Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

 Technical Report 

2005-T006

December 2005

Evaluation of the Macroinvertebrate Component of the 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 
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.
Evaluation of the Macroinvertebrate Component 

of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

by

Jennifer Sauer

Report submitted to

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

Clock Tower Building

PO Box 2004

Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

December 2005

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603
Suggested citation:

Sauer. J. 2005. Evaluation of the Macroinvertebrate Component of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 2005-T006. 11 pp. + Appendixes A–D. 

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

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

Planning History ............................................................................................. 2

Sampling Design for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Macroinvertebrate 

Component .......................................................................................... 3

Data Management and Delivery ........................................................................... 5

Workshop Overview and Survey Results ............................................................... 6

Conclusions................................................................................................... 7

Funding Plans ................................................................................................ 8

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................... 8

References ................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A. Macroinvertebrate Evaluation Survey Results ....................................... A-1

Appendix B. Brainstorming Session: Questions About Upper Mississippi River System 

Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C. Brainstorming Session: Research Ideas from the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program Partners ..................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. A Potential 5-year Rotating Panel Design with Augmentation for Macroinvertebrate 

Sampling on the Upper Mississippi River System ............................................. D-1

Page

Figures

1. Six study areas of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program on the Upper 

Mississippi River System......................................................................... 2

2. Macroinvertebrate electronic data sheet. ...................................................... 5

Number 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 2.2.7.5 as specified in Goal 2, Monitor Resource Change, of the LTRMP 

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

provided by the LTRMP. 
Evaluation of the macroinvertebrate component 

of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

by

Jennifer Sauer

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

Introduction

The need for effective monitoring programs and 

the information they provide has been voiced by 

a number of agencies (Davis 1989; Interagency 

Ecosystem Management Task Force 1995). Longterm ecosystem monitoring is needed to detect 

population status and trends and to measure the 

effectiveness of management actions (LaRoe et al. 

1995; Mac 1998; Wenche and Semb 2001). 

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 

(EMP; Program). Congress recognized the Upper 

Mississippi River System (UMRS) as a nationally 

significant ecosystem and a nationally significant 

commercial navigation system—the only river 

in the United States to be formally recognized as 

such. 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 further recognized that 

the system provides a diversity of opportunities 

and experiences and should be administered and 

regulated in recognition of its several purposes. 

Recognizing that knowledge of ecosystem 

conditions and trends was critical for effective 

administration, the original authorization provided 

for a 10-year EMP starting in 1987. Section 405 of 

Abstract: The need for effective monitoring programs to detect population status and trends and to measure 

the effectiveness of management actions has been voiced by a number of management agencies. It is prudent 

for any long-term monitoring program to periodically undergo evaluation. In 2002, an evaluation of the 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program’s (LTRMP) macroinvertebrate component was begun to determine 

whether its current design was still appropriate based on LTRMP objectives, partner needs, and expected 

funding levels. The following report discusses the history and sampling design of the component and the 

results of an evaluation survey and workshop conducted with LTRMP partners. The survey and workshop 

were the first steps to help assess general support and identify issues or concerns about the macroinvertebrate 

component. Suggestions for a future design of the macroinvertebrate component include the continuation of 

monitoring soft-sediment macroinvertebrates and the addition of long term monitoring of native mussels.

Key words: Benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates, Corbicula, evaluation, fingernail clams (Pisidiidae), Illinois 

River, Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, mayflies (Ephemeroptera), midges (Chironomidae), 

Mississippi River, zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)


the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(Public Law 101-640) extended the Program an 

additional 5 years, and Section 509 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public 

Law 106-53) authorized the EMP as a continuing 

program. The LTRMP is conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

the five UMRS states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Missouri, and Wisconsin), with guidance and 

overall Program responsibility provided by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ultimate 

goal of the LTRMP is not simply to report status 

and trends, but to improve the understanding and 

management of the UMRS. 

From 1992 to 2004, LTRMP staff collected 

data on select macroinvertebrate populations 

in six study areas on the UMRS (Figure 1). 

The LTRMP macroinvertebrate monitoring 

is intended to provide a better understanding 

of the conditions needed to support viable 

macroinvertebrate populations at levels adequate 

for sustaining native fish and migrating 

waterfowl. 

It is prudent for any long-term 

monitoring program to periodically 

undergo review (Hirst 1983; 

McDonald et al. 1998; Strayer et al. 

1986). In fact, Congress recognized 

the need for periodic assessment of 

the EMP by requiring a report (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers 1997) 

containing

• an evaluation of the 

Program, 

• description of the 

accomplishments of the 

Program, 

• updates on a systemic 

habitat needs assessment, 

and 

• identification of any 

needed adjustments in 

the authorization of the 

Program.

Over its history, the LTRMP 

has undergone various reviews 

including scientific and 

management reviews (Church 

1996; International Science Review 

Committee 1990; Weaver 1997). In 2002, we 

undertook an evaluation of the Macroinvertebrate 

Component to determine if its current design is 

still appropriate based on LTRMP objectives, 

partner needs, and expected funding levels. The 

LTRMP Macroinvertebrate Component is one of 

four LTRMP field components and has accounted 

for about 5% of the annual LTRMP funding from 

1992 to 2004, compared to 18–34% for other 

field components (aquatic vegetation, water 

quality, and fisheries).

Planning History

The first step in designing any monitoring 

program is to set clear objectives. The objectives 

for macroinvertebrate monitoring were set out in 

a series of LTRMP planning documents.

The first long-term monitoring planning 

document was written by the Upper Mississippi 

River Conservation Committee (1980). This 

document laid out two goals for a monitoring 

Figure 1. The six study areas of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

on the Upper Mississippi River System.


program—to document changes in the physical 

and chemical components of the habitat and 

to document plant and animal changes in the 

UMRS. Invertebrate monitoring variables 

would include zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, 

and periphyton. Planning for the LTRMP and 

subsequent macroinvertebrate component became 

more specific in 1981 with the Comprehensive 

Master Plan (Jackson et al. 1981). The plan 

recommended weekly sampling of zooplankton 

in spring and early summer with bi-monthly 

Ponar grab samples and artificial substrate 

samplers. In 1987, an Action Plan prepared by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 

1987) became more explicit and suggested three 

major tasks, (1) characterization of selected 

benthos, (2) population demography and density 

of fingernail clams and burrowing mayflies, and 

(3) annual changes in density, physical condition, 

and population demography of native mussels. 

Finally, the 1992 Operating Plan (USFWS 

1993), because of budget constraints, narrowed 

the scope of invertebrate monitoring to target 

benthic macroinvertebrates, specifically the 

soft-substrate invertebrates. The soft-substrate 

macroinvertebrates were chosen as an important 

component of the ecosystem and because of 

their importance as food resources for waterfowl 

and fish (Ken Lubinski, USGS, pers. comm.). 

Burrowing mayflies (Ephemeridae), fingernail 

clams (Sphaeriidae), and the nonnative Asiatic 

clam (Corbicula spp.) were selected for 

monitoring initially. Midges (Chironomidae) 

were added to the sampling design in 1993 

and the nonnative zebra mussel (Dreissena 

polymorpha) in 1995. Mayflies, fingernail clams, 

and midges were chosen as target organisms 

for the LTRMP because of their important 

ecological role in the UMRS, especially as 

a source of food for waterfowl and fish. The 

Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and zebra 

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), both nonnative 

freshwater clams, were chosen for monitoring 

because of their possible detrimental effects on 

the economy and biology of the UMRS. The 

main objective of the LTRMP macroinvertebrate 

component is to document spatial and temporal 

trends in select benthic macroinvertebrates.

Sampling Design for the 

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

Macroinvertebrate Component

Sampling in a large river is difficult (Resh 

and Rosenberg 1989; Flotemersch et al. 2000). 

In 1991, the LTRMP initiated a pilot study 

to determine an efficient and cost-effective 

sampling design for the macroinvertebrate 

component, taking into consideration the study 

design, sample size, and cost of sampling benthic 

macroinvertebrates in a large river (Bartsch et 

al. 1998). Bartsch et al. (1998) sampled in two 

strata: backwater areas and channel borders. 

They found that using one Ponar grab per site 

produced abundance estimates for Oligochaeta, 

Chironomidae, and total invertebrates similar 

to those derived from averaging three grabs 

while reducing the cost by 63%. Their design, 

unfortunately, was ineffective in determining 

statistical differences in abundance between the 

two strata for mayflies and fingernail clams. 

They suggest caution in using their design under 

different environmental conditions such as 

abundance and spatial distribution, which will 

affect sample size and precision.

A number of researchers prescribe a simple 

strategy when designing a monitoring program 

(Likens 1989; Manly 2001; Wenche and Semb 

2001). Densities of benthic invertebrates are 

highly variable and extremely patchy making 

it difficult to obtain accurate estimates of mean 

densities. The macroinvertebrate component 

addresses this problem in two ways. First, the 

component’s stratified random design is intended 

to estimate unbiased mean densities of target 

macroinvertebrates within aquatic area strata 

of each study area. Stratified random sampling 

involves splitting the population into groups, or 

strata, and choosing a random sample from each 

stratum. This is appropriate when population 

units are more similar within each stratum than 

they are across strata. This approach also can 

increase precision and lower the error associated 

with population estimates within each stratum 

(Elliot 1977; Manly 2001). 

Second, a standard Ponar grab was chosen as 

sampling gear because it has the best precision 

(lowest mean variance) and accuracy (highest 


mean density) when sampling soft-substrates 

compared to other gears (Schloesser and Nalepa 

2002). The depth of penetration of a Ponar is 

about 16 cm in soft-substrate (Schloesser and 

Nalepa 2002). Mayflies burrow to maximum 

depths of 13 cm (Hunt 1953; Ericksen 1968) and 

fingernail clams have been found at depths of 

16.9 cm with smaller clams burrowing deeper 

than larger clams (Gale 1971, 1973, 1976), thus, 

the vast majority of target taxa fall within the 

reach of a standard Ponar. The Ponar also has 

screens on top of the grab to decrease hydraulic 

shock (Schloesser and Nalepa 2002). The heavy 

weight (23 kg) of the Ponar is needed in a large 

flowing river. 

Use of standardized protocols is essential 

in any monitoring program. Standardized 

macroinvertebrate data collection began in 1992. 

Sampling protocols are documented in Thiel and 

Sauer (1999). Benthic samples were collected 

with a winch-mounted 0.052-m2 standard Ponar 

grab sampler (Ponar Grab Dredge, Wildlife 

Supply Company, Saginaw, Michigan) and sorted 

in the field. The wash frame sieve size was a 

U.S. Standard Sieve no. 30 (595 m) in 1992, 

but was changed to a U.S. Standard Sieve no. 16 

(1.18-mm) in 1993 to increase sorting efficiency. 

Thus, inferences on macroinvertebrate numbers 

from these data (1993–present) are restricted 

to larger individuals (Dukerschein et al. 1996). 

Identification of the target taxa is to the Family 

level because this level of detail is generally 

sufficient for management decisions (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1988).

Laboratory costs add substantially to 

macroinvertebrate monitoring and research. Also, 

the premature release of juvenile fingernail clams 

from the branchial chambers of adults, caused 

by traumas such as washing, transport, and the 

addition of preservatives (Gale 1969) can occur. 

Therefore, it was decided to field sort samples. 

Quality assurance (QA) samples are periodically 

examined in the laboratory to determine fieldsorting efficiency. After the picking process 

is completed in the field, it is determined by 

random draw whether the sample will be taken 

to the laboratory for QA/QC procedures. About 

10% of the samples in each aquatic area were 

retained. Negative binomial regression models 

were used to analyze the QA data for the years 

1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999. There was a positive 

relation between numbers of organisms found 

in the field and numbers found in the lab. In 

other words, the higher the number of organisms 

found in the field, the more likely organisms 

would be found in the lab. Sorting efficiency for 

mayflies and fingernail clams in the field was 

consistent over time (P = 0.2395 and P = 0.0733; 

respectively). These results emphasize the 

importance for standardization in methods to get 

consistency of results over the years. Mayflies 

were most likely missed in the field if detritus 

(P = 0.0124) was present in the samples whereas 

fingernail clams were most likely missed in the 

field if shells (P = 0.0205) were present in the 

sample. Those organisms missed in the field were 

usually smaller individuals. In 1992, the average 

length of mayflies found in the field was 25.7 

mm versus 5.7 mm in the lab. For fingernails 

clams, the average length found in the field was 

6.6 mm versus 2.7 mm in the lab. Lab results 

for fingernail clams need to be interpreted with 

caution because premature release of juvenile 

fingernail clams by adult clams can occur under 

stress. Juvenile clams average less than 5 mm in 

size (Gale 1969; Dietz and Stern 1977; Heard 

1977).

Lubinski et al. (2001) used power analysis to 

assess how well the LTRMP field components 

(fisheries, water quality, submersed aquatic 

vegetation, and macroinvertebrates) could 

detect change from one period (year for 

macroinvertebrates) to the next at existing levels 

of effort. Data on macroinvertebrate density were 

not normally distributed, and frequent zero values 

were recorded. Therefore to reduce the influence 

of these zero values on the analyses, initial power 

analyses were on presence/absence of mayfly 

and fingernail clam data. Power to detect a 

20% annual change ( = 0.2) was consistently 

greater in Navigation Pools 4, 8, and 13 than 

Pool 26, Open River Reach, and La Grange Pool 

because of the greater frequencies of occurrence 

of macroinvertebrates in the nonchannel aquatic 

areas (contiguous backwaters and impounded 

area) of these study areas. Low power to detect 

annual changes of this magnitude (20% change) 

is expected with macroinvertebrates with life 


cycles of 1 year or less that exhibit large annual 

changes in abundance. Also, using presenceabsence data usually yields lower power to detect 

changes in populations if declines are modest 

(<20–50%; Strayer 1999).

Sauer (2004) found that variance component 

estimates indicate that, on average, the majority 

of the variance seen among mayfly, fingernail 

clam, and midge annual means is derived from 

real changes in those means. A minority of the 

year-to-year variance (approximately 20%) was 

attributed to sampling or error variance.

The ability to detect long-term trends for 

macroinvertebrates is comparable (even greater) 

to other biotic and abiotic LTRMP components 

(http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp/power_plots.

html). For example, under the current sampling 

program, power to detect a 5% change per year 

in mayfly relative abundance in Pool 13 reaches 

80% after approximately 13 years. More than 

20 years are needed to detect a 5% change per 

year in bluegill catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) in 

Pool 13. Power to detect a 5% change per year 

in log-transformed suspended solids levels in the 

backwater stratum 

of Pool 13 in 

summer under the 

current sampling 

intensity is ~11 

years. Preliminary 

analysis on 

mayflies shows 

that given some 

minimal sample 

size per year, the 

sample size that 

really matters is the 

number of years 

sampled given that 

temporal trends are 

estimated across 

annual averages. 

Data Management and Delivery

We are committed to making data readily 

accessible to river managers and the public in 

a timely manner. Because of the volume alone, 

collecting, processing, managing, and reporting 

of field data is a significant investment of time 

and money. The volume and demands to quickly 

disseminate LTRMP data lead us to use computer 

technology to capture and deliver the data in a 

timely manner. The component began Web-based 

reporting and automation of electronic field data 

collection in 2001. 

Many steps were taken before field data 

automation could begin. A computer was selected 

that would hold up under a variety of field and 

weather conditions—heat, cold, vibrations, rain, 

snow. These rugged systems were designed to 

meet Military Standard 810E. A touchscreen 

design was chosen to allow users to navigate 

the electronic data sheet (Figure 2) by touching 

icons or links. The aim was to reduce the 

amount of keypunching in the field. Before the 

automated field data collection system was fully 

Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate electronic data sheet.


implemented, the system was fully tested by the 

Pool 13 field station. A number of factors were 

evaluated during testing including correctness of 

the data entry application, computer durability, 

and ease of use. To determine if the electronic 

data sheet was recording correctly, paper data 

sheets were also filled out during the testing 

period. This enabled staff to determine if any 

errors were occurring during data entry.

Two goals of the electronic data sheet are to 

increase data entry efficiency by preloading 

as much data as possible and reduce errors in 

data recording. Sometimes a single error would 

require several hours to research and correct. By 

using electronic data capture, most of the errors 

can be captured at the source (i.e., in the field) 

by use of syntax, contextual, and range checks 

made by data capture software run on a laptop 

computer, thus preventing most errors from ever 

entering the system. Errors are much easier to 

prevent than to correct (Oakley et al. 2001). 

Overall, the automation of field data entry 

was a success. There were timesavings in 

data recording, entry, and verification in the 

field and office and cost savings with the data 

entry contractor. Delivery time for Web-based 

reporting was also improved.

Workshop Overview and Survey Results

In spring 2002, an on-line survey form was 

generated and sent out to 216 LTRMP partners. 

The survey was the first step to help assess 

general support and identify issues or concerns 

about the Macroinvertebrate Component. There 

was a 21% return rate. Because some of the 

questions were open-ended questions, answers 

were paraphrased for clarity. The results of the 

survey can be found in Appendix A.

The majority of the respondents to the on-line 

survey consider the macroinvertebrate component 

important in understanding the river ecosystem. 

The data are used in a variety of ways from 

assessing and planning habitat and rehabilitation 

projects to classroom use and outreach. 

Respondents to the survey had a number 

of issues, concerns, or questions relating to 

invertebrates on the UMRS. These include the 

role of invertebrates on the river ecosystem, 

impact of exotics, lack of analysis, and lack 

of funding. While they noted the strengths of 

the component such as coverage of multiple 

pools, consistency in sampling design, tracking 

of trends, length of record, and importance of 

macroinvertebrates, there are also a number of 

weaknesses. A recurring theme in the on-line 

survey was the gaps in spatial coverage. Despite 

the importance of benthic invertebrates, little 

information is available on the occurrence and 

densities of these animals outside of key LTRMP 

study areas; especially in Pools 14–25. To 

address this issue a systemic design enhancement 

could be implemented (see recommendations 

below). The lack of information on other 

invertebrate taxa (i.e., native mussels, 

zooplankton) was also seen as a data gap. 

While respondents considered the soft-substrate 

community the most important community to 

monitor, they considered monitoring of native 

mussels a close second.

Another limitation seen of the component 

was the limited analysis of the data to date. The 

occurrence of many zeroes made analysis for 

macroinvertebrates challenging. In 2002, efforts 

began to predict macroinvertebrate abundances 

in space and time through statistical models. The 

work stems from the management focus of the 

LTRMP. Resource managers are concerned with 

the abundance of macroinvertebrates as it relates 

to migratory waterfowl and a number of game 

and sport fish including shovelnose sturgeon, 

walleye, and bluegills. Once macroinvertebrate 

abundance and distribution patterns are 

better understood, management actions can 

be undertaken. Analysis efforts under the 

Macroinvertebrate Component can be referenced 

in Sauer (2004), Gray (2005), and Gray et al. 

(2005).

In September of 2002, a panel of LTRMP 

Partners met to review the Macroinvertebrate 

Component. Presentations from the 

Macroinvertebrate Component Coordinator 

included a multiyear data report and a summary 

of the survey results. A list of questions was 

developed that the panel considered critical 

to improving our understanding of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates in the UMRS (Appendix B). 

These questions developed by the LTRMP and 


Partners can help establish annual projects and 

activities in a way that strives toward addressing 

larger science and management issues within 

budgetary constraints and opportunities. A list 

of research ideas that could be explored using 

the current LTRMP macroinvertebrate data 

was developed by the panel (Appendix C). 

Presentations also were given by Robert Hrabik, 

Missouri Department of Conservation on the 

Open River study design and Dr. Brian Gray, 

USGS-UMESC on modeling efforts. 

The workshop panel participants agreed that the 

expectations of the LTRMP macroinvertebrate 

component—baseline and trend monitoring of 

soft-substrate macroinvertebrates—are being 

achieved. 

Conclusions

Depending on what questions you want the 

macroinvertebrate data to help you answer 

(and the investment of time and resources 

available), a wide range of possibilities exist for 

the future direction of the Macroinvertebrate 

Component. Whereas management issues are the 

top consideration when designing a monitoring 

program, issues of today should not limit 

monitoring since they will change (McDonald 

1998). 

Fancy (2000) states the “best” sampling 

design depends on the questions being asked. As 

mentioned above, the management objective of 

the LTRMP’s Macroinvertebrate Component is to 

provide a better understanding of the conditions 

needed to support viable macroinvertebrate 

populations at levels adequate for sustaining 

native fish and migrating waterfowl. 

Macroinvertebrate population status and trend 

data are required to reach this objective. 

The macroinvertebrate data set currently 

contains 13 years of data and is just now reaching 

sufficient length to provide reasonable power 

to detect long term changes. The current design 

gives unbiased annual estimates at pool/strata 

level and provides the ability to detect long-term 

trends and develop “management action” levels. 

Also, estimates of interannual variation for both 

strata and pools improve as the number of years 

macroinvertebrates are monitored increases. 

The magnitude of interannual variation will 

help managers characterize (statistically) what 

constitutes an important “change in status”.

A system as large as the UMRS contains a 

mixture of spatial attributes that can influence 

the abundance and distribution of biota within 

the river system. A reduction in the spatial 

coverage will impair the ability to provide data 

for investigating how the spatial structure of 

physical, chemical, and biotic components of the 

UMRS influence the abundance and distribution 

of macroinvertebrate resources. Given adequate 

number of years, status and trend information 

can help managers make informed decisions 

on systemic sampling design issues, will allow 

inferences about changes to biota at higher 

trophic levels (fish and waterfowl), and will 

provide the most cost-effective measure of biotic 

integrity for the UMRS.

However, gathering only status and trend 

information on select benthic invertebrates is 

limiting. There are many needs and questions not 

addressed with the current design (Appendix B 

and C). To address the specific issue of the lack 

of spatial coverage in the component and going 

under the assumption that we are interested in 

the status and trends for these areas, one method 

of sampling is a serially alternating design with 

augmentation. This design should be better 

suited for detecting long-term trends (Manly 

2001). Under this design, Pools 4, 8, 13, and 26 

and La Grange Pool would be sampled annually 

and a sub-sample of remaining pools would be 

sampled each year, thus the entire system would 

be sampled over a period of 5 years (Appendix 

D). This type of design would still allow us to 

track status and trends, plus investigate different 

dynamics and potential drivers in each pool. 

There also is a demonstrated need to monitor 

the status and trends of the native mussel 

community of the UMRS (Appendix A, 

National Strategy for the Conservation of Native 

Freshwater Mussels, and Conservation Plan for 

Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi 

River System). Management agencies need 

to know the condition of the resource (i.e., 

species richness, relative abundance, density, 

and recruitment measurements) in order to 

modify harvest regulations, evaluate threats, and 


determine levels of management effort required 

to maintain viable populations (Miller and Payne 

1988). Unfortunately, the scientifically valid 

data needed to describe the resource’s current 

status and predict its response to future stressors 

or management actions are lacking. The most 

urgent short-term question expressed by many 

managers, especially in downstream pools, is 

“What’s out there”? 

A program needs to be formulated not only 

to answer several basic and urgent short-term 

management and science questions, but also to 

provide the initial data needed to begin answering 

long-term questions through the development and 

refinement of a scientifically sound long-term 

monitoring program for native mussels.

The Open River Reach field station staff is 

investigating new study designs for the Open 

River Reach because the current design is not 

practical for the habitat or taxa in that area. Other 

designs and methods need to be explored because 

there are many areas of the UMRS where little is 

known about the invertebrate fauna. Areas such 

as isolated backwaters, major tributaries, or dike 

fields are not sampled under the current design. 

Beckett et al. (1983) found dike fields important 

in the lower Upper Mississippi River. Because 

of the unique nature of these areas, the best way 

to address this issue may not be to just add them 

into the current design, but rather attack them 

with focused studies or short-term monitoring. 

The long-term monitoring design should be 

coordinated with necessary experiments and 

management action evaluations to quantify 

causal mechanisms. Focused research topics 

could answer questions such as “What 

is the effectiveness of HREP efforts on 

macroinvertebrates?”; “Are patches with high 

density of organisms consistent through time? 

If so, are they predictable by other co-variables? 

Can we then change the sampling design to 

emphasize these areas?”, and “What role do 

macroinvertebrates play in the nitrogen cycle?”

The LTRMP Macroinvertebrate Component 

has produced a high-quality, consistent data set 

on macroinvertebrate distribution and abundance 

over many years. It is only one of a few longterm databases on large river macroinvertebrates 

nationwide. The LTRMP macroinvertebrate 

monitoring framework is well suited to provide 

a better understanding of the long-term changes 

in the UMRS’ natural resources. More years of 

monitoring are necessary to understand apparent 

temporal pattern. A combination of long-term 

monitoring with applied research to understand 

changes in the UMRS ecosystem is needed. 

Funding Plans

In 2005, a 5-year plan was developed for 

the LTRMP assuming a static budget of about 

$5 million per year over the period. Within 

this plan, the data collection portion of the 

Program was reduced to a level that could be 

accomplished annually over the 5-year period 

given the budget constraint. This effort, called 

the “minimum sustainable program,” required 

about $3.7 million in 2005, which will inflate 

(based on a projected 4.1 % annual inflation rate) 

to about $4.3 million in 5 years. As part of this 

restructuring, which was based on guidance from 

the LTRMP Analysis Team and Environmental 

Management Program Coordinating Committee, 

the macroinvertebrate component was dropped 

from the minimum sustainable program. Future 

work on invertebrates within LTRMP can be 

funded as focused research projects to address 

specific issues of interest to the Partnership.

Acknowledgments

The LTRMP is a cooperative effort involving 

the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources, the Illinois Natural History Survey, 

the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

the Missouri Department of Conservation, and 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

The participating state resource management and 

research agencies conduct monitoring and also 

reviewed the present report. The author thanks 

these agencies and the participating field station 

staff. Thanks also to Dr. Brian Gray for statistical 

assistance.


References

Bartsch, L. A., W. B. Richardson, and 

T. J. Naimo. 1998. Sampling benthic 

macroinvertebrates in a large flood-plain 

river: Considerations of study design, sample 

size, and cost. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 52(3):425–439.

Beckett, D. C., C. R. Rex, and L. G. Sanders. 

1983. Benthic macroinvertebrates of selected 

habitats of the Lower Mississippi River. Journal 

of Freshwater Ecology 2(3):247–261.

Church, M. 1996. Second science review 

committee report on the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program – Environmental 

Management Technical Center. United States 

Department of Interior. 31 pp.

Davis, G. E. 1989. Design of a long-term 

ecological monitoring program for Channel 

Islands National Park, California. Natural 

Areas J. 9: 80-89. 

Dietz, T. H. and E. M. Stern. 1977. Seasonal 

changes in reproductive activity and 

biochemical composition of the fingernail clam, 

Sphaerium transversum. Nautilus 91(4):136–

140.

Dukerschein, J. T., R. Gent, and J. Sauer. 1996. 

Recovery of macroinvertebrates by screening in 

the field: A comparison between coarse (1.18 

mm)- and fine (0.66 mm)-mesh sieves. Journal 

of Freshwater Ecology 11:61–65.

Elliot, J. M. 1977. Some methods for the 

statistical analysis of samples of benthic 

invertebrates. 2nd ed. Freshwater Biological 

Association Scientific Publication No. 25. 156 

pp.

Ericksen, C. 1968.Ecological significance 

of respiration and substrate burrowing 

Ephemeroptera. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 

46:93–103.

Fancy, S. G. 2000. Guidance for the design of 

sampling schemes for inventory and monitoring 

of biological resources in national parks. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 10 pp.

Fredrickson, L. H. and F. A. Reid. 1988. 

Initial considerations for sampling wetland 

invertebrates. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.3.2, 

Waterfowl Management Handbook, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 5 pp.

Gale, W. F. 1969. Bottom fauna of Pool 19, 

Mississippi River with emphasis on the life 

history of the fingernail clam, Sphaerium 

transversum. Ph.D. Dissertation, Iowa State 

University, Ames. 234 pp.

Gale, W.F. 1971. An experiment to determine 

substrate preference of the fingernail clam, 

Sphaerium transversum (Say). Ecology 

52:367–370.

Gale, W. F. 1973. Predation and parasitism as 

factors affecting Sphaerium transversum (Say) 

populations in Pool 19, Mississippi River. Res. 

Popul. Ecol. 14:169–187.

Gale, W. F. 1976. Vertical distribution and 

burrowing behavior of the fingernail clam, 

Sphaerium transversum. Malacologia 

15(2):401–409.

Gray, B. R. 2005. Selecting a distributional 

assumption for modeling relative abundances 

of benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecological 

Modeling 185:1–12.

Gray, B. R., R. J. Haro, J. T. Rogala, and J. S. 

Sauer. 2005. Modeling fingernail clam (Family: 

Sphaeriidae) abundance-habitat associations 

at two spatial scales using hierarchical count 

models. Journal of Freshwater Biology 50:715–

729.

Heard, W. H. 1977. Reproduction of fingernail 

clams (Sphaerium and Musculium). 

Malacologia 16(2):421–455.

Hirst, S. M. 1983. Ecological and institutional 

bases for long-term monitoring of fish and 

wildlife populations. Pages 175–178 in John F. 
10

Bell and Toby Atterbury, editors. Renewable 

Resource Inventories for Monitoring Changes 

and Trends. Proceedings of an International 

Conference, August 15–19, 1983, Corvallis, 

Oregon. College of Forestry, Oregon State 

University. 737 pp.

Hunt, B. P. 1953. The life history and economic 

importance of a burrowing mayfly, Hexagenia 

limbata, in southern Michigan Lakes. Bulletin 

of the Institute for Fisheries Research No. 4. 

Michigan Department of Conservation. 151 pp.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force 

(IEMTF). 1995. The ecosystem approach: 

healthy ecosystems and sustainable economics. 

Vol I—Overview. Department of Commerce. 

55 pp.

International Science Review Committee (ISRC). 

1990. First science review committee report on 

the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

– Environmental Management Technical 

Center. United States Department of Interior.

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. 

(NTIS #PB2003-500042)

Jackson, G. A., C. E. Korschgen, P. A. Thiel, 

J. M. Besser, D. W. Steffeck, and M. H. 

Bockenhauer. 1981. A long-term resource 

monitoring plan for the Upper Mississippi 

River System. Volume 1. Contract Report 14-

16-009-81-903 for the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin Commission, Bloomington, Minnesota. 

966 pp. + Appendixes

LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. 

Doran, and M. J. Mac, editors. 1995. Our 

living resources: a report to the nation on 

the distribution, abundance, and health of 

U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC. 530 pp.

Likens, G. E., editor. 1989. Long-Term Studies 

in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. 

Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 214 pp.

Manly, B. F. J. 2001. Statistics for environmental 

science and management. Chapman and Hall/

CRC, Boca Raton, Florida.

Mac, M. J., P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett-Haecker, 

and P. D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the 

nation’s biological resources. 2 volumes. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia.

McDonald L., T. McDonald, and D. Robertson. 

1998. Review of the Denali National Park 

and Preserve (DENA) Long-Term Ecological 

Monitoring Program (LTEM). Report to the 

Alaska Biological Science Center Biological 

Resources Division, USGS. WEST Technical 

Report 98–7. 19 pp.

Miller, A. C. and B. S. Payne. 1988. The need 

for quantitative sampling to characterize size 

demography and density of freshwater mussel 

communities. American Malacological Bulletin

6:49–54.

Oakley, K. L., S. L. Boudreau, and S-Z. 

Humphrey. 2001. Recommended features of 

protocols for long-term ecological monitoring. 

Pages 415–419 in David Harmon, editor. 

Crossing boundaries in park management: 

proceedings of the 11th Conference on research 

and resource management in parks and on 

public lands, Denver, Colorado, April 16–20, 

2001. George Wright Society, Hancock, 

Michigan. 426 pp.

Resh, V. H. and D. M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatialtemporal variability and the study of aquatic 

insects. The Canadian Entomologist 121:941–

963.

Sauer, J. 2004. Multiyear synthesis of the 

macroinvertebrate component from 1992 to 

2002 for the Long Term Resource Monitoring 
11

Program. 2004. Final report submitted to 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from the 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, December 2004. Technical Report 

LTRMP 2004-T005. 31 pp. + Appendixes A–C. 

(NTIS PB2005-102325) 

Schloesser, D. W., and T. F. Nalepa. 2002. 

Comparison of 5 benthic samplers to collect 

burrowing mayfly nymphs (Hexagenia spp: 

Ephemeroptera:Ephemeridae) in sediments 

of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of 

the North American Benthological Society 

21(3):487–501. 

Strayer, D. L. 1999 . The statistical power of 

presence-absence data to detect population 

declines. Conservation Biology 13:1034–1038.

Strayer, D., Glitzenstein, J. S., Jones, C. G., 

Kolasoi, J., Likens, G. E., McDonnell, M. J., 

Parker, G. G. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1986. Longterm ecological studies: an illustrated account 

of their design, operation, and importance to 

ecology. Occasional Publication of the Institute 

of Ecosystem Studies, No.2. Millbrook, 

New York.

Thiel, P. A., and J. S. Sauer. 1999. Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program 

procedures: Macroinvertebrate monitoring. 

National Biological Service, Environmental 

Management Technical Center, Onalaska, 

Wisconsin, August 1995. LTRMP 95-P002-2. 

9 pp. + Appendixes A–G

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. 

Environmental Management Program Resource 

Trend Analysis: Action Plan Report. 23 pp + 

Appendixes.

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)

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Report 

to Congress an evaluation of the Upper 

Mississippi River System Environmental 

Management Program. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Rock Island District.

Upper Mississippi River Conservation 

Committee. 1980. A guide to the design, 

development, and testing of a monitoring plan 

for the Upper Mississippi River System. Rock 

Island, Illinois. 41 pp.

Weaver, J. 1997. Program Review: 

Environmental Management Technical Center. 

United States Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division. 42 pp.

Wenche, A. and A. Semb. 2001. Standardization 

of methods for long-term monitoring. Water, 

Air, and Soil Pollution. 130:1595–1600.
AAppendix A. Macroinvertebrate Evaluation Survey Results

Question Yes No

Are you aware of the existence of the LTRMP macroinvertebrate database for the 

Upper Mississippi River? 36 3

Have you personally used this information? 22 16

Question Frequency of responses

For what purpose(s) have you used the LTRMP macroinvertebrate data?

Tracking exotics 3

Assessing waterfowl use areas and walleye condition 3

Assessing and planning COE projects 4

Detecting spatial patterns and trends 8

Classroom use 2

Water quality assessment reports 1

Bioindicators 2

Outreach 3

Hypothesis generation, planning studies 2

How often do you use LTRMP macroinvertebrate data?

Have not used data 6

Once a year 8

Few times a year 15

As necessary for Project Proposals 2

How do you access LTRMP data?

Only paper reports 7

Paper reports, Web database 1

Paper reports, Web reports 5

Paper reports, Web reports, Web database 10

Only Web database 5

Web reports 2

Web reports, Web database 1

Part I

Part II
A-

Question (cont.) Frequency of responses (cont.)

What do you see as the management utility of the current LTRMP 

macroinvertebrate component?

Water quality indicator, indicator of river health 7

Assessing waterfowl and fish use 4

Detect invasives 3

Baseline data 2

Detect spatial patterns and temporal trends 6

Environmental review 1

Help explain inter-relationships 3

Has little actual management value 2

What limits your use of the data in your own activities?

Limited spatial coverage on river 4

Sampling only once a year 2

Lack of production data 1

Methodology not useful in Open River 1

Limited meta-data 1

Unfamiliar with database 3

Time to use database 5

What do you see as strengths of the current LTRMP macroinvertebrate 

component?

Coverage of multiple Pools 1

Indicator of river health, IBI 2

Consistency in sampling design 9

Tracking of trends, length of record 7

Importance of macroinvertebrates 2

What do you see as weaknesses of the current LTRMP macroinvertebrate 

component?

Lack of spatial coverage over UMRS 8

Neglecting other taxa (e.g., mussels, zooplankton) 7

Low funding 3

Low sampling frequency (i.e., only sampled once a year) 2

No biomass data 3

Lack of adjusting for changing strata (read aquatic area) 1

No direct physical measurements taken at site 1

Lack of analysis 1
A-

Most 

important

Very 

Important Important

Somewhat 

important

Not very 

important

How important is the LTRMP 

macroinvertebrate component as an aspect 

of understanding the river ecosystem?

16 19 3 1

In your opinion, what are the most 

important macroinvertebrate taxa to 

sample?

Soft-substrate taxa 24 3 3 2 3

Taxa on rock and rip-rap 6 2 5 7 15

Drift 4 4 5 3 19

Native mussels 21 6 3 4 1

Exotics 8 7 7 5 7

Zooplankton 5 10 7 2 11

Taxa on woody debris or vegetation 6 2 4 11 12

Please specify the importance of each of 

the following types of macroinvertebrate 

information:

Total abundance 7 15 10 5

Community composition 18 13 4 1

Total Biomass 7 15 10 5

Presence/Absence Frequency 6 13 13 4

Other taxa you consider important?

 All, should be community level 

 The most important in the Open River Reach are those that use sand and sand/gravel. 

 Terrestrial insect species that could threaten bottom land forest (e.g., gypsy moth) 

Other information you consider important?

 Age/length class structure (native mussels)

 Annual production 

 Productivity to address total contribution of multivoltine species 

Part III

Part IV
A-

What issues, problems, or questions related to invertebrates on the UMRS concern you the most? (All replies listed)

 Impacts of exotics

 Continuing availability of abundant and diverse, interdependent food chain links 

 Species losses, particularly those that change the energetics of the river food webs 

 Causal relations between invertebrates and material cycling and movement 

 Abundance of mayflies, abundance of fingernail clams, what are the zebra mussels doing, how are the native 

mussels coping with the zebra mussels 

 Are we losing the ability to support fish and wildlife through this thread of the food web? 

 Correlate above data to other physical and chemical factors to develop prescriptions for restoration in historically 

good invert habitat areas 

 Effects of zebra mussel invasion on overall ecology of the river and on native mussels, effects of ammonia and 

other pollutants on sensitive inverts important for food to fish and waterfowl (mayflies, fnc), and the fact that we 

are losing many of our native mussels 

 How critical is abundance and composition in determining fish and wildlife populations (abundance and 

diversity)? 

 In the Open River Reach we know nothing about community composition and how disturbance affects relative 

abundance and distribution of these organisms. Hence, we know nothing about how invertebrates or which ones 

may be important ecosystem drivers. 

 Loss of the soft and hard substrate taxa 

 Unionids (native mussels)—we don't sample them well 

 Need better understanding of the diversity and the role as indicators of river health 

 Production of macroinvertebrates is a big driver in the river ecosystem affecting materials processing, fish 

production, etc. We don't yet have a good handle on macroinvertebrate production, or how to manage to influence 

it. I am concerned about the declines in abundance of fingernail clams, mayflies, etc., as well as the effects of 

zebra mussels. 

 Their role in food webs

 We are not tracking macroinvertebrates as well as we should; somehow need to increase the importance of this 

component. 

 What are the impacts of exotics (i.e., zebra mussels) on fish, native mussels, and other invertebrates in the UMR? 

How do natural disturbances (floods droughts) impact the invertebrate community? How do changes in SAV 

influence the macroinvertebrate community?

 What is the importance of macroinvertebrate drift to the fisheries of the UMR? What are the interconnections 

between macrophytes and macroinvertebrates (refugia, regulation, etc)? 

 Why do populations fall or increase? What effect do zebra mussels have on native mussels, reducing the 

invertebrate populations used by other animals? What are the effects of water quality, particularly DO, turbidity, 

light penetration. What conditions over which we have some control can influence the micro and macro habits 

of these creatures to influence the base of the food chain and the health of the river. Currently we have little 

information on where, how many, life cycles etc. of these animals. 

 Zebra mussel population dynamics—if numbers boom, we need to monitor our endangered native mussel 

populations more closely because we may need to move them to refugia. Any info I can get to help me track this 

would be very helpful, because we lack staff to monitor Mississippi River. 

 Exotic species relationships 

 Freshwater mussel decline 

 Long-term trends of native mussels and species diversity, long-term changes in water quality and effects on 

invertebrate diversity and abundance 

 Relating value of a habitat created/lost to loss/gain of macroinvertebrates, and consequently if there are tangible 

systemic gains 

 What species, numbers and biomass are available for migratory waterfowl food in fall?

Part V
A-

What suggestions do you have for improving the LTRMP macroinvertebrate component? (All replies listed)

 Actively promote research of the data set beyond federal scientists. Look at the work that has been done on the 

Mid-Atlantic Highlands Macroinvertebrate data set for EMAP. 

 Add a diversity element. 

 As for nearly all LTRMP components, there should be time spent on a synthetic analysis of long term spatial and 

temporal trends of the extant data set. While the raw data set is extremely useful, I think clients and user groups 

would benefit greatly from a more thorough analysis (like that being done for fisheries and water quality) as well 

as a set of predictions or recommendations relating to the effects of HREPS on lower trophic levels. 

 Correlate above data to other physical and chemical factors to develop prescriptions for restoration in historically 

good invert habitat areas. Suggestions: Evaluate the existing data to determine the survey levels needed before 

which additional collections become redundant (within an acceptable risk level for missing minute levels of 

change in short periods of time). Use any effort savings to survey additional pools, additional habitats, or conduct 

additional research. 

 Expand sampling to consider the complete suite of invertebrate guilds and species. 

 Expand the number a parameters recorded at the site (i.e., water velocity at various depths, strata of site based 

on field observations, etc). In other words, collect information about the sample site and nearby features that 

would allow someone to further analyze the data not strictly relying on potentially incorrect pre-sampling strata 

identification. 

 Experiment on where and how to construct habitat for native mussels that is somehow protected from zebra mussel 

invasions. Look at zooplankton data from past studies and see what else we need to really answer questions about 

the effects of exotic zooplankton and other exotics on productivity at that level, which is important for survival of 

larval fish and other organisms higher in the food chain. Look at the productivity contribution of invertebrates on 

plants, rock, etc. as well. 

 Funding. We will go from there. 

 How about a guide to the most common inverts by river reach? 

 Increase level of importance. 

 More quantitative measurement of sediment particle size (ie silt, clay sand) and organic matter (LOI) during 

sample collections. 

 Nothing to offer other than try to find a way to conduct some samples in the lower pools of the UMR. 

 Publish reports, anecdotal letters, and stories in community, regional, and national papers explaining the vital roles 

of the macroinvertebrate communities to support the rest of the aquatic, wetland, and riverine ecosystems. 

 Sample Unionids. 

 We have not yet developed and calibrated predictive model(s) for the river ecosystem. Macroinvertebrate 

monitoring could be oriented to calibration and validation of such a model system. 

 You would have to do the stats but I think we could get better coverage of the habitats with more sites 

 Do some analysis with the WQ data and see if the factors correlate with increases or decreases in abundance. 

Sample more and different guilds. 

 Include sampling for native mussels and zooplankton 

 Sample more taxa. 

 Sample in fall.
A-

Additional comments? (All replies listed)

 Good luck with your survey — and the future of the macroinvert component! 

 Get at it! Politicians paying the bills don't understand why the frogs are dying or why, where, or how the exotics 

are important (e.g. so it's a different species or genus filling the niche—what's the difference?). 

 I have re-read the Technical Report (98-T001) Temporal Analysis of Select Macroinvertebrates in the Upper 

Mississippi River System, 1992–1995, printed in April, 1998. It would seem that perhaps it is an unreachable goal 

to intend this data for any management utilization. The report conclusion is high variability occurs in all locations 

for unknown reasons, and that only long-term trend documentation can be achieved. Is this a fair reading of the 

conclusion? If so, is that still our assessment? 

 I haven't explored LTRMP data much. It is of interest because it is so difficult to sample large systems. I would 

like to see large river sampling strategy discussion with representatives in my program—USGS WRD National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). 

 I think some form of macroinvertebrate sampling needs to be continued. It is the only program on the river that 

does this — develop population trend data that no one else does 

 I've said it many times before, having a partial invert program as we have currently may be more detrimental than 

having none because funders may think expansion of an existing program is not necessary, but starting a new 

comprehensive program (filling a data gap) might be necessary. 

 Invertebrates are expensive to study, but I don't think we can get adequate information to really understand the 

productivity dynamics of our fish without filling in some of the blanks in their food chain. I think if invertebrates 

crashed on any one of the substrates mentioned above for any reason, we would see some noticeable changes in 

fauna up the food chain. 

 It works, it is simple, we quantify several important species, soft substrate taxa pick up the same info as hard 

substrate taxa with less effort and also pick up sediment problems because of their close association to the 

substrate. 

 Again, not being active in larger river management, I have limited understanding and use of this data. 

 Keep your data coming to managers; I've never used the database. Maybe there needs to be some type of "LTRMP 

Data Retrieval Workshop?" I don't have much expertise about macroinvertebrates. Continue to do good work and 

be the macroinvertebrates expert for the river.

 Need to prepare integrated reports/models looking at the relationships between the macroinvertebrates community 

and other LTRM monitoring components. Also, is it possible to develop some type of "simple" index for the 

monitored invertebrates that would indicate the "relative of health" of the habitat/areas sampled? 

 Please make every effort to continue this valuable series. 

 Please do not cut this component! 

 Thank you for making the data and reports readily available on the Web. 

 Thanks for the opportunity to complete the survey. 

 This is a critical need and one of the lesser understood aspects of river health to the general public. Let’s work on 

an invertebrate guide for the river that weaves in their importance. 

 Keep up the good work on this important component of the river!
BAppendix B. Brainstorming Session: 

Questions About Upper Mississippi River System Macroinvertebrates

1. Are burrowing mayfly populations cyclical or temporal?

2. Have zebra mussels affected ecology of the river and what can we do about it?

3. What is the abundance and distribution of nonindigenous invertebrates?

4. How are watersheds/tributaries affecting invertebrates on the river?

5. What are trends and abundances of native mussels?

6. What are we mandated by Congress to do and is it flexible enough to do one organism or do 

we need everything?

7. What factors affect the production and abundance of invertebrates and how does that relate to 

the distribution of waterbird?

8. Is abundance of upper level biota affected by or correlated with invertebrates?

9. What are the major biological and abiotic factors that contribute to variance?

10. How do population/community metrics co-vary across space and time?

11. Community dynamics of invertebrates. No management in Open River. Food items for rare/

endangered species. Seasonal distribution/abundance. What do they have for invertebrates?

12. As pools age then sediment, what changes in invertebrates can we expect?

13. What are the relative contribution of invertebrates in terms of drift, etc. to the fisheries, 

especially sport and game fish?

14. What are the midges in “Swan Lake” eating to make them so big?

15. Are there refugia in the Upper Mississippi River where mussels are surviving and where are 

they?

16. What proportion of invertebrates contributes to overall production?

17. How does invertebrate production co-vary with vegetation production?

18. How important are other components, e.g., drift, flood pulse, rock structure, terrestrial insects 

released during flood pulse?

19. Is snail production in the spring flood pulse beneficial to waterfowl egg production and/or is 

Vallisneria tuber production as beneficial to waterfowl migration?

20. Is there an actual reported food web for a large river?

21. Are there linkages between invertebrates and fish? Parasites and general health of fisheries.

22. Cycling varies between pools—are pools operating independently or is there a set point so 

cycles cascade? Is hydrology setting the cycle?

23. What hydraulic, water depth, stage, flow, chemical variables (i.e., DO, pH), food and other 

factors control patchiness?

24. What do we know about the adult invertebrates—how do they contribute to abundance and 

distribution?

25. How do gypsy moths affect the bottomland forest?

26. When and where is invertebrate biomass limited by predation?

27. Which is a better indicator: biomass, abundance, or production?

28. What effects do aquatic invertebrates have on terrestrial ecosystems?

29. Do over-wintering factors affect invertebrates?

30. Can episodic toxic events affect community structure/abundance—ammonia, DO.

31. Can we map systematically the relative importance of the HNA functional Guilds?

32. Would it be more useful to gather information on total biomass (invertebrates as a whole) 
B-

instead of numbers—possible way to increase sample size.

33. Where are the bottlenecks in the invertebrates? 

34. Has the ban on mussel harvest affected mussel abundance?

35. Which species are at greatest risk?

36. Come up with a listing of invertebrates on the river.

37. Does timing and density of zooplankton relate to y-o-y (paddlefish) fish production?

38. What factors determine the timing and density of zooplankton?

39. What zooplankton is out there?

40. What is the role of exotics (rusty crayfish, spiny waterflea, zebra mussels) on the UMRS?

41. What is the role of the annual hydrograph and water levels (floods/droughts) on year-to-year 

abundance and production?

42. Is there greater waterfowl predation in lower Pool 8 compared to Upper Pool 8?

43. Is there a longitudinal variance related to invertebrates. (i.e., why more mayflies in Pool 13 

than Pool 26 if they both have similar sediment types or do the WQ parameters differ between 

these large regions?

44. What is the role of invertebrates as a whole?

45. Do we need to continue monitoring invertebrates or are there other ways to understand the 

system?

46. Invertebrates as fish food—night drift vs. day benthic grazing

47. Does navigation have an effect on invertebrate abundance?

48. Are we interested in pool-wide estimates or aquatic areas?

49. What is the abundance and distribution of mayflies/fnc in Pool 5? Do we care?

50. What causes the variability of invertebrates in aquatic areas?

51. What are the causal relations between invertebrates and material cycling and movement?

52. How are the native mussels coping with the zebra mussels?

53. How critical is abundance and composition in determining fish and wildlife populations 

(abundance and diversity)?

54. We don’t yet have a good handle on macroinvertebrate production, or how to manage to 

influence it.

55. Can we relate the value of a habitat created/lost to loss/gain of macroinvertebrates, and 

consequently if there are an tangible systemic gains?

56. What are zebra mussel population dynamics?

57. What species, numbers, and biomass are available for migratory waterfowl food in the fall?

58. Do we need to broaden the suite of WQ parameters at each invertebrate sample site?
CAppendix C. Brainstorming Session: 

Research Ideas from the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Partners

1. Overlay areas of waterfowl usage from US Fish and Wildlife Service with invertebrate 

abundance.

2. Are patches with high density of organisms (mayflies) consistent through time? If so, 

are they predictable by other co-variables? Can we then change the sampling design to 

emphasize these areas? (Comment by Dr. Haro about several presentations at NABS 

regarding benthic association with mayflies).

3. If yes to #2, what is the appropriate number of samples to be collected?

4. Perform analyses for fingernail clams and midges that have been done for mayflies.

5. Can we expand upon USGS Pool 7 fingernail clam work? Expand it to other pools? Is the 

report finished? If so, get it out for review. If not, finish it.

6. Are we interested in Pool-wide estimates or at the strata level? Consensus seemed to be both. 

Under current design we can say something about Pool-wide estimates; but, do we need to 

increase sample size to get at strata level?

7. Can we reduce variance by “re-stratifying” samples based on substrate?

8. Overlay areas of persistent vegetation growth and invertebrate abundance for the same year. 

Use aerial photographs and/or vegetation specialist knowledge. 

9. Can we take the means of water quality parameters (turbidity, secchi, nutrients, silica, 

suspended solids, chlorophyll, etc.) and infer anything about invertebrates?

10. Are there other modeling exercises that could be tested or meshed with invertebrate data?

11. Explore historical data in more depth. Examine the difference between the clusters of sites in 

upper versus lower Pool 8. Does it relate to closed waterfowl area in lower pool? Check in to 

obtaining Cal Fremling’s historical data.

12. Are there “hot spots” for macroinvertebrates (mayflies) in other key pools as there appears to 

be in Pool 4?

13. Do the fixed water quality sites help explain temporal variation or abundance of 

macroinvertebrates? While a given invertebrate site may not fall exactly on a water quality 

fixed site, or be sampled on the same day, several appear relatively close. Can this be of use?

14. Using the current data would be able to see if there are any cross channel differences in 

invertebrate abundance as seen in the water quality data?

15. Does the LTRMP spring data show the same trends as Refuge fall data?
DAppendix D. A potential 5-year Rotating Panel Design With Augmentation for Macroinvertebrate Sampling on the Upper Mississippi River System Pool/Study area Year 2 3 4 5 5a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 Open R

Reac

N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 

2004 X X X X 2005 X X X X 

2006 X X X X 

2007 X X X X 

2008 X X X X 

2009 X X X X 

2010 X X X X 

2011 X X X X 

2012 X X X X 

2013 X X X X 

2014 X X X X 

2015 X X X X 

2016 X X X X 

2017 X X X X 

2018 X X X X 

2019 X X X X 

2020 X X X X 

2021 X X X X 

2022 X X X X 

2023 X X X X 

2024 X X X X 

2025 X X X X 

2026 X X X X 

An “X” or gray box indicates sampling in that pool and year at the sample size (N) indicated in the first row.
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

December 2005

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Evaluation of the macroinvertebrate component of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) Jennifer Sauer1

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

1

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

 2005-T006

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) 

The need for effective monitoring programs to detect population status and trends and to measure the effectiveness of management actions has been voiced by a number of 

management agencies. It is prudent for any long-term monitoring program to periodically undergo evaluation. In 2002, an evaluation of the Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program (LTRMP) macroinvertebrate component was begun to determine whether its current design was still appropriate based on LTRMP objectives, partner needs, and 

expected funding levels. The following report discusses the history and sampling design of the component and the results of an evaluation survey and workshop conducted 

with LTRMP partners. The survey and workshop were the first steps to help assess general support and identify issues or concerns about the macroinvertebrate component. 

Suggestions for a future design of the macroinvertebrate component include the continuation of monitoring soft-sediment macroinvertebrates and the addition of long term 

monitoring of native mussels.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates, Corbicula, evaluation, fingernail clams (Pisidiidae), Illinois River, Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, mayflies (Ephemeroptera), midges (Chironomidae), Mississippi River, zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

11 pp. + Appendixes A–D.

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.