HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900017 Assessment - Groundwater 2009-03-20Humagen Fertility Diagnostics
TMP 79-4C
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment
Groundwater Management Plan
DRAFT)
Prepared for:
Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc.
2400 Hunters Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
March 20, 2009
Nick H. Evans PhD CPG
Virginia Groundwater LLC
4609 Burnley Station Road
Barboursville, VA 22923
Key Findings
Hydrogeologic units: 1 E (Blue Ridge East)
Groundwater availability zone: Class 2 (medium relative groundwater
availability)
Proposed groundwater withdrawal (daily): 1239 gallons
Theoretical natural recharge to site (daily): 896 gallons
Site design aspects augmenting natural recharge: Groundwater withdrawals
returned to ground through sanitary drainfield; stormwater management
via on -site biofiltration BMPs
Hydrogeologic conditions favorable to proposed use? Yes
Site within groundwater sensitivity zone? No: the site is not within an area of
recognized groundwater sensitivity as defined in the Water and Sanitary
Sewer Design Standards Manual, Section 206.2: Site -Level Groundwater
Assessment Standards
Contamination threats on record: DEQ LUST case #19995016 (Virginia
Department of Highways) within 2000 feet of site
Additional contaminant threats observed in field reconnaissance? none
Anticipated impacts of proposed use on existing users: none
Groundwater management plan: Maintain existing biofiltration infrastructures
Overview
This proposal is to expand parking lot capacity at an existing business, Humagen
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., located on TMP 79-4C, 2400 Hunters Way, off US 250
east of Charlottesville (Figure 1). The 2.75 -acre parcel presently contains an
approximately 8000 square -foot building and asphalt parking Tots with 37 spaces.
The proposal would add 8 parking spaces on approximately 3400 square feet of
new asphalt. A site plan showing the existing buildings, proposed development
layout and approximate limits of land disturbance is included with this report
Attachment A).
The parcel is located in the watershed of a unnamed tributaries of Barn Branch,
which flows into the Rivanna River. Topographically, this parcel is on the side
slope of a foothill on the south flank of the Southwest Mountains. The parcel has
been substantially cleared and leveled to accommodate existing facilities. There
are no streams, springs or other surface water features on the property.
The parcel is bordered on the north by the Interstate Highway 64 right -of -way,
and rural farmland to the north of the highway. Land uses on adjoining parcels to
the west and south is light industrial. There is a wooded stream bottom to the
east of the parcel.
There are two drilled wells on the property (locations on site plan, Attachment A)
presently supplying water to the existing facility. The original well was drilled to a
depth of 505 feet in 1996, with a reported yield of 1 gallon per minute. A second
well was drilled in 2001 to a depth of 305 feet, with a reported yield of 3 gallons
per minute. Completion Reports (GW2) for these wells are included with this
report (Attachments B and C). The building has two separate water systems,
each served by one well. Water usage is metered at each of the two inlets.
Waste water is disposed of through a sanitary drainfield at the rear of the
property.
The manufacturing process at this facility does not use water. Water is used to
supply bathrooms and kitchen needs of employees. During the growing season,
landscape plantings are irrigated as necessary. The facility operates two 8 -hour
shifts Monday through Friday, and is closed Saturday and Sunday. At present
there are approximately 30 people working on site at any given time during the
work week. Daily water consumption for the facility averaged 885 gallons
during the period 3/9 — 3/18/2009. The company proposes to expand the
number of employees to a maximum of 42 present at a given time.
kj
r
r
i ,
S
fRr
r3
a
I
t
t
i
s
iii
I / } •
f
f — ` -
Fes•
t ,
g
3
D
1s "
A.,;,-= '
l
rrtiY
y,,
9
f _
r ,
J _
r
t
ED
it.J
6 '
c"
f
4
1. - ,
T'
7„..
1
J'.; 4
f
r
a
i , ,
1;' - '' '
I
N
OW [
1 (._,
l
k.,./
J,"
0
1
i
r
G
l
0
a.
r
I
o.
YY
4
It
cp
t
r '
I .
4
i
1
4
s
w, ,,
7,-
fir•
cn
x
r
J
p
J,
1
e
a
f
t ?
i
o
lld
l `
Q
ii
O
y
i
5r,. ---
P / /
r °`°.
M
W --
j
j
I
n
l
w ,._,• ---
ti. ,
r - '
Q
O
r
1
r.--'
Yv
O _
4
a
I
to ?
j ,
r
rn
b
1 ,
CD
f , '
Z
k
1
t ,.., - „_-.
E —
I /
t,
3
0 0
Q
N
Q-
a)a)Q D
Hydrogeologic Assessment
Bedrock geology
The parcel is situated within the Catoctin Formation greenstone bedrock geologic
unit (Figure 2.) The eastern contact between the Catoctin and overlying
metasedimentary rocks is about 4000 feet southeast of the parcel. The parcel is
within the Blue Ridge East (1 E) hydrogeologic unit, with Class 2 (medium)
relative groundwater availability, as defined in the Albemarle County
Hydrogeologic Assessment Summary Report of 2003. No bedrock exposures
were observed on the property during field reconnaissance.
Bedrock fracture density and water well productivity
The Catoctin greenstone does not contain primary intergranular porosity through
which water might pass. Groundwater flow is confined to bedrock fractures and
fissures. No significant linear features, fracture traces or structural features
were identified on air photos or other maps in this study that would be useful
indicators of the presence or orientation of bedrock fractures on this parcel.
In the absence of good bedrock exposures with which to directly observe
bedrock fractures, the yields of randomly -sited water wells can be used as a
proxy for fracture density. Table 1 (below) summarizes county -wide data from
the wells in the county database that were constructed in Catoctin greenstone
bedrock.
Table 1: domestic water well statistics from Albemarle County
database
Geologic map yield (gallons total well depth casing length Count
unit per minute)feet)feet)
Catoctin
Average: 10.3 Average: 241 Average: 45
Formation Maximum:483
Maximum: 150 Maximum: 2,800
CZc 117
In addition to the two wells on the property, there are three private wells in the
Albemarle County database that are within 1000 feet of TMP 79-4C (Figure 3).
Data from those wells are reported in Table 2 (below). In addition, there is a
public water supply well in the database adjacent to the parcel, however no well
construction data is given. At least two additional wells are inferred on the basis
of air photos and site reconnaissance to be present within 1000 feet of the
parcel, although not in the county database.
11 Q C D N
1)
C
D
SO
Q
G
O
co
7 .
D
CDO
O
0
n
n
co
C7
4
co
3
N
C
r+rte CO
Ti
Fi
44
z
i-O
CD
rt T 1
CD
0
r+
n
m
N
Z
N
e-
f'
m
1
s
O
O
CD
D
o
m
o
r+O
O
D
r+
ry-CD C CD
11
Yr'
co CD
e'
D
a
v
i
x
0
a
re
i ',, '. ,,,,,.
i
4-
4 „,..,,,, ,
f. -„,‘..„,
4',,
fl'f
f
tk;
I ' ' .. :'
kz
j
sett
D
CD
D
y
a
s
1
s
Y
tr,
n
M
F
9
0
r
h
r
e
j :
co
f ...& / '
4' '
t ;
I :: .
i' '
444-
61t'
t ''''
O
O
Y
rn
O
0_
r,
t
3
t"'''
1,,„''',
a
r .
4--
F
D
0
cr
ED
g
k
g
v
n
Q tn
o
3
X ^'
E '
er
CD
m
J
i*
3.'
x
rye? - --
F
Table 2: Data for wells within 1000 feet of TMP 79-4C
indicates existin • well on TMP 79-4C)
total depth casing length yield (gallons static water
feet)feet)per minute)level (feet)
F305 62 1
165 80 20 58
145 I 60 i 20
505 1 92 1 — 1
305 80 3
Overall, the data indicate that greenstone is favorable for groundwater
development in terms of fracture density. However, the success of a water well
drilled at a given location still depends on whether or not the well intersects
water-bearing fractures. A dry hole results if no water-bearing fractures are
encountered at the chosen drilling site. The existing wells on the parcel are
below average in terms of yields reported in the county database.
Soils and saprolite
Soils on the parcel are dominantly Rabun clay (Figure 4). These soils are deep
and well-drained, with moderate permeability and water capacity. With an
average thickness of about 45 feet indicated by average casing lengths (Table
Figure 4: Soils in the vicinity of TMP 79-4C
7i. l, ' - ',.
Soils Units
4
vic ‘ i allk,1
cp
seg ,,.. ,- ,- Ailima...ounni ige J / ,Vir 6 li:
ft 474,.4 le 77 2 3
1 Iityir ralail""'2 7% slope
gni 23B 71
I\r`` ;,' 1
1, ` ., .. 76 238
1), this soil - saprolite column is well suited to groundwater storage and
1 transmission to bedrock fractures. Casing lengths of existing wells on TMP 79-
4C (80 and 92 feet respectively, Table 2) indicate that the soil - saprolite column is
exceptionally thick on this parcel, which is favorable in terms of groundwater
recharge.
Groundwater flow, recharge and discharge
Groundwater flow in the vicinity of TMP 79 -4C is estimated to be generally in a
southerly direction (Figure 5), with recharge on the slopes of the Southwest
Mountains, and discharge into unnamed tributaries of Barn Branch, and
ultimately, the Rivanna River. Flow is driven by the strong topographic gradient
on the south - facing flank of the Southwest Mountains.
Near - surface groundwater flow paths are influenced by local topography. On this
parcel, there is a strong easterly component driven by the steep local drainage to
the east. At deeper levels, groundwater flow through bedrock fractures is likely
driven by the overall regional southerly gradient.
Figure 5: Predicted groundwater flow paths in the vicinity of TMP 79 -4C .
011 ...,
i vv„, --A, 7/7 ,; u. , , b , s liir,--„ ') cor mg
y. i iv( f -_,--('c --,\._ yi e.)C, ! ) , ( \\,) ' rf) 1 _, \-/
7 /1 i i; iid_____ - - At 1
v s '( y/ _..i 14A .. 4. A, TT .. '
f
J j } 1 ,1J G predicted
1 I\ ,-- _ = '--1- r--- t
0.i
64,y : r
1
r '- o groundwater
r - '
4 . i ' 1 I,. t-flow direction -
4-z---
1 location of
1
X5 1
4 VDOT
T -
Tipples f petroleum
OL"' i -2.u,Quarry' • U 1` ' release
r 1 \\' ' t 19995016)
x fig ., C
f f "ll l •
ftire
iAl1/4 (, \ . .\. r 1 c_ ----).21)- -
I
Groundwater sensitivity
Contaminant threats
TMP 79 -4C is not within an area of recognized groundwater sensitivity according
to a published Albemarle County study, or databases that were assembled
during the 2003 Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment, Phase 11 (Figure
6). However, the parcel is within 2000 feet of LUST case #19995016, which is a
petroleum release that occurred at a Virginia Department of Highways fueling
facility in 1999. This is listed as a "closed case" in the Virginia DEQ database.
TMP 79 -4C is on the other side of a minor drainage divide from the site of this
petroleum release (Figure 5). This topographic feature is likely a divide for local
groundwater flow; it is unlikely that wells on the parcel will be impacted by this
spill. Light industrial land uses on adjoining parcels to the east and south pose
no inherent contaminant threats to this parcel.
TMP 79 -4C is located immediately south of, and down hydraulic gradient from
Interstate Highway 64. A vehicular crash or spill on that highway could
potentially impact groundwater on site.
There are several existing drainfields inferred from air photos and field
reconnaissance within 1000 feet of TMP 79 -4C (Figure 3). One of these is
immediately up gradient on the adjacent parcel to the west. Failure of this
drainfield could impact groundwater on site.
Public water supply wells
There are no public water supply wells within 1000 feet of the parcel. One well
that had been under Virginia Department of Health oversight is located about 200
feet south of the parcel. However, according to the Virginia Office of Drinking
Water, that well is no longer in service (personal communication, Carl
Christiansen, 3/16/09).
Potential impacts of proposed use
Well capacity and predicted withdrawals
The proposed use would continue withdrawing groundwater from the two existing
wells on the property. Assuming the reported yields for these wells are accurate,
the wells are theoretically capable of producing 5760 gallons of water per day. At
a more conservative duty cycle of 50 %, this equates to 2880 gallons per day.
Permanent water meters were installed on March 9, 2009, and data collected
over a period of 7 working days (Table 3). The metering data indicate that under
present conditions (no irrigation in operation), aggregate water usage on the
m
N
O
7<.---/ )jN-
i
J '
r
C
4, '
O
Z.
w
l
I/
t
j
j
am ,_
ter
r +
r/-s
t0
r
o U
J
7, ,',
s ( -
c
1
i ;
i
q
lik)
1 '
I
Y .----/
c
6
0
i
y '
t
C
f •
IA
70._ .
i .
k.._ :.
I
i - .._
i
A
t '
A
1 . - \
0 \
r.°
i; ""
I
i -' ` , .. - --- -- ' - ....____,:
s
si
N,.________,_, (
Q)
ff
i ` ,
J
F
r
h
ti! -- - - - -
1
N •
rr •
o
r
r : (
7---)\
I
I
A
I '
f
l
r
1
IN'
r
i
r
L
f
i
r '
G
i1
1
co
t.
r !
y
r
f
r•
7 ,- ,
G
X ..
ea
i ,,
1--
ss: /
i -
1/
4 '',
rs :
2------ „.-
t,,
I
1
et
H
4
b,- / /
I
1 . ,
r
f
8 ,
i ..,
fi t. .-:,---_;------..,,,,',
I
0
01
i
if
y' ,-/
M-
1
N
1--
T
7 --- '
i
th
1, _ - - - • ,,'
to , '
3).
CO
CO
Si',
L
1
te
r
1
o
0
c
o
cI-
c
5
D - - Cr
0
v'
cDSI)
3 ",
D
o
0
a
CO
w
O -
0
U,
U
0
o
CD
m
a)
m
mm—
1—
m
parcel averages 885 gallons per day. This figure represents about 30% of the
theoretical well capacity if the wells were operated at a 50% duty cycle.
Table 3: Metering data from two existing wells on TMP 79-4C
all readings in gallons, recorded at 11:30 AM)
3/09/2009 meter meter average daily
well ID meters readings on readings on usage over 7
installed)3/16/2009 3/18/2009 working days
3111/1996
plumbed 0 2100 3051 436
downstairs)
11/15/2001
plumbed 0 2282 3141 449
upstairs)
The proposed increase in the number of employees from 30 to 42 represents a
40% increase. Assuming this translates into a 40% increase in water usage,
daily withdrawals under the new regime could be predicted to be about 1239
gallons. This is equivalent to about 43% of theoretical well capacity if pumping
were on a 50% duty cycle. In the absence of aquifer testing to verify the true
yield of these wells, it appears the water supply is adequate to supply the
proposed use.
Water budget estimate for site
Annual precipitation: 44 inches
Conservative estimate for percentage of precipitation contributing to natural
groundwater recharge: 10%
Annual groundwater recharge: 4.4 inches
Daily natural groundwater recharge: 0122 inches = .0010 feet
Daily recharge per acre:
001 feet X 43560 square feet per acre = 43.56 cubic feet
Gallons recharge per day per acre:
43.56 cubic feet X 7.48 gallons per cubic foot =
326 gallons per day per acre
Gallons per day natural recharge over entire site:
326 gallons per acre X 2.75 acres = 896 gallons
Site conditions that mitigate groundwater withdrawal
While the numbers imply that withdrawals are in excess of local recharge, design
elements on site substantially augment natural groundwater recharge. The
manufacturing process on this site does not consume water. A large proportion
of groundwater withdrawals are returned to the ground, and contribute to
recharge, through a sanitary drainfield. This is the principal means through
which groundwater withdrawals are mitigated on site.
In addition, there are existing stormwater management BMPs on site that
partially limit offsite runoff, and contribute to groundwater recharge. These
include a biofiltration structure adjacent to the main parking lot, and the use of
porous gravel beds beneath the eves of the building.
Stormwater management for the proposed parking lot expansion includes a BMP
that has bioretention and infiltration components (Attachment D). This
installation would contribute to groundwater recharge.
Potential for impacts to existing users
It is not anticipated that the proposed increased withdrawal will impact existing
groundwater users on adjoining parcels or elsewhere. The proposed use does
not involve activities that pose a threat of toxic spill under normal circumstances.
Reserve wellfield
TMP 79-4C is limited by its small size and required setbacks in terms of possible
locations for replacement wells.
Dedicated Monitoring well
Given limited options for drilling sites, a dedicated monitoring well may not be
appropriate for this parcel.
Attachment A: Site Plan of proposed expansion
Attachment B: Water Well Completion Report, Well #1
Attachment C: Water Well Completion Report, Well #2
Attachment D: Schematic diagram, Americast Filtera stormwater BMP
Submitted by Nicholas H ns, CPG # 2801 001041
I 1March20, 2009 Le
08 -31 -2009 2801 001041
BOARD FOR GEOLOGY
CERTIFIED AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST
NICHOLAS H EVANS
4609 BURNLEY STATION ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE, VA 22923
v- o
cmE .nus 3
9 4
Y
7
Tai
Y/
I
r
3/
j
f:
o
1
T
T/
u
V
Y/
y
T
i
0
A ,
hi /)
rr
I
4,
1
i
j
i
g!!a.
u
g—
Sv
I
I, ____
N
y'
n /
8 -
o
s .
7J
t: -
o
rE'
7"
1
i / /
j
1
I
t
x
I
4:
T
r4
I
TI
3
ti
y
a
a
4
4 .
400
75
ii
r -
1
ti
b
w
c
C
@
b
I`°
r
6
R
4
C
I
CI
i
s
1/
1 &
y
N
i
11 '
QI
P
I,
i
ia _ .
1
U
p
m
V
O
g,
I
P)
I
i
f
L
lip
f1,
H/
g
a
C
rAi
J ,/
m
iu _ _
i
z 0
II
z
1
i `
ri
S
r
a
V `;
Z
N
0
Il
l
is
0
N
ll
l
L
w
s
IF ' ”
II
1
n, ,
n
I'
rt -
a _
m
l
I'
it, - __ --
4 - - ` -
r_
i
E—
rf
l
O
n
y ' ,
n
j
1
Ifi
x
Fir
1
s
CO
v
c._
o
RI
IUMAGEN
FERTILITY
DIAGNOSTIC
1
o
a
oyM`
o
p °
N
PHASE
3
9
v
1 \
O
6
z
8
ft
M
E
0
M
At'
g
PROP
OSED
SITE
PLAN
f,
k
i
3
i\
J\
N
F
A
J
Commonwealth of Virginia ry 7 7! V
n C N -rUniformWaterWellCompletionReportri 3
Owner DEBRA BRYANT / SMITH & ROBINSON Tax Map ID 79
AddresaC/O S. & R. 1128 E. HIGH ST. , CH' VILLE 22902 VDH Permit 101 -96 -0045
VWCB Permit
Phone 971 -7026 VWCB ID
w. Location HUNTERS WAY LOT # 9
Well Data
County ALB
General Information
Drilling Method A R Date Completed 3/11/1996 Total Depth of Well 505'
Depth to Bedrock 90'Yield 1 GPM Length of Test
Static Water Level Stabilized Water Level Natural Flow
Well Disinfected (Y or N)Disinfectant Used Amount Used
Casing
From 1 To 97 From To From To
Size 61/4"Material PVC Size Materials Size Materials
Weight Schedule Weight Schedule Weight Schedule
Gravel Pack
From N/A To N/A From To From To
Grout
From 0 To 50'From To From To
Bore Hole Size 10"Bore Hole Size Bore Hole Size
Type BENSEAL Type Type
Method PUMPED Method Method
Water Zones or Screened Intervals
From 325'To 330'From To From To
Mesh Size N/A Diam N/A Mesh Size Diam Mesh Size Diam
Use Data
Private Well: Domestic Agricultural Industrial Monitoring
Public Well: Community Non Community X
Abandonment Information*
Bored or Dug Wells Wells other than Bored Wells
Casing Removed, Y or N Casing removed Y or N?
If Y, Depth to which casing was removed:If Y, Depth to which casing was removed
Depth and Type of Fill:If applicable, depth (s), and type of gravel/sand fill:
Source of Fill:Source of gravel or sand:
Bentonite Plugs: From To From To Grouting: From To
Method of permanently marking location:
Drillers Log*
Depth Description of Formation or Sediment Remarks
0-20 RED DIRT
20-90 BRN SHALE
90-505 GREENSTONE
Name C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co., Inc.
Address 2238 Richmond Road Charlottesville, Va. 22911
Phone co (434) 977 -3818
I certify that the information contained here is true and that this well was installed and constructed in accordance with the
permit and further that the well complies w'th all applicable state and local regulations, ordinances and laws.
Drillers Signature RONNIE ELLIOTT
Date 3/18/96 Re esenting C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co. Inc.
Virginia Contractors License Number 003400
4/70 , c C
Commonwealth of Virginia
jj
Uniform Water Well Completion Report
Owner .J v\r. g4.A. '+ 1C-Tax Map ID
Address VOH Pannk 'l - 1
VWCa Permit
Phone VWCB lo
Location County d,vhA
Well Data '
General Information 3 c3 SDrilingMethodDateCompletedSl - (C -IV Total Depth of Well
Depth to Bedrock Thld 5%GPM)Length of Test
Static Water Level Stabilized Want level Natural Flow (Rate) 3
WA Disinfected (V'or N)F pilot. ant peed Amount Used
Casing r.. r
From
To From,,, To n' Fro
4
Q To
Size :; Material Size _ .,, _ Material Size Material
WeighVSchedule cl Weight/Schedule WeightWSchdule
4
Gravel Pack
From To From To From To
rout
From To 5 From To From To
Bor. Hole Size r Bore Hole Size Bor. Hole Size
Type Type Type
Method Method Method
Water Zones or Screened intervals
From To From To From .To
Mesh Size Nam Mesh Size Diem Mesh Size Diam
From To From To From To
Mesh Size Diem Mesh Size Diem Mash Size Diem
Use Data •
Private Walt: Domestic ____ Agricultural Industrial Monitoring
Public Well: Community Pion Community
Abandorunent Information •
Bored or Dug Walls Wells ether than bored Wells
Casing Removed, Y or N ?:Casing removed, Y or N7
If Y, Depth to which casing was removed;Depth to which casing was removed
Depth and Type of Fie:Apps, depth(s), and type of grsveisand fig:
Source of Fill Source d gravel_gr sand:
Rentonita Plugs: From to From to Cement: From to From to
Method of permanently marking location:
V
War additional Shoots N nocassary)
certify that the information contained hew law and that this won was installed and constructed in accordance with the permit and
further that the well complies with aN amicable slide and local roguiallons, ordinances and laws.
N FOSTER WELL is PUMP CO INC'
Address 3705 DOBLEANN DRIVE
CRAVT.ferrlir-la -TX VA
Phone Ernt N
Drillers Signature
Oats Representing 4Pf & maw cin Twke.
Virginia Contractors License Number 77115 (11SCIA5A
Vi •
t
if.
1 ,
114
41
A ..
ti
t ,
a•
rri co
P.
tW
iI
mm
i
i
j
c
cD
C
cD
o
rt
C—
f
r—r^
r'
0_
t
i
s
i
O
4
y
O
y
O
1 .
1
E.
zE.-
I
CT
d
N
CD —
O
3
CD
12
CO
m
p
y
a
0
cu
P
CD
CD
MI
C
X
dco
G
O
O
4.
4
C
rt
et) 'V
e
5 .
cti O co O
0O
c.
S
z
m
0 ,
cp
1
t
OO !
D
co
O
g -
Oe
n
C
d
RI
H•
M
I
p ("
03
1
N
tG
oro
y
1
CD
r
T
O
2
P
ilMONIN•
r
V =
l
T
l
CD
CA -
ri
a :
2'
11
y
C
Co
CD
O
c.
W
N
O
O
N -.!
C
T1 1
Humagen Fertility Diagnostics
TMP 79-4C
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment
Groundwater Management Plan
Prepared for:
Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc.
2400 Hunters Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
April 21, 2009
Nick H. Evans PhD CPG
Virginia Groundwater LLC
4609 Burnley Station Road
Barboursville, VA 22923
Key Findings
Hydrogeologic units: 1E (Blue Ridge East)
Groundwater availability zone: Class 2 (medium relative groundwater
availability)
Average daily groundwater withdrawal: 885 gallons
Theoretical natural recharge to site (daily): 896 gallons
Site design aspects augmenting natural recharge: Groundwater withdrawals
returned to ground through sanitary drainfield; stormwater management
via on -site biofiltration BMPs
Hydrogeologic conditions favorable to proposed use? Yes
Site within groundwater sensitivity zone? No: the site is not within an area of
recognized groundwater sensitivity as defined in the Water and Sanitary
Sewer Design Standards Manual, Section 206.2: Site -Level Groundwater
Assessment Standards
Contamination threats on record: DEQ LUST case #19995016 (Virginia
Department of Highways) within 2000 feet of site
Additional contaminant threats observed in field reconnaissance? none
Anticipated impacts of proposed use on existing users: none
Groundwater management plan: Maintain existing biofiltration infrastructures
Overview
This proposal is to expand parking lot capacity at an existing business, Humagen
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., located on TMP 79 -4C, 2400 Hunters Way, off US 250
east of Charlottesville (Figure 1). The 2.75 -acre parcel presently contains an
approximately 8000 square -foot building and asphalt parking lots with 37 spaces.
The proposal would add 8 parking spaces on approximately 3400 square feet of
new asphalt. A site plan showing the existing buildings, proposed development
layout and approximate limits of land disturbance is included with this report
Attachment A).
The parcel is located in the watershed of an unnamed tributary of Barn Branch,
which flows into the Rivanna River. Topographically, this parcel is on the side
slope of a foothill on the south flank of the Southwest Mountains. The parcel has
been substantially cleared and leveled to accommodate existing facilities. There
are no streams, springs or other surface water features on the property.
The parcel is bordered on the north by the Interstate Highway 64 right -of -way,
and rural farmland to the north of the highway. Land use on adjoining parcels to
the west and south is light industrial. There is a wooded stream bottom to the
east of the parcel.
There are two drilled wells on the property (locations on site plan, Attachment A)
presently supplying water to the existing facility. The original well was drilled to a
depth of 505 feet in 1996, with a reported yield of 1 gallon per minute. A second
well was drilled in 2001 to a depth of 305 feet, with a reported yield of 3 gallons
per minute. Completion Reports (GW2) for these wells are included with this
report (Attachments B and C). The building has two separate water systems,
each served by one well. Water usage is metered at each of the two inlets.
Waste water is disposed of through a sanitary drainfield at the rear of the
property.
The manufacturing process at this facility does not use water. Water is used to
supply bathrooms and kitchen needs of employees. There is one drip irrigation
hose installed on the property, however that has only been used in the past to
keep newly planted shrubs alive during the initial growing season, and has not
been used in recent years (Attachment D). The facility operates two 8 -hour shifts
Monday through Friday, and is closed Saturday and Sunday. There are
approximately 40 people (maximum), working on -site at any given time during
the work week. Daily water consumption for the facility averaged 885 gallons
during the period 3/9 — 3/18/2009.
o -
n
0 (
Q
o
c
J
i
i
f - . -
11)
ti
a .
1
i
1
17,
1-- " - --- ; .
i .
7
it '
s . , . ,-.-
yt \
N:\ .-.
g;
1
i
I )
r .
1
11
I / -:'-- ''-'
1
n
1 /
k
13
1
1: '% .''-'-\ \ , '
f
r
r
t
s
I -
0c .. -
4
t
1 '
1
i '
t
3 '\_
C,
4,S1
i '',
z . ....,,,- -- '''
T--
77/k• ((;\
1-
1- —
o
d
I';
l
t
i .
1
j
1
f
i
O
tt
1
4
L
I
t
tom
y
1
k
v
1
cr'\
ji
vi
1
Ifti
1
0
ht,
r
i'
l , (
J
I \I
J
s
2
Illi
t
y ,
1
t ‘‘\--.---.---t.,,
l',
r'
7 '
L
111
r
i
i;> /'
r '
f /
1 .
1
0
1• =
i
1.
I
i . ' '
I
1
I.
i',....:,
4: ...„,
a , , ,? .... ", „ :, , __::/: ,,
y---.
i ./§
t \'''
k,
t'; ..-
cfiV,
TiVe. '.
4.:;
1
4
fk
r
k.*
1
y
ik,... '
7 .
1 . " '; ,,,. ' .,;:„.(.,,..
7 , . ,;. ' - .
4
L
I ,):
At
jr" \\\........_„,.....................
i.L.,.. - ...- . . . ,.....,
j/ ::: . \ _.
I
zr
02
i
i (
1
v
I
l
t
e '
UUU
U
rT' ,,' •
J.
g
f
q
1
f. ."?
fi
1
r / '
t
n
J !
vs ' '
l+
I'
1 "'_
1 \
L--'
i. \
41
p
y -
r7(.
1\____\''
Z''"---...,
37 ' } '`
f ` ...
Al
1..",.. .
Lr.
1t \ _. _
1 .
i :.
7 .
S
J
E
O o
Q _
7 N Q D
Hydrogeologic Assessment
Bedrock geology
The parcel is situated within the Catoctin Formation greenstone bedrock geologic
unit (Figure 2.) The eastern contact between the Catoctin and overlying
metasedimentary rocks is about 4000 feet southeast of the parcel. The parcel is
within the Blue Ridge East (1E) hydrogeologic unit, with Class 2 (medium)
relative groundwater availability, as defined in the Albemarle County
Hydrogeologic Assessment Summary Report of 2003. No bedrock exposures
were observed on the property during field reconnaissance.
Bedrock fracture density and water well productivity
The Catoctin greenstone does not contain primary intergranular porosity through
which water might pass. Groundwater flow is confined to bedrock fractures and
fissures. No significant linear features, fracture traces or structural features
were identified on air photos or other maps in this study that would be useful
indicators of the presence or orientation of bedrock fractures on this parcel.
In the absence of good bedrock exposures with which to directly observe
bedrock fractures, the yields of randomly -sited water wells can be used as a
proxy for fracture density. Table 1 (below) summarizes county -wide data from
the wells in the county database that were constructed in Catoctin greenstone
bedrock.
Table 1: domestic water well statistics from Albemarle County
database
Geologic map yield (gallons total well depth casing length Count
unit per minute)feet)feet)
Catoctin
Average: 10.3 Average: 241 Average: 45
Formation Maximum:483
Maximum: 150 Maximum: 2,800CZc 117
In addition to the two wells on the property, there are three private wells in the
Albemarle County database that are within 1000 feet of TMP 79 -4C (Figure 3).
Data from those wells are reported in Table 2 (below). In addition, there is a
public water supply well in the database adjacent to the parcel, however no well
construction data is given. At least two additional wells are inferred on the basis
of air photos and site reconnaissance to be present within 1000 feet of the
parcel, although not in the county database.
C a)I\-)
CP
cri
440,
114kiiislitisilsolkistko,,_
C.---"•-•..
43
n" (
D
0
a o
all (
1 66 0 (
0
e ..... . .0
3 w
h I -
4.
r
CC) =
Z:
a
z....,
P'' :
N-
N.,
71111111
N
N
NNY
n
5 §Og
r-.
a
C r
g
s
0 al
0
0 0 6 0
8 P i
vow,
11 Q
t
D
7
a_
W
2
2
N
n
i5
rn
m
m
ED
m
n 0
D
C
0
D
0
Q..
h
D
a
v
FA
Q
Q
w
N
I,
I'
t-
D
N
0)
O
m
CO
o
J•
cD
n
O
n
CD
c
r.
4,
rh
o
0
O
4
5'
0
O
D
0 h 0
4;
0
CD
u)
Q
F
w
Y
D
r .: : ..
v+n CD
Table 2: Data for wells within 1000 feet of TMP 79 -4C
indicates existing_ well on TMP 79-4C)
total depth casing length yield (gallons static water
feet)feet)per minute)level (feet)
305 62 1
165 80 20 58
145 60 20
505 92 1
305 80 3
Overall, the data indicate that greenstone is favorable for groundwater
development in terms of fracture density. However, the success of a water well
drilled at a given location still depends on whether or not the well intersects
water - bearing fractures. A dry hole results if no water - bearing fractures are
encountered at the chosen drilling site. The existing wells on the parcel are
below average in terms of yields reported in the county database.
Soils and saprolite
Soils on the parcel are dominantly Rabun clay (Figure 4). These soils are deep
and well- drained, with moderate permeability and water capacity. With an
vo.,average thickness of about 45 feet indicated by average casing lengths (Table
Figure 4: Soils in the vicinity of TMP 79 -4C
K r / ' 3E 71C U 7-k, 1
7 ' • ' ?
33 F
nw 71D
26C3
m
o JS 1 72°8
D J,258 Soils Units:
2603t E
lD eG"C. ;
4
71 D: Rabun clay loam,z5c c3 z3c 15 25% Slope
r mni 1&
798 e
796
yksI
ro
72C3 Rabun cla ,Ali 71C 7 - 15% slo ep
severely eroded
s 7203 796: Starr Silt loam,
2 - 7% slope110g
mrc. 12 ±. 111 .1 ,
a238
2
710 off o
r
12D
238
iillt
798 i '
YY
76 7IC
23B
n
yr'
1), this soil - saprolite column is well suited to groundwater storage and
transmission to bedrock fractures. Casing lengths of existing wells on TMP 79-
4C (80 and 92 feet respectively, Table 2), indicate that the soil - saprolite column
is exceptionally thick on this parcel, which is favorable in terms of groundwater
recharge.
Groundwater flow, recharge and discharge
Groundwater flow in the vicinity of TMP 79 -4C is estimated to be generally in a
southerly direction (Figure 5), with recharge on the slopes of the Southwest
Mountains, and discharge into unnamed tributaries of Barn Branch, and
ultimately, the Rivanna River. Flow is driven by the strong topographic gradient
on the south - facing flank of the Southwest Mountains.
Near - surface groundwater flow paths are influenced by local topography. On this
parcel, there is a strong easterly component driven by the steep local drainage to
the east. At deeper levels, groundwater flow through bedrock fractures is likely
driven by the overall regional southerly gradient.
Figure 5: Predicted groundwater flow paths in the vicinity of TMP 79 -4C
I,.."2,, ' t
J i 1,Q- - \_,;."' .... - `fir.. r \
i /7, ,
l' ' \ 14 \I7 , ' ' ) j .11 t"\.\SCI:‘ Ir
7
r 2 .q° \11
Ii L•Z \ 11;7 I r...:\ ‘a% • 1 A_.:_t 7- .1:: - . -
4, 6 .,"A
Iv c ......,,,, j ,,, _ ___. T 7 -- , .,. t,,./ N._k--- xy ......„ .... -- 5 — .
ji
1 i\ • ''f t
Iii. -1. 4-- i, t.,..--___-_,)„..',„ I 1-- -;" .-,..__ —
4rt--
4 r i 1 1 4 r1 ( -- predicted
h T-,.-- 1 (o groundwater
i . .. -i flow direction
l,', ma
i
i
I location of
f=- =- - 1 petroleumT =X__ r , r,gyp ?5t`G Quaror `release
4_,--`1—_,„,,..2.--r`N . -s 1i/ (% ' ` l ' 19995016 )
t u-y ^
300
Groundwater sensitivity
Contaminant threats
TMP 79 -4C is not within an area of recognized groundwater sensitivity according
to a published Albemarle County study, or databases that were assembled
during the 2003 Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment, Phase II (Figure
6). However, the parcel is within 2000 feet of LUST case #19995016, which is a
petroleum release that occurred at a Virginia Department of Highways fueling
facility in 1999. This is listed as a "closed case" in the Virginia DEQ database.
TMP 79 -4C is on the other side of a minor drainage divide from the site of this
petroleum release (Figure 5). This topographic feature is likely a divide for local
groundwater flow; it is unlikely that wells on the parcel will be impacted by this
spill. Light industrial land uses on adjoining parcels to the east and south pose
no inherent contaminant threats to this parcel under normal circumstances.
TMP 79 -4C is located immediately south of, and down hydraulic gradient from
Interstate Highway 64. A vehicular crash or spill on that highway could
potentially impact groundwater on site.
There are several existing drainfields inferred from air photos and field
reconnaissance within 1000 feet of TMP 79 -4C (Figure 3). One of these is
immediately up gradient on the adjacent parcel to the west. Failure of this
drainfield could impact groundwater on site.
Public water supply wells
There are no public water supply wells within 1000 feet of the parcel. One well
that had been under Virginia Department of Health oversight is located about 200
feet south of the parcel. However, according to the Virginia Office of Drinking
Water, that well is no longer in service (personal communication, Carl
Christiansen, Virginia Office of Drinking Water, 3/16/09).
Potential impacts of proposed use
Well capacity and predicted withdrawals
The proposed use would continue withdrawing groundwater from the two existing
wells on the property. Assuming the reported yields for these wells are accurate,
the wells are theoretically capable of producing 5760 gallons of water per day. At
a more conservative duty cycle of 50 %, this equates to 2880 gallons per day.
Permanent water meters were installed on March 9, 2009, and data collected
over a period of 7 working days (Table 3). The metering data indicate that under
present conditions, aggregate water usage on the property averages
5 !=
s"
1 •••=
5
cp
a (
D
P
I
4, ...<
OI
0 -
0
11
cla
n,..
i .
f
l ,
el
1
t
0
D
14 „,,--,..,
A,,rt . ‘,.
ti.„-\
4 ,.—‹‘----\
i
c
s
k ,...„.....‘
s. \ ‘
1"--
t
1:
3
f)
N."
N,
V
s,
0
0
D
6 „.... . ,, \
t
1
z
0,
Pi
f \
f
c
f-_-,-,‘ I
in
s ..;..
4._
7 /
r
N
j
7--•:
7 ----- •
1
1
cs, ..,)
1
0
t
t
I .
t
i
v
h'.
CD
Z
7-----
ri7:
i
1
I
U) .•
4.
x
1 \
0_ ,
9
1.
2 ,
fj
c \ . , -/''''
t .„ ,, (---
1
t ',,
Ai
k: --
A -.,..,.,•,
1 )`..
kl, • -..'"
e,-- - -
rz›.
1 -
S
n
o
o_
0
M ,
N---::. '
411
Z
1 (
111 ---
x
A
r ------- <"'
3
r:
i
A .---- "
s
z;
4 ) )
t,
il, ,....
i
i • . -
1
s"
c
9
r
v \-,\,:,.. ; vo \
i ,:,_..
it
c,
t
PL.
t
i
c )
2 ' ' '
74co
A.
1
f: \
tt-
V
c ,
c ••••_-
4;,- :,
Z -------' ...„ _____/, , .. , _
F
k .
r : :
i./*-
k
1•=
4Ht
f )
1
f - - --- -
f )
1.> **----,..
7- '-' •
1
i / -;.- ...,-.::
q
f
1
eNil
s '^ - -- ,, ,,
N
t
JO'
A/
0 ---
rn-
0
c
0
c
v ,
4.
3
4 (
D
D ...-
o (
0 - '---
0
k
0
1?) (
1)
a --
0 r-'
0)
r•
i"
0 (
0
0 (
1
CD
CO
885 gallons per day. This figure represents about 30% of the theoretical well
capacity if the wells were operated at a 50% duty cycle.
Table 3: Metering data from two existing wells on TMP 79-4C
all readings in gallons, recorded at 11:30 AM)
3/09/2009 meter meter average daily
well ID meters readings on readings on usage over 7
installed)3/16/2009 3/18/2009 working days
3111/1996
plumbed 0 2100 3051 436
downstairs)
11/15/2001
plumbed 0 2282 3141 449
upstairs)
In the absence of aquifer testing to verify the true yield of these wells, it appears
the water supply is adequate to supply the proposed use.
Note (1): Although there is one drip irrigation hose installed on the property,
irrigation was only used to keep newly planted shrubs alive during the initial
growing season. That system has not been turned on in recent years
Attachment D).
Note (2): The initial draft of this report (3/20/2009) was based on the assumption
that the applicant intended to increase the number of employees from 30 to 42.
In fact the applicant does not intend to increase the number of employees from
the current maximum of approximately 40 persons on site at any one time
Attachment E).
Water budget estimate for site
Annual precipitation: 44 inches
Conservative estimate for percentage of precipitation contributing to natural
groundwater recharge: 10%
Annual groundwater recharge: 4.4 inches
Daily natural groundwater recharge: 0122 inches = .0010 feet
Daily recharge per acre:
001 feet X 43560 square feet per acre = 43.56 cubic feet
Gallons recharge per day per acre:
43.56 cubic feet X 7.48 gallons per cubic foot =
326 gallons per day per acre
Gallons per day natural recharge over entire site:
326 gallons per acre X 2.75 acres = 896 gallons
Site conditions that mitigate groundwater withdrawal
The water budget estimate indicates that current average daily groundwater
withdrawals (885 gallons) are about equal to theoretical daily groundwater
recharge (896 gallons). However, design elements on site substantially augment
natural groundwater recharge. The manufacturing process on this site does not
consume water. A large proportion of groundwater withdrawals are returned to
the ground, and contribute to recharge, through a sanitary drainfield. This is the
principal means through which groundwater withdrawals are mitigated on site.
In addition, there are existing stormwater management BMPs on site that
partially limit offsite runoff, and contribute to groundwater recharge. These
include a biofiltration structure adjacent to the main parking lot, and the use of
porous gravel beds beneath the eves of the building.
Stormwater management for the proposed parking lot expansion includes a BMP
that has bioretention and infiltration components (Attachment F). This installation
would contribute to groundwater recharge.
Potential for impacts to existing users
It is not anticipated that continued withdrawal at current levels will impact existing
groundwater users on adjoining parcels or elsewhere. The proposed use does
not involve activities that pose a threat of toxic spill under normal circumstances.
Reserve wellfield
TMP 79 -4C is limited by its small size and required setbacks in terms of possible
locations for replacement wells.
Dedicated Monitoring well
Given limited options for drilling sites, a dedicated monitoring well may not be
appropriate for this parcel.
Attachment A: Site Plan of proposed expansion
Attachment B: Water Well Completion Report, Well #1
Attachment C: Water Well Completion Report, Well #2
Attachment D: Letter dated April 16, 2009 from Debra Bryant, CEO, Humagen
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., attesting to irrigation usage at the facility
Attachment E: Letter dated April 3, 2009 from Debra Bryant, CEO, Humagen
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., attesting to the number of employees at the facility
Attachment F: Schematic diagram, Americast Filtera stormwater BMP
Submitted by Nicholas H. CPG # 2801 001041
rid
i
April 21, 2009 A.-
I08 -31 - 2009 2801 001041
BOARD FOR GEOLOGY
CERTIFIED AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST
NICHOLAS H EVANS
4609 BURNLEY STATION ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE, VA 22923
ppaa.((, ,:5Lv=
r..oa c - - 4. n.c, i _ • ; . . , - . v i . . , r ' - . . = r , - n. -., , ,
ci a1) r. t Bocr, Director
2
ii
3
n;
Pf
4
m .-
y n""U ,
J - -
R ,
1
1'
Pr
7,,
r
l
1 /
7/
7
1
I
7
r
0
n
IN
r
F
1 .
c,'
yi -
y
l
I
a
f
it ..
I
r
Q
p
N/
f/
o
z
r
i'
I.
Di
4..
x--2x
14,
u
s
Y
A
A
t
fi
u
m
ga
1
rc'
T
t
1
I
uU
j +
rn
1
I
i,
I
I
s
J
I / /
I
1
ti,
R
I
1 //
70/
1
y
4b,
Noy
A1_
p,- „
I
ps
E
m
I
I
j
NCI
J /i
P
r+
EIA
a
r
ra ' /
i
1
m
2
1
1
i `
4.,
A
2, ,
i /__! / -
a
I !,
j
a
Ai
y
1
11
l
Q.,
P
1
V
g
5
1
I
1
N
4
lte
j
i
I
i
i
x
i
t
y/
ry
7
g
Ali
1/
act -
h ,
1
1
o4
1
g
I'
I'
m
3
A
j
I'
rn
1/
1 \
Z
v
i°
A
v
C
1
C
r
DO
m2
r ""
j
j
v
Z
R
0
I
9
1 -(
VZ
1
Cf
D
Z
n
i
cn ri„ \} N
InE.
R
r
J
I
Z
w
O0
1
N
0
C ”
l
O
v
1
i
I
I
1
o
g'
n ,
t
1
I
1
j
m
l
l
Go
v
nm
5
2
FiUMAGEN
FERTILITY
DIAGNOSTIC
ti
co
M ,,.
C
A
6
m
C
n
O
f '
n '
9ln
v
p
T
a
0
co
PHASE
3
h
LL
v
h
m
m
e
g-
y
s
r
ti
z
6
D
17(
o
K
a
Er9
7
m
X
2 `
PROPOSED
SITE
PLAN
M
FR
VIN
N
i\
it
z
PA
i
7"
Commonwealth of Virginia N [AAA,Uniform Water Well Completion Report
Owner DEBRA BRYANT / SMITH & ROBINSON Tax Map ID 79
AddressC /O S. & R. 1128 E. HIGH ST. , CH' VILLE 22902 VDH Permit 101 - 96 - 0045
VWCB Permit
Phone 971 -7026 VWCB ID
Location HUNTERS WAY LOT # 9
Welt Data
General Information
County ALB
Drilling Method A R Date Completed 3/11 /1996 Total Depth of Well 505'
Depth to Bedrock 90'Yield 1 GPM Length of Test
Static Water Level Stabilized Water Level Natural Flow
Well Disinfected (Y or N)Disinfectant Used Amount Used
Casing
From 1 To 92'From To From To
Size 61/4"Material PVC Size Materials Size Materials
Weight Schedule Weight Schedule Weight Schedule
Gravel Pack
From N/A To N/A From To From To
Grout
From 0 To 50'From To From To
Bore Hole Size 10"Bore Hole Size Bore Hole Size
Type BENSEAL Type Type
Method PUMPED Method Method
Water Zones or Screened Intervals
From 325'To 330'From To From To
Mesh Size N/A Diam N/A Mesh Size Diam Mesh Size Diam
Use Data*
Private Well: Domestic Agricultural Industrial Monitoring
Public Well: Community Non Community X
Abandonment Information"
Bored or Dug Wells Wells other than Bored Wells
Casing Removed, Y or N Casing removed Y or N?
If Y, Depth to which casing was removed:If Y, Depth to which casing was removed
Depth and Type of FiII:If applicable, depth (s), and type of gravel /sand fill:
Source of Fill:Source of gravel or sand:
Bentonite Plugs: From To From To Grouting: From To
Method of permanently marking location:
Drillers Log"
Depth Description of Formation or Sediment Remarks
0-20 RED DIRT
20-90 BRN SHALE
90-505 GREENSTONE
Name C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co., Inc.
Address 2238 Richmond Road Charlottesville, Va. 22911
Phone co 434) 977 -3818
I certify that the information contained here is true and that this well was installed and constructed in accordance with the
permit and further that the well complies w'thth all state and local regulations, ordinances and laws.
Drillers Signature RONNIE ELLIOTT
1 ,
Date 3/18/96 Re esenting C. R. Moore Well Drilling Co. Inc.
Virginia Contractors License Number 003400
A 7' I 0 ukA 1(7 C
Commonwealth of Virginia
UniformUniform Water Well Completion Report
Owner a v,. t`44.A. -4 taJJ"Tax Map ID
Address VOH P•rmh
VWCB Permit
Phone VWCB * ID
Location County C Mali g-
Weil Data •
General Information r Svc1
Drilling Method Data Completed I 1 - fC "el Total Depth of Wen
Depth to Bedrodt Yield GPM)length of Test
Static Water Level Stabled Water level Natural Flow (Rate) 3
Well Disinfected (Y or N) i Disinfectant )s.d .,!_,„_Amount Used
Casing 1
ri
From To From To! From To
kSizeMaterial Size __ Material Size Material
Weight/Schedule .V Weight/Schedtde Weigh•/Schedule
r ' .
Gravel Pack
From To From To From To
gout
rom To 5 0 From To From To
Bore Hole Size r Bor. Hole Size Boni Hole Size
Type tPP Type Type
Method Method Method
Water Zones or Screened Intervals y
From To From To From .To
Mesh Size Diam Mesh Size Dian Mesh Size Diam
From To From To From To
Mesh Size Diam Mesh Size Diam Mesh Size Diam
Use Data •
Private Well: Domestic -Agricultural Industrial Monitoring
Public Weil: Community Non Community
Abandonment Information •
Bored or Dug Wells Wells other than Bored Wells
Casing Removed, Y or N ?:Casing removed, Y or NT
if Y, Depth to which casing was removed:D. b which casing was removed:
Depth and Type of Fin:Nppnkabis, depth(s), and type of grsvaYaand fill:
Source of FIN Source of gravel.ar sand:
ientonite Plugs: From to From to C.m.M: From to From to
Method of permanently marking location:
V
User additional Sheets N necessary)
I certify that the information contained hem is Vu and that this well was installed and constructed in accordance with the permit and
further that the well complies with all applicable gala and local ragulations, ordinances and laws.
Name FOSTER WELL & PUMP CO INC
Address 3705 DOBLEANN DRIVE
HARTJTrr i XX VA 7
Phone Erilf
Drillers Signature
Date Ropresonting FrO f L MOM fYI TN?!
Virginia Contractors License Numb*, 7711g 1315Q/15A
vi
r vt-c (4 Kt Oq t
IN 4
Aiki
HUMAGEN
April 16, 2009
Dr. Nick Evans
v Virginia Groundwater LLC
CH.=9L27 FsVILLF 226 -4609 Burnley Station Road
U- 979 -4000 Barboursville, VA 22923
F. .i24 -2Q -:_972
Dear Dr. Evans:
Concerning the irrigation system at Humagen Fertility Diagnostics,
there was a drip hose system installed (1 hose) to keep the shrubs
alive when they were first planted (2001). Once the plants were
established, the system was no longer used. No one remembers
the last time it was used, but certainly not in the last 3 years.
Please let me know if you need more information.
st gards
t
Debra Bryant,
c
P k .D.
CEO, Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc.
E
Mae
HUMAGEN
April 3, 2009
Dr. Nick Evans
Virginia Groundwater LLC
4609 Burnley Station Road
Barboursville. VA 22923
Dear Dr. Evans:
I have reviewed the groundwater report you prepared for Humagen
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. Thank you for preparing it. I found one
calculation that is based on an assumption that we will increase the
number of employees. There are no plans to increase the number of
employees, so the actual water meter readings are what we currently
use and will use in the foreseeable future. We now rent parking spaces
across the street and need additional parking for those employees on
our property. We run two shifts, so the maximum number of employees
in the building at any one time is approximately 40.
Please make this change to the report or call if you need more
information. Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Debra Bryant, Ph.D.
CEO, Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc.
i
S`
Ik
w
Q.
O
O
CL
7.
rn
j
m
0
d
CD
d
a
CO
1
54
ma
11,
1
c.
w
d
o
i
O
d
g
O
1
6dith
C
CD I
1111I
O
N t;
I ( _
il
1
s
o
jjj
4
qq
r
ara.
t
sa
090
is,,., . "
c =
ct,
6)- .......
f
r
en
3
G
co
rr
111
w+
z
e
O
Oa
W =
N
CD -.
1
0
y
N
e
C!
cc
to
w
O
Fi
N
d
X
O
Z = -; _
O *
DO O.
r cl:'
5
a)
7T)
s''''
i
13 X
p
O
0
Z
O
f
C "
O
CD
to
n
9.
mow'..'-
O
O
O
O
c
N
sCrn
O
CD
5'
fly
9.
1.
k '
O w
N
2
c
f
S
8
N
i
T
Q-
Q
iraummir
L
o
C
O
I..
N •
ri
CO
7
Ln
N
Z.,
1,
3
CD
9.
111®