Evaluation of Aquifer Interconnection from Aquifer 

Characteristics Computed by Using Specific Capacity 

Data within the Vicinity of the Tremont Barrel Fill Site, 

Clark County, Ohio

By A.M. Gahala 

Open-File Report 2015–1026

U.S. Department of Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey 

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its

natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit 

http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by 

the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

Suggested citation: 

Gahala, A.M., 2015, Evaluation of aquifer interconnection from aquifer characteristics computed by 

using specific capacity data within the vicinity of the Tremont Barrel Fill site, Clark County, Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1026, 27 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151026. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
Contents

Abstract......................... ......................................................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. ...1

Purpose and Scope..................................................................... ................................................. ....4

Geology....................................................................................... ...................................................... ........4 

Hydrology.................................................................................... ....................................................... ........5 

Methods....................................................................................... ..................................................... ........7 

Computed Aquifer Characteristics...................................................... ................................................. ..........11 

Evaluation of Aquifer Interconnection.................................... ............................................................... ............12

Summary.......................................................................................... .......................................................13

References............ ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Appendixes

Appendix 1. Data for Sand and Gravel Aquifer... ........................................................................................ 16

Appendix 2. Data for Limestone Aquifer... ................................................................................................... 19

Appendix 3. Barrel Fill Hydraulic Conductivity Data... ................................................................................. 23

Appendix 4. Well-log Formation Description from Cross-Section A—A’............ ...................... ...............25 

Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Barrel Fill site and distance 

to Tremont City and Mad River Valley aquifer........................................... .......................................................2 

Figure 2. General schematic of geologic sections depicting the 

Silurian-age limestone/dolomite deposits incised by the Mad River Valley 

and infilled with sand and gravels (valley-fill deposits)...... ........................................ .........................................5 

Figure 3. Cross section from Barrel Fill site to Mad River (A-A’) 

with generalized groundwater flow pathways........................... ........................... ................................6 

Figure 4. Map for Ohio DNR Water Records Site with 2-mile buffer 

zone (red-shaded circle) from the center of the Barrel Fill site............ ......................................... ........................8 

Figure 5. General distribution of 127 residential wells used for the estimation 

of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel and limestone 

aquifers near the Barrel Fill site of Tremont City, Ohio............................................................... ........................9 

Tables

Table 1. Statistical data presented for specific capacity, 

transmissivity, and horizontal hydraulic conductivity data from 

wells open to the sand and gravel aquifer.......................................... ........................................ ...................11

Table 2. Statistical data for specific capacity, transmissivity, 

and hydraulic conductivity from wells open to the limestone aquifer.............................................. .....................12
1 

Evaluation of Aquifer Interconnection from Aquifer 

Characteristics Computed by Using Specific Capacity 

Data within the Vicinity of the Tremont Barrel Fill Site, 

Clark County, Ohio

Abstract

The Tremont Barrel Fill site is immediately north of the Tremont City Landfill near 

Tremont City, Clark County, Ohio. The site was an unlined pit used as a repository for disposing 

industrial liquid wastes and sludge from 1976 through 1979. Previous investigations led the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to conclude that the site poses a contamination risk 

to nearby residents relying on private supply wells opened to the underlying deep sand and 

gravel and limestone aquifers. The USEPA also concluded there is a potential risk to the 

residents of the nearby Tremont City; the city obtains its municipal water supply from the Mad 

River Valley aquifer, which is recharged by the adjacent limestone aquifer. The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) assessed the degree of hydraulic interconnection, and thus possible contaminant 

pathway(s), between the two aquifers (the sand and gravel and the limestone) underlying the 

Barrel Fill site, with consideration for the impact of an identified interconnection between the 

limestone and the Mad River Valley aquifer used for municipal supply. 

Aquifer interconnection between the sand and gravel aquifer overlying the limestone 

aquifer is assessed by analysis of specific capacity data from well-construction logs for 

derivation of estimates of transmissivity (T) and horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh). Data of 

this nature is limited in the control or knowledge about how well these data were collected and 

reported; therefore, the T and Kh are estimations. Similar values of T and Kh are used to infer the 

degree of aquifer interconnection based on the USEPA Hazard Ranking System, which states

that aquifers are considered interconnected when the hydraulic conductivities are within two 

orders of magnitude. 

The results of the hydraulic analysis from 127 wells open to either the sand and gravel or 

the limestone aquifer indicate that the transmissivity of these aquifers is within one order of 

magnitude and horizontal hydraulic conductivity is within two orders of magnitude. As such, on 

the basis of the applied ranking system the two aquifers can be considered hydraulically 

interconnected. 

Introduction

The Tremont Barrel Fill (Operable Unit) site is about 1.5 miles from Tremont City, Clark 

County, Ohio (fig. 1). Within the 8.5-acre Barrel Fill site, approximately 51,500 drums and 

300,000 gallons of uncontained industrial liquid wastes and sludge were disposed of in unlined 

waste cells from 1976 through 1979 (Haley and Aldrich, 2006). On the basis of prior 
2 

investigations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) concluded that there is a 

potential future risk to human health and the environment, if contaminants move to underlying 

regional water-supply aquifers (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the USEPA estimated the degree of 

interconnection between the sand and gravel aquifer and the underlying limestone aquifer 

beneath the site. 

Figure 1. Map of the Barrel Fill site and distance to Tremont City and Mad River Valley aquifer (modified 

from Weston Solutions, Inc., 2013) [Cross-section B-B’ through C-C’ are not shown in this report]. Hatched 

lines indicate the approximate lateral extent of Mad River Valley aquifer (Sheets and Yost, 1994, fig. 1). 
3 

The USEPA Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) can be used to classify two adjoining 

aquifers as interconnected if the values of transmissivity (T) and horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity (Kh) of both aquifers are within two orders of magnitude and there are no 

continuous intervening materials of significantly lower Kh (for example, more than two orders of 

magnitude lower) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). This classification is 

supported by the hydrologic principle that similar hydraulic conductivity will result in 

preferential flow of water in geologic material of higher hydraulic conductivity and limited flow

in geologic materials of lower hydraulic conductivity (Focazio and others, 2002).

Prior hydrogeologic investigations beneath and near the Barrel Fill site (Eagon and 

Associates, 1994; Voight and others, 2002; Haley and Aldrich, 2006) focused primarily on the 

unconsolidated deposits and provided no information on the limestone aquifer. 

Therefore, the only data available to assess the potential for hydraulic interconnection 

between the sand and gravel aquifer and the limestone aquifer are from logs of residential wells 

drilled within a 2-mile radius from the Barrel fill site. Assessing the hydraulic interconnection 

between these aquifers is required to determine potential groundwater and contaminant flow 

pathways between the aquifers and potentially to the Mad River Valley aquifer. 

A hydraulic interconnection between the sand and gravel and limestone aquifers has 

already been considered for the area from a previous investigation by Dumouchelle (2001), who 

published a map of the groundwater potentiometric surface of the limestone aquifer in Clark 

County using a combination of wells opened to the sand and gravel aquifer and the underlying 

limestone aquifer. Water elevations that are relatively similar between two aquifers are an 

indication that the aquifers are interconnected. Dumouchelle explained that if hydraulic 

connection between these aquifers was minimal, then water levels in glacial sediments should 

differ notably from water levels in bedrock. The study examined wells screened in the bedrock 

and wells screened in the sand and gravel. Areas of the study relevant to the present investigation 

of the Barrel Fill site included southwest of the site near the town of North Hampton, and 

northwest of the site near the landfill along Willow Dale Road (fig. 1). The water levels from 

each area were within 5 feet (ft) of each other, which was in the margin of error of the estimated 

land-surface altitude (+/-5 ft). Therefore, Dumouchelle concluded that the two aquifers were 

interconnected, and the water levels from wells completed in both aquifers were used to create 

the potentiometric-surface map and to interpret groundwater flow directions. 
4 

Purpose and Scope

This report assessed the vertical hydraulic interconnection between two aquifers 

underlying the Barrel Fill site near Tremont City, Ohio by evaluating the values of T and Kh

derived from well-construction and testing data of 127 nearby residential wells tapping into the

aquifers. The estimated hydraulic values from each aquifer are compared to determine the degree 

of aquifer connectivity, as based on the USEPA Hazard Ranking System (1992).

Geology

The geologic units of interest to this investigation consist of (1) the basal fractured 

limestone/dolomite of the Niagara Formation of Silurian age (Norris and others, 1952; 

Vormelker and others, 1995), (2) the directly overlying deep alluvial outwash deposits of 

Wisconsinan sand and gravel, and (3) the younger but related end moraine deposits (Norris and 

others, 1952) of till with thin interbedded sands (Haley and Aldrich, 2006) in upland areas near 

the Barrel Fill site. Regionally, the limestone deposits are about 170 ft thick, and the bedrock 

surface is hummocky, weathered, and fractured. The sand and gravel deposits filling in the 

undulating bedrock surfaces range in thickness from less than 5 ft to as much as 80 ft. The till 

deposits with thin sand beds are about 100–200 ft thick in the vicinity of the Barrel Fill site. East 

of the site, the limestone formation was deeply incised during an Illinoisian interglacial period

(fig. 2). The resulting Mad River Valley, which is greater than 200 ft deep in places, is filled 

predominately with sand and gravel deposited by the Wisconsinan glacial meltwater (Norris and 

others, 1952). 
5 

Figure 2. General schematic of geologic sections depicting the Silurian-age limestone/dolomite

deposits incised by the Mad River Valley and infilled with sand and gravels (valley-fill deposits) 

(modified from Sheets and Yost, 1994, fig. 2).

Hydrology

Groundwater flow direction in the sand and gravel aquifer is generally from west to east 

beneath the Barrel Fill site and proposed Clarkco Landfill and from southwest to northeast 

beneath the Tremont City Landfill, toward the Mad River Valley aquifer (Eagon and Associates, 

1994; Haley and Aldrich, 2006). The Mad River Valley aquifer is about 4 miles (mi) east of the 

Barrel Fill site and is a major groundwater source for Tremont City (fig. 1). The Mad River 

Valley aquifer receives a majority of its groundwater as lateral and upward flow from the 

adjacent limestone aquifer (fig. 2) (Sheets and Yost, 1994). Figure 3 is a cross section (A-A’) 

transecting from about 0.25 mile south of the Barrel Fill site towards the southeast (Weston 

Solutions, 2013). Groundwater flows from the Barrel Fill site east towards the Mad River Valley 

aquifer.
6 

Figure 3. Cross section from Barrel Fill site to Mad River (A-A’) with generalized groundwater flow 

pathways. Groundwater flows through the sand and gravel and the limestone and discharges into the 

Mad River Valley aquifer. Well numerical identifiers are well log ID from the Ohio DNR ERiN database. 

Well log formation descriptions are provided in Appendix 4 (modified from Weston Solutions, 2013, 

Cross-section A-A’).
7 

The deep sand and gravel aquifer has an estimated Kh of 42.5 feet per day (ft/d), as 

estimated from aquifer tests of within wells at the Barrel Fill site (Eagon & Associates, 1994). 

The Kh of the limestone aquifer is 39.7 to 93.5 ft/d, as estimated during studies focused outside 

of the vicinity of the Barrel Fill site in surrounding counties (Norris and others, 1952; Sheets and 

Yost, 1994; Vormelker and others, 1995) and from textbook tables (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 

Methods

Aquifer interconnection is the hydraulic communication between two adjoining aquifers. 

For this study, the USGS assessed the degree of aquifer interconnection between the sand and 

gravel and the limestone aquifers by using the USEPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Under 

the HRS, aquifers can be considered interconnected if the representative values of Kh of the 

adjacent aquifers are within two orders of magnitude. 

For this study, the USGS used data that were collected during well-efficiency tests (also 

referred to as specific-capacity tests) performed by individual drillers following well installation 

for residential supply wells within 2 miles of the Barrel Fill site. Data from slug tests and 

constant-discharge tests of monitoring wells within the Barrel Fill site, completed by Haley and 

Aldrich and by Eagon and Associates, were compared with the T and Kh estimated from the 

specific capacity method. These pumping rate and water-level drawdown data from these tests 

were used to derive estimates of the T and Kh of the two aquifers. The T and Kh are 

measurements of the rate of groundwater flow through a unit width aquifer under a unit 

hydraulic gradient (Fetter, 1994). Transmissivity has been shown to be a vertical average of 

hydraulic conductivities (Senior and Goode, 1999). 

Well-construction logs provide data that essentially represent a simple aquifer test 

performed by the well driller. The data collected were the pumping rate (in gallons per minute) 

and resulting drawdown from static level during pumping (in feet). The pumping rate was 

divided by the drawdown to obtain the specific capacity, which is a measurement of well yield 

(Fetter, 1994). Specific capacity data are frequently used to estimate T when other types of 

aquifer tests are not available (Razack and Huntley, 1991; Huntley and others, 1992; Fetter, 

1994). Specific capacity is the yield, or discharge (Q), of a direct measurement of the capacity of 

the well and it is dependent upon the hydraulic properties of the aquifer to which the well is open 

(Risser, 2010), but it also reflects the characteristics of the well. Wells screened within a

formation (or aquifer) that have a greater Kh generally will have a greater specific capacity. The 

specific capacity of a well is greatest when the well is initially drilled and installed. Over time, 

the specific capacity decreases as a result of siltation, biofouling, and water-level fluctuation

(Brown and others, 1999). Therefore, the specific capacity data is from when these wells were 

first installed and are considered to most accurately represent aquifer T and Kh. However, several 

data limitations exist and should be understood when using this type of data to estimate T and 

Kh. First, these tests were not completed by the USGS and were completed by over 50 different 

well drillers over many years. Variations in the accuracy of the tests, water level measurements, 

and pumping rates can result. Furthermore, there is no control on the quality assurance. For 

example, it is not known whether the driller developed the well before conducting the well-
8 

efficiency test, or if the driller continued to develop the well concurrently while performing the 

well-efficiency test. This may have some effect on the calculated hydraulic conductivities. 

Well-construction logs were obtained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Soil and Water Website Application, ERiN (2014). The application generates a 

report of all the wells located within an area of interest. A 2-mile buffer zone was selected from 

the center of the Barrel Fill site. The application identified over 220 residential wells within the 

buffer zone. Only wells with pumping data and drawdown information were selected for this 

study. A total of 127 residential wells located within a 2-mile radius of the Barrel Fill site (fig. 4) 

were analyzed for this analysis of aquifer hydraulic interconnection. Figure 5 is a general 

distribution of wells open to the limestone and sand and gravel aquifers. All necessary 

construction and hydraulic property data for these wells are provided in the Appendix. 

BF

Figure 4. Map for inventory of Ohio DNR Water Records with 2-mile buffer zone (red-shaded circle) from 

the center of the Barrel Fill site. 
9 

EXPLANATION

L = Limestone 

aquifer well

SG = Sand and 

gravel aquifer well

Barrel 

Fill

Figure 5. General distribution of 127 residential wells used for the estimation of transmissivity and hydraulic 

conductivity of sand and gravel and limestone aquifers near the Barrel Fill site of Tremont City, Ohio.
10 

From specific capacity data, T was calculated for the wells open to the sand and gravel 

aquifer by using the empirical relation developed by Razack and Huntley (1991): 

T = 33.6 ∗ �Q

s

�

0.67

 (1)

where T = transmissivity (ft2/d [feet squared per day]),

 Q = pumping rate (ft3/d [cubic feet per day]), and

 s = drawdown (ft [feet]).

The specific capacity withdrawal data are reported on the logs in gallons per minute 

(gal/min) and converted to cubic feet per day (ft3/d or Q) for this analysis.

The empirical relation developed by Razack and Huntley (1991) to compute estimates of 

T from specific capacity test data is one of the only methods developed that accounts for

turbulent well loss. The Razack and Huntley relation is a log-log transformed best-fit regression 

line equation for a large heterogeneous alluvial aquifer to predict transmissivity based on specific 

capacity data at a 90-percent prediction interval. The prediction interval spanned more than one 

order of magnitude, which is within the two orders of magnitude used in the aquifer 

interconnection evaluation but which otherwise yields generalized estimates of T. Calculated T 

values are compared to T values obtained from aquifer tests at the Barrel Fill site for the sand 

and gravel aquifer (Eagon and Associates, 1994; Haley and Aldrich, 2006). 

Transmissivity was calculated from specific capacity data obtained from the wells open 

to the shallow limestone aquifer by using the empirical relation for a fracture-rock system

developed by Huntley and others (1992): 

T = 0.29 ∗ �Q

s

�

1.18

 (2)

where T = transmissivity (ft2/d),

Q = pumping rate (ft3/d), and 

s = drawdown (ft).

The empirical relationship developed for fractured rock is a log-log transformed best-fit 

regression line for a fracture-rock system. The 90-percent prediction interval is a 1.1 log cycle, 

indicating that predicted transmissivities based on specific capacity have a large range of more 

than one order of magnitude, which is within the two orders of magnitude used in the aquifer 

interconnection evaluation, but otherwise yields generalized estimates of T. There are no local 

transmissivity values for the limestone aquifer to compare with this method. 

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity is calculated from the equation Kh=T/b. This equation 

is often applied when the saturated thickness (b) of an aquifer is known and when T is calculated 

from traditional aquifer tests. In this case, the rate of pumping or discharge (Q) used when 

performing a well-efficiency test is often very low and is applied for only for 2 to 3 hours, as 

opposed to an aquifer test that withdraws large quantities of groundwater for at least 8 to 24 

hours. The difference in the rate of pumping will affect the radius and depth of impact within the 

aquifer. Therefore, the thickness (b) of the saturated aquifer affected by the much smaller 

pumping rate from the well-efficiency tests is substantially reduced and is presumed to be within 

the limit of the well screen or open hole (Heath, 1983). 
11 

Well logs from the sand and gravel aquifer noted more wells with screens than did the 

well logs from the limestone aquifers. The difference between the two sets of data implicitly 

skews the sand and gravel aquifer to have a higher Kh. Because the sand and gravel well logs had 

limited information on screen length and formation thickness, and the limestone well logs 

(generally) had sand and gravel formation thickness, the thickness (b) of the sand and gravel 

aquifer was estimated from the well logs from the limestone wells. Also, because the limestone 

wells were not collocated with the sand and gravel wells; the geometric mean of the sand and 

gravel formation thickness (10 ft) was used as b for each of the sand and gravel wells. The openhole information from the limestone well logs was used to estimate the thickness (b) for each of 

the limestone wells. 

Computed Aquifer Characteristics

There are 57 wells open to the sand and gravel aquifer within a 2-mi radius of the Barrel 

Fill site. The geometric mean, arithmetic mean, maximum value, and minimum value for specific 

capacity, T, and Kh are presented in table 1 for the sand and gravel aquifer. The table also 

includes the values of T and Kh from reported sand and gravel aquifer (constant discharge or 

slug) tests. 

Table 1. Statistical data presented for specific capacity, transmissivity, and horizontal hydraulic conductivity 

data from wells open to the sand and gravel aquifer. Shaded columns are data from Barrel Fill site-specific 

aquifer (constant-discharge or slug)tests. Unshaded columns reflect data from within the 2-mile radius of 

the site.

Summary

statistic

Specific

capacity, in 

cubic feet 

per day

Transmissivity (T), in 

feet squared per day

Barrel Fill site aquifer 

test1 transmissivity 

(T), in feet squared 

per day

Horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity, (where 

b=10 feet), in feet per 

day 

Barrel Fill site 

horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity1

(aquifer/slug data), in 

feet per day 

Sand and Gravel

Geometric

 mean 373 1,776 5,294 178 43

Arithmetic 

 mean 506 2,038 6,244 204 126

Maximum 1,925 5,332 10,374 533 368

Minimum 64 546 615 55 0.26

1

Table 5-4, Eagon and Associates, 1994

There are 70 wells open to the limestone aquifer within 2 mi of the Barrel Fill site. Table 

2 presents the statistical data for the specific capacity, T, and Kh. The estimated values of Kh

(shaded) also are compared to those of other studies referenced in Vormelker and others (1995). 
12 

Table 2. Statistical data for specific capacity, transmissivity, and hydraulic conductivity from wells open to 

the limestone aquifer. Shaded columns represent data from areas outside the vicinity of the Barrel Fill site. 

Summary

statistic

Specific 

capacity, in cubic 

feet per day

Transmissivity, 

in feet squared per day

Hydraulic 

conductivity (using 

open hole for b), in 

feet per day

Other studies' hydraulic 

conductivity estimates 

(generally outside of 2-mile 

vicinity), in feet per day

Limestone

Geometric

 mean 115 78 4 40–941

Arithmetic 

 mean 171 136 13

Maximum 770 739 263

Minimum 18 9 0.16

1

Vormelker and others, 1995

Evaluation of Aquifer Interconnection 

As estimated, the geometric mean values of transmissivity (T) and horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity (Kh) of the sand and gravel and limestone aquifers fall within the standard of two 

orders of magnitude or less and are considered to be interconnected according to a classification 

method in the USEPA Hazard Ranking System (1992). The arithmetic mean, maximum, and 

minimum values for T and Kh also fall within two orders of magnitude. 

The specific capacity values of the two aquifers are within the same order of magnitude, 

with the geometric mean of specific capacity generally highest in the sand and gravel aquifer.

The maximum specific capacity of the sand and gravel aquifer is one order of magnitude greater 

than the maximum specific capacity of the limestone aquifer. The minimums for each aquifer are 

within the same order of magnitude. There were no specific capacity data collected for 

monitoring wells located in the Barrel Fill site. 

The empirical relation method estimated the T of the sand and gravel aquifer to be two 

orders of magnitude greater than that of the limestone aquifer. Transmissivity was 

underestimated when compared to Barrel Fill aquifer test results from monitoring wells and 

pumping wells within the Barrel Fill site, indicating that the sand and gravel aquifer might have a 

higher Kh than that estimated from specific capacity data. The range of T values is within one 

order of magnitude of the limestone aquifer. 
13 

The Kh of the sand and gravel aquifer is also one order of magnitude greater than that of 

the limestone aquifer. Values of Kh estimated from other studies outside the Barrel Fill site and 

Clark County have shown Kh to be within the same range of that estimated from the aquifer tests 

at the Barrel Fill site (Norris and others, 1952; Sheets and Yost, 1994; Vormelker and others, 

1995). The Kh of the sand and gravel aquifer is within two orders of magnitude of the limestone 

aquifer for the entire 2-mi radius of the Barrel Fill site and within one order of magnitude at the 

site. 

Summary 

This study estimated the T and Kh from specific capacity data of residential wells

open to the sand and gravel aquifer or limestone aquifer and located within 2-miles from the 

Barrel Fill site. The values for T and Kh are within two and one order of magnitude for the sand 

and gravel aquifer and the limestone aquifer. Although the specific capacity data and the 

equations applied to obtain T and Kh have inherent data-limitations and potential errors, the 

results of this study are supported by previous studies. Aquifer interconnection is further 

supported by a USGS study that published a potentiometric surface map for the same area based 

upon similar water levels within the two aquifers (Dumouchelle, 2001). Additionally, aquifer 

tests and slug test data from the sand and gravel aquifer at the Barrel Fill site have Kh values 

within the same order of magnitude as the limestone aquifer as estimated from studies outside 

the vicinity of the Barrel Fill site. 

References

Brown, C. J., Walter, D. A., and Colabufo, Steven, 1999, Iron in the aquifer system of Suffolk 

County, NewYork, 1990–98: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4126, 10 p., accessed September 2014

http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri994126/WRIR99-4126.pdf.

Dumouchelle, D.H., 2001, Ground-water levels and flow directions in glacial sediments and

carbonate bedrock near Tremont City, Ohio, October–November 2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4224, 1 sheet, accessed July 2014 at

http://oh.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir/wrir01-4224.pdf.

Eagon and Associates, 1994, Final revised hydrogeologic report, Clarkco Landfill, German

Township,Clark County, Ohio: Unpublished report submitted to Danis Clarkco Landfill 

company by Eagon & Associates [variously paged]. 

Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied hydrogeology (3d ed.): Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 691 p. 

Focazio, M.J., Reilly, T.E., Rupert, M.G., and Helsel, D. R., 2002, Assessing ground-water
14 

vulnerability to contamination—Providing scientifically defensible information for 

decision makers: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1224, 33 p., accessed November 2014 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/circ1224/pdf/circ1224_ver1.01.pdf.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p. 

Haley and Aldrich, 2006, Remedial investigation report, Tremont City Landfill, Barrel Fill

Operable Unit, Clark County, German Township, Ohio: Unpublished report prepared by 

Haley and Aldrich, Inc., submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by 

Responsible Environmental Solutions Alliance [variously paged]. 

Haley and Aldrich, 2013, Cross sections A—A’ through E—E′ for Tremont Facility Site Barrel

Fill Operable Unit, Tremont City, Ohio: Unpublished cross sections prepared by Haley 

and Aldrich, Inc., submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Responsible 

Environmental Solutions Alliance, p. 1—5. 

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2220,p. 61, accessed November 2014 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2220/.

Huntley, D., Nommensen, R., and Steffey, D., 1992, The use of specific capacity to assess

transmissivity in fractured-rock aquifers: Ground Water, v. 30, no. 3, May—June, p. 

396—402 accessed September 2014 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-

6584.1992.tb02008.x/pdf.

Norris, S.E., Cross, W.P., Goldthwait, R.P., and Sanderson, E.E., 1952, The water resources of

Clark County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Bulletin 

22, 82 p.Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2014, Soil and Water Resources, Water 

Well Logs, ERiN application, accessed October 2014 and November 2014 at 

http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/search-file-well-logs.

Razack, M., and Huntley, D., 1991, Assessing transmissivity from specific capacity in a large 

and heterogeneous alluvial aquifer: Ground Water, v. 29, no. 6, p. 856—861, accessed 

September 2014 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-

6584.1991.tb00572.x/pdf.

Risser, D.W., 2010, Factors affecting specific-capacity tests and their application—A study of

six low-yielding wells in fractured-bedrock aquifers in Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological 

Survey ScientificInvestigations Report 2010–5212, 44 p. 

Senior, L.A., and Goode, D.J., 1999, Ground-water system, estimation of aquifer hydraulic

properties, and effects of pumping on ground-water flow in Triassic sedimentary rocks in 

and near Lansdale, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4228, 112 p. 

Sheets, R.A., 2007, Hydrogeologic setting and ground-water flow simulations of the Great 
15 

Miami Basin Regional Study Area, Ohio, section 7 of Paschke, S.S., ed., Hydrogeologic 

settings and ground-water flow simulations for regional studies of the transport of 

anthropogenic and natural contaminants to public-supply wells—Studies begun in 2001: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1737–A, p. 7–1 – 7–24. 

Sheets, R.A., and Yost, W.P., 1994, Ground-water contribution from the Silurian/Devonian 

carbonate aquifer to the Mad River Valley, southwestern Ohio: Ohio Journal of Science, 

v. 94, no. 5, p. 138–146, accessed at 

http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/23632/V094N5_138.pdf;jsessionid=4F0

034C94FE6E44B5FCEFA16CD8AA893?sequence=1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Hazard ranking system guidance manual: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Superfund, U.S. EPA540-R-92-026, 129 p., accessed August 2014 at 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000IS27.txt.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, Excavation, new waste cell in proposed cleanup 

plan, Tremont City barrel fill Superfund site, Tremont City, Ohio: Unpublished 

newsletter (May 31, 2011) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 1–14, 

accessed August 2014 at http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/tremont/index.html#techdocs.

Voight, D., and Thompson, T., 2002, Supplemental hydrogeologic information, Tremont City

Landfill Site, Ohio: Unpublished memo submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency by TN & Associates, p.1–14. 

Vormelker, J. D., Angle, Michael, and Jones, Wayne, 1995, Ground water pollution potential of 

Clark County, Ohio: Ground Water Pollution Potential Report no. 38, Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Groundwater Resources Section, 138 p., 

accessed online August 2014 at 

http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/maps/groundwater%20pollution/P

reprinted/Clark_PP_Report_wMap.pdf.

Weston Solutions, Inc., 2013, 4-mile radius map Tremont City Barrel Fill site, Tremont City,

Clark County, Ohio: Unpublished map submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency by David Hernandez on August 19, 2013. 
16 

Appendix 1 

Data for Sand and Gravel Aquifer
17 

Table 1. Well-log data and calculated values for specific capacity, transmissivity, and horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity from the 57 wells screened in the sand and gravel aquifer within a 2-mile radius of the Barrel 

Fill site. [DNR, Department of Natural Resources; SG, sand and gravel aquifer]

Ohio 

DNR Well 

log

number

Aquifer

Total 

depth, in 

ft

Test 

rate,

in 

gallons 

per 

minute

Drawdown, 

in ft

Specific 

capacity, 

in cubic 

feet per 

day

Transmissivity ,

in square feet 

per day

Unit

thickness

 , 

in feet

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity, in 

feet per day 

(transmissivity/u

nit thickness)

334320 SG 125 10 10 193 1140 10 114

141260 SG 104 10 5 385 1814 10 181

127772 SG 133 8 2 770 2886 10 289

141297 SG 140 7 10 135 898 10 90

229926 SG 50 10 15 128 869 10 87

244579 SG 76 10 20 96 717 10 72

110822 SG 87 10 2 963 3351 10 335

127796 SG 97 10 2 963 3351 10 335

410413 SG 110 15 10 289 1496 10 150

431196 SG 102 14 5 539 2272 10 227

425216 SG 121 25 10 481 2106 10 211

361623 SG 80 11 3 706 2723 10 272

468560 SG 138 15 15 193 1140 10 114

468555 SG 145 15 15 193 1140 10 114

468559 SG 154 15 10 289 1496 10 150

110801 SG 90 8 5 308 1562 10 156

447356 SG 104 10 6 321 1605 10 161

447382 SG 32 15 6 481 2106 10 211

244583 SG 31 15 5 578 2380 10 238

454682 SG 48 20 12 321 1605 10 161

447397 SG 51 10 8 241 1324 10 132

377196 SG 82 8 8 193 1140 10 114

207723 SG 62 8 8 193 1140 10 114

357056 SG 120 15 10 289 1496 10 150

39680 SG 40 5 0.5 1925 5332 10 533

44487 SG 82 7 3 449 2011 10 201

41627 SG 49 5 5 193 1140 10 114

93614 SG 41 8 5 308 1562 10 156

93634 SG 77 8 6 257 1382 10 138

87795 SG 43 7 8 168 1042 10 104

890722 SG 31 10 15 128 869 10 87

898169 SG 96 30 10 577.5 2380 10 238

860024 SG 101 25 4 1203 3892 10 389

906448 SG 132 25 6 802 2966 10 297

915265 SG 169 30 8 722 2764 10 276

933648 SG 115 20 20 193 1140 10 114

918733 SG 53 2 2 193 1140 10 114

930832 SG 73 30 4 1444 4397 10 440

930854 SG 99 20 6 642 2554 10 255

933538 SG 125 30 10 578 2380 10 238

946254 SG 64 25 30 160 1009 10 101

957968 SG 126 25 30 160 1009 10 101

969149 SG 136 20 10 385 1814 10 181

983493 SG 86 20 8 481 2106 10 211

981184 SG 82 20 20 193 1140 10 114

2002650 SG 65 25 5 963 3351 10 335

2002039 SG 87 10 4 481 2106 10 211

141266 SG 68 10 3 642 2554 10 255

502702 SG 40 9 8 217 1234 10 123
18 

Well log

number Aquifer

Total 

depth, in 

ft

Test 

rate,

in 

gallons 

per 

minute

Drawdown, 

in ft

Specific 

capacity, 

in cubic 

feet per 

day

Transmissivity ,

in square feet 

per day

Unit

thickness

 , 

in feet

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity , in 

feet per day 

(transmissivity/u

nit thickness)

94851 SG 71 8 4 385 1814 10 181

425217 SG 85 25 10 481 2106 10 211

1003788 SG 135 25 3 1604 4719 10 472

2010624 SG 126 5 15 64 546 10 55

2015040 SG 32 30 3 1925 5332 10 533

1006643 SG 94 10 15 128 869 10 87

2033752 SG 52 30 6 963 3351 10 335

2032033 SG 38 30 10 578 2380 10 238
19 

Appendix 2

Data for Limestone Aquifer
20 

Table 2. Well-log data and results for specific capacity, transmissivity, and horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity for 70 residential wells screened in the limestone aquifer. [DNR, Department of Natural 

Resources; L, limestone aquifer]

Ohio 

DNR 

Well log 

number

Aquifer

Total

depth, in 

feet

Test Rate, 

in gallons 

per

minute

Drawdown, 

in feet

Specific 

capacity, 

in cubic 

feet per 

day

Transmissivity , 

in feet squared 

per day

Open-hole 

thickness

of wells in 

limestone

(well

depthcasing

depth) 

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity, 

in feet per 

day (ft/d)

319217 L 48 10 15 128 89 14 4 

172451 L 192 14 7 385 326 17 16

110809 L 143 14 63 43 24 14 1 

135523 L 83 7 14 96 64 12 3 

377173 L 76 8 10 154 111 1 6 

501713 L 110 15 10 289 232 15 12

540212 L 100 10 45 43 24 36 1 

540211 L 100 10 45 43 24 36 1 

561261 L 86 15 10 289 232 41 12

536061 L 125 20 40 96 64 11 3 

329191 L 247 30 50 116 79 107 4 

303661 L 146 10 50 39 22 7 1 

303662 L 140 10 50 39 22 8 1 

480986 L 61 13 25 100 67 21 3 

198268 L 73 10 10 193 144 52 7 

198262 L 73 10 10 193 144 52 7 

349235 L 50 5 28 34 19 32 1 

432500 L 90 20 25 154 111 60 6 

141257 L 34 12 6 385 326 15 16

141287 L 72 14 5 539 485 59 24

183409 L 83 10 15 128 89 41 4 

141296 L 45 10 10 193 144 16 7 

207727 L 41 10 5 385 326 7 16

93624 L 48 8 6 257 202 18 10

39679 L 68 20 7 550 497 27 25

39681 L 51 17 4.5 727 691 21 35

895302 L 202 10 106 18 9 55 0.44

918705 L 162 15 20 144 102 52 5 
21 

Ohio 

DNR 

Well log 

number

Aquifer

Total

depth, in 

feet

Test Rate, 

in gallons 

per

minute

Drawdown, 

in feet

Specific 

capacity, 

in cubic 

feet per 

day

Transmissivity , 

in feet squared 

per day

Open-hole 

thickness

of wells in 

limestone

(well

depthcasing

depth) 

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity, 

in feet per 

day (ft/d)

915226 L 140 20 50 77 49 45 2 

890688 L 156 10 20 96 64 16 3 

908615 L 135 20 25 154 111 27 6 

908584 L 240 30 10 578 526 30 26

915241 L 179 200 100 385 326 41 16

908658 L 60 35 10 674 631 15 32

933642 L 147 20 25 154 111 20 6 

930800 L 188 20 25 154 111 15 6 

933684 L 163 22 50 85 55 31 3 

933565 L 80 25 20 241 187 11 9 

946216 L 180 20 70 55 33 28 2 

946196 L 65 20 25 154 111 14 6 

958031 L 197 20 50 77 49 18 2 

946269 L 195 20 70 55 33 32 2 

87836 L 99 6 10 116 79 4 4 

246584 L 97 8 10 154 111 46 6 

946190 L 117 12 30 77 49 47 2 

958028 L 137 20 50 77 49 29 2 

957969 L 100 15 40 72 45 22 2 

966850 L 220 15 30 96 64 15 3 

988163 L 158 35 60 112 76 10 4 

990768 L 205 30 40 144 102 42 5 

989810 L 32 10 6 321 263 1 13

994460 L 58 12 25 92 61 31 3 

501712 L 55 20 5 770 739 17 37

44453 L 106 8 18 86 55 3 3 

444071 L 175 16 90 34 19 9 1 

371299 L 168 10 43 45 26 8 1 

2005507 L 139 15 60 48 28 21 1 

1003783 L 62 15 20 144 102 14 5 

2011555 L 185 12 100 23 12 26 1 
22 

Ohio 

DNR 

Well log 

number

Aquifer

Total

depth, in 

feet

Test Rate, 

in gallons 

per

minute

Drawdown, 

in feet

Specific 

capacity, 

in cubic 

feet per 

day

Transmissivity , 

in feet squared 

per day

Open-hole 

thickness

of wells in 

limestone

(well

depthcasing

depth) 

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity, 

in feet per 

day (ft/d)

2011557 L 200 60 120 96 64 82 3 

2012278 L 196 15 100 29 15 29 1 

2009615 L 100 10 8 241 187 5 9 

2007823 L 98 15 55 53 31 26 2 

1005708 L 182 10 30 64 39 80 2 

2006806 L 156 15 57 51 30 22 1 

2019568 L 180 15 60 48 28 11 1 

2022885 L 180 20 40 96 64 10 3 

2014777 L 192 12 30 77 49 25 2 

2015420 L 195 15 80 36 20 35 1 

2016117 L 202 15 45 64 39 32 2 
23 

Appendix 3

Barrel Fill Site Hydraulic Conductivity Data 
24 

[SG, sand and gravel aquifer; NA, not available]

Barrel Fill site 

monitoring well 

name

Aquifer Transmissivity ,

 in square feet per day

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity , in 

feet per day

Data source

HMW-101 SG NA 8.8 Barrel Fill site remedial investigation

Aldrich, 2006, table 13)

(Haley and 

HMW-501 SG NA 93.5 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HMW-202 SG NA 31.2 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HMW-401 SG NA 28.1 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HMW-402 SG NA 53.9 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HBF-20D SG NA 48.2 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HPZ-3 SG NA 108 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HBF-19D SG NA 7.09 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

HMW302 SG NA 0.26 Remedial 

13)

Investigation (Haley and Aldrich, 2006, table 

PW-1 SG 8823 368 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

PW-2 SG 615 24.6 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

PW-3 SG 5788 203 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

PW-3 SG 10374 346 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

91-2D SG NA 0.56 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

91-5D SG NA 0.40 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon& 

91-8D SG NA 215 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

C92-5DD SG 6617 221 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

C92-5DD SG 5588 186 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon &

C92-5DD SG 6042 201 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

C91-5D SG 5989 200 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

C91-5D SG 6564 219 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 

C92-22DD SG 6042 201 Table 5-4, Final hydrological report 

Associates ,1994, table 5–4)

(Eagon & 
25 

Appendix 4

Well-log Formation Description from Cross-Section A—A’
26 

Ohio DNR Well 

Log ID Formation Description

Depth (in feet)

From To

662466 

Gravel & Clay 0 25

Hardpan 25 30

Clay 30 55

Gravel & Clay 55 60

Limestone 60 66

825062

Brown Clay 0 7

Gravel 7 34

Gray Clay 34 49

Sand & Gravel 49 58

Limestone 59 70

2045469

Brown Clayey Clay 0 3

Brown Gravelly Clay & Gravel 3 18

White-Gray Crumbly Sand & Gravel 18 40

White Limey Limestone 40 60

432500

Gravel 0 30

Limestone 30 90

825127

Brown Clay 0 20

Sand & Gravel 20 80

Gray Gravel & Clay 80 103

Limestone 103 160

232298

Clay 0 6

Gravel 6 24

Sand 24 36

Sand & Gravel 36 42

233158

Top Soil 0 2

Gravel & Clay 2 3

Gravel/Sand/Clay 3 14

Coarse Sand & Gravel 14 22

Gravel & Boulders 22 30

Coarse Sand & Gravel 30 92

Coarse Sand 92 94

Fine Sand & Gravel 94 96

915274

Brown Clay 0 6

Gravel & Sand 6 46
27 

*Additional well logs can be found at the Ohio DNR website: 

(http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/search-file-well-logs) 
ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151026