DOCSLIB.ORG

Geomorphic Effects of the Hocking River Channelization At

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geomorphic Effects of the Hocking River Channelization At GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS OF THE HOCKING RIVER CHANNELIZATION AT ATHENS, OHIO, ON THE DOWNSTREAM PLANFORM A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Michael Anthony Gregorio June 2008 2 GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS OF THE HOCKING RIVER CHANNELIZATION AT ATHENS, OHIO, ON THE DOWNSTREAM PLANFORM BY MICHAEL ANTHONY GREGORIO has been approved for the Department of Geography and the College of Arts and Sciences by Dorothy Sack Professor of Geography Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT GREGORIO, MICHAEL ANTHONY, M.A., June 2008, Geography Geomorphic Effects of the Hocking River Channelization at Athens, Ohio, on the Downstream Planform (105 pp.) Director of Thesis: Dorothy Sack Channel planform change was investigated along 24 kilometers of the Hocking River in Athens County, Ohio, by overlaying aerial photographs spanning 67 years into a geographic information system (GIS) to observe temporal and spatial stream patterns before and after the Army Corps of Engineers modified the river to control flooding in the city of Athens. Previous research has suggested that artificial channel adjustments alter the fluvial geomorphology in the downstream direction by increasing stream volume and stream velocities, causing erosion of the channel and lateral migration of a stream. Channel planform mapping was accomplished through digitizing the fluvial features of a stream and measuring the rates of change. The changes that were observed by the GIS-based methodology show statistically significant changes in the Hocking River channel widths, but little change in lateral migration, except in the asymmetry of meanders bends. Changes in channel width gradually decrease with distance. This lack of change in position and downstream decrease in width suggest that the channelization did not have much impact on the channel planform. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Dorothy Sack Professor of Geography 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Dorothy Sack, for her time and motivation throughout my graduate education at Ohio University. Her patience was second to none as many deadlines neared and passed, as well as her ability to understand my train of thought. Her knowledge of geomorphology and personal interest in what I was trying to communicate in my research was of a great resource. Her unconditional support allowed me to complete my geography course requirements and thesis to graduate. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. James Lein and Dr. Margaret Pearce, for their assistance throughout the year; Michael L. Hughes of the Institute for Local Government Administration and Regional Development (ILGARD) who provided me with considerable insight with the geotechniques that were applied and the geospatial analysis that was undertaken; and ILGARD and Wayne National Forest for the aerial photography that was essential to mapping the Hocking River planform. Lastly, I would like to thank those who helped mold my understanding of the geographic and hydrological landscape: Dr. Bryon Middlekauff and Dr. Patrick May of Plymouth State University, New Hampshire, and the late Dr. Mary Stoertz of Ohio University. My appreciation also goes out to the Ohio University Department of Geography for a one-year teaching assistantship that allowed me to educate students the complexity of landforms, topographic maps, and aerial photography, and to ILGARD for a graduate research assistantship in my last year of study. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 7 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 14 Chapter 3: Study Area ....................................................................................................... 21 3.1: Hocking River Fluvial Geomorphology ................................................................ 21 3.2: Hydrological History ............................................................................................. 24 3.3: Stream Classification ............................................................................................. 26 Chapter 4: Methods ........................................................................................................... 28 4.1: Aerial Photography ................................................................................................ 28 4.2: Geographic Information Systems .......................................................................... 30 4.2.1: Georectification ........................................................................................ 31 4.2.2: Channel Measurements ............................................................................. 35 4.3: Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................. 45 Chapter 5: Results ............................................................................................................. 47 5.1: Channel Width ....................................................................................................... 47 5.2: Sinuosity ................................................................................................................ 58 5.3: Asymmetry Index .................................................................................................. 64 6 5.4: Discharge ............................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 6: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 70 Chapter 7: Conclusion....................................................................................................... 74 References ......................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix A: Channel Width Measurements .................................................................... 80 Appendix B: Sinuosity Measurements .............................................................................. 92 Appendix C: Asymmetry Index Measurements ................................................................ 93 Appendix D: Asymmetry Index Graphs ........................................................................... 98 Appendix E: Discharge Measurements ........................................................................... 105 7 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Air Photo/Topographic Map Coverage of Study Area .....................................29 Table 2: Paired Sample One-tailed T-test (Before and After Channelization) ...............48 Table 3: Paired Sample One-tailed T-test (Air Photo Year to Air Photo Year) .............48 3a: Study Area 1.........................................................................................................48 3b: Study Area 2 ........................................................................................................49 3c: Study Area 3.........................................................................................................49 8 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Location of the Hocking River in Athens County, Ohio .................................12 Figure 2: Stream Channel Adjustment Model ................................................................20 Figure 3: Hocking River Study Area ..............................................................................22 Figure 4: Historical Migration Zone ...............................................................................38 4a: Study Area 1.........................................................................................................38 4b: Study Area 2 ........................................................................................................39 4a: Study Area 3.........................................................................................................40 Figure 5: Transects .........................................................................................................41 5a: Study Area 1.........................................................................................................41 5b: Study Area 2 ........................................................................................................42 5d: Study Area 3 ........................................................................................................43 Figure 6: Asymmetry Index ............................................................................................45 Figure 7: Channel Planform (All Air Photo Years) ........................................................52 7a: Study Area 1.........................................................................................................52
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pleistocene History of a Part of the Hocking River Valley, Ohio1
    PLEISTOCENE HISTORY OF A PART OF THE HOCKING RIVER VALLEY, OHIO1 WILLIAM M. MERRILL Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana Drainage modifications caused by glaciation in the Ohio River basin have been the subjects of numerous papers since late in the nineteenth century. Tight (1900, 1903) and Leverett (1902) were the first to present a coordinated picture of the pre-glacial drainage and the successive changes that occurred as a result of the several glacial advances into Ohio. Many shorter papers, by the same and other OHIO writers, were published before and after these volumes. More recently, Stout and Lamb (1938) and Stout, Ver Steeg, and Lamb (1943) presented summaries of the drainage history of Ohio. These are based in part upon Tight's work but also introduce many new facts and give a more detailed account of the sequence of Published by permission of the Chief, Division of Geological Survey, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 53(3): 143, May, 1953. 144 WILLIAM M. MERRILL Vol. LIII drainage changes and their causal factors. The bulletin published by Stout, et al. (1943, pp. 98-106), includes a comprehensive bibliography of the literature through 1942. Evidence for four major stages of drainage with intervening glacial stages has been recognized in Ohio by Stout, et al. (1938; 1943). These stages have been summarized in columns 1-4, table 1. According to these writers (1938, pp. 66, 73, 76, 81; 1943, pp. 63, 83, 87, 96), all of the stages are represented in the Hocking Valley. The Hocking Valley chronology and the evidence presented by Stout and his co-workers for the several stages in Hocking County are included in columns 5-9, table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Along the Ohio Trail
    Along The Ohio Trail A Short History of Ohio Lands Dear Ohioan, Meet Simon, your trail guide through Ohio’s history! As the 17th state in the Union, Ohio has a unique history that I hope you will find interesting and worth exploring. As you read Along the Ohio Trail, you will learn about Ohio’s geography, what the first Ohioan’s were like, how Ohio was discovered, and other fun facts that made Ohio the place you call home. Enjoy the adventure in learning more about our great state! Sincerely, Keith Faber Ohio Auditor of State Along the Ohio Trail Table of Contents page Ohio Geography . .1 Prehistoric Ohio . .8 Native Americans, Explorers, and Traders . .17 Ohio Land Claims 1770-1785 . .27 The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 . .37 Settling the Ohio Lands 1787-1800 . .42 Ohio Statehood 1800-1812 . .61 Ohio and the Nation 1800-1900 . .73 Ohio’s Lands Today . .81 The Origin of Ohio’s County Names . .82 Bibliography . .85 Glossary . .86 Additional Reading . .88 Did you know that Ohio is Hi! I’m Simon and almost the same distance I’ll be your trail across as it is up and down guide as we learn (about 200 miles)? Our about the land we call Ohio. state is shaped in an unusual way. Some people think it looks like a flag waving in the wind. Others say it looks like a heart. The shape is mostly caused by the Ohio River on the east and south and Lake Erie in the north. It is the 35th largest state in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Settlement of Late Woodland and Late
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT OF LATE WOODLAND AND LATE PREHISTORIC TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN THE HOCKING RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Joseph E. Wakeman August 2003 This thesis entitled ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT OF LATE WOODLAND AND LATE PREHISTORIC TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN THE HOCKING RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO BY JOSEPH E. WAKEMAN has been approved for the Program of Environmental Studies and the College of Arts and Sciences Elliot Abrams Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Leslie A. Flemming Dean, College of Arts and Sciences WAKEMAN, JOSEPH E. M.S. August 2003. Environmental Archaeology Archaeological Settlement of Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric Tribal Communities in the Hocking River Watershed, Ohio ( 72 pp.) Director of Thesis: Elliot Abrams Abstract The settlement patterns of prehistoric communities in the Hocking valley is poorly understood at best. Specifically, the Late Woodland (LW) (ca. A.D. 400 – A.D. 1000) and the Late Prehistoric (LP) (ca. A.D. 1000 – A.D. 1450) time periods present interesting questions regarding settlement. These two periods include significant changes in food subsistence, landscape utilization and population increases. Furthermore, it is unclear as to which established archaeological taxonomic units apply to these prehistoric tribal communities in the Hocking valley, if any. This study utilizes the extensive OAI electronic inventory to identify settlement patterns of these time periods in the Hocking River Watershed. The results indicate that landform selection for habitation by these prehistoric communities does change over time. The data suggest that environmental constraint, population increases and subsistence changes dictate the selection of landforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Fluvial Sediment in Hocking River Subwatershed 1 (North Branch Hunters Run), Ohio
    Fluvial Sediment in Hocking River Subwatershed 1 (North Branch Hunters Run), Ohio GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-1 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Fluvial Sediment in Hocking River Subwatershed 1 (North Branch Hunters Run), Ohio By RUSSELL F. FLINT SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-1 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 71-190388 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 30 cents (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-2153 CONTENTS Page Abstract __________________ U Introduction __________ -- 1 Acknowledgments ___ __ 2 Description of the area __ - 3 Elevations and slopes __ ________ 4 Soils and land use ___________ 4 Geology ___________________ 4 Climate __________________ 5 Hydraulic structures _____________ 5 Runoff _________________________________ __ 9 Fluvial sediment ________________ 12 Suspended sediment _____________ 13 Deposited sediment ___________ 19 Sediment yield ______________ 19 Trap efficiency of reservoir 1 _____________ - 21 Conclusions _____________________________________ 21 References _______________________________-- 22 ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1. Map of Hocking River subwatershed 1 (North Branch Hunters Run) __________________________ 13 2-6. Photographs showing 2. Upstream face of detention structure . 6 3. Reservoir 1 ______ 6 4. Minor floodwater-retarding structure R3 7 5. Minor sediment-control structure S4 7 6. Outflow conduit of reservoir 1.___ 13 7. Trilinear diagram showing percentage of sand, silt, and clay in suspended-sediment samples of inflow and out­ flow, reservoir 1 ___________-_____ 15 TABLES Page TABLE 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Descriptions and Flow Characteristics of Ohio Streams
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water BASIN DESCRIPTIONS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF OHIO STREAMS By Michael C. Schiefer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 47 Columbus, Ohio 2002 Robert Taft, Governor Samuel Speck, Director CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………. 2 Previous Studies……………………………………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………… 3 Factors Determining Regimen of Flow………………………………………………... 4 Weather and Climate…………………………………………………………… 4 Basin Characteristics...………………………………………………………… 6 Physiology…….………………………………………………………… 6 Geology………………………………………………………………... 12 Soils and Natural Vegetation ..………………………………………… 15 Land Use...……………………………………………………………. 23 Water Development……………………………………………………. 26 Estimates and Comparisons of Flow Characteristics………………………………….. 28 Mean Annual Runoff…………………………………………………………... 28 Base Flow……………………………………………………………………… 29 Flow Duration…………………………………………………………………. 30 Frequency of Flow Events…………………………………………………….. 31 Descriptions of Basins and Characteristics of Flow…………………………………… 34 Lake Erie Basin………………………………………………………………………… 35 Maumee River Basin…………………………………………………………… 36 Portage River and Sandusky River Basins…………………………………….. 49 Lake Erie Tributaries between Sandusky River and Cuyahoga River…………. 58 Cuyahoga River Basin………………………………………………………….. 68 Lake Erie Tributaries East of the Cuyahoga River…………………………….. 77 Ohio River Basin………………………………………………………………………. 84
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands in Teays-Stage Valleys in Extreme Southeastern Ohio: Formation and Flora
    ~ Symposium on Wetlands of th'e Unglaclated Appalachian Region West Virginia University, Margantown, W.Va., May 26-28, 1982 Wetlands in Teays-stage Valleys in Extreme Southeastern Ohio: Formation and Flora David ., M. Spooner 1 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Fountain Square, Building F Columbus, Ohio 43224 ABSTRACT. A vegetational survey was conducted of Ohio wetlands within an area drained by the preglacial Marietta River (the main tributary of the Teays River in southeastern Ohio) and I along other tributaries of the Teays River to the east of the present-day Scioto River and south of the Marietta River drainage. These wetlands are underlain by a variety of poorly drained sediments, including pre-Illinoian lake silts, Wisconsin lake silts, Wisconsin glacial outwash, and recent alluvium. A number of rare Ohio species occur in these wetlands. They include I Potamogeton pulcher, Potamogeton tennesseensis, Sagittaria australis, Carex debilis var. debilis, Carex straminea, Wo(f(ia papu/({era, P/atanthera peramoena, Hypericum tubu/osum, Viola lanceo/ata, Viola primu/({o/ia, HO/lonia in/lata, Gratio/a virginiana, Gratiola viscidu/a var shortii and Utriculariagibba. In Ohio, none of thesewetlandsexist in their natural state. ~ They have become wetter in recent years due to beaver activity. This beaver activity is creating J open habitats that may be favorable to the increase of many of the rare species. The wetlandsare also subject to a variety of destructive influences, including filling, draining, and pollution from adjacent strip mines. All of the communities in these wetlands are secondary. J INTRODUCTION Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • SUNDAY CREEK WATERSHED Generated by Non-Point Source Monitoring System
    2008 NPS REPORT SUNDAY CREEK WATERSHED Generated by Non-Point Source Monitoring System www.watersheddata.com • The Sunday Creek Watershed Group emerged from local residents’ concerns for the health of the Sunday Creek. Currently, we are a project of Rural Action. The Sunday Creek Watershed group office is located on 69 High St. Glouster Ohio 45732. The phone number is 740-767- 2225 and our web page is http://www.sunday- creek.org. Our most active partners are: Ohio Department of Natural Resources the divisions of Mineral Resource Management and Soil and Water Conservation; Ohio Environmental Pro- tection Agency; Office of Surface Mining; Ohio University; ILGARD; Hocking College; Trimble and Miller School District; Rural Action’s Envi- ronmental Learning Program and Sustainable Forestry; Local Village Councils; Local Township Trustees; Little Cities of Black Diamonds; Buck- eye Trail Group; Moose Lodge; Wayne National Forest; Burr Oak State Park. • Our mission statement, as adopted by the Sunday Creek Watershed Group in 2000; “The Sunday Creek Watershed Group is commit- ted to restoring and preserving water quality through community interaction, conservation, and education; in pursuit of a healthy ecosys- tem capable of supporting bio-diversity and recreation.” • The Sunday Creek Watershed is located in the Appalachian foothills, in the unglaciated part of Ohio. It is mostly rural with many small vil- lages throughout, and the majority of the land is privately owned. The Sunday creek watershed starts in the East Branch, north of Rendville and the West Branch at Shawnee. The creek follows SR 13 through Corning, Glouster, Millfield and it goes into the Hocking River right in Chaunc- ey.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bulleted/Pictorial History of Ohio University
    A Bulleted/Pictorial History of Ohio University Dr. Robert L. Williams II (BSME OU 1984), Professor Mechanical Engineering, Ohio University © 2020 Dr. Bob Productions [email protected] www.ohio.edu/mechanical-faculty/williams Ohio University’s Cutler Hall, 1818, National Historical Landmark ohio.edu/athens/bldgs/cutler Ohio University’s College Edifice flanked by East and West Wings circa 1840 (current Cutler Hall flanked by Wilson and McGuffey Halls) ohiohistorycentral.org 2 Ohio University History, Dr. Bob Table of Contents 1. GENERAL OHIO UNIVERSITY HISTORY .................................................................................. 3 1.1 1700S ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 1800S ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 1900S ............................................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 2000S ............................................................................................................................................... 42 1.5 OHIO UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS ........................................................................................................ 44 2. OHIO UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING COLLEGE HISTORY .................................................. 50 2.1 OHIO UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING HISTORY,
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings IMWA 2010 2010-08-16 06:02 Page 429
    Proceedings_Theme_07_n_Proceedings IMWA 2010 2010-08-16 06:02 Page 429 Sydney, NS “Mine Water and Innovative Thinking” IMWA 2010 a road to progress? The impacts of cutting a new highway through the heavily mined hills of Southeast ohio natalie A KRuse², Robert KeRbeR², Kimberly bReWsTeR¹, Loraine MCCosKeR¹ ¹Environmental Studies, Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA ²RedWing Engineering, Athens, Ohio, USA abstract A 10.5 mile four-lane highway will be constructed to bypass nelsonville, ohio and cut through lands historically mined for coal in southern ohio and the Wayne national Forest. Although local wa- tersheds were impacted by mine water before construction, earth work has created new mine water dis- charges during both construction and coal mining associated with the construction. streams that drain the site have been monitored for pH, acidity, alkalinity, iron, aluminum and sulfate. This paper details the new discharges, mitigation options chosen by the ohio Department of Transportation and the first year of monitoring of impacts from the project. Key Words Acid mine drainage, highway construction, coal mining, mine water chemistry introduction southeastern ohio is often referred to as ‘swiss Cheese’ by local residents due to extensive coal mining through the 20th century. since the mid-1800s, surface and underground coal mining in this region has left behind abandoned mine voids, subsidence, mine spoil, and other geohazards (Harris et. al 2007). Recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ensured funding for the completion of a 10.5 mile four-lane highway slicing directly through the swiss Cheese of south- ern ohio and the Wayne national Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study Op Tee Geographic Factors in Tee Rise Op Cities in the Hocking Valley, Ohio
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY OP TEE GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS IN TEE RISE OP CITIES IN THE HOCKING VALLEY, OHIO, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THEIR LOCATIONS AND SITES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Graduate School of The Ohio State University. By FORREST LESTER McELHOE Jr., B. A., M. A. The Ohio State University 1955 4 Approved by T) Adviser Department of Geograph ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is difficult to recognize all of the individuals who have made significant contributions to this study. Nevertheless, several persons should be singled out as deserving of this writer’s special appreciation for their unselfish efforts In helping to bring this work to a suc­ cessful conclusion. Without their aid it is doubtful if this study could have been presented in anything resembling Its completed form. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the critical advice and valuable suggestions made by Professor Eugene Van Cleef, Department of Geography, of The Ohio State University, who acted as the adviser. His careful reading and advice on organization of the manuscript has been responsible for much of the character of the finished product. Also, Professor Guy-Harold Smith, Professor Roderick Peattie, and Professor John R. Randall, Department of Geography, of The Ohio State University, made critical examinations of the final draft and offered many helpful suggestions. Their comments are appreciated. For her critical reading, advice and assistance in the preparation of the manuscript, and aid in field work, Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Southeastern Ohio River Tributaries, 2015 Athens, Gallia, Meigs and Washington Counties
    Biological and Water Quality Study of Selected Southeastern Ohio River Tributaries, 2015 Athens, Gallia, Meigs and Washington Counties Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2015-SHADE-2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section August 2019 TMDL DEVELOPMENT | AMS/2015-SHADE-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of Selected Southeastern Ohio River Tributaries August 2019 Biological and Water Quality Study of Selected Southeastern Ohio River Tributaries, 2015 (Little Hocking River, Shade River, Kyger Creek, Champaign Creek) Athens, Gallia, Meigs and Washington Counties, Ohio August 2019 Ohio EPA Report AMS/2015-SHADE-2 Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Division of Surface Water Southeast District Office 2195 Front St. Logan, Ohio 43138 Ecological Assessment Section Groveport Field Office 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 Mike DeWine, Governor State of Ohio Laurie A. Stevenson, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency AMS/2015-SHADE-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of Selected Southeastern Ohio River Tributaries August 2019 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 01/23/2008 8:05 Am
    ACTION: Final DATE: 01/23/2008 8:05 AM 3745-1-08 Hocking river drainage basin. (A) The water bodies listed in table 8-1 of this rule are ordered from downstream to upstream. Tributaries of a water body are indented. The aquatic life habitat, water supply and recreation use designations are defined in rule 3745-1-07 of the Administrative Code. The state resource water use designation is defined in rule 3745-1- 05 of the Administrative Code. The most stringent criteria associated with any one of the use designations assigned to a water body will apply to that water body. (B) Figure 1 of the appendix to this rule is a generalized map of Ohio outlining the water body drainage basins and listing associated rule numbers in Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code. Figure 2 of the appendix to this rule is a generalized map of the Hocking river drainage basin. (C) RM, as used in this rule, stands for river mile and refers to the method used by the Ohio environmental protection agency to identify locations along a water body. Mileage is defined as the lineal distance from the downstream terminus (i.e., mouth) and moving in an upstream direction. (D) The following symbols are used throughout this rule: * Designated use based on the 1978 water quality standards; + Designated use based on the results of a biological field assessment performed by the Ohio environmental protection agency; o Designated use based on justification other than the results of a biological field assessment performed by the Ohio environmental protection agency; and L An L in the warmwater habitat column signifies that the water body segment is designated limited warmwater habitat.
    [Show full text]