Hydrogeology of the Scioto River Valley Near Piketon, South-Central Ohio GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1872 Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Heater, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE SCIOTO RIVER VALLEY NEAR PIKETON, SOUTH-CENTRAL OHIO Aerial photographic view of Piketon and aquifer test-site area. Hydrogeology of the Scioto River Valley Near Piketon, South-Central Ohio By STANLEY E. NORRIS and RICHARD E. FIDLER GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1872 Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission A quantitative study of ground-water yield and induced infiltration in a glacial outwash aquifer UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HIGKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 68-320 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract__ ______________________________________________________ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope.____________________________________________ 1 The problem_____-_____________________________________--__-_- 4 The variables_________________________________________________ 5 Acknowledgments ______________________________________________ 6 The hy drologic system _____________________________________________ 6 Stream discharge characteristics.________________________________ 6 Geomorphic development..--__-_-___-__________-----___-__----- 8 Occurrence of ground water_____________________________________ 10 The aquifer_________________________________________________ 10 Thickness of the unconsolidated deposits_________________________ 10 Character of the sediments---___-_________________---_----_-_-- 13 Character of the stream channel_________________________________ 16 Aquifer-infiltration test_______-_____-______________-_--__------__- 16 Construction and testing of the pumped well-_____________________ 16 Installation of drive-point wells_ ________________________________ 18 Prepumping conditions.________________________________________ 19 Nine-day constant-rate test-______-_-_______________--___--__-_- 22 Distance to line source and coefficient of transmissibility_ ______ 24 Evidence of infiltration.____________________________________ 31 Determination of the coefficient of storage.___________-___---- 34 Coefficient of vertical permeability___._______--_-_____-_-_- 35 Recharge conditions_______________________________________________ 39 Streamflow depletion due to pumping.___________________________ 39 Permeability of the streambed___-__________________-_-_-----_- 42 Quality of water______________________________________-_____---_-__ 45 Constituents in ground water and surface water___________________ 45 Results of chemical quality and temperature monitoring____________ 48 Recommendations for drilling production wells_______________-----_-_- 51 Drilling and testing production wells________________-_.______--__--_- 54 Well location and construction. _________________________________ 54 Character of the aquifer._________-__-__-__________-___-_-_-_--_ 54 Selection of screen slot sizes____________________________-_--__--- 57 Twenty-four hour discharge tests-______________-_______-_-_----- 59 Expected yield.of wells______________-______________--__--_-_--- 60 Future ground-water development in the lower Scioto River valley ______ 62 C onclusions_ _____________________________________________________ 64 References. ________________________________________________________ 65 Index-_________________________________________________--_- 67 VI CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates 1-4 are in pocket] PLATE 1. Fence diagram drawn through test wells at the aquifer test site, showing zones of finer grained material of relatively low permeability interbedded with coarser grained sand and gravel. 2. Hydrographs showing fluctuation of water levels in ob­ servation wells during 9-day aquifer test. 3. Hydrographs showing fluctuation of water levels in river­ bed drive-point wells, compared with river stage, during 9-day aquifer test. 4. Map showing altitude of water table and distribution of flow lines at end of 9-day aquifer test. FRONTISPIECE. Aerial photographic view of Piketon and aquifer test-site area. Page FIGURE 1. Map of Scioto River basin, including pertinent features in the Piketon area_______________________________ 2 2. Hydrograph showing mean daily discharge of Scioto River at Higby, 1963__________.__.-_-__-..----_._ 7 3-6. Maps showing: 3. Teays stage and post-Teaj^s stage (Newark River) valleys in southern Ohio_____.______-_--__-_ 9 4. Part of the water table surface, based on depth to water in wells measured July 12, 1963_ _______ 11 5. Part of the bedrock surface___________.___----_ 12 6. Location of wells used in the aquifer test__----_- 15 7. Graph showing swIQ versus Q- _______________________ 18 S. Map of aquifer test-site area showing surface of the water table on October 8, 1963, prior to pumping__________ 21 9. Semilogarithmic graph of drawdown versus distance in river line of wells after 9 days of pumping at rate of 1,000 gpm____.________ ________.___________.____ 27 10. Semilogarithmic graph of drawdown versus distance in parallel line of wells after 9 days of pumping at rate of 1,000 gpm______________________,______________ 28 11-14. Graphs for determining: 11. Line-source distance for river line of wells.______ 29 12. Coefficient of transmissibility for river line of wells. __--____----__---_________________ 30 13. Line-source distance for parallel line of wells.____ 31 14. Coefficient of transmissibility for parallel line of wells. _ ___________________________________ 32 15. Graphs showing line-source distance at selected times, computed from river line and parallel line of observa­ tion wells___-__-_-__-_-__-_--______-_____________ 33 16. Graphs showing variation with time of calculated value of coefficient of storage.___________________________ 35 CONTENTS VII Page FIGURE 17. Logarithmic plot of time versus drawdown in well E-4, compared with Theis and Stallman type curves_____ 38 18. Graph of drawdown in riverbed observation wells after 9 days of pumping and at selected reference points on an idealized plan of a part of the streambed__________ 43 19. Map showing location of production wells and drive- point observation wells____________________________ 55 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Chemical constituents in ground water and surface water in the Piketon area, Ohio_____________________-___- 46 2. Chemical constituents in ground water and surface water in aquifer test area_______________________________ 50 3. Characteristics of wells and aquifer properties determined from the 24-hour discharge tests..__________________ 61 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE SGIOTO RIVER VALLEY NEAR PIKETON, SOUTH-CENTRAL OHIO By STANLEY E. NOBRIS and RICHARD E. FIDLER ABSTRACT A systematic study was made of one of Ohio's principal aquifers, a sand and gravel outwash in the Scioto River Valley, to determine the feasibility of de­ veloping a ground-water supply of 20 million gallons per day at a site near Piketon. The first part of the study was spent in determining the thickness and physical properties of the sand and gravel aquifer and in drilling test wells to determine the best site for the supply wells. The second part of the investigation was an aquifer infiltration test to deter­ mine the hyraulic properties of the aquifer and the conditions of stream re­ charge. A well 83 feet deep was drilled on the flood plain and was pumped for 9 days at the rate of 1,000 gallons per minute. The effect on the hydrologic system during and after the pumping was determined by measuring the water levels in an array of deep and shallow observation wells and in 8 drive-point wells installed in the bed of the river. Seldom have more comprehensive data been collected showing the effects of pumping on a natural, unconfined, hydrologic system. From these data were calculated the coefficient of transmissibility (215,000 gallons per day per foot) and the rate of streambed infiltration (0.235 million gallons per day per acre per foot). The aquifer was tested near the end of a long drought; so the ground-water levels and the river stage were very nearly following a level trend. Because the ground-water levels were essentially unaffected by extraneous influences, the test data are probably as precise and uncomplicated as is practical to obtain in the field. These data proved to be valid for use as design criteria for the location, spacing, and construction of four supply wells. The third part of the investigation was the testing and quantitative evaluation of the four supply wells before they were put into service. The wells were found to perform about as predicted, indicating that the hydraulic properties of the aquifer, as determined by standard methods, are fairly representative. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE In 1963-65 the U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with the Division of Water of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, investigated on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission the feasibility of developing a ground-water supply of 20 mgd (million gallons per day) at a site near Piketon, in the Scioto River valley in southern Ohio (fig. 1). The water was required for use at AEC's 1 S22-,5i58 O 169 2