0.1
2
ES-23
-------
Table ES-3. Summary of the September, 2011 Nutrient Data
Sample
Type
No. of
Samples
TP
(Hg/L
as P)
TN
(Hg/L
as N)
PO/
(Hg/L
as P)
SiO/
(jig/L as
Si)
N03
(Hg/L
as N)
no2
(Hg/L
as N)
nh4+
(Hg/L
as N)
Terrestrial
3
Min.
123
2,146
42
8,237
1,083
6
24
Surface
Avg.
201
4,551
86
16,373
2,923
86
59
Max.
261
6,751
155
24,160
4,239
237
103
Std. Dev.
70
2,309
60
7,967
1,642
131
40
Production
7
Min.
66
277
50
17,948
226
0.7
2.2
Wells
Avg.
136
1,463
112
20,115
1,142
1.0
5.9
Max.
309
2,559
254
23,792
2,487
1.5
7.1
Std. Dev.
88
874
76
2,400
817
0.2
1.7
Monitoring
Well
1
73
2,759
55
18,085
1,210
2.8
17
Treated
Wastewater
2
Min.
Avg.
164
177
6,061
6,238
70
88
16,462
16,678
3,172
3,313
423
466
156
211
Max.
191
6,415
106
16,893
3,454
509
267
Std. Dev.
19
250
25
304
199
61
79
Submarine
2
Min.
451
1,573
393
19,693
96
10
6.4
Springs
Avg.
459
1,598
404
20,426
121
18
6.8
Max.
468
1,624
415
21,159
145
27
7.1
Std. Dev.
12
36
16
1,037
35
12
0.5
Marine
Surface
23
Min.
11
127
2.8
98
0.0
0.3
0.1
Avg.
13
173
4.5
202
5.7
0.5
1.4
Max.
20
225
14
607
41
1.1
2.9
Std. Dev.
1.9
19.8
2.3
136
8.6
0.2
0.9
ES-24
-------
Table ES-4. The progressive microbial decomposition of organic matter.
Reactions succeed each one another in the order written as each oxidant is completely
consumed. From Berner and Berner, 1996.
Oxygenation (oxic)
CH,U + t>., -CO, fH,{>
Nitrate reduction (mainly anoxic)
SCHjC) + 4NO}- - ~ 2N, + CO, + 4HCO, + 3H,0
Manganese oxide reduction (mainly anoxic)
VHp + 2Mn()t 4- 3CO. + H,0 -~ 2Mn" + 4HCO,"
Ferric oxide (hydroxide) reduction (anoxic)
CH,G + 4FcCOH)t 4 7CO, - 4Fc<* + 8HCO, + 311,0
Sulfate reduction (anoxic
2CH,G + S04" » H,S + 2HCO,
Methane formation (anoxic)
2CH,0 - C.'HJ f CO,
Note: Organic matter schematically represented as C.'H;0.
ES-25
-------
Table ES-5. June, 2011 stable isotope data
TS = Terrestrial Surface, PW = Production Well, SS = Submarine Spring, MS = Marine
Surface water; - denotes measurement not performed.
Sample Name (Type)
SlsO of H20
S2H of
h2o
SlsN of
no3
51SN <7
SlsO of
no3
S180 g
(%«)'
(%«)'
(% o)2
(%»)3
(%«)'
(%»)3
Kaanapali 1 (TS)
-
-
12.63
2.26
2.84
4.3
Kaanapali 2 (TS)
-
-
14.99
2.26
-1.82
4.3
Kaanapali GC-1 (TS)
-
-
4.96
1.67
-1.62
1.45
Hahakea 2 (PW)
-3.77
-15.33
0.65
1.15
0.7
1.17
Honokowai B (PW)
-3.79
-15.05
3.15
1.67
-3.5
1.45
Kaanapali P-l (PW)
-3.8
-14.94
1.31
1.67
-1.74
1.45
Kaanapali P-2 (PW)
-3.75
-15.3
1.07
1.67
-0.16
1.45
Kaanapali P-4 (PW)
-3.57
-14.51
0.92
0.52
4.3
1.78
Kaanapali P-5 (PW)
-3.45
-14.46
4.19
1.67
3
1.45
Kaanapali P-6 (PW)
-3.39
-13.85
3.29
1.67
3.3
1.45
Lahaina Deep Monitor Well
-3.55
-13.75
1.8
1.67
-0.22
1.45
LWRF Treated Effluent
-
-
29.25
0.52
19.82
1.78
Seep 1 Piez-1 (SS)
-3.21
-11.01
86.47
1.15
21.56
1.17
Seep 1 Piez-2 (SS)
-
-
77.82
0.56
22.86
0.19
Seep 2 Piez-1 (SS)
-1.52
-5.19
-
-
-
-
Seep 3 Piez-1 (SS)
-3.03
-10.91
83.89
0.56
22.07
0.19
Seep 4 Piez-1 (SS)
-2.26
-7.64
-
-
-
-
Maui 10 (MS)
-
-
52.46
1
16.35
0.82
Maui 12 (MS)
-
-
57.73
1
21.55
0.82
Maui 14 (MS)
-
-
55.5
1
15.52
0.82
Maui 15 (MS)
-
-
54.43
1
15.67
0.82
Maui 2 (MS)
-
-
12.71
2.26
6.55
4.3
Maui 5 (MS)
-
-
19.71
1
9.24
0.82
Maui 6 (MS)
-
-
18.04
0.56
9.69
0.19
Wahikuli (MS)
-
-
11.86
0.56
3.53
0.19
'Measured relative to VSMOW
2Measured relative to AIR
3Average standard deviation of standards and duplicate samples
ES-26
-------
Table ES-6. September, 2011 stable isotope data
TS = Terrestrial Surface, PW = Production Well, SS = Submarine Spring, MS = Marine
Surface water; - denotes measurement not performed.
Sample Name (Type)
SlsO of
h2o
(%«)'
S2H of
h2o
(%«)'
SlsN of
no3
(% o)2
51SN <7
(%»)3
SlsO of
no3
(%«)'
S180 g
(%»)3
Black Rock 1 (TS)
-
-
10.12
0.23
2.29
0.49
Black Rock 2 (TS)
-
-
8.84
1
2.41
0.82
Kaanapali GC-R1 Pond (TS)
-3.09
-11.34
30.78
0.23
11.72
0.49
Hahakea 2 (PW)
-3.63
-14.69
0.91
0.23
-0.91
0.49
Kaanapali P-l (PW)
-3.67
-14.64
2.32
0.23
-1.87
0.49
Kaanapali P-2 (PW)
-3.73
-15.11
2.21
0.23
-2.16
0.49
Kaanapali P-4 (PW)
-3.59
-14.65
2
0.39
-0.27
1.54
Kaanapali P-5 (PW)
-3.46
-14.03
2.41
0.39
0.5
1.54
Kaanapali P-6 (PW)
-3.42
-13.93
3.49
0.39
0.33
1.54
Honokowai B (PW)
-3.68
-14.69
2.03
0.39
-1.18
1.54
Lahaina Deep Monitor Well
-3.65
-15.7
1.98
0.39
0.79
1.54
LWRF Treated Effluent
-3.06
-11.37
30.85
0.23
15.92
0.49
LWRF-R1 Treated Effluent
-3.12
-11.39
31.54
0.23
15.03
0.49
Seep 1-2 Piez (SS)
-3.1
-11.45
83.03
0.23
24.46
0.49
Seep 3-2 Piez (SS)
-2.85
-10.54
93.14
0.23
22.45
0.49
Maui 19 (MS)
-
-
22.8
1
1.76
0.82
Maui 22 (MS)
-
-
29.22
1
8.77
0.82
Maui 23 (MS)
0.37
2.32
17.72
1
4.87
0.82
Maui 25 (MS)
0.44
2.82
-
-
-
-
Maui 28 (MS)
0.39
2.24
-
-
-
-
Maui 32 (MS)
0.47
2.64
-
-
-
-
'Measured relative to VSMOW
2Measured relative to AIR
3Average standard deviation of standards and duplicate samples
ES-27
-------
Table ES-7. The output of the QTracer2 BTC Interpretation Model
Parameter
Units
North Seep
South Seep
Comments
Group
Group
Duration of BTC
d
2,435
2,001
Length of time from injection
until FLT concentration drops
below the MDL
Distance from input to
m
821
932
outflow point
Seep Group Discharge
m3/d
1,752
5,439
Combined discharge = 7,162
Time to First Arrival
d
86
109
Time to Peak
d
306
271
Concentration
Peak Tracer Concentration
PPb
22.5
35
Mean Transit Time
d
487
435
Mean Tracer Velocity
m/d
1.7
2.1
Maximum Tracer Velocity
m/d
9.5
8.6
-
Mass of Tracer Inject
kg
119
119
Mass of Tracer Recovered
kg
16.8
59.9
Percent of Tracer Mass
%
14.1
50.3
Total Percent Recovery = 64%
Recovered
Dispersion coefficient
m2/s
1.37E-03
1.15E-03
Longitudinal dispersivity
m
70
46
Peclet Number
Unitless
12
20
Advection > Diffusion
Note: Seep group discharge is taken from Table 5-5 in the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Interim Report
(Glenn et al., 2012)
ES-28
-------
Table ES-8. Calculated percent of treated wastewater in the submarine spring discharge.
FLT Tracer Dye Estimates of Percent Recovery and of Percent Effluent
Units
North
Seep
Group
South Seep
Group
Total
Total SGD (saline+fresh)1
(m3/d)
2,500
6,300
8,800
SGD - FLT plume fraction
(m3/d)
1,752
5,439
7,162
Mass of Tracer Dye Added
(kg)
119
Mass of Tracer Dye Recovered
(kg)
16.8
59.9
76.7
Percent Tracer Dye Mass Recovery at the
(%)
14.1
50.3
64.0
Submarine Spring Groups
(m3/d)
Average Injection Rate into LWRF
9,340
Wastewater Injection Wells 3 and 4
(m3/d)
Effluent Discharge at Submarine Springs2
—
—
5,978
Percent Effluent in the Submarine Spring
(%)
—
—
68
Discharge (Effluent Discharge/Total SGD)
Geochemical Parameters Used in % Effluent
Mixing Endmember Calculations3
Percent Effluent in the Submarine
Spring Discharge
Low Avg High
5lsO / 52H End Member Mixing Calculations
53%
77%
96%
5 0/ [CI ] End Member Mixing Calculations
12%
41%
60%
52H / [CI ] End Member Mixing Calculations
Average
67%
69%
62%
71%
Radon Mass Balance Model of Glenn et al. (2012, Section 5).
264% of Average Injection Rate into Wells 3 and 4.
3See Section 6.4.2.3 of Glenn et al. (2012) for a discussion of end member mixing analysis techniques.
ES-29
-------
Lahaina Wastewater ( j \ 7 j
Reclamation Facility J J - 1. TlOWrl \
Submarine — ==~U ^v\ \>V J (
| Springs | Kaanapali^^^^^^
Knkui
Lahaina V0 tb,
Honolua Ditch 1 \ ill f~
— Major Streams m - ¦*"**"^
IT] Golf Course \ _ i |
Agriculture z'
1 I Former Pineapple
~ Former Sugar Cane ^ Y
^ Crazing r ^ J
Land Cover Olowalu n^\
| Barren Lands
1 1 Forest Land
Range Land
| Urban 0 2 4 8
Figure ES-1: Western Maui land-use map.
ES-30
-------
Honokowai
Beacb Park
Lahaina Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
Inferred Extent 01 In jection
Plume
(Hunt and Rosa, 2009)
Red - Minimum extent
supported by ir5N
Yellow - Extension further
south (less certain)
Kabekili
Beach Park
Black Rock
Point
Hanaka o
Beach Park
= Highways
— Roads
£ Submarine Springs
8 Injection Wells
— Major Streams
— Elev. (100ft Interval)
Q LWRF
I I Golf Course
I] Former Sugar
U Urban
Lahaina Reefs
Wabikuli
WavsidePar
Kilometers
Figure ES-2: Detail of study area showing key locals along the coast.
LWRF injection wells and inferred subsurface minimum and maximum spatial extent of
LWRF injection plume from Hunt and Rosa (2009) is also shown.
ES-31
-------
IWRF
Kahek.it
Lahaina Wistmitr
Reclamation Facility
\\'abikuli ^
Wavside Par
Bead1! Pan
Olotvalu
I Kilometers
| IAVRF
¦ Highways
— Roads
^ Submarine Springs
* Injection Weils
Llev. (100ft Interval)
| Golf C ourse
3 Former Sugar
Urban
Lahaina Reefs
Honokonai
Beacb Park
Submarine
Springs
Figure ES-3: Control and submarine spring sampling locations.
Control locations include: Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park, and
Olowalu. Also shown are the North and South Seep Groups.
ES-32
-------
Legend
I | Seep Group Polygons
] Radon Flux Polygons
North Seep
Group
-—~~L_
South Seep
Group
50
100
200
H Meters
A
Figure ES-4: The location of the flowing submarine springs showing an enveloping
polygon for each seep group and the extent of the boxes used in the Radon flux
calculations (compare with Figure ES-8).
ES-33
-------
156°42'0"W 156°41'30"W
i 1
Figure ES-5: Aerial TIR sea surface temperature map thermal anomaly at North
Kaanapali Beach.
The TIR plume is > 575 m (1886 ft) in width (from the shoreline to the edge of the flight
line). There is less than 0.6°C temperature variation within the plume area. The lagoon
emptying into the ocean at the southern end of the figure is fed by cold groundwater.
Submarine spring (seep) locations are shown on the map correspond to small-scale and
semi-isolated thermal anomalies.
ES-34
-------
[North Seep Grow
AI5N of Nitrate (%.)
• 0.*5 • 4.X6
O 4Jt7-ia.lW
O 10-IM • 25.110
O 2S.0I - MJU
0 J*.K4 - W.tMl
6I5N of Alga) TK»tt* |V|
A 4.X6
A 4*7 . IB. 1*1
A in-oi • 2J.no
A l*4i - -WJU
A JW.X4 - W.OW
TIR TcnptrMn (C >
. 26S
- 26 4
26.0
25 6
2S2
248
177773 IMRI
. - - SttTM
100 Fowl ( oNtnvn
Figure ES-6: Infrared SST pictured with S15N values of terrestri al and marine waters, and
the intertidal macroalgae.
Shown are the 815N values of intertidal macroalgae (triangles) reported by Dailer et al.
(2010) and §15N values of NO3" dissolved in water (circles) reported in this study. The
region of elevated SST offshore of Kahekili Beach Park corresponds with elevated 8, JN
values of macroalgal tissue and dissolved NO3". Note that the majority of marine samples
collected had dissolved NO3" concentrations below 0.9 uM, the minimum concentration
required to perform the dissolved NO3" 61 N analysis used in this study. The marine
samples pictured here are the few that were above this analytical threshold and thus
provide a good spatial representation of above-background dissolved NO3".
ES-35
-------
Legend
FLT Plume
I | Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
• 0.0 - 0.1
O 0.2 - 0.3
O 0.4-0.5
O 0.6 - 0.7
O 0.8 - 0.9
O 1.0 - 1.2
Resort Wells
Inj ection W ells
i Barrier
- Thermal Plume
] LWRF
Est. Plume Extent
(Hunt and Rosa, 2009)
Mis. Extent
Probable Extent
Bathvmetric Contours
(depth ft)
5
20
40
60
80
100
North Seep
Group
Figure ES-7: The FLT concentrations normalize to that at Seep 3 and shown in relation
to the boundaries of the TIR plume.
ES-36
-------
Radon (dpitl/L)
• 0.00-0.14
• 0-5 i -O.T6
• 0 15.029
• 0.77-1.17
• V..10-0..19
• 1.18 • 1.93
0.40 • 0.52
>tfrth fotp CluMti
Blath HvvK
South 'sct-n Cluster
156°4I*0"W
s. unnnkttgal
IS6°43'0"W IS6°42"0"W
1 1
>. Hiiiuiki^Mi
ft
Figure ES-8: Radon activities measured during coastal surveys in June and September,
2011.
Sites with elevated surface radon activities are outlined with a black box. The lengths of
the boxes are the approximate lengths of coastline that was within 100 dpin/m of the
mean radon concentration for each site and the widths are the distance of the radon
survey from the coastline. The latter assumes that groundwater emanates at the coastline.
Coastal groundwater fluxes were estimated from these areas. FLT plume boundary is
also shown,
ES-37
-------
Treated Effluent
100 J \
r 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7- 0
Marine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 \ye||
o
18 2
8 O vs. 8 H Mixing Analysis-June
V
1 8
S O vs. [CI"] Mixing Analysis-June
D
2
8 H vs. [CI ] Mixing Analysis-June
O
18 2
8 O vs. 8 H Mixing Analysis-September
V
1 8
8 O vs. [CI"] Mixing Analysis-September
~
2
8 H vs. [CI"] Mixing Analysis-September
Figure ES-9: Submarine spring component mix ternary diagram.
Submarine spring component percentages for samples plotting within the mixing
triangles shown in Figures 6-14, 6-15, and 6-16 of Project Interim Report (Glenn et al.,
2012).
ES-38
-------
North Seep Group BTC
Time of Peak Concentration
First Arrival .
Mean Transit Time
~ Avg [FLT]
-Extrapolated [FLT]
(a) North Seep Group
South Seep Group BTC
Time of
First Arrival
I
Peak Concentration
Mean Transit Time
1
f 1
tL
1
f 1
1 n
3?- 1
1 J
1
i
1
i ——
$
~ Avg. [FLT]
-Extrapolated [FLT]
(b) South Seep Group
Figure ES-10: Submarine spring water FLT breakthrough curves for (a) the NSG and (b)
the SSG.
The first arrival of dye occurred in late October, 2011 at the NSG and early November,
2011 at the SSG. Both BTCs appear have reached maximum concentrations by May,
2012 with the FLT concentration at the SSG being about 1.5 times that at the NSG. The
maximum concentration at the NSG occurred in late May, 2012 after a three month
plateau. The peak concentration at the SSG occurred in mid-May, 2012 with no plateau.
Both BTCs exhibit a long trailing edge on their declining limbs. The limbs extending past
January 2012 are synthetic projections.
ES-39
-------
0.30
0.25
o. 0.20
Q.
c 0.15
o
U
g 0.10
cc
0.05
0.00 '
NSG-SRB
i
I
i
f i
'i it- ^
25§s
k
(a)
c*>
\
\V <5>
&
jr J*
A"
^ ^ # 4? # ^ ^ ovO
V
(b)
Figure ES-11: The SRB wavelength fluorescence measured by this study at the NSG (a)
and the SSG (b).
There no confirmed detections of SRB and the samples with elevated SRB wavelength
were generally isolated occurrences with the sample prior and following exhibiting
baseline SRB fluorescence.
ES-40
-------
0.0 +-
520
540
560
580
600
620
Seep 3: 2/10/12
Well 2 #1
Emission Wavelength (nm)
seep 3: 2/20/12 seep 12: 3/14/12
35ppb FLT + 0.05ppb SRB ~>Seep 3 6/14/12
Figure ES-12: Synchronous scans of samples collected in February and March, 2012
compared to solutions spiked with SRB.
The laboratory prepared sample (35 ppb FLT + 0.05ppb SRB) is a reference to which the
field samples can be compared. The declining limb of the FLT peak is evident from
about 550 to 560 nm. The SRB is shown as curve with a peak center at 580 nm. The
sample "Seep 3 6/14/12" is shown as an example of a sample with no indication of SRB.
ES-41
-------
Legend
& Submarine Springs
@ Injection Wells
_ Barrier
l—iLWKF
Submarine Layers
Layer No.
2
3
4
5
6
Layer 1 Geology
!—Wailuku Basalts
Sediments
^¦Lahaina Volcanics
2
¦ Miles
Figure ES-13: The conceptual model for the Lahaina Groundwater Study showing the
extent of the submarine layers
Western boundaries of layers 2 through 6 followed the 6.6, 18, 29.5, 41, and 54 ft depth
contours respectively.
ES-42
-------
v 1 /
Probable Drowned
Stream Vallev
77 / . /
Hori/. Flow Barrier
used to simulate
stream valley alluvium
Legend
FLT Plume
] Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
Resort Wells
Injection Wells /
~ Barrier
' Thermal Plume Boundan
I LWRF
Well 4
* * Well 3
| North Seep
Group
Bathvmetric Contours
(depth ft)
South Seep
Croup
The 5,10, and 20 ft
bathvmetric contours
are closer to the shoreline
in the FLT plume area
40
Probable extent of
the FLT plume
1 /
Figure ES-14: The probable drowned stream valley shown in relation to the modeled
horizontal flow barrier and the normalized FLT concentrations
ES-43
-------
0 1^ 1 1 1 i ~T
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
¦ NSG ¦ SSG NSG-Modeled SSG - Modeled
Legend
Submarine Springs
® Injection Wells
^—Barrier
^.Thermal Plume Boundary
I—| LYV RF
FLT - Anistropic - 620 d
(ppb)
an 0.02 -10
all-20
i—121 - 30
1 2
Miles
Figure ES-15: The FLT model results showing (a) the measured and simulated BTCs;
and (b) simulated plume 620 days after dye addition.
The model results show reasonable agreement between the simulated and measured BTC
ascending limb and initial peak for the NSG. The simulated peak concentration for the
SSG as about one-third of that measured. When the dominant hydraulic conductivity axis
is aligned north-south, the plume reaches the southern TIR boundary.
ES-44
-------
(a) . SRB BTC - Two Injection Scenarios
NSG - Inject. Into Wells 3&4 —•—NSG - Inject. Into Well 2 only
SSG - Inject. Into Wells 3&4 ~ SSG - Inject.into Well 2 Only
0.0 , r
07/28/11 02/13/12 08/31/12 03/19/13 10/05/13 04/23/14
11/09/14
Legend
Submarine Springs
® Injection Wells
Barrier
Thprm al Plume Boundary
I—iLWRF
SRB - Well 3&4 Inj.
(PPb)
an 0.05 - 4
i—15- 8
~ 9-12
— 13 - 16
M17 - 20
1 2
Miles
Figure ES-16: The simulated SRB BTCs (a) and plume 620 days after dye addition (b).
The first injection scenario (lines only) simulates treated wastewater injection continuing
into Wells 3 and 4 after the addition of SRB. The second scenario (lines and symbols)
shows the simulated BTCs if treated wastewater was injected into Well 2 only after the
addition of SRB. Continuing injection into Wells 3 and 4 after the addition of SRB
displaces the core of the plume to the southeast. The valley fill barrier to the north and
west prevent plume from moving in those directions.
ES-45
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
xlvi
-------
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND,
AND PURPOSE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Report was prepared by the University of Hawaii (UH) for the State of Hawaii,
Department of Health Agreement Number 11-047 with funding provided by a grant from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of this Final Report is to
provide the final details and results from the project that have resulted since completion
of the project's Final Interim Report, submitted in November 2012 (Glenn et al., 2012).
The goals of the project have been to provide critical data about the geohydrological
connection between the injected treated wastewater from the Maui County, Hawaii,
Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility (LWRF) and the nearby coastal waters,
confirm the locations of emerging injected treated wastewater discharge in these coastal
waters, and determine a travel time from the LWRF injection wells to the coastal waters.
The sections that follow provide the final results of findings that stem from the study's
principal objectives: (1) implement a tracer dye study from the LWRF (Section 4); (2)
locate and conduct continuous monitoring for the emergence of the injected tracer dyes at
the most probable points of emergence at nearshore sites within the coastal reaches of the
LWRF (Section 2); (3) measure the SGD flux from the submarine springs (Section 3); (4)
combine SGD fluxes with complete dye emergence breakthrough curves to estimate the
treated wastewater flux in the nearshore waters (Section 4); and (5) develop groundwater
flow and transport models to understand the flow paths of the treated wastewater to the
coastal zone (Section 5). Each of these sections contains their own set of methodologies,
results, and conclusions, and each has its own appendices, grouped together at the end of
the report.
A very important part of the study has been the completion of a fluorescent dye tracer test
to investigate any linkage that may exist between the underground injection of treated
municipal wastewater effluent into the sub-surface waters north of the town of Lahaina,
Maui, Hawaii, and the discharge of that treated wastewater to the nearshore coastal
waters close to the treatment facility. As detailed in Section 4 (Fluorescent Dye
Groundwater Tracer Study), we completed two tracer dye injections at the LWRF. In the
first, fluorescein (FLT) was added to two wells (Injection Wells 3 and 4). In the second,
sulpho-rhodamine-B (SRB) was added two weeks later into Injection Well 2, which has a
significantly higher injection capacity than Wells 3 and 4. The SRB injection was
conducted to investigate whether the treated wastewater from this well discharges into the
marine environment at the same location as Wells 3 and 4. The FLT tracer dye injected
at the LWRF has been detected in the coastal waters with the FLT breakthrough
sufficiently established to calculate travel times and estimate the percent of dye recovery.
The travel times are estimates and this part of the study has been combined with
l-l
-------
continued coastal water flux measurements to estimate the total flux of treated
wastewater and nutrient load being discharged into the nearshore waters. Groundwater
and transport modeling were used to interpret the tracer breakthrough curve. Despite the
broad area covered by our sampling program, SRB was not conclusively detected in the
nearby coastal waters. The possible reasons for the failure to detect this dye were
investigated by groundwater modeling.
1.1.1 Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions that many people and organizations
have made to this project. The assistance of Hailey Ramey was important to the success
of the field sampling, particularly the hours of scuba diving that were required for the
submarine spring survey. We are very grateful to Russell Sparks, Skippy Hau, Kristy
Stone, Linda Castro, Darla White, and Edward Kekoa of the Department of Aquatic
Resources (DAR), State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. These
personnel from the Maui DAR were critical in supporting the on the ground portion of
the aerial TIR survey, assisting in marine operations, and allowing us to store equipment
at their facility. Dan Chang of the Hawaii Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water
Branch was instrumental in the outreach to the Maui County Department of
Environmental Services, assisted in the setup for the tracer tests, spent two sleepless
nights adding dye to injection stream, and assisted in the well sampling. The assistance
of the Maui County Department of Environmental Management was absolutely critical to
the success of this project. They made facilities at the LWRF available, assisted in the
design of the tracer test, and provided whatever assistance was requested during the
addition of the dye. In particular, we would like to recognize Scott Rollins, Ken Knapp,
and Kathleen Lawson. We also are very grateful for the help and assistance of Erin
Vander Zee, James Watts, and Gary Byrd of Hawaii Rural Water who aided in the tracer
dye portion of the project. Critical aid during the high frequency submarine spring
sampling was made possible with the assistance of the project's University of Hawaii
undergraduate trainees Jonathan Molina, Tatiana Martinez, Michelle Del Rosario, Jezelyn
Gonsolves, and Ignacio Roger. These students worked hard to ensure that the tracer dye
would not be missed if the travel time had been short. We extend our thanks to Hawaii
Water Service Company (Kaanapali Water Corp.) for helping us with sampling the
region's drinking water and irrigation wells, and Carlos Rivera and Starwood Vacation
Ownership Resorts for allowing us to sample their monitoring wells. Critical assistance
was provided by Jeff Sevadjian in the design and data interpretation of the Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler used to measure the discharge flux from the submarine springs.
We are indebted to Joseph Kennedy and Jeff Skrotzki who helped in the field and in the
writing of the project's Interim Report. We would like to acknowledge the Honolulu
Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for making their facilities available to us for a
conference briefing and for the feedback provided by Charles Hunt and Steve Anthony.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Benjamin Hagedorn for assisting in the
groundwater sampling, performing important chemical analysis, and doing background
research for the report. We realize that this list is incomplete would like to thank all of
those that made this important research possible.
1-2
-------
1.2 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
Located between 155° 57' and 156° 42' west longitude, and 20° 34' and 20° 59' north
latitude, the Island of Maui lies near the middle of the Pacific Ocean, far from any
continental land mass. Maui is part of an island chain that was formed as the Pacific
Tectonic Plate passed over a mid-ocean hotspot. The primary shield volcanoes forming
this island chain generally occur in parallel trending pairs (Langenheim and Clague,
1987). Maui is no exception, consisting of the East Maui Volcano, Haleakala, and the
West Maui Volcano. The older volcano, the West Maui Volcano (also referred to as the
West Maui Mountain), rises to an altitude of 5,788 ft above sea level (asl) and the
younger volcano, the East Maui Volcano (commonly referred to as Haleakala), rises to an
altitude of 10,023 ft asl (Figure 1-1). The two volcanoes are separated by the central
Maui isthmus, generally at an altitude less than 300 ft asl, that is covered with terrestrial
and marine sedimentary deposits (Stearns and MacDonald, 1942).
The site of this study is located on the western extent of the West Maui Volcano, near the
towns of Lahaina and Kaanapali. Steep mountain slopes and narrow stream channels in
the uplands and gently dipping plains towards the coast characterize the area. According
to the 2010 United States Census Bureau (Department of Business, Economic
Development, and Tourism, 2010), there were 14,110 people, 4593 households, and 2875
families residing from the town of Lahaina to just north of the study area. The population
density in this area is 445 people per square mile. The LWRF is located about three
miles north of the town of Lahaina.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE LAHAINA WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY
The study area (Figure 1-2) is located in the Kaanapali District of West Maui, Hawaii.
The LWRF is about three miles north of the town of Lahaina and serves the municipal
wastewater needs for that community, including the major resorts along the coast. The
LWRF receives approximately 4 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewage from a
collection system serving approximately 40,000 people. The facility produces tertiary
treated wastewater, which is disposed of via four on-site injections wells, and tertiary
treated wastewater that is disinfected with UV radiation to meet R-l reuse water
standards. This R-l water is sold to customers such as Kaanapali Resort to be used for
landscape and golf course irrigation. The R-l water that is not sold is also discharged
into the subsurface via the injection wells.
The LWRF consists of two separate plants capable of operating in parallel. The first
plant, constructed in 1976 (and currently not in operation), has an average flow capacity
of 3.2 mgd. The other plant, constructed in 1985 (and modified in 1995), has an average
flow capacity of 6.7 mgd. After primary settling to remove the majority of the suspended
solids, the LWRF effluent undergoes secondary treatment. This treatment reduces the
biodegradable dissolved solids by microbial action that metabolizes the organic matter.
1-3
-------
The LWRF also incorporates biological nutrient removal to promote nitrogen removal.
The effluent is sand filtered to remove solids before injection or further treatment. The
effluent that undergoes disinfection using ultraviolet radiation is sold as R-l grade reuse
water for irrigation and other approved uses (e.g., construction dust control, etc.). This
grade of reuse water can be used for irrigation with very few restrictions (Limtiaco
Consulting Group, 2005; and County of Maui, 2012-2013). Prior to October 28, 2011,
the effluent discharged into the LWRF injection wells was only partially disinfected with
chlorine.
Limtiaco Consulting Group (2005) summarized the history of the reuse water production
at the LWRF. Up to the late 1980s, the LWRF provided R-2 water (reclaimed
wastewater with restrictions placed on its use) to the Pioneer Mill for sugarcane
irrigation. However, with the phase-out of sugarcane this disposal option disappeared. In
the mid-1990s Maui County upgraded the plant to produce R-l water to be used as a
resource and in part to address concerns about seasonal benthic algal blooms that were
proliferating along the coast. The distribution system was extended to make R-l water
available to the Maui Land and Pineapple Company for pineapple irrigation in 2003.
This water was to be blended with non-potable water from the Honolua Ditch. However,
due to ample rain and the phase-out of pineapple, little use has been made of this option.
This infrastructure may be beneficial to the expansion of reuse in the Kaanapali area and
the emerging diversified agriculture in West Maui.
The LWRF injects the secondary treated effluent into four injection wells (Figures 1-3
and 1-4). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act an Underground Injection Control (UIC)
permit is required from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the
injection of subsurface wastewater effluents that might affect potential sources of
drinking water. The LWRF's UIC permit expired on June 6, 2005 but per the USEPA's
approval, the facility is operating under the expired permit until a renewal is approved.
Sections 1421 through 1445 and Section 1450 of the Safe Drinking Water Act require
that each state establish an UIC program to protect drinking water sources from
contamination due to sub-surface fluid injection. Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 144 through 148 details the UIC permit regulations. Part 144 lays out
the minimum permitting and program requirements. Part 145 details the elements and
permitting procedures for a state program, while Part 146 spells out the technical
requirements. Part 147 sets forth the UIC program for each state including Hawaii. Much
of the oversight of UIC activities is delegated to the states. However, the UIC program
for the State of Hawaii is administered by the USEPA. The Hawaii UIC program
requirements are codified in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HAR) Title 11, Chapters 23
and 23a.
The State of Hawaii UIC restrictions are less stringent if an aquifer is not a potential
source of drinking water due to high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS). The
area of an aquifer that is seaward of an UIC Line is classified as an exempted aquifer.
Class V injection wells are allowed in exempted aquifers and this class includes the
injection of sewage derived wastewater. The LWRF is located seaward of the UIC line
(Figure 1-3) and injects treated effluent to depths between 180 and 255 feet below ground
1-4
-------
surface (or -55 and -229 feet above mean sea level). The screen length or open interval
of the wells varies from 95 to 150 feet below ground surface. Table 1-1 gives the
construction details for the injection wells while Figure 1-4 shows geology of the
boreholes drilled to install these wells and the screened or open interval of the wells. The
average flow rate into the plant is currently about 4.0 mgd. After reuse, the injection
volume averages about 3.2 mdg. During warmer, dryer months no more than 3.0 mgd is
expected to be injected underground as current reuse has typically reached 1.8 mgd in
these periods (County of Maui, pers. communication). The permitted daily maximum
rate is 19.8 mgd and the maximum weekly average injection was 9.0 mgd for 2010
(County of Maui, 2010). Table 1-2 and Figure 1-5 show the average daily injection by
well for the months from April, 2011 through March, 2013. As mentioned above, Maui
County is in the process of renewing the UIC permit for these wells, operating under
Permit No. UM-1357, which expired 3/28/2009 but operating under an extension to that
permit through 8/28/2013. Concerns about the potential impact of the injection well
operations on the coastal environment has prompted research into the amount,
distribution, and discharge points of nutrients and other chemicals into the marine
environment.
Scientific evidence (e.g., Hunt and Rosa, 2009; Dailer et al., 2010, 2012) supports the
hypothesis that treated wastewater injectate from the LWRF is discharging into the
nearshore waters southwest of the treatment facility. However, at the time that the
present study was started, the extent of that link had not been irrefutably established.
One of the goals of this project has therefore been to tag the treated wastewater with
fluorescent dyes prior to injection and monitor the nearshore coastal waters for the
emergence of the dyes at nearby submarine springs, particularly those identified by Hunt
and Rosa (2009) and Dailer et al. (2010, 2012). Figures 1-6 and 1-7 show the location of
the submarine springs relative to the LWRF.
1.4 HISTORY OF RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Examples of relevant previous studies include nutrient characterizations and loading
estimates for this area (Souza, 1981; Tetra Tech, 1993; Soicher and Peterson, 1997), a
dye tracer test (e.g., Tetra Tech, 1994), and those concerning the potential linkages land-
derived nutrients and algae blooms (e.g., Dollar and Andrews, 1997; Borke, 1996; Smith
et al., 2005; Smith and Smith, 2007). More recent scientific investigations on Maui
include Hunt and Rosa's (2009) geochemical approach to detect treated wastewater
discharges in Lahaina and Kihei, Dailer et al.'s (2010, 2012) work using stable isotope
data from intertidal and nearshore cultivated algae, and recent groundwater investigations
for West Maui modeling by the USGS (Gingerich, 2008; Gingerich and Engott, 2012).
In response to concerns prompted by seasonal algae blooms in West Maui, the USEPA
sponsored a nutrient balance study of West Maui (Tetra Tech, 1993). That report
identified the LWRF as one of the three primary nutrient release sources to Lahaina
District coastal waters, with sugarcane and pineapple cultivation being the other two.
That study also ranked the LWRF second in annual nitrogen contribution and first in
phosphorous contribution to these waters. Since that study was completed, the
1-5
-------
cultivation of both sugarcane and pineapple has been sharply curtailed. This implies that
the LWRF may now be the primary contributor of nutrients to water in the study area.
The West Maui Watershed Owner's Manual (West Maui Watershed Management
Advisory Committee, 1997) reevaluated N and P loadings in the watershed and
concluded that as of 1996, wastewater injection wells contributed ca. 94% of land-
derived phosphorus-loading and ca. 57% of land-derived nitrogen-loading to the ocean,
relative to the other sources evaluated (cesspools and inputs from pineapple-, sugarcane-
and golf course-developed lands). As discussed in Section 6 of our Project Interim
Report (Glenn et al., 2012), however, it must be noted that since the release of the Tetra
Tech (1993) report, all nutrient species concentrations in the LWRF treated wastewater
appear to have been significantly reduced, likely in association with the inception of
treatment process improvements such as biological nutrient removal in 1995.
Tetra Tech (1994) also estimated the travel time of treated wastewater from the point of
injection to the coast using a two-dimensional numerical flow model. Based on that
model, the travel time could be as short as ten days. In the absence of any injection,
travel time would increase to 50 days based on the average groundwater-flow velocity.
The model assumed an aquifer thickness of 20 ft. Using the Ghyben-Hertzberg principle,
the freshwater lens thickness is 41 times the groundwater elevation above sea level
(Fetter, 1988), which yields a more accurate aquifer thickness of 80 to 100 ft near the
LWRF. This is based on a water table elevation of 2-2.5 ft msl (Gingerich, 2008). The
thinner modeled aquifer thickness would result in a shorter travel time. Also, the distance
between the LWRF injection wells and the nearest identified submarine spring is
approximately 0.49 mi, which is greater than the direct path distance to the shoreline.
The eastern boundary of the Tetra Tech (1994) model was the interface between the high
level water at the interior of the island and the basal groundwater. This was assigned as a
no-flow boundary condition. In actuality, however, there is significant groundwater flow
from the high-level water body to the basal groundwater (Gingerich, 2008; Gingerich and
Engott, 2012).
Because the LWRF was identified as a major contributor of nutrients to the marine
environment in the 1993 study, an effluent fate and transport study was commissioned by
the USEPA. Tetra Tech (1994) conducted a dye tracer test to identify the submarine
locations where the treated wastewater was discharging into the marine environment.
They added Rhodamine WT (RWT), a fluorescent tracer dye, into the treated wastewater
stream prior to underground injection at a concentration of approximately 100 parts per
billion (ppb). This injection lasted for 58 days. To monitor for the emergence of the
treated wastewater tagged with RWT, they completed a series of monitoring transects
offshore north-northeast transects. Every 200 yards, a pump-suction line was let drift to
the ocean bottom. The suction line was connected to a pump on the survey boat with the
discharge from the pump ported through a constant monitoring fluorometer. In that
study, only two occurrences of elevated fluorescence were detected at adjacent sampling
locations, in the southeast corner of their sampling grid (Figure 1-7). The fluorescence
value was low, about three times that of background. The first detection occurred 55
days after the start of injection and the second detection occurred 61 days after the start of
injection. The location of the Tetra Tech elevated fluorescence detections was very near
1-6
-------
the submarine springs identified by Hunt and Rosa (2009) and Dailer et al. (2010, 2012)
as probable, and as confirmed by this study, discharge points for the LWRF treated
wastewater. Due to the fluorescence values being only slightly above background, it is
uncertain whether the source was the RWT dye, or another fluorophore such as dissolved
organic matter. Figure 1-7 illustrates the location where Tetra Tech (1994) detected
RWT fluorescence, the submarine springs suspected of discharging treated wastewater,
and the plume area proposed by Hunt and Rosa (2009).
Hunt and Rosa (2009) investigated the use of multiple in-situ geochemical tracers to
identify where and how municipal wastewater treated wastewater discharges to the
nearshore marine environment. These researchers sampled the LWRF treated
wastewater, submarine springs, nearshore marine waters, groundwater, and terrestrial
surface water in vicinity of treated wastewater injection sites in Lahaina and Kihei, Maui.
They sampled the entire nearshore region including the submarine springs in 2008 for a
suite of parameters including: (1) S15N values of macroalgae and water column samples;
(2) temperature; (3) salinity; (4) turbidity; (5) dissolved oxygen; (6) pH; (7) chlorophyll
a; (8) fluorescence; (9) conductivity; (10) nutrient concentrations of water column
samples; (11) waste indicator compounds of water column samples; and (12)
pharmaceuticals. They concluded that the most conclusive tracers were the presence of
pharmaceuticals, organic waste indicator compounds, and a highly elevated S15N values
in water samples and coastal benthic macroalgal tissue. These researchers identified the
submarine springs as the coastal locus of the LWRF injection plume, although they also
cited nearshore marine samples collected further south towards the Kaanapali Golf
Course as showing geochemical evidence of treated wastewater or effluent-derived
irrigation water influence. They also noted elevated nutrient concentrations and potential
treated wastewater or effluent-derived irrigation water influence in Black Rock lagoon,
an apparently groundwater fed, ocean-connected drainage feature located on the
Kaanapali Golf Course at the southern end of North Kaanapali beach. Particularly
pertinent to the current study, they investigated background fluorescence along the
shoreline near the LWRF, where they measured fluorescence with a handheld
fluorometer with an optical brightener and a Rhodamine WT channel. They detected
optical brightener fluorescence in samples collected at the submarine springs that was 15
times that in the water column near the submarine springs. There was no difference in
Rhodamine WT fluorescence between the submarine spring and the water column
samples. This indicates that non-dye fluorophores in LWRF treated wastewater were
probably not responsible for the elevated Rhodamine WT fluorescence detected by Tetra
Tech (1994). This further indicates that the elevated fluorescence in the Rhodamine WT
wavelength detected by Tetra Tech (1994) was likely from the dye they added to the
treated wastewater.
Dailer et al. (2010, 2012) used the stable isotopic composition of macroalgae (S15N) to
map the anthropogenic input of nitrogen to the nearshore waters of Maui. Atmospheric
and fertilizer S15N values generally fall in the range of -4%o to +4%o. Input from sewage
can generally be identified by its higher S15N values that range from 7%o to 38%o (e.g.,
Kendall, 1998; Gartner et al., 2002), although isotope effects associated with various
biogeochemical N transformations must be carefully considered when attempting to
1-7
-------
identify original N sources using this methodology. The two highest S15N values (33.2
and 43.3%o) measured by Dailer et al. (2010) were found at sites near the submarine
springs. These researchers also observed that the submarine spring discharge was
warmer than ambient seawater and that the discharge points were surrounded by rocks
coated with a distinctive black precipitate thought to consist of iron oxides.
Significant work has been done on the wastewater injection and the fate of this injectate
in Hawaii. Oberdorfer and Peterson (Oberdorfer and Peterson, 1982; Oberdorfer, 1983)
studied the processes that lead to injection well clogging and the fate of nutrients in the
injected treated wastewater. They found that a significant amount of denitrification
(nitrate reduction) occurs in the subsurface after injection. Petty and Peterson (1979)
investigated sewage injection practices in West Maui including resorts and
condominiums. The fate of wastewater injection plumes was modeled by Hunt (2007),
Burnham et al. (1977), Wheatcraft et al. (1976), Tetra Tech (1993), and Hunt and Rosa
(2009) and all studies showed that once the treated wastewater is injected, the plume
tends to rise due to its positive buoyancy relative to the surrounding saline groundwater.
There have been several geochemical surveys (including nutrients, isotopes, and general
water quality parameters) and studies of anthropogenic inputs into the coastal waters of
West Maui in addition to those already cited. Laws et al. (2004) showed that coastal
nutrient concentrations exceeded State water-quality standards for marine waters. Street
et al. (2008) investigated submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) using multiple tracers
such as the radon/radium pair, silica, and salinity. They estimated that the SGD near the
study site was 0.07 to 0.12 meters cubed (m3) per meters squared (m2) per day (d),
delivering a dissolved inorganic nitrogen load of 13.3 to 36.8 mM per m /d. Dollar et al.
(1999) and Atkinson et al. (2003) monitored for estrogen as indicator of discharge of
cesspool effluent to the waters of west and south-central Maui. Soicher and Peterson
(1997) studied the nutrient input to West Maui coastal waters and concluded that stream
discharges were an acute nitrogen source, but chronic SGD was the major contributor.
1.5 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND BACKGROUND
1.5.1 Climate
Maui's climate is characterized by mild and uniform temperatures, seasonal variation in
rainfall, and great geographic variation in rainfall (Lau and Mink, 2006). The average
temperature in Lahaina, on the leeward coast of the West Maui Volcano, is 75.7° F,
whereas the average at Haleakala summit is 47° F (WRCC, 2011). During the warmer
dry season (May-September), the stability of the north Pacific anticyclone produces
persistent northeasterly trade winds, which blow 80-95 % of the time (Gingerich, 2008).
During the cooler rainy season (October through April), migratory weather systems often
travel past the Hawaiian Islands, resulting in less persistent trade winds that blow 50-80%
of the time (Gingerich, 2008). Low-pressure systems and associated southerly (Kona)
winds can bring heavy rains to the island, and the dry coastal areas can receive most of
their rainfall from these systems.
1-8
-------
The variation in mean annual rainfall with altitude is extreme on Maui, with differences
of more than 130 inches within one mile of the summit of West Maui Volcano where
average annual rainfall exceeds 340 inches per year (in/yr) (Giambelluca et al., 2011).
Mean annual rainfall at the Kaanapali coast in the dry leeward areas south of Lahaina is
less than 15 in/yr (Giambelluca et al., 2011). At higher altitudes, precipitation is a
combination of rainfall and fog drip where the montane forest canopy intercepts cloud
water. Engott and Vana (2007) and Scholl et al. (2004) estimated that fog drip
contributes to an additional 20% of rainfall along the windward flanks of West Maui
above an elevation of 2000 ft asl.
Annual pan evaporation of West Maui has been reported by Ekern and Chang (1985) and
Engott and Vana (2007) to range between 90 and 100 in/yr near the Kaanapali coast and
from 50 to 60 in/yr near the summit of the West Maui Volcano. The streams in the
Lahaina area are typically perennial above 1,000 ft asl, but diversions and loss to
groundwater at lower altitudes result in intermittent flow as the streams approach the
ocean. Honokohau Stream (Figures 1-6 and 1-8) is the only true perennial stream in the
immediate study area; however, stream flow is flashy due to intense rainfall and the steep
topography (Tetra Tech, 1993).
1.5.2 Land Use
Current West Maui land use can be subdivided into several sectors: (1) an urban center in
the Lahaina area; (2) various diversified agriculture and pasture land on former pineapple
and sugarcane fields on the lower slopes of the West Maui Mountain; (3) residential and
resort development (including golf courses) along the shoreline; and (4) natural evergreen
forest in the interior of the West Maui Mountain (Figure 1-8). Historical changes in
agricultural land use within the western half of West Maui were estimated by Engott and
Vana (2007) in order to estimate the effects of rainfall and agricultural land use changes
on West and Central Maui groundwater recharge, and the following sections on land use
are summarized from their work, and as summarized by Gingerich (2008) and Gingerich
and Engott (2012). During the early 1900s until about 1979, land use was mostly
unchanged except for some minor urbanization along the coasts. However, as large-scale
plantation agriculture declined after 1979, land-use changes were more significant. From
1979 to 2004, agricultural land use declined about 21 percent, mainly from the complete
cessation of sugarcane agriculture.
The Pioneer Mill Co. was the major sugarcane cultivator on the west side of the West
Maui Mountain, operating during the late 1800s until 1999, when it ceased sugarcane
production and the land was subsequently bought by Maui Land and Pineapple (ML & P)
and other private investors. ML & P had a long history of cultivating pineapple on the
northwest slope of West Maui Mountain generally on land located to the north of the
former sugarcane fields. More recently, they grew pineapple on former Pioneer Mill Co.
sugarcane lands located north of Honokowai Stream. The extent of pineapple agriculture
in West Maui decreased extensively since the late 1990s and was stopped entirely in 2009
(Gingerich and Engott, 2012). Large portions of the former sugarcane and pineapple
1-9
-------
fields remain fallow while other parcels have been converted to low-density housing and
diversified agriculture.
1.5.3 Geology
The study site is located on the northwestern extent of the West Maui Volcano. This is
the older of the two Maui shield volcanoes. Figure 1-9 shows the geology of West Maui,
which consists of a central caldera and two main rift zones that trend north-northwest and
south-southeast from the caldera (Stearns and MacDonald, 1942; Sherrod et al., 2007).
Numerous dikes occur as thin, near-vertical sheets of massive, low-permeability rock that
are present within the rift zones and increase in abundance toward the caldera and with
depth. Other dikes also exist outside the two major rift zone trends (Figure 1-9), creating
a radial pattern of dikes emanating from the caldera (MacDonald et al., 1983). The
volcanic rocks that originated from vents in and near the caldera and rift zones comprise
(1) the mostly shield-stage Wailuku Basalt, (2) the postshield-stage Honolua Volcanics,
and (3) the rejuvenated-stage Lahaina Volcanics, a minor unit of the West Maui Volcano.
All these rocks are Pleistocene in age and are mainly comprised of tholeiitic/picritic
basalt, trachyte, and basanite layers ranging in thickness from 1 to 500 ft (Stearns and
MacDonald, 1942; Langenheim and Clague, 1987; Sherrod et al., 2007). These layers in
the Wailuku Basalt show numerous interflow structures within a series of lava flows and
associated pyroclastic and sedimentary formations. The Wailuku Basalts in the area are
characterized by high permeability and storage capacity and comprise the main aquifers
for groundwater withdrawal (Gingerich, 2008). The Honolua Volcanics were produced
by late eruptions, and overlie the Wailuku basalts. They are more massive and tend
toward andesitic compositions. Due to their increased thickness and denser nature, their
permeability is much lower than those of the Wailuku Basalts. They are more prevalent
in the northeast and northwest slopes of the West Maui Volcano (Gingerich, 2008;
Sherrod et al., 2007) and do not intersect the groundwater in the study area. The Lahaina
Volcanics resulted from rejuvenation stage eruptions that took place 610,000-385,000
years ago. As with the Honolua Volcanics, they are more massive in nature. However,
their small areal extent and proximity to the coast makes this unit less important when
assessing groundwater flow than the other volcanic units. An outcrop of the Lahaina
Volcanic series known as Puu Kekaa, or Black Rock, is located in the southwest portion
of the study area (Figure 1-9).
Gingerich and Engott's (2012) work projected the top of the West Maui Wailuku Basalts
to reach depths of about 600 meters below sea level (m bsl) at a distance of about 10 km
from the shore. Wedge-shaped consolidated Quaternary alluvium forms a sedimentary
surface veneer that drapes and overlies the Wailuku Basalt along the coast, infills the
deep canyons in the West Maui Volcano, and very likely into the offshore (Stearns and
MacDonald, 1942; see Figures 1-9, 1-10). These alluvial deposits formed as a result of
the extensive erosion that carved deep valleys into the eastern flanks of the West Maui
Volcano, and formed West Maui's low-permeability caprock. It is probable that some of
these sediments also contain relict marine carbonates deposited in relation to former
stands of the sea. This formation, like elsewhere in Hawaii, is of great hydraulic
importance as it overlies high-permeability dike-free volcanic rocks below and, due to its
1-10
-------
relatively low conductivity, generally impedes fresh groundwater discharge towards the
coast (cf. Lau and Mink, 2006; Rotzoll et al., 2007; Gingerich and Engott, 2012, and
discussion and references therein).
After the shield building stage of the Wailuku Basalts ended, stream channels eroded into
the flanks of West Maui (Stearns and MacDonald, 1942). Thus, the current stream
channels, including the Honokowai stream, could have started forming as early as the
early to mid-Pleistocene (0.13 to 1.8 million years ago). No later stage lava flows
(Honolua or Lahaina Volcanics) are present in the Kaanapali area inland or in the vicinity
of the LWRF or Honokowai Stream (Figure 1-9) that would have filled the stream valleys
incised into the Wailuku basalts. Since that time, Maui has experienced emergence and
submergence. During periods of emergence, stream channels could be cut to beneath the
current sea level then filled with alluvium of low hydraulic conductivity as submergence
occurred (e.g. this Report, Section 5). Stearns and Macdonald (1942) estimated that there
had been at least three cycles of submergence and re-emergence since the cessation of
major volcanic activity on West Maui. The submergence could have resulted in a
shoreline 2,500 ft above the current shoreline. The emergence could have resulted in a
shoreline 950 ft below the current sea level. This process occurred over a period of 1.8
million years providing ample time for deep cut stream valleys to develop during the
period of emergence.
1.5.4 Regional Groundwater Hydrology
The precipitation that falls on West Maui is partitioned between surface runoff,
evapotranspiration, soil moisture storage, and groundwater recharge. Recharge, the
fraction of groundwater that reaches the water table, flows radially out from the central
highlands to discharge areas along the coast. Figure 1-11 shows the groundwater
recharge distribution for West Maui and the extent of the high-level water body (Engott
and Vana, 2007; Gingerich, 2008). Recharge rates range from 350 inches per year (in/yr)
at the high elevations to less than 10 in/yr along the coast. The high recharge and low
hydraulic conductivity of the dike zones in the interior regions of the West Maui Volcano
result in a water table with elevations up to 3,000 feet above mean sea level (ft msl)
(Gingerich, 2008). Figure 1-9 shows the approximate interface between the high level
and basal aquifers (Mink and Lau, 1990b). The dike impoundment of the groundwater is
breached in areas where erosion has cut deep valleys and subterranean water provides
baseflow for the streams.
In the subsurface, once the groundwater flows out of the high-level water body, it
becomes a lens of freshwater floating on the underlying saltwater with a water table
elevation of less than a few tens of feet above sea level. This Ghyben-Herzberg principle
states the thickness of the freshwater lens is 41 times the elevation of the water table
above sea level. This is only an estimation based on simplifying assumptions, however,
and the actual thickness of the freshwater lens can deviate from this value due to factors
such as non-horizontal flow and heterogeneous geology (Izuka and Gingerich, 1998).
The mixing of the two waters in the basal lens along the groundwater flow path results in
a sloping transition rather than a sharp interface between fresh and saltwater.
l-ll
-------
As the groundwater approaches the shoreline, it may encounter the sedimentary caprock
described above, which retards the groundwater's seaward flow (Figure 1-10). The
effective hydraulic conductivity of the caprock is significantly lower than that of thin-
bedded lavas, causing a thicker freshwater lens due to the higher potentiometric (or
hydraulic head) surface and the barrier that reduces saltwater intrusion into the aquifer.
As shown in the highly generalized Figure 1-10, the condition in the basalt aquifer
changes from an unconfined condition to a confined condition where the water table
meets the bottom of the caprock, which can be considered itself as an unconfined aquifer.
The height of the water table within this aquifer should be lower than the potentiometric
surface. Drilling logs from the injection wells at the LWRF indicate that sedimentary
deposits extend below the potentiometric surface caused by that overlying confining layer
for a portion of the aquifer between the facility and the coast (County of Maui, 2004).
Preferential flow paths in the aquifer can result in well-defined submarine springs, as is
the case in this study area. In addition to preferential-flow point discharges, a more
diffuse discharge may also be present over a larger area.
1.5.4.1 Aquifer Properties
Total porosity estimates for basaltic rocks on Hawaii and elsewhere ranges from less than
0.05 to more than 0.5 (Hunt, 1996; Kwon et al., 1993; Nichols et al., 1996). Low
porosity values may be associated with massive features, including dense flows, a'a
cores, dikes, and thick lava flows; high values may be associated with fractures and a'a
clinker zones. Estimates of effective porosity (which includes only the hydraulically
interconnected pore spaces) derived from modeling studies range between 0.04 and 0.10
for volcanic-rock aquifers (Gingerich and Voss, 2005; Oki, 2005). Souza and Voss
(1987) and Gingerich (2008) estimated an average effective porosity of the volcanic
rocks on Hawaii of 0.15. Rotzoll and El-Kadi (2007) analyzed aquifer-test data from
wells in central Maui and estimated specific storage and specific yield from one test to be
2.0 x 10"6 ft"1 and 0.07, respectively. Hydraulic conductivities (K) of the igneous and
sedimentary rocks on West Maui are highly variable and are distributed heterogeneously
around the area. Regional K values have been estimated from specific capacity values of
aquifers to range between 250 ft/d to 4,100 ft/d (Rotzoll and El-Kadi, 2007).
Though high and low conductivity volcanic aquifers may alternate over several feet in
depth (Stearns and MacDonald, 1942), the volcanic aquifers on Maui are generally
regarded as one unconfined system (Gingerich, 2008). This is because highly permeable
structures, such as clinkers and vertical fractures, have been commonly observed in all
lava flows, both in outcrops and rock cores (Langenheim and Clague, 1987).
Additionally, numerical groundwater flow models yielded a relatively good agreement
between modeled and measured water levels on Maui when uniform conductivity,
porosity and specific yield values had been assigned (Gingerich, 2008).
The water transport characteristics of the various aquifer materials vary greatly along the
flow path. The hydraulic conductivity of the dike-intruded lavas in Hawaii is estimated
to range from 1 to 500 ft/d (Hunt, 1996). The low end of this estimate would be more
1-12
-------
representative of the West Maui Volcano due to the high density of dikes in the inland
high water body. In a groundwater model of the Lahaina District, Gingerich and Engott
(2012) assigned a longitudinal horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 1,800 ft/d, a
transverse hydraulic conductivity of 590 ft/d, and a vertical hydraulic conductivity of
17.0 ft/d for the Wailuku Basalts in the Lahaina area. For the sedimentary deposits
Gingerich and Engott (2012) used values of 190 and 3.8 ft/d for the horizontal and
vertical hydraulic conductivity, respectively.
1.5.4.2 Submarine Groundwater Discharge
The ultimate natural and final release of most groundwater in the Hawaiian Islands is to
the ocean as submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). Nearly all groundwaters undergo
chemical modifications and additions due to natural leaching of nutrients along their flow
paths. Infiltration from agricultural, urban and metropolitan lands, and wastewater
injections near the coast can also contribute to the dissolved load of the SGD
subterranean flow. These waters thus exit as chemically-modified mixtures of freshwater
and recirculated seawater that flow seaward throughout each island's peripheral aquifers.
Geohydrological budgets (Shade, 1996, 1997, 1999) indicate that the majority of
groundwater that enters and recharges Maui's uplands is eventually discharged as SGD
(Figure 1-12). In most settings in Hawaii, SGD exits along the coast as relatively cool,
brackish waters. The most strikingly anomalous expression of SGD within the present
study area, however, is the seepage of localized and anomalously warm and brackish
SGD, particularly in the area described as submarine springs (or "seeps") along the
Kaanapali coast near Kahekili Beach Park, about 0.5 miles southwest of the LWRF. The
warm and brackish SGD issuing from these warm water submarine springs entrain gas
bubbles and discharge from cracks and small vents in the semi-consolidated hard
bottoms, as well as from unconsolidated patches of surficial sands on the seafloor.
During this study, we grouped these warm water submarine springs into two groups,
termed the North Seep Group (NSG), which occurs within 3 to 5 m of shore, and the
South Seep Group (SSG), which occurs within 25 m of shore (Figure 1-7). Over 18
months of study, the salinity of the seeps in the NSG varied between 3.8 and 25.3, with
an average of about 4.7. Seeps in the SSG had salinities that were slightly lower, varying
between 2.5 to 22.5, with an average of about 3.2. The detection, mapping, and
investigation of the dye tagged SGD emerging from these submarine springs is a major
focal point addressed throughout this report.
1-13
-------
Table 1-1. Construction Detai
s of the LWRF Injection Wells
Injection Well No.
1
2
3
4
Construction Date
1979
1979
1985
1985
Elevation (ft msl)
33
33
28
29
Total Depth of Well (ft bgs)
200
180
225
255
Solid Casing Length (ft)
88
88
108
108
Bottom of Well (ft msl)
-168
-150
-200
-229
Screen/open hole length (ft)
115
95
120
150
Top of Screen/Open Hole
elevation (ft msl)
-55
-55
-80
-79
Bottom of Screen/Open
Hole Elevation (ft msl)
-170
-150
-200
-229
Data from Maui County Department of Environmental Management
1-14
-------
Table 1-2. Treated wastewater injections rates for April of 2011 through
March of 2013
Well 1
(mgd)
Well 2
(mgd)
Well 3
(mgd)
Well 4
(mgd)
Total
Injection
(mgd)
April, 2011
Minimum
0.17
0.99
0
.66
0.58
2.86
Average
0.22
1.63
0
.88
0.82
3.55
Maximum
0.27
2.75
1
.05
1.06
4.86
May, 2011
Minimum
0.15
0.31
0
.74
0.67
2.41
Average
0.21
1.04
1
.05
0.83
3.14
Maximum
0.29
2.10
1
.36
0.94
4.23
June, 2011
Minimum
0.10
0.14
0
.31
0.86
2.00
Average
0.20
0.70
1
.18
1.03
3.11
Maximum
0.28
1.52
1
.62
1.27
4.03
July, 2011
Minimum
0.07
0.02
1
.19
1.03
2.56
Average
0.19
0.41
1
.36
1.15
3.11
Maximum
0.27
1.14
1
.74
1.32
3.80
August,2011
Minimum
0.00
0.21
1
.10
1.04
2.57
Average
0.20
0.62
1
.22
1.13
3.17
Maximum
0.27
2.12
1
.47
1.46
5.05
September, 2011
Minimum
0.02
0.01
1
.02
0.93
2.36
Average
0.13
0.25
1
.23
1.07
2.69
Maximum
0.23
0.72
1
.56
1.41
3.73
October, 2011
Minimum
0.12
0.07
1
.11
1.00
2.61
Average
0.17
0.50
1
.25
1.12
3.04
Maximum
0.29
0.97
1
.43
1.36
3.75
November, 2011
Minimum
0.06
0.07
1
.16
1.14
2.59
Average
0.16
0.63
1
.32
1.37
3.48
Maximum
0.22
1.06
1
.48
1.67
4.30
December, 2011
Minimum
0.00
0.00
0
.00
0.00
0.00
Average
0.13
0.67
1
.13
1.30
3.24
Maximum
0.19
2.19
1
.41
1.67
4.89
1-15
-------
Table 1-2. Treated wastewater injections rates for April of 2011 through
March of 2013 (Continued)
Well 1
(mgd)
Well 2
(mgd)
Well 3
(mgd)
Well 4
(mgd)
Total
Injection
(mgd)
January 2012
Minimum
0.04
0.18
1.04
1.18
3.17
Average
0.13
0.75
1.25
1.51
3.64
Maximum
0.19
1.65
1.54
2.08
4.76
February 2012
Minimum
0.01
0.00
0.58
1.21
2.06
Average
0.08
0.18
1.59
1.53
3.38
Maximum
0.13
0.56
2.53
1.81
4.03
March 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.57
1.07
2.72
Average
0.07
0.06
1.90
1.39
3.42
Maximum
0.19
0.20
2.41
1.87
4.65
April 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.56
0.84
2.40
Average
0.04
0.01
1.81
1.16
3.03
Maximum
0.16
0.15
2.14
1.49
3.79
May 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.46
0.79
2.32
Average
0.03
0.01
1.80
1.19
3.03
Maximum
0.16
0.06
2.25
1.74
4.07
June 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.53
0.96
2.52
Average
0.08
0.02
1.94
1.33
3.36
Maximum
0.22
0.12
2.35
1.84
4.48
July 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.61
0.93
2.75
Average
0.03
0.03
2.00
1.16
3.22
Maximum
0.11
0.38
2.33
1.46
3.98
August 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.61
0.18
2.46
Average
0.02
0.00
1.93
1.12
3.07
Maximum
0.08
0.01
2.41
1.46
3.64
1-16
-------
Table 1-2. Treated wastewater injections rates for April of 2011 through
March of 2013 (Continued)
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Total
Injection
(mgd)
(mgd)
(mgd)
(mgd)
(mgd)
September 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.82
Average
0.07
0.11
1.65
1.19
3.02
Maximum
0.26
1.65
2.53
2.08
4.76
October 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.75
0.69
2.55
Average
0.05
0.03
1.93
0.93
2.93
Maximum
0.16
0.12
2.21
1.18
3.57
November 2012
Minimum
0.00
0.00
1.70
0.57
2.46
Average
0.07
0.06
1.99
0.86
2.97
Maximum
0.22
0.14
2.36
1.23
3.95
December 2012
Minimum
0.03
0.01
1.67
0.66
2.63
Average
0.13
0.11
1.89
1.10
3.23
Maximum
0.26
0.21
2.02
1.72
3.98
January, 2013
Minimum
0.02
0.00
1.90
1.23
3.24
Average
0.18
0.11
1.90
1.49
3.68
Maximum
0.33
0.57
1.90
1.79
4.19
February, 2013
Minimum
0.01
0.00
1.90
1.25
3.16
Average
0.20
0.20
1.90
1.81
4.11
Maximum
0.34
0.89
1.90
3.13
6.03
March, 2013
Minimum
0.03
0.00
0.11
0.62
2.09
Average
0.18
0.13
1.83
1.27
3.41
Maximum
0.33
0.69
2.26
2.35
5.15
Summary
Minimum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average
0.12
0.34
1.50
1.19
3.16
Maximum
0.34
2.75
2.53
3.13
6.03
Data from Maui County Department of Environmental Management
1-17
-------
Figure 1-1: Location and topography of the Island of Maui
1-18
-------
Legend
Roads & Streets
Highways
LWRF
Zoning
Agriculture
Conservation
I I Rural
1 [Urban
Lahaina
0
25
5
10
Kaanapali
Figure 1-2: Map showing the location of the LWRF in West Maui.
1-19
-------
Legend
Injection Wells
= UIC line
Roads & Streets
Highways
¦ILWRF
Zoning
Agriculture
Conservation
I | Rural
I I Urban
Miles
Injection Wells
3 and 4
Figure 1-3: Location of the LWRF in relation to the coast and the UIC line.
LWRF Injection Wells 1 and 2, which receive the majority of treated wastewater effluent,
lie to the northeast of Wells 3 and 4.
1-20
-------
WELL 4
WELL 3
WELL 2
WELT. 1
10 m
Alluvium
_
Vesicular Basalt
m
Massive Basalt
Clinkers
m
Weathered Basalt
Well
Screen
Open
Hole
538 ft
- 33 fl
- Oft
- -33 ft
- -66 ft
- -98 ft
- -131ft
—164 ft
197 ft
210 ft
Figure 1-4: Borehole stratigraphy for the LWRF injection wells developed from the
drillers' logs. (County of Maui, 2004)
A s
d n
3.5 -
_ 3.0
¦c
en 9 C
E
— i r> -
o
® i 5
"S9 in
0.5 -
n n
1
1
1
1 1
\
1
\
1
Apr-l 1
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
Aug-11
¦ Sep-11
<
| Oct-11
" Nov-11
¦ Dec-11
fL J ail-12
M Feb-12
Mar-12
g. Apr-l 2
w May-12
¦ Jun-12
^ , 1
a Jul-12
^ Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
J ail-13
Feb-13
Mar-13
Figure 1-5: Monthly average injection at the LWRF. (County of Maui, 2011; and County
of Maui, 2012-2013)
1-21
-------
Honokowai
Beach Park
Lahaina Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
'KOvv^f
Inferred Extent 01 In jection
Plume
(Hunt and Rosa, 2009)
Red - Minimum extent
supported by ir5N
Yellow - Extension further
south (less certain)
Kahekili
Beach Park
Black Rock
Point
Hanaka o *
Beach Park 1
= Highways
— Roads
t Submarine Springs
€ Injection Wells
— Major Streams
— Elev. (100ft Interval)
Q LWRF
| Golf Course
|| Former Sugar
Urban
Lahaina Reefs
WahikuLi
Wavside Par
Kilometers
Figure 1-6: Detail of study area showing key locals along the coast.
LWRF injection wells and inferred subsurface minimum and maximum spatial extent of
LWRF injection plume from Hunt and Rosa (2009) is also shown.
1-22
-------
Figure 1-7: Map of the LWRF, submarine springs, and Tetra Tech (1994) ocean sampling
tracts.
The location of the two occurrences of elevated fluorescence ("hits") measured by Tetra
Tech (1994) are shown. Also shown (as concluded by Hunt and Rosa, 2009) are the
likely minimum (red) and less certain maximum (yellow) spatial extents of the LWRF
injectate plume, and inferred subsurface paleo-stream alluvium hydraulic barrier (blue).
1-23
-------
Puu Kukui
Olowalu
8
¦ Kilometers
Point
Lahaina Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
Honolua Ditch
— Major Streams
— Highways
B Golf Course
Agriculture
Former Pineapple
I I Form er Sugar Cane
kS Grazing
Land Cover
| Barren Lands
I I Forest Land
Range Land
Urban
ra We*Lands
Lahaina
Figure 1-8: Western Maui land-use map.
1-24
-------
I
Legend
LWRF
Dikes
^¦•Rift Zone
Faults
Geology
Alluvium
| Dunes
Honolua Volcanics
|j Lahaina Volcanics
¦ Wailuku Volcanics
Mil 4 j
¦ Inferred High Level Water Boundary
0
2
4
8
Figure 1-9: West Maui geology and inferred high level/peripheral basal lens boundary.
Geology from Sherrod et al. (2007).
1-25
-------
WEST
A JXD -i Confined frevh groundwj? er to
theWdiluku Ba»*
F««biw!»« km
2 A LVxonhn^S m Wj Iu4u HjuH
28 Coined qtooridwtitf it W**>*]
2C l>xorrfn*
OC£iV
VERTICAL EXAGG£RATKM X4
Figure 1-10: Geologic section of West Maui showing SGD and groundwater occurrence and movement.
The figure (from Gingerich and Engott, 2012) is diagrammatic and generalized. Within the study area the actual lateral distribution
and thickness of caprock and subterranean freshwater-marine mixing (transition zone) is not well known, but the upper boundary of
the transition zone (freshwater-seawater mixing zone) in the present study area at North Kaanapali Beach is assuredly higher than that
shown here and resides at or slightly above present sea level.
0 2.0W 4.0M FEET
l.l.l
LTVtL
500-
UrKonfined fresh
-------
Figure 1-11: Groundwater recharge distribution in West Maui. From Engott and Vana
(2007) and Gingerich (2008).
1-27
-------
7
Waiehu Baldwin Beach Park
Kihei
Kahekili
Keanae Point
0.4
17
Maalaea Bay
20 km
i i
La Perouse Bay
Beach
Aquifer
boundary
Regional fresh
SGD (m3/m/d)
0-10
10-20
20-30
x SGD (m3/m/d)
xxx SGD (1000 m3/d)
High intensity developed
I i Low intensity developed
¦ Cultivated land
I I Grassland
¦ Evergreen forest
[~1 Scrub/Shrub
! Bare land
Figure 1-12: Calculated fresh submarine groundwater discharge to the ocean for the Island of
Maui.
Satellite derived land-use map of the island of Maui from NOAA's Coastal Change Analysis
Program. Maui's principal aquifer divides are shown in black lines. Fresh groundwater
discharge estimates (red arrows) are based on regional-scale hydrologic budgets calculated
by Shade (1996, 1997, and 1998). The magnitude of fresh di scharge for each aquifer sector
per meter of coastline (top number) is indicated in m Wd"1 and regional fresh SGD (bottom
3 1
number) is shown in 1000 nrd" .
1-28
-------
SECTION 2: SUBMARINE SPRING AND MARINE
CONTROL LOCATION SAMPLING, WATER
QUALITY, AND FLUORESCENCE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Final Report summarizes the continual monitoring of the submarine
springs presented in the Interim Report with additional information collected from May
6th, 2012 through December 31st, 2012 and presents additional information concerning
additional areas of submarine groundwater discharge within the study area. More
specifically, this section provides: (1) details of how the submarine springs at Kahekili
were sampled for radioisotope tracers (Section 3) and the injected tracer dye (Section 4);
(2) water quality parameters of the submarine springs and control locations from July
2011 through December 2012; (3) field-determined fluorescence of samples collected
from submarine springs, shore line points within the study area, and control locations
from July 2011 through December 2012; and (4) results from a survey conducted in July
2012 to assess the quantity, size, and location of submarine springs from Honokowai
Point to Black Rock and extending offshore to -27 ft (~9 m) of depth (as far as 250 m
offshore in some areas).
2.2 METHODS
2.2.1 Submarine Spring Sampling
Hunt and Rosa (2009) employed an inverted funnel to sample the submarine springs off
of Kahekili Beach Park, which undesirably allowed for oceanic water to mix with the
submarine spring water. To provide the best submarine spring samples for this study we
sampled the submarine springs through steel-shaft piezometers (Model 615 6" Drive-
point piezometers, Solinst Canada Limited, Georgetown, Ontario, Canada, part number
103160) that were installed while scuba diving. In the nearshore region of the study area,
the seafloor consists of limestone, dead coral, and basalt. Therefore, the piezometers
were driven into fissures at submarine spring discharge points with a mallet and a 0.5 m
connective pipe temporarily attached to the top of the piezometer. A short (15 to 20 cm)
piece of polyethylene tubing equipped with a quick-connect fitting was permanently
attached to each piezometer with a steel compression fitting. Submarine spring sample
collection was accomplished using a variable speed DC-battery-powered peristaltic pump
(Geotech Environmental Inc., Series II, Denver, Colorado) fitted to a 50 m section of
polyethylene tubing that was temporarily attached to each piezometer with a quick-
connect fitting. During the collection of the samples, the peristaltic pump was stationed
on shore. The peristaltic pump flow rate ranged from 0.33 to 0.5 L/min. The tubing used
for sample collection was purged for four minutes prior to acquiring each sample to
ensure adequate and complete flushing of the piezometer-to-pump-station tubing. This
2-1
-------
same installation and configuration was used to sample the submarine springs for
radiochemical tracers (Section 3) and the injected dye tracers (Section 4).
Submarine spring samples collected for dye tracer analysis were collected in 125 mL
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) amber plastic bottles to prevent photo-degradation of
dye tracers. Prior to sample collection, sample bottles were thoroughly cleaned with
Fisherbrand Sparkleen laboratory detergent (5 mL to 1.0 L). Sample bottles were rinsed
twice with the submarine spring water, filled, and labeled with the submarine spring
(seep) number, date and time of collection. An additional 250 or 500 mL submarine
spring water samples were collected approximately every 20 samples for quality
assurance and quality control purposes (see Section 4). Submarine spring samples were
immediately placed in a dry, lightproof cooler in the field, transported in that cooler from
the field to the location of analytical procedures, and stored at room temperature in a
larger dry cooler until field fluorescence measurements of fluorescein (FLT) and s-
rhodamine-B (SRB) (see Section 2.2.4 below) were performed. The calibration solutions
were also stored at room temperature in a dry, lightproof cooler. After analyses were
performed, the samples were stored at room temperature in a large, dry, lightproof cooler
until shipment to Oahu for further analyses of FLT using a Turner Designs 10AU
Fluorometer (Turner Designs, 1999) (Section 4) and a Hitachi F-4500 Fluorescence
Spectrophotometer (Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation) for SRB measurements
(Section 4).
Following the review of the project's Interim Report, our sample handling and storage
methods were revised because the EPA expressed concerns about sample stability in
non-chilled environments. To ensure such stability, the adapted procedure used on Maui
since early September 2012 has been as follows. Submarine spring samples are collected
into 125 mL HDPE amber plastic bottles and immediately placed into the cooler with
blue ice. The samples are then transported to a facility for analytical procedures. They
are then transferred to and stored in a refrigerator until analyses can be performed. The
calibration standards were also stored in the same refrigerator as the submarine spring
samples. When the analytical procedures were performed on Maui, the calibration
standards and the samples to be analyzed were removed from the refrigerator and placed
in a plastic bin with a lid over night to keep the samples in a dark space and allow for
room temperature equilibration prior to analyses for the tracer dye. After analyses were
performed, the samples were stored in the same refrigerator until shipment to Oahu for
further analyses. The samples were shipped in lightproof coolers with blue ice to
maintain a chilled environment during the transfer.
Immediately following every submarine spring sample collection, an additional clear 750
mL container was rinsed two times with the submarine spring water and then filled for
water quality measurement of temperature, pH, specific conductivity, and salinity. These
parameters were measured with an YSI Model 63 (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH),
recorded, and then the submarine spring water was discarded. The YSI was calibrated
with YSI standards of pH 7.00 and 10.00 and Equipco specific conductivity standards of
1,000 and 58,700 |iS; calibrations are provided in Appendix Table A-l. Once all the
2-2
-------
submarine spring water sampling was completed, the long tubing was disconnected from
the piezometer and returned to the beach.
2.2.2 Submarine Spring Sampling Frequency and Placement
In July, 2011, three piezometers installed in the North and South Seep Groups (six total)
were selected for the most high frequency monitoring for the dye tracer emergence
(Figure 2-1; Table 2-1). A pre-dye tracer injection-monitoring period that occurred from
7/5/2011 to 7/28/2011 was designed to measure the magnitude and variability of in situ
fluorescence of the submarine spring water at these sites. Following the dye tracer
injection of FLT on 7/28/2011 into injection wells 3 and 4, the submarine spring water
sampling occurred two times per day from 7/28/2011 to 9/6/2011. From 7/30/2011 to
8/18/2011, one of the submarine springs in the North Seep Group was sampled at
midnight in order not to miss the dye tracers if the arrival time of the treated wastewater
was faster than expected. As time increased after the injection of the dye tracers, the
frequency of submarine spring sampling decreased. Submarine spring sampling occurred
thereafter once per day from 9/7/2011 to 10/6/2011, every two days from 10/8/2011 to
1/31/2012, two to three times per week from 2/5/2012 to 5/29/2012, one to two times per
week from 6/2/2012 to 12/31/2012. Currently, the submarine spring water is sampled
once or twice per month.
The South Seep Group is located approximately 25 m offshore. The submarine spring
piezometer locations within this group (Seeps 3, 4, and 5) remained unchanged through
the duration of the high frequency sampling portion of the project, and have been
sampled from 7/5/2011 to the present time. Seep 11 was installed in the South Seep
Group on 1/19/2012 (Figure 2-1) because Seeps 4 and 5 began to have high salinity
values (> 5), although the piezometers and associated tubing appeared structurally intact.
Seep 4 consistently displayed salinity values > 15, so the piezometer at this seep was
removed and redeployed in the North Seep Group on 4/24/2012. A total of 684
submarine spring samples were collected from the South Seep Group from 7/5/2011
through 12/31/2012.
The North Seep Group is located approximately 3 to 5 m offshore, and it has been
extremely problematic to maintain sampling locations at this location throughout the
duration of the project. This is because the close proximity of the North Seep Group to
the shoreline subjects the piezometers at this location to the persistent littoral migration
of sand from the beach as a result of large north swells, as well as the removal of seafloor
sands as a result of large south swells. Every time that a piezometer had to be reinstalled
within this site, it was given a new seep number designation. The history of submarine
spring sampling within the North Seep Group therefore occurred in the following way
throughout the duration of project. Seeps 1, 2, and 6 were installed on 7/19/2011. Seeps
1 and 2 were lost and replaced with Seeps 7 and 8 on 11/14/2011. Seep 6 was lost and
replaced with Seep 9 on 11/24/2011. Seep 8 was lost and replaced with Seep 10 on
1/19/2012. Seep 9 was lost and replaced with Seep 12 on 1/24/2012. Seeps 7 and 10
were lost and replaced with Seeps 13 and 14 on 3/10/2012. Seeps 12, 13, and 14 were lost
and replaced with Seep 15 on 3/24/2012. This left only one sampling point in the north
2-3
-------
(due to the amount of lost piezometers) until Seepl6 was installed on 4/24/2012. Seeps
9, 13, 14, and 15, were recovered and removed. Seep 17 was installed with Seep 16's
piezometer (due to increased exposure of the piezometer and consequently increased
salinity) and Seep 10 was found fully intact on 6/25/2012; sampling points became Seeps
10 and 17. Seep 10 was lost and Seep 18 was installed on 7/10/2012. Seeps 17 and 18
were lost on 8/7/2012. Seep 18 was recovered and removed and Seep 19 was installed on
8/8/2012. The Seep 19 piezometer was stolen and Seep 19 was re-installed with a new
piezometer on 8/15/2012. Seep 19 was lost and Seep 20 was installed on 9/18/2012. Seep
19 was recovered and removed on 10/2/2012. Seep 6 was recovered and removed on
10/18/2012. Seep 21 was installed on 10/19/2012. Seep 10 was recovered and removed
on 10/22/2012. Seep 7 was recovered and removed on 11/2/2012. Currently, submarine
spring sampling occurs at Seeps 20 and 21 within the North Seep Group. It is important
to note that despite this apparent "hop-scotch" of submarine spring sampling locations,
the re-installation of piezometers in the North Seep Group has always occurred within 2
m of the original piezometer locations (Seeps 1, 2, and 6) and generally occurred within
0.25 m of each other (Figure 2-1). A total of 606 submarine spring samples were
collected from the North Seep Group from 7/5/2011 through 12/31/2012.
2.2.3 Sampling Control Locations
Control locations for the dye tracer portion of this study were Honokowai Beach Park
(20°57'16.80"N, 156°41'13.60"W), Wahikuli Wayside Park (20°54'9.64"N,
156o41'7.50"W) and Olowalu (20°48'26.24"N, 156°36'9.06"W; Figure 2-2). Honokowai
Beach Park, located ~ 2 km to the north of the main study area, served as a site of
possible dye emergence if the LWRF treated wastewater flow path was to the north.
Wahikuli Wayside Park is ~ 4 km south of the main study area and therefore served as a
southern control site with the possibility of detecting the dye tracers. In terms of the
nutrient studies for this project, it is important to note that the Wahikuli area has many
unconnected cesspools. Olowalu is located -13 km south of the main study area and
currently has no major land-based pollution impacts due to the lack of major
development and the termination of sugarcane operations in the late 1990's. At all three
locations, samples were taken from the nearshore surface water (1.0 m offshore and 0.5
m depth). The water quality parameters (temperature, pH, salinity, and specific
conductivity) were also recorded with a handheld YSI Model 63. The locations were
sampled weekly from 8/5/2011 to 5/29/2012 for Honokowai and Wahikuli Wayside
Parks, and 12/2/2011 to 5/19/2012 for Olowalu. Samples from these sites were collected
in clean 125 mL HDPE amber plastic bottles (as described above), which were rinsed
twice prior to nearshore sample collection.
2.2.4 Field Measurements of Fluorescein and S-Rhodamine-B
Fluorescence
All samples collected for the tracer dye monitoring portion of the project were analyzed
in the field for fluorescein and s-rhodamine-B fluorescence using a handheld Aquafluor
fluorometer model 8000-010 (Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, California). Sample cuvettes
were cleaned with Fisherbrand Sparkleen laboratory detergent (5 mL to 1.0 L) and
2-4
-------
thoroughly rinsed with steamed distilled water prior to use. Prior to analyzing samples,
the fluorometer was calibrated with 100 ppb standards of fluorescein and s-rhodamine-B
prepared as described in Section 4 (calibrations are provided in Appendix Table A-2).
Samples from the submarine springs and control locations were analyzed in the following
way. Clean cuvettes were rinsed three times with the sample water then completely filled
and placed in the fluorometer. Once the sample was analyzed, the fluorescence values
were recorded, and the bottle cap was secured to the bottle with electrical tape to ensure
that it wouldn't open during shipment to Oahu for additional fluorescence measurements
(see Section 4).
2.2.5 Submarine Spring and Shoreline Surveys
A scuba diver survey was conducted in July 2012 to document all visual submarine
springs from Honokowai Point to Black Rock. The goal of this survey was to provide the
project with information regarding the locations and dimensions (length and width) of
additional submarine springs spanning study area. The survey was conducted by two
scuba divers swimming together and scanning the ocean floor. The survey extended from
the shoreline to a water depth of 9 m (27 ft), and as far as 250 m offshore in some areas.
Once a submarine spring was located, a 100 ml syringe was rinsed three times with the
surface water, closed, and brought down to the submarine spring. The scuba divers then
attempted to obtain optimum spring water samples by putting the syringe directly into the
point of spring water emergence. Once the syringe was full, it was brought to the surface
to rinse twice and was then fully emptied into a clean 125 mL HDPE amber plastic bottle
(as used for submarine spring monitoring). This process was repeated until the 125 mL
HDPE sample bottle was completely filled. The submarine spring's dimensions were
then measured (length and width) and its location was marked with a handheld 76CS Plus
Garmin GPS. When more than one submarine spring was found per square meter, all
submarine springs were measured, one submarine spring was sampled with a syringe, and
the location was marked with the GPS. Control samples for the North and South Seep
Groups were taken over the main submarine spring areas by rinsing the syringe three
times with surface water and filling the syringe with surface water then rinsing the
sample bottle twice with the syringe water. Then the sample bottle was filled with the
syringe collected surface water. Submarine spring and control samples were handled as
described above in Section 2.2.1.
Submarine groundwater samples were taken from 12/20/2012 through 1/8/2012 at the
shoreline adjacent to the North and South Seep Groups, south of Kahekili Beach Park,
and adjacent to Honokowai Point. These samples were collected through the same
abovementioned piezometers outfitted with a three foot galvanized steel pipe extension
allowing for the piezometer to be temporarily installed in the sand just offshore of the
surge zone. In addition, on 12/29/2012, submarine springs in North and South Seep
Groups and a substantial seep located between the two groups were sampled for the tracer
dye with clean 100 ml syringes. The syringes were brought to the surface and decanted
to clean 125 mL HDPE amber plastic bottles. This was repeated until the bottle was
completely filled. The results of these surveys are discussed in Section 4.
2-5
-------
2.3 RESULTS
2.3.1 Water Quality of Submarine Springs
The submarine spring water sampled through piezometers generally had lower pH,
salinity, and specific conductivity compared to that of coastal water throughout the
project. Water quality parameters for samples taken from 7/19/2011 through 12/29/2012
are provided in Appendix Table A-3 for the South Seep Group and Appendix Table A-4
for the North Seep Group. Measured analytical means, standard deviations, and ranges
for each of the submarine springs are provided in Table 2-2. Seep 3 consistently had the
lowest salinity, averaging at 3.32 ±1.4 and ranging from 2.50 to 16.1 (Table 2-2).
2.3.2 Water Quality of Control Locations
All control locations generally showed little to no freshwater influence with salinities,
specific conductivity, and pH values close to that of coastal water. All water quality
parameters for the control locations are provided in Appendix Table A-5. Measured
analytical means, standard deviations, and ranges for each control location are provided
in Table 2-3.
2.3.3 Field Measurements of Fluorescein and S-Rhodamine-B
Fluorescence
The fluorescence of FLT and SRB measured in the field of samples collected from
7/19/2011 through 12/29/2012 are provided in Appendix Table A-3 for the South Seep
Group (684 samples total) and Appendix Table A-4 for the North Seep Group (606
samples total). The fluorescence of FLT and SRB measured in the field of the control
locations for samples collected from 8/5/2011 to 5/29/2012 (66 samples total) is provided
in Appendix Table A-5.
A notable increasing trend in FLT fluorescence was found in all submarine spring water
samples beginning on January 4th 2012 (Figures 2-3 to 2-8; Appendix Tables A-3 and A-
4), while no change in fluorescence was observed in the samples obtained from the
control locations (Figure 2-9). Although the obvious increase in FLT fluorescence
occurred on January 4th 2012, subtle increases in field fluorometry that started at the
North Seep Group in late October 2011 provided the first indication that the FLT dye was
emerging from the submarine springs. A follow-up laboratory analysis that confirmed
the presence of dye was prompted by a review of the field data. The field fluorescence of
FLT and SRB and salinity of submarine spring water samples is graphed in Figure 2-3 for
Seeps 3, 4, 5, and 11; Figure 2-4 for Seeps 1, 2, 6, and 7; Figure 2-5 for Seeps 8, 9, 10,
and 12; Figure 2-6 for Seeps 13 to 16; Figure 2-7 for Seeps 17 to 20; and Figure 2-8 for
Seep 21. The fluorescence of FLT and SRB and salinity values of samples from control
locations are provided in Figure 2-9. The covariance of the salinity and the fluorescence
values of FLT in the submarine spring water is quite substantial, as can be seen in the
data for Seep 4, for example, where increased salinity (spikes) coincides with decreases
2-6
-------
in the dye fluorescence (Figure 2-3). Increased salinity of the submarine spring water is
indicative of ocean water mixing with the submarine spring water, which therefore
dilutes the concentration of the dye tracer. The fluorescence data collected in the field
has not been adjusted for the salinity to account for the dilution by seawater. Additional
details on the relationship between the variations in dye concentration and salinity can be
found in Section 4.
The FLT fluorescence values from the field fluorometer were higher than those measured
using the laboratory fluorometer from 1/7/2012 to 6/29/2012. This was due to a problem
with the calibration standards. As is often common practice in tracer dye studies, early
laboratory and field calibration standards were mixed using deionized (DI) water. During
our method of detection limit study (Section 4), however, we found that the fluorescence
intensities of standards mixed with the submarine spring water from these study sites
were significantly greater than those mixed with DI water. When this problem with the
Dl-based calibration solution was discovered, the research team was awaiting the arrival
of SRB, and an uninterrupted analytical history for the handheld fluorometer was desired.
Thus, the original calibration standards were left in the field during this interval so that
continuity could be maintained with earlier measurements made with the handheld
fluorometer. The field fluorometry was used to screen the submarine spring water
samples for changes in fluorescence that would indicate the arrival of a dye or, in the case
of FLT, a peaking of the breakthrough curve. Simultaneously, the field and laboratory
FLT results were compared to correct the readings of the handheld fluorometer; this
comparison indicated that the field values could be corrected to the approximate
laboratory values by using the following equation: FLTcorrected = 0.33*FLTfieid ~ 0.65
(Figure 2-10). The field FLT fluorescence data presented in the figures and appendices
have thus been corrected for the period from 1/7/2012 to 6/29/2012 to provide the correct
dye concentration measurements recovered during this time interval.
A second instrumentation complication arose during this study with the discovery that the
strong fluorescence of FLT can produce a false indication of SRB dye detection when
read by the field fluorometer. Figure 2-11, for example, shows an apparent increase of
fluorescence in the SRB wavelength that tracks the true increase in FLT. Although
initially it was believed that SRB fluorescence was being detected, subsequent laboratory
analysis found no SRB in the samples. The correlation, illustrated in Figure 2-11, was
investigated whereby the response of the SRB channel to the FLT calibration solutions
was measured with a handheld fluorometer. These solutions were prepared using
submarine spring water collected prior to the FLT and SRB dye addition into the treated
wastewater stream. Therefore, the FLT that was added in the laboratory during these
experiments was assured to be the only dye present in these solutions. These tests
confirmed that the very strong FLT fluorescence was being carried over into the
wavelength monitored by the rhodamine channel, giving a false positive indication of
SRB fluorescence. Figure 2-12 shows the results of this test and the linear response (r =
1.00) of the SRB channel to solutions containing only FLT. In the absence of the high
FLT dye concentration, however, our laboratory calibrations do indicate that when SRB
calibration solutions are used the field fluorometer responds faithfully to the detection of
SRB, and is thus suitable for tracer studies using rhodamine dyes. However, this
2-7
-------
instalment is not appropriate to measure the fluorescence of rhodamine dyes when FLT is
also used in tracer test.
2.3.4 Submarine Spring Survey
In order to locate and measure all visible submarine springs within the study area a
survey team consisting of two scuba divers completed a total of 86 transects of various
lengths (from the shortest 47 m or 153 ft to the longest 536 m or 1760 ft) from
Honokowai Point to Black Rock, covering a total of 20.8 km (12.9 miles) in July 2012.
The survey was only conducted when conditions permitted at least 5 ft visibility per
diver. Figures 2-13 through 2-18 show the area covered by the 86 transects. The width
of each transect in the figures is directly proportional to the visibility of the divers at the
time of the survey, for example if an offshore transect had visibility of 20 feet per diver
then the total width of the transect is shown as 40 feet to reflect the total field of view.
On Honokowai Point, the divers were able to locate "shimmery water" (a varying
refraction of light seen when fresh water and salt water mix, or when warm and cold
water mix; sometimes referred to as "schlieren"), but this may have only been mixing
warm nearshore water with colder offshore water as no visible submarine springs were
found. North of Black Rock offshore, the divers located very diffuse flow emerging from
the sand, but this was not a strong flowing submarine spring.
In general, the divers were not able to find submarine springs other than those near or in
the locations of already identified submarine springs in the North and South Seep Groups
used in the tracer dye-monitoring portion of the project. In this nearshore region of
Kahekili Reef, a total of 289 visible submarine springs were identified; the furthest
location offshore was 109 feet (33 m) from the shoreline. The submarine springs ranged
in length from 0.2 cm to 24 cm, width from 0.2 cm to 13 cm, and area from 0.04 cm to
216.0 cm2. The average length and width of the submarine springs were 3.2 and 1.7 cm,
respectively, giving an average area of 5.4 cm . The total area of measured submarine
springs in the North Seep Group was 2426.8 cm2 or 0.243 m2 The total area of measured
2 2
submarine springs in the South Seep Group was 838.8 cm or 0.0839 m . The combined
total area of measured discrete submarine springs found to be issuing groundwater was
2 2
3265.6 cm or 0.336 m . In total, all submarine springs mapped within the North Seep
Group were contained within an area of 1,800 m3, and all submarine springs mapped
within the South Seep Group were contained with an area of 500 m (Figure 2-19). Most
of the submarine spring samples collected through syringes revealed detectable FLT
concentrations (provided in Appendix Table A-6). The specific conductivity of the
samples was measured in the laboratory with an YSI ProPlus Water Quality Analyzer
when the samples were filtered. For samples where FLT was detected the concentration
was adjusted to a pre-seawater mixing dye concentration in the nearshore groundwater by
correcting the measured dye concentration for the fraction of seawater in the water
sample. A description of the fluorescence and specific conductivity measurements, and
the corrections made are provided in Section 4.2.6.
2-8
-------
2.4 SUMMARY
The field portion of this study installed the sampling infrastructure, collected samples for
the geochemical survey, collected nearly 1,200 samples for field and tracer dye analysis,
and deployed and collected data from instruments for monitoring temperature and
salinity.
Submarine springs were sampled with a variable speed DC-battery-powered peristaltic
pump (Geotech Environmental Inc., Series II, Denver, Colorado) fitted to a 50 m section
of polyethylene tubing that was temporarily attached to the piezometer with a quick-
connect fitting. This method of sampling the submarine springs was found to be a very
effective method of sampling the springs. In most locations the salinity of the samples
collected was less than 5, indicating that the water captured was representative of
submarine groundwater with little seawater influence. Water quality parameters of
temperature, pH, specific conductivity, and salinity were measured with an YSI Model
63. The sample water was screened for the presence of the two tracer dyes, FLT and
SRB, using a Turner Designs 10AU Fluorometer.
Samples were collected from submarine springs in the North and South Seep Groups, and
from three control locations. The South Seep Group is located approximately 25 m
offshore and had three initial monitoring points (Seeps 3, 4, and 5). A fourth, Seep 11,
was added on November 24th, 2011 due to high salinities being measured at Seeps 4 and
5. The Seep 4 piezometer was relocated to the North Seep Group on April 24th, 2012 to
replace piezometers in that area that were covered by migrating sand. A total of 684
submarine spring samples were collected from the South Seep Group from 7/5/2011
through 12/31/2012. The North Seep Group is located approximately 3 to 5 m offshore
with three initial monitoring points (Seep 1, 2, and 6). This location was extremely
problematic to maintain throughout the duration of the project. The North Seep Groups'
close proximity to the shoreline subjected these piezometers to the persistent littoral
migration of sand from the beach onto the seep group as a result of large north swells.
By November 24th, 2011 all of the original piezometers were buried by migrating sand.
As a piezometer was buried it was replaced with a new one. All replacement piezometers
were located within 2 m of the original locations. A total of 606 submarine spring
samples were collected from the North Seep Group from 7/5/2011 through 12/31/2012.
Control locations for the dye tracer portion of this study were Honokowai Beach Park,
Wahikuli Wayside Park, and Olowalu. Honokowai Beach Park served as a site of
possible dye emergence if the LWRF treated wastewater flow path was to the north.
Wahikuli Wayside Park is south of the main study, but specifically targeted because of its
proximity to the submarine spring locations, and therefore served as a southern control
site with the possibility to detect the dye tracers. Olowalu is located -13 km south of the
main study area and currently has no known major land-based pollution impacts due to
the minimal development and the termination of sugarcane operations in the late 1990's.
A pre-dye tracer injection monitoring period that occurred from July 5th through July 28th,
2011 was designed to measure the magnitude and variability of in situ fluorescence of the
2-9
-------
submarine spring water at the selected monitoring sites. Following the dye tracer
injection of FLT into Injection Wells 3 and 4, the submarine spring water sampling
occurred two times per day, with one spring being sampled three times per day, for ~ 40
days following the FLT addition to ensure that the dye transported by preferential flow
paths would not be missed. As time progressed, the sampling frequency was decreased to
one or two times per week.
The SRB and FLT fluorescence measured in the field remained indistinguishable from
background levels until late October, 2011. Subtle increases in field fluorometry
measurements of FLT started to occur in samples from the North Seep Group in late
October 2011 and provided the first indication that dye was emerging from the submarine
springs. This was followed in mid-November by increasing FLT fluorescence of samples
from the South Seep Group. However, no pronounced FLT fluorescence increase was
noted in the field data until January 2012. An inverse correlation was noted between the
FLT fluorescence and the salinity measured at the monitoring points. An increase in the
salinity of the submarine spring water is indicative of ocean water mixing with the
submarine spring water, which dilutes the concentration of the dye tracer.
Beginning in January 2012, the SRB wavelength fluorescence as read on the AquaFlour
Handheld Fluorometer showed an increasing trend. Subsequent testing showed this was
actually a response of the SRB channel to the strong FLT fluorescence in the samples
being analyzed and no SRB was in the samples being analyzed. As of May 13, 2013
there has been no confirmed detection of SRB.
The July 2012 submarine spring survey covered 20.8 km (12.9 miles) of the seafloor in
86 transects that extended from Honokowai Point to Black Rock (linear distance of 2.9
km). The survey located and measured 289 submarine springs all of which were near the
known locations of already identified submarine springs used in the tracer-dye
monitoring portion of the project. The total seafloor area populated by submarine springs
in the NSG was 1,800 m , and the total area of seafloor populated by submarine springs
in the SSG was 500 m2 The individual submarine springs ranged in length from 0.2 cm
2 2
to 24 cm, width from 0.2 cm to 13 cm, and covered areas from 0.04 cm to 216.0 cm .
The average length and width of the individual submarine springs were 3.2 and 1.7 cm,
respectively, giving an average area of 5.4 cm. The summed area of individual
submarine springs in the NSG was 2426.8 cm2 or 0.243 m2 The summed area of
2 2
individual submarine springs in the SSG was 838.8 cm or 0.0839 m . The combined
total area of measured individual submarine springs was 3265.6 cm2 or 0.336 m2 Most
of the submarine spring samples collected through syringes revealed detectable FLT
concentrations.
2-10
-------
Table 2-1. Submarine spring names and locations. Locations were recorded with a
handheld 76CS Plus Garmin GPS.
It is important to note that Seeps 4, 5, and 11 in the south and 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the north are all within 1 m of each other and therefore
can only be represented by a single point within the spatial resolution obtainable with a
GPS.
South Seep
Group
Seep Number Latitude Longitude
Seep 3 20°56'19.61"N 156°41'35.19"W
Seep 4 20°56'19.36"N 156°41'35.14"W
Seep 5 20°56'19.36"N 156°41'35.14"W
Seep 11 20°56'19.36"N 156°41'35.14"W
North Seep
Group
Seep 1 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 2 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 6 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 7 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 8 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.18"W
Seep 9 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 10 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 12 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 13 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 14 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 15 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 16 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 17 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 18 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 19 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 20 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
Seep 21 20°56'24.69"N 156°41'34.08"W
2-11
-------
Table 2-2. North and South Seep Group water quality parameters.
Data (means ± SD and range) were collected from 7/19/2011 through 12/29/2012 with a
handheld YSI Model 63.
South Seep
Group Temp. (°C) pH Spec. Cond. (mS/cm) Salinity
Seep 3
29.0 ±2.1
7.52 ± 0.11
6.59 ±2.52
3.32 ± 1.4
24.2 to 35.1
7.22 to 7.94
5.20 to 28.2
2.50 to 16.1
Seep 4
28.6 ±2.0
7.50 ±0.12
8.98 ±6.57
4.77 ±4.0
24.5 to 34.6
7.20 to 7.90
5.63 to 37.70
2.80 to 22.5
Seep 5
28.7 ±2.1
7.52 ± 0.11
9.27 ± 6.23
4.92 ±3.8
24.9 to 34.9
7.30 to 7.90
5.29 to 34.8
2.90 to 21.8
Seep 11
29.1 ±2.3
7.54 ±0.07
7.40 ±0.37
3.75 ± 1.46
25.2 to 34.6
7.37 to 7.78
5.00 to 25.89
3.10 to 14.3
North Seep Group
Seep 1
29.1 ±2.0
7.45 ±0.09
8.33 ± 1.04
4.25 ±0.5
24.8 to 34.4
7.18 to 7.76
7.32 to 14.8
3.90 to 7.30
Seep 2
28.9 ±2.3
7.46 ±0.11
8.47 ± 1.41
4.35 ±0.7
24.0 to 34.9
7.13 to 7.75
7.04 to 17.4
3.80 to 9.90
Seep 6
29.3 ±2.2
7.41 ±0.14
8.33 ±0.90
4.25 ±0.4
23.8 to 35.9
6.90 to 7.94
7.00 to 13.5
3.80 to 7.0
Seep 7
27.5 ± 1.7
7.51 ± 0.19
8.19 ± 1.32
4.31 ±0.8
22.4 to 30.3
7.26 to 7.81
7.24 to 15.1
3.90 to 8.20
Seep 8
27.4 ± 1.7
7.35 ±0.18
9.36 ±5.98
5.01 ±3.6
24.7 to 31.0
7.09 to 7.90
7.47 to 37.9
4.00 to 22.0
Seep 9
27.4 ± 1.8
7.43 ±0.21
13.7 ± 11.4
7.58 ±6.7
23.3 to 30.5
6.75 to 7.80
7.21 to 42.9
3.90 to 25.3
Seep 10
28.9 ±2.1
7.58 ±0.16
9.01 ± 1.10
4.69 ±0.57
26.5 to 34.6
7.26 to 7.76
7.99 to 11.9
4.10 to 6.20
Seep 12
28.2 ± 1.1
7.60 ±0.11
8.37 ±0.50
4.35 ±0.24
26.6 to 29.6
7.36 to 7.78
7.88 to 9.55
4.10 to 4.90
Seep 13
28.0 ± 1.9
7.69 ±0.02
8.18 ±0.53
4.27 ±0.12
26.0 to 29.7
7.67 to 7.71
7.69 to 8.74
4.20 to 4.40
Seep 14
27.1 ±2.1
7.67 ±0.05
7.91 ±0.21
4.17 ±0.06
24.7 to 28.7
7.66 to 7.72
7.67 to 8.02
4.10 to 4.20
Seep 15
30.4 ±2.9
7.58 ±0.10
9.63 ± 2.20
4.87 ± 1.44
24.6 to 34.9
7.40 to 7.75
7.86 to 16.5
4.20 to 9.30
2-12
-------
North Seep
Group Cont.
Temp. (°C)
pH
Spec. Cond. (mS/cm)
Salinity
Seep 16
31.5 ± 2.5
7.58 ±0.12
10.1 ±3.21
5.05 ± 1.93
27.1 to 34.8
7.38 to 7.80
8.57 to 21.6
4.40 to 12.0
Seep 17
32.9 ±3.4
7.66 ±0.15
22.5 ± 8.86
11.4 ± 4.31
29.0 to 35.0
7.53 to 7.83
12.3 to 28.6
6.50 to 14.5
Seep 18
31.1 ± 2.3
7.59 ±0.07
9.48 ±0.36
4.67 ± 0.06
28.9 to 33.4
7.52 to 7.65
9.79 to 9.08
4.60 to 4.70
Seep 19
30.8 ±3.5
7.65 ±0.07
9.25 ± 0.72
4.59 ±0.20
25.4 to 34.9
7.49 to 7.73
8.33 to 10.5
4.50 to 4.90
Seep 20
30.0 ± 1.67
7.70 ±0.07
18.06 ±0.36
9.66 ±4.08
25.7 to 32.3
7.59 to 7.82
9.08 to 29.8
4.50 to 15.9
Seep 21
29.8 ± 1.4
7.62 ±0.06
11.3 ± 2.19
5.84 ± 1.35
27.3 to 30.6
7.55 to 7.70
9.27 to 13.7
4.70 to 4.5
2-13
-------
Table 2-3. Control location water quality parameters.
Data (means ± SD and range) were collected from 8/5/2011 to 5/29/2012 with a handheld
YSI Model 63 from Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park, and Olowalu.
Location
Temp. (°C)
pH
Spec. Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
Honokowai
Beach Park
27.4 ± 1.3
25.1 to 30.3
8.06 ±0.09
7.90 to 8.27
54.0 ±2.7
47.3 to 58.0
33.8 ± 1.7
29.9 to 35.7
Wahikuli
26.5 ± 1.2
8.05 ±0.07
54.5 ± 1.9
34.9 ±0.9
Wayside Park
24.9 to 29.7
7.89 to 8.16
50.4 to 57.7
32.7 to 36.4
Olowalu
28.2 ±2.0
24.8 to 31.5
8.03 ±0.07
7.92 to 8.13
55.5 ±2.5
48.1 to 58.3
34.2 ± 1.7
29.5 to 36.3
2-14
-------
Note: schematics are not to scale
South Seep Group
0.75 meters
0.25 meters
S5
S4
Sll
3 meters
S3 i
Shoreline Seep 11 was installed on 1/19/2012
North Seep Group
S8
a
All seeps in the circle are within
0.25 meters of each other
0.5 meters
Shoreline
North Seep Group history in brief:
Seeps 1,2 & 6 installed on 7/19/2011 Seep
Seeps 1 & 2 lost on 11/14/2011, Seeps 7 & 8 installed Seep
Seep 6 lost on 11/24/2011, Seep 9 installed Seep
Seep 8 lost on 1/19/2012, Seep 10 installed Seep
Seep 9 lost on 1/24/1012, Seep 12 installed Seep
Seeps 7 & 10 lost on 3/10/2012, Seeps 13 & 14 installed Seep
Seeps 12, 13, & 14 lost on 3/24/2012, Seep 15 installed Seep
Seep 16 installed on 4/24/2012 Seep
Seeps 9, 13, 14, & 15, recovered on 6/25/2012, Seep 17 installed Seep
Seep 18 installed on 7/10/2012
17 lost on 8/1/2012
18 recovered on 8/8/2012, Seep 19 installed
19 lost on 8/15/2012, Seep 19 re-installed
19 lost on 9/18/2012, Seep 20 installed
19 recovered & removed on 10/2/2012
6 recovered & removed on 10/18/2012
21 installed on 10/19/2012
10 recovered & removed on 10/22/2012
7 recovered & removed on 11/2/2012
Figure 2-1: Schematics of submarine spring water sampling locations. As specified in the North and South Seep Groups:
Black circles represent Seep locations, red circles represent recovered and removed piezometer from seep location.
2-15
-------
IWRF
bhiiu WistniKr
Reclamation Facility'
"tasslS
-i
8
¦ kilometers
V-W
Olow alu
| LWRF
• Highways
— Roads
4 Submarine Springs
Injection Wells
Elev. (100ft Interval)
| Golf Course
[ Former Sugar
j I'rban
Lahaina Reefs
Honokowai
Beach Park,
Submarine
Springs
Wabikuli ^
Wax side Park
Figure 2-2: Control and submarine spring sampling locations.
Control locations include: Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park,
Olowalu. Also shown are the locations of the North and South Seep Groups.
2-16
-------
Seep 3
Seep 4
Seep 5
CO 1
a:
CO
01-Aug-11
CQ 1 -
a:
CO
01-Apr-12
01-May-12
01-Sep-12
Figure 2-3: South Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 3, 4, 5, and 11).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seeps 3, 4, 5, and
11 over time. FLT and SRB additions at the LWRF were performed on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively. Note the change in scale of
the FLT fluorescence and salinity per seep.
2-17
-------
Salinity —•— FLT —O— SRB
Salinity —•— FLT —o— SRB
01-Aug-11
01-Sep-11
01-Aug-11
01-Sep-11
Seep 2
5 -| 5
Salinity —•— FLT -o— SRB
01-Aug-11
01-Sep-11
Seep 7
5-1 25
Seep 1
Salinity
6
"ro
cn
2
5 2 -
CO
w 0 ¦
6 is-
CD
4
Figure 2-4: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 1, 2, 6, and 7).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seeps 1, 2, 6, and 7
over time. FLT and SRB additions were performed at the LWRF on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively. Note the change in scale of the
FLT fluorescence axis for Seep 7.
2-18
-------
Seep 8
CO 1
az
CO
15-Nov-11 30-Nov-11 15-Dec-11 30-Dec-11 14-Jan-12
CO .
01 1
CO
Salinity FLT O SRB
-
_o
o
o
-
01-Feb-12 01-Mar-12 01-Apr-12 01-May-12 01-Jun-12 01 -Jul-12
Seep 9
Figure 2-5: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 8, 9, 10, and 12).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seeps 8, 9, 10, and
12 over time. FLT and SRB additions at the LWRF were performed on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively. Note the change in scale of
the FLT fluorescence and salinity axis per seep.
2-19
-------
Seep 13
Seep 14
CO
C£
CO
Seep 16
CO 1
C£
26-Mar-12 09-Apr-12 23-Apr-12 07-May-12 21-May-12 04-Jun-12 18-Jun-12
23-Apr-12 07-May-12 21-May-12 04-Jun-12
Figure 2-6: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 13, 14, 15, and 16).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seeps 13, 14, 15,
and 16 over time. FLT and SRB additions at the LWRF were performed on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively.
2-20
-------
Seep 17
Seep 18
28-Jun-12 02-Jul-12 06-Jul-12 10-Jul-12 14-Jul-12 18-Jul-12 22-Jul-12
Seep 19
§ -0.5
CO
az
CO
10-Jul-12 14-Jul-12 18-Jul-12 22-Jul-12 26-Jul-12 30-Jul-12 03-Aug-12
Seep 20
13-Aug-12 20-Aug-12 27-Aug-12 03-Sep-12 10-Sep-12
Figure 2-7: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seeps 17, 18, 19, and 20).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seeps 17, 18, 19,
and 20 over time. FLT and SRB additions at the LWRF were performed on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively.
2-21
-------
Figure 2-8: North Seep Group salinity and fluorescence (Seep 21).
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles) of samples collected from Seep 21 overtime.
FLT and SRB additions at the LWRF were performed on 7/28/11 and 8/11/11, respectively.
2-22
-------
Honokowai Beach Park
Wahikuli Wayside Park
Olowalu
Figure 2-9: Control location salinity and fluorescence.
Field salinity (solid line) and fluorescence of SRB (open circles) and FLT (solid circles)
of samples collected at the control locations Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside
Park, and Olowalu over time.
2-23
-------
&
I
la
O
O
U
s
Cst<
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
y = 0.33x - 0.65
R2 = 1.00
1 1 1 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70
Indicated FLT Cone. Handheld Fluorometer (ppb)
80
Figure 2-10: Correlation between the Field and the Lab measured FLT.
A best-fit trend line shows that the actual FLT concentration is 0.33 times that of the field
measured FLT concentration.
.q
a.
a.
u
a
o
U
H
J
t-
45
40
35
30
25
~ » i^jmM—
m
5.0
4.5
4.0
- 3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
01/01/12 03/01/12
04/30/12 06/29/12 08/28/12 10/27/12 12/26/12
~ FLT ¦ SRB
.a
Q.
a.
o
S
O
U
ca
—
Figure 2-11: A time series showing the close correspondence between the field measured
FLT concentration and the apparent SRB fluorescence.
2-24
-------
u
CQ
04
VI
¦B
I
s
=a
s
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
y = 0.076x - 0.229
R:; = 1.000
20 40 60 80
FLT Concentration (ppb)
100
~ SRB Response — Linear (SRB Response)
Figure 2-12: The handheld fluorometer SRB channel response to FLT (only) calibration
solutions.
2-25
-------
Figure 2-13: Area covered at Honokowai Point during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects; the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey. Green
dots with numbers represent samples collected from shimmery water (Appendix Table A-6).
2-26
-------
Honokowai
Point
t
N
N ""
Figure 2-14: Area covered at adjacent to the Honua Kai during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects; the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey. Green
dots with numbers represent samples collected from shirnmery water (Appendix Table A-6).
2-27
-------
Figure 2-15: Area covered south of the Honua Kai and across Kahekili Reef during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects; the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey Green
dots with numbers represent samples collected from submarine springs (Appendix Table A-6).
2-28
-------
Figure 2-16: Area covered across Kahekili Reef during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects; the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey. Green
dots with numbers represent samples collected from submarine springs, with the exception of 096 and 175, which were from diffuse
discharge (Appendix Table A-6).
2-29
-------
Figure 2-17: Area covered South of Kahekili Reef during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects; the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey. Green
dots with numbers represent samples collected from diffuse discharge (Appendix Table A-6).
2-30
-------
Figure 2-18: Area covered North of Black Rock during the submarine spring survey.
The area surveyed is shown in the yellow box of the map insert. Blue dots with white numbers represent the start and end of the
transects: the transect widths (in yellow) are directly proportional to the visibility of the scuba divers at the time of the survey. The
green dots and numbers represent a sample collected from diffuse discharge (Appendix Table A-6).
2-31
-------
Legend
I | Seep Group Polygons
] Radon Flux Polygons
North Seep
Group
-—~~L_
South Seep
Group
50
100
200
H Meters
A
Figure 2-19: The location of the flowing submarine springs showing an enveloping
polygon for each seep group and the extent of the boxes used in the Radon flux
calculations
2-32
-------
SECTION 3: SUBMARINE SPRING DISCHARGE
MAGNITUDE AND DYNAMICS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Field observations described in Section 2 revealed that visually obvious submarine
groundwater discharge (SGD) within the study area occurs via seeps clustered into two
groups, SSG and NSG (Figures 2-1 and 2-15). FLT was identified in all seeps within
SSG and NSG (Section 2), but a proper mass balance of dye tracer recovery requires that
the magnitude of seep discharge in these clusters be quantified. Thus, the objective of
this section was to quantify groundwater discharge via discrete seeps and evaluate the
temporal variability of this discharge. In addition, groundwater discharge via diffuse
seepage also occurs at these sites and may be responsible for some tracer fluxes. Our
second objective was therefore to determine what fraction of total groundwater flux
discharges via discrete seeps as opposed to diffuse seepage. The estimated total (discrete
seep and diffuse seepage) groundwater flux was previously quantified by this project
using geochemical tracers (Glenn et al., 2012). In this section, we use those estimates
and the newly acquired measured seep fluxes to determine the fraction of discharge via
discrete seeps as opposed to diffuse seepage.
Only one ADCP was available for this project, so we had to restrict our observations to
only one seep. Due to the persistent problem of bottom instability as a result of persistent
sand migration at the NSG, we focused our attention on measuring seep fluxes in the SSG
and selected Seep 4 within it as a representative of all seeps within the two clusters to
document discharge dynamics. Seep 4 had dimensions of 13 cm x 7 cm, which is 11% of
the sum of seep areas in SSG (838.8 cm2) and 3% of the sum of seep areas in SSG and
NSG together (3,265 cm2) (see Section 2).
3.1.1 Seep Discharge Dynamics Measurements Using an Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
In the first phase of the project, in September 2011, vertical velocities of water
discharging from NSG Seep 6 and SSG Seep 4 were quantified using a 1 MHz High
Resolution Aquadopp Profiler (Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter, or ADCP). This
instrumentation allows the quantification of vertical water velocities at high frequency,
and provides a profile of velocities in cells of pre-set dimensions across the water
column. The HR Aquadopp Profiler was positioned on the seafloor next to the seeps in
an upward-looking configuration. Because of its blanking distance, a distance between
the ADCP head and the first measurement cell (across which the instrument is unable to
measure velocities), it was unable to adequately resolve vertical water velocities at the
discharge point of the seeps. The measured average upward velocities were 0.004 m/s
and 0.02 m/s at Seep 6 and 4, respectively. The magnitude of upward fluxes was tidally
dependent with lower upward velocities occurring at high tide and higher velocities at
3-1
-------
low tide. Therefore, it is essential to compare upward velocities with respect to measured
water level, which is recorded by the instrument as water pressure, and that a tidal
averaged velocity is used as a representative seep velocity per day. In September 2011,
at Seep 4 the instrument was only deployed for six hours so the flux does not represent
the whole tidal cycle. Because the September 2011 vertical velocities were just at, or
barely above, the resolution of the sensor in this configuration we selected a down-
looking instrument configuration for all consequent deployments when the HR Aquadopp
was installed at a set distance away from the bottom of the seafloor with the ADCP head
centered over the seep (Figure 4-1). This allowed a better resolution of velocities closer
to the ocean floor.
3.2 METHODS
3.2.1 Study Area
As noted, the focus site for the ADCP time-series measurements was Seep 4 within the
SSG (Figure 2-1) as this is one site where FLT has been detected throughout the
monitoring period. Although Seep 4 began to have high salinity values (>5) and
decreasing FLT in January 19, 2012, discharge from this seep seemed to be dominant
within SSG. The ocean bottom in the area is rocky with dead coral and sand patches.
The water at this seep discharges via a vent with dimensions of 7 x 13 cm.
3.2.2 HR Aquadopp Profiler Deployment
Seep 4 vertical velocities were measured between October and November 2012. We
performed three deployments: October 1-2, 2012; October 17-19, 2012; and November 2-
3, 2012. Later deployments were not possible due to unfavorable sea conditions. We
built an aluminum stand (Figure 3-1) that was fixed to a block on the ocean bottom. The
HR Aquadopp Profiler was mounted on the arm of the stand in a down-looking
configuration at 1 m distance from the ocean bottom. The head of the instrument was
centered above the seep. The instrument was configured to have a blanking distance of
40 cm and create a water velocity profile in 22 3-cm sized cells at the ocean bottom with
measurement intervals of 1 s. Other details of the deployment configuration are listed in
Table 3-1.
3.2.3 HR Aquadopp Data Processing
Raw velocity and pressure data were truncated to times when the sensor was underwater
and stationary. Velocity data with amplitude <120 counts and correlation < 40 % were
removed prior to analysis. Abrupt changes in the mean amplitude and correlation profiles
were used in corroboration with diver measurements to identify the cell closest to the
seep. Data quality control was performed with the velocity data in beam coordinates,
which were then converted to earth-referenced coordinates using the instrument's
heading and tilt sensor measurements. Local high and low tide times were calculated
using 2-hr low-pass filtered pressure data. These demarcated times were checked against
3-2
-------
predicted tides for the NOAA Kahului tide station and were typically within 20 min of
the predicted tides.
3.3 RESULTS
3.3.1 Vertical Fluxes
The HR Aquadopp Profiler sampling frequency was set to 1 s, which allowed the
registration of high frequency events, such as results from swell and wave action. To
resolve these, power spectra were computed from the de-trended pressure and vertical
velocity data using a Hanning window with four ensembles. During the 17-19 October
deployment, which was the longest of the three, two peaks in vertical velocity spectra
were apparent at periods T ~ 10-13 s and 18-21 s. These corresponded to peaks in the
power spectrum of pressure that were likely due to a combination of shorter- and longer-
period surface swell (Figure 3-2). The majority of energy in the vertical velocity
fluctuations resolved here was at periods shorter than 21s, indicating that surface swell is
a dominant driver of variability over periods < -20 min. The longer-term (tidal-scale)
averaged velocities indicate that the tidal component, although not resolved in our
spectral analysis due to the short deployment period, is significant. Similar findings were
observed during the other two deployments.
Average vertical velocities were calculated for different tide periods for the three
deployments so that full tidal period average flux comparison could be made to assess
changes in discharge. Low/high tide times were demarcated using the filtered pressure
data on which we found the mid-point between tidal stages and averaged velocities
within those periods. Figure 3-3 shows low- and high-tide periods in colors that illustrate
the demarcated times used for average velocity calculations. The figure shows the tidal
stage with calculated average and sum of fluxes over the respective time periods. During
the two lower low tides, vertical upward velocities averaged 0.0065 and 0.0103 m/s.
During high tides the velocities averaged -0.0019, 0.0015 and 0.0062 m/s. For best
comparison we have to consider averages over the full tidal period. The October 17-19
record was long enough to compare variability over full tidal periods at different times
and the data show that averages vary significantly depending on the tidal period selected.
Average vertical velocity doubles between higher-low to higher-low (Figure 3-4) and
higher-high to higher-high tides (Figure 3-5), other combinations are listed in Table 3-2.
3.3.2 Determination of Seep Discharge Using ADCP
By deploying the Aquadopp in a downward-looking configuration at a known distance to
a solid boundary (e.g., the sea floor), ambiguities in velocity measurements were reduced.
The majority (70%) of individual vertical velocity measurements were greater than the
quoted uncertainty of the instrument of 1 cm s"1. In addition, two findings suggest that
the measured velocities were greater than instrument noise: (1) coherence between
pressure and vertical velocity was significant at the 95% C.I. level (y2 > 0.8) at periods
typical of surface swell (2 s < T < 21 s); and (2) there was a consistent pattern of
3-3
-------
increased vertical velocities averaged over falling and low tide compared to that of high
tide.
Tidal average vertical water velocities from all three deployments were multiplied by the
seep area to derive groundwater discharge from vents. Seep 4 area was 13 x 7 cm and
assumed to be constant over the study period. The calculated discharges are indicated in
Table 3-2. The data show some variation in discharge rates over time, at times as much
as >100% change between the three deployments. Such changes in discharge rates are
not surprising given the changes in injection rates and hydrological conditions and are
supported by our findings of discharges derived from a radon mass balance reported in
this project's Interim Report (Glenn et al., 2012).
Based on seep vent area measurements. Seep 4 represents 11% of the sum of seep areas in
SSG (838.8 cm2) and 3% of the sum of seep areas in SSG and NSG together (3,265 cm2) as
shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-15. The two seep groups represent 289 identified seeps
(submarine springs) along the coastline. In addition to their identification by divers, we
delineate the two seep clusters based on the radon plume identified during the radon survey
performed in June and September 2011. SSG consists of 106 seeps plus any diffuse
seepage in a 70 x 100 m2 area identified as an isolated radon plume in the surface water,
and NSG consists of 183 seeps plus any diffuse seepage contributing to the 53x60 m large
surface radon plume. For a rough estimate of total discharge from the vents, we assume
that all seeps within SSG and NSG discharge water at the same vertical velocity as Seep 4.
This neglects the fact that vents may have higher or lower vertical water velocities
depending on their size or location with respect to the groundwater plume. The uncertainty
introduced by this assumption cannot be quantified as no other seep discharge was
investigated in a systematic manner. By multiplying total seep areas with the above-
derived vertical fluxes, we arrive at a total vent discharge of 21-76 nrVd and 83-296 nrVd
for SSG (106 seeps) and SSG+NSG (289 seeps), respectively (Table 3-3). Average (June
and September 2011) radon mass-balance derived total groundwater fluxes were 7,550
3 2
m /d at SSG (106 seeps plus any diffuse seepage in a 70 x 100 m area identified as an
isolated radon plume in the surface water) and 2,950 nrVd at NSG (183 seeps plus any
diffuse seepage in a 53x60 m area). These results indicate that total SGD via seeps is only
0.5-1% at the SSG and 2-8% at the NSG of total water discharge and that >90% of
groundwater discharge is via diffuse seepage within the 70 x 100 m area of SSG and 53 x
60 m2 area of NSG (Table 3-4). This result may be biased because only documented seeps
were used and others may exist in the area. Sand may cover cracks and other leakage
points that were not identified as discrete seeps. At NSG we observed that some of the
vents are transient in that they are buried and then uncovered due to shifting sands. Our
estimates may also be conservative because vertical water velocities were only slightly
above instrument resolution and due to sea bottom roughness we could not use a cell
closest to the ocean bottom.
3.3.3 Groundwater-derived nutrient fluxes
Groundwater discharge estimated based on a coastal radon mass-balance and ADCP were
used to estimate groundwater-derived nutrient fluxes to the coastal ocean. We
3-4
-------
determined that a significant amount of groundwater discharges not just at the SSG and
NSG but also at other locations along the coastline. Among these Black Rock,
Honokowai, and Hanakao'o Beaches had significant discharge (Table 3-5). We
measured groundwater nutrient composition at SSG and NSG in seeps and at a spring at
Black Rock that was located in the lagoon. For these locations, nutrient concentrations
were multiplied by groundwater discharge to derive nutrient fluxes to the coastline (Table
3-6). For Honokowai and Hanakao'o, however, groundwater discharge occurs as diffuse
seepage or from an individual spring that could not be located, and so the best estimate of
groundwater nutrient composition was derived from that of higher elevation wells. We
sampled three wells upstream of Honokowai, which were located 4 km from the coastline
(Kaanapali P-4, P-5, P-6; see Tables 6-3 and 6-4 and Figure 6-2 in Glenn et al., 2012) and
one well (Hahakea 2) 2 km upstream of Hanakao'o Beach. These wells captured nutrient
signatures from agricultural activities from pineapple (Kaanapali P-4, P-5, P-6) and
sugarcane (Hahakea 2) cultivation and had relatively elevated nutrient levels (see Figure
6-1, Tables 6-3 and 6-4 in Glenn et al., 2012).
As a simple approach, we consider conservative behavior for nitrogen and phosphorus
species within the aquifer and assume that groundwater composition doesn't change
along its flow path to the coastal zone. For nitrogen, this would be supported by findings
of Green and Young (1970) who found rapid movement of nitrate in soil water and
assumed great mobility of nitrates, the dominant chemical species of nitrogen in
groundwater in the sampled wells. Conservative nitrogen behavior was assumed in other
groundwater discharge studies in West Maui (Street et al., 2008) and Hawaii (Knee et al.,
2008).
Depending on land-use, organic matter content, geology, etc. nutrients may be removed
(dilution and geochemical cycling) and/or added (fertilizer use, cesspools or septic
systems) along the groundwater flow path. Our study (Glenn et al., 2012) showed
significant denitrification in groundwaters exiting SSG and NSG seeps based on a very
heavy 815N signature (see Figure 6-22 in Glenn et al., 2012). But denitrification was only
evaluated at these two locations and these findings cannot be expanded to Honokowai
and Hanakao'o. Coastal S15N values in the Hanakao'o area were high enough to suggest
that denitrification (possibly fueled by input of organic C and NO3" from irrigation with
recycled waste water) is occurring in groundwater entering the ocean as SGD (see Table
6-12 in Glenn et al., 2012). In an earlier study, Tetra Tech (1993) estimated a 4-time
dilution of the nitrate signature in the Honokowai and Hanakao'o area between upstream
agricultural and coastal locations. This estimate was based on a hydrological model and
only assumed dilution of the nutrient content by ambient groundwater. Any additions of
nutrients near the coastal areas were neglected. This same study assumed that soluble
reactive phosphorus (SRP) is immobile and estimated negligible phosphorus flux to the
coastal zone via groundwater discharge. Our measurements at the seeps and Black Rock
spring, as well as other locations around Hawaii (Johnson et al., 2008) indicate significant
SRP discharges that require that phosphorus be at least partially mobile in these aquifers.
Table 3-6 therefore represents nutrient fluxes that assume conservative nutrient behavior
in Honokowai and Hanakao'o aquifers in the absence of better understanding of N and P
3-5
-------
cycling in the aquifers of West Maui. As a result of large volumetric groundwater
discharge and elevated nutrient levels in wells, dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen
(DIN and DON) fluxes are largest at Hanakao'o Beach (2.9 kmol/d or 41,440 g/d of N as
DIN, and 1.7 kmol/d or 23,700 g/d of N as DON). The second largest DIN flux along
this coastline is from Honokowai (1.9 kmol/d or 27,500 g/d of N) and DON flux at SSG
(up to 650 mol/d or 9,500 g/d of N). At Hanakao'o and Honokowai groundwater
discharges are 1,200 and 300 m in length, while at the seep clusters the discharge
locations are only 50 and 100 m long. When discharge per meter shoreline is considered,
SSG and NSG DON fluxes in September 2011 are far above fluxes at any other discharge
location with 6.5 and 4.9 mol/m/d or 91 and 69 g/m/d of N as DON, respectively (Table
3-6). Dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) fluxes are the largest at Hanakao'o and SSG
(201 and 73-84 mol/d or 6,225 and 2,260-2,600 g/d of P as DIP). NSG and SSG DIP and
DOP fluxes are largest when discharge per meter coastline is considered (485-598 and
735-844 mmol/m/d or 15.0-18.5 and 22.7-26 g/m/d of P as DIP, and 90 and 110
mmol/m/d or 2.8-3.4 g/m/d of P as DOP). For a lower-limit estimate, nutrient fluxes for
Honokowai and Hanakao'o reported in Table 3-6 can be divided by four (Tetra Tech,
1993). This estimate is based on a hydrological model and only assumes dilution of the
nutrient content by ambient groundwater. No biogeochemical transformations and
additions of nutrients near the coastal areas were assumed. Under the lower-limit
scenario of 4-fold nutrient dilution at Hanakao'o and Honokowai Beaches, DIN flux at
SSG and NSG is comparable to other locations and DIP fluxes are significantly higher
than at any other location.
Groundwater discharge and seep nutrient fluxes derived here compare well with previous
findings of Swarzenski et al. (2012) who found an average groundwater discharge for the
seep site (NSG+SSG) of 55 m3/m/d or 0.015 mgd/m and nutrient fluxes of 2,200
mmol/m/d or 31 g/m/d of N as DIN, 540 mmol/m/d or 7.6 g/m/d of N as DON and 700
mmol/m/d or 22 m/g/d of P as DIP in July 2010.
The seeps at SSG and NSG have 100 times higher SRP concentration than ambient ocean
levels and represent a significant phosphorus source to the coastline (Table 3-6). Indeed,
nutrient concentrations in coastal nearshore marine samples in all these regions affected
by groundwater discharge are above offshore oligotrophic surface central Pacific Ocean
concentrations (Table 3-7 and Figure 3-6). While coastal DON and DOP levels are
comparable or only slightly elevated above offshore values, DIN is as much as 10 times
higher and DIP is 8 times higher in coastal surface water.
Another groundwater signature that may have a potential effect on coastal ecosystems is
the N:P ratio of nutrients in discharging groundwater. These range from the low 1-2 in
the seep groups to as high as 63 at Honokowai for the inorganic nutrient species and 2-3
in seeps and 75 at Honokowai for organic nutrient species (Table 3-5). Coastal surface
water nutrient ratios are comparable to values observed in offshore waters except at
Black Point where DIN:DIP is 17, and at SSG and NSG where this ratio is only 2 (Table
3-7).
3-6
-------
3.4 SUMMARY
We used a HR Aquadopp Profiler to measure vertical velocities of water discharging
from Seep 4 within SSG. Our objective was to quantify groundwater discharge and
evaluate its temporal variability. We found that discharge varies throughout the tidal
cycle and between tidal cycles. We observed a >100% variation in discharge between
three deployment periods in October and November 2012. We used Seep 4
measurements to upscale to seep fluxes within SSG and NSG, which resulted in 21-86
nrVd and 83-336 nrVd for SSG and SSG+NSG, respectively. These measured seep fluxes
were then compared to total SGD determined in June and September 2011. Seep
discharge as measured by the HR Aquadopp Profiler only represented <8% of total SGD
determined by Rn methodologies at these two seep clusters. Based on these findings we
can conclude that the two seep groups consist of porous geology that allows groundwater
to be discharged through discrete vents and other openings that may or may not be
covered by sand or rock. We called the latter diffuse seepage as vents could not be
identified, but we also note that the vents themselves are transient in nature and may
disappear and reappear due to sand migration. The major discharge areas are confined to
two clusters, only several meters wide, with very little discharge in between and around
them.
We found that groundwater discharge is responsible for significant nutrient fluxes to the
coastal ocean. Fluxes of dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen (DIN and DON) are
the largest at Hanakao'o Beach (DIN: 2.9 kmol/d or 41,440 g/d of N and DON: 1.7
kmol/d or 23,700 g/d of N). The second largest DIN flux along this coastline is from
Honokowai (1.9 kmol/d or 27,500 g/d of N) and DON flux at SSG (up to 650 mol/d or
9,100 g/d of N). At Hanakao'o and Honokowai groundwater discharges are 1,200 m and
300 m long, while at the seep clusters the discharge locations are only 50-100 m long.
SSG and NSG alone represent the largest sources of DON, dissolved inorganic and
organic phosphorus (DIP and DOP) per meter coastline amongst all identified sources.
The two seep groups are responsible for fluxes of 100-218 mol/d or 1,400-3,053 g/d of N
as DIN, 120-910 mol/d or 1,670-12,750 g ofN as DON, 99-116 mol/d or 3,070-3,600 g/d
of P as DIP, and 16 mol/d or 485 g/d of P as DOP. These inputs impact coastal water
quality and result in elevated nutrient concentrations. At SSG and NSG coastal seawater
DIN ranges are 0.38-0.81 jjM or 5.3-11.3 |j,g/L of N as opposed to offshore levels
(ambient oligotrophic surface central Pacific Ocean at Station Aloha, data from Karl et
al., 2001) of <0.1 |jM or <1.4 |j,g/L of N. DON ranges are 4.8-12.7 (jM or 67-178 |j,g/L of
N as opposed to 4.5-6 |jM or 63-84 |j,g/L of N offshore. DIP ranges from 0.16-0.44 (jM
or 5.0-13.6 ng/L of P in comparison to <0.1 |jM or <3.0 ng/L of P offshore. The DOP
concentration range of 0.21-0.27 (jM or 6.5-8.4 |j,g/L of P is comparable to offshore
levels (Karl et al., 2001). SSG and NSG are not the only location with elevated nutrients,
however. For comparison, Hanakao'o Beach coastal ocean DIN concentrations (7.7 |jM
or 108 |j,g/L of N) are 10-times and DIP levels (0.84 (jM or 26 |j,g/L of P) are 2-times
higher than at the seep clusters. These elevated nutrient levels may be a result of less
intense coastal mixing, lower biotic nutrient uptake, and/or larger nutrient fluxes. In
comparison to other studied locations along the coastline, SSG and NSG seep sites had
3-7
-------
the lowest observed TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios in groundwater (2-8 and 1-2) and also in
coastal ocean water (15-20 and 2).
The SSG and NSG seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites studied in
West Maui in the magnitude of DON, DOP and DIP fluxes per meter shoreline, and their
low TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios. The N:P ratios show that the seeps are enriched in P
relative to N when compared to other SGD sites (and to the Redfield ratio of 16:1).
We note that earlier studies identified surface runoff as an important coastal nutrient
source (TetraTech, 1993). Our study did not quantify these inputs.
3-8
-------
Table 3-1. HR Aquadopp Profiler deployment configuration.
Measurement/burst interval
1 sec
Cell size
30 mm
Orientation
DOWNLOOKING
Distance to bottom
1.00 m
Extended velocity range
OFF
Profile range
0.66 m
Horizontal velocity range
0.55 m/s
Vertical velocity range
0.23 m/s
Number of cells
22
Average interval
1 sec
Blanking distance
0.396 m
Table 3-2. Vertical velocities at Seep 4.
Vertical water velocities per tidal periods at Seep 4 covering the October 1-2, and 17-19,
and November 1-3, 2012 HR Aquadopp deployments. Assuming a 13 x 7 cm opening
for Seep 4 the velocities are converted to seep discharge (m3/d).
Tidal period
Sum of
velocities
(m/tidal period)
Average
velocity
(m/s)
Duration
of tidal
period (d)
Velocity
(m/d)
Discharge
(m3/d)
10/1 13:03-10/2 13:06
754
0.0092
1.00*
753
6.9
10/17 11:34-10/18 13:33
271
0.0031
1.08
256
2.3
10/17 15:53-10/18 17:05
363
0.0042
1.05
346
3.1
10/17 22:19-10/18 22:51
502
0.0057
1.02
492
4.5
10/18 05:59-10/19 06:38
557
0.0063
1.03
543
4.9
11/2 12:14-11/3 12:05
901
0.0113
0.99*
907
8.3
*Denote velocities that represent only 24 hours and not an entire 24.8-h tidal cycle
3-9
-------
Table 3-3. Calculated groundwater discharge.
Calculated groundwater discharge for Seep 4, SSG, NSG, and all seeps at SSG+NSG.
These were derived based on vent areas within each vent cluster. Also expressed are %
seep discharge of total submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) at SSG and NSG,
respectively. These were derived based on radon mass-balance derived total SGD
reported in Glenn et al. (2012).
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
% total
% total
Seep 4
SSG
NSG
All seeps
SGD at
SGD at
Tidal period
(m3/d)
(m3/d)
(m3/d)
(m3/d)
SSG
NSG
10/1 13:03-10/2 13:06
6.9
63
183
246
0.8
6.2
10/17 11:34-10/18 13:33
2.3
21
62
83
0.3
2.1
10/17 15:53-10/18 17:05
3.1
29
84
113
0.4
2.8
10/17 22:19-10/18 22:51
4.5
41
119
161
0.5
4.0
10/18 05:59-10/19 06:38
4.9
46
132
177
0.6
4.5
11/2 12:14-11/3 12:05
8.3
76
220
296
1.0
7.5
Table 3-4. Groundwater discharge characteristics at SSG and NSG determined using the
time-series radon mass balance in June and September 2011 and as based on ADCP
measurements at Seep 4 within SSG in October and November 2012.
Rn time-series model derived
ADCP derived discharge (m3/d)
Discharge (m3/d)
Seep vents only
Total
Fresh
Total seep
Fresh seep
NSG
2,5001-3,4002
1,500^3,1002
62-2203
55-1944
SSG
T ... , • , ,
s^oo^^oo2
4,6001-7,8002
21-763
19-694
2Measured in September 2011.
3Measured Oct 11-12, 17-19, Nov 2-3, 2012.
4SSG salinity = 3 at Seeps 3, 4, 5, 11; NSG salinity = 4 at Seeps 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, and 21.
3-10
-------
Table 3-5a. Radon mass-balance derived groundwater discharge at locations identified as groundwater discharge sites along the
Kaanapali coastline.
Radon mass-balance derived groundwater discharge at locations identified as groundwater discharge sites along the Kaanapali
coastline during the radon survey in June and September 2011. Corresponding groundwater (GW) nutrient concentrations and N:P
ratios in seeps, springs, and groundwater wells are indicated in units of |j,mol/L. For springs and wells we list averages from June and
September 2011 samplings, which resulted in reproducible nutrient concentrations with standard deviation of the averages between 5
and 35%. For NSG and SSG June and September averages are listed separately as an observed range due to large changes in dissolved
inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) concentrations. DIN is a sum of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium. DON
is calculated as total dissolved nitrogen less DIN. Dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) is orthophosphate. Dissolved organic
phosphorus (DOP)
is calculated as total soluble phosphorus minus D
[P.
Site Name
Total GW
Discharge
(m3/d)
Fresh GW
Discharge
(m3/d)
Salinity
of GW
DIN of
GW
(ixmol/L)
DON of
GW
(ixmol/L)
DIP of
GW
(|a,mol/L)
DOP of
GW
(|a,mol/L)
TN:TP
DIN:DIP
DON:DOP
Black Rock1
2,250
2,130
1.87
234.2
64.4
4.5
3.1
39
52
20
SSG
6,300
4,950
7.46
12.8-28.6
14.6-103
11.7-13.4
1.7
3-8
1-2
8-60
NSG
2,500
1,600
12.64
8.1-15.1
11.1-104
10.3-12.7
1.9
2-8
1
6-55
S. Honokowai2
7,100
0.44
131
23
2.1
0.3
65
63
75
N. Honokowai2
7,900
0.44
131
23
2.1
0.3
65
63
75
Hanakao'o Beach3
28,000
0.37
106
60
7.2
1.9
18
15
32
Nutrient concentrations given as an average of three measured values in Kaanapali 1 and Kaanapali 2 springs in June and September 2011, standard deviation
for all averages are 6-20%.
2Nutrient concentrations given as an average of four measured values in Kaanapali P5 and Kaanapali P6 wells in June and September 2011, standard deviation
for all averages are 20-35%.
3Nutrient concentrations given as an average of two measured values in Hahakea 2 well in June and September 2011, standard deviation for all averages are 5-
20%.
For well and spring locations refer to Glenn et al., 2012: Figure 6-2 and 6-3.
3-11
-------
Table 3-5b. Groundwater discharge in million gallons per day (mgd) and nutrient concentrations expressed as micrograms per liter
(l-ig/L)-
Site Name
Total GW
Fresh GW
Salinity
DIN of
DON of
DIP of
DOP of
TN:TP
DIN:DIP
DON:DOP
Discharge
Discharge
of GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
(mgd)
(mgd)
(Hg/L N)
(Hg/L N)
(Hg/L P)
(|j.g/L P)
Black Rock1
0.59
0.56
1.87
3,281
902
141
97
39
52
20
SSG
1.66
1.31
7.46
179-401
204-1,445
361-415
53-54
3-8
1-2
8-60
NSG
0.66
0.42
12.64
113-211
156-1,460
319-393
58
2-8
1
6-55
S. Honokowai2
1.88
0.44
1,841
323
64
10
65
63
75
N. Honokowai2
2.09
0.44
1,841
323
64
10
65
63
75
Hanakao'o Beach3
7.40
0.37
1,480
846
222
58
18
15
32
3-12
-------
Table 3-6a. Radon mass-balance derived groundwater fluxes and groundwater discharge per meter shoreline.
Radon mass-balance derived groundwater fluxes and groundwater discharge per meter shoreline at locations identified as groundwater
discharge sites during the radon survey in June and September 2011. Nutrient fluxes estimated from the seeps (SSG and NSG) and
coastal springs (Black Rock) represent best estimates, as we were able to measure the nutrient enrichment in groundwater at the point
of discharge. At other sites (Honokowai and Hanakao'o) where discharge occurs as diffuse seepage or from an individual spring that
cannot be located. Because it is impossible to sample groundwater at the sediment-water interface, we sampled upstream of these
coastal locations in wells used as a groundwater end-member. This is done with the assumption that the groundwater nutrient signature
is preserved over its flow path to the coastal zone. Depending on land-use, organic matter content, geology, etc. this assumption may
not be correct.
Total GW
Total GW
DIN
DON
DIP
DOP
Discharge
Discharge
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
DIN Flux
DON Flux
DIP Flux
DOP Flux
Site Name
(m3/d)
(m3/m/d)
(mol/d)
(mol/d)
(mol/d)
(mol/d)
(mmol/m/d)
(mmol/m/d)
(mmol/m/d)
(mmol/m/d)
Black Rock1
2,250
6
527
145
10
7.0
1,424
392
28
12
SSG
6,300
63
80-180
92-650
73-84
11
804-1,802
917-6,498
735-844
110
NSG
2,500
47
20-38
28-260
26-32
5.0
380-711
524-4,914
485-598
90
SSG+NSG*
55
2,200
540
700
S. Honokowai2
7,100
65
933
164
15
2.2
8,481
1,487
134
20
N. Honokowai2
7,900
46
1,038
182
16
2.4
6,106
1,071
97
14
Hanakao'o
28,000
23
Beach3
2,958
1,692
201
52
2,465
1,410
168
44
Fluxes calculated based on an average of three measured nutrient values in Kaanapali 1 and Kaanapali 2 springs in June and September 2011, standard deviation
for all nutrient averages are 6-20%.
2Fluxes calculated based on an average of four measured nutrient values in Kaanapali P5 and Kaanapali P6 wells in June and September 2011, standard deviation
for all nutrient averages are 20-35%.
3Fluxes calculated based on an average of two measured nutrient values measured in Hahakea 2 well in June and September 2011, standard deviation for all
nutrient averages are 5-20%.
For well and spring locations refer to Figure 6-2 and 6-3 in Glenn et al., 2012.
*Estimate from Swarzenski et al., 2012 as combined SSG+NSG nutrient loading per meter coastline.
3-13
-------
Table 3-6b: Groundwater discharge in million gallons per day per meter shoreline (mgd/m) and nutrient concentrations expressed as
gram per meter per day (g/m/d).
Site Name
Total GW
Discharge
(mgd/m)
Total GW
Discharge
(mgd/m)
DIN Flux
(g/d N)
DON Flux
(g/d N)
DIP Flux
(g/dP)
DOP
Flux
(g/d P)
DIN Flux
(g/m/d N)
DON
Flux
(g/m/d N)
DIP Flux
(g/m/d P)
DOP Flux
(g/m/d P)
Black Rock1
0.59
0.0016
7,381
2,030
316
219
19.9
0.39
1.4
0.59
SSG
1.66
0.017
1,126-
2,524
1,285-
9,104
2,276-
2,613
340
11.3-25.2
0.9-6.5
22.7-26.1
3.3-3.4
NSG
0.66
0.012
282-528
389-3,649
797-982
145
5.3-9.9
7.3-69
15-19
2.7
SSG+NSG*
0.015
31
7.6
22
S. Honokowai2
1.88
0.017
13,070
2,292
457
68
119
21
4.2
0.62
N. Honokowai2
2.09
0.012
14,543
2,550
508
76
86
15
3.0
0.45
Hanakao'o
Beach3
7.40
0.006
41,437
23,701
6,229
1,617
35
20
5.2
1.3
*Estimate from Swarzenski et al., 2012 as combined SSG+NSG nutrient loading per meter coastline.
3-14
-------
Table 3-7a. Nearshore coastal surface water (SW) nutrient concentration ranges in waters affected by groundwater discharge.
Site Name
Total GW
DIN of
DON of
DIP of
DOP of
TN:TP
DINrDIP
DONrDOP
Discharge
SW
SW
SW
SW
(m3/d)
(Hmol/L)
(|j,mol/L)
(Hmol/L)
(fjmol/L)
Black Rock
2,250
0.6-11
5.3-13
0.1-0.3
0.26-0.32
27
17
30
SSG
6,300
0.46-0.81
5.6-10.8
0.20-0.44
0.21-0.27
15
2
36
NSG
2,500
0.38-0.57
4.8-12.7
0.16-0.28
0.24-0.27
20
2
33
S. Honokowai
7,100
0.5-1.2
4-9.3
0.12-0.15
0.23-0.27
19
6
26
N. Honokowai
7,900
0.35-0.7
5.3-12.3
0.08-0.13
0.26-0.33
23
4
32
Hanakao'o Beach
28,000
1.1-7.7
4.5-17.6
0.12-0.84
0.24-0.28
23
9
40
Offshore surface Pacific
(Karl et al., 2001)
0.001-0.1
4.5-6
0.01-0.1
0.15-0.25
15-25
<5
15-30
Table 3-7b. Groundwater discharge in million gallons per day (mgd) and nutrient concentrations expressed as micrograms per liter (|J,g/L).
Site Name
Total GW
DIN of
DON of
DIP of
DOP of
TN:TP
DINrDIP
DONrDOP
Discharge
SW
SW
SW
SW
(mgd)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
Black Rock
0.59
8.4-154
74-182
3.0-9.3
8.1-9.9
27
17
30
SSG
1.66
6.4-11
78-151
6.2-14
6.5-8.4
15
2
36
NSG
0.66
5.3-8.0
67-178
5.0-8.7
7.4-8.4
20
2
33
S. Honokowai
1.88
7.0-17
56-130
3.7-4.6
7.1-8.4
19
6
26
N. Honokowai
2.09
4.9-9.8
74-172
2.5-4.0
8.1-10
23
4
32
Hanakao'o Beach
7.40
15-108
63-247
3.7-26
7.4-8.7
23
9
40
Offshore surface Pacific
(Karl et al., 2001)
0.014-1.4
63-84
0.31-3.1
4.6-7.7
15-25
<5
15-30
3-15
-------
Tee connecting plate
\
fiberglass
bolts u-channel
w
— bolts
aluminum square tube 1
hose clamps
J
hose clamps
^ 80-lb
chain link
Figure 3-1: Mounting arrangement for the down looking HR Aquadopp profiler. Down-
looking HR Aquadopp profiler deployment for seep vertical velocity measurements (sketch
by J. Sevadjan).
The profiler is mounted on the horizontal arm head downward at 1 m above the sea floor.
period (s)
00 100
1 1 1
1
10
I 1
ll
Figure 3-2: ADCP vertical velocity spectral analysis graph. Spectral analysis of vertical
velocities from the Oct. 17-19, 2012 deployment.
The two peaks in the vertical velocity spectra are at periods T ~ 10-13 s and 18-21 s, likely
due to a combination of shorter- and longer-period surface swell.
3-16
-------
17- 19 Oct 2012
Figure 3-3: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over tidal intervals.
Tidal stage measured by the HR Aquadopp Profiler with demarcated low and high tide
periods.
Calculated averages and sums of vertical water velocities over the respective time periods are
indicated at each interval.
17- 19 Oct 2012
Figure 3-4: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over demarcated
interval. Tidal stage measured by the HR Aquadopp Profiler with demarcated full tidal period
between two higher-low tides.
Calculated average and sum of vertical water velocities represent the whole demarcated
interval.
3-17
-------
17- 19 Oct 2012
2.6 1 1 1 1 1
2.4-
2.2-
_ 2-
f 1"£
(O avg = 0.0063 m s~1
0) i JJlfll^HIlil JHt sum = 557.3 ms'
Q_
1.4
1.2-
1
°'6 14:00 20:00 02:00 08:00 14:00 20:00 02:00 08:00
Figure 3-5: Tidal stage and ADCP measured vertical velocities averaged over period between
higher tides.
Tidal stage measured by the HR Aquadopp Profiler with demarcated full tidal period
between two higher-high tides. Calculated average and sum of vertical water velocities
represent the whole demarcated interval.
3-18
-------
Figure 3-6: Groundwater and surface water nitrogen concentrations (|ig/L), Groundwater
(averages from June and September 2011) and surface sea water nitrogen concentrations in
the Kaanapali coastal region.
The bars indicate groundwater dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen (DIN and DON)
concentrations and red numbers stand for average DIN values. The injected water at LWRF
has its average DIN value in green. Coastal surface water samples are indicated by filled
circles with DIN concentrations in black letters. Also plotted is coastal radon where red
circles indicate elevated radon and large groundwater discharge (see Table 3-5). The figure
suggests that coastal nitrogen is elevated where higher radon values indicate groundwater
inputs to the coastal ocean.
3-19
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
3-20
-------
SECTION 4: FLUORESCENT DYE
GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY
4.1 Introduction
This section describes the results of this project's fluorescent dye tracer test at the site of
the underground injection of treated wastewater at the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation
Facility (LWRF), north of the town of Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii (Figure 4-1). At the
LWRF, the treated wastewater is injected into four wells, designated Injection Wells 1
through Well 4. The fluorescent dye tracer test provided critical data about the
hydrological connection between the treated wastewater effluent injected and coastal
waters, confirming the locations where the injected treated wastewater effluent
discharges into the coastal waters, and determining a transit time of the treated
wastewater from the injection wells to the coastal waters. Fluorescent dye was added to
the effluent prior to injection followed by a robust surveillance program to monitor the
dye arrival to the nearshore marine environment. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the
LWRF, the injection wells, and the submarine springs (seeps) where the dye was
monitored. Two tracer tests were conducted using fluorescent dyes. In the first tracer
test, fluorescein (FLT) was added to Injection Wells 3 and 4. This was followed two
weeks later by an addition of sulpho-rhodamine-B (SRB) into Injection Well 2, which has
a significantly higher injection capacity than the other three wells. The second tracer test
was designed to investigate whether the effluent from Well 2 discharged into the marine
environment at the same location as that of Wells 3 and 4.
The only confirmed detection by the tracer dye-monitoring program has been FLT. This
dye's first arrival occurred about three months following its addition to the LWRF's
effluent stream. The concentration of this dye at the submarine springs peaked 9 to 10
months following the initiation of the tracer test. There was no confirmed detection of
SRB, although low-level elevated fluorescence in the SRB wavelength range was
observed in four samples collected in February 2012 and December 2012. These samples
showed SRB fluorescence slightly above the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.05 ppb
and wavelength spectra consistent with SRB. The reason for the lack of definitive
detection of SRB at the submarine springs remains inconclusive. As discussed below,
factors such as dye degradation, sorption onto the aquifer matrix, or plume displacement
by the discharge from Well 3 and Well 4 could account for the failure of this dye to reach
the monitored submarine springs. One process of SRB degradation is deaminoalkylation
(Kass, 1988) that causes the original SRB fluorescence to shift to a shorter wavelength.
Evaluating samples for deaminoalkylated SRB (DA-SRB) was done in this study by
performing fluorescent wavelength scans of nearly 100 samples. No samples had
characteristics consistent with the deaminoalkylation of SRB.
4-1
-------
4.1.1 Tracer Dye Selection
Many techniques exist for tracking the movement of groundwater using introduced or
natural tracers. As specified by Stanley et al. (1980), an ideal tracer should be non-toxic,
chemically stable over the duration of the tracer test, and detectable at very low
concentrations. In addition, the tracer should move with the flow of groundwater and not
be removed by natural filtration. Finally, and most importantly, it should not be naturally
present in concentrations that would make it difficult to discriminate the added dye from
the natural occurrence of the tracer.
There is no ideal tracer, but suitable candidates include ionic salts (Wood and Dykes,
2002; Levy and Chamber, 1987; Olsen and Tenbus, 2004), fluorescent dyes (Smart and
Laidlaw, 1977; Chua et al., 2007; Flury and Wai, 2003; Sabatini, 2000), dissolved gases
(Malcolm et al., 1980; Wilson and McKay, 1993), radionuclides (Section 3 of this
report), and spores and bacteria (Davis et al., 1980; Harvey, 1997). Ionic salts are
attractive because they can be detected in low concentrations with ion specific probes.
The most widely used are chloride and bromide salts. In this study, interference from
marine salts was a problem due to the existence of seawater chloride. The bromide ion is
present in Hawaii groundwaters at concentrations of 0.06 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to
0.8 mg/L (Hunt, 2004) making this an attractive secondary tracer. However, in this
study, the tracer was monitored at submarine springs where a mixture of freshwater and
re-circulated seawater was discharging. The seawater dissolved bromide-concentration
measured by this study in September, 2011 varied from 9.1 to 14 mg/L and that measured
at the submarine springs varied from 0.83 to 1.4 mg/L. The high tracer concentration
required to overcome the interference from seawater bromide made this option too
expensive. The presences of dissolved gas tracers can be monitored on-site and in low
concentrations (Davis et al., 1980), but the equipment is bulky and expensive.
Radionuclides have safety and regulatory issues, while the special techniques needed to
analyze for spores and bacteria are not field friendly.
The tracer of choice for many studies is fluorescent dyes. They are non-toxic (Field et
al., 1995), detectable at parts per trillion concentrations with a fluorometer, many are
stable, and tend to remain in solution rather than sorbing to the aquifer matrix or onto
suspended particulate matter. For these reasons the yellow-green dye FLT and the
orange-red dye rhodamine WT (RWT) are the most widely used of this class of tracers.
The tracer dyes considered for this study were FLT, RWT, and SRB. FLT was selected
as for this study because it has strong fluorescence, is economical, is stable in
groundwater with little sorption or decay, and is compatible with existing equipment at
UH. A second dye was needed that could be distinguished from FLT if the two dyes
were in the same sample. The rhodamine dyes have an excitation/emission wavelength
couple that is significantly longer than that of FLT reducing or eliminating and analytical
interference. SRB was chosen over RWT for this study because RWT occurs as two
isomers with differing sorption characteristics (Sutton et al., 2001). As the transit time of
RWT increases the two isomers would tend to separate in the flow path resulting in
confusion when analyzing the breakthrough curve. Both FLT and SRB can be analyzed
with existing equipment at the Hawaii Department of Health laboratory.
4-2
-------
FLT was chosen as the primary tracer dye for tracing the primary wastewater effluent
injections in Wells 3 and 4. FLT is a yellow-green dye that has been used in tracer
studies since the end of the 19th century (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977). FLT is non-toxic to
humans and the environment at concentration ranges used in tracer tests (1 to 2 mg/L)
(Field et al., 1995). This dye has the advantage of being relatively economical and
widely available. A disadvantage for this study is that some constituents in wastewater
have fluorescence characteristics that may be similar to that of the tracer.
During fluorescence analysis, a dye is bombarded with light energy of a specific
wavelength (the excitation wavelength - "ex"), and the energy state of the dye molecule
is elevated. The dye then emits light of another wavelength (the emission wavelength -
"em") (Brown, 2009; Guilbault, 1990). Literature reviews showed that the most common
values for ex/em couples for fluorescein were 490/520 nm (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977;
Kasnavia et al., 1999; Sabatini, 2000). In water, Kass (1998) lists the ex/em wavelength
couple for FLT as 491/512. Other constituents in water, and particularly wastewater,
emit light energy at similar wavelengths. Galapate et al. (1998) found fluorescence peaks
at 524 nm for gray water and 531 nm for sewage effluent close to that of FLT. These
findings necessitated a thorough background fluorescence investigation and resulted in
this study using tracer dyes at concentrations high enough to overcome such interference
problems. In addition, FLT is unstable when exposed to artificial or natural light; a
process that alleviates problems with dye coloring the nearshore waters, but necessitates
the collection of samples in dark colored or opaque bottles. Because the travel path for
the tracer test is underground, no photodegradation occurred prior to sample collection.
Fluorescence of FLT also decreases at pH values less than 6.5 (Smart and Laidlaw,
1977). The pH of the effluent sampled in this study varied from 6.5 to 7.1, while the pH
of the samples collected at the submarine springs varied from 7.2 to 7.9 (see Section 2).
Hence, for this study, the pH of the water sampled does not adversely affect the
fluorescence of FLT.
SRB is a red dye that is commonly used in wastewater investigations. Literature lists
various ex/em couples for SRB. For example, Smart and Laidlaw (1977) list values
565/590, Nikon
(http://www.microscopvu.com/articles/fluorescence/filtercubes/green/greenhome.htmn
and Kass (1998) list values of 565/586 and 560/584 nm, respectively. These are
significantly longer than that of wastewater effluent reducing interference. It is stable in
waters with a pH higher than 5 (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977). SRB was selected over RWT
because RWT occurs in two isomers with differing sorption characteristics (Sutton et al.,
2001). As the transit time of the tracer dye increases, there would be a separation of the
two isomers resulting in double-peaked breakthrough curves with added difficulties for
interpretation. Due to the good separation in the wavelength spectrum between FLT and
SRB, SRB is recommended as a secondary tracer when FLT is used as primary tracer
(Kass 1998).
4-3
-------
4.1.2 Preliminary Planning
The preliminary planning for the tracer test sought to accomplish four goals: (1) estimate
a minimum dye concentration that could be reliably detected at the submarine springs; (2)
estimate the amount of dilution of the tracer that would be expected between the point of
addition at the injection wells and the point of sampling at the submarine springs; (3)
estimate the time of first arrival at the submarine springs; and (4) develop a dye addition
schedule to ensure that the dye plume is of sufficient temporal length, thereby not
missing the tracer if the time to first arrival is short. The first goal was accomplished by
testing the natural fluorescence in the FLT wavelength of different waters. This was only
done for FLT because the literature search indicated that the fluorescence interference
between this dye and wastewater was much greater than that for SRB. The second and
third goals were accomplished using a groundwater flow and transport model.
The potential interference between FLT and the effluent raised significant concern during
the development of the project's Work Plan. To investigate this possible problem, the
fluorescence of treated wastewater, natural groundwater, municipal tap water, and coastal
seawater was measured using a Turner Designs 10AU Fluorometer with the FLT optics
package installed. The treated wastewater was collected from the LWRF, while natural
groundwater was collected from the Waipahu III Wells in Waipio, Oahu, Hawaii.
Seawater was collected from an exposed section of the coastline located on southwest
Oahu, Hawaii. The treated wastewater was filtered with a coffee filter to remove the
majority of the suspended solids, and then its fluorescence was measured. As shown in
Figure 4-2, the fluorescence (in raw fluorescence values) of tap water, groundwater, and
seawater were very low and nearly identical. The treated wastewater fluorescence was
nearly identical to that of a 1 ppb FLT standard. The fluorescence of the 10 ppb FLT
standard, however, was an order of magnitude greater than the treated wastewater.
The minimum concentration of a dye that can reliably detected by a fluorometer depends
on the fluorescence of the dye, the background fluorescence of the water in which the dye
is added, and the variability of the background fluorescence. Our initial background
fluorescence assessment (Figure 4-2) did not account for the variability of the
background fluorescence because only a single wastewater sample was evaluated. Thus,
for the tracer test planning, a worst-case detection limit equal to the natural 1 ppb
fluorescence of the LWRF treated wastewater was assumed. If there was no fluorescence
loss in the wastewater from the time of injection to the time of submarine spring
discharge, samples collected at the submarine springs could possess FLT range
fluorescence equivalent to 1 ppb of this dye. Mixing with natural groundwater could
reduce the fluorescence and result in significant variability. This means that if the natural
FLT wavelength fluorescence measured at the submarine springs varied significantly
around the 1 ppb fluorescence of the wastewater and, based on the evidence available
during the planning phase, it could take up to 1 ppb of fluorescence from FLT to be
reliably detected.
A groundwater flow and transport model was used to evaluate the dilution of the tracer
dye due to dispersion as it traveled from the injection wells to the submarine springs as
4-4
-------
well as to estimate the time to first arrival. This section provides a description of the
model and the results that pertain to the planning of the tracer test. Details of the
application of this model can be found in Section 5. Figure 4-3 shows the Tracer Test
Design Model (TTDM) breakthrough curves for the North Seep Group (NSG) and the
South Seep Group (SSG) depicted in Figure 4-1. The results from this model indicated
that by the time the tracer plume reached the NSG monitoring point, the dye
concentration will have decreased by about three orders of magnitude. It further showed
that approximately 108 days would elapse before the dye concentration would be high
enough to be discernible from the background fluorescence (based on a detection limit of
1 ppb). This model indicated that only a small concentration of dye would be detected at
the SSG, a result that proved to be inaccurate. However, the TTDM did meet the primary
goals the tracer test preliminary design by estimating that a three order of magnitude dye
dilution needed to be accounted for, that it would take about three months for the dye to
emerge at the submarine springs, and the breakthrough curve (BTC) would take years to
fully develop.
Although the TTDM predicted a time to first arrival of about three months, much shorter
times to first arrival were not discounted during the tracer test planning. Tetra Tech
(1993) developed a groundwater model that indicated the transit time of the effluent to
the shoreline as short as ten days if there were a preferential pathway such as a lava tube.
Thus, a broad range of times to first arrival were accounted for by using a front-end
loaded monitoring program. Daily sampling began three weeks prior to the first dye
addition to characterize the background fluorescence at the study site. Upon addition of
the first dye into Injection Wells 3 and 4, the frequency to sample all locations was
increased to twice a day, and this pace continued for four weeks after the second dye
addition. An additional sample was collected from one of the submarine springs each
night until a week after the second dye addition. Daily sampling occurred at the
submarine springs between five and eight weeks after the second dye addition. The
frequency was decreased with the increase of time following the dye addition. During
the final month of the field sampling (December 2012), samples were only collected
twice a month from the submarine springs. Section 2.2.2 details the field-sampling
program. It is important to point out that this front-end loading sampling approach
ensured that any dye discharge resulting from fast-preferential flow path would not be
missed by this study.
4.2 The Injection Wells 3 and 4 Tracer Test
The first dye addition was into the south well group (Injection Wells 3 and 4) using FLT
(see Figure 4-4 for a line diagram of the LWRF system) on July 28, 2011. The target dye
concentration in the effluent was approximately 12,500 ppb based on an assumed
injection rate of 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) into this well group. The dye was
received from the vendor in a powder form that was 77% active ingredient by weight.
The dye was mixed on site in a utility shed by using ten pounds (lbs) of powder (one-half
of a 20 lb bucket) and a sufficient amount of water to make 50 gallons (gal.) of dye
solution. The strength of this concentrate was 1.8% active ingredient by weight. The
powder was dissolved into the water using a heavy-duty paint/mortar mixer with a helical
4-5
-------
mixing paddle (Figure 4-5). The shaft length was extended from 15 inches to 36 inches
for use in the 55-gallon plastic drum. The mixing was done into two drums at a time so
the entire contents of one powder bucket could be used during a single mixing iteration.
Once mixed, the concentrate was transferred to 5 gal. pails using a small utility pump
(Figure 4-6). The pails had screw-on lids with a sealing gasket to prevent spillage. The
pails were then delivered from the mixing site to the injection wells via pickup truck.
The dye was added to the injection wells through a port on the top flange of the well
casing using a small submersible fountain pump (Figure 4-7). When the level in the
bucket got below the suction of the fountain pump, the remaining dye concentrate was
directly poured into the well port (Figure 4-8). A dose of dye was added every 15
minutes at an appropriate rate to sustain the target concentration of 12,500 ppb. Dye
addition started at 07:00 on July 28th 2011 and continued uninterrupted until 02:00 on
July 29th 2011 (Figures 4-9 and 4-10).
Two hundred and sixty-two lbs of active ingredient, or 340 lbs of total FLT powder
weight, were procured for this event. The actual weight of dye added was slightly less
than this amount due to minor spillage. At the planned mixing rate, this weight of
powder should produce 1,700 gal. concentrate, which represents 34 drums and 340
buckets of liquid, with expected measurement error. Based on records kept at the wells, a
total of 1,670 gal. concentrate was added to the wells. The dye addition was terminated
one hour early because the dye was expended. It was determined upon review of the
mixing volumes and the rate at which the dye powder buckets used that one drum was
mixed to a concentration twice as much as the target value. When this mixing error was
taken into account, the planned volume added would be 1,650 gal. This leads to a
difference of a little over 1%, well within the certainty of measurement methods.
Figure 4-11 compares actual FLT concentration in the effluent to the rate of effluent
injection. The tracer addition started at the onset of the 07:00 morning increase in
effluent discharge. The initial pulse addition of FLT was small giving a starting dye
concentration of about 4,400 ppb. However, by 08:00, the dye addition rate had been
increased to match the rise in effluent injection, resulting in a dye concentration of about
12,500 ppb. There was slight variation in both the injection rate into these wells and dye
concentration during the hours from 09:00 on July 28th 2011 through hour 00:00 on July
29th 2011. The injection rate was 3.2 +/- 0.25 mgd. The average dye concentration was
13,700, varying between 12,500 and 14,300 ppb. Just after midnight, the effluent
injection rate started to decrease resulting in a dye concentration of 17,400 ppb during the
final hour of dye addition. The average FLT concentration in Wells 3 and 4 during dye
addition was 13,140 ppb. When injection into all of the wells is considered, the average
addition concentration was 10,010 ppb.
4-6
-------
4.2.1 Fluorescein Analysis
4.2.1.1 Fluorometer
In fluorescence analysis, the sample is subjected to a beam of light with a wavelength
(excitation wavelength) specific to the species being analyzed. This excites the atoms of
the analyte, which emits light at another wavelength (the emission wavelength). The
FLT concentration was measured in the laboratory using a Turner Designs 10-AU
Fluorometer (Turner Designs, 1999), which is capable of detecting FLT concentrations as
low as 0.01 ppb. This instrument is equipped with a 10-086R optical kit that includes a
blue mercury vapor lamp, a 486 nm excitation filter, a 510-700 nm emission filter, and
485 nm and higher reference filter.
4.2.1.2 Sample Handling
Once received at UH, the samples were stored in an air-conditioned room until they were
filtered and analyzed. The fluorescein analyses were completed at UH in an air-
conditioned room, separate from the building where the filtering was done. When
filtering, a sample aliquot was discharged into an opaque brown HPDE Nalgene bottle to
prevent photodegradation. After filtering, the samples were taken to another building for
analysis. Because the temperature of analysis room is much colder (16-19°C) than the
filtering room, the samples were stored in the analysis room overnight to allow the
samples and calibration solutions to become temperature equilibrated prior to analysis.
Upon completion of all analyses the samples were refrigerated. The time between sample
collection and completion of analysis was up to 1.5 months. Delay in sample
refrigeration could result in faster biological degradation of the dye in the samples and in
the calibration solutions. To evaluate the stability of the dyes, we stored the calibration
solutions on the shelf, and not in the refrigerator. As part of the calibration process, we
read the raw fluorescence of the standards (10 ppb only for fluorescein and all solutions
for SRB) to document any change in fluorescence intensity with time. Thus, if
degradation during storage were a factor, it would be detected by a decrease in the raw
fluorescence intensity of the unrefrigerated calibration solutions. We also routinely
completed synchronous scans of selected solutions to document any change in the
wavelength spectrum of the solutions. No signs of degradation were found.
In consultation with the EPA, we revised our sampling handling procedures to minimize
the time that samples were not refrigerated. Upon receipt of the samples at the UH, they
were immediately filtered or placed in a refrigerator until they could be filtered. Once the
samples were filtered, they were delivered to the laboratory room where the analysis was
done. They were again stored overnight in the room where the temperature varies
between 16 to 19°C, and were then analyzed the next day. The samples were also stored
in this laboratory room until taken to the HDOH laboratory for SRB analyses. This
typically occurred within a few days after the FLT analyses.
4-7
-------
4.2.1.3 Laboratory Analysis
4.2.1.3.1 Fluorometer Calibration
FLT calibration solutions were mixed to establish a basis for converting the measured
fluorescence to a concentration of FLT. These calibration solutions were prepared by
diluting a 100,000 ppb stock solution with water. Initially, deionized (DI) water was
used, but this produced unstable solutions, due to the low pH of DI water (See Section
4.2.1.3.2 below). Subsequent solutions were prepared using submarine spring water that
collected prior to the dye addition. The submarine spring water was filtered with 0.45-
micron paper prior to mixing the solutions.
An initial FLT stock solution with a concentration of 100,000 ppb was made by adding
133 mg of 75% active-ingredient FLT powder to a small glass beaker. The dye powder
was weighed using a precision scale. 1 L of distilled water was measured in a volumetric
flask that was filled to the 1 L mark. The majority of the water in the volumetric flask
was decanted into a 1 L amber bottle. The dye powder was then added to the bottle. The
water remaining in the volumetric flask was then used to rinse the remaining powder
from the small beaker into the solution added to the amber bottle. This stock solution
was then used to prepare the calibration solutions. This was accomplished by completing
a series of dilutions of the 100,000 ppb stock solution. These serial dilutions were
limited to two to minimize propagation error. A 100 ppb calibration solution was made
by diluting 1 milliliter (ml) the stock solution with 999 ml of water using a precision
pipette and volumetric flask. The remaining dye calibration solutions were mixed using
the 100 ppb calibration solution as shown in Table 4-1.
All samples, including the submarine spring water used for preparing the calibration
solutions for FLT and SRB, were filtered using a 0.45 micron paper pre-filter prior to
analysis. To hold the samples and calibration solutions during analysis, 13-mm glass
cuvettes were used. Following a half-hour warm-up period, the system baseline was set
using a distilled water blank. The fluorometer span was then set using a 10 ppb FLT
calibration solution. Linearity of the instrument response was verified with 0, 1, 10, 20,
50, and 100 ppb FLT solutions.
4.2.1.3.2 Calibration Solutions — Deionized (DI) Water vs. Submarine Spring Water
When mixing solutions for the Method Detection Limit (MDL) study (described in
Section 4.2.1.3.3 below) it was found that the measured fluorescence was four times the
expected value. The increased fluorescence was confirmed by mixing two FLT solutions
using the same mass of dye in each. One solution was mixed using DI water, while the
other was mixed using dye-free submarine spring water (collected prior the addition of
FLT to effluent stream). The fluorescence of the submarine spring water was read with
the fluorometer prior to adding dye to ensure that its natural fluorescence was consistent
with background values measured by this study. FLT was added to DI water and
submarine spring water solutions to produce concentrations of 1, 10, 20, 50, and 100 ppb.
The fluorometer span was set using the 10 ppb submarine spring water based solution and
4-8
-------
the linearity was verified with the remaining submarine spring water based solutions.
The fluorescence of both sets of solutions was then read with the fluorometer. Figure 4-
12 shows that the fluorescence of the submarine spring water solutions was indeed about
four times greater than that of the DI water based solutions. All subsequent calibration
solutions were mixed using submarine spring water collected prior to the FLT addition.
New SRB calibration solutions were also mixed using submarine spring water to
maintain consistency between the methods used to analyze the two dyes. However,
comparison of the DI and submarine spring water based SRB solutions showed no
difference. Using the submarine spring water as a base for the calibration solutions aided
when comparing the emission wavelength scans of field collected samples to that of
calibration solutions and other laboratory prepared standards.
A literature search confirmed problems related to the use of DI water to mix the
calibration solutions. Brown (2009), for example, found that the indicated fluorescence
of a FLT solution mixed using distilled water was about one-third of the measured FLT
fluorescence when natural spring water was used. This quenching of the FLT
fluorescence by DI was due to the lower pH of water with negligible dissolved ion
content (i.e., the DI water used in the original calibration solutions). The pH of a DI
water based FLT solution was less than 4.0 when measured at the WRRC laboratory at
the University of Hawaii. Smart and Laidlaw (1977) show a nearly complete quenching
of FLT fluorescence at a pH of 3.0. Dever (1997) calculated the pH of pure water in
equilibrium with the atmosphere to be 3.1. Taken together, these references show the
problem encountered with the Dl-based calibration solutions was due to the low pH of
pure water, a problem that was simply resolved by using submarine spring water to mix
the calibration solutions
4.2.1.3.3 FLT Method Detection Limit (MDL)
The Method Detection Limit (MDL) is defined as "the minimum concentration of a
substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte
concentration is greater than zero, and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given
matrix containing the analyte" (Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 1996). For this
study, two methods were used to assess the MDL. The first was that used by the U.S.
EPA and is codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR Appendix B
to Part 136 (USEPA, 2011). This approach is based on a single concentration design,
which assumes that variability at a certain concentration is equal to the variability at the
true MDL. When using this method, the following conditions are recommended by the
USEPA (2011):
The candidate MDL sample have an analyte concentration one to five times that of
the estimated MDL.
The analyte concentration in the MDL sample should not exceed ten times the actual
MDL.
At least seven aliquots at the candidate MDL concentration need to be analyzed to
document the analytical variance.
4-9
-------
The concentration of the MDL candidate should be at least three times solution
deviation of the replicate analyses.
The signal to noise ratio should fall in the range between 2.5 to 5.
Details of this method are provided in Appendix B.
The second MDL assessment method was developed by Hubaux and Vos (1970) who
were the first to apply the theory of statistical prediction to estimating the MDL. They
defined the limit of detection as the point at which we can have 99% confidence that the
response signal is not the critical level, which was defined as the value of the prediction
limit for zero concentration (i.e., that no analyte is present in the sample). This method
involves the use of a calibration design and assumes that the variability is constant
throughout the range of concentrations used in the calibration design. Hubaux and Vos
(1970) suggest that the limit of detection can be obtained graphically by locating the
abscissa corresponding to the critical level on the lower prediction limit. In order to
determine the MDL, a series of samples is spiked at known concentrations in the range of
the hypothesized MDL. From these samples, the variability is determined by examining
the deviations of the actual response signal on known concentrations. In this case, it is
assumed that the distribution of these deviations from the fitted regression line is normal
with a constant variance across the range of concentrations used in the study. The details
of this method are elucidated in Appendix B.
To accommodate both MDL analysis methods, four sets of solutions were mixed. For
FLT, these included concentrations of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 ppb. The dye, in the
appropriate volume, was added to 1 L of unfiltered submarine spring water. Each MDL
solution batch was processed in the same way the tracer samples were, including filtering
the sample with a 0.45-micron paper pre-filter into a 125 ml brown plastic bottle. This
resulted in eight aliquots at each concentration for the MDL analysis. The individual
aliquots were then analyzed in the same manner as the tracer samples and the results were
entered into an MDL calculator spreadsheet that was downloaded from
http://www.chemiasoft.com/mdl calc.html. The fluorescence values entered were the
total fluorescence as read on the fluorometer minus the average no-dye fluorescence.
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 summarize the results of the MDL calculations using the methods by
EPA and by Hubaux and Vos (1970), respectively. The MDL calculated by the EPA
method for the lowest concentration solution (0.1 ppb) was 0.011 ppb. However, this
concentration was about one-tenth of the concentration of the lowest solution tested. This
resulted in a signal to noise of ratio of 28.6, which was greater than the recommended
range of 2.5 to 10.
The MDL calculated by the Hubaux and Vos (1970) method depends on the linearity of
multiple concentrations rather than on that of a single concentration and resulted in a
slightly higher MDL. For this method, the MDL calculator only allowed three samples
per concentration, so the lowest, the highest, and the average concentrations for MDL
solution set was entered into the MDL calculator. The resulting MDL was 0.02 ppb
above background, slightly higher than that of the EPA method, and was used as the
fluorescein MDL for this study. The critical response concentration is the instrument
4-10
-------
response (fluorescein plus background) at which the analyte (fluorescein) can be
distinguished from background and is considered detected. As described in the next
section, the background concentration of FLT was 0.11 ppb, making the MDL 0.13 ppb
as read on the fluorometer. The critical concentration is the actual analyte concentration
when it is first detected. The MDL differs from the critical concentration in that the
former provides concentration values of the analyte detected with 95% certainty.
4.2.1.3.4 Laboratory Quality Assurance
To ensure the accuracy and integrity of the tracer dye analysis program, five quality
assurance tests were done: (1) calibrating the fluorometer as described in Section
4.2.1.3.1; (2) challenging the fluorometer with a six calibration solutions that varied in
concentration from 0.0 to 100 ppb to check the instrument linearity; (3) completing
duplicate analysis of three samples at the end of each analysis run; (4) challenging the
fluorometer with calibration standards with a concentration of 0.0 and 10 or 20 ppb at the
end of each analysis run; and (5) periodically re-analyzing an archived sample for
comparison with the initial analysis. Table 4-4 shows the results of linearity test and the
offset calculated for establishing the zero baseline (i.e., no FLT present) of the
fluorometer. The linearity of the fluorometer was excellent with coefficient of
determination being greater than 0.99 in all cases. The coefficient of the line of best fit
varied between 1.00 and 1.03 indicating that a slight adjustment was needed to make to
the value that was read on the fluorometer reflect the actual FLT concentration. The
baseline offset was that value that needed to be subtracted from the fluorometer reading
to set the reference fluorescence of deionized water blank to zero. This value varied from
-0.07 to 0.27 ppb. The variation was caused primarily by changes in room temperature
where the analysis was done. Table 4-5 shows the results when the fluorometer was
challenged with deionized water blank at the end of an analysis run. The expected
concentration was 0.00 ppb, while all measured values were within 0.01 ppb of that
value. Table 4-6 shows the results when the fluorometer was challenged with 10 or 20
ppb FLT solutions at the end of an analysis run. All differences, with the exception of
two cases, were within 5% of that expected value. The maximum difference was 6% at
the end of the analytical run on October 3, 2012. In addition, at the end of each analytical
run, three samples were selected for duplicate analysis. Table 4-7 shows that the
duplicate analysis agreed was within 5% (or 0.1 ppb for primary results less than 1 ppb)
of the primary analysis, except for one sample analyzed on October 12, 2012. The
difference for that duplicate analysis was 6.5%. The end of the analytical run tests
showed that the instrument accuracy did not drift during each analytical run. Finally,
Table 4-8 shows the results of the analysis of replicate or archived samples. This test was
done to evaluate any change in FLT concentration in a sample over time. Differences for
all but three samples were less than 5%. There was a very significant difference in
analytical results of two samples collected from Seep 3 on August 1, 2012. The samples
were collected within 20 minutes of each other. The cause of this difference is not
known. Excluding these, the average difference in the duplicate analyses was -0.2% with
a standard deviation of 2.9%. This indicates very little change in sample fluorescence
occurred while the samples were in storage.
4-11
-------
4.2.1.3.5 FLTSynchronous Scans
FLT spectrum analyses were completed using a Hitachi F4500 Fluorescence
Spectrophotometer, which is used to measure the fluorescence, phosphorescence and
luminescence in the ultraviolet and visible regions of the spectrum. This instrument is
programmable, so that the fluorescence intensity of the wavelengths from 200 to 730 nm
can be measured. The Hitachi F4500 was used to evaluate the wavelength spectrum of
samples using a process known as synchronous scan.
A synchronous scan is a sequential series of fluorescence measurements performed on a
sample. This is done by defining a starting and ending excitation wavelength, and
designating an increment by which to increase the excitation wavelength for each step.
Also defined when programming a synchronous scan is the emission wavelength
monitored as a function of the excitation wavelength. Unless otherwise noted, the
instrument was programmed to scan from 400 to 600 nm for the FLT synchronous scans.
The spectrophotometer produces a spectra graph and printout (the printout is excitation
wavelength versus fluorescence intensity in user-defined increments, usually 2 nm) and
an electronic file of fluorescent intensity at 0.2 nm increments of excitation or emission
wavelengths. The fluorescence intensity of the emission wavelength monitored was the
excitation wavelength plus 20 nm. The FLT synchronous scans were done to evaluate
any degradation of calibration solutions and to investigate the presences of fluorophores
other than FLT and SRB in the submarine spring samples.
4.2.2 Background Fluorescence Assessment and First Detection
The fluorometer used in this study has a manufacturer specified detection limit of 0.01
ppb for FLT. But fluorescence variability in tracer samples collected in the field may
mask very low concentrations of dye. Quantifying the natural fluorescence of the study
area and the concentration at which the fluorometer can reliably discriminate between
natural and tracer fluorescence is critical in establishing the first arrival time of the dye.
Natural and anthropogenic compounds in the water mixture emerging from the submarine
springs have fluorescence characteristics that may mimic that of the dyes selected for this
study (Meus et al., 2006; Smart and Karunaratne, 2002). For example, these
interferences can be caused by fabric brightener agents that fluoresce in the blue
wavelengths (Poiger et al., 1998). Although these agents are expected in the LWRF
wastewater effluent, the blue wavelengths are well below that of the dyes used in this
study. Other in situ sources of fluorescence, such as fluvic acids, also fall in wavelengths
significantly shorter than that of FLT (Baker et al., 2003). More problematic are
fluorescent peaks at about 520 nm that have been identified in a number of studies such
as that by Smart and Karunaratne (2002), who attributed this peak to antifreeze
containing FLT. In a study of the fluorescence of domestic wastes in the Kurose River in
Japan, Galapate et al. (1998) showed there was a 531 nm peak in sewage effluent; when
effluent was mixed with river water, this peak shifted to a wavelength of 524 nm, which
is very close to that of FLT.
4-12
-------
Since organic matter may fluoresce in a manner similar to the tracer dyes (Meus et al.,
2006; Smart and Karunaratne, 2002), this interference needed to be evaluated. This
process consisted of directly measuring the fluorescence of submarine spring water
tagged with the tracer dye at various concentrations (see Method Detection Limit, Section
4.2.1.3.3 for details) and measuring the fluorescence of the submarine spring samples
collected for a period before the dye arrival.
Our background assessment served two purposes. First, it characterized the background
or natural fluorescence in the FLT wavelength. The natural fluorescence values were
subtracted from the measured values to quantify that attributable to the dye only. The
second purpose is that knowing the background fluorescence is important in estimating
the time for a dye's first arrival. Collection of samples from the submarine springs began
on July 5th, 2011, more than three weeks prior to the first dye release to the LWRF
injection wells. Since dye was not detected in the marine submarine springs (seeps) until
mid-October 2011, the samples collected prior to October 1, 2011 were included in the
background fluorescence assessment.
Tables 4-9 and 4-10 provide a summary of the fluorescence in the FLT wavelength
measured during the background evaluation period. The average background
fluorescence for both the NSG and the SSG was equivalent to that 0.11 ppb FLT. There
was minor variability except for Seep 4, where the lowest background concentration
measured was equivalent to 0.01 ppb of FLT. The small number of samples included in
the background analysis was due to problems with the calibration solutions prepared
using DI water (previously described). After the fluorometer was calibrated with the
submarine spring water calibration solutions, a minimum of twelve background samples
from each of the original submarine spring locations were chosen at random and re-
analyzed.
The background fluorescence in the FLT wavelength was much less than expected and
very small compared to the FLT concentrations measured except those at the very
beginning of the tracer breakthrough curve. A value of 0.11 ppb was subtracted from the
laboratory measured FLT fluorescence as a background correction for the final FLT
concentration. For this study, the time of first dye arrival was defined as when the first
measured concentration that equaled or exceeded 0.13 ppb (the computed MDL of 0.02
ppb plus a background fluorescence of 0.11 ppb) and marked the start of an increasing
trend in dye concentration. Using a MDL of 0.13 ppb, the first detection of FLT occurred
at the NSG on October 20, 2011. This date was the same for all sampling points in this
group, giving an elapsed time between the dye addition and the first detection at this
location of about 84 days. The first detection of FLT at the SSG occurred at Seep 3 on
November 5, 2011. The last submarine spring in this group to reveal a detectable
concentration was Seep 4 on November 11, 2011. With an average first detection date of
November 8, 2011 at the SSG, the elapsed time between the dye addition and this seep
group was about 103 days. FLT was detected at the SSG 19 days after it was detected at
the NSG.
4-13
-------
Grab samples were also collected to assess the marine water fluorescence just above a
submarine spring in each seep group, and also from "control" locations not expected to
be affected by the discharged LWRF effluent (Section 2). These control locations
included Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park, and the beach fronting
Olowalu (Figure 4-13). Table 4-11 summarizes the fluorescence of the marine samples
collected prior to October 1, 2011. The average fluorescence in the FLT wavelength at
these locations was negligible and equivalent to about 0.01 ppb of FLT.
4.2.3 The Breakthrough Curve - Fluorescein
A breakthrough curve (BTC) is a graph illustrating tracer concentration versus time at a
certain location. It is used to evaluate the time of first dye arrival, dispersion
characteristics of the aquifer, average time of travel, and when combined with water flux,
the mass of the tracer that can be accounted for. Relative to the total mass injected, this
mass can be used to estimate the percent of tracer recovery.
4.2.3.1 North Seep Group
The North Seep Group (NSG) was the location of the initial FLT detection. Sampling at
this location proved to be problematic due to sand moving offshore (and likely along-
shore) covering the sampling piezometers (see Section 2.2.2 for details about this
problem). Figure 4-14 shows the FLT range fluorescence at the NSG measured by this
study from July 5, 2011 through December 28, 2012. Heavy surf in early to mid-
November, 2011 buried all of the original piezometers (Seeps 1, 2, and 6) in the NSG.
This problem continued to plague the project. As a piezometer was buried, a replacement
was installed to maintain three sampling points in this group. At times, only one
piezometer was in place (for example, Seep 15 was the only piezometer in service from
March 27, 2012 through April 19, 2012). In spite of frequently replacing piezometers
due their loss, however, the data shows good fluorescence continuity between sampling
points as the buried piezometers were replaced by newly installed units, all of which were
located within 1.5 m of the original sampling points. There were also periods of
significant variability at Seep 9, Seep 17, and Seep 21. As will be discussed in Section
4.2.3.4, salinity measurements indicate this reduction in FLT concentration was due to
capturing dye-free seawater in the piezometer during sampling. This capture of dye-free
seawater may have been caused by ocean turbulence mixing seawater with the non-saline
groundwater in the subsurface, or by tidal affects increasing the salinity of the shallow
submarine groundwater.
Despite the difficulties, the monitoring results at the NSG identified the most significant
features of the BTC, including the first arrival, and peak concentration, in addition to a
major portion of the declining limb (Figure 4-14). The FLT concentration first became
detectable above the background fluorescence in late October, 2011. Once the leading
edge of the BTC was established, the dye concentration increased at a rate of about 0.2
ppb/d until February 27th, 2012. On this date, there was an abrupt flattening of the BTC,
following which the dye concentration remained steady at about 21 ppb. The peak
concentration of 22.3 ppb occurred at Seep 16 on May 14, 2012. In early June 2012, the
4-14
-------
declining limb of the BTC became evident and continued a near linear decrease of 0.05
ppb/d until the cessation of sampling December 28, 2012. A complete history of the FLT
data for the NSG can be found in Table C-l, Appendix C.
4.2.3.2 South Seep Group
The South Seep Group was the location that recorded the highest measured
concentrations of FLT and, since it was farther offshore, sand movement was not
problematic. For the duration of sampling, all of the piezometers installed at this site at
the beginning of the project remained in service, except for the Seep 4 piezometer that
was relocated on April 24, 2012 to provide a second sampling point for the NSG. A
piezometer was installed at Seep 11 on January 21, 2012 to augment the data collected at
this site since the dye concentrations at Seep 4 and Seep 5 had significant variability.
Figure 4-15 illustrates the BTC for this seep group. From the start of background
sampling on July 5, 2011 through the last sampling event on December 29, 2012, this
seep group displayed much greater variability among the sampling points than there was
at the NSG. This was due to the greater distance between sampling points and the higher
incidence of capturing seawater in the piezometer.
The FLT concentrations measured at this location had a greater rate of increase, higher
peak concentration, and steeper declining limb than the NSG. The FLT concentration
increased above background levels at this location in early November, 2011. Seep 3
consistently had the highest concentration and showed a near linear increase of about 0.5
ppb per day (ppb/d) during the majority of the rising limb of the BTC. Seep 4 had the
lowest and most variable dye concentration. Discussed below, this sampling point also
has the greatest variability in salinity. Seep 5 also had significant variability in the
salinity and in the dye concentration. Seep 11, although installed after the arrival of the
dye, produced a consistent BTC that was very close to that of Seep 3. The FLT
concentration at the SSG plateaued at about 33 ppb starting in early April, which was not
as distinct as at the NSG, and continued until late May when the declining limb of the
BTC became evident. The delay between the plateau at the NSG and the SSG was about
a month, which was slightly longer than the delay between first detections noted above.
The rate of decline was about 0.1 ppb/d, much faster than that at the NSG. A complete
history of the FLT data for the SSG can be found in Table C-2, Appendix C.
4.2.3.3 Grab and Control Samples
In addition to collecting samples by drawing water from piezometers driven into the
seafloor, grab samples were collected. At each seep group, a grab sample was collected
by uncapping a submerged bottle just above a submarine spring discharge. Figure 4-16
shows that, with few exceptions, the FLT concentration in the grab samples were less
than 20% of that collected from the piezometer at the SSG on that same day. This
signifies strong mixing between the submarine spring and ocean water immediately
adjacent to the submarine springs. As described in Section 2.2.3, the control samples
collected at Honokowai Beach Park, Wahikuli Wayside Park, and Olowalu showed no
indication of FLT.
4-15
-------
4.2.3.4 The Relationship Between Dye Concentrations and Salinity
Many of the sampling locations, particularly in the SSG, showed a significant variability
in the BTC. As will be detailed below, the sampling locations that showed the greatest
variability in FLT dye concentration also had the greatest variability in the salinity
measured at the time of sampling. Table 4-12 provides a summary of the salinities
measured at each submarine spring from January 1 through December 29, 2012. Also
included in this table for the SSG, is the standard deviation of the difference between the
FLT concentration measured at a submarine spring and the average FLT concentration
measured on that day. The points with the greatest variability in salinity and their
respective FLT concentration were Seeps 4 and 5. Seep 3, with the lowest variability in
salinity, also had the lowest FLT variability. It is important to note that Seep 4 and Seep
11 were not in service for the entire duration of the BTC and hence their respective FLT
variability would be biased. In spite of this limitation, Seep 4 with the highest variability
in salinity also had the highest variability in FLT. Variability of FLT analysis was not
done for the NSG since there were no sampling locations in service for the entire duration
of the sampling period. Inspection of Figure 4-14 shows that Seep 9 in the NSG had the
highest FLT variability. This corresponds with high salinity variability for this sampling
location. Seeps 15 and 16 also showed significant salinity and FLT concentration
variability.
The relationship between the variability in FLT concentration and salinity variability was
tested graphically and statistically. Figure 4-17 shows the relationship between salinity
and dye concentration at Seeps 4 and 5 compared to that measured at Seep 3. Since the
dye concentration varies with time, the data presented actually compares ratios. The ratio
on the x-axis is that for the salinity measured at Seeps 4 and 5 to that measured at Seep 3,
while the ratio on the y-axis is that for the respective dye concentration measured at the
two submarine springs compared to Seep 3. The low variability in salinity at Seep 3 and
in the dye concentration at this sampling location made this data set a good reference for
these computations. The regression coefficient and the coefficient of determination (r-
squared linear value) for the Seep 4 to Seep 3 comparison data were -0.084 and 0.87,
respectively. The linear regression coefficient and the coefficient of determination for
the Seep 5 comparison (shown in red) were -0.088 and 0.87, respectively. This shows a
strong and inverse relationship between salinity and FLT concentration.
The inverse relationship between the dye concentration and salinity was caused by
mixing of dye-tagged non-saline treated wastewater with seawater that was nearly void of
dye. This is a volumetric dilution effect for which the dilution by seawater can be
corrected as based on the measured salinity of a sample (cf. Hunt and Rosa, 2009). In the
present case, we wish to normalize the salinities of all seeps to make them comparable to
that of Seep 3. The pre-mixing dye concentration in the submarine spring water can be
estimated by correcting the measured dye concentration for the fraction of seawater in the
submarine spring water sample.
4-16
-------
This was done using the following formula:
F£Tadi. = FLTmsms + (1 - Equation (4.!)
JUI:U JfUljeep E-av§
Where:
FLTadj = the dye concentration at Seep 4 or 5 adjusted for salinity (ppb)
FLTmeas = the dye concentration measured at Seep 4 or 5
Salmeas = the salinity measured at Seep 4 or 5
Salseep3-avg = the average salinity measured at Seep 3 (salinity is 3.1)
Salsw = the average salinity of seawater (salinity assumed to be 35).
Thus, employing the above equation, Figure 4-18 provides a graph of FLT concentrations
at Seeps 4, 5, and 11 that would be expected at the sampling locations if the salinities
were the same as the average salinity at Seep 3. Even when the dye concentration in
Seeps 4 and 5 are adjusted to remove the effect of the higher salinity, the dye
concentrations at these locations are still lower than that measured at Seep 3. The relative
difference increases as the magnitude of the dye concentration increases.
4.2.3.5 NSG and SSG Breakthrough Curves
To compare the BTCs of the NSG and SSG, a BTC for each submarine spring group was
graphed in Figure 4-19 using the FLT concentrations corrected for salinity by Equation 4-
1. The symbols represent the average FLT concentration for each sampling day with the
error bars represent the minimum and maximum FLT concentration for each sampling
day. The standard deviation was also computed for days when more than one piezometer
was sampled in a seep group (this was the case for the majority of sampling days). Once
adjusted by salinity, there was a small daily variability (as shown by the error bars) in the
FLT concentrations, except for a limited number of data points near the peaks of each
curve. The average FLT concentration was then graphed on Figure 4-19 with error bars
showing the minimum and maximum adjusted FLT concentration for each sampling day.
Although similar in appearance, there are significant differences between the BTC of the
NSG and of the SSG, indicating different characteristics in their respective travel paths.
FLT was first detected at the NSG followed by the SSG about 23 days later. However,
the rate of rise in the concentration at the NSG was less than that at the SSG, resulting in
the concentration at the SSG overtaking the NSG in late February 2012. At this time, the
FLT concentration at the NSG plateaued, while that at the SSG continued to increase.
The peak average concentration of 22.5 ppb occurred at the NSG on May 22, 2012, while
the peak average concentration of 33.1 ppb occurred at SSG a week earlier on May 14,
2012. As with the rising limb, the receding limb the NSG was less steep than that of the
SSG. During mid-May 2012 when the BTCs for both submarine spring groups were near
their peak, the concentration at the SSG was 147% higher than at the NSG. By the time
field sampling ended in late December 2012 the FLT concentration at the SSG was only
4-17
-------
115% higher than that at the NSG. Based on the extrapolated BTCs the FLT
concentration at the SSG will drop below that at the NSG in late December 2013.
4.2.4 Breakthrough Curve Analysis
4.2.4.1 Breakthrough Curve Extrapolation
The field sampling ended prior the tracer concentrations dropping below the MDL.
However, it is important to have a complete BTC to compute the mean time of travel and
the percent recovery of the FLT. To develop a complete BTC, the remainder of the BTC
was estimated using an exponential curve fit based on the last three months of measured
data. Equation 4-2 below gives the curve fit equation used to extrapolate the remainder
of the BTC.
C(t) = Ci*e"b(t"ti) Equation 4-2
Where:
C(t) = the FLT concentration at time t (ppb)
C; = the FLT concentration on October 10, 2012 (ppb)
b = the regression exponent
for the NSG b = 0.0054
for the SSG b = 0.0043
t = the elapsed time since October 10, 2012 (d)
The curve fit coefficients of determination for the predicted extrapolations for the NSG
(Figure 4-20) and the SSG (Figure 4-21) were 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. Measured data
are shown as points of averaged measured FLT concentration with error bars indicating
the minimum and maximum concentrations measured on a given day. Major points of
the BTC are annotated and indicated by the red squares. The BTC extrapolation predicts
that the FLT concentrations will remain above the MDL 3 to 5 more years.
4.2.4.2 QTracer2 Breakthrough Curve Analysis Model
Our analysis of the BTC was completed using the EPA tracer test model Qtracer2 (Field,
2002). This program uses the BTC to quantify the tracer test results providing critical
information, such as the time for first arrival and to the peak concentration, mean transit
time, average tracer velocity, dispersivity, and percent of the injected dye mass recovered
(when integrated with groundwater flux). First arrival time and time of peak
concentration can easily be determined by inspection of the BTC. However, mean transit
time, associated average particle velocity, and percent recovery are best done by a
program that can accurately integrate the BTC over time. The mean transit time requires
finding the centroid of mass of the BTC. Since the declining limb of the BTC was
elongated compared to the ascending limb, the average time of travel will be biased
toward the right (toward a longer time). Thus, estimating the mean transit time cannot be
done simply by inspection of the BTC. The percent of mass recovery requires estimating
the total tracer mass discharged by accurately integrating the concentration and flux at the
4-18
-------
submarine springs. The cumulative mass is then divided by the mass of tracer injected.
As with estimating the average time of travel, this is best done using a specialized
computer program such as QTracer2.
4.2.4.2.1 QTracer2 Model Inputs and Outputs
The extended BTC was imported into a QTracer2 breakthrough curve analysis model
(Field, 2002). Inputs to this model include: Mass and duration of dye addition,
volumetric water discharge at the sample collection point, distance between the point of
dye addition and point of sample collection, nature of the medium through which the
tracer plume travels (i.e., porous, fractured, channel type flow paths) and the BTC data.
Critical to computing the percent of tracer mass that can be accounted for by the BTC is
the groundwater flux at the sampling points. The values used for this analysis were those
calculated for each seep group by the coastal radon survey (refer to the project's Interim
Report [Glenn et al., 2012], Section 5.4.2 for a detailed description of methods and
results). A uniform FLT concentration was assumed for the area for which the
groundwater fluxes were computed. Average concentrations relative to that measured at
Seep 3 for samples collected during the area survey were 0.72 and 0.96 for the NSG and
the SSG respectively. The ratio of the peak concentration at the NSG to that at the SSG
was 0.65. Based on these data, a uniform concentration based on the measured BTC at
each seep group is a reasonable assumption.
The output of the QTracer2 includes: time to first tracer arrival, peak concentration, mean
transit time, percent of the tracer mass that can be account for by the BTC, dispersion
characteristics, and relative contributions of molecular diffusion and hydrodynamic
dispersion to spreading of the tracer plume. Table 4-13 tabulates the critical parameters
of the BTC as calculated by QTracer2.
4.2.4.2.2 QTracer2 Model Results
Qtracer2 was run at two discharge points: (1) the North Seep Group, and (2) the South
Seep Group. These locations were the focus of the monitoring where sufficient temporal
data for the Qtracer analysis. This approach was acceptable because the submarine
spring survey showed that these locations were the primary discharge points for the FLT.
The submarine spring survey (Sections 2.3.4 and 4.2.6.2) showed that the FLT
concentrations measured during the long term monitoring were representative of
concentrations from the submarine springs surrounding the monitored submarine springs.
Based on the QTracer2 analysis, the first detection of FLT at the NSG occurred on
October 22, 2011, 86 days after FLT addition. At the SSG, first detection occurred on
November 14, 2011, 109 days after the FLT addition. The time of peak concentration
occurred 306 and 271 days after the FLT addition for the NSG and SSG, respectively.
The average time of travel occurred 487 and 435 days after the FLT addition at the NSG
and SSG, respectively. It may be noteworthy that both the time of the peak concentration
and the mean transit occurred at the SSG before they occurred at the NSG, while the time
of first arrival occurred first at the NSG.
4-19
-------
4.2.4.3 FLT Recovery and Treated Wastewater Fraction
For the purposes of this study, a critical parameter is the percent of dye mass that can be
accounted for at the discharge of the monitored submarine springs. The estimated
percent of dye mass recovered can also be used to make estimates of the fraction of
treated wastewater in the submarine spring discharge, although it must be stressed that
there are significant uncertainties associated with these calculations. The accuracy of this
estimate is dependent on the accuracies, both temporally and spatially, of the submarine
groundwater discharge (SGD) and the FLT concentration. The SGD estimate was based
on two nearshore radon activities surveys, one conducted in June, 2011, and the other
conducted in September, 2011. The methodology and results can be found in Section 5
of the Interim Report (Glenn, et al., 2012). The values used for this analysis were 0.65
mgd (2,500 m3/d) for the NSG and 1.6 mgd (6,300 m3/d) for the SSG. The salinity basis
for these fluxes (12.6 for the NSG and 7.46 for the SSG, refer to Table 4-4) was
significantly greater than the average salinity of 3.1 to which the FLT BTC
concentrations were adjusted. The fraction of FLT plume water in the SGD discharge
was calculated using salinity by Equation 4-3.
f Salsw-SalRn
If lt = — — Equation 4-3
-3 aise&p 2—mwg
Where:
Jflt = the fraction of FLT plume water in the SGD
Salsw = the salinity of seawater (35)
SoIr„ = the salinity of SGD discharge
Salseep 3_avg = the average salinity of the samples collected from the piezometer at
Seep 3
The fractions of FLT plume water in the SGD was 70 and 86% for the NSG and the SSG
respectively. The resulting FLT plume water in the SGD was 0.51 mgd (1,752 m3/d) and
1.4 mgd (5,439 m3/d) for the NSG and SSG respectively.
The FLT concentration was measured by the submarine spring sampling program and
two area-sampling surveys that occurred in July and December 2012 (see Section 2.2.2
and 2.2.5). Within the area surrounding the submarine springs, the broad-area sampling
surveys indicated little variability in the dye concentration. The average FLT
concentration in samples at points of visible SGD within the seep group radon activity
survey zones delineated by the rectangles surrounding the seep groups in Figure 4-25 (cf.
Section 3) were approximately equal to that of the submarine spring samples when
adjustments for salinity were made. The Qtracer2 BTC interpretation runs for the NSG
and SSG computed percent recovery estimates of 14.1 and 50.3%, respectively, for the
seep groups. The total percent recovery was 64% or 76.7 kg out of 119 kg of FLT added
to Wells 3 and 4 (Table 4-14).
The percent of dye mass recovery can be used to estimate the percent of treated
wastewater in the SGD at the submarine springs. Refer to Table 4-14 for the specific
4-20
-------
values used in these calculations. As described above, QTracer2 estimated that 64% FLT
dye added to Injection Wells 3 and 4 was accounted for by the BTC analysis. If correct,
this means that 64% of treated wastewater injected into these wells would be discharged
from the monitored submarine springs. The average injection rate into Wells 3 and 4 for
the period from April 2011 through March 2012 (data from Table 1-2 in the interim
"3
project report) was 2.74 mgd (9,340 m /d). At the time of dye Break Through Curve
completion, 64% of the FLT dye-traced-effluent will have been recovered at the spring
"3
areas, so at steady state, 64% of the total LWRF Wells 3 and 4 injection rate of 9340 m / d
is released within the spring area, which is 5978 m3/d (Table 4-14). Thus, 1.93 mgd
"3
(5,978 m /d) or 64% of the treated wastewater injected into these wells discharges into
nearshore waters. There is significant uncertainty associated with the effluent percentage
estimated by this method due the assumption of a uniform FLT concentration over the
entire area that the radon SGD estimates were based on, the variability of SGD flux with
time, and variability of the fraction of FLT plume water over the area used in these
computations. The seep groups have been identified as the areas of nearshore point
discharge. However, as the area survey, TIR imaging, 615N data, and modeling indicate
(Section 5) the FLT plume is quite extensive and more diffuse discharge through the sea
bottom sediments will occur. Also, as described in Section 3.3.3, the tracer test
conducted by Tetra Tech (1994) may have detected tracer discharge deeper and further
from shore than this study had the capability to monitor.
To determine the proportion of FLT dye-traced-effluent discharge that is a component of
the Total SGD rate, we divide 5,978 m3/d (FLT dye-traced-effluent discharge) by 8,800
m3/d (total SGD) to estimate that 68% of the SGD at submarine springs and surrounding
areas is Wells 3 and 4 injectate. One point of doing this calculation (with respect to total
SGD) is to compare the tracer-dye result with that made on the basis of the stable
isotope/geochemical ternary component analysis (Table 4-14), which was calculated
quite independently (with its own uncertainties), and yielded a mean submarine spring
effluent discharge proportion of 62%, which we conclude is very reasonable agreement.
The fraction of the treated wastewater in the submarine spring discharge was also
estimated by geochemical/stable isotope methods. These data can be found in Table 6-14
in the Interim Report (Glenn et al., 2012). Those results are summarized here (Table 4-
14) and compared to the percent of dye mass recovery method. As shown, the following
three sets of mixing end members were used in geochemical/stable isotope source water
partitioning analysis: (1) 8lsO and 82H, (2) 5180 and CI, and (3) 52H and CI, and listed for
each are the minimum, average, and maximum percent of treated wastewater in the
submarine spring. Excluded from the summary are those analyses that resulted in
negative fractions or those greater than one. Collectively, the estimated treated
wastewater fractions in the submarine spring discharge as determined in this manner
ranged from 12% to 96% with an average of 62%. The tracer dye % recovery analysis
described above falls well within the bounds of the isotopic mixing analysis, and is
reasonably close to overall average value.
4-21
-------
4.2.5 Green Coloration in the South Seep Group Discharge
Following the tracer dye additions, and starting in late February 2012, a green coloration
was noted in the waters discharging from the submarine springs in the SSG. The FLT
concentration at the SSG was about 23 ppb when the green coloration was first observed.
This phenomenon was not observed prior to this, and was not observed at the NSG where
the maximum measured FLT concentration was 23.2 ppb. The green coloration was
visible at the SSG until about mid-October 2012 when the FLT concentration dropped to
about 17 ppb. The source of the green coloration has not been conclusively resolved, but
the available evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the FLT added to the
injection wells was the source. While it might be assumed that this coloration was due to
the FLT itself, the measured FLT concentration from the SSG of 23 ppb in late February
and the maximum of 34 ppb in mid-April were below the generally accepted visual
threshold for FLT, which is 100 ppb (Kingscote Chemical, 2010; Stuart et al., 2008).
Explanations of the green coloring include the possibility that FLT exists in visible
concentrations far less than 100 ppb. It can also be due to the existence of iron containing
minerals, such as iron (II) hydroxides, or other green minerals. Finally, it could be the
result of reactions between chlorine and other dissolved constituents. Efforts to identify
the source of this coloration included:
Performing a broad spectrum fluorescence scan to determine if any fluorophores
other than FLT were present;
Analyzing these samples for dissolved iron and other metal content; and
Performing a light adsorption analysis on these samples to determine if the intensity
of the green coloration correlated with the FLT fluorescence intensity.
The 100 ppb visual threshold for FLT solutions appears to be a general but not
universally accepted value. A laboratory solution prepared by mixing optically clear
submarine spring water with a 35 ppb FLT concentration showed a distinct green
coloration when placed in a 2 liter beaker (Figure 4-22). This demonstrates that FLT is
visible at concentrations less than 100 ppb. This observation is consistent with those of
Aley (2002), and Stokes and Griffiths (2000). Although the FLT concentration at the
NSG did reach the 23 ppb threshold where the green became visible at the SSG, the
discharge is dispersed by sand prior to being discharged into the ocean. Thus, the
absence of the green coloration at the NSG where FLT was also discharging does not
preclude this dye from being the source of the green coloration at the SSG.
If the samples drawn from the piezometers captured marine water rather than SGD, for
example as due to poor installation or clogged screens, the dye concentration measured
by the fluorometry would be lower than that discharging from the submarine springs.
Our data, however, shows that samples collected at the submarine springs are
representative of a non-saline SGD, and not marine water. The samples were analyzed
for pH, specific conductivity, and salinity. The salinity in the vast majority of the
samples was < 5, indicating that the samples were non-saline groundwater. This shows
that the piezometer screens were not clogged and were properly installed in the openings
4-22
-------
where groundwater was discharging, and were thus truly capturing the SGD prior to
emergence and mixing with marine bottom waters.
It is important to affirmatively state that although the cause of the green coloration is not
fully determined nor understood, its presence does not weaken our finding that FLT
injected at the LWRF was being discharged from the submarine springs. Figure 4-23 for
example shows the results of synchronous scans completed for two samples. The
excitation spectrum of the scan extended from 250 to 600 nm at increments of 0.2 nm.
The fluorescence intensity of the emission wavelength monitored was the excitation
wavelength plus 20 nm. The first sample was prepared in the laboratory, and contains 35
ppb of FLT and 0.1 ppb SRB. The second sample was collected from Seep 3 on June 7,
2012, and contains 33 ppb of FLT. The traces are identical, expect for a small peak at
580 nm, which is the fluorescence of the SRB in the laboratory prepared solution. This
test strongly indicates that the FLT is the only fluorophore in the samples collected at the
submarine springs.
Since the green coloration was a visual phenomenon, light absorbance wavelength scans
were done using a Hach DR4000 Spectrophotometer. During these tests a beam of light
of known intensity and wavelength is directed at the sample. A photosensitive cell on the
opposite side of the sample measures the intensity of the incident light after it passes
through the sample. The difference in intensity indicates the amount of light of that is
absorbed by the sample in the wavelength range of the source light. The light absorbance
spectrum of samples collected from Seep 3 when the green coloration was visible was
compared to that of FLT calibration solutions. The Seep 3 samples were selected from
those collected during the period from February 27, 2012 through July 11, 2012 when the
green coloration was the most prevalent. The FLT concentration in the calibration
solutions ranged from 0 to 100 ppb. In the calibration solutions, with the exception of the
0 ppb solution, the maximum absorbance occurred at 490 nm. This was also true for all
of the Seep 3 samples except those acidified to a pH <2 with nitric acid. With the
acidified sample, the maximum light absorbance occurred at 700 nm with a secondary
peak at 520 nm. The light absorbance at 490 nm was -0.032 ABS, which is much less
than that of any other samples. The acidification alters the molecular structure of FLT
eliminating its fluorescence, and thus alters its light absorbance properties (Smart and
Laidlaw, 1977). Figure 4-24 shows a graph of FLT concentration versus absorbance
(ABS is the arbitrary unit of absorbance used by the spectrophotometer) for the full range
of FLT concentrations tested. The lines of best fit through the calibration solutions and
the Seep 3 samples are nearly identical, indicating very similar light absorbance
properties. If a substance other that FLT was causing the green color then the submarine
spring samples should have shown a different light absorption spectrum than that of the
calibration solutions.
We have also completed some preliminary chemical experiments to investigate the
potential role of reduced iron as a cause of green coloration. We used samples collected
from Seep 3 and Seep 11 in the SSG, and from Seep 16 in the NSG on 6/18/12. The
samples were filtered through a 0.45 micron filter and acidified to pH 2 using nitric acid.
The samples were then analyzed for metals at the HDOH lab on Oahu. Dissolved iron
was not detected above the MDL in these samples. These analytical results did not rule
4-23
-------
out presence of reduce iron in the samples since they were subjected to a 50 times
dilution as part of the analytical process. To further investigate whether or not dissolved
iron was in the submarine spring discharge water a second set of analysis was done. On
8/1/12 samples were collected from Seep 3, Seep 5, and Seep 11 in the SSG, and from
Seep 18 in the NSG. These samples were also filtered with 0.45 micron filter. They
were analyzed in the field for dissolved iron (II) using method 8146-Phenanthroline
chelation, and a Hach DR820 colorimeter. This method has a detection limit of 0.03
mg/L. The results of these analyses were:
• Seep 3, <0.03mg/L
• Seep 5, <0.03 mg/L
• Seep 11, 0.11 mg/L
• Seep 18, <0.03 mg/L.
These results indicate that only a slight amount of iron reduction is occurring. Thus, it is
unlikely that a complex containing iron is the source of the green coloration.
Overlapping with our work, Swarzenkski et al. (2012) also studied the trace metal
concentrations of samples collected from submarine springs and from the water column
above them and came to a similar conclusion. Their analysis showed iron concentrations
that ranged from 0.0002 to 0.40 mg/L, and that the iron concentrations in the water
column directly above the seeps were very close to that in the groundwater extracted
from the seeps themselves. These values are exceptional high relative to both open
seawater and other coastal waters (e.g., Bienfang et al., 2009). However, due to the high
oxidation potential of the waters immediately surrounding the vents, we would expect
+2
any solubilized Fe to be immediately oxidized or complexed as iron oxyhydroxides and
to precipitated, yet iron precipitates were found in the black crusts surrounding the vents
(Interim Report Section 6; Glenn et al., 2012).
Although our tests do not entirely exclude some other substance being the source of the
green coloration, the spectral and chemical tests and the disappearance of the green
coloration that occurred with decreasing FLT concentrations strongly indicates that FLT
was the source of this anomaly. Regardless, the source of the green tint other than FLT
does not affect the results of this study. Spectrophometry confirmed that the fluorescence
spectrum of the samples measured by this study was consistent in wavelength
characteristics and intensity with that of FLT calibration solutions (see Section 4.3.2.1.1).
Thus the accuracy of the FLT analysis that the conclusions of this study are based on was
not affected by a green substance that may be in the sample aliquots. In summary, the
hypothesis that the green coloration observed in the SSG was due to the FLT content in
the discharging water is strengthened by several factors. These factors include: (1) a
strong correlation between the light absorbance characteristics of the submarine spring
samples compared to that of the FLT calibration solutions, (2) the demonstrated visibility
of FLT at concentrations comparable to those found emerging from the submarine
springs, and (3) the temporal agreement between the visibility of the green tint and the
measured FLT concentration.
4-24
-------
4.2.6 Area Survey Sampling and Results
The percent recovery calculations when merged with the SGD flux estimated by radon
indicate that a majority of the treated wastewater injected into Wells 3 and 4 is
discharged in the vicinity of the monitored submarine springs. This does not preclude
diffuse seepage from a much larger area, however. In fact, the lateral extent of the
elevated nitrogen-15 (615N) ratios measured in the Kaanapali area (Dailer et al, 2010) as
well as our aerial TIR imaging survey, indicate a plume of large spatial extent. In
addition, both the elevated 815N values and the abnormally warm water could be carried
from the identified submarine springs by currents resulting in an apparent footprint that is
larger in extent than the area where the treated wastewater is actively being discharge.
4.2.6.1 Area Sampling Survey Description and Methods
To better define the spatial extent of FLT plume, three rounds of sampling were
conducted throughout the entire nearshore region between Honokowai Point to the north,
and Black Rock Point to the south (Figure 4-13). In this effort, the seafloor was surveyed
in detail by scuba, and samples were collected from the seafloor using a syringe when
springs were observed, and by grab sampling where diffuse seepage was visible. These
operations are detailed in Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.5 and were performed during July 2012.
Samples were also collected from shallow monitoring wells on the Starwood Vacation
Resorts (SVO) property fronting the area where FLT is discharging on July, 31, 2012 and
April 29, 2013. Porewater samples were collected just offshore in the surge zone during
December 2012, and April and May 2013, by driving a piezometer into the seafloor and
extracting these using a peristaltic pump. Figure 4-25 shows the location of all samples
collected. During these operations, the grab, syringe, and piezometer samples captured a
significant amount of saline groundwater during collection, and this necessitated making
adjustments for salinity similar to as described for the submarine spring samples in
Section 4.2.3.4. Water quality instruments that measure salinity actually compute this
parameter from a direct measurement of the waters electrical conductivity (YSI, Inc, no
date). When the measured electrical conductivity is corrected to a temperature of 25°C
this is referred to as specific electrical conductivity (SEC). The USGS recommends
reading the SEC directly then computing the salinity from this measurement if necessary
(Wagner et al., 2006). For this reason, SEC rather than salinity was used to correct the
measured FLT concentration for elevated salinity. SEC was read in the laboratory with
an YSI ProPlus Water Quality Analyzer when the samples were filtered. For samples
where FLT was detected, the concentration was adjusted to the pre-mixing dye
concentration in the nearshore groundwater by correcting the measured dye concentration
for the fraction of seawater in the water sample. This was computed using the following
formula.
4-25
-------
FLT = (FLT^qs — Background) +¦
1 -
ECsafa^is SECsggp 3_ avg)
(SECgw — SECSBep 3
(Equation 4-4)
Where:
FLTadj = the dye concentration in the sample adjusted for salinity (ppb)
FLTmeas = the dye concentration measured sample (ppb)
Background = a baseline correction to prevent artificial estimates of FLT (ppb)
SECsampie= the salinity measured sample (|j,s/cm)
SECseep 3-avg = the average specific measured at Seep 3 (specific conductivity was
6,600 |j,s/cm)
SECsw = the average specific electrical conductivity of seawater (salinity
assumed to be 53,100 |j,s/cm)
A significant length of time elapsed between the first area survey in July 2012 and the
subsequent area surveys in December 2012, and April and May 2013. To reference the
results of these different surveys to a single diagnostic parameter, the FLT concentrations
were normalized to the concentration at Seep 3. Seep 3 FLT fluorescence was chosen as
the normalization point because Seep 3 is assumed to be the point of maximum FLT
concentration. The actual normalization was computed using the ratio Ci/Cmax, where C,
is the concentration at sample location "i," and where Cmax is the maximum concentration
of the plume (i.e., the concentration at Seep 3). Appendix Table A-6 details the data
associated with area survey including both the pre-adjustment and adjusted normalized
FLT concentrations, as well as the specific electrical conductivity of each sample.
Five monitoring wells on the Starwood Vacations Resort property were sampled on July
31, 2012. Two samples were collected from each well. The first was collected by
carefully lowering a bailer to just below the water's surface to prevent mixing of the
water in the well bore. This first sample thus represents collection from the top of the
water table prior to mixing of the well water by purging. The well was then purged a
minimum of three well volumes prior to collecting the second sample. SVO Well 6 was
purged with a SP400 Fultz submersible low volume pump. The remaining wells were
purged with a 1.5 in. disposable PVC bailer. Water quality parameters that included pH,
specific electrical conductivity, and temperature were measured with an YSI XLM 6000
Water Quality Analyzer. The tracer samples were collected in a 125 ml brown opaque
HPDE plastic bottle. The samples were immediately stored in an ice filled cooler.
4-26
-------
4.2.6.2 Area Sampling Survey Results
Figure 4-25 shows the FLT distribution of the area survey samples. Our results indicate
that all major locations of submarine spring discharge occur in close proximity to the two
seep group locations that have been sampled over the course of this study. This is shown
in Figure 4-25 by the close grouping of samples that in most cases have a Ci/Cmax ratio of
0.9 or greater. To the south, FLT concentrations greater than background were found
along the lower limb of the Hunt and Rosa (2009) delineation of the probable extent of
treated wastewater plume. This was evidenced by Ci/Cmax ratios of greater than 0.1 in
three of the samples in that area. Two of the samples were collected from the shoreline
with a piezometer. The concentrations in these samples prior to adjusting for the elevated
SEC were 0.9 and 0.06 ppb, above the background fluorescence of 0.11 ppb. These
concentrations were then adjusted to a value of a SEC equaling that at Seep 3. The
results were FLT concentrations of 5.8 and 2.4 ppb based on SECs of 46,000 and 52,400
|j,s/cm, respectively. No samples collected south of the TIR plume southern boundary
tested positive for FLT. A third location nearby with elevated an FLT concentration was
SVO Well 6. The second sample (collected after purging the well) had a FLT
concentration of 4.6 ppb. There were no adjustments for SEC for this sample since it was
collected directly from the groundwater and mixing with seawater was not an issue. To
the north of NSG only one sample tested positive for FLT, although sampling in this
northern sector was difficult due to a hard substrate just beneath the sand. Table 4-15
summarizes the FLT concentrations normalized to the concentration at Seep 3 on the day
area-survey sample was collected. The average values of 0.72 and 0.96 at the NSG and
SSG respectively show that the FLT concentrations measured at the monitored submarine
springs are reflective of the concentrations in the radon flux computation boxes used to
compute SGD flux at each seep group.
An important finding of the area survey was the establishment of the presence of FLT
adjacent to the two seep groups as well as at a significant distance to the south of these
groups. The southernmost sample that tested positive for FLT confirms that the dye
plume exists at least as far south as the southern TIR plume boundary, and likely to the
southern limb of the possible extent of the treated wastewater plume postulated by Hunt
and Rosa (2009). The shoreline sampling also showed that the FLT plume only extends a
short distance north of the NSG. Based on the results of the area sampling survey the
extent of plume from Injection Wells 3 and 4 was delineated. In summary, Figure 4-25
shows our finding for plume extent to be very similar to that of Hunt and Rosa (2009),
except that northern limb of the delineation is much closer to the northern TIR plume
boundary.
When evaluating the FLT tracer plume, temperature should also be considered. Elevated
temperature is a characteristic of this plume as described in Section 4 of the Interim
Report (Glenn et al., 2012). Injected LWTF treated wastewater ranged from 26-31°C, the
lower temperature of which was consistent with the nighttime surface water temperatures
imaged in the TIR plume. In contrast, normal (far field) SGD temperatures range from
20°-22°C (Mink, 1964). Figure 4-26 shows the temperatures measured in the SVO
monitoring wells. All of the wells showed elevated temperatures, with SVO Well 2 and
SVO Well 6 having temperatures greater than 28°C. Elevated temperatures in the wells
4-27
-------
could result from directly capturing the plume water in the sample or by heating of the
overlying water through thermal conduction. There is not enough data to discriminate
between the two processes except that the elevated FLT concentration at SVO Well 6
shows a direct connection to the FLT plume. SVO Well 2 showed an elevated
temperature, which would be expected since it is the monitoring well closest to the
LWRF. However, an only slightly elevated FLT concentration (0.15 ppb) was measured
at this well. This was in the initial sample collected from this well. SVO Well 3 showed
a slightly elevated temperature and SVO Well 4 showed a moderately elevated
temperature. The thickness of the overlying alluvium may constrain the tracer plume to
the basalt portion of the aquifer placing it below the bottom of the monitoring well
screens. Conduction could be warming SVO Wells 3 and 4 indicating the presence of a
tracer plume beneath but not in contact with well screens.
Figure 4-27 shows the spatial distribution of the specific electrical conductivity (SEC)
values of the area survey samples. An analysis of these SEC values provides an
assessment of the quality of the FLT concentration SEC adjustments described above.
The reliability of the adjustment for SEC decreases as the value of SEC approaches that
of seawater. Any elevated FLT calculated by the SEC adjustment method was
considered suspect by this study for values of SEC greater than 50,000 |j,s/cm. Since the
difference between the measured and seawater SEC is in the denominator of Equation 4-
1, as this difference becomes small the estimated FLT concentration very quickly
amplifies any measurement errors. Thus, the corrected FLT concentration of the most
southerly sample is not reliable because the measured SEC was 52,400 |j,s/cm. However,
immediately north of that sample, another sample with elevated FLT concentration had a
SEC value of 45,970 |j,s/cm, indicating 14% non-saline water. The fraction of non-saline
water is high enough for a reliable adjustment for SEC. Two samples collected south of
the southern TIR plume boundary had SECs less than 50,000 but no detectable FLT. If
FLT were present at these locations it would have been easily detectable by the
fluorometer. Samples collected within the delineated FLT plume extent had SECs low
enough for proper FLT analysis, but showed no indication of this dye. For example a
shoreline sample collected just north of a group of closely spaced samples on the
southern limb of the Hunt and Rosa (2009) probable plume extent line had a SEC of
48,400 |j,s/cm. A SEC of this value indicates the non-saline water fraction was high
enough for reliable FLT quantification. This sample only had a trace concentration of
FLT. Such a low value indicated that the southern lobe of the tracer and thus the treated
wastewater plume may be narrow with an edge that falls just north of the southern limb
that Hunt and Rosa (2009) delineated as the probable extent of treated wastewater plume.
This could indicate a fingering of the plume rather than a single large plume.
The area sampling survey was conducted to better characterize the extent of the tracer
plume. The survey showed that FLT was present as far south as the southern extent
estimated by Hunt and Rosa (2009) and within the southern boundary of the TIR plume.
The northern extent of the plume appears to be at least slightly north of that estimated by
the TIR survey based on the position of the NSG and the lone positive FLT detection to
the north. The findings of this survey are consistent with others.
4-28
-------
Figure 4-28 compares normalized FLT with the distribution of the 815N values of algal
samples from Dailer et al., (2010) from the survey area. North of the NSG the algal 815N
values start decreasing, reaching baseline values at Honokowai Point. Figure 4-28
indicates the 815N enrichments starts declining just north of the NSG and have decreased
significantly just north of the FLT plume northern limb.
Figure 4-29 compares normalized FLT with the results of the radon coastal survey (for
details, see the interim project report Section 5) for the area survey. Areas of significant
SGD flux as indicated by the moderate radon activity 0.40 to 0.52 disintegrations per
minute per liter) occur at the southern end of the area survey where elevated FLT
concentrations were found. Elevated radon activity also indicates significant SGD flux in
the area of the submarine springs and the area of elevated, but decreasing, algal 815N
values north of the NSG.
Our area survey sampling showed that the FLT plume was quite extensive with the
northern and southern extents closely matching that of the TIR plume boundaries. The
sampling took place three times. The first was in July 2012 and included a nearshore
scuba survey where samples were collected from active submarine springs and from five
monitoring wells located on the property of the Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO)
resort property. The second was in December 2012 when samples were collected in the
surf zone by installing a piezometer in the sand and drawing a sample with a peristaltic
pump. The third was in April and May, 2013, and included shoreline piezometer and
SVO-resort monitoring well sampling. The FLT concentrations of samples were adjusted
to a SEC equal to the average SEC measured in the samples collected from the Seep 3
piezometer. The concentrations were then normalized to that of the sample collected
from the Seep 3 piezometer on the day the area survey sample was collected. The area
survey results show the FLT was present in SGD discharging north and south of the two
monitored groups of submarine springs. To the north, 125 m north of the NSG, FLT
concentration was 11% of the concentration measured at Seep 3. The shoreline sampling
survey continued 980 m to the north of the location of that sample, and none of the
samples tested positive for FLT. Eighteen samples were collected south of the SSG, and
five of which had FLT fluorescence that exceeded that of the background confirming the
existence of FLT. All of the samples south of the SSG that tested positive for FLT were
at or were north of southern TIR plume boundary.
4.3 Injection Well 2 Tracer Test
A second tracer test was performed at the LWRF Injection Well 2 to investigate whether
effluent from Well 2 discharges into the ocean at the same locations identified in the first
tracer test in Wells 3 and 4. The injection capacity of Well 2 is significantly greater than
that of the other wells, implying that it may have a hydraulic connection to the ocean with
a preferential flow path. So that the two tracer test could be readily distinguished, the
second dye addition, SRB, was added on August 11, 2011, two weeks after the first FLT
dye additions at Wells 3 and 4.
4-29
-------
Despite its higher injection capacity, the effluent flow into LWRF Injection Well 2 is
significantly less than that into Wells 3 and 4 because the wellhead elevation is higher,
resulting in less gravity flow to this well. The average injection rate into Well 2 during
the period of August 3 - 10, 2011 was 0.76 mgd, in contrast to that of Well 3 and Well 4
that were 1.3 and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The flow into Well 2 generally occurred
between the hours of 10:00 to 20:00. Our assessment indicated that the flow rate and
duration into Well 2 were not sufficient to adequately assess the hydraulic connectivity
between the well and the nearshore waters. Therefore, the plant operations were
modified to sustain an injection rate greater than 1 mgd on the day of SRB addition. This
was accomplished by diverting all R1 water to injection and throttling down on the
wellhead valves for Well 3 and Well 4 at the start of dye injection.
The dye mixing process for this test was the same as described above for FLT, with a
mixing rate of 10 lbs per 50 gal. The active ingredient fraction of the SRB powder is
approximately 25%, which resulted in a solution that is 0.60% active ingredient by
weight. A total of 180 lbs of dye powder was used to provide a total of 900 gal. of SRB
dye solution. The planned concentration of SRB mixed with the effluent in Well 2 was
2,600 ppb. The dye was added at the Effluent Splitter Box (Figure 4-30) at 15-minute
intervals starting at 07:00 and continuing through 00:45.
Figure 4-31 shows the well injection rates and the resulting dye concentration in Well 2
for this test. When the dye addition started at 07:15 on August 11, 2011, the flow into
Well 2 had not reached the desired magnitude, which produced a very high concentration
for the first hour at about 38,000 ppb. Throttling down of the valves at the wellhead of
Wells 3 and 4 resulted in increased flow to Well 2, which decreased the injection
concentration to about 1,500 ppb. For the period from 09:00 until 22:00, the flow into
Well 2 was less variable and the dye injection concentration varied from about 2,100 ppb
to about 3,500 ppb. At about 22:15, the flow into Well 2 started to decrease and less
amount of dye was added to keep the dye concentration range in the range between 2,000
to 2,500 ppb until about midnight. At that point, due to the falling effluent injection into
Well 2, the remaining dye concentrate (about 22.5 gal.) was added to the splitter box
between 00:00 and 00:45. This increased the dye injection concentration for the final
hour of dye addition to about 12,000 ppb. Dye addition was terminated at 00:45 on
August 12th. For the 24-hour period from 07:00 August 11 until 07:00 on August 12,
2011, the flow into Well 2 was 2.1 million gal. and total flow to all wells was 5.1 million
gal. The average SRB concentration in the Well 2 and all injected effluent was 2,500 and
1,000 ppb, respectively.
4.3.1 Sample Handling
To ensure the integrity of the SRB sample analysis, the aliquots need to be properly
handled from the point of collection, during the shipment to and storage at UH Manoa,
and during the transport from the University to the laboratory in Pearl City, where the
samples were analyzed. Temperature can affect the dye fluorescence, so for these
analyses the samples and calibration solutions were stored overnight at ambient
temperature. Hawaii nighttime temperatures are similar to that of an air-conditioned
4-30
-------
room. Early the next morning (prior to 7:30 am), the samples were delivered to the
HDOH laboratory for analysis. The warm-up time for the spectrophotometer was about
30 minutes, so calibration solutions, samples, and instrument were all located in the same
room for approximately one hour during the equipment warm-up time and set up
procedure for analyses. An hour does not ensure complete temperature equilibration with
the instrument, but since the calibration solutions and the samples were stored and
transported together, they were temperature equilibrated.
The temperature effect on a dye's fluorescence varies depending on the dye analyzed.
The variation in the fluorescence intensity of a dye with a change in temperature is an
exponential coefficient. The exponent for SRB is -0.029, so that for every 1°C increase
in the temperature, the fluorescence of SRB decreases the equivalent of approximately
0.7 ppb (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977). For comparison the temperature coefficient for FLT
is -0.0036/°C (Smart and Laidlaw, 1977). Following SRB analysis, the samples were
placed in a refrigerator for archival storage for the duration of the project.
4.3.2 SRB Analysis
4.3.2.1 SRB Laboratory Analysis
SRB analyses were completed using a Hitachi F4500 Fluorescence Spectrophotometer,
which is used to measure the fluorescence, phosphorescence, and luminescence in the
ultraviolet and in the visible regions of the spectrum. This instrument is programmable,
so that the fluorescence intensity of the wavelengths from 200 to 730 nm can be
measured. When analyzing a specific dye, an excitation/emission couple is programmed
into the instrument. For SRB, an excitation wavelength of 565 nm and an emission
wavelength of 586 nm were used based on spectrophotometry guidance from Nikon
Instruments
(http://www.microscopvu.com/articles/fluorescence/filtercubes/green/greenhome.htmn.
The bandwidth slit, which sets the bandwidth of the wavelengths, was set to 5 nm for
both excitation and emission.
This instrument is also used for performing synchronous scans, where a sequential series
of fluorescence measurements are performed on a sample. Synchronous scans were thus
also completed to verify that any elevated fluorescence in the SRB wavelength couple
was consistent with that of SRB and, further, to investigate any change in fluorescence
characteristics of the low concentration SRB solutions with time. For the synchronous
scans, the instrument was programmed to scan from 500 to 600 nm when evaluating the
SRB spectrum and 400 to 600 nm when evaluating samples for FLT and
deaminoalkylated SRB (DA-SRB). The spectrophotometer produces a spectra graph and
printout (the printout is excitation wavelength versus fluorescence intensity in user-
defined increments, usually 2 nm) and an electronic file of fluorescent intensity at 0.2 nm
increments of excitation or emission wavelengths. The fluorescence intensity of the
emission wavelength monitored was the excitation wavelength plus 20 nm.
4-31
-------
4.3.2.1.1 Spectrophotometer Calibration
The fluorescence spectrophotometer was calibrated using 0.0, 1.0, 10, 20, 50, and 100
ppb calibration solutions. These were mixed in the same manner as the FLT calibration
solutions except for the 100,000 ppb stock solution. For formulating the SRB dye
concentrated stock solution, 400 mg of 25% active ingredient powder were added to a
small glass beaker. The dye powder was weighed using an analytical balance. Prior to
analysis each calibration solution aliquot was scanned three times and the fluorescence
recorded. The resultant calibration consisted of a linear best curve fit between the
indicated fluorescence intensity and the actual dye concentration.
4.3.2.1.2 SRB Method Detection Limit (MDL) Assessment
As with FLT, both the EPA and Hubaux and Vos (1970) methods were used to assess the
MDL for SRB. Solutions were prepared using submarine spring water spiked to
concentrations of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 ppb. In addition, a solution with no SRB was
analyzed in the same manner as the MDL samples to establish background fluorescence
for this assessment. The MDL samples were prepared in 1 L volumes that were then
filtered and otherwise processed in the same manner as the field samples. Tables 4-16
and 4-17 list the results of the two MDL assessment methods.
For the EPA method, the average no-dye fluorescence of 0.046 ppb was subtracted from
the fluorescence measured in the MDL samples. This was done so the percent recovery
could be computed correctly. The sample spiked to a concentration of 0.02 ppb was the
only sample that met all of the requirements for MDL analysis. The associated
computations gave a MDL of 0.013 ppb and a limit of quantification of 0.044 ppb. For
sample analysis, the instrument response is the sum of the dye and background
fluorescence. The average background fluorescence of samples collected in August and
September, 2011 was 0.03 ppb. This gives a MDL and limit of quantification of 0.043
and 0.071 ppb, respectively, as read directly from the spectrophotometer.
The Hubaux and Vos (1970) method gave a much lower MDL of 0.005 ppb. The aliquot
spiked to 0.01 ppb was excluded because the percent error was greater than the
recommended value of 20%. To more definitively evaluate the MDL, a synchronous
scan was run on dye free and MDL aliquots spiked to 0.01 and 0.02 ppb. Figure 4-32
shows the results of the synchronous scan, which indicate that the sample spiked to a
SRB concentration of 0.01 was not discernible from a sample with no dye. However, the
sample spiked to a SRB concentration of 0.02 ppb had a marked increase in fluorescence
at about 580 nm. Based on this analysis, the MDL for SRB was estimated to be 0.02 ppb.
This is consistent with the MDL estimate from the EPA method. Rounding the
background fluorescence to the nearest tenth of a ppb, the MDL as read directly from the
spectrophotometer is 0.05 ppb and the limit of quantification is 0.08 ppb.
4-32
-------
4.3.2.1.3 SRB Laboratory Quality Assurance
To ensure the accuracy and integrity of the SRB tracer-dye analysis program, three
quality assurance tests were done: (1) calibrating the spectrophotometer as described in
Section 4.3.2.1.1; (2) challenging the spectrophotometer with 0.0 and 1.0 or 10 ppb SRB
calibration standards at the end of an analysis run; and (3) evaluating the calibration
solutions for stability. Table 4-18 shows the results of linearity test and the offset
calculated for establishing the zero baseline (i.e., no SRB present) of the
spectrophotometer. The calibrations for the sets of analyses done from August 2011
through February 2012 had coefficients of determination less than 0.999 and baseline
offsets greater than 0.5 ppb. As proficiency was gained in the mixing of calibration
standards and the use of the spectrophotometer, calibration statistics improved
significantly. The coefficient of determination was greater than 0.999 in all cases after
February 2012. The coefficient of the line of best fit varied between 0.055 and 0.065
with an average of 0.060. Unlike the FLT calibrations where the best fit line was used to
refine the fit between indicated fluorescence in unit of ppb FLT to the calibration solution
concentration, this best fit line was used to convert the arbitrary units of raw fluorescence
value to units of ppb SRB. Physical factors such as variations in the temperature of the
laboratory or in the calibration solutions could cause slight variation in the slope of the
best-fit line. Tables 4-19 and 4-20 show the results of the analysis tests for zero baseline
and upscale check, respectively. The zero baseline check concentrations ranged from
0.00 to 0.02 ppb, values less than the MDL, showing the zero point of the
spectrophotometer did not drift during any analysis set. As with the calibration statistics,
the end of analysis upscale tests were very good after proficiency was gained with the
instrument and mixing the calibration solutions. From March 2012 through January
2013, the greatest difference was 0.06 ppb for the 1 ppb calibration solution and 0.16 ppb
for the 10 ppb calibration solution. The upscale tests done from August 2011 through
December 2011 showed differences of greater than 1 ppb for the 1 ppb solution and 3 ppb
for the 10 ppb calibration solution. These problems were resolved when a new set of
calibration solutions mixed in March 2012. The early problems with the laboratory QA
had no effect on the conclusions of the study because SRB was not detected during the
affected time periods. Had SRB been present it would resulted in an upscale reading on
the spectrophotometer, however, there would have been small inaccuracies. Synchronous
scans of samples collected during this time period also showed no indication of SRB.
A concern of this study was the long-term stability of SRB. The fluorescence of this dye
could decrease with time or the fluorescence wavelength characteristics could change.
Degradation of SRB was evaluated by recording the raw fluorescence of the 1 ppb
standard during each analysis. The stability of the wavelength characteristics was
evaluated by periodically performing a synchronous scan on the 1 ppb calibration
solution. Figure 4-3 3 a compares the fluorescence of the 1 ppb calibration solution mixed
on March 5, 2012 to the average fluorescence measured during calendar year 2012. This
graph shows no decrease in fluorescence with time until nearly a year after the solution
was mixed. The last two fluorescence measurements, taken on April 3, 2013 and May 7,
2013, do show a slight decrease in fluorescence that could be due to SRB degradation.
Figure 4-33b shows the results of periodic synchronous scans done on this same solution
4-33
-------
to evaluate any shift in emission wavelength spectrum. The scans occurred over a nine
month period (the date of each scan is given in the legend). The peak fluorescence
intensity of SRB emission spectrum occurred at 582 nm for the early scans (April 2012
and May 2012) but shifted to a slightly shorter wavelength of 579 nm for the remaining
scans. There was no significant shift to shorter wavelengths, which would be consistent
with deaminoalkylation. Peak SRB emission fluorescence at or near the expected of
value of 584 nm is consistent with the possible detection of SRB at Seep 3 on December
28, 2012. The peak fluorescence intensity of the SRB emission spectrum of the
December 28 sample occurred at 575.6 nm. The closeness of the peak emission
wavelength values to 584 nm indicate that if deaminoalkylation was occurring the effect
on the emission spectrum was not significant (see Section 4.3.2.2.1 for details on the
synchronous scans).
4.3.2.2 Measured Fluorescence in the SRB Wavelength
There have been no positive detections greater than the MDL of SRB from the submarine
springs. However, there were a limited number of samples that had a fluorescence
spectrum consistent with trace concentrations of SRB. Figures 4-34 and 4-35 show a time
series of the SRB analysis for the NSG and SSG, respectively. Plotted on these graphs
are the average SRB wavelength fluorescence and error bars showing the magnitude of
maximum and minimum measured values for each sample day. The fluorescence
measured is that of background plus that of any dye that may be present. The average
concentration for all submarine springs for the period from August 1st, 2011 through
September 30th, 2011 was 0.03 ppb. This was also the long-term average for the duration
of the submarine spring sampling for this project. The July, 2011 samples were excluded
from background analysis due to the large number of outliers in the SSG, attributed to
laboratory errors, such as, improperly seating the sample in the spectrophotometer
carousel. As proficiency developed in the use of the instrument, errors such as these
decreased. Also plotted on this graph is the MDL of 0.05 ppb. Only 39 samples
collected after the SRB addition on August 11th, 2011 had fluorescence greater than the
MDL of 0.05 ppb. Most of these were collected from the SSG (31 out 39) and were
sporadic in nature, in that, the sample collected prior to and just after the anomalously
high SRB sample had baseline SRB fluorescence. Due to the isolated occurrence of the
elevated fluorescence, it seems that these rises were, in most cases, due to factors other
than the presence of SRB. However, some samples were evaluated as possible detections
of SRB. The history of the SRB fluorescence measured from samples from the NSG and
SSG is provided in Appendix C Tables C-l and C-2.
4.3.2.2.1 SRB Synchronous Scans
Synchronous scans were done to evaluate samples with slightly elevated fluorescence in
the SRB wavelength for the presence of this dye and to evaluate samples for the presence
of DA-SRB. Samples collected in February, March, October, and December had
elevated fluorescence in the SRB wavelengths. These samples were evaluated for the
presence of SRB by synchronous scans. A sample collected from Seep 12 on February
20th, 2012 showed slightly elevated fluorescence at 580 nm, consistent with SRB when
4-34
-------
evaluated by a synchronous scan. However, samples collected from that location after
that date showed no elevated fluorescence in the SRB wavelengths. Two samples
collected from Seep 3, one on February 12th, 2012 and the other on February 20th, 2012
also showed elevated fluorescence at 580 nm when evaluated by a synchronous scan.
Figure 4-36 compares: (1) the synchronous scan of those samples collected from Seep 3
and Seep 12; (2) a sample collected from the SVO Well 2; and (3) a laboratory solution
prepared for this study. The laboratory solution had an FLT concentration of 35 ppb,
similar to that of the submarine spring samples, and a SRB concentration of 0.05 ppb.
An additional sample collected from Seep 3 on June 14, 2012 (shown in violet) had no
elevated fluorescence in the SRB emission wavelengths and is presented for reference.
This graph shows that the sample collected from Seep 3 on February 20, 2012 had
fluorescence characteristics very similar to the sample spiked with 35 ppb FLT and 0.05
ppb SRB. However, this was only considered as a "possible" SRB detection, because
there have been no subsequent samples collected with similar fluorescence
characteristics. The samples collected from Seep 3 on February 10, 2012 and from Seep
12 on March 14, 2012 displayed only slightly elevated fluorescence in the SRB emission
wavelengths.
The synchronous scans shown in Figure 4-36 also show that a possible detection of DA-
SRB and low level interference between the strong FLT fluorescence and the weak tracer
concentration fluorescence of SRB. The sample collected from SVO Well 2 (Figure 4-
36) had emission wavelength fluorescence similar to that of the laboratory standard
except that peak fluorescence occurred at 570 nm rather than 580 nm. This shift to a
shorter wavelength could be the result of SRB deaminoalkylation. Figure 4-36 further
shows that the trailing edge of the FLT tracer slightly elevates the fluorescence in the
SRB wavelength at about 580 nm, and that this trailing edge needs to be considered when
evaluating very low concentrations of SRB.
Two other samples collected near the end of field monitoring program also showed
elevated fluorescence in the SRB emission wavelengths. Both samples were collected
from Seep 3 on October 26, 2012 and December 28, 2012. Figure 4-37 is a synchronous
scan of these two samples. Shown for comparison is a laboratory prepared aliquot with
8.9 ppb FLT and 0.05 ppb SRB, and a sample with no elevated fluorescence in the SRB
emission wavelength collected from Seep 11 on December 14, 2012.
SRB degradation could also shift the emission spectrum to shorter wavelengths (in the
direction of the FLT peak). The degradation of SRB through the process known as
deaminoalkylation could lead to the failure of the primary SRB analysis methods
(described above) to detect this dye. Deaminoalkylated SRB (DA-SRB) should fluoresce
at wavelengths of 535 to 540 nm, which is shorter than that of unaltered SRB (Kass,
1998). If the fluorescence intensity of DA-SRB relative to the concentration is similar to
that of SRB, the fluorescence of either SRB or DA-SRB as indicated by the Rhodamine
channel of the AquaFluor Handheld Fluorometer would show up clearly in synchronous
scans. Figure 4-38, for example, compares synchronous scans of a laboratory-prepared
aliquot containing 35 ppb of FLT and 0.1 ppb of SRB (shown as a red line) with a sample
collected at Seep 3 on June 7, 2012 (shown as a green line). Both FLT traces show
4-35
-------
symmetrical curves that extend from about 470 to 560 nm. The 0.1 ppb SRB added to
the laboratory-prepared sample clearly shows up as the elevated fluorescence from about
562 to 605 nm. The Seep 3 apparent SRB concentration as read in the field on the
AquaFluor Handheld Fluorometer was 3.3 ppb, a concentration that should result in a
prominent fluorescence peak centered at 580 nm. If the DA-SRB rather than SRB was
the cause of the elevated SRB channel reading of the AquaFluor Handheld Fluorometer,
this should also be easily detectable in a synchronous scan trace. The reason for this is
that fluorescence from fluorophores tends to be additive (Meus et al., 2006). Because the
fluorescence of fluorescein extends beyond the 535 to 540 nm wavelengths identified by
Kass (1998) as the zone of peak fluorescence for DA-SRB, then DA-SRB should be
manifest as an asymmetrical fluorescein trace with the descending limb showing a bulge.
The third trace on Figure 4-38 (shown as a blue line) is a hypothetical computer-
generated sample containing both fluorescein and DA-SRB. This trace was generated by
multiplying fluorescence of the portion of the 0.1 ppb SRB trace that extends above
background by 33 to upscale it to 3.3 ppb. This trace was then shifted to the shorter
wavelengths so the peak was centered over 538 nm, the approximate peak fluorescence of
DA-SRB. Finally, the fluorescence of this hypothetical DA-SRB trace was added to the
fluorescence of the Seep 3 sample to superimpose the DA-SRB fluorescence on the
fluorescein curve. The result is an easily observable bulge on the descending limb of the
fluorescein curve from about 535 to 555 nm.
Eighty-eight samples were evaluated for DA-SRB and for trace concentrations of SRB
using synchronous scans. These scans were evaluated for fluorescence spectrum
anomalies that could indicate the presence of DA-SRB and elevated for fluorescence in
the SRB wavelength spectrum. Table 4-21 summarizes the results of these scans. Early
scans (16 scans) were done with an excitation wavelength range from 520 to 620 nm.
Although this range does not cover the entire FLT wavelength spectrum is does cover the
range of 535 - 540 nm where DA-SRB is likely to occur (Kass, 1998). The scanned
emission wavelength spectrum was then expanded to the range from 420 to 620 nm to
capture the entire FLT emission spectrum. No scans showed any indication of DA-SRB.
Figure 4-23 is a typical example of the synchronous scans, the wavelength traces of three
samples are compared to a laboratory prepared sample with 35 ppb FLT and 0.1 ppb
SRB. No anomalies similar to what would be expected from DA-SRB (refer to Figure 4-
37) were present. Very trace concentrations of DA-SRB could be masked by the FLT
fluorescence, however, SRB concentrations consistent with those measured by the Aqua-
Fluor hand held fluorometer (1.0 to 1.8 for the samples in Figure 4-38) would be clearly
visible on the emission spectrum, whether unaltered or deaminoalkylated. No evidence
of DA-SRB was found and only four samples were evaluated as possibly containing
SRB. The trace concentrations present in the samples discussed above indicated that
relying only on the direct readout of the spectrophotometer to evaluate samples was
insufficient. Synchronous scans proved to be a valuable tool to evaluate samples for
trace concentrations of SRB and to investigate whether or not dye degradation was
occurring.
4-36
-------
4.3.3 Possible Causes of the Lack of SRB Detection
If the transport processes and pathway taken by SRB were similar to that of FLT, the
detection of SRB should have occurred due to its sub-ppb detection limit, the significant
amount of time that has elapsed since the dye addition, and the large amount of SRB
added to Well 2. The possible causes for the lack SRB detection are: (1) the injectate is
displaced to other discharge locations by the injection into Wells 3 and 4, but would
discharge at the monitored submarine springs if Well 2 were the only injection well used;
(2) the injectate into Well 2 is discharging at a location other than those monitored
regardless of the injection into other wells; (3) SRB sorbing onto the aquifer matrix slows
its arrival time and decreases the concentration to below detectable limits; and/or (4) due
to the long transit time, SRB degrades by deaminoalkylation or some other process that
prevents its detection.
The spacing between LWRF injection wells is such that there is a significant interference
between the injection flow fields. Injection Wells 3 and 4 inject the majority of effluent
and are located between Injection Well 2 and the submarine springs where the FLT
emergence was monitored. The dominant flow from Wells 3 and 4 may thus likely
displace the injected wastewater effluent from Well 2 around the Well 3 and 4 flow
fields. If so, the probable result is that the flow from Well 2 would take a different path
other than directly towards the submarine springs. Figure 4-39 shows the results of
computer simulations using the USGS groundwater flow model MODFLOW (Harbaugh
et al., 2000) and the particle tracking model MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). MODPATH
uses the groundwater flow solution from MODFLOW to trace the track that simulated
particles will take as they are moved by the advection of groundwater. The model does
not account for dispersion or diffusion. The model output is a set of arcs that represent
the particle track path lines. Figure 4-39a shows the model output of particle tracks
created by injection into Wells 3 and 4 (shown in red) and created by the injection into
Well 2 (shown in green). This shows that with simultaneous injection into these three
wells, which currently occurs, the injectate from Well 2 is displaced from a pathway to
the submarine springs. This model shows that the injectate from Well 2 is diverted to the
east around the simulated barrier before taking a northwesterly path to the ocean. Figure
4-39b shows that with only injection into Well 2, the majority of the underground
discharge from Well 2 travels to the known submarine springs. A detailed description of
the modeling for this project can be found in Section 5. Again, due to the non-detection
of SRB the model results cannot be validated, but it does show a probable result of
conducting the Well 2 SRB tracer test while continuing the injection into Wells 3 and 4.
This does not, however, preclude the possibility that the injected effluent into Well 2
would assume the same underground flow path as that of Wells 3 and 4 if it were to
become the primary injection well.
One of the goals of the area survey described in Section 4.2.6 was to investigate other
discharge locations for SRB. No discharge locations were confirmed during that survey,
although a degradation product of this dye may have been detected at a trace
concentration level in SVO Well 2. Obviously, the potential of the discharge of the Well
2 injectate at a location other than those monitored cannot adequately be evaluated.
4-37
-------
However, it may be beneficial to re-evaluate a past tracer study done at the LWRF in
light of the new findings of the current study. In 1993, the dye Rhodamine WT was
added to Injection Well 2 at a concentration of approximately 100 parts per billion for 58
days (Tetra Tech, 1994). In that study, a marine survey was conducted from a boat in an
attempt to identify areas where the LWRF wastewater effluent might be discharging into
the ocean. They used a pump with a hose attached that was lowered to the seafloor for
each sample collection. The discharge of the pump was connected to a fluorometer with
a flow cell. The background fluorescence in the Tetra Tech (1994) study varied between
0.04 and 0.06, similar to that of this study. Elevated levels of fluorescence of about 0.18
ppb were detected 55 and 61 days after the start of injection at survey points adjacent to
each other. Although scant, the location of the elevated fluorescence detections was very
close to the area monitored by this study, but deeper (about 30 m) and farther offshore
(about 300 m) than the submarines springs monitored by this study. According to Tetra
Tech (1994), the dye emergence was not expected at this location and the elevated
fluorescence was evaluated as being from another fluorophore such as dissolved organic
matter. It is not possible to confirm whether the Tetra Tech study actually detected the
dye, but our study indicates the effluent from Well 2 may not be discharging into the
nearshore waters and a discharge point deeper and further from shore needs to be
considered.
The lack of detection of SRB may additionally be related to matrix sorption within the
aquifer. Sorption of SRB onto the solid media of the aquifer would slow the transport
velocity and decrease the SRB concentration at points of emergence. Sorption could
decrease the concentration to values less than the MDL, resulting in non-detection even
though the fluids injected into Well 2 are discharging at the monitored locations.
Sabatini (2000) assessed FLT and SRB sorption. Sabatini found that significant SRB
sorption occurred when the aquifer matrix was limestone. Sediments consisting of
alluvium, unconsolidated and consolidated carbonate sands, and reef limestone form the
coastal and nearshore sedimentary structure commonly referred to caprock. The caprock
(shown as the alluvium along the coast in Figure 1-9) is present in varying thicknesses in
the study area. Because the NSG and SSG are located near the shoreline, calcareous
sands, reef limestone, and sandstone in the caprock would be present sorption sites in the
SRB plume travel path. As will be discussed in Section 5, the sorption of SRB could
reduce the concentration of this dye to below the MDL.
At the time of this writing, in excess 1.5y have elapsed since SRB was added to the
treated wastewater stream at the LWRF Well 2. During that time, this dye could degrade
to a non-fluorescent species or, more likely, undergo transformation that would result in
different fluorescent characteristics (i.e., deaminoalkylation). The longer the transit time
for SRB, the more likely it is that such a process has occurred. If DA-SRB were present,
the synchronous scans performed by this study would have detected this altered SRB if it
were present above trace concentrations. This study did not test for or evaluate other
degradation/transformation processes and cannot rule them out. We conclude that
primary cause for the non-detection of SRB is displacement of the SRB plume away from
the submarine springs by injection into Wells 3 and 4. Also, due to the failure to
positively detect SRB and inference with the SRB plume resulting from the injection into
4-38
-------
Wells 3 and 4, no conclusions can be made regarding the hydraulic connection between
Well 2 and the nearshore waters at Kaanapali.
4.4 Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO) Monitoring Well
Sampling
Five monitoring wells on the property of Starwood Vacation Ownership Resorts (SVO)
were sampled as part of this study. These wells were located within the boundaries of the
FLT plume (Figure 4-25). Table 4-22 lists the well construction data available for these
wells.
4.4.1 SVO Well Sampling Procedures
Prior to purging and sampling the wells, a temperature and specific conductivity profile
was taken to document any stratification that may be present. The measurements were
done using an YSI EC300 Conductivity/Temperature Meter with a 10 m cable. The
probe of the YSI EC300 was lowered in one foot intervals until the bottom of the well
was reached. A temperature and SEC reading was taken at each interval..
Sampling was done with 1.5 inch disposable PVC bailers. A dedicated bailer was used
for each well to prevent cross contamination between wells. Prior to purging a well, an
initial sample was collected for fluorescent dye analysis (FLT and SRB). Thus, this
initial pre-purge sample was intended to capture any dye that may have been present at
the top of water table. With purging, samples would be diluted by water deeper in the
well bore and by water flowing into the well from the surrounding formation, which
could decrease the concentrations below the detection limit. The pre-purge sampling was
done by carefully lowering a disposable bailer to just below the water surface.
Once the initial sample was collected, the wells were purged until a quantity of water
equal to three well volumes was extracted from the well. The water quality parameters
were measured during the well purging included water temperature, pH, and specific
conductivity. The water quality parameters were stabilized so that no more than a 10%
change would occur during the last three consecutive measurements. The purged water
was containerized in a 3 gal. bucket marked in 1 gal. increments to facilitate
measurements of the purge volumes.
A set of nutrient samples and a second tracer sample was collected after three well
volumes of water had been purged. No further samples were collected during the first
and second round of sampling. During the third round of sampling, purging was resumed
after the initial three well volume purge. A small submersible pump, rather than
disposable bailers, was used to collect a third tracer sample. The pump was lowered to a
depth just above of the bottom of the well. The pump was then turned on and a volume
of water equal to three well volumes was purged from the well. A set of tracer dye
samples and a set of nutrient samples to be analyzed by UH were then collected. This
was done to investigate whether or not selectively pumping from the bottom of the well
could obtain a sample more representative of the treated wastewater plume. An increase
4-39
-------
in the FLT concentration in the pumped sample would indicate the sample was more
representative of the treated wastewater plume.
Samples collected at the SVO wells were analyzed for: (1) FLT content by using a Turner
10AU Filter Fluorometer at the University of Hawaii; (2) SRB content by using a Hitachi
F4500 Spectrophotometer at the Hawaii Department of Health Environmental Laboratory
at Pearl City, Hawaii; (3) and nitrate/nitrite, total nitrogen, and phosphorous content at
the same laboratory. During each sampling round, a duplicate sample was collected from
one well. The duplicate sample was labeled Well 7 with a sample time of 12:05.
4.4.2. SVO Well Sampling Results and Discussion
The vertical temperature/SEC profile measured during the initial round of sampling
showed that some stratification exists. Figure 4-40 shows the vertical profile for
temperature (a) and SEC (b). All wells showed elevated temperatures at water surface.
Wells 3 and 4 showed some increase in temperature starting at a water depth of six ft.
The SEC profile was uniform for Wells 3 and 4, while SVO Well 2 showed a small
increase in SEC starting at a water depth of nine ft. Wells 5 and 6 showed significant
stratification with sharp increases in SEC starting at a water depth of one foot. Table 4-
23 provides temperature, pH, SEC, and dye fluorescence measured at the monitoring
wells. Water quality parameter values were those measured when the final tracer dye
sample was collected.
The initial tracer samples collected from these wells confirmed the detection of FLT and
a possible detection of trace concentrations of degraded SRB. As Table 4-23 shows, four
of the ten samples collected had FLT fluorescence greater than the method detection limit
of 0.11 ppb. Sample 2 from Well 6 showed strong fluorescence in the FLT wavelength.
Two wells, Well 2 (Sample 1) and Well 6 (Sample 1) had sulpho-rhodamine B (SRB)
fluorescence greater than the method detection limit of 0.05 ppb. A synchronous scan
done on these two samples showed that Well 2, Sample 1, had an emission wavelength
spectrum that showed elevated fluorescence at 570 nm, slightly shorter than that expected
for SRB. Elevated fluorescence at 570 could indicate deaminoalkylated SRB or the
presences of some other fluorophore. The elevated fluorescence was too small to
discriminate between the two possibilities. Tables D-l through D-3 in Appendix D list
the water quality and tracer dye results for each sampling round. Tables D-2 and D-3
also detail the water quality parameters measured during the purging of SVO Wells.
During the April 29, 2013 and June 6, 2013 rounds of sampling, the FLT concentrations
were low in all wells (0.2 - 0.5 ppb) and there was possibly a trace concentration of SRB
in Well 2 (similar to the results of the July 31, 2012 round of sampling). If the wells had
a direct hydraulic connection to the basalt aquifer, the FLT concentrations should have
been much higher. The FLT transport model indicates that during the July 31, 2012
round of sampling, FLT concentrations would range from 1.7 at SVO Well 6 to 21 ppb at
SVO Well 4. The modeled FLT concentrations at the SVO Wells during the April 29 and
June 6, 2013 rounds of sampling ranged from 0.34 at Well 2 to 25.4 at Well 6. By April
and June, 2013, the simulated plume had migrated past all of the wells except Well 6,
4-40
-------
leaving only residual concentrations at the other wells. The FLT concentrations currently
measured at the submarine springs are about 6 to 8 ppb, much higher than that measured
at the SVO Wells.
The nutrient sampling showed that the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in these
wells were generally very low. Table 4-24 includes the nutrient chemistry results that
were available at the time that this report is written. Nutrient chemistry done by UH and
HDOH are available for the July 31, 2012 sampling round. The University of Hawaii has
completed the nutrient analysis for the April 29, 2013 sampling round and the June 6,
2013 nutrient chemistry analysis has not yet been completed by UH. Results are still
pending from HDOH for the April 29 and June 6, 2013 sampling rounds. The nutrient
chemistry results will be forwarded when they become available. Based on the nutrient
chemisty that is currently available, the only well that had any nitrogen species
concentration greater than 1 mg/L was Well 5. Concentrations from this well are not
representative of those in the groundwater that discharges to the ocean since the water
column is very short (less than two ft) and would only reflect the chemistry at the surface
of the water table. This zone would be heavily influenced by landscape fertilizers and not
reflect the bulk chemistry of the non-saline groundwater. In addition, the recovery after
water was purged from Well 5 was very slow indicating potential well installation
problems. For these reasons, Well 5 was not sampled during subsequent two rounds of
sampling.
Temperature data indicate that the wastewater plume is likely passing beneath the wells,
which are completed in the alluvium and do not penetrate to the basal aquifer, as
confirmed by the low FLT concentrations. The water collected from these wells is
probably a combination of landscaping irrigation recharge and some upwelling from the
confined basal aquifer.
4.5 Summary and Conclusions
Two tracer tests were conducted during this study to assess the hydraulic connectivity
between the effluent injection wells at the LWRF and the coastal nearshore waters.
During the first, FLT was added to Wells 3 and 4 on July 28, 2011. The dye from this
tracer test began discharging at the nearshore submarine springs in late October, 2011,
after about 84 days. The FLT concentration increased to about 21 ppb then plateaued in
late February 2012 at the North Seep Group (NSG). The peak concentration of 22.5 ppb
occurred at this seep group about 306 days after the FLT addition. At the South Seep
Group (SSG), the initial detection of FLT occurred 109 days after the FLT addition. The
FLT concentration then increased to a peak of 34 parts per billion (ppb) about 271 days
following the FLT addition. The natural background fluorescence at the monitoring sites
was assessed by analyzing the samples taken prior to the arrival of the dye. It was found
that background fluorescence was very small, at about 0.11 ppb relative to the magnitude
of the FLT fluorescence detected. The dye concentrations were higher at the SSG than at
the NSG for most of the BTC. This could be due to spatial variability, or because the
SSG may be closer to the center of the groundwater plume than the NSG. If it is the
latter case, then there is an indication of effluent discharging points existing to the south
4-41
-------
of the SSG, which has been confirmed by area sampling during a survey of additional
possible dye discharge points.
Mass balance calculations done using the BTC in the QTracer2 BTC analysis program
indicated that 64% of the FLT that was added into Wells 3 and 4 will have been fully
discharged at the submarine spring areas. Thus, as viewed at steady state, it is also our
conclusion based on these calculations that 64% of the treated wastewater injected into
these wells currently discharges from the submarine spring areas. As discussed in Section
4.2.4.3, 68%) of the SGD at the submarine springs and surrounding areas is Wells 3 and 4
injectate. This is very reasonable agreement with the average submarine spring discharge
proportion of 62% estimated by the stable isotope/geochemical ternary component
analysis (Table 4-14).
The FLT Tracer test data shows a definite hydraulic connection between Injection Wells
3 and 4 and the nearshore waters near Kahekili Beach Park. The average time of travel
between the wells and the submarine springs is well in excess of a year. This proven
hydraulic connection does not preclude other discharge points, however, including in
areas at deeper water depths and further from shore.
The second tracer test was conducted to evaluate whether the effluent from Injection
Well 2 discharges at the same locations as that from Injection Wells 3 and 4. Well 2 has
a significantly higher injection capacity than the other wells indicating that it may have a
hydraulic connection to a preferential flow path. For this tracer test, SRB was added to
the effluent on August 11th, 2011. There has been no confirmed detection of this dye, but
sporadic cases of elevated fluorescence in the SRB wavelengths did occur in February
and December 2012. Synchronous scans showed that these samples may contain very
low concentrations of SRB. No other samples were analyzed with similar fluorescent
characteristics; these are only evaluated as possible detections.
During the course of this project, there has been no confirmed detection of SRB at the
submarine springs monitored by this study or in the area survey samples collected, and
the ultimate fate of the effluent injected into Well 2 remains unresolved. The possible
causes of the failure to positively detect SRB include: (1) injectate from Wells 3 and 4
displacing the SRB plume away from the submarine springs; (2) SRB plume is
discharging at a location other than those monitored; (3) SRB sorbing onto the aquifer
matrix; and (4) SRB degradation. We suggest that the most likely conclusion is that the
SRB plume has been diverted from the submarine springs by the continued injection into
Wells 3 and 4. This will increase the transit time by greatly increasing the distance this
dye must travel to the submarine discharge. Sorption and degradation then occur as
secondary causes for the lack of SRB detection within the defined study area.
4-42
-------
Table 4-1. Mixing schedule for the FLT calibration solutions.
Desired
Volume of 100
Volume of Comments
Concentration
ppb Calibration
Submarine
(PPb)
Solution (ml)
spring Water
(ml)
1
2.5
247.5
10
50
450 Note 1
20
50
200
50
125
125
Note 1. An extra volume of the 10 ppb solution was mixed since it was used to calibrate the instrument
and verify accuracy at the end of each analysis session
Table 4-2. The MDL results for FLT using the EPA method.
Spiked
Cone.
Mean
Solution
Deviation
MDL
Average
Recovery
Signal
to Noise
Ratio
Limit of
Quantification
Remarks
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(%)
(ppb)
0
0.001
0.004
NA
NA
NA
NA
Signal to noise
0.1
0.101
0.004
0.011
101.25
28.6
0.035
ratio >10
Signal to
noise ratio >
0.2
0.192
0.005
0.014
96.24
41.6
0.046
10
Signal to noise
0.5
0.479
0.006
0.019
95.7
74.7
0.064
ratio >10
Red indicates a value outside of acceptable limits
Table 4-3. The MDL results for FLT using the Hubaux and Yos method
Cone,
(ppb)
Mean
(ppb)
Calculated
Concentration
(ppb)
Percent
Error
Included in
Analysis
0.00
0.12
-0.006
NA
Yes
0.10
0.22
0.10
4.5
Yes
0.20
0.31
0.20
2.1
Yes
0.50
0.57
0.50
0.5
Yes
MDL (ppb)
0.02
Critical Response (ppb) 0.13
Critical Concentration (ppb) 0.008
r2 0.9994
4-43
-------
Table 4-4. The Turner 10AU calibration scalar, residual, coefficient
of determination, and offset
Analysis
Date
Scalar
Residual
Coefficient of
Determination
Baseline Offset
(ppb)
1/27/12
1.01
-0.26
0.9998
0.21
1/30/12
1.01
-0.21
0.9999
0.16
2/7/12
1.01
-0.25
0.9998
0.20
2/8/12
1.02
-0.23
0.9999
0.18
2/9/11
1.01
-0.03
1.0000
-0.02
2/10/11
1.01
-0.24
0.9998
0.18
2/20/12
1.02
-0.25
0.9999
0.20
3/5/12
1.03
-0.15
1.0000
0.10
3/18/12
1.02
-0.21
1.0000
0.04
3/24/12
1.02
-0.33
0.9998
0.27
4/11/12
1.00
-0.04
1.0000
-0.02
5/11/12
1.02
-0.27
1.0000
0.22
6/14/12
1.01
-0.25
0.9999
0.19
6/15/12
1.01
-0.20
1.0000
0.14
6/29/12
1.01
-0.26
1.0000
0.20
7/20/12
1.00
-0.19
1.0000
0.14
7/23/12
1.03
-0.25
1.0000
0.19
7/25/12
1.03
-0.19
1.0000
0.13
8/3/12
1.03
-0.19
1.0000
0.14
8/24/12
1.02
-0.01
0.9999
-0.05
9/28/12
1.02
-0.13
0.9999
0.07
10/3/12
1.01
-0.05
1.0000
-0.01
10/12/12
1.01
-0.05
0.9999
0.00
11/2/12
1.01
-0.16
1.0000
0.10
11/17/12
1.01
-0.20
1.0000
0.14
12/14/12
1.02
-0.11
1.0000
0.06
1/12/13
1.03
-0.19
1.0000
0.13
2/14/13
1.01
-0.13
1.0000
0.07
2/26/13
1.02
-0.06
1.0000
0.01
4-44
-------
Table 4-5. The results of the end of analysis zero baseline check of the fluorometer.
Date Solution
Date
Corrected
FLT Cone.
Prepared
Analyzed
Cone.
Difference
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
0.0
12/21/11
2/20/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
2/9/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
2/10/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
1/27/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
1/30/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
2/7/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
3/5/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
2/8/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
3/18/12
-0.01
-0.01
0.0
12/21/11
3/24/12
-0.01
-0.01
0.0
12/21/11
4/11/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
12/21/11
5/11/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
6/14/12
-0.01
-0.01
0.0
4/11/12
6/15/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
6/29/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
7/25/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
8/3/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
8/24/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
10/3/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
11/2/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
11/17/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
12/14/12
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
1/12/13
0.00
0.00
0.0
4/11/12
2/26/13
0.00
0.00
4-45
-------
Table 4-6. The results of the end of analysis upscale quality control check of the
fluorometer
FLT Cone,
(ppb)
Date
Solution
Prepared
Analysis
Date
Measured Cone,
(ppb)
Difference
10
1/27/12
2/9/11
9.94
-0.6%
10
1/27/12
2/10/11
9.97
-0.3%
10
1/27/12
2/7/12
9.97
-0.3%
10
1/27/12
2/8/12
9.96
-0.4%
10
1/27/12
2/20/12
9.91
-0.9%
10
1/27/12
3/5/12
10.00
0.0%
10
1/27/12
3/18/12
9.90
-1.0%
10
1/27/12
3/24/12
9.95
-0.5%
10
4/10/12
4/11/12
9.95
-0.5%
10
4/16/12
5/11/12
9.92
-0.8%
10
4/16/12
6/14/12
9.91
-0.9%
10
4/16/12
6/15/12
10.0
0.0%
10
4/16/12
6/29/12
10.10
1.0%
10
4/11/12
7/25/12
9.89
-1.1%
10
7/20/12
8/3/12
9.99
-0.1%
20
7/20/12
8/24/12
19.50
-2.5%
10
10/3/12
10/3/12
10.60
6.0%
10
7/20/12
10/3/12
10.10
1.0%
20
10/3/12
10/3/12
21.00
5.0%
10
10/3/12
11/2/12
9.93
-0.7%
20
10/3/12
11/17/12
19.90
-0.5%
20
10/3/12
12/14/12
19.60
-2.0%
20
10/3/12
1/12/13
19.30
-3.5%
10
10/3/12
2/26/13
9.84
-1.6%
4-46
-------
Table 4-7. The results of duplicate analyses ran at the end of each analysis run
Location
Date
Time
Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
Duplicate
Cone,
(ppb)
Difference
Difference
Units
seep 3
1/19/12
10:52
2/10/11
9.13
9.49
3.9
percent
seep 3
1/19/12
10:52
2/10/11
9.13
9.49
3.9
percent
seep 3
1/31/12
12:25
2/10/11
13.92
13.92
0.0
percent
seep 7
11/25/11
10:08
1/27/12
1.54
1.56
1.6
percent
seep 8
1/7/12
15:08
1/27/12
11.40
11.24
-1.3
percent
Honokowai
12/9/11
12:05
1/30/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
PPb
Beach Park
seep 4
11/23/11
10:37
1/30/12
0.21
0.21
0.00
PPb
seep 4
12/28/11
10:53
2/7/12
2.71
2.74
1.1
percent
seep 5
1/23/12
13:36
2/10/12
4.57
4.62
1.1
percent
seep 3
1/21/12
14:37
2/20/12
10.30
10.09
-2.0
percent
seep 7
1/25/12
9:43
2/20/12
14.66
14.56
-0.7
percent
north grab
2/10/12
11:35
3/5/12
0.49
0.49
0.00
PPb
seep 11
2/20/12
15:27
3/5/12
18.40
18.40
0.0
percent
seep 4
2/20/12
15:00
3/5/12
10.81
10.81
0.0
percent
north grab
3/14/12
10:05
3/18/12
1.15
1.15
0.2
percent
seep 3
3/14/12
11:05
3/18/12
29.37
29.37
0.0
percent
seep 3
3/11/12
11:59
3/24/12
27.21
27.21
0.0
percent
seep 4
2/27/12
12:13
3/24/12
7.76
7.65
-1.3
percent
south grab
3/11/12
12:30
3/24/12
1.18
1.16
-1.6
percent
seep 11
3/27/12
11:46
4/11/12
26.93
27.34
1.5
percent
seep 3
3/29/12
11:19
4/11/12
32.35
32.55
0.6
percent
south grab
3/27/12
11:15
4/11/12
1.10
1.10
0.1
percent
seep 3
4/16/12
10:44
5/11/12
32.02
32.23
0.6
percent
seep 4
4/5/12
9:40
5/11/12
14.96
15.06
0.7
percent
south grab
3/29/12
11:30
5/11/12
2.10
2.10
0.1
percent
Seep 15
5/14/12
9:22
6/14/12
15.72
15.82
0.6
percent
Seep 15
5/18/12
13:29
6/14/12
7.54
7.57
0.4
percent
Seep 3
6/7/12
13:20
6/14/12
31.90
32.00
0.3
percent
Olowalu
5/19/12
11:46
6/15/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
PPb
Seep 11
6/4/12
15:12
6/15/12
25.74
25.94
0.8
percent
South Grab
5/7/12
11:30
6/15/12
5.78
5.74
-0.7
percent
North Grab
6/12/12
11:40
7/20/12
0.29
0.29
0.00
PPb
Seep 15
6/12/12
11:27
7/20/12
16.40
16.40
0.0
percent
Seep 3
6/14/12
15:37
7/20/12
30.55
30.55
0.0
percent
north grab
7/11/12
13:05
7/25/12
1.07
1.07
0.0
percent
seep 3
7/19/12
11:40
7/25/12
26.02
26.44
1.6
percent
4-47
-------
Table 4-7 (Continued). The results of duplicate analyses ran at the end of each analysis run.
Location
Date
Time
Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
Duplicate
Cone,
(ppb)
Difference
Difference
Units
seep 3
8/1/12
10:15
8/3/12
14.91
15.02
0.7
percent
seep 3
8/1/12
10:15
8/3/12
14.91
15.02
0.7
percent
North
grab
8/1/12
9:30
10/3/12
2.74
2.74
-0.1
percent
seep 5
8/7/12
10:40
10/3/12
22.09
21.88
-0.9
percent
north grab
9/12/12
9:30
10/12/12
3.42
3.45
0.9
percent
seep 20
10/2/12
11:30
10/12/12
13.95
14.86
6.5
percent
seep 5
9/18/12
13:20
10/12/12
17.68
17.79
0.6
percent
seep 20
10/12/12
11:05
11/2/12
10.47
10.37
-1.0
percent
seep 20
10/18/12
11:19
11/2/12
8.00
7.91
-1.1
percent
seep 3
10/18/12
12:42
11/2/12
17.16
16.75
-2.4
percent
north grab
10/26/12
10:46
11/17/12
0.50
0.50
0.00
PPb
north grab
10/26/12
10:46
11/17/12
0.50
0.50
0.00
PPb
seep 11
10/29/12
12:25
11/17/12
15.35
15.66
2.0
percent
seep 3
11/2/12
15:40
11/17/12
14.75
14.85
0.7
percent
north grab
12/6/12
11:05
12/14/12
0.08
0.08
0.00
PPb
seep 3
12/6/12
11:47
12/14/12
13.35
13.35
0.0
percent
seep 5
11/19/12
12:15
12/14/12
14.48
14.68
1.4
percent
seep 5
12/14/12
13:15
1/12/13
12.64
12.64
0.0
percent
Red indicates a difference >5%
4-48
-------
Table 4-8. Table of replicate analyses to evaluate FLT sample degradation during storage.
Location
Date
Time
Initial
Analysis
Date
Replicate
Analysis
Date
Initial
Results
(ppb)
Replicate
Results
(ppb)
Difference
seep 1
11/9/11
10:11
1/27/12
6/29/12
0.5
0.5
1.8%
seep 11
3/14/12
11:42
3/18/12
11/2/12
25.4
25.3
-0.5%
seep 11
3/27/12
11:46
4/11/12
6/29/12
26.9
27.2
1.2%
seep 11
8/1/12
11:35
8/3/12
8/24/12
23.7
24.2
1.9%
seep 11
11/2/12
16:10
11/17/12
11/17/12
15.2
15.0
-0.7%
seep 13
3/14/12
9:53
3/18/12
11/17/12
20.9
20.5
-1.7%
seep 14
3/17/12
9:23
4/11/12
1/21/13
20.4
19.9
-2.4%
seep 15
3/29/12
10:28
4/11/12
1/12/13
20.6
20.0
-2.9%
seep 15
4/16/12
9:09
5/11/12
9/2//12
21.8
22.4
2.7%
seep 17
7/11/12
13:53
7/25/12
12/14/12
13.7
13.0
-4.8%
seep 18
8/1/12
9:15
8/3/12
8/24/12
17.1
16.8
-1.3%
seep 19
9/10/12
12:51
10/3/12
12/14/12
14.7
13.9
-5.7%
seep 3
11/23/11
10:25
1/27/12
6/29/12
0.3
0.3
0.3%
seep 3
11/28/11
10:35
1/27/12
6/29/12
0.4
0.4
-0.3%
seep 3
1/7/12
15:51
1/27/12
6/29/12
5.9
5.9
0.5%
seep 3
1/19/12
10:52
2/10/11
6/29/12
9.1
9.4
2.6%
seep 3
3/1/12
12:34
3/18/12
11/2/12
25.0
24.6
-1.7%
seep 3
8/1/12
10:15
8/3/12
8/24/12
14.9
15.0
0.7%
Seep 3
8/1/12
10:35
10/3/12
8/3/12
25.2
14.9
-40.9%
seep 4
10/28/11
10:30
2/7/12
12/14/12
0.1
0.1
4.6%
seep 4
11/11/11
10:55
1/27/12
2/20/12
0.1
0.1
5.0%
seep 4
11/14/11
9:58
1/30/12
6/29/12
0.1
0.1
-1.4%
seep 4
12/14/11
10:22
2/7/12
6/29/12
1.0
1.0
3.4%
Seep 4
1/25/12
13:39
2/20/12
11/17/12
10.1
10.0
-1.1%
seep 4
3/22/12
11:08
4/11/12
6/29/12
12.9
13.2
2.8%
seep 5
1/23/12
13:36
2/10/12
6/29/12
4.6
4.7
2.2%
seep 5
4/2/12
11:44
4/11/12
1/12/13
21.2
20.7
-2.2%
Seep 5
5/25/12
13:57
6/14/12
11/2/12
24.9
24.7
-0.9%
seep 5
10/18/12
12:43
11/2/12
11/2/12
15.8
15.7
-0.6%
seep 6
11/21/11
9:37
1/27/12
1/27/12
1.2
1.2
-0.9%
seep 7
11/25/11
10:08
1/27/12
6/29/12
1.5
1.4
-8.1%
seep 7
1/21/12
16:00
2/10/11
6/29/12
13.3
13.6
2.5%
seep 7
2/20/12
13:46
3/5/12
11/2/12
19.9
19.5
-2.2%
Red indicates a value outside of acceptable limits
4-49
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of background fluorescence for the NSG.
Seep 1 Seep 2 Seep 6 Average
Number of
Samples
15 15 13
14
Minimum
0.09 0.08 0.11
0.09
Average
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.11
Maximum
0.13 0.12 0.12
0.12
Standard
0.01 0.01 0.00
0.01
Deviation
First Detection
10/20/11 10/20/11 10/20/11
10/20/11
Table 4-10. Summary of background fluorescence for the SSG.
Seep 3 Seep 4 Seep 5
Average
Number of
Samples
13 18 13
15
Minimum
0.09 0.01 0.08
0.06
Average
0.12 0.10 0.11
0.11
Maximum
0.13 0.14 0.12
0.13
Standard
0.01 0.03 0.01
0.02
Deviation
First Detection
11/05/11 11/11/11 11/07/11
11/08/11
Table 4-11. Background fluorescence for the marine waters.
North Seep South Seep
Other
Grab Grab
Locations
Number of
Samples
27 27
26
Minimum
-0.01 -0.01
0.001
Average
0.01 0.01
0.01
Maximum
0.04 0.06
0.05
Standard
0.02 0.02
0.02
Deviation
4-50
-------
Table 4-12. Summary of salinity measured at the submarine springs
Salinity FLT - Avg. FLT
No. of
Standard
Standard
Location
Samples
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Deviation
Deviation
Seep 3
85
2.8
3.4
11.1
1.1
2.0
Seep 4
35
3.0
10.0
22.5
7.1
6.6
Seep 5
76
3.4
8.3
21.8
4.9
2.8
Seep 11
74
3.1
3.7
14.3
1.4
1.1
Seep 7
13
4.0
4.2
4.3
0.1
* * * *
Seep 8
3
4.2
4.3
4.4
0.1
* * * *
Seep 9
7
4.2
12.3
25.3
7.8
* * * *
Seep 10
13
4.1
4.7
6.2
0.6
* * * *
Seep 12
10
4.2
4.3
4.8
0.2
* * * *
Seep 15
22
4.2
4.9
9.3
1.5
* * * *
Seep 16
16
4.4
5.0
12.0
1.9
* * * *
**** Insufficient sample history computing standard deviation for the difference between the monitoring
point FLT concentration and the average of the seep group.
4-51
-------
Table 4-13. The output of the QTracer2 BTC interpretation model.
Parameter
Units
North Seep
Group
South Seep
Group
Comments
Duration of BTC
d
2,435
2,001
Length of time from
injection until FLT
concentration drops
below the MDL
Distance from input to
m
821
932
outflow point
Seep Group Discharge
m3/d
1,752
5,439
Combined discharge =
7,162
Time to First Arrival
d
86
109
Time to Peak
d
306
271
Concentration
Peak Tracer
PPb
22.5
35
Concentration
Mean Transit Time
d
487
435
Mean Tracer Velocity
m/d
1.7
2.1
Maximum Tracer
m/d
9.5
8.6
Velocity
Mass of Tracer Inject
kg
119
119
Mass of Tracer
kg
16.8
59.9
Recovered
Percent of Tracer
%
14.1
50.3
Total percent Recovery
Mass Recovered
= 64%
Dispersion coefficient
m2/s
1.37E-03
1.15E-03
Longitudinal
dispersivity
m
70
46
Peclet number
Unitless
12
20
Advection > Diffusion
Note: Seep group discharge is taken from Table 5-5 in the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Interim
Report (Glenn etal., 2012)
4-52
-------
Table 4-14. Calculated percent of treated wastewater in the submarine spring discharge.
FLT Tracer Dye Estimates of Percent Recovery and of Percent Effluent
North
Seep
South Seep
Units
Group
Group
Total
Total SGD (saline+fresh)1
(m3/d)
2,500
6,300
8,800
SGD - FLT plume fraction
(m3/d)
1,752
5,439
7,162
Mass of Tracer Dye Added
(kg)
119
Mass of Tracer Dye Recovered
(kg)
16.8
59.9
76.7
Percent Tracer Dye Mass Recovery at
(%)
14.1%
50.3%
64.0%
Submarine Spring Groups
(m3/d)
Average Injection Rate into LWRF Wastewater
—
—
9,340
Injection Wells 3 and 4
(m3/d)
Effluent Discharge at Submarine Springs2
—
—
5,978
Percent Effluent in the Submarine Spring
(%)
—
—
68%
Discharge (Effluent Discharge/Total SGD)
Geochemical Parameters Used in % Effluent
Percent Effluent in the Submarine
Spring Discharge
Mixing Endmember Calculations3
Low
Avg
High
5lsO / 52H End Member Mixing Calculations
53%
77%
96%
5lsO / [CI ] End Member Mixing Calculations
12%
41%
60%
52H / [CI ] End Member Mixing Calculations
67%
69%
71%
Average
62%
Radon Mass Balance Model of Glenn et al. (2012, Section 5).
264% of Average Injection Rate into Wells 3 and 4.
3See Section 6.4.2.3 of Glenn et al. (2012) for a discussion of end member mixing analysis techniques.
4-53
-------
Table 4-15. Summary of the area survey sample results.
Area
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Number of
Samples
North Seep Group
0.09
0.72
0.95
0.19
83
South Seep Group
0.87
0.96
1.19
0.08
28
North of the NSG
0.00
0.03
0.11
0.03
11
South of the SSG but
north of the southern
TIR Boundary
0.00
0.07
0.48
0.13
13
South of the southern
TIR Boundary
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
SVO Wells
0.00
0.04
0.20
0.07
5
All Area Survey
Samples
0.00
0.60
1.19
0.37
149
Units are C/CS,V|; 3 where:
C = the FLT concentration of sample "i" adjusted to Seep 3 SEC
Cseep 3 = the FLT concentration at Seep 3 on the sample "i" was collected
4-54
-------
Table 4-16. The MDL results for SRB
using the EPA method.
Spiked
Cone.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
MDL
Average
Recovery
Signal
to
Noise
Ratio
Limit of
Quantification
Remarks
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(%)
(PPb)
0.00
0.005
0.006
NA
NA
NA
NA
Note 1
0.01
0.004
0.003
0.01
45
1.4
0.03
Average
recovery and
SNR not
acceptable
Met all
requirements
0.02
0.017
0.004
0.013
85
3.9
0.044
0.05
0.054
0.018
0.058
108
2.4
0.18
SNR not
acceptable
Note 1. The mean dye-free aliquot concentration 0.03ppb was subtracted from the fluorescence for
the MDL samples
Red indicates a value outside of acceptable limits
Table 4-17. The MDL Results for SRB Using the Hubaux and Vos Method
Spiked
Cone.
(ppb)
Mean
CoilC.j\ote i
(ppb)
Calculated
Concentration Note2
(ppb)
Percent
Error
Included in
Analysis
0.00
0.043
0.0015
NA
Yes
0.01
0.050
0.007
26.8
NO Note 3
0.02
0.062
0.017
12.8
Yes
0.05
0.10
0.051
2.0
Yes
MDL (ppb) 0.005
Critical Response (ppb) 0.044
Critical Concentration (ppb) 0.0025
r 0.9922
Note 1: Mean concentration is the background (about 0.03 ppb) plus the dye fluorescence.
Note 2: Calculated concentration is based on best fit line through the MDL data.
Note 3: The 0.01 ppb aliquot excluded from the analysis due to the high percent error.
Allowable error is 20% or less
4-55
-------
Table 4-18. Hitachi F4500 Spectrophotometer calibration scalar, residual, and coefficient
of determination.
Date
Analyzed
Scalar
Residual
Coefficient of
Determination
Baseline Offset
8/24/11
0.063
2.36
0.9998
2.37
8/31/11
0.062
0.65
0.9996
0.65
9/9/11
0.062
1.32
0.9890
1.32
9/23/11
0.058
0.19
0.9940
0.20
10/4/11
0.065
-0.31
0.9980
-0.29
10/14/11
0.060
-0.08
0.9985
-0.07
11/4/11
0.064
-0.14
0.9991
-0.11
11/23/11
0.061
-0.17
0.9920
-0.15
12/5/11
0.062
-0.47
0.9979
-0.45
12/14/11
0.065
-0.20
0.9979
-0.18
12/30/11
0.056
-0.03
0.9999
-0.01
1/11/12
0.060
-0.34
0.9992
-0.32
1/20/12
0.059
-0.72
0.9983
-0.70
2/14/12
0.062
-1.19
0.9970
-1.17
3/7/12
0.056
-0.05
0.9992
-0.04
3/21/12
0.056
0.47
1.0000
0.48
4/12/12
0.061
0.08
0.9998
0.10
5/17/12
0.061
-0.34
0.9994
-0.32
6/22/12
0.061
-0.48
0.9992
-0.46
7/26/12
0.062
-0.23
0.9997
-0.21
8/2/12
0.062
-0.28
0.9996
-0.26
9/7/12
0.057
-0.13
0.9995
-0.11
10/9/12
0.060
-0.18
0.9995
-0.16
10/19/12
0.057
-0.01
0.9999
0.01
11/2/12
0.059
-0.03
0.9992
-0.15
11/19/12
0.056
0.01
0.9992
0.03
12/19/12
0.060
-0.04
0.9991
-0.03
1/16/13
0.055
0.17
0.9999
0.18
4-56
-------
Table 4-19. The results of the end of analysis zero baseline check of the Hitachi F4500
Spectrophotometer.
SRB Cone,
(ppb)
Analysis Date
Indicated Cone,
(ppb)
Difference
(ppb)
0.00
11/23/11
0.02
0.02
0.00
12/5/11
0.01
0.01
0.00
12/14/11
0.01
0.01
0.00
1/11/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
1/20/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
3/7/12
0.02
0.02
0.00
3/21/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
4/12/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/17/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
7/26/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
8/2/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
9/7/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
10/9/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/19/12
0.01
0.01
0.00
12/19/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
1/16/13
0.00
0.00
4-57
-------
Table 4-20. The results of the end of analysis upscale quality control check of the Hitachi
F4500 Spectrophotometer.
SRB
Date Solution
Analysis Date
Measured Cone.
Difference
Cone.
Prepared
(PPb)
(PPb)
1
8/24/11
8/24/11
0.86
-0.14
1
8/24/11
2/14/12
2.17
1.17
1
3/5/12
3/7/12
1.05
0.05
1
3/5/12
3/21/12
1.05
0.05
1
3/5/12
4/12/12
1.02
0.02
1
3/5/12
4/12/12
1.04
0.04
1
3/5/12
5/17/12
1.06
0.06
1
3/5/12
7/26/12
1.05
0.04
1
3/5/12
7/26/12
1.06
0.06
1
3/5/12
8/2/12
1.04
0.04
1
3/5/12
9/7/12
1.09
0.09
1
3/5/12
10/9/12
0.99
-0.01
1
3/5/12
11/2/12
1.02
0.02
1
3/5/12
11/19/12
1.01
0.01
1
3/5/12
1/16/13
1.05
0.05
10
8/24/11
8/24/11
7.03
-2.97
10
8/24/11
11/23/11
8.16
-1.84
10
10/11/11
12/5/11
8.33
-1.67
10
10/11/11
12/14/11
8.77
-1.23
10
10/11/11
1/11/12
10.02
0.02
10
10/11/11
1/20/12
10.16
0.16
10
8/24/11
2/14/12
10.00
0.00
4-58
-------
Table 4-21. The results of synchronous scans done to evaluate samples for trace
concentrations of SRB.
Location
Date
Date
Scanned
Start Ex
End Ex
Comments
Sand Sample 2
12/20/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample 4
12/20/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample 5
12/20/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample 6
12/21/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample 8
12/21/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample 9
12/21/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
(area survey)
Sand Sample
02/25/13
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
NSG (area
survey)
Seep 1
10/02/11
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
11/27/11
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
03/19/12
04/12/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 11
06/14/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
09/12/12
10/09/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
10/02/12
10/09/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
11/02/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
11/12/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 11
12/14/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 12
03/14/12
04/12/12
520
620
Slightly Elevated
SRB Spectrum
Seep 13
03/14/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 14
03/17/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 15
03/29/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 15
04/05/12
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 15
04/16/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 15
05/02/12
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 15
06/14/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 17
07/11/12
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 19
08/16/12
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 19
09/10/12
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 2
11/09/11
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
4-59
-------
Table 4-21 (Continued). The results of synchronous scans done to evaluate samples for
trace concentrations of SRB.
Location
Date
Date
Scanned
Start Ex
End Ex
Comments
Seep 20
09/20/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
10/02/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
10/02/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
11/08/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
11/08/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
11/12/12
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
12/14/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 20
02/25/13
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 21
10/26/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 21
10/29/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
11/28/11
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
02/10/12
04/12/12
520
620
Slightly Elevated
SRB Spectrum
Seep 3
02/20/12
04/12/12
520
620
Possible Trace SRB
Seep 3
02/27/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/01/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/01/12
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/11/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/14/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/17/12
04/12/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/19/12
04/12/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
03/24/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 3
06/14/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
10/02/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
10/18/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
10/26/12
02/15/13
420
620
Slightly Elevated
SRB Spectrum
Seep 3
11/27/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
12/28/12
01/13/13
420
620
Possible Trace SRB
Seep 3
02/11/13
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3
02/25/13
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3 Acidified
06/18/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 3 Acidified
06/18/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
then Neutralized
4-60
-------
Table 4-21 (Continued). The results of synchronous scans done to evaluate samples for
trace concentrations of SRB.
Location
Date
Date
Scanned
Start Ex
End Ex
Comments
Seep 4
10/28/11
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 4
12/02/11
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 4
01/16/12
01/20/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 4
01/25/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 4
02/17/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 4
02/24/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 4
03/22/12
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
12/10/11
12/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
01/25/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
01/31/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
02/20/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 5
03/29/12
04/12/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 5
04/02/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
04/16/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
08/21/12
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
10/18/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
11/08/12
11/19/12
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
12/14/12
01/13/13
420
620
Possible Trace SRB
Seep 5
02/11/13
02/15/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 5
02/25/13
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 7
01/16/12
03/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 7
01/25/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 7
02/20/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
Seep 7
02/27/12
03/07/12
520
620
Negative
Seep 7
11/25/12
01/13/13
420
620
Negative
SSG Sand
12/20/12
02/26/13
420
620
Negative
Sample 2
SVO Well 2#1
07/31/12
08/02/12
420
620
Possible Trace SRB
with Wavelength
shifted downward
10 nm
SVO Well 6#1
07/31/12
08/02/12
420
620
Negative
SVO Well 6#2
07/31/12
08/02/12
420
620
Negative
4-61
-------
Table 4-22. SVO Well construction details.
Well
Total Depth
Depth to Water (ft btoc)
Latitude
Longitude
(ft btoc)
7/1/12
4/29/13
6/6/13
Well 2
22.83
16.31
16.43
16.22
20.94303
-156.68915
Well 3
21.00
9.97
10.31
10.36
20.94076
-156.69003
Well 4
21.30
7.71
8.03
7.53
20.94068
-156.69149
Well 5
17.20
13.94
NT
NT
20.93710
-156.69215
Well 6
32.00
23.65
23.88
23.56
20.93618
-156.69061
ft btoc - feet below top of casing
NT - not taken
Table 4-23. SVO Well measured pH, SEC, and FLT and SRB concentrations and water
temperatures.
Well
Temp.
pH
SEC
FLT 1
FLT 1
FLT 3
SRB 1
SRB 2
SRB 3
(°C)
(|a.s/cm)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
(PPb)
Sample
Date: 7/31/12
Well 2
31.1
7.52
2,527
0.15
0.04
NT
0.09
0.06
NT
Well 3
27.0
7.54
970
0.07
0.09
NT
0.02
0.01
NT
Well 4
27.0
7.81
2,892
0.09
0.09
NT
0.03
0.03
NT
Well 6
28.3
6.85
2,841
0.46
4.59
NT
0.07
0.03
NT
Sample
Date: 4/29/13
Well 2
28.6
7.53
2,391
0.33
0.25
NT
0.06
0.04
NT
Well 3
26.6
7.45
902
0.87
0.03
NT
0.01
0.01
NT
Well 4
27.2
7.69
2,926
0.34
0.58
NT
0.02
0.03
NT
Well 6
27.9
6.98
2,690
0.52
0.24
NT
0.02
0.02
NT
Sample
Date: 6/6/13
Well 2
29.1
7.49
2,435
0.37
0.27
0.25
0.05
0.06
0.09
Well 3
27.0
7.43
904
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.02
Well 4
27.2
7.71
2,936
0.11
0.56
0.46
0.03
-0.03
0.00
Well 6
28.3
6.87
2,780
0.30
0.18
0.16
0.06
0.07
0.03
NT - Not Taken
4-62
-------
Table 4-24. Nutrient results for the SVO Wells.
University of Hawaii
Hawaii Dept. of Health Laboratory
NAME
DATE
TIME
nh3-n
no3+no2
Total N
Total P
nh3-n
no3+no2
Total N
Total P
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Well 2
7/31/12
14:20
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.16
0.14
Well 2
4/29/13
15:15
0.01
0.02
0.14
0.04
Well 3
7/31/12
15:22
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.22
0.00
0.21
0.28
0.16
Well 3
4/29/13
13:30
0.00
0.13
0.16
0.17
Well 4
7/31/12
16:14
0.14
0.00
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.01
0.28
0.13
Well 4
4/29/13
14:15
0.15
0.03
0.21
0.06
Well 5
7/31/12
12:14
0.02
1.56
1.44
0.12
0.00
1.56
2.21
0.14
Well 6
7/31/12
13:03
0.00
0.37
0.45
0.54
0.00
0.64
0.78
0.57
Well 6
4/29/13
16:15
0.00
0.44
0.51
0.52
Well 7
4/29/13
12:05
0.00
0.45
0.60
0.54
4-63
-------
North Seep Zone
AH seeps in the circle
are within 0.25 —>1
meters of each other
1.0 meter
1.5 meters
10 meters
Shore-
line
0.25 meters
Legend
© Injection Wells
6 Submarine Springs
LWRF
3 meters
Sll
^S5*
0.25 \
meters/\
* *S4
0.75
meters .
Shoreline
25 meters
• = Seep location
South Seep Zone
Figure 4-1: Location and arrangement of monitoring points.
4-64
-------
Figure 4-2: The fluorescence in the FLT wavelength of water from various sources compared
to solutions containing FLT.
1.20E-03
1.00E-03
o' 8.00E-04
U
u
6.00E-04
4.00E-04
H
fc 2.00E-04
0.00E+00
400 600 800 1000
Time Since Dye Addition (d)
-NSG
•SSG
Figure 4-3: Results of the Tracer Test Design Model.
The Tracer Test Design Model simulation predicted that the tracer would reach the NSG
(blue) about 90 days after addition, would be diluted by about 1000 times at the peak of the
break through curve (BTC) after about one year, and that the full BTC would take several
years to fully develop.
4-65
-------
To Reclonrwatton
LEGEND ^
FE Ftnol Effhjem
SE Secondary Effluent
OF Overflow Ime
Pre-stage 1 gravity line
Pre-Stage l PIE me (forcemain]
Lines are notmatly vaivod oft 01
not In service
Treated Wastewater Flow Path
Figure 4-4: A line diagram of the LWRF showing the FLT dye additi on points (diagram from
County of Maui, 2010).
Violet lines represent the flow path through the LWRF taken by the treated wastewater. The
FLT was added directly to Well 3 and Well 4 (diagram courtesy County of Maui, 2010).
4-66
-------
Figure 4-6: Transferring fluorescein concentrate to 5 gal. buckets for delivery to wells.
4-67
-------
Figure 4-7: Transfer of the dye concentrate into injection Well 3
Figure 4-8: The residual dye was poured directly into the well
4-68
-------
Figure 4-9: The fluorescein concentrate mixing continued until midnight.
Figure 4-10: The fluorescein addition continued until about 02:00
4-69
-------
"5
Of
E
s
X
s
o
•G
u
o
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
- 0.5
0.0
7:00
11:00
15:00
19:00
23:00
3:00
Well 3 How
-Well 4 Flow
•Well 3 + Well 4
¦S
a.
a
o
•¦G
a
£
s
u
w
s
o
U
w
U
Q
i.
O
¦FLT Cone.
"igure 4-11: Effluent injection rates and resulting FLT concentrations for the first tracer test.
©
V
a
B
S
Q
U
C
©
U
a
—
¦s
3
ts
u
¦3
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20 40 60 80
Actual FLT Concentration (ppb)
100
DI Water Based Solution
•Seep Water Based Solutions
"igure 4-12: Turner 10AU response to DI water based and submarine spring water based
FLT solutions.
The fluorometer was calibrated using the submarine spring water based FLT solutions.
4-70
-------
Wabikuli
Wayside Park
Lahaiaa Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
3
¦ Kilometers
Q Sabm arine Springs
— Major Streams
— Major Stream s
— Highways
gg LWRF
Olowalu
7igure 4-13: The location of the background sampling points.
4-71
-------
figure 4-14: The FLT breakthrough curve measured at the NSG for each submarine spring.
North Seep Group Fluorescein Breakthrough Curve
7/5/11
10/3/11
1/1/12
3/31/12
6/29/12
9/27/12
12/26/12
~ seep 1 ¦ seep 2 A seep 6 X Seep 7 )l( Seep 8 • Seep 9
I Seep 10 Seep 12 Seep 13 ~ Seep 14 ¦ Seep 15 Seep 16
A Seep 17 —— Seep 18 : Seep 19 Seep 20 —f—Seep 21
South Seep Group Fluorescein Breakthrough Curve
~ seep 3 ¦ seep 4 A seep 5 )( Seep 11
"igure 4-15: The FLT breakthrough curve measured at the SSG for each submarine spring.
4-72
-------
South Seep Group
Mi
<
CL
3
O
—
u
Q.
t)
u
OC
C5
t»
S
—
O
-—-
E-
J
t.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10/28/11 12/27/11 02/25/12 04/25/12 06/24/12 08/23/12 10/22/12 12/21/12
~NSG ASSG
:igure 4-16: The South Seep Group grab samples FLT concentrations normalized to that of
the submarine spring.
1.2
1.0
H
£ 0.8
I 0.6
z
H
r-1 0.4
a
OS
0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 6
Ratio - (SalinitySeep x:SalinitvSeep 3)
~ Seep 4
Seep 5
-Linear (Seep 4)
¦Linear (Seep 5)
igure 4-17: The relationship between salinity and the FLT concentration.
4-73
-------
South Seep Group Fluorescein Breakthrough Curve
~ seep 3 ¦ seep 4 —seep 5 )( Seep 11
Mgure 4-18: The FLT concentration as measured and corrected for salinity at the SSG.
4-74
-------
Fluorescein BTC
35
30
.c
CL
a.
-J 25
5 20
c
'3
£ 15
a
O
3
tb
10
5
M
hi
1 / 5 ^
JjT + •»/*+#**
F'if
-j-
I# -
r Tb
1
|
d m-
0
07/05/11
10/03/11 01/01/12 03/31/12 06/29/12 09/27/12 12/26/12
—•—NSG —SSG
'igure 4-19: A comparison of NSG and SSG FLT breakthrough curves.
North Seep Group BTC
Time of Peak Concentration
First Arrival .
Mean Transit Time
~ Avg [FLT]
V' V
Extrapolated [FLT]
<5
\V
"igure 4-20: The NSG BTC extrapolated into the future until the FLT concentration drops
below the MDL.
4-75
-------
~ Avg. [FLT] Extrapolated [FLT]
7igure 4-21: The SSG BTC extrapolated into the future until the FLT concentration drops
below the MDL.
Figure 4-22: A laboratory sample with 35 ppb FLT in submarine spring water shows this dye
is visible at concentrations much less than 100 ppb.
4-76
-------
£
a "a?
2 *
10,000
1,000
100
8 £
C C5
Q S-
3 ±
5® Cj
2 1
Oft
'N. >
1 t r 1 r r t 1 1 t 1
270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600
Emission Wavelength (nm)
Seep Based FLT+SRB Sol'n -—-Seep 3 6/7/12 -—seep 5 6/7/12
:igure 4-23: Two-dimension synchronous scans of a submarine spring sample and a
laboratory sample.
The laboratory sample prepared with submarine spring water (Lab. FLT + SRB Sol'n)
contains 35 ppb of FLT and 0.1 ppb of SRB. The submarine spring sample (Seep 3 6/7/12)
has a fluorescence intensity spectrum nearly identical to that of the laboratory sample with
the exception of the SRB peak at 580 nm.
VI
ea
<
&
it
4—
«
w
W
S
5!
A
—
O
0.03
0.02
CJJ
J
1 0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
< -0.04
y = 0.0005x 0,0297
R2 = 0.9959
y = 0.0005s- 0.0283
R- = 0.8705
20
1
40
60
1
80
100
FLT Concentration (ppb)
Seep 3 Samples
-Linear (Seep 3 Samples)
-Calibration Solutions
-Linear (Calibration Solutions)
:igure 4-24: The light absorbance characteristics at the peak wavelength of 490 nm were
nearly identical for calibration solutions and for samples collected at Seep 3.
4-77
-------
FLT Plume
] Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
# 0.0 - 0.1
O 0.2 - 0.3
O OA - 0.5
O 0.(5 - 0.7
O 0.8 - 0.9
O 1.0 - 1.2
Figure 4-25: The location of points sampled during the area survey and the FLT
concentration normalize to that at Seep 3.
4-78
-------
Legend
Resort W ells
Injection Wells
FLT Plume
Therm al Plum
Area Survey Samp
(Temp. oC)
# 24.2 - 25.0
O 25.1 - 26.0
O 26.1 - 27.0
O 27.1 - 28.0
O 28.1 - 29.0
Bath em etry
(depth-ft)
Figure 4-26: The temperature measured in samples collected at the shoreline and at the SVO
monitoring wells during the area surveys.
4-79
-------
Legend
Resort Wells
Injection Wells
FLT Plume
ThermalPlume
I I lwrf
Area Survey Samples
(SEC us/cm)
O 0- 15000
O 15001 - 25000
O 25001 - 40000
O 40001 - 45000
O 45001 - 50000
O 50001 - 54500
Bath em etry
(depth-ft)
North Seep
Group
South Seep
Group
Figure 4-27: The specific electrical conductivity measured in samples collected at the
shoreline and at the monitoring wells during the area surveys.
4-80
-------
Legend
FLT Plume
] Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
• 0.0 - 0.1
O 0-2 - 0.3
O 0.4-0.5
O o.d - 0.7
O 0.8 - 0.9
O 1.0 - 1.2
Resort Wells
del N15
(o'oo)
4.9 - 8.0
8.1 - 16.0
16.1 - 24.0
24.1 - 32.0
32.1 - 38.8
Inj ection Wells
¦ Barrier
- Thermal Plume
] LWRF
North Seep
Group
Figure 4-28: The results of macroalgae 5 5N values shown in relation to the normalized FLT
concentrations of area survey.
4-81
-------
Legend
FLT Plume
] Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
• 0.0 - 0.1
O 0.2 - 0.3
O 0.4--0.5
O 0.6 - 0.7
O 0.8 - 0.9
O 1.0 - 1.2
Radon
(dpm/L)
Resort Wells
North Seep
Group
0.00 - 0.14
0.15 - 0.29
0.30 - 0.39
0.40 - 0.52
0.53 - 0.76
0.77-1.17
1.18 - 1.93
Inj ection Wells
i Barrier
- Thermal Plume
] LWRF
South Seep
Croup
Figure 4-29: The results of the nearshore radon survey shown in relation to the normalized
FLT concentrations of area survey.
4-82
-------
SRB Tagged Treated Wastewater — — ^
Treated Wastewater Flow Path )
igure 4-30: A line diagram of LWRF showing dye addition points for SRB. Violet lines
represent the flow path of the treated wastewater through LWRF.
The SRB was added to the splitter box between Well 1 and Well 2. Well 1 was shut off
during the dye addition (diagram courtesy County of Maui, 2010).
4-83
-------
6
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00 1:00 4:00 7:00
©
U
ca
a£
6,000
¦Well 1
¦Well 2
Well 3
¦Well 4
SRB Cone.
:;igure 4-31: Effluent injection rates and the resulting SRB concentration.
^0.5
a
0.0
o
VO r--
>/•> i-n >r>
o o o
00 Ch o
in
-------
SRB Calibration Solution Stablity
SRB Calibration Solution Stability
540 550 560 570 5S0 590
-05/17/12 08/07/12 10/09/12
(b) 04/12/12 05/17/12 08/07/12 10/09/12
600 610 620
•12/15/12 01/15/13
Figure 4-33: Time series graphs showing fluorescence intensity measurements and emission
wavelength synchronous scans of the 1 ppb SRB calibration solution.
4-85
-------
0.30
0.25
a 0.20
Q.
= 0.15
o
U
cs
DC
K
0.10
0.05
0.00
\
NSG-SRB
T
1
I •
- |t%t* * «
i i i i i i
\V
$
\
&
$
&
s
sp
,o
b\
*
s>
(T
v'V
\v
&
igure 4-34: Fluorescence in the SRB wavelength measured at the NSG.
Error bars indicate the maximum and minimum while the symbol indicates the average SRB
fluorescence on the day the samples were collected.
¦C
a.
CL
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
u
s
o
U
a
D£ 0.10
9S
0.05
0.00
,\
\
N
SSG - SRB
•
T <
> T °
^ +** *****
v
&
'V
^ 41
A\v
rv
vV
^ ,4s
\v
-------
0.0
520
540
560
580
600
620
Seep 3: 2/10/12
Well 2 #1
Emission Wavelength (nm)
seep 3: 2/20/12 seep 12: 3/14/12
35ppb FLT + 0.05ppb SRB Seep 3 6/14/12
7igure 4-36: Synchronous scans of samples collected in February and March 2012 compared
to solutions spiked with SRB.
The laboratory prepared sample (35 ppb FLT + Q.05ppb SRB) is a reference to which the
field samples can be compared. The declining limb of the FLT peak is evident from about
550 to 560 nm. The SRB is shown as curve with a peak center at 580 nm. The sample "Seep
3 6/14/12" is shown as an example of a sample with no indication of SRB.
4-87
-------
Seep 3 10/26/12 Seep 3 12/28/12 —8.9 FLT + 0.05 SRB seep 11 12/14/12
7igure 4-37: Synchronous scans of samples collected in October and December 2012
compared to solutions spiked with SRB.
The trace labeled "8.9 FLT + 0.05 SRB" is a laboratory prepared sample shown for
reference. The trace labeled "Seep 11 12/14/12" is an example of a sample with no
indication of SRB.
4-88
-------
o
0
270 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 590 610
Emission Wavelength (nm)
-Seep-water Based FLT+SRB Sol'n
-Seep 3 6/7/12
¦Seep 3 w/DA-SRB
igure 4-38: Graphed are three synchronous scans to show the spectra of fluorescein, SRB,
and fluorescein plus a hypothetical DA-SRB trace.
The first trace (shown in red) is a laboratory-prepared sample containing about 35 ppb of
fluorescein and about 0.1 ppb of SRB. The second trace (shown in green) is a scan of a
sample collected from Seep 3 on June 7, 2012. The fluorescein concentration in this sample
was 32 ppb, but there is no indication that this sample contains SRB. The AFHF indicated
this sample contained 3.3 ppb of SRB. The third trace (shown in blue) is the emission
spectra of what the Seep 3 sample might look like if it contained 3.3 ppb of DA-SRB. The
degraded SRB results in an asymmetrical fluorescein fluorescence trace with a "bulge" on
the descending limb.
4-89
-------
Figure 4-39: The results of the particle tracking MODPATH model that shows the possible
groundwater pathways with injected wastewater.
Figure 4-38a shows the tracks that simulated particle take when the majority of the treated
wastewater is injected into Wells 3 and 4. The particle tracks of the Well 2 injectate (shown
in green) are displaced inland and to the north by the injectate from Wells 3 and 4 (shown in
red). Figure 4-38b shows that when all of the treated wastewater is injected into Well 2,
many of the particle tracks from Well 2 reach the submarine springs.
Legeud
c Submarine Springs
® Injection \\ ells
^—Barrier
Well 2 Particle Tracks
Wells 3&4 Particle Tracks
r-iLWRF
4-90
-------
Spec. Elec. Cond. (jis/cm)
figure 4-40: Temperature and specific electrical conductivity profiles for the SVO wells.
The temperature profiles (a) show a warm layer of water at the surface of the water table in
all wells. The SEC profiles (b) shows that there is a layer of fresher water at the surface of
the water table of Well 5 and Well 6.
4-91
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
4-92
-------
SECTION 5: TRACER TEST NUMERICAL
MODELING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Groundwater modeling was used by this study to aid in the design of the tracer test, interpret
the dye tracer breakthrough curve (BTC), and assess processes that affect the fate and
transport of the injected treated wastewater. In general, estimation of critical tracer test
parameters is not an easy task. For the current study, the complexity of the problem is
compounded by hydrogeology, where the tracer plume is affected by the density difference
between freshwater and salt water and the fact that the point of monitoring is where this
plume enters the marine environment. A numerical model is appropriate for a detailed
interpretation of the fate and transport of the dissolved tracer utilized in this study.
The approach used for modeling the Lahaina Groundwater Water Tracer Study was three-
fold. First, a basic model was developed to aid in the design of the tracer test, which was
termed the Tracer Test Design Model (TTDM). The primary purpose of this model was to
estimate the tracer dye dilution that would occur as it traveled from the injection wells to the
submarine springs. The secondary purposes were to aid in the sampling plan by estimating
the time of first dye arrival and the duration of the BTC. Once the dye started emerging from
the submarine springs, the developing BTC was compared to the output of the TTDM. As
differences were noted, the TTDM was modified to obtain an improved agreement between
the model output and the tracer data. Finally, after the BTC was sufficiently developed, the
model output was compared against the tracer data and a comprehensive revision of the
model was undertaken. The final model was modified to match the BTC data. Different
hydrogeological processes and features were then tested to determine which process might be
affecting the tracer dye transport.
5.2 MODELING OBJECTIVES
The specific modeling objectives were to: (1) provide critical data needed to design the tracer
test; (2) investigate the role of hydrologic features, such as barriers or preferential flow paths,
on the dye transport; and (3) assess the impacts of aquifer processes, such as sorption and
dispersion, on the temporal and spatial distribution of the tracer dye concentration. In
contrast to analytical approaches, numerical solutions rely more on physically based
equations that are more realistic if supported by adequate data. Hence, modeling the tracer
test results can shed light on the aquifer and hydrologic conditions at the study site. One
should recognize, however, that there is significant uncertainty regarding aquifer properties
and chemical interactions in the aquifer. A major difficulty is related to the potential
existence of preferential flow. Adopted modeling approaches are suitable for porous media
5-1
-------
or if the media can be treated as an equivalent porous media. Models for discrete fractures
are not readily available and their data requirements are not easy to satisfy. For this reason,
we limit the modeling objectives to assessing the influence of a limited number of processes
(dispersion, sorption, and advection) on the transport of the dye. Advection is the movement
of the dissolved species due to the flow of groundwater, dispersion is the spreading of the
dissolved species due to mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion, and sorption is the
portioning of a dissolved species onto the aquifer matrix (Fetter, 1992).
This report describes the models developed this study, how these models were used to assess
the monitoring results, and evaluates various site conceptual models and their limitations.
5.3 MODELING APPROACH
The models used in this study neglect density-dependent flow by only considering freshwater
movement. Uniform density models have advantages including the ease of development and
use, and the relatively limited data requirements. The saltwater interface used to specify the
bottom boundary of the model was based on the density-dependent model developed by
Gingerich (2008). Using this approach is reasonable considering that models indicated that,
shortly after being injected, the buoyancy of the treated wastewater causes it to rise relative
the surrounding saline water, placing it in the freshwater zone (Wheatcraft et al., 1976;
Burnham et al., 1977; Hunt, 2007). Hence, the majority of the flow is restricted to the fresh
water lens.
The Modular Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model MODFLOW (Harbaugh et al.,
2000), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, is widely used software for simulating
groundwater systems. In general, the applicability of MODFLOW for this site is limited due
to its inability to simulate density-dependent flow. However, this model was used due to its
relative ease of use and limited data requirement in comparison to a variable density model.
In addition, as described above, the majority of flow of the treated wastewater transport
occurs in the freshwater zone, which justifies the use of such an approach. To accomplish
this, the centerline of the freshwater/seawater-mixing zone was taken as a no-flow boundary
representing the bottom of the freshwater zone.
The groundwater flow solution computed by MODFLOW is used by transport models to
simulate the movement of dissolved constituents in groundwater. The first such model used
by this study was the USGS particle tracking model MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). The
MODPATH model uses the groundwater flow solution from MODFLOW to track the
movement of virtual particles from cell to cell in the finite difference grid, by only
considering advection. The output is a visual track representing the path the virtual particles
take from a point of origin to a point of termination. The point of termination can either be
defined by an elapsed time designated by the modeler, or as a boundary or sink in the
modeled area.
Results of the MODFLOW run were used as an input to the solute transport code Multi-
Species Transport Model in Three Dimensions (MT3DMS) (Zheng and Wang, 1999; Zheng,
5-2
-------
2006) to simulate the tracer test experiment. MT3DMS is a contaminant transport model that
simulates the dissolved transport of multiple species. The code simulates the effect of
advection, hydrodynamic dispersion retardation (slowing of the plume transport due to the
dissolved species sorbing onto the aquifer matrix), and the role that hydraulic conductivity
anisotropy play in the transport of the dissolved tracer dye.
To simplify the model setup, the Groundwater Modeling System (GMS)
(www.aquaveo.com/GMS) graphical user interface was used. GMS is used to create a
conceptual model directly or to extract data from Geographic Information System (GIS)
maps that are read into GMS. Once the model simulation has been completed, the results can
be converted to shapefiles or to a GIS raster for use in ArcGIS.
5.4 Tracer Test Design Model (TTDM)
The Tracer Test Design model was developed to aid in designing the tracer test. The
objectives were to: (1) assess the expected dilution of the dye; (2) estimate the time of the
first arrival of the tracer to the submarine springs; and (3) estimate the duration of the dye
emergence at the submarine springs. Such information was critical for planning the dye
addition procedures and developing the submarine spring monitoring plan.
5.4.1 Numerical Model
5.4.1.1 Model Grid
Computer calculations for the groundwater flow are performed using a matrix of cells,
referred to as a grid, that contain the pertinent data. The TTDM grid consisted of 31,094
cells distributed among six layers. The bottom elevation of the first layer was set at -19.7 ft
(-2 m) in reference to mean sea level (m msl). The bottom elevations of the remaining layers
were evenly distributed between -19.7 m msl and the bottom of the model. The bottom
elevation of the bottom layer was set to -39.4 ft msl (-12 m msl) at the western extent of this
layer. The top layer of the model only extended to the shoreline. Layer 2 of the model
extended approximately half way between the shoreline and the western extent of the model,
where the total thickness of the four layers was 26.3 ft (8 m). The grid was refined in the
area of the submarine springs. The cell size varies from 32.8 by 65.6 ft (10 by 20 m) near the
submarine springs, to 328 by 328 ft (100 by 100 m) away from the study area.
5.4.1.2 Boundary Conditions
The modeled area was in the Kaanapali area of West Maui, Hawaii. Figure 5-1 is a map of
the modeled area showing the extent of the top layer (layer 1) and the bottom layer (layer 6),
as well as the major features such as the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility (LWRF)
injection wells and the submarine springs. The map also illustrates the boundary conditions
for layer 1. The model boundaries extend approximately 13,120 ft (3,400 m) inland from the
shoreline, and 656 to 1,310 ft (200 to 400 m) seaward of the shoreline to about the 49 ft
(15 m) bathymetric contour (Figure 5-1). Groundwater flow was modeled using a specified
5-3
-------
flux and recharge rate as regional inputs, and a specified head at the coastal and submarine
boundaries as a regional sink. The northern and southern boundaries of the model were
approximately 6,560 and 13,120 ft (2,000 and 4,000 m) away from the LWRF, respectively.
The eastern boundary was a specified flux boundary with 7.2 million gallons per day (mgd)
(27,400 m3/d) of water entering the model. The eastern specified flux boundary represents
inflow from the recharge areas in the interior highlands of the West Maui Volcano. This
value was based on the recharge values for West Maui of Engott and Vana (2007) with the
modifications described below. The northern and southern boundaries were no-flow
boundaries that were roughly aligned parallel to the groundwater flow direction. The western
boundary was a series of specified head arcs at the shoreline and nearshore ocean bottom
based roughly on the bathymetric contours in the nearshore Kaanapali Area. The specified
head value assigned to the submarine layers was the depth of the boundary arc multiplied by
0.025 to account for the greater density of seawater. The model's bottom boundary was at
the mid-point of the freshwater/saltwater transition zone and was treated as a no-flow
boundary.
5.4.1.3 Recharge
Flux into the top layer was modeled as a groundwater recharge of 29 inches per year (0.002
meters per day [m/d]) based on a USGS recharge study (Engott and Vana, 2007). Upon
reviewing the model it was found that the proper value of recharge into the modeled area was
only 14 in/yr (0.001 m/d) (Gingerich, 2008). This oversight was corrected in the final BTC
interpretation model. The eastern boundary was a specified flux boundary with 7.2 mgd
(27,400 m3/d) of water entering the model, representing inflow from the recharge areas in the
interior highlands of the West Maui Volcano. The recharge was estimated as a fraction of
the total recharge for the Honokowai Aquifer of 26.5 mgd, estimated by Engott and Vana
(2009), based on the length of the coastline of this aquifer covered by the TTDM model. The
total coastline length of the Honokowai Aquifer is 7.33 miles while that of the model is 5.0
miles. Based on the relative coastline lengths, 68% or 18 mgd of the Honokowai Aquifer
recharge should enter the model at the top (ground surface) and eastern boundaries. Direct
recharge accounts for 10.8 mgd, leaving 7.2 mgd to enter the model at the eastern boundary.
5.4.1.4 Hydrogeologic Parameters
The area covered by the conceptual model comprises three geologic units (see Section 1 for a
more detailed description of the study area). The first unit is the Wailuku Basalts comprised
of shield building stage lavas of the West Maui Volcano, which are generally thin-bedded
lava flows. The majority of groundwater flow occurs at the interface between lava flows
(interflow boundaries) that commonly consist of clinker zones giving this path a hydraulic
conductivity similar to that of clean gravels. The next geologic unit is the sediments, which
are comprised of a combination of alluvial material, shoreline deposits, and fossil and
modern reef materials. The fine grains of the alluvial sediments and the lithified reef
material give this unit a relatively low bulk hydraulic conductivity. However, preferential
flow paths in sedimentary deposits can result in locally high hydraulic conductivity values,
which were not accounted for in these models. The sediments occur along the coast and
5-4
-------
extend inland. The third unit is the Lahaina Volcanics, which resulted from post-erosional
volcanism and forms localized flows on top of the Wailuku Basalts. In the modeled area, the
Lahaina Volcanics were represented by a single cone in the southwest section of the model
and have no real impact on groundwater flow between the injection wells and the submarine
springs.
Most of the hydraulic parameter values used in the TTDM were based on literature or
obtained from LWRF operational data. Flows into or out from the modeled domain include
the four LWRF injection wells, groundwater flow into the model from the upgradient area,
"3
and groundwater recharge. For simulations, an injection rate of 3 mgd (11,355 m /d) at
Injection Well 2 was used, which was the approximate average rate of total LWRP injection
for late spring and early summer (County of Maui, 2011).
Numerical groundwater models need multiple hydraulic parameters to execute the
groundwater flow computations. These include hydraulic conductivity1, aquifer porosity2,
the flux of water at the model boundaries3, and the hydraulic gradient4. The values for these
parameters were obtained from field experimentation, review of pertinent literature, or model
calibration, which entails a series of trial and error simulations to find the most appropriate
values.
The porosity of the aquifer is one of the major variables that determines the rate of solute (in
this case tracer dye) transport. Nichols et al. (1996) list probable values for effective porosity
(that porosity that contributes to groundwater flow) as varying between 0.05 and 0.10.
Gingerich (2008) and Gingerich and Engott (2012) used 0.15 as the porosity value. A value
of 0.10 was used for the TTDM model, which was within the range of these three studies.
Table 5-1 lists the hydraulic parameters used by the TTDM to that of other studies.
There was no comprehensive calibration done for this model. The guiding philosophy was to
use reasonable hydraulic parameter values to obtain a preliminary BTC. However, two
major hydraulic parameters were adjusted so confidence could be placed in the model results.
These were the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer formations and the conductance
assigned to the drains that were used to simulate the submarine springs.
Nichols et al. (1996) list the probable range of hydraulic conductivities for dike free basalts
on Oahu as varying between 500 to 5,000 ft/d. Table 5-1 compares the values used by this
model as compared to those used for previous studies (Gingerich, 2008; Gingerich and
Engott, 2012; Whittier et al., 2004; and Whittier and El-Kadi, 2009). The value of the
hydraulic conductivity chosen for the TTDM model was significantly greater than that used
by the other models. It was estimated using a simplified trial and error method. The only
site-specific data available to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the Wailuku Basalts
were capacity tests completed for the injection wells at the LWRF. The hydraulic
1 The ability of the aquifer media to transmit water.
2 The fraction of the aquifer volume that it voids.
3 Flux includes groundwater recharge and groundwater into and out of the model boundaries.
4 The slope of the water, which is needed for the transport model, and is computed by the groundwater model.
5-5
-------
conductivity value of 2,900 ft/d used was higher than that used by previous models, but was
chosen to get a reasonable match between the actual and simulated rise in the hydraulic head
due to the injection of treated wastewater into Well 2. Capacity tests done by the County of
Maui (2010) showed that the hydraulic head in Well 2 would increase 1.7 ft (0.5 m) for each
1 mgd of treated wastewater injected. The simulated injection rate was 3.0 mgd, which
would result in an increase of 5.1 ft (1.5 m) for head within the well bore. However,
MODFLOW computes an average hydraulic head for each cell, so the simulated increase in
hydraulic head resulting from injection is expected to be much less than 5.1 ft. The hydraulic
conductivity of the Wailuku Basalts was adjusted until the rise in hydraulic head within the
cell where injection occurred was less than 3.3 ft (1 m). This required a 180% increase in
hydraulic conductivity from that of the SWAP/OSDS model and a 140% increase from that
used by Gingerich (2008) used for the USGS West Maui groundwater model. Many possible
reasons could account for the difference in the modeled hydraulic conductivities. First, the
SWAP/OSDS model and the USGS West Maui model were both regional in nature, while the
TTDM was localized to the Kaanapali area. The hydraulic conductivity on a local scale can
be much different from that on a regional scale. Also, the USGS West Maui model simulated
variable density flow that accounted for the interaction between fresh and saline groundwater
and dynamically adjusted the midpoint between the two. The TTDM and other models used
in this study assigned a fixed depth to the midpoint between the fresh and saline groundwater
and assigned a no-flow condition to this boundary.
The other hydraulic parameter that was adjusted to increase the accuracy of the TTDM model
was the conductance of the drains used to simulate the submarine springs. The submarine
springs act as leakage points with outflow controlled by drain conductance; an option that
seems to be an appropriate representation. The conductance (a composite parameter
describing the hydraulic conductivity and thickness of the media surrounding the spring) and
bottom elevation of the drains representing the springs were adjusted so that a particle
tracking simulation showed the dominant flow from the injection well going to the submarine
springs. Figure 5-2 shows the pathways indicated by the simulated particle track from Well 2
to the ocean discharge points. The conductance of the submarine spring drains was
incrementally increased until they captured a significant fraction of the inserted particles.
5.4.1.5 Tracer Test Design Model - Transport Model
As explained above, the transport model MT3DMS uses the groundwater flow solution from
the flow model MODFLOW to simulate the transport of dissolved species in an aquifer. This
model simulated the addition of FLT into Well 2. All injection in this preliminary model was
into Well 2. Advection and dispersion were the only processes simulated to maintain
simplicity and aid in the speed of model execution. The simulation was run for a total of
1,466 days, with no dye injected for the first 90 days. On day 91, a simulated concentration
of 12,000 ppb dye was added for a period of 24 hours, which was the expected dye addition
duration. There was no dye addition for the remaining 1,375 days of the model run. The
simulated observation points were located at the North Seep Group (NSG) and at the South
Seep Group (SSG).
5-6
-------
5.4.2 Tracer Test Design Model Results
The first runs of this model were used in the design of the tracer field experiment to estimate
the mass of dye needed for a successful test. Figure 5-3 shows the tracer test design model
(TTDM) breakthrough curves for the NSG and the SSG, and the actual BTC measured at the
NSG. The dye concentrations are shown as the ratio of the dye at the monitoring point to the
average concentration of dye in the injection well. This model indicated that by the time the
tracer plume reached the NSG monitoring point the dye concentration will have decreased to
"3
a concentration of about 0.8 x 10" of that added during injection. Thus, in the tracer test
design, an over three orders of magnitude reduction was expected to occur. Additionally, the
first arrival would be about 108 days, after which the dye concentration would be high
enough to be discernible from the background fluorescence (assuming a reliable detection
limit of 1 ppb). If the actual method detection limit of 0.02 ppb of FLT were used, elapsed
time to first detection were would decrease to 70 days. The model indicated that only a small
concentration of dye would be detected at the SSG, a result that proved to be inaccurate.
Table 5-2 compares the BTC simulated by the TTDM with the actual BTC measured at the
NSG. No comparison was done for the SSG because the difference between the simulation
and the actual BTC was so great. The first arrival time of the TTDM was two weeks shorter
than the actual 84-day travel based on the method detection limit of 0.02 ppb. The TTDM
peak concentration was a little less than one-half that of the actual BTC. At 263 days, the
time to the peak concentration was about one and a half months shorter than that of the actual
BTC. The agreement between the TTDM and actual BTC at the NSG was remarkably good
for a predictive model. However, of greater importance is that the TTDM model enabled the
tracer test plan to correctly identify the mass of dye needed for a successful tracer test and as
well as the first arrival of the dye at the submarine springs. Based on the model's results,
360 lbs of FLT and 180 lbs of SRB were acquired, and, depending on the treated wastewater
injection rate at the time of dye addition, these amounts of dye would produce BTC peak
concentrations of 10 to 15 and 1 to 2 ppb, respectively. A greater amount of FLT was used
because of the assessment that the reliable detection limit for FLT was significantly higher
than for SRB. When the actual MDLs were determined, however, there was very little
difference between the value for FLT and that for SRB (refer to Sections 4.2.1.3.3. and
4.3.2.1.2 for a detailed description of the MDLs).
5.5 Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Test Model
After the initial detection of the FLT dye, the results of the developing BTC were compared
to those simulated and the model was modified to improve the agreement. Specifically, the
TTDM conceptual model was modified to: (1) accurately reflect the addition of two dyes
(FLT and SRB); (2) include the average injection rates into each well rather than injection
into a single well; and (3) complete limited sensitivity analyses to assess what geologic
configurations, features, and boundary conditions produced the best agreement between the
simulated and actual BTCs.
5-7
-------
The TTDM model was modified to distribute the treated wastewater injection between
Wells 1 through 4 at a rate equal to the average value from July through October 2011,
except on the day of SRB dye addition. On this day, the model accurately reflected the
injection rates as they were on August 11, 2011 for the SRB tracer test initiation. The model
was then run and the results compared to that of the developing BTC
5.5.1 Numerical Model
5.5.1.1 Model Grid
Minor adjustments were made to the TTDM grid. The primary adjustment was to use a
uniform cell size of 164 x 164 ft (50 x 50 m). The total number of cells in the model grid
was 80,640, distributed among 120 rows, 112 columns, and 6 layers. Only 47,553 cells were
active because the remaining cells were located outside of the model boundaries. Figure 5-4
shows the model grid in a plan view (layer 1 only) and in cross-section. The elevation of the
bottom of the grid was the elevation of the mid-point of the freshwater/saltwater transition as
modeled by Gingerich (2008). The top of layer 2 (bottom of layer 1) was assigned a fixed
elevation of -6.6 ft msl (-2.0 m msl). The other layer elevations were equally spaced between
-6.6 ft msl and the bottom of the model. The western extent of the submarine layers was
extended to accommodate the revised submarine boundaries.
5.5.1.2 Boundary Conditions
The extent of the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer model remained unchanged from the previous
versions except the submarine boundaries. The submarine boundaries were extended to the
west, and the depths were assigned to be consistent with the nearshore bathymetry. The
western boundary of layers 2 through 6 were terminated at the designated depth contours of
6.6, 18.0, 29.5, 41.0, and 54.0 ft msl, respectively. The specified head assigned to these
boundaries was the absolute value of the depth multiplied by 0.025 to account for the density
of seawater relative to that of freshwater.
5.5.1.3 Recharge
As discussed in Section 5.4.1.1, the recharge assigned to the TTDM was higher than that in
the Kaanapali area. The recharge was reduced from 29 in/yr to 14.5 in/yr better reflect that
estimated by Engott and Vana (2007). However, the groundwater flux from the interior
highlands had to be increased to keep the total amount of water entering the model accurate.
The groundwater flux into the eastern boundary of the model was thus increased from 7.2
mgd to 8.8 mgd.
5.5.1.4 Hydrologic Parameters
The injection rate into the four injection wells was increased slightly from 3.0 to 3.2 mgd to
reflect the average injection rate from July 2011 through June 2012. The TTDM model was
modified to distribute the treated wastewater injection between Wells 1 through 4 at a rate
5-8
-------
equal to the average value from July through October 2011, except on the day of SRB dye
addition. On this day, the model accurately reflected the injection rates as they were on
August 11, 2011 for the SRB tracer test initiation. The conductance and bottom elevation of
the drains representing the NSG and SSG were iteratively modified until there was a suitable
match between the simulated uptake in the drains and the discharge from the seep groups as
3 3
estimated by the nearshore radon survey. These values were 2,500 m /d and 6,300 m /d for
the NSG and SSG, respectively (Glenn et al., 2012). In the initial model runs, the hydraulic
conductivity remained unchanged from the TTDM. In the final model runs this parameter
was modified to agree with that of Gingerich and Engott (2012) with the exception of the
alignment of the dominant anisotropy axis.
5.5.1.5 Transport Model
The TTDM model was modified to distribute the treated wastewater injection between Wells
1 through 4 at a rate equal to the average value from July through October 2011, except on
the day of SRB dye addition. On this day, the model accurately reflected the injection rates
as they were on August 11, 2011 for the SRB tracer test initiation. The model was then run
and the results were compared to that of the developing BTC. Rather than simulating the
transport of a single dye, both the FLT and SRB dye additions and transport were simulated.
Table 5-3 lists the well injection rates, and the dates and concentrations of the dye addition.
5.5.2 Description of Scenarios
5.5.2.1 Effects of a Horizontal Flow Barrier
The transport of the tracer plume to the west and northwest directions, which is inconsistent
with the physical data, became the next model deficiency to overcome. To address this
problem, a horizontal flow barrier (HFB) was placed along the possible track of an ancestral
Honokowai Stream as hypothesized by Hunt and Rosa (2009). Figure 5-6 shows the revised
conceptual model. A horizontal flow barrier is a line type feature used to represent physical
obstructions to groundwater flow, with a specified hydraulic characteristic expressed as the
product of the hydraulic conductivity of the barrier divided by its width. A value of 0.0001
d"1 was assigned to this barrier.
In the model the HFB represents the low hydraulic conductivity sediments or weathered
basalts beneath the current and former channels of the Honokowai Stream (see discussion in
Hunt and Rosa, 2009). An inspection of the shore bathymetry (Figure 5-6) shows evidence
of a submerged stream channel that correlates well with the northern boundary of the TIR
plume and is just north of the NSG. The evidence for a drowned stream valley is the
eastward indentation of the 60 to 100 ft bathymetric contours. Figure 5-7 shows the geologic
stratigraphy in the boreholes that were drilled for the LWRF injection wells. The alluvium
extends to about 10 ft below sea level and well into the groundwater; within the paleostream
channel the thickness of alluvial fill and the depth to weathered basalt will be much deeper
than this. The existence of a valley-fill deep enough to block the flow of non-saline water to
the north and to the west of the LWRF is thus a likely possibility.
5-9
-------
5.5.2.2 Effects of Bathymetry
Another primary method used to investigate discrepancies between the simulated and actual
BTC at the SSG was to modify the geometry of the nearshore geology and that of the marine
boundaries. The particle track simulation shown in Figure 5-2 illustrates that the
groundwater flows preferentially to the NSG, and no groundwater reaches the SSG. Upon
closer inspection, the marine boundary of the first submarine layer (layer 2) juts to the
shoreline (layer 1) near the NSG then juts back offshore near the SSG. The indentation of
the layer 2 specified head boundary places it in closer proximity to the shoreline near the
NSG than the rest of western boundary. The closer proximity of the specified boundary to
the shoreline near the submarine springs may result in the simulated groundwater flow
converging on this zone. This hypothesis was tested by modifying the layer 2 specified head
boundary to place it adjacent to the shoreline near SSG, as is the case at the NSG.
The submarine layers of the model were modified to closely follow the nearshore bathymetry.
The western boundaries of layers 2 through 6 were modified to coincide with the 6.6, 18.0, 29.5,
41.0, and 54.0 ft msl bathymetric contours, respectively. Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show the location
of the submarine boundary for layers 2 through 6 and the geology used in layer 1.
5.5.2.3 Effects of a Preferential Flow Path
To further investigate hydrogeologic factors influencing the transport of the FLT, a sequence
of simulations was preformed using different preferential flow path (PFP) layer placement.
Because significant improvement in the simulated SSG BTC occurred when the boundary
condition geometry for layer 2 was modified, we adopted this as the base model for the PFP
simulations. As with the modified boundary condition simulations, the goal of these
simulations was to improve the agreement between the model and the SSG BTC. To
accomplish this, a polygon was created that connected Injection Wells 3 and 4 to the SSG.
Figure 5-8 shows the geology and boundary conditions for the PFP model runs. A hydraulic
conductivity of 8,860 ft/d, three times that assigned to the Wailuku Basalts, was assigned to
this polygon. A PFP polygon was assigned one at a time to layers 2 through 6 and a transport
simulation was run for each case. Figure 5-8 shows the geometry of the PFP polygon for
layer 2. In the simulations for the remaining layers, the PFP polygon was extended to the
western boundary of the respective layer.
5.5.2.4 Effect of Porosity
Porosity is a major factor for the travel velocity of groundwater. A higher porosity results in
a slower groundwater velocity. The TTDM simulations used a porosity of 0.10. The time of
first arrival and peak concentration of the TTDM was early indicating that the porosity might
have been set too low. A range of porosities from 0.10 to 0.30 were tested and compared to
the first arrival and to the first peak of the measured BTCs.
5-10
-------
5.5.2.5 Effect of Dispersivity
Dispersion changes a pulse addition of dye (near instantaneous on and off condition) to a
peaked curve with ascending and declining limbs. The two primary causes of dispersion are
the multiple pathways taken and various travel velocities of particles dissolved in
groundwater (hydrodynamic dispersion) and the "spreading" of a plume due to a
concentration gradient (molecular diffusion). As groundwater velocity increases, the role of
hydrodynamic dispersion dominates over molecular diffusion, which can be safely ignored in
many situations. The relative contribution of each type of dispersion is quantified by the
Peclet Number, which is the ratio of hydrodynamic dispersion to molecular diffusion. The
higher the Peclet Number, the less relevant molecular diffusion becomes. At Peclet Numbers
greater than 6, hydrodynamic dispersion is considered to dominate over molecular diffusion
(Fetter, 1992). The BTC interpretation model QTracer2 (Field, 2002) calculated Peclet
Numbers of 12 and 20 for the NSG and SSG, respectively. The Peclet Numbers computed
for the submarine springs by QTracer2 justifies ignoring molecular diffusion in the modeling
for this project.
The groundwater flow and transport models were used to assess the role of dispersion in the
transport of the dye. The primary emphasis was to match the characteristics of the NSG BTC
up to and including the initial peak. Subsequent features of the BTC after the initial peak,
such as a plateau or a long trailing edge, are likely the result of other flow pathways or
processes. The actual parameter used to quantify dispersion is dispersivity.
5.5.2.6 Effects of Sorption
Analysis to this point has assumed that there are no interaction between the tracer dyes and
the aquifer media. A truly conservative tracer will stay in solution and travel through the
aquifer with no a physical or chemical reaction with the aquifer, i.e., without degrading or
transforming to another species. Very few dissolved substances fit this description. SRB is
the dye used in this study that is most likely to degrade (Kass, 1998). The evaluation of SRB
degradation is discussed in Section 4.3.3.
Modeling was used to assess the sorption of FLT and SRB. Sorption occurs when a
dissolved constituent attaches to the aquifer matrix. Sorption is generally thought of as a
reversible process that is dependent on the sorption properties of the dissolved constituent,
chemical properties of the aquifer matrix (organic carbon content and surface charge for
example [Fetter, 1992; Schulz, 1998; Sabatini, 2000]), and the dissolved concentration of that
constituent. In a tracer test, the dye may sorb onto the aquifer matrix during the ascending
limb of the BTC, then desorb back into solution during the descending limb of the BTC.
This process is referred to as equilibrium sorption if the exchange between the dissolved and
sorbed phase is instantaneous and dependent on the dissolved concentration. The primary
effect of this process is a slower transport velocity (Schulz, 1998). In the absence of a
reference tracer with known sorption characteristics, it is difficult to assess sorption using a
BTC because the primary difference will be slower travel time. Sabatini (2000) evaluated
the sorption of FLT and SRB on limestone and sandstone. FLT does not sorb onto sandstone
5-11
-------
and only slightly sorbs onto limestone. SRB was slightly sorbed onto sandstone, but had
significant sorption onto limestone. Smart and Laidlaw (1977) tested the sorption of tracer
dyes on various types of sediments and aquifer media using laboratory columns. They found
that FLT experienced a small loss to sorption onto orthroquartzite, kaolinite, and limestone.
SRB showed moderate sorption onto limestone and kaolinite that increased with the
dissolved dye concentration.
A numerical model can be used to evaluate the possibility of sorption by comparing
simulated BTCs with and without sorption. A simulation was run using the data from
Sabatini (2000) to test the possible impact of sorption on the transport of the tracers used in
this project. In this evaluation, Sabatini (2000) used Freundlich Sorption Isotherms to
describe the relationship between the dissolved and the sorbed mass of dye. Freundlich
Sorption Isotherms use an exponent to describe this relationship shown in the following
equation (Fetter, 1992).
Cs = Kr * ClN Equation 5-1
Where:
Cs = the sorbed concentration (|j,g/kg)
Kr = the sorption coefficient (L/kg)
Cl = the dissolved concentration (|~ig/L)
N = Freundlich exponent
Table 5-4 lists values used for Kr and N for each dye and aquifer material. GMS does not
have the capability to assign the sorption characteristics directly to the aquifer materials.
These parameters must be assigned cell by cell, or layer by layer. Due to the labor-intensive
nature of entering the data into the individual cells, the layer option was used. The sorption
values for limestone were assigned to layer 2 to represent the carbonate materials the dye
plume would encounter when discharging from submarine springs. The sorption values for
sandstone were assigned to the remaining layers to represent the lower sorption onto basalt.
The model was run with the same hydraulic parameters and for the same duration as previous
simulations.
5.5.2.7 Effects of Anisotropy
In many cases, for the sake of simplicity, the hydraulic conductivity is assumed to be uniform
in a given aquifer medium, regardless of the direction of groundwater flow. Structures in the
aquifer material such as an alignment of fractures in a preferred direction can result in a
hydraulic conductivity value that is greater in one direction than another (Knochenmus and
Robinson, 1996). During the early stages of model refinement, a hydraulic conductivity of
2,900 ft/d and an aquifer porosity of 0.19 were found to produce the best match between the
simulated and measured BTC for the NSG. These values were significantly greater than the
hydraulic conductivity and porosity used by Gingerich and Engott (2012) in the USGS
groundwater model of the Lahaina District. They modeled the Wailuku Basalts as an
anisotropic medium. In the Lahaina District Model, a longitudinal hydraulic conductivity of
1,800 ft/d was aligned roughly east-west was assigned to the Wailuku Basalts. For this
5-12
-------
Formation, the transverse hydraulic conductivity of 590 ft/d was aligned roughly north-south,
while the vertical hydraulic conductivity was 17 ft/d. The hydraulic conductivity anisotropy
used by Gingerich and Engott (2012) and an anisotropy with the dominant and minor axes
swapped were tested to evaluate the impact on the modeled BTC and the spatial extent of the
FLT plume.
5.5.3 Model Results
The initial runs of the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer model were compared to those simulated
with TTDM. The descriptions that follow detail the sequential results of the model
modifications to better understand the impact of the FLT transport.
5.5.3.1 Effects of a Horizontal Flow Barrier (HFB)
Placing a HFB over the ancestral channel of the Honokowai Stream as hypothesized by Hunt
and Rosa (2009) resulted in a significant increase in the simulated peak FLT concentration at
the NSG. Overall, this was an improvement from the TTDM where the simulated FLT
concentration was less than half of that measured. However, there was little improvement in
the simulated BTC for the SSG. The HFB did accomplish the primary intended purpose by
preventing the transport of the tracer dyes to the northwest and directly west to stretches
along the shoreline that the 815N and TIR data indicated were not impacted by the treated
wastewater plume. Figure 5-9 compares the actual BTC to that simulated by the Lahaina
Groundwater Tracer model. The simulated NSG BTC arrives at the submarine springs about
one and a half months prior to the actual arrival time. The peak concentration was about 1.5
times that of the actual concentration and occurred on March 29, 2012, two months prior to
the actual peak that occurred on May 29, 2012. More problematic was the simulated FLT
concentration at the SSG. The simulated first arrival on December 17, 2011 was about a
month later than the actual first arrival at the SSG. The simulated peak concentration of 2.2
ppb was less than one-fifteenth of that of the actual peak concentration. In addition, the
model predicted that the peak would occur at the SSG on June 5, 2013, which is more than a
year after the actual peak occurred. Investigating the cause of the large discrepancy at the
SSG became a subsequent task of the modeling.
5.5.3.2 Effects of Bathymetry
Modifying the western boundary of the submarine layers greatly improved the simulated
BTC for the SSG. Figure 5-10 shows the BTC simulated by the model run after modifying
the submarine boundaries. The modeled time of travel for the FLT to the SSG was closer
with the simulated peak concentration occurring on May 24, 2012, compared to the actual
peak, which occurred approximately a month earlier. The simulated peak FLT concentration
was 14.5 ppb compared to the actual peak concentration of 34 ppb, which shows that the
boundary modifications improved the model based on this criterion (Figure 5-9). Although
the modeled BTC did not closely match the actual BTC, this simulation demonstrates the
important role that nearshore bathymetry plays in the transport of the tracer dye, and thus the
transport of the treated wastewater, to the submarine springs.
5-13
-------
5.5.3.3 Effects of a Preferential Flow Path
Simulating PFPs resulted in significant improvement in agreement between the measured and
simulated SSG BTC. However, this improvement came at the expense of the agreement
between the measured and simulated NSG BTC. All layers were tested using a PFP, but
placing the PFP in layer 2 produced the best results. The simulated SSG BTC with a PFP
(Figure 5-11) was only about 5 ppb less than that measured, showing much better agreement
than the simulation without the PFP (Figure 5-10). The agreement between the simulated
and measured NSG BTC was much better when a PFP was used. The first arrival and peak
concentration times were significantly earlier than that measured and the peak concentration
was almost three times that measured. Placing the preferential flow polygon in the other
layers produced similar results. Table 5-5 compares the actual FLT BTCs to that simulated
by each preferential flow model scenario. Even using a porosity of 0.30, the first arrival time
at both the NSG and SSG varies from to a week to two months early. A higher porosity
lowers the transport velocity of the groundwater due to the increase in the pore space
available for the flow. The porosity used is in these simulations was greater than the upper
bound of 0.10 estimated by Nichols et al. (1996) and the value of 0.15 used by Gingerich and
Engott (2012) in the Lahaina District Groundwater Model. Gingerich and Engott (2012)
varied porosity to match the measured slope of the freshwater/saltwater transition zone in
West Maui. Since Gingerich and Engott (2012) calibrated their porosity using physically
measured data, that value is the best estimate available for the study site. As stated above,
the primary goal of simulating PFPs was to capture the FLT concentration at the NSG
relative to that at the SSG. In the model runs, the ratio of the peak NSG FLT concentration
to that at the SSG varied from 2.2 to 4.7 with the average being 2.7. This is much greater
than the actual value of 0.63. In addition, the use of a PFP increased the peak concentration
at the NSG to more than twice the measured value even though this set of submarine springs
was outside the PFP zone.
5.5.3.4 Effect of Dispersivity
Changes in dispersivity will change the slope of the leading edge of the BTC by altering the
rate of rise and descent of the BTC limbs. Dispersivities of 32, 82, 164, and 246 ft were
tested. Figure 5-12 shows the simulated BTCs for the NSG using the dispersivities tested.
Table 5-6 lists the date of first arrival, and the date and magnitude of the peak concentration
for both the NSG and SSG. A higher dispersivity resulted in an earlier date of first arrival,
but lower peak concentration. The lower dispersivity values gave the best match between the
simulated and measured data for the NSG. A dispersivity of 32 ft resulted in a close
agreement with the measured peak concentration of 22.5 ppb, but the simulated arrival date
was delayed and the ascending limb of the simulated BTC was too steep. A dispersivity of
82 ft provided good agreement with slope of the BTC ascending limb, but the peak
concentration of 19.2 ppb was 17% less than that measured. The higher dispersivities of 164
and 246 ft resulted in first arrivals much earlier than that measured and ascending limb slopes
much less steep than that measured. The highest value tested (246 ft) was very close to the
value of 250 ft used by Gingerich and Engott (2012) in the Lahaina District model. Figure 5-
5-14
-------
12 illustrates that using a value that high results in simulated BTC that differs significantly
from that measured.
5.5.3.5 Effect of Porosity
Porosity affects the travel velocity and the peak concentration of the FLT plume. Porosities
of 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.30 were tested using a model version with a dispersivity of 82 ft, an
east-west hydraulic conductivity of 590 ft/d, and a north-south hydraulic conductivity of
1,770 ft/d. Figure 5-13 compares the results of these simulations to the measured BTC at the
NSG while Table 5-6 lists the dates of first arrivals, and the dates and magnitude of the peak
concentrations for the NSG and the SSG. A lower porosity results in an earlier arrival and a
higher peak concentration. The date of first arrival when a porosity of 0.10 was used was
9/27/11, nearly two months before FLT was actually detected at the NSG. The simulated
peak concentration was 27.4 ppb, 120% of that measured. When a porosity of 0.30 used, the
simulated date of first arrival was 2/10/12 and the peak concentration was 9.7 ppb. These
two simulated results were much different from that measured. In the case of simulation
using the porosity of 0.30 the FLT would remain undetected until 2/10/12. A porosity of
0.15 used with a dispersivity of 82 ft produced the best agreement between the simulated and
measured BTC at the NSG. The agreement between simulated and measured results at the
SSG was only fair, regardless of the porosity and dispersivity used.
5.5.3.6 Effects of Sorption
Figure 5-14a shows the modeled FLT BTC when sorption is simulated. The peak
concentration was highly attenuated compared to the measured BTC, and the peak of the
SSG BTC is thus barely discernible on this figure. Sorption should delay the time when the
BTC reaches the peak concentration. This did not appear to happen in this simulation.
Figure 5-14b compares the modeled BTCs normalized to the maximum FLT concentration
for the cases with and without sorption. In both scenarios, the peaks occur at nearly the same
time. However, the trailing edge was much more pronounced. At the NSG, the times of first
detection were November 13, 2011 and October 24, 2011 for the cases with and without
sorption, respectively, showing a slight slowing of the BTC. The peak concentrations of the
FLT BTC were severely attenuated and were followed by a very elongated trailing edge. The
modeled SRB concentrations at the submarine springs were well below the MDL for this
dye.
As stated above, a definitive evaluation of whether or not sorption is a factor is difficult
without aid of another tracer with known sorption characteristics (preferably a conservative
tracer). However, this study used groundwater transport modeling and reasonable sorption
parameters for FLT and SRB to evaluate what effect sorption would have on the transport of
these two dyes. This modeling indicated that a delay in the peak concentration would not
occur, but that the peak concentration would be severely attenuated and followed by a very
long trailing edge. However, the good agreement of the FLT first arrival and peak
concentration between the simulations using a porosity of 0.15 and a dispersivity of 82 ft but
no sorption and that of the measured BTC indicate that sorption is minimal with this dye.
5-15
-------
Since no SRB was detected, the sorption effects on this dye cannot be adequately evaluated.
Nevertheless, as Table 5-4 indicates, sorption likely has a greater impact on the transport of
this dye likely making this process a contributing factor to the failure to detect SRB.
5.5.3.7 Effects of Anisotropy
An aquifer where the hydraulic conductivity is not equal in all directions can result in a
transport direction for dissolved-constituents that differs from the direction of the hydraulic
gradient. Rahn and Johnson (2002) incorporated anisotropy into a MODFLOW/MT3D
model of a contaminated site in South Dakota. The direction of the hydraulic gradient was
due east, but the ethylene dibromide plume tracked to the southeast of the source area. They
used anisotropy with the dominant axis aligned with the foliation of the metamorphic rocks
that formed the aquifer and obtained a good agreement between the measured and simulated
contaminant plume. In the present study, the best match between the simulated and
measured FLT BTCs when an isotropic hydraulic conductivity was simulated used a value of
2,900 ft/d and aquifer porosity of 0.19. The values of these parameters were significantly
greater than the respective values used by Gingerich and Engott (2012) in the USGS
groundwater model of the Lahaina District. Additionally, the modeled spatial extent of the
FLT plume failed to extend south of the SSG as indicated by the field data. Gingerich and
Engott (2012) modeled the Wailuku Basalts as an anisotropic aquifer. The longitudinal
hydraulic conductivity of 1,800 ft/d was aligned roughly east-west. A transverse hydraulic
conductivity of 590 ft/d was aligned roughly north-south, while a vertical hydraulic
conductivity was 17 ft/d; the aquifer porosity was 0.15. Using these values with our model
produced very poor agreement between the simulated and measured BTCs (Figure 5-15a).
The simulated BTC for the NSG had a very low peak concentration of about 5.5 ppb that
appeared in January 2013, and FLT in the simulated BTC for the SSG remained barely
discernible.
The simulation described above showed that the anisotropy used by the Lahaina District
Groundwater Model (Gingerich and Engott, 2012) was not suitable for the current study, and
that the BTC needed for the present study is sensitive to changes in horizontal anisotropy. A
simulation was run using the Lahaina District groundwater model hydraulic parameters, but
with the dominant hydraulic conductivity axis aligned north-south, the opposite of the
previous simulation. Figure 5-15b shows the results of this simulation. The agreement
between the simulated and measured BTC at the NSG was similar to the model that utilized
an isotropic aquifer, although there was some improvement in the agreement between the
simulated and measured SSG BTC. The time of peak concentration was much closer than
that of the model for the isotropic case. However, the simulated peak concentration was still
only about 30% of that measured. At the SSG the ascending limb of the BTC was slightly
less steep than that measured, resulting in a time of peak concentration that is offset by 51
days from the actual time compared to 91 days as simulated by the horizontally isotropic
model. It is important to note that the peak concentration at the SSG occurred at the end of a
one-month long plateau so an offset of 51 days in the anisotropic simulation places the
modeled peak value just prior to the start of the plateau.
5-16
-------
The anisotropic model version was thus selected as the base model for evaluating the
remaining processes such as sorption and the trailing edge. This model version had the
advantage of using the hydraulic parameter values of Gingerich and Engott (2012) with the
major exception of the orientation of the hydraulic conductivity ellipse. In the Lahaina
District groundwater model Gingerich and Engott (2012) aligned the dominant hydraulic
conductivity axis east-west, while this study aligned the dominant hydraulic conductivity axis
north-south. Another important criteria to consider when evaluating the model results is the
simulated spatial extent of FLT plume. As described above, the simulated FLT plume did
not extend south of the SSG when an isotropic hydraulic conductivity was used. As
described in Section 4.2.6.2, FLT has been detected in field samples as far south as the
southern TIR plume boundary, significantly south of the SSG. Figure 5-16a shows the
simulated FLT plume 620 days after the addition of this dye using an isotopic model, a
porosity of 0.15, a dispersivity of 82 ft, and an isotropic hydraulic conductivity of 2,900 ft/d.
In this simulation, the strong conductance of the SSG captures the FLT and no dye extends
south of the feature. Using the same values for porosity and dispersivity, but with an east-
west hydraulic conductivity of 590 ft/d and a north-south hydraulic conductivity of 1,800
ft/d, a simulation was run to test the change in the spatial distribution of the FLT plume.
Figure 5-16b shows the results of this simulation. The extent of the modeled FLT plume in
this simulation extends southward to the southern TIR plume boundary, matching the
observed occurrence of FLT in samples collected during the area surveys. The results of this
simulation shows the importance of considering anisotropy when modeling solute transport
in dipping lava flows; it further shows that the direction of dominant hydraulic conductivity
is likely perpendicular to the dip of the lava flows.
5.5.3.8 Best Fit Model
The PFP simulations described in Section 5.5.3.3 failed to produce a SSG peak BTC
concentration that was greater than that at the NSG, which is the case with the measured data.
In the previous sets of PFP simulations, the peak concentration at the SSG was only about
half that at the NSG, while the measured data shows that the peak concentration at the SSG
was about 1.5 times that of the NSG. These results indicate that a PFP alone cannot account
for the relative peak concentrations measured at the two groups of submarine springs. An
additional simulation was thus performed using a PFP in layer 2 and anisotropic hydraulic
conductivity in an attempt to obtain an improved agreement between the measured and
modeled relative peak concentrations at the NSG and SSG. This simulation tested the
hypothesis that horizontal anisotropy with major axis aligned north-south combined with a
PFP could provide results that more closely reflected those measured. Figure 5-17a shows
the configuration of the PFP in layer 2. A hydraulic conductivity of 11,500 ft/d was assigned
to the PFP polygon that connects Injection Wells 3 and 4 to the SSG.
The combination of the PFP, dominant north-south anisotropy, and more southerly flow path
significantly improved the simulated peak FLT concentration measured at the SSG relative to
that at the NSG. Figure 5-17b shows that in this simulation, the peak concentration at the
SSG is now just slightly below that at the NSG, although the simulated peak concentration at
the SSG was about one-half of that measured with a peak concentration occurring about two
5-17
-------
months before the actual peak. This simulation was not meant to show an actual
configuration of a PFP, however, but to demonstrate that such a feature likely contributes to
the high FLT concentration at the SSG relative to that at the NSG. There is very little
information on the subsurface geology in the study area and any postulated PFP is purely
conjecture. The results of this simulation nonetheless showed that using a dominant north-
south anisotropy ellipse combined with a southerly track for a PFP could improve the
agreement between the simulated and measured results.
5.5.3.9 Fate of SRB
Nearly all of the previous discussion has dealt with modeling the transport of FLT because
there was measured FLT data with which to compare the model results. The reasonable
agreement between the BTC-IM FLT simulations and the measured field data increases the
confidence that this model can be used to investigate the causes for the non-detection of
SRB. As the transport model MT3D-MS can simulate the simultaneous transport of multiple
species, the transport of SRB was also simulated in all model runs of Lahaina Groundwater
Tracer model.
When SRB was physically added to the treated wastewater stream, the injection setup was
modified to increase the discharge into Well 2 (see section 4.3). The treated wastewater that
would normally be injected into these two wells was diverted to Well 2. Upon completion of
the SRB addition, the injection setup was returned to the normal configuration whereby the
majority of the treated wastewater is discharged through Wells 3 and 4. Because Wells 3 and
4 are between Well 2 and the submarine springs, the possibility of their injectate interfering
with the SRB plume was investigated using the model. The second injection scenario was
modified by ceasing injection into Wells 3 and 4 after the SRB addition was complete.
Figure 5-18 compares the simulated SRB BTC with injection as it actually occurred (i.e.,
with Wells 3 and 4 as the primary injection wells after SRB addition) to a scenario where
Well 2 is the primary injection well and there was no injection into Wells 3 and 4. With
injection into Wells 3 and 4, the BTC at the NSG is barely discernible. The maximum
simulated concentration of 0.034 on August 21, 2012 is less the than the MDL of 0.05 ppb.
At the SSG, the concentration does rise above the MDL to a concentration of 0.12 ppb. The
simulated current concentration was 0.07 ppb just slightly above the MDL. With no injection
into Wells 3 and 4 after the SRB addition, the simulated BTC significantly exceeds the MDL.
At the NSG, the simulated SRB concentration exceeds the MDL on December 30, 2011 and
reaches a peak concentration of 2.2 ppb on May 24, 2012. At the SSG, the simulated SRB
concentration exceeds the MDL on February 25, 2012 and reaches a peak of 1.4 ppb on
September 15, 2012. Figure 5-19 shows two simulated SRB plumes 620 days after this dye
was added to the treated wastewater stream. Figure 5-19a shows the results of the simulation
where injection into Wells 3 and 4 resumed after the SRB was added, which is what actually
occurred. Interference from the injection into Wells 3 and 4 diverts the SRB plume to the
east-southeast and away from the submarine springs. Figure 5-19b shows the simulation
results if Well 2 received all of the treated wastewater for injection after the addition of SRB.
Under this injection scenario, the core of the SRB plume moves south and southwest
resulting in a significantly higher concentration of this dye being discharged from the
5-18
-------
submarine springs. Assumed correct, this shows that continued injection into Wells 3 and 4
after the SRB addition deflected the injectate from Well 2 and the SRB within it away from
the submarine springs. The deflected pathway greatly reduced the SRB concentration at the
springs and significantly delayed time of arrival, although this model result does not preclude
other processes such as sorption, degradation, and other discharge points from also playing a
role in the failure to detect SRB.
5.6 Conceptual Model of the Kaanapali Groundwater Flow and
Transport System
This section describes the groundwater flow and transport for the Kaanapali study area as
defined by the model boundaries describe above. Groundwater flow in the Kaanapali area is
controlled by groundwater recharge from rainfall and from the central highlands entering the
system from the east, and as treated wastewater injection into the wells at the LWRF.
The regional component of groundwater flow results from groundwater recharge creating a
freshwater lens that floats on top of the underlying saltwater. This recharge is estimated to
be approximately 18 mgd (Section 5.5.1.3). Groundwater that is not extracted by production
wells or returned to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration will discharge into the ocean as
submarine groundwater discharge. Being less dense, the fresh groundwater will float on top
of the saline seawater. The interface between the two is located at a depth that is
approximately 40 times the groundwater table elevation (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, page
375). The mixing of the two waters in the basal lens along the groundwater flow path results
in a sloping transition rather than a sharp interface between fresh and saltwater. Because the
modeling software used by this study does not consider the density differences of fresh and
saltwater, only the flow of the non-saline water is considered in the numerical and conceptual
models. To accommodate this approach the mid-point of the freshwater/saltwater transition
zone is thus considered a no-flow boundary. The numerical model's ability to capture the
major characteristics of the measured BTC shows that this approach is reasonable.
Concerning the injected treated wastewater, the screen and open intervals of the wells occur
in the transition or saltwater zone, placing the injection in the saline zone and below the
bottom boundary of the numerical models (Gingerich and Engott, 2012, see their Figure 27).
However, due to its buoyancy, the injectate quickly rises up into the freshwater zone and its
associated flow system (Hunt, 2007; Burnham et al., 1977; Wheatcraft et al., 1976; Tetra
Tech, 1993). The injectate is then transported in the groundwater flow system to submarine
groundwater discharge points.
Prior to this study, the best evidence showing that the injectate from the wells takes an
oblique rather than direct path to the submarine discharge points are the 815N algal surveys of
Dailer et al. (2010) and a coastal geochemical, temperature, and salinity survey done by Hunt
and Rosa (2009). These studies showed that the nearshore waters southwest of the LWRF
were enriched in 15N, had abnormally high temperatures and that the non-saline water
discharge contained wastewater indicator compounds. This phenomenon has been confirmed
5-19
-------
in this report by the spatial distribution of FLT in the nearshore waters of the study area. The
groundwater flow and transport modeling done by this study have identified four major
controls on the pathway the injectate takes: (1) the density difference between saltwater and
the non-saline treated wastewater (described above); (2) low hydraulic conductivity alluvium
and weathered basalt associated with the current past channels of the Honokowai Stream; (3)
the nearshore bathymetric gradient; and (4) the dominant north-south hydraulic conductivity
of the basalt aquifer.
The low hydraulic conductivity alluvium and weathered basalt associated with current and
past channels of the Honokowai Stream pose a barrier to the transport of the injectate to the
north and probably to the west. The valley fill associated with stream channels is recognized
as barrier to groundwater flow. In their delineations of aquifers for the State of Hawaii, Mink
and Lau commonly used the axis of stream valleys as boundaries (Mink and Lau, 1987,
1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b). Oki (2005) showed that the response to pumpage of the Pearl
Harbor Aquifer on Oahu was sensitive to the depth of the valley fills beneath Waimalu
Stream. He estimated that the depth of valley fills extended from about 100 to over 300 ft
beneath the bottom of the stream channel. Rock borings in Kipapa Gulch, Oahu, showed that
sediments or highly weathered basalt were present at depths greater than 50 ft beneath the
streambed of Kipapa Stream (TEC, 2001). As described by Stearns and MacDonald (1942),
the island of Maui has experienced repeated emergence and submergence cycles. After the
shield building stage of the Wailuku Basalts ended, stream channels developed in West
Maui. Thus, the current stream channels, including the Honokowai Stream, could have
started forming in the early to mid-Pleistocene (0.13 to 1.8 million years ago). No later stage
lava flows (Honolua or Lahaina Volcanics) are present in the Kaanapali area inland or in the
vicinity of the LWRF or Honokowai Stream (Figure 1-4) that would have filled the stream
valleys incised into the Wailuku basalts. Since that time, Maui has experienced emergence
and submergence. During periods of emergence, stream channels will cut to beneath the
current sea level and then be filled as submergence occurred. Stearns and Macdonald (1942)
estimated that there have been at least three cycles of submergence and re-emergence since
the cessation of major volcanic activity on West Maui. The submergence could have resulted
in a shoreline 2,500 ft above the current shoreline. The emergence could have resulted in a
shoreline 950 ft below the current sea level. This process occurred over a period of 1.8
million years, providing ample time for deep cut stream valleys to develop. The proximity of
the submarine valley shown by the bathymetry in Figure 5-20 to the current Honokowai
Stream strengthens the hypothesis of Hunt and Rosa (2009) and this study that stream valley
fill and weathered basalt pose a barrier to the flow of the LWRF injectate to the north and
west.
Modifying the model boundaries to more precisely follow the actual bathymetry changed the
peak FLT concentration simulated at the SSG from less than 1 ppb to about 15 ppb. Even
though the simulated SSG FLT concentration was about half of that measured, the
improvement over the previous model version was substantial. Modifying the model to
accurately reflect the nearshore bathymetry resulted in a bathymetric gradient that was
steeper near the submarine springs. This moved the specified-head boundaries for the
submarine layers closer to the shoreline, thereby reducing the width of sedimentary
5-20
-------
formations between the basalt aquifer and submarine boundary. This slightly increases the
effective hydraulic conductivity between the injection wells and submarine specified head
relative to pathways to the north. Sensitivity model runs showed that it was the contrast
between the greater width of sediments to north of the submarine springs and the reduced
width at the submarine springs that had the greatest effect on the FLT time of arrival and
peak concentration simulated at these springs. The preferential flow orifices of the
submarine springs (as evidenced by the visible wisps of dye discharging from the SSG)
combined with steeper nearshore bathymetric gradient play an important role determining the
flow path of the FLT plume.
The controls on the FLT plume described were instrumental in obtaining a reasonable match
between the simulated and measured BTCs. However, the spatial distribution of FLT
simulated by the model fell short of the southern extent indicated by tracer sampling
program, the algal 815N survey, and the TIR survey. To arrive at a reasonable agreement
between modeled and measured plume extent, an anisotropy factor of 3 had to be combined
with a direction of dominant hydraulic conductivity aligned north-south. This direction is
perpendicular to the dip of the lava flows, and contradicts the prevailing notion that the
direction of dominant hydraulic conductivity is always parallel to the dip of the lava flows.
The major large-scale flow paths in basalt aquifers occur at the interflow boundaries where
rubble at the top and bottom of the lava flows produce a continuous flow path with high
porosity (Nichols et al., 1996). This would indicate that the dominant axis of hydraulic
conductivity should be aligned parallel to dip of the lava flows. However, there is a
difference between the plane of the dip of the lava flows and the near horizontal to slightly
vertical direction of groundwater flow. In West Maui, the lava flows dip from 5 to 20
degrees with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 100 ft (Stearns and MacDonald, 1942). By
contrast, the water table in the study area is nearly horizontal relative to the dip of the lava
beds. In addition, near the coast, the thinning of the freshwater zone adds an upward vertical
component to the groundwater flow. Figure 5-21 is a gridded representation of a basalt
aquifer around the shoreline. The layers in this figure dip 8° and have an individual
thickness of 66 ft (20 m). The blue line indicates the water table (upper line) and the
midpoint of the freshwater/saltwater transition zone (bottom curved-line). A generalized
groundwater flow path from the injection well to a coastal discharge point is shown by the
green arrow. To get from the injection well to a submarine point of discharge, the
groundwater must cross multiple layers of lava forcing the injected fluids out of preferential
interflow pathway. This would reduce the effective hydraulic conductivity from the well to
the coast pathway. By contrast, a southerly flow direction would allow the injectate to
remain in the interflow boundaries for a much longer distance resulting in a higher effective
hydraulic conductivity. The blocking nature of the deep valley fills to the north and the
regional hydraulic gradient that is parallel to the dip of the lava flows will exert a westerly
influence on the injectate plume resulting in the southwest oblique pathway that is observed.
To test this hypothesis, the groundwater simulation described in Section 5.5.2.7 was run
using the hydraulic parameters of the Lahaina District Groundwater Model, but with the
major and minor anisotropy axes reversed so that the dominant axis as aligned north-south.
Figure 5-22 shows the modeled FLT plume on April 2013 using isotropic hydraulic
conductivity ellipse (Figure 5-22a) and an anisotropic hydraulic conductivity ellipse (Figure
5-21
-------
5-22b) with the dominant axis aligned north-south. The plume extent for the isotopic model
only extends as far south as the SSG. By contrast, the plume for the anisotropic model
extends south to the southern TIR plume boundary. As described in Section 4.2.6.2, the
southern extent of the FLT plume as measured by shoreline sampling agrees with the south
TIR plume boundary indicating that the treated wastewater plume extends as far south as
those two points.
The anisotropic model provided the best agreement between the simulated and measured
data. However, the orientation of the hydraulic conductivity ellipse is opposite of what is
commonly assumed (e.g., Gingerich and Engott, 2012; Oki, 2005; Nichols et al., 1996). In
the cited examples, regional groundwater flow was assessed and the relationship between the
dip of the lava bedding to the path lines of the groundwater flow from a point source were
not considered. This study evaluated the travel of a plume from a point source (the injection
wells) and was able to infer the extent of the plume from direct measurement of dye
fluorescence, TIR imagery, and 815N data. The modeling showed that anisotropy with
dominant axis aligned north-south was critical to matching the spatial extent of simulated
plume to that measured. This study also indicates that factors other than the anisotropy
influence the pathway taken by the treated wastewater (i.e., buried stream channels and
nearshore bathymetry). Together, these factors combine to constrain plume travel in a
southwest direction. For example, in the absence of the valley fills to the north and west, the
plume would spread laterally north and south resulting in a broader distribution with a much
lower peak concentration at the submarine discharge points.
5.7 The BTC Trailing Edge
Two major hypotheses exist to explain the trailing edge that is commonly observed in BTCs.
In the first, it is possible that multiple travel paths of varying hydraulic characteristics
generating varying travel velocities between the point of the tracer injection and the point
where the samples are collected. Multiple BTCs resulting from the various transport
velocities may appear as a single BTC with a long trailing edge and possibly a plateau near
the peak (Schulz, 1998). The second major hypothesis is that the tracer diffuses into the
aquifer matrix during the ascending limb of the BTC, and then diffuses back into the aquifer
pore channels on the descending limb of the BTC (Maloszewski and Zuber, 1993). The
diffusion process described is a concentration dependent interaction between the groundwater
and the aquifer matrix similar to sorption.
As described in Section 5.5.3.6, sorption will tend to slow the velocity and decrease the peak
concentration of the dissolved species as the groundwater flows through the aquifer. It is
difficult to conclude that sorption is occurring using a single tracer. Although comparison
between an ideal tracer BTC and the dyes used by this study cannot be made with the
physically collected data, the model results do allow a comparison. Related to this discussion
is that different aquifer materials have differing sorption characteristics whether from surface
charges on the matrix or diffusion into micro-fractures. This will result in different transport
velocities based on the pathway the plume takes in the matrix. For example, the upper
portion of the plume may be in contact with carbonate sediments that have a higher sorption
5-22
-------
coefficient (Sabatini, 2000), while the lower part of the plume would travel through the non-
carbonate basalts. The NSG BTC has characteristics consistent with multiple BTCs being
superimposed forming a plateau followed by a long trailing edge. The plateau could result in
the merging of the FLT plume from differing pathways. Figure 5-23 a, for example, shows a
combination of three BTCs of differing hydraulic characteristics that together produce an
apparent plateau and a long trailing edge. The first BTC is the result of model simulations
using an anisotropy with the dominant axis aligned north-south and a porosity of 0.14. The
second BTC was produced using an isotropic hydraulic conductivity and porosity of 0.20.
The isotropic simulation could represent a lava flow of a very shallow dip and a high
porosity. The third BTC ("sorpt") simulated FLT transport with sorption reducing the peak
concentration but significantly extending the declining limb. A line that envelopes the two
simulations was created by tracing the maximum concentration of the three BTCs at each
time step. This composite BTC produces an apparent plateau that extends from mid-January
2012 to about April 2012. This is followed by a long trailing edge that maintains the FLT
above the MDL for the foreseeable future.
A three-peak composite BTC can also be developed from the various simulations produced
for this study. Annotated on Figure 23b are three apparent peaks of the measured BTC.
Figure 5-23b shows that a composite BTC simulated using three different porosities can also
produce a BTC with three peaks. The time and magnitude of the peaks is, however, much
different from those measured. Still, the composite line that envelopes these three simulated
BTCs does bear some resemblance to the measured BTC, including the long trailing edge.
Not enough is known about the subsurface geology in the study area to constrain these
models with certainty because there are no boreholes that penetrate the basalt aquifer, with
the exception of those drilled for the injection wells. That is, the actual processes and site-
specific characteristics of the aquifer in the Kaanapali area responsible for postulated
multiple peaks, the plateau, and trailing edge, cannot be determined from the hydrogeologic
data available. However, the simulations described in this section do show that multiple
pathways of varying hydrogeologic characteristics can produce results similar to those
observed. Similar techniques have been used by other studies with more robust geologic data
to demonstrate that multiple pathway BTCs can account for the plateaus and multiple peaks
observed in actual BTCs. For example, Kass (1998) and Schulz (1998), have used the
superposition of multiple simulated BTCs to produce good agreement with the measured
data. This study simulated BTCs with various flow velocities then combined them into a
single BTC to account for the multiple peaks and a sloping plateau. In order to use the
superposition to develop a composite BTC, more detail must be known about the travel paths
than is available for this study. A trial and error effort could produce a combined set of
BTCs that more closely match the measured data. However, such an effort would require
calibration far in excess of the hydrogeologic data available.
The uncertainty regarding the cause of the long trailing edge of the BTCs occurring in this
study has not been definitively resolved, however, the discussion above supports the
hypotheses that trailing edge is a combination of the differing hydraulic characteristics of the
broad section of the aquifer encountered by the tracer plume and by the differing magnitudes
5-23
-------
of interaction between the aquifer and the plume (i.e., sorption in the carbonate fraction and
no sorption in the non-carbonate fraction). Model simulations were not successful in
adequately replicating the extended plateau and the trailing edge of the BTC. Nevertheless,
good agreement between the simulated and measured ascending limb and the physical extent
of the plume show that modeling has adequately captured the major factors affecting the dye
transport and affecting the transport of the treated wastewater injected into Wells 3 and 4.
5.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Modeling results were based on a MODFLOW model that ignored the effects of density
variations. The groundwater transport was simulated by using a no-flow boundary at a point
equivalent to the mid-point of the freshwater seawater transition zone. Implicit is the
assumption that the aquifer can be treated as an equivalent porous medium. In such a case,
aquifer properties are averaged over a representative elementary volume (REV), preserving
the true aquifer's behavior (Bear, 1979). The REV should be large enough to include the
effects of solids and fractures (for consolidated material) or solids, fractures, and porous
material (for unconsolidated material), but small enough to be treated as a point in
mathematical terms. In this case, Darcy's law is valid and the resulting solutions for the
hydraulic head or solute concentrations are also averaged over the REV. However, due to
preferential flow, the BTCs for solute transport can still show multiple peaks, even though
Darcy's law is still valid. Multiple peaks can be considered as fluctuations similar to those
attributed to heterogeneities. In the case of large fractures, BTCs should display a fast first-
arrival and steep ascending and descending limbs, which was not manifested in this current
study.
Factors contributing to modeling uncertainty include estimating water flux rates for both
seeps and for the diffuse sources. These estimates are essential for calculating the amount of
tracer mass recovered and assessing the overall success of the tracer test. The lack of
accurate accounting can imply the existence of discharge points not covered by monitoring
activities. The potential presence of other discharge locations is supported by the lack of
detection of SRB at the NSG and the SSG. The flux rates are also needed for model
calibration and validation. However, identifying other discharge points farther from shore
and in deeper water are beyond the capabilities of this study. Uncertainty also exists in the
models themselves due to the assumptions innate in their mathematical formulation and the
lack of accurate supporting data. Results can be non-unique depending on parameter
choices.
Exact replication of the BTCs was not possible due to the limitations of the model, including
the absence of variable density flow representation and lack of detailed geological
information about the site. Lack of data about the study area between the injection and
receiving points of the tracer is a major complication.
5-24
-------
5.9 CONCLUSIONS
As a planning tool, the TTDM, with minimal calibration, was able to estimate the first
arrival, time of peak concentration, and, of greatest importance, the expected dye dilution,
which is used in estimating the correct amount of the dye to use in this work. Although
submarine springs in the current study are evidence of preferential flow, it seems reasonable
to treat the aquifer as an equivalent porous media. The calibration values of aquifer
parameters are in acceptable ranges, as well as the good match with the first solute arrival,
which further supports this conclusion. The submarine springs act as leakage points and
were treated as drains in our simulations, with outflow controlled by drain conductance.
This portion of the study reached two primary conclusions regarding the oblique path that the
FLT and thus the injectate from Wells 3 and 4 takes to the marine discharge points. First, the
valley fill and highly weathered basalt associated with current and past channels of the
Honokowai Stream block the flow of the buoyant wastewater plume to the north and west.
Evidence to support this conclusion include the downed stream valley just north of the NSG,
and the cycles of sea level change that have occurred since the Wailuku Basalt Formation
were laid down. The second conclusion is that the dominant axis of hydraulic conductivity
for groundwater flow in the Kaanapali region of West Maui is aligned north-south,
perpendicular to the dip of the lava flows. The cause of the anisotropy is that the dip of lava
flows is significantly steeper than the slope of the water table. For the groundwater to flow
directly west, which is the shortest path to the ocean, the water would have to cross multiple
lava flows. This would force the groundwater out of the interflow zones, with their high
hydraulic conductivity, and into the less permeable cores of the lava flows. Combined with
the northwestward blockage to flow by a filled ancestral stream channel in the subsurface,
the pathway to the marine discharge points southwest of the LWRF becomes the path of least
resistance.
Although the reason for the failure of this study to positively detect SRB has not been
determined with complete certainty, the interference between the flow fields of the injection
wells appears the most probable cause. Wells 3 and 4 lie directly between Well 2 and the
identified submarine springs southwest of the LWRF. Wells 3 and 4 are the primary
injection wells, receiving more than 80% of the treated wastewater. Modeling indicates this
interference reduces the SRB concentration at the submarine springs more than an order of
magnitude to concentrations just above the MDL for this dye. The core of the SRB plume is
diverted to the southeast before it can make its way to submarine discharge points. The
displacement significantly lengthens the travel path this dye takes, and increases its
dispersion. Other processes such as sorption and degradation have an ample opportunity to
further reduce the concentration due to the increased pathway length and transit time. To test
the hydraulic connectivity between Well 2 and the nearshore, a second tracer test would need
to be conducted with Well 2 as the primary injection well.
A long trailing edge on the declining limb of a BTC is a common phenomenon observed
during tracer tests, and this tracer test was no exception. The NSG BTC has the most
pronounced plateau and trailing edge. We believe that this BTC is actually a composite of
5-25
-------
multiple BTCs with different transit times superimposed on each other. Although modeling
could not adequately replicate the entire NSG BTC, it was shown that there is a wide range
of probable transit times using reasonable aquifer hydraulic parameters.
5-26
-------
Table 5-1. Hydraulic parameter values for the various geologic units used in the TTDM
compared to that of other models.
Horiz. Hyd.
Conductivity
(ft/d)
Vert. Hyd.
Conductivity
(ft/d)
Long.
Dispersivity
(ft)
Porosity
(Unitless)
TDDM
Wailuku Basalts
Sediments
Lahaina Volcanics
2,950
9.8
16.4
29.5
6.6
1.6
164
164
164
0.1
0.2
0.1
SWAP/OSDS*
Wailuku Basalts
Sediments
1,630
49
16
0.49
NA
NA
0.05
0.05
Gingerich and Engott (2012)
590 (Transverse)
1,800(Longitudinal)
Sediments 190
Wailuku Basalts
17
3.8
250
250
0.15
0.15
Whittier et al. (2004) and Whittier and El-Kadi (in preparation)
Table 5-2. A comparison
of the TTDM results and the measured NSG BTC.
Parameter
Units
TTDM
NSG BTC
First Arrival
(d)
70
84
Dilution
(Cmax/Cinj)
7.60E-04
1.70E-03
Peak Cone.
(ppb)
9.2
22.5
Time to Peak Cone.
(d)
263
306
Cone, at 1376 days
(ppb)
0.2
0.2
5-27
-------
Table 5-3. Well injection and dye concentrations for the BTC Evaluation Model.
Weill
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Injection
i Injection
SRB
Injection
FLT
Injection
FLT
Rate
Rate
Cone.
Rate
Cone.
Rate
Cone.
Start End
(mgd)
(mgd)
(ppb)
(mgd)
(ppb)
(mgd)
(ppb)
4/29/11 7/28/11
0.2
0.4
0
1.3
0
1.1
0
7/28/11 7/29/11
0.2
0.4
0
1.3
12,800
1.1
12,800
7/29/11 8/11/11
0.2
0.4
2,500
1.3
0
1.1
0
8/11/11 8/12/11
0.0
2.1
0
1.5
0
1.5
0
8/12/11 5/5/15
0.2
0.4
0
1.3
0
1.1
0
Table 5-4. Coefficients from Sabatini (2000) used in the sorption simulation.
Aquifer Media
Dye
Kr
N
(L/kg)
Limestone
FLT
6.1
0.92
Limestone
SRB
168
0.81
Sandstone
FLT
0
NA
Sandstone
SRB
0.99
0.83
Table 5-5. A summary of the simulated dates of first arrival and peak concentrations
of the preferential flow simulations.
NSG
SSG
Date of
Date of
First
Peak
Peak
First
Peak
Peak
Model
Arrival
Cone.
Cone.
Arrival
Cone.
Cone. NSG:SSG
(ppb)
(ppb)
Measured
10/22/11
5/29/12
22.5
11/14/11
4/24/12
35
0.63
PFP in Layer 2
10/14/11
3/12/12
57.3
11/13/11
5/24/12
24.5
2.34
PFP in Layer 3
10/5/11
3/12/12
56.2
10/24/11
5/24/12
21.8
2.58
PFP in Layer 3
9/11/11
1/12/12
65.2
9/11/11
1/26/12
13.8
4.72
Cond 500
PFP in Layer 3
9/11/11
1/26/12
61.1
9/18/11
3/13/12
23
2.66
Cond 5000
PFP in Layer 4
9/27/11
2/25/12
54
10/14/11
6/14/12
20.7
2.61
PFP in Layer 5
9/27/11
2/25/12
54
10/14/11
6/14/12
20.7
2.61
PFP in Layer 6
9/3/11
1/26/12
46.1
9/18/11
6/14/12
19.6
2.35
5-28
-------
Table 5-6. Results of porosity and dispersivity sensitivity simulations.
First
Peak
First
Peak
Porosity
Dispersivity
Arrival
Concentration
Arrival
Concentration
(ft)
(Date)
(Date)
(PPb)
(Date)
(Date)
(PPb)
0.10
82
09/27/11
12/30/11
27.4
10/24/11
02/25/12
16.5
0.20
82
11/24/11
05/05/12
14.7
01/12/12
08/21/12
8.7
0.30
82
02/10/12
10/11/12
9.7
05/05/12
04/17/13
5.8
0.15
32
12/05/11
03/12/12
23.1
01/12/12
06/14/12
12.9
0.15*
82
11/03/11
03/12/12
19.2
12/05/11
06/14/12
11.3
0.15
164
10/05/11
02/25/12
15.6
11/13/11
05/24/12
9.6
0.15
246
09/27/11
02/10/12
14.3
10/24/11
05/24/12
8.7
Measured
10/22/11
05/29/12
22.5
11/14/11
04/24/12
35.4
Bold italics indicates base case values
5-29
-------
Model Cross-Section
I Miles
6 Submarine Springs
¦ Injection Wells
— Elev. (100ft Interval)
La bain a Reefs
E2 LWRF
Layer 1 Bound. Cond
No Flow
™m Specified Flux
Specified Head
Q Layer 6 Extent
Layer 1 Geology
Wailuku Basalts
J Sediments
| Lahaina Yolcanics
figure 5-1: A plan view of the Tracer Test Design Model conceptual model and a cross
section of the model grid.
The geology and boundaries conditions for layer 1 are shown in the map. The western
boundary of this layer is the shoreline. The western boundary of the model is shown by
extent of layer 6 that is approximately 1200 ft offshore at a simulated depth of about 34 ft. It
also is a specified head boundary with an assigned head of 1.1 ft to reflect the greater density
of seawater relative to freshwater.
5-30
-------
Legend
FLT Plume
] Radon Flux Polygons
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep 3
• 0.0 - 0.1
O 0.2 - 0.3
O 0.4-0.5
O 0-6 - 0.7
O 0.8 - 0.9
O 1.0 - 1.2
Figure 5-2: The results of the MODPATH particle track simulation used adjust the
conductance of the springs.
The conductance of the drains representing the submarine springs was increased until the
drains started capturing the MODPATH particles.
5-31
-------
u
u
s
o
U
o
>1
Q
400 600 800 1000
Time Since Dye Addition (d)
-TTDMNSG TTDMSSG ~ NSG BTC
1400
Figure 5-3: Results of the Tracer Test Design Model shown as the ratio of the submarine
spring concentration to that at injection wells on the day of dye addition.
The y-axis if the ratio of the FLT concentration at the submarine spring (C) to the FLT
concentration in the injection wells (Cinj) at the time of dye addition. The measured data is
shown as green diamonds, that simulated at the NSG is shown as a blue line (TTDM NSG)
and that at the SSG as a red line (TTDM SSG).
5-32
-------
Figure 5-4: The numeric grid used for the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study model. The
grid is shown in plan view and in cross-section.
Only layer 1 is shown in plan view for simplicity. The cross section shows the east-west
extent of the layers 2 through 6 in relation to that of layer 1.
5-33
-------
V£L_1
Figure 5-5: The conceptual model for the Lahaina Groundwater Study showing the extent of
the submarine layers.
Western boundaries of layers 2 through 6 followed the 6.6, 18, 29.5, 41, and 54 ft depth
contours, respectively.
5-34
-------
Miles
Probable Drowned
Stream Vallev
Horizontal Flow
Barrier
North Seep
Group
South Seep
Group
Legend
£> Submarine Springs
9 Injection Weils
_Horiz. Flow Barrier
__Model Boundary
Bathymetric Contours
(depth ft)
5
10
20
40
60
80
100
|—i LAV RF
Layer 1 Geology
Wailuku Basalts
Sediments
Lahaina \ oleanies
Figure 5-6: The Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study conceptual model and the nearshore
bathymetry.
Shown on this figure is the location of the horizontal flow barrier relative to that of the
probable drowned stream valley.
5-35
-------
WELL 4
WELL 3
WELL 2
WELL 1
Alluvium
Vesicular Basalt
Massive Basalt
Clinkers
Weathered Basalt
Well
Screen
Open
Hole
538 ft
33 ft
Oft
-33 ft
- -66 ft
- -98 ft
- -131 ft
—164 ft
- -197 ft
210 ft
Figure 5-7: Borehole stratigraphy for the LWRF injection wells developed from the drillers'
logs (County of Maui, 2004).
5-36
-------
Legend
6 Submarine Springs
® Injection Wells
_Mo deled Shoreline
=_Layer 2 Marine Boundary
Barrier
I—iLWRF
GEOLOGY
I—|Wailuku Basalts
jSediments
[^Preferential Flow Path
South Seep
Group
Figure 5-8: The conceptual model used in the PFP sensitivity simulations. This figure shows
the PFP location in layer 2.
In the sensitivity simulations a similar feature was simulated one at a time in layers 3 through
6.
5-37
-------
~ NSG
NSG - Modeled
¦SSG - Modeled
Figure 5-9: The measured BTCs compare the model results when a horizontal flow barrier
was included in the model.
The NSG modeled BTC (blue line) shows good agreement with the measured (blue
diamonds) when a horizontal flow barrier was added to the model. The BTC modeled for the
SSG (red line) has a peak concentration that is over an order magnitude less than that
measured (red squares) and arrives much later.
40
Dispersivitv = 82 ft
Porosity =0.19
~i r 1 r r
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
NSG
SSG
-NSG - Modeled
¦SSG - Modeled
Figure 5-10: The measured and simulated BTCs after the model marine boundaries were
modified.
5-38
-------
Preferential Flow Path in Layer 2
~ NSG
SSG
¦NSG - Modeled
¦SSG - Modeled
Mgure 5-11: The modeled BTCs compared to that measured when a PEP was placed in layer 2.
25
£ 20
Q.
a.
£ 15
4>
10
0
07/28/11
Model Results Using Various Dispersivities
11/05/11
NSG
¦•Dispersivity = 164 ft
02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
Dispersivity = 32 ft Dispersivity = 82 ft
—Dispersivity = 246 ft
Figure 5-12: The results of the dispersivity sensitivity simulations compared to the BTC for
the NSG.
Dispersivities tested were 32 ft (blue line), 82 ft (violet line), 164 ft (green line), and 246 ft
(red line). A dispersivity of 82 ft consistently provided the best match between the simulated
and measured BTCs.
5-39
-------
Model Results Using Various Porosities
¦ NSG —Porosity = 0.10 -^—Porosity = 0.15
Porosity = 0.20 Porosity = 0.30
Figure 5-13: The results of the porosity sensitivity simulations compared to the BTC at the
NSG.
The porosities tested were 0.10 (violet line), 0.15 (green line), 0.20 (red line), and 0.30
(brown line). A porosity of 0.15 provided the best match between the simulated and
measured BTC.
5-40
-------
40
Sorption Simulation Results
a
—
o
s
(a)
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
¦ NSG ¦ SSG NSG-Modeled SSG - Modeled
y
u
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
No Sorption vs. Sorption
0.0
07/28/11
11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
(b)
NSG - No Sorption ¦ SSG - No Sorption NSG - Sorption SSG - Sorption
"igure 5-14: Modeled BTC when sorption of FLT was simulated. Figure 5-14a shows the
measured and simulated BTCs when sorption was simulated.
Sorption of FLT on carbonate aquifer materials was simulated using the coefficients derived
by Sabatini (2000) and assigning those coefficients to layer 2 (layer where the submarine
springs were simulated). Figure 5-14b compares the simulation with no sorption (symbols)
with that simulated using the sorption (line only) described above. The y-axis is the ratio of
the temporal concentration (C) to the peak concentration (Cmax).
5-41
-------
-a
Q.
a.
a
ij
5to
O
—
o
3
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Dominant Hyd. Cond. Axis Aligned East-West
S
/ • ^ ¦
1 1
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
(a)
NSG
SSG
-NSG - Modeled
•SSG-Modeled
40
O.
a.
a
u
O
3
Dominant Hyd. Cond. Axis Aligned North-South
(b)
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
¦ NSG ¦ SSG NSG-Modeled SSG-Modeled
Figure 5-15: The simulated and measured BTCs with differing anisotropy ellipse alignments.
When the dominant axis of the hydraulic conductivity is aligned east-west (Figure 15a), the
simulated BTCs are severely attenuated. A much better agreement between the simulated
and measure BTCs results when the dominant axis of hydraulic conductivity is aligned north-
south.
5-42
-------
Legend
6 Submarine Springs
# Injection Wells
.^.Barrier
_Thermal Plume Boundary
I—| LAY RF
FLT - Isotropic - 620 d
(PP»>)
H 0.02 . 10
— 11 - 20
~ 21 - 30
Miles
Legend
& Submarine Springs
;• Injection Wells
_ Barrier
_Thermal Plume Boundary
I—| LAV RF
FLT - Anistropic - 620 d
(ppb)
H 0.02 - 10
i—ill 20
21 - 30
J
Miles
Figure 5-16: FLT plume simulated using and isotropic model (a) and an anisotropic model
(b).
The model results show the simulated FLT plume 620 days after the dye addition. When
isotopic hydraulic conductivity is simulated the plume only reaches the SSG. When the
dominant hydraulic conductivity axis is aligned north-south, the plume reaches the southern
TIR boundary.
5-43
-------
North Seep
Group
(a)
South Seep
Group
N
A
Legend
& Submarine Springs
® Injection Wells
—Modeled Shoreline
__Layer 6 Extent
— Barrier
I—iLWRf
GEOLOGY
I—|\Vailuku Basalts
Sediments
i—jPreferential Flow Path
2=
40
Anisotropic Model With Perential Flow Path in Layer 2
X!
Q.
a.
iti
O
5-
O
(b)
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
NSG
SSG
-NSG - Modeled
¦SSG - Modeled
Figure 5-17: A map and modeled BTC when a PFP and anisotropy are simulated.
The map (Figure 5-18a) shows the geometry of a preferential flow path between Injection
Wells 3 and 4 and the SSG. The graph shows a significant improvement in the simulated
SSG BTC relative to the NSG BTC. However, the peak concentration of the simulated SSG
BTC is still only about half that measured.
5-44
-------
NSG - Inject. Into Wells 3&4 —NSG - Inject. Into Well 2 only
SSG - Inject. Into Wells 3&4 -»-SSG - Inject.into Well 2 Only
Figure 5-18: Simulated SRB BTCs under two different treated wastewater injection
scenarios.
The first scenario (lines only) simulates treated wastewater injection continuing into Wells 3
and 4 after the addition of SRB. The second scenario (lines with symbols) shows the
simulated BTCs if treated wastewater was injected into Well 2 only after the addition of
SRB. Under the first scenario, the peak SRB concentration occurs at the SSG and is just
above the MDL of 0.05 ppb. Under the second scenario, the peak SRB concentration occurs
at the NSG and at both groups of submarine springs exceeds the MDL by an order of
magnitude.
5-45
-------
Legend
& Submarine Springs
• Injection Wells
Barrier
al Plume Boundary
i—iIAVRl
SRB - Well 3&4 Inj.
(PPb)
H 0.05 • 4
i ]5- 8
12
h13- 16
H17 - 20
Legend
& Submarine Springs
g Injection Wells
Barrier
_Thermal Plume Boundary .
aL\VRF
SRB - Well 2 Inj. Only
(PPb)
H 0.05-4
~ 5-8
Figure 5-19: The SRB plume one year after dye addition under two different treated
wastewater injection scenarios.
(a) Continuing injection into Wells 3 and 4 after the addition of SRB displaces the core of the
plume to the southeast. The valley fill barrier to the north and west prevent plume for going
in those directions, (b) The simulation done with injection into Well 2 only after SRB
additions shows the core of the plume reaching the submarine springs.
5-46
-------
Drowned
Stream valley
North Seep
Croup
South Seep
Croup
Legend
Injection Wells'
Resort Wells
Area Survey Samples
FLT Normalized to Seep
L3 - 3.0
Batln metric Contours
(depth ft)
LWRF
Barrier
Thermal
I Miles
Figure 5-20: The study area showing the location of a probable drowned stream valley
relati ve to the FLT plume.
The probable drowned stream valley (denoted by the ellipse) is indicated by an eastward
indentation of the 60 to 100 ft bathymetric contours. The southern ridge of the drowned
stream valley aligns with northern TIR plume boundary and the northern most sample
collected that test positive for FLT.
5-47
-------
Figure 5-21: A cross-section of a coastal aquifer comparing the dip of the lava bedding to the
generalized groundwater flow path.
5-48
-------
Legend
6 Submarine Springs
# Injection Wells
.^.Barrier
_Thermal Plume Boundary
I—| LAY RF
FLT - Isotropic - 620 d
(PP»>)
H 0.02 . 10
— 11 - 20
~ 21 - 30
Miles
Legend
& Submarine Springs
;• Injection Wells
_ Barrier
_Thermal Plume Boundary
I—| LAV RF
FLT - Anistropic - 620 d
(ppb)
H 0.02 - 10
i—ill 20
21 - 30
J
Miles
Figure 5-22: The simulated FLT plume 620 days after the dye addition using an isotopic
model (a) and using an anisotropic model (b).
5-49
-------
Model Results Various Porosities and a Composite BTC
07/28/11 11/05/11 02/13/12 05/23/12 08/31/12 12/09/12 03/19/13 06/27/13
¦ NSG ^—Porosity = 0.15 -^—Porosity = 0.225
(b)
Figure 5-23: Individual simulated individual BTCs and composites showing a possible
resulting BTC with multiple peaks and a plateau.
(a) Model results from isotopic and anisotropic simulations. A composite consisting of the
maximum concentrations of the two BTCs show how different transport conditions could
result in a combined BTC with a plateau, (b) Model results when three different porosities
were simulated and a three peak composite BTC with a trailing edge similar to that
measured.
5-50
-------
SECTION 6: REFERENCES
Appelo, C.A.J., and Potsma, D., 1993, Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution,
Rotterdam, Brookfield, VT, A.A. Balkema, 536 p.
Aley, T., 2002, Groundwater Tracing Handbook—A Handbook Prepared for the Use of
Clients and Colleagues of the Ozark Underground Laboratory, Ozark
Underground Laboratory, 35 p.
Atkinson, S., Atkinson, M.J., and Tarrant, A.M., 2003, Estrogens from sewage in coastal
marine environments, Environ. HealthPersp., Ill, 531-535.
Baker, A., Inverarity, R., Charlton, M., and Richmond, S., 2003, Detecting river pollution
using fluorescence spectrophotometry: Case studies from the Ouseburn, NE
England, Environ, Pollut., 124, 57-70.
Bear, J., 1979, The Hydraulics of Groundwater, McGraw-Hill, London, UK, 567 p.
Berner, R. A. 1980, Early Diagenesis: A Theoretical Approach, Princeton University
Press, 241p.
Berner, E. K. and Berner, R. A., 1996, Global Environment, Water, Air, and
Geochemical Cycles, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle, River, NJ.
Bienfang, P., De Carlo, E.H., Christopher, S., DeFelice, S., and Moeller, P., 2009, Trace
element concentrations in coastal Hawaiian waters, Marine Chem., 113, 164-171.
Bourke, R., 1996, Maui algae bloom studies-distribution and abundance, Oceanit
Laboratories, Inc., Honolulu, HI.
Brown, T.L., 2009, Fluorescence Characterization of Karst Aquifers in East Tennessee,
M.S. thesis, Knoxville, University of Tennessee.
Burnham, W.L., Larson, S.P., and Cooper, H.H., Jr., 1977, Distribution of injected
wastewater in the saline lava aquifer, Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater treatment
Facility, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-
469, 58p.
Burnett, W.C., and Dulaiova, H., 2003, Estimating the dynamics of groundwater input
into the coastal zone via continuous radon-222 measurements, J. Environ.
Radioactiv., 69, 21-35.
Burnett, W.C., Aggarwal, P.K., Aureli, A., Bokuniewicz, H., Cable, J.E., Charette, M.A.,
Kontar, E., Krupa, S., Kulkarni, K.M., Loveless, A., Moore, W.S., Oberdorfer,
J.A., Oliveira, J., Ozyurt, N., Povinec, P., Privitera, A.M.G., Rajar, R., Ramessur,
R.T., Scholten, J., Stieglitz, T., Taniguchi, M., and Turner, J.V., 2006,
Quantifying submarine groundwater discharge in the coastal zone via multiple
methods, Sci. Total Environ., 367, 498p.
Chua, L.H.C., Roberton, A.P., Yee, W.K., Shuy, E.B., Edmond, Y.M., Lo, T.T., and Tan,
S.K., 2007, Use of Fluorescein as a Ground Water Tracer in Brackish Water Aquifers,
Ground Water, v. 45(1), p. 85-88.
County of Maui, 2004, Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility U.I.C. Permit—Permit
No. HI596001—Permit Renewal Application, Dated December 1, 2004.
County of Maui, 2010, Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Injection Well Status Report Number 30 - July 2010—Submitted
to: State of Hawaii, Safe Drinking Water Branch.
County of Maui, 2011, Injection Well Flows, 0411 to 0611, unpublished data.
6-1
-------
County of Maui, 2012-2013, Injection Well Flows, unpublished data.
Dailer, M.L., Knox, R.S., Smith, J.E., Napier, M., and Smith, C.M., 2010, Using 615N
values in algal tissue to map locations and potential sources of anthropogenic
nutrient inputs on the island of Maui, Hawaii, USA, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 60, 655-
671.
Dailer, M.L., Ramey, H.L., Saephan, S., and Smith, C.M., 2012, Algal S15N values detect
a wastewater effluent plume in nearshore and offshore surface waters and three-
dimensionally model the plume across a coral reef on Maui, Hawai'i, USA, Mar.
Pollut. Bull., 64, 207-213.
Davis, S.N., Thompson, G.M., Bently, H.W., and Stiles, G., 1980, Groundwater tracers—
A short review, Groundwater, 18, 14-23.
Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, 2010, 2010 Census—
DBEDT Products (Highlights, Reports, Presentations and Tables),
http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/census/Census_2010/cen2010all_rep/ accessed 5/15/2013.
Dever, J.L., 1997, The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Prentice Hall, 436 p.
Dollar, S., and Andrews, C., 1997, Algal blooms off west Maui—assessing causal
linkages between land and the coast ocean, Final Report for National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program Office and University of
Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu, HI.
Dollar, S.J., Atkinson, M., and Atkinson, S., 1999, Investigation the relationship between
cesspool nutrients and abundance of Hypnea musciformis in West Maui, Hawaii,
Report State of Hawaii Department of Health, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Dulaiova, H., Camilli, R., P. B. Henderson, and M. A. Charette, 2010. Coupled radon,
methane and nitrate sensors for large-scale assessment of groundwater discharge
and non-point source pollution to coastal waters, Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity, 101, 553-563, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2009.12.004.
Ekern, P.C., and Chang, J.H., 1985, Pan evaporation: State of Hawai'i, 1894-1983,
Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land
Development, Report R74, Honolulu, HI, 172p.
Engott, J.A., and Vana, T.T., 2007, Effects of agricultural land-use changes and rainfall
on ground-water recharge in Central and West Maui, Hawaii, 1926-2004, U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5103, 56p.
Fetter, C.W., 1992, Contaminant Hydrogeology, Macmillan Publishing Co, 458 p.
Fetter, C.W., 1998, Applied Hydrogeology, Second Edition, Macmillan Publishing Co.,
589 p.
Field, M.S., Wilhelm, R.G., Quinlan, J.F., and Aley, T.J., 1995, An assessment of the
potential adverse properties of fluorescent tracer dyes used for groundwater
tracing, Environ. Monitor. Assess., 38, 75-96.
Field, M.S., 2002, The QTRACER2 Program for tracer-breakthrough curve analysis for
tracer tests in karst and other hydrologic systems, EPA/600/R-02/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Flury, M., and Wai, N.N., 2003, Dyes as tracers for vadose zone hydrology, Rev.
Geophys., 41(1), 2-1-2-37.
Freeze, R.A., and Cheery, I.A., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 604 p.
6-2
-------
Froelich, P. N., Klinkhammer, G. P., Bender, M. L., Luedtke, N., Heath, G. R., Cullen,
D., Dauphin, P., Hammond, D., Hartman, B., and Maynard, V., 1979, Early
oxidation of organic matter in pelagic sediments of the eastern equatorial Atlantic:
suboxic diagenesis, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 43, 1075-1090.
Galapate, R.P., Baes, A.U., Ito, K., Mukai, T., Shoto, E., and Okada, M., 1998, Technical
note: Detection of domestic wastes in Durose River using synchronous
fluorescence spectroscopy, Water Res., 32, 2232-2239.
Giambelluca, T.W., Chen, Q., Frazier, A.G., Price, J.P., Chen, Y.-L., Chu, P.-S.,
Eischeid, J., and Delparte, D., 2011, The Rainfall Atlas of Hawai'i,
http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu.
Gingerich, S.B., 2008, Ground-water availability in the Wailuku area, Maui, Hawaii, U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5236, 95p.
Gingerich, S.B., and Voss, C.I., 2005, Three-dimensional variable-density flow
simulation of a coastal aquifer in southern Oahu, Hawaii, USA, Hydrogeol. J., 13,
436-450.
Gingerich, S. B., and Engott, J.A., 2012, Groundwater availability in the Lahaina District,
West Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2012-5010, 90 p.
Glenn, C.R., Whittier, R.B., Dailer, M.L., Dulaiova, H., El-Kadi, A.I., Fackrell, J., Kelly,
J.L., and Waters, C.A., 2012, Lahaina groundwater tracer study—Lahaina, Maui,
Hawaii, Interim Report. Prepared from the State of Hawaii Department of Health,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/uic-
pdfs/lahaina02/l ahaina-final-interim-report.pdf.
Green R.E., and Young, R.H., 1970. Herbicide and fertilizer in Hawaiian sugarcane soils
in relation to subsurface water quality, Hawaiian Sugar Technologists.
Guilbault, G.G. (Ed). 1990. Practical Fluorescence, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the
U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model—User guide to
modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process.
Harvey, R.W., 1997, Microorganisms as tracers in groundwater injection and recovery
experiments: A review, FEMS Microbiol. Rev., 20, 461-472.
Hubaux, A., and Vos, C., 1970, Decision and detection limits for linear calibration
curves, Analyt. Chem., 42(8), 849-855.
Hunt, C.D., Jr., 1996, Geohydrology of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii, U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1412-B, 54p.
Hunt, C.D., Jr., 2004, Ground-water quality and its relation to land use on Oahu, Hawaii,
2000-01, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-
4305.
Hunt, C.D., Jr., 2007, Ground-water nutrient flux to coastal waters and numerical
simulation of wastewater injection at Kihei, Maui, Hawaii: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5283, 69 p.
6-3
-------
Hunt, C.D., Jr., and Rosa, S.N., 2009, A multitracer approach to detecting wastewater
plumes from municipal injection wells in near shore marine waters at Kihei and
Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2009-5253, 166p.
Izuka, S.K., and Gingerich, S.B., 1998, Estimation of the depth to the fresh-water/salt-
water interface from vertical head gradients in wells in coastal and island aquifers:
Hydrogeology Journal, v. 6, p. 365-373.
Johnson, A. G., Glenn, C. R., Burnett, W. C., Peterson, R. N., and Lucey, P. G., 2008,
Aerial infrared imaging reveals large nutrient-rich groundwater inputs to the
ocean, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 35. DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034574.
Karl, D.M., Bjorkman, K.M., Dore, J.E., Fujieki, L., Hebel, D.V., Houlihan, T., Letelier,
R.M., and Tupas, L.M., 2001, Ecological nitrogen-to-phosphorus stoichiometry at
station ALOHA, Deep-Sea Res. II, 48, 1529-1566.
Kasnavia, T., Vu, D., and Sabatini, D.A., 1999, Fluorescent dye and media properties
affection sorption and tracer selection, Groundwater, 47(3), 376-381.
Kass, W., 1998, Tracing Techniques in Geohydrology, A. A. Balkema Publishers, Taylor
and Francis, CRC, 58lp.
Kelly, J.L., Glenn, C.R., and Lucey, P.G., 2013, High-resolution aerial infrared mapping
of groundwater discharge to the coastal zone, Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth., 11, 262-
277. DOI 10.4319/lom.2013.11.262.
Kingscote Chemicals, 2010, Water Tracing Dyes FLT Yellow/Green Products—
Technical Data Bulletin, downloaded from http://www.brightdyes.com/
techni cal/FLT Green. html.
Knee, K.L., Street, J.H., Grossman, E.E., and Paytan, A., 2008, Submarine ground-water
discharge and fate along the coast of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical
Park, Island of Hawai'i, Part 2, Spatial and temporal variations in salinity,
radium-isotope activity, and nutrient concentrations in coastal waters, December
2003-April 2006, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5128.
Knochenmus, L.A., and Robinson, J.L., 1996, Descriptions of anisotropy and
heterogeneity and their effect on ground-water flow and areas of contribution to
public supply wells in a karst carbonate aquifer system, U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 2475, 46p.
Kwon, B.-D., Chung, H.-J., and Lee, H.-S., 1993, Physical properties of volcanic rocks in
Chejudo, J. Korean Earth Sci. Soc., 14(3), 348-357 (in Korean).
Langenheim, V.A.M, and Clague, D.A., 1987, The Hawaiian Emperor volcanic chain,
Part II, Stratigraphic framework of volcanic rocks of the Hawaiian Island, Chap. 1
of Decker, R.W., Wright, T.L., Stauffer, P.H. (eds.), Volcanism in Hawaii: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, vol. 1, p. 55-84.
Lau, L.S., and Mink, J.F., 2006, Hydrology of the Hawaiian Islands, University of
Hawai'i Press, Honolulu, 274p.
Laws, E.A., Brown, D., and Peace, C., 2004, Coastal water quality in the Kihei and
Lahaina districts of the island of Maui, Hawaiian Islands. Impacts from physical
habitat and groundwater seepage: implications for water quality standards, Inter.
J. Environ. Pollut., 22, 531-547.
6-4
-------
Levy, B.S., and Chamber, R.M., 1987, Bromide as a conservative tracer for soil-water
studies, Hydrol. Process., 1, 385-389.
Limtiaco Consulting Group, 2005, Hawaii water reuse survey and report—Final,
Prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Commission on Water Resource Management, February 2005.
MacDonald, G.A., Abbott, A.T., and Peterson, F.L., 1983, Volcanoes in the Sea, the
Geology of Hawaii, 2nd Ed., University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 517p.
Malcolm, R.L., Aiken, G.R., Thurman, E.M., and Avery, P. A., 1980, Hydrophilic organic
solutes as tracers in groundwater recharge studies, in Baker, R.A. (ed.),
Contaminants and Sediments, Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 71-88.
Maloszewski, P., and Zuber, A., 1993, Tracer experiments in fractured rocks: Matrix
diffusion and the validity of models, Water Re sour. Res., 29(8), 2723-2735.
Meus, P., Kass, W., and Schnegg, P. A., 2006, Background and detection of fluorescent
tracers in karst groundwater, International Congress 'Ground Water in
Mediterranean Countries, AQUAinMED, Malaga, Spain, April 24-28, 2006.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1990a, Aquifer identification and classification for Oahu:
Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report No. 179, University of Hawaii atManoa.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1990b, Aquifer identification and classification for Maui:
Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report No. 185, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1992a, Aquifer identification and classification for Kauai:
Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report No. 186, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1992b, Aquifer identification and classification for Molokai:
Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report No. 187, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1993a, Aquifer identification and classification for Lanai:
Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report No. 190, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Mink, J.F., and Lau, L.S., 1993b, Aquifer identification and classification for island of
Hawaii: Groundwater protection strategy for Hawaii, Water Resources Research
Center Technical Report No. 191, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Nichols, W.D., Shade, P.J., and Hunt, C.D., 1996, Summary of the Oahu, Hawaii,
Regional aquifer-system analysis, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1412-A, 61p.
Oberdorfer, J.A., 1983, Wastewater injection: Near-well processes and their relationship
to clogging, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 194p (with
appendices).
Oberdorfer, J.A., and Peterson, F.L., 1982, Wastewater injection well problems,
processes, and standards, Water Resources Research Center Technical Report No.
146, 131p.
6-5
-------
Oki, D.S., 2005, Numerical simulation of the effects of low-permeability valley-fill
barriers and the redistribution of ground-water withdrawals in the Pearl Harbor
Area, Oahu, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2005-5253, lllp.
Olsen, L.D., and Tenbus, F.J., 2004, Design of a natural-gradient ground-water tracer test
in freshwater tidal wetland, West Branch Canal Creek, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5190.
Petty, S., and Peterson, F.L., 1979, Hawaiian waste injection practices and problems,
Water Resources Research Center Technical Report No. 123, 104p.
Poiger, T., Field, J.A., Field, T.M., Siegrest, H., and Giger, W., 1998, Behavior of
fluorescent whitening agents during sewage treatment, Water Res., 32(6), 1939-
1947.
Pollock, D.W., 1994, User's guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3: A
particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, The U.S. Geological
Survey finite difference ground-water flow model—Open-File Report 94-464.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Rahn, P.H., and Johnson, C.S., 2002, Effects of anisotropic transmissivity on a
contaminant plume at Nemo, South Dakota, Environ. Eng. Geosci., VIII(l), 11-
18.
Rotzoll, K., and El-Kadi, A.I., 2007, Estimating hydraulic conductivity from specific
capacity for Hawaii aquifers, USA, Hydrogeol. J., 16, 969-979.
Sabatini, D.A., 2000, Sorption and intraparticle diffusion of fluorescent dyes with
consolidated aquifer media, Ground Water, 38(5), 651-656.
Scholl, M.A., Gingerich, S.B., Loope, L.L., Giambelluca, T.W., and Nullett, M.A., 2004,
Quantifying the importance of fog drip to ecosystem hydrology and water
resources in tropical montane cloud forests on East Maui, Hawaii, Venture
Capital Project final report, July 2004.
Schulz, H.D., 1998, Evaluation and interpretation of tracer tests, in Kass, W., Tracing
Techniques in Geohydrology, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Taylor and Francis,
CRC.
Shade, P.J., 1996, Water budget for the Lahaina district, island of Maui, Hawaii, Water-
Resources Investigations Report 96-4238, 27p.
Shade, P. J., 1997, Water budget for the Iao area, Island of Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4244, 29p.
Shade, P.J., 1999, Water budget of East Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 98-4159, 36p.
Sherrod, D.R., Sinton, J.M., Watkins, S.E., and Brunt, K.M., 2007, Geologic map of the
state of Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1089, with GIS
database.
Smart, P.L., and Laidlaw, I.M.S., 1977, An evaluation of some fluorescent dyes for water
tracing, Water Re sour. Res., 13, 15-33.
Smart, C.C., and Karunaratne, K.C., 2002, Characterization of fluorescence background
in dye tracing, Environ. Geol., 42, 492-498.
6-6
-------
Smith, C.M., and Smith, J.E., 2007, Algal blooms in north Kihei; an assessment of
patterns and processes relating nutrient dynamics to algal abundance, Report to
City and County of Maui, 65p.
Smith, J.E., Runcie, J.W., and Smith, C.M., 2005, Characterization of a large-scale
ephemeral bloom of the green alga Cladophora sericea on the coral reefs of West
Maui, Hawaii, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 302, 77-91.
Soicher, A.J., and Peterson, F.L., 1997, Terrestrial nutrient and sediment fluxes to the
coastal waters of west Maui, Hawaii, Pac. Sci., 51, 221-232.
Souza, W.R., 1981, Ground-water status report, Lahaina District, Maui, Hawaii, 1980,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-549, 2 map sheets.
Souza, W.R., and Voss, C.I., 1987, Analysis of an anisotropic coastal aquifer system
using variable-density flow and solute transport simulation. J. Hydrol., 92, 17-41.
Stanley, N.D, Thompson, G.M., Bentley, H.W., and Stiles, G., 1980, Ground-water
tracers—A short review, Groundwater, 18(1), 14-23.
Stearns, H.T., and MacDonald, G.A., 1942, Geology and groundwater resources of the
island of Maui, Hawaii, Hawaii (Territory) Division of Hydrography Bulletin, vol.
7, 344p.
Stokes, T.R. and Griffiths, P., 2000, Working Paper 51—A preliminary discussion of
karst inventory systems and principles (KISP) for British Columbia, British
Columbia Ministry of Forest Research Program, 124 p.
Storlazzi, C.D., and Field, M.E., 2008, Winds, waves, tides, and the resulting flow
patterns and fluxes of water, sediment, and coral larvae off West Maui, Hawaii,
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2008-1215, 13p.
Street, J.H., Knee, K.L., Grossman, E.E., and Paytan, A., 2008, Submarine groundwater
discharge and nutrient addition to the coastal zone and coral reefs of leeward
Hawaii, Mar. Chem., 109, 355-376.
Stuart, M., Dignan, C., and McClary, D., 2008, Evaluation of marine response tools:
Subtidal containment and treatment system, prepared for MAF Biosecurity New
Zealand, 45 p.
Stumm, W., and Morgan, J. J., 1996, Aquatic Chemistry, Wiley, New York, 1022p.
Sutton, D.J., Kabala, Z.J., Franciso, A., and Vasudevan, D., 2001, Limitations and
potential of commercially available rhodamine WT as a groundwater tracer,
Water Resour. Res., 37(6), 1641-1656.
Swarzenski, P.W., Storlazzi, C.D., Presto, M.K., Gibbs, A.E., Smith, C.G., Dimova, N.T.,
Dailer, M.L., and Logan, J.B., 2012, Nearshore morphology, benthic structure,
hydrodynamics, and coastal groundwater discharge near Kahekili Beach Park,
Maui, Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1166, 34p.
TEC, 2001, Remedial investigation report—Remedial investigation for Waiakakalaua
and Kipapa Fuel storage annexes at Hickam Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
(POL) Pipeline and Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii, prepared for U.S. Air Force 15th Air
Base Wing Environmental Restoration Program, 285p (with appendices).
Tetra Tech, Inc., 1993, Preliminary assessment of possible anthropogenic nutrient sources
in the Lahaina District of Maui—Final, prepared for USEPA Region 9, Hawaii
Department of Health, and the County of Maui, July 1993, 116p (plus
appendices).
6-7
-------
Tetra Tech, Inc., 1994, Effluent fate study, Lahaina wastewater reclamation facility,
Maui, Hawaii, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 73p
(plus appendices).
Turner Designs, 1999, Model 10-AU-005-CE Fluorometer User's Manual.
U.S.A, 2011, 40 CFR Appendix B to Part 136—Definition and procedure for the
Determination of the Method Detection Limit - Revision 1.11.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=8136cdb6d5784c413366cdl386e6a005&rgn=div9&view=text&
node=40:22.0.1.1.1.0.1,7.2&idno=40. Downloaded 5/10/2011.
USEPA. 2011. 40 CFR Parts 144 through 147—UIC regulations,
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=a96a3a46e4fc893355a2f89e7d5c7a57&rgn=div5&view=text&no
de=40:22.0.1.1,6&idno=40 . Downloaded 4/11/2011
Wagner, R.J., Boulger, R.W., Jr., Oblinger, C.J., and Smith, B.A., 2006, Guidelines and
standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors—Station operation,
record computation, and data reporting, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods 1-D3, 5lp + 8 attachments.
West Maui Watershed Management Advisory Committee, 1977, West Maui Watershed
Owner's Manual, 18p.
Wheatcraft, S.W., 1976, Waste injection into the Hawaiian Ghyben-Herzberg Aquifer—a
laboratory study using a sand-packed hydraulic model, Water Resources Research
Center Technical Report No. 96, 69p (plus appendices).
Whittier, R.B., Rotzoll, K., Dhal, S., El-Kadi, A.I., Ray, C., Chen, G. and Chang, D.,
2004. Hawaii Source Water Assessment Report, Volume I, Approach Use for the
Hawaii Source Water Assessments, Water Resources Research Center, University
of Hawaii at Manoa
Whittier, R.B. and El-Kadi, A.I., 2009, Human and environmental risk ranking of onsite
sewage disposal systems, Final Draft, submitted to State of Hawaii, Department
of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Whittier, R.B. and El-Kadi, A.I., in preparation, Human and environmental risk ranking
of onsite sewage disposal systems for the Hawaiian Islands of Kauai, Maui,
Molokai, and Hawaii, prepared for the State of Hawaii, Department of Health,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Wilson, R.D., and McKay, D.M., 1993, SF6 as a conservative tracer in saturated media
with high intragranual porosity of high organic carbon content, Ground Water, 34,
241-249.
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 1996, Analytical Detection Limit Guidance &
Laboratory Guide for Determining Method Detection Limits—PUBL-TS-056-96.
Wood, P.J., and Dykes, A.P., 2002, The use of salt dilution gauging techniques:
ecological considerations and insights, Water Res., 36(7), 3054-3062.
Zheng, C., and Wang, P., 1999, MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multispecies
transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of
contaminants in groundwater systems; Documentation and user's guide, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 220p.
6-8
-------
Zheng, C., 2006, MT3DMS v5.2—Supplemental user's guide, Dept. of Geological
Sciences, University of Alabama, 46p.
6-9
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
6-10
-------
APPENDIX A: FIELD WATER QUALITY AND
FLUORESCENCE MEASUREMENTS OF
SUBMARINE SPRINGS AND CONTROL
LOCATIONS
APPENDIX FOR SECTION 2:
SUBMARINE SPRING AND MARINE CONTROL
LOCATION SAMPLING, WATER QUALITY, AND
FLUORESCENCE
A-l
-------
This page is intentionally left blank
A-2
-------
Table A-l. Calibration of the handheld YSI for pH and specific conductivity.
Model: YSI Model 63 Serial Number: 07A1999 AA
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
7/7/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.03
7.00
Temperature at 27.3°C
7/7/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
9.99
9.99
7/7/2011
8:00 AM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1034.00
1043.00
7/7/2011
8:00 AM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
60100.00
61500.00
7/15/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.16
7.00
Temperature at 28.3°C
7/15/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.07
10.00
7/15/2011
8:00 AM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1024.00
NA
7/15/2011
8:00 AM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
59000.00
NA
7/31/2011
12:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.04
NA
7/31/2011
12:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
8/8/2011
12:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.03
NA
8/8/2011
12:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
8/18/2011
12:45 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.05
6.99
Temperature at 28.9°C
8/18/2011
12:45 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
9.96
10.02
8/18/2011
12:45 PM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1087.00
1086.00
8/18/2011
12:45 PM
58,700 nS/cm
nS/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
63000.00
62700.00
8/25/2011
8:15 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.14
6.99
Temperature at 25.7°C
8/25/2011
8:15 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
9.99
10.03
A-3
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
9/1/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.03
NA
Temperature at 25.5°C
9/1/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
9/8/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.06
7.01
Temperature at 25.7°C
9/8/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
9.95
9.99
9/15/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
Temperature at 25.4°C
9/15/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.03
NA
9/15/2011
8:00 AM
1000 nS/cm
nS/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1091.00
NA
9/15/2011
8:00 AM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
59300.00
NA
9/22/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.10
6.99
9/22/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.05
10.01
9/29/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
9/29/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
10/6/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.04
7.01
10/6/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.05
10.00
10/13/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
10/13/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
10/20/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
1.01
NA
Temperature at 25.6°C
10/20/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.03
NA
10/20/2011
8:00 AM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1078.00
NA
10/20/2011
8:00 AM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
58900.00
NA
10/27/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.05
7.01
A-4
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
10/27/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.06
10.02
11/3/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.03
NA
11/3/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.04
NA
11/10/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.09
7.01
11/10/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.02
10.02
11/17/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
11/17/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
PH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
11/28/2011
1:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
6.97
6.95
Temperature at 26.1°C
11/28/2011
1:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.03
10.03
11/28/2011
1:00 PM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1026.00
NA
11/28/2011
1:00 PM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
59600.00
NA
12/6/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
12/6/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
12/13/2011
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
12/13/2011
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.03
NA
12/20/2011
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
6.99
7.01
12/20/2011
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.04
10.02
1/3/2012
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
1/3/2012
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
1/3/2012
8:00 PM
1000 nS/cm
US/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1015
NA
Temperature at 27.6°C
1/3/2012
8:00 PM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
59800
NA
1/10/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
6.98
7.01
1/10/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.04
10.02
A-5
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
1/17/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
1/17/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.00
NA
1/24/2012
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
7.04
Temperature at 24.4°C
1/24/2012
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.04
10.11
1/30/2012
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.13
7.03
Temperature at 26.3°C
1/30/2012
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.15
10.06
1/30/2012
8:00 PM
1000 nS/cm
nS/cm
5/3/2012
1000 nS/cm
1066
NA
1/30/2012
8:00 PM
58,700 nS/cm
US/cm
3/27/2012
58,700 nS/cm
59400
NA
2/8/2012
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
Temperature at 26.1°C
2/8/2012
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
2/14/2012
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.03
NA
Temperature at 26.1°C
2/14/2012
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
2/21/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
Temperature at 26.2°C
2/21/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.03
NA
2/28/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
5/1/2012
pH 7.00
7.00
NA
Temperature at 25.9°C
2/28/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
3/1/2012
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
3/16/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.09
6.99
Temperature at 25.8°C
3/16/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.05
10.01
3/29/2012
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.05
7.02
Temperature at 25.1°C
3/29/2012
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.09
10.00
4/3/2012
7:30 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.37
6.89
Temperature at 28.9°C
4/3/2012
7:30 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
9.96
4/15/2012
7:30 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.97
NA
Temperature at 28.3°C
A-6
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
4/15/2012
7:30 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.03
NA
5/1/2012
8:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.03
NA
Temperature at 26.1°C
5/1/2012
8:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.05
NA
5/15/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.03
6.86
Temperature at 24.9°C
5/15/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.96
9.98
6/8/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.89
6.95
Temperature at 26.2°C
6/8/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
PH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.86
10.02
6/22/2012
9:30 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.86
7.01
Temperature at 25.1°C
6/22/2012
9:30 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
10.00
7/1/2012
7:30 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.10
6.98
Temperature at 32.0°C
7/1/2012
7:30 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.84
10.00
7/8/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.98
NA
Temperature at 26.1°C
7/8/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
7/16/2012
5:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
Temperature at 27.1°C
7/16/2012
5:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
7/22/2012
6:10 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
Temperature at 26.5°C
7/22/2012
6:10 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
8/3/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.96
7.01
Temperature at 26.3°C
8/3/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.03
10.02
8/11/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
Temperature at 27.2°C
8/11/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
8/18/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.97
7.02
Temperature at 25.1°C
8/18/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.04
10.02
A-7
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
8/23/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.98
NA
Temperature at 24.9°C
8/23/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
8/30/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
Temperature at 26.2°C
8/30/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
9/3/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 25.2°C
9/3/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
9/9/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
PH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.96
7.01
Temperature at 26.3°C
9/9/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.03
10.02
9/11/2012
4:30 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.02
NA
Temperature at 28.8°C
9/11/2012
4:30 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
NA
9/18/2012
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 26.4°C
9/18/2012
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
9/27/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.98
7.01
Temperature at 26.3°C
9/27/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.00
10.02
10/1/2012
6:00 PM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.99
NA
Temperature at 26.5°C
10/1/2012
6:00 PM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.99
NA
10/9/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 27.1°C
10/9/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
10/23/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.97
7.01
Temperature at 27.2°C
10/23/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.96
10.02
10/29/2012
8:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 26.5°C
10/29/2012
8:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
11/6/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 27.5°C
A-8
-------
Table A-l
Continued
Date
Time
Parameter
(Spec. Cond.
or pH)
Units
Exp. Date
Cone, or
Stand.
Initial
Reading
Corrected
Reading
Operator's initials and
remarks
11/6/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
11/15/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.98
7.01
Temperature at 27.2°C
11/15/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.01
10.00
11/26/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.98
7.02
Temperature at 26.2°C
11/26/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
9.98
10.01
12/3/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
7.01
NA
Temperature at 25.9°C
12/3/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
NA
12/13/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
pH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
Temperature at 26.3°C
12/13/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
12/26/2012
9:00 AM
7.00
PH
7/6/2013
pH 7.00
6.97
7.03
Temperature at 26.1°C
12/26/2012
9:00 AM
10.00
pH
7/12/2013
pH 10.00
10.02
10.03
A-9
-------
Table A-2. Calibration record of the hand held fluorometer. Calibration Solutions: 100
ppb standards of Fluorescein and Rhodamine. NA = Not Applicable.
Model: Aquafluor Serial Number: 801398
Date
Time
Cone, of
Stand, (ppb)
Initial
Reading
(ppb)
Corrected
Reading
(ppb)
Fluorescein
or
Rhodamine
8/2/2011
9:30 PM
100
97.44
99.84
Fluorescein
8/2/2011
9:30 PM
100
86.13
100.1
Rhodamine
8/4/2011
2:15 PM
100
100.70
NA
Fluorescein
8/4/2011
2:15 PM
100
103.30
99.8
Rhodamine
8/8/2011
1:00 PM
100
101.20
NA
Fluorescein
8/8/2011
1:00 PM
100
103.70
99.91
Rhodamine
8/10/2011
9:05 PM
100
99.48
NA
Fluorescein
8/10/2011
9:05 PM
100
96.31
100.1
Rhodamine
8/14/2011
11:00 AM
100
101.90
99.66
Fluorescein
8/14/2011
11:00 AM
100
107.30
99.99
Rhodamine
8/15/2011
9:00 PM
100
98.58
99.72
Fluorescein
8/15/2011
9:00 PM
100
96.46
100.1
Rhodamine
8/16/2011
10:32 PM
100
100.60
NA
Fluorescein
8/16/2011
10:32 PM
100
99.45
NA
Rhodamine
8/22/2011
9:30 AM
100
101.40
99.95
Fluorescein
8/22/2011
9:30 AM
100
102.40
100
Rhodamine
8/27/2011
12:30 PM
100
98.74
99.97
Fluorescein
8/27/2011
12:30 PM
100
97.56
99.84
Rhodamine
8/28/2011
12:00 PM
100
99.77
NA
Fluorescein
8/28/2011
12:00 PM
100
99.51
NA
Rhodamine
8/29/2011
1:30 PM
100
100.20
NA
Fluorescein
8/29/2011
1:30 PM
100
100.10
NA
Rhodamine
8/29/2011
9:30 AM
100
101.60
99.93
Fluorescein
8/29/2011
9:30 AM
100
103.40
99.87
Rhodamine
9/13/2011
8:00 PM
100
98.88
99.97
Fluorescein
9/13/2011
8:00 PM
100
97.57
99.95
Rhodamine
A-10
-------
Table A-2
Continued
Date
Time
Cone, of
Stand, (ppb)
Initial
Reading
(ppb)
Corrected
Reading
(ppb)
Fluorescein
or
Rhodamine
9/19/2011
8:00 PM
100
99.69
NA
Fluorescein
9/19/2011
8:00 PM
100
99.10
NA
Rhodamine
10/3/2011
1:30 PM
100
99.66
NA
Fluorescein
10/3/2011
1:30 PM
100
99.42
NA
Rhodamine
10/7/2011
10:00 AM
100
101.50
99.91
Fluorescein
10/7/2011
10:00 AM
100
105.50
99.7
Rhodamine
10/12/2011
8:00 PM
100
98.71
99.65
Fluorescein
10/12/2011
8:00 PM
100
96.62
99.99
Rhodamine
10/20/2011
8:00 PM
100
101.90
99.85
Fluorescein
10/20/2011
8:00 PM
100
102.70
99.88
Rhodamine
10/28/2011
1:00 PM
100
101.90
99.67
Fluorescein
10/28/2011
1:00 PM
100
105.60
100
Rhodamine
11/4/2011
10:00 AM
100
101.10
99.81
Fluorescein
11/4/2011
10:00 AM
100
104.50
99.97
Rhodamine
11/14/2011
1:00 PM
100
99.05
NA
Fluorescein
11/14/2011
1:00 PM
100
96.31
99.9
Rhodamine
11/18/2011
1:00 PM
100
99.26
NA
Fluorescein
11/18/2011
1:00 PM
100
101.50
100
Rhodamine
11/21/2011
7:00 PM
100
97.66
99.61
Fluorescein
11/21/2011
7:00 PM
100
92.77
99.99
Rhodamine
11/24/2011
12:00 PM
100
103.70
99.65
Fluorescein
11/24/2011
12:00 PM
100
118.10
99.82
Rhodamine
11/26/2011
12:00 PM
100
99.05
NA
Fluorescein
11/26/2011
12:00 PM
100
97.43
99.9
Rhodamine
12/2/2011
1:00 PM
100
98.82
99.81
Fluorescein
12/2/2011
1:00 PM
100
98.35
99.81
Rhodamine
12/11/2011
6:00 PM
100
100.30
NA
Fluorescein
12/11/2011
6:00 PM
100
103.50
99.95
Rhodamine
12/16/2011
8:00 PM
100
100.40
NA
Fluorescein
12/16/2011
8:00 PM
100
102.30
99.94
Rhodamine
1/13/2011
8:00 PM
100
86.09
99.69
Fluorescein
A-ll
-------
Table A-2
Continued
Date
Time
Cone, of
Stand, (ppb)
Initial
Reading
(ppb)
Corrected
Reading
(ppb)
Fluorescein
or
Rhodamine
1/13/2011
8:00 PM
100
94.45
99.92
Rhodamine
1/26/2012
8:00 PM
100
98.05
99.75
Fluorescein
1/26/2012
8:00 PM
100
99.29
NA
Rhodamine
1/27/2012
7:30 PM
100
99.79
NA
Fluorescein
1/27/2012
7:30 PM
100
100.60
NA
Rhodamine
2/10/2012
8:00 PM
100
97.48
99.9
Fluorescein
2/10/2012
8:00 PM
100
99.93
99.93
Rhodamine
2/17/2012
5:00 PM
100
100.10
NA
Fluorescein
2/17/2012
5:00 PM
100
103.40
99.8
Rhodamine
2/21/2012
9:00 AM
100
101.70
99.82
Fluorescein
2/21/2012
9:00 AM
100
102.80
99.78
Rhodamine
3/2/2012
1:00 PM
100
97.49
99.79
Fluorescein
3/2/2012
1:00 PM
100
94.69
99.85
Rhodamine
3/13/2012
8:00 PM
100
101.00
99.73
Fluorescein
3/13/2012
8:00 PM
100
103.40
99.97
Rhodamine
3/22/2012
7:00 PM
100
97.47
100.3
Fluorescein
3/22/2012
7:00 PM
100
98.12
99.83
Rhodamine
3/29/2012
7:00 PM
100
101.20
99.62
Fluorescein
3/29/2012
7:00 PM
100
103.50
99.85
Rhodamine
4/2/2012
5:30 PM
100
95.76
99.82
Fluorescein
4/2/2012
5:30 PM
100
88.10
99.8
Rhodamine
4/14/2012
11:00 AM
100
104.30
100.1
Fluorescein
4/14/2012
11:00 AM
100
117.60
100.3
Rhodamine
4/20/2012
5:00 PM
100
102.50
100.6
Fluorescein
4/20/2012
5:00 PM
100
108.80
99.59
Rhodamine
5/3/2012
5:00 PM
100
96.02
99.92
Fluorescein
5/3/2012
5:00 PM
100
95.79
100.1
Rhodamine
6/5/2012
11:00 AM
100
91.77
100.10
Fluorescein
6/5/2012
11:00 AM
100
91.59
99.83
Rhodamine
6/7/2012
7:00 PM
100
98.74
99.93
Fluorescein
6/7/2012
7:00 PM
100
100.30
NA
Rhodamine
A-12
-------
Table A-2
Continued
Date
Time
Cone, of
Stand, (ppb)
Initial
Reading
(ppb)
Corrected
Reading
(ppb)
Fluorescein
or
Rhodamine
6/22/2012
11:00 AM
100
101.80
99.90
Fluorescein
6/22/2012
11:00 AM
100
100.00
NA
Rhodamine
7/6/2012
2:00 PM
100
99.42
NA
Fluorescein
7/6/2012
2:00 PM
100
97.98
99.00
Rhodamine
8/20/2012
1:00 PM
100
90.89
99.77
Fluorescein
8/20/2012
1:00 PM
100
72.49
99.79
Rhodamine
9/10/2012
4:30 PM
100
98.45
99.68
Fluorescein
9/10/2012
4:30 PM
100
97.80
99.79
Rhodamine
9/22/2012
9:00 AM
100
96.43
99.83
Fluorescein
9/22/2012
9:00 AM
100
93.18
99.81
Rhodamine
10/3/2012
10:30 AM
100
104.70
99.71
Fluorescein
10/3/2012
10:30 AM
100
115.40
99.78
Rhodamine
10/11/2012
10:00 AM
100
102.10
99.67
Fluorescein
10/11/2012
10:00 AM
100
108.90
99.97
Rhodamine
10/16/2012
9:00 AM
100
100.60
NA
Fluorescein
10/16/2012
9:00 AM
100
106.70
99.63
Rhodamine
10/23/2012
3:00 PM
100
98.76
99.74
Fluorescein
10/23/2012
3:00 PM
100
86.59
99.68
Rhodamine
11/13/2012
9:00 AM
100
100.30
NA
Fluorescein
11/13/2012
9:00 AM
100
111.10
99.79
Rhodamine
12/12/2012
9:00 AM
100
103.20
99.73
Fluorescein
12/12/2012
9:00 AM
100
115.20
99.67
Rhodamine
12/29/2012
4:00 PM
100
97.69
99.75
Fluorescein
12/29/2012
4:00 PM
100
94.09
99.80
Rhodamine
A-13
-------
Table A-3. Water quality parameters collected from submarine spring samples in the
South Seep Group (Seeps 3, 4, 5, and 11). Parameters were measured with a handheld
YSI Model 63 and field fluorescence measurements of S-Rhodamine-B (SRB) and
Fluorescein (FLT) with a handheld Aquafluor fluorometer model 8000-10 from
7/19/2011 to 12/29/2012. Missing fluorescence values are due to shipment of samples
prior to analysis.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec. Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 3
7/19/2011
10:15 AM
27.2
7.41
5.51
2.8
-0.174
-0.174
7/20/2011
10:38 AM
27.1
7.36
5.45
2.8
0.725
0.109
7/21/2011
9:05 AM
25.9
7.36
5.32
2.8
-0.235
0.321
7/22/2011
10:42 AM
28.3
7.42
5.60
2.8
0.185
0.321
7/23/2011
10:26 AM
27.8
7.50
6.48
3.3
0.115
0.105
7/24/2011
10:10 AM
26.4
7.54
6.65
3.5
-0.111
0.012
7/25/2011
10:47 AM
27.5
7.51
5.64
2.9
0.451
0.269
7/26/2011
10:12 AM
26.4
7.44
5.45
2.8
0.717
0.077
7/27/2011
10:55 AM
27.1
7.35
5.31
3.0
0.333
0.050
7/28/2011
10:16 AM
27.6
7.38
5.50
2.8
-0.099
-0.154
7/28/2011
4:34 PM
27.0
7.37
5.54
2.9
-0.015
-0.059
7/29/2011
10:25 AM
26.6
7.40
5.31
2.8
0.302
0.107
7/29/2011
4:29 PM
28.3
7.45
6.88
3.6
-0.044
0.056
7/30/2011
11:38 AM
27.8
7.43
5.75
2.9
0.617
0.031
7/30/2011
5:15 PM
26.8
7.44
5.63
2.9
0.565
-0.002
7/31/2011
10:51 AM
27.5
7.46
5.49
2.8
0.545
0.031
7/31/2011
4:52 PM
26.8
7.48
14.91
8.3
1.176
0.022
8/1/2011
10:49 AM
27.8
7.46
5.51
2.8
0.863
0.224
8/1/2011
4:21PM
27.8
7.51
20.73
11.6
0.682
-0.056
8/2/2011
9:04 AM
25.6
7.49
5.20
2.8
-0.223
-0.174
8/2/2011
4:12 PM
26.8
7.42
5.41
2.8
0.649
-0.013
8/3/2011
10:28 AM
30.7
7.30
5.56
2.7
0.414
-0.100
8/3/2011
4:38 PM
28.6
7.35
5.53
2.8
0.138
0.000
8/4/2011
11:17 AM
29.9
7.42
5.55
2.8
-0.400
-0.189
8/4/2011
4:48 PM
27.5
7.47
5.40
2.8
-0.116
-0.097
8/5/2011
11:07 AM
27.9
7.50
5.50
2.8
0.480
0.096
8/5/2011
5:17 PM
26.7
7.49
5.41
2.8
-0.527
-0.132
8/6/2011
9:37 AM
27.1
7.31
5.46
2.8
-0.327
0.052
8/6/2011
4:01PM
30.0
7.36
5.70
2.8
-0.303
0.016
8/7/2011
10:03 AM
26.7
7.44
5.38
2.8
-0.269
-0.040
8/7/2011
4:18 PM
28.1
7.40
5.52
2.8
-0.062
-0.048
8/8/2011
10:15 AM
27.8
7.47
6.09
3.1
-0.204
-0.194
8/8/2011
4:12 PM
29.4
7.44
5.66
2.8
0.512
-0.081
8/9/2011
10:05 AM
28.2
7.52
5.58
2.8
0.868
-0.030
8/9/2011
4:02 PM
28.8
7.45
5.63
2.8
0.271
0.121
8/10/2011
12:29 PM
29.2
7.56
6.47
3.2
-0.040
-0.084
A-14
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
8/10/2011
4:38 PM
28.3
7.60
5.60
2.8
0.076
-0.078
Cont.
8/11/2011
10:04 AM
27.9
7.76
5.53
2.8
-0.490
0.284
8/11/2011
4:27 PM
28.9
7.64
6.75
3.4
-0.834
0.088
8/12/2011
10:02 AM
26.6
7.64
5.31
2.8
0.359
0.227
8/12/2011
4:21PM
29.5
7.61
6.75
3.3
-0.300
0.183
8/13/2011
9:55 AM
27.0
7.55
5.43
2.8
-0.311
0.351
8/13/2011
4:02 PM
29.9
7.50
6.43
3.1
0.545
0.346
8/14/2011
10:26 AM
27.6
7.58
5.50
2.8
0.571
0.296
8/14/2011
4:23 PM
25.9
7.59
6.34
3.4
0.176
0.402
8/15/2011
9:56 AM
25.9
7.55
5.29
2.8
0.250
0.201
8/15/2011
4:08 PM
27.9
7.58
6.68
3.4
0.086
0.294
8/16/2011
10:22 AM
27.8
7.59
5.52
2.8
-0.014
0.193
8/16/2011
3:55 PM
28.3
7.55
5.85
2.5
1.065
0.211
8/17/2011
11:15 AM
29.1
7.61
5.67
2.8
0.822
0.210
8/17/2011
4:39 PM
28.4
7.58
6.76
3.4
-0.285
0.365
8/18/2011
10:35 AM
29.9
7.53
5.73
2.8
0.074
0.177
8/18/2011
4:41PM
26.7
7.46
5.93
3.1
0.200
0.294
8/19/2011
10:33 AM
30.1
7.54
6.02
3.0
0.209
0.282
8/19/2011
4:43 PM
29.2
7.49
5.74
2.8
0.695
0.087
8/20/2011
10:31 AM
29.5
7.56
6.14
3.0
0.155
0.034
8/20/2011
4:32 PM
26.6
7.59
5.41
2.8
-0.236
0.228
8/21/2011
10:34 AM
27.7
7.55
6.07
3.1
-0.151
0.118
8/21/2011
4:41PM
28.0
7.54
5.55
2.8
0.812
0.134
8/22/2011
4:39 PM
29.1
7.53
8.17
4.2
0.636
0.314
8/22/2011
10:01 AM
28.1
7.57
12.25
6.6
0.172
0.246
8/23/2011
10:07 AM
30.0
7.54
13.31
6.9
-0.285
0.184
8/23/2011
4:02 PM
28.2
7.44
7.99
4.1
0.203
0.086
8/24/2011
11:20 AM
28.4
7.71
28.18
16.1
0.440
0.141
8/24/2011
5:46 PM
28.0
7.56
5.56
2.9
0.188
0.067
8/25/2011
10:55 AM
29.8
7.62
5.88
2.9
0.497
0.091
8/25/2011
5:23 PM
27.6
7.71
5.59
2.9
0.230
0.093
8/26/2011
10:15 AM
29.0
7.80
5.83
2.9
0.329
-0.035
8/26/2011
4:24 PM
28.2
7.71
5.82
3.0
0.328
0.338
8/27/2011
10:51 AM
28.8
7.49
5.72
2.9
0.349
0.092
8/27/2011
5:29 PM
27.7
7.49
5.70
2.9
0.147
0.375
8/28/2011
10:17 AM
28.6
7.57
5.65
2.8
0.155
0.033
8/28/2011
4:36 PM
28.2
7.79
6.00
3.0
0.239
0.269
8/29/2011
10:32 AM
28.0
7.32
5.64
2.9
0.230
0.326
8/29/2011
4:37 PM
28.8
7.36
8.47
4.4
0.420
0.082
8/30/2011
10:10 AM
28.4
7.45
6.19
3.1
0.791
0.185
9/2/2011
12:17 PM
32.2
7.64
5.86
2.7
-0.345
0.480
A-15
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
9/2/2011
5:00 PM
28.8
7.61
5.57
2.8
-0.606
0.160
Cont.
9/3/2011
10:35 AM
27.4
7.79
5.49
2.8
-0.424
0.501
9/3/2011
4:47 PM
27.7
7.90
5.51
2.8
-0.320
0.302
9/4/2011
4:48 PM
30.2
7.39
5.73
2.8
-0.175
0.364
9/5/2011
10:18 AM
29.9
7.46
5.77
2.8
-0.248
0.303
9/5/2011
4:41PM
26.8
7.49
5.39
2.8
-0.340
0.387
9/6/2011
10:04 AM
27.1
7.27
5.49
2.8
-0.415
0.182
9/6/2011
4:30 PM
30.8
7.48
5.73
2.7
-0.471
0.310
9/7/2011
10:02 AM
29.3
7.49
6.09
3.0
-0.383
0.264
9/8/2011
10:09 AM
29.1
7.40
5.63
2.8
-0.741
0.339
9/9/2011
11:23 AM
30.6
7.45
5.79
2.8
-0.694
0.184
9/10/2011
11:36 AM
30.4
7.41
5.59
3.0
-0.666
0.219
9/12/2011
12:39 PM
32.3
7.44
5.83
2.7
0.316
0.462
9/13/2011
11:52 AM
33.3
7.55
6.05
2.8
-0.130
0.241
9/14/2011
10:49 AM
32.1
7.53
7.02
3.3
-0.466
0.282
9/15/2011
10:27 AM
33.2
7.77
6.19
2.8
0.289
0.253
9/16/2011
12:20 PM
34.9
7.63
6.49
2.9
-0.291
0.147
9/17/2011
3:37 PM
31.5
7.41
6.92
3.3
-0.384
0.345
9/18/2011
12:19 PM
31.3
7.39
6.09
2.9
-0.836
0.223
9/19/2011
11:20 AM
32.6
7.39
17.08
8.5
-0.584
0.199
9/20/2011
10:30 AM
28.9
7.43
9.83
5.1
0.026
0.235
9/21/2011
10:08 AM
30.6
7.37
7.49
3.6
-0.302
0.412
9/22/2011
10:19 AM
29.4
7.94
6.54
3.3
-0.219
0.365
9/23/2011
10:23 AM
31.1
7.49
6.81
3.2
-0.079
0.391
9/24/2011
9:55 AM
30.3
7.56
6.58
3.2
0.624
0.324
9/25/2011
11:24 AM
31.3
7.48
6.70
3.2
-0.308
0.395
9/26/2011
11:39 AM
32.6
7.57
15.18
7.5
0.331
0.411
9/27/2011
10:14 AM
30.8
7.46
5.71
2.7
-0.117
0.153
9/28/2011
10:07 AM
29.2
7.40
5.56
2.8
-0.971
0.283
9/29/2011
10:14 AM
29.0
7.41
5.56
2.8
-0.589
0.092
9/30/2011
10:25 AM
30.3
7.43
5.64
2.7
-0.404
0.251
10/1/2011
10:38 AM
32.9
7.75
5.95
2.7
0.272
0.116
10/2/2011
1:13 PM
33.8
7.50
6.56
3.0
0.193
0.100
10/3/2011
10:16 AM
28.4
7.48
5.66
2.9
0.072
0.131
10/8/2011
5:12 PM
27.8
7.64
5.49
2.8
0.610
0.356
10/10/2011
12:28 PM
33.6
7.59
6.84
2.8
-0.430
0.403
10/12/2011
10:07 AM
29.5
7.56
5.53
2.7
-0.243
0.489
10/14/2011
10:15 AM
30.5
7.55
5.56
2.7
0.338
0.297
10/16/2011
10:06 AM
31.1
7.55
5.72
2.7
1.344
0.243
10/18/2011
12:47 PM
31.9
7.60
5.98
2.8
0.547
0.202
10/20/2011
10:33 AM
29.9
7.63
5.71
2.8
1.019
0.207
A-16
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
10/22/2011
10:39 AM
30.9
7.67
5.72
2.7
0.176
0.167
Cont.
10/24/2011
10:18 AM
32.7
7.49
5.90
2.7
0.435
0.317
10/26/2011
10:28 AM
31.0
7.50
5.82
2.8
-0.353
0.046
10/28/2011
10:19 AM
27.7
7.62
5.56
2.8
0.658
0.101
10/30/2011
12:27 PM
32.7
7.65
6.16
2.9
-0.460
0.271
11/1/2011
12:26 PM
33.3
7.61
6.14
2.8
-0.150
0.283
11/3/2011
10:21 AM
29.9
7.57
5.79
2.8
-0.257
0.413
11/5/2011
2:29 PM
33.4
7.56
6.16
2.8
-0.334
0.239
11/7/2011
10:10 AM
31.0
7.60
5.85
2.8
-0.177
0.523
11/9/2011
10:54 AM
29.2
7.52
5.68
2.8
0.120
0.307
11/11/2011
10:44 AM
27.2
7.62
5.51
2.8
-0.180
0.234
11/14/2011
9:47 AM
29.2
7.22
5.59
2.8
0.418
0.581
11/16/2011
10:39 AM
28.7
7.27
5.67
2.8
0.725
0.218
11/18/2011
10:59 AM
28.1
7.36
5.68
2.9
0.723
0.426
11/21/2011
10:42 AM
30.3
7.44
5.87
2.8
0.223
-0.102
11/23/2011
10:25 AM
29.3
7.54
5.66
2.8
-0.117
0.127
11/25/2011
10:47 AM
27.9
7.40
5.60
2.8
-0.170
0.200
11/28/2011
10:35 AM
29.1
7.60
5.65
2.8
0.443
0.237
11/30/2011
10:18 AM
27.6
7.45
5.48
2.8
0.285
0.351
12/2/2011
10:21 AM
27.8
7.45
5.52
2.8
-0.038
0.392
12/5/2011
10:35 AM
27.7
7.50
5.54
2.9
0.222
0.730
12/7/2011
10:34 AM
29.0
7.50
5.59
2.8
0.579
0.653
12/9/2011
10:15 AM
25.4
7.63
5.34
2.8
0.307
0.756
12/12/2011
10:16 AM
24.6
7.65
5.59
3.0
0.137
1.010
12/14/2011
10:10 AM
25.7
7.41
5.72
2.9
-0.173
1.237
12/16/2011
10:16 AM
27.7
7.52
5.62
2.9
0.105
1.468
12/19/2011
10:26 AM
26.7
7.47
5.65
2.9
12/21/2011
11:23 AM
28.3
7.43
5.88
3.0
12/23/2011
10:56 AM
24.2
7.63
5.42
3.0
12/26/2011
10:57 AM
27.3
7.39
5.66
2.9
12/28/2011
10:34 AM
27.7
7.52
6.03
3.1
12/30/2011
11:13 AM
28.9
7.65
7.33
3.7
1/2/2012
11:37 AM
29.1
7.68
14.89
8.0
1/7/2012
3:51PM
28.5
7.55
5.88
3.0
1.145
5.392
1/9/2012
12:34 PM
27.8
7.40
5.84
3.0
1.041
6.102
1/11/2012
11:35 AM
24.9
7.44
5.38
2.9
0.997
6.739
1/16/2012
2:04 PM
28.4
7.67
5.67
2.8
1/19/2012
10:52 AM
28.1
7.52
5.60
2.8
0.896
9.339
1/21/2012
2:37 PM
28.7
7.52
6.58
3.3
1.080
10.19
1/23/2012
12:15 PM
26.5
7.49
5.49
2.9
1.556
10.96
1/25/2012
12:38 PM
28.3
7.51
5.75
2.9
1.069
11.74
A-17
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
1/27/2012
1:26 PM
29.0
7.74
5.81
2.9
1.140
11.57
Cont.
1/31/2012
12:25 PM
27.4
7.60
5.66
2.9
1.332
13.98
2/10/2012
12:56 PM
27.4
7.64
6.08
3.1
1.453
17.53
2/14/2012
2:22 PM
28.7
7.58
5.97
3.0
1.771
19.87
2/17/2012
12:32 PM
26.2
7.65
6.04
3.2
2.455
20.14
2/20/2012
2:40 PM
29.6
7.59
6.83
3.4
1.759
20.98
2/24/2012
12:05 PM
27.7
7.64
8.18
4.3
1.336
21.30
2/27/2012
11:33 PM
28.2
7.66
7.29
3.8
1.677
23.10
3/1/2012
12:34 PM
29.4
7.56
5.94
2.9
2.197
25.11
3/11/2012
11:59 AM
29.9
7.65
6.26
3.0
2.551
28.16
3/14/2012
11:05 AM
24.5
7.66
5.56
3.0
3/17/2012
10:24 AM
26.0
7.60
5.65
3.0
3.340
32.14
3/19/2012
10:40 AM
27.4
7.61
5.87
3.0
3.074
32.81
3/22/2012
10:50 AM
27.5
7.49
6.24
3.2
3.131
32.00
3/27/2012
10:30 AM
25.5
7.55
5.73
3.1
2.571
33.77
3/29/2012
11:19 AM
25.6
7.43
5.84
3.1
3.255
34.56
3/31/2012
4:39 PM
27.4
5.96
3.1
3.897
35.22
4/2/2012
11:14 AM
26.8
6.11
3.2
3.562
35.16
4/5/2012
9:25 AM
25.1
7.35
5.72
3.1
2.788
35.95
4/12/2012
9:34 AM
28.2
7.46
6.03
3.1
3.218
36.51
4/16/2012
10:42 AM
29.7
7.51
6.14
3.0
2.620
34.33
4/19/2012
12:18 PM
27.6
7.58
6.15
3.2
2.803
35.55
4/24/2012
4:08 PM
26.9
7.65
8.27
4.4
3.369
37.27
4/26/2012
11:40 AM
28.4
7.66
6.34
3.2
3.816
36.81
5/2/2012
11:44 AM
28.7
7.52
6.61
3.3
4.525
37.20
5/7/2012
10:51 AM
27.9
7.45
6.23
3.2
3.838
39.35
5/14/2012
10:14 AM
27.0
7.60
8.35
4.5
3.736
39.51
5/18/2012
2:24 PM
30.9
7.67
8.66
4.3
3.759
34.73
5/22/2012
4:07 PM
27.9
7.54
9.94
5.3
4.294
37.80
5/25/2012
3:45 PM
29.0
7.47
6.59
3.3
3.945
38.69
6/4/2012
3:00 PM
28.2
7.73
19.95
11.1
3.462
31.93
6/7/2012
1:20 PM
29.4
7.47
6.56
3.2
3.281
36.51
6/12/2012
12:27 PM
32.2
7.50
6.95
3.3
3.056
34.33
6/14/2012
3:37 PM
33.4
7.53
6.94
3.2
3.167
35.62
6/16/2012
1:02 PM
32.3
7.38
7.09
3.4
3.472
34.66
6/18/2012
11:00 AM
29.8
7.56
6.93
3.4
3.470
35.45
6/29/2012
1:23 PM
33.6
7.51
7.00
3.2
2.787
32.61
7/4/2012
1:21PM
29.6
7.59
6.61
3.3
3.024
31.53
7/11/2012
2:35 PM
35.1
7.57
7.26
3.3
7/19/2012
11:40 PM
33.3
7.60
7.11
3.3
7/23/2012
10:50 AM
31.9
7.63
6.75
3.2
1.917
25.41
A-18
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec. Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 3
Cont.
8/1/2012
10:35 AM
31.7
7.60
6.81
3.2
2.489
23.62
8/7/2012
10:25 AM
33.6
7.50
7.12
3.3
2.123
22.88
8/15/2012
11:32 AM
31.8
7.53
6.87
3.2
1.659
21.34
8/21/2012
10:28 AM
31.4
7.42
6.76
3.2
3.488
22.08
8/24/2012
12:33 PM
31.7
7.60
6.76
3.2
2.524
22.13
8/27/2012
10:38 AM
29.7
7.52
6.60
3.3
2.794
21.98
9/5/2012
10:46 AM
32.6
7.44
6.88
3.3
2.708
19.93
9/10/2012
1:45 PM
33.3
7.59
7.07
3.3
2.079
19.52
9/12/2012
10:33 AM
32.2
7.45
7.01
3.3
2.065
19.09
9/18/2012
12:36 PM
32.3
7.40
6.82
3.2
2.368
18.97
10/2/2012
12:17 PM
29.5
7.50
6.53
3.2
2.060
17.29
10/8/2012
3:39 PM
29.9
7.44
6.55
3.2
1.433
17.43
10/12/2012
11:54 PM
30.3
7.43
6.60
3.2
1.560
16.97
10/18/2012
12:24 PM
28.6
7.52
6.49
3.3
0.847
16.75
10/22/2012
10:56 AM
29.9
7.55
6.73
3.3
0.561
15.93
10/26/2012
11:32 AM
29.5
7.51
6.63
3.3
1.251
16.23
10/29/2012
12:00 PM
28.5
7.48
6.50
3.3
1.707
15.89
11/2/2012
3:40 PM
30.6
7.57
8.94
4.4
1.315
14.47
11/8/2012
12:44 PM
29.3
7.55
6.49
3.2
1.228
14.79
11/12/2012
11:51 AM
27.9
7.49
6.32
3.3
0.958
14.65
11/27/2012
10:04 AM
27.0
7.57
6.30
3.3
1.138
13.56
12/6/2012
11:47 AM
29.1
7.49
7.25
3.7
1.377
13.08
12/10/2012
10:58 AM
28.8
7.50
6.28
3.2
1.133
13.03
12/14/2012
1:01PM
29.3
7.49
7.03
3.5
1.189
12.500
12/29/2012
11:55 AM
27.7
7.40
7.35
3.8
1.764
11.720
Seep 4
7/19/2011
10:25 AM
27.8
7.47
6.09
3.1
0.983
0.110
7/20/2011
10:53 AM
27.9
7.50
6.16
3.1
0.709
0.375
7/21/2011
9:15 AM
25.9
7.20
5.97
3.2
0.328
0.170
7/22/2011
10:52 AM
27.6
7.35
6.27
3.2
-0.121
0.185
7/23/2011
10:31 AM
27.1
7.47
6.10
3.2
0.022
0.232
7/24/2011
10:20 AM
26.3
7.53
6.61
3.6
1.025
0.151
7/25/2011
10:48 AM
26.5
7.54
8.45
4.5
-0.056
-0.171
7/26/2011
10:26 AM
26.4
7.47
6.26
3.4
0.024
0.033
7/27/2011
11:04 AM
26.7
7.48
6.05
3.2
-0.256
0.077
7/28/2011
10:25 AM
27.0
7.47
6.16
3.2
0.330
0.100
7/28/2011
5:01PM
26.8
7.33
6.43
3.4
0.221
-0.193
7/29/2011
10:34 AM
26.6
7.38
6.00
3.1
1.056
-0.054
7/29/2011
4:36 PM
28.0
7.46
9.26
4.8
0.549
-0.052
7/30/2011
11:44 AM
28.0
7.42
6.27
3.2
-0.291
-0.113
7/30/2011
6:26 PM
27.0
7.43
7.42
3.9
-0.115
-0.107
A-19
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 4
7/31/2011
11:01 AM
27.7
7.43
6.25
3.2
1.021
-0.060
Cont.
7/31/2011
5:08 PM
27.4
7.57
22.25
12.7
-0.114
0.091
8/1/2011
10:49 AM
28.5
7.44
6.82
3.5
0.584
0.086
8/1/2011
4:32 PM
27.8
7.49
8.24
4.3
0.914
-0.055
8/2/2011
9:13 AM
26.3
7.48
5.80
3.1
0.474
0.064
8/2/2011
4:20 PM
27.0
7.38
5.94
3.1
-0.007
0.022
8/3/2011
10:38 AM
27.4
7.36
6.03
3.1
0.600
-0.126
8/3/2011
4:48 PM
27.0
7.36
6.29
3.3
0.035
-0.190
8/4/2011
11:23 AM
27.3
7.43
5.97
3.1
-0.102
0.199
8/4/2011
4:55 PM
27.1
7.42
6.20
3.2
0.799
-0.073
8/5/2011
11:15 AM
27.6
7.46
6.11
3.1
0.482
0.173
8/5/2011
5:25 PM
26.4
7.55
5.94
3.1
-0.137
-0.092
8/6/2011
9:49 AM
26.4
7.42
5.96
3.1
0.740
-0.012
8/6/2011
4:10 PM
29.1
7.41
6.21
3.1
0.151
-0.031
8/7/2011
10:13 AM
26.3
7.36
6.03
3.1
-0.384
-0.187
8/7/2011
4:25 PM
27.4
7.41
6.07
3.1
-0.058
-0.144
8/8/2011
10:25 AM
28.4
7.44
6.32
2.8
0.152
-0.043
8/8/2011
4:22 PM
29.0
7.36
6.29
3.1
0.561
-0.129
8/9/2011
10:18 AM
27.5
7.47
6.17
3.2
0.260
-0.095
8/9/2011
4:10 PM
28.1
7.42
6.40
3.2
-0.034
-0.056
8/10/2011
12:40 PM
28.3
7.58
7.77
4.0
-0.027
-0.156
8/10/2011
4:48 PM
27.9
7.52
6.18
3.2
-0.459
-0.232
8/11/2011
10:08 AM
27.4
7.67
6.06
3.1
0.733
0.104
8/11/2011
4:33 PM
28.7
7.66
6.25
3.2
-0.212
0.402
8/12/2011
10:09 AM
26.7
7.63
5.95
3.1
0.080
0.105
8/12/2011
4:29 PM
28.9
7.51
8.62
4.4
0.094
0.155
8/13/2011
10:07 AM
27.5
7.51
6.06
3.1
0.410
0.328
8/13/2011
4:08 PM
28.2
7.47
9.36
4.9
-0.523
0.004
8/14/2011
10:37 AM
27.2
7.46
6.02
3.1
0.576
0.358
8/14/2011
4:30 PM
26.2
7.40
6.96
3.7
0.611
0.311
8/15/2011
10:04 AM
25.9
7.46
5.88
3.1
0.334
0.185
8/15/2011
4:16 PM
27.3
7.47
7.12
3.7
0.289
1.335
8/16/2011
10:30 AM
28.0
7.51
6.07
3.1
0.612
0.330
8/16/2011
4:03 PM
27.8
7.55
6.20
3.2
0.098
0.182
8/17/2011
11:27 AM
29.5
7.47
6.18
3.1
-0.049
0.317
8/17/2011
4:47 PM
28.5
7.45
6.56
3.3
0.861
0.201
8/18/2011
11:02 AM
29.1
7.50
6.23
3.1
-0.185
0.144
8/18/2011
4:51PM
27.5
7.37
6.06
3.1
-0.080
0.821
8/19/2011
10:45 AM
29.0
7.52
6.19
3.1
-0.288
0.200
8/19/2011
4:51PM
28.9
7.52
6.16
3.1
8/20/2011
10:40 AM
28.9
7.57
6.20
3.1
0.628
0.322
A-20
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 4
8/20/2011
4:39 PM
26.6
7.55
5.92
3.1
0.110
0.165
Cont.
8/21/2011
10:44 AM
27.7
7.48
6.05
3.1
0.232
0.191
8/21/2011
4:55 PM
27.9
7.51
6.10
3.1
0.370
0.582
8/22/2011
10:12 AM
27.7
7.51
9.62
5.4
0.020
0.304
8/22/2011
4:48 PM
28.6
7.57
6.51
3.5
0.824
0.345
8/23/2011
10:25 AM
28.0
7.66
8.49
4.4
-0.332
-0.019
8/23/2011
4:08 PM
28.3
7.48
7.05
3.9
0.009
0.103
8/24/2011
11:38 AM
27.5
7.58
9.25
4.9
-0.070
0.081
8/24/2011
5:58 PM
27.6
7.50
6.06
3.1
-0.130
0.052
8/25/2011
11:05 AM
27.7
7.63
6.99
3.6
0.477
0.100
8/25/2011
5:35 PM
27.1
7.57
6.02
3.1
0.571
0.541
8/26/2011
10:24 AM
27.6
7.55
6.93
3.6
0.330
0.162
8/26/2011
4:33 PM
27.9
7.57
7.10
3.7
0.361
0.372
8/27/2011
11:02 AM
28.5
7.65
6.33
3.2
0.773
0.029
8/27/2011
5:41PM
27.5
7.58
6.06
3.1
0.233
0.371
8/28/2011
10:22 AM
28.1
7.57
6.13
3.1
0.030
0.038
8/28/2011
4:44 PM
29.9
7.56
6.11
3.0
0.283
0.119
8/29/2011
10:42 AM
28.4
7.59
6.21
3.1
0.045
0.095
8/29/2011
4:41PM
27.7
7.51
10.40
5.6
0.623
0.388
9/2/2011
11:53 AM
32.4
7.60
7.63
3.6
0.401
0.151
9/2/2011
5:14 PM
28.1
7.55
6.94
3.6
0.160
0.335
9/3/2011
10:44 AM
26.9
7.74
6.25
3.3
-0.168
0.404
9/4/2011
5:00 PM
29.7
7.47
6.30
3.1
-0.176
0.600
9/5/2011
10:28 AM
31.0
7.46
7.71
3.8
-0.201
0.247
9/5/2011
4:50 PM
26.8
7.48
5.99
3.1
-0.536
0.604
9/6/2011
10:13 AM
28.1
7.35
6.55
3.0
-0.306
0.567
9/6/2011
4:40 PM
31.0
7.50
6.25
3.0
-0.472
0.253
9/7/2011
10:10 AM
29.9
7.49
6.83
3.4
-0.464
0.485
9/8/2011
10:18 AM
29.1
7.47
7.38
3.7
-0.348
0.404
9/9/2011
11:36 AM
29.4
7.47
9.28
4.7
-0.718
0.337
9/10/2011
11:52 AM
30.9
7.50
10.99
5.5
-0.880
0.161
9/12/2011
12:55 PM
29.2
7.48
8.41
4.3
-0.397
0.575
9/13/2011
12:07 PM
32.9
7.55
10.55
5.0
-0.295
0.262
9/14/2011
11:03 AM
31.9
7.51
6.91
3.3
0.312
0.122
9/15/2011
10:45 AM
33.5
7.85
7.08
3.4
-0.590
0.091
9/16/2011
12:31PM
34.6
7.55
9.05
4.1
-0.273
0.388
9/17/2011
3:50 PM
31.5
7.49
10.30
5.1
0.288
0.358
9/18/2011
12:35 PM
33.9
7.48
7.17
3.3
0.209
0.163
9/19/2011
11:36 AM
32.3
7.55
13.17
6.5
-0.590
0.070
9/20/2011
10:41 AM
29.0
7.47
9.92
5.1
-0.414
0.167
9/21/2011
10:18 AM
31.1
7.51
9.87
4.9
-0.724
0.188
A-21
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 4
9/23/2011
10:34 AM
30.1
7.47
9.23
4.6
-0.129
0.297
Cont.
9/24/2011
10:05 AM
30.5
7.48
7.61
3.7
-0.326
0.262
9/25/2011
11:40 AM
31.2
7.41
12.99
6.4
-0.496
0.227
9/26/2011
11:53 AM
31.6
7.45
9.54
4.7
-0.027
0.445
9/27/2011
10:25 AM
29.7
7.42
6.21
3.1
-0.183
0.076
9/28/2011
10:18 AM
29.8
7.43
6.07
3.0
9/29/2011
10:31 AM
30.8
7.47
6.18
3.0
-0.842
0.251
9/30/2011
10:36 AM
30.9
7.44
6.21
3.0
-0.505
0.135
10/1/2011
10:51 AM
32.5
7.69
6.48
3.0
-0.164
-0.026
10/2/2011
1:27 PM
32.1
7.40
6.44
3.0
0.645
-0.003
10/3/2011
10:28 AM
31.4
7.43
6.74
3.2
-0.033
0.003
10/8/2011
5:27 PM
27.2
7.40
5.71
3.1
-0.040
0.540
10/10/2011
12:37 PM
32.7
7.47
6.51
3.0
-0.047
0.273
10/12/2011
10:20 AM
30.4
7.46
6.05
2.9
-0.356
0.500
10/14/2011
10:26 AM
31.0
7.43
6.36
3.0
0.576
0.190
10/16/2011
10:19 AM
30.9
7.52
7.06
3.4
0.443
0.189
10/18/2011
12:59 PM
32.2
7.47
6.56
3.1
0.460
0.328
10/20/2011
10:44 AM
30.5
7.41
9.23
4.6
0.466
0.219
10/22/2011
10:16 AM
31.9
7.57
6.89
3.3
0.174
0.236
10/24/2011
10:29 AM
31.3
7.51
6.60
3.2
-0.334
0.130
10/26/2011
10:39 AM
30.7
7.42
6.34
3.0
-0.106
0.307
10/28/2011
10:30 AM
29.7
7.48
6.33
3.1
-0.059
0.169
10/30/2011
12:55 PM
34.3
7.47
6.95
3.2
-0.245
0.285
11/1/2011
12:37 PM
32.4
7.46
8.52
3.3
-0.598
0.225
11/3/2011
10:35 AM
31.0
7.45
9.98
5.0
-0.115
0.298
11/5/2011
2:58 PM
33.2
7.45
6.85
3.2
0.506
0.317
11/7/2011
10:20 AM
31.9
7.49
6.37
3.0
-0.457
0.347
11/9/2011
11:19 AM
30.7
7.43
6.32
3.0
0.008
0.319
11/11/2011
10:55 AM
27.8
7.46
6.81
3.5
-0.339
0.271
11/14/2011
9:58 AM
29.0
7.26
6.16
3.1
-0.064
0.517
11/16/2011
10:57 AM
28.9
7.36
6.25
3.1
0.365
0.375
11/18/2011
11:16 AM
27.5
7.32
6.14
3.2
0.313
0.443
11/21/2011
10:53 AM
30.0
7.43
6.74
3.3
0.351
0.095
11/23/2011
10:36 AM
29.0
7.45
6.75
3.4
0.028
0.197
11/25/2011
10:57 AM
28.2
7.35
6.10
3.1
0.376
0.240
11/28/2011
10:48 AM
28.7
7.37
7.38
3.7
0.836
0.082
11/30/2011
10:29 AM
27.3
7.33
6.14
3.2
-0.043
0.044
12/2/2011
10:34 AM
27.9
7.33
6.78
3.5
0.847
0.260
12/5/2011
10:46 AM
27.7
7.33
6.11
3.1
0.255
0.476
12/7/2011
10:45 AM
29.1
7.34
6.38
3.2
0.379
0.362
12/9/2011
10:25 AM
26.8
7.42
5.95
3.1
0.353
0.485
A-22
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 4
12/12/2011
10:29 AM
25.8
7.53
8.02
4.4
-0.282
0.897
Cont.
12/14/2011
10:22 AM
27.5
7.33
6.24
3.2
-0.011
0.877
12/16/2011
10:25 AM
28.0
7.33
6.73
3.4
-0.048
1.143
12/19/2011
10:37 AM
27.4
7.42
6.10
3.1
12/21/2011
11:38 AM
28.2
7.26
6.26
3.2
12/23/2011
11:06 AM
24.5
7.43
5.82
3.2
12/26/2011
11:17 AM
28.3
7.38
6.35
3.2
12/28/2011
10:53 AM
25.8
7.42
6.63
3.6
12/30/2011
11:33 AM
30.6
7.54
8.17
4.0
1/2/2012
11:50 AM
29.0
7.60
19.18
10.5
1/7/2012
4:05 PM
28.3
7.48
6.17
3.1
0.760
4.38
1/9/2012
12:02 PM
28.3
7.32
6.72
3.5
1.058
4.87
1/11/2012
11:48 AM
24.9
7.30
5.63
3.1
1.140
5.76
1/13/2012
12:23 PM
25.8
7.45
6.07
3.2
1.297
6.23
1/16/2012
2:16 PM
27.5
7.40
5.90
3.0
1/19/2012
11:18 AM
28.1
7.35
6.04
3.1
1.064
7.83
1/21/2012
2:51PM
28.5
7.34
5.99
3.0
1.216
8.99
1/23/2012
1:26 PM
25.9
7.60
5.81
3.1
1.202
9.57
1/25/2012
1:39 PM
28.6
7.39
6.14
3.1
1.643
10.03
1/27/2012
1:49 PM
30.5
7.90
6.42
3.1
0.767
6.00
1/31/2012
12:39 PM
27.9
7.48
6.11
3.1
1.122
11.62
2/10/2012
1:16 PM
27.2
7.81
10.46
5.7
1.074
13.32
2/14/2012
2:38 PM
27.5
7.67
12.30
6.7
1.423
13.70
2/17/2012
12:47 PM
25.9
7.67
15.82
9.0
2.097
14.28
2/20/2012
3:00 PM
28.6
7.67
24.16
13.6
0.540
10.83
2/24/2012
12:20 PM
28.0
7.80
34.57
20.2
0.160
8.08
2/27/2012
12:13 PM
29.6
7.88
37.70
21.6
0.138
7.46
3/1/2012
12:50 PM
29.5
7.58
8.16
4.2
1.513
19.69
3/11/2012
12:23 PM
29.5
7.74
15.40
8.2
2.371
19.53
3/14/2012
11:17 AM
24.7
7.69
16.57
9.8
3/17/2012
10:47 AM
25.9
7.70
26.18
15.8
1.170
15.51
3/19/2012
10:55 AM
26.9
7.86
36.94
22.5
1.072
10.08
3/22/2012
11:08 AM
26.4
7.75
30.78
18.6
1.017
13.49
3/27/2012
11:03 AM
26.5
7.75
28.87
17.3
0.400
14.81
3/29/2012
11:36 AM
26.6
7.70
28.91
17.4
0.447
13.79
3/31/2012
4:53 PM
26.3
28.67
17.3
2.033
15.23
4/2/2012
11:33 AM
27.4
36.30
21.8
1.175
11.56
4/5/2012
9:40 AM
25.7
7.70
28.56
17.3
1.565
15.79
4/12/2012
9:50 AM
26.5
7.51
24.15
14.1
2.119
18.87
4/16/2012
11:12 AM
28.2
7.67
29.52
17.1
1.021
15.82
A-23
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
7/19/2011
10:35 AM
26.7
7.54
5.29
3.1
0.667
0.159
7/20/2011
11:03 AM
27.8
7.57
6.02
3.0
0.108
0.086
7/21/2011
9:25 AM
25.5
7.35
5.78
3.1
0.227
0.312
7/22/2011
11:03 AM
27.2
7.67
5.66
3.1
0.099
0.215
7/23/2011
10:44 AM
27.1
7.52
5.88
3.0
-0.168
0.006
7/24/2011
10:30 AM
26.2
7.55
5.79
3.1
-0.346
0.217
7/25/2011
10:51 AM
27.2
7.56
5.91
3.1
0.423
0.165
7/26/2011
10:22 AM
26.2
7.52
5.77
3.0
-0.044
-0.002
7/27/2011
11:12 AM
26.6
7.53
5.81
3.0
0.055
-0.006
7/28/2011
10:36 AM
27.6
7.47
5.97
3.1
-0.252
0.078
7/28/2011
4:59 PM
26.4
7.33
5.78
3.0
-0.067
-0.062
7/29/2011
10:40 AM
27.2
7.33
5.84
3.0
0.084
0.040
7/29/2011
4:51PM
27.8
7.46
5.98
3.1
0.779
0.102
7/30/2011
11:53 AM
27.0
7.43
5.90
3.1
0.240
-0.021
7/30/2011
5:33 PM
27.1
7.44
5.93
3.1
0.682
-0.039
7/31/2011
11:09 AM
27.4
7.42
5.95
3.1
0.374
0.029
7/31/2011
5:19 PM
26.6
7.46
6.52
3.4
0.856
0.068
8/1/2011
4:40 PM
26.6
7.40
6.17
3.3
-0.110
-0.124
8/2/2011
9:20 AM
26.0
7.49
5.71
3.0
0.113
-0.077
8/2/2011
4:27 PM
27.3
7.40
5.90
3.0
-0.201
0.015
8/3/2011
10:44 AM
28.0
7.41
5.94
3.0
-0.345
0.105
8/3/2011
4:55 PM
26.5
7.32
5.85
3.1
0.546
-0.110
8/4/2011
11:30 AM
27.5
7.44
5.62
3.0
0.077
-0.122
8/4/2011
5:02 PM
28.1
7.46
5.64
3.0
0.453
0.062
8/5/2011
11:21 AM
27.5
7.49
5.91
3.0
-0.415
-0.023
8/5/2011
5:31PM
26.4
7.48
5.76
3.0
0.567
-0.110
8/6/2011
9:44 AM
26.4
7.42
5.83
3.1
0.269
-0.060
8/6/2011
4:15 PM
28.8
7.41
6.09
3.0
0.076
0.003
8/7/2011
10:25 AM
26.9
7.42
5.91
3.1
0.140
-0.123
8/7/2011
4:33 PM
27.0
7.40
5.88
3.1
-0.121
0.062
8/8/2011
10:32 AM
28.2
7.43
6.09
3.1
0.353
0.008
8/8/2011
4:33 PM
28.9
7.40
6.10
3.1
-0.238
-0.213
8/9/2011
10:25 AM
27.2
7.51
5.98
3.1
0.673
0.005
8/9/2011
4:17 PM
27.9
7.46
6.03
3.1
0.729
0.164
8/10/2011
1:00 PM
27.7
7.60
6.05
3.1
0.024
0.329
8/10/2011
4:54 PM
27.5
7.53
6.00
3.1
-0.084
-0.095
8/11/2011
10:13 AM
27.6
7.68
6.00
3.1
0.067
0.338
8/11/2011
4:40 PM
28.4
7.74
6.07
3.1
-0.405
0.201
8/12/2011
10:16 AM
27.1
7.65
5.90
3.1
-0.196
0.185
8/12/2011
4:36 PM
28.4
7.62
6.09
3.1
-0.360
0.244
8/13/2011
10:15 AM
27.2
7.54
5.93
3.1
0.555
0.438
A-24
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
8/13/2011
4:16 PM
27.9
7.55
5.74
3.1
-0.180
0.315
Cont.
8/14/2011
10:45 AM
27.0
7.52
5.91
3.1
0.475
0.649
8/14/2011
4:36 PM
26.1
7.40
5.86
3.1
0.194
0.404
8/15/2011
10:11 AM
25.6
7.44
5.74
3.1
0.936
0.258
8/15/2011
4:24 PM
27.1
7.48
5.96
3.1
0.284
0.275
8/16/2011
10:37 AM
27.9
7.57
5.97
3.0
0.432
0.380
8/16/2011
4:10 PM
27.3
7.57
5.96
3.1
-0.167
0.239
8/17/2011
11:21 AM
28.8
7.48
6.07
3.0
0.064
0.202
8/17/2011
4:54 PM
28.4
7.45
6.05
3.1
-0.132
0.152
8/18/2011
10:54 AM
28.6
7.50
6.05
3.0
-0.175
0.226
8/18/2011
5:01PM
27.7
7.43
5.97
3.1
0.357
0.266
8/19/2011
10:53 AM
28.4
7.56
6.03
3.1
0.634
0.178
8/19/2011
4:59 PM
28.5
7.53
6.06
3.1
-0.026
0.058
8/20/2011
10:46 AM
29.3
7.56
6.12
3.0
-0.102
0.608
8/20/2011
4:46 PM
26.6
7.53
5.84
3.1
-0.007
0.439
8/21/2011
10:51 AM
27.9
7.48
5.97
3.0
0.130
0.259
8/21/2011
5:03 PM
27.4
7.53
5.93
3.1
0.402
0.306
8/22/2011
10:21 AM
27.6
7.57
6.00
3.1
0.156
0.072
8/22/2011
4:54 PM
28.6
7.63
6.07
3.1
0.015
0.352
8/23/2011
10:32 AM
28.1
7.63
6.03
3.1
-0.031
0.024
8/23/2011
4:14 PM
28.8
7.51
6.09
3.1
-0.223
0.399
8/24/2011
11:46 AM
27.2
7.63
5.91
3.0
0.036
0.399
8/24/2011
6:06 PM
27.4
7.53
5.94
3.1
0.737
0.186
8/25/2011
11:15 AM
27.2
7.61
5.95
3.1
0.528
0.119
8/25/2011
5:45 PM
26.8
7.58
5.90
3.1
1.180
0.155
8/26/2011
10:32 AM
27.6
7.55
6.01
3.1
0.776
0.124
8/26/2011
4:41PM
27.6
7.58
6.04
3.1
1.173
0.048
8/27/2011
11:11 AM
29.2
7.66
6.10
3.0
0.662
0.541
8/27/2011
5:51PM
27.0
7.58
5.90
3.0
0.365
0.141
8/28/2011
10:30 AM
27.7
7.59
5.99
3.1
0.357
0.403
8/28/2011
4:54 PM
27.8
7.63
6.01
3.1
0.200
0.090
8/29/2011
10:51 AM
27.3
7.63
5.90
3.0
0.487
0.106
8/29/2011
4:49 PM
28.0
7.53
6.09
3.1
0.231
0.195
9/2/2011
12:07 PM
31.9
7.55
6.34
3.0
-0.412
0.148
9/2/2011
5:27 PM
28.0
7.54
5.98
3.0
0.106
0.225
9/3/2011
10:52 AM
27.0
7.70
5.85
3.0
-0.511
0.176
9/4/2011
5:12 PM
29.6
7.48
6.19
3.1
0.189
0.393
9/5/2011
10:37 AM
28.2
7.55
6.05
3.1
0.258
0.623
9/5/2011
4:58 PM
26.6
7.47
5.81
3.0
-0.125
0.306
9/6/2011
10:21 AM
28.5
7.48
6.08
3.1
0.053
0.536
9/6/2011
4:49 PM
30.2
7.51
6.19
3.0
0.112
0.572
A-25
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
9/7/2011
10:18 AM
29.7
7.48
6.18
3.0
-0.390
0.221
Cont.
9/8/2011
10:26 AM
29.4
7.49
6.16
3.1
-0.345
0.678
9/9/2011
11:47 AM
29.8
7.50
6.22
3.0
-0.239
0.155
9/10/2011
12:00 PM
30.8
7.51
6.40
3.1
-0.550
0.444
9/12/2011
1:05 PM
30.8
7.46
6.31
3.0
-0.240
0.175
9/13/2011
12:18 PM
33.5
7.56
10.43
5.0
-0.366
0.198
9/14/2011
11:13 AM
31.9
7.49
6.91
3.3
-0.266
0.174
9/15/2011
11:00 AM
33.4
7.85
6.99
3.2
-0.348
0.313
9/16/2011
12:41PM
34.9
7.50
9.01
4.1
-0.501
0.288
9/17/2011
4:03 PM
31.2
7.49
11.04
5.5
-0.070
0.422
9/18/2011
12:49 PM
34.1
7.50
7.06
3.2
-0.086
0.127
9/19/2011
11:49 AM
32.2
7.53
12.59
6.2
-0.435
0.252
9/20/2011
10:50 AM
29.2
7.50
7.00
3.5
0.061
0.283
9/21/2011
10:27 AM
30.0
7.52
6.84
3.4
-0.652
0.384
9/23/2011
10:43 AM
28.2
7.49
6.76
3.5
-0.383
0.214
9/24/2011
9:45 AM
28.3
7.64
6.40
3.2
0.040
0.233
9/25/2011
11:54 AM
31.9
7.43
9.64
4.7
-0.227
0.407
9/26/2011
12:00 PM
32.1
7.51
7.43
3.6
-0.408
0.247
9/27/2011
10:36 AM
31.0
7.44
6.19
3.0
9/28/2011
10:26 AM
30.8
7.42
6.23
3.0
-0.478
0.057
9/29/2011
10:46 AM
30.8
7.43
6.18
3.0
-0.672
0.189
9/30/2011
10:45 AM
29.7
7.44
6.08
3.0
-0.705
0.287
10/1/2011
11:02 AM
33.4
7.64
6.59
3.0
-0.130
0.283
10/2/2011
1:48 PM
32.9
7.42
6.52
3.0
0.274
0.052
10/3/2011
10:38 AM
30.4
7.51
6.35
3.1
0.157
0.117
10/10/2011
12:47 PM
33.1
7.49
6.53
3.0
-0.506
0.377
10/12/2011
10:31 AM
30.5
7.51
6.08
2.9
0.330
0.269
10/14/2011
10:36 AM
30.1
7.51
6.46
3.1
1.103
0.244
10/16/2011
10:29 AM
31.4
7.49
6.85
3.0
0.647
0.213
10/18/2011
1:11PM
31.3
7.45
6.27
3.0
0.913
0.265
10/20/2011
10:52 AM
31.4
7.49
6.26
3.0
0.693
0.191
10/22/2011
10:26 AM
30.9
7.54
6.25
3.0
0.099
0.219
10/24/2011
10:40 AM
29.8
7.49
6.19
3.0
-0.140
0.143
10/26/2011
10:51 AM
30.8
7.44
6.33
3.1
-0.419
0.153
10/28/2011
10:44 AM
27.9
7.47
6.02
3.1
-0.110
0.077
10/30/2011
12:41PM
34.0
7.47
6.79
3.1
0.430
0.429
11/1/2011
12:49 PM
29.1
7.45
6.25
3.1
-0.208
0.349
11/3/2011
10:49 AM
31.3
7.45
6.48
3.1
0.355
0.241
11/5/2011
2:44 PM
32.8
7.49
6.66
3.1
-0.045
0.228
11/7/2011
10:33 AM
32.0
7.50
6.43
3.0
-0.023
0.227
11/9/2011
11:33 AM
30.4
7.47
6.33
3.1
-0.124
0.374
A-26
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
11/11/2011
11:04 AM
28.1
7.52
6.12
3.1
0.413
0.375
Cont.
11/14/2011
10:08 AM
29.1
7.34
6.12
3.0
-0.334
0.206
11/16/2011
11:09 AM
30.0
7.37
6.28
3.1
0.466
0.595
11/16/2011
11:09 AM
30.0
7.37
6.28
3.1
0.932
0.363
11/18/2011
11:29 AM
28.2
7.33
6.17
3.1
0.932
0.363
11/21/2011
11:05 AM
30.8
7.46
6.39
3.1
0.370
-0.161
11/23/2011
10:47 AM
29.8
7.45
6.25
3.1
-0.264
0.018
11/25/2011
11:27 AM
28.2
7.36
6.11
3.1
-0.159
0.138
11/28/2011
10:58 AM
29.8
7.39
6.23
3.1
0.043
0.180
11/30/2011
10:40 AM
27.3
7.36
6.15
3.2
0.288
0.069
12/2/2011
10:43 AM
27.1
7.33
6.50
3.4
1.048
0.345
12/5/2011
11:03 AM
27.7
7.42
6.79
3.5
0.232
0.331
12/7/2011
10:56 AM
29.2
7.36
8.28
4.2
-0.054
0.343
12/9/2011
10:35 AM
27.8
7.41
7.02
3.7
-0.004
0.482
12/12/2011
10:41 AM
25.8
7.49
6.80
3.7
0.678
0.675
12/14/2011
10:32 AM
26.1
7.34
8.09
4.4
0.247
1.027
12/16/2011
10:34 AM
28.3
7.33
7.42
3.8
0.473
0.852
12/19/2011
10:46 AM
27.3
7.44
7.77
4.1
12/21/2011
11:48 AM
28.3
7.39
8.15
4.2
12/26/2011
11:08 AM
27.6
7.41
9.14
4.8
12/28/2011
10:45 AM
26.9
7.41
13.80
7.6
12/30/2011
11:24 AM
29.5
7.69
17.01
9.1
1/2/2012
12:05 PM
28.9
7.49
27.82
15.6
1/7/2012
4:15 PM
27.9
7.33
28.12
16.4
0.686
2.85
1/9/2012
12:20 PM
29.1
7.65
32.31
18.4
0.898
1.766
1/11/2012
12:00 PM
24.9
7.54
34.75
21.8
1.456
2.007
1/13/2012
12:33 PM
28.0
7.50
31.39
18.3
0.907
2.88
1/16/2012
2:28 PM
27.9
7.46
32.51
19.1
1/19/2012
11:31 AM
28.5
7.54
19.09
10.4
0.620
6.26
1/21/2012
3:03 PM
27.8
7.53
23.17
13.2
0.672
6.08
1/23/2012
1:36 PM
26.2
7.51
32.25
19.7
0.882
4.74
1/25/2012
2:16 PM
28.1
7.35
29.88
17.3
0.970
5.19
1/27/2012
2:24 PM
26.5
7.57
24.80
14.6
1.110
7.05
1/31/2012
12:51PM
27.4
7.90
30.70
18.1
0.660
5.52
2/10/2012
1:30 PM
26.6
7.82
13.03
7.2
0.822
13.22
2/14/2012
3:13 PM
28.7
7.62
13.88
7.4
1.631
13.90
2/17/2012
1:00 PM
26.6
7.65
13.57
7.6
1.614
14.84
2/20/2012
3:14 PM
28.6
7.72
10.52
5.5
0.896
13.52
2/24/2012
12:36 PM
27.0
7.81
14.24
8.0
1.215
15.87
2/27/2012
12:24 PM
27.6
7.68
15.12
8.3
0.922
17.18
3/1/2012
1:04 PM
29.0
7.58
19.08
10.3
1.260
16.02
A-27
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
3/11/2012
12:38 PM
29.3
7.72
11.47
6.0
2.576
23.13
Cont.
3/14/2012
11:30 AM
26.8
7.67
13.25
7.4
-0.65
3/17/2012
10:57 AM
25.0
7.80
15.36
8.9
1.984
23.17
3/19/2012
11:05 AM
26.7
7.74
19.75
11.4
2.247
20.93
3/22/2012
11:20 AM
26.6
7.80
25.48
15.0
1.573
18.48
3/27/2012
11:17 AM
26.7
7.51
18.34
10.4
1.149
23.18
3/29/2012
11:49 AM
26.7
7.65
21.90
12.2
1.487
22.65
4/2/2012
11:44 AM
27.0
21.49
12.4
2.276
23.01
4/5/2012
9:52 AM
25.0
7.63
16.73
9.8
2.606
26.91
4/12/2012
10:22 AM
26.2
7.45
15.05
8.5
2.375
27.24
4/16/2012
11:25 AM
28.8
7.51
13.72
7.3
2.028
28.56
4/19/2012
12:34 PM
27.5
7.63
16.07
8.9
1.941
25.85
4/24/2012
4:21PM
26.5
7.80
20.18
11.7
2.223
24.82
4/26/2012
11:54 AM
28.9
7.59
16.22
00
00
2.420
28.10
5/2/2012
12:01PM
28.0
7.59
19.72
11.0
2.575
25.90
5/7/2012
11:22 AM
28.3
7.63
16.52
9.0
3.197
28.85
5/14/2012
10:40 AM
27.2
7.63
16.03
8.9
2.493
29.07
5/25/2012
3:57 PM
27.6
7.50
19.91
11.3
3.540
28.03
5/29/2012
3:13 PM
29.3
7.70
24.16
13.4
2.987
25.70
6/4/2012
3:29 PM
28.0
7.70
14.33
7.8
2.690
27.26
6/7/2012
1:35 PM
29.1
7.43
7.44
3.8
2.792
29.22
6/12/2012
12:44 PM
31.3
7.45
7.92
3.8
2.605
30.35
6/14/2012
3:54 PM
31.9
7.50
8.22
4.0
2.755
30.54
6/16/2012
1:18 PM
30.3
7.30
8.43
4.2
2.528
30.52
6/18/2012
11:51 AM
28.9
7.58
22.60
12.5
2.396
25.29
6/29/2012
1:49 PM
32.4
7.41
9.46
4.5
2.098
27.16
7/11/2012
2:50 PM
33.8
7.59
7.54
3.7
7/19/2012
11:55 AM
33.4
7.59
7.26
3.4
7/23/2012
11:23 AM
31.9
7.63
7.51
3.6
2.166
23.09
8/1/2012
11:05 AM
29.7
7.57
7.31
3.6
1.929
21.91
8/7/2012
10:40 AM
32.6
7.52
7.79
3.7
1.608
20.41
8/15/2012
11:49 AM
30.3
7.51
7.53
3.7
1.814
20.31
8/21/2012
11:00 AM
33.0
7.49
7.81
3.7
2.383
20.16
8/24/2012
12:50 PM
32.2
7.55
11.01
5.4
2.703
18.62
8/27/2012
11:00 AM
29.4
7.56
7.41
3.7
2.393
19.23
9/5/2012
11:10 AM
32.5
7.48
7.97
3.7
2.736
18.47
9/10/2012
2:05 PM
33.2
7.62
8.21
3.9
2.213
18.38
9/12/2012
11:06 AM
33.4
7.42
7.94
3.7
2.358
17.89
9/18/2012
1:10 PM
32.5
7.42
7.46
3.5
2.333
18.08
10/2/2012
12:33 PM
28.7
7.56
7.15
3.7
1.727
17.94
10/8/2012
3:12 PM
29.1
7.47
7.44
3.7
0.928
16.33
A-28
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec. Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 5
Cont.
10/12/2012
12:09 PM
29.3
7.52
8.25
4.2
1.822
15.82
10/18/2012
12:43 PM
31.7
7.57
7.52
3.6
1.132
15.69
10/22/2012
11:30 AM
29.3
7.59
8.00
4.0
1.186
15.73
10/26/2012
11:45 AM
29.4
7.59
7.46
3.7
1.450
16.14
10/29/2012
12:13 PM
28.4
7.52
7.24
3.7
1.897
15.81
11/2/2012
3:54 PM
30.4
7.55
7.01
3.5
1.118
15.08
11/8/2012
12:58 PM
29.2
7.58
7.20
3.6
0.950
15.06
11/12/2012
12:09 PM
28.1
7.51
7.07
3.7
1.574
14.81
11/19/2012
12:15 PM
29.8
7.57
7.31
3.6
1.262
14.63
11/27/2012
10:46 AM
27.1
7.60
7.35
3.9
1.246
13.02
12/6/2012
12:04 PM
28.8
7.48
7.05
3.6
1.473
13.19
12/10/2012
11:25 AM
28.8
7.53
7.04
3.6
1.782
13.16
12/14/2012
1:15 PM
29.5
7.51
7.91
4.0
1.432
12.83
12/29/2012
12:10 PM
28.9
7.51
8.14
4.2
1.944
12.12
Seep 11
1/21/2012
3:14 PM
28.9
7.37
5.00
3.2
1.186
8.498
1/23/2012
1:46 PM
26.3
7.44
5.93
3.1
1.511
9.375
1/27/2012
2:13 PM
26.3
7.54
5.96
3.1
1.443
10.15
2/14/2012
2:58 PM
28.1
7.67
6.37
3.3
1.832
16.89
2/17/2012
1:14 PM
28.4
7.61
6.60
3.3
2.300
16.65
2/20/2012
3:27 PM
25.9
7.67
7.03
3.8
2.163
18.62
2/24/2012
12:53 PM
26.6
7.64
7.83
4.2
1.368
19.40
2/27/2012
12:52 PM
28.4
7.66
6.39
3.2
1.000
20.27
3/1/2012
1:17 PM
29.0
7.56
6.54
3.2
1.712
21.36
3/11/2012
12:52 PM
28.8
7.60
6.36
3.2
1.987
24.80
3/14/2012
11:42 AM
25.2
7.68
6.03
3.2
3/17/2012
10:36 AM
26.6
7.59
6.02
3.2
2.483
26.63
3/19/2012
11:16 AM
26.6
7.62
6.35
3.3
2.460
27.81
3/22/2012
11:30 AM
26.3
7.58
8.32
4.5
2.954
27.13
3/27/2012
11:46 AM
26.6
7.58
6.30
3.3
2.374
28.28
3/29/2012
12:03 PM
26.8
7.57
6.27
3.3
1.803
29.01
3/31/2012
5:04 PM
26.1
6.84
3.4
3.062
30.24
4/2/2012
11:55 AM
26.7
6.27
3.3
3.193
30.65
4/5/2012
10:04 AM
25.6
7.48
6.08
3.3
3.025
31.23
4/12/2012
10:37 AM
26.5
7.46
6.28
3.3
2.877
31.88
4/16/2012
11:55 AM
28.9
7.50
6.56
3.3
2.402
32.61
4/19/2012
12:46 PM
28.5
7.59
6.65
3.4
1.929
30.89
4/24/2012
4:31PM
27.1
7.48
6.48
3.4
2.976
33.84
4/26/2012
12:14 PM
28.3
7.55
6.68
3.4
3.419
33.31
5/2/2012
12:14 PM
28.0
7.53
6.74
3.5
3.714
33.27
5/7/2012
11:52 AM
29.1
7.50
6.88
3.4
3.130
34.73
A-29
-------
Table
A-3 Cont.
Temp.
Spec. Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 11
5/18/2012
2:43 PM
30.9
7.65
7.21
3.5
2.800
29.08
Cont.
5/22/2012
4:20 PM
27.3
7.48
6.83
3.6
3.483
34.89
5/25/2012
4:09 PM
27.4
7.48
6.87
3.6
3.063
34.03
6/4/2012
3:12 PM
27.4
7.73
11.80
6.4
2.654
28.52
6/7/2012
1:46 PM
28.6
7.40
6.93
3.5
3.517
32.24
6/12/2012
12:56 PM
31.9
7.48
7.70
3.7
3.048
31.28
6/14/2012
4:04 PM
32.4
7.48
7.36
3.5
2.680
32.19
6/16/2012
1:30 PM
31.1
7.31
9.74
4.8
3.361
28.49
6/29/2012
2:02 PM
32.6
7.40
7.40
3.5
2.362
29.96
7/11/2012
3:02 PM
34.6
7.64
7.70
3.5
7/19/2012
12:08 PM
33.3
7.60
7.62
3.5
7/23/2012
11:51 AM
32.6
7.59
7.50
3.5
8/1/2012
11:31 AM
30.4
7.50
8.82
4.4
8/8/2012
12:47 PM
30.8
7.57
6.93
3.4
2.402
22.52
8/15/2012
12:03 PM
30.1
7.50
7.13
3.5
1.583
20.89
8/21/2012
11:30 AM
34.5
7.55
7.62
3.5
2.445
20.75
8/24/2012
1:03 PM
32.5
7.56
11.10
5.4
2.272
19.61
8/27/2012
11:13 AM
27.8
7.57
6.90
3.6
2.580
21.20
9/5/2012
11:26 AM
30.3
7.46
7.18
3.5
3.059
19.49
9/10/2012
2:21PM
33.2
7.60
7.61
3.5
2.489
18.77
9/12/2012
11:37 AM
33.3
7.47
7.79
3.6
2.497
18.35
9/18/2012
1:20 PM
31.1
7.46
7.39
3.6
1.898
18.51
10/2/2012
12:47 PM
28.6
7.52
6.79
3.4
1.734
17.39
10/8/2012
3:24 PM
29.2
7.49
7.05
3.6
1.607
16.98
10/22/2012
11:53 AM
29.4
7.57
7.26
3.7
1.270
15.72
10/26/2012
11:58 AM
29.8
7.58
7.18
3.6
1.530
15.81
10/29/2012
12:25 PM
29.3
7.50
6.97
3.5
1.514
15.31
11/2/2012
4:10 PM
31.5
7.55
7.11
3.4
1.061
14.99
11/8/2012
1:10 PM
29.8
7.57
6.84
3.4
1.238
15.13
11/12/2012
12:21PM
28.4
7.49
6.88
3.5
1.109
14.53
11/19/2012
12:29 PM
29.1
7.54
6.87
3.5
1.169
14.35
11/27/2012
11:28 AM
29.6
7.58
6.93
3.5
1.098
13.27
12/6/2012
12:16 PM
29.4
7.47
6.81
3.4
0.970
13.01
12/10/2012
11:48 AM
29.1
7.51
6.79
3.4
12/14/2012
1:28 PM
28.9
7.52
7.34
3.7
1.498
12.87
12/29/2012
12:24 PM
29.8
7.78
25.89
14.3
1.692
8.928
A-30
-------
Table A-4. North Seep Group (Seeps 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
and 21) water quality parameters. Parameters were measured with a handheld YSI Model
63 and field fluorescence measurements of S-Rhodamine-B (SRB) and Fluorescein (FLT)
analyzed with a handheld Aquafluor fluorometer model 8000-10 from 7/19/2011 to
12/28/2012. Missing fluorescence values are due to shipment of samples prior to analysis
in the field.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 1
7/19/2011
9:34 AM
28.3
7.48
7.83
4.0
-0.252
0.187
7/20/2011
10:11 AM
26.4
7.46
7.69
4.1
0.592
0.308
7/21/2011
8:42 AM
25.9
7.47
7.52
4.1
0.173
0.425
7/22/2011
10:14 AM
28.2
7.37
7.80
4.0
0.569
0.206
7/23/2011
9:37 AM
26.7
7.47
7.68
4.1
0.566
0.036
7/24/2011
9:33 AM
29.9
7.41
8.15
4.1
-0.078
-0.094
7/25/2011
10:00 AM
28.4
7.45
8.06
4.2
0.277
0.179
7/26/2011
9:37 AM
28.1
7.35
8.06
4.2
0.228
0.052
7/27/2011
10:23 AM
26.7
7.53
8.02
4.3
0.018
-0.252
7/28/2011
9:44 AM
28.8
7.37
8.40
4.3
0.843
0.188
7/28/2011
4:16 PM
28.3
7.33
7.68
3.9
0.752
-0.053
7/29/2011
9:51 AM
26.8
7.27
8.13
4.3
0.062
-0.040
7/29/2011
4:02 PM
27.9
7.41
7.69
4.0
-0.213
0.000
7/30/2011
10:55 AM
27.1
7.38
8.14
4.3
0.188
0.023
7/30/2011
4:37 PM
26.7
7.38
7.34
4.0
0.194
-0.073
7/31/2011
10:08 AM
29.7
7.39
8.65
4.4
-0.219
-0.122
7/31/2011
4:27 PM
28.1
7.38
8.15
4.2
0.077
0.145
8/1/2011
10:10 AM
27.4
7.39
8.05
4.2
0.607
-0.004
8/1/2011
3:53 PM
27.5
7.37
7.77
4.1
0.263
-0.009
8/2/2011
8:39 AM
25.3
7.42
7.37
4.0
0.179
-0.102
8/2/2011
3:43 PM
27.5
7.30
7.79
4.1
0.580
0.158
8/3/2011
9:52 AM
28.1
7.31
7.82
4.1
-0.200
-0.207
8/3/2011
4:04 PM
29.2
7.35
8.07
4.1
-0.023
-0.115
8/4/2011
10:52 AM
29.2
7.38
7.90
4.0
0.212
-0.035
8/4/2011
4:19 PM
29.3
7.35
7.41
4.1
0.463
-0.049
8/5/2011
10:30 AM
27.3
7.41
7.51
4.0
-0.097
-0.089
8/5/2011
4:48 PM
29.9
7.59
8.12
4.1
0.237
-0.097
8/6/2011
9:10 AM
26.8
7.36
7.82
4.2
-0.022
-0.154
8/6/2011
3:38 PM
31.3
7.36
8.25
4.0
-0.636
-0.129
8/7/2011
9:30 AM
26.0
7.51
7.78
4.2
0.334
-0.039
8/7/2011
3:52 PM
28.5
7.31
7.84
4.0
0.012
0.037
8/8/2011
9:35 AM
27.6
7.39
8.14
4.3
-0.100
-0.044
8/8/2011
3:43 PM
30.2
7.39
8.05
4.0
-0.127
-0.015
8/9/2011
9:38 AM
27.0
7.45
8.10
4.3
0.354
-0.097
8/9/2011
3:35 PM
29.4
7.45
7.97
4.0
-0.020
-0.030
A-31
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 1
8/10/2011
11:27 AM
29.1
7.70
8.25
4.3
0.763
0.047
Cont.
8/10/2011
4:15 PM
31.8
7.60
8.25
4.0
-0.080
-0.087
8/11/2011
9:34 AM
28.8
7.60
8.38
4.3
0.432
0.261
8/11/2011
4:02 PM
31.2
7.71
8.16
4.0
0.503
0.432
8/12/2011
9:34 AM
28.1
7.65
7.79
4.3
-0.374
0.149
8/12/2011
3:54 PM
32.0
7.63
8.50
4.1
-0.676
0.065
8/13/2011
9:32 AM
28.4
7.49
8.36
4.3
0.077
0.141
8/13/2011
3:35 PM
29.6
7.51
8.26
4.2
0.324
0.282
8/14/2011
9:56 AM
27.2
7.46
8.13
4.3
0.901
0.440
8/14/2011
3:49 PM
28.9
7.49
8.12
4.1
0.386
0.360
8/15/2011
12:39 AM
25.2
7.62
7.64
4.2
0.500
0.307
8/15/2011
9:20 AM
27.1
7.54
7.98
4.2
0.254
0.278
8/15/2011
3:33 PM
30.7
7.42
8.47
4.2
0.157
0.313
8/16/2011
9:55 AM
28.5
7.46
8.12
4.2
0.783
0.328
8/16/2011
3:25 PM
30.1
7.50
8.37
4.2
0.479
0.308
8/17/2011
10:23 AM
28.2
7.50
8.06
4.2
0.511
0.281
8/17/2011
4:11PM
30.9
7.41
8.39
4.1
0.024
0.510
8/18/2011
12:50 AM
24.8
7.54
7.57
4.2
0.297
0.271
8/18/2011
9:23 AM
29.2
7.54
8.03
4.1
0.161
0.237
8/18/2011
3:51PM
31.9
7.44
8.47
4.1
0.007
0.210
8/19/2011
9:51 AM
30.3
7.56
8.19
4.1
-0.045
0.169
8/19/2011
4:11PM
29.8
7.46
8.13
4.1
0.018
0.692
8/20/2011
10:07 AM
27.8
7.48
7.79
4.1
0.130
0.133
8/20/2011
4:12 PM
27.1
7.46
7.71
4.1
0.095
0.523
8/21/2011
10:03 AM
27.5
7.44
8.17
4.3
0.120
0.017
8/21/2011
4:09 PM
28.6
7.48
7.95
4.1
0.273
0.825
8/22/2011
9:38 AM
27.3
7.48
7.96
4.2
0.801
0.085
8/22/2011
4:18 PM
31.1
7.54
8.24
4.0
0.804
0.004
8/23/2011
9:43 AM
27.1
7.45
7.90
4.2
-0.667
0.111
8/23/2011
3:43 PM
28.1
7.41
7.72
4.0
0.024
0.213
8/24/2011
10:38 AM
27.2
7.49
8.01
4.2
-0.227
0.063
8/24/2011
5:01PM
29.4
7.51
7.32
4.0
-0.120
0.308
8/25/2011
10:08 AM
29.3
7.54
8.39
4.3
0.413
0.552
8/25/2011
4:44 PM
28.0
7.50
7.74
4.0
0.339
0.271
8/26/2011
9:45 AM
27.7
7.52
8.29
4.3
0.523
0.119
8/26/2011
3:54 PM
29.7
7.53
7.94
4.0
1.171
0.116
8/27/2011
9:38 AM
29.8
7.52
8.46
4.3
0.353
0.285
8/27/2011
4:12 PM
30.8
7.44
8.10
4.0
0.786
0.090
8/28/2011
9:36 AM
28.7
7.41
8.37
4.3
0.894
0.084
8/28/2011
3:54 PM
31.2
7.76
8.31
4.1
0.013
0.065
A-32
-------
Table
A-4
Spec.
Cont.
Temp.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 1
8/29/2011
9:57 AM
27.5
7.56
8.05
4.2
0.175
0.069
Cont.
8/29/2011
4:12 PM
29.1
7.47
7.97
4.0
0.490
0.137
8/30/2011
9:39 AM
29.1
7.49
7.52
4.1
0.049
0.210
9/1/2011
10:31 AM
30.2
7.50
8.19
4.1
-0.399
0.286
9/1/2011
4:23 PM
29.9
7.45
8.12
4.1
-0.227
0.186
9/2/2011
10:35 AM
29.2
7.46
7.92
4.0
-0.662
0.159
9/2/2011
4:06 PM
31.8
7.57
8.47
4.2
-0.473
0.416
9/3/2011
10:04 AM
27.4
7.60
7.72
4.0
-0.481
0.421
9/3/2011
4:18 PM
29.0
7.56
8.04
4.1
-0.490
0.361
9/4/2011
3:52 PM
32.8
7.42
8.53
4.0
-0.741
0.257
9/5/2011
9:55 AM
29.8
7.45
8.28
4.2
-0.241
0.318
9/5/2011
4:14 PM
28.0
7.43
7.75
4.0
-0.554
0.249
9/6/2011
9:39 AM
27.0
7.47
7.95
4.2
-0.201
0.221
9/6/2011
3:50 PM
30.8
7.27
8.18
4.0
-0.608
0.225
9/7/2011
9:19 AM
29.0
7.28
8.26
4.2
0.180
0.337
9/8/2011
9:29 AM
29.5
7.31
8.29
4.2
0.300
0.359
9/9/2011
10:19 AM
31.2
7.33
8.66
4.2
-0.334
0.286
9/10/2011
10:20 AM
28.5
7.20
8.84
4.6
-0.478
0.312
9/11/2011
10:35 AM
31.3
7.46
8.96
4.4
-0.145
0.282
9/12/2011
11:38 AM
30.8
7.42
10.16
5.1
-0.473
0.444
9/13/2011
10:36 AM
33.1
7.34
8.98
4.2
0.102
0.316
9/14/2011
9:42 AM
29.8
7.39
8.50
4.3
-0.259
0.178
9/15/2011
9:22 AM
30.8
7.41
8.54
4.2
-0.388
0.393
9/16/2011
11:16 AM
33.4
7.41
9.80
4.6
-0.463
0.212
9/17/2011
2:23 PM
33.7
7.30
12.39
5.9
0.073
0.208
9/18/2011
10:58 AM
34.3
7.26
14.80
6.7
-0.596
0.216
9/19/2011
10:02 AM
30.5
7.40
14.29
7.3
-0.476
0.240
9/20/2011
9:58 AM
31.5
7.51
10.49
5.2
-0.721
0.184
9/21/2011
9:39 AM
29.5
7.48
10.22
5.2
-0.529
0.299
9/22/2011
9:27 AM
25.0
7.18
9.54
5.3
-0.100
0.275
9/23/2011
9:58 AM
30.0
7.43
9.48
4.8
-0.180
0.494
9/24/2011
9:18 AM
30.3
7.45
11.35
5.8
-0.054
0.223
9/25/2011
10:20 AM
32.4
7.44
7.64
4.1
-0.195
0.232
9/26/2011
10:05 AM
30.8
7.45
10.27
5.1
0.303
0.476
9/27/2011
9:44 AM
29.6
7.44
8.19
4.1
-0.793
0.152
9/28/2011
9:44 AM
29.5
7.42
8.11
4.1
-0.861
0.026
9/29/2011
9:46 AM
27.5
7.41
7.73
4.0
-0.034
0.143
9/30/2011
9:49 AM
29.5
7.46
8.21
4.1
-0.663
0.154
10/1/2011
10:04 AM
30.9
7.48
8.28
4.1
-0.041
-0.086
10/2/2011
12:15 PM
34.4
7.41
8.65
4.0
0.044
-0.093
A-33
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 1
Cont.
10/3/2011
9:50 AM
27.3
7.43
7.77
4.1
0.243
0.017
10/4/2011
9:22 AM
27.8
7.50
8.04
4.2
0.299
0.018
10/8/2011
4:20 PM
28.9
7.40
8.02
4.1
-0.080
0.360
10/10/2011
12:05 PM
33.3
7.44
8.62
4.0
-0.416
0.376
10/12/2011
9:29 AM
29.4
7.43
7.94
4.0
0.715
0.361
10/14/2011
9:27 AM
29.1
7.37
7.99
4.1
0.335
0.253
10/16/2011
9:27 AM
28.0
7.41
8.28
4.3
0.514
0.244
10/18/2011
11:43 AM
33.1
7.47
8.83
4.1
0.388
0.067
10/20/2011
9:29 AM
28.2
7.38
8.02
4.2
0.426
0.325
10/22/2011
9:34 AM
29.6
7.43
8.04
4.0
-0.037
0.158
10/24/2011
9:31 AM
29.6
7.46
8.23
4.1
-0.100
0.212
10/26/2011
9:30 AM
28.4
7.55
8.00
4.1
0.304
0.284
10/28/2011
9:35 AM
27.1
7.43
7.62
4.0
0.571
0.251
10/30/11
11:32 AM
33.0
7.43
8.48
4.0
-0.053
0.552
11/1/2011
11:29 AM
32.3
7.53
8.42
4.1
-0.238
0.248
11/3/2011
9:46 AM
29.6
7.41
8.22
4.1
-0.087
0.455
11/5/2011
1:34 PM
29.2
7.46
8.09
4.1
0.109
0.465
11/9/2011
10:11 AM
28.6
7.48
8.11
4.2
-0.316
0.764
11/11/2011
10:05 AM
27.1
7.48
8.09
4.3
-0.050
0.620
Seep 2
7/20/2011
12:16 PM
29.1
7.35
7.91
4.0
-0.038
-0.279
7/21/2011
8:38 AM
25.1
7.43
7.41
4.1
-0.099
-0.280
7/22/2011
10:20 AM
28.6
7.39
8.01
4.1
0.580
0.145
7/23/2011
9:45 AM
26.5
7.46
7.66
4.1
-0.152
0.135
7/25/2011
10:08 AM
27.6
7.50
7.97
4.0
0.529
-0.095
7/26/2011
9:45 AM
27.6
7.44
8.09
4.2
0.788
0.094
7/27/2011
10:33 AM
26.6
7.47
8.01
4.3
0.147
0.045
7/28/2011
9:53 AM
28.6
7.39
8.25
4.3
1.049
-0.110
7/28/2011
4:25 PM
27.5
7.13
7.45
3.9
0.172
0.052
7/29/2011
10:00 AM
26.8
7.35
8.06
4.3
0.877
0.081
7/29/2011
4:09 PM
27.5
7.38
7.46
3.9
0.173
0.119
7/30/2011
11:04 AM
26.9
7.39
8.11
4.3
-0.242
-0.007
7/30/2011
4:44 PM
27.9
7.33
7.49
3.8
0.252
0.070
7/31/2011
10:14 AM
30.0
7.41
8.53
4.3
0.165
0.016
7/31/2011
4:20 PM
28.3
7.34
7.04
4.0
0.839
0.121
8/1/2011
3:59 AM
28.5
7.39
8.13
4.2
0.114
0.149
8/1/2011
9:56 AM
26.9
7.31
7.60
4.0
0.702
0.079
8/2/2011
8:46 AM
25.6
7.42
7.48
4.1
0.159
-0.027
8/2/2011
3:49 PM
27.8
7.35
7.89
4.1
-0.293
-0.137
8/3/2011
12:13 AM
24.3
7.23
7.38
4.1
0.179
-0.016
A-34
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 2
8/3/2011
9:45 AM
28.3
7.13
8.36
4.4
-0.049
0.017
Cont.
8/3/2011
4:11PM
29.2
7.37
8.13
4.1
-0.315
-0.211
8/4/2011
10:41 AM
31.4
7.28
7.92
3.9
0.411
-0.128
8/4/2011
4:12 PM
29.3
7.25
7.91
4.1
-0.164
-0.053
8/5/2011
12:37 AM
24.9
7.37
7.49
4.1
0.392
-0.030
8/5/2011
10:46 AM
27.3
7.41
7.62
4.0
-0.380
-0.205
8/5/2011
4:58 PM
29.8
7.64
8.32
4.2
-0.221
-0.035
8/6/2011
12:58 AM
24.0
7.23
7.53
4.2
-0.253
-0.074
8/6/2011
9:00 AM
27.0
7.30
7.95
4.2
-0.437
-0.059
8/6/2011
3:46 PM
30.8
7.27
8.28
4.1
0.173
-0.044
8/7/2011
3:15 AM
24.9
7.34
7.68
4.3
-0.293
-0.276
8/7/2011
9:20 AM
26.0
7.32
7.79
4.3
-0.590
-0.132
8/7/2011
4:01PM
28.2
7.33
7.94
4.1
0.552
-0.101
8/7/2011
11:25 PM
25.2
7.28
7.59
4.2
-0.339
-0.217
8/8/2011
9:27 AM
26.7
7.36
8.10
4.3
0.282
-0.151
8/8/2011
3:48 PM
30.2
7.41
7.41
4.0
0.138
0.085
8/9/2011
12:08 AM
26.5
7.42
7.64
4.1
0.368
0.024
8/9/2011
9:30 AM
27.1
7.44
8.24
4.4
0.377
0.119
8/9/2011
3:45 PM
29.4
7.45
7.92
4.0
-0.334
0.121
8/10/2011
12:00 AM
25.2
7.75
7.58
4.2
0.455
-0.026
8/10/2011
11:18 AM
30.5
7.65
8.64
4.3
0.265
0.102
8/10/2011
4:19 PM
30.5
7.59
8.07
4.0
0.094
0.115
8/11/2011
12:26 AM
25.6
7.67
7.58
4.2
0.468
-0.004
8/11/2011
9:26 AM
29.2
7.56
7.87
4.3
0.031
0.238
8/11/2011
4:09 PM
30.6
7.67
7.95
3.9
-0.264
0.094
8/12/2011
12:25 AM
24.5
7.68
7.59
4.2
-0.208
0.047
8/12/2011
9:27 AM
27.8
7.65
7.72
4.3
0.169
0.005
8/13/2011
12:28 AM
25.2
7.58
7.67
4.2
0.067
0.267
8/13/2011
9:25 AM
28.4
7.54
8.31
4.3
0.060
0.293
8/13/2011
3:45 PM
29.7
7.37
8.22
4.1
-0.261
0.082
8/14/2011
12:23 AM
24.7
7.56
7.64
4.2
0.867
0.457
8/14/2011
9:40 AM
28.1
7.43
8.03
4.2
0.790
0.406
8/14/2011
3:54 PM
28.1
7.43
8.03
4.2
0.147
0.296
8/15/2011
9:27 AM
26.9
7.53
7.95
4.2
0.439
0.329
8/15/2011
3:39 PM
29.5
7.49
8.31
4.2
-0.129
0.310
8/16/2011
10:08 AM
28.0
7.50
8.08
4.2
0.065
0.233
8/16/2011
3:16 PM
30.1
7.48
8.42
4.2
0.194
0.210
8/17/2011
10:32 AM
28.9
7.54
8.24
4.2
-0.075
0.135
8/17/2011
4:03 PM
31.3
7.47
8.53
4.2
-0.320
0.210
8/18/2011
9:38 AM
29.3
7.49
8.07
4.1
0.097
0.163
A-35
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 2
8/18/2011
3:41PM
32.1
7.54
8.63
4.1
-0.027
0.265
Cont.
8/19/2011
9:34 AM
29.3
7.65
8.00
4.1
0.154
0.325
8/19/2011
4:03 PM
29.8
7.49
8.14
4.1
0.098
0.128
8/20/2011
10:02 AM
28.8
7.46
7.97
4.1
0.181
0.100
8/20/2011
4:05 PM
27.4
7.47
7.80
4.1
0.214
0.628
8/21/2011
9:53 AM
26.5
7.44
7.70
4.1
-0.296
0.055
8/21/2011
4:03 PM
28.5
7.47
7.98
4.1
0.213
0.471
8/22/2011
9:31 AM
28.5
7.48
8.11
4.2
0.064
0.394
8/22/2011
4:11PM
31.1
7.57
8.32
4.1
-0.241
0.197
8/24/2011
5:10 PM
29.3
7.55
7.96
4.0
0.268
0.108
8/25/2011
9:58 AM
29.6
7.47
8.49
4.3
-0.120
0.538
8/25/2011
4:34 PM
28.5
7.51
7.78
4.0
0.496
0.219
8/26/2011
9:38 AM
27.7
7.50
8.29
4.3
0.446
-0.005
8/26/2011
3:47 PM
30.6
7.49
7.94
3.9
0.213
0.181
8/27/2011
9:48 AM
29.1
7.49
8.40
4.3
0.309
0.033
8/27/2011
4:23 PM
29.4
7.59
7.83
3.9
0.452
0.175
8/28/2011
9:45 AM
28.3
7.52
8.20
4.2
-0.231
0.106
8/28/2011
4:02 PM
30.9
7.58
8.12
4.0
0.182
0.178
8/29/2011
9:49 AM
27.3
7.47
7.97
4.2
0.068
0.094
8/29/2011
4:05 PM
28.6
7.46
7.76
4.0
0.085
0.063
8/30/2011
9:33 AM
28.7
7.49
7.95
4.1
0.116
0.489
9/1/2011
10:49 AM
29.6
7.59
8.11
4.1
-0.355
0.369
9/1/2011
4:13 PM
30.3
7.51
8.33
4.2
-0.315
0.194
9/2/2011
10:23 AM
28.9
7.44
8.00
4.1
-0.435
0.156
9/2/2011
3:55 PM
31.2
7.75
8.74
4.3
-0.311
0.388
9/3/2011
9:56 AM
27.9
7.65
7.98
4.2
0.155
0.579
9/3/2011
4:09 PM
29.5
7.56
8.18
4.1
-0.608
0.335
9/4/2011
3:40 PM
33.8
7.55
8.79
4.1
-0.538
0.282
9/5/2011
9:46 AM
29.6
7.48
8.41
4.2
-0.318
0.145
9/5/2011
4:05 PM
28.3
7.46
7.91
4.1
-0.235
0.207
9/6/2011
9:32 AM
27.0
7.47
8.25
4.4
-0.283
0.599
9/6/2011
3:59 PM
31.5
7.48
8.46
4.1
-0.046
0.575
9/7/2011
9:27 AM
29.0
7.47
8.39
4.3
-0.337
0.595
9/8/2011
9:38 AM
29.6
7.48
8.38
4.2
-0.689
0.137
9/9/2011
10:30 AM
32.1
7.54
9.26
4.4
-0.193
0.488
9/10/2011
10:32 AM
27.4
7.48
9.28
4.9
-0.374
0.286
9/11/2011
10:20 AM
29.0
7.35
11.94
6.2
-0.342
0.491
9/12/2011
11:26 AM
31.4
7.31
10.85
5.4
-0.184
0.458
9/13/2011
10:50 AM
33.7
7.49
9.20
4.3
-0.052
0.303
9/14/2011
9:55 AM
30.2
7.52
9.17
4.6
-0.269
0.211
A-36
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 2
Cont.
9/15/2011
9:34 AM
31.2
7.49
8.73
4.3
-0.068
0.394
9/16/2011
11:27 AM
33.6
7.48
9.00
4.2
-0.224
0.243
9/17/2011
2:38 PM
33.9
7.52
12.72
6.1
-0.341
0.342
9/18/2011
11:13 AM
34.5
7.51
14.58
7.0
-0.399
0.112
9/19/2011
10:18 AM
29.9
7.51
13.06
6.8
-0.548
0.185
9/20/2011
9:49 AM
31.2
7.45
13.24
6.7
-0.433
0.291
9/21/2011
9:30 AM
27.7
7.44
11.27
6.0
0.318
0.254
9/22/2011
9:36 AM
26.2
7.51
17.36
9.9
-0.261
0.202
9/23/2011
9:39 AM
29.3
7.19
10.98
5.7
0.603
0.138
9/24/2011
9:09 AM
29.7
7.46
12.23
6.3
0.226
0.184
9/25/2011
10:02 AM
33.6
7.39
9.59
4.5
-0.307
0.284
9/26/2011
10:18 AM
31.4
7.52
10.48
5.2
0.160
0.124
9/27/2011
9:35 AM
28.7
7.47
8.23
4.2
-1.185
0.127
9/28/2011
9:35 AM
29.5
7.44
8.08
4.1
-0.684
0.227
9/29/2011
9:34 AM
27.4
7.45
7.88
4.1
-0.039
0.419
9/30/2011
9:39 AM
29.0
7.47
8.22
4.2
-0.566
0.258
10/1/2011
9:55 AM
30.0
7.51
8.58
4.3
0.231
-0.012
10/2/2011
12:27 PM
34.9
7.48
8.88
4.1
0.197
0.182
10/3/2011
9:40 AM
28.1
7.46
8.74
4.6
0.632
0.300
10/4/2011
9:34 AM
28.6
7.49
8.60
4.4
0.630
-0.029
10/8/2011
4:30 PM
28.7
7.46
7.90
4.0
-0.164
0.419
10/10/2011
11:57 AM
33.9
7.46
8.72
4.0
-0.203
0.359
10/12/2011
9:38 AM
30.2
7.49
8.00
4.0
-0.131
0.419
10/14/2011
9:34 AM
29.9
7.48
8.09
4.1
0.178
0.148
10/16/2011
9:36 AM
27.9
7.50
8.39
4.4
0.558
0.223
10/18/2011
11:58 AM
34.3
7.52
9.44
4.4
0.483
0.174
10/20/2011
9:40 AM
28.2
7.51
8.04
4.2
1.172
0.173
10/22/2011
9:41 AM
30.2
7.50
8.09
4.0
-0.107
0.046
10/24/2011
9:41 AM
30.2
7.51
8.13
4.1
-0.211
0.264
10/26/2011
9:40 AM
28.4
7.50
7.92
4.1
-0.233
0.209
10/28/2011
9:45 AM
27.3
7.47
7.68
4.0
0.508
0.181
10/30/11
11:44 AM
34.1
7.50
8.66
4.0
-0.302
0.346
11/1/11
11:42 AM
33.5
7.51
8.52
4.0
-0.341
0.500
11/3/11
9:39 AM
29.4
7.50
7.99
4.0
-0.121
0.447
11/5/2011
1:22 PM
30.1
7.49
8.13
4.1
0.109
0.543
11/7/2011
9:41 AM
26.5
7.43
7.53
4.1
0.649
0.558
11/9/2011
9:58 AM
28.3
7.51
8.12
4.2
0.537
0.583
Seep 6
7/19/2011
9:25 AM
27.8
7.36
7.91
4.1
-0.322
0.041
7/20/2011
9:59 AM
27.0
7.21
7.78
4.1
0.046
-0.116
A-37
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 6
7/21/2011
8:25 AM
25.0
7.20
7.00
3.8
0.730
0.044
Cont.
7/22/2011
10:03 AM
27.9
7.31
7.71
4.0
0.224
-0.053
7/23/2011
9:57 AM
27.1
7.40
7.72
4.1
0.070
-0.161
7/24/2011
9:48 AM
27.8
7.43
7.99
4.2
0.939
-0.062
7/25/2011
10:16 AM
26.0
7.46
7.72
4.2
0.018
-0.165
7/26/2011
9:55 AM
27.3
7.40
8.02
4.2
0.152
-0.227
7/28/2011
9:32 AM
27.9
7.29
7.67
4.2
0.237
0.113
7/28/2011
4:07 PM
29.5
7.23
7.78
3.9
0.670
0.045
7/29/2011
1:27 AM
23.8
7.25
7.20
4.1
-0.203
0.073
7/29/2011
9:43 AM
27.1
7.22
7.97
4.2
0.002
0.020
7/29/2011
3:55 PM
28.6
7.29
7.76
4.0
0.344
-0.120
7/30/2011
12:35 AM
24.5
7.28
7.35
4.1
-0.080
-0.020
7/30/2011
4:24 PM
27.0
7.34
8.10
4.3
0.760
-0.080
7/31/2011
10:00 AM
27.6
7.38
7.73
4.0
0.140
-0.025
7/30/2011
11:09 AM
23.9
7.37
7.34
4.1
0.716
-0.021
7/31/2011
4:10 PM
29.5
7.37
8.52
4.3
-0.243
-0.042
7/31/2011
12:42 AM
29.0
7.30
8.09
4.1
0.811
-0.021
8/1/2011
10:04 AM
27.3
7.34
7.97
4.2
0.141
-0.072
8/1/2011
3:47 PM
29.4
7.32
8.10
4.1
-0.139
-0.234
8/2/2011
8:29 AM
25.5
7.35
7.43
4.1
-0.341
-0.039
8/2/2011
3:35 PM
29.4
7.30
8.14
4.1
0.015
-0.113
8/3/2011
9:58 AM
28.3
7.33
7.96
4.1
0.424
-0.019
8/3/2011
3:55 PM
30.4
7.21
8.26
4.1
-0.109
-0.123
8/4/2011
10:56 AM
29.5
7.32
8.12
4.1
-0.174
-0.030
8/4/2011
4:25 PM
28.3
7.40
8.13
4.0
-0.434
-0.137
8/5/2011
10:31 AM
27.5
7.27
7.71
4.1
0.653
-0.023
8/5/2011
4:37 PM
30.6
7.59
7.43
4.1
-0.214
-0.071
8/6/2011
9:20 AM
27.0
7.36
7.87
4.2
-0.343
-0.225
8/6/2011
3:30 PM
32.1
7.23
8.47
4.1
0.309
0.115
8/7/2011
9:40 AM
26.1
7.31
7.85
4.2
0.316
-0.065
8/7/2011
3:43 PM
29.1
7.30
7.91
4.0
-0.353
-0.020
8/8/2011
9:42 AM
27.6
7.35
8.22
4.3
-0.021
-0.146
8/8/2011
3:34 PM
31.6
7.33
8.31
4.0
-0.137
-0.086
8/9/2011
9:48 AM
27.3
7.38
8.21
4.3
0.691
0.017
8/9/2011
3:30 PM
29.8
7.42
8.10
4.1
0.650
-0.068
8/10/2011
11:30 AM
29.3
7.69
8.47
4.3
0.480
-0.043
8/10/2011
4:05 PM
31.9
7.60
8.29
4.0
0.634
-0.229
8/11/2011
9:37 AM
29.3
7.58
8.49
4.3
-0.055
0.302
8/11/2011
3:55 PM
31.4
7.63
8.12
3.9
-0.647
0.119
8/12/2011
9:41 AM
28.1
7.71
8.26
4.3
-0.360
0.270
A-38
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 6
8/12/2011
3:37 PM
33.0
7.70
8.53
4.0
0.273
0.126
Cont.
8/13/2011
9:40 AM
27.3
7.49
8.15
4.3
-0.405
0.181
8/13/2011
3:23 PM
30.6
7.47
8.51
4.2
-0.795
0.084
8/14/2011
4:01PM
28.0
7.34
8.03
4.2
1.301
0.306
8/15/2011
9:34 AM
27.0
7.54
7.98
4.2
0.776
0.371
8/15/2011
3:47 PM
29.5
7.43
8.32
4.2
-0.026
0.398
8/16/2011
2:39 AM
24.3
7.45
7.59
4.2
0.441
0.386
8/16/2011
9:47 AM
28.6
7.47
8.18
4.2
-0.063
0.301
8/16/2011
3:33 PM
30.0
7.55
8.32
4.2
0.056
0.217
8/17/2011
12:25 AM
24.7
7.54
7.60
4.2
0.824
0.239
8/17/2011
10:08 AM
28.9
7.51
8.04
4.1
-0.090
0.094
8/18/2011
9:55 AM
30.0
7.46
8.13
4.1
0.148
0.339
8/18/2011
4:00 PM
31.6
7.41
8.51
4.1
0.286
0.197
8/19/2011
9:43 AM
29.2
7.44
8.01
4.1
0.400
0.286
8/19/2011
3:56 PM
30.7
7.34
8.23
4.0
-0.408
0.012
8/20/2011
9:54 AM
29.4
7.41
8.04
4.0
0.062
0.506
8/20/2011
3:57 PM
28.1
7.61
7.87
4.1
-0.063
0.405
8/21/2011
9:49 AM
26.5
7.47
7.80
4.2
0.704
0.225
8/21/2011
4:16 PM
28.3
7.94
7.48
4.1
0.604
0.145
8/22/2011
9:25 AM
29.0
7.40
8.20
4.2
0.138
0.160
8/22/2011
4:04 PM
31.0
7.73
8.32
4.1
-0.137
0.116
8/23/2011
9:35 AM
28.2
7.21
8.19
4.2
-0.005
0.174
8/23/2011
3:36 PM
28.8
7.38
7.82
4.0
0.513
0.068
8/24/2011
10:26 AM
27.6
7.23
8.22
4.3
0.060
0.217
8/24/2011
4:50 PM
29.5
7.45
7.94
4.0
-0.134
0.443
8/25/2011
10:18 AM
28.9
7.51
8.34
4.3
0.141
0.007
8/25/2011
4:25 PM
28.8
7.53
7.89
4.0
0.420
0.243
8/26/2011
9:30 AM
29.0
7.50
8.73
4.4
0.806
0.169
8/26/2011
3:38 PM
30.4
7.72
8.01
4.0
0.339
0.109
8/27/2011
9:57 AM
29.1
7.65
8.40
4.3
0.648
0.108
8/27/2011
4:32 PM
29.9
7.57
7.95
4.0
0.669
0.280
8/28/2011
9:52 AM
28.5
7.51
8.26
4.3
0.331
0.191
8/28/2011
4:08 PM
30.7
7.56
8.19
4.0
0.179
0.514
8/29/2011
9:39 AM
28.2
7.28
8.02
4.1
0.089
0.021
8/29/2011
3:55 PM
29.4
7.22
7.97
4.0
0.351
0.197
8/30/2011
9:24 AM
29.4
7.18
7.77
3.9
0.552
0.482
9/1/2011
11:00 AM
30.9
7.70
9.67
4.8
-0.162
0.372
9/1/2011
4:33 PM
31.9
7.50
8.69
4.2
0.082
0.280
9/2/2011
10:46 AM
30.5
7.55
8.26
4.1
-0.268
0.147
9/2/2011
4:16 PM
32.5
7.57
10.67
5.1
-0.191
0.182
A-39
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Temp.
Spec.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 6
9/3/2011
9:45 AM
27.4
7.67
7.86
4.1
0.048
0.149
Cont.
9/3/2011
3:59 PM
30.0
7.55
8.27
4.1
0.081
0.399
9/4/2011
4:05 PM
34.2
7.42
9.88
4.6
0.189
0.436
9/5/2011
9:32 AM
31.1
7.42
8.54
4.2
-0.476
0.284
9/5/2011
3:57 PM
29.1
7.33
7.96
4.0
0.376
0.145
9/6/2011
9:24 AM
26.8
7.33
7.97
4.2
-0.275
0.232
9/6/2011
4:07 PM
32.0
7.43
8.40
4.0
0.107
0.351
9/7/2011
9:36 AM
29.0
7.42
8.26
4.2
-0.294
0.360
9/8/2011
9:46 AM
29.5
7.43
8.29
4.2
-0.742
0.816
9/9/2011
10:40 AM
34.8
7.43
9.18
4.2
-0.011
0.463
9/10/2011
10:42 AM
30.1
7.40
7.79
4.3
-0.739
0.167
9/11/2011
10:48 AM
32.5
7.37
8.98
4.3
0.217
0.209
9/12/2011
12:00 PM
30.9
7.36
8.66
4.3
0.576
0.389
9/13/2011
11:02 AM
33.3
7.40
8.99
4.2
-0.482
0.341
9/14/2011
10:05 AM
31.3
7.39
8.16
4.2
-0.217
0.347
9/15/2011
9:46 AM
32.0
7.41
8.69
4.2
-0.323
0.254
9/16/2011
11:37 AM
33.7
7.42
8.92
4.2
-0.548
0.379
9/17/2011
2:48 PM
32.2
7.46
11.58
5.7
-0.429
0.588
9/18/2011
11:25 AM
35.9
7.50
10.23
5.7
0.006
0.251
9/19/2011
10:32 AM
30.2
7.50
13.54
7.0
-0.418
0.499
9/20/2011
9:40 AM
30.3
7.06
8.68
4.3
-0.415
0.510
9/21/2011
9:21 AM
28.2
7.34
9.49
5.0
-0.600
0.224
9/22/2011
9:48 AM
28.7
7.52
12.31
6.5
-0.150
0.396
9/23/2011
9:50 AM
29.9
7.42
9.18
4.6
0.115
0.487
9/24/2011
8:57 AM
30.0
7.31
9.65
4.8
0.154
0.232
9/25/2011
10:33 AM
33.3
7.41
9.71
5.4
-0.152
0.126
9/26/2011
10:36 AM
31.9
7.47
12.01
5.9
-0.576
0.221
9/27/2011
9:25 AM
29.7
6.90
9.15
4.6
-1.226
0.141
9/28/2011
9:26 AM
29.9
7.20
8.06
4.0
-0.546
0.163
9/29/2011
9:21 AM
27.4
7.21
7.72
4.0
-0.729
0.340
9/30/2011
9:28 AM
28.9
7.23
8.07
4.1
0.092
0.174
10/1/2011
9:45 AM
29.8
7.44
8.47
4.2
0.265
0.041
10/2/2011
12:03 PM
33.5
7.27
8.53
4.0
0.194
0.057
10/3/2011
9:30 AM
27.6
7.25
7.71
4.0
0.486
-0.041
10/4/2011
9:47 AM
29.1
7.47
8.10
4.1
0.586
-0.024
10/6/2011
12:18 PM
30.5
7.32
8.39
4.1
0.626
0.472
10/8/2011
4:09 PM
29.5
7.35
8.02
4.0
-0.366
0.473
10/10/2011
11:49 AM
34.2
7.30
8.69
4.0
0.295
0.328
10/12/2011
9:20 AM
28.7
7.46
7.95
4.1
0.011
0.559
10/14/2011
9:47 AM
28.0
7.44
7.96
4.1
0.376
0.338
A-40
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 6
Cont.
10/16/2011
9:46 AM
28.1
7.43
8.27
4.3
0.489
0.161
10/18/2011
11:32 AM
32.6
7.30
9.00
4.3
0.146
0.157
10/20/2011
9:53 AM
28.8
7.42
8.11
4.1
0.222
0.236
10/22/2011
9:51 AM
30.8
7.46
8.12
4.0
0.232
0.234
10/24/2011
9:51 AM
29.2
7.43
8.08
4.1
0.418
0.217
10/26/2011
9:58 AM
28.4
7.42
7.93
4.1
-0.114
0.264
10/28/2011
9:25 AM
27.0
7.41
7.58
4.0
-0.165
0.293
10/30/2011
11:18 AM
32.2
7.35
8.29
4.0
-0.085
0.506
11/1/2011
11:52 AM
31.9
7.42
8.49
4.1
0.137
0.383
11/3/2011
9:53 AM
29.7
7.39
8.20
4.1
0.228
0.456
11/5/2011
1:07 PM
30.4
7.35
8.26
4.1
-0.225
0.626
11/7/2011
9:31 AM
26.1
7.64
7.60
4.1
0.000
0.559
11/9/2011
9:39 AM
29.3
7.30
8.18
4.1
-0.108
0.670
11/11/2011
9:54 AM
25.4
7.32
7.92
4.3
-0.405
0.634
11/16/2011
9:49 AM
27.7
7.42
7.59
3.9
0.167
0.974
11/18/2011
10:02 AM
29.8
7.70
9.43
4.8
0.596
0.718
11/21/2011
9:37 AM
28.3
7.24
8.03
4.2
0.909
1.007
11/23/2011
9:34 AM
27.4
7.27
7.60
4.0
0.533
1.183
Seep 7
11/16/2011
9:10 AM
27.9
7.29
7.83
4.1
0.116
0.988
11/18/2011
9:45 AM
27.4
7.28
7.76
4.1
0.951
1.387
11/21/2011
9:49 AM
28.5
7.34
7.71
4.0
0.171
0.991
11/23/2011
9:57 AM
27.2
7.45
7.61
4.0
-0.164
1.160
11/25/2011
10:08 AM
28.0
7.40
8.01
4.2
0.499
1.389
11/28/2011
9:41 AM
24.9
7.42
11.46
6.5
0.302
1.583
11/30/2011
10:39 AM
26.0
7.46
7.50
4.0
0.391
1.920
12/2/2011
9:44 AM
26.1
7.45
7.72
4.2
0.595
2.175
12/5/2011
10:03 AM
29.6
7.43
7.98
4.0
1.429
2.727
12/9/2011
9:39 AM
23.9
7.47
7.24
4.1
0.352
3.355
12/12/2011
9:32 AM
25.1
7.43
7.29
3.9
0.319
3.969
12/14/2011
9:25 AM
27.7
7.26
7.67
4.0
0.067
4.663
12/19/2011
9:58 AM
27.3
7.35
7.60
4.0
12/21/2011
10:18 AM
26.4
7.44
7.64
4.1
12/23/2011
10:10 AM
22.4
7.80
7.83
4.6
12/26/2011
10:14 AM
27.0
7.57
7.76
4.1
12/28/2011
10:06 AM
29.5
7.42
8.19
4.1
12/30/2011
10:21 AM
27.7
7.57
8.44
4.4
1/2/2012
10:18 AM
28.4
7.54
15.08
8.2
1/4/2012
2:48 PM
29.3
7.59
8.35
4.2
0.91
9.088
1/7/2012
2:46 PM
29.1
7.46
8.26
4.2
1.28
10.23
A-41
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 7
Cont.
1/9/2012
11:11 AM
28.1
7.32
7.80
4.0
1.26
6.102
1/11/2012
10:55 AM
25.6
7.48
7.46
4.0
1.22
11.57
1/13/2012
11:25 AM
27.7
7.44
7.95
4.1
1.43
11.75
1/16/2012
1:04 PM
29.0
7.44
8.05
4.1
1/19/2012
10:12 AM
26.0
7.52
7.97
4.3
1.110
12.73
1/21/2012
4:00 PM
29.9
7.55
8.38
4.2
1.892
13.40
1/23/2012
11:30 AM
28.9
7.50
8.09
4.1
2.179
13.97
1/25/2012
9:43 AM
25.9
7.58
7.55
4.1
1.672
15.05
1/27/2012
12:20 PM
29.8
7.81
8.32
4.1
2.339
14.30
1/31/2012
11:13 AM
28.5
7.47
8.00
4.1
1.481
15.18
2/10/2012
12:06 AM
27.7
7.54
8.15
4.3
1.352
16.91
2/14/2012
1:17 PM
30.3
7.45
8.48
4.2
1.583
18.57
2/17/2012
11:20 AM
26.9
7.56
7.97
4.2
2.219
19.58
2/20/2012
1:46 PM
28.4
7.66
8.15
4.3
1.812
20.23
2/24/2012
11:03 AM
28.7
7.50
8.21
4.2
1.524
19.41
2/27/2012
10:05 AM
26.3
7.62
7.83
4.2
1.667
21.07
3/1/2012
11:29 AM
26.4
7.67
7.99
4.3
1.222
21.44
Seep 8
11/16/2011
9:35 AM
27.4
7.45
9.43
5.0
0.267
1.029
11/23/2011
9:45 AM
26.4
7.26
7.79
4.2
-0.197
1.372
11/25/2011
10:18 AM
28.3
7.20
8.39
4.3
0.060
1.448
11/28/2011
9:53 AM
26.2
7.90
10.66
5.9
0.745
1.235
11/30/2011
10:49 AM
26.9
7.29
7.61
4.0
0.395
2.147
12/2/2011
9:54 AM
26.5
7.29
7.74
4.1
0.392
2.519
12/5/2011
9:51 AM
29.3
7.26
8.04
4.1
0.318
2.885
12/7/2011
9:54 AM
26.3
7.30
7.76
4.2
0.638
2.548
12/9/2011
9:49 AM
24.8
7.34
7.47
4.1
0.421
3.738
12/12/2011
9:52 AM
25.2
7.39
7.53
4.1
-0.046
4.244
12/14/2011
9:44 AM
26.1
7.24
7.67
4.1
-0.022
4.769
12/16/2011
9:50 AM
28.8
7.28
7.91
4.0
0.211
4.993
12/19/2011
9:47 AM
26.9
7.32
7.76
4.1
12/21/2011
10:43 AM
26.3
7.09
7.85
4.2
12/23/2011
10:34 AM
25.6
7.30
7.81
4.2
12/26/2011
10:35 AM
28.0
7.29
8.24
4.3
12/28/2011
10:15 AM
30.0
7.30
8.61
4.3
12/30/2011
10:45 AM
28.9
7.33
8.99
4.6
1/2/2012
10:50 AM
28.8
7.85
37.88
22.0
1/4/2012
3:17 PM
28.6
7.42
8.51
4.4
1.01
10.17
1/7/2012
3:08 PM
28.5
7.39
8.36
4.3
1.26
10.90
1/9/2012
10:36 AM
29.0
7.37
8.15
4.2
1.85
11.62
A-42
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 8
Cont.
1/11/2012
10:33 AM
24.7
7.49
7.67
4.2
1.66
12.75
1/13/2012
11:02 AM
26.5
7.16
7.85
4.2
1.69
12.82
1/16/2012
12:47 PM
31.0
7.33
8.41
4.1
Seep 9
11/30/2011
9:27 AM
26.5
7.36
7.52
4.0
0.653
1.868
12/2/2011
9:30 AM
25.8
7.31
7.67
4.2
0.818
2.063
12/5/2011
9:39 AM
28.6
7.34
7.93
4.0
0.132
2.635
12/7/2011
9:44 AM
27.4
7.39
7.52
3.9
0.431
2.750
12/9/2011
9:28 AM
26.7
7.36
7.36
3.9
1.123
3.239
12/12/2011
9:41 AM
24.8
7.47
7.21
4.0
-0.194
3.909
12/14/2011
9:35 AM
27.7
7.30
7.66
4.0
0.371
4.623
12/16/2011
9:37 AM
29.3
7.38
7.69
3.9
0.261
4.693
12/19/2011
10:06 AM
26.8
7.35
7.64
4.1
12/21/2011
10:31 AM
26.2
6.75
7.59
4.0
12/23/2011
10:21 AM
23.3
7.32
7.26
4.1
12/26/2011
10:24 AM
27.4
7.37
7.75
4.0
12/28/2011
9:57 AM
28.1
7.31
7.90
4.1
12/30/2011
10:36 AM
28.0
7.42
8.22
4.2
1/2/2012
10:36 AM
28.5
7.67
24.95
14.0
1/4/2012
3:03 PM
29.5
7.63
10.12
5.2
0.98
8.646
1/7/2012
2:58 PM
28.7
7.49
14.62
7.9
1.60
8.682
1/9/2012
10:56 AM
28.8
7.31
8.14
4.2
0.99
10.20
1/11/2012
10:45 AM
24.7
7.45
7.91
4.4
1.32
11.03
1/13/2012
11:15 AM
26.2
7.52
28.10
16.8
0.87
6.834
1/16/2012
1:16 PM
29.4
7.80
31.57
17.9
1/19/2012
9:58 AM
26.0
7.65
9.59
5.3
1.319
11.94
1/21/2012
4:13 PM
30.5
7.75
42.91
24.6
1.131
8.478
1/23/2012
11:19 AM
28.6
7.65
42.77
25.3
0.487
4.683
Seep 10
1/21/2012
4:26 PM
29.0
7.75
9.73
5.0
1.450
12.53
1/23/2012
11:03 AM
29.5
7.56
9.73
5.0
1.297
13.59
1/25/2012
10:30 AM
27.7
7.38
8.25
4.3
2.073
14.45
1/27/2012
12:34 PM
29.2
7.66
11.85
6.2
1.407
13.25
1/31/2012
11:29 AM
27.6
7.52
8.53
4.4
1.493
15.99
2/10/2012
11:30 AM
28.5
7.76
9.80
5.1
1.293
16.99
2/14/2012
12:47 PM
29.5
7.26
8.37
4.2
1.723
18.45
2/17/2012
11:05 AM
27.2
7.63
8.00
4.3
2.075
19.81
2/20/2012
1:12 PM
28.4
7.66
8.31
4.3
1.473
20.50
2/24/2012
10:51 AM
28.4
7.62
7.99
4.1
1.244
19.66
2/27/2012
9:37 AM
26.7
7.67
9.65
5.2
1.088
18.69
A-43
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 10
Cont.
3/1/2012
11:18 AM
26.5
7.68
7.97
4.3
1.474
20.82
6/29/2012
12:16 PM
34.6
7.31
8.35
4.6
1.458
20.36
7/4/2012
12:34 PM
31.6
7.70
9.54
4.7
1.829
20.11
Seep 12
1/25/2012
11:24 AM
29.1
7.36
8.49
4.3
1.667
14.96
1/27/2012
12:05 PM
29.6
7.78
8.44
4.3
1.219
14.67
1/31/2012
11:41 AM
29.4
7.62
8.26
4.2
1.188
16.17
2/10/2012
11:47 AM
27.5
7.63
8.23
4.4
0.833
17.42
2/14/2012
1:02 PM
29.5
7.43
8.41
4.3
1.956
18.79
2/17/2012
11:31 AM
27.4
7.61
8.03
4.2
1.983
19.39
2/20/2012
1:25 PM
28.7
7.68
9.55
4.9
1.506
20.11
2/24/2012
11:16 AM
27.5
7.56
8.07
4.2
1.356
20.69
2/27/2012
10:32 AM
26.9
7.56
8.20
4.4
1.178
21.07
3/1/2012
11:40 AM
28.6
7.60
9.28
4.8
1.166
21.12
3/14/2012
10:21 AM
26.7
7.73
7.88
4.2
3/17/2012
9:36 AM
26.6
7.61
7.90
4.2
2.032
21.46
3/19/2012
10:12 AM
29.0
7.67
8.13
4.1
2.017
22.35
Seep 13
3/14/2012
9:53 AM
26.0
7.71
7.69
4.2
3/17/2012
9:12 AM
29.7
7.69
8.74
4.4
2.320
21.67
3/19/2012
9:46 AM
28.2
7.67
8.10
4.2
2.113
22.71
Seep 14
3/14/2012
10:11 AM
24.7
7.72
7.67
4.2
3/17/2012
9:23 AM
27.8
7.62
8.05
4.2
1.753
21.36
3/19/2012
9:57 AM
28.7
7.66
8.02
4.1
2.036
22.67
Seep 15
3/27/2012
9:09 AM
25.6
7.63
8.68
4.8
0.982
21.34
3/29/2012
10:28 AM
28.1
7.53
8.17
4.2
1.526
21.34
4/2/2012
10:19 AM
27.1
16.54
9.3
2.393
18.51
4/5/2012
8:27 AM
24.6
7.47
15.83
9.3
2.148
18.75
4/12/2012
11:30 AM
31.1
7.48
8.45
4.2
1.769
22.14
4/16/2012
9:09 AM
26.5
7.45
7.86
4.2
1.895
22.84
4/19/2012
11:32 AM
31.6
7.61
8.79
4.3
1.524
21.77
4/24/2012
3:25 PM
29.9
7.71
8.57
4.3
1.988
21.46
4/26/2012
10:40 AM
30.3
7.72
8.46
4.2
1.959
21.81
5/2/2012
9:42 AM
29.5
7.58
8.59
4.3
2.378
22.95
5/7/2012
9:51 AM
29.8
7.59
8.56
4.3
2.392
23.63
5/14/2012
9:22 AM
29.9
7.60
8.82
4.4
2.420
17.67
5/18/2012
1:29 PM
34.8
7.75
10.20
4.7
0.811
8.22
5/22/2012
3:16 PM
33.2
7.44
9.56
4.5
2.048
24.17
A-44
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 15
Cont.
5/25/2012
3:06 PM
34.2
7.55
9.58
4.4
2.196
24.05
5/29/2012
2:18 PM
32.6
7.68
9.21
4.4
2.153
24.20
6/4/2012
2:14 PM
33.7
7.61
9.88
4.7
2.448
22.47
6/7/2012
12:30 PM
30.3
7.69
9.07
4.5
2.427
22.80
6/12/2012
11:27 AM
34.9
7.40
9.79
4.5
1.740
18.70
6/14/2012
2:43 PM
31.3
7.60
8.96
4.4
2.099
23.21
6/16/2012
11:59 AM
31.0
7.48
9.32
4.6
2.108
22.49
6/18/2012
9:43 AM
29.0
7.70
8.95
4.6
2.629
22.37
Seep 16
4/24/2012
3:11PM
30.6
7.69
8.95
4.5
2.279
21.15
4/26/2012
10:53 AM
30.4
7.71
8.79
4.4
2.108
22.33
5/2/2012
9:32 AM
29.4
7.50
8.81
4.5
2.694
22.82
5/7/2012
9:13 AM
27.1
7.59
8.57
4.6
2.409
23.79
5/14/2012
9:02 AM
28.1
7.57
8.57
4.5
2.398
24.90
5/18/2012
1:07 PM
34.8
7.68
9.79
4.5
1.960
20.72
5/22/2012
3:06 PM
32.8
7.38
9.65
4.6
2.876
24.18
5/25/2012
2:55 PM
34.6
7.48
9.86
4.6
2.541
24.11
5/29/2012
2:32 PM
32.3
7.52
9.19
4.4
2.492
24.53
6/4/2012
2:02 PM
33.3
7.62
10.05
4.8
2.036
22.63
6/7/2012
12:19 PM
30.5
7.62
9.39
4.6
2.071
22.63
6/12/2012
11:44 AM
34.7
7.39
9.74
4.5
2.567
22.66
6/14/2012
2:27 PM
33.5
7.62
9.73
4.6
2.182
22.71
6/16/2012
12:12 PM
32.2
7.46
9.47
4.6
2.259
23.25
6/18/2012
9:07 AM
28.6
7.80
21.60
12.0
1.712
16.46
Seep 17
6/29/2012
12:38 PM
34.6
7.83
28.57
14.5
0.965
15.56
7/11/2012
1:53 PM
35.0
7.63
26.60
13.3
7/23/2012
9:39 AM
29.0
7.53
12.33
6.5
2.060
16.67
Seep 18
7/11/2012
1:40 PM
33.4
7.52
9.79
4.6
7/23/2012
9:03 AM
28.9
7.59
9.08
4.7
1.376
17.63
8/1/2012
9:20 AM
31.0
7.65
9.56
4.7
1.285
16.04
Seep 19
8/8/2012
1:54 PM
33.8
7.70
9.68
4.5
1.278
16.44
8/16/2012
9:43 AM
31.2
7.73
9.64
4.8
1.174
15.40
8/21/2012
9:09 AM
29.3
7.67
8.89
4.5
1.899
16.52
8/24/2012
11:36 AM
32.2
7.64
8.99
4.3
1.797
16.32
8/27/2012
9:11 AM
25.4
7.67
8.51
4.7
1.840
16.53
9/6/2012
9:39 AM
33.1
7.70
9.43
4.5
1.657
14.52
9/10/2012
12:51PM
34.9
7.63
10.54
4.9
2.016
14.66
A-45
-------
Table
A-4
Cont.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Seep 19
9/12/2012
9:01 AM
26.1
7.49
8.33
4.5
1.786
15.26
Seep 20
9/20/2012
11:44 AM
32.1
7.61
9.29
4.5
1.398
14.52
10/2/2012
11:30 AM
29.7
7.63
9.60
4.9
1.545
13.84
10/8/2012
2:08 PM
31.3
7.70
12.36
6.0
0.847
12.73
10/12/2012
11:05 AM
30.6
7.72
21.35
11.3
1.434
10.21
10/18/2012
11:19 AM
32.3
7.80
29.80
15.9
0.463
7.93
10/22/2012
9:40 AM
28.2
7.61
13.64
7.3
0.315
11.13
10/26/2012
10:42 AM
30.6
7.82
28.01
15.2
0.540
8.42
10/29/2012
11:14 AM
31.6
7.75
26.35
14.0
0.512
8.79
11/2/2012
2:51PM
30.3
7.71
24.55
13.3
0.651
8.78
11/8/2012
11:56 AM
30.1
7.74
23.57
12.9
0.547
8.48
11/12/2012
11:09 AM
30.6
7.59
9.08
4.5
1.016
11.58
11/19/2012
11:26 AM
30.0
7.60
9.53
4.8
1.937
11.56
12/6/2012
10:50 AM
28.3
7.76
20.63
11.5
0.769
8.35
12/10/2012
9:26 AM
25.7
7.73
17.40
10.1
12/14/2012
12:16 PM
29.3
7.63
12.75
6.7
1.010
9.79
12/28/2012
12:59 PM
28.8
7.72
21.11
11.7
1.159
8.32
Seep 21
10/22/2012
9:09 AM
27.3
7.57
13.69
7.5
0.553
11.69
10/26/2012
10:26 AM
30.5
7.63
9.27
4.7
0.960
11.97
10/29/2012
11:02 AM
30.5
7.63
10.18
5.1
1.054
12.40
11/2/2012
2:40 PM
30.6
7.55
9.64
4.8
0.825
12.16
11/8/2012
11:43 AM
29.9
7.70
13.61
7.1
0.832
11.43
A-46
-------
Table A-5. Water quality parameters collected from control locations (Honokowai Beach
Park, Wahikuli Wayside Beach Park, and Olowalu). Parameters were measured with a
handheld YSI Model 63 and field fluorescence measurements of S-Rhodamine-B (SRB)
and Fluorescein (FLT) with a handheld Aquafluor fluorometer model 8000-10 from
8/5/2011 to 5/29/2012.
Location
Date
Time
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Spec.
Cond.
(mS/cm)
Salinity
SRB
(ppb)
FLT
(ppb)
Honokowai
8/5/2011
5:54 PM
26.4
8.13
54.60
35.1
-0.021
-0.192
Beach Park
8/12/2011
5:26 PM
27.3
8.15
56.10
35.4
-0.064
0.046
8/22/2011
3:25 PM
27.8
8.25
56.10
35.0
-0.227
0.145
9/2/2011
2:00 PM
28.2
8.27
57.00
35.5
-0.606
0.068
9/15/2011
12:00 PM
29.3
8.06
55.50
33.2
-0.731
-0.112
9/26/2011
1:30 PM
28.8
8.00
56.80
34.7
-0.172
0.105
10/14/2011
1:47 PM
28.3
8.10
56.40
34.4
0.118
0.048
10/22/2011
1:00 PM
29.2
8.13
58.00
35.7
-0.238
-0.021
11/14/2011
11:15 AM
27.1
7.90
52.10
32.7
-0.131
0.360
11/25/2011
12:07 PM
27.2
8.06
51.40
32.3
-0.047
-0.227
12/9/2011
12:05 PM
28.6
7.96
50.70
30.6
0.186
-0.127
1/13/2012
3:15 PM
27.1
8.00
55.70
35.4
0.45
-0.655
1/27/2012
4:34 PM
26.9
8.05
55.50
35.5
0.257
-0.543
2/10/2012
3:34 PM
27.4
8.15
55.60
35.0
-0.501
-0.607
2/17/2012
3:04 PM
27.2
8.06
51.30
32.1
0.271
-0.696
2/24/2012
3:02 PM
27.6
8.10
56.80
35.7
0.263
-0.669
3/1/2012
3:05 PM
30.3
7.98
51.00
29.9
-0.634
-0.685
3/11/2012
2:30 PM
26.1
8.12
53.40
34.5
0.420
-0.179
3/22/2012
3:00 PM
25.1
7.99
47.30
31.3
0.242
-0.612
3/27/2012
2:30 PM
26.5
8.03
53.60
34.4
-0.708
-0.613
4/5/2012
11:55 AM
25.4
7.95
52.80
34.5
-0.183
-0.835
4/12/2012
2:18 PM
28.8
8.01
56.20
34.4
-0.231
-0.707
4/19/2012
2:53 PM
26.3
8.02
52.90
33.9
-0.112
-0.799
5/2/2012
2:28 PM
26.8
7.99
54.00
34.1
0.339
-0.870
5/18/2012
4:18 PM
25.6
7.98
53.60
33.0
0.445
-0.429
5/29/2012
5:00 PM
27.6
8.02
48.77
30.1
0.148
-0.674
Wahikuli
8/5/2011
6:20 PM
25.9
8.16
55.10
35.8
-0.635
-0.635
Wayside
8/12/2011
5:50 PM
27.2
8.16
57.40
36.4
0.273
0.134
Beach Park
8/22/2011
5:45 PM
27.8
8.00
56.40
34.8
-0.292
-0.047
9/2/2011
1:30 PM
29.7
8.02
56.60
33.6
-0.339
0.247
9/15/2011
12:00 PM
27.8
8.00
56.20
35.1
-0.747
0.106
9/26/2011
2:00 PM
27.4
7.99
57.70
36.2
-0.190
0.221
10/14/2011
2:13 PM
28.2
8.13
56.80
35.2
0.951
0.122
10/22/2011
1:10 PM
27.9
8.15
57.40
36.1
0.071
-0.125
11/14/2011
11:34 AM
26
7.89
54.40
35.2
0.548
0.000
11/25/2011
12:26 PM
25.6
8.05
53.10
34.5
0.046
-0.161
12/9/2011
12:20 PM
25.3
8.03
52.30
34.5
-0.107
-0.270
A-47
-------
Table A-5
Spec.
Continued
Temp.
Cond.
SRB
FLT
Location
Date
Time
(°C)
pH
(mS/cm)
Salinity
(ppb)
(ppb)
1/13/2012
3:30 PM
26.0
8.01
54.00
35.2
0.74
-0.70
1/27/2012
4:51PM
26.0
8.04
53.60
34.7
0.569
-0.486
2/10/2012
3:50 PM
25.8
8.13
52.60
34.0
-0.894
-0.628
2/17/2012
3:20 PM
24.9
8.10
54.00
35.4
0.005
-0.643
2/24/2012
3:36 PM
27.5
8.08
55.00
34.4
-0.367
-0.187
3/1/2012
3:28 PM
26.2
8.10
53.20
33.8
-0.466
-0.492
3/11/2012
3:00 PM
26.0
8.10
53.50
34.1
-0.095
-0.501
3/22/2012
3:30 PM
24.9
8.06
50.40
33.8
0.565
-0.843
3/27/2012
2:48 PM
26.5
8.10
53.30
34.0
-1.244
-0.820
4/5/2012
12:13 PM
25.2
8.04
52.80
34.4
-0.026
-0.851
4/12/2012
2:37 PM
27.2
7.97
52.20
32.7
0.039
-0.772
4/19/2012
3:13 PM
25.6
7.99
55.40
36.4
-0.820
-0.909
5/2/2012
2:51PM
25.7
7.98
55.00
35.7
0.192
-0.908
5/18/2012
4:45 PM
26.9
8.00
55.90
35.7
0.199
-0.264
5/29/2012
5:15 PM
25.7
7.99
53.80
35.4
0.785
-0.385
Olowalu
12/2/2011
8:00 AM
28.8
7.92
56.60
34.7
-0.173
-0.093
12/9/2011
1:00 PM
24.8
8.03
54.70
36.3
0.252
-0.182
1/13/2012
4:00 PM
27.6
7.99
48.14
29.5
0.48
-0.489
1/27/2012
5:24 PM
28.4
8.03
54.50
33.5
0.648
-0.553
2/10/2012
4:30 PM
25.3
8.11
53.00
34.6
-0.221
-0.585
2/17/2012
4:00 PM
25.4
8.09
54.00
35.0
0.393
-0.269
2/24/2012
4:19 PM
28.9
8.08
57.60
35.3
-0.784
-0.667
3/1/2012
4:20 PM
30.0
8.12
55.90
33.4
-0.159
-0.888
3/11/2012
3:35 PM
29.6
8.08
57.90
35.2
-0.057
-0.315
3/22/2012
4:15 PM
26.0
8.05
58.30
36.3
0.138
-0.761
3/27/2012
4:00 PM
29.9
8.13
57.10
34.1
-0.976
-0.737
4/5/2012
1:06 PM
28.8
7.99
56.50
34.6
0.465
-0.435
4/12/2012
3:51PM
31.5
7.95
57.30
33.3
0.141
-0.779
4/20/2012
12:02 PM
29.5
7.98
55.00
33.1
-0.535
-0.839
5/2/2012
3:42 PM
26.4
7.95
55.80
35.8
0.892
-0.567
5/19/2012
11:46 AM
29.9
7.99
55.50
33.1
0.823
-0.351
A-48
-------
Table A-6. Submarine Spring, Shoreline Survey, and SVO Well Sampling Results. Survey area, coordinates, collection method, submarine
spring (seep) measurements and area, Fluorescein (FLT) and S-Rhodamine-B (SRB) concentrations, specific conductivity, substrate, and
additional observations are provided here (arranged by date) for the submarine spring survey as well as additional coastal and well water
samples. Also provided here is the adjusted FLT concentrations based on the specific conductivity of the water sample. Seep locations used
for tracer dye monitoring are italicized. Survey area abbreviations are as follows: Honokowai Point (HP), HonuaKai (HK), Kahekili Reef
(KR), South of
¦Cahekili Reef (S. KR), and the Westin Resort (WR). NA = not app
icable;
—
no data.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
0>
¦a
s
"cS
-J
¦a
s
'#J3
S
o
-J
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
0>
"ea
•-
%
a
s
cn
Additional
Observations
31
HP
7/9/12
08/24/12
N20.95005
W156.69180
Grab
No Visible
Seep
NA
0.06
0.00
50,030
0.72
Basalt
Shimmery
water
24
HP
7/9/12
08/24/12
N20.94952
W156.69329
Grab
No Visible
Seep
NA
0.06
0.02
52,110
1.69
Basalt
Shimmery
water
28
HK
7/9/12
08/24/12
N20.94754
W156.69361
Grab
No Visible
Seep
NA
0.06
0.02
50,790
0.83
Surface
Water
Shimmery
water
6
HK
7/9/12
08/24/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
Grab
No Visible
Seep
NA
0.06
0.02
50,800
0.92
Surface
Water
Shimmery
water
8
NSG
KR
7/10/12
N20.94035
W156.69297
Syringe
5.2
2.0
10.4
5.04
37,820
15.0
Dead
Coral
11
NSG
KR
7/10/12
08/24/12
N20.94032
W156.69296
Syringe
24.0
9.0
216.0
3.40
0.02
42,830
14.9
Dead
Coral
48
NSG
KR
7/10/12
08/24/12
N20.93610
W156.69302
Grab
0.07
0.03
50,530
0.88
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
12
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/03/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
4.0
1.0
4.0
5.31
0.01
49,652
64.6
Dead
Coral
13
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
3.0
4.0
12.0
4.86
0.01
42,900
21.5
Dead
Coral
A-49
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
16
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
4.0
1.0
4.0
9.98
0.03
35,050
25.3
Basalt /
Sand
20
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
1.5
1.0
1.5
4.92
0.03
42,020
20.1
Basalt
23
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
6.0
1.0
6.0
1.99
48,800
19.8
Basalt
25
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.69
39,500
25.7
Dead
Coral
27
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
5.2
0.5
2.6
7.17
0.03
39,480
24.0
Basalt /
Sand
37
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
11.0
1.5
16.5
6.14
0.02
39,590
20.7
Basalt
42
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
6.2
3.2
19.8
3.32
0.03
2.90
Dead
Coral
43
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
4.2
2.5
10.5
4.94
0.04
42,940
21.9
Dead
Coral
47
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
8.1
0.5
4.1
8.42
0.04
37,570
24.8
Basalt /
Sand
49
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69294
Syringe
2.0
1.0
2.0
12.1
0.03
27,210
21.6
Dead
Coral /
Sand
40
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93973
W156.69294
Syringe
2.0
3.0
6.0
0.54
0.02
49,550
6.25
Dead
Coral
3
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
2.0
2.0
13.4
0.05
28,600
25.2
Dead
Coral
5
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
0.5
0.5
0.3
2.21
0.03
46,920
15.7
Sand
A-50
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
e
o
CS
a
s.
0>
0>
in
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
9
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/03/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
4.0
5.0
20.0
3.94
0.02
45,247
22.3
Dead
Coral
Green tint
10
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/03/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
3.0
6.0
18.0
1.72
0.01
48,455
15.9
Dead
Coral
14
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.26
0.03
45,720
19.6
Dead
Coral
15
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.94
49,150
20.8
Sand
18
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
0.5
0.5
5.36
43,600
25.3
Sand
21
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
4.0
5.0
20.0
2.64
0.01
2.31
Dead
Coral
22
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
7.0
4.0
28.0
3.64
0.02
44,990
20.0
Dead
Coral
32
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
2.0
2.0
9.20
0.04
35,530
24.0
Dead
Coral
34
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.50
0.03
40,240
23.0
Sand
39
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.24
0.02
46,800
22.6
Dead
Coral
41
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
7.86
0.03
36,360
21.5
Dead
Coral
44
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
4.0
2.0
8.0
9.01
37,300
26.1
Dead
Coral
46
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93976
W156.69297
Syringe
3.0
2.0
6.0
2.93
0.04
46,140
18.6
Dead
Coral
A-51
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
35
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93981
W156.69296
Syringe
3.0
8.0
24.0
2.73
0.02
46,760
18.9
Dead
Coral
Green tint
74
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93979
W156.69295
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.22
0.04
41,980
25.3
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69295
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69295
2.0
3.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69295
3.0
0.5
1.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69295
4.0
1.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
71
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93979
W156.69293
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.54
0.02
48,670
14.9
Sand
Sand
volcano
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69293
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69293
2.0
1.5
3.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69293
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69293
4.0
1.5
6.0
Dead
Coral
69
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93981
W156.69301
Syringe
4.0
4.0
16.0
6.16
0.03
41,890
24.8
Dead
Coral
Green tint
53
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93979
W156.69301
Syringe
2.5
1.5
3.8
5.28
0.05
38,470
16.4
Dead
Coral
Green tint
A-52
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69301
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93979
W156.69301
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
72
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93981
W156.69293
Syringe
11.0
0.5
5.5
4.18
0.02
44,640
22.1
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93981
W156.69293
4.0
0.5
2.0
Dead
Coral
64
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93983
W156.69299
Syringe
4.0
2.0
8.0
4.61
0.02
43,540
21.7
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93983
W156.69299
5.0
1.0
5.0
Dead
Coral
38
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
17.7
20,630
25.2
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
2.5
1.0
2.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
3.0
2.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69297
4.0
0.5
2.0
Dead
Coral
70
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93984
W156.69299
Syringe
8.0
6.0
48.0
3.34
0.02
45,910
20.6
Dead
Coral
Green tint
A-53
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
58
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93985
W156.69295
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.56
0.03
49,050
16.3
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93985
W156.69295
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93985
W156.69295
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93985
W156.69295
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
56
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93982
W156.69294
Syringe
8.0
0.5
4.0
7.10
0.03
39,460
23.7
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69294
1.0
1.0
1.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69294
1.0
1.0
1.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69294
1.0
1.0
1.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93982
W156.69294
5.0
0.5
2.5
Basalt /
Sand
52
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93987
W156.69296
Syringe
4.0
2.0
8.0
2.97
0.03
46,350
19.4
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93987
W156.69296
4.0
2.0
8.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93987
W156.69296
4.0
2.0
8.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93987
W156.69296
5.0
3.0
15.0
Dead
Coral
A-54
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93987
W156.69296
9.0
6.0
54.0
Dead
Coral
54
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93988
W156.69302
Syringe
16.0
13.0
208.0
2.27
0.02
48,560
21.5
Dead
Coral
Green tint
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93988
W156.69302
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93988
W156.69302
2.0
1.5
3.0
Dead
Coral
57
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93984
W156.69293
Syringe
10.0
0.5
5.0
4.59
0.04
43,650
21.8
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93984
W156.69293
7.0
1.0
7.0
Basalt /
Sand
63
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93988
W156.69301
Syringe
2.0
4.0
8.0
4.31
0.03
44,140
21.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93988
W156.69301
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
36
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93986
W156.69296
Syringe
7.0
2.0
14.0
3.10
0.02
46,200
19.9
Dead
Coral
61
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
Syringe
1.5
4.0
6.0
4.53
0.03
44,480
23.5
Dead
Coral
Green tint
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/12/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
A-55
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
19
NSG
KR
7/12/12
07/25/12
N20.93988
W156.69295
Syringe
3.5
1.0
3.5
2.52
48,400
23.1
Dead
Coral
51
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93991
W156.69296
Syringe
4.0
4.0
16.0
3.41
0.03
45,650
20.3
Dead
Coral
55
NSG
KR
7/12/12
08/24/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
Syringe
2.5
2.0
5.0
14.3
0.04
12.5
Dead
Coral
Green tint
68
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93989
W156.69296
Syringe
7.0
7.0
49.0
1.64
0.02
48,800
16.3
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93989
W156.69296
3.0
5.0
15.0
Dead
Coral
85
NSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93987
W156.69292
Syringe
5.0
4.0
20.0
6.19
41,920
25.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93987
W156.69292
3.0
2.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93987
W156.69292
6.0
2.0
12.0
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93987
W156.69292
6.0
2.0
12.0
Dead
Coral /
Sand
84
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
Syringe
1.0
0.5
0.5
6.06
0.03
40,703
22.2
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
2.0
0.5
1.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
2.5
1.0
2.5
Dead
Coral
A-56
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
4.0
0.5
2.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93990
W156.69293
7.0
1.0
7.0
Dead
Coral
83
NSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93991
W156.69297
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.47
43,400
25.4
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93991
W156.69297
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93991
W156.69297
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93991
W156.69297
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93991
W156.69297
2.0
2.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
80
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
Syringe
11.0
4.0
44.0
5.34
0.03
42,900
23.6
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
0.5
0.5
0.3
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
A-57
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93992
W156.69300
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
60
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93994
W156.69287
Grab
2.0
1.5
3.0
0.17
0.03
50,810
2.82
Basalt /
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93994
W156.69287
9.0
0.5
4.5
Basalt /
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
76
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94013
W156.69290
Syringe
5.0
4.0
20.0
10.6
0.04
30,800
21.9
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94013
W156.69290
2.0
1.0
2.0
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94013
W156.69290
5.0
0.5
2.5
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94013
W156.69290
7.0
0.5
3.5
Basalt /
Sand
2
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69292
Syringe
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.64
0.02
46,570
17.8
Sand
Sand
volcano
66
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69292
Syringe
6.0
3.0
18.0
2.12
0.02
47,590
16.7
Basalt
75
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69292
Syringe
9.0
4.0
36.0
2.84
0.03
45,990
17.7
Basalt
65
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
Syringe
3.0
3.0
9.0
20.5
0.05
8,670
21.4
Basalt /
Sand
86
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
14.7
0.04
21,650
21.6
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt /
Sand
A-58
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
1.0
0.5
0.5
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
1.0
0.5
0.5
Basalt /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94012
W156.69287
3.0
1.0
3.0
Basalt /
Sand
79
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94015
W156.69288
Syringe
0.5
0.5
0.3
15.0
0.04
20,260
21.2
Basalt
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94015
W156.69288
0.2
0.2
0.04
Basalt
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94015
W156.69288
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94015
W156.69288
1.0
1.0
1.0
Basalt
59
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94016
W156.69288
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.25
0.03
47,340
17.1
Sand
Sand
volcano
33
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
Syringe
7.0
2.5
17.5
19.8
0.05
7,910
20.4
Basalt /
Sand
45
Seep 18
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
Syringe
9.0
2.0
18.0
17.9
0.06
8,160
18.5
Basalt
/ Sand
11
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
Syringe
6.0
9.0
54.0
5.93
0.03
5.19
Sand
Sand
volcano
81
Seep 17
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
Syringe
5.0
4.0
20.0
5.44
0.03
40,710
19.9
Sand
Sand
volcano
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
2.0
0.5
1.0
Basalt /
Sand
A-59
-------
Table
0>
Analysis Date
B
u
B
B
o
CS
e
<
a.
OJ
cn
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Dal
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
A
a
s
0>
-J
s.
0>
0>
cn
¦o
s.
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NSG
Sand
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
2.0
1.0
2.0
Sand
volcano
NSG
Sand
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
4.0
3.0
12.0
Sand
volcano
NSG
Basalt /
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94019
W156.69282
6.0
1.0
6.0
Sand
NSG
4
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
Syringe
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.40
0.02
48,790
13.8
Basalt
NSG
62
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
Syringe
2.0
1.5
3.0
3.92
0.03
43,740
18.8
Basalt
NSG
73
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
Syringe
3.0
2.0
6.0
4.36
0.03
43,000
19.4
Basalt
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
0.2
0.2
0.04
Basalt
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt
NSG
Sand
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
0.5
0.5
0.3
Sand
volcano
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
0.5
0.5
0.3
Sand
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
2.0
1.0
2.0
Sand
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
2.0
2.0
4.0
Sand
NSG
NA
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
2.0
1.0
2.0
Sand
A-60
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
2.0
0.5
1.0
Basalt
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
3.0
1.0
3.0
Basalt
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
4.0
1.0
4.0
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69284
5.0
2.0
10.0
Basalt
17
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.02
0.03
37,530
20.6
Sand
Sand
volcano
67
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
Syringe
4.0
3.0
12.0
3.83
0.03
43,850
18.6
Sand
Sand
volcano
78
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
Syringe
5.0
5.0
25.0
5.15
0.03
41,390
19.9
Basalt
82
NSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
Syringe
3.0
3.0
9.0
9.18
0.03
32,970
20.9
Sand
Sand
volcano
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
3.0
1.0
3.0
Sand
Sand
volcano
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral /
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
4.0
1.0
4.0
Sand
Sand
volcano
NA
NSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
8.0
2.0
16.0
Dead
Coral
A-61
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
91
NSG
KR
7/19/12
07/25/12
N20.94017
W156.69283
Syringe
0.59
51,279
12.2
Surface
Water
NSG
Control
7
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93852
W156.69309
Syringe
4.0
1.0
4.0
2.79
48,300
25.1
Basalt /
Sand
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93852
W156.69309
8.0
0.5
4.0
Basal /
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
26
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
3.0
1.0
3.0
21.0
0.05
13,490
24.6
Dead
Coral
Green tint
29
Seep 5
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
8.0
4.0
32.0
15.7
0.05
25,660
26.4
Dead
Coral
Green tint
50
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/24/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
10.5
6.0
63.0
22.3
0.06
9,540
23.8
Dead
Coral
Green tint
90
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
2.0
3.5
7.0
19.9
0.04
16,590
25.3
Dead
Coral
92
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
6.0
2.0
12.0
14.5
0.03
28,477
27.2
Dead
Coral
Green tint
93
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
4.0
1.0
4.0
10.7
0.03
35,450
27.8
Dead
Coral
Green tint
99
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
3.5
1.0
3.5
11.0
35,247
28.2
Dead
Coral
Green tint
102
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
3.0
1.0
3.0
14.9
0.03
28,529
28.0
Dead
Coral
Green tint
103
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
4.0
4.0
16.0
Dead
Coral
Green tint
107
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
6.0
2.0
12.0
4.93
0.01
44,240
24.9
Dead
Coral
A-62
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
110
Seep 4
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
13.0
7.0
91.0
9.86
0.03
35,710
26.0
Dead
Coral
Green tint
112
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
3.5
4.0
14.0
7.36
40,604
26.7
Dead
Coral
115
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
6.0
3.5
21.0
17.0
0.04
22,050
25.3
Dead
Coral
117
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
7.0
3.0
21.0
17.3
23,357
26.9
Dead
Coral
Green tint
118
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
9.0
10.0
90.0
16.1
0.04
23,900
25.5
Dead
Coral
Green tint
119
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
Syringe
7.0
4.0
28.0
3.48
0.02
46,650
23.8
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
0.2
0.2
0.04
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
A-63
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.5
1.0
1.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.5
1.0
1.5
Dead
Coral
A-64
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.5
1.0
1.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
1.5
0.5
0.8
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
2.5
5.0
12.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
2.5
2.5
6.3
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
4.0
1.5
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
4.5
1.0
4.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
5.0
1.0
5.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
6.0
3.0
18.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
9.0
1.5
13.5
Dead
Coral
A-65
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69318
12.0
2.0
24.0
Dead
Coral
105
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
Syringe
10.0
1.0
10.0
9.73
0.03
36,620
27.0
Dead
Coral
Green tint
114
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
Syringe
5.0
3.0
15.0
24.2
10,727
26.5
Dead
Coral
Green tint
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
0.5
1.0
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
0.5
2.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
0.5
1.0
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
0.5
1.0
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.5
1.0
1.5
Dead
Coral
A-66
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
1.5
1.5
2.3
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
2.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
2.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.0
2.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
2.5
2.0
5.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
3.0
2.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
3.0
2.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
4.0
1.0
4.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
6.0
6.0
36.0
Dead
Coral
A-67
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93861
W156.69319
6.0
0.5
3.0
Dead
Coral
104
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
Syringe
1.0
0.5
0.5
18.5
22,850
28.3
Dead
Coral
Green tint
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
0.2
0.2
0.04
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
0.5
0.5
0.3
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
3.0
2.0
6.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
5.0
1.0
5.0
Dead
Coral
133
SSG
KR
7/19/12
07/25/12
N20.93866
W156.69318
Syringe
0.08
52,309
2.87
Surface
Water
SSG
Control
100
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93865
W156.69303
Syringe
0.5
0.5
0.3
4.80
45,609
28.5
Sand
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93865
W156.69303
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
A-68
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93865
W156.69303
5.0
1.0
5.0
Dead
Coral
97
SSG
KR
7/13/12
07/25/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
Syringe
10.0
2.0
20.0
6.10
43,769
29.4
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
101
Seep 3
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
Syringe
15.0
5.0
75.0
18.9
0.06
22,875
28.9
Dead
Coral/
Basalt
Green tint
120
SSG
KR
7/13/12
08/03/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
Syringe
1.0
1.0
1.0
23.1
0.04
16,040
28.9
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
Green tint
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
2.0
2.0
4.0
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
3.0
1.0
3.0
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
NA
SSG
KR
7/13/12
N20.93866
W156.69315
5.0
7.0
35.0
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
113
SSG
KR
7/16/12
07/25/12
N20.93866
W156.69310
Syringe
2.0
1.0
2.0
10.6
35,813
28.1
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93866
W156.69310
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93866
W156.69310
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
A-69
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93866
W156.69310
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
125
SSG
KR
7/16/12
08/03/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
Syringe
4.0
0.5
2.0
9.38
0.04
35,462
24.4
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
SSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93867
W156.69312
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
109
HP
7/17/12
08/03/12
N20.94949
W156.69185
Grab
No visible
seep
NA
0.07
0.01
48,680
0.58
Dead
Coral
Shimmery
water
134
S.
KR
7/17/12
08/03/12
N20.93512
W156.69294
Grab
4.0
1.0
4.0
0.09
0.02
48,393
0.77
Basalt /
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
NA
S.
KR
7/17/12
N20.93512
W156.69294
0.5
0.5
0.3
Basalt /
Sand
126
HP
7/18/12
08/03/12
N20.94669
W156.69313
Grab
No visible
seep
NA
0.06
0.02
51,577
1.24
Sand
Shimmery
water
A-70
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
S
o
CS
a
<
a.
0>
0>
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
132
N.
BR
7/18/12
08/03/12
N20.93269
W156.69345
Grab
No visible
seep
NA
0.07
0.03
51,263
1.26
Sand
Diffuse
discharge
128
NSG
KR
7/16/12
07/25/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
Syringe
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.65
45,484
9.60
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
1.0
0.5
0.5
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
2.0
1.0
2.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
2.0
0.5
1.0
Dead
Coral
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.94003
W156.69307
5.0
0.5
2.5
Dead
Coral
89
NSG
KR
7/16/12
07/25/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
Syringe
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.42
46,670
23.4
Sand
Sand
volcano
106
NSG
KR
7/16/12
07/25/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
Syringe
2.5
2.5
6.3
2.31
48,762
22.8
Dead
Coral
Green tint
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
0.5
0.5
0.3
Sand
NA
NSG
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sand
Sand
volcano
A-71
-------
Table
0>
Analysis Date
B
u
B
B
o
CS
a
<
a.
cn
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Dal
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
A
a
s
0>
-J
s.
0>
0>
cn
¦o
s.
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
NSG
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sand
NSG
Dead
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
2.0
1.5
3.0
Coral
NSG
Dead
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
2.0
1.0
2.0
Coral
NSG
Dead
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
2.0
2.0
4.0
Coral
NSG
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
2.0
1.0
2.0
Sand
NSG
Sand
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
3.0
1.0
3.0
Sand
volcano
NSG
Sand
NA
KR
7/16/12
N20.93978
W156.69307
3.0
1.0
3.0
Sand
volcano
Well 2
WR
7/31/12
08/03/12
N20.94303
W156.68915
Bailer
0.04
2,538
0.04
NA
Well 3
WR
7/31/12
08/04/12
N20.94076
W156.69003
Bailer
0.09
932
0.09
NA
Well 4
WR
7/31/12
08/05/12
N20.94068
W156.69149
Bailer
0.09
2,912
0.09
NA
Well 5
WR
7/31/12
08/06/12
N20.93710
W156.69215
Bailer
0.12
1,480
0.12
NA
Well 6
WR
7/31/12
08/07/12
N20.93618
W156.69061
Pump
4.59
2,405
4.59
NA
Sand
sample
1
S.
KR
11/2/12
11/17/12
N20.93402
W156.6928
Piez
0.01
0.00
52,300
0.04
Sand
Sand
sample
2
S.
KR
12/20/12
01/12/13
N20.93427
W156.69273
Piez
0.08
0.03
19,520
0.10
Sand
A-72
-------
Table
0>
Analysis Date
B
u
B
s
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Dal
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
A
a
s
0>
-J
s.
0>
0>
cn
¦o
o.
VI
(J
a
a
<
a.
cn
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
Sand
sample
3
S.
KR
12/20/12
01/12/13
N20.93384
W156.69277
Piez
0.04
0.03
49,360
0.36
Sand
Sand
sample
4
S.
KR
12/20/12
01/12/13
N20.93344
W156.69289
Piez
0.02
0.05
51,940
0.42
Sand
Sand
sample
5
S.
KR
12/20/12
01/12/13
N20.93294
W156.69308
Piez
0.07
0.04
52,425
2.40
Sand
Sand
sample
6
S.
KR
12/21/12
01/12/13
N20.93451
W156.69271
Piez
0.06
0.03
36,560
0.14
Sand
Sand
sample
7
S.
KR
12/21/12
01/12/13
N20.93384
W156.69277
Piez
0.05
0.02
25,800
0.08
Sand
Sand
sample
8
S.
KR
12/21/12
01/12/13
N20.93331
W156.69284
Piez
0.02
0.02
52,390
0.38
Sand
Sand
sample
9
S.
KR
12/21/12
01/12/13
N20.93415
W156.69279
Piez
0.94
0.07
45,970
5.77
Sand
Sand
sample
10
HP
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.94910
W156.69131
Piez
0.03
0.02
44,030
0.09
Sand
Syringe
sample
SSG
Dead
Coral /
1
KR
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.93978
W156.69295
Syringe
1.44
0.02
46,760
9.94
Basalt
Seep 11
A-73
-------
Table
A-6
Cont.
Sample
Name
Survey Area
Sampling Date
Analysis Date
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Seep Length (cm)
Seep Width (cm)
Seep Area (cm)
FLT
SRB
Spec.
Cond.
Adj.
FLT
Substrate
Additional
Observations
Syringe
sample
2
SSG
KR
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.93981
W156.69291
Syringe
1.40
0.02
47,250
10.4
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
Seep 3
Syringe
sample
3
NSG
KR
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.93992
W156.69299
Syringe
1.29
0.02
47,900
10.7
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
Syringe
sample
4
NSG
KR
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.94017
W156.69286
Syringe
0.95
0.02
48,890
9.5
Sand/
Basalt
Seep 20
Syringe
sample
5
SSG
KR
12/29/12
01/12/13
N20.93871
W156.69309
Syringe
1.71
0.01
46,380
11.2
Dead
Coral /
Basalt
Seep 4
NSG
sand
sample
1
KR
1/8/13
01/12/13
N20.94020
W156.69274
Piez
9.62
0.04
8,617
10.0
Sand
Nearshore
of Seep 7
NSG
sand
sample
2
KR
1/8/13
01/12/13
N20.94018
W156.69258
Piez
9.41
0.04
9,311
10.0
Sand
Nearshore
of Seep
20
SSG
sand
sample
1
KR
1/8/13
01/12/13
N20.93860
W156.69289
Piez
3.08
0.02
42,380
12.9
Sand
Nearshore
of Seep 3
SSG
sand
sample
2
KR
1/8/13
01/12/13
N20.93863
W156.69292
Piez
4.91
0.05
36,440
13.5
Sand
Nearshore
of Seeps
4, 5, & 11
A-74
-------
APPENDIX B: PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING
THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
APPENDIX FOR SECTION 4:
FLUORESCENT DYE GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY
B-l
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
B-2
-------
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
Page 1 of 4
Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
e-CFli
IM
e-CFR Data is current as of June 1, 2011
Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 136—GUIDELINES ESTABLISHING TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF
POLLUTANTS
Browse Previous | Browse Next
Appendix B to Part 136—Definition and Procedure forthe Determination of the Method
Detection Limit—Revision 1.11
Definition
The method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be
measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is
determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
Scope and Application
This procedure is designed for applicability to a wide variety of sample types ranging from reagent
(blank) water containing analyte to wastewater containing analyte. The MDL for an analytical procedure
may vary as a function of sample type. The procedure requires a complete, specific, and well defined
analytical method. It is essential that all sample processing steps of the analytical method be included in
the determination of the method detection limit.
The MDL obtained by this procedure is used to judge the significance of a single measurement of a
future sample.
The MDL procedure was designed for applicability to a broad variety of physical and chemical methods.
To accomplish this, the procedure was made device- or instrument-independent.
Procedure
1. Make an estimate of the detection limit using one of the following:
(a) The concentration value that corresponds to an instrument signal/noise in the range of 2.5 to 5.
(b) The concentration equivalent of three times the standard deviation of replicate instrumental
measurements of the analyte in reagent water.
(c) That region of the standard curve where there is a significant change in sensitivity, i.e. , a break in
the slope of the standard curve.
(d) Instrumental limitations.
It is recognized that the experience of the analyst is important to this process. However, the analyst must
include the above considerations in the initial estimate of the detection limit.
2. Prepare reagent (blank) water that is as free of analyte as possible. Reagent or interference free
B-3
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gOv/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=287225408756037e8a594042b3da4... 6/3/2011
-------
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
Page 2 of 4
water is defined as a water sample in which analyte and interferent concentrations are not detected at
the method detection limit of each analyte of interest. Interferences are defined as systematic errors in
the measured analytical signal of an established procedure caused by the presence of interfering
species (interferent). The interferent concentration is presupposed to be normally distributed in
representative samples of a given matrix.
3. (a) If the MDL is to be determined in reagent (blank) water, prepare a laboratory standard (analyte in
reagent water) at a concentration which is at least equal to or in the same concentration range as the
estimated method detection limit. (Recommend between 1 and 5 times the estimated method detection
limit.) Proceed to Step 4.
(b) If the MDL is to be determined in another sample matrix, analyze the sample. If the measured level of
the analyte is in the recommended range of one to five times the estimated detection limit, proceed to
Step 4.
If the measured level of analyte is less than the estimated detection limit, add a known amount of
analyte to bring the level of analyte between one and five times the estimated detection limit.
If the measured level of analyte is greater than five times the estimated detection limit, there are two
options.
(1) Obtain another sample with a lower level of analyte in the same matrix if possible.
(2) The sample may be used as is for determining the method detection limit if the analyte level does not
exceed 10 times the MDL of the analyte in reagent water. The variance of the analytical method
changes as the analyte concentration increases from the MDL, hence the MDL determined under these
circumstances may not truly reflect method variance at lower analyte concentrations.
4. (a) Take a minimum of seven aliquots of the sample to be used to calculate the method detection limit
and process each through the entire analytical method. Make all computations according to the defined
method with final results in the method reporting units. If a blank measurement is required to calculate
the measured level of analyte, obtain a separate blank measurement for each sample aliquot analyzed.
The average blank measurement is subtracted from the respective sample measurements.
(b) It may be economically and technically desirable to evaluate the estimated method detection limit
before proceeding with 4a. This will: (1) Prevent repeating this entire procedure when the costs of
analyses are high and (2) insure that the procedure is being conducted at the correct concentration. It is
quite possible that an inflated MDL will be calculated from data obtained at many times the real MDL
even though the level of analyte is less than five times the calculated method detection limit. To insure
that the estimate of the method detection limit is a good estimate, it is necessary to determine that a
lower concentration of analyte will not result in a significantly lower method detection limit. Take two
aliquots of the sample to be used to calculate the method detection limit and process each through the
entire method, including blank measurements as described above in 4a. Evaluate these data:
(1) If these measurements indicate the sample is in desirable range for determination of the MDL, take
five additional aliquots and proceed. Use all seven measurements for calculation of the MDL.
(2) If these measurements indicate the sample is not in correct range, reestimate the MDL, obtain new
sample as in 3 and repeat either 4a or 4b.
5. Calculate the variance (S2 ) and standard deviation (S) of the replicate measurements, as follows:
Xi; i=1 to n, are the analytical results in the final method reporting units obtained from the n sample
where:
B-4
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gOv/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=287225408756037e8a594042b3da4... 6/3/2011
-------
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 3 of 4
aliquots and I refers to the sum of the X values from i=l to n.
6. (a) Compute the MDL as follows:
MDL = t(n-1,1-a=0.99) (S)
where:
MDL = the method detection limit
t(n-1,1-a=.99)= the students' t value appropriate for a 99% confidence level and a standard deviation
estimate with n-1 degrees of freedom. See Table.
S = standard deviation of the replicate analyses.
(b) The 95% confidence interval estimates for the MDL derived in 6a are computed according to the
following equations derived from percentiles of the chi square over degrees of freedom distribution
(X2 /df).
LCL = 0.64 MDL
UCL = 2.20 MDL
where: LCL and UCL are the lower and upper 95% confidence limits respectively based on seven
aliquots.
7. Optional iterative procedure to verify the reasonableness of the estimate of the MDL and subsequent
MDL determinations.
(a) If this is the initial attempt to compute MDL based on the estimate of MDL formulated in Step 1, take
the MDL as calculated in Step 6, spike the matrix at this calculated MDL and proceed through the
procedure starting with Step 4.
(b) If this is the second or later iteration of the MDL calculation, use S2 from the current MDL calculation
and S2 from the previous MDL calculation to compute the F-ratio. The F-ratio is calculated by
substituting the larger S2 into the numerator S2 Aand the other into the denominator S2 B. The computed
F-ratio is then compared with the F-ratio found in the table which is 3.05 as follows: if S2 A/S2 B<3.05,
then compute the pooled standard deviation by the following equation:
^peeled
if S2 A/S2 b>3.05, respike at the most recent calculated MDL and process the samples through the
procedure starting with Step 4. If the most recent calculated MDL does not permit qualitative
identification when samples are spiked at that level, report the MDL as a concentration between the
current and previous MDL which permits qualitative identification.
(c) Use the Spoo|edas calculated in 7b to compute The final MDL according to the following equation:
MDL=2.681 (Spoo|ed)
where 2.681 is equal to t(12,1-a=.99).
(d) The 95% confidence limits for MDL derived in 7c are computed according to the following equations
derived from precentiles of the chi squared over degrees of freedom distribution.
LCL=0.72 MDL
6gj + 6£S
12
B-5
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gOv/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=287225408756037e8a594042b3da4... 6/3/2011
-------
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Page 4 of 4
UCL=1.65 MDL
where LCL and UCL are the lower and upper 95% confidence limits respectively based on 14 aliquots.
Tables of Students' t Values at the 99 Percent Confidence Level
Number of replicates
Degrees of freedom (n-1)
*011-1,.99)
7
6
3.143
8
7
2.998
9
8
2.896
10
9
2.821
11
10
2.764
16
15
2.602
21
20
2.528
26
25
2.485
31
30
2.457
61
60
2.390
00
00
2.326
Reporting
The analytical method used must be specifically identified by number or title aid the MDL for each
analyte expressed in the appropriate method reporting units. If the analytical method permits options
which affect the method detection limit, these conditions must be specified with the MDL value. The
sample matrix used to determine the MDL must also be identified with MDL value. Report the mean
analyte level with the MDL and indicate if the MDL procedure was iterated. If a laboratory standard or a
sample that contained a known amount analyte was used for this determination, also report the mean
recovery.
If the level of analyte in the sample was below the determined MDL or exceeds 10 times the MDL of the
analyte in reagent water, do not report a value for the MDL.
[49 FR 43430, Oct. 26, 1984; 50 FR 694, 696, Jan. 4, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 23703, June 30,
1986]
Browse Previous | Browse Next
For questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr@nara.oov.
For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@qpo.gov.
Section 508 / Accessibility
B-6
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gOv/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=287225408756037e8a594042b3da4... 6/3/2011
-------
Decision and Detection Limits for Linear Calibration Curves
Andre Hubaux1 and Gilbert Vos2
C.C.R. Euratom, 21020 Ispra (Va), Italy
For linear calibration curves, two kinds of lower limits
may be connected to the notion of confidence limits—
a decision limit, the lowest signal that can be distin-
guished from the background and a detection limit,
the content under which, a priori, any sample may
erroneously be taken for the blank. From a few
algebraical and computational developments, several
practical rules are deduced to lower these limits.
The influence of the precision of the analytical method,
the number of standards, the range of their contents,
the various modes of their repartition, and the rep-
lication of measurements on the unknown sample are
studied from a statistical point of view.
External standards are of very common use in analytical
practice. In many methods, e.g., as in X-ray spectrochemical
analysis, the analyst used a linear calibration curve obtained
from measurements made on these standards, to estimate the
concentration of the unknown. Obviously the sensitivity of
his method may be enhanced by a judicious choice of stan-
dards, but the quantitative estimate of this enhancement is not
straightforward. The various definitions of the detection
limits found in the literature, although having different ad-
vantages do not explicitly include this influence.
Linning and Mandel (7) have presented a very interesting
discussion on the determination of the precision of an ana-
lytical method involving a calibration curve. They emphasize
that, because there is always some scatter in the calibration
data, the precision of analysis for an unknown will be poorer
than indicated from several repeat determinations on the same
sample. Various authors have proposed an objective way to
calculate the detection limit of an analytical determination.
They suggest that a signal higher than the standard deviation
of the background multiplied by a conventionally chosen
factor (usually 3), should be considered as characteristic of a
detectable amount of the element to be analyzed. Kaiser, in
several papers (2-4) develops this concept at length and pro-
poses to work at the confidence level of 99.86%, which cor-
responds to a value of 3 for the factor.
B. Altshuler and B. Pasternak (5) have connected the notion
of detection limits with the statistical concepts of the errors of
the first and second kind; these concepts will be also used in
the present text. A review of the published definitions of the
limits for qualitative detection and quantitative determination
has been done by L. A. Currie (6), who proposes to introduce
three specific levels: A decision limit to which corresponds a
critical level Lc, the net signal level (instrument response)
above which an observed signal may be recognized reliably
enough to be detected; at this limit, one may decide whether or
not the result of an analysis indicates presence; A detection
limit, Ld, the "true" net signal level which may be a priori ex-
1 C.E.T.I.S.
2 Analytical Chemistry Section.
(1) F. J. Linning and J. Mandel, Anal. Chem., 36 (13), 25A (1964).
(2) H. Kaiser, Z. Anal. Chem., 149, 46 (1956).
(3) Ibid., 209, 1 (1965).
(4) Ibid., 216, 80 (1966).
(5) B. Altshuler and B. Pasternak, Health Phys., 9, 293 (1963).
(6) L. A. Currie, Anal. Chem., 40, 586 (1968).
pected to lead to detection; this is the limit at which a given
analytical procedure may be relied upon to lead to detection;
and A determination limit, LQ, the level at which the measure-
ment precision will be satisfactory for quantitative determina-
tion.
We will show how estimates of the decision and detection
limits may be introduced by considering the confidence limits
of the linear calibration curve. The dependence of these
limits upon the standards will thereby be made explicit.
DECISION AND DETECTION LIMITS—A NEW APPROACH
In the analytical methods of interest here, the response
signals of a certain number of standards are measured and a
straight line (the regression line) is passed through the repre-
sentative points. This line is an estimate of the true calibra-
tion line. It may be predicted that any new standard will
give a signal falling in the neighborhood of this obtained line.
At this point two questions may arise;
Above which level are the signals significantly different
from the background ?
Above which concentration is a confusion with the nul con-
centration unlikely ?
To seek an answer, let us scrutinize what the expression "in
the neighborhood of' really implies. The representative
point of a measured signal does not fall exactly on the line for
two independent reasons: the drawn calibration line does
not exactly coincide with the true calibration line but is only an
estimate (this estimate is based on a limited number of stan-
dards) ; and for a given content, the corresponding response
signal does not assume a fixed value but is randomly distrib-
uted around a mean value, and this distribution is not ex-
actly known. In order to make precise the combined effects
of these two uncertainties, one due to the insufficiency of our
information, and the other to a lack of perfect reproductivity
inherent to the method, four basic hypotheses are necessary.
First, the standards are supposed to be independent. Prac-
tically, this means that they should be prepared separately,
i.e., in such a way that they will differ in their preparation, as
much from each other as from the samples to be analyzed.
This condition is not so easily met as seems at first sight.
Second, the variance of the error distribution of the signals
around their expectation is supposed to remain constant.
Practically, this means that the scatter of the signals does not
depend on the contents, in the studied range of these contents.
Third, the contents of the standards are supposed to be ac-
curately known.
Fourth, it is assumed that the observed signals have a
gaussian distribution around their expectation. Although
this hypothesis is very widely accepted, it is not certain that it
is always correct. On the contrary, K. Behrends (7) has
shown that the error distribution definitely is not gaussian in a
number of cases. But, although another type of distribution
would yield somewhat different numerical results than those
presented here, it would probably not significantly modify the
main conclusions.
(7) K. Behrends, Z. Anal. Chem., 235, 391 (1967).
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 8, JULY 1970 • 849
B-7
-------
Figure 1. The linear calibration line, with its upper and lower confidence limits. yc is the
decision limit and xd the detection limit, as explained in text
Starting from these hypotheses, formulas can be established
from which several conclusions may be deduced, as will be
shown in the next paragraphs. The considerations upon
which the reasoning will be based are as follows:
On either side of the regression line, two confidence limits
may be drawn, with an a priori chosen level of confidence,
which we will note as l-a-/3, a and /3 having prefixed small
values, of the order of a few percent (see Figure 1). The re-
gression line and its two confidence limits represent a graphic
synthesis of our knowledge about the relationship between con-
tent and signal. With it we may predict that an as yet un-
explored content will yield a signal falling inside the con-
fidence band. We will do this prediction with 1 -a-/3 prob-
ability; if we did a series of such predictions and then made
the measurements, we would observe that, in the long run,
we would be right l-a-/3 of the time; a % of the points
would fall above the higher limit, and /3% under the lower
limit. The width of the confidence band depends on: the
dispersion of signals for a given content, the knowledge we
have of that dispersion and the degree of uncertainty about
the true position of the calibration line.
The confidence limits, then, do not represent the dispersion
of signals but our capacity to predict likely values for signals,
taking into account the actual knowledge we possess of the
case.
The confidence band may also be used in reverse; for a mea-
sured value y of the signal on a sample of unknown content
(see Figure 1) we may predict the range of this content. The
intersection of a horizontal line through y with the two con-
fidence limits will define this range xmul-xmin! again with 1-
a-@ probability. This, incidentally, is a valid method to esti-
mate confidence limits of contents corresponding to a given
signal. In particular, for a measured signal equal to yc (see
Figure 1), the lower limit of content is zero. Signals equal to
or lower than yc have a non-negligible probability to be due to
a sample with a nul concentration, and hence we cannot dis-
tinguish, with such signals, whether or not the sought element
is really present or not.
850 • ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 8, JULY 1970
yc is then the lowest measurable signal: if we are not
ready to take a risk greater than a % to state that the element
is present when it is absent (i.e., to take a wrong decision more
than a % of the time) we must decide that any signal under yc
must be disregarded. It is then clear that yc corresponds to
Lc as defined by L. A. Currie. More exactly, yc is the esti-
mate of Lc which may be obtained with the knowledge at
hand. yc could also be called the reading threshold, an ex-
pression proposed by H. Kaiser in an article published while
the present paper was in press [H. Kaiser, Anal. Chem., 42
(4), 26A (1970)].
Hence, a measurement being made, we decide whether the
sample may be a blank or not. (The blank being a sample
which is identical, in principle, to the samples of interest, ex-
cept that the substance sought is absent, or in such minute
quantity that it will give signals not higher than the back-
ground). Before making any measurement, on the other
hand, we can state that the lowest content we may distinguish
from zero is Xd, the abscissa corresponding to yc on the lower
confidence limit. Indeed, with the knowledge in our pos-
session, when we measure an unknown with a content lower
than xD, we run a risk higher than @ to obtain a signal lower
than yc, and hence to state that it is a blank. xD is then our
estimate of the "limit of guarantee for purity," as defined by
Kaiser (5) which in turn is equivalent to the "minimum detect-
able true activity" of Altshuler and Pasternak (5) and to the
"detection limit" of Currie (6).
It is perhaps not useless to remark that yc and xD have not a
fixed value. For a given method and a given number of stan-
dards they will vary because, first a and 0 may be chosen at
will, according to the acceptable levels of risk one is ready to
run to derive false conclusions, and second, by making a
second series of standards, identical to the actual series, we
would obtain signals differing at random from the actual
signals. The regression line and the confidence limits we
would then draw would not exactly coincide with the actual
lines, and yc and xD would be somewhat different. In other
words, yc and xD are random variables and estimates only.
B-8
-------
But this is the normal situation whenever randomness is an
integral part of the phenomenon.
By way of summary, two sensitivity limits are proposed
here: a signal level yc and a content xD. These notions are
very similar to the lower limits of detection for radioactivity
counters proposed by B. Altshuler and B. Pasternak (5). The
first limit concerns signals and will lead to an a posteriori
decision, i.e., a decision taken after the signal is measured; the
second limit is relative to contents and is inherent to the
method; it specifies a priori the content which will be safely
detected without confusion with blanks. It will be seen that
yc and xD are directly connected with the statistical notions of
the "errors of the first and the second kind," respectively.
[A good introduction to these classical notions will be found
in (5) ]. As the direct relationship between these limits and
the confidence limits is now established, it is clear that the
problem is equivalent to the study of the influence of the
standards on the confidence limits: to lower yc and xD, the
confidence limits must be brought nearer to the regression line.
MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENTS
Notations. The following notations have already been
introduced: a, yc, xd. We will also use:
Y0 = estimate of the expectation of the response signal for
a blank (x = 0) (y0 is the intersection of the calibra-
tion line with the axis of ordinates)
ya = signal corresponding to xD on the calibration line
xc = abscissa corresponding to yc on the calibration line
N = number of standards
Xi = concentration of the element of interest in the ith
standard (i = 1,N)
N
2 = the summation sign; stands for
i = l
X = mean; X = 2Xi/N
xi = lowest concentration within the series of standards
xn = highest concentration within the series of standards
K = number of standards equal to Xi in the "three values"
repartition of the contents of the standards
X,- = dimensionlessfactor; X,-=
Xj — Xi
xN — Xi
\D = value of Xi corresponding to xz>; \D =
Xp ~ Xi
xk - xi
(1)
(2)
y = exponent of the parabolic repartition (Eq 24)
y< = the observed intensity of a characteristic line of the
element of interest measured for the ith standard
y = mean; y = 2y{JN
b = angular coefficient of the regression line, whose equation
is:
Y = y + b(x - X)
with
b =
ZQ, ~ X)(y{ - y)
2(Xi - ay
by the least squares method
Yi = calculated signal corresponding to x{
(3)
(4)
(5)
Yi = y + b(xi - £)
s2 = the estimate of the residual variance
^ = 20>, - Y
-------
Four types or repartition of the standards
A. Equidistant or linear
B. Parabolic
C. In two values
D. In three values
the preceding paragraph will yield
yo = yc + sti-p
i-^/l +
+
(xD - x)2
2(*( - xy
(18)
and a decrease of yc will generally bring about a decrease of
yD. yD may be considered as the sum of three terms
ya = Y0 + Ps + Qs
(19)
and the problem is thus concerned with the reduction of P
and Q.
Computation of P. It will prove useful to express the x's as
functions of R, X<, and xi
Xi = (1 + \iR)x i
(20)
where R represents the "range ratio" of the contents of the
standards (Equation 7) and where the Xt's are dimensionless
factors which depend on the repartition of the standards. Let
us observe that
0 sC X< ^ 1, Xi = 0, \y = 1
(21)
It will readily be seen that the third term of P, Pm, does not
depend on the scale of the x% but may be expressed as a func-
tion of the range ratio and the X ('s only:
(S + X>'
¦L{Xi - xy z(x, - x)«
hence
P =
-------
Figure 4. Influence of range R on decision limit, four to six
standards, a = 5%. P is in ordinates. For each N, the upper
curve corresponds to the parabolic repartition with y — 2,
and the lower curve to the three values repartition, with the
values of K written on the curve
Values of P as a function of R have been computed for these
four types of repartition and for different values of N. The
computations have been done with the program TABFUN
(9) on the IBM 360/65 of the CETIS at Ispra (Italy). The
principal results are presented in Figure 3 for N = 3 and in
Figures 4 and 5 for N=4 to 10. For the three graphs, R is in
abscissae and P in ordinates. In Figure 3, the upper curve
corresponds to the linear repartition, and the lower curve to
the parabolic repartition with 7 = 2. In Figures 4 and 5, the
three values repartition is represented by plain curves. The
values of K which give the smallest P are written on these
curves, the field of validity being limited by arrows. Thus,
for N = 10, R = 3, it is seen on Figure 5 that K must be equal
to 7. Except for R inferior to 4, an unusual occurrence, K is
equal to N — 2. The parabolic repartition with y = 2 is rep-
resented on the same graphs as dotted lines. For the sake
of clarity, the curves corresponding to the linear repartition
have not been included in graphs 4 and 5. Had they been
represented, the parabolic curves would have been roughly at
mid-distance between them and the three values curves.
Estimation of Q. Qui contains xD and hence, unlike
P, Q may not be expressed as a function of t, R, N, and the
X's. But, on the other hand, if we could make X equal to xD,
Qui would vanish. In practice, as xD is known only after the
standards are measured, it is not possible to realize a complete
equality, but a fair approximation will be sufficient. It is thus
to be recommended that the contents of the standards be
chosen in such a way that x will fall in the neighborhood of the
region where xD will most probably be.
Contrary to xc, which is obtained after few computations,
the algebraic expression for xD is really cumbersome [see (S),
(9) A. Hubaux and M. Lecloux, Tabulation de Fonctions, CEEA
Report EUR 2987.f (1966).
2.0
06 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 50 20 40
R
Figure 5. Same as Figure 4, for six to ten standards
§ 11.5]. A graphical solution will be quicker; compute Lc by
Equation 16, possibly using the graphs of Figures 3 to 5, com-
pute three or four points of the lower confidence limit by
Equation 15 using the minus sign, and draw the line through
the points with a French curve. The intersection of this line
with y = Lc has xD as its abscissa. Let us observe that
xc > xD — xc ^ -js^l + jb (25)
the equality on the right being carried out when xD — X.
When that condition is fulfilled,
Q — t\— 0 (26)
This expression may be used as an estimate of Q in ana-
lytical practice.
WAYS TO IMPROVE DECISION
AND DETECTION LIMITS
Enhancing the sensitivity of an analytical method can be ob-
tained by improving the precision of the method (s); in-
creasing the number of standards (AQ; increasing the range of
the contents of these standards (R)\ optimizing the repartition
of these standards within this range (the Xj's and X); and per-
forming replicate measurements on the unknown sample («).
Precision. The residual standard deviation s is a good
measure of the goodness of fit of the observed signals of the
standards, or, in other words, of the precision of the method.
It is clear from Equations 17 and 19 that there is a direct
relationship between precision and sensitivity: improving
the precision will lower the limits yc and xd.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 8, JULY 1970 • 853
B-ll
-------
Number of Standards. The influence of N is, of course,
important, see Figures 3 to 5, especially between 3 and 6.
This is due to the fact that t, 1 IN, and 2(xt — x)1 all depend on
N. Obviously, as results from Equation 18, the influence of
N on yD will be important also. Although the equation
cannot be computed in a general way, it may be said, in first
approximation, that Q will diminish in the same proportion as
P, when N increases.
Range of Contents of Standards. The influence on P of
the range ratio R is expressed in Equation 23 and illustrated
by Figures 3 to 5. P is very sensitive to small values of the
range ratio, say under 10. From 10 to 20, on the other hand,
P goes down only a few percent. Above 20, the gain becomes
completely negligible. This consideration may be of use
in a number of cases: if the lowest possible standard is at
10 ppm, there is no gain in sensitivity by preparing standards
with more than 200 ppm. On the other hand, if we have at
our disposal only standards between 80 and 120 ppm (R =
0.5) we should expect a really poor sensitivity, unless s is very
small, that is unless all the observed signals fall neatly on the
regression line. Let us note that, when a "blank" is available,
xi will be very small (it will never be exactly equal to zero) and
the range ratio will take a very high value. For all practical
purposes, the right extremity of the graphs (R = 20) may be
used in this case.
The influence of R on Q is not so readily computed. It may
be said however, that this influence will be small as long as X
remains in the neighborhood of xD, and nil when the two co-
incide.
Modes of Repartition of Standards. Very often, N is
fixed by economical considerations, various conditions de-
termine the value of xi and xN, and s is made as small as prac-
tically possible by a careful preparation of the standards and a
good checking of the measurements. When N, R, and s are
fixed, however, one still has the liberty to distribute the X4's in
the manner best suited for his purposes. Generally, two aims
are pursued: first, to check the linearity of the content/
signal relation, and second, to lower the sensitivity limit as
much as possible. There is no strategy which optimizes both
aims: to obtain a maximum of information on the linearity,
th; x's should be as far as possible from each other, or, in
other words, they should be equidistant (see Figure 2A).
On the other hand, the best disposition which we have found
after soms computations to enhance the sensitivity is to have
a certain number of standards with the smallest admissible
content (i.e., equal to *0 and the other standards with the
maximum permissible content xN (see Figure 2C). When the
range ratio is greater than 4 or 5, there should be N — 1
standards equal to xh and only one equal to xN. The dimin-
ution of P, by adopting the second scheme instead of the first,
may be as high as 30 % when the range ratio is small and re-
mains of the order of 10 to 15% when this ratio tends to in-
finity. But unfortunately, this disposition is impossible to
adopt in practice because there would not be any control on
linearity and because any error on the standard at xN would be
impossible to assess.
As an alternative, we have studied what appears to be the
best substitute, the three values distribution, as illustrated at
Figure 2D, where there is a check on linearity and on the ab-
sence of gross errors. The values of P obtained from Equa-
tion 23 with this disposition are plotted as plain curves on
Figures 4 and 5. As a comparison, the values of P correspond-
ing to the parabolic distribution with 7 = 2 are given as dotted
curves. Computations have shown that this parabolic dis-
tribution yields a lower P than the equidistant distribution
(2.25 instead of 2.42 with N = 8, R = 10). But on the other
hand, this P is still notably higher than the corresponding P of
the three values disposition: 2.13. With the parabolic re-
partition, this value of 2.13 is not even reached by the use of 9
standards (P = 2.17). Thus, with the three values disposi-
tion, we may gain the effect on sensitivity of more than one
standard. When the range ratio is smaller and N bigger, the
gain is still more important: 8 standards with the three
values disposition will give a sensitivity as good (for R = 3 or
less) as 10 standards distributed parabolically: a gain of two
standards!
With the three values repartition, x is low and, hence, more
likely to fall near xD, thus contributing also to reduce Q.
More specifically, it may be shown that, if we take the three
values mode with K = N—2, the third term of Q is equal to
Qui =
1.25
2.25
(27)
(the developments are straightforward and too long to be
given here). From this equation it will be clear that if is
not too far from 1.5jN, Qui will be conspicuously smaller
than unity; hence, the exact coincidence of x and xD is not re-
quired.
Replication on the Unknown. By making n replicates on the
unknown sample, the residual variance is divided by n and P
must be replaced by P„, with
= 'J—
i n
1 x2
_| 1 ±
n x(Xi - xy
(28)
It should be emphasized that this equation applies to repli-
cates which may really be considered as "independent" from
each other. It is readily seen that
P 2
l n
p2
- 0 - T>
(29)
and hence that replication may conspicuously improve the
sensitivity. Let us also remark that the influence of replica-
tions will have somewhat more effect when P diminishes.
For instance, with N = 4 and a = 5%, t is 2.92; if P is equal
to 3.7, four replications (« = 4) will yield Pi = 2.7, a gain of
27%. With N = 10, t9S% = 1.86; if P = 2.0, n = 4 will yield
P10 = 1.19, a gain of 40%.
Likewise, Q must be replaced by Q„, and in symmetry with
Equation 29, we have
Qn2 = Q2
(-1)
(30)
Hence, the effect of replication on yD will be about the same as
the effect on yc.
A further advantage of replication is that it will yield esti-
mates of the residual variance. It will then be possible to test
whether this variance remains constant, as supposed in the
present developments; if it does, a better estimate of this vari-
ance may be obtained and thus a t with more degrees of
freedom may be used, and this smaller t will also contribute
to diminish yc and xD.
CONCLUSIONS
The definition of the decision and detection limits is here
attached to the concept of confidence limits. This presents
the advantage that the influence of the standards on the sensi-
854 • ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 8, JULY 1970
B-12
-------
tivity may be quantitatively estimated. The most important
conclusions are:
A direct relationship exists between the precision of the
method and its sensitivity.
There is, as expected, an important gain in sensitivity
when increasing the number of standards from 3 to 6.
Above 10 standards, the gain is of the order of 2 to 1 % on
P and Q for one additional standard.
The range ratio should be higher than 10, a condition
which is easily met in most cases. But there is no need
that it be higher than 20.
When blanks may be added to the series of standards,
Figures 3 to 5 may also be used, the results for R = °°
being practically equal to those of R = 20.
Where it is important to have a limit of detection as
low as possible, it may be of advantage to distribute the
standards into three groups of contents only: K standards
with the lowest possible content, N — K — 1 standards
with the highest possible content and one at midway be-
tween. The value of K may be read on Figures 4 and 5,
where it is seen that when R is greater than 4, K = N — 2.
This distribution in three values will allow a gain which may
be of one or even two standards, when used instead of the
more common equidistant or parabolic distributions.
The mean content of the standards, x, should fall in
the neighborhood of the presupposed value of xD, a re-
quirement which will be easier to meet with the three
values repartition.
Replicate measurements on the unknown samples con-
spicuously improve the decision and detection limits; this
improvement may be computed by Equations 29 and 30.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Case 1. In order to be accepted, an organic material
should have a chlorine content inferior to 3.5 ppm. The
material is to be analyzed by X-ray fluorescence and the
lowest possible content for reliable standards (*0 is 1 ppm
CI. As has been shown, the range of the standards, R, should
be around 20, hence xN = 21 ppm. a and /3 are both chosen
as 5%. Six standards are prepared and measured, with
contents distributed in the three-values mode, yielding as
equation of the regression line y = 2286 + 54.4 x (x in ppm,
y in counts, for a counting time of 100 seconds) with a standard
deviation of 40.0 counts. From Figure 5, P = 2.39, hence
yc = 2382 and xc = 1.77 ppm. Graphical estimate of xD
yields 3.2 ppm. This value is too high, but duplicates on the
unknown will give P> = 1.89, Qi = 2.08, and hence xD =
2.51 ppm.
Case 2. Only three standards of a particular impurity
in an alloy are available. The contents are 89, 91, and 144
ppm. Hence x = 108 and R = 0.62, a low value indeed!
Careful analysis of the three standards gives a regression
line with equation: y = 64690 + 45.2 x counts (100 sec
counting time) and residual standard deviation of 400 counts.
?95% for 1 degree of freedom = 6.314. Hence P = 17.1
by Equation 8, from which xc = 151 ppm! It may only be
concluded that this poor series of standards is really inap-
propriate. The addition of one standard at 400 ppm (sup-
posing linearity remains) would yield R = 3.5, hence P =
4.0 and xc = 35 ppm. The decision limit may be lowered
by adding to the series a standard with a higher content.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We express thanks to our colleagues, L. Farese, F. Girardi,
and J. Larisse, for fruitful discussions on various aspects of
the concepts exposed here.
Received for review May 21, 1969. Accepted February 24,
1970.
Computer Evaluation of Continuously Scanned Mass Spectra of
Gas Chromatographic Effluents
Ronald A. Hites1 and K. Biemann
Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 02139
Efficient utilization of the vast amount of data produced
by a continuously scanning mass spectrometer coupled
to a gas chromatograph required the development of
novel data processing techniques. One of the most
useful is the display of the change in abundance of
certain ions during the gas chromatogram (called
"mass chromatogram"). This technique permits de-
tection of the presence or absence of homologous
series of compounds as well as specific substances of
known or predictable mass spectra. The selection of
the m/e values to be plotted can be based on a knowl-
edge of the chemical system under investigation or can
be supported by an evaluation of the data itself. Ap-
plications of these approaches to geochemical and
biomedical problems are discussed.
The desirability of obtaining mass spectral information on
practically all components of a complex mixture led to the
design of a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer system
which uses a computer to continuously and automatically
record mass spectra of the gas chromatographic effluent (1).
1 NIH predoctoral fellow 1966-68.
(1) R. A. Hites and K. Biemann, Anal. Chem., 40, 1217 (1968).
The need to efficiently utilize the resulting data at a speed
comparable to that at which they are acquired made it neces-
sary to develop entirely new approaches to this problem.
One approach was the computerized searching of reference
mass spectra files (2-4). These techniques relieve the chemist
from a great deal of routine work but, because of the limited
number of spectra in the reference file (ca. 7500 are now avail-
able), search results sometimes do not indicate a definite com-
pound. Frequently, the suggestions of such a library search,
even though not conclusive, aid in the manual identification
of the spectra (2-4). In the course of using these library
search techniques for an extended time, several other ap-
proaches were developed for certain problems presented by
(2) R. A. Hites and K. Biemann in "Advances in Mass Spectrom-
etry," Vol. 4, E. Kendrick, Ed., The Institute of Petroleum,
London, 1968, p 37; presented at the International Mass Spec-
trometry Conference, Berlin, September 1967.
(3) R. A. Hites, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.
(4) R. A. Hites, H. S. Hertz, and K. Biemann, Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., unpublished work,
1969.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 8, JULY 1970 • 855
B-13
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C: DYE CONCENTRATIONS:
LABORATORY RESULTS
APPENDIX FOR SECTION 4:
FLUORESCENT DYE GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY
c-i
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
C-2
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 1
7/5/11
12:23
2/8/12
0.10
0.10
8/24/11
0.03
seep 1
7/6/11
13:15
8/24/11
0.02
seep 1
7/7/11
9:44
8/24/11
0.03
seep 1
7/9/11
9:47
8/31/11
0.04
seep 1
7/10/11
9:58
8/31/11
0.06
seep 1
7/11/11
8:42
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
7/11/11
10:20
2/8/12
0.09
0.09
12/30/11
0.03
seep 1
7/11/11
10:20
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
7/12/11
11:32
8/31/11
0.05
seep 1
7/13/11
9:29
8/31/11
0.04
seep 1
7/14/11
9:33
8/24/11
0.02
seep 1
7/15/11
9:47
8/24/11
0.03
seep 1
7/16/11
10:03
8/31/11
0.04
seep 1
7/17/11
9:29
2/8/12
0.09
0.09
8/24/11
0.03
seep 1
07/19/11
9:34
4.0
seep 1
07/25/11
10:00
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
seep 1
07/27/11
10:23
4.3
seep 1
07/28/11
9:44
4.3
09/23/11
0.06
seep 1
07/28/11
16:16
3.9
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
07/29/11
9:51
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
07/29/11
9:51
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
07/29/11
16:02
4.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
07/29/11
16:02
4.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
07/30/11
10:55
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
C-3
-------
Table C-l.
The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 1
07/30/11
16:37
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
07/31/11
10:08
4.4
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
07/31/11
10:08
4.4
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
07/31/11
16:27
4.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
07/31/11
16:27
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/01/11
10:10
4.2
2/8/12 0.13
0.02
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/01/11
10:10
4.2
2/8/12 0.13
0.02
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/01/11
15:53
4.1
2/8/12 0.13
0.02
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/01/11
15:53
4.1
2/8/12 0.13
0.02
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/02/11
8:39
4.0
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
08/02/11
15:43
4.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
08/03/11
9:52
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/03/11
9:52
4.1
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/03/11
16:04
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/03/11
16:04
4.1
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/04/11
10:52
4.0
9/23/11
0.05
seep 1
08/04/11
10:52
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/04/11
16:19
4.1
9/23/11
0.05
seep 1
08/04/11
16:19
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/05/11
10:30
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/05/11
16:48
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/08/11
9:35
4.3
9/9/11
0.03
seep 1
08/08/11
9:35
4.3
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/08/11
15:43
4.0
9/9/11
0.03
C-4
-------
Table C-l.
The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis FLT FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date Cone. for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(PPb) (PPb)
(ppb)
seep 1
08/08/11
15:43
4.0
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/09/11
9:38
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/09/11
15:35
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/10/11
11:27
4.3
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/10/11
11:27
4.3
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/10/11
16:15
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/10/11
16:15
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 1
08/11/11
9:34
4.3
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/11/11
16:02
4.0
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/13/11
9:32
4.3
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/13/11
15:35
4.2
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/14/11
9:56
4.3
10/14/11
0.03
seep 1
08/14/11
15:49
4.1
10/14/11
0.03
seep 1
08/15/11
0:39
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/15/11
9:20
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/15/11
15:33
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/17/11
10:23
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/17/11
16:11
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/18/11
0:50
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/18/11
9:23
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/18/11
15:51
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/19/11
9:51
4.1
2/8/12 0.09 -0.02
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/19/11
9:51
4.1
2/8/12 0.09 -0.02
9/23/11
0.04
seep 1
08/19/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12 0.09 -0.02
9/23/11
0.01
C-5
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 1
08/19/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.09
-0.02
9/23/11
0.04
seep 1
08/20/11
10:07
4.1
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/20/11
16:12
4.1
9/23/11
0.01
seep 1
08/21/11
10:03
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/21/11
10:03
4.3
11/4/11
0.02
seep 1
08/21/11
16:09
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/21/11
16:09
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 1
08/22/11
9:38
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/22/11
16:18
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/27/11
9:38
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/27/11
16:12
4.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.02
seep 1
08/28/11
9:36
4.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
08/28/11
15:54
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/01/11
10:31
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/01/11
16:23
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/02/11
10:35
4.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/02/11
16:06
4.2
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/04/11
15:52
4.0
11/23/11
0.02
seep 1
09/06/11
9:39
4.2
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/06/11
15:50
4.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/07/11
9:19
4.2
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/11/11
10:35
4.4
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/13/11
10:36
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.06
seep 1
09/14/11
9:42
4.3
2/10/11
0.11
0.00
2/14/12
0.03
C-6
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 1
09/16/11
11:16
4.6
11/23/11
0.02
seep 1
09/17/11
14:23
5.9
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/21/11
9:39
5.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/22/11
9:27
5.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/23/11
9:58
4.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/24/11
9:18
5.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
09/25/11
10:20
4.1
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
09/26/11
10:05
5.1
2/8/12
0.10
-0.01
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
09/27/11
9:44
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 1
09/28/11
9:44
4.1
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
09/29/11
9:46
4.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
09/29/11
9:46
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
09/30/11
9:49
4.1
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
10/01/11
10:04
4.1
11/4/11
0.00
seep 1
10/02/11
12:15
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
10/03/11
9:50
4.1
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
10/04/11
9:22
4.2
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
10/08/11
16:20
4.1
2/8/12
0.10
-0.01
11/4/11
0.00
seep 1
10/10/11
12:05
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 1
10/12/11
9:29
4.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 1
10/14/11
9:27
4.1
4/11/12
0.10
-0.01
4/12/12
0.01
seep 1
10/16/11
9:27
4.3
11/23/11
0.02
seep 1
10/18/11
11:43
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.02
seep 1
10/20/11
9:29
4.2
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
C-7
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 1
10/20/11
9:29
4.2
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
10/20/11
9:29
4.2
1/30/12
0.13
0.03
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
10/22/11
9:34
4.0
2/20/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.05
seep 1
10/24/11
9:31
4.1
2/20/12
0.16
0.05
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
10/26/11
9:30
4.1
2/7/12
0.17
0.07
11/23/11
0.05
seep 1
10/26/11
9:30
4.1
2/20/12
0.17
0.06
11/23/11
0.05
seep 1
10/28/11
9:35
4.0
2/20/12
0.21
0.10
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
10/30/11
11:32
4.0
12/30/11
0.02
seep 1
11/01/11
11:29
4.1
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
11/01/11
11:29
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
11/03/11
9:46
4.1
2/7/12
0.30
0.20
11/23/11
0.04
seep 1
11/09/11
10:11
4.2
1/27/12
0.53
0.43
11/23/11
0.03
seep 1
11/11/11
10:05
4.3
2/7/12
0.58
0.49
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
07/05/11
0:03
2/8/12
0.11
0.11
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/06/11
12:38
8/31/11
0.02
seep 2
07/07/11
10:03
8/31/11
0.03
seep 2
07/08/11
9:24
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/08/11
9:49
8/31/11
0.02
seep 2
07/08/11
9:49
8/31/11
0.03
seep 2
07/09/11
10:20
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/10/11
10:20
2/8/12
0.10
0.10
8/31/11
0.05
seep 2
07/11/11
10:44
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/12/11
9:47
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/13/11
9:44
2/8/12
0.10
0.10
8/31/11
0.04
C-8
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 2
07/14/11
9:52
8/31/11
0.07
seep 2
07/15/11
10:00
8/31/11
0.04
seep 2
07/16/11
10:20
8/24/11
0.03
seep 2
07/17/11
9:49
2/8/12
0.08
0.08
8/24/11
0.03
seep 2
07/20/11
12:16
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
07/21/11
8:38
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/22/11
10:20
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/23/11
9:45
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/25/11
10:08
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/26/11
9:45
4.2
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
07/27/11
10:33
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
9:53
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
9:53
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
9:53
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
16:25
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
16:25
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/28/11
16:25
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/29/11
10:00
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/29/11
10:00
4.3
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
07/29/11
16:09
3.9
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/29/11
16:09
3.9
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
07/30/11
11:04
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/30/11
11:04
4.3
12/30/11
0.04
seep 2
07/30/11
11:04
4.3
9/23/11
0.01
C-9
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 2
07/30/11
16:44
3.8
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/30/11
16:44
3.8
12/30/11
0.04
seep 2
07/30/11
16:44
3.8
9/23/11
0.01
seep 2
07/31/11
10:14
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/31/11
10:14
4.3
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
07/31/11
16:20
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
07/31/11
16:20
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/01/11
3:59
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/01/11
3:59
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/01/11
9:56
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/01/11
9:56
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/02/11
8:46
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/02/11
8:46
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/02/11
15:49
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/02/11
15:49
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/03/11
0:13
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/03/11
0:13
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
0:13
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
0:13
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/03/11
0:13
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
9:45
4.4
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/03/11
9:45
4.4
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
9:45
4.4
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
9:45
4.4
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
12/30/11
0.03
C-10
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 2
08/03/11
9:45
4.4
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/03/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/03/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/03/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/04/11
10:41
3.9
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/04/11
16:12
4.1
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/05/11
0:37
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/05/11
0:37
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/05/11
10:46
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/05/11
10:46
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/05/11
16:58
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/05/11
16:58
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/06/11
0:58
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/06/11
0:58
4.2
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/06/11
0:58
4.2
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/06/11
9:00
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/06/11
9:00
4.2
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/06/11
9:00
4.2
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/06/11
15:46
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/06/11
15:46
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/06/11
15:46
4.1
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
3:15
4.3
10/4/11
0.02
C-ll
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis FLT FLT Cone. Adj SRB Analysis SRB
Location Date Time Salinity Date Cone. for Salinity Date Cone.
(PPb) (PPb) (ppb)
seep 2
08/07/11
3:15
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
3:15
4.3
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
3:15
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
9:20
4.3
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
9:20
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
9:20
4.3
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
9:20
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
16:01
4.1
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
16:01
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
16:01
4.1
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
16:01
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
23:25
4.2
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
23:25
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/07/11
23:25
4.2
10/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/07/11
23:25
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/08/11
9:27
4.3
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/08/11
9:27
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 2
08/08/11
15:48
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/08/11
15:48
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 2
08/09/11
0:08
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/09/11
0:08
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/09/11
0:08
4.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/09/11
0:08
4.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/09/11
9:30
4.4
9/9/11
0.04
C-12
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 2
08/09/11
9:30
4.4
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/09/11
9:30
4.4
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/09/11
9:30
4.4
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/09/11
15:45
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/09/11
15:45
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 2
08/09/11
15:45
4.0
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/09/11
15:45
4.0
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/10/11
0:00
4.2
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/10/11
11:18
4.3
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/10/11
16:19
4.0
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
0:26
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
0:26
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/11/11
0:26
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/11/11
0:26
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
9:26
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
9:26
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/11/11
9:26
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/11/11
9:26
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
16:09
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/11/11
16:09
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/11/11
16:09
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/11/11
16:09
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
0:25
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
0:25
4.2
11/4/11
0.02
C-13
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis FLT FLT Cone. Adj SRB Analysis SRB
Location Date Time Salinity Date Cone. for Salinity Date Cone.
(PPb) (PPb) (ppb)
seep 2
08/12/11
0:25
4.2
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/12/11
0:25
4.2
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
9:27
4.3
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
9:27
4.3
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/12/11
9:27
4.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/12/11
9:27
4.3
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
16:01
4.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/12/11
16:01
4.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/12/11
16:01
4.0
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/12/11
16:01
4.0
12/30/11
0.03
seep 2
08/13/11
0:28
4.2
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/13/11
0:28
4.2
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/13/11
9:25
4.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/13/11
9:25
4.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/13/11
15:45
4.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/13/11
15:45
4.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/14/11
0:23
4.2
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/14/11
0:23
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/14/11
9:40
4.2
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/14/11
9:40
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/14/11
15:54
4.2
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/14/11
15:54
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/15/11
9:27
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/15/11
9:27
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
C-14
-------
Table C-l.
The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 2
08/15/11
15:39
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/15/11
15:39
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/16/11
10:08
4.2
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/16/11
10:08
4.2
11/4/11
0.04
seep 2
08/16/11
15:16
4.2
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/16/11
15:16
4.2
11/4/11
0.04
seep 2
08/17/11
10:32
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/17/11
10:32
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
08/17/11
16:03
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
08/17/11
16:03
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
08/18/11
9:38
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/18/11
9:38
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/18/11
15:41
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/18/11
15:41
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/19/11
9:34
4.1
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/19/11
9:34
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/19/11
16:03
4.1
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/19/11
16:03
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/20/11
10:02
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/20/11
10:02
4.1
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
08/20/11
16:05
4.1
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/20/11
16:05
4.1
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
08/21/11
9:53
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/21/11
9:53
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
C-15
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 2
08/21/11
16:03
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/21/11
16:03
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/22/11
9:31
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/22/11
9:31
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/22/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/22/11
16:11
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/24/11
17:10
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/25/11
9:58
4.3
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/25/11
9:58
4.3
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/25/11
16:34
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/25/11
16:34
4.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/26/11
9:38
4.3
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/26/11
15:47
3.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/27/11
9:48
4.3
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/27/11
9:48
4.3
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/27/11
16:23
3.9
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
08/27/11
16:23
3.9
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
08/28/11
9:45
4.2
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/28/11
9:45
4.2
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/28/11
16:02
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/28/11
16:02
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
08/29/11
9:49
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/29/11
9:49
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/29/11
16:05
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
C-16
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 2
08/29/11
16:05
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
08/30/11
9:33
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/01/11
10:49
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/01/11
10:49
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/01/11
16:13
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/01/11
16:13
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/02/11
10:23
4.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
09/02/11
15:55
4.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 2
09/03/11
9:56
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
09/03/11
9:56
4.2
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
09/03/11
16:09
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
09/03/11
16:09
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
09/04/11
15:40
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
09/05/11
9:46
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/05/11
16:05
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/07/11
9:27
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/10/11
10:32
4.9
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/11/11
10:20
6.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/14/11
9:55
4.6
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
09/15/11
9:34
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/18/11
11:13
7.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/18/11
11:13
7.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 2
09/19/11
10:18
6.8
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
09/20/11
9:49
6.7
2/10/11
0.10
-0.01
2/14/12
0.03
C-17
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 2
09/21/11
9:30
6.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
09/22/11
9:36
9.9
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
09/23/11
9:39
5.7
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
09/24/11
9:09
6.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
09/26/11
10:18
5.2
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
09/27/11
9:35
4.2
11/4/11
0.01
seep 2
09/28/11
9:35
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 2
09/29/11
9:34
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
09/30/11
9:39
4.2
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
10/01/11
9:55
4.3
11/4/11
0.01
seep 2
10/03/11
9:40
4.6
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.01
seep 2
10/04/11
9:34
4.4
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
10/08/11
16:30
4.0
11/4/11
0.21
seep 2
10/12/11
9:38
4.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 2
10/14/11
9:34
4.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
10/16/11
9:36
4.4
11/23/11
0.02
seep 2
10/18/11
11:58
4.4
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
10/20/11
9:40
4.2
2/20/12
0.12
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
10/20/11
9:40
4.2
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
10/22/11
9:41
4.0
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
10/22/11
9:41
4.0
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
10/24/11
9:41
4.1
2/20/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
10/26/11
9:40
4.1
2/7/12
0.17
0.06
11/23/11
0.05
seep 2
10/26/11
9:40
4.1
2/20/12
0.17
0.06
11/23/11
0.05
C-18
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 2
10/28/11
9:45
4.0
2/20/12
0.19
0.08
11/23/11
0.03
seep 2
11/03/11
9:39
4.0
11/23/11
0.04
seep 2
11/05/11
13:22
4.1
1/30/12
0.35
0.25
seep 2
11/07/11
9:41
4.1
2/7/12
0.42
0.32
11/23/11
0.02
seep 2
11/09/11
9:58
4.2
2/7/12
0.49
0.39
11/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/19/11
9:25
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/20/11
9:59
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
07/21/11
8:25
3.8
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/25/11
10:16
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/28/11
9:32
4.2
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/28/11
16:07
3.9
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/29/11
1:27
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
07/29/11
1:27
4.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/29/11
9:43
4.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
07/29/11
9:43
4.2
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/29/11
15:55
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
07/29/11
15:55
4.0
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/30/11
0:35
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/30/11
0:35
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
07/30/11
0:35
4.1
8/31/11
0.04
seep 6
07/30/11
0:35
4.1
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
07/30/11
16:24
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/30/11
16:24
4.3
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
07/30/11
16:24
4.3
8/31/11
0.04
C-19
-------
Table C-l.
The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis FLT FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity Date Cone. for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(PPb) (PPb)
(ppb)
seep 6
07/30/11
16:24
4.3
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
07/31/11
10:00
4.0
12/30/11
0.03
seep 6
07/31/11
10:00
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
10:00
4.0
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
10:00
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/30/11
11:09
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/30/11
11:09
4.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
07/30/11
11:09
4.1
8/31/11
0.04
seep 6
07/30/11
11:09
4.1
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
07/31/11
16:10
4.3
12/30/11
0.03
seep 6
07/31/11
16:10
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
16:10
4.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
16:10
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
0:42
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
seep 6
07/31/11
0:42
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
0:42
4.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 6
07/31/11
0:42
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/01/11
10:04
4.2
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
08/01/11
10:04
4.2
9/9/11
0.05
seep 6
08/01/11
15:47
4.1
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
08/01/11
15:47
4.1
9/9/11
0.05
seep 6
08/02/11
8:29
4.1 2/9/11 0.12 0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 6
08/02/11
8:29
4.1 2/9/11 0.12 0.01
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/02/11
15:35
4.1 2/9/11 0.12 0.01
9/9/11
0.05
C-20
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 6
08/02/11
15:35
4.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
9:58
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
9:58
4.1
10/14/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
9:58
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
15:55
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
15:55
4.1
10/14/11
0.03
seep 6
08/03/11
15:55
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/04/11
10:56
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/04/11
10:56
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/04/11
16:25
4.0
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/04/11
16:25
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/05/11
10:31
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/05/11
16:37
4.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/06/11
9:20
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/06/11
15:30
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/07/11
9:40
4.2
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
08/07/11
9:40
4.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/07/11
15:43
4.0
8/31/11
0.05
seep 6
08/07/11
15:43
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/08/11
9:42
4.3
9/9/11
0.05
seep 6
08/08/11
9:42
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/08/11
15:34
4.0
9/9/11
0.05
seep 6
08/08/11
15:34
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/09/11
9:48
4.3
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.04
C-21
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 6
08/09/11
9:48
4.3
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 6
08/09/11
15:30
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/09/11
15:30
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
9/9/11
0.03
seep 6
08/10/11
11:30
4.3
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/10/11
11:30
4.3
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/10/11
11:30
4.3
9/9/11
0.02
seep 6
08/10/11
16:05
4.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 6
08/10/11
16:05
4.0
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/10/11
16:05
4.0
9/9/11
0.02
seep 6
08/11/11
9:37
4.3
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/11/11
15:55
3.9
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/12/11
9:41
4.3
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/12/11
15:37
4.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/14/11
16:01
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/15/11
9:34
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/15/11
15:47
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/16/11
2:39
4.2
12/14/11
0.03
seep 6
08/16/11
2:39
4.2
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/16/11
9:47
4.2
12/14/11
0.03
seep 6
08/16/11
9:47
4.2
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/16/11
15:33
4.2
12/14/11
0.03
seep 6
08/16/11
15:33
4.2
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/18/11
9:55
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/18/11
16:00
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
C-22
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 6
08/20/11
9:54
4.0
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/20/11
15:57
4.1
9/23/11
0.03
seep 6
08/21/11
9:49
4.2
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/21/11
16:16
4.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/22/11
9:25
4.2
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/22/11
16:04
4.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 6
08/23/11
9:35
4.2
12/14/11
0.02
seep 6
08/23/11
15:36
4.0
12/14/11
0.02
seep 6
08/24/11
10:26
4.3
10/4/11
0.00
seep 6
08/24/11
16:50
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 6
08/26/11
9:30
4.4
12/5/11
0.02
seep 6
08/26/11
15:38
4.0
12/5/11
0.02
seep 6
08/29/11
9:39
4.1
10/4/11
0.00
seep 6
08/29/11
15:55
4.0
10/4/11
0.00
seep 6
09/01/11
11:00
4.8
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/01/11
16:33
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/02/11
10:46
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
12/5/11
0.01
seep 6
09/02/11
10:46
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/02/11
16:16
5.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
12/5/11
0.01
seep 6
09/02/11
16:16
5.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/04/11
16:05
4.6
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/06/11
9:24
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/06/11
16:07
4.0
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/08/11
9:46
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
C-23
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 6
09/09/11
10:40
4.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
09/10/11
10:42
4.3
2/10/11
0.11
0.00
2/14/12
0.03
seep 6
09/11/11
10:48
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/12/11
12:00
4.3
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/13/11
11:02
4.2
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
09/14/11
10:05
4.2
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
09/15/11
9:46
4.2
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/15/11
9:46
4.2
12/5/11
0.02
seep 6
09/16/11
11:37
4.2
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
12/5/11
0.02
seep 6
09/18/11
11:25
5.7
10/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/19/11
10:32
7.0
11/23/11
0.02
seep 6
09/20/11
9:40
4.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
09/21/11
9:21
5.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
09/22/11
9:48
6.5
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
09/23/11
9:50
4.6
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
09/24/11
8:57
4.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
09/25/11
10:33
5.4
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/26/11
10:36
5.9
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
09/27/11
9:25
4.6
11/4/11
0.02
seep 6
09/28/11
9:26
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/29/11
9:21
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
09/30/11
9:28
4.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 6
10/01/11
9:45
4.2
11/23/11
0.02
seep 6
10/02/11
12:03
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
C-24
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 6
10/02/11
12:03
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
10/03/11
9:30
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
10/04/11
9:47
4.1
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
10/06/11
12:18
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 6
10/08/11
16:09
4.0
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
10/12/11
9:20
4.1
11/4/11
0.01
seep 6
10/14/11
9:47
4.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
10/16/11
9:46
4.3
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/18/11
11:32
4.3
2/10/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.05
seep 6
10/20/11
9:53
4.1
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/20/11
9:53
4.1
2/9/11
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/22/11
9:51
4.0
2/20/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/22/11
9:51
4.0
2/7/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/24/11
9:51
4.1
2/20/12
0.15
0.05
seep 6
10/26/11
9:58
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
10/28/11
9:25
4.0
1/30/12
0.20
0.09
11/23/11
0.05
seep 6
11/01/11
11:52
4.1
1/27/12
0.24
0.14
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
11/03/11
9:53
4.1
2/9/11
0.29
0.18
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
11/05/11
13:07
4.1
1/27/12
0.35
0.24
seep 6
11/07/11
9:31
4.1
2/9/11
0.40
0.30
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
11/09/11
9:39
4.1
2/7/12
0.47
0.37
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
11/09/11
9:39
4.1
1/30/12
0.48
0.38
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
11/11/11
9:54
4.3
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
11/16/11
9:49
3.9
1/27/12
0.89
0.80
11/23/11
0.04
C-25
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 6
11/16/11
9:49
3.9
1/30/12
0.18
0.07
11/23/11
0.04
seep 6
11/18/11
10:02
4.8
2/9/11
0.94
0.88
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
11/18/11
10:02
4.8
2/7/12
0.53
0.45
11/23/11
0.03
seep 6
11/21/11
9:37
4.2
1/27/12
1.18
1.10
12/5/11
0.02
seep 6
11/23/11
9:34
4.0
1/27/12
1.37
1.29
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 7
11/16/11
9:10
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
Seep 7
11/18/11
9:45
4.1
11/23/11
0.04
Seep 7
11/21/11
9:49
4.0
12/14/11
0.04
Seep 7
11/23/11
9:57
4.0
1/27/12
1.43
1.36
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 7
11/25/11
10:08
4.2
1/27/12
1.54
1.48
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 7
11/28/11
9:41
6.5
1/30/12
1.77
1.86
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 7
11/28/11
9:41
6.5
2/7/12
1.76
1.85
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 7
11/30/11
10:39
4.0
1/27/12
2.27
2.22
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 7
12/02/11
9:44
4.2
1/30/12
2.39
2.36
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 7
12/05/11
10:03
4.0
12/30/11
0.02
Seep 7
12/07/11
9:33
3.9
1/30/12
3.15
3.12
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 7
12/09/11
9:39
4.1
2/7/12
3.70
3.71
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 7
12/14/11
9:25
4.0
2/7/12
4.85
4.88
12/30/11
0.02
Seep 7
12/19/11
9:58
4.0
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 7
12/21/11
10:18
4.1
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 7
12/23/11
10:10
4.6
2/7/12
6.82
7.04
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 7
12/26/11
10:14
4.1
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 7
12/28/11
10:06
4.1
2/7/12
7.80
7.93
1/11/12
0.02
Seep 7
12/30/11
10:21
4.4
1/11/12
0.03
C-26
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 7
01/02/12
10:18
8.2
1/11/12
0.02
Seep 7
01/04/12
14:48
4.2
2/10/11
9.25
9.47
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/07/12
14:46
4.2
1/27/12
10.08
10.33
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/09/12
11:11
4.0
1/27/12
10.59
10.78
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/11/12
10:55
4.0
1/27/12
11.50
11.72
1/20/12
0.09
Seep 7
01/13/12
11:25
4.1
1/27/12
11.80
12.07
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/16/12
13:04
4.1
1/27/12
12.11
12.39
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/19/12
10:12
4.3
2/10/11
12.51
12.89
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 7
01/21/12
16:00
4.2
2/10/11
13.31
13.68
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 7
01/23/12
11:30
4.1
2/10/11
13.92
14.25
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 7
01/25/12
9:43
4.1
2/20/12
14.66
15.02
3/7/12
0.05
Seep 7
01/27/12
12:20
4.1
2/10/11
13.82
14.15
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 7
01/31/12
11:13
4.1
2/10/11
15.02
15.40
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 7
02/10/12
0:06
4.3
3/5/12
16.45
16.98
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 7
02/14/12
13:17
4.2
3/5/12
17.78
18.30
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 7
02/17/12
11:20
4.2
3/5/12
19.01
19.58
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 7
02/20/12
13:46
4.3
3/5/12
19.93
20.60
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 7
02/24/12
11:03
4.2
3/24/12
19.65
20.24
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 7
02/27/12
10:05
4.2
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 7
03/01/12
11:29
4.3
3/18/12
21.50
22.23
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 8
11/16/11
9:35
5.0
11/23/11
0.04
Seep 8
11/23/11
9:45
4.2
1/27/12
1.60
1.54
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 8
11/25/11
10:18
4.3
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 8
11/28/11
9:53
5.9
1/27/12
1.65
1.69
12/5/11
0.03
C-27
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 8
11/30/11
10:49
4.0
2/7/12
2.53
2.49
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 8
12/02/11
9:54
4.1
1/27/12
2.74
2.71
12/5/11
0.02
Seep 8
12/05/11
9:51
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 8
12/07/11
9:54
4.2
1/27/12
2.78
2.76
1/20/12
0.02
Seep 8
12/09/11
9:49
4.1
2/7/12
3.91
3.93
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 8
12/14/11
9:44
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 8
12/16/11
9:50
4.0
2/7/12
5.32
5.37
Seep 8
12/19/11
9:47
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 8
12/21/11
10:43
4.2
1/11/12
0.02
Seep 8
12/23/11
10:34
4.2
2/7/12
7.13
7.27
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 8
12/26/11
10:35
4.3
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 8
12/28/11
10:15
4.3
2/7/12
8.39
8.60
1/11/12
0.11
Seep 8
12/30/11
10:45
4.6
1/11/12
0.02
Seep 8
01/02/12
10:50
22.0
1/11/12
0.00
Seep 8
01/04/12
15:17
4.4
2/10/11
10.40
10.73
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/07/12
15:08
4.3
2/7/12
11.35
11.67
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/07/12
15:08
4.3
1/27/12
11.40
11.73
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/09/12
10:36
4.2
1/27/12
11.80
12.11
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/11/12
10:33
4.2
1/27/12
12.82
13.16
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/11/12
10:33
4.2
1/27/12
12.82
13.16
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 8
01/13/12
11:02
4.2
1/27/12
12.92
13.26
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 8
01/16/12
12:47
4.1
1/27/12
13.73
14.06
1/20/12
0.05
Seep 8
01/16/12
12:47
4.1
1/27/12
13.63
13.95
1/20/12
0.05
Seep 9
11/30/11
9:27
4.0
2/7/12
2.17
2.12
12/5/11
0.03
C-28
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 9
11/30/11
9:27
4.0
1/30/12
2.17
2.12
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/02/11
9:30
4.2
1/30/12
2.40
2.37
12/5/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/07/11
9:44
3.9
1/27/12
3.08
3.05
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 9
12/09/11
9:28
3.9
2/7/12
3.54
3.52
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/09/11
9:28
3.9
2/7/12
3.54
3.52
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/14/11
9:35
4.0
2/7/12
4.82
4.85
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/19/11
10:06
4.1
12/30/11
0.03
Seep 9
12/21/11
10:31
4.0
2/7/12
5.98
6.04
1/11/12
-0.01
Seep 9
12/21/11
10:31
4.0
2/7/12
5.98
6.04
1/11/12
0.02
Seep 9
12/23/11
10:21
4.1
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 9
12/26/11
10:24
4.0
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 9
12/28/11
9:57
4.1
2/7/12
7.83
7.97
Seep 9
12/30/11
10:36
4.2
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 9
01/02/12
10:36
14.0
2/7/12
5.25
7.81
1/11/12
0.01
Seep 9
01/04/12
15:03
5.2
2/10/11
8.68
9.17
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 9
01/07/12
14:58
7.9
1/27/12
9.00
10.46
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 9
01/09/12
10:56
4.2
1/27/12
10.59
10.85
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 9
01/11/12
10:45
4.4
2/10/11
11.00
11.36
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 9
01/13/12
11:15
16.8
1/27/12
6.95
11.99
1/20/12
0.02
Seep 9
01/16/12
13:16
17.9
1/27/12
6.99
12.84
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 9
01/19/12
9:58
5.3
2/10/11
11.71
12.46
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 9
01/21/12
16:13
15.0
2/20/12
8.31
13.08
Seep 9
01/23/12
11:19
25.3
2/10/11
4.56
14.63
2/14/12
0.02
Seep 10
01/21/12
16:26
5.0
2/20/12
12.02
12.67
3/7/12
0.03
C-29
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 10
01/23/12
11:03
5.0
2/10/11
13.21
13.93
2/14/12
0.05
Seep 10
01/25/12
10:30
4.3
2/20/12
13.94
14.37
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 10
01/27/12
12:34
6.2
2/10/11
12.81
14.07
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 10
01/31/12
11:29
4.4
2/10/11
15.93
16.49
2/14/12
0.05
Seep 10
02/10/12
11:30
5.1
3/5/12
16.14
17.10
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 10
02/14/12
12:47
4.2
3/5/12
18.09
18.62
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 10
02/17/12
11:05
4.3
3/5/12
18.60
19.21
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 10
02/20/12
13:12
4.3
3/5/12
19.73
20.39
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 10
02/24/12
10:51
4.1
3/24/12
19.76
20.28
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 10
02/27/12
9:37
5.2
3/24/12
18.63
19.83
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 10
03/01/12
11:18
4.3
3/18/12
20.27
20.95
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 10
06/29/12
12:16
4.6
7/20/12
18.31
19.10
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 10
07/04/12
12:34
4.7
7/20/12
18.51
19.37
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 12
01/25/12
11:24
4.3
2/10/11
14.52
14.97
2/14/12
0.11
Seep 12
01/27/12
12:05
4.3
2/10/11
14.22
14.66
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 12
01/31/12
11:41
4.2
2/10/11
16.13
16.59
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/10/12
11:47
4.4
3/5/12
16.65
17.25
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/10/12
11:47
4.4
3/5/12
16.76
17.35
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/14/12
13:02
4.3
3/5/12
18.40
19.00
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/17/12
11:31
4.2
3/5/12
19.22
19.79
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/20/12
13:25
4.9
3/5/12
19.63
20.68
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/20/12
13:25
4.9
3/5/12
19.63
20.68
3/7/12
0.06
Seep 12
02/20/12
13:25
4.9
3/5/12
20.04
21.12
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 12
02/20/12
13:25
4.9
3/5/12
20.04
21.12
3/7/12
0.06
C-30
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 12
02/24/12
11:16
4.2
3/24/12
20.47
21.09
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 12
02/27/12
10:32
4.4
3/24/12
20.98
21.76
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 12
03/01/12
11:40
4.8
3/18/12
20.68
21.73
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 12
03/14/12
10:21
4.2
3/18/12
20.68
21.31
3/21/12
0.04
Seep 12
03/17/12
9:36
4.2
4/11/12
21.01
21.65
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 12
03/19/12
10:12
4.1
4/11/12
21.51
22.10
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 13
03/14/12
9:53
4.2
3/18/12
20.89
21.52
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 13
03/17/12
9:12
4.4
4/11/12
20.61
21.37
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 13
03/19/12
9:46
4.2
4/11/12
21.81
22.48
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 14
03/14/12
10:11
4.2
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 14
03/17/12
9:23
4.2
4/11/12
20.41
21.03
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 14
03/17/12
9:23
4.2
4/11/12
20.41
21.03
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 14
03/19/12
9:57
4.1
4/11/12
21.51
22.10
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 14
03/19/12
9:57
4.1
4/11/12
21.51
22.10
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 15
03/27/12
9:09
4.8
4/11/12
20.21
21.23
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 15
03/29/12
10:28
4.2
4/11/12
20.61
21.23
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 15
04/02/12
10:19
9.3
4/11/12
17.40
21.46
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 15
04/05/12
8:27
9.3
5/11/12
18.03
22.24
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 15
04/12/12
11:30
4.2
5/11/12
21.30
21.94
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 15
04/16/12
9:09
4.2
5/11/12
21.81
22.47
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 15
04/16/12
9:09
4.2
5/11/12
21.81
22.47
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 15
04/19/12
11:32
4.3
5/11/12
21.09
21.80
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 15
04/24/12
15:25
4.3
5/11/12
20.17
20.85
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 15
04/26/12
10:40
4.2
5/11/12
20.38
20.99
5/17/12
0.03
C-31
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 15
05/02/12
9:42
4.3
5/11/12
21.40
22.12
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 15
05/07/12
9:51
4.3
6/14/12
21.15
21.86
6/22/12
0.03
Seep 15
05/14/12
9:22
4.4
6/14/12
15.72
16.28
6/22/12
0.03
Seep 15
05/18/12
13:29
4.7
6/14/12
7.54
7.82
6/22/12
0.01
Seep 15
05/22/12
15:16
4.5
6/14/12
21.35
22.21
6/22/12
0.03
Seep 15
05/25/12
15:06
4.4
6/15/12
21.31
22.10
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 15
05/29/12
14:18
4.4
6/15/12
21.61
22.41
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 15
06/04/12
14:14
4.7
6/15/12
20.20
21.15
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 15
06/07/12
12:30
4.5
6/15/12
20.70
21.54
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 15
06/12/12
11:27
4.5
7/20/12
16.40
17.04
7/26/12
0.01
Seep 15
06/14/12
14:43
4.4
7/20/12
20.02
20.75
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 15
06/16/12
11:59
4.6
7/20/12
19.72
20.57
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 15
06/18/12
9:43
4.6
7/20/12
19.62
20.47
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 16
04/24/12
15:11
4.5
5/11/12
20.17
20.98
5/17/12
0.02
Seep 16
04/26/12
10:53
4.4
5/11/12
21.19
21.98
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 16
05/02/12
9:32
4.5
5/11/12
21.50
22.37
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 16
05/07/12
9:13
4.6
6/15/12
21.41
22.35
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 16
05/14/12
9:02
4.5
6/15/12
22.32
23.22
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
05/18/12
13:07
4.5
6/15/12
18.59
19.32
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
05/22/12
15:06
4.6
6/15/12
21.91
22.88
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
05/25/12
14:55
4.6
6/15/12
21.61
22.56
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
05/29/12
14:32
4.4
6/15/12
21.81
22.62
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
06/04/12
14:02
4.8
6/15/12
20.30
21.33
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 16
06/07/12
12:19
4.6
6/15/12
20.70
21.61
6/22/12
0.04
C-32
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep
6
06/12/12
11:44
4.5
7/20/12
20.02
20.82
7/26/12
0.02
Seep
6
06/14/12
14:27
4.6
7/20/12
20.02
20.89
7/26/12
0.03
Seep
6
06/16/12
12:12
4.6
7/20/12
19.92
20.78
7/26/12
0.03
Seep
6
06/18/12
9:07
12.0
7/20/12
14.40
19.82
7/26/12
0.02
Seep
7
06/29/12
12:38
14.5
7/20/12
14.10
21.76
7/26/12
0.02
Seep
7
07/11/12
13:53
13.3
7/25/12
13.71
19.99
7/26/12
0.01
Seep
7
07/23/12
9:39
6.5
10/3/12
17.13
19.05
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
8
07/11/12
13:40
4.6
7/25/12
19.29
20.13
7/26/12
0.01
Seep
8
07/23/12
9:03
4.7
10/3/12
18.45
19.30
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
8
08/01/12
9:20
4.7
8/3/12
17.06
17.85
8/2/12
0.04
Seep
8
08/01/12
9:20
4.7
8/3/12
17.06
17.85
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
8
08/01/12
9:20
4.7
10/3/12
17.03
17.81
8/2/12
0.04
Seep
8
08/01/12
9:20
4.7
10/3/12
17.03
17.81
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
08/08/12
13:54
4.5
10/3/12
17.54
18.23
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
08/08/12
13:54
4.5
10/3/12
17.13
17.80
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
08/16/12
9:43
4.8
10/3/12
16.22
17.02
10/9/12
0.03
Seep
9
08/21/12
9:09
4.5
10/3/12
17.03
17.70
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
08/24/12
11:36
4.3
10/3/12
16.73
17.27
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
08/27/12
9:11
4.7
10/3/12
16.93
17.71
10/9/12
0.02
Seep
9
09/06/12
9:39
4.5
10/3/12
15.11
15.69
10/9/12
0.03
Seep
9
09/10/12
12:51
4.9
10/3/12
14.70
15.47
10/9/12
0.04
Seep
9
09/12/12
9:01
4.5
10/12/12
14.96
15.53
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 20
09/20/12
11:44
4.5
10/12/12
14.66
15.22
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 20
10/02/12
11:30
4.9
10/12/12
13.95
14.67
10/19/12
0.03
C-33
-------
Table C-l. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the North Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 20
10/02/12
11:30
4.9
10/12/12
14.86
15.63
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 20
10/08/12
14:08
6.0
11/2/2012
12.91
14.07
11/2/12
0.02
Seep 20
10/12/12
11:05
11.3
11/2/2012
10.47
13.95
11/2/12
0.03
Seep 20
10/18/12
11:19
15.9
11/2/2012
8.00
13.18
11/2/12
0.02
Seep 20
10/22/12
9:40
7.3
11/2/2012
11.99
13.69
11/2/12
0.05
Seep 20
10/26/12
10:42
15.2
11/17/2012
8.41
13.37
11/19/12
0.01
Seep 20
10/29/12
11:14
14.0
11/17/2012
8.58
12.87
11/19/12
0.01
Seep 20
11/02/12
14:51
13.3
11/17/2012
8.78
12.75
11/19/12
0.01
Seep 20
11/08/12
11:56
12.9
11/17/2012
8.70
12.40
11/19/12
0.01
Seep 20
11/12/12
11:09
4.5
11/17/2012
12.01
12.44
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 20
11/19/12
11:26
4.8
12/14/2012
11.92
12.47
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 20
12/06/12
10:50
11.5
12/14/2012
8.34
11.17
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 20
12/10/12
9:26
10.1
12/14/2012
9.20
11.64
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 20
12/14/12
12:16
6.7
1/12/2013
9.67
10.77
1/16/13
0.05
Seep 20
12/28/12
12:59
11.7
1/12/2013
7.99
10.78
1/16/13
0.03
Seep 21
10/22/12
9:09
7.5
11/2/12
11.28
12.96
11/2/12
0.02
Seep 21
10/26/12
10:26
4.7
11/17/12
11.50
11.99
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 21
10/29/12
11:02
5.1
11/17/12
12.31
13.02
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 21
11/02/12
14:40
4.8
11/17/12
12.31
12.89
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 21
11/08/12
11:43
7.1
11/17/12
11.40
12.91
11/19/12
0.02
C-34
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group
FLT Analysis FLT Cone. Adj SRB Analysis
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
FLT Cone,
(ppb)
for Salinity
(ppb)
Date
SRB Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
07/19/11
10:15
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
07/23/11
10:26
3.3
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.04
seep 3
07/24/11
10:10
3.5
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
07/24/11
10:10
3.5
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
07/24/11
10:10
3.5
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
07/26/11
10:12
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
07/28/11
10:16
2.8
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
07/28/11
10:16
2.8
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
10/14/11
0.03
seep 3
07/28/11
10:16
2.8
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
07/28/11
16:34
2.9
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
07/28/11
16:34
2.9
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
10/14/11
0.03
seep 3
07/28/11
16:34
2.9
2/8/12
0.13
0.02
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
07/29/11
10:25
2.8
8/31/11
0.03
seep 3
07/29/11
16:29
3.6
8/31/11
0.03
seep 3
07/30/11
11:38
2.9
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
07/30/11
11:38
2.9
8/31/11
0.05
seep 3
07/30/11
17:15
2.9
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
07/30/11
17:15
2.9
8/31/11
0.05
seep 3
07/31/11
10:51
2.8
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
07/31/11
10:51
2.8
9/23/11
0.02
seep 3
07/31/11
10:51
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
07/31/11
16:52
8.3
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
07/31/11
16:52
8.3
9/23/11
0.02
C-35
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
07/31/11
16:52
8.3
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/02/11
9:04
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 3
08/02/11
9:04
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.03
seep 3
08/02/11
16:12
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 3
08/02/11
16:12
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.03
seep 3
08/04/11
11:17
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/04/11
11:17
2.8
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/04/11
16:48
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/04/11
16:48
2.8
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/05/11
11:07
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/05/11
11:07
2.8
8/31/11
0.05
seep 3
08/05/11
17:17
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/05/11
17:17
2.8
8/31/11
0.05
seep 3
08/07/11
10:03
2.8
12/30/11
0.04
seep 3
08/07/11
10:03
2.8
11/4/11
0.04
seep 3
08/07/11
16:18
2.8
12/30/11
0.04
seep 3
08/07/11
16:18
2.8
11/4/11
0.04
seep 3
08/08/11
10:15
3.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 3
08/08/11
10:15
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/08/11
16:12
2.8
9/9/11
0.03
seep 3
08/08/11
16:12
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
C-36
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
10:05
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/09/11
16:02
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
08/10/11
12:29
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/10/11
12:29
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/10/11
16:38
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/10/11
16:38
2.8
9/9/11
0.04
seep 3
08/11/11
10:04
2.8
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
08/11/11
16:27
3.4
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
08/12/11
10:02
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/12/11
10:02
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/12/11
16:21
3.3
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/12/11
16:21
3.3
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/14/11
10:26
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
C-37
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
08/14/11
16:23
3.4
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/18/11
10:35
2.8
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/18/11
16:41
3.1
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/20/11
10:31
3.0
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/20/11
16:32
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/21/11
10:34
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/21/11
16:41
2.8
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/24/11
11:20
16.1
2/8/12
0.12
0.02
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/24/11
17:46
2.9
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
08/27/11
10:51
2.9
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
08/27/11
17:29
2.9
10/14/11
0.02
seep 3
09/02/11
12:17
2.7
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/02/11
17:00
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/05/11
10:18
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/05/11
16:41
2.8
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/10/11
11:36
3.0
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/14/11
10:49
3.3
2/10/11
0.11
0.00
seep 3
09/17/11
15:37
3.3
10/14/11
0.01
seep 3
09/18/11
12:19
2.9
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
09/19/11
11:20
8.5
2/8/12
0.09
0.00
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
09/20/11
10:30
5.1
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
09/21/11
10:08
3.6
11/23/11
0.03
seep 3
09/22/11
10:19
3.3
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
09/24/11
9:55
3.2
11/4/11
0.02
C-38
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
09/25/11
11:24
3.2
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
09/26/11
11:39
7.5
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
09/27/11
10:14
2.7
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
09/28/11
10:07
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
09/29/11
10:14
2.8
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
09/30/11
10:25
2.7
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
10/01/11
10:38
2.7
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/02/11
13:13
3.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
10/03/11
10:16
2.9
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/08/11
17:12
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/10/11
12:28
2.8
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/12/11
10:07
2.7
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/14/11
10:15
2.7
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/16/11
10:06
2.7
11/23/11
0.02
seep 3
10/18/11
12:47
2.8
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.02
seep 3
10/20/11
10:33
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/22/11
10:39
2.7
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/24/11
10:18
2.7
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/24/11
10:18
2.7
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
10/26/11
10:28
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/28/11
10:19
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/28/11
10:19
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
10/30/11
12:27
2.9
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
11/01/11
12:26
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
C-39
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
09/25/11
11:24
3.2
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
09/26/11
11:39
7.5
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
09/27/11
10:14
2.7
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
09/28/11
10:07
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
09/29/11
10:14
2.8
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
09/30/11
10:25
2.7
11/4/11
0.02
seep 3
10/01/11
10:38
2.7
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/02/11
13:13
3.0
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.01
seep 3
10/03/11
10:16
2.9
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/08/11
17:12
2.8
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/10/11
12:28
2.8
11/4/11
0.03
seep 3
10/12/11
10:07
2.7
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/14/11
10:15
2.7
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/16/11
10:06
2.7
11/23/11
0.02
seep 3
10/18/11
12:47
2.8
2/8/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.02
seep 3
10/20/11
10:33
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/22/11
10:39
2.7
2/8/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/24/11
10:18
2.7
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/24/11
10:18
2.7
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
10/26/11
10:28
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
10/28/11
10:19
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
10/28/11
10:19
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
10/30/11
12:27
2.9
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
11/01/11
12:26
2.8
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
C-40
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
11/03/11
10:21
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
11/05/11
14:29
2.8
1/30/12
0.13
0.02
1/20/12
0.03
seep 3
11/07/11
10:10
2.8
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.02
seep 3
11/07/11
10:10
2.8
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
5/17/12
0.04
seep 3
11/09/11
10:54
2.8
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.03
seep 3
11/11/11
10:44
2.8
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
11/14/11
9:47
2.8
2/7/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
11/14/11
9:47
2.8
2/7/12
0.15
0.04
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
11/14/11
9:47
2.8
1/30/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
11/14/11
9:47
2.8
1/30/12
0.15
0.04
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
11/16/11
10:39
2.8
11/23/11
0.04
seep 3
11/16/11
10:39
2.8
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
11/18/11
10:59
2.9
1/30/12
0.19
0.08
11/23/11
0.05
seep 3
11/21/11
10:42
2.8
2/7/12
0.21
0.10
12/5/11
0.03
seep 3
11/23/11
10:25
2.8
1/27/12
0.25
0.14
12/5/11
0.03
seep 3
11/25/11
10:47
2.8
1/30/12
0.30
0.19
12/5/11
0.03
seep 3
11/25/11
10:47
2.8
1/30/12
0.30
0.19
5/17/12
0.03
seep 3
11/28/11
10:35
2.8
1/27/12
0.37
0.26
12/5/11
0.04
seep 3
11/30/11
10:18
2.8
1/27/12
0.44
0.33
12/5/11
0.03
seep 3
12/02/11
10:21
2.8
12/5/11
0.03
seep 3
12/07/11
10:34
2.8
2/7/12
0.76
0.65
seep 3
12/09/11
10:15
2.8
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
12/14/11
10:10
2.9
2/7/12
1.34
1.23
12/30/11
0.03
seep 3
12/19/11
10:26
2.9
12/30/11
0.03
C-41
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 3
12/21/11
11:23
3.0
1/11/12
0.02
seep 3
12/26/11
10:57
2.9
2/7/12
2.63
2.52
1/11/12
0.02
seep 3
12/28/11
10:34
3.1
1/11/12
0.02
seep 3
12/28/11
10:34
3.1
1/11/12
0.01
seep 3
12/30/11
11:13
3.7
2/7/12
3.55
3.51
1/11/12
0.02
seep 3
01/02/12
11:37
8.0
2/7/12
3.62
4.15
1/11/12
0.02
seep 3
01/07/12
15:51
3.0
1/27/12
5.87
5.76
1/20/12
0.04
seep 3
01/09/12
12:34
3.0
1/27/12
6.34
6.23
seep 3
01/11/12
11:35
2.9
1/27/12
7.16
7.05
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/16/12
14:04
2.8
1/27/12
8.48
8.37
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/19/12
10:52
2.8
2/10/11
9.13
9.02
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/19/12
10:52
2.8
2/10/11
9.13
9.02
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/21/12
14:37
3.3
2/20/12
10.30
10.25
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/23/12
12:15
2.9
2/10/11
10.80
10.69
2/14/12
0.05
Seep 3
01/25/12
12:38
2.9
2/20/12
11.41
11.30
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 3
01/27/12
13:26
2.9
2/10/11
11.30
11.19
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 3
01/31/12
12:25
2.9
2/10/11
13.92
13.81
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 3
02/10/12
12:56
3.1
3/5/12
17.37
17.26
3/7/12
0.06
Seep 3
02/14/12
14:22
3.0
3/5/12
19.52
19.41
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 3
02/17/12
12:32
3.2
3/5/12
19.63
19.58
3/7/12
0.05
Seep 3
02/20/12
14:40
3.4
3/5/12
19.73
19.81
3/7/12
0.07
Seep 3
02/20/12
14:40
3.4
3/24/12
18.63
18.70
3/7/12
0.07
Seep 3
02/24/12
12:05
4.3
3/24/12
20.57
21.26
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 3
02/27/12
23:33
3.8
3/24/12
22.92
23.32
3/21/12
0.02
C-42
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
03/01/12
12:34
2.9
3/18/12
24.98
24.87
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/01/12
12:34
2.9
3/18/12
24.98
24.87
12/19/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/11/12
11:59
3.0
3/24/12
27.21
27.10
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/14/12
11:05
3.0
3/18/12
29.37
29.26
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/17/12
10:24
3.0
4/11/12
29.94
29.83
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/19/12
10:40
3.0
4/11/12
30.24
30.13
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 3
03/22/12
10:50
3.2
4/11/12
30.04
30.03
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/27/12
10:30
3.1
4/11/12
31.65
31.54
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 3
03/29/12
11:19
3.1
4/11/12
32.35
32.24
4/12/12
0.04
Seep 3
03/31/12
16:39
3.1
4/11/12
32.45
32.34
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 3
04/02/12
11:14
3.2
4/11/12
32.55
32.54
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 3
04/05/12
9:25
3.1
5/11/12
31.51
31.40
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 3
04/12/12
9:34
3.1
5/11/12
34.27
34.16
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 3
04/16/12
10:42
3.0
5/11/12
32.02
31.91
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 3
04/19/12
12:18
3.2
5/11/12
33.25
33.24
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 3
04/24/12
16:08
4.4
5/11/12
34.07
35.40
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 3
04/26/12
11:40
3.2
5/11/12
33.25
33.24
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 3
05/02/12
11:44
3.3
5/11/12
33.25
33.35
5/17/12
0.06
Seep 3
05/07/12
10:51
3.2
6/14/12
34.21
34.21
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 3
05/14/12
10:14
4.5
6/14/12
33.81
35.25
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 3
05/18/12
14:24
4.3
6/14/12
29.99
31.05
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 3
05/22/12
16:07
5.3
6/14/12
32.91
35.23
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 3
05/25/12
15:45
3.3
6/14/12
34.01
34.12
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 3
06/04/12
15:00
11.1
6/14/12
28.49
37.87
6/22/12
0.05
C-43
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
06/07/12
13:20
3.2
6/14/12
31.90
31.89
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 3
06/12/12
12:27
3.3
7/20/12
29.25
29.32
7/26/12
0.05
Seep 3
06/14/12
15:37
3.2
7/20/12
30.55
30.54
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 3
06/16/12
13:02
3.4
7/20/12
29.55
29.72
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 3
06/18/12
11:00
3.4
7/20/12
30.55
30.73
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 3
06/29/12
13:23
3.2
7/20/12
29.15
29.13
7/26/12
0.05
Seep 3
07/04/12
13:21
3.3
7/20/12
28.75
28.82
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 3
07/11/12
14:35
3.3
7/25/12
27.37
27.43
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 3
07/19/12
23:40
3.3
7/25/12
26.02
26.07
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 3
07/23/12
10:50
3.2
10/3/12
26.64
26.61
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 3
08/01/12
10:35
3.2
8/3/12
14.91
14.85
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
08/01/12
10:35
3.2
8/3/12
14.91
14.85
8/2/12
0.03
Seep 3
08/01/12
10:35
3.2
10/3/12
25.22
25.19
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
08/01/12
10:35
3.2
10/3/12
25.22
25.19
8/2/12
0.03
Seep 3
08/07/12
10:25
3.3
10/3/12
24.21
24.25
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
08/15/12
11:32
3.2
10/3/12
22.79
22.75
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
08/21/12
10:28
3.2
10/3/12
23.40
23.36
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 3
08/24/12
12:33
3.2
10/3/12
23.60
23.57
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
08/27/12
10:38
3.3
10/3/12
22.89
22.93
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 3
09/05/12
10:46
3.3
10/3/12
21.18
21.20
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 3
09/10/12
13:45
3.3
10/3/12
20.37
20.38
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 3
09/12/12
10:33
3.3
10/12/12
18.79
18.80
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 3
09/18/12
12:36
3.2
10/12/12
18.79
18.74
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/02/12
12:17
3.2
10/12/12
17.79
17.73
10/19/12
0.04
C-44
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 3
10/02/12
12:17
3.2
10/12/12
17.79
17.73
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/02/12
12:17
3.2
10/12/12
17.79
17.73
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/02/12
12:17
3.2
10/12/12
17.79
17.73
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/08/12
15:39
3.2
11/2/12
17.87
17.81
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/12/12
23:54
3.2
11/2/12
17.16
17.10
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/12/12
23:54
3.2
11/2/12
16.86
16.80
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 3
10/18/12
12:24
3.3
11/2/12
17.16
17.16
11/2/12
0.03
Seep 3
10/22/12
10:56
3.3
11/2/12
16.25
16.24
11/2/12
0.06
Seep 3
10/26/12
11:32
3.3
11/17/12
16.06
16.05
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
10/29/12
12:00
3.3
11/17/12
15.86
15.85
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
11/02/12
15:40
4.4
11/17/12
14.75
15.26
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
11/08/12
12:44
3.2
11/17/12
15.25
15.19
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 3
11/12/12
11:51
3.3
11/17/12
14.95
14.93
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
11/27/12
10:04
3.3
12/14/12
13.66
13.63
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
12/06/12
11:47
3.7
12/14/12
13.35
13.49
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
12/10/12
10:58
3.2
12/14/12
13.15
13.08
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 3
12/14/12
13:01
3.5
1/12/13
12.13
12.17
1/16/13
0.04
Seep 3
12/29/12
11:55
3.8
1/12/13
11.92
12.08
1/16/13
0.10
seep 4
07/23/11
10:31
3.2
11/4/11
0.03
seep 4
07/24/11
10:20
3.6
11/4/11
0.03
seep 4
07/25/11
10:48
4.5
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
seep 4
07/25/11
10:48
4.5
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.01
seep 4
07/27/11
11:04
3.2
9/9/11
0.03
seep 4
07/29/11
10:34
3.1
9/23/11
0.02
C-45
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 4
07/29/11
10:34
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
07/29/11
16:36
4.8
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
07/29/11
16:36
4.8
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
07/30/11
11:44
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
07/30/11
18:26
3.9
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
07/31/11
11:01
3.2
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
07/31/11
11:01
3.2
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 4
07/31/11
17:08
12.7
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
07/31/11
17:08
12.7
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.05
seep 4
08/01/11
10:49
3.5
12/30/11
0.02
seep 4
08/01/11
10:49
3.5
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
08/01/11
16:32
4.3
12/30/11
0.02
seep 4
08/01/11
16:32
4.3
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
08/02/11
9:13
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/02/11
16:20
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/03/11
10:38
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 4
08/03/11
16:48
3.3
11/4/11
0.03
seep 4
08/04/11
11:23
3.1
11/4/11
0.04
seep 4
08/04/11
11:23
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/04/11
16:55
3.2
11/4/11
0.04
seep 4
08/04/11
16:55
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/06/11
9:49
3.1
2/9/11
0.14
0.03
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/06/11
9:49
3.1
2/9/11
0.14
0.03
9/9/11
0.06
seep 4
08/06/11
16:10
3.1
2/9/11
0.14
0.03
9/9/11
0.04
C-46
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 4
08/06/11
16:10
3.1
2/9/11
0.14
0.03
9/9/11
0.06
seep 4
08/08/11
10:25
2.8
10/14/11
0.03
seep 4
08/08/11
10:25
2.8
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
08/08/11
16:22
3.1
10/14/11
0.03
seep 4
08/08/11
16:22
3.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
08/09/11
10:18
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/09/11
10:18
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/09/11
16:10
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/09/11
16:10
3.2
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/10/11
12:40
4.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
08/10/11
12:40
4.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/10/11
16:48
3.2
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/23/11
0.02
seep 4
08/10/11
16:48
3.2
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 4
08/14/11
10:37
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/14/11
16:30
3.7
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/16/11
10:30
3.1
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
08/16/11
16:03
3.2
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
08/20/11
10:40
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/20/11
16:39
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/21/11
10:44
3.1
12/30/11
0.01
seep 4
08/21/11
16:55
3.1
12/30/11
0.01
seep 4
08/22/11
10:12
5.4
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
08/22/11
16:48
3.5
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
08/25/11
11:05
3.6
10/14/11
0.02
C-47
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 4
08/25/11
17:35
3.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/26/11
10:24
3.6
12/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/26/11
16:33
3.7
12/14/11
0.02
seep 4
08/28/11
10:22
3.1
2/9/11
0.01
0.00
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
08/28/11
16:44
3.0
2/9/11
0.01
0.00
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
09/03/11
10:44
3.3
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
09/05/11
10:28
3.8
12/14/11
0.03
seep 4
09/05/11
16:50
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 4
09/06/11
10:13
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
09/06/11
10:13
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
09/06/11
16:40
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
09/06/11
16:40
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
09/10/11
11:52
5.5
2/10/11
0.07
0.00
2/14/12
0.18
seep 4
09/14/11
11:03
3.3
10/14/11
0.01
seep 4
09/16/11
12:31
4.1
12/14/11
0.02
seep 4
09/17/11
15:50
5.1
10/14/11
0.02
seep 4
09/18/11
12:35
3.3
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.05
seep 4
09/19/11
11:36
6.5
2/9/11
0.10
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 4
09/20/11
10:41
5.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.02
seep 4
09/23/11
10:34
4.6
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
09/24/11
10:05
3.7
11/23/11
0.05
seep 4
09/25/11
11:40
6.4
11/23/11
0.03
seep 4
09/26/11
11:53
4.7
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
09/27/11
10:25
3.1
11/4/11
0.01
C-48
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 4
09/28/11
10:18
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
09/29/11
10:31
3.0
11/23/11
0.05
seep 4
09/30/11
10:36
3.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
10/01/11
10:51
3.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 4
10/02/11
13:27
3.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 4
10/03/11
10:28
3.2
11/4/11
0.01
seep 4
10/08/11
17:27
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 4
10/10/11
12:37
3.0
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
10/12/11
10:20
2.9
11/4/11
0.02
seep 4
10/14/11
10:26
3.0
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 4
10/16/11
10:19
3.4
11/23/11
0.02
seep 4
10/18/11
12:59
3.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
-0.05
seep 4
10/20/11
10:44
4.6
11/23/11
0.06
seep 4
10/20/11
10:44
4.6
5/17/12
0.04
seep 4
10/22/11
10:16
3.3
5/17/12
0.03
seep 4
10/22/11
10:16
3.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
10/24/11
10:29
3.2
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
10/26/11
10:39
3.0
11/23/11
0.05
seep 4
10/28/11
10:30
3.1
2/7/12
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
10/30/11
12:55
3.2
12/30/11
0.02
seep 4
11/01/11
12:37
3.3
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/03/11
10:35
5.0
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/05/11
14:58
3.2
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.02
seep 4
11/07/11
10:20
3.0
2/20/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.03
C-49
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 4
11/09/11
11:19
3.0
2/20/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.03
seep 4
11/11/11
10:55
3.5
2/20/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/11/11
10:55
3.5
1/27/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/14/11
9:58
3.1
1/30/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/14/11
9:58
3.1
2/7/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/16/11
10:57
3.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/16/11
10:57
3.1
5/17/12
0.03
seep 4
11/18/11
11:16
3.2
1/27/12
0.17
0.06
11/23/11
0.04
seep 4
11/21/11
10:53
3.3
1/30/12
0.19
0.08
1/20/12
0.03
seep 4
11/23/11
10:36
3.4
1/30/12
0.21
0.10
12/5/11
0.02
seep 4
11/25/11
10:57
3.1
2/7/12
0.25
0.14
12/5/11
0.02
seep 4
11/28/11
10:48
3.7
1/30/12
0.29
0.19
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
11/28/11
10:48
3.7
1/30/12
0.29
0.19
5/17/12
0.03
seep 4
11/28/11
10:48
3.7
1/30/12
0.25
0.14
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
11/28/11
10:48
3.7
1/30/12
0.25
0.14
5/17/12
0.03
seep 4
11/30/11
10:29
3.2
1/27/12
0.33
0.22
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
12/02/11
10:34
3.5
1/27/12
0.38
0.27
12/5/11
0.03
seep 4
12/07/11
10:45
3.2
1/27/12
0.60
0.49
1/20/12
0.04
seep 4
12/07/11
10:45
3.2
1/27/12
0.60
0.49
5/17/12
0.04
seep 4
12/09/11
10:25
3.1
2/7/12
0.70
0.59
12/30/11
0.03
seep 4
12/14/11
10:22
3.2
2/7/12
1.00
0.89
12/30/11
0.03
seep 4
12/19/11
10:37
3.1
2/7/12
1.53
1.42
12/30/11
0.03
seep 4
12/21/11
11:38
3.2
2/7/12
1.66
1.56
1/11/12
0.02
seep 4
12/23/11
11:06
3.2
1/11/12
0.02
C-50
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 4
12/26/11
11:17
3.2
1/11/12
0.01
seep 4
12/28/11
10:53
3.6
2/7/12
2.71
2.64
1/11/12
0.02
seep 4
12/30/11
11:33
4.0
1/11/12
0.01
seep 4
01/02/12
11:50
10.5
2/7/12
3.09
3.87
1/11/12
0.03
seep 4
01/07/12
16:05
3.1
1/27/12
4.78
4.67
1/20/12
0.04
seep 4
01/09/12
12:02
3.5
1/27/12
5.19
5.14
1/20/12
0.04
seep 4
01/11/12
11:48
3.1
1/27/12
6.03
5.92
1/20/12
0.03
seep 4
01/13/12
12:23
3.2
1/27/12
6.80
6.71
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/16/12
14:16
3.0
1/27/12
7.48
7.37
1/20/12
0.05
Seep 4
01/16/12
14:16
3.0
1/27/12
7.48
7.37
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/16/12
14:16
3.0
1/27/12
7.50
7.39
1/20/12
0.05
Seep 4
01/16/12
14:16
3.0
1/27/12
7.50
7.39
1/20/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/19/12
11:18
3.1
2/10/11
7.93
7.82
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/21/12
14:51
3.0
2/10/11
8.83
8.72
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 4
01/23/12
13:26
3.1
2/10/11
9.72
9.61
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/25/12
13:39
3.1
2/20/12
10.09
9.98
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 4
01/27/12
13:49
3.1
2/10/11
6.20
6.09
2/14/12
0.02
Seep 4
01/31/12
12:39
3.1
2/10/11
11.81
11.70
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 4
02/10/12
13:16
5.7
3/5/12
12.66
13.66
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 4
02/14/12
14:38
6.7
3/5/12
13.17
14.72
3/7/12
0.06
Seep 4
02/17/12
12:47
9.0
3/5/12
13.99
17.03
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 4
02/20/12
15:00
13.6
3/5/12
10.81
15.95
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 4
02/24/12
12:20
20.2
3/24/12
8.27
17.58
3/21/12
0.01
Seep 4
02/27/12
12:13
21.6
3/24/12
7.76
18.20
3/21/12
0.01
C-51
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 4
03/01/12
12:50
4.2
3/18/12
17.31
17.81
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/11/12
12:23
8.2
3/24/12
18.63
22.05
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/14/12
11:17
9.8
3/18/12
18.33
23.07
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/17/12
10:47
15.8
4/11/12
14.59
24.06
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/19/12
10:55
22.5
4/11/12
9.98
25.18
4/12/12
0.01
Seep 4
03/22/12
11:08
18.6
4/11/12
12.89
24.85
4/12/12
0.01
Seep 4
03/27/12
11:03
17.3
4/11/12
14.09
25.20
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/29/12
11:36
17.4
4/11/12
13.19
23.70
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 4
03/31/12
16:53
17.3
4/11/12
14.19
25.38
4/12/12
0.01
Seep 4
04/02/12
11:33
21.8
4/11/12
10.88
26.03
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 4
04/05/12
9:40
17.3
5/11/12
14.96
26.77
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 4
04/12/12
9:50
14.1
5/11/12
18.13
27.50
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 4
04/16/12
11:12
17.1
5/11/12
15.17
26.83
5/17/12
0.02
Seep 4
04/16/12
11:12
17.1
5/11/12
15.17
26.83
5/17/12
0.05
seep 5
07/19/11
10:35
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
07/20/11
11:03
3.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
07/24/11
10:30
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
07/27/11
11:12
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
seep 5
07/28/11
10:36
3.1
9/23/11
0.02
seep 5
07/28/11
16:59
3.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 5
07/29/11
10:40
3.0
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
07/29/11
10:40
3.0
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
07/29/11
16:51
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
07/29/11
16:51
3.1
9/9/11
0.05
C-52
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 5
07/30/11
11:53
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
07/30/11
17:33
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
07/31/11
11:09
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
07/31/11
17:19
3.4
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
08/01/11
16:40
3.3
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
08/02/11
9:20
3.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 5
08/02/11
16:27
3.0
9/23/11
0.02
seep 5
08/04/11
11:30
3.0
11/4/11
0.16
seep 5
08/04/11
17:02
3.0
11/4/11
0.16
seep 5
08/05/11
11:21
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/05/11
11:21
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
12/5/11
0.02
seep 5
08/05/11
17:31
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/05/11
17:31
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
12/5/11
0.02
seep 5
08/06/11
9:44
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/06/11
16:15
3.0
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/07/11
10:25
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
08/07/11
16:33
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
08/08/11
10:32
3.1
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
08/08/11
16:33
3.1
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
08/09/11
10:25
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/09/11
10:25
3.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 5
08/09/11
16:17
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/09/11
16:17
3.1
9/9/11
0.03
seep 5
08/10/11
13:00
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
C-53
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 5
08/10/11
13:00
3.1
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
08/10/11
16:54
3.1
9/9/11
0.04
seep 5
08/10/11
16:54
3.1
9/9/11
0.05
seep 5
08/12/11
10:16
3.1
12/14/11
0.11
seep 5
08/12/11
16:36
3.1
12/14/11
0.11
seep 5
08/14/11
10:45
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
08/14/11
16:36
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
08/15/11
10:11
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/15/11
16:24
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/17/11
11:21
3.0
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
08/17/11
16:54
3.1
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
08/19/11
10:53
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/19/11
16:59
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/21/11
10:51
3.0
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/21/11
17:03
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/22/11
10:21
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
08/22/11
16:54
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
08/23/11
10:32
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
08/23/11
16:14
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
08/24/11
11:46
3.0
12/14/11
0.04
seep 5
08/24/11
18:06
3.1
12/14/11
0.04
seep 5
08/25/11
11:15
3.1
12/5/11
0.02
seep 5
08/25/11
17:45
3.1
12/5/11
0.02
seep 5
08/26/11
10:32
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
C-54
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
FLT Analysis
Date
FLT
Cone,
(ppb)
FLT Cone. Adj
for Salinity
(ppb)
SRB Analysis
Date
SRB
Cone,
(ppb)
seep 5
08/26/11
16:41
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
08/28/11
10:30
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
08/28/11
16:54
3.1
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
09/02/11
12:07
3.0
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
09/02/11
17:27
3.0
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
09/03/11
10:52
3.0
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
09/04/11
17:12
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
09/05/11
10:37
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/05/11
16:58
3.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/06/11
10:21
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
09/06/11
16:49
3.0
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
09/08/11
10:26
3.1
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
09/10/11
12:00
3.1
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/12/11
13:05
3.0
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/13/11
12:18
5.0
12/14/11
0.03
seep 5
09/14/11
11:13
3.3
2/10/11
0.11
0.00
2/14/12
0.05
seep 5
09/17/11
16:03
5.5
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
09/19/11
11:49
6.2
2/9/11
0.10
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
09/20/11
10:50
3.5
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
09/21/11
10:27
3.4
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
09/23/11
10:43
3.5
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
09/24/11
9:45
3.2
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
09/25/11
11:54
4.7
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
09/26/11
12:00
3.6
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/4/11
0.02
C-55
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 5
09/27/11
10:36
3.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
09/28/11
10:26
3.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/29/11
10:46
3.0
11/4/11
0.03
seep 5
09/30/11
10:45
3.0
11/4/11
-0.01
seep 5
10/01/11
11:02
3.0
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
10/02/11
13:48
3.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
10/03/11
10:38
3.1
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
10/10/11
12:47
3.0
11/4/11
0.02
seep 5
10/12/11
10:31
2.9
11/4/11
0.01
seep 5
10/14/11
10:36
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
10/16/11
10:29
3.0
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
10/18/11
13:11
3.0
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
10/20/11
10:52
3.0
11/23/11
0.02
seep 5
10/22/11
10:26
3.0
2/9/11
0.11
0.00
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
10/24/11
10:40
3.0
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
10/26/11
10:51
3.1
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
10/28/11
10:44
3.1
2/9/11
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.03
seep 5
10/30/11
12:41
3.1
2/7/12
0.11
0.00
12/30/11
0.03
seep 5
11/01/11
12:49
3.1
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
11/03/11
10:49
3.1
2/7/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
11/05/11
14:44
3.1
1/27/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
11/05/11
14:44
3.1
1/27/12
0.12
0.01
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/07/11
10:33
3.0
1/27/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/09/11
11:33
3.1
1/30/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.09
C-56
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 5
11/09/11
11:33
3.1
2/7/12
0.13
0.02
11/23/11
0.09
seep 5
11/11/11
11:04
3.1
1/30/12
0.14
0.03
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/14/11
10:08
3.0
1/27/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.04
seep 5
11/16/11
11:09
3.1
1/30/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/16/11
11:09
3.1
2/7/12
0.16
0.05
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/16/11
11:09
3.1
1/30/12
0.15
0.04
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/16/11
11:09
3.1
2/7/12
0.16
0.05
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/18/11
11:29
3.1
1/30/12
0.17
0.06
11/23/11
0.05
seep 5
11/21/11
11:05
3.1
1/30/12
0.21
0.10
12/14/11
0.04
seep 5
11/23/11
10:47
3.1
1/27/12
0.22
0.11
12/5/11
0.04
seep 5
11/23/11
10:47
3.1
1/27/12
0.21
0.10
12/5/11
0.04
seep 5
11/25/11
11:27
3.1
1/27/12
0.25
0.14
12/5/11
0.04
seep 5
11/28/11
10:58
3.1
1/30/12
0.29
0.18
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
11/30/11
10:40
3.2
1/30/12
0.35
0.24
12/5/11
0.04
seep 5
11/30/11
10:40
3.2
2/7/12
0.35
0.24
12/5/11
0.04
seep 5
12/02/11
10:43
3.4
1/30/12
0.42
0.31
12/5/11
0.03
seep 5
12/05/11
11:03
3.5
2/7/12
0.50
0.40
12/30/11
0.03
seep 5
12/05/11
11:03
3.5
2/7/12
0.50
0.40
12/30/11
0.03
seep 5
12/07/11
10:56
4.2
1/27/12
0.58
0.48
1/20/12
0.03
seep 5
12/09/11
10:35
3.7
12/30/11
0.02
seep 5
12/12/11
10:41
3.7
2/7/12
0.85
0.75
seep 5
12/14/11
10:32
4.4
12/30/11
0.03
seep 5
12/19/11
10:46
4.1
2/9/11
1.41
1.34
12/30/11
0.03
seep 5
12/21/11
11:48
4.2
1/11/12
0.02
C-57
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
seep 5
12/26/11
11:08
4.8
2/7/12
2.03
2.02
1/11/12
0.02
seep 5
12/28/11
10:45
7.6
1/11/12
0.02
seep 5
12/30/11
11:24
9.1
6/29/12
1.51
1.73
1/11/12
0.02
seep 5
01/02/12
12:05
15.6
2/7/12
2.11
3.28
1/11/12
0.01
seep 5
01/07/12
16:15
16.4
1/27/12
3.33
5.52
1/20/12
0.03
seep 5
01/09/12
12:20
18.4
1/27/12
2.29
4.19
1/20/12
0.03
seep 5
01/11/12
12:00
21.8
1/27/12
2.47
5.71
1/20/12
0.02
Seep 5
01/13/12
12:33
18.3
1/27/12
3.32
6.14
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/16/12
14:28
19.1
1/27/12
3.51
6.81
1/20/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/19/12
11:31
10.4
2/10/12
6.19
7.88
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/21/12
15:03
13.2
2/10/12
6.14
8.82
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 5
01/23/12
13:36
19.7
2/10/12
4.57
9.30
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/25/12
14:16
17.3
2/20/12
5.09
8.97
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/27/12
14:24
14.6
2/10/12
7.01
10.79
2/14/12
0.03
Seep 5
01/31/12
12:51
18.1
2/10/12
5.68
10.52
2/14/12
0.02
Seep 5
02/10/12
13:30
7.2
3/5/12
12.76
14.51
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 5
02/14/12
15:13
7.4
3/5/12
13.37
15.33
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 5
02/17/12
13:00
7.6
3/5/12
14.40
16.64
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 5
02/20/12
15:14
5.5
3/5/12
13.17
14.12
3/7/12
0.03
Seep 5
02/24/12
12:36
8.0
3/24/12
15.98
18.75
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 5
02/27/12
12:24
8.3
3/24/12
17.00
20.18
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 5
03/01/12
13:04
10.3
3/18/12
16.08
20.63
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 5
03/11/12
12:38
6.0
3/24/12
22.31
24.42
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 5
03/14/12
11:30
7.4
3/18/12
22.11
25.43
3/21/12
0.02
C-58
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
03/17/12
10:57
8.9
4/11/12
22.02
26.77
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 5
03/17/12
10:57
8.9
4/11/12
21.92
26.65
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 5
03/19/12
11:05
11.4
4/11/12
20.01
26.90
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 5
03/22/12
11:20
15.0
4/11/12
17.40
27.58
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 5
03/27/12
11:17
10.4
4/11/12
22.02
28.41
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 5
03/29/12
11:49
12.2
4/11/12
21.61
30.09
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 5
04/02/12
11:44
12.4
4/11/12
21.21
29.79
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 5
04/05/12
9:52
9.8
5/11/12
25.28
31.86
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 5
04/12/12
10:22
8.5
5/11/12
25.79
30.92
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 5
04/19/12
12:34
8.9
5/11/12
24.57
29.89
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 5
04/24/12
16:21
11.7
5/11/12
23.65
32.22
5/17/12
0.03
Seep 5
04/26/12
11:54
8.8
5/11/12
26.30
31.89
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 5
05/02/12
12:01
11.0
5/11/12
24.36
32.23
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 5
05/07/12
11:22
9.0
6/14/12
25.67
31.36
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 5
05/14/12
10:40
8.9
6/14/12
25.77
31.36
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 5
05/25/12
15:57
11.3
6/14/12
24.87
33.32
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 5
05/25/12
15:57
11.3
6/14/12
24.87
33.32
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 5
05/29/12
15:13
13.4
6/14/12
22.66
33.30
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 5
06/04/12
15:29
7.8
6/14/12
24.67
28.80
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 5
06/04/12
15:29
7.8
6/14/12
24.67
28.80
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 5
06/04/12
15:29
7.8
7/20/12
24.63
28.76
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 5
06/04/12
15:29
7.8
7/20/12
24.63
28.76
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 5
06/07/12
13:35
3.8
6/14/12
26.48
26.96
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 5
06/12/12
12:44
3.8
7/20/12
26.74
27.23
7/26/12
0.04
C-59
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
06/14/12
15:54
4.0
7/20/12
26.84
27.51
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 5
06/16/12
13:18
4.2
7/20/12
26.54
27.37
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 5
06/18/12
11:51
12.5
7/20/12
22.53
31.78
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 5
06/29/12
13:49
4.5
7/20/12
24.23
25.23
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 5
07/11/12
14:50
3.7
7/25/12
24.57
24.93
7/26/12
0.02
Seep 5
07/19/12
11:55
3.4
7/25/12
23.43
23.55
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 5
07/23/12
11:23
3.6
10/3/12
24.21
24.48
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 5
08/01/12
11:05
3.6
10/3/12
23.60
23.87
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
08/01/12
11:05
3.6
10/3/12
23.60
23.87
8/2/12
0.03
Seep 5
08/01/12
11:05
3.6
8/3/12
22.39
22.64
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
08/01/12
11:05
3.6
8/3/12
22.39
22.64
8/2/12
0.03
Seep 5
08/07/12
10:40
3.7
10/3/12
22.09
22.40
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
08/15/12
11:49
3.7
10/3/12
21.78
22.09
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 5
08/21/12
11:00
3.7
10/3/12
20.97
21.26
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
08/24/12
12:50
5.4
10/3/12
19.25
20.63
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 5
08/27/12
11:00
3.7
10/3/12
20.47
20.75
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
09/05/12
11:10
3.7
10/3/12
19.36
19.61
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 5
09/10/12
14:05
3.9
10/3/12
18.95
19.33
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 5
09/12/12
11:06
3.7
10/12/12
17.58
17.81
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
09/18/12
13:10
3.5
10/12/12
17.68
17.80
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
10/02/12
12:33
3.7
10/12/12
17.18
17.40
10/19/12
0.04
Seep 5
10/08/12
15:12
3.7
11/2/12
16.96
17.17
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 5
10/12/12
12:09
4.2
11/2/12
16.15
16.61
11/2/12
0.03
Seep 5
10/18/12
12:43
3.6
11/2/12
15.84
15.98
11/2/12
0.04
C-60
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 5
10/22/12
11:30
4.0
11/2/12
15.94
16.29
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 5
10/26/12
11:45
3.7
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
10/29/12
12:13
3.7
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
11/02/12
15:54
3.5
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
11/02/12
15:54
3.5
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
11/08/12
12:58
3.6
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
11/12/12
12:09
3.7
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
11/19/12
12:15
3.6
12/14/12
14.48
14.59
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
11/27/12
10:46
3.9
12/14/12
13.25
13.48
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
12/06/12
12:04
3.6
12/14/12
13.55
13.66
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 5
12/10/12
11:25
3.6
12/14/12
13.45
13.56
12/19/12
0.03
Seep 5
12/14/12
13:15
4.0
1/12/13
12.64
12.89
1/16/13
0.07
Seep 5
12/29/12
12:10
4.2
1/12/13
11.92
12.24
1/16/13
0.04
Seep 11
01/21/12
15:14
3.2
2/20/12
8.50
8.42
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 11
01/23/12
13:46
3.1
2/10/11
9.30
9.19
2/14/12
0.05
Seep 11
01/27/12
14:13
3.1
2/14/12
0.04
Seep 11
02/14/12
14:58
3.3
3/5/12
16.45
16.44
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 11
02/17/12
13:14
3.3
3/5/12
16.65
16.65
3/7/12
0.05
Seep 11
02/20/12
15:27
3.8
3/5/12
18.40
18.70
3/7/12
0.04
Seep 11
02/24/12
12:53
4.2
3/24/12
19.45
20.03
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 11
02/27/12
12:52
3.2
3/24/12
20.16
20.12
3/21/12
0.02
Seep 11
03/01/12
13:17
3.2
3/18/12
21.09
21.05
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 11
03/11/12
12:52
3.2
3/24/12
23.74
23.70
3/21/12
0.03
Seep 11
03/14/12
11:42
3.2
3/18/12
25.39
25.36
3/21/12
0.05
C-61
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 11
03/14/12
11:42
3.2
3/18/12
25.39
25.36
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 11
03/17/12
10:36
3.2
4/11/12
25.63
25.60
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 11
03/19/12
11:16
3.3
4/11/12
26.53
26.59
4/12/12
0.04
Seep 11
03/22/12
11:30
4.5
4/11/12
26.23
27.32
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 11
03/27/12
11:46
3.3
4/11/12
26.93
26.99
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 11
03/29/12
12:03
3.3
4/11/12
27.93
28.00
4/12/12
0.02
Seep 11
03/31/12
17:04
3.4
4/11/12
28.84
29.00
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 11
04/02/12
11:55
3.3
4/11/12
28.44
28.50
4/12/12
0.03
Seep 11
04/05/12
10:04
3.3
5/11/12
29.88
29.96
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 11
04/12/12
10:37
3.3
5/11/12
29.78
29.85
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 11
04/16/12
11:55
3.3
5/11/12
30.70
30.78
5/17/12
0.04
Seep 11
04/19/12
12:46
3.4
5/11/12
28.35
28.50
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 11
04/24/12
16:31
3.4
5/11/12
31.00
31.19
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 11
04/26/12
12:14
3.4
5/11/12
29.98
30.15
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 11
04/26/12
12:14
3.4
5/11/12
29.98
30.15
5/17/12
0.05
Seep 11
05/02/12
12:14
3.5
5/11/12
30.39
30.66
5/17/12
0.09
Seep 11
05/07/12
11:52
3.4
6/14/12
30.19
30.37
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 11
05/18/12
14:43
3.5
6/14/12
25.77
25.99
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 11
05/22/12
16:20
3.6
6/14/12
30.60
30.97
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 11
05/25/12
16:09
3.6
6/14/12
28.69
29.03
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 11
06/04/12
15:12
6.4
6/15/12
25.74
28.59
6/22/12
0.05
Seep 11
06/07/12
13:46
3.5
7/20/12
29.25
29.51
6/22/12
0.04
Seep 11
06/07/12
13:46
3.5
7/20/12
29.25
29.51
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 11
06/07/12
13:46
3.5
6/14/12
28.99
29.24
6/22/12
0.04
C-62
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 11
06/07/12
13:46
3.5
6/14/12
28.99
29.24
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 11
06/12/12
12:56
3.7
7/20/12
27.94
28.37
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 11
06/14/12
16:04
3.5
7/20/12
28.45
28.70
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 11
06/16/12
13:30
4.8
7/20/12
25.03
26.33
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 11
06/29/12
14:02
3.5
7/20/12
26.54
26.77
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 11
07/11/12
15:02
3.5
7/25/12
26.02
26.24
7/26/12
0.03
Seep 11
07/19/12
12:08
3.5
7/25/12
24.37
24.56
7/26/12
0.04
Seep 11
07/23/12
11:51
3.5
10/3/12
24.61
24.81
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/01/12
11:31
4.4
10/3/12
21.28
22.07
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/01/12
11:31
4.4
10/3/12
21.28
22.07
8/2/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/01/12
11:31
4.4
8/3/12
23.73
24.62
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/01/12
11:31
4.4
8/3/12
23.73
24.62
8/2/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/08/12
12:47
3.4
10/3/12
23.91
24.02
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/15/12
12:03
3.5
10/3/12
22.59
22.77
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 11
08/21/12
11:30
3.5
10/3/12
21.58
21.74
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 11
08/24/12
13:03
5.4
10/3/12
20.27
21.72
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
08/27/12
11:13
3.6
10/3/12
21.48
21.71
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 11
09/05/12
11:26
3.5
10/3/12
20.37
20.51
10/9/12
0.05
Seep 11
09/10/12
14:21
3.5
10/3/12
19.46
19.59
10/9/12
0.04
Seep 11
09/12/12
11:37
3.6
10/12/12
18.19
18.37
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
09/18/12
13:20
3.6
10/12/12
18.39
18.57
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
10/02/12
12:47
3.4
10/12/12
17.38
17.44
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
10/02/12
12:47
3.4
10/12/12
17.38
17.44
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
10/02/12
12:47
3.4
10/12/12
17.48
17.54
10/19/12
0.03
C-63
-------
Table C-2. The fluorescent dye analytical results for the South Seep Group (Continued)
FLT Analysis
FLT
FLT Cone. Adj
SRB Analysis
SRB
Location
Date
Time
Salinity
Date
Cone.
for Salinity
Date
Cone.
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Seep 11
10/02/12
12:47
3.4
10/12/12
17.48
17.54
10/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
10/08/12
15:24
3.6
11/2/12
17.36
17.53
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 11
10/22/12
11:53
3.7
11/2/12
16.05
16.24
11/2/12
0.04
Seep 11
10/26/12
11:58
3.6
11/17/12
15.96
16.10
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
10/29/12
12:25
3.5
11/17/12
15.35
15.44
11/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
11/02/12
16:10
3.4
11/17/12
15.15
15.18
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
11/02/12
16:10
3.4
11/17/12
15.15
15.18
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
11/08/12
13:10
3.4
11/17/12
15.15
15.18
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
11/12/12
12:21
3.5
11/17/12
15.05
15.13
11/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
11/19/12
12:29
3.5
12/14/12
14.48
14.55
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
11/27/12
11:28
3.5
12/14/12
13.35
13.41
12/19/12
0.03
Seep 11
12/06/12
12:16
3.4
12/14/12
13.35
13.37
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
12/10/12
11:48
3.4
12/14/12
13.15
13.16
12/19/12
0.02
Seep 11
12/14/12
13:28
3.7
1/12/13
12.74
12.88
1/16/13
0.04
Seep 11
12/29/12
12:24
14.3
1/12/13
8.56
13.02
1/16/13
0.05
C-64
-------
APPENDIX D: STARWOOD VACATIONS OWNERSHIP
RESORTS (SVO) MONITORING WELL DATA
D-l
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
D-2
-------
Table D-l. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentrations for the 7/1/12 SVO well sampling
Well
Date
Time
Depth to
Water
(ft btoc)
Total Well
Depth
(ft btoc)
Temp
(°C)
SEC
(|j.s/cm)
pH
FLT
(PPb)
SRB
(PPb)
Comments
Well 2
7/31/12
14:20
14:55
16.31
22.83
31.08
2,527
7.52
0.15
0.04
0.09
0.06
Tracer Sample 1
Tracer Sample 2
Well 3
7/31/12
15:45
16:05
9.97
21.00
27.03
970
7.54
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.01
Tracer Sample 1
Tracer Sample 2
Well 4
7/31/12
16:50
17:10
7.71
21.30
27.04
2,892
7.81
0.09
0.09
0.03
0.03
Tracer Sample 1
Tracer Sample 2
Well 5
7/31/12
12:28
12:30
13.94
17.20
28.64
726
6.89
0.20
0.12
0.04
0.03
Tracer Sample 1
Tracer Sample 2
Well 6
7/31/12
13:02
13:40
23.65
32.00
28.32
2,841
6.85
0.46
4.59
0.07
0.03
Tracer Sample 1
Tracer Sample 2
SEC - specific electrical conductivity
ft btoc - feet below top of casing
l-is/cm - micro-siemens per centimeter at 25 °C
°C - degrees centigrade
D-3
-------
Table D-2. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentrations for the 4/29/13 SVO well sampling
Well
Time
Depth to
Water
Purge
Volume
Temp
SEC
pH
ORP
FLT
SRB
Comments
(ft btoc)
(gal.)
(°C)
(|4,s/cm)
(mv)
(PPb)
(PPb)
Well 2
14:52
16.43
0
1
2
3
4
29.2
28.6
28.5
28.6
2,474
2,443
2,414
2,392
7.49
7.56
7.55
7.50
89.0
88.2
88.0
84.1
0.33
0.06
Tracer Sample 1
5
28.5
2,396
7.53
88.5
water slightly turbid and reddish brown
15:15
6
28.6
2,391
7.53
89.2
0.25
0.04
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
Well 3
13:00
10.31
0
1
2
3
26.4
26.6
26.5
893
881
879
7.48
7.53
7.56
153
153
152
0.87
0.01
Tracer sample 1
4
26.5
882
7.52
151
color - reddish brown
5
26.6
883
7.52
151
13:25
6
26.6
902
7.45
151
0.03
0.01
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
D-4
-------
Table D-2 (continued). Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentrations for the 4/29/13 SVO well sampling
Well
Time
Depth to
Water
(ft btoc)
Purge
Volume
(gal.)
Temp
(°C)
SEC
(Us/cm)
pH
ORP
(mv)
FLT
(PPb)
SRB
(PPb)
Comments
Well 4
14:00
8.03
0
0.34
0.02
Tracer Sample 1
1
28.4
2,911
7.54
91.0
2
27.3
2,921
7.59
56.0
3
27.2
2,933
7.65
26.9
4
27.3
2,936
7.70
8.5
14:15
5
27.2
2,926
7.69
-5.8
0.58
0.03
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis, tracer
sample 2
Well 6
15:45
23.88
0
0.52
0.02
Tracer Sample 1
1
28.4
2,571
6.85
135
2
27.9
2,674
6.92
126
3
27.9
2,692
6.93
127
4
27.0
2,688
6.93
131
5
27.9
2,691
6.95
129
6
27.9
2,690
6.98
130
0.24
0.02
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis, tracer
sample 2
Well 7
12:05
Duplicate of SVO Well 6
ft btoc - feet below top of casing
l-is/cm - micro-siemens per centimeter at 25 °C
°C - degrees centigrade
D-5
-------
Table D-3. Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentrations for the 6/6/13 SVO well sampling
Well
Time
Depth to
Water
(ft btoc)
Purge
Volume
(gal.)
Temp
(°C)
SEC
(|a,s/cm)
pH
ORP
(mv)
FLT
(PPb)
SRB
(PPb)
Comments
Well 2
11:38
16.22
0
0.37
0.05
Tracer sample 1
1
2,533
7.47
37.4
2
28.6
2,521
7.5
39.3
3
28.4
2,478
7.44
43.3
4
28.5
2,470
7.43
42.9
5
28.3
2,462
7.43
46.1
12:10
6
28.3
2,442
7.41
49.3
0.27
0.06
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
12:28
12
29.1
2,435
7.49
55.1
0.25
0.09
Sample nutrients for UH analysis,
tracer sample 3
Well 3
10:05
10.36
0
0.03
0.01
Tracer sample 1
1
26.6
901
7.42
-1.3
2
26.4
903
7.43
1.4
3
26.5
912
7.43
9.3
4
26.4
904
7.47
8.2
5
26.6
900
7.45
12.9
10:50
6
26.6
902
7.45
15.1
0.04
0.05
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
11:01
12
27
904
7.43
21.2
0.04
0.02
Sample nutrients for UH analysis,
tracer sample 3
D-6
-------
Table D-3 (continued). Field, water quality measurements, and tracer dye concentrations for the 6/6/13 SVO well sampling
Well
Time
Depth to
Purge
Temp
SEC
pH
ORP
FLT
SRB
Comments
Water
Volume
(ft btoc)
(gal.)
(°C)
((is/cm)
(mv)
(PPb)
(PPb)
Well 4
920
7.53
0
0.11
0.03
Tracer Sample 1
1
27
2,903
7.55
72.3
2
27.1
2,907
7.64
17.6
3
26.9
2,940
7.69
-9.6
4
26.8
2,945
7.71
-33.3
5
26.9
2,947
7.72
-45.1
9:46
6
26.9
2,945
7.72
-53.5
0.56
-0.03
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
10:00
12
27.2
2,936
7.71
-58.4
0.46
0
Sample nutrients for UH analysis, tracer
sample 3
Well 6
12:59
23.56
0
0.3
0.06
Tracer Sample 1
1
28.4
26
7.07
74.2
2
28.1
2,705
6.89
77.1
3
28.1
2,731
6.84
79.7
4
28
2,743
6.82
80.5
5
28
2,742
6.84
81.2
13:15
6
28
2,742
6.84
83.7
0.18
0.07
Sample nutrients for HDOH analysis,
tracer sample 2
13:30
12
28.3
2,780
6.87
82.2
0.16
0.03
Sample nutrients for UH analysis, tracer
sample 3
Well 7
12:05
Duplicate of SVO Well 2
ft btoc - feet below top of casing; |as/cm - micro-Siemens per centimeter at 25 °C; °C - degrees centigrade
D-7
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
D-8
-------
APPENDIX E: FINAL REPORT REVIEW
COMMENTS AND UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
RESPONSES AND CORRECTIONS
E-l
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-2
-------
APPENDIX E-l: Final Report review comments from the County of
Maui
E-3
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-4
-------
ALAN M ABAKAWA
Mayor
KVi F K GfMOZA, P.E
0-r*';iW
M'CHAEL M MIYAMOTO
'Deputy SJwector
TRACY TAKAMlNF, P.E
SaM Waste Diwson
ER'C MAKAGAWA PF
Wastewater Recta ma ttnn Division
COUNTY OF MAUI
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
2200 MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
WAILUKU, MAW, HAWAII 98793
June 10,2013
Mr, Craig R, Glenn, Professor
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
1680 East West Rd POST 701
Honolulu, HI 96822
Dear Professor Glenn;
SUBJECT: DRAFT REPORT: FINAL LAHAINA GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY
COUNTY OF MAUI COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject report. Below is a compilation of
comments received from various parties within the County that we will hope will be included in the
final version of the report. We have underlined or crossed out suggested changes to the text and
have made comments in parentheses with a bold font:
1. Genera!; This is one of the longest and most detailed executive summaries we have ever
seen. Seems like it might be a good idea to move the report index ahead of it so we can
find things like the acronym table, and understand the layout of the entire 450+ page report,
2. Pg. i u(i) Fluorescein tracer dye added to LWRF injection Wells 3 and 4 arrived at coastal
submarine spring sites with a minimal travel time of 84 days a_?icLvy¦ th _an average jmio of
^540 days; a second dye, Sulpho Rhodamine-B added to LWRF injection Well 2 had jret
to tv» crimed1 i'o czahmt^j detections. (Should tell the whole story of travel time anil
it would follow that either you found the second dye or you didn't during the study
period, You actually say it correctly on pg. 40 of the study why not in the summary?)
3. Pg. i "(3) Waters discharging the fluorescein dye from the submarine springs are warm and
brackish, arid have a temperature >28C,C, and an average salinity of 4.5 and a pH of 7,5,
These differed from the effluent chatocteri$t
-------
Mr, Craig R Glenn
Final Draft Lahama Tracer Study
June 10,2013 page 2 of 4
5, Pg. i "(5) The N concentration of the submarine springs is reduced compared to LWRF
treated wastewater, while the P concentration is enriched. Averaged N and P
concentration's collected Irom the submarine springs were ca. 1,100 ng/L and 425 p,g/l,
respectively." [ • lho miectod effluent arc XXX ¦ ¦ X , respectively.
(again, great fads but what do they mean without any comparisons)
6, Pg, ii w|1) Fluorescein tracer dye added to LWRF injection Wells 3 and 4 arrived at coastal
submarine spring sites with a minimum travel time of 84 days; the peak breakthrough curve
(BTC) occurred 9 and 10 months after the fluorescein dye addition at the north and south
groups of submarine springs, respectively; and the average travel time lo both monitoring
locations is if* exeee&ol-^w-veaf-approximatefv 450 days. Dye continues to be detected at
the publication ol this report aver 2 years after ;t was introduced." (again the whole story
adds perspective for some one who only reads this summary)
7, Pg. iii "(4) -Ilw-pMwwp-y' A poss'ble cause for the non-detection of Suipho-Rhodamine B is
the displacement of the injectate plume containing this dye away from a direct travel path
from Injection Well 2 to the submarine springs by the greater injection volume into Wells 3
and 4, This interference may further dilutee the Sulpho-Rhodamine 8 plume prior to
reaching the submarine springs. In addition, secondary processes, such as dye degradation
and sorption, may also decrease the concentration to less than detectable levels," (Where
Is the physical proof that this is true? Isn't this the best guess cause for the data
collected and the models that were developed)
8, Pg. x " . SSG and NSG represent the largest sources of DON, DIP arid OOP per meter
coastline amongst other aU identified sources...." ft. In reviewing Table 3-6, this
statement is somewhat misleading because it fails to mention that other sources
provide a significantly larger total nutrient input when not quantified as per meter of
coastline 2. There is a range for the seep groups whereas measurement for the
limited number of other locations appears to be a single sample. Seems this should
be qualified. 3. It should be mentioned that land runoff could also be a significant.
4, Lots of acronyms in this section, too tod you need lo find the acronym page when
we haven't even gotten to an index yet.)
9, Pg, xv and Pg. 39 in Section 4 "As shown, the following three sets of mixing end members
were used in geochemical/stable isotope source water partitioning analysis: (1) fc"o and CI,
¦(2) §180 and Ci» and (3) frH and CI O" O and CI is repeated twice - one should be
iVl O and i> H. Also, the fact that there were data outliers call into question the
significance of the mixing model, however, there were no statistics performed on this
mixing data so a conclusion can not be made.)
10, Pg, xxvn Figure ES-1. Western Maui land-use map. Wasn't the area just north of
Honokowai Steam used for sugarcane prior to pineapple?
11, Pg, xlvi "Figure ES-15: ... Continuing injection into Wells 3 and 4 after the addition of SRB
may displaces the core of the plume to the southeast, {This statement and figure 5.19
are conjecture. Four possible scenarios for the non detection of the SRB, but there
is no reasori/explanation/proof for this answer being chosen as the most probable,
Seems unlikely that water with the same characteristics flowing at such low
velocities won't mix arid instead displaces one another.)
E-6
-------
12, Pg, 1 "Each of these five primary objectives arc addressed wn'?i Sections 2 through 5 of this
Final Report,"
13, Pg. 4 "The effluent that « subjected undergoes disinfection using ultraviolet radiation is
sold as R-1 grade reuse water for irrigation and., other .approved uses, xnnstni>:;tio,ri dust
control etc.I"
14, Pg, 4 in 'the mid-1990s Maui County upgraded the plant to produce R-1 water to bo used
as a resource and to part to address concerns about possible contributions to seasonal
bent hie algal blooms that were proliferating along the coast."
15, Pg 4 "After primary settling to remove a majority of the suspended solids, the LWRF
affluent undergoes secondary treatment " There is no primary clarification at the Lahaina
WWRF. It is also stated "The treatment for the water not sold as irrigation water is
subjected to tertiary treatment and fully disinfected to the R-2 standard" (The tertiary
treatment is the BNR removal, sand filtration and disinfection mentioned previously.
All effluent undergoes this process. This statement is confusing and seems to
indicate that infection water is subject to additional1 tertiary treatment}
18, Pg. 5 "This infrastructure may be beneficial to the expansion o? touse in the Kaanapali area
and the emerging diversified agriculture in West Maui."
17. Pg. 5 "During With warmer, dryer months no more than 3,0 mgd is expected to be injected
underground as current reuse has typically reached 1.8 mead in these periods.."
18. Pg. 5 Section 1.3 {Note that the County also operates its injection wells under
Permit No. UM-1357 which expired on 3/28/2009 and is also operating under a
extension to that permit currently thru 8/28/2013, It is expected that it will be
extended until 8/28/2014 sometime in July or August.)
19. Pg. 36 'The effect of salinity on the fluorescence values of PLT in the submarine spring
water is quite substantia!" (Isn't this more of a relationship or correlation rather than am
effect since you say it is due to the mixing of ocean water?)
20. Pg. 37 "The fluorescence data collected in the field has not been corrected for the salinity."
(Can it bo corrected? Should it be corrected? Isn't the value just a field condition
that changes with the actual SGD due to seasons (wet/dry), tides etc.?)
21. Pg. 39 "Oiowalu is located -13 km south of the main study area and currently has no
known major land-based pollution impacts due to the minimal development and the
termination of sugarcane operations in the late 1330V (as a point of Information there is
a landfill just north of Oluwalu, now a transfer station, that is no longer active. It
could possibly have effects on SGD in the area)
22. Pg, 40 "The July 2013 submarine spring survey covered 20,8 km or 12.9 miles of the study
area from Honokowai Point to Black Rock over 88 transects.™ (Misleading. The total
length of the transect may be 12.9 miles but it only covered about 1,3 miles of
shoreline.)
23. Pg. 72 "Depending on land-use, organic matter content, geology, etc. nutrients may be
removed {dilution and geochemical cycling) and/or added (fertilizer use, cesspools ur septic
systems)"
E-7
-------
Mr. Craig R. Glenn
Final Draft Lahama Tracer Study
June 10.2013 page 4 of 4
24. Section 3, It is assumed all seeps have the same discharge rate as seep 4» This does
not seem like a plausible assumption. In section 4 it says that seep 4 showed the
lowest and most variable dye concentration. Therefore one of the other seeps would
have made a better representative sample. Also, data was only over a short portion
of the year (over a 33 day period) and even during this lime there was great
variability. One would expect to see seasonal and weather related variability. Based
on the limited data and significant variability the calculated groundwater fluxes are
no! very meaningful,
25. Pg. 135 Figure 4-4: A line diagram of the IWRF showing the FIT dye addition points.
{This figure does not clearly show the Injection points. Presumes we know thai
injection wells were used)
Please contact me {(808) 270-7427 or seott.foiiinsQmaui.co.N.us) should you have any
questions or need clarification.
Sincerely,
Wastewater Reclamation Division
&r|o,irr>rr(f!tfs tracts may ?013 tkxt
Nartiiy Rumr'l, FPA
E-8
-------
Comments From and Replies To the County of Maui
June 10, 2013
Mr. Craig R. Glenn, Professor
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
1680 East West Rd POST 701
Honolulu, HI 96822
Dear Professor Glenn;
SUBJECT: DRAFT REPORT: FINAL LAHAINA GROUNDWATER TRACER STUDY
COUNTY OF MAUI COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject report. Below is a compilation of comments
received from various parties within the County that we will hope will be included in the final version of
the report. We have underlined or crossed out suggested changes to the text and have made
comments in parentheses with a bold font:
1. General: This is one of the longest and most detailed executive summaries we have ever seen. Seems
like it might be a good idea to move the report index ahead of it so we can find things like the
acronym table, and understand the layout of the entire 450+ page report.
Good idea. We did that.
2. Pg. i "(1) Fluorescein tracer dye added to LWRF injection Wells 3 and 4 arrived at coastal submarine
spring sites with a minimal travel time of 84 days and with an average time of 454(?) days; a
second dye, Sulpho-Rhodamine-B added to LWRF injection Well 2, had ¥et4e-fee-€enfrm-e4. no
confirmed detections. (Should tell the whole story of travel time and it would follow that either
you found the second dye or you didn't during the study period. You actually say it correctly on
pg. 40 of the study why not in the summary?)
Thank you. We have modified the bullet to state that there was no confirmed detection of
Sulpho-Rhodamine B and that the average time for Fluorescein was about 450 days.
3. Pg. I "(3) Waters discharging the fluorescein dye from the submarine springs are warm and brackish,
and have a temperature >28°C, and an average salinity of 4.5 and a pH of 7.5. These differed from
the effluent characteristics which were Temperature 27.8-, salinity 1.1 and a pH of 6.85". (great
facts but what do they mean without any comparisons)
E-9
-------
We believe this bullet is appropriate as written. Being a mixture of groundwater and seawater,
submarine groundwater discharge takes on the characteristics of both. In any event, in that this
bullet is part of a larger set of observations, there is much presented through the Executive
Summary to compare it with.
4. Pg. I "(4) Geochemical mixing analyses indicate that the submarine spring waters are predominately [
XX%) LWRF treated wastewater which while in transit to the submarine springs undergo oxic,
suboxic and likely anoxic microbial degradation reactions that consume dissolved oxygen,
dissolved nitrate, and organic matter." (without the percentage predominately could be 51% to
99.9% and could be misleading)
Bullet 4 (page i) pertains to relative redox and diagenetic state of the vent water and we believe
adding statements about our different estimates of the proportion of effluent in those waters is
not appropriate here.
5. Pg. I "(5) The N concentration of the submarine springs is reduced compared to IWRF treated
wastewater, while the P concentration is enriched. Averaged Nand P Concentrations collected
from the submarine springs were ca. 1,100 /lg/1 and 425 /lg/1, respectively." Average values from
the injected effluent are XXXX and XXX. Respectively, (again, great facts but what do they mean
without any comparisons)
We agree, and deleted the actual numbers, especially since this is dealt with in the summary of
the Executive Summary geochemistry discussions that follow.
6. Pg. ii "(1) Fluorescein tracer dye added to IWRF injection Wells 3 and 4 arrived at coastal submarine
spring sites with a minimum travel time of 84 days; the peak breakthrough curve (BTC) occurred 9
and 10 months after the fluorescein dye addition at the north and south groups of submarine
springs, respectively; and the average travel time to both monitoring locations is in oxcoss of ono
yeaf approximately 450 days. Dye continues to be detected at the publication of this report over 2
years after it was introduced." (again the whole story adds perspective for some one who only
reads this summary)
We believe this bullet is appropriate as written.
7. Pg. iii "(4) The primary A possible cause for the non-detection of Sulpho-Rhodamine B is the
displacement of the injectate plume containing this dye away from a direct travel path from
Injection Well 2 to the submarine springs by the greater injection volume into Wells 3 and 4. This
interference may further dilutes the Sulpho-Rhodamine B plume prior to reaching the submarine
springs. In addition, secondary processes, such as dye degradation and sorption, may also
decrease the concentration to less than detectable levels." (Where is the physical proof that this
is true? Isn't this the best guess cause for the data collected and the models that were
developed)
E-10
-------
We strongly dispute the contention that no evidence was provided to support our conclusion
regarding the failure to conclusively detect Sulpho-Rhodamine B. We refer you to Figure 6-1 of
Mink, 1976, Guam WRRC Tech Report #1 (and provided at the end of these replies). This figure
shows that streamlines from injection wells do not cross or mix with groundwater flow streamlines
from upgradient of the injection well. This is counter to COM's contention in Comment 11. Also,
since the injection into Wells 3 and 4 is significantly greater than that into Well 2 the velocities
would be much higher. The evidence is the model that uses sound and well-documented fluid flow
principles to compute groundwater flow paths and velocities. Because injection was continued into
Wells 3 and 4 after Sulpho-Rhodamine B was added, the hydraulic connection between Injection
Well 2 and the submarine springs remains inconclusive.
8. Pg. x " .... SSG and NSG represent the largest sources of DON, DIP and DOP per meter coastline
amongst other all identified sources ...." (1. In reviewing Table 3-6, this statement is somewhat
misleading because it fails to mention that other sources provide a significantly larger total
nutrient input when not quantified as per meter of coastline 2. There is a range for the seep
groups whereas measurement for the limited number of other locations appears to be a single
sample. Seems this should be qualified. 3. It should be mentioned that land runoff could also be
a significant. 4. Lots of acronyms in this section, too bad you need to find the acronym page
when we haven't even gotten to an index yet.)
To address notes 1., 3., 4. we edited the text on the Draft Report page x as follows:
"We found that groundwater discharge is responsible for significant nutrient fluxes to the coastal
ocean. Fluxes of dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen (DIN and DON) are the largest at
Hanakao 'o Beach (DIN: 2.9 kmol/d or 41,440 g/d ofN and DON: 1.7 kmol/d or 23,700 g/d ofN
Second largest DIN flux along this coastline is from Honokowai (1.9 kmol/d or 27,500 g/d ofN)
and DON flux at SSG (up to 650 mol/d or 9,500 g/d of N). At Hanakao'o and Honokowai
groundwater discharges along 1,200 m and 300 m length, while at the seep clusters the discharge
locations are only 50-100 m long. SSG and NSG alone represent the largest sources of DON,
dissolved inorganic and organic phosphorus (DIP and DOP) per meter coastline amongst all
identified sources. The two seep groups are responsible for fluxes of 100-218 mol/d or 1,400-
3,053 g/d ofN as DIN, 120-910 mol/d or 1,670-12,750 g ofN as DON, 99-116 mol/d or 3,070-
3,600 g/d of P as DIP, and 16 mol/d or 480 g/d of P as DOP. These inputs impact coastal water
quality and result in elevated nutrient concentrations. At SSG and NSG coastal seawater DIN
ranges are 0.38-0.81 /jM or 5.3-11.3 fig/L ofNas opposed to offshore levels of <0.1 fiM or <1.4
fig/L, DON ranges are 4.8-12.7 /jM or 67-178 /ug/L ofN as opposed to 4.5-6 /jM or 63-84 /ug/L
of Noffshore, DIP ranges 0.16-0.44 fiM or 5.0-13.6 fig/L ofP in comparison to <0.1 fiM or <3.0
/.ig/L of P offshore, and the DOP concentration range of 0.21-0.27 fiM or 6.5-8.4 fig/L of P is
comparable to offshore levels (Karl et al., 2001). SSG and NSG are not the only location with
elevated nutrients, however. For comparison, Hanakao 'o Beach coastal ocean DIN
concentrations (7.7 /jM or 108 fig/L ofN) are 10-times and DIP levels (0.84 fiM or 26 fig/L ofP)
are 2-times higher than at the seep clusters. In comparison to other studied locations along the
coastline, SSG and NSG seep sites had the lowest observed TN: 'TP and DIN .DIP ratios in
groundwater (2-8 and 1-2) and also in coastal ocean water (15-20 and 2). "and
"We note that earlier studies identified surface runoff as an important coastal nutrient source
(TetraTech, 1993), this current study did not quantify these inputs."
E-ll
-------
9. Pg. xv and Pg. 99 in Section 4 "As shown, the following three sets of mixing end members were used
in geochemical/stable isotope source water partitioning analysis: (1) 51S0 and CI, (2) 518 and CI,
and (3) 52H and CI. S180 and CI is repeated twice -one should be 5180 and 5Z,H. Also, the fact that
there were data outliers call into question the significance of the mixing model, however, there
were no statistics performed on this mixing data so a conclusion can not be made.)
Thank you. The typographical errors have been corrected. The issues regarding mixing model
data outliers were addressed in section 6.4.2.3 of the Interim Report.
10. Pg. xxvii Figure ES-I. Western Maui land-use map. Wasn't the area just north of Honokowai Steam
used for sugarcane prior to pineapple?
This is correct. The shift in cultivation from sugar to pineapple in this area occurred in the mid
1980s. It can be considered as both former sugar cane land and former pineapple land.
11. Pg. xlvi "Figure ES-15: ... Continuing injection into Wells 3 and 4 after the addition of SRB may
displaces the core of the plume to the southeast. (This statement and Figure 5.19 are conjecture.
Four possible scenarios for the non detection of the SRB, but there is no
reason/explanation/proof for this answer being chosen as the most probable. Seems unlikely
that water with the same characteristics flowing at such low velocities won't mix and instead
displaces one another.)
We refer you to our response to comment 7.
12. Pg. 1 "Each of these five primary objectives are addressed in(?) Sections 2 through 5 of this Final
Report."
Thank you, we have made that change in Section 1.1.
13. Pg. 4 "The effluent that is subjected undergoes disinfection using ultraviolet radiation is sold as R-l
grade reuse water for irrigation and other approved uses (construction dust control etc.)."
Thank you, we have made those changes in Section 1.3.
14. Pg. 4 "In the mid-1990s Maui County upgraded the plant to produce R-l water to be used as a
resource and in part to address concerns about possible contributions to seasonal benthic algal
blooms that were proliferating along the coast."
Thank you, we have made that change in Section 1.3.
15. Pg 4 "After primary settling to remove a majority of the suspended solids, the LWRFWWRF. It is also
stated "The treatment for the water not sold as irrigation water is subjected to tertiary treatment
and fully disinfected to the R-2 standard" (The tertiary treatment is the BNR removal, sand
filtration and disinfection mentioned previously. All effluent undergoes this process. This
E-12
-------
statement is confusing and seems to indicate that injection water is subject to additional
tertiary treatment)
Thank you, we deleted the sentence " The treatment for the water not sold as irrigation water is
subjected to tertiary treatment and fully disinfected to the R-2 standard " to make the
appropriate improvements to our description of the LWRF.
16. Pg. 5 "This infrastructure may be beneficial to the expansion of reuse in the Kaanapali area and the
emerging diversified agriculture in West Maui."
Thank you, we made that change.
17. Pg. 5 "During with warmer, dryer months no more than 3.0 mgd is expected to be injected
underground as current reuse has typically reached 1.8 mgd in these periods .. "
Thank you, we made that change.
18. Pg. 5 Section 1.3 (Note that the County also operates its injection wells under Permit No. UM-1357
which expired on 3/28/2009 and is also operating under a extension to that permit currently
thru 8/28/2013. It is expected that it will be extended until 8/28/2014 sometime in July or
August.)
Thank you, we added that information.
19. Pg. 36 "The effect of salinity on the fluorescence values of FL T in the submarine spring water is quite
substantial" (Isn't this more of a relationship or correlation rather than an effect since you say it
is due to the mixing of ocean water?)
We have modified that statement to make the meaning more clear.
20. Pg. 37 "The fluorescence data collected in the field has not been corrected for the salinity." (Can it
be corrected? Should it be corrected? Isn't the value just a field condition that changes with the
actual SGD due to seasons (wet/dry), tides etc.?)
We modified the sentence to make it more clear.
21. Pg. 39 "Olowalu is located -13 km south of the main study area and currently has no known major
land-based pollution impacts due to the minimal development and the termination of sugarcane
operations in the late 1990's." (as a point of information there is a landfill just north of Oluwalu,
now a transfer station, that is no longer active. It could possibly have effects on SGD in the area)
Thank you, that is an interesting observation, but it has no bearing on this report since no
chemistry samples were taken in that area. The only samples collected in the Olowalu area were
background samples for fluorescent dye analysis.
E-13
-------
22. Pg. 40 "The July 2013 submarine spring survey covered 20.8 km or 12.9 miles of the study area from
Honokowai Point to Black Rock over 86 transects." (Misleading. The total length of the transect
may be 12.9 miles but it only covered about 1.3 miles of shoreline.)
We thank you for this comment, however, the sentence reads "a survey team consisting of two
scuba divers completed a total of 86 transects of various lengths (from the shortest 47 m or 153
ft. to the longest 536 m or 1760ft.) from Honokowai Point to Black Rock, covering a total of 20.8
km (12.9 miles). " which explains that 12.9 miles were covered over 86 transects of various
lengths.
23. Pg. 72 "Depending on land- use, organic matter content, geology, etc. nutrients may be removed
(dilution and geochemical cycling) and/or added (e.g. fertilizer use, cesspools or septic systems)"
Thank you, this correction has been made.
24. Section 3, It is assumed all seeps have the same discharge rate as seep 4. This does not seem like a
plausible assumption. In section 4 it says that seep 4 showed the lowest and most variable dye
concentration. Therefore one of the other seeps would have made a better representative
sample. Also, data was only over a short portion of the year (over a 33 day period) and even
during this time there was great variability. One would expect to see seasonal and weather
related variability. Based on the limited data and significant variability the calculated
groundwater fluxes are not very meaningful.
In the text we indicated that the estimates are based on very crude assumptions, which were
listed on page 70. Seep 4 was the best candidate for flow measurements because despite its
variable FLT and salinity it consistently provided the strongest discharge, which was already
close to detection limits of the instrument. Because of this, we believe that no other seep would
have provided better results.
On page 70 it is stated that we observed as much as 100% change in discharge rates between
the deployments. This is simply the nature ofSGD and these numbers provide the best possible
estimates for our study period.
25. Pg. 135 Figure 4-4: A line diagram of the LWRF showing the FLT dye addition points. (This figure does
not clearly show the injection points. Presumes we know that injection wells were used)
Thank you, we made the appropriate changes to line diagram figures.
E-14
-------
E-15
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-16
-------
APPENDIX E-2: Final Report review comments from the USEPA
Region IX
E-17
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-18
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) Comments
On the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final Report (June 2013)
June 10, 2013
Please consider the following comments on the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final Report
(June 2013).
General Comments.
1. The Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final Report (June 2013) (the "report") is
informative and interesting to read. Great job in summarizing a tremendous amount of
information in a relatively concise manner and efficiently building upon the findings from the
interim report.
2. The report provides important and useful information on the fate of effluent from injection
wells and on Submarine Groundwater Discharge (SGD) in West Maui. We now know that
Lahaina's effluent discharges 3-25 m from shore in two fairly discrete areas off the Marriott and
that it takes 3 months to under a year for most of the plume to reach the ocean. This is very
different from the historical thinking that wells discharged far off shore in deep water over large
areas. However, I do find the report to be overly long, repetitive, and sometimes inconsistent.
I understand that it is organized according to the work of different investigators, but findings
should be better integrated in the executive summary and throughout the report.
3. The report does need some proof reading. Please proof read the report and make corrections.
Although most aspects detected by a proof reader maybe relatively insignificant, such as minor
spelling mistakes (e.g., Mues near the end of page 90 should be Meus), others aspects are more
critical (e.g., Tables 3-2 and 3-3 on page 88 and Tables 3-9 and 3-10 on page 91 should be Tables
4-2, 4-3, 4-9, and 4-10, respectively) and need to be corrected.
Executive Summary.
4. The Executive Summary should contain a summary paragraph describing the fate of the LWRF
effluent. It appears that different tools result in slightly different (but related) answers to the
questions of where does the effluent go, how much of the effluent emerges at the seep groups,
and how much of the seep discharge is effluent versus groundwater. See below.
Page (P.) ii (6). Does this mean that 75% of the SGD at N and S seeps and surrounding seeps is
LWRF effluent? Does it mean that 75% of the LWRF effluent emerges at these seeps?
P. iii (3). Does this mean that 64% of the effluent emerges at the N and S seeps and adjacent
areas? Explain how this relates to (6) on P. ii.
P. xii and xv. How does the estimate from conservative tracers compare? Ave. 62% of SGD from
springs is effluent?
5. How does interim finding, P. ii, (6) "....average total discharge from the submarine springs and
the surrounding diffuse flow was about 2.76 mgd. The freshwater component of that flow was
E-19
-------
about 2.25 mgd (8,500 m3/d), or about 75% of the LWRF total average daily injection rate (~3.0
mgd; 11,350 m3/d)" relate to the findings summarized in Table ES-8, specifically the percent
effluent (68%) in the submarine spring discharge? Do the findings in Table ES-8 represent a
refinement of the interim findings?
6. P. i-iii. It is confusing to summarize key results from Interim Report and then separately for the
final report. Did any of the interim conclusions change with the latest information (see
comment above)? It would be clearer to summarize key findings in total.
7. The draft final report appears to state findings about the cause of the elevated temperature of
seep water, and the cause of the green coloration at seeps more conclusively than in the interim
report. Thank you for addressing this issue. There was quite a bit of public interest in both of
these observations, and the Executive Summary should state final conclusions based on all of
the data.
8. P. ii. Please define "travel time," in the Executive Summary. I think most people view travel time
as the time between injection and the first detection at the seeps; however, it appears, based
on page ii, that travel time for this study means the entire time of detection from first detection
through the peak and until it drops below the MDL. Please define the term, so that it is not
misinterpreted by the public.
9. P. iv. Please provide a better description of Lahaina's wastewater treatment system. "Tertiary
treatment" is not well-defined, as it can mean any advanced treatment on top of secondary
treatment. Please specify the type of filtration.
10. P. vii. The top sentences are very unclear. Please clarify what is meant by the sentences: "Field
data indicated an apparent increase in SRB fluorescence. Subsequent testing showed this was
actually a response of the SRB channel the strong FLT fluorescence in the samples being
analyzed." Please refer the reader to where it is explained in the report.
11. P. vii. Please provide a better description of what "shimmering waters" means.
12. P. vii, Paragraph 2 and P. x, Paragraph 1. The characteristics of the seep field should be
highlighted as a major finding. These two sections should be combined into a clear description
of the location and size of the seep field. It is interesting that the seeps are diffuse, with a few
discharging at higher rates, yet all cluster in two relatively small areas along a segment of
coastline that basically coincides with the beachfront of the Marriott timeshare. How far
offshore do the seeps extend? The P. vii paragraph (also section 2.3.4) gives the area covered
by seeps, but does not fully describe the size of the seep field. It is not clear if the P. x
paragraph accounts for the 289 seeps described on P. vii. In the past, the fate of the
wastewater injected on Maui was thought to seep into the ocean offshore in deep water over a
large area. This report shows differently.
13. P. ix. The estimated SGD rates at seeps, Honokowai and Hanakao'o are based on radon. To
what extent does local mixing of seawater influence these flux estimates?
14. P. x, Paragraph 2, final sentence. Please clarify the details of what data values are being
compared between the Hanakaoo Beach DIP and those at the seeps (e.g., flux in mol/d,
concentration in micromol, etc).
E-20
-------
15. P. x, Paragraph 2. Please report nutrient concentrations and species in terms that are relevant
to Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) and comparable to Hawaii's water quality standards.
We recognize that scientists use uM and DON/DIN etc, but this report is funded by and
intended for use by DOH and EPA. Please provide data in a form that can be used by us. It is
alright to show nutrient data both as uM and as ug/L.
16. P. x, Paragraph 2. Please consider an addition to the Executive Summary regarding the finding
of the very low N:P ratios at the SSG and NSG when compared with the other sites (page 73,
table 3-5, 3-6, 3-7).
17. P. xi-xii (2). The enrichment of phosphorus concentrations post-injection is likely an artifact of
the small number of effluent samples taken in this study. The Executive Summary should make
note that this observation may not be an accurate conclusion based on the limited number of
effluent samples. Note there is a large range in your P concentrations for the effluent (170-700
ug/L). EPA averaged Maui County's monthly effluent data (from legally required reporting
which was subject to QA requirements) for the period July 2011-June 2012 and obtained an
average P concentration of 520 ug P/L (range 110-1600ug P/L). The variability in the P
concentration found in the effluent calls into question the conclusion that the submarine seep
concentration of P appears enriched relative to the LWRF wastewater effluent. P. xiii (4) same
comment applies.
18. P. xiii (3). Please consider providing more detail on the Wahikuli area. The Wahikuli area is
unsewered and a cluster of over 270 homes use cesspools (not septic) for sewage disposal.
However, the dot for Wahikuli in Figure 2-2 (p. 46) is makai of Villages of Leali'i, which is a newer
development and connected to the sewer system. The area immediately adjacent to the dot to
the south is the unsewered housing area.
19. P. xv-xvi, for the Sulpho-Rhodamine B (SRB) Tracer Test. There is a statement in the first
paragraph on page xvthat says "there has been no confirmed detection of the SRB dye in the
nearshore marine waters." However, the first paragraph on page xvi presents the possibility that
SRB may have been detected, as demonstrated by the detection of fluorescence characteristics
that are "indicative of trace concentrations of this dye." And further along in that same
paragraph, the detection is considered a "possible" SRB detection. Please consider revision of
these statements to be more consistent.
20. P. xv-xv,i SRB. This section starts by stating the purpose is to determine if well 2 discharges at
the same seeps as Wells 3 and 4. What, if anything, can be concluded relative to this question?
Does the study confirm or suggest a separate flow path for well 2? It is suggested to combine P.
xvi, paragraph 2 SRB explanations with the top of P. vii regarding apparent SRB detection. If
you were to do a new tracer study for well 2, where would you look to find the dye?
21. P. xxvii, Table ES-8. Please consider adding a heading regarding the method (tracer dye) used
for the top half of the table similar to that used in the bottom half (e.g., Geochemical
Estimations...).
22. P. xl, Figure ES-13. Should the term 'drowned stream valley' be used rather than 'downed
stream valley' when referring to Honokowai ancient stream channel and associated alluvium?
E-21
-------
Section 2.
23. P. 36, Section 2.3.1, line 2. Is "oceanic" is the right word here as it implies open ocean not
influenced by land? Please consider using "coastal water".
Section 3.
24. Section 3.3.2, Paragraph 3. This is confusing in the context of other information about the
seeps. Please provide some clarification. What are the implications of assuming that all seeps
discharge at same velocity as seep 4? What kind of error does this introduce? Does this
calculation take into account the total 289 seeps or only sampled seeps? It certainly appears
that the 289 seeps do not all discharge at the same velocity. What is meant by " >90% of
groundwater discharge is via diffuse seepage"? Does this mean 10% is from the sampled seeps
and 90% from the 200+ seeps that cluster around the sampled seeps? Or does it mean that 90%
emerges at areas away from the N and S seep fields? How does this relate to the percent of
effluent that emerges at the sampled seeps and adjacent seep fields?
25. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 1. Please reference a map of the wells here showing their names and
locations. It is hard to follow this section without knowing where the named wells are located
and the historical land use.
26. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 2. The assumption that N and P are conservative along the flow path
to the coastal zone is in conflict with other observations in the report that higher elevation wells
have lower N than wells under former agricultural fields. Land use is widely demonstrated to
influence N concentrations in Hawaii's groundwater. Also Petersen reported the highest nitrate
concentrations in West Maui coastal wells compared to those upgradient.
27. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 3. Where are the referenced N15 data presented? For discussion,
Hanakao'o is directly down gradient of a portion of Kaanapali golf course, which uses recycled
wastewater for irrigation. There does not appear to be cesspools or septic systems upgradient
of Hanakao'o.
28. Section 3.3.3, P. 73, Paragraph 1. As already mentioned in a previous comment, please express
nutrients in species and units that are used by DOH and consistent with the water quality
standards.
29. Table 3-5 and 3-6. The legends are confusing. Please clarify the information in the tables. The
table legend should distinguish which sites are seeps, springs, and groundwater wells. Do the
footnotes refer to wells? Is there a map that shows locations of the wells? Are any of these
sites really springs? Table 3-5 legend states that June and September data are averaged, except
for NSG and SSG where June and September averages are listed separately, but only one set of
numbers is shown for NSG and SSG.
30. P. 73, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "For a lower-limit estimate, nutrient fluxes for Honokowai and
Hanakaoo reported in Table 3-6...." The placement of this sentence in this paragraph with no
further information might confuse the reader. Please consider if it would be more appropriately
placed prior to the final sentence of this paragraph, where the lower-limit scenario is outlined.
E-22
-------
31. P. 73, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Please provide more explanation about the use of a lower-
limit estimate perTetra Tech 1993. Is use of the lower-limit estimate more or less appropriate
given the Honokowai and Hanakoo nutrient fluxes are based upon upgradient well data? Would
the use of the lower-limit estimate modify the conclusions of the final sentence on Page 74
regarding the Hanakaoo Beach coastal DIN and DIP levels?
32. Section 3.4, P. 74, last paragraph. Please highlight as a key finding that NSG and SSG represent
the largest sources of DON, DIP, and DOP per meter of coastline.... It would be useful to know
how long a coastline is involved (only a couple of meters at the seeps)? Please also present
nutrient concentrations as ug/L. Same for Table 3.7. Please provide where the "offshore sites"
referred to in this paragraph are located In the final sentences, elaborate on why ambient
coastal concentrations are higher at Hanakao'o (i.e., less mixing, less nutrient uptake, greater
flux) than coastal water at NSG/SSG.
33. Nutrient fluxes. The N and S seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites studied
in West Maui in the magnitude of both DON, DOP and DIP fluxes/sq m, and the low TN:TP and
DIN:DIP ratios. These nutrient results are significant findings that should be highlighted in the
Executive Summary with the consolidated description of the seep characteristics. The N:P ratios
show that seeps are enriched in Phosphorus relative to nitrogen, when compared to other SGD
sites (and to the Redfield ratio 16:1) which is a possible explanation for the history of algal
blooms at Kahekili area. (From a preventative perspective, P may be managed in wastewater
simply by shifting to low P detergents for laundry and dishes.)
34. Figure 3-6. It would be helpful to show the names of the wells on this figure and the nutrient
units. Also, it appears that N and P values are shown for the shallow hotel wells makai of the
treatment plant. Are these data available in a table somewhere in the report? At one point,
there was mention of resampling these wells at greater depth. Is that data available?
35. P. 265, Table A-6. There does not appear to be any SVO well sampling results in the table (no
survey area = SVO). Please clarify.
E-23
-------
Comments From and Replies To the USEPA Region IX
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) Comments
On the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final Report (June 2013)
June 10, 2013
Please consider the following comments on the Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final
Report (June 2013).
General Comments.
1. The Lahaina Groundwater Tracer Study Draft Final Report (June 2013) (the "report") is informative
and interesting to read. Great job in summarizing a tremendous amount of information in a
relatively concise manner and efficiently building upon the findings from the interim report.
2. The report provides important and useful information on the fate of effluent from injection wells and
on Submarine Groundwater Discharge (SGD) in West Maui. We now know that Lahaina's effluent
discharges 3-25 m from shore in two fairly discrete areas off the Marriott and that it takes 3 months
to under a year for most of the plume to reach the ocean. This is very different from the historical
thinking that wells discharged far off shore in deep water over large areas. However, I do find the
report to be overly long, repetitive, and sometimes inconsistent. I understand that it is organized
according to the work of different investigators, but findings should be better integrated in the
executive summary and throughout the report.
While it is true that the peak of the breakthrough curve occurred less than a year after the dye
injection, it is untrue that it takes less than a year for most of the plume to reach the ocean. The
mean transit time defined as the center of mass of the plume is well in excess of a year. In
addition the effluent is emerging in front of the Westin not the Marriott.
3. The report does need some proof reading. Please proof read the report and make corrections.
Although most aspects detected by a proof reader maybe relatively insignificant, such as minor
spelling mistakes (e.g., Mues near the end of page 90 should be Meus), others aspects are more
critical (e.g., Tables 3-2 and 3-3 on page 88 and Tables 3-9 and 3-10 on page 91 should be Tables 4-2,
4-3, 4-9, and 4-10, respectively) and need to be corrected.
We appreciate you pointing out the editing errors. We have corrected those errors and have
reviewed the entire report for other errors.
Executive Summary.
4. The Executive Summary should contain a summary paragraph describing the fate of the LWRF
effluent. It appears that different tools result in slightly different (but related) answers to the
questions of where does the effluent go, how much of the effluent emerges at the seep groups, and
how much of the seep discharge is effluent versus groundwater. See below.
In response to Comment 4 and 6: We have significantly altered the Overview of the Executive
Summary in accord with this comment and those below. Whereas the draft version of the Final
E-24
-------
Report Overview had two lists of principal findings (5 stemming from the Interim Report; 6
stemming from the Final Report; 11 total) the revision now has all bulleted finding combined into
a succinct list of 16 total for all phases of the completed project. To compliment this list and in
response to a comment below we have also added a summary paragraph at the bullet list's end,
attempting to slightly gear it in more layman-friendly terms.
Re: Questions relating to the fate of the effluent: please see replies below.
Page (P.) ii (6). Does this mean that 75% of the SGD at N and S seeps and surrounding seeps is LWRF
effluent? Does it mean that 75% of the LWRF effluent emerges at these seeps?
The answer to both of these questions is no. Although the measurement of submarine
groundwater discharge (SGD) by radon mass balance measures can be used to calculate the
amount of total (saline and fresh) SGD, as well as the amount of fresh SGD (using salinity), it
cannot be used by itself to differentiate the fraction of effluent that may be a component of the
water. In the draft, we were stating the June and September averaged total (fresh + marine =
2.76 mgd) SGD and fresh water (2.25 mgd) from the submarine springs and their surrounding
diffuse flow, and simply comparing those results to an average LWRF total (fresh) daily injection
rate (~3.0 mgd). Based on this injection rate, the SGD freshwater fraction is mathematically
equivalent (only!) to 75% of the LWRF total average daily injection. However, given that the
L WRF is not the only source of fresh groundwater to the coast, this is not the same as saying that
75% of the LWRF effluent emerges at these seeps.
In the revised Final Report Executive Summary we have thus eliminated the confusing 75% fresh
water comparison, and therefore restated the conclusion in the new bullet number 11 (shown
here), which is the same as that reported in the Interim Report's SGD summary Section 5.5 based
on radon mas balance modeling from the radon time series measurements:
New Bullet (11): "As based on radon mass balance measurements, average total
(fresh + saline) discharge from the submarine springs and the surrounding
diffuse flow was about 2.19-3.33 million gallons per day (mgd) (8,300-12,600
m3/d). The freshwater component of that flow was about 1.61-2.88 mgd (6,100-
10,900 m3/d), or about 73-87% of the total SGD."
So, again, the above is only discussing saline and fresh SGD, and not the percent of effluent that
is delivered to the coast. To estimate the percentage of the total SGD that is effluent, one must
use properties that are unique to that effluent. For this study, we accomplished this by using the
amount of dye recovered as a function of the break through curves, and augmented that to the
degree possible with stable isotopes and geochemistry.
P. iii (3). Does this mean that 64% of the effluent emerges at the N and S seeps and adjacent areas?
Explain how this relates to (6) on P. ii.
Yes, that is correct (P. iii(3) is now shown as bullet (12) in the revised Executive Summary
Overview). We have estimated that once the tracer dye break through curve has reached
completion, that 64 percent of dye injected into Wells 3 and 4 will have been fully discharged at
the submarine spring areas. Thus, as viewed at steady state, it is also our conclusion based on
E-25
-------
these calculations that 64 percent of the treated wastewater injected into these wells currently
discharges from the submarine spring areas.
P. ii(6) lists averages from time-series June -Sep, while Table ES-8 the June-Sep survey results.
The detailed results were explained on page ix. Please also see our reply to 5. below.
P. xii and xv. How does the estimate from conservative tracers compare? Ave. 62% of SGD from
springs is effluent?
We are not sure what is being asked for by this comment.
5. How does interim finding, P. ii, (6) "....average total discharge from the submarine springs and the
surrounding diffuse flow was about 2.76 mgd. The freshwater component of that flow was about
2.25 mgd (8,500 m3/d), or about 75% of the LWRF total average daily injection rate (~3.0 mgd;
11,350 m3/d)" relate to the findings summarized in Table ES-8, specifically the percent effluent
(68%) in the submarine spring discharge? Do the findings in Table ES-8 represent a refinement of the
interim findings?
The results presented in Table E-8 do indeed present an update on the findings in the Interim
Report. The total SGD reported in Final Report Table ES-8 (8,800 m3/d) is the total of rates
determined for South and North Seep Group areas previously reported in Table 5-5 of the Interim
Report, which is based on the areas of high Rn bound by the surface rectangles reported there,
and as shown in revised Final Report Figures ES-4 and ES-8. Table ES-8 adds to the previous
knowledge in showing that at the time of dye Break Through Curve completion, 64% of the FLT
dye-traced-effluent will have been recovered at the spring areas, so at steady state, 64% of the
total LWTF Well 3+4 injection rate of9340 m3/d is released within the spring area, which is 5,978
m3/d (Table ES-8). To determine the proportion of FLT dye-traced-effluent discharge that is a
component of the Total SGD rate, we divide 5978/8800 = 68%. One point of doing this calculation
(with respect to total SGD) is to compare the tracer-dye result with that made on the basis of the
stable isotope/geochemical ternary component analysis, which was calculated quite
independently (with its own uncertainties), and yielded a mean submarine spring effluent
discharge proportion of 62%, which we think is reasonable agreement.
6. P. i-iii. It is confusing to summarize key results from Interim Report and then separately for the final
report. Did any of the interim conclusions change with the latest information (see comment above)?
It would be clearer to summarize key findings in total.
We see no contradictions between the two reports. Our purpose of separating the results into
the two parts in the draft of the executive summary was to make is easy for a reader now or
later to know which set of results came from the Interim Report versus the Final Report.
Nonetheless, we understand the desire to have one set of results so we have combined these
together, as requested. Please also see Reply Comment 1.
7. The draft final report appears to state findings about the cause of the elevated temperature of seep
water, and the cause of the green coloration at seeps more conclusively than in the Interim report.
Thank you for addressing this issue. There was quite a bit of public interest in both of these
observations, and the Executive Summary should state final conclusions based on all of the data.
E-26
-------
We endeavor to state claims about causes and effects to the extent that all the available data
will allow.
8. P. ii. Please define "travel time/' in the Executive Summary. I think most people view travel time as
the time between injection and the first detection at the seeps; however, it appears, based on page
ii, that travel time for this study means the entire time of detection from first detection through the
peak and until it drops below the MDL. Please define the term, so that it is not misinterpreted by the
public.
We apologize for the confusion. We substituted the more concise terms "time to first arrival"
and "mean transit time" for the ambiguous "travel time."
9. P. iv. Please provide a better description of Lahaina's wastewater treatment system. "Tertiary
treatment" is not well-defined, as it can mean any advanced treatment on top of secondary
treatment. Please specify the type of filtration.
Thank you, we have added more detail in the Executive Summary describing the wastewater
treatment at the LWRF.
10. P. vii. The top sentences are very unclear. Please clarify what is meant by the sentences: "Field data
indicated an apparent increase in SRB fluorescence. Subsequent testing showed this was actually a
response of the SRB channel the strong FLT fluorescence in the samples being analyzed." Please
refer the reader to where it is explained in the report.
l/l/e have modified those sentences to be more concise. The meaning we were trying to convey
was that the fluorescence as read on the Aqua Fluor Handheld Fluorometer showed an increasing
trend in SRB concentrations. Upon further testing it was determined that the strong
fluorescence of FLT was affecting the Rhodamine channel of the field fluorometer and no SRB
was present.
11. P. vii. Please provide a better description of what "shimmering waters" means.
This is an excellent point as most laypersons may not know what this means. Shown within the
context, we defined shimmery water in the Executive Summary as well as in Section 2 as follows:
"The locations of all submarine springs and any other areas that showed evidence of submarine
groundwater discharge, such as by the presence of shimmering waters (a varying refraction of
light as seen when fresh and salt or warm and cold water mix; sometimes referred to as
"schlieren"), were mapped." We encourage the EPA to help disseminate the use of the term
schliern within the context of groundwater mixing in the ocean.
12. P. vii, Paragraph 2 and P. x, Paragraph 1. The characteristics of the seep field should be highlighted
as a major finding. These two sections should be combined into a clear description of the location
and size of the seep field. It is interesting that the seeps are diffuse, with a few discharging at higher
rates, yet all cluster in two relatively small areas along a segment of coastline that basically coincides
with the beachfront of the Marriott timeshare. How far offshore do the seeps extend? The P. vii
paragraph (also section 2.3.4) gives the area covered by seeps, but does not fully describe the size of
the seep field. It is not clear if the P. x paragraph accounts for the 289 seeps described on P. vii. In
E-27
-------
the past, the fate of the wastewater injected on Maui was thought to seep into the ocean offshore
in deep water over a large area. This report shows differently.
We have added to the executive summary and Section 2 that the furthest seep found offshore
was 109 ft or 33 m offshore. The "seep field" is best described in Section 3, where fluxes are
calculated for the north and south seep groups. To the Executive Summary and the paragraph on
page x that in total, all submarine springs mapped within the mapped within the South Seep
Group (106 seeps) were contained with an area of500 m2, and all submarine springs mapped
within the North Seep Group (183 seeps) were contained within an area of 1,800 m3. We have
also added a new Figure ES-4 in the revised Final Report that compares the exact delineation of
the SSG and NSG and mapped by our scuba efforts and compare these to the polygons used in
the Rnflux calculations (please compare with the Figure ES-8 in the revised Final Report).
13. P. ix. The estimated SGD rates at seeps, Honokowai and Hanakao'o are based on radon. To what
extent does local mixing of seawater influence these flux estimates?
The radon models applied here and described in the Interim Report correct for coastal mixing
which is estimated based on negative radon fluxes and tidal exchange in the time series model
(see Burnett and Dulaiova 2003) and from estimates of coastal water residence times in the
radon survey model (Dulaiova et al., 2010). We included the following "The model accounted for
radon evasion to the atmosphere, inputs by diffusion and from offshore ocean, in-situ production
from dissolved 226Ra, losses by coastal mixing and tidal exchange (Burnett and Dulaiova, 2003)."
14. P. x, Paragraph 2, final sentence. Please clarify the details of what data values are being compared
between the Hanakaoo Beach DIP and those at the seeps (e.g., flux in mol/d, concentration in
micromol, etc).
We edited the sentence to read: For comparison, Hanakao'o Beach coastal ocean DIN
concentrations (7.7 juM or 108 jug/L of N) are 10-times and DIP levels (0.84 juM or 26 jug/L ofP)
are 2-times higher than at the seep clusters.
15. P. x, Paragraph 2. Please report nutrient concentrations and species in terms that are relevant to
Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) and comparable to Hawaii's water quality standards. We
recognize that scientists use uM and DON/DIN etc, but this report is funded by and intended for use
by DOH and EPA. Please provide data in a form that can be used by us. It is alright to show nutrient
data both as uM and as ug/L.
We added mgd and ug/L to all listed values and have redrafted Figure 3-6 accordingly.
16. P. x, Paragraph 2. Please consider an addition to the Executive Summary regarding the finding of the
very low N:P ratios at the SSG and NSG when compared with the other sites (page 73, table 3-5, 3-6,
3-7).
We added the following: In comparison to other studied locations along the coastline, SSG and
NSG seep sites had the lowest observed TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios in groundwater (2-8 and 1-2)
and also in coastal ocean water (15-20 and 2).
E-28
-------
17. P. xi-xii (2). The enrichment of phosphorus concentrations post-injection is likely an artifact of the
small number of effluent samples taken in this study. The Executive Summary should make note that
this observation may not be an accurate conclusion based on the limited number of effluent
samples. Note there is a large range in your P concentrations for the effluent (170-700 ug/L). EPA
averaged Maui County's monthly effluent data (from legally required reporting which was subject to
QA requirements) for the period July 2011-June 2012 and obtained an average P concentration of
520 ug P/L (range 110-1600ug P/L). The variability in the P concentration found in the effluent calls
into question the conclusion that the submarine seep concentration of P appears enriched relative
to the LWRF wastewater effluent. P. xiii (4) same comment applies.
The TP concentrations cited for treated wastewater samples on page xii are incorrect and have
been corrected. The actual numbers can be found in Tables ES-2 and ES-3 (June = 206 ug/L,
September = 177 ug/L). Our conclusions were based on the data collected by us and previously
published in the literature. The data we had available suggested that both phosphate and total
P were present in significantly higher concentrations in unmixed submarine spring samples
relative to treated wastewater samples. See section 6.4.3.1 of the interim report for more
discussion on this topic. We were not provided with Maui County's P data for the effluent and
thus were not able to use it in our evaluation of the system.
18. P. xiii (3). Please consider providing more detail on the Wahikuli area. The Wahikuli area is
unsewered and a cluster of over 270 homes use cesspools (not septic) for sewage disposal.
However, the dot for Wahikuli in Figure 2-2 (p. 46) is makai of Villages of Leali'i, which is a newer
development and connected to the sewer system. The area immediately adjacent to the dot to the
south is the unsewered housing area.
This section was modified to more accurately reflect land use in the Wahikuli area. Figure 2-2
(and ES-3) shows a control point for dye tracer sampling. Geochemical sample locations are
shown on figure 6-2 and 6-3 of the interim report.
19. P. xv-xvi, for the Sulpho-Rhodamine B (SRB) Tracer Test. There is a statement in the first paragraph
on page xv that says "there has been no confirmed detection of the SRB dye in the nearshore marine
waters." However, the first paragraph on page xvi presents the possibility that SRB may have been
detected, as demonstrated by the detection of fluorescence characteristics that are "indicative of
trace concentrations of this dye." And further along in that same paragraph, the detection is
considered a "possible" SRB detection. Please consider revision of these statements to be more
consistent.
Thank you. We revised the discussions of Sulpho-Rhodamine B to be more consistent about the
possibility of the detection of this dye.
20. P. xv-xv,i SRB. This section starts by stating the purpose is to determine if well 2 discharges at the
same seeps as Wells 3 and 4. What, if anything, can be concluded relative to this question? Does the
study confirm or suggest a separate flow path for well 2? It is suggested to combine P. xvi,
paragraph 2 SRB explanations with the top of P. vii regarding apparent SRB detection. If you were to
do a new tracer study for well 2, where would you look to find the dye?
Due to the interference from the Wells 3 and 4 flow field with that of Well 2, and the failure to
detect Sulpho-Rhodamine B, no conclusions can be made regarding the possible marine
E-29
-------
discharge points of injectate from Well 2. With no injection into Wells 3 and 4 it is entirely
possible that the injectate from Well 2 could discharge at the submarine springs monitored by
this study, but with available evidence there is no way to conclude whether or not this true. The
detection ofSRB was evaluated as "possible," which is a lower threshold than apparent As the
report states, a second tracer study with injection into Well 2-only would be needed to
investigate the hydraulic connection between this well and the nearshore environment. If such a
test was done, the nearshore zone that is monitored should be expanded beyond the NSG and
SSG to include the entire span of coastline with elevated S15N and sea surface temperature as
indicated in the aerial thermal infrared (TIR) survey. In addition, points further offshore should
be surveyed with particular attention paid to the areas there the Tetra Tech survey found the
fluorescence anomalies.
21. P. xxvii, Table ES-8. Please consider adding a heading regarding the method (tracer dye) used for the
top half of the table similar to that used in the bottom half (e.g., Geochemical Estimations...).
Thank you for that observation, we have made the appropriate changes.
22. P. xl, Figure ES-13. Should the term 'drowned stream valley' be used rather than 'downed stream
valley' when referring to Honokowai ancient stream channel and associated alluvium?
We have made that correction.
Section 2.
23. P. 36, Section 2.3.1, line 2. Is "oceanic" is the right word here as it implies open ocean not influenced
by land? Please consider using "coastal water".
"Oceanic" has been replaced with "coastal water" in Section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
Section 3.
24. Section 3.3.2, Paragraph 3. This is confusing in the context of other information about the seeps.
Please provide some clarification. What are the implications of assuming that all seeps discharge at
same velocity as seep 4? What kind of error does this introduce?
We clarified this in the text as:
"Based on seep vent area measurements Seep 4 represents 11% of the sum of seep areas in SSG
(838.8 cm2) and 3% of the sum of seep areas in SSG and NSG together (3,265 cm2) as shown on
Figures 2-1 and 2-15. Besides their identification by divers we delineate the two seep clusters
based on the radon plume identified during the radon survey performed in June and September
2011. SSG consists of 106 seeps plus any diffuse seepage in a 70x100 m2 area identified as an
isolated radon plume in the surface water and NSG consists of 183 seeps plus any diffuse
seepage contributing to the 53x60 m2 large surface radon plume. For a rough estimate of total
discharge from the vents we assumed that all seeps within SSG and NSG discharge water at the
same vertical velocity as Seep 4. This neglects the fact that vents may have higher or lower
vertical water velocities depending on their size, or location with respect to the groundwater
plume. The uncertainty introduced by this assumption cannot be quantified as no other seep
E-30
-------
discharge was investigated in a systematic manner. By multiplying total seep areas with the
above-derived vertical fluxes, we thus arrive at a total vent discharge of 21-86 m3/d and 83-336
m3/d for SSG (106 seeps) and SSG+NSG (289 seeps), respectively (Table 3-3). Average (June and
September 2011) radon mass-balance derived total groundwater fluxes were 7,550 m3/d at SSG
(106 seeps plus any diffuse seepage in a 70x100 m2 area identified as an isolated radon plume in
the surface water) and 2,950 m3/d at NSG (183 seeps plus any diffuse seepage in a 53x60 m2
area)."
Does this calculation take into account the total 289 seeps or only sampled seeps? It certainly
appears that the 289 seeps do not all discharge at the same velocity.
Please, see above.
What is meant by " >90% of groundwater discharge is via diffuse seepage"? Does this mean 10% is
from the sampled seeps and 90% from the 200+ seeps that cluster around the sampled seeps? Or
does it mean that 90% emerges at areas away from the N and S seep fields? How does this relate to
the percent of effluent that emerges at the sampled seeps and adjacent seep fields?
We added the following for clarification:
"These results indicate that total SGD via seeps is only 0.5-1% at the SSG and 2-8% at the NSG of
total water discharge and that >90% of groundwater discharge is via diffuse seepage within the
70x100 m2 area of SSG and 53x60 m2 area of NSG (Table 3-4)."
25. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 1. Please reference a map of the wells here showing their names and
locations. It is hard to follow this section without knowing where the named wells are located and
the historical land use.
We included references to figures with maps of wells and land use in the text:
"We sampled 3 wells upstream of Honokowai, which were located 4 km from the coastline
(Kaanapali P-4, P-5, P-6; see Glenn et al. 2012: Tables 6-3 and 6-4 and Figure 6-2) and one well
(Hahakea 2) 2 km upstream of Hanakao'o Beach. These wells captured nutrient signatures from
agricultural activities from pineapple (Kaanapali P-4, P-5, P-6) and sugarcane (Hahakea 2)
cultivation and had relatively elevated nutrient levels (see Glenn et al. 2012: Figure 6-1, Tables 6-
3 and 6-4)."
26. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 2. The assumption that N and P are conservative along the flow path to
the coastal zone is in conflict with other observations in the report that higher elevation wells have
lower N than wells under former agricultural fields. Land use is widely demonstrated to influence N
concentrations in Hawaii's groundwater. Also Petersen reported the highest nitrate concentrations
in West Maui coastal wells compared to those upgradient.
Unfortunately, data from only these wells were available for our specific locations for
calculations of nutrient fluxes. In the next paragraph we acknowledge that additions of nutrients
are very well possible along groundwater flow paths down gradient from these wells.
E-31
-------
27. Section 3.3.3, Paragraph 3. Where are the referenced N15 data presented? For discussion,
Hanakao'o is directly down gradient of a portion of Kaanapali golf course, which uses recycled
wastewater for irrigation. There does not appear to be cesspools or septic systems upgradient of
Hanakao'o.
We included:
"Our study (Glenn et aL, 2012) showed significant denitrification in groundwaters exiting SSG
and NSG seeps based on a very heavy S15N signature (see Glenn et aL, 2012: Figure 6-22). But
denitrification was only evaluated at these two locations and these findings cannot be expanded
to Honokowai and Hanakao'o. Coastal 51SN values in the Hanakao'o area were enriched high
enough to suggest that denitrification (possibly fueled by input of organic C and N03 from
irrigation with recycled waste water) is occurring in groundwater entering the ocean as SGD (see
Glenn et aL, 2012: Table 6-12)."
28. Section 3.3.3, P. 73, Paragraph 1. As already mentioned in a previous comment, please express
nutrients in species and units that are used by DOH and consistent with the water quality standards.
We have listed all All units in ug/L, mgd, g/m/d.
29. Table 3-5 and 3-6. The legends are confusing. Please clarify the information in the tables. The
table legend should distinguish which sites are seeps, springs, and groundwater wells. Do the
footnotes refer to wells? Is there a map that shows locations of the wells? Are any of these sites
really springs? Table 3-5 legend states that June and September data are averaged, except for NSG
and SSG where June and September averages are listed separately, but only one set of numbers is
shown for NSG and SSG.
We edited the legends to clarify the sources and nutrient values.
30. P. 73, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "For a lower-limit estimate, nutrient fluxes for Honokowai and
Hanakaoo reported in Table 3-6...." The placement of this sentence in this paragraph with no further
information might confuse the reader. Please consider if it would be more appropriately placed
prior to the final sentence of this paragraph, where the lower-limit scenario is outlined.
We moved this sentence as suggested.
31. P. 73, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Please provide more explanation about the use of a lower limit
estimate per Tetra Tech 1993. Is use of the lower-limit estimate more or less appropriate given the
Honokowai and Hanakoo nutrient fluxes are based upon upgradient well data? Would the use of the
lower-limit estimate modify the conclusions of the final sentence on Page 74 regarding the
Hanakaoo Beach coastal DIN and DIP levels?
We edited the text: "For a lower-limit estimate, nutrient fluxes for Honokowai and Hanakao'o
reported in Table 3-6 can be divided by 4 (Tetra Tech, 1993). This estimate is based on a
hydrological model and only assumed dilution of the nutrient content by ambient groundwater.
No biogeochemical transformations and additions of nutrients near the coastal areas were
assumed. Under the lower-limit scenario of 4-fold nutrient dilution at Hanakao'o and Honokowai
Beaches, DIN flux at SSG and NSG is comparable to other locations and DIP fluxes are
significantly higher than at any other location."
E-32
-------
32. Section 3.4, P. 74, last paragraph. Please highlight as a key finding that NSG and SSG represent
the largest sources of DON, DIP, and DOP per meter of coastline.... It would be useful to know how
long a coastline is involved (only a couple of meters at the seeps)?
Thank you for this comment and suggestion. We have addressed it extensively in the new
paragraph added to the end of the Section 3.4 summary.
32. (continued). Please also present nutrient concentrations as ug/L. Same for Table 3.7.
Units have been converted and included in the text as well as separate tables.
32. (continued). Please provide where the "offshore sites" referred to in this paragraph are located In
the final sentences,
We edited the text to read: "...offshore levels (ambient oligotrophic surface ocean at Station
Aloha, data from Karl et a!., 2001)..."
32. (continued), elaborate on why ambient coastal concentrations are higher at Hanakao'o (i.e., less
mixing, less nutrient uptake, greater flux) than coastal water at NSG/SSG.
We added: "For comparison, Hanakao'o Beach coastal ocean DIN concentrations (7.7 juM or 108
jug/L ofN) are 10-times and DIP levels (0.84 juM or 26 jug/L ofP) are 2-times higher than at the
seep clusters. These elevated nutrient levels may be a result of less intense coastal mixing, lower
biotic nutrient uptake and/or as a result of larger nutrient fluxes."
33. Nutrient fluxes. The N and S seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites studied in
West Maui in the magnitude of both DON, DOP and DIP fluxes/sq m, and the low TN:TP and DIN:DIP
ratios. These nutrient results are significant findings that should be highlighted in the Executive
Summary with the consolidated description of the seep characteristics. The N:P ratios show that
seeps are enriched in Phosphorus relative to nitrogen, when compared to other SGD sites (and to
the Redfield ratio 16:1) which is a possible explanation for the history of algal blooms at Kahekili
area. (From a preventative perspective, P may be managed in wastewater simply by shifting to low P
detergents for laundry and dishes.)
We included: "The SSG and NSG seeps are distinct from other groundwater discharge sites
studied in West Maui in the magnitude of DON, DOP and DIP fluxes per meter shoreline, and
their low TN:TP and DIN:DIP ratios. The N:P ratios show that the seeps are enriched in P relative
to N, when compared to other SGD sites (and to the Redfield ratio of 16:1)."
34. Figure 3-6. It would be helpful to show the names of the wells on this figure and the nutrient units.
Also, it appears that N and P values are shown for the shallow hotel wells makai of the treatment
plant. Are these data available in a table somewhere in the report? At one point, there was mention
of resampling these wells at greater depth. Is that data available?
The figure has been edited and data from all additional sampled wells are included in Table 4-24.
E-33
-------
35. P. 265, Table A-6. There does not appear to be any SVO well sampling results in the table (no survey
area = SVO). Please clarify
Due to the late execution of MOD 4 we had not yet received all of the results of SVO well
sampling, but we have now provided the results and they are provided in both Section 4 and in
an Appendix of the Final Report. Section 4 has also been now been considerably revised to
include a discussion of these wells and the data we have obtained from them.
E-34
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-35
-------
APPENDIX E-3: Final Report review comments from the Hawaii
Department of Health
E-3 6
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
E-37
-------
Lahaina Tracer Study Project (ASO Log No. 11-047)
Comments (Hawaii Dept. of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch)
June 10, 2013
The Monitoring Section of the Safe Drinking Water Branch has reviewed the Draft
Lahaina Tracer Study Report and have the following comments:
The report is complete, well written, and meets all of the requirements of the Planning
Assistance Agreement. The tracer study was well planned and executed. We do however, have
some comments and suggestions to enhance the Final Report.
(1) There are detailed QA data presented for FLT but none for SRB. We suggest
adding tables similar to 4-4 through 4-7 for SRB.
(2) Reference is made to evaluating sample degradation using periodic fluorescence
measurements the of the calibration standards. No results for these measurements were
found in the report. We suggest adding the data to the report to support the contention
that no sample degradation is occurring.
(3) We suggest the use of kg/d for the nutrient flux.
(4) Task 8 of MOD 4 specifies monthly sampling of the SVO resort wells. We know that
this has been done but no results were reported. We suggest adding the SVO resort well
sample results as an appendix to this report.
(5) One of the conclusions of the tracer study was that the failure to detect the Rhodamine
was interference between flow fields of Wells 3 and 4, and that of Well 2 where the
Rhodamine was added. Was any consideration given during the tracer test design to
diverting all treated wastewater injection into Well 2 only after the Rhodamine was
added? The high injection capacity of Well 2 seems to indicate that this was a viable
option.
(6) The Hawaii Rural Water Association assisted during both dye injections. We do not see
any acknowledge of the assistance of this organization listed in the report. We suggest
acknowledging their contribution and particularly that of Erin Vander Zee who assisted
until the last dye was added during both events.
E-38
-------
Comments From and Replies To the Hawaii Department of
Health, Safe Water Drinking Branch
Lahaina Tracer Study Project (ASO Log No. 11-047)
Comments (Hawaii Dept. of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch)
June 10, 2013
The Monitoring Section of the Safe Drinking Water Branch has reviewed the Draft
Lahaina Tracer Study Report and have the following comments:
The report is complete, well written, and meets all of the requirements of the Planning
Assistance Agreement. The tracer study was well planned and executed. We do however, have
some comments and suggestions to enhance the Final Report.
(1) There are detailed QA data presented for FLT but none for SRB. We suggest
adding tables similar to 4-4 through 4-7 for SRB.
Thank you, we added the SRB QA tables to the report.
(2) Reference is made to evaluating sample degradation using periodic fluorescence
measurements of the calibration standards. No results for these measurements were
found in the report. We suggest adding the data to the report to support the contention
that no sample degradation is occurring.
We have that data and added it to the report.
(3) We suggest the use of kg/d for the nutrient flux.
We have listed all Al units in ug/L, mgd, g/m/d.
(4) Task 8 of MOD 4 specifies monthly sampling of the SVO resort wells. We know that
this has been done but no results were reported. We suggest adding the SVO resort well
sample results as an appendix to this report.
Due to the late execution of MOD 4 we had not yet received all of the results of SVO well
sampling, but we have now provided the results and they are provided in both Section 4
and in an Appendix of the Final Report. Section 4 has also been now been considerably
revised to include a discussion of these wells and the data we have obtained from them.
(5) One of the conclusions of the tracer study was that the failure to detect the Rhodamine
was interference between the flow fields of Wells 3 and 4, and that of Well 2 where the
Rhodamine was added. Was any consideration given during the tracer test design to
diverting all treated wastewater injection into Well 2 only after the Rhodamine was
E-39
-------
added? The high injection capacity of Well 2 seems to indicate that this was a viable
option.
Yes, diverting all treated wastewater injection into Well 2 for two weeks following the
addition of SRB was initially proposed. However, during a conference call on August 3,
2011 between the UH, the EPA, Maui County, andHDOH it was decided that a
prolonged deviation from the normal distribution of wastewater injection at the LWRF
may complicate the geochemical interpretations and adversely affect the FLT tracer test
results. Thus the SRB tracer test procedures were modified to return the wastewater
injection distribution to the standard arrangement where Wells 3 and 4 receive the
majority of the injectate after the addition of SRB was completed.
The Hawaii Rural Water Association assisted during both dye injections. We do not see
any acknowledge of the assistance of this organization listed in the report. We suggest
acknowledging their contribution and particularly that of Erin Vander Zee who assisted
until the last dye was added during both events.
Thank you very much. That was an oversight our part. We have corrected this and
acknowledged the valuable contributions of the Hawaii Rural Water Association.
------- |