/Ground -Water Hydrology and Geology of the Lower Great Miami River Valley

By ANDREW M. SPIEKER,,-

GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY,

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 605-A

Prepared in cooperation with the Miami Conservancy District and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Columdus, Ohio

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1968 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

William T. Pecora, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS

Page Hydrogeologic environ~ucnts-Continued Abstmct ...... A1 Environments II-B-1 and II.B.2...... Introduction 2 Environment I11 ...... Purpose and seopo of rcport ...... 2 Environment IV ...... Previous investigations ...... 2 EnvironmentV...... Acknowledgments ...... 2 Surface-water regimen ...... Well-numbering system ...... 3 Pumpage of ground water ...... Geography ...... 3 Distril>ution and magnitude of ground-water pump Location, topography, and drainage...... 3 agein 1964...... Climate ...... 3 Historical pumping trends ...... Population ...... 5 Future use of the ground-water resource ...... Commcrce, industry, and transportation...... 6 Areal configuration of the ground-water surface...... Hydrologic system 6 Long-term water-level trends...... Hydrologic cycle...... 6 Aroa west of West Carrollton ...... Character and origin of the aquifers ...... 6 Middletown area ...... Ground water in the hydrologic system ...... 7 New Miami-North Hamilton arca...... Hydrageologic envkonments ...... 7 Aroa southeast of Hamilton ...... EnviroumentI-A-1 ...... 8 Fairfiold-New Baltimore area ...... Recharge by induced stream infiltration- ...... 9 Lower Whitewater River valley ...... Evidence of induced stream infiltration .... 10 Chemical quality of water ...... Effoots of induced recharge on streamflow.. 11 Quality of water ...... EnviromentI-A-2 ...... 12 Evidence of contamination ...... Environment 1-B-1 ...... 12 Individual constituents and properties of water ..... Environment I-B.2 ...... 13 Conclusions ...... Environments II-A-I and II-A-2 ...... 14 Selected references ......

ILLUSTRATIONS

page PLATE 1. Hydrogeologic map and sections of the lower Great Miami River valley from West Carrolltan to near Woods- dale. southwestern Ohio- ...... In pocket 2. Hydrogeologic map and sections of tho lower Great Miami River valley from Now Miami to near Elieabeth- town, southwestern Ohio ...... In pocket FIGURE 1. Map showing location and extent of study area, southwestern Ohio ...... A4 2. Temperature-depth log of well 62 ...... 10 %8 . ~vdroerwhs... of observation wells: 3 . Mt.49. west of West Carrollton ...... 20 4 . Bu.1, Bu.2, and Bu.3, Middletown area ...... 22 5. Bn4 and Bu.5, New Miami-North Hamilton area ...... 24 6 . Bu.8. southeast of Hamilton ...... 24 7 . Bu-7 and 8-54 Fairfield-New Baltimore arc%...... 25 8. H-1, lower Whitewater River valley, south of Harrison ...... 25

TABLES

TABLE 1. Normal monthly precipit.ation. based on 1931-60 period of rcegrd. for fonr wnabher stations in southwestern Ohio ...... 2 . Normal monthly maximum,. . average, and minimlim temperatures, bnscd on 1931-60 period of record, for three weat,her stat'lons m southwestern Ohio...... 3 . Population of counties that include parts of the lower Great Miami River valley, 1900-60--- ...... 4 . Chemical analyses of water from horizontal oollector near Ross and from Great Miami Kivcr at Hamiltou . showing progressive cffect. of induced stream infiltration ...... 5 . Static water level, drawdown, and wecific capacity of production wells at the 0 . H . Hutchings station of the Dayton Power & Light Co., September 29, 1964...... 6. Flanr-duration data for Great Miami River at AJiamishurg and Great Miami River at Hamilt.on ...... 7. Summary of t.he estimated 1964 pumpage of ground water in the lower Great Miami River valley ...... 8. Selected analyses of wat,er samples from wells in the lower Great Miami River valley ...... 9 . Representative analyses of water samples from the lower Great Miami River ...... 10. Records of selected wells in the lower Grcat Miami River valley ......

111 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY OF THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

ABSTRACT hydrogeologic environments are in tributary buried valleys The valley of the lower Great Miami River, exlending from filled largely or entirely with clay and in the upland areas where Dayton to the about 15 miles west of , is shale bedrock is overlain by relatively impermeable glacial till. one of the most productive sources of ground water in the Large ground-water supplies generally cannot be developed in Midwestern United States. A major buried valley averaging 2 theselast two environments. miles in width and 150-200 feet in depth, formed during inter- The discharge of Great Miami River at Hamilton equals or glacial intervals of the Pleistocene Epoch and subsequently exceeds 400 cubic feet per second 90 percent of the time. The base filled with highly permeable sand and gravel owtwash, follows flow of this stream is among the highest in Ohio, and ample essentially the course of the present Great Miami River. water is available for recharge to the aquifer by induced steam The valley can he divided into 11 hydrogeologic environments infiltration. The recharge rate by induced infiltration in warm on the basis of the nature and thiclmess of the aquifer materials, weather under conditions of low streamflow has been determined the availability of recharge by induced stream infiltration, and to be about 400,000 gallons per day per acre of streambed, with the presence or absence of seiicomlning clay layers. Themost considerably higher rates under conditions of higher streamflow. favorable areas for the development of large gronnd-water suw Pumpage of ground water, which is mostly concentrated Blies are in those environments where 150 feet or more of sand around the area's larger cities, totaled 110 million gallons per day in 1964. The ground-water resources of much of the area remain and gravel with no clay~ layers~ are close enough to a malor stream to permit recharge by induced infiltration. These most untapped. The gradient of the water surface trends generally favorable areas are near Trenton, the reach of the Great Miami toward the southwest at 5-10 feet per mile, about the same as River between Hamilton and Ross, and the lower Whitewater the gradient of the Great Miami River. Small cones of depression River valley south of Harrison, where individual wells can have formed around the pumping centers at Miamisburg, Chau- yield as much as 3,000 gpm. Only slightly less favorable are the tauqua, Franklin, Middletown, New Miami, Hamilton, Fairfield, areas similarly situated near streams but where the aquifer is Ross, and Cleves. The only major cone of depression, about 70 less than lZ0 feet thick or where the aquifer contains areally feet deep, is around the Armco East Works in southeast extensive layers of clay. Most of the valley north of Middletown Middletown. is in the last category. The ground-water surface in most of the valley stands abont Pumping from an aquifer hydraulically connected with a 3&50 feet beneath the land surface: it fluctuates about 5-15 feet stream will generally reduce the streamflow between the point annually, generally rising during the winter and spring and of withdrawal and the point of sewage return. Little net deple- falling during the summer and autumn. The fluctuation is great- tion of streamflow is evident in the report area, however, for est in the nrens where ground water is being pumped or where the sewage returns are generally close to the points of with- the aquifer is semiconfined. The only area of chronic overdraft drawal. The returned used water is thus availahle again for of the aquifer, indicated by a persistent decline of the water induced recharge to the aquifers. Such recycling of water level, is the vicinity of the Amco East Works, where the water would theoretically make possible pumping of ground water level was 132 feet below land surface at the end of 1%. in the area at a virtually unlimited rate. The limit of such pump- Water in the lower Great Miami River vallw. is -generally hard, ing from wells whose water supplies are recharged with used containing high concentrations of calcium and bicarbonates. water would be imposed by deterioration of the water quality The total dissolved solids content of both ground water and sur- or by the cost of adequate treatment of the used water. face water is typically 400-450 milligrams per liter. The Great In the partrl of the valley where the aquifer is either too far Miami River is generally contaminated by organic and industrial from a major stream for induced infiltration or overlain by a wastes in most of the area of investigation. Concentfations of the semiconfining clay layer, individual wells can be expected to contaminants are highest during prolonged periods of low ~eld500 gallons per minute, although yields as high as 1,000 gallons per minute are not uncommon. Such environments are streamflow. Water from some wells where the aquifer is being present in abandoned segments of the ancestral Great Miami recharged by induced infiltration from the Great Miami River River valley between West Carrollton and Carlisle, between has become slightly contaminated, as indicated by the presence Trenton an8 New Miami, and between Ross and Harrison. of minute quantities of phenols and higher than normal concen- Smaller aread with this environment are present southeast of trations of nitrate. Such contamination of ground water bas not Hamilton and southeast of Middletown. The least favorable yet become a serious problem. A2 GROUND WATER IN TEE LONER GREAT IMILWI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO INTRODUCTION adequately handle the four previously stated problems Investigation of the occurrence of ground water in and achieve the most efficient and beneficial use of the the lower Great Miami River valley was made during resource. Emphasis is placed on the relation between the 1961-65; the present series of reports on the area's ground-water resource and the physical environment in ground-water resources is a result of that investigation. which it occurs. This interrelation is termed the "hydro- Water is the key to the industrial prominence of the geologic environment" in this report. The availability Great Miami River valley, which was originally settled of induced stream recharge, the areal distribution of more than 150 years ago owing to its ease of access by sources of recharge to the principal aqnifers, and the way of the Great Miami River, and later by way of maintenance of adequate water quality in the streams the . The earliest industries-the that are sources of recharge are considered to be 6he key nnwer mills-settled along the river. More recently the factors in this interrelation. L L - availability of gronnd water has been an important fac- PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS tor in the area's~ industrial ,,growth. All the cities in the Great Miami =ver valley depend The lo,wer Great Miami River valley has been the sub- entirely on ground water for their public supplies, and ject of several water-resources and gwlogic investiga- ninny of the larger industries have their own wells. tions. Fuller and Clapp (1912) conclucted the first Ground water is so much more abundant in this area reconnaissance of the area's ground-water resources. than it is in Cincinnati metropolitan area imme- Hlaer and Thompson (1948) described the occurrence diately adjacent that on three separate occasions indns- of ground water in Butler and Hamilton Counties, trial and municipal interests in Cincinnati have sought which include most of the present study area. Norris, relief from wat,el. shortages by using ground water in Cross, and Goldtl~wait(1948) described thegeology and the Great, Miami River valley to supplement their ovn water resources of Montgonlery County, which includes supplies. the northernn~ost part of the present area. Walker Purpose of the investigzntion was to make arailable the (1960% b, C) prepared generalized mater-availability facts needed to solve or control four significant water malls of the area. These maps are part of the Ohio Divi- problems that exist in the report area; they are as sion of Water series of such maps of the entire State, follows : which show the occurrence of ground \rater by drainage basins. Spieker (1961) snmn&izcd the occ&-rence of 1. Variable availability of water in place and ti7w.- ground water in the lower Great Miami River valley Identification of the distribution in place of the and the adjacent areas of Dayton and the Mill Creek major aquifers and their relation to sources of re- valley. Klaer and Icazmann (1943) and Dove (1961) charge. consideration of changes in ground-water presented detailed quantitative appraisals of ground storage with respect to time. water in the Fairfield and Venice (Ross in t.he present 2. Local overdraft and declining ground-water levels report) areas, respectively. Bernhagen and Schnefer resulting from, increased water we.-Identification (1947) provided up-to-date information for Butler and of areas of present and potential overdraft based IIamilton Connties. Fenneman (1916) described the on analysis of vater-level trends. Predicted effect geology of the sonthern part of the area. Caster, Dalve, of future ground-water development on water and Pope (1955) summarized the paleontology and levels. stratigraphy. Goldthwait, White, and Forsyth (1961) 3. Ground-water contamination.-Identification of mapped the Plctistocene deposits of the area. present contamination, possible sources of toll- tamination, and future dangers of contamination. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4. Water-rights law.-Summary of Ohio's water lax The investigation on which this report, is based was and its relation to gound-water development and conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation management problems. with the Miami Conservancy District, Max L. Mitcllell, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT chief engineer, and the Ohio Department af Xatural The purpose of this chapter is to define quantita- Resources, Division of Water, C. V. Youngquist, chief. tively, so far as possible, the ground-water resource in The author conducted the investijintion nnder the gen- the lower Great itciami River Valley, including its mag- eral supervision of the Ohio Wa.ter Resources Division niti~de,clistribution, movement, and witlldrawal, and Council and nnder the direct supervision of Stanley E. changes in its storage, and chemical quality. The report Norris, district geologist, Ground Water Bmnch. is intended to provide the facts necessary for those An electric analog model of the Fairfield-New Ralti- responsible for managing this resource so that they can more area was built and analyzed by the Geological Sur- GROUXD-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A3 vey's Analog Model Unit at Phoenix, Ariz., i~nclerthe I GEOGRAPHY direction of-~ugeneP. Patten. Seis~nicrefraction sur- LOCATION, TOPOGRAPI%Y,AND DRAINAGE vevs to determine depths to bedrock were conducted 1 during 1962-63 underthe direction of Joel S. Watkins The report area consists of the lower part of the of the Branch of Regional Geophysics. Chemical anal- Great Miami River valley; it extends from West Car- yses of water samples were performed at the Columbus rollton to the Ohio River near the southwest corner of laboratory of the Quality of Water Branch, under the Oliio (fig. 1). This area is in the Till Plains section of directioll of George W. metstone, district chemist. the Central Lowland physiographic province (Fenne- Material pertaining to mter-rigllts law mas researched man, 1938, p. 49LL518). The sonth edge of the area is at 117 George D. Dove. Norman G. Bailey, formerly of the tllenorth margin of the Bluegrass section of the Interior Ohio Division of Water, augered several test holes in tllc Low Plateau (Fenneman, 1938, p. 427431), and its Fairfield-Kew Baltimore area. Richard E. Fidler, topography resembles the uuglaciaited Bluegrass region Erl1~-ard O:Donnell, Ralph Wharton, and Ronald J. more than it does the glaciated Till Plains. Character- Wolf assisted the author in the collection and compila- istic topography in the study area consists of flat to tion of basic data.. rolling uplands at altitudes ranging generally from 850 The author thanks the many representatives of in- to 1,000 feet. South of the boundary of the Wisconsin cl~stryand municip~lities,too numerous to mention, for Glaciation, which extended to just south of Fairfield, their ~~holehearteclcooperation in making basic records the terrain is considerably more rugged and is deeply arailable. Particular thanks are extended to Rfr. Har- dissected. The largest stream in the study area is the old IT. Augenstein, superintendent of the Hamilton Great Miami River, which flows in a flat valley about 2 Water Works; Afr. Cl~arleshf. Bolton, sllperilltelldellt miles wide at an altitude of 200-350 feet below the till I of the Cincinnati Water Works ; Mr. R. 1,. Bookwalter *lain of the llpland. ~~j~~ tributaries to tile river in of A1.1nco Steel ; Mr. Arthur Hailsen of t.l~eDayton area are ~~i~ seek, ~~~~~il~creek, =ick creek, Elk Polrer & Light Co. ; and Mr. Robert C. Lewis, general Creek, sevellmile Il,,dian Creek, and the mite- manager of the Southnestern Ohio Water Co. for their River, splendid cooperatio~i. CLIMATE WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEM The occurrence and the distribution of precipitation All nells included in the present report except obser- go\-ern the regimens of both surface water and ground vation wells maintained by the Ohio Division of Water nater. Hence, an understanding the area's climate is are numbered sequentially, from the northeastern part fundamental, of the study area to the southwestern part, beginning Southwesteru Ohio has a climate which is generally nith 1 and ending with 104. The Ohio Division of classified as humid temperate. Table 1 gives s slim- Water observation wells are identified by their assigned mary of normal montllly precipitation in the area, and nuii~bers,dlic11 consist of a prefix denoting the county table 2 slmmarizes norlnal temperatures. ~h~ follo~vedby a number. All such observatioli nells used cincimlati Davton stations are not in the area of in the present report are described in Bulletin 41 of the investigation but are included bccanse they are the only Ollio Dirision of Water (Raser and Harstine, 1965). nearby first-order weather stations. The Cincimlati and Prefixes for well designations are "Bu" for Butler Dayton stations are in the uplands, whereas the Hamil- County, "H" for Hamilton County, and "Mt" for Mont- I ton and Micldletown stations are in the Great Miami gomery County. The location of all wells is sl~omnon River valley. plates 1 and 2. Table 10 (p. A34) is a snmmary of records of the rrells pertinent to this report. Annual precipitation averages 3640 inches and is I be evenly distributed throughout the year. Much of the 1 The present report is not intended to a cornprohen- sive inventory of \~ellein the lower Great Miami River summer ~~recil~itation,however, is in the form of scat- I valley. Only those nells specifically discussed in the re- tered tl~undersho~rers.Areal variation in precipitation port are included in table 10. Rccorde of several hundred may therefore be large. Distribution of these local wells collected during the investigation are on file with storms tends to average out over a long period of record, the Columnbus, Ohio, district of the U.S. Geological Sur- as s11ov;n by the consistent records for the four stations vey. Thousands of additional well records are on file given in table 1. Precipitation in the spring and summer with the Ohio Division of Water in Columbus, for (March-August) sligl~tlyexceeds precipitation in the drillers in Ohio have been required by law to file logs of autumn and nrinter (Septclnber-Februav). Arerage all nells drilled since 1948. ~nontl~lyprecil~itation for the fo11r listed stations is 3.61 EIQ~E1.-Location and extent of study area, sonthwestern Ohio GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A5 inches for March-August, and 2.80 inches for Septem- October and November, and March and April. Precip- ber through February. Of the total annual precipita- itation in March and April slightly exceeds that in tion, 57 percent occurs during spring and summer. October and November; therefore, March and April appear to be the optimum months for recharge. This TABLB1.-Nonnal monthly precipitation, based on 1931-60 period of record, for fota weather stations in southwestern Ohio deduction, though generally valid, does not hold true after year after because climatic conditions may vary Wreoipitation given in inches1 greatly from year to year. With rare exceptions, how- Cincinnsti Hamilton Middletown Dayton Abbe Water Water aiman ever, most of the ground-water recharge occurs dur- Observatom Works Works ing the 7-month interval October-April. Jannary ...... 3.67 3.63 3.73 3.18 Feb~y...... 2.80 2.64 2.80 2.32 POPULATIOM March ...... 3.89 3.66 3.68 3.12 April ...... 3.63 3.61 3.63 3.32 The predominantly urban population of the lower May ...... 3.80 3.72 4.16 3.73 June ...... 4.18 4.06 4.27 4.10 Great Miami River valley has steadily increased dur- July ...... 3.59 3.82 3.95 3.53 AugoSt ...... 3.28 2.68 2.96 2.88 ing the past half century. The study area includes parts 8eptembsr...... 2.71 3.37 3.12 2.59 of four countiesButler, Hamilton, Montgomery, and Odober ...... 2.24 2.22 2.28 2.23 November...... 2.96 2.76 2.90 2.87 Warren. Table 3 gives the population of these four December...... 2.77 2.65 2.76 2.37 counties at 10-year intervals from 1900 to 1960, the latest Annual...... 39.51 38.81 40.24 36.04 year for which Federal census data are available. Only about 15 percent of this population lives within the TABLE2.-Normal monthly mazimum, averare, and minimum study area but almost everyone in these four counties is temperatures, based on 195140 period of reco~d,for three weather stations in southwestern Ohio dependent to some extent on ground water from the Data in "PI lower Great Miami River valley. The ground-water re- source of the report area sustains a substantial part of Cincinnati Abbe Damn &wort Hamilton Ob~ervatory Water the industrial base of bhese four counties and is a po- Works %kAvg Min Mar A Min (Avg) tential source of public water supplies for cities outside the report area. Thus, for purposes of the present report, ~snuary...... 41.a 33.7 26.1 36.9 20.6 22.2 33.1 Fsbiuery.~~~~~~~~~~~~..-. 43.4 35.1 26.7 38.8 30.9 22.9 34.7 the total population of the four counties is more mean- Mareli ...... 52.0 42.7 33.3 47.8 39.9 29.9 42.1 April ...... M.4 64.2 43.9 €0.6 MI.? 40.8 63.4 ingful than that of the actual report area. About two- thirds of the inhabitants of these four counties live in the Cincinnati and Dayton metropolitan areas, and neither city is within the study area. 8epttembor...... 80.3 69.0 57.0 77.3 66.8 56.2 68.0 October ...... 65.9 57.9 46.8 660 55.0 45.2 66.5 Novembe~.~...... 53.2 44.6 36.0 50.1 41.8 33.5 43.8 3.-Population of countiea that include parts of the lower December ...... 42.6 35.3 27.9 39.0 31.8 23.5 34.3 Great Miami River valley, Ohio, 190G60 Annual ...... 64.9 56.2 45.5 61.5 52.3 43.0 64.4 Counties Total Yenr popul8tion Bntler Hamilton Montgomery Warren Average annual temperature for the three listed sta- tions is 54" F. The average maximum is 87.5" F and the average minimum is 22.2' F. Extreme recorded temper- atures for the 1931-60 period of record are 109 Fo and -IT0 F, both at Cincinnati. Temperatures above 100" F or below -loo F are rare. The average length of the growing season, or frost-free period, is 170 days The population of the study area alone is difficult (Pierce, 1959, fig. 34). to determine, for the area boundaries do not coincide Although precipitation is fairly evenly distributed with political boundaries and hence, with census data. throughout the year, recharge to the aquifers is not. The area's approximate population in 1960-based on During the growing season, which is mainly the 6-month the cities and townships which the area comprises, was period from mid-April to mid-October, most precipita- 255,000. The largest cities in the area, according to 1960 tion is lost through evapotranspiration and does not population records, are Hamilton (72,354), Middletown reach the water table. During the winter, freezing of the (42,115), Miamisburg (9,893), and Fairfield (9,734). ground prevents precipitation from reaching the water me population of the lower Great Miami River valley table. Thus, the most probable times for ground-water seems destined to continue its growth in future years. recharge are in the late fall and the early spring-that is Between 1900 and 1950 the population of the four- 86 GROUXD WATER IN THE DOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO county area donbled. Over a comparable period, from these valuable reso~~rcesto fonii. TVater, on the other 1910 to 1960, the population of the study area increased hand, is continually replenished in the form of precipi- at an even greater ratefrom 84,036 to 254,529 (or more tation. Actually, water exists in a pereninlly repeating than triple the 1910 popnl>~tion).Conservative estin1att.s cycle. Of the water that falls on the ground as mri~~i~s indicate that the population of tlie United States will types of precipitation, solne runs oE to strealns and. clo~~hlein the next 50 years. As the area of investigation thence, to the oceans; some also soalrs into the ground. is in a region of rapidly expanding industrial dereloll- Of the water that soaks into the ground, sonle percolates ment, its po1~uIat~ioncan be expected to grow at. an even downward to the water table and is st,ored in rnlrle1.- -greater mte. ground reservoirs, ancl some is retnniecl to the at1no.i- pliere through evaporation and through transpiration CONIMERCE, INDUSTRY, ILND TRILNSPORTATION from ~lru~ts.Surfacc-water bodies also lose water -4lmost since pioneer days in the history of Ohio, the t11ro11gI1evaporation into the atmosphere. Genemlly?the Great Miami Rirer valley has been an important indns- ainount of water which evaporates into ehe atmosphere trial center. Paper ~nillssprang up early along the rirer approximately equals that which returns as pr~cipita- at Alian~isbnrg,Fmnklin, Micldleto~m,and Hamilton, tion. This endlessly repeating cycle is kno\~-nas the owing largely to the 1.i~7e.rbeing a source of power ancl hyilrologic cycle, and an understanding of it is basic an avenue of t.ransport:~tion.The lliailii and Erie Cailal, to any l~yclrologicinvestigation. Readers interested in linking the Great Lakes \\.it11 the Ohio River, mscom- a Inore detailed description of the hydrologic crcle in pletecl in 1845. It provided the area \rith the most niocl- general terms are referred to Leopold and Langl,e.i~l ern transl~ortationavailable at tlle time. (1060, p. 3-11). Water has been largely responsible for the area's The aqnifer-or the n~edinmconsisting of rocks and steady industrial gro~vthand is destined to play an in- u~~consolidateclmatter, that stores and transmits gronnll crcasiilgly important role in tlie future.. Althougl~the water-is eqnally as important as td~el~ydrologic cycle earliest fact,ories were built along the river and utilized in an areal appraisal of the ground-water resource. Kot surface-~~atersupplies, industi-ies have depended largely all materials have equal c,apacity to store and transmit on ground water during tlie past 50 years, owing to its water, ho~vever.Thus, an unclerstanding of the arcnl abundance ancl superior quality, and to the advent of distribution and transnlission characteristics (in short, modern tecliniqnes in well constrilction. Much surface the geology) of the area's rock materials is also funda- water is still user1 for cooling, but ground water plays mental. Interaction of tlie aquifer nith the l~ydrologic the dolninant role in the area's industrial ecouonly. Tlle cycle is here referred to as tlie "hydrologic system,'? a large ground-water supplies still virt,naIly untapped in mntnally dependent system consisting of all the colnpo- parts of the area gire the Great Miami River valley nents described above. No single romponent of the great potential for future inclnstrial development. hydrologic system can be disturbed or altered nitliont At. present tlie lower Great Miami mlley is serred by ultimately affecting- the entire svsteui. the Baltimore & Ohio, Cheqapeake '6 Ohio, and Penn- Centml Railroails.' Airports at Cincinnati and 1)avton CHARACTER AND ORIGIN OF THE AQUIFERS provide tlie nearest access to major air carriers; smaller The large ground-water si~ppliesof the loner Great airfields xt EIamilton and Middleton-n are served by Miami River valley occur in 11igl1ly per~nenblesand a1111 charter flights. Int,erstnte Route 75 skirts the Great pa^-el that n-ere deposited by g'acial melt ~vatersfrom Miami River valley ancl provides ready access along its receding rontiuental ice sl~eets.These materials were route from Cincinnati t,o Dayton. Interstate Route 74 deposited in channels which had been cut deeply into passes tliro~igl~the v:tlleg near Miamitown, en route bedrock by interglacial streams. Plates 1 and 2 show the from Cincinnati to Inclin~~npolis. -general location of tlie principal water-bearing sand nncl grarel formations, referred to in this report as aquifers. HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM These aquifers are variously called valley-train deposits, HYDROLOGIC CYCLE valley fill, glacial outwash, water course aqnifers, or Water is our only renewable mineral resource. Coal, buried-valley aquifers. The geologic history of the area oil, and the metallic ores are nonrene~~rableresources- is complex, but its highlights can be summarized briefly. once they have been mined, they can never be replen- The bedrock which underlies the entire area consists ished, for it has taken l~undredsof millions of yean for predominantly of flat-lying shale rritli thin interbecl~led lavers of limestone. This rock unit. known as the Cincin- 'The Penns~lvanin and New Tork Central Railronds merged on natian Series, was deposited abollt 450 million years ago February 1, 1968. The mergorl comP*,nny is known as the Penn-central ~ni~rord. I during" the latc Orclovicia~lPeriod in a shallow sea, GROUND-W.4TER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A7 probably under conditions similar to those now pre- Miami River's high dry-neather flow, or base flow, is vailing on the Continental Shelf. The total thickness of due largely to the high permeability and storage ca- the Cincinnatian Series is about 800 feet. These shales pacity of the sand and gravel deposits which nnderlic and limestones have a low permeability; the small much of the streambed. Ground water in these deposits amount of nater that does occur in them is in joints is hyclraulically connected with t,he river. Under natural and cracks, whose distribution is erratic. Although the conditions the gradient is from the aquifer to the river; l'ermeability of these rocks may be too low to sustain therefore, ground water discharges into the river. In large Tater yields from wells, the large area of shale periods of little or no precipitation, st,reamfiow results in contact with smd and gravel aquifers possibly con- almost entirely from ground-water discharge. (See tributes a significant quantity of water to the aquifers. Cross and Hedges, 1959, p. 5-13.) Several times during the Pleistocene Epoch, which Man has influenced the hydrologic cycle in the lower coinprised the last 2%-3 million years before the IIolo- Groat Miami River valley. The most readily apparent cene (Recent) Epoch, Ohio nas in large part covered effect of man's activity on the relationship of ground l)y continental ice sheets. Of the fonr recognized major nater and surface water is the reversal of the natnml glaciations, three, possibly fonr (Ray, 19GG), invader1 hydraulic gradient caused by pumping ground water t,he lower Great Miami River mlley. Each ice sheet from the sand and pave1 aquifers. Where and when the. blanlreted the area with glacial till, ~ahichis a tough, rate of pumping is great, enougl~for the cone of depres- poorly-sorted aggregate with a predominantly clay ma- sion to intersect tlie ri~er,the hydraulic graclient is re- trix containing pebbles, cobbles, and boi~lclersthat, in versed, and water is inclnccd to infiltrate fro111 the river the loner Great Miami River valley, &re largely lime- into the aquifer. About 110 nlillion gallons of rater are stone. This glacial till, like the shale bedrock, is nearly pimped from the aquifer each day in the report area. impermeable althonglr water is locally present in poclrets Most of this pnmping is conrentrated around the citirp and lenses of sand and gravel within the t,ill. of Micldlet,oml, Hnmilton, and Franlilin, nhere the 4s a result of the Pleistocene glaciations, imperme- hydraulic gradient has been reversed. Though man has able bedrock ITBS blanketed by equally impermeable altered the l~yclrologiccycle, he does not permanently till. In the valleys, however, glacial outwash depostts remove water from the system. He has merely changed of the last glaciation of Wisconsin age, and perhaps the path that nater takes through the ~ysteni.~ those of the next older glaciation of Illinoian age, fornr Altliough the hydrologic system of the lower Great the most potentially productive rater-bearing deposits Miami River valley has here been described in very gen- in the Midwest. ]luring one or more of the interglncinl eral terms, the hydrologic regimen of this area-in its ages t,he valley that is in general followed by the pres- present state as well as its mible future trencls-re- ent Great Miami, became entrenched in bedrocli to quires a more detailed analysis of its complexities to be cleptlls of 200 feet or more. The filling of glacial out- fully nnderstood. Therefore, the environments in n-hich wash, consisting mainly of well-sorted sand and gravel, ground water occurs in the lower Great Miami Rirer nas deposited in the entrenched valley by the torrential valley are described next. meltwaters of the youinger ice sheets. Till, interstrat- ified with the permea.ble oontnash sand and gravel in HYDROGEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENTS the valleys, has prodnced conlining layers of lo~ver The cliaracteristics ol the sancl axnrl ,am\-el aquifers permeability. are far fromumiform throughout the lo~rerGreat 3liaini GROUND WATER IN THE HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM River valley. By geologic mapping it is possible to dif- The Grcat Miami River valley has an abundant sup- ferentiate aquifer units, eacb with its distinctive pllysi- ply of nat,er onirig to both the high storage capacity cal properties. The occurrence of gound water is fin- of the valley-t,min a.quifers and the high average an- t,her complicated by differences in aquifers' potential nual rainfall of about 40 inches. Because of sucl~plen- for recharge by induced infiltration, which are usually tiful recllarge and storage, the sustained dry-weather not considered in conventional geologic mapping. A flow of the Great Miami River is one of the highest. in somewhat broader concept is needed to define these im- Ohio. The mean discharge of the river at Hamilton is portant areal variations in the occurrence of pornid 3.323 cfs fcnbic feet ner second).. . and the discharge water. eqiialed or exceeded 90 percent of the time is 490 cfs =Them remarks refer to the hydrologic syatem in the loaer Grpnt (Cross a.nd Hedges, 195% P. 147). The latter fis~reis MI,,, ~iver as a to any specific locnlity. The collsidered by many llydrologists to be a good index asusers have been overdrawn locally: the extent and the eonsesueneee of this local overdraft are discused in Profenrionnl Paper 60sD of a stream's sustained dry-neather flow. The Great cs,i,k,, lsesb,. A8 GROUND WATER IN THE DOWER GRBAT MLkMI RmR VAbLEY, OHIO The concept of "hydrogeologic environment" was in- on the hydrogeologicmap of the area and a series of geo- troduced in the present investigation to broaden the logic sections (pls. 1, 2). The sections are consecutively usual scope of gwlogic mapping. A hydrogwlogic en- designated by letters (A-A', B-B', and so on) begin- vironment is here defined as .a mappable area whose ning in the northern part of the area, but are discussed underlying aquifer materials possess distinct hydrologic in the order given in the abve outline. The boundaries and geologic properties that differ significantly from the between the environments (pls. 1,2) are generalized, as properties of aquifers in the adjacent areas. In other is implied by the dashed lines. The contacts, as shown words, ground water occurs under essentially uniform on maps in this report, represent the best generalizations hydrologic and geologic conditions within any given which can be made on the basis of available data. Fur- hydrogeologic environment. The term "l~ydrogeologic ther investigations may reveal information that will environment" owes its origin to the relatively new inter- permit some rehement of this map. disciplinary science of hydrogeology, which deals with I-A-1 the geology and hydrology of ground water. Hydro- ENVIRONI&ENT geologic mapping-or the mapping of l~ydrogeologic [Sand and gravel aquifer 150-200 feet or more thick; no inter- environments-thus somewhat broadens the scope of stratified elay layers present; stream recharge available] conventional geologic mapping. The most favorable environment for the development The lower Great Miaini River valley has been classi- of large ground-water supplies in the lower Great fied into 11 different hydrogwlogic environments, which Miami River valley is in those areas where 150 feet or are as follows: more of sand and gravel with no retarding clay layers are sufficiently close to the river to permit induced re- ValZey-train deposits charge by stream infiltration. This hydrogeologic euvi- I. Sand and gravel aquifer; recharge by induced stream infil- ronrnent, designated I-A-1, occurs in three parts of the tration potentially available. A. No interstratified clay layers present. report area (pls. 1,2) : the vicinity of Trenton, immedi- 1. Aquifer 15&2W feet or more thick ately southwest of Middletown; that part of the valley 2. Aqnifer less than 150 feet thick. from a point north of New Miami, through Hamilton B. Interstratified clay layers possibly present. and Fairfield, to a point west of Ross; and the lower 1. Aquifer 150-2W feet or more thick. Whitewater River valley, southeast of Harrison. Several 2. Aquifer less than 150 feet thick. 11. Sand and gravel a~uifer;no recharge by induced stream of the largest ground-water supplies in the lower Great infiltration available. Miami River valley are in this environmentat New A. NOinterstratified clay layers present. Miami, Hamilton, Fairfield, and Ross-but the aquifer 1. Aquifer 150-200 feet or more thick. in much of this highly favorable territory remains 2. Aquifer less than 150 feet thick. untapped. B. Interstratitled clay layers possibly present. 1. Aquifer l5WOO feet or more thick. The coefficient of transmissibility (T) of the aquifer 2. Aquifer less than 150 feet thick. in evironment I-A-1 ranges generally from 300,000 to 111. Sand and gravel aqnifer overlain by elay: stream recharge 500,000 gpd per ft (gallons per day per foot). The coef- generally not available. ficient of storage (8)is about 0.2, indicating that the IV. Valleys filled largely or entirely with clay; large water sup- plies generally not available. water is unconfined. Properly constructed individual wells can yield 3,000 gpm (gallons per minute) or more Upland areas and have specific capacities of as much as 300 gpm per V. Shale bedrock overlain by glacial till; large water supplies foot of drawdown. generally not available. The geologic sections on plate 2 show the significant The four principal criteria on which this classification characteristics of hydrogwlogic environment I-A-1. is based %re nature of the aquifer, availability of re- Section E-E' (pl. 2) is in the western part of the Hamil- charge by induced stream infiltration, presence or ab- ton South well field, about 1mile east of the site of a sence of interstratified clay layers, and thickness of the new well field proposed by the city of Cincinnati. Here aquifer unit. The above outline is arranged in order of the buried valley of the ancestral Great Miami River generally decreasing potential for the development of is about 2 miles wide. Its floor is nearly flat and its bed- large ground-water supplies. Should more detailed rock walls are steep. Although no areally extensive clay work in the future make possible a more detailed classi- layers appear to be present, a distinct layer of fine- fication, the expanded classification can easily be fitted grained materials, consisting of sand and silt, can be into the framework in the outline just given. identified in the lower part of the valley fill. The following discussion of hydrogeologic environ- Section G-G' (pl. 2) is representative of conditions ments in the lower Great Miami River valley is based in the lower Whitewater River valley. As yet, data from GROUND-WATER HPDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A9 wells are rather scarce in this area for little develop- resultant streambed is composed mainly of sand ment of the ground-water resource has been done. Con- and gravel and is conducive to infiltration. trol on the bedrock surface for this cross section is based 2. The head differential between water in the stream and on results of a seismic refraction survey. The lenses of water in the underlying aquifier is greater at high clay shown are diagrammatic and indicate that widely streamflow than at low flow, and leads W increased scattered lenses and stringers of fine-grained material infiltration. may be present anywhere in the valley f?U. These lenses 3. The wetted area of the streambed is generally larger are not, however, of sufficient tkiclmess or areal extent at high stredow. to act as semiconfining layers or to otherwise affect the N~ independent analysis of these three factors has been general movement of the ground water in the area. made to ascertain their relative importance. The bedrock floor of the buried Whitewater River ~]tl~~~~hinduced recharge occurs at high valley is flat and the walls are steep, just as they are in streamflow, a large amount is also known to occur during the Fairfield area (PI. 2). The Whitewater River valley periods of sustained low streamflow. It is the amount of ranges in width from 1to 1% miles in the reach between recharge during periods of low streadow tllat is crit- Harrison and Elizabethtown; the valley in this reach ical in sustaining large ground-water supplies during is somewhat narrower than Great Miami River valley prolonged drought periods; therefore, most stream- at Fairfield. The Whitewater River vdley in the study atration &dies have emphasized these periods. area has undergone only little ground-water develop- Dove (1961, p. 62-66) determined the rate of incluced ment and, indeed, has all the characteristics favorable infiltration at the well field of the Southwestern Ohio to such development; therefore, it is one of the most water co. near nosein hydrogeologic environment promising parts of the lower Great Miami River valley l-&l-by use of a flow.net analysis based on water- for future development of ground-water supplies. level measurements made on August 31,1956. The com-

RECHARGE RY INDUCED STREdM INFILTRATION pang's two horizontal collectors (wells 73 and 77) were being pumped at a combined rate of 16.9 mgd (million The key factor in sustaining the large ground-water per day). The average discharge of Great Miami supplies in hydrogeologic environment I-A-1 is the R~~~~at ~~~il~~~ on that day was 587 cfs, a rat,e ex- availability of recharge by induced stream infiltration. ceeded abotlt 85 percent of the .time and to be The rate of such recharge variw widely with respect to ,pr,entative of low streamflow. ~h~ average infiltra- both place and time and depends on many factors, sucll tion for the reach of the river was calcu- as stream discharge, stream velocity, condition of the lated to be ~0,00~*d (gallons pr day) per acre of streambed, temperature of the stream water, and the streambed. ~h~ maximum atrationrate, however, hydraulic gradient in the aquifier. Induced infiltration, was higher, On the of *e determined despite its major role in the hydrologic system, is, none- rat,of 115,000 gpd per acre per footof head loss, the theless, one of the least understood phenomena. That ifitration rate at the point themaximum of 6.37 it isnot more clearly understood can be partly attributed feet of hexl loss was measured was 735,000 gpd per to the fact that meaningful results are obtainable only acre of streambed, with large of time and funds. Another determination of the average infiltration rate Induced infiltration in the lower Great Miami River ;n the lower G~~~~Miami River valley was made during valley certainly should receive future study. a pumping test conducted by the city of Cincinnati on Probably the most comprehensive study of stream june96-2-29, 1-2962, at a site in ~~i~fi~ldtownship of infiltration induced by pumping of ground water was Butler county, about half way between the South- made by Rorabaugh (1956) in the deposits of western Ohio Water Co. well and the Hamilton South the Ohio R'iver valley in northeastern Louisville, Icy. well field. ~h~ test site is near the location of cinch- Rorabaugh (P. 117-125) derived several equations for nati's proposed well field. R. C. Smith (written commun. the determination of infiltration characteristics, and to the city of c;nCinnati, 1962) calculated an average these equations have become the basis of most subseqtlent infiltration rate of 492,000 md per acre for a reach infiltration studies. about 1,800 feet of streambed at the site of the test, Most induced recharge occurs during periods of high during well 63 was pumped at 3,000 gpm for streamflow. This phenomenon can be attributed to three 3 days. ~h~ results of this test are discussed in C causes : of the present series (Spieker, 1968a, p. C5-C-29). pis- 1. The higher stream velocities associated with high charge of Great Miami River at Ramilton ranged from streamflow tend to keep the he-grained particles 676 to 624 cfs, a range exceeded over 75 percent of the (such as clay and silt) in suspension, and the time (Cross and Hedges, 1959, p. 147). A10 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GRBA'l' MIAMI RNiEa VALLEY, OIFIO Altliongl~the two estimates of stream infiltration rate have expressed the opinion that much of the recharge are of the same order of magnitude, this doesnot indicate attributed to induced infiltration is actually the result that the phcnomenon of stream ifitration in the Great of ,ground-xater runoff that is diverted from its normal itfiami River valley is adequately understood. Both path toward a stream. Indeecl, diversion of grolultl- determinations were made in hydrogeologically similar water runoff can ,produce the same effect as induced terrains and under similar streamflow conditions. The recharge from a stream; however, two examples in the hydrologic regimen in the lower Great Miami River lower Great Miami River valley can be cited as evidence valley presents such a wide range of conditions &hattwo that nater actually has beon induced to flow from the determinations, alone, are not representative of it. stream into the aquifer. Evidence of the first example Temperature is one of the variables that affect infil- is based on changes in the grouncl-water temperature tration rates. Both the above determinations were made during an aquifer test, and of the second, on a progres- during the summer, when temperature of the river water sive change in the quality of water over a period of was about 8O0F. During the winter tlie river tempera- years. ture is as low as 33OF. Inasmuch as thc viscosity of During the previously mentioned aquifer test, con- water varies inversely with temperature, the perme- ducted by the city of Cincinnati in June 1962, tempera- ability of a medium varies inversely with viscosity of ture-clepth dogs of several observation wells were made the rater it contains. A decrease in the temperature of by using a tliermister-type tl~ermometer.The tempera- the river water reduces the effective permeability of the ture logging technique has been discussed in debil by streambed materials and thus inhibits recharge. A de- Norris and Spieker (1962). crease of river temperature of 1°F would decrease the 2 is a temperature-depth log of well 62 made infiltration rate by about 1.5 percent. Therefore, the after well 63 had been pumped at 3,000 gpm for 2 days. infiltration rate for river water at 40°F would be The temperature of ground water in this area ranges reduced by 60 percent from its value of 80°F. IIowever, fro111 5.7" to 56" F. The river temperature was about the retlnction of the iniiltration rate caused by lowered 800 F. the test was ,made.7~~11 63 is 200 feetfrom temperature is at least pa*l~ offset by tile generally the river, and well 62, t11e observation well, is 'iO feet higher streamflow that occurs during the colder months hamthe river and in line with 63. N~ hmpera- of the yenr. Mnch additional research on the tempera- tune logof 62 was mAde be,fore pumpingof well 63 ture-infiltration-rate relationship is needed. started; however, temperature logs of other wells not EVIDENCE OF INDUCED BTREAX INFILTRATION affectecl by stream recharge in this vicinity show a uni- Although rmllarge by inducecl sham infiltratio~lis form temperature clistribution with clepth. The pres- generdl~aclmovlcdgad by hydrologist,?,some scient.ists ence of a distinct layer of warmer water above the

FIGURE2.-Temperaturedepth log of well 62 dter well 63 had been pumped at 3,000 amfor 2 days. Warm water above the 54-fcot depth indicates that river water has entered the aquifer. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY All

50-foot depth in well 62 indicates that river water has the withdrawal of a given nmouut of water from an inatrated the aquifer. aquifer that is hydraulically connectec1 with a stream Tile second example of induced stream infiltration is will eventually reduce the flow of the stream betweell a l~rogressirechange in the cl~emicalquality of the the point of with~trawnland the point of return by an wnter from Soutllwestern Ohio Water Co. collector 1 amount approximately equal to the amonnt withrlrawn. (\\.ell 'ii in present report) near Ross. Table 4 gives However, this red~~ctionin flom will generally occur selected resnlts from seven chemical analyses of samples whether the water entering the well comes from iilduced talren at t,he collector near Ross over a 13-year period, stream recharge or from captured ground-water rinloff. and resnlts of similar analyses of water from Great This relationship between withclrawals from wells Miami River at Hamilton. The first sample from col- ancl reduction in stseamflov is generally obscured or lector 1 was taken Jnly 11, 1952, shortly after the col- overlooked for three reasons: lector ~xsplaced in operation; the most recent sample 1. The point of retnrn is usually so close to t!ie point of includecl in the present analysis was collected Febru- witlldramal that the efl'ect cannot be renclily ary 16, 1965. These analyses show that a distinct and detected. progressive increase in the concentration of sulfate, 2. Ground water in storage acts as a "buffer," some- froin 38 mg/l (milligrams per liter) in 1952 to 121mg/l times clela.yingthe eflect of pumping on streamflow. in 1965, occurred (luring this 13-year period, dnring 3. For a stream vith as high a sust~illedflow as the ~vl~ichthe collector was pumped at rates of 5-10 mgcl. Great Miami River, tlie rate of ground-water ICqndly uotal~lo increases in the concentrations of witlldrawal at a.ny single locality is nsually very chloride, harduess, ancl dissolved solids occurred. The small in compnrison with the rate of streamflow; teniperatture of rater in the collector increased from also, most streamflo\v losses to induced infiltration 6L" F in 1952 to 63" F in 1965. A comparison of these occur dnring periods of high flow, n,lle,n they are analyses from the collector wit11 three selected analyses cliffic~~ltto detect. froin Great Miami Rirer at E-Iamilton also give11 in To measure losses in stre:imflow caused by grouncl- table 4, indicates that the quality of the ground water water \~-itl~~lra~~-alin the area of investigation woulcl be pumped from the collector was gradually approaching difficult for the above reasons. Studies 11ave been macle, that of tlie mater from the river during this 13-year l~ovever,in the, Dayton area, immediately north of the period. Thus, it is conclncled that wa.hr induced from the study area. Conelitions for measuring strealnflow losses river mixe(1 with the ground water as a result of inchwerl are more favorable in the Dayton area because much of stream infiltr at' Ion. the pound-water rrithdrawal is concentrated in the nortGeastern anrl central parts of the city; the flow of TABLE4.-Chemical analyses of water from horizonla1 collector near Ross and from Great Miami River at Hamilton, showing the Great Miami River is not as great in this area as it proyessive effect of induced stream infiltration is farther clownstream ; and the principnl sewage plant, [Data eire in milligrams perliter erospt as indicatedl which returns used wnter to the river, is in southwest

Stllfato C1,loride Hard- Dis- Tempor- Disohsrge Dayton, downstream from several of the principal Date of anaiysis (SO,) (Ci) ness solved ature at Hamil. (C~COI) sohds (DF) ton ("1s) pumping centers. Cross and Heclges (1959, p. 32) mentioned that, on Southwestern Ohio Water Ca. eollertor 1 well, near Ross [ivril ;i or present regurt] the basis of long-term averages, there is a lossin stream- -. - -- flow in the Great Miami River through Dayton approxi- mat,ely equal to the quantity of effluent discharged from the Dayton sewage-treatment plant. AU water supply for Dayton comes from a ground-water source, and one can thus assume that the ground-water withdrawals

-eat Mlami River at Hamilton cause the reduction in streamflow. [Mean dheharga, 1W3M0 to 9-3W80,3,214elsl A detailed analysis of the effeots of ground-water . - witl~drawalon streamflow in the Dayton area during a period of low flow was described by Norris and Spieker (1966, p. 88-92). On Octaher 4,1960, discharge EFFECTS OF INDUCED RECHARGE ON STREAMFLOW measurements were made at eight sites on the Great M'I- Incl~icedsiream recharge and captnred grotind-water ami and &ladRivers. A net loss of 105.4 cfs, or 68 mgcl, runoff not only affect the sustained yieldof wells, as pre- occurrecl bet,ureen Mad Rirer at Huffman Dam and the vionqly discnssecl, hit also affect streamflow. Generally, Great Miami Rirer 1mile north of Holes Creelr (Norris A12 GROUND WATER IN TRE DOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER YALLEY, OHIO and Spieker, 1966, table 4). The average daily ground- environment is the relatively limited thiclmess of the water pumpage in the Dayton area at that time (Norris aquifer, which restricts the available clrawdown. TVhere and Spieker, 1966, table 6) was about 110 mgd. Tllese the buried valleys are narrow, as at the Gulf Oil Co. figures indicate that 48 mgd (the difference between refinery, the proximity of the valley walls tends to result; the stream loss and the total pumpage) was being in increase of drawdowns. This tendency for greater pumped from starage. drawdowns, combined with the limited avnila.ble draw- Because most of the gound water witl~dram-nfrom down, dictates that wells be spaced farther apart than the valley-fill aquifers is eventually returned to the in the more favorable hydrogeologic environment river, the net depletion of streamflow for the report area I-A-1. as a whole is slight. The principal effect of this cycling ENVIRONMENT I-B-1 is on the quality of water; the water returned to the [Sand and gravel aqnifer 160 to 200 feet or more thick; clay river is generally of lower quality and of higher tem- layers ~ossiblypresent ;stream recharge available] perature than naturally occurring guo~u~dwater. Btuch of the Great Miami River valley bet~reenthe ENVIRONMENT I-A-2 central part of Middletown md the nort,h edge of the st,udy area (pl. 1) is underlain by sand and gravel with [Swd and gravel aquifer less than 150 feet thick; no interstrati- fied clay layers present; stream recharge available] one or more intcrstratified layers of clay. Those 1,itrts of the valley where the sand and gravel aquifer is more The second most favorable hydrogeologic environ- than 150 feet thick and ~v11ei-e recharge by induced ment in the lower Great Miami River valley consists of stream inliltrxtion is potentially available are clesignated those areas where the sand and gravel aquifer is 150 feet ics hydrogeologic environment 1-13-1. This environment or less thick, has no areally extensive clay layers, and is is also cllaracteristic of much of the Dayton area, to the sdiciently close to a major stream to be recharged by north. The charncteristics of the valley-Bl aquifer in induced infiltration. This environment is present chiefly the Dayton area have heen described in detail by Norris along two reaches of the Great Miami River (pls 1, and Spieker (1966, p. 33). ; 2) one, hetween Trenton and New Miami, and the The best example of hydrogeologic environment I-B-1 other, between New Baltimore and Cleves. Hydrogeo- is in the centl-al part of Middletown, near the Middle- logic environment I-A-2 also occurs adjacent to envi- town Water Works. Section E-E' (pl. 1) shows the gen- ronment I-A-1 along the edges of tlle buried valley; for eralized geology of this area. Here the valley-train de- example, along the walls of the Great Eami River posits are separated into two distinct aquifers by a layer valley southwest of Hamilton, betureen Faifield and of clay 50 feet or more thick. Other clay layers are Ross. scatitered though the section. The llpp,r n,quiferis typi- Sect,ion H-H' (pl. 2) clisplays the main chamcteris- cally about 50 feet thick but ranges in thickness from 30 tics of hydrogeologic environment I-A-2. This section to 70 feet. Tlie lower aquifer is typically abaut 100 feet is at tile Gulf Oil Go. rehery near Cleves. Here the sand thick. The slope of the bedrock valley walls is less steep and gravel aquifer is about 100 feet thick. The buried and the floor isless flat than in tlle Hamilton area. (Com- valley is slightly less than a mile wide but has virtually pare se&ion B-B', pl. 1, with section E-E', pl. 2.) Tlie. the same configuration (flat floor and steep walls) as deepest part of the buried valley, below an altitude of does the wider, and deeper valley in the Hamilton area. 400 feet, is inferred from seismic refraction surveys. (Compare with sections E-E' and G-G', pl. 2.) The Thc deepcst known well in L11e Middlelorn area is a test valley fill consists mainly of sand and gravel, with a well at the Armco East Works which reached bedrock thin clay layer (probably weathered bedrock) immedi- at an altitude of 408 feet. ately overlying thebedrock. The coefficients of transmissibility and storage in The transmissibility of the aquifer in l~ydrogeolo~ic environment I-B-1 were not determined during the environment I-A-2 ranges from 100,000 to 300,000 gpd per ft. The storage codcient is about 0.2. Individ~~alpresent investigation. Korris (1959, p. 7), however, de- termined that the transmissibility of the lower aquifer wells drilled in this environment can yield as much as at the Rohrers Island well field of the city of Dayton, 2,000 gpm and have specific capacities ranging from situated in a similar environment, is 125,000 gpd per ft.. 75 to 150 gprn per foot of drawdown. At the Gulf Oil At that site the lover aquifer is 50-75 feet thick; there- Co. refinery near Cleves, where the only large ground- fore, at sites such as the Middletown well field, where it water supply in this hydrogeologic environment was is about 100 feet thick, the transmissibility is probably found, most production wells were originally tested at 200,000-250,000 gpd per ft. The transmissibility of the 1,500 gpm and had drawdoms ranging from 10 to 28 upper aquifer is probably less than 100,000 gpd per ft. f&. The main factor limiting well capacities in this The storage coefficient in the upper aquifer is probably GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A13 about 0.2, a characteristic value reflecting linconfmed lation to cnvironmnt I-B-1 as environment I-A-2 con~litions.In the lower aqnifer the storage ccofficient does to environment I-A-1. probably ranges from 0.02 to 0.0002 and thus reflects Section A-A' (pl. I), at the 0. H. Hutchings stat.ion varying degrees of confinement by the cl:~ylayer. of the Dayton Power & Light Co., shows the distinctive Most large ground-water supplies in this environment characteristics of this environment. The effective thick- are devoloped in the lower aquifer, for the upper aquifer ness of the ncpifer is generally 100 feet or less, although generally does not supply enough allowable drawdown n deep narrow cllannel just east of the Hutchings sta t' lon to permit high yields. One notable exception is the Mid- has been identified, and another deep channel west of dletom Water Works, which has 16 wells in the upper the power plant has hen inferred from seismic refrac- aquifer pumped by suction plunps from a central puinp- tion surveys. Severnl clay layers appear to be present, ing station (nnmber 20 in present report). This group although no single layer is as well defined as the majar of wells provides 1-2 mgd of Middletown's total supply clay layer which separates tl~evalley fill into two aqui- of 8 mgd. By thus pumping the supply from a large fers in the Midclletown area. number of wells, it is possible to reduce the drmdomn. The coefficient of transmissibility probably ranges Generally, though, an individual well in tho upper aqui- from 100,000 to 200,000 gpd per ft in l~ydrogeologicen- fer should not be expected to yield more than 200 gpm. vironment I-B-2. Tho storage co.efficient probably Specific capacities in the upper aquifer range from 25 to 'ranges from 0.2 to 0.02, depending on the degree to 50 gpm per foot of drawdown. which t.he clay layers confine the aquifer. In arens where Wells screened in the lower aquifer can yield as mnch the lower pilrt of the aqnifer is confined by an extensive as 3,000 gym. TVell2 of tho Middletown Water Works, a clay layer, the storage coefficient might be as low as typical well screened in the lower aquifer, yielded 2,100 0.0002. gprn with 18 feet of drawdown for a specific capacity of The range of specific c.apscit,iesin this environment is 117 gpm per foot of drawclown. great, indicating that the rock materials are not homw Separation of the valley fill into two aquifers is dis- geneons. Table 5 shows the results of specific-capacity tinct in the donntown Middletown area, but it is not tests made on the six production wells (wells 7-12) at necessarily so distinct throughout hydrogeologic en- the 0. H. Hutchings station of the Dayton Power & vironment I-B-1. Clay is generally present in wells Light Co. The specific capacities mnge from 59 to 550 drilled in this environment, but it is not always present gpm per foot of drawdown and average 232 gpm per ft. in a single well-dehed layer. Because of the irregular distribution of clay in the section, adequate test drilling TABLE5.-Static water leuel, drawdown, and specific capacity of is needed prior to development of any large water sup- production wells at the 0. H. Hutchings station of the Dayton plies. Particular care should be taken in both the selec- Power & Light Co., Septmbw 89, 1964 lion of the proper screen size and the development of [Disoharge a1 Oreat Miami River, 292 cis; river temperature, 66' Fl production wells. 6tatb water level Pump- Draw- Gps~mc Water The clay shown in section B-B' (pl. 1) has not bwn Well Below m- Elemtion iog rate down eepaeity tomllsr- mng oint abovesaa (gprn) (It) (gpnl per ature differentiated as to aria&; it is believed to be a combina- (8) level (a) ~t) (a F) tion of originally deposited till, till reworked by melt waters, and lacustrine deposits. Generally these different types of clay are impossible ta distinguish on the basis of a typical driller's log. The hydrologic significance of clay as a retarding layer, hornever, remains virtually the same, regardless of its origin. All six wells are within 3,000 feet of each other. The ENVIRONMENT I-E-2 rpater-temperature range, 5B0 to 63'F, is somewhat [Sand and gravel aqnifer less than 150 feet thick; clay layers higher than nornlal for pound water in this area and possibly present ; stream recharge available] indicates that induced infiltration f~*ointhe river has In most of the Great Miami River vdey between been tillring place over a prolonged period of Lime. Incli- Jtiamisburg and Franklin, and along the valley's east vidual wells at the more favorable sites in hydrogcologic side between Franklin and Middletown, the valley-train environment I-B-2 coulrl probably yield as mnch as aquifer is generally less than 150 feet thick and contains 2,000 gprn with 6-12 feet of drawclown. As in environ- inlerstratificd clay layers. Recharge by induced stream nlent I-B-1, production-vell sites shodd be selected infiltmtion is available. This hyclrogeologic environ- only after adequate test drilling, and care must be taken ment is designated I-B-2 (pl. 1) and bears the same re- in the clevelopment of wells. 311-59OcL?+3 A14 GROUND WATER IN m LOWER GRDAT MIAMI RIVER V~EY,OHIO ENVIRONMENTS 11-A-1 AND 11-A-z Individual wells drilled in hydrogeologic environ- [sand and gravel aquifer; stream recharge not available; no ment 11-B call be expected to yield 100-500 gpm, so that intcrstmtified clny layers present] the areas in which it occurs should provide water sup- Hydrogeologic environri~eiit11-A occurs principally plies suitable for development of light inamtry. in a wid'trough, which is the abandoned course of the ENVIRONMENT I11 ancestral Great Miami River, between Trenton and New [Sand and gravel aquifer overlain by clay; stream recharge 1, Miami (pls. 2). This environment consists of a sand generally not ava~lablel and gravel aquifer that contains no areally extensive clay layers. It is too far from the Great Miami River to In four areas of the lower Great Miami River valley receive recharge by induced infiltration. It is gwlog- the sand andgravel aquifer is overlain by 50 feet or more ically similar to environment I-A, tlie only significant of clay. These four areas (pls. 1, 2) are (1) the aban- difference being its lack of available stream recliarge. doned trough of the ancestral Great Miami River north The major part of the area in the center of this trough of Carlisle, (2) an area southeast of Middletown at the (pls. 1,2),mhere the aquifer is more than 150 feet thick, mo~uthof the ancestral Todcls Fork valley, (3) an area is designated as l~ydrogeologicenvironment 11-A-1. southeast of Hamilton where the valley of the ancestral Areas along the edges of this trough, where the aquifer Ohio River enters the Great Miami River valley, and (4) is less than 150 feet thick, are designated 'as lydrogeo- the abondoned trough of the ancestral Ohio River logic environment 11-A-2. Environment 11-A-2 also between Ross and EIarrison. Tho last area is knorm~as occurs along the edges of the Great Miami River valley the New I-Iaven Trough (Fenneman, 1916, p. 33-34). in the Hamilton-Fairfield area and on the east side of Altllongll the characteristics of tlie overlying clay layer the Whitewater River valley, where the aquifer is lese and its relation to the sand ancl gravel aquifer are not than 150 feet thick and is too far from the river for re- the same in all these areas, the clay layer inhibits re- charge by induced infiltration to be effective. charge to the aquifer. Because these terranes are hydro- The transmissibility and storage coefficients in envi- logically similar, they are classified together as hydro- ronment 11-A are probably similar to those of environ- geologic environment 111. ments I-A-1 and I-A-2. No large ground-water sup- Three geologic sections illustrate the various features plies have been developed in environment 11-A. The of hydrogeologic environment 111. Section C-C' (pl. 1) hydrologic system in environment 11-A-1, however, can shows the occurrence of this enrironment in the southern probably sustain supplies of 500 gpm, and some wells part of Middletown. The East Works of the American possibly can yield as much as 1,000 gpm. These areas Rolling Rfill Co. (Armco) is in the eastern part of this may thus be considered suitable for light industry or section. In this highly generalized section, the principal small municipal supplies. Because environment 11-A-2 sand and gravel aquifer is shown to be overlain by 100 is near the bedrock valley walls, it is not a fworable feet or more of clay, believed to be largely of lacustrine environment for the development of large ground-water origin. The aquifer thins as the clay thickens to the east. supplies. The deepest part of the trough, as shown on section 0-C' (pl. I), is inferred from seismic surveys. The present ENVIRONMENTS 11-B-1 AND 11-B-2 valley of the Great Miami River is separated from the [Sand-and-gravel aquifer; stream recharge not available; in- buried ancestral valley by a bedrock high; the river terstratified clay layers possibly present1 flows over bedrock covered only by a veneer of alluvium. Rydrogeologic environment 11-B is not especially The Armco East Worlis area is therefore in an unfavor- significant in the regimen of the lower Great Miami able location for receiving recharge by induced stream River valley. The environment 11-B areas, where tho infiltration. sand and gravel aquifer with interstratified clay layers A distinctive variation of hydrogeologic environment is too far from a stream to permit induced recharge, 111 is shown on section D-D' (pl. 2) along Gilmore occur only as small patches in contact with environment Road, sontlieast of Hamilton. Here, the sand and gravel 11-A. One such area (pl. 1) is about 2 miles west of aquifer is 100-150 feet thick and is overlain by a clay West Carrollton, and another is at and around the town layer about 100 feet thiclr. Till units are differentiated of Carlisle. The aquifer is more than 150 feet thick in at both top and bottom of the clay leyer, most of which these two areas, which are designated as hydrogeologic is considered to be of lacustrine origin. This area differs environment 11-B-1. A third such area, along the east from the area southeast of RSidcUetowvn in that its units side of the Great Miami River valley in Middletom, is are more uniform in thickness, its bedrock valley walls designated as llyclrogeologic environment 11-B-2, as the are steeper and the floor flatter, and no bedrock high aquifer is less than 150 feet thick. separates it from the Great Miami River. (See pl. 2.) GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A15

The upper sketch of section D-D' (pl. 2) shows the where section drawn to true vertical scale. Considerable ver- Qzdischarge, in gallons per day, tical exaggeration is used in the other sections b better n,=number of flow paths, illustrate the features of the valley-train aquifers. Such n,=number of potential drops, exaggeration, however, distorts the true confignration T=c,oefficient of transmissibility, in gallons per of the buried valleys, so the npper sketch is intended day per foot, and to show their true order of magnitnde. h=total potential drop, in feet. A third variation of hydrogeologic environment I11 This equat,ion can be rearranged into the form is shown by section F-F' near Ross, through the well iields of the Sol~tliwesternOhio Water Co. and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (pl. 2). This section shows the relationship of hydrogeologic environment 111, on In the present example, Q=10,000,000 gpd; ni=22; the northwest, to hydrogeologic environment I.A.l, on nd=l; and h=10 feet. Substitution of these values in the southeast. Here a high terrace, composed mostly of the equation and solution for T yields a coefficient of till and clay, overlies the aquifer in the western part of transmissibility of 45,454 gpd per ft, which should be the valley. This semiconfining layer continues west and ronnded to 45,000 gpd per ft. south throngh the New Haven Trough and terminates In the small area of l~ydrogeologicenvironment IILI sontheast of Harrison (pl. 2). southeast of Hamilton, the transmissibility is an esti- The large area of hydrogeologic environment I11 mated 200,000 gpd per ft, based on the specific capwity north of Carlisle (pl. 1) is not too well knonn, for no of t7x.o wells. The transmissibility in the area north of industrial or municipal wter supplies are sitnated Carlisle is probably in the same general range. there. The area is believed to be similar to the area south- Inclividual wells in hydrogeologic environment 111 east of Hamilton (section D-D', pl. 2), except that it can be expected generally to yield 100-500 gpm, though contains more interstratified clay layers in the aquifer. yields of ns much as 1,000 gpm are not uncommon. Wells The transmissibility and storage coefficients in hydro- in this environment that are close to the boundary geologic environment I11 differ greatly from place to with hydrogeologic environment I may have consider- place. The transmissibility ranges from 35,000 to 300,000 ably higher yields owing to the possibility of induced gpd per ft. ; the st,orage coefficient,though never nccnr- rechargo and to the aqnifer's vast storage capacity. The ately determined, probably ranges from 0.1 to 0.002. need for test drilling and care in the development of Norris and Spickcr conducted an aquifer test at the wells is nowhere more important than in this environ- Feed Materials Production Center of the U.S. Atomic ment because of the common presence but irregnlar dis- Energy Commission near Fernald in the summer of tribution of clay layers. 1962. The hydrogeologic setting of this area is shom on section P-P' (pl. 2). In addition to the thiclr clay layer ENVIRONMENT IV which overlies the valley-train aquifer, there is another [Vallrgs tilled inrgely or entirely with clay; large water supplies clay layer about 10 feet thick which divides the aquifer generally not arailnble] into two parts at that site. The test indicated that the At least two buried valleys that are tributary to the transmissibility of the lower half of the aquifer is main buried valley of the ancestral Great Miami River 150,000 gpd per ft.; therefore, the transmissibility of the entire aquifer is est,in~atedto be about 300,000 adper ft. are filled largely or entirely with clay; heace, they are The transmissibility of the aquifer in the vicinity of not suitable for the development of large water supplies. the Armco East Works, southeast of Middletown, can These areas are desipnted as hydrogeologic environ- be determined by flow-net analysis, as described by Ben- ment IV. One such area is in a tributary valley south of nett (in Ferris and others, 19G2, p. 139-144). Where a the Arlnco East Works in Middletom (pl. I), and the well-defined cone of depression around a well or pnmp- other is in the northwestern part of Hamilton (pl. 2). ing center can be mapped, a flow net can be constructed ENVIRONMENT V in which the area between vater-level contours is [Shale bedrnck overlain by ~laeialtill; large .enater slipplies divided into approximate squares. This was done for the generally not available] area between the 540- and 560-foot contours at the Am- w field (pl. 1).The average pumping rate at Armco Hydrogeologic environment V includes most of the is 10 mgd. The flo\r.net equation, as stated bv Bennett, upland areas and all areas filled with sand and gravel is : except the huriecl valleys. In general, the shale bedrock of the Cincinnatian Series of Late Ordovician age is overlain by 50 Ieet or less of clay-rich till. Neither tho

GROUND-WATER mDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY 917

River at Miamisburg (pl. 2) based on the adjusted and distribution of grouncl- rater pumpage must be defmed. .neriocl 192145 is 380 cfs. or 0.140 cfs aerA sa. mi. The adjusted mean discharge at Miamisburg is 2,217 cfs. For DISTRIBUTION AND MAGNITUDE OF GROUND-WATER Great Miami River at Hamilton (pl. 2), the 90-percent PUMPAGE IN 1964 discharge for the adjusted period 192145 is 490 efs, or 0.135 cfs per sq. mi., whereas the adjusted mean dis- During the present. study an ill vent or^ \\-as made of charge is 3,323 cfs. Because the Hamilton station is the the major users of ground water in the lower Great nearest regular gaging station to t,he mouth of the river, Miami River valley. This inventory was to update an it is probably the best available index to streamflow in earlier inventory made in 1954 by the Miami Consem- t,he Great Miami River basin as a whole. ancy District. The results of the later inventory are The high base flow in the lower Great Miami River given in table 7. is 1a.rgely due to the vast expanse of higllly permeable Di~tributiollof 11ulnPage is also shorn on plat= 1 outwash plain deposits in the upper part of t,lie basin, and 2 by circles of appropriate magnitude. particularly in the Mad River basin. These deposits, Altl~ougllthe pumpxge of all municipal supplies tllough not, more pemeable than the valley-fii~ is metered, many industries do not keep records of their aquifers in tlle lower Great Mia.mi River valley, are ground-water pumpage. the Pumpage at many inore areally extensive in t,l~atthey are spread out over plants could only be estimated. The figures shown in a broad outmash plain rather than whedto a buried table 7 are averages; the actual pumping rates vary con- cllannel, ~~d ~i~~fnear springfield has gO.percent siderably froill day to day. Pumpage from domestic discharge of 152 cfs, somewhat lower than the 90-percent and farin wells is not included in the present survey. &sclyges at ~i~.mi~b~~~~-lt~~.~h~ drainwe Also, some small industrial supplies may have been area of this station, however, is ody 485 square miles. overlooked; holrever, these omitted supplies are rob- l'he 90.~~~~~~6discharge of 0.313 cfs per sq mi (Cross ably of insignificant magnitude when compared wit11 and ~~d~~~,1959, p. 143) is the highest for any major the total municipal and industrial pumpnge in the area. stream in Ohio. TABLE7.-N~cmrnan~ of estimated pumpage qf ground water in t7ie The high sustained flow of the Great Miami River, lower Gi.eat dfiaianzi Riuer valleg, Ohio, in 1864 tllough a direct result of theabundance of ground water, Auen1g6 doa' is also of direct benefit in sust.aining large ground-wat,er (ITCG avid UJC plm,pooe (mod) w-ert Cerrollt 7 supplies. This high flor makes possible the widesprend ~uni~i~ Ioduslria availability of recharge- by induced inEltration, and ~i-~h~~ 8

Munlclpal~..~..~~.~~~~~...... ~~..~~..~~...~~ ....~ ...... 7 ~rithoutit, most of the area's large ground-water sup- mmtriill ....~~~-~~~~~~.--~~~~~-.~~~...~ ...... I

ChaUthliqUa (DnSon Power& Light Co.)...... ~..~.-.....~ .... 5 olies would not be sustained. Iiranlrlinarea ...... ~ ...... ~~.~~-~~.~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~..s

PUMPAGE OF GROUND WATER Municipal .... ~~..~..~..-~...... ~..~~.~ ..8

industrial^ ...... ~ ...... ~~~.~~~ .. 14

southensr hliddleionil (Armco East Works) ..~.-.~~..--...... ~ ...... 10 The various hydrogeologic enrironments of the lower Tiontan (ilrunieipnl) ...... ~~...... ~...... 3 Great Miami =ver valley cxn be regarcled as compo- Now Mim(~rmeo).~.~ ...--.. ~~..~ ...... ~ ~~.~.~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~-. 12 HamilronVortb wrllfield ...... ~~.~-~~..~.-..~ ...... -.~ ...... '1 nents in the pllysical framework of the hydrological system. Under natural conditions the hydrologic cycle fair field..^^ ...... ~..~...... ~.~.---- ~~-~~-.-~~~~.~~~.~~~~.. operates within this fra,mework in a state of near equi- Hslniitrm Southwell field..^^ .... ~~.~~~~~~~-~~...-~ ...... ~...8 Falrneid Wnferuaorl;s-.~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~.~~~.~..... ~..~...... 5 librium-t,Iiat is, the total inflow generally equals the Ross arcs (Southwestern Ohio Water Co.)...... ~ ...... ~~ .. Fernald (U.8. Atomic Energy Ca~nm.)~..... ~ ....-~~~---~ --.-~.~~~..~~ .... total outflow. During approximately the. past 100 yeas, White\+.aierVsUey (Cincinnati Sireper Co.) ..~...~~~...~...~..... ~ ...... Cleres (Gulf 0uCo.remeir)..-.-. ~.~ .....~~ ..-...... ~ ...... ~~~~ Iiowever, man has upset this state of equilibrium by his Totalilfunioipsl .... ~..~..~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~..~.~~~.~~..~... 26.8 removal (pumping) of water from the systenl. Thus, - TdslhdLlStrial..~~~.~~.... ~ ...... ~.~...... 83.3 man has brought about significant changes in the hydro- - 1 Grandtotai.... ~~~~~~~~~~~.-~~~~~~~~--~~~~ ...-...~.~~~~~.~ ...... 110 logic system. One of t.lle major purposes of the present 'Ti~iniiton Norti? well field is used intenniltonlly as a standby plant. report is to enalnate the effects of these changes caused by pumping with respect to both place and tinie. Before Total municipal and incinstrial pumpage in the lover this eraination can lw made, lln~revcr,the magnitude Great Miami River valley in 1964, according to the present inventory, was 110 mgd. The three ,matest con- 9 Since the periods af record af all x.s?ing stntions are not th? enme, the anranon data from paging Ftntionr must be adjusted to s "stand- centrations of pulnpage are the central Middletown ard" nerind of record. This adjustment is neeornplished by comparison of the rlurntion data cf one station with similar data for another area, with 22 mgd; the area including New Miami and station for the standard period of record. Cross and Hdges (1959. the northern part of Hamilton, with 18 mgd; and the n. l'i19) described this ndjlistment riroeedure vith se~prnlesdm~le~. The standard ndjuetrd period for Ohio streams is 192145. Sonthrestern Ohio Water Co. wcll field near Ross, with 311-590-69-4

GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A19 is generally toward the south and southwest. The hy- available to construct such a map. The systematic collec- draulic gradient in the aquifer is about 5-10 feet per tion of water-level data was not begun nntil long after mile, in the same general range as the hydraulic gra- large-scale pumping of ground water in the area was client of the Great Miami River. Iu thee areas tlie pres- begun. If a map were to show contours of the ground- ent course of the river deviates from the course of the water surface in a nonpumping state, it would probal~l~ ancestral river. Thus, in these areas the sand-and- closely i-esemble those sl~o~vuon plates 1 and 2, except gravel-filled buried valleys are now river-abandoned that the cones of depressioli around the pumping centers troughs. These three troughs are between West Carroll- would be absent. ton and Carlisle (pl. 1); between Trenton and New Miami (nl. 1). and between Fernald and Harrison (pl. LONG-TERM WATER-LEVEL TRENDS %& , . .. 2). In each of these aballdoned troughs is a ground- The water surface does not remain stntic for any ~~aterdivide (pls. 1, 2), from which ground water period of time; it constantly changes in respolise to nat- flows, in both directions, to the julnctions of the ural and artificial reellarge to, and discharge from, the abaiidoiled troughs with the present river valley. aquifer. Thus, much can be learned about the llydrologic Cones of clepressioll have developed around the ten- regimen of an area from tIie long-term records of water- ters of pu~npinga.t Miamisburg, Cllautauqua, Franklin, level fluctuations. Rficldletomn, Nem hfiami, Hamilton, Fairfield, Ross, ~~~~~~ll~the ground.wat,er surface ~1 the lower Fernnlrl, and Cleves. Only the cone in the Middletown Miami River Tralley is aboult 15-50 feet beneath area, largely the result of i~umpingat the Amco East the valley floor. The only major exceptions are in parts TTorlis, is of major proportions. Some of the cones, such .f the river-abandoned trougt~sand in the vicinity of as those at Franklin and the Atomic Enera Commis- the Armco East Worlcs, in southeast BfidcUetown, wllere sion plant near Fernalcl, are of such slight depth that heavy pumping has createcl a major cone of depression. could not be ~hom011 the map. The great depth In the following section, 10 I~ydrographsof observa- of tlie cone around the Armco East Works is the result tion in tile lower Great Miami River valle.y (figs. of heavy pu~nlpingin an where the a'~u~ife,rhas a 3-8) are discussed with respectto the part of the re1:ltively low trtlnsn~issibilityand no available recharge area where tile wells are situated, ~h~~~wells are Tellre- 1.17 induced &ream infiltr at' ion. sentative of n wide range of hydrogeologic environments The contours of tlle ground-water surface on plates al,clconditions of pumpillg and recharge. All mils a,re 1 and 2 nre generalized to the extent that where the sand eq;pped wit]l wnter.level rocorders and are :nld gra~,elaqu,ifer is separated by clay layers into two maintained by tile OlCo Divisioli of Water as part, of its or lnore units, the water level of only the lower unit is program with the U.S. (+ological survey. represented. The lower unit was selected for two re%- ~~~~~i~ti~~of these wells anclrecords of otller observa- sons: more data are available for this unit, and by far ti, wells are given in ~~l]~ti~41 of the O]lio Depart- most of the Pound water in the area is pumped from ment Natural Resonrcos, Division of TVater (Kaser tlle lower aquifer. Only in the pumping centers in hydro- anti narstiIle, 1~~65). geologic environments I-B are 11-B mould there be any appreciable difference between the water levels in AREA WEST OF WEST CARROLLTON the two units. The approximate differencein water levels obsermtion well i\lt-49 is at, mq,itfield, abollt 1 mile in the tvo units is indicated by omp par is on of water- of the Great Miami River at West Carrollton. This level measurements made at the Middletown Water 220 feet deep, is in hydrogeologic environment Works well field on October 14,1964. The water levels 1-B-1. Figure 3 slloms the l~~dro~raphof well Mt4Q in wells 18 and 19, bat11 of mhich are screened in the for the of record 1948-64. This well is far eno~l~h lower aquifer, were 611 and '05 feet above mean sea from the major pumping centers that water-level fluctu- level, respectively. The water level in well Bu-1, ations are probably not much affected by pumping. screened in the npper aquifer, was 619 feet above mean ~l~~~~f~~~it can be a g& index well (re- sea level. Therefore at the Middletown well field there spolldillg only to natural recharge and discharge) of mas an 8- to 14-foot head differential between the two gro~mcl-watercoildi,tious in the area. aquifers at the time the %havemeasurements were inacle. The llyclropnpl~of Mt49 (fig. 3) displays the char- To fully determine the effects of pumping on the a.cteristic annual cycle-rising in response to rechilrge water surface would require construction of a contour during the minter and spring, and falling during the map representing conditions prior to the development. summer z.nd aut~unngrowing season in response to nab- of large ground-water supplies in the area. Unfor- nral discharge. The water level generally fluct.uates 5-7 tlulately, not enough water-level measnrements are feet nnnnally. Note from figure 3 t'l~atcompamtively GROCND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO GROUND-WATER BXDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A21

litile recl~argeoccurred during the drought period 1953- reduced in 1942 and 1943, and the water level rose 20 55. In 1954 there was almost no rechnrge.. The water feet. Increased pumpage in 1944 resulted in a 20-foot level in this nell recovered substant~iallyduring the pe- declin+from 110 to 130 feet below the land surfme. riod of ab~u~clantrainfnll1956-5.9. Also, 1960 was virtu- Reclnced ,pumpage in 1945, combined with generally ally a repetition of 1956; since then, the water level has abundant rainfall that year, resulted in rising ground- fluctuated in its normal manner, with the water level water levels in 1945-from 130 to about 95 feet below the generally about 2-3 feet below typical pre-1953 levels. lalid surface. Rainfall continued to be generally The liyckograph of well Aft49 does not snggcst any abundant through 1928, but the water levels remained persistent downward trend in water levels in this vicin- fairly constant. By 1948, however, pumpage had again ity; rather, it implies intermittent rises and falls in re- increased to 9.5 mgd. From 1949 through 1955, much of sponse to alternating periods of drought and abundant which was a drg. period, the water level steadily rainfall. cleclined, reaching a low of 138 feet below the land MIDDLETOWN AREA surface in late 1054. The water4evel deoline to about Figure 4 shows hydropaphs of three observation 145 feet below the land surface in 1955, which occurred wells representing various conditions in the Middlctown after the brealr in the record, is the result of changing area. Observation well Bi1-1,62 feet decp, taps the npper the recorder to a nearby well after the original well was aquifer of hydrogeologic environnlent I-B-1 at the Mid- abandoned. dletown Water Worlis. The hydrogra.ph of this vell In 1056 Armco instituted drastic changes in their shons an annual cyclic fluctuation ranging from about water utilization in an attempt to arrest the continuing 8 to 12 feet. Very little recharge occurred in the drought water-level decline. (For further discussion, see years 1953 ancl195.4, as shon,n by tlie minimal rise of the Spielcer, 1968b.) The reduced pumpage, combined with water level. No persistent domlnnrd trend is evident, abundant rainfall for the period 1956-59, resulted in which indicates that the a.verage recharge rate in this rise in water level of more than 60 feet in well Bu-3- area is adequntc to compensate for any pumping in t.he from a low of 145 feet in 1955 to a high of 78 feet in npper aquifer. 1958 and 1959. By 1959, however, increased production Well BIT-2 is screened in the loner aquifer of liydro- at the ,plant had again increased water usage to 9.6 mgd; geologic environment I-B-1 in the dorrntown Middle- in tS1e ensuing dry ,period the water level steadily to~marea. Its liycdrogxpl~exhibits the annunl cyclic ileclined to 132 feet at tlie end of 1964. Thus, the gronnd- fluctuation characteristic of the water level in this nrea. mate.r 1e.vel at the end of 1964 was about the same as The amplitucle of this flnctnotion, hovever, ranging that in 1055, before the changm toward economic utiliza- from about G to 15 feet, is somewhat greater than that tion of rrater were made. shown by the 1ydrogml)lis of &It49and BII-1. Plullip- ing in the dovntonn Midclletown vicinity a.pparently NEW MIAMI-NORTH HAMILTON AREA causes a relatively large decline of the water surface The vater surface in tlle nrea comprising New Miami chlring dry periods. In general, however, the recharoe9 and the nortlienl part of Hamilton is affected by pump- during periods of greater precipitation a.nd rnnoff 1s ing t.ot,aling18 mgcl at tllree major centers: the Armco adequate to compensate for the decline. No persistent Xew Miami pl,ult, the Champion Paper Co. plant, and clo~~nvardtrend is evident, a.ltl1oug11 three. ww appar- the II;~~niltonNorth ~vellfield. Figme 5 shows the ently very littlc rechnrge during 1053 and 1954. hyclrograplis of two observation wells in 6his area. The The hyclrogml)11 of well B~I-3 (fig. 4) shows a entire area is in hydrogeologic environment I-A-1. sequence of persistent downmarc1 trends alternating WeJl Bt14, 177 feet deep, is at the Armco New Miami with periods of long-term recovery. This well, 250 feet plant. Its liydrograph sl~owsa regular annual fluotua- deep, is i~ihydrogeolofic pnvironliient I11 at the Armco tion of 8-12 feet. No dobmmard trend is evident, East IVorks. ~Lvcragedaily pluinpage at the East Worlrs for each year is sho\\.n nbore tllc hydrograph. The altl~onglithe beginning of a decline in the years 1953 rater-level fluctrrations reflect changes in pumpage and and 1954 I\-a.s arrested by a ,period of abundant recharge in natnral conditions. 1nspect.ion of tllc gap11 (Iig. 4) that began in 1'355. reveals that the Inter level in BLI-3 bas generally Well Bu-5 is at tlie Hamil'ton North well field, which decli~ledduring periods of heavy pnmpnge and has \ras the main source of Hamilton's municipal water risen [luring periods of reduced pumpage. Thus, from supply until 1956, when the South well field began 1039 throng11 1941, punll~ageranged from 10.5 to 8.7 operation. The hydrograph of Bu-5 prior to 1956 is mgd, a.nd the vvater level declined more than 30 feet, to strilringly diflerent from the graph following that year. a low of 1.30 feet below the land surface. Pumpage was Through 1952 the liydrograph shows an annual cyclic

GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A23 fluctuation averaging 10-12 feet but no evident dom- pumped by the Federal Works Agency. The water level ward trend. The trend was definitely do~vnrardin in Bu-7 recoverecl about 6 feet when pumping at the 1953 and 1954; recovery in 1955 n-as moderzde. In 1956, field ceased in 1945. Note the similar recovery shown by when the North well field was placed on a standby basis, the hydrograph of Bu-8 (fig. 6). When pumping was the water level quickly recovered to an average of about rcs~unedin 1956, the average water level in Bu-7 de- 5 feet above the levels cl~aracte'istic of the period prior clined about 4 feet. The water level fluctuates 5-10 feet to the drought of 1953-54. The hydrograph of Bu3 annually. Pumping at the Hamilton South well field has similarly reflects tllis ,punlpingchange. The jagged pat- not caused any persistent lowering trend in the water tern of the B114 hydrograph from mid-1956 througll level of Bu-7. 1964 refleck the intennittent use of the North well field Observation well H-2 is about 2,000 feet from col-

durinn that weriod. lector 1of the Southwestern Ohio Water Co. The A~eriod of record began in 1952, when the collector was placed AREA SOUTHEAST OF HAMILTON in operation. Its hydrograph, affected by pumping in tile Observation well Bu-8 is in hydrogeologic environ- Southwestern Ohio well field and changes in stagu of ment I11 southeast of Hamilton (pl. 2). This well, 200 the Great Miami Kiver, sl~owsan 'annual cyclic fluctua- feet deep, is in the well field formerly operated by the tion of 5-10 feet but no clownward trend. Pumping a;t Federal Works Agency. This well field was developed the Southwestern Ohio well field, which averages 13-15 during World War I1 to supply industries in the Mill mgd, is sustained largely by induced recharge from the Creek valley. The FWA well field was described by River. Dove (1961) discussed the hydrology of this well Bernhagen and Schaefer (1947, p. 19-23). Although field in detail. this field has been purchas& by the city bf Hamilt& VALLEY and is now known as the South well field, the wells along LOWER WHITEWATER RIVER Gilmoxe Road near well Bu-8 have not been reactivated. The lower valley of the Whitewater River, south of These wells were pumped from 1943 through the sum- Harrison, has been virtually unaffected by large-scale mer of 1945. The hydrograph of Bu-8 (fig. 6) shows pumping of ground water. Therefore the hydrograph of that the water level was therefore not affected by pump observation well H-l (fig. 8) from 1950 to 1964 provides ing, except for the brief period from the start of the an excellent record of the ground-water regimen record in 1944 through the summer of 1945. A recovery unaffected by pumping. The similarity of this hydro- in the graund-water level of about 12 feet took place gnq111 to the hydograph of Mt49 (fig. 3) is striking. The when pumping at the FWA well field ceased. The hy- wells are in similar hydrogeologic environments unaf- drograph of Bul-8 (fig. 6) shows a cyclic fluctuation of fected by pumping. H-1 is in hydrogeologic environ- 10-15 feet annually. The greater magnitude of fluctua- ment I-A-1, and Mt-49 is in environment I-B-1. Both tion in this well tllan in other wells not affected by wells have an annual cycle of water-level fluctuation of pumping, such as Mt49 (fig. 3) and H-l (fig. 8), is about 5-7 feet, and ncither well has shown a persistent

Anrobablv d the result of the low coefficient of storage downward trend. which is characteristic of hydrageologic environment 111. - I CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FAIRFIELD-NEW BALTIMORE AREA The quality of water for most uses is fully as impor- The area betwcxn Fairfield and New Baltimore, west tant as its availability. All naturally occurring wakr of Ross, is the site of two of the largest ground-water contains dissolved mineral constituents in various pm- supplies in the lower part of the valley-the IInmilton portions asraresult of the contact between the water and Sonth well field at Fairfield and the Southwestern Ohio the rocks and materials which make up the earth. Also, Water Co. well field near Ross. l\llidway betreen these in heavily populated areas water is often contaminated two well fields the city of Cincinnati proposes to develop as a result of the activities of man. Although surface- a well field which is expected to produce as much as 40 water sources are generally Inore susceptible to con- tamination than m-omd-water supplies, the contamina- mgd. The Fairfield-New Baltimore area is the subject ? of chapter C of the present series of reports (Spieker, tion of tho latter IS fairly common in densely populated 1968a). areas. Observation well Bu-7 is virtually in the middle of A study of the chemical quality of ground and sur- the Hamilton South well field (pl. 2). Its hydrograph face waters has been included in the present investign- (fig. 7) is therefore influenced somewhat by pumping at tion for the above-stated reasons. The analyses of 30 the field. The period of record began in 1944, at which selected ground-water samples in the area are shown time the present Hamilton South moll field was being in table 8. Table 9 shows nine representative analyses 25 2 CL 30 2 "7 35 n Z 4 40 J 3 45 5 mW t; 15 W ". 20 5 d 25 YI 2 30 35

1 40 t 45111 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 ,1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 FIGURE5.-Fluctnations of the water levels in observation wells Bu4 and Bu-5 in the New Miami-North Halniltun area.

10

H 20

30 m! Y 0 s 5: 40 4 = 50 zn 1 '5 60 3 0 70 I 39!iu 0 urn 80

90

100 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 ho- 6.-Fluohations of the water level in obiemation well B114, southeast of Hamilton. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY TABLB8.-Selected analyses of water samples frm wells in the lower Great Miami Rivet valley, Ohio [Data are in milligrams per litor oroopt as indicated] I z Owner

------Drinking water standuds I...... ~. 0.3 0.05 ...~~.. 250 25080.!i ..... 45 ...... 0.001 0.5 500 ...... Dayton Porvei R. Light CO., 10-22-04 50 14 .36 . W 84 31 31 3.0 0.0 340 57 47 .5 0. W .4 0.4 ,000 .I 445 337 58 755 0.A. liuicbi~igrstiltion. Middletoiil~Water il'orks .... Midd 20 10-2244 6.3 8.1 .41 .00 71 30 28 3.2 .O 300 70 38 .5 .00 1.9 I. 9 ,011 .0 417 321 74 701 17 10-2244 56 14 1.0 .06 !I4 21 0.2 1.2 .0 358 50 15 .5 ,110 .O .0 ,002 .O 382 346 54 659 he0Co., East Works ...... 24 1-21-05 57 15 4. 0 . 03 132 411 18 1.8 .5 440 142 32 .2 ,011 .2 1. 0 ...... 0 E24 6151 138 !i06 DO ..... ~~-~~...... 1b21-84 61 18 8.2 . Ill1 2111 82 ?!I 2.1 . 0 500 124 48 .5 .0I1 .0 .O ...... 0 1,110 8b2 451 1,510 l>o.... ~~-~~~...... ~~~.~.. 1-21-65 58 14 4. 7 . 14 1'36 47 18 1.7 .Y 4I 146 30 .8 .OO .0 3.1 .... .0 617 608 168 !is6 do..^^^^^^.^ ...... ~~~~.. 10-21-61 55 14 3.0 ,011 X2 33 18 1.3 .0 372 40 22 .5 .OO .0 .0 ...... 0 3!16 340 35 fix8 Aiokory Flat Church ...-.... 10-2044 53 8.8 .24 ,116 US 30 2. 6 1.3 .0 324 3i1 7.5 .a .00 18 18 ..~....O 345 331 65 fin0 Armm Co.. N<.BMidnli 1lt21-64 65 10 4 I! !14 30 I4 3.5 12 344 113 15 .4 .05 2.6 43. g ,000 .0 458 338 70 776 plant. City ol ilarniitan. Xanh lb214 56 13 .41 .36 101 34 13 1.9 .O 326 105 28 .3 .OO .O .O ,000 .0 486 322 125 759 we11 add.

Clinmpioli P:~i,sr Co ...... ~~ 1M2-W 60 10 .02 .OO 08 30 22 3.1 .0 318 84 36 .4 .OO 3.5 3.5 ,001 .O 475 368 108 7N do^^^ ...... ~.~~..-~.. 1G21-84 57 13 . 18 .46 110 37 Y.7 1.7 .0 4112 87 18 .3 .I10 .O .0 ,010 .0 489 427 !17 7!lR

Eda.aid B,Miller ...... ~ 6- 8-62 54.5 10 . U'3 .a? I00 26 7.8 .0 .O 346 60 15 .2 .01 4.6 4.6 ...... 0 406 357 73 667 City a1 Hamilton ..-..~..~--~ 6- 5-63 54 6 11 .03 .03 90 28 4.0 1.3 .O 352 40 8.0 .2 .OJ 9.3 8.4 ,005 .o 358 340 51 619 do^ ...... ~.~~~.~.~~6- 5-63 54 9.3 .22 .06 87 28 4.2 1. 7 .0 338 46 7.0 .3 .00 0.8 6.8 ,1104 .O 310 824 47 813

DO ...-.~ ...... ~~..~ 6- 6-63 5b 10 .I3 .I7 02 27 5.4 1.6 .0 344 47 11 .2 .05 7.3 7.4 ,000 .O 375 341 68 Ok City oi Cincinnati, 626-bP 55 12 .63 .26 80 24 3. !I 1.1 .... 3'28 24 6.0 .4 -.... .2 ...... ~... 310 2188 2~ 553 p~mpn~g-testsite.

do^ ...... ~~~~~..~~.... 629-82 ....-. 11 .45 .06 82 24 3.1 1.2 .-..330 34 5.5 .I ...... 1 ....-~ ~-~~...... 319 303 32 564 So~tllwrst~~ll0hi0 \~'ater 7-17-52 54 11 3 25 BP 20 2.5 1.5 ..... 310 38 5.5 .I ..... 1.0 ...... 335 288 ..... 552 GO. DO^^.-.^.^ ...... 1-2944 56 12 .OO .OO 14 25 8.4 2.0 ..... 330 64 12 .0 ..... 2.9 ...... -.~.~~.... 383 340 67 WB

Ila ..-.~~.~.~ ...... 11- 7-58 55 13 .I1 .42 90 24 12 1. 7 ..... 321 72 16 .I ..... 1.2 ....--.... ~~ .... 417 340 71 657 UO.... ~.~.~~.-.~.~...... 3-27-57 5R5 11 .I0 .43 08 28 12 2 1 ..... 334 75 21 .I ..... 2. 1 .....- ...~-~.... 420 360 86 697 DO .... ~.~~~..~.~.~.~..... 6- 4-58 56 10 .08 .24 88 211 12 1.8 ..... 315 711 16 1 ..3.3 ...... 4 3 81 651 DO...... ~.~~~~~.~~.~...b- 4-03 59 9.2 .a1 .a2 !a4 2!l 14 2 1 .I 320 82 24 .2 .05 7.0 7.4 ,004 .0 423 354 02 685 do^^.^ ...... ~.~.-.~~. SIR66 63 8.2 .04 .I3 !I8 33 25 3.1 ... 214 121 38 .2 ...-. .4 ...... 480 3x0 130 782 Do...... ~.~.~~~..~~~.~.11- 766 56 11 .04 .30 86 24 3.4 1.2 ..... 322 50 11 .I ..... 2.0 ...... ~~..... 356 313 49 580 DO...... ~~~.~.~~~~.~.3-27-57 55.7 111 .I10 .34 89 24 5.6 1.8 ..... 321 44 9.2 .I ..... 5. 7 ....-. .~.~...~.. 368 321 58 607 DO.-...... ~.~~~.~~.~~6- 4-58 53 11 .16 .?0 78 25 5.7 1.8 ..... 208 5390 . 1 ..7. 7 .., .. .. a21 a5 as sso Do...... ~.~.~.-~~~~~~~.1-21-65 55 13 ,119 . 17 !r3 27 8.6 2.1 .I 324 ti4 18 .2 .05 5.3 5.7 ,008 .0 3'17 ua 78 651 U.S. Atomic Rnerer Carnrn. 6 5-W 54 11 3.3 .44 I3 24 10 1.1 .4 354 41 18 .? .on .5 1.11 ,000 .0 309 aal 40 tias E.I. Iltil'oot DcNemaurs corp.

U.S. PUhliO Renlth Servloe (1082). 1 For nvorsgs annun1 maximum air tempsrstnre of 83.0'-iO.BDF. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY

...... I-) '-1

I - -a em P"" "ON "IIN) - -- c, ..-me ('ON) alSil!N I dn e5 rim uig i 1

- (an) mn!o1s3 ms n..mt- m"cn zEl x * '2 n.. -e -* (mu) ern,,smaw I .-- ,, ,,, 8 8 1 Z? ,,...... ' % ,. ,. -3 ma a (ax) no.= I :? 1*: .-4? -.:? B q A28 GROUND WATER IN T- MWER GREAT MLAMI RIVER VALLEY, OHIO

of water from the Great Miami River in the study area. INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS AND PROPERTIES OF Sampling sites are shown indicated on plates 1 and 2. WATER The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation wit11 various ~h~ concentrations the significance of the indipid- State agencies maintains a netmork of surface-water ual anclproperties of ground water and sur- stations, including five in the present area, from which face waters given in tables 8 and 9 are discussed in the samples for chemical analysis are taken at resular in- following tervals. These analyses vere comniled bv Hubblo and Temporamre Collier (1960). TII; analyses €0; each gear are sum- The temperature of ground water at depths of 200 marized in a series of publications by the U.S. Geologi- feet or less is generally very close to the mean annual cal Survey ; for exanlple, see Love and others (1964). air temperature, which ranges from 52' to 55'F in the QUALITY OF WATER lower Great Miami Eiver valley. Temperature of stream Water in the lower Great Mianli Rilrer is of a however, fluctuates from as low as 33°F in the calcium bicarbonate tyl?e, &h a concentration of tota] winter to as high as 90" F in the summer. Induced infil- dissolved solids of generally 300-600 mg/l; tllns, tration of river water can therefore cause wide variance water in the area is classed as hard to very hard. Some in the ground-water owing to the mixing of the area's ground water contains objectionable quan- of surface and gromd watem. tities of iron and manganese. The presence of these *he temperatures of the ground-water samples given minerals is generally greatest in hydro~olo~cen~ron.in table 8 range from 53' to 63°F and average 56-F. ments in which clay is ab~nclant. All ground-water temperatures above 56°F in this Although the quality of uncontaminated ground area are probably the result of induced stream water remains generally uniform, the quality of surface water fluctuates widely according to discharge. This is Ground water, a uniform temperature 530- readily apparent in table 9, which gives resultsof two 5g0F, is more desirable for public-supply use than is analyses (one representing low streamflow, and the surface water whose temperature fluctuates over a wide other, high) for four of the five sites listed. The con- range. The temperature of water to be used for indus- trial cooling is a critical factor. Although a ground- centrations of most constituents are significantly greater water supply may be the more expensive to develop, its at low streamflow. greater utility for cooling purposes may well compen- EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATION sate for the additional cost. Surface waters, and to a lesser extent ground waters, (S1O2) in the lower Great Miami River valley have become con- Silicon is second only to oxygen as the most abundant taminated as a result of the activities of man. Poll~ltion element in the earth's cnist; it occurs naturally as the by such constituents as phenols and detergents (ABS), silicate radical, %On, or as silica, SiOz. Though silica which do not occur in natural waters, and by high con- has a low solubility, all natural water contains small ccntrations of nitrate is evident. The low dissol~red- quantities of it. The silica content of ground-water oxygen content in some reaches of the Great Miami samples from the study area ranged from 8.1 to 17 mg/l River is further evidence of contamination. Contamins- and averaged 11.7 mg/l; silica in selected surface-water tion of ground water is most evident where large quan- samples ranged from 3.4 to 9.3 mg/l and averaged 6.6 tities of surface water have been induced into the aquifer mg/l. It can cause a hard scale to form in boilers, par- as a result of pumping. Local contamination, horever, ticularly in high-pressure boilers. can result from leakage from improperly constructed I... (F.) septic tanks or from seepage of water through fertilizer Iron is present in all rocks and, thus, is a constituent on farm lands. The relatively high nitrate concentration of nearly all natural water. Iron concentration in the of water from well 40 is probably the result of such ground-water samples in the area of investigation causes, for the well is not in an area of heavy pumping, ranged from 0.00 to 8.2 mg/l and averaged 00.7 mg/l. nor is it near enough to a major stream to be affectedby The range in the surface-water samples was from 0.01 induced inliltration. to 6.8 mg/l; the average was 0.57. A concentration of Contamination of ground-water supplies, though de- about 0.3 mg/l or more in the water will stain enamel, tectable, has, as yet, hen minor. The concentrations of porcelain, and clothing. Iron concentration of more than such critical constituents as nitrate and phenols, how- about 0.5 mg/l gives water an unpleasant taste, but it ever, should be monitored in selected wells in areas of causes no harmful physiological effects. The U.S. Pub- induced infiltration so that any increase in contamina- lie Health Service (1962) has recommended that the tion can be detected and a solution sought before the iron concentration in clri*g water not exceed 0.3 problem becomes serious. mg/l. GROUND-WATER ~DROLOGYAND GEOLOGY A2

The presence of "iron bacteria" in wells and water- In the ground-water samples the concentration of transmission lines creates a special problem. Iron bac- sodium ranged from 2.5 to 31 mg/l and averaged 12.3 teria are not true bacteria but are living organisms often mg/l, and that of potassium ranged from 0.9 to 3.6 mg/l present in natural water. They depend upon iron for and averaged 1.9 mg/l. In the surface-water samples, existence and thrive in slightly acid water containing the concentration of sodim ranged from 7 to 64 mg/l 2 mg/l or more iron. 0renothn.x is probably the most and averaged 33 mg/l, and that of potassium ranged common of the several iron bacteria known. Metallic and from 2.2 to 5.2 mg/l and averaged 3.8 mg/l. Although nonmetallic materials that carry water containing iron relatively low, these concentrations of the alkalies are bacteria become coated by nodules of ferric hydroxide sufficient to cause unclersirable effects in some uses, such or by a slimy scum impregnated with ferric hydroxide. as in high-pressure boilers. The water may turn red, and its rate of flow may be af- Ilirsrborrate (RCOJ fected by the activity of these organisms. They cause Water which contains carbon dioxide (CO,) dis- one of the major water-treatment problems in the report solves the carbonates of calcium and magnesium from area but can be controlled by certain methods. One of rock, and in this reaction the bicarbonate (HCOa) ion the most effective methods combines the use of chlorina- is formed. In a carbonate-rich terrane, bicarbonate is tion to kill the organisms and the addition of a poly- one of the major constituents of natural water. Concen- phosphate compound to keep the iron in solution. trations in the ground-water samples analyzed ranged m.ng.n- (Mrr) from 268 to 500 mg/l and averaged 344 mg/l. In the The concentration of manganese in water is generally surface-water samples, concenhrations were 14-52 less than that of iron; however, the two constituents mg/l and averaged 242 mg/l. In boilers and hot-water affect water similarly. Of the 30 ground-water samples facilities, bicarbonate decomposes at high temperatures to yield carbon dioxide, which is corrosive. analyzed, 23 contained a measurable concentration of manganese, which ranged from 0.01 to 0.45 mg/l and S"lf8la (SO,) Sulfate in the natural waters of this area is largely averaged 0.17 mg/l. The manganese concentration in 19 dissolved from gypsum, a highly soluble mineral which samples equaled or exceeded the U.S. Public Health occurs in the limestones and dolomites of western Ohio. Service (1962) recommended limit of 0.05 mg/l. Man- Concentrations of snlphate in the ground-water samples ganese concentrations in the surface-water samples analyzed ranged from 24 to 424 mg/l and averaged 80 ranged from 0.00 to 0.30 mg/l and averaged 0.09 mg/l. mg/l; in the surface-water samples (table 9) concen- Caldllrn (C.) trations ranged from 47 to 188 mg/l and averaged 108 Calcium is one of the major constituents in natnral mg/l. For the water year ending in 1964,.the sulfate water in a limestone terrane, such as the lower Great content in the Great Miami River at Elizabethtown Miami River valley. Concentrations of calcium in the (table 10) ranged from 33 to 190 mg/l. Sulfate, which ground-water samples analyzed ranged from 73 to 210 causes much of the nonoarbonate hardness of water, mg/l and averaged 97 mg/l. The corresponding range combines with calcium to form hard scale in boilers and for the surface-water samples was 47-95 mg/l, and aver- other heat-exchange equipment. The U.S. Public Health aged 78 mg/l. Calcium and magnesium are the principal Service (1962) has recommended that the sulfate con- causes of water hardness; their effects are discussed tent of drinking water not exceed 250 mg/l. ~mderthe heading "Rardness." The occurence of sulfate in waters of the Great Miami River valley deserves further study. Average sulfate M.gaas1- (Mg) concentration in the surface-water samples is higher Dolomitic rock or unconsolidated materials derived than that in the ground-water samples, and this suggests from it are the principal source of magnesium. Magne- that some of the sulfate may be the result of waste sium concentrations in analyzed grolmd-water samples products. The sulfate concentration in collector 1of the from the study area ranged from 20 to 82 mg/l and Southwestern Ohio Water Co. (well 77 of present re- averaged 31 mg/l; concentrations in the surface-water port) has progressively increased for 13 years, probably samples ranged from 14 to 33 mg/l and averaged 26 because of induced stream infiitration. Water in three mg/l. wells (wells 22,23,24) at the Armco East Works con- Sodium (Ne) end potasslnm (Kl tains abnormally high concentrations of sulfate-from Tlle alkali metals sodium and potnssium are discussed 142 to 424 mg/l. Whether the high concentrations are together, as their sources and their effects on water are the result of contamination from industrial wastes or similar. Sodium is generally the more abundant of the of the abundance of clay and silt in this hydrogeologic two and is more easily dissolved from the source rock. environment (environment 111) is not yet known. -430 GROUND WATER IN T!KE DOWER GREAT MIAMI RNER VALLET, OFLIO chloride(CI) tion. ,411 these concentrations are well ~~nderthe linlit Chloride is a minor constit,uent of ground water in of 45 mg/l for drinking water set by the U.S. Public tlie lower Great Miami River valley. Concentmtious ill I-Iealth Service (1962). In the selected surface-water the gronnd-water samples analyzed ranfed from 6.5 to samples the nitrate ranged from 3.9 to 10 mg/l ancl 48 mg/l and averaged 19 w/l.Chloride concentrations averaged 10.5 mg/l. in the snrface-water samples ranged from 14 to 78 mg/I Potential nitrate in the 19 gro~u~d-~vatersamples and averaged 44 mg/l. The high concentrations of i;ullged from zero in 5 samples to 43 mg/l and averagecl cllloride in the surface n7xter sampled during periods 3.8 mg/l. The value of 43 mg/l for well43 was omitted of low flow (table 9) probably reflect conh.minakion. from the average as not representative. In the eight sur- All the samples both ground water and surface vater, face-nvater samples, potential nitrate ranged from 15.9 contained less chloride than the 250 mg/l limit recom- to 22.4 mg/l ancl rnernged 18.9 nlg/l. mended by the U.S. Public Health ~eGice(1962) for Nineteen of the 31 ground-water samples listed in drinking water. table 8, and 8 of the 9 surface-water sa.inples listed in FIUOPI~~(F) ta.ble 9 mere anlyzed for amlonix andnitrite. Six of the Minute quantities of fluoride are present in most Tater 19 ground-water samples contained anxmonia, ~~hich from limestone termnes. In the analyses of the gonnd- rangeed in concentration from 0.1 to 18 mg/l and aver- ~vatersxmplcs, t,he fluoricle concentration ranged froin aged 0.4 mg1l.j Five of the 19 samples contained nitrite, 0.0 to 0.5 mg/l and averaged 0.013 mg/l. The range in nix1 each of thcsehad 0.05 mg/l. Aminoi~iaranged from the surface-water samples is from 0.2 to 0.9 mg/1, and 0.1 to 4.8 mg/I and averaged 2.2 mg/l in the surface- tlie average, 0.46 mg/1. Evidence indicates that fluori~lc water samples. In these samples nitrite ranged from 0.15 concentrations of about 0.6 to 1.7 mg/l reduce the inci- to 0.90 mg/l and averaged 0.43 mg/l. These concentra- dence of tooth decay but that concentrations grenter tlian tions suggest that the river is generally contaminated in 1.7 mg/l, although giving protection from decay, can varying degrees by organic wastes. The presence of rauseii~ottlingof teeth. The recommencled control limits small amounts of ammonia and nitrite in six of the of the U.S. Public Health Service for fluoride (19fi2, ground-water samples suggests that the wells from p. 8) are based on the annual &verageof maxin~umdaily which the samples were collected had been recharged air temperatures. Thus for the study area, vhere the with contaminated water, probably induced froin the snniinl average maxinium air temperature is betweell GreatMiamiRiver. 63.9'' and 70.F°F, the recommended range for fluoricle The potential nitrate of the 19 ground-water snmplcs is from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l, with an optimum value of 0.9 (excluding that from we11 43) analyzed for the complete ing/l. nitrogen cycle (tsble 8) ranged from 0 to 18 mg/l ant1 xitroesn .yola averaged 4 mg/l. In the surface-water snnlples (table 9) Nitrogen occurs in groulld \vater in tl~eloTer Great the potentiit1 nitrate ranged froin 15.9 to 1.5.4 mg/l nncl Miami River valley in three forms: ihmonia (NII,), averaged 19 mg/l. nitrite (NO,), and nitrate (NO,). Of tl~cthree forms, o8 PO* mhich represent stages in the nitrogen cycle, only Phosphates in surface or ground waters are cleri\~ecl nitrate occurs naturally in ground water. Organic from natural leaching of p11osphatic rocks, from agri- wastes, however, often contain nitrogen in all thret. cultural drainage, and from inclnstrial and doinestic forms. The presence of ammonia and nitrite call thn-, wastes. With the greatly increased use of sgntlxetic cle- he considered as evidence of pollution. tergents, of which phosphates are n major constituent, ITnTnder oxidizing conditions, nitrate is the end product phosphate concentrations in waters (particularly in sur- of the nitrogen cycle. An analysis for nitrate, however, face waters) have sl~ownsignlificant increases. may not necessarily represent all the nitrogen present In the san~plesfrom the Great Miami River thnt \\-ere in the sample; therefore, tables 8 and 9 also sho~anl- analyzed in this study, pl~ospha,teconcentration rai~ged monia, nitrite, and potential nitrate.' froin 0.11 to '7.5 mg/l, with the higher values observed in Concentration of nitrate in the ground-watcr samples the area between Miamisburg and Dfiddleton~. (table 8) ranged from zero in six sarnples to 18 mg/l Phenols a C~~OA and averaged 3 mpA. Most nitrate concentrations in The presence of phenolic material in naturally ocur- excess of 5 mg/l are probably the result of contaminx- ring waters is the direct result of pollution. The efflu- ents from coking olants. chemical nlants. and oil re- - & A l~otentlnlnitrate is the sum of ammonia nitrogen (NA.). nitrite fineries often contain large concentrations of phenols. (Nor), and nitrate (NOe), aU reported as Nos. To convert milligrnms per llter NHI to milligrams Per liter NO=, multi~ly by 3.430. To 'The analysis of 18 mgll from we11 43 wits Preluded from the eanr~rtmxll NOz to mgll NOa, multiplg by 1.318. arernge, as it 18 considered not representntiv~. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AN^ GEOLOGY A3 1

Inas~nuchas phenols are ~ulstablein the presence of D'b^"l'ed (=-'d". 180°C) oqgen, ,they are llot persistei1t in a typical aerol)ic The dissolved-solids content in water is determined stream and are gellerally broken clown mithin a sl~ort in laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey by a distance of their source. ~l~~~,of the eigllt seleetctl process of evaporating a snitable rolume of tile sample to samples from the Great RfiZLmiRiver analyzed for ilea"' dryness on n steam bnth and then the resi- phenols (table 9), only four contained measura,l~lecon- due in an oven for 1 hour at 18O0C (Hen?, 1959, 1). centrations,which ranged from 0.009 to 0.020 mg/l. ~h~ 49-50). Concentratior~sof dissolved solicls in gro~~nd- higher concentrations generally occnr at low streamfloxv. samples from t'he stlldy area ranged from 310 to ~l~~ fact that were presentin samplesfrom 1,110 mg/l and averaged 436 mg/l. Total dissolred stations 1 and 3 but not in samples from da,tiolls 2 iulld 4 solicls in the selectecl snrface-nmter samples ranged from sng,-ts that the statio~ls1 and 3 are fairly close to 245 to 590 nlg/1 and averaged 436 mg/l. Water having sources of contamination. The relat.ive lac]

TABLE10.-Recordg of selected wells in the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohio

Well number: seep. A3 for doscription of numbetiw system. Type of well: Drilled. Type 01 aquifer material: Send and gravel. Uso: D, domestic; Ind, industrial; 0, abserwtiou; PS, publio supply; T, test. ~rologichorizon of squifcr: Pieistooom;. Remarks: CA, ehemleal annlysis avaiisbie. GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY A35

TABLE10.-Records of seleeted wells in the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohi-Continued A36 GROUND WATER IN THE LOWER GREAT MWRIV5R VA!LLEY, OHIO

SELECI'ED REFERENCES Leverett, Frank, 1902, Glacial formations and drainage features of the Erie and Ohio Basins: U.S. Geol. Survey Mon. 41, Bernhagen, R. J., and Schaefer, E. J., 1947, Ground-water eon- 802 p. ditions in Butler and Hamilton Counties, Ohio, 1946: Ohio Love, S. K,, and others, 1964, Quality of surface waters of the Water Resources Board Bull. 8, 35 p. United States, 1962, Parts 3 and 4, Ohio River basin and Caster, K. E., Dalve, E. A,, and Pope, J. K., 1955, Elementars St. Lawrence River basin: U.S. Geol. Survey Water Supply guide to the fossils and strata of the Ordovician in the Paper 1942,322 p. vicinity of Cincinnati, Ohio: Cincinnati Museum Nat. Morgan, A. E., 1951, The Miami Conserrancy District: New History, 47 p. Pork, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 5M p. Cross, W. P., and Hedges, R. E., 1959, Flow duration of Obio Norris, S. E.. 1959, Vertical leakage through till as a source of streams : Ohio Div. Water Bull. 31,152 p. recharge to a buried valley aquifer at Dayton, Ohio: Ohio Cnmmins, J. W., 1959, Buricd river valleys in Ohio: Ohio Div. Div. Water Tech. Rept. 2, 16 p. Water Inv. Plan Rept. 10, 3 p. Norris, S. E. Cross, W. P., and Goldthwait, R. P., 1948, The Dove, G. D., 1961, A hydrologic study of the valley-fill deposits water resources of Montgomery County, Ohio: Ohio Div. in the Venice area, Ohio: Ohio Div. Water Tech, Rept. 4, Water Bnll. 12, 83 p. 82 p. Norris, S. E.. and Spielrer, A. M., 1962, Tempernture-depth rela- Durrell, R. H., 1956, Illinoian boondam in southwestern Ohio tions in wells as indicators of semiconfining beds in valley- and northern Kentuelty [abs.] : Geol. Soc. America Bull., train aquifers (k Sbort papers in geology, hydrology and v. 67, p. 1751. topography 1962) : U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 450-B, ---1961, The Pleistocene geology of the Cincinnati area, p. BlOSB105. in Pleistocene geology of the Cincinnati region [Kentucky, -1906, Ground-water resources of the Dayton area, Ohio: Ohio and ] : Geol. Soc. America Gnidebook Ser.. U.S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 1808, 167 p. Cincinnati me., 1961, p. 47-57. Ohio Division of Water, 1961, Preliminary study of the ground- Feuneman, N. M., 1916, The geology of Cincinnati and vicinity: water resources of a portion of the Miami River valley: Ohio Geol. Survey Bull. 9, 207 p. Ohio Div. Water open-file report UP-14, 30 p. 1938, Physiography of Eastern United States: New Pork, - Pierce, L. T., 1959, The occurrence of freezing temperatures in McGraw-Hill Book Go., 714 p. late spring and early fall: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Ferris, J. G., Knowles, D. B., Brown. R. H., and Stallman, R. W., Station Special Circular 94, Wooster, Ohio, 16 p., 33 figs. 1962, Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geol. Survey Water Ray, L. L., 1966, Pre-Wisconsin glacial deposits in northern Supply Paper 1536E, p. 69-174. Kentucky ilt Geological Survey research: U.S. Geol. Survey Forsyth, J. L., 1961, Wisconsin glacial deposits, in Pleistocene Prof. Paper 550-B, p. B91-B94. geology of the Cincinnati region [Kentucky, Obio and Indi- Rarabaugh, 31. I., 1956, Ground water in northeastern Louisrille, ana] : Geol. Soc. America Guidebook Ser., Cincinnati mtg., Kentucky, with reference to induced infiltration: U.S. Geol. 1961, p. 5%106. Survey Water Supply Paper 1360-B, p. 101-169. hllrr, M. L., and Clapp, B. G., 1912, The underground waters Schmidt, J. J., 1959, Underground water resources [afl Mill of southwestern Ohio, with a discussion of the chemical Creek basin and adjacent Ohio River tributaries: Ohio Div. character of the waters, by R. B. Dole: U.S. Geol. Survey Water In?. Plan Rept., file-index J [Map and cross section, Water Supply Paper 259, 228 p. with brief explanatory test]. Goldthwait, R. P., White, G. W., and Forsyth, J. L.. 1901, Map of Shoecraft E. C., Drury, W. R., and McNamee, R. L., 1942, Report the glacial deposits of Obio: U.S. Geol. Surrey Miscel. upon water supply for municipalities and industries in the Geol. Inv. Ser. Map 1316. Nill Creek valley and vicinity: Consulting Engineers to EIanson, J. R., 1965, Ohio's secret substance: Ground Water, Ohio Water Supply Board, August, 94 p. v. 3, no. 2, April, p. 2831. --- 1943, Report on water resources of the American Rolling Hem, J. D., 1959, Study and interpretation of the chemical Nil1 Company, Middletown, Ohio: Consulting Engineers to characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geol. Survey Water Ohio River Water Supply Board, April, 76 p. Supply Pawr 1473, 269 p. Spieker, A. M., 1961, A guide to the hydrogeology of the Mill Hubble, J. H., and Collier, 0. R., 1960, Quality of surface vater Creek and Miami Ri~ervalleys, Ohio, with a section on the in Ohio 194658: Ohio Div. Water Inv. Plan Rept. 14, 317 p. geomorphology of the Cincinnati area, by Richard 8. Dnr- Kaser, Paul, and Hamtine, L. J., 1965, Gromd-water levels in rell: Geol. Soc. America Gnidebook Ser., Cincinnati mtg, Ohio, October 1959-September 1964: Ohio Div. Water Bull. 1961, p. 217-251. 41, 133 p. ----1968a, Effect of increased pumping of ground water in Klaer, F. H., Jr., and Kazmann, R. G., 1943, A quantitative study the Fairfield-New Baltimore area, Ohio--a prediction by of the Well field of the Mill Creek Valley water-supply proj- analog model study: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 605-C, ect, Butler OountS, Ohio: U.S. Geol. Survey openale report. 34p. 1968b, Future development of the ground-water resource maer, F. H., Jr., and Thompson, D. G., 1948, Ground-water re- ---- in the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohio : problems and sources of the Cincinnati area, Bulter and Hamilton alternative solutions: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 605-D. Counties, Ohio: U.S. Geol. Survey Water S11pp1y Paper 15 13. 999, 168 p. Stout, Wilber, Ver Steeg, Karl, and Lamb, G. F., 1943 Geology LeGrand, EI. E., 1965, Environmental fnamework of ground-water of water in Ohio: Ohio Gml. Survey Bull. 44, 694 p. contamination : Ground Water, v. 3, no. 2, April, p. 11-15. U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking-water standards: Leopold, L. R., and Langbein, W. B., 1960, A primer on water: U.S. Dept. Eealth, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Special publication, U.S. Geol. Survey, 50 p. Service, Pub. 956. - -~- - ~p

GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY AND GEOLOGY

Walker, A. C., IQGOa, Underground water resources [of] Miami and Butler Counties, Ohio: U.S. Gwl. Survey open-file River basin [lower middle part] : Ohio Div. Water Inv. report, 9 p. Plan Rept., file-index H-9 [map and cross section, with brief Watkins, J. S., and Spieker, A. M., IS%, Seismic refraction sur- explanatory text]. vey in the Great Miami River valley and vicinity, Mont- -1960b, Underground water resources [of Miami River gomery, Warren, and Butler Counties, Ohio: U.S. Geol. basin [lower *art] : Ohio Div. Water Inv. Plan Rept., file- Survey open-flle rewrt, 6 p. index H-11 [map and cross section, with brief explanatory -1968, Seismic refraction surveys of Pleistocene drainage text]. channels in the lower Great Miami River valley, Ohio: U.S. -lgBOc, Underground water resources [of] Miami River Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 605B (in press). basin [showing some of middle part1 and lower Mad River Weiss, M. P., and Norman, C. E., 1960, Development of strntl- basin: Ohio Div. Water Inv. Plan Rept., file-index E14 and graphic classification of Ordovician rocks in the Cincinnati H-5 [maps and cross sections, with brief explanatory text]. region, pt I1 of The American Upper Ordovician Standard : Watlrins, J. S., 1963, Reftaction seismic studies in the Miami Ohio Geol. Survey Information Circ. 26, 14 p. and correla- River, Whitewater River, and Mill Creek valleys, Hamilton tion chart.

I r