W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1979

Shoreline Situation Report King George and Caroline Counties

Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Nancy M. Strum Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Carl H. Hobbs III 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 Sustainability Commons

Recommended Citation Morgan, L. C., Owen, D. W., Strum, N. M., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1979) Shoreline Situation Report King George and Caroline Counties. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 165. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5J43V

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 KING GEORGE AND CAROLINE COUNTIES

Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant Nos. 04-8-M01-309 and 03-4-043-357

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 165 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 Shoreline Situation Report KING GEORGE AND CAROLINE COUNTIES ·_.;,

-Prepared by: Lynne C. Morgan Dennis W. Owen Nancy M. Sturm

Project- Supervisors~

Robert J. Byrne Carl H: Hobbs, Ill

Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant Nos. 04-8-M01-309 and 03-4-043-357

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 165 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE PAGE

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland Components 5 FIGURE 2: Marsh TYPes 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 3: TYPical River Meander .11 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4: Near Lambs Creek 13 FIGURE 5: King George Point 13 FIGURE 6: North of King George Point 13 FIGURE 7: Near Mouth Upper Machodoc Creek 13 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 8: Mathias Point Neck 14 FIGURE 9: Mathias Point 14 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 10: Belvedere Beach 14 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 11: Bull Bluff 14 FIGURE 12: Portobago Bay 15 FIGURE 13: Port Royal 15 FIGURE 14: East of Moons Mount Wharf 15 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF CAROLINE AND FIGURE 15: Overview of Skinkers Neck 15 KING GEORGE COUNTIES 9

3.1 The Sho.relands of Caroline and King George Counties 10 3.2 Shore Erosion Situation 11 TABLE lA: King George County Shorelands Physiography 23 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 12 TABLE lB: Caroline County Shorelands Physiography 24 TABLE 2A: King George County Subsegment Sunnnaries 26 TABLE 2B: Caroline County Subsegment Summaries 28

CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF CAROLINE AND KING GEORGE COUNTIES 25

4,, 1 Segment and Subsegment Sunnnaries 26 MAPS lA-D: King George and Caroline Counties Sunnnary Maps 16 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions MAPS 2A-C: Portobago Bay 39 Segment KG-1 29 MAPS 3A-C: Port Royal 42 Segment KG-2 31 MAPS 4A-C: Skinkers Neck 45 Segment KG-3 32 MAPS 5A-C: Moss Neck 48 Segment KG-4 33 MAPS 6A-C: Rosier Creek 51 Segment KG-5 34 MAPS 7A-C: Upper Machodoc Creek 54 Segment KG-6 35 MAPS 8A-C: Mathias Point Neck 57 Segment CA-1 36 MAPS 9A-C: Metomkin Point 60 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 39 MAPS lOA-C: Somerset Beach 63 MAPS llA-C: Potomac Creek 66 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1 .. CHAPTER 1 .. The role of planners and managers is to optimize 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGE:MENTS the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize INTRODUCTION the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur­ This report has been prepared and published thermore, once a particular use has been decided with funds provided to the Commonwealth by the upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oc­ planners and the users want that selected use to eanic and Atmospheric Administration, grant num­ 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS operate in the most effective manner. A park plan­ ber 04-7-158-44041. The Shoreline Situation Re­ ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful­ port series was originally developed in the Wet­ It is the objective of this report to supply an fill the design most efficiently. We hope that the lands/Edges Program of the Chesapeake Research assessment, and at least a partial integration, of results of our work are useful to the planner in Consortium, Inc., as supported by the Research those important shoreland parameters and character­ designing the beach by pointing out the technical Applied to National Needs (RANN) program of the istics which will aid the planners and the managers feasibility of altering or enhancing the present National Science Foundation. The completion of of the shorelands in making the best decisions for configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, if this report would have been impossible without the utilization of this limited and very valuable the use were a residential development, we would the expert services of Beth Marshall, who typed resource. The report gives particular attention to hope our work would be useful in specifying the several drafts of the manuscript, Bill Jenkins the problem of shore erosion and to recommendations shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses and Ken Thornberry, who prepared the photographs, concerning the alleviation of the impact of this likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In and Sam White, who piloted the aircraft on the problem. In addition, we have tried to include in summary our objective is to provide a useful tool many photo acquisition and reconnaissance flights. our assessment a discussion of those factors which for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, Also we thank the numerous other persons who, might significantly limit development of the shore­ the shorelands of the Commonwealth. through their direct aid, criticisms, and sug­ line and, in some instances, a discussion of some gestions, have assisted our work. of the potential or alternate uses of the shoreline, Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or particularly with respect to recreational use, since informally, at all levels from the private owner such information could aid potential users in the of shoreland property to county governments, to perception of a segment -0f the shoreline. planning districts and to the state and fed·eral agency level. We feel our results will be useful The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep­ at all these levels. Since the most basic level aration of the report is that the use of shorelands of comprehensive p Lanning and zoning is at the should be planned rather than haphazardly developed county or city level, we have executed our report in response to the short term pressures and inter­ on that level although we realize some of the in­ ests. Careful planning could reduce the conflicts formation may be most useful at a higher govern­ which may be expected to arise between competing mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has interests. Shoreland utilization in many areas of traditionally chosen to place as much as possible, the country, and indeed in. some places in Virginia, the regulatory decision processes at the county has proceeded in a manner such that the very ele­ level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter ments which attracted people to the shore have been 2.1, Title 6.2.1, Code of Virginia), for example, destroyed by the lack of planning and forethought. provides for the establishment of County Boards to act on applications for alterations of wetlands. The major man-induced uses of the shorelands Thus, our focus at the county level is intended to are: interface with and to support the existing or p:end­ ing county regulatory mechanisms concerning activi­ Residential, commercial, or industrial ties in the shorelands zone. development Recreation Transportation Waste disposal Extraction of living and non-living resources

Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve various ecological functions.

2 CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered

3 . CHAPTER 2 of the report since some users' needs will ade­ Definitions: quately be met with the summary overview of the Shore Zone APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED county while others will require the detailed dis­ cussion of particular subsegments. This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is a buffer zone between the water body and the fast­ 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED break in slope between the relatively steeper In the preparation of this report the authors IN THE STUDY shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The utilized existing infonnation wherever possible. approximate landward limit is a contour line rep­ For example, for such elements as water quality The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz­ report are listed below followed by a discussion range above mean low water (refer to Figure 1). ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, of our treatment of each. In operation with topographic maps the inner or federal agencies. Much of the desired infonna­ a) Shorelands physiographic classification fringe of the marsh symbols is taken as the land­ tion, particularly with respect to erosional char­ b) Shorelands use classification ward limit. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not c) Shorelands ownership classification available, so we perfonned the field work and de­ d) Zoning The physiographic character of the marshes has veloped classification schemes. In order to ana­ e) Water quality also been separated into three types (see Figure lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 g) Limitations to shore use and potential feet in width and which runs in a band parallel to mm photography. "We photographed the entire shore­ or alternate shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex­ line of each county and cataloged the slides for h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or easy access at VIMS, where they remain available i) Flood hazard levels river. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma­ j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish a reentrant or drowned creek valley. The purpose terials, along with existing conventional aerial grounds in delineating these marsh types is that the ef­ photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, k) Beach quality fectiveness of the various functions of the marsh for the desired elements. We conducted field in­ will, in part, be determined by type of exposure spection over much of the shoreline, particularly a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for at those locations where office analysis left example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi­ The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, on tional photographs along with the field visits to /be considered as being composed of three inter­ the other hand, is likely a more efficient trans­ document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the porter of detritus and other food chain materials shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification due to its greater drainage density than an em­ The basic shoreline unit considered is called based on these three elements has been devised so bayed marsh. The central point is that planners, a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred that the types for each of the three elements por­ in the light of ongoing and future research, will feet to several thousand feet in length. The end trayed side by side on a map may provide the op­ desire to weight various functions of marshes and points of the subsegments were generally chosen portunity to examine joint relationships among the the physiographic delineation aids their decision on physiographic consideration such as changes in elements. As an exarr~le, the application of the making by denoting where the various types exist. the character of erosion or deposition. In those system pennits the user to determine miles of high The classification used is: cases where a radical change in land use occurred, bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the shore Beach the point of change was taken as a boundary point zone. Marsh of the subsegment. Segments are groups of sub­ Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width segments. The boundaries for segments also""""were For each subsegment there are two length mea­ along shores selected on physiographic units such as necks or surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore­ Extensive i:narsh peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley the county itself is considered as a sum of shore­ interface lengths differ most when the shore zone or reentrant line segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment Artificially stabilized maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore The format of presentation in the report fol­ interface when it differs from the shoreline. The Fastland Zone lows a sequence from general summary statements fastland-shore interface length is the base for for the county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment the fastland statistics. The zone extending from the landward limit of summaries and finally detailed descriptions and the shore zone is tenned the fastland. The fast­ maps for each subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose land is relatively stable and is the site of most in choosing this fo:pnat was to allow selective use material development or construction. The

4 physiographic classification of the fastland is purposes: b) Shorelands Use Classification based upon the average slope of the land within Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located< 400 400 feet (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. yards from shore _Fastland Zone'' The general classification is: Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; 1,400 yards from shore Residential with or without cliff Wide, 12-ft. (3. 7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of from shore Includes all forms of residential use with the relief; with or without cliff exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of Subclasses: with or without bars In general, a residential area consists of four relief; with or without cliff with or without tidal flats or more residential buildings adjacent to one High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; with or without submerged another. Schools, churches, and isolated busi­ with or without cliff. vegetation nesses may be included in a residential area. Two specially classified exceptions are sand dunes and areas of artificial fill. Commercial Nearshore Zone Includes buildings, parking areas, and other The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone land directly related to retail and wholesale to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller trade and business. This category includes small tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref­ industry and other anomalous areas within the erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the . 4--FASTLANo---+sHORal« NEARS HORE----~------+ general commercial context. Marinas are consid­ I I maximum depth of significant sand transport by I I ered commercial shore use. waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis­ I I tinct drop-off into the river channels begins ,»;>>,7.~I.I roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone I ---L------MLW+I.IS Tide Rant, Industrial ------MLW · includes any tidal flats. 1 -12 Includes all industrial and associated areas. The class limits for the nearshore zone classi­ Figure 1 Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, fications were chosen following a simple statisti­ power plants, railyards. cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater A profile of the three shoralands types. contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines Governmental of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahan­ nock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard de­ Includes lands whose usage is specifically viations for each of the separate regions and for controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern­ the entire combined system were calculated and mental organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort compared. Although the distributions were non­ FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE Story. Where applicable, the Governmental use normal, they were generally comparable, allowing MARSH MARSH MARSH category is modified to indicate the specific the data for the entire combined system to deter­ character of the use, e.g., residential, direct mine the class limits. military, and so forth.

.,, .. ,,1 .,u,. ·"'· The calculated ·mean was 919 yards with a stand­ ard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to Recreational and Other Public Open Spaces determine general, serviceable class limits, these calcula.ted numbers were rounded to. 900 and 1,000 FASTLAND FASTLAND Includes designated outdoor recreation lands yards respectively. The class limits were set at and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf half the standard·deviation (500 yards) each side courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public of the mean .. Using this proce4ure a narrow near­ Figure 2 beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width~ interme­ diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. A plan view of the three marsh types. Preserved The fo_llowing definitions have no legal signif­ icance and.were constructed for our classification Includes lands preserved or regulated for

5 environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild­ federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli­ f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation cation of the classification is restricted to grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel­ fastlands alone since the Virginia fastlands The following ratings are used for shore opment. ownership extends to mean low water. All bottoms erosion: below mean low water are in State ownership. slight or none - less than 1 foot per year moderate - 1 to 3 feet per year Agricultural severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year d) Water Quality The locations with moderate and severe ratings Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and other are further specified as being critical or non­ agricultural areas. The water quality sections of this report are critical. The erosion is considered critic"ar-if based upon data abstracted from Virginia State buildings, roads, or other such structures are Water Control Board's publication Water Quality endangered. Unmanaged Standards (November, 1974) and Water Quality Inventory (305 (b) Report) (April, 1976). The degree of erosion was determined by several Includes all open or wooded lands not included means. In most locations the long term trend was in other classifications: Additionally, where applicable, Virginia Bu­ determined using map comparisons of shoreline po­ a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; reau of Shellfish Sanitation data is used to as­ sitions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In less than 40% tree cover. sign ratings of satisfactory, intermediate, or addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. unsatisfactory. These ratings are defined pri­ and recent years were utilized for an assessment The shoreland use classification applies to the marily in regard to number of coliform bacteria. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those general usage of the fastland area to an arbitrary For a rating of satisfactory the maximum limit is areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec­ distance of half mile from the shore or beach zone an MPN (Most Probable Number) of 70 per 100 ml. tions and interviews were held with local inhab­ or to some less distant, logical barrier. In The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of itants. multi-usage areas one must make a subjective se­ 23. Usually any count above these limits results lection as to the primary or controlling type of in an unsatisfactory rating, and, from the Bu­ The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated usage. For simplicity and convenience, managed reau's standpoint, results in restricting the as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti­ woodlands are classified as "unmanaged, wooded" waters from the taking of shellfish for direct tive visits were made to monitor the effective­ areas. sale to the consumer. ness of recent installations. In instances where existing structures are inadequate, we have given There are instances however, when the total recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur­ Shore Zone coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN thermore, recommendations are given for defenses does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac­ in those areas where none currently exist. The Bathing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating primary emphasis is placed on expected effective­ Boat launching may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be ness with secondary consideration to cost. Bird watching permitted to remain open pending an improvement in Waterfowl hunting conditions. g) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or Although the shellfish standards are somewhat Alternate Shore Uses Nearshore Zone more stringent than most of the other water quality, standards, they are included because of the eco­ In this section we point out specific factors Pound net fishing nomic and ecological impacts of shellfish ground which may impose significant limits on the type Shellfishing closures. Special care should be taken not to en­ or extent of shoreline development. This may Sport fishing danger the water quality in existing "satisfactory" result in a restatement of other factors from Extraction of non-living resources areas. elsewhere in the report, e.g., flood hazard or Boating erosion, or this may be a discussion of some Water sports other factor pertaining to the particular area. e) Zoning Also we have placed particular attention on c) Shorelands Ownership Classification In cases where zoning regulations have been the recreational potential of the shore zone. established the existing information pertaining The possible development of artificial beach, The shorelands ownership classification used to the shorelands has been included in the re­ erosion protection, etc., influence the evalua­ has two main subdivisions, private and governmen­ port. tion of an area's potential. Similarly, poten­ tal, with the governmental further divided into tial alternate shore uses are occasionally noted.

6 h) Distribution of Marshes November, 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar reports. Since the condemnation The acreage and physiographic type of the areas change with time they are not to be taken marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti­ as definitive. However, some insight to the mates of acreages were obtained from topographic conditions at the date of the report are avail­ maps and should be considered only as approxima­ able by a comparison between the shellfish tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands grounds maps and the water quality maps for are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of which water quality standards for shellfish Marine Science under the authorization of the Vir­ were used. ginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 62.1- 13.4). These surveys include detailed acreages of the grass species composition within individual k) Beach Quality marsh systems. In Shoreline Situation Reports of counties that have had marsh inventories, the Beach quality is a subjective judgment based marsh rtumber is indicated, thus allowing the user upon considerations such as the nature of the of the Shoreline Situation Report to key back to beach material, the length and width of the beach the formal marsh inventory for additional data. area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the The independent material in this report is pro­ beach setting. vided to indicate the physiographic type of marsh land and to serve as a rough guide to marsh dis­ tribution~ pending a formal inventory .. Additional information on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other VIMS publications;

i) Flood Hazard Levels

The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in­ complete. However, the United States Army Corps of Enginners has prepared reports for a number of localities which were used in this report. Two tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is that flood with an average recurrence time of about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods indicates it to have an elevation of approximately -8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake· Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is established for land planning-purposes which is placed at the highest probable flood level.

j) Shellfish Leases and -Public·Grounds

The data in this report show the leased and public shellfish grounds as ·portrayed in the Vir­ ginia State Water Control Board publication '' Shellfish growing ·areas iri the Commonwealth of Virginia: Public, leased and condemned,"

7 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation

9 GHAPTER3 nature of the county. Ninety-nine percent of the Flooding is not generally a problem along this shorelands are either used for agriculture, are section of the Rappahannock River, as the shore­ PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF wooded, or are unused open areas. Residential, lands are usually of sufficient height to with­ CAROLINE AND KING GEORGE COUNTIES recreational, and industrial concerns account for stand high water. The only areas which are sus­ only one percent of the shorelands of Caroline ceptible to flooding are Goat Island and the fast­ County. land behind Cleve Marsh. No structures are endan­ 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF CAROLINE AND KING GEORGE gered by floods, COUNTIES Caroline County is located near the fall line of the Rappahannock River. As the river here is gen­ As stated in Section 3.11, this section of the The Rappahannock River forms a common boundary erally quite narrow, there are no significant Rappahannock River does not meet the State Water between Caroline and King George Counties. Caro­ fetches which affect the shorelands. The shore­ Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. line is bounded by Spotsylvania County to the west, lands of the county are not susceptible to severe Essex County to the east, and the Rappahannock Riv­ tidal flooding and no structures are endangered, er to the north. King George is bounded by the 3.13 KING GEORGE COUNTY SHORELINE SITUATION­ Rappahannock River to the south, Westmoreland Coun­ This section of the Rappahannock River has poor POTOMAC RIVER ty to the east, Stafford County to the west, and water quality, according to the State Water Control the Potomac River to the north. For the purposes Board's 305(b)(l)(B) Report. Degradation of this The Potomac River portion of King George County of this report, the two counties are divided into part of the river is mainly due to several upstream (Segments KG-2 thru 6) contains 76.5 measured miles three sections: discharges in the Fredericksburg area. Also, the of shoreline and 103.3 measured miles of fastland. river receives direct discharges from several sand The shorelands physiography of this section of the 1) Caroline County - the southern bank of the and gravel operations. According to the report, county contrasts sharply with that of the Rappahan­ Rappahannock River, this section of the Rappahannock River is not ex­ nock River. Fifty-nine percent of the shorelands 2) King George County - the northern bank of pected to meet water quality standards for quite are low shore, thirty percent moderately low shore, the Rappahannock River, and some time. and only eleven percent either moderate!~ high or 3) King George County - the southern bank of high shore. Bluffs account for eleven percent of the Potomac River. the total shoreland's measurement. Seven percent 3.12 KING GEORGE COUNTY SHORELINE SITUATION - of the shoreline is artificially stabilized and Since both counties share basically the same sec­ RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER twenty-eight percent is beach. The remaining tion of the Rappahannock River, several nearshore sixty-five percent of the shoreline is marsh, parameters are combined in this chapter. The Rappahannock River portion of King George either fringe, embayed, or extensive. Eight per­ County contains 54.8 measured miles of shoreline, cent of the nearshore is narrow, twelve percent is 56.8 measured miles of fastland, The fastland intermediate, and fourteen percent is wide. The 3.11 CAROLINE COUNTY SHORELINE SITUATION - statistics compare closely with those of Caroline remaining sixty-six percent of the shoreline is RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER County. Thirty-seven percent of the shorelands located along several tributary creeks; namely are low shore, forty percent moderately low shore, Rosier, Upper Machodoc, Gambo, Chotank, and Poto­ There are 42.6 miles of measured shoreline along and the remaining twenty-three percent either mod­ mac Creek. These creeks are too narrow and shal­ the Rappahannock River in Caroline County. The erately high or high shore. Six percent of the low for classification. county contains 45.4 miles of fastland. The shore­ shorelands are bluff areas. Marshes comprise lands range from low shore to high shore with ninety-nine percent of the shoreline, with forty­ The presence of the military facility at Dahl­ bluff, with approximately one-third of the shore­ nine percent being fringe marsh and fifty percent gren has a major impact on the use statistics of lands being low shore, one-third moderately low either embayed or extensive marsh. One percent of this section of the county. The Dahlgren Weapons shore, and the other third divided between moder­ the shoreline is beach and less than one percent Laboratory, located at the mouth of Upper Machodoc ately high and high shore. Twenty-one percent of is artificially stabilized. Fifty-six percent of Creek, controls twenty-four percent of the shore­ the shorelands are bluffed. Marshes, including the shoreline directly borders the river, the re­ lands. The laboratory is largely responsible for fringe, embayed, and extensive marshes, comprise maining shoreline being found in several tributary the residential buildup on nearby Williams Creek. ninety-six percent of the shoreline. The other creeks. Residential development accounts for seven percent four percent of the shoreline is beach, with less of the Potomac River shoreline in King George than one percent artificially stabilized. Sixty­ As in Caroline County, this section-of King County. Commercial, industrial, and recreational nine percent of the shoreline borders on the Rap­ George County remains predominantly rural, with use amount to only two percent of the shorelands. pahannock River, the rest of the shoreline being less than one percent of the shorelands being used The remaining sixty-seven percent of the shore­ located on various tributary and marsh creeks. for industrial or residential purposes. Fifty­ lands are either wooded, unmanaged open areas, or four percent of the shorelands are used for agri­ are used for agriculture. The use of the shorelands reflects the rural culture.

10 Although fifty-nine percent of the shorelands are 3.2 SHORE EROSION SITUATION The King George section of the Rappahannock Riv­ classified as low shore, elevations generally reach er is subject to many of the same erosive-forces as 10 to 20 feet relatively near the shore. Flooding, Erosion, and its severity, is dependent upon sev­ the Caroline shoreline. However, King George Coun­ therefore, is not considered to_be a critical prob­ eral variables, any number of which can be involved ty is on the north bank of the river, Caroline lem for the area. No structures are endangered by in the loss of shorelands in any particular area. County is on the south bank. Since strong winds high water. In the Chesapeake Bay system, storm induced waves are predominantly from the northwest and northeast, are a major cause of shoreline retreat. The height the south bank of the river generally has more ero­ The main stream of the Potomac River is owned by and growth of waves is dependent upon four major sion than the north bank. The only significant Maryland, thus no water quality data is presented. factors: the overwater distance across which the erosion in King George County is from Greenlow The tributary creeks, owned by Virginia, are mostly wind blows (the fetch), the velocity of the wind, Wharf to Jetts Creek, which has an average histori­ closed to the taking of shellfish. Small areas at the duration of time that the wind blows, and the cal erosion rate of 1.1 feet per year. A section the mouth of Rosier and Upper Machodoc Creeks are depth of the water. The width of the water body is of road west of Nanzatico Bay is endangered by con­ open to the taking of shellfish. also important in determining erosion patterns for tinued erosion. Another road Just north of Corbins a given area. Neck is on a 40-foot bluff and would be endangered by continued erosion. Another important cause of erosion is downhill rain runoff. Rain runoff erosion affects bluff areas along the shoreline, loosening surface sedi­ ments and usually causing the cliff face to slump. If the bluff is wooded, the erosion is often com­ pounded. The surface erosion can eventually under­ mine trees, causing them to fall. The trees carry with them large amounts of sediments trapped by 1 their root systems.

A third cause of erosion prevalent in narrow up­ stream sections is meander erosion. In narrow, me­ andering channels, the current is fastest on the outside of the meanders and is much less on the in­ side. As a result, the outside bends erode while the inside bends accrete. Figure 3 is a drawing of a typical river meander.

3.21 RAPPAHANNOCK,RIVER

Erosion along this section of the Rappahannock River is generally not a critical problem. The river this far toward the head is a relatively low energy water body and is fairly narrow (from less • Accretion than 0.2 nautical miles at Skinkers Neck to approx­ imately 0.8 nautical miles near Port Royal. Nanza­ oErosion tico and Portabago Bays are quite wide.). The only active erosion forces along this section of the Rap­ f Current Flow pahannock River are currents in the meanders and downhill rain runoff. In Caroline County, two hun­ dred feet of wooden bulkhead north of Portobago Bay have been flanked and are now ineffe.ctive. One FIGURE 3. A TYPICAL RIVER MEANDER road opposite Goat Island is very close to the erod­ ing shoreline and is· endangered by continued shore­ line retreat. Some minor erosion is occurring on the outside of meanders, with accompanying accretion on the inside bends.

11 3.22 POTOMAC RIVER 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS

Unlike the Rappahannock River, the Potomac River Caroline and King George Counties are very simi­ along King George County's shoreline is still rela­ lar, in that they both are still rural. There are tively wide, allowing significant fetches to affect no major population centers along the shorelines several areas. Historical erosion data is available of either county. The only center of formal land for the river-fronting shoreline from Mathias Point use in either county is the Dahlgren area in King west to the county line. According to Byrne and An­ George, which is a military weapons laboratory. derson (1977, Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Vir­ The town of Dahlgren borders the base. Elsewhere, ginia, Special Report Number 111 in Applied Marine there are several small sections of shoreline used Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute for residential purposes. (Less than one percent of Marine Science, 102 pages), King George County of Caroline and five percent of King George are has lost an average of 1.5 feet per year (averaged used for residential purposes,) The remaining over the last century), or a net shoreline loss of shorelands in both counties are either used for 5,226,000 cubic yards of material. However, no agriculture or are unused. There is little indus­ structures are endangered by erosion. trial or commercial development.

Although the Potomac River is fairly wide in Given the lack of present development, either King George County, longest fetches are from the residential, industrial, or commercial, there southeast or the northwest. Although there is some seems to be little demand to develop the shore­ chronic erosion caused by wind waves and wind driven line. Also, ongoing erosion along much of the current, much of the erosion is due to simple down­ shorelands, though currently minor, could be a slope weathering of the shoreline and to currents in serious problem should development occur. the river bends.

The many bluffs along the shoreline in King George ·county are very susceptible to erosion from rain runoff. These bluffs, many with elevations in excess of 100 feet, are generally unstable shore­ line·features.

Approximately 5.3 miles of shoreline are artifi­ cially stabilized in King George County. The struc­ tures vary from rubble riprap, to wooden bulkhead, to concrete culverts placed to act like bulkhead. Groins have been employed in several areas, either by themselves or in conjunction with bulkhead, in an effort to re-establish buffer beaches in front of residences. Most structures appear to be effec­ tive.

For several portions of the Potomac River in King George not studied by Byrne and Anderson (1977), a comparison of recent (1967 base) topographic maps and 1937 photographs indicated there was little change in the erosion reg.ime. Although all the areas spot checked had erosion, none suffered se­ vere erosion and no structures appeared'to be en­ dangered.

12 FIGURE 4: Gravel pit near Lambs Creek, Subsegment KG ­ lC. This is one of the few industrial sites along the Rappahannock River in King George County.

FIGURE 5: King George Point, Segment KG-2. The bluff area in front of the house has riprap protecting the toe. Erosion is continuing along the bluff area to the ·right of the riprap.

FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6: North of King George Point, Segment KG-2. The bluffs are unstable, as wave runup and downhill rain runoff continue to erode the shoreline. As the bluffs front agricultural l ands , the cost of artifi­ cial stabil ization here would probably be prohibitive.

FIGURE 7: Near the mouth of Upper Machodoc Creek, Seg­ ment KG-3. This area is part of the Dahlgren Weapons Laboratory. The sand spit in this photo has probably formed due to a submerged obstruction, such as an out­ fall pipe.

FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7

13 FIGURE 8: Mathias Point Neck, Segment KG-4. Part of the shoreline is bulkhead with several fairly effec­ tive groins. Notice the 1fillets of sand trapped by the structures.

FIG~E 9: Mathias Point, Segment · KG-4. The structure at the base of the eroding bluff is made of vertically placed concrete culverts. It is of little use at pro­ tecting the toe of the cliff.

FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10: Belvedere Beach, Segment KG-6 . This facili­ ty appears to be abandoned. Notice the erosion behind the failed bulkhead directly in front· of the large build­ ing .

FIGURE 11 : Bull Bluff, Segment KG-6. This area has rub­ ble acting as riprap at the base of the bluffs.

FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11

14 FIGURE 12: Along Portoba~o Bay, Subsegment CA-lA. These bluffs fronting the agricultural area are con­ tinuing to erode due to downhill rain runoff.

FIGURE 13: Port Royal, Subsegment CA- lA. This is the largest residential area along the Rappahannock River in Carol ine County.

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 14: Bluffs east of Moons Mount Wharf, Subseg­ ment CA- lB. Typical view of the hi gh bl uff areas along this section of the Rappahannock River.

FIGURE 15: Skinkers Neck overview, Subsegment CA-lC . The marsh areas should be protected.

FIGUR E 14 FIGURE 15

15 n° 02' 30"

MAP 1A KG-4 KING GEORGE AND CAROLINE COUNTIES SUBSEGMENT AND MAP LOCATIONS KING GEORGE COUNTY KG-IA BRISTOL MINE RUN.JAMES MADISON BRIO GE KG-1 B JAMES MADISON BRIDGE-HOP YARD LANDING KG-5 KG-IC HOP YARD LANDING. MUDDY CREEK KG-2 ROSIER CREEK -BABER POINT KG-3 UPPER MACHODOC CREEK KG -4 UPPER MACHODOC CREEK-MATHIAS POINT KG-5 MATHIAS POINT-METOMKIN POINT KG - 6 METOMKIN PO INT-BLACK SWAMP BRANCH CAROLINE COUNTY CA-I A PORTOBAGO BAY .JAMES MADISON BRIDGE KG-6 CA-IB JAMES MADISON BRIDGE-WHITE MARSH MAP8 CA-IC WHITE MARSH- COUNTY LINE KG-3

) ICING GEORGE COUNTY / " KG-1C MAP 11 MAP 10

KG-2

MAP 6 KG-18 1 WESTIIOM:U,ND J COUNTY

I O I !a.=- I CAIIOLINE COUNTY SCALE IN MILES

RAPPAHANNOCK MAP 3 RIVER

COUNTY 77° 02' 30"

16 77 02' 3011 MAP KG-18 SHORE Beach KG-4 KING GEORGE COUNTY Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 SHORELANDS TYPES Extensive Marsh //////////ll FASTLAND Embayed Marsh ~ 0 Low Shore Artificially Stabilized KG-5 Low Shore NEARSHORE 0 38° with Bluff Narrow 0-0-0-0 390 22' Moderately Low Shore I I u I I Intermediate 0 0 0 0 • 22' 3011 ~· Moderately Low Shore Wide 0 .. with Bluff I I II I •••• ,.-­ • • KG-6 ... _.J Moderately High Shore • A 6 4 o-O_,:::· I Moderately High Shore 0 ::=.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:•:'.:..:.-:.-::::::::.:. ,' KG-3 • • 0 ...... I with Bluff A A iA A I High Shore • • ,::..(,;.·.·.· ··=·.·.·.·.·.;···· /: ::·i,_f:"_:_:·: >,,· •• High Shore - with Bluff ,, ) --- / • KG-1C

KG-18

I I

I 0 _( ~--SCALE IN MILES

RAPPAHANNOCK KG-1A RIVER

77° 02' 3011

17 Tr 02' 30"

MAP KG-1C KG-4 K, NG GEORGE COUNTY SHORELANDS USE AND OWNERSHIP 1 RS\j\Ji 1 RC ~ USE 1 A ..., ]W Agricultural A KG-5 lA';;~ Commercial C 1:w . lW 390 38° Industrial I 22' lW lRC 22' 3d' Military M --1RC-.1w 30" RC lRS' Recreational 1W~1W1W 1W ,..--- J 2M Residential RS KG-6 lA lW Unmanaged lW w

Unwooded u 1C"lA~ lA- IRS ,_,,.. 1 A-i RS Wooded w lW JU _..---IRS 1 W 1 ¥ JC lW OWNERSHIP ) lW lW IRS lW Private 1 ' lW Federal 2 , ) / KG-1C lW lW

KG-2

KG-18 I I J

I O I ,.._-- I SCALI! IN MIL!S f

•

RAPPAHANNOCK KG-1A RIVER

77° 02' 30"

18 77 02' 30•

KG-4 MAP. -.,,.-~-' KG-1D-·- ~ .. ~---. K1NG GEORGE COUNTY EROSION AND SHELLFISH AREAS EROSION Moderate I I I I I I I 3So Slight or No Change No Symbol 22' SHELLFISH_ AREAS Yi' Condemned F?72Z??41 Open r-,-:.·... ,:.·.·.··.··\··1 KG-6 KG-3 NOTE: NQ. §_h~ll_fJ_sh. ~-a!a given f

KG-2

KG-18 I J J I t _( . 0. -ICAU- IN-- MILIS

RAPPAHANNOCK KG-1A RIVER

77° 02' 30"

19 ••

CAROLINE COUNTY MAP CA-18 SHORELANDS TYPES FASTLAND Low Shore I I I Moderately Low Shore I I u I I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I u I I Moderately High Shore 6 A 6 A Moderately High Shore CA-1C with Bluff A A A .a High Shore High Shore • • • with Bluff SHORE • • • Beach =·:-·.·:· =· :• :- =·: •: ·=·:·:-: Fringe Marsh rtllllllllllllltllllllll Extensive Marsh · //////////// Embayed Marsh- ~ Artificially Stabilized NEARS HORE Narrow - 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 CA-1A Wide ••••

0

-·-·-SCALI'. IN NILES

20 CAROLINE COUNTY MAP CA-1C . FASTLAND USE AND OWNERSHIP

USE Agricultural A Industrial I Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged CA-1C Unwooded u Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1

lA

lW lW~W(, lW 11 ) lA lW lA lW lW CA-1A

lA . TRC

1P:') lA lRC.~ 1 1 w« A ·~--L,! A 1 A- 1~ lW lW lW lA\ lA lA lW IRS \ 11 lW 1W~ I 1 A , ~4.. lW // "l ~~ , cP 0 ,-..-'"',. ./,j,~+ I .. -0 -SCAI.I~ IN- 11111.H

21 CAROLINE COUNTY MAP CA-1D EROSION Moderate 1111111 Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + +

CA-1C

/ CA-1A /

. .0 -SCALE- IN- NILES

22 .._ TABLE 1A. KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) ~------~------~----·------·-· ---- - , - -·-- --·------·

Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use, and ownership classifi- cation FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE A J::i:l r:,:., A r:,:., ::i:: r:,:., J::i:l § A c.? ~ 0 6S H H 0 i....:i i:'1 ::i:: i:'1 ::,... J::i:l i....:i i....:i ::s: ~ r:,:., ::,... ::i:: ::,... J::i:l ;j gS i....:ii::i ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ;j ~ i....:i E-1 i....:i 1Z J::i:l H :::, ~ ~ 0 H A A ~~ r.,::io J::i:l H J::i:l 0 J::i:l H ~~ ~~ :> A E-1 H H ::,... H J::i:l J::i:l oi....:i E-1 ::s: E-1 ::i:: E-1 ::s: ::I:: i....:i U H A H i....:i lZ E-1 c.? J::i:l ::i:: i:'1 Cl) i:'1 Hi....:j :::, t Cl) ~ Cl) ~ E-1 < J::i:l E-1 ~~ ~J::i:l ~ J::i:l r:,:., H ::i:: ts ::i:: ~::i:: ~ ::i:: 6 I C,) Cl) ~ J::i:l A ~ J::i:l lZ J::i:l ::i:: J::i:l lZ ::i:: ~ H i:'1 C,) z Cl) < Cl) J::i:l Cl) J::i:l H :::, H lZ H ~ ~ gS J::i:l ::s: AO A c.? c.? 0 t§ gS gj ~ J::i:l ::s: ~ < f!i lZ i....:i C,) Cl) H A !Cl) 0 ::i:: OH 80 ~ OH § !il H :J:: HH J::i:l t H @ H J::i:l lZ J::i:l Subsegment i....:i Cf.l i....:i ::S: ~i....:i ~ Cl) ::i:: Cl) ::i:: i:'1 !C,) ::i:: ~~ ~ ::i:: ::s: ;~ ~i Ii ~i ~ H ::s: ~ H ~ lZ ~ I:::, P-i Cl) r1: ! ""' RAPPAHANNOCK

KG-lA 2.7 12.1 1.6 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 8.5 7.1 3.0 8.1 2.2 11.3 0.2 0.2 8.4 20.1 19.0 20.1 KG-lB 9.6 5.8 0.5 4.1 0.1 0.1 10.6 1.2 7.6 10.8 8.9 0.1 11.2 20.2 19.5 20.2 KG-lC 8.8 2.6 3.9 0.4 0.8 7.9 2.8 5.6 9.5 10.3 0.1 2.9 3. 2 16.5 16.3 16.5 SUBTOTAL MILES 21.1 20.5 2.1 9.6 0.8 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 27.0 11.1 16.2 28.4 2.2 30.5 0.4 0.2 22.5 3 .~ 56.8 54.8 56.8

POTOMAC

KG-2 6.4 0.5 4.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 3.5 1.1 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.7 3.9 0. ! 8.2 3. 7 _ 9.3 11.9 KG-3 28.1 13.9 2.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 11.0 16.8 CREEK 10.3 0.1 0.4 10.1 3.3 20.1 34.2 10.] 29.3 44.3 KG-4 14.3 1.6 0.1 0.2 1.0 4.9 1.6 4.0 0.8 3.9 3.3 0.3 10. 9 0.2 1.3 2.7 O.f 5.3 10. S 12.2 16.2 KG-5 6.7 2.0 0.5 0.9 o. 1 2.1 2.0 4-. 3 0.5 5.8 2.2 2.7 1.8 0.6 1.0 1.1 9.6 12.3 12.6 12.3 KG-6 2.8 0.5 6.9 2.7 2.1 0.8 1.8 1.1 1.4 7.8 2.1 1. 9 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.5 0.2 0.2 1.6 11.3 0. f 18.6 13.1 ,18.6 SUBTOTAL MILES 58.3 2.6 26.9 3.8 5.3 1.2 2.0 3.2 5.3 21.6 16.3 32.6 0.8 6.2 9.3 10.9 19.5 0.3 0.4 24.7 1.4 7.3 47.6 2.] 78.6 24.7 76.5 103.3

TOTAL 79.4 2.6 47.4 5.9 14.9 2.0 4.1 3.7 5.4 22.0 43.3 43.7 17.0 34.6 11.5 10.9 50.0 0.3 0.8 24.7 1.4 7.5 70.1 5.~ 135.4 24.7 131.3 160.1

% of FAS't.LAND 50% 1% 30% 4% 9% 1% 3% 2% 31% 1% 1% 15% 1% 5% 44% 3~ 85% 15~ 100%

% of SHORE 4% 17% 33% 33% 13% 26% 9% 8% 100%

------·· --· -

23 TABLE 18. CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHOR ELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLANDS USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) -- ·-··- -· - .. ··-----

Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use, and ownership classifi- cation FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE A f.a:.l A f.a:.l § µ.i µ.i § 0 GS ::::;: 6~ H ...:I f.a:.l pQ l:H I ...:I r:Q ::c: ...:I ~ .. "' i>-' i>-' µ:l i>-' ::c: µ:l µ.i H A A ::c: µ:l ~ ~ ~ i µ:l µ:l ...:I E-1 ...:Ip,:; ...:I E-1 p,:; A E-1 H H ~ ti J:;cl H J::cl H O·rs ~~ ...:I p,:; µ:l UH A i:i p E-! ~o ~@ E-1 ::::;: !:cl ...:I ti) ~ ~ ~::::;: ti) IXl H...:I c.., C/.l f.a:.l A ~ ti) J;i:.i H t5 ::c: z::c: 6 I H p,:; H ~E-1 ~~ H pQ 5 z ti) f.a:.l ti) f.a:.l f.a:.l p,:; c.., ti) ti) ~ f.a:.l ~ !~ ::c: ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~~ AO ~ ES AO 0 0 8l ~ < H 0 ::c: 6@ 00 0 ::c: H ::C: tH

CA-lA 1.8 7.8 2.5 1.2 0.1 1.5 4.3 3.0 3.8 3.9 o.9 1.6 7.1 0.2 0.2 5.8 13.3 12.6 13.3

CA-lB 6.8 3.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 0.8 1.6 0.1 8.2 2.1 6.1 11. 7 8.1 Ool 8.3 16.5 16.4 16.5

CA-lC 6.8 2.3 0.2 3.1 1.1 0.3 1. 9 8.1 5.5 11.2 12.1 2.5 1,0 15.6 13.6 15.6

TOTAL 15.4 13.1 3.8 6.3 2.2 1.1 3.5 0.1 1.5 20.6 5.1 15.4 26.8 o.9 1.6 27.3 o·.1 0.2 0.2 16.6 1.0 45.4 42.6 45.4

% of FASTLAND 34% 29% 8% 14% 5% 2% 8% 60% 1% 1% 1% 37% 2% 100% 100%

% of SHQRE 1% 4% 48% 12% 36% 63% 2% 4% 100%

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

25 TABLE 2A. SHORELINE SITUATION SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR KING GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE

KG-lA FASTLAND: Low shore 14%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 56%, industrialPrivate. Low, noncritical. Unsatisfactory. This Poor. There are on1' Slight or no change to moderate, critical. A Low. Although there are some large BRISTOL MINE shore 60%, moderately low shore with 1%, residential 1%, and unmanaged, The majority of the portion of the Rappahan narrow, strip beache, section of road just west of Nanzatico Bay areas of land available for alter­ RUN TO bluff 8%, moderately high shore 8%, mod- wooded 42%. shoreline has ele- nock River does not located in Nanzatico could be endangered by continued erosion un­ nate use there seems little demand JAMES MADISON erately high shore with bluff 2%, high SHORE: Some industrial use at the vations of at least meet the State Water Bay. less some precaution is taken in the near fu­ to change the rural nature of the BRIDGE shore 5%, and high shore with bluff 3%. gravel pits, but mostly unused. 20 feet and is not Control Board's 305(b) ture. There is a small section of stabilized subsegment. RAPPAHANNOCK SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1%, NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport subject to flood- (l)(B) criteria. shoreline under the new bridge next to the RIVER beach 2%, fringe marsh 45%, embayed marsh boating and fishing. ing. James Madison Bridge. 19.0 miles 38%, and extensive marsh 16%. (20.1 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 42% and intermediate of fastland) 12%.

KG-lB FASTLAND: Low shore 48%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 44%, industrialPrivate. Low for most of the Unsatisfactory. This There are no beaches Slight or no change. There is probably a Low. The majority of the subseg­ JAMES MADISON shore 29%, moderately low shore with <1%, and unmanaged, wooded 56%. subsegment. The portion of the Rappahan in this subsegment. minor amount of erosion on the outside edge ment is already used for agricul­ BRIDGE TO HOP bluff 3%, moderately high shore 20%, and SHORE: Mostly unused except by the only areas suscep­ nock River does not of the meanders. tural purposes. Due to the poor YARD LANDING high shore <1%. gravel pits just east of Cleve Marsh. tible to flooding meet the State Water water quality there seems little RAPPAHANNOCK SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1%, NEARSHORE: Connnercial traffic, sport are Goat Island and Control Board's 305(b) desire for water-related recrea­ RIVER fringe marsh 55%, embayed marsh 6%, and boating and fishing. the fastland behind (l)(B) criteria. tional facilities. 19.5 miles extensive marsh 39%. Cleve Marsh. (20.1 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 55%. of fastland)

KG-lC FASTLAND: Low shore 53%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 62%, industrial~rivate. Low, noncritical. Unsatisfactory. This There are no beaches Slight or no change. A road located on a 40- Low. Due to the rural nature of HOP YARD shore 15%, moderately high shore 24'7., 1%, unmanaged, wooded 18%, and unman- The majority of the portion of the Rappahan in this subsegment. foot bluff just north of Corbins Neck could be the area there seems to be little LANDING TO ~oderately high shore with bluff 3%, and aged, unwooded 19%. shoreline has ele­ nock River does not endangered by continued erosion unless some demand for public recreational MUDDY CREEK, high shore 5%. SHORE: Mostly unused except at the vations of at least meet the State Water form of protective structure is employed in facilities. RAPPAHANNOCK SHORE: Fringe marsh 49%, embayed marsh gravel pits just north of Corbins Neck. 40 feet and is not Control Board's 305(b) the near future. RIVER . 17%, and extensive marsh 34%. NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport subject to flood­ (1) (B) criteria. 16.3 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 58%. boating and fishing. ing. (16.5 miles of fastland)

KG-2 FASTLAND: Low shore 54%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 32%, military !Private 69% Low, noncritical. Rosier Creek.is closed Fair to good. The No data. There is some slight erosion along Low. There seems to be little de­ ROSIER CREEK bluff 4%, moderately low shore 34%, mod­ 31%, unmanaged, wooded 33%, and unman­ and The majority of the to the taking of shell­ river-fronting por­ the bluffs near Rosier Creek. There are ap­ mand to develop the privately TO erately low shore with bluff 3%, moder­ aged, unwooded 4%. federal 31%. shoreline has ele­ fish, except at the tion of the segment proximately 2,900 feet of artificially sta­ owned lands of this segment. BABER POINT ately high shore 2%, and moderately high SHORE: Mostly unused. vations of at least mouth which is condi­ generally has good, bilized shoreline in the segment, most of POTOMAC RIVER shore with bluff 3%. · NEARSHORE: Some commercial traffic, 10 to 20 feet. tionally open. clean beaches. which is rubble riprap. Groins have been used 9.3 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6%. sport boating and fishing. in conjunction with the riprap in several (11. 9 miles beach 37%, fringe marsh 12%, and embayed areas. All structures appear to be effective. of fastland) marsh 44%. NEARSHORE: Wide 34%.

KG-3 FASTLAND: Low shore 63%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 23%, commer­ ~rivate 77% Low. Most of the Unsatisfactory. The Poor to fair. There No data. The area appears to be stable. Low. There seems to be little UPPER shore 31%, moderately high shore 5%, and cial <1%, industrial 1%, military 23%, ~nd shoreline has ele­ entire creek is closed are mostly narrow, There are approximately 2,000 feet of cosmetic pressure to develop this area. MACHODOC high shore <1%. residential 7'7., and unmanaged, wooded federal 23%. vations of 10 to the taking of shell­ strip beaches in the bulkhead in the segment. CREEK SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, beach 45%. feet. fish, except for a segment. POTOMAC RIVER 4%, fringe marsh 38%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Some commercial use (marina) small area at the creek 29.3 miles 57%. but mostly unused. .mouth. (44.3 miles NEARSHORE: Too narrow and shallow for NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. of fastland} classification.

KG-4 FASTLAND: Low shore 88%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 2%, military Private 33'7. Low. The majority No datsi. The main Fair. This segment The area from Mathias Point to Persimmon Point Low. There is little river-front­ UPPER bluff 10%, moderately low shore <1%, and 67%, recreational 1%, residential 8%, and of the shoreline stream of the Potomac has wide, vegetated has an average historical erosion rate of 1.2 ing land available for development. MACHODOC moderately low shore with bluff 1%. unmanaged, wooded 17%, and unmanaged, federal 67%. has elevations of River is owned by the beaches. feet per year. There are approximately 5,400 CREEK TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8%, beach unwooded 5%. 10 to 20 feet and state of Maryland. feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in MATHIAS POINT 40%, fringe marsh 13%, embayed marsh 33%, SHORE: Mostly unused. is not subject to the segment, most of which is riprap. Con­ POTOMAC RIVER and extensive marsh 6%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport flooding. crete culverts at Mathias Point are basically 12.2 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 32% and wide boating and fishing. ineffective at combatting the erosion. (16.2 miles 27%. of fastland)

26 TABLE 2A (CONT'D)

SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE

KG-5 FASTLAND: Low shore 54%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 5%, recrea­ Private. Low, noncritical. No data for the Potomac Fair. The beaches ir Moderate, noncritical. The segment has an Low. There seems to be little de­ MATHIAS POINT shore 16%, moderately low shore with tional 8%, residential 9%, and unman­ Although some River. All the tribu- this segment are average historical erosion rate of 1.2 to 2.2 mand to develop this area. TO METOMKIN bluff 4%, moderately high shore 8%, mod­ aged, wooded 78%. flooding could oc­ taries owned by Vir- clean, but fairly feet per year. There are approximately 10,600 POINT erately high shore with bluff 1%, and SHORE: Mostly unused. cur between Cho­ ginia in this segment narrow. feet of·artificially stabilized shoreline in POTOMAC RIVER high shore with bluff 17%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport tank Creek and are closed to the tak- the segment, most of which is rubble riprap 12.6 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 16%, boating and fishing. Metomkin Point, no ing of shellfish. located at Stuart Point. (12. 3 ·miles beach 34%, fringe marsh 4%, and embayed structures would of fastland) marsh 46%. be endangered. NEARSHORE: Narrow 17%, intermediate 21%, and wide 15%.

KG-6 FASTLAND: Low shore 15%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 24%, commer- Private. Low. Although No data for the Potomac Poor to fair. The No data, There is some slight erosion along Low. Some continued development is METOMKIN bluff 3%, moderately low shore 37%, mod- cial 1%, recreational 1%, residential several areas have River. All the tribu­ only good beach is at several sections of the shoreline, especially expected at the Fairview Beach POINT TO erately low shore with bluff 14%, moder- 8%, unmanaged, wooded 61%, and unman- elevations of less taries owned by Vir­ Belvedere Beach. The near Passapatanzy Creek and at Fairview Beach. area. There seems to be little de­ BLACK SWAMP ately high shore 11%, moderately high aged, unwooded 4%. than 10 feet, no ginia in this segment remainder of the seg- There are approximately 7,200 feet of artifi- mand to alter the remaining shore­ BRANCH shore with bluff 4%, high shore 9%, and SHORE: Mostly unused. flooding would oc­ are closed to the tak­ ment has narrow, cially stabilized shoreline in the segment, of line at the present time. POTOMAC RIVER high shore with bluff 6%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport cur in this seg­ ing of shellfish. strip beaches. which 2,400 feet is bulkhead and the remainder 13.1 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 10%, boating and fishing. ment. riprap. (18.6 miles beach 59%, fringe marsh 16%, and embayed of fastland) marsh 14%. • NEARSHORE: Narrow 31%, intermediate 20%, and wide 20%.

27 TABLE 28. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINIA

SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE

CA-lA FASTLAND: Low shore 14%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 53%, recrea- Private. Low. The majority Unsatisfactory. This Fair. There are Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. As this area is still basi­ PORTOBAGO shore 59%, moderately low shore with tional 2%, residential 1%, and unman- of the shoreline portion of the Rappahan­ several areas of The shoreline from the marsh north of Portobago cally rural in nature, there seems CREEK TO bluff 19%, and moderately high shore 9%. aged, wooded 44%. has elevations of nock River does not meet narrow, strip beach Bay to Mill Creek has an average historical to be little demand for public rec­ JAMES MADISON SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1%, SHORE: Mostly unused. 20 to 40 feet and the State Water Control located in the Por­ erosion.rate of 1.5 feet per year. There are reational facilities. Any new BRIDGE beach 11%, fringe marsh 34%, embayed NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport. is not subject to Board's 305(b)(l)(B) tobago Bay area. approximately 200 feet of wooden bulkhead at development must take care not to RAPPAHANNOCK marsh 24%, and extensive marsh 30%. boating and fishing. flooding. criteria. the base of a cliff just north of Portobago destroy the marshes or further de­ RIVER NEARSHORE: Narrow 31%, intermediate 7%, Bay. This structure has been flanked and is grade the water quality. 12.6 miles and wide 13%, basically ineffective. (13.3 miles of fastland)

CA-lB FASTLAND: Low shore 41%, moderately low WASTLAND: Agricultural 49%, indus­ Private. Low. Most of the Unsatisfactory. This There are no beaches Slight or no change. The marsh area opposite Low. There seems to be little de­ JAMES MADISON shore 18%, moderately low shore with trial <1%, and unmanaged, wooded 50%. shoreline has ele­ portion of the Rappahan­ in this subsegment. Cleve Marsh has an average historical accre­ mand for public recreational facili BRIDGE TO bluff 6%, moderately high shore 12%, mod­ SHORE: Mostly unused. vations of at least nock River does not meet tion rate of 2.9 feet per year. There is some ties in this area. WHITE MARSH erately high shore with bluff 7%, high NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport 30 feet. The fast­ the State Water Control artificial stabilization at the base of the RAPPAHANNOCK shore 5%, and high shore with bluff 10%. boating and fishing. land directly be­ Board's 305(b)(l)(B) James Madison Bridge. RIVER SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1%, hind the marshes criteria. 16.4 miles fringe marsh 50%, embayed marsh 13%, and could be flooded (16.5 miles extensive marsh 37%. during periods of of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 71%. abnormally high water.

CA-le WASTLAND: Low shore 43%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 77%, unman­ !Private. Low. The majority Unsatisfactory. This There are no beaches Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. Any residential development WHITE MARSH shore 14%, moderately low shore with aged, wooded 16%, and unmanaged, un­ of the shoreline section of the Rappahan­ in this subsegment. Skinkers and Moss Necks are experiencing his­ should take care not to further TO bluff 1%, moderately high shore 20%, mod­ wooded 6%. is high enough to nock River does not meet torical accretion rates of up to 2.0 feet per degrade the water quality of this COUNTY LINE erately high shore with bluff 7%, high SHORE· Mostly unused. withstand flooding. the State Water Control year. area. RAPPAHANNOCK shore 2%, and high shore with bluff 12%. NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport Board's 305(b)(l)(B) RIVER SHORE: Fringe marsh 60% and extensive boating and fishing. criteria. 13.6 miles marsh 40%. (15.6 miles ~ARSHORE: Narrow 83%. of fastland)

28 S.IIBSRGMFJiIT KG-lA not expected that this portion of the Rappahan­ SUBSEGMENT KG-U nock River will meet the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria BRISTOL MINE RUN TO JAMES MADISON BRIDGE for quite some time. JAMES MADISON BRIDGE TO HOP YARD LANDING

Maps 2 and 3 BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There is only a narrow, Maps 3 and 4 strip beach located in Nanzatico Bay.

EXTENT: 100,300 feet (19.0 mi.) of shoreline along PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXTENT: 103,000 feet (19.5 mi.) of shoreline along the Rappahannock River, from Bristol Mine Run to EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, the Rappahannock River from the James Madison the James Madison Memorial Bridge, including critical. The portion of shoreline from Green­ Memorial Bridge to Hop Yard Landing, including Jetts and other marsh creeks. The subsegment law Wharf to Jetts Creek has an average histori­ the tributaries to the River •. The subsegment also contains 106,000 feet (20.l mi.) of fast­ cal erosion rate of 1.1 feet per year. also contains 106,500 feet (20.1 mi.) of fast­ land. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: A section of road just land. west of Nanzatico Bay could be endangered by SHORELANDS TYPE continued erosion unless some action is taken. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore. 14'7o (2. 7 mi.), moderately SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is a small FASTLAND: Low shore 48% (9.6 mi.), moderately low shore 60% (12.1 mi.), moderately low shore portion of artificially protected shoreline lo­ low shore 29% (5.8 mi.)., moderately low shore with bluff 8% (1.6 mi.), moderately high shore cated at the base of the new bridge. with bluff 3% (0.5 mi.), moderately high shore 8% (1.6 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 20% (4.1 mi.), and high shore <1% (0.1 mi.). 2% (0.4 mi.), high shore 5% (1.2 mi.), and high OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a new bridge un­ SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1% ( 0. 1 mi.), shore with bluff 3% (0.5 mi.). der construction next to the James Madison fringe marsh 55% (10. 6 mi.), embayed marsh 6% SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1% ( 0.1 mi.), Bridge. ( 1. 2 mi.), and extensive marsh 39% (7. 6 mi.). beach 2% (0.4 mi.), fringe marsh 45% (8.5 mi.), NEARSHORE: Narrow 55%. The remainder of the em.bayed marsh 38% (7 .1 mi.), and extensive marsh SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the subseg­ nearshore zone is located along marsh creeks 16% (3. 0 mi.) • ment is already used for agricultural purposes, which are too narrow and shallow for classifi­ NEARSHORE: Narrow 42% and intermediate 12%. and any development here would be at the sacri­ cation. fice of these farmlands. The upper portion of SHORELANDS USE the Rappahannock River has some very valuable SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: . Agricultural 56% (11.3 mi.), indus­ marsh areas used by many varieties of fish and FASTLAND: Agricultural 44% (8.9 mi.), indus­ trial 1% (0.2 mi.), residential 1% (0.2 mi.), waterfowl as spawning and nursery grounds. All trial <1% (0.1 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 56% and unmanaged, wooded 42% (8.4 mi.). these marshes should be left in their natural (11. 2 mi.). SHORE: Some industrial use at the gravel pits, state. Due to the water quality there seems SHORE: Mostly unused except at the gravel pits but mostly unused. little desire to locate recreational facilities just east of Cleve Marsh. NEARSHORE: Conunercial shipping, sport boating or residential developments along the shore­ NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport boating and fishing. line. and fishing.

SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline of this subsegment ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Although there are some SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline in this subsegment trends basically E - W, through a series of large areas of land available for alternate use, trends basically SE - NW from the James Madison large meanders. there seems little demand to change the rural Bridge to Cleve Marsh, then S - N to Hop Yard character of the subsegment. Landing, through a series of meanders. OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of Quadr., 1968; the shoreline has elevations of at least 20 USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL FLOOD HAZARD: Low for the majority of the subseg­ feet and is not subject to flooding. Quadr., 1968. ment. The only areas susceptible to flooding NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:20,000 scale, are Goat Island and the fastland behind Cleve WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. The upper portion RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to Marsh. No structures are endangered in these of the Rappahannock River has been degraded by Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. areas. two major discharges; the City of Fredericksburg Sewage Treatment Plant and the American Viscose PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 19Aug77 KG-lA/171-255. WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This portion of Division of FMC's industrial wastewater. Sev­ the Rappahannock River is experiencing poor eral sand and gravel mining operations along the water quality and does not currently meet the shoreline discharge into the river also. It is State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria.

29 BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this subseg­ SUBSEGMENT KG-lC PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION ment. EROSION RATE: Slight o.r no change. There is HOP YARD LANDING TO MUDDY CREEK some minor erosion on the outside of the mean­ PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION ders, e~pec~ally in the area just north of Cor­ EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. There is Maps 4 and 5 bins Neck. probably a minor amount of erosion on the out­ ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: A road located on a 40- side edge of the meanders, especially at cliff foot bluff just north of·corbins Neck could be bases. EXTENT: 85,800 feet (16.3 mi.) of shoreline along endangered by erosion unless some form of shore ENDANGERED STRUCXIJR.E.S ~ . None. the Rappahannock Ri:ver from Hop Yard Landing to protection is employed. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: The only area of Muddy Creek. The subsegment includes 87,300 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. artificial stabilization in the subsegment is feet (16.5 mL) of fastland. located at the base of the James Madison Bridge. OTHER SHORE STRUCWRES: None. SHORELANDS TYPE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The James Madison Memorial FASTLAND: Low shore 53% (~.8 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore­ Bridge is located in this subsegment. low shore 15% (2.6 mi.), moderately high shore line is already used for agricultural purposes, 24% (3.9 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff and any development he:r:e would be at the sacri­ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore­ 3% (0.4 mi.), and high shore 5% (0.8 mi.). fice of these farmlands. Most of the shoreline line is already used for agricultural purposes. SHORE: Fringe mar:sh 49% (7. 9 mi.), embayed has either high bluffs, making access to the Much of the shoreline has elevations of 40 feet marsh 17% (2.8 mi.), and extensive marsh 34% water difficult, or is marsh, which should be or mor.e, making access to the water d~fficult. (5 .6 mi.). left in its natural state. This portion of the Rappahannock River has some NEARSHORE: Narrow 58%. The remainder of the extensive marsh systems which are.valuable as nearshore zone is located along marsh creeks ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Rec.ause of the rural spawning and nursery grounds for a variety of which are too narrow and shallow for classifi­ nature of the area there seems to be little de­ fish and wildlife. Any development must take cation. mand for public recreational facilities. Any care not to destroy these marshes. residential development. must take care to main­ SHORELANDS USE tain the marshes and not further degrade the ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As already stated, most FASTLAND: Agricultural 62% (10.3mi.), indus­ water quality. of this area is used for farming, and any devel­ trial 1% (0.1 mL}, urnnanaged, wooded 18% (2.9 opment would be at. the sacrifice of these agri­ mi.), and unmanaged, unwooded 19% (3.2 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL cultural fields. Due to the water quality, there SHORE: Mostly unused except at the gravel pits Quadr., 1968; seems little desire for water related recrea­ Just north of Corbins Neck. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), RAPPAHANNOCK tional facilities. NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport boating ACADEMY Quadr., .l,.%9 and fishing. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PASSAPATANZY MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL Quadr.,, 1966. Quadr., 1968; SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline of this subsegment NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:20,000 scale, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), RAPPAHANNOCK trends basically E - W through a series of RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to ACADEMY Quadr., 1969. large meanders. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. NOSi/: 12237 (605-SC), 1: 20,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to OWNERSHIP: Private. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 19Aug77 KG-lC/1-75. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 19Aug77 KG-lB/76-170. the shoreline has elevations of at least 40 feet and is not subject to flooding. The fast­ land immediately surrounding some of the exten­ sive marshes could be flooded during periods of abnormally high water.

WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This portion of the Rappahannock River does not meet the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria.

BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub­ segment.

30 SEGMENT _KG,,- 2 The main body of the Potomac River is owned by Maryland. ROSIER CREEK TO BABER POINT BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The river-fronting Maps 6 and 7 portion of this s.e.gment generally has good clean beaches, although some are partially vegetated.

EXTENT: 48,900 feet (9.3 mi.) of shoreline along PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION the Potomac River from the Route 205 bridge at EROSION RATE: No data. Recent field investiga­ the head of Rosier .,Creek to Baber Point, includ­ tions reveal slight erosion is occurring along ing Rosier Creek. The segment includes 62,600 the bluffs near Rosier Creek. feet (11.9 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ SHORELANDS TYPE imately 2,900 feet of artificially stabilized FASTLAND: Low shore 54% (6.4 mi.), low shore shoreline in this segment, most of which is rub­ with bluff 4% (Q.5 mi.}, moderately low shore ble riprap. Groins are often used in conjunc­ 34% (4.0 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff tion with the rip.rap in an effort to trap buffer 3% (0.4 mi.), moderately high shore 2% (0.2 beaches. The structures appear to be effective mi.), and _moderately high shore with bluff 3% at stopping erosion. (0.3 mi.). SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6% (0.5 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers in beach 37% (3 •.S mi.), fr_inge marsh 12% (1.1 mi.), the segment. and embayed marsh 44% (4.1 mi.). NEARSHORE: Wide 34'7.,. The rest of the shoreline SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Thirty-one percent of the is located on Rosier Creek, which is too narrow shorelands are part of the federally owned Dahl­ and shallow for classification. gren Weapons Laboratory. The rest of the seg­ ment is rural, either unused or used for agri­ SHORELANDS USE culture. FASTLAND: Agricultural 32% (3.8 mi.), military 31% (3.7 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 33% (3.9 mi.), ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The privately held and unmanaged, unwooded 4% (0.5 mi.). lands in the segment will probably continue to SHORE: Mostly unused; some waterfowl hunting in be rural in nature, as there is no pressure to the marshes in Rosier Creek. develop in the area. No alternate use can be NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing; some com­ contemplated for the Dahlgren Weapons Lab un­ mercial shipping to the Washington, n.c. area. less the military relinquishes control of the area. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Rosier Creek trends basi­ cally SW - NE. The river-fronting shoreline MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DAHLGREN trends SE - NW. Fetches at Black Marsh are SE - Quadr., 1968. 33 nautical miles and N - 5.8 nautical miles. NOS# 12084 (558), 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower OWNERSHIP: Private 69% and federal 31%. Cedar Point, VA-MD, 15th ed., 1973.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical .. Although fifty­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 4Aug77 KG-2/257-290. four percent ·of the shorelands are classified as low shore, most areas have 10 to 20-foot elevations relatively close to the shoreline. No structures are located in flood prone areas.

WATER QUALITY: Most of Rosier Creek is closed to the taking of shellfish. The area at the creek mouth to the Virginia - Maryland line is condi­ tionally approved for the taking of shellfish.

31 SEGMENT KG-3 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to be UPPER MA.CHODOC CREEK stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Maps 6 and 7 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 2,000 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in the segment, all of which is bulk­ EXTENT: 154,800 feet (29.3 mi.) of shoreline along head. The structures seem to be for cosmetic Upper Machodoc Creek and its several tributary purposes rather than for erosion protection. creeks. The segment includes 234,000 feet (44.3 mi.) of fastland. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are ntnnerous piers on Williams Creek and many docks at the marina SHORELANDS TYPE facility at the weapons lab and the private FASTLAND: Low shore 63% (28.1 mi.), moderately marina at Williams Creek. low shore 31% (13.9 mi.), moderately high shore 5% (2.1 mi.), and high shore <1% (0.2 mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Twenty-three percent of the SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.4 mi.), shorelands are part of the federally owned Dahl­ beach 4% (1.1 mi.), fringe marsh 38% (11.0 mi.), gren Weapons Laboratory. Nine percent of the and embayed marsh 57% (16.8 mi.). shorelands are already_ developed. The remaining NEARSHORE: Upper Machodoc Creek is too shallow sixty-eight percent of the segment is either un­ for classification. used or used for agriculture. The creek is gen­ erally shallow in the meanders, making naviga­ SHORELANDS USE tion difficult. FASTLAND: Agricultural 23% (10.3 mi.), commer­ cial <1'7.,. (O..J...mi.), industrial 1% (0.4 mi.), ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The only private devel­ military 23% (10.1 mi.), residential 7% (3.3 opment in the segment is at the town of Dahlgren, mi.), and unmanaged,-wooded 45% (20.1 mi.). which borders on the weapons lab. There seems to SHORE: Mostly unused; access to the water at be little pressure to develop other sections of various locations, especially at the marina at the segment. Dahlgren Weapons Laboratory. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing in Upper MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DAHLGREN Machoddc Creek. Quadr., 1968. NOS# 12084 (558), 1:40,000 scale, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The mouth of Upper Machodoc POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Creek is oriented E - w. The main creek then Cedar Point, VA-MD, 15th ed., 1973. trends southwest thr.ough several meanders. The creek shorelands are not exposed to significant PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 4Aug77 KG-3/291-323; fetches. 23Dec77 KG-3/525-531.

OWNERSHIP: Private 77% and federal 23%.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The shorelands generally have 10-foot elevations close to the shoreline.

WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. Except for one small area at the creek mouth, the entire creek is closed to the taking of shellfish.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. There are mostly narrow strip beaches in the segment.

32 SEGMENT KG-4 partially vegetated.

UPPER MACHODOC CREEK TO MATHIAS POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data for the southern section Maps 7 and 8 of the segment. The area from Mathias Point to Persimmon Point has an average historical ero­ sion rate of 1.2 feet per year. Recent field EXTENT: 64,200 feet (12..2 mi..) of shoreline along investigations show that in several sections the Potomac River from the mouth of Upper Macho­ erosion is continuing. doc Creek to Mathias Point. The segment includes ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. 85,400 feet (16.2 mi.) of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 5,400 feet of artificially stabilized SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in the segment, the majority of which FASTLAND: Low shore 88% (14. 3 mi.) , low shore is riprap, There ar.e several small areas of with bluff 10% (1.6 mi.), moderately low shore bulkhead and several gro.in fields. Most struc­ <1% (O.l mi.), and.moderately low shore with tures appear to be effective at stopping ero­ bluff 1% (0.2 mi.). sion. However, concrete culverts placed to act SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8% (1.0 mi.), like bulkhead at Mathias Point are not effec­ beach 40% (4. 9. mi.), .. fr.inge marsh 13% (1. 6 mi.), tive at halting erosion. embayed marsh 33% (4°.0 mi .• ), and extensive marsh 6% (0.8 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers NEARSHORE: Intermediate 32% and wide 27%. The in the segment. remainder of the shoreline is located on Gamba Creek, which is too narrow and shallow for clas­ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Sixty-seven percent of the sification. segment is controlled by the military, which ef­ fectiveJ_y limits other use. Another nine per­ SHORELANDS USE cent of the segment is. already developed. Much FASTLAND: Agricultural 2% (0.3 mi.), military of the remaining shorelands are fronted by an 67% (10.9 mi.), recreational 1% (0.2 mi.), resi­ extensive marsh, which should be preserved. dential 8% (1.3 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 17% (2.7 mi,) , and unman.aged, unwooded 5% ( 0 . 8 mi. ) . ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. There is little river­ SHORE: Mostly unused. fronting shorelands which are available for NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing; commer­ development. There seems to be little pressure cial shipping to the Washington, D.C. area. to develop the area.

WIND AND SEA EXPOSURR:. The shoreline trends basi­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DAHLGREN cally S - N, then SE - NW in the segment. The Quadr., 1968; fetch at Persimmon Point is SE - 25.2 nautical USGS, 7.,5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MATHIAS POINT miles. Quadr., 1968. NOS:ffo 12084 (558), 1 :40,000 scale, OWNERSHIP: Private 33% and federal 67%. POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar Point, VA-MD, 15th ed., 1973; FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. Although eighty­ NOS# 12288 (559), 1:40:000 scale, eight percent 0£ the segment is low shore, most POTOMAC RIVER, Lower Cedar Point to areas have 10 to 20-foot elevations very close Mattawoman Cree~, VA-MD, 9th ed., 1971. to the shore. No structures are endangered. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 4Aug77 KG~4/324-395. WATER QUALITY: No data. The main body of the Potomac River is owned by the state of Mary­ land.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches are usually of fair width in the segment, though they are often

33 SEGMENT-.KG-5_ are clean, but fairly narrow.

MATHIAS POINT TO METOMKIN POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. This sec­ Maps 8 and 9 tion has an average historical erosion rate ranging from 1.2 to 2.2 feet per year. The area of most change has been around Stuart Point. EXTENT: 66,700 feet (12.6mi.) of shoreline along ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the Potomac River from_ Mathias Point to Metomkin SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTIJRES: There are approx­ Point, including Chotank Creek. The segment in­ imately 10,600 feet of artificially stabilized cludes 65,000 feet (12.3 mi.) of fastland~ shoreline in the segment, most of which is rub­ ble riprap located along the Stuart Point shore­ SHORELANDS TYPE line. All structures seem to be effective. FASTLAND: Low shore 54% (6.7 mi.), moderately low shore 16% (2. 0 mi.), moderately l.a.w s.hore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers with bluff 4% (0. 5 mi.), moderately high shore in the segment. 8% (0.9 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 1% (0.1 mi.), and high shore with bluff 17% SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This segment remains pre­ (2 .1 mi.). dominantly rural, with seventy-eight percent of SHORE: Artificially stabilized 16% (2 .O mi.), the shorelands being unmanaged woods. There beach 34% (4.3 mi.), fringe marsh 4% (0.5 mi.), are several residential areas on Mathias Point and embayed marsh 46% (5.8 mi.). Neck. Much of the land is actively controlled, NEARSHORE: Narrow 17%, intermediate 21%, and as in the case of Stuart Point. The entire wide 15%. The remainder of the shoreline is shoreline has been artificially stabilized, al­ located along Chotank Creek, which is too nar­ though most of the land is classified as unman­ row and shallow for classification. aged woods. Such lands are not readily avail­ able for public development. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 5% (0. 6 mi.), recrea­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. There seems to be lit­ tional 8% (1.0 mi.), residential 9% (1.1 mi.), tle pressure or reason to develop this area. and unmanaged, wooded 78% (9.6 mi.). SHORE: Mostly unused. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MATHIAS POINT NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing; connner­ Quadr., 1968; cial shipping to the Washington, D.C. area. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DAHLGREN Quadr.-, 1968; WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The segment trends basi­ USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING GEORGE cally NE - SW. Fetches at Metomkin Point are Quadr., 1968. NE - 7.2 nautical miles and WSW - 6.6 nautical NOS# 12093 (559), 1:40,000 scale, miles. POTOMAC RIVER, Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, VA-MD, 9th ed., 1971. OWNERSHIP: Private. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 4Aug77 KG-5/396-448. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. Though some flood­ ing could occur from Chotank Creek to Metomkin Point during a severe storm, no structures would be endangered.

WATER QUALITY: No data for the Potomac River, which is owned by Maryland. All of the Virginia tribu­ taries to the Potomac River in this segment are closed to the taking of shellfish.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches in this segment

34 SEGMENT_ KG•6 WATER QUALITY: No data for the Potomac River. All NOS# 12288 (559), 1:40,000 scale, of the Virginia tributaries to the Potomac River POTOMAC RIVER, Lower Cedar Point to METOMKIN POINT TO ELA.CK SWAMP BRANCH in this segment are closed to the taking of Mattawoman Creek, VA-MD, 9th ed., 1971. shellfish. Maps 9 , 1D , and -11 PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 4Aug77 KG-6/449-478; BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. The beaches in this 28Dec77 KG-6/479-523. segment are generally narrow fringes along the EXTENT: 69,400 feet (13..Lmi.) of shoreline along shore. The only fair beach is at Belvedere the Potomac River from M.etomkin Point to the Beach, which is now unused. county line on Black Swamp Branch, including part of Potomac Creek and _several other smaller PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION creeks. The segment includes 98,100 feet (18.6 EROSION RATE: No data. Recent field investiga­ mi.) of fastland. tions reveal that slight to moderate erosion is occurring along several sections of the segment, SHORELANDS TYPE especially near Passapatanzy Creek and at Fair­ FASTLAND: Low shore 15% (2.8 mL), low shore view Beach. Natural slumping of the bluffs along with bluff 3% (0.5 mi.), moderately low shore this section of the county is mostly due to down­ 37% (6.9 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff hill rain runoff. 14% (2.7 mi.), moderately high shore 1.1% (2.1 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 4% (0.8 SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ mi.), high shore 9% (1.8 mi.), and high shore imately 7,200 feet of artificially stabilized with bluff 6% (1.1 mi •. ). shoreline in the segment, of which 2,400 feet SHORE: Artificially stabilized 10% (1.4 mi.), are bulkhead and the rest riprap. The 4,800 beach 59% (7.8 mi.), fringe marsh 16% (2.1 mi.), feet of riprap is found at the base of Bull and embayed marsh 14% (1.9 mi.). Bluff. Aerial photography of the area shows NEARSHORE: Narrow 31%, intermediate 20%, and stone rubble at the cliff base. However, this wide 20%. The remainder of the shoreline is may be due to natural causes rather than man's located on Potomac Creek, which is too shallow efforts. for classification. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are many docks at SHORELANDS USE the two marinas located in the segment. Numer­ FASTLAND: Agricultural 24% (4.5 mi.), corraner­ ous piers and several launching ramps are also cial 1% (0.2 mi.), recreational 1% (O .2 mi.), located in the segment. residential 8% (1. 6 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 61% (11.3 mi.), and unmanaged,- ..unwo.oded 47~ (0. 8 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Twenty-seven percent of the mi.). shorelands (almost fifty percent of the river­ . SHORE: Mostly unus.ed; some ac.cess to the water fronting shorelands) are bluff areas, which in­ at residential areas. hibits access to the water. The segment con­ NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing; commer­ tinues to be basically rural in nature, with cial shipping to the Washington, D.c._ar.ea._ sixty-five percent of the shorelands unused and twenty-four percent used for agriculture. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURR: The riv.er shoreline trends basically ENE - WSW to Bull.Bluff. Potomac ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Some continued develop­ Creek trends bas.icall.y -E .---:W• . F.etches at Pas­ ment is expected at the Fairview Beach area. sapatanzy Creek ar.e N .- _ll nautical miles and However, there seems to be little pressure to NE - 25.2 nautical mile.s._ develop other sections of the shoreline at the present time. OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PASSAPATANZY FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. Alt:hough several Quadr., 1966; areas have elevations less than 10 feet, little USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KING GEORGE flooding would occur in the segment and no Quadr., 1968. structures are endangered.

35 .SUBSEGMENT CA-lA PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SUBSEGMENT C~lB EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, PORTOBAGO CREEK TO THE JAMESMADISON BRIDGE noncritical. The stretch of shoreline from the JAMES MADISON BRIDGE TO WHITE MARSH marsh north of Portobago Bay to Mill Creek has Maps 2 and 3 an average histori.cal erosion rate of 1.5 feet Maps 3 and 4 per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 66,700 feet (12.6 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approxi­ EXTENT: 86,600 feet (16.4 mi.) of shoreline along the Rappahannock River from Portobago Creek to mately 200 feet of wooden bulkhead located at the the Rappahannock River from the James Madison the James Madison Memorial Bridge, including base of a cliff just north of Portobago Bay. Memorial Bridge to White Marsh. The subsegment Mill Creek, The subsegment has a fastland meas­ This structure appears to be mostly ineffective, also contains 87,000 feet (16.5 mi.) of fast- urement of 70,200 feet (13.3 mi.). as it has now been flanked and erosion is con­ land. · tinuing. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 14% (.1.8 mi.), moderately OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers FASTLAND: Low shore 41% (6.8 mi.), moderately low shore 59% (7 .8 mi.), moderately low shore and two graded sand launching ramps in the sub­ low shore 18% (3.0 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 19% (2.5 mi.), and moderately high segment. with bluff 6% (1.1 mi.), moderately high shore shore 9% (1.2 mi.). 12% (2.0 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1% ( 0 .1 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the shoreline is 7% (1.1 mi.), high.shore 5% (0.8 mi.), and high beach 11% (1.5 mi.), fringe marsh 34% (4.3 mi.), farmed, and any development would be at the loss shore with.bluff 10% (1.6 mi.). embayed mar.sh 24-% (3.0 mi.), and extensive marsh of these agricultur:al lands. The extensive SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1% ( 0.1 mi.), 30% (3.8 mi.). marshes in the upper Rappahannock River are very fringe marsh 50% (8.2 mi.), embayed marsh 13% NEARSHORE: Narrow 31%, intermediate 7%, and valuable as spawning and nursery grounds for a (2.1 mi.), and extensive marsh 37% (6.1 mi.). wide 13%. The remainder of the nearshore zone variety of fish and wildlife, and should be left NEARSHORE: Narrow 71%. The remainder of the is located along marsh creeks which are too nar­ in their natural state. The area looses some of nearshore zone is located along marsh creeks row and shallow for classification. its water-related value for the residential de­ which are too narrow and shallow for classifi­ velopment because of the poor water quality. cation. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 53% (7.1 mi.), recrea­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As this area is still SHORELANDS USE tional 2% (0. 2 mi.), residential 1% (O. 2 mi.), rural in nature there seems little demand for FASTLAND: Agricultural 49% (8.1 mi.), indus­ and unmanaged, wooded 44% (5.8 mi.). public recreational facilities. Any residential trial <1% (0.1 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 50% SHORE: Mostly unused. development should take care not to destroy the (8 .3 mi.). NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport boating marshes or further degrade the water quality. SHORE: Mostly unused except for the gravel pits and fishing. opposite Goat Island. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK NEARSHORE: Connnercial traffic, sport boating SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline in this subsegment Quadr., 1968; and fishing. trends basically SE - NW through a series of USGS, 7 .5 Min. Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL large meanders. Quadr., 1968. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline of this subsegment NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:20,000 scale, trends basically SE - NW from the James Madison OWNERSHIP: Private. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to Bridge to the Cleve Marsh area, then S - N to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. White Marsh, through a series of meanders. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shoreline has elevations of 20 to 40 feet and is not sub­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Jan76 CA-lA/01-46. OWNERSHIP: Private. ject to flooding. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. Most of the shoreline has ele­ WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This portion of vations of 30 feet or higher and is not subject the Rappahannock River does not meet the State to flooding. The fastland located directly be­ Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. hind the marshes could be flooded during periods of abnormally high water. BEACH QUALITY: Fair. There are several areas of narrow, strip beaches, mostly found in the Por­ WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This portion of tobago Bay area. the Rappahannock River does not meet the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria.

36 BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this subseg­ SUBSEGMENT CA-le PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION ment. EROSION RATE: .STight or no change to moderate, WHITE MARSH TO COUNTY LINE noncritical. Most of the erosion i~ taking PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION place on the.outside bends of the meanders. EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. There is Maps 4 and 5 Areas like Skinkers and Moss Necks are experi­ some slight .erasion on the outside bend of the encing accretion rates of up to·2.o feet per meanders, especially at the base of the cliffs. year. The marsh area opposite Cleve Marsh has an aver­ EXTENT: 71, 8.00 feet ( 13.• 6. .mi.) of shoreline along ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. age historical. acer.et.ion rate of 2. 9 feet per the Rappahannock River from White Marsh to the SHORE PROTEC!IVE STRUCTURES: None. year. county line. The subsegment also contains ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: A road opposite Goat Is­ 82,500 feet (15.6 mi.) of fastland. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is one pier located land is endangered by erosion and some form of just to the west of Skinkers Marsh. protective struc.t.u:i::.e ..s.hould be employed in the SHORELANDS TYPE near future. FASTLAND: Low share 43% (6.8 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the shorelands are $HORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is some arti­ low shore 14% (2. 3 mi.)., moderately low shore already us.etl for agricultural purposes. The ficial stabilization located at the base of the with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.), moderately high shore only unused .s.ection of land, opposite Corbins James Madison Bridge. 20% (3.1 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff Neck, has elevations of 100 feet or more, mak­ 7% (1.1 mi.), high .sho.re i% (0 .3 mi.) , and high ing access to the water difficult. The upper OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The James Madison Memorial shore with bluff 12% (1.9 mi.). portion of the .Rappahannock.River has some Bridge is located in this subsegment. SHORE: Fringe marsh u0% (8. 1 mi.) and extensive valuable marsh s.ystems. us.ed by a variety of marsh 40% (5.5 mi.). fish and .w.ildli..fe.. as spawning. .and nursery SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The only area not used for NEARSHORE: Nar.raw 83%. The remainder of the grounds. These marshes should be left in agriculture is aro.und Moons Mount Wharf. There nearshore zone is located along marsh creeks their natural- state ... __ _ elevations reach 150 feet and make access to the which are too narrow and shallow for classifi­ water difficult. .The upper Rappahannock River cation. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: - Low. As this .county is still has some extensive marsh systems used as spawn­ very rural in nature there seems to be little ing and nursery grounds by a variety of fish and SHORELANDS USE demand for public recreational facilities. _Any wildlife. These marshes should be left in their FASTLAND: Agricultural 77% (12.1 mi.), unman­ residential development should take care not to natural state. aged, wooded 16% (2.5 mi.), and unmanaged, un­ further degrade the water quality of this area •. wooded 6% ( 1 .. 0 mi.) . ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. There seems little de­ SHORE: Mostly unused. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL mand for public recreational facilities in this NEARSHORE: Connnercial traffic, sport boating Quadr., 1968; area as it is still very rural.in.nature. Any and fishing. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), RAPPAHANNOCK ·residential development must take care to main­ ACADEMY Quadr., 1969; tain the marshes and not further degrade the SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline of this subsegment USGS, 7.5 Min~Ser. (Topo.), PASSAPATANZY water quality in this area. trends basically E - W through a series of mean­ Quadr:. , . 196.6. ders. NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:20,000 scale, MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PORT ROYAL RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to Quadr., 1968; OWNERSHIP: Private. Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), RAPPAHANNOCK ACADEMY Quadr. , 1969. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the fastland PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Jan76 CA-lC/137-156; NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:20,000 scale, is high enough to withstand flooding. Only the 19Ju177 CA-lC/157-196. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to fastland directly behind the marshes could be Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. flooded during periods of abnormally high water.

PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Jan76 CA-lB/47-136. WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This section of the Rappahannock River does not meet the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) criteria.

BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub­ segment.

37 77° 07 1 3011

:i Ii 1, '\~'1~ ~ 1 MILE ii ~==~\ ,~D ,,. I, : \=~~"'.. ~

,/ ·!/

\ ( ,1 {.--· Nanzatico Bay

\ ~·, \ ) ... /·r \ '! \ ) \ ). \ I

0 \ q ~ \

'-- ---

Green Bay

. \'. ·.. , \ ::·· \ 3,-,

39 77° 07 1 3011

0

38° 10' oo"

:.. :-· .. ·.. ~ : . ·.. - :. : ··.. :.:. :-:- - fl I! 11111111 i 1111111111 NEARSHORE------" -----:c:-----..JLL..J: //////////// Narrow ~ lntermediat& r Wide \'. ~-~ ••• • \ .. ,w,._- ~ I! o\_~:.- 77° 071 3011

40 II Ii 0 I MILE II ===c:::;.

1A

Nanzatico Bay

1A 1A \ I I I I I I I I I I \ ,----_-.... _ ,/' =MAP 2c~~~\ ,/ PORTOBAGO BAY ?O / RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER\ /FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION ' /, Su bse· gments KG-1A and CA-1A " f\ , 1RS'. , / USE 11• II \\ \ /' Agricultural A , II \\ \ \\ RS 1W 11 '~ ~, Residential \\ \\ ~o GEoRGE~CJ . · .,, Unmanaged 1A\\ \\ Wooded w \\ .._ -or II I\ ~~~~.'. t,~8\~ OWNERSHIP L. ,._,. Private z{" 1 7 \ t'l\o EROSION ·-.....,,_"·' 31° Moderate "' ·. ---~;.,_ ... \\· / 1W \ Slight or No Change ) ',· Portobago I Bay \ .· \ i /~;J.. , 1,i;{ \ \·\. I ·c-A~fA \ Green Bay . \

0 77° 071 3011

41 o-....., o=o_ i

\ ·, '--, I --- ...... ) \ \, / i~:·.:~

KG-18

) .,, ... .. ·.·~

KG-1A... ~

w GD 0 0

"·(C1-·1ir-""'- ;,:·r~ - .. :/ ,:;---I/ I; -,_~ I; I/ . -.··1.~'·,..._:~· I; . I; I; ,1''.1' I; I/ / I; 'A: ( I; -;:,.~ ,,,.I /1 -:::::-'.::: I I; 0 /; I; ,;,// I; I; .... (/ .'w! ! ..,;:J./>;:i::,' ( ~ . <> ''·.?i ' ! o-""' o:0_ 1, \ ~\\\ '.,- ., \ MAP_, 38 L~= 12 / ~/, t 'k- -\ PORT ROYAL 1 7·==== I 0 )~:>yt ' '/fAf'PAHANNOCK RI/ER ,( 1 ' ' 1 \!, ~I . , .-~ , ''SHORELANDS TYPES I) 1' .JI) Subsegments KG-1A, KG-18, CA-1A and CA-18 . ~ ' ~ ;_..· - , ,. FASTLAND- =,·===.

6C Low Shore Moderately Low Shore I u u I u I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff ,,_.y_ _.v .... ,_., Moderately High Shore A A SHORE / Beach :-:-· .. ·.-: :--.. :- : ··. -:-:-:-: Fringe Marsh [11!111111!111111111111 Extensive Marsh ////////,//// Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 // // \y' - ._// /)) // // /.,')//1 I/ .·· / Ill":. / ;f / / I;.' -- -r-- -x~'\ '\ !;·' 11 Gravel '" "'-; (' // // Pits \\ .:..\\ ~ ii; // I ? 1i. \\~~~~-~ ~~ "",... II ~::::~ 11/r' I! // / II Ii II 11 \Gravel t: Pit

II II II Ii // KG-1A :1 .• // o- "" o:O_ i

61 Agricultural A Industrial I Recreational RC Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1

iEROSION : ·; I I I I I I I 1r ,= Moderate •. .I . Slight or No Change No Symbol/ ·- ii . - -;; // // ~//~;<~ 1A // 11·.::::c~.:::::.:::::,::::-' I._ // -'ii "" KG-18 / "" " .io // II 1A // II // II // // // // // // 1At \\ /,),.,\" '\(~ \ \\ ~

· 1A · KG-1A. ·~ .. y,,,..... --=-"· 1A

0 0 ui ::f 0: - 0

1 MILE . "'( 0 ',,\~ \ ------.,/

~ 0

(JI_ 0 0:

Skinkers

= Segment Boundary = Subsegment Boundary

\ \ {/, \ rt! ;\ } ',(_ f'' ~~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ,,,\ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \, ~ ~ '\ ~ \. \ I "'I I I I \ I I I I \' i I I --~ ;/ \.>; .'~' I I I I I I rr·-"7r. - ·-==::--'--· •-,;~==-c:· •(:9-~.i' \\ \\, \I 0 0 - -..J o=°'- "t,

'

UI. 0 o=

-4 4 -4 -4

fll II 111111111111111- Ill- I - //////////// ~

0-0-0-0 •Vi>[1;:7 ··--··---- - _..... --· .­ \\ \\ \\ "

" 0 ui :j 0: - 0

Skinkers "" _!)Jeck

Agricultural A Industrial I Unmanaged Wooded W · 1AGra~ri"~ OWNERSHIP Private 1 K G-18,, EROSION ... •,"'''"<~~~"''"~-- Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretion al + + + +1 '\

- ; \\\I: / \_ ·.

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER -~----- \ TOPOGRAe.tlY~AND CULTURE,~ :y-0 Subsegments KG-1C and CA-1C ~'Y!"- // = Segment Boundary ff( / = Subsegment Boundary }, . ; ,_/ \'' ~--~i:·. ) '----, ~ 0-.-__ ~/"'= . .. I

Maryton

.// 70---··

_;, /

/,:,r~~ I 2 0 I MILE"' \ " n° 20'od'

48 11° 20' oo"

' :/ 0 l [~

fl 11111111111111111 lll I1 //////////// ~ I I II I I A A A A Narrow 0-0-0-0

A A A A 15 od --- " \\ " • •IT) • \I "\\ , I \\ i\ \\ Ii

11° 20'od'

49 A I u w /

1

I I I

+ + II \\.,,

/a / . 'l ____;-;J/ I r 'i I _,; J _,,.---~~;--"-< \_.- \ ~· 0 1 r\ .. ,----

50 77° 2' "!IJ"

.. /

350 17 1 30"

~ "\,,, ,, \\ ). \ 1 J . ) :;J'·J ~, 1 ,MAP 6A.; > / ·; ,' ROSIER CREEK,..- \ \I fr: · • TOPOGRAPHY AND CULiURE: \ ·'\ ·. r-i .:}) -~···\·.Segments 2 and 3=1 ' · f "'- \ ,, . ·. ~ ).Jt!1Jf).: \; -~'#" = Segment Boundary ;/ \_ .. s,'<"'\\"' M~~1 )_(t,'\/>~ / =,~~b~~gm~nt_Boun~ary.~~: , \\ 1 ··,·\· _"-."'.f" , 0_,,,., ·. ', . · rr.' i / ,,"PriceC~c==·=·=~=- • • ir-c·· .L_ . \· .-. "~?' \ . __,.J ,\) .. I < \. _/ ,I \\ ·s ,,,, •,,; ~-

C-' Cem t -~µ ·.. _//-­ / . . · //· /9')· .·.?5..

I 2 I MILE E------3 E------3 77°

51 77° 2' ?/J11 • •

r·

380: .· ,.'·.· '(i t \ :}~;;(~:::~:.· 17 1 ,-- ~·-·; 3011 --· .- --1 / / I ./:~-:-

~~~. - ,_,,------. \ \ \ ·@~/"'"~\ ~-®' ' ... _.----- \ 1 ,L MAP 68 Y. f@_....,.--

\. -~- J _J 1~\, B0$_1ER CREEk._c \. "'\\ \\ \\ · .. ·'-'_, <._.,·,.): ·_: ,/ ·1," SHORELANDS TYPESl ('_ i \\ \ . .:, \ .¢ J - / . \ s ·- . \\ . \ · - :t-.,~i;_,,·,.~;:, L.Q egments 2 and 3;:10 \: 1:' ,,,,:.~:..,,~~--- ____ ,.:~:... l '. '· . · .. c:5;, FASTLAND , "· " NEARSHOFiE""' ; ~":c:.C:-/['; '72''·"~)/; Low Shore Wide ':·.<::::.:--·,.,.,":' ·_/---:,;:_·::-_{ Low Shore 1< ( :i'0_if: with Bluff I I g I I :.

52 0

"'~.:::,,""'::::-: -·-·-~-=--=.::::::.

\\ Private 1 ,,,, • 0 Federal 2 ,:-,, Cem I .... ?"" EROSION _/. / ~..fo-Data

' . \....--;; '; \ ii \I .------I_,

1 , /. .,,y;·- Sharp Hill(_:,'t'em<;, 2 0 1 MILE . ,,--- .. ,-- '· " 77° 2 1 3011

53 I 2 ---;r-,-· . -,, - . - 0

-\, . ..,j. > )'o

~==c~~==c~- . ~/7\ (_ -===0J '\ \\ l - " ~~ ,

c:ElODOC

~-~ Howland t 3 ; t::l i:' '5f/\ ::,.,::;. -...-~

Wood ~and 2

54 I 2 ~ ~·~?':=:_§==. !\(\.==3:=:=~~. \ ., ~=-~-~c!::::~W;3=~0~======~l, .r: ""j/' ,. - " MILE • .·\ >"MAP 781. ·· 0 :~fP_Ef3 .t\llACHOpQ¢-CREEK. • ~'( -,. SHORELANDS TYPES·; .,. ~ . ) Segments 2, 3, and 4, ,------·· ·-- FASTLAND - • Low Shore ~ Low Shore • with Bluff Q Moderately Low Shore • • n • • Moderately High Shore A 4 SHORE - 4 4 • Beach :-:-·.··.-:.:. :- : . : ·:. ;. :-:-: 4 38° 38° Fri~~~ Marsh rtllllllllllllllllllllli 20' • 20' od Art1f1c1ally Stabilized ~ ..&.. ..&.. oo" Embayed Marsh ~ NEAR SHORE . • ...,,.': u/r·~_iq~- // '. . . -- ··:>~-- --•-- :· 1\• • • , : > / _/--·. --- .·· /,, '. ' . ! . ~ //::/,-~~~~- .· ,,;,'7-7 \ I/ . ·. . ·., // \ • " . ,,,-r ti~·..«'-~· ."'==

•'-' /,I// o·''.\ ,p I • ~. ./~~:=:;:..,- \ • ~~ra:el~!~----/~:~v· _) L. f.y ( 1 . • ..; //~~------; ! ''- -.~~. l -/ ,f' . 3

• 2

\\ 11 • 77° 2' ?IJ

55 I 2 0 1 MILE

I M RS ,1 --.__ .. r· ! ; \ w '. 4

1 2

cJlODOC 1'11 i\ Howland t

I - I

56 "'0"' ...... = - 0

IMAPI - 8A MATHIAS POINT NECK !T.Of:'OGRAPHY AND CULTURE i Segments 4 and 5 // = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

+

R I v Seawalls 5

\JI -..J 4

_/ J \~ I

(>I (,I a, a, "-'I- 0 0 Persimmon N N N_ N_ (.H (>I / 0 0 ( = I / --~- ( j - . I \ I . i 0 I N1::CK ~--- \ ·- j \;_ -\-~' -- I MAP 88 1f\llj\ T_81_AS POINT -NECK \ ·-· ------··- ··------··----- 1 SHORELANDS TYPES •· .J -~e_9-~en!s_ 4 __ and 5 lFASTLAND Low Shore i Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore I I D I I + Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I II I I Moderately High Shore A 6 6 6 Moderately High Shore with Bluff A A A A High Shore with Bluff SHORE • • • R Beach :.:.·.·:·:·:·:·:·: ·:·:·:·:·: Artificially Stabilized ~ ...... Seawalls- Extensive Marsh //////////h Embayed Marsh ~ 5\ 0 NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide •••• 0

0 0

0 V1 00 I 0 0

0

0 - \

0

0 c,, (,I (D ~' "'I- 0 N N. c,, ' 0:' : ~ ) V ,1, I' , ---\ ""''-~\ .· ) ' ' I 0

.' ,' \ 1 0 j ,l A S \\ . i O I \J T : \ N ·c: CK /. \ _: \ 1'''· 1() ) \ ' \ ·o 1.,1 I\) :::l 0:: - 0 fMAP 8C I MATHIAS POINT NECK FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 4 and 5 ···· ········- USE Agricultural A Military M Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged + Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 Federal 2 EROSION Moderate I I I I I II

R I v Seawalls .e 5 ~ ,, \ \ \ \ / // ,' / / ' / / / // / / / / / / / ( / I / :,· / 4 / 1, A S ., (:- / <'., 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I (.,J a, / 0 ~- (>4 0 :

0 \ \, N"ECK

i. 770 01' "Mi' i M~AP g·A . METQrYU·

0 22' 3011 5 POTOMAC RIVER

j' _\ l_ .· -'; ,, ',\ .-:··· . \\ ,,,_ -- ...,~L,.c_:_·... \\ '\ \\ \\ 0 1 MILE \\ \ 770 o7' 30"

60 77° 07 1 30" M_AP_9B METOMKIN POINT SHORELANDS TYPES Segments 5 and 6 FASTLAND Low Shore SHORE Low Shore Beach :.. :.·.··.·:•:•:•:•: •:•:-:-:-: with Bluff Fringe Marsh rlllllllllllllllllllllli Moderately Low Shore I I D I I Artificially Stabilized J- ...... Moderately Low Shore Embayed Marsh ~ with Bluff I I u I I NEARSHORE Moderately High Shore 6 A A A 0-0-0-0 High Shore Narrow • 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 High Shore • • Wide •••• with Bluff • • •• • 0 22' 3d' i_ 5 • -, PO TOMAC RIVER ' 0 0 0 0 • 0 • • 0 tO

6

0

I ) l 0 \_..,...-J / ,o­ / ·~(.. ~---·- . \ \ - -· ...-_ .. _ . I ) 0

77° 071 3011

61 77° 07 1 3d' ;M,L\P~-c~ Ml;_JOM!(IN POINT F~STLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 5 and 6 USE Agricultural A Recreational RC Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Moderate II I I I I I

390 22' 3d' 5 POTOMAC RIVER

77° 071 3011

62 770 io' oo"

6

I 2 0 770 10'00" --

63 6 0

0

I n I

I u I I •4 A A

A 4 4

:-:-·.··.-:.:. : .. :. : ·~. =· :•:•: ..,_

770 10'00" -

64 ______}_ 7~7:0t10>'' co~o;;; ..------

l 2 0

770 10'00"

65 11° 1s' oo"

Indian Point ----6

I I I -1

38° 20' oo"

0

11° 1s'oo"

66 11° ,s'oo" ,.· ,,· Indian Point 6 • • • • . I • , I • --.• 38° j 201 oo"

Moderately Low Shore I I P I I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff • 1 II 1 1 Moderately High Shore A 4 A 4 Moderately High Shore with Bluff A A & A High Shore High Shore . -- with Bluff SHORE --- Beach :-:-·.··.·=·=·:-:-: ·:·:-:-:-: Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 Artificially Stabilized ..J...... _._ _._ Embayed Marsh ~ NEARSHORE

0

77° 15 1 00 11

67 77° 1s' oo"

Indian ~kins Island Point 6

77° 1s'oo"

68