U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 736

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission, and the Nature Conservancy

Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for 

the Lower Missouri River Valley
Front cover. Modified version of figure 6 showing the modeled flow-recurrence interval of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley 

bottom near Omaha, Nebraska.
Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and 

Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River 

Valley

By Kimberly A. Chojnacki, Matthew A. Struckhoff, and Robert B. Jacobson

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission, and the Nature Conservancy

Data Series 736

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

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

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Chojnacki, K.A., Struckhoff, M.A., and Jacobson, R.B., 2012, Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and geodatabase 

for the Lower Missouri River Valley: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 736, 18 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................3

Physical Setting and Study Segments .......................................................................................................3

Approach and Methods................................................................................................................................6

Modeling Water-Surface Elevations .................................................................................................6

Modeling Land-Surface Elevation .....................................................................................................7

Modeling Flow-Recurrence Intervals ...............................................................................................7

Soil-Drainage Class..............................................................................................................................7

The LCPI Model: Intersecting Flow-Recurrence and Soil-Drainage Classes ..........................13

Abundance of Wetness Classes ...............................................................................................................13

Potential Planning and Management Applications ...............................................................................16

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................16

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing the Lower Missouri River study area from Gavins Point Dam to 

St. Louis, Missouri ........................................................................................................................2

2. Map showing representation of area at or below 2-year flooding reference

elevation, illustrating how the pattern of incision and aggradation affects 

potential for restoring floodplain connectivity on the Lower Missouri River.....................4

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

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

4. Map showing mass point, bathymetric, and breakline datasets of a part of the

Lower Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska................................................8

5. Map showing the topographic detail available in the elevation dataset of a part

of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska ....................................9

6. Map showing modeled flow-recurrence interval of a part of the Lower Missouri

River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska, estimated by intersecting a series of

eight water-surface profiles with land-surface elevations.................................................10

7. Map showing Soil Survey Geographic database soil-drainage classes of a part 

of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska ..................................11

8. Map showing Land Capability Potential Index classes calculated by intersecting

water-surface elevations, land-surface elevations, and Soil Survey Geographic

database soil-drainage classes of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley 

bottom near Omaha, Nebraska ................................................................................................14

9. Longitudinal graphs of A, proportional area of valley bottom occupied by land

with surfaces in the indicated wetness classes, and B, area of valley bottom...............15

10. Graph showing percent flow recurrence interval per river segment................................15
iv

Tables

1. Geomorphic segments of the Lower Missouri River..............................................................6

2. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index...................................6

3. Descriptions of soil drainage classes.....................................................................................12

4. Area within flow-recurrence classes by river segment ......................................................13

Conversion Factors and Datum

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

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2

) 

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

To communicate effectively with stakeholders, managers, and other scientists working on the 

Lower Missouri River, this report uses a mix of U.S. customary units and International System of 

Units (SI) units of measure. Distances along the Missouri River are given in river miles upstream 

from the confluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri, as measured by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in 1960. Discharges are provided in the customary units of cubic feet 

per second. 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase 

for the Lower Missouri River Valley

By Kimberly A. Chojnacki, Matthew A. Struckhoff, and Robert B. Jacobson

Abstract

The Land Capacity Potential Index (LCPI) is a coarsescale index intended to delineate broad land-capability classes 

in the Lower Missouri River valley bottom from the Gavins 

Point Dam near Yankton, South Dakota to the mouth of the 

Missouri River near St. Louis, Missouri (river miles 811–0). 

The LCPI provides a systematic index of wetness potential 

and soil moisture-retention potential of the valley-bottom 

lands by combining the interactions among water-surface 

elevations, land-surface elevations, and the inherent moistureretention capability of soils.

A nine-class wetness index was generated by intersecting 

a digital elevation model for the valley bottom with sloping 

water-surface elevation planes derived from eight modeled 

discharges. The flow-recurrence index was then intersected 

with eight soil-drainage classes assigned to soils units in the 

digital Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2010) to create a 72-class index of potential 

flow-recurrence and moisture-retention capability of Missouri 

River valley-bottom lands. The LCPI integrates the fundamental abiotic factors that determine long-term suitability of 

land for various uses, particularly those relating to vegetative 

communities and their associated values. Therefore, the LCPI 

provides a mechanism allowing planners, land managers, landowners, and other stakeholders to assess land-use capability 

based on the physical properties of the land, in order to guide 

future land-management decisions. This report documents data 

compilation for the LCPI in a revised and expanded, 72-class 

version for the Lower Missouri River valley bottom, and 

inclusion of additional soil attributes to allow users flexibility 

in exploring land capabilities.

Introduction

The potential for valley-bottom lands to support various long-term land uses (for example, agricultural, industrial, 

municipal, or conservation uses) depends on the interactions among topography, hydrology, and soils. These factors 

determine the suitability of land not just for agricultural and 

urban development, but also for supporting vegetation communities (Fredickson and Batema, 1992; Fredrickson and Taylor, 1982; Hughes, 1997; Merigliano, 2005; Seabloom, van der 

Valk, and Moloney, 1998) and the services that they provide. 

Decisions about competing land-use options in valley-bottom 

lands will benefit from an understanding of the geographic distribution of these fundamental properties and how they affect 

the biophysical capacity of the land. The Lower Missouri 

River valley bottom has detailed and extensive datasets that 

contribute to development of a framework for understanding 

valley-bottom land potential.

The Lower Missouri River is defined as the segment of 

the Missouri River downstream from Gavins Point Dam near 

Yankton, South Dakota to the junction with the Mississippi 

River, near St. Louis, Missouri (fig. 1). The valley bottom 

varies from 2.4 kilometers (km) to more than 26 km in width, 

is 1,305 km long, and comprises more than 9,800 square kilometers (km2

) in area. The Lower Missouri River valley bottom 

contains parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and 

Missouri. Longitudinal variability in biophysical capacity of 

the river valley arises from variable hydrology and sediment 

regimes, variable geological controls on floodplain sediments 

and valley widths, and variable engineering of the channel and 

flood-control infrastructure.

From the late 1980’s to the present the Lower Missouri 

River valley bottom has been subject to large floods and changing land-management policies. Floods in 1993, 1995, 1997, 

2004, 2007, and 2011 have been responsible for substantial 

damages to cropland, residential developments, levees, and 

transportation infrastructure; such damages have been costly. 

The “Great Flood” of 1993 resulted in $12–$16 billion of damage in the Missouri and Mississippi River floodplains (Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, 1994). 

State and Federal agencies have placed as much as 800 km2 of 

valley-bottom lands in conservation status by fee-title acquisition or purchase of easements during the same time period 

(Jacobson and others, 2011). Land-management decisions have 

lacked a systematic classification of the abiotic characteristics 

of Lower Missouri River valley-bottom lands to guide assessment of net socioeconomic and conservation values.
Figure 1. The Lower Missouri River study area from Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, Missouri.

( (

(

(

( (

(#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!.#

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

IOWA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

ILL

NEBRASKA

SOUTH 

DAKOTA

GAVINS 

POINT DAM

Rulo

Hermann

Waverly

Decatur

Boonville

Nebraska City

Omaha

Ponca

Yankton

Sioux City

St 

Kansas City

St Joseph

Glasgow

600

700

500

800

300

400

200

100

-96° -94° -92° 

42°40°38°

Osage River

Grand River

Platte River

Kansas River

Big

Sioux

River

Mississippi River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2003, 1:2,000,000Geographic coordinate system, North American Datum 1983

0 25 50 100 MILES River miles by U.S. Arm

0 50 100 25 KILOMETERS

River mile marker—Number is distance upstream 

from the junction with the Mississippi River, in miles

# U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station

.!

100

EXPLANATION

Missouri River

Basin

Map locatio

Gavins segment

Ponca segment

Sioux segment

Platte segment

Kansas segment

Grand segment

Osage segment

Location of figure 3

Location of figures 4–8
Physical Setting and Study Segments 3

The Land Capacity Potential Index (LCPI) presented 

in this report was developed to provide an index of potential 

flow-recurrence and soil moisture-retention capability of the 

valley-bottom lands within the Lower Missouri River (Jacobson and others, 2007). Although these factors are critical to 

determining the suitability of land for agricultural and industrial development, this report emphasizes the potential ability 

of the LCPI to provide decision support for the management 

of biotic resources, particularly wetlands and other vegetation communities, and the services they provide. The original 

version of the LCPI included 16 classes and was developed for 

rivermiles 423–670 (Jacobson and others, 2007); the current 

(2012) version presented here expands the geographic area 

covered by the LCPI to include the whole Lower Missouri 

River from mile 0 to mile 811 and provides increased thematic 

resolution in potential flow-recurrence interval and soildrainage class. In addition, the LCPI geodatabase has been 

expanded relative to previous versions to provide additional 

flexibility to devise and explore custom indices of valley-bottom land capabilities. The index was developed by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in partnership with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, 

Nebraska Partnership for All Bird Conservation, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) Missouri River Integrated Science Program, 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 

to create the LCPI for the Lower Missouri River valley bottom 

from the Gavins Point Dam near Yankton, South Dakota to the 

mouth of the Missouri River near St. Louis, Missouri (fig. 1). 

The LCPI is intended to provide a systematic index of flowrecurrence potential and soil moisture-retention capability of 

the Lower Missouri River valley-bottom based on topography, 

water-surface elevations, and soil characteristics. In addition, 

the LCPI geodatabase includes additional soil characteristics 

for flexibility in exploring alternative assessments. The LCPI 

provides information that can be used for assessing land-use 

capabilities at the scale of tens to hundreds of kilometers. The 

LCPI was created from existing land-surface elevation, hydrologic, hydraulic, and soils datasets, as such there are inherent 

limitations in applying the LCPI to specific sites. The utility 

of the information at scales of 10’s to 100’s of hectares has not 

been explored. The intent of the LCPI is to provide an index 

that planners, land managers, landowners, and other stakeholders can use to assess the inherent abiotic capabilities of 

lands within the valley bottom at a broad scale. Although other 

uses may be identified, the primary application of the LCPI 

addressed in this study involves the management of vegetative 

communities on the valley floor.

Physical Setting and Study Segments

The Missouri River drains approximately one-sixth of 

the continental United States, encompassing 1.37 million km2

in 10 states (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) and 25,000 km2

 in Canada (Galat and others, 2005). 

Historical descriptions suggest that the Missouri River was a 

dynamic complex of channels, chutes, sloughs, side channels, 

backwater areas, migrating islands, and sandbars until channel 

modifications began in the 1800’s (Funk and Robinson, 1974; 

Hesse and others, 1988). Presently, approximately one-third of 

the Missouri River has been impounded behind a series of six 

mainstem dams. These dams were constructed primarily during the 1950’s and 1960’s to address identified societal needs 

including flood control, navigation, hydropower, and water 

supply, resulting in substantial modification of the natural 

hydrograph of the river. The degree of flow alteration tends 

to diminish in the downstream direction (Galat and Lipkin, 

2000; Jacobson and Galat, 2008). Additionally, these dams 

substantially have reduced the sediment load of the Missouri 

River because most of the sediments once carried by the river 

are being deposited within the reservoir system (National 

Research Council, 2002; Jacobson and others, 2009). The 

channel has incised 3–5 meters (m) within the 100 km reach 

immediately downstream from Gavins Point Dam (fig. 2) as a 

result of diminished sediment load. Channel elevations generally recover to near-historical values near Omaha, Nebraska. 

The section of river between Omaha, Nebraska and Nebraska 

City, Nebraska has relatively stable bed elevation, but discharges in excess of flood stage have become more frequent 

because of levee confinement and aggradation of the narrow 

floodplain between the levees (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2007; Jacobson and others, 2009). Farther downstream near 

Kansas City, Missouri, the channel bed is degrading substantially (fig. 2; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004a).

The Missouri River has been engineered to maintain a 

self-scouring navigation channel from Sioux City, Iowa to 

St. Louis, Missouri. Narrowing of the channel, bank stabilization, and construction of levees have resulted in substantial 

losses of valley-bottom habitats. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (2004b) has estimated that these measures have 

resulted in the loss of as much as 400 km2 of aquatic habitat, 

274 km2 of terrestrial habitat (sandbars and low-lying lands), 

and as much as 1,400 km2 of connected wetland habitats . 

Additionally, levees and revetments have isolated the main 

channel of the Missouri River from its valley-bottom floodplain while ditching and channelization of tributaries have 

increased the efficiency of draining water from these lands. 

These actions made it possible to convert most of the natural habitats to row crop agriculture (Ferrell, 1995). Natural 

vegetation communities within the valley bottom remain as 

narrow riparian zones between the channel and levees and as 

insolated patches within a largely agricultural landscape.
4 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

The valley bottom consists of active channel, meander 

belt, alluvial terraces, and bordering colluvial landforms 

that are downslope of bluffs (fig. 3; Jacobson and others, 

2007). The active channel refers to the part of the valley 

bottom characterized by the river bed, sandbars, and banks, 

and contains most of the mainstem discharge of the river. 

The meander belt is defined as the part of the valley bottom occupied by the river channel during the Late Holocene Era (Jacobson and others, 2007). The meander belt is 

characterized by ridge and swale topography created by the 

natural meandering of the Missouri River. This topography 

results in a juxtaposition of areas with differing potential for 

inundation by surface water. Additionally, this topography 

is indicative of differing underlying surficial geology and 

therefore is indicative of differing soil moisture-retention 

capabilities (Jacobson and others, 2007). The ridge and 

swale topography may have been altered to various extents 

by farming or construction activities. Alluvial terraces are 

surfaces underlain by alluvial deposits adjacent to the meander belt. Alluvial terraces and bordering colluvial landforms 

tend to flood much less frequently than the meander belt 

(Jacobson and others, 2007).

The study area is divided into seven segments from the 

Gavins Point Dam to the Mississippi River confluence (fig. 1, 

table 1). The segments include Gavins segment, from the 

Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska; Ponca segment, from 

Ponca, Nebraska to the Big Sioux River; Sioux segment, from 

the Big Sioux River to the Platte River; Platte segment, from 

the Platte River to the Kansas River; Kansas segment, from 

the Kansas River to the Grand River; Grand segment, from 

the Grand River to the Osage River; and Osage segment, 

from the Osage River to the Mississippi River (Jacobson and 

others, 2010). These segments were delineated by locations of 

tributaries considered to be significant to the hydrology, geomorphology, or sediment supply of the Lower Missouri River 

(Jacobson and others, 2010).

#

0

50

650

550

600

700

750

500

800

450

300

400

350

250

200

100 150

Incising 2

Incising 3

Incising 1A

Stable-aggrading 1

Stableaggrading 2

GAVINS POINT Incising 1B

DAM

Hermann

Nebraska City

Omaha

Kansas

City

St. Louis

Sioux

City

Boonville

St. Joseph

Waverly

Rulo

Area at or below 10-year flood elevation

Boundary of valley bottom

River miles, upstream from Mississippi River

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

stations

EXPLANATION

44°

40°

98° 94° 90°

0 50 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 50 100 200 MILES

KANSAS

MISSOURI

ILLINOIS

IOWA

NEBRASKA

SOUTH

DAKOTA MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

Figure 2. Representation of area at or below 2-year flooding reference elevation, illustrating 

how the pattern of incision and aggradation affects potential for restoring floodplain connectivity 

on the Lower Missouri River. (Jacobson and others, 2009).
Physical Setting and Study Segments 5

Figure 3. Conceptual 

classification of the Lower 

Missouri River valley-bottom 

landforms and relations to 

hydrology. Example from 

DeSoto Lake, Iowa, river mile 

630–655. *Indicative flood 

levels, extrapolated from 

hydraulically modeled watersurface elevations. (Jacobson 

and others, 2007).

A

A′

Active channel—River channel and active 

sandbars, margins at elevations less 

than 2-year recurrence flood

Meander belt—Historical and late-Holocene 

meander belt, characterized by abundant 

ridge-swale topography, ox-bow lakes, 

and relatively undeveloped soils 

Terraces—Remnants of Pleistocene 

terraces, greater than 10 meters 

above modern river 

Blufflands—Areas along the valley margin, 

characterized by steep slopes, colluvial 

deposits, and loess soils

Trace of section

Topographic depressions—Non-drained 

depressions in meander belt, mostly 

resulting from natural ridge and swale 

topography

A A' 

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 MILES

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

EXPLANATION

2-year flood level

5-year flood level

10-year flood level

100-year flood level—Indicative flood 

levels, extrapolated from 

hydraulically modeled watersurface elevations, Jacobson 

and others, 2007

232000 240000 248000 256000 264000

4590000

4600000

4610000

4620000

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

300

320

340

360

Elevation above North 

American Vertical Datum 

of 1988, in meters

Bluff and

terrace

Bluff and

terrace

Meander belt Meander

belt

Active

channel

A A'

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

295

300

305

310

315

Elevation above North 

American Vertical Datum 

of 1988, in meters

Meander belt

Meander

belt

Active

channel

Distance along profile, in meters

Figure 3. Conceptual classification of the Lower Missouri River valley-bottom relations to hydrology. Example taken from 

near DeSoto Lake, Iowa, RM 630-655.
6 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Approach and Methods

The LCPI geodatabase integrates modeled water-surface 

elevations, land-surface elevation, and soil-drainage classes 

to provide a basis for understanding potential flow-recurrence 

interval and water-retention capabilities of lands within the 

valley bottom. The following sections outline the steps taken 

to develop the LCPI, including the hydrology, hydraulics, 

land-surface elevations, and soil datasets. All data used to 

create the LCPI geodatabase were compiled from existing 

sources. The current (2012) version of the LCPI geodatabase, 

associated metadata, and map document accompany this 

report.

Modeling Water-Surface Elevations

Hydrologic data were obtained from the 

USACE Upper Mississippi River System Flow 

Frequency Study (UMRSFFS; U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2004c), which calculated flow frequencies at 12 USGS streamflow-gaging stations 

(table 2). These calculations provided estimated 

discharges for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, 

200-, and 500-year flood-recurrence intervals 

(equivalent to annual probabilities of 50, 20, 

10, 5, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.2 percent) under reservoir 

regulation (Jacobson and others, 2007). The 

LCPI uses the modeled water-surface elevation 

estimates, which are considered to be an index of 

potential flow-recurrence rather than a prediction 

of flood probability.

Estimations of water-surface elevations were obtained 

from one-dimensional unsteady hydraulic models used in the 

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

models were calibrated to reproduce water-surface elevations 

for the eight estimated flows, therefore providing reliable 

estimates of water-surface elevations at approximately 1-mile 

intervals along the river (Jacobson and others, 2007). The 

effects of levees are accounted for in the UMRSFFS models 

such that flows within the levees are constricted, resulting in 

locally increased water-surface elevations. Modeled flows 

that overtop local levee elevations are dispersed over the local 

landscape, resulting in locally decreased water-surface elevations (Jacobson and others, 2007).

Table 1. Geomorphic segments of the Lower Missouri River.

[From U.S. Geological Survey development of a channel classification to evaluate potential 

for cottonwood restoration, lower segments of the Middle Missouri River, South Dakota and 

Nebraska (Jacobson and others, 2010)]

Segment

name Segment River mile start

River mile 

end

Length, 

in miles

Gavins Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska 811.1 753 58.1

Ponca Ponca, Nebraska to Big Sioux River 753 734 19

Sioux Big Sioux River to Platte River 734 594.5 139.5

Platte Platte River to Kansas River 594.5 367.5 227

Kansas Kansas River to Grand River 367.5 250 117.5

Grand Grand River to Osage River 250 130.4 119.6

Osage Osage River to Mississippi River 130.4 0 130.4

Table 2. Hydrologic data for calculations of Land Capability Potential Index.

[%, percent]

Streamflowgaging 

station

Location

Flows at indicated recurrence intervals (percent chance), in cubic feet per second1

2 years

(50%)

5 years

(20%)

10 years

(10%)

20 years

(5%)

50 years

(2%)

100 years

(1%)

200 years

(0.5%)

500 years

(0.2%)

6934500 Hermann, Missouri 248,000 363,000 439,000 511,000 604,000 673,000 742,000 833,000

6909000 Boonville, Missouri 203,000 289,000 352,000 415,000 503,000 573,000 648,000 753,000

6895500 Waverly, Missouri 150,000 212,000 258,000 305,000 371,000 424,000 480,000 561,000

6893000 Kansas City, Missouri 142,000 210,000 245,000 289,000 351,000 401,000 454,000 530,000

6818000 St. Joseph, Missouri 109,000 147,000 174,000 199,000 233,000 261,000 287,000 324,000

6813500 Rulo, Nebraska (Kansas City, Corps)2 96,100 132,000 158,000 184,000 220,000 250,000 281,000 320,000

6813500 Rulo, Nebraska (Omaha, Corps)2 94,700 132,300 160,900 188,600 217,300 252,200 296,900 370,700

6807000 Nebraska City, Nebraska 88,000 118,700 149,800 189,900 206,400 236,700 275,900 345,400

6610000 Omaha, Nebraska 64,200 85,300 123,600 132,700 147,900 174,700 204,500 247,900

6601200 Decatur, Nebraska 52,400 70,500 87,200 101,600 120,500 141,800 164,800 197,700

6486000 Sioux City, Iowa 49,500 66,800 78,300 93,900 113,800 133,800 155,000 185,400

6467500 Yankton, South Dakota 45,300 63,000 65,000 69,100 74,700 84,900 98,000 123,500

1

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

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, 2004c).
Approach and Methods 7

Water-surface elevations corresponding to flow-recurrence 

intervals were assigned to points at every river mile along the 

Lower Missouri River as measured by the USACE in 1960. 

Elevations also were assigned to points on lines delineating the 

left and right valley walls based on their proximity as nearest 

neighbors to the river-mile points. The locations of the valleywall points were shifted somewhat along the valley wall to 

define transects perpendicular to the valley to create realistically sloping water-surface elevations (Jacobson and others, 

2007). Using relevant water-surface elevations as the height 

source, we converted the points to a triangulated irregular network (TIN), a data model that partitions geographic space into 

adjoining, nonoverlapping triangles (Bratt and Booth, 2000). 

The TIN was then converted to a grid with 5-m cells.

Modeling Land-Surface Elevation

A land-surface digital elevation model was created from 

mass point (height measurements at points randomly or systematically collected in open areas) and breakline (lines of highdensity data representing a discontinuity of slope along linear 

features such as levees, banks, and roads) datasets compiled for 

the UMRSFFS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004c; fig. 4). 

These data originally were compiled using photogrammetric 

methods and had a root-mean square vertical error of 0.2 m 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004c). The mass point and 

breakline datasets were used to create a TIN, which allowed 

the model to capture abrupt changes in elevation, such as along 

levees or roads. The resulting TIN subsequently was converted 

to a digital elevation model with 5-m grid cells (fig. 5).

The land-surface dataset was augmented with a bathymetric dataset for the Missouri River collected by the USACE 

for the UMRSFFS during 1994 to 1998 (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2004c). Bathymetric data were collected by echosounding cross sectional transects spaced approximately 150 m 

apart, with accuracies estimated at 0.15 m (Jacobson and others, 

2007). The software Multi-dimensional Surface Water Modeling 

System (McDonald and others, 2005) was used to interpolate 

the bathymetric data because the software allows for a streamwise interpolation, producing a realistic topographic representation of the channel, thalweg, and bars (Jacobson and others, 

2007). These data were then gridded to 5-m cells that subsequently were incorporated into the larger land-surface digital 

elevation model using a mosaic function. Navigation structures 

are not well represented in the final dataset because they were 

not sampled at the same resolution as the bathymetric data. 

Because of the wide spacing of transects and dynamic nature of 

the Missouri River, these data should be considered indicative 

of general channel conditions rather than relevant to contemporary, site-specific conditions (Jacobson and others, 2007).

Modeling Flow-Recurrence Intervals

Water- and land-surface elevation models were then used 

to create a flow-recurrence index. This was accomplished by 

subtracting the land-surface elevation grid from each of the 

eight water-surface elevation grids on a cell by cell basis. The 

resulting grids, representing the area of inundation at each 

of the eight flow-recurrence intervals, were then converted 

to polygon datasets. Areas not inundated by water elevations 

corresponding to any of the eight flow-recurrence intervals 

were assigned to a polygon dataset representing the greater 

than 500-year flow-recurrence class. These areas include 

former meander belt and alluvial terrace surfaces at high 

elevations compared to the present-day channel and some 

non-alluvial landforms on the margins of the valley wall. The 

polygon datasets were then combined to create a unified index 

with nine flow-recurrence interval classes (0–2, 2–5, 5–10, 

10–20, 20–50, 50–100, 100–200, 200–500, and greater than 

500 years; fig. 6).

It should be noted that the purpose of flow-recurrence 

index is to provide references for potential wetness, not to 

predict flood-hazard areas. The water-surface elevations, 

indicated by interpolating flows between streamflow-gaging 

stations, do not account for variations in hydraulic roughness, 

channel morphology, or channel slope, which could strongly 

affect local stage (Jacobson and others, 2007). Also, these calculations do not take into account whether or not water has an 

overland flow path to all areas in the valley bottom at or below 

the modeled water-surface elevation; therefore, the modeled 

water-surface elevations may not reach all the indicated polygons because there may be natural or engineered topographic 

barriers, such as roads or levees, preventing actual water 

flow. Thus, mapped polygons may overestimate (“over-map”) 

potential areas that would be flooded by overbank flows, even 

without levees, at flows that are overbank but lower than levee 

tops. These “over-mapped” areas are important because they 

indicate parts of the valley bottom that could 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, “over-mapped” areas 

are treated as having the same flow-recurrence interval as 

comparable elevations on the channel side of the levee. The 

100- and 500-year elevations would overtop all levees except 

those present in urban areas. Since the UMRSFFS models 

explicitly included these levees, the mapped flooded areas 

within the LCPI are consistent with UMRSFFS model predictions (Jacobson and others, 2007).

Soil-Drainage Class

Soils data were obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2010). Tabular and spatial data for the 55 counties in five states intersecting the Missouri River valley were 

compiled to form a single spatial data set (fig. 7) and a single 

tabular dataset. Spatial data were then clipped to the extent 

of the land-surface elevation dataset. Because the soils data 

were mapped during a number of years, by different persons, 
8 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

EXPLANATION

Breakline

Bathymetry point

Mass point

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 1 2 3 4 MILES Data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004c

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

-96°10' -96°05' -96°00'

41°40'

41°35'

Figure 4. Mass point, bathymetric, and breakline datasets of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, 

Nebraska.
Approach and Methods 9

Figure 5. The topographic detail available in the elevation dataset of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near 

Omaha, Nebraska.

EXPLANATION

Elevation, in meters

41°40'

41°35'

-96°10' -96°5' -96°0'

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

High : 337

Low : 295
10 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Figure 6. Modeled flow-recurrence interval of a part of the Lower Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska, 

estimated by intersecting a series of eight water-surface profiles with land-surface elevations.

EXPLANATION

0 to 2 years

2 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

10 to 20 years

20 to 50 years

50 to 100 years

100 to 200 years

200 to 500 years

Greater than 500 years

Flow recurrence interval

-96°10' -96°05' -96°00'

41°40'

41°35'

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
Approach and Methods 11

Figure 7. Soil Survey Geographic database soil-drainage classes (Soil Survey Staff, 2010) of a part of the Lower Missouri 

River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska.

EXPLANATION

Poorly drained

Somewhat poorly drained

Excessively drained Moderately well drained

Well drained

Somewhat excessively drained

Soil-drainage class

Very poorly drained

No data

-96°10' -96°05' -96°00'

41°40'

41°35'

Data from Natural Resources Conservation

Service, 2003–06

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
12 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

and with differing specifications, the map units do not always 

match at county boundaries (Jacobson and others, 2007). 

Additionally, the spatial resolution of the data may vary from 

county to county.

Soil-drainage classes are used as a measure of the 

tendency of soil units to retain or drain water following 

saturated conditions (Jacobson and others, 2007). Assignation of soil-drainage class is based primarily on the presence 

and location of redoximorphic features, soil texture, and soil 

depth to bedrock (Schoeneberger and others, 2002). The eight 

soil-drainage classes used to define land-cability classes are 

described in table 3 (Soil Survey Staff, 1993).

In addition to soil-drainage class, this version of the LCPI 

geodatabase includes 11 attributes from the SSURGO dataset 

to allow for additional exploration of land-capability indicators. These include soil map unit identifiers (musym, mukey, 

and muname), and other attributes relating to the availability 

of water: minimum annual depth to water (wtdepannmi), 

dominant hydrologic group (hydgrpdcd), soil-drainage class 

for the wettest (drclasswet) component, the available water 

storage to 25, 50, 100, and 150 centimeters (aws025wta, 

aws050wta, aws0100wta, and aws0150wta, respectively), and 

mean annual precipitation (map_r). The attributes relating to 

the availability of water also provide continuous variables that 

support a broader suite of statistical analyses than are available when using classified data. More complete descriptions of 

each attribute are available from the SSURGO Database (Soil 

Survey Staff, 2010).

Table 3. Descriptions of soil drainage classes.

[From Soil Survey Manual (Soils Survey Staff, 1993)]

Soil drainage class Description

Very poorly drained Water is at or near the soil surface during much of the growing season. Internal free water 

is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most 

mesophytic crops cannot be grown. Commonly, the soil occupies a depression or is level. 

If rainfall is persistent or high, the soil can be sloping.

Poorly drained The soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for 

long periods. Internal free water is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. 

Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soil, 

however, is not continuously wet directly below plow depth. The water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity class or persistent 

rainfall, or a combination of both factors.

Somewhat poorly drained The soil is wet at a shallow depth for significant periods during the growing season. Internal free water is commonly shallow to moderately deep and transitory to permanent. 

Unless the soil is artificially drained, the growth of most mesophytic plants is markedly 

restricted. The soil commonly has a low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity 

class, or a high water table, or receives water from lateral flow, or persistent rainfall, or 

some combination of these factors.

Moderately well drained Water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly during some periods of the year. Internal 

free water commonly is moderately deep and may be transitory or permanent. The soil 

is wet for only a short time within the rooting depth during the growing season, but long 

enough that most mesophytic crops are affected. The soil commonly has a moderately 

low, or lower, saturated hydraulic conductivity class within 1 meter of the surface, or 

periodically receives high rainfall, or both.

Well drained Water is removed from the soil readily, but not rapidly. Internal free water commonly is 

deep or very deep; annual duration is not specified. Water is available to plants in humid 

regions during much of the growing season. Wetness does not inhibit growth of roots for 

significant periods during most growing seasons.

Somewhat excessively drained Water is removed from the soil rapidly. Internal free water commonly is very rare or very 

deep. The soils are commonly coarse-textured, and have high saturated hydraulic conductivity, or are very shallow.

Excessively drained Water is removed from the soil very rapidly. Internal free water commonly is very rare or 

very deep. The soils are commonly coarse-textured, and have very high saturated hydraulic conductivity class or are very shallow.

No data These soils have no drainage class information recorded, and usually these areas are underwater or in urban areas. 
Abundance of Wetness Classes 13

The LCPI Model: Intersecting Flow-Recurrence 

and Soil-Drainage Classes

The nine-class flow-recurrence index was intersected 

with the eight-class soils dataset to create the final 72-class 

LCPI geodatabase (fig. 8). Finally, all polygons less than 

900 m2 (approximately 0.1 hectare) were eliminated by 

combining them with neighboring polygons with the longest 

shared border. The polygons eliminated by this process were 

considered smaller than the index was designed to capture and 

below the scale of typical management actions. The flowrecurrence index, SSURGO soils data, and the LCPI were then 

imported into an ESRI file geodatabase. In addition to a preselected index based on flow interval and drainage class, the 

resulting geodatabase can be queried for a wide range of other 

soil attributes available from the SSURGO data set.

The file geodatabase (LCPIv3_2.gdb), an ArcGIS (version 10) map document file (LCPIv3_2.mxd), and a metadata file accompany this report. The map document file is 

constructed with layers that illustrate flow-recurrence index, 

soil-drainage class, and all LCPI classes; however, the map 

document file and database were compiled to allow users to 

customize their own map document file to query, display, or 

simplify derivative maps.

Abundance of Wetness Classes

The final LCPI models the wetness potential of more 

than 2.4 million acres (approximately one million hectares) on 

811 river miles (1,305 km) of the Lower Missouri River valley. The LCPI includes 72 classes based on 9 modeled flowrecurrence interval classes and 8 mapped soil-drainage classes.

For the study area, classes representing the extremes of 

the flow-recurrence interval spectrum are more abundant than 

classes with moderate length flood-return intervals. Approximately 27.7 percent of the lands within the study area are 

within the 0- to 2-year flow-recurrence class and an additional 

17.1 percent of lands are within the 2- to 5-year flow-recurrence 

class (table 4). The greater than 500-year flow-recurrence class 

accounted for 30.0 percent of all valley-bottom lands. Combined, the six classes representing flow-return intervals from 5 

to 500 years accounted for only 25.2 percent of the total area.

In addition, the abundance of wetness classes varies by 

segment (fig. 9A). Valley-bottom area upstream from river mile 

680 is dominated by higher elevation lands with longer modeled flow-return intervals. Areas from river miles 520 to 580 

(Omaha, Nebraska to Rulo, Nebraska), 380 to 410 (St. Joseph, 

Missouri to Kansas City, Missouri), and 300 to 230 (Waverly, 

Missouri to Glasgow, Missouri) are dominated by lower 

elevation lands with shorter modeled flow-return intervals. By 

segment, the Gavins, Ponca, and Sioux segments are modeled 

as distinctly drier, with only 7.3, 3.9, and 5.0 percent of lands 

in the 0- to 2-year flow-recurrence class, respectively (fig. 10; 

table 4), but with 86.8, 70.7, and 45.2 percent of lands in the 

greater than 500-year flow-recurrence class, respectively. Longer flow-return intervals also dominate downstream from Kansas City, where recent channel incision has lowered the stream 

channel relative to the valley bottom (fig. 9). The Platte, Grand, 

and Osage segments are distinctly wetter with 50.1, 49.7, and 

48.9 percent, respectively, of lands in the 0- to 2-year flowrecurrence class. These same segments had only 8.4, 5.8, and 

6.9 percent, respectively, of the area in the greater than 500-year 

flow-recurrence class. Variations in wetness are consistent with 

trends reported in the spatial distribution of channel degradation 

and aggradation from analysis of trends in streamflow-gaging 

station records (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004b).

At a local scale, the 72 classes of the LCPI represent 

a complex mosaic of patches with varying land-capability 

potential. These classes delineate areas of comparable 

potential wetness and moisture-retention characteristics, the 

fundamental abiotic drivers of land capability within the river 

valley. The LCPI does not account for manmade structures 

such as roadways, ditches or levees that can alter surface and 

groundwater flow patterns on the landscape.

Table 4. Area within flow-recurrence classes by river segment.

[>, greater than]

Modeled flow 

elevation

River segment, in square kilometers and (percent)

Gavins Ponca Sioux Platte Kansas Grand Osage Total

0 to 2 years 66.8 (7.3) 13.7 (3.9) 164.7 (5.0) 1,110.9 (50.1) 508.6 (37.9) 373.2 (49.7) 497.6 (48.9) 2,735.5 (27.7)

2 to 5 years 7.9 (0.9) 5.8 (1.6) 249.1 (7.6) 609.4 (27.5) 240.3 (17.9) 227.7 (30.3) 341.5 (33.5) 1,681.7 (17.1)

5 to 10 years 1.3 (0.1) 3.0 (0.9) 325.1 (9.9) 132.1 (6.0) 141.8 (10.6) 63.3 (8.4) 54.6 (5.4) 721.3 (7.3)

10 to 20 years 2.6 (0.3) 5.5 (1.6) 135.9 (4.2) 74.0 (3.3) 124.3 (9.3) 20.9 (2.8) 24.5 (2.4) 387.7 (3.9)

20 to 50 years 4.3 (0.5) 9.1 (2.6) 224.4 (6.9) 41.6 (1.9) 92.5 (6.9) 12.9 (1.7) 15.0 (1.5) 399.8 (4.1)

50 to 100 years 8.8 (1.0) 13.8 (3.9) 252.8 (7.7) 27.5 (1.2) 35.7 (2.7) 4.4 (0.6) 7.0 (0.7) 349.9 (3.5)

100 to 200 years 9.1 (1.0) 16.9 (4.8) 213.8 (6.5) 17.9 (0.8) 26.7 (2.0) 2.5 (0.3) 4.8 (0.5) 291.7 (3.0)

200 to 500 years 19.7 (2.2) 35.4 (10.1) 224.5 (6.9) 17.0 (0.8) 30.6 (2.3) 2.8 (0.4) 2.9 (0.3) 333.0 (3.4)

>500 years 793.1 (86.8) 248.9 (70.7) 1,479.0 (45.2) 186.1 (8.4) 140.6 (10.5) 43.9 (5.8) 70.4 (6.9) 2,962.0 (30.0)
14 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Figure 8. Land Capability Potential Index classes calculated by intersecting water-surface elevations, land-surface 

elevations, and Soil Survey Geographic database soil-drainage classes (Soil Survey Staff, 2010) of a part of the Lower 

Missouri River valley bottom near Omaha, Nebraska.

-96°10' -96°05' -96°00'

41°40'

41°35'

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

0 to 2 

years

2 to 5 

years

5 to 10

 years

10 to 20 

 years

20 to 50 

 years

50 to 100 

 years

100 to 200 

 years

200 to 500 

 years

Greater than 

 500 years 

Excessively drained

Somewhat excessively drained

Well drained

Moderately well drained

Somewhat poorly drained

Poorly drained

Very poorly drained

No data

Flow recurrance interval

Soil-drainage class

EXPLANATION
Abundance of Wetness Classes 15

Figure 9. Longitudinal graphs of A, proportional area of valley bottom occupied by land with surfaces in the indicated 

wetness classes, and B, area of valley bottom.

Figure 10. Percent flow recurrence interval per river segment.

A

B

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Valley width, in meters Proportional area

UPSTREAM River mile, distance upstream from St. Louis DOWNSTREAM

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gavins Ponca Sioux Platte Kansas Grand Osage

River segment

Flow recurrence class, in percent

Greater than 500 years

200 to 500 years

100 to 200 years

50 to 100 years

20 to 50 years

10 to 20 years

5 to 10 years

2 to 5 years

0 to 2 years

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Percent potential flow-recurrence interval per river segment. 
16 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

Potential Planning and Management 

Applications

The LCPI provides a decision-support tool for landmanagement decisions in the Lower Missouri River valley 

bottom, provided users are aware of the inherent limitations of 

the underlying data and index model. First among these limitations is the assumption of connectivity to the river, which 

forms the basis for classifications of potential flow frequency. 

Again, the purpose of flow-recurrence index is to provide an 

index of potential wetness, not to predict flood-hazard areas; 

modeled flow frequencies obviously will not apply on floodplains protected by levees or otherwise separated from the 

river by structures that impede flow, such as railroad and road 

grades. In such instances, groundwater and surface flow from 

the uplands will be the most likely sources of water inflow. 

For surface water, the LCPI can be used to identify locations 

where surface water will naturally collect (based on elevation) 

and be retained (based on soil-drainage class). For groundwater, the LCPI will identify low-lying areas likely to receive 

the earliest influx of groundwater, provided the soil does not 

impede flow. Additional research is needed to thoroughly 

describe the hydrologic behavior of LCPI classes on both 

levee-protected and connected flood plains.

Other limitations of the LCPI arise from the SSURGO 

soils data that provide the basis for the soil-drainage component of each LCPI class. The study area encompasses nearly 

10,000 km2

 in parts of 5 states and 55 counties in 4 different 

Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) within the SSURGO 

program. Each MLRA establishes guidelines for mapping 

based on soils types known or likely to occur within the mapping area; however, mapping skill and interpretation of those 

guidelines vary among counties. These issues are most evident 

where soil classifications abruptly shift at county and state 

boundaries. Also, the spatial and thematic accuracy are difficult to quantify across the study area.

Finally, limitation arises from the fact that past land use 

and other ecological factors may alter the ability of LCPI to 

predict landscape response. In the case of ecological restoration of floodplain lands, past land use will affect the condition 

of the soil, the existing vegetation, and the available seed 

bank. These effects will be further mediated by ecological 

processes such as disturbance, competitive exclusion, and 

succession. Within this context, the LCPI model can only 

indicate locations more or less likely to support a given habitat 

or species.

With a firm understanding of the above limitations, it is 

possible to use the LCPI for a variety of purposes. At coarse 

scales, the LCPI enables assessment of the wetness potential 

of different lands, information that can be used for assessing 

regional restoration or flood-damage potential. Based on our 

current understanding of vegetation and wetness relations, 

such assessments can indicate the ability of valley-bottom segments to support desired communities and habitats (Jacobson 

and others, 2011). For example, segments that include few 

examples of LCPI classes with short flow-recurrence intervals 

likely to support hydrologically connected wetlands would 

require expensive restoration approaches. By contrast, wetland 

restoration would be more effective in areas where the LCPI 

indicates a greater abundance of classes with short modeled 

flow-recurrence intervals.

At the moderate scale of dozens of kilometers, the LCPI 

can start to indicate how various land uses might be arranged 

and interact as a mosaic of patches. This understanding could 

be applied to determining optimal locations or patch structure 

of conventional crops, biofuel crops, agroforestry crops, or 

restored habitats.

The LCPI may have significant potential to aid efficiency 

in natural resources management at the local scale (such as a 

wildlife refuge management unit, covering hundreds of hectares), where limited resources must be directed to locations 

where there is a high likelihood of success. In this scenario, 

the LCPI model may facilitate the identification of areas likely 

to support particular plant species and communities across a 

range of hydrologic regimes and soil conditions; hydrology 

and soils are known determinants of plant species distribution 

(Fredickson and Batema, 1992; Fredrickson and Taylor, 1982; 

Hughes, 1997; Merigliano, 2005; Seabloom, van der Valk, and 

Moloney, 1998). An earlier version of the LCPI was recently 

utilized in wetland restoration planning between St. Joseph, 

Missouri and Yankton, South Dakota (Jacobson and others, 

2011), and current research is explicitly examining relations 

between vegetation and LCPI classes to improve our understanding of how these classes might support desired communities and species.

Conclusions

The Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) was developed using modeled water-surface elevations, land-surface 

elevations, and soil-drainage class datasets for the Lower Missouri River valley from Yankton, South Dakota to St. Louis, 

Missouri (river miles 811–0). The LCPI estimates wetness 

potential by intersecting water-surface elevation models with a 

high-resolution land-surface elevation model to create a nineclass index of potential flow recurrence. The moisture-retention capability of the soils is estimated by overlaying the eight 

soil-drainage classes that are determined from permeability 

of surface soils and subsurface geologic strata. This version 

of the LCPI geodatabase includes additional soil attributes to 

facilitate exploration of land potential.

The LCPI is a coarse-scale index intended to delineate 

general land-capability classes by integrating the fundamental 

abiotic factors that help determine suitability of land for various uses. As such, the LCPI may provide a useful mechanism 

to guide future land-management decisions. For example, 

the LCPI could provide a useful tool for prioritizing land 

acquisition or enrollment of lands into conservation reserve 

programs.
References Cited 17

References Cited

Bratt, S., and Booth, B., 2000, Using ArcGIS 3D Analyst: 

ESRI, Inc., 374 p.

Ferrell, J., 1995, Soundings—100 years of the Missouri River 

navigation project: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas 

City District, 171 p.

Fredickson, L.H., and Batema, D.L., 1992, Greentree reservoir management handbook—Wetland Management Series 

No. 1: Puxico, Missouri, University of Missouri-Columbia, 

Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, 88 p.

Fredrickson, L.H., and Taylor, I.S.. 1982, Management of 

seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 148, 22 p. plus appendixes.

Funk, J.L., and Robinson, J.W., 1974, Changes in the channel 

of the Lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife: Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri Department of Conservation, 52 p.

Galat, D.L., Berry, C.R., Jr., Peters, E.J., and White, R.G., 

2005, Missouri River Basin, in Benke, A.C., and Cushing, C.E., eds., Rivers of North America: Oxford, Elsevier, 

p. 427–480.

Galat, D.L., and Lipkin, R., 2000, Restoring ecological integrity of great rivers—Historical hydrographs aid in defining 

reference conditions for the Missouri River: Hydrobiologia, 

v. 422/423, p. 29–48.

Hesse, L.W., Wolfe, C.W., and Cole, N.K., 1988, Some 

aspects of energy flow in the Missouri River ecosystem and 

a rationale for recovery, in Benson, N.G., ed., The Missouri 

River—The resources their uses and values: North Central 

Division of the American Fishereis Society, Special Publication 8, p. 13–20.

Hughes, F.M.R., 1997, Floodplain biogeomorphology: Progress in Physical Geography, v. 21, no. 4, p. 501–529.

Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, 

1994, Sharing the challenge: floodplain management into 

the 21st century: U.S. Government Printing Office, 191 p.

Jacobson, R., Janke, T., and Skold, J., 2011, Hydrologic and 

geomorphic considerations in restoration of river-floodplain 

connectivity in a highly altered river system, Lower Missouri River, USA: Wetlands Ecology and Management, 

v. 19, no. 4, p. 295–316.

Jacobson, R.B., Blevins, D.W., and Bitner, C.J., 2009, Sediment regime constraints on river restoration—An example 

from the Lower Missouri River: Geological Society of 

America Special Paper, v. 451, p. 1–22.

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.

Jacobson, R.B., Elliott, C.M., and Huhmann, B.L., 2010, 

Development of a channel classification to evaluate potential for cottonwood restoration, lower segments of the Middle Missouri River, South Dakota and Nebraska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5208, 

38 p.

Jacobson, R.B., and Galat, D.L., 2008, Design of a naturalized 

flow regime—An example from the Lower Missouri River, 

USA: Ecohydrology, v. 1, p. 81–104.

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, book 6, 

chap. B2, 136 p.

Merigliano, M. F., 2005, Cottonwood understory zonation and 

its relation to floodplain stratigraphy: Wetlands. v. 25, no. 2, 

p 356–374.

National Research Council, 2002, The Missouri River ecosystem, exploring the prospects for recovery: Washington, 

D.C., National Academy Press, 176 p.

Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., and Broderson, W.D., eds., 2002, Field book for describing and sampling soils, Version 2.0: Lincoln, Nebr., Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, 228 p.

Seabloom, E.W., van der Valk, A.G., and Moloney, K.A., 

1998, The role of water depth and soil temperature in the 

determining initial composition of prairie wetland coenoclines: Plant Ecology, v. 138, p. 203–216.

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

D.C., United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 18, accessed on 

January 2, 2012, at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/.

Soil Survey Staff, 2010, Spatial and tabular data of soil surveys for counties in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, 

and Missouri Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed on January 2, 2012, at http://

SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

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

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

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

River final environmental impact statement—Master water 

control manual review and update: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Northwest Division, 28 p.
18 Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley

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

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 33 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007, Missouri River Stage 

Trends: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern 

Division, Reservoir Control Center Technical Report Ja-07, 

43 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, National Water Information 

System (NWISWeb); U.S. Geological Survey database, 

accessed January 1, 2012, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/

nwis/.

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/

Chojnacki and others— Land Capability Potential Index (LCPI) and Geodatabase for the Lower Missouri River Valley—Data Series 736