FEASIBILITY STUDY (RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCESS TO THE NEOSHO RIVER AT JACOBS CREEK-JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR) 2008 Prepared for Kansas Water Office 901 South Kansas Topeka, KS 66612 Prepared by Watershed Institute, Inc. 1200 SW Executive Dr. Topeka, KS 66615 www.watershedinstitute.biz Cover Page Photo: Neosho River Logjam from Jacobs Landing FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING ...............................................................................................................................2 Neosho River Logjam..........................................................................................................................4 NEOSHO RIVER RESEARCH...............................................................................................................4 Natural and Regulated Flows/Historical Droughts ............................................................................4 High-Flow Frequency/Channel Geometry..........................................................................................5 Geomorphic Effects/Overflow Dams...................................................................................................5 Channel Stability Downstream from John Redmond Dam .................................................................5 Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge/Comprehensive Conservation Plan...........................................5 U.S. Highway 59 Crossing..................................................................................................................5 Lowhead Dams/Freshwater Mussels ..................................................................................................6 Gravel Sources....................................................................................................................................6 Biological Condition ...........................................................................................................................6 Bathymetric Study ...............................................................................................................................6 Stream Stability...................................................................................................................................6 PREVIOUS NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement (USACE 2002)..............................7 Kansas Department of Health & Environment Preliminary Ecological Evaluation (Satterthwaite 2004) ...................................................................................................................................................8 The Masters Dredging Company, Inc .Assessment (MDC 2004)........................................................8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District Initial Appraisal (USACE 2005)................................9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District JRR Watershed Feasibility Study (USACE 2006)....10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District JRR Watershed Feasibility Study (USACE 2008) ...10 LOGJAM CHARATERIZATION..........................................................................................................13 ON-STIE FIELD ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................................13 Logjam Composition and Condition .................................................................................................13 Cross Section Surveys .......................................................................................................................16 Channel Profile .................................................................................................................................17 Wood Census.....................................................................................................................................18 AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................................20 VOLUME ESTIMATION .....................................................................................................................20 GROWTH RATE...................................................................................................................................24 STORED SEDIMENT...........................................................................................................................24 LOGJAM REMOVAL RESEARCH ......................................................................................................24 RED RIVER, LOUISIANA...................................................................................................................25 GRAND RIVER, MICHIGAN..............................................................................................................26 YALOBUSHA RIVER, MISSISSIPPi ..................................................................................................27 i FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT SOUTH GRAND RIVER, MISSOURI.................................................................................................28 DESCHUTES RIVER, WASHINGTON ..............................................................................................28 CHIKASKIA RIVER, OKLAHOMA ...................................................................................................30 SOLOMON RIVER, KANSAS.............................................................................................................31 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................32 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION.........................................................................................................33 ALTERNATIVE 2: REMOVE LOGJAM AND DREDGE LAKE ......................................................33 ALTERNATIVE 3: REMOVE LOGJAM WITH NO LAKE DREDGING .........................................34 ALTERNATIVE 4: EXCAVATE CHANNEL AROUND LOGJAM AND DREDGE LAKE............34 ALTERNATIVE 5: EXCAVATE CHANNEL AROUND LOGJAM WITH NO LAKE DREDGING ...............................................................................................................................................................35 ALTERNATIVE 6: REMOVE LOGJAM ABOVE JACOBS LANDING AND EXCAVATE CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM TO LAKE WITH LAKE DREDGING ................................................35 ALTERNATIVE 7: REMOVE LOGJAM ABOVE JACOBS LANDING AND EXCAVATE CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM TO LAKE WITHOUT LAKE DREDGING........................................36 ALTERNATIVE 8: REMOVE LOGJAM ABOVE JACOBS LANDING ...........................................36 ALTERNATIVE 9: REMOVE LOGJAM ABOVE JACOBS LANDING AND DREDGE/CLEAR EAGLE CREEK ....................................................................................................................................36 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED.....................................................................37 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION...................................................................................37 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................37 EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................39 Cost ...................................................................................................................................................39 Social Acceptability...........................................................................................................................40 Technical Feasibility.........................................................................................................................41 Environmental Impacts .....................................................................................................................44 Sediment Transport ...........................................................................................................................45 Recreation .........................................................................................................................................46 Maintenance......................................................................................................................................46 ALTERNATIVE SCORING....................................................................................................................47 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION.........................................................................................................47 ALTERNATIVE 2: REMOVE LOGJAM AND DREDGE LAKE ......................................................47 ALTERNATIVE 3: REMOVE LOGJAM WITH NO LAKE DREDGING .........................................48 ALTERNATIVE 4: EXCAVATE CHANNEL AROUND LOGJAM AND DREDGE LAKE............48 ALTERNATIVE 5: EXCAVATE CHANNEL AROUND LOGJAM WITH NO LAKE DREDGING ...............................................................................................................................................................48