Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Validation Study of a Rapid Field-Based Rating System for Discriminating Among Flow Permanence Classes of Headwater Streams in South Carolina

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rapid field-based protocols for classifying flow permanence of headwater streams are needed to inform timely regulatory decisions. Such an existing method was developed for and has been used in North Carolina since 1998. The method uses ordinal scoring of 26 geomorphology, hydrology, and biology attributes of streams. The attribute scores are summed and compared to threshold scores to assign a flow permanence class. Our study objective was to evaluate the method’s ability to classify the flow permanence of forested stream reaches from Piedmont and Southeastern Plains ecoregions in South Carolina. Ephemeral reaches scored significantly lower than intermittent and perennial reaches, but scores from intermittent and perennial reaches did not differ. Scores collected in the dry and wet seasons were strongly correlated, indicating that the method was seasonally stable. Scores had positive nonlinear relationships with the maximum recorded wet duration and the proportion of the record that reaches were wet, but were not related to drying frequency. Scores of the presence of baseflow in the dry season were more important in flow permanence classification than those from the wet season. Other important attributes and parameters in discriminating flow classes were macrobenthos, rooted upland plants, bankfull width, drainage area, and ecoregion. Although the North Carolina method did not consistently differentiate intermittent from perennial reaches, the indicator-based approach is a strong foundation from which to build a protocol for South Carolina. Adding measures like bankfull width and drainage area, weighting by ecoregion, or shifting thresholds may be warranted modifications for South Carolina.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin BJ, Strauss EA (2011) Nitrification and denitrification response to varying periods of desiccation and inundation in a western Kansas stream. Hydrobiologia 658:183–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Banks JL, Li J, Herlihy AT (2007) Influence of clearcut logging, flow duration, and season on emergent aquatic insects in headwater streams of the Central Oregon Coast Range. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:620–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bêche LA, McElravy EP, Resh VH (2006) Long-term seasonal variation in the biological traits of benthic-macroinvertebrates in two Mediterranean-climate streams in California, USA. Freshw Biol 51:56–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop K, Buffam I, Erlandsson M, Fölster J, Laudon H, Seibert S, Temnerud J (2008) Aqua Incognita: the unknown headwaters. Hydrol Process 22:1239–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinn CR, Kilgore MA (2001) Riparian management practices—a summary of state guidelines. J For 99:11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton AJ, Sheldon F, Thoms MC, Stanley EH (2000) Problems and constraints in managing rivers with variable flow regimes. In: Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds) Global perspectives on river conservation: science, policy and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 415–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Brieman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick MA, Huryn AD (2007) Role of habitat in determining macroinvertebrate production in an intermittent-stream system. Freshwater Biol 52:240–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins BM, Sobczak WV, Colburn EA (2007) Subsurface flowpaths in a forested headwater stream harbor a diverse macroinvertebrate community. Wetlands 27:319–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colson T, Gregory J, Dorney J, Russell P (2008) Topographic and soil maps do not accurately depict headwater stream networks. Natl Wetland Newslett 30:25–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins KW, Wilzbach MA (2005) The inadequacy of the fish-bearing criterion for stream management. Aquat Sci 67:486–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler DR, Edwards EC, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, Gibson J, Lawler JJ (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datry T (2012) Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate assemblages along a flow intermittence gradient: effects of duration of dry events. Freshwater Biol 57:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle MW, Bernhardt ES (2011) What is a stream? Environ Sci Technol 45:354–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton LS, Morgan BA, Kochel RC, Howard AD (2003) Role of debris flows in long-term landscape denudation in the Central Appalachians of Virginia. Geology 31:339–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairfax County Stormwater Planning Division (FCSPD) (2003) Perennial stream field identification protocol. Stormwater Planning Division, Watershed Planning and Assessment Branch Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Fairfax, Virginia. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/watersheds/ps_protocols.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Fritz KM, Johnson BR, Walters DM (2006) Field operations manual for assessing the hydrologic permanence and ecological condition of headwater streams. EPA 600/R-06/126. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. http://www.epa.gov/nerleerd/methods/headwater.html. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Fritz KM, Johnson BR, Walters DM (2008) Physical indicators of hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:690–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensemer RW, Meyerhoff RD, Ramage KJ, Curley EF (2008) Relevance of ambient water quality criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent watercourses of the arid western United States. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Press, Pensacola

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory JD, Smith SD, Fleek E, Penrose D (2002) What is a stream? In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Watershed 2002, February 23–27, 2002, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, pp 374–398

  • Hansen WF (2001) Identifying stream types and management implications. For Ecol Manag 143:39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen WF, Law DL (2007) Sediment from a small ephemeral gully in South Carolina In: Furniss M, Clifton C, Ronnenberg K (eds) Advancing the fundamental sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service national earth sciences conference. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, GTR-689, Portland, OR

  • Holmes KL, Goebel PC, Hix DM, Dygert CE, Semko-Duncan ME (2005) Ground-flora composition and structure of floodplain and upland landforms of an old-growth headwater forest in north-central Ohio. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough P, Robertson M (2009) Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetl Ecol Manag 17:15–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MA, Quinn T, Hayes MP (2005) Low flow spatial characteristics in forested headwater channels of southwest Washington. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:503–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassaletta L, García-Gómez H, Gimeno BS, Rovira JV (2010) Headwater streams: neglected ecosystems in the EU Water Framework Directive. Implications for nitrogen pollution control. Environ Sci Policy 13:423–433

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz SG, Wigington PJ, Rains MC, Downing DM (2008) Non-navigable streams and adjacent wetlands: addressing science needs following the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision. Front Ecol Environ 6:364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2(3):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe WH, Likens GE (2005) Moving headwater streams to the head of the class. BioScience 55:196–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough OT, Hosen JD, Palmer MA (2011) Temporary streams: the hydrology, geography, and ecology of non-perennially flowing waters. In: Elliot HS, Martin LE (eds) River ecosystems: dynamics, management and conservation. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 259–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A, Meyer EI (2000) Discharge regime and the effect of drying on macroinvertebrate communities in a temporary karst stream in East Westphalia (Germany). Aquat Sci 62:216–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JL, Wallace JB (2001) Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. In: Press MC, Huntly NJ, Levin S (eds) Ecology: achievement and challenge. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 295–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadeau T-L (2011) Streamflow duration assessment method for Oregon. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, EPA 910-R-11-002. www.epa.gov/region10/sdam.html. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Nadeau T-L, Rains MC (2007) Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science can inform policy. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:118–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (2010) Methodology for identification of intermittent and perennial streams and their origins, version 4.11. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=0ddc6ea1-d736-4b55-8e50-169a4476de96&groupId=38364. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Poff NL, Ward JV (1989) Implications of streamflow variability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1805–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price K, Suski A, McGarvie J, Beasley B, Richardson JS (2003) Communities of aquatic insects of old-growth and clearcut coastal headwater streams of varying flow persistence. Can J For Res 33:1416–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Progar RA, Moldenke AR (2002) Insect production from temporary and perennially flowing headwater streams in western Oregon. J Freshwater Ecol 17:391–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreve RL (1967) Infinite topologically random channel networks. J Geol 75:178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) (2012) Regulation 61-68, Water Classifications and Standards. Bureau of Water, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC. https://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/regs/r61-68.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Stopes MC (1903) The colonisation of a dried river-bed. New Phytol 2:186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svec JR, Kolka RK, Stringer JW (2005) Defining perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels in Eastern Kentucky: application to forestry best management practices. For Ecol Manag 214:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor MP, Ives CD, Davies PJ, Stokes R (2011) Troubled waters – an examination of the disconnect between river science and law. Environ Sci Technol 45:8178–8179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TNDEC) (2011) Guidance for Making Hydrologic Determinations, Version 1.4. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Knoxville, TN. http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/pdf/guid_hydro_det.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Trimble SW (1974) Man-induced soil erosion of the southern Piedmont 1700-1970. Soil Conservation Society of America, Akeny, p 180

    Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers (USEPA, USACE) (2007) Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Joint Agency Memorandum (7 June 2007). US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/RapanosGuidance6507.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2013

  • Uys MC, O’Keefe JH (1997) Simple words and fuzzy zones: early directions for temporary river research in South Africa. Environ Manag 21:517–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh HH, Hodgson GR, Lind AJ (2005) Ecogeography of the herpetofauna of a northern California watershed: linking species patterns to landscape processes. Ecography 28:521–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without funding from a Wetland Program Development Grant provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and the assistance and technical expertise of John Dorney, Periann Russell, Larry Eaton, James Gregory, Mark Giffin, Chris Beckham, Chris Stout, Harvey Daniel, Jeannie Eidson, Guy Sabin, Bill Hansen, Kevin MacLeod and many others too numerous to recognize individually. We thank them all. Thanks also to three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it might not necessarily reflect official Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecological Exposure Research Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W Martin Luther King Dr, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

    Ken M. Fritz & Mitch S. Kostich

  2. Bureau of Water, South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC, 29201, USA

    William R. Wenerick

Authors
  1. Ken M. Fritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William R. Wenerick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mitch S. Kostich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken M. Fritz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fritz, K.M., Wenerick, W.R. & Kostich, M.S. A Validation Study of a Rapid Field-Based Rating System for Discriminating Among Flow Permanence Classes of Headwater Streams in South Carolina. Environmental Management 52, 1286–1298 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0158-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0158-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation