Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

 Technical Report 

2006-T001

June 2006

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Water Quality Component Review 
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.

Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt

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.
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Water Quality Component Review

by

David M. Soballe and Jeffrey N. Houser

Report submitted to

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Rock Island

Clock Tower Building

PO Box 2004

Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

June 2006

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603
Suggested citation:

Soballe, D. M, and J. N. Houser. 2006. Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Water Quality Component Review. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 2006-T001. 9 pp. 

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

Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2

Objectives of Water Quality Monitoring...........................................................................................2

Adequacy of the Water Quality Component Design.........................................................................3

Adequacy and Suitability of the Water Quality Procedures Manual ................................................5

Quality Control and Quality Assurance............................................................................................5

Analytical Laboratory .......................................................................................................................6

Electronic Data Acquisition and Data Management.........................................................................6

Communication and Data Access.....................................................................................................6

Reporting....................................................................................................................................7

Data Access................................................................................................................................7

References.........................................................................................................................................8

Page


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 multiuse 

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. 

This report supports Task 2.2.3.7 as specified in Goal 2, Evaluate and Refine Experimental Design, 

of the LTRMP Operating Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This report was developed with 

funding provided by the LTRMP. 
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Water Quality Component Review

by

David M. Soballe and Jeffrey N. Houser

Executive Summary

A review of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) water 

quality component was conducted in May–June 2002 and considered seven aspects 

of the program: (1) objectives of water quality monitoring relative to LTRMP 

objectives, (2) potential of the current sampling design to meet those objectives, 

(3) adequacy and suitability of the water quality procedures manual, (4) adequacy and 

efficiency of procedures for quality assurance and quality control in data collection 

and laboratory analyses, (5) operations of the analytical laboratory, (6) recent 

implementation of electronic data acquisition, and (7) communications and data 

access. The review was conducted by a panel of five external experts who reviewed 

program documents and then met at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences 

Center from 3–7 June 2002. 

The panel found that the objectives of water quality monitoring program are 

tightly interconnected and one element cannot be neglected without negatively 

affecting the others. The panel emphasized the need for increased analysis of 

existing data. It is only by analyzing the data and submitting the findings to external 

peer review that the final step in quality assurance is achieved, the adequacy of the 

design is fully tested, redundancies are revealed, and the actual value of the collected 

data is clearly shown and documented. The panel also emphasized that distribution of 

data and communication of findings are critical functions of the LTRMP. 

The panel found that the documentation of LTRMP water quality monitoring 

procedures (Soballe and Fischer 2004) is excellent, describing scientifically sound 

methods in appropriate detail to interpret the data collected under the program, 

to ensure standardization among sampling teams, and to duplicate the sampling 

program in other locations with other personnel. The panel agreed that the current 

combination of fixed site and stratified random sampling is well suited to examination 

of conditions at scales of whole pools or entire study reaches across multiple years. 

The panel found that data acquisition and data management employed by the LTRMP 

water quality component are exceptional, and that the quality assurance protocols 

are excellent, exceeding the levels used in many similar programs. This was not a 

water quality lab audit and the panel recommended that the laboratory continue its 

participation in such activities as the Standard Reference Sample Program of the 

USGS. 

The panel noted that LTRMP derived information is not being used to the 

extent possible by resource managers in the development and evaluation of resource 


Introduction

The Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program (LTRMP) and the Upper Mississippi 

River System (UMRS) that it addresses are 

complex. The full scope and intent of this 

program, its constraints, and the intricacies of 

its design and operation are not easily or quickly 

grasped. Thus, a meaningful review required 

the reviewers to be, or become, familiar with the 

river system and with the design and operations 

of the LTRMP and water quality component. 

Because the review covered broad areas, no 

single reviewer was expected to have expertise 

in all areas addressed. The review was conducted 

by a panel of five external experts (Table) who 

reviewed program documents and then met at the 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 

from 3–7 June 2002. 

sound information on river resources, the 

relationship of the LTRMP to regional and 

national environmental issues and programs, 

the needs for monitoring and research activities 

within USGS and other agencies (leveraging, 

efficiency, and redundancy), and the long‐term 

outlook for support of limnological monitoring 

within the LTRMP.

The overall goals of the LTRMP are defined 

in the operating plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993) as follows: (1) develop a better 

understanding of the ecology of the UMRS 

and its resource problems, (2) monitor resource 

change, (3) develop alternatives to better 

manage the Upper Mississippi River System, 

and (4) provide for the proper management 

of LTRMP information. The panel found that 

the goals in the LTRMP Operating Plan are 

interconnected and one element cannot be 

neglected for an extended period (i.e., several 

years) without negatively affecting the others. In 

particular, the panel reaffirmed the urgent need 

for the LTRMP, as a whole, to place increasing 

emphasis on analysis of existing data and on 

new investigations that explore and establish 

the linkages among biotic components and 

the physical‐chemical template in the system. 

Investigations of this sort are essential to address 

Goal 1 (better understand the ecology of the 

system) and Goal 3 (evaluate management 

alternatives) of the LTRMP Operating Plan. 

These investigations are also fundamental to 

evaluating the effectiveness of on‐going work 

under Goal 2 (monitor resource change). For 

example, the connection between water quality 

conditions at various temporal and spatial scales, 

and the distribution and abundance of river biota 

(probably at larger scales) must be explored more 

intensely to understand the role of physical and 

management alternatives, and offered a number of suggestions. Closer liaison with 

management agencies may be needed (i.e. direct involvement of UMESC staff 

in HREP planning and review, and center participation in other project planning 

activities) to improve use of LTRMP information and expertise. The USGS is a 

partner in, not a contractor to, the Environmental Management Program (EMP). As 

the lead science agency in the EMP partnership, a primary role for USGS is to ensure 

that sound science drives management and decision‐making in EMP projects. 

Objectives of Water Quality Monitoring

In this review, the objectives of the LTRMP 

water quality component were considered relative 

to the following LTRMP programmatic goals: 

the requirements for developing scientifically 

Table. Review panel members and affiliations

Dr. John Elder - U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, 

Wisconsin

Prof. Fred Bryan - U.S. Geological Survey, Louisiana 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Louisiana 

State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

John Sullivan - Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, La Crosse, Wisconsin

David Bierl - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Rock 

Island, Illinois

Kent Johnson - Metropolitan Council, Environmental 

Services, St. Paul, Minnesota


chemical factors in the ecology of the system, 

to evaluate the potential effects of management 

actions that alter these physical‐chemical 

features, and to assess the adequacy or 

appropriateness of the water quality monitoring 

data collected by the LTRMP components. In 

addition, there are major biotic components of 

the system (i.e., microbial communities and 

plankton) that are ignored under the existing 

design of the monitoring program, but which 

may drive, or warn of, basic system changes. 

Explicit review comments cited the lack of 

detailed analyses that would allow a more 

quantitative assessment of design efficacy and 

efficiency.

The panel pointed out that the monitoring 

program cannot just document changes in 

resources, it should also provide early warning 

of serious threat to those resources. This 

is not possible without adequate ecological 

understanding. Important biotic changes in 

the system (e.g., the invasion of zebra mussels) 

should generate a detectable signal in the 

monitoring data. In fact, the LTRMP water 

quality data does suggest an influence of zebra 

mussels on dissolved oxygen and planktonic 

chlorophyll levels at selected locations, but 

without focused investigations, those possible 

linkages cannot be confirmed.

Adequacy of the Water Quality 

Component Design 

The review of the water quality component 

design was intended to address three general 

questions. How well does the water quality 

component design support the overall goals 

of LTRMP? What deficiencies exist that must 

be corrected? What improvements can be 

implemented within the constraints of available 

resources to increase efficiency and information 

yield?

The basic concept for water quality 

monitoring within the LTRMP is that the 

abundance and community composition of the 

system’s biota depends upon combinations of 

physical, chemical, and biological features in the 

river that vary across a wide range of temporal 

and spatial scales. In the context of the LTRMP 

goals, water quality monitoring is intended to 

help identify and understand those physical and 

chemical features that are most significant to 

long‐term biotic integrity and sustainability of 

the system, track changes in the critical features 

that influence biota, provide information to guide 

science‐based management of physical‐chemical 

aspects of the system, and obtain, process, and 

maintain information in a reliable, rapid, and 

cost‐effective manner.

A major purpose of the LTRMP is to detect 

the ecological effects of major management 

activities (i.e., the multiple phase habitat 

rehabilitation activity in Pool 8) and the panel 

agreed that monitoring under the LTRMP 

must be able to detect effects of a meaningful 

magnitude in a timely manner and with suitable 

levels of confidence. For example, the effects 

of multiple habitat rehabilitation projects (e.g., 

Pool 8) should be detectible in the LTRMP data 

if these project(s) have had substantial influence 

at the entire pool (or reach) scale. However, 

analyses to address such effects specifically 

have not been conducted. Because the present 

monitoring design targets broad‐scale effects, it 

is unlikely that routine monitoring that does not 

specifically focus on local areas where projects 

are implemented will consistently or adequately 

indicate the near‐field (i.e., <1 km) or short‐term 

(i.e., < annual) influences of such projects.

The panel was briefed on the history of 

the LTRMP and its sampling design. It was 

pointed out that translating the general goals of 

the LTRMP into a specific design for the water 

quality component has required compromise, 

professional judgment, and extended interactions 

with program partners. The panel agreed that 

the combination of fixed site and stratified 

random sampling now included in the design 

seems well suited to examination of conditions 

at scales of whole pools or entire study reaches 

across multiple years. The existing design, 

however, was intended to be combined with 

focused investigations of specific processes and 

mechanisms, thus phenomena at spatial scales 

smaller than an individual study reach and 

time scales less than a season or year have not 

been addressed. LTRMP staffing and budget 

limitations have generally not allowed sufficient 

time for analysis, interpretation, and reporting 


of data within the water quality component 

and among biotic components of the LTRMP. 

This deficiency was noted as critical because 

it is not possible to determine adequacy or 

redundancy until the data are used to answer 

specific questions. Statistical explorations 

showing similarities and differences among 

sampling areas and times may prove useful, 

but more importantly, the interconnections 

between the biotic measurements of LTRMP 

and the physical‐chemical environment must be 

explored and demonstrated. These explorations 

are thus far in their infancy. Changes in the 

existing monitoring program suggested by further 

analysis of collected data should be driven by 

specific information needs and done carefully 

to avoid compromising the existing period of 

record.

The review team was unanimous in its 

finding that episodic phenomena (e.g., as may 

be driven by synoptic weather conditions, or 

water level management) that may exhibit only 

short‐term, local effects on water quality may 

also have profound and lasting influences on 

river biota at the annual and multiannual scales. 

The team concluded that sacrificing some 

information at the annual‐full reach scale may be 

justified if this would allow critical information 

to be obtained at finer scales. For example, 

information on the episodic development of 

low‐oxygen conditions at critical points in time 

or space may be needed to accurately assess the 

design or potential benefit of habitat projects 

intended to promote an important species 

of fish or invertebrate. Before water quality 

sampling effort is reallocated, however, detailed 

examination of the existing data obtained for 

the program and close coordination with the 

field teams and resource managers are required 

to develop a strategy that preserves as much 

information as possible from the existing design 

and ensures that new approaches are productive. 

The LTRMP staff has proposed inclusion of 

intensive focused studies of important processes 

several times since 1993, but few of these 

proposals have been funded.

Navigation is perhaps the largest 

single human activity within the mainstem 

river‐floodplain. It seems, therefore, that the 

LTRMP design should be suitable to detect the 

ecological impact of the navigation system and 

changes in the operation of that system. The 

LTRMP water quality data were used extensively 

in the modeling exercises performed as part of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation 

feasibility studies. However, the primary target 

scale of LTRMP measurements (whole‐pool, 

annual, multiyear time frame) and the lack 

of integrated analyses across components at 

smaller spatial and temporal scales has made 

it difficult for LTRMP to address either the 

shorter‐term effects of navigation or the benefits 

of management actions taken to remediate these 

effects.

The LTRMP design (across all components) 

should also provide early warning of major 

ecological changes in the system as they 

begin to emerge. In that regard, it seems 

advisable for the program to direct some effort 

toward meaningful ecological indicators. In 

water quality, phytoplankton abundance and 

assemblage composition may provide one such 

indicator (see point #3 below). Additional work 

is needed, however, to determine what aspects 

of phytoplankton abundance and assemblage 

composition are appropriate indicators. 

In light of the conclusions on the sampling 

design, the review team developed a number of 

alternatives (not exhaustive) for evaluation to 

help address these issues:

1. Consider the development of index sites 

or geographic areas that capture a substantial 

portion of the water quality information 

(variance and interrelations) obtained in a full 

stratified random sampling (SRS) episode, 

but at substantially less effort. Monitoring 

of these index sites or areas on a rotating 

annual or seasonal basis could be substituted 

for a quarterly SRS episode while other 

intensive work is conducted by the field teams. 

Alternatively, on a rotating, multiyear basis, 

this subset of index sites or areas could be 

sampled at intervals more frequently than the 

quarterly design and substitute for one or more 

quarterly SRS sampling episodes. The time 

freed up by use of rotating index sites could 

also be used for analysis of existing data. The 


effect of any change in sampling structure 

must be carefully evaluated before any change 

is made. Subsequent to this review, an initial 

analysis of the water quality for the purpose of 

identifying “index” sites was conducted and 

was unable to identify a small number of sites 

representative of any given pool.

2. Consider periodic (e.g., once every 

4 years) specialized focus studies. While 

continuing with the mandated long‐term 

monitoring, the periodic specialized studies 

should be preceded by trend analyses of all 

historical data.

3. Explore more avenues to obtain selected 

analysis of the warehoused phytoplankton 

samples. These samples, collected at a subset 

of monitoring locations over nearly 10 years, 

should be an extremely valuable resource. 

Because the phytoplankton community is 

tied to the water quality of the system and 

is integral to providing an early warning 

for changes or disturbances in the system, a 

carefully selected subset of samples should be 

analyzed to determine the condition of these 

archived samples and provide some assessment 

of temporal and spatial variations in the 

community. Part of this effort should be aimed 

at documenting the normal pattern of variation 

(seasonal succession and longitudinal zonation) 

against which changes can be detected. 

Diatom indices relating diatom community 

composition to the chemical environment are 

well established for some freshwater systems 

and may offer strong potential for use in the 

UMRS with limited effort toward developing 

new techniques or indices. Exploratory 

analyses of the archived phytoplankton 

samples were initiated in FY 2005. Linkages 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Great Rivers Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program and other initiatives on 

large river indicators should be considered. 

Adequacy and Suitability of the Water 

Quality Procedures Manual 

The review panel found overall that 

documentation of LTRMP water quality 

monitoring procedures is excellent, describing 

scientifically sound methods at appropriate detail 

to interpret the data collected under the program, 

to ensure standardization among sampling 

teams, and to duplicate the sampling program 

in other locations with other personnel. The 

panel members provided a substantial number 

of suggestions on the procedures manual that 

were incorporated into the final version (Soballe 

and Fischer 2004). The panel suggested that the 

utility of future editions of the procedures manual 

might be improved by separating the detailed 

description of each method from the rationale 

behind the measurements. The LTRMP staff has 

considered producing a series of single‐sheet 

quick‐guides for those procedures for which 

detailed instructions are most commonly needed 

in the field. Substantial excerpts from the 

procedures manual are included in the online 

help in the electronic data sheet software. 

Quality Control and Quality Assurance

Quality control and quality assurance 

(QA/QC) procedures in the water quality 

component of the LTRMP are designed to 

quantify the reliability of the water‐quality 

data and allow identification and correction of 

specific sources of error or variance. Various 

recommendations or requirements for QA/QC 

have been published (USEPA 1974, APHA 1998) 

and the recommendations of standard methods 

(APHA 1998), with minor modifications, are the 

basis for QA/QC procedures in the water quality 

component. 

The panel found, at their level of expertise, 

the QA/QC protocols in use by the LTRMP water 

quality component to be excellent, exceeding 

the levels used in many similar programs. The 

panel recommended adding biannual blind 

sample testing for pH and specific conductance 

to the field protocols and encouraged continued 

participation of the laboratory in the Standard 

Reference Sample program of the National Water 

Quality Laboratory. The panel also agreed that 

the potential for obtaining formal laboratory 

and program certification (e.g. National 

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation 

Program) based on existing practices should be 

investigated, as this certification would formally 

recognize the high level of work being performed 


in LTRMP water quality and increase the national 

credibility of the program.

Analytical Laboratory

The water quality laboratory at the Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 

(UMESC) makes over 80,000 analytical 

determinations per year in support of the LTRMP 

water quality component. The laboratory uses a 

high level of automation and adheres to methods 

that are fully documented and widely accepted 

(e.g., Standard Methods; APHA 1998). Levels 

of precision and accuracy are intended to be 

within the standards for normal laboratory 

practice and are checked with quality assurance 

and quality control procedures that adhere to 

established norms. This component review was 

not a laboratory audit. The panel recommended 

that the laboratory continue to participate 

in such activities as the Standard Reference 

Sample Program of the USGS. The laboratory 

participated in the Standard Reference Sample 

Program in Spring 2002 (received a 4.0 out 

of 4.0 rating), Fall 2004 (received a 3.8 out of 

4.0 rating), and Spring 2005 (LTRMP lab results 

were all within 2% of official results).

Electronic Data Acquisition and Data 

Management

Beginning in 1993, the use of barcodes 

for automated tracking of samples and data 

was implemented (Chapter 7.14, Soballe and 

Fischer 2004). Each item of data in the LTRMP 

database is permanently linked to the bar code 

on its original data sheet and the sample bar 

codes are used to track samples through the 

analytical laboratory. Thus the bar codes provide 

an automated method for tracking data and 

samples through the entire processing system. 

The bar codes serve to streamline error tracking 

and correcting, streamline sample processing 

and tracking, and improve data handling, as 

well as sample accounting and accountability. 

In 1995, the water quality component of the 

LTRMP began using electronic data capture and 

transmission as the primary method for obtaining 

and transferring selected field information and 

custody records to the analytical laboratory 

from the LTRMP field stations. However, paper 

data sheets and a separate data entry contractor 

remained the primary method for field data 

acquisition. The use of paper data sheets and 

data entry contractor introduced a significant 

number of errors in the data (about 1–5 errors 

per 100 data sheets) which required unacceptable 

amounts of staff time to detect, research, and 

correct. The delivery of data to end users was 

delayed while errors were being found and 

corrected by senior science staff. In response, an 

electronic data sheet system was implemented 

by the LTRMP water quality component in 

2001. This electronic approach obtains readings 

directly from the field instruments and carefully 

cross‐checks user inputs as they are entered 

into the data sheet to ensure that complete and 

accurate information is obtained in the field. The 

system also includes electronic transfer of all 

field data and custody records to the analytical 

laboratory. This approach eliminates the use of 

a data entry contractor, but more importantly, 

the results from the first year of operation (about 

6000 data sheets processed) show that it virtually 

eliminates data errors.

The review panel found that data acquisition 

and data management employed by the LTRMP 

water quality component are exceptional. 

Electronic data acquisition and transmission 

was a major advance that enhances the quality 

of the data and has lead to dramatic shortening 

of the time required to provide the data to end 

users. The new procedures provide substantial 

improvements in the physical protection and 

integrity of the collected data over the previous, 

paper‐based, approach. Maintaining existing 

paper archives for the field data is essential, but 

the generation of paper archives into the future 

should be revisited.

Communication and Data Access

The panel emphasized that distribution of 

data and communication of findings are critical 

functions of the LTRMP. Only by analyzing the 

data for scientific publication and submitting the 

findings to external peer review is the final step 

in quality assurance achieved, the adequacy of 

the design fully tested (revealing redundancies), 

and the actual value of the collected data 


clearly shown and documented. Analysis and 

publication have been chronic weak points in 

the LTRMP for a host of legitimate reasons. 

However, the review panel most strongly 

encourages the program managers to allocate 

a larger share of the available resources to this 

endeavor. The program has reached a level of 

maturity that warrants this shift in emphasis.

Significant improvements related to the 

distribution of data and information generated 

by LTRMP are still possible and recommended. 

The panel strongly encourages the water quality 

component to continue progressing on methods 

with the goal of data distribution within 1 year of 

collection. All laboratory analyses of 2004 water 

quality samples were completed by 30 March 

2005 and data were available to the public by 

15 June 2005.

The panel noted that LTRMP derived 

information is not being used to the extent 

possible by resource managers in the 

development and evaluation of resource 

management alternatives. Major users of 

LTRMP water quality data (e.g., regulators) 

come from outside the group of river biologists, 

engineers, and refuge managers that are 

considered the core constituency of the LTRMP. 

The review panel is puzzled as to why this 

core constituency does not make greater use of 

this invaluable resource, and has a number of 

suggestions to offer.

Closer liaison with management agencies 

may be needed to improve use of LTRMP 

information and expertise (i.e., direct 

involvement of the USGS Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) staff 

in Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement 

Project planning and review, and UMESC 

participation in other project planning activities) . 

The USGS is a partner in, not a contractor to, the 

Environmental Management Program (EMP). As 

the lead science agency in the EMP partnership, 

a primary role for USGS is to ensure that sound 

science drives management and decision‐making 

in EMP projects. To the extent practicable, this 

increase in science inputs to the EMP should be 

based upon communication, cooperation, and 

collaboration among UMESC scientists and their 

counterparts in the EMP partner agencies.

Reporting

The reporting of the LTRMP water quality 

data takes several forms. The entire data set 

is available to the public (http://www.umesc.

usgs.gov/data_library/water_quality/water1_

query.shtml) so that specific analyses may be 

conducted. The data set is complex, however, 

because of its broad scope in space and time 

(many years, six study reaches, four seasons, 

and six strata) and some time must be invested 

in learning its structure and content before 

conducting analyses. To make the data more 

accessible to managers and the public, web 

browsers that present summary data graphically 

for use by scientists, managers, and the general 

public are under development (see next section). 

A broad summary of the data from 1993 – 2002 

is available (Houser 2005); summary reports of 

the earlier years of the program (1993–1996) 

have also been produced (e.g. Soballe et al. 

2002a–d); and presentations based on LTRMP 

data are regularly made at scientific and river 

management conferences and meetings (e.g., 

Houser et al. 2004, Soballe et al. 2004). A 

comprehensive list of all LTRMP reports can be 

found at http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_

publications/ltrmp_rep_list.html. 

Data Access

The review panel strongly encouraged the 

UMESC data management group to modify the 

existing user interfaces to improve access to the 

LTRMP data. The LTRMP data browser and 

the documentation it provides with each data 

retrieval are extremely useful, especially to more 

advanced users who need access to raw data. 

However, other avenues need to be pursued. The 

graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided by the 

stand alone Data Visualization Tool and similar 

web based graphical browsers under development 

at UMESC provide an extremely effective entry 

point into the LTRMP data for both internal 

and external users. The panel recommended 

that such interfaces be further developed. The 

Water Quality Fixed Site Graphical Browser 

is nearly completed for pools 8 and 13 and the 

Open River and will be ready for review by the 

end of FY 2005; Pools 4 and 26 and La Grange 


Pool are scheduled to be completed in FY 2006. 

A similar graphical browser for the Stratified 

Random Sampling data is proposed for FY 2006. 

This Web‐based interface is similar to that being 

offered on the web by USGS Water Resources 

Division for giving access to river discharge data. 

In developing new tools for data access, input 

from various potential users of the LTRMP data 

should be solicited. 

Minor modifications to the existing 

database browser would likewise be helpful. 

One modification suggested by the panel, and 

accomplished in 2004, was to include a header 

line that allows “comma delimited” retrievals 

from the browser to be imported directly into 

a spreadsheet (e.g., Microsoft Excel) with 

the columns already labeled. In addition, the 

concept of “canned” retrievals producing 

a data set consisting of the most commonly 

requested variables should be considered. Such 

preprogrammed procedures would allow quick 

and easy access to the most commonly requested 

information. Interaction with the data user 

community (e.g., UMRCC water quality tech 

section and LTRMP field teams) is essential in 

developing these “canned” retrievals.

References

APHA (American Public Health Association). 

1998. Standard methods for the examination 

of water and watewater. 20th edition. 

American Public Health Association, 

Washington, D.C.

Houser, J.N., J.T. Rogala, B.R. Gray, J. R. 

Fischer and B. L. Johnson. 2004. Using 

long‐term monitoring data to understand 

spatial and temporal variability in the Upper 

Mississippi River System. Ecological Society 

of America 89th Annual Meeting. Portland, 

Oregon. August 1–6.

Houser, J. N., editor. 2005. Multiyear synthesis 

of limnological data from 1993 to 2001 

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environment Sciences Center, La 

Crosse, Wisconsin, March 2005. LTRMP 

Technical Report 2005‐T003. 59 pp. (NTIS 

PB2005‐105228)

Soballe, D. M., J. R. Fischer, L. A. 

Hodge‐Richardson, and T. L. Clemment. 

2002a. Limnological monitoring on the Upper 

Mississippi River System, 1993–1996: Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program Onalaska 

Field Station. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La 

Crosse, Wisconsin, October 2002. LTRMP 

2002‐P003. 20 pp. + Appendixes A–F. (NTIS 

#PB2003‐101578) 

Soballe, D. M., D. E. Gould, S. A. Gritters, 

R. D. Gent, and M. J. Steuck. 2002b. 

Limnological monitoring on the Upper 

Mississippi River System, 1993–1996: Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program Bellevue 

Field Station. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La 

Crosse, Wisconsin, October 2002. LTRMP 

2002‐P004. 16 pp. + Appendixes A–F. (NTIS 

PB2003‐101579) 

Soballe, D. M., E. Ratcliff, B. Kerans, and T. 

Mihuc. 2002c. Limnological monitoring on the 

Upper Mississippi River System, 1993–1996: 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Pool 26 Field Station. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences 

Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, October 2002. 

LTRMP 2002‐P002. 18 pp. + Appendixes 

A–F. (NTIS PB2003‐101577) 

Soballe, D. M., R. H. Wright, and S. W. Stenzel. 

2002d. Limnological monitoring on the Upper 

Mississippi River System, 1993–1996: Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program Havana 

Field Station. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 

Onalaska, Wisconsin, November 2002. 

LTRMP 2002‐P005. 16 pp. + Appendixes 

A–F. (NTIS PB2003‐101576) 

Soballe, D. M., and J. R. Fischer. 2004. 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Procedures: Water quality monitoring. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, March 2004. Technical Report 

LTRMP 2004‐T002‐1 (Ref. 95‐P002‐5). 

73 pp. + Appendixes A–J.

Soballe, D.M., D.M. Wasley, and R.H. Coupe. 

2004. Effects of flood timing and spatial 

distribution on nitrate export from the upper 


Mississippi basin. Mississippi River Research 

Consortium 36th Annual Meeting. April 1–2. 

La Crosse, Wisconsin.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 

1974. Methods for chemical analysis of water 

and wastes. EPA‐625/6‐74‐003.

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)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the 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, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

May 2006

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Water Quality Component Review 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) David M. Soballe1 and Jeffrey N. Houser2

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building, Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

2

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

 U.S. Geological Survey 

 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

 2630 Fanta Reed Road

 La Crosse, Wisconsin, 54603

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

 2006-T001

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Release unlimited. Available from 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).

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

A review of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program water quality component was conducted in May–June 2002 and considered seven aspects of the program. The 

review was conducted by a panel of five external experts who reviewed program documents and then met at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center on 3–7 June 

2002.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Adequacy, data manaagement, design, procedure, quality assurance, quality control, water quality 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

 9 pp. .

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
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.

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Water Quality Component Review 2006-T001