Published 07/19/10

No smoking guns were found to explain what ails the Rhode River, but a recent assessment of the watershed found that many smaller problems, if tackled, could collectively turn the tide toward better water quality.

The study - echoing a similar effort looking at the West River watershed last year - was completed for the West/Rhode Riverkeeper under direction from the Center for Watershed Protection, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Ellicott City dedicated to preserving waterways through research and education.

"We can't point to one place and say, 'This guy is causing the problem,'" said Bryan Seipp, a watershed planner with the center who directed the assessment.

Joshua McKerrow — The Capital  TOP: West/Rhode Riverkeeper Chris Trumbauer peers up out of the gouged-out bed of a tributary of Muddy Creek. A recent study of the Rhode River watershed pointed to this spot as the most in need of a fix. BOTTOM: Over time the force of water flow has underscored this old concrete bridge that carried old Muddy Creek Road, now gobbled up by emerging forest, over the creek.

He said the study is a road map for the future of the river. Problem areas were identified, and solutions and projects were outlined to correct many of them.

In all, 22 streams and 12 residential neighborhoods were investigated, along with potential pollutant hot spots and other criteria.

According to state water quality standards, the Rhode is officially impaired for nutrients, sediment, bacteria, toxins and biological resources.

It also has two restricted shellfish harvesting areas - Bear Neck Creek and Cadle Creek - due to fecal coliform levels.

The Rhode River watershed covers some 31 square miles, including the heavily developed Mayo Peninsula to the north and a nearly pristine southern flank primarily covered by the wooded Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.

"It really is like a tale of two watersheds," said West/Rhode Riverkeeper Chris Trumbauer.

The riverkeeper organization and its cadre of volunteers helped with the study, trudging in and around creekbeds and neighborhoods to record observations.

Many of the stream reaches studied were found to have good buffers of vegetative growth and tree canopy protecting them. Still, many streambeds suffered "downcutting," the gouging from rushing water that cuts a deeper channel, and erosion from stormwater runoff.
Muddy mess

The worst of those is a tributary of Muddy Creek where it is piped under the road of the same name.

Above the road crossing, the creek winds through the woods looking much like a normal stream, which for this area means evidence of slight cutting through a narrowed channel. But the waterway is still connected to the surrounding floodplain.

Below the road crossing, where the stream is channeled through some 60 feet of pipe, the streambed is gorged out at least 5 feet deeper than its original level.

The facing where the pipe dumps its load is undercut; even the back of the concrete abutment framing the pipe has been washed away.

"Any time you put water into a pipe there are going to be consequences. It's like turning on a fire hose on the other end," Trumbauer said. He stood in the creek's bottom next to what was the bridge for the old Muddy Creek Road, now being reclaimed by weeds, understory and forest growth, to illustrate the damage. Raging waters have undercut that old concrete bridge's foundation several feet deep and recently caused a cave-in of the old road above.

When stormwater carves up a streambed, it carries loads of nutrients and sediment downstream, which isn't good for downstream waters and the Chesapeake Bay.

Evidence of the water's force, likely from heavy rains earlier this week, laid among the large boulders piled to try and reduce the raging volume coming through the pipe: a baby deer that apparently got caught in the rushing water.

The fix will take some time. Like many of the projects and fixes proposed in the assessment, funding has to be secured. Perhaps state highway funding and other sources might be found to do the design and permitting work, Trumbauer said. Then more funding can be sought to do the work later.
Neighborhood impact

There were no major problems found in the neighborhoods assessed, but all had moderate pollution issues.

Of the 12 inspected, seven had restoration potential.

"With this study I can go to neighborhoods and show them the problems and proposed solutions. They might not be able to afford to do it alone, but I can tell them we can help," Trumbauer said.

The same goes for the watershed's waterfront marinas, both community and commercial operations. Most have a lot of impervious surfaces, like pavement, right on the water's edge. Perhaps buffers could help slow the flow of runoff from those areas.

"It is tough to be a marina right now. Most are already trying to do the right thing," Trumbauer said. "But maybe there are small steps they can do, with our help, that can make a difference."

The study can serve to help inform residents and others about the watershed, its troubles and possible fixes. And it points to cooperation as a key ingredient, Trumbauer said. Combining efforts of citizens, conservation organizations like the riverkeeper, and county, state and federal governments is the best way to tackle what lies ahead, he said.

Seipp, from the Center for Watershed Protection, agreed, but urged area residents to get involved and take a look at what they can do individually to contribute.

"It really comes down to each person trying to do the right thing," he said. "If we get everyone to do a little bit, we can meet the goal of a swimmable, fishable waterway people can use without worrying about getting sick or seeing a beach closed."