Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Technical Report

2002-T001

October 2002

Evaluation and Proposed Refinement of the Sampling Design

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s Fish Component
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Technical Reports

provide Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

partners with scientific and technical support.

All reports in this series receive anonymous peer review.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Evaluation and Proposed Refinement of the Sampling Design

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s Fish Component

by

Brian S. Ickes and Randy W. Burkhardt

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

October 2002
Suggested citation:

Ickes, B. S., and R. W. Burkhardt. 2002. Evaluation and proposed refinement of the sampling design for the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center,

La Crosse, Wisconsin, October 2002. LTRMP 2002-T001. 17 pp. + Appendixes A–E. CD-ROM included.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). Also available to registered users from the Defense Technical

Information Center, Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or

703-767-9050).
iii

Executive Summary

Environmental monitoring programs are frequently designed to track changes in key

physical, chemical, and biological features of an ecosystem. As such, these programs

provide critical information for detecting changes in system state, investigating causal

mechanisms of the observed changes, and making resource management decisions.

Because monitoring programs require significant investments of time, money, and human

resources to implement and maintain, periodic evaluations of monitoring programs are

necessary to determine if the sampling design adequately addresses program goals and

objectives. Periodic evaluations also permit assessment of a program’s ability to provide

adequate and useful information for changing management and science needs.

We evaluated the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s (LTRMP) fish sampling

design by analyzing data from stratified random samples collected from 1993 to 1999 in

six Trend Analysis Areas (TAAs). Specifically, we investigated whether the sampling

design could provide similar information with fewer sampling gears. Our goals were to

identify and quantify information provided by each gear used to monitor fish in the

LTRMP, develop alternative sampling design scenarios based on our analyses and expert

opinion, and engage program partners in a discussion on the relative value of each gear

within the present sampling design.

Community characterization (presence or absence), community structure (relative

abundance within the full community), and detection of annual changes in single-species

catch-per-unit-effort (Lubinski et al. 2001) are the primary information provided by the

fish component. Our analyses considered differences in these measures among TAAs,

gear types, sampling strata, seasonal sampling period, and fish size. Results were made

available to program partners through a Web site for review and comment. Based on these

analyses, program partners developed a suite of potential options for component

refinement. We then evaluated those options in more detail.

An option that proposed to develop a tailored set of gears for each TAA was considered

the most viable option and was selected for further analysis to optimize its

implementation. Detailed analyses of catch by gear within each TAA, however, resulted

in identical conclusions regarding which gears produced the most useful information.

Based on these results, we proposed eliminating four gears—seine, tandem fyke net,

tandem mini fyke net, and night electrofishing—from the LTRMP sampling design for

fish.

The proposed sampling design has the following characteristics relative to the present

sampling protocol:

• Trend analyses within and among TAAs require an uninterrupted time series of data,

but such analyses must typically be gear specific because of unknown differences in

gear selectivity. Temporal data continuity required for analysis of trends will remain

unchanged for the retained gears, within and among TAAs;

• Systemic analyses of differences in fish characteristics among TAAs require

consistent spatial sampling. The gears we propose to eliminate are optional and

inconsistently fished within and across TAAs. Also, strata unique to the tandem gears

are not common among all TAAs. Therefore, systemic spatial data continuity remains

unchanged;

• 91–100% of the species in each TAA that were observed under the present sampling

protocol would still be detected. All of the species that would no longer be detected

are rare (i.e., <10 individuals collected from 1993 to 1999);
iv

• The probability of detecting a particular species in any 1 year will be minimally

affected. Fewer than 12 species per TAA will be detected less frequently under the

proposed design than under the present design;

• Of those species for which the present design provided >50% power to detect interannual changes in abundance, 85–100% of species will retain at least 50% power at

the stratum scale, and 97–100% at the TAA scale;

• The above performance can be achieved with a 3–62% reduction in total catch by

TAA. The vast majority of “lost catch” is fish less than 120 mm in total length from

eight highly abundant and ubiquitous species. These taxa are collected in sufficient

numbers to characterize their placement in the overall community and to detect

changes in abundance when sufficient power is present, by gears retained under the

proposed sampling design.

• All strata will continue to be sampled except impounded offshore and backwater

contiguous offshore. However, these strata do not contribute to unique species or

power to detect inter-annual change and are statistically similar in community

composition and structure to their nearshore strata counterparts.
v

Contents

 Page

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................iii

Preface .............................................................................................................................................. vii

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

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

Methods and Results ............................................................................................................................. 2

Background of the LTRMP’S Fish Component ................................................................................ 2

Defining Essential Information Derived from Sampling .................................................................. 3

Baseline Analyses and Assumptions ................................................................................................. 4

Development of the Options Matrix .................................................................................................. 5

Narrowing the Options Matrix for Final Analyses............................................................................ 5

The Proposal ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Comparison Between Present Program and Proposed Refinement .................................................. 8

Total Catch ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Species Detection ............................................................................................................................ 8

Frequency of Species Detection.................................................................................................... 10

Population Trend and Change Detection ...................................................................................... 10

Data Continuity ............................................................................................................................. 12

Spatial Continuity ...................................................................................................................... 12

Temporal Continuity .................................................................................................................. 13

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Implementing the Proposed Sampling Design ................................................................................ 15

Estimating Saved Effort ................................................................................................................ 15

Plans for Redirecting Saved Effort ............................................................................................... 16

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... 16

References ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C. ....................................................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D ....................................................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E ........................................................................................................................................ E-1
vi

Tables

Number Page

1. Strata codes, strata, and surface areas (ha) of aquatic area classifications within each Trend

Analysis Area that comprise the strata weights in the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s stratified random sampling design for fish .................................................................... 3

2. Names, codes, and deployment characteristics of sampling gears used in the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component ............................................................................ 4

3. Suite of potential refinements of the sampling design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s (LTRMP) fish component developed by a group of LTRMP partners ........................... 6

4. For each Trend Analysis Area in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, the total catch

of fish from 1993 to 1999 under the present sampling design and in gears retained under the

proposed sampling design ............................................................................................................... 8

5. For each Trend Analysis Area, reduction in total catch under the proposed sampling design for

the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component, percentage of the reduction in

catch attributed to fish less than 120 mm, and the percentage of catch reduction composed of

the eight most abundant taxa ......................................................................................................... 10

6. For each Trend Analysis Area, the percentage of species that may still be detected (presence or

absence) and species that may be lost under the proposed sampling design for the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component .......................................................................... 12

7. For each Trend Analysis Area (TAA), the number of species-gear-strata combinations with

>50% power to detect a 20% inter-annual change in abundance (α = 0.05) under the present

sampling design and, under the proposed sampling design, the percentage of those species

that retained 50% power at the stratum and TAA scales ............................................................... 13

8. Changes in sample allocations by strata within each Trend Analysis Area (TAA) under the

proposed refinement of the sampling design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s (LTRMP) fish component. Information on the persistence of gear use between the

present sampling design and proposed refinement is presented in column subheadings below

headings for each respective TAA ................................................................................................. 14

9. Results of Spearman Rank Order Correlation tests of the degree of similarity in community

structure between backwater contiguous offshore (BWCO) and shoreline (BWCS) strata, and

impounded offshore (IMPO) and shoreline (IMPS) strata, as measured with similar gears ........ 15

10. Estimates of effort saved annually by eliminating four gears (night electrofishing, seine,

tandem fyke net, and tandem mini fyke net) from the fish sampling design of the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program ..................................................................................................... 16

Figures

1. Location of the six Trend Analysis Areas for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

on the Upper Mississippi River System........................................................................................... 2

2. For each Trend Analysis Area, cumulative distribution of catch observed with different gear

combinations expressed as a percentage of the total catch in all gears from 1993 to 1999 ............ 9

3. For each Trend Analysis Area, cumulative distribution of the number of species observed with

different gear combinations, expressed as a percentage of the total number of species sampled

in all gears from 1993 to 1999 ....................................................................................................... 11
vii

Preface

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the Water

Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being

implemented by the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, a U.S. Geological

Survey science center, in cooperation with the five Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS)

States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers provides guidance and has overall Program responsibility. The mode of operation

and respective roles of the agencies are outlined in a 1988 Memorandum of Agreement.

The UMRS encompasses the commercially navigable reaches of the Upper Mississippi

River, as well as the Illinois River and navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix,

and Minnesota Rivers. Congress has declared the UMRS to be both a nationally significant

ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system. The mission of the

LTRMP is to provide decision makers with information for maintaining the UMRS as a

sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The long-term goals of

the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and effects, develop

management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful products.

Data and information are the primary products of the LTRMP. Data on water quality,

vegetation, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish are collected using a network of six field

stations on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Analysis, interpretation, and reporting

of information are conducted at each of the six field stations and at the Upper Midwest

Environmental Sciences Center. Informational products include professional presentations,

reports, and professional publications.

This report was developed with funding provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

in 2001, including a contract agreement between the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences

Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, and the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse, River Studies

Center.
1

Evaluation and Proposed Refinement of the Sampling Design

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program’s Fish Component

by

Brian S. Ickes and Randy W. Burkhardt

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

Abstract: Environmental monitoring programs are frequently designed to track changes in key physical, chemical,

and biological features of an ecosystem. As such, these programs provide critical information for detecting

changes in system state, investigating ecological relations, and making resource management decisions. However,

monitoring programs require significant investments of time, money, and human resources to implement and

maintain. Periodic evaluations are necessary to assess whether the sampling design adequately addresses program

goals and objectives, and whether adequate and useful information can continue to be provided for changing

management and science needs. We evaluated the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) sampling

design for fish by analyzing data from stratified random samples collected from 1993 to 1999 in six Trend

Analysis Areas (TAAs). Specifically, we investigated whether the sampling design could provide similar

information with fewer sampling gears. Our goals were to identify and quantify information provided by each

gear used to monitor fish in the LTRMP, develop alternative sampling design scenarios based on our analyses

and expert opinion, and engage program partners in a discussion on the relative value of each gear within the

present sampling design. We forward a proposal to systemically eliminate four of the ten sampling gears presently

used to monitor the status and trends in fish resources within the LTRMP.

Key words: community composition, community structure, ecological monitoring, ecosystem management,

fishing gears, Illinois River, monitoring programs, river ecology, sampling efficiency sampling gears, status

and trends, Upper Mississippi River.

 

Introduction

This report presents analytical results,

conclusions, and recommendations from an

investigation of sampling efficiencies within the Long

Term Resource Monitoring Program’s (LTRMP) fish

component. The LTRMP is part of the federally

funded Upper Mississippi River Environmental

Management Program, established by Congress in

1986 and reauthorized in 1999 under the Water

Resources Development Act. The LTRMP’s fish

component is one of several components within the

LTRMP that collects and analyzes ecological data

from selected areas within the Upper Mississippi

River System (UMRS). Data are collected under

standardized protocols from six Trend Analysis Areas

(TAAs) within the UMRS (Figure 1; Gutreuter et al.

1995).

Environmental monitoring programs frequently

are designed to track changes in key physical,

chemical, and biological features of an ecosystem.

As such, these programs provide critical information

for detecting changes in system state, investigating

causal mechanisms of the observed changes, and

making resource management decisions. Ideally, a

new monitoring program would effectively and

efficiently meet the goals it was designed to address.

However, this is an unrealistic expectation and it is

more probable, as the program matures and

observations accumulate, that certain ecosystem

features may be under- or oversampled, that measured

variables are redundant with one another (i.e., highly
2

correlated variables), or that some initial methods

are not fully adequate. Because monitoring programs

require significant investments of time, money, and

human resources to implement and maintain,

periodic evaluations of monitoring programs are

necessary to determine if the sampling design

adequately addresses program goals and objectives.

Periodic evaluations also allow assessment of the

program’s ability to provide adequate and useful

information for changing management and science

needs.

There have been two previous statistical

assessments of LTRMP’s sampling approaches.

Callahan (1998) investigated spatial similarities in

fish community, water quality, and macroinvertebrate

data among the TAAs to determine if, spatially, all

TAAs provided unique information. He concluded

that some spatial structure was evident but that no

two TAAs were identical in all of the information

measured by the three components he investigated.

Thus, he argued that each TAA provides sufficient

unique information to the LTRMP to be maintained

except under the most austere program-funding

environment. Lubinski et al. (2001) conducted the

second assessment, an analysis of change detection

capabilities across LTRMP components. From their

analyses, they concluded that sampling redundancies

might exist among some gears used to sample fish in

the UMRS. Thus, it might be appropriate to eliminate

some gears while still maintaining critical

information. However, this conclusion was based on

just one of the types of information provided by the

LTRMP’s fish component, namely inter-annual

changes in species-specific abundance.

Before concluding that some gears provide

redundant information, it is important to quantify the

effects of gear reductions on the program’s ability to

effectively monitor changes in community

composition, community structure, and inter-annual

changes in abundance of UMRS fish. Equally

important is enlisting program partners in this process

so that management and science needs are explicitly

considered, and so that the relative value of each gear

for addressing these needs is discussed. Thus, our

goals were to identify and quantify information

provided by each gear used to monitor fish in the

LTRMP, develop alternative sampling design

scenarios based on our analyses and those of Lubinski

et al. (2001) and Callahan (1998), and engage

program partners in a discussion on the relative value

of each gear within the program.

Methods and Results

Background of the LTRMP’S Fish Component

The LTRMP’s fish component is charged with

monitoring and reporting trends in the status of fish

populations and communities within the UMRS (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Data are collected

within six study areas. Four are located in the

impounded reach of the Upper Mississippi River

(Pools 4, 8, 13, and 26), one in an impounded reach

of the Illinois River (La Grange Pool), and one in an

Figure 1: Location of the six Trend Analysis Areas for the Long

Term Resource Monitoring Program on the Upper Mississippi

River System.
3

unimpounded stretch of the Upper Mississippi River

(Open River Reach) near Jackson, Missouri

(Figure 1). In this report, these study areas are referred

to as TAAs.

From its inception in 1989 to 1993, the fish

component sampling design was based on a fixedsite strategy. In 1993, the sampling strategy was

modified to a spatially stratified random design,

augmented with a few permanent fixed sites.

Sampling strata were defined on the basis of surface

areas of enduring geomorphic features (Wilcox 1993)

within each TAA, measured from 1989 aerial photos

(Table 1). The stratified random design allows

unbiased estimation of poolwide relative abundance

(Cochran 1977; Gutreuter et al. 1995) that constitutes

the primary data for determining status and trends of

UMRS fish. The change to stratified random sampling

was the first major refinement of the LTRMP’s fish

component and greatly enhanced the scientific rigor

of the information collected.

The fish component takes a community approach

to monitoring. Both active and passive sampling gears

(Gutreuter et al. 1995; Hayes et al. 1996; Hubert

1996) are used in each TAA (Table 2). The use of

multiple gears was adopted because of the spatial

complexity of the TAAs and an explicit intent to

evaluate the fish community, as opposed to focusing

on one or more individual species. Three to five gear

types are fished within each stratum with a minimum

of four independent collections per gear. Additional

collections are optional. Annual sampling effort is

divided into three periods: June 15–July 31; August

1–September 15; September 15–October 31. A

complete deployment of all sampling gear and strata

combinations is performed in each period at

independent random sampling sites. Gutreuter et al.

(1995) provide gear descriptions, their manner of

deployment, and their physical specifications.

The LTRMP’s fish component is designed to

provide unbiased gear-specific estimates of mean

annual catch-per-unit-effort within each TAA.

Weighted averages are calculated for the pool across

strata by gear, but no techniques exist for deriving

multiple-gear estimates because the selectivity of

each gear is unknown. In some instances, analyses

can be conducted by period and stratum. However,

at these scales, small sample sizes and high catch

variance often result in low statistical power (Bartels

2000; Lubinski et al. 2001).

Defining Essential Information

Derived from Sampling

To evaluate sampling redundancies, a baseline of

essential information derived from sampling must be

defined. The Operating Plan for the LTRMP (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) defines the overall

goal of the monitoring program as the monitoring

and evaluation of long-term changes in the status and

trends of selected physical, chemical, and biological

components of the UMRS.

For the fish component, we considered community

composition (presence or absence), community

structure (ranked abundance of species measured as

the mean catch-per-unit-effort or frequency of

occurrence), and species-specific trend detection

Table 1. Strata codes, strata, and surface areas (ha) of aquatic area classifications within each Trend Analysis Area that comprise the strata

weights in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s stratified random sampling design for fish. Surface areas are based on 1989 aerial

photo interpretation of the six Trend Analysis Areas.

Trend analysis area 

Strata 

code Strata Pool 4 Pool 8 Pool 13 Pool 26 

Open 

River 

La Grange 

Pool 

BWCO Backwater contiguous offshore 5,073 1,961 5,866 358 0 6,946 

BWCS Backwater contiguous shoreline 3,860 3,763 3,978 789 0 3,618 

IMPO Impounded offshore 0 13,936 10,070 512 0 0 

IMPS Impounded shoreline 0 548 420 182 0 0 

MCBS Main channel border shoreline 766 776 910 2,556 2,884 4,945 

MCBU Main channel border unstructured 1,486 1,756 3,527 10,644 1,0471 4,832 

MCBW Main channel border wing dam 27 27 70 7 148 0 

SCB Side channel border 2,887 4,185 3,028 5,671 1,816 639 
4

(differences in mean catch-per-unit-effort among

years or through time) as the core sets of information.

This information can be combined with other LTRMP

data in many ways to investigate and model

community and species-specific responses to a

multitude of factors. The metrics derived from

LTRMP’s fish component data that provide these core

pieces of information are species presence or absence

observations, species detection frequencies, and

design-based estimates of mean catch-per-unit-effort

and variance. These metrics were used in our analyses

of data redundancies within the LTRMP’s fish

component.

Baseline Analyses and Assumptions

The goal of our initial analysis was to summarize

LTRMP’s fish component data on the basis of the

metrics outlined above. We used data from stratified

random sampling conducted from 1993 to 1999 and

produced separate analyses for each TAA. The

analyses considered differences among TAAs, gear

types, sampling strata, sampling periods, and fish

sizes. The results of these analyses were made

available to interested parties through a Web site that

served as a heuristic tool for developing various

refinement scenarios. The types of analyses we

Gear 

Gear 

code 

Mandatory 

gear? 

Original 

program gear? Deployment characteristics 

Day electrofishing D Yes Yes Active gear used principally near 

shoreline areas in depths of 0.5 to 3.0 

m—samples a wide range of size classes 

Fyke net F Yes Yes Passive gear used principally near 

shoreline areas—selective for 

intermediate size fish 

Large hoop net HL Yes Yes Baited passive gear deployed in parallel 

sets with small hoop nets—selective for 

larger fish 

Small hoop net HS Yes Yes Baited passive gear deployed in parallel 

sets with large hoop nets—selective for 

intermediate size fish 

Mini fyke net M Yes Yes Passive gear used principally near 

shoreline areas—selective for small fish 

Night electrofishing N No Yes Active gear used principally near 

shoreline areas—samples a wide range 

of size classes 

Seine S No Yes Active gear used in shallow water—

selective for small fish 

Bottom trawl T Yes Yes Active gear used principally at fixed 

tailwater sites—selective for smaller fish 

Tandem fyke net X Yes No—

Implemented in 

1991 

Passive gear fished in impounded 

offshore stratum— selective for 

intermediate size fish 

Tandem mini fyke net Y Yes No—

Implemented in 

1991 

Passive gear fished in the impounded 

offshore stratum—selective for small 

fish 

Table 2. Names, codes, and deployment characteristics of sampling gears used in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s fish

component.
5

performed and the volume of results we generated

precluded detailed accounting in this report.

Consequently, in an attempt to fully document our

approaches and results, we developed a CD-ROM

that contains the original Web material that served

as a heuristic tool, details of specific analyses, and

results from analyses that ultimately led to our

recommendations (Appendix A).

Our analytical approach can be described as a

retrospective analysis. We summarized and analyzed

data collected from 1993 to 1999 under the present

sampling protocol in a manner that permitted

simulating different alternative sampling designs that

used fewer gears or fewer samples. Differences in

community composition (presence or absence),

community structure (ranked abundance of species

measured as the mean catch-per-unit-effort or

frequency of occurrence), and species-specific trend

detection (differences in mean catch-per-unit-effort

between years or through time) provided the criteria

for comparing alternative sampling designs with the

present sampling design.

Development of the Options Matrix

Once the initial data summaries and analyses were

complete, it was critical to engage the LTRMP

program partners. First, program partner involvement

was required to develop a list of alternative sampling

designs. Secondly, while our analyses could estimate

quantitatively what would be lost from the program,

program partner input was required to weigh the

qualitative value of any lost information.

Consequently, we met with a group of the LTRMP

partners in June 2001. The group developed

11 options for component refinement based on our

initial analyses and those of Lubinski et al. (2001)

and Callahan (1998; Table 3). This group considered

a wide range of possibilities from no change to

elimination of all fish sampling. Based on their expert

opinion and available analytical results, the group

outlined expected positive and negative consequences

for each of the 11 options (Appendix B).

Narrowing the Options Matrix for Final Analyses

Some of the 11 options were more viable than

others; thus, we used the perceived positive and

negative consequences of each option (Appendix B)

and the previous analyses to determine which options

should receive further analysis. Below we briefly

explain why we did not consider particular options

further and why we adopted Option III (Appendix B)

as the most viable alternative, addressing each option

in numerical order.

Option I: Maintain Existing Fish Protocol. This

option would have failed to capitalize on existing

knowledge that efficiencies and improvements were

possible (Lubinski et al. 2001; Appendix A). Thus,

we did not pursue this option.

Option II: Maintain Existing Protocol and Add

Main Channel Sampling to the Design. Option II

was one of three different options that proposed

additional monitoring efforts. While Option II

recommended the addition of main channel sampling

to the existing protocol, we considered this option as

“additional monitoring under the existing protocol

or a modified protocol.” Because Option II

recommended additional monitoring, we considered

this option as a potential future enhancement and

reserved analysis for future consideration.

Option III: Develop Best Pool-Specific Gear

Combination. Option III proposed to develop a

design composed of a reduced suite of gears, tailored

to each TAA, that would provide community

composition, community structure, and trend

detection capabilities comparable to the present

program. This option explicitly recognized that gear

redundancies existed, but that they may differ by

TAAs. It had the added advantage that standard

sampling protocols would remain in place and that it

could be implemented within the present sampling

design. The group was concerned that

implementation of Option III may result in losses in
6

species detection, spatial and temporal data

continuity, and statistical inference at the systemic

scale.

Option IV: Eliminate All Passive Gears from the

Present Design. Option IV proposed to eliminate all

passive gears from the sampling design. Our initial

analyses suggested that implementing this option

might result in a significant loss of program

information relative to the present sampling design.

For example, the active gears tended to collect the

most fish and species, as well as providing the greatest

statistical power to detect inter-annual changes in

abundance. However, some of the passive gears

provided better information for particular important

species than all of the active gears combined (e.g.,

channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, black crappie

Pomoxis nigromaculatus, white crappie P. annularis,

smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus; Appendix A).

The program partners highly valued the information

provided by the passive gears as evidenced by the

disproportionately large number of negative

statements for Option IV (Appendix B). Thus, we

did not analyze this option further.

Option V: Adopt a Guild Approach Sampling a

Few Key Species. Option V proposed a guild

approach that would focus on indicator species. This

approach would constitute a radical departure from

the present sampling design, resulting in data that

were incongruous to past years. Moreover, the group

was uncertain which species would best represent the

overall community. Thus, we discounted Option V

as a viable option.

Option VI: Modify Temporal Sampling (Periods).

Option VI proposed a reduction in the number of

intra-annual periods sampled for fish. The idea behind

reduced temporal sampling (i.e., eliminating one of

the three periods presently sampled) was as follows.

If any of the three sampling periods consistently

provided either low or highly variable catches for a

Option Title Characteristics 

I Maintain existing fish protocol No change 

II Maintain existing protocol and add main 

channel sampling to the design 

Add an additional stratum that is presently not sampled 

III Develop best pool-specific gear 

combination 

Tailors gears to each Trend Analysis Area with the goal 

of reducing effort and data while maintaining information 

IV Eliminate all passive gears from the present 

design 

Active gears only 

V Adopt a guild approach sampling a few key 

species 

Indicator species approach—assumes a few species 

represent the whole community 

VI Modify temporal sampling (periods) Eliminate one or more sampling periods within a year 

VII Modify temporal sampling (years) Biennial sampling is one example of many ways to 

implement this option 

VIII Eliminate “duplicative” pools Prior analyses suggested some Trend Analysis Areas are 

similar in many characteristics 

IX Eliminate fish protocol from the LTRMP Cease monitoring fish within the LTRMP 

X Recommend protocol and add enhanced 

spatial coverage 

Expand LTRMP fish monitoring beyond the present six 

Trend Analysis Areas after refining the sampling protocol 

XI Recommend protocol and add Habitat 

Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project 

monitoring throughout the Upper 

Mississippi River System 

Expand LTRMP fish monitoring to Habitat Rehabilitation 

and Enhancement Project projects after refining the 

sampling protocol 

Table 3. Suite of potential refinements of the sampling design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s (LTRMP) fish component

developed by a group of LTRMP partners.
7

majority of species, then it could be eliminated to

reduce the overall annual variance and enhance the

program’s power to detect changes in abundance. We

analyzed the potential for reduced period sampling

on the basis of 14 species of special management

interest (Appendix C). No one period consistently

produced significantly smaller catches or more highly

variable catches for even a majority of these

14 species (Appendix A). Consequently, elimination

of any one period would have differential effects on

critical program information. Thus, we abandoned

reduced period sampling as a viable option.

Option VII: Modify Temporal Sampling (Years).

Option VII proposed to modify the annual sampling

cycle (i.e., biennial sampling rather than annual

sampling). The negative consequences, as identified

by the group, outweighed the positive consequences

by a factor of three. This option would have resulted

in a partial interruption of temporal continuity and

delayed the time it would take to detect trends. The

group seemed to view the rapid detection of trends

as highly important and felt that this option could

hamper those efforts. Thus, we did not consider

Option VII as a viable option.

Option VIII: Eliminate “Duplicative” Pools (per

Callahan 1998). Option VIII proposed to eliminate

one or more of the TAAs from the sampling design.

This option was predicated on the observation that

some TAAs appear to be similar in some of their fish

characteristics. However, Callahan (1998) concluded

that while some TAAs were similar, each provided

sufficient unique information to the program.

Consequently, we did not pursue this option any

further in our analyses.

Option IX: Eliminate Fish Protocol from the

LTRMP. Option IX proposed to eliminate the fish

protocol from the LTRMP. Implementation of this

option would have eliminated the ability of the

LTRMP to monitor fish resources in the UMRS.

Effects of implementing this option, as identified by

the group, included lost ability to detect exotic

species, monitor status and trends of key species,

integrate component data and model ecosystem

responses to natural and anthropogenic stressors, and

analyze the effects of habitat rehabilitation and

enhancements within the basin. Thus, we did not

consider Option IX as a viable option.

Option X: Recommend Protocol and Add

Enhanced Spatial Coverage. Like Option II, Option

X proposed additional monitoring to either the present

or any recommended protocol. Consequently, we

considered this option as a potential future

enhancement and reserved analysis for future

consideration.

Option XI: Recommend Protocol and Add

Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project

Monitoring throughout the Upper Mississippi River

System. Like Options II and X, Option XI proposed

additional monitoring to either the present or any

recommended protocol. Consequently, we considered

this option as a potential future enhancement and

reserved analysis for future consideration.

Thus, Option III (best pool-specific gear

combinations) was identified as the most viable

option from the Options Matrix (Appendix B). We

conducted a series of detailed analyses designed to

determine the best gear combinations for each TAA

and to address the concerns expressed by the group.

These analyses included (1) simulated gear reduction

scenarios designed to maximize species and trend

detection information while minimizing catch and

effort, (2) rank correlation analyses (Legendre and

Legendre 1998) of community composition data

measured by comparable gears in comparable strata,

and (3) consequences of gear reductions on speciesspecific trend detection capabilities by strata and by

TAA.

In the sections that follow, we compare results

between the present program and the proposed

refinement. We focus on identifying what core

program information is retained and what is lost under

the proposed refinement relative to the present

sampling design for each TAA.

The Proposal

We recommend that four gears (night

electrofishing, seine, tandem fyke net, and tandem
8

mini fyke net) be eliminated from each TAA in the

LTRMP’s fish component sampling design. Before

our analyses of Option III, we expected a different

combination of gears to emerge as best for each or at

least some TAAs. However, TAA-specific simulations

resulted in identical conclusions among locations

regarding redundant data. This occurred because each

of the gears we proposed to eliminate had a

comparable retained gear that provided similar

information.

Comparison Between Present Program

and Proposed Refinement

The proposed refinement removes gears from the

present sampling design and, thus, reduces catch.

Therefore, we considered how much catch would be

lost within each TAA by species and size group.

Additionally, we assessed the implications of these

losses on species detection, community

characterization, and change or trend detection at

several spatial and temporal scales. In essence, we

investigated whether catch lost under the proposed

sampling design resulted in lost information. We also

considered how the proposed gear reduction would

affect the spatial and temporal continuity of data

collected by the LTRMP.

Total Catch

We calculated total catch for each TAA using

pooled data from 1993 to 1999 under both the present

and proposed sampling designs (Table 4).

Total catch under the present sampling

design was nearly 2.1 million fish for the

program as a whole. Gears retained under

the proposed sampling design collected

about 65% of the total catch observed

under the present design. However, the

percentage of total catch retained under

the proposed sampling design in each

TAA varied from 38% in Pool 13 to 97%

in the Open River Reach (Figure 2 and

Table 4).

Given the large differences in catch

retention among the TAAs, we quantified

which species and size classes accounted

for the majority of the lost catch. Fish less than

120 mm in total length accounted for 74–99% of the

reduction in total catch for each TAA (Table 5). Eight

abundant and ubiquitous forage species—including

cyprinids, clupeids, and young-of-the-year bluegill

Lepomis macrochirus—accounted for a large

majority of the catch that would be lost (Table 5).

Thus, the proposed refinement primarily reduced the

total catch of abundant forage species and some

young-of-the-year fish.

Species Detection

Species detection (i.e., presence or absence)

provides the primary data for deriving community

composition information. Effects of the proposed

refinement on species detection were quantified for

each TAA by constructing cumulative distribution

plots of percent species detection using successive

simulations that added a new gear at each step. This

analysis was designed to answer the question “If we

had not fished with a particular gear or suite of gears,

which species would we have failed to detect relative

to the present sampling program?” The order in which

the gears entered the simulation was determined from

the results of Tukey–Kramer multiple means tests to

determine which gears collected significantly more

species than other gears (Zar 1984). Results of these

tests can be found on the accompanying CD-ROM.

Generally, gears that collected the most species

entered the simulations first, while gears that

collected fewest species entered last. This approach

Table 4. For each Trend Analysis Area in the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program, the total catch of fish from 1993 to 1999 under the present sampling design

and in gears retained under the proposed sampling design. Numbers in parentheses

indicate the percentage of the total catch under the present design that was collected

by the gears retained under the proposed design.

Total catch 

Trend Analysis Area Present design Proposed design 

Pool 4 482,000 328,000 (66%) 

Pool 8 378,000 183,000 (48%) 

Pool 13 326,000 124,000 (38%) 

Pool 26 178,000 128,000 (72%) 

Open River 123,000 120,000 (98%) 

La Grange Pool 583,000 469,000 (80%) 

 Total 2,070,000 1,352,000 (65%) 
9

maximized species detection with the fewest number

of gears.

The number of unique species under successive

simulations was calculated for each TAA, and the

percent species detection relative to the full suite of

gears presently fished in the program was calculated

as follows:

Percent species detectioni

 = (number unique

speciesi

 / number unique speciesN) * 100,

Figure 2. For each Trend Analysis Area, cumulative distribution of catch observed with different gear combinations expressed as

a percentage of the total catch in all gears from 1993 to 1999. Each chart represents nine successive simulations for which gears

were added starting on the left side of the chart. D = day electrofishing, M = mini fyke net, F = fyke net, Hl = large hoop net,

Hs = small hoop net, N = Night electrofishing, S = seine, X = tandem fyke net, and Y = tandem mini fyke net. For example, in

Pool 4, day electrofishing alone (D) collected 13% of the fish collected in all gears combined. The addition of mini fyke net to day

electrofishing (DM) resulted in the collection of 65% of the fish collected in all gears combined. The four gears we propose to

eliminate are represented in the last four bars on the right side of each chart (gray). Order of gear entry into the simulations was

determined from results of Tukey–Kramer multiple means tests (see accompanying CD-ROM) and was the same for each Trend

Analysis Area.

1

1

1

1

1

1

Pool 4

97 99 100

79

67 68 68 65

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSX

DMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 8

98 100 95

70

46 47 48

38

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHl

DMFHlHs

DMFHlHsN

DMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 13

100 91 94

49

36 37 38 32

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 26

100 93 96

76 72 69 65 61

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHs

DMFHlHsN

DMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Open River

97 97 100 100 100 94 88

78

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSX

DMFHlHsNSXY

La Grange Pool

96 98 100

87 78 80 76 70

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Gear combinations

Percentage of catch
10

where i = 1, ..., n successive simulations adding gears

and n = the full suite of gears presently fished in the

program. Percent species detection for each

simulation series was plotted for each TAA

(Figure 3). Species that would not probably be

detected under the proposed sampling design were

identified for each gear (Table 6).

The percentage of species detected by the

proposed sampling design ranged from 91% of the

species presently sampled in Pool 13 to 100% of the

species presently sampled in La Grange Pool

(Table 6). The effect of eliminating individual gears

on species detection varied. For example, elimination

of tandem fyke nets had no effect on species detection

because this gear did not detect any species that were

not detected under the proposed sampling design.

Conversely, most of the species that would have not

been detected under the proposed sampling design

were collected with seines (Table 6). In all TAAs,

however, undetected species were rare in the catch

(Appendix D); every species except bigmouth shiner

Notropis dorsalis in Pool 4 (45 individuals collected

by seining) had total catches of less than

10 individuals over 7 years in the present program.

Frequency of Species Detection

Measures of “species importance” in the overall

community are required to effectively characterize

community structure. One measure of importance is

the frequency that a species is observed in a random

sample. We calculated the

frequency of occurrence for each

species in each TAA and gear

using pooled data from 1993 to

1999 as follows:

Frequency of occurrenceshi =

(number of occurrencesshi / total

number of samplessi) *100,

where s = TAA, h = species and i

= gear.

The gears we propose to

eliminate provided little unique

information for characterizing

UMRS fish communities (see

accompanying CD-ROM). The gears that are retained

under the proposed sampling design detected nearly

all species at similar or greater frequencies than the

eliminated gears. The primary exceptions to this

pattern were species that were infrequently detected

by any gear.

To evaluate temporal variation in detection

frequency, we quantified how frequently each gear

detected each species in each TAA among years. For

each TAA, we calculated the number of years from

1993 to 1999 that each gear detected each species

(Appendix E). Gears retained under our proposed

sampling design detected nearly every species in

every TAA with equal or greater annual frequency as

the gears we propose to eliminate (Appendix E).

However, a few species were detected less regularly

under the proposed sampling design. Exclusive of

the species that were uniquely sampled by the

dropped gears (listed in Table 6), the numbers of

species with lower annual detection frequencies in

the retained gears than in the dropped gears ranged

from 0 in the Open River Reach to 11 in Pool 8

(Appendix E). However, detection frequencies

generally differed by only 1 or 2 years between

dropped and retained gears.

Population Trend and Change Detection

Estimates of mean abundance (catch-per-uniteffort) and its associated variance are the primary

data used to determine population trends and annual

Table 5. For each Trend Analysis Area, reduction in total catch under the proposed sampling

design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component, percentage of the

reduction in catch attributed to fish less than 120 mm, and the percentage of catch reduction

composed of the eight most abundant taxa.

Trend Analysis 

Area 

Reduction in 

total catch 

Percent 

contribution of fish 

less than 120 mm 

total length to the 

lost catch 

Percent contribution 

of the eight most 

abundant taxaa

 to the 

lost catch 

Pool 4 154,000 89% 76% 

Pool 8 195,000 76% 46% 

Pool 13 202,000 87% 66% 

Pool 26 50,000 81% 63% 

Open River 3,000 99% 80% 

La Grange Pool 114,000 74% 57% 

a

The eight taxa that compose >75% of the lost catch of fish less than 120 mm were 

gizzard, threadfin shad, emerald shiner, river shiner, mimic shiner, channel shiner, 

bullhead minnow, and bluegill. Scientific names for the species listed can be found in 

Appendix C. 
11

changes in species abundance. We used criteria from

Lubinski et al. (2001) to determine the number of

species with sufficient data to produce >50% power

(Zar 1984) to detect a 20% annual change in catchper-unit-effort (α = 0.05) in each TAA, gear, and strata

combination under the present and proposed sampling

designs. Under the present sampling design, the

number of species, gear, and strata combinations with

>50% power (Lubinski et al. 2001) ranged from 29

in the Open River Reach to 100 in Pool 8 (Table 7).

Under the proposed sampling design, the number

of species with sufficient power to determine trends

within strata remained high in each TAA. In Pools 4

and 26, the Open River Reach, and La Grange Pool,

Figure 3. For each Trend Analysis Area, cumulative distribution of the number of species observed with different gear

combinations, expressed as a percentage of the total number of species sampled in all gears from 1993 to 1999. Each chart

represents nine successive simulations for which gears were added starting on the left side of the chart. D = day electrofishing,

M = mini fyke net, F = fyke net, Hl = large hoop net, Hs = small hoop net, N = night electrofishing, S = seine, X = tandem fyke net,

and Y = tandem mini fyke net. For example, in Pool 4, day electrofishing alone (D) detected 82% of the species observed in all of

the gears combined. The addition of mini fyke net to day electrofishing (DM) resulted in detecting 88% of the species observed in

all the gears combined. The four gears we propose to eliminate are represented in the last four bars on the right side of each chart

(gray). Order of gear entry into the simulations was determined from results of Tukey–Kramer multiple means tests (see

accompanying CD-ROM) and was the same for each Trend Analysis Area.

Pool 4

100 100 100

93 93 94 89 88

82

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 8

100 100 100 97 93 93 93 92

86

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHlDMFHlHs

DMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNS

DMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 13

99 99 100

94 91 91 91 91

83

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDM

DMFDMFHlDMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Pool 26

99 99 100 95 95 95 97 94

87

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMF

DMFHl

DMFHlHs

DMFHlHsN

DMFHlHsNS

DMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Open River

100 100 100 97 98 98 98 96

78

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHl

DMFHlHs

DMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSX

DMFHlHsNSXY

La Grange Pool

99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100

89

50

60

70

80

90

100

DDMDMFDMFHl

DMFHlHsDMFHlHsNDMFHlHsNSDMFHlHsNSXDMFHlHsNSXY

Gear combinations

Percentage of catch
12

95% or more of species retained at least 50% power.

Pools 8 and 13 were the most affected, but more than

85% of species retained at least 50% power.

Trend detection capabilities at the TAA scale were

only slightly affected by the proposed sampling

design. The percentage of power species retained was

97% or more in all TAAs (Table 7). Overall, only

seven species were not detected with statistical power

similar to the present sampling program (Table 7).

Of these seven species, only walleye Stizostedion

vitreum are of special interest to UMRS river

managers. Walleye exhibited high power in Pool 8

night electrofishing samples (Lubinski et al. 2001)

and would not be sampled with comparable power

in any of the retained gears under the proposed

sampling design. However, Pool 8 has historically

targeted higher night electrofishing effort than the

other TAAs. For a given mean and a given variance,

power will increase with sample size (Zar 1984).

Consequently, if Pool 8 night electrofishing effort had

been more in line with the other TAAs, it is arguable

whether sufficient power would have existed in the

first place. Regardless, the ability to detect interannual change in abundance for walleye would be

lost under the proposed sampling design.

Data Continuity

Data continuity is defined as the continuous

collection of data under predefined sampling

protocols designed to address key questions of interest

to researchers and managers. Interruptions in data

continuity may hamper attempts to elucidate patterns

in monitoring data. We investigated the implications

of the proposed sampling design on both spatial and

temporal data continuity within the LTRMP’s fish

component.

Spatial Continuity

Spatial continuity concerns the collection of

monitoring data across a predefined geographic area

to define spatial patterns in species occurrence and

relative abundance. We assessed whether the

Table 6. For each Trend Analysis Area, the percentage of species that may still be detected (presence or absence) and species that

may be lost under the proposed sampling design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s fish component. Except for

bigmouth shiners in Pool 4, species that may be lost have total catches of less than 10 individuals over 7 years of collections.

Scientific names for the species listed in this table are found in Appendix C. Detailed information on the total catch, percent of total

catch, number of occurrences, and frequency of detection for each species collected in each gear below can be found in Appendix D.

Species lost by gear 

Trend Analysis 

Area 

Percentage of 

species still 

detected 

Tandem 

 mini fyke net 

Tandem 

 fyke net Seine Night electrofishing 

Pool 4 93% Banded darter 

Bigmouth shiner 

Blacknose dace 

Central stoneroller 

Pallid shiner 

Goldeye 

Pool 8 93% Crystal darter 

Pallid shiner 

Skipjack herring 

American brook 

lamprey 

Black buffalo 

Fantail darter 

Pool 13 91% Brown trout Bigmouth shiner 

Creek chub 

Fantail darter 

Rudd 

Goldeye 

Western sand darter 

Pool 26 95% Bigmouth shiner 

Western sand darter 

Shovelnose sturgeon 

Open River 98% Bigeye chub 

Western sand darter 

La Grange Pool 100% 
13

proposed sampling design would reduce capabilities

to identify spatial patterns across TAAs (system scale)

and within TAAs (reach scale).

The ability to identify systemic spatial patterns in

population and community metrics would be nearly

unaffected under the proposed sampling design.

Investigation of such patterns require common gear

and strata combinations across all six TAAs. Night

electrofishing, tandem fyke nets, and tandem mini

fyke nets are not fished in every TAA and, thus, could

not be used to investigate systemic patterns in spatial

population and community structure. Seines are

fished in all TAAs and might be used to evaluate

systemic patterns. However, adequate seining sites

in Pool 26 and the Open River Reach are extremely

sparse. As a consequence, systemwide analyses based

on seine data would probably not be fully informative.

At the TAA scale, the proposed refinement would

result in varying degrees of reduced effort in all strata

within TAAs (Table 8). In most TAAs, all strata would

continue to be monitored. However, backwater

contiguous offshore and impounded offshore strata

that are present in some TAAs would not be

monitored. These strata are only sampled with tandem

fyke nets and tandem mini fyke nets, which are gears

eliminated under the proposed sampling design.

We investigated whether the cessation of

monitoring effort in backwater contiguous offshore

and impounded offshore

strata would result in a loss

of significant information.

The similarity of fish

communities in offshore

and comparable nearshore

strata (i.e., backwater

contiguous nearshore

versus backwater

contiguous offshore,

impounded offshore

versus impounded

nearshore) was assessed

with a nonparametric rank

correlation procedure

(Spearman Rank Order

Correlation, Legendre and

Legendre 1998). We tested

for significant correlations

between fish communities in the nearshore and

offshore samples based on rank abundances of species

measured as pooled total catch from 1993 to 1999

(Table 9). Highly significant positive correlations

existed between offshore and nearshore strata for

every comparison made. Thus, nearshore and offshore

strata were similar in the community information they

provide, and nearshore data could be used to infer

the status of offshore communities

Temporal Continuity

Temporal continuity concerns the collection of

data through time for detecting trends. Stopping data

collection, changing sampling frequency, or changing

the procedures used to collect data can interrupt

temporal continuity. For example, a fundamental

change in fish data collection occurred in 1993 with

the switch from fixed-site sampling to stratified

random sampling (Gutreuter et al. 1995). This

program refinement changed the spatial inference of

the fish data from site-specific to poolwide, resulting

in a discontinuity between pre-1993 and post-1993

samples.

Under the proposed sampling design, temporal

continuity would obviously be interrupted for the four

gears that would be eliminated. However, for the

retained gears, temporal continuity would remain

Table 7. For each Trend Analysis Area (TAA), the number of species-gear-strata combinations with

>50% power to detect a 20% inter-annual change in abundance (α = 0.05) under the present sampling

design and, under the proposed sampling design, the percentage of those species that retained 50%

power at the stratum and TAA scales. Species that no longer retained 50% power under the proposed

sampling design are listed for each TAA. Power summaries were derived from Lubinski et al. (2001).

Present 

sampling design Proposed fish sampling design 

Percentage of species 

retaining at least 50% power 

TAA 

Number of 

species with 

greater than 

50% power By stratum By TAA 

Species lost 

(by TAA) 

Pool 4 44 95% 98% Rock bassa

Pool 8 100 85% 98% Channel shiner 

Walleye 

Pool 13 58 91% 97% River shiner 

Johnny darter 

Pool 26 47 98% 100% 

Open River 29 100% 100% 

La Grange Pool 98 97% 98% Spottail shiner 

Brook silverside a

Scientific names for the species listed can be found in Appendix C.
14

unaffected. Annual collections would continue under

the present stratified random sampling protocol

(Gutreuter et al. 1995). Consequently, the data

collected with the retained gears in future years would

be “backwards compatible” with data collected since

1993. Thus, the proposed refinement compromises

neither the temporal continuity of the LTRMP’s fish

component data set nor the sampling design that has

existed since 1993.

Conclusions

The conclusion of Lubinski et al. (2001) that

sampling efficiencies could probably be realized in

the LTRMP’s fish component seems appropriate.

Among spatial, temporal, and gear reduction

alternatives, gear reductions clearly provide the

greatest potential for reducing effort while

maintaining essential program information. Previous

work to determine if spatial simplifications to the fish

component design were advisable was largely

inconclusive (Callahan 1998; Lubinski et al. 2001).

The temporal analyses conducted as part of our study

were also inconclusive owing mainly to the large

number of species monitored and differences in mean

catch and variance among species within TAAs

(Appendix A). Consequently, we were unable to find

a temporal refinement that did not eliminate

substantial information and abandoned this option

early in our analysis.

We demonstrated that four gears—night

electrofishing, seine, tandem fyke net, and tandem

mini fyke net—could be eliminated while retaining

nearly all of the core information provided by the

program. Under our proposed refinement, 91–100%

of species detection capabilities are retained. All

Table 8. Changes in sample allocations by strata within each Trend Analysis Area (TAA) under the proposed refinement of the sampling design

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s (LTRMP) fish component. Information on the persistence of gear use between the present

sampling design and proposed refinement is presented in column subheadings below headings for each respective TAA. Numbers in the

columns labeled “P” designate how many gears are fished in a stratum (row) under the present (P) sampling design for each TAA. Numbers in

the columns labeled “R” designate how many gears would continue to be fished in each stratum under the refined (R) sampling design for each

TAA. The columns labeled “%” indicate the percent reduction in the number of independent samples collected under the proposed refinement.

Comparisons are based on year 2000 sample allocations. Sampling strata that do not occur in a given pool are represented by a “–”.

Trend Analysis Area 

Pool 4 Pool 8 Pool 13 Pool 26 Open Riverb La Grange Pool Sampling 

strata P R 

% 

reduction P R 

% 

reduction P R 

% 

reduction P R 

% 

reduction P R 

% 

reduction P R 

% 

reduction 

Backwater 

contiguous 

offshore 2 0 100% 2 0 100% 2 0 100% 2 0 100% – – – 2 0 100% 

Backwater 

contiguous 

nearshore 3 3 0% 3 3 0% 5 3 33% 3 3 0% – – – 4 3 20% 

Impounded 

offshore – – – 1 0 100% 2 0 100% 3c 1c 80% – – – – – –

Impounded 

nearshore – – – 3 3 0% 4 3 40% 3 3 0% – – – – – –

Main 

channel 

border 

unstructured 5 4 37% 6 4 43% 6 4 47% 5 4 39% 8d 7d

 32% 5 4 24% 

Main 

channel 

border wing 

dam 1 1 0% 2 1 50% 4 4 0% 4 4 0% 5d 5d

 0% – – –

Side 

channel 

border 5 4 32% 6 4 40% 6 4 25% 6 5 33% 7d 6d

 21% 6 4 27% 

Tailwater 

zonea

 6 5 26% 6 4 44% 5 4 13% 2 1 43% – – – 7 6 13% a

The tailwater stratum is monitored under a fixed-site sample design (Gutreuter et al. 1995). 

b

The Open River Reach also recognizes a tributary stratum. In 2000, five gears were used in this stratum and all five would 

remain under the proposed refinement. c Includes trammel nets that are an optional gear within the LTRMP’s fish component. d

Includes gill nets that are an optional gear within the LTRMP’s fish component.
15

species not retained are rare, and we are not able to

sample them adequately even with the full suite of

gears in the present sampling design. The proposed

refinement does not interfere with the program’s

ability to characterize fish communities using

frequency of detection or ranked abundance data.

Annual detection rates used to gage species

persistence also remain nearly unaffected.

Additionally, the ability to detect significant annual

changes in abundance are nearly unaffected at the

pool scale and only modestly affected at the strata

scale (85–100% of change detection capabilities are

retained). Finally, temporal data continuity is

maintained, and spatial data continuity is only

minimally affected.

These results can be achieved while decreasing

total catch by one–third for the program as a whole.

Most of this decrease is attributable to losses in catch

of a few widely distributed and abundant forage fish

and young-of-the-year nonforage fish. These taxa

generally exhibit large variability in their catch and

consequently low statistical power to detect annual

changes in abundance (e.g., Appendixes C, D, and E

in Lubinski et al. 2001). Variability tends to be so

high that even a doubling of effort would not

appreciably improve power for these species

(Lubinski et al. 2001). However, sufficient numbers

of these taxa are collected in the retained gears to

adequately detect and characterize them within the

community and to determine size distributions and

growth rates.

Gear reductions provide an effective means for

addressing data redundancies within the LTRMP’s

fish component. This occurs because some gears

provide information similar to other gears. For

example, seines use small mesh and tend to collect

small-sized species as well as young of larger species.

Mini fyke nets, which will be retained, also use small

mesh and catch similar species and size classes. As a

consequence, the two gears collect similar, though

not identical data. Thus, because the four gears we

propose to eliminate have retained analogues that

collect similar information, they can be eliminated

with little loss of information. Impacts on spatial and

temporal continuity are also minimized because the

retained analogues tend to be fished more consistently

among TAAs and in a wider variety of strata and

habitats.

Implementing the Proposed Sampling Design

Estimating Saved Effort

We determined the amount of effort that would

be saved under the proposed sampling design at each

field station and at the Upper Midwest Environmental

Sciences Center (UMESC). This process was a

cooperative effort among the fish component

Table 9. Results of Spearman Rank Order Correlation tests of the

degree of similarity in community structure between backwater

contiguous offshore (BWCO) and shoreline (BWCS) strata, and

impounded offshore (IMPO) and shoreline (IMPS) strata, as

measured with similar gears. “N/A” means that the stratum did not

exist in that Trend Analysis Area.

Trend Analysis Area 

Spearman’s 

R statistic P-value N 

Tandem fyke net (BWCO) versus 

fyke net (BWCS) comparison

 

Pool 4 0.91 <0.001 44 

Pool 8 0.93 <0.001 45 

Pool 13 0.90 <0.001 40 

Pool 26 0.81 <0.001 33 

Open River N/A N/A N/A 

La Grange Pool 0.93 <0.001 47 

 

Tandem mini fyke net (BWCO) 

versus mini fyke net (BWCS) 

comparison

 

Pool 4 0.77 <0.001 60 

Pool 8 0.78 <0.001 61 

Pool 13 0.82 <0.001 53 

Pool 26 0.60 <0.001 60 

Open River N/A N/A N/A 

La Grange Pool 0.70 <0.001 61 

 

Tandem fyke net (IMPO) versus fyke 

net (IMPS) comparison

 

Pool 4 N/A N/A N/A 

Pool 8 0.85 <0.001 39 

Pool 13 0.77 <0.001 40 

Pool 26 0.81 <0.001 36 

Open River N/A N/A N/A 

La Grange Pool N/A N/A N/A 

 

Tandem mini fyke net (IMPO) 

versus mini fyke net (IMPS) 

comparison

 

Pool 4 N/A N/A N/A 

Pool 8 0.75 <0.001 58 

Pool 13 0.64 <0.001 52 

Pool 26 0.59 <0.001 50 

Open River N/A N/A N/A 

La Grange Pool N/A N/A N/A 
16

specialist at the UMESC and field station leaders.

For each field station, we estimated savings of effort

in selecting sampling sites, field sampling,

preparation time, sample processing, gear

maintenance, data entry, database management,

analysis, and reporting. In fiscal year 2002, only

partial savings were realized because samples and

data from summer 2001, which were collected under

the present sampling design, would still need to be

processed and analyzed. Most of the effort saved in

2002 would come in summer when field sampling is

reduced. In fiscal year 2003 and thereafter, a full year

of savings would be realized.

Among field stations, the estimated number of

person days saved annually varied from 20 to

88 person days (Table 10) depending on the level of

effort and catch historically associated with each of

the eliminated gears. For all field stations, most effort

savings came from field sampling. Effort saved at

the UMESC was estimated at 14 person days per year

and the mean reduction in contracted data entry was

37% (Table 10).

Plans for Redirecting Saved Effort

Effort saved by improving sampling efficiency of

the fish component may be redirected to other

program needs. Development of a redirection plan

required input from field stations and from the

LTRMP Analysis Team and approval by the

Environmental Management Program Coordination

Committee. Initially, efforts focused on fiscal year

2002, when partial effort savings would be realized.

Each field station leader submitted suggestions on

how to redirect effort to Dr. L. Holland-Bartels, the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) LTRMP

administrator. These suggestions were evaluated

based on a variety of factors including their

application to program goals, their potential for

adding value to existing projects or analyses, their

ability to achieve timely products, and the unique

capabilities and situations available at each field

station. In addition, because saved effort was not

available in a single block of time or from a single

individual, the distribution of saved time over the year

and among staff was considered. The LTRMP

administrator forwarded preferred suggestions to the

LTRMP Analysis Team for comment, then developed

a final plan that was submitted to the Environmental

Management Program Coordination Committee for

approval. Final work guidance for summer 2002 was

provided in spring 2002. A similar process began in

summer 2002 to develop a redirection plan for fiscal

year 2003 and beyond.

Acknowledgments

This project was conducted by the USGS UMESC,

La Crosse, Wisconsin, as part of the LTRMP partly

under contract with the University of Wisconsin–La

Crosse, River Studies Center. The U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers provided funding, with overall program

guidance and support by the USGS UMESC. The

LTRMP field station staff in Iowa, Illinois,

Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin collected data

used in this report. Members of the LTRMP Analysis

Team, a program advisory body, provided critical

input, reviewed analyses, and generated a suite of

program refinements to consider. The LTRMP field

Table 10. Estimates of effort saved annually by eliminating

four gears (night electrofishing, seine, tandem fyke net, and

tandem mini fyke net) from the fish sampling design of the

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. Categories of

effort considered included selecting sampling sites, field

sampling, preparation time, sample processing, gear

maintenance, data entry, database management, analysis,

and reporting. In fiscal year 2002, only partial effort savings

(mean of about 80%) would be realized because samples

and data from summer 2001 would need to be processed

and analyzed.

Location or type 

of effort saved 

Estimated annual 

effort savings 

Pool 4 62 person days 

Pool 8 88 person days 

Pool 13 61 person days 

Pool 26 67 person days 

Open River 20 person days 

La Grange Pool 82 person days 

Program administration 14 person days 

Contracted data entry 37% mean reduction 
17

station leaders—John Chick (Brighton, Illinois);

Terry Dukerschein (Onalaska, Wisconsin); Robert

Hrabik (Jackson, Missouri); Mark Pegg (Havana,

Illinois); Walt Popp (Lake City, Minnesota); and Mike

Steuck (Bellevue, Iowa)—along with their fisheries

staff and LTRMP component specialists—Yao Yin

(aquatic vegetation); Dave Soballe (water quality);

and Jenny Sauer (invertebrates)—provided critical

review of the analyses. Jim Rogala (USGS, UMESC,

La Crosse, Wisconsin) assisted with geographic

information system-based analyses. Mike Caucutt

and Dave Bergstedt (USGS, UMESC, La Crosse,

Wisconsin) assisted in serving analytical results on

the UMESC Web server. This report has been

improved thanks to the critical reviews of three

anonymous reviewers.

References

Bartels, A. 2000. Fish sampling data from

Navigation Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi

River, 1991–1997. U.S. Geological Survey,

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center,

La Crosse, Wisconsin, April 2000. LTRMP

2000-S001. 105 pp.

Callahan, E. 1998. Similarities between Upper

Mississippi River pools included in the Long

Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP).

Unpublished. Environmental Statistics, P.O. Box

563, Fountain City, Wisconsin 54629.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd

edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Gutreuter, S., R. Burkhardt, and K. Lubinski. 1995.

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Procedures: Fish monitoring. National

Biological Service, Environmental Management

Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, July

1995. LTRMP 95-P002-1. 42 pp. + Appendixes

A–J.

Hayes, D. B., C. P. Ferrari, and W. W. Taylor. 1996.

Active fish capture methods. Pages 193–220 in

B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors.

Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques.

Pages 157–192 in B. R. Murphy and D. W.

Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,

Maryland.

Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical

ecology, 2nd English edition. Elsevier, New York.

Lubinski, K. R., R. Burkhardt, J. Sauer, D. Soballe,

and Y. Yin. 2001. Initial analyses of change

detection capabilities and data redundancies in

the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program.

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse,

Wisconsin, September 2001. LTRMP 2001-

T001. 23 pp. + Appendixes A–E.

Robins, C. R., C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A.

Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1991.

Common and scientific names of fishes from the

United States and Canada. 5th edition. Special

Publication 20. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland. 183 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Operating

Plan for the Upper Mississippi River System

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program.

Environmental Management Technical Center,

Onalaska, Wisconsin, Revised September 1993.

EMTC 91-P002R. 179 pp. (NTIS #PB94-

160199)

Wilcox, D. B. 1993. An aquatic habitat

classification system for the Upper Mississippi

River System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Environmental Management Technical Center,

Onalaska, Wisconsin. EMTC 93-T003.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edition.

Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey.
A-1

Appendix A

A CD-ROM containing analytical results used as a heuristic tool by the Long Term Resource Monitoring

Program (LTRMP) partners to investigate potential sampling design refinement scenarios (accessible using

Netscape or Microsoft Explorer browser software). Details on analytical methods and results too voluminous

to document within this report are documented within the Web-browser accessible portion of this CD-ROM.

In addition, we provided the database we analyzed (Microsoft Access format), analytical program files we

wrote (SAS program file format), and an electronic version of this report (Microsoft Word format) on this

CD-ROM. Terminology between this printed report may differ slightly from that found on the CD-ROM.
B-1

Appendix B

Matrix generated by a group of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) partners, in

2001 to identify options for addressing sampling efficiencies in the LTRMP’s fish component.

 Consequences 

Options Positive Negative 

Option I: Maintain 

existing fish protocol 

1. Existing protocol has good power for many 

species of management interest within lentic 

habitats (see report) 

2. Maintains data continuity 

3. Presence or absence of threatened or 

endangered species 

4. Detection of invasives 

5. Information on young-of-the-year, recruitment, 

growth, reproduction for many species (mostly 

lentic) 

6. Vested program w/ protocols and training and 

gears in place 

7. Starting to identify dynamics and trends for 

many species 

8. Ability to characterize communities (especially 

lentic) 

 1. Present protocol does not sample the main 

channel, an area of significant 

management conflict related to navigation 

and dam operation 

2. Present protocol does not effectively 

sample species of concern (threatened, 

endangered). 

3. FY 2001 costs = $1.4 million. Increases 

about $100 K annually to continue 

FY 2001 protocol (too expensive?) 

4. Does not free up resources to address the 

other objectives of LTRMP 

5. Unrealized efficiencies and improvements 

based on existing knowledge 

6. Unknown spatially limited inference 

 

Option II: Maintain 

existing protocol and 

add main channel 

sampling to the design 

1. See Option I positive consequences 

2. Detection of channel species and communities 

3. More effective sampling of channel strata 

4. Ability to integrate presently under-sampled 

strata w/ data from the other components 

5. Information exists for initial development of 

new protocols 

6. Improved sampling for threatened and 

endangered species 

7. Improved ability to make cross strata 

comparisons and inference 

8. Additional information on species in navigation 

channel 

1. Costs will increase above the $100 K 

annual inflation estimate 

2. See responses #4 and #5 from Option I 

3. Unknown spatially limited inference 

 

Option III: Develop 

best pool-specific gear 

combination 

1. Eliminate gears that are not effective in certain 

pools, strata, and periods 

2. Precedent exists (see Open River) 

3. Potential time and cost savings per unit of 

sample 

4. Redirected effort to optimize trend detection 

within each pool 

5. Added flexibility to address topics of special 

interests of program partners 

1. Unknown potential losses in statistical 

inference at the systemic level 

2. Potential losses in species detection 

associated with dropping gears or strata 

3. Potential loss of program continuity in 

favor of meeting changing management 

needs 

 

Option IV: Eliminate all 

passive gears from the 

present design 

1. Frees up time and effort (resources) 

2. More efficient database for common species 

 1. Loss of species detection, size structure 

data, and power for certain species (varies 

by pool; (e.g., channel catfish Ictalurus 

punctatus—Pools 4, 8, and 13) 

2. Loss of hoop nets will eliminate the 

collection of most age I+ channel catfish 

and smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

3. Loss of fyke nets will eliminate 

population trend information for bluegill 

Lepomis macrochirus, crappie Pomoxis

spp., and bullhead Ameiurus spp. 
B-2

 Consequences 

Options Positive Negative 

 4. Most of turtle data will be lost 

 5. Decreased sample sizes—loss of ability to 

make population estimates 

 6. Incomplete length-frequency distributions 

 7. Loss of young-of-the-year information 

(reproduction, recruitment, growth) 

 8. Loss of deep lentic and strata information 

(all of backwater and impounded offshore 

data) 

 9. Loss of data continuity 

10. Loss of ability to validate population trends 

using data from multiple gears 

11. Some passive gears more powerful for some 

pools, species, strata, and times than any or 

all of the active gears (e.g., seine—Pools 4 

and 26) 

12. The LTRMP would provide less unique data 

to the state partners 

13. Reduced ability to detect invasive species 

(e.g., Asian carps Hypopthalmichthys 

molitrix) 

 

Option V: Adopt a 

guild approach 

sampling a few key 

species 

1. Better quality data for chosen species or 

guilds (e.g., threatened and endangered, 

species of concern) 

2. Detailed population dynamics data (egg to 

hook) 

3. Increased sampling efficiency 

4. Potential saved time 

5. Links to habitat needs assessment (HNA) 

6. Simplified data set 

 1. Not clear which species are keystone or 

sentinel in the system; even so, they may 

vary across space (e.g., assessment pools) 

 2. Guild membership is incomplete for some 

species 

 3. Sacrifice of species richness and community 

composition information (can step down 

from community sampling but not back up 

from guilds) 

 4. Loss of ability to detect invasive species 

 5. Potential loss of species-specific 

information 

 6. Requires a lot more detailed study 

 7. Potential to lose some integration with other 

components. 

 

Option VI: Modify 

temporal sampling 

(periods) 

1. Time savings for other projects 

2. Potential to reduce variance in relative 

abundance estimates for some species 

3. Potential to improve integration with other 

components 

 1. No clear way to drop any one sampling 

period systemically 

 2. Catch and sample size would decline 

 3. Potential loss of growth and year class 

strength information 

 4. May miss migration / movements / seasonal 

strata use 

 5. Missed species detection 

 6. Loss of flexibility to deal with floods or 

droughts, etc. (e.g., if only two periods and 

river floods, we may lose one of the two 

periods) 

 7. Potential to lose some integration with other 

components. 

 

Option VII: Modify 

temporal sampling 

(years) 

1. Expanded scope of work and activities 

(spatially expanded sampling, focused 

research, publication of findings, data 

analysis) 

2. Professional interaction, communication, 

presentation, coordination 

3. Addition of more trend pools 

 1. Increased administrative duties (e.g., 

contract preparation) 

 2. Loss of temporal continuity 

 3. Decreased ability to detect annual trends 

 4. Increased probability of spurious relations 

in short time frames 

 5. Loss of potential integration with other 

components 

Appendix B. Continued
B-3

 Consequences 

Options Positive Negative 

 6. Loss of ability to investigate causative 

factors driving population dynamics 

 7. Unknown effect on our ability to detect 

inter-annual trends 

 8. Reduced ability to address socio-political 

issues associated with extreme events in 

the system 

 9. Reduced probability to detect rare events 

and consequences 

10. Litigation issues 

 

Option VIII: Eliminate 

“duplicative” pools 

1. Free up time and money for directed research 

2. Elimination of redundant information 

3. Potential to “replace or relocate” station(s) to 

areas of geobiochemologic interest 

 1. Political upheaval 

 2. Loss of corroboration among pools 

 3. Unclear that field stations are duplicative 

 

Option IX: Eliminate 

fish protocol from the 

LTRMP 

1. Possible shift from a fish-driven design to 

something more holistic (broadened sampling 

frame) 

2. Increased program flexibility 

3. Ability to increase focused research (basic and 

applied) 

 1. Political upheaval 

 2. Termination of fish trend information 

 3. Assumes: “If we build it, they will 

come”—in reference to habitat 

improvement 

 4. Loss of partner support 

 5. Loss of ability to detect invasive species 

 6. Loss of integration across components 

 7. Loss of validation data for modeling 

efforts 

 8. Logistics associated with retraining and 

hiring existing and new personnel 

 9. Loss of an ecosystem perspective for the 

Upper Mississippi River System 

10. Fish component proven statistically 

adequate or appropriate 

 

Option X: Recommend 

protocol and add 

enhanced spatial 

coverage (e.g., field 

station and/or roving 

crew) 

1. Able to address assumptions associated with 

spatial inference from the present protocol 

2. Improve sampling for threatened and 

endangered species and improved detection of 

exotics or invasives 

3. Document effects of barrier dams on 

distribution and abundance 

4. Improved ability to make cross strata 

comparisons and inference 

5. Increased partner or local support 

 1. Increased costs, logistical challenges to 

overcome 

 2. Needs additional statistical support to 

implement 

 3. Reduced probability to detect rare events 

and consequences 

 4. Litigation issues 

 

Option XI: Recommend 

protocol and add 

Habitat Rehabilitation 

and Enhancement 

Project monitoring 

throughout the Upper 

Mississippi River 

System 

1. Consistency in data collection protocols 

2. Leads to evaluation or optimization of the 

effectiveness of various Habitat Rehabilitation 

and Enhancement Project designs 

3. Expanded data 

4. Baseline data for directed research 

5. Validation of subjective HNA transition matrix 

6. Expand HNA baseline data 

 1. Monitoring Habitat Rehabilitation and 

Enhancement Projects may not provide 

managers the answers they want 

(attractors or producers?) 

 2. Reduced program flexibility to do other 

things 

 3. Increased costs and logistical challenges 

to overcome 

 4. Increased database complexity 

 5. May require additional data on other 

components (physical, chemical, and 

biological) 

Appendix B. Continued
C-1

Appendix C

List of fish collected by the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, arranged phylogenetically

by family, then alphabetically by genus and species. Hybrids are listed after their respective genera.

Nomenclature follows Robins et al. (1991). The 14 species of special management interest are indicated

by an asterisk (*).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Common name Family name Scientific name

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Petromyzontidae

Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus

Silver lamprey I. unicuspis

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix

Acipenseridae

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Shovelnose sturgeon S. platorynchus

Pallid sturgeon × Shovelnose sturgeon S. albus × S. platorynchus

Polyodontidae

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Lepisosteidae

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Longnose gar L. osseus

Shortnose gar L. platostomus

Amiidae

Bowfin Amia calva

Hiodontidae

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Mooneye H. tergisus

Anguillidae

American eel Anguilla rostrata

Clupeidae

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris

Gizzard shad* Dorosoma cepedianum

Threadfin shad D. petenense

Cyprinidae

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

Spotfin shiner C. spiloptera

Blacktail shiner C. venusta

Common carp* Cyprinus carpio

Goldfish × common carp Carassius auratus × C. carpio

Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis

Brassy minnow H. hankinsoni

Mississippi silvery minnow H. nuchalis

Plains minnow H. placitus

Silver carp Hypopthalmichthys molitrix
C-2

Appendix C. Continued

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Common name Family name Scientific name

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bighead carp H. nobilis

Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus

Bleeding shiner Luxilus zonatus

Speckled chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis

Sturgeon chub M. gelida

Sicklefin chub M. meeki

Silver chub M. storeriana

Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Bigeye chub Notropis amblops

Pallid shiner N. amnis

Emerald shiner* N. atherinoides

River shiner N. blennius

Bigeye shiner N. boops

Ghost shiner N. buchanani

Spottail shiner N. hudsonius

Ozark minnow N. nubilus

Silverband shiner N. shumardi

Sand shiner N. stramineus

Weed shiner N. texanus

Mimic shiner N. volucellus

Channel shiner N. wickliffi

Pugnose minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Southern redbelly dace P. erythrogaster

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead minnow P. promelas

Bullhead minnow P. vigilax

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Catostomidae

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback C. cyprinus

Highfin carpsucker C. velifer

White sucker C. commersoni

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Bigmouth buffalo I. cyprinellus

Black buffalo I. niger

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops

Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

River redhorse M. carinatum

Golden redhorse M. erythrurum

Shorthead redhorse M. macrolepidotum

Ictaluridae

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead A. natalis

Brown bullhead A. nebulosus

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel catfish* I. punctatus

Slender madtom Noturus exilis
C-3

Appendix C. Continued

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Common name Family name Scientific name

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stonecat N. flavus

Tadpole madtom N. gyrinus

Freckled madtom N. nocturnus

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Esocidae

Gass pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus

Northern pike* E. lucius

Muskellunge E. masquinongy

Tiger muskellunge E. masquinongy × E. lucius

Chain pickerel E. niger

Umbridae

Central mudminnow Umbra limi

Osmeridae

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

Salmonidae

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Percopsidae

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus

Aphredoderidae

Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus

Gadidae

Burbot Lota lota

Cyprinodontidae

Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus

Starhead topminnow F. dispar

Blackstripe topminnow F. notatus

Blackspotted topminnow F. olivaceus

Poeciliidae

Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Atherinidae

Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina

Gasterosteidae

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

Percichthyidae

White perch Morone americana

White bass* M. chrysops

Yellow bass M. mississippiensis

Striped bass M. saxatilis

White bass × striped bass M. chrysops × M. saxatilis

Centrarchidae

Shadow bass Ambloplites ariommus
C-4

Appendix C. Continued

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Common name Family name Scientific name

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rock bass A. rupestris

Flier Centrarchus macropterus

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Pumpkinseed L. gibbosus

Warmouth L. gulosus

Orangespotted sunfish L. humilis

Bluegill* L. macrochirus

Longear sunfish L. megalotis

Redear sunfish L. microlophus

Green sunfish × pumpkinseed L. cyanellus × L. gibbosus

Green sunfish × warmouth L. cyanellus × L. gulosus

Green sunfish × orangespotted sunfish L. cyanellus × L. humilis

Green sunfish × bluegill L. cyanellus × L. macrochirus

Pumpkinseed × warmouth L. gibbosus × L. gulosus

Pumpkinseed × orangespotted sunfish L. gibbosus × L. humilis

Pumpkinseed × bluegill L. gibbosus × L. macrochirus

Orangespotted sunfish × longear sunfish L. humilis × L. megalotis

Bluegill × warmouth L. macrochirus × L. gulosus

Bluegill × orangespotted sunfish L. macrochirus × L. humilis

Bluegill × longear sunfish L. macrochirus × L. megalotis

Bluegill × redear sunfish L. macrochirus × L. microlophus

Smallmouth bass* Micropterus dolomieu

Spotted bass M. punctulatus

Largemouth bass* M. salmoides

White crappie* Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie* P. nigromaculatus

White crappie × black crappie P. annularis × P. nigromaculatus

Percidae

Crystal darter Crystallaria asprella

Western sand darter Ammocrypta clara

Mud darter Etheostoma asprigene

Greenside darter E. blennioides

Bluntnose darter E. chlorosomum

Iowa darter E. exile

Fantail darter E. flabellare

Slough darter E. gracile

Johnny darter E. nigrum

Banded darter E. zonale

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Logperch Percina caprodes

Blackside darter P. maculata

Slenderhead darter P. phoxocephala

Dusky darter P. sciera

River darter P. shumardi

Sauger* Stizostedion canadense

Walleye* S. vitreum

Sauger × walleye S. canadense × S. vitreum

Sciaenidae

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
D-1

Appendix D

For each Trend Analysis Area and each gear eliminated under the proposed refinement to the Long

Term Resource Monitoring Program’s fish sampling design, the species that were collected only by that

gear and, thus, would no longer be detected, total catch and the number of occurrences of each species,

and the frequency of occurrence of the species in the dropped gear. All data were pooled from 1993 to

1999.

Trend Analysis 

Area 

Gear eliminated and number 

(in parentheses) of samples 

Species unique to 

that geara 

Total 

catch 

Number of 

occurrences 

Frequency 

occurrence 

(%) 

Pool 4 Night electrofishing (82) Goldeye 1 1 1.22% 

 Seines (213) Banded darter 2 2 0.94% 

 Bigmouth shiner 45 6 2.82% 

 Blacknose dace 1 1 0.47% 

 Central stoneroller 1 1 0.47% 

 Pallid shiner 1 1 0.47% 

 Tandem fyke nets No species lost 

 Tandem mini fyke nets No species lost 

 

Pool 8 Night electrofishing (378) American brook 

lamprey 

5 5 1.32% 

 Black buffalo 1 1 0.27% 

 Fantail darter 2 2 0.53% 

 Seines (368) Crystal darter 3 3 0.82% 

 Pallid shiner 5 2 0.54% 

 Skipjack herring 1 1 0.27% 

 Tandem fyke nets No species lost 

 Tandem mini fyke nets No species lost 

 

Pool 13 Night electrofishing (151) Goldeye 1 1 0.66% 

 Western sand darter 2 2 1.33% 

 Seines (364) Bigmouth shiner 1 1 0.28% 

 Creek chub 1 1 0.28% 

 Fantail darter 1 1 0.28% 

 Rudd 2 1 0.28% 

 Tandem fyke nets No species lost 

 Tandem mini fyke nets (145) Brown trout 1 1 0.69% 

 

Pool 26 Night electrofishing (36) Shovelnose sturgeon 2 1 2.78% 

 Seines (246) Bigmouth shiner 8 4 1.63% 

 Western sand darter 5 4 1.63% 

 Tandem fyke nets No species lost 

 Tandem mini fyke nets No species lost 

 

Open River Night electrofishingb 

 Seines (41) Bigeye chub 1 1 2.44% 

 Western sand darter 2 2 4.88% 

 Tandem fyke netsb 

 Tandem mini fyke netsb 

 

La Grange Pool Night electrofishing No species lost 

 Seines No species lost 

 Tandem fyke nets No species lost 

 Tandem mini fyke nets No species lost a

Scientific names are presented in Appendix C. 

b

Night electrofishing, tandem fyke net, and tandem mini fyke net are not conducted in the Open River Reach.
E-1

Appendix E

For each Trend Analysis Area (TAA) of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, the number of years that a species was collected by each

fish sampling gear in 1993–1999. For each TAA, we list only these species that were collected more often in at least one of the gears proposed for

elimination compared to the retained gears.

Fish sampling gear 

Retained gears Eliminated gears 

TAA Speciesa 

Day 

electrofishing 

Fyke 

net 

Mini fyle 

net 

Large hoop 

net 

Small hoop 

net 

Bottom 

trawl 

Night 

electrofishing Seine 

Tandem 

fyke net 

Tandem mini 

fyke net 

Pool 4 American eel 2 4 2 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 

 Bluntnose minnow 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 

 Brook stickleback 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

 Fathead minnow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

 Mud darter 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 

 Sand shiner 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 

 Speckled chub 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 7 0 1 

 Trout perch 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 

 Western sand darter 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 

 

Pool 8 Chestnut lamprey 6 3 2 0 1 0 7 1 1 0 

 Crystal darter 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 

 Goldeye 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

 Mississippi silvery minnow 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 

 Northern hog sucker 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 

 Sand shiner 3 0 5 0 0 0 5 7 0 1 

 Silver chub 4 0 0 0 4 4 7 1 0 0 

 Slenderhead darter 6 0 6 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 

 Trout perch 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 4 0 3 

 Western sand darter 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 7 0 0 

 Yellow bass 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 

 

Pool 13 Bluntnose minnow 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

 Brook silverside 6 0 6 0 0 1 7 7 0 0 

 Golden redhorse 6 1 1 2 1 0 7 3 2 0 

 Quillback 6 4 3 5 1 0 7 3 3 0 

 Rock bass 6 3 5 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 

 Suckermouth minnow 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

 

 Yellow bass 6 6 2 0 0 0 7 1 5 1 

Pool 26 Brook silverside 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 

 Sand shiner 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 

 Speckled chub 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 5 0 5 

 Walleye 4 3 2 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 

 Yellow bullhead 3 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 

 

Open Riverb None 

 

La Grange Pool Blacknose dace 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

 Brook silverside 6 0 5 0 0 0 6 7 0 1 

 Sand shiner 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

 Slenderhead darter 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

 Suckermouth minnow 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 a Scientific names can be found in Appendix C. 

b

Night electrofishing, tandem fyke net, and tandem mini fyke net are not conducted in the Open River Reach.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSORING, MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188)

Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave

Blank)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

6. AUTHOR(S)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS (Keywords)

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

ABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

Release unlimited. Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650. Available to registered

users from the Defense Technical Information Center, Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road,

Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050).

Evaluation and Proposed Refinement of the Sampling Design for the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program’s Fish Component

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

 Environmental monitoring programs are frequently designed to track changes in key physical, chemical, and biological features

of an ecosystem. As such, these programs provide critical information for detecting changes in system state, investigating

ecological relations, and making resource management decisions. However, monitoring programs require significant investments

of time, money, and human resources to implement and maintain. Periodic evaluations are necessary to assess whether the

sampling design adequately addresses program goals and objectives, and whether adequate and useful information can continue

to be provided for changing management and science needs. We evaluated the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

(LTRMP) sampling design for fish by analyzing data from stratified random samples collected from 1993 to 1999 in six Trend

Analysis Areas (TAAs). Specifically, we investigated whether the sampling design could provide similar information with fewer

sampling gears. Our goals were to identify and quantify information provided by each gear used to monitor fish in the LTRMP,

develop alternative sampling design scenarios based on our analyses and expert opinion, and engage program partners in a

discussion on the relative value of each gear within the present sampling design. We forward a proposal to systemically

eliminate four of the ten sampling gears presently used to monitor the status and trends in fish resources within the LTRMP.

community composition, community structure, ecological monitoring, ecosystem management,

fishing gears, Illinois River, monitoring programs, river ecology, sampling efficiency sampling gears,

status and trends, Upper Mississippi River.

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

2002-T001

17 pp. + Appendixes A–E

CD-ROM included

October 2002

Brian S. Ickes and Randy W. Burkhardt
The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Upper Mississippi

River System was authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as

an element of the Environmental Management Program. The mission of the LTRMP

is to provide river managers with information for maintaining the Upper Mississippi

River System as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character.

The LTRMP is a cooperative effort by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.