Shoreline Situation Report Mathews County, Virginia

W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1975

Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science

John M. Zeigler Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports

Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Hobbs, C. H., Anderson, G. F., Byrne, R. J., & Zeigler, J. M. (1975) Shoreline Situation Report Mathews County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 77. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5W44B

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA

- I ;· I I

, f

Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 12 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 77 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Prepared by: Carl H. Hobbs ill and Gary L. Anderson Robert J. Byrne John M. Zeigler

Project Supervisors: Robert J. Byrne John M. Zeigler

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE A: Shoreland components 5 1 • 1 Purposes and goals 2 FIGURE B: Marsh types 5 1 .2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 1: Cobbs Creek air photo 13 FIGURE 2: Bridge from Gwynn Island to mainland 13 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 3: Composite photo of Gwynn Island 13 2.1 Approach to the problem 4 FIGURE 4: Cherry Point, Gwynn Island 13 2.2 Characteristics of the shorelands included 4 FIGURE 5: Chesapeake Bay shore of Gwynn Island 14 FIGURE 6: Sandy Point and Milford Haven 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF MATHEWS COUNTY 9 FIGURE 7: Rigby Island and Whites Creek 14 3.1 The shorelands of Mathews County 10 FIGURE 8: Bethel Beach and Rigby Island 14 3.2 Shore erosion processes, patterns, and defenses 10 FIGURE 9: Garden Creek Inlet 14 3.3 Potential shorelands uses 11 FIGURE 10: Bethel Beach near Onemo 15 FIGURE 11: New Point Comfort and old New Point Lighthouse 15 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF MATHEWS COUNTY 31 FIGURE 12: Put In Creek 1 5 4.1 Segment and subsegment summaries 33 FIGURE 13: Village of Mobjack 15 4.2 Segment and subsegment descriptions 37 MAPS 1A-F: Mathews County 17 Segment 38 TABLE 1: Mathews County shorelands physiography 29 Segment 2 39 TABLE 2: Mathews County subsegment summary 34 Segment 3 43 MAPS 2A-C: Piankatank River 53 Segment 4 45 MAPS 3A-C: Gwynn Island 59 Segment 5 46 MAPS 4A-C: Stutts Creek - Whites Creek 65 Segment 6 47 MAPS 5A-C: Bethel Beach 71 Segment 7 48 MAPS 6A-C: New Point Comfort 77 Segment 8 49 MAPS 7A-C: Mouth of East River 83 Segment 9 50 MAPS 8A-C: Head of East River 89 4.3 Segment and subsegment maps 51 MAPS 9A-C: North River 95 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1 CHAPTER 1 Recreation mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has INTRODUCTION Transportation traditionally chosen to place the regulatory de Waste disposal cision processes at the county level, as much as 1 .1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Extraction of living and non-living resources possible. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 It is the objective of this report to supply Aside from the above uses, the shorel~ds serve (Chapter 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), ~or an assessment, and at least a partial integration, various ecological functions. example, provides for the establishment of County of those important shoreland parameters and char The role of planners and managers is to optimize Boards to act on applications for alterations of acteristics which will aid the planners and the the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize wetlands. Thus, our focus at county level is in managers of the shorelands in making the best de the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur tended to interface with and to support the cisions for the utilization of this limited and thermore, once a particular use has been decided existing or pending county regulatory mechanisms very valuable resource. The report gives partic upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the conce:rning activities in the shorelands zone. ular attention to the problem of shore erosion and planners and the users want that selected use to to recommendations conce:rning the alleviation of operate in the most effective manner. A park 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the impact of this problem. In addition we have planner, for example, wants the alloted space to This report was prepared with the funds pro tried to include in our assessment some of the fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that vided by the Research Applied to National Needs potential uses of the shoreline, particularly with the results of our work are useful to the planner (RANN) program of the National Science Foundation respect to recreational use, since such infor in designing the beach by pointing out the techni administered through the Chesapeake Research mation could be of considerable value in the way cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres Consortium, Inc. George Dawes, Gene Silberho:rn, a particular segment of coast is perceived by ent configuation of the shore zone. Alternately, and Jim Mercer of the VIMS Wetlands Section con potential users. if the use were residential development, we should tributed many useful ideas and criticisms. Gaynor The basic advocacy of the authors in the pre hope our work would be useful in specifying the Williams, David Byrd, and Dennis Owen assisted with paration of the report is that the use of shore shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses data reduction and preparation. Peter Rosen, Jane lands should be planned rather than haphazardly likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In Davis, Kaye Stubblefield, Russell Bradley, Joe developed in response to the short term pres summary, our objective is to provide a useful tool Gilley, Ken Thornberry, and Bill Jenkins prepared sures and interests. Careful planning could re for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, the graphics. Beth Tillage typed the manuscript. duce the conflicts which may be expected to arise the shorelands of the Commonwealth. We thank the numerous other persons in both Mary between competing interests. Shoreland utili Shorelands planning occurs either formally or land and Virginia who have criticized and commented zation in many areas of the country, and indeed inform.ally, at all levels, from the private owner upon our methods and ideas. in some places in Virginia, has proceeded in a of shorelands property to county governments, to manner such that the very elements which at planning districts and to the state and federal tracted people to the shore have been destroyed agency level. We feel our results will be useful by the lack of planning and forethought. at all these levels. Since the most basic level The major man-induced uses of the shorelands of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the are: county or city level, we have executed our report Residential, commercial, or industrial on-that level, although we realize some of the development information may be most useful at a higher govern-

2 CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered

3 CHAPTER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a group~g of subseg may be considered as being composed of three in APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se teracting physiographic elements: the fastlands, lected on physiographic units such as necks or the shore and the nearshore. A graphic classifi 2 .1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM peninsulas between major tidal creeks, Finally, cation based on these three elements has been de In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore vised so that the types for each of the three ele utilized existing information wherever possible. line segments. ments protrayed side by side on a map to provide For example, for such elements as water quality The format of presentation in the report fol the opportunity to examine joint relationships characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz lows a sequence from general summary statements for among the elements. As an example, the applica ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, the county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries tion of the system permits the user to determine or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa and finally detailed descriptions and maps for each miles of high bluff shoreland interfacing with tion, particularly with respect to erosional char subsegment (Chapter 4), The purpose in choosing marsh in the shore zone. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allow selective use of the report Definitions: 1 available, so we performed the field work and de sin~e some users needs will adequately be met with Shore Zone veloped classification schemes, In order to ana the summary overview of the county while others will This is the zone oi beaches and marshes. It lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub is a buffer zone between the water body and the heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. fastland. The seaward limit of the shore zone is mm photography. We photographed the entire shor~ the break in slope between the relatively steeper line of each county and cataloged the slides for 2,2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED IN shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The easy access at VIMS, where they remain available THE STUDY approximate landward limit is a contour line rep for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma The characteristics which are included in this resenting.one and a half times the mean tide range terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion of above mean low water (refer to Figure A). In photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, our treatment of each. operation with topographic maps the inner fringe for the desired elements. We conducted field in a) Shorelands physiographic classification of the marsh symbols is taken as the landward spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification limit. at those locations where office analysis left c) Shorelands ownership classification The physiographic character of the marshes questions unresolved. In some cases we took addi d) Zoning has also been separated into three types (see tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Water quality Figure E), Fringe marsh is that which is less document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses than 400 feet in width and which runs in a band The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses parallel to the shore. Extensive marsh is that a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred h) Distribution of marshes which has extensive acreage projecting into an es feet to several thousand feet in length. The end i) Flood hazard levels tuary or river. An embayed marsh is a marsh which points of the subsegments were generally chosen on j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds occupies a reentrant or drowned creek valley. The physiographic consideration such as changes in the k) Beach quality purpose in delineating these marsh types is that character of erosion or deposition. In those cases the effectiveness of the various functions of the where a radical change in land use occurred, the a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification: marsh will, in part, be determined by type of ex pbint of change was taken as a boundary point of The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System posure to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh

4 may, for example, have maximum value as a buffer to Nearshore Zone Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- wave erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone 1,400 yards from shore on the other hand is likely a more efficient trans to the 12-foot (11/ffiW datum) contour, In the smaller Wide, 12-ft. (3. 7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards porter of detritus and other food chain materials tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the re Subclasses: with or without bars due to its greater drainage density than an embayed ference depth, The 12-foot depth is probably the with or without tidal flats marsh. The central point is that planners, in the maximum depth of significant sand transport by waves with or without submerged light of ongoing and future research, will desire in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the distinct vegetation - ' to weight various functions of marshes and the drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at physiographic delineation aids their decision the 12-foot depth, The nearshore zone includes any making by denoting where the various types exist. tidal flats. The classification used is: The class limits for the nearshore zone classi fications were chosen following a simple satistical Beach +-FASTLANo----,1.sHOR·~el-~~~-NEARSHORE~~~~~~~-. study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater con I I Marsh I I I I Fringe marsh 1 <400 ft. (122 m) in width tour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate ,;,;,,»~II along shores charts at one mile intervals along the shorelines I---~------MLW+l.ll Tide Ran9e ------;;.;-;:;.-.:::.,::-_:-:_-:.:-..:-~-~-::.:-=--:M~L~W~-- - of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappaharmock, 1 Extensive marsh --=12 Ernbayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley and Potomac Rivers, Means and standard deviations Figure A for each of the separate regions and for the entire or reentrant An illustration of the definition of the three components Artificially stabilized combined system were calculated and compared. Al of the shorelands. Fastland Zone though the distributions were non-normal, they ·were The zone extending from the landward limit of generally comparable, allowing the data for the en the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast tire combined system to determine the class limits. land is relatively stable and is the site of most The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE MARSH MARSH MARSH material development or constru.ction. The physio dard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to graphic classification of the fastland is based upon determine general, serviceable class limits, these the slope of the land near the water as follows: calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 .11,, ,,, Low shore, 20-ft. (6 m) contour >400 ft. yards respectively, The class limits were set at (122 m) from fastlands shore boundary half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side FASTLAND FASTLAND Moderately low shore, 20-ft. (6 m) contour of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near < 400 ft • ( 12 2 m) ; with or without cliff shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme Moderately high shore, 40-ft. (12 m) contour diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. Figure B <400 ft. (122 m); with or without cliff The following definitions have no legal signi A generalized illustration of the three different marsh types. High shore, 60-ft. (18 m) contour <400 ft. ficance and were constru.cted for our classification (122 m); with or without cliff purposes: Dune Narrow, 12-ft, (3. 7 m) isobath located < 400 Artificial fill, urban and otherwise yards from shore

5 b) Shorelands Use Classification: environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild c) Shorelands Ownership Classification Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation The shorelands ownership classification used Residential grounds, or other uses that would preclude deve has two main subdivisions, private and governmen Includes all forms of residential use with lopment. tal, with the governmental further divided into the exception of farms and other isolated dwel federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli lings. In general, a residential area consists Agricultural cation of the classification is restricted to fast of four or more residential buildings adjacent to Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership one another. Schools, churches, and isolated other agricultural areas. extend.s to mean low water. All bottoms below mean businesses may be included in a residential area. low water are in State ownership. Unmanaged Commercial Includes all ope~ or wooded lands not in d) Water Quality Includes buildings, parking areas, and other cluded in other classifications: The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or land directly related to retail and wholesale a) Open: brush land, dune areas, waste unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments trade and business. This category includes small lands; less than 40% tree cover. are taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of industry and other anomalous areas with the gen b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from eral commercial context. Marinas are considered The shoreland use classification applies to water samples collected in the various tidewater commercial shore use. the general usage of the fastland area to an ar shellfishing areas. The Bureau attempts to visit bitrary distance of half mile from the shore or each area at least once a month. Industrial beach zone or to some less distant, logical bar The ratings are defined primarily in regard to Includes all industrial and associated areas. rier. In multi-usage areas one must make a sub number of coliform bacteria. For a rating of sa Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, jective selection as to the primary or controlling tisfactory the maximum limit is an MPN (Most Pro power plants, railyards. type of usage. bable Number) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any Government Shore Zone count above these limits results in an unsatisfac Includes lands whose usage is specifically Bathing tory rating, and, from the Bureau's standpoint, re controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern Boat launching sults in restricting the waters from the taking of mental organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort Story. Bird watching shellfish for direct sale to the consumer. Waterfowl hunting There are instances however, when the total Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN Includes designated outdoor recreation lands Nearshore Zone does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf Pound net fishing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public Shellfishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. Sport fishing permitted to remain open pending an improvement Extraction of non-living resources in con:3.itions. Preserved Boating Although these limits are somewhat more strin Includes lands preserved or regulated for Water sports gent than those used in rating recreational waters

6 (see Virginia State Water Control Board, Water petitive visits were made to monitor the effec Report by Marvin L. Wass and Thomas D. Wright, Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are tiveness of recent installations. In instances SRAMSOE Report No. 10, Virginia Institute of used here because the Bureau of Shellfish Sani where existing structures are inadequate, we have Marine Science, 1969, and in other VIMS publi tation provides the best areawide coverage avail given recommendations for alternate approaches. cations. able at this time. In general, any waters fit Furthermore, recommendations are given for defen ting the satisfactory or intermediate categories ses in those areas where none currently exist. i) Flood Hazard Levels would be acceptable for water recreation. The primary emphases is placed on expected effec The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for tiveness with secondary consideration to cost. the whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still e) Zoning incomplete. However, the United States Army Corps In cases where zoning regulations have been g) Potential Shore Uses of Engineers, has prepared reports for a number of established the existing information pertaining We placed particular attention in our study localities which were used in this report. Two to the shorelands has been included in the report. on evaluating the recreational potential of the tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray shore zone. We included this factor in the con the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is f) Shore erosion and Shoreline defenses sideration of shoreline defenses for areas of high that flood with an average recurrence time of The following ratings are used for shore recreational potential. Furthermore, we gave con about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods erosion: sideration to the development of artificial indicates it to have an elevation of approximately slight or none - less than 1 foot per year beaches if this method were technically feasible 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake moderate - 1 to 3 feet per year at a particular site. Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year tablished for land planning purposes which is The locations with moderate and severe ratings h) Distribution of marshes placed at the highest probable flood level. are further specified as being critical or non The acreage and physiographic type of the critical. The erosion is considered critical if marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti j) Shellfish leases and Public Grounds buildings, roads, or other such structures are mates of acreages were obtained from topographic The data in this report shows the leased and endangered, maps and should be considered only as approxima public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir The degree of erosion was determined by sev tions, Detailed county inventories of the wetlands ginia State Water Control Board publication eral means. In most locations the long term are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of trend was determined using map comparisons of Marine Science under the authorization of the Virginia: Public, leased and condemned, "Novem shoreline positions between the 1850 1 s and the Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia ber 1971, and as periodically updated in other sim 1940 1 s. In addition, aerial photographs of the 62.1-13,4). These survey include detailed acre ilar reports. Since the condemnation areas change late 1930 1s and recent years were utilized for an ages of the grass species composition within indi with time they are not to be taken as definitive. assessment of more recent conditions. Finally, in vidual marsh systems. The material in this report However, some insight to the conditions at the those areas experiencing severe erosion field in is provided to indicate the physiographic types of date of the report are available by a comparison spections and interviews were held with local marshes and to serve as a rough guide on acreages between the shellfish grounds maps and the water inhabitants, until detailed surveys are completed. Additional quality maps for which water quality standards The existing shoreline defenses were evalu information of the wetlands characteristics may for shellfish were used. ated as to their effectiveness. In some case re- be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim

7 k) Beach Quality Beach quality is a subjective judgement based upon considerations such as the nature of the beach material, the length and width of the beach area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the beach setting.

8 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation

9 3.1 THE SHeJRELANilS OF MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA by a narrow beach. Their utility as medium-high Due to the weather patterns affecting the The total area of Mathews County, Virginia, is density recreational beaches is severely limited Chesapeake Bay area, maximum winds occur during 130.5 square miles (83,520 acres) of which 88.7 by the narrowness and the lack of suitable access storms and frontal passages. The winds of north square miles (68%) is land. There are 214.5 miles points. east storms during the fall, winter, and spring, of shoreline. The dominant feature of the county's Fastland use in Mathews primarily is agricul generate waves which attack the western shore of shoreline is its very low nature. Over ninety tural,. although much of the agricultural is coin the bay. The winds and low barometric pressure nine percent of the shoreline is classified as low cident with residential use. Forty-eight percent near the bay mouth have an indirect effect on shore or low shore with bluff, The few tenths of of the shorelands are used for agricultural pur erosion in the bay by forcing additional water into miles that are not low shore are the moderately poses, twenty-eight percent for residential. Just the bay. This storm surge or "wind tide" may be low to moderately high shores, with bluff, along over a fifth of the county's shorelands are un two or more feet above the normal tide level. For the Piankatank River. This level, low character managed, either woodlands or open; while about one example, the severe northeast storm of March 1962 of the shore is further expressed in the generally and a half percent are committed to recreational caused water elevations in Norfolk Harbor, Virginia, great flood hazard along most of the county's use. Approximately one percent of the shorelands to reach an elevation approximately six feet above shorelands. It is only the spongelike facility are used for commercial purposes. The number one usual spring high tide levels. When similar high of the marshes which prevents more frequent ex map series graphically depicts the various county water levels occur, the wave driven erosional tensive flooding of the low lands. As this report wide shorelands parameters and Table 1 summarizes action is concentrated higher on the fastland, is being prepared, federally financed flood in them. above the natural buffer zone or beach. surance is becoming available in Mathews County. In addition to the height of the waves, the The marshlands of the county constitute another 3.2 SHORE EROSION PROCESSES, PATTERNS, ANTI DEFENSES direction at which they impinge upon the shore con major feature of the shorelands. The Mathews The magnitude of shoreline erosion in Mathews trols the magnitude of long shore transport. In County Tidal Marsh Inventory (Special Report 47 in County varies from severe to insignificant. Along theory, the transport of material along the beach Applied Science and Ocean Engineering, of the the Chesapeake Bay shoreline the erosion is severe is greatest when the waves break on the shoreline Virginia Institute of Marine Science, by Gene M. as the shore is exposed to large fetches and cor at an angle of forty-five degrees. Silberhorn, 1974) describes 2,937 acres of tidal respondingly great wave action. In the river The erosional behavior of any particular segment wetlands within the boundaries of Mathews County. areas erosion is slight as the shore is sheltered of shoreline may be expected to vary from year to Approximately eighty-three percent of the shore from wave attack. year depending upon the frequency and the intensity zone is classified as fringe, embayed, or exten Prior to a discussion of the characteristics of of storms. Also similar variances may arise from sive marsh. Of the remainder of the county's erosion in Mathews County, it would be worthwhile differences in mean sea level elevations. The shore zone, most is beach (16% of the county total) to discuss the processes of erosion. long term (decades) trend is for a relative rise or artificially stabilized (less than 1%). Waves generated by local winds are the dominant in sea level. In the lower Chesapeake Bay the The majority of the true beach area is on agent of erosion in the Chesapeake Bay system. trend is about 0.01 feet per year. Yearly varia Chesapeake Bay. The eastern shore of Gwynn Island, The growth and height of waves is controlled by tions of 0.15 feet per year are not uncommon. Bethel Beach, and its southward extentions to four factors: the over water distance across Although these differences are small, they can be Winter Harbor are the most appealing bathing which the wind blows, known as the fetch; the ve significant when translated to horizontal dis beaches in the county. Some of the bluff areas locity of the wind; the duration of the wind; and tances across a gently sloping shore. along the Piankatank River (Segment 1) are fronted the depth of the water.

10 The role played by beaches in the physical proc beaches in the county, such action probably is un eration of fresh water supplies, sewage treatment esses of the coastline, merits reiteration: beaches necessary. In any event, no shoreline stabilization or disposal, drainage, and soil analysis. are natural land forms which serve to absorb inci or defense program should be undertaken without The highlands along the Piankatank River (Seg dent wave energy thereby inhibiting erosion of the competent, expert advice and careful planning. ment 1) are a type example of an area that is fastland. The configuration of any beach may The only other heavily defensed area in Mathews probably quite suitable for increased residential change hour by hour or day by day as the accumu County is the western shore of Gwynn Island (Sub development, but lacks significant shore features. lation of sand adjusts to changing conditions. By segment 3A). For practical purposes all of the The already developed Cobbs Creek area is the and large the natural maintenance of Virginia's 11,000 feet of shoreline in this subsegment is only boat harbor area in the segment. Its present Chesapeake Bay beaches is attained at the expense either bulkheaded or riprapped. Groins also for ownership and utilization prohibits significant of erosion of the fastland. For any particular tify much of· the subsegment and appear to protect alteration or expansion of the present facilities. segment of shoreline, the beach sand is derived those small areas not armored. The residential potential for the Piankatank area, from erosion of fastland either at that site or Elsewhere in the county there are no severe however, appears great as the area is high, fairly from an up-drift site. A problem along the bay erosion problems. A portion of Subsegment 2A, stable, and offers pleasant, scenic views of the shore in Mathews County is the very low topography Godfrey Bay, experiences moderate erosion as a river. The area does lack beaches and points of and resulting small sediment supply of the fast result of its open northeast exposure to Chesapeake easy public access to the shore. lands. Bay. A major effort at shore protection in this Gwynn Island has perhaps the highest recrea The Chesapeake Bay shoreline of Gwynn Island area does not appear necessary. tional use enhancement potential of any area (Subsegment 3B) has an average historical erosion Shoreline erosion is not a significant problem within the county. Sandy Point (Subsegment 3c), rate of over seven feet per year. Other areas on of the remainder of the county's shorelands. the southeast corner of the island, is a fine, Chesapeake Bay appear to have lesser erosion rates, Along many naturally protected shores there are little used, beach area. Improved access to the but as historic averages were not calculated for many bulkheads which serve cosmetic or convenience beach and rudimentary support facilities such as some of the beach areas, the intensity of erosion purposes rather than shore protection purposes. parking space, rest rooms, and changing areas may rival that on Gwynn Island. would be all that is necessary. Gwynn Island of In terms of shore defenses, the upper two-thirds 3.3 POTENTIAL SHORELANDS USES fers reasonably good beaches and satisfactory har of Gwynn Island is fairly well protected with much Except for a few isolated locations, the poten bors all in close proximity to one another. bulkheading and many groins. Little of the re tial for significantly enhanced shorelands use in Numerous creeks such as Queens, Lanes, and maining bay shoreline is defended. The mouths of Mathews County is slight. Some sections of the Stutts Creeks, in Segments 2 and 4, provide anchor the larger creeks, e.g., Winter Harbor, are main county might be quite suitable for residential de ages for some vessels but generally are too shallow tained, dredged and jettied, but there are no on velopment but lack the composite of features nec for larger railing yachts. Also the beach facili going attempts to stabilize the shoreline. Sta essary for total shorelands utilization. Similarly, ties are minimal or non-existant. bilization of the area probably would be difficult where the beach and nearshore zone might support The beach area of Segment 5 might be suited for as the beach areas are so thin. Groins might greatly increased recreational use, the adjacent some development as a local beach park area. The locally slow the longshore movement of sand and a fastlands might not be able to bear the pressure. beach, however, is not outstanding. In general program of nourishment in a groined area might In all cases, our suggestion for potential use en the beach is very thin and narrow. Marsh blocks enhance the recreational aspects of the area. Un hancement of an area are primarily based upon con protrude through the beach and shallow water ex less there were a demand for improved public sideration of the shorelands and not upon consid- tends far offshore. A carefully planned project

11 of beach modification might improve the potential of the area, but such a program probably would be complicated and expensive. Also, parking might be a problem as in most sections the beach is separated from the fastland by a broad marsh. Winter and Horn Harbors already are reasonable harbors for small vessels and might be able to be expanded in scope. The Mobjack Bay segments offer great possibili ties for increased small craft facilities. Both the East and North Rivers have relatively deep I channels extending many thousand yards upstream and many coves which might be suitable for develop ment as marinas or boat yards. At a minimum, in creased public landing and access facilities would improve the public recreational utiJity of the area. In summary, the shorelands of Mathews County on Chesapeake Bay have a strong potential for in creased recreational utilization. The marinas and boat yards of the East and North Rivers at Gwynn Island might be expanded to handle what probably will be a vastly increasing demand for recreational facilities. The overall recreational use enhance ment potential for the county is only fair due to the lack of areas combining boating and bathing facilities adjacent to one another.

12 .. "l ' I

FIGURE 3

FIGUR E 1

1: Cobbs Creek on the Piankata.nk River, Segment 1, note the great number of small pi ers .

2 : The bridge joining Gwynn Island to the mainland of Mathews County. The view is from the island across the Narrows to the Coast Guard f acili ty.

3: A composite photogr aph of t he l ower porti on of Subsegment 3A , the western edge of Gwynn Island. FIGURE 4 The groi ns have trapped some sand forming small beaches. The area adjacent the highway is r i p rapped.

4: Groins and pi er s near Cherry Point, Subsegment FIGURE 2 3B, the north end of Gwynn I sland.

13 5: Beach along the Chesapeake Bay shore of Gwynn Island, Subsegment 3B.

6 : Over- view of Sandy Point and Milford Haven.

7: Rigby Island and Whites Creek, view toward the southeast.

FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 8 : View north up Bethel Beach and Rigby Isl and. Note that this photograph shows Rigby Island (upper r i ght) connected to Bethel Beach whereas the topographic maps (dated 1965) show them separated. The maintained inlet is Garden Creek.

9: Garden Creek inlet, the jetties are nearly closed by sand, the inlet is usable only at high tide.

--,,.1 ...

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9 14 FIGU RE 10

10 : Bethel Beach near Onemo. The beach is subject to severe erosi on. There i s a very small quantity of sand above the er oding marsh peats.

11: New Point Comfort and the old New Point Li ghthouse. Many local resi dents remember t he light and island bei ng connected to the main FIGU RE 11 land.

12 : Put In Creek, a branch of the East River extending to Mathews Court House.

13 : The village of Mobjack at the mouth of the East River on Mob jack Bay.

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13

15 MAP 1A MATHEWS COUNTY SEGMENT LOCATION MAP

~ = Segment Boundary

"- = Subsegment Boundary.

• I /'' ( )

1. Piankatank River

2A. Gad Irey Bay

28. Hi 11 s Bay

2C. Queens Creek 9 20. The Narrows

2E. Lanes Creek

2F. Crab Neck

3A. Gwynn Island - Western side

38. Gwynn Island - Bay side

3C. Gwynn Island - ·southern side 6 4. Stutts Creek

5. Bethel Beach

6. Horn Harbor 7

7. Mobjack Bay

8. East River

9. North River FEET

0 5000 10000 MAP 18 MA THEWS COUNTY SHORELANDS TYPES

0 O 0 2A ·i:-...... 0 0 ...... 0 '•, 0 ·=:: 38 ·:,:. 0 '• I '• ·:: 0 • '•, I '•, ·::,, 0 I'' :• ··: ( ·.=.. 0 ·.: ) .. :.•:,.... 0 0 --.:-. ' •,,.. 0 ..·::. •,:i. 0 •:•: •: ,• 0

·::,5',• • .... U)

FASTLAND Low Shore I I I I I I I II

with Bluff I I It II I II 0 Moderately Low Shore with Bluff II II II II II II ll II • Moderately High Shore 0 with Bluff ~ A ~ A 6 SHORE ...... • Beach : .·: .· •:: . : .. ;t/////////lh • 0 Fringe Marsh 7 Embayed Marsh ~ 0 Extensive Marsh '///////~ 0 ..L ..L ..L Artificially Stabilized 0 NEARSHORE 0-0-0-0-0 0 Narrow fHT • 0 0 0 0 Intermediate o 0 5000 10000 Wide • • • • • 0 • MAP 1C MATHEWS COUNTY

FASTLAND USE; OWNERSHIP

. I /'" ( ) '

I c..

1A/RS .....I\)

9 1A/RS

USE Agricultural A Commercial C Government G Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged 6 Open U Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 7 Federal 2 MARINAS With ramp ~

Without ramp • FEET Ramp only ..._ 0 5000 10000 MAP1D WATER QUALITY, OYSTER GROUNDS, AND SEWAGE DISCHARGES.

- 7 > I..;,· '1 '(' \ 2A .... -, V > V .." ...... ,,.>..,.,.. f" '- r-L &,. .J.. I"' .., > < ,-. L \ <"""3B .J J\ < ~ ... I .., 7 ·. > ... ,.. s I .." ., " ;i > "., ,.. ..,7 ,. ,.. t"., I .., .. 7 < "1 t" ,.. I'' t- V .J ... \ .,. ,_ ., > ( ""7 ,.. .>..., ,... 7 ""t" ) ,_ <"., J\ ..., L.., ., " ,.. .,. ." ,.. \ V ~ -, . ",. .. ? " .,. ,_I\ .) "(..., "<...... ' "

WATER QUALITY Satisfactory S Intermediate I Unsatisfactory u

GENERALIZED DELINEATION OF OYSTER GROUNDS

.., .... .a "- .. Public Grounds I\ I"- '1 t. r- I\ J\ L Leased Grounds

Condemnation Areas .Jr-"< f', L ' .J " A .. ,.. "1 L " ., .... 7 I- ,. " > ,.. ., SEWAGE DISCHARGES V : I\~" L'? I\ -1 ~ t" * L > < ../ ":> '1 : ">.,~'-.,., ..., FEET " ,. . "" ,. 0 5000 10000 "" ADAPTED FROM MAPS PREPARED BY THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD MAP1E

B G

2A ., ,, / / .I I I'. I } '

I <.

[\) \Jl

EROSION Severe Severe, Critical Moderate II I I I II Moderate, Critical I I I I I I I Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + +

SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES Riprap R Groins G Bulkheads 8 Jetty j Other 0

FEET

0 5000 10000 (.J')

MAP1F 0 MATHEWS COUNTY GENERALIZED LAND USE LEGEND

Low Density Residential - Agricultural

Medium Density Residential - Agricultural

High Density Residential - Agricultural

Business

• Public

,A Industrial

New Point Comfor! - Parks and Open Space

- Conservation

SCALE IN FEET

2000 4000 1000 1000 10000 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TABLE 1. MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES)

TOTAL Ownership, use and SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLANDS USE OWNERSHIP MILES physiographic classification FASTL.ANI)S SHORE NEARSHORE

l>-1 Fl H E-1 Iii l>-1 Iii l>-1 ~ Iii HN i H ~~~ E-1 H E-1 0 oi-=i E-1 0 H E-1 II: H H OH 0~ r:ri HH E-1 ~ Fl II: II: r:rl r:ri w § p::j E-1 w w ~ ffi iw II: II/ II: Iii H 0 rB ~ Ht=(l 5 ls: g=; Fl ls: II: II: II: 0 12'1 w ~ ffi Fl H IH ~ t=:I 0 E-1 IE-1 t=:I !0 w H 5 OH §o~ OHH ~ H; 12'1 H ~ H H ls: ;,;;i H ls: ;,;;: II: ls: r:ri ~ H

SUBTOTAL 207.5 6.6 0.2 0.3 34.4 1 53. 1 14.4 10.9 1.8 48.8 21.7 23.3 103.1 1.6 3.2 60.3 46.4 214.6 214.6

%of SHORELINE 96. 7 3. 1 0. 1 0 .1 16. 1 71.3 6.7 5. 1 0.8 22.3 10. 1 10.9 48.2 0.8 1.5 28.1 21.4 100.0 100.0

29 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries

33 SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA

SHORE EROSION SITUATION SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY ENDANGERED POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT RATE STRUCTURES PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES SUGGE3TED ACTION

1 FASTLAND: Low shore - 63%; moder FASTLAND: Agricultural; un Private. Low. Satisfactory. Fair to poor, Low, un- None. 1 small bulkhead, None. Area has good potential as a small den PIANKATANK ately low shore, usually with bluff - managed, wooded; small commercial most narrow der 1 about 1 dozen groins. sity waterfront community; beaches need RIVER 34%; moderately high shore, usually port. width, poor ft/yr. improving, 50,500 feet with bluff° - 3%. SHORE: Unused and recreational, access. SHORE: Beach, fringe marshes, em some commercial near Twigg Bridge. bayed marsh, NEARSHORE: Narrow - 95%, intermedi ate - 5%.

2A FASTLAND: Low shore with bluff - FASTLAND: Agricultural, and re Private. Low, non-cri Satisfactory, Fair. Moderate None. 18 groins, bulkheads. None, Fair - present use seems best for area. GODFREY BAY 94%; moderately low shore with sidential. tical, all 2.2 13,400 feet bluff - 6%. SHORE: Occasional recreational land above 10 ft/yr. SHORE: Beach, fringe marsh, em use. feet. bayed marsh. NEARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, NEARSHORE: Narrow - 85%, intermedi and water sports. ate - 7%; wide - 8%,, ample sand, half dozen bars parallel to shore.

2B FASTLAND: Low shore, usually with FASTLAND: Agricultural and resi- Private. Low, non-cri- Satisfactory. Fair, too nar- Severe, None. 5 groins, 1 bulkhead. None, Fair - present use seems best for area. HILLS BAY bluff. dential. tical, all row to be non-cri- 5,400 feet SHORE: Beach - 4,400 feet, fringe SHORE: Recreational, land above 10 really good tical, marsh - 1,000 feet (3 acres). NEARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, feet, some beach. 3.7 NEARSHORE: Intermediate with bars. and water sports, above 15 feet ft/yr.

20 FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential and agri- Private. Low, non-cri- Satisfactory. Poor, shoreline Slight None. None. None. Fair - continued low-density residen QUEENS CREEK SHORE: Beach, fringe marsh, and em cultural. tical. usually marsh. or none. tial use. 30,700 feet bayed marsh. SHORE: Dockage. CREEK: Boating'and water sports.

2D FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Commercial - 8%; agri Private, High, criti Satisfactory. Fair. Slight None. 1 bulkhead, 7 groins Areas with incom Area could support a few more resi THE NARROWS SHORE: Beach - 7@, fringe marsh - cultural - 92% (includes some re except for cal, much of to mod near Winder Creek; some plete bulkhead dences; marina facilities could be ex 10,000 feet 30% (9 acres). sidential and woods). bridge area below 7 erate. riprap at Gwynn Island should be com panded, if demand so requires. NEARSHORE: Narrow - 30% (3,000 feet) SHORE: Recreational, boating, un abutment. feet. Bridge, 3 groins east pletely bulk intermediate - 6@ (6,000 feet); wide used. of bridge. headed. - 10% (1,000 feet). NEARSHORE: Boating and water sports.

2E FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Mainly agricultural, Private. High, non-cri Satisfactory. Poor, shoreline Slight None. None. None, Low. LANE3 CREEK SHORE: Fringe marsh - 81.25%; beach some wooded. tical, most mostly fringe or none. 16,000 feet - 18. 75%. SHORE: Mostly unused, some small of area below marsh. CREEK: Narrow (under 1,000 feet), boat dockage, 10 feet. shallow (less than 8 feet). CREEK: Shellfishing, boating, and water sports.

2F FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural - 77%; un- Private. High, most Satisfactory. Poor, most of Moderate None. 3 groins, 2 small bulk- None. Minimal. CRAB NECK SHORE: Beach - 5@; fringe marsh - managed, unwooded - 23%, under 10 feet shoreline is 2-2! heads. 8,800 feet 50%.· SHORE: Some boat dockage, mostly much under 5 marsh, beaches ft/yr. NEARSHORE: Intermediate. unused. feet. are narrow and NEARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, thin. and water sports.

3A FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential and un Private. High, all be- Satisfactory. Poor to good. Moderate None. Bulkhead - 64% (7,000); None. None, Present use quite satisfactory. GWYNN ISLAND - SHORE: Beach and artificially sta managed, wooded. low 12 feet, non-cri- riprap - 27% (3,000); 5 HILLS BAY balized - 91%; fringe marsh - 6%. SHORE: Recreation, much below 7 tical, groins. 11,000 feet NEARSHORE: Intermediate. NEARSHORE: Water sports, fishing, feet. 2 ft/yr. and shellfishing.

3B FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential - 65%, un Private. High. Satisfactory, Good, one of Severe None. 70 groins, bulkheads. Establish uniform Beach at southern portion of segment GWYNN ISLAND - SHORE: Beach. managed, wooded and unwooded - better sandy non-cri bulkhead construc could become a larger recreation area CHESAPEAKE BAY NEARSHORE: Intermediate with paral- 35%. beaches in the tical, tion standards and with improved access and public facili 23,000 feet lel bars, SHORE: Recreation. Bay. over 7 complete bulk ties. NEARSHORE: Fishing and water ft/yr. heading of the sports. area.

34 SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA (CONTINUED)

SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORELA.."IDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY ENDANGERED SUGGESTED SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE RATE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT STRUCTURES ACTION

3C FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential, light ag Private. High, criti Satisfactory. Poor. Slight None. 1 groin near Cockrell None. Continued development along present GWYNN ISLAND, SHORE: Beach, fringe marsh and arti ricultural. cal. to mod- Point; 2 bu:J_kheade~ lines. SOUTH ficially stabalized. SHORE: Unmanaged, wooded and un erate, areas. 42,100 feet NEARSHORE: Narrow. wooded. non-cri l,EARSHORE: Commercial. tical, 1-1.5 ft/yr.

4 FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential and agri Private. Moderate, Satisfactory. Poor. Slight, None. None. None. Low - high flood hazard and limited STUTTS CREEK SHORE: Some beach, most fringe cultural - 20%; unmanaged, wooded non-critical. non-cri beach areas limit development of area. 149,000 feet marsh, extensive marsh, and embayed - so'%,. tical. marsh. SHORE: Mostly unused, access to NEARSHORE: Narrow. boats. CREEKS: Boating, fishing, shell fishing, and water sports.

5 FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural and resi Private. High, area is Satisfactory. Fair to good, Severe, None. Jetty at mouth of None. Low - very low marsh nature of area BETHEL BEACH SHORE: Narrow beach, fringe marsh, dential; unmanaged, wooded and extremely most narrow, non-cri Garden Creek. limits development of residential and 51,500 feet embayed marsh, extensive marsh. open; and recreational. low. thin, and sandy ti cal. industrial areas, possibility for de NEARSHORE: Wide - 90% and interme SHORE: Mostly unused, some re velopment of Winter Harbor area and diate - 10%. creational. Bethel Beach area. NEARSHORE: Water sports, boating, and fishing.

6 FASTLAND: Low shore - much.of area FASTLAND: Agricultural and resi Private. High, entire Satisfactory, Fair to poor, S~vere, Approximately 1 None. None. Low - may be possible to improve access HORN HARBOR below 5 feet. dential - 64%; commercial - 1%; area quite except inter beaches along critical dozen beach front to some beach areas for use as 252,000 feet SHORE: Fringe marsh, extensive unmanaged, wooded and open - 35%. low. mediate for bay shoulders for Bay houses NE of swimming; beaches, etc. - high flood marsh, embayed marsh, and beach - SHORE: Unused, boat dockage and Horn Harbor. generally nar shore Bavon. risk and poor drainage in area. 15,000 feet. recreational. row, thin, and line: NEARSHORE: Wide. NEARSHORE: Boating and fishing. not good access Slight for rest

7 FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Residential and agri Private. High, non Satisfactory. No beaches in Slight None. None. None. Possible use of Davis and Pepper Creeks MOBJACK BAY SHORE: Fringe marsh, extensive cultural. critical. area. to se- for pleasure boating marina areas, if 100,000 feet marsh, embayed marsh. SHORE: Water sports and access vere, soil conditions are suitable. NEARSHORE: Intermediate - 40% and to boats. non-cri wide - 60%. NEARSHORE: Fishing, boating, tical, shellfishing, and water sports. from 0- 4 ft/yr

8 FASTLAND: Low shore - 100%. FASTLAND: Low density residen~ Private. Moderate to Satisfactory. Poor, no real Slight, None. None. None. Fair - could be more fully developed as EAST RIVER SHORE: Fringe marsh and embayed tial and agricultural - 95%; re- low. beaches, just non-ori a residential area, recreational as 21,600 feet marsh. sidential - 3%; and commercial - river bank. tical. pects could also be improved with more CREEK: Narrow, marked channel of 10 2%. boat ramps. feet depth for 3} miles, 4 foot depth SHORE: Access to boats and boat for 2 _miles, shoals. yards. CREEK: Boating.

9 FASTLAND: Low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural and resi Private. Moderate to Satisfactory. No beaches in None, None. None. None. Minimal - more residential development NORTH RIVER SHORE: Fringe marsh. dential. low. the segment. non-cri a possibility, as is improved public 154,000 feet CREEK: Wide with many-shoals. SHORE: Access to boats. tical access to creeks. CREEK: Boating and water sports. stable.

35 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions

37 PIAN"KATANK RIVER, MA.THEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SEGMENT 1 (Maps 2) EROSION RATE: Slight, noncritical. Histori cally, the average shoreline retreat along the Piankatank River is under 1 foot per year. EXTENT: 50,500 feet (9.6 mi.) along the Pia:nkata:nk ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. River East from Gloucester - Mathews County line SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is one to (the eastern) Iron Point on Godfrey Bay. small bulkhead between Cobbs Creek and Pond Except for approximately 13,600 feet of shore Point and perhaps a dozen small groins scat line on Cobbs Creek, this segment is adjacent tere~ among several locations. The small inlet to 32,000 feet of Pia:nkata:nk River Channel. near Iron Point is protected by jetties.

SHORELANDS TYPE Suggested Action: None. FASTLAND: Low shore - 63%, moderately low shore, usually with a bluff - 34%, and moder OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The Twigg Bridge (con ately high shore, usually with bluff - 3%. structed in 1953) crosses the Piankatank River The northern portion of Mathews County is a in this segment. There are many piers along terrace at a 30 to 40-foot elevation. the shoreline, 4 ramps (2 at marinas and one SHORE: Beach, fringe and embayed marshes. each at the bridge and Cobbs Creek). There are 23.4 acres of marsh in the segment ranging in size from i of an acre to 17 acres. NAVIGABILITY: The Piankatank River is easily NEARSHORE: Narrow - 95% and intermediate - 5%. navigable through this segment. According to the- Coast Pilot most traffic is fish, shell SHORELANDS USE fish, petroleum products, and pulpwood. Ves FASTLAND: The primary fastland use is agricul sels using the river usually draw 6 feet but tural; there are some unmanaged, wooded portions drafts of 11 feet are on record. Depths of 16 and a small commercial portion near the Twigg feet extend as far as the Highway bridge at Bridge. Frequently, there is a narrow woods Dixie. The lower portion of the channel is border between the fields and the river. marked with lights and buoys. SHORE: Some recreational and some commercial near Twigg Bridge. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: The potential of this NEARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing and water area as a low density residential waterfront sports. community is great. The only feature really lacking is a good beach, but the existing OFFSHORE BOTTOM: In some areas the offshore bot beaches are servicable for swimming. tom has transverse or parallel bars. MA.PS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON AND WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. DELTAVILLE Quadrs., 1964. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPP.AHANNOCK RIVER BEACH QUALITY: Fair to poor. Most beaches are ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, narrow and have poor access. 1973. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The Pia:nkatank River is Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. protected from most seas which might enter from the Chesapeake Bay. Fetches generally are PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA.1 1-4. less than 3 miles.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

·FLOOD HAZARD: Low. Virtually all the fastland is well above the extreme flood levels.

38 GODFREY BAY, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. HILLS BAY, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGll/lENT 2A (Maps 2 and 3 ) SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are about 18 groins and roughly,2,000 feet of bulkhead SUBSEGll/lENT 2B (Maps 3) along the shoreline of this segment. EXTENT: 13,400 feet (2.5 mi.) from Iron Point to Suggested Action: No immediate action is re EXTENT: 5,400 feet (1 mi.) from Burton Point to Burton Point. Chapel Creek is included in this Queens Creek. subsegment, although it is not measured. quired. More extensive bulkheading, if prop erly designed and implaced, might alleviate some of the erosion related problems. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLA.ND: Low shore, usually with bluff. FASTLAND: Low shore with bluff - 94% (12,600 SHORE: Beach (4,400 ft.), fringe marsh (1,000 ft.) and moderately low shore with bluff - 6% OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a boat ramp at the end of Route 632. ft.), and 3 acres of embayed marsh in coves, etc. (800 ft.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate width with bars. · SHORE: Beach, 12 acres fringe marsh, and an POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Fair. The present additional 2 acres of embayed marsh in Chapel SHORELANDS USE Creek. agricultural - residential use is probably the best use for the area. Godfrey Bay lacks the FASTLA.ND: Agricultural and residential. NE.ARSHORE: Narrow - 85% (11,500 ft.), wide - SHORE: Access to boats and swimming. 8% (1,000 ft.) and intermediate - 7% (1,000 ft.). sufficiently large (wide) beach and protected anchorage necessary for recreational develop NEARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, and water The ~earshore appears to have an ample quantity sports. of sand. There are approximately half a dozen ment. bars parallel to the shore. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE OFFSHORE: Hills Bay, which has depths of 14 to 20 feet, is the approach to Queens Creek. SHORELANDS USE Quadr. , 1 964. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER FASTLAND: Agricultural and residential. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends NNW - SHORE: Low density use. ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, 1973. SSE. The shore is exposed to the NE with a NE.ARSHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, and water fetch of over 20 nautical miles. Across the sports. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. Chesapeake Bay, the fetch to the east is limited by Gwynn Island. To the north the fetch is 3 OFFSHORE: The mouth of the Piankatank River. The PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-2A 44-64. nautical miles across the shallow water of the charts indicate that the bottom is soft sand mouth of the Piankatank River. and mud. OWNERSHIP: Private. WIN}), AND SEA EXPOSURE: This subsegment is a poc ket generally open to the northeast. The maxi FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. All of the land mum fetch is greater than 20 nautical miles is above 10 feet, some above 15 feet. across Godfrey and Chesapeake Bays. The fetches from the north and. east are about 2 nautical WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. miles. BEACH QUALITY: Fair. As with most beaches along OWNERSHIP: Private. the Chesapeake Bay, this area lacks the width necessary to be a really good beach. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. All of the land in this subsegment is above 10 feet. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. The VIMS WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. historical study indicates an erosion rate of 3.7 feet per year. BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches are sandy but ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. usually are narrow. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is a field of approximately 5 groins about 1,500 feet from PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Queens Creek and a single small bulkhead near EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. Histori the northern end of the subsegment. cal studies indicate an erosion rate of 2.2 feet per year. Suggested Action: Even though the historical

39 erosion rate is high. no immediate action ap QUEENS CREEK, MATID.~S COUNTY, VIRGINIA Hills Bay via a marked 6-foot deep, dredged pears necessary. SUBSEGMENT 20 (Maps 3) channel. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a single (pri POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEIYIBNT: Fair. The low density vately owned and used?) boat ramp. EXTENT: 30,700 :feet (5.8 mi.) of shoreline along residential use appears to be the best utili zation of the area. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Fair. The present Queens Creek and its tributaries and Winder Creek. agricultural - residential use appears to be MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.) MATHEWS Qu d the best use for the land. This subsegment, as 1965. ' a r., SHOREL.ANTIS TYPE subsegment 2A, lacks some of the elements nec FASTLANTI: Low shore. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER essary for significantly more intensive utili SHORE: Beach, and fringe and embayed marsh. ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers zation. The VD/IS Wetlands inventory indicates that 1973. ' there are roughly 19 acres of fringe and em C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE bayed marsh associated with Queens Creek. Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. ' Quadr., 1964 and MATHEWS Quadr., 1965. CREEK: Queens Creek is a small tidal river C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-20 73-77, 80-105. ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, approximately 2 miles long a:n:d several hundred yards wide. Water depths decrease -;from a maxi 1973. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, mum of 10 feet near the mouth to 1 or 2 feet near the creek head. There are several narrow Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. shallow a:r:ms such as Kenney and Miller Cove. '

PHOTOS: Aerial-VD/IS 10Sep73 MA-2B 65-72. SHOREL.ANTIS USE FASTLANTI: Residential and agricultural. SHORE: Dockage. CREEK: Boating and water sports.

OFFSHORE: Transverse bars off mouth.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The fastland rises above 10 feet within a few hundred feet of the shore.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The shoreline is usually marsh.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or none, noncritical. The area appears fairly stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None, although 1937 aerial photographs show a substantial jetty north of the entrance to Queens Creek.

Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Numerous piers and utility bulkheading or riprap.

NAVIGABILITY: Queens Creek is approached from

40 THE NA.BROWS, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA were the demand, the marina facilities in the LANES CREEK, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 2D (Maps 3) area could be expanded. The area perhaps SUBSEGMENT 2E (Maps 3) could support a few,more residences.

EXTENT: 10,000 feet (1.9 mi.) from the mouth of MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MATHEWS Quadr., EXTENT: 16,000 feet (3.0 mi.) of shoreline along Winder Creek to the spit at the mouth of Lanes 1965. Lanes Creek. Lanes Creek is 5,000 feet long. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Creek. ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, SHOREL.ANDS TYPE SHQREL.ANDS TYPE 1973. FASTL.AND: Low shore. FASTL.AND: Low shore. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, SHORE: There are 8 acres of fringe and some em SHORE: Beach (7,000 ft.), fringe marsh (3,000 Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. bayed marsh (1,300 ft.) and beach (3,600 ft.). ft.), total marsh 9 acres. CREEK: Lanes Creek is a fairly narrow (width NEARSHORE: Intermediate - 60% (6,000 ft.), PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-2D 106-108, 162- usually under 1,000 ft.), shallow (less than 8 narrow - 30% (3,000 ft.), and wide - 10% (1,000 176. ft.), tidal creek opening into Milford Haven. ft.). "The Narrows" and ''Middle Grounds" are be tween the Mainland and Gwynn Island. SHOREL.ANDS USE FASTL.AND: Primarily agricultural, although SHORELANDS USE some area is forestland. FASTL.AND: Agricultural, including some resi SHORE: Mostly unused, some small boat dockage. dential and. woods (9,200 ft.) and commercial, CREEK: Shellfishing, boating, and water sports. marina and fish pier (800 ft.). SHORE: Some recreational and boating. OWNERSHIP: Private. NEARSHORE: Boating and water sports. FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical. Most of the OWNERSHIP: Private, except for the bridge abut area is below 10 feet. ment. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Much of the area is below 7 feet and a few houses are within BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The shoreline is mostly the flood limits. fringe marsh.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or none, noncritical. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. The shoreline is stable. END.ANGERED STRUCTURES: None. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. EROSION RATE: Slight to moderate, noncritical. END.ANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Suggested Action: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: A discontinuous bulkhead and 7 groins 1,000 to 1,500 feet east OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Some utility bulkhe~ding of Winder Creek. A little riprap by the abut in a cove near the creek mouth. There are ment to the Gwynn Island Bridge, and 3 groins numerous piers along the creek. 1,000 feet east of the bridge. NAVIGABILITY: Fair. Lanes Creek is entered from Suggested Action: The areas of incomplete Milford Haven, water depths are on the order bulkhead should be completely bulkheaded. of 6 feet.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are a marina and POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Minimal. The potential boat ramp at the foot of the bridge and two susceptibility of the area to coastal flooding other piers. limits the development potential of the area.

POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Minimal. If there

41 MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MATHEWS Quadr., CRAB NECK, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA along the Crab Neck shoreline. 1965. SUBSEGMENT 2F (Maps 3) C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER POTENTIAL USE ENHANCElVIENT: Minimal. ENTRANCE, Pia.nkata.nk to Great Wicomico Rivers, 1973. EXTENT: 8,800 feet (1.7 mi.) from Lanes Creek to MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MATHEWS Quadr., C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Point Breeze. 1965. Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER 1 SHORELANDS TYPE ENTRANCE,' Pia.nkatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-2E 160, 168-176. FASTLANTI: Low shore. 1973. SHORE: Beach (4,400 ft.) and fringe and em C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, bayed marsh (4,400 ft.). A preliminary VIMS Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. Wetlands survey indicates that there are 4 acres of marsh in this segment. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-2E 177-181. NEARSHORE: Intermediate width, some transverse bars.

SHORELANDS USE FASTL.AND: Agricultural (6,800 ft.) and un managed, unwooded (2,000 ft.). SHORE: Some boat dockage, mostly unused. NEAR.SHORE: Fishing, shellfishing, and water sports.

OFFSHORE: Crab Neck overlooks Milford Haven and faces Gwynn Island.

WINTI .AND SEA EXPOSURE: The area has a limited exposure to waves from open water.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical. Most of Crab Neck is under 10 feet much is under 5 feet, but there are no structures endangered.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. Most of the shoreline is marsh. The few beaches that do exist are narrow and thin.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. Histori cal studies indicate an erosion~rate of 2 to 2! feet per year. ENTIANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is one small field of 3 groins and 2 small bulkheads.

Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers

42 GWYNN ISLAND, HILLS BAY, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA bulkhead. GWYNN ISLAND - CHESAPEAKE BAY, SUBSEGMENT 3A (Maps 3) Suggested Action: None, present course of MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA action appears satisfactory. Routine repairs SUBSEGMENT 3B (Maps 3) of stru.ctures. EXTENT: 11,000 feet (2.1 mi.) from Narrows Point to inside Cherry Point. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Piers. EXTENT: 23,000 feet (4.4 mi.) from Cherry Point to Sandy Point. SHORELANDS TYPE POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Present use as low or FASTLAND: Low shore. medium density residential use with water re SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE: Beach and artificially stabilized, 700 lated recreation appears quite satisfactory. FASTLAND: Low shore. feet of fringe marsh inside Cherry Point. SHORE: Beach. NEARSHORE: Intermediate width, with transverse MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE and NEARSHORE: Inte:r:mediate width, with parallel bars. MATHEWS Quadrs. , 1 96 5 • bars. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER SHORELANDS USE ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Residential and unmanaged, wooded. 1973. FASTLAND: Residential - 65% and unmanaged, SHORE: Recreation. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, wooded and unwooded - 35%. NEARSHORE: Water sports, fishing, and shell Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. SHORE: Recreation. fishing. NEARSHORE: Fishing and water sports. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-3A 109-121. OFFSHORE: Hills Bay and the Piankata.nk River. OFFSHORE: Chesapeake Bay.

WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE! The shoreline trend is WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends SW - NE. NNW - SSE. Fetches are: Fetches across the Chesapeake Bay are: W 1 nm NE over 25 nm NE 4 nm E 14 nm N . 3 nm. SE 15 nm.

OWNERSHIP: Private. OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Much of the sub FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. The area is quite segment is below 7 feet, all is below 12 feet. low, and it is exposed to waves from the Chesapeake Bay. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. In some areas there is no beach in front of the riprap, in other BEACH QUALITY: Good, one of the better sandy areas there is a very reasonable beach between beach areas on the Chesapeake Bay. groins. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. Histori EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. Histori cally the rate is over 7 feet per year. Waves cally the erosion rate for the northern half of from across the Chesapeake Bay, strike the low, the subsegment is just over 2 feet per year. unconsolidated shore of Gwynn Island and cause ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the greatest percentage of the erosion. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Approximately ENDANGERED STRUCTURES :1 None. 7,000 feet of bulkhead and 3,000 feet of riprap SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approxi (64% and 27% of the segment length) protects mately 70, at least slightly effective, groins. the fastland. Most of the riprap is along Several thousand feet of shoreline is bulkheaded Route 633. There are approximately 50, gen or seawalled. Usually the properly constIUcted erally effective groins, associated with the

43 bulkheads are quite successful, however in some GWYNN ISLAND (SOUTH), MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Minimal. Continued areas alternate lots are bulkheaded and not SUBSEGMENT 3C (Maps 3) development along the present line to the capa backfilled or bulkheaded along different lines. bility of the facilities. In the first case, erosion is accelerated in the unprotected area. In the second, the con EXTENT: 42,100 feet (8 mi.) of Gwynn Island shore MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE and nection between bulkheads are weak and prone line along Milford Haven and the several creeks MATHEWS Quadrs. , 1 96 5 • for failure. between Sandy Point and Narrows Point. C&GS, #534, 1 :40.,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers Suggested Action: Establishment of a uniform SHORELANDS TYPE 1 973. ' bulkhead line and uniform standards for bulk FASTLA..l'TIJ: Low shore. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY heads construction. Also, finish the complete SHORE: Beach, fringe marsh (50.6 acres), and Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. ' bulkheading of the small unbulkheaded areas. artificially stabilized. NEARSHORE: Narrow. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-3C 143-162. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None.

POTENTIAL USE ENID\NCEMENT: With improved access SHORELANDS USE and public facilities the beach of the southern FASTLAND: Residential, with light agricultural. SHORE: Unmanaged, wooded and unwooded. portion of this segment could become a signi NEARSHORE: Commercial. ficant recreational area. Higher density resi dential development probably would be imprac OFFSHORE: The Narrows and Milford Haven. tical due to the high flood hazard and the limited fresh water and sewage treatment fa OWNERSHIP: Private. cilities. FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical in the developed MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Tbpo), DELTAVILLE and central and western portions of the subsegment. MATHEWS Quadrs., 1965. High, noncritical in the unmanaged eastern C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, third of the subsegment. 1973. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. Most of the shore is vege PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-3B 122-147. tated. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight to moderate, noncritical. Some small areas have moderate, long term ero sion rates of 1 to 1.5 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is one groin near Cockrell Point, that is effective in trapping sand against its eastern side, and two areas of bulkhead, approximately 1,000 feet around Mill Point and about 200 feet east of Callis Wharf.

Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers and docks in the creeks, also some utility bulkheading along the commercial boat yard areas and in some of the creeks.

44 STUTTS CREEK AREA, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA ENTIANGERED S.TiucTURES: ·None. SEGMENT 4 (Maps 4) SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. Suggested Action: None. EXTENT: 149,000 feet (28.2 mi.) of shoreline along numerous tidal creeks between Point Breeze and OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Several small private the tip of Rigby Island. piers, Mathews Yacht Club on Stutts Creek, some cosmetic bulkheading and 2 boat ramps in the SHORE.LANDS TYPE ar.ea.. There d.s some evidence of dredged upland FASTLAND: Low shore. Much of the area is be channels (lVLA-4 249-286). low 5 feet, most is below 10 feet. SHORE: Fringe, extensive and embayed marsh, J?OTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The high flood totaling approximately 260 acres, and a small hazard and limited beach areas limii; it;he deve quantity of beach. lopment potential of the area. NEARSHORE: Stutts Creek has depths over 6 feet . ' ·l. to the pier. Morris, Hudgins and Callis Creeks M.(\.PS:" U$GS, 7 .• 5 Min.Ser. (Topo. ), MATHEWS Quadr., are shallow tidal creeks. Billups, Stoakes, 1965. Back and Whites Creeks are shallow with depths C&CfS, #534, 1:40,·000 scale, RAPPAHANNCOK RIVER less than five feet. The Hole in the Wall is ENTRAN,CE, Piankatank to G:r;eat Wicom,ico Rivers, shallow, with a 3-foot controlling depth and is 1973. , exposed to "heavy" seas from the Chesapeake Bay. C&GS, #1223, ,1 :80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTRANCE, 1973. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Residential-agricultural - 20% and PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-4 249-285.

unmanaged, wooded - so%. .. I SHORE: Mostly unused, access to boats. NEARSHORE: Boating, fishing, shellfishing, and water sports.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD H'.AZ.ABD: Moderate, noncritical. The area is quite low, but few dwellings are below 5 feet. The area between Whites and Stoakes Creeks, Lilley's Neck and portions of Crab Neck between Redart and Ganney's Point are very susceptible to flooding. Unusually high water would en danger several of the houses on Billups Creek.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only sand beaches in the segment are on Lilley's Neck. They are fairly thin and narrow and have little access from the mainland.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight, noncritical, except on Lilley's Neck where erosion rates of up to 3f feet per year have been calculated. One or two other small areas experience an average of 1.3 to 1.6 feet of erosion per year.

45 BETHEL BEACH, lVIATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SEGMENT 5 (Maps 4 and 5) EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE: STRUCTURES: There is a jetty EXTENT: 51,500 feet (9.8 mi.) of shoreline from at the mouth of Garden Creek. the tip of Rigby Island to Potato Neck. Suggested Action: None. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTL:AND: Low shore. The 5-foot contour is OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, over a mile from the shore throughout most of docks, and small bulkheads associated with the the segment. Rigby Island is shown as con maintenance of small boats. The mouth of nected to Bethel Beach in the 1938 USDA and 1973 Winter Harbor is dredged. There are 2 boat VIMS photographs but as an island on maps and ramp's in Winter Harbor. photographs of the intervening years. About half the segment is a thin barrier island on POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. The very low Chesapeake Bay. marsh nature of the area significantly limits SHORE: A narrow sand beach fronts Chesapeake residential or industrial development. The Bay throughout the length of the segment. Ap Winter Harbor area might be developed as a rec proximately 800 acres of fringe, embayed, and reational harbor. It might be possible to extensive marsh are associated with the several create a more suitable recreational beach in creek systems. ' the Bethel Beach area through artificial nour NEARSHORE: Wide - 9o% and intermediate - 10%. isbment and the use of shoreline control struc The C&GS Coast Pilot notes that shoals of 5 to tures. 10 feet, in the vicinity of Wolf Trap light, are found as much as 3 miles offshore. MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min. Ser. (Topo.), lVIATHEWS Quadr., 1965 and NEW POINT COMFORT Quadr., 1964. SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #1222, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY FASTL:AND: Agric"LJ.ltural-residential, unmanaged, ENTRANCE, 1 973 • wooded and open, and recreational. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, SHORE: Mostly unused, some recreational use. Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. NEARSHORE: Water sports, boating, and fishing. C&GS, #534, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ENTRANCE, Pia.:nkatank to Great Wicomico Rivers, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is 1973. N - S. Fetches are open across the Chesapeake C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, MOBJACK BAY and Bay to the NE, E, and SE. YORK RIVER ENTRANCE, 1970.

OWNERSHIP: Private. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 lVIA-5 286-334.

FLOOD HA.ZABD: High, noncritical. The area is extremely low, only the spongelike facility of the marshy areas keeps the area from experi encing repeated flooding.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. Most of the beach area is narrow, thin, sandy beach. The prox imity of marshes, the offshore vegetation, the narrowness and the thinness of the beach all detract from the overall quality.

46 HORN HABBOR, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA the open bay shoreline is severe, critical and SEGMENT 6 (Maps 5 and 6) noncritical. Historical evidence shows a hun dred year average of approximately 30 feet of erosion per year near Dyer Creek. The New EXTENT: 252,000 feet (47.7 mi.) of shoreline from Point Comfort area has undergone significant Potato Neck to New Point Comfort. The segment change. A channel has been formed between the includes the very crenulate shorelines of Horn old lighthouse and the point and the· shoals are Harbor and several smaller creeks. constantly shifting. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: Approximately a dozen SHORELANDS TYPE beach front houses along the shore southeast FASTLANJ): Entirely low shore; much of the area of Bavon are endangered both by erosion and is below 5 feet and very little of the lower storm action. Mathews Peninsula is above 10 feet. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. SHORE: Fringe, extensive and embayed marsh (approximately 500 acres) and beach, approxi Suggested Action: None. A major erosion pro mately 6% (15,000 ft.). tection program would be quite costly. NEARSHORE: Wide, the Chesapeake Bay, and in termediate. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two areas of dredged and bulkheaded canals, one about half SHORELAlililS USE way up Horn Harbor, the other is the unnamed FASTLAlilil: Agricultural-residential - 64%, un creek north of Dyer Creek. There are two boat managed, wooded and unwooded - 35%, and com launching ramps and a large marine railway on mercial - 1%. Horn Harbor. The topographic map indicates SHORE: Unused, boat dockage, and recreational. that a small area called the Horn Harbor Nursing NEARSHORE: Boating and fishing. Home has been diked, probably to prevent flood ing. There are many, many piers along the WINTI Alilil SEA EXPOSURE: The Chesapeake Bay shore creeks. line of the segment trends NNE - SSW. Exposure is open across the bay with fetches from the POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Minimal. It might be E 12 nm possible to improve the access to some of the SE 20 nm beach areas for use as swimming, beach walking, NE 18 nm. etc. areas, but the potential for significant Exposure from the south is open through the development is low due to the high flood risk mouth of the bay and the Atlantic Ocean and and poor drainage of the area. from the north is open up the length of the Chesapeake Bay and Pocomoke Sound. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW POINT COMFORT Quadr., 1964. OWNERSHIP: Private. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. FLOOD HAZARD: High. The entire area is low. C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, MOBJACK BAY and YORK RIVER ENTRANCE, 1970. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory, except for Horn Har- bor which is intermediate. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 MA-6 225-248; VIMS 11Sep73 MA-6 335-362. BEA.CH QUALITY: Fair to poor. The only beach areas are along the bay shoreline. Generally they are narrow, appear to be thin, and do not have very good access.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Erosion of the creeks and harbor shorelines is slight, noncritical. Erosion of

47 NEW POINT COMFORT TO THE EAST RIVER, POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEl.VlEJ:ifT: If soil cond~tions are MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA suitable to the increased septic load, Davis and Pepper Creeks might be used for pleasure SEGMENT 7 (Maps 6 and 7) boating and marina areas.

MAPS: USGS, 7.5Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW POINT EXTENT: 100,000 feet ( 19 mi.) on Mob jack Bay, COMFORT Quadr., 1964. from New Point Comfort to the East River. C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. SHORELANDS TYPE C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, MOBJACK BAY and FASTLAND: Low shore. YORK RIVER ENTRANCE, 1970. SHORE: Fringe, extensive, and embayed marsh comprises 340 acres, some beach. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 11Sep73 MA-7 363-389. NEARSHORE: Wide - 60% and intermediate - 40%.

SHORELANJJS USE FASTLANJJ: Residential-agricultural. SHORE: Water sports and access to boats. NEARSHORE: Fishing, boating, shellfishing, and water sports.

OFFSHORE: Mob jack Bay.

WIND AND SEA IDCPOSURE: The shoreline trend is NW - SE. Fetches are: W 6 rmi. SW 4 rmi. s 12 nm.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical. The entire area is below 10 feet. Few houses are near the shore and most are above 5 feet.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg ment.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: None to severe, noncritical. Historical erosion rates vary from no erosion to 4 feet per year on a point near Pepper Creek. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.

Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers along the shore and a boat ramp on Davis Creek.

48 EAST RIVER, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Two boat ramps, one at Williams Wharf and the other at Town Point SEGJ\/IENT 8 (Maps 7 and 8) Landing at the mouth of Put'in Creek. There is also bulkheading at Williams Wharf and Willis Wharf, Mobjack, and one or two small bulkheads EXTENT: 216,000 feet (40.9 mi.) of shoreline along in other places. Many small boat piers line the banks of the East River and its arms. The the creek shore. East River has a centerline length of approxi mately 38,000 feet (7.2 mi.) and Put in Creek, NAVIGABILITY: Good. the main arm, has a centerline length of over 10,000 feet (2 mi.). The shoreline of the en POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Fair. The area proba tire segment is very crenulate. bly could be more fully developed as a residen tial area. The recreational aspects could be SHORELANDS TYPE improved by the constru.ction of more public FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. The level of boat ramps. The East River probably would best the fastland slopes from 5 feet near the mouth be used as a harbor or port for pleasure boats of the river to terraces at 10 and 15 feet at using Mobjack and Chesapeake Bays. the upper ends of the creeks. SHORE: About 183 acres of fringe and embayed MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW POINT marsh along the creek banks. COMFORT Quadr., 1964 and MATHEWS Quadr., 1965. CREEK: The Coast Pilot describes the East C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, River as having a narrow, marked channel with Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. depths of 10 feet for 3! miles, and depths of C&GS,.#494, 1:40,000 scale, MOBJACK BAY and 4 feet for 2 miles. Shoals extend off of many YORK RIVER ENTRANCE, 1970. of the points. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 11Sep73 MA-8 391-469. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Low density residential-agricultural - 95%, residential - 3%, and commercial - 2%. SHORE: Access to boats and boat yards. CREEK: Boating.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to low, noncritical. The area near the river mouth is relatively low, mostly below 10 feet and could be flooded in a severe storm. The threat of flood deminishes upstream with the rising topography.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are no real beaches, just riverbank and fringe marsh.

SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight, noncritical. Erosion rates appear quite low. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.

Suggested Action: None.

49 ------.

NORTH RIVER, MATHEWS COUNTY, VIRGINIA POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Minimal. Further re SEGMENT 9 (Maps 7, 8, and 9) sidential development might be possible as might be improved public access to the creeks.

EXTENT: 154,000 feet (29.1 mi.) of shoreline along MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), NEW POINT Mobjack Bay and the west bank of the North River COMFORT Quadr., 1964 and MATHEWS and WARE NECK to the Gloucester - Mathews County line. Ap Quadrs., 1965. proximately 55,000 feet (10 mi.) of bay or river C&GS, #1223, 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, centerline plus several thousand feet of tri Wolf Trap to Smith Point, 1973. butary channels. C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, MOBJACK BAY and YORK RIVER ENTRANCE, 1970. SHOREL.ANnS TYPE i ,, FASTL.ANJ): Low shore. PHOTOS: Aerial-VD/IS 11Sep73 lYIA-9 470-518. SHORE: Fringe and embayed marsh - 220.5 acres. CREEK: The North River is described by the Coast Pilot as wide but with many shoals. The channel has depths of 12 feet for 4 miles and 7 feet for 2 miles. Blackwater .creek has depths of 7 feet as far as Greenmansion Cove.

SHOREL.ANJ)S USE FASTL.ANn: Agricultural-residential use. SHORE: Access to boats. CREEK: Boating and water sports.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to low, noncritical. The area near the river mouth is relatively low, mostly below 10 feet and could be flooded in a severe sto:rm. The threat of flood deminishes upstream with the rising topography.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this seg ment.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION: Stable. EROSION RATE: Slight, or no change. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.

Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several areas of utility bulkheading along the shore and nu merous piers, fish traps.

NAVIGABILITY: Good.

50 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps

51 /-...... I ," / 1 '"" / '"" '~JtJi> -~ ------! Ai_ ~ESE]( CO ------._ I A1'1tElVsco_.- --- I --p I A i --- NI<" -4 I ~~erkley ~land,

2A I I Segments 1, 2 (partial)

= Segment Boundary = Subsegment Boundary

37° 37° 301 76° 22' 30"

53 76° 22' 30"

FASTLAND NEARS HORE Low Shore 0-0-0-0 Low Shore 0 0 0 with Bluff -::!, Moderately Low Shore I • II • u ~ '..../, "°_/ \ Moderately Low Shore with Bluff 1 1 II 1 • ~ Moderately High Shore ,4 with Bluff A 1 4 A SHORE Beach :-:-·.··.·:•:•:• =·: ··.·:-:-:-: Fringe Marsh TII IIII Ill Illllllll II Ill Embayed Marsh ~ ~"' ) K /J~ I/ /J /I \\34

--,::;,..,:::.?~- -.::~~

«~II "

~~ei

\ 0 I ~~ Jo ,•, 2A •:.. \ PIANKATANK RIVER •. 0 SHORELANDS TYPES ,= ~=~ \ ~ 0 Segments 1, 2 (partial) ..... •,•, \ t ·:: 0 ,o

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 5000 6000

.5 0 I KILOMETER

301

55 USE Agricultural A Commercial C OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Moderate ------p I A .N Ic 4

~:erl

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 5000 6000

.5 0 I KILOMETER 37° 301 76° 22' 3011

57 76° 17' 30"

2A GODFREY BAY

1'/LLS BAY 38 37° 28 30'

HILLS BAY

Segmen~2A,2B,2C, 2D, 2E, 2F,3A,3B,3C iJ // = Segment Boundary y~~ / = Subsegment Boundary ,µ "l ~ r i j I /- -+ ~n ~ ~-- 0 lOIID 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

.5 0 ea ea ea ea ea

76° 17' 30"

59 76° 17° 3000

FASTLAND 0 0 0 Low Shore 0 Low Shore o: with Bluff 0 Moderately Low Shore ... 0 1 1 1 ...... with Bluff II • -...... ·:. 0 ·.·..... ·::. ·::... -:. 0 MAP3B 0 •::.... GWYNN ISLAND 0 0 SHORELANDS TYPES 3A 0 ::. ·:. HILLS BAY ::. 0 37° 0 0 .... 30' ··: 38 :-:-·.•:•:,:-:, :, : -~ ·=·=·:-: 28 ·:. : 0 0 Tl IJI II llltrllll 11111111 ·::... 0 •: //////////// 0 0 ·=•:... ~ HILLS 0 0

0 •: 0 •:.. ::...... ,: 0 -~~

1000EH3:JHS:::::EH:io===1000Ei::=~2000ii:::===3000E====:i4000ic::===5000E===~60003'=:===37000 FEET 1===::E3::::::E'35===1===::E0==:==:==:==:==:==:==:==::====31 KILOMETER

61 76° 17' 30" EROSION Severe Moderate II I I I II Slight or No Change No Symbol USE 2A Agricultural A GODFREY Commercial C BAY Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w 3A OWNERSHIP Private 1 HILLS BA y 28 38

HILLS BAY

I I / 2F / I ., /\ 4 ~b ,, I G:. ~-:_/~---=::', GWYNN ISLAND I ~ ., .-t,. FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION _., ,,,, Segmen~2A,2B,2C, 2D,2E, 2F,3A,3B,3C j 0

IOOOE3::::S::::EOl::===IOOO:i:==i==i=2000i:===3000E===40003::==5000::::Eia==~60003::==:::J7000 FEET k.iE3:::::EE-33:::::E-3E3.5CJF-3E3=E-3=3:=z;0=:======31 KILOMETER

63 76° 15'

I +- -I I i / I I ~ 4 i ,f;: I ·-t··J • I 37° 21' . Radio+~1 0 ··o~ 37° · Towets 27' 30" 30' ·® 5 i 3 MAP4A -'--=,. STUTTS CREEK - WHITES CREEK TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE '° • ./_. J Segment 4 1· ~ // = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

•11 //

I"' 0

1000 0 2000 3000 4000 EI::::::E3:::::::Er::::::E=::E======5 O !~~CT~

65 76° 15°

Segment 4 . f-.~ I .i /. / ~ I I \° %oli&ht • i \) 4 t ,!£;, • :\ )\ ~ I ~ / • ·-r· J : \ t.,· • ·+ .. 37° Radii> .'o U I \ · Towets 27' 0 • •' • 30 I I -~' • 5 FASTLAND Low Shore SHORE • Beach :-:-·.··.· =·:. :- =·: •:.;. :-;.; Fringe Marsh Tiil 111111 lrllfll lllll II • Extensive Marsh //////////// Embayed Marsh ~ NEARSHORE lntermea1ate 0 0 0 0 • Wide I ------='------.,,. • • -- I ~"'"''3 • ~,,.,,.,,.,,~"':"'- •11 • " ', n) 0

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

.5 0 I KILOMETER C1__(L__.LJ..!i__....Ll~~1J1.~'!L£~~~__l___ _L ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------ll~~q• 76° 15 1

67 76° 15'

Segment 4 OWNERSHIP Private 1 USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged j Wooded w EROSION ''-' "' 1 I 37° 1 37° 27 27' 11 30 30 0 5 I I J v

I" 0

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ======.5 0 l KILOMETER

76° 15 1

69 0 l 2 E------3 E------3 FEET 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1000 0 1000 2000 Fl Fl Fl 1 KILOMETER 5 0 B~H~~B;:cJ- :°: TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE J\ Segment 5 I \ \ I // = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

.. J y ~.

\- -\ "' ·.. \ \ ·. \ \ . \

22 30"

0Light 6 0

t 3000 4000 5000 1000 0 1000 2000 E3 E3 H 1 ~ 0 FA F3 Fd E-3 E--3 G • MAP 58 • • • • • ·: 5 ·::.. . ••.. • :.:· -::•' :.: . Low Shore SHORE Beach :-:-·.. ·.-:-:-:- :- : ·:·:-:-:-: Fringe Marsh TII II II 11111111111111111 Extensive Marsh //////////// • Embayed Marsh ~ NEARS HORE Intermediate 0 0 Wide .~j_ ~ _.,\

\- .\-."' ·. \ \ ·. ·.. \ \ ·. . \ • •

37° 22 • 30" ,, • •'·:· ..•' •: • • 0

0Light 0 0 6 .,.. 11'

0 7000 f[[T t 3000 4000 5000 ~ 1000 0 1000 2000 I a::::a:;e 1 KILOMET[M I 5 0 E3 F3 F3 F3 Fit 0 ..,.. MAP SC ~1-_-_~-1. ··· ' 7f'~ f--L:_: .> .... ~ BETHEL BEACH ~ ... ·· · ·-/ ... FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION ~.....

Agricultural Recreational Residential Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Severe Slight or No Change ' ·--J '· \ ~-~-·

\- ~ "' ·. \ \. ·.. . \ \ ·. . \'

22 30"

76° 15' ---J I I I ' '-,1-I / I I I

37° 20' 6

MAP6A NEW POINT COMFORT TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Segments 6, 7 (partial)

// New Point = Segment Boundary Comfort ··.,.,, / = Subsegment Boundary .. .,,,U&hthouse

l ·•t E=3=::::::::E==3:=:::E===l"l":::::::====3:=:::E==3:::=::E0=::=:=:=:===:=:=:==:=:==:==:==:==:======31 MILE 1000 o. 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

E3::::E3:=EiS=E==:::E3::::iOE:E=E=E=E===c==cE=E===c====ll KILOMETER

76° 17' 3011 -.,-,r- 1 I . 0 r~'~ .. ~ .. ~~9 I I '@ • ~"'"'"'"'~ // // // II // // // • •

• '¥LiJht

• • • 37° 20 • • 6 • • 0 0 0 •

0 O· • 7 0

0 . :• . .·.~· MAP68 ....:: :, . NEW POINT COMFORT . :• 0 SHORELANDS TYPES .·,f·... Segments 6, 7 (partial) ...... ~:· 0 FASTLAND -~·' Low Shore SHORE 0 • Beach ····· ·····················. Fringe Marsh m n1111m111111111111 0 Extensive Marsh //////////// Embayed Marsh ~ 0 • NEARSHORE Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide ••• •

5000 6000 7000 FEET.

=====5=====0E======31 KILOMETER

76°11' 3011 '-'-,1- I I I

37° 20· 6

7 MAP6C NEW POINT COMFORT FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 6, 7 (partial) USE Agricultural A Commercial C Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Severe Severe, Critical Slight or No Change No Symbo·1

t 0

1000 0. 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

1 5 0 E-3 E-33=:::E'==E-3==:=::E:=:=:====c:=:=:=:===31 .. E-3 E-3 E-3 KILOMETER

76°17' 30" ?t• 111 IO" \ .

-·· -···--·

...... _....:

)

est'1ut nint

CD \.N 9

MAP7A MOUTH OF EAST RIVER TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE

Segments 7, 8, 9 (partial)

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

!; 0 ea E3 E3 E3 E3

11• zz' so" .,,. 22' 30" \ . emr1Waylanti,

_ .. -

37° 37° 22° 22 3000 30"

0 9 0 0

• • 0 8 0 MAP78 0 MOUTH OF EAST RIVER SHORELANDS TYPES 0 I Segments 7, 8, 9 (partial) I 0 ri~ ...... I FASTLAND I 0 I @) Low Shore ,f=~~""~~ SHORE 0 " II" fl" Fringe Marsh Tll IIll 11111111111111111 I/ 0 II Extensive Marsh ///////////'l Embayed Marsh ~ NEARSHORE 7 • Narrow 0-0-0-0 • Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide • •••• •

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET ======r::::E======~0 I KILOMETER ,,0 22' so" \ .

. -···-··

MAP7C MOUTH OF EAST RIVER FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 7, 8, 9 (partial) USE Agricultural A Commercial C Residential RS OWNERSHIP 7 Private 1 EROSION Severe Slight or No Change No Symbol

j E==1======~2c::::======::::::io======'======31MrLE 1000E3:::::ECE3:::=====5. 0 1000 :==3:===o======:::i 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET E3:=:E3=:::E======I KILOMETER n• 22' 30"

0 0 i i111 7G80 P8ET I,_ 0 JODI) 2000 3000 4000 5UICI H H H .5 0 1 KILOfllEll!R MAP8A e- F3 F3 ea F3

Segments 8, 9 (partial)

= Segment Boundary = Subsegment Boundary ,.....__. --... I

I' I "·....!..._ .... ···--···--···---

2'' (\\J~ '1' 9 (') 13 CemflW~land 76° 22' 30"

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET MAP88 JOIID 0 1000 I A A A I .!> 0 E3 E3 E3 ea ea HEAD OF EAST RIVER SHORELANDS TYPES Segments 8, 9 (partial)

FASTLAND Low Shore SHORE Fringe Marsh TII II II IIII II IIII IIII II I Embayed Marsh ~ NEARSHORE Narrow

.. ·--- -

r;;, \J "t. fl', 9 ~ ..,.. Cemn Wayland

91 0 0 i 2000 3000 3 I I 4 I J i/

A RS (\ 1

VI I

I' I .. --1...___. ----- ··------.

9 ()

760 22' 30"

93 IL 0 e---J F---3 4000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 H H H &------ii-+ ii 1 5 0 E:i=:l=B F-3 F3 E-3 MAP9A :t + NORTH RIVER J.-1'.o • /\ 0 -i~~~r T9~0GRAPHY AND CULTURE ,, ,, I U- ":,,., ii; i/-- Segment 9 \ "'-"'::

// = Segment Boundary '1• I / = Subsegment Boundary 1'~ ,

··~

i 9,- L -( I"" I

I 1 CJ I / / I I ,o ~ /,,. ,,, I \ '·\' \ \..0 \Jl \ '\ I { I :-...... __ N " 0 .R T .II ------.... \ 9

\ \ .I I i;6

\ \ \ \ \ \ 10-, • -~-. I nZion !\I \., ';,:)

\I \ ,. Point l l I I l MtLE ·~·._ 0 I l '\-··-···~ ksc=:::E:S3'.:::=:::EsJ=:::i====le'=~C=:=;===:4000:;;;c==~5000~==~6000;;~==;7000:~.F-j FF-3 ~FE~E~T===l ,r i 1000 2000 Ii 1000 0 3000 A A A I KILOMETER I 5 0 ~=~:=E=!==e::E======E::l=:..E:::=i F3 F-i E--3 MAP9B ( NORTH RIVER ()

~~·.. \~~

~~'\\(. {' ,si \ '~~

~~0 o-o R 1' -0--0-0" .If ------,o ------~-,\ 9 \ .I I ~~~

~~1--..o~~

~~FASTLAND -< Low Shore~~

~~SHORE ~ Fringe Marsh 111111111111111111111111 \ Embayed Marsh ~ ';,:) 0 I NEARS HORE \ \ 0-0-0-0 I 0 0 0 0 \ I h I I 0 0 MAP9C (~~

~~USE Agricultural A Residential RS OWNERSHIP Private ! 1 1 ~ EROSION Slight or No Chan.ge CJ~~

~~i 4.--- _L -C --- I"'" I { I II oi _,./ '\ II / I I 'fi\___\0 ~ / /) ' .@) ' \ I \ \ '\ I~~

~~' ...... _.N 0 R 37° ' 1' 25 .If ------~---\ 9~~

~~\.I I~~

~~Zion ':ic I \ I \ I~~

~~I I /~~