U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5010

Prepared in cooperation with the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District

Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, 

Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Summary of Hydrologic Data for 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 

with an Annotated Bibliography

By Ralph J. Haefner and Laura A. Simonson

Prepared in cooperation with the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste 

Management District

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5010

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
1

2

3

4 5

U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Haefner, R.J., and Simonson, L.A., 2010, Summary of hydrologic data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an 

annotated bibliography: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5010, 115 p.

ISBN 978–1–4113–2766–5

Cover photographs:

1. Staff gage on Indian Fork below Atwood Lake Dam near New Cumberland, 

Tuscarawas County, Ohio.

2. Public supply well at Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.

3. Tuscarawas River upstream of Coshocton, Coshocton County, Ohio.

4. USGS Hydrologic Technician Brian Mailot obtaining water sample.

5. Tuscarawas River below Dover Dam, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................2

General Basin Characteristics ...........................................................................................................3

Physiographic Provinces............................................................................................................3

Climate...........................................................................................................................................3

Elevation and Topography ..........................................................................................................3

Soils................................................................................................................................................3

Population .....................................................................................................................................8

Land Use......................................................................................................................................10

Geology.................................................................................................................................................13

Bedrock .......................................................................................................................................13

Unconsolidated Sediments ......................................................................................................16

Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................16

Oil and Gas.........................................................................................................................16

Coal......................................................................................................................................16

Other Mineral Resources ................................................................................................19

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................19

Evapotranspiration ....................................................................................................................20

Surface Water............................................................................................................................20

Wetlands ............................................................................................................................20

Floods..................................................................................................................................21

Groundwater/Surface-Water Interactions............................................................................21

Groundwater...............................................................................................................................21

Bedrock Aquifers..............................................................................................................22

Unconsolidated Aquifers.................................................................................................22

Recharge............................................................................................................................22

Source-Water Protection Areas ....................................................................................23

Water Use ...................................................................................................................................23

Water Quality..............................................................................................................................26

Effects of Land Use...........................................................................................................27

Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................................................29

Hydrologic Data Networks.........................................................................................................................29

Meteorology.........................................................................................................................................29

Surface Water.....................................................................................................................................31

Stage and Streamflow ..............................................................................................................32

Floods...........................................................................................................................................32

Dams ............................................................................................................................................32

Groundwater........................................................................................................................................32

Water Levels...............................................................................................................................32

Driller’s Well Logs ......................................................................................................................35

Water-Level Map Generated as Part of this Study ..............................................................35
iv

Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................35

Surface Water............................................................................................................................35

Groundwater...............................................................................................................................37

Sampling Done as Part of this Study ......................................................................................37

Field Parameters, Major and Trace Elements, and Nutrients ...................................39

Pesticides...........................................................................................................................42

Bacteria..............................................................................................................................42

Volatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................................42

Wastewater Compounds .................................................................................................42

Radionuclides....................................................................................................................43

Water-Quality Results in Relation to Drinking-Water Standards..............................43

Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotopes .....................................................................................43

Age-Dating Tracers ..........................................................................................................43

Status of Current Data Collection and Focus for Future Work....................................................53

Summary........................................................................................................................................................54

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................56

Annotated Bibliography..............................................................................................................................56

Appendix 1. Summary of Literature Review for the Tuscarawas River Basin................................102

Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, 2006....................................................................................................107

Appendix 3. Glossary of Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Qualifiers........................................115

Plate

[In pocket]

1. Estimated water levels in the bedrock/unconsolidated aquifers in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio

Figures

1–7. Maps showing:

1. The Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio...................................................................................4

2. Ecoregions in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.....................................5

3. Land-surface topography in and around the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio...........................................................................................6

4. Generalized soil regions in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio ...................................7

5. Population of townships in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2000..........................................................................9

6. Generalized land use in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, 

Ohio, 2001 ............................................................................................................................11

7. Generalized bedrock geology in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, 

Ohio ......................................................................................................................................14

8. Generalized stratigraphic section of rocks within 300 feet of the surface 

in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.......................................................................................15
v

9–15. Maps showing:

9. Unconsolidated surficial sediments in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio..................................................................................17

10. Locations of mining operations in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio..................................................................................18

11. Percentages of groundwater and surface-water use for 1985, 

1990, 1995, and 2000 in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio ...................24

12. Locations of meteorological stations in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio..................................................................................30

13. Locations of surface-water data-collection sites in and 

around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio ....................................................................33

14. Locations of groundwater data-collection sites in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio..................................................................................34

15. Locations of water-quality data-collection sites in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio..................................................................................36

16. Piper diagram of water quality in samples collected in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006........................................................................................41

17. Graph showing relation between oxygen (δ18O) and deuterium (δD) 

isotope ratios in water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio ........................53

Tables

1. Population of counties that encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 

1980, 1990, 2000, and 2006............................................................................................................8

2. Land use in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 

(A) as percentage of basin area, and (B) as percentage of county area,

1992 and 2001...............................................................................................................................12

3. Source Water Assessment and Protection Program areas by county 

within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, on record with 

the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency as of 2009 ........................................................23

4 Estimated total water use by water-use category in the counties 

that encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2000 ...................................................25

5. Estimated groundwater and surface-water use for the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 1985–2000 .............................................................................26

6. Watershed groups in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio ....................................................31

7. Description of groundwater and surface-water sites sampled in 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, July and August, 2006..................................................38

8. Land use surrounding sampling sites in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio....................39

9. Land-use changes between 1992 and 2006 for sampling sites in 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio...........................................................................................40

10. Pesticides analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples 

from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006........................................................................44

11. Pesticides present in surface-water samples from 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.................................................................................46

12. Volatile organic compounds analyzed in groundwater and 

surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.............................48

13. Wastewater compounds analyzed in groundwater and 

surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.............................50
vi

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) .3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre .4047 hectare (ha)

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) .09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) .003785 cubic meter (m3

) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3

)

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d) .3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) .02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min) .06309 liter per second (L/s)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) .9072 megagram (Mg) 

ton, long (2,240 lb) 1.016 megagram (Mg) 

Radioactivity

picocurie per liter (pCi/L) .037 becquerel per liter (Bq/L) 

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) .3048 meter per day (m/d)

gal/d/ft2 .000472 centimeter per second (cm/s)

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2/d) .09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

gallon per day per foot (gal/d/ft) .000472 centimeter squared per second (cm2/s)

14. Wastewater compounds detected in groundwater and 

surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.............................52

15. Exceedances of Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) 

in groundwater and surface-water samples from 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.................................................................................52
vii

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C or deg C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F or 

deg F) as follows:

°F = (1.8×°C) + 32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F or deg F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C or 

deg C) as follows:

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot 

times foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, 

foot squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience. Gallon per day per foot (gal/d/ft) also 

is used in publications cited in this report and is included for reference and comparison 

between publications.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

micrograms per liter (μg/L), femtograms per kilogram (fg/kg), micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), 

or picograms per kilogram (pg/kg).

Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

By Ralph J. Haefner and Laura A. Simonson

Abstract

The Tuscarawas River Basin drains approximately 2,600 

square miles in eastern Ohio and is home to 600,000 residents 

that rely on the water resources of the basin. This report summarizes the hydrologic conditions in the basin, describes over 

400 publications related to the many factors that affect the 

groundwater and surface-water resources, and presents new 

water-quality information and a new water-level map designed 

to provide decisionmakers with information to assist in future 

data-collection efforts and land-use decisions.

 The Tuscarawas River is 130 miles long, and the drainage basin includes four major tributary basins and seven 

man-made reservoirs designed primarily for flood control. The 

basin lies within two physiographic provinces—the Glaciated 

Appalachian Plateaus to the north and the unglaciated Allegheny Plateaus to the south. Topography, soil types, surficial 

geology, and the overall hydrology of the basin were strongly 

affected by glaciation, which covered the northern one-third 

of the basin over 10,000 years ago. Within the glaciated 

region, unconsolidated glacial deposits, which are predominantly clay-rich till, overlie gently sloping Pennsylvanian-age 

sandstone, limestone, coal, and shale bedrock. Stream valleys 

throughout the basin are filled with sands and gravels derived 

from glacial outwash and alluvial processes. The southern 

two-thirds of the basin is characterized by similar bedrock 

units; however, till is absent and topographic relief is greater. 

The primary aquifers are sand- and gravel-filled valleys and 

sandstone bedrock. These sands and gravels are part of a 

complex system of aquifers that may exceed 400 feet in thickness and fill glacially incised valleys. Sand and gravel aquifers 

in this basin are capable of supporting sustained well yields 

exceeding 1,000 gallons per minute. Underlying sandstones 

within 300 feet of the surface also provide substantial quantities of water, with typical well yields of up to 100 gallons per 

minute. Although hydraulic connection between the sandstone 

bedrock and the sands and gravels in valleys is likely, it has 

not been assessed in the Tuscarawas River Basin.

In 2001, the major land uses in the basin were approximately 40 percent forested, 39 percent agricultural, and 17 

percent urban/residential. Between 1992 and 2001, forested 

land use decreased by 2 percent with correspondingly small 

increases in agricultural and urban land uses, but from 1980 to 

2005, the 13-county area that encompasses the basin experienced a 7.1-percent increase in population. Higher population 

density and percentages of urban land use were typical of the 

northern, headwaters parts of the basin in and around the cities 

of Akron, Canton, and New Philadelphia; the southern area 

was rural.

The basin receives approximately 38 inches of precipitation per year that exits the basin through evapotranspiration, streamflow, and groundwater withdrawals. Recharge to 

groundwater is estimated to range from 6 to 10 inches per year 

across the basin. In 2000, approximately 89 percent of the 116 

million gallons per day of water used in the basin came from 

groundwater sources, whereas 11 percent came from surfacewater sources. To examine directions of groundwater flow in 

the basin, a new dataset of water-level contours was developed 

by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The contours 

were compiled on a map that shows that groundwater flows 

from the uplands towards the valleys and that the water-level 

surface mimics surface topography; however, there are areas 

where data were too sparse to adequately map the water-level 

surface. Additionally, little is known about deep groundwater 

that may be flowing into the basin from outside the basin and 

groundwater interactions with surface-water bodies.

Many previous reports as well as new data collected as 

part of this study show that water quality in the streams and 

aquifers in the Tuscarawas River Basin has been degraded 

by urban, suburban, and rural agricultural activity, discharges 

from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and 

thermoelectric power plants, mining, and disposal of solid and 

hazardous wastes. Environmental effects from mining coal 

during the 1800s through the mid- to late-1900s continue to 

affect water quality and aquatic habitat in the basin.

As part of this study, seven groundwater samples and 

two surface-water samples were collected and analyzed for 

a wide variety of constituents. Several samples exceeded the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Secondary Maximum 

Contaminant Levels for pH, iron, manganese, sulfate, and (or) 

residue on evaporation. Most of the analyses for pesticides, 

volatile organic compounds, and fecal indicator bacteria 

resulted in concentrations at or below detection limits; however, surface-water samples typically had more detections of 
2 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

these constituents than did groundwater. Wastewater compounds derived from urban wastewater discharges (including 

septic systems) were detected in only one of seven groundwater samples. Fecal coliform bacteria and E. Coli were detected 

in this same groundwater sample, indicating that this sample 

may have been affected by a nearby septic system. Analysis of 

age-dating tracers in the seven groundwater samples, including 

chlorofluorocarbons, tritium/helium, and sulfur hexafluoride, 

indicated that the average residence time of shallow groundwater was less than 50 years, confirming that shallow groundwater is relatively young and its quality is susceptible to 

contamination from current land-use practices. Tritium/helium 

and sulfur hexafluoride offer the best age-dating tools in this 

setting because the data indicate that chlorofluorocarbons were 

likely degraded under anoxic conditions.

As of 2009, a multitude of weather stations, 17 

streamgages, 6 water-quality monitors, and 27 observation 

wells that monitor local hydrologic conditions were operating 

in and around the basin. Substantial historical water-quality 

data from surface-water and groundwater sites that were 

sampled on rotating schedules by other agencies provide 

a basis for analyzing trends in water quality. The data are 

consistent with the results of water-quality analyses obtained 

in this study; however, monitoring data collected during 

extreme events such as floods and droughts are lacking. To 

support future land-use decisions and document the influences of land-use change (which might include, for example, 

zoning, stormwater best management practices, and mine 

reclamation), additional continuously collected data would be 

needed to understand short- and long-term temporal changes 

in water quality. 

Introduction

The Tuscarawas River Basin in eastern Ohio provides 

water to almost 600,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) 

and is home to agricultural, mining, and industrial activities. 

The Cities of Akron, Canton, Wooster, New Philadelphia, 

Coshocton (fig. 1), and numerous smaller towns and communities rely on the abundant water resources of the basin 

for their economic and population growth. Census data for 

1980 and 2006 show population growth of approximately 

7.1 percent within counties that lie within or partly within the 

basin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Although the overall water 

use has decreased from approximately 185 Mgal/d in 1985 

to 119 Mgal/d in 2000, the percentage of water derived from 

groundwater sources has increased from 55 to 89 percent of 

the total withdrawals during this period because of a reduction 

in industrial surface-water uses (Hutson and others, 2004). 

Thus, pressures of development and changes in groundwater 

and surface-water uses are altering the stresses on the heavily 

utilized water resources of the basin. 

This study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne 

Joint Solid Waste Management District, to provide decisionmakers with land-use and water-resources data and acquaint 

them with the broad spectrum of hydrologic information 

available on the basin. The purpose of this report is to summarize existing information regarding the geology, hydrology, 

and water quality in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin. 

The report includes a literature review and a summary of the 

hydrologic data available throughout the basin. Hydrologic 

data are evaluated in terms of spatial and temporal distribution to provide decisionmakers with information that may be 

required to make future data-collection and land-use decisions; 

however, only a small amount of the actual data are included 

in this report. In addition, water-quality data collected as part 

of this study in 2006 at two stream sites on the Tuscarawas 

River and at seven groundwater sites located across the basin 

are evaluated in relation to land use.

The scope of this report is limited to hydrologic information available as of 2009 for the Tuscarawas River Basin 

and parts of adjoining basins that have similar hydrogeologic 

settings. Reports and datasets described in this report varied in 

scale and extent (for example, township, county, subbasin, or 

region), and only minimal attempts were made to redefine the 

extent of these data based on basin boundaries or other boundaries. Therefore, the text, figures, and tables in this report often 

include information from geographic areas adjacent to the 

Tuscarawas River Basin (usually within 10 miles of the basin 

boundary). This additional information may help the reader 

more clearly evaluate data that may be relevant to understanding the hydrology of the Tuscarawas River Basin.

Literature Review

Many studies have been done on different aspects of the 

geology, hydrology, water quality, and water use in and around 

the Tuscarawas River Basin. To gain a better understanding 

of these studies, a literature review was completed through 

library and Internet searches. The focus of this review was on 

water resources, sustainability, and other information that may 

be needed by decisionmakers to ensure the long-term viability 

of the water resources in the basin. Approximately 400 references from published reports, maps, digital and hard- copy 

datasets, and World Wide Web sites were compiled during this 

review. Most of the references are cited in the sections below, 

along with supporting information in the Annotated Bibliography. Additionally, these references are categorized in appendix 

1 under topical headings to provide readers with a means of 

quickly obtaining references that pertain to a particular waterresources topic. Many of the references are listed more than 

once because they contain information on multiple topics.
Literature Review 3

General Basin Characteristics

The Tuscarawas River Basin covers approximately 

2,600 square miles within 13 counties in eastern Ohio, specifically Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Guernsey, 

Harrison, Holmes, Medina, Portage, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, and Wayne County (fig. 1). The Tuscarawas River 

is 129.9 miles long. The headwaters are to the north and east 

of the Portage Lakes in northern Stark, Summit, and Medina 

Counties. The river flows south to Newcomerstown, then 

westward from Newcomerstown to Coshocton. In Coshocton, 

the river joins the Walhonding River to form the Muskingum 

River, which flows southward to the Ohio River shown on 

the inset map on figure 1. According to the U.S. Geological 

Survey Geographic Names Information System (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a), the Tuscarawas River also has been known 

by the names Little Muskingum River, Mashongam River, 

Tuscarawa River, and Tuskarawas Creek. The word Tuscarawas was likely derived from the Native American capital 

at Bolivar, also known as Tuscarawas Town or Tuscarora 

(Heritage Pursuit, 2009). The name reportedly originates from 

the Tuscarora tribe of Native Americans, who occupied this 

region, and has been defined as “open mouth” or “old town” 

(Old Town was the name of the ancient Indian town opposite 

the mouth of Sandy Creek).

Physiographic Provinces

As defined by Fenneman (1938), the Tuscarawas River 

Basin lies within two physiographic regions: the Glaciated 

Appalachian Plateaus to the north and the unglaciated Allegheny Plateaus to the south (fig. 2). The glaciated portion is 

characterized by gently rolling hills, whereas the unglaciated 

portion has much steeper topography with higher hilltops 

and deeper valleys. Ecoregions (areas of general similarity 

in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources) 

developed by Omernick (1987) and later refined by Woods and 

others (1998) within the basin are similar to the physiographic 

regions/provinces. Parts of two primary ecoregions, the Erie 

Drift Plains and the Erie Gorges, are within the Tuscarawas 

River Basin. The Erie Drift Plains, which includes the Low 

Lime Drift Plain, the Summit Interlobate Area, and the Erie 

Gorges (shown in shades of green in figure 2) are characterized by low rounded hills, scattered end moraines, kettles, 

and areas of wetlands. The Western Allegheny Plateau, which 

includes the Unglaciated Upper Muskingum Basin, the Pittsburgh Low Plateau, and the Monongahela Transition Zone 

(shown in shades of blue on fig. 2) is characterized by hilly 

and wooded terrain.

Climate

Climate within the basin is generally temperate with 

cold winters and warm, humid summers. Temperature and 

rainfall data compiled from 18 stations within the basin for 

the period 1970 to 2000 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002) indicate that mean annual temperature 

was 50.1 deg F (10.0 deg C) with mean maximum and minimum monthly temperatures of 72 deg F (22.2 deg C) in July 

and 26 deg F (-3.3 deg C) in January. Mean annual rainfall 

was 38.7 inches with the maximum monthly mean rainfall 

occurring in July (4.1 inches) and the minimum monthly mean 

temperature occurring in February (2.2 inches). Lake-effect 

weather from Lake Erie in the northern part of basin causes 

increased snowfall, winter cloudiness, and length of growing 

season relative to the rest of the basin.

Elevation and Topography

Elevation ranges from about 820 ft (250 m) above mean 

sea level (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) near 

Coshocton to about 1,400 ft (427 m) in the uplands near the 

outer edges of the basin (fig. 3). Glaciation probably had 

the greatest effect on the topography of the northern part of 

the basin, whereas stream erosion and sedimentation likely 

had the greatest effect on the southern part. As noted in the 

description of physiography and ecoregions, the northern, glaciated part of the basin has rolling hills with moderate changes 

in topography, whereas the southern, unglaciated part of the 

basin has steeper slopes. 

Soils

Information on soils was compiled from county and 

regional maps published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (1998a, 1998b, 2002, and 2005), formerly known 

as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1967, 1971, 1977, 

1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1990). The soil regions 

shown in figure 4 were generalized by drainage characteristics and parent materials and reflect the basin’s glacial history 

(R.M. Gehring, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservations Service, written commun., 2008). 

Soils in the Tuscarawas River Basin are characterized by 

poorly to well-drained soils formed on till plains to the north 

of the glacial boundary and well-drained soils on sandstone 

and shale parent material over the southern part of the basin. 

Throughout the entire basin, poorly to well-drained soils in 

lacustrine (lake) sediments and alluvium are typical in the 

river valleys (shaded dark green on figure 4). Soils in the 

northern area are low in organic matter and are acidic. The 

soils generally are low in fertility, and the primary agriculture 

in this region involves farming and dairy operations. Soils in 

the southern, unglaciated area also are acidic and often are low 

in organic matter and natural fertility. Because the unglaciated 

area has greater relief than the glaciated areas, steep hillsides 

and narrow ridges lead to rapid runoff and erosion. Therefore, 

much of the land in this region is too hilly or the soils are too 

shallow for farming, resulting in land usually consisting of 

pasture or forest. In general, crops are grown on more gentle 

slopes or within the floodplains, which can be up to 1.5 mi 

wide along the Tuscarawas River between New Philadelphia 

and Coshocton.
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

§ ̈¦76

MAHONING

JEFFERSON

MUSKINGUM

£¤172

£¤83

£¤14

£¤258

£¤241

£¤43

£¤332

£¤151

£¤212

£¤9

£¤241

£¤39

£¤39

£¤183

£¤800

£¤43

£¤9

£¤800

£¤39

£¤83

£¤43

£¤9

£¤250

£¤62

£¤36

£¤62

£¤36

£¤30

£¤250

£¤250

£¤22

£¤250

£¤30

£¤62

 ̈¦§77

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦76

71

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦470

§ ̈¦77

STARK

WAYNE

BELMONT

PORTAGE

MEDINA

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

SUMMIT

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Stillwater Cr

Conotton Cr

Akron

Massillon

New 

Philadelphia

Coshocton

Tuscarawas R

Chippewa Cr

North 

Canton

Carrollton

Figure 1.

EXPLANATION

Canton

Cuyahoga 

 Falls

Alliance

Wooster

Millersburg

Medina

Cadiz

Cambridge

8-digit hydrologic unit boundary

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Urban area

Major roadway

Wadsworth

Dover

Surface water

Newcomerstown

Barberton

Piedmont 

Lake

Sugar Cr

Tuscarawas R

Sandy Cr

Nimishillen Cr

Barberton 

Reservoir

Atwood 

Lake

Tappan 

Lake

Clendening 

Lake

Chippewa 

Lake

Lake 

Mohawk

Leesville 

Lake

Nimisila 

Reservoir

Portage 

Lakes

Little Stillwater Cr

The Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

Walhonding

River

Muskingum

River Ohio River

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Beach City

Lake

County boundary

!. City

South Fork

Ohio and Erie Canal

\Jackson

Bog

\Singer

Lake

\

Reifsnyder

Wetlands

\

Killbuck Marsh

Wildlife Area

\Stillfork

Swamp

\ Wetland

4 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 1. The Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

MUSKINGUM

JEFFERSON

MAHONING

STARK

WAYNE

BELMONT

PORTAGE

MEDINA

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

SUMMIT

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 2.

EXPLANATION

Basin boundary

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Surface water

Low Lime

Drift Plain

Low Lime

Drift Plain

Summit

Interlobate

Area

Monongahela

Transition

Zone

Unglaciated 

Upper Muskingum

Basin

Permian

Hills

Pittsburgh

Low

Plateau

Erie

Gorges Akron

Massillon

New 

Philadelphia

Coshocton

North 

Canton

Carrollton

Canton

Cuyahoga 

 Falls

Alliance

Wooster

Millersburg

Medina

Cadiz

Cambridge

Wadsworth

Dover

Newcomerstown

Barberton

 Ecoregions in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

(Modified from Feneman, 1938; Woods and others, 1998)

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

GLACIATED APPALACHIAN PLATEAUS PROVINCE /

ERIE DRIFT PLAINS

GLACIATED APPALACHIAN PLATEAUS PROVINCE /

ERIE DRIFT PLAINS

A L L E G H E N Y P L A T E A U S P R O V I N C E /

W E S T E R N A L L E G H E N Y P L A T E A U S

A L L E G H E N Y P L A T E A U S P R O V I N C E /

W E S T E R N A L L E G H E N Y P L A T E A U S

A p p r o x i m

e x t e n t

i a

o f g l a c

a t e

t i o n

!.

County boundary

City

Literature Review 5

Figure 2. Ecoregions in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Modified from Fenneman, 1938; Wood 

and others, 1998)
Figure 3.

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Vertical Datum, 1983.

EXPLANATION

Basin boundary

Elevation (North American Vertical Datum, 1983)

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

 Land-surface topography in and around the Tuscarawas River

Basin, Ohio. (From U.S. Geological Survey, 1981)

Surface water

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Dover!H

Wooster

North

Canton

Massillon

Alliance

Millersburg

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Cuyahoga

Falls

Newcomerstown

Barberton

Akron

Medina

Canton

Wadsworth

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

82° 81°

41°

40°

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

!.

County boundary

City

6 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 3. Land-surface topography in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

(From U.S. Geological Survey, 1981)
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

MAHONING

JEFFERSON

MUSKINGUM

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON HARRISON

GUERNSEY

MEDINA

BELMONT

SUMMIT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 4.

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Akron

Medina

Wooster Canton

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Dover

Coshocton

EXPLANATION

Surface water

Cuyahoga

Falls

Wadsworth

Barberton

North

Canton

Massillon

Newcomerstown

Alliance

Cadiz

Cambridge

Millersburg

Generalized soil regions

Somewhat poorly and moderately 

drained soils formed in till on till plains

Well-drained soils formed in till on

till plains

Poorly to well-drained soils formed in 

silty lacustrine deposits and alluvium 

on terraces and flood plains

Dominantly well-drained soils formed in outwash 

on terraces

Well-drained soils formed in till over sandstone

or siltstone on till plains

Well-drained soils formed in residuum 

and colluvium from sandstone, shale, 

and siltstone on uplands

Basin boundary

 Generalized soil regions in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Modified from

R.M. Gehring, Natural Resources Conservation Service, written commun., 2008)

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

!. City County boundary

Literature Review 7

Figure 4. Generalized soil regions in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Modified from R.M. Gehring, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, written commun., 2008)
8 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Population

Population estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau (2008) 

for the Tuscarawas River Basin in 2006 was approximately 

600,000; however, population within the 13 counties that 

encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin was approximately 

1.8 million (table 1). The estimate for the entire 13-county 

area is much larger than that of the basin itself and reflects 

the fact that many high-density residential areas are in close 

proximity to the basin.

The northern, headwaters areas of the basin are the most 

densely populated part of the basin (fig. 5). Stark and Summit 

Counties had estimated populations of 380,575 and 545,931 

in 2006, respectively, with the greatest density centered on the 

city of Akron, which is only partly within the basin (table 1). 

Approximately 51 percent of the total population in the basin 

resides in Summit and Stark Counties, yet these counties 

make up only 26 percent of the basin land area. Akron had 

an estimated 210,795 residents in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2008). Portage and Medina Counties also were relatively 

heavily populated with estimated populations of 155,012 and 

169,353, respectively. Wayne and Columbiana Counties were 

the only other counties in the basin with populations greater 

than 100,000. In addition to Akron, major urban areas in the 

basin with estimated populations greater than 25,000 in 2006 

include Canton, Massillon, and Medina, all of which are 

located in the northern half of the basin (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2008). Thus, the population distribution in the Tuscarawas 

River Basin is unlike many other basins in Ohio, including the 

Maumee and Great Miami River Basins, in that the Tuscarawas has the greatest population density in the headwaters area, 

whereas other basins have the greatest population densities in 

the lowland areas, towards the river mouths.

From 1980 to 2006, the overall population for the 13 

counties that encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin increased 

by 7.1 percent (table 1). In the northern and western parts 

of the basin, Medina and Holmes Counties had the largest 

population increase at 49.7 and 41.3 percent, respectively. 

In contrast, population in counties in the southern part of the 

basin, including Harrison and Belmont Counties, decreased by 

13.0 and 16.7 percent, respectively.

Table 1. Population of counties that encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 1980, 1990, 

2000, and 2006. 

[From U.S. Census Bureau, 2008]

County 1980 1990 2000 Estimated 

2006

Change from 

1980 to 2006

(percent)

Belmont 82,569 71,074 70,226 68,771 -16.7

Carroll 25,598 26,521 28,836 29,189 14.0

Columbiana 113,572 108,276 112,075 110,542 -2.7

Coshocton 36,024 35,427 36,655 36,976 2.6

Guernsey 42,024 39,024 40,792 40,876 -2.7

Harrison 18,152 16,085 15,856 15,799 -13.0

Holmes 29,416 32,849 38,943 41,574 41.3

Medina 113,150 122,354 151,095 169,353 49.7

Portage 135,856 142,585 152,061 155,012 14.1

Stark 378,823 367,585 378,098 380,575 .5

Summit 524,472 514,990 542,899 545,931 4.1

Tuscarawas 84,614 84,090 90,914 91,766 8.5

Wayne 97,408 101,461 111,564 113,950 17.0

Total 1,681,678 1,662,321 1,770,014 1,800,314 7.1
Figure 5.

EXPLANATION

Total Population

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum 1983.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

MEDINA

GUERNSEY

HARRISON

SUMMIT

BELMONT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

Basin boundary

Surface water

 Population of townships in and around the Tuscarawas

River Basin, Ohio, 2000. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008)

Less than 2,000

2,001 - 4,000

4,001 - 8,000

Greater than 8,001

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Medina

Newcomerstown

Cadiz

Dover

Carrollton

Alliance

Canton

Massillon

North

Canton

Cuyahoga

Falls

Akron

Barberton

Cambridge

Millersburg

Wooster

New Philadelphia

Coshocton

Wadsworth

City

Township boundary

!.

41°

40°

Literature Review 9

Figure 5. Population of townships in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2000. 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008)
10 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Land Use

Land use throughout Ohio has been evaluated using different techniques serving different purposes (for this study, 

the terms land use and land cover are used interchangeably). 

An early land-use assessment was done by Morse (1939), who 

examined erosion related to land-use conditions in the Muskingum River Basin. (As noted above, the Tuscarawas River is 

part of the Muskingum River drainage basin.) Wright (1953) 

described the economic geography of Ohio and noted the 

abundance of natural resources, including water and mineral 

commodities. The first state-wide land-use classification was 

done as part of the Ohio Capability Analysis Program (OCAP) 

initiated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in 

1972. OCAP was created to produce a natural-resources inventory of Ohio, including soils, land use, water resources, and 

geology, to provide technical-resource information for people 

at the local level who make land-use decisions (Gordon, 1978; 

Vertrees, 1985). Analyses of OCAP data were done by Maxson 

(1975) for Stark County and by Ondecko and Schultz (1981) 

for Portage County. 

As the focus on environmental issues increased in the 

mid-1970s, Groenewold (1974), Van Horn (1976), and Hull 

(1984) examined environmental conditions in Stark, Portage, 

and Summit Counties, respectively, for suitable locations for 

solid-waste disposal facilities from a geologic perspective. All 

three authors concluded that upland areas where thick layers 

of relatively impermeable glacial till overlie shale or clay provide the best locations for new solid-waste disposal facilities. 

The authors also stated that areas on floodplains above highly 

permeable sands and gravels associated with glacial and (or) 

alluvial deposits should be avoided for these purposes.

Several entities in the Tuscarawas River Basin have published watershed plans that include different aspects of landuse data. The Stark County Regional Planning Commission 

(1997) and the Stark County Regional Planning Commission 

and Stark County Area Transportation Study (2005) developed 

land-use plans through the year 2020 and identified water 

resources that relate to stormwater, solid-waste disposal, and 

central sewer and water services as major issues. The Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development 

Organization published watershed action plans for Portage, 

Stark, Summit, and Wayne Counties (Northeast Ohio Four 

County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 

1975, 1985) along with water-resource inventories, watershed 

assessments, and management plans for the Upper Tuscarawas 

River Basin (Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning 

and Development Organization, 1999a, 1999b, 2004), Upper 

Wolf Creek (Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1999c), and Nimishillen Creek (Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning 

and Development Organization, 2001b; Akin, 2006). Each 

of the Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and 

Development Organization publications provided land-use 

analyses relative to their potential effects on water resources. 

The Wayne County Comprehensive Plan (Wayne County 

Planning Department, 2006) recommends constraints for 

residential development to protect groundwater resources near 

Killbuck Creek. 

Evaluation of land-use change over time can be useful for planning and management of water resources. For 

example, land-use changes are an important factor in dam 

safety because as development downstream from dams 

brings people and infrastructure nearer to the dam and into a 

floodplain, redesign of the dams to protect life and property 

is often needed (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

2001). A specific example of the effect of land-use changes 

on water resources within the basin was given by Bauder 

(1994), who documented unusual dewatering of a wetland in 

Summit County due to the construction of roads, increased 

industrial water use, and construction of a dike. But changes 

in land use through time can be difficult to assess because 

available land-use datasets are often created using different 

methods with different classification schemes. For this report, 

the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 1992/2001 Retrofit Change Product (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium, 2008) was examined to develop an understanding of land-use change in the Tuscarawas River Basin. This 

dataset was designed specifically for regional-scale comparison of land-cover change over the time period. It is not simply 

a crosswalk| comparison of the 1992 NLCD and 2001 NLCD 

but a re-creation of broad scale (Anderson Level I) land use 

in 1992 and 2001, using a multiple-stage process. The dataset 

includes “from-to” change classification values representing 

the change in land use from 1992 to 2001 at a resolution of 

30 m. Land-use categories were based on definitions described 

on the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium Web 

site (http://www.mrlc.gov/changeproduct.php). Because of 

the differences in classification methodologies, the land-use 

percentages presented in this report may not precisely match 

data in the 1992 NLCD or 2001 NLCD.

Initially, land use in the basin was grouped into seven 

major classifications as described by the National Land Cover 

Dataset Retrofit Change Product (Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium, 2008). Those classifications were 

open water, forest, grassland/shrub, agriculture, wetlands, 

urban, and barren. The barren class included strip mines and 

gravel pits. The urban class included industrial, commercial, 

and residential development of varying intensities. On the 

basis of the 1992/2001 Retrofit Change Product, the dominant 

land uses in the basin in 2001 were forested (40 percent of 

the basin area) and agriculture (39 percent of the basin area); 

however, these land uses were not distributed evenly throughout the basin. Agriculture was dominant in the northern part of 

the basin, whereas forested was dominant in the south (fig. 6 

and table 2A). The remaining land uses in the basin in 2001 

consisted of urban/residential (17 percent), grassland/shrub 

(1.8 percent), open water (1.5 percent), wetland (0.7 percent), 

and barren (0.1 percent. (Data for grassland/shrub, open water, 

wetland, and barren were removed from table 2 and figure 6 

because they accounted for less than 2 percent of the area for 

all classes.)
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON HARRISON

GUERNSEY

BELMONT

MEDINA

SUMMIT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 6.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 2003; 

data resolution 30 m; North American Datum,1983.

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Akron

Medina

Wooster Canton

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Dover

Coshocton

Cuyahoga

Falls

Wadsworth Barberton

North

Canton

Massillon

Newcomerstown

Alliance

Cadiz

Cambridge

Millersburg

Basin boundary

Surface water

Agricultural

 Generalized land use in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2001. 

(Modified from Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2008).

Forest

Low-intensity urban development

High-intensity urban development

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

2001 Generalized land use

City

County boundary

!.

Literature Review 11

Figure 6. Generalized land use in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2001. (Modified from Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics Consortium, 2008)
12 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 2. Land use in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, (A) as percentage of basin area, and 

(B) as percentage of county area, 1992 and 2001.

[Data from Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2009; tables do not sum to 100 percent because not all land-use 

categories are shown; <, less than]

A. Land use in basin, as percentage of basin area

Agricultural Forested Urban

1992 2001 Change 1992 2001 Change 1992 2001 Change

Belmont 1.1 1.0 0.1 2.1 2.1 < 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1

Carroll 4.1 4.3 .2 6.8 6.6 - .2 .9 .9 < .1

Columbiana 1.1 1.2 .1 .7 .6 - .1 .2 .2 < .1

Coshocton 2.0 2.1 .1 1.9 1.8 - .1 .4 .4 < .1

Guernsey 0.4 0.4 < .1 1.2 1.2 < .1 .1 .1 < .1

Harrison 2.5 2.5 < .1 7.8 7.8 < .1 .8 .7 < .1

Holmes 2.6 2.6 < .1 .8 .7 - .1 .2 .2 < .1

Medina 2.3 2.2 - .1 1.1 1.1 < .1 .8 .9 .1

Portage < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1 < .1

Stark 7.8 8.0 .2 5.2 4.6 - .6 5.9 6.2 .3

Summit 1.0 0.8 - .2 1.5 1.4 - .1 3.1 3.3 .2

Tuscarawas 6.4 6.7 .3 11.8 11.4 - .5 2.3 2.4 .1

Wayne 6.7 6.9 .2 1.2 .9 - .3 1.1 1.2 .1

TOTAL BASIN 38.0 38.9 .9 42.3 40.3 -2.0 16.1 16.8 .7

B. Land use in basin, as percentage of county area

Agricultural Forested Urban

1992 2001 Change 1992 2001 Change 1992 2001 Change

Belmont 28.9 28.0 -0.9 57.8 57.2 -0.6 6.5 6.4 -0.1

Carroll 33.3 35.1 1.7 55.8 53.9 -2.0 7.2 7.2 < .1

Columbiana 53.1 59.0 6.0 36.5 30.0 -6.4 8.6 8.8 .2

Coshocton 44.9 47.5 2.6 44.0 40.7 -3.2 9.1 9.4 .3

Guernsey 24.2 23.5 - .8 67.0 67.3 .3 6.5 6.7 .2

Harrison 21.7 21.8 .1 67.5 67.2 - .3 6.6 6.4 - .2

Holmes 71.3 73.1 1.9 21.4 19.3 -2.2 6.3 6.4 .2

Medina 52.7 50.6 -2.1 24.4 25.0 .6 19.2 20.4 1.2

Portage 43.0 43.3 .4 33.3 32.2 -1.0 19.7 19.9 .2

Stark 40.0 40.9 .9 26.7 23.8 -2.9 30.2 31.7 1.6

Summit 15.9 13.5 -2.4 24.9 23.6 -1.3 51.2 54.2 3.0

Tuscarawas 30.1 31.5 1.4 55.3 53.1 -2.2 10.8 11.1 .2

Wayne 73.3 75.1 1.8 13.0 10.2 -2.8 12.0 12.8 0.8
Literature Review 13

In 1992 and 2001, 5 of the 13 counties that encompass 

the Tuscarawas River Basin had greater than 50 percent 

forested land use (Belmont, Carroll, Guernsey, Harrison, and 

Tuscarawas) and four counties had greater than 50 percent 

agricultural land use (Columbiana, Holmes, Medina, and 

Wayne; table 2B). In 2001, Stark County had the greatest 

percentage of agricultural land use in the basin (8 percent of 

the total agricultural land use in the basin and 41 percent in the 

county), whereas Tuscarawas County had the greatest percentage of forested land use in the basin (11 percent of the total 

forested land use in the basin and 53 percent in the county). 

The metropolitan areas of Canton and Akron in Stark 

and Summit Counties are located in and around the northern 

headwaters of the basin. Approximately 56 percent of all 

urban land use in the basin was in these two counties (table 

2A). As noted above, the distribution of population (and 

resulting urban land uses) within the basin is atypical of other 

large basins in Ohio, such as the Maumee and Great Miami 

River Basins. The Tuscarawas River Basin is characterized by 

population centers that include industrial and residential land 

uses in the headwaters areas of the basin with agricultural and 

forested land uses towards the mouth, whereas in the Maumee 

and Great Miami River Basins, most of the agricultural and 

forested land uses are in the headwaters areas, and industrial 

and residential land uses are near or at the river mouth near 

major cities that include Toledo and Cincinnati, respectively.

In general, only a small amount of localized change has 

occurred in the land use in the basin between 1992 and 2001. 

During this time, approximately 2 percent of the basin area 

that was previously devoted to forested land use was converted 

to agricultural and urban land uses, but the dominant land use 

within each individual county remained the same (table 2B). 

A similar observation was made by the Stark County Regional 

Planning Commission (1997) which noted that, between 1975 

and 1994, land uses in the Stark County area changed very 

slowly towards greater urbanization.

Geology

 A large amount of work was done in the early to mid1900s to define the geology of the basin because of interest in 

local coal, oil and gas, and mineral reserves. Reports published through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources by 

Stout (1916, 1918, 1943), Conrey (1921), Stout and Lamborn 

(1924), Lamborn (1930, 1954, 1956), Lamborn and others 

(1938), White (1949), White and Lamborn (1949), DeLong 

and White (1963), DeLong (1965a, 1965b), and Winslow 

and White (1966) provide much of the early framework upon 

which current understanding of Tuscarawas River Basin geology is based.

Bedrock

The rocks of greatest importance to the water resources of 

the basin are those that are within 300 ft of land surface; however, a brief description of rocks found at greater depths also 

is warranted. At depths ranging from approximately 5,500 ft 

below sea level (NAVD 88) in the western part of the basin to 

almost 12,000 feet in the southeast part of the basin, the “basement” beneath the Tuscarawas River Basin is composed of 

Precambrian-age metamorphic and igneous rocks. The lithology and structure of these rocks have been investigated by 

McCormick (1961), Summerson (1962), Owens (1966), Smith 

(1969), Risser (1976, 1983a), Vormelker, (1981a, 1981b), and 

Baranoski (2002). The map produced by Baranoski (2002) 

shows that the surface of the top of Precambrian-age rocks in 

the basin slopes at about 60 ft per mile to the southeast. The 

Precambrian-age rocks are overlain by thick sequences of 

Cambrian-, Ordovician-, Silurian-, and Devonian-age sedimentary rocks that primarily consist of sandstone, shale, and 

limestone (Stauffer, 1909; Prosser, 1912; Hoover, 1960; Dow, 

1962; Calvert, 1963; Ulteig, 1964; Owens, 1970; Janssens, 

1973, 1977; Gray and others, 1982). A cross section by Shearrow (1957) shows that the sedimentary rocks dip to the southeast, typically at a slope slightly less than that of the basement 

rocks, and that the sedimentary rocks thicken towards the east.

Within 300 ft of the surface, the rocks are Upper Devonian-, Mississippian-, Pennsylvanian-, and Permian-age sandstones, coals, shales, and limestones (fig. 7). A generalized 

stratigraphic section of the shallow sequence of rocks modified 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (2009) and Hull (1990) is 

provided in figure 8. Bedrock units that serve as regional aquifers in and around the basin are identified on this figure. The 

oldest rocks within 300 ft of the surface are Upper Devonianor Lower Mississippian-age sandstones that include the Berea 

and the Cussewago Sandstones described by Winslow and 

White (1966), DeLong (1968, 1969), Rau (1969), and Struble 

and Hodges (1982). Mississippian-age rocks in eastern Ohio 

are mostly sandstones (Morse, 1910; Hyde, 1953; Owens, 

1970; and Majchszak, 1984) but include limestones, such 

as the Maxville Limestone (Morse, 1910; Lamborn, 1945, 

1951). The Maxville Limestone is unconformably overlain 

by the Pennsylvanian-age Sharon Conglomerate, which is a 

substantial source of groundwater to wells and springs in the 

northern part of the basin. Fuller (1955) describes the Sharon 

Conglomerate in detail and provides an explanation of its 

geologic origin. Pennsylvanian-age rocks in southeastern Ohio 

are dominated by coal sequences that are described later in 

this section. The youngest consolidated rocks include Permian 

(?) and Upper Pennsylvanian-age Dunkard Group mudstones, 

shales, and sandstones that are present only in small areas in 

the southeast part of the basin in Belmont County (Stauffer 

and Schroyer, 1920; Martin, 1998).
!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Cuyahoga

Falls

Akron

Medina

Wadsworth

Wooster

North

Canton

Massillon Canton

Alliance

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Dover Millersburg

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Barberton

Newcomerstown

JEFFERSON

MUSKINGUM

MAHONING

STARK

WAYNE

BELMONT

PORTAGE

MEDINA

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

SUMMIT

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 7. 

EXPLANATION

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983; Geology scale 1:7,500,000. 

Basin boundary

Surface water

Bedrock geology (age and group)

Mississippian (undifferentiated)

 Generalized bedrock geology in and around the Tuscarawas River

Basin, Ohio. (From U.S. Geological Survey, 2005)

Permian (?) and Upper Pennsylvanian Dunkard Group

Pennsylvanian Monongahela Group

Pennsylvanian Conemaugh Group

Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group

Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

City

County boundary

!.

P d

m

M

p

a

c

*

*

*

*

*

14 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 7. Generalized bedrock geology in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (From U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2005)
System /

period 

Group 

(symbol on 

fig.7) Formation

Rock Unit

Local name 

Hull (1990) 

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey (2009) Hull (1990) 

Permian (?)

and Upper

Pennsylvanian

Dunkard Group

(P*d)

Greene

Formation

Washington

Formation

Marietta Sandstone

Washington Formation

Mannington Sandstone

Waynesburg Formation

Upper Marietta sandstone

Creston-Reds shale

Lower Marietta sandstone

Washington coal

Mannington sandstone

Waynesburg sandstone

No. 12 coal

Pennsylvanian

Monongahela

Group

(*m)

Benwood Limestone

Sewickly Member

Waynesburg coal

Uniontown coal

Benwood limestone

Upper Sewickly sandstone

Meigs Creek coal 

Fishpot limestone

Redston-Pomeroy coal

Pittsburgh coal

No. 11 coal

No. 10 coal

Goose Run

No. 9 coal 

No. 8a coal

No. 8 coal 

Conemaugh

Group

(*c)

Casselman 

Formation

Conellsville Sandstone

Summerfield limestone

Conellsville sandstone

Morgantown sandstone

Skelley limestone

Mitchell

Wolf Creek

Glenshaw

Formation

Ames limestone

Saltsburg Sandstone

Cow Run Sandstone

Cambridge limestone

Buffalo sandstone

Brush Creek limestone

Mahoning Sandstone

Ames limestone

Harlem coal

Noble limestone

Saltsburg sandstone

Cow Run sandstone

Portersville shale

Cambridge limestone

Buffalo sandstone

Brush Creek limestone

Rock Camp shale

Mahoning coal

Mahoning sandstone

Peeker

First Cow Run

Buell Run

No. 7a coal

Macksburg 300’

Allegheny

Group

(*a)

Dorr Run shale

Obryan Member

Columbiana Member

Vanport limestone

Clarion sandstone / shale

Putnam Hill Limestone

Brookville Clay Member

Upper Freeport coal

Upper Freeport sandstone

Dorr Run shale

Lower Freeport coal

Washingtonville shale

Middle Kittanning coal

Obryan limestone -

Columbiana shale

Lower Kittanning coal

Vanport limestone

Clarion coal

Putnam Hill limestone

Newland-Brookville coal

No. 7 coal 

Second Cow Run

No. 6a coal

No. 6 coal 

No. 5 coal 

No. 4a coal

No. 4 coal 

Pottsville

Group

(*p)

Homewood Sandstone

Member

Boggs limestone

Massillon Sandstone

Member

Lowellville limestone

Sharon Cong Member 

Homewood sandstone

Upper Mercer limestone

Lower Mercer limestone

Lower Mercer coal 

Boggs limestone

Massillon sandstone

Quakertown coal

Poverty Run-Lowellville

limestone

Sharon coal

Sharon sandstone/cong

Macksburg 700’

No. 3 coal 

Salt, Upper salt

No. 2 coal 

Brill Sand

No. 1 coal 

Maxton, Lower Salt

Maxville Limestone Maxville Limestone Jingle Rock

Keener

Rushville Formation Rushville Shale

Logan

Formation

Vinton Member Vinton Member

Allensville Conglomerate

Member

Allensville Member

Byer Member Byer Member

Berne Conglomerate 

Member

Berne Member

Cuyahoga

Formation

Black Hand Sandstone /

Formation Black Hand Member Big Injun, Squaw,

Weir, Hamden

Sunbury Shale Sunbury Shale Coffee Shale

Berea Sandstone Berea Sandstone First Berea

Second Berea

Bedford Shale /

Formation

Bedford Shale

Cussewago Sandstone Cussewago Sandstone

Underlying (older) rocks excluded

UNCONFORMITY

Mississippian (M)

Devonian (not shown)

Literature Review 15

Figure 8. Generalized stratigraphic section of rocks within 300 feet of the surface in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

(Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (2009) and Hull (1990); shaded rock units are regional aquifers (other units may be 

local aquifers))
16 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Unconsolidated Sediments

Unconsolidated sediments in the northern part of the Tuscarawas River Basin are dominated by glacially derived till, 

sand, and gravel; however, reworked glacial deposits and alluvial deposits also fill the valleys elsewhere in the basin (for the 

purposes of this description, unconsolidated sediments include 

both glacial and alluvial sediments). The glacial history of the 

Tuscarawas River Basin is fairly complex and has been studied by many investigators, including White (1951, 1967, 1973, 

1979, 1982, 1984), Forsyth (1961), Goldthwait and others 

(1967), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1978a, 1983, 

1993a, 1993b), White and Guckenheimer (1979), White and 

Totten (1979, 1982, 1985), Totten (1988), and Pavey and others (1999). At least two distinct periods of glaciation occurred 

in Ohio within the past 150,000 years: the Illinoian age (which 

ended approximately 125,000 years ago) and the Wisconsinan 

age (which ended approximately 10,000 years ago). In general 

glaciers advanced southward from Canada, across the Great 

Lakes and into Ohio and covered the upper third of the basin. 

Much of the area covered by the Illinoian glaciers was overrun 

and reworked by Wisconsinan-age glaciers. The only remaining Illinoian glacial sediments exposed at the surface in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin are along a relatively thin east-west 

band in Columbiana County shown in red on the map of generalized soil regions (fig. 4). 

Much of the unconsolidated sediment derived from 

glaciers is fine-grained silt and clay that forms a blanket 

over the bedrock, generally less than 100 ft thick. However, 

the unconsolidated sediments also contain sand and gravel 

outwash that fills incised river valleys. These outwash deposits 

extend well beyond the extent of glaciation because meltwater 

carried the sediments away from the glacier towards the Ohio 

River (fig. 9; note that surface water and unconsolidated surficial sediments may not necessarily coincide in river valleys 

in figure 9 because of the different source scales of these two 

map layers). Additionally, alluvial sediments, which are undifferentiated from the glacial sediments in figure 9, fill valleys 

in unglaciated areas.. Other sand and gravel deposits of glacial 

origin, including terraces, kames, and eskers, are in Coshocton 

County and in the Akron, Canton, and Massillon areas (Smith, 

1949; Van Horn, 1979; Hull, 1980; and Himes, 1982).

Mineral Resources

Considerable mineral resources are within the rocks and 

sediments of the Tuscarawas River Basin, and these resources 

have helped to define the economy and industry of the area 

(Bownocker and Stout, 1928; Stout, 1946; Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, 1963; and Carlson, 1991). In 2006, total 

revenue from Ohio’s mineral-based commodities since records 

have been kept was estimated at more than $2.6 billion (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2007a). Oil and gas production produced the most revenue in Ohio, totaling slightly 

more than $1 billion, whereas coal production resulted in a net 

value of approximately $618 million. Mineral commodities 

production numbers are available through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Web site at http://www.dnr.state.

oh.us/. 

Mining operations (fig. 10) include those that extract and 

(or) process coal, metals (chromium, sulfur, and tin), minerals, 

unconsolidated materials, and rocks. Dimension stone and 

sand and gravel are used for construction. Clay, shale, limestone, dolomite, sand, gravel, sandstone, conglomerate, and 

other deposits are used as aggregate. Oil and gas wells were 

too numerous to show in figure 10. 

Oil and Gas

Oil and gas production has been and continues to be 

a major economic boon to residents and industries in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin. In Ohio, oil wells were first drilled 

northeast of the Tuscarawas River Basin in Trumbull County 

in 1859 (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2007b). 

Publications and maps describing the occurrence of oil and gas 

were produced by Bownocker (1903), Multer (1963), Janssens and de Witt (1976), Struble and Hodges (1982), and Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources (2007b). In general, oil and 

gas reservoirs are much deeper than potable-water aquifers in 

the basin; therefore, drilling and extraction of oil through wells 

requires penetration through the shallow aquifers. Drilling 

through the aquifers and extracting oil and gas requires special 

precautions to avoid contamination of overlying aquifers 

and nearby surface-water bodies from oil-field brines (brines 

are extremely saline waters from deep geologic formations 

that contain high concentrations of dissolved constituents as 

described by Lamborn (1952) and Breen and others (1985)). 

Coal

Coal is present in Pennsylvanian-age rocks in all counties within the basin (figs. 8 and 10). The sheer number and 

volume of coal-related documents verify coal’s importance to 

the economy of eastern Ohio (see, for example, Bownocker 

and others, 1908; Condit, 1912; Stout, 1929, Lamborn, 

1942; White, 1947; Brant, 1954, 1956; DeLong, 1955, 1957; 

DeBrosse 1957; Granchi, 1958; Brant and DeLong, 1960; 

Denton, 1960; Couchot, 1978; Couchot and others, 1980; 

and Axon, 1996). In Ohio, coal deposits are characterized by 

repetitive sequences of sandstone, shale, limestone, coal, and 

clay. In the Tuscarawas River Basin, coal occurs in seams that 

range from a couple of inches to several feet thick. 

Coal has been mined and used for domestic purposes 

by Native Americans and early settlers since before records 

were kept. The first written record of coal in Ohio is in a 1748 

report of a coal mine fire at the mouth of Sandy Creek near 

Bolivar, Tuscarawas County (Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, 1997a). Documentation of the amount of coal produced in Ohio began around 1800, and between that time and 

the present, more than 5 billion tons of coal has been mined. 

At least two peaks in production have occurred, the first during World War I and the second during the early 1970’s, when 

large surface-mining operations were in production. For the 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 9.

EXPLANATION

Basin boundary

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983; geology scale 1:24,000.

A p p r o x i m a t e

e x t

o f g l a c i a t i o n

Unconsolidated surficial sediments

Surface water

Akron

Canton

Newcomerstown

Cambridge

Massillon

Coshocton

Millersburg

Alliance

Cuyahoga

Falls

New Philadelphia

Dover

Medina

Wooster

Wadsworth

North

Canton

Cadiz

Carrollton

Barberton

 Unconsolidated surficial sediments in and around the Tuscarawas

River Basin, Ohio. (Modified from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000a)

e n t

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

TUSCARAWAS

GUERNSEY

CARROLL

MAHONING

PORTAGE

MEDINA

WAYNE

STARK

SUMMIT

JEFFERSON

BELMONT

COSHOCTON

HOLMES

MUSKINGUM

HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

City

County boundary

!.

Literature Review 17

Figure 9. Unconsolidated surficial sediments in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Modified from Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2000a)
")") ")

") ") ") ")

") ")

")

") ") ")

")

")")") ")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")") ")

")

")

") ") ")

")

")")")

")

") ")

")

")")") ") ")

")

")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

") ")

") ")") ")

") ")

") ")

")")")

") ") ")") ")")

")") ")

") ") ")

")

") ")

") ")")")") ") ") ")

")

") ")

") ")") ")

")

")") ")

")

")

") ")")

")

")

")")") ")") ")

") ")") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")")

") ") ")

")")")")

") ")")")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

") ")

")

")") ")

")

") ")")

")

")

") ") ")

")")

")

")")

")

")

") ")")

") ")

")

")

") ")")")

")

")

") ") ")")")

")")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

") ")

")

") ")

") ") ") ") ")

") ")

")") ")

") ") ")")

") ")

") ")

")

")

") ") ") ") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

") ") ")

")

") ") ")

")

") ") ") ")

") ")

")")

") ")

")

") ")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

") ")")")

")

")") ")

")

")")

") ") ")")

") ")

") ")") ") ")

")

") ")")

")

")

") ")")

")

") ")")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON HARRISON

GUERNSEY

BELMONT

MEDINA

SUMMIT

COLUMBIANA

PORTAGE

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 10.

Akron

Medina

Wadsworth

Wooster

North

Canton

Canton Massillon

Alliance

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Dover

Millersburg

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; scale 1:24,000; 

North American Datum, 1983; mining and minerals data scale 1:2,000,000.

Cuyahoga 

 Falls

Barberton

Newcomerstown

EXPLANATION

Minerals and metals

Construction and

agricultural minerals

Sand and gravel

Abandoned underground

mine entrances

Surface water

Coal mining and reclamation permits

Abandoned underground mines

Underground coal deposits

")

!(

 Locations of mining operations in and around the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Ohio. (From Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1999a, 1999b) and 

U.S. Geological Survey (2005))

Basin boundary

!(

!(

MAHONING

MUSKINGUM

JEFFERSON

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

City County boundary !.

!(

18 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 10. Locations of mining operations in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (From Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources (1999a, 1999b) and U.S. Geological Survey (2005))
Literature Review 19

interested reader, the history of the coal-mining industry in 

Ohio is further described in Crowell (1995) and Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1997a).

Within the Tuscarawas River Basin, several counties are 

among the leaders in Ohio coal production (Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, 2007a). As of 1997, Belmont County 

produced over 774 million tons of coal and was (and continues 

to be) the leading coal-producing county in Ohio. Harrison, 

Tuscarawas, and Guernsey Counties also are among the top 

10 coal-producing counties in Ohio. Production of coal within 

the basin and throughout eastern Ohio is closely correlated 

with oil and gas prices and the increasing costs associated 

with air-quality requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 

its amendments in 1977. Ohio coal typically contains from 

2 to 7 percent sulfur, requiring special measures to reduce or 

eliminate sulfur-rich emissions that may be discharged to the 

atmosphere. Also, Ohio coal may contain other minerals and 

trace elements that can cause environmental concerns related 

to disposal of ash, air emissions, and degraded water quality (Bownocker and Dean, 1929; Dean, 1948; Knapp, 1977; 

Botoman and Stieglitz, 1978; Botoman and Stith, 1978, 1981, 

1986, 1988; Bragg and others, 1998; Haefner, 2002).

Other Mineral Resources

In addition to oil, gas, and coal, there are many other 

mineral deposits of economic significance in the Tuscarawas 

River Basin. Carlson (1991) and the 2006 Ohio Minerals 

Report (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2007a) list 

economically viable mineral reserves of sand and gravel, salt, 

clay, limestone, sandstone, silica, gypsum, and peat in Ohio. 

Iron ore and flint also have been produced in Ohio (Stout, 

1944; Stout and Schoenlaub, 1945). Unconsolidated surficial 

sediments shown in figure 9, which include sand and gravel 

deposits, can be found throughout the basin (Smith, 1949; 

Hull, 1980, 1987; Risser, 1981, 1986, 1987). Sand and gravel 

has many uses, most importantly as aggregate in concrete used 

for construction and repair of buildings and roads. Salt deposits in Silurian-age rocks are present deep below the surface 

of the basin. The salt is typically extracted by injecting water 

into injection wells, which causes the salt to dissolve, and 

the resulting salt solution is pumped to the surface (Pepper, 

1947; Clifford, 1973; Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

2007a). There is a long history of clay mining and production 

of ceramics and pottery within the basin. Parts of east-central 

Ohio are internationally known for their pottery (Lamborn and 

others, 1938; Stout, 1940a; Stout and others, 1923; Kent State 

University Museum, 2008; and Ohio History Central, 2008). 

Limestone resources were described by Orton and Peppel 

(1906) and Lamborn (1945, 1951); however, as is the case for 

peat, marl, tufa rock, travertine, and bog ore in Ohio, they are 

not found in large quantities and are not a substantial source 

of revenue within the basin (Dachnowski, 1912; Stout 1940b; 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2007a).

The mineral deposits described above are not only 

important economically to the residents and industry of the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, but also hydrologically because the 

mining and extraction activities have the potential to affect 

water quality and (or) alter local and regional groundwater 

and surface-water flow paths. As described in the upcoming 

sections of this report, disturbances of the natural hydrologic 

system are evident in many areas of the basin, and the legacy 

of early mining practices continues to be one of the dominant 

water-quality issues in the basin.

Hydrology

The major water feature within the basin is the Tuscarawas River. Basic information regarding the basin can be 

found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Surf 

your Watershed” Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.

cfm?huc_code=05040001. The earliest reports describing the 

water resources of the Tuscarawas River Basin focused on 

water quantity and sources of potable water rather than water 

quality (Foulk, 1925; Ohio Department of Public Works and 

Dayton Morgan Engineering Co., 1931; Harker, 1943a, 1943b, 

1943c; Stout and others, 1943; Van Tuyl 1947; Kazman, 

1949; Smith and White, 1953; Stafford, 1954; Walker, 1959; 

Kaser, 1960; Ohio Water Commission, 1960). Major water 

inventories were conducted for the entire Muskingum River 

Basin (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1968) and for 

the Tuscarawas River, Nimisilla Creek, Portage Lakes, and 

Nimisilla Reservoir (Stafford, 1954). These publications document the similarity between the hydrology of the Tuscarawas 

River Basin and other basins in the Midwestern United States 

in terms of sources, quantity, quality, and sinks of water. The 

primary source of water to the basin is precipitation; however, 

unknown amounts of water may be entering through groundwater flow within aquifers whose boundaries do not necessarily coincide with surface-water divides. Surface-water divides 

are defined by topography, whereas groundwater divides are 

defined by the water table and may be affected by withdrawals, geologic structure, or other factors. Groundwater inflow 

into the Tuscarawas River Basin from outside the basin has 

not been evaluated; however, Stout and others (1943) note that 

groundwater flow directions in deep consolidated rock formations are generally from west to east. Discharge/Loss of water 

is through evapotranspiration, groundwater (well) withdrawals that are generally unaccounted for, and streamflow at the 

mouth of the Tuscarawas River near Coshocton. 

To understand the most important components of the 

hydrology of the basin, the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources published the general water budget shown below 

(Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008c). Two assumptions with this budget are that, in the long term, there are no 

net gains or losses in the overall amount of water in the basin 

and that all precipitation that falls in the basin leaves the basin 

through runoff to streams, evaporation, transpiration by plants, 

or well withdrawals.
20 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Annual Water Budget for Ohio 

[Modified from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008c]

Begin with an average of 38 inches annual precipitation as rainfall 

or snowfall.

Of the 38 inches of precipitation,

10 inches runoff to streams 

2 inches are lost to evaporation

26 inches infiltrate into the ground

Of the 26 inches that infiltrate into the ground,

20 inches are lost to evapotranspiration

6 inches recharge groundwater

Of the 6 inches that recharge groundwater,

2 inches discharge to surface water

4 inches are lost to evapotranspiration or to well 

withdrawals

The following section describes the major components of this 

water budget— evapotranspiration, surface water, and groundwater— and concludes with the overall water-use characteristics in the Tuscarawas River Basin.

Evapotranspiration

Relatively large amounts of water leave the basin through 

evapotranspiration, or water lost through evaporation and transpiration by plants (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

2008c). Thornthwaite (1948) and Allen and others (1998) 

summarize different methods of estimating or measuring 

evapotranspiration. Typically, estimation of evapotranspiration involves the use of equations through a water- or energybalance approach (water or energy inputs equal outputs plus 

or minus a change in storage) or through other equations that 

include atmospheric, hydrologic, and (or) vegetation data. 

Evapotranspiration also can be estimated through calibration 

of groundwater flow models, where recharge rates (which 

include losses due to evapotranspiration) are adjusted until the 

models produce realistic groundwater levels and streamflows.

Harstine (1991) provided measurements of potential 

evaporation rates for nine sites in Ohio for the months of May 

through October. No measurements were obtained within the 

Tuscarawas River Basin; however, measurements were made 

for nearby sites Coshocton Agricultural Research Station 

(34.2 in/yr: Coshocton County), Seneca Lake (31.2 in/yr; 

Guernsey County), and Wooster Experimental Station 

(31.2 in/yr; Wayne County). The average potential evaporation 

rate for all nine sites was 30.8 in/yr. Through measurements 

obtained at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development 

Center in Wooster (Wayne County), Breen and others (1995) 

used an evapotranspiration rate of 24 in/yr, obtained from 

measurements provided by the Ohio Agricultural Research 

and Development Center in Wooster (Wayne County), in their 

groundwater flow model. Cohen and Randall (1998) estimated 

evapotranspiration for the entire glaciated region of the northeastern United States, including the Tuscarawas River Basin 

area that was estimated at about 22 in/yr.

Surface Water

Four major tributaries of the Tuscarawas River are Sandy 

Creek (with inflows from Nimishillen Creek), Conotton Creek, 

Stillwater Creek, and Sugar Creek (fig. 1). The Ohio and Erie 

Canal was constructed next to the river in the early 1800s 

and served as a major transportation route for about 20 years, 

but its use declined in the 1850s as railroads gained popularity. The canal suffered substantial damage from flooding in 

1913, and only small portions of the canal’s towpath route 

are still maintained for recreational uses such as hiking and 

bicycle trails. The history, operation, and hydraulics of the 

Ohio and Erie Canal are further described in Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources (1997b); however, the canal’s effects 

on the hydrology of the basin have not been investigated. 

The largest surface-water bodies in the basin are a series of 

man-made reservoirs constructed for flood control, including 

Atwood Lake, Beach City Lake, Leesville Lake, Tappan Lake, 

Clendening Lake, and Piedmont Lake (fig. 1). These reservoirs 

and the associated dams are maintained by the Muskingum 

Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and are further described in Dames 

& Moore and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington 

District (1975), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1977, 2006a), 

and Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (2002). 

In addition to flood control, the reservoirs are important for 

recreation, thermoelectric power, and, to a lesser degree, water 

supply. As of 2009, only Tappan Lake was used for public 

water supply for the Village of Cadiz (Muskingum Watershed 

Conservancy District, 2008). The largest natural lakes (which 

undoubtedly also have been somewhat affected by human 

activities) include the Portage Lakes in Summit County, which 

are much smaller than the man-made reservoirs. Studies and 

inventories of the reservoirs and lakes of Ohio and within the 

Tuscarawas River Basin have been done by Wright (1950), 

Tobin and Youger (1978, 1979), Bowell (1980), Black (1991), 

Davic and others (1997), and the Muskingum River Basin 

initiative (2005).

Wetlands

Wetlands throughout Ohio have been mapped and 

cataloged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2009a). Wetlands are far more numerous in the northern, glaciated parts of the basin (including 

Stark, Summit, and Portage Counties) than in the southern, 

unglaciated parts of the basin. Many of the wetlands, such as 

Jackson Bog in Stark County and Singer Lake Bog in Summit County, include kettle holes that formed where large 

chunks of ice left behind by receding glaciers were partially 

or wholly buried within glacial sediments (Denny, 1988; 
Literature Review 21

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 2008; fig. 1). Other 

important wetlands within and adjacent to the basin include 

Stillfork Swamp, Killbuck Marsh Wildlife Area, and Reifsnyder Wetlands. Carroll County’s Stillfork Swamp is one of 

the most extensive inland marshes in the unglaciated Western 

Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion of eastern Ohio. It covers over 

600 acres within the Stillfork Valley and drains into Sandy 

Creek. This swamp has long been recognized for its importance as nesting grounds for a variety of waterfowl and marsh 

birds (The Nature Conservancy, 2006). The Killbuck Marsh 

Wildlife Area in Wayne and Holmes County (outside and to 

the west of the Tuscarawas River Basin) is owned by the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources and is the largest freshwater 

wildlife marsh site in Ohio at 5,492 acres (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2008).

The wetlands described above were created by natural 

processes; however, Reifsnyder Wetland is a constructed 

wetland designed to reduce nitrate concentrations flowing into 

Nimishillin Creek (Earth Action Partnership, Inc., 2006). In 

addition to Reifsnyder Wetland, other artificial wetlands have 

been built to intercept and ameliorate acid-mine drainage from 

coal mines (Bralek and others, 2002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c). Thus, wetlands hold substantial value 

not only for providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, but 

also for the abatement of degraded water quality.

Floods

Flooding has been and continues to be a problem in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin. Records of floods in the basin within 

the last century begin with the flood of 1913 (Horton and 

Jackson, 1913). Floods are documented for the years 1935 

(Youngquist and others, 1941), 1959 (Cross and Brooks, 1959; 

Edelen, Ruggles, and Cross, 1962; Edelen, Somers, and Cross, 

1962, Somers and others, 1962), 1998 (Koltun, 1999), and 

2005 (The Times Reporter, 2005). The flooding that occurred 

in 1913 spurred the development of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District in 1933 and the construction of a 

dam and reservoir network later that decade. Within the past 

20 years, flood-insurance studies have been done (or updated) 

for small regions throughout the basin by the U.S. Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. Past and current flood studies in the basin are available at http://msc.fema.gov/.

Groundwater/Surface-Water Interactions

The relation between groundwater and surface water 

is complex and the streams within the basin may receive 

water from aquifers (gaining streams) and contribute water 

to aquifers (losing streams) over relatively short distances. 

Well fields installed for public supply are often placed near 

streams to take advantage of the thick sand and gravel deposits 

in the area and to induce infiltration of surface water into the 

aquifer. Van Tuyl (1947) measured streamflow in Nimishillin 

Creek near Canton and showed that losses of surface water to 

groundwater occur in varying amounts depending on the stage 

of the stream and on local groundwater levels. Infiltration 

rates varied from 0 to more than 3 Mgal/d per acre of stream 

bottom. Van Tuyl also documented that as much as 33 percent 

of the total streamflow infiltrated the aquifer. Rizzo (1993) 

determined that streams in Medina and Wayne Counties lose a 

substantial amount of water as the streams flow across permeable sands and gravels within the valleys. Water is initially 

discharged at the contact between the Sharon Sandstone/Conglomerate and the underlying Wooster Shale. (The Wooster 

Shale is not present in the Tuscarawas River Basin; however, it 

is typically found at the same interval as the Black Hand member within the Cuyahoga Formation.) Breen and others (1995) 

confirmed through a series of seepage-meter experiments that 

complex surface-water/groundwater interactions occur along 

Killbuck Creek and its tributaries near Wooster by identifying 

specific reaches where streamflow increased or decreased due 

to stream/aquifer interactions.

In addition to groundwater interaction with streams, 

groundwater interaction with ponds and lakes probably occurs; 

however, the authors are unaware of any documented interactions between groundwater and lakes or ponds in the basin. A 

study by Barton and others (1998) on Mosquito Creek Lake 

in Trumbull County (to the northeast of the Tuscarawas River 

Basin) revealed that there is a west-to-east component of 

groundwater flow into and out of the lake with higher groundwater levels on the western shore than on the eastern shore, 

making Mosquito Creek Lake a flow-through lake.

Groundwater

The primary sources of groundwater used by the residents 

and industry in the Tuscarawas River Basin are sandstones of 

Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian age and unconsolidated sands and gravels. As noted in the section describing 

the geology of the basin, the focus of this report is on consolidated rocks within about 300 ft of the surface and the overlying unconsolidated sands and gravels that fill buried valleys. 

Water in the upper part of the Devonian-age rocks and lower 

part of the Mississippian-age rocks becomes brackish and may 

still be included as part of the potable water resources of the 

basin (Sedam and Stein, 1970); however, for the purposes of 

this report, the Upper Devonian- and Lower Mississippian-age 

rocks will be considered the lower extent of the aquifer system 

within the basin.

The groundwater resources of the entire Muskingum 

River Basin were first described by the Ohio Department of 

Public Works and Dayton Morgan Engineering (1931). Stout 

and others (1943) followed with the “Geology of Water in 

Ohio” and stated that “...the thick fill of the valley should 

provide abundant water and that “Rock Water” found in consolidated Pennsylvanian shales and some sandstones provide 

fair local supplies.” Harker (1943a, 1944a) also documents 

the abundance of groundwater in the basin, particularly in the 

buried valleys along the Tuscarawas River.

Several state-wide maps describing groundwater 

resources within Ohio have been published by the Ohio 
22 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Department of Natural Resources Statewide Aquifer Mapping 

Project and include “Hydrogeologic Settings of the Unconsolidated Aquifers in Ohio” (Angle and others, 2000), “Drift 

Thickness of Ohio” (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

2000a), “Primary Lithology of the Unconsolidated Deposits 

of Ohio” (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000b), 

“Yields of the Unconsolidated Aquifers in Ohio” (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2000c), and “Yields of the 

Uppermost Bedrock Aquifers of Ohio” (Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, 2000d). County-scale investigations 

compiled as part of this literature review are listed in appendix 

1 and include general water-resources studies (some of which 

also include surface-water resources), groundwater resources 

investigations, pollution-potential maps, and water-level maps.

Bedrock Aquifers

As shown by the shaded rock unit names in the stratigraphic column in figure 8, the sandstone aquifers that provide 

much of the water to wells are found in the lower part of the 

column and include the Cussewago Sandstone, the Berea 

Sandstone, the Black Hand Sandstone, the Logan Formation, 

the Maxville Limestone, the Sharon Conglomerate Member, 

the Massillon sandstone, the Homewood Sandstone, the Upper 

Freeport sandstone, and the Buffalo Sandstone. Locally, sandstones, coals, and limestones in the upper Pennsylvanian-age 

and Permian-age rocks also provide water to wells; however, 

quantities of water withdrawn from these rocks through wells 

are much smaller than the quantities from above-listed units.

Most of the results of evaluations of groundwater and 

aquifers are presented in terms of well yields (for example, 

how much water can be withdrawn before a well goes dry). 

Well yields in the sandstone aquifers are generally less than 

100 gal/min (gallons per minute) (Sedam, 1973; Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000c, 2000d). The relatively poor 

yield of wells in sandstone aquifers has led to investigation of 

water in abandoned underground coal mines as an additional 

source of water (Crouch and others, 1980); however, this 

water is often of poor chemical quality with elevated concentrations of iron, manganese, and sulfate (Razem and Sedam, 

1985). Estimation of aquifer properties including hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity has been done through 

aquifer tests and calibration of digital computer models, but 

few references are available for aquifer properties in the 

consolidated bedrock in the Tuscarawas River Basin. Breen 

and others (1995) estimated hydraulic conductivity values for 

the Logan and Cuyahoga Formations near Wooster of 0.25 

to 100 gal/d/ft2 (0.033 to 13 ft/d), using aquifer test results 

and model calibration. Rau (1969) estimated that the average transmissivity of the Berea Sandstone was 2,400 gal/d/ft 

(320 ft2/d). Lacking other basin-specific data, textbook 

hydraulic conductivity values may be used; the values for 

sandstone range from 1 to 1,000 gal/d/ft2 (0.13 to 130 ft/d) and 

for unfractured limestone, 1x10-1 to 1x10-5 gal/d/ft2 (1.3x10-2

to 1.3x10-6 ft/d) (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990; Freeze and 

Cherry, 1979). Textbook porosity values for sandstone range 

from 5 to 30 percent, and specific yield values range from 21 

to 27 percent. Similar values for limestones range from 0 to 

20 percent porosity and about 14 percent specific yield.

Unconsolidated Aquifers

The sands and gravels that fill buried valleys in northeastern Ohio are among the most prolific aquifers in the 

State (Harker and Bernhagen, 1943a; Cummins, 1959; Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2000c). Indeed, production 

wells in all of the major cities within the basin obtain water 

from wells screened within sand and gravel aquifers. The 

thicknesses of the sand and gravel deposits in the Tuscarawas 

River Basin typically are greater than 100 ft within the buried 

valleys and may reach up to 400 ft in some localities near the 

center of the larger valleys in the northern, glaciated regions. 

These buried valleys also may contain layers of fine sand, silt, 

and (or) clay, which may hinder the utilization of groundwater 

resources, as was the case reported by Harker (1944a) in the 

vicinity of Akron. Little information is available regarding 

the degree of hydraulic connection between unconsolidated 

valley-fill sediments and bedrock aquifers; however, Breen 

and others (1995) simulated groundwater flow from upland 

bedrock areas into sand- and gravel-filled valleys near Wooster 

with full horizontal and vertical hydraulic connectivity.

Well yields in the sands and gravels can be greater than 

500 gal/min (Sedam, 1973; Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, 2000c, 2000d). Fine-grained sediments found at 

the surface throughout the glaciated uplands and over some 

parts of the sand and gravel aquifers may serve as a protective barrier to the downward movement of contaminants into 

underlying aquifers; however, joints and fractures within these 

fine-grained sediments have recently been a focus of studies 

elsewhere in Ohio (Weatherington-Rice, 2004). Estimated 

hydraulic conductivity for the sand and gravel aquifers ranges 

from about 120 to more than 1,000 gal/d/ft2 (16 to 134 ft/d) 

with corresponding transmissivities ranging from 12,000 

to 94,000 gal/d/ft (1,600 to 12,600 ft2/d; Jones and others, 

1958; Mayhew, 1985; Springer 1987; Garvey, 1988; Breen 

and others, 1995; Chowdhury and others, 2003). Aquifer 

porosity and specific yield data are scarce for sand and gravel 

aquifers in the Tuscarawas River Basin; however, published 

estimates from hydrology textbooks provide a range of porosity from 25 to 50 percent, whereas specific yields range from 

10 to 30 percent (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990; Freeze and 

Cherry, 1979).

Recharge

The amount of water that recharges aquifers has been 

estimated by a number of different methods. The average 

value in the water budget presented above of 6 in. per year 

was derived by subtracting all estimated withdrawals and 

outflows from the known amount of rainfall that occurs in 

the area (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008c). A 

recharge value also is included as one of the index variables in 

the groundwater pollution potential maps developed through 
Literature Review 23

the methods of Aller and others (1985). As of 2009, groundwater pollution potential maps for the Tuscarawas River Basin 

are available for all counties except Guernsey County and 

are referenced in appendix 1. These maps show that recharge 

varies as a function of meteorological conditions (including 

temperature and the type and intensity of precipitation), soil 

type, slope, and geology.

Breen and others (1995) estimated recharge in the 

Killbuck Creek Valley through groundwater-flow-model 

calibration to be about 5 in/yr in the uplands and as much 

as to 13 in/yr in the valleys. Breen and others (1995) also 

determined that a substantial amount of runoff from the 

bedrock uplands could not recharge the groundwater system 

in the uplands, but still recharged the sand- and gravel-filled 

valleys. (Breen and others (1995) used the term “rejected 

recharge” to describe this runoff). Bonta and Muller (1999) 

estimated annual, long-term groundwater recharge rates to 

be 5.5 to 15.4 in/yr, using a method devised by Glugla and 

Tiemer (1971). This method uses long-term average annual 

precipitation, runoff, potential evaporation, and crop-yield 

information along with a set of empirical parameter curves to 

derive recharge estimates. Dumouchelle and Schiefer (2002) 

used streamflow records and basin characteristics to estimate 

recharge rates at Sandy Creek of 9 to 10 in/yr and at Home 

Creek near New Philadelphia of 6 in/yr. Chowdhury and others (2003) estimated recharge of 14 in/yr within the outwash 

along Chippewa Creek in Wayne and Medina Counties.

Source-Water Protection Areas

To protect the quality of water derived from production 

wells and surface-water intakes, the Ohio EPA administers 

Ohio’s Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/swap_protection.

html). As of 2009, source-water areas have been defined for 10 

public-supply water systems in or near the Tuscarawas River 

Basin (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b; table 

3). In another effort to protect groundwater supplies, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2005) developed criteria to 

define aquifers as “Sole-Source Aquifers,” specifying that they 

are a sole source of water and thereby require special protection status. As of 2009, there were no Sole-Source Aquifers 

within the basin and only four within Ohio. The nearest (and, 

perhaps, the most hydrologically similar to the Tuscarawas 

River Basin) designated Sole-Source Aquifer is the sand and 

gravel aquifer near Pleasant City in Guernsey County (just 

south of the basin), which was designated in 1987 (http://www.

epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/SSA_pleasantcity_FR.pdf).

Water Use

Water-use estimates were summarized for two different 

geographic areas: the entire 13-county area that includes the 

Tuscarawas River Basin and for the 8-digit hydrologic unit 

code area of the Tuscarawas River Basin itself (05040001). 

Five categories of water-use were evaluated: public supply, 

Table 3. Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 

areas by county within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, on 

record with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency as of 2009.

[From Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b; PWS, Public Water 

System]

Public Supply Water System Population served

Belmont County

Belmont Co. Sanitary District 3 PWS 24,387

Holloway PWS 345

Shadyside PWS 3,812

Coshocton County

Warsaw Village PWS 890

Stark County

Aqua Ohio, Inc.–Massillon 90,000

Summit County

Hudson City PWS 5,750

Tuscarawas County

Dover City PWS 13,570

New Philadelphia City PWS 18,000

Wilkshire Hills PWS 6,072

Wayne County

Wooster City PWS 25,801

domestic supply, agricultural (including livestock, aquaculture, 

and irrigation), industrial/mining, and thermoelectric power 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c). For the 13 counties that 

encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin, total estimated water 

withdrawal in 2000 was 825 Mgal/d (table 4; U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c). (Data for the year 2000 were used here 

because, at the time of this publication, water-use estimates 

were available, but not published, for 2005.) The distribution 

of groundwater and surface-water use by county for 1985, 

1990, 1995, and 2000 is shown in figure 11. The most important change between years is the change from predominantly 

surface-water use in 1985 to predominantly groundwater 

use in 2000. This change can be attributed to the decrease 

of surface-water use due to the closing of major steel mills 

and other large water-using industries throughout the basin. 

Additionally, the distribution of water use is not consistent 

throughout the 13-county area. Coshocton and Belmont Counties used water at a rate an order of magnitude greater than any 

of the other counties because almost 68 percent of the total 

water used in the 13-county area was used for thermoelectric 

power in the form of cooling water for coal-fired power plants 
STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

81° 82°

41°40°

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

81° 82°

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

81° 82°

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

81° 82°

41°40°

Groundwater

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

41°40°

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

STARK WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA SUMMIT PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

COLUMBIANA

HARRISON

TUSCARAWAS

41°40°

Surface water

Figure 11.

1985 1990 1995 2000

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

EXPLANATION

Total groundwater use, in percent Total surface-water use, in percent

0 - 2021 - 4041 - 60

61 - 8081 - 100

0 - 2021 - 4041 - 60

61 - 8081 - 100

 Percentages of groundwater and surface-water use for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 in and around theTuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (From U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c)

Basin boundary

County boundary

24 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 11. Percentages of groundwater and surface-water use for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (From U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c)
Literature Review 25

in these two counties (table 4; fig. 11). If water used for thermoelectric power water is excluded from this tabulation, as 

shown on the bottom of table 4, the dominant water use in all 

counties except Carroll County is public supply. (The dominant water use in Carroll County is domestic supply through 

private wells.) The 13-county water-use data are closely 

related to land-use data (table 2). Counties with higher populations and greater percentages of land use devoted to industry 

use greater quantities of water. Specifically, Stark and Summit 

Counties have the greatest population and withdraw the most 

water for public supply, industry, and mining, and these counties also have the greatest percentage of high-intensity urban 

development (which includes industrial land uses).Wayne 

County, which has the highest percentage of agricultural land 

use (75.1 percent in 2001), uses the greatest amount of water 

for agricultural purposes (2.0 Mgal/d; tables 2 and 4).

Water-use data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, which is 

defined by the 8-digit hydrologic unit code 05040001, were 

summarized using the same water-use categories described 

above; however, additional data were available to discriminate 

between groundwater and surface-water sources for four years 

(1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000; table 5). Total water-use values 

reported for the 13-county area are more than seven times 

those reported for the Tuscarawas River Basin area because 

some heavily populated areas lie just outside the basin boundary, but are still within the county. From 1985 to 2000, total 

groundwater use remained about the same, whereas surfacewater use declined from 82.5 Mgal/d in 1985 to 12.9 Mgal/d 

Table 4 Estimated total water use by water-use category in the counties that encompass the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2000. 

[Modified from U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; rows may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding; na, not applicable]

Total withdrawal (Mgal/d) Percentage of total for each county

County Public 

supply1

Domestic 

supply2

Agricultural3Industrial/

mining

Thermoelectric 

power

Total Public 

supply

Domestic 

supply

AgriculturalIndustrial/

mining

Thermoelectric 

power

Total

Belmont 8.3 0.0 0.3 1.3 247.0 256.9 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 96.1 99.9

Carroll 1.1 1.6 .3 .4 .0 3.4 32.4 47.1 8.8 11.8 .0 100.1

Columbiana 11.0 3.3 .7 .7 .0 15.7 70.1 21.0 4.5 4.5 .0 100.1

Coshocton 8.4 1.2 .6 7.9 312.0 330.1 2.5 .4 .2 2.4 94.5 100.0

Guernsey 4.5 .6 .3 .0 .0 5.4 83.3 11.1 5.6 .0 .0 100.0

Harrison .7 .4 .2 .0 .0 1.3 53.8 30.8 15.4 .0 .0 100.0

Holmes 3.3 2.3 1.1 .6 .0 7.3 45.2 31.5 15.1 8.2 .0 100.0

Medina 6.6 6.1 .8 3.0 .0 16.5 40.0 37.0 4.8 18.2 .0 100.0

Portage 9.1 4.7 .6 3.2 .0 17.6 51.7 26.7 3.4 18.2 .0 100.0

Stark 33.0 6.0 1.2 11.0 .0 51.2 64.5 11.7 2.3 21.5 .0 100.0

Summit 52.0 8.8 .6 11.0 .0 72.4 71.8 12.2 .8 15.2 .0 100.0

Tuscarawas 18.0 2.0 1.1 8.9 .0 30.0 60.0 6.7 3.7 29.7 .0 100.1

Wayne 10.0 3.8 2.0 1.5 .2 17.5 57.1 21.7 11.4 8.6 1.1 99.9

TOTAL 166.0 40.8 9.8 49.5 559.2 825.3 20.1 4.9 1.2 6.0 67.8 100.0

Belmont4 83.8 .0 3.0 13.1 na 99.9

Coshocton4 46.4 6.6 3.3 43.6 na 99.9

TOTAL 62.3 15.3 3.7 18.6 na 99.9

1

 Public supply is calculated as sum of public supply and self-supplied commercial water uses.

2

 Domestic supply is for self-supplied domestic withdrawals for household purposes.

3

 Agricultural withdrawals are calculated as the sum of self-supplied livestock, irrigation, and aquaculture water uses.

4

 Because thermoelectric power water use greatly exceeds any other water-use category for these counties and little to no water is used for thermoelectric uses 

in the other counties in the basin, percentages of water use were recalculated for Belmont and Coshocton Counties excluding thermoelectric uses.
26 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

in 2000 (table 5). As noted above, the decline in surface-water 

use is attributable primarily to decreases in industrial uses and 

likely reflects the closing of steel mills in the late 1980s. Overall, total water use over the 16-year period declined by almost 

37 percent from 183 Mgal/d in 1985 to 116 Mgal/d in 2000.

Water Quality

Water quality in a stream or reservoir, or within an aquifer, can be affected by natural processes and human activities. As noted in Hem (1985), the primary natural processes 

that affect water quality are interaction with the atmosphere, 

weathering and erosion of rocks and soil, and chemical reactions occurring below land surface. Some minerals, such as 

quartz, are relatively inert and may not contribute chemicals 

to water; however, other minerals, such as gypsum, pyrite, 

and calcite, readily dissolve and contribute elements such 

as calcium, sulfur, and iron to water. Within the Tuscarawas 

River Basin, the primary human activities that affect water 

quality are agriculture, mining, oil and gas drilling, waste disposal, and many industrial activities. Taste, odor, and appearance usually are the most commonly cited issues regarding 

degraded water quality, but dissolved chemicals at concentrations lower than humans can detect by their senses alone may 

cause health issues.

The earliest publications specifically related to waterquality information from the Tuscarawas River Basin typically 

provided data only on the basic properties of water or concentrations of major elements related to drinking-water supplies 

(see, for example, Stout and others, 1943; Cummins and 

Sanderson, 1947; Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 1951). These reports focus on water temperature and 

concentrations of calcium, magnesium, iron, sulfate, dissolved 

oxygen, and suspended sediment. Prior to the 1940s, most 

groundwater was distributed untreated, and the only treatment 

for Tuscarawas River Basin surface water was filtration (Stout 

and others, 1943). One of the earliest reports to describe a specific source of degraded water quality is by Harker and Bernhagen (1943a) who noted stream contamination and intrusion 

of saltwater and oil into aquifers due to oil and gas production 

in the Chatham oil field area (Medina County). After about 

1960, reports by Ohio Water Commission (1960), Thomas 

(1960), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1968), and the 

Ohio Drilling Company (1971) document additional waterquality issues related to agricultural practices, mining of coal 

and salt, and industry. This period also coincided with rapid 

improvements in the ability to accurately and precisely measure concentrations of dissolved chemicals in water.

Regional studies of water quality in the Tuscarawas 

River Basin by the Ohio Department of Health (1958), 

Weston (1968), the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio 

Water Pollution Control Board (1968), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1971 and 1978b) document 

wide-spread surface-water-quality issues related to municipal 

wastes, industrial wastes, organic pollution, and chloride 

contamination from salt mining and chemical processing. 

Another regional-scale water-quality study was done by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978) as part of the 

National Eutrophication Survey. This report provides summary 

data for Atwood Lake, Beach City Lake, and Tappan Lake 

that include morphology (drainage area, surface area, mean 

depth, total inflow, and retention time), physical and chemical 

characteristics (alkalinity, specific conductance, Secchi disk 

depth, phosphorus, orthophosphate, inorganic nitrate, and total 

nitrate), biological characteristics (chlorophyll a, algae, and 

phytoplankton), nutrient loadings, and nonpoint source nutrient export.

Examples of surface-water inventories for water quality 

and (or) biology on smaller scales include those done by Prée 

(1962a, c); Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1972, 

1974a, 1974b); Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization for the Upper Tuscarawas 

Table 5. Estimated groundwater and surface-water use for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 1985–2000.

[Tuscarawas River Basin is defined by the 8-digit hydrologic unit code 05040001; data modified from U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c; all values are in million 

gallons per day; GW, groundwater; SW, surface water; T, total]

Public 

supply1

Domestic 

supply2 Agricultural3 Industrial / mining

Thermoelectric 

power

Total

Year GW SW T GW SW T GW SW T GW SW T GW SW T GW SW T

1985 58.0 6.8 64.8 21.0 0.0 21.0 2.5 1.7 4.2 0.2 52.0 52.2 19.0 22.0 41.0 100.7 82.5 183.2

1990 38.0 28.0 66.0 18.0 .4 18.4 1.3 2.4 3.7 12.0 10.0 22.0 .1 .0 .1 69.4 40.8 110.2

1995 61.0 8.8 69.8 19.0 .4 19.4 2.6 2.7 5.3 28.0 6.8 34.8 .2 .0 .2 110.8 18.7 129.5

2000 55.0 7.2 62.2 17.0 .4 17.4 2.0 2.3 4.3 29.0 3.0 32.0 .2 .0 .2 103.2 12.9 116.1

1

 Public supply is calculated as sum of public supply and self-supplied commercial water uses.

2

 Domestic supply is for self-supplied domestic withdrawals for household purposes.

3

 Agricultural withdrawals are calculated as the sum of self-supplied livestock, irrigation, and aquaculture water uses.
Literature Review 27

River Basin (1985, 1999a, 2004), for Upper Wolf Creek 

(1999c), and for Nimishillen Creek (2001b, 2003, 2005); Dai 

(1993); Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1996c, 2003, 

2005); Wellman (1998); Gannett Fleming (2000); Carroll 

County Regional Planning Commission (2004); Akin (2006); 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006c); and Huff 

Run Watershed Restoration Partnership (2006a, b, c). These 

studies document cases of contamination of water, sediment, 

and soils due to agriculture, mining, and chemical spills, with 

specific reference to nutrients, metals, chloride, and a number 

of organic compounds (including gas, oil, volatile organic 

compounds, and solvents).

Water-quality inventories of lakes and reservoirs in the 

basin include those by Tobin and Youger (1979) and Davic 

and others (1997). Tobin and Youger (1979) report that most 

lakes in the Tuscarawas River Basin (and throughout Ohio) are 

shallow (less than 17 ft deep) and, as a result, do not develop 

stratification and are generally of poor water quality. Tobin 

and Youger (1979) also note that nitrate and phosphorus concentrations were characteristically high in all lakes. Davic and 

others (1997) detected lindane (an insecticide) in the waters 

of Atwood Reservoir and Tappan Lake and dieldrin (another 

insecticide) in Nimisila Reservoir. As noted above, interaction 

between groundwater and lakes and reservoirs has not been 

examined in the Tuscarawas River Basin.

Within the past few decades, biological indices that 

enumerate the species and general health of aquatic organisms 

have replaced some of the more traditional chemical analyses 

(see, for example, Hyland, 1982; McShaffrey and Olive, 1985; 

Barber and others, 1997; March, 2002; and numerous Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency studies published from 1978 

through 2006). The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

also has done many studies on water quality with special attention given to aquatic insects, amphibians, and fish, including 

those for Nimishillen Creek (Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1994a, 2001); River Styx (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b); parts of the Upper Tuscarawas River, 

Wolf Creek, and Hudson Run (Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1994c); Upper Sandy Creek and Still Fork Sandy 

Creek (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a); parts 

of the Tuscarawas River and Sugar Creek (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b); Upper Killbuck Creek (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b); Upper Muskingum 

River (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996c), Sandy 

Creek (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a); and 

Sugar Creek (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b, 

2006d, 2006e). Results of these studies specifically describe 

the effects of agriculture and industry with regard to impaired 

aquatic habitat. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a) provided summary data for the status of stream segments in 2002 

and 2004. The two datasets show that 10 out of 18 assessed 

stream segments were listed as impaired in 2002, whereas 

only 1 of 11 stream segments was listed as impaired in 2004. 

Although not all of the same stream segments were evaluated 

during these two studies, these data indicate that, overall, the 

fraction of sites that were impaired during this time period 

decreased and that water quality has been improving. 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency conducted 

integrated biological studies of fish and amphibians (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 2002b, 2004, 2006b) and 

issued sport-fish advisories based on these findings (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c). The results of these 

studies show that the tissue of some fish species in the basin 

contained elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and hexachlorobenzene, requiring advisories that 

recommend limited fish consumption by humans. 

As of 2009, 29 organisms (24 animals and 5 plants) were 

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009b) as threatened or endangered species within Ohio. The only aquatic 

organisms on this list within the Tuscarawas River Basin were 

several species of mussels.

Effects of Land Use

Agriculture and mining are probably the most often cited 

land-use practices that have documented wide-spread effects 

on water quality in the basin (Ohio Department of Health and 

Ohio Water Pollution Control Board, 1968; Northeast Ohio 

Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1985; Razem and Sedam, 1985; Sedam, 1991; and 

Sedam and Francy, 1993). Agriculture includes the clearing 

and preparation of land for growing crops; application of fertilizers, pesticides, and manure; raising of farm animals; and 

delivery of medicines (including hormones and antibiotics) to 

these animals. Fertilizers contain nutrients such as nitrogen 

and phosphorous which commonly enter drainage ditches and 

groundwater and result in algal blooms in surface-water bodies, such as those documented by Olive and Higgins (1981) 

and Hambrook and others (1999). Nutrients and pesticides 

are linked not only to agriculture, but also to residential areas 

where homeowners apply fertilizers and pesticides to their 

lawns and gardens. Elevated nutrients have been noted in 

water from Wayne County (Beck and others, undated a) and 

Coshocton County (Golden and others, undated a), and within 

the Sugar Creek Watershed (Parker and Webb, 2006). Prasad 

and others (2005) examined hydrologic and land characteristics in the Sugar Creek Watershed in relation to nutrient loads 

and concluded that nitrate concentrations paralleled precipitation patterns over time as a result of transport of land-applied 

fertilizers in stormwater, with high nitrate concentrations 

corresponding to high precipitation; however, only 35 percent 

of the nitrate load could be attributed to stormwater alone. 

The work also revealed correlations of nitrate, ammonia, and 

phosphate with geomorphologic characteristics, such as elevation and slope.

As with agriculture, much of the basin was (and continues to be) involved in coal mining. Prior to 1977 and the 

passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(Office of Surface Mining, 2009), there were no requirements 

to reclaim coal mines, and as a result, land was most often 

abandoned after the coal was removed. Through coal mining, 
28 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

pyrite (a common iron sulfide mineral associated with coal) is 

exposed to the atmosphere and reacts with water and oxygen. This process, known as pyrite oxidation, releases iron 

and sulfur into streams and groundwater. The iron and sulfur 

further react with water and oxygen to decrease pH, causing 

acid mine drainage. Regional studies of groundwater quality 

done by Prée (1962b), Engelke and Roth (1981), Majchszak 

(1984), Razem and Sedam (1985), Sedam (1991), Sedam 

and Francy (1993), and Breen and others (1995) indicate that 

most aquifers in the basin contain elevated concentrations of 

iron and manganese, due in part to the effects of coal mining. 

The legacy of coal mining also can be seen in many streams 

with low pH, excess sedimentation, and precipitation of iron 

hydroxides (also known as “yellow boy”) on stream beds, 

all of which often lead to degraded habitat for aquatic biota. 

Also, contamination from trace elements (such as arsenic) 

derived from coal and coal-combustion byproducts may cause 

water-quality concerns in some areas (Knapp, 1977; Khourey, 

1981; Matisoff and others, 1981; Matisoff and others, 1982; 

Haefner, 2002).

A secondary source of impaired water quality related to 

the mining of coal comes from coal combustion and gaseous 

emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, and mercury (Heit, 1985; 

Walk and Godfrey, 1990). The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/) monitors atmospheric 

deposition throughout the United States, and although the 

quantity of atmospheric discharges has decreased since 1980 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b), eastern Ohio 

remains one of the largest producers of gaseous emissions that 

affect not only the Tuscarawas River Basin, but much of the 

northeastern United States. 

As noted in the previous section on geology, substantial 

quantities of salt lie in thick beds thousands of feet below the 

surface in the basin. The briny solutions generated during salt 

mining are typically pumped into large ponds for evaporation to remove the water. Historically, these ponds were often 

unlined, and the salt solution leaked into groundwater and 

surface water, causing chloride contamination in areas such 

as Barberton in Summit County. The effects of this contamination have been observed great distances downstream over 

long periods (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 1951; Lamborn, 1952; Ohio Department of Health, 1958; 

Jones, 1961; Rau, 1972, 1974; Williams, 1973).

The other human activities related to land use in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin that have been documented to affect 

water quality include industry, transportation, wastewater facilities, domestic septic systems, and waste-disposal 

landfills. Major industrial activities in the basin include steel 

mills, petroleum refineries, and chemical plants. The presence 

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in water and sediments has been documented in Stark County (Stark County 

Health Department, 2005; Oelker and others, undated a), 

Summit County (Oelker and others, undated b), and Tuscarawas County (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 

1995b, 1996a, 1998a), and VOCs in trace amounts are present throughout the Tuscarawas River Basin (Richards and 

Wellrabenstein, 1995; Zbasnik, 1996). Pre-regulation industrial liquid-waste disposal practices are described in Clifford 

(1975); however, these practices are currently regulated by 

the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.

state.oh.us/ddagw/uic.html). Other documented discharges 

are reported to, and recorded by, the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency and are available by contacting the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency Division of Emergency and 

Remedial Response.

The effects of transportation corridors and problems 

associated with gaseous emissions, leaking oil and gas, road 

salt, and road debris have not been specifically evaluated in 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, but similar settings throughout 

Ohio and the United states have experienced water-quality 

degradation related to these issues (see, for example, Mahler 

and others, 2005; Rogge and others, 1993). Because the Ohio 

Department of Transportation and county and local governments within the Tuscarawas River Basin apply road salt to 

minimize hazards associated with freezing roadways, localized issues related to chloride contamination can occur (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). For example, Kunze 

and Sroka (2004) document short-term road-salt contamination in groundwater along State Route 14 in Portage County 

(just north of the Tuscarawas River Basin).

Wastewater facilities in Ohio and the Tuscarawas River 

Basin are regulated with respect to the quantity and quality of 

their discharge of contaminants to the environment, but inadequate designs and combined use of stormwater systems for 

routing stormwater runoff may lead to substantial discharge 

of untreated wastewater to surface-water bodies. Furthermore, poorly designed domestic septic systems and poor soil 

drainage may cause local groundwater and surface-water 

contamination. Specific data regarding the number of households using septic systems were not available at the time of 

this publication; however, Akin (2006) estimated that over half 

of the Nimishillen Creek Watershed was unsewered in 2006. 

Richards and Wellrabenstein (1995) collected groundwater 

samples that had elevated concentrations of ammonia, sodium, 

barium, and strontium in alluvial deposits in Coshocton 

County, indicative of water softening and septic-tank effluent. 

Dumouchelle (2006) described contamination of groundwater by bacteria and elevated nitrate concentrations related to 

septic-system discharges in Wayne County, near Wooster.

Solid-waste disposal in sanitary and other types of 

landfills is regulated by the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/). In 2009, the accepted 

method of landfill development is to construct a lined basin 

where waste is deposited and covered. In the past, however, 

liners were not required and unknown types and quantities of 

waste may have been placed and buried in landfills. Studies related to solid-waste disposal in the Tuscarawas River 

Basin have been done for the Industrial Excess Landfill near 

Uniontown (Bair and Norris, 1989; Jackson and others, 1989; 

Dumouchelle and Bair, 1994) and for the Hardy Road Landfill 

in Akron (Jackson and others, 1989).
Hydrologic Data Networks 29

Through the movement of air or water, activities in one 

part of the basin may affect water quality in another part of 

the basin. For example, the aforementioned chloride contamination from salt mining and other industrial activities in the 

upper part of the basin have been traced through the entire 

downstream extent of the Tuscarawas River from Barberton to 

Coshocton (Cummins and Sanderson, 1947; Ohio Department 

of Health, 1958; Rau 1972, 1974). To examine downstream 

movement of contaminants in the Tuscarawas River, Westfall 

and Webber (1977) added fluorescent dye to the Tuscarawas 

River downstream from Barberton and traced the dye 106 

miles to Coshocton. The leading edge of the dye reached 

Coshocton after about 119 hours and the peak concentration of 

the dye plume arrived in about 137 hours.

Total Maximum Daily Loads

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency implemented 

the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to address 

some of the water-quality issues in Ohio and the Tuscarawas River Basin (http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/). The 

TMDL program “...is a written, quantitative assessment 

of water quality problems in a water body and contributing sources of pollution. It specifies the amount a pollutant 

needs to be reduced to meet water quality standards (WQS), 

allocates pollutant load reductions, and provides the basis for 

taking actions needed to restore a water body.” As of 2009, 

the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has completed 

three TMDL projects within the Tuscarawas River Basin, 

two for the Sugar Creek Watershed and one for Nimishillen 

Creek. For Sugar Creek, the first focuses on aquatic life (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002d) and the second on 

recreational use of water related to bacteria (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006d). For Nimishillen Creek, the 

TMDL focuses on sediment and bacteria (Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2009c). At the time of this publication, 

the TMDL report for the mainstem of the Tuscarawas River 

was published and available for comment in draft form (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009d. The preliminary 

findings from the data collected between 2003 and 2005 are 

that, overall, the condition of the watershed was fair to good 

with respect to goals associated with healthy warm-water habitat. The lower section of the watershed displayed exceptional 

quality, whereas the upper portion of the watershed generally 

had lower water quality due to more intense land use. The 

Ohio Legislature established the Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment (AMDAT) fund in 1995, which is similar 

to the TMDL program, to provide for the long-term restoration 

of watersheds biologically impaired by acid drainage derived 

from abandoned coal mines. Within the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Huff Run is the first subbasin for which an AMDAT 

plan was established (Gannett Fleming, 2000).

Hydrologic Data Networks

As of 2009, there were many different types of hydrologic data collected within the Tuscarawas River Basin from 

many different sources. The hydrologic data assessment 

presented here focuses on long-term and regularly scheduled 

data-collection activities; however, there also are many other 

data-collection efforts that were done on an as-needed basis 

or were done independent of a recurring program. For the 

purposes of this report, hydrologic data include measurements 

associated with water levels, chemical quality, and biologic 

characteristics related to meteorology, surface water, and 

groundwater. This section of the report focuses on data-collection networks that were recently active or active during 2009 

that provide insight concerning the goals and priorities of the 

data-collecting organizations operating in the basin.

The primary entities responsible for hydrologic data collection throughout the basin (listed in alphabetical order) are 

the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, the National 

Weather Service, the Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey. A substantial amount of hydrologic 

information also is collected by county agencies, watershed 

groups, and local groups, such as the Northeast Ohio Four 

County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 

which focuses on Portage, Stark, Summit, and Wayne Counties. Hydrologic data also are collected by private consulting 

firms and academia; however, these data are generally unavailable to the public or may be difficult to obtain or integrate 

because they are either the private property of clients or they 

are in printed form only and are not generally included in 

regional or state-wide databases. 

For this report, a library of datasets that contain spatial 

and attribute information (such as biology, data-collection stations, geology, hydrology, land use, population, and topography) related to the Tuscarawas River Basin was created in a 

geographic information system (GIS) geodatabase format. A 

geodatabase contains spatial information and supports multiple data formats including vector, raster (grid- or cell-based), 

and tabular information, as well as images and metadata. The 

database is available upon request from the USGS Ohio Water 

Science Center. 

Meteorology

 Meteorological stations within the Tuscarawas River 

Basin are shown in figure 12. The only three National Weather 

Service stations (shown as black squares in figure 12) in or 

near the basin are at the Akron-Canton Airport, the Wayne 

County Airport near Wooster, and Harry Clever Field in New 

Philadelphia; however, several additional National Weather 

Service stations are located near the basin boundaries and 

are not shown in figure 12, including those at Wheeling 

(West Virginia), Youngstown, Mansfield, Zanesville, and 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

k

k

k

kk

k

k k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k k

k k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

")

")

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k k

k

k

k

k k

k

JEFFERSON

MAHONING

MUSKINGUM

STARK

WAYNE

BELMONT

MEDINA PORTAGE

HOLMES

GUERNSEY

SUMMIT

COSHOCTON

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

HARRISON

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Akron

Massillon

New 

Philadelphia

Coshocton

North 

Canton

Carrollton

Figure 12.

EXPLANATION

Canton

Cuyahoga 

 Falls

Alliance

Wooster

Millersburg

Medina

Cadiz

Cambridge

Basin boundary

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Wadsworth

Dover

Surface water

Newcomerstown

Barberton

k State of Ohio Rain/Snow Monitoring System station

$1 National Atmospheric Deposition Program station

") National Weather Service station

 Locations of meteorological stations in and around the Tuscarawas

River Basin, Ohio.

Urban area 0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 20 MILES

k Miscellaneous weather station from Weather Underground

County boundary

!. City

"

Wayne County

Airport

Akron-Canton

Airport

Harry Clever

Field

$1

30 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 12. Locations of meteorological stations in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 
Hydrologic Data Networks 31

Lancaster (Ohio). The National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/), which is operated by 

the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. Geological 

Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and numerous other 

government and private entities, collect and analyze precipitation samples for hydrogen (acidity as pH), sulfate, nitrate, 

ammonium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and 

sodium. Although there are no National Atmospheric Deposition Program stations in the Tuscarawas River Basin, there 

are six stations within Ohio: the closest two are in Wooster 

(Wayne County) and Caldwell (Noble County, not shown on 

figure 12).

In response to a catastrophic flood in eastern Ohio in 

1990, the Ohio Emergency Management Agency developed 

a flood-warning system that provided for the establishment 

of a monitoring system to measure rain and snowfall in each 

of Ohio’s 88 counties as part of the State of Ohio Rain/Snow 

Monitoring System (STORMS). The original recommendations were for the State to install and operate at least five automated rain gages in each county. As of 2009, there were 288 

rain gages in Ohio listed on the Wilmington National Weather 

Service Web site (http://www.afws.net/states/oh/oh.htm), 49 

of which are within 10 of the 13 counties that encompass the 

Tuscarawas River Basin. There were no stations in Carroll, 

Portage, or Wayne Counties. The Web site notes that installation of additional stations is prioritized by river basin, topographic characteristics, and the population at risk.

The Weather Underground (on http://www.wunderground.

com/) is a commercial, Internet-based weather reporting system that incorporates many different sources of weather data 

from throughout the world. This system allows individuals to 

establish their own weather station and provide weather data 

through the Internet interface. Typical data from this network 

include temperature, dew point, humidity, wind speed and 

direction, barometric pressure, and precipitation amount. In 

and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, approximately 50 

weather stations are included in this network and are shown 

as “miscellaneous weather stations” on figure 12 (some of 

these sites may be the same as sites in the STORMS network 

described above).

Surface Water

The surface-water data-collection efforts described in this 

section are limited to stage (stream and reservoir levels) and 

streamflow, flood-related data, and data collected to operate 

dams. The primary agencies and groups that collect surfacewater data are the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Additional datacollection activities related to water quality and biological 

assessments at surface-water sites are described in the “Water 

Quality” section. Watershed groups within the Tuscarawas 

River Basin also collect a substantial amount of surface-water 

related data. As of 2009, there were 11 watershed groups in the 

basin (table 6). Links to each of these watershed groups along 

with contacts and profile information are available on the Ohio 

State University Extension Web page (http://ohiowatersheds.

osu.edu/groups/wgp_all.php). An example of some of the data 

collected and work done by watershed groups is provided 

by Moore (2006) for Sugar Creek. The report describes a 

community-based approach to management of water resources 

and focuses on work at the local level. Additional reports by 

watershed groups related to watershed planning are listed in 

appendix 1 under “Hydrology/Watershed Planning.”

Table 6. Watershed groups in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

[Modified from http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/groups/wgp_all.php]

Watershed group Watershed

East Branch Sugar Creek Watershed Sugar Creek.

Enviro Outreach Organization Tuscarawas River.

Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership, Incorporated Huff Run.

Little Beaver Creek Land Foundation Little Beaver Creek.

Nimishillen Creek Watershed Partners Nimishillen Creek.

North Fork Task Force Sugar Creek.

Portage Lakes Advisory Council Portage Lakes.

Tuscarawas River Buried Valley Watershed Council Tuscarawas River.

Upper Sugar Creek Farmer Partners Upper Sugar Creek.

Upper Tuscarawas River Technical Advisory Committee Upper Tuscarawas River.

Upper Wolf Creek Technical Advisory Committee Upper Wolf Creek.
32 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Stage and Streamflow

Within the Tuscarawas River Basin, stage and streamflow data have been obtained from a network of streamgages 

operated and maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, in 

cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (fig. 13). As of 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database 

(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/) contained records for 699 

surface-water sites in the Tuscarawas River Basin; however, 

many of these sites have been discontinued or represent a 

location where only a single measurement or a few measurements were made. Within the basin, there were 17 real-time 

streamgages in 2009; 9 of these gages report stage and 

discharge data, and the remaining 8 gages report stage only. 

The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission collects 

data within the Muskingum River Basin but focuses on the 

main tributaries to the Ohio River and not on upstream sources 

(such as the Tuscarawas River). 

The stages of lakes and reservoirs are recorded by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008) Huntington District and 

include current pool-height and elevation, outflow temperature, and precipitation in the last 24 hours. As of 2009, there 

were eight sites providing these data at Atwood, Beach City, 

Bolivar, Clendening, Dover, Leesville, Piedmont, and Tappan 

Lakes (fig. 13). Although the U.S. Geological Survey also collects stage data for lakes and reservoirs, there are only seven 

such sites in Ohio, and none of these are within the Tuscarawas River Basin.

Floods

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services provides summaries of streamflow data (obtained in cooperation with the 

U.S. Geological Survey), precipitation data, and predictions 

of flood stages in rivers (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2008). The Web site displays the predicted magnitude and uncertainty of occurrence of floods or 

droughts. For stream reaches where no gage data are available, 

Koltun (2003) and Koltun and others (2006) provide multiple 

regression equations that can be used to estimate flood peak 

discharges of rural unregulated streams. Koltun and Sherwood 

(1998) developed a method to evaluate the joint probability 

of flooding between/on/ two streams (for example, a tributary 

and receiving stream) or stream segments and included Sandy 

Creek, Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, Nimishillen Creek, 

and Home Creek in their analyses.

Dams

Large amounts of data are collected on and adjacent 

to dams throughout the basin. The eight dams operated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are the largest dams in 

the basin (fig. 13). In Ohio, dams are classified by size and 

whether or not failure may result in loss of human life (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2008a). For example, Class 

I dams have a total storage volume greater than 5,000 acrefeet or a height greater than 60 feet. Sudden failure of a Class 

I dam probably would result in loss of human life and (or) 

structural collapse of at least one residence or one commercial 

or industrial business. In the Tuscarawas River Basin, there 

are more than 2,700 dams, 187 of which are Class I dams. The 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water 

Dam Safety, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are the 

two primary entities in Ohio responsible for dam inspections, 

maintenance, and repair.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Muskingum River 

Basin Systems Operation Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006a) identified several problems related to the dams 

and reservoirs in the Muskingum River Basin, including “...

aging infrastructure (hydrologic deficiency, seepage and foundation problems, outlet tunnel deterioration, gate deterioration, 

spillway erosion, relief wells, and related facilities), reservoirs/

lakes (reservoir operations, sedimentation and flood storage 

loss, lake quality, and conflicts among project purposes), and 

watershed problems (ecosystem degradation, acid mine drainage, residual flood damages, flood plain development, water 

and sewer infrastructure needs).”

Groundwater

Groundwater data-collection sites include observation wells, domestic wells, and production wells. The first 

groundwater-level network in Ohio was started for the Ohio 

Water Supply Board in the early 1940s (Harker, 1943b); however, earlier water-level data from non-routine measurements 

also are available, including data from the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, which began recording water levels 

in 1938.

Water Levels

As of 2009, water levels were recorded on a regular 

basis throughout the State by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Geological Survey. Hourly water-level data are reported 

on http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/waterobs/obs_well_map.

asp, and the U.S. Geological Survey reports most of the 

same data on http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/gw. Within 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, 27 wells were instrumented to 

record daily maximum depths to water (fig. 14). These data 

were recorded with data loggers and were downloaded and 

transferred to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and 

the U.S. Geological Survey databases on an annual basis. 

Two additional sites outside of the basin (PO-124 in Portage 

County and WN-8 in Wayne County) provided real-time data 

transmitted through satellite telemetry (http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/oh/nwis/current/?type=gw). In addition to water levels, 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

# # # #

# #

#

# # #

#

# # # #

#

## #

#

# # #

# # #

# # #

# #

# #

# #

# #

#

# #

# # #

# # # #

# # #

# #

# # ## # #

# #

### # # ## #

# # # # # # # ##

# # # # # ##

MAHONING

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON HARRISON

GUERNSEY

MEDINA

BELMONT

SUMMIT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

04206220 03092090

04206208 03097500

04203000 03092460

04206043 03092000

04203900 04206000 03096500 03115969 03091500

03115973

04205700 04204000

04204500

04205500

03090500

03089000

03089500 03088500 03088000 03116077 03087500 03116200

03116000 0308700003086500

03116500 03118000

03138800

03117000

03118500

03117500 03123000

03124000 03119000

03121800 03121850 03124500

03122500 03121500

03139000

03125000 03120500

03139500

03139935 03139940 03128690

03127500

03140000 03128500 03127970 03138500

03110983

03127000 03129000 03140500

03144289

03126000

03144270 03142500 03142240 03143500

03144500

0314229003142295

03111548

03142000

03141870 03113950

410433081312500

410014081362600410121081330300

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 13.

EXPLANATION

Basin boundary

Akron

Medina

Wadsworth

Wooster

North

Canton

Massillon Canton

Alliance

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Millersburg Dover

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Newcomerstown

Barberton

#

ATWOOD

#

BOLIVAR

#

LEESVILLE

#

DOVER

#

#PIEDMONT

CLENDENING

#

TAPPAN

# BEACH CITY

#

#

#

Active gage

Inactive gage

Reservoir stage

U.S. Geological Survey sites

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sites

 Locations of surface-water data-collection sites in and around the

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

Surface water

Flood-control dam

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

MUSKINGUM

JEFFERSON

County boundary

!. City

# 03124800

03124800 Identifier

Hydrologic Data Networks 33

Figure 13. Locations of surface-water data-collection sites in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 
STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

MEDINA

BELMONT

GUERNSEY

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON

HARRISON

SUMMIT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

Akron

Medina

Wadsworth

Wooster

North

Canton

Canton

Massillon

Alliance

Carrollton

New 

Philadelphia

Dover

Millersburg

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Cuyahoga

Falls

U.S. Geological Survey well site

Basin boundary

Barberton

Newcomerstown

Observation Well Network

Location with well log on file

Figure 14. Locations of groundwater data-collection sites in and around the

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources sites

Surface water

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Data outside

of 13-county

study area

Real-time well

PO-124

(just north of

map boundary)

Real-time well

WN-8

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS City

County boundary

!

! !

!

!

!

EXPLANATION

82° 81°

41°

40°

34 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 14. Locations of groundwater data-collection sites in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
Hydrologic Data Networks 35

both the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Geological Survey Web sites provide well characteristics (including well depth, aquifer, casing diameter, screen interval) and 

long-term hydrographs of water levels. 

Driller’s Well Logs

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of 

Water maintains a database of driller’s well logs that were 

completed at the time of well installation (http://www.dnr.

state.oh.us/water/maptechs/wellogs/appNew/Default.aspx). 

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 1521.05 (A) requires 

that these logs be submitted at the completion of every well 

drilled in the State. The logs contain well-construction data, 

aquifer characteristics including depth, thickness, and specific 

capacity (a measure of water-level drawdown in response to 

withdrawals), and static water levels obtained at the time of 

drilling. As of 2009, this database contained approximately 

781,600 well logs (W. Jones, Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, written commun., 2009). The well-log database 

is extremely valuable to those interested in locating wells by 

address or latitude and longitude and for obtaining information 

regarding installation of a new well or aquifer characteristics 

in nearby areas. The density of these data points in the Tuscarawas River Basin shown in figure 14 reveals the regional 

wide-spread use of this source of water.

Water-Level Map Generated as Part of this Study

To evaluate groundwater-flow directions and the existing wells in the basin using drillers’ well logs on file with the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Division of Water generated contours 

of water levels in the basin. The contour lines were drawn by 

synthesizing water levels from several thousand drillers’ well 

logs for bedrock and sand and gravel aquifers throughout the 

basin; the logs were created over a 30-year period (the locations of many of these wells are shown in figure 14 as small 

gray dots). The process employed to create these contours follows: First, the elevations of the water levels in the well logs 

were plotted on 1:24,000 scale, 7.5-minute topographic maps. 

These data were contoured to create the water-level map. The 

water-level contours were then refined in the consideration of 

the topographic contours and locations and elevations of the 

surface-water bodies. The contours were then digitized into a 

GIS, coded with appropriate contour values, and aligned with 

contours on adjoining 7.5 minute maps.

As presented in plate 1, the water-level map incorporates 

water-level data from many different aquifers and from wells 

of varied construction. Therefore, no inferences can be made 

concerning water levels in specific aquifers or whether flow 

occurs between aquifers. Plate 1 is drawn at an approximate 

scale of 1:195,000 so that the entire basin can be shown on 

one plate. At this scale, the overall configuration of the waterlevel surface likely has not changed substantially during the 

past 20 or 30 years; thus, the actual date of water-level measurement was not considered to affect the resulting contours. 

A relatively large contour interval of 50 ft was used in the 

original contouring; however, the final map on plate 1 uses 

contour intervals ranging from 100 to 150 ft to permit plotting 

of the water-level surface within the entire basin.

Although it is generalized, the water-level map shows 

several important characteristics of groundwater levels within 

the basin.

1. Groundwater flow is generally from the upland 

bedrock areas down into the sand- and gravel-filled 

valleys. (General flow directions can be inferred by 

drawing flow lines perpendicular to contours anywhere on the map.)

2. The water-level surface mimics topography and generally follows surface-water flow directions. As noted 

above, topographic contours were used to refine (but 

not define) the contouring of the water-level elevations, so this characteristic may be an artifact of the 

manner in which the contours were drawn in some 

areas.

3. Several areas (shaded in gray) indicate where 

data were too sparse to develop a water-level surface. These may be areas in which to focus future 

data collection.

Water Quality

Water-quality data are available for streams, reservoirs, 

lakes, springs, and wells within the Tuscarawas River Basin. 

The primary public agencies that collect these data are the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers are the only agencies that collect samples within the 

basin at regular intervals. 

Surface Water

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency operates 

a 5-year rotating schedule for collection of biological and 

water-quality data for streams (fig. 15) and is further described 

on http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.html. 

Each year, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency obtains 

surface-water data from 300 to 400 sampling sites in 10 to 

15 watersheds. Aquatic biological, chemical, and physical 

monitoring and assessment techniques are used in surveys to 

produce an Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), an Index of 

Biotic Integrity (IBI), a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index 

(QHEI), and a modified Index of Well-Being (IWB), where 

applicable. The mainstem of the Tuscarawas River and almost 

all of its major tributaries have been sampled by the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency at one time or another. In 

2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency released a 

graphical summary of these surveys of water quality (Ohio 
!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

#

# ## #

#

##

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

#

## #

#

##

#

# !

# ## ! ! ! # ! #

! !

# # # !

# ! # # # # # # # ! ! # # ###

# # # ## ! ! # ## # #

! # # # #

! # #

# ! # ! # ## # # # # ! ! # #

#

# #### ##

##

# ## # # # ! ! # # ! ! ! # # # !

# ## #

## # # !! ## ## # # # # ! ! # !!

# ### !

##

# #

!

#

## #

## ######### # # # !! !

# # #

# # ! # # ## # ! ! ! # #

#

# # # # #

! ! # # ! ! # # # !

!

# ! ! ! !

# !! !

# # ! # !

# ! ## ! ## # ## # # # !

# ! # # !!! ! # # #

# !

# # # #

# ! # # !

# # # # #

# # ## # !

# # # # ! # # #

# # # # # ## #

!

## # # #

# ! ! # ## #

!!# # ## !

#!! !!!

!

# # ## ## # ##

# # !

# #

## ###### # # ! ! # #

# # # ! # ! !

# # !

# ##

! # !

# # # # # # #!

# # #

# # #

!

# !

!

#

! # !!!!! !

# ! # ! # ! #!! ! # ! ## # ! #

!

# # # ! #

# # # #

#

# #

# #

# # ### #

# # # # ! !

#

!# ! # ! #

!

## ! ! # # ! # ! ! # ! # ! ! # # #! ! # # #! ! # # # # ! #

# # # ! !

#

# # ! #

! #

! #!

# # # ! # !

# # # # ! ##

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#

#

STARK

WAYNE

HOLMES

CARROLL

TUSCARAWAS

COSHOCTON HARRISON

MEDINA

GUERNSEY

BELMONT

SUMMIT

PORTAGE

COLUMBIANA

82° 81°

41°

40°

Figure 15.

Base from Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999; 

scale 1:24,000; North American Datum, 1983.

Akron

Medina

Wadsworth

Wooster

North 

Canton

Massillon Canton

Alliance

Carrollton

New Philadelphia

Dover

Millersburg

Coshocton

Cambridge

Cadiz

Cuyahoga

Falls

EXPLANATION

Basin boundary

Barberton

Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency groundwater sites

MD-26

TUSCARAWAS RIVER

@ MASSILLON

ST-27A

TU-185

TU-184 TU-113

B-3

TUSCARAWAS RIVER HR-44

@ NEWCOMERSTOWN

U.S. Geological Survey sites

Sites sampled as part of this study

with identifier

!

#

!

#

Active sampling site

Inactive sampling site

!

!

Surface-water site

Groundwater site

Surface-water site

Groundwater site

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Newcomerstown

#ATWOOD LAKE

#

LEESVILLE LAKE

#

TAPPAN LAKE

#CLENDENING LAKE

#

PEIDMONT LAKE

#

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sites

Reservoir water-quality monitor

Surface water

 Locations of water-quality data-collection sites in and around the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Sites may overlap.)

Tuscarawas River

@ Navarre

Huff Run 

@ Mineral City

MAHONING

JEFFERSON

MUSKINGUM

County boundary

!. City

36 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Figure 15. Locations of water-quality data-collection sites in and around the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

(Sites may overlap.)
Hydrologic Data Networks 37

Environmental Protection Agency, 2007), which shows that 

many headwater streams across the basin have low scores and 

fail their aquatic-life use goal. In 2008, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency stated that 86 percent of the mainstem 

of the Tuscarawas River from Chippewa Creek to the mouth 

in Coshocton was in full attainment, and the remaining 14 percent was in partial attainment, of aquatic life use goals (Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington (West 

Virginia) District collects data on basic water-quality indicators for selected lakes and reservoirs (http://www.lrh-wc.usace.

army.mil/wq/lkcond.html). As of 2009, water-quality monitors 

were operating at Atwood, Leesville, Tappan, Clendening, 

and Piedmont Lakes and measuring temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, pH, and conductivity on an hourly basis. These data 

are presented on the Web site.

Two water-quality monitors have been operated by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (in cooperation with the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources) within the Tuscarawas 

River Basin. From 1968 to 1991, a water-quality monitor was 

maintained at the Tuscarawas River at Navarre (U.S. Geological Survey site number 03117100); dissolved oxygen, pH, 

temperature, and specific conductance were monitored on an 

hourly basis and reported at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

nwisman/?site_no=03117100&agency_cd=USGS. From 1999 

to 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey maintained a waterquality monitor at Huff Run at Mineral City (U.S. Geological Survey site number 03121850); temperature and specific 

conductance were monitored on an hourly basis and reported 

at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?03121850. In early 2009, 

this site was re-established and represents the only operational 

water-quality monitor on a stream in the basin (fig. 15).

The U.S. Geological Survey and several other organizations, including watershed groups listed in table 6, periodically 

collect grab samples at sites in the basin. Among academic 

institutions, only the National Center for Water Quality 

Research at Heidelberg College collects water-quality data on 

a regular basis that are widely distributed and readily available (see http://www.heidelberg.edu/wql). The nearest site is 

outside the basin on the Muskingum River at McConnelsville, 

about 60 mi downstream from the confluence of the Tuscarawas and Walhonding Rivers.

Groundwater

Sites where groundwater-quality information was 

obtained by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency as 

part of their Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network 

included 41 production wells in the counties that encompass 

the Tuscarawas River Basin (Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2006a). Nineteen of these sites were active in 2009. 

Untreated (raw) water was analyzed for major elements, trace 

elements, nutrients, and about 60 VOCs every 6 or 18 months. 

Samples from some sites also were analyzed for semi-volatile 

organic compounds and pesticides. These data are available 

on the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/ambient.html).

Sampling Done as Part of this Study

As part of the current study, water samples from seven 

wells and two surface-water sites (table 7; fig. 15) were analyzed for a wide variety of constituents and several age-dating 

compounds to document water quality within representative 

land-use areas of the basin. The overall goals of the sampling 

were first to examine the range of concentrations that could 

be observed in a variety of land use settings where water may 

or may not be used for water supply, and second to examine 

the effectiveness of age-dating compounds—compounds 

that define the elapsed time since water entered the groundwater system—in understanding the age of water in shallow 

groundwater systems in the basin. With the attainment of these 

two goals, decisionmakers will have the information needed 

to evaluate the susceptibility and sustainability of the water 

resources of the basin in the future.

All water samples were collected during July and August 

of 2006 using standardized sampling techniques described in 

U.S. Geological Survey (1997–present) and Francy and others 

(1998). A detailed quality-assurance/quality-control plan was 

developed specifically for this sampling effort and includes 

details on sampling procedures, sample handling, and all 

water-quality analyses (the plan is available by request from 

the authors or contact listed in the front of this publication). 

Each site was sampled once, and one blank sample was collected in the field for quality-assurance purposes. Except for 

N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (an insecticide used as a mosquito repellent commonly known as DEET), all other constituents analyzed in the blank water sample were below detection 

limits (this and other DEET detections are further described 

below). Water-quality data collected as part of this effort are 

presented in appendix 2 and are summarized in several tables 

in subsequent sections.

The seven wells were chosen by examining dominant 

land use(s) within a 1-mi radius of the well and with regard to 

the primary aquifer(s) tapped by the wells and the hydrologic 

setting within the basin (table 7). For this study, dominant land 

uses were defined as those that accounted for more than 30 

percent of the total land-use area, as adapted from protocols 

established by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Assessment Central Processing Group land-use landcover mapping efforts (http://water.wr.usgs.gov/cpg/). Drillers’ well logs provided by the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources show that these wells are screened in unconfined, 

semi-confined, or fully confined aquifers or are open to 

sandstone bedrock or unconsolidated sands and gravels in 

both upland (recharge) and lowland (discharge) hydrogeologic 

settings. The wells ranged in depth from 66 ft to 230 ft below 

land surface. In wells where water-level measurements could 

be made, all water levels were within 60 ft of the land surface 

(table 7; appendix 2). Of the two surface-water sites, one is 

located near the headwaters (Tuscarawas River at Massillon, 
38 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography Table 7. Description of groundwater and surface-water sites sampled in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, July and August, 2006. [ft, feet; Obs, observation; PS, public supply; na, not applicable; Penn, Pennsylvanian-age; Miss, Mississippian-age; Pleis, Pleistocene-age; Ag, agricultural; For, forest; Ind, industrial; Min, mining; Res; resi- dential; TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon; TR@NCT, Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown; NAVD 83, North American Vertical Datum of 1983] Depth to screened or open hole interval (ft below land surface) Local well number or site name1 Well depth (ft below land surface) Well use Top Bottom Length of screen or open interval (ft) Primary aquifer Aquifer type2 Land-surface elevation (ft above NAVD 83) Surface-water site drainage area (mi2

)

Dominant 

land use 

in 20063

General hydrologic 

setting within basin 

Groundwater sites

B-3 119 Obs 79 119 40 Penn sandstone and 

shale

Semiconfined 1,265 na Ag/For Upland recharge.

HR-44 110 Obs 105 110 5 Penn sandstone Unconfined 880 na For Lowland discharge.MD-26 230 PS 78 230 152 Miss sandstone Semiconfined4 1,160 na Res Upland recharge.ST-27A 93 PS 83 93 10 Pleis sand and gravel Confined 1,060 na Ind Upland recharge.TU-113 68 Obs 56 66 10 Penn sandstone Confined 1,076 na Min/For Upland recharge.TU-184 105 PS 65 105 40 Pleis sand and gravel Unconfined 880 na Res Lowland discharge.TU-185 100 PS 71 100 29 Pleis sand and gravel Semiconfined 940 na Ag/For Lowland discharge.

Surface-water sites

TR@MA na na na na na na na na 518 Ag/For Upland headwater.TR@NCT na na na na na na na na 2,443 For/Ag Lowland mainstem.

1 Complete 15-digit identifiers are available upon request.2 Aquifer type is based on the relation of the water level to the top of the primary aquifer. If the water level was more than 10 ft above the top of the primary aquifer, it was listed as confined. If the water level 

was within 10 ft of the top of the primary aquifer, it was listed as semiconfined. If the water level was more than 10 ft below the top of the aquifer, it was listed as unconfined.

3 Dominant land use(s) are those that accounted for 30 percent or more of the total land-use area within a buffer area surrounding groundwater sites or within the drainage area upstream from the surfacewater sites in 2006 (table 8). Land uses are listed in order of decreasing percentages.4The water level in well MD-26 was not measured during the sampling event in 2006; therefore, a water level of 85 ft below land surface obtained during drilling was used to assign an aquifer type 

of semiconfined.
Hydrologic Data Networks 39

denoted as TR@MA in subsequent tables and figures) and one 

is close to the mouth of the watershed (Tuscarawas River at 

Newcomerstown, denoted as TR@NCT).

Land use surrounding sampling sites was determined 

differently for groundwater sites and surface-water sites. Land 

use near groundwater sites was defined within a 1-mi circular 

buffer area surrounding each well and was examined for land 

uses in 1992 and during water sampling in 2006. Land use 

in 1992 was calculated for the 1-mile buffer areas using the 

National Land Cover Dataset (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2008). Land use during water sampling 

in 2006 was characterized by U.S. Geological Survey staff 

in the field, transcribed to hard-copy aerial photographs, then 

digitized and coded with land-use definitions. The percentages 

of each land use within the buffered areas were then calculated on the basis of these digitized polygons. Compilation of 

data on land use surrounding surface-water sites followed the 

methods described by Adolphson and others (2002), which 

include land-use characterization of the entire upstream drainage area. The drainage basin for each surface-water site was 

delineated using the U.S. Geological Survey product known as 

Ohio StreamStats (Koltun and others, 2006) that is based on 

the National Hydrography Dataset and a 10-m digital elevation model. 

The results of the land-use calculations for buffer areas 

surrounding wells and the drainage areas for stream sites are 

given in tables 8 and 9. These results indicate that, over the 

14-year period between 1992 and 2006, land uses surrounding the wells and within the surface-water site drainage basins 

were dominated by agricultural and forested land uses. Similar 

to the overall land-use distributions in the basin, the dominant 

land uses remain agricultural and forested, but increases in 

residential and industrial land uses within these areas also 

were noted.

Field Parameters, Major and Trace Elements, 

and Nutrients

During sampling, oxidation-reduction potential, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, air and water 

temperature, alkalinity (along with bicarbonate and carbonate), 

acidity, sulfide, ferrous iron (Fe2+), and total iron and were 

measured in the field at all sites (appendix 2). Values of most 

of these characteristics were similar to those expected in water 

samples from eastern Ohio and those reported in other waterquality reports cited above. For example, specific conductance, 

which is a general indicator of dissolved constituents, ranged 

from 381 to 2,680 mS/cm. Several samples had residue on 

evaporation concentrations (synonymous with total dissolved 

solids) greater than 500 mg/L, including samples from groundwater sites TU-184, ST-27A, TU-113 and both samples from 

the Tuscarawas River. The highest specific conductance and 

residue on evaporation was measured in a groundwater sample 

from well TU-113, which is located adjacent to a reclaimed 

coal mine. The water from TU-113 also had the lowest pH 

of 5.5. These and many other water-quality characteristics 

described later in this section are characteristic of acid mine 

drainage in eastern Ohio. The two surface-water samples and 

groundwater collected from well ST-27A also had relatively 

Table 8. Land use surrounding sampling sites in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

[Shaded values highlight land uses that account for 30 percent or greater of the land within a 1-mile radius (for groundwater sites) or upstream drainage areas 

(surface-water sites); TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon; TR@NCT, Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown]

Land use (percent)

Site

Agriculture Forest Industrial Mining Residential

1992 2006 1992 2006 1992 2006 1992 2006 1992 2006

Groundwater sites

B-3 61.9 38.1 33.0 33.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 28.6

HR-44 23.6 26.3 76.3 57.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 15.8

MD-26 70.6 28.6 25.3 14.3 .1 14.3 .0 .0 3.9 42.9

ST-27A 22.6 .0 21.9 15.0 43.7 85.0 .0 .0 11.7 .0

TU-113 49.8 .0 46.9 45.0 .0 .0 2.3 55.0 .9 .0

TU-184 30.6 4.8 4.5 19.0 6.6 23.8 .0 .0 58.3 52.4

TU-185 45.0 45.0 28.2 30.0 .2 .0 .0 .0 26.6 25.0

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 55.8 40.3 34.6 37.7 2.5 .6 .3 .0 6.8 21.4

TR@NCT 52.0 38.6 42.9 46.7 1.4 .3 .4 .0 3.3 14.3
40 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

elevated specific conductance. Well ST-27A is located in an 

industrial and residential area west of North Canton.

Major- and trace-element chemistry in groundwater 

was typical that in of other samples collected in the basin, 

as reported by Sedam and Francy (1993), and similar to the 

values in the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s Ambient Ground Water Network (Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2006a). In general, water chemistry was characterized 

by calcium-bicarbonate type waters as shown on the Piper 

diagram in figure 16. The sample from well HR-44 (surrounded by forested land use) had the lowest concentrations of 

many dissolved constituents and the highest concentration of 

dissolved oxygen of any of the groundwater samples, although 

dissolved oxygen concentration was still only 1.4 mg/L. Well 

TU-113 (adjacent to a reclaimed coal mine) had the highest 

concentrations of hardness, calcium, magnesium, potassium, 

sulfate, iron, manganese, nickel, and strontium and is classified as calcium-sulfate-bicarbonate type water (note how this 

sample plots in a different part of the Piper diagram on figure 

16). Well B-3 had the highest concentrations of sodium and 

the lowest concentrations of hardness, indicating that this 

water sample had been affected by water softening.

As described previously, the northern reaches of the 

Tuscarawas River experienced contamination from chloride 

derived from salt mining near Barberton. Groundwater from 

well ST-27A (in the northern part of the basin, west of North 

Canton) had a chloride concentration 175 mg/L, and surfacewater samples analyzed as part of this study had chloride concentrations of 206 mg/L and 119 mg/L at the Tuscarawas River 

at Massillon and Newcomerstown, respectively (appendix 2). 

These three sites have chloride concentrations one to two 

orders of magnitude greater than the remaining six groundwater sites. A more detailed analysis of water-quality constituents 

would be necessary to confirm that salt mining was indeed the 

source of this elevated chloride concentration.

Concentrations of nutrients (including forms of nitrogen 

as nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia, and phosphorus as orthophosphate) were less than 2 mg/L at all sites and were generally 

greater in surface-water samples than in groundwater samples 

(except for ammonia). Concentrations of nitrite plus nitrate 

were greater than 1.0 mg/L in both surface-water samples. 

Nutrients are derived from fertilizers and human and animal 

wastes, and elevated concentrations are typically associated with wastewater or waters near agricultural facilities. 

Groundwater from well TU-185 (with a 1-mile buffer area 

dominated by agricultural land use) had the highest nitrate 

concentration of 1.8 mg/L, whereas well ST-27A (dominated 

by industrial land use) had the highest ammonia concentration 

of 0.73 mg/L. Ammonia also can be derived from wastewater 

discharges that include septic systems and industrial effluents.

Table 9. Land-use changes between 1992 and 2006 for sampling sites in the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

[Ag, agricultural; For, forest; Ind, industrial; Min, mining; Res; residential; TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon; TR@NCT, Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown]

Dominant land use1

Land-use changes of more than 

10 percent between 1992 and 2006 Site 1992 2006

Groundwater sites

B-3 Ag/For Ag/For Loss in Ag; gain in Res.

HR-44 For For Loss in For; gain in Res.

MD-26 Ag Res Loss in Ag/For; gain in Res/Ind.

ST-27A Ind Ind Loss in Ag/Res; gain in Ind.

TU-113 Ag/For Min/For Loss in Ag; gain in Min.

TU-184 Res/Ag Res Loss in Ag; gain in Ind/For.

TU-185 Ag Ag/For No change.

Surface-water sites

TR@MA Ag/For Ag/For Loss in Ag; gain in Res.

TR@NCT Ag/For For/Ag Loss in Ag; gain in Res.

1

 Dominant land use(s) were defined as those that were 30 percent or more of the total 

land-use area within a buffer area surrounding groundwater sites or within the drainage area 

upstream from surface-water sites in 2006 (table 8). Land uses are listed in order of decreasing 

percentages.
Percent

Calcium

100

80

60

40

20

0

 0 

 20 

 40 

 60 

 80 

 100 

Magnesium

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sodium

plus Potassium

Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrite plus Nitrate

0

20

40

60

80

100

100

80

60

40

20

0

Carbonate plus

Bicarbonate

 100 

 80 

 60 

 40 

 20 

 0 

Sulfate

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sulfate plus

Chloride

0

20

40

60

80

100

Calcium

plus Magnesium

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent

Percent

B-3 

TU-185 

HR-44 

MD-26 TR@MA 

TR@NCT 

ST-27A 

TU-113 

TU-184 

Figure 16. Piper diagram of water quality in samples collected in the Tuscarawas 

River Basin, Ohio, 2006. (TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon; TR@NCT, 

Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown) 

EXPLANATION 

Approximate distribution of samples reported in 

Sedam and Francy (1993) and Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (2006a) 

Groundwater site with site identifier 

Surface-water site with site identifier TR@MA 

TU-113 

Hydrologic Data Networks 41

Figure 16. Piper diagram of water quality in samples collected in the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Ohio, 2006. (TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon; TR@NCT, Tuscarawas River 

at Newcomerstown)
42 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Pesticides

Analysis of 63 pesticides in groundwater and surface water revealed that 13 different pesticides or pesticide 

degradates were detected in surface-water samples (tables 

10 and 11). Groundwater samples did not contain any detectable concentrations of these compounds. As noted by Gilliom 

and others (2006), this is not an uncommon result because 

streams are more vulnerable to pesticide contamination than 

groundwater in most hydrologic settings. Of the 13 pesticides 

detected, 3, 4-dichloroaniline, acetochlor, atrazine, metolachlor, prometon, simazine, and terbuthylazine were detected 

at concentrations greater than the reporting levels (reporting 

levels are described in Childress and others (1999), Bonn 

(2008), and U.S. Geological Survey (2008b) and are defined in 

appendix 3). All of these compounds are herbicides designed 

to deter growth of grasses and other unwanted weeds in corn 

and soybean fields. Other pesticides, including 2-chloro-4-

isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine (CIAT; a degradate of the 

herbicide atrazine), carbaryl (an insecticide also known by the 

trade name Sevin), chlorpyrifos (an insecticide also known by 

the trade names Dursban and Lorsban), fipronil (an insecticide 

used in products such as Frontline, Regent, and Termidor), and 

two fipronil degradates (desulfinyl fipronil and fipronil sulfide) 

were detected at estimated concentrations at or near the reporting levels. 

Bacteria

Water samples were analyzed for the presence of bacteria to determine whether groundwater and surface water had 

evidence of contributions from human and animal wastes. 

Total coliforms include several organisms that are found in 

the human intestine, soils, vegetation, and industrial wastes 

(Francy and others, 2000). When present, they indicate a possibility, but not a certainty, that disease-causing organisms also 

may be present in the water. These data can be used as a rough 

measure of source-water quality and as a screen for fecal 

contamination. E. coli is a member of the total coliform group 

and its presence is direct evidence of fecal contamination 

from warm-blooded animals. Total coliform (bacteria) were 

detected or estimated in water from four wells, B-3, HR-44, 

TU-113, and TU-185, and from both surface-water sites. Well 

B-3 had an estimated 5 colonies per 100 mL of E. coli, and 

both of the surface-water sites had concentrations greater than 

the detection limit (1 colony per 100 mL of water sample), 

indicating contamination by urban wastewater discharges 

(described in more detail below).

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs include solvents and other compounds typically 

associated with urban land uses, septic systems, hazardouswaste disposal sites, and gasoline storage and release sites 

(Zogorski and others, 2006). Of the 61 compounds analyzed in 

the current study, three were present at concentrations greater 

than the minimum reporting level, and one additional VOC 

was estimated at slightly less than the minimum reporting 

level, (table 12) in the surface-water sample from the Tuscarawas River at Massillon. The other surface-water sample and 

none of the groundwater samples contained detectable concentrations of VOCs. The three compounds were cis-1, 2-dichloroethylene (a solvent), trichlorofluoromethane (also known as 

CFC-11, used as a refrigerant and in spray-can propellants), 

and trichloromethane (commonly called chloroform, which is 

produced during the chlorination of drinking and wastewater). 

Chloroform is one of the most frequently reported VOCs in 

groundwaters and surface waters in the United States (Ivahnenko and Barbash, 2004; Zogorski and others, 2006). The 

concentration of another CFC compound (dichlorodifluoromethane, CFC-12) was estimated to be less than the minimum 

reporting level. Although VOCs have been documented in 

water adjacent to many urban areas throughout the basin (see, 

for example Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1994c, 

1998b, 2003, 2006a), no other VOCs were detected in groundwaters or surface waters at or above the minimum reporting 

levels listed in table 12.

Wastewater Compounds

Wastewater compounds include organic compounds 

typically found in urban wastewater discharges, such as 

fragrances, solvents, insect repellents, detergents, disinfectants, plasticizers, and flame retardants. Overall, 10 different 

compounds were detected in five groundwater samples (tables 

13 and 14). Surface-water samples did not contain concentrations above the reporting levels of any wastewater compounds. 

A sample from well B-3 in Belmont County had estimated 

concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate, and N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) 

that were less than their respective reporting levels (tables 13 

and 14). Several of these compounds, including 2-methylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, anthracene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, 

are indicative of creosote, coal tar, or asphalt contamination; 

however, this same sample did not have concentrations of 

petroleum hydrocarbons greater than the minimum reporting 

level. N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) was present in 

four of the samples but also was present at an estimated concentration of 0.0063 mg/L in a quality-assurance field blank, 

indicating that contamination of the sample may have occurred 

during sampling (0.0063 mg/L is well below the N,N-diethylmeta-toluamide reporting limit of 0.5 mg/L). Wilde and others 

(2004) and Reich and others (2006) established that even the 

smallest use of this insect repellent by persons visiting or 

servicing a well (including sample-collection crews) can cause 

contamination of water samples. Even though the reported 

DEET concentrations were more than three times greater than 

those detected in the blank sample, the analytical results were 

still at estimated concentrations below the reporting levels. 

Samples with concentrations at least three times greater than 

the blank include water from well B-3 and both of the surface-
Hydrologic Data Networks 43

water sites. As noted above, samples obtained at these sites 

likely contained wastewater discharge.

Radionuclides

Concentrations of uranium, radium, and radon in water 

samples were determined to evaluate the potential of contamination of water by radionuclides primarily derived from 

coal. Data on analyses of 365 coal samples, stored in the 

U.S. Geological Survey COALQUAL database (Bragg and 

others, 1998) that were obtained from counties that include 

the Tuscarawas River Basin, include solid-phase uranium 

concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 35 ppm (parts per million; whole coal basis) with an average of 2.2 ppm. Moreover, 

concentrations of radioactive elements in ash from coal-fired 

incinerators can be approximately 10 times the concentration 

in the original coal (Zielinski and Finkelman, 1997). Concentrations of dissolved uranium in water samples obtained 

during this study were less than 1 mg/L with the greatest 

concentrations of 0.86 and 0.80 mg/L (+ 0.04 mg/L) in surfacewater samples. Concentrations in groundwater samples ranged 

from 0 to 0.42 mg/L (concentrations of 0 mg/L are possible 

for uranium analyses because the detection method is based 

on counts of uranium decay (McCurdy and others, 2008)). 

Radium, a highly radioactive decay product of uranium, was 

analyzed as a combination of all radium isotopes and reported 

as alpha-emitting radium isotopes in appendix 2. Analytical 

results indicated that concentrations in all samples were less 

than 2 pCi/L, with the greatest concentration in groundwater 

samples from TU-113 (1.9 pCi/L), ST-27A (0.87 pCi/L), and 

MD-26 (0.56 pCi/L). Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the decay of radium. Radon emitted by 

soil, sediment, and rocks beneath homes is the primary source 

of radon in indoor air (Harrell and others, 1993). Radon was 

present in all groundwater samples at concentrations greater 

than the sample-specific minimum detectable concentrations 

and ranged from 30 pCi/L in well TU-113 to 1,930 pCi/L in 

well HR-44. (Sample-specific minimum detectable concentrations may be different for each sample because of unexpected 

chemical and instrumental interferences and small sample 

sizes (McCurdy and others, 2008).)

Water-Quality Results in Relation to Drinking-Water 

Standards

There were no exceedances of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Primary Drinking Water Standards for groundwater or surface-water samples collected as part of this study; 

however, Secondary Drinking Water Standards for pH, iron, 

manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (ROE) were 

exceeded in several samples (table 15; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2008a). For water purveyors in the Tuscarawas River Basin, the primary water-quality problems from 

major and trace elements are related to elevated concentrations 

of iron and manganese (Walker, 1959; Winslow and White, 

1966; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a; Beck 

and others, undated b; Golden and others, undated a; Hogan 

and others, undated b; and Zoller and others, undated a). 

Samples from five of seven groundwater sites had dissolved 

manganese concentrations greater than the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (50 mg/L), and three of seven had 

dissolved iron concentrations in excess of the Secondary 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (300 mg/L). 

Currently (2009), no Maximum Contaminant Level has 

been established for radon in drinking water; however, a proposed Maximum Contaminant Level of 300 pCi/L for radon is 

under review (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). 

Water from three wells (HR-44, TU-185, and B-3) contained 

radon concentrations greater than the proposed Maximum 

Contaminant Level.

Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotopes

Water samples were analyzed for the isotopes of hydrogen (2

H/1H, referred to as dD) and oxygen (18O/16O referred to 

as d18O) and are reported in per mil (ratios of the isotopes relative to established standards). These ratios are useful in examining the recharge history of groundwater because hydrogen 

and oxygen are part of the water molecule and generally are 

not affected by processes that may affect dissolved constituents (Kendall and McDonnell, 1998). Samples collected in the 

Tuscarawas River basin were plotted with respect to the meteoric water line in figure 17: this line describes the generalized 

relations among the isotopes in rainwater samples throughout 

the world, as described by Craig (1961). If samples lie along 

this line, they are assumed to have originated from rainfall 

or snow from within the atmosphere and were not affected 

by other isotope fractionation processes. Comparison of the 

composition of groundwater and surface-water samples with 

the meteoric water line provides a unique record of the source 

(such as groundwater inflow or surface water) and evaporative 

history of the sample. The seven groundwater samples plot 

above the meteoric water line, whereas the two surface-water 

samples lie on or below the line (fig. 17). Samples collected 

from the Tuscarawas River had dD and d18O values that were 

relatively enriched (greater) compared to groundwater samples. The greater values in surface water are indicative of summer precipitation and the effects of evaporation, whereas the 

groundwater samples reflect a mixture of recharge with most 

water derived during Ohio’s long recharge periods that occur 

during winter and spring. The most depleted sample (MD-26) 

also had the lowest recharge temperature (described in more 

detail below) of 8 deg C, consistent with winter precipitation.

Age-Dating Tracers

To further investigate the characteristics of groundwater 

recharge, the concentrations of age-dating tracers, including chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethyl 

sulfurpentafluoride, and tritium were determined in groundwater samples (appendix 2). Although some of these compounds 

occur naturally in the atmosphere at extremely small concentrations, human activities have caused their concentrations 

to increase. Detailed analysis of atmospheric samples has 
44 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 10. Pesticides analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; <, less than; IRL, interim reporting level; LRL, laboratory reporting level]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting 

level1

Reportinglevel code1Number of 

detections

Pesticides detected in surface-water samples

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine 

(CIAT; 04040)

< 0.014 LRL 2

3,4-Dichloroaniline (61625) < .0045 IRL 2

Acetochlor (49260) < .006 LRL 2

Atrazine (39632) < .007 LRL 2

Carbaryl (82680) < .041 LRL 1

Chlorpyrifos (38933) < .005 LRL 1

Desulfinyl fipronil (62170) < .012 LRL 1

Fipronil sulfide (62167) < .013 LRL 1

Fipronil (62166) < .016 LRL 1

Metolachlor (39415) < .006 LRL 2

Prometon (04037) < .01 LRL 2

Simazine (04035) < .005 LRL 2

Terbuthylazine (04022) < .0083 LRL 2

Pesticides not detected in any water samples

1-Naphthol (49295) < .0882 IRL 0

2,6-Diethylaniline (82660) < .006 LRL 0

2-Chloro-2,6-diethylacetanilide (61618) < .0065 LRL 0

2-Ethyl-6-methylaniline (61620) < .010 LRL 0

4-Chloro-2-methylphenol (61633) < .0050 LRL 0

Alachlor (46342) < .005 LRL 0

Azinphos-methyl-oxon (61635) < .042 LRL 0

Azinphos-methyl (82686) < .050 LRL 0

Benfluralin (82673) < .01 LRL 0

Chlorpyrifos, oxon (61636) < .0562 IRL 0

cis-Permethrin (82687) < .006 LRL 0

Cyfluthrin (61585) < .053 LRL 0

Cypermethrin (61586) < .046 LRL 0

Dacthal (DCPA; 82682) < .003 LRL 0

Diazinon (39572) < .005 LRL 0

Dicrotophos (38454) < .0843 IRL 0

Dieldrin (39381) < .009 LRL 0

Dimethoate (82662) < .0061 IRL 0

Ethion monoxon (61644) < .021 LRL 0
Hydrologic Data Networks 45

Table 10. Pesticides analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River 

Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; <, less than; IRL, interim reporting level; LRL, laboratory reporting level]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting 

level1

Reportinglevel code1Number of 

detections

Pesticides not detected in any water samples—Continued

Ethion (82346) < .016 LRL 0

Fenamiphos sulfone (61645) < .053 LRL 0

Fenamiphos sulfoxide (61646) < .040 LRL 0

Fenamiphos (61591) < .029 LRL 0

Desulfinylfipronil amide (62169) < .029 LRL 0

Fipronil sulfone (62168) < .024 LRL 0

Fonofos (04095) < .0053 LRL 0

Hexazinone (04025) < .026 LRL 0

Iprodione (61593) < .026 LRL 0

Isofenphos (61594) < .011 LRL 0

Malaoxon (61652) < .039 LRL 0

Malathion (39532) < .027 LRL 0

Metalaxyl (61596) < .0069 IRL 0

Methidathion (61598) < .0087 LRL 0

Methyl paraoxon (61664) < .019 LRL 0

Methyl parathion (82667) < .015 LRL 0

Metribuzin (82630) < .028 LRL 0

Myclobutanil (61599) < .033 LRL 0

Pendimethalin (82683) < .022 LRL 0

Phorate oxon (61666) < .027 LRL 0

Phorate (82664) < .055 LRL 0

Phosmet oxon (61668) < .0511 IRL 0

Phosmet (61601) < .0079 IRL 0

Prometryn (04036) < .0059 LRL 0

Propyzamide (82676) < .004 LRL 0

Tebuthiuron (82670) < .016 LRL 0

Terbufos oxon sulfone (61674) < .045 LRL 0

Terbufos (82675) < .017 LRL 0

Tribufos (61610) < .035 LRL 0

Trifluralin (82661) < .009 LRL 0

Dichlorvos (38775) < .013 LRL 0

1

 Reporting levels and reporting-level codes are described in appendix 3.
46 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 11. Pesticides present in surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.

[All concentrations are in micrograms per liter; <, less than; E, estimated concentration; IRL, interim reporting level; LRL, laboratory reporting 

level]

Constituent

 (USGS parameter code)

Reporting 

level1

Reportinglevel code1Tuscarawas River 

at Massillon

Tuscarawas River 

at Newcomerstown

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine 

(CIAT; 04040)

< 0.014 LRL E 0.013 E 0.013

3,4-Dichloroaniline (61625) < .0045 IRL E .0018 E .015

Acetochlor (49260) < .006 LRL .010 .007

Atrazine (39632) < .007 LRL .043 .053

Carbaryl (82680) < .041 LRL E .0067 < .0410

Chlorpyrifos (38933) < .005 LRL E .0051 < .0050

Desulfinyl fipronil (62170) < .012 LRL E .0120 < .0120

Fipronil sulfide (62167) < .013 LRL E .0065 < .0130

Fipronil (62166) < .016 LRL E .0084 < .0160

Metolachlor (39415) < .006 LRL .01 .122

Prometon (04037) < .01 LRL .03 .03

Simazine (04035) < .005 LRL .023 .019

Terbuthylazine (04022) < .0083 LRL .021 E .0066

1

 Reporting levels and reporting-level codes are described in appendix 3.

provided a well-established record of concentrations in the 

atmosphere. Age-dating groundwater is a process whereby the 

time since water entered the groundwater system is quantified. 

Ages are based on interpretations of concentrations of agedating compounds in groundwater; therefore, ages presented 

in this report are regarded as “apparent ages.” Apparent age 

refers to the duration (number of years) since isolation from 

the atmosphere, whereas recharge date is the date (year) of 

recharge estimated by subtracting the apparent age of the 

sample from the sample-collection date (for this study, the 

sample-collection date was 2006.5). For the interpreted ages, it 

is assumed that the concentration of the tracer was not altered 

by transport processes from the point of entry to the measurement point in the aquifer. Supporting data accompany the 

analyses for the age-dating tracers (appendix 2); however, only 

a summary of the results is presented here. 

Recharge temperatures were determined for individual 

samples using concentrations of dissolved argon and nitrogen gas. Since the amount of gas that can dissolve in water is 

proportional to the water temperature at the time of recharge, 

recharge temperatures can be calculated to an accuracy of 

about 0.5 deg C (Heaton, 1981; Heaton and Vogel, 1981; Heaton and others, 1983; Busenberg and others, 1993; Stute and 

Schlosser, 1999). All recharge temperatures were corrected 

for “excess air” (atmospheric gases trapped in the unsaturated zone that interact with groundwater and may affect gas 

concentrations). Additionally, in oxygen-poor groundwaters, 

denitrification can produce excess nitrogen gas in water samples, providing unrealistically higher recharge temperatures 

than would be expected by equilibrium with the atmosphere 

and excess air alone. Recharge temperatures for samples collected at ST-27A and TU-184 were corrected by subtracting 

2.0 and 0.5 mg/L nitrogen, respectively, to account for denitrification. After corrections were applied as described above, 

the seven groundwater samples from the Tuscarawas River 

Basin collected and analyzed as part of this study yielded 

recharge temperatures ranging from 8.0 to 13.5 deg C, which 

compare well with the average annual atmospheric temperature of 10.1 deg C measured at 18 stations within the basin for 

the period 1970 to 2000 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, including CFC-11, CFC-12, 

and CFC-113) were analyzed at the U.S. Geological Survey 

Chlorofluorocarbon Laboratory (Reston, Va.) using purge and 

trap chromatography with an electron capture detector with 

a minimum detection limit of approximately 1 picogram/L 

(http://water.usgs.gov.lab). This detection limit is several 

orders of magnitude less than the mass-spectrometry detection 

limit for CFCs analyzed as part of the VOC schedule of the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory 

given in table 12. With the lower detection limit, the three different CFCs were detected in all groundwater samples except 
Hydrologic Data Networks 47

for two samples collected at ST-27A and TU-113 that did not 

contain detectable concentrations of CFC-113 (appendix 2). 

Two other samples (HR-44 and TU-184) were determined to 

be contaminated with CFCs from land-surface sources because 

CFC concentrations in the water samples were greater than 

concentrations that have ever been measured in equilibrium 

with the atmosphere. CFC contamination may originate from 

leaking septic tanks, sewer lines, sewage-treatment plants, 

underground storage tanks, and industrial wastes. In contrast, 

in anoxic (oxygen-poor) environments, CFCs may degrade 

due to consumption by anaerobic bacteria. Cook and Solomon 

(1995) documented that apparent ages derived from CFCs 

may be greater than they appear where depths to the water 

table are greater than about 30 ft. The time lag is caused by 

the time it takes for precipitation that falls on the surface to 

reach the water table. For groundwater samples collected in 

this study, depths to water were less than 30 ft in wells HR-44, 

ST-27A, and TU-184 but were greater than 30 ft in wells 

B-3, TU-113, and TU-185 (depth to water was not available 

for well MD-26). CFC recharge dates for the groundwater 

samples range from about 1950 through 1978, with the most 

consistent dates (those with dates that had less than about 

5 years of variation between the three CFC compounds) 

provided by water from wells ST-27A, TU-113, and TU-185. 

No apparent relations were noted between depth to water and 

recharge dates.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a compound used in electrical 

switches, provides age dates for water that has been recharged 

since about 1970 (Busenberg and Plummer, 2008). SF6 can 

have a natural source from fluid inclusions in crystalline rocks 

(Busenberg and Plummer, 2000); however, crystalline rocks 

are at great depth in the Tuscarawas River Basin. An advantage of using SF6

 concentrations as an age-dating tracer is that 

SF6 does not degrade, which is especially important in anoxic 

waters that may undergo methanogenesis where CFCs would 

likely degrade. For the samples collected as part of this study, 

SF6 was detected in all but one sample (TU-113), and SF6

concentrations provided recharge dates ranging from 1978 to 

1996. In addition to analysis of SF6, an experimental tracer, 

trifluoromethyl sulfurpentafluoride (SF5CF3), was evaluated to 

determine its usefulness as an age-dating tracer in this hydrologic setting. Details regarding this compound and comparison 

to other tracers used in this study can be found in Busenberg 

and Plummer (2008), who note that the origin of SF5CF3 is 

uncertain, but may be produced by reaction of SF6 in the atmosphere. For the groundwater samples collected in this study, 

SF5CF3 recharge dates range from prior to 1966 through 1995.

Tritium (3H), an isotope of hydrogen, is naturally produced in the atmosphere; however, testing of thermonuclear 

bombs in the 1950s and 1960s increased concentrations of 

tritium above natural background concentrations. Tritium 

undergoes radioactive decay to produce helium-3 (3He), and 

the ratio between tritium and helium-3 produced from tritium decay can be used to accurately date the apparent age of 

groundwater. Analysis is complicated by helium derived from 

natural sources, known as terrigenic helium. Possible sources 

of terrigenic helium in the Tuscarawas River Basin include 

radioactive decay of thorium or uranium found in glacial 

tills, coal, and underclay, and escape of natural gas from gas 

fields that are found in natural reservoirs and subsurface gas 

storage facilities deep beneath the aquifers in the basin. All 

of the groundwater samples contained terrigenic helium, with 

compositions ranging from 17 to 83 percent. The concentrations of tritiogenic helium (3

He) were determined from the 

measured total dissolved helium concentration and the measured 3

He/4He ratio of dissolved helium with correction for 

terrigenic helium using the 3He/4He ratio of terrigenic helium 

of 2 x 10-8 (Schlosser and others, 1988, 1989). The 3He/4He 

apparent recharge dates corrected for terrigenic helium range 

from about 1978 to 1994.

Comparison of apparent ages among the tracers analyzed 

in this study is not necessarily a valid exercise because each 

tracer provides information that may be influenced by different 

natural or anthropogenic factors and mixing of different age 

waters often provides misleading results. Because each of the 

dating techniques has advantages and limitations, data from 

multiple age-dating tracers were collected to increase the confidence in apparent age (Plummer and others, 2001; Lindsey 

and others, 2003). In addition, relations between multiple tracers may reveal hydrologic and chemical processes occurring 

within aquifers. Comparison of CFC ages with those derived 

from SF6 and tritium/helium reveals that the CFC dates are 

consistently older, implying that some anaerobic degradation 

may have occurred. Except for the water sample obtained from 

well HR-44, all groundwater samples contained dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 1.0 mg/L and small quantities of 

dissolved methane; therefore, CFCs may have been degraded 

leading to an old bias in apparent age as described by Plummer and Busenberg (1999).

Another factor that complicates interpretation of recharge 

ages is mixing of water of different ages through long screens 

or open intervals. Well screens or open intervals that are 

longer than 10 feet have the potential to combine waters that 

originate from different flow paths. For example, age-dating 

tracer data combined with other water-quality data from 

well B-3, which has a 40-ft screened interval, results in old 

CFC age dates (ranging from 1962 to 1970.5), younger SF6

(1996.5) and tritium/helium (1993.7) dates, and elevated 

concentrations of a variety of bacterial and wastewater compounds, indicating that mixing of waters of different ages has 

likely occurred. Screened or open intervals listed in table 7 

range from 5 to 152 ft. Wells with short screened intervals 

(10 ft or less) include HR-44 (5 ft), ST-27A (10 ft) and TU-113 

(10 ft); wells with longer screened intervals (greater than 

10 ft) include B-3 (40 ft), MD-26 (152 ft), TU-184 (40 ft), and 

TU-185 (29 ft). More information on age and mixing can be 

gained by examining data from multiple environmental tracers 

through plotting sample concentrations relative to known input 

(atmospheric) concentrations as described by Plummer and 

others (2001, 2003) and Böhlke (2006); however, this topic 

was beyond the scope of this report.
48 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 12. Volatile organic compounds analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples 

from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; all reporting levels are at the minimum reporting level (MRL)1; 

TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting level1

Concentration at 

Tuscarawas River 

at Massillon

Volatile organic compounds detected in water sample at TR@MA

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (77093) < 0.1 0.148

Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12; 34668) < .2 E .16

Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11; 34488) < .2 1.1

Trichloromethane (chloroform; 32106) < .1 .223

Volatile organic compounds not detected in any water samples

Xylene (81551) < .2 < .2

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane (77562) < .2 < .2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (34506) < .1 < .1

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (34516) < .2 < .2

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113; 77652) < .1 < .1

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (34511) < .2 < .2

1,1-Dichloroethane (34496) < .1 < .1

1,1-Dichloroethylene (34501) < .1 < .1

1,1-Dichloropropene (77168) < .2 < .2

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (77613) < .2 < .2

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (77443) < .2 < .2

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (34551) < .2 < .2

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (77222) < .2 < .2

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (82625) < .5 < .5

1,2-Dibromoethane (77651) < .2 < .2

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (34536) < .1 < .1

1,2-Dichloroethane (32103) < .2 < .2

1,2-Dichloropropane (34541) < .1 < .1

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (77226) < .2 < .2

1,3-Dichlorobenzene (34566) < .1 < .1

1,3-Dichloropropane (77173) < .2 < .2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (34571) < .1 < .1

2,2-Dichloropropane (77170) < .2 < .2

2-Chlorotoluene (77275) < .2 < .2

4-Chlorotoluene (77277) < .2 < .2

4-Isopropylmethylbenzene (77356) < .2 < .2

Acrylonitrile (34215) < 2.5 < 2.5
Hydrologic Data Networks 49

Table 12. Volatile organic compounds analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples 

from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; all reporting levels are at the minimum reporting level (MRL)1; 

TR@MA, Tuscarawas River at Massillon]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting level1

Concentration at 

Tuscarawas River 

at Massillon

Volatile organic compounds not detected in any water samples—Continued

Benzene (34030) < .1 < .1

Bromobenzene (81555) < .2 < .2

Bromochloromethane (77297) < .2 < .2

Bromodichloromethane (32101) < .1 < .1

Bromomethane (34413) < .3 < .3

Chlorobenzene (34301) < .1 < .1

Chloroethane (34311) < .2 < .2

Chloromethane (34418) < .2 < .2

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (34704) < .2 < .2

Dibromochloromethane (32105) < .2 < .2

Dibromomethane (30217) < .2 < .2

Dichloromethane (34423) < .2 < .2

Ethylbenzene (34371) < .1 < .1

Hexachlorobutadiene (39702) < .2 < .2

Isopropylbenzene (77223) < .2 < .2

Naphthalene (34696) < .5 < .5

n-Butylbenzene (77342) < .2 < .2

n-Propylbenzene (77224) < .2 < .2

sec-Butylbenzene (77350) < .2 < .2

Styrene (77128) < .1 < .1

Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE; 78032) < .2 < .2

tert-Butylbenzene (77353) < .2 < .2

Tetrachloroethylene (34475) < .1 < .1

Tetrachloromethane (32102) < .2 < .2

Toluene (34010) < .1 < .1

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (34546) < .1 < .1

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (34699) < .2 < .2

Tribromomethane (bromoform; 32104) < .2 < .2

Trichloroethene (39180) < .1 < .1

Vinyl chloride (39175) < .2 < .2

1

 Reporting levels are described in appendix 3.
50 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 13. Wastewater compounds analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples from the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; all reporting levels are interim reporting levels (IRLs)1; <, less than]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting level1 Number of detections

Wastewater compounds detected in water samples listed in table 14

2-Methylnaphthalene (62056) < 0.5 1

Anthracene (34221) < .5 1

N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET; 62082) < .5 4

Fluoranthene (34377) < .5 1

Naphthalene (34443) < .5 1

Phenanthrene (34462) < .5 1

Phenol (34466) < .5 2

Pyrene (34470) < .5 1

Tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (62093) < .5 1

Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (62087) < .5 1

Wastewater compounds not detected in any water samples

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (34572) < .5 0

1-Methylnaphthalene (62054) < .5 0

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene (62055) < .5 0

3-beta-Coprostanol (62057) < 2 0

3-Methyl-1(H)-indole (skatole; 62058) < 1 0

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole (BHA; 62059) < 5 0

4-Cumylphenol (62060) < 1 0

4-Octylphenol (62061) < 1 0

4-Nonylphenol (62085) < 5 0

4-tert-Octylphenol (62062) < 1 0

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole (62063) < 2 0

9, 10-Anthraquinone (62066) < .5 0

Acetophenone (62064) < .5 0

Acetyl hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN; 62065) < .5 0

Benzo[a]-pyrene (34248) < .5 0

Benzophenone (62067) < .5 0

beta-Sitosterol (62068) < 2 0

beta-Stigmastanol (62086) < 2 0

Bromacil (04029) < .5 0

Caffeine (50305) < .5 0

Camphor (62070) < .5 0
Hydrologic Data Networks 51

In general, the detection of tritium, chlorofluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride (if not of terrigenic origin), indicates 

the presence of waters recharged after 1950 and (or) mixtures 

of old waters containing fractions of post-1950s water. The 

complex age-dating tracer chemistry combined with the characteristics of the hydrologic system indicate that sulfur hexafluoride and tritium/helium offer the best opportunities for use 

of age-dating tracers in this setting. The potential degradation 

of CFCs in anoxic groundwater may have caused misleading 

(older) recharge dates and may exclude the use of this tracer in 

future investigations.

The ultimate value of age-dating tracers is that they 

provide an indication of the age of the water obtained from a 

well. Wells that produce 10- to 20-yr-old water may show the 

effects of recent land uses or recent land-use changes. Alternatively, wells that produce 40- to 50-yr-old water may not show 

the effects of recent land-use change yet, but likely will in the 

coming decades. Moreover, wells that produce water that is 

older than 50 yrs may not show appreciable changes throughout a long period of land-use change.

Table 13. Wastewater compounds analyzed in groundwater and surface-water samples from the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.—Continued

[All values are in micrograms per liter; all reporting levels are interim reporting levels (IRLs)1; <, less than]

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting level1 Number of detections

Wastewater compounds not detected in any water samples—Continued

Carbazole (62071) < .5 0

Cholesterol (62072) < 2 0

Cotinine (62005) < 1 0

Diethoxynonylphenol (62083) < 5 0

Ethoxyoctylphenol (61706) < 1 0

Hexahydrohexamethylcyclopentabenzopyran (HHCB; 62075) < .5 0

Indole (62076) < .5 0

Isoborneol (62077) < .5 0

Isophorone (34409) < .5 0

Isopropylbenzene (62078) < .5 0

Isoquinoline (62079) < .5 0

Menthol (62080) < .5 0

Metalaxyl (50359) < .5 0

Methyl salicylate (62081) < .5 0

p-Cresol (62084) < 1 0

Tetrachloroethene (34476) < .5 0

Tribromomethane (Bromoform; 34288) < .5 0

Tributyl phosphate (62089) < .5 0

Triclosan (62090) < 1 0

Triethyl citrate (62091) < .5 0

Triphenyl phosphate (62092) < .5 0

Tris (dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (62088) < .5 0

1

 Reporting levels are described in appendix 3.
52 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Table 14. Wastewater compounds detected in groundwater and surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.

[All values are in micrograms per liter; all reporting levels are interim reporting levels (IRLs)1; <, less than; E, estimated]

Groundwater samples Surface-water samples

Constituent (USGS parameter code) Reporting 

level1 B-3 HR-44 TU-113 Tuscarawas River 

at Massillon

Tuscarawas River 

at Newcomerstown

2-Methylnaphthalene (62056) < 0 .5 E 0.008 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Anthracene (34221) < .5 E .011 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

N,N-diethylmetatoluamide (DEET; 62082) < .5 E .020 < .5 E .005 E .099 E .048

Fluoranthene (34377) < .5 E .008 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

Naphthalene (34443) < .5 E .070 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

Phenanthrene (34462) < .5 E .036 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

Phenol (34466) < .5 E .261 < .5 E .387 < .5 < .5

Pyrene (34470) < .5 E .012 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

Tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (62093) < .5 < .5 E 3.55 < .5 < .5 < .5

Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (62087) < .5 E .031 < .5 < .5 < .5 < .5

1

 Reporting levels are described in appendix 3.

Table 15. Exceedances of Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) in groundwater and 

surface-water samples from the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006.

[Bold numbers indicate SMCL exceedance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a); <, less than; 

>, greater than; mg/L, milligrams per liter; mg/L, micrograms per liter; five-digit numbers in parentheses are 

USGS parameter codes]

pH 

(00400) 

Residue on 

evaporation, mg/L 

(70300)

Iron, dissolved, 

mg/L 

(01046)

Sulfate, dissolved, 

mg/L

(00945)

Manganese, 

dissolved, mg/L 

(01056)

Site SMCL

< 6.5 or > 8.5

SMCL

> 500 mg/L

SMCL

> 300 mg/L

SMCL

> 250 mg/L

SMCL

> 50 mg/L

Groundwater samples

B-3 8.4 422 8 55.9 4.1

HR-44 7.1 240 < 6 29.6 < .6

MD-26 6.5 265 11,100 76.4 1,420

ST-27A 7.1 691 3,310 78.7 150

TU-113 5.5 2,740 173,000 1,690 9,060

TU-184 7.5 534 151 174 293

TU-185 7.3 394 97 46.5 221

Surface-water samples

TR@MA 7.5 675 37 74.3 194

TR@NCT 8.2 605 14 157 29.6
EXPLANATION

 Groundwater site with site identifier

 Surface-water site with site identifier

Groundwater sample regression line

D = 6.51 18O + 0.28

R2

 = 0.96

-65

-55

-45

-35

-9.50 -8.50 -7.50 -6.50

18O, PER MIL

D, PER MIL

TR@NCT TR@MA

Meteoric Water Line from Craig (1961)

( D = 8 18O + 10)

B-3

MD-26

ST-27A TU-113

TU-184

TR@NCT

δ

δ δ

δ δ

δ

Hydrologic Data Networks 53

Figure 17. Relation between oxygen (δ18O) and deuterium (δD) isotope ratios in water samples from the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. (Per mil is defined as parts per thousand relative to a standard.)

Status of Current Data Collection and Focus for 

Future Work

The water-quality data presented above combined with 

data from data-collection networks that were active in 2009 

provide information that is useful in understanding key issues 

that affect the water resources of the Tuscarawas River Basin. 

Of the more recently published documents that describe problems related to the water resources of the basin, the Muskingum River Basin Initiative (2005) highlights sedimentation, 

acid-mine drainage, hydrogen-sulfide pollution from deeper 

parts of oxygen-poor reservoirs, stream contamination from 

untreated sewage, effects of development, aging reservoirs, 

and recreation pressures. Furthermore, the Upper Tuscarawas River Action Plan by the Northeast Ohio Four County 

Regional Planning and Development Organization (1999a) 

cites a need to characterize critical resource areas that include 

high-quality waters, headwater areas, groundwater resources, 

biologically important wetlands, and the status of unique species and features. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

TMDL study on the Tuscarawas River (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009c) recommends the following: 

1) reducing pollutant loads and (or) increasing the capacity 

of streams to handle the pollutant loads, 2) addressing poorly 

functioning home-sewage-treatment systems, 3) practicing 

more environmentally sensitive turf management, 4) reducing phosphorus discharges from sewage-treatment plants, 

5) controlling sediment erosion, 6) abating nutrient loading 

from livestock and agriculture, and 7) providing improved 

manure and residual nutrient management by livestock producers. The documents, maps, and Web pages described in 

this report indicate that water supplies from the perspective of 

both water quantity and water quality are adequate for current 

needs; however, the following water-resources issues will 

likely require additional focus on monitoring from decisionmakers in the future:

1. Water quality is degraded from agriculture, industry, 

residential land uses, and mining. Previous water-quality sampling done throughout the basin documented many 

different problems with both surface water and groundwater. The water sampling and extensive laboratory analysis 

done as part of this study showed that each of these land 

uses affected the water quality of at least one sample even 

with the relatively small sample size of two surface-water 
54 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

samples and seven groundwater samples. Among agriculture, industry, residential, and mining land uses, early 

mining practices continue to have a dominant effect on 

water quality in many areas of the basin. Both surfacewater and groundwater quality were affected by these land 

uses, but surface water is generally more vulnerable to 

contamination than groundwater because of the direct and 

relatively rapid overland transport of contaminants that 

occurs with surface runoff. Groundwater is generally less 

vulnerable because it moves much more slowly through 

soil and aquifers before reaching wells. Age-dating compounds revealed that shallow groundwater was younger 

than about 50 years. Therefore, it is no surprise that 

relatively recent land-use practices have affected groundwater quality in the basin, and future land- use practices 

or modifications of these practices will affect groundwater 

quality in the near and distant future. Improvements in, or 

further degradation of, shallow groundwater quality can 

occur relatively quickly in response to land-use modifications. Existing and future localized and basin-wide studies 

would likely benefit from expanding the information base 

with analyses similar to the ones provided in this report, 

thereby providing a more accurate depiction of the effects 

of land use on water-quality conditions throughout the 

basin.

2. Most of the water-quality data-collection networks in 

the basin provide only a snapshot of water conditions

and do not provide enough data for a basin-wide assessment of water quality. In addition, continuous data is lacking through hydrologic extremes such as floods or drought 

As a result, the effects of extreme hydrologic events on 

the quality of water resources exploited for drinking or 

commercial uses are unknown. Additional water-quality 

monitors and a well-designed sampling network of 

surface-water and groundwater sites throughout the basin 

would help to address this issue. 

3. Water-level data were too sparse in several areas to 

develop a map of groundwater levels in the basin.

The map provided in this report (plate 1) is presented at 

a large scale that does not differentiate between water 

levels obtained from unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers. 

Additionally, the scale of the map may not be suitable 

for smaller-scale investigations where more accurate and 

timely information is needed. A basin-wide water-level 

synoptic study that targets wells in specific hydrogeologic 

settings would provide data needed for a more accurate 

map. Also, groundwater-flow modeling may be of use to 

simulate water levels in parts of the basin where data are 

lacking. Models calibrated to regional groundwater levels 

and flows are well suited to fill in the blanks in absence 

of other data. Tools associated with models today will be 

beneficial in evaluating the existing monitoring networks 

to identify critical locations for additions to the network 

to reduce uncertainty.

4. Little is known about the interaction of groundwater and surface water, including streams, lakes, and 

ponds in the basin. The interactions between groundwater and surface water are important for many different 

water-resource issues, including water quality (especially 

nutrients), aquatic habitat, instream flows, and groundwater recharge. Specific studies to evaluate these interactions 

could include streamflow gain/loss evaluations, coupled 

surface-water/groundwater flow models, and additional 

research into recharge mechanisms and rates throughout 

the basin.

5. Little is known about interactions between unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers 

or deeper groundwater flow that may be coming into 

the basin from outside the basin. The ground-water 

flow model by Breen and others (1995) simulated flow 

between the upland bedrock aquifers and unconsolidated 

sands and gravels in the Wooster area; however, there is 

no specific information for the Tuscarawas River Basin 

itself. Other than an anecdotal description of deeper 

flowpaths moving from west to east by Stout and others 

(1943), deeper groundwater-flow directions are poorly 

understood. If it is found that some of the water for 

public supply or commercial uses is derived from deeper 

sources, defining these sources would be an important 

step toward understanding their long-term sustainability. 

Groundwater-flow modeling could be an important component of future work to aid in the understanding of flow 

(and exchange of dissolved chemicals) between bedrock 

and unconsolidated aquifers.

Summary

The Tuscarawas River Basin in eastern Ohio provides 

water from groundwater and surface-water sources to more 

than 600,000 residents within a 13-county area of approximately 2,600 square miles. The vegetation, soils, surficial 

deposits, and bedrock geology combined with climatic conditions and human activities help to define the sources and sinks 

of water throughout the basin. The primary surface-water 

bodies are the Tuscarawas River and the four major tributaries—Sandy Creek (with inflows from the Nimishillen Creek), 

Conotton Creek, Stillwater Creek, and Sugar Creek—and a 

series of man-made reservoirs primarily designed and maintained for flood control. The primary aquifers are sand- and 

gravel-filled valleys and sandstone bedrock.

Population throughout the basin is unequally distributed, 

with the majority of residents living near the northern headwaters. Fifty-six percent of urban land use in the basin is within 

two of the northern counties (Stark and Summit). In 2001, 

land use was dominated by 40-percent forested, 39-percent 

agricultural, and 17-percent urban/residential. From 1992 to 

2001, only 2 percent of land that was forested was converted 
Summary 55

to agricultural and urban land uses. Water use was approximately 825 Mgal/d in 2000, 68 percent of which was used for 

thermoelectric power in coal-fired power plants in Belmont 

and Coshocton Counties. The second greatest water use was 

for public supply. Although the distributions of population, 

land use, and water-use in the entire Tuscarawas River Basin 

are complex, it is clear that these distributions in headwater areas help to define the characteristics of surface-water 

resources throughout the lower parts of the basin.

The effects of geological processes helped to define the 

basin as it is today. The topography, soils, surficial geology, 

and hydrology of the basin were defined by glaciation that 

created smooth, rolling hills in the northern, glaciated regions 

contrasted with relatively steep and dissected unglaciated 

bedrock features in the southern regions. The glacial and 

alluvial sand and gravel deposits that are as much as 400 ft 

thick within incised valleys provide some of the best waterproducing aquifers in the State. Economic opportunities were 

(and continue to be) provided by the extensive oil and gas 

resources and coal deposits; however, extraction of these 

resources has altered the environment, as evidenced by oil, 

gas, and brine contamination of aquifers and streams, excess 

sedimentation in rivers, and acid-mine drainage in groundwater and surface water.

The hydrology of the basin is similar to that of other 

glaciated river basins in the Midwestern United States. Water 

budgets provided by several different sources indicate that 

recharge to groundwater is approximately 6 to 10 in. per year. 

Most of the water that enters as precipitation leaves the basin 

through evapotranspiration, groundwater flow, or surfacewater flow at the mouth of the Tuscarawas River in Coshocton. The new water-level map generated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shows that groundwater flows from 

the upland areas towards sand- and gravel-filled valleys, that 

the water- level surface mimics topography, and that several 

areas still remain that have inadequate water-level data to 

adequately map the water-level surface. Because this map 

focused on near-surface conditions, understanding is lacking 

of deeper flow conditions that might involve inflow or outflow 

of groundwater to or from the Tuscarawas River Basin. Datacollection networks in the Tuscarawas River Basin include 

meteorological stations operated by many different entities, 

streamgages operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; groundwater observation wells 

operated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources; and 

water-quality data collected for streams and reservoirs by the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Much of the 

streamflow and observation-well data are collected on a continuous basis; however, water-quality data are typically collected only during scheduled sampling events that may cycle 

through the entire network only once every 3 to 5 years.

Water-quality data collected as part of this study include 

concentrations of a wide variety of constituents that were measured in samples from two surface-water sites on the Tuscarawas River and seven groundwater sites located throughout the 

basin. Each of the groundwater sites is representative of one or 

more land-use settings in the basin. For example, well HR-44, 

located within a forested setting had the lowest concentration of dissolved constituents and the highest concentration of 

dissolved oxygen compared to those for other wells sampled 

in the basin. Well TU-185, located in a predominantly agricultural setting had the highest nitrate concentrations. Well 

TU-113, located adjacent to a reclaimed coal mine, had the 

greatest concentrations of iron, manganese, and sulfate along 

with the lowest pH of any of the samples. These and other 

water-quality results indicate that the chemistry of shallow 

groundwater is closely related to land-use practices and that 

changes in land use may affect water quality over relatively 

short time periods.

Surface-water samples contained low levels of pesticides 

(including herbicides and insecticides), whereas groundwater 

samples did not contain any detectable pesticides. Volatile 

organic compounds were detected in only one sample from the 

Tuscarawas River at Massillon and may reflect the relatively 

high percentage of land identified as urban land use in the 

northern part of the basin. Wastewater compounds were present in only one groundwater sample (well B-3), which was 

likely contaminated by a variety of surface sources, including 

water softeners, poorly functioning septic systems, creosote, 

coal tar, and asphalt. Total coliform bacteria were detected 

in samples from two wells and both surface-water sites, and 

E. coli were detected in one of the two groundwater samples 

and both surface-water samples. None of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Primary Maximum Contaminant 

Levels were exceeded in these samples; however, Secondary 

Maximum Contaminant Levels were exceeded for pH, residue 

on evaporation, manganese, iron, and sulfate. Radon was 

detected in all groundwater samples: three of these samples 

exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Maximum Contaminant Level of 300 pCi/L (currently 

under review).

 The water-quality information collected as part of this 

study, combined with age-dating tracers that include chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and tritium/helium, 

indicate that shallow groundwater was recharged from local 

sources with relatively short residence times of less than 

50 years. In the Tuscarawas River Basin, CFCs were degraded 

under anoxic conditions. Helium in groundwater derived from 

deeper natural-gas deposits and (or) storage reservoirs interfered with tritium/helium age determinations, but corrections 

for this excess helium were applied so that these data were still 

useful. Thus, although a multitude of tracers helps define the 

overall hydrogeochemical conditions in groundwater, sulfur 

hexafluoride and tritium/helium may be the most useful agedating tracers to include in future characterizations of aquifers 

in the basin.

The compilation of published and unpublished literature 

related to the hydrology of the basin shows that although 

substantial amounts of data and accompanying reports have 

been produced, there are few reports that consider the water 

resources of the basin as a whole. The Muskingum River 
56 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Basin Initiative (2005), the Upper Tuscarawas River Basin 

Action Plan (Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning 

and Development Organization, 1999a), and a series of Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency reports provide valuable 

data for understanding the status of water resources in the 

basin. These and other studies support the conclusion that, in 

general, water resources are abundant in the basin, but waterquality issues resulting from agriculture, industry, residential land uses, and mining have caused problems in the past 

and will likely continue to affect decisions regarding water 

resources in the future.

The major conclusions of the current study are that 

(1) water quality is degraded from agriculture, industry, residential land uses, and mining; (2) most of the water-quality 

data-collection networks in the basin provide only a snapshot 

of water conditions and do not provide a basin-wide assessment of conditions or continuous data through hydrologic 

extremes such as floods or drought; (3) water-level data were 

too sparse in some areas of the basin to develop a map of 

groundwater levels; (4) little is known about the interaction of 

groundwater and surface water, including streams, lakes, and 

ponds in the basin; and (5) little is known about interactions 

between unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock 

aquifers, or about deep groundwater flow that may be entering 

the basin from outside of the basin.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Stark-TuscarawasWayne Joint Solid Waste Management District for their 

support and patience throughout this effort. Additionally, the 

authors appreciate assistance from the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources and the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency during the process of well selection for groundwater 

sampling, generation of the enclosed water-level map, and 

installation of monitoring wells in the basin. Stephanie Kula, a 

biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey Ohio Water Science 

Center, assisted greatly in the final compilation of population, 

land use, and GIS datasets for this report.

Annotated Bibliography

Adolphson, D.L., Arnold, T.L., Fitzpatrick, F.A., Harris, M.A., 

Richards, K.D., Scudder, B.C., and Stewart, J.S., 2002, 

Physical, chemical and biological methods and data from 

the urban land-use-gradient study, Des Plaines and Fox 

River Basins, Illinois, 1999–2001: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 01–459, 20 p.

Akin, E., 2006, Nimishillen Creek Watershed State Action 

Plan: Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and 

Development Organization, 235 p., accessed October 12, 

2006, at http://www.uptuscwatershed.org/nim_state_action_

plan.htm

A watershed action plan that includes background hydrologic data designed to protect and restore the water quality 

of Nimishillen Creek (north central Tuscarawas Basin). The 

plan includes extensive data on watershed characteristics, 

geology, soils, biology, and water-quality issues. Over half 

the basin is unsewered (p. 69). Water-quality issues include 

nutrients, pesticides, organic wastes, and disease-causing 

organisms. “...The impact of agricultural areas is gradually 

decreasing as agricultural areas are converted to residential, 

commercial, or industrial areas.”

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M., 1998, 

Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop 

water requirements: Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Rome, 

Italy, ISBN 92–5–104219–5, accessed June 29, 2009, at 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e00.HTM

Aller, L., Bennett, T., Lehr, J.H., and Petty, R.J., 1985, DRASTIC—a standardized system for evaluating ground water 

pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, 

EPA/600/2–85/018, 163 p.

Angelo, C.G., and Youger, J.D., 1985, Chemical and biological quality of selected lakes in Ohio, 1978 and 1979: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84–249, 294 p.

Angle, M.P., 1990, Ground water pollution potential of Portage County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 

22, 292 p., accessed August 8, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.

oh.us/water/gwppmaps.

This report includes general and pesticide DRASTIC (an 

acronym for Depth to water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, 

Soil media, Topography, Impact of the vadose zone media, 

hydraulic Conductivity of the aquifer) maps for Portage 

County. The DRASTIC process includes designating 

mapable units and assigning a relative rating system to 

aquifers for potential. The acronym DRASTIC applies to 

Depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, 

topography, impact of vadose-zone media, and hydraulic 

conductivity. 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. Pollution potential index for the Tuscarawas River 

Basin ranges from 140 to more than 200. The pesticide 

potential index ranges from 160 to more than 200 (medium 

to high). 

Angle, M.P., 1994a, Ground water pollution potential of 

Columbiana County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution 

Potential Report 35, 105 p., accessed September 18, 2006, 

at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps
Annotated Bibliography 57

Angle, M.P., 1994b, Ground water pollution potential of 

Medina County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution 

Potential Report 13, 87 p., accessed September 18, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps

Pollution potential indexes are relatively low to moderate in areas of till or lacustrine cover over bedrock. Buried 

valleys containing sand and gravel aquifers, and areas 

covered by outwash, have moderate to high vulnerabilities 

to contamination.

Angle, M.P., 2006a, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Carroll County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/CarrollBed_PSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of static water 

levels with a contour interval of 50 ft in the consolidated 

(bedrock) aquifers of Carroll County, created from data collected over a 50-yr period.

Angle, M.P., 2006b, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated aquifers in Carroll County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/CarrollSG_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of static water 

levels with a contour interval of 25 ft in the unconsolidated 

(sand and gravel) aquifers of Carroll County created from 

data collected over a 50-yr period.

Angle, M.P., 2006c, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated aquifers in Stark County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/StarkSG_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of static water 

levels with a contour interval of 25 ft in the unconsolidated 

(sand and gravel) aquifers of Stark County created from 

data collected over a 50-yr period.

Angle, M.P., Spahr, P.N., Fugitt, F.L., Hallfrisch, M.P., and 

Pendley, K.R., 2000, Hydrogeologic settings of the unconsolidated aquifers of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, accessed October 12, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/samp/sampuchydro.pdf

Map files of consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers are 

available as PDF files or GIS data sets and can be downloaded from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/samp/. Data 

also can be ordered on a CD that contains additional base 

map files and supporting documentation.

Angle, M.P., and Baker, J., 2001, Ground water pollution 

potential of Tuscarawas County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 52, 53 p., accessed September 18, 

2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps

Angle, M.P., and Akins, M., 2002, Ground water pollution 

potential of Wayne County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 22, 292 p., accessed September 18, 

2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps

Angle, M.P., and Bonifas, C., 2002, Ground water pollution 

potential of Holmes County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 58, 57 p., accessed August 8, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps

Angle, M.P., and Jonak, J., 2002, Ground water pollution 

potential of Belmont County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 50, 39 p., accessed September 18, 

2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps/PDF_

GISMap_wReport/Belmont_PP_report_wMap.pdf

Angle, M.P., and Walker, D., 2002, Ground water pollution 

potential report of Harrison County, Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division on Water, Ground Water 

Pollution Potential Report 56, 40 p., accessed September 

18, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwppmaps

Angle, M.P., Russel, C., and Ziss, B., 2003a, Ground water 

pollution potential report of Summit County, Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 

Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 49, 85 p., accessed 

September 18, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/

gwppmaps

Angle, M.P., Ziss, B., and Corbin, S., 2003b, Ground water 

pollution potential report of Carroll County, Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 

Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 59, 57 p., accessed 

September 18, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/

gwppmaps

Axon, A.G., 1996, Available coal resources of the Bethesda 

7.5-minute quadrangle, Belmont County, Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 

145, 27 p.

Babington, W.M., and Fisher, L.R.J., 1977, Total Water System (AT) Coshocton Mill (OF) April 25–27, 1977): Chicago, Stone Container Corporation, p. 25–31. 

Stone Container Corp. operated a 640 ton/day neutral sulfite 

semichemical corrugating medium mill at Coshocton, Ohio. 

Low-quality process water used in the chemical recovery 

system was supplied by a shallow well system. High-quality 

process water was obtained by processing sludge produced 

in the city’s water-treatment plant. Clarifier sludge and 

thickened municipal lime sludge were centrifuged together, 

and the clarifier overflow was pumped to an aerated lagoon 
58 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

equipped with floating mechanical aerators. Lagoon effluent 

was discharged directly into the Tuscarawas River.

Bachman, J.S., and Morgan, J.R., 1983, Conventional water 

treatment process operates in unconventional manner: Public Works, v. 114, no. 3, p. 50–53.

Following studies on the upgrading of the water works of 

New Philadelphia, Ohio, a pressure ion-exchange process of 

water softening was introduced. The new process involved 

split-stream softening with about 80 percent of the supply 

being softened and the remainder being treated for removal 

of iron and manganese. The waste brine was discharged to 

the Tuscarawas River.

Bair, E.S., and Norris, S.E., 1989, Ground-water levels and 

flow near the Industrial Excess Landfill, Uniontown, Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89–272, 11 p. 

This is an evaluation of geologic and hydrogeologic data 

available for the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site in 

Uniontown, Ohio. Groundwater flows radially away from 

the site, primarily to the northwest and to the southeast. 

Available data also indicate a downward flow component 

within the glacial-drift aquifer, which indicate a local 

recharge area within the regional flow system. Therefore, 

contaminants present at the site may flow both laterally 

within the local flow patterns and vertically downward 

within the flow system. 

Baranoski, M.T., 2002, Structure contour map on the Precambrian unconformity surface in Ohio and related basement 

features: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of 

Geological Survey Map PG–23, 27 p.

This map provides a detailed description of the surface 

of the Precambrian rocks in the basin. The map shows 

that the bedrock surface on top of Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks lies between 5,500 and 10,000 ft 

below sea level and dips to the southeast at approximately 

60 ft per mile.

Barber, D.J., 1989, Ground-water resources of Tuscarawas 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:62,500, accessed August 8, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/gwrmaps/

Barber, T.R., Fuchsman, P.C., Chappie, D.J., Sferra, J.C., 

Newton, F.C., and Sheehan, P.J., 1997, Toxicity of hexachlorobenzene to Hyalella Azteca and Chironomus Tentans

in spiked sediment bioassays: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 16, no. 8, p. 1716–1720.

Bartlett, W.P., Jr., Krejmas, B.E., Mayo, R.I., and Wandle, 

S.W., Jr., 1984, Effects of relocating State Route 151 on the 

flood profiles of Conotton Creek and its tributaries between 

Bowerston and Scio, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83–4130, 46 p. 

This report indicates that water-surface profiles would be 

virtually the same before and after road rerouting. Upstream 

sections would result in water-surface profiles about a 

foot lower.

Barton, G.J., Burruss, R.C., and Ryder, R.T., 1998, Water 

quality in the vicinity of Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull 

County, Ohio, in relation to the chemistry of locally occurring oil, natural gas, and brine: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4180, 46 p.

Bauder, J.R., 1994, Unusual dewatering of a wetland, Summit County, Ohio [abs]: The Ohio Journal of Science, v. 94, 

no. 2, p. 29, 

Land-use changes, including construction of roads that 

acted to intercept surface-water flows, installation of industrial well fields, and construction of a long dike between the 

Tuscarawas River and its former flood plain caused dewatering of a wetland.

Beck, T., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated a, Wayne 

County water resources: Ohio State University Extension 

Fact Sheet AEX–480.85, accessed November 20, 2006, at 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_85.html

Overview of water resources for Wayne County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface water, water 

use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the county 

is 36 inches per year, providing 9 inches of runoff to 

streams and lakes. About 6 inches per year has the potential 

to recharge aquifers. Land use is 75 percent rural. The report 

states that elevated nitrate concentrations are an issue.

Beck, T., Raab, J.M., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated 

b, Wayne County ground-water resources: Ohio State 

University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.85, accessed 

November 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aexfact/0490_85.html

This fact sheet gives an overview of Wayne County’s 

groundwater resources, including definitions of aquifer 

and well yield. On a generalized map of well yields, Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources observation wells and 

chemical analysis sites are shown. Land use is more than 

70 percent farmland. Total dissolved solids and iron are a 

problem in ground water.

Black, L.P., 1991, Natural lakes in Ohio (larger than five 

acres): Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, Open File Report 5, 13 p. 

The vast majority of Ohio’s natural lakes were formed after 

glaciation; a few are of post-glacial origin created from 

cutoff stream oxbows. Lakes greater than 5 acres are listed 

by county and township. Within the Tuscarawas River Basin 

(and within Ohio), Summit County has the most lakes, 34, 

and Portage County has 16. Portage County has the greatest area, 1,493 acres, covered by natural lakes, followed by 

Summit County, 1,216 acres, and Stark County, 452 acres.
Annotated Bibliography 59

Böhlke, J. K., 2006, Tracermodel1- Excel workbook for calculation and presentation of environmental tracer data for 

simple groundwater mixtures: Use of chlorofluorocarbons 

in hydrology—a guidebook, Section III.10.3: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency STI/PUB/1238, 

p. 239–S243.

Bonn, B.A., 2008, Using the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory LT-MDL to evaluate and analyze 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1227, 

73 p.

Bonta, J.V., and Muller, M., 1999, Evaluation of the Glugla 

method for estimating evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge: Hydrological Sciences Journal, v. 44, no. 5, 

p. 743–S761.

The Glugla method was used for estimating long-term 

groundwater recharge and actual evapotranspiration using 

long-term average annual precipitation, runoff, potential evaporation, and crop-yield information along with 

empirical parameter curves that depend on soil and crop 

types. Table 2 on page 753 shows measured values from 

10 Coshocton lysimeters: annual evapotranspiration ranges 

from 25.9 to 35.8 in/yr, and groundwater recharge ranges 

from 5.5 to 15.4 in/yr. The Glugla computations differ by 

-7 percent to +12percent for evapotranspiration and -19 to 

+34 percent for recharge.

Booth C.J., 1988, Interpretation of well and field data in a 

heterogeneous layered aquifer setting, Appalachian Plateau: 

Ground Water, v. 26, no. 5, p 597–606.

Botoman, G., and Stieglitz, R.D., 1978, The occurrence of 

sulfide and associated minerals in Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 104, 11 p.

Botoman, G., and Stith, D.A., 1978, Analyses of Ohio coals: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 

47, 148 p.

Botoman, G., and Stith, D.A., 1981, Analyses of Ohio coals, 

1977–1978: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 50, 51 p.

Botoman, G., and Stith, D.A., 1986, Analyses of Ohio coals, 

1979–1980: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 52, 26 p.

Botoman, G., and Stith, D.A., 1988, Analyses of Ohio coals, 

1982-1984: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 55, 17 p.

Bowell, D.F., 1980, Inventory of Ohio’s lakes: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water 

Inventory Report 26, 282 p. 

The report lists all of Ohio’s impoundments (natural or 

otherwise) greater than 5 acres, plus contributing streams, 

drainage basin, year of completion, purpose(s), surface 

areas, and remarks.

Bownocker, J.A., 1903, The occurrence and exploitation of 

petroleum and natural gas in Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Bulletin 1, 325 p.

Bownocker, J.A., and Dean, E.S., 1929, Analyses of the coals 

of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 

34, 360 p.

Bownocker, J.A., Lord, N.W., and Somermeier, E.E., 1908, 

Coal: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 9, 

342 p.

Bownocker, J.A., and Stout, W., 1928, Mineral industries of 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 33, 

94 p.

Boyce, T.F., Smith, T.R., and Baker, F.J., 1960, Tuscarawas 

River Basin (upper portion) soil conservation needs: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio 

Water Plan Inventory File Index P–6A.

Bragg, L.J., Oman, J.K., Tewalt, S.J., Oman, C.L., Rega, N.H., 

Washington, P.M., and Finkelman, R.B., 1998, U.S. Geological Survey Coal Quality (COALQUAL) Database: Version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–134, 

accessed November 27, 2007, at http://energy.er.usgs.gov/

products/databases/CoalQual/index.htm

This report describes an extensive geochemical database 

containing analysis of Ohio coals.

Bralek, R., Steer, D., and Fraser, L., 2002, Performance of 

constructed wetlands for treatment of acid mine drainage 

in Ohio: Geological Society of America North-Central 

Section (36th) and Southeastern Section (51st), GSA Joint 

Annual Meeting (April 3–5, 2002), Program with Abstracts, 

Paper 48–0.

Brant, R.A., 1954, The Lower Kittanning No. 5 coal bed in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 21, 59 p., 13 figs., 31 tables.

Brant, R.A., 1956, Coal resources of the upper part of the 

Allegheny formation in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 29, 68 p., 19 figs., 

52 tables.

Brant, R.A., and DeLong, R.M., 1960, Coal resources of Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 58, 245 p., 

22 figs., 38 tables.

Brasaemle, J.E., Corbett, R.G., Manner, B.M., 1979, Groundwater quality of Bath, Boston, Northampton, and Richfield 

Townships, Summit County, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, University 

of Akron Department of Geology.

Breen, K.J., Angelo, C.G., Masters, R.W., and Sedam, A.C., 

1985, Chemical and isotopic characteristics of brines from 

three oil- and gas-producing formations in eastern Ohio, 

with applications to the geochemical tracing of brine 
60 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

sources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4314, 58 p.

Breen, K.J., Kontis, A.L., Rowe, G.L., and Haefner, R.J., 

1995, Simulated ground-water flow and sources of water 

in the Killbuck Creek Valley near Wooster, Wayne County, 

Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4131, 104 p. 

This report describes water-quality data and groundwaterflow simulations to help in the understanding of the sources 

of water in Killbuck Creek. Influx of water into the valley is 

controlled, in part, by pumping stresses placed on the glacial stratified drift aquifer. Quality of water in the stratified 

drift is affected by influx of water from bedrock. Recharge 

characteristics were investigated with the variable recharge 

procedure, which allows for water to infiltrate the aquifer or 

be rejected based on the water level in the aquifer. Isotopic 

compositions of streamwater and streambed water show 

that the transport time from the streams to the stratifieddrift aquifer ranges from several days to several weeks. The 

chemical and isotopic data indicate that the streamwater is 

diluted and mixed with ground water and dispersed within 

the stratified drift such that it is chemically and isotopically 

unrecognizable as streamwater at the production wells. 

The time estimated for infiltrating streamwater to reach the 

shallow groundwater system beneath the stream is likely 

2 months.

Busenberg, E., Weeks, E.P., Plummer, L.N., and Bartholemay, 

R.C., 1993, Age dating ground water by use of chlorofluorocarbons (CCl3

F and CCl2F2), and distribution of chlorofluorocarbons in the unsaturated zone, Snake River Plain 

aquifer, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 93–4054, 47 p.

Busenberg E., and Plummer, L.N., 2000, Dating young ground 

water with sulfur hexafluoride: Natural and anthropogenic 

sources of sulfur hexafluoride: Water Resources Research, 

v. 36, no. 10, p. 3011–3030.

Busenberg E., and Plummer, L.N., 2008, Dating groundwater 

with trifluoromethyl sulfurpentafluoride (SF5CF3), sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6), CF3Cl (CFC-13), and CF2Cl2 (CFC-12): 

Water Resources Research, v. 44, W02431, 18 p.

Cady, G.H., and Smith, G.E., 1955, Petrographic constitution 

of the Meigs Creek No. 9 coal bed: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Report of Investigation 27, 97 p.

Calvert, W.L., 1963, Sub-Trenton rocks of Ohio in cross sections from West Virginia and Pennsylvania to Michigan: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 49, 5 p.

Carlson, E.H., 1991, Minerals of Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Bulletin 69, 155 p.

Carroll County Regional Planning Commission, 2004, 

Carroll County sustainable comprehensive plan (draft): 

Carroll County Regional Planning Commission, variously 

paginated, accessed September 26, 2006, at http://www.

carrollcountyohio.net/planning/index.htm

This is a county-wide plan intended to address naturalresource impairment through a series of goals, objectives, 

and strategies. The plan lists 15 sources of water impairment for Carroll County, including agricultural production, 

atmospheric deposition, land development, contaminated 

sediments, combined sewer overflows, industrial point 

sources, land disposal of wastewater, marinas, municipal 

discharge, natural sources, nonpoint sources, mining, septic 

systems, forestry silviculture, and urban runoff. 

Cassidy, H., Dobkin, A., and Wetzel, R., 1930, A study of the 

food of three species from the Portage Lakes, Ohio (fish): 

Ohio Journal of Science, v. 30, no. 3, p. 194–198. 

Minnow species eat midge larvae, small crustaceans, small 

snails, and plankton.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p.

Chowdhury, S.H., 1995, Hydrogeology and groundwater pollution potential of Chippewa Creek Basin, Wayne County, 

Ohio: Akron, Ohio, University of Akron, M.S. thesis, 

p. 176. 

Chowdhury, S.H., Iqbal, M.Z., and Szabo, J.P., 2003, Comprehensive approach of groundwater resource evaluation: a 

case study in the Chippewa Creek Watershed in Ohio: Ohio 

Journal of Science, v. 103, no. 5, p. 134–42.

Well-log data were used to compute mean transmissivity 

of outwash along Chippewa Creek in Wayne and Medina 

Counties. Transmissivity of the outwash was computed to 

be 25,000 gal/d/ft (310 m2/d) and hydraulic conductivity 

was 250 gal/d/ft2 (10 m/d). Annual recharge was estimated 

to be 4.2 x 108 ft3, and specific capacity was 5 gal/min/ft 

(1.03 l/sec/m). Groundwater quality has elevated concentrations of calcium, sodium, potassium, and bicarbonate. The 

article states that there is no significant variation in water 

quality across the study area based on analysis of 18 water 

samples. DRASTIC results showed that the potential for 

contamination is highest along Chippewa Creek within 

the outwash. The authors concluded that a comprehensive 

evaluation of an aquifer for development should include not 

only dimensions and hydraulic properties, but also its long 

term susceptibility to contamination.

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 2008, Singer Lake 

Bog, accessed March 11, 2008, at http://www.cmnh.org/site/

Conservation_NaturalAreas_Map_SingerLakeBog.aspx
Annotated Bibliography 61

Clifford, M.J., 1973, Silurian rock salt of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 90, 42 p.

Clifford, M.J., 1975, Subsurface liquid-waste injection in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information 

Circular 43, 27 p.

Coffey, G., 1930, Preglacial, interglacial and postglacial 

changes of drainage in northeastern Ohio with special reference to the Upper Muskingum Drainage Basin: The Ohio 

Journal of Science, v. 30, no. 6, p. 373–384. 

This is an early attempt to understand existing and historical directions of surface drainage. “Still much to be done 

(1930) before a complete and satisfactory explanation of 

direction of flow of streams either in new channels or the 

flow direction has been reversed. The general direction of 

flow within preglacial streams was from the southeast northwestward toward the broad plains to the west rather than 

from the edge of the plains southeastward into the hills as so 

many of them do at the present time.”

Cohen, A.J., and Randall, A.D., 1998, Mean annual runoff, 

precipitation, and evapotranspiration in the glaciated northeastern United States, 1951–80: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 96–395 (digital version of map data), 

accessed June 29, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/

getspatial?ofr96395_eva

Condit, D.D., 1912, Conemaugh Formation in Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 17, 363 p.

This report provides detailed descriptions of the Conemaugh Formation in eastern Ohio. The formation is middle 

to upper Pennsylvanian in age (roughly 300 to 360 million 

years old). The Pottsville Formation is basal (oldest), overlain by the Allegheny Formation, overlain by the Conemaugh Formation, overlain by the Monongahela (youngest). 

Descriptions of rock outcrops, cores, and fossil assemblages 

are given, by county.

Conrey, G.W., 1921, Geology of Wayne County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 24, 155 p.

The report provides descriptions of rock cores and outcrops 

of formations throughout Wayne County, by township.

Cook, P.G., and Solomon, D.K., 1995, Transport of atmospheric trace gases to the water table: Implications for 

groundwater dating with chlorofluorocarbons and krypton 

85: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 2, p. 263–270.

Couchot, M.L., 1978, Resources of the Pittsburgh (No. 8) coal 

in the Belmont field, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 105, 12 p.

Couchot, M.L., Crowell, D.L., Van Horn, R.G., and Struble, 

R.A., 1980, Investigation of the deep coal resources of portions of Belmont, Guernsey, Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 116, 37 p.

Craig, H., 1961, Isotopic variations in meteoric water: Science, v. 133, p. 1702–1703.

Crist, D.R., and Raab, J.M., 2006, Potentiometric surface of 

the consolidated aquifers in Stark County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed 

February 15, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/

gwpsurface/PSurfPDFs/StarkBed_PSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Stark County created from data collected over a 50-yr period with a contour 

interval of 50 ft.

Cross, W.P., and Brooks, H.P., 1959, Floods of January-February 1959 in Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 418, 

54 p. 

The 1959 flood was reported to be the worst flood in Ohio 

since 1913. Heavy rains on January 20 and 21, 1959, 

exceeded 6 inches. In addition, there was already high 

runoff because the ground was saturated by a storm on 

January 14–17 and was frozen with some ground cover. On 

a few streams, the stages and discharges exceeded those of 

1913. Sixteen lives were lost and the damage was estimated 

at $100 million. Total damage in the Muskingum River 

basin exceeded that of any other major river basin. The 

report also provides discharge and stage data for several 

gages within the Tuscarawas River Basin and runoff into the 

major reservoirs.

Crouch, T.M., Collins, H.R., and Helgeson, J.O., 1980, Abandoned subsurface coal mines as a source of water for coal 

conversion in eastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 118, 25 p.

Crowell, D.L., 1995, History of the coal-mining industry in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 72, 

204 p.

Crowell, K., and Crumley, T.A., 1978, Ground-water resources 

of Columbiana County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale approx. 1:63,000. 

Crowell, K., and Schottenstein, C.A., 1979a, Ground-water 

resources of Holmes County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale approx. 1:63,000. 

Crowell, K., and Schottenstein, C.A., 1979b, Ground-water 

resources of Wayne County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale approx. 1:63,000. 

A color-coded county map, based on 8,900 water-well 

records, shows the diversity of well-yield conditions, ranging from 300 to 500 gal/min within permeable sands and 

gravels in deep buried valleys to less than 10 gal/min in 

sand and gravel stringers in thick clayey till. Most of the 

bedrock areas of the map provide 10 to 25 gal/min from 

the Pottsville and Allegheny groups and as much as 25 

to 100 gal/min from sandstones in the Pottsville group. 
62 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

An important note is included on the map: “High density 

housing may substantially reduce projected well yields.”

Crowell, K., and Schottenstein, C.A., 980, Ground-water 

resources of Harrison County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale approx. 1:63,000. 

This groundwater resource map shows approximate groundwater yield based on well logs and aquifer tests. The map 

is dominated by areas colored orange, where wells produce 

less than 3 gal/min. Sandstones and sandy shales present in 

northwest corner of the county near Bowerston may yield 

3 to 10 gal/min. Valleys have clay fine sand and silt with 

smaller amounts of sand and gravel.

Cummins, J.W., 1959, Buried Valleys in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water 

Plan Inventory Report No. 10.

This report provides maps of buried valleys in Ohio along 

with their estimated water-yielding properties.

Cummins, J.W., and Sanderson, E.E., 1947, The water 

resources of Tuscarawas County, Ohio: Ohio Water 

Resources Board Bulletin 6, 52 p. 

Hydrologic conditions in Tuscarawas County through the 

1940s are described. The 1940 census lists a population 

at 68,816 with 54.5 percent of the population living in an 

urban setting and 45.5 percent in a rural setting. Twentyseven percent of county land is under agricultural production. In 1945, 1.7 million tons of coal was mined from 82 

active mines; 4 billion cubic feet of gas and 30,000 barrels 

of oil were extracted.

Springs were numerous and occurred at outcrops of sandstone with flows up to 20 gal/min. Water use in the county 

was estimated to be 18.7 Mgal/d (million gallons per day). 

Favorable areas for induced streamflow to wells lie along 

Tuscarawas River from Newcomerstown to Dover and 

Bolivar. However, on p. 39 it is noted that... “In view of 

the present high chloride content of the Tuscarawas River, 

such developments, along that stream would probably yield 

undesirable water.” Movement of ground water in bedrock 

is generally from west to east with discharge into gravel 

strata in buried valleys. East of the Tuscarawas River, these 

strata have no area of natural discharge and the water is 

highly mineralized. In the sand and gravel deposits, “no 

particle of water moves down valley very far before it 

discharges to the stream.” No wells show long-term waterlevel declines, but fluctuations may be as large as 16 ft. 

Analyses of groundwater revealed iron concentrations 

greater than 1 ppm (parts per million) in sandstone aquifers and elevated chloride concentrations in samples from 

the Blackhand Sandstone. Surface-water samples from 

the Tuscarawas River sometimes exceed 12,000 ppm of 

chloride, resulting in contamination of the Coshocton 

Wellfield. Water samples collected during low flow in the 

upper tributaries and reaches of the Tuscarawas are high 

in noncarbonate hardness, chloride, and dissolved solids. 

Concentrations of total hardness, chloride, and dissolved 

solids become lower in downstream reaches; however, the 

chloride concentration in the Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown varies greatly.

Dachnowski, A., 1912, Peat deposits of Ohio, their origin, 

formation and uses: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Bulletin 16, 424 p.

Dai, J., 1993, Groundwater characteristics and lead geochemistry, Sandy Creek, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, University of Akron, 

M.S. thesis, 59 p.

Dai, J., Chyi, L.L., and Khourey, C.J., 1992, Characteristics of 

groundwater and lead geochemistry along the Sandy Creek, 

Ohio [abs]: Abstracts with Programs—Geological Society 

of America, v. 24, no. 7, p. 211.

Dames & Moore and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District, 1975, Muskingum River Basin Flood 

Control System: Muskingum River Basin, Ohio: Huntington, W. Va., U.S. Army Engineers Huntington District, 

variously paginated.

Davic, R.D., Eicher, D., and DeShon, J., 1997, 1996 Ohio 

water resource inventory: volume 3: Ohio’s public lakes, 

ponds, and reservoirs: Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, Division of Surface Water, Technical Bulletin MAS/1997–10–2, variously paginated, accessed 

October 12, 2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/

documents/96vol3.pdf

This report provides a summary of water quality of public 

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs throughout Ohio including 

Atwood Reservoir, Nimisila Reservoir, and Tappan Lake 

and lists those waters that are currently not meeting waterquality standards. The most common issues include very 

low or no dissolved oxygen and elevated concentrations of 

manganese and total dissolved solids. Sampling of bottom 

sediments revealed elevated concentrations of chromium 

and zinc at Atwood Reservoir and elevated chromium at 

Tappan Lake. Atwood Reservoir and Tappan lake also had 

detectable concentrations of d-BHC (lindane, an insecticide), and Nimisila Reservoir had detectable concentrations 

of dieldrin (another insecticide).

Dean, E.S. (compiler), 1948, Additional analyses of coals of 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 4, 17 p.

DeBrosse, T.A., 1957, Coal beds of the Conemaugh formation 

in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 34, 33 p.

DeLong, R.M., 1955, The Pittsburgh No. 8 and Redstone 

No. 8A coals in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 26, 49 p.
Annotated Bibliography 63

DeLong, R.M., 1957, Coal resources of the lower part of the 

Allegheny formation in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 31, 43 p.

DeLong, R.M., 1965a, Geology of the Kensington quadrangle, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 55, 

scale 1:24,000. 

This is one of a series of reports on geology that is later 

summarized in Delong (1969). Most of the surficial bedrock 

is the Conemaugh Formation. The map also shows the 

extent of glaciation mapped by Goldthwait (1967). Silurianage salt deposits at 3,200 to 3,500 ft below land surface are 

specifically mentioned.

DeLong, R.M., 1965b, Geology of the Malvern quadrangle, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 57, 

scale 1:24,000. 

The Conemaugh and Allegheny Formations account for 

most of the surficial bedrock in the Malvern quadrangle. 

Much more of the surface area of the Malvern quadrangle 

is covered by alluvium and Wisconsinan glacial deposits 

than is the Kensington quadrangle of Delong (1965a). The 

Kensington quadrangle also contains some Illinoian glacial 

deposits and shows the extent of Illinoian glaciation.

DeLong, R.M., 1967, Bedrock geology of the Minerva quadrangle, Stark, Columbiana, and Carroll Counties, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 65, scale 1:24,000. 

DeLong, R.M., 1968, Bedrock geology of the Dellroy quadrangle, Carroll County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 68, scale 1:24,000. 

Most of the surficial bedrock in the Dellroy quadrangle is 

the Conemaugh Formation in the uplands and the Allegheny 

Formation in the valleys. The Union pool is noted as a significant oil and gas source within the Berea and Cussewago 

Sandstones.

DeLong, R.M., 1969, Bedrock geology of the Carrollton 

quadrangle, Carroll County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report 

of Investigations 71, scale 1:24,000.

The report includes a stratigraphic section, map, and 

description of mineral resources. It also shows oil and gas 

wells as of 1969 and abandoned shaft or slope mines in the 

Middle Kittanning Coal. Most of the surficial bedrock is of 

the Conemaugh Formation. Oil and gas are produced from 

the Berea and Cussewago Sandstones, along with some 

natural gas from a coal bed (Kittanning?).

DeLong, R.M., 1972, Bedrock geology of the Bergholz 

quadrangle, Carroll and Jefferson Counties, Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 

87, one sheet with text.

DeLong, R.M., 1978, Structure on the Pittsburgh (No. 8) coal 

in the Belmont field, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 106, two sheets.

DeLong, R.M., 1990, Bedrock geology, north of Muddy 

Fork and Still Fork of Sandy Creek, of the Minerva quadrangle, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Open-File Map BG–C2F1, 

scale 1:24,000. 

DeLong, R.M., and White, G.W., 1963, Geology of Stark 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Bulletin 61, 209 p. 

This is a summary of the geology of Stark County with 

many references to early geological explorations of the 

State. The report describes drainage characteristics, 

flow directions, and flow reversals before and through 

glacial periods.

Denny, G.L., 1988, Jackson Bog State Nature Preserve: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas 

and Preserves, 12 p.

This is a pamphlet describing the formation of a bog, characteristics of a fen, and plant ecology and types. “...As the 

Wisconsinan glacier melted, a kettle lake formed in the 

kame moraine area near Canton. Boreal vegetation colonized the site, and fen vegetation became established on 

the highly saturated sand and gravel deposits between the 

kames. Canadian bog plants continued to grow at Jackson 

Bog, long after the climate changed, thanks to groundwater discharge into the bog from outwash deposits. The 

groundwater is highly saturated with calcium and magnesium bicarbonates, has a pH of 8.0 to 9.0, temperature of 

54 degrees F, and low oxygen content—similar to conditions along the edge of the glacier during the Ice Age.”

Denton, G.H., 1960, Coal resources of the upper part of the 

Monongahela formation and the Dunkard group in Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 38, 50 p.

Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990, Physical and 

chemical hydrogeology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 

824 p.

Dow, J.W., 1962, Lower and Middle Devonian limestones in 

northeastern Ohio and adjacent areas: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Report of Investigation 42, 67 p.

Dumouchelle, D.H., 2006, Selected ground-water-quality 

data from wells in the Scenic Heights-Batdorf Road area, 

Wooster Township, Wayne County, Ohio: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006–1382, 13 p.
64 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Dumouchelle, D.H., and Bair, E.S., 1994, Ground-water levels 

and directions of flow near the Industrial Excess Landfill, 

Uniontown, Ohio, March 1994: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4136, 17 p. 

This report documents water levels in 149 wells, river 

stage at 13 staff gages, and water levels in 9 piezometers at 

sites surrounding the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL). The 

regional pattern of groundwater flow generally is from east 

to west, but it is locally altered by groundwater mounds that 

reflect the hummocky terrain. The relatively small groundwater mound at the landfill causes groundwater to flow radially away from the southeastern corner of the landfill. 

Dumouchelle, D.H., and Schiefer, M.C., 2002, Use of streamflow records and basin characteristics to estimate groundwater recharge rates in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 46, 45 p. 

Groundwater recharge rates were estimated by use of computer programs that analyzed streamflow records. “...Basins 

with 20 percent or more coverage of soils with low infiltration rates tended to have recharge rates of less than 6 inches 

per year whereas basins with 20 percent or more coverage 

of soils of high infiltration rates tended to have recharge 

rates of 8 in yr or more.” The estimated recharge rates for 

Sandy Creek were 9 to 10 inches per year and for Home 

Creek near New Philadelphia it was 6 inches per year.

Earth Action Partnership, Inc., 2006, Reifsnyder Wetland, accessed September 20, 2006, at http://www.

earthactionpartnership.org/reifsnyder.htm

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency required the 

City of Canton to reduce nitrate concentrations in Nimishillen Creek. As a result, the City of Canton funded a study 

on the construction of a series of holding ponds to form 

a wetland in a small park along the Middle Branch of 

Nimishillen Creek.

Eckstein, Y., Matyjasik, B., Matyjasik, M., and Haitjema, 

H.M., 2001, Dislocation of the continental ground-waterdivide induced by excessive pumping in Summit County, 

Ohio; 2000 annual meeting on Atmospheric, surface and 

subsurface hydrology and interactions: Hydrological Science and Technology, v. 17, no. 1-4, p. 119–128.

Crystal Lake experienced a substantial drop in the water 

table and in the lake during the years 1991–94. Mapping 

of the water table disclosed an expanding cone of depression centered at the wells of the Montrose Well Field of 

Summit County. Expansion of the cone of depression to 

the west resulted in dislocation of the groundwater divide 

between the Cuyahoga River (discharging to Lake Erie) and 

Tuscarawas River (a tributary to the Ohio River), “pirating” 

Crystal Lake from the Great Lakes drainage into the Ohio 

River Drainage Basin. Water levels and groundwater flow 

were simulated in the area of the Montrose Well Field using 

the MODFLOW numerical model, with average aquifer 

hydraulic properties obtained from interpretation of aquifer 

tests at the two production wells. Results of the model 

simulation, together with the groundwater-level surveys, 

indicate that Crystal Lake converted during the 10 years 

(1985–1994) from an effluent to an influent surface-water 

body. Also, the model indicates that the excessive drawdowns in the two Montrose production wells resulted in the 

drop of the water level below the semi-confining boundary 

of the till covering the kame gravel aquifer, changing the 

aquifer conditions from a semi-confined to unconfined. 

Edelen, G.W. Jr., Ruggles, F.H., Jr., and Cross, W.P., 1962a, 

Floods at Barberton, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–49, scale 1:24,000. 

The topographic map shows the area inundated at Barberton, Ohio, by the Tuscarawas River and Wolf Creek during 

the flood of January 22, 1959. This was the highest flood 

level since March 1913 on the Tuscarawas River and Wolf 

Creek at Barberton.

Edelen, G.W., Jr., Somers, W.P., and Cross, W.P., 1962b, 

Floods at Canton (Stark County), Ohio: U. S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA–50, scale 1:24,000. 

The atlas shows area inundated by the Middle Branch and 

East Branch Nimishillen Creek during the flood of January 

21–22, 1959. This was the highest flood level on these rivers since at least 1886. A flood in February 1959 inundated 

almost the same area. 

Engelke, M.J., Jr., and Roth, D.K., 1981, Hydrology of Area 

7, Eastern Coal Province, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 81–815, 60 p. 

Chemical, physical, biological, and streamflow data were 

collected at 138 sites in eastern Ohio. Data from currently 

mined, reclaimed, and abandoned mine and unmined 

areas were compared. “...Low pH, high specific conductance, high concentrations of iron, sulfate, and manganese, 

increased sediment yields, discoloration of streambeds, 

limited aquatic vegetation and animal life typify streams 

draining areas with abandoned mines. In areas where land 

has been reclaimed, the environmental stress is expected to 

be temporary.”

Eshler, L.M., 1988, Hydrogeological analysis of Sharon Township, Medina County, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, University of 

Akron, M.S. thesis, p. 92 

This thesis contains qualitative and quantitative information 

about the water quality and hydrologic properties of individual aquifers in Sharon Township, Medina County. The 

shallow bedrock is described as a highly fractured interconnected aquifer system. The bedrock surface and groundwater flow closely parallel surface topography. Water quality is 

calcium-bicarbonate type.
Annotated Bibliography 65

Espinoza, M., 2005, When all streams come together: Wooster, 

Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center 

News, accessed October 18, 2006, at http://www.oardc.

ohio-state.edu/story.php?id=3161

This article summarizes work related to 319 grants going on 

in the Sugar Creek watershed. The overall goal is improving 

quality and awareness of headwaters of Sugar Creek. The 

article also describes the Sugar Creek Headwaters Project, 

a grassroots effort in Wayne and Holmes Counties led by 

Richard Moore at Ohio State University. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of the Eastern United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 

714 p.

Forsyth, J.L., 1961, Dating Ohio glaciers: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Information Circular 30, 9 p.

Foulk, C.W., 1925, Industrial water supplies of Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 29, 406 p.

Francisco, B.H., and Shakoor, A., 1997, A geotechnical evaluation of the potential use of selected waste materials for 

lime spoil stabilization [abs]: Annual Meeting—Association 

of Engineering Geologists, v. 40, p. 99. 

Francy, D.S., Jones, A.L., Myers, D.N., Rowe, G.L., Eberle, 

C.M. and Sarver, K.M., 1998, Quality assurance/qualitycontrol manual for collection and analysis of water-quality 

data in the Ohio District: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 98–4057, 71 p.

Francy, D.S., Myers, D.N, and Helsel, D.R., 2000, Microbiological monitoring for the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4018, 31 p.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p.

Fuller, J.O., 1955, Source of Sharon conglomerate of northeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 23, 17 p. (Reprinted from Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1955, v. 66, p. 159–S175.)

Gannett Fleming, I., 2000, Acid mine drainage abatement 

and treatment plan for the Huff Run Watershed: Huff Run 

Watershed Restoration Partnership, 52 p., accessed on 

December 12, 2006, at http://www.huffrun.org/amdat.pdf

This acid mine drainage abatement and treatment (AMDAT) 

plan for Huff Run describes current conditions and the 

potential for restoration of the watershed, establishes restoration goals, defines and prioritizes projects for funding, and 

recommends future monitoring programs. Current aquatic 

life conditions are summarized as being “...significantly 

impaired in the lower five reaches as a result of the episodic 

pH excursions during low flow conditions, and an increase 

in metal loading. Consequently, it is recommended that 

restoration efforts be focused to address these trends. With 

the top-down approach, projects within a watershed are 

implemented in an upstream to downstream order, extending the benefit over the greatest length of stream being 

restored.”

Garvey, J.T., 1988, The hydrogeology of eastern Franklin and 

western Green Townships, Summit County, Ohio: Akron, 

Ohio, University of Akron, M.S. thesis, 97 p.

This thesis describes groundwater availability and quality in 

Summit County. The author did a gravity survey that supports previous interpretations that the valley floor tilts to the 

north. Specific capacity of the glacial drift was estimated at 

1.7 gal/min/ft, hydraulic conductivity was 390 gal/d/ft2 and 

transmissivity was 37,500 gal/d/ft. Water quality is calcium 

bicarbonate type. Locally, there were issues with elevated 

nitrate concentrations of as much as 21 mg/L (milligrams 

per liter).

Gilliom, R.J., Barbash, J.E., Crawford, C.G, Hamilton, P.A., 

Martin, J.D., Nakagaki, N., Nowell, L.H., Scott, J.C., Stackelberg, P.E., Thelin, G.P., and Wolock, D.M., 2006, The 

quality of our Nation’s waters—pesticides in the Nation’s 

streams and ground water, 1992–2001: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1291, 172 p.

Glugla, G. and Tiemer, K., 1971, Ein verbessertes Verfahren 

zur Berechnung der Grundwasserneubildung (An improved 

method for the calculation of groundwater recharge, in 

German): Wasserwirtsch. u. Wassertech, v. 20, no. 10, 

p. 349–353 (reference citation obtained from Bonta and 

Muller, 1999).

Golden, P.D., Jones, W.A., Brown, L.C., and Ricker, K.T., 

undated a, Coshocton County groundwater resources: 

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.16, 

accessed November 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0490_16.html

This is an overview of Coshocton County’s groundwater 

resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. 

On a generalized map of well yields, Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources observation wells and chemical analysis 

sites are shown. Nitrate, high hardness, and elevated iron 

concentrations are present in water in the county.

Golden, P.D., Ricker, K.T., and Brown, L.C., undated b, Water 

resources of Coshocton County: Ohio State University 

Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.16, accessed November 20, 

2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_16.html

This is an overview of water resources for Coshocton 

County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the 

county is 39 inches per year, providing 10 inches of runoff 

to streams and lakes. About 6.1 inches have the potential to 

recharge aquifers. Land use is 50 percent farmland.
66 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Goldthwait, R.P., White, G.W., and Forsyth, J.L., 1967, Glacial map of Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Geologic Investigations I–316 rev, scale 1:500,000. 

Gordon, G., 1978, User’s guide to the Ohio Capability Analysis Program: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Division of Water, 159 p.

This guide gives the rationale and examples of the Ohio 

Capability Analysis Program that provided information for 

decisionmakers to analyze resource data in terms of the 

data’s ability to support various land uses.

Granchi, J.A., 1958, Coal resources of the Pottsville formation: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 36, 53 p.

Gray, J.D., Struble, R.A., Carlton, R.W., Hodges, D.A., Honeycutt, F.M., Kingsbury, R.H., Knapp, N.F., Majchszak, 

F.L., Stith, D.A. (Eds.), 1982, An integrated study of the 

Devonian-age black shales in Eastern Ohio: Ohio Geological Survey Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/

ET/12131–1399, p. 863–900. 

Groenewold, G.H., 1974, Hydrogeologic and other considerations related to the selection of sanitary-landfill sites in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Information Circular 41, 15 p.

This report provides information needed for the selection 

of potential land fill sites. “...Flat to gently sloping upland 

areas are generally better suited than lowlands and steep 

slopes. Dry fine-textured materials are the most effective 

natural filtering agents. Saturated coarse-textured materials 

and fractured rocks are very ineffective as filtering agents. 

However, depth to the water table is generally not as important as the texture of the materials. Extremely fine-textured 

materials may act as impermeable membranes and eliminate 

all downward movement of leachate; under such conditions 

surface seeps may form around the landfill. Proper selection 

of cover materials will decrease infiltration into the landfill 

as well as help to eliminate the lateral migration of gases 

from the site.”

Haefner, R.J., 2002, Water quality and geochemical modeling 

of water at an abandoned coal mine reclaimed with coal 

combustion by-products: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02–4216, 28 p. 

A 7-acre abandoned coal mine was reclaimed with pressurized fluidized-bed combustion byproducts during 1994. 

Water quality at the mine site was monitored after the 

reclamation to evaluate the fate and transport of undesirable elements derived from the leachate, such as sulfate, 

arsenic, and boron. Even though elevated concentrations 

of sulfate and boron were found in the shallow unsaturated 

zone, little, if any, leachate was detected in groundwater or 

surface water leaving the site.

Hambrook, J.A., Armitage, B.J., and Vis, M., 1999, Algal and 

macroinvertebrate assemblages of selected Ohio springs: 

Ohio Biological Survey Notes, v. 2, p. 1–24.

This is a qualitative study of the algal flora, macroinvertebrate fauna, and water quality of 10 Ohio springs, 

conducted from July through September 1996. Springs in 

Medina (Styx River) and Summit County (Sand Run and 

Gorge Metropark) are included in this report.

Harker, D.H., 1943a, Ohio’s water supply: Columbus, Ohio, 

Ohio Water Supply Board, 11 p.

Harker, D.H., 1943b, Report on Ohio water table survey, June 

15, 1943: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Supply Board, 52 p.

The report documents the earliest water-table survey by 

county agricultural agents of 32 of the 88 counties of Ohio. 

Data relating to the Tuscarawas River Basin are available for Medina, Holmes, Tuscarawas, Guernsey, and 

Belmont Counties.

Harker, D.H., 1943c, Report on Ohio water table survey, 

December 1, 1943: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Supply 

Board, 19 p.

This report describes the continuation and expansion of 

the program described in Harker (1943a), with 49 counties 

cooperating in the program. “...[During the 1930’s] The 

Midwest experienced a series of drouth [sic] years such as 

it had not known in the twentieth century. Only since 1941 

have rainfall figures been decidedly favorable. Only now is 

Ohio beginning to recover from a deficiency of 26 inches 

piled up during the years 1930 to 1941 inclusive. However, 

there were many extended periods of drouth during the 

1800’s when Ohio was still in forest timber. One of particular interest was in 1824 and 1825 when, according to 

records of Ohio’s canal commissioners, the groundwater 

was so low that streams did not furnish enough water for 

operation of canal systems.”

Harker, D.H., 1944a, Post-war planning for water supply in 

Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Supply Board, 17 p. 

This report to the Water Supply Board describes needs 

and recommendations for expansion of water supplies. 

“...Collection and study of data are essential. They constitute the proper approach to the solution of any problem. But 

there comes a time when collection and study of available 

information must give way, if only temporarily, to the development of a plan of solution. It is at this point that the Ohio 

Water Supply Board now finds itself. A plan for the remedying of Ohio’s water supply ills is in the making. It will be 

comprehensive. It will be definite. It will be practical. It will 

be brought to the legislature of our state in the next regular 

session in January, 1945.”

Specific descriptions are provided of the water situation in 

Canton and Akron. Canton requires more water for industrial supply. “...At the present time Canton industries are 
Annotated Bibliography 67

doing very well, because the situation for groundwater in 

the Canton vicinity is truly a remarkable one. However, 

it is possible that a serious industrial water problem may 

arise soon if the city for its domestic use does not find new 

groundwater fields or develop a new surface water source.”

“...Akron is poorly situated for ground water except where 

deep gravels occur. The City of Akron has long used 

surface water from reservoirs constructed for the purpose. 

Lake Rockwell, the present source is reported to be most 

adequate. It is not hindered by the usual siltation problem 

that afflicts many artificial reservoirs and is said to have lost 

relatively little capacity.”

The Ohio Water Supply Board instituted a water-table 

survey with nearly 1,000 observers in almost 60 counties. 

Based on these data... “We have reason to doubt the statement that the water table is falling “a foot a year.” During 

1943, it fell 3.17 feet, but during good rainfall years it can 

be expected to rise a like amount or even more. There are 

alarmists who make it appear that the general trend of the 

water table is continually down because of the cutting of 

forests, intensive farming and land drainage. We believe 

that this is not the case and we are conducting the Ohio 

Water table Survey now for last year, not for this year but 

for always with the intention of showing definitely what the 

water table is doing year after year.

It is believed that the ground and surface water studies 

should never be discontinued. It is as essential for the state 

to know how the water table compares from year to year 

as it is for it to know how its rainfall, temperature, and 

streamflow varies. This work should not only be continued 

but should be amplified and along with it there should be a 

general amplification of the state geological survey which 

now spends annually about $15,000.”

Harker, D.H., 1944b, Report to Ohio Water Supply Board, 

Columbus, Ohio, on water supply in Summit County: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Supply Board, 81 p. 

This report provides a summary of the water-supply situation in Summit County along with population numbers 

for Akron from 1860 to 1940. As stated in the report, the 

water-supply issues are as follows: “...1. shales cause 

problems with farm and domestic supplies in western halves 

of Boston and Northampton Townships, 2. most of the 

buried valleys in the Akron area are filled with fine sand, 

silt, and clay, 3. Cuyahoga Falls, Lakemore, Hudson, and 

Twinsburg have ground water supplies that are adequate and 

can be expanded, 4. Barberton’s water supply is scarcely 

more than adequate because of the war, 5. Akron’s domestic 

supply is among the most adequate in Ohio, 6. Some room 

for improvement in 3 surface water supplies for Akron 

and Barberton.”

Harker, D.H., and Bernhagen, R.J., 1943a, Report on water for 

industry in Ohio: Investigation and report: Columbus, Ohio, 

Ohio Water Supply Board, 88 p. 

This is a water-use report that describes surpluses in water 

quantity that may be available for industrial utilization. 

The report includes tables of average daily consumption of 

major cities, costs of water, total hardness, and pH. Groundwater supplies are listed by regions...” The unconsolidated 

glacial deposits in the Muskingum Valley (Dresden to 

Dover) afford one of the finest ground water reserves in 

the State. Supplies as great as 5 million gallons per day can 

be developed and it is possible that, following test drilling 

and pumping tests, even larger supplies can be developed 

without any detrimental effect to the existing water supplies. Within these limits the Tuscarawas Valley from Zoar 

to Massillon is known to be underlain with a relatively great 

thickness of glacial outwash material.”

Harker, D.H., and Bernhagen, R.J., 1943b, Report on water 

supply in Medina County: Field investigation and report: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Supply Board, 30 p. 

Medina County was divided into four zones on the basis of 

groundwater availability. The map included in this report 

shows characteristics of water-bearing units and results of 

water analyses for supply wells in Wadsworth finished in 

the Sharon Sandstone and in the Chippewa Lake area finished in sand and gravel, along with a hydrograph for 1935 

to 1942. Stream pollution and intrusion of saltwater and oil 

into water-bearing units from activities in the Chatham oil 

field area are described here.

Harker, D.H., and Bernhagen, R.J., 1943c, Report to Ohio 

Water Supply Board, Columbus, Ohio on water supply in 

Stark county: field investigation and report: Columbus, 

Ohio, Ohio Water Supply Board, 67 p. 

This is a report prepared for the City of Canton. The major 

conclusions of this work are: (1) farm and domestic water 

supplies are readily obtained in all parts of Stark County 

from gravel, shale, and sandstone wells; (2) Canton probably must eventually go to a surface-water supply in 

Sandy Creek; (3) Massillon has no water-supply problem; (4) Alliance has a very real water-supply problem; 

(5) North Canton has sufficient present supply from rock 

wells; (6) Louisville, East Canton, and Canal Fulton have 

rock water supplies which appear ample; and (7) Minerva, 

Navarre, Brewster, Waynesburg, Beach City, Magnolia, and 

Hills and Dales use gravel wells and have ample supplies. 

(8) It is believed that any small community in Stark County 

can readily develop a supply from groundwater sources.

Harrell, J.A., McKenna, J.P., and Kumar, A., 1993, Geological controls on indoor radon in Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 144, 36 p., 

10 figs., 1 table.

Harstine, L.J., 1991, Hydrologic Atlas for Ohio; average 

annual precipitation, temperature, streamflow, and water 

loss for 50-year period, 1931–1980: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Division of Water, Water Inven-
68 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

tory Report No.28, accessed June 29, 2009, at http://www.

dnr.state.oh.us/water/pubs/hydatlas/tabid/4187/Default.

aspx#anchor1703518

Heaton, K.P., 1982, The hydrogeology of the City of Stow 

and Hudson Township, Summit County, Ohio: Kent, Ohio, 

unpublished M.S. thesis Kent State University Department 

of Geology, 251 p.

Heaton, T.H.E., 1981, Dissolved gases: Some application to 

groundwater research: Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa: v. 84, p. 91–97.

Heaton, T.H.E, and Vogel, J.C., 1981, “Excess air” in groundwater: Journal of Hydrology, v. 50, p. 201–216.

Heaton, T.H.E., Talma, A.S., and Vogel, J.C., 1983, Origin and 

history of nitrate in confined groundwater in the Western 

Kalahari: Journal of Hydrology, v. 62, p. 243–262.

Heiskanen, W.A., and Uotila, U.A., 1956, Gravity survey of 

the State of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 30, 34 p.

Heit, M., 1985, The relationship of a coal fired power plant to 

the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the 

sediment of Cayuga Lake: Water Air Soil Pollution, v. 24, 

p. 41.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p.

Heritage Pursuit, 2009, History of Tuscarawas County, 

accessed January 28, 2009, at http://www.heritagepursuit.

com/Tuscarawas/TuscarawasChapI.htm

Himes, B.T., 1982, Outwash terraces of the Kokosing and 

Walhonding river valleys, Knox and Coshocton counties, 

Ohio: unpublished M.S. thesis, Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State 

University, 63 p. 

Hogan, M., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated a, Water 

resources of Carroll, Harrison and Jefferson Counties: 

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX-480.89, 

accessed September 21, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0480_89.html

This fact sheet provides an overview of water resources for 

Carroll, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties, including summary information on precipitation, groundwater, and surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the 

three-county area is 39 inches per year, providing 10 inches 

of runoff to streams and lakes. About 6 inches of rainfall 

has the potential to recharge aquifers. Land use is 96 to 

98 percent rural with 31 to 46 percent farmland. Nitrate in 

groundwater is an issue.

Hogan, M., Raab, J.M., and Brown, L.C., undated b, Groundwater resources of Carroll, Harrison and Jefferson Counties: 

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.89, 

accessed September 21, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0490_89.html

This fact sheet gives an overview of Carroll, Harrison, and 

Jefferson County’s groundwater resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. The fact sheet includes a 

generalized map of well yields, Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources observation wells, and chemical analysis sites. 

The sand and gravel deposits along the Ohio River in Jefferson County and along the many stream and creek valleys 

throughout all three counties have the potential to provide 

water adequate for domestic and agricultural uses and many 

municipal uses. Chemical analysis for major anions and 

cations show hard water and elevated iron concentrations.

Hoover, K.V., 1960, Devonian-Mississippian shale sequence 

in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 27, 154 p.

Horton, A.H., and Jackson, H.J., 1913, The Ohio valley flood 

of March–April, 1913, including comparisons with some 

earlier floods: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

334, 96 p.

Huff Run Watershed Restoration Project, 2006a, Fish studies, 

accessed September 18, 2006, at http://www.huffrun.org/

fish.html.

Three segments of Huff Run were sampled for fish before 

2002. As the stream flows west, it travels from undisturbed, 

original conditions into areas where coal has been removed 

from surface and underground mines. The results illustrate 

diverse fish communities above the mining sites and only 

pollution-tolerant fish species in the lower course of the 

stream. Fish populations were sampled again in 2003 and 

2005, and larger numbers of fish were collected downstream 

than during the earlier studies indicating that “...the stream 

health is getting better.”

Huff Run Watershed Restoration Project, 2006b, Macroinvertebrate studies, accessed September 18, 2006, at http://www.

huffrun.org/macro.html.

This Web page shows results of a macroinvertebrate study 

conducted by Mount Union College in summer 2004. 

Results are difficult to interpret because data were lost due 

to flooding. Macroinvertebrate conditions near Mineral City 

are not as good as those upstream. The Web site also has a 

link to a 2002 macroinvertebrate study by Maureen March.

Huff Run Watershed Restoration Project, 2006c, Water quality 

of Huff Run, accessed September 18, 2006, at http://www.

huffrun.org/wq.html

The Huff Run watershed drains 14.1 mi2 in Tuscarawas and 

Carroll Counties, and the stream is a tributary to Conotton 

Creek. “...Huff Run is a very polluted stream. The largest 

problem is acid mine drainage. Secondary issues are broken 
Annotated Bibliography 69

vegetative buffers, illegal dumping, sewage influences, 

oil and gas development, and agricultural impacts.” pH of 

streamwater is low and acidity is high, resulting in high 

concentrations of iron, aluminum, manganese. These waterquality problems are caused by drainage from abandoned 

coal mines “and other poor mining practices predating mining laws and regulations.” 

The Web page contains additional links to the 2005 Watershed Plan, the Huff Run Acid Mine Drainage Abatement 

and Treatment Plan, fish studies, and macroinvertebrate 

studies.

Hull, D.N., 1980, Sand and gravel resources of Portage 

County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 114, 

scale 1:63,360. 

The map shows the extent of kame deposits, eskers, and 

alluvium in Portage County. Western Portage County 

includes part of the largest kame complex in Ohio, between 

the Killbuck and Grand River glacial lobes. The map also 

provides estimates of available sand and gravel resources 

(in tons) by township, sieve analyses, pebble counts, stratigraphic sections from several water-well logs, and three 

measured sections from the Tuscarawas River Basin. 

Hull, D.N., 1984, Geologic evaluation of land areas in Portage 

County, Ohio, for solid-waste disposal: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report 

of Investigations 126, scale 1:63,360. 

Although much of Portage County may be suitable for 

siting a landfill, the southwest corner of the county, which 

drains into the Tuscarawas Basin, is “generally unsuitable” for solid-waste disposal due to (1) the presence of 

highly permeable sand and gravel which would likely allow 

groundwater contamination by refuse leachate, and (2) areas 

of alluvial material in floodplains and bogs which have typically high water tables, and (or) which flood frequently.

Hull, D.N., 1987, Surficial materials of Portage County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 138, scale 1:63:360.

This report provides a description of the character of materials within the upper 20 ft of land surface. Surficial material 

in the area of the Tuscarawas Basin is Kent Till. The dominant material at the surface is sand and gravel with lenses 

of silty, clayey till, but also may include alluvium over sand 

and gravel.

Hull, D.N., comp., 1990, Generalized column of bedrock units 

in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey [oversize sheet]. (Revised by 

G.E. Larson (2000) and E.R. Slucher (2004).)

Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, 

D.S., and Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in 

the United States in 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1268, 46 p.

Hyde, J.E., 1953, Mississippian formations of central and 

southern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 51, 355 p.

Hyland, S.M., 1982, Benthic macroinvertebrates as indices of 

water quality in the upper Tuscarawas River: Akron, Ohio, 

University of Akron, M.S. thesis, p.76 

Iqbal, M.Z., 1990, Groundwater resources of Chippewa Creek 

Valley in Wayne and Medina Counties, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, 

University of Akron, M.S. thesis, p.104 

Ivahnenko, T., and Barbash, J.E., 2004, Chloroform in the 

hydrologic system—Sources, transport, fate, occurrence, 

and effects on human health and aquatic organisms: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004–5137, 34 p. 

Jackson, J.L., Bauder, J.R., Hardy, J., and Kennedy, M., 1989, 

Field studies: Hardy Road Landfill and Industrial Excess 

Landfill, a Superfund site: Ohio Journal of Science, v. 89, 

no. 3, p. 45–S55. 

The site was an active sand and gravel pit before 1955; 

waste disposal started in 1959. Sand and gravel deposits are 

underlain by lacustrine silts and clays. Geologic conditions contributed to off-site movement of methane in 1984, 

resulting in destruction by fire of a private dwelling. Gas 

migration down dip in gravels caused the explosion. In 

1989, 600,000 cubic feet of landfill gas were collected and 

flared every day at Hardy Road. The major concern at the 

Industrial Excess landfill at Uniontown was groundwater 

contamination. Till at depth may account for the relatively 

low level of contamination at the site. 

Janssens, A., 1973, Stratigraphy of the Cambrian and Lower 

Ordovician rocks in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Bulletin 64, 197 p.

Janssens, A., 1977, Silurian rocks in the subsurface of northwestern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 100, 96 p.

Janssens, A., and de Witt, W. Jr., 1976, Potential natural gas 

resources in the Devonian shales in Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Geological Note 3, 12 p.

Johnson, T.W., 1986, Muskingum River Task Force: Columbus Ohio, Muskingum River Task Force, 27 p. 

Jones, H.P., Henry, T.B., and Williams, L.G., 1958, Water 

improvements report for Wooster Ohio: Toledo, Ohio, 

Jones, Henry, and Williams Engineers, 201 p.

Jones, M.W., 1961, Construction and operation of a chloride 

holding basin: Proc.16th Industrial Waste Conference, 

Purdue University Engineering Extension Service No.109, 

p. 186–S192.
70 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

The Barberton, Ohio, plant of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 

manufactured soda ash. The waste waters, which contained 

high concentrations of chloride, were formerly discharged 

continuously to the Tuscarawas River after sedimentation 

in a lagoon. In view of the increasing pollution of the Ohio 

river with chloride, it was decided to construct a large holding lagoon in which the wastewaters could be stored during 

periods of low river flow and discharged at controlled rates 

during periods of high flow; the rate of discharge was proportioned to river flow so that the concentration of chloride 

in the river water at a control point at Clinton, Ohio, did not 

exceed a selected maximum value. Initial operation of the 

holding lagoon was satisfactory. 

Jost, D.J., 1994, Hydrogeology and pollution potential of 

aquifers, Doylestown, Wayne County, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, 

University of Akron, M.S. thesis, 177 p.

This thesis provides background information for a wellhead protection plan for Doylestown in northeastern Wayne 

County. To examine the characteristics of the contributing 

recharge areas to the wellfield, the calculated fixed radius 

method was used along with the DRASTIC mapping 

system. The wellfield is underlain by Sharon Sandstone 

and the Rittman and Armstrong Siltstones. The average 

transmissivity of bedrock is 35,000 gal/d/ft. The hydraulic conductivity of is 10-4 to 10-3 cm/sec (centimeters per 

second) or 2.1 to 21 gal/d/ft2. Hydraulic conductivity of the 

underlying Cuyahoga group is 10-6 to 10-4 cm/sec or 0.21 to 

2.1 gal/d/ft2.

Kaser, P., 1960, Report on proposed City of Canton water-supply development along Sugar Creek in Tuscarawas County: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water Commission, 17 p. 

Canton has used groundwater as a sole source of water 

supply since 1898. Production in 1960 was at 18 to 

25 Mgal/d (million gallons per day). Future supplies of up 

to 20 Mgal/d may be obtained from sand and gravels along 

Sugar Creek (the report contains a thorough description of 

the geology underlying Sugar Creek). Tests of the aquifer 

underlying Sugar Creek established that the source of water 

or recharge is Sugar Creek itself. A recommendation was 

made to allow additional withdrawals with the stipulation 

that hydrologic observation be carried out, including installation of monitoring wells at the wellfield, at Strasburg, and 

at Dover, and to install another streamgage at Strasburg. 

Kazman, R.G., 1949, The utilization of induced stream infiltration and natural aquifer storage at Canton, Ohio: Economic 

Geology, v. 44.

The Ranney Company recharged the lower aquifer by use 

of Ranney well inductions from the upper aquifer. The two 

aquifers are separated by a clay layer.

Kelly, T.D., and Matos, G.R., with major contributions provided by Buckingham, D.A., DiFrancesco, C.A., Porter, 

K.E., and USGS mineral commodity specialists, 2009, 

Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in 

the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, 

version 3.0, accessed February 15, 2009, at http://minerals.

usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/#ref

Kendall, C. and McDonnell, J. J., (eds.), 1998, Isotope tracers 

in catchment hydrology: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science B.V., 

p. 51–86.

Kent State University Museum, 2008, Uncommon clay, 

accessed January 18, 2008, at http://dept.kent.edu/museum/

exhibit/pottery/pottery.html 

Kerschner, D.R., 1980, The hydrogeology of Green and 

Springfield Townships, Summit County: Kent, Ohio, unpublished M.S. thesis, Kent State University Department of 

Geology, 148 p.

Khourey, C.J., 1981, The source and transport of arsenic in 

northeastern Ohio groundwaters: Cleveland, Ohio, Case 

Western Reserve University, M.S. thesis, 84 p. 

Kleski Environmental Consulting, 2001, Huff Run Watershed 

Plan: Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership, 71 p., 

accessed December 12, 2006, at http://www.huffrun.org/

watershed_plan.pdf

This report describes a watershed plan for Huff Run. The 

Huff Run Watershed covers about 14.7 square miles and 

enters Conotton Creek. Land use in watershed was 43 percent forested, 29 percent mining, 15.4 percent agricultural, 

3.6 percent urban residential, and 8 percent other. Acid mine 

drainage is the primary contamination concern.

Knapp, N.F., 1977, Trace elements in Ohio coals: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 

103, 12 p.

Koltun, G.F., 1999, Floods of June 28–29, 1998, in Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4192, 22 p. 

During a 96-hour period, 10 inches or more of rain fell on 

parts of Ohio. Twenty-three counties were declared disaster 

areas, and 12 fatalities occurred. City of Uhrichsville in 

Tuscarawas County on Stillwater Creek was hit extraordinarily hard. The report also includes damage estimates for 

each county.

Koltun, G.F., 2003, Techniques for estimating flood-peak 

discharges of rural, unregulated streams in Ohio (2d ed.): 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4164, 75 p. 

This report describes development of a series of equations 

used to estimate flood discharges at ungaged sites and based 

on data collected at streamgages. Standard error of prediction is about 40 percent.
Annotated Bibliography 71

Koltun, G.F., Kula, S.P., and Puskas, B.M., 2006, A streamflow statistics (StreamStats) Web application for Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5312, 62 p.

Koltun, G.F., and Roberts, J.W., 1990, Techniques for estimating flood-peak discharges of rural, unregulated streams in 

Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89–4126, 68 p. 

This report describes development of multiple regression 

equations to estimate flood discharges at ungaged sites 

using data from gaged sites. First edition of subsequent 

report by Koltun (2003).

Koltun, G.F., and Sherwood, J.M., 1998, Factors related 

to the joint probability of flooding on paired streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4238, 32 p. 

This report examines probability of flooding in a stream 

correlated to another stream. Sandy Creek, Middle Branch 

Nimishillen Creek, Nimishillen Creek, and Home Creek 

were among the streams used for this analysis. 

Kraatz, W.C., 1941, Quantitative plankton studies of Turkeyfoot Lake, near Akron, Ohio: Ohio Journal of Science, v. 41, 

p. 1–22.

At the time of publication of this paper, Nimisila Reservoir 

was in the process of filling. The report includes seasonal 

and vertical distributions of plankton and water-quality data 

including temperature, dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, 

and pH.

Kunze, A.E., and Sroka, B.N., 2004, Effects of highway deicing chemicals on shallow unconsolidated aquifers in Ohio—

Final Report: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5150, 187 p.

Lamborn, R.E., 1930, Geology of Jefferson County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 35, 304 p.

Lamborn, R.E., 1942, The coal beds of western Carroll County 

and the coal beds in southeastern Mahoning County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological 

Survey, Bulletin 43, 33 p. 

Lamborn, R.E., 1945, Recent information on the Maxville 

limestone: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 3, 18 p.

Lamborn, R.E., 1951, Limestones of eastern Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 49, 377 p.

Lamborn, R.E., 1952, Additional analyses of brines from 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 11, 56 p.

Lamborn, R.E., 1954, Geology of Coshocton County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological 

Survey, Bulletin 53, 245 p. 

This report presents an analysis of the physiography, drainage, and glacial and bedrock geology of Coshocton County. 

Coshocton County was little affected by the direct action of 

the glaciers during Pleistocene time; however, valleys were 

filled with substantial amounts of sediment derived from 

glacial lakes and meltwater. Extreme western Coshocton 

County (outside of Tuscarawas drainage) includes Illinoianage till. The report provides detailed descriptions of cores 

and geologic sections on a township by township basis.

Lamborn, R.E., 1956, Geology of Tuscarawas County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological 

Survey, Bulletin 55, 269 p.

This report presents an analysis of the physiography, 

drainage, and glacial and bedrock geology of Tuscarawas 

County. The report describes flow patterns of major rivers 

before, during, and after glaciation. Prior to glaciation, 

streams flowed to the north along what is called the Dover 

River. The report provides detailed descriptions of cores and 

geologic sections on a township by township basis.

Lamborn, R.E., Austin, C.R., and Schaaf, D., 1938, Shales 

and surface clays of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Bulletin 39, 281 p.

Larsen, G.E., 2000, Generalized column of bedrock units in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey [oversize sheet].

Leberfinger, J.L., 1995, Geophysical characterization of the 

Muskingum River glacial outwash aquifer near Conesville, 

Ohio: Toledo, Ohio, University of Toledo, M.S. thesis, 

170 p.

Several geophysical methods (gravity, seismic refraction, 

and resistivity) were utilized during this investigation to 

obtain information pertaining to bedrock depth and the 

thickness and lateral extent of the water-bearing materials in 

the buried valley aquifer. 

Lindsey, B.D., Phillips, S.W., Donnelly, C.A., Speiran, G.K., 

Plummer, L.N., Böhlke, J.K., Focazio, M.J., Burton, W.C., 

and Busenberg, Eurybiades, 2003, Residence times and 

nitrate transport in ground water discharging to streams in 

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4035, 201 p. 

Little, C., Thompson, P.L., N’Jie, N., and Brown, L.C., 

undated, Water resources of Guernsey County: Ohio State 

University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.30–98, accessed 

November 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aexfact/0480_30.html

This is an overview of water resources for Guernsey 

County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface water, 
72 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the county 

is 39.4 inches per year providing 10.2 inches of runoff 

to streams and lakes. About 6.3 inches of rainfall has the 

potential to recharge aquifers. Land use is 41 percent farmland. Water-quality monitoring indicates that all or parts of 

Guernsey County streams are impaired by nonpoint-source 

contamination, including West Fork Duck, Little Stillwater 

Creek, and Wills Creek.

Mahler, B.J., Van Metre, O.C., Bashara, T.J., Wilson, J.T., and 

Johns, D.A., 2005: Parking lot sealcoat: an unrecognized 

source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 39, no. 15, p. 5560–5566.

Majchszak, L., 1984, Geology and formation-water quality 

of the “Big Injun” and “Maxton” sandstones in Coshocton, 

Guernsey, Muskingum, and southern Tuscarawas Counties, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 124, 36 p. 

The “Big Injun” is the western sandstone body traced to 

the outcrop of the Black Hand Sandstone Member of the 

Cuyahoga Formation (Lower Mississippian). The eastern 

sandstone body known as the “Maxton” sandstone is correlated to the Sharon Sandstone and conglomerate (lowermost Pennsylvanian). The “Big Injun” should not be used 

for disposal of oilfield brines because of its importance as a 

source of potable and brackish water. Better disposal sites 

are in the middle and southeast parts of the study area. 

March, M., 2002, A study of macroinvertebrate communities 

in Reach Six of Huff Run to determine water quality: Huff 

Run Watershed Restoration Partnership, 6 p., accessed on 

September 18, 2006, at http://www.huffrun.org/macrostudy.

pdf

Assessment of Huff Run was performed using macroinvertebrate populations living in the upper and lower part of the 

stream, but not for Reach Six, which is a middle section of 

the stream. In this study, Hester-Dendy traps and kick nets 

were used to collect macroinvertebrate samples in Reach 

Six and in the upper and lower parts of the stream for comparisons. Conductivity and pH were also measured in the 

field. Macroinvertebrates were identified to the family level. 

With this data, Cumulative Index Values (stream quality 

index), Jaccard’s Index (similarity) and the Shannon Index 

(Diversity) were calculated. Results indicate that Reach 

Six is a poor habitat with low diversity and is in need of 

further restoration.

Martin, W.D., 1998, Geology of the Dunkard Group (Upper 

Pennsylvanian-Lower Permian) in Ohio, West Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 73, 49 p. 

The Dunkard Group rocks have been studied for more than 

100 years, and their age is still controversial. This bulletin 

does not resolve the age controversy but describes previous 

studies and provides information on lithofacies, clasticrock composition, petrology, fossils, and depositional 

environments. 

Masters, R.W., and Razem, A.C., undated, Review of literature on buried valleys, northeastern Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, 

U.S. Geological Survey, 30 p. (unpublished, available 

from U.S. Geological Survey, Ohio Water Science Center 

Library, Columbus, Ohio).

This is an unpublished manuscript prepared for the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) program describing generalized characteristics 

of unconsolidated aquifers in northeast Ohio. An annotated 

bibliography includes references also cited herein. The 

study area is bounded on the south by Holmes, Tuscarawas, 

Carroll, and Columbiana Counties.

Matisoff, G., Khourey, C.J., and Hall, J.F., 1981, The source 

and transport of arsenic in northeastern Ohio groundwaters: Ohio State University Water Resources Center Report 

712435, 53 p. 

Groundwater in the area of Canal Fulton, Ohio, was examined for its hydrologic and chemical properties. Arsenic 

concentrations were greater than the USEPA Maximum 

Contaminant Level in two wells, but were elevated above 

the background value throughout much of the area. Within 

the study area, there was no evidence for an anthropogenic 

source of arsenic to the groundwater. Agricultural soils, 

abandoned underground coal mines, industrial impoundments to the north, and an abandoned industrial dump site 

within the study area were all eliminated as possible sources 

of the arsenic.

Matisoff, G., Khourey, C.J., Hall, J.F., Varnes, A.W., and 

Strain, W.H., 1982, Nature and source of arsenic in northeastern Ohio ground water: Ground Water, v. 20, no. 4, 

p. 446–456.

Maxson, G., 1975, Land capability analysis, Stark County: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

County Report 3, 125 p. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Land Capability 

Analysis Program (OCAP) began in October 1972 and was 

designed to gather information about the environment (such 

as vegetation, soils, and groundwater) and to analyze the 

ability of these components to support different land uses. 

This report describes statistics of Stark County in 1975. 

In 1974, land use was 30.3 percent cover and grassland, 

19 percent agriculture, 16 percent woodland, 16 percent 

residential, 9.7 percent scrubland, 1.2 percent commercial, 

1.2 percent industrial, 0.8 percent water or marsh, and 

5.6 percent other.

Mayasich, J., Grandmaison, D., and Phillips, C., 2003, Eastern 

hellbender status assessment report: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Annotated Bibliography 73

Service, NRRI/TR–2003/09, 41 p., accessed September 

27, 2006, at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eco_serv/soc/

amphibians/eahe-sa.pdf

Mayhew, G.H., 1985, Contamination investigation of the south 

wellfield for the city of Wooster, Ohio: Massillon, Ohio, 

Ohio Drilling Company 17 p.

McCormick, G.R., 1961, Petrology of Precambrian rocks of 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 41, 60 p., 42 figs., 17 tables.

McCurdy, D.E., Garbarino, J.R., and Mullin, A.H., 2008, 

Interpreting and reporting radiological water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, 

chap. B6, 33 p. 

McShaffrey, D., and Olive, J., 1985, Ecology and distribution of chironomid larvae from Carroll County, Ohio 

(Diptera:Chironomidae): Ohio Journal of Science, v. 85, 

no. 4, p. 190–198.

The study focused on sampling the Upper North Fork 

and Sandy Creek because these streams “...are desirable 

candidates for future biological monitoring projects.” The 

larvae of the family Chironomidae were collected from lotic 

and lentic sites from October 1981 to October 1982, and a 

total of 80 species was found. The number of species was 

comparable to that reported in other studies. 

Medina Soil Conservation District, 1960, Watershed work 

plan: Chippewa Creek Watershed, Medina and Wayne counties, Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, variously paginated. 

Moore, R.H., 2006, The Sugar Creek Method—An example 

of community-based watershed management, accessed September 21, 2006, at http://sugarcreekmethod.osu.edu/

In 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency labeled 

the Sugar Creek Watershed the second most impaired watershed in Ohio. Twenty-one sampling sites were established 

in 2001 and were sampled bi-monthly for pH, total solids, 

and nutrients. Results indicated high total dissolved solids 

were associated with high residential areas, and high nitrate 

concentrations were associated with industrial confined 

feedlots and crops. In contrast, high proportions of pasture 

and forest cover were associated with low concentrations of 

nitrate and ammonia, and high concentrations of phosphate 

were associated with farming.

Morrison, L., 1996, Seismic refraction studies of paleodrainage in the Muskingum River Valley, Muskingum County, 

Ohio: Athens, Ohio, Ohio University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

170 p. 

Morse, H.H., 1939, Erosion and related land use conditions on 

the Muskingum River watershed: U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 36 p. 

Morse, W.C., 1910, The Maxville limestone: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Bulletin 13, 128 p.

Multer, H.G., 1963, Ohio geology of the Silurian producing 

zones in the Moreland oil pool, Wayne County, northeastern 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 46, 48 p.

Multer, H.G., 1967, Bedrock geology of Wayne County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 61, scale 1:62,500. 

Surface exposure of bedrock in Wayne County is dominated 

by the Cuyahoga and Logan Formations (middle and upper 

Mississippian age), some Pottsville and minor Alleghany 

group (Pennsylvanian age). The report also provides a 

detailed stratigraphic section of rocks and description of 

mineral resources.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2008, 

National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992/2001 Retrofit 

Land Cover Change Product, accessed January 17, 2009, at 

http://www.mrlc.gov/index.php. 

Muskingum River Basin Initiative, 2005, The Muskingum 

River Basin, accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.

muskingumbasin.com/

This Web page summarizes the Muskingum River Basin 

Systems Operations Study.

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 2002, The Chippewa Creek Watershed Project, accessed September 12, 

2006, at http://www.mwcdlakes.com/chippewa/index.htm

This Web page describes the number of dams and the physical characteristics of the watershed, and explains how and 

why an additional assessment is being applied to homeowners in this watershed to be used to reduce flooding.

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 2008, Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District home page, 

accessed July 24, 2008, at http://www.mwcd.org/index.shtml

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002, 

Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, 

and heating and cooling degree days 1971–2000, accessed 

December 18, 2007, on http://www.lib.muohio.edu/epub/

govlaw/climate/OHnorm.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, 

Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services, accessed on 

April 5, 2008, on http://www.weather.gov/ahps/index.php

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998a, Soil survey 

of Harrison County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 300 p. 
74 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998b, Soil survey 

of Holmes County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 281 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999, Digital map 

of 14-digit hydrologic unit boundaries and codes, accessed 

February 19, 2008, at http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov/

technical/14-digit/index.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001, Keeping Ohio 

dams safe, accessed June 21, 2006, at http://www.nrcs.usda.

gov/Programs/ws_reinvent/keep_dams_safe/Chip3A.pdf

This report describes dam issues in Ohio, including the 

Chippewa Creek Watershed Pilot Rehabilitation Project. 

Constructed in 1980, the dam needs to be upgraded because 

of downstream development. Rehabilitation includes reconstruction and widening of the auxiliary spillway and limited 

removal of sediment.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002, Soil survey of 

Coshocton County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 418 p. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005, Soil survey 

of Guernsey County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 434 p. 

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1975, Water resources inventory: goals 

& policies, systems facilities, plans & proposals: Akron, 

Ohio, Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and 

Development Organization, variously paginated.

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1985, Non-point source assessment, 

Upper Tuscarawas Watershed, Summit County, Ohio: 

Akron, Ohio, Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 182 p. 

The purpose of the Upper Tuscarawas Watershed Non-Point 

Source Assessment was to identify nonpoint sources of pollution, environmental effects, and areas of origin. This study 

also called for a system to assign contamination-control 

priorities. The report examines the extent to which potential 

solutions or best management practices (BMPs) need to be 

applied to the watershed, the cost of BMP application, and 

the estimated effect on water quality.

The report provides land-use data for the watershed, which 

is 22 percent cropland, 21.6 percent residential, 20.3 percent 

rangeland, 14.4 percent forest, 8.5 percent transportation, 

3.5 percent water, and 1.7 percent commercial.

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1999a, Upper Tuscarawas River Basin 

Action Plan, Final Report, accessed March 15, 2005, at 

http://www.uptuscwatershed.org/upper_tuscarawas_action_

plan.htm

The Upper Tuscarawas River (Portage Lakes) Watershed is 

an area of mixed development with increasing conversion of 

agricultural and open space to single family and commercial 

development. On-lot home and semi-public sewage disposal 

systems (HSDSs and SPSDSs), landfills and dumps, and 

construction sites appear to have the greatest potential 

effect as nonpoint-source contamination sites as a whole. 

Other point sources include municipal wastewater-treatment 

plants, several smaller semi-public sewage-treatment plants 

(package plants), and industrial dischargers.

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1999b, Upper Tuscarawas River comprehensive watershed management plan—Phase 1, Executive Summary, accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.

uptuscwatershed.org/tusc_river/reports/executive_summary/

upper_tusc_ex_summary.pdf

This summary includes descriptions of land use in subwatersheds and potential contamination sources. Three surface-water sites had fecal coliform concentrations in excess 

of 1,000 colonies per 100 mL. “...Groundwater resources 

are among the most important.” Biologically significant 

watersheds are mostly on western boundary of watershed.

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 1999c, Upper Wolf Creek Comprehensive Basin Management Plan Phase II—Basin Monitoring, 

accessed October 10, 2006, at http://www.uptuscwatershed.

org/upper_wolf_creek_cwmp_II.htm

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2001a, Basin Action Plan with 

Cost Estimates, accessed March 15, 2001, at http://www.

uptuscbasin.org/upper_tuscarawas_action_plan_w_costs.

htm

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2001b, Nimishillen Creek Watershed Profile, accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.

uptuscbasin.org/nimishillen_creek/reports/nimishillen_

watershed_profile.PUB

This is a newsletter providing basic watershed background 

information, including land use in each sub-watershed 

(overall land use was dominated by greater than 50 percent 

open/vegetation; 25 to 50 percent urban; and less than 10 

percent industrial), potential contaminant point sources (56 

domestic- and 29 industrial-waste discharges were identified) and nonpoint sources (unsewered areas, agriculture, 

construction, and urban runoff), quality of riparian habitat, 

and water-quality conditions (21.4 percent in partial attainment and 69.7 percent in nonattainment).

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2003, Nimishillen Creek macroinvertebrate study, accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.

uptuscwatershed.org/nimishillen_survey.html
Annotated Bibliography 75

Chemical, bacterial, and macroinvertebrate monitoring 

was done at 16 sites in the Upper Wolf Creek Watershed, a 

tributary to the Tuscarawas River, to assess stream health 

and to characterize nutrient and sediment concentrations 

originating in the watershed. Field sampling did not show 

any unusually high levels of nutrients, iron, suspended 

solids, biological oxygen demand, fecal coliform, E. coli, 

temperature, or pH. Levels appear to be relatively low in 

comparison to other watersheds in the region. However, iron 

levels were greater than 1,000 mg/L (micrograms per liter) 

in summer months. Fecal coliform and E. coli counts also 

were elevated during summer months just after or during a 

rain event in June. Failing home sewage disposal systems 

are probable sources. Macroinvertebrate surveys revealed 

excellent water quality at three of four stations. The report 

recommended continued monitoring.

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2004, Upper Tuscarawas River Region 

Watersheds, accessed February 22, 2006, at http://www.

uptuscwatershed.org

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2005, Nimishillen Creek Macroinvertebrate Survey: 18 p., accessed on December 12, 2006, at 

http://www.uptuscwatershed.org/nimishillen_survey_2004.

htm

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization (NEFCO) identified and surveyed a 

total of 17 sites in Nimishillen Creek and its tributaries. The 

same sites were sampled in 2000, 2002, and 2004 (see also 

NEFCO, 2003). “...In general, the 2004 results of the macroinvertebrate monitoring were slightly lower than in 2000 

and 2002. However, the data still implies that the waters of 

the Nimishillen Creek watershed, in the vicinity of Canton, 

are of relatively fair quality, but are most likely still not 

meeting the designated standards. NEFCO observed that the 

in-stream habitat and macroinvertebrate data showed that 

streams with poor to fair macroinvertebrate counts had habitat similar to sites that had good to excellent macroinvertebrate counts. Sherrick Run is strongly impacted by AMD. 

Sampling of additional parameters (chemical, bacterial, and 

water flow) may provide more data to characterize water 

quality within the Nimishillen Creek watershed.”

Oelker, E.F., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated a, Stark 

County water resources: Ohio State University Extension 

Fact Sheet AEX–480.76, accessed September 20, 2006, at 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_76.html

This fact sheet is an overview of water resources for Stark 

County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for 

the county is 37 inches per year, providing 9.5 inches of 

runoff to streams and lakes. About 6 inches of rainfall has 

the potential to recharge aquifers. Land use is 43 percent 

farmland. Nitrate is a water-quality issue and volatile 

organic compound contamination is present in the area of 

Uniontown.

Oelker, E.F., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated b, Summit County water resources: Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.77, accessed November 20, 2006, 

at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_77.html

This fact sheet is an overview of water resources for Summit County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the 

three-county area is 37 inches per year, providing 9.6 inches 

of runoff to streams and lakes, and about 6 inches of 

rainfall has the potential to recharge aquifers. Land use is 

8.7 percent farmland. Nitrate is a water-quality issue, as is 

volatile organic compound contamination at Uniontown and 

adjacent area of Green Township in Summit County.

Oelker, E.F., Jones, W.A., Brown, L.C., and Boone, K.M., 

undated c, Stark County ground-water resources: Ohio State 

University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.76, accessed 

September 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aexfact/0490_76.html

This is an overview of Stark County’s groundwater 

resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. A 

generalized map of well yields shows the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources observation wells sites and sites where 

samples were collected for chemical analysis. 

Oelker, E.F., Raab, J.M., Brown, L.C., and Boone, K.M., 

undated d, Summit County ground-water resources: Ohio 

State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.77, 

accessed November 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0490_77.html

This is an overview of Summit County’s groundwater 

resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. 

Sites of Ohio Department of Natural Resources observation 

wells and sites where samples were collected for chemical 

analysis are shown on a generalized map of well yields. 

Industrial Excess landfill in neighboring Stark County may 

be source of volatile organic compounds.

Office of Surface Mining, 2000, Reclamation and Enforcement Annual Evaluation Summary Report: Evaluation Year 

2000: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, variously paginated, accessed December 12, 2006, at 

http://www.osmre.gov/oversight/ohio00.htm

“The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA) provides authority to the Office of Surface Mining to oversee the implementation of and provide 

Federal funding for State regulatory programs that OSM has 

approved as meeting the minimum standards specified by 

SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the Ohio Program and the effectiveness of the Ohio 

Program in meeting the applicable purposes of SMCRA as 
76 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

specified in section 102. This report covers the period of 

October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000.”

Regarding Huff Run, “...The Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership (HRWRP) is working with the Crossroads 

Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) 

of the NRCS. They received an Ohio EPA 319 grant to fund 

several projects in partnership with the group and Ohio.”

Office of Surface Mining, 2009, Surface Mining Law, 

accessed September 24, 2009, at http://www.osmre.gov/

topic/SMCRA/SMCRA.shtm

This web page contains Public Law 95-87, the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 

passed August 3, 1977, and all revisions through December 

31, 1993.

Ohio Department of Health, 1958, Report of water pollution study of Muskingum River Basin, 1951 –1953–1954: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of Health, Sewage and 

Industrial Waste Unit, 116 p. 

This report describes a surface-water reconnaissance of 

the entire Muskingum River Basin. 1950 population of the 

basin was 916,600. Survey data and analyses of their significance provides evidence that damaging effects on water 

quality existed at the time of the survey which impaired reasonable and necessary water uses, endangered public health, 

and caused nuisance conditions. Recommendations focus 

on reduction in municipal wastes, industrial wastes, organic 

pollution and several (listed) focal points; adequate and 

continuous disinfection of sewage and industrial wastes; 

effective removal of solids from mill scale, blast furnace, 

and other waste effluents; effective removal of grease and 

oil from waste effluents; neutralization of waste pickle 

liquors; elimination of discharge of concentrated brines; 

removal or reduction of phenolic constituents; modification 

or controlled discharge of industrial wastes containing toxic 

materials; and modification or control of miscellaneous 

wastes not specified in this report. 

The report documents chloride contamination from the 

Morton Salt Company and the Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation affiliated with Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company in the Tuscarawas River. These companies operated 

brine wells in the vicinity of Barberton-Rittman. Morton 

Salt discharged directly to Tuscarawas River at Clinton by 

way of Chippewa Creek. Columbia Southern Chemical put 

brines in settling lagoons. Data from 1950 show the surface 

water at the Tuscarawas River at Massillon had an average 

chloride concentration of 5,754 ppm, and the Tuscarawas 

River at Newcomerstown had an average chloride concentration of 976 ppm.

Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Water Pollution Control 

Board, 1968, Report and recommendations on water quality 

for Muskingum River Basin: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of Health, Division of Engineering, 85 p. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1963, The story of 

Ohio’s mineral resources: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Information Circular 9, 14 p.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1968, Water inventory of the Muskingum River Basin and adjacent Ohio 

River tributary areas: Ohio Water Plan Inventory Report 21, 

201 p. 

This inventory of the basin identifies water problems and 

recommends projects to address these problems. “...By the 

year 2000 municipal water demands will have tripled 1960 

use rates, but will not have exceeded potential supplies. 

Major problems to be faced are those of improving water 

quality and providing some additional flood protection. A 

water plan should provide: reduced chloride concentrations 

accomplished at least in part by reduction in total chloride 

level, streamflow regulation from reservoir storage or from 

wells to concentrations of undesirable waste materials, 

urban flood protection, agricultural flood protection, water 

supply reservoirs for at least 39 communities, additional 

wells for at least 93 communities, new well water supplies for 19 other communities, improved waste treatment 

facilities for 18 municipalities plus additional facilities at 28 

more communities, and fullest recreational use.” Recommended projects include restudy of the entire Muskingum 

reservoir system, completion of a multipurpose reservoir on 

the north branch of the Kokosing, a multipurpose reservoir 

on the North Fork of the Licking River near Utica, development of work plans for six small watersheds, and construction of the Chippewa Creek and Buffalo Creek work plans. 

The inventory also provides summary land use and population data by county.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1971, Interim plan 

for pollution abatement of the Tuscarawas River basin 

(STORET Basin 0504): a phase of the Southeast Ohio water 

development plan: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, unpaginated. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1972, Wolf Creek 

Wildlife Area: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Wildlife, scale 1:33,000. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1974a, Conotton 

Creek subwatershed analysis: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Mined Lands Restoration Unit Report 1, 116 p. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1974b, Land capability analysis: the Wolf Creek project: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Planning, 

55 p. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1976, Bedrock 

topography of Medina County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open File Map 

219, scale 1:62,500. 
Annotated Bibliography 77

Bedrock topography is shown on topographic base county 

maps at a scale of 1:62,500. The county base maps were 

composited in the 1970s. Bedrock-topography compilation dates range from 1971 to 1989. These maps have been 

superseded by the 1:24,000-scale bedrock-topography maps.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1978a, Drift thickness of Medina County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open File 

Map 225, scale 1:62,500. 

Thickness contours of the unconsolidated glacial deposits in 

Medina County are shown on topographic base county maps 

at a scale of 1:62,500. The county base maps were composited in the 1970s. Compilation dates range from 1971 to 

1989. These maps have been superseded by the 1:24,000-

scale glacial maps.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1978b, Southeast 

Ohio water plan: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, 517 p.

This plan provides a comprehensive document for the 

development and management of the region’s water 

resources with particular emphasis on water supply and 

flood control with projections to the year 2020. The study 

area includes all of the Muskingum River Basin and provides summary data and projections for every community 

within the basin.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1983, Drift thickness 

of Portage County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Open File Map 205, 

scale 1:62,500. 

Thickness contours of the unconsolidated glacial deposits in 

Portage County are shown on topographic base county maps 

at a scale of 1:62,500. The county base maps were composited in the 1970s. Compilation dates range from 1971 to 

1989. These maps have been superseded by the 1:24,000-

scale glacial maps.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1993a, Quaternary 

geology of Canton quadrangle: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open File Map 

296, scale 1:250,000. 

These hand-drafted maps, compiled from published and 

unpublished sources, depict the surficial glacial and alluvial 

deposits of the Canton quadrangle at a scale of 1:250,000.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1993b, Quaternary 

geology of Cleveland quadrangle: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Open 

File Map 293, scale 1:250,000. 

These hand-drafted maps, compiled from published 

and unpublished sources, depict the surficial glacial and 

alluvial deposits of the Cleveland quadrangle at a scale of 

1:250,000.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1997a, History of 

coal mining in Ohio: Geofacts No. 14, accessed December 4, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/

GeoFacts/geof14.pdf

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1997b, Ohio and Erie 

Canal/Hydraulic Operations: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Fact Sheet 97–41, 3 p., 

accessed December 12, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/

water/pubs/fs_div/fctsht41.htm

Details are provided regarding the drainage and flow 

characteristics of the Portage Lakes, which include the East 

Reservoir, West Reservoir, Turkeyfoot Lake, North Reservoir, and Long Lake.

“The Portage Lakes, located south of the City of Akron, 

were originally constructed in the 1830’s to supply water to 

the Ohio & Erie Canal. The reservoirs were retained by the 

state for recreational development and water supply. Due 

to the expansion of industry and the demand for raw water, 

Nimisila Reservoir and Tuscarawas Diversion Dam were 

built in 1936 and 1956, respectively, to augment water supply from the Portage Lakes and the canal.”

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1999a, Abandoned 

Underground Mines (Shafts)—Statewide, theme ID 1900, 

accessed October 10, 2008, at http://www.ohiodnr.com/

gims/category/tabid/10528/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1999b, Probable 

Abandoned Underground Mines—Statewide, theme ID: 

1901, accessed October 10, 2008, at http://www.ohiodnr.

com/gims/category/tabid/10528/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000a, Drift thickness 

of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Water, scale 1:500,000, accessed October 24, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/samp/

The maps and data are available as pdf files or GIS data 

layers. GIS data layers also can be ordered on a CD that 

contains additional base map files and supporting documentation. The maps were compiled from 1:24,000 data.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000b, Primary lithology of the unconsolidated deposits of Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, scale 1:500,000, accessed October 24, 2006, at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/samp/

The maps and data are available as pdf files or GIS data 

layers. GIS data layers also can be ordered on a CD that 

contains additional base map files and supporting documentation. The maps were compiled from 1:24,000 data.
78 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000c, Yields of the 

unconsolidated aquifers of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:500,000, accessed 

October 24, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/samp/

The maps and data are available as pdf files or GIS data 

layers. GIS data layers also can be ordered on a CD that 

contains additional base map files and supporting documentation. The maps were compiled from 1:24,000 data.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2000d, Yields of the 

uppermost bedrock aquifers of Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:500,000, 

accessed October 24, 2006, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/

water/samp/

The maps and data are available as pdf files or GIS data 

layers. GIS data layers also can be ordered on a CD that 

contains additional base map files and supporting documentation. The maps were compiled from 1:24,000 data.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2006, Industrial minerals and coal mining permitted locations, theme ID: 2959, 

accessed October 10, 2008, at http://www.ohiodnr.com/

gims/category/tabid/10528/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2007a, 2006 report 

on Ohio mineral industries: An annual summary of the 

state’s economic geology, 205 p. accessed December 17, 

2007, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/min_ind_

report/06minind.pdf

This is a summary report of Ohio’s mineral industry including detailed summaries of coal production numbers for the 

year and long-term trends in minerals production.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2007b, Oil and 

gas fields map of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources single-page map, accessed December 15, 2007, 

at http://ohiodnr.com/Portals/10/pdf/pg01.pdf

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008a, Dam definition, classification and statistics, Division of Water Dam 

Safety, accessed April 5, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/

water/dsafety/default/tabid/3329/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008b, Division of 

Soil and Water Conservation, Soils Regions of Ohio General Soils Map and Information, accessed August 15, 2008, 

at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/9068/default.aspx

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008c, The hydrologic cycle or water cycle: Fact Sheet 93–18, accessed June 

18, 2008, at http://ohiodnr.com/water/pubs/fs_div/fctsht18/

tabid/4101/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Public Works and Dayton Morgan 

Engineering Co., 1931, Report on water resources of 

Muskingum drainage area: Dayton, Ohio, Dayton Morgan 

Engineering Co., 44 p. 

Ohio Drilling Company, 1971, Ground water potential of 

northeast Ohio: Massillon, Ohio, The Ohio Drilling Company, 360 p.

This report focuses on the potential groundwater supply in 

several preglacial buried river valleys in northeast Ohio, 

including those in the Chippewa Area. Seismic profiling was used to establish a cross section or rock profile of 

the buried valley. Electric resistivity logs show the depth 

of valley up to 300 ft deep. Seven test holes were drilled 

to determine the type of fill material in the valley. It was 

estimated that 75 to 150 gal/min can be obtained from a 

clean sand and gravel layer present along the western flank 

of the valley.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, Water quality 

management plan, part III: Muskingum River basin: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, Initial water 

quality management plan, Muskingum River basin: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1994a, Biological and 

water quality study of the East Branch Nimishillen CreekStark County, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Technical Report EAS/1994–6–6, 69 p. 

During 1993, 12 fish and macroinvertebrate sites on the 

East Branch Nimishillen Creek were sampled. Results 

indicate that 1.7 miles of stream were in partial attainment 

and 7.5 miles of stream were in non-attainment of warmwater biological criteria. Exceedances of chemical waterquality criteria were not recorded at any sampling locations 

upstream of J&L Specialty Products outfalls. Exceptionally 

high nitrate-nitrite concentrations (up to 170 mg/L) were 

recorded below J&L Specialty Products. Concentrations of 

dissolved oxygen were low and concentrations of total dissolved solids were high up to 2.65 miles downstream from 

the site.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b, Biological and 

water quality study of the River Styx: Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency Technical Report SWS/1994–6–8, 25 p. 

A total of 3.5 river miles along River Styx were evaluated 

for warm-water criteria. The upper 0.6 miles were in full 

attainment; the lower 2.9 miles were in non-attainment. 

Wastewater discharges account for approximately 97 percent of streamflow.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1994c, Biological, 

sediment and water quality study of the Tuscarawas River, 

Wolf Creek and Hudson Run, Summit and Stark Counties: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical 

Report EAS/1994–8–7, 102 p., accessed June 21, 2006, at 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/tuscppg.pdf
Annotated Bibliography 79

Fish consumption advisories were based on fish tissue 

results from 1989 and 1993, which found elevated levels of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and hexachlorobenzene 

(HCB) in fish tissue. High concentrations of HCB also were 

found in sediment in the Tuscarawas River from Wolf Creek 

to the downstream end of study area, and in Hudson Run 

Reservoir adjacent to PPG Industries. Numerous samples 

exceeded the Severe Effect Level (a level above which sediment is considered heavily contaminated and likely to affect 

the health of sediment-dwelling organisms), with the highest concentration at 852 mg/kg (micrograms per kilogram). 

Other chlorinated benzenes and elevated metals concentrations also were present in sediment samples. Several spills 

associated with the PPG site occurred between 1980 and 

1991, consisting predominantly of silica solids/sodium silicate, wastewater, and hydrochloric acid. HCB was present 

in six surface-water samples.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, Biological and 

water quality study of Upper Sandy Creek and Still Fork 

Sandy Creek—Stark, Carroll and Columbiana Counties, 

Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical 

Report EAS/1994–5–4, 65 p. 

Poorly treated organic wastes from the Minerva Wastewater 

Treatment Plant had a substantial effect on biological and 

chemical water conditions in Sandy Creek. All biological 

indices declined to poor at a station 0.7 miles downstream. 

Sharp increases in ammonia nitrogen and phosphorous also 

were noted.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b, Fish tissue 

study of the Tuscarawas River and Sugar Creek, Tuscarawas 

County; Dover Chemical (Dover, Ohio) and Alsco Anaconda (Gnadenhutten, Ohio): Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report MAS/1995–3–5, 18 p. 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF), and other 

dioxin and furan congeners were analyzed in fish collected 

from the Tuscarawas River at Dover and from Sugar Creek. 

Elevated levels of PCBs were present in Tuscarawas River 

fish collected at locations both upstream and downstream 

from the Sugar Creek confluence (Dover Chemical) and 

Alsco Anaconda. The highest PCB levels in the study area 

were reported for common carp. Hexachlorobenzene was 

detected in all Tuscarawas River and Sugar Creek fish tissue 

samples. Monitoring of various chlorinated pesticides in fish 

tissue at all sampling sites revealed concentrations less than 

FDA Action Levels. One common carp fish tissue sample 

collected at RM 39.6 (upstream from Alsco Anaconda, at 

US 36) contained elevated concentrations of alpha-BHC 

(63 mg/kg), gamma-BHC (lindane) (25 mg/kg), delta-BHC 

(38 mg/kg), heptachlor epoxide (270 mg/kg), endosulfan 

I (20 mg/kg), 4,4’-DDD (140 mg/kg), and methoxychlor 

(320 mg/kg). 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a, Biological 

and sediment study of the Tuscarawas River, Tuscarawas 

and Stark Counties, Ohio—Ashland Oil spill, June 1995: 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report 

MAS/1996–2–1, 24, [66], accessed December 19, 2006, at 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/tuscspll.pdf

A pipeline construction company laying a new high pressure petroleum pipeline in close proximity to an active 

high pressure crude oil transmission pipeline operated by 

Ashland Pipeline sheared off a valve within 50 feet of the 

Tuscarawas River on June 7, 1995. More than 300 barrels of 

crude oil discharged to the Tuscarawas River approximately 

7 miles upstream from Bolivar. Containment booms were 

deployed at several locations downstream with limited success; eventually, the crude oil was contained behind Dover 

Dam, approximately 16 miles downstream from the spill 

site. The dam and containment boom stopped most of the 

crude oil with only a sheen passing through the dam.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b, Biological and 

water quality study of the Upper Killbuck Creek Watershed—Medina, Wayne, Holmes, and Coshocton Counties, 

Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical 

Report MAS/1994–12–13, 173 p. 

Within the upper reaches of Killbuck Creek and in Camel 

Creek (a headwater tributary), low dissolved oxygen concentrations were common. Macroinvertebrate community 

performance varied considerably between the headwaters of 

Killbuck Creek and Wooster, but remained above warmwater habitat biocriterion (marginally good to exceptional 

ranges). Upgrades at the Wooster wastewater-treatment 

plant (WWTP) in the late 1980s resulted in a substantial 

reduction in ammonia loadings and improved water quality 

immediately downstream. Elevated and extremely elevated 

levels of arsenic were present in sediments at 8 of 11 sites in 

Killbuck Creek and 5 tributaries. Within Apple Creek, macroinvertebrate communities were exceptional. In Doughty 

Creek, continuous daily monitoring revealed dissolved 

oxygen levels below the minimum WWH criterion (4 mg/L) 

downstream from Guggisberg Cheese and the Charm Tributary (RM 14.6–14.29). The increasingly large diel dissolved 

oxygen swings at the remaining downstream stations (RMs 

12.9–10.24) indicated substantial background enrichment 

in the upper reaches of Doughty Creek. Fish and macroinvertebrates were generally in the very good or exceptional 

ranges at three stations in the headwaters of Doughty Creek 

and at one station near the mouth. The only other tributary 

included in this study is in the wetland portion of Shreve 

Creek (within Killbuck Marsh) where very low dissolved 

oxygen concentrations were observed. Daytime dissolved 

oxygen concentrations were consistently at or near zero during summer sampling, reflecting natural conditions within a 

true wetland stream.
80 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1996c, Biological and 

water quality study of the Upper Muskingum River mainstem and selected tributaries: Tuscarawas, Coshocton, Licking, Muskingum, and Knox Counties: Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency Technical Report MAS/1995–8–9, 193 p. 

In the lower 7.3 miles of the Tuscarawas River, the river 

was in partial attainment of excellent water habitat (EWH) 

aquatic life use upstream from Coshocton and in full attainment of warm water habitat (WWH) from Coshocton to the 

mouth. Tuscarawas River biological communities generally 

ranged from marginally good to exceptional throughout 

the lower stretches. Biological communities immediately upstream and downstream from Stone Container 

(RM 1.17–0.4) fully attained the existing WWH use designation and reflected minimal effects in the form of organic 

enrichment. Declines in biological community performance 

were observed upstream from Coshocton (RM 7.2–3.4). 

Following the 1988 survey, approximately 45 miles of the 

Tuscarawas River from Stillwater Creek to Coshocton were 

upgraded to EWH based on the improved performance of 

the biological communities. Chlorophyll a sampling of the 

Upper Muskingum River revealed substantial algal productivity upstream from Stone Container, an indication of 

high background nutrient levels upstream from Coshocton. 

A series of small municipalities (Newcomerstown, West 

Lafayette, and Canal Lewisville) in the lower 20 miles 

of the Tuscarawas also was considered to be a potential 

source of enrichment, but these municipalities alone seemed 

unlikely sources of impairment that persisted 15 to 20 miles 

downstream.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a, Biological and 

water quality study of Sandy Creek, Minerva, 1996–1997, 

Carroll, Stark, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report MAS/1997–

3–1, 98 p.

A substantial improvement in aquatic and biological conditions occurred between 1996 and 1997 downstream from 

the Minerva Waste Water Treatment Plant. The fish community sampling results indicated that, prior to July 1996, 

chemical contaminants were released into Sandy Creek in 

the vicinity of the Minerva Waste Water Treatment Plant, 

causing severe toxic conditions for at least 6.6 miles primarily due to highly toxic ammonia concentrations. Macroinvertebrates were dominated by black flies, organisms often 

found in high numbers in Ohio streams under degraded 

conditions. The highest polychlorinated biphenols concentrations occurred in common carp in an area that is lake-like 

due to quarrying operations in the stream channel.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b, Biological and 

water quality study of Sugar Creek, 1998: Wayne, Stark, 

Holmes and Tuscarawas Counties, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protections Agency Technical Report MAS/1999–12–4, 

203 p. 

Most locations surveyed throughout the basin failed to 

meet assigned aquatic life uses. Exceptions were associated 

with physiographic features which affected groundwater 

flow in some areas. Nonpoint source pollution impinged 

on water quality and aquatic communities throughout the 

basin. The extent of non-attainment throughout most of 

the watershed distinguished Sugar Creek as one of the 

most degraded basins in all of Ohio. Agricultural land use 

has promoted siltation and habitat destruction across most 

of the watershed. Polluted runoff from agricultural and 

mining sources further acted to suppress aquatic life use 

attainment. Several organic contaminants were detected 

in the effluent and in the water column in the vicinity of 

Dover Chemical. Bioassays of the effluent have a record 

of toxicity over the past 10 years. Pollutant spills and fish 

kills have also been reported downstream from the company 

during this period. Dover Chemical produces phosphites 

and chlorinated hydrocarbon products which are used to 

manufacture lubricants, plasticizers, flame retardants, and 

stabilizers. Hydrochloric acid and sodium hypochlorite 

are process by-products. The effluent contained some 

organic compounds including, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

(1.9 mg/L), aBHC (0.38 mg/L), bBHC (0.088 mg/L), d-BHC 

(0.025 mg/L), g-BHC (0.056 mg/L), 4-4’DDE (0.022 mg/L), 

heptachlor epoxide (0.0071 mg/L), and hexachlorobenzene 

(0.060 mg/L).

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Ohio Water 

Quality Standards, Chapter 3745–1 of the Administrative 

Code: Columbus, Ohio, Accessed September 24, 2009 at 

http://web.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/rules/3745-1.html

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Biological and 

aquatic life use attainment study-Lower Middle Branch 

Nimishillen Creek, Stark County, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protections Agency Site Evaluation Report EAS/2001–

10–4, 18 p. 

One mile of the middle branch Nimishillen Creek was 

assessed in 2001: 0.3 miles were in partial attainment 

and 0.7 were in non-attainment of the warm-water habitat aquatic life use. Results reflect urbanized nature of 

the lower 1 mile of the stream. It was not apparent from 

the results that the Union Metal was affecting biological 

communities. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a, Ohio EPA 

primary headwater habitat initiative, data compendium, 

1999–2000: Habitat, chemistry, and stream morphology 

data: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of 

Surface Water, variously paginated, accessed December 12, 

2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/

PHWH_Compendium.pdf

This report presents and summarizes the physical, chemical, 

and morphological data that were collected by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency during surveys of primary 

headwater habitat streams including an unnamed tributary 
Annotated Bibliography 81

to Middle Fork Sugar Creek, two unnamed tributaries to 

Chippewa Lake, and an unnamed tributary to River Styx.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002b, Technical report: Ohio’s primary headwater streams—Fish and 

amphibian assemblages: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 41 p., accessed 

December 12, 2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/

headwaters/TechRep_FishAmphibian_2002.pdf

This report summarizes the types of fish and amphibians 

that have been collected by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency during surveys of primary headwater habitat 

streams, including an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork 

Sugar Creek, two unnamed tributaries to Chippewa Lake, 

and an unnamed tributary to River Styx.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002c, Technical 

report: Ohio’s primary headwater streams—Macroinvertebrate assemblages: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 

Division of Surface Water, 25 p., accessed December 12, 

2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/

TechRep_Macroinvert_2002.pdf

This report summarizes macroinvertebrate information 

collected by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency during 

surveys of primary headwater habitat streams, including 

an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Sugar Creek, two 

unnamed tributaries to Chippewa Lake, and an unnamed 

tributary to River Styx. Headwaters are defined as streams 

with drainage area less than 1 mi2 or with the deepest pools 

less than 40 cm. Insects encountered during the study 

include mayfly, stonefly, caddis, midge, dragonflies, and 

flies. Macroinvertebrates were found in 53 percent of all 

streams with standing or flowing water. Macroinvertebrates were found in all streams that contained vertebrates. 

Nineteen percent of streams were found to contain macroinvertebrates only. Forty-six percent of the streams contained 

no evidence of aquatic life at or near the surface of the 

stream bed.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2002d, Total maximum daily loads for the Sugar Creek Basin: Final report: 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface 

Water, 87 p. 

Major causes of impairment were sedimentation from 

agricultural activities (more that 70 percent of the basin’s 

land is devoted to agriculture), habitat alteration, nutrient 

enrichment from agricultural runoff, streambank modification, lack of riparian vegetation, faulty septic systems, and 

municipal/industrial discharges.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Biological and 

aquatic life use attainment study—Stillwater Creek—Starkey Junkyard: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Site 

Evaluation Report EAS/2003–11–8, 19 p. 

This report is summarized in a slide show (using Powerpoint format) obtained from http://www.brownfieldstsc.org/

pdfs/ohiopres.pdf.

A total of 0.8 miles of Stillwater Creek were assessed in 

2003: 0.3 miles were in full attainment and 0.5 miles were 

in non-attainment. Lead and arsenic concentrations in soil 

exceed residential standards in all areas. Local activities 

include a compactor, junk shop, and a scrap yard. Lead also 

exceeds the commercial/industrial standard. Total petroleum 

hydrocarbons in soil exceed petroleum standards in the 

compactor area only. Volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and polychlorinated biphenyls are 

all present, but below residential standards. Lead in ground 

water exceeds the generic standard, and the report states 

that the lead would “...be verified through monitoring well 

installation and sampling.”

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Ohio 2004 

integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report, 

March 30 2005, accessed March 30, 2005, at http://www.

epa.state.ohio.us/dsw/tmdl/2004IntReport/final_2004IR_

maiin_text.pdf

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Biological and 

water quality study of the Upper Tuscarawas River Basin, 

Killian Latex Property: Summit County, Ohio: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Report EAS/2005–12–7, 50 p. 

The property has been used commercially since 1910 and 

included tire manufacturing and production of natural latex 

items. Based on the performance of the biological communities, the upper 0.4 mile section of the Tuscarawas River 

was in non-attainment of the warm water habitat (WWH) 

aquatic life use, and the lower 0.6 miles were in partial 

attainment of the WWH use. These impaired biological 

conditions were not associated with chemical constituents released under current conditions at the Killian Latex 

property or from the Killian National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharge. Chemical constituents, including organic compounds and metals, 

measured in the Tuscarawas River were less than the Ohio 

EPA criteria; however, nutrients and oxygen-demanding 

parameters were not tested as part of this study. Sediment 

concentrations were not at levels likely to cause ecological 

impairment to the biota of the Tuscarawas River within the 

study area.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a, 2006 305(b) 

Report Ohio’s Ground Water Quality: Division of Drinking 

and Ground Waters, accessed April 8, 2008, at http://www.

epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/2006_305b.pdf

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b, 2006 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report: 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface 

Water, 97 p., accessed September 18, 2006, at http://www.

epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/2004IntReport/2004OhioIntegrate

dReport.html
82 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Nimishillen Creek, the Portage Canal, Sandy Creek, and the 

Tuscarawas River mainstem from Barberton to New Philadelphia had fish consumption advisories because of PCBs. 

The Tuscarawas River mainstem from Barberton to New 

Philadelphia also had a fish consumption advisory because 

of hexachlorobenzene. At the time of publication, TMDLs 

were in progress for Sugar Creek. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c, 2006 Ohio 

sport fish consumption advisory, accessed September 20, 

2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/fishadvisory/

This web page lists fish consumption advisories issued 

by the Ohio Dept. of Health for sport fish caught in Ohio 

waters. Advisories are listed by water body. The contaminants causing fish advisories in the Tuscarawas Basin are 

PCBs and mercury. The Web site recommended that consumers should average no more than one meal of fish from 

these waters per 1 or 2 months.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006d, Bacteria 

TMDL development for the Sugar Creek Watershed: Holmes, Stark, Tuscarawas, and Wayne Counties, Ohio (draft): 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface 

Water, Public Review Draft Report, June 2, 2006, 121 p., 

accessed December 12, 2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/

dsw/tmdl/SugarCreekBacteriaTMDL_draft_jun06.pdf

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2006e, Recreational 

use water quality survey for the Sugar Creek Watershed 

2005: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical 

Report NEDO/2006–02–01, variously paginated, accessed 

December 12, 2006, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/docu

ments/2005FINALSugarCreekBactiReport.pdf

All three assessment units making up the Sugar Creek 

watershed were in non-attainment for their designated 

recreational uses. Only 5 of 38 sampling sites were in full 

attainment for recreational use water-quality criteria. The 

upper reaches showed marked improvement since 1998. 

Farming represented a very high percentage of land use and 

the economic base within the watershed. Agricultural practices related to animal pasturing and animal-waste management were the primary causes of non-attainment. Sources 

of bacteria and potential pathogens relating to the problem were poorly managed or uncontrolled runoff, failing 

onsite wastewater systems, construction in northern part of 

Sugar Creek along the Route 30 corridor in Wayne County 

and western Tuscarawas County in the triangle between 

Strasburg, Dover, and Sugarcreek. Altered stream morphology, poor floodplain quality, and disconnection of stream 

channels played an important part in extremely high fecal 

coliform and E. coli densities. It was recommended that the 

recreational use TMDL process be used to evaluate targets 

not only of bacteria, but sediment and habitat quality.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Tuscarawas 

infographic on water-quality conditions, accessed January 

25, 2008, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/

TuscInfograph2007.pdf

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a, Ohio 2008 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 

Report, accessed January 28, 2009, at http://www.epa.state.

oh.us/dsw/tmdl/2008IntReport/2008OhioIntegratedReport.

html

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b, Source water 

protection efforts by public water systems in Ohio, accessed 

January 24, 2009, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/

swap_protection.html

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009c, The 

Nimishillen Creek Watershed TMDL, accessed September 24, 2009 at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/

NimishillenCreekTMDL.aspx

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009d, The 

Tuscarawas River Watershed TMDL, accessed February 10, 2009, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/

TuscarawasRiverTMDL.html

Ohio History Central, 2008, Clay and shale: accessed January 

18, 2008, at http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, 2002a, Status assessment 

report for the rayed bean, Villosa fabalis, occurring in the 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Regions 3,4, and 5, and Canada): U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 62 p., accessed September 27, 2006, 

at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/clams/rayedbean-sa.pdf

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, 2002b, Status assessment 

report for the sheepnose, Plethobasus cyphyus, occurring 

in the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Regions 3,4, and 5): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

79 p., accessed September 27, 2006, at http://www.fws.gov/

midwest/Endangered/clams/sheepnose-sa.pdf

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 1951, Brine 

contamination in the Muskingum River: Cincinnati, Ohio, 

The Commission, 26 p.

Ohio State University Extension, 2006, Watershed 

Groups in Ohio, accessed September 20, 2006, at 

http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/groups/wgp_all.php

This web page lists watershed groups in Ohio.

Ohio Water Commission, 1960, Public hearing on development of underground water supplies in the Sugar Creek 

area, Tuscarawas County: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio Water 

Commission, 66 p. 

This is a transcript of a hearing to allow the City of Canton 

to develop a well field in the Sugar Creek Valley. The Ohio 

Water Commission approved the plan with pumping not to 
Annotated Bibliography 83

exceed 20 Mgal/d. It was recommended that the Department 

of Natural Resources Division of Water carry out plans to 

instrument the well field and maintain continuous observation of changes.

Olive, J.H., and Higgins, G., 1981, Algal bioassay of the Portage Lakes, Summit County, Ohio: Environmental Pollution 

Series A, v. 26, no. 1, p. 59–67.

The Portage Lakes are natural lakes and man-made reservoirs in the upper Tuscarawas River of northeastern Ohio. 

Algal bioassays were used to determine the effects of phosphate and nitrate enrichment on the algal growth potential 

in the lakes and to predict the effects of diverting algal 

nutrients from one part of the lake system to another area 

within the system.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 

v. 77, n. 1, p. 118–125, map scale 1:7,500,000.

Ondecko, J.D., and Schultz, T.J., 1981, Land capability 

analysis in Portage County, Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Resource Analysis Section, 49 p. 

Opatrny, J.C., and Larlham, R.C., 1985, Lime Lake Reclamation via Sludge Management: Toxic and Hazardous Wastes: 

Toxic and Hazardous Wastes—Proceedings of the Seventeenth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, June 

23–25, 1985 Technomic Publishing Co. Inc., Lancaster, Pa., 

857 p.

PPG Industries, Inc., intended to reclaim approximately 

600 acres of Solvay Soda Ash Process Waste (Lime 

Lakes) south of Barberton, Ohio, by incorporating dewatered municipal sludge into the material, recontouring the 

Lime Lakes with the mixture, and planting them to forest 

and grassland.

Orton, E., Jr., and Peppel, S.V., 1906, The limestone resources 

and the lime industry in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Bulletin 4, 365 p.

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, 1966, The Precambrian 

surface of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 64, 9 p.

Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, 1970, The subsurface 

Silurian-Devonian “Big Lime” of Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 75, 17 p.

Parker, J., and Webb, R., 2006, The Sugar Creek Watershed 

community restoration project, accessed September 20, 

2006, at http://www.bright.net/~swcd/h2osheds/Webpercent

20page/319percent20Grant.htm

The Sugar Creek watershed has a substantial number of 

home septic systems operating at less than full function plus 

intensive agricultural activity occurring on highly erodible 

land. This has led to (1) the loss of stream buffer areas 

and habitat (particularly on smaller tributaries); (2) stream 

nutrient loading from erosion, tile flow, and groundwater 

recharge; and (3) excessive pathogen loadings from both 

human and animal sources. With an Ohio EPA 319 grant, 

watershed activists were implementing best management 

practices, including livestock fencing, riparian buffers, conservation tillage, and waste utilization. 

Pavey, R.R., Goldthwait, R.P., Brockman, C.S., Hull, D.N., 

Swinford, M.E., and Van Horn, Robert G., 1999, Quaternary 

geology of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Map 2, scale 1:500,000. 

This glacial map of Ohio replaces and updates previous 

glacial maps of Ohio. The full-color map, at a scale of 

1:500,000, shows and describes 44 units of Holocene, Late 

Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and pre-Illinoian age.

Peattie, R., 1923, Geography of Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Bulletin 27, 137 p.

Pepper, J.F., 1947, Areal extent and thickness of the salt 

deposits of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Report of Investigation 3, 15 p. (Reprinted from Ohio Journal of Science, 1947, v. 47, p. 225–239.)

Plummer, L.N., Busenberg, E., Böhlke, J.K., Nelms, D.L., 

Michel, R.L., and Schlosser, P., 2001, Groundwater residence times in Shenandoah National Park, Blue Ridge 

Mountains, Virginia, USA: A multi-tracer approach: Chemical Geology, v. 179, nos. 1–4, p. 93–111.

Plummer, L.N., Bohkle, J.K., and Busenberg, Eurybiades, 

2003, Approaches for ground-water dating, in Lindsey, 

B.D., Phillips, S.W., Donnelly, C.A., Speiran, G.K., Plummer, L.N., Böhlke, J.K., Focazio, M.J., Burton, W.C., 

and Busenberg, Eurybiades, Residence times and nitrate 

transport in ground water discharging to streams in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03–4035, p. 12–24.

Potter, W.D., 1961, Peak rates of runoff from small watersheds: HDS2: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 64 p., accessed December 13, 

2006, at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/

pubs/hds2peak.pdf

Prasad, V., Ortiz, A., Stinner, B., McCartney, D., Parker, 

J., Hudgins, D., Hoy, C., and Moore, R., 2005, Exploring 

the relationship between hydrologic parameters and nutrient 

loads using digital elevation model and GIS—A case study 

from Sugarcreek Headwaters, Ohio, USA: Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment, v. 110, p. 141–169.

Spatial distribution of slope (S), altitude, and wetness 

index along with other watershed characteristics, such as 

flow direction, flow accumulation, stream networks, flow 

stream orders, and erosion index, were used within a GIS 
84 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

framework to quantify variation in nitrate and phosphate 

loads to headwater streams. Atmospheric deposition through 

precipitation could explain approximately 35 percent of 

total nitrate levels observed in streams. Among the different topographic variables and hydrological indices, 

results from the step-wise multiple regression indicated the 

following best predictors for nutrients: (1) elevation range 

and upstream flow length for nitrate, (2) flow direction and 

upstream flow length for ammonia-nitrogen and slope, and 

(3) elevation range for phosphate levels. Differences in 

the landscape models observed for nitrate, phosphate, and 

ammonia-nitrogen in the surface waters were attributed 

partly to differences in the chemical activity and source 

strengths of the different forms of these nutrients through 

agricultural management practices. The results identify 

geomorphologic and landscape characteristics that affect 

contaminant levels in the study area.

Prée, H.L., 1962a, A part of the Walhonding River basin: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Ohio water plan inventory: Columbus, Ohio, River Basin Ground-Water Resource 

Map P–4. 

Prée, H.L., 1962b, Sandy Creek basin—underground water 

resources: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio 

Water Plan Inventory File Index P–7, scale 1:125,000.

This map report includes text, a generalized stratigraphic 

sequence, and water-quality data from 7 wells along Sandy 

Creek. Water-quality data lists iron concentrations from 

.03–1.2 ppm, chloride from 2 to 25 ppm, total dissolved 

solids from 195 to 556 ppm, hardness from 139 to 467 ppm, 

and pH from 7.2–7.8. The report includes a map of aquifer 

yields revealing that most of the area is underlain by sandstone and interbedded shale with yields of 5 to 25 gal/min. 

The buried valley along Nimishillen Creek in the vicinity of 

Canton yields 1,000 gal/min or more to wells.

Prée, H.L., 1962c, Upper Killbuck Creek basin: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio water plan inventory: 

Columbus, Ohio , River Basin Ground-Water Resource 

Map P–3

Preston, M.B., 1987, Quantitative geomorphology and hydrology of Chippewa Creek basin, Cuyahoga County, Ohio: 

Akron, Ohio, University of Akron, M.S. thesis, 76 p.

Prosser, C.S., 1912, The Devonian and Mississippian formations of northeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Bulletin 15, 574 p.

Quilliam, R.E., 1973, The Chippewa Creek Watershed project: 

Wayne, Medina, Summit, and Stark Counties, Ohio: Final 

environmental statement: U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 

variously paginated. 

Raab, J.M., 2005, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated 

aquifers in Portage County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/PortageSG_PSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the unconsolidated (sand and gravel) aquifers of Portage 

County created from data collected over a 50-yr period with 

a variable contour interval from 25 to 50 ft.

Raab, J.M., 2006, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated 

aquifers in Tuscarawas County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/TuscarawasSG_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the unconsolidated (sand and gravel) aquifers of Tuscarawas 

County created from data collected over a 50-year period 

with a contour interval from 25 ft.

Raab, J.M., and Barrett, K., 2005, Potentiometric surface of 

the consolidated aquifers in Portage County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed 

February 15, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/

gwpsurface/PSurfPDFs/PortageBedPSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Portage County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Raab, J.M., and Sprowls, K., 2006, Potentiometric surface of 

the consolidated aquifers in Harrison County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed on 

February 15, 2008 at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/

gwpsurface/PSurfPDFs/HarrisonBed_PSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Harrison County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Rashid, A., Aziz, A., and Wong, K.V., 1992, Computer-aided 

modeling of heterogeneous, two-dimensional, groundwater 

system: Computers & Geosciences, v. 18, no. 9, p. 1185–

1194, 

Rau, J.L., 1969, Hydrogeology of the Berea and Cussewago 

Sandstones in northeastern Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–341, 2 sheets, 

scale 1:250,000. 

This report shows the availability and quality of water in the 

Berea and Cussewago Sandstones within the northern-most 

part of Tuscarawas River Basin. Additional data include 

average reported well yields and average transmissibility, 

by county. The groundwater contribution to streamflow is 

described, as well as recharge areas. The approximate position of the freshwater/saltwater interface is shown, plus the 

thickness and structure of the two units.
Annotated Bibliography 85

The average transmissivity of the Berea Sandstone is 

2,400 gal/d/ft. Locally, the transmissivity is lower where the 

sandstone thins, but higher where it is fractured. Favorable 

areas of recharge are shown in northern parts of Summit and 

Portage Counties and occur primarily along streams and the 

Cuyahoga River.

Rau, J.L., 1972, Chloride contamination of ground water at 

Massillon, Ohio: Abstracts with Programs—Geological 

Society of America, v. 4, no. 7, p. 633.

By-products of an industrial glass manufacturer in Barberton, Ohio, resulted in concentrations of chloride which 

ranged from 1,000 to 5,000 mg/L in the upper Tuscarawas 

River. A shallow sand and gravel aquifer developed as a 

public supply for Massillon induced river water, causing a 

steady increase in concentration of chloride in the raw water 

of the Ohio Water Services Company. Chloride persisted in 

the river many miles downstream where concentrations of 

980 mg/L were present during low flow at Newcomerstown. 

High chloride levels continued below Coshocton where the 

Muskingum River, fed by the Tuscarawas and Walhonding 

rivers, still contained chloride concentrations of 580 mg/L. 

As a result of continued public pressure and new state 

water-quality standards, the soda ash operation at Barberton 

will cease in 1977.

Rau, J.L., 1974, Effects of brining and salt by-products 

operations on the surface and ground water resources of 

the Muskingum Basin, Ohio, in Coogan, A.H., ed., Fourth 

symposium on Salt, volume one; Environment: Cleveland, 

Ohio, Northern Ohio Geological Society, Inc., p. 367–386. 

Soda operations of Pittsburgh Plate Glass in Barberton 

were a major contributor of dissolved solids, especially 

chloride. Discharges at Clinton affected water quality far 

downstream. As a result, the Barberton Municipal Wellfield was abandoned in 1926. The Massillon Well Field 

was seriously affected in 1952 and 1953, and relocated in 

1955. Brine contamination forced abandonment of a well 

field in Coshocton in 1953 and the new wellfield cost about 

$500,000. In 1953, chloride concentrations were as high 

as 10,050 mg/L. Soda ash operations ceased in 1973. Ohio 

Department of Health data show concentrations of chloride 

at Tuscarawas River at Massillon of 2,970 mg/L and the 

Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown of 965 in mg/L.

Razem, A.C., and Sedam, A.C., 1985, Ground-water quality 

and geochemistry of aquifers associated with coal in the 

Allegheny and Monongahela formations, southeastern Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 85–4034, 39 p. 

Groundwater samples were obtained from domestic-supply 

wells throughout the region. Water type was predominantly 

calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type, and sodium bicarbonate type was less common. The water was typically 

very hard. The northern part of study area is bounded by the 

northern boundary of Tuscarawas, Carroll, and Jefferson 

Counties. Only a few sites yielded water with a dissolved 

solids concentration of more than 1,000 mg/L, which could 

be attributed to oil and gas drilling or road salt, mining 

activity (high sulfates, iron, and manganese), agricultural or 

domestic wastes, or natural deposits.

Reich, C., Halley, R.B., Hickey T., and Swarzenski, P., 2006, 

Groundwater characterization and assessment of contaminants in marine areas of Biscayne National Park: National 

Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR2006/356, accessed on November 27, 2007 at http://sofia.

usgs.gov/publications/reports/bisc_gw_char/index.html

This report documents contamination of water-quality 

samples with DEET, a commonly used insect repellant.

Richards, R.P., and Wallrabenstein, L., 1995, Well water 

quality in the alluvial deposits along the Tuscarawas and 

Muskingum Rivers—Final report: Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College, no. 17, 62 p. 

This report summarizes analyses of groundwater in the 

Tuscarawas and Muskingum River alluvium for chloride, 

nitrate, herbicides, and metals. Concentrations of nitrate 

were higher along streams than within the counties as a 

whole. Average concentration of nitrate in ground water in 

Coshocton County was 6.61 mg/L with 25 percent of the 

samples exceeding 10 mg/L (average concentration was 

4.99 mg/L). The average nitrate concentration in Tuscarawas County was 11.1 mg/L. Samples from five wells in 

Tuscarawas County had chloride concentrations in excess 

of 1,000 mg/L. These same five wells also had the highest 

concentrations of ammonia, sodium, barium, and strontium 

and the lowest concentrations of sulfate compared to other 

samples obtained in the study, indicating a local influence 

of septic tank effluent from homes that use water softening. 

Volatile organic compounds were detected infrequently, 

and detections of herbicides were rare. For herbicides, there 

were only two atrazine and one alaclor detections.

Riley, R.A., Baranoski, M.T., Wickstrom, L.H., Wells, J.G., 

and Powers, D.M., 2004, Oil and gas fields map of Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Map PG–1, scale 1:500,000, including text 

and eight maps.

Risser, M.L., 1976, Bedrock topography of Medina County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Open File Map 219, scale 1:63,360. 

Risser, M.L., 1981, Sand and gravel resources of Medina 

County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 119, 

scale 1:63,360. 

This map shows the extent of outwash, kames and eskers, 

and alluvium; the location of sand and gravel pits; estimates of available sand and gravel resources (in tons) by 
86 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

township; sieve analyses; pebble counts; and stratigraphic 

sections from several water-well logs and measured sections. Kames and outwash are the primary source of an 

estimated 1.5 billion tons of sand and gravel. This would be 

an important source of building materials if the projected 

population from 1970 to 2000 proves to be 75 percent.

Risser, M.L., 1983a, Bedrock topography of Portage County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Open File Map 204, scale 1:63,360. 

This map was unchecked and unedited and was intended 

only for preliminary use. The top of bedrock in the Tuscarawas River Basin in Portage County is 900 to 1,100 ft. 

Risser, M.L., 1983b, Drift thickness map of Portage County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Open File Map 205, scale 1:62,500. 

This map is on a topographic base at a scale of 1:62,500 

showing thickness contours of the unconsolidated glacial 

deposits. This map is superseded by the 1:24,000-scale 

bedrock-topography maps. It was unchecked and unedited 

and was intended only for preliminary use. Drift thickness 

in the Tuscarawas River Basin in Portage County is less 

than 20 ft up to 200 ft thick.

Risser, M.L., 1986, Sand and gravel resources of Columbiana 

County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 131, 

1 sheet, scale 1:63,360. 

The western 1/10th of this map falls within the Tuscarawas 

watershed. The map shows sand and gravel deposits, pit 

mine locations, stratigraphy from about 25 well logs in the 

Tuscarawas River Watershed, plus some grain-size analyses 

and pebble counts identified by rock type.

Risser, M.L., 1987, Surficial materials of Medina County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 133, 

scale 1:63,360. 

This map shows the surficial materials within the upper 

25 ft below land surface to be mostly of glacial origin. 

The map also includes a table of grain size analyses and 

engineering properties, such as Atterberg limits (liquid and 

plastic limit), the plasticity index, color, permeability, and 

shrink-swell potential of tills. Most of Medina County is 

blanketed by till.

Rizzo, J.S., 1993, Hydrogeology of River Styx Basin, Medina 

and Wayne Counties, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, University of 

Akron, M.S. thesis, 197 p.

The average thickness of outwash in the River Styx valley 

is 450 ft. Streams in the basin lose a substantial amount 

of water as they flow across permeable sands and gravels of the valley fill. Water is initially discharged at the 

contact between the Sharon Sandston /Conglomerate and 

the Wooster Shale. Recharge occurs as the streams flow 

across more porous rock of the Armstrong Siltstone and 

Rittman Sandstone. Groundwater is transferred to outwash 

of the valley fill by the Rittman sandstone. Outwash is also 

recharged by stream loss where streams flow over permeable sands and gravels.

Rogge, W.F., Hildemann, L.M., Mazurek, M.A., Cass, G.R., 

1993, Sources of fine organic aerosol: Road dust, tire debris, 

and organometallic brake lining dust: roads as sources 

and sinks: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 27, 

1892 p.

Schaefer, E.J., White, G.W., and Van Tuyl, D.W., 1946, The 

ground water resources of the glacial deposits in the vicinity 

of Canton, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, Bulletin 3, 60 p. 

During 1944, 38 Mgal/d of groundwater was pumped by 

the city and its industries: 7 Mgal/d from bedrock aquifers and 31 Mgal/d from glacial aquifers. Approximately 

19 Mgal/d was pumped from sand and gravel within city 

limits, and 11.9 Mgal/d was from northeast and Grovemiller 

well fields. Recharge in the area is received mainly in the 

first 6 months of each year from direct precipitation, from 

flood waters of Nimishillen creek, and from direct infiltration from Nimishillen Creek. It was estimated that, from 

1939–1945, pumping in Canton proper exceeded recharge 

by about 3.5 Mgal/d. This report also includes detailed 

maps showing glacial geology, the location of wellfields, 

and a description of an aquifer test at Sippo. Estimated yield 

at the Sippo area was 3.5 to 4 Mgal/d.

Schlosser, P., Stute, M., Dorr, H., Sonntag, C., and Munnich, 

K.O., 1988, Tritium/3He dating of shallow groundwater: 

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 89, no. 3/4, p. 353–362.

Schlosser, P., Stute, M., Sonntag, C., and Munnich, K.O., 

1989, Tritiogenic 3He in shallow groundwater: Earth and 

Planetary Science Letters 94, no. 3/4, p. 245–256.

Schmidt, J.J., 1962a, Conotton Creek basin underground water 

resources: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio 

Water Plan Inventory File Index Sheet P–8, scale 1:125,000. 

This report contains a single plate with results of analyses of 

constituents in two groundwater samples. Elevated iron concentrations were only noted in samples from wells screened 

in sandstone. Concentrations of dissolved iron were 0.3 and 

2.7 mg/L; chloride, 7 and 155 mg/L; total dissolved solids, 

245 and 83 mg/L; hardness, 156 and 56 mg/L as CaCO3; 

and pH, 7.1 and 8.5. The map is colored orange on the east 

part of the basin, delineating an area where well yields are 

generally less than 5 gal/min, and green on the west, where 

wells yields may range from 5 to 25 gal/min.

Schmidt, J.J., 1962b, Middle Tuscarawas River and Sugar 

Creek basins underground water resources: Ohio Depart-
Annotated Bibliography 87

ment of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water 

Plan Inventory File Index Sheet P–5, scale 1:125,000. 

This is a single plate with some general water-quality data 

and well yields. Iron concentrations in water from sandstone 

ranged from 0.3 to 1 mg/L. Iron in water samples from sand 

and gravel ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/L. Concentrations of 

chloride ranged from 5 to 650 mg/L in water samples from 

sandstone and from 5 to 8 mg/L in samples from sand and 

gravel. Concentrations of total dissolved solids ranged from 

271 to 1,623 mg/L in samples from sandstone and from 337 

to 391 mg/L in samples from sand and gravel. Hardness in 

water samples from sandstone ranged from 22 to 210 mg/L 

as CaCO3 and from 200 to 280 mg/L in samples from sand 

and gravel. The pH of groundwater ranged from 7.2 to 8.6 

in samples from sandstone and 7.6 to 7.9 in samples from 

sand and gravel. Most of the map is colored green, which 

indicates average well yields of 1 to 30 gal/min. The wells 

completed in valley fill along the Tuscarawas River have a 

potential yield of greater than 1,000 gal/min.

Schmidt, J.J., 1978, Ground water resources of Medina 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, scale 1:63,000. 

Schmidt, J.J., 1994 (rev.), Ground water resources of Summit 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, scale 1:63,000. 

This is a groundwater-resources map showing shaded areas, 

indicating well yields. Most of the eastern part of Summit 

County is yellow where the Sharon Conglomerate yields, 

on average, 50 gal/min. The western part of the county 

is underlain by the Cuyahoga Formation (in brown) with 

average yields ranging from 3 to 10 gal/min. Isolated areas 

within the valleys may yield more than 100 gal/min.

Schmidt, J.J., and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 1959, 

Little Muskingum River and Duck Creek basins: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources: Columbus, Ohio, River 

Basin Ground-Water Resource Map R–1 and R–2.

Schmidt, J.J., and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 1962a, 

Middle Tuscarawas River and Sugar Creek basins: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources: Columbus, Ohio, River 

Basin Ground-Water Resource Map P–5.

Schmidt, J.J., and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 1962b, 

Part of upper portion of the Muskingum River basin: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources: Columbus, Ohio, River 

Basin Ground-Water Resource Map P–11.

Schmidt, J.J., and Walker, A.C., 1954, The ground-water 

resources of the areas in the vicinity of the interchanges on 

the east-west Ohio Turnpike: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water Information Circular 5, 65 p. 

Schumacher, S.D., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., undated 

a, Belmont County water resources: Ohio State University 

Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.07, accessed November 11, 

2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_07.html

Overview of Belmont County’s water resources, including 

precipitation, groundwater, surface water, water use, and 

water quality. Average rainfall for Belmont County was 

43 inches per year, providing 11 inches per year of runoff to 

streams and lakes. About 7 inches per year had the potential 

to recharge aquifers. Land use was 79 percent farmland.

Schumacher, S.D., Jones, W.A., Brown, L.C., and Boone, 

K.M., undated b, Belmont County ground-water resources: 

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.07, 

accessed November 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0490_07.html

This is an overview of Belmont County’s groundwater 

resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources observation wells 

and chemical analysis sites are shown on a generalized map 

of well yields. The most productive wells are found in sand 

and gravel deposits along the Ohio River. 

Sedam, A.C., 1973, Hydrogeology of the Pottsville formation 

in northeastern Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–494, 

2 sheets, scale 1:500,000 and 1:250,000. 

This report contains two plates showing the extent of the 

Pottsville Formation, along with the yield of the aquifer and 

water-quality data. Most of the water is hard and contains 

elevated iron concentrations.

Sedam, A.C., 1991, Geologic setting and water quality of 

selected basins in the active coal-mining areas of Ohio, 

1987–88: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90–4109, 97 p. 

Hydrologic data were collected from selected drainage 

basins in the active coal-mining areas of Ohio from July 

1987 through October 1988. The data-collection network 

consisted of 41 long-term surface-water sites in 21 basins. 

Sampling focused on tributaries to the Tuscarawas River, 

not the Tuscarawas River itself. Results of chemical 

analyses of 202 surface-water and 24 groundwater samples 

are presented. For field measurements made at surfacewater sites, the specific conductance ranged from 295 to 

3,150 mS/cm, pH ranged from 2.8 to 8.6, and alkalinity 

ranged from 5 to 305 mg/L as CaCO3.

Sedam, A.C., and Francy, D.S., 1993, Geologic setting and 

water quality of selected basins in the active coal-mining 

areas of Ohio, 1989-91, with a summary of water quality for 

1985–91: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93–4094, 133 p. 

This report includes data from Sedam (1991) summarizing long-term data collected over 7 years. Median values 

in surface water for specific conductance were 792 mS/cm; 
88 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

pH, 7.8; alkalinity, 116 mg/L as CaCO3; acidity, 118 mg/L 

as CaCO3; sulfate, 200 mg/L; aluminum, 30 mg/L; iron, 

60 mg/L; and manganese, 29 mg/L. For groundwater 

samples, the median specific conductance was 650 mS/cm; 

pH, 7.4; hardness, 292 mg/L; alkalinity 229 mg/L as 

CaCO3; sulfate, 48 mg/L; aluminum, less than 10 mg/L; 

iron, 275 mg/L; and manganese, 59 mg/L.

Sedam, A.C., and Stein, R.B., 1970, Saline ground-water 

resources of Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA–366, 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000. 

This is an assessment of saline aquifers as possible sources 

of fresh water through desalinization. It also mentions 

limiting the use of saline aquifers as disposal sites for liquid 

wastes. The report includes contour maps showing the 

“approximate base of potable water” and lists the rock unit 

containing the lowermost zone of potable water. 

For most of the Tuscarawas River Basin, the Pennsylvanian 

units contain the lowermost zone of potable water. In most 

of Harrison and Guernsey Counties and in the southeastern 

part of Carroll County, the lowermost potable zone is in 

the Freeport Sandstone Member of the Allegheny Formation. Elsewhere, the lowermost potable water is obtained 

from the Pottsville Formation. In central Carroll County, it 

is in the Homewood Sandstone Member of the Pottsville 

Formation. In most of Tuscarawas County and the eastern 

part of Coshocton County, the lowermost potable water can 

be found in the Connoquenessing Sandstone Member of the 

Pottsville Formation. The Sharon Conglomerate Member of 

the Pottsville Formation is the lowermost potable zone in 

parts of Stark and Portage Counties. In the western part of 

the Tuscarawas Basin, the lowermost zones of potable water 

are found in the Black Hand Sandstone and approximate 

equivalents of the Cuyahoga Group (Mississippian). Results 

of chemical analyses of water collected near the base of the 

potable zone are presented.

Shearrow, G.G., 1957, Geologic cross section of the Paleozoic 

rocks from northwestern to southeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 33, 42 p.

Slucher, E.L., 2004, Generalized column of bedrock units in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey [oversize sheet].

Slucher, E.R., Swinford, E.M., Larsen, G.E., Schumacher, 

G.A., Shrake, D.L., Rice, C.L., Caudill, M.R., and Rea, 

R.G., 2006, Bedrock geologic map of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 

Map BG–1, version 6, scale 1:500,000.

Smith, B.E., 1969, Bedrock geology of the Caldwell North 

quadrangle, Guernsey and Noble Counties, Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 

72, one sheet with text.

Smith, R.C., and White, G.W., 1953, The ground-water 

resources of Summit County, Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 27, 130 p. 

This is a report on the groundwater resources in Summit County, including the cities of Barberton and Akron. 

Favorable groundwater development areas are primarily in 

southern Summit County along the Tuscarawas River. The 

census of 1945 reported land use as 48.3 percent agriculture with a population of 410,032. Table 1 shows industrial 

groundwater usage is dominated by Firestone at 6.3 Mgal/d, 

Goodyear at 4.5 Mgal/d, and Goodrich at 4.3 Mgal/d.

Smith, W.H., 1949 (reprinted 1968), Sand and gravel resources 

in northern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 6, 

24 p. 

Somers, W.P., Cross, W.P., and Edelen, G.W., Jr., 1962, Floods 

at Canton, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Atlas 

HA-50, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. 

Spahr, P.N., 1995, Ground water pollution potential of 

Coshocton County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution 

Potential Report 32, 74 p.

This is a summary of DRASTIC pollution potential indices 

in Coshocton County, showing relatively low to moderate 

pollution potentials in upland areas and moderate potential 

indices in areas adjacent to streams. The buried valley settings are usually the most vulnerable to contamination and 

have the highest values. Several quarries or strip mines also 

are shown. The text describes the generalized geology and 

well yields. The valleys are colored yellow to red, and pollution potential indices ranging from 160 to 179 and 180 to 

199, respectively.

Springer, A.E., 1987, A hydrogeologic evaluation of groundwater resource of Wooster, Ohio: Wooster, Ohio, The 

College of Wooster, unpublished senior independent-study 

thesis, 78 p.

Sprowls, K., 2005, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Medina County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/MedinaBedPSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Medina County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Sprowls, K., 2006a, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Wayne County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/WayneBedPSurf.pdf
Annotated Bibliography 89

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Wayne County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

variable contour interval of 50 to 100 ft.

Sprowls, K., 2006b, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated aquifers in Wayne County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/WayneSG_PSurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the unconsolidated (sand and gravel) aquifers of Wayne 

County created from data collected over a 50-year period 

with a variable contour interval from 50 to 100 ft.

Sprowls, K., 2007a, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Columbiana County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, accessed February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/ColumbianaBed_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Columbiana County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Sprowls, K., 2007b, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Summit County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, accessed on February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/SummitBed_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels 

in the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Summit County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Sprowls, K., 2007c, Potentiometric surface of the consolidated 

aquifers in Tuscarawas County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, accessed on February 15, 

2008, at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/

PSurfPDFs/TuscarawasBed_Psurf.pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the consolidated (bedrock) aquifers of Tuscarawas County 

created from data collected over a 50-year period with a 

contour interval of 50 ft.

Sprowls, K., and Raab, J.M., 2006, Potentiometric surface 

of the unconsolidated aquifers in Medina County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 

accessed on February 15, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.

oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/PSurfPDFs/MedinaSG_Psurf.

pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the unconsolidated (sand and gravel) aquifers of Medina 

County created from data collected over a 50-year period 

with a contour interval of 50 ft.

Sprowls, K., Raab, J.M., and Hallfrisch, M.P., 2007, Potentiometric surface of the unconsolidated aquifers in Summit 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, accessed February 15, 2008, at http://www.dnr.state.

oh.us/portals/7/gwpsurface/PSurfPDFs/SummitSG_Psurf.

pdf

This map shows potentiometric contours of water levels in 

the unconsolidated (sand and gravel) aquifers of Summit 

County created from data collected over a 50-year period 

with a contour interval of 50 ft.

Stafford, F.W., 1954, Study and report on water resources of 

the Tuscarawas and Nimisila Creek with combined storage 

facilities of the Portage Lakes and Nimisila Reservoir, Summit County, Ohio: Akron, Ohio, Ohio Department of Public 

Works, 59 p. 

This study describes storage and diversion facilities provided by the Nimisila Reservoir. The estimated average 

daily water supply from the entire system was 16 Mgal/d.

Stamm, J.M., Ricker, K.T., and Brown, L.C., undated, Water 

resources of Columbiana County: Ohio State University 

Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.15–97, accessed November 

20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_15.html

This is an overview of water resources for Columbiana 

County, including precipitation, ground water, surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the 

Columbiana County area is 38 inches per year providing 

10 inches per year of runoff to streams and lakes. About 

6 inches per year have the potential to recharge aquifers. 

Land use is 29 percent cropland, 17.1 percent pastureland, 

and 33.5 percent forest land. Nitrate appears to have been 

an issue in ground water.

Stark County Health Department, 2005, 2005 Annual Report, 

accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.starkhealth.

org/environmental.htm

This report gives details about a train derailment in Perry 

Township (1/3 mile west of Kemary Avenue) that spilled 

acetone, a program to sample industrial waste at the two 

municipal solid waste facilities, and closure of the Exit 

C&D Landfill in Osnaburg Township. Details included as 

part of the landfill closure stated that the owner accepted 

solid waste and operated outside the facility’s approved 

plan. Subsurface fires and sinkholes formed soon after.

Stark County Regional Planning Commission, 1997, Stark 

County 2020 land use plan: Stark County Regional Planning 

Commission, 72 p., accessed September 27, 2006, at http://

www.co.stark.oh.us/internet/docs/rpc/2020landuseplan.pdf

This plan describes existing transportation corridors, land 

use, future land use trends, future population trends, and 

planning for public water, sewers, and open space. In the 

previous land-use survey completed in 1980, 23.9 percent 
90 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

of the land was urban and 76.1 percent non-urban. In 1975, 

the distribution was 22.6 percent urban land use and 77.4 

percent non-urban land use. While the trend was gradually toward greater urbanization in Stark County, this rate 

of change was relatively slow, and the county had a vast 

“reservoir” of open land potentially available for future 

urban development. It was estimated that, in 1994, Stark 

County had approximately 92,600 acres (25.6 percent) of 

developed urban land use, and 270,100 acres (74.4 percent) 

of non-urban land use, such as farm land, strip mines, water, 

and vacant land.

Stark County Regional Planning Commission and Stark 

County Area Transportation Study, 2005, Stark County 

2030 comprehensive/transportation plan: Executive summary with transportation projects: Stark County Regional 

Planning Commission, 17 p., accessed September 27, 

2006, at http://www.co.stark.oh.us/internet/HOME.

DisplayPage?v_page=rpc_lrp

After losing population from 1980 to 1990, Stark County 

has rebounded slightly in recent years with accompanying economic growth. The 2000 Census lists the county’s 

population at 378,098 (a 2.8 percent increase over 1990). 

According to the Ohio Department of Development, the 

county’s 2003 population is estimated at 389,174, an 

increase of about 2.9 percent over the 2000 figure. Water 

resources are identified as a major issue. Specific issues 

related to water resources include stormwater, solid waste 

disposal, and central sewer and water services.

Stauffer, C.R., 1909, The Middle Devonian of Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 10, 204 p.

Stauffer, C.R., and Schroyer C.R., 1920, The Dunkard series 

of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 

22, 167 p.

Stout, W., 1916, Geology of southern Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Bulletin 20, 723 p.

Stout, W., 1918, Geology of Muskingum County: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 21, 351 p.

Stout, W., 1929, Generalized section of coal bearing rocks of 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information 

Circular 2, folded chart.

Stout, W., 1940a, Clarion clay of Hope and Lincoln Furnace 

fields: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 40, 

48 p.

Stout, W., 1940b, Marl, tufa rock, travertine, and bog ore in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 41, 

56 p.

Stout, W., 1943, Generalized geologic section of rocks in 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information 

Circular 4, folded chart.

Stout, W., 1944, The iron ore bearing formations of Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 45, 230 p.

Stout, W., 1946, Mineral resources of Ohio: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Information Circular 1, 33 p.

Stout, W., and Lamborn, R.E., 1924, Geology of Columbiana 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Bulletin 28, 408 p. 

This report provides detailed descriptions of outcrops and 

well logs of stratigraphy throughout the county by township. Early history and demographics of the county also 

are provided.

Stout, W., Lamborn, R.E., and Schaaf, D., 1932, Brines of 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 37, 

123 p.

Stout, W., and Schoenlaub, R.A., 1945, The occurrence of flint 

in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 46, 

110 p.

Stout, W., Stull, R.T., McCaughey, W.J., and Demorest, D.J., 

1923, Coal formation clays of Ohio: Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources Bulletin 26, 588 p.

Stout, W., Ver Steeg, K., and Lamb, G.F., 1943 (reprinted in 

1968), Geology of water in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 44, 694 p.

Struble, R.A., and Hodges, D.A., 1982, Fracture analysis of 

Eastern Ohio, in Gray, J.D., Struble, R.A. and Carlton, 

R.W., and others, eds., An integrated study of the Devonianage black shales in Eastern Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological 

Survey, p. 7.1–7.12.

This report was part of the Eastern Gas Shales Project sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy. Secondary fracture 

porosity is thought to be essential for commercial gas production from the shale sequence. A structure contour map 

on top of the Berea Sandstone reflects the general structural 

configuration of the Appalachian Basin in eastern Ohio. 

Maps included in the report show LANDSAT interpretation 

and aerial-photo interpretation with some statistical analysis 

of fracture density.

Sturgeon, M.T., and Merrill, W.M., 1949, An additional fossiliferous member in the Allegheny formation (Pennsylvanian) 

of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 5, 11 p., 3 figs., 1 pl. (Reprinted from Ohio 

Journal of Science, 1949, v. 49, p. 1–11.)

Stute, M., and Schlosser, P., 1999, Atmospheric noble gases, 

in Cook, P., and Herczeg, A., eds., Environmental tracers 

in subsurface hydrology: Boston, Mass., Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, p. 349–377.
Annotated Bibliography 91

Sugar, D.J., 1988, Ground-water resources of Coshocton 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, scale 1:62,500. 

This map shows expected well yields over large areas, and, 

for specific wells, shows the well depth, well yield, waterbearing formation, and depth to bedrock. Yields of greater 

than 500 gal/min may be obtained from valley fill deposits 

of the Tuscarawas River. The upper Mississippian and lower 

Pennsylvanian sandstones, shales, and limestones in the 

uplands generally yield less than 10 gal/min.

Summerson, C.H., 1962, Precambrian in Ohio and adjoining 

areas: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Report of 

Investigation 44, 16 p.

The Nature Conservancy, 2006, Stillfork Swamp, 

accessed September 21, 2006, at http://www.nature.org/

wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/preserves/art3097.

html

The Stillfork Swamp encompasses more than 600 acres 

within the Stillfork Valley and its major tributaries. The 

swamp is drained by Stillfork Creek, a small, slow moving 

stream characterized by an extremely small gradient. Stillfork Creek flows into Sandy Creek and into the Tuscarawas 

River. This is one of the most extensive inland marshes 

in the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion 

of eastern Ohio and contains a diversity of other wetland 

habitat types. The area has long been recognized for its 

importance as nesting grounds for a variety of waterfowl 

and marsh birds.

Times Reporter, 2005, The flood of January 2005, accessed 

March 11, 2008, at http://www.timesreporter.com/feature/

Jan05_Flood/flood_page.htm

Thomas, M.D., 1960, Estimates of water uses in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District for 1975: Annals 

of the Association of American Geographers, v. 50, no. 1, 

p. 22–41. 

Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948, An approach toward a rational classification of climate: Geographic Review, v. 38, p. 55–94.

Timme, P.J., 1995, National Water Quality Laboratory 1995 

Services Catalog: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95–352, p. 92.

Tobin, R.L., and Youger, J.D., 1978, Limnology of selected 

lakes in Ohio—1975: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 77–105, 205 p. 

Tobin, R.L., and Youger, J.D., 1979, Chemical and biological quality of selected lakes in Ohio—1976 and 

1977: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 78–109, 291 p. 

Twenty-eight lakes were sampled by U.S. Geological 

Survey and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for field 

characteristics. Within the Muskingum River Basin, data for 

Salt Fork Lake, Lake Rockwell, Summit Lake, Mogadore 

Reservoir, Atwood Lake, Leesville Lake, Tappan Lake, 

Clendening Lake, Wills Creek Lake, Michael J. Kirwin 

Reservoir, Long Lake, Turkeyfoot Lake, Nimisila Reservoir, 

and Piedmont Lake are included. 

Lake depth had a major controlling effect on water quality. 

Lakes less than 17 ft deep do not develop stratification and 

are generally of poorer quality. Light transparency ranged 

from 0.75 ft in Stonelick to 21 ft in Mogadore Reservoir. 

Dissolved oxygen supersaturation was common in euphotic 

zones, whereas dissolved oxygen depletion occurred in the 

bottom waters of all thermally stabilized lakes. The 5-day 

biological oxygen demand ranged from 0.3 to 17 mg/L. 

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was generated in all sustained 

anaerobic zones. pH ranged from 7.1 to 8.5, and pH maximums were measured during periods of high photosynthetic 

activity. Mean pH change and standard deviation within the 

water column was 1.4 +0.4 in the summer. All lakes had 

moderately hard to very hard water and were characterized 

as calcium-bicarbonate sulfate type waters. Summit Lake 

was the only sodium chloride type lake. Specific conductance changed significantly with depth during periods of 

thermal stratification. Nitrate and phosphorus concentrations were characteristically high in all lakes. Bacteria 

counts of fecal coliform were less than 2 to 230 colonies per 

100 mL and were highest in Summit Lake and East Branch 

Reservoir. Phytoplankton densities were high in most lakes. 

Estimated sediment yields for lakes in the Tuscarawas River 

Basin were 100 to 200 tons/mi2/yr.

Totten, S.M., 1988, Glacial geology of Medina County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 141, 38 p. 

This report includes text and a series of maps showing 

major end moraines, kames and associated gravel quarries, drift thickness, and ancient drainage. It also includes 

a table of till color, along with engineering properties such 

as grain-size analyses and Atterberg limits. The report notes 

that Chippewa Lake is a remnant of a late-glacial lake that 

used to be 7 mi long. 

Tuscarawas County Metropolitan Sewer District, 2006, Wilkshire Hills community water system source water protection plan, accessed September 27, 2006, at http://www.

co.tuscarawas.oh.us/Water&Sewer/SourceWaterProtection.

htm

This plan shows wellhead protection zones (1-yr, 5-yr, and 

10-yr) around Wilkshire Hills water system and the relation 

of the water system to a nearby landfill. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1935, Specifications for 

constructing Atwood Dam on Indian Fork, Conotton Creek, 

near Sherrodsville, Ohio: Zanesville, Ohio, U.S. Engineer 

Office, Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, 

164 p. 
92 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1943, Report on analysis of 

hydrologic data for index areas: Muskingum River Basin, 

Ohio (rev. ed.): Huntington, W. Va., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, variously paginated. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1967, Muskingum River basin 

study: Transcript of public hearing at Zanesville, Ohio, 16 

December 1966: Huntington, W. Va., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Huntington District, variously paginated. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970, Flood plain information: 

Tuscarawas River, Stark County, Ohio: Huntington, W. Va., 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 45 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973, Flood plain information: 

Tuscarawas River and adjacent tributary areas, Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio: Huntington, W. Va., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Huntington District, 28 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977, Muskingum River 

basin flood control system, Muskingum River basin, Ohio: 

Final environmental impact statement: Huntington, W Va., 

U.S. Army Engineer District, 344 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006a, Muskingum River 

Basin Systems Operations Study: Huntington, W. Va., 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, 

60 p, accessed September 12, 2006, at http://www.

muskingumbasin.org/pdfs/muskingum_river_basin_report_

final_draft_mar06.pdf 

The Muskingum River Basin multi-purpose reservoir 

system consisted of 14 projects originally constructed in 

the 1930s and two additional projects constructed in 1959 

and 1972. Development of this reservoir system was a joint 

effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. As of 2006, there 

were major problems associated with the conditions of the 

structures as well as the physical changes that have occurred 

in the Muskingum Basin since the projects were constructed. Routine maintenance provided a basis for addressing some of the minor problems, but there was a need for a 

comprehensive review with public participation of the entire 

70-year old system to understand the varying significant 

issues and develop an acceptable revitalization plan. The 

major problems identified in this study were related to aging 

infrastructure (hydrologic deficiency, seepage and foundation problems, outlet tunnel deterioration, gate deterioration, 

spillway erosion, relief wells, and appurtenant facilities), 

reservoirs/lakes problems (reservoir operations, sedimentation and flood storage loss, lake quality, and conflicts among 

project purposes), and watershed problems (ecosystem 

degradation, acid mine drainage, residual flood damages, 

flood plain development, and water and sewer infrastructure 

needs). A web page that largely summarizes this report is 

available at http://www.muskingumbasin.org/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006b, Ohio Public Notices, 

accessed September 20, 2006, at http://www.lrh.usace.army.

mil/permits/publicnotices/oh/

This Web page contains notices about permit applications 

for work or structures in or affecting the course, condition, 

or capacity of navigable waters, or discharge of dredged and 

fill material into waters, including wetlands.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008, Huntington District 

water control, accessed April 5, 2008, at http://www.lrh-wc.

usace.army.mil/wc/distns.htm

This Web site contains links to descriptions of each lake 

including location, reason constructed, dam description, 

stream dammed, photographs, maximum pool elevation, 

and acreage. Individual lake Web pages include data regarding current pool height/elevation, outflow temperature, and 

pool height/elevation and precipitation in the last 24 hours. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, The 2008 statistical abstract, The 

National data book, accessed June 18, 2008, at http://www.

census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1974, U.S. Route 30 environmental impact study—Project No. U–633 (15)(16)(17), 

Stark County, Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, Federal Highway 

Administration and Ohio Department of Transportation, 

140 p. 

Construction along or rerouting of U.S. 30 was not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the water quality of the 

east and west branches of Nimishillen Creek. The waterquality report indicated that both of these streams were 

in a degraded, contaminated condition at both crossing 

points with the relocated U.S. 30. Water-quality analyses 

for oxygen demand, pH, suspended sediment, turbidity, and 

dissolved metals are included. Benthic animals indicate 

contamination prior to the building of U.S. 30.

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008, Killbuck Marsh 

Ohio, National Scenic Byways Program, accessed March 

11, 2008, at http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/13793/

places/14237/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a, Report on 

Atwood Reservoir, Carroll and Tuscarawas Counties, Ohio: 

EPA Region V: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper 393, no. 14, 

23 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975b, Report on 

Beach City Reservoir, Stark and Tuscarawas Counties, 

Ohio: EPA Region V: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper 

394, no. 15, 26 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975c, Report on 

Tappan Reservoir, Harrison County, Ohio: EPA Region V: 
Annotated Bibliography 93

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper 412, 13 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, A compendium 

of lake and reservoir data collected by the National Eutrophication Survey in eastern, north-central, and southeastern 

United States: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper 475, 266 p. 

This report provides summary data on morphology (type, 

drainage area, surface area, mean depth, total inflow, retention time), physical and chemical characteristics (alkalinity, specific conductance, Secchi disk depth, phosphorus, 

orthophosphate, inorganic nitrate, and total nitrate), biological characteristics (chlorophyll a, algae, and phytoplankton), nutrient loadings, and nonpoint source nutrient 

export for Atwood Reservoir, Beach City Reservoir, and 

Tappan Reservoir.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Sole Source 

Aquifer Protection Program, accessed April 1, 2005, at 

http://www.epa/gov/safewater/ssanp.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a, National 

Assessment Database: Assessment data for Ohio, Tuscarawas Watershed, Year 2002, accessed September 19, 2006, 

at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_v2.huc?p_

huc=05040001&p_state=OH

This report lists impaired stream segments in 2002, along 

with the causes of impairment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b, Surf your 

watershed: Tuscarawas watershed profile, accessed September 19, 2006, at http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_

code=05040001

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c, Targeted watersheds grants program: Project summaries, 

accessed September 19, 2006, at http://www.epa.gov/

twg/2005/2005projsumm.html

This Web page provides background data related to Huff 

Run, a relatively small, 14.7 mi2 watershed, situated in 

central eastern Ohio. Extensive pre-law coal mining has 

severely damaged the watershed and subsequently degraded 

the water quality and aquatic wildlife habitat. Restoration 

plans include surface reclamation and treatment using passive treatment technologies to remove metals and increase 

alkalinity. Watershed grant funds will be used to build vertical flow wetlands. This technology uses a series of wetland 

treatment ponds that have been shown to be effective in 

removing substantial amounts of aluminum and iron from 

highly acid waters.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a, Drinking water 

contaminants, accessed May 22, 2008, at http://www.epa.

gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b, Latest findings on National air quality status and trends through 

2006: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, EPA–454/R–07–007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, Proposed radon 

in drinking water rule: accessed February 25, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/radon/fact.html

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2006, FEMA 

Map Service Center: FEMA issued flood maps, accessed 

December 19, 2006, at http://msc.fema.gov/

Historical and recent flood maps for any community can be 

viewed online and purchased at this Web site. County kits, 

having all information for a county, also can be purchased. 

The general Web site is http://www.fema.gov/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a, National Wetlands 

Inventory, accessed on January 28, 2009, at http://www.fws.

gov/wetlands/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009b, Ohio’s federally threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species’ county 

distribution, accessed January 26, 2009, at http://www.fws.

gov/midwest/endangered/lists/ohio-spp.htm 

This Web site lists endangered species by county and notes 

their preferred habitat. Within the Tuscarawas River Basin, 

listed species include the Indiana Bat, the Bald Eagle, the 

Eastern Massasauga (swamp rattler), several mussel species, Mitchell’s Satyr (butterfly), the Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid, and the Northern Monkshood.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Digital line graphs, accessed 

August 27, 2008, at http://eros.usgs.gov/products/map/

dlg.php

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–present, National field manual 

for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chaps. A1–A9, variously paginated. (Chapters were 

published and revised from 1997 to present; updates and 

revisions are ongoing and can be viewed at http://water.

usgs.gov/owq/Fieldprocedures.html)

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, U.S. Geological Survey Digital 

Raster Graphic, accessed March 19, 2009, at http://edc.usgs.

gov/products/map/drg.php

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, National Atlas raw data 

download, geology chapter, accessed September 9, 2008, at 

http://www-atlas.usgs.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chp

geol#chpgeol

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008a, Geographic Names Information System, accessed June 18, 2008, at http://geonames.

usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic
94 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b, Long term-method detection 

levels, Branch of Quality Systems, accessed September 4, 

2008, at http://bqs.usgs.gov/ltmdl/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008c, Water use in the United States, 

accessed March 18, 2009, at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, National Geologic Map Database, Geologic Names Lexicon “GEOLEX,” accessed June 

15, 2009, at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967, Soil survey of Columbiana County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 132 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1971, Soil survey of Stark 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 157 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1974, Flood hazard analyses: 

Fox Run, Stark and Wayne Counties, Ohio: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 7 p. 

This report is an analysis of the flood hazard for Fox Run. 

The river flows eastward through Little Fox Lake in Wayne 

County on into Stark County where it joins the Tuscarawas 

River and drains a total of 14.2 mi2. The primary land use in 

the basin of gently sloping land is agricultural. Projections 

to 1990 estimate 65 percent of the area will be single family 

homes of 0.5 to 1 acre with most in Lawrence Township 

(Stark County). 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1975a, Flood hazard analyses 

report East Branch Nimishillen Creek, Stark County, Ohio: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 16, 3 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1975b, Muskingum River 

Basin: Type IV survey report, Ohio: Columbus, Ohio, 

236 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1977, Soil survey of Medina 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 119 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1978, Soil survey of Portage 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 113 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1981, Soil survey of Belmont 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 178 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1983, Soil survey of Carroll 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 156 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984, Soil survey of Wayne 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 201 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1986, Soil survey of Tuscarawas County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 186 p. 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1990, Soil survey of Summit 

County, Ohio: Washington, D.C., U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service, 117 p. 

Ulteig, J.R., 1964, Upper Niagaran and Cayugan stratigraphy 

of northeastern Ohio and adjacent areas: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 51, 48 p., 

13 figs., 1 table, 8 pls.

Van Horn, R.G., 1976, Land areas in Summit County, Ohio: 

Geologic suitability for solid-waste disposal: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 

Report of Investigations 98, scale 1:63,360. 

This report describes areas suitable for placement of solidwaste landfills and appears to be a precursor to DRASTIC 

maps. The most suitable areas based on hydrogeology 

are those characterized by 50 feet of more of relatively 

impermeable unconsolidated materials generally characterized by fine-grained till. The report notes that the Sharon 

Conglomerate is the most important bedrock aquifer in 

Summit County.

Van Horn, R.G., 1979, Surficial materials of Summit County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 109, 

scale 1:63,360. 

This is a map showing the distribution of surficial materials 

in Summit County. In the northern part of Summit County, 

the surficial deposit is the Hiram Till (silty clay). In the 

central part, the Hayesville and Lavery Tills (clayey silt) are 

present and in the southern part of the county, the Mogadore Till (pebbly clayey sand) is present. In the extreme 

southeastern and southern parts of the county, the Kent and 

Navarre Tills (silty clays and sand) are present.

Van Tuyl, D.W., 1947, Methods used in the investigation 

of the glacial aquifer in the valley of Middle Branch of 

Nimishillen Creek near Canton, Ohio: Geological Society 

of America Bulletin (December 1947), 58 (12, Part 2), 

p. 1279–1280.

In 1947, Canton pumped an average of 8 Mgal/d from 

wells screened in the glacial gravels in the valley of Middle 

Branch of Nimishillen Creek. Streamflow records for Middle Branch show that the flow per unit of drainage area is 

consistently less than for other nearby streams which drain 

areas of similar geology and topography. The measurements 

of flow at intervals along the stream show that losses occur 

in varying amounts depending on the stage of the stream 

and on groundwater levels. Infiltration rates have varied 

from zero to more than 3 Mgal/d per acre of stream bottom. 

At some periods as much as 33 percent of the flow of the 

stream infiltrates into the aquifer. Profiles of the water table 
Annotated Bibliography 95

to the north of the well field show that groundwater levels at 

times are above the stream level. When this condition exists 

during periods of high streamflow, potential recharge from 

the stream to the aquifer is rejected.

Vertrees, R.L., 1985: A guide for subsequent users of original data bases of the Ohio Capability Analysis Program 

(OCAP): The Ohio State University School of Natural 

Resources Report 85/1, 91 p.

This guide summarizes the use of the raster-format OCAP 

data sets that include soils, land use, groundwater, and 

geologic data.

Vormelker, J.D., 1981a, Bedrock topography of Summit 

County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Open File Map 116, 

scale 1:63,360. 

Vormelker, J.D., 1981b, Top-of-rock map of Summit County, 

Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey, Open File Map 116, scale 1:62,500. 

This map shows hand-drawn elevation contours on the 

bedrock surface. The information portrayed has been superseded by the 1:24,000-scale bedrock-topography maps. 

Walk, M.F., and Godfrey, P.J., 1990, Effects of acid deposition 

on surface waters: Journal of New England Water Works 

Association, v.104, no. 4, p. 248–251. 

Walker, A.C., 1959, Tuscarawas River Basin (upper portion) 

underground water resources: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water Plan Inventory 

File Index P–6, scale 1:125,000. 

This map includes water-quality data from two wells 

completed in sandstone and two wells in sand and gravel 

(glacial) as follows: dissolved iron ranged from 0.5 to 

1.7 mg/L (requiring treatment to reduce iron concentrations); chloride ranged from 1.6 to 6.0 mg/L; total dissolved 

solids ranged from 26 to 310 mg/L; hardness ranged from 

185 to 570 mg/L as CaCO3, and pH ranged from 6.8 to 7.7. 

A color-shaded map is mostly green, indicating well yields 

ranging from 5 to 25 gal/min, and blue in areas along Chippewa Creek (Rittman), River Styx, and west towards Creston where well yields may range from 500 to 1,000 gal/min. 

On the map, the area north of the Portage Lakes along Wolf 

Creek, which is colored green, has wells completed in sand 

and gravel lenses within thick glacial sediments, providing 

5 to 25 gal/min to wells.

Walker, A.C., 1962a, A part of the lower portion Tuscarawas 

River Basin underground water resources: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water Plan 

Inventory P–10, scale 1:125,000. 

Walker, A.C., 1962b, A portion of the middle of Muskingum 

River basin underground water resources: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water Plan 

Inventory P–16, scale 1:125,000. 

Walker, A.C., 1969, Stillwater Creek Basin underground water 

resources: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water Plan Inventory File Index P–7, 

scale 1:125,000. 

Walker, A.C., 1991, Ground-water resources of Guernsey 

County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Water, scale 1:63,000.

Walker, A.C., and Crumley, T.A., 1979, Ground-water 

resources of Portage County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:63,000. 

This is a color coded map of well yields in Portage County. 

Northern Portage County, which is colored yellow, is 

underlain by Pottsville-age Massillon Sandstone and Sharon 

Conglomerate, yielding 25 to 100 gal/min. The southeastern corner of the county, which is colored green, had well 

yields generally less than 25 gal/min from the Pottsville 

Sandstone. The southwestern part of the county within the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, colored blue, has interbedded 

sands and gravels, yielding from 100 to 300 gal/min.

Walker, A.C., and Jiang, X., 1991, Ground water resources 

of Carroll County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, scale 1:62,500. 

This is a color-coded map of well yields Carroll County. 

Most of the western and southern parts of Carroll County, 

colored orange or brown, yield less than 3 gal/min to 

as much as 10 gal/min. The northwestern part of the 

county, colored green, had well yields ranging from 10 to 

25 gal/min from sandstones or sandy shales. Small areas 

in the northwestern part of the county near Malverne and 

Minerva along Sandy Creek have permeable sand and gravels; well yields were greater than 100 gal/min.

Walker, A.C., 1962a, Lower portion of the Muskingum River 

basin and adjacent Ohio River tributaries: Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water Plan 

Inventory File Index P–10, scale 1:125,000. 

Walker, A.C., 1962b, A Portion of the Middle Muskingum 

River Basin Underground Water Resources: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio Water 

Plan Inventory File Index P–16, scale 1:125,000. 

Walker, A.C., and Schottenstein, C.A., 1979, Ground-water 

resources of Stark County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:63,000. 

This is a color-coded map of well yields in Stark County. 

The eastern and southeastern parts of the county, colored 

green, have sandstones and sandy shales, yielding about 

25gal/min. The northwestern part of the county, colored yellow, is underlain by Pottsville sandstones that may provide 

25 to 100 gal/min to wells. The Canton and Massillon areas, 
96 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

colored purple and blue, provided from 100 to 500 gal/min 

from sand and gravel deposits (purple-shaded areas underlain by sand and gravel provide the “best ground-water 

areas in Stark County”). This map also shows a hachured 

area of sand and gravel deposits susceptible to infiltration 

of chloride from the Tuscarawas River. The report indicates 

that, within this area, spacing of wells and rates of pumping 

should be carefully controlled to avoid induction of chloride 

in the aquifer.

Walker, A.C., and Stewart, R.L., 1991, Ground-water 

resources of Belmont County: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, scale 1:62,500. 

Wayne County Planning Department, 2006, Tomorrow 

together: Wayne County comprehensive plan (draft): The 

Board of the Wayne County Commissioners, variously 

paginated, accessed September 27, 2006, at http://www.

wayneohio.org/planning/plan.html

This planning document lists natural constraints for development in Wayne County, including severe septic limitations (which affect about 78 percent of total land area), 

groundwater availability (which affects about 37 percent), 

severe slope (which affects about 8 percent), and areas 

prone to flooding (which affects about 9 percent). In general, Wayne County offers adequate groundwater quality 

and yields throughout the county, although portions have 

experienced low flows (such as the West Salem area). An 

outstanding aquifer is found along Killbuck Creek. As 

stated in the report, a primary objective within the county 

should be to protect groundwater resources by discouraging 

inappropriate development over or adjacent to groundwater 

recharge areas and aquifers, adopting wellhead protection 

regulations to protect aquifers, and conducting a countywide groundwater supply survey to delineate resources and 

identify aquifer contamination potentials.

Weatherington-Rice, J.B.P., 2004, Fracture occurrence and 

ground water pollution in Ohio’s glacial and lacustrine 

deposits: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, Ph. D. 

dissertation, 400 p.

This dissertation consists of five journal articles and 

includes information on fracture occurrence within glacial 

deposits in the Tuscarawas River Basin. One of the articles 

provides an independent evaluation of 21 sites in Ohio 

where fractures have been identified in glacial tills from 

boring samples, backhoe pits, and stream cuts. 

Weitzel, R.L., and Bates, J.M., 1981, Assessment of effluent 

impacts through evaluation of periphyton diatom community structure, in Bates, J.M., Weber, C.I., eds., Ecological assessments of effluent impacts on communities of 

indigenous aquatic organisms: Philadelphia, Pa., American 

Society for Testing and Materials, p. 142–165. 

The effects of discharges of copper-containing electroplating wastewater on the biota of the Muskingum River were 

evaluated by studies of the diatom community following 

the occurrence of high mortality among freshwater mussels 

downstream from the discharge point. The results indicated 

decreased species richness and diversity in the diatom communities collected from artificial substrates.

Wellman, J.M., 1998, A stream sediment geochemical survey 

as an indicator of potential contamination by heavy metals 

of the Muskingum River, southeast Ohio: Dayton, Ohio, 

Wright State University, M.S. thesis, 88 p.

Westfall, A.O., and Webber, E.E., 1977, Time of travel of 

solutes in the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, August and 

September, 1974: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 77–0023, 7 p. 

A series of time-of-travel dye studies were done in August 

and September 1974 on a 106-mile reach of the Tuscarawas River. The river was divided into five sub-reaches, and 

separate dye tests were done within each of the sub-reaches. 

The study started 3 miles downstream from Barberton to 

a point 0.3 miles upstream from the confluence with the 

Walhonding in Coshocton. At about 50-percent duration, 

the time-of-travel of the peak concentration was 137 hours 

for the entire 106-mile reach. The leading edge of the dye 

reached the lower-most station after about 119 hours. 

Weston, R.F., 1968, Surface water quality report for Muskingum River Basin, State of Ohio: West Chester, Pa., 

R.F. Weston, variously paginated.

This report summarizes land use, water use, and surfacewater quality. Land use was 67 percent agricultural in 1959 

for the entire Muskingum River Basin. The 1960 population for the basin was 1,157,215 and increased to 1,215,808 

in 1965. From 1940 to 1950, population increased by 

11.3 percent; from 1950 to 1960, 17.9 percent; and from 

1960 to 1965, 5.1 percent. Population was projected to 

be 1,806,000 by 1990. Average per capita water use was 

115 gal/d and ground water provided more than 80 percent 

of public water supply in basin. 

The Upper Tuscarawas River Basin had elevated concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus. Wolf Creek at Barberton 

had elevated organic and inorganic industrial discharge. 

The concentration of dissolved iron was typically greater 

than 1 mg/L; thermal contamination was considerable; 

and chloride levels were commonly between 1,000 and 

2,000 mg/L. There also were substantial bacterial issues and 

sewage problems.

White, G.W., 1947, Waynesburg coal in Harrison and northern Belmont Counties, Ohio, and revision of Dunkard 

(Permian) boundary: Ohio Journal of Science, v. 47, no. 2, 

p. 55–58.

White, G.W., 1949, Geology of Holmes County: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 47, 373 p.
Annotated Bibliography 97

White, G.W., 1951, Illinoian and Wisconsinan drift of the 

southern part of the Grand River lobe in eastern Ohio: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 62, p. 967–978.

This report includes a plate showing details of the Illinoian 

and Wisconsinan glacial boundaries and associated deposits. Glacial drifts of Wisconsin and Illinoian age occur in 

the southern part of the Grand River lobe in eastern Ohio. 

The Illinoian, which occupies a belt only 2 to 5 miles wide, 

extends eastward from Canton across Stark and Columbiana 

Counties. This is mainly till, now discontinuous and thin. 

Oxidation reaches a depth of 12 feet or more, and leaching 

reaches 11 feet or more. Small areas of the Illinoian kames 

and kame terraces remain. In the Wisconsinan till, which 

covers the area north of the Illinoian, oxidation reaches 

depths of 8 to 11 feet and leaching, 5 to 7 feet. A partially 

discontinuous end moraine lies 1 to 2 miles inside the southern limit of this drift, and a very strong moraine lies along 

the west side of the lobe. Within the Wisconsinan area, relatively minor kame terraces occupy some of the valleys. The 

Wisconsinan ice disappeared mainly by northward retreat of 

an ice edge, but stagnated to a limited extent in small areas.

White, G.W., 1967, Glacial geology of Wayne County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 62, 39 p. 

A map included with this report shows that Wayne County 

is entirely covered by glacial drift consisting largely of 

Hayesville Till ground and end moraines. Wisconsinan 

kames and outwash deposits also are present. Kettle holes, 

now incorporated in flood plains, contain muck and peat. 

The eastern part of the county valley fill along Chippewa 

Creek, Little Chippewa Creek, and Sugar Creek is characterized by flood plain and kettle holes. Silt and other alluvium are present on valley floors, are often thin, and overlie 

material of different character. Yellow-colored areas on the 

map near Creston and Sterling indicate valley-train deposits that are low outwash terraces with well-washed gravel 

and sand. The bottom of the Killbuck Creek valley from a 

point northwest of Wooster southward into Holmes County 

and far south across that county is a long, narrow lacustrine 

plain. The down valley slope is less than 1 ft to a little more 

than 1 ft per mi. Before the ditching and straightening of 

the channel of Killbuck Creek, floods spread over the valley 

and persisted for weeks or even months, turning the valley 

into a lake.

White, G.W., 1973, Glacial geology of Holmes County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 91, scale 1:90,000. 

This is a map of the glacial deposits in Holmes County. 

Only the northern half of county is glaciated and is covered primarily with till. Silt and other alluvium fill valleys 

are present in the central portion of the county, especially 

near Killbuck. Numerous kames and kame terraces along 

valley walls are present along Martin’s Creek and near 

Martinsville.

White, G.W., 1979, Extent of till sheets and ice margins in 

northeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Geological Note 6, one sheet.

White, G.W., 1982, Glacial geology of northeastern Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 68, 75 p.

White, G.W., 1984, Glacial geology of Summit County, Ohio: 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 123, 25 p. 

This is a revision and expansion of Smith and White (1953) 

and provides an excellent map of glacial sediments in the 

county. The Kent Till (Late Wisconsinan/Woodfordian age 

at about 24,000 years before present is within the Cuyahoga 

lobe in northern Summit County and the margin of the 

Grand River Lobe in extreme eastern Summit County. The 

Lavery Till (19,000 years before present) covers northern 

Summit County as far south as Akron but is at the surface 

only in small areas. The Hiram Till (17,000 years before 

present) also covers northern Summit County and conceals 

the Lavery Till. The Portage Lakes were formed along 

an intricate network of esker-like crevasse fillings, sharp 

kames, and very large kettle holes. The depressions that 

form the basins of the lakes are the models of the last ice 

blocks and represent the remnants of the Mogadore ice 

sheet. Groundwater is abundantly produced from sands and 

gravels of the Mogadore Till. Waste disposal of both solids 

and liquids within sites located on the till ranges from what 

the authors label favorable to very unfavorable. 

White, G.W., and Guckenheimer, L.M., 1979, Extent of till 

sheets and ice margins in northeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, 

6 sheets, scale 1:900,000. 

White, G.W., and Lamborn, R.E., 1949, Geology of Holmes 

County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 47, 373 p. 

White, G.W., and Totten, S.M., 1979, Glacial geology of 

Ashtabula County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources Report of Investigation 112, 52 p.

White, G.W., and Totten, S.M., 1982, Glacial geology of 

northeastern Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological Survey, Bulletin 68, 75 p. 

White, G.W., and Totten, S.M., 1985, Glacial geology of 

Columbiana County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 129, 25 p. 

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

eds., 2004, Processing of water samples (version 2.1): 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A5, accessed November 27, 

2007, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/
98 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

This is a guidebook for water-quality sampling conducted 

by the U.S. Geological Survey. It also contains special sections on sampling procedures and potential contamination 

issues related to wastewater compounds.

Williams, E.B., 1973, An investigation of chloride contamination in Tuscarawas and Muskingum River Valleys, Ohio: 

Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, M.S. thesis, p.107 

This thesis is a revisit to the chloride contamination 

problem in the Tuscarawas River. At the time of this study, 

samples from Chippewa Creek contained 281 mg/L of chloride, whereas samples from the Tuscarawas River below 

Barberton contained 4,370 mg/L. Above Barberton, the 

Tuscarawas River contained only 62 mg/L of chloride. The 

Tuscarawas River at Massillon had 3,200 and 2,040 mg/L of 

chloride in November 1971 and January 1972, respectively, 

and the Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown had 437 and 

416 mg/L on these same dates.

Williams, N.E., 1958, Preliminary engineering report: Hugle 

Run Lake, Stark County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water, 21 p. 

This report describes a proposed lake site just north of 

Minerva. It was never built and it does not appear on a 1988 

hydrologic unit code (HUC) map. 

Williams, S.E., 1989, The ground water pollution potential 

of Stark County, Ohio: Athens Ohio, Ohio University, 

M.S. thesis, p.69.,

Williams, S.E., 1991, Ground water pollution potential of 

Stark County, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Water, Ground Water Pollution Potential Report 

6, 75 p. 

This is a DRASTIC map for Stark County. The two most 

productive bedrock aquifers are the Sharon Conglomerate 

and Massillon Sandstone of the lower Pottsville Group; 

they can produce sustained yields of 50 gal/min. Most of 

the county is shaded blue and green, indicating DRASTIC 

ratings of 139 or less. The valley fill around Sandy Creek, 

Nimishillen Creek (Canton), and the Tuscarawas River 

(Massillon) are color-shaded orange or yellow with ratings 

ranging from 160 to 199.

Wilson, W.E., 1991, Hydrogeologic analysis of the upper 

Tuscarawas River basin, Summit and Stark Counties, Ohio: 

Akron, Ohio, University of Akron, M.S. thesis, 105 p. 

Winslow, J.D., and White, G.W., 1966, Geology and groundwater resources of Portage County, Ohio: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 511, 80 p.

This report describes the sediments, rocks, and groundwater 

resources of Portage County. At the time of the 1960 census, population was 91,798. Plate 5 shows a general guide 

to groundwater in the county with the areas of greatest 

availability/best water quality in the western part of the 

county, in the north-south trending buried valley. The water 

is generally hard to very hard and contains moderate to 

excessive amounts of dissolved solids. Water derived from 

the Berea Sandstone is relatively soft, but this water is not 

necessarily low in mineral content. Manganese was present 

at concentrations up to 0.66 ppm.

Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Brockman, C.S., Gerber, T.D., 

Hosteter, W.D., and S.H. Azevedo, 1998, Ecoregions 

of Indiana and Ohio (two- sided color poster with map, 

descriptive text, summarytables, and photographs): U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, Va., scale 1:500,000, accessed 

September 21, 2006, at http://education.usgs.gov/common/

resources/mapcatalog/images/environmental/ecoregion_

ohio1_front.pdf

Wright, A.J., 1953, Economic geography of Ohio: Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources Bulletin 50, 217 p.

Wright, J.C., 1950, The limnology of Atwood Lake, a flood 

control reservoir: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 

Ph. D. dissertation, 157 p. 

Youngquist, C.V., Langbein, W.B., Smith, W.E., and Showalter, A.K., 1941, Flood of August 1935 in the Muskingum 

River basin, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 869, 118 p. 

This report describes a flood within the Muskingum River 

Basin in 1935. More than 8 inches of precipitation fell over 

an area of 400 mi2 during a 12-hour period on August 6–7, 

1935. Property loss was estimated at $6 million.

Zbasnik, B.S., 1996, Application of Lloyd Bitzer’s rhetorical situation to the Ashland Inc. oil spill on the Tuscarawas 

River: Akron, Ohio, University of Akron, M.A. thesis, 60 p.

Zielinski, R.A., and Finkelman, R.B., 1997, Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash: abundance, forms, and 

environmental significance: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet FS–163–97, accessed November 28, 2007, 

at http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/

FS-163-97.html

Zogorski, J.S., Carter, J.M., Ivahnenko, Tamara, Lapham, 

W.W., Moran, M.J., Rowe, B.L., Squillace, P.J., and Toccalino, P.L., 2006, The quality of our Nation’s waters—

Volatile organic compounds in the Nation’s ground water 

and drinking-water supply wells: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1292, 101 p.

Zoller , C.T., Raab, J.M., Brown, L.C., and Ricker, K.T., 

undated a, Tuscarawas County ground-water resources: 

Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX–490.79, 

accessed September 20, 2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/

aex-fact/0490_79.html
Annotated Bibliography 99

This is an overview of Tuscarawas County’s groundwater 

resources, including definitions of aquifer and well yield. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources observation wells 

and chemical analysis sites are shown on a generalized 

map of well yields. All wells sampled as part of this study 

contained excess hardness and iron.

Zoller, C.T., Ricker, K.T., and Brown, L.C., undated b, Water 

resources of Tuscarawas County: Ohio State University 

Extension Fact Sheet AEX–480.79, accessed September 20, 

2006, at http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_79.html

This is an overview of water resources for Tuscarawas 

County, including precipitation, groundwater, surface 

water, water use, and water quality. Average rainfall for the 

Tuscarawas County area was 40 inches per year, providing 

10.4 inches of runoff to streams and lakes. About 6.4 inches 

had the potential to recharge aquifers. Land use was 46-percent farmland. Nitrate was noted as a water-quality issue. 

Prepared by the USGS Columbus Publishing Service Center.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Summary of Literature Review for the Tuscarawas River Basin

Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the Tuscarawas 

River Basin, 2006

Appendix 3. Glossary of Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Qualifiers
102 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Appendix 1. Summary of Literature Review for the Tuscarawas River Basin

[undated, no date on publication; consolidated refers to bedrock aquifers; unconsolidated refers to sand and gravel aquifers]

Basin characteristics

Ecoregions Omernick (1987), Woods and others (1998)

Geography Peattie (1923), Wright (1950)

Geomorphology Preston (1987)

Physiography Fenneman (1938)

Soils Morse (1939), Boyce and others (1960), U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1967, 1971, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 

1986, 1990), Bartlett and others (1984), Natural Resources Conservation Service (1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2005), 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2008b

Geology

General Stout (1916, 1918, 1943), Conrey (1921), Stout and Lamborn (1924), Lamborn (1930, 1954, 1956), Lamborn and 

others (1938), White (1949), White and Lamborn (1949), DeLong and White (1963), DeLong (1965a, 1965b), 

Winslow and White (1966), Majchszak (1984), Harrell and others (1993)

Bedrock Orton and Peppel (1906), Stauffer (1909), Morse (1910), Condit (1912), Prosser (1912), Stauffer and Schroyer 

(1920), Stout (1929, 1940a, 1940b), Lamborn and others (1938), Lamborn (1945, 1951), Pepper (1947), White 

(1947), Sturgeon and Merrrill (1949), Hyde (1953), Fuller (1955), Shearrow (1957), Hoover (1960), McCormick 

(1961), Dow (1962), Summerson (1962), Calvert (1963), Multer (1963, 1967), Ulteig (1964), DeLong (1967, 

1968, 1969, 1972, 1990), Rau (1969), Smith (1969), Owens (1970), Clifford (1973), Janssens (1973, 1977), 

Sedam (1973), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1976, 2000d), Risser (1976, 1983a), Vormelker (1981a, 

1981b), Gray and others (1982), Struble and Hodges (1982), Majchszak (1984), Martin (1998), Slucher and 

others (2006)

Coal Bownocker and others (1908), Condit (1912), Bownocker and Dean (1929), Stout (1929), Lamborn (1942), White 

(1947), Dean (1948), Brant (1954, 1956), Cady and Smith (1955), DeLong (1955, 1957, 1978), DeBrosse (1957), 

Granchi (1958), Brant and DeLong (1960), Denton (1960), Sedam (1973), Knapp (1977), Botoman and Stieglitz 

(1978), Botoman and Stith (1978, 1981, 1986, 1988), Couchot (1978), Couchot and others (1980), Crouch and 

others (1980), Razem and Sedam (1985), Crowell (1995), Axon (1996)

Geophysics Heiskanen and Uotila (1956), Morrison (1996)

Glacial and 

unconsolidated

Coffey (1930), Schaefer and others (1946), Van Tuyl (1947), Smith (1949), White (1951, 1967, 1973, 1979, 1982, 

1984), Cummins (1959), Forsyth (1961), Goldthwait and others (1967), Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

(1978a, 1983, 1993a, 1993b, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), Van Horn (1979), White and Guckenheimer (1979), White 

and Totten (1979, 1982, 1985), Hull (1980, 1987), Risser (1981, 1983b, 1986, 1987), Himes (1982), Totten (1988), Rizzo (1993), Leberfinger (1995), Richards and Wallrabenstein (1995), Pavey and others (1999), 

Weatherington-Rice (2004), Masters and Razem (undated)

Minerals Orton and Peppel (1906), Dachnowski (1912), Bownocker and Stout (1928), Stout (1940a, 1940b, 1944, 1946), 

Stout and Schoenlaub (1945), Pepper (1947), Smith (1949), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1963), Clifford (1973), Hull (1980, 1987), Risser (1981, 1986), Carlson (1991), Kelly and Matos (2009)

Oil and gas Bownocker (1903), Lamborn (1952), Multer (1963), Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (1951), Janssens and de Witt (1976), Struble and Hodges (1982), Riley and others (2004)

Hydrology

General Harker (1943a), Harker and Bernhagen (1943a), Stout and others (1943), Cummins and Sanderson (1947), Cummins (1959), Schmidt (1962a, 1962b, 1978, 1994), Sedam (1973), Groenewold (1974), Crowell and Crumley (1978), Crowell and Schottenstein (1979a, 1979b, 1980), Heaton (1982), Kerschner (1980), Engelke and 

Roth (1981), Preston (1987), Eshler (1988), Garvey (1988), Wilson (1991), Rizzo (1993), Chowdhury (1995), 

Chowdhury and others (2003), Akin (2006), Beck and others (undated a), Golden and others (undated a, undated 

b], Hogan and others (undated a), Little and others (undated), Oelker and others (undated a), Oelker and others 

(undated b), Schumacher and others (undated a)
Appendix 1. Summary of Literature Review for the Tuscarawas River Basin 103

Hydrology—Continued

Computer simulations Rashid and others (1992), Breen and others (1995), Haefner (2002)

Contaminated sites/

wastewater treatment/waste disposal/

landfills

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (1951), Jones (1961), Rau (1972, 1974), Williams (1973), 

Groenewold (1974), Clifford (1975), Van Horn (1976), Babington and Fisher (1977), Bachman and Morgan 

(1983), Hull (1984), Majchszak (1984), Opatrny and Larlham (1985), Bair and Norris (1989), Jackson and 

others (1989), Dumouchelle and Bair (1994), Zbasnik (1996), Barber and others (1997), Francisco and Shakoor 

(1997), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2003, 2005), Weatherington-Rice (2004), Stark County Health 

Department (2005)

Floods and 

flood control

Youngquist and others (1941), Cross and Brooks (1959), Potter (1961), Edelen and others (1962a), Edelen and others (1962b), Somers and others (1962), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1970, 1973, 1977), U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1974, 1975a, 1975b), Dames & Moore and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District 

(1975), Koltun and Roberts (1990), Koltun and Sherwood (1998), Koltun (1999, 2003), Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (2001), U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2006)

Groundwater,

general

Harker (1943b, 1943c), Harker and Ohio Water Supply Board (1943, 1944a, 1944b), Harker and others (1943), 

Schaefer and others (1946), Cummins and Sanderson (1947), Van Tuyl (1947), Smith and White (1953), Schmidt 

and Walker (1954), Jones and others (1958), Cummins (1959), Walker (1959, 1962a, 1962b, 1962c, 1991), Ohio 

Water Commission (1960), Prée (1962b), Schmidt (1962a, 1962b, 1978, 1994), Winslow and White (1966), 

Sedam and Stein (1970), Ohio Drilling Company (1971), Sedam (1973, 1991), Crowell and Crumley (1978), 

Crowell and Schottenstein (1979a, 1979b, 1980), Walker and Crumley (1979), Walker and Schottenstein (1979), 

Khourey (1981), Mayhew (1985), Razem and Sedam (1985), Booth (1988), Sugar (1988), Bair and Norris (1989), 

Barber (1989), Iqbal (1990), Walker and Jiang (1991), Walker and Stewart (1991), Dai and others (1992), Dai 

(1993), Rizzo (1993), Sedam and Francy (1993), Dumouchelle and Bair (1994), Jost (1994), Breen and others 

(1995), Chowdhury (1995), Richards and Wallrabenstein (1995), Angle and others (2000), Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources (2000c, 2000d), Eckstein and others (2001), Haefner (2002), Chowdhury and others (2003), 

Weatherington-Rice (2004), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005), Beck and others (undated b), Golden 

and others [undated a], Hogan and others (undated b), Oelker and others (undated c, undated d), Schumacher and 

others (undated b), Zoller and others (undated a)

Groundwater, by county 

and specific topic Water resources Hydrogeology and (or) groundwater resources Pollution-potential maps

Water-level

and (or) potentiometric 

surface maps

Belmont Schumacher and others 

(undated a)

Walker (1969), 

Walker and Stewart (1991), 

Schumacher and others 

(undated b)

Angle and Jonak (2002)

Carroll Pree (1962a), 

Hogan and others

(undated a) 

Pree (1962b), 

Schmidt (1962a, 1962 b),

Sedam and Stein (1970),

Walker and Jiang (1991),

Hogan and others 

(undated b)

Angle and others (2003b) Consolidated

Angle (2006a)

Unconsolidated

Angle (2006b)

Columbiana Stamm and others 

(undated)

Pree (1962b), 

Crowell and Crumley 

(1978),

Risser (1986)

Angle (1994a) Consolidated

Sprowls (2007a)

Coshocton Golden and others 

(undated b)

Walker (1962a),

Himes (1982), 

Sugar (1988), 

Golden and others 

(undated b)

Spahr (1995)

Guernsey Little and others 

(undated)

Walker (1969), 

Sedam and Stein (1970), 

Walker (1991) 
104 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Hydrology—Continued

Groundwater, by county 

and specific topic Water resources Hydrogeology and (or) groundwater resources Pollution-potential maps

Water-level

and (or) potentiometric 

surface maps

Harrison Hogan and others 

(undated a)

Schmidt (1962a), 

Walker (1969),

Sedam and Stein (1970),

Crowell and Schottenstein 

(1980), 

Hogan and others 

(undated b)

Angle and Walker (2002) Consolidated

Raab and Sprowls (2006)

Holmes Schmidt (1962a), 

Crowell and Schottenstein 

(1979a)

Angle and Bonifas (2002)

Medina Rizzo (1993) Walker (1959), 

Schmidt (1978), 

Eshler (1988), 

Iqbal (1990)

Angle (1994b) Consolidated

Sprowls (2005)

Unconsolidated

Sprowls and Raab (2006)

Stark Pree (1962a), 

Oelker and others 

(undated a)

Schaefer and others (1946), 

Van Tuyl (1947), 

Walker (1959), 

Pree (1962b), 

Schmidt (1962a),

Sedam and Stein (1970),

Walker and Schottenstein 

(1979),

Oelker and others 

(undated c),

Wilson (1991)

Williams (1989, 1991) Consolidated

Crist and Raab (2006)

Unconsolidated

Angle (2006c), 

Bair and Norris (1989),

Dumouchelle and Bair 

(1994)

Portage Winslow and White (1966),

Rau (1969), 

Sedam and Stein (1970),

Walker and Crumley 

(1979), 

Hull (1980)

Angle (1990) Consolidated

Raab and Barrett (2005)

Unconsolidated

Raab (2005) 

Summit Stafford (1954), 

Oelker and others 

(undated b) 

Smith and White (1953), 

Walker (1959), 

Rau (1969), 

Heaton (1982), 

Kerschner (1980), 

Garvey (1988), 

Wilson (1991), 

Schmidt (1994), 

Oelker and others

(undated d)

Angle and others (2003a) Consolidated

Sprowls (2007b)

Unconsolidated

Sprowls and others (2007)

Tuscarawas Cummins and Sanderson 

(1947), 

Zoller and others 

(undated b)

Kaser (1960), 

Schmidt (1962a, 1962b),

Walker (1962a, 1969),

Barber (1989), 

Tuscarawas County 

Metropolitan Sewer 

District (2006), 

Zoller and others 

(undated a)

Angle and Baker (2001) Consolidated

Sprowls (2007c)

Unconsolidated

Raab (2006)
Appendix 1. Summary of Literature Review for the Tuscarawas River Basin 105

Hydrology—Continued

Groundwater, by county 

and specific topic Water resources Hydrogeology and (or) groundwater resources Pollution-potential maps

Water-level

and (or) potentiometric 

surface maps

Wayne Preston (1987), 

Rizzo (1993), 

Beck and others 

(undated a)

Walker (1959), 

Schmidt (1962a, 1962b), 

Crowell and Schottenstein 

(1979b),

Springer (1987),

Iqbal (1990),

Chowdhury and others 

(2003),

Jost (1994),

Chowdhury (1995),

Breen and others (1995),

Beck and others (undated b)

Jost (1994),

Chowdhury (1995), 

Angle and Akins (2002),

Chowdhury and others 

(2003)

Consolidated

Sprowls (2006a)

Unconsolidated

Sprowls (2006b)

Recharge Bonta and Muller (1999), Dumouchelle and Schiefer (2002), Breen and others (1995), Kazman (1949)

Surface water (streams, 

reservoirs, lakes)

Coffey (1930), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1935, 1943, 1967, 2006a, 2008), Cummins and Sanderson (1947), 

Kazman (1949), Wright (1950), Williams, N.E. (1958), Williams, E.B. (1973), Schmidt and Ohio Dept. of Natural 

Resources (1959, 1962a, 1962b), Potter (1961), Walker and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (1962), Weston 

(1968), U.S. Department of Transportation (1974), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 

1978), Westfall and Webber (1977), Tobin and Youger (1978, 1979), Bowell (1980), Bartlett and others (1984), 

Angelo and Youger (1985), Opatrny and Larlham (1985), Koltun and Roberts (1990), Black (1991), Sedam 

(1991), Sedam and Francy (1993), Breen and others (1995), Davic and others (1997), Koltun and Sherwood 

(1998), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2001), Dumouchelle and 

Schiefer (2002), Koltun (2003), Espinoza (2005)

Water supply, water use Foulk (1925), Ohio Department of Public Works and Dayton Morgan Engineering Co. (1931), Harker (1943a, 

1943b, 1943c, 1944a, 1944b), Harker and Bernhagen (1943a, 1943b, 1943c), Van Tuyl (1947), Kazman (1949), 

Smith and White (1953), Stafford (1954), Walker (1959, 1962a, 1962b, 1969, 1991), Kaser (1960), Ohio Water 

Commission (1960), Thomas (1960), Schmidt (1962a, 1962b, 1978, 1994), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1968), Ohio Drilling Company (1971), Walker and Crumley (1979), Walker and Schottenstein (1979), 

Crouch and others (1980), Sugar (1988), Walker and Jiang (1991), Walker and Stewart (1991), Eckstein and 

others (2001), U.S. Geological Survey (2005), Schumacher and others (undated a), Stamm and others (undated), 

Zoller and others (undated b)

Watershed planning, 

Total Maximum 

Daily Loads, 

Acid Mine Drainage 

Abatement and 

Treatment Plans

Medina Soil Conservation District (1960), Prée (1962a, 1962c), Williams (1958) Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources (1971, 1974a, 1974b,1978b), Quilliam (1973), Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and 

Development Organization (1975, 1985, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2004, 2005), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1978, 1979, 2002d, 2006c), Johnson (1986), Gannett Fleming (2000), Office 

of Surface Mining (2000), Schultz (2000), Kleski Environmental Consulting (2001), Carroll County Regional 

Planning Commission (2004), Espinoza (2005), Muskingum River Basin Initiative (2005), Akin (2006), Moore 

(2006), Ohio State University Extension (2006), Parker and Webb (2006), Tuscarawas County Metropolitan 

Sewer District (2006), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a, 2006b, 2006c), Wayne County Planning 

Department (2006)

Wetlands, bogs, 

swamps, fens

Denny (1988), Bauder (1994), Earth Action Partnership Inc. (2006), The Nature Conservancy (2006)

Aquatic biology

General Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1972), Quilliam (1973), U.S. Department of Transportation (1974), Tobin 

and Youger (1979), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 

1998a, 1998b, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2005, 2006b), Hambrook and others (1999), Ohio River Valley Ecosystem 

Team (2002a, 2002b), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009b)

Microbiology Kraatz (1941), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2006c), Weitzel and Bates (1981)

Macro-invertebrates Hyland (1982), McShaffrey and Olive (1985), Barber and others (1997), Hambrook and others (1999), March 

(2002), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2002c), Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and 

Development Organization (2003a, 2005), Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership (2006b)
106 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Aquatic biology—Continued

Fish Cassidy and others (1930), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1995b, 2002b, 2006b), Huff Run Watershed 

Restoration Partnership (2006a)

Amphibians Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2002b), Mayasich and others (2003)

Algae Olive and Higgins (1981), Hambrook and others (1999)

Water quality

General Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (1951), Lamborn (1952), Ohio Department of Health (1958), Prée 

(1962b), Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Water Pollution Control Board (1968), Weston (1968), Sedam 

and Stein (1970), Williams (1973), Westfall and Webber (1977), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1978, 

1979, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2002a, 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2006b), 

Brasaemle and others (1979), Tobin and Youger (1979), Engelke and Roth (1981), Majchszak (1984), Northeast 

Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization (1985), Razem and Sedam (1985), Sedam 

(1991), Sedam and Francy (1993), Breen and others (1995), Barber and others (1997), Davic and others (1997), 

Wellman (1998), Schultz (2000), Haefner (2002), Akin (2006), Huff Run Watershed Restoration Partnership 

(2006c), Parker and Webb (2006)

Isotopes Breen and others (1995), Haefner (2002)

Radon Harrell and others (1993)

Trace elements Khourey (1981), Matisoff and others (1981, 1982), Dai and others (1992), Dai (1993), Haefner (2002)

Data and monitoring networks

Basin monitoring/

operation plans

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization (1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2001a), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006a), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a, 2006b)

Land capability analysis 

(OCAP)

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1974b), Maxson (1975), Ondecko and Schultz (1981)
Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006 107

Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006

mg/L milligrams per liter

μg/L micrograms per liter

MI MF MI membrane filtration (MI is an abbreviation for 

two different enzyme substrates)

mL milliliter

mm millimeters

mm Hg millimeters of mercury

modif. mTEC modified membrane thermotolerant E. coli

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

mV millivolts

NTU nephelometric turbidity units

pCi/L picocuries per liter

PFM piston flow model

pg/kg picograms per kilogram

pptv parts per trillion by volume

pt point

QA quality assurance

RCnd radiochememical non-detect, below sample-specific 

critical level

Rj rejected sample 

ROE residue on evaporation

std units standard units

STP/g standard temperature and pressure per gram of water

TR@MA Tuscarawas River at Massillon

TR@NCT Tuscarawas River at Newcomerstown

TU tritium unit (equal to approximately 3.19 pCi/L)

unf unfiltered

Abbreviations are as follows:

— not determined

> greater than

< less than

(00000) USGS parameter code

ANC acid neutralizing capacity

C contaminated sample

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

cc cubic centimeters

cc/L cubic centimeters per liter

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

ft3/s cubic feet per second

col colonies

CSU combined standard uncertainty

deg C degrees Celsius

E estimated

E. coli Escherichia coliform

ext extraction

fg/kg femtograms per kilogram

ft feet

gal/min gallons per minute

incrm titr incremental titration

lab laboratory

LSD land surface datum

MF membrane filtration

M-FC membrane fecal coliform agar
108 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Site Date Time

Depth to 

water, 

ft below LSD 

(72019)

Stream 

stage, 

ft above 

datum 

(00065)

Instantaneous 

discharge, 

ft3/s 

(00061)

Flow rate, 

instantaneous, 

gal/min 

(00059)

Oxidation 

reduction 

potential, 

field, 

mV 

(00090)

Turbidity, 

field, 

NTU 

(61028)

Barometric 

pressure, 

field, 

mm Hg 

(00025)

Oxygen,

 dissolved, 

field, 

mg/L 

(00300)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 59.94 — — 0.5 44.9 120 732 0.8

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 22.00 — — 25 118 .2 742 1.4

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 — — — 183 -90.4 .3 741 .2

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 18.80 — — 3 -89.1 .7 735 .1

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 40.33 — — 3 -15.5 3.6 734 .5

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 12.30 — — 1,550 -21.7 .2 740 .9

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 55.00 — — 350 21.5 1.0 744 .7

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — 0.62 105 — -1 8.3 738 5.7

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — 1.22 674 — 157 2.4 741 8.4

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — — — 741 —

Suspended sediment 

Site Date Time

pH, 

field, 

std units 

(00400)

Concentration, 

mg/L

Percent 

< 0.0625 mm

Specific 

conductance,

 field, 

μS/cm 

(00095)

Temperature, 

air, field, 

deg C 

(00020)

Temperature, 

water,

field, 

deg C 

(00010)

Hardness as 

CaCO3, 

mg/L 

(00900)

Calcium, 

mg/L 

(00915)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 8.4 — — 701 — 18.7 30 8.97

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 7.1 — — 381 27.0 12.3 195 57.1

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 6.5 — — 443 28.0 13.0 197 52.1

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 7.1 — — 1,200 — 12.9 466 136

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 5.5 — — 2,680 30.0 14.1 1,540 352

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 7.5 — — 779 31.0 13.8 395 114

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 7.3 — — 654 29.0 12.5 332 98.1

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 7.5 0.005 12 1,130 30.0 20.1 304 87.1

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 8.2 .001 3 992 30.0 22.7 325 88.3

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — 28.0 — — E .0
Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006 109

Site Date Time

Magnesium, 

mg/L 

(00925)

Potassium, 

mg/L 

(00935)

Sodium, 

mg/L 

(00930)

ANC, unf, 

fixed end pt, 

lab, 

mg/L as 

CaCO3

(90410)

Alkalinity, 

incrm titr, 

field, 

mg/L as 

CaCO3

 (39086)

Acidity, 

total as 

CaCO3, 

mg/L 

(00435)

Bicarbonate, 

field, 

mg/L 

(00453)

Carbonate, 

incrm titr, 

field, 

mg/L 

(00452)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 1.8 1.39 147 297 302 — 359 5

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 12.7 2.19 9.33 184 180 — 219 .0

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 16.1 1.74 5.47 119 181 — 220 .0

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 30.7 2.17 62.5 296 302 — 368 .0

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 160 7.75 9.81 63 99 335 120 .0

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 27 2.37 13.3 190 187 — 228 .0

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 21.1 1.68 14.2 281 276 — 336 .0

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 21 5.04 101 186 185 — 223 1

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 25.4 5.12 66.2 164 165 — 196 2

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 E .0 < .2 < .2 < 5 — — — —

Site Date Time

Bromide, 

mg/L 

(71870)

Chloride, 

mg/L 

(00940)

Fluoride, 

mg/L 

(00950)

Silica, 

mg/L 

(00955)

Sulfate, 

field, 

mg/L 

(99113)

Sulfate, 

mg/L 

(00945)

Sulfide, 

field, 

mg/L 

(99118)

Residue, 

ROE at 

180 deg C, 

mg/L 

(70300)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 < 0.02 16.1 0.38 11.6 66 55.9 0.002 422

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 .03 6.72 .22 10.9 19 29.6 .002 240

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 E .02 9.21 .17 11.2 30 76.4 .009 265

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 < .02 175 .12 13.3 70 78.7 .012 691

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 .18 3.09 E .07 13.3 1,600 1,690 .019 2,740

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 .07 34.2 E .09 11.3 180 174 .003 534

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 .10 19.1 .13 11.6 46 46.5 .005 394

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 .12 206 .26 7.26 62 74.3 .005 675

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 .13 119 .32 3.58 80 157 .009 605

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 < .02 < .2 < .1 < .04 — < .2 — < 10
110 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Site Date Time

Ammonia + 

organic 

nitrogen, 

mg/L 

(00623)

Ammonia, 

mg/L 

(00608)

Nitrite + 

nitrate, 

mg/L 

(00631)

Nitrite, 

mg/L 

(00613)

Nitrate, 

calculated,1

mg/L

Orthophosphate, 

mg/L 

(00671)

Phosphorus, 

mg/L 

(00666)

Organic 

carbon, 

dissolved, 

mg/L 

(00681)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 0.24 0.141 0.81 0.003 0.81 0.067 0.05 1.0

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 E .10 < .010 .14 < .002 .14 E .006 < .04 .6

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 E .10 .056 < .06 < .002 < .06 < .018 < .04 .4

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 .88 .727 < .06 < .002 < .06 .008 E .02 1.5

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 .53 .399 < .06 < .002 < .06 < .006 E .03 2.1

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 .10 .025 .57 E .002 .57 E .006 < .04 .5

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 .21 .159 1.81 E .002 1.81 .011 < .04 .7

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 .48 .049 1.37 .017 1.35 .371 .4 4.4

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 .41 < .010 1.44 .005 1.44 .135 .15 3.0

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 E .06 < .01 < .06 < .002 < .06 < .006 < .04 < .33

1

 Nitrate calculated as the difference between the 

two previous columns [(nitrite + nitrate) - nitrite].

Site Date Time

E. coli, 

MI MF, 

col/100 mL

(90901)

E. coli, 

modif. 

m-TEC, 

col/100 mL

(90902)

Fecal coliform, M-FC 

0.45m MF, 

col/100 mL 

(31616)

Total coliform, MI MF, 

col/100 mL 

(90900)

Aluminum, 

dissolved, 

μg/L 

(01106)

Aluminum, 

total, 

μg/L

 (01105)

Argon gas, 

mg/L 

(82043)

Arsenic, 

μg/L 

(01000)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 E 5 — E 5 > 80 11.8 1,620 0.727 3.8

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 < 1 — < 1 E 3 < 1.6 E 1 .744 < .12

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 < 1 — < 1 < 1 10 19 .786 .67

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 < 1 — < 1 < 1 < 1.6 E 2 .696 4.0

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 < 1 — < 1 E 110 17.4 31 .914 .34

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 < 1 — < 1 < 1 < 1.6 < 2 .685 3.0

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 < 1 — < 1 E 1 < 1.6 < 2 .727 .16

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — 100 157 — 5.1 140 — 3.9

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — 61 E 47 — 8.9 60 — 1.6

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1.6 < 2 — < .1
Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006 111

Site Date Time

Boron, 

μg/L 

(01020)

Cadmium, 

μg/L 

(01025)

Chromium, 

μg/L 

(01030)

Cobalt, 

μg/L 

(01035)

Copper, 

μg/L 

(01040)

Iron (II), 

field, 

mg/L

(99114)

Iron, total, 

field,

 mg/L

(99115)

Iron, 

dissolved, 

μg/L 

(01046)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 330 < 2 < 2 < 2 2 0.000 0.010 8

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 48 < 2 E 1 < 2 < 2 .000 .010 < 6

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 21 < 2 E 1 13 < 2 10.1 8.20 11,100

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 25 < 2 2 < 2 < 2 2.74 2.10 3,310

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 188 < 6 6 112 < 6 168 165 173,000

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 34 < 2 E 1 < 2 < 2 .140 .150 151

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 37 < 2 E 1 < 2 E 2 .020 .090 97

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 101 < 2 E 2 < 2 < 2 .000 .040 37

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 98 < 2 E 2 < 2 < 2 .000 .000 14

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 < 7 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 — — < 6

Site Date Time

Iron, 

total, 

μg/L 

(01045)

Lead, 

μg/L

(01049)

Lithium, 

μg/L 

(01130)

Manganese, 

dissolved, 

μg/L 

(01056)

Manganese, 

total, 

μg/L 

(01055)

Mercury, 

μg/L 

(71890)

Molybdenum, 

μg/L 

(01060)

Nickel, 

μg/L 

(01065)

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 2,780 0.48 23 4.1 61.2 < 0.010 E 3 2

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 < 6 .76 20 < .6 < .6 < .010 E 4 < 2

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 12,200 < .08 15 1,420 1,390 < .010 4 34

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 3,860 < .08 11 150 148 < .010 6 < 2

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 161,000 < .16 220 9,060 8,080 < .010 15 250

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 151 .15 5 293 291 < .010 5 < 2

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 98 E .06 4 221 221 < .010 5 < 2

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 394 .10 12 194 216 < .010 9 < 2

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 164 .08 12 29.6 53.4 < .010 9 < 2

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 < 6 < .08 < 2.0 < .6 < .6 < .010 < 4.0 < 2
112 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

Site Date Time

Selenium, 

μg/L 

(01145)

Silver, 

μg/L 

(01075)

Strontium, 

μg/L 

(01080)

Vanadium, 

μg/L 

(01085)

Zinc,

μg/L 

(01090)

Petroleum 

hydrocarbons, 

freon ext, 

mg/L 

(45501)

Alpha 

emitting 

radium, 

pCi/L 

(09510)

Alpha 

emitting 

radium, 

1-sigma 

CSU, 

pCi/L

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 E .07 < 3 152 < 2 < 6 < 2 Rnd 0.000 0.010

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 .87 < 3 467 < 2 32 < 2 .050 .019

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 < .08 < 3 98.9 < 2 96 < 2 .56 .042

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 < .08 < 3 226 < 2 < 6 < 2 .87 .050

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 .16 < 8 1,210 < 6 69 < 2 1.9 .170

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 .67 < 3 145 < 2 < 6 — .16 .026

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 .17 < 3 174 < 2 E 6 < 2 .107 .019

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 .14 < 3 288 E 1 < 6 < 2 .082 .017

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 .21 < 3 292 < 2 < 6 < 2 Rnd .01 .025

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 < .08 < 3 < 1.0 < 2 < 6 < 2 - .027 .010

Site Date Time

Deuterium/

protium 

(

2

H/1H) ratio, 

per mil 

(82082)

Radon-222, 

pCi/L 

(82303)

Radon-222, 

2-sigma 

precision 

estimate, 

pCi/L 

(76002)

Uranium, 

μg/L 

(22703)

Uranium, 

1 σ CSU

18O/16O ratio, 

per mil 

(82085)

Excess air, 

cc/L

Recharge 

temperature, 

deg C

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 -53.10 390 21 0.31 0.023 -8.40 4.5 10.8

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 -51.70 1,930 43 .34 .025 -8.00 4.8 10.4

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 -60.50 180 20 .114 .016 -9.27 5.5 8.0

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 -56.30 190 18 .246 .019 -8.73 4.7 12.8

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 -54.20 30 14 Rnd .000 .004 -8.39 2.0 11.0

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 -51.50 240 19 .42 .03 -7.86 4.4 13.5

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 -54.00 330 20 .32 .023 -8.28 5.8 12.5

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 -45.10 — — .86 .061 -6.69 — —

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 -46.90 — — .80 .057 -7.17 — —

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — 0 .004 — — —
Appendix 2. Results of Analyses of Water Samples Collected within the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, 2006 113

Site Date Time

Sulfur hexafluoride, 

fg/kg 

(63149)

Sulfur hexafluoride partial pressure, 

corrected for 

excess air, 

pptv

PFM 

sulfurhexafluoride 

recharge 

year

Trifluoromethylsulfurpentafluoride, 

pptv

PFM trifluoromethylsulfurpentafluoride 

recharge 

year

Tritium, 

TU

Tritium error, 

1 sigma TU

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 315 3.84 1996.5 — — 2.39 0.05

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 231 2.66 1991.3 0.081 1991.5 7.28 .15

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 79.0 1.29 1978.8 .012 1974.5 2.11 .04

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 70.6 0.97 1981.0 .007 1971.5 8.75 .18

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 .00 0 < 1952.0 0 < 1965.0 8.76 .18

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 97.6 1.29 1983.5 .083 1991.8 7.06 .17

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 116 1.18 1982.8 .025 1979.3 2.86 .135

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — — — — — — —

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — — — — — — —

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — — — —

Site Date Time

Delta 

helium-3, 

percent

Helium-4, 

cc STP/g 

× 10-8

Neon, 

measured, 

cc STP/g 

x 10-7

Helium-4, 

terrigenic, 

percent

Tritium-helium-3 

recharge year, 

with terrigenic 

helium 

correction, 

years

Tritium-helium-3 

recharge year, 

error with 

terrigenic helium 

correction, 

years

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 -10.94 6.424 21.460 17.0 1993.7 ± 0.2

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 1.75 7.014 23.769 17.3 1993.5 ± .2

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 -28.96 10.368 24.146 43.1 1977.9 ± .3

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 -100.15 34.319 23.128 83.6 Rj —

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 4.00 7.465 23.863 21.2 1992.1 ± .2

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 -59.87 16.632 21.654 68.5 1993.5 ± .2

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 -86.96 14.016 22.180 61.7 Rj —

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — — — — — —

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — — — — — —

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — — —
114 Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

CFC concentration in solution, pg/kg CFC partial pressure, 

corrected for excess air, pptv

Site Date Time CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 42.0 58.5 7.4 15.9 93.6 6.5

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 9,905.7 1,187.1 22.2 3,610.0 1,830.0 18.8

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 12.0 61.2 3.0 3.8 84.5 2.2

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 8.2 4.8 .0 3.4 8.3 .0

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 4.9 4.4 .0 1.9 7.1 .0

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 267.3 588.8 1,266.4 115.0 1,050.0 1,280.0

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 86.8 86.1 2.7 35.4 146.0 2.6

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — — — — — —

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — — — — — —

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — — —

PFM CFC recharge year Concentration dissolved in water, 

in mg/L as measured at USGS Reston Dissolved Gas Laboratory

Site Date Time CFC-11 CFC-12 CFC-113 Argon Oxygen Carbon 

dioxide Nitrogen Methane

Groundwater sites

B-3 7/20/2006 1100 1962.0 1967.2 1970.5 0.720 0.25 2.11 21.6 0.000

HR-44 7/17/2006 930 C C 1978.3 .740 .72 25.4 22.2 0

MD-26 7/19/2006 930 1955.0 1966.5 1963.0 .783 .30 79.7 23.7 .018

ST-27A 7/24/2006 1230 1954.8 1950.3 1953.0 .699 .25 37.3 23.1 .167

TU-113 7/25/2006 1000 1952.5 1949.5 1953.0 .919 .31 331 28.1 .200

TU-184 7/18/2006 900 1974.8 C C .686 .78 11.6 21.1 .009

TU-185 7/18/2006 1400 1966.3 1970.7 1964.0 .722 .26 29.8 22.3 .004

Surface-water sites

TR@MA 8/24/2006 1430 — — — — — — — —

TR@NCT 8/24/2006 1000 — — — — — — — —

QA Blank 7/19/2006 935 — — — — — — — —
Appendix 3. Glossary of Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Qualifiers 115

Appendix 3. Glossary of Water-Quality Reporting Levels and Qualifiers

In U.S. Geological Survey reports that include data from 

the National Water- Quality Laboratory, the following reporting levels and qualifiers are used to characterize water-quality 

data. These terms and concepts are further defined in Childress 

and others (1999), Bonn (2008), and U.S. Geological Survey 

(2008b). The following terms are listed in alphabetical order.

Estimated concentrations (denoted by an “E” in data 

tables) are typically less than the LRL and greater than the 

LT-MDL and are derived from “information-rich” methods. 

Concentrations are still listed as detections in this report, but 

there is greater uncertainty associated with the calculated 

concentration.

Information-rich methods done with mass spectrometric or photodiode array ultraviolet/visible spectroscopic 

detectors and used for organic methods are classified by 

the National Water Quality Laboratory as information rich 

because they have enhanced analyte identification capabilities.

Interim reporting level (IRL) is used when a method 

does not have at least 1 year’s worth of supporting data to 

determine an LT-MDL and an LRL. The IRL is based on an 

estimated detection limit and is set to at least two times that 

estimation.

Laboratory reporting level (LRL) is calculated by multiplying the LT-MDL by two so as to reduce the probability of 

a false negative to less than or equal to 1 percent.

Long-term method detection level (LT-MDL) is the 

smallest concentrations that can be measured and reported 

with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is 

greater than zero.

Minimum reporting level (MRL) is the smallest measured concentration of an analyte that may be reliably reported 

by using a given analytical method (Timme, 1995).

References

Bonn, B.A., 2008, Using the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory LT-MDL to evaluate and analyze 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1227, 

73 p.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-193, 19 p.

Timme, P.J., 1995, National Water Quality Laboratory 1995 

Services Catalog: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95–352, 92 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008b, Long term-method detection 

levels, Branch of Quality Systems: accessed September 4, 

2008 at http://bqs.usgs.gov/ltmdl/


Haefner and Simonson— Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio—Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5010

Printed on recycled paper