GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
BY
MICHAEL P. ANGLE AND MIKE AKINS
GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL REPORT NO. 54
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER
WATER RESOURCES SECTION
2001 ABSTRACT
A ground water pollution potential map of Muskingum County has been prepared using the DRASTIC mapping process. The DRASTIC system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system for pollution potential.
Hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the system and incorporate the major hydrogeologic factors that affect and control ground water movement and occurrence including depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. These factors, which form the acronym DRASTIC, are incorporated into a relative ranking scheme that uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. Hydrogeologic settings are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on a map.
Ground water pollution potential analysis in Muskingum County resulted in a map with symbols and colors that illustrate areas of varying ground water contamination vulnerability. Eleven hydrogeologic settings were identified in Muskingum County with computed ground water pollution potential indexes ranging from 63 to 190.
Muskingum County lies within the Nonglaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The extreme western edge of Hopewell Township is within the Glaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The buried valley underlying portions of the present Muskingum River basin contains sand and gravel outwash that is capable of yielding up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) from properly designed, large diameter wells. Other areas of the Muskingum River and Licking River containing less continuous, thinner outwash deposits have yields varying from 100 to 500 gpm down to 25 to 100 gpm. Wells completed in thin sand and gravel lenses interbedded in thicker sequences of finer-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits yield an average of 5 to 25 gpm. Such deposits are common to the many tributaries northwest of Zanesville. Smaller tributaries contain only thin, fine-grained alluvial/lacustrine deposits commonly yielding less than 5 gpm.
Interbedded sandstones and shales of the Mississippian Logan Formation and interbedded sandstones, shales, siltstones, and thin coals of the Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group have yields averaging from 10 to 25 gpm. The Mississippian Maxville Limestone has average yields of 5 to 10 gpm. Dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, coals, and claystones of the Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group have yields in the 5 to 10 gpm range. Sandstones, claystones, and limestones of the Pennsylvanian Conemaugh Group and Monongahela Group are poor aquifers and yields are commonly less than 5 gpm.
The ground water pollution potential mapping program optimizes the use of existing data to rank areas with respect to relative vulnerability to contamination. The ground water pollution potential map of Muskingum County has been prepared to assist planners, managers, and local officials in evaluating the potential for contamination from various sources of pollution. This information can be used to help direct resources and land use activities to appropriate areas, or to assist in protection, monitoring, and clean-up efforts.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract...... ii Table of Contents...... iii List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Introduction ...... 1 Applications of Pollution Potential Maps...... 2 Summary of the DRASTIC Mapping Process ...... 3 Hydrogeologic Settings and Factors...... 3 Weighting and Rating System...... 6 Pesticide DRASTIC ...... 7 Integration of Hydrogeologic Settings and DRASTIC Factors...... 10 Interpretation and Use of a Ground Water Pollution Potential Map...... 12 General Information About Muskingum County ...... 13 Demographics...... 13 Climate...... 13 Physiography and Topography ...... 13 Modern Drainage ...... 15 Pre- and Inter-Glacial Drainage Changes ...... 15 Glacial Geology...... 18 Bedrock Geology ...... 20 Ground Water Resources ...... 22 Strip and Underground Mined Areas...... 23 References...... 26 Unpublished Data ...... 29 Appendix A, Description of the Logic in Factor Selection...... 30 Appendix B, Description of the Hydrogeologic Settings and Charts...... 35
iii LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1. Format and description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D Buried Valley...... 5 2. Description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D1 Buried Valley...... 11 3. Location of Muskingum County ...... 14 4. Pre-glacial Teays Stage drainage...... 16 5. Deep Stage drainage...... 17 6. Illinoian-age drainage...... 19
iv LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1. Assigned weights for DRASTIC features ...... 7 2. Ranges and ratings for depth to water...... 7 3. Ranges and ratings for net recharge ...... 8 4. Ranges and ratings for aquifer media...... 8 5. Ranges and ratings for soil media ...... 8 6. Ranges and ratings for topography...... 9 7. Ranges and ratings for impact of the vadose zone media ...... 9 8. Ranges and ratings for hydraulic conductivity...... 10 9. Bedrock stratigraphy of Muskingum County...... 21 10. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for strip mined areas...... 25 11. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for underground mined areas... 25 12. Muskingum County soils ...... 32 13. Hydrogeologic settings mapped in Muskingum County, Ohio ...... 35 14. Hydrogeologic Settings, DRASTIC Factors, and Ratings ...... 47
v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of the Muskingum County Ground Water Pollution Potential report and map involved the contribution and work of a number of individuals in the Division of Water. Grateful acknowledgement is given to the following individuals for their technical review and map production, text authorship, report editing, and preparation:
Map preparation and review: Mike Akins Michael P. Angle
GIS coverage production and review: Paul Spahr
Report production and review: Michael P. Angle
Report editing: Kathy Sprowls
vi INTRODUCTION
The need for protection and management of ground water resources in Ohio has been clearly recognized. About 42 percent of Ohio citizens rely on ground water for drinking and household use from both municipal and private wells. Industry and agriculture also utilize significant quantities of ground water for processing and irrigation. In Ohio, approximately 750,000 rural households depend on private wells; 12,400 of these wells exist in Muskingum County.
The characteristics of the many aquifer systems in the state make ground water highly vulnerable to contamination. Measures to protect ground water from contamination usually cost less and create less impact on ground water users than remediation of a polluted aquifer. Based on these concerns for protection of the resource, staff of the Division of Water conducted a review of various mapping strategies useful for identifying vulnerable aquifer areas. They placed particular emphasis on reviewing mapping systems that would assist in state and local protection and management programs. Based on these factors and the quantity and quality of available data on ground water resources, the DRASTIC mapping process (Aller et al., 1987) was selected for application in the program.
Considerable interest in the mapping program followed successful production of a demonstration county map and led to the inclusion of the program as a recommended initiative in the Ohio Ground Water Protection and Management Strategy (Ohio EPA, 1986). Based on this recommendation, the Ohio General Assembly funded the mapping program. A dedicated mapping unit has been established in the Division of Water, Water Resources Section to implement the ground water pollution potential mapping program on a countywide basis in Ohio.
The purpose of this report and map is to aid in the protection of our ground water resources. This protection can be enhanced by understanding and implementing the results of this study, which utilizes the DRASTIC system of evaluating an area’s potential for ground water pollution. The mapping program identifies areas that are vulnerable to contamination and displays this information graphically on maps. The system was not designed or intended to replace site-specific investigations, but rather to be used as a planning and management tool. The map and report can be combined with other information to assist in prioritizing local resources and in making land use decisions.
1 APPLICATIONS OF POLLUTION POTENTIAL MAPS
The pollution potential mapping program offers a wide variety of applications in many counties. The ground water pollution potential map of Muskingum County has been prepared to assist planners, managers, and state and local officials in evaluating the relative vulnerability of areas to ground water contamination from various sources of pollution. This information can be used to help direct resources and land use activities to appropriate areas, or to assist in protection, monitoring, and clean-up efforts.
An important application of the pollution potential maps for many areas will be assisting in county land use planning and resource expenditures related to solid waste disposal. A county may use the map to help identify areas that are suitable for disposal activities. Once these areas have been identified, a county can collect more site-specific information and combine this with other local factors to determine site suitability.
Pollution potential maps may be applied successfully where non-point source contamination is a concern. Non-point source contamination occurs where land use activities over large areas impact water quality. Maps providing information on relative vulnerability can be used to guide the selection and implementation of appropriate best management practices in different areas. Best management practices should be chosen based upon consideration of the chemical and physical processes that occur from the practice, and the effect these processes may have in areas of moderate to high vulnerability to contamination. For example, the use of agricultural best management practices that limit the infiltration of nitrates, or promote denitrification above the water table, would be beneficial to implement in areas of relatively high vulnerability to contamination.
A pollution potential map can assist in developing ground water protection strategies. By identifying areas more vulnerable to contamination, officials can direct resources to areas where special attention or protection efforts might be warranted. This information can be utilized effectively at the local level for integration into land use decisions and as an educational tool to promote public awareness of ground water resources. Pollution potential maps may be used to prioritize ground water monitoring and/or contamination clean-up efforts. Areas that are identified as being vulnerable to contamination may benefit from increased ground water monitoring for pollutants or from additional efforts to clean up an aquifer.
Individuals in the county who are familiar with specific land use and management problems will recognize other beneficial uses of the pollution potential maps. Planning commissions and zoning boards can use these maps to help make informed decisions about the development of areas within their jurisdiction. Developers proposing projects within ground water sensitive areas may be required to show how ground water will be protected.
Regardless of the application, emphasis must be placed on the fact that the system is not designed to replace a site-specific investigation. The strength of the system lies in its ability to make a "first-cut approximation" by identifying areas that are vulnerable to contamination. Any potential applications of the system should also recognize the assumptions inherent in the system.
2 SUMMARY OF THE DRASTIC MAPPING PROCESS
DRASTIC was developed by the National Ground Water Association for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This system was chosen for implementation of a ground water pollution potential mapping program in Ohio. A detailed discussion of this system can be found in Aller et al. (1987).
The DRASTIC mapping system allows the pollution potential of any area to be evaluated systematically using existing information. Vulnerability to contamination is a combination of hydrogeologic factors, anthropogenic influences, and sources of contamination in any given area. The DRASTIC system focuses only on those hydrogeologic factors that influence ground water pollution potential. The system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system to determine pollution potential.
The application of DRASTIC to an area requires the recognition of a set of assumptions made in the development of the system. DRASTIC evaluates the pollution potential of an area under the assumption that a contaminant with the mobility of water is introduced at the surface and flushed into the ground water by precipitation. Most important, DRASTIC cannot be applied to areas smaller than 100 acres in size and is not intended or designed to replace site-specific investigations.
Hydrogeologic Settings and Factors
To facilitate the designation of mappable units, the DRASTIC system used the framework of an existing classification system developed by Heath (1984), which divides the United States into 15 ground water regions based on the factors in a ground water system that affect occurrence and availability.
Within each major hydrogeologic region, smaller units representing specific hydrogeologic settings are identified. Hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the system and represent a composite description of the major geologic and hydrogeologic factors that control ground water movement into, through, and out of an area. A hydrogeologic setting represents a mappable unit with common hydrogeologic characteristics and, as a consequence, common vulnerability to contamination (Aller et al., 1987).
3 Figure 1 illustrates the format and description of a typical hydrogeologic setting found within Muskingum County. Inherent within each hydrogeologic setting are the physical characteristics that affect the ground water pollution potential. These characteristics or factors identified during the development of the DRASTIC system include:
D – Depth to Water R – Net Recharge A – Aquifer Media S – Soil Media T – Topography I – Impact of the Vadose Zone Media C – Conductivity (Hydraulic) of the Aquifer
These factors incorporate concepts and mechanisms such as attenuation, retardation, and time or distance of travel of a contaminant with respect to the physical characteristics of the hydrogeologic setting. Broad consideration of these factors and mechanisms coupled with existing conditions in a setting provide a basis for determination of the area's relative vulnerability to contamination.
Depth to water is considered to be the depth from the ground surface to the water table in unconfined aquifer conditions or the depth to the top of the aquifer under confined aquifer conditions. The depth to water determines the distance a contaminant would have to travel before reaching the aquifer. The greater the distance the contaminant has to travel, the greater the opportunity for attenuation to occur or restriction of movement by relatively impermeable layers.
Net recharge is the total amount of water reaching the land surface that infiltrates the aquifer measured in inches per year. Recharge water is available to transport a contaminant from the surface into the aquifer and affects the quantity of water available for dilution and dispersion of a contaminant. Factors to be included in the determination of net recharge include contributions due to infiltration of precipitation, in addition to infiltration from rivers, streams and lakes, irrigation, and artificial recharge.
Aquifer media represents consolidated or unconsolidated rock material capable of yielding sufficient quantities of water for use. Aquifer media accounts for the various physical characteristics of the rock that provide mechanisms of attenuation, retardation, and flow pathways that affect a contaminant reaching and moving through an aquifer.
Soil media refers to the upper six feet of the unsaturated zone that is characterized by significant biological activity. The type of soil media influences the amount of recharge that can move through the soil column due to variations in soil permeability. Various soil types also have the ability to attenuate or retard a contaminant as it moves throughout the soil profile. Soil media is based on textural classifications of soils and considers relative thicknesses and attenuation characteristics of each profile within the soil.
4
7D Buried Valley
This hydrogeologic setting is widespread throughout Muskingum County. All of the major trunk streams and some of the modern tributaries overlie buried valley deposits. There are also former drainage ways overlying buried valleys that lack modern streams, notably the broad valley extending westward from Frazeysburg. Broad, flat-lying floodplains and gently sloping terraces characterize the setting. Depths to water are variable; they are typically less than 30 feet in valleys containing modern streams and are commonly over 45 feet in valleys lacking modern streams. Aquifers are composed of variable thicknesses of sand and gravel interbedded with finer-grained alluvium, till, and lacustrine deposits. The modern streams may be in direct hydraulic connection with the underlying aquifer. Yields up to 500 gpm have been reported for some of the coarser, thicker, more continuous sand and gravel outwash in portions of the Muskingum River Valley and Licking River Valley. Yields up to 100 gpm are developed in remaining portions of the Muskingum River Valley and Licking River Valley. Some valleys, including Wills Creek and the tributary valleys east of the Licking River, contain thin lenses of sand and gravel interbedded with much thicker sequences of finer-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits. Soils on terraces are typically sandy loams derived from outwash; soils on floodplains are silt loams derived from modern alluvium. Recharge is typically relatively high due to the flat-lying topography, shallow depth to water, and the high permeability of the soils, vadose zone materials, and aquifer for buried valleys with modern overlying streams. Recharge tends to be less in valleys lacking modern streams, having greater depths to water, and less permeable soils and vadose media.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Buried Valley range from 111 to 190, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 49.
Figure 1. Format and description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D Buried Valley.
5 Topography refers to the slope of the land expressed as percent slope. The slope of an area affects the likelihood that a contaminant will run off or be ponded and ultimately infiltrate into the subsurface. Topography also affects soil development and often can be used to help determine the direction and gradient of ground water flow under water table conditions.
The impact of the vadose zone media refers to the attenuation and retardation processes that can occur as a contaminant moves through the unsaturated zone above the aquifer. The vadose zone represents that area below the soil horizon and above the aquifer that is unsaturated or discontinuously saturated. Various attenuation, travel time, and distance mechanisms related to the types of geologic materials present can affect the movement of contaminants in the vadose zone. Where an aquifer is unconfined, the vadose zone media represents the materials below the soil horizon and above the water table. Under confined aquifer conditions, the vadose zone is simply referred to as a confining layer. The presence of the confining layer in the unsaturated zone has a significant impact on the pollution potential of the ground water in an area.
Hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer is a measure of the ability of the aquifer to transmit water, and is also related to ground water velocity and gradient. Hydraulic conductivity is dependent upon the amount and interconnectivity of void spaces and fractures within a consolidated or unconsolidated rock unit. Higher hydraulic conductivity typically corresponds to higher vulnerability to contamination. Hydraulic conductivity considers the capability for a contaminant that reaches an aquifer to be transported throughout that aquifer over time.
Weighting and Rating System
DRASTIC uses a numerical weighting and rating system that is combined with the DRASTIC factors to calculate a ground water pollution potential index or relative measure of vulnerability to contamination. The DRASTIC factors are weighted from 1 to 5 according to their relative importance to each other with regard to contamination potential (Table 1). Each factor is then divided into ranges or media types and assigned a rating from 1 to 10 based on their significance to pollution potential (Tables 2-8). The rating for each factor is selected based on available information and professional judgment. The selected rating for each factor is multiplied by the assigned weight for each factor. These numbers are summed to calculate the DRASTIC or pollution potential index.
Once a DRASTIC index has been calculated, it is possible to identify areas that are more likely to be susceptible to ground water contamination relative to other areas. The higher the DRASTIC index, the greater the vulnerability to contamination. The index generated provides only a relative evaluation tool and is not designed to produce absolute answers or to represent units of vulnerability. Pollution potential indexes of various settings should be compared to each other only with consideration of the factors that were evaluated in determining the vulnerability of the area.
6 Pesticide DRASTIC
A special version of DRASTIC was developed for use where the application of pesticides is a concern. The weights assigned to the DRASTIC factors were changed to reflect the processes that affect pesticide movement into the subsurface with particular emphasis on soils. Where other agricultural practices, such as the application of fertilizers, are a concern, general DRASTIC should be used to evaluate relative vulnerability to contamination. The process for calculating the Pesticide DRASTIC index is identical to the process used for calculating the general DRASTIC index. However, general DRASTIC and Pesticide DRASTIC numbers should not be compared because the conceptual basis in factor weighting and evaluation differs significantly. Table 1 lists the weights used for general and pesticide DRASTIC.
Table 1. Assigned weights for DRASTIC features
General Pesticide Feature DRASTIC DRASTIC Weight Weight Depth to Water 5 5 Net Recharge 4 4 Aquifer Media 3 3 Soil Media 2 5 Topography 1 3 Impact of the Vadose Zone Media 5 4 Hydraulic Conductivity of the Aquifer 3 2
Table 2. Ranges and ratings for depth to water
Depth to Water (feet) Range Rating 0-5 10 5-15 9 15-30 7 30-50 5 50-75 3 75-100 2 100+ 1 Weight: 5 Pesticide Weight: 5
7
Table 3. Ranges and ratings for net recharge Net Recharge (inches) Range Rating 0-2 1 2-4 3 4-7 6 7-10 8 10+ 9 Weight: 4 Pesticide Weight: 4
Table 4. Ranges and ratings for aquifer media Aquifer Media Range Rating Typical Rating Shale 1-3 2 Glacial Till 4-6 5 Sandstone 4-9 6 Limestone 4-9 6 Sand and Gravel 4-9 8 Interbedded Ss/Sh/Ls/Coal 2-10 9 Karst Limestone 9-10 10 Weight: 3 Pesticide Weight: 3
Table 5. Ranges and ratings for soil media Soil Media Range Rating Thin or Absent 10 Gravel 10 Sand 9 Peat 8 Shrink/Swell Clay 7 Sandy Loam 6 Loam 5 Silty Loam 4 Clay Loam 3 Muck 2 Clay 1 Weight: 2 Pesticide Weight: 5
8
Table 6. Ranges and ratings for topography Topography (percent slope) Range Rating 0-2 10 2-6 9 6-12 5 12-18 3 18+ 1 Weight: 1 Pesticide Weight: 3
Table 7. Ranges and ratings for impact of the vadose zone media Impact of the Vadose Zone Media Range Rating Typical Rating Confining Layer 1 1 Silt/Clay 2-6 3 Shale 2-5 3 Limestone 2-7 6 Sandstone 4-8 6 Interbedded Ss/Sh/Ls/Coal 4-8 6 Sand and Gravel with Silt and Clay 4-8 6 Glacial Till 2-6 4 Sand and Gravel 6-9 8 Karst Limestone 8-10 10 Weight: 5 Pesticide Weight: 4
Table 8. Ranges and ratings for hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic Conductivity (GPD/FT2) Range Rating 1-100 1 100-300 2 300-700 4 700-1000 6 1000-2000 8 2000+ 10 Weight: 3 Pesticide Weight: 2
9 Integration of Hydrogeologic Settings and DRASTIC Factors
Figure 2 illustrates the hydrogeologic setting 7D1, Buried Valley, identified in mapping Muskingum County, and the pollution potential index calculated for the setting. Based on selected ratings for this setting, the pollution potential index is calculated to be 155. This numerical value has no intrinsic meaning, but can be readily compared to a value obtained for other settings in the county. DRASTIC indexes for typical hydrogeologic settings and values across the United States range from 45 to 223. The diversity of hydrogeologic conditions in Muskingum County produces settings with a wide range of vulnerability to ground water contamination. Calculated pollution potential indexes for the 11 settings identified in the county range from 63 to 190.
Hydrogeologic settings identified in an area are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on maps. Pollution potential analysis in Muskingum County resulted in a map with symbols and colors that illustrate areas of ground water vulnerability. The map describing the ground water pollution potential of Muskingum County is included with this report.
10
SETTING 7D1 GENERAL FEATURE RANGE WEIGHT RATING NUMBER Depth to Water 5-15 5 9 45 Net Recharge 7-10 4 8 32 Aquifer Media Sand & Gravel 3 6 18 Soil Media Silty Loam 2 4 8 Topography 0-2% 1 10 10 Impact of Vadose Zone Sand & Gravel w/Silt & Clay 5 6 30 Hydraulic Conductivity 300-700 3 4 12 DRASTIC INDEX 155
Figure 2. Description of the hydrogeologic setting - 7D1 Buried Valley.
11 INTERPRETATION AND USE OF GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL MAPS
The application of the DRASTIC system to evaluate an area’s vulnerability to contamination produces hydrogeologic settings with corresponding pollution potential indexes. The susceptibility to contamination is greater as the pollution potential index increases. This numeric value determined for one area can be compared to the pollution potential index calculated for another area.
The map accompanying this report displays both the hydrogeologic settings identified in the county and the associated pollution potential indexes calculated in those hydrogeologic settings. The symbols on the map represent the following information:
7D1 - defines the hydrogeologic region and setting 155 - defines the relative pollution potential
Here the first number (7) refers to the major hydrogeologic region and the upper case letters (D) refer to a specific hydrogeologic setting. The following number (1) references a certain set of DRASTIC parameters that are unique to this setting and are described in the corresponding setting chart. The second number (155) is the calculated pollution potential index for this unique setting. The charts for each setting provide a reference to show how the pollution potential index was derived.
The maps are color-coded using ranges depicted on the map legend. The color codes used are part of a national color-coding scheme developed to assist the user in gaining a general insight into the vulnerability of the ground water in the area. The color codes were chosen to represent the colors of the spectrum, with warm colors (red, orange, and yellow) representing areas of higher vulnerability (higher pollution potential indexes), and cool colors (greens, blues, and violet) representing areas of lower vulnerability to contamination. The maps also delineate large man-made and natural features such as lakes, landfills, quarries, and strip mines, but these areas are not rated and therefore not color-coded.
12
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT MUSKINGUM COUNTY
Demographics
Muskingum County occupies approximately 651 square miles in southeastern Ohio (Figure 3). Muskingum County is bounded to the northeast by Guernsey County, to the southeast by Noble County, to the south by Morgan County, to the southwest by Perry County, to the northwest by Licking County, and to the north by Coshocton County.
The approximate population of Muskingum County, based upon 1998 estimates, is 84,470 (Department of Development, Ohio County Profiles, 1999). Zanesville is the largest community and the county seat. Woodland and pasture are the major land uses in the county. There are numerous recreational/wildlife areas throughout the county. Agriculture is also an important land use. Strip mining has historically been an important land use in the central and eastern portion of the county. More specific information on land usage can be obtained from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Real Estate and Land Management (REALM), Resource Analysis Program (formerly OCAP).
Climate
The Hydrologic Atlas for Ohio (Harstine, 1991) reports an average annual temperature of approximately 52 degrees Fahrenheit for Muskingum County. The average temperatures increase slightly towards the south. Harstine (1991) shows that precipitation averages 39 inches per year for the majority of the county, but declines in the southern end of the county. The mean annual precipitation for Zanesville is 39.42 inches per year based upon a thirty- year (1961-1990) period (Owenby and Ezell, 1992). The mean annual temperature at Zanesville for the same thirty-year period is 51.3 degrees Fahrenheit (Owenby and Ezell, 1992).
Physiography and Topography
Muskingum County lies almost entirely within the Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateau Province (Frost, 1931 and Fenneman, 1938). The extreme western edge of Hopewell Township has been glaciated during the Wisconsinan ice-advance and is part of the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau section. Relatively high relief and rugged topography, featuring narrow ridges, steep slopes, and a high degree of stream dissection characterize the county. Floodplains of the Muskingum River and its major tributaries are relatively broad and flat lying.
13
Figure 3. Location of Muskingum County, Ohio.
14 Modern Drainage
The Muskingum River and its tributaries drain Muskingum County. The main trunk of the Muskingum River drains the central portion of the county. Important western tributaries include Mill Fork, Wakatomika Creek, Licking River, Jonathan Creek, and Moxahala Creek. Salt Creek is the major tributary draining the southeastern corner of the county. Wills Creek and its tributaries drain the eastern edge of the county. Wills Creek flows to the north through central Guernsey County and then turns westward, emptying into the Muskingum River at the Muskingum County–Coshocton County boundary. Tributaries of Wills Creek with their headwaters in eastern Muskingum County include Buffalo Creek, Crooked Creek, and White Eyes Creek.
Pre- and Inter-Glacial Drainage Changes
Muskingum County lies almost entirely beyond the glacial boundary; however, the drainage patterns of the county changed greatly as a result of the multiple glaciations. The drainage changes are complex and not yet fully understood. More research and data are necessary in both Muskingum County and adjacent counties. Particularly, well log data for deeper wells that penetrate the entire drift thickness would be helpful in making interpretations.
Prior to glaciation, the Teays River System drained southeastern Ohio (Figure 4). The Cambridge River and its tributaries drained Muskingum County (Stout et al., 1943 and Stout, 1918). It cut across the northwestern corner of the county, flowing in the broad valley that underlies the Frazeysburg and Dresden region. The Cambridge River flowed westward, emptying into the Groveport River near present day Newark. The Groveport River was an important eastern tributary of Teays River.
A tributary of the Cambridge River was Putnam Creek. The headwaters for Putnam Creek approximately followed the course of Moxahala Creek in Muskingum County, flowing north towards Zanesville and then curved northwestward, roughly following the course of modern Licking River. Sonora Creek was a northerly flowing tributary of Putnam Creek. Sonora Creek roughly followed the course of the present Muskingum River and emptied into Putnam Creek near Zanesville. There was a major drainage divide in northern Morgan County nearby present-day Eagleport that blocked any drainage towards the south (Norling, 1958). The divide consisted of a resistant bedrock ridge or col; north of this col, drainage was to the northwest.
As ice advanced through Ohio during the pre-Illinoian (Kansan) glaciation, the Teays Drainage System was blocked. Flow backed-up in the main trunk of the Teays River Valley as well as in many tributaries, forming several large lakes. These lakes over-topped, creating spillways and cutting new channels. New drainage systems began to evolve (Stout et al., 1943). This downcutting by these new streams was believed to be relatively rapid and, in many places, the new channels were cut over 100 feet deeper than the previous Teays River System valleys. The new drainage system (Figure 5) is referred to as the Deep Stage due to
15
Figure 4. Pre-glacial Teays Stage drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).
16
Figure 5. Deep Stage drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).
17 this increased downcutting. A new trunk stream referred to as the Newark River down-cut and its headwaters eroded eastward, eventually extending to the city of Coshocton. In Muskingum County, the Newark River deepened the channel previously occupied by the Cambridge River. Dresden Creek, a northerly flowing tributary that closely followed the course of the present Muskingum River, predominantly drained Muskingum County. The divide (col) in northern Morgan County was still not breached at this time. During this time, the ancestral Ohio River became established.
The Illinoian ice advance brought further changes to the drainage systems (Figure 6). Opinions as to the nature of drainage changes as a result of the advancing Illinoian ice front differ. Stout et al. (1943) determined that Illinoian ice either did not advance into northeastern Ohio, or at least advanced at a different time then in western Ohio. As the Illinoian ice sheet advanced eastward from central Ohio, the Newark River was blocked in Licking County. Stout et al. (1943) suggested that the waters of the blocked drainage rose and eventually were diverted to the north; basically re-occupying the channel of the former Dover River. At this time, drainage to the north was possible, as advancing Illinoian ice did not block this area. Stout et al. (1943) referred to this northerly flowing trunk stream as the Massillon River. Headwaters for Ashcraft Creek, a northerly-flowing tributary to the Massillon River, drained most of Muskingum County.
Lamborn (1956) and DeLong and White (1961) proposed that Illinoian ice did advance into northeastern Ohio and blocked drainage northward. They proposed that drainage was still primarily to the southwest through the Newark River. Ice-blockage between the towns of Newark and Hanover caused the Newark River to back-up and pond in the trunk valley and tributaries though much of eastern Licking County, Muskingum County, Coshocton County and Tuscarawas County. Abundant fine-grained sediments were deposited in these ponded valleys. Eventually, divides were breached, notably at the Black Hand Gorge in eastern Licking County and new drainage ways were established along the Licking River and Muskingum River (Carney, 1907; Dove, 1960; and Bork and Malcuit, 1987). It was at this time the ancestral trunk stream abandoned the channel from Dresden-Frazeysburg-Hanover (Dove, 1960).
The massive volumes of meltwater produced during the Wisconsinan (most recent) ice advance eventually breached the col near Eagleport (Norling, 1958). This led to the establishment of the modern Muskingum River System (Stout et al., 1943 and Norling, 1958). The Muskingum River Valley contains a variety of coarse outwash, silty alluvial and finer lacustrine (lake) sediments which were deposited over time. Ancestral stream channels filled with glacial/alluvial sediments are referred to as buried valleys.
Glacial Geology
During the Illinoian ice advance, ice entered the western part of Hopewell Township. The ice deposited a moderately sandy to clayey, highly weathered till which thinly mantled the local uplands (Goldthwait et al., 1961; Forsyth, 1966, and Pavey et al., 1999).
18
Figure 6. Illinoian-age drainage (after Stout et al., 1943).
19 The majority of the glacially-related deposits are limited to the ancestral stream channels (White et al., 1961, Pavey et al., 1999, Walker, 1992, and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File Glacial State Aquifer Map). Ancestral stream channels filled with glacial/alluvial sediments are referred to as buried valleys. The buried valleys are filled with differing sequences of coarse sand and gravel outwash, finer-grained lacustrine and modern, silty alluvial or floodplain deposits. These deposits vary with the energy level of the streams at that time. Streams leading away from melting glaciers are high energy and deposit coarser outwash. Outwash contains interbedded layers of sand and gravel deposited by a braided stream system. Streams that are blocked by ice or by thick channel deposits tend to be ponded and fill with finer-grained sediments. Modern tributaries, which lead into streams overlying the buried valleys, tend to contain variable thicknesses of sand, gravel, and silty alluvium.
Muskingum County also has many deposits of loess of appreciable thickness, particularly in the Zanesville area (Steiger, 1996). Loess is a deposit formed by wind-blown silt. Loess is derived from the wind picking up fine silt-sized (to very fine-grained sand) particles covering the floodplains of the wide outwash or lacustrine valley floors. Loess is commonly found capping bedrock uplands and higher stream terraces to the east (upwind) of major river valleys. Thicknesses of loess exceeding 15 feet have been noted for Muskingum County. In some of the lower to middle elevation terraces, it may be difficult to differentiate whether the silty deposit is slack water lacustrine, loess, loess deposited in shallow standing water, or any combination of these (Larry Tornes, ODNR, Div. of Soil and Water, personal communication, 2001). Loess is particularly important to the development of soils in these upland and terrace areas.
Bedrock Geology
Bedrock exposed at the surface in Muskingum County belongs to the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Systems. Table 9 summarizes the bedrock stratigraphy found in Muskingum County. Stout (1918) gives a thorough review of the bedrock stratigraphy of Muskingum County. The ODNR, Division of Geological Survey, has Open-File Reconnaissance Bedrock Geological Maps done on a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map base available for the entire county. The oldest rocks exposed in Muskingum County are part of the Mississippian Logan Formation and are found along the northwestern margin of the county. The Mississippian Maxville Limestone is exposed in the southwestern corner of the county (Lamborn, 1951). The oldest Pennsylvanian rocks are interbedded sandstones, shales, siltstones, and thin coals of the Pottsville Group. These rocks are limited to the western margin of the county. Rocks of the Allegheny Group include interbedded dirty sandstones, shales, siltstones, and thin limestones and coals, and are found primarily in the western third of the county. Rocks of the Conemaugh Group are exposed in much of the central and eastern part of the county. These rocks include interbedded dirty, micaceous sandstones, shales, siltstones, thin, fine-grained limestones, and minor coals. Higher in the section, the rocks tend to include more fine- grained mudstones and claystones (Collins, 1979). Rocks of the Monongahela Group are found mostly in southeastern Muskingum County. These rocks include interbedded dirty sandstones, shales, minor limestones, and some important coal beds, particularly in the northern part of the county.
20 Table 9. Bedrock stratigraphy of Muskingum County, Ohio System Group/Formation Lithologic Description (Symbol) Interbedded dirty sandstones, shales, and siltstones with thin coal, Pennsylvanian Undivided, limestones, and clay. Poor aquifer, i.e. Conemaugh, Monongahela Fms. yields less than 5 gallons per minute. (Pu) Found in eastern third of Muskingum County. Interbedded gray to black sandstones, Pennsylvanian shale, and siltstone with thin limestone, coal, clay, and flint. Allegheny Group Commonly found in central, northern, Pottsville Group and western Muskingum County. (Pap) Poor aquifer, yields less than 5 gallons per minute. Yields up to 25 gpm in northwestern Muskingum County. The Maxville Limestone is gray, massive to nodular, and fossiliferous. Mississippian Undivided The Logan Formation consists of Significant formations include the interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and Maxville Limestone, Logan shale, with sandstone as the dominant Formation, and the Cuyahoga lithology. Formation (Mu) The Cuyahoga Formation consists of gray to brown shale interbedded with minor sandstone and siltstone. Mississippian The Logan is a thin brown sandstone with minor siltstone and shale. The Black Hand is a massive sandstone Logan Formation with conglomerate and fractured Black Hand Formation zones. Moderate to good aquifers (Mlb) with yields ranging from 5 to 100 gallons per minute. Limited to the western third of Muskingum County. Dark thin shales and siltstones with minor fine-grained sandstones that are stratigraphic equivalents of the Logan and Cuyahoga Group Logan and Black Hand Formations. (Mlcg) Moderate to poor aquifers, yields range from 5to 25 gallons per minute. Limited to southwestern Hopewell Township.
21 Weedman (1990) provides an excellent account of the complex depositional environments, which created the rocks of the Pennsylvanian System. These highly transitional environments included both terrestrial ("land-based") and marine-derived sediments. The terrestrial environment was dominated by large river systems featuring broad alluvial plains upland from coastal areas. Stream channels and point bar deposits were the source of sandstones and conglomerates. Shales and siltstones were derived from fine- grained floodplain deposits. Freshwater limestones were deposited in shallow, rapidly evaporating lakes and ponds found on the alluvial plain. The terrestrial environment was highly transitional with a marine environment over time. The position of the shoreline and the depth of water varied with the rate of sediment input into the basin, sea level, and the rate of subsidence. Subsidence refers to an uneven "settling" during the relatively rapid accumulation of sediments. In the Allegheny Group, sandstones and shales represent deltaic/shoreline environments. Marine limestones formed in slightly deeper waters, which lacked clastic input from rivers and deltas. Coal and clay were deposited in two different environments. Coal was deposited in either a "back-barrier" environment along the shoreline or in "deltaic-plain" environment in swamps formed in abandoned river channels (Horne et al., 1978). Similarly, clay was deposited in either quiet lagoonal areas directly behind the shoreline or in abandoned "oxbow" river channels (Ferm, 1974).
Ground Water Resources
Ground water in Muskingum County is obtained from both unconsolidated (glacial- alluvial) and consolidated (bedrock) aquifers. Glacial aquifers are primarily limited to the main trunk of the Muskingum River and its western tributaries.
Yields up to 500 gpm are obtainable from the coarse, well-sorted sand and gravel outwash deposits in the Muskingum River Valley (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water Open File, Glacial State Aquifer Map) east of Dresden and in the vicinity of Zanesville and Philo. Test drilling or geophysical methods are recommended to help locate the higher yielding zones. Proper well construction and development is also needed to insure the high sustainable yields capable from these larger diameter wells. Smaller diameter wells should be suitable for serving domestic/farm needs within this aquifer.
Yields of 100 to 500 gpm are obtained from somewhat thinner, less continuous outwash deposits (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File Glacial State Aquifer Map). Such deposits are found in the ancestral channel of the Muskingum River between Frazeysburg and Dresden, in the Licking River Valley northwest of Dillon Lake, and in the Muskingum River in the vicinity of Zanesville and Philo. Yields of 25 to 100 gpm (Walker, 1992) are obtained from wells drilled in the ancestral channel west of Frazeysburg and in the Muskingum River Valley between Dresden and Zanesville. Thin lenses of sand and gravel interbedded with finer-grained materials in the tributary buried valleys and alluvial valleys northwest of Zanesville yield 5 to 25 gpm (Walker, 1992).
Fine-grained deposits located in minor tributaries of the Muskingum River and Licking River in western Muskingum County typically are thin and constitute a very marginal aquifer
22 (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File, Glacial State Aquifer Map). These fine-grained deposits more likely help provide extra recharge to the underlying bedrock. Portions of these tributaries where thin, dirty sand and gravel lenses are present, interbedded with thicker sequences of fine-grained sediments, commonly yield less than 5 gpm (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water Open File, Glacial State Aquifer Map).
Yields from the consolidated, bedrock aquifers throughout the county are variable. Overall, yields tend to be better adjacent to stream valleys and poorer along ridge tops. Yields ranging from 10 to 25 gpm are common for other areas of interbedded sandstones and shales of the Mississippian Logan Formation and the Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File, Bedrock State Aquifer Map). Yields from the Mississippian Maxville Limestone averages from 5 to 10 gpm (Walker, 1992 and Spahr, 1997a). Yields from wells developed in the dirty sandstones, shales, siltstones, coals, and thin limestones of the Allegheny Group usually range from 3 to 10 gpm (Walker, 1989 and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File, Bedrock State Aquifer Map). Yields obtained from wells drilled in the dirty sandstones, shales, claystones, and limestones of the Conemaugh Group and Monongahela Group typically have meager yields averaging less than 3 gpm (Walker, 1992 and ODNR, Div. of Water, Open File, Bedrock State Aquifer Map).
The yield in any particular area is dependent upon the number and type of formations drilled. Wells drilled in bedrock often intersect several aquifers or water-producing zones. Sandstones and coals tend to be water-bearing units, whereas underclays, mudstones, siltstones and shales tend to be aquitards that impede the flow of water. Limestones are typically thin, hard, and fine-grained and are generally poor aquifers. Thicker, fractured limestones, however, are capable of producing suitable yields. Water tends to "perch" or collect on top of lower permeability units (e.g. shale) and move laterally along the base of an overlying unit with higher permeability (e.g. sandstone). Springs and seeps mark where these contacts meet the slope or land surface. Peffer (1991) demonstrated that shales could provide sufficient water to serve domestic needs and still behave as an aquitard.
The number of fractures and bedding planes intersected by the well also influences yields. The amount of fracturing tends to be greater in the valley bottoms than at the ridge tops. This increase may be related to stress relief, as shown by Wyrick and Borchers (1981) and Kipp et al. (1983). The net result is that there is usually a decrease in the depth to water (i.e. a shallower static water level) and slightly higher yields. Fracturing is also an influence on the direction of ground water flow (Schubert, 1980) and affects the amount of recharge.
Strip and Underground Mined Areas
The pollution potential of strip-mined and abandoned underground mined areas were not evaluated in Muskingum County. Although DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Using Hydrogeologic Settings (Aller et al., 1987) does identify mining as a possible source of ground water contamination, it does not discuss a methodology to evaluate the vulnerability of aquifers to contamination in these areas.
23 Many geologic and hydrogeologic changes occur in areas that have undergone or are undergoing mining and reclamation activities (Bonta et al., 1992 and Razem, 1983). The extent of these changes may not be known or may have a high degree of variability from one location to another.
Mining and reclamation activities have the ability to affect all DRASTIC parameters. Tables 10 and 11 list the DRASTIC parameters and the possible impacts that mining may have on rating the parameters in strip-mined and underground mined areas. These tables are not meant to be a comprehensive listing of the impacts of mining on ground water systems. They are provided to illustrate the uncertainty of evaluating the pollution potential of mined areas.
Although the pollution potential of strip and abandoned underground mined areas were not evaluated, they were delineated. Only the most prominent and conspicuous mined areas were delineated on the Pollution Potential Map of Muskingum County. Delineations of mined areas were made using information from the Soil Survey of Muskingum County (Steiger, 1996), abandoned underground mine maps (ODNR, Division of Geological Survey, open file maps), and the Muskingum County portion of U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps. Site-specific information for mined area can be obtained from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey and Division of Mineral Resources Management.
24
Table 10. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for strip mined areas Parameter Impact of Activity/Effects on DRASTIC Ratings Depth to water Removal of material overlying the aquifer will decrease the depth to water (i.e. increase DRASTIC rating); removal of uppermost aquifer will increase the depth to water (i.e. decrease DRASTIC rating) Net Recharge Mineral extraction and reclamation could increase the degree of fracturing, increase the permeability of the vadose zone and soils and therefore increase the amount of recharge (i.e. increase DRASTIC rating); compaction of fine grained spoils could decrease the amount of recharge to the aquifer (i.e. decrease DRASTIC rating) Aquifer media Mineral extraction could remove the uppermost aquifer Soil media Removal of soils will provide less of a barrier for contaminant transport (i.e. increase soil rating); reclaimed soils may have a lower permeability than the original cover (i.e. decrease soil rating) Topography Strip mining can change the contour of the land surface making delineation of this parameter virtually impossible Impact of the Fracturing of vadose zone media could increase the permeability vadose zone (i.e. increase rating); compaction of spoils during reclamation could decrease the permeability (i.e. decrease rating) Hydraulic Fracturing of aquifer media could increase the conductivity (i.e. Conductivity increase DRASTIC rating)
Table 11. Potential factors influencing DRASTIC ratings for underground mined areas Parameter Impact of Activity/Effects on DRASTIC Ratings Depth to water Collapse of underground mines has the potential to fracture overlying confining units, therefore causing a dewatering of overlying aquifers (i.e. decrease rating) Net Recharge Fracturing of overlying strata can increase amount of recharge to the aquifer (i.e. increase rating) Aquifer media Upper aquifers could be dewatered and underground mine could become the aquifer Soil media Fractures may extend to the land surface Topography This factor will not be affected unless severe subsidence occurs Impact of the Fracturing and air shafts in the vadose zone could increase the vadose zone permeability and provide a direct conduit for contamination (i.e. increase rating) Hydraulic Upper aquifers not dewatered as a result of fracturing or Conductivity subsidence would have higher conductivity values; underground mines serving as the aquifer media will have high conductivity values (i.e. higher rating)
25 REFERENCES
Aller, L., T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, R.J. Petty, and G. Hackett, 1987. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeological settings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/2-87-035, 622 pp.
Angle, M.P., 1995. Ground water pollution potential of Licking County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, GWPP Report No. 31, 165 pp.
Angle, M.P., D.D. Walker, and J. Jonak, 2001. Ground water pollution potential of Washington County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, GWPP Report No. 54.
Bonta, J.V., C.R. Amerman, W.A. Dick, G.F. Hall, T.J. Harlukowicz, A.C. Razem, and N.E. Smeck, 1992. Impact of surface coal mining on three Ohio watersheds – physical conditions and groundwater hydrology. Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 28, NUMBER 3, PP. 577-596.
Bork, K.B. and R.J. Malcuit, 1987. Black Hand Gorge State Nature Preserve: Lower Mississippian deltaic deposits in east central Ohio. Geological Society of America Centennial yield Guide – North Central Section, pp. 411-414.
Carney, F., 1907. The glacial dam at Hanover, Ohio. Bulletin, Science Laboratory, Dennison University, vol. 13, pp. 139-153.
Collins, H.R., 1979. The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) systems in the United State-Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1110-E, 25 pp.
DeLong, R.M. and G.W. White, 1963. Geology of Stark County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 61, 209 pp.
Dove, G.D., 1960. Water resources of Licking County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Bulletin 36, 96 pp.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Groundwater and wells. Johnson Filtration Systems, St. Paul, Mn, 1089 pp.
Fenneman, N.M., 1938. Physiography of the eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 714 pp.
Ferm, J.C., 1974. Carboniferous environmental models in eastern United States and their significance. In G. Briggs, ed. Carboniferous of the southern United States. Geological Society of America Special Paper 148.
26 Fetter, C.W., 1980. Applied hydrogeology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio, 488 pp.
Forsyth, J.L., 1966. Glacial map of Licking County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 59, map with text.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Ground water. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 604 pp.
Frost, R.B., 1931. Physiographic map of Ohio. Oberlin College, The Geographical Press, Columbia Univ., N.Y., N.Y., map with text.
Goldthwait, R.P., G.W. White, and J.L. Forsyth, 1961. Glacial map of Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-316.
Harstine, L.J., 1991. Hydrologic atlas for Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Water Inventory Report, No. 28, 13 pp.
Heath, R.C., 1984. Ground-water regions of the United States. U.S.Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2242, 78 pp.
Horne, J.C., J.C. Ferm, F.T. Carrucio, and B.P. Baganz, 1978. Depositional models in coal exploration and mine planning in Appalachian region. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 62, No. 12, pp.2379-2411.
Kipp, J.A., F.W. Lawrence, and J.S. Dinger, 1983. A conceptual model of ground-water flow in the eastern Kentucky coal field. 1983 Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 543-548.
Lamborn, R.E., 1951. Limestones of eastern Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 49, 377 pp.
Lamborn, R.E., 1956. Geology of Tuscarawas County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 55, 269 pp.
Norling, D.L., 1958. Geology and mineral resources of Morgan County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bull. 56, 131 pp.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open File, Reconnaissance Bedrock Geology Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.
27 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Open File Bedrock State Aquifer Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Open File Glacial State Aquifer Maps. Available on a U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle basis.
Owenby, J.R. and D.S. Ezell, 1992. Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days, 1961-1990. Climatography of the United States No. 81, OHIO. U.S. Department of the Interior, Project A-051-OHIO, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 30 pp.
Pavey, R.R., R.P. Goldthwait, C.S. Brockman, D.N. Hull, E.M. Swinford, R.G. Van Horn, 1999. Quaternary geology of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Map, No. 2, map with text.
Peffer, J.R., 1991. Complex aquifer-aquitard relationships at an Appalachian Plateau site. Ground Water, Vol. 29, No.2, pp.209-217.
Pettyjohn, W.A. and R. Henning, 1979. Preliminary estimate of ground-water recharge rates, related streamflow and water quality in Ohio. U.S. Department of the Interior, Project A-051-OHIO, Project Completion Report No. 552, Water Resources Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 323 pp.
Razem, A.C., 1983. Ground-water hydrology before, during, and after coal strip mining of a small watershed in Jefferson County, Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4215, 36 pp.
Schubert, J.P., 1980. Fracture flow of groundwater in coal-bearing strata. Symposium on Surface Mining, Hydrology, Sedimentology, and Reclamation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 61-73.
Spahr, P.N., 1995. Ground water pollution potential of Coshocton County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, GWPP Report No. 32, 74 pp.
Spahr, P.N. 1997a. The water resources of Perry County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Water Resources Map with Report, 105 pp.
Spahr, P.N., 1997b. Ground water pollution potential of Perry County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, GWPP Report No. 42, 67 pp.
Steiger, J.R., 1996. Soil survey of Muskingum County, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 344 pp.
28 Stout, W.K., 1918. Geology of Muskingum County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 21, 351 pp.
Stout W., K. Ver Steeg, and G.F. Lamb, 1943. Geology of water in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 44, 694 pp.
Walker, A.C., 1992. Ground-water resources of Muskingum County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground water resources maps, map with text.
Weedman, S.D., 1990. Freshwater limestones of the Allegheny Group. Pennsylvania Geology, Vol. 21, NO. 1, pp. 9-16.
Wyrick, G.G. and J.W. Borchers, 1981. Hydrologic effects of stress-relief fracturing in an Appalachian valley. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2177, 51 pp.
UNPUBLISHED DATA
Ohio Department of Development. Office of Strategic Research, County wide profiles, 1999.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Well log and drilling reports for Muskingum County.
29 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE LOGIC IN FACTOR SELECTION
Depth to Water
This factor was primarily evaluated using information from water well log records on file at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Water, Water Resources Section (WRS). Approximately 12,400 water well log records are on file for Muskingum County. Data from roughly 8,000 water well log records were analyzed and plotted on U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps during the course of the project. Static water levels and information as to the depths at which water was encountered were taken from these records. The Ground Water Resources of Muskingum County (Walker, 1992) provided generalized depth to water information throughout the county. Depth to water trends mapped in adjoining Perry County (Spahr, 1997a; 1997b), Licking County (Angle, 1995), Morgan County (Angle et al., 2001) and Coshocton County (Spahr, 1995). Topographic and geomorphic trends were utilized in areas where other sources of data were lacking.
Depths to water of 5 to 15 feet (DRASTIC rating = 9) were typical of areas immediately adjacent to the Muskingum River, Licking River, and other major streams. Depths of 15 to 30 feet (7) were used for stream terraces adjacent to major streams and along smaller tributaries. Depths of 30 to 50 feet (5) were utilized for the headwaters of upland tributaries and for less steep slopes. Many moderately sloping areas, mantled by loess, have depths to water in the 30-50 feet (5) range. Depths to water of 50 to 75 feet were utilized for steeper slopes and lower ridge tops common throughout much of the county. Depths to water of 75 to 100 feet (2) and greater than 100 feet (1) were applied to very high, isolated ridge tops. These ridge tops are usually capped by thick sequences of fine-grained Pennsylvanian rocks.
Net Recharge
Net recharge is the precipitation that reaches the aquifer after evapotranspiration and run- off. This factor was evaluated using many criteria, including depth to water, topography, soil type, surface drainage, vadose zone material, aquifer type, and annual precipitation. General estimates of recharge provided by Pettyjohn and Henning (1979) proved to be helpful.
Values of 7 to 10 inches per year (8) were assigned to areas of the Muskingum River Buried Valley. These areas contain highly permeable soils, vadose, and aquifer materials, have shallow depths to water, gentle slopes, and surficial streams, and are limited to terraces and floodplains underlain by coarse-grained outwash deposits. Values of 4 to 7 inches per year (6) were used for areas with moderate recharge. These areas include most of the tributary and upland streams. These areas tend to have moderately shallow depths to water, surficial streams, and moderately permeable soils. Bedrock in these areas of stream valleys tends to be fractured. Values of 2 to 4 inches per year (3) were utilized for almost all upland slopes and ridge tops. The low permeability of the fine-grained soils and bedrock, the greater depths to water, and the high amount of run-off due to the steep slopes were the major factors
30 for assigning the low recharge values. Values of recharge less than 2 inches per year (1) were utilized for limited ridge tops in Muskingum County. These areas have very great depths to water, soils are thin or absent and slopes are very steep which contribute to very high run-off. These rocks are commonly very low permeability units of the Conemaugh Group and Monongahela Group.
Aquifer Media
Information on aquifer media was obtained from the reports of Stout et al. (1943), Stout (1918), and Walker (1992). Mapping in adjoining Perry County Spahr, (1997a; 1997b), Coshocton County (Spahr, 1995), Morgan County (Angle et al., 1995) and Licking County (Angle, 1995) proved useful as a guideline for evaluating aquifers. Open File Bedrock Reconnaissance Maps based upon U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey proved helpful. The ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map were an important source of aquifer data. Water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary source of aquifer information.
Aquifer ratings of (8) and (7) were assigned to relatively clean, well-sorted, coarse sand and gravel outwash deposits underlying the Muskingum River and the abandoned, buried channel underlying Frazeysburg. Aquifer ratings of (5) and (6) were selected for sand and gravel deposits found underlying tributary streams and valleys. These lower-rated sand and gravel aquifers tend to be thinner, are moderately-sorted and are finer-grained than the clean, higher-rated outwash deposits. Typically these lower-rated sand and gravel lenses were interbedded with thicker sequences of fine-grained alluvial or lacustrine deposits.
An aquifer rating of (6) was applied to a limited area of highly fractured, Pennsylvanian and Mississippian-age interbedded sandstones and shales in the northeastern corner of the county. An aquifer rating of (5) was utilized for the Mississippian-age Cuyahoga, Black Hand, and Logan formations in the western portion of the county. An aquifer rating of (4) was used for interbedded sandstones and shales of the Pennsylvanian Pottsville and Allegheny Group. An aquifer rating of (3) was used for the poor aquifers associated with the Pennsylvanian undivided (Monongahela and Conemaugh Groups)
Soils
Soils were mapped using the data obtained from the Soil Survey of Muskingum County (Steiger, 1996). Each soil type was evaluated and given a rating for soil media. Evaluations were based upon the texture, permeability, and shrink-swell potential for each soil material. The soils of Muskingum County showed a high degree of variability. This is a reflection of the parent material. Table 12 is a list of the soils, parent materials, setting, and corresponding DRASTIC values for Muskingum County.
31 Table 12. Muskingum County soils Soil Name Parent Material/Setting DRASTIC Rating Soil Media Aaron Fine-grained bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Alford Loess 4 Silty loam Berks Shale and sandstone slopes 10 Thin or absent Bethesda Strip mine NR Brookside Fine colluvium 7 Shrink/swell clay Chagrin Coarse alluvium 6 Sandy loam Chavies Coarse alluvium 6 Sandy loam Chili Fine outwash 6 Sandy loam Chili Variant Outwash 10 Gravel Cidermill Thin loess over outwash 6 Sandy loam Cincinnati* Till 3 Clay loam Clarksburg Coarse colluvium 3 Clay loam Claysville-Guernsey Fine colluvium 3 Clay loam Coshocton Siltstone and shale bedrock 3 Clay loam Dumps & pits, mine Strip mine NR Fairpoint Strip mine NR Fitchville Slack water deposits 4 Silty loam Frankstown-Mertz Chert 10 Thin or absent Gilpin Steep bedrock slope 10 Thin or absent Glenford Lacustrine, slack water 4 Silty loam Guernsey-Upshur Fine-grained bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Homewood* Till 3 Clay loam Jimtown Slack water terrace 6 Sandy loam Keene* Thick residuum or ridge tops 3 Clay loam Killbuck Lacustrine, slack water 4 Silty loam Lakin Dune/beach sand 9 Sand Lakin-Alford Fine dune over loess 9 Sand Linside Alluvium 4 Silty loam Lobdell Coarse alluvium 4 Silty loam Lorain Lacustrine 7 Shrink/swell clay Lowell Fine-grained bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Lowell-Gilpin Steep bedrock slope 10 Thin or absent Luray Lacustrine, depressional 4 Silty loam Markland Fine lacustrine 7 Shrink/swell clay McGary Lacustrine 7 Shrink/swell clay Melvin Alluvium 4 Silty loam Mertz Chert 4 Silty loam Morristown Strip mine NR Newark Recent alluvium 4 Silty loam Nolin Recent alluvium 4 Silty loam Omulga* Loess 3 Clay loam Rawson Loam over lacustrine 3 Clay loam Rigley Sandstone 6 Sandy loam Rodman Steep outwash terraces 10 Gravel Sebring Lacustrine 4 Silty loam Stonelick Coarse alluvium 6 Sandy loam Tioga Coarse alluvium 6 Sandy loam Urban land-Glenford Lacustrine, alluvial 4 Silty loam Urban land-Nolin Alluvium 4 Silty loam Urban land-Watertown Outwash terrace 10 Gravel Urban land-Wellston Loess over bedrock 4 Silty loam Watertown Outwash terraces 10 Gravel Wellston Loess, bedrock 10 Thin or absent Westgate Fine-grained bedrock 7 Shrink/swell clay Westmoreland Bedrock 4 Silty loam Zanesville Bedrock 4 Silty loam * denotes soils containing fragipan
32 Soils were considered to be thin or absent (10) along many steep ridge tops and slopes where bedrock was exposed. Soils were rated as being a sand (9) or sandy loams (6) in outwash-rich area of the Muskingum River Buried Valley. Sandy loam soils (6) were also selected for residual sandstone ridges. Shrink-swell clays (7) were rated for upland areas having very clayey shale and mudstone bedrock residuum. Silt loam (4) soils were evaluated for silty shale and siltstone residuum on slopes and ridge tops and also for silty alluvial and lacustrine deposits on floodplains. Silt loam (4) was selected for soils developed on the loess-capped uplands and terraces. Clay loam (3) soils were evaluated for fine-grained bedrock residuum as well as finer-grained alluvial deposits in floodplains.
Certain soils in Muskingum County contain fragipans. A fragipan is a dense, impermeable zone found within certain loamy, till-derived soils. Fragipans may notably restrict the downward movement of water (Bureau et al., 1984 and Williams, 1990). The net effect of the fragipan is to reduce the overall permeability of a soil within a given textural range (Aller et al., 1987). Hence, a soil with a loam (5) texture would be evaluated as a silt loam (4), and a soil with a silt loam (4) texture would be evaluated as a clay loam (3) due to the presence of a fragipan.
Topography
Topography, or percent slope, was evaluated using U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute quadrangle maps and the Soil Survey of Muskingum County (Steiger, 1996). Slopes of 0 to 2 percent (10) and 2 to 6 percent (9) were selected for flat-lying floodplains, valley floors, and terraces. Slopes of 2 to 6 percent (9) and 6 to 12 percent (5) used for gentler, more rounded ridge tops. Slopes of 6 to 12 percent (5) were also used for less steep ridges, typically those flanking broader valleys and in areas with less resistant bedrock types. Slopes of 12 to 18 percent (3) and greater than 18 percent (1) were selected for steeper slopes in high relief, upland areas.
Impact of the Vadose Zone Media
Information on vadose zone media was obtained from the reports of Stout et al. (1943), Stout (1918), and Walker (1992). Mapping in adjoining Perry County Spahr, (1997a; 1997b), Coshocton County (Spahr, 1995), Morgan County (Angle et al., 1995) and Licking County (Angle, 1995) proved useful as a guideline for evaluating aquifers. Open File Bedrock Reconnaissance Maps based upon U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps from the ODNR, Division of Geological Survey proved helpful. The ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map were an important source of vadose zone data. Water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary source of vadose zone information. Information on parent materials derived from the Soil Survey of Muskingum County (Steiger, 1996), also proved useful in evaluating vadose zone materials.
Vadose zone media was given a rating of (8) for sand and gravel, and ratings of (6), (7), and (8) for sand and gravel interbedded with silt and clay layers for the buried valley underlying the Muskingum River and portions of Moxahala Creek. These ratings depend
33 upon the proportion of coarse, well-sorted outwash to the finer-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits. Silt and clay with ratings of (4) and (5) were selected for vadose zone media for floodplains in many tributary valleys.
Vadose zone media was given a rating of (4) for the interbedded sandstone, shales, limestones, and coals of the Pennsylvanian System rocks that underlie the broader, upland stream valleys. It was determined that these rocks may contain more fracturing that is reflected by slightly higher yields in these areas. A vadose zone rating of (3) was utilized for the interbedded bedrock in ridge tops and higher slopes.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Published data for hydraulic conductivity for Muskingum County was found lacking. Information from Walker (1992), the ODNR, Division of Water, Glacial State Aquifer Map and Bedrock State Aquifer Map, and water well log records on file at the ODNR, Division of Water, were the primary sources of information. Hydraulic conductivity values utilized in adjoining Perry County (Spahr, 1997a; 1997b) and Muskingum County (Angle et al., 2001) proved to be a useful guideline. Textbook tables (Freeze and Cherry, Fetter, 1980, and Driscoll, 1986) were useful in obtaining estimated values for hydraulic conductivity in a variety of sediments.
Values for hydraulic conductivity correspond to aquifer ratings; i.e., the more highly rated aquifers have higher values for hydraulic conductivity. For sand and gravel aquifers with an aquifer rating of (8), hydraulic conductivity values of 1,000-2,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2) (8) were selected. These high values were limited to the clean outwash deposits of the Muskingum River Buried Valley. For sand and gravel deposits along the margins of the buried valley and in tributaries, hydraulic conductivities of 300-700 gpd/ft2 (4) and 100- 300 gpd/ft2 (2) were used. In these deposits, thin sand and gravel lenses were interbedded with finer-grained materials.
All of the bedrock aquifers in Muskingum County were evaluated as having hydraulic conductivity values raging from 1-100 gpd/ft2 (1) due to the overall low permeability of these interbedded sedimentary rocks.
34 APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTINGS AND CHARTS
Ground water pollution potential mapping in Muskingum County resulted in the identification of 11 hydrogeologic settings within the Glaciated and Nonglaciated Central Region. The list of these settings, the range of pollution potential index calculations, and the number of index calculations for each setting are provided in Table 13. Computed pollution potential indexes for Muskingum County range from 63 to 190.
Table 13. Hydrogeologic settings mapped in Muskingum County, Ohio Hydrogeologic Settings Range of GWPP Number of Indexes Index Calculations 6Da - Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thin 63-11 141 Regolith 6Db-Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thick 99 1 Regolith 6Dc-Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thick 76-117 15 Loess 6Fa-River Alluvium With Overbank Deposits 118-123 2 6Fb - River Alluvium Without Overbank Deposits 99-137 11 7Aa - Glacial Till Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock 68-83 4 7Bb-Outwash Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock 115-120 2 7D - Buried Valley 111-190 49 7Ec - Alluvium Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock 99 1 7Fa - Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces 100-142 33 7G-Thin Glacial Till Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock 91-105 2
The following information provides a description of each hydrogeologic setting identified in the county, a block diagram illustrating the characteristics of the setting, and a listing of the charts for each unique combination of pollution potential indexes calculated for each setting. The charts provide information on how the ground water pollution potential index was derived and are a quick and easy reference for the accompanying ground water pollution potential map. A complete discussion of the rating and evaluation of each factor in the hydrogeologic settings is provided in Appendix A, Description of the Logic in Factor Selection.
35
6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thin Regolith
This hydrogeologic setting is widespread, encompassing most upland areas in Muskingum County. The area is characterized by high relief with broad, steep slopes and narrow, somewhat flatter ridge tops. The vadose zone and aquifers consist of slightly dipping, fractured, alternating sequences of dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, clays, and coals of the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian Systems. Multiple aquifers are typically present. Depth to water is generally deep; shallower perched zones may overlie low permeability shales, limestones, and clays. Soils are generally thin to absent on steeper slopes. On gentler slopes, soils vary with the bedrock lithology. Small supplies of ground water are obtained from intersecting bedding planes or vertical fractures. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. Recharge is limited due to the steep slopes, deep aquifers, and layers of impermeable bedrock.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thin Regolith range from 63 to 111, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 141.
36
6Db Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thick Regolith
This hydrogeologic setting is limited to slopes found along the western margin of Muskingum County, bordering Licking County. The area is similar to the 6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thin Regolith setting, except that the regolith is much thicker, creating a flat-lying toe at the base of the slopes. The vadose zone and aquifers consist of slightly dipping, fractured, alternating sequences of dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, clays, and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and sandstones, shales, siltstones and limestones of the Mississippian System. Multiple aquifers are typically present. Depth to water is moderately deep and transitional between stream valleys and ridge tops. Soils are silt loams that formed in thick regolith and colluvium derived from shales and siltstones. Small supplies of ground water are obtained from intersecting bedding planes or vertical fractures. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. Recharge is moderate due to the moderate depth to water, flat-lying slope, and layers of impermeable bedrock.
The GWPP index value for the hydrogeologic setting Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thick Regolith is 99, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 1.
37
6Dc Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thick Loess
This hydrogeologic setting is found along broad slopes and ridge tops adjacent to stream valleys in central Muskingum County. The setting is characterized by thick accumulations of loess that blanket slopes and ridge tops downwind from major stream valleys. These loess caps tend to modify the topography, making slopes less steep and more rolling. The loess is windblown silt that was eroded from floodplains of stream valleys and outwash terraces. Aquifers consist of slightly dipping, fractured, alternating sequences of dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, clays, and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones of the Mississippian System. Multiple aquifers are typically present. The vadose zone consists of silty loess. Soils are silt loams derived from the loess caps. The loess may merge with higher-level slack water lacustrine deposits. Depth to water is generally moderate. Small supplies of ground water are obtained from intersecting bedding planes or vertical fractures. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. The vadose zone consists of silty to clayey loess. Soils are silt loams derived from the loess caps. Recharge is moderate due to moderate slopes and depth to water and lower permeability vadose and aquifers.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Thick Loess range from 76 to 117, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 15.
38
6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits
This hydrogeologic setting is limited to small tributary valleys in the uplands of western Muskingum County. This setting is somewhat similar to the 7Fa Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces setting; however, the valleys and floodplains are narrower and the alluvial deposits are much thinner. Areas in this setting are similar to the adjacent uplands, which belong to the 6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale - Thin Regolith setting. Narrow, relatively flat-bottomed stream valleys flanked by steep bedrock ridges characterize the setting. Depth to water is usually shallow, averaging less than 30 feet. Soils are generally silt loams. The alluvium is composed primarily of fine-grained floodplain (“overbank”) sediments. The alluvial deposits are typically saturated; however, the alluvium is too thin to be utilized as an aquifer. The aquifer is the underlying dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, claystones, clays and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones of the Mississippian System. In most areas, the alluvium is in direct connection with the underlying bedrock aquifers. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. Recharge is moderate due to the relatively shallow depth to water, flatter topography, and the relatively low permeability of the bedrock. Recharge is higher than the surrounding uplands.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits range from 118 to 123, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 2.
39
6Fb River Alluvium without Overbank Deposits
This hydrogeologic setting is limited to the headwaters of small tributary valleys in the uplands throughout Muskingum County. This setting is somewhat similar to the 6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits setting; however, the valleys and floodplains are more narrow, terraces are absent, and the alluvial deposits are much thinner and coarser-grained. Areas in this setting are similar to the adjacent uplands, which belong to the 6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale - Thin Regolith setting. The headwaters of narrow, relatively flat-bottomed stream valleys flanked by steep bedrock ridges characterize the setting. Depth to water is usually moderate, averaging less than 50 feet. Soils are generally silt loams. The alluvium is composed primarily of fine-grained to coarse-grained sediments. The alluvial deposits are typically saturated; however, the alluvium is too thin to be utilized as an aquifer. The aquifer is the underlying dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, claystones, clays and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones of the Mississippian System. In most areas, the alluvium is in direct connection with the underlying bedrock aquifers. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. Recharge is moderate due to the relatively shallow depth to water, flatter topography, and the relatively low permeability of the bedrock. Recharge is higher than the surrounding uplands.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of River Alluvium without Overbank Deposits range from 99 to 137, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 11.
40
7Aa Glacial Till over Bedded Sedimentary Rock
This hydrogeologic setting is limited to slopes found along the western margin of Muskingum County, bordering Licking County. The area is similar to the 6Da Alternating Sandstone, Limestone, Shale-Thin Regolith except that the landscape has a moderate covering of glacial till. The till is commonly relatively thin, weathered and may be fractured. Slopes are somewhat less steep and more subdued by the glacial till cover than in adjacent non-glaciated areas. The vadose zone and aquifers consist of slightly dipping, fractured, alternating sequences of dirty sandstones, shales, thin limestones, clays, and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and sandstones, siltstones, shales, and limestones of the Mississippian System. Multiple aquifers are typically present. Depth to water is generally deep; shallower perched zones may overlie low permeability shales, limestones, and clays. Soils are generally clay loams derived from the till. Small supplies of ground water are obtained from intersecting bedding planes or vertical fractures. Ground water yields average less than 25 gpm. Recharge is limited due to the deep aquifers, low permeability soils, vadose zone material, and aquifers.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Glacial Till over Bedded Sedimentary Rock range from 68 to 83, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 4.
41
7Bb Outwash over Bedded Sedimentary Rocks
This hydrogeologic setting consists of relatively small, high-level outwash terraces that set on top of bedrock benches. These terraces are limited to the margins or tributaries to the buried valleys. The total thickness of drift is not adequate to be considered buried valleys. Relief is low and the flat to rolling terraces occurs at higher elevations than the modern floodplain. Vadose zone media consists of bedded sandy to gravelly outwash interbedded with finer alluvial deposits. Soils vary from silt loam to sandy loam, depending upon whether fine alluvial material is capping the coarser outwash. The outwash terraces are not thick enough to comprise the aquifer; underlying fractured, interbedded sandstones, shales, limestones, and coals of the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Systems serve as the aquifer. Yields average 10 to 25 gpm. The overlying terraces are typically in direct contact with the underlying bedrock aquifer. Depth to water is moderate due to local relief. Recharge is moderately high due to the relatively permeable soils and vadose, moderate to shallow depth to water, and relatively flat to rolling topography.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Outwash over Bedded Sedimentary Rocks range from 115 to 120, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 2.
42
7D Buried Valley
This hydrogeologic setting is widespread throughout Muskingum County. All of the major trunk streams and some of the modern tributaries overlie buried valley deposits. There are also former drainage ways overlying buried valleys that lack modern streams, notably the broad valley extending westward from Frazeysburg. Broad, flat-lying floodplains and gently sloping terraces characterize the setting. Depths to water are variable; they are typically less than 30 feet in valleys containing modern streams and are commonly over 45 feet in valleys lacking modern streams. Aquifers are composed of variable thicknesses of sand and gravel interbedded with finer-grained alluvium, till, and lacustrine deposits. The modern streams may be in direct hydraulic connection with the underlying aquifer. Yields up to 500 gpm have been reported for some of the coarser, thicker, more continuous sand and gravel outwash in portions of the Muskingum River Valley and Licking River Valley. Yields up to 100 gpm are developed in remaining portions of the Muskingum River Valley and Licking River Valley. Some valleys, including Wills Creek and the tributary valleys east of the Licking River, contain thin lenses of sand and gravel interbedded with much thicker sequences of finer-grained alluvial and lacustrine deposits. Soils on terraces are typically sandy loams derived from outwash; soils on floodplains are silt loams derived from modern alluvium. Recharge is typically relatively high due to the flat-lying topography, shallow depth to water, and the high permeability of the soils, vadose zone materials, and aquifer for buried valleys with modern overlying streams. Recharge tends to be less in valleys lacking modern streams, having greater depths to water, and less permeable soils and vadose media.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Buried Valley range from 111 to 190, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 49.
43
7Ec Alluvium Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock
The setting consists of the headwaters of small tributary streams in upland areas with thin glacial cover in southwestern Muskingum County. These tributaries flow southward into Perry County. This setting is similar to the 6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits except that the stream alluvium overlies some additional glacial drift. The setting is characterized by narrow, flat-bottomed stream valleys, which are flanked by rolling to steep bedrock-controlled uplands. The aquifer consists of fractured, interbedded sandstones, shales, limestones and coals of the Pennsylvanian System and interbedded shales, siltstones, and fine-grained sandstones of the Mississippian System. Yields developed from the fractures and bedding planes of the bedrock range from 10 to 25 gpm. Soils are silt loams. Vadose zone media is typically either silty alluvium or the underlying till or other glacial drift. The depth to water is commonly shallow, averaging from 10 to 35 feet. Recharge is moderately high due to the shallow depth to water, flat-lying topography, proximity of modern streams, and the moderately low permeability of the soils, alluvium, and bedrock.
The GWPP index value for the hydrogeologic setting Alluvium over Bedded Sedimentary Rock is 99, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 1.
44
7Fa Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces
Flat-lying areas that were formed in low velocity water of glacial and slack water lakes that filled pre-existing drainage systems characterize this setting. These areas are typically dissected by modern streams and contain remnant low-lying terraces. These streams include most of the major tributaries of the Muskingum River and Licking River. The valleys are typically broader and contain thicker drift than the somewhat similar 6Fa River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits. The setting is bordered by steep bedrock uplands. The drift is not as thick or as coarse as in adjacent 7D Buried Valley settings. The aquifer consists of thin sand and gravel lenses interbedded with finer lacustrine and alluvial deposits. If sand and gravel is not encountered, wells are completed in the underlying interbedded sedimentary rock. Depth to water is commonly shallow due to the presence of streams found within this setting. Vadose zone material consists of silty alluvium. Soils are silt loams. Recharge in this setting is moderate due to the relatively shallow depth to water, flat-lying topography, and the moderate to low permeability soils, vadose, and underlying bedrock.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Glacial Lakes and Slackwater Terraces range from 100 to 142, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 33.
45
7G Thin Glacial Till Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock
This hydrogeologic setting is limited to slopes found along the western margin of Muskingum County, bordering Licking County. This hydrogeologic setting is characterized by rolling to steep bedrock-controlled topography and deposits of thin, patchy glacial till overlying alternating layers of fractured sedimentary rock. This setting is limited to southwestern Hopewell Township along the boundary with Perry County. The setting is similar to the 7Aa Glacial Till over Bedded Sedimentary Rock setting except that the till is thinner and less continuous. The till is less than 25 feet thick and consists of varying amounts of unsorted clay, silt, and sand with minor pebbles and cobbles. The till is typically highly weathered and may be fractured. Ground water is obtained from the underlying fractured Mississippian or Pennsylvanian bedrock. Depth to water is moderate, partially because the setting consists of moderately steep slopes. Soils are silt loams. Recharge is low due to depth to water, relatively steep slopes, and relatively impermeable nature of the soils and vadose.
GWPP index values for the hydrogeologic setting of Thin Glacial Till Over Bedded Sedimentary Rock range from 91 to 105, with the total number of GWPP index calculations equaling 2.
46 Table 14. Hydrogeologic Settings, DRASTIC Factors, and Ratings
Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Da001 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da002 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da003 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da004 50-75 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da005 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da006 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 81 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da007 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 89 interbedded interbedded 6Da008 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 77 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da009 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 82 interbedded interbedded 6Da010 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da011 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da012 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 74 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da013 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da014 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 80 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da015 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 72 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da016 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 76 interbedded interbedded 6Da017 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 69 interbedded interbedded 6Da018 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da019 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da020 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da021 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 76 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da022 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da023 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 61 interbedded interbedded 6Da024 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 6Da025 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 6Da026 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 63
47 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da027 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 78 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da028 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 66 interbedded interbedded 6Da029 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 67 interbedded interbedded 6Da030 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da031 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 63 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da032 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 68 interbedded interbedded 6Da033 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 58 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da034 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 70 interbedded interbedded 6Da035 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 56 interbedded interbedded 6Da036 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da037 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 93 interbedded interbedded 6Da038 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 91 interbedded interbedded 6Da039 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 76 interbedded interbedded 6Da040 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 70 interbedded interbedded 6Da041 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 91 interbedded interbedded 6Da042 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 85 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da043 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 92 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da044 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 87 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da045 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da046 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 87 interbedded interbedded 6Da047 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 78 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da048 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 86 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da049 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 80 interbedded interbedded 6Da050 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 89 interbedded interbedded 6Da051 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da052 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 87 interbedded interbedded 6Da053 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 72
48 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da054 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 88 interbedded interbedded 6Da055 100+ 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 73 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da056 100+ 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 87 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da057 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 103 interbedded interbedded 6Da058 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 68 interbedded interbedded 6Da059 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 68 interbedded interbedded 6Da060 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 72 interbedded interbedded 6Da061 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da062 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da063 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 64 interbedded interbedded 6Da064 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 74 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da065 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da066 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 70 interbedded interbedded 6Da067 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 85 interbedded interbedded 6Da068 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 95 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da069 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 93 interbedded interbedded 6Da070 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da071 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 74 interbedded interbedded 6Da072 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79 interbedded interbedded 6Da073 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da074 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded interbedded 6Da075 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81 interbedded interbedded 6Da076 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 87 interbedded interbedded 6Da077 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da078 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 97 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da079 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 111 interbedded interbedded 6Da080 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81
49 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Da081 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sand 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 85 interbedded interbedded 6Da082 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 68 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da083 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da084 75-100 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 74 interbedded interbedded 6Da085 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da086 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 101 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da087 75-100 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 78 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da088 50-75 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da089 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da090 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 65 interbedded interbedded 6Da091 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 61 interbedded interbedded 6Da092 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 67 interbedded interbedded 6Da093 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 62 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da094 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da095 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 78 interbedded interbedded 6Da096 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 63 interbedded interbedded 6Da097 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 67 interbedded interbedded 6Da098 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 78 interbedded interbedded 6Da099 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 60 interbedded interbedded 6Da100 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 69 interbedded interbedded 6Da101 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 64 interbedded interbedded 6Da102 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 66 interbedded interbedded 6Da103 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 86 interbedded interbedded 6Da104 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 65 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da105 50-75 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 67 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da107 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da108 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79
50 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Da109 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da110 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 69 interbedded interbedded 6Da111 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da112 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 6Da113 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da114 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da115 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da116 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 84 interbedded interbedded 6Da117 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77 interbedded interbedded 6Da118 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 80 interbedded interbedded 6Da119 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 82 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da120 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da121 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da122 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 93 interbedded interbedded 6Da123 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 6Da124 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da125 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 74 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da126 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 85 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da127 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da128 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 89 interbedded interbedded 6Da129 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 75 interbedded interbedded 6Da130 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da131 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 90 interbedded interbedded 6Da132 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 81 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da133 75-100 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 66 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da134 75-100 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 70 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da135 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 77
51 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da136 75-100 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 62 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da137 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 79 interbedded Thin/Absent interbedded 6Da138 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Gravel 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 87 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da139 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 84 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da140 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 87 interbedded Shrink/Swell interbedded 6Da141 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 18+ ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 64
interbedded interbedded 6Db01 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 99
interbedded 6Dc001 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 silt/clay 100-300 96 interbedded 6Dc002 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 100 interbedded 6Dc003 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 silt/clay 100-300 86 interbedded 6Dc004 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 94 interbedded 6Dc005 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 84 interbedded 6Dc006 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 117 interbedded 6Dc007 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 116 interbedded 6Dc008 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 silt/clay 1-100 90 interbedded 6Dc009 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 104 interbedded 6Dc010 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 91 interbedded 6Dc011 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 76 interbedded 6Dc012 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 silt/clay 1-100 87 interbedded 6Dc013 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 101 interbedded 6Dc014 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 81 interbedded 6Dc015 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 silt/clay 1-100 77
interbedded 6Fa01 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 118 interbedded 6Fa02 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 123
52 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded interbedded 6Fb001 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 122 sand + sd + gvl w/ 6Fb002 5-15 4-7 gravel Loam 2-6 si + cl 100-300 137 interbedded interbedded 6Fb003 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 124 interbedded interbedded 6Fb004 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 102 interbedded interbedded 6Fb005 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 118 interbedded interbedded 6Fb006 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 112 interbedded interbedded 6Fb007 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 115 interbedded interbedded 6Fb008 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 108 interbedded interbedded 6Fb009 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 99 interbedded interbedded 6Fb010 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 109 interbedded interbedded 6Fb011 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 111
interbedded interbedded 7Aa01 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 83 interbedded interbedded 7Aa02 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 12-18 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 71 interbedded interbedded 7Aa03 50-75 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 73 interbedded interbedded 7Aa04 75-100 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 1-100 68
sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Bb01 30-50 4-7 gravel Clay Loam 2-6 si + cl 100-300 115 interbedded sd + gvl w/ 7Bb02 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Sandy Loam 2-6 si + cl 1-100 120
sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D001 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 155 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D002 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 154 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D003 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 168 sand + sand + 7D004 5-15 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 gravel 1000-2000 187 sand + sand + 7D005 15-30 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 gravel 1000-2000 177 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D006 5-15 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 182 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D007 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 145 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D008 15-30 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 300-700 162
53 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D009 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 100-300 134 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D010 30-50 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 2-6 si + cl 100-300 132 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D011 30-50 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 6-12 si + cl 100-300 111 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D012 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 si + cl 300-700 142 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D013 15-30 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 185 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D014 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 178 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D015 30-50 4-7 gravel Sandy Loam 6-12 si + cl 100-300 115 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D016 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 153 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D017 15-30 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 147 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D018 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 150 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D019 15-30 4-7 gravel Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 134 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D020 15-30 4-7 gravel Clay Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 130 sand + 7D021 30-50 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 300-700 116 sand + Shrink/Swell 7D022 15-30 4-7 gravel Clay 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 133 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D023 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 148 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D024 5-15 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 168 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D025 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 173 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D026 5-15 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 164 sand + 7D029 30-50 4-7 gravel Clay Loam 2-6 silt/clay 700-1000 123 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D030 5-15 7-10 gravel Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 157 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D031 5-15 7-10 gravel Clay Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 153 sand + 7D032 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 128 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D033 15-30 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 159 sand + Shrink/Swell 7D034 15-30 7-10 gravel Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1000-2000 169 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D035 30-50 7-10 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 138 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D036 30-50 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 142 sand + Shrink/Swell 7D037 30-50 7-10 gravel Clay 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 139
54 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating sand + Shrink/Swell 7D038 15-30 7-10 gravel Clay 0-2 silt/clay 700-1000 155 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D039 5-15 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 159 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D040 15-30 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 2-6 si + cl 300-700 148 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D041 15-30 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 300-700 157 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D042 15-30 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 171 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D043 5-15 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 1000-2000 190 sand + 7D044 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 132 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D045 15-30 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 149 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D046 15-30 7-10 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 300-700 160 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D047 15-30 4-7 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 300-700 146 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7D048 15-30 4-7 gravel Gravel 2-6 si + cl 300-700 148 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7D049 15-30 7-10 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 700-1000 158
interbedded 7Ec01 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 122
sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa001 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 142 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa002 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 si + cl 100-300 135 interbedded 7Fa003 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 122 sand + 7Fa004 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 125 sand + 7Fa005 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 135 interbedded interbedded 7Fa006 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 106 sand + 7Fa007 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 136 sand + 7Fa008 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 126 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa009 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 132 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa010 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 2-6 si + cl 300-700 131 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa011 30-50 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 122 sand + 7Fa012 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 124 interbedded 7Fa013 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 112
55 Depth To Recharge Aquifer Topography Vadose Hydraulic Setting Water (feet) (In/Yr) Media Soil Media (% Slope) Zone Media Conductivity Rating interbedded 7Fa014 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 102 interbedded 7Fa015 5-15 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 100-300 128 sand + 7Fa016 15-30 4-7 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 136 sand + 7Fa017 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 127 interbedded 7Fa018 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 117 interbedded sd + gvl w/ 7Fa019 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 si + cl 1-100 116 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa020 15-30 4-7 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 133 sand + 7Fa021 15-30 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 129 sand + Thin/Absent sd + gvl w/ 7Fa022 30-50 4-7 gravel Gravel 0-2 si + cl 300-700 136 sand + Shrink/Swell 7Fa023 15-30 4-7 gravel Clay 0-2 silt/clay 300-700 130 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa024 5-15 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 134 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa025 5-15 4-7 gravel Sandy Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 138 interbedded 7Fa026 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 109 interbedded Shrink/Swell 7Fa027 15-30 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 101 sand + sd + gvl w/ 7Fa028 30-50 4-7 gravel Silty Loam 0-2 si + cl 300-700 119 interbedded 7Fa030 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 1-100 111 interbedded Shrink/Swell 7Fa031 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 0-2 silt/clay 1-100 105 interbedded Shrink/Swell 7Fa032 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay 6-12 silt/clay 1-100 100 interbedded 7Fa033 15-30 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 2-6 silt/clay 100-300 117
interbedded interbedded 7G01 30-50 2-4 ss/sh/ls/coal Silty Loam 6-12 ss/sh/ls/coal 100-300 91 interbedded 7G02 30-50 4-7 ss/sh/ls/coal Clay Loam 2-6 till 100-300 105
56 2,088,543 2,108,543 2,128,543 2,148,543 2,168,543 2,188,543 2,208,543 2,228,543 Ground Water Pollution Potential of 93 6Da001 6Fb001 6Fb002 60 77 137 6Da003 Muskingum County 122 6Da013 83 7D001 6Da001 75 6Da019 6Da011 6Da003 7Fa004 125 77 6Da003 6Da019 7Fa004 155 6Da002 81 6Da009 73 75 125 6Fb003 75 73 6Da017 93 81 7Fa001 82 6Da020 83 7D004 187 6Da026 by 124 7Fa003 7D007 7Fa005 6Da017 69 69 7D005 142 6Da017 6Da003 6Da018 122 145 135 7D009 63 6Da029 7D016 7D017 6Da003 6Da015 69 177 7D012 134 67 147 6Da029 6Da030 7Fa006 75 75 72 79 6Da020 83 6Fb003 7D008 7D004 142 6Da024 153 Michael P. Angle and Mike Akins 6Da003 7D015 67 75 106 6Da007 124 162 6Da025 7D010 7D011 71 7Fa006 6Da009 82 75 187 115 6Da024 6Da030 89 6Da003 6Da024 71 132 111 106 7D006 6Da006 71 83 75 6Da017 71 6Da031 7Fa026 Ohio Department of Natural Resources 75 6Da014 182 6Da027 7D012 7D014 81 7D016 6Da008 80 6Da016 69 178 63 6Da033 153 109 6Da012 142 6Da035 77 76 7D013 78 58 74 7D004 56 6Da004 7D003 7D005 7D014 178 185 6Da009 82 187 6Da031 73 168 177 6Da034 6Da033 6Da001 77 7D003 7D004 70 63
781,176 58 781,176 168 7D003 187 7Fa008 60 6Da022 126 586 168 6Da021 6Fb004 150 7D018 75 76 102 7Fa013
6Da005 83 6Da005 6Da032 6Da022 75 112 JACKSON 7D003 68 6Da032 7Fa002 168 68 135 7Fa008 7D006 6Da032 7Fa007 68 6Da033 136 126 CASS 182 6Da032 7Fa008 16 6Da023 6Da028 66 58 MONROE 6Da011 7D033 159 68 126 6Da006 81 6Da016 61 6Da031 6Da003 76 6Da016 7D003 7Fa013 7D044 81 6Fb005 63 6Da032 68 6Da094 75 76 168 112 132 6Fa01 6Da003 118 6Da031 63 75 6Da095 78 83 6Da094 118 75 6Da016 208 6Da034 70 6Da017 6Da091 61 6Fb010 75 76 6Da032 68 6Da012 74 7D034 69 ADAMS 109 169 6Da032 7D018 177
7D005 6Da031 68 7D018 150 6Da111 63 6Da108 6Da002 7D035 79 150 6Da091 75 6Da032 6Da101 64 81 6Fb008 JEFFERSON 138 6Da009 61 68 6Fb10 662 82 108 7D036 83 6Da114 6Da100 6Da036 83 7Fa008 109 69 6Da094 Ground Water Pollution Potential maps are designed to evaluate 142 6Da021 76 6Da034 126 6Da001 6Da096 208 75 6Da101 70 6Da008 6Da001 77 63 the susceptibility of ground water to contamination from surface 6Da009 64 77 7D002 77 6Fb008 6Da001 6Da032 6Fb010 82 6Fb009 6Da115 sources. These maps are based on the DRASTIC system 154 108 77 MADISON 99 6Fb010 109 68 77 6Da011 7D049 158 6Dc010 6Da031 6Da094 75 7Fa009 7D037 109 6Da089 81 6Da099 60 63 developed for the USEPA (Aller et al., 1987). The DRASTIC system 6Da037 132 139 7D038 155 91 6Da097 6Da097 67 73 93 6Da003 67 6Da107 consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, 75 6Da007 89 7Fa026 6Da032 68 83 109 6Da011 6Da003 6Da091 6Da031 63 termed hydrogeologic settings, and a relative rating system for 6Da003 81 75 6Fb008 7D024 6Da031 63 61 75 7Fa011 6Da031 108 168 6Da098 6Da098 93 6Da089 determining the ground water pollution potential within a 6Fb008 122 7D018 63 7D045 6Fb010 109 6Fb010 73 79 6Da113 108 150 78 78 149 6Da109 73 109 hydrogeologic setting. The application of DRASTIC to an area 6Da011 6Da070 79 7D022 6Da022 6Da100 81 6Da039 6Da102 7D019 134 7D019 761,176 133 69 761,176 requires the recognition of a set of assumptions made in the 76 6Da009 7Fa026 109 75 66 16 6Fb008 7Fa013 112 6Fb010 82 6Fb009 99 6Da112 83 6Da011 586 7Fa009 108 7D002 7D007 109 development of the system. The evaluation of pollution potential of 7Fa009 132 145 7Fa026 71 130 7D023 81 132 154 109 6Da089 7D020 an area assumes that a contaminant with the mobility of water is 148 6Da091 6Da098 73 7D021 61 78 6Da009 82 7D026 6Da111 6Da111 75 introduced at the surface and is flushed into the ground water by 116 7Bb01 6Da017 6Da115 115 6Dc002 6Da003 164 75 6Da012 74 6Da107 77 146 75 69 6Da031 63 6Da097 67 precipitation. DRASTIC is not designed to replace specific 7Fa009 100 83 6Da067 6Da050 6Fb005 6Da032 132 6Fb005 6Fb010 85 89 118 6Da101 68 on-site investigations. 118 6Da062 109 6Da126 6Da116 84 6Da109 6Da025 7D024 73 64 85 63 6Da031 168 6Fb008 73 6Da109 6Da125 71 7D026 63 6Dc004 94
6Da031 6Da031 164 108 73 74 7D002 7Fa009 149 6Da031 63 In DRASTIC mapping, hydrogeologic settings form the basis of the
7D045 6Da022 154 132 MUSKINGUM 6Da024 75 63 6Da112 209 6Da070 71 6Da107 6Da109 6Da112 system and incorporate the major hydrogeologic factors that affect 6Da038 6Dc002 6Dc010 91 71 6Da089 6Da094 168 6Da103 83 71
7D024 79 73 73 91 100 6Da091 86 75 and control ground water movement and occurrence. The relative 6Da009 61 6Da101 6Fb010 82 6Dc001 6Dc009 6Da120 7D014 6Da017 6Da121 64 109 7D014 7D024 96 7Fa001 104 7Bb02 6Da031 rating system is based on seven hydrogeologic factors: Depth to 178 7D025 69 120 63 81 79 6Da119 6Da127 71 6Da091 61 6Da124 178 168 142 SALEM 82 water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography, 173 6Dc005 84
6Dc004 94 7Fa012
7Fa009 132 7Fa009 71 6Da091 61 64 6Da101 7Fa0097D003 132 168 124 6Dc010 6Da118 91 6Fb010 Impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic Conductivity. 6Da074 6Da017 6Da090 65 80 109 83 60 69 6Da031 63 6Da104 65 6Da113 79 LICKING 6Da022 75 6Da091 6Da089 These factors form the acronym DRASTIC. The relative rating 6Da046 6Da025 71 6Da031 61 6Da117 77 73 87 6Da024 HIGHLAND system uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a 6Da101 82 6Da119 6Da067 85 666 63 6Da031 6Da096 6Da011 71 82 6Da119 63 6Da032 6Da062 6Da031 63 64 63 81 6Da107 83 68 numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. 73 6Da075 6Da090 6Da094 75 6Da012 74 81 6Dc004 94 6Da062 65 6Fb010 Higher index values indicate higher susceptibility to ground water
6Da044 6Da101 64 6Da111 75 6Da121 81 109 6Da038 6Da011 7Fa012 6Dc006 117 73 6Da096 6Dc010 6Da095 78 6Fb010 91 6Da009 81 87 6Dc003 124 63 6Da122 93 6Da125 74 contamination. Polygons (outlined in black on the map at left) are 82 91 6Da031 63 109 86 6Da100 6Da099 60 6Fa02 6Da003 7Fa013 7Fa013 83 regions where the hydrogeologic setting and the pollution potential 741,176 6Da071 69 6Fb009 99 741,176 123 75 7D046 6Da031 6Da123 74 112 7Fa014 112 6Da028 7Fa010 6Da112 71 6Da032 index are combined to create a mappable unit with specific
6Da003 75 6Da003 160 63 73 102 6Da017 68 66 131 7D026 6Da091 61 6Da111 6Da040 69 6Da108 79 164 6Da105 hydrogeologic characteristics, which determine the region’s relative 6Da017 69 6Da098 78 6Da032 6Dc011 76 75 6Fa02 70 6Da100 69 67 71 6Da031 123 7D026 7Fa012 68 6Da099 60 6Da024 6Da091 vulnerability to contamination. Additional information on the 6Da025 63 164 6Dc008 6Da091 61 6Da104 6Da024 124 71 7Fa013 6Da089 73 61 90 65 6Da032 71 112 6Da101 DRASTIC system, hydrogeologic settings, ratings, and weighting 6Db01 6Da097 6Da031 68 7Fa009 6Da038 6Da076 64 6Da031 6Da091 99 7Fa018 7D024 67 63 6Da031 6Fb009 132 87 63 6Da094 75 63 61 factors is included in the report. 91 85 6Da067 117 168 99 6Da003 6Da038 6Da067 6Da031 6Da091 6Da110
6Da095 78 Description of Map Symbols 75 91 85 63 61 69 6Da094 6Da017 7D044 6Da008 6Da125 74 75 71 69 7Fa014 93 6Da091 61 77 6Da044 7Fa010 132 6Da025 6Dc004 102 6Da096 6Da091 61 6Da041 87 131 6Da072 6Da091 6Da031 63 Hydrogeologic Setting 6Da042 146 6Dc007 63 6Da125 74 Hydrogeologic Region 91 79 94 61 6Da0986Dc012 78 85 116 6Da031 6Da125 87 60 6Da099 6Da073 6Da101 6Fb010 74 6Da077 6Fb006 112 109 63 6Fb009 7Fa015 81 64 7Fa026 7D24 83 6Da104 109 99
79 6Da085 7Fa033 128 6Da060 72 6Da096 6Da109 73 Relative Pollution 6Da043 92 77 7D026 65 6Da095 6Fb004 6Da045 117 63 22 89 6Da060 164 78 102 170 6Da007 72 6Dc004 6Da096 Potential 6Da003 7Fa009 7Fa012 124 6Da100 6Fa01 6Da008 132 79 6Da100
6Da072 94 63 75 WASHINGTON64 6Da101 69 118 77 6Da011 81 69 6Da111 6Da112 6Fb006 6Da048 6Da094 6Da112 71 PERRY 83 7Fa017 6Da129 75 71 112 6Da049 80 6Da008 77 75 86 6Da047 127 6Da120 6Da117 77 6Dc010 91 75 6Da012 78 7Fa016 136 79 6Da094 75 70 7Fa026 6Da129 75 6Dc010 91 6Da137 74 109 6Da127 6Da047 6Da060 FALLS 6Dc014 79 Legend 6Da001 6Da017 69 6Da078 6Da117 71
78 80 6Da012 72 6Dc008 7D025 173 81 6Da047 6Dc004 94 97 6Da126 77 22 74 77 7Fa013 90 6Da118 6Dc010 78 7Fa017 85 6Da113
112 127 91 6Dc010 91 6Dc010 6Fb009 6Da109 73 6Fb009 Colors are used to depict the ranges in the 6Da060 72 6Da060 79 7D040 91 99 99 6Da099 6Da138 87 6Da003 75 6Da017 6Da017 148 6Da113 79 6Da115 7Fa017 60 pollution potential indexes shown below. 6Da003 6Da048 69 69 127 70 77 721,176 7Aa01 6Fb005 7Fa013 721,176 83 6Fb005 118 118 75 6Da017 6Da126 Warm colors (red, orange, yellow) represent 86 112 6Da129 6Da024 71 6Da120 7D041 157 69 85 70 22 86 7Fa013 75 6Dc010 6Da112 71 6Da111 75 6Da128 6Da133 79 6Fb009 areas of higher vulnerability (higher pollution 6Da048 6Fb006 6Fb005 7Fa017 6Da109 73 91 66 6Da017 69 112 99 6Da110 112 127 6Da126 89 6Da111 75 6Da031
118 83 6Da020 6Da001 6Da025 7D039 159 6Dc015 77 69 potential indexes), while cool colors (green, 6Da055 85 61 6Da091 63 6Da050 6Da109 73 797 6Dc012 6Da133 73 77 71 6Da123 73 87 69 6Da100 6Da094 89 6Da081 6Da020 83 7D007 6Da123 6Da031 66 6Da135 blue, violet) represent areas of lower 7D041 145 73 75 85 6Da111 75 63 77
157 6Da033 58 6Da133 vulnerability to contamination (lower pollution 6Da059 68 6Da059 HOPEWELL 66 UNION 6Da108 79 70 6Da136 62 6Da091 6Da060 6Da134 70 83 6Da133 66 potential indexes). 7D011 111 6Da058 6Da024 6Da113 61 6Da110 69 72 6Da079 6Da123 6Da111 71 73 79 68 6Da025 71 111 75 64 6Da101 6Da061 73 7D042 171 6Da012 6Da017 69 6Da017 6Da128 22 6Da123 73 40 6Da017 7D014 178
6Da082 68 6Da082 7Fa013 112 74 69 6Da080 69 89 6Da123 6Da101 6Da094 Roads Index Ranges 7D041 6Da109 73 6Da094 81 6Da113 79 797 6Da126 85 64 75 75 6Da110 157 6Da101 64 146 73 7Fa014 6Da091 61
70 60 70 93 64 6Da101 69 102 6Fb010 6Da017 69 6Da104 Streams 6Da024 6Da112 6Da096 109 7Aa02 6Da056 70 6Da082 65 6Da134 70 Not Rated 7Aa01 7D026 60 71 63 71 87 6Fb005 71 68 6Da104 6Fb010 6Da091 6Da089 83 70 7Fa026 118 6Da047 7D007 164 109 61 73 7D030 7D029 6Da053 7D042 22 65 109 6Da123 6Da052 78 145 6Da123 73 7Fa026 6Da094 75 Lakes 157 123 72 171 146 6Da123 73 73 87 6Da008 6Da083 6Da109 109 7Aa01 6Da054 Less Than 79 6Fb005 77 6Da024 81 6Da109 6Da091 7D031 83 88 6Da024 22 6Da120 73 118 6Da010 79 6Da024 71 6Dc010 6Da123 73 73 61 6Fb009 153 71 6Da072 79 6Da126 85 6Fb010 99 71 6Da017 6Da084 91 6Da100 79 79 6Da113 109 6Da083 6Da120 6Da113 Townships 74 6Da113 69 6Fa01 118 6Da001 81 69 79 79 6Da096 6Dc010 80 - 99 6Fb5 7D002 6Da072 79 77 154 91 6Da091 61 6Da051 118 6Da084 74 79 63 6Dc010 6Fb006 7Aa03 6Da060 72 6Da120 73 6Da110 83 6Fb005 118 7Fa026 112 6Da100 73 6Dc012 79 6Da123 109 91 69 69 87 6Da126 85 6Da111 6Da047 6Da109 6Da093 62 6Da032 100 - 119 6Da017 7D042 6Da113 75 6Da012 78 92 6Da043 6Da069 68 6Da110 73 79 6Fb009 69 171 6Da123 73 74 93 6Da094 6Da100 69 6Da025 71 6Da101 99 6Da048 6Da113 64 75 69 6Fb010 6Da008 6Da051 86 7G01 77 83 79 6Da101 120 - 139 7Aa04 68 7Aa04 SPRINGFIELD 6Da104 6Dc010 7D002 154 109 701,176 6Da111 146 6Da109 701,176 91 6Fb005 6Da057 6Fb004 6Da112 71 64 65 7Ec01 6Fb006 6Da109 75 6Dc012 91 118 103 7G02 102 73 6Fb009 122 6Da003 75 112 73 6Da021 6Da113 87 6Da101 6Da032 105 79 6Da031 99 7D032 6Fb004 102 6Da086 76 6Da125 64 6Da091 6Fb005 185 7D013 6Da104 68 128 101 74 63 140 - 159 7G01 91 6Da076 61 65 6Da038 118 6Da063 6Dc008 60 7Fa026 7G01 91 6Da060 87 6Dc013 101 109 91 6Da038 91 64 7D044 6Da137 79 6Da062 90 6Dc010 6Da107 6Da038 6Da043 92 72 6Da084 132 6Da104 91 83 73 6Da017 74 6Da126 6Fb010 6Da089 91 6Da060 6Da020 83 6Da104 65 6Da101 7Ec01 69 6Da060 6Da080 85 109 313 73 160 - 179 6Da064 74 72 6Da076 65 122 7Ec01 72 6Dc009 WAYNE 64 6Da017 6Dc008 90 87 81 7Fa026 7Fa027 6Fb010 122 6Dc004 6Fb004 104 7Fa031 6Da060 72 7D041 6Da091 6Da099 109 109 6Da089 69 94 102 6Da031 101 105 157 61 60 73 6Da094 75 63 180 - 199 6Da024 71 7D041 7Fa026 6Da113 6Da092 157 6Da091 6Da124 6Da109 6Da101 6Fb010 7D043 190 7D043 109 79 61 7Fa026 73 6Da031 146 64 109 6Da121 67 6Da080 71 109 6Dc010 63 6Fb010 81 7Fa013 81 6Da104 6Da058 7Fa019 116 91 109 6Da089 Greater Than 200 112 65 6Fb010 6Da126 6Fb9 6Fb006 6Da025 71 6Da060 6Da017 6Dc009 7D045 149 7Fa026 7Fa013 73 68 7Fa022 109 85 99 6Da024 72 104 109 6Da126 112 112 69 6Da111 6Da020 83 71 136 85 6Da111
6Dc010 75 7Fa028 6Da117 6Da017 6Da088 75 6Da060 72 6Da126 91 6Da109 75 6Da107 6Fb006 6Fb004 7Fa020 133 7Fa013 6Da126 6Da066 70 6Da024 119 77 112 69 102 85 73 85 6Fb010 83 112 109 6Da038 6Da017 71 7Fa013 7Fa014 6Da094 75 6Da126 91 69 6Dc010 6Da024 6Da016 76 112 102 85 91 6Dc010
6Fb006 112 73 6Da112 7Fa012 6Da065 71 6Dc004 6Da017 7D047 91 6Da132
6Da061 124 69 71 Black grid represents the State Plane South 77 81 146 77 6Da061 73 94 146 SALT CREEK 7Fa013 6Da130 6Fb009 6Da087 78 6Da031 6Fb010 204 112 63 6Da126 6Da107 109 Coordinate System (NAD27, feet). 22 6Da030 6Da067 85 6Da111 6Da137 99 6Da066 7D024 85 75 6Da113 79 6Da109 83 6Da017 6Da017 75 6Da100 79 6Da061 7Fa022 136 6Da094 60 168 6Da113 73 70 69 69 69 79
75 6Da094 73 6Da089 73 7Fa018 7Fa021 6Da091 6Da091 6Da025 61 75 7D026 6Da107 RICH HILL 012345 6Dc004 61 117 129 83 71 94 6Da080 164 6Da025 6Da076 81 7Fa032 71 7Fa030 6Da093 100 6Da109 73 6Da140 Miles 681,176 6Da069 93 87 681,176 111 6Da099 62 7Fa026 87 6Da067 60 6Da104 109 6Da091 85 6Da099 6Da126 7Fa026 6Fb006 6Da025 6Da024 6Da017 6Da094 75 60 65 71 61 7D048 6Da069 69 6Dc009 6Da140 87 85 109 112 7D032 6Da064 74 71 6Da099 93 6Da017 69 148 128 7Fa021 129 60 104 024681 7Fa024 134 6Da100 69 6Da017 6Da096 7Fa026 7Fa026 6Da025 7Fa025 6Da096 109 6Da137 69 6Da072 63 109 6Da089 NEWTON 71 138 79 6Da032 63 6Da126 73 79 6Da067 7Fa014 68 85 7Fa013 85 6Da109 Kilometers 6Dc009 112 6Fb007 102 73 115 104 6Da099 7D007 22 60 145 6Da068 6Da074 284 Ohio Department of Natural Resources 7Fa023 6Da091 6Da091 95 6Fa02 83 Division of Water 6Da025 6Da074 130 61 61
123 7Fa013 112 6Da067 7Fa013 112 83 7Fa018 Ground Water Resources Section 6Da017 71 117 6Da109 6Da113 6Fb010 85 6Fb004 6Da091 61 7D004 69 7Fa021 129 6Dc004 94 73 109 6Da137 1939 Fountain Square 6Da067 7Fa013 79 6Da137 85 6Da061 102 187 6Da024 112 6Da032 6Da121 79 Columbus Ohio 43224 7Fa023 6Da101 7Fa026 79 22 73 71 6Da031 6Da099 68 109 81 www.dnr.state.oh.us 6Da061 130 64 6Da068 6Da025 71 6Da074 63 555 60 6Da141 95 73 6Da099 6Da089 73 6Da068 83 7Fa024 6Da091 64 6Da094 60 2001 95 134 6Da089 73 7Fa018 61 6Da068 6Da091 75 6Da089 6Fb006 117 95 6Da093 6Da091 61 6Da091 62 61 6Da031 73 6Da080 6Da094 112 6Da067 85 6Da0616Da067 93 63 7Fa013 81 6Da091 75 73 85 112 6Da031 340 6Da068 6Da025 6Dc004 94 61 6Da089 6Da031 BRUSH CREEK 63 73 6Da067 95 71 63 85 7Fa001 142 7Fa007 345 136 6Da092 HARRISON 6Da094 7Fa026 67 109 6Da121 75 81 6Fb011 111 7D007 6Da031 63 6Fb006 112 6Da031 145 6Da032 68 6Da032 7Fa013 63 68 661,176 6Da091 661,176 112 6Da140 61 6Da094 6Da095 6Da031 6Fb004 87 6Da140 78 63 102 75 6Da080 6Da101 87 64 6Da032 BLUE ROCK 81 6Da095 6Da031 68 MEIGS 78 63 6Fb004 6Da094 6Da089 6Da101 7Fa014 6Da089 73 6Da031 75 7Fa013 102 64 102 6Da089 73 63 7D003 168 112 73 6Da113 6Da137 7Fa014 6Da032 79 79 6Da137 7Fa013 112 102 6Da094 6Da121 81 6Da107 83 68 79 669 345 CLAY 75 6Da099 6Fb009 6Da113 6Fb010 6Da032 60 68 99 79 109 7Fa013 6Da089 6Da107 83 6Fb009 112 376 6Da121 73 99 6Da032 81 6Da094 7Fa013 6Da110 68 112 69 284 669 75 6Da094 6Da032 6Fb009 6Da080 75 60 81 68 99 6Da094 6Da089 73 6Da131 6Da094 6Da089 6Da090 6Da032 75 6Da139 84 6Da031 6Da094 73 90 75 68 6Da031 75 65 6Da110 6Da89 63 6Da110 6Da127 6Da031 6Da127 63 345 6Da095 78 69 6Da031 6Da131 69 73 71 63 71 6Da110 6Da095 6Da095 6Da031 63 6Da092 67 63 6Da095 69 6Da137 78 78 90 6Da094 78 79 75 6Da032 6Da139 68 6Da110 84 6Da139 6Da094 69 84 75 93 555 669 641,176 641,176
2,088,543 2,108,543 2,128,543 2,148,543 2,168,543 2,188,543 2,208,543 2,228,543