PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION OF CHANNELIZATION OF
THE HOCKING RIVER, SOUTHEASTERN 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
Fausto Gómez Pezzotti
November 2005
This thesis entitled
PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION OF CHANNELIZATION OF
THE HOCKING RIVER, SOUTHEASTERN OHIO
by
FAUSTO GÓMEZ PEZZOTTI
has been approved
for the Program of Environmental Studies
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Dorothy Sack
Professor of Geography
Benjamin M. Ogles
Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Acknowledgments
There is not a proper way to say “thank you" to all the people who patiently have assisted me in the development of my thesis. But I have to mention some of the people who have been extremely supportive of me in overcoming my weaknesses in many areas.
My wife Rosita and my daughter Rosa Graciela have been exceptionally understanding and supportive of me.
Dr. Genes Mapes, director of the Environmental Studies Program, has been incredibly helpful to me.
Dr. Michele Morrone provided me with my first tools for interviewing.
Dr. Risa Whitson translated for me what I should do and how.
Paul Longo gave me his friendship and assistance from our first meeting. I consider him part of my thesis committee.
Dr. Dorothy Sack, my professor for several subjects from the
Geography Department but also my thesis director, has had tolerance enough to guide me all the way through the thesis process.
And finally, Mary Grueser, who not only made a significant contribution to finding a subject for my thesis, but also has been my main emotional support in the United States. Her family has become my family.
To all of you I deeply thank you.
GÓMEZ PEZZOTTI, FAUSTO. M.S. November 2005. Environmental
Studies
People’s Perception of Channelization of the Hocking River, Southeastern
Ohio (162 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Dorothy Sack
In southeastern Ohio, people (authorities, institutions,
governments) in the late 1960s decided to change part of the course of
the Hocking River and make it flow in an artificial channel. This thesis
investigates how people perceive the channelization of the Hocking River.
A qualitative study was performed in order to achieve the objectives of
this research using interviews. Thirty people participated in 25
interviews. Thirteen themes emerged from the interviews. The themes
are classified as pertaining primarily to the physical environment or to
human-environmental interaction. Limitations to this study exist
because of the relatively small number of people surveyed, the
convenience-based sampling strategy, and the fact that all but two of the
interviewees were over 50 years old.
The results of this investigation show that the perception of people
may vary according to the personal interest, the education, and the
environmental knowledge of the interviewees. Overall, the people
appreciate its role in flood control even though it may no longer be as
effective as it once was or as effective as it was supposed to be at the time of initial planning. This flood protection in Athens, moreover, is probably increasing flood hazards downstream. Many people think the expansion of the commercial area of Athens on the floodplain has had a positive economic effect, although a significant minority point out negative economic and community effects related to establishment of the large national franchise stores in town. It is ironic that this floodplain development is encroaching on the channelized river because the artificial channel was purposefully located away from such buildings as part of the flood protection measures. Flooding will never be totally controlled, thus property damage from floods will result as long as floodplains are used for human activities.
Constructing the channel destroyed much of the attractive appeal of Athens, which included extensive gardens that were a community focal point. Also as a result of the participants’ comments, it can be said that
Ohio University has played an important role in the decisions related to the channelization of the Hocking River and the subsequent development of the floodplain.
Approved: Dorothy Sack
Professor of Geography 6 Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... 8
List of Figures...... 9
Chapter One - Introduction...... 11 1.1 Background ...... 11 1.2 Rationale ...... 14
Chapter Two - Study Area...... 16 2.1 The Hocking River...... 16 2.2 Brief History of the Hocking River ...... 16 2.3 The Canal Era...... 18 2.4 The Ohio Company Land Purchase ...... 18 2.5 Athens and Ohio University ...... 19
Chapter Three - Literature Review...... 22 3.1 Stream Process Engineering ...... 22 3.2 Flood Hazards ...... 31 3.2.1 Administrative Aspects of Flood Hazards...... 32 3.2.2 Physical Aspects of Flood Hazards ...... 35 3.3 Summary...... 36
Chapter Four - Methods...... 38 4.1 Interviews...... 38 4.2 The Reminder Questions ...... 40 4.3 Demographics of Interviewees...... 42 4.4 Analysis ...... 44
Chapter Five - Results: Physical Environment...... 45 5.1 Introduction ...... 45 5.2 Concern about Vegetation along the Channel ...... 45 5.2.1 Reponses ...... 45 5.2.2 Discussion...... 52 5.3 Channel Capacity and Increase of Flooding Downstream. 57 5.3.1 Responses ...... 57 5.3.2 Discussion...... 64 5.4 Negative Impact on the Environment ...... 68 5.4.1 Responses ...... 68 5.4.2 Discussion...... 81 7
5.5 Summary ...... 88
Chapter Six - Results: Human – Environment Interaction ...... 91 6.1 Introduction ...... 91 6.2 Impact of Flood Prevention ...... 91 6.2.1 Responses ...... 91 6.2.2 Discussion...... 96 6.3 Economic Development ...... 101 6.3.1 Responses ...... 101 6.3.2 Discussion...... 107 6.4 Development on the Floodplain...... 112 6.4.1 Responses ...... 112 6.4.2 Discussion...... 124 6.5 Channel Would Not Be Feasible Today...... 128 6.5.1 Responses ...... 128 6.5.2 Discussion...... 131 6.6 Disconnection with the Surrounding Environment...... 131 6.6.1 Responses ...... 131 6.6.2 Discussion...... 133 6.7 Attitudes toward the Bike Path ...... 133 6.7.1 Responses ...... 133 6.7.2 Discussion...... 136 6.8 Loss of Town’s Character...... 138 6.8.1 Responses ...... 138 6.8.2 Discussion...... 140 6.9 Opportunities for Environmental Education...... 141 6.9.1 Responses ...... 141 6.9.2 Discussion...... 142 6.10 Change in Traffic Pattern...... 143 6.10.1 Responses ...... 143 6.10.2 Discussion...... 144 6.11 Accessibility of the River Channel ...... 145 6.11.1 Responses ...... 145 6.11.2 Discussion...... 145 6.12 Summary ...... 146
Chapter Seven - Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 149 7.1 Conclusions ...... 149 7.2 Recommendations ...... 154
References ...... 156
8
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographics of Interviewees...... 43
Table 2. Themes Derived from the Interviews ...... 47
9 List of Figures
Fig. 1. Location of Athens, OH...... 17 Fig. 2. Part of a recent orthophotograph of the city of Athens, showing the channelized stretch of the river through town..... 21 Fig. 3. Cross section of a river showing channel variables: the relationships among width, depth, area, velocity, and discharge...... 28 Fig. 4 Cross section of a river showing channel variables: hydraulic radius is a representation of channel efficiency...... 28 Fig. 5. Systems diagram for the adjustment of channel capacity (after Brookes, 1985a)...... 29 Fig. 6. Hocking River flood on East State Street, January 7, 2005, Athens, OH. Parking lot of the Athens Plaza...... 30 Fig. 7. Hocking River flood on East State Street, January 7, 2005, Athens, OH. East State Street at Wal-Mart site ...... 30 Fig. 8. Different sites of the Muskingum River, Zanesville, OH. 06.05.05...... 54 Fig. 9. Different sites along the Hocking River, Athens, OH. 06.06.05...... 55 Fig. 10. Different sites of the channelized Hocking River with sediment Problems, Athens, OH...... 67 Fig. 11. Administration building. Athens Mental Health Center. Photographer unknown. (n.d.) (Post Card Collection.)...... 83 Fig. 12. Patients of the Mental Hospital working the land. Photographer unknown. (n.d.). Vertical File Photographs)...... 84 Fig. 13. Cutler Botanical Garden. Athens Mental Health Center. Photographer unknown. (n.d.) (Post Card Collection.) ...... 85 Fig. 14. People from Athens Community skating in one of the ponds. Athens Mental Health Center. Photographer unknown. (n.d.) Dairy Barn Photograph Collection)...... 86 Fig. 15. Bait shop sign on the corner of Central Avenue and Second Street, Athens, OH. 06.06.05 ...... 87 Fig. 16. Falls No 2. Athens State Hospital. Photographer unknown. (n.d.) (Post Card Collection)...... 88 Fig. 17. Gifford Park, Amesville, OH. 06.06.05...... 100 Fig. 18 Kroger unloading area, East State Street, Athens, OH...... 108 Fig. 19. Wal-Mart unloading area, East State Street, Athens, OH...... 108 Fig. 20. Packed products. Wal-Mart and Lowe’s. East State Street, Athens, OH...... 110 Fig. 21. Wal-Mart’s sign: We Sell For Less. East State Street, Athens, OH ...... 110
10 Fig. 22. National franchises. East State Street, Athens, OH ...... 111 Fig. 23. Location where is the Senior Citizen Center is suppose to be constructed, Athens, OH. 05.28.05...... 127 Fig. 24. Location where is the Senior Citizen Center is suppose to be constructed, Athens, OH. 6.06.05...... 127 Fig. 25. The bike path, east end, Athens, OH. 09.13.05 ...... 136 Fig. 26. The bike path beside the Ohio University golf course, Athens, OH. 09.13.05...... 137 Fig. 27. Integrated summary diagram showing participants' positive and negative reactions to the channelization and what they perceive to be the environmental effects...... 151
11 Chapter One – Introduction
1.1 Background
Humans affect the environment and the environment affects humans. There is no human activity that is not related somehow to the environment. Everything that people do in one way or another affects the environment around them.
Most people are interested in protecting the environment; people care for nature because it provides the necessary conditions for them to live. This is the main reason for promoting sustainability in a general sense, because by taking care of the environment people are taking care of themselves. But the environment is also continually affecting people.
The physical law of action and reaction is always working in the environment. When people change some aspect of the environment, the environment also changes some aspects of people.
In southeastern Ohio, people (authorities, institutions, governments) in the late 1960s decided to change part of the course of the Hocking River and make it flow in an artificial channel. As a consequence of this alteration, the river has probably changed the people along the Hocking River in several ways. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how people perceive the channelization of the Hocking River. 12 Of all the natural resources exploited by humans, water is one of utmost relevance and importance. Water constitutes a large percentage of animals, plants, and people.
Water is found across almost the entire planet; liquid water covers more than 70% of the earth’s surface (Marsh and Grossa, 2002). The oldest civilizations developed near sources of fresh water in stream valleys. Egypt arose next to the Nile River, Mesopotamia next to the
Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, the Harappa next to the Hindu River and its tributaries, and the Chinese in the Yellow River basin (Giordano and
Wolf, 2001; Hoffman, 2004; Schuldenrein et al., 2004).
Population growth has resulted in increasing demand for potable water, but also a decrease in its quality and quantity over time (Holy,
1971). This has made it more difficult and costly to provide water to the human population.
By managing and regulating water, people have provided themselves with a higher standard of living (Holy, 1971). For example, channelization has been an answer to the economic and social problems created by occupancy of a floodplain (Brookes, 1985b). This has been accomplished by advancements in:
• Flood control
• Water storage
• Providing safe culinary and industrial water 13 • Irrigation
• Hydroelectric power generation
• Carrying supplies, agricultural products, and people through
aquatic transportation
• Having fun with water recreational activities (Holy, 1971).
Artificial channelization of streams has been rampant in the United
States and elsewhere over the last century. Many scientific and engineering studies have been done on artificial channel design. No known previous research, however, has been conducted on how people living in a watershed react to or are affected by the channelization of their stream.
The specific objective of this research is to study river channelization from the viewpoint of human perception. This thesis explores the specific local example of how the channelization of the
Hocking River is perceived by people who live along it. The approach to this investigation is to discover objectively and inductively important variables that help in understanding how the channelization has been changing the people.
Before conducting an investigation, one must clearly define the terminology to be utilized. This allows people to make the correct interpretations of the concepts presented in any article, book, or conversation. 14 The word “channelization” is used in this research to mean human-engineering works by which a naturally meandering stream is straightened, thereby reducing the length of the channel. Width, depth, and roughness may also be altered in the channelization process. F.G.
Charlton, in a joint meeting of the Royal Geographical Society and the
Water Engineering Group of the Institution of Civil Engineers on October
31, 1983, as reported by Gregory (1985), suggested an alternative word,
“canalization.” Although canalization may be a more appropriate term because during such alteration a natural stream channel is changed to an artificial canal, due to the common use of the word channelization in the United States, channelization will be used here.
1.2 Rationale
The findings of this research will help in understanding how people respond to human modification of their physical environment.
Although stream channelization and, with increasing frequency, stream
“restoration” projects, are common, insufficient research has been done on how these changes in the physical environment impact people living in that environment. This information is crucial to authorities and decision makers in estimating the success of such environment- modifying projects (Wandersman and Hallman, 1993). A better understanding of how people perceive their physical environment and modifications to it should help reduce environmental hazards and 15 enhance community welfare, if this information is incorporated into community action plans.
16 Chapter Two - Study Area
2.1 The Hocking River
A major stream channelization project that has been completed in
Ohio is that of the Hocking River. The Hocking River drains part of southeastern Ohio. The four major cities of this region are along the river, and they are Lancaster, Logan, Nelsonville, and Athens. It is through the city of Athens that the Hocking River has been channelized
(Fig. 1). This investigation focuses on that channelized part of the
Hocking River through Athens.
2.2 Brief History of the Hocking River
The pre-glacial drainage of Athens County was completely different from what it is at the present time. About one million years ago, a major drainage system called the Teays River, and two of its tributaries, the
Marietta and the Albany Rivers, drained Athens County (Beatty and
Stone, 1984). Neither the Ohio River nor the Hocking River existed at that time.
Approximately during the glaciation of the Pleistocene Epoch, the
Teays River was dammed by ice in south-central Ohio. This changed the watersheds, and even reversed the direction of drainage on the landscape, thus forming the Ohio River and its drainage system (Beatty and Stone, 1984). 17 ______
______Fig. 1. Location of Athens, OH. (Source: Adapted from, http: //www.50states.com//tools usamap.htm, Retrieved November 2, 2005.)
The Hocking River is the largest stream within Athens County and
it has the largest watershed, about 880 km2 (340 mi2) (Sturgeon, 1958;
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). It flows to the southeast through
the county for about 85 km (53 mi). It empties into the Ohio River in Toy
Township at Hockingport in Athens County (Sturgeon, 1958; Beatty and
Stone, 1984).
18 2.3 The Canal Era
Since its inception in 1797, the city of Athens has been closely linked to the Hocking River, starting with the first settlers who reached the area by paddling canoes from the Ohio River and then, by the
Hocking Canal (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). Athens County had little outside commercial contact until the decision was made to build two major canals across the state, joining the Ohio River to the south with Lake Erie to the north. The ground was broken for the Ohio-Erie
Canal in Cleveland on July 4, 1825. The canal made possible the development of central Ohio. The Hocking Canal was added in 1843, changing the economic system of Athens County from subsistence farming to an open trade commercial system (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1972), and was in operation down the Hocking River Valley to Athens until the flood of 1873 (Wicks, 2002). This flood damaged much of the canal system especially between Nelsonville and Athens. Later, in 1884, a second flood ruined another portion of the remaining canal system (Wicks,
2002). It fell into total disuse by 1890 because the railroad lines had become numerous and were running during the whole year (Beatty and
Stone, 1984).
2.4 The Ohio Company Land Purchase
Daniel (1997) summarizes the early history of Athens city.
According to that source, the leading figures of the founding of Athens 19 were Rufus Putnam and Benjamin Tupper. In January 1783, Putnam petitioned to the Continental Congress requesting land to redeem the promise to soldiers and officers for their Revolutionary War service. This petition was based on his personal plan for opening the Ohio country to
European-American settlers, and was known as the Newburgh Petition.
Congress waited until 1785 to pass a law, known as the Land Ordinance of 1785, providing for surveying of the Ohio country. However, the stipulations were that one must purchase a minimum land unit of 2.6 km2 (640 acres) at the price of $1.00 per 0.004 km2 (1 acre). These
conditions were onerous. This guided Putnam to the creation of the Ohio
Company Land Purchase and the acquisition of 6,200 km2 (1.54 million
acres), opening in this way the settlement of the Ohio country.
2.5 Athens and Ohio University
The Hocking River is an integral part of Athens and so is Ohio
University. Although Athens was founded by European settlers in 1797,
the town site was first surveyed and platted in 1800, and it was not
incorporated as a village until 1811. In 1803 Ohio became a state, and
one year later Ohio University was chartered by the Ohio legislature. It
was the first institution of higher learning in the Northwest Territory.
The creation of a university was mandated by the Ohio Company Land
Purchase contract with Congress in 1787 (Daniel, 1997), and this
contract stated that “the means of education shall forever be encouraged” 20 (Stout and Prisley, 1997, p. 2). Ohio University opened its doors for classes in 1809 with three students (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1972).
Since settlement, the Hocking River has influenced the location of roads and railroads, but the floodplain along the river through Athens was commonly avoided for houses and business buildings. This changed when the channelization of the river was completed in 1972 (US Army
Corps of Engineers, 1972).
In 1971, the Hocking River was relocated and channelized for 8 km
(5 mi) around the city, from the dam at White’s Mill to the Litton
Industries (McBee) plant east of Athens (Hocking Conservancy District,
1972) (Fig. 2). The purpose of the relocation was to move the river away from the developed areas to help with flood protection. This moved the river to the south so that floodplain area originally south of the river now lay to the north of it. Previously, part of the floodplain area had been used for agricultural purposes by the State of Ohio Mental Hospital.
Since channelization, the floodplain area that is now north of the river has been extensively built on by the University, owner of the land (Beatty and Stone, 1984).
21
Fig. 2. Part of a recent orthophotograph of the city of Athens, showing the channelized stretch of the river through town. (Source: http://www.athensgis.com, Retrieved June 26, 2005.)
22 Chapter Three - Literature Review
3.1 Stream Process Engineering
Much work has been done for the purpose of understanding how human activities affect rivers. It is necessary to comprehend how rivers respond to these human activities before attempting to understand how the channelization could affect people.
Both Surian and Rinaldi (2003) and Urban and Rhoads (2003) demonstrated that there is an enormous time gap between human impact on streams and the natural process of recovery from that impact.
Typically, altered streams have not recovered from the initial impact before the streams are impacted by people again. This disproportion implies that human-induced changes in the physical habitat are long lasting in relation to the typical time horizon of stream management.
Streams need a considerable amount of time to recover on their own from modifications made by people (Brooks and Brierley, 2004).
Natural streams present a hazard to people, such as flooding, although many citizens may not understand the full magnitude of that hazard. Projects that are designed to protect people from natural hazards carry the risk of loss of some environmental benefits. According to Yin and Li (2001), these projects may seem needed in a local and seasonal scheme, but in a long-term view and a larger perspective they can be detrimental to people as well as the environment. For example, 23 because of human alteration of the natural environment, the United
States is losing soil approximately 17 times faster than it is being formed
(Hooke, 1999).
As Chowdhury (2003) found in a Dhaka city investigation in
Bangladesh, engineering structures like channelization have the benefits of an important improvement in protection against potential flooding, but they also bring severe damage to the environment and infrastructure
(Emerson, 1971; Parker and Andres, 1976; Leopold, 1977; Brookes,
1985b; Gregory, 1985; Paul and Meyer, 2001; Yin and Li, 2001; Roberge,
2002; Surian and Rinaldi, 2003; Urban and Rhoads, 2003). This damage to infrastructure can be seen in the Blackwater River in Johnson
County, Missouri, where a county bridge over the Blackwater River had collapsed due to bank erosion, and was replaced in 1830 (Emerson,
1971). This new bridge had to be replaced in 1924 and once more in
1947 (Emerson, 1971). The same happened in the East and West Prairie
Rivers in Alberta, Canada, where the highway No 2 and railroad bridges collapsed in 1975 (Parker and Andres, 1976).
Usually channelization is accompanied by land-use change. The natural floodplain can be quickly transformed into agricultural fields or, if it was already agricultural, the change can be from agricultural to residential land uses. Channelization can produce a range of environmental and social effects, such as loss of groundwater storage
(Nakamura et al., 1997, 2002; Steiger et al., 1998; Paul and Meyer, 2001; 24 Chowdhury, 2003; Surian and Rinaldi, 2003), disappearance of fish, loss of farmland (Emerson, 1971; Parker and Andres, 1976), and negatively impacted surface and groundwater quality (Chowdhury, 2003).
People have been trying to avoid flooding hazards by channelizing rivers where the floodplain represents significant value because of residential, agricultural, or business development or potential development on floodplain sites. When channelization is done to straighten and increase the capacity of a section of the main channel of a river, as was done in Athens with the section of the Hocking River between White’s Mill and the Litton Industries (McBee) plant, that creates other risks. The shorter channel path increases the stream’s slope, which considerably amplifies the velocity of the river and consequently the carrying capacity of the river (Emerson, 1971; Parker and Andres, 1976; Brookes, 1985b; Chang, 1986; Nakamura et al.,
1997). If the sediment supplied at the upstream end of the channelized section is not enough to satisfy the new demand of the river, the load shortfall is obtained from the bed, causing degradation, which translates upstream as a nickpoint (Parker and Andres, 1976; Brookes, 1985b). All this additional sediment is deposited in the downstream part of the channelized reach. The natural channel downstream of the channelized section does not have the capacity to carry the amount of sediment reaching it, and the sediment is deposited on the bed (Yearke, 1971;
Parker and Andres, 1976; Brookes, 1985b; Nakamura et al., 1997), 25 creating a series of modifications that may lead to more frequent downstream flooding (Keller and Hoffman, 1976; Parker and Andres,
1976; Leopold, 1977). The concept that explains how this happens is known as connectivity.
Brookes (1985a, p. 57) defined connectivity in a fluvial system as
“the repercussions of any man-induced change at any given location
[that] can be transmitted over a wide area, especially in the downstream direction.” This phenomenon can be seen in the River Wylye in Wilshire,
England, where the river was rechannelized in February 1982, and the accumulation of sediment downstream was forty times greater than the normal level (Brookes, 1985a).
As Keller and Hoffman (1976) and Brookes (1985b) stated, there are some options to work with, rather than against, the natural river processes. This agrees with Gregory (1985) and with Yin and with Li
(2001, p. 108), who explained that “we should change the strategy from keeping the flood away to giving the flood way.” But generally, these options are not the most practical and economical solutions, and for that reason are not usually implemented (Keller, 1975).
The hazard involved in channelization, as Wojcik declared in the meeting of the Royal Geographical Society and reported by Gregory
(1985), is real because the morphological, hydrological, and ecological responses of the river to the channelization imply some drastic changes
(Keller, 1975; Keller and Hoffman, 1976; Brookes, 1985b; Gregory, 1985; 26 Chang, 1986; Kesel, 2003). When an environmental event occurs, people’s perception of the nature of the cause of the event differs. Some people are more likely to consider an environmental event like a flood as a natural occurrence that is beyond human control. Conversely, others will consider the same flooding event as much human-made as natural
(Rochford and Blocker, 1991). When a flood occurs along a dammed or channelized river people may think that the damage could have been avoided if the US Army Corps of Engineers would have built a more environmentally friendly project, such as those mentioned by Keller
(1975), Keller and Hoffman (1976), and Brookes (1985b), or if the community had had an effective flood control and prevention system.
The equilibrium of a river is defined as the ability of a stream to transport the water and sediment supplied to it (Chang, 1986), with capacity of the river and the supply of the sediment in balance. The dynamic equilibrium of river is extremely sensitive to any change in water and sediment discharge. If the equilibrium of the river is disturbed by any natural factor (climatic, hydrologic, or tectonic) or human- induced factors (channelization, damming, diversion, mining, cutoff, etc.), change will occur in order to restore the river equilibrium (Chang,
1986). To prove how sensitive a river can be if any of the variables are altered due to natural or human factors, one only has to look at a very simple formula that shows the relationship among these variables (Fig.
3). As can be appreciated by this formula (Q = V/t = w x d x v), any 27 change in the water volume (V), depth (d), width (w), or velocity (v) alters the discharge (Q).
Brookes (1985b) presents a very simple diagram that helps to explain the process of the adjustment of the river when the flow has been increased or decreased by human-engineering works, such as a channel improvement. The direct consequence of the engineering work is an increase or decrease in the carried volume of water, and this means a higher or lower torrent speed which, consequently, causes downstream erosion or deposition. This, in turn, increases or decreases the width and/or the depth of the channel. An increase or decrease in the dimensions of a channel change the hydraulic radius R, (R = A/P) (Fig. 4) and, through a mechanism of negative or positive feedback, increases or decreases the stream velocity (Fig. 5). This negative or positive feedback may be significant in helping the river to reach a state of self-regulation.
The interaction between the floodplain and the river is an important determinant of a river’s equilibrium (Thoms, 2003). The floodplain controls the establishment and preservation of aquatic and intermediate habitats. The biotic functioning of the aquatic-terrestrial transition zones, the ecotones, depends on the nutrient cycling provided by overbank flooding and floodplain sedimentation (Steiger et al., 1998).
In general, headwater flooding is more frequent and more severe today than in the past, and this can be directly associated with
28 ______
Q = V/ t Q = discharge = volume of water flowing past a given point per unit of time. V = water volume t = time
Q = A x v A = area of the river cross section = w x d w = width of the cross section d = depth of the cross section v = velocity = length/time (slope dependent)
Q = V/t = w x d x v
w
d
______Fig. 3. Cross section of a river showing channel variables: the relationships among width, depth, area, velocity, and discharge.
______
W
R d R = hydraulic radius, frequently used as an P estimate of depth (d). R = A / P A = area = width (w) x depth (d) P = wetted perimeter ______Fig. 4. Cross section of a river showing channel variables: hydraulic radius is a representation of channel efficiency.
29 ______
INCREASED B FLOW A +/- EROSION OR STREAM DUE TO HUMAN- DEPOSITION ENGINEERING WORK VELOCITY
+/- +/-
C D +/- CHANNEL WIDTH HYDRAULIC OR DEPTH RADIUS
______Fig. 5. Systems diagram for the adjustment of channel capacity (after Brookes, 1985a).
urbanization (Paul and Meyer, 2001; Mohapatra and Singh, 2003). The constantly growing impermeable landscape created by highways, roofs, streets, and parking lots (Ives and Furuseth, 1983) are contributing to flooding by creating a high amount of runoff because water cannot percolate toward the groundwater through the impermeable pavement or concrete (Paul and Meyer, 2001). As seen January 7, 2005, in Athens,
East State Street had to be closed to vehicular traffic because water was on the north part of the street in the commercial area (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).
This flooding hazard occurs around any channelized stream that lies in or close to town (Keller and Hoffman, 1976). It is important to notice 30
Fig. 6. Hocking River flood on East State Street, January 7, 2005, Athens, Ohio. Parking lot of the Athens Plaza.
Fig. 7. Hocking River flood on East State Street, January 7, 2005, Athens, Ohio. East State Street at Wal-Mart site.
that Hatton (1999), as well as Roberge (2002), say that channelization gives a sense of security, and this makes possible the development of the floodplain, but the risk is real as can be seen in Figures 6 and 7.
In figure 6 a boat with two officials from Athens city is navigating
East State Street as a result of the flooding after much rainfall. But it 31 could be worse. According to Hatton (1999), the original design discharge capacity of the channelized section of the Hocking River has decreased because of aggradation. The increase in the channel sediment represents a major risk for Athens to have an enormous flood resulting in injury to people as well as damage to businesses and institutions that have been developing on the floodplain.
3.2 Flood Hazards
Many aspects of environmental hazards have been deeply investigated, as is revealed by the extensive literature written about these subjects. One of the most common hazards for people is flood hazard due to human activities on floodplains. The flood hazard literature reveals that residents who have experienced floods have a better perception of the hazard of living floodplain (Nunes Correia et al., 1998).
Occupants of floodplains believe that government actions can do more to mitigate the flood hazards than any measures they can take by themselves (Churchill and Hutchinson, 1984).
Methods of protection (flood-proofing) include a wide range of measures, ranging from such temporary solutions as closing openings with sandbags, to permanent solutions, such as building houses on high ground, which is the only real protection, especially for flash floods
(Plate, 2002). Flood management is very limited and in general it will depend on the accessible technology, the financial resources, and the 32 perception of the necessity for protection (Plate, 2002). Still, every year floods cause catastrophic damage all over the world, including loss of human life (Jonkman, 2005).
The most popular instrument to combat flooding is technology.
Structural flood reduction procedures are the most common management device and, even though the significance of nonstructural measures is recognized, they have been used too little (Chan, 1997).
Channelization, one of these structural flood reduction tools, was applied in the section of the Hocking River running through Ohio University and part of Athens city.
3.2.1 Administrative Aspects of Flood Hazards
Literature shows that management of floodplains has been widely explored, and several techniques have been used to deal with the public in this regard (Nunes Correia et al., 1998). For instance, in this area,
Payne and Pigram (1981) investigated awareness of the hazard of flooding and all the responses that residents in the floodplain have to dangers created by periodic floods. These scientists affirm that as long as floodplains are used for human activities, property damage will result from flooding because flooding will never be totally stopped.
Approximately 88% of US counties have had at least one flood disaster in the last fifty years (Burby, 2001). Consequently, the federal government has developed an insurance program for residents in 33 floodplains to deal with this problem. The approach of the United
States to flood insurance and the National Insurance Program were investigated by Burby (2001), who claims that the insurance program has problems that have reduced its effectiveness.
Morris–Oswald and Sinclair (2005) considered the role of human values in influencing floodplain management decisions and the decision- making process within a single floodplain context. The nature of values that influence the decision-making process are determinant for the success of floodplain management. Mustafa (2005) emphasized understanding the experience of flood management and its linkages with vulnerability in the context of a modernizing developing society. That researcher discovered that people affected by flooding events have a wider vision of possibilities for managing flood hazard than policy makers and flood managers, who usually are state agents. The study of this situation in the frame of the hazardscape perception (pragmatism, political ecology, and socionature joined with the landscape concept) increases the choices of practical solutions to the risk situation (Mustafa,
2005).
The decision-making process is conducted in various ways depending on the country. For instance, Nunes Correia et al. (1998) published their research on the public perception of floods, flood management, and participatory initiatives in Setúbal, Portugal. That investigation is important because it shows how people are willing to be 34 part of the decision-making process when the decision is related to a floodplain on which they live. According to Nunes Correia et al. (1998), the government currently involves floodplain residents in public discussion before making a decision affecting those people.
Pottier et al. (2005) compared the development of floodplain policies in two adjacent countries, England and France. In England, democratically elected local authorities use a friendlier manner for dealing with flood situations. Conversely, an imposed approach with the intervention of the central government is used in France. Flood impacts on people have been investigated deeply, especially the monetary losses expected to take place in flood episodes. The effects on people and the monetary aspects of flooding should be considered when an investment on flood protection measures is to be decided (Tapsell et al., 2002).
Models have proved to be a useful tool in floodplain administration.
Tingsanchali and Karim (2005) have done research using a hydrodynamic model to determine how long floods will last. The resultant flood risk maps are an important instrument for reducing flood damage. Another model simulation, used to help residents of
Bangladesh floodplains with the awareness system, has been studied by
Chowdhury (2000), who examined the role and activities of the Flood
Forecasting and Warning Center of the Bangladesh Water Development
Board. “Floods are the most costly natural disasters in term of human 35 sufferings and economic losses in Bangladesh” (Chowdhury, 2000, p.139).
3.2.2 Physical Aspects of Flood Hazards
The physical aspects of floodplains have also been extensively investigated. Kundzewicz and Chellnhuber (2004) studied the relationship between climate change and floods. In recent times floods have been more frequent and catastrophic on the entire planet due to the changes and vulnerability of climate, which is due to the global warming
(Kundzewicz and Chellnhuber, 2004).
Penning-Rowsell et al. (2005) studied the methodology and developed an operational structure for evaluating and diagramming the risk of death and severe injury to people from flooding. This included death and physical injury as a direct and immediate consequence of deep and/or fast flowing floodwaters, as well as other deaths and physical damage associated with the flood event. Floods are hazards that depend on physical weather conditions and, lately, human activities. During long periods of time, the variability of these events is difficult to predict.
For this reason, it is important to take into account prehistoric data in assessing the variability of hazard regimes (Nott, 2003).
Another investigation on the physical aspects of flood hazards was conducted by Yates et al. (2003). This research focused on erosion, deposition, denudation, and aggradation alterations of the Wolf River 36 floodplain in the city of Memphis and Shelby County, TN. This floodplain has been changing since 1811-1812. Because of earthquakes the floodplain experienced liquefaction, which has reduced its area and increased its connectivity with the river and the aquifer (Yates et al.,
2003).
Simulation models have also been applied to the physical aspects of flood hazards. Simonovic and Ahmad (2005) presented a computer- based model that simulates the evacuation process during a flood emergency including the decision process that leads to evacuation decisions at a family level. The people’s acceptance of evacuation orders, the number of families affected by the evacuation process, and the necessary time for the families to be away from the threatened area, as well as physical conditions of the flooding, are very important variables of this model. Wilford et al. (2004) showed the significance of models in predicting flood conditions by providing the differences between debris- flow and debris flood risk in watersheds by using a model fed with the watershed length and watershed relief divided by the square root of watershed area.
3.3 Summary
Although extensive literature exists on flooding hazards, works focusing on how a structural flood reduction procedure, that is, channelization, has affected people have not been found. Instead of 37 investigating flood hazards, flood management, or how the natural resource is altered by engineering works, the focal point of this thesis is the reaction of people to engineering works that alter a natural resource.
38 Chapter Four – Methods
4.1 Interviews
A qualitative study was performed in order to achieve the objectives of this research. The tool used for collecting data was interviews. The interview is a method in which information is collected from the respondent and transferred to the researcher via a communication process between interviewer and respondent (van der
Zouwen, 2001). The interviewing process is divided into several parts: asking questions and receiving responses to them, recording the answers, and transforming responses into data to be analyzed (van der
Zouwen, 2001).
A live interview creates opportunities for respondents to offer insights verbally. It allows respondents the liberty to express not only their thoughts but their feelings as well through comments and body language. By asking questions and listening to the answers one can make valid inferences about the respondents’ opinions and attitudes
(Flowerdew and Martin, 1997). Such interviews can be conducted on a one-to-one basis with the interviewer or with two or more respondents.
A semi-structured interview, which is a relaxed, flowing form of communication with the intention of getting the respondents’ experiences and points of view (Flowerdew and Martin, 1997), was used to gather responses on people’s perception of the channelization of the Hocking 39 River. The interview, however, was free enough to encourage the respondents to accept a dialogue that goes beyond the expressed concern about channelization. Also, the respondents were invited to write and send any additional comments after the interview, if they had some additional thoughts that they believed could be important.
The questionnaire design was framed and ordered according to the following process: setting the tone, seeking information in depth, feeling and reflection, searching for the narrative, and ending on a positive note
(Wimpenny and Gass, 2000). The Ohio University Office of Research
Compliance determined this research to be exempt from review by the
Institutional Review Board.
Convenience-based sampling was used to select interviewees. The interviewing started with names of a couple of possible participants consisting of people who are related somehow to the channelization of the Hocking River. For example, the first person interviewed was an officer of the Hocking Conservancy District in Athens. Through recommendations by the first people the process snowballed, ending with a reasonable number of interviews for analysis. Those who were interviewed are:
• People who play an important role as decision makers in the
community.
• People from the Athens community. 40 • People who were affected by this change in the natural
environment (the channelization of the Hocking River).
• People who have some environmental knowledge (professors).
The interviews were recorded. Afterward, the responses were transcribed and transformed into data, which were analyzed and organized using a textual approach, relying on words and meaning, rather than statistics. The language used, particularly exclamations and adjectives, was an important tool in the analysis (Flowerdew and Martin,
1997; Mason, 2005).
The responses were analyzed by noting the frequency with which various topics were mentioned. A number of themes emerged from the data. These categorizations of the information helped to determine the interviewees' principal perceptions of the channelization of the Hocking
River. This approach may suggest the influence of the change in the environment on people.
4.2 The Reminder Questions
A questionnaire was used by the investigator only as a reminder to ensure that all subjects were covered during the interview. It was not intended that every single question had to be asked of every responder.
Some questions that are not listed were asked, depending on how the interview developed. The reminder questions include: 41 1- Female or male?
2- What is your name?
3- Age -- are you in your fifties, sixties, seventies…?
4- Are you a resident of Athens?
5- Do or have you lived close to the river?
6- Do or have you worked close to the river?
7- How long have you been living in your house?
8- Have you suffered a directed flooding?
9- Are you married?
10- Does your spouse live with you in the same house?
11- How many people live in your house?
12- What is your profession?
13- Do you work in your profession?
14- What do you do for recreation?
15- What is your perception of channelization?
16- What is your perception of the Hocking River before the
channelization?
17- What is your perception of the Hocking River after the
channelization?
18- What do you think about the channelization of the Hocking River?
19- Have you been affected by the channelization of the Hocking River?
20- In what way have you been affected by the channelization of the
Hocking River? 42 21- Do you think that the channelization has enhanced or reduced the
risk of flooding? Why?
22- Do you think that the floodplain should be developed? Why?
23- Have you noticed any change in people’s behavior because of the
channelization?
4.3 Demographics of Interviewees
Table 1 shows demographic attributes of the survey participants.
Of the 30 people participating in 25 interviews, 21 are male and 11 are female. Twenty eight are over 50 years old while two are under 50 years old. Two are active professors at Ohio University and one is a retired professor. One is a nonfaculty employee of Ohio University and one is a retired nonfaculty employee of Ohio University. The sample included owners and managers of local businesses and franchises, community planners, machine operators, social service workers, active and retired county and city employees, a housewife, a banker, a cook, and others.
Nine of the 30 people showed a certain level of environmental knowledge.
In addition to the 30 people formally interviewed and recorded on tape, the investigator informally interviewed (without recording the conversation) nine people. Some of these nine people did not want their names mentioned, and therefore are designated anonymous. Comments from the other informal interviewees are included in the analysis of the interviews as personal communications. 43 Table 1. Demographics of Interviewees
Male Female Professional Nonprof ≥ 50 < 50 OU OU years years Faculty Nonfac Tª 2 21 9 25 5 28 2 3 Iª 1 √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ 3 √ √ √ 4 √ √ √ 5 √ √ √
6 √ √ √ 7 √ √ √ 8 √ √ √ 9 √ √ √ 10 √ √ √ 11 √ √ √ 12 √ √ √ √ 12 √ √ √ 13 √ √ √ 14 √ √ √ √ 15 √ √ √ 16 √ √ √ 17 √ √ √ 17 √ √ √ 18 √ √ √ √ 19 √ √ √ 20 √ √ √ 21 √ √ √ √
22 √ √ √
23 √ √ √ √ 24 √ √ √ 25 √ √ √
ª T is the total; I is interview number. 44
In the transcriptions, the questions asked by the interviewer are identified by “I,” while comments made by the interviewees are identified by “R” (responder). The formal interviews are numbered in the order in which they were transcribed, from 1 to 25. In order to facilitate reading and analysis, a respondent’s answers are identified with numbers, e.g.,
R.1, R.2.
4.4 Analysis
After the transcriptions were completed, each interview was read twice before beginning the analysis. The transcriptions were scanned for major themes. Specific topics within the major themes were assigned a subheading, each describing a single phenomenon. During this process the transcriptions were read over again as needed for accurate analysis. 45 Chapter Five - Results: Physical Environment
5.1 Introduction
Table 2 lists the 13 themes that emerged from the interviews, the interview numbers in which each theme was mentioned, and the frequency with which each theme has been noted in the interviews. This chapter, as well as the next chapter, presents quotes for every time a specific topic is addressed by the interviewees.
Every quote provided in these results is identified with the interview number. The subsequent letter and the number identify the answer number in which the responder commented on the subject.
5.2 Concern about Vegetation along the Channel
5.2.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R13): “Right now, the project is sort of barren
looking because we don’t allow tree planting or any type of plants, woody
plants be planted on the river banks or on top of the banks because the
project was constructed to allow the water to go through Athens quickly.
Trees would impede the flow of the water, it would slow it down. And
therefore, it would defeat the purpose of the, the channel flow to get
through Athens quickly. And now it does. That’s why we keep the river
banks mowed, free of debris and driftwood.” 46 Interview #2 (R5): “And I don’t know why they don’t change, you know, they’ve got these environmental people, that they’re stupid say, because I’ll tell you what, you let these damn trees grow along the these riverbanks, see the old-timers, the old farmers always kept the creeks and everything in between. They chopped all the trees, you know what I mean. You had grass growing, you didn’t get the erosion. Go through
Nelsonville and look at all the erosion they get and it ends up right here and they got to dig it out. You know what I mean? If they cleaned that river and kept it clean, you wouldn’t have floods up above here. You wouldn’t have floods below. You know, you got to take care of a river; you can’t just let it grow. You know, and let trees hang over it because they’re going to fall off or drop in and all that dirt and it just keeps washing down.”
Interview #2 (R40): “I’m in agreement with him. If they go around and cut these trees or trim these trees, and get the trash out of the other part… there’s just trees laying every place, even on the other side of
Nelsonville. Trees laying there here come this brush down, it falls up, then makes a dam, and then it goes out and makes the erosion and everything.
Interview #2 (R40): “… clean up the brush, so it can flow, would help tremendous.”
Table 2. Themes Derived from the Interviews 47
Theme Mentioned Interview # Frequency
Concern about vegetation along the channel 1, 2, 3, 9, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25 9
Channel capacity & increase of flooding downstream 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 15 20, 24, 25 Negative impact on the environment 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 13 25 Impact of flood prevention 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 Economic development 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 15 23, 24, 25 Development on the floodplain 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Channel would not be feasible today 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14 7
Disconnection with the surrounding environment 3, 9, 10, 25 4
Attitude towards the bike path 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25 12
Loss of town’s character 6, 9, 16, 25 4
Opportunities for environmental education 3, 8, 25 3
Change in traffic pattern 13, 15, 16, 22, 23 5
Accessibility of the River Channel 3, 8, 20 3 48 Interview #2 (R42): “…but anyhow, if you go down below here, look at the trash and the old trees and stuff that washed down the bottom like across from McBee down there in the bottom in there’s got a bunch of big trees and stuff. And this is nothing, but old… and stuff like this that fell over in the river and then of course the erosion of them and they fall into the river and then… the next thing you know, instead of the river going here, it’s going out and around here. And then… you got all this loose dirt and no rock or anything there to stop it. So… and then they just sit there.”
Interview #3 (R2): “There can’t be any obstructions down there but once you get far enough away there could be a lot more trees. It could be naturalized a lot more [the river]. I’d like to see some walking paths maybe go right down to the water’s edge so people can get down and experience the river rather than just from a distance. I’ve been in a lot of different places around different types of rivers and ours is as ugly as you can get. It is just a big flood channel. I wish we could do more but there is a lot of education that has to happen. I think the Conservancy
District has to be convinced that more could be done and nobody has really tried to do that very much. They have planted more trees but there is still an attitude of mostly making it look like a golf course rather than a riparian zone. I don’t know if that’s the university pressuring them to do that or if that’s the board of the Conservancy District prefers it look that way.” 49 Interview #9 (R1): “The water part, I think, is the Corps of
Engineers, but I think, the Conservancy, they don’t like trees and things on it because they say it fills up the river.”
Interview #14 (R7): “I mean why in the heck doesn’t he allow trees to grow on the riverbank, because the guys who cut the grass don’t want to cut around them. Now that is the dumbest damm thing I’ve ever heard. Because you know everybody says our town would look much better if we had a wooded riverbank because that’s the way riverbanks look in this part of the country. But yet those dummies who work for
Courtney out at Margaret Creek Conservancy have to have it you know like their front yard so they can cut without going around trees. Now who’s in charge here? I mean that’s kind of dumb or that’s what I think anyway.”
Interview #19 (R6): “There is more fish, etc., but there are not as many trees near the banks because those were all cut down in order to do the channelization. You can see gradually as we are planting some of those areas, the cherry trees near and around South Green Drive, along the bike path that we have done, we have planted oh gee, 150-160 trees in the last three years in that area. But they are not right next to the river. The tree commission that was formed a little over 15 years ago and the rules that we established there were an attempt to negate some of those things. We have been a “Tree City USA” for 15 consecutive years and all of that is an effort to enhance the environment from a tree 50 standpoint here within the City of Athens and programs for planting
trees, etc. A good example of that is where the State of Ohio came in and
redid Route 33 from Athens down to Pomeroy and in doing such they
built more embankment type things and high bridges and steep… if you go down and look at the south “Y” area. One of our responses to that, because they did not do it in the project is went after an ODOT grant, I think $4,000 or $5,000 and with that we bought 3,000 trees and shrubs.
We had a couple of days where we ask the community members to come help us plant and they did and we planted 3,000 shrubs and trees on the banks around through there that, in the long run, hopefully, will not make erosion problems but help solve them and also beautify the area.
And I think the landscape ordinances that we have changed about three or four years ago, you can very visually see it. If you go down on East
State once again and stand either in the University Mall parking lot or the Lowe’s parking lot, take your choice, and you see the University Mall parking lot is all blacktop; there isn’t a tree, there isn’t a… and you will look at the Lowe’s parking lot and you will see that there is over 65 trees in that parking lot. There is an irrigation system for it; there is a tree watering system that Lowe’s put in for it. It will exceed what our specifications were, but it was in the concept they made it even better.
Those two parking lots ecologically and everyway else are totally different.
They are a totally different place but really that points out the direction the city is going in. We want more… and that is what I was talking a 51 little earlier about. Do we need to get away from blacktop and concrete?
Do we need to look at some of these systems that look like you are parking on grass? Because you are they do these concrete blocks with a base down underneath them and I read articles about different cities that have gone to rooftop gardens on top of commercial buildings and office buildings that create insulation and they also grow things up there and it changes the water runoff. There are some interesting things out there if you really study. You’re farther along than me.
Interview #20 (R7): “Somebody might say they don’t have the trees, they don’t have the… zone, whatever the state calls it along the river in that area, but that thing was designed for flood control, and it’s also designed for somewhat recreation.”
Interview #24 (R5): “…I think people are beginning to think that the channelization looks like a natural river and it reinforces the misconception that trees should not grow along waterways. I also think that the current management of lawn mowing is an inefficient use of public money, when the land could be leased to any farmer for hay or areas could simply be left to natural selection or they may be even cut once a year in the autumn to allow for ground nesting birds and much attractive “amber waves of grain.” The “golf course” look further reinforces the notion of treating natural systems as lawns.”
Interview #25 (R1): “There are no trees or shade or wildlife, there is no scenic attraction to the river channel. It’s just a big ditch and they 52 mow it all the time and it takes a lot of fossil fuels to be mowing the grass along the channel. …I have worked with some groups that have planted some trees along the river, but it is an ongoing battle, the group that wants to plant the trees, and then there’s the group that wants to mow the grass, and then before you know it the trees are dying because they mow too close to them or they weed eat around the base of them and they end up girdling the tree. Plus when they built that channel they compacted the soil so tightly that even when you do plant a tree, the soil is so tightly compacted that the roots have a long time growing and the trees don’t thrive. …if you go up to Zanesville, OH, they have a big river flowing through their city called the Muskingum River, and right down town there are big trees hanging over the river, there are islands in the river, you can see ducks and geese, families will be down there fishing, and there are parks along the stream and it is a very attractive, inviting place.”
5.2.2 Discussion
Nine (three women and six men) of the 25 interviewees (36%) treated the question of vegetation along the channel. Six of these nine people think that the channel has a barren look due to the lack of trees along it. Three considered trees, as for example when they fall into the river, as contributing to floods and erosion, while four expressed their belief that the channelized area does not have trees because the 53 institution in charge of maintaining the channel does not want them for various reasons.
Two of the participants made additional interesting comments.
One pointed out that the lack of trees along the channel could lead people to the misconception that trees do not naturally grow along waterways.
The other described the differences between the Hocking River through
Athens and the unchannelized Muskingum River as it flows through
Zanesville, Ohio, to express the advantages of keeping rivers in their natural state.
If we compare the Hocking River with other rivers running through towns in the region, an enormous difference can be seen (Fig. 8 and Fig.9).
Zanesville, Ohio, has a big river called the Muskingum River flowing through the city, and right downtown big trees hang over the river (Fig.
8). They have not channelized the river, but keep it with all the natural amenities. The river has forested islands, wooded banks, and ducks, geese, and other animals around it. Families engage in recreational activities in the river; they have picnics and go fishing as can be seen in picture #2 of Fig. 8. There are parks along the stream and it is a very attractive, inviting place (Fig. 8).
54 1 2
3 4
5 6
Fig. 8. Different sites of the Muskingum River, Zanesville, OH. 06.05.05
55 1 2
3 4
5 6
Fig. 9. Different sites along the Hocking River, Athens. 06.06.05
(continued on page 56)
56 7
Fig. 9. Different sites along the Hocking River, Athens. 06.06.05 (cont’d)
Alternatively, the channelized Hocking River in Athens is not as inviting a place as can be seen in Fig. 9. The channel is just what it was made for.
It is a channel to carry flood water out of town. Little effort has been made to call the public’s attention back to the stream, as one of the interviewees said, by recovering the attractiveness of the river, planting trees, and making some little gardens and pocket parks along the channel.
57 5.3 Channel Capacity and an Increase of Flooding Downstream
5.3.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R15): “Our main problem with this channel is sediment. Sediment is a major problem with us. We have about
450,000 cubic yards of sediment in this channel. It has reduced the carrying capacity of the river. For example, if the 100 year flood happened to hit today, it’d be 6 inches higher because of sediment. We just recently, in the last three or four years, purchased machinery to do dredging. It will be perpetual. It will never end. The material we take from the river, most of it is reusable. We stock pile it, and it’s free to contractors and the people who are going to use it for any reason. The
Athens City Recreation Center foundation, which is a foot above the 100 year flood level, by the way, was built of material from the Hocking River that we dredged. The Mental Health Hospital here, a state hospital that material has been from the river has been used for that foundation.
State Route 682 just northwest of Athens here, for about 4 miles, that material was used for the road bed. Storm water and sewer, all types of sewer line, this material was used for, bedding for the sewer pipes. Right now, we’re in the east end of Athens, dredging for this material as refined topsoil. It’s really rich soil. We stockpiled about 80,000 cubic yards last year and it’s all gone now. People have taken it and used it; it’s reusable.
Some of the materials are usable if it’s mixed with other aggregates to 58 make a suitable product to be used. Most of the sediment in this river is reusable. The sediment is a problem. We’re looking at it. We’re trying to eliminate it but it’s going to be…it’s a perpetual job. It will last forever.
The river channel is degraded in Athens. It is about a 10 inches drop per mile, where above Athens and below Athens it’s about 16-18 inches gradient average drop per mile. So, this flattens out here in Athens and the material will settle more quickly here, than up and downstream.
We’ve had several studies done about the sediment, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers came here in 1995, I think it was, and did a complete sediment study, called the section 22 study. They came up with some alternative ideas as to how to slow the sediment. One of them was to rechannel to make a smaller stream in the middle. But that would be so costly, we couldn’t afford that. One was to build flood walls, concrete flood walls. Aesthetically, that would be disastrous, that wouldn’t be nice, you couldn’t even see the river through a wall.
Probably the best solution they had was upstream of the White’s Mill dam, about a half mile upstream to deepen and widen the river so that, when the water came through it would drop it’s sediment in this hole, that we dug in the river. This has been a method they’ve used in several places around the country and in other countries, too. Sediment traps is what they’re called. We looked into that. That was feasible for us to do, to help them, we thought about making a sediment trap or traps, one or two of them. But we came to find out that the city water wells are in the 59 same area where the traps were planned, that there would be a possibility of us disturbing the aquifer of the city water wells. So we had to stop that. We couldn’t continue with that. The opposition was tremendous. And even if we did interfere or encroach upon the city’s wells, aquifers, and system, if something happened, we would be waiting for it. So, we backed off that idea.
Right now, the only solution we have is to dredge it manually with machinery we’ve bought. I guess in full we’ve got track hoes, trucks to haul. It’s a pretty effective way. It’s slow, but we’re making an effort. we’re making a divot, anyway. We’re moving material. But we have to maintain the channel’s carrying capacity. That’s key, so that water can get through Athens quicker, and perform like it was designed to do.”
Interview #3 (R4): “What they’re building to is the 100-year event and the flood control project isn’t designed for something that big. …I think it’s designed to keep out a 50-year flood event so anything that size or smaller. It’s probably kept out, we have probably had 7 or 8 flood events that it’s kept out of various parts of the town to various degrees.”
Interview #3 (R6): “See it’s not designed for a 100-year flood. You know that right? It is designed for something more likes a 50-year.”
Interview #6 (R4): “It floods below town; it still does but not here.”
Interview #7 (R4): “…just built anything in the floodplain, is crazy and you should routinely be able to bring in a bunch of soil and rock and 60 building it up, that too is unwise because you’re just making it worse downstream....”
Interview #9 (R1): “Now this does nothing for the communities above us and below us on the river and it caused some problems for them. … But above us and below us, of course, there was a great deal of damage.”
Interview #12 (R12): “…still areas where they have flooding and there’s a problem out in the counties.”
Interview #12 (R21): “Most flooding that has been avoided because of the channelization is taking place downstream, affecting another town, like, Canaanville.”
Interview #13 (R9): “I think it will affect the flooding farther down, where we have had the building of Kroger’s and all of those, all the way east.”
Interview #16 (R5): “The gain is that they have buildings that are not subject to flooding and whether that means the flooding downstream is greater or not, …I do know that the little villages downstream have very bad floods and I suspect worse than they used to just in the nature of things, because they were spread out here. So that’s one detriment.”
Interview #17 (R6): “Of course, it’s kind of making it worse on the people downstream though, because the water got downstream quicker so it rose quicker down at the end of the channel.” 61 Interview #18 (R1): “…it’s had a bad effect downstream where the channelization has occurred… For populations downriver, I think, it’s probably a minus.”
Interview #18 (R4): “If I lived farther downstream, and I had floodplains planted beside the river, and I just looked through the back because of this rush of water, I would not be happy about it. Those farmers, they are probably not pleased about this channelization.”
Interview #19 (R3): “All that study came out with was that if we get the 100 year flood, and we will some day, we are going to have millions and millions of dollars in damage throughout the city because the channelization, although it offers a degree of protection is not a 100 year flood channelization. It is more like a 50 in most areas and 70 in some others. Then there is an issue of silting that we have talked about off and on for a number of years and some hydrologists say that when we have the big one all of that silt will get washed away, scour itself out but that does not help you a whole lot when you are in the middle of the 100 year one.”
Interview #20 (R6): “I don’t know if it got in any houses. It got close to being in houses but they have not had to deal with things that they deal with upstream or downstream when they have a flood occurrence.”
Interview #20 (R8): “I think they [the Hocking Conservancy
District] could do a better job of keeping it maintained and keeping the 62 sediment out of it so you minimize the risk of a flood. The only issue is what you do with it once you take it out, if you are going to clean the river out to get it back to the specs of when the river was originally built.
What do you do with the sediment? Well you see vacuums used for thousands of yards of fill when they built the rec center. They took it out of the riverbank. They took it out of that sediment pool so there are uses for it, but there is so much of it and keeping that up and getting rid of it in this day, sometimes it’s a little problem.”
Interview #20 (R10): “The fact is now if you build on the 100-year floodplain you have to bring it out in order to build. So what’s that do, you are displacing the water a little bit to somebody else.”
Interview #20 (R11): “I think we had some very forward-thinking people that said, hey, if we move a couple million yards of earth we can make lives in Athens a lot better and we did start a community of control. The Conservancy District maintains the channelization. They maintain, they mow, they take care of the river that they are charged with keeping it cleaned up and things like that. So we do have somebody watching out for it. I think they could do a better job of controlling the sedimentation, recycling it out of the river. I know on three occasions, two for sure, they have put out a large contract where they bring in a contractor in the summer and just move dirt. They have people who come in that will mine the river sand and gravel in areas and use it.
They just started themselves. They bought a piece of equipment and a 63 couple trucks but it’s not a high priority thing for them. So I would like to see them to do a better job of controlling the sedimentation because that’s their charge. The taxpayers pay them money to run it. The university paid a large amount of money to them to pay for it and to run it and to keep it operating. They do a good job, but I think the sedimentation control could probably be a little better.”
Interview #24 (R1): “The associated sedimentation, erosion… were irreversibly impacted by the channelization.”
Interview #25 (R1): “I forget how many feet wide at the bottom and how many feet wide at the top it is supposed to be but, then it runs in a straight line until it makes a large wide curve. When a river flows in a straight line like that, as I understand it, it slows the current down and causes a lot of the sediment to drop out. So that river is forever getting islands filled up in it of sediment, which as long as the channel is filling up with sediment, it doesn’t have the capacity to hold the same volume of water. I’ve seen them dredge that channel several times over the past 20 years, but I haven’t seen them dredge it lately. And it makes me wonder as a citizen, does that river have the capacity to hold as much water as it is supposed to and is it really protecting the town from flooding? …The other observation that I have made over the years is that although it doesn’t flood in the City of Athens as much, it seems that the people downstream from the channelization project, they live in a rural area, and so a lot of their property is farmland but it gets flooded, and it seems 64 to me, that it gets flooded worse but since its, in many people’s minds,
“just farmland,” its o.k. If I was an owner of that farmland, I think it would bother me that my fields were being flooded all the time, but I guess some people feel that it is better to flood the farmland than it is to flood people’s houses.”
Interview #25 (R2): “One of the things that a lot of people don’t think about, but I do, is that the water comes from the watershed. Well in the 40 years since the channel was built, out in the watershed people have built more homes, more driveways, more buildings, so there is more rooftops, driveways, parking lots, and that’s all increasing the amount of water that goes into the channel and increasing the speed that it goes into the channel. So when we get that kind of a rain that they had in
1964, there is more ground that’s enclosed that’s going to more water quicker into the channel and then if they don’t dredge the channel between now and whenever that flood comes, I think there is a real question about whether it will protect the community”.
5.3.2 Discussion
Fifteen (60%) of the interviewees, seven female and eight male, addressed the topic of the channel capacity and/or an increase of flooding in areas downstream of Athens, which are considered related topics. Four of the participants talked about the sedimentation problem in the channel, which impacts channel capacity. 65 The capacity of the channel was discussed directly in three of the interviews. Two participants specified that the capacity of the channel is for a 50 year, not a 100 year, flood while a third questioned the present capacity of the channel. Of the 15 interviewees that commented on this theme, 10, mostly women, considered flooding downstream of Athens to have gotten worse after the channelization. One interviewed person noted that someday Athens itself will have millions of dollars in damage because the Hocking River will eventually have a 100 year flood.
One interviewee felt that the Hocking River Conservancy District could do a better job of channel maintenance, while another described the process of keeping the channel clear of sediment as a perpetual task.
One considered what to do with the dredged material a problem, but another participant described how the dredged sediment can be and has been reused, such as by the construction industry. It was noted that although some alternatives have been suggested to solve the problem of sedimentation, these thus far have been rejected by the community.
The capacity of the channel, the sediment problem, and the increased flooding downstream are connected concepts. The designed capacity of the channel was originally supposed to be for a 100 year flood, according to the project (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1972) and confirmed by an employee of the Hocking Conservancy District
(Anonymous, personal communication, July 5, 2005). However, according to some Athens authorities and three interviewees, the real 66 capacity of the channel at the time of construction was more like a 50 year flood frequency. In other words, if a rainfall of a 100 year flood affects Athens, the city will not be protected by the channelization of the
Hocking River, as was pointed out by one interviewee.
Ten interviewees believe that the flooding downstream is worse after the channelization of the Hocking River in Athens. As with any other river, the relation between the water transported by the Hocking and the sediment transported by the water will be in a constant adjustment trying to keep the balance, the river equilibrium (Chang,
1986). With the channel engineering work, the natural balance of the
Hocking River was altered and the river has been striving to get it back by adjusting in the variables involved in its equilibrium. The original river bed was deepened and widened creating the actual channel, and the natural slope was decreased to about 10 inches per mile while the gradient of the river below and above Athens drops an average about 16 to 18 inches per mile, as was indicated by one interviewee. This condition has created a sudden reduction in the water velocity so that carried sediment is just dropped in the channelized section of the
Hocking River in Athens.
67 1
2
3
Fig. 10. Different sites of the channelized Hocking River with sediment problems, Athens, Ohio. 09.24.05
68 One interviewee described the main problem of the Hocking
Conservancy District as dealing with the sediment in the channelized
Hocking River (Fig. 10). The sediment problem has created great concern about the real carrying capacity of the river. Because of the sediment deposited in the channel in Athens, this capacity has decreased, therefore increasing the risk of flooding (Hatton, 1999).
Most of the interviewees noted that the Hocking channel was constructed to increase the water volume that could be conveyed by the river, but some think for some reason the design capacity for the 100 year flood may not have been applied during the construction. In any case, the real capacity has been reduced by the sedimentation (Hatton,
1999). Furthermore, development in the floodplain of the Hocking River in Athens, with all the parking lots, buildings, streets, and roofs, does not allow the rainfall water to percolate to the ground water table. This enhances runoff, which increases the volume of water in the river. When the volume of water exceeds the capacity of the natural river farther downstream, more frequent flooding and larger floods than before the construction of the channel occur.
5.4 Negative Impact on the Environment
5.4.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R14): “Aesthetics; it is a very unsightly channel…” 69 Interview #2 (R17): “The only thing we lost was what we used to call the old State Hospital Grounds that used to be a little scenic place through there, and they had to change that.”
Interview #3 (R2): “Well, it certainly isn’t very aesthetically pleasing....”
Interview #3 (R5): “Now, it’s so ugly, nobody would want to be down near it except like a Wal-Mart or somebody needing a parking lot, not because of the river; they would want to be there just because they needed the space. It would be nice to have a situation where people wanted to be near the river because it is so beautiful and it was a beautiful river at one time.”
Interview #3 (R8): “I have talked to a number of people who were around the area and saw what it looked like before the channelization and they really regret the loss of the gardens down at the Mental Health
Center grounds and just the way it looked.... I know in terms of habitat and water quality when the EPA comes through and does their water quality assessment, the quality of the water definitely drops [after the channelization] through Athens because a lot of it is the thermal effects.
Shallow flow, it’s widened out and shallow so it heats up more.”
Interview #4 (R3): “I think there’s enough time gone by that we look fondly on the memories, at least I do, of what the grounds at the
Mental Health Center used to look like and kind of saddened that that had to go....” 70 Interview #4 (R4): “They lost a beautiful landscaped ground at least on the northern part of the Mental Health Center site. You have no concept of what it was before the rechannelization unless you lived here and got to visit it or look at pictures. And the pictures you see don’t do it justice. It was very, very nice. It’s a shame it had to go. It was in the way, I guess. I was 21 years old when that happened, but I have fond memories as a kid learning to ice skate on the ponds over there and so forth. I have a good friend whose father worked at the Mental Health
Center so after school we would go over there sometimes and meet up with him and I’ve just got memories of being over there numerous times for different reasons. It was a fun place in the wintertime to sleigh ride.
I think that the people that can remember it, remember it somewhat fondly. And people talk about the alligator in the fountain and so forth that used to be there. That was one of the big deals years and years ago.
We would go over there and play basketball. There was a basketball court. I could go on and on and on about that sort of thing. But, yeah, I think that people look, the people I know that visited that site before the rechannelization liked it. It was very unique. After all, it was, I think it was built in the 1880s; it had a lot of history. There is a least 400 if not
600 acres in there so there’s a lot of property, or was. Today you look at it and you just can’t imagine what it was like. I look at with very fond memories, I guess, growing up around that area.” 71 Interview #4 (R7): “…the natural issues [affected by the channelization] would have been the very, very old trees that were brought over from China, and I don’t know what all countries, and planted in that area back in the late 1800’s. There is only a couple left,
I’m sure, by the old log house there at the Visitor’s Center.”
Interview #4 (R11): “I think it was a shame [the loss of the
Hospital Grounds] because it was a beautiful park setting. You know, it had steel fences and gates on Richland Avenue and brick streets and had the ponds; there were four ponds there and a boathouse on one of the ponds and ducks and geese; it was beautiful. Landscaped just very nicely; it was very old but at that time it was fairly well kept up.”
Interview #6 (R1): “…The asylum grounds were pretty, beautiful, had a lot of lakes. I don’t know how many they had. In the winter they would freeze over and that’s where all the kids in the county would go down to skate. We’d go skating down there. And go sleigh riding. They would come from all over Athens. They had hills there. They had them other places but kids liked to get together, and go sleigh riding down over the hill. So the river changed all that. Took all that away from the state hospital when they changed the river.”
Interview #6 (R2): “We hated to lose that [the Hospital Grounds] because it was so pretty and everything....”
Interview #6 (R7): “You lose a lot, the beautiful asylum grounds. It was so pretty and so many beautiful trees and a lot of people worked 72 there at that time. They kept it looking so nice and had so many pretty flowers. So we lost that but ....”
Interview #7 (R2): “…so the ponds, as I understand that, were at the bottom of the hill at the Athens Lunatic Asylum and were built for those reasons in the late 1870s. And the other reason besides utility, they wanted to have a beautiful grounds landscaped, beautiful ground to restore harmony to the senses as they said at the time. They thought that natural beauty and living in a palace would bring out the best behavior in people who had mental problems. So as I understand it, the ponds were a thing of great beauty, and they meant a lot to the people of the City of Athens. In the 1800s, early 1900s there were no state parks as we know them today and there would have been no way to get there even if they did exist. Having about 1000 acres of state land on the edge of town made the Athens State Hospital grounds at the time; be like a big old metropolitan park. People would ice skate and fish and boat, ride boats on the ponds that were at the bottom of the hill. At the time the
Hocking River ran through its natural channel, which was closer to the north edge of the floodplain that went under the old Richland Avenue
Bridge. So it was between 1968 and 1972 that they channeled the river and wiped out the ponds that were at the base of the hill prior to that.”
Interview #7 (R3): “I think it lost because of the beauty of the ponds, the old river channel, and the biodiversity that was there....There 73 may be a lot of other things you can do to help control the flooding rather than this [the channelization], shew, it’s ugly!”
Interview #7 (R8): “But I know, I understand that typically the diverse animal populations that inhabit a natural, free-flowing river are diminished when it’s channelized.”
Interview #8 (R2): “The channelization adversely affected a large section of river environment. …A landscaped area, with ponds and plantings....”
Interview #8 (R6): “I think the natural habitat has been diminished. The river used to be shaded by those trees. The temperatures were different. Over the course of time pools had developed, and there was a wider variety of fish, obviously more waterfowl because it was a more varied environment. So yes I think the habitat has been detrimentally affected.”
Interview #9 (R1): “In the process they had to go through the beautiful parklands that was then called the Athens Mental Health
Center, which I refer to as the Athens Asylum. It was originally called the Athens Asylum for the Insane. Most of the buildings were up on the hill but the beautiful gardens came down over the hill, and there were about four lakes, hundreds of different species of plants, and beautiful lanes and walks. It was a place used by the people that were in that institution. It was used by the community as a picnic area, a place to walk the children, as place a place to. They used to have boats there, 74 and you could ice skate. It was absolutely gorgeous and I don’t remember anybody complaining about taking them out …I personally don’t think it’s attractive.… …It kind of ruined the beauty of the river because, let’s face it; it looks like a big ditch.”
Interview #9 (R2): “This is not the same place, and people look at me and go, “what do you mean,” and I say, “Look at it” so the thing about the environment being messed up… It’s ugly, it’s ugly! It’s not pretty.
And everybody is up in arms over it, but what it really changed is some of the balance of nature. It had to have been affected by it and we don’t know what. The birds and the fish and flora and the fauna, if you want to use all those terms, were really affected...”
Interview #10 (R1): “My own perception of the channelization is that it is not very aesthetic pleasing. I mean it looks like a ditch running through campus. It looks like a drainage ditch. And when it gets high, it looks like a drainage ditch that has a lot of water.”
Interview #10 (R7): “I guess my first perception of the channelization having moved here after it happened, is that the river looks somewhat just like a drainage ditch…”
Interview #12 (R12): “Because of the rechanneling the river, a large portion of the Athens Mental Health Center grounds, which were really beautiful, there were three lakes that were eliminated in the middle of it. Shaped like a heart and a diamond, and a club, and a spade. The grounds of the mental health center were designed by the same man that 75 did the grounds for Central Park in New York City. I can’t think of his name. But, that was a big loss, that was probably a major loss.”
Interview #12 (R19): “I think would be part of the state hospital down there. I think, to me, that’s the biggest loss. That’s the biggest loss because that was landscaping. But opening up the channel and clearing it, aesthetically, it lost the looks down through the river. Now, you can see farther.”
Interview #12 (R21): “The thing that was sort of bad was the fact that the Athens Mental Health Center property got really done in, it was beautiful. It started where the Visitor’s Center is on campus. The gate to
Athens Mental Hospital was right there and it went up over the hill and in between were all these ponds and it was pretty nice.”
Interview #13 (R4): “We’ve lost the beauty of the river channel.
We’ve lost the beauty of it. Now, it’s what the students call “the ditch” and it’s causing wash and it’s filling up.”
Interview #13 (R15): “[the environment was affected] because they cut all the trees. The channel coming through used to have the great big trees all above it. And there were some fish, but we couldn’t, well, some people fished but you couldn’t eat them.”
Interview #13 (R17): “But, it [channelization] devastated the landscape. It devastated the landscape and the wildlife.”
Interview #13 (R22): “They took the lake, the pretty lake, at the mental health center. My family used to ice skate on them in the winter. 76 And then, we would go when our boys were little, go over there and feed the ducks. It was beautiful, Mr. Gomez, it really was beautiful.”
Interview #13 (R23): “I would say beauty, the natural beauty and wildlife; I would say is the biggest loss [because of the channelization].”
Interview #14 (R7): “I think the environmental component is a problem. I mean, I think, that the Corps of Engineers and the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources and state agencies tend to think of the river as a flood-prone entity and they never talk about the habitat and they never think about other things that could be going on there because all they are worried about is the impact of flooding on development and it’s a pretty narrow view of the river.…They simply only think about floods! They don’t think about the aquatic ecosystem.”
Interview #15 (R5): “Well, yes that’s true [loss of environmental issues].”
Interview #15 (R6): “The Athens State Hospital, former state hospital, later called Athens Mental Health Center, they had beautiful ponds in there, and you’d have picnics out there and it was always so quiet and peaceful. And the people who were residents there mowed it by hand, not with a tractor or power lawn mower, but real type push mowers and everybody was kept busy, which is better than sitting around. It was a beautiful location; one of the most beautiful spots that I can remember. I used to go over lots of times with my parents. We’d have a picnic on the grounds and had ducks swimming. It even had an 77 alligator, a small alligator up there in front of the entrance, the main headquarters of the state hospital at that time. A small alligator in a fountain up there. I remember that.”
Interview #16 (R3): “In conjunction with this, they cut into land at the State Hospital, which was a very large mental hospital at this time, you know. The State Hospital had absolutely beautiful grounds that had been designed by the same man who made Central Park in New York
City. And they had four ponds, one shaped in a diamond, one in a heart, one in a club, and one in a spade, and he had specimen trees from all over the world all through that thing. Well when they moved the river, they put in, they moved the 622 highway and they cut in half that land at the State Hospital. Now the land was absolutely beautiful but it was also used. Kids walked in it, students walked in it. It was beautiful.
There were hills and when we had snow, they used to sleigh ride on it. I used to bird watch over there. It was a wonderful addition to the City of
Athens, to the community of Athens, not just the university but the whole community. … I thought there were other ways around the block and I really very much minded the destruction of the park at the State
Hospital.”
Interview #16 (R18): “I have a small house with an acre or something like that of land around it. I feed birds which I’ve done since ever since we moved to Athens in 1955. I can tell you that the bird population has shrunk considerably. It’s also changed considerably so 78 we don’t have as many accidentals. I used to get 13 or 14 at the little house by the river. I used to get 13 or 14 white-throated sparrows every single solitary day at my feeder and I haven’t seen a white-throated sparrow in I don’t know when. Now I have a pair of titmice, I have chickadees, 3 to 4 chickadees, a nuthatch, a pair of Carolina wrens, and
I have about 13 white crown sparrows that come in addition to a number of cardinals and quite a few house finches. But I used to have many more in number of all these birds. I used to have let’s say 5 or 6 titmice or 5 or 6 chickadees, but as Athens grows and the surroundings are more and more stripped of trees and things, we have fewer, many, many fewer birds coming into the center of town. And I suspect fewer birds… because their habitat is being destroyed. But what I noticed most particularly is that there has been a real change in the kind of bird population.”
Interview #17 (R3): “It had a major effect on the community as far as a loss of aesthetic values. Because it was really pretty, the mental health grounds were. So that [the channelization] took a lot of that away....”
Interview #17 (R15): “The aesthetic value, definitely was lost and
I’m sure because at the time when they did that [the channelization], there was not so much emphasis on wetlands and emphases on birds and wildlife and all of that. Had this been now, there may have been 79 some. People might have fought it more to have kept some of those areas that were a natural environment....”
Interview #17 (R16): “That pretty well did the grounds in as far as the Mental Health Center. Of course, where all the hospitals and all that and the round, Convocation Center, that all used to be farming ground.
I mean that was all gardens where they raised commodities for the institution, and where the golf course is down along the river that was all gardens.”
Interview #18 (R3): “… we lost a lot of trees. There was a tree that we had here that was the largest tree in the state. In the process of moving the river, we lost that tree. It died in the process. So I’m sure that there are habitats, bird habitats. They tried to recreate some, stands that they’ve made for eagles. But they haven’t come back since the river’s been moved. But they were here before. Osprey is another that I think they’ve lost. However, we have a lot of geese that we didn’t have before. So, it’s a trade off in terms of what you gain as opposed to what you lose. It’s really not good, environmentally, in most cases that I know of, to lose habitats. We had a lot of loss of wetland habitats. By channelization, you’re losing wetland habitats. So, yeah, I think there have been some losses because of that. … I think environmentally, it’s… some substantial changes of different habitats.”
Interview #19 (R6): “But the water quality, of the water, through the sewage treatment plants system we have an everything else, people 80 tell me, biologists and such, that the water quality of what was in the
Hocking River is better that it was 50 years ago.
Interview # 21 (R3): “It is basically a large ditch at this point.…”
Interview #24 (R1): “…The associated sedimentation, erosion, the fragility of mussels, fish, and riparian habitats were irreversibly impacted by the channelization.”
Interview #25 (R1): “I came to town, one of the first things, my attention was drawn to was the old State Hospital grounds upon the hill above the river. As I learned more about it, I learned that where the
Hocking River channel is now used to be a botanical garden. It was the
Cutler Botanical Gardens. It was established in 1823, I think, and was a beautiful, beautiful, arboretum, you might say, many lakes and islands, and many what are known as state champion trees, the largest tree of their species in the State of Ohio, and they were right there in the river bottom below the State Hospital grounds on the other side of the Hocking
River from Athens. On Sundays, people used to come to Athens from all over southeastern Ohio to have picnics at this park on the asylum grounds. In the wintertime they would ice skate on the lakes and in the summer they would fish. There was some boating on the lakes. It was a place where there was interaction between the community and the patients in the Mental Health Center, people who had problems with mental disabilities, and so it created a common ground where people could interact with the people with mental health distress. Apparently 81 after a couple of floods, the university got some money from the federal government to channelize the river and in doing so they wiped out the arboretum and the gardens on the State Hospital grounds and as I understand it, there were many neighborhoods down there also.
…this channel is not very inviting. …It’s a ditch and some people refer to it as the ditch. It’s just a way to get water through town. It doesn’t have any of the amenities of a river. It’s bothered me for many, many years that we haven’t approached it and said o.k. let’s, at least, beautify this channel. Let’s plant some trees, and make some little gardens, pocket parks, or whatever, and try to draw the public’s attention back to the stream.”
Interview #25 (R7): “…there’re used to be some bait stores in town where people could go buy their bait so they could fish. Those bait stores are out of business now.”
5.4.2 Discussion
In 19 interviews, which is 76%, both men and women mentioned the negative impact of the channelization on the environment. Six of those noted the aesthetic loss. Three of them said that the channel is unsightly and three more referred to the channel as ugly, while during the course of the interviews several people referred to the channel as a ditch. Ten of the 19 interviewees described the loss of the Mental
Hospital grounds as major, and one referred to the fact that unless a 82 person lived here before the channelization, they could have no conception of what has been lost (Fig. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16). Eight interviewees said that the biodiversity has diminished because of the channelization. One stated that the water quality has dropped, but another believes the channelization has improved the water quality.
Four interviewed people addressed the issue of the loss of very special trees from planted gardens, including the Cutler Botanical
Garden, established in 1823 (Fig.13). Two of them pointed out that the channelization took away trees of species from all over the world, while the others two mentioned removal of state champion trees.
The fact that the Hocking River is referred to as “the ditch” shows how a natural-looking river with wooded banks was turned into a deforested, artificial-looking channel without an easy access to the water. In other words, people’s perception of this channel is no longer the perception of a natural river. People complain about turning the river into a deforested channel. The loss of beautiful sites, such as the river through Athens and the Mental Hospital Grounds, its ponds, the arboretum, the botanical garden, and the walking pathway, appears to have left a sense of sadness in people who remember it. One interviewee said that it was a shame to take it away. Nevertheless, as two of the interviewees expressed, nobody apparently complained about what was being destroyed at the time of the channelization.
83
Fig. 11. Administration building. Athens Mental Health Center. Photographer unknown. (n.d). (Post Card Collection.) Ohio University Libraries.
Not only the beauty of the river and the Mental Hospital Grounds was lost, but also recreational opportunities for the community. Many people regret the loss of the Mental Hospital and its grounds and the significance of that place (Fig. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16) to the community.
The community of Athens, and even people from all over southeastern
Ohio, used to have picnics on the asylum grounds. The asylum (Mental
Hospital) was reportedly the most beautiful of state institutions. The grounds were a popular hangout for university students as well.
84
Fig. 12. Patients of the Mental Hospital working the land. Photographer unknown. (n.d.). [Vertical File Photographs Collection]. Ohio University Libraries.
In the winter, people used to sleigh ride on its snow covered hills and skate on at least one of the ponds (Fig. 13). In the summer, people would fish and boat on the ponds. The Army Corps of Engineers built the channel where the four ponds existed because it was easier to dig the ground through the lakes.
85
Fig. 13. Cutler Botanical Garden. Athens Mental Health Center. Photographer unknown. (n.d.). (Post Card Collection]. Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries.
According to formal and informal interviews before the channelization bait shops (Fig.15) were located near the river. They not only sold bait, but also informed customers about the best bait and the best places to find specific kinds of fish (Anonymous, personal communication, 2005). In addition to this recreation-oriented activity, bird-watching was also curtailed due to habitat loss caused by the channelization. Only two responders specifically mentioned the importance of the riverine ecosystem, which is relevant to the negative impact on the flora and fauna in areas affected by channelization. Since a riverine ecosystem is an integral part of its environment, any change in 86 one of the ecosystem’s variables will affect the environment in general. A
high percentage of the interviewees mentioned individual environmental
losses, such as trees or animals and their habitats, which are part of the
ecosystem but not the global phenomenon of negative impact on the
overall environment. People interviewed for this study believe that the
natural habitat has been detrimentally altered by the channelization of
the Hocking River and that as a result the wildlife has been affected.
Fig. 14. People from Athens Community skating in one of the ponds. Photographer unknown. (n.d.). (Dairy Barn Photographs Collection]. Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries.
87 Without tree cover, river water temperatures changed after
channelization, and this, along with decrease in number of pools, had a
negative impact on fish and waterfowl diversity. The community of
Athens lost a very important functioning river ecosystem and the
ecological benefits of a natural riparian environment.
Fig.15. Bait shop sign on the corner of Central Avenue and Second Street, Athens, Ohio. 06.06.05
F. M. Semans, a member of the Ohio University Botany
Department, began a study in 1955 that was completed by W. G.
Gambill. These investigators listed 69 different kinds of woody plants and 75 different types of vertebrate animals on the hospital grounds
(Semans, 1955), but they admitted that their list was not exhaustive. 88
Fig. 16. Falls No 2. Athens State Hospital. Photographer unknown. (n.d.). (Post Card Collection]. Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries.
Many species may now be gone along with their habitat because of the channelization. Destroying a riparian ecosystem is detrimental to humans because it has implications on the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the landscape, which negatively affect the social and economic aspects of the community.
5.5 Summary
Three main themes emphasizing physical effects of the Hocking
River channelization emerged from the interviews. These themes concern 89 vegetation along the river, changes in the channel capacity and its impact on downstream flooding, and impacts on the physical environment.
Of the people who commented on the subject of vegetation along the channel, most agreed that the sparse vegetation made the river look unnatural. One made the interesting observation that this could give people the wrong impression of what a river should naturally look like.
A large number of interviewees expressed their concern about the decrease in channel capacity and how flooding downstream has been increased after channelization, due to postconstruction sedimentation as well as the constructed capacity being smaller than the design specified.
People disagreed on whether sediment dredged from the channel was a disposal problem or a source of income. It was suggested that the channel could be better maintained to help stabilize or increase the channel capacity. Most of the interviewees who were worried about downstream flooding effects are women, which may show that women are more sensitive to impacts on other people than men are.
Many of the interviewees noted the negative impact of the channelization on the environment. Expressions used to refer to the channel, such as ugly and ditch, illustrate the negative impressions that people have about the channel's aesthetic value. In addition, several interviewees lamented the loss of the Mental Hospital Grounds and the
Cutler Botanical Gardens as a result of the channelization. Like the 90 general loss of vegetation, loss of these maintained gardens is viewed as detrimental to wildlife. 91 Chapter Six - Results: Human-Environment Interaction
6.1 Introduction
Many of the themes that came up in the course of the interviews involve human-environmental interaction. Although there is some overlap between physical and human-environmental issues, the themes in this chapter more directly emphasize socioeconomic concerns expressed by the interviewees.
6.2 Impact of Flood Prevention
6.2.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R7): “It has prevented over 136 flood events since
1972 that would’ve been disastrous to Ohio University.”
Interview #2 (R12): “’67 or ’64 were two years that flooded. They haven’t had flood in here, damage from flood, since they redone the river.
Down below they have, but we haven’t had any floods in this shop since then.”
Interview #3 (R2): “I realize that a lot of money has been saved from flood loss. It does keep out the smaller floods....”
Interview #3 (R4): “…it has prevented all the losses that would have happened for quite a number of floods within the last 30 years.”
92 Interview #3 (R6): “…It has allowed, by keeping out the smaller floods....”
Interview #4 (R2): “I think it was probably at good thing in the fact that it lessens the possibility of the larger floods that had a dramatic impact on this area.”
Interview #4 (R12): “I know that it [the channelization] definitely helped in keeping the floods down around Athens.”
Interview #5 (R2): “My perception is that it has saved a lot of flooding in the community, a lot of flooding in the university area....”
Interview #6 (R1): “Now this right where we’re sitting here looking, it used to get covered with water all the time until they changed the river.
…The river I think helped the university especially. It especially helped them.”
Interview #6 (R4): “And it helped the university a lot, Parks Hall and all those down in there, they don’t get flooded no more.”
Interview #8 (R2): “The channelization obviously was done in an attempt to control floods along the section of the river that flowed through the city. It has been effective in that. We still have had some floods but nothing as intrusive into the neighborhoods as before the channelization.”
Interview #9 (R1): “… so it [channelization] did provide, we have had a number of floods since then, it does provide for protection in the city.” 93 Interview #9 (R2): “…once the property was there, I think that the bad thing was all this stuff was put in there knowing that it was going to affect it. I’m not sure that this is what happened, but it’s another way people live, there is protection of the university area, and people just go off and do anything they want without thinking about how it’s going to affect anybody else. …And I think that the perception here was that, without regard to reality, knowing all of those things were going to happen down there, it was going to flood, they were putting all those things in there that could be ruined, millions of dollars of damage could have been done and knowingly put it in there. Being sure that they would be able to get the river moved and get all this stuff done to protect their property. …it had only to do with protecting the university.”
Interview #10 (R1): “My perception of the channelization is what it was meant to do was actually stopped the flooding on the west side and through campus. In that regard I know it has been successful because since the channelization I don’t think there has been any substantially flooding, especially on campus.”
Interview #12 (R12): “In terms of the university and all of the classes and that kind of thing, there’s a definite benefit because every year we had to put up with that flood water coming down the hill. For people on the wide floodplain, to not have any floods any more was a benefit....” 94 Interview #12 (R21): “But I think, in large, that [channelization] meant a lot for the university and also the city of Athens because it eliminated all of those flooding problems we had every year; not only on the campus but in the neighborhoods surrounding the town and down on East State Street.”
Interview #13 (R3): “Before we found the house on Wordwood, the university had already starting buying property on the floodplain. We were friends with the Director of Housing and he had this empty house off of Richland Ave on the street where the stadium is, just beyond the stadium. He told us we could have it for six months.”
Interview #13 (R4): “We have not had a flood, a big flood, in
Athens since the river was moved.”
Interview #13 (R20): “I was at this banquet thing. The chairman of the Ohio University trustees said, it wasn’t exactly the Martin Luther
King ‘I have a dream’ but it was, someday, we will have the channel changed. That was in maybe 1962. Then, slowly, very quietly for a long time, they were buying up land. And, if it was known that the state’s going to do something here, the value of the land, well, the price of the land, not necessarily the value, would go up tremendously and so it was very quietly done for some time.”
Interview #14 (R1): “I think it [channelization] has been positive in that it’s saved people from the minor inconvenience of 10 and 15 and 16- year floods....” 95 Interview #16 (R3): “So when they decided to move the river, I felt there is no point except for the university wanted to put buildings in the riverbed and put more dormitories so they could enlarge the population of the university. And that seemed to me to be the only reason for doing it in the first place I’m not sure I believe in great big, huge, universities…but anyway, I minded losing my property.”
Interview # 17 (R3): “… I think it [channelization] added to the community as far as flooding.”
Interview # 18 (R1): “Reducing flooding is not a bad thing.”
Interview # 18 (R4): “I think it [channelization] has created a relatively stable situation in terms of flooding.”
Interview #18 (R7): “But, I have to say, I think it has created safer conditions for the university because of the lack of flooding.”
Interview # 19 (R4): “the project was built for and to maintain and for everything say above a 50-year flood.”
Interview #20 (R4): “It’s [channelization] done a lot for the values of the properties on the east end of Athens, even on Union Street where they used to have problems with flooding.”
Interview #20 (R5): “It primarily went through university property,
It went through, where the old south bridge is. There was no home that was all university property.”
Interview #20 (R7): “…that happened a couple times and it would affect the university. The main reason they rechannelized that, the 96 whole green structure down around the Convocation Center and all that area, it had to be under water.”
Interview #22 (R2): “Mostly it has been a help to the community to stop the floods, which were once very prevalent. That was the main purpose of it.”
Interview #22 (R7): “And the university took full advantage of it by adding to their south green.”
Interview #22 (R8): “The channelization is not only to straighten the river but it kept the floods within the banks of the river.”
Interview #23 (R2): “No longer did we have the catastrophic floods that we used to have that damaged so many people’s homes and university property as well.”
Interview #24 (R1): “It did reduce flooding.”
Interview #25 (R1): “So it doesn’t stop flooding, it just relocates the flood.
Interview #25 (R9): “And plus they took it out the edge of town. I think part of it was, you know, the university wanted to reclaim more land so they could build more things on the floodplain.”
6.2.2 Discussion
Seven women and 12 men in 19 (76%) of the 25 interviews believe that the channelization helps to protect against floods. Two of the 19 noted that the channelization only protects against small floods. Eight 97 interviewees characterized the channelization as enabling Ohio
University expansion and protecting its investment on the floodplain. Of these eight people, one implied that the channelization was more helpful to Ohio University than to other entities, another described Ohio
University as taking advantage of the channelization, while a third implied that the channelization was done just because the university wanted more land.
Even though most people think that the channelization has helped to control flooding, they also think that that control is not perfect. One interviewee clearly asserted that the channelization does not eliminate flooding, it just relocates the flooding. Another expressed that it is impossible to eliminate flooding, and that the channelization was completed instead to reduce flooding.
The channel has protected the Ohio University campus, as three of the interviewees said, and as originally constructed it apparently protected only against 50 year floods and smaller. However, over time, the channel protection level has decreased because of sedimentation
(Hatton, 1999). The extent of flow onto the floodplain that used to represent a 50 year flood can now be accomplished with much less rainfall, and thus with greater frequency (Hatton, 1999). Fig. 6 shows the flooding of January 7, 2005, which crested at 7.22 meter (23.7 ft), and which was just over the 20 year flood return interval, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers (2005). The US Geological Survey rated 98 the January 7, 2005 event a 7 year flood frequency, based on a discharge of 523.86 cubic meter/sec (18,500 ft3/sec), and not the crest height
(Hocking Conservancy District, personal communication, June 23, 2005).
In other words, if a 20-year event flooded East Street around Wal-Mart, a major event will severely flood the surrounding areas. Therefore, the channelization does not, or no longer, completely protects the city of
Athens.
Channelizing the Hocking River was originally envisaged in 1962 by Ohio University President Vernon R. Alden (McCabe, 1999). Ohio
University may have started to work toward the realization of that plan in the early 1960s. One interviewee believes that planning for the channelization project so many years in advance may have made it possible for Ohio University to take advantage of acquiring land that would be accessible for development before others knew about the project. According to an informal interview many people worked toward the channelization project after its conception (Anonymous, personal communication, July 19, 2005). One interviewee added that the fact that the university invested a fortune constructing on the floodplain before channelization reflects that the university felt confident that the channel would be constructed.
As noted by two participants, the university’s subsequent expansion would not have been possible had the flooding situation been managed in a different manner, such as by leaving the river alone and 99 moving the families in jeopardy out of the floodplain. If that had been the case, Athens would still have the natural river and could handle the flood situation like other communities. An example of this is the approach that Amesville, Ohio (Fig. 17), has followed. After a serious flooding episode in 1998, Amesville authorities demolished some houses and created a park instead of channelizing the river (Fig.17). Today
Amesville has a river and a park, and very little risk of flood damage, as pointed out by one of the interviewees. The town received federal and state assistance to buy and raze properties. The fact that the village owns the land and is expected to keep it as permanent open space was expressed in a formal, as well as in an informal, interview.
Two interviewees lamented that because of the channelization construction project a few people from the community of Athens lost
their homes, but everyone lost the river. Suffering both losses was
unnecessary, for once the houses were demolished and people were
moved out, theoretically nobody was in danger. However, by
channelizing the river and moving it to the far side of the valley away
from the university, the university was not only protected, but was also
able to expand farther onto the floodplain. 100 1 2
3 4
Fig. 17. Gifford Park, Amesville, OH. 06.06.05
Two interviewees lamented that because of the channelization construction project a few people from the community of Athens lost their homes, but everyone lost the river. Suffering both losses was unnecessary, for once the houses were demolished and people were moved out, theoretically nobody was in danger. However, by channelizing the river and moving it to the far side of the valley away 101 from the university, the university was not only protected, but was also able to expand farther onto the floodplain.
6.3 Economic Development
6.3.1. Responses
Interview #1 (R12): “Have we lost anything? No, we’ve gained more than we’ve lost. The re-channelization opened up property that can be and has been developed by the university. They’ve been allowed to expand buildings, albeit the buildings they’ve constructed are built about one foot above the 100 year flood frequency to protect them against a damaging flood. The east end of Athens has commercial development down there. There’s Wal-Mart and Lowe’s. Quite a few different, probably 50, stores have been allowed to be constructed because of the reduced flooding.”
Interview #1 (R13): “It [channelization] has offered a lot of economic development, especially the east end.”
Interview #3 (R2): “It [channelization] does keep out the smaller floods and I am sure it has saved lots of money but my approach would be more to maybe get people moved out of the floodplain, which is, a more difficult problem long term to deal with. But I think if you can do that you’ve got a more stable economic base and a more stable society.” 102 Interview #3 (R5): “I think that with a healthy river through town, I think that could have been much more of an economic asset especially with the surge in tourism and what have you. I think even businesses could have been built, elevated high enough, to take advantage of beauty of the river.”
Interview #3 (R6): “By keeping out the smaller floods, it
[channelization] allows for economic activity to go uninterrupted by the smaller floods. Whereas the parking lots would be flooded more, there would be more of that type of nuisance thing more than serious damage.
I don’t think it’s had that big of an effect on the economic development just because the standards are there for a flood that’s so big the project would be overwhelmed by floodwaters.”
Interview #5 (R6): “The land that was here [East State Street] before was, as I understand it, an airport. It would not have been functional at times because of floods, so I guess it’s made the property worth something and it’s really helped. I believe this whole area that is being built up is really helping the economics, and keeping people in
Athens to shop versus leaving the community. As far as Athens, the tax base, and things like that, I think it is good for them.”
Interview #7 (R5): “There’s a lot of good economic development because of the channelization. Might it have been possible to have economic development without the channelization? I think so.” 103 Interview #7 (R7): “Land on the floodplain became more valuable so there is more investment and more economics. The land along the floodplain after channelization became higher in value.”
Interview #9 (R4): “Those hills being cut away and all that development out there, if the river hadn’t been moved it wouldn’t have taken place like that. … It opened up this possibility to develop and have all these national chains where before when it was going to flood and the roads weren’t very big, you had businesses which had a little more character I think.”
Interview #9 (R5): “It [channelization] permitted the university to grow much too large for the area they’re in.”
Interview #10 (R4): “A lot of the development that’s been able to go on in Athens is because of the channelization. I know some of the development has been on the floodplain. I don’t think in the flood way.
That may or may not have been able to have been done if we had not moved the river.”
Interview #13 (R5): “Financially [the channelization], yes, because we don’t have floods which cost us thousands of dollars.”
Interview #13 (R18): “Economically it cost millions in flood damage, and they were able to build West Green.”
Interview #13 (R20): “Economically, it has allowed Athens to grow tremendously.” 104 Interview #16 (R10): “The center of town was right here on Court
Street and almost everybody I know walked in that center of town, going to hardware, five and ten cents stores, to department stores. Once or twice a week, you saw everybody that you knew. You could bank on meeting people that you know. So for me it was a much greater sense of community because of the set of that center of town.
Interview #17 (R18): “As far as the businesses and the university and stuff like that, it helped immensely because it saved a lot of flooding.”
Interview #18 (R2): “Development of the Wal-Mart area and Kroger is only possible because of the channelization.”
Interview #19 (R3): “…the growth in Athens from a commercial district standpoint is what really happened on East State Street....”
Interview #21 (R3): “Since then, development has taken place and will continue to take place.... The development of Ohio University and commercial development that has taken place is irreversible. There are a great number of people that would like to reverse that trend.”
Interview #21 (R4): “The channelization brought in a new attention to the role the river plays, to the role that surface water plays, the role that storm water prevention plays, and the channelization has guided some redevelopment, or guided some development afterwards, where if the channelization hadn’t taken place, I don’t know if development would have happened.” 105 Interview #23 (R2): “It’s had an economic impact in terms of not destroying public and private property.”
Interview #24 (R1): “I do not think that people recognize the importance of functioning river ecosystems to the Athens or regional economy or to public health and well being. …The channel is underutilized ecologically, socially, and economically. Many public dollars are spent mostly just to mow it every week.”
Interview #25 (R9): “I think those things [big stores] are not beneficial to a small community anyway. Because for Wal-Mart to be successful, they have to bring in semitruckload after semitruckload after semitruckload of stuff that came from someplace else that was packaged someplace else. Locally we have to go in there and buy all that stuff. We have to rip the packages off and throw all that stuff away and go get more and more and more while the money, which we earn here, goes to them and it leaves town. So the money leaves but the garbage stays. I don’t care how many jobs they create. In the long run, I don’t think that’s good for the community and I think it puts small businesses out of operation. Several businesses have shut down since they came to town.
I don’t think that’s a good thing, and on top of the fact that they are built on the floodplain, that just makes it worse. I think they [authorities] should have said “no,” you can’t build on the floodplain and then the town would be better off. The floodplain would still be open and small businesses would still be serving the needs of the local community. 106 …they like to say they sell stuff cheaper but the costs are greater. We just don’t pay them up front in the short term. We pay Wal-Mart’s cost in the long run and other areas, people working in sweatshops in third world or developing countries. There’re not getting paid for their honest day’s work and I think that is all part of the equation. If you look at all the places that have been built on the floodplain down there they are all big old national franchises. They are not for the benefit of the community. They take the money away, so I’d just as soon see wildflowers grown down there and, have to go to the stores and the restaurants that were already here. I think we could do far more with less if we had to. This town grew, and the best parts of this town were built when there weren’t any Wal-Marts. Since Wal-Mart is here there have been no great improvements to the community. The best parts of this town predated all that fast food and franchise stuff. So in other words, it’s not necessary to have that stuff to have a thriving economy.”
Interview #25 (R11): “I don’t see Athens as being as good of a community as when I arrived here 25 years ago with all of the changes they’ve made, highways and big businesses and everything else. It was a more attractive community. If I came to Athens today, as a new person, I might stay for my education, and I would more likely leave…The neighborhoods they are just letting them go. They are rentals and it’s just a place to make money. It’s not a place to raise a family. It’s a place 107 to make money. Seventy-five percent of Athens is rental units. It’s not a community any more; it’s an expanded dormitory.”
6.3.2 Discussion
In 15 interviews, five women and ten men referred to economic development resulting from the channelization. Eleven (73%) of the 15 interviewees described Athens and Ohio University as having experienced economic growth due to the channelization. Four, however, referred to economic development only in terms of money saved by not having floods. Three of the 15 interviewees brought up the question of whether or not Athens would have experienced economic growth if the channelization had not been done. Two felt that the development and economic growth would have occurred in any case, while one was not sure. One man and one woman asserted that a healthy river ecosystem
would have a positive economic effect for the community by
making it a more attractive place to visit.
108
Fig. 18. Kroger unloading area, East State Street, Athens, OH. 06.17.05
Fig. 19. Wal-Mart unloading area, East State Street, Athens, OH. 06.17.05
109 People in two interviews voiced the opinion that the large national franchise stores (Fig. 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22) that have been built on the
Hocking River floodplain along East State Street as a result of the channelization are, in fact, not an economic benefit to the community.
They noted that these franchise stores have put locally owned business out of operation and that most of the profits earned by the franchises leave town. Packaging materials from products sold by the chains, however, must be disposed of locally and this costs the community money (Fig. 20). Two interviewees believe that those businesses have caused Athens to lose some of its attractive character and sense of community. Most people living in the community rent, which suggests to two interviewees that this is just a place to make money, and not a good place to raise a family. Since 75% of Athens is made up of rental units, it can be thought of as an expanded dormitory, and not a stable community. 110 1 2
Fig. 20. Packing material stay in Athens. Picture 1 is Wal-Mart. Picture 2 is Lowe’s. Both are on East State Street, Athens, OH.
Fig. 21. Wal-Mart’s sign: We Sell For Less, East State Street, Athens, OH. 08.09.05
111 1 2
3 4
5
Fig. 22. National franchises, East State Street, Athens, OH. 06.16.05
112 6.4 Development on the Floodplain
6.4.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R10): “Should be or can be? Parts of it can be developed, as long as no encroachment upon the flood control projects in the floodplain affects flow.”
Interview #1 (R17): “…people have a sense of security more so than before, naturally. Sometimes I call it a false sense of security because there have been no floods since the project was constructed in
1972, 35 years ago, and we hope we never have a flood.”
Interview #2 (R31): “And it [flood water] was all over where they are going to build a new Senior Citizen Center and clear down. They even had it out down below Wal-Mart. They had the road closed down there.”
Interview #2 (R32): “They’re building that new building right in the old river bed right now.”
Interview #2 (R33): “You see that big crane? See that’s the old river bed right there.
Interview #2 (R35): “…it’s dangerous going through there [the old riverbed].
Interview #3 (R3): “I think the floodplain in Athens has to be used.
If it’s going to be used I think the building should be brought into compliance with the 100-year floodplain level…” 113 Interview #3 (R6): “A lot people don’t think they will ever be flooded because we have that project, and I don’t think that’s good. It sets up false hope.”
Interview #3 (R7): “We have been lucky to have been spared a really big flood, the big flood that will put people at risk. The nuisance floods really wouldn’t put people at risk. It would just be a nuisance. It would be a cleanup headache because they would have mud in their basement or something. When we really have the big flood, that’s when more people will be at risk and the channelization won’t do anything to help that. I really think a lot of people just have the wrong idea that it’s safer because of that. …if you have a flooded road even from a smaller flood event there is always a risk somebody could drown....”
Interview #4 (R9): “I think they have to take into account the 100- floodplain and that’s a serious issue.”
Interview #6 (R5): “…it [the floodplain] should belong to everyone.”
Interview #7 (R2): “They channeled just about everything thinking they were controlling floods and oblivious to the fact is that it is going to flood more in the long run and you are going to reduce the biodiversity and all that kind of stuff.”
Interview #7 (R3): “…it [the channelization] should have been managed differently from the start. There may be a lot of other things you can do to help control the flooding rather than, shew, its ugly!! They 114 got a nice bike path but the river is basically ugly now. It should be meandering; there should be giant trees around. You shouldn’t build your buildings on the floodplain anyway.
Interview #7 (R4): “The floodplain is where not only the water comes up every once in awhile and you can’t stop it but a lot of animals live. Oxygen is exchanged for the impurities that are dumped in the river in Lancaster and in Logan and Nelsonville. A wetland where they would circulate amongst little grassy islands and that kind of thing would be a wonderful way to purify the water. And have the birds and the animals, have a place right here. I don’t think floodplains should be developed. I understand that people have to live somewhere. And if you live in the hills, then you’re getting in a slip-prone land. There’s an art. It’s a difficult subject but people should be able to routinely just build anything on the floodplain is crazy and you should routinely be able to bring in a bunch of soil and rock and build it up. That too is unwise because you’re just making it worse downstream and you don’t know if someday your little platform isn’t during a flood isn’t going to crumble and your building will be destroyed anyway. So, it seems like a bad idea to me.”
Interview #7 (R6): “People are lulled into a false sense of security about the channelization thinking it will never flood anymore. When it finally does we can only hope that this building and others that are built 115 on the floodplain that the foundations aren’t washed away. It will flood again some day it’s just a matter of when.”
Interview #8 (R3): “…families and businesses have been encouraged by the lack of frequent flooding to invest a lot of money in areas that before were marginal… because everybody knows that they flooded.”
Interview #8 (R8): “…because of the channelization and the significant lessening of flooding problems, behavior of people has been to move closer, to move buildings closer to the riverbank than would maybe have happened before. Sure there were houses built close to the river, but everybody knew that they might get flooded and there was a danger that they might get destroyed. Today people have moved closer with the anticipation that that flooding would never happen. As the last five years have shown with the large flood events that we have had that risk is still there. I am beginning to see a lot more anxiety among these people who have moved closer to the floodplain. I do see changes in behavior because of the channelization, changes in how people perceive the flooding possibilities. It’s taken another turn, as I see it, in the last five years. It just wasn’t part of the things they worried about as they moved into these areas. They assumed it was never going to flood again, that the channelization had removed that threat. But because of a lot of events it has become clear that the threat has been lessened 116 tremendously but it has not been removed, so anxiety is beginning to build about it.”
Interview #9 (R1): “There has been all these questions and controversy about building in the flood way or the floodplain, and nobody knows where’s the flood way and the floodplain. They get values confused about what’s what. People who come to the Planning Commission about the river say well you shouldn’t allow anything to build in there. But the law is written in such a way that if people follow the current law, it wouldn’t allow for building in those areas. You can’t say to them “no.”
Every letter of the law, it is very difficult to just say no to them. You have to have some legal basis in which to say you can’t do that. Because if somebody says I don’t like it, is not a legal reason for not doing it. If that were a good reason I would have to stop some places from being built, because I’d be voting against it. I’d say I don’t like it, the way it looks.”
Interview #9 (R5): “…what do we have out there? [on the floodplain]. We have an apartment complex in there, the library.
Everyone is complaining about the senior citizen thing. We have the library, we have Bob Evans…”
Interview #10 (R5): “I think in Athens, if you are going to have any development, it’s going to be on the floodplain or the flood fringe, because there is really no other flat land available for any type of development.
Interview #11 (R14): “It was my husband’s choice [to construct a house on the floodplain]. His family owned about 3 or 4 acres. Like I 117 said, we were very young. We didn’t have any money to buy property, which is what I wanted to do. Save up the money, buy property, high and dry. He wanted to build a house right away. I said o.k. I gave in.
You know, in ’68 even he was sorry, three years later.
Interview #12 (R7): “…I don’t think people who were not here in
1964 or ’68 realize or pay attention to what that river can do. The university even has, in my opinion, made some mistakes from the standpoint of not recognizing enough. Using the West Green as an example, those all used to be garages on the ground floor and slowly but surely the buildings were converted from dormitories, or most of them, to classroom buildings like the College of Osteopathic Medicine went into a couple of them. The College of Engineering went into one of them and then, I forget who it was, went into Wilson Hall. But what they did was, since the river had been relocated, they put all kinds of computer rooms and all kinds of really expensive equipment like x-ray, big x-ray machines, all that kind of stuff, down in these basements. One of these years, that 100 year flood is going to hit that.”
Interview #13 (R9): “And that you see is one of these businesses of being secure because flooding or not flooding is one of the parts of contention about the retirement home being built at the end of Stimson.
The retirement home people and the people who want the retirement home are saying “Oh, it won’t increase the flooding at all.” The people who live on Ferry Island, that little round street, I’ve seen flooded, 118 and the end of Stimson, lower Morris Ave., all the way over, they’re saying “We don’t know!” And so, there’s a fight…some of them are fighting it because they think that it will affect the flooding.”
Interview #13 (R12): “[I don’t think the floodplain should be developed] because it floods.”
Interview #14 (R1): “My perception personally is that it has given the people who live in this area a false sense of security about the floodplain. I think many have flood insurance because they are mandated to do so by the bank. Other people have had to build their houses up a little bit, but I think that a very common idea is that it’s not, that flooding is no longer a problem in this area.”
Interview #14 (R5): “I think it’s going to be a hard sell not to use the fringe, at least the upper fringe, but I think the flood way, absolutely
[should]not [be developed].”
Interview #15 (R6): “Well, that’s questionable [to develop on the floodplain]. We have had flooding since then [the channelization], not in the city but in the area where they want to put the retirement center.
Now the retirement center is located in what is called a floodplain and it has flooded. Water never came up into the city but on the edges of it there right where they wanted to build it. I was hoping at the time that the retirement village could be situated on the former Athens State
Hospital grounds, also known as the Mental Health Center. It was vacant for many years and Ohio University took it over. They are using it 119 all for Ohio University but that would have been a beautiful place for the retirement center.”
Interview #16 (R6): “No! No! [to development on the floodplain]
Well because, in the first place, it’s interfering with the natural force of the river and we don’t fully understand those things.”
Interview #18 (R2): “I know where they’re proposing to build this retirement/nursing care home on East Stimson, which is a part that has been channelized.”
Interview #18 (R5): “I think it should be very limited. We should not generally be building on the floodplain. The more they build on the floodplain, the worse problems they’re going to create, the higher the probability that they’re going to go back to those floods. One of the reasons we moved the river was to get it away from the developed areas, to get out of the university. And now the university is building back onto the floodplain. They put the new hospital out there. It’s the state, not just the university; the state of Ohio is doing it too. …the O’Bleness
Hospital… they got all that on East State Street out here, Kroger, Wal-
Mart, all that development. Sure, they lifted the level of building so that it is now above the hundred level, 100 year flood level. But, if you keep doing that, and there’s a really big flood, the water is going to rise with that. So, in one sense, it’s just narrowing the amount of land that the water can spread out over. And the more we do that, the higher the probability that we may see a flood out there. So, I think it’s too easy to 120 build on the floodplain right now, I don’t approve of building here. I think that the university is taking the wrong attitude; they shouldn’t be doing that.”
Interview #18 (R7): “I think it has created safer conditions for the university because of the lack of flooding. On the other hand, I think we have to be cautious about that attitude and saying we don’t have to worry about flooding anymore because the more we build here; the worse we’re going to have it. There will be a higher possibility that we’re going to have flooding. And, because parking lots increase the run off and that raises the water faster, there’s a higher flood probability.”
Interview #19 (R2): “And all that study came out with was that if we get the 100 year flood, we will some day, we are going to have millions and millions of dollars in damage throughout the city because the channelization, although it offers a degree of protection is not a 100 year flood channelization. It is more like a 50 in most areas and 70 in some others and then there is an issue of silting that we have talked about off and on for a number of years and some hydrologists say that when we have the big one all of that silt will get washed away, scour itself out but that does not help you a whole lot when you are in the middle of the 100 year one. Maybe it will happen before that.”
Interview #19 (R4): “…we are going to have some flood damage. So that only rules out 50% of the possibility, so yeah, you feel more secure
50% of the time and you don’t know what the odds are. You could go 121 another 50 years and never have a 100-year flood. It could happen next year or next month, but we are not protected for that.”
Interview #19 (R5): “I think we just don’t have an alternative.
Interview #20 (R7): “You go down onto the OU golf course you will see on the 7th hole and 8th hole, you will see huge cottonwoods like where the riverbank used to be and you can see where the university is building. They are building a building almost in the old river bottom.”
Interview #20 (R8): “The river always, if you look at the history of what they had to know, they always try to go back to the original level, or channel…”
Interview #20 (R9): “You could still have a large flood and we haven’t had that to that effect since the river has been rechanneled. And that the naysayer will say, and it could happen and the people don’t have, who haven’t had issues for thirty some years might have issues.
But the thing was designed not for a 100-year flood, it was designed a little bit lower than a hundred flood so is there a false sense of security?”
Interview #20 (R10): “there are regulations and guidelines that your floodplain administrator is charged with doing, if they are doing something.”
Interview #21 (R6): “…it should be developed [floodplain] according to regulations. 122 Interview #22 (R13): “I thought the university did very poor planning because they did not use that right of way for an access road to their own facilities. Instead, they made parking lots out of it, which only adds to the problem. In the planning, I think the university is more at fault than anybody else.”
Interview #24 (R1): “I also worry that channelization creates a false sense of security that the Hocking River will not flood. It will someday.
But people continue to fill in and build in the floodplain and tempt fate.”
Interview #24 (R6): “I think that OU is stretching the intended purpose of this land. It was set aside as part of the flood protection projects as floodplain. It should not be developed.”
Interview #24 (R7): “It [the floodplain] should not be filled or developed.”
Interview #24 (R12): “There are ways to flood-proof buildings and detain stormwater to reduce flooding’s most serious effects. Perhaps we should be looking at those and, of course, stop building on the floodplain.”
Interview #25 (R2): “The flood of last January flooded East State
Street. If we got more water, it may have flooded more neighborhoods that, you know, that only get wet during the really severe floods and those homes might still be in jeopardy. And then, of course, since they built the channel then they built the hospital and the new Mental Health
Center right on the bank of the river channel, so if it does flood, this time 123 it will flood the hospital and a mental health institution and you know, some other things. I think open space is a good use of floodplain land.
They are talking about building a senior retirement in the floodplain so you know without knowing for sure whether that flood channel is actually going to protect the community when the flood comes that was designed to protect it against, they are just increasing the development.
If they don’t dredge the channel between now and whenever that flood comes, you know, I think there is a real big question about whether it will protect the community. So, I won’t say that’s its not going to protect the community, but I’m not going to say that it is. I think it is a big question and I don’t ever hear anybody talk about it. That’s dangerous to have a perception of security because the river was channelized. Whether it’s being maintained or not most people don’t think about that. Most people don’t even know that it’s supposed to be maintained!”
Interview #25 (R2): “And so they feel a sense of security, and nothing like lulling people into a sense of security when maybe or maybe not, they’re secure. I don’t know. So it remains to be seen.”
Interview #25 (R3): “I understand the desire to develop and to build but it’s not called a floodplain for nothing. The river made that floodplain; the river has flooded that floodplain for tens of thousands of years. What makes us think that we are so secure in our plans that we can develop there and be safe about it? You know we can get away with 124 it for a hundred years maybe. Maybe more, but somebody is going to pay that cost some day.
I think that we should be following the designs of nature. Nature has laid out the plan, and floodplains belong to the river. I think we should do everything we can to leave them that way and the uses we should have in the floodplain are for recreation and farming. You could park some cars if you want to because you can drive them out of there. If you lose a car, it’s not the same as losing your home or your business.
But I really think that we should keep the important pieces of our community up out of harm’s way.”
6.4.2 Discussion
Almost all of the interviews (88%) included comments about development that has occurred on the Hocking River floodplain since the river was channelized. While six people clearly stated their view that the floodplain should not be developed, one questioned the practice, three said that the floodplain should be developed under regulation, and three accepted the notion of building on the floodplain because the land is cheap, available, or community-owned.
One-third of the survey participants mentioned that the channelization creates a false sense of security. A few noted that the 100 year flood, which the channel cannot hold, will occur someday. There was some concern that Athens was not prepared for that 100 year flood. 125 Six interviewees specifically expressed their apprehension about construction of the Senior Citizen Center (Fig. 23 and Fig. 24), with one of them commenting in that connection about a misunderstanding of what the floodplain and floodway are. Participants were especially concerned because the proposed center would place elderly people almost right at the river edge. In addition, three interviewees believe that this Senior Citizen Center will increase the flooding downstream because of the expansion of pavement on the floodplain.
Three people consider it a mistake for Ohio University to build on the floodplain and to install expensive and sophisticated equipment in the basement of buildings on the floodplain. One found it ironic that Ohio
University and Athens are now building close the channelized river, since the channelization project physically moved the river away from buildings as a flood-protection measure. Two interviewees mentioned current construction by Ohio University in the original river bed while another explained that rivers always try to go back to their original channels.
The desire to develop and to build on the floodplain can be understood because of the lack of other land around the university for expansion, and because of economic reasons. Nevertheless, as one of the people interviewed said, the river made that floodplain, and it has flooded that floodplain for tens of thousands of years. There is no guarantee that the river will not flood this floodplain again. The development on the 126 floodplain is a very controversial topic because Athens is a hilly region and there is little flat land available in town not on the floodplain. On the other hand, Athens is getting more prone to flooding as the channel capacity is decreasing. Development on the floodplain and in the surrounding watershed continues to increase. All construction on the floodplain raises the hazard of flooding. As the extent of concrete, pavement, and other impermeable construction materials increases on the floodplain, so too does the flooding hazard. Rooftops, avenues, sidewalks, and parking lots enhance the amount of and the speed with which water enters the channel. In the 37 years since the channel was constructed, people have built more houses, driveways, and buildings out in the watershed as well as on the floodplain of the Hocking River through Athens. If Athens is affected by a phenomenon like those in
1964 or 1968, there will be more water moving faster into the channel and the channel does not have the capacity to carry that volume of water
(Hatton, 1999). This could cause a terrible flood affecting the university buildings and the lower parts of town. Few people are probably prepared for that. The flood of last January, which flooded East State Street
(Fig.6), was only a 20 year flood but is a sample of what the 50 year or larger flood will be.
127
Fig. 23. Location where is the Senior Citizen Center is supposed to be constructed, Athens, OH. 05.28.05.
Fig. 24. Location where is the Senior Citizen Center is supposed to be constructed, Athens, OH. 6.06.05
128 If building on the floodplain is so controversial because of the risk of flooding even though the river is channelized, building in the river bed itself could be even worse because the river might try to resume its old course, as expressed in one of the interviews. Three of the interviewees mentioned that Ohio University officials may someday regret some university decisions due to the flood hazard inherent in building on the floodplain and in the abandoned river channel.
As addressed by Hatton (1999) and Roberge (2002) as well as some of the interviewees, it is dangerous to have a perception of security just because the river is channelized. Interviewees fear that people have become so accustomed to construction on the floodplain that they do not think about its influence on the flood hazard. Most people living in
Athens today are not old enough to remember the major floods in Athens during the 1960s and probably do not know what catastrophic floods are like at all.
6.5 Channel Would Not Be Feasible Today
6.5.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R14): “If this project was to be constructed today, it wouldn’t be anything like this.” 129 Interview #3 (R2): “I understand the costs and the benefits of this type of thing but a project like that couldn’t be done today with the laws that we have and I think that’s probably a good thing.”
Interview #4 (R3): “However, I don’t think in today’s society that the public let it be built today. I think that it came along at a time where it could be done, but I question whether that same thing could be done today.”
Interview #4 (R10): “I think today probably the Corp of Engineers and the state maybe would have been forced to give the public additional options. Whereas back then I don’t think those agencies felt the pressure to give the public the options. I think they just did what they thought had to be done the easiest and least expensive way and did it.
Interview #7 (R2): “This is historic information you probably already know about. Two big giant floods in the 60s that really made people angry enough to want to do that. And today you would never get that kind of a project approved. It would never be done today. What I know about channelization is it’s hardly ever done anymore, but for a long time, especially what I would think of as a post World War II era, it was thought to be God’s gift to the human race. They channeled just about everything thinking they were controlling floods and oblivious to the fact its going to flood more in the long run, you are going to reduce the biodiversity and all that kind of stuff. So they don’t do it much anymore, if any. Athens happened to have two big floods right during 130 the heyday of channelization. So when the main tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer lot of problems look like nails.”
Interview #7 (R8): “It’s interesting now to see a growing consensus among people that you talk to that there was a lot of beauty destroyed.
That they would never get it done now. if they proposed to do the same thing now it would not be funded, it would not be approved. It’s interesting to see that, we were just a part of an era when the Army
Corps of Engineers could just come in and do that kind of thing whenever they wanted to. And everybody thought that’s good, it’s progress. You know they’re still taming the wild. Maybe it was a last little bit of taming the wild Americans have always wanted to do. I think there is a growing concern since it would have been nice to still have those ponds out there and your animals and your air quality. Lots of other things are better if you don’t fool with your rivers. You have to learn somethings the hard way, and that’s one of them.”
Interview #8 (R2): “I think that this is a process, I hope that this is a process, that would not be allowed to happen today. I think we’re smarter today and realize that sure the flood protection is important, but it could be addressed in other ways. The channelization adversely affected a large section of river environment.”
Interview #8 (R5): “I’m convinced that in today’s world, concern for the environment, steps could have been taken to lessen flooding without channelizing.” 131 Interview #12 (R12): “If the university or the Corps of Engineers tried to do that today, they’d never get away with it. Because of the re- channeling the river, a large portion of the Athens Mental Health Center grounds, which were really beautiful, there were three lakes, were eliminated in the middle of it.”
Interview #14 (R6): “I think it is pretty clear that the Corps of
Engineers and FEMA, with the laws that were passed in 1973 and onward about floodplain management, are just not going to allow this to happen again.”
6.5.2 Discussion
The channelization is something that belongs to the past. Seven interviewees (28%), mostly men, noted that it would be impossible to construct an artificial channel like this today because of current regulations. In addition, people in general are more aware of the importance of keeping the environment as natural as possible.
6.6 Disconnection with the Surrounding Environment
6.6.1 Responses
Interview #3 (R8): “…talk to older people or people that lived here then, they could see the before and after [the channelization], but most folks, today unless you’re kind of ecologically literate, don’t even know 132 it’s channelized, would be my guess. They just say “oh yeah, that’s the river,” and they don’t know what different types of river systems are. I would guess the vast majority of people don’t think of it one way or the other to be honest with you.”
Interview #9 (R1): “…I think there are some people who probably live in the community who don’t even know the name of the river that goes through here.”
Interview #10 (R7): “I guess my first perception of the channelization having moved here after it happened, is other than that the river looks somewhat just like a drainage ditch, I probably wouldn’t have known it was moved without someone informing me that it had happened since I wasn’t here prior to that.”
Interview #25 (R1): “I think about these things and I have a background, where I look at things from a perspective where I think about the connections and the effects. And unfortunately, I think most people, when they are going from point A to point B when they are enroute the only thing they really notice is their destination. They don’t see the things that are happening between point A and point B and so old historic buildings or forests can be cut down but they’re just headed to their destination and they don’t seem to be as aware or notice as much of their environment. I think a lot of people come to Athens and spend four years here as a student and they never even think about the fact that that’s a channel and it’s not a river. They don’t even question 133 it. It’s just there. They may run along the bike path or roller skate along the bike path but they don’t think much about it. They don’t connect with it at all.”
6.6.2 Discussion
Four interviewees, one woman and three men, addressed the theme of people being disconnected from their surrounding environment, and illustrated this by describing people's lack of awareness of the channelized river through Athens. They believe that some residents do not even know the river's name and that others would not notice that it is channelized through town.
6.7 Attitudes toward the Bike Path
6.7.1 Responses
Interview #1 (R11): “It allows them a lot more freedom, especially the bicycle path, the walk path, that was constructed, which is about 6 miles long now. That’s used heavily by people - joggers and walkers.”
Interview #2 (R44): “I was walking the bike path this year, after this last flood we had, and you can look across there, and the river washed channel over there where they scooped that dirt out.”
Interview #7 (R7): “The one changeable good thing is the bike path. I use the bike path all the time. I run on it and I ride my bike. It 134 is a wonderful asset to the region. They could have had a nice bike path even without channelizing the river. If they could have found ways to minimize flood damage without channelizing, it would have been better.”
Interview #8 (R5): “People run along the bike path beside it [the channel] but seldom do you see people, kids, dogs, approaching the water, actually.”
Interview #9 (R1): “Now where they put the bike path along it, of course, the bike path, that was possible because the railroad went out.
The railroad just gave up and so the raised portion where the railroad went through the city and the campus and everything, that was mostly that, and that was the thing that kept the water back, too. It was a barrier to flood water but it was much closer to the river and that’s where the bike path is. Now the bike path part which goes through the campus area the river doesn’t look too bad because they have bike path and all the trees, the flowering trees along there.”
Interview #10 (R5): “All our land park wise is on the floodplain because for most of our activities, which are sports-oriented, bike path, sports fields, they need flat land to build on or you can’t build those kind of facilities.”
Interview #12 (R15): “…the bike paths and the recreational gain.
We put those in probably a couple of years after the channel was relocated. From a recreational point of view, that’s been a nice addition.
People come from other parts of the state come to jog or bike on it when 135 their kids are down here going to school or something like that or they’re just on vacation.”
Interview #16 (R5): “They do have the bike path and walking path and the golf course. At least it’s not buildings. I think the bike path is heavily used and the walking paths are heavily used. I think we could have had those without moving the river.
Interview #18 (R2): “I think there’s been much more use of the river’s edge with the walk path and the bicycle path. It wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for the channelization.”
Interview #20 (R7): “It made a great place to put a bike path and that’s probably the most… …It is a channelized river and they need to maintain it and do things like that but I think with what the city and the university and everybody has done to use that portion of bike path, you just look at the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that utilize that. Really, that never happened before.”
Interview #23 (R3): “The bike path, I think that it’s called here in
Athens, it is used a great deal by people walking and biking and that has made a big difference in people’s lives.”
Interview #25 (R1): “This channel is not very inviting. You see a lot people running on the bike path and walking on the bike path but mostly because that’s where the bike path is, not because it’s along the stream. I think if they put the bike path somewhere else, you would never see anybody along that stream.” 136
Fig. 25. The bike path, east end, Athens, OH. 09.13.05
6.7.2 Discussion
Twelve interviews (48%) comment about the bike path (Fig. 25 and
26). Three women and nine men addressed this topic with different perspectives. Eight of the interviewed people specifically noted the positive aspect of having the bike path. Although one interviewee thinks that Athens could have had a bike path without channelization, two interviewees consider the channelization responsible for it. Another participant pointed out that the bike path was made possible not because of the channelization but because the railroad went out of 137 service. In any case, if the bike path were in a different location, it is
likely that few people would ever be seen along the river channel. The
bike path is a facility widely used by both the Athens and the Ohio
University communities. Jogging, biking, walking, and roller-skating can
be seen on the bike path everyday and any time.
Fig. 26. The bike path beside the Ohio University golf course, Athens, OH. 09.13.05 138 6.8 Loss of Town’s Character
6.8.1 Responses
Interview #6 (R1): “You went down Richland Avenue, there used to be a feed store and stuff down in there and there was a lane with pretty trees through the middle and the street was divided down in there.”
Interview #9 (R4): “So it opened up this possibility to develop and have all these national chains where before when it was going to flood and the roads weren’t very big, you had businesses which had a little more character I think, but then again, most other people go to Wal-
Marts and I don’t … So, it all had an effect on everything. I think the city, I mean if you go out State Street, you don’t know where you are, you could be in any place, anyplace USA, anyplace USA, because everything looks the same.”
Interview #9 (R5): “…the fact that you have driven out people who work in the community, people who can’t afford to live in the houses, because you can make more money renting to the students turning everything into parking lots, and the city is being turned into a slum.”
Interview #16 (R4): “The old days you went to everything. There was a concert; everybody you know would be there. A lecture; everybody you knew would be there [at the university]. No more.”
Interview #16 (R10): “Well because before they moved the river and before they started erecting buildings out East Street in the 139 floodplain, the center of town was right here was on Court Street and almost everybody I know walked on that center of town, going to hardware, five and ten cents stores, to department stores. Once or twice a week, you saw everybody that you knew. You could bank on meeting people that you know. So for me it was a much greater sense of community because of the set of that center of town. Now it’s all, that’s all part of the university; it has nothing to do with the community of
Athens, I don’t think any way except that you have the courthouse there and the police thing and all the rest. But for the rest, no! I never see anybody I know. I only go down on Court Street to go to the Little
Professor. That’s the only reason I every go, you know. And there is no place where you can see people, unless you the kind of person that goes to a Wal-Mart all the time and things like that. And I think that’s an enormous loss. I think, you know, community is the name of the game.
I think that is what we should be concerned about.”
Interview #16 (R11): “…we used to laugh at Nelsonville; it is fourteen miles up the road. It used to be kind of a dinky little town and stuff like that. You can’t believe how many people, now are saying it’s so a wonderful place to go to. It has that beautiful square in the center of town and all the little shops around and it’s in to art. Oh, it’s a wonderful. More and more people say that to me now.”
Interview #25 (R5): “Plus, Richland Avenue at the time used to be a boulevard, and down the center of the street was an island with large 140 shade trees. Now it’s more like a street with just businesses, fast food restaurants and things like that along it and so it lost a lot of its character.”
6.8.2 Discussion
Three women and one man pointed out the loss of the character of the town and the sense of community due to the channelization. Two interviewees noted that Richland Avenue used to be a boulevard with an island in the center and with pretty shade trees. Businesses along that avenue had more character than they do today. One interviewed person noted that Athens no longer has a distinctive appearance because of the loss of those features and the presence of national franchises.
Two interviewees stated that Athens also had a much greater sense of community in the past when the center of the town's commercial district was Court Street. Development on the floodplain and expansion of the university has moved businesses away from Court Street, which is now dominated by the university. Although more trucks used to pass through Court Street, traffic is heavier today than it was in the past, and little effort has been made to restrict cars from campus.
Athens residents moving out of town (Ohio Department of
Development, 2005) may be further evidence of a loss of a sense of community. It is more profitable to rent out houses in Athens to 141 students than to families. Thus for many people the city is a transitory residence.
6.9 Opportunities for Environmental Education
6.9.1 Responses
Interview #3 (R2): “I think a little bit of wild through there would be o.k. If they pick areas through there and just not mow, let it go back.
Get far enough away from the river to where they are out of that zone, that flood way zone, where they have to keep the water, keep it open, so the flood can get through and just don’t mow; let it revert and go though succession. It would be great for research projects for biology students, zoology students, botany students and so.”
Interview #8 (R5): “When sandbars develop, inviting places to investigate they are dredged so that water flow is kept as rapid as possible. So, yes, there has been a loss of an appreciation of the river as a natural, integral part of our lives.”
Interview #25 (R7): “A couple of students could get a canoe and go downstream. And who knows what you could learn or what you could see. And plus, look at the loss, the educational loss. Here you have a major university, think of what you learn as a student taking a class down by the river. You could identify the trees, the wildlife, you could learn about rivers and how rivers work. You can’t learn about a river by 142 studying the Hocking channel. You can’t learn anything about a river, except deposition. You can’t see how it, you can’t learn about the cut banks and the point bars, you can’t learn about you know, what species of trees grow along the stream or what kind of wild fowl of fish; because it is so hot and sunny, there’s no shady areas in that whole ditch so there is no fish down there. You have to go downstream or upstream to find fish cause there is no shady pools for them to lay their eggs in. So I think there is a great educational loss as well.”
6.9.2 Discussion
Only three interviews treated the subject of educational opportunities, even though the university is a dominant feature of
Athens. All three interviewees regret that channelization has led to a loss of opportunity for learning about natural rivers and riverine ecosystems from the Hocking River as it flows through Athens. Other environmental science educational opportunities were lost with the removal of the
Cutler Botanical Gardens. As Dr. W.G. Gambill, Jr., from the Botany
Department of Ohio University points it out on a letter of January 20,
1955, “I should like to state again that all of us in the Botany
Department are most grateful to Dr. Creed [Athens State Hospital
Superintendent] for his very generous cooperation in the matter of permitting us to bring classes to the hospital grounds to study and observe plant and animal life” (Semans, 1955). 143 An example of how research was conducted along the river before channelization is the master's thesis research of Irvin (1936), who conducted a limnological study using three of the ponds on the grounds of the state hospital.
6.10 Change in Traffic Pattern
6.10.1 Responses
Interview #13 (R7): “…it has altered the traffic pattern in the town more than anything. Because, once the river was changed, then the bypass came and speed and all that…”
Interview #15 (R5): “We did get a bypass around the city of Athens after the channel, after the river was rechanneled because they couldn’t do anything until after the river was done. …you couldn’t have run all this traffic we have today up through town like they used to be. All of the traffic used to go right up through Court Street coming and going so now we have this bypass around the city and this is partly because we have the river rechanneled so it’s been a big help the city of Athens.”
Interview #16 (R4): “I suppose there are lots of good things about it, but things that affect me and people like me the most are not so good.
There is far more traffic. There is no effort to curb cars on campus or anything like that. So we don’t even come, people my age frequently don’t even come to events at the university as much anymore. …Because 144 we can’t park, we don’t have any parking places. So it’s changed really dramatically.”
Interview #22 (R2): “The bypass and the channeling enabled all the roads to come into Athens and all of them to reach the city from all sides. So it was mostly, it was tied in with the river; the river was tied into the improvement of the highways.”
Interview #22 (R4): “Well, the convenience in accessing the city.
And there are very few cities, if you look at most cities and there is a highway near them, the highway goes around and avoids them. This way it surrounds and everybody can reach the city from any direction just by traveling a bypass route and to do that, you have to consider that The
Plains road is part of that.”
Interview #23 (R3): “I would say traffic pattern wise, out toward
White’s Mill on the west side of Athens so traffic patterns have changed.
6.10.2 Discussion
Five interviews (20%) contain comments about the traffic pattern in Athens before the channelization. Those two women and three men agree that in Athens the movement of vehicles has changed considerably due to the channelization. Although there are more vehicles today and parking can be difficult, the channelization enabled construction of the bypass around the center of town (Court Street). Because of several exits from the bypass there are now more arteries through town. 145 6.11 Accessibility of the River Channel
6.11.1 Responses
Interview #3 (R2): “I’d like to see some walking paths maybe go right down to the water’s edge so people can get down and experience the river rather than just from a distance.”
Interview #8 (R2): “Our house was not in the floodplain but as young children, my friends and I had access to the river and we spent a lot of time there. The river wound around the university golf course, part of which was located in the same place that it is today and we spent a lot of time as kids do, playing in the river, catching and fishing, catching salamanders and stuff. It was more accessible than it is now.”
Interview #8 (R5): “We’ve lost a river that was a natural of our community, meandering streambed, big old sycamores and maples along the banks. The accessibility of the river was for more enjoyment. As it is now, it’s an open channel.”
Interview #20 (R7): “…people utilize the river more than they did prior to this because they didn’t have access to the river that they have now.”
6.11.2 Discussion
In only three interviews (12%) are there comments about the accessibility of the river to the public. One interviewee suggested there 146 could be more established paths to the water's edge so people can have the experience of the river. A second person described the river as more accessible before channelization because of its meandering path with more gradual sloping banks instead of the steep slopes that it has today
(Fig. 9). The third interviewee commented on the impact of the bike path in drawing people close to the river. The bike path, however, is not right along the water's edge.
The fact is that the channel allows no accessibility to the water as can be seen in the pictures of Fig. 9. That is the reason it is commented that it would be enjoyable to see some walking trails to the border of the water for people to enjoy the experience of a river.
6.12 Summary
Several themes relating to human-environmental interactions came up in the interviews. Despite being treated here as separate topics, many of these themes are interconnected and have some overlap.
The interviewees agree that channelization of the Hocking River has helped control flooding in Athens. Seventy-six percent of the interviews noted this positive aspect to the community. Some, however, are worried about the size of the flood that the channel can actually retain. In addition to the sedimentation effect discussed in Chapter 5, some survey participants described the smaller than desired original 147 capacity of the constructed channel, noting that Athens was never protected against anything larger than the 50 year flood.
A few respondents believe that Ohio University took advantage of the channelization to expand. It was implied that the university planned the channelization, that it did so to protect its investment on the floodplain, and that it was unrelated to protecting the community of
Athens.
About half of the interviewees brought up the theme of economic development on the floodplain as a result of the channelization. Most agreed that the economic impact has been positive, while others outlined the negative economic aspects of the national franchise stores and restaurants that have come to Athens since the channelization.
A related topic is postchannelization development on the floodplain. Almost all of the participants commented on this theme.
Businesses need some place to build, but adding impermeable surfaces to the floodplain increases flood risk. It was suggested that the artificial channel creates a false sense of security about the measure of flood control available to the floodplain.
While the bike path along the channel is viewed as a positive thing by all twelve interviewees who mentioned it, some noted other community assets that were destroyed by the channelization. This includes a loss of the town's picturesque quality, loss of environmental educational opportunities, and loss of community recreational 148 opportunities with the destruction of the Mental Hospital Grounds and
Cutler Botanical Garden. The highway bypassing the center of town was built after channelization and relieved some congestion, while access to the river itself was made difficult because of the channel's new path and steep banks.
Little difference was noted in how men and women perceive the impact of the channelization of the Hocking River on human- environmental issues. A higher number of women than men, however, expressed worry about the loss of the town's character and sense of community due to the channelization. 149 Chapter Seven - Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
Thirty people were formally interviewed (recorded in 25 interviews), and nine people were informally interviewed (just talked to them) to determine their views on the channelization of the Hocking River through
Athens. Participants responded to a semi-structured interview. Every effort was made to determine each interviewee’s views objectively. The interviews were analyzed and major themes were identified. Three of the themes can be considered the effects of the channelization on the physical environment, while ten reflect human-environmental issues.
Despite the separation into physical and human-environmental categories for ease of analysis, it should be kept in mind that many of the themes actually interconnect.
From the analysis of the data gathered in the interviews, several different reactions to the channelization of the Hocking River can be identified (Fig. 27). Overall, the people appreciate its role in flood control even though it may no longer be as effective as it once was or as effective as it was supposed to be at the time of initial planning. This flood protection in Athens, moreover, is probably increasing flood hazards downstream (Keller and Hoffman, 1976; Parker and Andres, 1976;
Leopold, 1977). Many people think the expansion of the commercial area of Athens on the floodplain has had a positive economic effect, although 150 a significant minority point out negative economic and community effects related to establishment of the large national franchise stores in town
(Fig. 22). Expansion of commercial and university facilities on the floodplain has been extensive since channelization in 1972. Some fear that this is a result of a false sense of security that many people may have because of the channelization. It is ironic that this floodplain development is encroaching on the channelized river because the artificial channel was purposefully located away from such buildings as part of the flood protection measures. As pointed out by Payne and
Pigram (1981), flooding will never be totally controlled, thus property damage from floods will result as long as floodplains are used for human activities.
People consider the channel ugly. Being barren of trees and shrubs is unsightly, unnatural, reduces habitat for wildlife, and inhibits opportunities for environmental education. Constructing the channel destroyed much of the attractive appeal of Athens, which included extensive gardens that were a community focal point. The importance of these gardens to the community is underscored by the fact that even interviewees who moved to Athens after the channelization bemoaned their loss. People's perceptions suggest that the community has never recovered from that loss.
Positive Negative Environment
Aesthetics: ugly/ditch Channel capacity Flood control Flood downstream Unnatural: trees/shrubs Sedimentation Habitats/wildlife
Mental Hospital Grounds
Commercial area Impermeable landscape Town's character Bike path Runoff Economic (gain) Economic (loss) Sense of community Sense of security False sense of security Environmental education
Fig. 27. Integrated summary diagram showing participants' positive and negative reactions to the channelization and what they perceive to be the environmental effects.
152 Despite considerable agreement, opinions of the participants did vary. Few trends could be found using the demographic variables collected during the interviews (Table 1). Women showed more concern than men on two topics that involved how the channelization affects people. For example, they were much more worried about downstream flooding and negative impacts on the town's character and sense of community. In addition, the more environmental knowledge people appeared to have, the more negative their comments were about the channelization.
It was also noted that people with less education do not appreciate the aesthetic and environmental importance of the river as much as most of the educated professionals. Of the 30 people interviewed, only the nonprofessionals believe that the channelization has enhanced nature.
However, surprisingly, a few of the nonacademic professionals surveyed do not have a particularly strong appreciation for aesthetic and environmental issues.
The main objective of this thesis has been to identify the perception of people about the channelization of the Hocking River.
Limitations to this study exist because of the relatively small number of people surveyed, the convenience-based sampling strategy, and the fact that all but two of the interviewees were over 50 years old. In other words, the sample could have been more diverse. Although every effort was made not to reveal my personal views to the participants, there is 153 the possibility that I was not always successful in doing so. Furthermore,
I am an international student who is not a native English speaker and who is older than the average master's student. These characteristics could have had some effect on who agreed to participate and how some participants responded to my questions.
Rivers are living entities that provide energy and other vital elements and conditions that benefit the surrounding natural and physical environment including plant, animal, and human communities.
Researchers are finding that although flood-control projects may seem necessary on one level, in a long-term view they can be detrimental to people as well as the environment (Yin and Li, 2001; Chowdhury, 2003).
Others emphasize the benefits of working with, rather than against, natural river processes, and encourage the strategy of leaving the floodplain as part of the active river system (Keller and Hoffman, 1976;
Brookes, 1985b; Gregory, 1985; Yin and Li, 2001). Participants in this
Hocking River survey who displayed a higher level of environmental knowledge tended to agree with these researchers.
Hopefully the result of this investigation will help Ohio University and Athens city authorities in making future decisions that could be detrimental for the environment and/or the community. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will also aid other communities that are considering major modifications to their natural environment. The degree to which people are satisfied with their quality of life is directly 154 related to their perceptions. People's perceptions of the environment and of the results of human modifications to it are varied and complex.
Technical and quantitative assessments should not be the sole source of information for decision-making on such matters (Wandersman and
Hallman, 1993). People are part of the environment. People affect the environment and the environment affects people.
7.2 Recommendations
People interviewed for this research want flood protection, but most also complained about the appearance of the treeless, artificial channel. If the channelized Hocking River banks were planted with trees, it could dramatically improve the aesthetic appeal of the site. If the channelized Hocking River is a defining feature of Athens landscape, planting and maintaining trees would add color and character to the project, thus making Athens more attractive and inviting. Planting and maintaining trees in this area would also be an inexpensive and effective tool aiding in stormwater abatement. The average medium size tree can absorb approximately 9 m3 of water per year in the tree crown or canopy leaf, bark surfaces, branches, and trunk, including evaporation during the rainfall events (Center for Urban Research, 2002). The bigger the tree, the more stormwater that is absorbed (Center for Urban Research,
2002). 155 One of the greatest dangers from flooding is in the speed with which water runs out of the river channel. If the channelized Hocking River had healthy riparian buffer zones containing many trees and other vegetation, this would slow and absorb floodwaters, helping the floodwater to drop much of the sediment and nutrients being carried in suspension. Trees and other vegetation trap and absorb this, promoting further plant growth and increasing the density of root systems, which increases the protection of the banks and reduces erosion (Smith, 1976).
In addition, the shade that trees and other plants supply in riparian buffers cools the water and provides excellent cover and habitat for animals. 156 References
Beatty, E., & Stone, M. (Eds.). (1984). Getting to know Athens County. Athens, OH: The Stone House.
Brookes, A. (1985a). Downstream morphological consequences of river channelization in England and Wales. The Geographical Journal (Vol. 151). 57-62.
Brookes, A. (1985a). River channelization: Traditional engineering methods, physical consequences and alternative practices. Progress in Physical Geography (Vol. 9). 44-73.
Brooks, A. P., & Brierley, G. J. (2004). Framing realistic river rehabilitation targets in light of altered sediment supply and transport relationships: Lessons from East Gippsland, Australia. Geomorphology (Vol. 58). 107-123.
Burby, R. J. (2001). Flood insurance and floodplain management: the US experience. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards (Vol. 3). 3-4.
Chang, H. H. (1986). River channel changes: Adjustments of equilibrium. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering (Vol. 112). 43-55.
Chang, N. W. (1997). Institutional arrangements for flood hazards in Malaysia: An evaluation using the criteria approach. Disasters (Vol. 21). 206-222.
Chowdhury, R. (2000). An assessment of flood forecasting in Bangladesh: The experience of the 1998 flood. Natural Hazards (Vol. 22). 139-163.
Chowdhury, R. (2003). The impact of “Greater Dhaka Flood Protection Project” (GDFPP) on local living environment--The attitude of the floodplain residents. Natural Hazards (Vol. 29). 309-324.
Churchill, R. R., & Hutchinson, D. (1984). Flood hazard in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka: Individual attitudes vs. collective action. Geoforum (Vol. 15). 517- 524.
Curt Teich & Co. (n.d.). Administration building. Athens State Hospital. Post Card Collection, Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries, Athens, Ohio.
157 Daniel, R. (Ed.). (1997). The Village Years. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Emerson, J. W. (1971). Channelization: A case of study. Science (Vol. 173). 325-326.
Flowerdew, R., & Martin, D. (2005). Methods in Human Geography. A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. (2 ed.). Harlow, En: Prentice Hall.
Geiger, J. (2002, July ). Is all your rain going down the drain? Urban Forest Research. Retrieved June 26, 2005, from http://cufr.ucdavis.edu.
Giordano, M. A., & Wolf, A. T. (2001). Incorporating equity into international water agreements. Social Justice Research (Vol. 14). 249-366.
Gregory, K. J. (1985). The impact of river channelization. The Geographical Journal (Vol. 151). 53-74.
Hatton, A. (1999). A Post-Audit of the Channelized Reach of the Hocking River. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
Hocking Conservancy District. (1972). Dedication, Hocking River Flood Protection Project at Athens. Hocking Conservancy District, Athens, Ohio.
Hoffman, C. (2004). Dumuzi’s dream: Dream analysis in ancient Mesopotamia. Dreaming (Vol. 14). 240-251.
Holy, M. A. (1971). Water and the environment. Irrigation and Drainage Papers (Vol. 8). 1-4.
Hooke, R. L. (1999). Spatial distribution of human geomorphic activity in the United States: Comparison with rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms (Vol. 24). 687-692.
Irvin, R. A. (1936). The Fauna of Aquatic Plants. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Botany Department, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
Ives, S. M. (1983). Immediate response to headwater flooding in Charlotte, North Carolina. Environment and Behavior (Vol. 15). 512- 525. 158 Jonkman, S. N. (2005). Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Natural Hazards (Vol. 34). 151-175.
Keller, E. A. (1975). Channelization: A search for a better way. Geology (Vol. 3). 246-248.
Keller, E. A., & Hoffman, E. K. (1976). A sensible alternative to stream channelization. Public Works (Vol. 107). 70-72.
Kesel, R. H. (2003). Human modifications to the sediment regime of the lower Mississippi River floodplain. Geomorphology (Vol. 56). 325-334.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Chellnhuber, H. J. (2004). Floods in the PCCTAR perspective. Natural Hazards (Vol. 31). 111-128.
Leopold, L. B. (1977). A reverence for rivers. Geology (Vol. 5). 429-430.
Location of Athens. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.50states.com/tools/usamap.htm
Marsh, W., & Grossa, J. (2002). Environmental Geography. Science, Land Use, and Earth Systems. (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mason, L. (2005). “They haven’t a clue!” A qualitative study of staff perceptions of 11-14 year-old female clinic attenders. Primary Health Care Research and Development (Vol. 6). 199-207.
McCabe, D. (Ed.). (1999). Vernon R. Alden: An Oral History. Athens, OH: Ohio University Libraries.
Mohapatra, P. K., & Singh, R. D. (2003). Flood management in India. Natural Hazards (Vol. 28). 131-143.
Morris-Oswald, T., & Sinclair, A. J. (2005). Values and floodplain management: Case studies from the Red River basin, Canada. Global Environmental Change B: Environmental Hazards (Vol. 6). 9-22.
Mustaf, D. (2005). The production of an urban hazardscape in Pakistan: Modernity, vulnerability, and the range of choice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Vol. 95). 566-586.
Nakamura, F., Jitsu,M., Kamayama, S & Mizugaki, S. (2002). Changes in riparian forests in the Kushiro Mire, Japan, associated with stream channelization. River Research and Applications (Vol. 18). 65-79.
159 Nakamura, F., Sudo, T., Kameyama, S., & Jitsu, M. (1997). Influences of channelization on discharge of suspended sediment and wetland vegetation in Kushiro Marsh, northern Japan. Geomorphology (Vol. 18). 279-289.
Nott, J. (2003). The importance of prehistoric data and variability of hazard regimes in natural hazard risk assessment: Examples from Australia. Natural Hazards (Vol. 30). 43-58.
Nunes Correia, F., Fordham, M., Da Graca Saraiva, M., & Bernardo, F. (1998). Flood hazard assessment and management: Interface with the public. Water Resources Management (Vol. 12). 209-227.
Parker, G., & Andres, D. (1976). Detrimental effects of river channelization. Third Annual Symposium of the Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering, Division of ASCE, Colorado State University. Rivers, 1248-1266
Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (Vol. 32). 333-365.
Payne, R. J., & Pigram, J. J. (1981). Changing evaluations of flood plain hazard: The Hunter River Valley, Australia. Environment and Behavior (Vol. 13). 461-480.
Penning-Rowsell, E., Floyd, P., Ramsbottom, D., & Surendran, S. (2005). Estimating injury and loss of life in floods: A deterministic framework. Natural Hazards (Vol. 36). 43-64.
Photographer unknown. (n.d.). Cutler Botanical Garden. Athens State Hospital. Post Card Collection Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries, Athens, Ohio.
Photographer unknown. (n.d.). People from Athens Community skating in one of the ponds. Dairy Barn Photographs Collection. Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries, Athens, Ohio.
Photographer unknown. (n.d.). Patients of the Mental Hospital working the land. Southeastern, OH. Vertical File Photographs Collection. Ohio University Libraries, Athens, Ohio.
Plate, E. J. (2002). Flood risk and flood management. Journal of Hydrology (Vol. 267). 2-11.
160 Pottie, N., Penning-Rowsell, E., Tunstall, S., & Hubert, G. (2005). Land use and flood protection: Contrasting approaches and outcomes in France and in England and Wales. Applied Geography (Vol.25). 1-27.
Printable plat maps. (n.d.). Retrieved June. 26, 2005, from Athens County Geographic Information System Web site: http://www.athensgis.com.
Roberge, M. (2002). Human modification of the geomorphically unstable Salt River in metropolitan Phoenix. The Professional Geographer (Vol. 54). 175-189.
Rochford, E. B., & Blocker, T. J. (1991). Coping with “natural” hazards as stressors. The predictors of activism in a flood disaster. Environment and Behavior (Vol. 23). 171-194.
Schuldenrein, J., Wright, R. P., Mughal, M. R., & Khan, M. A. (2004). Landscapes, soils, and mound histories of the Upper Indus Valley, Pakistan: New insights on the Holocene environments near ancient Harappa. Journal of Archaeological Science (Vol. 31). 777-797.
Semans, F. M. (1955). The natural landscape and natural history of the Athens State Hospital grounds. Unpublished article, Ohio University, Archives and Special Collections, Athens, Ohio.
Simonovic, S. P., & Ahmad, S. (2005). Computer-based model for flood evacuation emergency planning. Natural Hazards (Vol. 34). 25-51.
Smith, D. G. (1976). Effect of vegetation on lateral migration of anastomosed channels of a glacier meltwater river. Geological Society of America Bulletin (Vol. 87). 857-860.
Steiger, J., James, M., & Gazelle, F. (1998). Channelization and consequences on floodplain system functioning on the Garonne River, SW France. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management (Vol. 14). 13-23.
Stout, D. F., and Prisley, J. (1997). Walking Tour of Historic Uptown Athens. Historical Society and Museum, Athens, Ohio.
Sturgeon, M. (1958). The Geology and Mineral Resources of Athens County, Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
161 Sullivan, W. B., (n.d.). Fall No 2. Athens State Hospital. Post Card Collection, Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University Libraries, Athens, Ohio.
Surian, N., & Rinaldi, M. (2003). Morphological response to river engineering and management in alluvial channels in Italy. Geomorphology (Vol. 50). 307-326
Tapsell, S. M., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Tunstall, S. M., & Wilson, T. L. (2002). Vulnerabilty to flooding: Health and social dimensions. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 360). 1511-1525.
Thoms, M. C. (2003). Floodplain-river ecosystems: Lateral connection and the implications of human interference. Geomorphology (Vol. 56). 335-349.
Tingsanchali, T., & Karin, M. (2005). Flood hazard and risk analysis in the southwest region of Bangladesh. Hydrological Processes (Vol. 19). 2055-2069.
Urban, M. A., & Rhoads, B. L. (2003). Catastrophic human-induced change in stream-channel planform and geometry in an agricultural watershed, Illinois, USA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Vol. 93). 783-796.
US Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2005, from http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Huntington District. (1972). Flood Plain Information: Hocking River, Athens, Ohio. Huntington, West Virginia.
van der Zouwen, J. (2001). Cybernetics and interviewing. Kybernetes (Vol. 30). 1064-1071.
Wandersman, A. H., & Hallman, W. K. (1993). Are people acting irrationally? Understanding public concerns about environmental threats. American Psychologist (Vol. 48). 681-686.
Wicks, C.A. (2002). The Hocking Canal Mapped: A Physical Inventory of a Disappearing Historic Transportation Relic. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
162 Wilford, D. J., Sakais, M. E., Innes, J. L., Sidle, R. C., & Bergerud, W. A. (2004). Recognition of debris flow, debris flood and flood hazard through watershed morphometrics. Landslides (Vol. 1). 61-66.
Wimpenny, P., & Gass, J. (2000). Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: Is there a difference? Journal of Advanced Nursing (Vol. 31). 485-1492.
Yates, R., Waldron, B., & Van Arsdale, R. (2003). Urban effects on floodplain natural hazards: Wolf River, Tennessee, USA. Engineering Geology (Vol. 70). 1-15.
Yearke, L. W. (1971). River erosion due to channel relocation. Eng. ASCE (Vol. 41). 39-40.
Yin, H., & Li, C. (2001). Human impact on floods and flood disasters on the Yangtze River. Geomorphology (Vol. 41). 105-109.