Sediment and phosphorus (P) are two primary pollutants of surface waters. Many studies have investigated loadings from upland sources or even streambed sediment, but in many cases, limited to no data exist to determine sediment and P loading from streambanks on a watershed scale. The objectives of this paper are to review the current knowledge base on streambank erosion and failure mechanisms, streambank P concentrations, and streambanks as P loading sources and then also to identify future research needs on this topic. In many watersheds, long-term loading of soil and associated P to stream systems has created a source of eroded soil and P that may interact with streambank sediment and be deposited in floodplains downstream. In many cases streambanks were formed from previously eroded and deposited alluvial material and so the resulting soils possess unique physical and chemical properties from adjacent upland soils. Streambank sediment and P loading rates depend explicitly on the rate of streambank migration and the concentration of P stored within bank materials. From the survey of literature, previous studies report streambank total P concentrations that consistently exceeded 250 mg kg(-1) soil. Only a few studies also reported water soluble or extractable P concentrations. More research should be devoted to understanding the dynamic processes between different P pools (total P versus bioavailable P), and sorption or desorption processes under varying hydraulic and stream chemistry conditions. Furthermore, the literature reported that streambank erosion and failure and gully erosion were reported to account for 7-92% of the suspended sediment load within a channel and 6-93% of total P. However, significant uncertainty can occur in such estimates due to reach-scale variability in streambank migration rates and future estimates should consider the use of uncertainty analysis approaches. Research is also needed on the transport rates of dissolved and sediment-bound P through the entire stream system of a watershed to identify critical upland and/or near-stream conservation practices. Extensive monitoring of the impact of restoration/rehabilitation efforts on reducing sediment and P loading are limited. From an application standpoint, streambank P contributions to streams should be more explicitly accounted for in developing total maximum daily loads in watersheds.

No abstract

Streambank erosion is a pathway for sediment and nutrient loading to streams, but insufficient data exist on the magnitude of this source. Riparian protection can significantly decrease streambank erosion in some locations, but estimates of actual sediment load reductions are limited. The objective of this research was to quantify watershed‐scale streambank erosion and estimate the benefits of riparian protection. The research focused on Spavinaw Creek within the Eucha‐Spavinaw watershed in eastern Oklahoma, where composite streambanks consist of a small cohesive topsoil layer underlain by non‐cohesive gravel. Fine sediment erosion from 2003 to 2013 was derived using aerial photography and processed in ArcMap to quantify eroded area. ArcMap was also utilized in determining the bank retreat rate at various locations in relation to the riparian vegetation buffer width. Box and whisker plots clearly showed that sites with riparian vegetation had on average three times less bank retreat than unprotected banks, statistically significant based on non‐parametric t‐tests. The total soil mass eroded from 2003 to 2013 was estimated at 7.27 × 107 kg yr.−1, and the average bank retreat was 2.5 m yr.−1. Many current erosion models assume that fluvial erosion is the dominant stream erosion process. Bank retreat was positively correlated with stream discharge and/or stream power, but with considerable variability, suggesting that mass wasting plays an important role in streambank erosion within this watershed. Finally, watershed monitoring programs commonly characterize erosion at only a few sites and may scale results to the entire watershed. Selection of random sites and scaling to the watershed scale greatly underestimated the actual erosion and loading rates. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Standard roadside vegetated swales often do not provide consistent pollutant removal. To increase infiltration and pollutant removal, bioswales are designed with an underlying soil media and an underdrain. However, there are little data on the ability of these stormwater control measures (SCMs) to reduce pollutant concentrations. A bioswale treating road runoff was monitored, with volume-proportional, composite stormwater runoff samples taken for the inlet, overflow, and underdrain outflow. Samples were tested for total suspended solids (TSS), total volatile suspended solids (VSS), enterococcus, E. coli, and turbidity. Underdrain flow was significantly cleaner than untreated road runoff for all monitored pollutants. As expected, the water quality of overflow was not significantly improved, since little to no interaction with soils occurred for this portion of the water balance. However, overflow bacteria concentrations were similar to those from the underdrain perhaps due to a first flush of bacteria which was treated by the soil media. For all sampling locations, enterococci concentrations were always higher than the USEPA geometric mean recommendation of 35 Most Probable Number (MPN)/100 mL, but there were events where the fecal coliform concentrations was below the USEPA's 200 MPN/100 mL limit. A reduction in TSS concentration was seen for both overflow and underdrain flow, and only the underdrain effluent concentrations were below the North Carolina's high quality water limit of 20 mg/L. Comparing results herein to standard swales, the bioswale has the potential to provide greater treatment and become a popular tool.There are many external factors impacting the fate of bacteria in a watershed including: a variety of sources (domestic pets, wild birds and animals, and human waste) [12] and various environmental factors (temperature, light intensity, and predation) [13][14][15][16], and treatment within stormwater control measures (SCMs). Removal mechanisms for bacteria include filtration, adsorption to a soil, desiccation, and predation [14]. Biofilm development may enhance adsorption to a soil [17,18]. However, bacteria can be difficult to permanently sequester, due to the potential to reproduce in a soil [13,19].Little research is available regarding whether bioretention media promotes bacterial sequestration or provides an environment for growth [20]; through growth and resuspension, media could act as a source of bacteria to stormwater runoff. While 'true' pathogens are the biggest concern, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) are the regulatory metric used to monitor water quality and public health decision making [21][22][23][24]. Fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) include Escherichia coli (E. coli), enterococci, and total and fecal coliforms [16]. While not pathogenic, FIB are associated with fecal matter, thus signaling the potential presence of human pathogens [25]. In addition, FIB are usually found in higher numbers, have a higher survival rate, and are easier and more economical to detect in laboratory testi...

No abstract