Refinement of biomonitoring of urban water courses by combining descriptive and ecohydrological approaches

DOI: 10.2478/v10104-009-0047-3 Vol. 10 No 1, 3-11 2010

Refinement of biomonitoring of urban water courses by combining descriptive and ecohydrological approaches

Michel Lafont1*, Céline Jézéquel1, Anne Vivier2, Pascal Breil1, Laurent Schmitt3, Stéphanie Bernoud4 1Cemagref,

3 bis Quai Chauveau, CP 220, F-69336 Lyon cedex 09 (France) *e-mail: [email protected] 2DIREN Bourgogne, 6 rue Chancelier de l'Hospital, BP 1550, F-21035 Dijon Cedex (France) 3Lyon University, UMR 5600 CNRS, Lyon 2 University, 5 avenue Pierre Mendès-France, F-69676 Bron (France) 4BURGEAP, 19 Rue Villette, F-69003 Lyon (France)

Abstract Two approaches are proposed for developing adapted metrics, proposing realistic and sustainable ecologic objectives, and suggesting a management strategy for stream rehabilitation. The first approach implemented a harmonization system of French standardized biotic indices. The second one was based on the development of functional traits (FTrs), which were defined by oligochaete assemblages inhabiting coarse surface sediments and the hyporheic system. The harmonization system allowed to define a weighted general ecological quality. The FTrs characterized an ecological potential (EP) resulting from interactions between physical factors (dynamics of hydrologic exchanges between surface water and groundwater) and chemical factors. An example of using both approaches at the same urbanized site is presented and serves for planning of rehabilitation activities. The benefits, drawbacks and progress of both approaches are discussed. Key words: urbanized hydrosystems, biotic indices, ecosystem functioning.

1. Introduction The urbanization of landscapes and wetweather pollution induce ecological impairments of aquatic habitats in urban water courses (Walsh 2000; Walsh et al. 2001; Paul, Meyer 2001; Fatta et al. 2002; Marsalek et al. 2003). One of the main objectives of urban water management is to mitigate such adverse ecological effects of urbanization. Towards this end, in the first phase, appropriate metrics for the ecological status (or quality)

evaluation needs to be selected, and the features of the ecological status that should be preserved or rehabilitated defined. In the second phase, realistic and sustainable remediation or conservation measures are proposed, together with suitable metrics used for testing the effectiveness and sustainability of those measures (Walsh et al. 2005). It is rather difficult to meet this challenge, because physical alterations resulting from urbanization of the river corridor interact with chemical changes due to wet-weather pollution (combined

M. Lafont et al.

4

sewer overflows, CSOs, runoffs from impervious surfaces accumulating pollution) and point source pollution from domestic or industrial sources (op. cited). Physical alterations have a detrimental effect on organisms living in surficial habitats (fish, invertebrates, macrophytes), and the destruction of habitats is sometimes considered more detrimental to biodiversity than chemical alterations (Rogers et al. 2002). Physical alteration impacts on invertebrate assemblages sheltered within the interstices of porous habitats (coarse surficial sediments, hyporheic system, Lafont et al. 2006) are less significant. Conversely, urban chemical pollutants are detrimental to all living organisms, because they may be stored in porous habitats (Lafont et al. 2006) and fine sediment deposits (Rochfort et al. 2000). The challenge for the protection or rehabilitation of the biodiversity in urban water courses is to find a compromise between physical and chemical quality improvements. Consequently, integrated ecological schemes become indispensable (Breil et al. 2008a; Lafont et al. 2008) and have to (i) develop adapted metrics, (ii) propose sustainable ecological objectives referring to the adapted metrics for rehabilitation purposes, and (iii) recommend rehabilitation actions. The purpose of this paper is to present two existing ecological approaches, and their combination, providing specific responses to the three above-mentioned requirements.

2. Harmonization system (HS)

the Alsace plain (Dor 2009). It was previously intended for (i) assessing the ecological status at individual sites, and (ii) defining criteria/objectives of a “good ecological status” that could be realistically achieved by rehabilitation. The harmonization system is based on consideration of four biological compartments with their associated French standardized indices: (i) general biological quality (the associated index: invertebrate index, IBGN, AFNOR 2004a; (ii) biological quality of fine sediments (the associated index: oligochaete index, IOBS, AFNOR 2002); (iii) biological quality of waters (the associated index: diatom index, IBD, AFNOR 2000); and, (iv) survey of fish populations (the associated index: fish index IPR, AFNOR 2004b). The bioindicators were harmonized by relating them to the five classes of ecological quality (or status, see Table I), which are in compliance with the European Water Framework Directive (WFD; EU 2000): class 1= “very good”; 2: “good”; 3: “moderate”; 4: “poor”; 5: “bad”. The harmonization system allowed to calculate the mean of bioindicator classes [Si IBGN+ Sj IOBS + Sk IBD + Sl IPR]/n, where n = number of compartments/bioindicators (here n=4). This mean value is regarded as the general ecological quality (or status) (GEQ) at the site. The “very good” quality is GEQ= 4/4=1 (if all 4 indices exhibit class 1, “very good” quality/ status), and the worst is GEQ= 20/4=5 (if all 4 indices exhibit class 5, “bad” quality/status).

Basis of the system Ecological quality objectives The HS was originally described in two papers (Lafont 2001; Lafont et al. 2001), and later implemented at 50 stations in the Seine river basin (Bernoud, Laluc 2005) and 33 stations in

A weighting procedure is applied to the GEQ (general ecological quality), according to percent coverage of the river-bed by fine sedi-

Table I. Summarized presentation of the harmonization system: IBGN (invertebrate index), IOBS (fine sediment oligochaete index), IBD (diatom index), IPR (fish index); 1 to 5: ecological quality classes (or ecological status classes; WFD compliance); GEQ: general ecological quality; PCS: percent coverage by fine sediments at a given station; WGEQ: weighted general ecological quality; Si to Sl: classes of ecological quality given by each biotic index. Ecological quality classes 1: High-very good (blue) 2: Good (green) 3: Moderate (yellow) 4: Poor (orange) 5: Bad (red) GEQ PCS <10% 11-60% >60%

IBGN >16 13-16 9-12 5-8 <5

IOBS

IBD

IPR

>6 >16 <7 >3-6 13-16 7-16 >2-3 9-12 16-25 >1-2 5-8 25-36 1 <5 >36 [Si IBGN + Sj IOBS + Sk IBD + Sl IPR ]/4 WGEQ [Si IBGN + Sj IBD + Sk IPR]/3 (IOBS= completing information) [Si IBGN + Sj IBD + Sk IPR + Sl IOBS ]/4 Si IOBS (IBGN, IBD, IPR= completing information) WGEQ – 2 = ecological damage assessment (EDA)

Biomonitoring approaches in urban water courses

ment areas at a given station (PCS; also referred to as embeddedness), excluding those fine deposits which cover porous habitats (Table I). The weighting procedure allows defining the WGEQ (weighted general ecological quality). If the PCS is less than 10%, the WGEQ is calculated in relation to biotic indices other than the fine sediment index IOBS, because the fine sediment compartment is considered to be negligible. If the PCS is greater than 60%, the IOBS index defines the WGEQ, because other compartments are considered to be negligible. If PCS is >10% and <60%, all compartments exhibit the same ecological importance and WGEQ=GEQ. In urban water courses, we propose to select WGEQ=2 (“good” quality) as the objective of general ecological quality to preserve or rehabilitate. Ecological damage assessment (EDA) is defined by the loss of quality classes, i.e. the WGEQ minus the selected ecological objective, here the class 2 (Table I).

ments bear equal importance (WGEQ=GEQ=3.7). The toxicity is high in sediments but smaller in other compartments. The ecological damages are significant (EDA=1.7). In the Essonne river (PCS less than 10%), the fine sediment index IOBS is considered as negligible. The WGEQ (calculated without the IOBS index) equals 2.7, a better score than that of the GEQ, calculated with the IOBS index (3.3). However, fine sediments quality is alarming, because of the storage of toxic substances. The ecological damages are not highly rated (EDA=0.7). At the three sites, the fine sediment compartment is the most impaired, highlighting the storage of pollutants and an urgent need for pollution abatement, although other compartments are generally more favourable.

3. Ecohydrological approach (EA) The EA is based on the study of coarse surficial sediments and the hyporheic system, both representing porous habitats which were defined as functional units (FU3: coarse surficial sediments; FU4: hyporheic system; Lafont 2001). In these two FUs, greater importance was given to the examination of oligochaete assemblages, because they are (i) common dwellers of porous habitats and indicators of interactions between chemical quality and dynamics of hydrologic exchanges between surface waters and groundwater (Malard et al. 2001; Lafont, Vivier 2006; Vivier 2006); (ii) indicators of the ecological status of streams (Verdonschot 2006); and, (iii) indicators of metabolic activities in porous habitats (Datry et al. 2003; Nogaro et al. 2006). Four main “functional traits” (FTrs) were distinguished in

Examples illustrating the use of the harmonization system The three given examples presented (Fig. 1) pertain to urbanized sites (with imperviousness of about 40%) located in catchments of three plain rivers of the Seine basin (Bernoud, Laluc 2005), with fine sediments contaminated by PAHs, which are typical urban pollutants. The first case (the Beuvronne river) illustrates a station where the PCS≥60%, and only the fine sediment index, IOBS, is considered. The general ecological quality GEQ equals 4, but the weighted ecological quality (WGEQ) equals 5 (“bad”). Ecological damages are high, accounting for a loss of 3 classes (EDA=3). In the Mauldre river, PCS is 11-60% and all compartBeuvronne Quality classes IBGN

5

Mauldre

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Essonne

3

4

5

-

-

-

1

2

3

4

5

IOBS IBD IPR PCS

> 60%

11 - 60%

<10%

GEQ

4

3.7

3.3

WGEQ

5

3.7

2.7

Quality objective

2

2

2

EDA= WGEQ-2

3

1.7

0.7

Fig. 1. Harmonization system: application at sites in urbanized environments of the Beuvronne, Essonne and Mauldre rivers (modified after Bernoud, Laluc 2005); IBGN, IOBS, IBD, IPR: invertebrate, fine sediment, diatom and fish indices; PCS: percent coverage by the fine sediments; GEQ: general ecological quality; WGEQ: weighted general ecological quality; WGEQ-2: ecological damage assessment; -: no data.

M. Lafont et al.

6

Table II. Functional traits (FTr1 to FTr4) in surficial coarse sediments (FU3) and the hyporheic system (FU4), and calculation of the ecological potential EP; modified after Vivier (2006), Lafont et al. (2006). Functional traits FTrs of FU3 and FU4 FTr1: Percentages of oligochaete species which indicate active hydrologic exchanges between surface waters and groundwater (AED species = “active exchange describers”) FTr2: Percentages of oligochaete species which are intolerant to water pollution FTr3: Percentages of oligochaete species which are tolerant to water pollution FTr4: Percentages of oligochaete species which indicate the presence of polluted sludge within sediment interstices (“sludge effect”) Ecological Potential EP

the examination of oligochaete assemblages (Table II). Functional traits reflect various physical and chemical factors that interact in the functioning of a stream (Vivier 2006; Lafont et al. 2006). The FTr1, “permeability”, is obtained by measuring the proportion (%) of oligochaete species which are indicators of active water exchanges between surface water and groundwater (“AED” species, Lafont, Vivier 2006). The FTr2 is defined by the percentage of pollution-intolerant oligochaete species and associated with a good quality of water. The association of FTr1+FTr2 was recorded at sites with minor or no pollution (high permeability and good chemical quality). The FTr3 trait is defined by the percentage of water pollution-tolerant species, and also suggests toxic effects by dissolved toxicants. The FTr4 trait (“sludge effect”) indicates the presence of polluted sludge within the interstices of FU3 and FU4, and is associated with heavily polluted situations (urban and industrial discharges). The definition of gradients of “Ecological Potential” (EP; Vivier 2006) was based on the ratio [(FTr1+FTr2)+1]/[(FTr3+FTr4)+1], i.e. the ratio of the FTrs considered as characteristic of preserved situations to those of the most impaired ones. The EP is Log 2 transformed (L2P) and the highest values (Fig. 2) were observed in pristine areas, like the alpine glacial Roseg river (Malard et al. 2001), which showed no chemical alterations (FTr2>90%), strong dy namics of hydrologic exchanges between surface water and groundwater (FTr1>90%), and absence of FTr3 and FTr4. The lowest EP values were observed in heavily polluted situations (various industrial and urban pollutants, nega-

Examples of characteristic oligochaete species Trichodrilus spp., Stylodrilus spp., Rhyacodrilus spp., Haber speciosus, Pristina spp., Cernosvitoviella spp., Achaeta spp., Marionina argentea, Haplotaxis gordioides, Propappus volki R. ardierae, R. falciformis, R. subterraneus, C. atrata, M. argentea, Eiseniella tetraedra, Nais alpina, Vejdovskyella comata, Propappus volki Nais elinguis, P. jenkinae, Dero digitata, Marionina riparia, Lumbriculus variegatus Tubificinae with-without hair setae, Tubifex ignotus, T. tubifex, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, Bothrioneurum sp, Lumbricillus spp. [(FTR1+FTr2)+1]/[(FTr3+FTr4)+1]

tive values of the L2P, Fig. 2), associated to maninduced downwelling of polluted surface waters into the hyporheic system. Man-induced downwelling is caused by the dramatic lowering of the water-table by excessive pumping (the Moselle and Rhône rivers), very high discharges of CSOs to small streams (the Chaudanne and Azergues), and high and sudden flow releases from dam reservoirs (the Loire river). The EP is therefore defined by the effects of interactions between chemical inputs and dynamics of water exchanges between surface water and groundwater, and all factors that govern those exchanges (Vivier 2006; Lafont, Vivier 2006; Lafont et al. 2006). In the most impaired situations, the FTr4 (the sludge effect) is solely dominating in the hyporheic system (up to 94%), which demonstrates a more marked pollutant storage than that in surficial sediments (Fig. 2).

4. Integrated view: links between the two approaches We defined the LOUE (“lowest observed urbanization effects”, Lafont et al. 2008), as an ecological threshold that must not be exceeded in urbanized environments to preserve their resilience and resistance capacities. From our empirical experience we state that the LOUE is not attained when the WGEQ does not exceed S2 (harmonization system) and the L2P (=Log 2EP) does not drop below 2 (urban habitats, with imperviousness >25%) or 4 (peri-urban habitats, with imperviousness ≤25%) (Fig. 3A), whereas WGEQ=S1 and L2P up to 7 or more might be sustainable in preserved environments (with imperviousness between 0 and <5%). An example is given in the Moselle river at a site where urban imperviousness is 50% (M1, Fig. 3B). The

Biomonitoring approaches in urban water courses

7





Fig. 2. Ecological potential L2P (EP transformed into Log2) in various water courses; L2PS, L2PH: L2P of surficial coarse sediments (S) and the hyporheic system (H); FTr3S, FTr3H, FTr4S, FTr4H: functional traits FTr3 and FTr4 in surficial coarse sediments (S) and the hyporheic system (H); water courses: Ro (Roseg), Y1, Y2a, Y2b, Y3, Y4 (Yzeron), C1, C2, C3, C4 (Chaudanne), M1, M3, M4, M5 (Moselle), Mi (Rhône at Miribel), Rc (Rhône at Chasse-sur-Rhône), A2 (Azergues), L3 (Loire); LOUE: lowest observed urbanisation effects; * urban imperviousness ≤5%; ** urban imperviousness ≤25%; *** urban imperviousness >25%.

harmonization system could not be used as the three applicable indices were not assessed (IBGN, IBD, IPR). As porous habitats (FU3 and FU4) and fine sediments were present, FTrs and IOBS index were selected for biomonitoring tasks. The LOUE was slightly exceeded considering the IOBS index (IOBS=2.9), at the limit between ecological classes 3 (“moderate”,

IOBS>2-3) and 2 (“good”, IOBS>3-6). The LOUE was significantly exceeded considering the L2P (L2PS and L2PH<2, Figs 2 and 3B), but without the presence of the important sludge effect in the hyporheic system (FTr4=11.3%). A quality objective of IOBS>3-6 (class 2, “good” quality) seems an easy target to achieve: the pollution affecting porous and fine habitats was

C. J. Rickwood et al.

8

mainly originating from an industrial zone (Lafont et al. 1996) and could be eliminated or at least reduced. Additional pollution inputs like CSOs must be obviated and sewer separation was recommended. Taking note of damages caused by excessive pumping of groundwater at the other sites of the Moselle river (M3, M4, M5, predomi-

nance of downwelling of polluted waters, Fig. 2), we recommend avoiding groundwater exploitation. In order not to increase the existing 50% urban imperviousness, it is proposed to strictly preserve the existing pervious areas, and to use pervious pavements when building new streets or car parking lots.

Gradients of increasing urban imperviousness and pollution load (wet-weather pollution and permanent discharges of industrial and domestic wastes) Peri-urban habitats : 25 % imperviousness ≥

Ecological objectives (not exceeding the LOUE) WGEQ : S2 ; L2PS ≥ 2 L2PH ≥ 2

WGEQ : S2 ; L2PS ≥ 4 L2PH ≥ 4 - 6

Pristine or preserved areas : 5 % imperviousness ≥

Urban habitats : > 25 % imperviousness

Ecological objectives

!

WGEQ : S1 L2PS, L2PH : up to 6 - 8

Agricultural pollutions

Cemented bed diatom (IBD index)

Storage of pollutants in fine sediments (IOBS index)

River-bed incision, instability of habitats : detrimental to invertebrates (IBGN index), macrophytes (IBMR index) and fish (IPR index) Downwelling of polluted surface waters : storage of pollutants in porous habitats (surficial coarse sediments, hyporheic system) ( FTrs + L2P)

"

-OSELLE2IVERSITE- No imperviousness exceeding 50% Surficial sediment (FU3) L2PS = 0.9

Pollution (industrial area) = limit or eradicate Water pumping in groundwater = avoid

L2PS ≥ 2 : sustainable objective

Moderate storage of pollution in the hyporheic system (FU4) L2PH = 1.4 (FTr4 = 11.3 %)

Storage of pollution in fine sediments : IOBS = 2.9 (moderate ecological quality) IOBS > 3 - 6 : sustainable objective (”good” quality)

L2PH ≥ 2 : sustainable objective

Fig. 3. Proposals of an ecological monitoring pattern in urbanized water courses; A: overview; B: Moselle river at the site M1 and proposals for rehabilitation plans; LOUE: lowest observed urbanization effects; WGEQ: weighted general ecological quality; S1, S2: classes of the ecological quality (S1: “very good”, S2: “good”); IBD, IOBS, IBMR, IBGN, IPR: biotic indices; FTrs: functional traits; L2P: Log2 of the ecological potential; L2PS, L2PH: Log2 of the ecological potential in coarse surficial sediments (S) and the hyporheic system (H).

Biomonitoring approaches in urban water courses

5. Discussion The harmonization system uses the information given by each compartment to forecast where rehabilitation actions must be uppermost planned. It is transferred to end-users, and intended to incorporate other French indices (macrophyte index IBMR, AFNOR 2003), new developments from French standards (AFNOR 2007, AFNOR 2009) or biotic indices from other countries in place of the French ones (Lafont et al. 2001). The WGEQ refers to a approximate view of the geomorphic pattern, an issue that cannot be ignored in applied studies (Poulard et al. 2009). The system is useable with at least two indices, can be used for WFD inter-calibration exercises, and improvable by testing its relevance in various basins. The ecohydrological approach, derived from experience with aquatic oligochaete ecology (Lafont, Vivier 2006; Lafont et al. 1996, 2006), has been transferred to end-users. It is a progressive approach strongly connected to the development of ecohydrology research, a fast growing and innovative domain, with many practical applications (Zalewski 2006; Zalewski, Wagner 2008). Future developments will make present FTrs more precise and define new ones. The FTrs are based on oligochaetes and do not consider other invertebrate assemblages. The consideration of both FTrs and standard indicators (Fig. 3) will allow to get around this drawback, with each approach limiting the drawbacks of the others. The definition of the ecological potential EP considers ecology of porous habitats (surficial coarse sediments, hyporheic system), as a necessity for understanding ecological functioning of water courses (Boulton 2000, Vivier 2006, Lafont, Vivier 2006). The dynamics of water exchanges between surficial water and groundwater through porous habitats is now well-recognized as a stimulating factor for the self-purification capacity in rivers (Jones, Mullholland 2000; Hancock 2002; Hancock, Boulton 2005; Breil et al. 2007; Mouw et al. 2009). The EP (transformed into Log2) takes into account those exchange dynamics and might be recognized as relevant to the functioning assessment, particularly if porous habitats predominate in the river-bed. However, the boundaries of EP values need clarification and are being improved. We gave great importance to those habitats that may store pollutants (fine deposits and porous habitats). It is known that the hyporheic system can store pollutants, thus integrating past and present pollution events (Hynes 1983; Danielopol 1989; Giere 1993). We claim the storage habitats are ecological “time bombs” because noxious substances may be released from fine sediments (Grapentine et al. 2004; Marsalek et al. 2005) and

9

from polluted interstices of porous habitats (Jones, Mullholland 2000). When combining the two approaches, we proposed the LOUE should not exceed WGEQ=S2 (harmonization system) or the L2P drop below 2-4 (Fig. 3A). These objectives do not seem rigorous compared to non-urbanized environments (WGEQ=S1, L2P up to 8), and L2PH>6 can locally be found in peri-urban environments (hyporheic system at Y2b site in the Yzeron river, Fig. 2). But, anthropogenic physical pressures (imperviousness, alteration of hydrological regimes) are most extreme in urbanized environments and may be responsible for biodiversity eradication, even if the chemical quality of waters remains quite acceptable (Paul, Meyer 2001; Walsh et al. 2001). Physical pressures are not easy to limit because of high densities of people and buildings, particularly in urban environments and less in peri-urban environments. Selecting WGEQ=S2 and L2PS/L2PH=2 allows us to reach sustainable ecological objectives in short term, which is a first step before reaching the same ecological objectives as in preserved areas in long term. Moreover, the WFD rates urban aquatic systems in the category of “Highly Modified Water Bodies” (HMWB), for which a “good” ecological potential in required (EU 2000), rather than a “good” ecological quality, which is required for all other water bodies. The combination of the two approaches might be one of the ways for defining the ecological potential of urban and peri-urban HMWB. Our distinction between urban and peri-urban habitats (Fig. 3A) was established on the basis of the percentual urban imperviousness. For refining ecological objectives, it was recommended to consider other factors as well, like the “effective imperviousness” EI (Walsh et al. 2005) and the location of urban impervious areas either near the stream-bed (unfavourable situation) or outside the green protective corridor (favourable situation, cf. at the site Y2b, Fig. 2). The selection of indicators depends on the richness and dominance of habitats at a given site (Breil et al. 2008a; Poulard et al. 2009). For example, if only a concrete-lined river-bed is present, only the diatom index IBD can be used for biomonitoring tasks (Fig. 3A). If all habitats exist, the complete set of indicators (indices and FTrs) can be used. Moreover, the availability of a set of indicators allows end-users to cope with the diversity of encountered situations. For example, the lack of indicators like IBGN, IBD and IPR (the Moselle river, Fig. 3B) was not an obstacle for biomonitoring tasks. Finally, for optimizing the financial costs when using several biological indicators, we recommended to use the complete set of indicators every 3 years and on annual basis to apply only the indicators of the most concern

10

C. J. Rickwood et al.

(Lafont et al. 2008). The complete set of indicators or a given indicator might be incorporated in integrated schemes for preservation and rehabilitation actions, which is a challenge for the future of aquatic urban habitats (Walsh et al. 2005; Weyand, Schitthelm 2006; Breil et al. 2008b; Krauze et al. 2008; Lafont et al. 2008; Marsalek et al. 2008).

Acknowledgments This research was financially supported by the European project URBEM (5th PCRD) and the Rhône-Alpes Region project GEREHPUR. We thank Jiri Marsalek, who assisted with paper editing, and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments allowed us to greatly improve the manuscript.

6. References AFNOR, 2000. Détermination de l’Indice biologique Diatomées (IBD). Norme française NF T 90-354. AFNOR, 2002. Qualité de l’eau – Détermination de l’indice oligochètes de bioindication des sédiments (IOBS). Norme Française NF T 90-390. AFNOR, 2003. Qualité de l’eau – Détermination de l’indice biologique macrophytique en rivière (IBMR). Norme Française NF T 90-395. AFNOR, 2004a. Essai des eaux: détermination de l’indice biologique global normalisé (IBGN). Norme française NF T 90-350. AFNOR, 2004b. Qualité de l’eau – Détermination de l’indice poissons en rivière (IPR). Norme Française NF T 90-344. AFNOR, 2007. Détermination de l’Indice biologique Diatomées (IBD). Norme française NF T 90-354. AFNOR, 2009. Prélèvement des macro-invertébrés aquatiques en rivières peu profondes. Norme française NF T 90-333. Bernoud, S., Laluc, M. 2005. Réalisation de l’indice IOBS dans le cadre du suivi RNB 2005 en région Ile de France. Rapport de Synthèse. BURGEAPDIREN Ile de France, RPR.4929-01. Boulton, A.J. 2000. River ecosystem health down under: assessing ecological conditions in riverine groundwater zones in Australia. Ecosystem Health 6, 108-118. Breil, P., Grimm, N., Vervier P. 2007. Surface water– ground water exchange processes and fluvial ecosystem function: An analysis of temporal and spatial scale dependency. In: Wood, P.J., Hannah, D.M., Sadler, P.J. [Eds] Hydroecology and Ecohydrology: Past, Present and Future. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. New York, pp. 93-111. Breil, P., Lafont, M., Fletcher, T.D., Roy, A. 2008a. Aquatic ecosystems. In: Fletcher, T.D., Deletić, A. [Eds] Data Requirements for Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter 20. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, UNESCO Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp. 262-272.

Breil, P., Marsalek, J., Wagner, I., Dogse, P. 2008b. Introduction to urban aquatic habitats management. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. [Eds] Aquatic Habitats in Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter I. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp. 1-8. Danielopol, D.L. 1989. Groundwater fauna associated with riverine aquifers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8, 18-35. Datry, T., Hervant, F., Malard, F., Vitry, L., Gibert, J. 2003. Dynamics and adaptive responses of invertebrates to suboxia in contaminated sediments of a stormwater infiltration basin. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 156, 339-359. Dor, E. 2009. Proposition d’un système d’harmonisation des résultats des indices biologiques obtenus en vue de classer les masses d’eau suivant leur écart au bon état et leur potentiel de retour éventuel à cet état. TFE ENGEEs-LP University, Strasbourg: 104 pp. EU 2000. Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/ CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for community action in the field of Water Policy. Fatta, D., Naoum, D., Loizidou, M. 2002. Integrated environmental monitoring and simulation system for use as a management decision support tool in urban areas. Journal of Environmental Management 64, 333-343. Giere, O. 1993. Meiobenthology. The microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 328 pp. Grapentine, L., Rochfort, Q., Marsalek, J. 2004. Benthic responses to wet-weather discharges in urban streams in southern Ontario. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 39, 374-391. Hancock, P.J. 2002. Human impacts on the streamgroundwater exchange zone. Environmental Management 29, 763-781. Hancock, P.J., Boulton, A.J. 2005. Aquifers and hyporheic zones: Towards an ecological understanding of groundwater. Hydrogeology Journal 13, 98-111. Hynes, H.B.N. 1983. Groundwater and stream ecology. Hydrobiologia 100, 93-99. Jones, J.B., Mulholland, P.J. 2000. Streams and ground waters. Academic Press, San Diego, 425 pp. Krauze, K., Zawilski, M., Wagner, I. 2008. Aquatic habitat rehabilitation: Goals, constraints and techniques. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. [Eds] Aquatic Habitats in Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter 5. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp. 71-93. Lafont, M. 2001. A conceptual approach to the biomonitoring of freshwater: the Ecological Ambience System. Journal of Limnology (Suppl. 1) 60, 17-24. Lafont, M., Vivier, A. 2006. Oligochaete assemblages in the hyporheic zone and coarse surface sediments: their importance for understanding of ecological functioning of water courses. Hydrobiologia 564, 171-181.

Biomonitoring approaches in urban water courses

Lafont, M., Camus, J.C., Rosso, A. 1996. Superficial and hyporheic oligochaete communities as indicators of pollution and water exchange in the River Moselle, France. Hydrobiologia 334, 147-155. Lafont M., Camus, J.C., Fournier, A., Sourp, E. 2001. A practical concept for the ecological assessment of aquatic ecosystems : application on the river Dore in France. Aquatic Ecology 35, 195-205. Lafont, M., Vivier, A., Nogueira, S., Namour, P., Breil, P. 2006. Surface and hyporheic oligochaete assemblages in a French suburban stream. Hydrobiologia 564, 183-193. Lafont, M., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. 2008. Urban Aquatic Habitat characteristics and functioning. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. [Eds.] Aquatic Habitats in Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter 2. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp. 9-24. Malard, F., Lafont, M., Burgherr, P., Ward, J.V. 2001. A comparison of longitudinal patterns in hyporheic and benthic oligochaete assemblages in a glacial river. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 33, 457-466. Marsalek, J., Obert, G., Exall, K., Viklander, M. 2003. Review of operation of urban drainage systems in cold weather: water quality considerations. Water Science and Technology 48, 11-20. Marsalek, J., Rochfort, Q., Grapentine, L. 2005. Aquatic habitat issues in urban stormwater management: challenges and potential solutions. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 5, 269-279. Marsalek, J., Rousseau, D., Van der Steen, P., Bourguès, S., Francey, M., 2008. Ecosensitive approaches to managing urban aquatic habitats and their integration with urban infrastructure. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. [Eds] Aquatic Habitats in Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter 4. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp. 43-69. Mouw, J.E.B, Stanford A., Alaback P.B., 2009. Influences of flooding and hyporheic exchange on floodplain plant richness and productivity. River Research and Applications 25, 929–945. Nogaro, G., Mermillod-Blondin, F., François-Carcaillet, F., Gaudet, J.P., Lafont, M., Gibert, J. 2006. Invertebrate bioturbation can reduce the clogging of sediment: an experimental study using infiltration sediment columns. Freshwater Biology 51, 1458-1473. Paul, M.J., Meyer, J.L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Revue of Ecology and Systematics 32, 333-365.

11

Poulard, C., Lafont, M., Lenar-Matyas, A., Marta Łapuszek, M. 2009 in press. Flood mitigation designs with respect to river ecosystem functions – A problem oriented conceptual approach. Ecological Engineering: DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.09.013 Rochfort, Q., Grapentine, L., Marsalek, J., Brownlee, B., Reynoldson, T., Thompson, S., Milani, D., Logan, C. 2000. Using benthic assessment techniques to determine combined sewer overflow and stormwater impacts in the aquatic ecosystem. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 35, 365-397. Rogers, C.E., Brabander, D.J., Barbour, M.T., Hemond, H.F. 2002. Use of physical, chemical, and biological indices to assess impacts of contaminants and physical habitat alteration in urban streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21, 1156-1167. Verdonschot, P.F.M. 2006. Beyond masses and blooms: the indicative value of oligochaetes. Hydrobiologia 564, 127-142. Vivier, A. 2006. Effets écologiques de rejets urbains de temps de pluie sur deux cours d’eau périurbains de l’ouest lyonnais et un ruisseau phréatique en plaine d’Alsace. Thesis, L.P. University, Strasbourg, France, 208 pp. Walsh, C.J. 2000. Urban impacts on the ecology of receiving waters: a framework for assessment, conservation and restoration. Hydrobiologia 431, 107-114. Walsh, C.J., Sharpe, A.K., Breen, P.F., Sonneman, J.A. 2001. Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater. Biology 46, 535-551. Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Ladson, A.R. 2005. Stream restoration in urban catchments through re-designing stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24, 690–705. Weyand, M., Schitthelm, D. 2006. Good ecological status in a heavily urbanised river: is it feasible? Water Science and Technology 53, 247-253. Zalewski, M. 2006. Ecohydrology-an interdisciplinary tool for integrated protection and management of water bodies. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplementum 158/4, 613-622. Zalewski, M., Wagner, I. 2008. Ecohydrology of urban aquatic ecosystems for healthy cities. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., Breil, P. [Eds] Aquatic Habitats in Integrated Urban Water Management, Chapter 6. Urban water Series – UNESCO-IHP, Taylor and Francis Group, The Netherlands, pp 95-106.