Study suggests logjam solutions
By Brandy Nance (Contact)
Originally published 03:00 p.m., May 15, 2008
Updated 03:00 p.m., May 15, 2008
Photo by Adam Vogler
A logjam blocks the Neosho River just downstream of Jacobs Landing Wednesday, May 14.
Nine approaches to handling the Neosho River logjam were presented to the public by The Watershed Institute of Topeka at a meeting Wednesday evening at the Lyon County Fairgrounds. The estimated costs of the nine approached ranged from nothing to $2.3 million to $27.7 million.
Brock Emmert of the institute spoke in front of a small crowd of stakeholders, including residents, government representatives and people from various organizations. The logjam is more than two miles long and blocks recreational access upstream from the John Redmond Reservoir to the Neosho River. The logjam started in the 1970s when woody debris began to collect in the area. It continues to grow approximately 1,397 feet annually, according to a report located at www.kwo.org.
Emmert said the Kansas Water Office contracted The Watershed Institute to do a feasibility study of the alternatives for the logjam. He said an analysis was done of the channel, a wood census was taken and alternatives were drawn up based on that information. The wood census was limited to wood that was 12 inches in diameter and greater than 15 feet long. Based on this, there are 70,000 pieces of wood from Hartford to the reservoir, which translates into 32,000 cubic yards of large woody debris.
Emmert also talked about two smaller logjams that are located on Emmert Creek, downstream from the boat ramp.
The alternatives include:
• Alternative No. 1: No action. This alternative doesn’t rank high on the scale because it would not address any concerns like access to the river or John Redmond Reservoir.
• Alternative No. 2: Comprehensive removal of logjam with a dredging component to deepen John Redmond Reservoir where the river comes in. This would require the removal of 96,400 to 160,400 cubic yards of large woody debris and dredge about 740,000 cubic yards.
• Alternative No. 3: Remove logjam without dredging component.
• Alternative No. 4: Excavate a bypass channel (1.7 miles) and have delivery to John Redmond Reservoir. This would require about 900,000 cubic yards of material to be dredged.
• Alternative No. 5: Excavate channel by-passing logjam without dredging component.
• Alternative No. 6: Remove logjam above Jacob’s Creek Landing and excavate channel downstream. This would require the removal of 44,600 to 68,500 cubic yards of large woody debris and the dredging of 900,000 cubic yards.
• Alternative No. 7: Remove logjam above Jacob’s Creek Landing and excavate channel downstream without dredging component.
• Alternative No. 8: Remove logjam above Jacob’s Creek Landing and provide access to Neosho River upstream and allow river to cut new channel naturally to John Redmond Reservoir. Remove plug downstream from Jacob’s Creek Landing.
• Alternative No. 9: Remove logjam above Jacob’s Creek Landing and clear and dredge portions of Eagle Creek. This would require the removal of about 43,000 to 67,000 cubic yards of large woody debris. It also would incorporate dredging 50,000 cubic yards of material. Alternative No. 9 is similar to alternative No. 8 but also opens access to Eagle Creek, where there are two smaller logjams.
The estimated costs for each proposal are:
• Alternative No. 1: $0
• Alternative No. 2: Between $2.3-3.4 million land based; $2.5-4 million marine based with $11.2 million in dredging costs.
• Alternative No. 3: Between $2.3-$3.4 million land based; $2.5-4 million marine based.
• Alternative No. 4: $12.7 million land based; $27.7 million marine based and $12.7 million in dredging costs.
• Alternative No. 5: $12.7 million land based and $27.7 million marine.
• Alternative No. 6: $8.4-$9 million land based; and $17.8-$18.5 million marine based with $12.7 million for dredging.
• Alternative No. 7: $8.4-$9 million land based and $17.8-$18.5 million marine based.
• Alternative No. 8: $1.4-$2 million land based; and $1.8-2.5 million marine based.
• Alternative No. 9: $2.1-$2.6 million land based; and $3.1-$3.8 million marine based.
What happens next?
Federal funds will have to be acquired to proceed with a project. First, an alternative will have to be decided on and then the process of finding the funding will go to the next level.
To view the complete report, go to www.kwo.org and look under “hot topics.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any market value for the flotsam?
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)