Wicomico River Watershed Report 2020 PDF

Wicomico River
Watershed Report 2020

Prepared by
Drs. Gina Bloodworth,
Jennifer Nyland and
Christina Bradley

Salisbury University faculty

partners with
Wicomico River
Creekwatchers
This report presents results and analysis
based on water samples and other data
collected and measured during the
2020 sampling season, March through
early November.

NOTE: WRCW normally collects

additional samples from eight sites
using sterilized containers and collection
procedures for bacterial analysis;
however, because this was the year the
COVID-19 pandemic arrived and access
to lab facilities were disrupted, there
was no bacterial sampling done in 2020.
The Wicomico Environmental Trust

and its Wicomico River Creekwatchers
program thank our generous funders:
Chesapeake Bay Trust, the City of
Salisbury and Wicomico County.
Wicomico River Watershed Report 2020

Executive Summary
The nutshell: The good news is that the river

health continues to improve. Nitrates are
down and water clarity is rising this year. The
bad news is that the improvements in the
river are uneven and also small
improvements. Data show mixed trends, with
increased phosphates and chlorophyll — not
good, even though we see positive trends
such as increased water clarity and decreased
nitrates.
To summarize, the river’s health remains
impaired but not dangerously impaired.
What is happening? We see increased phosphate levels, How can we fix it? Future
but nitrates are all less than the long-term average (LTA) improvements to river health
levels. Usually, nitrates and phosphates show more parallel means reducing
trends. We also found increased chlorophyll, but not enough nitrates/phosphates.
impairment to reach the level of eutrophication. Total This suggests two culprits:
phosphorous is elevated but with variation (only the ponds residual lawn and septic runoff
show significant increase), while total nitrogen only agricultural run-off
moderately changed. Salinity is less than the long-term That means some uncomfortable
average (LTA) in the tidal regions of the river (suggesting more conversations will need to happen,
fresh water inputs to the river) but higher than the LTA in and monitoring of agricultural
non-tidal areas of the watershed, likely due to increased surface run-off in ditches is
evaporation in the ponds. Temperatures were consistent and needed to get more data.
above the LTA in 2020, but rising trends in water temperature Also, we have a large non-
are to be expected in the warming climatic trends we see municipal population within the
within the region. In terms of water clarity, we see no obvious top half of the watershed, so
trend. The ponds show the most clarity, but also the most reduction of/or upgrading septic
variability. tanks would be helpful.
Some changes have occurred in the sampling regime Coordination with the County
beginning in 2020. We have increased the number of government is needed as they
sampling sites to 26. We also regrouped the sites into pursue their septic upgrade plans
hydrologic zones for more meaningful interpretations relative to determine what, if any,
to the transition between fresh and salty waters within the integrated monitoring protocol
watershed, as shown on the new map of the watershed. This they would support.
year, we began measuring not just depth of clarity, but also If nutrient run-off cannot be
total water depth so we can better understand trends of prevented at the sources, then
turbidity. Funding has allowed for upgraded equipment both increased forest buffers along the
in the field and lab, which will show more nuance in the critical corridors near the water’s
resulting data. edge should be promoted.
Figure 1. Wicomico Creekwatchers 2020 Sampling Locations (map)
pH
We found that pH varies around neutral
which is expected in water. More saline
areas are more acidic, but pH is
significantly different across sampling
groups (ponds, fresh, oligohaline,
mesohaline), with oligohaline (slightly
salty) and mesohaline (moderately salty)
the most similar. Nearly all sites were
significantly more alkaline than LTA,
exceptions DN and MtV.
Two conflicting forces govern the overall
results. Increasing precipitation can lead
to runoff of more basic salts that are
leached from the soil, leading to more
alkaline waters; in contrast, ocean waters Figure 2. pH Levels Averaged and Combined by Sampling
that equilibrate with increasing Group Type (pond, fresh, oligohaline, mesohaline).
atmospheric carbon dioxide tend to be Current-year average (orange bars) compared to long-term average
more acidic. (gray bars), with error bars indicating variability in data.
Salinity
Salinity on the river ranges from 0.1 to 11
psu (practical salinity units). We sample 9 pond
sites (one site was not sampled in 2020 due to
construction), 8 tidal/nontidal freshwater sites,
6 oligohaline sites with salinities that range
from 1.1 to 3.8 psu on average (0.2 to 7.4
range), and 3 mesohaline sites that range in
salinity from 5.9 to 8.8 psu on average (1.0 to
11.1 range).
Salinities were lower in 2020 than the long-
term average at tidal sites and higher at
nontidal sites, indicating a potential trend of
higher freshwater inputs in the river and
increased evaporation in the lakes. Other
research has revealed higher precipitation Figure 3. Salinity Levels Averaged and Combined by
along the Atlantic Coast, which would be in line Sampling Group Type (pond, fresh, oligohaline,
with these data. mesohaline). Current year average (orange bars) compared
Ponds & Nontidal – increased salinity from to long term average (grey bars) with error bars indicating
LTA, ** JP, PP, SP, CMP, TTP, EDZ; Tidal – variability in the data.
decreased salinity but only ** at RW.
Chlorophyll
Chlorophyll is impaired, but not to the point

of eutrophication signals in most cases.
Incredibly variable in LTA, less so annually in
2020. Most sites not statistically different
than LTA because of variability; general data
show increase of chlorophyll at most sites.
Only LC and MtV are **, with the former being
higher than LTA and latter being lower.
Figure 4. Chlorophyll Levels Averaged and Combined

by Sampling Group Type (pond, fresh, oligohaline,
mesohaline). Current year average (orange bars) compared
to long term average (grey bars) with error bars indicating
variability in the data. Horizontal dashed bar indicates
eutrophication level.
Riawakin Pond along Nanticoke Road was frequenty
covered in algae, indicating high levels of
chlorophyll.
Nitrates
Nitrate levels were all lower than the long-

term average. We changed methods this year
to an EPA approved Hach protocol. LTA is
driven by exceedingly high values in April
2005, corresponding to a late winter storm
that may have driven nutrient run-off.
In 2020, nitrate did not exceed 4mg/L, with
only two sites, CMP and RP, reaching
eutrophic levels (>3mg/L) at some point during
the year. Pond and freshwater sites were the
most variable; more saline sites were both less
variable and lower in concentration.
Every site was significantly lower in nitrate
than the LTA. This follows a long-term trend
of decline that we have observed in the river,
despite some elevated levels seen in 2019. Figure 5. Nitrate Levels Averaged and Combined by
Sampling Group Type (pond, fresh, oligohaline,
mesohaline). Current year average (orange bars)
compared to long term average (grey bars) with error bars
indicating variability in the data. Horizontal dashed line
indicates the 4 mg/L level of concern.
Phosphates
Phosphate levels follow long-term trend of
variability across sites – some higher and
some lower, but all above impaired
thresholds. Like nitrate, phosphate levels
decrease with increasing salinity as water
moves downstream and inorganic phosphorus
is converted into organic matter.
Compared to LTA, phosphate was only
significantly different at 4 sites – EDZ, LC, YC,
and MtV. These sites were all lower than the
LTA and fell to just around the impaired level
(0.1 mg/L).
Figure 6. Phosphate Levels Averaged and

Combined by Sampling Group Type (pond, fresh,
oligohaline, mesohaline). Current year average (orange
bars) compared to long term average (grey bars) with error
bars indicating variability in the data. Horizontal dashed
line indicates the “impaired threshold” level.
Webster's Cove in Mount Vernon.
Total Nitrogen
Total nitrogen concentrations were all

moderately high (above 1 mg/L), with most
sites falling into the impaired category at
times during the year. Like other
measurements, variability decreased down
river with oligohaline and mesohaline site
mean values approaching the lower bound of
impairment.
Total nitrogen levels were all elevated
compared to LTA. Again, methodology was
changed from 2019 to 2020, so these changes
may be associated with that. Differences were
not statistically significant, however, but
may indicate a longer term trend which will
Figure 7. Total Nitrogen Levels Averaged and
need to be monitored.
Combined by Sampling Group Type (pond, fresh,
oligohaline, mesohaline). Current year average
(orange bars) compared to long term average (grey bars)
with error bars indicating variability in the data. Horizontal
dashed line indicates the 4 mg/L level of concern.
Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorus matched phosphate trends

of elevated concentrations at all sites and
considerable variation, decreasing downstream.
All pond sites had significantly elevated TP
concentrations compared to the LTA, as well as
many freshwater tidal and non-tidal sites
(excluding only CE and DN) and oligohaline sites
above the Wicomico Creek. Mesohaline and
sites on the Wicomico Creek were higher
but statistically similar to the LTA, including
MtV which had levels below detection on most
sample dates.
Figure 8. Total Phosphorus Levels Averaged

and Combined by Sampling Group Type
A volunteer (pond, fresh, oligohaline, mesohaline).
collects a water
Current year average (orange bars) compared to
sample from the
long term average (grey bars) with error bars
Wicomico River in
indicating variability in the data. Horizontal dashed
downtown
Salisbury. line indicates the “impaired threshold” level.
Water Temperature
Water temperatures were fairly similar along
the length of the river, ranging from 9 to 35
degrees Celsius, all averaging between 21-24
degrees Celsius with similar levels of variability
across sites.
Long-term average water temperatures were
cooler than those measured in 2020. Volunteers
switched to digital thermometers this year.
However, warming temperatures are not
unexpected given climate trends. Only water
temperatures at CMP, WK, SC, and MtV were
significantly higher compared to the LTA.
Figure 9. Water Temperatures Averaged

and Combined by Sampling Group Type
(pond, fresh, oligohaline, mesohaline).
Current year average (orange bars) compared to
long term average (grey bars) with error bars
indicating variability in the data.
Secchi depths
Secchi depths, a measure of water clarity, were
variable across the length of the river. Most sites
were moderately turbid, with depths less
than 1m. This year, we additionally measured
total depth at sites and compared secchi depths
to these data. As a proportion of total depth,
water clarity was worst in the tidal and non-
tidal freshwater sites of the river, all averaging
visibility less than 50 percent of the total depth.
Pond sites had some of the best water clarity, but
also the most variable, as episodic run-off from
precipitation brought in sediments and nutrients,
promoting algae growth. Figure 10. Secchi Depth Levels Averaged
Secchi depths in 2020 were both deeper (more and Combined by Sampling Group Type
clear) and shallower (less clear) than the LTA, (pond, fresh, oligohaline, mesohaline).
with no clear trend. LMP and MP were significantly Current year average (orange bars) compared to
more clear, but PP was more turbid. Downstream, long term average (grey bars) with error bars
MtV was significantly more clear while SC was indicating variability in the data. Horizontal
more turbid. dashed line indicates the impaired reference level.
Wicomico River Creekwatchers is a program of the Wicomico
Environmental Trust, which gratefully acknowledges the generosity
of its funders that make this report possible.

Wicomico River Watershed Report 2020 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wicomico River Watershed Report 2020 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wicomico River Watershed Report 2020 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wicomico River

Watershed Report 2020

Salisbury University faculty

NOTE: WRCW normally collects

The Wicomico Environmental Trust

The nutshell: The good news is that the river

Chlorophyll is impaired, but not to the point

Figure 4. Chlorophyll Levels Averaged and Combined

Nitrate levels were all lower than the long-

Figure 6. Phosphate Levels Averaged and

Total nitrogen concentrations were all

Total phosphorus matched phosphate trends

Figure 8. Total Phosphorus Levels Averaged

Figure 9. Water Temperatures Averaged

You might also like