Ohio State University Extension

Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

590 Woody Hayes Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43210

Coshocton County Ground-Water Resources

AEX-490.16

Paul D. Golden
Wayne A. Jones
Larry C. Brown
Karen T. Ricker

Water stored under the earth's surface is a plentiful, yet precious, resource in most areas of Ohio. Many human activities may affect the quality and quantity of this resource. However, the availability and quality of this resource are influenced directly by the properties of the geologic formations that hold water. The chemical and physical nature of these formations varies from area to area, creating a wide range of water yields and quality at different depths. This publication contains information about the ground-water resources underlying Coshocton County. Its purpose is to help the reader better understand the factors that influence the quantity and quality of ground water. An overview of the county's water resources is provided in the publication Water Resources of Coshocton County, AEX-480.16.

Much of the water resource and water quality terminology used in this publication is described in Extension Fact Sheets AEX 460 and 465. Ohio Extension publications are available through the Coshocton County office of Ohio State University Extension.

Aquifers

Geologic formations (e.g., sand, gravel, limestone, sandstone) have the ability to receive, store and transmit water. In general, if a formation is capable of yielding enough water to support a well or spring, it is called an aquifer. The material from which the formation originally was made influences its ability to store and transmit water. For example, sand and gravel allow water to flow through easily. By comparison, shale, which originated from compacted layers of mud and clay, generally allows very little water to flow through it unless the shale is highly fractured.

There are three aquifers underlying Coshocton County. The most productive aquifer is the coarse-grained unconsolidated aquifer, composed mainly of highly permeable sand and gravel with mixtures of clay and silt. Much of the sand and gravel is glacial outwash deposited beneath many of the rivers and streams in the county, such as the Tuscarawas and Muskingum rivers. The productivity of well fields developed in such aquifers may be enhanced by inducing infiltration from adjacent streams. These aquifers are capable of yielding greater than 500 gallon per minute (gpm) from properly developed wells.

Sandstone, shale and limestone formations, which are massive to thin-bedded geological units, are capable of yielding up to 25 gpm at depths of less than 300 feet. These aquifers are important sources of domestic and small public supplies of water. The fine- to medium-grained shale, sandstone and limestone formations make up the third aquifer type, providing yields of 10 gpm or less. Contact the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Geological Survey, for information on Ohio's geologic formations (Fountain Square, Columbus, OH 43224-1362).

Well Yield

The actual yield of a well, in gallons per minute, will vary considerably depending on the age and depth of the well, the diameter of the casing, well construction, pump capacity and age, and most importantly, properties of the geologic formation. The exact yield and depth of each well will depend on the properties of the geologic formation at the specific location of the well.

Ground-Water Availability

To support the development of ground-water availability assessments in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Water, maintains a statewide database of more than 700,000 well logs. The Ground-Water Resources Section of the Division manages this valuable database, which includes some information collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). Since 1948, well-log information has been collected to increase the understanding of the ground-water resources in Ohio. Geologists and hydrogeologists continue to study the state's ground-water resources. As a result, Ohio is one of only a few states that has been completely mapped for ground-water availability (mapped by river basin, from 1959 to 1962).

Estimates of the size, shape, geologic make-up and yields of aquifers are being mapped county by county. Most of Ohio's counties have a completed map. The map presented in Figure 1 is a generalized representation of the water-bearing formations underlying Coshocton County (adapted from map by D. J. Sugar, 1988). This illustration is based on a hydrogeologic interpretation of the well-log data from Coshocton County and surrounding areas. It should be used only as a guide to understanding the ground-water resources in the county. The section below provides a brief description of the types of aquifers illustrated on the map in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Ground-water resources of Coshocton County, Ohio (adapted from Ground-Water Resources of Coshocton County map, D.J. Sugar, 1988, ODNR Division of Water; illustration prepared by J Humphreys).

AREA A: Coarse, Permeable Sand and Gravel

Area A in Figure 1 is the primary and most productive aquifer in Coshocton County. Yields of 500 gpm or more may be obtained at depths as great as 180 feet. The aquifer in this area is hydraulically connected to the Tuscarawas, Walhonding and Muskingum rivers.

Figure 2 is a generalized cross section of a portion of the Tuscarawas River basin in Tuscarawas County. This cross section illustrates the range of depth to bedrock as well as the variation in composition of the valley fill deposits, and is representative of the Tuscarawas River valley in Coshocton County. Although Coshocton County lies beyond the glaciated portion of the state, meltwater from the glaciers to the north deposited well-sorted sand and gravel in the valley beneath the Tuscarawas River. This old valley contains as much as 250 feet of sand and gravel in many places.

Figure 2. Generalized cross section of the Tuscarawas River basin in Tuscarawas County, Ohio (adapted from Underground Water Resources map P-10, ODNR Division of Water; illustration prepared by R. Roberts).

AREA B: Permeable Sand and Gravel

Yields of 100 to 500 gpm may be developed in Area B from glacial outwash materials primarily composed of permeable sand and gravel deposits. The valley contains up to 180 feet of sand and gravel material. Yields of greater than 500 gpm may be developed where the aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Tuscarawas River. Test drilling is recommended when large yields are desired.

AREA C: Sand and Gravel

In Area C, ground water may be obtained from valley fill material extending as great as 150 feet deep, containing sand and gravel deposits having a yield potential of up to 100 gpm. Wells not encountering significant deposits of sand and gravel must be developed in the underlying bedrock which could yield from 10 to 25 gpm. Test drilling would be recommended to locate the coarsest sand and gravel deposits.

Valley fill occurs along many of the streams and tributaries to the Tuscarawas River. These deposits range from 30 to as much as 200 feet deep across the county, and consist largely of clay, silt, and fine sand. Large-diameter dug wells may be developed in this valley fill. Some wells are drilled through these deposits into the underlying bedrock for water supplies.

AREA D: Sandstone, Shale, and Limestone

Area D contains a wide range of aquifers with limited yields of only 10 to 25 gpm possible. Sandstone, shale and limestone sequences, and sand and gravel aquifers constitute Area D. Wells not encountering significant sand and gravel deposits are developed in the underlying bedrock. Well depths vary from 30 to 300 feet deep.

AREA E: Sandstone, Shale and Limestone

In Area E, wells are developed in the sandstone, shale and limestone formations. Yields of 3 to 10 gpm may be developed with well depths varying from 30 to 400 feet.

AREA F: Sandstone, Shale and Limestone, Low Yield Potential

The poorest yielding formation in Coshocton County is delineated as Area F. Meager supplies in which yields seldom exceed 3 gpm are developed in sandstone, shale, and limestone sequences. Well depths are generally under 200 feet, but some extend to over 400 feet.

Ground-Water Levels

The water level in any well does not remain constant, but changes in response to several factors. Rainfall distribution and amount may affect ground-water recharge and discharge, and subsequently may affect the water level in area wells. Also, wells that are hydraulically connected to a stream may show fluctuations in the water level as the stream level changes. In some cases, depending upon the hydraulic properties of the geologic formation, the intense pumping of a well, or number of wells, may cause the water level in some nearby wells to be lowered.

The ODNR Division of Water monitors two wells in Coshocton County. One well, located at Conesville, is designated as Observation Well CS-3 in Figure 1; the other is located in Coshocton and is designated as CS-2. These two wells, along with other wells throughout east-central Ohio, are used to monitor the natural seasonal fluctuation of water levels in various aquifers. Observation Well CS-3, located 1.5 miles north of Conesville, is 110 feet deep. Continuous water-level measurements have been recorded at CS-3 since April 1959. The lowest level recorded on CS-3 (Conesville) was 37.0 feet below land surface on October 1973; the highest level recorded was 21.4 feet below land surface July 1969. Observation Well CS-2 is 40 feet deep and the depth to sand and gravel is approximately 8.5 feet. Continuous water-level measurements were recorded at CS-2 from May 1949 to September 1982. This well was reactivated in March 1989 to present. The lowest level recorded on CS-2 (Coshocton) was 21.5 feet below land surface on August 1991; the highest level recorded was 0.43 feet below land surface February 1951.

Ground-Water Quality

Various state and federal agencies have participated in programs to determine the ground-water quality in Ohio. For seven wells in Coshocton County, water-quality data were available from the ODNR Division of Water. In Figure 1, these wells are noted as Chemical Analysis Sites 1 through 7. These sites are six municipal wells and one private well.

The results from some of the chemical tests performed on these Coshocton County wells are given in Table 1. The chemical constituents listed are total dissolved solids, hardness (as CaCO₃), iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate, fluoride, calcium and magnesium. For comparison purposes, secondary drinking water-quality standards for these chemical constituents also are shown. These standards are established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for public water systems for aesthetic reasons (taste, odor, appearance, etc.), and are not enforceable. These chemical constituents do not pose a risk to human health (see notes in Table 1). For private wells, there are no legally enforceable drinking water-quality standards other than total coliform, which is an indicator of bacteriological quality.

Ground water, whether obtained from bedrock or glacial deposits, may require some treatment. In some areas, water containing calcium carbonate (CaCO₃, i.e. hard water) in concentrations greater than 180 ppm, and iron concentrations greater than 0.3 ppm, may require treatment for some uses (see notes in Table 1).

The information in Table 1 can be used as a guide to what one might expect from an existing or new well developed in similar geologic material in the county. This information provides a general representation of the quality of the water at the time of sampling, which was not the same for all wells. In most cases, the data provided in Table 1 was taken from a water sample obtained just after the well was put into operation. Six of the seven wells were developed in the sand and gravel underlying Coshocton County. Even though these sand and gravel wells are in the range of only 76 to 134 feet deep, some variation exists in the concentrations of each of these chemical constituents. Just as well yields differ, water quality will vary depending on aquifer properties at the specific location of each well. One should not forget that many human activities also affect the quality of ground water (see AEX 465).

Table 1. Chemical constituents of selected Coshocton County wells1.
Well No.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	WQ Std2
Well Depth (feet)	311	76	106	99	120	134	86
Capacity (GPM)	60	120	700	1900	800	1000	700
Depth to Bedrock (feet)	8	ne3	ne	ne	ne	133	ne
Water-Bearing Formation4	SS/SH	SG	SG	SG	SG	SG	SG
Chemical Constituents5
Total Dissolved Solids	263	325	287	420	480	236	686	500
Hardness (as CaCO3)	26	288	260	203	234	194	490	none6
Iron	-7	1.41	0.03	0.28	0.16	0.11	0.28	0.3
Manganese	-	nt8	0.04	0.25	0.34	-	2.10	0.05
Chloride	22	20	10	25	37	-	130	250
Sulfate	42	49	46	60	116	14	200	250
Fluoride	0.8	0.09	0.2	nt	nt	nt	0.2	2
Calcium	7.3	71	78	79.1	105	28	150	none
Magnesium	2.1	27	16	22.7	18.7	11	29	none
1 Data on these wells taken from map by D. J. Sugar, 1988; general location of each well is shown on Figure 1.
2 USEPA Secondary Water Quality Standard.
3 ne = well constructed in this formation did not encounter bedrock.
4 SS-Sandstone; SH-Shale; SG-Sand and Gravel.
5 Units as parts per million (ppm); Comments as per Interpreting Your Water Test Report (1988); Total Dissolved Solids: Concentrations above 500 ppm may cause adverse taste and deteriorate domestic plumbing and appliances. Use of water containing 500 ppm is common. Hardness: Primary concerns are that more soap is required for effective cleaning, a film may form on fixtures, fabrics may yellow, and scales may form in boilers, water heaters, and cooking utensils. Iron and Manganese: Iron concentrations greater than 0.3 ppm and manganese concentrations greater than 0.03 may cause brown or black stains on laundry, plumbing fixtures and sinks. Metallic taste may be present which may affect the taste of beverages made from the water. Chloride: High concentrations may result in an objectionable, salty taste to water and the corrosion of plumbing in the hot water system. Sulfate: Concentrations in excess of 250 ppm may have laxative effect on persons unaccustomed to the water. Also affects the taste of water and will form a hard scale in boilers and heat exchangers. Fluoride: At concentrations greater than 1.5 ppm, fluorosis (mottling) of teeth may occur. USEPA Primary Standard is 4 ppm. Calcium and Magnesium: Main constituents of hardness. Primary concerns with hardness are that more soap is required for effective cleaning, a film may form on fixtures, fabrics may yellow, and scales may form in boilers, water heaters, and cooking utensils.
6 No USEPA Secondary Standard.
7 Value below detection limits.
8 nt = not tested.

Summary

Coshocton County's ground-water resources are valuable assets to the county's citizens and industry. The availability and quality of these resources are directly influenced by the properties of the geologic formations underlying the county. The productive sand and gravel formations that underlie much of Coshocton County have the potential to provide excellent water adequate for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and many municipal uses. By understanding the physical and chemical nature of these resources, better decisions can be made about ground-water protection, management and use. This publication provides an overview of the county's ground-water resources. It should be used as a guide, and not as a substitute for detailed information and professional advice when drilling a well.

Where to Get More Information

The Coshocton County office of Ohio State University Extension can provide other publications on the county's water resources. Your Extension agent, the Coshocton County Health Department, and Ohio EPA (Southeast District Office-SEDO 2195 Front Street, Logan, OH 43138) can provide information on well-water testing and drinking-water quality. The ODNR Division of Water-Ground-Water Resources Section (Fountain Square, Columbus, OH 43224) is an excellent source of information on ground water. Some of the information in this publication was summarized from the map, Ground-Water Resources of Coshocton County, and other information available through the Division of Water. This map is much more detailed than that given in Figure 1, and the Ground-Water Resources Section can provide detailed information on ground-water availability and wells. The USGS, Ohio District (975 W. Third Ave. Columbus, OH 43212), also provides information concerning ground water in Ohio.

Bibliography

Ground-Water Resources of Coshocton County. 1988. D. J. Sugar. ODNR Division of Water. (map).

Interpreting Your Water Test Report. 1988. D. Lundstrom and S. Fundingsland. AE-937, No. 13-AENG-10. North Dakota State University Extension Service.

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Water Primer. 1993. R. Leeds and L. C. Brown. AEX 465. Ohio State University Extension.

Ohio Ground-Water Quality. USGS National Water Summary-Ohio. 1986. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2325.

Ohio Ground-Water Resources. USGS National Water Summary-Ohio. 1984. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275.

Southeast Ohio Water Plan. 1976. ODNR Division of Water.

Surface and Ground Water Terminology. 1990. L. C. Brown and L. P. Black. AEX 460. Ohio State University Extension.

Underground Water Resources (maps of various river basins). 1958-1962. ODNR Division of Water.

Water Resources of Coshocton County. 1994. P. D. Golden, K. T. Ricker and L. C. Brown. AEX-480.16. Ohio State University Extension.

Water Testing. 1988. K. Mancl. AEX 314. Ohio State University Extension.

Acknowledgments

This publication was produced through the Ohio Water Resources Education Project, in cooperation with: ODNR Division of Water; Ohio EPA; USGS, Ohio District; and Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Project leaders are Larry C. Brown and Karen T. Ricker. Partial support for this publication was provided by these cooperating agencies and programs: Ohio State University Extension, Coshocton County; Coshocton County Commissioners; Coshocton Soil and Water Conservation District; Overholt Drainage Education and Research Program; and the Ohio Management Systems Evaluation Area Project (USDA Extension Service Grant No. 90-EWQI-1-9018).

The project leaders acknowledge the following reviewers: Tim Halt (USDA-Soil Conservation Service, Coshocton County); William M. Edwards and Lloyd B. Owens (USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Appalachian Experimental Watershed); Scott Golden (Environmental Health, ODH); Steve Hindall (USGS, Ohio District); and Michael B. Preston (Ohio EPA, SEDO).

A special thanks to Ruth Eikenberry (Agricultural Program Assistant, OSU Extension, Coshocton County) for assistance in research and manuscript preparation, Michelle Roby, Ross Roberts, and John Humphreys (Agricultural Engineering Undergraduate Assistants) for help in illustration and manuscript preparation, and Kim Wintringham and Ted Hattemer, Associate Editors (Section of Communications and Technology, Ohio State University Extension), for editorial and graphic production.