Lower Root River Floodplain, Minnesota

Home , Backswamp, Root River (Minnesota)

An Evaluation of ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOR THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN, MINNESOTA

1844

Prepared for Mickey E. Heitmeyer The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Minnesota Office Greenbrier Wetland Services and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication No. 11-04 Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

September 2011 1 AN EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOR THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN, MINNESOTA

Prepared For:

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA OFFICE PRESTON, MN 55965

and

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE AND FISH REFUGE LA CROSSE DISTRICT LA CROSSE, WI 54601

By:

MICKEY E. HEITMEYER GREENBRIER WETLAND SERVICES ADVANCE, MO 63730

Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 11-04

September 2011 Mickey E. Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Route 2, Box 2735 Advance, MO 63730 www.GreenbrierWetland.com

Publication No. 11-04

Suggested citation:

Heitmeyer, M. E. 2011. An Evaluation of Ecosys- tem Restoration Options for The Lower Root River Floodplain, Missesota. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Southest Minnesota Office, Preston, Mn. 55965 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Resuge, LaCrosse District, LaCrosse, WI. Green- brier Wetland Services Report 11-04. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC, Bloomfield, MO.

Photo credits:

Cary Aloia (http://gardnersgallery.com/), Karen Kyle, Frank Nelson, USFWS, and Sue Fletcher of Friends of Upper Mississippi River NWR

This publication printed on recycled paper by

ii Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... v INTRODUCTION...... 1 THE HISTORICAL LOWER ROOT RIVER ECOSYSTEM...... 3 Geomorphology...... 3 Soils ...... 4 Topography/Elevation...... 4 Climate and Hydrology...... 4 Historical Vegetation Communities...... 5 CHANGES TO THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN FROM THE PRESETTLEMENT CONDITION...... 9 General Regional Landscape Changes...... 9 Specific Changes in the LRR...... 11 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS...... 15 Determining Appropriate Locations to Restore Specific Natural Community Types...... 15 Restoration of Topography and Hydrology...... 17 Increase Programs to Improve Water, Sediment, and Land Management in Strategic Locations Throughout the Root River Basin...... 19 MONTORING AND EVALUATION NEEDS...... 23 Sediment Reduction and Control...... 23 Effectiveness of Restoring Water Flow Pathways, Patterns, and Seasonal Water Regimes...... 24 Long Term Changes in Vegetation and Animal Communities Related to Flooding and Elevation...... 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 27 LITERATURE CITED...... 29

iii Karen Kyle

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) evaluation of ecosystem restoration options for the 4,800-acre Lower Root River (LRR) floodplain in southeastern Minnesota. The HGM methodology obtains and analyzes historical and current information about geomorphology, soils, topography, hydrology, and plant and animal communities to:

1. Determine the historical condition and ecological processes of the LRR floodplain. 2. Identify contemporary changes to the physical condition, ecological processes, and biota in the LRR from historical condition. 3. Identify options and approaches to restore and management specific communities and ecological processes in the LRR.

An important part of the HGM evaluation is developing a matrix of understanding about the relationships between abiotic landscape features (i.e., geomorphic surface, soils, hydrology) and historical vegetation communities. Major Presettlement communities in the LRR included: 1) open water- aquatic, 2) persistent emergent wetland, 3) shrub/scrub (S/S), 4) seasonal herbaceous wetland, 5) wet prairie/meadow, 6) floodplain forest, 7) riverfront forest, and 8) slope forest habitats. Open water-aquatic habitats were present in river channels and sloughs with nearly permanent water regimes. Deeper floodplain depressions with semipermanent water regimes contained bands of persistent emergent and S/S communities. Backswamp floodplain depressions with seasonal water regimes contained seasonal herbaceous “marsh” type vegetation that included many perennial and annual “moist-soil” species. Large expanses of floodplains with silty clay loam soils deposited vertically by past flood events supported wet prairie/

v meadow habitats. Higher elevations in the floodplain with vertically accreted silt clay loams and short duration flooding supported diverse floodplain forests. These forests often were on relict or recent natural levees and floodplain terraces. Oaks in these floodplain forests usually are restricted to sites with > 5-year flood frequency and silt clay soils. High elevation in floodplains on point bars and along current and historical channels of the Root River and its main tributaries with sand soils supported riverfront forests containing early succession tree species such as willow, cottonwood, silver maple, river birch, and some hackberry. The edges of the LRR floodplain that transitions into inclining upland slopes historically contained hardwood slope forest communities.

A map of the location and distribution of potential historical vegetation communities in the LRR was produced in this report. This map identifies the unique heterogeneity of the LRR and reflects the past meandering and soil deposition patterns of the historic Root River.

Many regional and site-specific changes have occurred in the LRR from the Presettlement condition. Major changes include alterations in land form and topography, hydrological

Frank Nelson regimes and flood water flow paths and extents, clearing of floodplain habitats for agricultural and other purposes, and introduction of invasive plant and animal species. Despite considerable alterations to the LLR ecosystem, many potential opportunities exist to restore former communities and ecological processes.

This report does not identify specific land tracts or locations for future restoration of historical vegetation communities, but it does provide guidance on system-wide HGM attributes that are needed for successful restoration of specific community types. First, the HGM matrix and map of potential historical vegetation communities identifies locations in the LRR that are most appropriate to restore specific community types including those types that are greatly reduced in area and distribution (e.g., floodplain forest with an oak component), represent a “gap” in coverage or connectivity (e.g., riverfront forest corridors along river corridors), or are needed for mitigation (e.g., wet prairie/meadow). Second, the HGM matrix helps understand what community restoration is appropriate

vi if a specific land tract becomes available (or is already under some conservation protection). Here, the HGM information can help decide what habitat type can/should be restored on the site given budget, management, development, and system alteration constraints.

In addition to providing guidance on determining appropriate locations for restoration of specific communities in the LRR, the report recommends actions to: 1) restore topography and hydrology; 2) implement programs to improve water, sediment, and land management in strategic location throughout the Root River Basin; and 3) monitor ecosystem attributes and future management/restoration actions. Specific restoration actions should include programs that:

• Protect and reconnect water flow corridors where possible. • Expand floodways and drainage corridors. • Remove obstructions to sheetwater flow through, and drainage of, the LRR. • Implement soil retention practices in strategic areas and sites that contribute the most sediment and surface water runoff. • Restore natural drainage channels, water flow pathways, channel stabilization, and flood distribution areas. • Restore native communities, especially those types that have been most destroyed and/or fragmented.

Frank Nelson

vii Cary Aloia

viii INTRODUCTION

The Lower Root River region (LRR) of southeastern Minnesota contains about 4,800 acres of floodplain lands where the Root River enters the broad Mississippi River alluvial valley (Fig. 1). The Root River originates in the Rochester Plateau of southern Minnesota and slowly descends through bluff lands to its confluence with the Mississippi River. For the last 20 miles, the Root River slows and historically meandered across a one to three-mile wide floodplain where it formed a mosaic of sediment deposition/scouring surfaces, numerous abandoned channels and cutoffs, and bottomland wetlands. The LRR ecosystem and the associated Mississippi River floodplain comprise the largest amount of wetland habitats in the wetland-poor Karst geologic province of southeast Minnesota. Habitats in this region contain unique complexes of forest, wet bottomland prairie/ meadow, river and stream channels and bars, and floodplain wetlands and relict river oxbows. These habitats provide important resources that are used by, and support, diverse species of Neo- tropical migrant and wetland-associated birds and endemic mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish (e.g., Theiling et al. 2000, Heitmeyer 2010).

The Lower Root River Partnership, including The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), local soil and water conservation districts, and local communities is attempting to protect, restore, and manage portions of the LRR ecosystem. Lands within the 500-year Root River floodplain from Minnesota Highway 26 on the east to just west of Houston County Road 25 near Mound Prairie have been targeted for future restoration and management projects (Fig. 2). Current conservation lands within this region include part of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (La Crosse District), a wetland mitigation bank owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, wetland and wildlife management areas owned and managed by the Minnesota DNR and State Ecological Services, and NRCS Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements on private lands (Fig. 2).

This report provides information to assist future LRR Partnership ecosystem restoration programs using “Hydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM) (Heitmeyer 2007). Recently HGM has been used to evaluate ecosystem restoration and management options for large river ecosystems in North America including areas in the Upper Mississippi River System (Heitmeyer 2008; Heitmeyer et al. 2009a,b; Heitmeyer and Westphall 2007, Heitmeyer 2010, Heitmeyer and Larson 2010). HGM evaluations obtain and analyze historic and current information about 1) geology and geomorphology, 2) soils, 3) topography and elevation, 4) hydrology, 5) plant and animal communities, and 6) physical anthropogenic features of landscapes.

1 2 Heitmeyer, M. E.

This report provides HGM data and analyses for the LRR with the following objectives:

1. Determine the historical condition and ecological processes of the LRR floodplain including geomorphology, soils, topography, and plant and animal communities.

2. Identify contemporary changes to the physical condition, ecological processes, and biota in the LRR from historical condition.

3. Identify options and approaches to restore and manage specific communities and ecological processes in the LRR.

Karen Kyle THE HISTORICAL LOWER ROOT RIVER ECOSYSTEM

HGM data obtained for the LRR help identify how the region was formed and what the primary “driving” ecological processes were/are for the system. This historical information provides the critical foundation/context for understanding the geographic/ecologic “position” and role of plant and animal communities and resource functions and values in the area. Recently, an HGM analysis was completed for the Chippewa River Ecoregion of the Upper Mississippi River System including the Root River Tract (also known as the former National Decorated Products or Northern Engraving Tract) of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Heitmeyer 2010, Heitmeyer and Larson 2010). This HGM evaluation includes the eastern edge of the Lower Root River floodplain area and provides an ecological and management context to identify restoration options that can connect ecological resources and communities at the confluence of the LRR and Mississippi River floodplain areas. HGM information on historical system attributes of the LRR is presented below.

Geomorphology The LRR is the most downstream portion of the ancestral river floodplain corridor of the Root River. This area contains mostly alluvium geomorphic surfaces deposited by the Root River as it bisects the adjacent bedrock and upland terraces (Fig. 3). Small portions of the tributary alluvial valleys of Day, Brush, and Thompson Creeks (Figs. 4,5) are in the study area as is a small area of the Brownsville Slope geological surface near the Mound Prairie State Park. The eastern part of the LRR is within the Chippewa River Ecoregion of the Mississippi River Valley (Heitmeyer 2010). The confluence of the Root and Mississippi River floodplains created a large Root River tributary fan/delta comprised of sediments carried by the Root River and deposited in the Mississippi River floodplain. This tributary fan/delta was formed during the late Holocene Period (Heitmeyer and Larson 2010). Contemporary geomorphic surfaces within the LRR are the result of active scouring and deposition of floodplain materials in the last 10,000 years. These surfaces include low natural levees along the current and past channels of the Root River, abandoned channels (oxbows and floodplain sloughs) of the Root River, off-channel floodplain “backswamp” depressions, and river deposition point-bar deposits.

The LRR and its tributary fan is one of seven relatively large fans/deltas in the Chippewa River Ecoregion (Heitmeyer 2010). These fans and their upstream alluvial floodplain corridors prograde into standing water in the Mississippi River floodplain and vertical deposition of sediments is largely a function of stream velocity and the base water level of the Mississippi River. Certain data suggest tributary fans in the Upper Mississippi River System, such as at the far east end of the LRR,

3 4 Heitmeyer, M. E.

are expanding because of upstream erosion and the increased mobilization of sediment stored in tributary stream channels (Knox 1989, Knox and Faulkner 1994).

In the late 1800s, the historic Root River channel became divided into a northern and southern split channel in Section 36 of the Hokah Township (Figs. 6,7). The primary flow channel appears to have been the southern channel as the 1871 plat map for Houston County shows only the main southern route. However, the 1878 plat map distinctly shows both channels that merge in Section 28. A larger wetland lake/marsh was present on the early plat maps immediately south of the town of Hokah where Thompson Creek flowed into the Root River, but this appears to have been man-made by construction of a dam, to create water power for saw and grist mills, on Thompson Creek (History of Houston County 1919).

Soils Nearly 50 soil types are present within or adjacent to the LRR (Fig. 8). Within the floodplain proper, soils are dominated by Moundprairie silty clay loam, Kalmarville silty clay loam and fine sandy loam, Rawles silt loam, Boots mucky peat, and Minneiska fine sandy loam and variant loamy fine sand. The extensive area of silty clay loam soils reflects floodplain areas where low velocity floodwater currents carried fine sediments and deposited them vertically on floodplains. Sandy-type soils reflect deposition of coarse sediments along active stream channels, both past and current. Mucky peat soils reflect older organic material deposition in backswamp depressions that have more permanent water regimes and low velocity flood water currents. Edges of the floodplain have varied loamy Udorthents and Lacrescent soils formed on upland terraces underlain by bedrock.

Topography/Elevation The topography of the LRR is relatively flat ranging from about 633 to 650 feet (NGVD29) above mean sea level (amsl) (Figs. 4,9). Bluff and inclined slope areas that bound the Root River floodplain rise quickly several hundred feet above floodplain level. Generally, the modest elevation changes in the floodplain reflect former and current channels of the Root River and vertical deposition surfaces associated with the large tributary fan/delta at the east end of the LRR and other modest deltas at the confluence of the Thompson, Day, and Brush creeks. Levees comprised of dredge material from channelization extend on both sides of the current Root River channel on the east end of the LRR. Floodplain sloughs and depressions are present throughout the LRR with elevations 2-4 feet below surrounding alluvial deposits.

Climate and Hydrology The climate of the LRR is midcontinental, north temperate, with sub-humid to humid conditions (see climate data and discussion in Heitmeyer 2010). Average monthly temperatures range from about 11o Fahrenheit in January to 74o Fahrenheit in July. Average frost-free growing seasons range from 130-160 days. Average annual precipitation for the LRR is about 28-30 inches, with about 75% of annual precipitation occurring between April and September. Ice covers most water in floodplain wetlands for 3-4 months each year.

Discharge in the Root River is highly seasonal and is correlated with increasing regional/ watershed precipitation and snowmelt in spring and early summer. Nearly 75% of all overbank flood events on the Root River occur from March through July. June historically has more overbank flood events than any other month. In years with low snow amount, less water is stored and then discharged in the Root River, which causes lower flood frequency and heights in those years. The general pattern of water levels and discharge in the Root River in the LRR is high water levels ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 5 in spring and early summer, followed by declines to lower, relatively stable, levels from late fall through winter.

Water levels in the LRR, especially the east end, are affected by water levels in the Mississippi River. Historical, pre-Lock and Dam Mississippi River discharge data indicate regular 12 to 14-year periodicity in annual high and low Mississippi River flows in the region (Heitmeyer 2010, Franklin et al. 2003). Most river gauges in the Upper Mississippi River System consistently averaged about five years duration of higher flows, followed by about five years of lower flows from 1910 to 1929. Long term streamflow data for the Root River near Houston, Minnesota, just upstream from the LRR indicate considerable interannual variability in peak discharge from 1912 to the present (Fig. 10). Overbank flood stage on the Root River at Houston is about 15 feet (NGVD29 elevation of about 682 feet amsl) or 12,300 cfs (Table 1, http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/mn). Discharges of this level have been exceeded in about 40% of the years since 1912, which indicates significant areas of the Root River floodplain probably had at least some overbank flooding at about a two-year recurrence interval. Flows of about 20,000 cfs cause substantial backwater flooding downstream of Houston and has occurred on average about once every 10+ years, with especially wet periods during the early 1950s, mid 1960s, and mid 2000s.

Mississippi River water stage-discharge relationships for pre-Lock and Dam conditions at the Pool 7 tailwater (river mile 702.2 about 8 miles upstream of the LRR indicate that low flows of about 630-632 feet amsl were similar between pre-Lock and Dam and current periods (Heitmeyer and Larson 2010). Mississippi River discharges of 80,000; 93,000; and 133,000 cubic-feet/second (cfs) correspond to 1-, 2-, and 5-year flood recurrence intervals, respectively. These discharges correspond to lower elevations of about 636, 637, and 640 feet amsl, respectively. In western, upper portions of the LRR, less data are available on Root River stage-discharge relationships, but data suggest gradients of about 3-4 feet from west to east. Based on similar relationships in the east end of the LRR, 1-, 2-, and 5-year flood recurrence elevations would be about 640, 641-642, and 644 on the west side of the LRR.

Historical Vegetation Communities The types and distribution of vegetation communities in the LRR prior to major alterations following European settlement in the region was related to species/community associations with HGM attributes, especially geomorphic surface, soils, elevation, and hydrology. Within the broader Chippewa River Ecoregion of the Upper Mississippi River System, the tributary floodplains and fans, similar to the LRR contained a mixture of forest, wet prairie/meadow, semipermanent freshwater marsh, and aquatic/open water habitats (Heitmeyer 2010).

The deepest elevations including river channels and sloughs had predominantly permanent water regimes and contained open water with some persistent emergent or shrub/scrub vegetation on the edges of the depression. The sparse woody vegetation along the edges of open water areas was mostly scattered willow and shrubs such as buttonbush (Cephalantus occidentalis). Persistent emergent vegetation (PEM) included cattail (Typha sp.) and river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis). Off-channel open water areas often contain abundant floating-leaved and submergent aquatic vegetation including American lotus (Nelumbo lutea), spatterdock (Nuphar luteum), pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), water milfoil (Myrio- phyllum verticillatum), and duckweeds (Lemna, Wolfia, Wolfilla, Spirodela). 6 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Backswamp floodplain depressions and other relict slough/drainage channels had semipermanent water regimes and supported diverse freshwater marsh habitats with hetero- geneous open water, persistent emergent, and seasonal herbaceous plant assemblages from the deepest to shallowest parts of the depression. The deepest parts of marshes occasionally completely dried during summer in very dry years, but in most years retained at least some water that created interspersed open water and PEM zones. PEM zones contained cattail, river bulrush, various rush species (Juncus sp.), and arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). Open water areas were similar to the above deeper open water habitats. The edges of these floodplain marshes typically dried during summer in most years and allowed germination of diverse seasonal herbaceous plant species including smartweed (Polygonum sp.), millet (Echinochloa sp.), panic grass (Panicum sp.), sedges, spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), beggarticks (Bidens sp.), and many other perennial and annual “moist-soil “ species (Green 1947).

Large expanses of floodplains that contained silty clay loam soils deposited vertically by past flood events supported wet prairie/meadow habitats. These meadows typically receive seasonal sheetwater flooding each year either from overbank flooding of the Root River or overland drainage of onsite and regional precipitation. Wet prairie/meadow generally occur in bands or zones between deeper floodplain depression marshes and higher elevation floodplain forests (Galatowitsch and McAdams 1994, Duranal et al. 2007). These meadows contain mainly grasses and sedges such as panic grass, prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), smartweed, many Carex and Juncus species and scattered forbs including iris (Iris spp.) and milkweed (Asclepias spp.) (Lammers 1977, Swanson and Sohmers 1978, Langehr 1992, Peck and Smart 1976). Occasional willow (Salix spp.) and buttonbush are found on meadow edges. Many of the former meadow sites in the LRR now are heavily infested with the invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Higher elevations in the floodplain that had vertically accreted silty clay loam soils and short duration flooding and/or seasonal soil saturation supported diverse floodplain forest communities. These floodplain forests often were on relict or recent natural levees or floodplain terrace ridges. Floodplain forests typically are within the 2-5 year flood frequency zone of floodplains in the Chippewa River Ecoregion and are dominated by American elm (Ulmus Americana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), boxelder (Acer negundo), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and scattered silver maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). The oaks in floodplain forests are usually restricted to the very highest floodplain sites with > 5-year flood frequency and silt clay soils (Heitmeyer 2010, Heitmeyer and Larson 2010).

High elevation floodplain sites with sandy soils support riverfront forest communities dominated by early succession tree species. These sites are usually on point bar areas along current and former channels of the Root River and its main tributaries. These geomorphic/soil surfaces contain recently accreted lands and were sites where river flows actively scoured floodplains and deposited coarse-grained sands and gravels with minor veneers of silt. Con- sequently, soils under these riverfront forests are young, usually annually overtopped by flood waters for short periods, highly drained, and may be influenced by groundwater levels and river- floodplain groundwater interchange that sustains high soil saturation and availability of groundwater to early succession trees such as willow, cottonwood, silver maple, river birch (Betula nigra), and hackberry. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 7

The edges of the LRR floodplain that transition into inclining upland slopes historically contained hardwood slope forest communities. These slope forests were not flooded except during extreme Root and Mississippi River flood events. Even during extreme floods, only the lowest slope edges would have been inundated. Slope forests include interesting mixes of both upland and floodplain trees including swamp white, bur, northern pin Quercus( ellipsoidalis), and northern red (Quercus rubra) oaks; ash; elm; mulberry (Morus rubra); black walnut (Juglans nigra); and honey locust (Gleditsia triancanthos),

Relationships of LRR vegetation communities to geomorphic surface, soils, and hydrological regimes were determined from land cover maps prepared for the Government Land Office (GLO) survey notes taken in the early 1800s (Fig. 11), historical maps and photographs (Figs. 12,13), soil maps (Fig. 8), geomorphology maps (Figs. 3,5), flood frequency data (where it existed in the east end of the LRR), and various naturalist/botanical accounts and literature (Table 2).

The GLO vegetation maps for the LRR indicate general patterns of vegetation within the LRR. Large areas of the central Root River floodplain near the current river channel supported floodplain forest with areas of wet prairie/meadow on the northeast side of the region and prairie east of Mound Prairie state park (Fig. 11). Trees recorded at section corners (witness trees) by GLO surveys included black oak (BO), white oak (WO), ash (AH), elm (EL), willow (WL), maple (MA) and hickory (HI). The GLO notes on black oak may have been misidentified swamp white oak or possibly northern pin oak or northern red oak since true black oak is not present in this region. Elm, ash, and maple recorded on the GLO maps probably were American elm, green ash, and silver maple based on botanical accounts from the region. Cottonwood was likely eastern cottonwood and willow may have been various species of Salix, especially black willow.

The associations of historical (and current) vegetation assemblages with HGM attributes in the LRR were especially distinct in relationship to soils and topography that reflect geomorphic origin and hydrology of the region (Table 2). Open water and aquatic habitats were/are present in relict and existing Root River and tributary channels where standing permanent water regimes occurred. Floodplain depressions with older organic “muck” soils reflect a tenure of marsh habitats that had semipermanent water regimes and combined PEM and seasonal herbaceous wetland plant zones. The expansive wet prairie/meadow habitat was strongly associated with the Mound Prairie soil type where annual spring-summer short duration sheetwater flooding and extended soil saturation occurred. Some wet prairie areas apparently also contained scattered trees on higher ridges or old natural levee remnants and may have taken on a “savanna” vegetation characteristic (History of Houston County 1919). The highest elevations in the floodplain with vertically accreted silty clay loam soils had > 2-year flood recurrence and supported the diverse floodplain forest community. At the highest sites with > 5-year flood occurrence scattered oaks, especially swamp white oak was present. This high floodplain area often was on the edges of the alluvial surface that merged with the inclining upland slopes that bounded the floodplain. Laterally accreted sandy soils along the Root River channel supported the early succession Riverfront Forest community dominated by willow, maple, and cottonwood. Inclined slopes bounding the LRR contained upland hardwood slope forest communities.

Using the HGM matrix of community relationships, a map of potential historic vegetation communities in the LRR was produced (Fig. 14). This map identifies the unique heterogeneity of the historic LRR that reflect the past meandering and soil deposition patterns of the historic Root River. 8 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Root River CHANGES TO THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN FROM THE PRESETTLEMENT CONDITION

General Regional Landscape Changes Information on the settlement and landscape changes in the Chippewa River Ecoregion and the Root River region of southeastern Minnesota generally have been chronicled in text and refer- ences in Heitmeyer (2010:21-25) and Heitmeyer and Larson (2010). Major events and landscape changes for this region include:

• Native people apparently first occupied the region about 10,000 years before the present (BP), but limited numbers of people resided in the region until the Late Archaic Period (500 to 3,000 BP).

• Early people in the region were highly mobile hunter-gathers well adapted to floodplain resource availability and they had little effect on vegetation community distribution or distur- bances other than rudimentary tillage of small horticultural tracts.

• During the Mississippian Period early human populations in the region may have been at their maximum number and settlements occurred on high ridges and floodplain bluffs. A general abandonment of the Mississippian ceremonial centers and villages throughout the Mississippi River Valley occurred after 1550.

• French explorers and fur trappers first traveled through southeastern Minnesota and probably through the LRR in the late 1500s and early 1600s. When Marquette and Jolliet descended the Mississippi River in summer 1673, few native people were encountered in the Upper Missis- sippi River region.

• The United States obtained the Upper Mississippi River region from France in 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase.

• In 1805, Zebulon Pike made one of the first attempts to assert jurisdiction over the region and later treaties and land cessions ceded land in Minnesota to the U. S. Government.

• Many European settlers moved to the Upper Mississippi River region in the mid 1800s. In 1850, the population of the territory of Minnesota was about 6,000, but by 1860 the population had grown to more than 170,000. Early settlers were attracted to the region for timber and fur resources.

9 10 Heitmeyer, M. E.

• The timber industry and agriculture, especially livestock and small grain production, dominated the economies of southeastern Minnesota in the mid- to late-1800s and helped establish major towns, river ports, and railroads in the region at that time.

• Railroad lines were built in southeastern Minnesota in the 1860s, including lines into the LRR.

• Efforts to improve navigation on the Mississippi River and its larger tributaries began in enerst in the late 1800s and included the development of a 4.5-foot navigation channel on the Mississippi River between St. Paul, Minnesota and St. Louis, Missouri.

• In 1907, Congress authorized a deeper 6-foot Mississippi River channel and subsequent river modifications contracted the river, protected and armored channel banks, and the first Lock and Dam on the river was built at Keokuk, Iowa in 1913.

• In 1927, Congress authorized the development of a nine-foot navigation channel, which by 1930 extended north of St. Louis to St. Paul. During the 1930s, a series of 27 Locks and Dams were constructed on the Mississippi River north of St. Louis.

• Landscape changes in the Chippewa River Ecoregion (including at least the eastern part of the LRR) prior to construction of Locks and Dams are chronicled by GLO survey maps conducted in the mid 1800s (Fig. 11), Mississippi River Commission (MRC) maps from the 1880s (Fig. 12), 1929 aerial photographs (Fig. 13), and maps prepared by Brown in 1930 (see Heitmeyer 2010 Appendix H). Collectively these sources of information identified: 1) initial conversion of higher floodplain areas, especially wet prairie and savanna to agriculture and residential areas; 2) clearing of floodplain forest, especially on higher ridges and natural levees; 3) clearing of slope forests for agriculture and pasture; and 4) early alteration to natural drainage systems and wetlands with levees, ditches, channelization, roads, and railroad lines.

• By the 1930s, about 50% of Presettlement natural vegetation communities, and over 80% of historic prairie and savanna in the Chippewa River Ecoregion had been converted to agriculture or other uses. By 1929, farmland and urban areas covered 22% of Upper Mississippi River floodplains (including major tributary floodplains) and forests in these floodplains had declined to 29% of its former extent.

• In 1924-25, Congress passed the Upper Mississippi River Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act that led to establishment of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge.

• Locks and Dams on the Mississippi River changed the hydrographs of the Mississippi River, its floodplains, and lower sections of major tributaries. Navigation dams increased average water surface elevations by about two to three feet and eliminated natural low-flow river stages during late summer. Areas immediately above dams became permanently inundated and essentially transferred to impounded “lakes.”

• Habitats in the Mississippi River (and some lower tributary) floodplains shifted to greater amounts of open water, urban and developed land, agriculture, and lesser amounts of wet prairie/meadow and forest following Lock and Dam development. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 11

• Hydrologic regimes in floodplain areas became wetter and caused forest communities to shift to wetter states with species composition dominated by more water tolerant trees and shrubs. Many former seasonally flooded wet prairie/meadow communities shifted to semipermanent marshes or open water in lower elevation areas.

• The Root River tributary fan may be expanding because of upstream erosion control and the mobilization of sediment stored in tributary streams.

Specific Changes in the LRR Most of the above generic settlement and landscape changes within the Chippewa River Ecoregion also occurred in the LRR. European settlement in the LRR led to the establishment of the towns of Hokah, Houston, and Mound Prairie in the mid to late 1800s, and local economies were driven by livestock production, wheat and some other small grain farming, and the timber products industry. Important land uses and changes that are specifically documented for the LRR include:

• The first European settlers in the LLR (Hokah Township) apparently were William Richmond and John Kreels, who in 1849 in Section 34, built structures to cut and move lumber down the Root River to the Mississippi River. The first permanent settler in the township was Edward Thompson, who in 1851 located near the current town of Hokah.

• The Root River was navigable upstream to the Mound Prairie region until the mid 1800s, when mill dams were erected on the southern Root River and Thompson Creek channels. The Root River channel split into northern and southern channels in Section 36 and rejoined in Section 28. Apparently no dams or mills were built on the northern channel section.

• Permanent settlement in the current Hokah town area occurred in the early 1850s and Edward Thompson built a dam across the Root River to establish water power for a sawmill. This mill dam failed, but later was rebuilt and modified for saw and grist mill purposes.

• In 1866, the Southern Minnesota Railroad began operations with a rail line through the LRR and Hokah. The railroad stimulated settlement and the economy of the LRR. In 1880, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Company assumed possession of the railroad. Hokah was constituted as an independent village in 1871.

• In 1866, head gates were placed in the old southern channel of the Root River at the western railroad crossing (Fig. 6) and a canal six feet deep, and 50 feet wide was constructed about 1,800 feet through the floodplain bottom to the mouth of Thompson Creek, which was used as a tail race to the downstream mills. A mill dam across Thompson Creek created an upstream “lake” immediately south of Hokah (Fig. 7).

• Neither the mid 1800s GLO map nor the 1880s MRC maps (MRC maps are restricted to the east end of the LRR) indicate any agricultural crop areas in the LRR. The 1880s MRC maps show the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, and a parallel road, near the current location of Minnesota State Highway 26. The railroad and road berms essentially created a dam across the Root River floodplain and only one bridge was present to allow Root River 12 Heitmeyer, M. E.

flows to exit the LRR and enter the Mississippi River floodplain region at the current location of Highway 26.

• Other roads constructed in the LRR, such as Highway 16, during the late 1800s provided travel routes between local towns and farms. These road beds had only a few openings that allow flood and river waters to move across the floodplain and the raised berms.

• Early land use in the LRR was cutting lumber from bluff slopes and higher portions of the floodplain, some limited small grain production on floodplain edges, and grazing livestock (with some wild hay cutting) in floodplain meadows.

• Maps from the early 1900s indicate some conversion of floodplain prairie and meadow to crop production and small levees and ditches were constructed in an attempt to reduce local flooding.

• In 1916, the lower Root River was designated as Houston County Judicial Ditch No. 1 and between 1917 and 1919 the Root River channel was straightened in several sections from about three miles west of Houston to about one mile east of Highway 26 (River Resources Forum 2004). This channelization cut off numerous river bends and meanders in the LRR especially in the areas immediately east of Houston County Road 25 and between Hokah and Highway 26 (Fig. 15). With channelization, the northern branch of the Root River channel became effectively disconnected.

• After channelization of the Root River, a levee system using dredge material from the new constructed channel/ditch was built along the channelized portions of the river. This man- made levee is present on both sides of the river and was built to reduce flood frequency on surrounding areas.

• Many large flood events have occurred in the lower Root River, such as in 1952, 1963, 2000, and 2008 when breaches occurred in the Root River channelized levees in several spots. These breaches caused sediment deposition at breach sites.

• Abandoned sections of the former Root River channel were variously modified with ditches, dams, roads, crossings, and filling.

• Following channelization, floodplain forest areas were significantly cleared; by the mid 1950s, less than 400 acres of forest remained in the LRR, mostly along former river channel areas (Fig. 16). Remnant forests in the LRR are dominated by early succession Riverfront Forest species; oaks are present only along floodplain bluff areas and a few scattered oak trees on the highest old natural levees in the floodplain.

• Many wet prairie/meadow areas in the LRR were converted to agricultural crop production in the mid 1900s. Other meadow areas have been grazed or hayed for several decades now and remnant areas have wetter water regimes than prior to Locks and Dams and are heavily infested with reed canary grass.

• Current land use in the LRR is dominated by crop, hay, and pasture lands (Figs. 15,16). ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 13

• Sediment loading in the Root River is high because of erosion from upstream agricultural lands, gullies, and channel banks; the Root River currently carries an estimated 10-15% of the bedload sediment received into Mississippi River Pool 8 (River Resources Forum 2004, Davinroy 2006).

• Wetlands present in the LRR include scattered Riverfront and Floodplain Forest, wet prairie/ meadow, and semipermanent marshes (Fig. 17). Some of the deeper wetlands were formed from borrow areas when local roads, ditches, and levees were constructed.

• Long-term climate data suggest the Upper Mississippi River Basin is becoming wetter with increased discharge and potential seasonal flooding for major tributaries, such as the Root River. Almost all of the LRR is now within the 100-year FEMA floodplain (Fig. 18). 14 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Karen Kyle RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

The HGM data presented in this report provide a foundation for identifying options to restore at least some parts of the historic LRR ecosystem. Major changes have occurred in this system from: 1) highly altered flow patterns and distribution of the Root River; 2) topographic alterations caused by many factors such as roads, railroad beds, ditches, levees, and dams; and 3) clearing and conversion of historic vegetation communities to agriculture, urban, and other uses. Attempts to restore the LRR will need to address each of these issues.

This report does not identify specific land tracts or locations for future restoration of historic vegetation communities, but it does provide guidance on the system-wide HGM attributes that are needed for successful restoration of specific historical community types. Opportunities, and individual priorities, for restoration at a site(s) likely will depend on many factors including site availability, landowner and conservation objectives, financial options and assistance for land- owners, resource agency/organization budgets, mitigation or compensation needs of land or water development projects, commodity and resource markets, etc. While conservation orga- nizations in the LRR may have different objectives and capabilities, the unique LRR Partnership Group provides an effective way to coordinate the collective works of all parties to restore many parts of the system. In general the key to restoring some biodiversity, ecological functions and values, and sustainable communities in the LRR is in restoring a mosaic of all habitats/community types in natural distribution patterns and in restoring some semblance of natural hydrology and floodplain water flows in this ecosystem.

The following discussion identifies options to assist these restoration efforts.

Determining Appropriate Locations to Restore Specific Natural Community Types This report identifies landscape and ecological characteristics that are needed to successfully restore specific habitats/community types. The HGM process of identifying the matrix characteristics associated with specific habitats is useful in two major contexts. First the HGM matrix (Table 2) and map of potential historic vegetation communities (Fig. 14) produced in this report identify locations in the LRR that are most appropriate to restore specific community types including those that are greatly reduced in area and distribution, (e.g., floodplain forests with an oak component), represent a key “gap” in coverage or connectivity (e.g., riverfront forest riparian corridors), are badly degraded (e.g., wet prairie/meadow), or are needed for mitigation (e.g., wet meadow/savanna). Second, the matrix helps understand what community restoration is appropriate if a specific site

15 16 Heitmeyer, M. E.

becomes available (or is already under protection, e.g., WRP easement lands). Here, the HGM information can help decide what habitat type can/should be restored on the site given budget, management, development, and system alteration constraints.

Historical vegetation communities in the LRR clearly were distributed in relation to geomorphology, soils, topography, and hydrology gradients (Table 2, Fig. 14). Soil type was an especially important definer of vegetation and the map of potential historic vegetation communities (Fig. 14) provides guidance on what community historically occurred in different LRR sites. This map and the HGM community matrix, prepared in this study, provides a critical foundation for determining where specific community type restoration should be located to match the appropriate community type to soil, topography, and geomorphology setting. Generally, the following specific community – HGM attribute guidelines can be used to assess the locations of current and future restoration/ management efforts:

1. Slope forest, comprised of mainly upland-type hardwood species should be restored on inclining colluvial slopes that border the LRR floodplain.

2. Floodplain forest composed of mixed hardwood tree species with good water tolerance can be restored on Kalmarville and Rawles silt clay loam and silt loam soils in the higher elevations of the floodplain with at least 2-5 year flood recurrence interval. The highest elevations of the floodplain, especially on the edges that bound colluvial slopes can potentially support oaks such as swamp white oak if flooding regimes and elevations are greater than 5-year flood frequency recurrence. Future analyses of current Root River stage-discharge relationships are needed for the entire LRR to precisely understand which elevations have > 2-yr and > 5-yr flood recurrence intervals to assist restoration efforts. In the east end of the LRR, the > 5-yr flood recurrence frequency appears to be at elevations > 639-640. As elevations rise from east to west in the LRR, the associated > 5-yr elevation will rise accordingly.

3. Riverfront forest with early succession tree species can be supported on sandy-silt soils along the former and current Root River channel. Minneiska variant fine sand and fine sandy loam is the predominant soil type under Riverfront Forest areas. These sites reflect past migrations and channel meander events that created sandy point bar ridge-and-swale “meander scrolls” and natural levees. These sites typically have high soil-water infiltration and groundwater movement through the coarse “sandy-type” sediments. Riverfront forests typically have regular annual overbank or extended soil saturation conditions.

4. Wet prairie/meadow historically was found on low floodplain areas with Moundprairie silt clay loam soils. These sites had almost annual spring and early summer sheetflow of surface water across the meadows either from overbank flooding of the Root River, backwater from the downstream Mississippi River floodplain, and/or local runoff of snowmelt and precipitation. Slight ridges and old relict natural levee surfaces embedded in the meadow regions did support scattered trees, especially swamp white and bur oak and were savanna-type communities. Meadow habitats did not have extended surface water inundation and savanna sites required at least 2-5 year flood frequency elevations.

5. Semipermanent marsh communities occurred in the deeper floodplain depressions of the LRR including former abandoned channels, scroll and scour sites, and backswamp areas. These ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 17

sites developed greater organic soil features, often classified as “muck” or “peat” soils such as the contemporary Boots soil type. Water was semipermanently impounded in the marsh depressions with annual inputs of surface water from overbank or backwater river flooding and runoff from local landscapes. These edges of these wetlands dried annually, and in some years the depressions likely were completely dry. Long term precipitation and river discharge for the LRR suggest very dry conditions on average about every 10+ years. These seimpermanent wetlands had concentric banks of vegetation related to water tolerance and germination requirements from the deeper middle areas to the drier edges. Deeper areas with more permanent water regimes had interspersed open water and aquatic plant communities, seimpermanent areas had persistent emergent plants, and edges supported freshwater seasonal herbaceous plants, often referred to as “moist-soil” species.

6. Open water with some aquatic plant component occurred in the deepest, permanent water areas of the LRR. These sites were restricted to recent abandoned or active river channel areas. Where river currents were strong, little or no aquatic vegetation occurs, but in slow current areas more vegetation is present and sometimes resembles semipermanent marsh edges.

Restoration of Topography and Hydrology Once the locations that are appropriate for restoring specific vegetation communities are identified, restoration efforts often will require restoration of natural topography and hydrology where possible to assist establishment and sustainability of the habitats. If the hydrology of a site has been significantly altered, the eventual vegetation that can be restored on the site will only be as successful as the restoration of the hydrology, despite the soil and geomorphology setting. The following restoration actions seem especially important for the LRR:

1. Protect and reconnect water flow corridors where possible

Restoration of water flow corridors in the LRR, especially former natural pathways of the Root River channel and floodwaters, important to allow historical patterns of nutrient and energy flow through the system and to restore (to the degree possible) hydroperiods that developed and sustained former vegetation and animal communities. Further, restoring water flow pathways has the potential to actually improve drainage of the area and reduce prolonged flooding in some areas where onsite or backwater floodwaters gets “trapped”, such as in some former wet meadow sites, and transitions communities to wetter states and encourages invasive such as reed canary grass. Undoubtedly, some flow corridors cannot be restored because of major physical alterations such as major roads or railroad lines that are central to local commerce, transport, and agricultural or conservation objectives. Nonetheless, some slough, former river channel, and other natural drainage paths or corridors can be partly or completely restored. Even some major structures can be physically altered or have changed management to support desired flow conditions. Examples of these reconnections include:

• Evaluate efforts to reroute, at least high discharge, Root River flows through former abandoned or cutoff river channels in the LRR. Potential restorations include breaching, or constructing spillways in current channelized and leveed portions of the Root River ditch to allow higher discharges to route back through former channels. Hydrological engineering will be needed to 18 Heitmeyer, M. E.

determine elevations and discharges that can be effectively routed back through abandoned channels without causing detrimental ecological or economic effects.

• Protect all unchannelized, undammed, portions of the Root River and its tributaries from future channelization, levees, and alteration.

• Remove, or modify, existing levees, ditches, roads, railbeds, and water-control structures on all public lands, WRP properties, and select other lands where they do not contribute to ecosystem restoration goals or protection of local non-conservation lands and commerce.

2. Expand floodways and drainage corridors

A major factor that has contributed to increased flooding problems, and constraints to ecosystem restoration and management, in the LRR is past constrictions to the Root River floodplain caused by levees, channelization, and other structures that restrict, confine, or redirect river/stream channel and flood flows. The extensive development of roads, railroad beds, and levees in the LRR historically has been uncoordinated, and site specific works have often caused unforeseen detrimental hydrologic, topographic, and community effects in other floodplain areas, especially downstream of the structures. At the very least, no future levee construction should occur in the LRR, and at best, all current levees and associated water-control or management infrastructure should be reviewed to determine local and regional impacts and possible decommission, elimination, or modification. Specific opportunities for expanding floodways and corridors in the LRR include:

• Widen floodways along the Root River channel by removing, breaching, or moving levees back away from the channel/ditch.

• Evaluate reconnection of the historic Root River channels as discussed above.

• Lower or remove roads and levees where possible.

• Promote WRP wetland restoration in the LRR and design restoration developments to accommodate floodwater flow into and through the site and expand the floodway where possible.

3. Remove obstructions to sheetflow through, and drainage of, the LRR

As with flood flows, the many physical alterations to the LRR landscape have greatly affected and changed how and/or if surface water sheetflow occurs across and from the floodplain terraces, abandoned channels, and tributary fan where the Root River floodplain merges with the Mississippi River floodplain. Of specific interest is the importance of sheetwater flow from upland slopes across floodplain terraces that supported wet prairie/meadow communities. This sheetflow currently is altered or disrupted by roads, railbeds, ditches, ponds, conversion of native vegetation to agriculture or hay/pasture land, and numerous other structures that control water direction and amount. Land and water changes that can help restore sheetflow include:

• Remove all unnecessary roads, ditches, water-control structures, and levees from floodplain terraces that historically supported wet prairie/meadow. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 19

• Remove any remnant tile drainage systems from sites including agriculture and conservation lands.

• Provide multiple water flow pathways through roads, railbeds, levees, by constructing more culverts or openings, using permeable fill, and constructing low water crossings and spillways.

Increase Programs to Improve Water, Sediment, and Land Management in Strategic Locations Throughout the Root River Basin Ultimately, restoring more complete and sustainable ecosystem attributes to the LRR will require changes to water and sediment inputs derived from upper watershed sources that reduce the increased flooding and sediment deposition into the LRR. Also, management of the Mississippi River navigation pools downstream of the LRR contributes to hydrologic regimes and resulting restoration/management activities, at least in the lower LRR tributary fan area. Improving the ecological integrity of the LRR will require systemic-level land and water use changes in the watershed/basin areas that: 1) most degraded, 2) contribute disproportionate amounts of water sediments to the LRR system, and 3) offer the best opportunity to restore system components ecologically, socially, and economically. Important treatments will require:

1. Soil retention practices strategically directed to areas and sites that contribute the most sediment and surface water runoff

High soil and streambank erosion and sediment loading in the Root River and its tributaries historically have been a primary cause of degradation in stream, floodplain, and other wetland habitats in the LRR. This upstream erosion ultimately has contributed to sediment deposition problems in the LRR and the Mississippi River navigation pools, which has had cascading effects on vegetation composition, invasive species, and nutrient/energy flows in the entire system. Consequently, objectives to improve habitat at both the larger Root/Mississippi River floodplain and the smaller LRR level must seek to reduce sedimentation by assisting with current land and water conservation programs and implementing new programs to improve stream corridor and watershed land and water management. Much of this conservation effort will need to be directed at upstream private lands and sediment conservation programs will be most cost and ecologically effective if they target sub watershed areas that contribute the most sediment loading. Specific programs with the highest potential to address sediment problems include:

• Conduct a basin-wide evaluation of sub watershed areas that contribute the largest amount of sediment to the Root River and its tributaries, similar to that conducted in the Cache River watershed in Arkansas and Missouri (Bingner et al. 2010).

• Increase support for minimum tillage of highly erodible agricultural lands and protection of sensitive lands with incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Environ- mental Quality Improvement Program, and WRP and increase penalties and disincentives for continuing farm practices that accelerate soil erosion in sensitive areas and lands.

• Convert small grain production lands in highly erodible areas to less intensive land use such as pasture, hay, prairie, and forest communities. 20 Heitmeyer, M. E.

• Establish vegetation (mostly forest – see HGM community distribution discussed above) buffers of at least 100 feet on both sides of stream banks through cattle exclusion, streambank stabilization, revegetation of riparian corridors, and conservation easements or farm programs.

• Implement conservation land treatment programs including grassed waterways or outlets, terraces, critical area planting, pasture and hay land planting, and contour farming.

• Eliminate and provide agricultural disincentives for tile drainage in agricultural fields.

• Construct drop pipes to collect runoff from fields.

2. Restoration of natural drainage channels, water flow pathways, channel stabilization, and flood distribution and areas

The rationale and potential options to address water flow and hydrologic issues in the LRR have been discussed above – and similar actions should be promoted at the watershed level.

3. Restoration of native vegetation communities, especially those communities that have been most destroyed and/or fragmented

The extensive conversion of native plant communities throughout the Root and Mississippi River basins has contributed to soil and streambank erosion, accelerated surface water runoff and downstream flooding, increased soil saturation in confluence areas, and reduced or degraded fish and wildlife habitats. Excellent opportunities exist to continue to restore and manage native vegetation communities in the LRR and throughout the basins. Fortunately, many conservation lands and restoration projects currently exist in the LRR. Future restoration efforts should build on past efforts and seek to:

• Evaluate all existing public and private (such as WRP) conservation lands to determine if current vegetation communities, water management, and infrastructure are appropriate to achieve the HGM-defined community attributes described earlier in this report.

• Improve connectivity and HGM-defined diversity and heterogenic nature of floodplain communities. This goal seeks to enlarge patch size, restore appropriate diverse community types and species composition within community types, and provide geographical connectivity for water, nutrient, and animal movement in the LRR and the Mississippi River confluence region.

• Reduce the extent and detrimental effects of invasive plants and animals in the LRR system. Of special interest are attempts to reduce the extensive, monopolizing effect, of reed canary grass in wet meadow communities. Occurrence of reed canary grass seems most problematic where former wet prairie/meadow sites now have reduced sheetwater flow, high soil saturation, and regular sediment deposition. Efforts to restore hydrologic and topographic integrity to former wet meadow areas (see above) should be helpful but immediate actions to deter, and convert to natural community composition, reed canary grass dominated sites likely will require aggressive chemical and physical treatments. MONTORING AND EVALUATION NEEDS

Efforts to restore and manage the LRR ecosystem will require regular monitoring and evaluation programs to expand and fill important data gaps and determine the success or failure of restoration and management approaches and techniques. Past site-specific (e.g., Strojny and Mohring 2010, Heitmeyer and Larson 2010) and regional (e.g., River Resources Forum 2004, Heitmeyer 2010) ecosystem studies have helped identify important restoration and management issues including uncertainties. Ultimately, the success in restoring and sustaining at least parts of communities and ecological functions in the LRR will depend on how well changes in water, sediment, and land type management can emulate historic ecological processes and community type, abundance, and productivity.

Future management of the LRR, at least on some public lands, that incorporates the recom- mendations of this report can be done in an adaptive management framework where: 1) predic- tions about community restoration are made (e.g., floodplain forest can be restored on Kalmar- ville soils in floodplain terraces with >2-5-year flood recurrence) relative to specific management actions (e.g., native species are reintroduced and surface flooding is restricted to short duration events) and then, 2) follow-up systematic monitoring and evaluation programs are implemented to measure ecosystem responses to various management actions and to suggest changes or strategies based on the monitoring data. In the LRR, especially important monitoring and evaluation needs are described below.

Sediment Reduction and Control Reduction in soil and drainage channel bank erosion throughout the Root River Basin is critical to mediating problems with excessive sedimentation and poor water quality in the LRR. This report identifies many systemic and local management actions that presumably can reduce the sediment runoff and loading in the Root River drainage system and improve how and where sediment is deposited in LRR floodplains and habitats, such as abandoned channels, storage res- ervoirs, wetland impoundments, and other areas. Important information needs include:

• A thorough evaluation of sources and distribution of sediment entering the Root River system. In areas where large sediment contributions are identified, more detailed studies will be needed to document amount, chronology, and composition/contamination of sediment.

• Continued monitoring of rates and chronology of sedimentation in LRR habitats, especially wet prairie/meadow and semipermanent wetlands.

21 22 Heitmeyer, M. E.

• Effectiveness of the many sediment reduction and control programs and methods listed in this report.

• Long-term responses of plants and animals to changes in sediment loading and deposition in all community types.

Effectiveness of Restoring Water Flow Pathways, Patterns, and Seasonal Water Regimes The challenges to restoring natural stream corridors, surface water drainage pathways, floodwater distribution and duration, and drier more seasonal inundation regimes in the LRR are large and ultimately require systemic and local changes in land and water management and use. Undoubtedly, restoration of certain system features, such as restoring sinuosity of flow in former natural stream channels and unchannelized stream sections, will occur piece-meal as opportunity arises. Ideally, larger sections of stream channels, floodplains, and other lands could be changed to accommodate more natural flow and flood patterns, and conservation programs should seek to work on as large a tract as possible. Any land and water changes that potentially affect water and flood regimes in the LGR, regardless of size and location should be monitored to determine effectiveness and interactions with other factors. Especially important information is needed to:

• Monitor and model surface water movement across elevations, among management units, through natural flow channels, and measures of time required to flood and drain LRR areas, especially those where infrastructure developments and management occurs.

• Produce updated flood frequency (recurrence interval) maps for the entire LRR related to elevation and current/proposed land use.

• Regularly monitor water quality throughout LRR wetlands and streams including the afore- mentioned sedimentation/loading, agrichemicals, and other contaminants.

• Monitor groundwater levels and interactions with surface water.

• Determine adequacy and performance of all water-control structures on public lands.

• Document all levees in the LRR, regardless of size or ownership/maintenance to determine effects on local and regional water movement and flooding.

Long Term Changes in Vegetation and Animal Communities Related to Flooding and Elevation An ultimate conservation goal in the LRR is to restore functional patches of all historic communities in relation to HGM-determined location and land attributes. Much is unknown about the type and level of management intensity that will be required to restore and sustain specific habitat types, such as wet prairie/meadow and floodplain forest where a fine balance of flooding, soil type, and disturbance determines if and where a community can be recreated and sustained. Generally, responses of these floodplain forests and meadows to specific changes in ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 23 water regimes, sedimentation, and management are not well understood. Collectively, monitoring is needed throughout the LRR to simultaneously monitor water regimes, sedimentation, and vegetation responses. Monitoring of key animal species endemic to specific LRR communities also is needed to determine if, when, and where key life cycle resources are being supplied and obtained to sustain populations. Specific monitoring needs include:

• Comprehensive inventory of floodplain forest species composition and leading indicators of forest condition.

• Evaluation of region-wide expansion or contraction of communities over time using aerial photography, satellite imagery, and ground reconnaissance.

• Effectiveness of establishment and maintenance management activities for all community types, especially prairie.

• Regular systematic monitoring of endemic and invasive plant and animal species and their responses to management and land/water use changes.

Sue Fletcher, FUMRNWR 24 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Karen Kyle ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was sponsored by Contract No. 9782-0001 from the Southeast Minnesota Office of The Nature Conservancy to Greenbrier Wetland Services and Contract No. 30181AY195 from the USFWS La Crosse District Upper Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge to Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC (BHCDP). Jim Nissan of the USFWS and Richard Biske of The Nature Conser- vancy provided administrative support to initiate and complete the project and each provided important data, insight, and review for the report. Jessica Larson (USFWS), Kristen Moe (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and Scot Johnson (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) helped obtain important GIS and other HGM data for the report. Karen Kyle administered the contract between the USFWS and BHCDP, helped prepare tables and figures, and published the final report. Connie Walker (BHCDP) helped prepare the final report copy for publication.

Cary Aloia

25 26 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Lee Karney, USFWS LITERATURE CITED

Bingner, R.L., D.Wilcox and A. Gaines. 2010. Cache River/Big Creek sedimentation White River Basin Comprehensive Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Brown, W.N., Inc. 1931. Upper Mississippi River – Hastings, Minnesota to Grafton, Illinois, Survey 1929 to 1930. Williams and Heintz Co., Washington, DC. Davinroy, R.D. 2006. Sedimentation in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Applied River Engineering Center, St. Louis District, St. Louis, MO. Duranal, A.J., M.C. Acreman, C.J. Stratford, J.R. Thompson and D.J. Mould. 2007. Assessing the hydrological suitability of floodplains for species-rich meadow restoration: a case study of the Thames floodplain, U.K. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11:170-179. Franklin, S.B., T. Wasklewicz, J.W. Grubaugh and S. Greulich. 2003. Temporal periodicity of the Mississippi River before and after systemic channel modifications. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:637-648. Galatowitsch, S. and T. McAdams. 1994. Distribution and requirements of plants on the Upper Mississippi River: literature review. Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Ames, IA. Gray, A.L., W.J. Moran, A.H. Hasty, S. Hill, C.H. Mattson, H.C. Newman and H.T. Petraborg. 1929. Soil Survey of Houston County, Minn. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils in cooperation with the University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. General Land Office. 1817-1861. State of Minnesota surveys. Green, W.E. 1947. Distribution of marsh and aquatic plants on the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Winona, MN. Heitmeyer, M.E. 2010. An evaluation of terrestrial ecosystem restoration options for the Chippewa River Ecoregion of the Upper Mississippi River System. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 10-06. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing, LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Heitmeyer, M.E. 2008. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration options for the Middle Mississippi River Regional Corridor. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 08-02. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing, LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Heitmeyer, M.E. 2007. Conserving lacustrine and palustrine natural communities. Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter 4(1):3-5. Heitmeyer, M.E. and J.A. Larson. 2010. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for the Root River Tract Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 10-07. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing, LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Heitmeyer, M.E. and K. Westphall. 2007. An evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for the Calhoun and Gilbert Lake Divisions of Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge. University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 13, Puxico, MO. Heitmeyer, M.E., J. Hendrickson, K. Moe, E. Stefanik, R. Urich and T. Yager. 2009. Summary of a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) workshop for the Reno Bottoms area of Pool 9, Upper Mississippi River System, 28-29 September, 2009 and post-workshop evaluation of potential water/forest project options. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 09-05. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing, LLC, Bloomfield, MO. 27 28 Heitmeyer, M. E.

History of Houston County. 1919. Hokah Township and Village. Knox, J.C. 1989. Long- and short-term episodic storage and removal of sediment in watersheds of southwest- ern Wisconsin and northwestern Illinois. Sediment and the Environment. Proceedings of the Baltimore Symposium, May 1989. IAHS Publication No. 184. Knox, J.C. and D.J. Faulkner. 1994. Post-settlement erosion and sedimentation in the lower Buffalo River Watershed. Final report to the Western District, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Eau Claire, WI. Lammers, T. 1977. The vegetation of the Mississippi River floodplain in southeastern Iowa. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Contributions from the Herbarium XIX. Langrehr, H.A. 1992. Summary of vegetation sampling for selected transects in Pool 8, Upper Mississippi River System 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Management Technical Center Special Report 92-S001, Onalaska, WI. Mississippi River Commission. 1881. Detail map of the Upper Mississippi River from the mouth of the Ohio River to Minneapolis, MN in 89 sheets. Peck, J.H. and M.M. Smart. 1986. An assessment of the aquatic and wetland vegetation of the Upper Mississippi River. Hydrobiologia 136:57-76. River Resources Forum. 2004. Environmental Pool Plans: Mississippi River, Pools 1-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, St. Paul, MN. Strojny, C. and E. Mohring. 2010. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Replacement Wetland Annual Monitoring Report – Hokah Wetland Bank. Swanson, S. and S. Sohmer. 1978. The vascular flora of Navigation Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi River. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 85:45-61. Theiling, C.H., C. Korschgen, H. De Haan, T. Fox, J. Rohweder and L. Robinson. 2000. Habitat needs assessment for the Upper Mississippi River System: technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center, La Crosse, WI. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 29

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA WISCONSIN

IOWAIOWA

ILLINOISILLINOIS

MISSOURI

Hokah

Lower Root River location HGM Project Area 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ¯ Root River

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 1 Figure 1. General location of the Lower Root River region. 30 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Figure 2. Public land ownership in the Lower Root River floodplain restoration project area.

Lower Root River Geomorphology HGM Project Area Alluvium Bedrock dominated 0 0.5 1 2 Miles ¯ Terrace

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 3

Figure 3. General geomorphic surfaces in the Lower Root River region. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 31

Legend

0 0.5 1 2 Miles HGM Project Area ¯ Root River

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 4 Figure 4. USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle for the Lower Root River region showing major drainage systems and tributaries to the Root River. 32 Heitmeyer, M. E.

LTA Name HGM Project Area Alluvial Plain Brownsville Slopes Caledonia Ridgetops 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Mississippi River Valley ¯ Root River Valley

Figure 5. General geological regions of the Lower Root River region. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 33

Figure 6. 1878 plat map for the Hokah Township showing the split channels of the historic Root River. 34 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Figure 7. 1871 plat map for the Hokah Township showing the mill dam and mill-created lake south of the town of Hokah. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 35

Lower Root River Soils Abscota loamy sand, occasionally flooded Eleva sandy loam, 30 to 45 percent slopes Plainfield sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Abscota variant sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Gotham loamy sand, 2 to 10 percent slopes Rawles silt loam, occasionally flooded Arenzville silt loam Kalmarville fine sandy loam, channeled Riverwash Beavercreek-Arenzville complex, 1 to 12 percent slopes Kalmarville silty clay loam, occasionally flooded Seaton loam, valleys, 20 to 30 percent slopes Becker sandy loam Lacrescent cobbly silty clay loam, 45 to 70 percent slopes Seaton loam, valleys, 30 to 45 percent slopes Bertrand silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Minneiska fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded Seaton silt loam, valleys, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded Bertrand silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Minneiska variant loamy fine sand Sparta loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Billett sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Moundprairie silty clay loam, depressional Terril loam, sandy substratum Billett sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Moundprairie silty clay loam, occasionally flooded Timula silt loam, 20 to 40 percent slopes Boone sand, rocky, 20 to 70 percent slopes Newalbin silt loam Timula-Lamont complex, 40 to 70 percent slopes Boots mucky peat Plainfield sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Udorthents, loamy Colo silt loam, overwash Plainfield sand, 12 to 25 percent slopes Walford silt loam Council sandy loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes Plainfield sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Water

¯ 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 8 Figure 8. Soils of the Lower Root River region (from USDA SSURGO soil data mart files). 36 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Elevation HGM Project Area 0 22 44 66 88 110 132 154 176 198 220 242 1 23 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199 221 243 2 24 46 68 90 112 134 156 178 200 222 244 3 25 47 69 91 113 135 157 179 201 223 245 4 26 48 70 92 114 136 158 180 202 224 246 5 27 49 71 93 115 137 159 181 203 225 247 6 28 50 72 94 116 138 160 182 204 226 248 7 29 51 73 95 117 139 161 183 205 227 249 8 30 52 74 96 118 140 162 184 206 228 250 9 31 53 75 97 119 141 163 185 207 229 251 10 32 54 76 98 120 142 164 186 208 230 252 11 33 55 77 99 121 143 165 187 209 231 253 12 34 56 78 100 122 144 166 188 210 232 254 13 35 57 79 101 123 145 167 189 211 233 255 14 36 58 80 102 124 146 168 190 212 234 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 15 37 59 81 103 125 147 169 191 213 235 ¯ 16 38 60 82 104 126 148 170 192 214 236 17 39 61 83 105 127 149 171 193 215 237 18 40 62 84 106 128 150 172 194 216 238 19 41 63 85 107 129 151 173 195 217 239 20 42 64 86 108 130 152 174 196 218 240 21 43 65 87 109 131 153 175 197 219 241

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 9 Figure 9. 3-m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Lower Root River region (elevations are in meters above mean sea level).

Figure 10. Peak streamflow for the Root River at Houston, Minnesota, 1911 to 2010. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 37

BO BO WO BK WO BO _ BO BO WO BO WO BK BK WO BK BO

WO EL _ BK BO WO WO BI WO BO

WO WO BO _ WI WO BO WO WO WO WO BK BO BO BO BO WO BO LI BO

BA AH BK WO BO WO WO WO BO _

EL BK WO EL MA AH WI EL WO _ WO WO _ WO EL HA WO AH AH BO

WO BO WO BO AH HI LI BO BK BO

BK WO __BO BK BK BO BO BK _ LI _ WO BO WO WO BO _ _

BK BK WO BO BO BO WO _ _ WO

WO WO WO BK _ WO _ BO WO BO _ BO WO _ WO _ _ _ _ _ GLO vegetation

PLS corners w/tree species WO _ _ _ WO WO BK HGMWO Project Area WO _ Big Woods - Hardwoods (oak, maple, basswood, hickory) 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Oak openings and barrens BO HI _ BO BO WO BO BO WO BK BK Prairie _ BK _ _ ¯ BK BK _ HI WO River Bottom Forest Wet Prairie WO BK _ _ WO WO BK _ WO _

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC

Figure 11 Figure 11. General Land Office (GLO) survey map of vegetation communities (including tree species recorded at section corners) in the Lower Root River region. 38 Heitmeyer, M. E.

Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC | 2011

Figure 12 Figure 12. Mississippi River Commission map of the east end of the Lower Root River region in 1890.

Figure 13. 1929 aerial photograph of the east end of the Lower Root River region. E COS Y S TEM

RE S T O R A TI ON OP TI ONS FOr T H E LOW ER

R OO

Lower Root River HGM T

Floodplain Forest V ER

Open Water - Aquatic FLOODPLA Open Water - Channel Persistent Emergent Marsh

Riverfront Forest I 0 0.5 1 2 Miles N Shrub/Scrub ¯ Slope Forest Wet Meadow Prairie

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC

Figure 14. HGM map of the distribution of potential Presettlement vegetation communities in the Lower Root River region. 39 40 Heitmeyer, M. E.

0 0.5 1 2 Miles Legend ¯ HGM Project Area

Blue Heron Conservation Design & Printing LLC Figure 15 Figure 15. 2009 NAIP aerial photograph of the Lower Root River region.

National Land Cover Data

Tan - Trees Red - Meadow Brown - Ag/Pasture 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 Miles Purple - Crops ¯ Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC | 2011

Figure 16. Current land cover map of the Lower Root River region. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 41

Wetlands

HGM Project Area Seasonally flooded forest Wet meadow Shallow marsh Deep marsh Shallow open water Shrub swamp Wood swamps Riverine Uplands

0 0.5 1 2 Miles ¯

Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC | 2011 Figure 17 Figure 17. National wetland inventory of wetlands in the Lower Root River region.

FEMA Floodzones HGM Project Area FLOODPLAIN 100 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles 500 ¯

Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC | 2011

Figure 18 Figure 18. FEMA floodzone designations for the Lower Root River region. ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 08 2010/USGS water station No. 05385000/...

1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - WATER RESOURCES

STATION NUMBER 05385000 ROOT RIVER NEAR HOUSTON, MN SOURCE AGENCY USGS STATE 27 COUNTY 055 LATITUDE 434607 LONGITUDE 0913411 NAD27 DRAINAGE AREA 1250 CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA DATUM 667.00 NGVD29 Date Processed: 2008-01-22 14:14 By mitton Rating for Discharge (cfs) RATING ID: 45.0 TYPE: stage-discharge EXPANSION: logarithmic STATUS: approved Created by mitton on 08-20-2007 @ 14:06:27 CDT, Updated by mitton on 01-22-2008 @ 14:14:49 CST 42 Remarks: Work in progress (8/22/2007, gbm) Heitmeyer, M. E.

OFFSET: 2.00 EXPANDED RATING TABLEﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 08 2010/USGS water station No. 05385000/... Table Gage 1: Stage-discharge rating table for the R oot R iver near H ouston, M n DIFF IN Q height, Discharge (cfs) (STANDARD PRECISION) PER feet .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 UNITS

3.00 315* 319 324 328 333 337 341 346 350 355 44.0 1 3.10 359 364 U.S. DEPARTMENT 369 OF THE 373 INTERIOR 378- U.S. GEOLOGICAL 382 SURVE 387Y - WATER 392RESOURCES 396 401 47.0 3.20 406 410 415 420 424 429 434 439 443 448 47.0 3.30 453STATION NUMBER 458 05385000 463 ROOT RIVER 468 NEAR HOUSTON, 473 MN 477 SOURCE AGEN 482CY USGS 487STATE 27 COUNTY492 055 497 49.0 3.40 LATITUDE 502 434607 LONGITUDE 507 0913411 512 NAD27 517 DRAINAGE 522 AREA 1250 527 CONTRIBUTI 532NG DRAINAGE 537 AREA DATUM542 667.00 547 NGVD29 50.0 Date Processed: 2008-01-22 14:14 By mitton 3.50 552 558 563 568 Rating for573 Discharge 578 (cfs) 583 589 594 599 52.0 3.60 604 RATING 609 ID: 45.0 615 TYPE: stage-discharge 620 625 EXPANSION: 630 logarit 636hmic STATUS: 641 approved 646 652 53.0 3.70 657Created by 662mitton on 08-20-2007668 @673 14:06:27 CDT,679 Updated 684 by mitto 689n on 01-22-2008 695 @ 14:14:49 700 CST 706 54.0 3.80 711 717 722 Remarks: 728 Work in 733 progress (8/22/2007,739 7g44bm) 750 755 761 56.0 3.90 767 772 778 783 789 795 800 806 812 817 56.0 OFFSET: 2.00 4.00 823 829 835 840 846 852 858 863 869 875 58.0 4.10 881 886 892 898 EXPANDED 904 RATING TABLE910 916 922 927 933 58.0 Gage4.20 939 945 951 957 963 969 9 75 981 987 993 DIFF 60.0 IN Q height, 4.30 999 1010 Discharge 1010 (cfs) 1020 1020 (STANDARD 1030 PRECIS 1040ION) 1040 1050 1050 61.0PER feet4.40 .001060 .011070 .021070 .031080 .041080 .051090 .061100 .071100 .081110 .091120 .1 60.0UNITS

4.503.00 1120 315* 1130 319 1130 324 1140 328 1150 333 1150 337 11 36041 1170 346 1170 350 1180 355 60.044.0 4.603.10 1180 359 1190 364 1200 369 1200 373 1210 378 1220 382 12 32087 1230 392 1230 396 1240 401 70.047.0 4.703.20 1250 406 1250 410 1260 415 1270 420 1270 424 1280 429 12 49034 1290 439 1300 443 1310 448 60.047.0 4.803.30 1310 453 1320 458 1330 463 1330 468 1340 473 1340 477 13 45082 1360 487 1360 492 1370 497 70.049.0 4.903.40 1380 502 1380 507 1390 512 1400 517 1400 522 1410 527 14 52032 1420 537 1430 542 1440 547 60.050.0

5.003.50 1440 552 1450 558 1460 563 1460 568 1470 573 1480 578 14 58083 1490 589 1500 594 1500 599 70.052.0 5.103.60 1510 604 1520 609 1520 615 1530 620 1540 625 1540 630 15 65036 1560 641 1570 646 1570 652 70.053.0 5.203.70 1580 657 1590 662 1590 668 1600 673 1610 679 1610 684 16 62089 1630 695 1630 700 1640 706 70.054.0 5.303.80 1650 711 1650 717 1660 722 1670 728 1680 733 1680 739 16 79044 1700 750 1700 755 1710 761 70.056.0 5.403.90 1720 767 1720 772 1730 778 1740 783 1750 789 1750 795 17 86000 1770 806 1770 812 1780 817 70.056.0

5.504.00 1790 823 1790 829 1800 835 1810 840 1820 846 1820 852 18 83058 1840 863 1840 869 1850 875 70.058.0 5.604.10 1860 881 1870 886 1870 892 1880 898 1890 904 1890 910 19 90016 1910 922 1920 927 1920 933 70.058.0 5.704.20 1930 939 1940 945 1940 951 1950 957 1960 963 1970 969 19 97075 1980 981 1990 987 2000 993 70.060.0 5.804.30 2000 999 20101010 20201010 20301020 20301020 20401030 20105040 20501040 20601050 20701050 80.061.0 5.904.40 20801060 20801070 20901070 21001080 21101080 21101090 21112000 21301100 21401110 21401120 70.060.0

6.004.50 21501120 21601130 21701130 21701140 21801150 21901150 22110060 22001170 22101170 22201180 80.060.0 6.104.60 22301180 22301190 22401200 22501200 22601210 22601220 22127020 22801230 22901230 22901240 70.0 6.204.70 23001250 23101250 23201260 23201270 23301270 23401280 23125090 23501290 23601300 23701310 80.060.0 6.304.80 23801310 23901320 23901330 24001330 24101340 24201340 24132050 24301360 24401360 24501370 70.0 6.404.90 24501380 24601380 24701390 24801400 24901400 24901410 25140020 25101420 25201430 25201440 80.060.0

6.505.00 25301440 25401450 25501460 25601460 25601470 25701480 251480 25901490 25901500 26001500 80.070.0 6.605.10 26101510 26201520 26301520 26301530 26401540 26501540 26156050 26701560 26701570 26801570 80.070.0 6.705.20 26901580 27001590 27101590 27101600 27201610 27301610 27164020 27401630 27501630 27601640 80.070.0 6.805.30 27701650 27801650 27801660 27901670 28001680 28101680 28162090 28201700 28301700 28401710 80.070.0 6.905.40 28501720 28601720 28701730 28701740 28801750 28901750 29170060 29101770 29101770 29201780 80.070.0

1 5.50 1790 1790 U.S. DEPARTMENT 1800 OF THE 1810 INTERIOR 1820- U.S. GEOLOGICAL 1820 SURVEY 1830 - WATER 1840RESOURCES 1840 1850 70.0 5.60 1860 1870 1870 1880 1890 1890 1900 1910 1920 1920 70.0 5.70 1930STATION NUMBER 1940 05385000 1940 ROOT RIVER 1950 NEAR HOUSTON, 1960 MN 1970 SOURCE AGENCY 1970 USGS 1980STATE 27 COUNTY1990 055 2000 70.0 5.80 LATITUDE 2000 434607 LONGITUDE 2010 0913411 2020 NAD27 2030 DRAINAGE 2030 AREA 1250 2040 CONTRIBUTING 2050 DRAINAGE 2050 AREA DATUM2060 667.00 2070 NGVD29 80.0 5.90 2080 2080 2090 Date 2100Processed: 21102008-01-22 211014:14 By mitton 2120 2130 2140 2140 70.0 Rating for Discharge (cfs) 6.00 2150 RATING 2160 ID: 45.0 2170 TYPE: stage-discharge 2170 2180 EXPANSION: 2190 logarithmic 2200 STATUS: 2200 approved 2210 2220 80.0 6.10 2230Created by 2230mitton on 08-20-20072240 @2250 14:06:27 CDT,2260 Updated 2260 by mitton 2270 on 01-22-2008 2280 @ 14:14:49 2290 CST 2290 70.0 6.20 2300 2310 2320 Remarks: 2320 Work in 2330 progress (8/22/2007,2340 23gbm)50 2350 2360 2370 80.0 6.30 2380 2390 2390 2400 2410 2420 2420 2430 2440 2450 70.0 OFFSET: 6.40 2.00 2450 2460 2470 2480 2490 2490 2500 2510 2520 2520 80.0

6.50 2530 2540 2550 2560 EXPANDED 2560 RATING TABLE2570 2580 2590 2590 2600 80.0 Gage 6.60 2610 2620 2630 2630 2640 2650 26 60 2670 2670 2680 DIFF 80.0 IN Q height, 6.70 2690 2700 Discharge 2710 (cfs) 2710 2720 (STANDARD 2730 PRECIS 27ION)40 2740 2750 2760 PER80.0 feet 6.80 .00 2770 .01 2780 .02 2780 .03 2790 .04 2800 .05 2810 .06 28 20 .07 2820 .08 2830 .09 2840 .1 UNITS80.0 6.90 2850 2860 2870 2870 2880 2890 2900 2910 2910 2920 80.0 7.00 2930* 2940 2950 2960 2960 2970 2980 2990 3000 3010 80.0 1 7.10 3010 3020 U.S. DEPARTMENT 3030 OF THE3040 INTERIOR 3050 - U.S. GEOLOGICAL 3060 SURVEY 3070 - WATER 3070RESOURCES 3080 3090 90.0 7.20 3100 3110 3120 3130 3130 3140 3150 3160 3170 3180 90.0 7.30 3190 STATION NUMBER 3200 05385000 3200 ROOT RIVER 3210 NEAR HOUSTON, 3220 MN 3230 SOURCE AGENCY 3240 USGS 3250STATE 27 COUNTY3260 055 3260 80.0 7.40 LATITUDE 3270 434607 LONGITUDE3280 09134113290 NAD27 3300 DRAINAGE 3310 AREA 1250 3320 CONTRIBUTING 3330 DRAINAGE 3330 AREA DATUM3340 667.00 3350 NGVD29 90.0 Date Processed: 2008-01-22 14:14 By mitton 7.50 3360 3370 3380 3390 Rating 3400for Discharge 3410ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan (cfs) 3410 083420 2010/USGS 3430 water 3440station No. 90.0 05385000/... 7.60 3450 RATING 3460 ID: 45.0 3470 TYPE: stage-discharge 3480 3480 EXPANSION: 3490 logarithmic 3500 STATUS: 3510 approved 3520 3530 90.0 7.70 3540 Created by 3550 mitton on 356008-20-2007 3570@ 14:06:27 3570CDT, Updated 3580 by mitton 3590 on 01-22-2008 3600 @ 14:14:49 3610 CST 3620 90.0 Remarks: Work in progress (8/22/2007, gbm)

OFFSET: 7.80 2.00 3630 3640 3650 3660 3660 3670 3680 3690 3700 3710 90.0 7.90 3720 3730 3740 3750 3750 3760 3770 3780 3790 3800 90.0 EXPANDED RATING TABLE 1 of 3 Gage 8.00 3810 3820 3830 3840 3850 3860 38 60 3870 3880 3890 6/16/11DIFF 90.0 IN Q1:51 PM height, 8.10 3900 3910 Discharge 3920 (cfs) 3930 3940 (STANDARD 3950 PRECIS 39ION)60 3970 3980 3980 PER90.0 feet 8.20 .00 3990 .01 4000 .02 4010 .03 4020 .04 4030 .05 4040 .06 40 50 .07 4060 .08 4070 .09 4080 .1 UNITS 100 8.30 4090 4100 4110 4120 4120 4130 4140 4150 4160 4170 90.0 7.008.40 2930*4180 29404190 29504200 29604210 29604220 29704230 29428040 29904250 30004260 30104270 80.0 100 7.10 3010 3020 3030 3040 3050 3060 3070 3070 3080 3090 90.0 7.208.50 31004280 31104280 31204290 31304300 31304310 31404320 31435030 31604340 31704350 31804360 90.0 7.308.60 31904370 32004380 32004390 32104400 32204410 32304420 32444030 32504440 32604450 32604460 80.0 100 7.408.70 32704470 32804480 32904490 33004490 33104500 33204510 33453020 33304530 33404540 33504550 90.0 8.80 4560 4570 4580 4590 4600 4610 4620 4630 4640 4650 100 7.508.90 33604660 33704670 33804680 33904690 34004700 34104710 34471020 34204730 34304740 34404750 90.0 100 7.60 3450 3460 3470 3480 3480 3490 3500 3510 3520 3530 90.0 7.709.00 35404760 35504770 35604780 35704790 35704800 35804810 35489020 36004830 36104840 36204840 90.0 9.10 4850 4860 4870 4880 4890 4900 4910 4920 (Continued 4930 on4940 next page) 100 9.20 4950 4960 4970 4980 4990 5000 5010 5020 5030 5040 100 9.30 5050 5060 5070 5080 5090 5100 5110 5120 5130 5140 100 9.40 5150 5160 5170 5180 5190 5200 5210 5220 5230 5240 100 1 of 3 9.50 5250 5260 5270 5280 5290 5300 5310 5320 5330 5340 6/16/11 100 1:51 PM 9.60 5350 5360 5370 5390 5400 5410 5420 5430 5440 5450 110 9.70 5460 5470 5480 5490 5500 5510 5520 5530 5540 5550 100 9.80 5560 5570 5580 5590 5600 5610 5620 5630 5640 5650 100 9.90 5660 5670 5680 5690 5700 5710 5720 5730 5740 5750 110

10.00 5770 5780 5790 5800 5810 5820 5830 5840 5850 5860 100 10.10 5870 5880 5890 5900 5910 5920 5930 5940 5950 5960 100 10.20 5970 5980 5990 6010 6020 6030 6040 6050 6060 6070 110 10.30 6080 6090 6100 6110 6120 6130 6140 6150 6160 6170 100 10.40 6180 6200 6210 6220 6230 6240 6250 6260 6270 6280 110

10.50 6290 6300 6310 6320 6330 6340 6360 6370 6380 6390 110 10.60 6400 6410 6420 6430 6440 6450 6460 6470 6480 6490 110 10.70 6510 6520 6530 6540 6550 6560 6570 6580 6590 6600 100 10.80 6610 6620 6630 6650 6660 6670 6680 6690 6700 6710 110 10.90 6720 6730 6740 6750 6770 6780 6790 6800 6810 6820 110

1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - WATER RESOURCES

OFFSET: 2.00

EXPANDED RATING TABLE Gage DIFF IN Q height, Discharge (cfs) (STANDARD PRECISION) PER feet .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 UNITS

11.00 6830 6840 6850 6860 6870 6890 6900 6910 6920 6930 110 11.10 6940 6950 6960 6970 6980 7000 7010 7020 7030 7040 110 11.20 7050 7060 7070 7080 7090 7110 7120 7130 7140 7150 110 11.30 7160 7170 7180 7190 7210 7220 7230 7240 7250 7260 110 11.40 7270 7280 7290 7310 7320 7330 7340 7350 7360 7370 110

11.50 7380 7400 7410 7420 7430 7440 7450 7460 7470 7480 120 11.60 7500 7510 7520 7530 7540 7550 7560 7570 7590 7600 110 11.70 7610 7620 7630 7640 7650 7670 7680 7690 7700 7710 110 11.80 7720 7730 7740 7760 7770 7780 7790 7800 7810 7820 120 11.90 7840 7850 7860 7870 7880 7890 7900 7920 7930 7940 110

12.00 7950* 7960 7980 7990 8000 8010 8030 8040 8050 8060 130 12.10 8080 8090 8100 8110 8130 8140 8150 8160 8180 8190 120 12.20 8200 8220 8230 8240 8250 8270 8280 8290 8300 8320 130 12.30 8330 8340 8360 8370 8380 8390 8410 8420 8430 8440 130 12.40 8460 8470 8480 8500 8510 8520 8530 8550 8560 8570 130

12.50 8590 8600 8610 8620 8640 8650 8660 8680 8690 8700 130 12.60 8720 8730 8740 8750 8770 8780 8790 8810 8820 8830 130 12.70 8850 8860 8870 8880 8900 8910 8920 8940 8950 8960 130 12.80 8980 8990 9000 9020 9030 9040 9060 9070 9080 9090 130 12.90 9110 9120 9130 9150 9160 9170 9190 9200 9210 9230 130

13.00 9240 9250 9270 9280 9290 9310 9320 9330 9350 9360 130 13.10 9370 9390 9400 9410 9430 9440 9450 9470 9480 9490 140 13.20 9510 9520 9530 9550 9560 9570 9590 9600 9610 9630 130 13.30 9640 9650 9670 9680 9690 9710 9720 9740 9750 9760 140 13.40 9780 9790 9800 9820 9830 9840 9860 9870 9880 9900 130

13.50 9910 9930 9940 9950 9970 9980 9990 10000 10000 10000 90.0 13.60 10000 10100 10100 10100 10100 10100 10100 10100 10200 10200 200 13.70 10200 10200 10200 10200 10200 10300 10300 10300 10300 10300 100 13.80 10300 10300 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 200 13.90 10500 10500 10500 10500 10500 10500 10500 10600 10600 10600 100

2 of 3 6/16/11 1:51 PM ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 08 2010/USGS water station No. 05385000/...

7.80 3630 3640 3650 3660 3660 3670 3680 3690 3700 3710 90.0 7.90 3720 3730 3740 3750 3750 3760 3770 3780 3790 3800 90.0

8.00 3810 3820 3830 3840 3850 3860 3860 3870 3880 3890 90.0 8.10 3900 3910 3920 3930 3940 3950 3960 3970 3980 3980 90.0 8.20 3990 4000 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 4060 4070 4080 100 8.30 4090 4100 4110 4120 4120 4130 4140 4150 4160 4170 90.0 8.40 4180 4190 4200 4210 4220 4230 4240 4250 4260 4270 100

8.50 4280 4280 4290 4300 4310 4320 4330 4340 4350 4360 90.0 8.60 4370 4380 4390 4400 4410 4420 4430 4440 4450 4460 100 8.70 4470 4480 4490 4490 4500 4510 4520 4530 4540 4550 90.0 8.80 4560 4570 4580 4590 4600 4610 4620 4630 4640 4650 100 8.90 4660 4670 4680 4690 4700 4710 4720 4730 4740 4750 100

9.00 4760 4770 4780 4790 4800 4810 4820 4830 4840 4840 90.0 9.10 4850 4860 4870 4880 4890 4900 4910 4920 4930 4940 100 9.20 4950 4960 4970 4980 4990 5000 5010 5020 5030 5040 100 9.30 5050 5060 5070 5080 5090 5100 5110 5120 5130 5140 100 9.40 5150 5160 5170 5180 5190 5200ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 5210 085220 2010/USGS 5230 water 5240station No. 10005385000/... 9.50 5250 5260 5270 5280 5290 5300 5310 5320 5330 5340 100 9.60 5350 5360 5370 5390 5400 5410 5420 5430 5440 5450 110 9.70 5460 5470 5480 5490 5500 5510 5520 5530 5540 5550 100 9.807.80 55603630 55703640 55803650 55903660 56003660 56103670 56362080 56303690 56403700 56503710 90.0100 9.907.90 56603720 56703730 56803740 56903750 57003750 57103760 57372070 57303780 57403790 57503800 90.0110

10.00 8.00 57703810 57803820 57903830 58003840 58103850 58203860 58383060 58403870 58503880 58603890 90.0100 10.10 8.10 58703900 58803910 58903920 59003930 59103940 59203950 59393060 59403970 59503980 59603980 90.0100 10.20 8.20 59703990 59804000 59904010 60104020 60204030 60304040 60404050 60504060 60604070 60704080 110100 10.30 8.30 60804090 60904100 61004110 61104120 61204120 61304130 61414040 61504150 61604160 61704170 90.0100 10.40 8.40 61804180 62004190 62104200 62204210 62304220 62404230 62425040 62604250 62704260 62804270 110100

10.50 8.50 62904280 63004280 63104290 63204300 63304310 63404320 63436030 63704340 63804350 63904360 90.0110 10.60 8.60 64004370 64104380 64204390 64304400 64404410 64504420 64446030 64704440 64804450 64904460 110100 10.70 8.70 65104470 65204480 65304490 65404490 65504500 65604510 65457020 65804530 65904540 66004550 90.0100 10.80 8.80 66104560 66204570 66304580 66504590 66604600 66704610 66468020 66904630 67004640 67104650 110100 10.90 8.90 67204660 67304670 67404680 67504690 67704700 67804710ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 67479020 08 68004730 2010/USGS 68104740 water 6820station4750 No. 11005385000/...100

1 9.00 4760 4770 U.S. DEPARTMENT 4780 OF THE 4790 INTERIOR 4800- U.S. GEOLOGICAL 4810 SURVEY 4820 - WATER 4830RESOURCES 4840 4840 90.0 9.10 4850 4860 4870 4880 4890 4900 4910 4920 4930 4940 100 7.809.20 36304950STATION NUMBER 36404960 05385000 36504970 ROOT RIVER 36604980 NEAR HOUSTON, 36604990 MN 36705000 SOURCE AGENCY 36508010 USGS 3690 5020STATE 27 3700COUNTY5030 055 37105040 90.0 100 7.909.30 LATITUDE 37205050 434607 LONGITUDE 37305060 0913411 37405070 NAD27 37505080 DRAINAGE 37505090 AREA 1250 37605100 CONTRIBUTING 37517010 DRAINAGE 37805120 AREA 3790DATUM5130 667.00 38005140 NGVD29 90.0 100 9.40 5150 5160 5170 Date 5180Processed: 51902008-01-22 520014:14 By mitton 5210 5220 5230 5240 100 E COS 8.00 Y S TEM RE 3810S T O R A TI ON 3820 OP TI ONS 3830 FOr T H E 3840LOW Rating ER R OO for3850T RIDischarge V ER FLOODPLA3860 (cfs) 38IN60 3870 3880 3890 43 90.0 8.109.50 39005250 RATING 39105260 ID: 45.0 39205270 TYPE: stage-discharge 39305280 39405290 EXPANSION: 39505300 logarithmic 39536010 STATUS: 39705320 approved 39805330 39805340 90.0 100 8.209.60 39905350Created by 40005360mitton on 08-20-200740105370 @40205390 14:06:27 CDT,40305400 Updated 40405410 by mitton 40545020 on 01-22-2008 40605430 @ 14:14:49 40705440 CST 40805450 100110 8.309.70 40905460 41005470 41105480 Remarks: 41205490 Work in 41205500 progress (8/22/2007,41305510 4155gbm)4020 41505530 41605540 41705550 90.0 100 8.409.80 41805560 41905570 42005580 42105590 42205600 42305610 42564020 42505630 42605640 42705650 100100 TableOFFSET: 9.90 1., 2.00 cont’d 5660 5670 5680 5690 5700 5710 5720 5730 5740 5750 110 8.50 4280 4280 4290 4300 4310 4320 4330 4340 4350 4360 90.0 10.00 8.60 43705770 43805780 43905790 44005800 EXPANDED 44105810 RATING TABLE44205820 44583030 44405840 44505850 44605860 100100 Gage 10.108.70 44705870 44805880 44905890 44905900 45005910 45105920 4559 2030 45305940 45405950 45505960 DIFF 90.0 100IN Q height, 10.208.80 45605970 45705980 Discharge 45805990 (cfs) 45906010 46006020 (STANDARD 46106030 PRECIS 466020ION)40 4630 6050 4640 6060 4650 6070 PER 100110 feet 10.308.90 .00 46606080 .01 46706090 .02 46806100 .03 46906110 .04 47006120 .05 47106130 .06 476120 40 .07 47306150 .08 47406160 .09 47506170 .1 UNITS 100100 10.40 6180 6200 6210 6220 6230 6240 6250 6260 6270 6280 110 11.00 9.00 68304760 68404770 68504780 68604790 68704800 68904810 69480020 69104830 69204840 69304840 90.0110 11.10 10.509.10 694048506290 695048606300 696048706310 697048806320 698048906330 700049006340 7049631060 702049206370 703049306380 704049406390 110100110 11.20 10.609.20 705049506400 706049606410 707049706420 708049806430 709049906440 711050006450 715064201060 713050206470 714050306480 715050406490 110100110 11.30 10.709.30 716050506510 717050606520 718050706530 719050806540 721050906550 722051006560 725165301070 724051206580 725051306590 726051406600 110100100 11.40 10.809.40 727051506610 728051606620 729051706630 731051806650 732051906660 733052006670 735266401080 735052206690 736052306700 737052406710 110100110 10.90 6720 6730 6740 6750 6770 6780 6790 6800 6810 6820 110 11.50 9.50 73805250 74005260 74105270 74205280 74305290 74405300 74535010 74605320 74705330 74805340 120100 1 11.60 9.60 75005350 75105360 U.S. DEPARTMENT 75205370 OF THE75305390 INTERIOR 75405400 - U.S. GEOLOGICAL 75505410 SURVEY 75546020 - WATER 75705430 RESOURCES 75905440 76005450 110 11.70 9.70 76105460 76205470 76305480 76405490 76505500 76705510 76558020 76905530 77005540 77105550 110100 11.80 9.80 77205560 STATION NUMBER 77305570 05385000 77405580 ROOT RIVER 77605590 NEAR HOUSTON, 77705600 MN 77805610 SOURCE AGENCY 77569020 USGS 78005630 STATE 27 78105640COUNTY 055 78205650 120100 11.90 9.90 LATITUDE 78405660 434607 LONGITUDE78505670 091341178605680 NAD27 78705690 DRAINAGE 78805700 AREA 1250 78905710 CONTRIBUTING 79570020 DRAINAGE 79205730 AREA 79305740DATUM 667.00 79405750 NGVD29 110 Date Processed: 2008-01-22 14:14 By mitton 12.0010.00 7950*5770 79605780 79805790 79905800 Rating 80005810for Discharge 80105820 (cfs) 805830 80405840 80505850 80605860 130100 12.1010.10 80805870 RATING 80905880 ID: 45.0 81005890 TYPE: stage-discharge 81105900 81305910 EXPANSION: 81405920 logarithmic 81595030 STATUS:81605940 approved 81805950 81905960 120100 12.2010.20 82005970 Created by 82205980 mitton on 8230599008-20-2007 82406010@ 14:06:27 82506020CDT, Updated 82706030 by mitton 82608040 on 01-22-2008 82906050 @ 14:14:49 83006060 CST 83206070 130110 12.3010.30 83306080 83406090 83606100 Remarks: 83706110 Work in83806120 progress 83906130(8/22/2007, 8461 gbm)1040 84206150 84306160 84406170 130100 12.4010.40 84606180 84706200 84806210 85006220 85106230 85206240 85623050 85506260 85606270 85706280 130110 OFFSET: 2.00 12.5010.50 85906290 86006300 86106310 86206320 86406330 86506340 866360 86806370 86906380 87006390 130110 12.6010.60 87206400 87306410 87406420 87506430 EXPANDED 87706440 RATING 87806450TABLE 87649060 88106470 88206480 88306490 130110 12.7010.70Gage 88506510 88606520 88706530 88806540 89006550 89106560 8965 2070 89406580 89506590 89606600 DIFF 130100 IN Q height, 12.8010.80 89806610 89906620 Discharge 90006630 (cfs) 90206650 90306660 (STANDARD 90406670 PRECIS 90666080ION) 90706690 90806700 90906710 PER130110 12.9010.90feet .0091106720 .0191206730 .0291306740 .0391506750 .0491606770 .0591706780 .06916790 .0792006800 .0892106810 .0992306820 .1 UNITS130110

1 13.00 11.00 9240 6830 9250 6840 U.S. DEPARTMENT 92706850 OF THE 92806860 INTERIOR 9290 6870- U.S. GEOLOGICAL 93106890 SURVEY 93692000 - WATER 9330 6910RESOURCES 93506920 93606930 130110 13.1011.10 93706940 93906950 94006960 94106970 94306980 94407000 94705010 94707020 94807030 94907040 140110 13.20 11.20 9510 7050STATION NUMBER 95207060 05385000 95307070 ROOT RIVER 95507080 NEAR HOUSTON, 95607090 MN 9570 7110 SOURCE AGENCY 95719020 USGS 9600 7130STATE 27 9610COUNTY7140 055 96307150 130110 13.30 11.30 LATITUDE 9640 7160 434607 LONGITUDE 96507170 0913411 96707180 NAD27 96807190 DRAINAGE 96907210 AREA 1250 9710 7220 CONTRIBUTING 97722030 DRAINAGE 97407240 AREA 9750DATUM7250 667.00 97607260 NGVD29 140110 13.40 11.40 9780 7270 9790 7280 9800 7290 Date 9820 7310Processed: 9830 73202008-01-22 9840 733014:14 By mitton 98736040 98707350 98807360 99007370 130110 Rating for Discharge (cfs) 13.50 11.50 9910 7380 RATING 99307400 ID: 45.0 9940 7410 TYPE: stage-discharge 99507420 99707430 EXPANSION: 99807440 logarithmic 99749050 10000STATUS: 7460 approved 10000 7470 10000 7480 90.0 120 13.60 11.60 10000 7500Created by 10100 7510mitton on 10100 08-20-20077520 10100 @7530 14:06:27 10100 CDT,7540 Updated 10100 7550 by mitton 101 750060 on 01-22-2008 10100 7570 @ 14:14:49 10200 7590 CST 10200 7600 200110 13.70 11.70 10200 7610 10200 7620 10200 7630 Remarks: 10200 7640 Work 10200in 7650 progress 10300 (8/22/2007,7670 103 76gbm)0080 10300 7690 10300 7700 10300 7710 100110 13.8011.80 10300 7720 10300 7730 10400 7740 10400 7760 10400 7770 10400 7780 104 770090 10400 7800 10400 7810 10400 7820 200120 OFFSET: 13.9011.90 2.00 10500 7840 10500 7850 10500 7860 10500 7870 10500 7880 10500 7890 105 790000 10600 7920 10600 7930 10600 7940 100110

12.00 7950* 7960 7980 7990 EXPANDED 8000 RATING TABLE8010 8030 8040 8050 8060 130 Gage12.10 8080 8090 8100 8110 8130 8140ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 81 50 08 8160 2010/USGS 8180 water station8190 No.DIFF 05385000/...120IN Q height, 12.20 8200 8220 Discharge 8230 (cfs) 8240 8250 (STANDARD 8270 PRECIS 82ION)80 8290 8300 8320 PER 130 feet12.30 .00 8330 .01 8340 .02 8360 .03 8370 .04 8380 .05 8390 .06 84 10 .07 8420 .08 8430 .09 8440 .1 UNITS 130 2 of 3 12.40 8460 8470 8480 8500 8510 8520 8530 8550 8560 8570 6/16/11 130 1:51 PM 11.00 6830 6840 6850 6860 6870 6890 6900 6910 6920 6930 110 14.0011.1012.50 10600* 69408590 10600 69508600 10600 69608610 10600 69708620 10700 69808640 10700 70008650 107 7086001060 10700 70208680 10700 70308690 10700 70408700 200110130 14.1011.2012.60 10800 70508720 10800 70608730 10800 70708740 10800 70808750 10800 70908770 10800 71108780 109 7187002090 10900 71308810 10900 71408820 10900 71508830 100110130 14.2011.3012.70 10900 71608850 10900 71708860 11000 71808870 11000 71908880 11000 72108900 11000 72208910 110 7289003020 11000 72408940 11100 72508950 11100 72608960 200110130 14.3011.4012.80 11100 72708980 11100 72808990 11100 72909000 11100 73109020 11200 73209030 11200 73309040 112 7390004060 11200 73509070 11200 73609080 11200 73709090 200110130 14.4012.90 11300 9110 11300 9120 11300 9130 11300 9150 11300 9160 11400 9170 114 910090 11400 9200 11400 9210 11400 9230 100130 11.50 7380 7400 7410 7420 7430 7440 7450 7460 7470 7480 120 14.5011.6013.00 11400 75009240 11500 75109250 11500 75209270 11500 75309280 11500 75409290 11500 75509310 115 7593006020 11600 75709330 11600 75909350 11600 76009360 200110130 14.6011.7013.10 11600 76109370 11600 76209390 11600 76309400 11700 76409410 11700 76509430 11700 76709440 117 7694008050 11700 76909470 11700 77009480 11800 77109490 200110140 14.7011.8013.20 11800 77209510 11800 77309520 11800 77409530 11800 77609550 11800 77709560 11900 77809570 119 7795009090 11900 78009600 11900 78109610 11900 78209630 200120130 14.8011.9013.30 12000 78409640 12000 78509650 12000 78609670 12000 78709680 12000 78809690 12000 78909710 121 79970020 12100 79209740 12100 79309750 12100 79409760 100110140 14.9013.40 12100 9780 12100 9790 12200 9800 12200 9820 12200 9830 12200 9840 122 980060 12200 9870 12300 9880 12300 9900 200130 12.00 7950* 7960 7980 7990 8000 8010 8030 8040 8050 8060 130 1 12.1013.50 80809910 80909930 U.S. DEPARTMENT 81009940 OF THE 81109950 INTERIOR 81309970- U.S. GEOLOGICAL 81409980 SURVEY 81995090 - WATER 10000 8160RESOURCES 100008180 100008190 90.0120 12.2013.60 100008200 101008220 101008230 101008240 101008250 101008270ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 101828000 08101008290 2010/USGS 102008300 water 10200 8320station No. 13020005385000/... 12.3013.70 10200 8330STATION NUMBER 102008340 05385000 102008360 ROOT RIVER 102008370 NEAR HOUSTON, 102008380 MN 10300 8390 SOURCE AGENCY 103841000 USGS 10300 8420STATE 27 10300COUNTY8430 055 103008440 130100 12.4013.80 LATITUDE 10300 8460 434607 LONGITUDE 103008470 0913411 104008480 NAD27 104008500 DRAINAGE 104008510 AREA 1250 10400 8520 CONTRIBUTING 104853000 DRAINAGE 104008550 AREA 10400DATUM8560 667.00 104008570 NGVD29 130200 13.90 10500 10500 10500 Date 10500 Processed: 10500 2008-01-22 10500 14:14 By mitton10500 10600 10600 10600 100 12.50 8590 8600 8610 8620 Rating for8640 Discharge 8650 (cfs) 8660 8680 8690 8700 130 12.6014.00 10600* 8720 RATING 106008730 ID: 45.0 10600 8740 TYPE: stage-discharge 106008750 107008770 EXPANSION: 107008780 logarithmic 107879000 STATUS: 107008810 approved 107008820 107008830 130200 12.7014.10 10800 8850Created by 10800 8860mitton on 1080008-20-20078870 10800@8880 14:06:27 10800CDT,8900 Updated 108008910 by mitton 109892000 on 01-22-2008 109008940 @ 14:14:49 109008950 CST 109008960 130100 12.8014.20 10900 8980 10900 8990 11000 9000 Remarks: 110009020 Work in 110009030 progress 11000(8/22/2007,9040 110 90gbm)6000 110009070 111009080 111009090 130200 12.9014.30 111009110 111009120 111009130 111009150 112009160 112009170 112919000 112009200 112009210 112009230 130200 2 of 3 OFFSET: 14.40 2.00 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11400 11400 11400 11400 11400 6/16/11 100 1:51 PM 13.00 9240 9250 9270 9280 9290 9310 9320 9330 9350 9360 130 13.1014.50 11400 9370 11500 9390 11500 9400 11500 9410 EXPANDED 115009430 RATING 11500TABLE9440 115945000 116009470 116009480 116009490 140200 Gage13.2014.60 11600 9510 11600 9520 11600 9530 11700 9550 11700 9560 11700 9570 117 95 9000 11700 9600 11700 9610 11800 9630 DIFF 130200IN Q height, 13.3014.70 11800 9640 11800 9650 Discharge 118009670 (cfs) 11800 9680 11800 9690 (STANDARD 119009710 PRECIS 11997ION)2000 11900 9740 11900 9750 11900 9760 PER 140200 feet13.4014.80 .00 120009780 .01 120009790 .02 120009800 .03 120009820 .04 120009830 .05 120009840 .06 12198 6000 .07 121009870 .08 121009880 .09 121009900 .1 UNITS 130100 14.90 12100 12100 12200 12200 12200 12200 12200 12200 12300 12300 200 15.0013.50 12300* 9910 12300 9930 12400 9940 12400 9950 12400 9970 12400 9980 125 990090 1250010000 1250010000 1260010000 90.0300 1 15.1013.60 1260010000 1260010100 U.S. DEPARTMENT 1260010100 OF 1270010100THE INTERIOR 1270010100 - U.S. GEOLOGICAL 1270010100 SURVEY 12810100 - WATER 1280010100 RESOURCES 1280010200 1280010200 300200 15.2013.70 1290010200 1290010200 1290010200 1300010200 1300010200 1300010300 13010300 1310010300 1310010300 1310010300 300100 15.3013.80 1320010300 STATION NUMBER1320010300 05385000 1320010400 ROOT RIVER1320010400 NEAR HOUSTON,1330010400 MN 1330010400 SOURCE AGENCY13310400 USGS 1340010400 STATE 27 1340010400 COUNTY 055 1340010400 200 15.4013.90 LATITUDE 1340010500 434607 1350010500LONGITUDE 13500105000913411 NAD27 1350010500 DRAINAGE 1360010500 AREA 1250 1360010500 CONTRIBUTING 13610500 DRAINAGE 1370010600 AREA 1370010600 DATUM 667.00 1370010600 NGVD29 300100 Date Processed: 2008-01-22 14:14 By mitton 15.50 13700 13800 13800 13800 Rating 13900 for Discharge 13900 (cfs) 13900 14000 14000 14000 300 15.60 14000 RATING 14100 ID: 45.0 14100 TYPE: stage-discharge14100 14200 EXPANSION: 14200 logarithmic 14200 14300STATUS: approved 14300 14300 400 15.70 14400 Created by14400 mitton on 14400 08-20-2007 14400 @ 14:06:27 14500 CDT, Updated 14500 by mitton 14500 on 01-22-2008 14600 @ 14:14:4914600 CST 14600 300 15.80 14700 14700 14700 Remarks: 14800 Work 14800in progress 14800 (8/22/2007, 149 gbm)00 14900 14900 14900 300 15.90 15000 15000 15000 15100 15100 15100 15200 15200 15200 15300 300 2 of 3 OFFSET: 2.00 6/16/11 1:51 PM 16.00 15300* 15400 15400 15500 15500 15600 15700 15700 15800 15800 600 16.10 15900 16000 16000 16100 EXPANDED 16100 RATING 16200 TABLE 16300 16300 16400 16500 600 16.20Gage 16500 16600 16600 16700 16800 16800 169 00 17000 17000 17100 DIFF 700 IN Q height, 16.30 17200 17200 Discharge 17300 (cfs) 17400 17400 (STANDARD 17500 PRECIS 17600ION) 17600 17700 17800 PER600 feet .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 UNITS 16.40 17800 17900 18000 18000 18100 18200 18200 18300 (Continued 18400 18400on next page) 700 16.5015.00 18500*12300* 1860012300 1870012400 1890012400 1900012400 1910012400 19212500 1930012500 1950012500 1960012600 1200 300 16.6015.10 1970012600 1980012600 2000012600 2010012700 2020012700 2030012700 20512800 2060012800 2070012800 2090012800 1300 300 16.7015.20 2100012900 2110012900 2130012900 2140013000 2150013000 2170013000 21813000 2190013100 2210013100 2220013100 1400 300 16.8015.30 2240013200 2250013200 2260013200 2280013200 2290013300 2310013300 23213300 2330013400 2350013400 2360013400 1400 200 16.9015.40 2380013400 2390013500 2410013500 2420013500 2440013600 2450013600 24713600 2480013700 2500013700 2510013700 1500 300

17.0015.50 25300*13700 2540013800 2560013800 2570013800 2590013900 2600013900 26113900 2630014000 2640014000 2660014000 1400 300 17.1015.60 2670014000 2680014100 2700014100 2710014100 2730014200 2740014200 27614200 2770014300 2790014300 2800014300 1500 400 17.2015.70 2820014400 2830014400 2850014400 2860014400 2880014500 2890014500 29114500 2920014600 2940014600 2950014600 1500 300 17.3015.80 2970014700 2990014700 3000014700 3020014800 3030014800 3050014800 30714900 3080014900 3100014900 3110014900 1600 300 17.4015.90 3130015000 3150015000 3160015000 3180015100 3200015100 3210015100 32315200 3250015200 3260015200 3280015300 1700 300

17.5016.00 3300015300* 3320015400 3330015400 3350015500 3370015500 3390015600 34015700 3420015700 3440015800 3460015800 1800 600 17.6016.10 3480015900 3490016000 3510016000 3530016100 3550016100 3570016200 35816300 3600016300 3620016400 3640016500 1800 600 17.7016.20 3660016500 3680016600 3700016600 3720016700 3740016800 3750016800 37716900 3790017000 3810017000 3830017100 1900 700 17.8016.30 3850017200 3870017200 3890017300 3910017400 3930017400 3950017500 39717600 3990017600 4010017700 4030017800 2000 600 17.9016.40 4050017800 4080017900 4100018000 4120018000 4140018100 4160018200 41818200 4200018300 4220018400 4240018400 2200 700

18.0016.50 4270018500* 4290018600 4310018700 4330018900 4350019000 4370019100 44019200 4420019300 4440019500 4460019600 22001200 18.1016.60 4490019700 4510019800 4530020000 4550020100 4580020200 46000*20300 46220500 4650020600 4670020700 4690020900 22001300 18.2016.70 4710021000 4740021100 4760021300 4780021400 4810021500 4830021700 48521800 4880021900 4900022100 4930022200 24001400 18.3016.80 4950022400 4970022500 5000022600 5020022800 5050022900 5070023100 51023200 5120023300 5150023500 5170023600 25001400 18.4016.90 5200023800 5220023900 5250024100 5270024200 5300024400 5320024500 53524700 5370024800 5400025000 5430025100 25001500

18.5017.00 5450025300* 5480025400 5510025600 5530025700 5560025900 5590026000 56126100 5640026300 5670026400 5690026600 27001400 18.6017.10 5720026700 5750026800 5780027000 5800027100 5830027300 5860027400 58927600 5920027700 5940027900 5970028000 28001500 18.7017.20 60000*28200 28300 28500 28600 28800 28900 29100 29200 29400 29500 1500 17.30 29700 29900 30000 30200 30300 30500 30700 30800 31000 31100 1600 "*" 17.40 indicates a31300 rating descriptor 31500 point 31600 31800 32000 32100 32300 32500 32600 32800 1700

17.50 33000 33200 33300 33500 33700 33900 34000 34200 34400 34600 1800 17.60 34800 34900 35100 35300 35500 35700 35800 36000 36200 36400 1800 17.70 36600 36800 37000 37200 37400 37500 37700 37900 38100 38300 1900 17.80 38500 38700 38900 39100 39300 39500 39700 39900 40100 40300 2000 17.90 40500 40800 41000 41200 41400 41600 41800 42000 42200 42400 2200

18.00 42700 42900 43100 43300 43500 43700 44000 44200 44400 44600 2200 18.10 44900 45100 45300 45500 45800 46000* 46200 46500 46700 46900 2200 18.20 47100 47400 47600 47800 48100 48300 48500 48800 49000 49300 2400 18.30 49500 49700 50000 50200 50500 50700 51000 51200 51500 51700 2500 18.40 52000 52200 52500 52700 53000 53200 53500 53700 54000 54300 2500

18.50 54500 54800 55100 55300 55600 55900 56100 56400 56700 56900 2700 18.60 57200 57500 57800 58000 58300 58600 58900 59200 59400 59700 2800 18.70 60000*

"*" indicates a rating descriptor point

3 of 3 6/16/11 1:51 PM

3 of 3 6/16/11 1:51 PM ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 08 2010/USGS water station No. 05385000/...

14.00 10600* 10600 10600 10600 10700 10700 10700 10700 10700 10700 200 14.10 10800 10800 10800 10800 10800 10800 10900 10900 10900 10900 100 14.20 10900 10900 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 11100 11100 200 14.30 11100 11100 11100 11100 11200 11200 11200 11200 11200 11200 200 14.40 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11400 11400 11400 11400 11400 100

14.50 11400 11500 11500 11500 11500 11500 11500 11600 11600 11600 200 14.60 11600 11600 11600 11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 11800 200 14.70 11800 11800 11800 11800 11800 11900 11900 11900 11900 11900 200 14.80 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12100 12100 12100 12100 100 14.90 12100 12100 12200 12200 12200 12200ﬁle:///Volumes/Jan 12200 1220008 2010/USGS 12300 water 12300 station No. 20005385000/... 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - WATER RESOURCES

STATION NUMBER 05385000 ROOT RIVER NEAR HOUSTON, MN SOURCE AGENCY USGS STATE 27 COUNTY 055 14.00 LATITUDE 10600* 434607 LONGITUDE10600 091341110600 NAD27 10600 DRAINAGE 10700 AREA 1250 10700 CONTRIBUTING 10700 DRAINAGE 10700 AREA 10700DATUM 667.00 10700 NGVD29 200 14.10 10800 10800 10800 Date 10800 Processed: 10800 2008-01-22 10800 14:14 By mitton10900 10900 10900 10900 100 14.20 10900 10900 11000 11000 Rating 11000for Discharge 11000 (cfs) 11000 11000 11100 11100 200 14.30 11100 RATING 11100 ID: 45.0 11100 TYPE: stage-discharge 11100 11200 EXPANSION: 11200 logarithmic 11200 STATUS:11200 approved 11200 11200 200 14.40 11300 Created by 11300 mitton on 1130008-20-2007 11300@ 14:06:27 11300CDT, Updated 11400 by mitton 11400 on 01-22-2008 11400 @ 14:14:49 11400 CST 11400 100 Remarks: Work in progress (8/22/2007, gbm) 14.50 11400 11500 11500 11500 11500 11500 11500 11600 11600 11600 200 OFFSET: 14.60 2.00 11600 11600 11600 11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 11800 200 14.70 11800 11800 11800 11800 11800 11900 11900 11900 11900 11900 200 14.80 12000 12000 12000 12000 EXPANDED 12000 RATING 12000TABLE 12100 12100 12100 12100 100 Gage14.90 12100 12100 12200 12200 12200 12200 122 00 12200 12300 12300 DIFF 200IN Q height, Discharge (cfs) (STANDARD PRECISION) PER 1 feet .00 .01 U.S. DEPARTMENT .02 OF .03THE INTERIOR .04 - U.S. GEOLOGICAL .05 SURVEY .06 - WATER .07 RESOURCES .08 .09 .1 UNITS

15.00 12300* STATION NUMBER12300 05385000 12400 ROOT RIVER12400 NEAR HOUSTON,12400 MN 12400 SOURCE AGENCY12500 USGS 12500 STATE 27 12500 COUNTY 055 12600 300 15.10 LATITUDE 12600 434607 12600LONGITUDE 126000913411 NAD27 12700 DRAINAGE 12700 AREA 1250 12700 CONTRIBUTING 12800 DRAINAGE 12800 AREA 12800 DATUM 667.00 12800 NGVD29 300 15.20 12900 12900 12900 Date 13000 Processed: 13000 2008-01-22 13000 14:14 By 130mitton00 13100 13100 13100 300 44 15.30 13200 13200 13200 13200 Rating 13300 for Discharge 13300 (cfs) 13300 13400 13400 13400Heitmeyer, 200 M. E. 15.40 13400 RATING 13500 ID: 45.0 13500 TYPE: stage-discharge13500 13600 EXPANSION: 13600 logarithmic 13600 13700STATUS: approved 13700 13700 300 Created by mitton on 08-20-2007 @ 14:06:27 CDT, Updated by mitton on 01-22-2008 @ 14:14:49 CST 15.50 13700 13800 13800 Remarks: 13800 Work 13900in progress 13900 (8/22/2007, 139 gbm)00 14000 14000 14000 300 15.60 14000 14100 14100 14100 14200 14200 14200 14300 14300 14300 400 Table OFFSET: 15.70 1., 2.00 cont’d 14400 14400 14400 14400 14500 14500 14500 14600 14600 14600 300 15.80 14700 14700 14700 14800 14800 14800 14900 14900 14900 14900 300 15.90 15000 15000 15000 15100 EXPANDED 15100 RATING 15100 TABLE 15200 15200 15200 15300 300 Gage DIFF IN Q height, 16.00 15300* 15400 Discharge 15400 (cfs) 15500 15500 (STANDARD 15600 PRECIS 15700ION) 15700 15800 15800 PER600 16.10feet 15900.00 16000.01 16000.02 16100.03 16100.04 16200.05 163.0600 16300.07 16400.08 16500.09 .1 UNITS600 16.20 16500 16600 16600 16700 16800 16800 16900 17000 17000 17100 700 16.3015.00 1720012300* 1720012300 1730012400 1740012400 1740012400 1750012400 1761250000 1760012500 1770012500 1780012600 600300 16.4015.10 1780012600 1790012600 1800012600 1800012700 1810012700 1820012700 1821280000 1830012800 1840012800 1840012800 700300 15.20 12900 12900 12900 13000 13000 13000 13000 13100 13100 13100 300 16.5015.30 18500*13200 1860013200 1870013200 1890013200 1900013300 1910013300 1921330000 1930013400 1950013400 1960013400 1200 200 16.6015.40 1970013400 1980013500 2000013500 2010013500 2020013600 2030013600 2051360000 2060013700 2070013700 2090013700 1300 300 16.70 21000 21100 21300 21400 21500 21700 21800 21900 22100 22200 1400 16.8015.50 2240013700 2250013800 2260013800 2280013800 2290013900 2310013900 2321390000 2330014000 2350014000 2360014000 1400 300 16.9015.60 2380014000 2390014100 2410014100 2420014100 2440014200 2450014200 2471420000 2480014300 2500014300 2510014300 1500 400 15.70 14400 14400 14400 14400 14500 14500 14500 14600 14600 14600 300 17.0015.80 25300*14700 2540014700 2560014700 2570014800 2590014800 2600014800 2611490000 2630014900 2640014900 2660014900 1400 300 17.1015.90 2670015000 2680015000 2700015000 2710015100 2730015100 2740015100 2761520000 2770015200 2790015200 2800015300 1500 300 17.20 28200 28300 28500 28600 28800 28900 29100 29200 29400 29500 1500 17.3016.00 2970015300* 2990015400 3000015400 3020015500 3030015500 3050015600 3071570000 3080015700 3100015800 3110015800 1600 600 17.4016.10 3130015900 3150016000 3160016000 3180016100 3200016100 3210016200 3231630000 3250016300 3260016400 3280016500 1700 600 16.20 16500 16600 16600 16700 16800 16800 16900 17000 17000 17100 700 17.5016.30 3300017200 3320017200 3330017300 3350017400 3370017400 3390017500 3401760000 3420017600 3440017700 3460017800 1800 600 17.6016.40 3480017800 3490017900 3510018000 3530018000 3550018100 3570018200 3581820000 3600018300 3620018400 3640018400 1800 700 17.70 36600 36800 37000 37200 37400 37500 37700 37900 38100 38300 1900 17.8016.50 3850018500* 3870018600 3890018700 3910018900 3930019000 3950019100 3971920000 3990019300 4010019500 4030019600 20001200 17.9016.60 4050019700 4080019800 4100020000 4120020100 4140020200 4160020300 4182050000 4200020600 4220020700 4240020900 22001300 16.70 21000 21100 21300 21400 21500 21700 21800 21900 22100 22200 1400 18.0016.80 4270022400 4290022500 4310022600 4330022800 4350022900 4370023100 4402320000 4420023300 4440023500 4460023600 22001400 18.1016.90 4490023800 4510023900 4530024100 4550024200 4580024400 46000*24500 4622470000 4650024800 4670025000 4690025100 22001500 18.20 47100 47400 47600 47800 48100 48300 48500 48800 49000 49300 2400 18.3017.00 4950025300* 4970025400 5000025600 5020025700 5050025900 5070026000 5102610000 5120026300 5150026400 5170026600 25001400 18.4017.10 5200026700 5220026800 5250027000 5270027100 5300027300 5320027400 5352760000 5370027700 5400027900 5430028000 25001500 17.20 28200 28300 28500 28600 28800 28900 29100 29200 29400 29500 1500 18.5017.30 5450029700 5480029900 5510030000 5530030200 5560030300 5590030500 5613070000 5640030800 5670031000 5690031100 27001600 18.6017.40 5720031300 5750031500 5780031600 5800031800 5830032000 5860032100 5893230000 5920032500 5940032600 5970032800 28001700 18.70 60000* 17.50 33000 33200 33300 33500 33700 33900 34000 34200 34400 34600 1800 "*" 17.60 indicates a34800 rating descriptor 34900 point 35100 35300 35500 35700 35800 36000 36200 36400 1800 17.70 36600 36800 37000 37200 37400 37500 37700 37900 38100 38300 1900 17.80 38500 38700 38900 39100 39300 39500 39700 39900 40100 40300 2000 17.90 40500 40800 41000 41200 41400 41600 41800 42000 42200 42400 2200

18.50 54500 54800 55100 55300 55600 55900 56100 56400 56700 56900 2700 18.60 57200 57500 57800 58000 58300 58600 58900 59200 59400 59700 2800 18.70 60000*

"*" indicates a rating descriptor point

3 of 3 6/16/11 1:51 PM

3 of 3 6/16/11 1:51 PM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOr THE LOWER ROOT RIVER FLOODPLAIN 45

Table 2. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) matrix of historical distribution of major vegetation communities/habitat types in the Lower Root River region in relationship to geomorphic surface, soils, and hydrological regime. Relationships were determined from land cover maps prepared for the Government Land Office survey notes taken in the early 1800s, historic maps and photographs, current and historic (Gray et al. 1930) USDA soil maps, geomorphology maps, and various botanical accounts and literature.

Habitat type Geomorphic surfacea Soil type Flood frequency - Open water- Aquatic TC, AC Sand-gravel Permanent

Persistent emergent Marsh AC, Backswamp depression Silt clay/muck Semipermanent

Wet prairie/meadow TF, MNV Silty clay loam Seasonal sheetflow, > 5-yr overbank

Riverfront forest MCL, MCI, MNL Sandy silt 1-yr overbank

Floodplain forest TF, Natural levee, MNV Silt clay loam 2 to 5-yr overbank

Floodplain forest-oakb MNV, floodplain edges Silty clay > 5-yr overbank

Slope forest Colluvial slopes Mixed erosional > 20-yr large flood event a AC – abandoned channels and sloughs, MCL – main channel lateral accretion, MCI – main channel island, MNL – minor channel lateral accretion, MNV – minor channel vertical accretion, TC – tributary channel, TF – tributary fan. b Sites with relatively small amounts of oak interspersed in a diverse Floodplain forest with relatively water- intolerant tree species.