RESEARCH ARTICLE Assessing macroinvertebrate community response to restoration of Big Spring Run: Expanded analysis of before‐ after‐control‐impact sampling designs Robert F. Smith 1 | Emily C. Neideigh 2,3 | Alex M. Rittle 2,4 | John R. Wallace 2 1 Department of Biology, Lycoming College, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 2 Department of Biology, Millersville University, Millersville, Pennsylvania 3 York County Conservation District, Watershed Department, York, Pennsylvania 4 Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland Correspondence John R. Wallace, Department of Biology, Millersville University, Millersville, PA 17551. Email: john.wallace@millersville.edu Robert F. Smith, Department of Biology, Lycoming College, 700 College Place, Williamsport, PA 17701. Email: smithr@lycoming.edu Funding information Millersville University, Grant/Award Numbers: Biology Student Investigator Grant, Neimeyer‐Hodgson Student Research Grant Noonan Endowment Fund and Student Research Grant; National Science Foundation, Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability, Grant/Award Number: GEO‐1215896; Lycoming College; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Grant/Award Number: 6032200011.00 and Growing Greener Envi- ronmental Stewardship Grant No. MU070258 Abstract Stream restoration projects utilize a variety of approaches to improve conditions for aquatic organisms or enhance ecosystem function. Alterations to abiotic conditions to enhance certain ecosystems services may not lead to concurrent changes in the ben- thic macroinvertebrate community indicative of improved stream health. Big Spring Run was the location of a novel restoration project to recreate an anabranching “wet meadow” habitat typical of precolonization conditions without the primary goal of restoring a macroinvertebrate community characteristic of single‐channel lotic systems. We examined the effect of the restoration on the macroinvertebrate com- munity using a multivariate analysis of assemblage composition, a before‐after‐ control‐impact (BACI) approach, and an assessment of potential aerial migrants. We also examined subsets of the data using a BACI approach that represented restricted sampling designs often employed in stream restoration projects. Benthic macroinver- tebrates were collected in the Spring twice prior to restoration (2010 and 2011) and 3 years after restoration (2012–2014). Adult stream insects were collected in 2014. Analyses of benthic macroinvertebrates and adult insects using the full dataset sug- gested that restoration had no effect on the macroinvertebrate community due to poor in‐stream conditions likely from sediment deposition following restoration. Dispersal barriers are likely acting as a secondary constraint on recolonization. Anal- yses using subsets of the data demonstrated that reference site quality and sampling extent can alter conclusions from a BACI approach. We found that a holistic approach using multiple lines of evidence required a nuanced approach to interpreting the data but was also informative for assessing project success. Robust monitoring protocols are likely the best approach for producing convincing results through a single line of evidence. The additional BACI analyses performed for this study, however, allowed the modest sampling regime employed to generate a broad narrative demonstrating that the macroinvertebrate assemblage did not respond to this type of restoration. Thus, we believe the holistic approach we employed can strengthen assessments of stream restoration projects when resources for monitoring are limited. KEYWORDS BACI, Big Spring Run, dispersal, macroinvertebrates, restoration, sampling design Received: 17 September 2018 Revised: 21 September 2019 Accepted: 4 October 2019 DOI: 10.1002/rra.3556 River Res Applic. 2019;1–12. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rra 1