U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 

By Mark D. Kozar and Melvin V. Mathes 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4036 

Prepared in cooperation with 

the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, Office of Environmental Health Services 

Charleston, West Virginia 

2001 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

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

Government. 

For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: 

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 

11 Dunbar Street Box 25286 

Charleston, WV 25301 Denver, CO 80225-0286 
CONTENTS

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

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Description of Study Area............................................................................................................................................ 3

Data Sources, Compilations, and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 3

Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Data Compilations........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Data Limitations........................................................................................................................................................... 8

Aquifer Characteristics Estimated from Well Data ............................................................................................................... 11

Specific Capacity.......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Estimates of Transmissivity ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Saturated Thickness of Aquifers .................................................................................................................................. 17

Hydraulic Conductivity................................................................................................................................................ 18

Storage Coefficient and Specific Yield......................................................................................................................... 18

Recharge ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Future Data Needs ................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 22

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26

FIGURES 

1-3. Maps showing:

Figure 1. Physiographic provinces, counties, and selected towns in West Virginia ............................................................. 4

 2. Major hydrogeologic units in West Virginia.......................................................................................................... 5

 3. Location of gaging stations and basins for which ground-water recharge was estimated using

 the streamflow recession-curve displacement method .......................................................................................... 6

TABLES 

Table 1. Storage-coefficient and (or) specific-yield data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia and

 published reports from which data were obtained.................................................................................................. 9

 2. Statistical summary of specific capacity and transmissivity data for hydrogeologic units in 

West Virginia .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

 3. Hydrogeologic units in West Virginia for which estimates of transmissivity were made including

 the geologic system and lithology of respective formations or groups .................................................................. 16

 4. Mean ground-water recharge rates estimated from streamflow data obtained from 41 gaging 

 stations in West Virginia ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Contents III 
CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter 

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.00006309 cubic meter per second 

gallons (gal) 0.2642 liters 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer 

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter 

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer 

gallons per minute per foot (gal/min/ft) 12.418 liters per minute per meter 

gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) 0.0124 square meters per day 

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meters per day 

inches per year (in./yr) 2.540 centimeters per year 

 Sea level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic datum

 derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level

 Datum of 1929. 

IV Contents 
Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia


by Mark D. Kozar and Melvin V. Mathes 

Abstract 

Specific-capacity, storage-coefficient, and specific-yield data for wells in West Virginia were 

compiled to provide a data set from which transmissivity could be estimated. This data can be 

used for analytical and mathematical groundwater flow modeling. Analysis of available storage-coefficient and (or) specific-yield data indicates that the Ohio River alluvial aquifer has a 

median specific yield of 0.20, which is characteristic of an unconfined aquifer. The Kanawha 

River alluvial aquifer has a median specific yield 

of 0.003, which is characteristic of a semi-confined aquifer. The median storage coefficient of 

fractured-bedrock aquifers is only 0.007, which is 

characteristic of confined aquifers. 

The highest median transmissivity of a specific aquifer in West Virginia occurs in Ohio River 

alluvium (4,800 ft2/d); the second highest occurs 

in Kanawha River alluvium (1,600 ft2/d). The 

lowest median transmissivity (23 ft2/d) is for the 

McKenzie-Rose Hill-Tuscarora aquifer. Rocks 

of Cambrian age within the Waynesboro-Tomstown-Harpers-Weverton-Loudon aquifer had a 

low median transmissivity of only 67 ft2/d. Other 

aquifers with low transmissivities include the 

Hampshire Formation, Brallier-Harrell Formations, Mahantango Formations, Oriskany Sandstone, and the Conococheague Formation with 

median transmissivities of 74, 72, 92, 82, and 92 

ft2/d, respectively. All other aquifers within the 

State had intermediate values of transmissivity 

(130-920 ft2/d). The highest median transmissivities among bedrock aquifers were those for 

aquifers within the Pennsylvanian age Pocahontas Formation (1,200 ft2/d) and Pottsville 

Group (1,300 ft2/d), and the Mississippian age 

Mauch Chunk Group (1,300 ft2/d). These rocks 

crop out primarily in the southern part of the State 

and to a lesser extent within the Valley and Ridge 

Physiographic Province in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle. 

The highest mean annual ground-water 

recharge rates within West Virginia (24.6 in.) 

occur within a band that extends through the central part of the State within the eastern part of the 

Kanawha River Basin. This area of relatively high 

relief has peaks higher than 4,000 ft and precipitation greater than 50 in./yr. The band of high recharge rates extends northward towards Pennsylvania and includes the Monongahela River Basin, 

which has a mean annual recharge of 21.4 inches. 

To the west of this central band lies a region 

of lower relief with much lower mean annual precipitation (approximately 40 in.). Consequently, 

this area has much lower ground-water recharge 

rates. Mean annual recharge for the Tug Fork, 

Twelvepole Creek, and Guyandotte River Basins 

is only 12.6 inches. For the western part of the 

Kanawha River Basin, mean recharge is 11.9 

inches. The lowest mean annual recharge rates 

(8.4 in.) within the State occur in the Little 

Abstract 1 
Kanawha River Basin and the tributary streams in 

the region that discharge directly to the Ohio 

River. 

West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle is an area 

characterized by long linear northeast to southwest trending ridges and valleys. The mean 

annual ground-water recharge rate for this region, 

which is drained almost entirely by the Potomac 

River and its tributaries, is 9.4 inches. This area, 

which is located within a rain shadow resulting 

from orographic lifting in the higher altitude area 

to the west, receives less precipitation (approximately 30 in.) than the region to the west. 

INTRODUCTION 

The West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, Office of 

Environmental Health Services (OEHS), has been 

mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) to delineate well-head (sourcewater) protection areas for all public-supply wells and 

well fields within West Virginia. These delineations 

can be used to help protect water supplies from the 

effects of land-use activities. OEHS delineates most 

well-head protection areas for ground-water supplies 

using analytical ground-water flow models, but also 

plans to use the mathematical flow model MODFLOW 2000 (Harbaugh and others, 2000) to delineate 

well-head protection areas for certain ground-water 

supplies that cannot be adequately described using 

simplified analytical models. 

The development of analytical or numerical 

ground-water flow models requires data such as aquifer thickness, transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, 

hydraulic gradient, storage coefficient and (or) specific 

yield, water levels, and the amounts of recharge and 

water withdrawn from the aquifer. Such “aquifer-characteristic data” are difficult to obtain, especially transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, ground-water 

recharge, storage coefficient and (or) specific yield. 

These data are needed to allow OEHS to effectively 

delineate realistic well-head protection areas for public-supply water systems within the State. Currently, 

OEHS uses the data available for West Virginia aquifers that have been published in past hydrogeologic 

reports, but little published information is available for 

many areas within the State. The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with OEHS, 

compiled this data to help OEHS effectively delineate 

well-head protection areas for public-supply water 

systems within West Virginia. 

All data within this report are first aggregated by 

hydrogeologic unit and then by county. The formation 

and group names used within this report are those 

adopted by the West Virginia Geologic and Economic 

Survey (WVGES) as they appear on the 1968 State 

geologic map of West Virginia (Cardwell and others, 

1968). The level of detail needed to display geologic 

information necessary to locate transmissivity data for 

a respective area was not possible on a page size map. 

In order to locate within the appropriate hydrogeologic 

unit, the wells for which transmissivity values are presented in this report, the reader must obtain large-scale 

geologic maps of the area of interest and then match 

the hydrogeologic unit (aquifer) with those values in 

the appendix. Geologic maps for individual counties 

and localities, as well as for the State of West Virginia 

may be obtained from the WVGES (http:// 

www.wvgs.wvnet.edu). 

Purpose and Scope 

This report presents estimates of transmissivity for 

aquifers throughout West Virginia. Published estimates of saturated aquifer thickness, hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient and (or) specific yield are 

documented. Three sources of data were used to 

develop these estimates. First, published data from 

existing hydrogeologic reports were tabulated and 

organized by aquifer. Second, estimates of transmissivity were made from specific-capacity data stored in 

the USGS National Water Information System 

(NWIS) ground-water site inventory (GWSI) database. Additional aquifer test and specific-capacity data 

were obtained from OEHS files maintained for public 

ground-water supplies. 

This report also provides estimates of groundwater recharge, which are needed for development of 

analytical and numerical ground-water flow models. 

Recharge estimates were made by analysis of streamflow data using the USGS software package RORA 

(Rutledge, 1998). The software RORA uses the recession-curve displacement method to estimate groundwater recharge rates (Rorabaugh, 1964). Hydrographseparation methods (Sloto and Crouse, 1996) were 

used to estimate ground-water discharge and recharge. 

2 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
Acknowledgments 

The authors thank the staff of OEHS for providing 

data used in this report. These data enhanced the number of transmissivity estimates published in this report 

and helped to fill data gaps in areas of the State where 

USGS data were minimal. 

Description of Study Area 

The study area for this report is the State of West Virginia (fig. 1). It includes (1) Quaternary age alluvial 

aquifers primarily along the Kanawha and Ohio Rivers, (2) Cambrian and Ordovician age karst limestone 

and dolomite aquifers in the State’s Eastern Panhandle, (3) Mississippian age sandstone, shale, and limestone aquifers including the karst limestone aquifer in 

the Greenbrier Formation, (4) Silurian and Devonian 

age limestone, shale, siltstone and sandstone aquifers 

in the State’s eastern portion, (5) lower Pennsylvanian 

age fractured sandstone, limestone, coal, shale and 

siltstone aquifers in the southern portion of the State, 

and (6) upper Pennsylvanian through Permian age 

fractured shale, siltstone, sandstone, coal, and limestone aquifers of Pennsylvanian through Permian age 

in the northern portion of the State (fig. 2). 

DATA SOURCES, COMPILATIONS, AND 

LIMITATIONS 

Data referenced in this report were obtained from several sources. Once data were obtained, it was compiled 

into one large data set for analysis (see appendix). 

There are, however, limitations of the available data. 

To understand the quality of the data presented, it is 

necessary to discuss its sources, compilation, and limitations. 

Data Sources 

Data compiled, analyzed, and presented were obtained 

from three sources. First, literature was reviewed and 

pertinent hydrogeologic reports containing aquifercharacteristic data were obtained. In addition to the 

actual aquifer-test data, additional data were compiled 

including the county in which the data were obtained, 

the aquifer (hydrogeologic unit) tested, well depth, 

and casing length. Much of the published data were 

obtained from U.S. Geological Survey or West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey reports. The 

second source of data was the USGS GWSI database. 

It contains data for wells inventoried or sampled by 

the USGS as part of hydrogeologic investigations. 

Even though the database was not established until 

1977, USGS personnel in West Virginia entered available historical data from paper files into the database. 

The database contains well data from as far back as 

1940 and continues to grow as additional USGS 

hydrogeologic investigations are conducted. It currently contains data for approximately 13,090 wells 

within West Virginia. 

Third, in addition to historical published data 

and the GWSI database, data were available from the 

OEHS. OEHS maintains files for each public-supply 

well or well field within the State. Data for some sites, 

especially the larger public suppliers (primarily larger 

municipal water systems), includes data from aquifer 

tests. Aquifer-characteristic and specific-capacity data 

available from OEHS were included in the computer 

database developed in support of this project. Specificcapacity data are available from the GWSI database 

and OEHS for 677 wells from which 636 estimates of 

transmissivity were made. 

In addition to estimates of transmissivity, 

ground-water recharge rates were estimated from historical streamflow data using hydrograph-analysis 

techniques. Streamflow data (daily discharge data) 

from 41 stream-gaging stations (fig. 3) throughout 

West Virginia were analyzed using computer software 

(Rutledge, 1998) to determine recharge rates for 

selected areas. The software uses the recession-curve 

displacement method (Rorabaugh, 1964). Data used in 

these analyses were obtained from the USGS Automated Data Processing Software (ADAPS) database. 

DATA SOURCES, COMPILATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS 3 
4 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia


Data Compilations 

At the onset of this study it was recognized that there 

were limitations on published information in the State 

related to aquifer characteristics such as transmissivity 

(T), hydraulic conductivity (K), saturated thickness 

(b), storage coefficient (S), and specific yield (Sy). The 

cost and time for performing hundreds of aquifer tests 

to obtain sufficient information to characterize hydraulic properties of aquifers throughout the State would 

have been prohibitive. Because of limited available 

data and funding and time constraints, specific-capacity data were used as a foundation for initial estimates 

of transmissivity. Ground-water scientists commonly 

use transmissivity estimates based on specific-capacity 

tests as the basis for quantitative ground-water investigations, especially in areas where aquifer test data are 

limited (Lohman, 1972). 

Specific capacity is simply the discharge of the 

well divided by the drawdown produced in the well as it 

is pumped and may be expressed as Cs = Q/s, where Cs 

is the specific capacity in gal/min/ft; Q is the discharge 

of a pumping well in gal/min, and s is the drawdown in 

feet produced in the pumping well over a period of time 

(Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Given certain additional 

data such as the approximate radius of a well (r), an 

estimate of the storage coefficient (S), and (or) specific 

yield (Sy) and the total length of time the well was 

pumped (t); it is possible to estimate transmissivity (T). 

Transmissivity is a primary data element needed 

for input into analytical or mathematical ground-water 

flow models. It is defined as “the rate at which water 

of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is transmitted 

through a unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient” (Bates and Jackson, 1984). Transmissivity is commonly expressed in units of feet squared per 

day (cubic feet per day per foot of aquifer or ft2

/d) but 

is also sometimes seen expressed in the older unit of 

gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) or in metric units. The 

equation for estimating transmissivity from specific 

capacity (Bentall and others, 1963) data may be written as: 

T’ = Q/s(K - 264 log10 5S + 264log10t) 

where 

Q/s = specific capacity of the well (gpm/ft), S = 

the storage coefficient or the specific yield of the 

well, 

T’ = initial estimate of transmissivity (gpd/ft) 

adjusted for specific capacity, 

K = a constant which varies with well diameter 

(r), and 

t = the total time (in days) of the test over which 

drawdown was determined. 

A 6-inch diameter well (r=0.5 ft) has a K of 

1,684, a 24-inch well has a K of 1,367, and a 50-foot 

diameter well has a K of only 469. As alluvial wells 

typically have a much larger diameter than bedrock 

wells, two separate equations were used for estimating 

transmissivity from specific capacity data. Two equations were needed because the storage coefficient and 

(or) specific yield of the two aquifer types differ so 

much that one equation could not be applied to both 

settings. Equation 1 is used for small diameter open 

borehole wells in fractured bedrock aquifers and equation 2 is applied to data for wells tapping unconsolidated alluvial water table aquifers. 

For a 6-inch diameter open-borehole well tapping consolidated bedrock, the equation for estimating 

transmissivity developed by C.V. Theis (Bentall and 

others, 1963) may be written as: 

T’ = C(K - 264 log10 5S + 264 log10 t) (1) 

where 

C = Q/s = specific capacity of the well 

This equation was applied to all bedrock wells listed in 

appendix 1. K values used in equation 1 were adjusted 

for well diameter according to: 

K=1,791 for 4-in. well, K=1,737 for 5-in. well, 

K=1,684 for 6-in. well, K=1,631 for 8-in. 

well, K=1,577 for 10-in. well, K=1,524 for 12-

in. well, and K=1,305 for 30-in. well. 

Wells with unknown diameters were assumed to have 

a diameter of six inches because most wells in fractured rock listed in the GWSI database are domestic 

home-owner wells, which are typically six inches in 

diameter. 

For 1-foot diameter wells that tap water-table 

aquifers consisting of unconsolidated sediments (such 

as are common along the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers), 

the equation developed for estimating transmissivity 

from specific capacity may be written as; 

T’ = C(1 + or - 0.3)(1,300 - 264 log10 5S + 264 

log10 t). (2) 

DATA SOURCES, COMPILATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS 7 
The factor (1 ± or - 0.3) may be adjusted upward 

for wells having a small diameter, for wells that are 

poorly developed, and for wells with poorly perforated 

casing. It may be adjusted downward for larger, better 

developed wells. A factor of 1.0 was applied to transmissivity estimates made for alluvial wells with diameters less than or equal to 24 inches. A factor of 0.85 

was applied to alluvial wells with diameters greater 

than 24 inches. This approach seems reasonable 

because most estimates of transmissivity were made 

for alluvial wells with diameters of 8 to 24 inches and 

only a few wells had diameters larger than 24 inches. 

Both equations were derived from the same general equations but with differing assumptions of basic 

aquifer properties. Transmissivity cannot be determined explicitly from the two equations described. 

For values of T’, transmissivity must be determined 

graphically from a plot of known values of T’ and Q/s. 

For a full discussion of the method used to estimate 

transmissivity refer to USGS Water-Supply Paper 

1536-I (Bentall and others, 1963). All available specific capacity data and estimates of transmissivity referenced within this report are included in appendix 1. 

Finally, for 83 wells there were insufficient data 

to estimate transmissivity with the methods previously 

discussed. For those sites where the period of the specific capacity test was unknown and where confined 

aquifer conditions were expected, transmissivity was 

estimated using equation 3 (Driscoll, 1986): 

T=Q/s x2,000 (3) 

Estimates of transmissivity were made using 

this simplified approach for three wells in alluvium on 

minor tributary streams and for 87 wells in bedrock. 

The resulting transmissivity expressed in gpd/ft was 

then corrected to obtain transmissivity in ft2

/d. Transmissivity estimates made using this simplified 

approach compared favorably with estimates made 

using the method developed by Theis discussed earlier. This estimation method was not applied to data 

for wells in alluvium along the Ohio and Kanawha 

Rivers for two primary reasons. First, estimates made 

using this simplified approach for Kanawha and Ohio 

River alluvial wells did not compare favorably with 

the estimates made using the more quantitative Theis 

approach. Second, the method is applicable only to 

confined aquifer settings and the Ohio and Kanawha 

River alluvial aquifers are typically unconfined to 

semi-confined. Transmissivities determined for 90 

sites using this approach are identified as estimated in 

appendix 1. 

Data Limitations 

Published information related to transmissivity, 

hydraulic conductivity, saturated thickness, storage 

coefficient and (or) specific yield is limited. The best 

way to obtain such aquifer-characteristic data is to 

conduct a series of well-designed long-term aquifer 

tests. The cost and time for performing such tests prohibit ground-water scientists from obtaining sufficient 

aquifer-characteristic data. The specific-capacity data 

from which estimates of transmissivity were made, 

however, were abundant. Specific-capacity data were 

available for all geographic areas and aquifers within 

the State. Transmissivity estimates based on specificcapacity data are intended to be used as a starting point 

for first approximation ground-water flow models or 

analytical analyses of wells or well fields. Long-term 

aquifer tests should be conducted to determine aquifer 

characteristics for use in mathematical or analytical 

models if at all possible. 

The major assumption made before transmissivity estimates were developed was related to storage 

coefficient and (or) specific yield. Errors in transmissivity are possible if inappropriate values of storage 

coefficient are used in the estimation process. Median 

storage coefficients (0.20, 0.003, and 0.007, respectively) for alluvial aquifers along the Ohio and 

Kanawha Rivers and for fractured bedrock aquifers 

were obtained from previously published reports 

(table 1) and were used in estimating transmissivity. 

To understand the margin of error associated 

with estimating transmissivity, an example for fractured bedrock aquifers, which had the largest range in 

storage coefficient, is presented. For a 6-inch well with 

a specific capacity of 0.10 pumped over a 24-hour 

period, transmissivity was estimated to be 207 gpd/ft, 

assuming a storage coefficient of 0.007. If storage 

coefficients of 0.070 or 0.0007 are used, transmissivity 

estimates of 180 and 233 gpd/ft are obtained. Thus a 

12 or 13 percent error in estimated transmissivity is 

possible based on an order of magnitude error in storage coefficient and (or) specific yield applied to a particular aquifer. This error is small in comparison to the 

order of magnitude variability in transmissivity that is 

possible in aquifers. 

8 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
Table 1. Storage-coefficient and (or) specific-yield data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia and published 

reports from which data were obtained 

[N/D, no data; Fm., Formation] 

Hydrogeologic Unit Geologic Age Storage Coefficient Method Reference (Aquifer) 

Fractured Bedrock Aquifers 

Pottsville Group Pennsylvanian System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Hampshire Formation Devonian System 

Hampshire Formation Devonian System 

Tonoloway Formation Silurian System 

Rockdale Run Formation Ordovician System 

Stonehenge Formation Ordovician System 

Wills Creek Formation Silurian System 

Wills Creek Formation Silurian System 

Helderberg Group and Devonian and Silurian 

Tonoloway Formation System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Pocono Group Mississippian System 

Pottsville Group Pennsylvanian System 

Beekmantown and St. Paul 

Groups, and Elbrook, Cambrian and Ordovician 

Connococheague,and Systems 

Chambersburg Formations 

Beekmantown and St. Paul 

Groups, and Elbrook, Cambrian and Ordovician 

Connococheague, and Systems 

Chambersburg Formations 

Helderberg Group and Devonian and Silurian 

Tonoloway Fm. System 

Tonoloway and Wills Creek 

Fms. Silurian System 

0.007 Aquifer test 

0.00015 Aquifer test 

0.0001 Aquifer test 

0.015 Channel method 

0.015 Channel method 

0.3 Channel method 

0.14 Aquifer test 

0.018 Aquifer test 

0.008 Aquifer test 

0.01 Aquifer test 

0.004 Aquifer test 

0.0042 Aquifer test 

0.0006 Aquifer test 

0.0001 Aquifer test 

0.00015 Aquifer test 

0.0004 Aquifer test 

0.044 Specific yield 

0.049 Specific yield 

0.002-0.004 N/D 

0.001-0.008 N/D 

Ward and Wilmoth, 

1968

Ward and Wilmoth, 

1968

Ward and Wilmoth, 

1968

Hobba, 1985

Hobba, 1985

Hobba, 1985

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Trainer and Watkins, 

1975

Schwietering, J.F., 1981

Schwietering, J.F., 1981

Wilmoth, 1966

Shultz and others, 1995

Shultz and others, 1995

Hobba and others, 1972

Hobba and others, 1972

DATA SOURCES, COMPILATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS 9 
Table 1. Storage-coefficient and (or) specific-yield data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia and published 

reports from which data were obtained —Continued 

[N/D, no data; Fm., Formation] 

Hydrogeologic Unit 

(Aquifer) Geologic Age Storage Coefficient Method Reference 

Helderburg Group, 

Tonoloway, Wills Creek, and 

Williamsport Formations 

Devonian and Silurian 

System 0.001-0.043 N/D Schwietering, J.F., 1981 

Beekmantown Group Ordovician System 0.0014-0.145 N/D Hobba and others, 1972 

Catoctin Formation Cambrian or Precambrian 

System 0.002-0.004 N/D Hobba and others, 1972 

Pocono Group Pennsylvanian System 0.0006-0.0042 Aquifer test Schwietering, J.F., 1981 

Conemaugh Group Pennsylvanian System 0.0001-0.031 Aquifer test Schwietering, J.F., 1981 

0.007 Median for fractured bedrock aquifers 

Alluvial Aquifers 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.29 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.2 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.16 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.22 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.19 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.2 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.21 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.15 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.29 Aquifer test 

Alluvium (Ohio River) Quaternary System 0.42 Aquifer test 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

Wilmoth, 1966 

W.Va. Bureau for Public 

Health 

W.Va. Bureau for Public 

Health 

W.Va. Bureau for Public 

Health 

0.20 Median for Ohio River Alluvium 

Alluvium (Kanawha River) Quaternary System 0.004 Aquifer test Wilmoth, 1966 

Alluvium (Kanawha River) Quaternary System 0.002 Aquifer test Wilmoth, 1966 

0.003 Median for Kanawha River Alluvium 

10 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
Another assumption used when analyzing aquifer-test data is that the aquifer tested is homogenous 

and isotropic. Most fractured bedrock aquifers are not 

homogenous or isotropic at a local scale, but are commonly assumed to be so on a regional scale. For a 

given well, these assumptions are typically not valid, 

but for the entire recharge area to a public-supply well 

field, the assumptions are more realistic. A wide range 

of transmissivity is possible in a fractured bedrock 

aquifer; therefore, users of the data are cautioned to 

not assume that median values referenced in this 

report are characteristic of an aquifer that they may be 

evaluating. 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS 

ESTIMATED FROM WELL DATA 

All of the specific capacity and transmissivity data referenced within this report (table 2) were determined 

from well-drawdown data except for storage coefficient and (or) specific yield, which was obtained from 

published reports (table 1). Estimates of transmissivity 

presented in appendix 1 were determined from specific-capacity data. 

Specific Capacity 

Specific capacity of wells in West Virginia is highly 

variable and is affected by many factors. In bedrock 

aquifers, the major factor affecting specific capacity 

is the number, extent, and aperture of fractures 

encountered by a well bore. The more fractures (joints, 

faults, and bedding-plane separations) encountered by 

a well, the higher the specific capacity will be, because 

bedrock aquifers within West Virginia have little primary porosity. Alluvial aquifers comprise unconsolidated sediments such as sand, silt, clay, gravel, and 

boulders. The major factor affecting the specific 

capacity of a well is the proportion of coarse-grained 

sediments to fine-grained sediments. Alluvial sediments with a high proportion of gravel and sand will 

generally have a higher specific capacity than sediments with a larger proportion of fine-grained sediments, such as silts and clay. 

Alluvial aquifers in West Virginia are primarily 

in areas bordering the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers. Alluvial sediments also border a few smaller streams 

throughout the State. The relatively high proportion of 

sand and gravel glacial outwash in Ohio River sediments produces a highly permeable and productive 

aquifer (Carlston and Graeff, 1955). Specific capacity 

of wells completed in Ohio River alluvial aquifers 

ranges from 4 to 381 gallons per minute per foot of 

drawdown (gpm/ft) with a median of 31.8 gpm/ft (table 

2). These high specific capacities are reflective of 

highly productive aquifers. Alluvial aquifers along the 

Kanawha River are comprised of finer grain sediments 

(sand, silt, and clay) than are alluvial aquifers along the 

Ohio River. The finer grain sand and silts of Kanawha 

River alluvial aquifers have much lower specific capacities ranging from 3.64 to 132 gpm/ft with a median of 

11.8 gpm/ft (table 2). Consequently, Kanawha River 

alluvial aquifers are not used as frequently as the Ohio 

River alluvial aquifers as a source of water for public, 

industrial, or domestic supply. Finally, alluvial sediments along smaller streams such as the New River, the 

Little Kanawha River, the West Fork River, the Tygart 

River, and the ancestral Teays River Valley also can be 

sources of potable water. The composition of alluvial 

sediments along these streams is similar hydrologically 

to Kanawha River alluvial sediments but contains an 

even higher proportion of silt and clay, so they are 

rarely used as a source of water supply. Specific capacity of these minor alluvial aquifers ranges from 0.40 to 

10.5 gpm/ft with a median of 3.43 gpm/ft (table 2).

Other than alluvial aquifers bordering the Ohio 

River, ground-water withdrawals in the remainder of 

the State are primarily from fractured-bedrock aquifers. These sedimentary bedrock aquifers can generally be classified as carbonate (consisting of limestone 

and dolomite) or as clastic sedimentary rocks (consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale or coal). In the southern part of the State, wells are commonly drilled into 

voids left as a result of abandoned underground coal 

mines. Wells drilled into underground mine voids 

within the Pocahontas and New River Formations 

have the highest specific capacities of all aquifers analyzed for the State, commonly exceeding 1,000 gpm/ft 

(appendix 1 and table 2). 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS ESTIMATED FROM WELL DATA 11 
12 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Table 2. Statistical summary of specific capacity and transmissivity data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia [gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot; ft2/d, feet squared per day] Transmissivity Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) Hydrogeologic median value minimum value maximum value number of sites median value minimum value maximum value number of sites Unit (Aquifer) Ohio River Alluvium Kanawha River Alluvium Other Alluvium 

Dunkard GroupMonongahelaGroupConemaughGroupAlleghenyFormationKanawhaFormationNew RiverFormationPocahontasFormationPottsville GroupBluestone andPrincetonFormationsHinton Formation 

31.8

11.8 

3.430.50

0.570.753.122.001.334.95

5.09

2.15

1.40 

4.00

3.64

0.400.01

0.010.010.020.010.091.00

0.06

0.13

0.08 

381

132

10.5

130

10.0

100138

113 

2,7801,000

44.1

26.7

7.50 

168

8

4

31

18551874 18

4

24

11 

13 

4,800

1,600

920

130

150170850520330

1,200

1,300

480

310 

540

670

110 

3.0

3.03.06.03.0

19

210

16

27

19 

59,000

31,000

2,800

33,000

27,00024,00041,00031,000

750,000270,000

12,000

6,600

1,300 

128

7

4

31

1855187418

4

24

11 

13 
Table 2. Statistical summary of specific capacity and transmissivity data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia —Continued

[gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot; ft2/d, feet squared per day]

Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) Transmissivity (ft2/d) 

Hydrogeologic median value minimum value maximum value number of sites median value minimum value maximum value number of sites Unit (Aquifer) 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS ESTIMATED FROM WELL DATA 13 

Mauch ChunkGroupGreenbrier GroupMaccradyFormation andPocono GroupHampshireFormationChemung GroupBrallier and Harell FormationsUpper to middleDevonian unitsMahantangoFormationMarcellus andNeedmoreFormationsOnesquethawGroup andOriskanySandstoneHelderburg Group,Tonoloway, Wills Creek andWilliamsport Formations 

5.00

2.05

0.830.31

1.35

0.280.760.380.860.350.82 

0.38

0.03

0.170.01

0.12

0.010.190.010.070.100.07 

30.8

50.0

8.67

12.5

30.7

1.604.293.757.008.00

600 

15

13

7

22

22

7

151015

8

13 

1,300

470

210

74

270

72 

180

92

170

82 

200 

83

8.0

33

3.0

32

3.0

44.

3.0

1619 17 

7,200

13,000

2,3002,900

8,300

390760840

1,3001,500

160,000 

15

13

7

22

22

7

151015

8

13 
14 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Table 2. Statistical summary of specific capacity and transmissivity data for hydrogeologic units in West Virginia —Continued [gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot; ft2/d, feet squared per day] Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) Transmissivity (ft2/d) Hydrogeologic median value minimum value maximum value number of sites median value minimum value maximum value number of sites Unit (Aquifer) Clinton Group, Mckenzie and 0.11 0.02 6.50 3 23 6.0 1,100 3 Tuscarora Formations Martinsburg 1.00 0.11 10.0 15 240 23 2,400 15 Formation Trenton, Black River, St. Paul or 2.36 0.01 68.0 32 590 2.0 18,000 32 Beekmantown

GroupsConococheague 0.38 0.04 74.3 16 92 9.0 20,000 16 FormationElbrook 0.46 0.05 34.3 9 100 13 9,200 9 FormationWaynesboro, Tomstown, and Harpers- 0.25 0.02 3.20 9 67 5.0 740 9 

Weverton-Loudon Formations 
Karst limestone and (or) dolomite aquifers are Estimates of Transmissivity 

important sources of water supply in the Greenbrier 

Valley in Monroe, Greenbrier, and Pocahontas Counties and the Cambrian and Ordovician age karst aquifers are important sources of water supplying 

Jefferson, Berkeley, and Morgan Counties in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle. Additionally, several less 

important (small in areal extent) karst aquifers occur 

in areas of the Valley and Ridge Province in eastern 

West Virginia. Most karst aquifers in West Virginia 

(except for the Greenbrier limestone) have been classified primarily as diffuse-flow karst aquifers rather than 

as conduit-dominated systems (Jones, 1997), and are 

generally not as productive as the alluvial aquifers or 

even many of the clastic sedimentary rocks. Even 

though very large springs may flow from limestone 

aquifers, (McColloch, 1986), specific capacities of 

wells drilled in limestone and dolomite are typically 

low. The median specific capacities of wells completed in the Greenbrier and Beekmantown Groups are 

2.05 and 2.36 gpm/ft, respectively. Median specific 

capacity for karst limestone/dolomite aquifers of the 

Helderburg Group and the Tonoloway, Wills Creek, 

Conococheague, Elbrook, Waynesboro, Tomstown 

and Harpers-Weverton-Loudon Formations, ranged 

from a minimum of 0.25 to a maximum of 

0.82 gpm/ft.

Other than alluvial sediments along the State’s 

major rivers, the highest median specific capacities 

(3.12 to 5.09 gpm/ft respectively) are from wells completed in the Pottsville and Mauch Chunk Groups and 

the Pocahontas and Allegheny Formations (table 2). 

These units are adjacent to one another and form a 

band of sandstone, shale and coal dominated by bedrock that outcrops in a southwest to northwest trending 

band across central West Virginia. Wells drilled in 

younger age bedrock of the Conemaugh, Monongahela, and Dunkard Groups generally have much lower 

median specific capacities of 0.50 to 0.75 gpm/ft, 

respectively. Other than the Chemung Group and the 

Martinsburg Formation, which have median specific 

capacities of 1.35 and 1.00 gpm/ft respectively, shale 

dominated bedrock of Cambrian through Devonian 

age (table 3), including the McKenzie, Tuscarora, 

Marcellus, Needmore, Mahantango, Brallier, Harrel, 

and Hampshire Formations, all have specific capacities less than 1.0 gpm/ft. 

The estimates of transmissivity presented were 

derived mostly from specific-capacity data (appendix 

1), although data from a few aquifer tests are included 

in the data set. The estimates based on specific capacities compare favorably to transmissivity computed by 

analysis of multi-well aquifer tests. Because transmissivity estimates (table 2) were based on specificcapacity data, trends in transmissivity are similar to 

those discussed previously for specific capacity. Also, 

because of the wide range in estimates and a few 

extreme outliers on the higher end of the range, mean 

transmissivity for specific geologic units is significantly higher than median values; therefore, within 

this discussion only references to median values will 

be made. Aquifers are identified with respect to lithology and geologic system in table 3. 

The greatest median transmissivity for a specific 

geologic unit (table 2) was for the Ohio River alluvium (4,800 ft2

/d), and the second highest median 

transmissivity was for Kanawha River Alluvium 

(1,600 ft2

/d). As noted earlier, the Ohio River Alluvium is the most productive aquifer within the State. 

The high transmissivity of Ohio River alluvial sediments results from the high proportion of coarse 

grained gravel and sand within it. The Kanawha River, 

however, with its higher proportion of sand and silt, is 

much less transmissive. 

Among bedrock aquifers, median transmissivities (table 2) are highest within the Pennsylvanian-age 

Pocahontas Formation and Pottsville Group and the 

Mississippian-age Mauch Chunk Group (1,200, 1,300, 

and 1,300 ft2

/d, respectively). These rocks crop out 

primarily in the southern portion of the State and to a 

lesser extent within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle. The Pocahontas Formation is characterized by 

interbedded sequences of sandstone, shale, siltstone, 

and coal. The Pottsville Group includes the Pocahontas, New River, and Kanawha Formations and is also 

comprised primarily of sandstone with interbedded 

shale, siltstone, and coal (Cardwell and others, 1968). 

The Mauch Chunk Group comprises primarily red, 

green, and gray shale and sandstone with a few thin 

limestone units. 

Median transmissivities are lowest within Cambrian through Ordovician age strata, which outcrop 

only in the State’s eastern portion. The McKenzie 

Group, Clinton Formation, and Tuscarora Formation 

(table 2) have a median transmissivity of only 23 ft2

/d. 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS ESTIMATED FROM WELL DATA 15 
Cambrian age rocks within the Waynesboro, Tomstown, and Harpers-Weverton-Loudon Formations also 

have a low median transmissivity of only 67 ft2

/d (table 

2). Other units with low transmissivities include the 

Hampshire Formation, Brallier and Harrell Formations, 

Mahantango Formations, Onesquethaw Group and 

Oriskany Sandstone, and the Conococheague Formation with median transmissivities of 74, 72, 92, 82, and 

92 ft2

/d, respectively. All other bedrock aquifers within 

the State had intermediate values of transmissivity. 

Several interesting trends were noticed when 

examining the specific-capacity and transmissivity 

data. First, the highest transmissivity estimates documented (see appendix) were determined for the New 

River (750,000 ft2

/d) and Pocahontas Formations 

(270,000 ft2

/d). These extremely high transmissivities 

do not represent natural conditions and are characteristic of wells completed in abandoned underground coal 

mines. Such wells tap aquifers with extreme porosities 

created by the many interconnected passages in old 

mines, which are commonly used as sources of water 

in southern West Virginia. This effect should be considered when developing ground-water flow models 

for areas within the southern part of the State. Careful 

examination of old mine maps are useful for determining the location of abandoned mine workings. 

Table 3. Hydrogeologic units in West Virginia for which estimates of transmissivity were made including the 

geologic system and lithology of respective formations or groups 

Geologic system Hydrogeologic Unit (Aquifer) Dominant litholology 

Quaternary Alluvium Gravel, sand, silt, and clay 

Permian Dunkard Group Sandstone, 

Pennsylvanian 

Monongahela Group 

Conemaugh Group 

Allegheny Formation 

Kanawha Formation 

New River Formation 

Pocahontas Formation 

siltstone, shale, 

limestone, 

and coal 

Sandstone, 

siltstone, 

shale and coal 

Mississippian 

Pottsville Group 

Mauch Chunk Group 

Hinton Formation 

Bluefield, Bluestone, and Princeton Formations 

Greenbrier Group 

Maccrady Formation and Pocono Group 

Sandstone and shale 

Shale and sandstone 

Shale, sandstone, and limestone 

Shale, sandstone, and limestone 

Limestone, shale, and sandstone 

Sandstone and shale 

Devonian 

Hampshire Formation 

Chemung Group 

Brallier-Harrell Formations 

Marcellus and Needmore Formations 

Shales with sandstone 

Siltstone, sandstone, and shale 

Shale, siltstone, and sandstone 

Shale 

Mahantango Formation 

Helderburg Group, Tonoloway, Wills 

Creek, and Williamsport Formations 

Shale 

Limestone, sandstone, and shale 

Silurian 

Upper and middle Devonian strata 

Oriskany Formation 

Clinton Group, Mckenzie and Tuscarora Formations 

Shale, sandstone, and siltstone 

Sandstone 

Shale and sandstone 

Ordovician 

Juniata and Oswego Formations 

Martinsburg Formation 

Trenton, Black River, and St. Paul Groups 

Beekmantown Group 

Ordovician middle calcareous units 

Sandstone and shale 

Shale, limestone, and sandstone 

Limestone and dolomite 

Cambrian 

Conococheague Formation 

Elbrook Formation 

Antietam, Tomstown, Harpers, Weverton, Loudon, 

and Waynesboro Formations 

Limestone, shale, and dolomite 

Sandstone, shale, quartzite, and dolomite 

Pre-Cambrian Catoctin Formation and other 

Pre-Cambrian strata 

Greenstones or other 

metamorphic rocks 

16 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
In addition to underground coal mines, karst 

aquifers can have extremely high transmissivities if a 

well drilled in such a terrain intersects a cavernous 

area. The Helderburg Group-Tonoloway-Wills Creek 

aquifer, for example, has a maximum transmissivity of 

160,000 ft2

/d (table 2). Other karst aquifers for which 

cavernous zones may be present include the Greenbrier Group, Beekmantown Group, Conococheague 

Formation, Elbrook Formation, Waynesboro Formation, and the Tomstown Dolomite, all in the eastern 

part of the state. As with underground coal mines, 

when developing models in aquifers with potential 

karst topography, the modeler must determine whether 

ground-water flow in the area to be modeled is characteristic of diffuse or conduit flow. Site-specific aquifer 

tests and mapping of karst features are useful for 

determining whether an area to be modeled is underlain by a diffuse or conduit ground-water flow system. 

Saturated Thickness of Aquifers 

The saturated thickness of an aquifer must be measured or estimated in order to calculate the transmissivity of an aquifer. The saturated thickness of an 

unconfined aquifer bounded by an impermeable barrier below can be determined from well-log data (to 

define the bottom depth) and water-level measurements. For example, a surficial, 50-foot thick unconfined aquifer in which the water level is 10 feet below 

land surface would have a saturated thickness of 40 

feet. For fractured bedrock aquifers, determining the 

saturated thickness is much more difficult, because the 

bottom of the aquifer may not be well defined. In such 

aquifers, the fractures that yield water to a well generally pinch out or become narrower (and perhaps disconnected) with depth, and the bottom of the aquifer is 

defined by the level, or depth, at which ground-water 

flow becomes negligible. 

Saturated thickness and depth to water in alluvial sediments can vary widely. Twelve wells completed in alluvial sediments along the Ohio River 

between Hancock and Cabell Counties in West Virginia (Carlston and Graeff, 1955) have a median depth 

of 85 ft, median depth to water of 35 ft, and thus, a 

median saturated thickness of 50 ft. There is, however, 

considerable variability from site to site, and site-specific data should be used in model simulations whenever possible. These estimates are similar to those 

reported for Ohio River alluvial sediments in a 

ground-water investigation of Mason and Putnam 

Counties (Wilmoth, 1966), which reported average 

well depth of 85 ft, average depth to water of 43 ft, and 

average saturated thickness of 42 ft. 

In Wilmoth’s investigation, the average depth of 

Kanawha River alluvial sediments was estimated to be 

about 58 ft, average depth to water was 18 ft, and average saturated thickness was approximately 40 ft. A 

ground-water investigation of Kanawha County (Doll 

and others, 1960) reported average 

depths of about 50 ft, average depth to water of 20-24 

ft, and average saturated aquifer thickness of 34 ft. As 

with Ohio River alluvial sediments, there is wide variability between saturated aquifer thickness and depth 

to water from site to site within Kanawha River alluvial sediments. 

For wells completed in fractured bedrock, determination of saturated aquifer thickness is difficult. 

Only general conceptions of relative thickness are 

available from published reports. In Berkeley County, 

well yields generally decrease with increasing well 

depth (Shultz and others, 1995). Higher well yields are 

encountered in the upper 150 ft of bedrock and 

become less as well depth increases. Generally for 

wells 300 ft and deeper, yields are barely adequate for 

domestic use (Shultz and others, 1995). For these 

deeper wells, water is most likely being derived from 

shallower zones, and the wells were drilled deeper 

only to intersect additional water-bearing fractures or 

to provide storage within the casing between periods 

of pumping. The 300-foot depth of water-yielding 

fractures was characteristic of both carbonate and noncarbonate rocks within the County but is applicable 

only to areas in the State’s eastern most section, generally in either Jefferson and Berkeley Counties. 

In an investigation of ground-water flow processes in sequences of sandstone, shale, siltstone, and 

coal in southwestern Virginia, bedrock was found to 

be permeable (transmissivity greater than 0.001 ft2

/d) 

to depths of approximately 100 ft on the basis hydraulic testing of discrete bedrock intervals (Harlow and 

LeCain, 1993). Coal seams, however, were found to be 

permeable to depths of approximately 200 ft. Most of 

these wells were on hilltops and hillsides, and few 

were located in valley settings. 

Circulation depth was analyzed on the basis of 

the increase in temperature as water flows deeper 

within an aquifer and is heated by natural thermal gradients within the Earth. For 25 sites analyzed within 

the Kanawha River Basin in West Virginia, median 

depths of circulation for wells in hilltop, hillside, and 

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS ESTIMATED FROM WELL DATA 17 
valley settings were estimated to be 133, 200, and 317 

ft, respectively (Kozar, 1998). The 25 sites analyzed 

are all within the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic 

Province. These estimates should not be applied to 

sites located in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic 

Province in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle. 

The maximum saturated aquifer thickness, 

therefore, for most fractured-bedrock aquifers in valley settings in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic 

Province is most likely about 300 ft minus the average 

depth to water in the area of interest. For fracturedbedrock aquifers in hillside and hilltop areas, saturated 

thickness is probably 130 to 200 ft, minus the average 

depth to water in the area of interest. Further hydraulic 

testing and logging of wells in various aquifers and 

topographic settings is needed to confirm these simplified estimates. 

For wells in the Valley and Ridge, ground-water 

flow processes are much more complicated than in the 

Appalachian Plateaus. Not only can ground water flow 

within the shallow fracture systems near the surface, 

as is common in the Appalachian Plateaus, but also 

can flow to great depths along thrust faults or beddingplane separations. Within the Valley and Ridge, 60 to 

98 percent of warm spring discharges are believed to 

come from depths as great as 1,800 ft (Lessing and 

others, 1991). These estimates were based on the isotopic signature of water samples collected from warm 

springs in the region. Side looking airborne radar 

(SLAR) imagery was used to determine the structural 

geologic setting in which the springs were located. 

Thrust faults and other major fractures were found to 

be major avenues of ground-water flow for the deeply 

circulating warm springs (Lessing and others, 1991). 

An investigation of the hydrology and geochemistry of 

thermal springs in the Valley and Ridge portion of the 

Appalachians determined that ground-water circulation for thermal springs may be as deep as one mile. 

There is little data to describe depths of circulation for 

shallow aquifer systems in the region. Because of the 

potential for both shallow and deep circulation of 

ground water within the region, no simple rule can be 

used to estimate saturated aquifer thickness within the 

Valley and Ridge. Each site must be evaluated with 

respect to isotopic signature and (or) dissolved-gas data 

to determine the depth of ground-water circulation. 

Hydraulic Conductivity 

Hydraulic conductivity (K), typically expressed in 

units of feet per day (ft/d), is the transmissivity (T) of 

an aquifer divided by the saturated thickness of the 

aquifer (b) and may be expressed by the equation K= 

T/b. Because of the lack and limitations of available 

data on the saturated thickness of aquifers within the 

State, and the wide variability of transmissivity within 

aquifers, Statewide estimates of hydraulic conductivity can not be made from currently available data. 

Hydraulic conductivity for initial model development 

may be obtained by dividing the transmissivity data 

presented in the appendix by the generalized descriptions of saturated thickness presented above, but 

should be used only for initial estimates where no sitespecific data are available. 

An alternative approach is to estimate saturated 

thickness (b) by subtracting the depth to water from 

the total well depth (p). Because most wells are drilled 

to a depth at which no significant additional water is 

encountered during drilling, in most instances, subtracting the depth to water from the well depth will 

give a rough approximation (p) of saturated thickness. 

Hydraulic conductivity can then be estimated using 

the equation K=T/p, where depth to water is subtracted from total well depth and substituted in lieu of 

saturated aquifer thickness (b). For low-yielding wells, 

however, wells are commonly drilled deeper than the 

lowest encountered water-bearing zone to provide a 

storage pocket from which the pump may pull water 

during periods of peak demand. For low-yielding 

wells, subtracting the water level from the well depth 

will most likely yield highly inaccurate estimates of 

hydraulic conductivity. 

Storage Coefficient and Specific Yield 

Storage coefficients for confined aquifers generally 

range from 0.001 to 0.00001, and specific yields for 

unconfined aquifers generally range from 0.1 to 0.3 

and average 0.2 (Lohman, 1972). The median specific 

yield for alluvial aquifers along the Ohio and 

Kanawha Rivers, and for fractured-bedrock aquifers 

are 0.200, 0.003, and 0.007, respectively (table 1). 

Each of the two alluvial aquifer settings, as well as the 

fractured-bedrock aquifers, have distinct ranges of 

storage coefficient and (or) specific yield. The 0.20 

average specific yield for wells completed in Ohio 

River alluvial sediments is characteristic of uncon18 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
fined aquifers, even though overlying silt and clay 

units confine the coarser glacial outwash sand and 

gravel deposits in most localities (Carlston and Graeff, 

1955). Aquifers in these settings are unconfined 

because water levels within the aquifer commonly 

(except during flood conditions) are well below the 

base of silt and clay confining units (if present). 

For wells completed in Kanawha River alluvial 

deposits and alluvial aquifers bordering smaller 

streams, storage coefficients are much less. For two 

wells completed in Kanawha River alluvial sediments, 

storage coefficients were 0.002 and 0.004 (average of 

0.003). These numbers are at the uppermost region of 

what is commonly considered a confined aquifer setting. Wells completed in alluvial sediments bordering 

some of the smaller streams throughout the State most 

likely have specific yields similar to that of the 

Kanawha River, but few if any data are available for 

these minor and relatively unused aquifers. 

Storage coefficients of fractured-bedrock aquifers within the State are highly variable, as would be 

expected, and range from 0.0001 to 0.3, with a median 

of 0.007 (table 1). Examination of available storagecoefficient data indicates that most fractured-bedrock 

aquifers within West Virginia may be considered confined to semi-confined. Only two of 25 storage coefficient estimates available for fractured bedrock 

aquifers are characteristic of unconfined aquifers. 

Analysis of specific yields for the Tonoloway Formation (0.3) and the Rockdale Run Formation (0.14), 

indicate both are unconfined aquifers. These two formations are composed of limestone and (or) dolomite. 

Conduit or solution enlargement of the limestone and 

dolomite in these formations likely allows rapid infiltration into the karst aquifer, thus yielding a storage 

coefficient characteristic of unconfined aquifers. 

Although not indicated by the limited data available in 

table 1, it is likely that aquifers in similar karst settings 

may also exhibit unconfined conditions. Diffuse-flow 

karst aquifers are common in eastern West Virginia, 

especially in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, and 

conduit flow systems occur in karst areas where the 

Greenbrier limestone crops out, especially in Greenbrier, Monroe, and Pocahontas Counties. 

RECHARGE 

Once precipitation falls in an aquifer’s recharge area, a 

part of that precipitation runs off into streams, while 

the remainder percolates into the soil (Winter and others, 1998). Some of the water that runs off is lost to 

evaporation on and near the land surface, while the 

part that percolates into the soil is used (transpired) by 

plants. The remainder infiltrates the soil and continues 

downward where it recharges ground-water reservoirs 

(aquifers). It is this portion that is commonly referred 

to as recharge (Winter and others, 1998). Ground 

water also may be lost to evaporation and transpiration 

by plants near discharge areas bordering streams 

(riparian ET). The remainder of ground water then 

typically discharges to streams as base flow or 

recharges deeper aquifers. Base flow discharge of 

ground water is roughly equivalent to recharge only if 

there is little riparian ET and recharge or discharge to 

and from deeper aquifers is negligible. Within this 

report, recharge refers to the component that actually 

recharges ground water and is not assumed to be 

equivalent to base flow discharge. 

Recharge data are crucial for developing realistic simulations of ground-water flow. Analysis of 

streamflow data can provide information on groundwater discharge to streams. From streamflow data, 

estimates of aquifer recharge can also be made. 

Streamflow data from 41 gaging stations on unregulated streams (fig. 3 and table 4) throughout West Virginia were analyzed using computer software 

(Rutledge, 1998) to determine mean recharge rates for 

selected areas. Estimates were made using the recession-curve displacement method (Rorabaugh, 1964). 

Data used in these analyses were obtained from the 

USGS Automated Data Processing Software 

(ADAPS) database. Data for the entire period of 

record at each of the gaging stations were used in the 

analyses, except for certain streams for which shorter 

periods of record were analyzed to avoid data collected after flood-retention structures were installed in 

the early 1970’s. It is imperative to analyze data for 

unregulated streams because the storage of water in 

flood-retention structures radically alters the runoff 

characteristics of a stream and results in erroneous 

estimates of recharge. 

Estimates of recharge based on records for individual gaging stations are summarized by the major 

river basin in which they occur (table 4). This 

approach is considered logical because the stations 

within each river basin share similar geologic, topographic, and climatological settings. Precipitation, 

average basin slope, bedrock lithology, bedrock permeability, and topography are a few of the major 

RECHARGE 19 
Table 4. Mean ground-water recharge rates estimated from streamflow data obtained from 41 gaging 

stations in West Virginia 

[in./yr, inches per year; mi2, square miles; Map ID number, map identification number as listed in figure 3] 

 Map ID Drainage area Recharge Station Name County Number (mi2

) (in./yr) 

Potomac River Basin 

Back Creek near Jones Springs, WV 16 Berkeley 235. 8.5 

South Fork South Branch Potomac River at Brandywine, WV 11 Pendleton 103. 9.0 

North Fork South Branch Potomac River at Cabins, WV 9 Grant 335. 11.0 

Cacapon River near Great Cacapon, WV 15 Morgan 675. 8.7 

South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield, WV 12 Hardy 277. 7.3 

Opequon Creek near Martinsburg, WV 13 Berkeley 273. 9.8 

South Branch Potomac River near Petersburg, WV 10 Grant 676. 11.6 

Tuscarora Creek above Martinsburg, WV 14 Berkeley 11.3 11.4 

Patterson Creek near Headsville, WV 8 Mineral 211. 7.3 

Mean 9.4 

Little Kanawha River Basin and Ohio River Tributaries 

Hughes River at Cisco, WV 24 Ritchie 453. 7.1 

Wheeling Creek at Elm Grove, WV 17 Ohio 281. 9.6 

Little Kanawha River at Glenville, WV 19 Gilmer 387. 9.3 

Little Kanawha River at Grantsville, WV 21 Calhoun 913. 8.8 

Middle Island Creek at Little, WV 18 Tyler 458. 8.0 

Reedy Creek near Reedy, WV 23 Wirt 79.4 6.7 

West Fork Little Kanawha River at Rocksdale, WV 22 Calhoun 205. 8.7 

Steer Creek near Grantsville, WV 20 Calhoun 162. 9.2 

Mean 8.4 

Monongahela River Basin 

Big Sandy Creek at Rockville, WV 40 Preston 200. 21.2 

Blackwater River at Davis, WV 38 Tucker 85.9 22.5 

Cheat River near Parsons, WV 39 Tucker 722. 19.9 

Middle Fork River at Audra, WV 37 Barbour 148. 24.5 

Shavers Fork at Parsons, WV 41 Tucker 213. 24.8 

Tygart Valley River at Belington, WV 36 Barbour 406. 15.4 

Mean 21.4 

20 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
Table 4. Mean ground-water recharge rates estimated from streamflow data obtained from 41 gaging 

stations in West Virginia —Continued 

[in./yr, inches per year; mi2, square miles; Map ID number, map identification number as listed in figure 3] 

Station Name Map ID 

Number County Drainage area 

(mi2) 

Recharge 

(in./yr) 

Kanawha River Basin (Western Portion) 

Big Coal River at Ashford, WV 25 Boone 391. 11.9 

Little Coal River at Danville, WV 31 Boone 269. 11.9 

Piney Creek at Raleigh, WV 33 Raleigh 52.7 11.9 

Mean 11.9 

Kanawha River Basin (Eastern Portion) 

Cherry River at Fenwick, WV 26 Nicholas 150. 27.8 

Cranberry River near Richwood, WV 27 Nicholas 80.4 31.6 

Elk River Below Webster Springs, WV 28 Webster 266. 23.9 

Gauley River at Camden on Gauley, WV 29 Webster 236. 25.2 

Greenbrier River at Durbin, WV 30 Pocahontas 133. 21.1 

Meadow River near Mount Lookout, WV 32 Nicholas 365. 20.6 

Little Kanawha River near Wildcat, WV 1 35 Braxton 112. 19.8 

Williams River at Dyer, WV 34 Webster 128. 26.4 

Mean 24.6 

Tug, Twelvepole Creek and Guyandotte River Basins 

Guyandotte River at Baileysville, WV 1 Wyoming 306. 14.5 

Clear Fork at Clear Fork, WV 2 Wyoming 126. 14.8 

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, WV 3 Wayne 38.5 12.4 

Tug Fork at Litwar, WV 4 McDowell 504. 11.3 

Panther Creek near Panther, WV 5 McDowell 31.0 11.1 

Tug Fork at Williamson, WV 6 Mingo 936. 12.5 

Tug Fork at Kermit, WV 7 Mingo 1,280. 11.2 

Mean 12.6 

1 Although the Little Kanawha River near Wildcat is located in the Little Kanawha River Basin, it has 

precipitation and recharge rates characteristic of the eastern portion of the Kanawha River Basin. 

RECHARGE 21 
factors that affect ground-water recharge. The highest 

mean ground-water recharge rates within West Virginia occur within a band that extends through the central part of the State within the eastern portion of the 

Kanawha River Basin (fig. 3). This area of relatively 

high relief has peaks higher than 4,000 ft and precipitation greater than 50 in./yr. (NOAA, 1982). Mean 

ground-water recharge within this region is 24.6 in./yr 

(table 4). This band extends northward towards Pennsylvania and includes the Monongahela River Basin 

with a mean recharge rate of 21.4 in./yr. 

To the west of this central band of high relief 

topography lies a region of lower relief with much 

lower average precipitation, approximately 40 inches 

annually (NOAA, 1982). This area has much lower 

ground-water recharge rates. Mean recharge for the 

Tug Fork, Twelvepole Creek, and Guyandotte River 

Basins is only 12.6 inches. For the western portion of 

the Kanawha River Basin mean recharge is 11.9 

inches. The lowest mean recharge rates in the State 

occur within the Little Kanawha River Basin and the 

smaller tributary streams in the region that discharge 

directly to the Ohio River. Mean recharge for the Little 

Kanawha River Basin and the Ohio River tributary 

streams is only 8.4 inches. 

The State’s third major ground-water region is 

located in the Valley and Ridge. This area, which lies 

east of the band of higher altitude topography, is characterized by long linear northeast to southwest trending alternating ridges and valleys. A high altitude rain 

shadow caused by orographic lifting along the western 

edge of this area results in lower precipitation within 

the region, with approximately 30 inches of annual 

precipitation, except for the extreme eastern tip of the 

State where annual precipitation averages approximately 40 inches (NOAA, 1982). Mean ground-water 

recharge rates for the region, which is drained almost 

entirely by the Potomac River and its tributaries, is 9.4 

in./yr (table 4). Precipitation is a major factor affecting 

ground-water recharge, but bedrock permeability and 

topographic effects must also be considered when 

using this data for development of site-specific 

ground-water flow models. 

FUTURE DATA NEEDS 

To compile a database that would provide information 

necessary to delineate source-water protection areas 

for public-supply wells and well fields throughout 

West Virginia, future data needs should include additional data on storage coefficients and (or) specific 

yield and saturated thicknesses of aquifers. Storagecoefficient and (or) specific-yield data are essential for 

verifying transmissivity estimates based on specific 

capacity. Although limited data available for storage 

coefficient and (or) specific yield are consistent for 

each of the major aquifer types (alluvial and fractured 

bedrock), additional data are needed to confirm and 

further refine understanding of which aquifers within 

the State are confined and which are unconfined. The 

only way to obtain such data is by conducting longterm aquifer tests, especially in fractured-bedrock 

aquifers and alluvial aquifers bordering the Kanawha 

River and some of the smaller streams. Additional 

transmissivity estimates are needed for lower Pennsylvanian- and Mississippian-age rocks in southern West 

Virginia and Ordovician- to Devonian-age rocks in the 

eastern portion of the State. These transmissivity estimates may be obtained from single-well aquifer tests. 

A deficiency exists with respect to data on saturated thickness of aquifers, especially for fractured 

bedrock aquifers. Aquifer tests and (or) well logging 

will be necessary to determine the fracture distribution 

within fractured-bedrock aquifers. Documenting the 

depth, orientation, and aperture width of significant 

water-bearing fractures in wells in various bedrock 

units would also be useful. Logging of wells in various 

units, especially using acoustic televiewers, is needed 

to document fracture distribution, depth, and orientation. Heat-pulse flow-meter logs could help to provide 

similar data on the depth of significant water-bearing 

fractures. Hydraulic testing could be conducted on discrete intervals in wells to determine the depth and 

water-producing capacity of significant water-bearing 

fractures. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Specific-capacity data were obtained from the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Information System database and from files of the West Virginia 

Bureau for Public Health - Office of Environmental 

Health Services. The data were used to estimate transmissivity for aquifers located throughout West Virginia. In addition, literature was reviewed to obtain 

previously published estimates of storage coefficient 

and (or) specific yield for aquifers within the State. 

The storage-coefficient and (or) specific-yield data are 

needed to make estimates of transmissivity from specific-capacity data. 

22 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
The highest median transmissivity of a specific 

aquifer in West Virginia (table 2) occurs in Ohio River 

alluvium (4,800 ft2

/d), and the second highest median 

transmissivity occurs in Kanawha River alluvium 

(1,600 ft2

/d). The lowest median transmissivities 

occur within older Cambrian through Ordovician age 

strata which outcrop only within the State’s eastern 

portion. The McKenzie-Tuscarora-Clinton aquifers 

had a median transmissivity of only 23 ft2

/d. Cambrian age rocks within the Waynesboro-TomstownHarpers-Weverton-Loudon aquifer also had a low 

median transmissivity of only 67 ft2

/d (table 2). Other 

units with low transmissivities include the Hampshire 

Formation, Brallier-Harrell Formations, Mahantango 

Formations, Onesquethaw Group-Oriskany Sandstone, and the Conococheague Formation with median 

transmissivities of 74, 72, 92, 82, and 92 ft2

/d respectively. All other bedrock aquifers had intermediate values of transmissivity. 

For bedrock aquifers, the highest median transmissivities of 1,200, 1,300, and 1,300 ft2

/d occur 

within the Pennsylvanian age Pocahontas Formation 

and Pottsville Group and the Mississippian age Mauch 

Chunk Group, respectively. These rocks outcrop primarily in the southern coal fields and to a lesser extent 

within the Valley and Ridge in West Virginia’s Eastern 

Panhandle. 

The highest individual transmissivity estimates 

were determined for the New River (750,000 ft2

/d) 

and Pocahontas Formations (270,000 ft2

/d). These 

transmissivities are extremely high, and are not likely 

a result of natural processes but are more easily 

explained as indicative of wells completed in abandoned underground coal mines. Such wells tap aquifers with very high porosities because of the large 

number of interconnected passages in old mine workings and are commonly used as sources of water in 

southern West Virginia. 

In addition to underground coal mines, karst 

aquifers can also have extremely high transmissivities 

if a well completed in such a terrane intersects a large 

cavernous area, as is evident for the Helderburg 

Group-Tonoloway-Wills Creek-Williamsport Formations, which has a maximum transmissivity of 160,000 

ft2

/d (table 2). Other karst aquifers include the Greenbrier Group, Beekmantown Group, Conococheague 

Formation, Elbrook Formation, Waynesboro Formation, and the Tomstown Dolomite. All of these aquifers are in eastern West Virginia. 

An aquifer’s saturated aquifer thickness and 

depth to water can vary widely. Data for twelve wells 

completed in alluvial sediments along the Ohio River 

between Hancock and Cabell Counties in West Virginia (Carlston and Graeff, 1955) have a median saturated aquifer thickness of 50 ft. These estimates are 

similar to those reported for Ohio River alluvial sediments in Mason and Putnam Counties (Wilmoth, 

1966), which reported an average saturated thickness 

of 42 ft. In Wilmoth’s investigation, the average saturated thickness of Kanawha River alluvial sediments 

was estimated to be approximately 40 ft. A groundwater investigation of Kanawha County (Doll and others, 1960) reported average saturated aquifer thickness 

of 34 ft. There is wide variability of saturated aquifer 

thickness from site to site within Kanawha River alluvial sediments.

 For most fractured-bedrock aquifers in valley 

settings in the Appalachian Plateaus, the maximum 

saturated thickness is believed to be approximately 

300 ft minus the average depth to water in the area of 

interest. For fractured-bedrock aquifers in hillside and 

hilltop areas, saturated thickness is probably 130 to 

200 ft minus the average depth to water in the area of 

interest. Further hydraulic testing and logging of wells 

in various aquifers and topographic settings are 

needed to confirm these simplified estimates for wells 

completed in fractured bedrock. There is no good rule 

that can be used to estimate saturated thickness for 

fractured-bedrock aquifers within the Valley and 

Ridge. 

Analysis of available specific-yield data indicates that the Ohio River alluvial aquifer is characteristic of an unconfined aquifer, with a median specific 

yield of 0.20. The Kanawha River alluvial aquifer has 

a much lower specific yield (median of 0.003) and is 

considered a semi-confined aquifer because of its 

higher composition of fluvial silts and clays. The Ohio 

River alluvial deposits have coarser grained sand and 

gravel deposits. Storage coefficients for fractured-bedrock aquifers vary significantly from a minimum of 

0.0001 to a maximum of 0.3 with a median of 0.007. 

Excluding the Stonehenge limestone, Tonoloway Formation, Beekmantown Group, and Rockdale Run Formation, which can exhibit karst characteristics, the 

maximum storage coefficient for fractured bedrock 

aquifers was only 0.015. Generally, for fractured-bedrock aquifers, storage-coefficient data are characteristic of confined aquifer settings. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 23 
Estimates of recharge were summarized according to the major river basin in which the stream basin 

occurs (table 4). The highest mean ground-water 

recharge rates within West Virginia (24.6 inches) 

occur within a band that extends through the central 

portion of the State within the eastern portion of the 

Kanawha River Basin. This area is at relatively high 

altitude (peaks in excess of 4,000 ft altitude) and has 

above average precipitation (in excess of 50 in./yr). 

This band extends northward towards Pennsylvania 

and includes the Monongahela River Basin, which has 

a mean recharge of 21.4 in./yr. 

To the west of this central band of high altitude 

topography lies a region of lower relief with much 

lower average annual precipitation (approximately 40 

in./yr). Consequently, this area also has much lower 

ground-water recharge rates. Mean recharge for the 

Tug Fork, Twelvepole Creek, and Guyandotte River 

Basins is only 12.6 in./yr. For the western portion of 

the Kanawha River basin mean recharge is 11.9 

inches. The lowest mean recharge rates within the 

State (8.4 in./yr) occur within the Little Kanawha 

River Basin and the smaller tributary streams in the 

region that discharge directly to the Ohio River. 

To the east of the band of higher altitude, in 

West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle, is an area characterized by long, northeast to southwest trending ridges 

and valleys. The area is located within a rain shadow 

resulting from orographic lifting in the higher altitude 

area to the west. This results in lower precipitation 

within the region (approximately 30 in./yr). Mean 

ground-water recharge rates for the region, which is 

drained almost entirely by the Potomac River and its 

tributaries, is 9.4 in./yr (table 4). 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A., 1984, Dictionary of Geological terms: prepared in cooperation with the American 

Geological Institute by Anchor Press-Doubleday, New 

York, NY, p. 534. 

Bentall, R., Brown, R.H., Ferris, J.G., Jacob, C.E., 

Knowles, D.B., Meyer, R.R., Skibitzke, H.E., and 

Theis, C.V., 1963, Methods of determining permeability, transmissibility, and drawdown: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-I, p. 331-338. 

Cardwell, D.H., Erwin, R.B., and Woodward, H.P., 1968, 

Geologic Map of West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey map, 2 sheets, scale 

1:250,000. 

Carlston, C.W., and Graeff, G.D., Jr., 1955, Ground-water 

resources of the Ohio River Valley in West Virginia: 

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey

 v. XXIII, part III, 131 p.

Doll, W.L., Wilmoth, B.M., and Whetstone, G.W., 1960, 

Water resources of Kanawha County, West Virginia: 

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 20, 189 p. 

Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells: Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN, p. 572. 

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

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, 

M.G., MODFLOW 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 

modular ground-water model—User guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92, 121 p. 

Harlow, G.E., and LeCain, G.D., 1993, Hydrologic characteristics of, and ground-water flow in, coal bearing 

rocks of southwestern Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2388, 36 p. 

Hobba, W.A., Jr., Friel, E.A., and Chisholm, J.L., 1972, 

Water resources of the Potomac River basin, West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey 

River Basin Bulletin no. 3, 110 p. 

Hobba, W.A., Jr., 1985, Water in Hardy, Hampshire, and 

western Morgan Counties, West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Environmental 

Geology EGB-19, 91 p. 

Jones, W.K., 1997, Karst Hydrology Atlas of West Virginia: 

Karst Water Institute Special Publication 4, 111 p. 

Kozar, 1998, Ground-water age data applied to understanding fractured bedrock aquifers in West Virginia: in proceedings of West Virginia nonpoint source conference, 

Charleston, W.Va., October 1-3, 1998, p. 13. 

Lessing, P., Hobba, W.A., Jr., Dean, S.L., and Kulander, B.R., 

1991, Relations between warm springs and geology 

delineated by side-looking airborne-radar imagery in 

eastern West Virginia: United States Geological Survey 

Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4096, 44 p. 

Lohman, S.W., 1972, Ground-Water Hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p. 

McColloch, J.S., 1986, Springs of West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Volume V-6A, 

493 p. 

NOAA, 1982, Climate of West Virginia: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, climatography of the United States,

 no. 60, 19 p. 

Robison, T.M., 1964 Occurrence and availability of ground 

water in Ohio County, West Virginia: West Virginia 

Geological and Economic Survey Bulletin 27, 57 p. 

Rorabaugh, M.I., 1964, Estimating changes in bank storage 

and ground-water contribution to streamflow: Interna24 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
tional Association of Scientific Hydrology, Publication 

63, p. 352-363. 

Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing 

the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge 

from streamflow records-update: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 98-4148, 

43 p. 

Schwietering, J.F., 1981, Brief description of ground water 

conditions and aquifers in West Virginia with annotated bibliography: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Open File Report OF-8102, 121 p. 

Sheets, C.J., and Kozar, M.D., 2000, Ground-water quality 

in the Appalachian Plateaus, Kanawha Basin, West 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigation Report 99-4269, 25 p. 

Shultz, R.A., Hobba, W.A., Jr., and Kozar, M.D., 1995, Geohydrology, ground-water availability, and ground-water 

quality of Berkeley County, West Virginia, with emphasis on the carbonate-rock area: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Investigation Report 93-4073, 88 p. 

Sloto, R.A., and Crouse, M.Y., 1996, HYSEP, a computer 

program for streamflow hydrograph separation and 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigation Report 96-4040, 46 p. 

Trainer, F.W., and Watkins, F.A., 1975, A geohydrologic 

reconnaissance of the upper Potomac River Basin: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2035, 68 p. 

Ward, P.E., and Wilmoth, B.M., 1968, Ground-water 

hydrology of the Monongahela River basin in West 

Virginia: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey River Basin Bulletin 1, 54 p. 

Wilmoth, B.M., 1966, Ground water in Mason and Putnam 

Counties, West Virginia: West Virginia Geological and 

Economic Survey Bulletin 32, 152 p. 

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 

1998, Ground Water and Surface Water, a Single 

Resource: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p. 

REFERENCES CITED 25 
APPENDIX


Specific Capacity and Transmissivity Data Segregated by Aquifer for Selected Wells in 

West Virginia 

The following abbreviations are used in this appendix: 

ddmmss degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude 

in inches 

e estimated 

ft feet 

gpm gallons per minute 

ft bls feet below land surface 

gpm/ft gallons per minute per foot of drawdown 

ft2/d feet squared per day 

Lit from literature 

N/D not determined 

26 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia 
APPENDIX 27


Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium 401344080392301 401344 803923 Brooke 79 16 700 21.8 14 25 50.0 8,400 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401346080391801 401346 803918 Brooke 70 10 200 19.67 0.33 10.2 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401630080364601 401630 803646 Brooke 71 20 800 55 34 21 38.1 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401634080364701 401634 803647 Brooke 67 20 700 44 23 21 9 33.3 4,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401635080364701 401635 803647 Brooke 67.3 20 800 20.33 4.25 39.4 5,200 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401640080364601 401640 803646 Brooke 69 20 1250 24.42 15.75 51.2 8,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401917080354801 401917 803548 Brooke 75 20 750 47.8 34.8 13.0 57.7 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401939080355301 401939 803553 Brooke 74.5 30 252 38.75 34.92 3.83 0.8 65.8 8,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402035080363201 402035 803632 Brooke 74.5 36 1450 30.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402319080374101 402319 803741 Brooke 73 36 762 14 24 54.0 7,600 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402040080364001 402040 803640 Brooke 78 36 740 25 33.8 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402040080364004 402040 803640 Brooke 78 710 12 59.0 (Ohio River)

 670 
28 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium 402040080364005 402040 803640 Brooke 78 1240 9 138 (Ohio River) Alluvium 402040080364006 402040 803640 Brooke 1890 14 135 (Ohio River) Alluvium 402040080364008 402040 803640 Brooke 1685 19 89.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 2-1-16.A402040 803640 Brooke 80 960 23 41.6 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 2-1-17.B 402040 803640 Brooke 78.5 1100 10 110 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 2-1-18.C 402040 803640 Brooke 82.8 200 14 14.3 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 2-1-19.D 402040 803640 Brooke 77.5 600 7 85.7 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 2-1-20.E 402040 803640 Brooke 61.5 1440 11 131 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401336080392501 401336 803925 Brooke 70 500 32 15.6 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401913080355103 401913 803551 Brooke 75 12 508 48.25 34.5 13.8 24 37.0 5,600 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 401933080355501 401933 803555 Brooke 75 700 53 46 7 100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402040080364000 402040 803640 Brooke 77 720 64 46 18 40.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 402040080364003 402040 803640 Brooke 78 1150 43 33 10 115 (Ohio River) 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 29


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium Beech Bottom #1 N/D N/D Brooke 71 12 145 10.92 0.33 13.3 1,100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Follansbee #4 N/D N/D Brooke 70 20 800 20.83 49.25 38.4 6,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Hammond PSD #1 `N/D N/D Brooke 60 8 300 9 1.5 33.3 4,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Hammond PSD #2 N/D N/D Brooke 60 8 300 7 1 42.9 4,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382521082263201 382521 822632 Cabell 60 12 300 6.5 24 46.2 7,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 383233082172101 383313 821707 Cabell 90 10 100 38 35 3 10 33.3 4,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382445082271201 382445 822712 Cabell 120 8 300 15 13 1.5 24 200 36,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382533082255901 382533 822559 Cabell 63 8 125 53 43 10 6 12.5 1,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382508082255601 382508 822556 Cabell 80 10 100 80 60 20 0.25 5.0 670 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 403444080394501 403444 803945 Hancock 111 620 81.2 58.2 23.2 24 26.7 4,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 403716080362901 403717 803627 Hancock 76 24 1140 3.00 381 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 403716080363001 403718 803627 Hancock 76 24 1280 6.5 196 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 403718080362301 403720 803619 Hancock 76 24 1410 4 285 (Ohio River) 
30 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium 402959080363401 402959 803634 Hancock 117 10 305 10.6 2 28.8 3,300 (Ohio River) Alluvium 403714080361901 403714 803619 Hancock 82 550 42 32 10 24 55.0 9,200 (Ohio River) Alluvium 403714080361902 403714 803619 Hancock 82 550 42 32 10 24 55.0 9,200 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385703081453801 385703 814538 Jackson 93 12 225 74 59 15 8 15.0 2,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385705081454001 385704 814540 Jackson 93 8 250 52 32 20 12 12.5 1,600 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385309081512201 385309 815122 Jackson 89 84 50 53 46 7 0.5 7.14 540 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Ravens. Alum F-9 N/D N/D Jackson 78 12 1012 12.7 8 79.7 13,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394421080503801 394421 805038 Marshall 69 10 283 57.25 43 14.3 8 19.9 2,500 (Ohio River)

4-1-1 Old Alluvium 395857 804400 Marshall 75 8 300 17 0.5 17.6 1,400 McMechen (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394935080504901 394935 805049 Marshall 68 20 650 19 24 34.2 5,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394443080510501 394443 805105 Marshall 85 20 850 69 53 16.3 12 52.1 8,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394446080511301 394446 805113 Marshall 79.5 8 400 58 43 15 12 26.7 3,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394450080511701 394450 805117 Marshall 81 20 700 73 51 22 31.8 (Ohio River)
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 31


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium 394459080511501 394459 805115 Marshall 98.6 10 250 72 66 6 24 41.7 6,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 395058080444201 395459 804442 Marshall 100 8 200 90 60 30 22 6.67 960 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 395434080482001 395428 804824 Marshall 60.5 156 3000 56 46 10 300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 395502080444201 395502 804442 Marshall 100 8 300 90 60 30 10.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 53,000 395503080425501 395503 804255 Marshall 67 156 530 31 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium Salvoy AN/D N/D Marshall 450 72 40,000 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium Salvoy B N/D N/D Marshall 500 72 33,000 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium Salvoy C N/D N/D Marshall 520 72 31,000 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium Salvoy D N/D N/D Marshall 210 72 27,000 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 395537080451501 395537 804515 Marshall 68 750 46 29 16.5 168 45.5 8,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 395540080451701 395540 804517 Marshall 68 750 39 30 9 168 83.3 17,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 395601080452801 N/D N/D Marshall 75 24 450 21.5 24 20.9 3,200 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Marshall Co. PSD N/D N/D Marshall 70 10 500 12.58 1.17 39.7 4,400 (Ohio River) 
32 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium Benwood #1 N/D N/D Marshall 70 14 500 26.75 24 18.7 2,700 (Ohio River) Alluvium Benwood #2 N/D N/D Marshall 72 14 500 27.58 24 18.1 2,700 (Ohio River) Alluvium AEP Krammer N/D N/D Marshall 70 12 490 1.75 12 280 47,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium AEP Krammer N/D N/D Marshall 71 12 600 4.33 1.50 139 19,000 (Ohio River)Alluvium Glendale TH1 N/D N/D Marshall 75 6 213 5.1 3 41.8 5,300 (Ohio River)Alluvium Glendale TH2 N/D N/D Marshall 78 6 213 5.38 3 39.6 5,100 (Ohio River)Alluvium Mt. Carbon Co. 395006 804916 Marshall 81 18 754 5.3 8.5 142 23,000 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102001 383959 821016 Mason 85 450 20 22.5 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102001 384000 821016 Mason 85 13 300 65 53 12 24 25.0 3,900 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102002 383958 821013 Mason 86 325 12.7 25.6 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102002 383958 821013 Mason 86 13 325 65 52 13 24 25.0 3,900 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102003 383958 821016 Mason 86 330 15.9 20.8 (Ohio River)Alluvium 383959082102003 383958 821016 Mason 86 13 325 69 53 16 24 20.3 2,900 (Ohio River)
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 33


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium 384456082112601 384456 821126 Mason 72 8 300 37 20 17 4 17.6 2,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 384618082120801 384618 821208 Mason 83 325 49 41 8 36 40.6 7,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 384618082121201 384618 821212 Mason 83 200 47 41 6 30 33.3 5,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 384621082121001 384621 821210 Mason 83 180 48 41 7 67 25.7 4,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 384628082121201 384628 821212 Mason 83 217 52 41 11 74 19.7 3,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385419082071701 385419 820717 Mason 81 20 500 52.79 39.5 13.3 8.5 37.6 5,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385420082072101 385420 820721 Mason 84.3 20 500 61.88 49.25 12.6 39.6 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385421082071801 385421 820718 Mason 84 20 500 57 42 15 8 33.3 4,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385421082072001 385421 820720 Mason 84.5 20 500 56.6 44 12.6 9 39.7 5,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385421082072301 385421 820723 Mason 84.4 20 500 61.73 49.67 12.1 41.5 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385422082072201 385422 820722 Mason 84 20 500 59.7 44.2 15.5 8 32.3 4,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 16,000 385735082053801 385735 820538 Mason 71 156 5500 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 385039082082002 385039 820820 Mason 67 30 53 50 3 1 10.0 1,100 (Ohio River)
34 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium 385207082075301 385207 820753 Mason 94 250 47 42 5 48 50.0 9,000 (Ohio River) Alluvium 385439082065801 385439 820658 Mason 80 110 60 45 15 48 7.33 1,100 (Ohio River) Alluvium 385753081554501 385753 815545 Mason 99.1 210 25.5 8 8.2 1,100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385802081552601 385802 815526 Mason 80 6 240 63 53 10 16 24.0 3,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385802081552602 385802 815526 Mason 80 10 330 64 53 11 72 30.0 5,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385804081552501 385804 815525 Mason 80 8 500 61 55 5.5 48 91.0 17,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385845081560101 385845 815601 Mason 78 150 39.6 37 2.3 24 65.2 11,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385846081560201 385846 815602 Mason 78 150 41 36 5 24 30.0 4,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Pt. Pleasant #7 385419 820715 Mason 92 18 700 70.5 55 15.5 27 45.2 7,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385737082053801 N/D N/D Mason 71 8 280 9.5 5.5 29.5 3,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385739082053601 N/D N/D Mason 71 220 7.58 5.5 29.0 3,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385304081554701 N/D N/D Mason 54 12 125 7.25 4 17.2 1,900 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385304081554501 385305 815545 Mason 57 12 125 7.17 3.5 17.4 1,900 (Ohio River) 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 35


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium Letart #3 N/D N/D Mason 55 12 225 8 11.5 28.1 4,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 384458082112601 N/D N/D Mason 73 8 220 10.67 4 20.6 2,400 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 390048082020901 N/D N/D Mason 90 192 4 0.5 48.0 4,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 390051082020801 N/D N/D Mason 90 187 6.67 2 28.0 3,100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385920081581501 N/D N/D Mason 94 8 150 2.33 24 64.4 11,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 385920081581901 N/D N/D Mason 93 8 150 5 23 30.0 4,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium New Haven #3 N/D N/D Mason 81 12 500 11.5 33.33 43.5 7,200 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 400234080433501 400234 804335 Ohio 84 12 450 40 36 4 1 112 14,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 400550080431201 400550 804312 Ohio 45 500 24 19 4.7 6.5 106 16,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 400824080423001 400824 804230 Ohio 56 12 350 17 14 3 24 117 21,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Wheeling #2 N/D N/D Ohio 84 24 402 21.75 25.5 18.5 2,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Wheeling #3 N/D N/D Ohio 87 24 351 22.67 26 15.5 2,100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Wheeling #4 N/D N/D Ohio 86 24 603 18.96 24 31.8 5,100 (Ohio River) 
36 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium Wheeling #5 N/D N/D Ohio 83 24 603 25.59 24 23.6 3,600 (Ohio River) Alluvium Wheeling #6 N/D N/D Ohio 90 26.75 600 11.64 4 51.5 5,600 (Ohio River) Alluvium 392022081213201 392022 812132 Pleasants 53 13 174 13 13.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392022081213901 392022 812139 Pleasants 52.8 12 300 16.5 18.2 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392023081212601 392023 812126 Pleasants 50 10 140 35.3 24.6 10.7 13.1 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392334081121501 392334 811215 Pleasants 73.3 18 200 49.5 46 3.5 72 57.1 11,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392503081110901 392503 811109 Pleasants 78 12 715 46.5 35 11.5 62.2 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392554081101301 392554 811013 Pleasants 80 30 300 48.25 35 13.3 7.67 22.6 2,400 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 6,700 Cyanamid Site 1 N/D N/D Pleasants (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 2,300 Cyanamid Site 2 N/D N/D Pleasants (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 5,300 Cyanamid Site 3 N/D N/D Pleasants (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 23,000 Cyanamid Site 4 N/D N/D Pleasants (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 13,000 Cyanamid Site 5 N/D N/D Pleasants (Ohio River) Lit 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 37


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium 392315081124001 392315 811240 Pleasants 48 26 150 48 22 26 5.77 (Ohio River)

Alluvium St. Marys #6 N/D N/D Pleasants 81 12 510 9.41 24 54.2 9,100 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392834081061101 392834 810611 Tyler 47.5 2350 32 12 20 118 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393403080593401 393403 805934 Tyler 52 90 300 52 27 25 0.5 12.0 670 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Friendly test well N/D N/D Tyler 60 8 152 6.5 22 23.4 3,600 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382358082331101 382358 823311 Wayne 58 12 160 7 56 22.9 4,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382350082321801 382350 823218 Wayne 61 12 40 61 51 10 1 4.00 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 382410082343801 382410 823438 Wayne 66 300 52 47 5 60.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393622080560901 393622 805609 Wetzel 92 12 500 57 42 15 2 33.3 4,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393909080513601 393911 805149 Wetzel 57.5 328 48.4 37.05 11.40 28.9 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393911080513701 393913 805149 Wetzel 59 500 42.75 31.58 11.2 44.6 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393937080513801 393938 805150 Wetzel 74.5 20 550 61 45 16 8 34.4 4,900 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 394018080513601 394018 805149 Wetzel 82 20 700 70 54.7 16 43.8 (Ohio River)
38 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium 394050080514201 394050 805149 Wetzel 73.3 24 700 10 24 70.0 12,200 (Ohio River) Alluvium 394247080493401 394247 804934 Wetzel 65 102 40 30 10 12 10.2 1,300 (Ohio River) Alluvium 393835080515801 393835 805158 Wetzel 52 240 700 48 30 18 38.9 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 393900080510001 393900 805100 Wetzel 57.5 440 31.4 30.15 1.25 352 (Ohio River)Alluvium 393912080513601 393912 805136 Wetzel 59 10 300 44 36 8 240 37.5 7,800 (Ohio River)Alluvium 394042080512601 394042 805126 Wetzel 120 250 120 75 45 5.56 (Ohio River)Alluvium 394247080493402 394247 804934 Wetzel 60 8 150 8.67 6 17.3 2,300 (Ohio River)Alluvium Grand. Doolin #3 N/D N/D Wetzel 61 8 131 5 1 26.2 2,600 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391547081402201 391548 814028 Wood 96 10 234 84 73 11 21.3 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391548081402401 391546 814031 Wood 93 213 80 73 7 30.4 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391548081402401 391546 814031 Wood 93 10 325 85 70 15 24 21.7 3,300 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391548081403001 391548 814030 Wood 94 10 236 82 73 9 26.2 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391550081403401 391550 814034 Wood 86 12 250 29.0 (Ohio River) 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 39


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium 391551081403201 391551 814032 Wood 83 12 383 68 61 7 54.7 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391611081402901 391611 814029 Wood 96.5 192 470 10 103 47.0 7,600 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 13,000 391717081333802 391717 813338 Wood 55 156 500 9.2 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 5,600 391717081333603 391717 813336 Wood 49 156 165 30 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 35,000 391718081333101 391718 813331 Wood 46 156 200 46.25 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 17,000 391752081334201 391752 813342 Wood 80 350 61.25 (Ohio River) Lit 

Alluvium 391929081325201 391929 813252 Wood 100 10 231 11.1 20.8 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391931081325001 391929 813253 Wood 100 8 235 16.1 14.6 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391931081325002 391930 813252 Wood 100 8 267 16.2 16.5 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391931081325003 391930 813251 Wood 100 10 210 3.55 59.2 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391937081325901 391937 813259 Wood 91 10 168 5.5 30.5 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391937081330001 391937 813300 Wood 89 10 310 12 25.8 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 391947081331201 391947 813312 Wood 75 13 500 13.4 8 374 59,000 (Ohio River) 
40 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Alluvium 391948081331101 391948 813311 Wood 76 13 500 14.2 8 35.1 4,900 (Ohio River) Alluvium 392131081240901 392058 812347 Wood 64 300 45 32.3 12.7 24 23.6 3,500 (Ohio River) Alluvium 392407081271002 392407 812710 Wood 90 8 100 10 10.0 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392407081271003 392407 812710 Wood 90. 8 100 10 10.0 (Ohio River)Alluvium 391603081402901 391603 814029 Wood 96 12 265 72 62 10.38 48 25.5 4,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium G.E. Plastics 391542 814043 Wood 94 12 250 80.9 73.2 7.7 25 32.5 5,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Vienna #13 392051 813232 Wood 73.2 12 299 54.35 37.8 16.55 36 18.1 2,800 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Vienna #14 392050 813233 Wood 73.8 12 351 52 37.45 14.55 36 24.1 4,000 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Vienna Green #1T N/D N/D Wood 83.8 12 500 20.8 24 24.0 3,700 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Vienna Green #2T N/D N/D Wood 84.7 12 457 20.6 24 22.2 3,500 (Ohio River)Alluvium Lubeck #PW-AN/D N/D Wood 66.5 12 600 27.25 24 22.0 3,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Lubeck #PW-C N/D N/D Wood 62 12 500 29.41 24 17.0 2,500 (Ohio River)

Alluvium Lubeck #PW-D N/D N/D Wood 67 12 400 28.57 24 14.0 2,100 (Ohio River) 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 41


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Alluvium Union Williams 4 N/D N/D Wood 58 12 500 16.42 5.5 30.5 4,300 (Ohio River)

Alluvium 392400081273401 392400 812734 Wood 91 12 600 24.5 4.75 24.5 3,200 (Ohio River) 

Median 31.8 4,800 Minimum 4.00 540 Maximum 381 59,000 

Alluvium 381936081354501 381936 813545 Kanawha 58 60 24 22 2 8 30.0 6,400 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 382207081404001 382207 814040 Kanawha 50 100 45 32 13 12 7.69 1,600 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 382303081352301 382303 813523 Kanawha 60 6 43 46 40 6 1 7.17 1,100 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 383150081554803 383147 815552 Putnam 56 38 135 8.5 15.9 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 383200081554001 383200 815540 Putnam 51.5 24 102 42.35 41.35 1 12 102 24,000 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 383203081554701 383203 815547 Putnam 51.4 24 99 37.55 36.8 0.75 12 132 31,000 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 383704081584501 383704 815845 Putnam 57 80 44 22 22 6 3.64 670 (Kanawha River)Alluvium 383911081570201 383911 815702 Putnam 39 10 28 26 2 9 5.00 940 (Kanawha River)
42 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Median 11.8 1,600 Minimum 3.64 670 Maximum 132 31,000 Alluvium 375720081041301 375720 810413 Fayette 117 8 47 27 20 0.40 110e (New River)

Alluvium 382551082015501 382551 820155 Putnam 72 11 45 27 18 258 0.61 160 (Teays River)

Alluvium 382610082012001 382610 820120 Putnam 24 50 20 12 8 6.25 1,700e (Teays River)

Alluvium (Little 390344081232801 390343 812325 Wirt 55 105 46 36 10 10.5 2,800e Kanawha River) 

Median 3.43 920 Minimum 0.40 110 Maximum 10.5 2,800 

391731080335801 391731 803358 Harrison 112 391734080340201 391734 803402 Harrison 110 385052081391801 385052 813918 Jackson 250 384813081420001 384813 814200 Jackson 135 384820081420101 384820 814201 Jackson 135 384832081420401 384832 814204 Jackson 140 395027080465101 395027 804651 Marshall 75 New Vrindaban 395705 803605 Marshall 100 

8 Dunkard Group 8 80 62 18 16 0.44 120 8 Dunkard Group 15 67 42 25 1008 0.60 200 

Dunkard Group 6.7 100 150 0.04 11e 

6 Dunkard Group 65 28 27 0.5 4 130 33,000 6 Dunkard Group 18 28 27 0.5 1 36.0 8,000 6 Dunkard Group 20 16 15 0.5 4 40.0 9,900 

Dunkard Group 4 17 0.24 64e 

8 Dunkard Group 25 30 6 0.83 210 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 43


394010080060501394812080124701394034080202101391226081024901391000081024501391405081004201391624081024001391624081024002391645080590401391655081100801 391700080580001384604081262401384711081285101 384716081260601385352081255401393750080513701394058080510301394100080272501390144081242701390852081214801 

394010394812394034391226391000391405391624391624391645

391655

391700384604

384711 

384716385352393750394058394100390144390852 

800605801247802021810249810245810042810240810240805904

811008 

805800812624

812851

812606812554805137805103802725812427812148 

MonongaliaMonongaliaMonongalia

RitchieRitchieRitchieRitchieRitchieRitchie

Ritchie

Ritchie

Roane

Roane

RoaneRoane

WetzelWetzelWetzel

Wirt Wirt 

966368

118 

122

60

110 

182

80

57

100420

56

193120

509296

100130 

666

68

8

10

6

66

688

6 

Dunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard Group

Dunkard Group

Dunkard GroupDunkard Group

Dunkard Group

Dunkard GroupDunkard Group

Dunkard GroupDunkard GroupDunkard Group

Dunkard GroupDunkard Group

 4

46

300

12

7

2040

220

110

5

25

5

25

1.5

10

6

35

1610

2160291516

1820

12

45

270

56

95

120

359262

8049

 13

20

 11

5

13

6

14

0

2050

10

4020

158050

1733

 8

4018

9

10

3

110

12

6

12

25

220

46

55

100

201212

6316 

0.50

 1 0.10 2 0.33

33.0

1.202.33

0.18

18 3.33

 6.5 36.7

9.17 

12 0.20

 0.11

 1 0.11

 0.50 0.45

0.02

0.50

 1 0.50

24 2.92

0.25

28 0.63

 130e

2379

8,800e

320e630e

48e

800

9,000

2,400e

51

29e

25

98

5e

130e

 110 

740

67e

170 
44 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 390617081355501 390617 813555 Wood 120 391115081314201 391115 813142 Wood 200 391729081323801 391729 813238 Wood 156 Dunkard Group 10 4 2.50 670e Dunkard Group 2 200 40 160 0.01 3e Dunkard Group 2 156 100 56 0.04 11e Median 0.50 130 Minimum 0.01 3 

Maximum 130 33,000 

385215081033001 385215 810330 Calhoun Midway Mart 385745 803140 Lewis Roanoke Elem 385517 803018 Lewis 393502080140301 393502 801403 Marion384405081582901 384405 815833 Mason384425081583801 384425 815838 Mason 384618082011001 384618 820110 Mason384827081570701 384827 815707 Mason393447080020501 393447 800205 Monongalia 393625080005201 393625 800052 Monongalia 391314081025201 391314 810252 Ritchie 391235081080001 391235 810800 Ritchie391337081021501 391337 810215 Ritchie383326081264301 383326 812643 Roane 

110 Monongahela Group 3 110 70 40 0.07 19e 

280 6 Monongahela Group 1.5 280 40 240 36 0.01 3 100 6 Monongahela Group 8 100 29 71 1.5 0.11 25 

77 Monongahela Group 2 20 16 4 8 0.50 130 

22 30 Monongahela Group 10 19 7 12 8 0.83 170 

103 Monongahela Group 20 60 40 20 8 1.00 250 

50 Monongahela Group 10 40 35 5 48 2.00 580 

70 6 Monongahela Group 10 57 10.5 46.5 0.15 0.22 44 

160 Monongahela Group 7 28 8 20 680 0.35 120 

123 Monongahela Group 20 120 80 40 0.50 130e 

115 8 Monongahela Group 30 10 3.00 800e 

55 6 Monongahela Group 10 13 12 1 10.0 27,000e 60 8 Monongahela Group 35 24 15 9 3.89 1,000e 

155 6 Monongahela Group 10 130 110 20 1 0.50 110 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 45


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

384707081155201 384707 811552 Roane 44 384720081155101 384720 811551 Roane 40384815081215801 384815 812158 Roane 320 390057081205001 390057 812050 Wirt 130 

Monongahela Group 10 12 10 2 5.00 1,300e 

7 Monongahela Group 10 13 11 2 24 5.00 1,200e 

Monongahela Group 13 122 12 110 0.12 32e Monongahela Group 30 90 43 47 0.64 170e 

Median 0.57 150 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 10.0 27,000 

14-1-12 391400 800718 Barbour 110 383713080364101 383713 803641 Braxton 210 383656080544101 383656 805441 Braxton 32 384025080482201 384025 804822 Braxton 46 384133080485501 384133 804855 Braxton 78 384145081001801 384145 810018 Braxton 100 384410080355701 384410 803557 Braxton 87 382901082180501 382901 821805 Cabell 85383155082173601 383155 821736 Cabell 115383138081094201 383138 810942 Clay 160383407081055301 383407 810553 Clay 50383624080593701 383624 805937 Clay 60383659081023201 383659 810232 Clay 100

Conemaugh Group 5 80 3 0.06 15 Conemaugh Group 2 205 126 79 4 0.03 7 Conemaugh Group 10 21 9 12 1 0.83 190 Conemaugh Group 8 2 1 1 1 8.00 1,500 Conemaugh Group 10 18 13 5 1 2.00 460 Conemaugh Group 20 27 24 3 6.67 1,800 Conemaugh Group 0.3 38 32 6 0.05 13 

6 Conemaugh Group 10 55 35 20 1 0.50 110 6 Conemaugh Group 60 105 70 35 1 1.71 390 6 Conemaugh Group 8 155 100 55 2 0.15 36 6 Conemaugh Group 16 34 24 10 1 1.60 360 6 Conemaugh Group 4 57 27 30 0.13 35e 6 Conemaugh Group 16 60 55 5 1 3.20 720 
46 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 385103080561801 403038080332401 Oakland PSD #5 391022080200701 391450080231201

382542081281001382636081432801382845081300301383052081244301383229081263701382332081432201382708081344701382825081300901382830081313301Ireland Headstart392835080090001393525079552601393147080024601393750079521201393824079573601 

385103403038

N/D

391022391450382542382636382845383052383229382332382708382825382830384819392835393525393147393750393824 

805618803324

N/D

802007802312812810814328813003812443812637814322813447813009813133802852800900795526800246795212795736 

Gilmer

Hancock

Hancock

HarrisonHarrison

KanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawha

Lewis

Marion

MonongaliaMonongaliaMonongaliaMonongalia 

104

95

95

8650627375754641

130

70

111 

380170

5070

216605 

10

10

65

66666

666

6 

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh Group

Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh Group

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh Group 

50

200

200

36.7

1710

4

1024

5

0.8

1030

8.94235

100 

6241

0.924

55

22.464.1654519

120

5090

107170

1524

210108

 44

16.5

0.521

25

9.54

33.9351516702080

6580

 11

16

180

73 

1824.5

25.92

0.43

3013

30.23030

3

503010

4290

48

3035

 3 2.78

48 8.16

48 7.72

 0.25 7.50

12 2.23

0.57

 0.5 0.77 0.5 0.14

0.33

 1 0.80

72 1.67

 4 0.01 1 0.33 0.5 3.00

36 0.21

 2 0.04

0.500.38

 1 0.17

2.86

 680

2,100

2,000

1,300

590

150e

170

31

88e

190440

3

75

620

59

9

130e100e

39

760e 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 47


393913079514301393946079571901400946080355701393328079481801Hendershrout MHPHendershrout MHPHendershrout MHP381858081575201381900081575801382350082001401382624081501201382702082003201

381908081583001382151082011801 382340081545702382652081580902391125081161001 383302081160801 383447081201701391734080011901 

393913393946400946393328392909392909392909381858381900382350382624382702

381908

382151

382340382652

391125 383302

383447

391734 

795143795719803557794818795020795020795020815752815758820014815012820032

815830

820118 

815457815809

811610 811608 

812017

800119 

MonongaliaMonongalia

Ohio

PrestonPrestonPrestonPreston

PutnamPutnamPutnamPutnamPutnam

Putnam

Putnam

PutnamPutnam

Ritchie

Roane

Roane

Taylor 

6016

452124305305185

5324

100

9470

43

75

125175

3557

83

385 

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh GroupConemaugh Group 

6 Conemaugh Group6 Conemaugh Group6 Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh Group 

6 Conemaugh Group 6 Conemaugh Group 6 Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh GroupConemaugh Group

6 Conemaugh Group 6 Conemaugh Group 

6 Conemaugh Group

Conemaugh Group 

537

300

2.53

25

2020

11

1333

3

20

10

8

1024

1217 

91155212

70

160

68

20

7

50.530.219.9

22

20

2875

2325

82

208 

31

 11

49

9

463428

10

2

34.9319.2812.52

20

12

8

33

2015

4255 

60

4

33

24

126

40

10

5

15.610.9

7.38

2

8

2042

3

10

40

153 

1 0.08

60 0.75

 9 2.33 2 100 

4 0.10

 6 0.02 2 0.62 

1 2.00 1 4.00 

0.2 0.67 0.5 1.19 

0.5 0.93 

3 1.50 

2 2.50 

4 0.50 1 0.19

3.33

 1 2.40 

1 0.30

51 0.11

 19

210

630

24,000

25

5

150

460800

130250

200

360

590

120

43

900e

550

6832 
48	 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 392053080023801 392053 800238 Taylor 23 Conemaugh Group 5 25 15 10 4 0.50 120 390457081191401 390457 811914 Wirt 50 6 Conemaugh Group 6 15 6 9 2 0.67 160 Median 0.75 170 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 100 24,000 

384043080352701 384043 803527 Braxton 30 382303081121301 382303 811213 Clay 35 403235080343801 403235 803438 Hancock 120 403244080303801 403244 803038 Hancock 235 382210081414001 382210 814140 Kanawha 96 382210081414501 382210 814145 Kanawha 153 382211081454701 382211 814547 Kanawha 153 382215081414201 382215 814142 Kanawha 155 382215081414301 382215 814143 Kanawha 156 382619081331401 382619 813314 Kanawha 300 392359079442201 392359 794422 Preston 200 Tunnelton New #2 N/D N/D Preston 200 

Bruceton #3 N/D N/D Preston 150 Bruceton #4 N/D N/D Preston 150 

Camp Roy Weller N/D N/D Preston 400 

Allegheny Formation 3 1 0 1 1 3.00 540 

6 Allegheny Formation 16 16 12 4 4.00 1,100e 

Allegheny Formation 27 90 60 30 0.5 0.90 200 Allegheny Formation 7 235 50 185 3 0.04 10 

Allegheny Formation 69 74 40 34 4 2.03 510 Allegheny Formation 150 91 40 51 696 2.94 800 

Allegheny Formation 120 70 33 37 696 3.24 900 

Allegheny Formation 220 85 38 47 216 4.68 1,300 Allegheny Formation 170 85 39 46 216 3.70 990 Allegheny Formation 11 335 170 165 1 0.07 16 

8 Allegheny Formation 150 125 100 25 30 6.00 1,400 

8 Allegheny Formation 100 3.46 36 28.9 7,800 

6 Allegheny Formation 60 3.23 36 18.6 5,100 8 Allegheny Formation 25 0.18 36 138 41,000 

6 Allegheny Formation 5 380 81 299 48 0.02 6 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 49


382224081544301392150080090201Dean Conv. Store Junior #1Junior #3Boone Co. 1WBoone Co. 2E375232081382701375943081304601

380444081351401380818081502301380939081504801380613081483601Ind. Coal Co.Macks MHP383248080420001383449080423402 

382224392150

385849

385845385855N/DN/D

375232375943

380444380818380939380613

375908380747

383248383449 

815443800902

800512

795701795641

N/DN/D

813827813046

813514815023815048814836

814632814816

804200804234 

Putnam

Taylor

Upshur

BarbourBarbour

BooneBoone

BooneBoone

BooneBooneBooneBoone

BooneBoone

BraxtonBraxton

 80

76

224

182218175325

146

94

64

200130150

154157

3260 

Allegheny FormationAllegheny Formation 

6 Allegheny Formation 

6 Kanawha Formation 6 Kanawha Formation 6 Kanawha Formation8 Kanawha Formation

6 Kanawha Formation 6 Kanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

6 Kanawha Formation6 Kanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation 

6 Kanawha Formation 6 Kanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha Formation

3334

20

9078

99

1030

762

20

6530

3710

 49

 11 

100

120

57.98

20.536.79633.5

128

76

 9

10

86

4055.7

7.1

18.450.5817.5

59

15

65

 40

1

14

74

4050

80

2.28

13.418.345.416

69

10

11

36

MedianMinimumMaximum

2424

22

1

0.5

0.50.50.1

17

1

11

 0.82

34.0

1.43

3.120.02

138

12.919.5

0.220.18

0.13

2.34

0.200.320.201.25

0.94

3.00

37.010.0

210e

9,100e

400

850

6

41,000

3,3005,100

5241

29

510

437039

290

250e

670

8,2002,000 
50 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 382131081091501 382131 810915 Clay 50 382046081094701 382046 810947 Clay 40 382739080515101 382739 805151 Clay 180 382740080515501 382740 805155 Clay 180 382747080514101 382747 805141 Clay 180 

380847081173901 380847 811739 Fayette 92 381201081174601 381201 811746 Fayette 311 380402081224701 380402 812247 Kanawha 132 

381216081450101 381216 814501 Kanawha 80 381852081404401 381852 814044 Kanawha 65 

381916081405001 381916 814050 Kanawha 280 381938081355001 381938 813550 Kanawha 90 381939081354501 381939 813545 Kanawha 225 381940081354901 381940 813549 Kanawha 100 382210081342901 382210 813429 Kanawha 1860 381102081284901 381102 812849 Kanawha 220 381509081474101 381509 814741 Kanawha 80 381650081452701 381650 814527 Kanawha 167 382100081380801 382100 813808 Kanawha 215 382100081380802 382100 813808 Kanawha 215 

6 Kanawha Formation 50 23.8 18.8 4.97 0.5 10.1 1,900 

Kanawha Formation 5 11 9 2 1 2.50 540 Kanawha Formation 1000 80 40 40 1 25.0 5,300 Kanawha Formation 200 217 42 175 20 1.14 310 Kanawha Formation 200 18 16 2 15 100 28,000 Kanawha Formation 2 60 46 14 0.14 37 Kanawha Formation 88 52 35 17 10 5.18 1,200 

8 Kanawha Formation 100 44.4 38.9 5.47 3 18.3 4,000 

6 Kanawha Formation 10 50.9 30.7 20.2 0.3 0.31 64 6 Kanawha Formation 5 40.3 32.8 7.53 0.3 0.70 150 

6 Kanawha Formation 15 110 10 0.1 1.50 290 

Kanawha Formation 90 75 23 52 6 1.73 440 Kanawha Formation 115 22 20 2 11 57.5 15,000 Kanawha Formation 192 60 26 34 8 5.65 1,300 Kanawha Formation 100 16 12 4 8 25.0 6,200 Kanawha Formation 225 9 7 2 18 113 31,000 Kanawha Formation 97 41 33 8 1 12.1 2,500 Kanawha Formation 10 27 22 5 10 2.00 520 Kanawha Formation 196 151 30 121 1.62 430e Kanawha Formation 120 149 28 121 0.99 270e 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 51


382101081380501382101081380502382105081382101382143081385601382211081342801 Toll plaza B 

Atenville Elem374740081424901374309081592701374331081595001374346082000201374407082000601374428082000201374548081591201374743081425101374750081424901374804081422801374740081424901374737081424301Buffalo PSD #11 

382101382101382105382143

382211 380610

380254

374740374309374331374346374407374428374548374743374750374804374740374737N/D 

813805813805813821813856

813428812257

820836

814249815927815950820002820006820002815912814251814249814228814249814243

N/D 

KanawhaKanawhaKanawhaKanawha

KanawhaKanawha

Lincoln

LoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLogan

 215

215150131

1860

210

109

198400400600600600220240175200198210225 

6

6

844555

10

8888

88 

Kanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha Formation

209180135470

100

15

25

669673

186120165

58.58956.7

127

66

9519.6

150120130

39

16

96

120

37

375121421

7520

71

142 

28303030

12

40

36.5

8

18331625

3

2910.8222.45

36.56071 

122

90

100

9

4

0.68

56

83.529

357

88

405

5017.2

 12 1.71 12 2.00

 1 1.35

 10 52.2 

8 25.0

 36 22.1

 1 0.45

 36 0.79 82 3.31 74 0.20

132 2.11

 42 0.30

146 3.30

 1.25 3.40

 36

4070.67

36

5318

460540310

14,000

6,300

6,000

100

210940

62

640

86

960670 
52 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 374748081430801 Buffalo PSD #15 374823081422001 374823081420701 374813081420101

374916081503501Sharples ElemMarrowbone Dev. Marrowbone Dev. Marrowbone Dev. 381321080411201 381533081020301

381552081014801381623080552701

381656080543301

381754080490401381915080371901382123080381701

381513081094201383050080461701 

374748N/D374823374823374813374916

375447375126375126375229

381321381533

381552381623

381656

381754381915382123

381513383050 

814308

N/D

814220814207814201815035

814833821909821909821935

804112 

810203

810148805527

805433

804904803719803817

810942804617 

LoganLoganLoganLoganLoganLogan

Logan

MingoMingoMingo

NicholasNicholas

NicholasNicholas

Nicholas

NicholasNicholasNicholas

NicholasNicholas

 190 8 

200 8 245 8 245 8 170 8 

70 8 

60 6 

81 8 

210 6 

1010 8 

78.5 6 

26 6 

6060 6 

48.4 6 

100 6 

72 6 57 6 

95.2 6 

36 

Kanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha FormationKanawha FormationKanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

Kanawha Formation

 60

60

181340172

36

20

101010

26

7.5

12.5

1.3

7.542

13.6

5 

2742.57630.4

55

75

175

1010

17.69

20.9

13.12

27 

1215

30.05

2336.01

29

10

4

9032

15.6

5.02

3.18

21.66

15.46

47.5

9

18.23

12.81

12 

8739.5

1.4

45

7185

978

23.2

2.31

16.5

0.45

2.23

3.8

2.67

0.31

15

48 0.6948

49

52 8.61 51

0.5 25.7 

1 0.44

24 0.1424 0.12

0.01

 0.7 0.09

 0.3 2.60

 0.1 0.46

 0.7 27.7 

1.5 0.38

 0.3 0.31 0.4 1.05

 0.5 0.75

 1 43.9 1 0.33

 190

2,1005,100

100

3733

3e

20

550

88

5,700

90

64

230

160

9,600

75 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 53


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

383101080465901 383101 804659 Nicholas 44 375739081311101 375739 813111 Raleigh 151 375745081302201 375745 813022 Raleigh 150 375704081263101 375704 812631 Raliegh 84 375704081263101 375704 812631 Raliegh 84 Hutte Restaurant 384230 801230 Randolph 150 375811082212401 375811 822124 Wayne 108 382038080331801 382038 803318 Webster 109 382046080332701 382046 803327 Webster 100 

Kanawha Formation 7 18 15 3 1 2.33 540 

Kanawha Formation 30 42.75 39.2 3.55 36 8.45 2,300 

Kanawha Formation 30 20.5 15 5.5 36 5.45 1,500 Kanawha Formation 146 56 15.75 40.3 12 3.63 860 Kanawha Formation 108 24 11 13 12 8.31 1,900 

6 Kanawha Formation 15 4 2 2 4 7.50 1,600 

Kanawha Formation 16 18.8 16.02 1.98 15 8.08 1,900 

6 Kanawha Formation 10 18.74 33 0.1 0.30 57 

Kanawha Formation 13.3 6.86 0.2 0.16 43 

Median 2.00 520 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 113 31,000 

375610081075301 375610 810753 Fayette 72 380358081045501 380358 810455 Fayette 54 380632080592101 380632 805921 Fayette 141 380708081001601 380708 810016 Fayette 170 380715080582801 380715 805828 Fayette 160 380844080581001 380844 805810 Fayette 400Page-Kincaid #1 380235 811609 Fayette 165 Page-Kincaid #2 380236 811609 Fayette 150 

New River Formation 3 25 22 3 1.00 270e New River Formation 16 37 30 7 2.29 620e 

6 New River Formation 4.3 89.45 2.05 0.1 2.07 400 6 New River Formation 6 63.5 49.2 0.2 0.12 24 6 New River Formation 4.8 30.52 12.8 0.2 0.38 78 

6 New River Formation 3 86.1 64.4 21.7 0.3 0.09 19 

10 New River Formation 375 71.6 8 5.24 1,100 

10 New River Formation 375 28.2 8 13.3 2,900 
54 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 380124080405601 380124 804056 Greenbrier 46 380333080435601 380333 804356 Greenbrier 67 381415081330001 381415 813300 Kanawha 600 380751080453201 380751 804532 Nicholas 160 381239080563301 381239 805633 Nicholas 140

381724080320901 381724 803209 Nicholas 59.5381729080320801 381729 803208 Nicholas 51.5

374917081194601 374917 811946 Raleigh 191 Beckley Smokeless 374531 811803 Raleigh 226Ravencliff #2 374026 812808 Wyoming 220

 6 New River Formation 2 19.4 0.1 0.78 150 

6 New River Formation 7.5 21.9 0.2 0.19 39 

New River Formation 180 130 21 109 1.65 440e 

6 New River Formation 2.3 50 5 1 0.45 100 

6 New River Formation 6.5 123 15 2 0.43 100 

6 New River Formation 14.4 3.7 4.8 0.2 3.01 600 6 New River Formation 6.9 11 0.94 0.1 7.34 1,200 

New River Formation 400 54 38 16 24 25.0 6,700 

6 New River Formation 30 210 157 53 4.75 0.57 150 

8 New River Formation 752 0.27 17 2780 750,000 

Median 1.33 330 Minimum 0.09 19 Maximum 2780 750,000 

Northfork No.1 372453 812558 McDowell 205Northfork No. 2 372453 812558 McDowell 145Kimball+Carswell N/D N/D McDowell 119 373503081225101 373503 812251 Wyoming 286 

8 Pocahontas Formation 160 180 20 160 1 1.00 210 8 Pocahontas Formation 150 120 20 100 1 1.50 320 

8 Pocahontas Formation 250 0.25 2 1000 270,000 

Pocahontas Formation 258 81.6 51 30.7 30 8.40 2,100 

Median 4.95 1,200 Minimum 1.00 210 Maximum 1000 270,000 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 55


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

390622079595001 390622 795950 Barbour 265 375719081392401 375719 813924 Boone 260 375825081425001 375825 814250 Boone 104 382339081064901 382339 810649 Clay 40 380815081180701 380815 811807 Fayette 291 380236081161002 380236 811610 Fayette 158 Thurmond Depot N/D N/D Fayette 255 381417081325101 381417 813251 Kanawha 440 382250081230601 382250 812306 Kanawha 60 372312081242601 372312 812426 Mcdowell 398 393928079510001 393928 795100 Monongalia 154 374551081244101 374551 812441 Raleigh 125 374646081201401 374646 812014 Raleigh 120 374933081200201 374933 812002 Raleigh 150 375145081280301 375145 812803 Raleigh 186 375203081265101 375203 812651 Raleigh 45 385618079574501 385618 795745 Randolph 500 382717080282301 382717 802823 Webster 90383413080273001 383413 802730 Webster 83373252081294701 373252 812947 Wyoming 247 

Pottsville Group 100 182 120 62 70 1.61 470 Pottsville Group 270 79 70 9 5 30.0 7,500 

8 Pottsville Group 72 32 11 21 3.43 920 6 Pottsville Group 24 9 4 5 4.80 1,300 

Pottsville Group 250 53 40 13 2 19.2 4,300 Pottsville Group 185 34.74 13.7 21.1 24 8.78 2,100 Pottsville Group 20 39.45 37.8 1.6 30 12.5 3,200 

Pottsville Group 350 85 21 64 24 5.47 1,300 

6 Pottsville Group 10 30 15 15 0.5 0.67 150 

8 Pottsville Group 75 36.4 34.7 1.7 44.1 12,000e 

Pottsville Group 41 72 63 9 8 4.56 1,100 Pottsville Group 30 17 16 1 30.0 8,000e Pottsville Group 10 7 6 1 2 10.0 2,100 Pottsville Group 402 31 20 11 24 36.5 10,000 Pottsville Group 8 41 40 1 24 8.00 2,100 Pottsville Group 25 17 8 9 2.78 750e 

10 Pottsville Group 220 149.33 30.1 119.2 24.5 1.84 470 

6 Pottsville Group 10 30 27 3 3.33 900e 6 Pottsville Group 10 45 28 17 0.59 160e 

14 Pottsville Group 220 65 24 41 5.37 1,400e 
56 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 373627081302201 373627 813022 Wyoming 30 373629081304301 373629 813043 Wyoming 145 373837081255301 373837 812553 Wyoming 80 373840081255001 373840 812550 Wyoming 80 6 Pottsville Group 5 30 10 20 0.25 67e 6 Pottsville Group 5 145 60 85 0.06 16e 8 Pottsville Group 47 4 3.00 700 8 Pottsville Group 45 4 6.00 1,300 Median 5.09 1,300 

Minimum 0.06 16 Maximum 44.1 12,000 

Bluestone and 375239080475801 375239 804758 Fayette 59 6 4.6 8.97 0.9 5.70 1,200 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 375348080453801 375348 804538 Greenbrier 50 6 2.4 10.16 0.1 0.45 87 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 375804080460401 375804 804604 Greenbrier 250 8 260 23.10 6.5 11.3 2,500 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 375905080425901 375905 804259 Greenbrier 60 6 8 0.9 1.04 240 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 375958080450601 375958 804506 Greenbrier 74 6 5 9.90 0.5 2.20 480 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 381353080263101 381353 802631 Greenbrier 77 6 5 21.6 38.5 0.2 0.13 27 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 371809081092001 371809 810920 Mercer 225 160 31 25 6 6 26.7 6,600 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 373020081075601 373020 810756 Mercer 144 100 44.1 42.35 1.75 0.7 7.79 1,500 Princeton Formations 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 57


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Bluestone and 381925080262301 381925 802623 Webster 58 6 10.9 4.18 5.07 1 2.15 480 Princeton Formations

Bluestone and 381929080263001 381929 802630 Webster 65 6 5.4 8.41 3.81 0.6 1.40 310 Princeton FormationsBluestone and 381934080262901 381934 802629 Webster 61.5 6 8.3 19.47 7.43 0.5 1.11 240 Princeton Formations

Median 2.15 480 Minimum 0.13 27 Maximum 26.7 6,600 

375343080365601 375343 803656 Greenbrier 67 375457080405301 375457 804053 Greenbrier 65 375717080411601 375717 804116 Greenbrier 101 375828080382601 375828 803826 Greenbrier 8524-unit motel N/D N/D Greenbrier 135372118081040701 372118 810407 Mercer 628371812081155301 371812 811553 Mercer 237 372135081051001 372135 810510 Mercer 495 372144081062401 372144 810624 Mercer 500372629080464601 372629 804646 Monroe 82 372651080491601 372651 804916 Monroe 130 372658080464701 372658 804647 Monroe 81 

6 Hinton Formation 2.2 0.2 1.30 250 6 Hinton Formation 6 6.35 0.9 2.10 470 

6 Hinton Formation 7.5 0.3 0.50 100 

6 Hinton Formation 8.6 0.5 1.40 310 

6 Hinton Formation 6 120 45 75 2 0.08 19 

8 Hinton Formation 250 42 15 5.95 1,300 

Hinton Formation 50 36 18 18 4 2.78 670 

10 Hinton Formation 200 353 71 282 15 0.71 170 

8 Hinton Formation 120 60 14 46 24 2.61 680 

Hinton Formation 40 35 25 10 1 4.00 910 Hinton Formation 30 112 108 4 2 7.50 1,300 Hinton Formation 30 75 35 40 2 0.75 180 
58 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 381059080151201 375623081034201

375807080460001372143081054001372145081053901372147081054901372536080594801

372132081051001Vital-18 campground Vital-18 lodge 381843080111801 

385612079550701373151080575601374908080435601373719080563001382921080224201 

381059375623375807372141372141372143372356

372132

372404

372404381843

385612373151374908373719382921 

801512810342804600810541810541810545805948

810510

805243

805243

801118 

795507805756804356805630802242 

Pocahontas

Fayette

Greenbrier

MercerMercerMercer

Mercer

Mercer

Mercer

Mercer

Pocahontas

Randolph

SummersSummersSummers

Webster

240

9185

445548550

421-

589

247

305

305

85

60.1

110 

170151

90

 6

88

12

8

12

6

6

6

6

686 

Hinton Formation

Mauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk Group

Mauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk GroupMauch Chunk Group

 3.6

10

260300350250

116

400

20

200

5.4

21.4

60

106010

 47

80414343

305

26.422.98

111 

50

164.8

455721

 11

10

43

3.666.34

108

30

 2

23.1203233

17.5

13

6

260

2.07

22.7

20

16.6

3

20

24

MedianMinimumMaximum

6.5

121515

4

12

36

1.03

0.5

0.5

6

0.541

 0.24

1.400.087.50

5.00

11.3 

15.010.9

7.58

6.63

30.8

3.33

0.77

2.59

0.94

3.00

0.38

20.0

0.50

 67

310

19

1,300

1,300

2,4003,7002,400

1,700

1,300

7,200

900

170

560

200

760

83

4,400

 110 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 59


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Median 5.00 1,300 Minimum 0.38 83 Maximum 30.8 7,200 

374836080300601 374836 803006 Greenbrier 523Organ Cave 374304 802609 Greenbrier 240Frankford subdiv. N/D N/D Greenbrier 140372715080395501 372715 803955 Monroe 50 373528080314501 373528 803145 Monroe 385 373718080314001 373718 803140 Monroe 185 373732080311501 373732 803115 Monroe 256 382416080013701 382416 800137 Pocahontas 175 

382500080063501 382500 800635 Pocahontas 54 Hillsboro #1 380754 801237 Pocahontas 204 Alpine Lake #4 392729 793018 Preston 145 385608079544401 385608 795444 Randolph 55 Timberline Resort 390233 792405 Tucker 100 

6 Greenbrier Group 30 523 417 106 1 0.28 64 

6 Greenbrier Group 45 230 215 15 1 3.00 680 

6 Greenbrier Group 6 60 34 26 1 0.23 52 

Greenbrier Group 30 24 12 12 0.4 2.50 540 Greenbrier Group 20 176 100 76 0.1 0.26 49 Greenbrier Group 4 140 8 132 24 0.03 8 

Greenbrier Group 20 181 81 100 1 0.20 45 

6 Greenbrier Group 57 73.05 71.7 1.35 0.5 6.47 1,300 

6 Greenbrier Group 40 50 30.5 19.5 1 2.05 470 

8 Greenbrier Group 30 29 72 1.03 290 

8 Greenbrier Group 174 6.9 24 25.2 6,600 

6 Greenbrier Group 100 22 20 2 12 50.0 13,000 

6 Greenbrier Group 72 50.08 48 2.08 17 34.6 9,200 

Median 2.05 470 Minimum 0.03 8 Maximum 50.0 13,000 
60 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 380030080002501 380030 800025 Greenbrier 83 393435079514101 393435 795141 Monongalia 250 393437079514201 393437 795142 Monongalia 180 373710080212101 373710 802121 Monroe 50 373805080202001 373805 802020 Monroe 265 

385602079542401 385602 795424 Randolph 42.2 385507079313901 385507 793139 Randolph 220 

Pocono Group 12 60 26 34 0.35 94e Pocono Group 175 250 40 210 8 0.83 210 Pocono Group 180 176 26 150 8 1.20 310 

Maccrady Formation 15 30 15 15 1.00 270e Maccrady Formation 15 100 60 40 4 0.38 95 

6 Pocono Group 5.1 40.2 10.8 29.4 0.1 0.17 33 6 Pocono Group 300 34.6 24 8.67 2,300 

Median 0.83 210 Minimum 0.17 33 Maximum 8.67 2,300 

392509078105801 392509 781058 Berkeley 110 392523078104201 392523 781042 Berkeley 107 Woods Resort #8 393453 780606 Berkeley 406 Woods Resort #9 393453 780600 Berkeley 366 391118078272901 391118 782729 Hampshire 223 391223078255301 391223 782553 Hampshire 36 391234078254401 391234 782544 Hampshire 245 391720078340801 391720 783408 Hampshire 57 391840078430001 391840 784300 Hampshire 750 391943078435301 391943 784353 Hampshire 29 

6 Hampshire Formation 25 105 55 50 18 0.50 130 6 Hampshire Formation 25 18 16 2 18 12.5 2,900 6 Hampshire Formation 10 239.83 45.5 194.3 36 0.05 15 6 Hampshire Formation 30 232.58 49 183.6 24 0.16 44 

Hampshire Formation 10 78 20 58 0.1 0.17 32 Hampshire Formation 15 46 9 37 3 0.41 100 Hampshire Formation 14 137 52 85 0.1 0.16 31 Hampshire Formation 8 47 20 27 0.1 0.30 57 Hampshire Formation 5 969 582 387 3 0.01 3 Hampshire Formation 6 13 1 12 0.1 0.50 96 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 61


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

392322078393301 392322 783933 Hampshire 135 392556078360401 392556 783604 Hampshire 39 392730078273601 392730 782736 Hampshire 185 392921078252500 392921 782525 Hampshire 118 Slanesville School 392214 783152 Hampshire 500 Slanesville School 392214 783152 Hampshire 200 385332078553601 385332 785536 Hardy 180 Lost River Park 385338 785531 Hardy 200 393138078253101 393138 782531 Morgan 60 Greenbrier tr. 63.7 381525 800059 Pocahontas 125 Greenbrier tr. 69.6 381908 795818 Pocahontas 125 392612079315801 392612 793158 Preston 265 

Hampshire Formation 9 31 2 29 0.1 0.31 59 Hampshire Formation 8 17 6 11 0.1 0.73 140 Hampshire Formation 8 28 26 2 0.1 4.00 670 

Hampshire Formation 6 96 51 45 0.13 35e 

6 Hampshire Formation 70 498 94 404 1 0.17 39 6 Hampshire Formation 40 198 55 143 2 0.28 67 6 Hampshire Formation 8 38 36.3 1.7 30 4.70 1,200 

6 Hampshire Formation 47 40.7 17 23.7 36 1.98 540 

Hampshire Formation 8 52 43 9 0.89 240e 

6 Hampshire Formation 12 86 18 68 8 0.18 47 6 Hampshire Formation 20 80 16 64 8 0.31 80 

Hampshire Formation 50 40 0 40 5 1.25 320 

Median 0.31 74 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 12.5 2,900 

393002078070201 393002 780702 Berkeley 128 391442078413201 391442 784132 Hampshire 182 391532078405201 391532 784052 Hampshire 71 391742078385501 391742 783855 Hampshire 90 391756078390701 391756 783907 Hampshire 97 

Chemung Group 5 40 0.12 32 Chemung Group 8 60 57 3 0.1 2.67 460 Chemung Group 3 8 0 8 0.38 100 Chemung Group 8 56 52 4 0.1 2.00 310 Chemung Group 3 3 1 2 1.50 400 
62 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 391759078372901 391759 783729 Hampshire 30 391817078392001 391817 783920 Hampshire 60 391835078372701 391835 783727 Hampshire 64 391837078392601 391837 783926 Hampshire 66 391944078422502 391944 784225 Hampshire 523 

392023078385001 392023 783850 Hampshire 148 392036078383601 392036 783836 Hampshire 36 392106078381301 392106 783813 Hampshire 85 392154078372201 392154 783722 Hampshire 70 392802078425801 392802 784258 Hampshire 41 390458078331501 390458 783315 Hardy 48381817079563801 381817 795638 Pocahontas 86 National Radio Ob 382656 795011 Pocahontas 175National Radio Ob 382656 795011 Pocahontas 175 381823079563701 381823 795637 Pocahontas 152392618079322701 392618 793227 Preston 207384917079501101 384917 795011 Randolph 24

Chemung Group 12 7 4 3 48 4.00 1,100 Chemung Group 6 30 11 19 0.1 0.32 62 Chemung Group 8 57 8 49 0.16 43e Chemung Group 5 8 5 3 0.1 1.67 320 Chemung Group 9 164 111 53 0.17 45e Chemung Group 12 90 60 30 0.40 110e Chemung Group 8 11 8 3 0.1 2.67 500 Chemung Group 8 49 7 42 0.19 51e Chemung Group 3 21 14 7 0.1 0.43 82 Chemung Group 35 18 15 3 1 11.7 2,400 

6 Chemung Group 5.9 13 8 5 0.33 1.20 240 

Chemung Group 15 15 10 5 1 3.00 640 

6 Chemung Group 25 86.75 16 70.75 36 0.35 99 

10 Chemung Group 30 82.83 16 66.83 36 0.45 120 

6 Chemung Group 20 30 20 10 1 2.00 460 8 Chemung Group 430 14 36 30.7 8,300 6 Chemung Group 7.1 7.17 3.2 3.97 0.2 1.80 360 

Median 1.35 270 Minimum 0.12 32 Maximum 30.7 8,300 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 63


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

391618078532301 391618 785323 Hampshire 392 Brallier Formation 2 389 1 388 0.01 3e 

Harrell or Brallier 390725078404501 390725 784045 Hardy 45 6 10 14 6 8 8 1.25 320 

393116078474601 393116 784746 Mineral381730079554601 381730 795546 Pocahontas 381742079554201 381742 795542 Pocahontas Stuart Recreation N/D N/D Randolph 384537079552601 384537 795526 Randolph 

Formations 

22 Brallier Formation 8 5 0 5 3 1.60 390 

396 Harrell Shale 12 128 3 125 52 0.10 29 

396 Harrell Shale 9 56 3 53 49 0.17 49 

101 6 Harrell Shale 6 27.17 5.75 21.4 8 0.28 72 

108 6 Brallier Formation 6 16.5 9 7.5 70 0.80 230 

Median 0.28 72 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 1.60 390 

Upper to Middle 385537078502001 385537 785020 Hardy 90 6 10 43 3 40 1.25 0.25 57 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 390339078372001 390339 783720 Hardy 82 6 30 13 6 7 0.25 4.29 760 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 382601079491101 382601 794911 Pocahontas 100 15 52 26 26 27 0.58 160 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 384740079540301 384740 795403 Randolph 71.4 6 37.5 16.38 6.33 10.1 0.5 3.73 600 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 384826079532201 384826 795322 Randolph 85 6 6.5 16.86 5.3 11.6 0.56 150e Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 385007079523901 385007 795239 Randolph 140 8 7.5 10.47 6.1 4.37 6 1.72 430 Devonian Formations
64 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Upper to Middle 385051079522001 385051 795220 Randolph 80.3 6 11.5 35.3 12.2 23.1 24 0.50 140 Devonian Formations Upper to Middle 385058079522601 385058 795226 Randolph 86 6 33 17.65 1.28 16.4 2 2.02 480 Devonian Formations Upper to Middle 385059079522901 385059 795229 Randolph 96 6 10.7 31.94 1.84 30.1 4.5 0.36 91 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 385100079522901 385100 795229 Randolph 98 6 11.1 15.56 1 14.6 1.8 0.76 180 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 385101079522701 385101 795227 Randolph 97 6 33 27.8 0.93 26.9 0.1 1.23 230 Devonian Formations

Upper to Middle 385537079530301 385537 795303 Randolph 84.4 6 10 64 12.07 51.9 0.19 51e Devonian FormationsUpper to Middle 385538079530701 385538 795307 Randolph 80 6 10 57.55 10.84 46.7 0.3 0.21 44 Devonian FormationsUpper to Middle 385817079502701 385817 795027 Randolph 33.4 6 21.4 17.2 4 13.2 0.5 1.62 350 Devonian FormationsUpper to Middle 385127079520301 385127 795203 Randolph 133 6 11.5 6.5 1.56 4.94 0.5 2.33 510 Devonian Formations 

Median 0.76 180 Minimum 0.19 44 Maximum 4.29 760 

Mahantango 392310078081501 392310 780815 Berkeley 55 6 5 15 0.33 88e Formation

Mahantango 393337078013601 393337 780136 Berkeley 117 6 16.6 60 20 40 1 0.42 95 Formation
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 65


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Mahantango 393459078025201 393459 780252 Berkeley 53 6 3 53 10 43 0.07 19e Formation

Mahantango 393654078015901 393647 780157 Berkeley 141 6 2 80 40 40 0.5 0.05 11 Formation

Mahantango Deerwood F #1 392452 780700 Berkeley 700 6 32 580 24 0.06 16 Formation

Mahantango 392208078433401 392208 784334 Hampshire 129 8 18 7 11 0.1 0.73 140 Formation

Mahantango 392009078543001 392009 785430 Mineral 42 6 9 1 8 8 0.75 200 Formation

Mahantango Burlington Elem. 392010 785508 Mineral 410 6 3.5 400 15 385 36 0.01 3 Formation

Mahantango 372840080243801 372840 802438 Monroe 68 40 26 6 20 1 2.00 460 Formation

Mahantango 383730079144001 383730 791440 Pendleton 40 30 22 14 8 3 3.75 840 Formation

Median 0.38 92 Minimum 0.01 3 Maximum 3.75 840 

Marcellus and 393141078030001 393141 780300 Berkeley 55 6 3.3 55 5 50 1 0.07 16 

374800080173502 374800 801735 Greenbrier 205 391247078323301 391247 783233 Hampshire 78 391425078304001 391425 783040 Hampshire 98 

Needmore Formations

Marcellus Formation 100 521 5 516 521 0.19 62 Marcellus Formation 7 7 2 5 0.1 1.40 270 Marcellus Formation 8 6 3 3 0.1 2.67 460 
66 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 391923078524901 391923 785249 Hampshire 47 393130078370901 393130 783709 Hampshire 27 390246078380901 390246 783809 Hardy 28 390306078380501 390306 783805 Hardy 86 390327078374701 390327 783747 Hardy 60 

390741078340001 390741 783400 Hardy 125 

Marcellus Formation 20 14 2 12 1.67 440e Marcellus Formation 35 11 6 5 1 7.00 1,300 

6 Marcellus Formation 5 4 2 2.4 0.13 2.08 400 6 Marcellus Formation 4 37 11 26.2 0.17 0.15 29 6 Marcellus Formation 5.6 22 15 6.5 0.35 0.86 170 6 Marcellus Formation 5.3 6 1 4.6 5 1.15 280 

Marcellus and 393128078374601 393128 783746 Hampshire 83 25 72 49 23 1 1.09 240 Needmore Formations

Marcellus and Peterkin conf. Cen. 391749 784739 Hampshire 203 6 17 160 60 100 36 0.17 48 Needmore Formations 

392154078585001 392154 785850 Mineral 115 Marcellus Formation 25 109 49 60 1 0.42 96 

Marcellus and 393911078124401 393911 781244 Morgan 450 50 270 115 155 62 0.32 92 Needmore Formations

Marcellus and 393001078174101 393001 781741 Morgan 445 35 374 1 373 8 0.09 24 Needmore Formations 

Median 0.86 170 Minimum 0.07 16 Maximum 7.00 1,300 

390822078395901 390822 783959 Hampshire 391423078303801 391423 783038 Hampshire 111 391639078301002 391639 783010 Hampshire 48 392418078435602 392418 784356 Hampshire 398 

Onesquethaw Group 8 12 8 4 0.1 2.00 390 

Oriskany Sandstone 8 95 70 25 0.1 0.32 62 Oriskany Sandstone 3 43 40 3 1.00 270e Oriskany Sandstone 4 219 178 41 0.1 0.10 19 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 67


392610078423001392620078403701390235078381501Pinnacle Water 374834080174501Buffalo Gap CC 392028078265101385711078453501 385712078453001390658078395101390605078390001

390302078415201390701078380801

393339078493801393031078500101 

392610392620390235393105374834

392000

392028

385711 

385712390658

390605

390302390701

393339393031 

784230784037783815785148801745

782725

782651

784535

784530783951

783900

784152783808

784938785001 

HampshireHampshire

Hardy

Mineral

Greenbrier

Hampshire

Hampshire

Hardy

HardyHardy

Hardy

HardyHardy

MineralMineral 

855660

420

400

100

145

87

4498

25

132

42

328200 

66

17.5

66

66

5

66 

Oriskany SandstoneOriskany SandstoneOriskany SandstoneOriskany Sandstone

Helderburg Group 

Helderburg Group

Wills Creek 

Formation

Helderburg Group

Helderburg Group

Tonoloway Formation

Tonoloway or Wills 

Creek Formations

Wills Creek 

Formation

Tonoloway or Wills 

Creek Formations

Helderburg Group

Tonoloway Formation 

784

50

2400

60

9

7.4

7.98

7.9

16

3.6

60

100

 56

3

34

8

98

88

33

2038

1855

33

199

35

 31

2

16

4

25

85

21

1530

0

44

18

9

15

 25

1

17.8

133

4

73

3

12.2

57.7

18.4

 11

14.8

190

20

 0.1

20.33

12

MedianMinimumMaximum

2

0.1

0.33

0.330.33

0.330.75

7

6

 0.28

8.000.22

0.38

0.350.108.00

600

0.82

3.00

0.61

1.581.04

0.431.45

0.24

0.32

5.00

 53

1,500

47

100

8219

1,500

60,000e

200

560

130

320210

91

320

62

82

1,300e 
68 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 393339078500501 393339 785005 Mineral 300 Tonoloway Formation 45 127 22 105 0.43 120e Wills Creek Rocket Center 393340 785011 Mineral 740 6 33 500 40 460 3 0.07 17 Formation Median 0.82 200 Minimum 0.07 17 

Maximum 600 160,000 

393043078012401 393043 780124 Berkeley 115 390232078424501 390232 784245 Hardy 83 East R. Mt. Over 371520 811103 Mercer 627 

6 Mckenzie Formation 65 69 59 10 0.25 6.50 1,100 

6 Clinton Group 7.5 77 9 67.5 0.33 0.11 23 

6 Tuscarora Sandstone 4 590 336 254 36 0.02 6 

Median 0.11 23 Minimum 0.02 6 Maximum 6.50 1,100 

Martinsburg 392602078040801 392602 780408 Berkeley 81 6 30 81 20 61 0.5 0.49 110 Formation

Martinsburg 392059078070801 392059 780708 Berkeley 63 6 25 57 9 48 0.67 0.52 120 Formation

Martinsburg 392518077555201 392518 775552 Berkeley 85 6 22 85 25 60 0.67 0.37 82 Formation

Martinsburg 393355077523701 393355 775237 Berkeley 110 71 51.69 40.4 11.3 45 6.27 1,500 Formation

Martinsburg 393523077512001 393523 775120 Berkeley 60 6 20 50 30 20 1.00 270e Formation
APPENDIX 69


Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Martinsburg Broad Lane MHP 393454 775122 Berkeley 150 12 100 140 40 100 12 1.00 240 Formation

Martinsburg Midway MHP 393500 775100 Berkeley 205 6 60 45 34 11 12 5.45 1,300 FormationMartinsburg 392403077590001 392403 775900 Berkeley 110 8 100 65 20 45 24 2.22 520 FormationMartinsburg 393039077541201 393039 775412 Berkeley 131 6 50 35 25 10 0.2 5.00 800 FormationMartinsburg 393429077524601 393429 775246 Berkeley 90 6 9 90 30 60 0.15 40e FormationMartinsburg 393459077521101 393459 775211 Berkeley 90 6 11 85 5 80 0.14 37e Formation

Martinsburg 385419078475602 385419 784756 Hardy 146 6 6.8 120 58 62.4 0.18 0.11 23 Formation

Martinsburg 385718078410601 385718 784106 Hardy 100 6 15 32 30 2.1 0.33 7.50 1,300 FormationMartinsburg 390031078353301 390031 783533 Hardy 60 6 5 39 17 22 0.17 0.23 45 FormationMartinsburg 392309077552701 392309 775527 Jefferson 75 15 29 27 1.5 10 10.0 2,400 Formation

Median 1.00 240 Minimum 0.11 23 Maximum 10.0 2,400 
70 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 392910077563701 392704077530701 392902077571301 393032077563601

393139077551401393150077563301393315077555601392124078024302392124078024305392128078024902392128078024903392146078020801392458077542101392501077541301392507077540701392753077584601392941077514301

393109077500301Harranda MHE 

392910392704392902393032

393139393150393315392124392124392128392128392146392458392501392507392753392941

393109

392238 

775637775307775713775636

775514775633775556780243780243780249780249780208775421775413775407775846775143

775003

780220 

BerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeley

BerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeley

Berkeley

Berkeley 

40

425190364

107

114

123

411

370175363266410191191470

38

300

175

 6

66

6668886

12

6664

6

6 

Trenton or Black 

River Groups

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown Group

Beekmantown Group

 16.6

101065

3

1315

340

25

175150

1034

245105

4

22.5

10

30 

 11

55.3747.1

135

68.27

130

9065

142140

8

105

114 

470

37

240

150 

9

19.5340.76

3549.37025456290

7

58566035

90

60

 2

35.8

22

6.34

100

0.2

196065208050

0.5

4757.8

410

2.25

150

90

 8.30

 2.6 0.16

 2 0.45

46 10.3

0.03

27 65.0

0.25

24 5.6724 0.38

8.75

10 1.88

 1 0.20 3 68.0 

1.5 5.21

31 1.82

 1 0.01

 3 10.0

0.07

 1 0.33

 2,300e

39

 110 

2,800

8e

18,000

67e

1,400

100

2,300e

410

45

15,000

1,1004,800

2

2,300

19e

75 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

APPENDIX 71


IRS Computer Fac392429078044001392305078010501393333077551001391723077534601391910077524401392105077554601392102077555201392102077555301392102077555301392105077555401391918077580001373449080202501393450077562801

392340078025101

392410078030801 

392353392429392305393333391723391910392105392102392102392102392116 391918373449393450

392340

392410 

775452780440780105775510775346775244775546775552775553775553775548775800802025775628

780251

780308 

BerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeleyBerkeley

Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson JeffersonJefferson 

Monroe

Berkeley

Berkeley

Berkeley

250

48.5

153165556150155302120120

88

127

81

220

113 

69 

12

6

12

6

66666

6

6 

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown GroupBeekmantown GroupBeekmantown Group

Beekmantown Group

Conococheague

Formation

Conococheague

Formation

Conococheague

Formation

110 

10

248

5

105

35

115

100100

100

40

5

30

13

15

23.3

117 

2216

175

6034

2157.9

6317

127

45

113 

69 

4420

11

20

665024

1216.5

191418

37

60

28

 73

25

155

10

9.54

9

41.4

43.5

3.33

109

8

50

53

41

 4 1.51

5.00

48 49.6

0.03

0.243.50

12.1

48 11.196 2.42

 2 2.30

17 12.0

0.05

 4 3.75

Median 2.36Minimum 0.01Maximum 68.0

0.26

0.28

 1 0.57

 290

1,300e

13,000

8e

64e

940e

3,200e

2,900

670

510

2,900

13e

820

590

2

18,000

70e

75e

130 
72 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Conococheague 392751077593601 392751 775936 Berkeley 350 6 14 89 74 15 0.93 250e Formation Conococheague 392950077590201 392950 775902 Berkeley 221 6 20 125 95 30 2 0.67 160 Formation Conococheague 393010077580001 393010 775800 Berkeley 150 8 10 65 25 40 8 0.25 63 Formation

Conococheague 392053077504401 392053 775044 Jefferson 80 223 12 9 3 8 74.3 20,000 Formation

Conococheague 392902077483801 392902 774838 Jefferson 267 6 7 267 105 162 0.83 0.04 9 Formation

Conococheague 391507077563101 391507 775631 Jefferson 150 6 11 135 25 110 24 0.10 28 Formation

Conococheague Hunt Field Subdiv. 391558 775315 Jefferson 465 8 200 460 32 428 1 0.47 100 Formation

Conococheague Hunt Field Subdiv. 391558 775315 Jefferson 505 8 100 500 96 404 17 0.25 66 Formation

Conococheague Breckenridge sub. 391914 774956 Jefferson 310 8 300 300 20 280 20 1.07 270 Formation

Conococheague N. Jeff Elem Sch 392205 775253 Jefferson 355 6 50 350 80 270 24 0.19 52 Formation

Conococheague USFWS NETC 3a N/D N/D Jefferson 305 6 15 55 72 0.27 79 Formation

Conococheague USFWS NETC 3c N/D N/D Jefferson 170 8 100 25 72 4.00 1,100 Formation

Conococheague USFWS NETC 4c N/D N/D Jefferson 185 8 100 11 72 9.09 2,400 Formation 
Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued

[ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown;

ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined]

APPENDIX 73


Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) 

Median 0.38 92 Minimum 0.04 9 Maximum 74.3 20,000 

393238077592701 393238 775927 Berkeley 65 Chestnut Ridge HO 392820 780116 Berkeley 185 392849078014301 392849 780143 Berkeley 106 391423077522801 391423 775228 Jefferson 200 391724077520001 391722 775200 Jefferson 67 392045077484401 392045 774844 Jefferson 325 392344077460001 392344 774600 Jefferson 152 392231077464901 392231 774649 Jefferson 135 Walnut Grove 391906 774952 Jefferson 293 

6 Elbrook Formation 15 65 30 35 1 0.43 98 6 Elbrook Formation 60 170 60 110 1 0.55 130 6 Elbrook Formation 20 106 41 65 0.66 0.31 68 6 Elbrook Formation 25 4 7 1,900e 

Elbrook Formation 240 25 18 7 18 34.3 9,200 Elbrook Formation 30 332 224 108 13 0.28 75 

6 Elbrook Formation 23 78 28 50 1 0.46 100 6 Elbrook Formation 26 626 66 560 0.05 13e 

6 Elbrook Formation 140 290 80 210 3.5 0.67 160 

Median 0.46 100 Minimum 0.05 13 Maximum 34.3 9,200 

391736077473401 391736 774734 Jefferson 363 Waynesboro Fm. 64 68 48 20 2 3.20 740 

391727077471801 391727 774718 Jefferson 125 Tomstown Dolomite 50 115 15 100 1 0.50 110 

Harpers and Weverton 391233077483101 391233 774831 Jefferson 185 6 20 185 50 135 1 0.15 33 Formations

Harpers and Weverton 391442077472201 391442 774722 Jefferson 110 6 17 110 30 80 1 0.21 48 Formations.
74 Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia Appendix. Specific capacity and transmissivity data segregated by aquifer for selected wells in West Virginia —Continued [ddmmss, degrees-minutes-seconds of latitude and longitude; in., inches; e, estimated; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; ft bls, feet below land surface; gpm/ft, gallons per minute per foot of drawdown; ft2/d, feet squared per day; Lit, from literature; N/D, not determined] Pro- Well Specific Trans- Well Dis- duc- Static Draw- Test Site identification Latitude Longitude diam- Hydrogeologic Unit Capac- miss- County depth number or name (ddmmss) (ddmmss) eter (Aquifer) charge tion level down duration ity ivity (ft) (gpm) level (ft bls) (ft) (hours) (in.) (gpm/ft) (ft2/d) (ft bls) Harpers and Weverton 391539077455001 391539 774550 Jefferson 171 6 2 171 65 106 0.02 5e Formation Harpers and Weverton 391542077454801 391542 774548 Jefferson 135 6 5 50 30 20 0.25 67e Formations Harpers and Weverton 391623077471601 391623 774716 Jefferson 152 6 33 62 50 12 1.5 2.75 620 Formations

Harpers and Weverton 391736077461101 391736 774611 Jefferson 212 20 212 100 112 1 0.18 41 Formations

Harpers and Weverton 391819077445601 391819 774456 Jefferson 107 40 107 44 63 0.25 0.63 130 Formations 

Median 0.25 67 Minimum 0.02 5 Maximum 3.20 740