c -~ -" . ,..; . , .

. .

o COUNTY OF MAUl

p i E C [ R~ ~ ART MEN T 0 F PUB Lie w 0 R K S ...

! ,f;.':;'::i>.\7 C ;:: .• 8;,rWAILUKU, MAUl, HAWAII 96793 RECE1VED' y ,1,

I 1 • • ..IUL j '15 Jut 3' M4 8: 3"

u;';;J-, 0= LAND & NA'TU'RiL RESOURCES

July 28, 1975 STATE OF HAWAII

:1r. E. Alvey Wright, Director State Oept. of Transportation 869 Punchbowl &treet Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. wright:

Subject: Wailuku-Kahului Sewerage Project

Construction of the subject project is well underway and i8 scheduled to be completed in mid-1977. Several chang.s relating to the disposal of treated effluent are being considered, which changes would con­tribute to both the State's and County's benefit.

The County has always k.ept in mind that the treated effluent should be disposed of in a manner both meantngful and useful in light of consel:Vation and recognized values contained in the effluent when utilized appropriately.

The project pl&,s presently .include, for the interim, its disposal by well injection. We are seriously considering the use of wind energy 8S a mean8 of pumping the effluent to irrigate the Kanaba Beach Park. The availability and large quantity of irrigation water may also warrant its use to irrigate the entire airport area. '

In conjunction with the above, we are considerina the use of the existing stabilization pond presently serving the airport area, assuming that the sewerage system will be connected to our treatment plant and the pond can be made available for the County's use.

Your· receptiveness in using the effluent for irrigation purposes and consideration in permitting the County eventual use of the stabiliza­tion pond ahould result in benefits in the interest of .11 concerned.

Very truly your.,

~ WAYNE UE:1AE Uirector of Public Works

cc: Dept. of Land and Natural Resources-,,' Fed. Prog. Coord.

- a 1'-, .' .-',

Colin G. Lennox - R.R. 1 BOX 431 • KULA, MAUl. HAWAII 96790

January 30,1975

The Honorable Elmer F. Cravalho Mayor,County of Maui WailukutHI 96793

Dear Mayor Cravalhol

, , .'" ~.-

! ~ , .i

(\ '" ,"- ''" ,) • L ~ .. "

.:' ,:,,)

< , i. -,'/1 '/'.1 :

This is a request for permission to install a reoord­ing water-level instrument on the well installed by the County in 1971 for testing the aquifer for aooeptanoe of sewage effluent from the planned ,Wailuku-Kahului Sewage Treatment plant.

In aooordanoe with the Addendum Statement of EPA (F-EPA-2400-HI) dated July l,1974t lt additional hydr&lio tests"will be required to more fully demonstrate the behavior of the injeoted effluent with respect to Kanaha Pond. It is the oonsensus of hydro­logist·contacted that a long period of reoordings taken simultaneous­ly of water level ohanges at the State Well,County Well and Kanaha ~ond ~ging Station will be an essential element in this testing program.

Water level recorders have been installed on the State Well and the Kanaha Pond Gsuging Station and in operation since early January. Another recorder can be borrowed for the County Well and installed and operated without oost to the County. Copies of the charts from the three stations can be made for the County or a hydrologist of their designation,as well as, others profession­ally interested 1n the project.

The staff of the Division of Fish and Game,Department of Land and Natural Resources who supervise the wildlife refuge at Kanaha Pond are presently managing the two reo orders referred to and would oont1nue doing so w1th the three.

I have undertaken the task of oontaot1ng and lia1son with the various persons involved with this projeot.

Yours very trulYt ., .....

~ .. /

" / / .

.f" £/

/-r ~.~/ ,,;/ ~r'~ _ " 7 I ",

Colin G. Lennox

cc Mr Christopher Cobb,Chm. SL he ~ .... L Ii gjJ Dept. Land & Nat.Res.

j r. :: ~ t < .. ' I .. ' \.' "i"" !

J~ '~~~ 1. 'ii' it\' ~~ I"~j /\ It]

C13f\i3:)~ti

Copies 10:

Ch.irm.n ___ _

~:~~~ance$ _r-/_-: l~ Fish/G.me or D" 'k Y Forestry ~____ v ~

Land Mgmt ---r---Parks ----fl-' __

--eOWAlD --4V,--_ ",,,,.,ning __ _

r;",l_ Pe:sonnel _____ _

FROM THE GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL

For: .... ,.,.".", Comment & reeommendatjpn

.... Appropriate action

·.·.· ... ·.·.v ........... Direct reply (bee to Gov.> n Your information ... Your file

Suspense ....... ~~.Y .... ~~., .... l~1~ ........................................ . (If delay is encountered in meeting suspense date, please advise by telephone immediately.)

Dept. of __ .. __ ........ ~~~ ................ __ ........ ____ .................. __ .. __ ......... . ~ ....... C •

.. ~ ..... Letter. . ......... Telegram. . ............................. Other

To: __ ... <10"..1: .. __ .............. __ ....... ____ ...... ____ . __ ................. __ ......... .

~~~:: ~7i;~j~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Subject: ... IlWb'otIIIl..,t .• l ... lItpaat ... 8.t.aternant ....... f.0E .. __ tb •... PJ:~ •.•. 4 ... KUaba .. Pond .. &N8ge ....... Tl;.~.a.~nt ... I .... qn.t ... Q.n ... ;'~.au.1 .•..............................

::·.]r:: ~r:~:~::~ f~r ~e!~:~ signature (i f a}-~roi~~~~:~:~T::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............. Follow up . ~ lease ooo.r;.o .•........... --............ -- ....... ---- ...................................................... . .............. Submit copy of your response

(Date of Referral)

:A • _ .... ... A'..:f/ . . j /'iJ~--.:,. r7Ju.,4'.M./ {,.~ .

----------------'1(.._----------------------------------- --.-----.-.------------------.---------.---------~. Signature

...... 1973

(Retain this copy for your files)

• r

DANIEL K. INOUYE HAWAII

Q

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510

Honorable John A. Burns Governor Sta te of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Jack:

June 25, 1973

I have enclosed a copy of a cornxnunication I recently received from. Mr. Peter Connally, President, Maui Chapter of the Conservation Council of Hawaii, concerning the Environm.ental Im.pact Statem.ent for the proposed Kanaha Pond Sewage Treat­m.ent Plant on Maui. The letter is self-explanatory and I felt you m.ight be interested in it.

ENCLOSURE DKI:jm.pl

Aloha,

N~ DA~L K. INOUYE United States Senator

..... •

Q

June 15, 1973

Hono~able Daniel K. Inouye United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Inouye:

The Maui Chapte~ of Conse~vation Council of Hawaii takes strong exception to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (D-EPA-24404-HI) prepared by Region IX of the EPA. This statement relates to a Sewer Treatment Plant to be located in Kanaha Pond at Kahului, Maui.

We find the draft EIS to be a complete whitewash of the issue. Region IX is guilty of submitting a biased review of the facts presented. Reliable, reputable, local scientists attest in their testimony to the dangerous envi~onmental hazards that will be racked upon the pond in the event of construction of such a plant. This testimony is included for the record in the draft statement, but is not considered in the d~aft's conclusion. The LPA has ignored facts brought to its attention and has persisted in a direction of un-founded thought that can lead to the destruction of the best remaining breeding ground for Hawaii's endemic birds including the Ae' 0 (Hawaiian st il t ).

Therefore, we the Conservation Council of Hawaii feels it appropriate to bring this matter before our Congressional delegation and plea for assistance.

Our stand is pro Sewer Treatment Plants und pro preGcrvilllon of Kanaha Pond. But the Sewer Treatment Plant cannot be located i.n a bi~d sanctuary without dcst~oyinfl it. The simple solution is to move the Sewer Treatment Plant to a more appropriate location.

We trust our concern will merit its due consideration.

For the Conservation Council of Hawaii

Respectfully submitted,

(DRAFT -- cOfOn~ted with OEQC) Q (~' \----\,:

July 9, 1973

Dear Dan:

Thank you for sending me a copy of Mr. Connally's letter in

which he takes exception to the draft environmental impact statement

which was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency for the

Kahului Sewage Treatment Plant in Maui.

Extensive public review has been provided for this construction

proJect. Several scientific studies have been made both by Federal and

local people. The situation is clear. Environmentalist groups, including

the Maul Chapter of the Conservation Council, disagree with the con-

clusions of EPA and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources

and the University of Hawa11's Environmental Council.

I am advised that the alleged threat to wild life in Kanaha Pond is

not substantial by scientific fact. However, the delay, occasioned by

the demand for additional hearings and review, will undoubtedly increase

the cost of this system. The County is ready to commence construction

at once. All my advisers are in accord that the environmental impact of

the plant installation 1s acceptable.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Aloha, and may the Almighty be with you and yours always.

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye United States Senate 442 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510

bcc: Hon. Sunao Kido Dr. Richard Marland

(Card 693)

Sincerely,

t-J I J I

( ,

o

Dear Dan:

(1 1',

t H~i'

July 11. 1913

~.:I r- r'" r:- ~ \ / c-:- r) ~ \ , -' . " --. ... -

.:; -, r') p; ~ I 6 r" I I' I" j J t... ~ :,; I • I C.

,-' i' ,.,', ~ ~ ,-

. I !. \,), ,'"_

~·1. .\ ,1 /~ '; ;..J ~ " :'. t. :'".:~: .-~::: i.j :-\ C E S ST,\-;-f: ()F j~~\'/l .. \11

Tllatlk you tor eendinr: me a c:opy of Mr. Connally's letter in wbleh h~ ttUes t1.."ltcoption to tho draft environmental impact statoment which WtHJprC,'9tU'ed by the Environmental Protection AgenClJ (01" the Kahului SewagQ Tr&atmont Plant in M&u1.

Extendve publlc r'e'vSew haa been provided lor thls construction project. Soverd uclentific t~tud1e8 have been made bot.t-t by Fedfll"n.l and local people. l"h~ tituBt10n is clou. Envirorunl!ntllUBt ~(ju'l?s., t.,cluding the :.;im.:l C!wnter of the COD'dcrv&tion CouncU J C!1l2~,~ee ,11tb etS t!Q!:l ....

cJ.tWZCml of E~'A t,t",,;\Q tho Btdo Department of Lenc16.z!Q Na.tural HC1JQurcea anti the Univcr~t7 of Uawaii's Environmental Council.

1 am advised that tho nlleged th:rcat to wUd ute in Kanaha. ~ond is not mubetantili! by eclentifia fuet. However. the delay. oocaclcncd. by the d~mand for uc!!;.tlonal b',H'.rin3:8 and l'(!'riew, wiAl undou.bte.'(!}y increase tho cost of tMa £;7F..tcm. '1'he C<iunty is rOJ.ay to commence conctl'uction 6;t (mee. A1l my sansei's are in accord that the environmental ~jpact ot tbe plant inLtallaUon 10 acceptable.

Thank you tor yoW' interest m th1a mAttor.

Aloha. and mtl7 tb" Almighty be with you and your. always.

Tho Honorable D4n1el K. Inouye United StD.t&.t S~n~te 442 Old Sonata OE1ce Buildini Wa1l>h!ngton. D. C. 20510

I. bec! )' Hon. Sunao Rido

Dr. Richard Marland

Sincerel,. ,

[(~t.-._~ d. ~~.:c.,;/

. ' I t.

! ,r , J ) It I , Department of Land and Natural Resources

" State Office Building

, P. O. Box 621 Suspense: "tUL Honolulu, Hawaii 96809

Jul.vr!l., , 1973 >

TO: Dowald o Governor of Hawaii

o Lt. Governor

o Chairman o Bd. of Land & Natural Resources, Member

o Attorney General

o Surveyor

o Dept. of Transportation

o City & County of Honolulu

o County of o Registrar of Land Court

o Bureau of Conveyances o Land Agent of __________ _

o

REMARKS: 6/25/73 Itr. to the Gov. from Daniel Inouye re BIS for

FOR: o Return

o Retention o ______________________ ~ __ _ o Approval

o Approval as to Form

o Signature

o Comment

o Recommendation

o Investigation & Report

o Appropriate Action

Approved by the Board

at its meeting held on

)QI Draft reply for Gov's. signature o (if appropriate - please coord.

with OEOC)

~.o~ Signature

proposed Kanaha Pond Sewage Treatment plant on Maui July 2, 19 73

."

" 'J •

..r ,.

;t J _

~ ,

FROM THE GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL

To~.~una()I<:id() ...... ... ................. . For:

Dr. Richard Marland

Comment & recommendation Appropriate action Direct reply (bee to Gov.>

x .. Your information .... Your me

o !.uspense .... .:r~).y .. ).).1 .... .1.~7.~ ........................................ . (If ~elay is encounte~ed in meetin~r~lJ-SPAl\Se rl9~ .. pJease advIse by telephone Immediately.) I"" :" 1".1 '\j c. U

! III L' , 2 Pt·1 I : Z5

To: .. GovelIpr.. ............................................. . From: Daniel.J:nQ1Jy.e...... . ...................... . Date: 6/25/73 .............................................................. .. Subject: .Env.i.rQ.nment.9,l .. );I11paGt ... $tC3,t:.~.IT.l:~D:t

for :the .pr.op.seq. .Kanaha .J?9D:q. ... $~VJ<;g~ . ... Treatme.nt ... l?lant on .. M.~ui, !' .......................... ..

...... Investigate & report .. x ... Draft reply for Gov's. signature

...... Foliow up (§fe:EEr~Etf~:~)::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

............. Submit copy of your response

(Date of Referral)

(/),f...u..d t::(. /~ .......... -... ~.- .... -........................ --.- ................ -................................. .

Signature

June 29" 1973

(Retain this copy for your fileS)

r e;-r- - ,~ ..

. <J

.'

o WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510

Honorable John A. Burns Governor State of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Jack:

June 25, 1973

I have enclosed a copy of a co:m:munication I recently received fro:m Mr. Peter Connally, President, Maui Chapter of the Conservation Council of Hawaii, concerning the Environ:mental Impact State:ment for the proposed Kanaha Pond Sewage Treat-:ment Plant on Maui. The letter is self-explanatory and I felt you :might be interested in it.

ENCLOSURE DKI:j:mpl

-..

Aloha,

f~ f"~7~-l-

DAN"IEL K. INOU YE United States Senator

/'

/' ..,. I' ," '

•

.'

o

Honorable Daniel K. Inouye United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Inouye:

o

June 15, 1973

The Maui Chapter of Conservation Council of Ilawaii takcs strong exception to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (D-EPA-24404-HI) prepared by Region IX of the EPA. This statement relates to a Sewer Treatment Plant to be located in Kanaha Pond at Kahului, Maui.

We find the draft EIS to be a complete whitewash of the issue. Region IX is guilty of submitting a biased review of the facts presented. Reliable, reputable, local scientists attest in their testimony to the dangerous environmental hazards that will be racked upon the pond in the event of construction of such a plant. This testimony is included for the record in the draft statement, but is not considered in the draft's conclusion. The LPA has ignored facts brought to its attention and has persisted in a direction of un-founded thought that can lead to the destruction of the best remaining breeding ground for Hawaii's endemic birds including the Ac'O (Hawaiian stilt).

Therefore, we the Conservation Council of Hawaii feels it appropriate to bring this matter before our Congressional delegation and plea for assistance.

Our stand is pro Sewer Treatment Plant!; and pro pr(~GCl:'V(j l.iOII oL Kanaha Pond. But the 8e\-/er Treatment Plant ccmnot be locat<:'!d in a bird sanctuary without dcstroyinl~ it. The simple solution iG to move the Sewer ~reatment Plant to a more appropriate location.

We trust our concern will merit its due consideration.

For the 'Conservation Council of Hawaii

Respectfully submitted,

..

-

August 16, 1972

Mr. Willis L. Burnham District Chief Water Resources Division u.s. Geological Survey 1100 Ward Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii 96814

Dear Will:

We are pleased that you have responded independently to the Montgomery Report on the Wailuku-Kahului wAstewater project. We value the expertise of you and your staff and appreciate your taking the initiative and time to analyze the report for us.

The collection of data which was informally discussed by the staff did not materialize as a project.

Our latest understanding of the status of the Wailuku­Kahului wastewater project is that final plans have not been made and that consideration is being given to alter­natives to the presently proposed effluent well site.

If it becomes necessary, we will not hesitate to call on your office for assistance, and again, thank you for your independent response.

) DL:dh

Very truly yours,

ROBERT T. CHUCK Manager-Chief Engineer

, .~

o UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Room 330, First Insurance Bldg-1100 Ward Avenue

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814

August 9, 1972

Mr. Robert T. Chuck Manager-Chief Engineer Division of Water and Land Development Department of Land and Natural Resources P. O. Box 373 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809

Dear Bob:

o IN REPLY REFER TO:

';J::>' c;:: .,. --' GJ

We have talked several times of the need for this office, as a normal part of our on-going cooperative program, to utilize the expertise of our staff to assist in evaluation of water resources and hydrological problems or activities of concern to your office. One such activ1 ty that we believe is of some interest to you is that of development of new facilities for the Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater Reclamation Facilities, WPC - Hawaii - 45, on Maui.

Some months ago your office inquired about the feasildlity of our staff gathering data for the Wailuku-Kahului Facility, but there has been no follow-up to our response. Since then, we have tried to keep informed of events related to the project, and recently we received a copy of the James M. Montgomery report. Newspaper reports in the last few days suggest that the project is to go forward, although EPA may yet require more detailed information on the disposal of the effluent by subsurface injection.

In the expectation that your office may be directly involved with this project, we offer the following comments on the Montgomery report, which appears to be the principal document by which deci­sions are being made.

It seems to us that there are several significant deficiencies in the Montgomery report that require additional data.

1. Only one deep well with measurements of water level and salinity in the proposed injection zone is re­ported on. Water levels ranging from slightly above

.. to slightly below sea level are reported for this well, yet a positive seaward gradient and direction offlow is postulated. The evidence presented does not support any decision as to direction of gradient or flow in the zone from 180 to 385 feet.

2. Our information shows that sea water was used during the injection test reported on. If this information is correct, we believe there are still untested the ques­tions of how the essentially fresh effluent water will behave in the saline-water injection zone. If tidal fluctuation is present in the zone (data unreported in the Montgomery report) there may be significant disper­sion. If not, there is the question of what mechanism is present to aid mixing and distribution of the injected fluid. The reported water levels are suCh that there cannot be interpreted to be any significant seaward gradient in the planned injection zone, thus it should be assumed the effluent will tend to float. We do not see sufficient evidence in the report data to reaCh the conclusion the floating effluent will not emerge at or near shore if a significant injection head is built up.

3. The report gives no data, nor does it discuss the poten­tial plugging problems caused by the chemical-biological differences between the effluent and the receiving water. Conclusion number 5 does recognize the poten­tial, however, but there is no evidence given to support the contention that cleaning and flushing would correct suCh problems. Is there provision in the design for disposal of the quantities of discharge that would be required to effect suCh cleaning or flushing, assuming it can be done?

<1 The~e are but three of several items that come to our attention as we attempt to reconcile the conclusions and recommendations given wi th the data provided in the Montgomery report. We can only assume that there are other, better substantiated sets of data and reports being used for decisions on this facility. If not, we suggest that muCh additional information is needed on which to base decisions as to how the facility will effect the water resources and the ecology of the area.

Sincerely,

l;/Y~ W. L. Burnham District Chief

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Room 330, First Insurance Bldg. 1100 Ward Avenue

Honolulu, H.w.ii 96814

A\1fP18t 9, 1972

Mr ....... , ..... ....... -et., "at_r a'flaSoa ., ........ JMA ~ ~ of J.aI ... Bat.w.-al ......... •• O. 1Da,.,.3 Jfoao1111., ..... , ,eo,

.... 10'8'

IN REPLY REFER TO:

lie .,. tal ... ---...1 u.. of ...... fw 11111. om .. , ... lID. 11 ,... et .,. ............. ~ .. Pftll., .. .uu .. 1M .,.,U" of OW .." .. _in Sa ~ of .wr ...... . ... ~oa1 pMl_ ... utd:flU .. of ..... to ,... offt .. . OM ... "'Yl" .. " _ \ell .. 1. ot _ ~ ... ,.. , • ... , .., .... 111 ., of ... taelllU. tor tile ~ .......... Jeo1 J tie faGl1t4 .. , we ...... U ... ..", oa 1fMd. •

.... ..... ... ,... om .. 1 .......... til. hu1llUl.,. 0# our • ." .. til ....... _. fIw .. IaU ... IIIaa1\d. fMlUV, lad .... laM ...... ,.11 .. -. 10 OWl' 1'....... ... ... , 1M .,. .".,to -.. lIIto .... of ..... N .... t.o .. Jft.1"', ... ".~ _ ......... ..". ., .... , •• 1 .. ........, ftIPOn- .... ..,. I'IiJOI'ta 1a 1M Jan fw ..,. ...... " ta.t tIM ..-.ten i ... eo ,...,., ......... at. _ ,. ........ ... ..... hI , ...... U .. _ til. a.,.a1 0' •• ~ ... .....,... h.t ......

III .. 4III'''u. till" ,... .m .. ..,. ... ~ tJmtl ..... vi. ""' • .-Iat, - . .".. tile toU .... _ •• au _ .... ilia"."" ....... , 'tIId_ ........ to lMt .. pI'1acd.,al __ , ..,. _,th .... • OM an M1.IIc ... .

I't __ .. ,.. .. " ... aN .....:a. a .... lt .. Wle1eao1_ 1a til ..... 1 1J7 "PO" that ..... ".. ... U ....... .

1. Ga'17 ... ....., wU Wi ....... ,rw of ... 141ft! ani aallat'\7 ill tM ,,., .... ~ .... 1 ....... pon.a OD. vater 1 ...... lUll. ". 1.l.1Pt17 ....

.-to 8lightly below sea level are reported. tor this well, yet a positive seaward grac11ent and. direction otttov is 'P08tulated.. The evidence presented does not support any decision as to direction of gra4ient or flow in the zone from 180 to 385 feet.

2. Our inforat1on shows that sea water was U8ed during the injection test reported on. If this information is eorrect, we believe there are atill untested the ques­tions of bow the essentially tresh effluent water will behave in the saline-water injection IIOne. If ti4al tluctuat10n is present in the zone (ata unreported in the M:>ntgomery report) there may be significant disper­sion. It not, there 1s the question ot what meehan1811l is present to aid m1x1ng and distribution of the injected tluid. The reported water levels are such that there cannot be interpreted to be any sIgnificant sea_rd gradient in the planned injection zone, thus it should be as8t1lDe4 the ettl.uent will tend to float. We do not see sufficient evidence in the report data to reach the conclusion the floating effluent will not emerge at or near shore if a significant 1nJection head 18 built up.

3. The report 81"es no data, nor does it discuss the poten­tial pluggl.ng problema caused by the chemical-biological differences between the ettluent and the recetnng _tel". Conolusion number 5 does recognize the poten­tial, however, but there is no evidence given to npport the contention that cleaning and flushing would correct such problema. Is there pronaIoD in the design tor dispoaal. of the quantities of diacharge that would be required to eftect aucll cleaniD8 or tluahing, aS8uming 1 t can be done?

There are but three ot several items that come to our attention as we attempt to reconCile the conclu8ions and recommendations given with the data prov14ecl in the Jbntgome17 report. We can only assume that there are other, better substantiated. sets of data and reports being used 1'01" dec1sioD8 on this facility. If not, we suggest. that. much add1t10nal intor.t1on is needed on which to bue decisions as to how the facility vill effeet the wat.er resources and the ecology 01' the area.

Sineerely,

W. L. Burnham District Chief

,

o Q

MEMORANDUM to Marvin Miura

FROM: Doak C. Cox

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF PROPOSED SEWAGE TREAT~ffiNT AND INJECTION WELL DISPOSAL FOR THE KAHULUI-WAILUKU SYSTEM, MAUl

Summary and conclusions

1. It is our opinion that the proposed underground disposal of effluent

from the secondary sewage treatment plant to be constructed makai of Kanaha

Pond will have no significant effect on the water quality or ecology of the

., .... Pond. ""

... 2. We believe that the proposed system of secondary treatment and under-

ground disposal at the site under consideration may be the optimal system

considering all economic and environmental aspects. However, the inadequate

understanding of the hydrogeology of the area indicated in the planning docu-

ments leads us to question whether the decision in favor of the proposed system

is based on as sound and comprehensive an analysis as it merits.

3. The underground trajectory of the major part of the effluent projected

in the planning documents is erroneous, and the area of its emergence in the

ocean will be much shallower and closer to shore than then indicated • . > ~ A buoyancy effect appears to have been overlooked in the analysis of

the capacity of the disposal wells. The effects of the oversight are an under-

estimate of the injection head and of the margin of excess capacity required

to compensate for plugging effects.

f. 71u 1?I'·';,fIC.",) h\ (A'(''''')( Ih.c-...:lr....f cc:h! c..~ ~ ~ 1"~14~

.s:. J'~ ~'J;f'''- "C.!:.fZ.1/,,-( du-, ... Cc/ 4..~ w·eU t/~ ~f~. d ef t!'Et t!./I(; . ...o...J,."....·

t/.... rt.(.~·l)i- it t/ce ~;,1d-.r.: ...... !) , ... , ... cb .• ·.. a-/ ,..",. R...v.,.. ~cprf:t.1J.J I

6· TI..t. tl. Kt~"",Ct e.¢- .;( /i-n''1c.tr· • .c,.(' /4.y,.6r.l~J~,.., etJAAt-.-J- p.~~, ... -

;, 4 ,. II .. {'~ .. .I';.A::.R i,. Y-c-~ r;~-;\#O K.G t

o Q

Introduction

As you requested 17 July we have reviewed the Maui County plans for secondary·

treatment of sewage from the combined Kahului and Wailuku systems at a proposed

plant makai of Kanaha Pond and for underground disposal of the effluent through

injection wells. Although you requested a special focus in our review on

possible effects of the effluent on Kanaha Pond, some other possible environ­

mental problems surfaced in the course of our general review of the plans for

background. The following have contributed to our review:

Doak C. Cox, Director, Environmental Center

Gordon Dugan, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering and Water

Resources Research Center

Jerry Johnson, Assistant Director, Environmental Center and Assoc.

Professor, School of Public Health

Frank Peterson. Professor, Dept. Geology and Geophysics and Water

Resources Research Center

Our review has encompassed the reports listed below as well as others

cited in the list of references:

R. M. Towill Corp.:

J. M. Montgomery; , "Study of. Wastewater Treatment and disposal for Wailuku­

Kahului

J. M. Montgomery: "Results of a pilot test on an injection well for the

Wailuku-Kahalui waste reclamation facilities, 1972.

Maui Chapter, Conservation Council for Hawaii: Report "Kanaha Pond pilot

injection well test." June 1972

R. C. Scott: "Preliminary geohydrologic evaluation of Kahului injection well

field.

o Q

Geology

The log of the test well indicates that fresh bedrock was reached 51 feet

below sea level. Most of the section above that depth was composed of coral,

though ,there appears to have been a 4-foot layer of residual son capping the ;;JS· Ir-·

basalt. The remaining portion of the hole. 229 ft. dGi~ extending to 376 ft. ;..

.below sea level, passed through volcanics.

Many layers of "cinders" and "ashll were reported which were interpreted tAo

~ the report as pyroclastics, the author apparently not realizing the tendency

of local drill ers to report cl i nkers as "ci nders. II The dri 11 i ng method is not

indicated in the report, but the Kanaha Pond Committee of the Maui Chapter of the

Conservation Council for Hawaii reports initial trial use of reverse circulation

suggesting that the drilling was done by rotary methods. The 5 ft./hr rate

of penetration repo'rted for one of the "cinder" beds (118 to 144 ft. depth) seems

far too low for a rotary drilling rate in cinders and tends to confirm that the

material is clinker.

The log report~d some coral and shell fragments to depths as great as 260 ft.

Although it is possible that some marine sediments might be interbedded with the

Haleakala lava flows ;"R this i:lori.o~ it seems more likely that the samples were /

contaminated with material from higher in the hole)as can readily occur in

rotary drilling1 and as seems suggested by the fact that the coral and shell

fragments especially at the lower depths are reported to be associated with

hard basalt rather than "cinders.1I

Thus the log seems to indicate just what should have been expected, a

series of lava flows of the Kula formation of Haleakala ~9-l;y-f~he lIIust ./

p~ capped by a thin residual soil and a section of coral reef sediments,

perhaps a little thicker than one would expect on the basis of surface exposures.

o Q

Quantity and characteristics of wastewater

The di scussi on in the Montgomery repor~ "Study of Wastewater: Treatment")

of the quantity and character of the wastewater to be handled in the Kahului­

Wailuku systen~although not necessarily seriously in error as to conclusions,

contains some statements that indicate unfamiliarity of the authors with the

actual situation on Maui.

Water supply for the area is stated (po II-l) to be from surface sources

and from IIMaui -type II we 11 s • An ana lys is from the Mokuhau tank is gi ven as

representative of surface water and an analysis from the lao Tunnel as repre­

sentative of a Maui well supply. The Mokuhau tank(~'''I belieVe,~) fed mainly I-

if not entirely from drilled basal groundwater wells, not from surface water.

The lao Tunnel is a tunnel tapping high-level dike groundwater not a Maui well

in basal groundwater.

Measurements of flows in the Kahului system are plotted (fig. 3) and

discussed (pp. ll-4, 5) in relation to infiltration it is concluded (fig. 3) '::;.

that there is a steady infiltration of about 1.3 mgd and variable sewage flows fjlJ ;i.\.N"CA<: r ...

resulting in a norma·l range from 1.43 to 2.00 mgd. tG-t-Q-l. The measurements in A I P .

. &f Itt (I" • -1-fig. 3 suggest a semi-Q.u:i:n:a~ perlod(c.{,; of the infiltra:tion, which is to be

expected because it is derived from groundwater which is subject to tidal

charyges in head. 7L- "'1~7t# va--r·R-J.~__ i... /4lJ ",;.,. ~ I; /..I. C/;;..,I "'1 fA w'f, e-{:;;:;f,- J r-r( ~;tL, ~ -tP-'& I~·

o o Geohydrology

TIle Montgomery report indicates a grave lack of understanding of the

;(ydrology of Herzberg lenses and of the salt water beneath them under Hawaiian

conditions. TIle effects of the lack is aggravated by the geologic misinter-

pretation already discussed. On the basis that the proposed injection of

effluent from the sewage treatement plant will occur in a zone between 180· ft.

and 385 ft. below the surface, and on the basis of an estimated 1/2 0 seaward ... dip of the lavas in this zone, the report concludes (p. 6) that:"injected

" water can migrate offshore throughout a distance of several miles. TIle

effluent should spread over a large area, be naturally filtered, and be

dispersed within salt-water bearing formations. TIlroughout the course of

the migration, the wastewater should lose its identity in a vast body of

saline formation water, and be harmlessly dispensed into the ocean medium."

Two misconceptions are embodied in these conclusions. First, the

effluent will not in any significant way be confined to the particular lava

horizon in which it is injected. Second, the buoyancy of the effluent in the

salt water cannot be neglected.

TIle permeability of the lava flows is probably higher in the plane of

their strike and dip than it is transverse to that plane. TIle ratio of the

two permeabilities is not known. However, the transverse permeability is

so great that in a section of normal lava flows on the flank of a Hawaiian

vOlcanl'~ssentiallY horizontal flow is freely possible, and indeed the existen~e

of the characteristic Herzberg lenses close to sea level in which the discharge

seaward occurs essentially horizontally, across the lava flows, indicates that

theirnon-isot~picity does not result in any severe distortion.~ ,. TIle density of the effluent is not estimated in'lany of the consultant

reports. In spite of the large amount of infiltration in the Kahului system, (Cy·(·,r-

the density will surely be for smal~r than that of sea water. The waste-(I,

water itself will have a density approaching that of fresh water and~water

o l(/tl1(r

infiltrating is brackish, not sea water. ~

o

In consequence of the combination of low density and transverse permeability,

after injection into the aquifer around the injection zone of the effluent 01. tl" •• " .. r . jl.~,.~( 1,·,(". . 111" r~/'1 t..,~ . . '" . _ ...

wells, will rise~ecause of its buoyanc~toward the Herzberg-lenS), As it I\. -__ .... -

disperses outward from the wells and rises, the effluent will mix with salt lit ,("\,_ (

wa~er "'.,. ... 1.... the density of the mixture will ~ greater than that of .the original

effluent, though-still significantly lower than the density of the salt water.

The mixed effluent will. therefore, rise into the lower part of the Herzberg

lens, though the particular horizon of the Herzberg lens in which it will have

neutral buoyancy is uncertain. tiLL"

Most of the effluent will tend to move seaward 1\

as does the rest of the water in the Herzberg lens. Some, diluting the salt

water only slightlY, may perhaps move landward in the counter current in the

salt water beneath .the lens which compensates for the salt water entrainment

in the seaward moving zone of mixture at the bottom of the lens.

The exact direction of natural seaward flow of the lower part of the Herzberg

lens in the vicinity of the prepared injection wells is uncertain because the

effectiveness of the caprock of sediments over the basalt aquifer is uncertain.

The natural direction may be significantly modified by the draft from the wens

Maui Electric Co. uses for cooling water although these wells draw mainly on

the salt water. It would also be modified somewhat by draft from the. DOWALD

well drilled to supply water to Kanaha Pond. Hence part of the effluent may

get drawn to these wells.

Most of the effluent would probably be discharged to the ocean wherever

the natural discharge of the lower part of the Herzberg lens discharges. This

discharge cannot take place at a greater depth than about 100 feet (2-1/2 ft.

head x 40 Herzberg ratio). Whether this discharge will mainly take place

a) directly seaward beyond the outer margin of the reef, b) directly seaward

by leakage through the reef, or c) diverted toward SpreCWelsville, depends

o o significantly on the integrity of the residual soil layer below sea level,

about which we know very little. There is no 'chance that the main discharge

into the ocean will occur several miles at sea.

o o Injection-Well Tests

Draft Test

The draft test of the injection test well provided results ~hat .I

h.l...l.,..~ ) ,,-. at first

appear straightforward; summarized a&-£&~~o~

Draft Rate Duration Water Level Draw down Spec. Cap. gpm hr. min. ft. msl. ft. gpm/ft.

0 (ini tial W.1.) +0.20 0.00

4,000 1 35 -1.38 1.58 2,540

6,000 1 30 -2.13 2.33 2,570

8,000 1 30 -3.38 3.58 2,730

10,000 1 55 -4.55 4.75 2,100

The apparent increase in specific capacity with increase in draft from 4,000

to 6,000 gpm is suspicious, but the decrease in specific capacity at higher !,~ "..jI,I

rates of draft is expectable. It -s-hai-l be noted, however, that no tidal

observations were made prior to the pumping test and the times of pumping at J I'.f D

any ~~e rate were insufficient to disclose tidal changes in drawdown level.

Since the tide range in the bedrock aquifer at the test-hole site might well

exceed 1 foot, and the duration of the pump test was equivalent to about a half

semidiurnal tide period or a quarter diurnal tide period, the quantitative

significance of the pump test results must be regarded as doubtful.

The observations on the piezometric tub~installed near the well but

penetrating sediments only, indicated only that there is little connection

between the aquifer in the sediments and that in the bedrock.

Injection Test "., "" .... ; ... ;.. - ... ''''-.,

Resul ts of~,echarge testing ,at /low-rate~ 'Were without value because of . /' Sw'Jt., v • .-(, '~},.o.~-.J_.

effects of air entrainment. The results of,. recharge testing ~~9 .. Q1t:.:rip.m the

are in complete disagreement with those of the pump test, as shown by the

following table:

Draft Rate

&Em

0

2,900

5,800

5,9007

0

o o Duration Water Level Buildup

hr. min. ft. ms!. ft;iI

. ini tia1 W. 1. -0.14 0.00

3 00 +2.5 avo * 2.6 av. *

4 00 +0.22 av.* 0.36 av

2 00 +0.93 avo * 1.07 avo *

final W.1. -0.09 0.05

*Unreliable because of air entrainment #Based on initial, not final, water level

Spec. Cap.

gpm/ft.

1,100*:·

16,100

5,500*

It may be noted that an apparent tidal change in the water level in the

sediment piezometers is shown by a drop in water levels while the recharge

of the basal aquifer was continuing at maximum rate. The apparent tidal

amplitude is however, very small. and the water level records in the piezometers

indicate mainlY, again, the separation between the bedrock aquifer and the

sediments.

Because of the doubt arising from the discrepant results of the draft and ~.f',.. .. ·:,c.

inj ection tests the only ~information that these tests can be considered I. I~& __ . V'

~~lj:~~l~_to-Y...ieh:l is that the specific yield of the test we1l is high •. How

high, quantitatively is not reliably indicated. !

Reconc~lia.t:io~ of Draft d~m.d InlE;s'l\!.{m Tests.. )to t{..,,~C--C~ ;_~~_....... t, c· 1V 12. ~ c ............. """'_. c ... - "..,.,. . ~_. ....

/a...,-- ~hc. velocitic;:; in tIre welL ~ su;".C£icientT ~.o prod:w;e~.Pito:t::-effec.ts ')

(cui the water .level Iilcasuring tub.e.. •.

/- ----. Other than gross mistakes, two possible causes for the discrepancy between

~ the results of the draft test and those of the infiltration test ~~~e Ga~s seem worthy of examination~JThe effect with injection (downward flow)

would have been to lower the apparent water level. decrease the apparent

buildup and increase ·the apparent specific capacity. However the effect with

draft (upward flow) would have been to increase the apparent water level,

decrease the apparent drawdown, and again increase the apparent specific

capacity. Hence the explanation seems unlikely to be valid.

o o b. Tidal changes during the tests lowered the static water level during

the draft test.so that the actual drawdowns were less than those calculated,

and the specific capacities therefore greater than calculated, and raised the

static water level during the injection test so that the buildups were greater

than those calculated and the specific capacities therefore less than calculated.

Jr't? ~7 . If thls explanation is valid, the specific capacities calculated from the

draft test may be conservative. Considering that a ground-water tide range

much greater than about 1-1/4 ft. is unlikelY at the test we1l site, an

extremely conservative specific capacity may be calculated by adding a maximum

1.25 ft. tidal correction to the 4.75 ft. drawdown for 10,000 gpm draft. The

specific capacity would then be at least 1,700 gpm/ft.

Translation of the test results to the transmissibility of the aquifer

is meaningless not only because of the quantitative unreliability of the test / . .(,

s' J"""'-1 1 (~""--' "

results but because transmissibility has no meaaing in an aquifer which does

not have a determined and limited depth.

A final caution must be noted. The water drawn from the test well during

the draft test was salt water and the water injected in the injection test

was also salt water. If the water injected had been fresh, a greater head

will be required for injection than would be calculated from the rate of

injection and specific capacity~ If the sewage effluent to be injected is ,p//; (..:/, " c(, ne~y fresh, the head necessary merely to displace the salt water to the

bottOm of the casing would be about 4.2 feet. The head necessary to displace

the salt water to the bottom of the we1l would be about 9,.4 ft. Simplistically,

the static head required for displacement should be added to the dynamic

buildup calculated from the rate of injection and specific capacity. In

actuality, the dynamic head available for injection will not be uniform with

depth but decrease with increasing depth and increasing height of the column r.l·

of fresh water above the level of injection. i If the total fresh-water

,

o o injection head is limited to the ground elevation above sea level, and if the

density of the injected water were essentially that of fresh water, the injected

water column would extend only to a depth of about 336 ft. below sea level, , J

leaving about 41 ft. at the bottom~b-~wm of the inyec'ti"On well, occupied

by salt water. and,She head available for injection would range from about

4~2 feet at the bottom of the casing to zero at the bottom of the injected~

water column. If the density of the injected water we~ equalled the

average of fresh water and sea water densities, the injected water column '

o Q

Although the fluorescein test was justified as a cheap means of indicating

possible direct connections between the injection zone and the sea or pond, vi'su &J

the lack of observation of ~~l effec~ signifies essentially nothing. A

simple calculation will indicate why. If the injection were carried out at a

steady rate of 6000 gpm for the full 9 hours of the test (an exaggeration), the

total injection would have been 3 million gallons. The dye was dissolved in

thi s vol ume, probably not uni formly '1{"

_, ,-- " --- ' , '-'v-I(,,-, . .t' 6 .3 rAss'uming 10% porosity the v.a:l-tie .... of rock invaded would be 4 x 10 ft. 4;. If

the invasion extended uniformly in all directions from the open portion of the {fTl7ft .( " .. r,-:;~;.1 ~ .

well, the invaded zone would be a cylinder with hemispherical tern~~, having

a radius of only 70 ft. Even though mixing would increase somewhat the maximum

penetration, it is unlikely that any significant portion of the dye would even

reach the base of the sediments, 120 feet above the open portion cfthe well, let

alone the shoreline, another 50 feet higher and 200 feet disti1~ hori~ontally.

o o Expectable Effects of effluent injection on Kanaha Pond

1-,11 '.1 ...... •

The ~n chapter of the Conservation Council for Hawaii has criticized the

proposed location of the sewage treatment plant and underground injection of effluent ./

through four wells similar to the test well on the basis that the effluent would

" re,ach and deleteriously affect Kanaha Pond. Significant effects on the Pond seem

very unlikely.

Although the effluent will not be confined to the particular stratigraphic

horizon in which it is injected, as postulated by the Montgomery report, but

will rise to the lower part of the Herzberg lens~ and ~~1~~ spread

horizontally so as to lie, in pars beneath the Pond, much of the thickness of

the Herzberg lens will separate the effluent from the Pond (the entire thickness 1;" ,l, .. 1;/

o£-the- .. ~,t;e of water having a lower density than the effluent aftor in± tiat-m:i:-~ A

cr:.,,( 11'-'" ~on injection-..irn-t& s'alt water). Although the pond may be fed ~ its mauka

edge by seepage from the Herzberg lens in the lavas, any such seepage must be

derived from the uppermost part of the lens. It seems very unlikely that any

significant part of the effluent can reach the pond by this means.

Using the most conservative estimate of specific capacity for an

injection well, assuming that the entire 6 mgd of effluent (8640 gpm) were

injected in a single well, and assuming that the density of the effluent were

the average of fresh and sea-water densities, the injection water level would be

at ground level, the injection head would average 5 ft., and the maximum injection

head at the bottom of the well casing would be t.3 ft. The head would decrease ,..;.1-,'" (·~.~~ .. /r···· ~

very rapidly awayfr~m the open portion of the well, so that even at the bottom "-.

of the Herzberg lens it would be less than a foot.

The only way in which there is a significant chance of effluent reaching the

pond would be via the DOWALD well which, according to Scott, is about 3000 ft.

mauka of the injection wells. Without knowing much more about the hydraulic

gradients, it is impossible to predict quantitativity, the amount of effluent that

will reach the DOWALD well. The fraction of effluent in the total well draft will,

o o however, be extremely small. Even if significant am01.ll1ts of effluent reached the

Pond, it is very doubtful if they would have si'gnificant effects on the pond ecology.

o Q

Tsunami hazard

TIle 1971 Montgomery report recognizes that there is a tsunami hazard

at the proposed site of the sewage treatment plant and injection wells. For

comparison of costs associated with the use and other sites, the report

assumes that protection will be provided by raising the plant 6 feet. Assuming

a present ground level of 9 feet, this implies a design base elevation of

15 feet above r mean.,sea level.

Records of historic tsunamis at the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics indicate

that the 1946 Aleutian tsunami had a runup height of 15 feet at the proposed

site and 22 feet at the base of the Kahului east breakwater, about 2000 feet to

the west of the proposed site, and also near Papaula Point in Spreckelsville.

The 1946 tsunami was an extraordinary one -- recurrence intervals of such

tsunamis are probab"ly on the order of SO years. However, the pattern of runup

heights with any future tsunami cannot be expected to duplicate in detail the

pattern of any particular past tsunami. The 15 foot design base nevel appears

to provide an inadequate margin of protection against a future tsunami of

i946 intensity unless additional protective walls are constructed.

-----------------------------------

From

1

WATER RESOURCES & FLOOD CONTROL BRANCH Division of Water & Land DeveZopment

------ Date \411>- File 6~. 5'1i:? \\0\ . ).

To, Inisal ,,' . Please' 11--./ I Wa 1 ter ltfatson See me L' L Daniel Lum --Take action -.7 ~lanabu Tagomor i --Rev i ew & commen t ~-- Kazu Hayashida Investigate & report -- Nobu Kaneshiro -Draft reply

Paul Matsuo --Type draft Tom Nakama --Type final copies Richard Jinnai --Xerox copies

Lv1f\-J -; -M ail --E 1 s i e Von ami n" e Doris Hamada

7 ~ Robert Chuck __ ~ Takeo FuJ i i

Jimmy Yoshimo 0 Jane Sakai

--- a i It Koyan g i

FOR: Approval -=S}snature -;:::;.rnformation

----------,£-_._----_ ..... _ ... ' .... ' .---.... - ... - ._. __ ..... _-

1(·, ell / Iv I ,~.

, :'J

/ \

-"p"". c

Dr. Harvin T. Miura Environmental Scientist Office of Environmental

Quality Control stat.e of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii

Dear Dr. Hiura:

0\

February 16, 1972

Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Kanaha Pond Baseline study. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Follm'ling our review of this information 'C,\10 ",ill contact you if further assistance is required. hIe wi 11 also fO!.'\varc1 a copy to the Department of Public .vorks for their review find information.

Yours very truly,

HONARD K. NAKAHURA

cc Mr. Stanley Goshi w/copy /

Planning Director

o . ". ~ .....

~i&;~h~~l~\a L~~ FEB151972

.10"'" A. BURNS t9C"C_ .. o ..

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS

HONOLULU

Feb~uary 14,.'1972

DEP1. OF PLANNING . COUNTY OF: MAUl

-,

9ffice ~f Environmerital Quality Control

To: .fMr. HOI{ard Nakamura

From:

Mr. Kinston Miyahara Mr. Robert Smith' Mr. Eugene Kridler The Honorable Sunao Kido

Dr. Marvin T. Miura Environmental Scientist·

.... , .,-". , I

,;.i .. .I ..... .\...\...\.. ..... ~.'-

Subj ect: Kanaha Pond Baseline Study

Enclosed is a copy of the Kanahi Pond Data for your infornation.

Please feel free to contact us if specific questions should arise.

•

... .. o Kanaha Pond Sampling Data

A. Map of Kanaha Pond (See Attachment 1)

B. Surface Water-General Data (John Maciolek)

Sampling Station

1. 1

2. 3. 2

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

Collection Date/Time

11/16/71 ( 1635 ) (1625) {l620} (1615) (l610) (1605) (l600) (1555) (1550) (1540)

~

lwater motion towards pond; incoming tide? 2gauge height 1.21

1. 1 11/17/71 (1010) 2.2 3. 3,1+ 11/17/71 (1006) 4.1+ II (1002) 5. II . (0958) 6. II (0955) 7. II (0950) 8. 5 II (0945) 9. 6 1\ (0938)

10. " (0935)

lwater motion towards pond; incoming tide? 2no sample collected 3gauge height 1.20

I+much floating debris 5thermometer broke

o

Sample Volume

2 gal. 1 gal.

1 gal.

1 gal. 1 qt. 1 qt. 1 gal. 1 qt. 1 gal. 1 qt. 1 qt.

~-j

i

Surface Water Temperature (OC)

29.6 27.7 28.9 28.1 30.4 31.2 30.2 28.1 29.0 32.5

;

23.0 26.8

6probably not an accurate thermometer reading (see comment 5)

~

'. ' o o B. Surface Water-General Data [continuedJ

C.

D.

--:

Sampling Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Collection Date/Time

11/24/71

Sample Volume

Surface Water-General Chemi ca 1 Data (Kenneth Morphew)

Sampling Data Cl Orrani c N N0 3 -N Station Collected -E.I:L (ppm) ppm) (ppm)

1 11/17/71 9.35 6,700 2.8 0.015 3 II 9.25 5,800 9.8 0.016 6 II 9.45 8,250 4.1 0.015 8 II 9.15 2,750 0.8 0.011

1 11/24/71 9.45 8,500 5.6 0.010 2 9.35 6,950 3.4 0.048 3 9.45 5,750 2.7 0.014 4 9.35 4,300 3.1 0.154

·6 9.35 6,950 3.6 0.012 7 9.40 5,550 1.8 0.015 8 9.35 4,050 2.3 0.010

Surface Water-General r~i crob; 01 ogi ca 1 Data (F. Timothy Prior)

Sampling Sampling MPN/lOOml Stati on Date/Time (Coliform)

1 11/16/71 (1413) 9 2 ( 1423) 43 3 (1430) 43 4 (l434) (-}3 5 { 1439} 6.2 6 {1444} {-}3 7 (1449 ) 2,300

·8 {1452} 930 9 {1459} 210

10 ( 1502) 1,200

Note: (-) means le.ss than

.!If''','III''_~''_''~'''''''' ., .' ,., -"~'""",'" '1\ ~~~ lIilIo. H

Page 2

Surface Water Temperature (Oc) ,

P0 4 -P Conductivity (ppm) (mi cromohos }

0.028 20,200 0.107 18,000 0.107 23,800 0.014 9,000

0.083 26,200 0.136 18,600 0.028 18,600 0.083 13,500 0.112 18,800 0.014 18,300 0.054 14,500

MPN (fecal coliform)

(-)3 (-}3

43 (-}3 {-)3 {-}3

2,300 230 150

43

,._~~_~,_"'"- I

o o Page 3

E. Sediment Data (J. W. Hylin, Arthur Bevenue)·

Soil Fraction S::.'p 1 i n9 Samp 1 i n9 Solids

Contents S:.=tion Date Sediment Description DDD DDT

. 11 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11/16/71 Dark B~own (1/3 sand) Black (1/2 sand) Dark Brown (1/3 sand) Black (fine particles, muck) Black (1/2 sand) . Black (fine particles, muck) Black (fine particles, muck) Black (1/2 sand) Black (1/3 sand) Dark Brown (1/4 sand) Dark Brown (1/3 sand)

32 l-qt. soil samples were collected at station 1. soil was collected.

(%) 1Pj)t-\,:et bas i s on soil samples;

54.1 9.2 62.1 9.3 38.8 9.3 ND2 18.7 9.3 ND 3

70.9 9.5 ND 3

340 72

45.1 9.8 258 1083-64.7 9.7 100 59.1 8.6 147 26.7 8.1 823-42.3 8.9 58 37 67.1 9.2 218 . 50

For all other stations, 1 qt. of

210\'I'er limit of detection no better than 100 p.p.t. because of difficulties in cleaning up sample.

!lower limit of detection no better than 50 p.p.t. because of difficulties in :leaning up sample. ;

-It would be ill-advised to place emphasis on the relatively larger amounts of :DT found in soil samples 5 and 8, based on one sampling only. Additional sampling of the same areas of Kanaha Pond \'JOuld be necessary to establish the significance of the larger findings.

sJry-weight basis. £SD = less than 0.03 ppm.

Water Fraction Sa.:-pling Sampling DDD DDT PCpl St:tion Date Cl (ppm) .P!i (ppt) (ppt) (ppt)

1 11/16/71 7,300 . 9.5 4 37 41 1 7,267 9.5 1 10 25 2 5,321 9.5 3 .. 70 3 6,105 9.5 <1 16 4 7,225 9.5 2 1 24 5 11,727 9.5 1 31 6 8,401 9.5 2 24 7 4,446· 9.4 <1 1 36 8 3,164 ·9.3 1 1 17 9 u 2,541 9.3 <1 2 8

10 II 3,781 ·9.3 1 4 22 1;entach10rophenol

,.

.. 0

E. Sediment Data (H.Y. Young, Ada Chu)

Sampling Sampling Cd Station Date (ppm)

1 11/16/71 3.1 1 2.0 2 6.0 3 5.0 4 3.7 5 2.3 6 0.4 7 2.4 8 2.8 9 5.4

10 2.2 . lND = less than 0.03 ppm .

F. Hyqrologica1 Data (Frank Peterson)

See Attachment 2

;~

0 Page 4

Soil Fraction Cu Hg Pb Zn

(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

17.4 0.20 27.2- 35.9 10.6 .11 21.1 10.6 33.8 .15 33.7 40.7 18.8 .30 18.8 40.4 10.2 .10 20.5 10.2 2.9 .14 25.4 141.4

26.7 .05 20.2 83.5 13.0 NDl 25.6 44.9 18.2 .34 42.1 34.2 34.2 .16 36.9 67.0 18.9 .23 32.7 41.2

_____ • ~~~< ___ w __ ., ",. • • -- < ~

.. 0 0

1 \ J IJ

DO ., d .. y

J .. y A1o;~

PO'1d

J ... v

a " .. : ":: :

. . A l \ Sh,t,ohS r'rt~"'"k~ d b'J PO$+ 0., J wh ,1- ..

'1,\\ 0 V\ t\~~~;t\~ -t 1,.{_ t p ,. ~ 3 wh ;t-h . t.s W' ~ h.... I ( v.( r

'j"u ~ t ~ t ,+. (~OV~'HY '~/(~' 1·~1').

.. o o httactlHhH,t 2

HYD~OLOGY OF THE KANAHA POND AREA, MAUl

. No detai led work has been done on the hydrology of Kanaha Pond.

However, much of the information collected by Ha.rgis (1971) and

Peterson and Hargis (in press) on the hydrpgeology of portions of

Kahului, Maui located approximately 1/2 mile southwest of Kanaha Pond '

is directly applicable to the Kanaha Pond area. Consequently, the

bulk of the infor~ation pr~sented in this discussion comes from the

above-cited work.

Clil.late

Annual rainfall in the Kanaha Pond area generally is low and occurs

pri~arily duri.ng cyclonic storms in the winter months. The mean annual

rainfall, based on 69 years of record at the Kahului Airport, less than

1/2 mile from Kanaha Pond, is 18.85 inches. Major rainstorms, which

account for most of the precipita.tion, usually occur several times duri.ng

the wet winter months, and only infrequently duri.ng the dry sununer months.

About 50% of the annual rainfall occurs duri.ng the months of December thro.ugh

February, and usually more than 80% from November through April. A single

storm in the wet season may contribute more than half of the total annual

rainfall. Figure 1 shows the mean annual rainfall distribution for the

isthmus and Figure 2 shows the ave~age monthly rainfall distribution at

the Kahului Airport.

Evapot"ranspiration in the area is very high. Pan evaporation data

collected by the HC & S Company at Puunene, about 2 miles south of Kanaha

Pond, indicate a median annual value for potential evaporation in excess

of 90 inches. Consequently, the amount of precipitai ton that percolates

to the groundwater body in this area must be ve!,y small •

Surfac.e Water Hydrology: . .. ..

-Ko perennial streams occur anywhere on the central Maui isthmus.

This is owi.ng primarily to the uniformly low rainfall and the ~igh infil­

tration capacity of the calcareous dune sands that cover much of the area. ,.

--_______ ,_"'""'"_~,;~"'f.t~",,' .... <t·'f,~-I "

, . o o S.ignificant amounts of runoff occur only duri.ng periods of exceptionally

'heavy rains. Consequently, surface runoff into Kanaha Pond occurs

prim2.rily by diffuse overland flow rather than by channelized stream­

flow. The area occupied by Kanaha Pond, hm",ever, is a topographic

low and forms a drain.age sink for the inunediately surroundi.ng area.

The extent of area ,."hich contributes surface drainage to the pond has

. not been determined. It is ~ighly probable, however, as is discussed

more fully in th~ groundwater section of this paper, that the principal

means of recharge of Kanaha Pond is from diffuse surface runoff~ and to

a lesser extent, by direct precipitation on the pond surface.

Groundlvater Hydrology

The principal. groundwater aquifer in the Kahului area consists of

exceedingly permeable basaltic lava flows from Haleakala Volcano in East

lt1aui. The basalts are overlain by alluvial sediments comprised of dune

sands, gravels, and red alluvial soils. The permeability of the sedi-

ments also is quite high. The position of the basalt-sediment contact f , .

~ () .. ,,,,-,""

is somewhat variable, but generally is at about or slightly below sea '>- • .." . .I' ,. { .. -. . I '

level, and there appears to be good hydrologic contact between the basalts """j .' ~

and the sediments.

Groundwater levels in the Kahului area are low, from two to four feet

above sea level, and the direction o~ groundwater flow is generally northerly

toward Kahului Bay (see Figure 3). Tne quality of groundwater beneath

Kanaha Pond has not been determined; however, it is probable that a lens

of relatively fresh, al tho.ugh not drinking-quality groundwater a few tens

of feet thick occurs. This is s~ggested by groundwater salinity data

collected from wells at the Kahului Development Company rech~rge facility

approximately 1/2 mile southwest of Kanaha Pond', which show a fresh water

lens in excess of 80 feet thick. In addition" groundwater from the well

~ed tQ l:ech~rge Kanaha Pond, less than 1/2 mile directly mauka of the

I ""f--"j 61! I).;,,'

J/,!v pond, has a salinity of about 500 ppm chloride. .

., t

,...~",_"'~fj _ ........ __ ._.x_n"_' _", ..... _. ______ ._.0_1$' .. '"~"'''~!>,''".,'.

. . .. o o It is ~ighly unlikely; however, that Kanaha Pond receives sub­

stantial recharge from the groundwater body> even duri.ng the low-water

periods. The thick bottom cover'of mud is quite impermeable an~ generally

prevents interflow between the pond water and the groundlola ter body. ,This

is confirmed by the almost ~egl.igible tidal fluc~uation ~n Kanaha Pond,

and by the la.rge seasonal fluctuations of 'water levels in' Kanaha P~md in direct response to precipitation. It is most likely then, as indicated

earlier, that rech~rge to Kanaha Pond comes primarily from surface runoff •

. .. t

.. o o References C1te~

l~ Hargis, D. n., 1971, Artificial recharge of storm runoff ~t Kahului, 11au i, Unpublished Vaster' s thesis. Uni versi ty of Hawaii, 71 pp •.

2. Peterson, F. L., and D. R. Hargis, in press, Effect of storm runoff disposal and other artificial recharge ·to F~wailan Ghyben-Herzberg aquifers.~ _

•

..

i.

.. II , .. t

. -

\ 0\

l

o

\ \

\ \ , ,

\ , , ,

o

o

. . ....-

LEGEND:

. ~ 0 Rain GaGos "0

, /90l'l1'0101 Line

SCALE: 11 <;2500

,"

FIGURE of}: 1>ln:,n armual rainfo.ll di"tribution on tI,·.' jl,aui ic"t,hmus in inchec. DasC'!d on data cCHrrpilccl b~ tl~c ~~tate of Ha'\;uii, !)epnrt.mcnt of Land and Naturnl Rcsourcc1.:. (BasQ l1klp ai'tcl' UXS i~.land of 1w'.aui, 1: 62 500).

16

•

..

. ':

o

.

3.35 279 2.79 . 1.71

0.69

o

~

..

.

I _ 0.20 lO.~6_ ~.3~ "-~.~O

~ I ,

0.92

JAN FEB MAR APR· .MM JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT .

.. , . ~ ~ t

17

3.29 . 1.97

-

I

NOV DEC

}'IGUHE a: MCLl.n monthly rainfull diztribution at Kalmlui Airport in inches. Based on 68 years of record, 1901-69. (U.S. Dept. of Corr~erce, 1910) •

. .

~.,-"

...... ~ ... . '

, I o o

'30 .-------------r--------~----~

14 o

, , , , , , 13

0-0' ." , ." .... /

D SHAFT

o DRILLED WELL

~"iZ WATER-TABLE" ·O~ ELEVATION IN FEET

ABOVE SEA LEVEL I: 62500

15

MAALAEA

.~

}'IGUHE ~: Ground water contour nlap of the Maui i:;thmus, from data. collect.ed on Decemuer ), 1970, hy 1:he ant-bor and ot.hers. (Ba.r.c m.a.p after US~S isla.nd of Maui, 1: (l2 500) •.

a

'iay 22, 1972

\jr. John Bose, I I Librarian, .\1aui Bnvironmental

Information Center P • I). Box 4 81 :laiku, Ha\vaii 9670R

~)ear • t1'. J30S0:

Thank you for the copy of the preliminary report on Kanaha Pond prepared by the special committee of the Conservation Council. I read this report ,If! t;l great interest because of our concern about the water resources in the area, Kanaha Pond, and the possible effect the injection well ll:ay have on the beach area.

Your renort. ''fhich has ~1een fOTl:ardcd to our !7eoloP.:ist for h.is review 3.n.1 cor.,men ts ,d 11 be very he Ip £u1 ""hen ~~f.' are called upon to discuss this project wi th the County) EPA and t:lC con­sultant fin' ..

Should we need any additional infornntion on the report for the project we will certainly let you know.

I was pleased to see you in attendance at ttc Soil and \vater Conservation District training seminar on ~1aui and we ''''ould like very much to inform the public that the ~~oil and (fater Conservation Districts have been created for the people and are designed to serve the people's needs at the lowest possible governmental level. The people in the districts have been doing a great job. With a little publicity I feel that the districts could serve as a steppi1l54 stone to serve the needs and to solve the problems of the local people.

It was nice talking with you on ;1aui and if we can be of any service to you, please do not hesitate to calIon us.

Sincerely,

'''A ~"~o AT ON J h L J ER .• l'{ S,R • ........... Actinp, :·1anager- Chief Engineer

dh

~'1ay 11, 1972

Mr. Stanley S. Goshi Director Department of Public Works County of l1aui Wailuku, ~aui 96793

Dear Mr. Goshi:

As requested, we arc pleased to attach herewith available data on the Kanaha Pond Well, including driller's lor, and pumpinr. tests.

L::) DL:dh

h ,kanc~hn Attac' • ~ ~.(..

Very truly yours,

//1/ <i~WALTER O. WATSON. JR.

/1 Acting ~anarer-Chief Engineer I C I~~t,;£ tJtJJ....... R ~ <-. ~.A-LMv\)

t' U

· ELMER F. CRAVALHO STANLEY S. GOSHI Director of Public Works -.. Mayor

WAYNE S. UEMAE Deputy Director of Public Works

COUNTY OF MAUl DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

WAILUKU, MAUl, HAWAII 96793

May 2, 1972

Mr. Robert T. Chuck Manager-Chief Engineer Water & Land Devel. Uiv. State Dept. of Land and

Natural Resources Kekuanao'a Building Honolulu, Hawaii

Dear Bob:

Subject: Wailuku-Kahului Sewage System

To aid us in evaluating all available data on

',) .>

our proposed injection well system, please furnish us with a copy of your drill logs for your well adjacent to Kanaha Pond.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

~~ STANLEY S. GOSH! Director of Public Works

,I

ROUTE SLIP

From~

t ~VIDION OF WATER Ai·JD

vJ Date ,( I, rhlFile I

" I2J. ' Initial

/1-/~ ___ Robert T. Chuck ___ Walter O. Watson ___ Takeo Fujii

--___ James Yoshimoto ___ Albert Ching ___ Hong Fong Chang ___ George Morimoto ?. ;t=!~a~~mT~~~~ri

~' ___ Kazu Hayashida ___ Haro ld Saka i ___ Jane Sakai ___ Doris Hamada

Lorraine Nanbu ___ Jean Siarot ___ Elsie Yonamine

REP/lARKS t

[/ ... I'

'",.../

V'}-' .\ ,!

LAND DEVELOPlvlENI

in: -----------------------Plea se:

- See me _ Take action ___ "Route to your branch ___ Review & co~~ent ___ Investigate & report _ Draft reply ___ Acknowledge Receipt ___ Type final _ For Filing

Xeros copies FOR YOUR, _ Approval ___ Signature

j , '

Initials

/ (

) .'

/

·­, 1rlo.ai &wiJuJff.IIfbf.iJJi 3 njolfhflJ.lilJft &ttteJt

.4 I'oizlllteer servia' to the ecology movement -----------------------

L

P. O. Box 481 Haiku, Hawaii 96708 • Telephone 575-2793

May 15, 1972

Mr. Walter O. Watson, Jr. Div. of Water and Land Development 465 S. Kin, Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. \t{atson:

.. ,~

Enolose. is the preliminary report on Kanaha Pon., ~8 submitte. D1 the special committee of the Conservation Counoil. Please note that a.iitional tables, ,raph., ani .ata have been oollectei by the oOmIlli ttee and ar,e available to intereste4i persons.

The oonsu1tin£ firm of Chun, Dho Ann has submitted a favorable test re,ort to the County, who have forwarae. oopies of the same to the Environmental Protection A~enoy in San Francisoo, ana presumably to other interest •• parties. The results as reporte& by the oonsu1tants are at oonsiderab1e varianoe with those of the Conservation Counoi1 oommitte.. Our latest information is that the EPA has aske_ for further testin! before a110win£ subsurfaoe disposal at the Kanaha site.

Please let me know if you want additional information on this project.

The Soil and Water Seminar on Maui last week Was very worthwhile. It .eems to me that much of the information revealed at that meetin~ ne ••• wider dissemination, either throu,h a more broadly base. seminar or throu~h sub •• quent publio meetin~ •• The diversified a,ricu1ture conference the followin, .ay had about 150 people in attencance, and some very vital points were presented to the publio in the excellent pro~ram. Your meetin" too, haG a wealth of important information, but it was an "in-,roup' thin" and the public remain. unaware of much of the soil conservation pro~ram.

Yours very truly,

John Bose, II Librarian

". i" . o o I; n " c"

• """,, i d r KANAHA POND, MAUI, TEST INJECTION \VELL: A preliminar'yf geo-hydrological investigation and evaluati9n. KanQJ:J,a .f1 0 nA '1' ~n '72 Commi ttee, Maui Cha.pter of Conservation Council foi.1AYid;wai!:t. . ,i

March 29, 1972.

The selection of the Kanaha Pond site for the Kahului­Wailuku Seworage Treatment Plant, With injection of millions of gallons per day of secondarily trcate'd effluents into a deop well at the Site, was based on various geographic, economiC, social and engineering factors with little or no reference to ecological considerations. Because Kanaha Pond is a National Natural Landmark, a State of Hawaii Wildlife Refuge, and home of endangered species of birds, it is absolutely imperative that great care be taken in evaluating the environmental impact of such an instal-­lution. The Maui Chapter of the Conservation Council for Hawaii. in cooperation with the Hui Manu 0 Maui, appointed a .. commi ttee composed of Dr. Howard Powers, geologist (chairman); Robert p. Bruce, hydrologist; Colin Lennox, former head of the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry; Jerome Pratt, wildlife manager; and John Bose, environmental librarian. This cOQ,mittcc was to cooperate with the County of Maui and its consultants in the injection well tests, and to conduct an independent investigation to determine possible adverse effects to the Kanaha Pond Wildlife Refuge that might arise from the subsurface injection of effluents into the ground water underlying the pond. The committee members have spent a great many hours, day and night, collecting data to determine the· characteristics of the, adjoining aquifers as they pertain to the pond.

The present dune and raise·d embankment on Which the well was drilled were formed by thG spoil Whe'n Kahului Harbor was dredged. It has been definitely determined that the proposed sewerage treatment plant and injection well site· selected by the County is within what, in fairly recent timGs, was the Kanaha Pond peri­meter. The present pond water, and the relatively impervious layers of fine, grained lagoon depOSits, both underlie the drilling sito. The pilot injection well operations have already tWice punctured the original bottom of the pond. In fact, the· drillers, by their reverse circulation process of rc·moving drill cuttings, <;"1..,..,.1-pumped out so much of the pond bottom ooze at their first well I' site that their well casin~ sank and disappeared into the cavern ~-tr,,::i2L( ::,'i() they had created. TEe drl1 ing rig had to be moved back 45 feet ,), ,; e.-to the pr0sEmt well site because t.he dune sand on which the i i r)

machinery was set up was settling into the hole that had been punotured through the original pond bottom. After thEir first experience with drilling through the pond bottom, care was taken wh0n the casing was lowered down through the ooze as the drilling proceeded. On Friday of that week, efforts were mado to seal off the caSing with cement grouting at the 180 foot depth. On Monday morning. When drilling was resumed, the relatively small quantity of water being pumped through the drill rods caused cement slurry to flow up aroUt""1d the- well and over the surface of the ground. This clearly illustra.ted that the hole in the relatively imper-vious bottom of the pond was still open. The drillers then stopped drilling and pumped arllling mud into the hole, and then some more coment grout. There is still no assurance that either thiS, or the previous hole· punctured through the· pond bottom, has been sealed off. In fact, the hydraulic gradient of the piezometric

• .... o o

- 2 -

surface of the ground water between the pond and the sea 0,0 plotted by this connittco offors evidence of hydrologic changos ths:~, Day. 11/ alreaqy be occurring. Measurements in the four Bonitor tubes that v

were installed near the well site and the pond at ~ur request show a definit0 increase in the hydraulic gradient from tube #2 towards tubes #3 and 4 adjoining the drilling sites as compared to the gradient from tube #+ (near the pond) and tube #2 (between the pond and tho well sites)o

On March 13, the day of the injEction test, the s~fac~ level in Kanaha Pond was about 3.3 feet above mean sea lev~l \msl). The piezometric surface of the ground water in tube *3, Which is nearest the test well, stood about 2.2 feet, and the water level in the test well stood about Oel feet below msl. The level of the sea nearby was 1.0 below msl. These measurements were taken before the injection pumping started. At 9:30 when one pump started delivering sea water to the test well at a rate of between 2,700 and 3,000 gpm, the water level in the test well rose to almost 4 feet above msl, then leveled off at about 3 feet, remaining at this level While injection from the single pump continued until about noon. At about 12 :30 the flow into the well was increased (" .. to approximately 5 ,800 gpm by cutting in a second pump, and the t.. ""-'",.' "n~ water level in the well droppGd to around 0 11 2 feet above msl, :? ! <t:.~ : remaining near that IGvel until the second-pump was shut off ~ ,~ /'~ "'./ .. ', at about 16:30. Injection continued at approximately 2,700 gpm from one pump.' The water level in the well then shot up to 9&75 feet above msl, then settled back and stood at around 6 feet until the injection test was shut down at 18:20. During an earlier test effort, the well had also stood at about 6 feet during injection by one pump.

GF.OTDGY. The test well passed through nearly 70 feet of beach and lagoon, deposits into layered lava floWS. The bottom of the hole at 385 feet below the surface is in lava flow rock. The beach and lagoon naterials are of three different sorts~ all formed of shell or coral and reef shells and the sand ana pebbles broken from shell and reef. The profile is as follows:

Upper 20 feet - largely fine to coarse sand like the surface beach and dunes.

20 to about 46 feet - some hard ledges of coral reef material (impervious except where broken or lensed out) but mostly loose fragments of reef and Shell. This loose material is very pc·rmeable.

46 to 68 feet - layers of calcareous silt, fine sand and clay. Most of these layers are quite even-grained and tightly packed. They are very impervious and form a tight cap-·rock on the lava flows beneath them.

68 to 385 feet - layers of vesicular lava flow with at least four layers of oxidized and glassy scoria between flows·~ Very pervious to flowing water. The well casing extends down to the 180 foot depth, where efforts were made to form a seal of drilling mud and cement grouting.

The lava flows probably have come from Haleakala and butt a~ainst the West Maui lavas a littlp. farthe~ west. ~~e be~~~ and

, " . '

o o - 3 -

1a~00n de~osi ts are confined to the, coastal area and may not ex end in and very much beyond the margin of the o1.d lJ Much larger Kanaha Pond~

Kanaha Pond is a very shallow pond of brackish water, perched on top of the lagoon depOSits, and is effectiye1y sealed .o.tt. from the basal lava flows beneath.. If £lie pond were not on a tight formation, it would not eXist, but would all drain I down into the pe-rmeable lava flOW,S. A 'basal water table" pond \ f\fA.II /)/j1~~ would be at an elevation closer to sea level. t;:;~-::.v~

........ t.- :.,.....,-,/ The lava flows are saturated with ground water that comes J

from rainfall; a small amount from local rains in Central Maui, but most of it from the heavier rainfall areas of the north slope of Haleaka1a.

,Kanaha Pond is fed by sQmG spring flaw, as well as heavy surface rain at widely separated intervals. The springs are of Shallow ori3in from water accumulated in the impermeable layers , of the lagoon depOSits that has come from irrigation in the Yvt-- ...... 7b-<2-adjacent cane lands and from local rains.~/i.""".A.J .;./( I~ ~

This Shallow pond, with its slightly fluctuating water level, is the main home and breedin3 ground for the Hawq.1.ian stilt, found nowhere except in the Hawaiian Islands. The concern of this study and report is to be sure, by our own independent observations, that we know ahead of time What effect on the Kanaha Pond may result from the proposed sewerage treatment plant and routine disposal of the effluent therefrom into deep wells close to the margin of Kanaha Pond. \ve have learned that the ground water body in the basal lava flows has a hydraulic I head that fluctuates a little above_~~_~l, While the hydraulic level of Kanaha Pond is from two and one half to over I / three feet above sea level. Thus, if a major break is left open in the caprock that perches the pond, the pond will drain down into the basal water table with its normal lower hydrostatic level. If the breaks in the caprock that occurred at the drilling sites were imperfectly sealed so that a small aoount of leakage could take place constantly, the IJoveIJent of water would still be from the pond down into the basal water table, not leakage

i2 __

upward into the pond. Sewerage effluent introduced into the ~ ,({.J;",">, basal water body in the la.va flows could rise into the perched .:rf' -- .' water body only if the introduction of the effluent causes the 1!:.:-:"' ,"" . hydraulic head of the lower water body to rise up into the range ~~~t~ of 3 feet above sea 1eve-l. Thus, it is iDperative to know if the rl\-t"~\(,.,,, lower water body Will accept and dispe-rse the introduced ~~_ A~~J efflulentlwi thout building up a hydraulic dona a few feet above il ~·"""':"--\t. / sea eve. __ ) ,

Results of the extremely limited testing as specified in w. L-. Ii'»? the contract do not appear adequate for a conclusive determinatio~'1 fJfI on this vital question. 4., .. " •

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Based on our findings to date, We are convinced that surface run-off has been in the past, and still is, a very minimal factor in the recharge of Kanaha Pond.

'-

• I;. • , " o

- 4 -

.. o

The heavy winter rains on the pond surface and on the surrounding canefields and forner sandy soil pasture areas raises the whole ground water level of this confined aquifer, Before all the recent, industrial and commercial development in and surrounding the pond, it had a natural protective barrier against undue cont.anination and pollution. For this reason, Kanaha Pond v;as used by the early Hawaiians for raising large quantities of fish for food during the periods When fishing in the sea Was kapu. Today it is one of the nost important areas in the entire state for the l?ropagation of endemic waterfowl, and a main stopping place for m1gratory waterfowl from the mainland U. S. and Siberia~

The Kanaha Pond Committee has accumulated a lar(1'G amount of , \ l Ii o n'I"""t./I,' valuable data on the pond and on potential dangers from the ~ t~,

p~~oposed injection wells 0 It is our opinion that the eight hour .h~: ( test Was far too short and tOr) inadequately controlled to make Ivc~ k a f'tnal determination of the Gnvironmental impact of this proposed. ~ inj G'ction of sewage plant effluent into the aquifer beloW Kanaha I tI-"vl~,_{,0'; Pond"

If thG're are economic or other everriding reasons for locating the porposed S©'Kdra3e installations within the confines of the Kanaha Pond shop~ ~ ~here. are. further, relatiyely Simple _t.as.:ts that could be performea lDmed lately -which would g1 ve much more data relative to the possible pollution of the pond. Introduction of nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphate's, into the ground water beneath the pond could conceivably result in contamination of the pond itself. vie need to be certain this will not happen before we proceed any further.

SAMPLING DATA: Some chlorinity determinati9ns/~~i5rm~gethe March 1 injection test effort. That test Was called off when an uncontrollable Siphoning action was set up between the sea and the well, but not before a quantity of fluorescin dye had been added to the well. Since March 1, samples have ,",peen collected on an irregular basis from the well, the four Donitor tubes, the ocean, and Kanaha Pond •. As of this date no program has been set up to utilize these samples. '

EDITORIAL NOTE: The hydrological and geological portions of the above preliminary report were written by Robert Bruce and Howard Powers respectively, in consultation with other members of the committee. Other data have been collected and incorporated into charts, tables, etc. Which we hope may be used as required to react to the reports of the hired consultants.

f~T_ .. , I \ '

Mimeographed in the Maui Environmental Information Center, Haiku, Maui, Hawaii. John Bose, II, Librarian

,

" "

\ h' \,

o o PRQ~~SAL TO DETEru~INE EFFECTS OF

1\ ')J;l'tJl'E~tING TREATED WASTEWATER INTO \' ' WELLS AT THE WAILUKU-

J1-1-1-e-.-. -!/:..-..,

(:'<>

KAHULUI WASTEWAT~R RECLNY~TION FACILIT~ MAUl, HAy-JAI I

Our firm proposes to provide conSUlting services, design, and construction supervision to determine the physical effects of well injected treated wastewater on the underground and surface water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater Reclamation Facility. A portion of the evaluation proposed will be performed in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey.

The scope of work proposed includes the following:

1. Determination of the degree of hydraulic continuity between the proposed wastewater injection zone and the sediments underlying the Kanaha Pond.

2. Determination of the permiability characteristics of the bottom sediments of Kanaha Pond.

3. Determination of tidal efficiency between the proposed injection zone and the ocean.

4. Determination of tidal efficiency between the Kanaha Pond replenishment well and the ocean.

5. Determination of the effects of wastewater injection on natural inland ground water gradients and the potential migration characteristics of the injected waters.

6. Evaluation of water quality characteristics of the in­jection zone, the shallow sedimentary zone, Kanaha Pond, and the ocean.

7. Design and supervision of drilling and constructing test holes and observation wells for data collection purposes.

8. The preparation and execution of a tidal and ground water monitoring program in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey.

9. Evaluation of geologic, hydrologic, and other physical conditions relating to disposal of wastewater by injection wells in the vicinity of the subject facilities.

10. Preparation of a report for submittal of results by the County of Maui to the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

o o

In order to satisfy the proposed project objectives and scope of work the following work items are planned:

1. An analysis of hydrologic and geologic conditions existing in the project vicinity. A review and synthesis of existing information is to provide the major source for this work item.

2. A shallow coring program consisting of at least four push samples and an analysis of vertical permeabilities of those samples, will be performed at selected locations within the Kanaha Pond area.

3. Three observation wells a minimum of five inches in diameter will be constructed to a depth of approximately 50 feet into the sediments underlying the Kanaha Pond area.

4. An investigation of the effects of injection wells currently operating in the vicinity will be made to assess landward migration of water at those locations to compare with pro­posed wastewater injection wells.

5. The establishment of a monitoring program to collect con­tinuous data for one month (30 days) on water level changes in the existing test injection well, the three planned observation wells, the Kanaha Pond well and the existing shallow piezometers. A reference tidal gaging station will be monitored as well as water levels in the Kanaha Pond.

6. Collection and analysis of periodic water samples from observation wells, the test well, the Kanaha Pond well, Kanaha Pond, and selected shallow piezometers.

7. Analysis and evaluation of all data and information compiled.

8. Preparation and presentation of conclusions and recommenda­tions.

It should be noted that Item 7 does not include any computor analysis which may be required to resolve tidal efficiency evaluations.

Q o

GENERAL DESIGN

Procedure:

1. Drill 12" hole to 20 feet depth.

2. Set 20 feet of 6" diameter casing and place cement seal.

3. After soil sets, bail 6" casing to check effectiveness of seal; i.e., water level before and after bailing.

4. Drill 4" diameter bore hole to 30-40 feet below bottom of 6" casing.

5. Set perforated 3" diameter casing in 4" diameter bore hole.

6. Bail and airlift observation well until clean.

o

i-C" DrA. f30/~.c HOLE.

,vE.AT CEMENT SEAL ~ ~-----

Gil DrA. CASrNG, STEEL OF? PVC

PiPE COLL~\/:c o.~ Orl-! E/? LAt=' SE;.\L

I ! I

4" DIA. 00/;;:.£ HOLE ---... j! ~l

I i II

3" DIA. STEEL ~ o,";? ;'?VC r/,'=>E II

11-(0 .~cT o.~ YIG" ~ F'EF?,-=OS!.ATIONS I

1

I

I I I ! , ! I I I I

II i

o

-o ru

l.9 .

+_--.L ! ! j i

I , ! 0, "i-!

I i 01 ('r)!

I

I

I

i

//" O/;::OUNO SUl<?PACE / KA tvA f-f A PONO

I

I I i I I i !

, ! oj <-9 1

I i 01 tf) I

I I i I

1

{

GEIVERAL DESIGN FOF< /::;/ EZO/v! ETEl~. (Ol3SE/2VATIO,V WELL)

[A/AlLU/<U - /(AHULUI PROJECT

· ~ , r ') o o

ESTIMATE OF WORK REQUIRED FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE WAILUKU-KAHULUI WASTEWATER RECL&~TION INJECTION FACILITIES

This estimate was prepared after a review of reports and comments of public and private entities regarding the potential effects of wastewater injection into wells as a means of disposing of effluent from the proposed Wailuku-Kahului facility. Informa­tional discussions were held with public officials and pertinent reports have been assessed. The reports and comments are directed primarily to aspects of environmental and ecological effects of injection. A total environmental and ecological study, including test drilling, geological studies, monitoring programs, environ­mental and ecological analysis, and possibly computer modeling are indicated to be required to satisfy all entities as to the acceptability or unacceptability o~ utilizing injection wells as a method of disposal at the proposed facilities.

Within the scope of work completed to date, the physical concept of injecting wastewater into wells has been a demonstrated success. To the extent possible within the scope of work, attention has been directed toward collecting data to evaluate the effects of injection on surface and subsurface resources in the subject vicinity. No evidence, direct or indirect, has been discovered to indicate any damage to natural conditions or resources will occur as a result of the proposed injection of wastewater into wells. However, a number of hypothetical questions have been posed through­out and after pilot injection well drilling and testing which could not have been anticipated at the outset of the project.

Because of the additional information required to answer such questions and requirements of private and public entities to allow continuance of the wastewater facility, much more detailed data and analysis will be necessary.

To confirm the injection site suitability to the degree of accuracy desired by the questioning parties, the currently defined future work items would be as follows:

1. A comprehensive analysis of local and regional geologic conditions.

2. A comprehensive analysis of local and regional hydrologic \, conditions including precipitation, evaporation, and stream / runoff.

3. A detailed regional well location and measurement program to include water levels, production, and water quality.

-, , )

./

o o ~ 4. An ocean tidal monitoring program, to possibly include the

installation of a constant recording tidal gage.

5. A shallow ground water and Kanaha Pond monitoring program including the installation of at least two additional shallow piezometers and recording gage installations.

6. A water supply and source analysis of Kanaha Pond including historical conditions and trends.

7. A soil sampling program of Kanaha Pond to include at least four push sample locations to a depth of six feet below the pond bottom and at least one sample bore hole to a depth of 65 feet.

/ 8.

9.

10.

11 •

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Test borings and piezometer installations at a minimum of three locations to depths of approximately 70 feet.

Construction of at least two test monitoring wells to depths of about 100 and 220 feet.

A test pumping and injection program at the test monitoring wells.

Water quality analyses and evaluations of deep and shallow ground water zones and the Kanaha Pond.

A fresh water injection program to measure effects of fresh water on water levels in injection wells.

A detailed ecological study of the Kanaha Pond.

Analysis of all collected data with the possible require­ment of computer modeling.

Preparation of conclusions, recommendations, and presenta­tion of results.

Contract preparation for required construction and services.

The work items listed above represent only a summary of the efforts required to answer salient points raised to date. Additional discussions to define work scope details would seem advisable before formal proposals are submitted.