U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5282

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT

Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in 

Kansas, 2004
Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in

Kansas, 2004

By Kyle E. Juracek and Charles A. Perry

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TULSA DISTRICT

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5282
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Juracek, K.E., and Perry, C.A., 2005, Gravel sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5282, 36 p.

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, Kansas (http://ks.water.usgs.gov)
 iii

Contents

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Description of Neosho River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Regulation of Flow in the Neosho River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Acknowledgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Onsite Inspection and Sampling of Bar Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Particle-Size Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Composition Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Onsite Inspection of Basal Gravel Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Inspection of Aerial Photographs for Bar Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Gravel Characterization and Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Characterization of Neosho and Cottonwood River Bar Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Characterization of Tributary Bar Deposits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Distribution of Bar Deposits in the Neosho River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Basal Gravel Deposits Along the Neosho River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Gravel Sources for the Neosho River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Assessment of Potential Sources of Chert Gravel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Relation of Basal Gravel Deposit Length to Apparent Gravel Bar Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Effect of Dams on Neosho River Gravel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Future of Neosho River Gravel Bars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Supplemental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figures

1. Maps showing location of Neosho River Basin in Kansas, John Redmond Reservoir, major tributaries, 

sampling sites, U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations, inspection sites, and overflow 

dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Map showing physiography of Kansas in relation to the Neosho River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3. Map showing approximate distribution of the Olpe soil in uplands of eastern Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

4. Photographs of an upland gravel pit west of Colony, Kansas, and a closeup of chert gravel at 

the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

5. Photograph showing collection of a random sample of gravel for subsequent particle-size 

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Photograph showing longest, intermediate, and shortest axes of a gravel particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7. Aerial and ground photographs of gravel bar sampled at site B–1 in Neosho River southeast of 

Chetopa, Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8. Aerial and ground photographs of gravel bar sampled at site B–8 in Neosho River south of 

LeRoy, Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9. Photographs showing closeup of chert in gravel bars sampled at sites B–1, B–8, and B–10 in the 

Neosho River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
iv 

10. Aerial photographs showing comparison of bar-deposit shapes in the Neosho River near LeRoy, 

Kansas,December 3, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

11–17. Map showing distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits and apparent gravel bars in the Neosho 

River for the representative reach located near:

11. Burlington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

12. Neosho Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

13. Humboldt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

14. Chanute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

15. Erie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

16. Parsons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

17. Oswego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

18. Photograph of basal gravel deposit exposed on a cutbank located on opposite side of the Neosho 

Riverchannel from gravel bar sampling site B–2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

19. Aerial photograph of gravel bar in the Neosho River at its confluence with Indian Creek . . . . . . . . . . 29

20. Graph showing relation between total basal gravel deposit length and total apparent gravel bar

length for the seven Neosho Riverreaches inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tables

1. Neosho River tributaries in Kansas inspected for gravel and the number of sites inspected for each 

tributary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Particle-size classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Chert content and particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in the Neosho and 

Cottonwood Rivers, Kansas, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. Neosho River tributaries in Kansas inspected for gravel, number of sites inspected for each tributary, 

and occurrence of gravel, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Riverreach length and approximate total length, extent, range in maximum thickness, and mean maximum thickness of exposed basal gravel deposits in channel banks of the Neosho River in Kansas 

downstream from John Redmond Reservoir, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. Particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in selected tributaries to the Neosho River in 

Kansas, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 v

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8.

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

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

(NAVD 88).

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 
vi 
Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

By Kyle E. Juracek and Charles A. Perry

Abstract

Gravel (rock fragments ranging from 2 to 64 millimeters in 

size) is important in the Neosho River Basin of southeastern 

Kansas both as a resource for human needs and as habitat for the 

Neosho madtom, a threatened and endangered species of catfish. Concerns about the depletion of the gravel resource, 

because of natural processes, the construction of John Redmond 

Reservoir, and in-channel extraction, have prompted a need for 

information on possible sources of gravel replenishment along 

the Neosho River in Kansas. In 2004, a combination of onsite 

inspection, sampling, and aerial photography was used to assess 

the potential of tributaries and main-stem basal deposits as 

sources of gravel for the Neosho River. 

Gravel in bar deposits of the Neosho River was consistent 

both in terms of composition and size. The gravel consisted primarily of brownish, rounded chert that was typically medium to 

coarse grained in size. A spatially representative inspection of 

18 tributaries to the Neosho River indicated that, with one possible exception, the tributaries do not provide substantial inputs 

of chert gravel to the river. Inspection of seven representative 

reaches of the Neosho River indicated a statistically significant 

relation between the total length of gravel bars in the river and 

the total length of basal gravel deposits in the channel banks. 

Thus, the local basal deposits appear to be an important source 

of chert gravel for the Neosho River. The basal deposits are of 

alluvial origin and are common in the Neosho River flood plain. 

Available evidence indicates that the erosional and depositional processes that are responsible for gravel-bar formation in 

the Neosho River generally operate intermittently in association 

with infrequent large flows. Thus, chert gravel bars in the river 

may require up to several years to recover from in-channel 

gravel mining unless a very large flow occurs shortly after mining. Given the importance of basal deposits as a source of 

gravel, John Redmond Reservoir likely has little effect on 

sources of gravel to the downstream Neosho River over a period 

of years to decades unless a very large flow occurs. Ultimately, 

the chert gravel in the Neosho River is essentially a finite 

resource as its major present-day source appears to be the finite 

basal deposits.

Introduction

Gravel (rock fragments ranging from 2 to 64 mm in size) 

is an important resource issue in the Neosho River Basin downstream from John Redmond Reservoir in southeastern Kansas 

(figs. 1B and 1C). The presence and movement of gravel in a 

river system affects channel geometry, channel migration, 

channel stability, and in-stream habitat. For the Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus), a threatened and endangered species of 

catfish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, 2004), gravel is 

an essential component of the in-stream habitat required for survival (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991). The Kansas Water 

Office has identified the Neosho madtom as an important consideration in all issues related to water supply, water quality, 

and growth and development in and along the Neosho River 

(Kansas Water Office, 1993). Finally, gravel also is essential to 

the individuals who rely on extraction of the resource for their 

livelihood. Historically, Neosho River gravel has been used for 

several purposes including road and driveway construction. For 

these reasons, understanding the sources, transport, and deposition of gravel in the Neosho River Basin is important. 

Since the completion of John Redmond Reservoir in 1964 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), questions 

about the gravel resource have emerged. For example, is the 

gravel in the Neosho River downstream from John Redmond 

Reservoir a finite resource? It is commonly believed that the 

original source of gravel to the Neosho River is the Flint Hills 

Upland (figs. 1A and 2), which is located upstream from John 

Redmond Reservoir. With the construction of the dam, this 

original source of gravel to the downstream Neosho River has 

been effectively eliminated. Thus, if the Flint Hills Upland is 

the only source, it is possible that the gravel in the Neosho River 

downstream from John Redmond Reservoir eventually may be 

depleted by natural processes and in-channel gravel mining. A 

second question addresses the possibility of gravel replenishment along the Neosho River. Specifically, do tributaries or 

basal channel-bank deposits along the Neosho River provide 

substantial inputs of gravel? The answers to these questions are 

important for the future management of the Neosho River system, especially as related to the ability to successfully balance 

the needs of nature and humans with regard to the gravel 

resource. 
15

56

15

5677

150

256

77

35 177

57

177

4

149

56 56

57 4

57

57

177

50

5799

EXPLANATION

Flint Hills Upland—From Schoewe (1949)

River gravel-bar sampling site and number

50

Emporia

Americus

CottonwoodFalls

CouncilGrove

WhiteCity

Hillsboro

Peabody

Florence

Marion

MarionLake

CouncilGroveLake

River River

River

Neosho

S. Cottonwood

N. Cottonwood

River

Cottonwood

B−13

B−11

BUTLER GREENWOOD

LYON

WABAUNSEE

MORRIS

CHASE

MARION

HARVEY

MC PHERSON

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1: 100,000 Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

30’

38°45’

38°15'

97°15'

97°

45’

30’

96°15’

0 10 5 

0 10 5 15 KI

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

Boundary ofNeosho RiverBasin 

A.

Boundary ofNeosho RiverBasin 

Index map

Arkansas

River

NeoshoRiver

A.

Figure 1. Location of Neosho River Basin in Kansas, John Redmond Reservoir, major tributaries, sampling sites, U.S. Geological Surve

streamflow-gaging stations, inspection sites, and overflow dams.
130

269

335

50 35

5799

57

57

75

54

54

57

169

169

59

31

224

57

57

39

39

39

59

59

EXPLANATION

River gravel-bar sampling site and numberStreamflow-gaging station and numberTributary inspection site and number—Asterisk (*) indicates site 

was sampled for particle-size analysis

Overflow dam

River reach inspected for basal gravel deposits

99

170

Coal Creek

John RedmondReservoir

Flat Rock

Creek

Canville Creek

Big

Creek

Village

Creek

Owl

Creek

South Owl Creek

Elm

Creek

Deer Creek

Indian Creek

Crooked Creek

Long Creek

South

Big

Creek

North Big

Creek

Big Creek

Turkey

Creek

Wolf CreekLake

Chanute

Humboldt

Iola

NeoshoFalls

Neosho River

LeRoy

Colony

Burlington

Emporia

Chanutereach 4

Humboldt

reach 3

Neosho Falls

reach 2

Burlington reach 1

Burlington reach 1

*1

1

1

1

*1

1 1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

*2

3

3

*3

*3

*3

3

3

*3

*3 14

*15 16

18 *17 19

20

21

*3 4

5

7 6 8

*9

9

9

*10

10

*10

10 *11 *13 12

12 *13 *14

15

*16

11

18 *17

19

20

*4

6 5

7 *2

3

*4

4

4

4

4

4

*4

*4

4

5

5

5

*5

*5

5

5

5

*5

*6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

*7

7

7

*7

7

7

*7

*7

*7

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

10

11

10

11

12

13

14

8

8

8

8

9

*9

9

9

*10

10

10

10

10

11

11

*11

11

12

12

*12

*13

13

14

14

15

16

*13

*1

B−6

B−8

B−8

B−9

07182510

07183000

07183000

B−12

B−10

B−11

B−7

NEOSHO

B

WILSON

ALLEN

WOODSON

GREENWOOD

ANDERSON

COFFEY

LYON

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1: 100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

CottonwoodRiver

0 

5 

0 10 5 

15'

96°15’

96°

45’

30’

95

15’

38°

38°30’

37°45’

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

Boundary ofNeosho RiverBasin 

B.

Index map

Arkansas

River

NeoshoRiver

Boundary ofNeosho RiverBasin 

B.

Figure 1. Location of Neosho River Basin in Kansas, John Redmond Reservoir, major tributaries, sampling sites, U.S. Geological Survey streamf

stations, inspection sites, and overflow dams.—Continued
75 224 57 57 57 39 39 39 59 59 57 57

3

3

146

7

102

160

160

126 

126

96

59

166

166

96

59

69

69

103

7

7

400

400

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

Coal Creek

eosho River

Hackberry

Deer CreekDeer Creek

LabetteLabette

Creek

Cherry

Creek

Lightning CreekLightning

Creek

Little Labette Creek

Hickory Creek Lake Parsons

Walnut Creek

Flat Rock Creek

Elk Creek

Canville Creek

Big

Creek

Village

Creek

Oswego

Parsons

Erie

St Paul

Pittsburg

Chanute

Humboldt

Labette Creek

South

Owl Creek

Owl Creek

River gravel-bar sampling site and numberStreamflow-gaging station and numberTributary inspection site and number—Asterisk (*) indicates site 

was sampled for particle-size anal

ysis

Overflow damRiver reach inspected for basal gravel deposits

Oswegoreach 7

Parsonsreach 6

Parsonsreach 6

Eriereach 5

Chanutereach 4

Humboldtreach 3

*1

1

*1

2

2

2

3

*3

*3

*4 4

*4

1

*2

*3

4

*5

1

1

*1

1

*1

1

1

2

2

*2

3

3

*3 4

5 18 *17 19

*4

6 5

7

*2

*2

*2

2

3

*3

3

*3

*4

4

*4

4

4

5

5

5

5

*5

*6

*6

6

6

7

7

*7

7

*8

8

8

8

9

9

*9

9

*10

10

10

10

*1415 *16 17

18

*19

20

5 5

5

*6

6

*6

6

7

*7

7

*7

*8

8

8

8

9

9

9

*9

*10

10

*10

10

11

*11

11

*11

12

*13

12

*12

13

14

15

*16

17

18

*19

20

21

*22

23

13 

15 *14 

*16 

*29

30

31

*32

*33

*34

35

*17

18 19

*21 *20 22

24 *23

*25

26

*27

28

11

*11

11

12

12

*12

*13

*13

13

14

6

*7

8

9

*10

BaxterSprings

Chetopa

Columbus

Girard

C .

B−1

B−2

B−3

B−4

B−5

B−6

CHEROKEE

CRAWFORD

NEOSHO

ALLEN

BOURBON

WILSON

LABETTE

Boundary ofNeosho RiverBasin 

EXPLANATION

*10

B−2

07183500

07183500

McCune

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1: 100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

95°

95°45’ 30’ 15’

 30’

 37°

 15’

37°45’

0 10 5 

0 10 5 15 KILOME

169

169

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

C.

Index map

Arkansas

NR

Figure 1. Location of Neosho River Basin in Kansas, John Redmond Reservoir, major tributaries, sampling sites, U.S. Geological Survey stre

stations, inspection sites, and overflow dams.—Continued
102° 101° 100° 99° 98° 97° 96°

38°

39°

37°

40°

0

0 25 50 

25 50 75 100 

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 1994Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian 96°

Physiographic bou

EXPLANATION

Extent of Neosho River Basin in KansasBoundary of physiographic provinceBoundary of physiographic sectionBoundary of physiographic minor divisions

DISSECTED TILL PLAINS

HIGH PLAINS

OSAGE PLAINS

HIGH PLAINS

GREAT PLAINS CENTRAL LOWLAND

GREAT PLAINS CENTRAL LOWLA

Blue

Blue

ARKANSAS RIVER LOWLANDS Finney Lowland

Great

Bend Lowland McPherson Lowland Os

Flint

Hills

Upland

Smoky

Hills

Wellington Lowland

Chautauqua

Red Hills Hills

Hills

Blue

Hills

Hills

DISSECTED HIGH PLAINS Attenuated Drift Border Kansas Drift Plains KANSAS

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

COLORADO

JohnRedmondReservoir

Figure 2. Physiography of Kansas in relation to the Neosho River Basin.
6 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a 

2-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that was 

begun in 2004 to determine potential gravel sources for the 

Neosho River in Kansas. The study was done in cooperation 

with USCOE. The specific study objectives were to:

1. Characterize the longitudinal variability in composition 

and particle size for gravel in bar deposits located in the 

Neosho River both upstream and downstream from John 

Redmond Reservoir; 

2. Determine the occurrence, composition, and particle size 

of gravel in bar deposits in a spatially representative 

sample of tributaries to the Neosho River downstream 

from John Redmond Reservoir; 

3. Determine the spatial distribution of gravel bars along the 

Neosho River downstream from John Redmond 

Reservoir;

4. Determine the occurrence of exposed basal gravel 

deposits in the channel banks of the Neosho River 

downstream from John Redmond Reservoir; and

5. Assess the potential of the tributaries and basal gravel 

deposits as sources of gravel for the Neosho River 

downstream from John Redmond Reservoir. 

The study objectives were accomplished using a combination of onsite inspection, sampling, and aerial photography. 

Results presented in this report will assist USCOE in future 

decisions regarding the management of the gravel resource. 

From a national perspective, the results presented in this report 

provide information on the important issues of sediment supply 

and habitat maintenance downstream from reservoirs. 

Description of Neosho River Basin

The Neosho River Basin is about 12,400 mi2 in size and 

covers parts of Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma 

(fig. 1). From its headwaters in central Kansas, the Neosho 

River flows generally southeast approximately 470 mi to its 

confluence with the Arkansas River in northeastern Oklahoma. 

Physiographically, the majority of the basin is in the Osage 

Plains Section of the Central Lowland Province (Fenneman, 

1946; Schoewe, 1949). Within Kansas, the upstream one-third 

of the basin is located mostly in the Flint Hills Upland physiographic division, whereas the downstream two-thirds of the 

basin is located mostly in the Osage Cuestas physiographic 

division (fig. 2). Topographically, the Flint Hills Upland is 

characterized as gently rolling. The Osage Cuestas generally 

consist of a series of irregular northeast-southwest trending 

escarpments between which are flat to gently rolling plains 

(Schoewe, 1949). In the Kansas part of the Neosho River Basin, 

bedrock is predominantly alternating limestone and shale of 

Permian age in the Flint Hills Upland and Pennsylvanian age 

downstream. The bedrock is overlain by Quaternary alluvium in 

the valleys of the Neosho River and its major tributaries (Kansas Geological Survey, 1964; Marcher and others, 1984). Land 

use in the Neosho River Basin is predominantly a mix of cropland and grassland (Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 

1993).

Long-term, mean annual precipitation in the Kansas part of 

the Neosho River Basin ranges from about 32 in. at Hillsboro 

(period of record 1948–2003), in the northwestern part of the 

basin (fig. 1A), to about 42 in. at Columbus (period of record 

1900–2003) in the southeastern part (fig. 1C) (High Plains 

Regional Climate Center, 2004). Most of the precipitation is 

received during the growing season (generally, April–

September).

The main focus of the study described in this report was 

the 180-mi reach of the Neosho River situated between John 

Redmond Reservoir and the Kansas-Oklahoma State line 

(fig. 1). Throughout this reach, the Neosho River is characterized by a meandering channel the bed of which typically consists of some combination of bedrock, cobble, gravel, sand, and 

silt. The channel slope averages about 1.2 ft/mi (Carswell and 

Hart, 1985). Riverbank height typically varies from about 15 to 

30 ft (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). The channel bed 

frequently is situated on Pennsylvanian bedrock (Williams, 

1944; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965; Miller, 1969). 

Alluvium in the Neosho River Valley averages about 25 ft in 

thickness and is typified by silt and clay with a basal layer of 

sand and gravel that averages about 3 ft in thickness (Jungmann, 

1966; Miller, 1969; Morton and Fader, 1972). The channelbank materials consist mostly of cohesive silt and clay 

(Osterkamp and Hedman, 1981). Also, the channel banks typically are covered by partial to complete mature tree cover that 

may enhance bank stability at some locations (Thorne, 1990; 

Beeson and Doyle, 1995). 

The gravel in the Neosho River consists predominantly of 

brownish chert that typically is rounded but sometimes angular. 

Chert is a hard, extremely dense cryptocrystalline form of 

quartz (Buchanan, 1984). The chert gravel in the Neosho River 

originated from cherty limestone units of Permian age located 

in the Flint Hills Upland. From its origin in the Flint Hills 

Upland, the chert gravel was eroded, transported, and deposited 

in ancient river channels throughout eastern Kansas (O’Conner, 

1953; Frye, 1955; Aber, 1997). Subsequent erosion of the landscape has left the old alluvial chert gravel deposits of Tertiary 

age situated on high terraces and hilltops in parts of the Neosho 

River Basin and elsewhere in eastern Kansas. The Olpe soil is a 

reliable indicator for the presence of alluvial chert gravel deposits in the uplands of eastern Kansas (Aber, 1997) (fig. 3). Historical erosion, transport, and deposition processes resulted in 

basal chert gravel deposits of uncertain spatial extent in the 

flood plain of the Neosho River. Fossil evidence in the vicinity 

of Emporia suggests that the basal chert deposits are late Pleistocene to Holocene in age (James Aber, Emporia State University, written commun., 2005).

Inspection of USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic quadrangles indicated that gravel extraction pits are common in parts of 

the Neosho River Basin both in the flood plain and in the 

uplands. An upland gravel extraction pit located about 4 mi 

west of Colony, Kansas, is shown in figure 4. Gravel has been 

mined from these pits and from gravel bars within the Neosho 

River channel. 
Labette Cre

ek

GREENWOOD

LYON

COFFEY

WOODSON

ALLEN 

CRAW

ANDERSON

FRANKLI

OSAGE

WILSON

NEOSHO

MORRIS

DICKINSON

CHASE

MARION

BUTLER

COWLEY

ELK

97° 30' 96° 95°30'

37°30'

38°

38°30

0 10 20 

0 10 20 30 KILOMET

820Reservoir8869511,001

1,0501,0991,1481,1981,247

1,2961,3451,3941,444Not present

EXPLANATION

Kansas chert gravel (Olpe soil)—Approximate elevation infeet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1999, 1:100,000

Geographic projection, GCS-North American-1983

Decimal degreesHorizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

John RedmondReservoir

CouncilGroveLake

MarionLake

SouthCottonwoodRiver

NorthCottonwoodRiver

Cottonwood

River

Neosho River

Boundary of 

Neosho River 

Basin

Boundary of Neosho River 

Basin

Elk Creek

North Big Creek

Big Creek Crooked

Creek

Long

Creek

Turkey

Creek

South Big Creek Indian Creek

Deer

Creek

South

Owl Creek

Owl Creek

Elm Creek

Coal Creek

Village

Creek

Big

Creek

C

Neosh

o

River

Figure 3. Approximate distribution of the Olpe soil in uplands of eastern Kansas (modified from Aber, 1997).
8 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

(A) Upland gravel pit west of Colony, Kansas (fig. 1B)

(B) Closeup of chert gravel at the site

Figure 4. (A) An upland gravel pit west of Colony, Kansas, and (B) a closeup of chert gravel at the site (note quarter for scale). Photographs taken on April 16, 2004.
Methods 9

Southeast of Oswego, Kansas (fig. 1C), a buried log was 

discovered that was embedded within a basal chert gravel 

deposit in the bank of the Neosho River. A sample of the log 

was collected and sent to the Illinois State Geological Survey 

for analysis to determine its radiocarbon date. The age of the log 

was estimated to be 420 + 70 years before present (2005) (Keith 

Hackley, Illinois State Geological Survey, written commun., 

2005). Thus, the log and chert gravel at this site likely were 

deposited some time between 1515 and 1655.

Regulation of Flow in the Neosho River

John Redmond Reservoir, completed by USCOE in 1964, 

regulates the flow of streams from 3,015 mi2 in the upstream 

Neosho River Basin. The spillway is gate controlled, and the 

reservoir had a 2000 storage capacity of 574,918 acre-ft at the 

top of the flood pool (James Croston, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written commun., 2005). Changes in the streamflow 

regime attributed to the operation of John Redmond Reservoir 

have included a decrease in the magnitudes of high-flow discharges and an increase in the magnitudes of low-flow discharges (Studley, 1996). An analysis of available USGS data 

indicated that post-dam suspended-sediment concentrations are 

reduced substantially immediately downstream from the dam 

(Juracek, 2000). According to Juracek (2000), the operation of 

John Redmond Reservoir has had little effect on the stability of 

the downstream Neosho River channel. Several tributaries contribute unregulated flow to the Neosho River downstream from 

John Redmond Reservoir (fig. 1). The basin area increases by 

2,861 mi2

 to a total of 5,876 mi2 at the streamflow gage near 

Commerce, Oklahoma (station 07185000), which is approximately 5 mi south of the Kansas-Oklahoma State line. 

Along the Neosho River downstream from John Redmond 

Reservoir are 12 concrete overflow dams (also known as lowhead dams) (fig. 1) that were constructed within the main-stem 

channel mostly in the 1930s or 1950s. Most of the overflow 

dams were built for water-supply purposes to serve nearby 

towns. The overflow dams, which extend across the full width 

of the river channel, create a backwater effect upstream that 

likely affects gravel transport and deposition. Immediately 

downstream, the overflow dams can cause localized channel 

bed and bank erosion (Juracek, 1999). 

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge Chauncey Shepard 

(long-time resident of McCune, Kansas, and long-time extractor of gravel from the Neosho River) for sharing his knowledge 

of the Neosho River and the gravel resource, and for providing 

assistance in accessing the river for onsite inspections. 

Methods

Several methods were used in this study. Categorically, 

they consisted of the following: (1) onsite inspection and sampling of bar deposits (Neosho River and tributaries), (2) onsite 

inspection of basal gravel deposits in channel banks along 

selected reaches of the Neosho River, and (3) inspection of 

aerial photographs for bar deposits along the Neosho River. Bar 

deposits were defined as accumulations of sand, gravel, or other 

material in the channel, along the banks, or at the mouth of a 

stream or river where a decrease in flow velocity causes deposition. Basal gravel deposits were defined as accumulations of 

gravel previously deposited by fluvial processes (that is, deposited before the stream or river migrated to its present location) 

that exist at the base of a channel bank and have been exposed 

by erosion.

Onsite Inspection and Sampling of Bar Deposits

To characterize the longitudinal variability in the particle 

size and composition of gravel in bar deposits in the Neosho 

River, a total of 11 bars were sampled in 2004. Of the 11 bars 

sampled, 9 were located downstream (sites B–1 through B–9) 

and 2 were located upstream (sites B–10 and B–11) from John 

Redmond Reservoir. Additionally, two bars in the Cottonwood 

River near Emporia (sites B–12 and B–13) were sampled 

(fig. 1). All bar deposits were inspected and sampled during 

low-flow conditions.

The assessment of gravel in the tributaries involved the 

inspection of 18 streams in the Neosho River Basin to provide 

a spatially representative sample (fig. 1, table 1). The tributaries 

were inspected during low-flow conditions in 2004 for the presence of bar deposits that contained gravel. Inspections were 

made at bridge or low-water crossings beginning at a location 

just upstream from the tributary’s confluence with the Neosho 

River and extending upstream to the headwaters. At each bridge 

or low-water crossing, the channel was inspected both upstream 

and downstream to the first bend. At some sites, the presence of 

the bridge or low-water crossing may have contributed to the 

deposition of material (including gravel) in the stream channel. 

On average, each stream was inspected at about 15 sites for a 

total of 265 site inspections (fig. 1, table 1). For 90 tributary 

sites (fig. 1), a bar deposit was sampled for particle-size 

analysis.

To provide an indication of the amount of gravel present at 

each tributary inspection site, a qualitative coding scheme was 

used that was based on visual inspection. A site with little or no 

gravel in the channel bed both upstream and downstream from 

the bridge or low-water crossing was assigned a code of 0. This 

coding included sites with no visible bar deposits as well as sites 

that had bar deposits composed mostly of silt and (or) sand with 

only minor amounts of gravel (for example, less than 10 percent). A site with some gravel upstream and (or) downstream 

was assigned a code of 1. This coding included the following: 

sites that had one small bar deposit of predominantly gravel 
10 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Table 1. Neosho River tributaries in Kansas inspected for gravel and the number of sites inspected for each tributary.

Tributary (fig. 1) Number of sites 

inspected

Big Creek (Coffey and Woodson Counties) 21

Big Creek (Allen and Neosho Counties) 16

Canville Creek (Allen and Neosho Counties) 14

Cherry Creek (Cherokee County) 13

Coal Creek (Allen County) 10

Crooked Creek (Coffey County) 11

Deer Creek (Allen and Anderson Counties) 14

Elk Creek (Neosho County) 10

Elm Creek (Allen County) 11

Flat Rock Creek (and Walnut Creek) (Crawford and Neosho Counties) 20

Hickory Creek (Crawford and Labette Counties) 11

Indian Creek (Allen and Anderson Counties) 9

Labette Creek (and Little Labette, Hackberry, and Deer Creeks) (Labette and Neosho Counties) 35

Lightning Creek (Cherokee and Crawford Counties) 23

Long Creek (Coffey County) 10

Owl Creek (Allen and Woodson Counties) 20

Turkey Creek (Coffey and Woodson Counties) 10

Village Creek (Neosho and Wilson Counties) 7

upstream and (or) downstream, sites that had one medium-sized 

bar deposit of predominantly gravel upstream or downstream 

(but not both), and sites that had one or more bar deposits 

upstream and (or) downstream that were composed mostly of 

silt and (or) sand with a moderate amount of gravel (for example, 10 to 30 percent). A site with abundant gravel both 

upstream and downstream was assigned a code of 2. This 

coding included sites with one or more medium to large bar 

deposits of predominantly gravel both upstream and downstream. The decision as to whether a bar deposit was small, 

medium, or large was based on subjective judgment given the 

channel size.

Because of the diversity of conditions encountered, subjective judgment was occasionally required to assign a site to 

one of the three codes as defined. For example, a site with multiple medium to large gravel bars downstream and no gravel 

bars upstream was assigned a value of 2. However, if the source 

of the gravel was a low-water crossing (that is, road gravel), 

then the site was assigned a value of 0. The qualitative ranking 

scheme was used to characterize and compare the tributaries 

that were visually inspected. 

Particle-Size Analysis

The particle-size distribution of the gravel in each sampled 

bar deposit was determined using a variant of the pebble-count 

technique (Wolman, 1954). This technique involved the collection of a random sample of 100 surficial particles from the bar 

deposit along one or more transects during low-flow conditions. 

The use of transects, rather than a grid system as originally 

employed by Wolman (1954), is an accepted method that has 

been shown to provide equivalent results (Church and others, 

1987; Kondolf, 1997). 

For each sampled bar deposit, a representative location 

was selected near the middle of the bar. Using a 100-ft tape 

measure, a transect was established perpendicular to the long 

axis of the bar. Starting at the water’s edge, the transect was 

extended landward to the edge of the bar (as determined by the 

channel bank and (or) the presence of permanent vegetation). 

Along the transect, a random sample of 100 particles was collected by picking up a particle at a predetermined interval along 

the tape measure (typically, every foot) (fig. 5). To ensure randomness, the particle that was directly under the top of each foot 

marker on the tape was selected. For relatively narrow bars, the 

random sample was collected using two or more parallel 

transects offset by 1 ft. In this study, sampling was restricted to 

material that was gravel size or larger. 

Particle size was determined by measuring the intermediate axis of each particle to the nearest millimeter (Wolman, 

1954) (fig. 6). The resulting particle-size information was used 

to determine the median particle size and to characterize the 

gravel on the basis of the frequency distribution of the sampled 

particles as classified into various size categories (that is, from 
Methods 11

Figure 5. Collection of a random sample of gravel for subsequent particle-size analysis. Location is Indian Creek 

site 1 (fig. 1B). Photograph taken on February 27, 2004.

very fine gravel to small boulder). Particles were assigned to 

size classes according to a modified version of the Wentworth 

scale (Wentworth, 1922; Gordon and others, 1992) (table 2). 

Particles with an intermediate axis equivalent to a class break 

were assigned to the larger class. For example, a particle with an 

intermediate axis of 8 mm was classified as medium gravel 

rather than fine gravel. 

Composition Analysis

The composition of the gravel in Neosho and Cottonwood 

River bar deposits at 13 sites was summarized as the percentage 

of each pebble-count sample that was chert and the percentage 

that was composed of other materials. Typically, the other 

materials reflected the composition of nearby exposed bedrock 

and consisted of limestone, shale, sandstone, or some combination thereof. 

For tributaries of the Neosho River in Kansas, a qualitative 

approach was used. On the basis of results of the visual onsite 

inspections (specifically, the amount of chert observed at each 

site), each tributary was characterized as to whether or not it 

was a potential source of chert gravel to the Neosho River. 

Onsite Inspection of Basal Gravel Deposits

The occurrence of basal gravel deposits in the banks of the 

Neosho River downstream from John Redmond Reservoir was 

assessed by the onsite inspection of seven representative river 

reaches. Along the Neosho River, the river reaches were 

selected to provide a spatially representative sample of conditions throughout the study area. Representative reaches were 

inspected in 2004 near the towns of Burlington, Neosho Falls, 

Humboldt, Chanute, Erie, Parsons, and Oswego (fig. 1). The 

representative reaches ranged in length from 4.5 to 7.6 mi. 

Combined, the reaches provide about a 24-percent sample of 

the Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir and the 

Kansas-Oklahoma State line. Along each reach, both banks 

were inspected for the presence of exposed basal gravel deposits during low-flow conditions. For each deposit located, the 

bank was noted (that is, left or right looking in the downstream 

direction), and the upstream and downstream ends were documented using global positioning system (GPS) technology. 

These data subsequently were used to estimate the length of 

each deposit. Also, for each deposit, the maximum thickness 

above the low-flow water surface was estimated visually. 

Inspection of Aerial Photographs for Bar Deposits

Inspection of the Neosho River from John Redmond Reservoir to the Kansas-Oklahoma State line was performed using 

1:12,000-scale, color infrared aerial photographs to provide a 

longitudinal assessment of bar-deposit locations. The aerial 

photography was flown during low-flow, leaf-off, ice-free conditions on 2 days during December 2004. A total of 27 flight 

lines were photographed by Western Air Maps, Inc., of 
12 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

A

A

B

B

A = Longest axis (length)

B = Intermediate axis (width)

C = Shortest axis (thickness)

C

43 millimeters

38 millimeters

11 millimeters

Not to scale

Figure 6. Longest, intermediate, and shortest axes of a gravel particle. 

Overland Park, Kansas. The Neosho River from John Redmond 

Reservoir downstream to Humboldt, Kansas, was flown on 

December 3, 2004. On this day, discharges at the Neosho River 

streamflow-gaging stations at Burlington (station 07182510) 

and near Iola (station 07183000) were about 30 and 430 ft3/s, 

respectively. The Neosho River from Humboldt downstream to 

the Oklahoma State line was flown on December 14, 2004. On 

this day, discharge at the Neosho River streamflow-gaging stations near Iola and near Parsons (station 07183500) were about 

220 and 650 ft3/s, respectively. These flow values are all less 

than the estimated regulated median flows of 397, 581, and 

852 ft3

/s, respectively, for streamflow gages at Burlington, near 

Iola, and near Parsons (Perry and others, 2004). Periods of less 

than median flow were chosen for best exposure of the bar 

deposits in the photographs. The location of the gaging stations 

is shown in figure 1. 

The aerial photographs were scanned to create 300 dpi 

(dots per inch) color TIFF (tagged image file format) files. 

Using ArcGIS software (ESRI, 2004), the digital images for the 

representative reaches were georeferenced to remove distortions inherent in the aerial photographs and to project the 

images into the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. For this purpose, 1991 digital orthophotos of Allen 

County and 2002 digital orthophotos of Cherokee, Coffey, 

Labette, Neosho, and Woodson Counties (Kansas Data Access 

and Support Center, 2005) were used as reference maps. The 

digital images were examined to determine the location of 

apparent gravel bars. Using the digital images as a backdrop, the 

apparent gravel bars were digitized along the entire length of the 

Neosho River from John Redmond Reservoir to the KansasOklahoma State line. Only the lengths of the bars were measured in this analysis. Widths were quite variable, and the 

heights above the water surface were not measurable. 

Gravel Characterization and Distribution

In the following sections, the results of the investigation to 

determine the character and distribution of gravel sources in the 

Neosho River Basin are presented. Specifically, the results presented include a characterization of the longitudinal variability 

in composition and particle size for gravel in bar deposits in the 

Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers, a summary of the occurrence,

composition, and particle size of gravel in bar deposits for a

Table 2. Particle-size classes.

[Source: Gordon and others (1992). mm, millimeters]

Class Size1 (mm)

1

Length of the intermediate axis.

Small boulder 256–512

Large cobble 128–256

Small cobble 64–128

Very coarse gravel 32–64

Coarse gravel 16–32

Medium gravel 8–16

Fine gravel 4–8

Very fine gravel 2–4
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 13

spatially representative sample of tributaries to the Neosho 

River, a description of the spatial distribution of bar deposits in 

the Neosho River, and a description of the occurrence and maximum thickness of exposed basal gravel deposits in the channel 

banks of the Neosho River. 

Characterization of Neosho and Cottonwood River Bar

Deposits

To characterize the longitudinal variability in the composition and particle size of gravel in the Neosho River, a total of 

11 bar deposits were sampled. Of the 11 bar deposits sampled, 

9 were located downstream and 2 were located upstream from 

John Redmond Reservoir (figs. 1B and 1C). Along the Neosho 

River, the downstream-most bar deposit sampled (site B–1) was 

southeast of Chetopa near the Oklahoma State line (fig. 1C), 

and the upstream-most bar deposit sampled (site B–11) was 

near Emporia (fig. 1B). Also, two bar deposits (sites B–12 and 

B–13) in the Cottonwood River near Emporia were sampled 

(figs. 1A and 1B). Aerial and ground photographs of the Neosho 

River bar deposits sampled at sites B–1 (about 3 mi southeast of 

Chetopa) and B–8 (about 2 mi south of LeRoy) are shown in 

figures 7 and 8. 

Compositionally, gravel in the Neosho River bar deposits 

consisted mostly of chert that was typically brownish in color 

and rounded. The dominance of chert was very consistent 

among the bar deposits and accounted for an average of about 

85 to 95 percent of the gravel in each sample (fig. 9, table 3). 

The remaining 5 to 15 percent typically consisted of limestone 

or shale derived from local outcrops. The composition of the 

gravel in the two bar deposits sampled in the Cottonwood River 

was not consistent. At site B–12, located near the confluence 

with the Neosho River (fig. 1B), gravel in the bar deposit had a 

chert content of 75 to 85 percent and was compositionally similar to the Neosho River bar deposits. However, for the gravel 

in the bar deposit upstream at site B–13 (fig. 1A), the chert content was only 10 to 20 percent (table 3). 

The dominance of chert in the Neosho River bar deposits 

likely is attributable, in large part, to its hardness as compared 

to the limestone and (or) shale that typically account for the 

small remaining fraction of the gravel in the deposits. The 

degree of hardness, defined as the relative ease or difficulty 

with which a mineral can be scratched, traditionally is assigned 

using the Mohs hardness scale. In this scale, hardness ranges 

from a value of 1 (softest) to 10 (hardest) (Judson and Kauffman, 1990). Using the Mohs scale, chert (composed mostly of 

quartz) has a hardness of 7, and limestone (composed mostly of 

calcite) has a hardness of 3 (Buchanan, 1984). Thus, when subjected to erosional and transport processes, chert is much more 

durable in the environment. Because the Mohs hardness scale is 

on a logarithmic scale of microhardness (Hodge and McKay, 

1934), the chert takes much longer to weather away under similar conditions than the softer local bedrock limestone. This 

helps to explain the persistence of ancient riverine cherty gravel 

deposits located on hilltops above the present-day Neosho 

River. Visual differentiation between chert samples obtained 

from the hilltop locations and those obtained from nearby 

Neosho River bar deposits was virtually impossible. 

The gravel in the Neosho River bar deposits also was generally consistent in terms of particle size. The gravel consisted 

predominantly of material that is classified as either medium or 

coarse gravel (that is, with an intermediate axis of 8 to 31 mm 

in length). Combined, medium and coarse gravel typically 

accounted for about 70 to 85 percent of each sample. Median 

particle sizes for the samples ranged from 11 to 22 mm, 

although most of the samples had a median particle size in the 

range of 13 to 15 mm (table 3). For the Cottonwood River, 

gravel in the bar deposit at site B–12 had a particle-size distribution that was similar to the Neosho River bar deposits. However, gravel in the bar deposit at site B–13 had a relatively large 

content of fine gravel, which likely is indicative of the difference in the composition of this deposit (that is, more limestone) 

(table 3). 

Characterization of Tributary Bar Deposits

To determine the occurrence, composition, and particle 

size of gravel in bar deposits for a spatially representative sample of tributaries to the Neosho River, 18 streams were 

inspected and sampled (fig. 1, table 1). Typically, the tributaries 

were characterized by considerable site-to-site variability as to 

the presence of gravel, which often was associated with local 

bedrock outcrops. For Coal and Crooked Creeks, little or no 

gravel was observed at all of the inspection sites. Similarly, little or no gravel was observed at the majority of the inspection 

sites for Cherry, Long, and Turkey Creeks. For the remaining 

tributaries, at least one-half of the inspection sites had either 

some or abundant gravel (table 4). 

Compositionally, gravel in the bar deposits exhibited considerable variability both within and among the tributaries. 

Overall, the gravel, when present, consisted of some combination of chert, limestone, sandstone, and shale. For 15 of the 

18 streams inspected, little or no chert was observed at most or 

all of the inspection sites. The 15 streams were Big Creek 

(Neosho and Allen Counties), Canville Creek, Cherry Creek, 

Coal Creek, Crooked Creek, Deer Creek, Elk Creek, Elm Creek, 

Flat Rock Creek, Hickory Creek, Labette Creek, Lightning 

Creek, Long Creek, Owl Creek, and Turkey Creek. The absence 

of chert in Deer Creek indicates that the Olpe soil, which is 

widespread in upstream parts of the basin (fig. 3), is not a viable 

source of chert to the stream. This finding is consistent with 

Byerley (1995) who concluded that the upland chert deposits 

(represented by the Olpe soil) are not a viable source of chert 

replenishment for the Neosho River due to the generally high 

and remote topographic position of the deposits with respect 

to the river and most major tributaries. Of the 15 streams, 

5 (Cherry Creek, Elk Creek, Hickory Creek, Lightning Creek, 

and Owl Creek) included one downstream site on the Neosho 

River flood plain at which abundant chert was observed. 
14 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

B–1

(A)

(B)

Neosho

River

Figure 7. Gravel bar sampling site B–1 in Neosho River southeast of Chetopa, Kansas. Shown are the (A) aerial 

view of the gravel bar and the (B) ground view of the gravel bar looking upstream. Arrow on aerial photograph 

shows direction of streamflow. Location of sampling site shown in figure 1C. Aerial photograph taken on 

December 14, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc. Ground photograph taken May 7, 2004.
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 15

B–8

Neosho

Rive

r

(A)

(B)

Figure 8. Gravel bar sampling site B–8 in Neosho River south of LeRoy, Kansas. Shown are the (A) aerial view of 

the gravel bar and the (B) ground view of the gravel bar looking downstream. Arrow on aerial photograph 

shows direction of streamflow. Location of sampling site shown in figure 1B. Aerial photograph taken on 

December 3, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc. Ground photograph taken April 28, 2004.
16 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Table 3. Chert content and particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers, Kansas, 

2004.

[mm, millimeters; --, not present in sample]

River

sampling 

site 

number

(fig. 1)

Chert 

content

(percent)

Number of surficial particles in each particle-size class1

1Particle-size classes from Gordon and others (1992). Particles with an intermediate axis length equivalent to the size break between two classes 

were assigned to the larger class.

Median 

particle 

size (mm)

Large 

cobble

(128 to 

256 mm)

Small

cobble

(64 to 128 mm)

Very

coarse

gravel

(32 to 64 mm)

Coarse

gravel

(16 to 32 mm)

Medium

gravel

(8 to 16 mm)

Fine

gravel

(4 to 8 mm)

Very

fine

gravel

(2 to 4 mm)

Neosho River

B–1 85-95 -- -- 4 35 44 16 1 13

B–2 85-95 -- -- 4 41 41 13 1 14

B–3 70-80 -- -- 3 32 36 19 10 11

B–4 85-95 -- 1 1 33 49 14 2 14

B–5 85-95 -- -- 3 45 38 13 1 14

B–6 80-90 -- 1 12 39 34 13 1 16

B–7 90-100 -- 1 18 55 20 4 2 22

B–8 80-90 -- -- 3 34 45 17 1 13

B–9 85-95 -- -- 4 46 29 18 3 15

B–10 80-90 -- -- 3 47 40 10 -- 15

B–11 90-100 -- -- 8 54 34 4 -- 17

Cottonwood River

B–12 75-85 -- -- 11 51 25 12 1 19

B–13 10-20 1 3 9 20 34 28 5 12

Substantial chert was observed at several inspection sites 

for Big Creek (Coffey and Woodson Counties), Indian Creek, 

and Village Creek (fig. 3). For Indian Creek, the downstreammost six sites contained abundant chert. For Village Creek, the 

downstream-most site on the Neosho River flood plain contained abundant chert. Little chert was observed at the downstream-most two sites for Big Creek. The Olpe soil is widespread in the Big Creek Basin but less common in the Indian 

Creek and Village Creek Basins (fig. 3). The viability of the 

Olpe soil as a source of chert to the three streams is uncertain. 

At some sites along all three streams, basal cherty gravel deposits were observed in the channel banks in the vicinity of inchannel cherty gravel bars. This observation indicated that basal 

deposits likely are an important source of chert to these streams.

Site-to-site variability also typified the tributary bar deposits in terms of the particle-size distribution of the gravel. Information on the particle-size distribution for 90 tributary inspection sites at which a bar deposit was sampled is provided in 

table 6 in the “Supplemental Information” section at the back of 

this report. At individual inspection sites the gravel typically 

consisted of large percentages of medium and (or) coarse gravel 

(that is, with respective intermediate axis lengths of 8 to 15 and 

16 to 31 mm). Also, the gravel at several inspection sites 

included a large percentage of fine (intermediate axis length of 

4 to 7 mm) and (or) very coarse (intermediate axis length of 

32 to 63 mm) gravel. The gravel at a few inspection sites 

included a substantial percentage of very fine gravel (intermediate axis length of 2 or 3 mm) or small cobbles (intermediate 

axis length of 64 to 127 mm). Median particle sizes at the 

inspection sites ranged from 5 to 53 mm (table 6). 

Distribution of Bar Deposits in the Neosho River

The entire length of the Neosho River from John Redmond 

Reservoir to the Kansas-Oklahoma State line was examined for 

the presence and length of bar deposits using 1:12,000-scale, 

color infrared aerial photographs taken in December 2004. 

These aerial photographs were visually compared with other 

aerial photographs taken in 1991 and 1992 (TerraServer, 2005). 

The level of flow in the Neosho River affected the amount of 

apparent bar deposits that was visible. Low flows in 1991 of less 

than 30 ft3/s from John Redmond Reservoir to Chanute (fig. 1B) 

exposed a considerable amount of the channel bed, whereas 

high flows in 1992 obscured nearly all of the deposits from Chanute downstream to the Oklahoma State line (fig. 1C). In spot 

checks of the Neosho River upstream from Chanute, the apparent bar deposits were quite static in terms of location and extent 
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 17

as determined by a comparison of 1991 and 2004 aerial 

photography.

The identification of gravel bars from aerial photographs 

was a somewhat subjective process because there are several 

types of deposits along the Neosho River. Mud bars, which consist of fine sediment, have shapes similar to gravel bars but tend 

to appear darker in the aerial photographs. Also, the mud bars 

are at times associated with bank sloughing and can occur on 

the outside of a channel bend, which is usually an area of erosion (that is, a cutbank). The characteristic cherty gravel bars in 

the Neosho River appear as tan to gray deposits along the inside 

of channel bends (that is, point bars), at locations where the 

channel widens, and near riffles in the channel. Other gravel and 

cobble bars are associated with localized outcrops of native 

limestone. These bar deposits tend to be lighter in color compared to the cherty gravel when viewed on the aerial photographs. There also are localized bedrock exposures on the channel bed that, like the gravel and cobble bars, tend to be lighter 

in color. 

Cobble bars and bedrock exposures are distinguishable 

from gravel bars because of their more irregular shape. Gravel 

bars are characterized by a smooth shape with a point at the 

downstream termination, whereas cobble bars and bedrock 

exposures have a more irregular appearance that lacks such a 

point. Moreover, gravel bars are typified by a parallel orientation to the direction of flow within the channel, whereas cobble 

bars form as a series of deposits perpendicular to the direction 

of flow (fig. 10). The difference in shape and orientation 

between the gravel and cobble bars is caused, in part, by the difference in the size of the materials in relation to the ability of 

flowing water to transport and deposit the materials. Other 

problems with identifying apparent gravel bars along the channel included the long winter shadows cast by the steep channel 

banks and by trees. 

For the 180-mi reach of the Neosho River situated between 

John Redmond Reservoir and the Kansas-Oklahoma State line, 

the total length of apparent gravel bars was approximately 

44 mi. This total includes bars on both sides of the channel. The 

ratio of apparent gravel-bar length to channel length is approximately 1:4. However, from the aerial photographs it was 

apparent that some reaches of the Neosho River had a higher 

ratio of gravel-bar to channel length, whereas others had a much 

lower ratio.

A comparison of the 2004 aerial photographs with USGS 

7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps (with publication 

dates ranging from 1966 to 1978) indicated that the Neosho 

River has migrated substantially at some locations. Examples 

include the migration of the river channel around an overflow 

dam (northeast of Parsons, fig. 1C) and the cutoff of a large 

channel meander (southeast of Oswego, fig. 1C). A detailed 

assessment of channel migration was beyond the scope of this 

study. The rate of channel migration is important because it may 

be used to provide an indication of the amount of gravel being 

supplied to the Neosho River at locations where basal gravel 

deposits are being eroded.

(A) Sampling site B–1

(B) Sampling site B–8

(C) Sampling site B–10 

Figure 9. Closeup of chert in gravel bars sampled at (A) site B–1, 

(B) site B–8, and (C) site B–10 in the Neosho River (note quarter for

scale). The difference in color at site B–10 was caused by shaded 

conditions at the sampling site. Location of sampling sites shown in 

figure 1.
18 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Table 4. Neosho River tributaries in Kansas inspected for gravel, number of sites inspected for each tributary, and occurrence of 

gravel, 2004.

Tributary (fig. 1)

Number of 

sites 

inspected

Occurrence of gravel

Number of sites 

with little or no 

gravel

(code=0)

Number of sites 

with some gravel 

(code=1)

Number of sites 

with abundant 

gravel

(code=2)

Mean 

occurrence 

code1

1

Mean computed as the sum of the assigned site codes divided by the total number of sites inspected for each tributary.

Big Creek (Coffey and Woodson 

Counties)

21 66 9 1.1

Big Creek (Allen and Neosho Counties) 16 84 4 .8

Canville Creek (Allen and Neosho 

Counties)

14 25 7 1.4

Cherry Creek (Cherokee County) 13 84 1 .5

Coal Creek (Allen County) 10 10 0 0 0

Crooked Creek (Coffey County) 11 11 0 0 0

Deer Creek (Allen and Anderson 

Counties)

14 75 2 .6

Elk Creek (Neosho County) 10 04 6 1.6

Elm Creek (Allen County) 11 44 3 .9

Flat Rock Creek (and Walnut Creek) 

(Crawford and Neosho Counties)

20 29 9 1.4

Hickory Creek (Crawford and Labette 

Counties)

11 14 6 1.5

Indian Creek (Allen and Anderson 

Counties)

9 03 6 1.7

Labette Creek (and Little Labette, 

Hackberry, and Deer Creeks) (Labette 

and Neosho Counties)

35 7 13 15 1.2

Lightning Creek (Cherokee and 

Crawford Counties)

23 8 12 3 .8

Long Creek (Coffey County) 10 63 1 .5

Owl Creek (Allen and Woodson 

Counties)

20 9 10 1 .6

Turkey Creek (Coffey and Woodson 

Counties)

10 71 2 .5

Village Creek (Neosho and Wilson 

Counties)

7 31 3 1.0

Basal Gravel Deposits Along the Neosho River

The occurrence of exposed basal gravel deposits in the 

banks of the Neosho River was assessed by the onsite inspection 

of seven representative river reaches that together provide about 

a 24-percent sample of the Neosho River in Kansas downstream 

from John Redmond Reservoir (fig. 1). The reaches inspected 

varied substantially as to the occurrence of exposed basal gravel 

deposits, ranging from about 55 ft/mi (or about 1 percent of the 

reach) for the Chanute reach to about 1,800 ft/mi (or about 

35 percent of the reach) for the Oswego reach. Overall, the 

mean extent was about 940 ft/mi (or about 18 percent of the 

total river miles inspected) (table 5). However, because some of 

the basal gravel deposits likely were not observed (for example, 

due to bank slumps, bar deposits, vegetation, debris, riprap, or 

submergence), the extent of exposed basal deposits reported in 

table 5 may be somewhat underrepresented. Generally, at any 

given location, exposed basal gravel deposits were observed on 
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 19

Neosh

o

River

Neosho

River

Gravel bars

COFFEY COUNTY

COFFEY COUNTY

Cobble bars

Bedrock

outcrop

(A)

(B)

Figure 10. Comparison of bar-deposit shapes in the Neosho River near LeRoy, Kansas, December 3, 

2004. Shown are (A) a series of gravel bars oriented parallel to the direction of flow and (B) cobble bars 

(downstream from a bedrock outcrop) oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow. Aerial 

photographs taken by Western Air Maps, Inc.
20 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Table 5. River reach length and approximate total length, extent, range in maximum thickness, and mean maximum thickness 

of exposed basal gravel deposits in channel banks of the Neosho River in Kansas downstream from John Redmond Reservoir, 

2004.

[ft/mi, feet per mile; ft, feet; <, less than; all values rounded to 1 or 2 significant figures]

River reach name and number

(length of reach, in miles)

(fig. 1)

Approximate total 

length of exposed 

basal gravel 

deposits1, in feet 

(percent, %, of 

reach)

1Because some basal gravel deposits likely were not observed (for example, due to bank slumps, bar deposits, vegetation, debris,

riprap, or submergence), the total length and extent values reported may be somewhat underrepresented.

Approximate extent 

of exposed basal 

gravel deposits per

river mile1

(ft/mi)

Approximate range 

in maximum 

thckness of exposed 

basal gravel 

deposits above lowflow water surface2

(ft)

2Maximum thickness of basal gravel deposits above low-flow water surface was visually estimated. 

Approximate mean 

maximum thickness 

of exposed basal 

gravel deposits 

above low-flow 

water surface (ft)

Burlington reach 1 (6.2) 6,200

(19%)

1,000 <1–6 3

Neosho Falls reach 2 (6.3) 4,400

(13%)

700 <1–8 3

Humboldt reach 3 (6.3) 2,800

(8%)

440 1–10 3

Chanute reach 4 (4.5) 250

(1%)

55 1–3 2

Erie reach 5 (5.4) 4,400

(15%)

810 1–7 3

Parsons reach 6 (6.3) 8,400

(25%)

1,300 <1–10 3

Oswego reach 7 (7.6) 14,000

(35%)

1,800 <1–9 4

Combined (42.6) 40,000

(mean 18%)

940 

(mean)

<1–10 3

a single bank if at all. Sites at which basal deposits were 

observed simultaneously on both banks were rare. The distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits for each of the seven 

reaches is shown in figures 11 to 17. 

Lengths of individual exposed basal gravel deposits 

ranged from less than 50 ft to several hundred feet. The longest 

exposed deposit, observed in the Oswego reach (fig. 1C), had an 

estimated length of about 1,900 ft. The mean length of the 

exposed deposits was not estimated for the individual river 

reaches because of occasional uncertainty as to whether a series 

of closely spaced deposits represented multiple deposits or a 

single long deposit that was partially obscured (for example, by 

bank slumps and so forth). 

Estimated maximum thicknesses of the exposed basal 

gravel deposits above the low-flow water surface ranged from 

less than 1 to about 10 ft. Overall, the mean maximum thickness 

was about 3 ft (table 5). Occasionally, the basal deposits were 

short with tapered ends and resembled a cross section of a large 

gravel bar. Frequently, the basal deposits were relatively long 

with an upper surface that was flat. For this type of deposit, the 

estimated maximum thickness often provided an approximation 

of the mean thickness. An example of an exposed basal deposit 

in the Oswego reach (located on the opposite bank from 

site B–2, fig. 1C) is shown in figure 18. Given that the Neosho 

River channel bed frequently is situated on or near bedrock, the 

observed average thicknesses appear to be consistent with previous publications in which the average thickness of the basal 

gravel deposits was stated to be about 3 ft (Jungmann, 1966; 

Miller, 1969; Morton and Fader, 1972). 

The composition of the basal gravel deposits observed in 

the seven representative reaches generally was consistent with 

the in-channel gravel bars. That is, the basal deposits consisted 

of similarly sized gravel that was predominantly brownish, 

rounded chert. 
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 21

95°44' 30" 43'

 30"

42'

95°41'30"

38°11'30"

38°8'30"

9'

30"

10'

30"

11'

0

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

0.25 0.5 MILE

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposit

Gravel bar from aerial 

 photographs

Direction of flow

Beginning of

river survey

COFFEY COUNTY

End of

river survey

Burlington

Neosho

River

Wolf

Creek

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Figure 11. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from aerial 

photographs) in the Neosho River for the representative reach located near Burlington. Location of river reach shown 

in figure 1B. Aerial photographs taken December 3, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.
37°58'30" 

59'

30"

38°

30"

38°1'

95°33'30"

33'

30"

32' 

30" 

31'

30"

30'

30"

29'

Beginning ofriver survey

Neosho Falls

Overflowdam

Enriv

00 

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Neosho

River

Leonards Lake

WOODSON COUNTY

ALLEN COUNTY

Rock Creek

Indian

Cre

ek

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel depositGravel bar from aerial  photographsDirection of flow

Figure 12. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from aerial photographs) in the N

the representative reach located near Neosho Falls. Location of river reach shown in figure 1B. Aerial photographs taken December 3, 2004, 

Maps, Inc.
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 23

ALLEN COUNTY

Beginning of

river survey

End of

river survey

95°29’

28' 30" 27' 30"

95°26'

37°45'

30"

46'

30"

30"

47'

30"

48'

37°48'30"

Humboldt

Petrolia

0

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 0.25 0.5 MILE

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Neosho River

Owl Creek

Mud Creek

Coal Creek

Scatter Creek

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposit

Gravel bar from aerial 

 photographs

Direction of flow

Overflow

dam

Figure 13. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from aerial photographs) in the Neosho River for the representative reach 

located near Humboldt. Location of river reach shown in figure 1B. Aerial photographs 

taken December 14, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.
24 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Beginning of

river survey

End of

river survey

30" 25' 30" 24'

95°23'30"

95°26'

37°37'30"

38'

30"

39'

30"

37°40'

0

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

0.25 0.5 MILE

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Neosho River

Turkey Creek

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposit

Gravel bar from aerial 

 photographs

Direction of flow

NEOSHO COUNTY

Overflow

dam

Figure 14. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from aerial 

photographs) in the Neosho River for the representative reach located near Chanute. Location of river reach shown in 

figure 1C. Aerial photographs taken December 14, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.
95°15'

30"

14'

30"

13'

37°31'30"

32'

30"

37°33' Beginning of

river survey

End of

river survey

00 0.25 

0.25 

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Neosho

River

NEOSHO COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposiGravel bar from ae photographsDirection of flow

Overflowdam

Figure 15. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from aerial photographs) in the N

representative reach located near Erie. Location of river reach shown in figure 1C. Aerial photographs taken December 14, 2004, by Western 
26 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Beginning of

river survey

End of

river survey

NEOSHO COUNTY

LABETTE COUNTY

95°9' 30" 8'

30"

7'

95°6'30"

37°21'30"

22'

30"

23'

30"

24'

30"

37°25'

0

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

0.25 0.5 MILE

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Neosho River

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposit

Gravel bar from aerial 

 photographs

Direction of flow

Overflow

dam

Figure 16. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from 

aerial photographs) in the Neosho River for the representative reach located near Parsons. Location of river

reach shown in figure 1C. Aerial photographs taken December 14, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.
Gravel Characterization and Distribution 27

LABETTE COUNTY

CHEROKEE COUNTY

Beginning of

river survey

Oswego 

Neosho River Lightning Creek

Horseshoe Lake

End of

river survey 0

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

0.25 0.5 MILE

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

95° 6' 30” 5‘ 30”

4‘

95°4‘30”

37°10'30"

37°7'30"

30"

30"

9'

8'

10'

EXPLANATION

Basal gravel deposit

Gravel bar from aerial 

 photographs

Direction of flow

Overflow

dam

Figure 17. Distribution of exposed basal gravel deposits (from onsite inspection) and apparent gravel bars (from 

aerial photographs) in the Neosho River for the representative reach located near Oswego. Location of river

reach shown in figure 1C. Aerial photographs taken December 14, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.
28 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Soil 

Clay

Basal gravel 

Figure 18. Basal gravel deposit exposed on a cutbank located on the opposite side of the Neosho River

channel from gravel bar sampling site B–2 (Oswego reach). Location of sampling site shown in figure 1C. 

Photograph taken on May 6, 2004.

Gravel Sources for the Neosho River

In this section, the results of the analyses are interpreted to 

provide an assessment of the potential of tributaries and basal 

channel-bank deposits to provide sources of gravel for the 

Neosho River in Kansas downstream from John Redmond Reservoir. Additional topics discussed include the effect of dams on 

sources of Neosho River gravel and the future of Neosho River 

gravel bars. 

Assessment of Potential Sources of Chert Gravel

Because the gravel bars in the Neosho River in Kansas are 

composed predominantly of chert (table 3), this discussion is 

focused on the potential sources of chert. Overall, the tributaries 

to the Neosho River do not provide a substantial source of chert 

gravel to the river. For 15 of the 18 streams inspected (fig. 1, 

table 1), little or no chert was observed at most or all of the 

inspection sites. Moreover, the absence of a bar deposit of 

gravel in the Neosho River at or immediately downstream from 

its confluence with each of the 15 streams indicated that they 

are not a major source of gravel to the river. Likewise, for two 

of the three streams for which substantial chert was observed at 

several inspection sites, a gravel bar in the Neosho River at or 

immediately downstream from the confluence was not evident. 

The only tributary for which substantial chert was observed at 

most of the inspection sites, and a large chert gravel bar exists 

at its confluence with the Neosho River, is Indian Creek 

(fig. 19). Thus, Indian Creek was the only tributary inspected 

that potentially may provide a substantial input of chert gravel 

to the river. 

Two possibilities may account for the apparent lack of 

gravel transport from the tributaries into the Neosho River. 

First, the amount of available gravel, and the frequency and 

duration of the flows required to transport it, may be insufficient 

to result in large inputs to the river. Frequently, the gravel in the 

tributaries originates from the erosion of local sources, such as 

bedrock outcrops. Once eroded, the material may be transported 

only a short distance downstream from the source before being 

deposited. Once deposited, the size of the material and (or) 

compaction (for example, by silt and sand) may render the 

material very resistant to further transport except during the 

largest flows. Second, the non-chert material (that is, limestone, 

shale, and sandstone) is less durable (compared to chert) when 

subjected to erosional and transport processes in the fluvial 

environment. Thus, much of the non-chert gravel may be broken down before it reaches the Neosho River. These interpretations are supported by the fact that minimal amounts of nonchert gravel typically were observed in the Neosho River gravel 

bars (table 3). 

The basal chert gravel deposits appear to be the major 

present-day source of chert for the Neosho River channel. Basal 

chert gravel deposits were found in all the reaches visually 
Gravel Sources for the Neosho River 29

Gravel bar

Neosho River

Indian

Creek

Neosho River

ALLEN COUNTY

Figure 19. Aerial photograph of gravel bar in the Neosho River at its confluence with Indian Creek. Arrows on 

aerial photograph indicate direction of streamflow. Location of Indian Creek shown in figure 1B. Aerial photograph taken December 3, 2004, by Western Air Maps, Inc.

inspected (figs. 11–17), and a statistically significant relation 

was indicated between the occurrence of the basal deposits and 

the occurrence of chert gravel bars (see information provided in 

the following section). Particle-size analyses of the basal deposits were not performed due to problems with obtaining a random 

sample. However, grab samples of the chert from the basal 

deposits and from gravel bars just downstream from the basal 

deposits appeared to be similar. The basal deposits are a finite 

source of chert gravel for the Neosho River.

The upland chert gravel deposits (fig. 3) represent another 

possible source for the Neosho River. However, given the distance between these upland deposits and the active Neosho 

River channel, they are not considered to be a viable source of 

chert gravel. 

Bedrock outcrops of limestone, usually located at riffles 

along the Neosho River, can provide a source of cobble- and 

gravel-sized material for bar deposits at or just downstream 

from the riffles. A small percentage of these softer limestone 

materials show up in some Neosho River bar deposits and can 

constitute 5 to 15 percent of the total gravel (table 3). None of 

the basal gravel deposits sampled contained any limestone. 
30 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Bar length = 76 feet (basal length)0.566

p-value = 0.0001

Data point and reach number

R2 = 0.96

Basal gravel deposit length, in feet

Gravel bar length, in feet

1

2

5

3

4

6

6

7

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Figure 20. Relation between total basal gravel deposit length and total apparent gravel bar length 

for the seven Neosho River reaches inspected. Location of river reaches shown in figure 1.

Relation of Basal Gravel Deposit Length to Apparent 

Gravel Bar Length

A statistically significant relation was indicated between 

the length of basal gravel deposits and the length of apparent 

gravel bars in the Neosho River. The total length of the 

observed basal gravel deposits was compared with the total 

length of apparent gravel bars (estimated from the aerial photographs) for each of the seven representative reaches that were 

inspected (figs. 11–17). In a regression of the data, a significant 

relation (R2=0.96, p-value=0.0001) exists between total basal 

gravel deposit lengths and total apparent gravel bar lengths 

(fig. 20). As the total length of the basal gravel deposits 

increases so does the total length of the apparent gravel bars. 

The regression equation is: 

y = 76x0.566, (1)

where y is the total apparent gravel bar length (in feet), and x is 

the total length of the basal gravel deposits (in feet). 

A comparison of the location of the basal deposits and the 

apparent gravel bars for the seven representative reaches 

inspected indicated that the gravel bars frequently occur immediately downstream from the basal deposits. This observation 

suggests that the gravel is eroded from a basal deposit and subsequently deposited in the first favorable location downstream 

(that is, typically a point bar). For the upstream three representative reaches (fig. 1B), a comparison of the 2004 aerial photographs with 1991 aerial photographs indicated that there has 

been little change in the location and extent of the gravel bars. 

Several large flows (with an estimated recurrence interval of 

2 to 5 years) on the Neosho River between 1991 and 2004 did 

not appear to substantially change the location or extent of the 

gravel bars in these reaches. On the basis of this evidence, combined with the observation that one mined gravel bar has experienced minimal replenishment since 1998 (Chauncey Shepard, 

Valley Gravel Co., oral commun., 2005), it is reasonable to 

conclude that the erosional and depositional processes responsible for gravel-bar formation occur infrequently. 

Given that large, sustained flows are required for substantial gravel erosion and transport to occur, several months or 

years may elapse between successive substantial movements of 

gravel in a river. Andrews and Nankervis (1995) state that bedload in gravel-bed streams typically is transported only about 

5 to 10 percent of the time during the largest flows. Thus, given 

the typically infrequent occurrence of gravel-transporting 

flows, the time required for a gravel bar to rebuild to its premined size may require up to several years. The exact time 

required will depend on the frequency, magnitude, and duration 

of gravel-transporting flows.

Effect of Dams on Neosho River Gravel

John Redmond Reservoir has been identified as a possible 

trap for gravel moving downstream in the upper part of the 

Neosho River Basin. This study indicates that basal deposits are 

an important source of gravel along the Neosho River and, once 

eroded, the gravel from these deposits may be transported only 

a short distance before subsequent redeposition. Thus, John 

Redmond Reservoir may have only a minor effect on the supply 

of gravel to gravel bars downstream from the reservoir over a 

period of years to decades unless a very large flow occurs. 

The overflow dams likely have some effect on gravel 

transport and deposition. For example, the backwater area 
References Cited 31

upstream from an overflow dam may cause enhanced gravel 

deposition. Investigation of gravel deposition upstream from 

the overflow dams was beyond the scope of this study.

The Future of Neosho River Gravel Bars

The relation between total basal gravel deposit length and 

total apparent gravel bar length (fig. 20) indicates that the 

Neosho River gravel bars are directly associated with upstream 

basal deposits of chert gravel in the channel banks. These basal 

gravel deposits are common throughout the Neosho River flood 

plain as evidenced by the seven representative reaches 

inspected, the presence of gravel pits on the flood plain (identified on several USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle 

maps), and information from well driller’s logs of water wells 

in the flood plain (Jungmann, 1966; Miller, 1969). 

Available evidence indicates that the chert gravel is moving downstream but only intermittently and mostly during infrequent large flows. Replenishment of mined gravel bars first 

requires the availability of basal gravel deposits upstream (that 

is, a source). Then, flows of sufficient magnitude and duration 

are required to erode and transport the gravel to the deposition 

area. As evidenced by the differences in channel location 

between the older topographic maps and 2004 aerial photographs, the rate of channel migration is variable. For some river 

reaches the channel has been essentially static, whereas other 

reaches have experienced relatively substantial channel movement. Historic channel migration can provide an indication of 

the rate at which the gravel in basal deposits is being eroded. 

The chert gravels that currently (2004) characterize bar 

deposits in the Neosho River channel likely have been eroded 

and deposited several times over the centuries, each time moving farther downstream. In the future, the Neosho River will 

continue to erode the basal deposits and deposit the chert gravels in downstream bars. The chert gravel bars typically will be 

slow (up to several years) to recover from in-channel gravel 

mining unless a very large flow occurs shortly after mining. 

Conclusions

A combination of remotely sensed and onsite evidence 

obtained in 2004 was used to characterize and assess the potential of tributaries and main-stem basal deposits as sources of 

gravel for the Neosho River downstream from John Redmond 

Reservoir in Kansas. The major conclusions of this study are 

listed below:

1. Gravel in the Neosho River channel consists predominantly of brownish, rounded chert that is medium to 

coarse grained in size. 

2. The major present-day source of chert gravel for the 

Neosho River channel is the basal deposits that are 

common in the flood plain of the Neosho River. 

3. With the possible exception of Indian Creek, the 

tributaries of the Neosho River do not provide a 

substantial input of chert gravel to the river. 

4. The small percentage of non-chert gravel in Neosho River 

bar deposits mostly originates from bedrock outcrops 

within the channel. 

5. The total length of apparent gravel bars in the Neosho 

River is related to the total length of basal gravel deposits 

along the channel. 

6. Gravel-bar formation within the Neosho River channel is 

an intermittent process that mostly occurs in association 

with infrequent large flows. 

7. Chert gravel bars in the Neosho River may require up to 

several years to recover from in-channel gravel mining 

unless a very large flow occurs shortly after mining. 

8. John Redmond Reservoir likely has little downstream 

effect on sources of gravel to the Neosho River over a 

period of years to decades unless a very large flow occurs 

upstream from the reservoir. 

9. Ultimately, the chert gravel in the Neosho River is 

essentially a finite resource as its primary present-day 

source appears to be the finite basal deposits. 

References Cited

Aber, J.S., 1997, Chert gravel and Neogene drainage in eastcentral Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey, Current Research 

in Earth Sciences, Bulletin 240, part 3, p. 29–41. 

Andrews, E.D., and Nankervis, J.M., 1995, Effective discharge 

and the design of channel maintenance flows for gravel-bed 

rivers, in Costa, J.E., Miller, A.J., Potter, K.W., and Wilcock, 

P.R., eds., Natural and anthropogenic influences in fluvial 

geomorphology: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Monograph 89, p. 151–164. 

Beeson, C.E., and Doyle, P.F., 1995, Comparison of bank erosion at vegetated and non-vegetated channel bends: Water 

Resources Bulletin, v. 31, no. 6, p. 983–990. 

Buchanan, Rex, ed., 1984, Kansas geology—an introduction to 

landscapes, rocks, minerals, and fossils: Lawrence, Kansas, 

University Press of Kansas, 208 p. 

Byerley, R.D., 1995, Chert gravel sources, hydrology, transportation, and deposition within the lower Neosho River, southeastern Kansas: Emporia, Kansas, Emporia State University, 

master’s thesis, 78 p.

Carswell, W.J., and Hart, R.J., 1985, Transit losses and traveltimes for reservoir releases during drought conditions along 

the Neosho River from Council Grove Lake to Iola, eastcentral Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 85–4003, 40 p. 
32 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Church, M.A., McClean, D.G., and Wolcott, J.F., 1987, River 

bed gravels—sampling and analysis, chap. 3, in Thorne, 

C.R., Bathurst, J.C., and Hey, R.D., eds., Sediment transport 

in gravel-bed rivers: New York, John Wiley, p. 43–88. 

ESRI, 2004, ArcGIS version 9.0: Redlands, California, Environmental Systems Research Institute, various pagination. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1946, Physical divisions of the United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey special map, scale 1:7,000,000, 

1 sheet. 

Frye, J.C., 1955, The erosional history of the Flint Hills: Transactions Kansas Academy of Science, v. 58, p. 79–86. 

Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., and Finlayson, B.L., 1992, 

Stream hydrology—an introduction for ecologists: New 

York, John Wiley & Sons, 526 p. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center, 2004, Historical data 

summaries: Information available on the Web, accessed 

February 20, 2004, at http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/ 

Hodge, H.C., and McKay, J.H., 1934, Micro hardness of minerals comprising the Mohs scale: American Mineralogist, v. 19, 

p. 161–168. 

Judson, Sheldon, and Kauffman, M.E., 1990, Physical geology 

(8th ed.): Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 

534 p. 

Jungmann, W.L., 1966, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Neosho County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey 

Bulletin 183, December 1966, 46 p. 

Juracek, K.E., 1999, Geomorphic effects of overflow dams on 

the lower Neosho River, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4147, 6 p. 

Juracek, K.E., 2000, Channel stability downstream from a dam 

assessed using aerial photographs and stream-gage information: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 

v. 36, no. 3, p. 633–645. 

Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1993, Kansas land 

cover data base, 1:100,000 scale: Lawrence, Kansas, Data 

Access and Support Center, available on CD.

Kansas Data Access and Support Center, 2005, Digital orthophotos: Information available on the Web, accessed April 5, 

2005, at http://www.kansasgis.org/

Kansas Geological Survey, 1964, Geologic map of Kansas: 

Kansas Geological Survey map M–1, scale 1:500,000. 

Kansas Water Office, 1993, Fiscal year 1995 Kansas Water 

Plan, Neosho Basin section, Neosho stream corridor subsection: Topeka, Kansas, 8 p. 

Kondolf, G.M., 1997, Application of the pebble count—notes 

on purpose, method, and variants: Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, v. 33, no. 1, p. 79–87. 

Marcher, M.V., Kenny, J.F., and others, 1984, Hydrology of 

area 40, Western Region, Interior Coal Province, Kansas, 

Oklahoma and Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations, Open-File Report 83–266, 97 p. 

Miller, D.E., 1969, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Allen County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey 

Bulletin 195, December 1969, 50 p. 

Morton, R.B., and Fader, S.W., 1972, Ground water in the 

Grand (Neosho) River Basin, Kansas and Oklahoma: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 75–366, 35 p. 

O’Conner, H.G., 1953, Geology, mineral resources, and 

groundwater resources of Lyon County, Kansas: Kansas 

Geological Survey, v. 12, part 1, p. 5–24. 

Osterkamp, W.R., and Hedman, E.R., 1981, Channel geometry 

of regulated streams in Kansas as related to mean discharge, 

1970–80: Kansas Water Office Technical Report No. 15, 

56 p.

Perry, C.A., Wolock, D.M., and Artman, J.C., 2004, Estimates 

of median flows for streams on the 1999 Kansas Surface 

Water Register: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5032, 219 p.

Schoewe, W.H., 1949, The geography of Kansas: Transactions 

Kansas Academy of Science, v. 52, p. 261–333. 

Studley, S.E., 1996, Changes in high-flow frequency and channel geometry of the Neosho River downstream from John 

Redmond Dam, southeastern Kansas: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4243, 

16 p. 

TerraServer, 2005, Aerial photography: Information available 

on the Web, accessed April 20, 2005, at 

http://terraserver-usa.com

Thorne, C.R., 1990, Effects of vegetation on riverbank erosion 

and stability, chap. 10, in Thornes, J.B., ed., Vegetation and 

erosion, processes and environments: New York, John Wiley 

& Sons, p. 125–144. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965, Flood plain information, 

Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers, Kansas: Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, June 1965, 

25 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972, Memorandum of findings, riverbank stabilization study, Grand (Neosho) River, 

Kansas & Oklahoma, John Redmond Dam & Reservoir to 

Kansas-Oklahoma State line: Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, September 1972, 24 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991, Neosho madtom recovery 

plan: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 42 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, The endangered species 

program: Information available on the Web, accessed 

December 28, 2004, at http://endangered.fws.gov/

Wentworth, C.K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for 

clastic sediments: Journal of Geology, v. 30, p. 377–392. 

Williams, C.C., 1944, Ground-water conditions in the Neosho 

River Valley in the vicinity of Parsons, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 52, part 2, March 15, 1944, 80 p. 

Wolman, M.G., 1954, A method of sampling coarse river-bed 

material: Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 35, 

no. 6, p. 951–956. 
Supplemental Information
34 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

Table 6. Particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in selected tributaries to the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004.

[mm, millimeters; --, not present in sample]

Tributary 

inspection site 

number

(fig. 1)

Number of surficial particles in each particle-size class1

Median 

particle size 

(mm)

Large cobble

(128 to 256 

mm)

Small

cobble

(64 to 128 mm)

Very

coarse

gravel

(32 to 64 mm)

Coarse

gravel

(16 to 32 mm)

Medium

gravel

(8 to 16 mm)

Fine

gravel

(4 to 8 mm)

Very

fine

gravel

(2 to 4 mm)

Big Creek (Coffey and Woodson Counties)

3 -- -- 3 62 32 3 -- 18

5 -- -- 6 51 40 3 -- 17

7 -- -- 24 51 24 1 -- 22

11 -- -- -- 17 66 17 -- 11

13 -- 1 16 59 22 2 -- 22

15 -- -- 6 69 24 1 -- 22

17 -- -- 16 58 25 1 -- 20

Big Creek (Allen and Neosho Counties)

2 -- -- 5 19 55 21 -- 10

4 -- 6 28 54 11 1 -- 26

7 -- -- 13 42 36 9 -- 17

9 -- -- 15 45 37 3 -- 18

12 -- 6 39 42 13 -- -- 29

Canville Creek (Allen and Neosho Counties)

2 -- -- 2 64 33 1 -- 17

3 -- 7 11 47 34 1 -- 18

6 -- 4 14 50 32 -- -- 19

11 2 8 36 48 5 1 -- 29

13 -- 3 21 45 29 2 -- 21

Cherry Creek (Cherokee County)

3 -- -- 1 39 47 13 -- 14

7 -- -- -- 19 53 28 -- 10

11 -- -- -- 5 35 53 7 7

13 -- -- 3 3 36 47 11 7

Deer Creek (Allen and Anderson Counties)

3 -- -- -- 8 60 32 -- 9

5 -- 1 3 37 49 10 -- 14

7 -- -- 7 29 53 11 -- 12

Elk Creek (Neosho County)

1 -- -- 5 29 40 23 3 11

3 -- -- 17 38 36 7 2 16

5 -- -- 5 29 37 26 3 11

7 -- -- 6 33 37 20 4 11

10 1 3 12 30 36 17 1 13

Elm Creek (Allen County)

1 -- 3 22 49 19 7 -- 23

2

3 9 18 26 27 14 4 1 33
Supplemental Information 35

Table 6. Particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in selected tributaries to the Neosho River in Kansas, 

2004.—Continued

[mm, millimeters; --, not present in sample]

Tributary 

inspection site 

number

(fig. 1)

Number of surficial particles in each particle-size class1

Large cobble

(128 to 256 

mm)

Small

cobble

(64 to 128 mm)

Very

coarse

gravel

(32 to 64 mm)

Coarse

gravel

(16 to 32 mm)

Medium

gravel

(8 to 16 mm)

Fine

gravel

(4 to 8 mm)

Very

fine

gravel

(2 to 4 mm)

Median 

particle size 

(mm)

Flat Rock Creek3 (Crawford and Neosho Counties)

2 1 6 13 24 46 10 -- 13

4 -- 1 1 28 59 11 -- 13

6 -- -- 9 49 35 7 -- 17

8 -- 7 24 47 17 5 -- 25

10 2 11 17 59 11 -- -- 25

13 -- 1 35 54 10 -- -- 26

14 -- 3 31 51 15 -- -- 25

16 -- 1 11 40 44 4 -- 16

19 -- -- 31 49 18 2 -- 25

Hickory Creek (Crawford and Labette Counties)

2 1 3 12 44 31 9 -- 18

3 -- -- 3 45 32 16 4 15

5 -- -- -- 4 30 52 14 6

7 -- -- 9 31 32 23 5 14

9 -- -- 1 11 39 36 13 8

11 -- -- 1 5 41 41 12 7

Indian Creek (Allen and Anderson Counties)

1 -- -- 14 31 45 10 -- 14

3 -- -- 1 45 36 16 2 14

5 -- -- 4 49 32 15 -- 16

Labette Creek4 (Labette and Neosho Counties)

1 -- -- -- 19 60 21 -- 11

4 -- -- 5 31 50 12 2 13

6 4 22 21 17 21 14 1 27

8 -- 7 19 22 20 26 6 14

10 -- 1 5 24 44 22 4 11

14 -- 4 23 28 17 23 5 18

16 -- -- -- 5 14 52 29 5

17 1 4 13 21 30 25 6 12

20 2 20 25 18 18 13 4 29

21 -- 3 20 28 29 15 5 16

23 2 2 5 22 35 29 5 10

25 -- 3 11 29 26 27 4 12

27 1 1 12 31 29 22 4 14

29 -- -- 1 28 54 16 1 12
36 Gravel Sources for the Neosho River in Kansas, 2004

1Particle-size classes from Gordon and others (1992). Particles with an intermediate axis length equivalent to the size break between two classes were assigned 

to the larger class.

2Sample included one small boulder.

3

Includes the tributary Walnut Creek.

4

Includes the tributaries Deer Creek, Hackberry Creek, and Little Labette Creek.

Labette Creek4 (Labette and Neosho Counties)—Continued

32 -- -- 5 28 37 27 3 12

33 1 6 5 34 32 17 5 14

34 1 2 7 39 25 18 8 14

Lightning Creek (Cherokee and Crawford Counties)

1 -- -- 5 48 35 12 -- 16

3 1 7 19 24 26 17 6 16

4 -- 1 3 17 36 34 9 8

6 -- -- 1 6 34 53 6 7

10 -- -- 1 7 35 48 9 7

12 -- 1 3 14 34 39 9 8

16 -- 4 8 27 32 21 8 11

19 -- -- 4 22 38 27 9 9

22 2 2 6 18 38 28 6 10

Long Creek (Coffey County)

4 -- -- -- 18 39 37 6 9

7 11 28 37 16 5 2 1 53

Owl Creek (Allen and Woodson Counties)

2 -- -- 21 67 11 1 -- 22

3 1 17 60 21 1 -- -- 41

9 -- -- -- 1 46 52 1 7

10 -- -- 1 19 68 12 -- 12

13 -- 1 4 41 47 7 -- 14

14 -- -- 2 22 54 22 -- 12

16 -- -- -- 1 57 42 -- 8

17 -- -- 2 49 49 -- -- 16

Turkey Creek (Coffey and Woodson Counties)

3 -- 1 19 55 24 1 -- 20

4 -- -- -- 11 38 48 3 7

7 -- 1 36 53 9 1 -- 27

Village Creek (Neosho and Wilson Counties)

1 -- -- 1 41 45 13 -- 14

4 -- -- 11 45 32 12 -- 16

Table 6. Particle-size data for gravel in bar deposits sampled in selected tributaries to the Neosho River in Kansas, 

2004.—Continued

[mm, millimeters; --, not present in sample]

Tributary 

inspection site 

number

(fig. 1)

Number of surficial particles in each particle-size class1

Large cobble

(128 to 256 

mm)

Small

cobble

(64 to 128 mm)

Very

coarse

gravel

(32 to 64 mm)

Coarse

gravel

(16 to 32 mm)

Medium

gravel

(8 to 16 mm)

Fine

gravel

(4 to 8 mm)

Very

fine

gravel

(2 to 4 mm)

Median 

particle size 

(mm)