Ground Water Pollution Potential of Washington County, Ohio

GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO

MICHAEL P. ANGLE, JOSH JONAK, AND DAVE WALKER

GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL REPORT NO. 55

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WATER

WATER RESOURCES SECTION

2002 ABSTRACT

A ground water pollution potential map of Washington County has been prepared using the DRASTIC mapping process. The DRASTIC system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system for pollution potential.

Hydrogeologic settings incorporate hydrogeologic factors that control ground water movement and occurrence including depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. These factors, which form the acronym DRASTIC, are incorporated into a relative ranking scheme that uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. Hydrogeologic settings are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on a map.

Ground water pollution potential analysis in Washington County resulted in a map with symbols and colors, which illustrate areas of varying ground water pollution potential indexes ranging from 56 to 187.

Washington County lies within the Nonglaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The buried valley underlying the present Muskingum River and Ohio River basins contain sand and gravel outwash which are capable of yielding up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) from properly designed, large diameter wells. Smaller tributaries contain only thin, fine-grained alluvial/lacustrine deposits commonly yielding less than 5 gpm.

Interbedded dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, coals, and claystones of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Systems comprise the aquifer for the majority of Washington County. These consolidated aquifers are poor aquifers and yields are commonly less than 5 gpm.

The ground water pollution potential mapping program optimizes the use of existing data to rank areas with respect to relative vulnerability to contamination. The ground water pollution potential map of Washington County has been prepared to assist planners, managers, and local officials in evaluating the potential for contamination from various sources of pollution. This information can be used to help direct resources and land use activities to appropriate areas, or to assist in protection, monitoring, and clean-up efforts.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract...... ii Table of Contents...... iii List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Introduction ...... 1 Applications of Pollution Potential Maps ...... 2 Summary of the DRASTIC Mapping Process ...... 3 Hydrogeologic Settings and Factors...... 3 Weighting and Rating System...... 6 Pesticide DRASTIC ...... 7 Integration of Hydrogeologic Settings and DRASTIC Factors...... 10 Interpretation and Use of a Ground Water Pollution Potential Map...... 12 General Information About Washington County ...... 13 Demographics...... 13 Climate...... 13 Physiography and Topography ...... 13 Modern Drainage ...... 15 Pre- and Inter-Glacial Drainage Changes ...... 15 Bedrock Geology ...... 18 Ground Water Resources ...... 21 Strip and Underground Mined Areas...... 22 References...... 24 Unpublished Data ...... 26 Appendix A, Description of the Logic in Factor Selection...... 27 Appendix B, Description of the Hydrogeologic Settings and Charts...... 32

iii LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

1. Format and description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D Buried Valley...... 5 2. Description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D1 Buried Valley...... 11 3. Location of Washington County, Ohio ...... 14 4. Pre-glacial Teays Stage drainage...... 16 5. Deep Stage drainage...... 17 6. Illinoian-age drainage...... 19

iv LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

1. Assigned weights for DRASTIC features ...... 7 2. Ranges and ratings for depth to water...... 7 3. Ranges and ratings for net recharge ...... 8 4. Ranges and ratings for aquifer media...... 8 5. Ranges and ratings for soil media ...... 8 6. Ranges and ratings for topography...... 9 7. Ranges and ratings for impact of the vadose zone media ...... 9 8. Ranges and ratings for hydraulic conductivity...... 9 9. Bedrock stratigraphy of Washington County...... 20 10. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for strip mined areas...... 23 11. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for underground mined areas... 23 12. Washington County soils ...... 29 13. Hydrogeologic settings mapped in Washington County, Ohio ...... 32 14. Hydrogeologic Settings, DRASTIC Factors, and Ratings ...... 37

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preparation of the Washington County Ground Water Pollution Potential report and map involved the contribution and work of a number of individuals in the Division of Water. Grateful acknowledgement is given to the following individuals for their technical review and map production, text authorship, report editing, and preparation:

Map preparation and review: Josh Jonak Dave Walker Michael P. Angle

GIS coverage production and review: Paul Spahr

Report production and review: Michael P. Angle

Report editing: Kathy Sprowls

vi INTRODUCTION

The need for protection and management of ground water resources in Ohio has been clearly recognized. About 42 percent of Ohio citizens rely on ground water for drinking and household use from both municipal and private wells. Industry and agriculture also utilize significant quantities of ground water for processing and irrigation. In Ohio, approximately 750,000 rural households depend on private wells; 4,000 of these wells exist in Washington County.

The characteristics of the many aquifer systems in the state make ground water highly vulnerable to contamination. Measures to protect ground water from contamination usually cost less and create less impact on ground water users than remediation of a polluted aquifer. Based on these concerns for protection of the resource, staff of the Division of Water conducted a review of various mapping strategies useful for identifying vulnerable aquifer areas. They placed particular emphasis on reviewing mapping systems that would assist in state and local protection and management programs. Based on these factors and the quantity and quality of available data on ground water resources, the DRASTIC mapping process (Aller et al., 1987) was selected for application in the program.

Considerable interest in the mapping program followed successful production of a demonstration county map and led to the inclusion of the program as a recommended initiative in the Ohio Ground Water Protection and Management Strategy (Ohio EPA, 1986). Based on this recommendation, the Ohio General Assembly funded the mapping program. A dedicated mapping unit has been established in the Division of Water, Water Resources Section to implement the ground water pollution potential mapping program on a countywide basis in Ohio.

The purpose of this report and map is to aid in the protection of our ground water resources. This protection can be enhanced by understanding and implementing the results of this study, which utilizes the DRASTIC system of evaluating an area’s potential for ground water pollution. The mapping program identifies areas that are vulnerable to contamination and displays this information graphically on maps. The system was not designed or intended to replace site-specific investigations, but rather to be used as a planning and management tool. The map and report can be combined with other information to assist in prioritizing local resources and in making land use decisions.

1 APPLICATIONS OF POLLUTION POTENTIAL MAPS

The pollution potential mapping program offers a wide variety of applications in many counties. The ground water pollution potential map of Washington County has been prepared to assist planners, managers, and state and local officials in evaluating the relative vulnerability of areas to ground water contamination from various sources of pollution. This information can be used to help direct resources and land use activities to appropriate areas, or to assist in protection, monitoring, and clean-up efforts.

An important application of the pollution potential maps for many areas will be assisting in county land use planning and resource expenditures related to solid waste disposal. A county may use the map to help identify areas that are suitable for disposal activities. Once these areas have been identified, a county can collect more site-specific information and combine this with other local factors to determine site suitability.

Pollution potential maps may be applied successfully where non-point source contamination is a concern. Non-point source contamination occurs where land use activities over large areas impact water quality. Maps providing information on relative vulnerability can be used to guide the selection and implementation of appropriate best management practices in different areas. Best management practices should be chosen based upon consideration of the chemical and physical processes that occur from the practice, and the effect these processes may have in areas of moderate to high vulnerability to contamination. For example, the use of agricultural best management practices that limit the infiltration of nitrates, or promote denitrification above the water table, would be beneficial to implement in areas of relatively high vulnerability to contamination.

A pollution potential map can assist in developing ground water protection strategies. By identifying areas more vulnerable to contamination, officials can direct resources to areas where special attention or protection efforts might be warranted. This information can be utilized effectively at the local level for integration into land use decisions and as an educational tool to promote public awareness of ground water resources. Pollution potential maps may be used to prioritize ground water monitoring and/or contamination clean-up efforts. Areas that are identified as being vulnerable to contamination may benefit from increased ground water monitoring for pollutants or from additional efforts to clean up an aquifer.

Individuals in the county who are familiar with specific land use and management problems will recognize other beneficial uses of the pollution potential maps. Planning commissions and zoning boards can use these maps to help make informed decisions about the development of areas within their jurisdiction. Developers proposing projects within ground water sensitive areas may be required to show how ground water will be protected.

Regardless of the application, emphasis must be placed on the fact that the system is not designed to replace a site-specific investigation. The strength of the system lies in its ability to make a "first-cut approximation" by identifying areas that are vulnerable to contamination. Any potential applications of the system should also recognize the assumptions inherent in the system.

2 SUMMARY OF THE DRASTIC MAPPING PROCESS

DRASTIC was developed by the National Ground Water Association for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This system was chosen for implementation of a ground water pollution potential mapping program in Ohio. A detailed discussion of this system can be found in Aller et al. (1987).

The DRASTIC mapping system allows the pollution potential of any area to be evaluated systematically using existing information. Vulnerability to contamination is a combination of hydrogeologic factors, anthropogenic influences, and sources of contamination in any given area. The DRASTIC system focuses only on those hydrogeologic factors that influence ground water pollution potential. The system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system to determine pollution potential.

The application of DRASTIC to an area requires the recognition of a set of assumptions made in the development of the system. DRASTIC evaluates the pollution potential of an area under the assumption that a contaminant with the mobility of water is introduced at the surface and flushed into the ground water by precipitation. Most important, DRASTIC cannot be applied to areas smaller than 100 acres in size and is not intended or designed to replace site-specific investigations.

Hydrogeologic Settings and Factors

To facilitate the designation of mappable units, the DRASTIC system used the framework of an existing classification system developed by Heath (1984), which divides the United States into 15 ground water regions based on the factors in a ground water system that affect occurrence and availability.

Within each major hydrogeologic region, smaller units representing specific hydrogeologic settings are identified. Hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the system and represent a composite description of the major geologic and hydrogeologic factors that control ground water movement into, through, and out of an area. A hydrogeologic setting represents a mappable unit with common hydrogeologic characteristics and, as a consequence, common vulnerability to contamination (Aller et al., 1987).

Figure 1 illustrates the format and description of a typical hydrogeologic setting found within Washington County. Inherent within each hydrogeologic setting are the physical characteristics that affect the ground water pollution potential. These characteristics or factors identified during the development of the DRASTIC system include:

3 D – Depth to Water R – Net Recharge A – Aquifer Media S – Soil Media T – Topography I – Impact of the Vadose Zone Media C – Conductivity (Hydraulic) of the Aquifer

These factors incorporate concepts and mechanisms such as attenuation, retardation, and time or distance of travel of a contaminant with respect to the physical characteristics of the hydrogeologic setting. Broad consideration of these factors and mechanisms coupled with existing conditions in a setting provide a basis for determination of the area's relative vulnerability to contamination.

Depth to water is considered to be the depth from the ground surface to the water table in unconfined aquifer conditions or the depth to the top of the aquifer under confined aquifer conditions. The depth to water determines the distance a contaminant would have to travel before reaching the aquifer. The greater the distance the contaminant has to travel, the greater the opportunity for attenuation to occur or restriction of movement by relatively impermeable layers.

Net recharge is the total amount of water reaching the land surface that infiltrates the aquifer measured in inches per year. Recharge water is available to transport a contaminant from the surface into the aquifer and affects the quantity of water available for dilution and dispersion of a contaminant. Factors to be included in the determination of net recharge include contributions due to infiltration of precipitation, in addition to infiltration from rivers, streams and lakes, irrigation, and artificial recharge.

Aquifer media represents consolidated or unconsolidated rock material capable of yielding sufficient quantities of water for use. Aquifer media accounts for the various physical characteristics of the rock that provide mechanisms of attenuation, retardation, and flow pathways that affect a contaminant reaching and moving through an aquifer.

Soil media refers to the upper six feet of the unsaturated zone that is characterized by significant biological activity. The type of soil media influences the amount of recharge that can move through the soil column due to variations in soil permeability. Various soil types also have the ability to attenuate or retard a contaminant as it moves throughout the soil profile. Soil media is based on textural classifications of soils and considers relative thicknesses and attenuation characteristics of each profile within the soil.

7D Buried Valley

This hydrogeologic setting is limited to the Muskingum River Valley and terraces and floodplains adjacent to the Ohio River. Broad, flat-lying floodplains and gently sloping terraces characterize the setting, making it easy to distinguish from the surrounding uplands. Depth to water is typically less than 30 feet, and is less than 15 feet when immediately adjacent to the Muskingum River or major tributaries. Terraces flanking the Ohio River typically have a depth to water of 15 to 30 feet. Aquifers are composed of variable thicknesses of sand and gravel interbedded with finer-grained alluvium and lacustrine deposits. The Muskingum River may be in direct hydraulic connection with the underlying aquifer. Yields up to 500 gpm have been reported for some of the coarser, thicker, more continuous sand and gravel units. Soils are typically sandy loams derived from outwash. Recharge is typically relatively high due to the flat-lying topography, shallow depth to water, and the high permeability of the soils, vadose zone materials, and aquifer.

GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Buried Valley range from 141 to 187, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 5.

Figure 1. Format and description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D Buried Valley.

5 Topography refers to the slope of the land expressed as percent slope. The slope of an area affects the likelihood that a contaminant will run off or be ponded and ultimately infiltrate into the subsurface. Topography also affects soil development and often can be used to help determine the direction and gradient of ground water flow under water table conditions.

The impact of the vadose zone media refers to the attenuation and retardation processes that can occur as a contaminant moves through the unsaturated zone above the aquifer. The vadose zone represents that area below the soil horizon and above the aquifer that is unsaturated or discontinuously saturated. Various attenuation, travel time, and distance mechanisms related to the types of geologic materials present can affect the movement of contaminants in the vadose zone. Where an aquifer is unconfined, the vadose zone media represents the materials below the soil horizon and above the water table. Under confined aquifer conditions, the vadose zone is simply referred to as a confining layer. The presence of the confining layer in the unsaturated zone has a significant impact on the pollution potential of the ground water in an area.

Hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer is a measure of the ability of the aquifer to transmit water, and is also related to ground water velocity and gradient. Hydraulic conductivity is dependent upon the amount and interconnectivity of void spaces and fractures within a consolidated or unconsolidated rock unit. Higher hydraulic conductivity typically corresponds to higher vulnerability to contamination. Hydraulic conductivity considers the capability for a contaminant that reaches an aquifer to be transported throughout that aquifer over time.

Weighting and Rating System

DRASTIC uses a numerical weighting and rating system that is combined with the DRASTIC factors to calculate a ground water pollution potential index or relative measure of vulnerability to contamination. The DRASTIC factors are weighted from 1 to 5 according to their relative importance to each other with regard to contamination potential (Table 1). Each factor is then divided into ranges or media types and assigned a rating from 1 to 10 based on their significance to pollution potential (Tables 2-8). The rating for each factor is selected based on available information and professional judgment. The selected rating for each factor is multiplied by the assigned weight for each factor. These numbers are summed to calculate the DRASTIC or pollution potential index.

Once a DRASTIC index has been calculated, it is possible to identify areas that are more likely to be susceptible to ground water contamination relative to other areas. The higher the DRASTIC index, the greater the vulnerability to contamination. The index generated provides only a relative evaluation tool and is not designed to produce absolute answers or to represent units of vulnerability. Pollution potential indexes of various settings should be compared to each other only with consideration of the factors that were evaluated in determining the vulnerability of the area.

6 Pesticide DRASTIC

A special version of DRASTIC was developed for use where the application of pesticides is a concern. The weights assigned to the DRASTIC factors were changed to reflect the processes that affect pesticide movement into the subsurface with particular emphasis on soils. Where other agricultural practices, such as the application of fertilizers, are a concern, general DRASTIC should be used to evaluate relative vulnerability to contamination. The process for calculating the Pesticide DRASTIC index is identical to the process used for calculating the general DRASTIC index. However, general DRASTIC and Pesticide DRASTIC numbers should not be compared because the conceptual basis in factor weighting and evaluation differs significantly. Table 1 lists the weights used for general and pesticide DRASTIC.

Table 1. Assigned weights for DRASTIC features

General Pesticide Feature DRASTIC DRASTIC Weight Weight Depth to Water 5 5 Net Recharge 4 4 Aquifer Media 3 3 Soil Media 2 5 Topography 1 3 Impact of the Vadose Zone Media 5 4 Hydraulic Conductivity of the Aquifer 3 2

Table 2. Ranges and ratings for depth to water

Depth to Water (feet) Range Rating 0-5 10 5-15 9 15-30 7 30-50 5 50-75 3 75-100 2 100+ 1 Weight: 5 Pesticide Weight: 5

7 Table 3. Ranges and ratings for net recharge Net Recharge (inches) Range Rating 0-2 1 2-4 3 4-7 6 7-10 8 10+ 9 Weight: 4 Pesticide Weight: 4

Table 4. Ranges and ratings for aquifer media Aquifer Media Range Rating Typical Rating Shale 1-3 2 Glacial Till 4-6 5 Sandstone 4-9 6 Limestone 4-9 6 Sand and Gravel 4-9 8 Interbedded Ss/Sh/Ls/Coal 2-10 9 Karst Limestone 9-10 10 Weight: 3 Pesticide Weight: 3

Table 5. Ranges and ratings for soil media Soil Media Range Rating Thin or Absent 10 Gravel 10 Sand 9 Peat 8 Shrink/Swell Clay 7 Sandy Loam 6 Loam 5 Silty Loam 4 Clay Loam 3 Muck 2 Clay 1 Weight: 2 Pesticide Weight: 5

Table 6. Ranges and ratings for topography Topography (percent slope) Range Rating 0-2 10 2-6 9 6-12 5 12-18 3 18+ 1 Weight: 1 Pesticide Weight: 3

Table 7. Ranges and ratings for impact of the vadose zone media Impact of the Vadose Zone Media Range Rating Typical Rating Confining Layer 1 1 Silt/Clay 2-6 3 Shale 2-5 3 Limestone 2-7 6 Sandstone 4-8 6 Interbedded Ss/Sh/Ls/Coal 4-8 6 Sand and Gravel with Silt and Clay 4-8 6 Glacial Till 2-6 4 Sand and Gravel 6-9 8 Karst Limestone 8-10 10 Weight: 5 Pesticide Weight: 4

Table 8. Ranges and ratings for hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic Conductivity (GPD/FT2) Range Rating 1-100 1 100-300 2 300-700 4 700-1000 6 1000-2000 8 2000+ 10 Weight: 3 Pesticide Weight: 2

9 Integration of Hydrogeologic Settings and DRASTIC Factors

Figure 2 illustrates the hydrogeologic setting 7D1, Buried Valley, identified in mapping Washington County, and the pollution potential index calculated for the setting. Based on selected ratings for this setting, the pollution potential index is calculated to be 187. This numerical value has no intrinsic meaning, but can be readily compared to a value obtained for other settings in the county. DRASTIC indexes for typical hydrogeologic settings and values across the United States range from 45 to 223. The diversity of hydrogeologic conditions in Washington County produces settings with a wide range of vulnerability to ground water contamination. Calculated pollution potential indexes for the 4 settings identified in the county range from 56 to 187.

Hydrogeologic settings identified in an area are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on maps. Pollution potential analysis in Washington County resulted in a map with symbols and colors that illustrate areas of ground water vulnerability. The map describing the ground water pollution potential of Washington County is included with this report.

SETTING 7D1 GENERAL FEATURE RANGE WEIGHT RATING NUMBER Depth to Water 5-15 5 9 45 Net Recharge 7-10 4 8 32 Aquifer Media Sand & Gravel 3 8 24 Soil Media Sandy loam 2 6 12 Topography 0-2% 1 10 10 Impact of Vadose Zone Sand & Gravel 5 8 40 w/Silt & Clay Hydraulic Conductivity 1000-2000 3 8 24 DRASTIC INDEX 187

Figure 2. Description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D1 Buried Valley.

11 INTERPRETATION AND USE OF GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL MAPS

The application of the DRASTIC system to evaluate an area’s vulnerability to contamination produces hydrogeologic settings with corresponding pollution potential indexes. The susceptibility to contamination is greater as the pollution potential index increases. This numeric value determined for one area can be compared to the pollution potential index calculated for another area.

The map accompanying this report displays both the hydrogeologic settings identified in the county and the associated pollution potential indexes calculated in those hydrogeologic settings. The symbols on the map represent the following information:

7D1 - defines the hydrogeologic region and setting 187 - defines the relative pollution potential

Here the first number (7) refers to the major hydrogeologic region and the upper and lower case letters (D) refer to a specific hydrogeologic setting. The following number (1) references a certain set of DRASTIC parameters that are unique to this setting and are described in the corresponding setting chart. The second number (187) is the calculated pollution potential index for this unique setting. The charts for each setting provide a reference to show how the pollution potential index was derived.

The maps are color-coded using ranges depicted on the map legend. The color codes used are part of a national color-coding scheme developed to assist the user in gaining a general insight into the vulnerability of the ground water in the area. The color codes were chosen to represent the colors of the spectrum, with warm colors (red, orange, and yellow) representing areas of higher vulnerability (higher pollution potential indexes), and cool colors (greens, blues, and violet) representing areas of lower vulnerability to contamination. The maps also delineate large man-made and natural features such as lakes, landfills, quarries, and strip mines, but these areas are not rated and therefore not color-coded.

12 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT WASHINGTON COUNTY

Demographics

Washington County occupies approximately 641 square miles in southeastern Ohio (Figure 3). Washington County is bounded to the southwest by Athens County, to the northwest by Morgan County, and to the north by Noble County and Monroe County. The Ohio River bounds Washington County to the south and east.

The approximate population of Washington County, based upon 1998 estimates, is 63,413 (Department of Development, Ohio County Profiles, 1999). Marietta is the largest community and the county seat. Woodland is a major land use in the county. The Wayne National Forest occupies much of the eastern half of the county. Agriculture is also an important land use, accounting for approximately 40 % of the land area. Strip mining has historically been an important land use in the northern and western part of the county. More specific information on land usage can be obtained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Real Estate and Land Management (REALM), Resource Analysis Program (formerly OCAP).

Climate

The Hydrologic Atlas for Ohio (Harstine, 1991) reports an average annual temperature of approximately 54 degrees Fahrenheit for Washington County. The average temperatures increase slightly towards the Ohio River in southern Washington County. Harstine (1991) shows that precipitation averages 39 inches per year for the county. The mean annual precipitation for Marietta is 40.22 inches per year based upon a thirty-year (1961-1990) period (Owenby and Ezell, 1992). The mean annual temperature at Marietta for the same thirty-year period is 53.4 degrees Fahrenheit (Owenby and Ezell, 1992).

Physiography and Topography

Washington County lies within the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateau Province (Frost, 1931 and Fenneman, 1938). Relatively high relief and rugged topography, featuring narrow ridges, steep slopes, and a high degree of stream dissection characterize the county. Ridge tops tend to be broader and less steep where the bedrock is finer-grained and less resistant. Floodplains of the Muskingum River and the Ohio River are relatively broad and flat lying. The Ohio River is flanked by relatively flat- lying terraces which occur at higher elevations than the floodplains.

Figure 3. Location of Washington County, Ohio.

14 Modern Drainage

The Muskingum River and its tributaries drain northwestern Washington County. Wolf Creek and South Branch Wolf Creek are the main tributaries of the Muskingum. The extreme southwestern margin of the county drains westward towards the Hocking River. The Little Hocking River drains the majority of southwestern Washington County. East central Washington County is drained by Duck Creek. Southeastern Washington County is drained by the Little Muskingum River. Many short tributaries empty directly into the Ohio River in eastern Washington County.

Pre- and Inter-Glacial Drainage Changes

Washington County lies entirely beyond the glacial boundary; however, the drainage patterns of the county changed greatly as a result of the multiple glaciations. The drainage changes are complex and not yet fully understood. More research and data are necessary in both Washington County and adjacent counties. Particularly, well log data for deeper wells that penetrate the entire drift thickness would be helpful in making interpretations.

The Teays River System and its tributaries drained southeastern Ohio prior to glaciation (Figure 4). The Marietta River was the primary tributary of the Teays River in southeastern Ohio (Stout et al., 1943 and Collins and Smith, 1977). The Marietta River flowed westward; in places, the modern Ohio River roughly follows the course of the Marietta River. Major southerly-flowing tributaries of the Marietta River included Barlow Creek, which roughly follows the course of the modern Little Hocking, Whipple Creek, which follows the course of Duck Creek, and Rinard Mills Creek, which follows the course of the Little Muskingum. One of the tributaries of Barlow Creek roughly followed the course of the present Muskingum River into Morgan County. There was a major drainage divide in northern Morgan County near present-day Eagleport. The divide consisted of a resistant bedrock ridge or col; south of this col, drainage was to the south into Barlow Creek (Stout et al., 1943, Norling, 1958, and Collins and Smith, 1977).

As ice advanced through Ohio during the pre-Illinoian (Kansan) glaciation, the Teays Drainage System was blocked. Flow backed-up in the main trunk of the Teays River Valley as well as in many tributaries, forming several large lakes. These lakes over-topped, creating spillways and cutting new channels. New drainage systems began to evolve (Stout et al., 1943). This downcutting by these new streams was believed to be relatively rapid and, in many places, the new channels were cut over 100 feet deeper than the previous Teays River System valleys. The new drainage system (Figure 5) is referred to as the Deep Stage due to this increased downcutting. It was at this time that the ancestral channel of the Ohio River was largely created. The major trunk stream in southeastern Ohio was referred to as the Pomeroy River (Stout et al., 1943). In Morgan County, the divide (col) was still not breached. South of the divide, a new system referred to as Lowell Creek developed, roughly following the course of the modern Muskingum River. Lowell Creek emptied into the Pomeroy River near the city of Marietta.

Figure 4. Pre-glacial Teays Stage drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).

Figure 5. Deep Stage drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).

During the time that many of the stream valleys were ponded, abundant sediments were deposited into these streams. The deposits were typically clayey to silty with thin layers of fine-grained sand. Locally, these deposits were referred to as the Vincent silt loams. These materials were correlated with the Minford Silts found elsewhere in southeastern Ohio (Stout et al., 1943, and Collins and Smith, 1977).

The Illinoian ice advance brought further changes to the drainage systems (Figure 6). The divide was not breached during the Illinoian ice advance (Norling, 1958). South of the divide, Beverly Creek drained Morgan County and western Washington County. Beverly Creek roughly followed the course of Lowell Creek, but was not as deeply incised (Stout et al., 1943, and Norling, 1958). The New Martinsville River roughly followed the course of the Pomeroy River, but was also not as deeply incised. The present Ohio River very closely follows the New Martinsville River.

The massive volumes of meltwater produced during the Wisconsinan (most recent) ice advance eventually breached the col near Eagleport (Norling, 1958). This led to the establishment of the modern Muskingum River System (Stout et al., 1943, and Norling, 1958). The Muskingum River Valley contains a variety of coarse outwash, silty alluvial and finer lacustrine (lake) sediments which were deposited over time. Coarse sand and gravel outwash was interbedded with finer-grained alluvial deposits in the Ohio River valley at this time also. The terraces flanking the Ohio River are constructed from these coarser outwash deposits. Ancestral stream channels filled with glacial/alluvial sediments are referred to as buried valleys.

Bedrock Geology

Bedrock exposed at the surface in Washington County belongs to the Pennsylvanian and Permian Systems. Table 9 summarizes the bedrock stratigraphy found in Washington County. Collins and Smith (1977) gives a thorough review of the bedrock stratigraphy of Washington County. The ODNR, Division of Geological Survey, has Open-File Reconnaissance Bedrock Geological Maps on 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic map bases available for the entire county. The oldest rocks exposed in Washington County are part of the Conemaugh Group and are found only near the base of the deeper stream cuts in the county, in western York Township. Rocks of the Conemaugh Group include interbedded dirty, micaceous sandstones, shales, siltstones, thin, fine-grained limestones, and minor coals. Higher in the section, the rocks tend to include more fine-grained mudstones and claystones (Collins and Smith, 1977 and Collins, 1979). Rocks of the Monongahela Group are found in most of central and eastern Washington County. These rocks include interbedded dirty sandstones, shales, minor limestones, and some important coal beds, particularly in the northern part of the county.

Figure 6. Illinoian-age drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).

19 Table 9. Bedrock stratigraphy of Washington County System Group/Formation Lithologic Description (Symbol) Consists of gray, green, red to brown, thin- to massive-bedded shale, siltstone, and sandstone Permian Dunkard Group with minor amounts of limestone (Pd) and coal. Yields are poor, ranging from 0 to 5 gpm. Found on ridge tops throughout the county. Interbedded dirty sandstones, Pennsylvanian Undivided, shales, and siltstones with thin Pennsylvanian i.e. Conemaugh, Monongahela Fms. coal, limestones, and clay. Poor (Pu) aquifer, yields less 5 gallons per minute.

Rocks belonging to the Permian System are found occupying high ridge tops in the eastern part of Washington County. These rocks include dirty sandstones, fine shales, and soft mudstones. The mudstones and shales tend to be calcareous and soft. Limestones are commonly fresh water and are dense and fine-grained. Sandstones are micaceous and have a high iron content. Typically, the rocks have a reddish to grayish look and may have been deposited under somewhat arid conditions (Collins, 1979). These rocks tend to be somewhat less resistant to erosion and tend to form broader, less steep ridge tops.

Weedman (1990) provides an excellent account of the complex depositional environments, which created the rocks of the Pennsylvanian System. These highly transitional environments included both terrestrial ("land-based") and marine-derived sediments. The terrestrial environment was dominated by large river systems featuring broad alluvial plains upland from coastal areas. Stream channels and point bar deposits were the source of sandstones and conglomerates. Shales and siltstones were derived from fine- grained floodplain deposits. Freshwater limestones were deposited in shallow, rapidly- evaporating lakes and ponds found on the alluvial plain.

The terrestrial environment was highly transitional with a marine environment over time. The position of the shoreline and the depth of water varied with the rate of sediment input into the basin, sea level, and the rate of subsidence. Subsidence refers to an uneven "settling" during the relatively rapid accumulation of sediments. In the Conemaugh Group, sandstones and shales represent deltaic/shoreline environments. Marine limestones formed in slightly deeper waters, which lacked clastic input from rivers and deltas. Coal and clay were deposited in two different environments. Coal was deposited in either a "back-barrier" environment along the shoreline or in "deltaic-plain" environment in swamps formed in abandoned river channels (Horne et al., 1978). Similarly, clay was deposited in either quiet lagoonal areas directly behind the shoreline or in abandoned "oxbow" river channels (Ferm, 1974).

20 Ground Water Resources

Ground water in Washington County is obtained from both unconsolidated (glacial- alluvial) and consolidated (bedrock) aquifers. Glacial aquifers are primarily limited to the main trunk of the Muskingum River Valley and the terraces and floodplain flanking the Ohio River. Unconsolidated alluvial and lacustrine sediments are also found in portions of other major streams in the county; however these deposits are either too thin or fine-grained to constitute sustainable aquifers.

Yields up to 500 gpm are obtainable from the coarse, well-sorted sand and gravel outwash deposits in the Muskingum River Valley near Marietta and along some of the terraces flanking the Ohio River (Walker, 1984 and ODNR, Div. of Water Open File, Glacial State Aquifer Map). Test drilling or geophysical methods are recommended to help locate the higher yielding zones. Proper well construction and development is also needed to insure the highest sustainable yields possible from these larger diameter wells. Smaller diameter wells should be suitable for serving domestic/farm needs within this aquifer. Other areas along the Muskingum River and Ohio River tend to contain deposits containing less coarse gravel and predominantly fine-grained sand. Yields in these areas range from 25 to 500 gpm. The deposits located in other major tributaries typically are too thin, dirty, and fine-grained and constitute a very marginal aquifer (Walker, 1984 and ODNR, Div. of Water Open File, Glacial State Aquifer Map). These fine-grained deposits more likely help provide extra recharge to the underlying bedrock.

Yields from the consolidated, bedrock aquifers throughout the county tend to be meager. Yields tend to be especially poor along ridge tops. Walker (1984) and the ODNR, Div. Of Water, Open File, Bedrock State Aquifer Map shows the bedrock yielding less than 5 gpm for the entire county.

The yield in any particular area is dependent upon the number and type of formations drilled through. Wells drilled in bedrock often intersect several aquifers or water-producing zones. Sandstones and coals tend to be water-bearing units, whereas underclays, mudstones, siltstones and shales tend to be aquitards, which impede the flow of water. Limestones are typically thin, hard, and fine-grained and are generally poor aquifers. Thicker, fractured limestones, however, are capable of producing suitable yields. Water tends to "perch" or collect on top of lower permeability units (e.g. shale) and move laterally along the base of an overlying unit with higher permeability (e.g. sandstone). Springs and seeps mark where these contacts meet the slope or land surface. Peffer (1991) demonstrated that shales could provide sufficient water to serve domestic needs and still behave as an aquitard.

The number of fractures and bedding planes intersected by the well also influences yields. The amount of fracturing tends to increase along hill slopes and valleys. This increase may be related to stress relief, as shown by Wyrick and Borchers (1981) and Kipp et al. (1983). The net result is that there is usually a decrease in the depth to water (i.e. a shallower static water level) and slightly higher yields. Fracturing is also an influence on the direction of ground water flow (Schubert, 1980) and affects the amount of recharge.

21 Strip and Underground Mined Areas

The pollution potential of strip-mined and abandoned underground mined areas were not evaluated in Washington County. Although DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Using Hydrogeologic Settings (Aller et al., 1987) does identify mining as a possible source of ground water contamination, it does not discuss a methodology to evaluate the vulnerability of aquifers to contamination in these areas.

Many geologic and hydrogeologic changes occur in areas that have undergone or are undergoing mining and reclamation activities (Bonta et al., 1992 and Razem, 1983). The extent of these changes may not be known or may have a high degree of variability from one location to another.

Mining and reclamation activities have the ability to affect all DRASTIC parameters. Tables 10 and 11 list the DRASTIC parameters and the possible impacts that mining may have on rating the parameters in strip-mined and underground mined areas. These tables are not meant to be a comprehensive listing of the impacts of mining on ground water systems. They are provided to illustrate the uncertainty of evaluating the pollution potential of mined areas.

Although the pollution potential of strip and abandoned underground mined areas were not evaluated, they were delineated. Only the most prominent and conspicuous mined areas were delineated on the pollution potential map of Washington County. Delineations of mined areas were made using information from the Soil Survey of Washington County (Lessig et al., 1977), abandoned underground mine maps (ODNR, Division of Geological Survey, open file maps), and the Washington County portion of U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps. Site-specific information for mined area can be obtained from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey and Division of Mineral Resources Management.

22 Table 10. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for strip mined areas Parameter Impact of Activity/Effects on DRASTIC Ratings Depth to water Removal of material overlying the aquifer will decrease the depth to water (i.e. increase DRASTIC rating); removal of uppermost aquifer will increase the depth to water (i.e. decrease DRASTIC rating) Net Recharge Mineral extraction and reclamation could increase the degree of fracturing, increase the permeability of the vadose zone and soils and therefore increase the amount of recharge (i.e. increase DRASTIC rating); compaction of fine grained spoils could decrease the amount of recharge to the aquifer (i.e. decrease DRASTIC rating) Aquifer media Mineral extraction could remove the uppermost aquifer Soil media Removal of soils will provide less of a barrier for contaminant transport (i.e. increase soil rating); reclaimed soils may have a lower permeability than the original cover (i.e. decrease soil rating) Topography Strip mining can change the contour of the land surface making delineation of this parameter virtually impossible Impact of the Fracturing of vadose zone media could increase the permeability vadose zone (i.e. increase rating); compaction of spoils during reclamation could decrease the permeability (i.e. decrease rating) Hydraulic Fracturing of aquifer media could increase the conductivity (i.e. Conductivity increase DRASTIC rating)

Table 11. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for underground mined areas Parameter Impact of Activity/Effects on DRASTIC Ratings Depth to water Collapse of underground mines has the potential to fracture overlying confining units, therefore causing a dewatering of overlying aquifers (i.e. decrease rating) Net Recharge Fracturing of overlying strata can increase amount of recharge to the aquifer (i.e. increase rating) Aquifer media Upper aquifers could be dewatered and underground mine could become the aquifer Soil media Fractures may extend to the land surface Topography This factor will not be affected unless severe subsidence occurs Impact of the Fracturing and air shafts in the vadose zone could increase the vadose zone permeability and provide a direct conduit for contamination (i.e. increase rating) Hydraulic Upper aquifers not dewatered as a result of fracturing or Conductivity subsidence would have higher conductivity values; underground mines serving as the aquifer media will have high conductivity values (i.e. higher rating)

23 REFERENCES

Aller, L., T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, R.J. Petty, and G. Hackett, 1987. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeological settings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/2-87-035, 622 pp.

Angle, M.A., D.D. Walker, and J. Jonak, 2001. Ground water pollution potential of Muskingum County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, GWPP Report No. 54.

Bonta, J.V., C.R. Amerman, W.A. Dick, G.F. Hall, T.J. Harlukowicz, A.C. Razem, and N.E. Smeck, 1992. Impact of surface coal mining on three Ohio watersheds – physical conditions and groundwater hydrology. Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 28, Number 3, PP. 577-596.

Collins, H.R., 1979. The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) systems in the United State-Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1110-E, 25 pp.

Collins, H.R. and B. E. Smith, 1977. Geology and mineral resources of Washington County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 66, 134 pp.

Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Groundwater and wells. Johnson Filtration Systems, St. Paul, Mn, 1089 pp.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938. Physiography of the eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 714 pp.

Ferm, J.C., 1974. Carboniferous environmental models in eastern United States and their significance. In G. Briggs, ed. Carboniferous of the southern United States. Geological Society of America Special Paper 148.

Fetter, C.W., 1980. Applied hydrogeology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio, 488 pp.

Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Ground water. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 604 pp.

Frost, R.B., 1931. Physiographic map of Ohio. Oberlin College, The Geographical Press, Columbia Univ., N.Y., N.Y., map with text.

Harstine, L.J., 1991. Hydrologic atlas for Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Water Inventory Report, No. 28, 13 pp.

24 Heath, R.C., 1984. Ground-water regions of the United States. U.S.Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2242, 78 pp.

Horne, J.C., J.C. Ferm, F.T. Carrucio, and B.P. Baganz, 1978. Depositional models in coal exploration and mine planning in Appalachian region. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 62, No. 12, pp.2379-2411.

Kipp, J.A., F.W. Lawrence, and J.S. Dinger, 1983. A conceptual model of ground-water flow in the eastern Kentucky coal field. 1983 Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 543-548.

Lessig, H.D., T. N. Rubel, D.L. Brown, and T.J.F. Hole, 1977. Soil survey of Washington County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 206 pp.

Norling, D.L., 1958. Geology and mineral resources of Morgan County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 56, 131 pp.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open File, Reconnaissance Bedrock Geology Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Open File Bedrock State Aquifer Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Open File Glacial State Aquifer Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.

Owenby, J.R. and D.S. Ezell, 1992. Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days, 1961-1990. Climatography of the United States No. 81, OHIO. U.S. Department of the Interior, Project A-051-OHIO, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 30 pp.

Peffer, J.R., 1991. Complex aquifer-aquitard relationships at an Appalachian Plateau site. Ground Water, Vol. 29, No.2, pp.209-217.

Pettyjohn, W.A. and R. Henning, 1979. Preliminary estimate of ground-water recharge rates, related streamflow and water quality in Ohio. U.S. Department of the Interior, Project A-051-OHIO, Project Completion Report No. 552, Water Resources Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 323 pp.

Razem, A.C., 1983. Ground-water hydrology before, during, and after coal strip mining of a small watershed in Jefferson County, Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4215, 36 pp.

25 Schubert, J.P., 1980. Fracture flow of groundwater in coal-bearing strata. Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 61-73.

Stout W., K. Ver Steeg, and G.F. Lamb, 1943. Geology of water in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 44, 694 pp.

Walker, A.C., 1984. Ground-water resources of Washington and Morgan Counties. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground water resources maps, map with text.

Weedman, S.D., 1990. Freshwater limestones of the Allegheny Group. Pennsylvania Geology, Vol. 21, NO. 1, pp. 9-16.

Wyrick, G.G. and J.W. Borchers, 1981. Hydrologic effects of stress-relief fracturing in an Appalachian valley. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2177, 51 pp.

UNPUBLISHED DATA

Ohio Department of Development. Office of Strategic Research, County wide profiles, 1999.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Well log and drilling reports for Washington County.

26 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE LOGIC IN FACTOR SELECTION

Depth to Water

This factor was primarily evaluated using information from water well log records on file at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Water, Water Resources Section (WRS). Approximately 4,000 water well log records are on file for Washington County. Data from roughly 2,200 water well log records were analyzed and plotted on U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps during the course of the project. Static water levels and information as to the depths at which water was encountered were taken from these records. The Ground Water Resources of Washington and Morgan Counties (Walker, 1984) provided generalized depth to water information throughout the county. Depths to water trends mapped in adjoining Morgan County (Angle et al., 2001) were helpful. Topographic and geomorphic trends were utilized in areas where other sources of data were lacking.

Depths to water of 5 to 15 feet (DRASTIC rating = 9) were typical of areas immediately adjacent to the Muskingum River and other major streams. Depths of 15 to 30 feet (7) were used for stream terraces adjacent to major streams and along smaller tributaries. Depths of 30 to 50 feet (5) were utilized for the headwaters of upland tributaries and for less steep slopes. Depths to water of 50 to 75 feet were utilized for steeper slopes and lower ridge tops common throughout much of the county. Depths to water of 75 to 100 feet (2) were applied to very high, isolated ridge tops. These ridge tops are usually capped by thick sequences of fine-grained Pennsylvanian or Permian rocks.

Net Recharge

Net recharge is the precipitation that reaches the aquifer after evapotranspiration and run- off. This factor was evaluated using many criteria, including depth to water, topography, soil type, surface drainage, vadose zone material, aquifer type, and annual precipitation. General estimates of recharge provided by Pettyjohn and Henning (1979) proved to be helpful.

Values of 7 to 10 inches per year (8) were assigned to areas of the Muskingum River Buried Valley and the terraces and floodplains flanking the Ohio River. These areas contain highly permeable soils, vadose, and aquifer materials, have shallow depths to water, gentle slopes, and surficial streams. These areas are limited to terraces and floodplains underlain by coarse-grained outwash deposits. Values of 4 to 7 inches per year (6) were used for areas with moderate recharge. These areas include most of the tributary and upland streams. These areas tend to have moderately shallow depths to water, surficial streams, and moderately permeable soils. Bedrock in these areas of stream valleys tends to be fractured. Values of 2 to 4 inches per year (3) were utilized for almost all upland slopes and ridge tops. The low permeability of the fine-grained soils and bedrock, the greater depths to water, and the high amount of run-off due to the steep slopes were the major factors for assigning the low recharge values. A recharge value of 0 to 2 inches per year (1) was applied to very steep,

27 high ridges where the soils are thin to absent and run-off is very high on the bare bedrock slopes.

Aquifer Media

Information on aquifer media was obtained from the reports of Stout et al. (1943), Collins and Smith (1977), and Walker (1984). Mapping in adjoining Muskingum County (Angle et al., 2001) proved useful as a guideline for evaluating aquifers. Open File Bedrock Reconnaissance Maps based upon U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey proved helpful. The ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map were an important source of aquifer data. Water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary source of aquifer information.

An aquifer rating of (8) was designated for the high-yielding sand and gravel outwash deposits underlying the Muskingum River Buried Valley and terraces and floodplains flanking the Ohio River. An aquifer rating of (7) or (6) was used for some thinner sand and gravel deposits associated with terraces along the margins of the Muskingum River Buried Valley and the Ohio River. These terraces tend to contain less coarse gravel and more fine- grained sand. An aquifer rating of (5) was used for predominantly fine-grained sediments in minor tributaries.

An aquifer rating of (3) was assigned to the Pennsylvanian and Permian bedrock in Washington County.

Soils

Soils were mapped using the data obtained from the Soil Survey of Washington County (Lessig et al., 1977). Each soil type was evaluated and given a rating for soil media. Evaluations were based upon the texture, permeability, and shrink-swell potential for each soil material. The soils of Washington County showed a high degree of variability. This is a reflection of the parent material. Table 12 is a list of the soils, parent materials, setting, and corresponding DRASTIC values for Washington County.

Soils were considered to be thin or absent (10) along many steep ridge tops and slopes where bedrock was exposed. Soils were rated as being a gravel (10), a sand (9) or sandy loams (6) in outwash-rich terraces of the Muskingum River Buried Valley and the Ohio River. Sandy loam soils (6) were also selected for residual sandstone ridges. Shrink-swell clays (7) were rated for upland areas having very clayey shale and mudstone bedrock residuum. Shrink-swell clays (7) were rated for fine-grained lacustrine slack water sediments in tributaries. Silt loam (4) soils were evaluated for silty shale and siltstone residuum on slopes and ridge tops and also for silty alluvial and lacustrine deposits on floodplains. Clay

28 Table 12. Washington County soils

Soil Name Parent Material/Setting DRASTIC Rating Soil Media Alford Loess, bedrock 4 Silty loam Allegheny Alluvium on old terraces 4 Silty loam Ashton Alluvium, low terraces 4 Silty loam Belpre Shale bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Brookside Colluvium, fine bedrock 3 Clay loam Chagrin Alluvium 4 Silty loam Chili Outwash terraces 6 Sandy loam Clymer Sandstone 10 Thin or absent Conotton Outwash terraces 6 Sandy loam Dekalb Sandstone 10 Thin or absent Duncannon Loess, fine sandy loess 4 Silty loam Elba-Belpre Weathered shale, siltstone 3 Clay loam Fill land Highway bypasses NR Gallia High terraces 4 Silty loam Gilpin Residuum 10 Thin or absent Glenford Alluvium 4 Silty loam Hackers Alluvial fans 4 Silty loam Hartshorn High gradient streamlets 6 Sandy loam Hayter Fine colluvium 3 Clay loam Huntington Alluvium 4 Silty loam Keene Thick sandstone, shale regolith 3 Clay loam Lakin Sand dunes 9 Sand Licking Lacustrine, slack water 3 Clay loam Lowell-Upshur Fine bedrock and colluvium 7 Shrink/swell clay Markland Slack water deposits 7 Shrink/swell clay McGary Depressional, floodplain 7 Shrink/swell clay Melvin Alluvium 4 Silty loam Mentor Alluvial terraces 4 Silty loam Moshannon Fine alluvium 4 Silty loam Newark Alluvium 4 Silty loam Nolin Alluvium 4 Silty loam Otwell Alluvium, lacustrine 4 Silty loam Otwell-Vincent Lacustrine 4 Silty loam Peoga Depressional 3 Clay loam Sparta Wind/water-deposited fine sand 9 Sand Strip mine spoil Strip mine spoil NR Summitville Shale/sandstone bedrock 10 Thin or absent Taggart Alluvium 4 Silty loam Tioga Coarse alluvium 6 Sandy loam Upshur Bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Upshur-Gilpin Bedrock 10 Thin or absent Vandalia Deep, fine colluvium 7 Shrink/swell clay Vincent Lacustrine, abandoned upland 3 Clay loam slack water terraces Watertown Outwash 10 Gravel Wellston Sandstone 10 Thin or absent Westmore-Lowell-Elba Bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Wheeling Outwash terraces 6 Sandy loam Woodsfield Bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Woodsfield-Zanesville Bedrock 4 Silty loam Zanesville Bedrock 4 Silty loam

29 loam (3) soils were evaluated for fine-grained bedrock residuum. Clay (1) soils were evaluated for very dense, fine-grained lacustrine deposits found in oxbows or ponded areas of floodplains.

Topography

Topography, or percent slope, was evaluated using U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps and the Soil Survey of Morgan County (Lessig et al., 1977). Slopes of 0 to 2 percent (10) and 2 to 6 percent (9) were selected for flat-lying floodplains, valley floors, and terraces. Slopes of 2 to 6 percent (9) and 6 to 12 percent (5) were used for gentler, more rounded ridge tops. Slopes of 6 to 12 percent (5) were also used for less steep ridges, typically those flanking broader valleys and in areas with less resistant bedrock types. Slopes of 12 to 18 percent (3) and greater than 18 percent (1) were selected for steeper slopes in high relief, upland areas.

Impact of the Vadose Zone Media

Information on vadose zone media was obtained from the reports of Stout et al. (1943), Collins and Smith (1977), Walker (1984). Mapping in adjoining Muskingum County (Angle et al., 2001) proved useful as a guideline for evaluating vadose zone materials. Open File Bedrock Reconnaissance Maps based upon U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey proved helpful. The ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map were an important source of vadose zone media data. Information on parent materials derived from the Soil Survey of Washington County (Lessig et al., 1977), also proved useful in evaluating vadose zone materials. Water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary source of information on vadose zone media for the county.

Vadose zone media was given ratings of (6), (7), and (8) for sand and gravel interbedded with silt and clay layers for the buried valley underlying the Muskingum River and terraces and floodplains flanking the Ohio River. These ratings depend upon the proportion of coarse, well-sorted outwash to the finer-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits. Sand and gravel interbedded with silt and clay layers (6) and silt and clay with ratings of (3), (4) and (5) were selected for vadose zone media for floodplains in many tributary valleys.

Vadose zone media was given a rating of (4) for the interbedded sandstone, shales, limestones, and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and Permian System rocks that underlie the broader, upland stream valleys. It was determined that these rocks may contain more fracturing, which is reflected by slightly higher yields in these areas. A vadose zone rating of (3) was utilized for the interbedded bedrock in ridge tops and higher slopes.

30 Hydraulic Conductivity

Published data for hydraulic conductivity for Washington County was found lacking. Information from Walker (1984), the ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map, and water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary sources of information. Hydraulic conductivity values utilized in adjoining Muskingum County (Angle et al., 2001) proved to be a useful guideline. Textbook tables (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Fetter, 1980; and Driscoll, 1986) were useful in obtaining estimated values for hydraulic conductivity in a variety of sediments.

Values for hydraulic conductivity correspond to aquifer ratings; i.e., the more highly rated aquifers have higher values for hydraulic conductivity. For sand and gravel aquifers with an aquifer rating of (8), hydraulic conductivity values of greater than 2,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2) (10) and 1,000-2,000 gpd/ft2 (8) were selected. These high values were limited to the clean outwash deposits of the Muskingum River Buried Valley and terraces and floodplains flanking the Ohio River. For sand and gravel deposits along the margins of the buried valley and in tributaries, hydraulic conductivities of 700-1,000 gpd/ft2 (6) or 300-700 gpd/ft2 (4) were utilized. In these deposits, thin sand and gravel lenses were interbedded with finer-grained materials. Hydraulic conductivities of 100-300 gpd/ft2 (2) were selected for the primarily fine-grained sediments in minor tributary valleys.

Limited bedrock aquifers underlying major streams in Washington County were evaluated as having hydraulic conductivity values raging from 100-300 gpd/ft2 (2) due to a high amount of local fracturing. All of the other bedrock aquifers were assigned hydraulic conductivity values of 1-100 gpd/ft2 (1) due to the overall low permeability of these interbedded sedimentary rocks.

31 APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTINGS AND CHARTS

Ground water pollution potential mapping in Washington County resulted in the identification of 4 hydrogeologic settings within the Nonglaciated Central Region. The list of these settings, the range of pollution potential index calculations, and the number of index calculations for each setting are provided in Table 13. Computed pollution potential indexes for Washington County range from 56 to 187.

Table 13. Hydrogeologic settings mapped in Washington County, Ohio

Hydrogeologic Settings Range of GWPP Number of Index Indexes Calculations 6Da - Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale- 56-97 77 Thin Regolith 6Fa - River Alluvium With Overbank Deposits 98-113 11 7D - Buried Valley 141-187 18 7Fa - Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces 104-134 16

The following information provides a description of each hydrogeologic setting identified in the county, a block diagram illustrating the characteristics of the setting, and a listing of the charts for each unique combination of pollution potential indexes calculated for each setting. The charts provide information on how the ground water pollution potential index was derived and are a quick and easy reference for the accompanying ground water pollution potential map. A complete discussion of the rating and evaluation of each factor in the hydrogeologic settings is provided in Appendix A, Description of the Logic in Factor Selection.

6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thin Regolith

This hydrogeologic setting is widespread, encompassing the upland areas in Washington County. The area is characterized by high relief with broad, steep slopes and narrow, somewhat flatter ridge tops. The vadose zone and aquifers consist of slightly dipping, fractured, alternating sequences of dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, clays, and coals of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Systems. Multiple aquifers are typically present. Depth to water is generally deep; shallower perched zones may overlie low permeability shales, limestones, and clays. Soils are generally thin to absent on steeper slopes. On gentler slopes, soils vary with the bedrock lithology. Small supplies of ground water are obtained from intersecting bedding planes or vertical fractures. Ground water yields average less than 5 gpm. Recharge is limited due to the steep slopes, deep aquifers, and layers of impermeable bedrock.

GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thin Regolith range from 56 to 97, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 77.

6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits

This hydrogeologic setting is limited to small tributary valleys in the uplands of Washington County. This setting is somewhat similar to the 7Fa Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces setting; however, the valleys and floodplains are narrower and the alluvial deposits are much thinner. Areas in this setting are similar to the adjacent uplands, which belong to the 6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale - Thin Regolith setting. Narrow, relatively flat-bottomed stream valleys flanked by steep bedrock ridges characterize the setting. Depth to water is usually shallow, averaging less than 30 feet. Soils are generally silt loams. The alluvium is composed primarily of fine-grained floodplain (“overbank”) sediments. The alluvial deposits are typically saturated; however, the alluvium is too thin to be utilized as an aquifer. The aquifer is the underlying dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, claystones, clays and coals of the Pennsylvanian System. In most areas, the alluvium is in direct connection with the underlying bedrock aquifers. Ground water yields average less than 5 gpm. Recharge is moderate due to the relatively shallow depth to water, flatter topography, and the relatively low permeability of the bedrock. Recharge is higher than the surrounding uplands.

GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits range from 98 to 113, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 11.

7D Buried Valley

GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Buried Valley range from 141 to 187, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 18.

7Fa Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces

Flat-lying areas that were formed in low velocity water of glacial and slack water lakes that filled pre-existing drainage systems characterize this setting. These areas are typically dissected by modern streams and contain remnant low-lying terraces. The valleys are typically broader and contain thicker drift than the somewhat similar 6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits. The setting is bordered by steep bedrock uplands. The drift is not as thick or as coarse as in adjacent 7D Buried Valley settings. The aquifer consists of thin sand and gravel lenses interbedded with finer lacustrine and alluvial deposits. If sand and gravel is not encountered, wells are completed in the underlying interbedded sedimentary rock. Depth to water is commonly shallow due to the presence of streams found within this setting. Soils are silt loams. Recharge in this setting is moderate due to the relatively shallow depth to water, flat-lying topography, and the moderate to low permeability soils, vadose, and underlying bedrock.

GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces range from 104 to 134, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 16.

36 Table 14. Hydrogeologic Settings, DRASTIC Factors, and Ratings

Depth To Water Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Zone Hydraulic Setting (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Media Conductivity Rating interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da001 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 75 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da002 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da003 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 65 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da004 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 73 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da005 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 89 interbedded interbedded 6Da006 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 63 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da007 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 69 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da008 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 79 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da009 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 90 interbedded interbedded 6Da010 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 67 interbedded interbedded 6Da011 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da012 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 80 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da013 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 71 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da014 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da015 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 67 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da016 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 68 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da017 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 92 interbedded interbedded 6Da018 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 93 interbedded interbedded 6Da019 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 82 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da020 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da021 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 77 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da022 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 83 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da023 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 85 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da024 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 89

37 Depth To Water Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Zone Hydraulic Setting (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Da025 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sandy Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 76 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da026 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 84 interbedded interbedded 6Da027 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 82 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da028 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 87 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da029 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 94 interbedded interbedded 6Da030 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sandy Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 91 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da031 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 77 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da032 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 91 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da033 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 87 interbedded interbedded 6Da034 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 6Da035 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da036 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 65 interbedded interbedded 6Da037 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da038 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da039 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 72 interbedded interbedded 6Da040 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sandy Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 85 interbedded interbedded 6Da041 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 6Da042 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 60 interbedded interbedded 6Da043 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 76 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da044 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 66 interbedded interbedded 6Da045 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da046 50-75 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 74 interbedded interbedded 6Da047 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 69 interbedded interbedded 6Da048 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 64 interbedded interbedded 6Da049 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da050 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 65 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da051 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 88

38 Depth To Water Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Zone Hydraulic Setting (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Da053 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da054 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da055 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 83 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da056 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 72 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da057 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 70 interbedded interbedded 6Da058 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 80 interbedded interbedded 6Da059 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 61 interbedded interbedded 6Da060 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 58 interbedded interbedded 6Da061 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 60 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da062 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 64 interbedded interbedded 6Da063 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 62 interbedded interbedded 6Da064 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 66 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da065 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 74 interbedded interbedded 6Da066 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da067 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 81 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da068 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 97 interbedded interbedded 6Da069 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 90 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da070 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 78 interbedded interbedded 6Da071 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 56 interbedded interbedded 6Da072 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 63 interbedded interbedded 6Da073 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 80 interbedded interbedded 6Da074 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da075 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sand 12-18 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 76 interbedded interbedded 6Da076 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 88 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da077 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 95

interbedded 6Fa01 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 109

39 Depth To Water Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Zone Hydraulic Setting (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Media Conductivity Rating interbedded 6Fa02 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sandy Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 113 interbedded interbedded 6Fa03 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 99 interbedded 6Fa04 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 103 interbedded 6Fa05 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 108 interbedded 6Fa06 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Sandy Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 112 interbedded Shrink/Swell 6Fa07 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 103 interbedded 6Fa08 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 18+ silt/clay 1-100 98 interbedded interbedded 6Fa09 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal 1-100 102 interbedded Shrink/Swell 6Fa10 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 18+ silt/clay 1-100 106 interbedded Shrink/Swell 6Fa11 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 12-18 silt/clay 1-100 108

7D01 5-15 7-10 sand/gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 187 7D02 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 168 7D03 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 700-1000 162 Thin/Absent 7D04 30-50 7-10 sand/gravel Gravel 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 170 7D05 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 300-700 152 7D06 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 300-700 148 Thin/Absent 7D07 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Gravel 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 185 7D08 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 700-1000 154 7D09 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 2-6 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 167 7D10 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 2000+ 179 7D11 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 700-1000 163 7D12 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 172 7D13 5-15 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 1000-2000 178 7D14 30-50 7-10 sand/gravel Sandy Loam 2-6 sd+gvl/silt+clay 300-700 141 7D15 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 300-700 145 7D16 30-50 7-10 sand/gravel Sand 2-6 sd+gvl/silt+clay 300-700 144 7D17 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Sand 0-2 sd+gvl/silt+clay 700-1000 164 7D18 15-30 7-10 sand/gravel Silty Loam 2-6 sd+gvl/silt+clay 2000+ 178

interbedded 7Fa01 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 109 interbedded 7Fa01 5-15 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 124 interbedded 7Fa02 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 104

40 Depth To Water Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Zone Hydraulic Setting (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Media Conductivity Rating interbedded 7Fa03 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 114 7Fa04 5-15 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 134 7Fa05 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 124 interbedded 7Fa06 5-15 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 119 interbedded Shrink/Swell 7Fa07 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 115 interbedded Shrink/Swell 7Fa09 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/cl/coal Clay 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 114 Shrink/Swell 7Fa10 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Clay 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 115 7Fa11 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 115 Shrink/Swell 7Fa12 30-50 4-7 sand/gravel Clay 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 105 7Fa13 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 300-700 131 Shrink/Swell 7Fa14 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Clay 2-6 silt/clay 300-700 132 7Fa15 15-30 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 132 7Fa16 30-50 4-7 sand/gravel Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 300-700 121

41 2,182,900 2,202,900 2,222,900 2,242,900 2,262,900 2,282,900 2,302,900 2,322,900 2,342,900 2,362,900 2,382,900 2,402,900 Ground Water Pollution Potential of

6Fa1 Washington County 109 6Da1 75 by 6Da20 79

6Da23 85 6Da1 Mike Angle, Dave Walker, and Josh Jonak 75 6Da1 75 6Da23 6Da1 6Fa4 103 85 75 6Da74 83 6Da11 6Da23 75 85

594,326 77 6Da11 594,326 75 6Da23 6Da1 6Fa2 11375 339 85 6Da1 75 6Da67 6Da1 6Da1 81 75 83 75 145 6Da7 6Da1 69 AURELIUS 75 6Da72 6Da59 6Da1 6Da1 75 6Fa1 63 61 6Da23 85 75 6Da57 109

6Da1 75 71 6Da1 6Da13 70 6Da20 6Da71 79 75 6Da23 56 6Da1 75 6Da20 6Da56 85 6Da20 6Da20 79 6Da20 79 6Da13 71 60 6Da7 6Da23 79 6Da1 6Da1 72 6Da1 79 69 85 75 75 260 75 6Da23 6Da20 6Da23 85 6Da16 85 6Da41 6Da13 71 6Da21 77 71 7D1 6Da31 68 79 6Da1 6Da1 6Da7 69 6Da1 75 7Fa1 6Da4 6Da70 75 6Da23 6Da14 81 6Da28 6Da62 187 77 7Fa1 6Da1 75 75 6Da14 81 124 6Da22 73 78 6Da4 73 85 64 6Da1 124 6Da22 6Da7 6Da13 6Da20 79 87 6Da56 75 83 83 71 6Fa1 109 6Da20 6Da27 6Da70 78 6Da41 71 6Da20 6Da17 69 6Da4 6Da6 72 26 7Fa3 6Da2 6Da27 79 82 6Da1 75 7D7 92 6Da1 6Da13 6Da39 72 6Da57 6Da8 79 79 6Da7 6Da26 7Fa2 77 82 6Da1 73 63 6Da7 6Da1 6Da20 6Da23 85 81 6Da14 185 114 6Da1 75 75 69 6Da1 6Da2 84 104 71 6Da16Da73 75 6Da44 70 6Da65 6Da1 69 79 6Da13 6Da3 75 6Da1 75 75 6Da13 7Fa2 80 6Da2 77 75 77 71 6Da8 Ground Water Pollution Potential maps are designed to evaluate 6Da17 7D2 168 6Da4 6Da23 66 74 6Fa1 6Da1 75 75 6Da23 65 104 6Da21 6Da4 6Da20 79 6Da20 6Da44 6Da20 260 6Da2 6Da7 71 6Da39 72 339 6Da4 6Da74 83 6Da57 70 109 6Da20 79 6Fa2 92 7D2 73 85 6Da21 6Da4 73 6Da56 85 6Da20 6Da56 72 6Da2 77 73 6Da36 65 6Da7 6Da20 72 66 79 6Da8 77 69 7D3 162 7D8 73 79 6Da2 79 6Da14 113 the susceptibility of ground water to contamination from surface 168 77 79 6Da53 6Da8 79 69 79 6Da23 85 6Da20 79 77 6Da24 89 154 6Fa1 77 6Da656Da1 74 6Da10 81 6Da13 6Da2 6Da7 69 6Da29 94 6Da9 6Da20 530 821 6Da49 79 6Fa9 102 75 6Da3 75 6Da56 6Da20 79 6Fa7 71 6Da26 6Da8 7D6 79 109 6Da20 73 6Da1 6Da38 67 6Fa1 109 77 sources. These maps are based on the DRASTIC system 90 65 6Da13 71 6Da49 73 72 103

574,326 6Da22 6Da43 574,326 6Da14 84 79 148 79 75 73 6Da10 6Da2 6Da20 6Fa1 6Da41 6Da20 6Da41 6Da20 81 7D3 83 7Fa6 6Da44 66 76 6Da20 79 6Da56 71 67 6Da27 6Da10 77 79 109 6Da74 6Da23 6Da64 66 6Da1 79 26 71 6Da13 79 6Da20 6Fa1 developed for the USEPA (Aller et al., 1987). The DRASTIC system 162 119 83 6Da1 72 6Da59 61 6Da13 6Da9 90 7Fa2 6Da19 67 6Da13 85 6Da41 75 6Da7 6Da28 71 796Da14 109 82 7D12 71 6Da20 104 6Fa2 530 6Da23 6Da8 75 6Da56 81 71 6Fa8 82 71 6Da23 6Da44 66 69 87 79 6Da2 77 172 6Da23 6Da13 6Da13 85 6Da1 75 6Da53 75 72 6Da23 85 6Da4 73 consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, 60 113 6Da13 79 85 6Da7 69 6Da4 73 6Da23 6Fa1 7D4 170 98 7D6 6Da20 6Da20 79 85 71 6Da14 71 6Fa2 6Da13 71 7D6 148 6Da23 85 71 85 109 7Fa2 148 79 6Da22 6Da1 75 6Da1 75 113 81 termed hydrogeologic settings, and a relative rating system for 6Da21 6Da57 6Da13 71 6Da1 LIBERTY6Da1 6Da7 69 6Fa2 6Da28 87 6Da23 6Da5 6Da28 104 70 6Da2 6Fa5 83 6Da13 71 6Da44 66 77 7D5 6Da23 85 SALEM 6Da4 113 6Da14 6Fa1 85 6Da22 75 75 89 87 7D12 6Da10 67 6Da4 77 108 6Da7 determining the ground water pollution potential within a 81 152 6Da44 73 6Da14 81 7D5 172 73 109 83 6Da23 6Da41 71 6Da13 6Da2 6Da23 85 69 6Da23 6Da59 61 85 6Da28 87 66 6Da2 7 152 6Da61 6Da22 6Da61 6Fa8 71 6Da8 79 77 6Da1 LUDLOW6Da21 77 77 85 6Da20 60 6Da20 60 hydrogeologic setting. The application of DRASTIC to an area 75 6Da22 6Da23 7D12 172 7D12 172 6Da14 6Da63 62 83 98 7D10 7D12 6Da2 79 6Da56 6Da7 6Da7 WATERFORD7Fa4 134 7D12 172 6Da21 81 79 6Da60 6Da23 85 179 83 85 6Da41 172 77 6Da22 72 6Fa2 113 69 6Da21 77 69 requires the recognition of a set of assumptions made in the 77 71 6Da44 58 6Da1 ADAMS 6Da23 6Da13 6Da65 74 6Da10 67 6Da14 6Da20 6Da21 83 6Da57 66 6Da10 6Da2 6Da8 6Da21 85 6Da43 76 6Da1 75 6Da27 7Fa3 114 75 81 71 79 70 6Da56 72 6Da41 260 67 77 development of the system. The evaluation of pollution potential of 77 6Da5 7Fa5 6Da49 6Da14 77 6Da22 71 6Da20 6Da23 79 6Da20 7D5 6Da44 6Da20 79 82 73 6Da22 6Da1 6Da20 79 83 6Da44 6Da20 89 124 7D12 152 7Fa5 124 6Da13 81 6Da53 6Da44 79 85 79 6Da23 6Fa1 6Da13 83 6Da1 75 66 66 6Da23 an area assumes that a contaminant with the mobility of water is 172 71 6Da13 71 821 6Da1 75 66 79 6Da20 6Da4 85 109 71 75 6Da56 6Fa2 85 6Da4 6Da22 7Fa5 75 6Da14 79 73 6Da23 6Da21 77 7D2 6Da57 72 6Da68 97 7D12 172 6Da4 6Da7 81 113 6Da2 introduced at the surface and is flushed into the ground water by 73 83 6Da18 124 6Da2 77 6Da38 73 6Da20 6Fa1 6Da20 85 6Da20 79 168 6Da23 70 6Da20 6Da1 73 69 6Da56 72 77 93 6Da13 71 79 109 79 6Da41 71 79 6Da12 6Da4 75 6Da2 77 7D12 6Da1 85 6Da1 75 6Da20 6Da20 6Fa2 6Da2 precipitation. DRASTIC is not designed to replace specific 6Da3 6Da34 71 6Da1 6Da20 6Da44 80 6Fa1 109 75 6Da20 79 79 79 113 6Da23 77 792 73 6Da20 79 172 77 6Da56 72 79 66 GRANDVIEW 65 6Da14 81 6Da22 75 60 6Fa2 6Da53 85 on-site investigations. 6Da25 6Da13 6Da20 83 6Da7 6Da13 113 6Da20 79 6Da23 85 71 6Da31 6Fa1 109 6Da2 77 75 6Da20 79 6Da14 76 79 6Da41 69 6Da20 6Da23 85 6Da19 71 77 6Da36 6Da13 6Da56 6Da44 7D10 81 6Da34 71 6Da23 71 6Da41 6Da20 6Da61 79 6Da23 82 6Da10 6Da39 71 6Da1 6Da7 69 66 179 6Fa1 6Da23 85 6Da36 6Da13 85 65 6Da20 72 7Fa7 6Da23 85 6Da56 6Da7 71 79 60 85 7Fa7 115 67 72 6Da20 75 109 65 79 6Da7 6Da44 In DRASTIC mapping, hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the

6Da38 73 6Da38 71 6Da1 7Fa7 115 115 79 72 69 6Da1 75 6Fa1 6Fa1 6Da20 6Da4 6Da20 79 6Fa2 69 66 6Da2 6Da1 6Da41 6Da56 6Da13 109 109 554,326 75 554,326 79 6Fa11 6Da13 73 113 6Da13 system and incorporate the major hydrogeologic factors that affect 6Da4 6Fa7 71 6Da60 58 71 6Da21 77 6Da10 67 108 75 72 6Da20 6Da73 6Da7 6Da13 6Da8 79 71 26 6Da1 71 6Da22 73 80 6Da34 6Da13 103 6Da56 6Da2 6Da41 71 77 6Da23 71 71 6Fa1 75 69 79 83 6Da20 79 6Da20 6Da20 72 71 and control ground water movement and occurrence. The relative 6Da2 6Da13 71 85 6Da13 6Da20 6Da14 109 77 6Da21 6Da23 6Da20 79 6Da7 69 79 6Da20 79 81 79 6Da13 6Fa1 6Da57 77 85 71 79 77 6Da42 71 109 6Da41 6Da7 6Da7 70 rating system is based on seven hydrogeologic factors: Depth to 6Da44 66 60 6Da21 6Da20 6Da63 71 6Da75 6Fa2 6Da21 79 69 69 6Da23 6Da20 6Da30 77 6Da11 6Da20 79 77 6Da44 62 6Da56 6Da35 81 6Fa2 76 113 6Da1 6Da44 6Da44 85 6Da22 water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography, 6Da22 91 75 6Fa2 6Da20 79 66 6Da16 6Da15 6Da4 6Da23 6Fa1 113 75 6Da56 66 72 6Da44 66 83 83 6Da1 113 79 68 67 6Da44 6Da57 6Da1 73 6Fa2 85 109 6Da56 72 66 Impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic Conductivity. 6Da2 77 75 6Fa1 66 6Da16 6Da20 79 70 75 339 113 7D12 72 6Da7 6Da20 79 7D10 6Da20 109 6Da4 6Da21 6Da3 6Da7 68 6Da23 172 77 6Da8 79 69 6Da44 6Da62 179 6Da1 6Da30 6Da23 79 6Da22 73 6Da44 These factors form the acronym DRASTIC. The relative rating 6Da1 6Da1 85 65 6Da7 6Da59 69 66 756Fa1 109 91 85 6Da7 69 66 64 75 6Da4 83 6Da2 6Da4 73 69 75 61 6Da36 65 6Da1 6Fa1 109 77 6Da56 system uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a 73 6Da77 75 72 6Da9 90 6Fa8 6Da4 6Da1 6Da1 6Da1 6Da23 95 6Fa2 6Da56 6Da44 6Da43 76 6Da1 6Da13 26 6Fa1 109 73 75 85 6Da24 6Fa1 6Da13 71 6Da2 113 66 6Da44 66 98 6Da1 75 6Da1 75 75 6Fa1 6Da53 71 72 numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. 6Da2 75 89 109 77 6Da4 6Da3 6Da6 109 75 6Da56 72 77 6Da4 73 6Da2 6Da20 6Da20 6Da1371 73 65 63 6Da1 79 6Da10 67 Higher index values indicate higher susceptibility to ground water 77 6Da13 79 6Da56 6Da44 6Da4 75 6Fa1 109 MUSKINGUM 6Da22 6Da5 6Da20 79 6Da41 71 6Da7 676 6Da4 71 FEARING 6Fa1 72 6Da44 73 6Da1 6Da32 6Da23 83 66 LAWRENCE6Da20 89 6Da56 6Da56 72 6Da56 6Da56 6Da4 WATERTOWN contamination. Polygons (outlined in black on the map at left) are 69 6Da20 109 79 66 INDEPENDENCE 73 6Da20 79 75 6Fa1 6Da1 91 6Fa1 6Da8 6Da43 76 72 6Da13 71 6Da2 73 79 85 6Da23 7D12 7Fa11 115 6Da14 72 72 6Da43 6Fa1 6Da23 85 109 79 6Da8 79 109 75 6Da23 6Fa1 81 6Da56 72 109 77 6Da4 85 172 6Da65 6Da41 76 regions where the hydrogeologic setting and the pollution potential 6Da11 6Da7 69 7Fa6 6Da23 85 6Da22 83 6Da56 71 6Da7 6Da10 73 85 6Da22 109 74 72 6Fa2 6Fa3 99 75 119 7D2 6Da23 6Da56 6Da44 6Da13 6Da1 6Da20 83 6Da13 71 6Da7 69 6Da43 76 6Da3 656Da1 67 6Da10 6Da20 6Da21 6Da20 6Fa2 168 72 66 6Da56 113 71 6Fa3 99 79 6Da4 6Da13 85 6Da23 6Da23 6Fa2 69 index are combined to create a mappable unit wtih specific 555 75 6Da1 75 67 79 77 79 113 6Fa2 6Da20 6Da20 6Da56 72 72 73 71 85 85 113 6Da23 75 6Da20 113 79 79 6Da10 7Fa10 115 6Da10 6Da20 6Da43 6Da9 6Da5 7D13 6Da13 85 hydrogeologic characteristics, which determine the region’s relative 6Da19 79 6Fa1 109 67 6Da76 7Fa10 67 79 76 90 89 6Da1 676 6Da4 6Da20 79 71 6Fa2 6Da44 82 6Da2 178 88 115 6Da5 6Da44 66 6Fa1 109 6Da9 90 73 6Da34 6Da2 6Da55 6Fa1 113 6Da5 75 77 6Da4 6Fa1 7Fa11 6Da28 89 66 vulnerability to contamination. Additional information on the 71 77 6Da14 81 109 89 6Da7 6Da1 75 534,326 6Da23 83 821 87 534,326 6Da9 90 6Da9 73 109 6Fa1 6Da20 115 6Da20 69 6Da7 85 6Da4 6Da32 91 6Fa2 6Da1 6Fa1 109 6Da4 6Da55 109 7D12 79 79 6Da44 6Fa10 106 6Fa2 DRASTIC system, hydrogeologic settings, ratings, and weighting 7Fa1 6Fa1 69 676 6Fa1 73 6Da10 67 113 6Da59 75 6Da44 6Da38 6Da1 75 109 73 6Da23 6Da13 83 172 109 6Fa1 6Da7 61 6Da7 66 113 124 6Da51 88 66 73 7D18 6Da9 6Fa3 PALMER 85 6Da22 71 6Da13 109 69 69 6Fa1 factors is included in the report. 6Da20 6Da1 75 178 6Fa4 6Da34 6Da23 6Da4 7Fa9 90 99 6Da23 83 60 71 6Fa1 6Da43 6Da56 72 109 6Da39 72 6Da34 103 71 6Da23 79 6Da54 85 7Fa11 114 6Da23 6Da10 85 7D6 77 109 73 76 6Da5 6Da1 6Da2 6Da13 71 77 115 6Da20 79 85 6Da8 6Da4 85 148 6Da67 81 6Fa1 6Da59 77 555 67 6Fa1 6Da33 89 6Da20 79 6Da1 75 79 6Da9 71 6Da23 109 6Da13 71

73 6Da7 65 6Da3 109 6Da24 87 61 6Da20 75 90 6Da23 85 6Da7 6Da43 6Da56 72 Description of Map Symbols 6Da10 69 6Da27 82 85 6Da23 6Da4 89 76 79 6Da23 69 7D6 148 6Da20 6Da41 6Da9 67 6Da13 71 6Da55 85 6Da13 73 6Da14 6Da8 6Da23 71 90 85 6Da20 79 81 71 79 6Da34 71 6Fa2 113 85 83 6Da4 6Da10 6Da23 85 6Da1 7D2 168 7Fa7 6Da10 73 79 7Fa12 6Da4 6Da13 71 Hydrogeologic Setting 6Da23 85 6Da34 75 6Da4 73 67 6Fa1 6Da38 6Fa1 7D6 115 6Da66 75 Hydrogeologic Region 67 71 6Da8 6Da55 6Da35 81 105 73 6Da23 6Da22 83 6Da14 6Da2 6Da56 6Da16 109 73 6Da23 109 148 6Da4 6Da9 90 6Da35 6Da10 79 6Da23 85 81 77 72 68

6Da9 90 6Da12 6Da9 6Da23 83 85 6Da35 73 6Da11 6Da4 6Da10 67 67 79 6Da20 81 6Da68 85 6Da2 77 6Da10 90 7D2 75 80 6Da23 85 81 7D14 6Da20 79 97 7Fa2 104 6Fa2 73 6Da58 6Da20 79 67 6Da35 168 26 6Fa3 99 6Da20 79 7D24 85 141 113 80 6Da7 81 6Da23 6Da20 6Da22 83 7Fa10 6Da2 69 6Da7 6Da23 6Da8 6Fa1 Relative Pollution 6Da1 6Da23 85 6Da23 85 6Da22 83 79 6Fa1 6Fa1 7D6 115 77 6Da19 6Da20 79 69 85 79 109 75 6Da9 WESLEY6Fa1 6Fa1 85 6Da7 109 109 339 148 82 170 Potential 90 109 6Da4 6Da35 6Da49 6Da20 79 109 6Da8 6Da53 69 6Da20 6Da44 73 6Da2 6Da55 6Fa1 81 7D6 6Da56 6Da43 6Da9 90 6Da23 75 6Da20 6Da23 6Da38 73 6Da13 71 79 6Da44 6Da1 79 77 6Da4 83 6Da23 109 148 77 66 72 76 6Da8 79 6Da36 85 79 85 73 6Da35 6Da8 6Fa2 113 66 75 73 85 7D10 6Da13 71 65 6Da14 81 6Da22 6Da22 79 6Da24 89 6Da41 71 6Fa2 6Da23 179 6Da22 7Fa3 114 6Da56 6Da23 6Da37 6Da23 81 83 83 6Da34 6Da13 6Fa1 6Da10 6Da9 113 85 85 6Da13 7 83 6Fa1 72 7D8 85 79 6Da23 MARIETTA 6Da14 71 6Da2 77 71 6Da20 109 90 67 550 85 71 6Fa1 109 154 6Da8 6Da34 6Da23 81 79 6Da16 Legend 6Da23 109 6Da7 69 6Da23 6Da10 79 71 6Da4 6Da23 6Da23 6Da22 85 6Da26 84 6Fa2 6Da23 6Da2 7Fa9 6Da1 85 68 67 6Da2 73 85 85 85 83 113 6Da38 85 77 114 75 NEWPORT6Da26 84 514,326 77 7D2 514,326 Colors are used to depict the ranges in the 6Da8 6Da10 73 6Da20 79 6Da4 6Da23 6Da14 6Da14 6Da16 WARREN 7 6Da21 6Da20 7Fa3 7Fa1 6Da38 6Da38 73 168 6Da49 81 81 79 67 73 85 79 6Da56 73 6Da40 6Da23 77 114 109 106 6Fa10 73 6Da9 68 6Da10 72 6Da68 pollution potential indexes shown below. 6Da10 85 85 6Da3 6Fa5 90 67 6Fa1 109 7Fa15 6Da14 81 6Da23 97 7 65 108 7Fa13 6Da35 6Da23 6Da28 67 BARLOW 131 6Da27 7Fa14 81 6Da13 6Da23 6Da21 132 6Da24 6Da26 85 Warm colors (red, orange, yellow) represent 6Da23 77 6Da13 85 87 7D10 85 6Da21 82 132 89 71 6Fa2 113 85 6Da23 550 6Da22 6Da22 6Fa1 84 179 6Da1 75 6Da9 90 77 6Da20 6Da23 6Da14 71 6Da20 79 85 6Da4 83 83 6Da32 109 6Da13 areas of higher vulnerability (higher pollution 6Da14 81 6Da13 6Da23 6Da23 79 6Fa6 112 85 7D3 81 6Da20 6Da11 75 73 6Da20 91 71 7D9 7D2 168 6Da15 67 6Da13 6Da13 71 85 85 162 6Da1 6Da1 79 79 6Da20 167 potential indexes), while cool colors (green, 6Da13 71 71 6Da14 6Fa1 6Da23 6Da22 83 75 6Da9 90 75 6Da23 85 79 6Da20 6Da20 FAIRFIELD 109 6Da14 81 71 6Da20 6Fa1 81 85 79 7D11 79 blue, violet) represent areas of lower 6Da15 67 6Da22 6Da4 79 109 6Da14 6Da2 6Da23 163 7D16 144 7Fa16 83 73 81 7D10 179 77 6Da20 85 6Da23 121 6Da28 6Da13 vulnerability to contamination (lower pollution 6Da1 6Da3 79 6Fa1 6Da23 6Da20 79 87 71 6Da1 6Da9 6Da13 6Da10 85 67 65 6Da23 6Da23 109 85 75 90 71 339 6Da7 6Da23 6Da13 7D17 164 6Da21 77 6Da13 potential indexes). 75 85 85 6Da23 6Fa2 69 85 71 6Fa1 71 6Da44 66 6Da23 6Da20 85 113 6Da50 109 6Da2 6Da1 6Da10 85 79 6Da23 85 65 77 6Da13 6Da8 75 67 6Da4 73 6Da14 7 6Da58 80 6Da34 71 81 6Da20 79 6Fa9 71 79 6Da13 6Da69 Roads Index Ranges 6Da44 6Da8 79 6Da8 71 6Da8 79 102 6Da16 68 7D10 6Da1 75 90 7D18 6Da44 66 66 79 6Da23 85 179 7D15 6Da14 178 6Da41 6Da49 6Da1 6Da27 82 6Da11 6Fa1 6Da20 73 6Da13 145 81 71 71 75 75 6Fa7 Streams 109 6Da23 79 6Da23 Not Rated 6Da23 6Da4 73 103 6Da42 60 85 6Da13 6Da31 6Da3 85 7 85 71 77 6Da21 6Da23 6Da1 75 6Da32 6Fa1 6Fa2 65 77 85 91 6Da1 6Da4 6Da24 Lakes 109 6Da23 113 6Da23 75 6Da23 85 89 85 85 73 6Da23 85 6Da8 6Da6 6Da24 7D10 Less Than 79 6Da41 716Da41

494,326 6Da1 6Da23 494,326 6Da34 79 63 89 179 555 75 6Da22 6Fa1 85 6Da13 71 71 6Da13 6Da34 83 109 71 71 Townships 6Fa2 6Da1 6Da20 6Da31 80 - 99 75 79 113 6Da14 81 6Da3 6Da20 77 6Da14 6Da23 79 6Fa1 109 6Da22 81 6Da3 65 6Da10 6Fa1 109 6Da23 6Da20 79 83 65 85 67 85 6Da35 6Da8 81 6Da23 100 - 119 6Da4 73 6Da23 85 79 6Da48 64 85 6Da1 75 6Da13 DUNHAM 6Da23 6Da23 6Da4 73 6Da1 6Da4 73 71 6Da21 6Da20 85 6Da20 79 75 6Da20 85 77 79 6Da13 79 6Fa1 6Da23 6Da34 85 120 - 139 109 6Da38 73 6Da20 6Da31 77 71 6Da13 6Da14 6Da20 71 79 71 81 79 6Da1 6Da23 85 6Da23 85 6Da23 85 6Fa1 6Da13 6Da23 85 6Da20 109 6Da20 6Da31 75 6Da20 796Da2 79 6Fa1 71 6Da8 6Da1 6Da20 79 77 77 109 140 - 159 6Da31 79 75 6Da13 79 6Da23 6Da14 6Da45 6Da4 71 73 6Da4 77 DECATUR 79 85 81 73 6Fa1 6Da1 75 6Da20 6Da13 6Da20 79 71 109 6Da4 79 160 - 179 6Da1 6Da4 73 6Da2 6Da10 6Da23 85 6Da20 6Da14 6Da20 79 6Da20 79 75 67 77 6Da23 85 73 6Da23 85 79 6Da23 85 6Da23 81 6Da2 6Da13 71 85 6Da4 77 6Da44 66 6Da46 6Da7 6Da44 73 74 6Da1 180 - 199 6Da8 79 69 66 6Da10 75 474,326 6Da1 6Da8 79 474,326 67 6Da14 6Fa1 109 6Da34 71 6Da10 67 75 BELPRE 6Da23 85 81 6Da7 Greater Than 200 6Da23 6Da4 6Da22 6Da47 6Da8 69 6Da23 85 6Da23 85 85 6Da4 73 6Da10 67 6Da51 88 83 6Fa1 109 6Da23 85 73 69 79 7D17 50 6Da21 6Da44 6Da34 71 164 6Da13 6Da13 77 618 66 6Da13 6Da23 6Da22 7D17 71 71 6Fa2 113 83 71 85 6Da31 7D10 164 6Da2 6Da1 77 179 618 6Da23 6Fa1 6Da23 85 6Da4 77 6Da13 75 6Fa1 6Da21 50 Black grid represents the State Plane South 85 109 6Fa1 109 6Da7 73 71 109 77 6Da7 69 69 Coordinate System (NAD27, feet).

6Da35 81 7D15 6Da7 145 69 6Fa1 109 01234567 6Da1 75 6Fa1 109 6Da23 6Da21 Miles 85 77 6Da34 71 6Da2 0369121.5 77 454,326 454,326 6Fa1 50 109 6Da23 85 Kilometers

6Fa1 6Da2 109 124 77 7D14 7D6 6Da23 141 148 85 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Ground Water Resources Section 1939 Fountain Square Columbus Ohio 43224 www.dnr.state.oh.us

2002 2,182,900 2,202,900 2,222,900 2,242,900 2,262,900 2,282,900 2,302,900 2,322,900 2,342,900 2,362,900 2,382,900 2,402,900