US ERA Contract No. 68-W9-0024
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
DISPOSAL SITES WITHIN EPA REGION II
(NY, NJ, PR, VI)
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
TUT 
OO7 
O747
*64943*
64943
FINAL ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
TUTU WELLS SITE
ST. THOMAS, VIRGIN ISLANDS
VOLUME IV OF IV
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, DC 20460
EPA Work Assignment No.
EPA Region
Site No.
Contract No.
Document Control No.
Prepared by
Work Assignment Project Manager
Telephone Number
EPA Work Assignment Manager
Telephone Number
Date Prepared
073-2P1D
II
VID982272569
68-W9-0024
7720-073-RA-CFKJ
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Sally Odland
(212) 393-9634
Caroline Kwan
(212) 637-4275
March 24, 1995
TUT 
OO7 
0748
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.0 
PROBLEM FORMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 
SITE CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 
SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 DETECTION FREQUENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.2 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.3 ARARs AND MEDIA QUALITY GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.4 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.5 FINAL COC SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 
RECEPTOR SPECIES AND ENDPOINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1 RECEPTOR SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.2 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.0 
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.1 
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2 
FOOD WEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3 
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4 
EXPOSURE DOSE ESTIMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.0 
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.0 
RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.0 
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.0 
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
TUTU WELLF1ELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.coo/Augusl 23. 1994/day
TUT 
007 
0749
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: 
CORRESPONDENCE FOR ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ON
THE SITE
APPENDIX B:
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES/SIGNIFICANT
HABITATS
APPENDIX C: 
ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«M«»nint.eco/Augu« 23, 1994/day
TUT 
007 
0750
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
2-1 
Generalized Site Map
2-2 
Turpentine Run Basin
3-1 
Conceptual Food Web of the Terrestrial lExposure Pathways at the Tutu Wells Site
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
2-1 
Summary of Data for the Ecological Assessment
2-2 
Summary of Chemicals in Site Surface Soils
2-3 
Summary of Chemicals in Surface Soils Considered Background
2-4 
Chemicals of Potential Concern for Site Surface Soils
3-1 
Exposure Scenarios
3-2 
Exposure Values for the Anole
3-3 
Exposure Values for the Red-Tailed Hawk
4-1 
Safety Factors Used to Derive Reference Toxicity Values
5-1 
Summary of Hazard Indices
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/MsesmMxco/Augusl 23, l»4/d»y
TUT 
007 
0751
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
/rf«p»xi
This ecological assessment for the Tutu Wells site provides a qualitative estimate of the
potential adverse environmental risk associated with exposure to site-related contaminants in
the absence of site remediation. The ecological assessment process included problem
formulation, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and uncertainty
analysis. This assessment was prepared in accordance with applicable EPA guidance
documents (as listed in Section 1.0).
It was determined that exposure of ecological receptors to site contamination was not likely
to occur via groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soil. Exposure to site surface soil,
however, was considered a potential route of exposure to ecological receptors. Thus, surface
soil is the only medium considered within this ecological assessment.
Although the Tutu Wells site is located in a commercial/industrial zone with associated
/*"**""• 
anthropogenic influence, onsite and adjacent offsite habitat could provide wildlife usage.
This was determined by a site visit (March 1994) and through communication with local
ecological experts. This habitat consists of grassland with scattered shrub and trees.
Wildlife usage was considered to be primarily bird and lizard species, as observed to occur
during the site visit. Endangered and threatened species that may occur within the area of
the site were determined and included one tree and one reptile, five bird, and two bat
species. No threatened or endangered species were observed during the site visit.
Two potential ecological receptor species were chosen as indicator species for the site. The
receptor species selected were the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis}, representing a higher
order food web consumer, and the anole (Anolis sp.), representing a consumer closer to the
base of the food web.
Surface soil data used for this evaluation were obtained from the following reports:
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt.eco/August 23. 1994/<ky 
1
TUT 
007 
0752
• 
Technical Memorandum n - Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station
Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1993a).
• 
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal's) Comparison and
Evaluation Report for Groundwater and Soil Split Samples at the Tutu Wells
Site (CDM Federal, June 1993).
• 
CDM Federal's sampling reports for the September 1988 and June 1989
sampling events (CDM Federal, Sampling Trip Report, September 30, 1988
and Data Comparison and Evaluation Report, June 8, 1993).
Chemicals of potential concern in surface soils were selected for quantitative evaluation. The
selection process for each compound involved:
• 
Evaluation of detection frequency, maximum, and range of concentrations;
• 
Comparison to background concentrations;
• 
Comparison to applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs);
• 
Evaluation of physical/chemical properties; and,
• 
Consideration of potential toxicity.
The chemicals of potential concern included nine volatile organic compounds, sixteen
semivolatile organic compounds, one pesticide (Endosulfan I), one polychlorinated biphenyl
congener (Aroclor-1242), fifteen inorganic analytes, and cyanide.
Exposure for each of the selected ecological receptors to site-related chemicals in surface soil
was determined in the exposure assessment. Ingestion and food web transfer were
considered the primary means of exposure to chemicals of potential concern and were the
only exposure routes evaluated. Exposure dose estimations were determined in the exposure
assessment. First, the level of potential dietary exposures to each chemical of potential
concern for each of the receptors was calculated. Then, the potential dietary exposures were
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANAL YSlS/assesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/<ky 
2
TUT 
OO7 
O753
modified into total body dose estimates, which are directly comparable to ecotoxicological
data used to assess the ecological risks.
The toxicity assessment presents ecotoxicological data for the chemicals of potential concern.
For each of the selected ecological receptors, reference toxicity values were derived.
Potential risks to ecological receptors were assessed by comparing estimated exposure levels
(total body doses) with lexicological benchmark values (reference toxicity values). Exposure
levels were estimated using the worst-case scenario, assuming ecological receptor exposure to
maximum concentrations of site-related surface soil chemical concentrations. The potential
for adverse health risks were characterized as low to none for the red-tailed hawk and for
those ancles that would not come into consistent contact with high or maximum levels of
chemicals of potential concern. However, a moderate adverse health risk appears to exist for
individual anoles that come into frequent contact with high/maximum concentrations of
chemicals of concern which provide considerable levels of potential risk (i.e., arsenic and
phenol).
The uncertainty analysis describes the areas of uncertainty associated with this ecological
assessment and indicates how these areas of uncertainty affect the estimation of ecological
risk. Since the actual area of maximum site surface soil contaminant concentrations is small
(and varied throughout the site) in comparison to the rest of the site, the worst-case
assumption that ecological receptors contact maximum contaminant concentration levels may
have overestimated the potential ecological risk for some receptors.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aasesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/day
TUT
07 S A
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) II Contract (Contract No. 68-
W9-0024), CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal) received work assignment
number 073-2P1D for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region II, to
provide technical assistance by conducting an endangerment assessment to characterize site
risk as part of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Tutu Wells site in St.
Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI).
This work is a continuation of the work previously started under the Technical Enforcement
Support (TES) V Contract (Contract No. 68-W9-0002, work assignment number C02116)
which required the submittal of an Endangerment Assessment for the Tutu Wells site. This
portion of the Endangerment Assessment presents an Ecological Assessment (EA) for the
Tutu Wells site.
The objectives of this EA are to identify, qualitatively and quantitatively (where appropriate),
the potential current and future environmental risks associated with the Tutu Wells site that
would exist if no action is taken. Additionally, the ecological risk assessment will assist in
determining if remedial actions may be warranted.
This report was prepared in accordance with the EPA guidance documents listed below.
• 
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA/630/R-92-001, February
1992);
• 
Eco Update (Publication 9345.0-051, Volume I, Numbers 2 and 4, 1991 and
1992);
• 
Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: Field and Laboratory
Reference (EPA/600/3-89/013, March 1989), and;
TUTU WELLFBELD PATHWAY ANALYSI5/aMMnmt.eco/Augi« 23, 1994/day 
4
TUT 
007 
0755
• 
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume II. Environmental
Evaluation Manual (EPA/540/1-89/001, March 1989).
As described in the above EPA guidance, the key components of an ecological risk
assessment include:
• 
Problem Formulation (Hazard Identification)
• 
Exposure Assessment
• 
Toxicity Assessment (Ecological Effects Assessment)
• 
Risk Characterization
• 
Uncertainties and Limitations
This EA is composed of these five components as listed in order.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/m«.mmxa>/Aug\»l 23, 1994/day 
J
TUT 
007 
073&
2.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1 
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
A brief summary of the Tutu Wells site history and the environmental setting is presented
below. A more detailed description may be found in the Tutu Service Station Investigation,
Work Plan, (Geraghty & Miller, 1992) and the Technical Memorandum II, Results of the
Field Program, Tutu Service Station Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1993a).
2.1.1 SITE HISTORY
The Tutu Wells site is located in east central St. Thomas (within the Anna's Retreat area).
A variety of commercial establishments occupy the properties on each side of the major
roads that traverse the site (Figure 2-1). Private homes and multi-family housing units exist
on the side roads.
In 1987, an unusual organic odor was reported from well water of a private water supply
well (the Tillett well). The USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)
requested EPA's assistance in the contaminant investigation of the well water. In July 1987,
the EPA's Technical Assistance Team performed sampling at this well and at other water
supply wells in the area. Compounds detected included petroleum products and other
hazardous organic constituents. Due to the presence of these compounds, the DPNR closed
four of these wells.
Several of the wells in the area belong to major commercial well services and are used for
the public drinking water supply, therefore, the incident was classified as significant. The
Commissioner of the DPNR requested the EPA to assume the role of lead agency.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSB/Mse«ninl.eco/Augu«l 23, 1994/day 
D
T\ l~r
0757
TUT 
007
-...J 
DWG DAlE: 2-2J-9J 
f'JlJCT NO.: PROt JOI 
FILE NO.: -
DRA'MNG: TU-112 
SMOOTH CONCRETE 
BOX CLLVERT (6 FT 
WIDE BY 2 FT HIGi) 
'\_/ 
.f::::::::i I 
CHECKED: C. MOFFIT 
APPRO'-£D: T. DANAHY 
ORAflER: E. EAGlfSlotl 
Ufl)aved 
D 
Ufl)aved 
\...--/\5. 
Do 
D 
paved 
CURRICULUM BUILDING 
(FORMER LAGA BUILDING) 
i~·TI 
/ 
s·e-2 
\/'\ 
/ 
IJrl)aVed 
i 
11 
Q_ANTILLES AUTO PARTS 
~ 
(FORMER GASSETT AUTO P 
/~/ 
! 
,-r-. 
Q. 
FIRE~~ 
.
paved __. 
\ ~or~ / 
/ 
~~~<I 
~vq.G::s 
~ 
/ 
~ 
• I i. 
~ll LJ 
FOUR WINOS 
SHOPPING 
CENTER 
Paved 
i i 
, ~ I 
Q. I 
I 
• I I 
.) 
28-N DIAMElEA L-=: ~-) I f 1-Q i 
RElrfOACED 
--+---------, / i LS__ ! 
~PIPE 
\J . : r•--, --
r::--1 l 
TIU.£TT 
IMii<E'sl \._:::J GARDENS 
= f? / 
W 
/'_., 
I 
~ 
//Cr] 
~1 
'P--L__ 
I ~'"' ,,/'LL__:~_] 
// // 
/ ,,/ 
1Jr4Javed 
,, / 
~~o 
0/0?_00 o~?~ 
r-l I 
!, 
L___J ~// l.:N. WASH I 
'----J ::: : : '-cl ~ d -::-
7, 
J- ----
I/ 
6-FT DIMETffi~ •-i-./2V, 
1 
I 
FEtFOACEO 
~ 
I I 
CONCAETE PFE ( 
~,. 
/ 
,, 
,t-
,, 
I 
~ 
,, 
I 
), 
If 
I 
,, 
5 FT WIDE 
/ 1 
/ ~------------:~a"edO 
OPEN TOP CULVERT -
11 
--- . 0 
,, ,, ,, ,, 
SMOOTH CONCfl:TE 
I I 
BOX CLLVERT Ul'f11EA -rf--~--,.,__-__,,. 
D 
8VEWAU< (4 FT ;1 H 
// 
0: 
WEYMOlff1-f ffiYMER 
WDE BY 7 FT H0-1) 
I I 
O ,ur STATION 
0-. 
/ 1 
> 
(SANT ARY SEWelAGE) 
3 ii 
,:: Q, 
<II ,:, 
::E 
4) 
~ ! 
.c l 
'\) 
:1 
D 
I I 
,', 
/: 
8',', 
Ufl)aved 
! / 
',':_' :'\ 
ii r·,.• ~., \, o 
# ~
IQUOR~\ 
/j: 
!WIN 
''-
'- " 
" ~ 
'..:. 
, 
~ / 
,, 
-e-
~r,paved 
\ 
'- · 
TWO 12-H N90E DWETEA 
PVC PPES SOE BY mE 
O'Henry dry deaners 
Fort Mylner 
Shopping Center 
I 
SCALE 
(APfJROXIMA IE) 
0 
200 FEET 
·--1 
LEGEND 
s 
SOIL BORING 
GI 
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL 
• 
DEEP MONITORING WEl L 
FT 
FEET 
IN. 
INCII 
Air' GERAGHTY 
Al' & MILLER, INC. 
GENERALIZED SITE MAP 
4f Environrnental Services 
TUTU WELLS SITE 
■ 
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 
Source: Modified from Figure 3-6 in Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993a. 
flGlmE 
2-1 
l
I 
i 
ii 
ERA REGION 11
SCANNING TRACKING SHEET
DOC ID #64943
DOC TITLE/SUBJECT:
TUTU WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
FIGURE 2-1
GENERALIZED SITE MAP
(Page: TUT 007 0758)
THIS DOCUMENT IS OVERSIZED AND CAN BE
LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
AT THE
SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER
290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10007
Multiple potential contaminant sources to groundwater at the site include the Texaco Tutu
service station (at the northern corner of Highways 38 and 384) and the Esso Tutu service
station (on Highway 38). In 1990, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to
Esso Standard Oil Company, Texaco Caribbean, Inc., and O'Henry Cleaners to conduct
groundwater monitoring of the drinking water wells in the Tutu aquifer, and to provide water
to affected homes until the respondents connected to the water main. Esso and Texaco
entered into a RCRA 7003/9003 Order of Consent with EPA to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Tutu Wells site in February 1992. The site was
proposed for the National Priorities List in February 1992. Technical Memorandums I and
II, submitted to EPA in April 1992 and May 1993, respectively, present the initial results of
the studies of the Esso and Texaco gas stations and of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
contamination in supply wells at the site. EPA requested the Tutu Environmental
Investigation Committee (TEIC) to conduct a more complete RI of the site, and, in
December 1993, a Phase II RI work plan was submitted to EPA by Geraghty & Miller, the
TEIC's contractor. Phase II RI field work was completed in July 1994.
In addition to groundwater contamination, contamination of the Tutu Wells site surface soil
may have occurred via a variety of sources by nature of the current or former operational
history. Among the potential sources of surface soil contamination are the service stations,
repair shops, paint store, dry cleaners, former textile operation building, artwork
manufacturing building(s), and others within the commercial district along routes 38 and 384
(Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1992; Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993b).
2.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Climate
The climate on St. Thomas is warm and dry (Rivera, et al., 1970). The average annual
temperature is 79.7° F, with only small variations of no more than 7° F between the coldest
and warmest months. The highest temperatures occur in August and the lowest in January or
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMe»mnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 
8
TUT 
O07 
O759
February. The warm climate promotes rapid soil development and decomposition of animal
and plant remains.
Rainfall on the island is commonly caused by the lifting of moist air over the hilly terrain
(Rivera, et al., 1970). Rainfall amounts increase with increasing elevation. The average
annual range of rainfall in the vicinity of the site is from 30 to 55 inches. Although rainfall
is generally the lightest in February and March and heaviest in September and October, there
is not a sharply defined wet or dry season.
Periods of drought occur almost yearly in some parts of the USVI (Rivera, et al., 1970).
Most of the soils within the vicinity of the Tutu Wells site have land use limitations due to
the potential for drought. Droughts are most prevalent during late fall through early spring.
Geomorphology
The Tutu Wells site is located within the drainage of the upper Turpentine Run basin in the
east central portion of the island. There are two primary topographically distinct areas of the
site.
• 
The mostly flat terrace of the valley, generally following the surface water drainage in
a north-south orientation. The width of this area is approximately 200 to 400 feet.
The elevation of this area above mean sea level (msl) is from about 130 to 180 feet.
• 
Gently-rolling upland, with approximately 20 to 40% slopes, situated to either side of
the flat lowland. The gradation of these slopes generally begins at 200 feet msl and
rise to greater than 300 feet msl.
Surface Hydrology
The Tutu Wells site is located within the upper basin of the Turpentine Run. Turpentine Run
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMcwmt.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 
9
TUT 
007 
076O
is an intermittent stream flowing from the northwest to southeast (Figure 2-2). The
Turpentine Run basin drains approximately 3.4 square miles and is separated into upper and
lower basins. The upper basin (above the stream gaging station near Mount Zion) drains
approximately 2.3 square miles. The lower basin drains approximately 1.1 square miles.
The Turpentine Run basin contains Quaternary alluvial and colluvial deposits that appear to
thicken southward. Several small catchment areas have been placed along the axis of the
basin which trap sediment.
Within the area of the site, the drainage has been culverted into a storm sewer. Most of the
storm sewer appears to be channelized in closed concrete pipe which drains to the
unculverted portion of Turpentine Run south of the Fort Mylner shopping center. In a few
locations within the site the storm sewer is open to the environment.
Hydrogeology
In the Turpentine Run basin, two hydraulically interconnected aquifers are present.
Groundwater in both aquifers generally exists under water-table conditions. The groundwater
flow direction is to the south/southeast along the valley gut.
Locally, the primary aquifer is comprised of fractured volcanic rock of the following
formations: Water Island, Louisenhoj, and Cabes Point Conglomerate. Rainfall of at least 2
inches within a 24-hour period is necessary for recharge to occur in upper basin. The
fractured bedrock aquifer is non-homogeneous and anisotropic (i.e., its ability to transmit
water is not equal or similar in all directions).
The secondary aquifer consists of the alluvial deposits in the lower basin. The alluvial
deposits present in the upper basin are very thin (2 to 20 feet thick) and do not constitute an
aquifer capable of supplying useable amounts of water.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANAL.YSIS/«MMmnl.eco/Augu« 23, 1994/day 
10
TUT 
OO7 0761
OVW5 OAT 
JlAY,93 
I PRJCT NO.: PR008.01 
I i-iLE NO.: NUN-CAU
I CHtUHtD:
I APPni/vtU: 
I LiRAFTtH: Ut 
%-n
05*00*
10*25'
18'2O
18*17
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
SCALE: SHOWN
TURPENTINE RUN BASIN
TUTU WELLS SITE
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
2-2
Source: Modified from Figure 1-1 in Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1993a.
TUT 
007 
0762
Groundwater from the site does not appear to discharge to surface waters in the area of
investigation, except for potential episodic discharge to the storm sewer during periods of
high water table.
Soils
At least five different soil types are present at the Tutu Wells site (Rivera, et al., 1970).
The flat lands of the valley areas are composed of Lavallee Gravelly Clay Loam and Glynn
Clay Loam (both soils at two to five percent slopes). Soils of the hilly terrain consist of
Cramer Gravelly Clay Loam (at 12 to 40 percent slopes), and Dorothea Clay Loam (at 20 to
40 percent slopes). The ground water table is reported at a depth of greater than ten feet for
all of these site soils.
2.1.3 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
Information regarding habitat description of the Tutu Wells site area is based upon
observations made during the site visit by CDM Federal personnel in March 1994 and
information provided by local experts (Appendix A) as well as the literature. No previous
written habitat description for the area of the site was available for this EA.
As noted in Section 2.1.1, the site is located along a portion of a major highway and is in a
commercial/industrial zone. As with the majority of St. Thomas, the original habitat no
longer exist due to anthropogenic influences. A portion of the site (perhaps 50%) is covered
in pavement and/or gravel or is occupied by buildings. The rest of the site, and the adjacent
offsite areas, include grasslands (former pasture lands) with scattered patches of secondary
growth of shrubs and trees. This habitat occurs both on the flat land and on the moderate
slopes of the site area. Within the site, the grass is primarily maintained (i.e., mowed). In
general, the vegetation present at the site is introduced and includes dry forest woodland
species (personal communication with T. Thomas, Appendix A). The identity of the
grasses/herbaceous plant species of this habitat were not identified for this EA. Tree and
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/M«™nl.c«>/Aiiiv»t 23, 1994/day 
12
007 
076:
shrub species observed at the site include those species commonly associated with disturbed,
dry conditions (personal communication with T. Thomas, Appendix A):
Scientific Name
Common Name
INDIGENOUS TREES
Acacia tortuosa
Bursera simaruba
Tabebuia heterophylla
Ficus citrifolia
casha
turpentine tree
cedar
weeping fig
INDIGENOUS SHRUBS
Leucaena leucocephala
Capparis flexuosa
tan-tan
limber caper (also small tree)
INTRODUCED (naturalized) TREES
Melicoccus bijugatus
Crescentia cujete
gemp
calabash
Numerous bird species and several lizards (including an iguana and anoles) were observed
onsite during the March 1994 site visit. Wildlife expected to utilize these habitats include
lizards and birds (as observed during the site visit) and may also include snakes, rats
(introduced to the islands), bats, mongoose (introduced to the islands) and white-tailed deer
(introduced to the islands).
Additional offsite habitats exist near the site that may also harbor wildlife species that may
TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/i
.eco,'August 23, 1994/day
13
TUT
OO7
O764
utilize areas within the site. These additional habitats include the heavily vegetated/forested
areas:
• 
To the west of the site, behind the K-Mart shopping center, reportedly
associated with a ponded wetland,
• 
To the south of the site, below (south/southeast of) the Fort Mylner shopping
center along the Turpentine Run basin, and
• 
To the northeast of the site, behind the Tutu Park shopping mall.
No detailed habitat description is available for these areas and access to these areas, other
than the area below the Fort Mylner shopping center, were limited during the site visit.
The aquatic habitat at the site is expected to be essentially non-existent. Onsite, the
Turpentine Run is a culverted storm sewer with minimal access from the above-ground
environment and with intermittent water flow. During the site visit, the only portion of the
storm sewer observed to have access to the outside environment was an open concrete culvert
approximately 10 feet deep and 30 feet long. This open culvert, located along the western
side of route 38 at the Lutheran church, had steep (90° angle) sides and was partially fenced
off. Weedy vegetation and a large tree were present adjacent to the open culvert. The open
culvert appeared to contain less than 2 inches of sediments and water on the cement bottom.
No reports of fauna inhabiting the culverted portion of the Run have been found during the
search for site information.
In the offsite area adjacent to the site, the major aquatic habitat appears to be the unculverted
Turpentine Run below the Fort Mylner shopping center. In this area, the Run is reported to
flow throughout the year. It is reported that wastewater discharge from several wastewater
treatment plants feed into the Run at this point. The upper basin of Turpentine Run was
reported to have had a significant freshwater shrimp and crayfish population in the past,
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me.nml.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 
14
TUT 
007 
0765
however, anthropogenic pollution has greatly reduced the diversity and richness of this Run
(personal communication with H. Wright and with D. Grigg, Appendix A). Cattle egrets
have been observed in this portion of the Run (personal communication with H. Wright,
Appendix A).
2.1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Sources of analytical data for this EA were:
• 
Technical Memorandum II - Results of the Field Program Tutu Service Station
Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, June 1993a).
• 
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal's) Comparison and
Evaluation Report for Groundwater and Soil Split Samples at the Tutu Wells
Site (CDM Federal, June 1993).
• 
CDM Federal's sampling reports for the September 1988 and June 1989
sampling events (CDM Federal, Sampling Trip Report, September 30, 1988
and Data Comparison and Evaluation Report, June 8, 1993).
The March 1994 site visit provided additional, descriptive information used to distinguish
which data were appropriate for evaluation in this EA.
For the purposes of this EA, data from subsurface soils (soil under pavement or from depths
greater than two feet) were not evaluated. These depths are greater than that which are
considered likely for potential contact with ecological receptors (i.e., burrowing animals or
roots of vegetation). Thus, ecological receptors are considered to be isolated from the
contaminants contained in the subsurface soils.
Surface water data were also eliminated from consideration in this EA. Although there is a
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me.m».cco/August 23, 1994/day 
15
TUT
0766
potential for contaminated groundwater to enter into the storm sewer system at the site
(personal communication with T. Danahy, 1994), there is highly limited access to the surface
water onsite (due to the closed culvert system). Off site, in the Turpentine Run below Fort
Mylner shopping center, where the storm sewer waters combines with other branches of the
drainage, other pollutant sources (such as waste water treatment plant discharge, personnal
communication with D. Grigg and with J. Wright, Appendix A) are expected to confound
potential contaminant levels from the site.
Likewise, groundwater data were not used in this EA as ecological receptors are not likely to
consistently contact contaminants associated with the groundwater (thus the exposure to
contaminants from groundwater is not considered to be on the same order of magnitude as
the exposure through other media).
Surface soil data (which is generally collected from zero to two feet below ground surface)
are the only analytical data considered within this EA since surface soil was the only medium
/•""""N 
considered as a source of exposure to ecological receptors. Due to the similarity of habitat
and variety of potential contaminant sources, the surface soil data were considered together
(not placed into discrete property groupings) for this EA.
The following data used in this EA are described below and summarized in Table 2-1.
Surface Soils
Surface soils have been collected at the Tutu Wells site via soil boring, hand augering, and
hand trowelling during the following sampling events.
Eight surface soil samples (SS-1 through SS-8) were collected by Geraghty & Miller from
seven locations in August 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, 1992). These soils were collected by
stainless steel trowel. During this sampling event, eight split surface soil samples collected
by Geraghty & Miller (one at each of the eight sampling locations) and were accepted by
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/aMCMml.cco/August 23, 1994/day 
16
TUT 
OO7 
O767
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF DATA FOR THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TUTU WELLS SITE
Sampling
Grouping
Sample
Depth (feet)
Sample
Identification
Parameters
Analyzed
SURFACE SOIL
Surface soil collected
by trowel
Surface soil collected
from borings by split-
spoon sampler
Surface soil collected by
hand auger
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0.5-1
0.25-1
0-0.5
0.25-1
0.5-1.25
0.5-1.25
0.17-1
0.3-1
0.25-0.75
0-2
0-2
Four sample locations
from August 1992:
SS-31, SS-3-CDM2
SS-4, SS-4-CDM2
SS-5, SS-5-CDM2
SS-6, SS-6-CDM2
SS-6 FR (otherwise known
as SS-7)
Three background
locations from August 1992:
SS-1, SS-l-CDM2
SS-2, SS-2-CDM2
SS-8, SS-8-CDM2
Two sample locations
from August 1992:
B-2, B-13A
One sample, location
from April 1994:
MW-16, MW-16 FR
Thirteen sample
locations from September
1988 and June 1989:
e-01
eC-09s
eC-lOs
eL-02-Ols
eL-02-02s
eL-02-03s
eO-02-01
eO-02-03
eR-02-02s
eR-07s
eR-08s
eTT-14
eTT-15
TCL VOCs,
TCL SVOCs,
TAL Metals
andCN
TAL Metals
and CN
TCL VOCs1,
TCL SVOCs,
TAL Metals
andCN,
TPHs3
TCL VOCs,
TCL SVOCs,
TAL Metals
and CN, TCL
Pest./PCBs,
TPHs5
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/aMe.mnt.eco/Ausu« 23, I994«ay
17
TUT 
007 
0768
TABLE C-2
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS
TUTU WELLS SITE
Page 1 of 3
CHEMICAL
BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR1
EARTHWORM
SMALL
MAMMAL
BIRD
REPTILE/
AMPHIBIAN
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzene
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEMI- VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acenaphthlene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzo(g ,h ,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T(JT 
007 
0769
Page 2 of 3
TABLE C-2
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS
TUTU WELL SITE
CHEMICAL
BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR1
INVERTEBRATE
SMALL
MAMMAL
BIRD
REPTILE
PESTICIDES/PCB'S
Endosulfao I
Aroclor-1242
1
5.822
1
1
1
1
1
1
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
1
1
0.193
1
44
1.263
1
6.835
1
1
1
1.826
1
1
8.327
-
1
1
1
1
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.778
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
TUT 
OO7 
O770
Page 3 of 3
TABLE C-2
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS
TUTU WELL SITE
NR =Not reported.
1 
Bioaccumulation factors were conservatively estimated as 1 when empirical data were
unavailable.
2 
Earthworm bioaccumulation factor values (Diercxsens et al., 1985).
3 
Earthworm bioaccumulation factor values (Beyer and Chromartie, 1987).
4 
Estimation of bioaccumulation factor value for carnivorous invertebrates as reported
in invertebrates (Roberts and Johnson (1978) as reported in Hughes et al., 1980).
5 
Estimation of isopod bioaccumulation factor value (Wieser et al. (1976) as reported in
Hughes et al., 1980).
6 
Earthworm bioaccumulation factor value (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1984).
7 
Estimation of earthworm bioaccmulation factor value (Hughes et al. 1980).
8 
Estimation of bioaccumulation factor values for invertebrate-eating small mammal
(Roberts and Johnson (1978) as reported in Hughes et al., 1980).
TUT 
007 
0771
Page 1 of 6
of £
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzene
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Rat
acute LD50
chronic
NOAEL
subchronic
NOAEL
subchronic
NOAEL
acute LD50
subchronic
NOAEL
acute LD50
chronic
NOAEL
acute LD50
single dose
NR
NR
NR
single dose
6 weeks
single dose
NR
single dose
tremor/convul sion
mortality
birth weight
liver and kidney
liver toxicity
NR
liver toxicity
mortality
liver and kidney
liver/kidney/ureter/
bladder, mortality
930 mg/kg
1771
mg/kg/day
136
mg/kg/day
5.85
mg/kg/day
1600 mg/kg
14
mg/kg/day
7617 mg/kg
223
mg/kg/day
4300 mg/kg
RTECS, 1993
IRIS, 1993
IRIS, 1993
IRIS, 1994
RTECS, 1994
IRIS, 1994
RTECS, 1993
IRIS, 1993
RTECS, 1993
lizard-93
hawk-93
lizard- 177.1
hawk- 177.1
lizard- 13. 6
hawk- 13. 6
lizard-0.59
hawk-0.59
lizard-3.2
hawk-3.2
lizard- 1.4
hawk- 1.4
lizard- 15. 23
hawk-15.23
lizard-22.3
hawk-22.3
lizard-8.6
hawk-8.6
TUT 
007 
077'?
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
Page 2 u/6
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acenaphthene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzole Acid
Benzo(g , h , i)pery lene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-
ethy 1 hexy l)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
NA
NA
Mouse
NA
Mouse
Rat
NA
Rat
NA
NA
acute LD50
NA
chronic
NOAEL
chronic
NOAEL
NA
chronic
NOAEL
NA
NA
single dose
NA
NR
I year
NA
NR
NA
NA
gastrointestinal and
respiratory effects
NA
NR
NR
NA
mortality
NA
NA
1940 mg/kg
NA
30 mg/kg
1300
mg/kg/day
NA
125
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
RTECS, 1994
NA
USEPA, 1980
Krauskopf,
1973
NA
IRIS, 1993
NA
NA
lizard-3.9
hawk-3.9
NA
lizard-3
hawk-3
lizard- 130
hawk- 130
NA
lizard- 12. 5
hawk- 12.5
-ic
O
••4
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
Page 3 1
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS (Cont'd)
2,4 Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
NA
NA
NA
Rat
Mouse
chronic
NOAEL
chronic
NOAEL
chronic
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
acute LD50
chronic
NOAEL
90 days
13 weeks
13 weeks
NA
NA
NA
single dose
13 weeks
blood changes
and lethargy
kidney effects
blood changes
NA
NA
NA
behavioral
kidney effects
50 mg/kg/day
125
mg/kg/day
125
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
317 mg/kg
75 mg/kg/day
IRIS, 1994
IRIS, 1994
IRIS, 1994
NA
NA
NA
RTECS, 1994
IRIS, 1994
lizard-9
hawk-9
lizard- 12.5
hawk- 12.5
lizard- 12.5
hawk-12.5
NA
NA
NA
lizard-0.634
hawk-0.634
lizard-7.5
hawk-7.5
cH
O
'xi
•si
•*>
Page 4 w/ 6
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Aroclor-1242
Endosulfan I
Mink
Duck
acute LD50
acute LD50
single dose
single dose
mortality
NR
3000 mg/kg
33 mg/kg
Eisler, 1986b
RTECS, 1994
lizard-6
hawk-6
lizard-0.07
hawk-0.07
-4r~
o
ff
~
•"-4-4
01
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
Page 5 of 6
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (CR+3)
Chromium (CR+6)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
NA
NA
California
Quail
NA
Mallard
Rat
Black
duck
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acute LD50
NA
chronic
NOAEL
chronic LOAEL
chronic
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
single dose
NA
90 days
840 days
5 months
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mortality
NA
NR
various effects
growth patterns altered
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.6 mg/kg
NA
200
mg/kg/day
1468
mg/kg/day
8 mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Eisler, 1988a
NA
Eisler, 1985
IRIS, 1993
Eisler, 1986a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
lizard-0.1
hawk-0.2
NA
lizard-20
hawk-40
lizard-146.8
hawk- 146. 8
lizard-0.8
hawk- 1.6
NA
NA
NA
"t"ur
oo?
Page L .76
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF INGESTION TOXICITY DATA
TUTU WELLS SITE
CHEMICAL
SPECIES
TEST
ENDPOINT
DURATION
MEASURED
EFFECT
REPORTED
VALUE
REFERENCE
RTV
(mg/kg/day)
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS (Cont'd)
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vandium
Zinc
Cyanide
Sheep
Rat
Rat
NA
NA
NA
Rat
chronic
NOAEL
acute LD50
chronic
NOAEL
NA
NA
NA
chronic
NOAEL
NR
single dose
NR
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NRA
organ/body weight
NA
NA
NA
various effects
5 mg/kg/day
9000 mg/kg
5 mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
10.8
mg/kg/day
Eisler, 1988b
RTECS, 1994
IRIS, 1993
NA
NA
NA
IRIS, 1993
lizard-0.5
hawk-0.5
lizard- 18
hawk- 18
lizard-0.5
hawk-0.5
NA
NA
NA
lizard- 1.08
hawk- 1.08
RTV = Reference Toxicity Value
NR 
= Details not reported
NA 
= Data not available
T!~IT 
007 
0777
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF DATA FOR THE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TUTU WELLS SITE
(CONTINUED)
CN 
denotes cyanide
Pest/PCBs 
denotes pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyls
SVOCs 
denotes semivolatile compounds
TAL 
denotes USEPA Target Analyte List
TCL 
denotes USEPA Target Compound List
VOCs 
denotes volatile compounds
1 
Additional volatile compound list analyzed: 1,2-dibromoethane, tertiary-butyl methyl
ether, n-propylbenzene.
2 
Split sample accepted by CDM Federal.
3 
Soil samples B-2, MW-16, and MW-16 FR only.
4 
Soil samples eL-02-Ols, eL-02-02s, eL-02-03s, eO-02-01, eO-02-03, and eR-02-02s
only.
5 
Soil samples eO-02-01 and eO-02-03 were analyzed twice for TPH.
TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/,
.eco/August 23, 1994/day
18
TUT
007 
077S
CDM Federal for analysis. Surface soil samples collected at locations SS-1, SS-2, and SS-8
were analyzed for TAL metals and cyanide only and are considered background samples.
Several surface soil samples were collected by Geraghty & Miller during a soil investigation
to identify source areas of petroleum hydrocarbon products and selected chlorinated
compounds. Surface soil samples were collected from borings made during August 1992.
The soil samples applicable to this EA are the surface soil samples (0-2 foot depth) from soil
borings B-2 and B-13A.
Surface soil samples were collected by CDM Federal in September 1988 and June 1989 by
hand auger. Seven of the nine surface soil samples collected during the September 1988
sampling event can be used as surface soil data:
Sample 
General Location
e-01 
O'Henry dry cleaners
eR-07s, eR-08s 
Ramsay motor company
eC-09s, eC-lOs 
Antilles auto parts
eTT-14, eTT-15 
Tillett Gardens
Two soil samples collected at the Texaco gas station (eT-02s and eT-02sd) can no longer be
considered as surface soil, as the sample locations were observed to be paved over during a
recent site visit (March 1994).
Six surface soil samples were collected during the June 1989 sampling event:
Sample 
General Location
eO-02-01, eO-02-03 
O'Henry dry cleaners
eL-02-Ols, eL-02-02s, eL-02-03s 
Curriculum center building
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Mc«nnt.eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 
19
TUT 
007 
0779
eR-02-02s 
Ramsay motor company
These samples were collected at various depths (up to two feet) and for numerous analytes,
refer to Table 2-1.
Several surface soil samples were collected from one location (MW-16) by Geraghty &
Miller during the installation of additional monitoring wells. Surface soil samples were
collected from borings made during April 1994. These soil samples, MW-16 and MW-
16FR, were collected from the following depths: 0-2 feet for VOCs and 0-3 feet for all
other parameters.
Analytical results for site surface soil are summarized in Table 2-2 and includes a number of
organic and inorganic analytes. Analytical results for surface soils considered background
are summarized in Table 2-3 and includes only two inorganic analytes.
Prior to the tabulation of data, results were averaged for surface soil locations with duplicate
and/or split sample results. Sample locations that were affected included SS-3, SS-4, SS-5,
and SS-6. Results were averaged in the following manner:
• 
If both results were not detected values, the "non-detect" results were
averaged.
• 
If both results were detected values, the results were averaged unless one of
the results was 2.5 times or greater than the other. In that instance, the larger
value was used.
• 
If one of the results had been rejected (i.e., qualified with an "R"), the value
for the non-rejected result was used.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMMmnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
20
TUT 
OO7 
078O
8/12/94
SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS
.ABLE 2-2
DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
P.1 of 3
QO
-4
CHEMICALS
VOCs (ug/kg>
Melhylene Chloride
2-Butanone
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
4-MeIhyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
XylenesfTotal)
SVOCs (ug/kg>
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphlhalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Frequency of
Detection
1/16
1/17
2/19
2/19
2/19
1/19
5/19
5/19
5/19
9/20
2/12
1/12
1/12
1/12
1/7
3/13
2/13
1/13
1/13
3/13
2/13
3/13
1/13
1/13
2/13
2/13
3/13
Range of Detected Concentrations
Minimum 
- 
Maximum
...
...
1.0J
6.0 J
8.0 J
...
15
2.0 J
3.0 J
1.0 J
39 NJ
...
...
...
—
4100
750 J
—
...
52 J
100 J
76 J
—
—
84J
270 J
82 J
1.0J
44.5 J
65 J
45 J
33 J
55 J
440000
1300
2100
5600
900000
320000
1300000 J
42000 J
63 JN
7700 J
6100
190 J
420 J
9400 J
740 J
2000
59 J
5400
870 J
770 J
430 J
Location of
Maximum
MWS-16-AVD
SS-3-AVS
SS-3-AVS
6C-10S
eC-10S
eR-07S
e-01
eC-10S
eC-10S
eC-10S
eL-02-01S
eL-02-01S
eL-02-01S
eL-02-018
SS-6-AVS
eL-02-01S
eR-02-02S
eR-02-025
eR-02-02S
SS-3-AVS
eR-02-02S
eR-02-02S
SS-5-AVS
eR-02-02S
eR-02-028
eR-02-02S
eR-02-02S
Range of Non-Detect Concentrations
Minimum
8UJ
11 UJ
6.0 U
6.0 U
11 U
11 U
6.0 U
6.0 U
6.0 U
6.0 UJ
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
1800 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
34J
350 U
350 U
350 U
136 UBJ
350 U
350 U
350 U
Maximum
14000 UB
11000U
14000 U
14000 U
27000 U
27000 U
880 U
14000 UJ
14000UJ
14000 UJ
11000 UJ
11000UJ
11000UJ
11000 UJ
380000 U
1300 UJ
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
8/12/94
SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS
TAE>, 
,4 , Continued
P.2 of 3
DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
N)
CHEMICALS
Frequency of
Detection
Range of Detected Concentrations
Minimum 
Maximum
Location of
Maximum
Range of Non-Detect Concentrations
Minimum
Maximum
PESTICIDES/PCBs fuo/kal
Endosulfan 1
Aroclor-1242
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide, total
1/13
1/13
and CYANIDE (mo/kc^
3/7
1/7
2/7
3/7
4/7
1/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
4/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
7/7
6/7
2/7
3/7
3/7
1/7
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH)
TPH
9/15
_.
...
21100
—
2.1
33.9 B
0.19 B
...
47200
23.6
16.3
52
29400
3.1
17100
834
14.7
125.25 B
0.75 BJ
319 B
83.1
52.0
—
(mg/kg)
15.70J
92
1 20000 J
27350
5.90 BJ
13.7
67.2
0.27 B
0.7 B
73200'
42.2 J
25.55 J
108.7
38400
86.35 SJ
23550
872
21.7
7625 UJ
2.2 J
470 B
119
108
1.1
23400
eL-02-01S
eTT-15S
MWS-16-AVD
B-2
B-13A
B-2
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
B-13A
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
B-2
SS-5-AVS
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
SS-3-AVS
B-2
B-13A
B-2
B-2
B-2
eR-02-02S
9U
90U
21300
4.08 UBNJ
1.46UBWJ
44.20 UB
0.18 U
0.48 U
35900
19.93UNJ
13.85 
UJ
54.95 UJ
27725 J
11.30J
9742.50 J
699.50 UJ
11.50 
UJ
—
_.
273.25 UBJ
72.65 UNJ
95.75 UJ
0.53 U
0.17 J
1700UJ
1100UJ
26950
6.35 UBNJ
18.65 
UJ
96.25 U
0.23 UJ
0.7 U
56050
33.95 UNJ
22.75 UJ
79.65 UNJ
48800
19.95J
18900
886 U
18.15 
U
...
0.64 U
488.50 UB
96.50 UNJ
318
0.64 U
1.93J
•••1
8/12/94
SUMM-SSS-TUTU.XLS
TAL
, Continued
DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
P. 3 of 3
Sample Group for VOCs:
B-2
B-13A
MWS-16-AVD
e-01
eC-09S
eC-10S
eL-02-01S
eL-02-02S
eL-02-03S
eO-02-01
eO-02-03
eR-07S
eR-088
eR-02-028
eTT-14S
6TT-15S
SS-3-AVS
SS-4-AVS
SS-5-AVS
SS-6-AVS
Sample Group for SVOCs:
Sample Group for Peslicides/PCBs:
Sample Group for TPH:
B-2
B-13A
MWS-16-AVD
?CBs;
and Cyanide:
B-2
MWS-16-AVD
e-01
eL-02-01S
eL-02-02S
eL-02-03S
e-01
eC-09S
eC-10S
B-2
B-13A
eC-09S
eC-10S
eO-02-01
eO-02-03
eR-02-023
eL-02-013
eL-02-023
eL-02-033
MWS-16-AVD
eL-02-01S
eL-02-023
eL-02-03S
SS-3-AVS
SS-4-AVS
eO-02-01
eO-02-03
SS-3-AVS
SS-4-AVS
eO-02-01
eO-02-03
SS-5-AVS
SS-6-AVS
eR-07S
eR-083
eR-02-02s
SS-5-AVS
SS-6-AVS
eR-07S
eR-08S
eR-02-02s
eTT-143
eTT-153
eTT-143
eTT-153
NOTE: Two TPH result values were reported for eO-02-01 and eO-02-03. The two values were averaged to create the representative result for
the two samples.
EPA Data Qualifiers:
U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected
J - Estimated value
B - For organic parameters:
Compound found in the associated blank as well as in the sample
For inorganic parameters:
Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to the
Instrument Detection Limit
N - Presumptive evidence of a compound
S - The reported value was determined to by the Method of Standard Additions
W - Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance
* - Duplicate analysis not within control limits
7/15/94
SUMM-BSS-TUTU.XLS
1
E2-3
DATA SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS IN SURFACE SOILS CONSIDERED BACKGROUND
TUTU WELLS SITE
P.1 of 1
to
Frequency of 
Range of Detected Concentrations 
Location of
Detection 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Maximum
Range of Non-Delect Concentrations
Minimum 
Maximum
CHEMICALS
INORGANICS and CYANIDE lmg/ka>
Beryllium 
3/3
Silver
2/3
0.16 B
1.44B
0.24 B
1.60 B
SS-8-AVS
SS-2-AVS
1.33UJ
Sample Group:
SS-1-AVS, SS-2-AVS, SS-8-AVS
EPA Data Qualifiers:
U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected
J - Estimated value
B - Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to
the Instrument Detection Limit
CD
• 
When one of the results was a non-detected result and the other a detected result, the
average of the sum of the detected result plus half the non-detected result was used,
unless half of the non-detected result was greater than the detected value. In this
instance, only the value of the detected result was used.
Additionally, the results were adjusted to account for the results of blank samples (i.e., trip
blanks and field blanks) in accordance with the EPA guidance Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Interim Final), OSWER Directive
9285.7-Ola, September 29, 1989. Briefly, the procedure used to account for contaminants
found in blanks is twofold:
• 
The concentration of the parameter detected in the blank is multiplied by a
factor of five (a parameter that is not considered by EPA to -be a common
laboratory contaminant) or ten times (a parameter that is considered by EPA to
be common laboratory contaminant). This is the blank comparison value.
• 
This value is then compared to the detected sample results for that parameter.
If a sample result value is less than the blank comparison value, then that
parameter is now considered not detected for that particular sample and the
blank-related concentration of the chemical is considered the new sample
quantitation limit.
Site surface soil samples were analyzed, for TCL organic compounds, TAL inorganic
analytes and cyanide, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, although not all samples for all
analytes (Table 2-2). Ten VOCs were detected in site surface soils. Detected concentrations
range from approximately 1.0 to 440,000 micrograms/kilogram (/ig/kg). Detection
frequencies ranged from approximately 6 (1/16) to 45 percent (9/20).
Seventeen SVOCs were detected in site surface soils. Detected concentrations ranged from
nearly 40 to 1,300,000 fj.g/kg. 
Detection frequencies for SVOCs were from approximately 8
TUTU WELLFIFJT) PATHWAY ANALYSIS/MwramLcco/August 23, 1994/day 
25
TUT 
007 
0785
(1/13) to 23 percent (3/13).
One pesticide, Endosulfan I, was detected at a concentration of 92 jtg/kg and at only one
location of thirteen surface soil sample locations (detection frequency of approximately 8
percent).
One PCS congener, Aroclor-1242, was detected at a concentration of 120,000 Mg/kg, and at
only one location of thirteen surface soil sample locations (detection frequency of
approximately 8 percent).
Twenty TAL inorganics and cyanide were detected in site surface soils. Concentrations of
the inorganic analytes ranged from 0.19 to 73,200 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The
detection frequencies for the inorganic analytes ranged from approximately 14 (1/7) to 100
percent (7/7). Cyanide was detected in only one surface soil location where was tested for
(detection frequency of 1/7) and at a concentration of 1.1 mg/kg.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at eight of the fifteen surface soil locations
where it was tested for and at a concentration ranging from 15.7 to 23,400 mg/kg.
Surface soil samples considered as background were analyzed for TAL inorganic analytes
and cyanide. As presented in Table 2-3, two TAL inorganic analytes, beryllium and silver,
were detected in the background surface soil. Beryllium was detected in all of the
background surface soil locations (detection frequency of 3/3) at a concentration range of
0.16 to 0.24 mg/kg. Silver was detected at a frequency of approximately 67 percent (2/3) at
a concentration range of 1.44 to 1.6 mg/kg.
2.2 
SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The selection of chemicals of potential concern (COCs) is used to narrow the focus of the
ecological risk assessment. The selection process serves to identify dominant site risk and to
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/«MC«nnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/d.y 
26
TUT 
OO7 
O736
guide future remediation selection decisions. The selection process used was based upon
methodology present in EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGs). Volume II:
Ecological Evaluation Manual (USEPA, 1989). The selection process for each compound
involved:
• 
Evaluation of detection frequency, maximum, and range of concentrations;
• 
Comparison to background concentrations;
• 
Comparison to applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs);
• 
Evaluation of physical/chemical properties; and,
• 
Consideration of potential toxicity.
The COC selection process is discussed further below.
2.2.1 
DETECTION FREQUENCY
Chemicals not detected in the sampled media at frequencies greater than five percent (i.e.,
one detection per twenty samples) may be eliminated from the COC selection process as the
likelihood of receptor exposure to these chemicals is considered remote.
Due to the small number of site surface soil samples collected and subsequently analyzed, no
chemicals were detected at frequencies of five percent or less.
2.2.2 
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
As discussed in Section 2.1.4, a limited number of samples were obtained from locations
considered to be upgradient of the Tutu Wells site contamination. These locations provided
background site surface soil inorganic analyte levels for this Endangerment Assessment. In
this EA, Inorganic analyte concentrations detected from the Tutu Wells site that were within
two times the detected background concentrations were not considered as potential COCs.
TUTU WELLJTELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Mcamnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
27
TUT
After comparison with the background sample analytes, both beryllium and silver were
considered to have been detected at background levels in the site surface soils. Thus,
beryllium and silver have been removed from consideration as potential COCs.
2.2.3 ARARS AND MEDIA QUALITY GUIDELINES
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are those standards or
limitations which specifically address media and chemical contaminants that may require
remediation and regulations that may apply to remedial action.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) and Section 121 (d) of CERCLA (cleanup standard)
requires that the selected remedial actions at Superfund sites attain or exceed ARARs of
Federal laws and more stringent promulgated state laws.
The EPA divides ARARs into three categories: chemical-specific, location-specific, and
action-specific. This distinction is based on whether the requirement is triggered by the
presence or emission of a chemical, by a sensitive or protected location, or by a particular
remedial action, respectively.
Chemical-specific ARARs are useful in identifying chemicals that may pose ecological risks
and require remediation. Chemical-specific requirements set concentration limits or ranges
in various environmental medial for specific hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. These requirements may present protective levels for designated media.
Chemical-specific Federal and Territorial ARARs relating to the protection of ecological
inhabitants have been evaluated in this EA. These ARARs exist for surface water only, thus
will not be considered in this EA.
Ecologically-based Federal or Territorial criteria/guidance values do not currently exist for
chemicals in soil. Thus, no surface soil COCs were eliminated from consideration due to
ARARs.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/iMe.mnl.cco/Augu« 23, 1994/day 
28
TUT 
007 
0788
^-^ 
2.2.4 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTICS
In a preliminary assessment of ecological toxicity characteristics for the list of chemicals in
site surface soils, databases/literature (as described in Section 4.0) containing
ecotoxicological data were checked. No data on the adverse effects of 2-hexanone and 2-
methylnaphthalene were located. Additionally, no data were found for the adverse effects of
the essential nutrients calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Due to the lack of ecotoxicity
data for these chemicals, and thus their expected lack of contribution to the risk at this site,
these chemicals were removed from consideration as potential COCs.
Due to the make-up and complex nature of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), the toxicity
of TPHs were evaluated via the compounds xylenes, benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene
(common constituents of TPHs).
2.2.5 FINAL COC SELECTION
Chemicals of potential concern for this Tutu Wells site EA surface soils were determined to
include VOCs, SVOCs, a pesticide, a PCB congener, inorganic analytes, and cyanide.
These COCs are provided in Table 2-4.
2.3 
RECEPTOR SPECIES AND ENDPOINTS
Indicator species for the ecological assessment were chosen to be representative of trophic
levels and habitats at and surrounding the Tutu Wells site. The selection was based on an
integration of the types and distribution of COCs, habitats, range and feeding habits of
potential ecological receptors, and relationships between the observed/expected species in the
area of concern. Other considerations in receptor species selection included species that may
have beneficial uses to humans and species that are of Trustee or regulatory concerns.
Selected indictor species, their habitats, diet, and trophic levels are presented below.
/"—N
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/iMe«mnl.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
29
TUT 
007 
0789
8/12/94
SSS-COC-TUTU.XLS
IBLE 2-4
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
P.1 of 3
r~
H
O
••-.I
CHEMICALS
VOCs (ua/ka)
Methylene Chloride
2-Butanone
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
4-Melhyl-2-penlanone
Telrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
XylenesfTolal)
SVOCs (uq/kcrt
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethytphenol
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Di-n-bulylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Frequency of
Detection
1/16
1/17
2/19
2/19
2/19
5/19
5/19
5/19
9/20
2/12
1/12
1/12
1/12
1/7
3/13
1/13
1/13
3/13
2/13
3/13
1/13
1/13
2/13
2/13
3/13
Range of Detected Concentrations
Minimum 
- 
Maximum
...
...
1.0 J
6.0 J
8.0 J
15
2.0 J
3.0 J
1.0 J
39 NJ
...
—
...
...
4100
—
_.
52 J
100 J
76 J
...
—
84J
270 J
82 J
1.0 J
44.5 J
65 J
45 J
33 J
440000
1300
2100
5600
900000
320000
1 300000 J
42000 J
63 JN
7700 J
190 J
420 J
9400 J
740 J
2000
59 J
5400
870 J
770 J
430 J
Location of
Maximum
MWS-16-AVD
SS-3-AVS
SS-3 AVS
eC-10S
eC-10S
8-01
eC-10S
eC-10S
eC-10S
eL-02-01S
eL-02-013
eL-02013
eL-02013
SS-6-AVS
eL-02-013
eR-02-023
eR-02-02S
SS-3-AVS
eR-02-02S
eR-02-02S
SS-5-AVS
eR-02-02S
eR-02-023
eR-02-023
eR-02-02S
Range of Non-Detect Concentrations
Minimum
8UJ
11 UJ
6.0 U
6.0 U
11 U
6.0 U
6.0 U
6.0 U
6.0 UJ
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
1800 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
34J
350 U
350 U
350 U
136 UBJ
350 U
350 U
350 U
Maximum
14000 UB
11000U
14000 U
14000 U
27000 U
880 U
14000UJ
14000UJ
14000UJ
11000UJ
11000UJ
11000UJ
11000UJ
380000 U
1300UJ
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
78000 U
•43
r~
•-4
8/12/94
SSS-COC-TUTU.XLS
TAbi-c 2-4 , Continued
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
P.2 of 3
CHEMICALS
PESTICIDES/PCBs (uq/kert
Endosulfan 1
Frequency of
Detection
1/13
Range of Detected Concentrations
Minimum
Aroclor-1242 
1/13
INORGANICS and CYANIDE (mo/kal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide, total
3/7
1/7
2/7
3/7
1/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
3/7
4/7
3/7
3/7
2/7
3/7
3/7
1/7
21100
2.1
33.9 B
...
23.6
16.3
52
29400
3.1
834
14.7
319 B
83.1
52.0
...
Maximum
92
120000 J
27350
5.9 BJ
13.7
67.2
0.7 B
42.2 J
25.55 J
108.7
38400
86.35 SJ
872
21.7
470 B
119
108
1.1
Location of
Maximum
eL-02-01S
eTT-15S
MWS-16-AVD
B-2
B-13A
B2
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
B2
SS-5-AVS
MWS-16-AVD
MWS-16-AVD
B-13A
B2
B2
B2
Range of Non-Detect Concentrations
Minimum
9U
90U
21300
4.08 UBNJ
1 .46 UBWJ
44 2 UB
0.48 U
19.93UNJ
13.85 UJ
54.95 UJ
27725 J
11.3J
699.5 UJ
11.5 UJ
273.25 UBJ
72.65 UNJ
95.75 UJ
0.53 U
Maximum
1700UJ
1100UJ
26950
6.35 UBNJ
18.65 UJ
96.25 U
0.7 U
33.95 UNJ
22.75 UJ
79.65 UNJ
48800
19.95J
886 U
18.15 U
488.50 UB
96.50 UNJ
318
0.64 U
-4
-0
r*
8/12/94 
T,. .A 2-4 , Continued 
P. 3 of 3
SSSCOCTUTU.XLS
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SITE SURFACE SOILS
TUTU WELLS SITE
EPA Data Qualifiers:
U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected
J - Estimated value
B - For organic parameters:
Compound found in the associated blank as well as in the sample
For inorganic parameters:
Reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to the
Instrument Detection Limit
N - Presumptive evidence of a compound
S - The reported value was determined to by the Method of Standard Additions
W - Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is less than 50% of spike absorbance
' - Duplicate analysis not within control limits
—icH
O
X!
X!
-0
M
Endpoints define the environmental values to be protected and form the basis of what
constitutes adverse health effects for ecological receptors in this assessment. Assessment
endpoints selected for this EA are described in Section 2.3.2.
2.3.1 
RECEPTOR SPECIES
Selection of site receptors as a subset of all potential ecological receptors at the site, is an
important part of the EA. Since it is not feasible to evaluate every species which may be
impacted, the selection of indicator species is an accepted step to focus the EA and allow for
characterization of site risk. Receptor selection is guided by the results of the site habitat
characterization, resident species information and the following selection criteria.
Consideration should be given to:
• 
Receptors having economic and/or cultural value, such as game birds or game
fish;
• 
Species of statutory concern (such as Trustee species and those protected under
Federal/state/territorial law);
• 
Rare, threatened, or endangered species; and
• 
Receptors which represent site trophic levels (to assess food chain impact and
potential concern for bioaccumulation).
In addition to the considerations presented above, receptor species should meet the following
additional guidelines to allow for quantification of impacts at hazardous waste site:
•Habitat Suitability. Species chosen as receptors should inhabit habitats as found onsite
and/or within the area of impact. Adequate habitat must be available for species
consideration.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/a«»«ninl.eoo/AupMt 23, 1994/day 
33
TUT 
007 
0793
•Occurrence. Species chosen as receptors should have been observed (or expected to occur)
with some frequency on-site or within the area of site impact.
•Home Range. Species chosen as receptors should have limited ranges (largely confined to
the area impacted). Species with large ranges or migrants reduce or eliminate the ability to
attribute risk to site-related contamination.
Receptor species selected for the EA were chosen to be representative of trophic levels and
habitats of the Tutu Wells site.
Endangered. Threatened or Special Concern Species
The status of threatened, endangered, or special concern flora and fauna at and within the
vicinity of the Tutu Wells site was investigated by consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Caribbean Field Office has identified two
endangered species that may occur within the area of the site, Appendix B. These
endangered species include one tree species and one reptile species, respectively:
Common name 
Scientific name
St. Thomas prickly ash 
Zanthoxylum thomasianum
Virgin Island tree boa 
Epicrates monensis granti
Additionally, the endangered species coordinator for the St. Thomas Division of Fish and
Wildlife was able to provide an additional list of endangered animals which he believed had
the potential to be found in the Upper Turpentine Run basin/Tutu area. The list is composed
of five bird species and two bat species and is as follows:
Common name 
Scientific name
Antillean mango 
Anthracothorax dominicus
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/Kwe.mnt.eco/Au«u»t 23, 1994/day 
34
TUT 
OO7 
O794
Great (common) egret 
Casmerodius albus
Snowy egret 
Egretta thula
Brown-throated parakeet 
Aratinga pertinax
Bridled quail dove 
Geotrygon mystacea
Red fruit bat 
Stenoderma rufiim
Cave bat 
Brachyphylla cavernarum
Receptor Species
As discussed in Section 2.1.3, birds and reptiles were observed to utilize the site habitat and
additional wildlife species at the site may include snakes, rodents (rats), bats, mongoose, and
white-tailed deer.
Receptor species were selected to represent the habitat and trophic levels of the Tutu Wells
site. Two receptor species were chosen for the Tutu Wells site, in order to assess the
potential adverse ecological risk of site chemicals in the surface soil. These are the red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the anole lizard (Anolis sp.).
The red-tailed hawk was selected as an indicator species because it is expected to utilize all
of the onsite habitat, is reported to be a year round resident of the Virgin Islands, and will
assist in accessing contaminant bioaccumulation effects (as this species represents a higher
trophic level). This species represents a secondary and tertiary consumer for the avian
community for Tutu Wells site habitats.
The anole was chosen as an indicator species due to its wide expected usage of the onsite
habitat, limited home range, diet of invertebrates, and its position at the base of the
terrestrial foodchain. This species represents a secondary reptilian consumer within the Tutu
Wells site.
/*""N
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/«Me»mnl.eco/August 23, !994/d»y 
35
TUT 
007 
0795
The following are receptor profiles:
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Habitat: 
Mixed landscape, preferring old fields, pastures, and wetlands interspersed
with woodland groves, bluffs, and streamside trees (USEPA, 1993).
Home:
Weight:
192-1376 acres (approximately 78-556 hectares) (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986)
1-1.2 kg (Johnsgard, 1990)
Red-tailed hawks feed primarily on small rodents (Bull and Farrand, Jr. 1977),
but will vary foods depending upon availability as this species is opportunistic
and will feed on whatever species are most abundant (USEPA, 1993). Red-
tailed hawks are generally territorial during the breeding period for migratory
birds and all year for resident birds. Red-tailed hawk territories may range in
size from one-half a square mile to greater than two square miles, depending
upon the food resources and number of perching/nesting sites (Stokes and
Stokes, 1989).
Anole (Anolis sp.)
Habitat: 
General preference for shrubs and trees.
Home: 
Details not found. Estimated as approximately the territorial size reported for
Anolis sagrei of 400 square feet (approximately 0.0037 hectares) (Milstead,
1967).
Weight:
Inferred from Ruibal et al. (1972) as 0.005 kg.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/aMeMmtt.cco/August 23, 1994/day
36
TUT 
OO7 
0796
Anoles are diurnal and arboreal, yet they also forage on the ground. Their
food consists primarily of insects and spiders (Connant, 1958).
Five species of anoles have been reported as inhabiting the Virgin Islands
(Schwartz and Henderson, 1985), three of which (Anolis pulchellus, A.
statulus, and A. cristatellus) have been reported on St. Thomas (Schwartz and
Thomas, 1975).
2.3.2 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
For this EA, endpoints used to evaluate potential ecological impacts were benchmark toxicity
values from the literature. Individual toxicity endpoints such as survival, reproductive
effects, and growth impacts were considered.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/a»«e«mnt.eco/Augu«l 23, 1994/day 
37
TUT 
OO7 
O797
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the potential for receptor exposure to chemical
constituents at the site. This evaluation involves the identification of contaminant exposure
pathways that may be of concern for ecological receptors and the determination of the
magnitude of exposure to selected ecological receptors.
3.1 
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
An environmental exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are transported
from a source to ecological receptors. As described in Section 2.1.4 of this report, site-
related chemicals of potential concern have been detected in the surface soils of the Tutu
Wells site.
Direct ecological exposure pathways to chemicals of the Tutu Wells site within the
groundwater, surface water and subsurface soils are not considered to exist, since receptor
contact is either absent or quite limited. The important exposure pathway to ecological
receptors is that involving surface soil. Ecological receptors are those that are likely to be
exposed to chemicals in surface soil onsite. Direct exposure may occur through absorption
upon contact and through incidental ingestion of contaminated food items. Indirect exposure
may occur through the ingestion of contaminated food items.
3.2 
FOOD WEB
Several of the Tutu Wells site COCs, such as the PCB congener and some inorganics, have
the potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food web. The food web is,
therefore, a means of exposure for higher feeding (trophic) level to these COCs. A
simplified hypothetical terrestrial food web displays suspected exposure relations for the Tutu
Wells site and is presented in Figure 3-1.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/Mranml-eco/AuguM 23, 1994/day 
38
TUT 
OO7 
0798
FIGURE 3-1
CONCEPTUAL FOOD WEB OF THE TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE
PATHWAYS AT THE TUTU WELLS SITE
c
-?
o
-0
BIRDS OF PREY
'Red-Tailed Hawk
SMALL MAMMALS
(ex., rodents)
BIRDS
REPTILES
*Anole
I
INVERTEBRATES
(ex., beetles, earthworms,
other insects)
VEGETATION
(ex., fruit, seeds)
I
SURFACE SOILS
Target Species
Pathways of Primary Concern
3.3 
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Exposure scenarios were constructed for receptor species selected for Tutu Wells site COCs.
Factors taken into consideration in the selection of scenarios were the spatial and temporal
variations in exposure, mechanisms of migration, points of exposure, behavioral
characteristics and trophic relationships. Table 3-1 presents these scenarios and includes the
likelihood of individual receptor exposure for the surface soil exposure pathway. The
following exposure routes will be evaluated in this EA:
Anole (lizard')
• Incidental ingestion of soil
• Ingestion of foodstuffs
Red-tailed Hawk
• Incidental ingestion of soil
• Ingestion of prey
3.4 
EXPOSURE DOSE ESTIMATION
This subsection discussed the methods by which chemical exposures are estimated for the
terrestrial target species. The models used to estimate exposure doses, in milligrams of
chemical intake per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day), are presented here.
The level of potential dietary exposure (PDE) was determined by multiplying the estimated
contaminant concentration in food items by the portion of the food item in the diet, summing
these values, including soil exposure, and multiplying the summed value by the receptor
species site foraging frequency (SFF). The following equation expresses the method of PDE
determination:
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/I
..cco/Augmt 23, 1994/day
40
TUT 
OO7
osoo
TABLE 3-1
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
TUTU WELLS SITE
Exposure Pathway
Chemicals of Potential
Concern1
Target Receptor
Anole
Red-Tailed Hawk
SURFACE SOIL
Absorption
Ingestion
Food Web
Transfer
VOCs
SVOCs
Endosulfan I
Pesticides
Aroclor-1242
VOCs
SVOCs
Endosulfan I
Pesticides
Aroclor-1242
Inorganics
Aroclor-1242
Inorganics
Moderate:
Frequent
Contact
Moderate:
Incidental while
foraging
High:
Forages primarily
on terrestrial
invertebrates
Low:
Infrequent
Contact
Moderate:
Incidental while
foraging
High:
Forages primarily
on terrestrial prey
"Low" denotes infrequent probability of exposure, due to habitat requirements and/or
receptor behavior.
"Moderate" denotes probability of exposure occasional, due to limited migration and/or
foraging range.
"High" denotes high probability of exposure due to frequency of contact and/or extent of
foraging opportunities largely confined to site.
'Refer to Section 2.2.4 of text for complete COC listings.
41
TUT
GO 7
PDE 
= 
[Pj x Q + P2 x C2 + Pn x Cn + SE] x SFF
Where 
PDE 
= 
potential dietary exposure (mg/chemical/kg diet)
Pn 
= 
percent of diet for food item n
Cn 
= 
chemical concentration of food item n (mg chemical/kg
diet), calculated by multiplying the soil chemical
concentration by a bioaccumulation factor.
SE 
= 
soil exposure (mg/soil/kg diet), calculated by soil
chemical concentration by 0.05
SFF 
= 
Site Foraging Frequency (unitless), calculated by the area
of contaminated soil (hectares) within the home range
(hectares)
The percent of the receptor diet that a specific prey item represents is given in Table C-l, of
Appendix C.
To be conservative, the soil chemical concentration used for the dietary exposure
determination was the maximum concentration detected in site soil samples (as given in Table
2-2).
The contaminant concentration of a food item (CJ was calculated by multiplying the soil
contaminant concentration by the food group-specific bioaccumulation factor. The
bioaccumulation factors used are presented in Table C-2, of Appendix C.
Incidental soil ingestion, which is associated with foraging, preening, and cleaning activities,
was conservatively assumed to represent five percent of the total dietary intake for both of
the modeled receptors (i.e., lizard and hawk).
The SFF was calculated using an estimated site area of 16 hectares. The home range for
each of the modeled receptor is given in Table C-l, of Appendix C.
After calculating the PDE for each COC and modeled receptor, total body doses (TBDs).
were calculated. TBD estimates are directly comparable to available lexicological data (as
presented in Section 4.0) and are used with the lexicological data to assess ecological risks.
The TBDs were estimated using the following equation:
TBD 
= 
PDE x IR x 1
BW
Where 
TBD 
= 
total body dose (mg/kg body weight/day)
PDE 
= 
potential dietary exposure (mg/ diet/kg)
IR 
= 
ingestion rate (kg diet/day)
TUTU WELLFffiLD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
42
TUT 
OO7 
O8O2
Oo
N"
an 5/94
SSS-exp-TUTU.XLS
'i, ^€3-2
P.1 of 2
EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE ANGLE
CHEMICALS
VOCs (ug/ka>
Methylene Chloride
2-Butanone
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes(Total)
SVOCs lug/kq)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimelhylphenol
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
TUTU WELLS SITE
POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES
(mg chemical/kg diet)
0.001
0.445
0.065
0.045
0.033
440
1.3
2.1
5.6
900
320
1300
42
0.63
7.7
0.19
0.42
9.4
0.74
2.0
0.59
5.4
0.87
0.77
0.43
TOTAL BODY DOSES
(mg/kg body weight/day)
2.56 E-05
1.14E-02
1.66E-03
1.15E-03
8 45 E-04
11.26
3.33 E-02
5.38 E-02
0.143
23.04
8.19
33.28
1.08
1.61 E-02
0.197
4.86 E-02
1.08 E-02
0.241
1.89
5.12 E-02
1.51 E-02
0.138
2.23 E-02
1.97E^>2
1.1 E-02
CO
O
O
V
\
8/15/94
SSS-exp-TUTU.XLS
TABLt - <!, Continued
P.2 of 2
EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE ANOLE
CHEMICALS
PESTICIDES/PCBs (uo/kcrt
Endosulfan 1
Aroclor-1242
TUTU WELLS SITE
POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES
(mg chemical/kg diet)
0.092
669.48
TOTAL BODY DOSES
(mg/kg body weight/day)
2.36 E-03
17.14
INORGANICS and CYANIDE (mo/kcrt
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide, total
27350
5.9
3.18
67.2
2.7
52.62
25.55
710.74
38400
86.35
872
38.6
470
119
859.03
0.055
700.16
0.151
8.08
1.72
6.9 E-02
1.35
0.654
18.2
983.04
2.21
22.32
0.988
12.03
3.05
21.99
1.41 E-03
O§
•A
C
ft* 15/94
SSS-exp2-TUTU.XLS
CHEMICALS
VOCs (ug/kg)
Melhylene Chloride
2-Bulanone
Trtehloroethylene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Telrachloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes(Total)
SVOQs (ug/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Melhylphenol
2,4-Dimelhylphenol
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Chrysene
Bls(2-elhylhexyl)phlhalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ben20(g,h,i)perylene
,..^(lE3-3
P.1 of 2
EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE RED-TAILED HAWK
TUTU WELLS SITE
POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES
(mg chemical/kg diet)
5E-05
0.2225
3.25 E-03
2.25 E-03
1 .65 E-03
22
6.5 E-02
0.105
0.28
45
16
65
2.1
3. 15 E-03
0.385
9.5 E-03
2.1 E-02
0.47
3.7 E-02
0.1
2.95 E-03
0.27
4.35 E-02
3.85 E-02
2.15 E-02
TOTAL BODY DOSES
(mg/kg body weight/day)
5E-06
2.23 E-02
3.25 E-04
2.25 E-04
1.65 E-04
22
6.5 E-03
1.05 E-02
2.8 E-02
4.5
1.6
6.5
0.21
3. 15 E-04
3.85 E-02
9.5 E-04
2.1 E-03
4.7 E-02
3.7 E-03
1 E-02
2.95 E-04
2.7 E-02
4.35 E-03
3.85 E4)3
2. 15 E-03
CD
O
Ol
ON
8/15/94
SSS-exp2-TUTU.XLS
TABL^ 
y/Continued
P.2 of 2
EXPOSURE VALUES FOR THE RED-TAILED HAWK
CHEMICALS
PESTICIDES/PCBs (uo/kcri
Endosulfan 1
Aroclor-1242
TUTU WELLS SITE
POTENTIAL DIETARY EXPOSURES
(mg chemical/kg diet)
4.6 E-03
6.87
TOTAL BODY DOSES
(mg/kg body weight/day)
4.6 E-04
0.687
INORGANICS and CYANIDE fmo/kal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide, total
1367.5
0295
0.668
3.36
6.265 E-02
2.13
2555
6.39
1920
4.32
43.6
1.11
23.5
5.95
5.72
2.75 E-03
136.75
2.95 E-02
6.68 E-02
0.336
6.27 E-03
0.213
2.56
0.639
192
0.432
4.36
0.111
2.35
0.595
0.572
2.75 E-04
BW 
= 
body weight (kg)
Species-specific ingestion rates and body weights used in this assessment are reported in
Table C-l.
Calculated exposure values (PDEs and TBDs) for each of the target receptor species (anole,
red-tailed hawk) are presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.coo/Augusl 23, 1994/day 
47
TUT 
O07 
OSO7
4.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The goal of the toxicity assessment is to determine of the toxic effects of COCs of the Tutu
Wells site on the selected ecological receptors. As part of an ecological toxicity assessment,
site-specific toxicity study results are important to consider. However, site-specific toxicity
results were not available for the Tutu Wells Site.
Benchmark toxicity values were sought and utilized in this assessment. A comprehensive
literature/database search was performed to identify benchmark toxicity values for COCs.
Data sources reviewed included:
• 
Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB)
• 
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS)
• 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Additionally, toxicity values were obtained from several primary literature sources (as
referenced).
Where possible, toxicity values from the literature were selected using closely-related
species. When available, chronic toxicity data were preferentially used. The no observed
adverse effect levels (NOAEL) for COCs were preferentially selected as the reference
toxicity values (RTVs) used in this assessment.
Often, toxicity data were not available for terrestrial wildlife species and the extrapolation of
toxicity values from other animal studies. A correction factor of 0.2 was used to determine
the RTV when the available toxicity value was within the same taxonomic class as the target
receptor. When the available toxicity value represented a different taxonomic class that the
target receptor, a correction factor of 0.1 was applied.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesnmt.cco/August 23, 1994/day 
48
TUT 
007 
0808
To protect the individual ecological receptor, unadjusted NOAEL values are the preferred
RTV. 
Often, toxicity values were not available as chronic NOAELs, but as acute or chronic
lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL) or median lethal doses (LD50). Adjustments
were made to these available toxicity values using safety factors to reflect levels of
uncertainty. Currently, there is little guidance available for the appropriate value for safety
factor (correction factors). Based upon guidance provided by the EPA (1986), an acute LD50
was extrapolated to an acute no observable effect level (NOEL) by dividing by a correction
factor of 0.2. This safety factor is based on an analysis of dose-response data for pesticides.
For the purposes of this assessment, a correction factor of 0.1 was applied to other
lexicological values in each area of uncertainty (USEPA, 1989). Table 4-1 presents the
safety factors used in this assessment for the derivation of RTVs. Terrestrial RTVs for the
Tutu Wells site COCs are presented in Table C-3 of Appendix C.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt-eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 
49
TUT 
007 
0809
TABLE 4-1
SAFETY FACTORS USED TO DERIVE REFERENCE
TOXICITY VALUES
TUTU WELLS SITES
Available Toxicity
Value1
Acute LD50
Chronic LOAEL
Chronic NOAEL
Approximation of Toxicological Uncertainty2
LD50 to LOAEL
LOAEL to NOAEL
0.23
-
-
0.1
-
Acute to
Chronic
0.1
-
-
Toxicity
Value
Correction
Factor4
0.02
0.1
-
1 
For purposes of this assessment, the following benchmarks were considered
equivalent:
LD50 
= 
LC50 (or EC50)
LOAEL = 
LOEL
NOAEL = 
NOEL
2 
USEPA, 1989
3 
USEPA, 1986
4 
Additional factors were used to derive reference toxicity values when values did not
exist for target species, as follows:
a. 
Given value within taxonomic class, correction factor of 0.2 (i.e., toxicity
value x 0.2).
b. 
Given value of different taxomonic class, correction factor of 0.1 (i.e., toxicity
value x 0.1).
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/asscsronl.eoo/August 23. 1994/day
50
00 7 
08.10
5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The potential risk to ecological receptors at the Tutu Wells site (i.e., target receptors) was
assessed by comparing estimated exposure levels (TBDs) with lexicological benchmarks
(RTVs). Risks to each of the selected receptors were evaluated using hazard indices (His)
which were determined for each surface soil COC by dividing the estimated TBDs by the
RTVs.
Cumulative His were determined by summing all of the COC His for each target ecological
receptor. Cumulative His were ranked in accordance with a USEPA (1986) ranking scheme
that was used to evaluate potential ecological risks to individual organisms. The ranking
scheme is as follows:
HI < 0.1 
no adverse effects
0.1 <_ HI < 10 
possible adverse effects
HI >_IQ 
probable adverse effects
It is important to note that this methodology is not a measure of and cannot be used to
determine absolute quantitative risk. Use of this technique, however, can indicate the
potential for the target ecological receptor to be at risk to an adverse effect from exposure to
site surface soil chemicals through the ingestion pathway.
Individual hazard indices are provided in Table 5-1.
Anole
The potential risk to the anole was estimated by comparing the estimated daily doses (TBDs)
with toxicity values (RTVs) derived for the lizard. The potential risk from the Tutu Wells
site surface soil chemicals was assumed to arise from the exposure via ingestion of soil and
invertebrates.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnt.cco/August 23, 1994/day 
5 1
TUT 
007 081.
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
TUTU WELLS SITE
CHEMICAL
HAZARD INDEX
Anole (lizard)
Red-Tailed Hawk
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzene
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
1.24E-05
6.44 E-05
3.96 E-03
4.34 E-05
2.64 E-03
8.04
1.09E-04
1.49 E-03
1.66E-02
2.42 E-06
1.26 E-04
7.72 E-04
8.47 E-06
5. 16 E-05
1.57
2. 14 E-05
2.91 E-04
3.26 E-03
SEMI- VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acenaphthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzole Acid
Benzo(g , h , i)pery lene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
NE
NE
4. 13 E-03
NE
6.57 E-03
1.06 E-03
NE
1.93E-02
0.12
0.151
8.64 E-04
NE
NE
8.08 E-05
NE
1.28 E-03
2.08 E-04
NE
3.76 E-03
2.3 E-02
2.96 E-04
1.68 E-04
52
TUT 
007 
0812
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
TUTU WELLS SITE
CONTINUED
CHEMICAL
HAZARD INDEX
Anole (lizard)
Red-Tailed Hawk
SEMI-VOLAHLES (Cont'd)
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
NE
NE
NE
36.34
6.83 E-03
NE
NE
NE
0.6
1.33 E-03
PESTICIDES/PCB'S
Endosulfan I
Aroclor-1242
3.37 E-02
2.86
6.57 E-03
0.115
INORGANICS AND CYANIDE
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium, trivalent (Cr+3)
Chromium, hexavalent
(Cr+6)
Cobalt
Copper
NE
NE
80.8
NE
3.45 E-03
9.2 E-03
1.69
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.334
NE
1.57E-04
1.45 E-03
0.133
NE
NE
53
TUT
007
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES
TUTU WELLS SITE
CONTINUED
CHEMICAL
HAZARD INDEX
Anole (lizard)
Red-Tailed Hawk
INORGANICS AND CYANIDE (Cont'd)
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
NE
4.42
1.24
1.98
NE
NE
NE
1.31 
E-03
NE
0.864
0.242
0.222
NE
NE
NE
2.55 
E-04
NE denotes "not evaluated" due to lack of toxicity data.
1 The most conservative chromium hazard index (i.e., Cr +6) was used in the determination
of these cumulative indices.
54
The estimated cumulative hazard index is 138. The greatest contribution to the cumulative
hazard index was from arsenic (at approximately 59%), with phenol (at approximately 26%)
as the next most dominant contribution. Other notable contributions were from
tetrachloroethylene (at approximately 6%), lead (at approximately 3%), and Aroclor-1242 (at
approximately 2%).
The cumulative hazard index result of this risk evaluation indicates that the potential for
adverse effects to the anole exists as a result of exposure to site-related chemicals in soil
(primarily arsenic) if the receptor and its food sources are consistently exposed to maximum
surface soil concentrations at the Tutu Wells site. This evaluation considered worst-case
scenarios. Considering the limited home range expected for the anole (of less than 1 % of the
site area), it is conceivable that some anoles may be exposed to maximum surface soil
concentrations. This is particularly true in the O'Henry dry cleaners area, where the
maximum concentration for arsenic and tetrachloroethylene were found, and in the
Curriculum Center area, where the maximum concentration for phenol was found. It is also
probable that most of the anoles on and adjacent to the site would contact much lower levels
of site-related chemicals, as the majority of site-related chemicals have low detection
frequencies and thus have not been found uniformly throughout the site.
As noted in Section 6.0, Uncertainty, this EA has evaluated the potential for lexicological
risks to individual anoles utilizing the site. While the potential for adverse health effect is
indicated for some individual anoles, there may or may not resulting adverse effect on the
anole population or ecological community as a whole.
Red-Tailed Hawk
The potential risk to the red-tailed hawk was estimated by comparing the estimated daily
doses (TBDs) with toxicity values (RTVs) derived for the hawk. The potential risk from the
Tutu Wells site surface soil chemicals was assumed to arise from exposure via ingestion of
small mammals, reptiles/amphibians, birds, invertebrates, and soil.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesnml.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
55
TUT 
OO7 
O815
The estimated cumulative hazard index is approximately 4. The greatest contribution to the
cumulative hazard index was from tetrachloroethylene (at approximately 41 %) followed by
lead (at approximately 23%). Phenol (at approximately 16%), nickel (at approximately 6%),
and manganese (at approximately 6%) also contribute to the cumulative hazard index.
The cumulative hazard index result of this risk evaluation indicates that there is a relatively
low potential for adverse effects to the red-tailed hawk as a result of exposure to site-related
chemicals in soil if the receptor and its food sources are consistently exposed to maximum
surface soil concentrations at the Tutu Wells site. The hawk appears to have a markedly
reduced risk potential compared to that of the lizard. This difference can be primarily
attributed to the large range of the bird as compared to the area of the site-related chemicals
in surface soil. This evaluation has considered the worst-case scenario, that the receptor will
be consistently utilizing foodstuffs from the portion of the site where maximum surface soil
chemical concentrations are available. Due to the limited distribution of the majority of
surface soil COCs (as noted by the detection frequencies), it is highly likely that the actual
adverse risk to the red-tailed hawk is less than as projected by the current cumulative hazard
index.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesnmt.eco/August 23, 1994/day 
56
TUT 
OO7 0316
6.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
For any risk assessment, it is necessary to make assumptions. Assumptions carry with them
associated uncertainties which must be identified to put risk estimates in perspective. The
following describes the major assumptions used in this EA and their associated uncertainties.
Receptors were characterized as consistently contacting the maximum concentrations of
contaminants. However, the maximum surface soil contaminant concentration locations of the
site appear to be highly localized and represent small areas with regard to the rest of the site.
This assumption may have overestimated the ecological risks.
Receptor risks were characterized as possible impacts from individual contaminants without
regard to interactions between contaminants. However, ecological receptors are simultaneously
exposed to a range of contaminants. 
These compounds may interact synergistically or
antagonistically to either mitigate or aggravate adverse health effects. This assumption may
overestimate or underestimate ecological risks.
Neither inhalation nor dermal contact exposure routes were evaluated. This was due to lack of
appropriate wildlife uptake rate information as well as the assumption that the primary risk exist
from ingestion exposure. The total ecological exposure may be greater than the predicted risk,
as the predicted risk was estimated for ingestion only.
The exposure model used assumed that receptors will spend equal amounts of time in all habitats
within their home ranges. In actuality, receptors may spend varying amounts of time in each
habitat. The variation in habitat usage would likely affect the overall exposure. Depending
upon the variation in usage receptor exposures may be overestimated or underestimated by the
model.
Bioaccumulation factors used to estimate the exposure of receptors via diet were limited. Actual
TUTU WELLFEELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/<fay 
57
TUT 
007 
OS17
bioaccumulation into food items is variable, depending upon such factors as chemical state, soil
composition, and chemical concentration in media of exposure. Thus, the bioaccumulation
factors used may have over - or underestimated receptor exposure.
In selecting RTVs, the lowest available toxicity value was selected from the literature searched.
The use of these values may overestimate ecological risk.
In determining the RTVs, safety factors were employed to account for differences in toxicity
between species and between lexicological endpoints (i.e., NOAELs, LOAELs, LD50s).
Uncertainties associated with the safety factors used may have resulted in over- or
underestimation of risks to receptors. Additionally, the absence of toxicity values or guidance
criteria resulted in some chemicals not being included in the risk evaluation. This may have
underestimated receptor exposure.
Potential lexicological risks to individual receptors have been evaluated in the EA. Sometimes,
adverse effects on individuals will nol be reflected on Ihe population and community level. The
predicted risks may overestimate Ihe actual population or community level effects.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSIS/assesmnl.cco/August 23, 1994/<tay 
58
TUT 
O07 0818
7.0 REFERENCES
Beyer, W. N. and E. J. Cromartie. 1987. A Survey of Pb, Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr, As, and Se in
Earthworms and Soil from Diverse Sites. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 8:27-
36.
Bull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American
Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.; New York, NY.
Connont, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Company; Boston, MA.
Danahy, T. 1994. Personal communication. Project Hydrogeologist, Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. August 1, 1994.
De Graaf, R. M. and D. D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural
History, and Distribution: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
General Technical Report NE-108.
Diercxsens, P. D., deWeck, N. Borsigner, B. Rosset, and J. Tarradellas. 1985. Earthworm
Contamination by PCBs and Heavy Metals. Chemosphere. 14:511-522.
Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic
Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D.
Biological Report 85 (1.2).
Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic
Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D.
Biological Report 85 (1.8).
Eisler, R. 1986b. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A
Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center;
Laurel, M.D. Biological Report 85 (1.7).
Eisler, R. 1988a. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D.
Biological Report 85 (1.12).
Eisler, R. 1988b. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, M.D.
Biological Report 85 (1.8).
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesmnt.eco/Augusl 23, 1994/day 
59
TUT 
0°7
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1992. Tutu Service Station Investigation
Work Plan, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation
Committee. March 20, 1992.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1993a. Technical Memorandum n, Results
of the Field Program, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
2 Volumes, Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. May 1993.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (Geraghty & Miller). 1993b. Phase n Remedial Investigation
Work Plan, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Volume 1 of 2. Prepared for
Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee. December 1993.
Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB). 1994 Data bank on the National Library of
Medicine's Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes
of Health; Bethesda, MD. Consulted in October 1993, July and August 1994.
Heatwole, H. 1976. Reptile Ecology. University of Queensland Press; St. Lucia,
Queensland.
Hughes, M.K., N.W. Lepp, and D. A. Phipps. 1980. Aerial Heavy Metal Pollution and
Terrestrial Ecosystems. In: Advances in Ecological Research, Volume n, A. MacFadyen,
ed. Academic Press; New York, NY.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1993. Database created by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data
Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutues of Health; Bethesda, MD.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1994. Database created by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on the National Library of Medicine's Toxicology Data
Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD.
June, July, and August 1994.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian
Institution Press; Washington, D.C.
Kabata - Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC
Press, Inc.; Boca Raton, FL.
Krauskopf. L. 1973. Studies on the toxicity of phthalates via ingestion. Environmental
Health Perspectives. January, pp. 61-72.
Milstead, W. W. ed. 1967. Lizard Ecology a Symposium. University of Missouri at
Kansas City, June 13-15, 1965. University of Missouri Press; Columbia, MO.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/assesnmt.eco/August 23. 1994/day
60
TUT 
007 
0820
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). 1993. Database created by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the National Library of Medicine's
Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health;
Bethesda, MD. October, 1993.
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). 1994. Database created by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the National Library of Medicine's
Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), National Library of Medicine, Institutes of Health;
Bethesda, MD. August, 1994.
Rivera; L. H., W. D. Frederick, (Farris, E. H. Jensen, L. Davis, C. D. Palmer, L. F.
Jackson, and W. E. McKinzie. 1970. 
Soil Survey of the Virgin Islands of the United
States. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C., 
August 1970.
Fuibal, R., R. Philibosian, and J. L. Adkins. 1972. 
Reproductive Cycle and Growth in the
Lizard Anolis acutus. Copeia 3:509-510.
Schwartz, A. and R. W. Henderson. 1985. 
A Guide to the Identification of the Amphibians
and Reptiles of the West Indies Exclusive of Hispaniola. Milwaukee Public Museum;
Milwaukee, WI.
Schwartz, A. and R. Thomas. 1975. 
Check-List of West Indian Amphibians and Reptiles.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History; Pittsburgh, PA. Special Publication No. 1.
Stalmuster, M. V. 1987. 
The Bald Eagle. Universe Books; New York, NY.
Stokes, D. W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1989. 
A Guide to Bird Behavior, Volume m. Little,
Brown and Company; Boston, MA.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. 
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Washington,
D.C. 
EPA 440/5-80-069.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. 
Harvard Evaluation, Standard
Evaluation Procedure, Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs;
Washington, D.C. 
EPA-540/9-85-001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. 
Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. USEPA, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response; Washington, D.C.
TUTU WELLFELD PATHWAY ANALYSlS/asscsnmt.eoo/August 23, 1994/day 
61
TUT 
OO7 O821
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors
Handbook, Volume I of n. USEPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development; Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-93/187a. December,
1993.
TUTU WELLFIELD PATHWAY ANALYStS/assesnml.eoo/August 23. 1994/day 
62
TUT 
007 
OS22
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICIES
TUT 
OO7 
OS23
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE FOR ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
ON THE SITE
TUT 
007 
0824
INFORMATION SOURCES CONTACTED REGARDING
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE
Contact:
Agency:
Address and Telephone:
Contact Date
Response:
Jorge Saliva
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O Box 491
Boqueron, Puerto Rico 00622
(809) 851-7297
: 
3/29/94 and 4/1/94
He relayed the request for information on the presence of sensitive
environments and threatened/endangered species within two miles of the site to
James Oland. Mr. Oland replied by sending a letter (dated 5/5/94) indicating
that the St. Thomas prickly ash and the Virgin Island tree boa are endangered
species that may occur within this area.
Contact:
Agency:
Address and Telephone:
Contact Date:
Response:
Ralf Boulon
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6291 Estate Nazareth
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
(809) 775-6762
6/14/94 and 7/7/94
6/14/94 - He was not aware of any species list or natural resource surveys for
the site. The site had value as an archeological site. Suggested contacting
Holly Righter, state historical archeologist at the Department of Planning and
Natural Resources. She is most familiar with the site.
7/7/94 - He sent a copy of the Virgin Islands bird checklist (titled "Caribbean
CBC Form") and a list of endangered animals he expected may be found in the
vicinity of the Tutu Wells site. He is the endangered species coordinator for
St. Thomas.
Contact: 
Holly Righter
Agency: 
Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Address and Telephone: 
800 Nasky Center
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
(809) 774-3320
6/14/94
She is not aware of any flora or fauna descriptions of the site area. She is
aware of and described a wetland area to the west (behind) K-Mart.
Contact Date:
Response:
Contact:
Agency:
Address and Telephone:
Felix Lopez
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
San Juan, Puerto Rico
TUT
007
0825
(809) 851-7297
Contact Date: 
4/8/94
Response: 
He was familiar that the Tutu Wells site had a groundwater contamination
problem, but did not know of any habitat descriptions, or other ecological
information about the site. Suggested contacting Ralf Boulon of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife field office on St. Thomas, the Island Resources Foundation in
St. Thomas, and a local biological consultant (David Grigg of Grigg &
Associates in St. Thomas).
Contact: 
David Grigg
Agency: 
Grigg & Associates
Address and Telephone: 
St. Thomas, USVI
(809) 775-1566
Contact Date: 
6/17/94
Response: 
He was not aware of any natural resource assessments in the Tutu area, (no
fauna! or floral studies or surveys). He has seen several incidental faunal
studies performed in the general area of Tutu. One such study was on midges
of a pond performed some years ago. He believed that there were many
groundwater studies and some surface water studies conducted. He reported
that Turpentine Run was an intermittent stream with 3 to 4 (possibly up to 6)
small streambead pools in its upper basin that exist all year. The original
fauna of the Run has been severally reduced within the last 20 to 30 years.
He attributed this reduction in diversity/richness of the Run to pollution. He
mentioned that the primary chronic pollution was from the discharge of 3 to 4
wastewater treatment plants. He noted that a branch of the Run constantly
flows, due to the discharge of 1 treatment plant. He suggested contacting the
cooperative extension agency in lieu of the local biologist.
Contact: 
Head Assistant
Agency: 
Island Resources Foundation
Address and Telephone: 
6296 Estate Nazareth No. 11
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
(809) 775-6225
Contact Date: 
6/14/94
Response: 
The Foundation has something of a library set up that can be accessed directly
if one were on St. Thomas to access it. Suggested contacting Adrian
Schottroff with the VI Department of Planning and Natural Resources for
assistance. Ed Towle with the Island Resources Foundation followed up with
a call on June 29, 1994. .He provided citations to several publications of the
island which turned out not to contain any information about the Tutu area.
Contact: 
Adrian Schottroff
Agency: 
Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Address and Telephone: 
800 Nasky Center, Suite 45
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
TUT 
O°7 °826
(809) 774-3320
Contact Date: 
7/6/94
Response: 
Try the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species and bird
species lists. He does not know of any detailed ecological work of the Tutu
area. He has no description of the habitats in the Tutu area, but suspects that
a general habitat description for St. Thomas may be possible to find.
Contact: 
Toni Thomas
Agency: 
Cooperative Extension Service
Address and Telephone: 
University of the Virgin Islands
#2 John Brewer's Bay
St. Thomas, USVI 00802-9990
(809) 774-0210
Contact Date: 
7/8/94
Response: 
She is botanist for the extension service. She notes that the Tutu area is
disturbed with mostly exotic plant species and secondary growth forms. It is
used frequently for grazing. The area is a subtropical dry forest. She has a
listing a plant species observed at the K-Mart area created during the
archeological investigation of the site (this was never sent). She sent a list of
plant species (7/22/94) that she observed at the Tutu site while making a site
visit in response to this request. Suggested contacting Julie Wright for
additional information on the area.
Contact: 
Julie Wright
Agency: 
Cooperative Extension Service
Address and Telephone: 
University of the Virgin Islands
#2 John Brewer's Bay
St. Thomas, USVI 00802-9990
(809) 774-0210
Contact Date: 
7/20/94
Response: 
The only site reports that she is aware of are the U.S. Geological Survey
reports which have some information on flow rates and well sites. The
Turpentine Run is typically intermittent and wastewater from waste treatment
plants feed into it. The Run is dry right now as there is a drought. There is
no other real water body that she is aware of in the Tutu site area except for a
pond that used to be behind K-Mart. It is gradually filling or filled. It was
not more than an acre in size with dense vegetation surrounding it. She
reported that the Run is the largest gut on the island. It used to have a
significant .freshwater-shrimp/crayfish in the upper portion. Cattle egrets have
been observed in the Run in both the unpaved and paved portions.
-,,r? 
0827
TUT 
W
APPENDIX B
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
SIGNIFICANT HABITATS
TUT 
O07 
082£
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CARIBBEAN FIELD OFFICE
P.O. BOX 491
BOQUERON. PUERTO RICO 00622
May 5, 1994
Ms. Nancy Zygmont
COM Federal Programs Corporation
107-F Corporate Boulevard
South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080
Dear Ms. Zygmont:
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1994, concerning a project
in east central portion of St. Thomas in the upper portion of the
Turpentine Run basin. Your letter requested information
concerning the presence of sensitive environments and
threatened/endangered species within two miles of the site.
Based on information available in this office the following
endangered species may occur within this area:
St. Thomas prickly ash 
Zanthoxylum thomasianum
Virgin Island tree boa 
Epicrates monensis qranti
If you have any questions, please call Susan R. Silander of this
office.
Sincerely,
'James P. Oland
Field Supervisor
cc:
FPA, New York
TUT 007 0829
List of endangered species provided by Ralf Boulon, Endangered Species Coordinator,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Thomas, USVI on July 8, 1994
(Marked species only.)
Endangered Plants and Animals of the U.S.Virgin Islands (Cont.)
Virgin Islands List
Mabuya mabouia
Otus nudipes newtoni
Chordeiles gundlaehii
# Anthracothorax dominicos
Podiceps dominicus
Sterna antillarum
Phaethon lepturus
Ardea herodius
V Casmerodius albas
4- Egrettathula
Nycticorax nyeticoraz
Ixobrychus ezilis
Anas bahamensis
Oxyura jamaicensis
Rallus longirostris
Fulica caribea
Charadrius alexandrinus
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Puffinus Ihenninieri
•V Aratinga pertinax
Columba leucocephala
-* Geotrygon mystacea
Myiarchus stolidus
Noctilio leporinus
•*» Stenodenna rufum
# Brachyphylla eavernarum
Order Antipatharia
Epinephelus itajara
Slipperyback skink
VI Screech owl
West Indian nighthawk
Antillean mango
Least grebe
Least tern
White-tailed tropicbird
Gt. blue heron
Great (common) egret
Snowy egret
Black-cr. night heron
Least bittern
Bahama duck
Ruddy duck
Clapper rail
Caribbean coot
Snowy plover
Willet
Audubon shearwater
Brown-throated parakeet
White-crowned pigeon
Bridled Quail dove
Stolid flycatcher
Fisherman bat
Red fruit bat
Cave bat
Black coral
Jewfish
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding?
Resident, breeding?
Resident, breeding?
Migrant, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding?
Resident, breeding
Peripheral resident
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding?
Resident, breeding
Migrant, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Resident, breeding
Marine benthic, high demand
Marine
# -
^
» 
The above list represents plants and animals occuring in the US Virgin
Islands which are protected by either the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 or
the VI Endangered and Indigenous Species Act of 1990 (Act No. 5665). This list is
promulgated under Act 5665, Section 104(g) and may be revised as new
information becomes available.
Roy E,. Adams, Commissioner, DPNR
TUT 
007 
0930
APPENDIX C
ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY
TUT 
007 0831
TABwiC-1
ECOLOGICAL EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
TUTU WELLS SITE
Species
Anole
(Anolis spj
Red-tailed Hawk
f Buteo jamaicensis)
Exposure Parameter
Home Range
Diet
Ingestion Rage
Body Weight
Home Range
Diet
Ingestion Rate
Body Weight
Reported Value
Approximately 0.0037
hectares
Invertebrates
4-30 mg dry weight of
food/g wet body
weight/day
Adult males 0.1 18
g/mm of snout to vent
length
Audit female: 0.055
g/mm of snout to vent
length
approximately 78-556
hectares
Small mammals,
amphibians,
reptiles,insects, birds,
carrion, domestic
animals
0.055-0. 12 kg/day
1.028kg (males)
1.224kg (females)
Reference
Milstead, 1967
(as reported for Anolis sagrei
territory)
Heatwole, 1976
(as reported for lizards)
Rubialetal., 1972 (as
reported for Anolis acutus)
DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986
DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986
Stalmuster, 1987
(as reported for bald eagle and
adjusted for 1 kg bird)
Johnsgard, 1990
Assessment Value
0.004 hectares
Invertebrates: 95%
Soil: 5%
1.28 x 104 kg/day (assuming
17 mg dry weight of food/g
wet body weight/day x 5g
wet body weight + additional
50% for wet weight) of food
0.005 kg (assuming an
average snout to vent length
of approximately 55 mm)
317 hectares
Small mammals1: 70%
Invertebrates: 3%
Reptiles/ Amphibians: 1 5 %
Birds: 7%
Soil: 5%
0. 1 kg/day
1kg