The
Magothy River Index – 2005
February 15, 2006
By Dr. Peter Bergstrom
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Magothy River Association,
and
Fishery Biologist, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
For the complete Document with Figures click here
2002 Magothy River Index
2003 Magothy River Index
2004
Magothy River Index
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Magothy River Association’s “Magothy
River Index” is an assessment of the health
of the tidal river for communication to the residents
of the watershed, produced annually since 2002. It
summarizes what we know about the status of vital
habitats and water quality in the Magothy in the
previous year, based mainly on monitoring done by
MRA volunteers. We also summarize the ongoing and
planned habitat restoration and protection actions
in the watershed, and conclude with a section on
what you can do to help the Magothy.
• The biggest Magothy environmental story of 2005 was
increases in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV).
The SAV area in the Magothy increased in 2004 (the
latest year for which surveys are available), from
31% to 55% of the Chesapeake Bay Program restoration
goal, the highest area mapped since 1979. We also
saw a large expansion upriver of redhead grass
in 2005, up to the site of the old Riverdale restaurant.
• The biggest story of 2004 was the dramatic increase
in dark false mussels (Mytilopsis leucophaeata),
a small bivalve that was first noticed in higher
than normal numbers the Magothy late in 2003.
They died back some in 2005, except in Old Man Creek
where mussel numbers appeared to be similar in both years.
•
The last four years have varied in the amount of
rainfall in the Chesapeake watershed. The drought
of 1999-2002 was followed by two “wet” years
in 2003 and 2004, and an average rainfall year
in 2005. (http://md.water.usgs.gov/monthly/bay.html)
Changes in rainfall usually affect some aspects
of
Magothy water quality, especially dissolved nitrogen.
•
In 2005, dissolved nitrogen levels at the mainstem
site were better than in 2003-2004. Dissolved nitrogen
levels improved only slightly in 2005 at the two
creek sites, however. The worse levels of nitrogen
we observed at all three sites in 2003-2004 corresponded
to the two “wet” years during 2002-2005.
Dissolved nitrogen levels are often worse in “wet” years.
• 2005 saw continued good levels of water clarity in
Old Man Creek. Both Cattail and Old Man creeks
had better than usual water clarity in 2004, when the
mussels were more abundant, but the mussels declined
in Cattail Creek in 2005, and the water clarity
got worse there.
• Chlorophyll a and total suspended solids levels got
worse in 2005 at both creek and mainstem sites.
For chlorophyll a, 2005 was the worst year during 2002-2005,
while for total suspended solids, 2002 was the
worst year in this period and 2005 was the second worst,
at both creek and mainstem sites. It is not clear
why these both got worse in 2005.
•
In 2005, bottom dissolved oxygen conditions at oyster
restoration sites got slightly worse compared to
2004, but remained adequate for oyster growth. As
in past years, these conditions were much better
at oyster restoration sites (83% of the 2005 samples
were > 2 mg/l, the level needed by oysters) than
at the deeper mid-river site where the state collects
water quality data, which lacks oysters (only 13%
of the 2005 samples there were > 2 mg/l).
• 2005 ended with a large sewage spill in Mill Creek
that started on December 17. We do not know yet
what effects it will have on that creek or the river in
2006. MRA is working with Anne Arundel County
DPW and Bayland Consultants to develop and implement
a water quality monitoring plan to assess the
effects of the spill and help the County decide whether
additional remediation is needed. We need volunteers to conduct
monitoring twice a month from 6 piers (3 in Mill
Creek and 3 in Dividing Creek); contact Peter
Bergstrom at sav2@magothyriver.org if you can help with this.
INTRODUCTION AND METHODS
The Magothy River Association (MRA) is dedicated
to the preservation and improvement of the water
quality, plants, and wildlife of the Magothy River
and its watershed. Founded in 1946, it is an all-volunteer
group representing about 46 communities within the
Magothy River Watershed. We devote our efforts to
projects that protect the welfare of the river and
its inhabitants. We plan to issue this report each
year in late winter, and hope to add more data to
it each year as they become available. This document
will be available soon on our web site, www.magothyriver.org.
Suggestions on how to improve the report are welcome,
and can be sent to Peter Bergstrom at sav2@magothyriver.org.
Professionals collected all the data on Vital Habitats
that we report below, but MRA volunteers, in two
groups, collected all of the water quality data we
report:
•
MRA volunteers led by Peter Bergstrom collected most
of the water quality data used for this index in
shallow water (where SAV can grow) at three sites
in two groups, all sampled monthly on the same day:
o Upper creeks: Data collected from piers on Old
Man and Cattail creeks were averaged to represent
conditions in the smaller, upriver tidal creeks.
o Mainstem: Data from the end of the Ulmstead pier
in the mouth of Forked Creek represents conditions
near shore in the wider part of the river and the
mouths of the larger creeks.
•
MRA volunteers led by Dick Carey collected the bottom
dissolved oxygen data used for this index near the
bottom (where oysters live) at four or five sites
in two groups, all sampled by boat about three times
a month on the same day:
o Midriver is the same site (WT6.1) that is also
sampled monthly by Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, located between North and South Ferry
Points, which has no oysters nearby. It is about
5.5 meters (18 feet) deep. Our monitoring at this
site has shown that it has some of the worst dissolved
oxygen found in the river, so it is not representative
of the river as a whole, even though it is near the
middle of the river.
o Oyster restoration sites (Four or five shallower
sites, each 3-4 meters or 10-12 feet deep) had bottom
dissolved oxygen values similar to each other, so
their results were averaged and reported as a single
value.
The factors used in the Index are divided into two
categories: Vital Habitats and Water Quality. For
both Vital Habitat and Water Quality, we compared
the monitoring results to an established goal whenever
possible. For those factors that have goals, the
attainment of that goal was expressed as a percentage,
with 100% meaning the goal was met, and higher values
meaning it was exceeded. This also enabled us to
scale the results so that more attainment of a goal
always means improvement, including the water quality
factors for which less is better based on their raw
data (nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and total
suspended solids).
Habitats are good places to live for fish, crabs,
turtles, and birds, and other fish and wildlife of
the Magothy to live. Water quality is another way
to measure the quality of the Magothy as a habitat
for aquatic life. Unfortunately, some factors for
which we have data have no goal, and for some important
measures (such as numbers of fish and wildlife in
the Magothy) we have no data, so we cannot use them
in the Index. Several important factors for which
we cannot calculate an index value are discussed
after the Water Quality section. We only calculated
an overall average index value for the 4 components
of water quality for SAV growth, since they were
all measured at the same sites on the same days.
MAGOTHY RIVER INDEX FOR 2005: VITAL HABITATS
Tidal and non-tidal wetlands: These are important
habitats for fish and wildlife, although they are
not monitored regularly. Wetlands once made up about
7.5% of the area of the watershed, which we used
as our interim goal. They now cover 2% of the watershed,
based on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data from
1989, so currently wetlands are 27% of this goal.
Forested nontidal stream buffers: These buffers
improve water quality and provide wildlife habitats.
In 1997 (the latest year with data), 23% of Magothy
streams had at least a 100 foot wide forested buffer,
also called a riparian forested buffer. Our goal
is for 100% of streams to have forested buffers,
and you can help us reach this goal by planting trees
along streams that lack them (see Conclusions section).
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV): These underwater
bay grasses provide crucial habitat for fish, crabs
and numerous other aquatic creatures. The Chesapeake
Bay Program goal for SAV restoration in the Magothy
is 545 acres. In 2004, the last year for which data
are available, there were 299 acres of SAV mapped
by aerial surveys in the Magothy, or 55% of the CBP
goal. This was the highest area mapped since 1979.
Figure 1 shows that Magothy SAV area dropped sharply
between 1979 and 1984 and increased through 1998-1999,
before something (probably a “mahogany tide” algae
bloom in Spring 2000) caused murky water and thus
an SAV dieback in 2000. There are no data for 2001
due to airspace restrictions following the terrorist
attacks. In 2002, a drought year, the SAV area rose
again, to slightly more than was mapped in 1999.
SAV area declined again in 2003, probably because
photos were taken after Tropical Storm Isabel passed,
which made the water cloudier, and then rose dramatically
in 2004, probably as a result of clearer water caused
by filtration by dark false mussels. The 2005 SAV
survey results are not available yet, but based on
ground surveys by MRA volunteers (see below), we
expect an increase over the 2004 Magothy SAV area.
MRA volunteers continued mapping and identifying species in natural SAV beds
to supplement the aerial surveys in 2005. We found that redhead grass coverage
expanded greatly in 2005, with new, dense beds of mixed redhead grass and widgeongrass
lining most of Swan Cove, on the north shore from North Ferry Point upriver
to Steedmans Point (for an online Magothy map, see http://www.magothyriver.org/MagothyRiverMap.htm).
This was the farthest upriver that dense redhead grass beds had been found
since 1979. Sparser patches of redhead grass in shallower water were found
in July on both shores from Steedmans and Henderson points upriver to the site
of the old Riverdale restaurant. Although most of these new plants died back
by late August, they suggest that water quality may be improving in this area.
Some of these patches may have spread from the redhead grass we planted near
the mouth of Cockey Creek in 2002-2003; in 2004, those restored beds were the
farthest upriver we had found redhead grass in the Magothy.
For all figures and tables, please
download the following pdf.
Figure 1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) area in the Magothy River, 1978-2004.
(Data are from http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/segtots.html converted to acres)
Forested tidal shoreline buffers: This
is a new measure of shoreline habitat that came from
the watershed
survey done by MD DNR in 2004. Our goal is 100%.
They estimated that 69% or 52 miles of the tidal
shoreline they surveyed had a forested buffer at
least 50 feet wide. Unaltered tidal shoreline (not bulkhead or riprap):
This is another new measure of shoreline habitat
that came from the watershed survey done by MD DNR
in 2004. Our goal is 100%. They estimated that 44%
of all tidal shorelines were unaltered, or about
33 miles of the 76 miles surveyed. The altered sections
included 94 sections over 500 feet in length.
The goal attainment for all of the Vital Habitats
is summarized below in Table 1 and Figure 2. In Figure
2 the data used were the latest year with data available.
Table 1. MAGOTHY RIVER INDEX, VITAL HABITATS, 2002-2005
Indicator What Where 2002 2003
2004 2005
Wetlands (tidal and non-tidal) % of historical
amount (estimated) Whole watershed 27%
(1989) SAME SAME SAME
Forested nontidal stream buffers % of stream
miles with 100 foot or wider buffers All nontidal
streams
23%
(1997) SAME SAME SAME
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) % of historical
amount based on aerial survey All tidal waters
38% 31% 55% N/A
Forested tidal shoreline buffers % of shoreline
with forested buffer at least 50 feet wide All
tidal shorelines
N/A N/A 69% N/A
Unaltered tidal shoreline % of shoreline with no
bulkhead or riprap All tidal shorelines N/A N/A
44% N/A
Figure 2. Graph of Magothy River Index vital habitat
values for 2005. The year for which data were reported
is noted.
MAGOTHY RIVER INDEX FOR 2005: WATER QUALITY
Table 2 and Figure 3 summarize the attainment of
water quality goals. Attainment of the goals other
than dissolved oxygen based on medians of monthly
data, April-October (7 months), which is the SAV
growing season. Dissolved oxygen (DO) status was
based on frequencies of low DO in June-November (6
months), which is when most low DO occurs in the
Magothy. DO sampling was done about 3 times a month.
Water Clarity: To allow the return of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) the Chesapeake Bay Program
(CBP) has adopted the goal of improving water clarity
(in rivers with higher salinity such as the Magothy)
so that at least 22% of surface light reaches the
bottom. This is calculated for the restoration depth
for SAV in that river (which is 1 meter at Mean Low
Water in the Magothy). Some other rivers have different
restoration depths, based on historical depths at
which SAV was mapped.
We found that the water clarity at the Upper creek
sites in 2005 achieved 93% of the goal, while the
Mainstem site achieved 91% of the water clarity goal.
This was a decline for the creek sites over their
2004 values (Table 2 and Figure 3), due mainly to
a decline in water clarity in Cattail Creek in 2005.
This pattern (better clarity in Old Man Creek) suggests
that the filtration by dark false mussels may have
been the cause, since Old Man Creek had more mussels
in 2005 than Cattail Creek or the mainstem of the
river. MRA volunteer divers led by Dick Carey estimated
that there were about 68 million mussels in Cattail
Creek in 2005, down from about 380 million mussels
in fall 2004. Unfortunately, similar mussel surveys
were not done in Old Man Creek, but the numbers of
mussels appeared to be about the same in that creek
in both years.
Bottom Dissolved oxygen: Aquatic animals require
adequate dissolved oxygen to survive. State water
quality standards require a minimum of 5.0 milligram
per liter (mg/l) of dissolved oxygen, the level needed
by many fish. Oysters can survive with less dissolved
oxygen, as little as 2.0 mg/l, so we used this to
set our goal. Attainment was expressed as the % of
bottom samples that were above 2 mg/l, with a goal
of 100%.
We found that bottom dissolved oxygen in 2002-2005
was much higher (better for oyster growth and survival)
at the Oyster restoration sites, meeting the 2 mg/l
goal in 83-100% of samples, than at the Midriver
site, where it met that goal in only 8-50% of samples
(Table 2 and Figure 3). This difference shows that
we picked oyster restoration sites where there is
usually enough dissolved oxygen for oyster survival.
DO conditions at the Midriver site got worse in 2003,
improved in 2004, and got worse again in 2005 (Table
2 and Figure 3). The worsening in 2003 was probably
due to increased rainfall, which usually leads to
worse bottom DO conditions, but the causes of the
changes in 2004-2005 are not clear, since total rainfall
in 2004 was still above average, and it was near
normal in 2005.
Total suspended solids, chlorophyll a, and dissolved
inorganic nitrogen:
These three water quality parameters all have habitat
requirements for SAV growth, and chlorophyll a has
a Chesapeake Bay Program water quality goal (Table
2). Some of these factors showed some likely effects
of changes in rainfall and/or changes in mussel abundance.
• Total suspended solids goal attainment may
have improved in 2003-2004 due to filtration by dark
false mussels, even though both were high rainfall
years, which tend to have more runoff and thus worse
total suspended solids levels. Attainment of the
goal got worse at both sites in 2005, when there
were both fewer mussels (and thus less filtration)
but also less rainfall (and thus less runoff) compared
to 2003-2004.
•
Chlorophyll a goal attainment in the Magothy was
good (over 100%) in 2002-2004 in the creeks and in
2003 at the mainstem site and got slightly worse
in 2005 at both sites (Table 2). Since these chlorophyll
a improvements started in 2002 before the increase
in dark false mussels in 2003-2004, and because 2004
(when mussels were at their peak) did not have the
best chlorophyll a levels, the increased filtration
by the mussels was probably not a major cause of
those improvements.
•
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) goal attainment
in 2003 and 2004 was much worse than in 2002 (Table
2). Goal attainment improved at the mainstem site
in 2005, presumably because there was less rainfall,
but it stayed low at both creek sites in 2005, for
reasons that are not clear. DIN is generally more
affected by changes in rainfall than any of the other
water quality parameters, partly because one of its
components, nitrate, can be abundant in both runoff
and ground water. High rainfall flushes more ground
water into the river, and also reduces the residence
time of water in areas such as wetlands where dentrification
(natural nitrogen removal) occurs. Worse DIN levels
can fuel algae blooms, but it is apparently not their
only cause. As noted above, chlorophyll a got worse
in 2005, both in the creeks (where DIN got worse)
and at the mainstem site (where DIN got better).
Mean status for water clarity, dissolved inorganic
nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and total suspended solids:
The last two rows of Table 2 show the unweighted
mean by year of these four components of habitat
requirements for SAV growth. They show that while
in the creeks this mean got worse in 2005, in the
mainstem it improved. It appears that these changes
had different causes. In the creeks, the downturn
in 2005 was probably caused by the decline in dark
false mussels in Cattail Creek, which led to worse
water clarity, total suspended solids, and chlorophyll
a conditions in the creeks. The improvement in the
mean status at the mainstem site in 2005 was probably
due to lower rainfall in 2005, which dramatically
improved dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels (Table
2).
MAGOTHY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS NOT USED IN THE INDEX
These environmental factors were not included in
the index because the available data have no goal
and thus could not be expressed as a percentage,
or because data are missing.
Data available, but no numerical goal:
Fish Consumption Advisories: The Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) issues these advisories
based on toxic contaminant levels found in fish caught
in each river, using models to estimate your risk
of getting sick from eating various amounts of fish.
See: http://www.mde.state.md.us/citizensinfocenter/health/fish_advisories/index.asp
In 2003, the Magothy was listed for two fish species,
channel catfish and white perch. In 2004, channel
catfish were dropped because none were caught in
the latest surveys, but the Magothy still has a consumption
advisory for white perch. Several nearby rivers also
had consumption advisories for white perch (Patapsco,
Chester, Severn, and South rivers).
Table 2. MAGOTHY RIVER INDEX, WATER QUALITY, 2002-2005
Indicator What Where 2002 2003 2004 2005
Water Clarity > 1 m, Upper Creeks* % of SAV water
clarity goal achieved Upper creeks (2) 62% 78% 129%
93%
Water Clarity > 1 m, Mainstem Same Mainstem 83%
83% 95% 91%
Total Suspended Solids < 15 mg/l, Upper Creeks
% of SAV habitat requirement achieved Upper creeks
(2) 101% 202%% 316% 154%
Total Suspended Solids < 15 mg/l, Mainstem Same
Mainstem 131% 180% 214% 182%
Chlorophyll a < 8 ?g/l, Upper Creeks % of CBP
goal to ensure adequate clarity achieved Upper creeks
(2) 139% 192% 183% 94%
Chlorophyll a < 8 ?g/l, Mainstem Same Mainstem
75% 111% 90% 65%
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen < 0.15 mg/l, Upper
Creeks % of SAV habitat requirement achieved Upper
creeks (2) 207% 35% 34% 42%
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen < 0.15 mg/l, Mainstem
Same Mainstem 222% 82% 52% 238%
Bottom DO, Midriver > 2 mg/l % of data that met
level needed by oysters (> 2.0 mg/l) Mid-river
(WT6.1) 31% 8% 50% 13%
Bottom DO, Oyster sites > 2 mg/l Same Oyster restoration
sites (4-5) 94% 100% 96% 83%
Bottom DO, Midriver > 5 mg/l % of data that met
state standard (> 5.0 mg/l) Mid-river (WT6.1)
25% 0% 13% 7%
Bottom DO, Oyster sites > 5 mg/l Same Oyster restoration
sites (4-5) 59% 68% 65% 17%
MEAN SAV WQ—Upper creeks Unweighted mean of
first 4 water quality values Upper creeks (2) 127%
127% 166% 96%
MEAN SAV WQ--Mainstem Same Mainstem 128% 114% 113%
144%
*Shaded rows are graphed in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Graph of selected Magothy River Index
water quality values for 2002-2005.
MAGOTHY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS NOT USED IN THE INDEX
(continued)
Non-tidal Tributary Health: In spring 2002 and 2003,
Magothy River Association (MRA) volunteers sampled
20 points on Magothy non-tidal tributary streams
for benthic invertebrate animals (insects and other
animals living on the bottom of streams). Maryland
DNR staff analyzed the samples and rated their health
by comparison to reference streams that had few human
impacts and a diverse community of benthic animals
living in them,. Nineteen of the 20 Magothy sites
had “Poor” quality based on these samples.
The one site rated “Fair” was on Magothy
Branch (the non-tidal Magothy) above Lake Waterford.
To see the data, go to http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/streamwaders.cfm
and type “Magothy” in the box for “8
digit watershed name.” Statewide, half of the
small streams sampled by DNR were rated Poor, about
a third were rated Fair, and the rest (11%) were
rated Good. Thus, with 95% of our sites sampled rated
Poor, the Magothy was much worse than the state average.
Maryland DNR also supervised a Stream Corridor Assessment
(SCA) of all nontidal Magothy streams in 2004. Rather
than studying benthic invertebrates, the SCA located,
photographed, and ranked any “problem areas” (such
as serious erosion) on all of the walkable Magothy
nontidal streams (49 stream miles total). It also
included a tidal shoreline survey. Janis Markusic
reported on both studies at the State of the Magothy
meeting in February 2005; DNR’s report is available
as large PDF files by writing to sav2@magothyriver.org.
The SCA ranked all of the subwatersheds as “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor” by
comparing them to relatively undisturbed reference
watersheds. Fourteen of 22 (64%) of the subwatersheds
were ranked in Poor condition. The rest (36%) were
rated Fair; none were rated Good. Of these “fair” subwatersheds,
Blackhole Creek, Kinder Branch, Grays Creek and Muddy
Run were in the best condition. Cypress Creek, which
includes North Cypress Branch, was identified as
one of the highest priority subwatersheds for restoration,
and a major effort is underway to restore North Cypress
Branch.
No data available:
Oysters: There is no easy way to locate or count
the total number of oysters in a river. Even if we
knew our current oyster population size, we don’t
know the historical abundance of oysters in the Magothy,
sop we would have no goal for comparison.
Fish, Crabs and Turtles: These are also hard to
count, but for different reasons: they move around
and are hard to catch. Maryland DNR did summer fish
surveys in the Magothy in the past (1989-1991) using
a seine net in the shallows and trawls at various
depths, and documented a total of 37 finfish species.
There are no known surveys of Magothy crabs or turtles.
Turtles seen in our tidal waters include snapping
turtles (mainly in tidal ponds and upper creeks)
and diamondback terrapins. Terrapins need natural
shorelines with beaches to nest, and these are becoming
rare on the Magothy.
Birds: One of our more visible waterbirds is the
osprey, which spends the warmer months here and winters
in South America. Local resident George Kerchner
counted 25 active osprey nests on the Magothy in
1996. Ospreys have increased so much that their nest
sites may be limited in the Magothy. If you are a
waterfront property owner and are interested in erecting
a nest platform, contact sav2@magothyriver.org for
more information. The MRA web site has information
about common birds seen around the Magothy at http://www.magothyriver.org/Critters.html
There are no confirmed bald eagle nests in the watershed,
but eagles are sometimes seen flying over the river,
sometimes in pairs. They prefer to nest in undisturbed
wooded waterfront tracts, of which there are few
on the Magothy. They nest on the Severn and South
rivers most years.
Recent efforts to map mute swans and their nests
by MD Department of Natural Resources and other agencies
noted a few mute swan nests on the Magothy, but not
as many as on the Severn and South rivers. The nests
are being mapped as part of an effort to control
this exotic and invasive species in Maryland, which
competes with native waterfowl and damages SAV beds.
For more details see:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/muteswans.html
ONGOING and NEW ACTIONS TO HELP THE MAGOTHY
Oyster restoration (including reef balls): The MRA
has done oyster restoration with our partners on
five bars in the Magothy, with a sixth bar (Black
Bar, BLKB in Figure 4 below) planned for future restoration.
The statewide Oyster Recovery Partnership (http://www.oysterrecovery.org/projects/location/magothy.html)
planted 1.3 million spat on shell on 0.5 acres adjacent
to the Chest Neck Point (CNP) site in 2001, and later
disease monitoring by University of MD staff found
no diseased oysters. MRA has a 5-year oyster restoration
plan with a goal of restoring 30 acres of oyster
reef in the river. Since the Magothy is closed to
oyster harvest, any oysters restored here will provide
valuable water quality and habitat benefits. Reef
balls have also been placed next to some of the oyster
restoration sites, which provide fish habitat as
well as oyster habitat. For more on MRA restoration
projects see: http://www.magothyriver.org/Current_Projects.html
SAV restoration: The MRA started doing SAV restoration
in the Magothy in 1998, and we have planted redhead
grass every year since 2002, first at the Grachur
Club near Cockey Creek (2002-2003) and then off the
Sylvan View beach near Grays Creek and Little Island
(2004-2005). All four of these projects had good
survival and had some plants spreading outside of
the planted area. In 2006 we plan to plant at the
Grachur Club again but try wild celery this time,
because redhead grass was doing so well in the upper
Magothy in 2005.
Wetland and stream restoration, stormwater retrofits:
Nontidal wetland restoration was done recently in
North Grays Creek. New wetland projects are planned
on Cattail Creek in Berrywood, and along North Cypress
Branch. Stream restoration and stormwater retrofits
are planned for North Cypress Branch along McKinsey
Road. See: http://www.mdot.state.md.us/News/2005/October%202005/SHA_Cypress_branch.htm
Land protection: Our partner organization, the Magothy
River Land Trust, has protected 413 acres in the
Magothy watershed via permanent easements through
2005. Many of these include sensitive wetland habitats
such as bogs. For a map of protected properties through
2004, see http://www.magothyriver.org/Land_Trust.html.
The MRA is working to protect sensitive habitats
on Dobbins Island from development, and reverse some
of the damage done to habitats on Little Island through
unpermitted development.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP THE MAGOTHY
• Plant trees along streams and shorelines
that lack them or have a narrow forested buffer,
to increase the number of stream and shoreline miles
that have forested buffers.
•
Increase oyster reefs to increase filtration capacity
and fish habitat. You can do oyster gardening and
help with oyster nurseries (oysterinfo@magothyriver.org),
and do diving to support oyster restoration (diver@magothyriver.org).
•
Increase Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) through
planting to improve water quality and increase fish
and shellfish habitat, contact Carl Treff at magothyriversavers@yahoo.com.
If you can help with surveys of current SAV locations,
please contact Peter Bergstrom at sav2@magothyriver.org.
•
Volunteer to help with water quality and dark false
mussel monitoring. To help with water quality monitoring,
contact Peter Bergstrom (sav2@magothyriver.org) or
Dick Carey (diver@magothyriver.org). Volunteers who
live near Mill and Dividing creeks are especially
needed this year. If you have a pier, get a ceramic
tile from MRA to hang off your pier, and check it
monthly to see if new dark false mussels have attached
to it.
•
Reduce your lawn area and your use of lawn fertilizer,
and use native plants. Fertilize your lawn (if necessary)
only in the fall, which is the best time for grass
growth, and avoid fertilizing in the spring, when
fertilizer runoff is more likely to cause algae blooms.
•
Reduce your use of vehicles and other internal combustion
engines. These add nitrogen to the air, much of which
reaches the water. Car pool, combine trips, buy more
fuel-efficient vehicles and four-cycle boat motors,
and use electric yard tools instead of gas tools.
•
Encourage nutrient best management practices, including
nutrient management by lawn care companies, and at
horse farms and other farms in the watershed.
•
If you have a septic system, keep it pumped out and
in good repair.
•
Minimize and when possible reduce the amount of pavement
and other impervious surfaces in your yard, since
they increase runoff to the river. This can be done
by using gravel or porous pavers for driveways and
parking lots. Support stormwater retrofits in the
watershed.
•
Install rain barrels, rain gardens, and other structures
to retain and improve the quality of runoff before
it leaves your yard. See: http://www.arlingtonecho.org/rainbarrel.htm
•
Join the Magothy River Association: see http://www.magothyriver.org/Who_We_Are.html
or contact President Paul Spadaro at 410-647-8772
or president@magothyriver.org.
•
Visit our web page (link above) and sign up for "News
and Announcements" via email.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Chesapeake Bay Trust for their generous
support of the monitoring laboratory analysis costs
for this project from 1992-1996 and 2001-2005, and
support for most of our restoration projects. We
also thank the many volunteers who helped do the
monitoring and restoration over the years.
Who
We Are | MRA Index | MRA
History
| Current
Projects | River
Tour | Animals | Plants
| Water Quality
| Stream Naming Project
| Magothy River Land
Trust
|
