Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The coastal plain headwater stream restoration (CP-HStR) index: a macroinvertebrate index for assessing the biological effectiveness of stream restoration in the Georgia coastal plain, USA

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stream restoration projects undertaken as compensatory mitigation pursuant to Sect. 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act must be evaluated using ecological performance standards that are objective and verifiable and based on the best available science that can be measured or assessed in a practicable manner. While performance standards for physical stream conditions are common, evaluating biological conditions following stream restoration activities has proven more problematic. We developed a macroinvertebrate multimetric index for headwater streams in three Southeastern Plains subecoregions (65 g, 65 h, and 65 l) of Georgia using 76 sites sampled in 2019. An abiotic disturbance gradient based on principal components analysis of instream habitat, physicochemical, and land use variables was employed to assign condition classes (good, fair, poor) among sites within each subecoregion. We identified genus-level macroinvertebrate richness and proportional richness of traits-based metrics (habit and functional feeding groups) that demonstrated high discriminatory power between good and poor abiotic conditions and response to individual stressors. Subecoregion-specific metrics were then standardized and aggregated to develop the final index and biological reference curves. These biological reference curves represent a continuum of relevant regional conditions against which a stream enhancement or restoration project may be assessed relative to other streams throughout the region and allow for the award of mitigation credit, if applicable, to be based directly on the relative improvement of biological conditions. These biological performance standards will supplement other performance standards (hydrologic and geomorphic measures) necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of stream restoration projects in the study area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Individual site-level landscape, physicochemical, and macroinvertebrate genus-level proportion data are provided in Online resources. Consistent with U.S. EPA guidelines, all data will be uploaded to ScienceHub as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months after publication of the manuscript. Data are also available from the lead author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Allan, J. D., & Castillo, M. M. (2007). Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

  • Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G. E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J. S., & Bastian, M. L. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15(2), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Second Edition. EPA 841–8–99–002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

  • Bevin, J. L., II, Berg, R., & Hagen, A. (2019). Hurricane Michael (AL142018), 7-11 October 2018, National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL142018_Michael.pdf

  • Blocksom, K. A. (2003). A performance comparison of metric scoring methods for a multimetric index for Mid-Atlantic Highland Streams. Environmental Management, 31(5), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2949-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocksom, K. A., & Johnson, B. R. (2009). Development of a regional macroinvertebrate index for large river bioassessment. Ecological Indicators, 9, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braccia, A., & Voshell, J. R., Jr. (2007). Benthic macroinvertebrate responses to increasing levels of cattle grazing in Blue Ridge Mountain streams, Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 131, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9467-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. Z., Jr., & Zisa, A. C. (1976). Physiographic map of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Geologic and Water Resources Division (map scale 1:2,000,000).

  • Colorado Stream Quantification Tool Steering Committee. (2019). Colorado Stream Quantification Tool and Debit Calculator (CSQT) user manual, beta version. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (Contract # EPC- 17–001), Washington, D.C.

  • Dow, C. L., & Zampella, R. A. (2000). Specific conductance and pH as indicators of watershed disturbance in streams of the New Jersey Pinelands, USA. Environmental Management, 26(4), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. T., Rodriguez-Gonzalez, P. M., Aguiar, F. C., & Albuquerque, A. (2005). Assessing biotic integrity in Iberian rivers: Development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators, 5, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, U., & Statzner, B. (1999). Time scales of recovery potential of river communities after restoration: Lessons to be learned from smaller streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 5, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450050108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, G. E., Omernik, J. M., Comstock, J. A., Lawrence, S., Martin, G., Goddard, A., Hulcher, V. J., & Foster, T. (2001). Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,700,000).

  • Harman, W., Starr, R., Carter, M., Tweedy, K., Clemmons, M., Suggs, K., & Miller, C. (2012). A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, EPA 843-K-12–006.

  • Harman, W. A., & Jones, C. J. (2017). North Carolina stream quantification tool: Spreadsheet user manual, NC SQT v3.0. Raleigh, NC: Environmental Defense Fund. https://stream-mechanics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Spreadsheet-User-Manual-NC-SQT-v3.0.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.

  • Hilderbrand, R., Watts, A., & Randle, A. (2005). The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01277-100119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. A., Weber, M. H., Leibowitz, S. G., Olsen, A. R., & Thornbrugh, D. J. (2016). The Stream-Catchment (StreamCat) dataset: A database of watershed metrics for the conterminous United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. M. (2007). Constraints on recovery: Using molecular methods to study connectivity of aquatic biota in rivers and streams. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01722.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jähnig, S. C., Brabec, K., Buffagni, A., Erba, S., Lorenz, A. W., Ofenböck, T., & Verdonschot, P. F. M. (2010). A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in central and southern European rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01807.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Z. C., Leibowitz, S. G., & Hill, R. A. (2019). Revising the index of watershed integrity national maps. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 2615–2630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G. I., Hepinstall, J. A., & Kirkman, L. K. (2012). Six decades (1948–2007) of landscape change in the Dougherty Plain of southwest Georgia, USA. Southeastern Geographer, 53(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2013.0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martini, S., Larras, F., Boyé, A., Faure, E., Aberle, N., Archambault, P., Bacouillard, L., Beisner, B. E., Bittner, L., Castella, E., & Danger, M. (2021). Functional trait-based approaches as a common framework for aquatic ecologists. Limnology and Oceanography, 66, 965–994. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCune, B., & Grace, J. B. (2002). Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, OR.

  • McManamay, R. A., Smith, J. G., Jett, R. T., Mathews, T. J., & Peterson, M. J. (2017). Identifying non-reference sites to guide stream restoration and long-term monitoring. Science of the Total Environment, 621, 1208–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). (2020). Michigan stream quantification tool: Spreadsheet user manual, MiSQT v1.0. EGLE. Lansing, MI.

  • Miller, S. W., Budy, P., & Schmidt, J. C. (2010). Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: Applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology, 18(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00605.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Stream Quantification Tool Steering Committee. (2019). Minnesota Stream Quantification Tool and Debit Calculator (MNSQT) user manual, version 1.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (Contract # EPC-17–001), Washington, D.C.

  • Muenz, T. K., Golladay, S. W., Vellidis, G., & Smith, L. L. (2006). Stream buffer effectiveness in an agriculturally influenced area, Southwestern Georgia: Responses of water quality, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 1924–1938. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NCDEQ. (2016). Standard operating procedures for the collection and analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, NC. February 2016 (Version 5.0).

  • Niemi, G. J., DeVore, P., Detenbeck, N., Taylor, D., Lima, A., Pastor, J., Yount, J. D., & Naiman, R. J. (1990). Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance. Environmental Management, 14(5), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOAA. (2017). Agricultural Applied Climate Information System. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Regional Climate Centers, http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/. Accessed 25 Sep 2019.

  • NOAA. (2021). Data Tools: 1981–2010 Normals. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals. Accessed 27 Jan 2021.

  • NWS. (2018). Hurricane Michael hits Georgia. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, https://www.weather.gov/ffc/2018_hurricane_michael#:~:text=Hurricane%20Michael%20was%20the%20strongest,mph%20were%20recorded%20in%20Donalsonville. Accessed 27 Jan 2021.

  • Omernik, J. M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., & Poff, N. L. (1997). Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 5(4), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00543.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., Hondula, K. L., & Koch, B. J. (2014). Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: Shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkyn, S. P., & Smith, B. J. (2011). Dispersal constraints for stream invertebrates: Setting realistic timescales for biodiversity restoration. Environmental Management, 48, 602–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Vieira, N. K. M., Finn, D. S., Simmons, M. P., & Kondratieff, B. C. (2006). Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: Traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25(4), 730–755. https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2006)025[0730:FTNONA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabeni, C. F., & Wang, N. (2001). Bioassessment of streams using macroinvertebrates: Are the Chironomidae necessary? Environmental Management, 71, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017523115381

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. (2002). Current pest management systems for pecan. HortTechnology, 12(4), 633–639. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.12.4.633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni, P., Hanson, K., & Beechie, T. (2008). Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28, 856–890. https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen, D. L. (1996). Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

  • Rosgen, D. L. (2011). Natural channel design: Fundamental concepts, assumptions, and methods. In A. Simon, S. J. Bennett, & J. M. Castro (Eds.), Stream restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: Scientific approaches, analyses, and tools, Geophysical Monograph Series 194, pp. 69–93, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GM000990

  • Sawyer, J. A., Stewart, P. M., Mullen, M. M., Simon, T. P., & Bennett, H. H. (2004). Influence of habitat, water quality and land use on macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages of a southeastern coastal plain watershed, USA. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 7(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980490281353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, J. L., Herlihy, A. T., Peck, D. V., Hughes, R. M., Whittier, T. R., & Tarquinio, E. (2008). A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(4), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-053.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stribling, J. B., Pavlik, K. L., Holdsworth, S. M., & Leppo, E. W. (2008). Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(4), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-175.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundermann, A., Stoll, S., & Haase, P. (2011). River restoration success depends on the species pool of the immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1962–1971. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0607.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TDEC. (2018). Tennessee Stream Quantification Tool: User manual, TN SQT, v1.0. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN.

  • Tonkin, J. D., Stoll, S., Sundermann, A., & Haase, P. (2014). Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonization of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 59(9), 1843–1855. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullos, D. D., Penrose, D. L., Jennings, G. D., & Cope, W. G. (2009). Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: Implications for the bioassessment and disturbance or river restoration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 28(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-122.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USACE Omaha District. (2018). Wyoming Stream Quantification Tool (WSQT) user manual and spreadsheet (Version 1.0), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Wyoming Regulatory Office, Cheyenne Wyoming.

  • USACE Savannah District. (2018). Savannah District’s 2018 Standard Operating Procedure for Compensatory Mitigation (Version 1.0), April 27, 2018. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Savannah, GA.

  • USGS. (2016). The StreamStats program for Georgia, U.S. Geological Survey, http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/georgia.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2018.

  • Weigel, B. M., Lyons, J., Paine, L. K., Dodson, S. I., & Undersander, D. J. (2000). Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in Southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 15(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2000.9663725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederholm, T. (1984). Responses of aquatic insects to environmental pollution. In V. Resh & D. Rosenberg (Eds.), The ecology of aquatic insects (pp. 56–100). Praeger Scientific Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yount, J. D., & Niemi, G. J. (1990). Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance – a narrative review of case studies. Environmental Management, 14(5), 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zampella, R. A., & Bunnell, J. F. (1998). Use of reference-site fish assemblages to assess aquatic degradation in Pinelands streams. Ecological Applications, 8, 645–658. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the collaboration of many colleagues. Jon Becker and Drew Parker performed all GIS work. Jon McMahan coordinated field sampling and participated in the field with the support of Jerry Ackerman, Nathan Barlet, Lonnie Dorn, Sue Dye, Morris Flexner, Peter Kalla, Derek Little, Mel Parsons, John Ruiz, and Greg White. Ashley Monroe created the map of sampling locations. David Penrose and Jason York performed benthic macroinvertebrate identification under contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Other parties too numerous to list freely provided advice and in some cases offered both published and unpublished reports that assisted project planning. We are also indebted to all private property owners who granted field crews permission to access the sample sites. Finally, we thank Karen Blocksom and Brian Topping for their constructive reviews on a previous version of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Federal Government.

Funding

Partial financial support was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract number EP-C-17–001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Division, Oceans Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch, U.S. EPA Region 4, Athens, GA, USA

    D. Eric Somerville

  2. Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division, Field Services Branch, U.S. EPA Region 3, Wheeling, WV, USA

    Gregory J. Pond

Authors
  1. D. Eric Somerville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory J. Pond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceptualized and designed by DES. Both authors conducted data analysis and drafted the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Eric Somerville.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1936 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Somerville, D.E., Pond, G.J. The coastal plain headwater stream restoration (CP-HStR) index: a macroinvertebrate index for assessing the biological effectiveness of stream restoration in the Georgia coastal plain, USA. Environ Monit Assess 194, 319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09987-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09987-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation