i
I
I
f
TS-PIC-88055
March 1988
Site Analysis
Tutu Well field
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
Volume 1
by
Mary D. Sitton and Larry Mata, Imagery Analysts
The Bionetics Corporation
Warrenton, Virginia 22186
Contract No. 68-03-3532
Project Officer
Thomas R. Osberg
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Warrenton, Virginia 22186, FTS 557-3110
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
*64416*
64416
ABSTRACT
r
The 
following 
report contains 
an analysis of 
historical 
aerial
I 
photography of a study area 
surrounding the Tutu Well field, located in Tutu,
St. 
Thomas, 
Virgin Islands. 
Drinking water contamination has caused the
fc 
closing of public supply wells in the area. 
This analysis has been conducted
— 
to 
support the 
U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) 
Superfund
activities in locating possible contamination 
sources within a study area
jjjL 
comprising approximately 320 hectares (800 acres).
Aerial photography of the study area was obtained to represent the period
•«»
; 
from 1954 to 1983. Six main areas containing potential contamination sources:
four industrial areas, one possible liquid waste disposal area, and a
junkyard, were noted within the study area. Other minor features of potential
significance include staining, debris, a pit, a probable fill area, and a
^~ 
possible discharge point.
The EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center in Warrenton,
Virginia, a branch of the Advanced Monitoring Systems Division of the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, performed
this study at the request of the Superfund Support Section of EPA Region 2 in
New York, New York and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in
Washington, D.C. This report was completed in March 1988.
m
I
I
I
I
L
Z*
NOTICE
This document has not been peer and administratively reviewed within ERA
and is for internal Agency use and distribution only.
11
r
r 
CONTENTS
fcr-
Volume 1 
Page
I 
Abstract ................................ iii
Introduction .............................. 
1
1 
Methodology .............................. 
3
• 
Aerial Photo Site Analysis:
March 9, 1965 ........................... 
5
I 
February 7, 1971. ......................... 
7
February 13, 1974 ......................... 
9
I 
March 1, 1978 ........................... 11
f 
February 5, 1983 ......................... 12
References ............................... 13
FIGURES
Volume 2
^~~ 
1. Location Map ............................ 
1
Aerial Photos:
2. March 9, 1965 ........................... 
2
3. February 7, 1971 .......................... 
3
4. February 13, 1974 ......................... 
4
5. March 1, 1978 ........................... 
5
6. February 5, 1983 .......................... 
6
5*
INTRODUCTION
'•*"- 
This report presents an analysis of historical aerial photography of a
I 
study area surrounding the Tutu Wellfield, located in Tutu, St. Thomas, Virgin
Islands. 
The Tutu Wellfield has been contaminated with volatile organic
§ 
compounds and gasoline, which has resulted in the closing of public supply
wells in the area.l 
The purpose of this report is to assist the U.S.
I
fc 
Environmental Protection Agency's (ERA) Superfund activities in locating
• 
possible contamination sources within the study area, 
which comprises
approximately 320 hectares (800 acres).
# 
Figure 1 depicts the study area boundary, keyed to a photocopy of a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) l:24,000-scale topographic map. 
Site and area
boundaries used in this analysis were determined from observations made from
aerial photography and from collateral data provided by EPA Region 2 and do
not necessarily represent legal property lines or ownership. 
Each photo
enlargement included in this report (Figures 2-6) has been reproduced to
correspond to the approximate study area boundary.
Aerial photography of the study area was obtained to represent the period
from 1954 to 1983.2 
Black and white photography for the years 1954, 1964,
1965, 1971, 1974, 1978 and color infrared photography from 1970 and 1983 were
used in this report. 
Photography from 1954, 1964 and 1970 was not reproduced
due to insignificant activity or change noted within the study area.
Collateral data provided by EPA Region 2.
2A complete listing of maps and photography used in this report can be found
in the References section.
Six areas of potential contamination: 
four industrial areas, one
"- 
possible liquid waste disposal area and a junkyard, were noted within the
j 
study area. 
These areas are designated as "sites," and their location within
the study area is shown on Figure 1. Other features of significance not large
I 
enough to designate as sites are also annotated and discussed with each year
- 
of analysis.
• 
The EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center in Warrenton,
I 
Virginia, a branch of the Advanced Monitoring Systems Division of the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Yegas, Nevada, performed
I 
this study at the request of the Superfund Support Section of ERA Region 2 in
T 
New York, New York, and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in
*
Washington, D.C. This report was completed in March 1988.
f
METHODOLOGY
A search of government and commercial sources was undertaken to obtain
the best available aerial photography of the study area spanning the desired
time frame. 
The photography and other sources of information used in this
report are listed in the References section.
The analysis was performed by viewing backlit transparencies of aerial
photography through stereoscopes. 
Stereoscopic viewing creates a perceived
three-dimensional effect which, when combined with viewing 
at various
magnifications, enables the analyst to identify signatures associated with
different features and environmental conditions. 
The term "signature" refers
to a combination of visible characteristics (such as color, tone, shadow,
texture, size, shape, pattern and association) which permit a specific object
or condition to be recognized on aerial photography.
Photographic prints were made from those years of aerial photographic
coverage that reveal significant information about the study area. 
The
analyst's findings are annotated on overlays to prints and/or base maps and
described in the accompanying text. 
Site boundaries or areas used in this
analysis were determined from the aerial photography and from collateral data
provided by ERA Region 2 and do not necessarily denote legal property lines or
ownership.
Due to factors inherent in the photographic printing process, prints do
not exhibit the level of detail that is visible in the original aerial
photography. 
Therefore, some features identified from the aerial photography
may not be clearly discernible, or even visible, on the photographic prints
presented in this report.
TUT 002 0584
The terms "possible" and "probable" are used to indicate the degree of
certainty of signature identification. 
"Possible" is used when only a few
characteristics are discernible or these characteristics are not unique to a
signature. 
"Probable" is used when incrementally more characteristics or
stronger characteristics of a signature are discernible. 
No qualifying terms
are used when the characteristics of a signature allow for a definite feature
identification.
AERIAL PHOTO SITE ANALYSIS
MARCH 9, 1965 (FIGURE 2)
Site 1: Industrial Area
Treated (TL) and untreated lumber (UL) are stored at the site, suggesting
onsite lumber treatment. 
An excavated area (EX) containing light-toned,
coarse-textured debris (DB) is present. Coarse-textured, dark-toned debris is
located in a vacant area in the northeast corner of the site.
Site 2: Industrial Area
A stained (ST) disturbed area (DA) fans out downs!ope from a large
building at a light industrial facility. 
This stained area or area of moist
or wet ground may be the result of liquid discharged from the building (also
noted in 1964). 
Dump trucks are visible in the lot nearby. 
A stained area
with debris and possible drums (not annotated) is located just southwest of
the building. 
The purpose of this facility could not be ascertained from the
available photography.
Other Features
Coarse-textured, dark-toned debris is piled at the end of a stained
access road west of Site 1 near a sewage treatment plant (STP). 
The access
road may have been sprayed with oil to keep down dust. 
A vertical tank (VT)
is visible south of the access road. 
The purpose of the tank cannot be
ascertained from the aerial photography.
A possible discharge point is visible at a light industrial facility
immediately west of Site 1. 
The stream channel leading away from this point
flows southeast and is dark-toned, possibly from staining. This may only be a
storm drain; however, the possibility of waste discharge should not be
overlooked.
South of Site 1 are a large bermed area and a long trench (TR) (also
visible in 1964). 
These features are likely related to the routing of
drainage. West of the trench is a small, square pit, possibly containing
liquid.
Drainage
Intermittent stream channels wind southeastward through 
the karst
(limestone) terrain toward Turpentine Run. Drainage will only be discussed
further when major changes are noted.
OO2 OS87
FEBRUARY 7, 1971 (FIGURE 3)
Site 1: Industrial Area
A group of probable drums, open storage (OS) of material and debris crowd
the facility's lot. Additional buildings (annotated as new buildings—NB)
have been constructed since 1965. No lumber storage is visible within Site 1;
however, a large lumber storage area with a connecting access road is located
just southwest of the site. 
Probable staining is visible around treated
lumber here. 
Possible drums and scattered debris, similar to the material at
Site 1, are also located in this area. 
Due to the additional number of
buildings onsite, it is likely the storage of lumber and other material had to
be moved to this location.
Site 2: Industrial Area
The stained areas, debris, possible drums and dump trucks noted in 1965
are no longer present and the area appears inactive. This site will no longer
be discussed.
Site 3: Impoundment/Industrial Facility
A rectangular impoundment (possibly unlined), containing dark liquid and
a possible aerator (not annotated), is present.
Site 4: Light Industrial Facility
The majority of the site appears to be occupied by debris and/or
construction-related material. 
Dump trucks, probable staining and possible
drums with associated staining are present here also.
TUT
Other Features
Those features noted near the sewage treatment plant in 1965 are no
longer present. The possible discharge point west of Site 1 remains; however,
the drainage channel now flows south rather than southeast as it did in 1965.
Possible staining is visible in the lot west of Site 1. 
Probable debris is
located in a disturbed area east of Site 1.
The bermed area and trench noted south of Site 1 in 1965 are no longer
present, and a continuous drainage channel has been constructed here. Mounded
material (MM), mostly probable earthen material with some possible debris (not
annotated), has been deposited east of the channel.
FEBRUARY 13, 1974 (FIGURE 4)
NOTE: Due to the small scale of the original photography, detailed
features could not be identified.
Site 1: Industrial Area
Possible debris is visible onsite. 
The possible drums seen in 1971 are
no longer visible. An access road leads from Site 1 to the lot that contained
lumber storage and other material in 1971. This lot appears much less crowded
with material, although scattered debris is visible throughout the area.
Site 3: Industrial Facility
The impoundment visible in 1971 is no longer present. 
Site 3 will no
longer be annotated or discussed because no further significant activity
occurs throughout the remainder of the study period.
Site 4: Former Light Industrial Facility
None of the features noted onsite in 1971 are present this year. 
The
area appears inactive, although an access road still enters the site and leads
to a ground scarred (GS) area. 
Neither the access road nor the ground scar
was present in 1971.
Site 5: Possible Waste Disposal Area
Dark-toned (DK) standing liquid (SL) appears in two depressions onsite.
This may be the result of natural precipitation, although the possibility of
liquid waste disposal should not be overlooked. 
Much of the area around a
small building (B) appears scarred.
Site 6: Junkyard
Site 6 consists of junked automobiles.
Other Features
The possible discharge point and staining located west of Site 1 in 1971
are no longer visible. 
A probable fill area is located east of Site 1 w^°re
debris was noted in 1971. The fill material here appears even in tone and
9
TUT O02 O590
texture and is probably earthen material. 
Possible debris and staining are
noted near a light industrial building northeast of the fill area.
Two additional sewage treatment plants have been constructed within the
study area. 
No environmentally significant activity is visible around these
facilities, and they will not be discussed further.
The area southwest of Site 1, which contained mounded material in 1971,
has revegetated (REV).
10
MARCH 1, 1978 (FIGURE 5)
NOTE: Due to the small scale of the original photography, detailed
features could not be identified.
Site 1: Industrial Area
Several buildings have been removed, and the site appears to be in a
state of transition or inactivity. 
Several large buildings are under
construction (UC) southwest of Site 1.
Site 4: Former Light Industrial Facility
No access roads lead 
into the site, which appears 
inactive and
revegetating. This feature will not be discussed further.
Site 5: Possible Waste Disposal Area
An access road leads to a ground scarred area. 
Both features were
visible in 1974; however, no evidence of solid or liquid waste disposal is
noted onsite.
Site 6: Junkyard
The area encompassed by the junkyard has expanded slightly to the east
since 1974.
Other Features
Heavy staining and a new building are located on a former fill area that
was noted in 1974 east of Site 1.
Three vertical tanks (probable water tanks) are located north of Site 5.
Several access roads lead to the tanks.
Possible debris is visible within an extraction area southeast of the
junkyard. 
It is difficult to positively identify the material here due to
the small scale photography.
The staining visible in a lot northeast of Site 4 appears to emanate from
a nearby building.
11
FEBRUARY 5, 1983 (FIGURE 6)
NOTE: Detailed feature identification was not possible due to the
small scale of the original photography.
Site 1: Industrial Area
Possible debris is located onsite. Several new buildings (not annotated)
have been added since 1978, and the site once again appears active.
Site 5: Possible Waste Disposal Area
The site has revegetated and no evidence of waste disposal is seen.
Site 6: Junkyard
No significant change has occurred onsite since 1978.
Other Features
Heavy staining remains on a former fill area, now an industrial area,
east of Site 1. The area north of Site 1 appears scarred and disturbed.
The three vertical tanks remain; however, only one access road leading to
the tanks remains in use.
A large disturbed area is located near a group of buildings in the
southwest portion of the study area.
12
REFERENCES
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Date
January 29, 1954
February 21, 1964
March 9, 1965
July 31, 1970
February 7, 1971
February 13, 1974
March 1, 1978
February 5, 1983
MAP
Source
USGS
Agency
USGSl
NOS2
NOS
NASAJS3
ASCS*
NOS
NOS
EPA5
Name
Eastern
Mission
Code
YM
64W
65L
1380
PCFD
74E
78BP
83/104
St.
Agency
Frame #
1:158-160;
1:173-175
3413-3417
1500-1504
42:4844-4848
3:101-103
41-30:3325-
3328
46-1:1692-
1695
553,554
Scale
1:24,000
Orig.
Scale
1:28,000
1:24,000
1:15,000
1:24,000
1:20,000
1:30,000
1:30,000
1:40,000
Date
1982
EPIC
Frame #
18718,18722-
18726
19012-19016
19021-19025
18837-18841
18895-18897
19026-19029
18997-19000
83/104:553,554
Thomas, Y.I.
J-U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
National Ocean Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce
3National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas
^Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
^U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
13
0^94
TS-PIC-88055
March 1988
Site Analysis
Tutu Well field
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
Volume 1
by
Mary D. Sitton and Larry Mata, Imagery Analysts
The Bionetics Corporation
Warrenton, Virginia 22186
Contract No. 68-03-3532
Project Officer
Thomas R. Osberg
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Warrenton, Virginia 22186, FTS 557-3110
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
TUT'
NOTICE
This document has not been peer and administratively reviewed within ERA
and is for internal Agency use and distribution only.
ii
ABSTRACT
The following 
report contains 
an analysis of 
historical aerial
photography of a study area surrounding the Tutu Well field, located in Tutu,
St. 
Thomas, Virgin Islands. Drinking water contamination has caused the
closing of public supply wells in the area. 
This analysis has been conducted
to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund
activities in locating possible contamination sources within a study area
comprising approximately 320 hectares (800 acres).
Aerial photography of the study area was obtained to represent the period
from 1954 to 1983. Six main areas containing potential contamination sources:
four industrial areas, one possible liquid waste disposal area, and a
junkyard, were noted within the study area. Other minor features of potential
significance include staining, debris, a pit, a probable fill area, and a
possible discharge point.
The EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center in Warrenton,
Virginia, a branch of the Advanced Monitoring Systems Division of the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada, performed
this study at the request of the Superfund Support Section of EPA Region 2 in
New York, New York and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in
Washington, D.C. This report was completed in March 1988.
iii
ADDENDUM
CONTENTS
Volume 1
Fracture Trace Analysis ...................... Al
References ............................. A3
FIGURES
Volume 2
7. Fracture Traces .......................... Al
8. Generalized Ground Water Flow Direction .............. Al
TS-PIC-88055
June 1988
Fracture Trace Analysis
Tutu Well field
1 
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
I
i
Volume 1 - Addendum
by
Mary D. Sitton and Larry Mata, Imagery Analysts
The Bionetics Corporation
Warrenton, Virginia 22186
Contract No. 68-03-3532
Project Officer
Donald Garofalo
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Warrenton, Virginia 22186, FTS 557-3110
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
I" 
FRACTURE TRACE ANALYSIS
Ground water contamination in the vicinity of the Tutu Well field prompted
I 
the request for this fracture trace analysis. Fracture trace analysis involves
_ 
using aerial photography to identify linear features on the earth's surface.
* 
These features may have several origins: geological (fractures, bedding
I 
planes, dikes); vegetational (row crops, orchards); man-made (roads, railroads,
fence rows); etc. Fracture traces are defined as linear features, visible on
if 
aerial photographs, that are naturally occurring surface manifestations of
subsurface vertical or near vertical zones of fractured bedrock. These
features are of particular environmental concern because they represent
potential pathways for ground water flow.
Tutu Well field is located in the upper valley of Turpentine Run in eastern
St. Thomas. The valley has gentle topography consisting of rolling hills in a
basin surrounded by steep slopes and sharp ridges. The rocks in this area are
mainly volcanics of Cretaceous age. Lava flows and flow breccias (spilites and
keratophyres) of the Water Island formation and breccia, tuffs and flows
(augite andesites) of the Louisenhoj formation are the principal rocks. Ground
water supplies are contained in a surficial mantle of fractured and weathered
rock. The general direction of ground water flow is southeastward along
Turpentine Run. It has been postulated that when water levels are high, ground
*T 
water flow is divided, with part moving along Turpentine Run and part moving
through the fractured and altered zone at Mt. Zion and emerging as springs
* 
located farther downstream in the lower basin of Turpentine Run (see
__ 
approximate spring locations on Figure 7). During periods of low ground water
* 
levels, nearly all ground water is discharged through the fractured zone at Mt.
Al
£ 
Zion and a temporary ground water divide is established (see Figure 8).l It is
'" 
likely that contaminant movement/plume within the ground water would mimic
I 
these pathways during periods of high and low water levels.
Fracture traces found over the volcanic rocks within the Tutu Wellfield
* 
study area were identified using three years of historical aerial photographs:
K 
1954, 1964 and 1965. These features were located as accurately as possible;
however, caution should be exercised if the fracture traces are to be used for
\ 
locating monitoring wells. Because the difference of a few feet can determine
whether or not a well is located on a fracture trace structure, it is important
f
i 
that a trained photogeologist be onsite to locate the fracture traces
accurately.
A total of 34 fracture traces have been identified (see Figure 8),
classified according to the strength of their photographic signatures (weak,
moderate, and strong), and keyed to a March 9, 1965 photo of the site. Any
monitoring wells located along, and more importantly at the intersection of,
two fracture traces should produce higher yields and give a more accurate
indication of ground water conditions around a site than randomly placed
monitoring wells.
o.G. Jordan and O.J. Cosner, A Survey of the Water Resources of St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands. U.S. Geological Survey open-file Report, 1973.
A2
REFERENCES
PUBLICATIONS
Jordan, D.G. and Cosner, O.J., A Survey of Water Resources of St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands. USGS Caribbean District open-file Report, 1973.——————
Donnelly, Thomas W., Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands,
The Geological Society of America, Memoir 98, Caribbean Geological Investigations,
1966.
A3
DATE
,JECT
FROM
TO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION i
Field
Robert N. Ogg, CWief
Site Investigation &
ipliance Branch
Site Investigation & Compliance Branch Staff
So that we can maintain a complete set of files on each of our
respective sites (NPL and non-NPL), be able to record and follow
up on all significant events concerning them, and assure con-
sistency of field reports, effective immediately, all staff
members must prepare and complete field reports within two
weeks of the site visit.
Please use the attached Site Inspection Report for this purpose.
The report should be addressed to the site "File" and copies
sent to the Section Chief. If more than one staff person
(remedial and enforcement) participates in the site visit,
then whoever has the lead for the project prepares the report.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Attachment
cc: W. Librizzi
S. Luftig
F. Rubel
G. Pavlou
J. Frisco
R. Basso
J. Mateo
V.Pitruzzello
IUT
0603
REGION II 
FORM 1320-1 (9/85)