U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5256

In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 

and The Nature Conservancy

Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower 

Missouri River Valley

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N
Cover graphic. Land-surface elevation relative to the construction reference plane, Missouri River Valley near St. Joseph, Missouri.
Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for 

the Lower Missouri River Valley

By Robert B. Jacobson, Kimberly A. Chojnacki, Joanna M. Reuter

In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 

and The Nature Conservancy

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5256

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names 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:

Jacobson, R.B., Chojnacki, K.A., and Reuter, J.M., 2007, Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri 

River Valley: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5256, 19 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Background.....................................................................................................................................................3

Approach and Methods................................................................................................................................4

Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................4

Hydraulic Interpolations ......................................................................................................................4

Land-Surface Elevations .....................................................................................................................7

Soil Drainage Classes ..........................................................................................................................9

Integration of Topography and Drainage Classes...........................................................................9

Terrain Mapping Assessment...........................................................................................................14

Results ...........................................................................................................................................................14

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................14

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................19

Figures

1. Map showing the Lower Missouri River (LMOR), Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, 

Missouri..........................................................................................................................................2

2. Duration hydrographs showing variation with downstream location on the 

Lower Missouri River...................................................................................................................3

3. Graph showing general degradation trends, Lower Missouri River, shown as 

stage changes from 1954 to mid-1990’s, for given discharges..............................................4

4. Conceptual classification of the Lower Missouri River valley-bottom landforms and 

relations to hydrology ..................................................................................................................5

5. Diagram showing architecture of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom.......................6

6. Long profiles of water-surface elevations associated with flow exceedances and 

floods in study section .................................................................................................................8

7–8. Maps showing—

7. Part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri, 

showing the topographic detail available from the elevation dataset .....................10

8. Soil-drainage classes of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom 

near St. Joseph, Missouri ................................................................................................11

9. Graph showing an example illustrating the potential effect of “overmapping” 

of flood areas by extrapolating flood levels across the valley bottom..............................12

10–11. Maps showing—

10. Relative flood frequency of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom 

near St. Joseph, Missouri, estimated from intersecting water-surface profiles 

with valley-bottom elevations..........................................................................................13

11. Land Capability Potential Index classes calculated from integrating wetness 

and retention classes, for a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom 

near St. Joseph, Missouri ................................................................................................15
iv

12–14. Maps showing—

12. Two-year flooding reference elevation showing regional variation of 

wetness potential as a result of channel aggradation and degradation .................16

13. Land-surface elevation relative to the Construction Reference Plane (CRP).........17

14. Terrain classes for a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near 

St. Joseph, Missouri..........................................................................................................18

Tables

1A. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI), 

exceedances .................................................................................................................................6

1B. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI), floods..........7

2. Aggregation of wetness and soil drainage classes into tentative Land Capability 

Potential Index (LCPI) classes..................................................................................................12
v

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2

) 0.0002471 acre 

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre

square meter (m2

) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2

) 

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic kilometer (km) 810713.2 Acre-foot (ac-ft)

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

For consistency with common usage, distances along the Missouri River are given in river miles 

upstream from St. Louis, Missouri.

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

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

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
vi
Abstract

The Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) was developed to serve as a relatively coarse-scale index to delineate 

broad land capability classes in the valley of the Lower Missouri River. The index integrates fundamental factors that 

determine suitability of land for various uses, and may provide 

a useful mechanism to guide land-management decisions. 

The LCPI was constructed from integration of hydrology, 

hydraulics, land-surface elevations, and soil permeability 

(or saturated hydraulic conductivity) datasets for an area of 

the Lower Missouri River, river miles 423–670. The LCPI 

estimates relative wetness based on intersecting water-surface 

elevations, interpolated from measurements or calculated from 

hydraulic models, with a high-resolution land-surface elevation dataset. The potential for wet areas to retain or drain water 

is assessed using soil-drainage classes that are estimated from 

saturated hydraulic conductivity of surface soils. Terrain mapping that delineates areas with convex, concave, and flat parts 

of the landscape provides another means to assess tendency of 

landscape patches to retain surface water.

Introduction

The potential for valley-bottom lands to support various 

land uses—agricultural, urban, recreational, or ecological—

primarily depends on how surface- and ground-water interact 

with land-surface elevations. These interactions are mediated 

by soils and underlying surficial geologic materials that affect 

drainage or retention of water. The distribution and retention 

of water are the factors that are most likely to be manipulated 

to achieve traditional social uses or ecological restoration of 

valley-bottom lands.

From the late 1980’s to the present (2007), the channel, 

flood plain, and adjacent alluvial terraces of the Lower Missouri River (LMOR; fig. 1) have been increasingly subject to 

changes in use as public perceptions and values have changed. 

In particular, recognition of loss of riverine habitat, listing of 

threatened or endangered fish and bird species (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2003), increases in opportunities for recreational uses, and flooding of the LMOR 1993–97 (Jacobson, 

2006), have created pressure for conversion of lands from 

agriculture to conservation purposes. Public expenditures 

for valley-bottom land conversion have been substantial. 

For example, between 1986 and 2004, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) spent nearly $100 million in land 

acquisition and rehabilitation; the total goal under the USACE 

Mitigation Program is 118,650 acres (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2004a). In 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) created the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge to acquire 60,000 acres of Missouri River bottom land 

between St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri, for habitat rehabilitation (Jacobson, 2006). Notwithstanding this large public 

investment in land conversion, there exists no systematic classification of Missouri River valley-bottom land capability to 

guide acquisition and management efforts.

The LCPI presented in this report was developed to 

address the need for a systematic classification of LMOR bottom lands. The index was developed in partnership with the 

USFWS Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission, and The Nature Conservancy’s Missouri 

River Program.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to document methods used 

in creating a Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for part 

of the LMOR valley bottom in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and 

Missouri (fig. 1). The LCPI is intended to provide a simple, 

systematic index of relative flooding and wetness potential of 

the Missouri River valley-bottom lands. The LCPI is created 

from available land-surface elevation, hydrologic, hydraulic, 

and soils datasets. These datasets have inherent limitations 

and the LCPI should not be used for site-specific assessments. 

However, at the scale of tens to hundreds of kilometers, the 

LCPI provides an index that can be used for assessing relative land-use capability. The intent behind development of 

the LCPI is to provide a method that landowners and public 

agencies can use to assess the inherent, physically determined 

capabilities of valley-bottom lands.

Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower 

Missouri River Valley

Robert B. Jacobson, Kimberly A. Chojnacki, Joanna M. Reuter
2 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Û

Û

Û

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

!(

!(

#

IOWA IOWA

KANSAS KANSAS

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA

NEBRASKA NEBRASKA

ILLINOIS ILLINOIS

SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI MISSOURI

WISCONSIN WISCONSIN

ARKANSAS ARKANSAS

Location of figures

7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14

Location of 

figure 4

Missouri

Study

section

River

Rulo

Omaha

Hermann

Yankton

 Waverly Boonville

St. 

Joseph

Sioux City

Kansas 

City

Nebraska City

Gavins Point 

Dam

Fort Randall 

Dam

Ponca

Saint

Louis

0

700

900

800

400 300

200

100

100

500

600

Lake Francis Case

Lewis and 

Clark Lake

98°W 96°W 94°W 92°W 90°W

44°N 42°N 40°N 38°N 36°0'0"N

EXPLANATION

#

")

0 100 MILES

0 140 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2002, 1:2,000,000

Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

U.S. Geological Survey

streamflow-gaging station

River mile marker and number

Missouri 

River

Basin

Figure 1. Lower Missouri River (LMOR), Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, Missouri.
Background 3

Background

The Missouri River has been dammed at Gavins Point, 

South Dakota, since 1957. Regulation of the Missouri River 

Reservoir System for flood control, navigation, and power 

production has resulted in substantial change to intra- and 

interannual variability in discharges, with the most profound 

changes being recorded at the long-term U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) streamflow-gaging station at Sioux City, Iowa, 

80 miles downstream from the dam (fig. 2). The degree of 

hydrologic alteration decreases in the downstream direction as 

less-regulated tributaries add flow to the Missouri River.

From Sioux City, Iowa, to St. Louis, Missouri, the channel of the Missouri River has been engineered to support a 

self-dredging channel. Narrowing of the channel, stabilization 

of the banks of the accreted land, and construction of levees 

have resulted in substantial losses of valley-bottom habitats. 

The USACE has estimated that the Bank Stabilization and 

Navigation Project resulted in loss of as much as 400 square 

kilometers (km2

) of aquatic habitat and 274 km2 of terrestrial 

habitat (sandbars and low-lying lands) within the active channel; loss of terrestrial habitat within the meander belt is as 

much as 1,400 km2

 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004c). 

Another effect of the dams has been substantial diminishment of sediment load because of sedimentation in the reservoirs. The channel has incised 3–5 meters (m) in the first 100 

kilometers (km) downstream from Gavins Point Dam (fig. 3). 

Channel elevations generally recover near Omaha, but further 

downstream, the reach around Kansas City is degrading substantially (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004b). Increased 

stages for large discharges have been attributed to channel 

constriction by revetments and levees, whereas channel degradation has been attributed to sediment deficits and constriction 

by wing dikes (Pinter and others, 2002). The downstream most 

400 km is characterized by modest channel incision, resulting 

in decreased stages for low discharges. The section of the river 

downstream from Omaha and upstream from St. Joseph, Missouri is aggrading (fig. 3).

Conceptually, the Missouri River valley bottom is composed of active channel, meander belt (or flood plain), alluvial 

terraces, and bordering colluvial landforms downslope of 

bluffs (fig. 4). Together, we refer to these landforms as the valley bottom. The active channel is that part of the valley bottom 

that contains most of the mainstem discharge and is characterized by the bed, sandbars, and banks of the river. The meander 

belt is that part of the land surface that the river channel has 

occupied and deposited during the Late Holocene. Because of 

its relatively recent deposition, the meander belt retains some 

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

SIOUX CITY

DISCHARGE, IN THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

NEBRASKA CITY

200

160

120

80

40

0

Jan Mar May July Sept Nov

MONTH

KANSAS CITY

Jan Mar May July Sept Nov

MONTH

Reference duration hydrogaph

Current water control plan duration hdrograph

Data from U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (1998)

Daily flow exceedances (25–75 percent)

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Duration hydrographs showing variation with downstream location on the Lower Missouri River. 
4 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

of the original ridge and swale topography, although is has 

been altered to various extents through farming, road construction, and ditching. 

The ridge and swale topography of the meander belt 

results in juxtaposition of parts of the landscape with differing 

potential for flooding by surface water. In addition, ridge and 

swale topography is indicative of underlying surficial geology 

(fig. 5). The ridges mainly are remnants of point bars and tend 

to be sandy, whereas the swales are infilled channels, which 

tend to be composed of silt and clay sediments (Holbrook 

and others, 2006). The meander belt is flooded relatively 

frequently. For the purposes of this report, the meander belt is 

delineated by areas that are subject to flooding with a probability of once per year to 1/100 per year (that is, the 100-year 

recurrence flood plain). Bordering terraces and colluvial land 

forms flood much less frequently.

Approach and Methods

The following sections outline the steps in developing the 

LCPI, including the development of hydrology, hydraulics, 

land-surface elevation, and soil drainage class datasets. All 

these datasets are readily available on the LMOR from existing sources.

Hydrology

Hydrologic assessments were addressed in two ways. 

For relatively frequent flows, flow duration analyses were 

performed at USGS streamflow-gaging stations on the LMOR 

(table 1A) using the period of record 1967 to 2006 (post reservoir filling). Daily discharges equaled or exceeded 1, 2, 5, and 

10 percent of the time were calculated from the flow records at 

each gaging station and associated with a water-surface elevation at each gage site based on the stage-discharge rating curve 

and gage datum.

The second source of hydrologic information was the 

USACE Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency 

Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004d), which calculated flood frequencies for each of the USGS streamflow-gaging stations using standardized methods. These calculations 

provided discharges for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, and 

500-year recurrence floods (equivalent to annual probabilities 

of 100, 50, 20, 10, 4, 2, 1, 0.4 and 0.2 percent) under current 

(2007) reservoir regulation (table 1B).

Hydraulic Interpolations

To be useful in habitat assessments, flow quantiles 

determined at USGS streamflow-gaging stations need to 

be interpolated or extrapolated along the river to reaches of 

interest. Because hydraulic roughness, cross-sectional channel 

morphology, and channel slope vary along a river, the stagedischarge relation also varies. Hence, it is not hydraulically 

valid to interpolate water-surface elevations for given flow 

quantiles from gage to gage.

The Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency 

Study (UMRSFFS) addressed hydraulics by explicitly modeling flows using a 1-dimensional unsteady hydraulic model 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004d). These models were 

calibrated to reproduce water-surface elevations for the considChannelized segments

APPROXIMATE STAGE CHANGE,

IN METERS

Gavins 

Point

Sioux

City

Omaha

Nebraska

City

St. Joseph

Kansas

City

Waverly

Boonville

Hermann

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

RIVER DISTANCE UPSTREAM FROM ST. LOUIS, 

IN KILOMETERS

20,000 ft3/s

100,000 ft3/s

300,000 ft3/s

500,000 ft3/s

40,000 ft3/s

Streamflow-gaging station location

+3

+2

+1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

Data from U.S. Army Corps 

 of Engineers (1996)

Modified from Jacobson and Galat (2006)

Figure 3. General degradation trends, Lower Missouri River, shown as stage changes from 1954 to mid-1990’s, for given 

discharges. 
Approach and Methods 5

A

A’

Meander belt—Historical and 

 late-Holocene meander belt, 

 characterized by abundant ridge-

 swale topography, ox-bow lakes,

 and relatively undeveloped soils 

Topographic depressions—Non-drained 

 depressions in meander belt, mostly resulting 

 from natural ridge and swale topography 

Blufflands—Areas along the valley 

 margin, characterized by steep slopes, 

 colluvial deposits and loess soils 

Active channel—River channel and 

 active sandbars, margins at elevations 

 less than 2-year recurrence flood 

Terraces—Remnants on Pleistocene 

 terraces, greater than 10 meters above 

 modern river 

232000 240000 248000 256000 264000

4590000 4600000 4610000 4620000

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 MILES

EXPLANATION

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

300

320

340

360

ALTITUDE, IN METERS

BLUFF AND

TERRACE

BLUFF AND

TERRACE

MEANDER BELT MEANDER

BELT

ACTIVE

CHANNEL

100-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL*

2-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL

A A’

19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000

295

300

305

310

315

ALTITUDE, IN METERS

MEANDER BELT

MEANDER

BELT

ACTIVE

CHANNEL

100-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL*

10-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL

5-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL

2-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE, METERS

A A’ Trace of section

*Indicative flood levels, 

extrapolated from hydraulically 

modeled water-surface elevations

Figure 4. Conceptual classification of the Lower Missouri River valley-bottom landforms and relations to hydrology. Example taken 

from near DeSoto Lake, Iowa, river mile 630–655. *Indicative flood levels, extrapolated from hydraulically modeled water-surface 

elevations.
6 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

RIDGE

SPLAY

Sand

Silt-loamy sand

Silty-clay

SWALE

LATERAL-ACCRETION

SURFACE

CHUTE

CHANNEL FILL

POINT BAR

LEVEE

SAND BAR

TERRACE

MEANDER-LOOP

ALLOUNIT

OVERBANK

DEPOSIT

EXPLANATION

FLOW

Modified from Holbrook and others, (2006)

DIRECTION OF POINTBAR MIGRATION

Figure 5. Architecture of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom. Meander loops are formed by lateral migration of pointbars and smaller lateral bars that are attached to the channel boundary on the inside of meander loops. Lateral migration 

occurs in stages, producing a series of lateral-accretion surfaces, which manifest on the surface as ridges and swales 

oriented sub-parallel to the river channel. Point bars tend to decrease in grain size upward from sand to fine gravel at the 

base to silt and clay at the top. Channel fills record sedimentation in channels that have been abandoned from the active 

flow by local meander-bend cut off, or shifting of the entire channel to a new location on the flood plain (avulsion). Channel 

fills are generally floored with the coarse material typical of the bed load carried by the river. Channel fills are recognized 

as long arcuate and straight trends of low topography with widths equal to or less than the forming channel. 

Table 1A. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI), exceedances.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

streamflowgaging station

Flows at indicated exceedances, ft3

/s1

Location 10 percent 5 percent 2 percent 1 percent

06934500 Hermann, Missouri 169,000 221,000 276,000 328,000

06909000 Boonville, Missouri 126,000 166,000 217,000 252,000

06895500 Waverly, Missouri 100,000 125,000 156,000 186,000

06893000 Kansas City, Missouri 96,060 118,000 148,000 176,000

06818000 St. Joseph, Missouri 74,860 89,700 113,120 128,000

06813500 Rulo, Nebraska 69,000 80,000 99,900 112,000

06807000 Nebraska City, Nebraska 63,760 71,800 84,900 97,500

06610000 Omaha, Nebraska 54,600 61,800 70,900 76,756

06601200 Decatur, Nebraska 48,900 60,100 69,436 73,034

06486000 Sioux City, Iowa 48,600 55,100 63,612 68,212

1 Calculated from U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station records, 1967–2006.
Approach and Methods 7

ered range of flows, and so provide reliable estimates of watersurface elevations at approximately each mile along the river. 

Local variations of hydraulics at finer scales of resolution, of 

course, are not present in the models. The UMRSFFS hydraulic models include the effects of levees such that flows within 

the levees are constricted, resulting in locally increased watersurface elevations, and flows that are greater than local levee 

elevations spread out, resulting in locally decreased elevations. 

No hydraulic models have been developed and calibrated 

for more frequent flows on the entire LMOR; hence, watersurface elevations were interpolated between gages parallel to 

the construction reference plane to provide rough estimates of 

elevations for more frequent flows. We emphasize that these 

water-surface elevations are used as references for relative 

elevations; they are not used as predictors of water surfaces. 

All water-surface elevations were relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). 

We assigned water surface elevations corresponding to 

flood frequencies and flow exceedances to a point at every 

river mile along the LMOR using the USACE 1960 river mile 

definitions. We also assigned elevations to points placed on a 

500-m buffer on each side of the channel and to points on a 

line delineating the valley wall. The former were used for flow 

exceedance elevations and the latter for flood elevations. In 

each case, the points were assigned elevations corresponding 

to the elevations of the nearest neighbor among the river-mile 

points. Locations of the points were shifted along the channel 

buffer and the valley wall to define transects perpendicular to 

the channel (in the case of flow-exceedance elevations) or perpendicular to the valley (in the case of flood elevations). The 

intent of these adjustments was to create realistically sloping 

water-surface elevations. The points were then converted to 

a triangulated irregular network (TIN) using relevant watersurface elevations as the height source, and then gridded into 

5-m cells. Long profiles of the entire LMOR study section are 

shown in figure 6.

Land-Surface Elevations

Land-surface elevations are used to assess how surface 

water interacts with the ground surface. Two sources of landsurface elevations were used in this study. The first is the 

National Elevation Dataset (NED; U.S. Geological Survey, 

1999), which is a cell-based dataset of elevations each onethird arc-second (or about 30 m). This dataset was used only 

for validation of regional trends since it does not have sufficient resolution to show many of the surface-topographic features relevant to this study. The data are provided using North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) as a horizontal reference 

and North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) as a 

vertical reference. The data were converted to NVGD 29 vertical datum for comparison with other datasets using corrections 

obtained through the National Geodetic Survey (National 

Geodetic Survey, 2003).

Table 1B. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI), floods.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; %, percent; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

streamflowgaging station

Flows at indicated recurrence intervals (percent chance), ft3

/s1

Location 2 

(50%)

5 

(20%)

10 

(10%)

20 

(5%)

50 

(2%)

100 

(1%)

200 

(0.5%)

500 

(0.2%)

06934500 Hermann, Missouri 248,000 363,000 439,000 511,000 604,000 673,000 742,000 833,000

06909000 Boonville, Missouri 203,000 289,000 352,000 415,000 503,000 573,000 648,000 753,000

06895500 Waverly, Missouri 150,000 212,000 258,000 305,000 371,000 424,000 480,000 561,000

06893000 Kansas City, Missouri 142,000 210,000 245,000 289,000 351,000 401,000 454,000 530,000

06818000 St. Joseph, Missouri 109,000 147,000 174,000 199,000 233,000 261,000 287,000 324,000

06813500 Rulo, Nebraska 

(Kansas City, USACE)2

96,100 132,000 158,000 184,000 220,000 250,000 281,000 320,000

06813500 Rulo, Nebraska 

(Omaha, USACE)2

94,700 132,300 160,900 188,600 217,300 252,200 296,900 370,700

06807000 Nebraska City, Nebraska 88,000 118,700 149,800 189,900 206,400 236,700 275,900 345,400

06610000 Omaha, Nebraska 64,200 85,300 123,600 132,700 147,900 174,700 204,500 247,900

06601200 Decatur, Nebraska 52,400 70,500 87,200 101,600 120,500 141,800 164,800 197,700

06486000 Sioux City, Iowa 49,500 66,800 78,300 93,900 113,800 133,800 155,000 185,400

1

 From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004d).

2

 Frequency analyses for the Rulo gage were completed by two offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with slightly different results (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 2004d).
8 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Figure 6. Long profiles of water-surface elevations associated with flow exceedances and floods in study section. Flow exceedances were calculated from the U.S.Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations at St. Joseph, Missouri, Rulo, Missouri, Nebraska City, Nebraska, and Omaha, Nebraska. 

500 year, 0.2 percent chance200 year, 0.5 percent chance100 year, 1.0 percent chance50 year, 2.0 percent chance20 year, 5.0 percent chance10 year, 10 percent chance5 year, 20 percent chance2 year, 50 percent chance1 percent exceedance, 3.6 days per year2 percent exceedance, 7.3 days per year5 percent exceedance, 18 days per year10 percent exceedance, 36 days per yearConstruction reference plane

EXPLANATION

RIVER MILE

420 440 460 480 500420 440 460 480 500

270260250240

270260250240

RIVER MILE

RIVER MILE

520 540 560 580

560 580

280270260

290280270260

600 620 640 660

640 660

300290

320310300290

ALTITUDE, IN METERS

ALTITUDE, IN METERS

Recurrence intervals anddaily flow exceedances

Flood surface-water elevation data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2004d)

NOTE: Flow exceedances were calculated from the U.S.Geological Survey streamflow-gagingstations at St. Joseph, Missouri, Rulo, Missouri, Nebraska City, Nebraska, and Omaha, Nebraska.
Approach and Methods 9

The primary land-surface elevation dataset was compiled 

by the USACE for the UMRSFFS. This dataset originally was 

compiled through photogrammetric methods that collected 

breaklines and mass points with a root-mean square vertical 

error of approximately 0.2 m (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2004d). The land-surface dataset was supplemented with a 

bathymetric dataset for the Missouri River as part of the same 

project. Bathymetric data were collected by echosounding on 

lines spaced approximately 150 m apart with accuracies estimated at 0.15 m. The bathymetric data were collected by the 

USACE during 1994 to 1998. Because of the widely spaced 

cross sections and dynamic nature of channel morphology of 

the Missouri River, these data should be considered indicative 

of general channel conditions rather than relevant to contemporary, site-specific conditions. 

We created a master digital elevation model from the raw 

data points. Channel bathymetry data were treated separately 

from the valley-bottom data. In the channel, we used a routine 

available in the Multi-dimensional Surface Water Modeling 

System software (McDonald and others, 2005) to interpolate 

and grid the data because the routine allows for streamwise 

interpolation, a critical approach when gridding transect data 

that have many points along a transect and sparse (or no) 

points between the transects. The streamwise interpolation and 

gridding produced a realistic topographic map of the channel, 

thalweg, banks, and bars. Navigation structures (wing dikes) 

are not well represented in the dataset because they were not 

captured at the same resolution as the bathymetric data collection. After streamwise interpolation, we gridded the channel to 

5-m cells.

We processed the valley-bottom data by treating breaklines (lines of high-density data collected along linear structures such as levees, banks, and roads) and mass points (points 

randomly or systematically collected in open areas) separately 

in a TIN. The TIN step allowed us to improve the gridding 

process by incorporating breaklines. The TIN subsequently 

was gridded to 5-m cells. A close up of a small part of the 

finished gridded product is shown in figure 7.

Soil Drainage Classes

The water-retention capacity of the landscape relates 

to the hydraulic conductivity of the soil and surficial geologic materials as well as topographic characteristics that 

can enhance water access or retard water drainage. We used 

soil-drainage class as a measure of the ability of the soil to 

retain water during saturated conditions. Drainage classes 

conceptually integrate saturated hydraulic conductivity of the 

soil and underlying geologic materials, and to some extent, 

contain information related to surface topography (Soil Survey 

Staff, 1993). Seven soil-drainage classes were extracted from 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil 

Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database maps (fig. 8) for each 

county within the study area (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2003–2006). 

The soils databases used included data from 17 counties in 4 states. Because these counties were mapped over a 

number of years, by different personnel, and with different 

specifications, the map units do not always match at county 

boundaries. Moreover, the spatial detail of the maps varies 

considerably from county to county. Therefore, to simplify the 

analysis and to minimize the mismatches among counties, we 

combined the seven NRCS drainage classes into four retention 

classes (table 2). The “other” drainage class includes urban 

areas and water bodies.

Integration of Topography and Drainage Classes

The goal of the LCPI is to integrate relevant measures 

of water, land-surface elevations, and soil materials to define 

units that provide a classification with useful information for 

land-use decisions. The first step is to intersect water-surface 

and land-surface elevations. 

It should be emphasized that the purpose of intersecting water-surface and land-surface elevations is to provide 

references for relative wetness, not to predict flooded areas. 

The water-surface elevations indicated by interpolating flows 

with similar exceedances between gage sites do not account 

for variations in hydraulic roughness, channel morphology, or 

channel slope that would strongly affect local stage. Moreover, although the water-surface elevations determined by 

hydraulic models for the UMRSFFS account for roughness, 

morphology, and slope, the maps do not take into account 

whether or not the water has an overland flow path to all areas 

in the valley bottom at the modeled water-surface elevation or 

lower. Hence, the UMRSFFS water-surface elevations do not 

necessarily extend to all the indicated polygons; there may 

be natural topographic or engineered barriers such as roads 

or levees (fig. 9). For flows that are overbank but lower than 

the levees, the mapped polygons may over-estimate (“overmap”) potential area that would be flooded by overbank flows, 

even without levees. These areas do, however, indicate the 

areas of the valley bottom that would be affected by impeded 

interior drainage or ground-water drainage if water levels in 

the channel were held against the levees for long durations. 

For the purposes of the LCPI, these areas are treated as having 

the same wetness potential as those at the same elevations on 

the channel side of the levee. Except in urban areas, the 100- 

and 500-year elevations would overtop all levees, and since 

the UMRSFFS models explicitly included these levees, the 

mapped flooded areas are consistent with model predictions.

Areas of wetness classes were calculated on a cell-bycell basis by subtracting the land-surface elevation grid from 

the water-surface elevation grids. To limit the number of 

classes, we delineated four wetness potential classes (table 2), 

corresponding to: flows up to the 2-year flood, between the 

2- and 10-year flood, between the 10- and 500-year flood, and 

less frequently flooded than once every 500 years (fig. 10). 

These divisions are somewhat arbitrary and different divisions 

could be defined with the available data. We chose not to use 
10 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

265

EXPLANATION

Elevation, in meters

220

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Figure 7. Part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri, showing the topographic detail available from the 

elevation dataset.
Approach and Methods 11

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Soils data from Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003–06

EXPLANATION

Soil-drainage classes

Excessively drained

Somewhat excessively; well; moderately well drained

Somewhat poorly; poorly drained

Very poorly drained

Urban or water

Figure 8. Soil-drainage classes of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri.
12 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Table 2. Aggregation of wetness and soil drainage classes into tentative Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) classes. 

[LCPI, Land-Capability Potential Index; NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service; <, less than; >, greater than]

LCPI

retention

 classes

NRCS

soil drainage 

classes

Wetness composite classes

Frequently 

flooded

< 2-year recurrence

Moderately 

frequently flooded

2–10-year recurrence

Infrequently flooded

10–500-year 

recurrence

Rarely flooded

> 500-year 

recurrence

Strongly 

retentive

Very poorly 

drained

Frequently flooded, 

strongly retentive 

(F1

S2)

Moderately flooded, 

strongly retentive 

(MS)

Infrequently flooded, 

strongly retentive 

(IS)

Rarely flooded, 

strongly retentive 

(RS)

Moderately 

retentive

Somewhat poorly 

and poorly 

drained

Frequently flooded, 

moderately 

retentive 

(FM)

Moderately flooded, 

moderately 

retentive 

(MM)

Infrequently flooded, 

moderately 

retentive 

(IM)

Rarely flooded, 

moderately 

retentive 

(RM)

Poorly retentive Somewhat excessively, well, and 

moderately well 

drained

Frequenty flooded, 

poorly retentive 

(FP)

Moderately flooded, 

poorly retentive 

(MP)

Infrequently flooded, 

poorly retentive 

(IP)

Rarely flooded, 

poorly retentive 

(RP)

Non-retentive Excessively 

drained

Frequently flooded, 

non-retentive 

(FN)

Moderately flooded, 

non-retentive 

(MN)

Infrequently flooded, 

non-retentive 

(IN)

Rarely flooded, 

non-retentive 

(RN)

1

 The first letter of the designation for composite classes refers to wetness class. 

2

 The second letter refers to relative retention class.

6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

295

300

305

310

315

ALTITUDE, IN METERS

LEVEE

"Over-mapped" areas

CHANNEL 10-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL

LEVEE

X

DISTANCE ALONG SECTION, IN METERS

NOTE: The area marked as X is protected by 

a a natural levee on this cross section; however, 

surface water may have access through overbank 

channels upstream or downstream of the section.

Figure 9. An example illustrating the potential effect of “overmapping” of flood areas by extrapolating 

flood levels across the valley bottom. The area marked as X is protected by a natural levee on this cross 

section; however, surface water may have access through overbank channels upstream or downstream of 

the section.
Approach and Methods 13

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

EXPLANATION

Flood frequency

Frequently flooded

Moderately frequently flooded

Infrequently flooded

Rarely flooded

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Figure 10. Relative flood frequency of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri, estimated from 

intersecting water-surface profiles with valley-bottom elevations.
14 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

water-surface elevations calculated from flow exceedances 

at the streamflow-gaging stations because of the potential 

errors associated with the assumptions of linear interpolations 

between stations, and because of the large overlap between 

elevations calculated for relatively low exceedances (1, 2, and 

5 percent) and flood probabilities (fig. 6). This overlap arises 

in part from the fact that floods on large rivers typically have 

long durations. Therefore, a single flood that would be used in 

an annual flood series for flood-frequency calculation, could 

inundate a flood plain for weeks to months, thereby increasing the calculated exceedance (number of days equaled or 

exceeded) for that flow. 

In addition to intersecting the water-surface elevation 

grids with the high-resolution land-surface elevation grids, we 

also intersected the water surfaces with the lower resolution 

NED grid for validation. The NED grid does not capture Missouri River bathymetry or much of the fine-scale topographic 

variability in the valley bottom, but it is useful to validate 

general patterns of relative wetness.

The 4 wetness classes were joined with the 4 retention 

classes to define a set of 16 composite classes as the initial 

LCPI classification (table 2; fig. 11). 

Terrain Mapping Assessment

A final complementary assessment was developed by 

processing topographic data to define terrain units. Terrain 

units are based on relative topographic position of points in 

the landscape. Our approach is an application of the benthic 

terrain mapping approach developed by Lundblad and others 

(2006). This approach classifies the landscape into convex-up 

areas (crests, such as natural bar forms, flood-plain ridges, 

levees, and road embankments), concave-up areas (depressions, such as river channels, flood-plain swales, and drainage 

ditches), and areas without appreciable concavity or convexity. 

Areas lacking topographic variability are classified according to whether they are sloping or flat, based on applying a 

threshold slope angle. 

Results

The regional spatial distribution of wetness is extremely 

non-uniform (fig. 12). Illustrated using 2-year flow elevations 

as a reference, the distribution shows areas that are distinctly 

wetter in the center of the study area compared to the northern 

and southern ends. This is consistent with the understanding 

of the spatial distribution of channel aggradation (fig. 3) from 

analysis of trends in streamflow-gaging station records (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 2004b). Another area of greater 

wetness downstream from St. Joseph may indicate another 

discrete area of channel aggradation.

At a much finer scale, the 16 LCPI classes used in the 

detailed analysis define a complex mosaic of patches with 

varying land-capability potential (fig. 11). These classes delineate areas with common wetness and soil drainage characteristics, the fundamental controls on the template of river-corridor 

ecosystems and land use. The maps do not, however, account 

for manmade structures such as roadways, ditches, or levees 

that can mitigate the natural potential. 

Two additional methods to analyze landscape elevation 

relations also were explored. In the first, elevations of the valley bottom were calculated relative to the Construction Reference Plane (CRP; fig. 13). The CRP is defined as a plane that 

slopes in a streamwise direction at a water-surface elevation 

equal to the flow equaled or exceeded 75 percent of the time. 

It is used by the USACE as a low-flow construction reference 

elevation. Rendering of elevations relative to CRP, using a 

continuous range of colors, indicates relative wetness of a site 

without implication of flooding frequency.

Valley-bottom elevation data also can be analyzed in 

terms of terrain classes based on topographic characteristics 

such as relative concavity or convexity of landforms and slope. 

In the example shown in figure 14, we used classification 

parameters that work well within channels rather than optimizing parameters for valley-bottom topography. Nevertheless, 

the process delineated parts of the valley bottom landscape 

that clearly differ with respect to convexity and concavity, and 

that may have substantially different localized hydrologic and 

edaphic conditions. Additional calibration may be needed to 

optimize terrain classification methods to delineate units for 

particular purposes. Terrain classes also could be combined 

with relative wetness and soils classes to create complex 

indices.

Summary and Conclusions

The Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) was constructed from the integration of hydrology, hydraulics, landsurface elevations, and soil drainage-class datasets in a section 

of the Lower Missouri River (LMOR), river miles 423–670. 

The LCPI estimates relative wetness based on intersecting 

water-surface elevations, interpolated from measurements or 

calculated from hydraulic models, with the land surface. The 

potential for wet areas to retain or drain water is added in with 

soil-drainage classes that are determined from permeability of 

surface soils and subsurface geologic strata. Terrain mapping 

that delineates areas with convex, concave, and flat parts of 

the landscape provides another means to assess tendency of 

landscape patches to hold surface water.

The LCPI is a relatively coarse index intended to delineate broad land capability classes in the LMOR valley. The 

index integrates fundamental factors that determine suitability 

of land for various uses, and may provide a useful mechanism to guide land-management decisions. For example, the 

LCPI could provide a template for prioritizing acquisition 

of conservation land or for enrollment of lands into wetland 

reserve programs. The calibration of the LCPI presented here 

is based on our judgment of dominant modes of wetness and 
Summary and Conclusions 15

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15 EXPLANATION

Strongly 

retentive

Retention Class

Wetness class

Frequently 

flooded

Moderately

frequently 

flooded

Infrequently 

flooded

Rarely

flooded

Moderately

retentive

Poorly

retentive

Nonretentive

(FS)

(FM)

(FP)

(FN)

(MS)

(MM)

(MP)

(MN)

(IS)

(IM)

(IP)

(IN)

(RS)

(RM)

(RP)

(RN)

LCPI classes

Waterbody or 

urban area

Figure 11. Land Capability Potential Index classes calculated from integrating wetness and retention classes, for a part of 

the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri.
16 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

KANSAS

NEBRASKA IOWA

MISSOURI

Omaha

Nebraska City

Rulo

St. Joseph

Kansas City

EXPLANATION

2-year reference

U.S. Geological Survey 

 streamflow-gaging station

0 50 100 KILOMETER

0 50 100 MILES

96° 94°

41°

39°

Data from U.S. Geological Survey (1999) and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2004d)

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Figure 12. Two-year flooding reference elevation showing regional variation of wetness potential as a result of channel 

aggradation and degradation. Map is based on the NED 1/3 arc-second elevation database (U.S. Geological Survey, 1999) and 

water-surface elevations from the Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004d). 
Summary and Conclusions 17

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

EXPLANATION

Elevation relative to CRP

21

-12

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

NOTE: Large numbers are due to inclusion 

of some bluff elevations in the grid. Negative 

numbers in the channel are areas below CRP. 

Figure 13. Land-surface elevation relative to the Construction Reference Plane (CRP). Large numbers are due to inclusion of some 

bluff elevations in the grid. Negative numbers in the channel are areas below CRP. 
18 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

94°58'W 94°56'W 94°54'W

39°44'N 39°42'N

EXPLANATION

Terrain classes

Flat

Slope

Depression

Crest

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Figure 14. Terrain classes for a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near St. Joseph, Missouri. 
References Cited 19

retention that interact to form the landscape mosaic. Custom 

calibrations for specific purposes could be generated by selecting different flooding classes or soil drainage classes, or by 

incorporating other datasets such as existing land cover. 

References Cited

Holbrook, J., Kliem, G., Nzewunwah, C., Jobe, Z., and Goble, 

R., 2006, Surficial alluvium and topography of the Overton 

Bottom North Unit, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge in the Missouri River valley and its potential influence on environmental management, in Jacobson, R.B., ed., 

Science to support adaptive habitat management, Overton 

Bottoms North Unit, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge, Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5086, p. 17–32.

Jacobson, R.B., ed., 2006, Science to support adaptive habitat 

management, Overton Bottoms North Unit, Big Muddy 

Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5086, 116 p.

Jacobson, R.B., and Galat, D.L., 2006, Flow and form in 

rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: An example from 

the Lower Missouri River: Geomorphology, v. 77, no. 3-4, 

p. 249-269. 

Lundblad, E.R., Wright, D.J., Miller, J., Larkin, E.M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D.F., Donahue, B.T., Anderson, S.M., and 

Battista, T., 2006, A benthic terrain classification scheme 

for American Samoa: Marine Geodesy, v. 29, no. 2, 

p. 89–111.

McDonald, R.R., Nelson, J.M., and Bennett, J.P., 2005, Multidimensional surface-water modeling system user’s guide: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–B2, 

136 p.

National Geodetic Survey, 2003, VERTCON: available at: 

URL http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/pc_proc/verton/index.shtml.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003-2006, Soil 

Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

available at: URL http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Pinter, N., Wlosinksi, J.H., and Heine, R.A., 2002, The case 

for utilization of stage data in flood-frequency analysis: 

Preliminary results from the Middle Mississippi and Lower 

Missouri River: Hydrologic Science and Technology Journal, v. 18, no. 1–4, p. 173–185.

Soil Survey Staff, 1993, Soil survey manual: Washington, 

D.C., United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 18, available at: 

URL http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996, Missouri River Gavins 

Point dam degradation trends study: Omaha, Nebr., U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, Reservoir Control Center Technical Report A04, 43 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, Reservoir regulation 

studies—Daily routing model studies, master water control 

manual Missouri River review and update study, v. 2A: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004a, Missouri River Bank 

Stabilization and Navigation Project, Fish and Wildlife 

Mitigation Project, annual implementation report 2004: 

Omaha, Nebr. and Kansas City, Mo., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 63 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004b, Missouri River Stage 

Trends: Omaha, Nebr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Northwestern Division, Reservoir Control Center Technical 

Report A04, 43 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004c, Summary Missouri 

River final environmental impact statement—Master water 

control manual review and update: Portland, Ore., U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division, 28 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004d, Upper Mississippi 

River system flow frequency study: Rock Island, Ill., U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 33 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003, Amendment to the 2000 

Biological Opinion on the operation of the Missouri River 

main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of 

the Missouri River bank stabilization and navigation project, 

and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system: Minneapolis, Minn., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 308 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, National elevation dataset: U.S. 

Geological Survey, available at: URL http://gisdata.usgs.

net/ned/.
20 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Publishing support provided by: 

Rolla Publishing Service Center 

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia, MO 65201

(573) 875–5399

Or visit the Columbia Environmental Research Center Web site at:

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov
References Cited 21
Jacobson and others—Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5256

Printed on recycled paper