United States

 Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 816-R-98-018 

 Agency 4606 September 1998

 ____________________________________________________________________________

Biological Indicators of Ground

Water - Surface Water Interaction: 

 Update
Biological Indicators of Ground Water-Surface Water

 Interaction: An Update

prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

prepared by

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

135 Beaver Street

Waltham, MA 02154

and

Tetra Tech EM Inc.

Chicago, IL
______________________________________________________________________________

Biological Indicators of Ground Water-Surface Water

 Interaction: An Update

______________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ............................................................ 1

II. Background ............................................................ 2

III. Sampling Methods ....................................................... 4

Bou-Rouch ............................................................. 4

Freezing Core ........................................................... 5

Air-lift ................................................................ 6

Colonization Corer ....................................................... 8

IV. Study Methods .......................................................... 8

Community Approach .................................................... 9

Ecotoxicological Approach ............................................... 10

V. Study Settings and Contaminants .......................................... 12

VI. General Evaluation ...................................................... 12

References Cited in this Chapter ................................................. 14

Table 1 Summary of Study Settings ......................................... 16

Table 2 References to Annotated Bibliography ................................ 22

______________________________________________________________________________

Biological Indicators of Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction: An Update

I. Introduction

Ground water contributes approximately 40 percent of the surface water discharge in river

systems of the United States (U.S. Geological Survey 1988). A growing volume of evidence

indicates that contaminants contained within this ground water discharge can have a significant

impact on surface water quality. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has documented a series of methods for quantifying the local extent and quality of contaminated

ground water discharge (EPA 1991). Until recently these assessment methods consisted primarily

of hydrologic and physicochemical techniques to determine ground water flux and pollutant load

to surface water. This chapter documents a new body of research that is focusing on the use of

organisms that spend all or part of their life cycle living in contact with ground water, to

characterize zones of ground water and surface water interaction (the hyporheic zone). This new

research is also exploring methods to provide qualitative estimates of the ground water pollutant

load impact on these organisms, as an indicator of impacts on surface water quality. In the

approach presented in this document, the hyporheic zone is defined by the presence of a particular

suite of indicator organisms that can be withdrawn by wells; these organisms spend part of their

life cycle in surface water and part in ground water. This document describes techniques for

determining the presence of these micro-organisms. 

There are other approaches for defining the hyporheic zone, based on physical parameters; the

boundary may be defined by the extent of the penetration of surface water into ground water as

indicated by physical-parameter values in the ground water that are similar to the values in the

surface water. The boundary of the zone can vary with the parameter used to define it. The size

of the hyporheic zone can vary seasonally and in response to drought. Research has not

determined how rapidly hyporheic-zone organisms spread following the episodes of extensive

surface-water intrusion into ground water that result from periods of flooding, or how rapidly the

extent of the zone varies seasonally or in response to drought.. 

Organisms are found at great depths beneath the land surface. In karst regions, microbes and

invertebrates can be found in caves and other openings at 100 meters or more beneath the earth’s

surface. Bacteria exist in ground water thousands of feet below the land surface (Frederickson,

et al 1991). However, invertebrates are typically found within 1 to 10 meters of the earth’s

surface in consolidated materials (Strayer 1994). Within this shallow ground water zone, many

macroscopic invertebrates have been identified. Furthermore, the species richness and

community structure of these organisms has been shown to change with alterations in ground

water quality. Therefore, the relative presence or absence of different communities or

populations of organisms may reflect the impact of changes in regional ground water quality. 

As a result, the organisms living within the shallow ground water zone can serve as indicators of

the quality of the ground water resource (Job and Simons 1994). 

 
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 2

______________________________________________________________________________

Ground Water Table Stream

Benthic Zone

Hyporheic Zone

Figure 1 Hyporheic Zone

The hyporheic zone exists

below, and is laterally

linked to, lakes and streams

and defines the area of

ground water-surface

water interaction (Figure

1). Within the hyporheic

zone, biological community

structure varies with depth

or distance from the

surface water body. 

Invertebrate, protozoa, and

bacteria population

densities appear to decline

with depth (Strayer 1994),

although high bacteria populations may be observed at great depths. Invertebrate and protozoa

species richness and community structure also change with depth. Invertebrate communities

within the hyporheic zone include a mixture of species that spend part of their life cycle in surface

waters and a few specialized ground water species (Bretschko 1992). The ground water dwelling

organisms decrease in relative abundance with depth. These generalized species distributions may

alter along preferential ground-water flowpaths, such as those found in karst terrain (Strayer

1994). 

Macroinvertebrates living in the hyporheic zone, such as oligochaetes, isopods, and ostracods,

have evolved special adaptations to survive in a food-, oxygen-, space-, and light-limited

environment. Studies of these environments have been designed to determine the structure and

interactions of organisms within the hyporheic community. In fact, many hyporheic organisms

have yet to be identified. However, general ecological assumptions regarding species diversity

and abundance may be applied and assist in the evaluation of the hyporheic zone. 

This chapter investigates the use of biological indicators as a tool to evaluate the interaction of 

ground water and surface water. Section II of this chapter provides background information on

biological indicators related to ground water and surface water interaction. Section III provides a

discussion of several hyporheic zone organism sample collection and study methods. Section IV

discusses various study settings and contaminants. Finally, Section V provides a general

evaluation of the use of biological indicators as a tool in the evaluation of ground water and

surface water interaction. 
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 3

______________________________________________________________________________

II. Background

For many years, researchers have used planktonic, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities as

indicators of pollution in both freshwater and marine environments. For example, an increase in

abundance of benthic oligochaetes may indicate sewage pollution of a surface water body. Such

biological indicators can highlight the water quality impact resulting from pollutant load from a

variety of sources, including tributary discharge, upgradient point sources, atmospheric

deposition, or ground water discharge. 

Biological monitoring is typically conducted as part of an integrated assessment strategy,

comparing biological measures of species, population, or community structure with measures of

water quality. Rapid bioassessment protocols have been employed in surface water programs

since the mid-1980s to assess the impact of multiple contaminants within aquatic ecosystems

(EPA 1996). These protocols are designed to assess how multiple contaminants affect living

systems over time, even when the concentration of any one contaminant in the system may be

below detection limits. By comparing the biological and water quality characteristics of

reference areas against the characteristics of impacted areas, the predictive power of the

empirical relationship is enhanced. Once the relationship between water quality and biological

characteristics is understood, water quality impacts can be objectively discriminated from habitat

effects, and control and rehabilitation efforts can be focused on the most important source of

impairment. This same rationale can be applied to the analysis of hyporheic organisms as

indicators of water quality. It is important, however, to consider if a biological change is the

result of hydrologic factors, rather than the result of contamination.

Hyporheic organisms provide an indicator of the impact of contaminated ground water discharge. 

If polluted ground water is flowing into surface water, it is reasonable to predict that organisms

within the hyporheic zone will show the effects of pollution before organisms dwelling within the

water column. As a result, changes in hyporheic organisms and communities can serve as early

indicators of pollutants entering surface water through ground water discharge. 

The hyporheic zone is the primary focus for the use of biological indicators to assess contaminant

load from ground water discharge. Generally, the hyporheic zone may extend several meters

below the stream bottom and a few meters horizontally on the stream banks (Bretschko 1992). In

some cases, the hyporheic zone may extend over much larger areas. Stanford and others (1994)

have concluded that based on diverse and abundant macroinvertebrate fauna, in some cases the

hyporheic zone may extend over large areas of alluvial floodplains.

While some overlap of species between the top 10 to 15 cm of substrate (benthic zone) and

hyporheic zone exists, researchers have discovered organisms that live only in the hyporheic zone. 

In fact, investigators use these organisms to delineate the extent of the hyporheic zone and

examine ground water and surface water interaction. For example, Lafont and others (1992)

found that the oligchaete worm Phallodrilus sp. appeared to be a good indicator of the magnitude
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 4

______________________________________________________________________________

of exchange between a river and an adjacent aquifer. Furthermore, investigators can assess the

impact of pollutant load to the hyporheic zone by studying changes in relative community

structure and species populations. For example, the hyporheic zone is typically food and oxygen

limited. Sewage pollution increases available nutrients and may lead to the appearance and

dominance of epigean species (species that live near the ground surface) within the hyporheic

zone. 

Organisms living in karst channels or subterranean caves, or those that spend only a portion of

their life cycle in the subsurface, can also indicate the presence of contaminated ground water. 

Physiological changes within hyporheic organisms and changes in population distribution may

suggest the presence of a certain type of pollutant, such as nutrients, pesticides, or metals. For

example, ecotoxicological study methods examine the effects of acute or chronic pollutant

exposure on hyporheic organisms. Study methods are also being developed that examine changes

in population characteristics to determine ground water and surface water exchange and the

impacts of pollutants. For example, Malard and others (1996) divided cave-dwelling organisms

into three ecological categories: stygobites, stygophiles, and stygoxenes. Stygobites live their

whole lives in ground water, stygophiles live primarily in ground water but may also live in

surface water, and stygoxenes are epigean organisms that do not develop properly when found in

ground water. Ward and Stanford (1989) divided ground water organisms of alluvial aquifers

into two groups, those that temporarily move from the stream floor to the subsurface, such as

insect larvae, and those that live permanently below the surface and are rarely found on the stream

floor, such as choronimids and amphipods. Observed changes in hyporheic community structure

may serve as an indicator of pollutant load. However, little is known about the variety of

organisms residing in this ecosystem and most studies are still attempting to determine the

structure and distribution of the hyporheic community. Changes in community structure may also

reflect a change in other factors, such as short- or long-term precipitation patterns or amounts,

which can alter the near-stream hydraulic gradient (the slope and direction of the water table).

III. Sampling Methods

In the last ten years, a relatively small number of researchers has been responsible for much of the

published literature addressing the use of biological indicators in the hyporheic zone. New

biological-indicator methods are under constant development. Each of the methods described

below is designed to collect organisms living within a portion of the hyporheic zone. Most studies

completed to date use the Bou-Rouch sampler (Bou and Rouch, 1967), but there are variations

on this method, including the colonization corer and freeze corer. In addition, investigators have

recently developed a new method for sampling ground water organisms in karst aquifers. The

following discussions present a description of several sampling methods and associated

assumptions and limitations.

Bou-Rouch
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 5

______________________________________________________________________________

The Bou-Rouch sampler consists of a calibrated pipe, called a standpipe, about 1.5 meter (m) 

long and 2.5 centimeters (cm) in diameter. A steel cone seals the bottom of the standpipe; its

shape assists insertion into sediment. Ten centimeters from the steel cone there is a 15 cm 

perforated screen section with 5 millimeter (mm) diameter holes. This screen section allows entry

of animals and sediment into the standpipe. Investigators drive the standpipe into the sediment

with a 2 kilogram (kg) weight. When collecting samples from streambank alluvium, a hole can be

dug to the water table before insertion of the pipe to reduce the chance of collecting nonhyporheic organisms (Ward et al 1989). After standpipe insertion, the investigator removes the

weight and fits a pump to the top of the pipe. The pump pulls water, organisms, and sediment

into the standpipe through the screen section. The water, organisms, and sediment travel up the

standpipe and eventually through a 1-mm mesh sieve and silk plankton net. Dole-Olivier and

Marmonier (1992), who were studying the effects of storms on the vertical distribution of

organisms, left permanent standpipes in place over a 15 month period and sampled from them at

given intervals after storms.

Assumptions and limitations

The Bou-Rouch standpipe has only a small portion of its length (10-15 cm) open to the interstitial

(between-grain) environment. It can collect organisms only at the depth to which the investigator

places the open segment. This makes it useful for comparing organisms found at a specific depth

across a transect, but not for determining the vertical distribution of organisms at one site. In

order to obtain vertical distributions of species, the investigator must insert the standpipe into the

sediment several times at one site, to a different depth each time.

The Bou-Rouch method may result in inaccuracies in the number of animals depending on the size

of the corer used. Small standpipes (25 cubic cm) may collect a smaller proportion of large

sediment particles with which large animals are associated. Likewise, large standpipes (100

cubic cm) may collect a larger proportion of large particles and the large organisms associated

with them.

Freezing Core

The freezing core method (Stocker and Williams 1972) uses a standpipe similar to that of the

Bou-Rouch method, except the screen section covers the last 60 cm of the standpipe rather than

the last 15 cm. The investigator inserts the standpipe into the sediment by pounding with a sleeve

that fits over the pipe. After insertion, the investigator removes the sleeve and releases liquid

nitrogen into the standpipe tubing. The investigator removes the standpipe tubing after the liquid

nitrogen flows for 15 minutes. At the bottom of the standpipe, the nitrogen passes through the

holes in the pipe and freezes everything within a 10 cm radius of a 30 cm length of the pipe. The

investigator uses a winch to remove the standpipe from the sediment. Application of ice will

preserve the core for several weeks. For processing, the investigator cuts the standpipe into 
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 6

______________________________________________________________________________

10 cm sections and removes the core from the standpipe with a knife. Subsequent processing of

the sections involves melting, drying, and sieving. Researchers are experimenting with a variation

of this method that introduces electricity to paralyze the organisms before the liquid nitrogen

application.

Assumptions and limitations

The freezing core method is most useful for its preservation of animals and sediment in situ. It

also preserves the vertical distribution for depths up to a 30 cm. However, fewer animals can be

obtained with this method as compared to other methods. This reduction in sampling efficiency

may result from the ability of mobile animals to escape from the cold before freezing occurs. The

variation of the freezing core method that introduces electricity into the corer to paralyze or

“electroposition” the organisms before the liquid nitrogen application may increase efficiency. 

This “electropositioning” may eliminate the escape of organisms and therefore, increase the

number of organisms captured.

Air-lift

Malard and others (1994) developed the air-lift method for karst aquifers. Previously,

investigators could only collect samples from springs or caves when floods washed the organisms

into a collection device. However, organisms live throughout karst systems in fractures or other

areas not accessible to humans. The air-lift system enables sample collection from these areas. 

Air-lift pumps are useful for sampling fauna because they contain no parts that can damage the

organisms. In addition, air-lift pumps install easily into observation wells. However, they are not

for use in production wells, since production wells alter the hydrology and thus, the ecology of

the sampled area. 

Air-lift pumps (Figure 2) force compressed air to the bottom of a well through a small diameter

air injection pipe. At the bottom of the well, the air injection pipe feeds into a ground water

discharge pipe. Inside the discharge pipe, the air mixes with the water producing a mixture with a

relative density that is lower than that of the water in the well. This air-water mixture rises up the

discharge pipe to the ground surface, carrying fauna with it. At ground surface, the air-water

mixture containing the ground water fauna passes through a mesh collection filter.

For effective operation, investigators must balance the relationship between the densities of the

well water and the air-water mixture. Theoretically, one could compensate for a low water level

or a deep well by increasing the rate of air injection, thereby decreasing the density of the air and

water mix. In practice, at high injection rates, the air and water do not mix at all, and the air rises

by itself. In addition, the diameter of the discharge pipe and specific type of air injection

equipment are critical factors of effective air-lift method operation.
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 7

______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2 Design of the air-lift used for sampling groundwater invertebrates in deep wells

(Malard and others 1994).

Ward and Stanford (1989) used a similar method in an alluvial aquifer. Their method differed

from the air-lift method in that they pumped water directly, without the use of compressed air. 

They lowered a tube into the 10 m deep wells and used a gasoline engine pump to collect samples. 

Assumptions and limitations

The air-lift method is still in the early stages of development, however it appears quite useful. It is

difficult to examine sampling consistency with this method, because the sampling environment,

fractured rock, is highly irregular. Fractures may vary greatly in size and distribution.
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 8

______________________________________________________________________________

Colonization Corer

Fraser and others (1996) developed a colonization corer that is a combination of a fauna sampler

and a hydrologic sampler. It allows hyporheic organisms to colonize artificial substrate. 

Similarly, investigators have widely employed the use of an artificial substrate for sample

collection of benthic organisms. The colonization corer consists of an internal acrylic tube 160

cm long and 3.2 cm in diameter that contains an artificial substrate. Typically, the artificial

substrate is sediment with a vertical particle distribution matching that of the stream bed. The

tube consists of five sections with a distance between each section of 20 cm. Each section

contains 100 5-mm diameter holes. This tube fits inside an outer 4.2 cm diameter steel pipe. The

outer steel pipe has the same perforation configuration as the inserted acrylic tube. Therefore,

organisms can enter the corer through the holes and colonize the artificial substrate in the acrylic

tube. Protective steel caps seal the bottom and top of the colonization corer. 

Attached to the outer pipe are five, 1.3 cm diameter steel pipes that provide access for water

collection and water level readings. Each of these small diameter pipes has two rows of 0.2 cm

diameter holes 55, 75, 95, 115, or 135 cm from the top of the pipe. To determine depth of water

collection and obtain water level readings, the investigator seals the small diameter pipes below

the desired row of holes or depth. The colonization corer is left in place for at least nine weeks to

allow fauna and organic matter to infiltrate to levels found in the natural environment. The

investigator pulls the tubes from the sediment with a winch and wraps the tube in plastic to keep

organisms from falling out. The investigator then cuts the inner acrylic tube into the 20 cm

sections and places the contents in plastic jars with preservative and stain.

Essafi and others (1992) also used an artificial substrate to retrieve Niphargus rhenorhodanensis. 

They used a perforated pipe 10 cm in diameter and 50 cm long. The artificial substrate was five

stacked 6 mm mesh baskets containing clean, dry, local sediments. The artificial substrate was left

in place for one month.

Assumptions and limitations

The colonization corer obtained accurate results compared to the freezing core and standpipe

methods. It assumes, though, that the distribution of animals colonizing the corer is the same as

that in the sediment of the hyporheic zone, and that the artificial substrate correctly approximates

the real substrate. This method is more time consuming, because colonization requires several

weeks.

IV. Study Methods

The literature review (summarized in Table 2) completed for this chapter, identified two general

types of hyporheic-organism studies. The first is the community approach, in which researchers
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 9

______________________________________________________________________________

determine abundance, location, and richness of species. The second is the ecotoxicological

approach, in which researchers expose organisms to specific pollutants, usually in the laboratory,

to determine lethal and sub-lethal doses which can then be extrapolated to the field. The

following discussion focuses on the community and the ecotoxicological approaches.

Community Approach

As previously stated, the community approach determines species abundance, location, and

richness. Species distribution in the hyporheic zone may indicate the direction and magnitude of

exchange between ground water and surface water. Pollutant presence in the hyporheic zone can

alter abundance, distribution, and diversity of hyporheic organisms. Investigations in polluted

aquifers or streams determine changes in hyporheic ecology with distance from the pollution

source, or note differences between generally polluted sites and unpolluted sites.

While some studies simply display raw data such as the number of species and number of

organisms in each sample, many studies use statistics to determine patterns in organism

distribution, accuracy of sampling methods, correlation with physical and chemical parameters,

etc. Methods used include Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Non Centered Principal Component

Analysis, and Range Correlation. In addition, researchers use the following statistical software;

ADECO, TWINSPAN (community classification), STATISTIX, and DECORANA (ordination).

The community approach is heavily dependent on prior knowledge of unimpacted hyporheic zone

community structure. Because little is known about the organisms of this ecosystem, most studies

are still attempting to determine the structure and distribution of the hyporheic community in

order to provide a background for future studies on organisms as pollution indicators. 

Background or “ambient” community structure characteristics are difficult to define. When the

general assumption is made that relatively low species diversity and perhaps presence of epigean

species may indicate a pollution problem at a site, other possible causes should be considered. In

addition, research indicates that the direction and magnitude of exchange between ground water

and surface water may be described by the vertical distribution of hypogean species (organisms

that live in the subsurface). These general assumptions rely on studies of benthic, surface, and

ground water environments. 

Researchers are also studying variations in structure with time and the effect of weather,

streamflow, hydraulic gradient, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other parameters. Studies

show high variability within hyporheic zone communities, even at unpolluted sites. At sites along

the South Platte River in Colorado, the dominant species at each site were often different,

although the same species may have been present at every site. Researchers attributed this finding

to the slow migration rates of organisms within ground water communities, thereby causing a

patchy distribution of species. Thus, investigations of ground water community structure are sitespecific and cannot be extrapolated. This also means that it is difficult to select an “indicator”
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 10

______________________________________________________________________________

organism that signifies pollution presence or delineates the hyporheic zone. Biological indicators

by definition must be widespread, and occupy the same niche in the community at various sites.

Expertise required

The communtiy approach involves collection, preservation, and identification of hyporheic zone

organisms. Specifically, the community approach requires expertise in hyporheic organism

identification and knowledge of hyporheic zone community structure. Because this area of

research is fairly new, the level of expertise required for community approach studies may not be

widely available. However, as the background information on hyporheic zone ecology grows, so

will the pool of available expertise in hyporheic organism identification and community structure. 

In addition, this method may require statistical analysis. Some studies may require simple

ANOVA’s, but others may require more difficult packages that necessitate in-depth knowledge of

statistics. A comprehensive understanding of hydrochemistry and hydrology is needed in order to

make valid assumptions about the relationship of the community and organisms to the hydrologic,

hydrochemical and hydrogeologic setting.

Assumptions and limitations 

The primary limitation of community approach studies is the lack of site-specific ambient or

background hyporheic zone community structure information. Given the apparent temporal and

spatial hetereogeniety of the hyporheic community, subtle pollution impacts may be diffult for

investigators to assess. However, the general assumption that low species abundance and

diversity may indicate the presence of pollution appears to be valid. Expanded communication

between ecologists and hydrologists will help to identify factors, in addition to water quality, that

can impact the extent and nature of communities.

Ecotoxicological Approach

There are two types of ecotoxicological studies; those that study acute and those that study

chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity studies determine pollutant concentration and exposure necessary

to kill one or more organisms. Typically, the result of an acute toxicity study is determination of

the lethal concentration that kills 50 percent of the study organisms or LC50. Within a given time,

chronic toxicity studies determine the effect of long-term pollutant exposure to an organism in

terms of physiological disruptions such as reproductive or digestive problems. Unlike the

community approach study methods, the ecotoxicological approach requires collection of live

hyporheic organisms. Therefore, sample collection method is a critical component of the

ecotoxicological approach. 

Ideally, the ecotoxicological study approach would identify pollutant impacts by lack of

abundance of an expected hyporheic organism (acute toxicity) or changes within hyporheic
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 11

1

an assay of pollutants, using living organisms; performed to show the effects of pollution on living

communities

______________________________________________________________________________

organisms (chronic toxicity). However, extrapolating LC50 bioassay1 results to assess hypogean

population dynamics is not advised because of the complex life cycle characteristics of hypogean

organisms (Gibert and others 1994). As with the community approach, prior knowledge of the

expected hyporheic organisms and community structure, and the hydrologic and hydrochemical

setting, are important components in assessing pollutant impact. 

Expertise Required

The ecotoxicological approach requires personnel familiar with, and facilities that can follow, 

toxicity testing protocols. In addition, this approach requires expertise in hyporheic organism

identification and biology. Facilities and personnel that perform general toxicity testing are

available, however hyporheic organisms require environmental conditions for survival that are not

well understood. 

Assumptions and limitations

Because very little is known about hyporheic organisms under their normal conditions,

investigators find it difficult to determine chronic toxicity. Such studies are also more timeconsuming and it is difficult to detect changes in small organisms. Therefore, acute toxicity

studies dominate. 

Ecotoxicological studies, by nature, cannot be entirely representative of an organism’s response to

pollution because the studies are performed ex situ. In addition, the pollutant levels used in acute

toxicity studies may not be representative of the levels occurring in the ground water habitat. 

Low diversity of taxa in the ground water environment may be due to chronic effects of pollution,

not a specific acute event. Low diversity may also be due to the nature of the ground water

environment, low light, oxygen and nutrients.

Studies using ground water organisms are difficult, because the organisms are not thought to

survive well outside of the ground water environment. In addition, their adaption to the ground

water environment makes them poor candidates for toxicological studies. The ground water

environment is low in dissolved oxygen (hypoxic) and very confined. Hyporheic organisms adapt

by reducing mobility, respiratory rates, and metabolic functions. For pollutants such as metals,

ground water organisms actually are much more resistant to impacts than surface or benthic

organisms (Notenbloom et al 1994).

V. Study Settings and Contaminants
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 12

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 1 provides a summary of representative settings in which investigators have used biological

indicator methods. These studies may focus upon specific environment types such as a transect

across a river, a gravel bar, or a grid in a floodplain, or compare community structure across

environmental gradients such as the interface between karst and alluvial aquifers, a longitudinal

section of a riffle-pool sequence, or a survey along a river from its headwaters to its entrance into

a lake or another river. In addition, some studies may only observe the spatial or vertical

distribution of a single species. 

Most studies summarized in the Table 1 investigate the effects of heavy metals from sewage or

other organic pollution. For example, studies of karst ground water systems indicate that surface

water organisms displace indigenous fauna during episodes of sewage pollution (Gibert et al

1994). Several studies address pesticide and nitrate pollution. These studies demonstrate that in

alluvial aquifers insect larvae tend to disappear in polluted areas, although crustaceans remain

present. In addition, abundance and species richness also declines in the polluted areas. 

Overall, most of the current literature focuses on gathering background information on ground

water communities. These studies address vertical and spatial distributions of indicator species

and community richness relating to dissolved oxygen levels and temperature distribution. 

Ecotoxicological studies primarily focus on the effects of cave-dwelling asellid isopods, low

oxygen levels on cave-dwelling amphipods, and chlorophenols and metals on interstitial copepods.

VI. General Evaluation

Because using ground-water organisms to evaluate the interaction of ground water and surface

water is a relatively new field, many differences remain in methodologies and definitions. For

example, investigators disagree on whether benthic organisms, such as insect larvae that live both

in the hyporheic and benthic zones, should be used to define the hyporheic zone. Ecologists need

to work closely with hydrologists, hydrogeologists and hydrochemists to determine what factors,

other than pollution, may impact the nature and extent of communities. Other factors include, but

are not limited to: climate, low light, oxygen and nutrients. 

There has been difficulty in sampling the hyporheic zone for organisms because gravel and pebbles

dominate the alluvial hyporheic environment. Corers typically used in soil or other more cohesive

media are ineffective. Therefore, corer insertion distrupts the vertical distribution of sediment and

organisms and valuable information is lost. Investigators have developed methods to circumvent

this problem only to face problems with recovering an accurate number of organisms.

There are other general difficulties with using ground water organisms as indicators. The

methods are not sufficiently refined to provide quantitative estimates of pollution load. Therefore

the methods should be used in conjunction with chemical or other quantitative methods to

estimate pollutant load and ground water and surface water exchange. The use of biological
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 13

______________________________________________________________________________

indicators is perhaps even more time consuming than chemical analyses. Investigators must

preserve, hand separate, count, and identify organisms. A single sample may yield hundreds to

thousands of organisms. In addition, because this is a new field and researchers are continously

discovering new organisms, there are very few people who can identify organisms to the species

level, although, in many cases identification to a higher taxic level may be sufficient. 

Biological indicators can serve as effective tools for identifying areas generally impacted by

pollution loading and ground water and surface water exchange. Without testing for the presence

of multiple contaminants, changes in community structure or population can indicate current or

past contamination events. However, researchers have characterized very few hyporheic

organisms to date, and few researchers are familiar with hyporheic taxa. Sufficient research has

not yet been performed and standards have not yet been set, to determine if biological indicator

methods can be effectively applied in the assessment of ground water and surface water

interaction and pollutant loading to the hyporheic zone.
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 14

______________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES CITED IN THIS CHAPTER

Bou, C. and R. Rouch. 1967. “Un nouveau champ de recherches sur la faune aquatique

souterraine.” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Serie D, 1967. v265 n4 p. 369-370.

Bretschko, G. 1992. “Differentiation between epigeic and hypogeic fauna in gravel streams.”

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 1992. v7 p. 17-22.

Dole-Olivier, M. and P. Marmonier. 1992. “Spring ecotone and gradient study of interstitial

fauna along two floodplain tributaries of the River Rhone, France.” Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 1992. v7 p. 103-115.

Essafi, K., J. Mathieu, and J. Beffy. 1992. “Spatial and temporal variations of Niphargus

populations in interstitial aquatic habitat at the karst/floodplain interface.” Regulated

Rivers: Research and Management, 1992. v7 p. 83-92.

Fraser, B., D. Williams, and K. Howard. 1996. “Monitoring biotic and abiotic processes across

the hyporheic/groundwater interface,” 1996, Hydrogeology Journal v4 n2 p. 36-50.

Frederickson, J.K., Balkwill, D.L., Zachara, J.M., Li, S.M., Brockman, F.J., and Simmons, M.A.

1991. Physiological diversity and distributions of heterotrophic bacteria in deep

Cretaceous sediments of the Atlantic coastal plain. Applied Environmental Microbiology

57, 402-411.

Gibert, J., D. Danielopol, and J. Stanford (eds.). 1994. Groundwater Ecology, Academic Press,

San Diego, 1994. 

Job, C. and J. Simons. 1994. Ecological Basis for Management of Groundwater in the United

States: Statutes, Regulations, and a Strategic Plan, in Groundwater Ecology , Academic

Press, New York.

Lafont, M., A. Durbec, and C. Ille. 1992. “Oligochaete worms as biological describers of the

interactions between surface and groundwaters: a first synthesis.” Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 1992. v7 p. 65-73.

Malard, F., J. Gibert, R. Laurent, and J. Reygrobellet. 1994. “The use of invertebrate

communities to describe groundwater flow and contaminant transport in a fractured rock

aquifer.” Arch. Hydrobiol. 1994. v131 n1 p. 93-110.
Biological Indicators of Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 15

______________________________________________________________________________

Malard, F., S. Plenet, and J. Gibert. 1996. “The use of invertebrates in ground water monitoring:

a rising research field,” Ground Water Monitoring Review, Spring 1996, p. 103-113.

Notenboom, J., S. Plenet, and M.J. Turquin. 1994. Groundwater Contamination and its Impact 

on Groundwater Animals and Ecosystems, in Groundwater Ecology , Academic Press,

New York.

Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, and B.K. Ellis. 1994. Ecology of the Alluvial Aquifers of the

Flathead River, Montana, in Groundwater Ecology , Academic Press, New York.

Strayer, D.L. 1994. Limits to Biological Distributions in Groundwater, in Groundwater Ecology,

Academic Press, New York.

Stocker, Z. and D. Williams. 1972. “A freezing core method for describing the vertical

distribution of sediments in a streambed.” Limnol. And Ocean. 1972. v17 p. 136-138.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. A Review of Methods for Assessing

Nonpoint Source Contaminated Ground-Water Discharge To Surface Water. Office of

Water. EPA 570/9-91-010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Revision to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols

for Use In Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1988. National Water Summary 1986 - Hydrologic Events and

Gound-Water Quality. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2325.

Ward, J. and J. Stanford. 1989. “Groundwater animals of alluvial river systems: a potential

management tool,” IN: Grigg, N. S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Colorado Water

Engineering And Management Conference, Colorado Water Resources Research

Institute, Fort Collins, CO, 1989.

Ward. J., N. Voelz, and J. Harvey. 1989. “Groundwater faunas as indicators of groundwater

quality: the South Platte River system,” 1989, Colorado Water Resources Research

Institute, 33 pp.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 16

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Geographic Location Setting Contaminant Notes Author

Speed River

southern Ontario

a

B. G. Fraser, 

D. D. Williams, 

K. W. F. Howard

Multiple 

(review article)

Multiple Multiple J. Notenboom, 

S. Plenet,

M.-J. Turquin

Upper Arkansas River, Colorado Stream bed Heavy metals benthicb W. H. Clements

Convict Creek, 

Sierra Nevadas,

California

Stream bed Copper benthicb H. V. Leland, 

S. V. Fend, 

T. L. Dudley, 

J. L. Carter

Templeton, 

New Zealand

Downgradient of sewage

disposal area

Sewage L. W. Sinton

Terrieu stream, near Montpellier,

France

Fractured rock Sewage F. Malard, 

J. L. Reygrobellet, 

J. Mathieu, 

M. Lafont

Meuse River

St. Agatha, Holland

Alluvium Chlorophenols,

heavy metals

crustacean; 

acute toxicity

J. Notenboom, 

K. Cruys, 

J. Hoekstra, 

P. van Beelen
TABLE 1

(CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 17

Geographic Location Setting Contaminant Notes Author

Chalamont

Dombes Forest, France

Forest drainage canal

sediment 

Low oxygen levels amphipod F. Hervant, 

J. Mathieu, D. Garin,

A. Freminet

Merrybranch Cave,

White County, Tennessee

Karst aquifer Cadmium, zinc, total

residual chlorine

isopod; acute

toxicity

A. D. Bosnak, 

E. L. Morgan

Eastern North America formerly

glaciated sites, unglaciated sites,

and Coastal Plain

Streamside hyporheic zones,

two springs

a

D. L. Strayer, 

S. E. May, 

P. Nielsen, 

W. Wollheim, 

S. Hausam

Clinch River, 

Virginia and artificial

experimental sites

Gravel/cobble

stream bed 

Heavy metals benthicb W. H. Clements, 

D. S. Cherry, 

J. C. Cairns, Jr.

Elam’s Run and Shayler Run,

southwestern Ohio

None--stream Heavy metals R. W. Winner, 

M. W. Boesel, 

M. P. Farrell

Southern Ontario, 

Canada

Sand gravel, cobble 

underlain by clay

a

D. Dudley Williams
TABLE 1

(CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 18

Geographic Location Setting Contaminant Notes Author

South Platte River,

Colorado

Pleistocene and 

Recent alluvium

a

J. V. Ward, 

N. J. Voelz, 

J. H. Harvey

South Platte River,

Colorado

Gravel alluvium

a

R. W. Pennak,

J. V. Ward

Maple River,

northern Michigan

Sandy alluvium 

a

microbial

ecology

S. Hendricks

Flathead River,

Montana

Pleistocene alluvium

a

J. A. Stanford, 

J. V. Ward

Rhine River,

France

Gravel alluvium

a

M. Creuze des

Chatelliers. 

P. Marmonier, 

M. J. Dole-Olivier, E.

Castella

Rhone River,

France

None given Sewage, 

heavy metals

F. Malard, S. Plenet,

J. Gibert

Rhone River, 

France

None given

a

effect of

storms

M. J. Dole-Olivier, 

P. Marmonier
TABLE 1

(CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 19

Geographic Location Setting Contaminant Notes Author

Rhone River, 

near Lyon, France

Glaciofluvial sediment Heavy metals effect of 

pumping

J. Gibert, 

P. Marmonier, 

V. Vanek, S. Plenet

Rhone River,

near Lyon, France

Glaciofluvial sediment General pollution low flow,

efficacy of 

bank filtration

C. M. Schmidt, 

P. Marmonier, 

S. Plenet, M. Creuze

des Chatelliers, 

J. Gibert

Rhone River tributaries,

France

Alluvium and karst

a

M. Chafiq, J. Gibert,

P. Marmonier, 

M. J. Dole-Olivier, 

J. Juget

Loire, Galaure, 

and Drac Rivers,

France

Loire-pebble, gravel, 

and sand. Galaure-varies

Drac-boulders, 

pebbles, gravel

a

L. Maridet, 

J. G. Wasson, 

M. Phillipe

Rhine Valley alluvium, 

Rhone River, France

Gravel (Rhine Valley),

gravel and sand (Rhone) 

a

oligochaetes M. Lafont, 

A. Durbec, C. Ille
TABLE 1

(CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 20

Geographic Location Setting Contaminant Notes Author

Rhone River floodplain, 

France

Former meandering and 

braided channels

a

P. Marmonier, 

M. J. Dole-Olivier,

M. Creuze des

Chatelliers

Verna and Pissoir sites,

French Jura

Karst/floodplain interface

a

K. Essafi, J. Mathieu,

J. L. Beffy

Lone des Iles Nouvelles, old

channel of Rhone River, France

Floodplain spring

a

S. Plenet, J. Gibert,

P. Vervier

Oberer Seebach, 

northern Alps, Vienna

Unsorted gravel

a

harpacticoid

copepods

A. Verena Kowarc

Rhone River, France and

Sycamore Creek, Arizona

Gravel

a

E. H. Stanley, 

A. J. Boulton

Sonoran Desert, Arizona Sand and gravel

a

A. J. Boulton, 

H. M. Valett, 

S. G. Fisher

Notes:

a = The purpose of the study was to determine spatial or temporal distribution and variation of interstitial communities or, in

some cases, of individual taxa.
TABLE 1

(CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF STUDY SETTINGS

Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 21

b = Some studies were done on benthic, not hyporheic, zones.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction Page 22

TABLE 2

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Bencala, K. “A perspective on stream-catchment connections.” J. N.

Am. Benthol. Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p. 44-47.

Bosnak, A. D.. and E. L. Morgan “Acute toxicity of cadmium, zinc and total residual

chlorine to epigean and hypogean ispods (Asellidae).”

NSS Bulletin. 1981. v43 n1 p.12-18.

Bou, C. and R. Rouch “Un nouveau champ de recherches sur la faune

aquatique souterraine.” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Serie D,

1967. v265 n4 p. 369-370.

Boulton, A. J, H. M.Valett, and 

S. G.Fisher

“Spatial distribution and taxonomic composition of the

hyporheos of several Sonoran Desert streams.” Archiv

fur Hydrobiologie, 1992. v125 n1 p. 37-61.

Bretschko, G. “Differentiation between epigeic and hypogeic fauna in

gravel streams.” Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 1992. v7 p. 17-22.

Castro, N. and G. Hornberger “Surface-Subsurface Water Interactions in an Alluviated

Mountain Stream Channel.” Water Resources Research

1991. v27 n7 p.1613-1621.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 23

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Chafiq, M., J. Gibert, P. Marmonier, 

M. J. Dole-Olivier, and J. Juget

“Spring ecotone and gradient study of interstitial fauna

along two floodplain tributaries of the River Rhone,

France.” Regulated Rivers:Research and Management, 

1992. v7 p. 103-115.

Clements, W. H. “Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy

metals in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado.” J.

N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1994. v13 n1 p.30-44

Clements, W. H., D. S. Cherry, and 

J. C. Cairns, Jr.

“Impact of heavy metals on insect communitiies in

streams: a comparison of observational and experimental

results.” Can J. Fish. Aq. Sci., 1988. v45 p.2017-2025.

Crueze des Chatelliers, M., 

P. Marmonier, M. J. Dole-Olivier, and

E. Castella

“Structure of interstitial assemblages in a regulated

channel of the River Rhine (France).” Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 1992. v7 p. 23-30.

Crommentuijnn, T., J. Brils, and 

N. van Straalen

“Influence of cadmium on life-history characteristics of

Folsomia candida (Willem) in an artificial soil

substrate.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

1993. v26 p. 216-227.

Danieolopol, D. “Groundwater fauna associated with riverine aquifers.”

J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 1989. v8 n1 p.18-35.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 24

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Danieolopol, D. and P. Marmonier “Aspects of research on groundwater along the Rhone,

Rhine, and Danube.” Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 1992. v7 p. 5-16.

Dole-Olivier, M. J and P. Marmonier “Effects of spates on the vertical distribution of the

interstitial community.” Hydrobiologia, 1992. v230 p.

49-61.

Essafi, K., J. Mathieu, and J. L. Beffy “Spatial and temporal variations of Niphargus

populations in interstitial aquatic habitat at the

karst/floodplain interface.” Regulated Rivers: Research

and Management, 1992. v7 p. 83-92.

Findlay, S., D. Strayer, C. Goumbala, and

K. Gould

“Metabolism of streamwater dissolved organic carbon in

the shallow hyporheic zone.” Limnol. And Ocean. 

1993. v38 n7 p. 1493-1499.

Findlay, S. “Importance of surface-subsurface exchange in stream

ecosystems: The hyporheic zone.” Limnol. And Ocean. 

1995. v40 n1 p. 159-164.

Fraser, B. G., D. D. Williams, and 

K. W. F. Howard

“Monitoring biotic and abiotic processes across the

hyporheic/groundwater interface,” 1996, Hydrogeology

Journal v4 n2 p. 36-50.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 25

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Freilich, J. “A method for tagging individual benthic

macroinvertebrates.” J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 1989. v8

n4 p. 351-354.

Gibert, J., D. Danielopol, and J. Stanford

(eds.)

Groundwater Ecology, Academic Press, San Diego,

1994.

Gibert, J., P.Marmonier, V. Vanek, and 

S. Plenet 

“Hydrological exchange and sediment characteristics in a

riverbank: relationship between heavy metal and

invertebrate community structure.” Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1995. v 52 p. 2084-2097.

Glazier, D., and J. Gooch “Macroinvertebrate assemblages in Pennsylvania (USA)

springs.” Hydrobiologia, 1987. v150 p. 33-43.

Hakenkamp, C., H. Valett, and 

A. Boulton

“Perspectives on the hyporheic zone: integrating

hydrology and biology. Concluding remarks.” J. N. Am.

Benthol. Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p.94-99.

Harvey, J. and K. Bencala “The effect of streambed topography on surfacesubsurface water exchange in mountain catchments.”

Water Resources Research, 1993. v29 n1 p. 89-98.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 26

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Hendricks, S. “Microbial ecology of the hyporheic zone: a perspective

integrating hydrology and biology.” J. N. Am. Benthol.

Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p. 70-78.

Hervant, F., J. Mathieu, D. Garin, and 

A. Freminet

“Behavioral ventilatory, and metabolic responses to

severe hypoxia and subsequent recovery of the hypogean

Niphargus rhenorhodanensis and the epigean

Gammarus fossarum.” Physiological Zoology 1995.

v68 n2 p. 223-244.

Holland, M. and J. Stanford “Issues and research needs in valuing ground water: an

ecosystem perspective,” manuscript for the conference

Clean Water and the American Economy, Oct. 19-21,

1992.

Kowarc, A. Verena “Depth distribution and mobility of a harpacticoid

copepod within the bed sediment of an alpine brook.”

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 1992. v7

p. 57-63.

La Baugh, J., D. Rosenberry, and 

T. Winter

“Groundwater contribution to the water and chemical

budges of Williams Lake, Minnesota, 1980-1991.” Can

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1995. v 52 p.754-767.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 27

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

LaFont, M., A. Durbec, and C. Ille “Oligochaete worms as biological describers of the

interactions between surface and groundwaters: a first

synthesis.” Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 1992. v7 p. 65-73.

Leland, H. V., S. V. Fend, T. L. Dudley,

and J. L. Carter

“Effects of copper on species composition of benthic

insects in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream.”

Freshwater Biology 1989. v21 p. 163-179.

Lodge, D., D. Krabbenhoft, and R. Striegl “A positive relationship between groundwater velocity

and submersed macrophyte biomass in Sparkling Lake,

Wisconsin.” Limnol. And Ocean. 1989. v34 n1 p. 235-

239

Malard, F., J. Gibert, R. Laurent, and 

J. Reygrobellet

“A new method for sampling the fauna of deep karstic

aquifers.” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie.

1994. v317 p. 955-966.

Malard, F., S. Plenet, and J. Gibert “The use of invertebrates in ground water monitoring: a

rising research field,” Ground Water Monitoring

Review, Spring 1996. p. 103-113.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 28

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Malard, F., J. L. Reygrobellet, J. Mathieu,

and M. Lafont

“The use of invertebrate communities to describe

groundwater flow and contaminant transport in a

fractured rock aquifer.” Arch. Hydrobiol. 1994. v131 n1 

p. 93-110.

Maridet, L., J. G. Wasson, and 

M. Philippe

“Vertical distribution of fauna in the bed sediment of

three running water sites: influence of physical and

trophic factors.” Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 1992. v7 p. 45-55.

Millham, N. and B. Howes “Freshwater flow into a coastal embayment:

Groundwater and surface water inputs.” Limnol. And

Ocean. 1994. v39 n 8 p.1928-1944.

Marmonier, P., M. J. Dole-Olivier, and M.

Creuze des Chatelliers

“Spatial distribution of interstitial assemblages in the

floodplain of the Rhone River.” Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management,1992. v7 p. 75-82.

Notenboom, J., K. Cruys, J. Hoekstra, and

P. van Beelen

“Effect of ambient oxygen contcentration upon the acute

toxicity of chlorophenols and heavy metals to the

groundwater copepod Parastenocaris germanica

(Crustacea).” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

1992. v24 p. 131-143.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 29

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Notenboom, J., S. Plenet, and 

M.-J. Turquin

“Groundwater contamination and its impact on

groundwater animals and ecosystems,” pp. 477-504, IN:

Gibert, J., D. L. Danielopol, J. A. Stanford (eds.),

Groundwater Ecology, Academic Press, San Diego,

1994.

Palmer, M. “Experimentation in the hyporheic zone: challenges and

prospectus.” J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p.

84-93.

Pennak, R. and J. Ward “Interstitial faunal communities of the hyporheic and

adjacent groundwater biotopes of a Colorado mountain

stream.” Arch. Hydrobiol. Supp., 1986. v74 n3 p. 356-

396.

Pennak, R. W. and J. V. Ward “New cyclopoid copepods from interstitial habitats of a

colorado mountain stream.” Trans. Amer. Micro. Soc. 

1985. v104 n3 p. 216-222.

Plenet, S., J. Gibert, and P. Vervier “A floodplain spring: an ecotone between surface water

and groundwater.” Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 1992. v7 p. 93-102.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 30

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Reid, J. “Acanthocyclops pennaki n. sp. (Copepoda:

Cyclopoida) from the hyporheic zone of the South Platte

River, Colorado, USA.” Trans. Amer. Micro. Soc. 

1992. v111 n4 p.269-277.

Schmidt, C. M., P. Marmonier, S. Plenet,

M. Creuze des Chatelliers, and J. Gibert 

“Bank filtration and interstitial communities. Example of

the Rhone River in a polluted sector (downstream of

Lyon, Grand Gravier, France).” Hydrogeologie, 1991.

n3 p.217-223.

Sinton, L. W. “The macroinvertebrates in a sewage-polluted aquifer.”

Hydrobiologia 1984. v119 p. 161-169.

Smock, L., J. Gladden, J. Riekenberg “Lotic macroinvertebrate production in three

dimensions: channel surface, hyporheic, and floodplain

environments.” Ecology 1992. v73 n3 p.876-886.

Stanford, J. “The ecology of surface and groundwater interactions:

ramifications for re-authorization of the Clean Water

Act,” A Congressional briefing paper presented June 11,

1993.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 31

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Stanford, J. A. and J. V. Ward “An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers:

connectivity and the hyporheic corridor.” J. N. Am.

Benthol. Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p. 48-60.

Stanford, J. A. and J. V. Ward “Management of aquatic resources in large catchments:

recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity

and environmental disturbance,” pp. 99-124. IN:

Naiman, R. J. (ed.), Watershed Management, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1992, 542 pp.

Stanford, J. A. and J. V. Ward “The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems,” Nature,

1988, v335 n1685 p. 64-66.

Stanley, E. H. and A. J. Boulton “Hydrology and the distribution of hyporheos:

perspectives from a mesic river and a desert stream.” J.

N. Am. Benthol. Soc.1993. v12 n1 p. 79-83.

Sterba, O., V. Uvira, P. Mathur, and 

M. Rulik

“Variations of the hyporheic zone through a riffle in the

R. Morava, Czechoslovakia.” Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management 1992. v7 p. 31-43.

Stocker, Z. and D. Williams “A freezing core method for describing the vertical

distribution of sediments in a streambed.” Limnol. And

Ocean. 1972. v17 p. 136-138.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 32

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Strayer, D. L., S. E. May, P. Nielsen, 

W. Wollheim, and S. Hausam

“An endemic groundwater fauna in unglaciated eastern

North America.” Can. J. Zoology 1995. v73 p. 502-508.

Triska, F., J. Duff, and R. Avanzino “Influence of exchange flow between the channel and

hyporheic zone on nitrate production in a small

mountain stream.” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1990. v47

p. 2099-2111.

Valett, H., J. Morrice, C. Dahm, 

M. Campana 

“Parent lithology, surface-groundwater exchange, and

nitrate retention in head water streams.” Limnology and

Oceanography, 1996. v 41 n2 p. 333-345.

Ward, J. V. and J. A. Stanford “Groundwater animals of alluvial river systems: a

potential management tool,” IN: Grigg, N. S. (ed.),

Proceedings of the Colorado Water Engineering And

Management Conference, Colorado Water Resources

Research Institute, Fort Collins, CO, 1989.

Ward, J. V., N. J. Voelz, and 

J. H. Harvey

“Groundwater faunas as indicators of groundwater

quality: the South Platte River system,” 1989, Colorado

Water Resources Research Institute, 33 pp.

White, D. “Perspectives on defining and delineating hyporheic

zones.” J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1993. v12 n1 p. 61-69.
Biological Indicators and Ground Water - Surface Water Interaction

TABLE 2

(CONTINUED)

REFERENCES TO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 33

Author Citation

Reference to Annotated

Bibliography

Williams, D. “Changes in freshwater meiofauna communities along

the groundwater-hyporheic water ecotone.” Trans.

Amer. Micro. Soc. 1993. v112 n3 p. 181-194.

Williams, D. “Towards a biological and chemical definition of the

hyporheic zone in two Canadian rivers.” Freshwater

Biology, 1989. v22 p. 189-208.

Williams, D. “Evaluation of a standpipe corer for sampling aquatic

interstitial biotopes.” Hydrobiologia 1981. v83 p. 257-

260.

Williams, D. “A counterstaining technique for use in sorting benthic

samples.” Trans Amer Micro Soc. 1974. v? p. 152-

154.

Winner, R.W., M. W. Boesel, and 

M. P. Farrell

“Insect community structure as an index of heavy metal

pollution in lotic ecosystems.” Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci.

1980. v37 p. 647-655.