DOCSLIB.ORG

The Morphology and Processes of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Shoreline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Morphology and Processes of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Shoreline W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1976 The morphology and processes of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay shoreline Peter Stuart Rosen College of William and Mary - Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Rosen, Peter Stuart, "The morphology and processes of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay shoreline" (1976). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539616832. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25773/v5-evhk-em12 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a - good itnage of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 77-4988 ROSEN, Peter Stuart, 1949- THE MORPHOLOGY AND PROCESSES OF THE VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE. The College of William and Mary in Virginia, Ph.D., 1976 Geology Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 THE MORPHOLOGY AND PROCESSES OP THE VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE A Dissertation Presented to The Paculty of the School of Marine Science The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Pulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy "by Peter S. Rosen 1976 APPROVAL SHEET This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ____________ Author Appro August 1976 ohert J fe, Chairman Victor Goldsmith raid Johnson 7‘V M. Zergler ene Silherhorn Ivar Strand TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................... v LIST OP TABLES....................................... vi LIST OP FIGURES...................................... vii ABSTRACT.............................................ix INTRODUCTION....................................... 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................... 5 MORPHOLOGY..................................... 5 PROCESSES....................................... 8 METHODOLOGY........................................... 11 ANALYSIS......................................... 18 COASTAL MORPHOLOGY................................... 23 BEACH ENVIRONMENTS............................... 23 PERMEABLE BEACHES............................. 31 IMPERMEABLE BEACHES........................... 36 MARSH BARRIER BEACHES................. 49 MARSH ENVIRONMENTS............................... 55 MARSH MARGIN SHORELINES....................... 55 FRINGE M A R S H................................. 62 COASTAL SUCCESSION.............. 68 WAVE REFRACTION.....................................76 MODEL DEVELOPMENT................................. 76 MODEL I N P U T .....................................80 WIND CLIMATE.....................................81 TABLE OP CONTENTS (CONT'D) & MODEL OUTPUT............................... 91 DISCUSSION................................. 91 SHORELINE REORIENTATION....................94 SHORELINE SEDIMENTS . ....................98 EPPECTS OP VARIATION IN TIDAL RANGE ON THE SHORELINE.................................... 116 NEARSHORE TERRACES..................... 133 SEA LEVEL RISE................................ 147 EPPECT ON SHORE MORPHOLOGY.................151 APPLICATION OP THE BRUUN MODEL. ......... 155 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................... 164 APPENDIX A: LOCATION OP REACHES............... 169 APPENDIX B: PARAMETERS DESCRIBING REACHES. 177 APPENDIX C: WAVE REFRACTION DIAGRAMS......... 194 APPENDIX D: SHORELINE HISTOGRAMS............. 207 references cited.............................. 305 VITA .............................. 313 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to Robert Byrne, Victor Goldsmith, and John Zeigler for their support on this project. The cooperation and enthusiasm of Ivar Strand, John Jacobson, Gerald Johnson, and Gene Sil- berhorn is greatly appreciated. Valuable field and laboratory assistance was provided by Wray Evans, Rone Baldwin, Steven Shiver, and Michael Car- ron. Kay Stubblefield, Michael Williams, William Jenkins, and Kenneth Thornberry assisted in graphics and photography. Advice and assistance on computer applications were provided by William S. Richardson and Francis K. Degges. v LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Characteristics of Shore Environments..........26 2. Characteristics of Permeable Beach Environments......................... 34- 3. Supra-Tidal Elevations of Beach Environments . 37 4-. Characteristics of Impermeable Beach Environment s......................... 4-1 5. Characteristics of Marsh Barrier Beach Environments......................... 53 6. Characteristics of Marsh Margin Environments . 61 7. Erosion Pates of Pringe Marsh Environments . 65 8. Characteristics of Physiographic Subdivi­ sions ............................... 71 9. Summary of Beachface Sediment Character­ istics.............................. 104- 10. Summary of Bluff Sediment Characteristics. 107 11. Summary of Sediments Beneath Impermeable Beaches............................ 109 12. Erosion Rates Compared to Tide R a n g e........ 124- 13. Statistical Results: Tide R a n g e ............. 127 14-. Nearshore Terrace Widths................... ""138 15- Age of Nearshore Terrace Margins............ 14-1 16. Relative Sea Level Rise Rates................ 14-8 17. Results of Bruun Model - All Reaches........ 160 vi LISO? 01 FIGURES Figure Page 1. County Location Map......... 13 2. Geographic N a m e s .............................15 3. Erosion Rates Along Shoreline................. 25 4. Distribution of Beach Environments........... 29 3. Photo Showing Permeable Beach................. 33 6. Photo Showing Impermeable Beach............... 39 7- Photo Showing Trench in Impermeable Beach. 44 8. Variations in Beach Width and Elevation, Gloucester Point..................... 48 9. Photo Showing Marsh Barrier Beach............. 51 10. Distribution of Marsh Environments .......... 57 11. Photo Showing Marsh Margin Shoreline.......... 59 12. Photo Showing Fringe M a r s h ................... 64 13. Coastal Succession ......................... 70 14. Diagram of Wave Forecast Input............... 79 15. Total Annual Wind Roses....................... 84 16. Frequency of Winds Greater Than 11 m/s . 86 17. Frequency of Winds Greater Than 5 m/s.......... 88 18. Frequency of Peak Gusts....................... 90 19. Photo Showing Hooked Spits................... 96 20. Fall Velocity - Phi Equivilent Conversion Scale ...................101 21. Mean Grain Size of Beachface Samples.........103 vii LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D) & 22. Mean Grain Size of Fastland Samples. Ill 23- Photo Showing Trench in Permeable Beachface....................... 113 24. Distribution of Tide Ra n g e ..............119 25- Beach Elevation Versus Tide Range. 122 26. Beach Erosion Versus Tide Range..........126 27- Storm Surge Versus Tide Range ........ 129 28. Distribution of Nearshore Terrace Widths......................... 137 29. Sea Level Curve, Kaye & Barghoorn (1964) 144 30. Sea Level Curve, Redfield (1969) .... 146 31. Distribution of Subsidence Rates .... 150 32. Subsidence Rates Compared to Mareograph D a t a ........................... 153 33* Bruun M o d e l ........................... 157 viii ABSTRACT There is a high degree of site-specificity to the coastal environments of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay. The variability is influenced by (1)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware
    Upper Ceoozoic Deposits GEOLOGICAL SXJEVilY FRQfEBSIONAL lAPEE Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware By JAMES P. OWENS and CHARLES S. DENNY SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC STUDIES IN THE EMERGED COASTAL PLAIN OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1067-A Upper Tertiary deltaic and shallow-water marine deposits form the backbone of the peninsula. The oldest marine deposits of Pleistocene age reach a maximum altitude of 15 meters (50 feet) and have been dated radiometrically at about 100,000 years UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1979 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Owens, James Patrick, 1924- Upper Cenozoic deposits of the central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. (Surface and shallow subsurface geologic studies in the emerged coastal plain of the Middle Atlantic States) (Geological Survey professional paper ; 1067-A) Bibliography: p. Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1067-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cenozoic. 2. Geology Delmarva Peninsula. I. Denny, Charles Storrow, 1911- joint author. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional paper ; 1067-A. QE690.093 551.7'8 77-608325 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03191-4 CONTENTS Abstract._____________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay C
    Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay C. S. Hardaway, Jr. and R. J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary 1 Cover Photo: Drummond Field, Installed 1985, James River, James City County, Virginia. This publication is available for $10.00 from: Sea Grant Communications Virginia Institute of Marine Science P. O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 356 Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11 October 1999 Funding and support for this report were provided by... Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Sea Grant College Program Sea Grant Contract # NA56RG0141 Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program NA470Z0287 WILLIAM& MARY Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay By C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. and Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1999 4 Table of Contents Preface......................................................................................7 Shoreline Evolution ................................................................8 Shoreline Processes ..............................................................16 Wave Climate .......................................................................16 Shoreline Erosion .................................................................20 Reach Assessment ................................................................23 Shoreline Management Strategies ......................................24 Bulkheads and Seawalls
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System
    Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System Jason Tercha January 16, 2017 In 1952, the Alexandria City Council created the first sanitation authority in Virginia. Four years later, the City of Alexandria Sewer Authority opened a water-treatment facility near the mouth of Hooff’s Run. Since 1956, the water treatment facility has treated the city’s sewerage discharge, purifying the sanitary water of the city and discharging clean water back into the environment. In response to more stringent environmental standards and renewed efforts to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the Alexandria Sewer Authority upgraded the facility during the late 1990s and through the 2000s. Now known as Alexandria Renew Enterprises after a 2012 rebrand, the sewerage facility remains a crucial component of the city of Alexandria’s efforts to maintain the health and prosperity of its citizens and environment. This brief overview of the city of Alexandria’s twentieth and twenty-first century efforts to manage and treat its sewerage is well documented in city records, newspapers, and the annual reports of the Alexandria Sewer Authority.1 However, as much as these recent efforts to manage waste- and stormwater are known, the city’s earlier struggles to accomplish these goals have largely remained a mystery. The obscurity of Alexandria’s early sewerage control efforts might mistakenly suggest a dearth of water management efforts in the nineteenth century. As this report demonstrates, since the city’s founding Alexandrians exerted immense efforts to manage the excess stormwater and to dispose of the human and animal wastes by incorporating new technologies and practices to respond to evolving knowledge of human health and the environment of a growing regional entrepôt.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia
    Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, VA C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. 1 Donna A. Milligan 1 Lyle M. Varnell 2 Christine Wilcox 1 George R. Thomas 1 Travis R. Comer 1 Shoreline Studies Program 1 Department of Physical Sciences and Wetlands Program 2 Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 This project was funded by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant #NA17OZ2355 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies or DEQ. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the City of Norfolk within the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system...................2 Figure 2. Location of localities in the Dune Act with jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional localities noted. ...2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3. Geological map of the City of Norfolk (from Mixon et al., 1989). ...........................3 Figure 4. Index of shoreline plates.............................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. i Figure 5. Variability of dune and beach profiles within the City of Norfolk ............................7 Figure 6. Typical profile of a Chesapeake Bay dune system. ........................................7 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... i Figure 7. Photo of the Norfolk shoreline showing dune site NF3.. ...................................9 Figure 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Garrett County
    Appendix D- Recreation Inventory County Acres Private/ quasi-public State/Federal Acres Courts Fields Trails (Miles) Campsites Basketball Basketball Baseball Multi Swimming XC Golf Public Beach Public Boat Site Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Classification Ownership Comments/Amenities Indoor Outdoor Tennis Other Gymnasium Softball Soccer Purpose Pools Skiing Hiking Biking ORV Snowmobile Total Public Pvt Courses (ft.) Launch Areas Accident Community Park East 4.1 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Ball field, walking trail, horseshoe pits 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 Accident Community Park West 12.5 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Pavilions, volleyball Accident Elementary School 9.6 School Recreation Park Board of Education Basketball court, playground 1 1 1 1 Accident Community Pond 2.4 Community Park Town of Accident Fishing pond Aquatic Center 1.0 Marine Private Private marina 1 ASCI -Adventure Sports Center Int'l. 17.0 Special Use Area ASCI Man-made whitewater course Avilton Community Center 2.0 Special Use Area Avilton Community Assoc. Playground, basketball court, pavilion 1 Bear Creek Hatchery Fish Mgmt. Area 113.0 Natural Resource Area State of MD Fish management area Big Run State Park 300.0 State Park State of MD Camping, fishing, Savage River Reservoir access 29 1 Bill's Outdoor Center 1.0 Marine Private Lake access, shoreline Bills Marine Service, Inc. 1.0 Marine Private Marina, boat rentals 1 Bloomington Fire Co. Town Park 3.0 Community Park Bloomington Fire Co. Basketball court, walking trail, pavilion
    [Show full text]
  • The Recreation the Delmarva Peninsula by David
    THE RECREATION POTENTIAL OF THE DELMARVA PENINSULA BY DAVID LEE RUBIN S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1965) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOT THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June, 1966 Signature of Author.,.-.-,.*....... .. .*.0 .. .. ...... .. ...... ... Department of City and Regional Planning May 23, 1966 Certified by.... ....... .- -*s.e- Super....... Thesis Supervisor Accepted by... ... ...tire r'*n.-..0 *10iy.- .. 0....................0 Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students 038 The Recreation Potential of the Delmarva Peninsula By David Lee Rubin Submitted to the Department of City and Regional Planning on 23 May, 1966 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning. rhis thesis is a plan for the development of Lne recreation potential of the Delmarva Peninsyla, the lower counties of Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, to meet the needs of the Megalopolitan population. Before 1952, the Delmarva Peninsula was isolated, and no development of any kind occurred. The population was stable, with no in migration, and the attitudes were rural. The economy was sagging. Then a bridge was built across the Chesapeake Bay, and the peninsula became a recreation resource for the Baltimore and Washington areas. Ocean City and Rehoboth, the major resorts, have grown rapidly since then. In 1964, the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel further accellerated growth. There are presently plans for the development of a National Seashore on Assateague Island, home of the Chincoteague ponies, as well as state parks along the Chesapeake Bay, and such facilities as a causeway through the ocean and a residential complex in the Indian River Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County Code Chapter 61
    ARLINGTON COUNTY CODE ARLINGTON COUNTY CODE Chapter 61 CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ORDINANCE* __________ * Editors Note: Ord. No. 03-1, adopted Feb. 8, 2003, amended Ch. 61, in its entirety, to read as herein set out in §§ 61-1-61-19. __________ § 61-1. Title § 61-2. Purpose and Intent § 61-3. Definitions § 61-4. Administration. § 61-5. Areas of Applicability. § 61-6. Use Regulations. § 61-7. Allowable Development, Modifications, and Encroachments in RPAs. § 61-8. Minimum Lot Size. § 61-9. Interpretation of RPA Boundaries. § 61-10. General Performance Standards for Development in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. § 61-11. Reserved. § 61-12. Water Quality Impact Assessment. § 61-13. Plan of Development Process in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. § 61-14. Nonconforming Uses and Structures. § 61-15. Exemptions. § 61-16. Exceptions. § 61-17. Enforcement. § 61-18. Penalties. § 61-19. Severability. § 61-1. Title This chapter shall be known and referenced as the "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance" of Arlington County. (Ord. No. 03-1, 2-8-03) § 61-2. Purpose and Intent A. This chapter is enacted to implement the requirements of § 62.1-44.15:67 et seq., of the Code of Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9VAC25-830-10 et. seq.) The intent of the County Board and the purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District created herein is to: 1. Protect existing high quality state waters; 2. Restore all other state waters to a condition or quality that will permit all reasonable public uses and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGHEST and LOWEST ELEVATIONS in MARYLAND's COUNTIES Compiled by the Maryland Geological Survey, 2300 St
    FactSheet No. 1: HIGHEST AND LOWEST ELEVATIONS IN MARYLAND'S COUNTIES Compiled by the Maryland Geological Survey, 2300 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 (revised Feb. 18, 2005) COUNTY HIGH APPROXIMATE LOW APPROXIMATE LOCATION RELIEF (feet) LOCATION (feet) (feet) Allegany 2895 Dan's Rock 420 Potomac River at Sideling Hill 2475 Creek Anne Arundel 300 Fort Meade Rd., 0.25 mi. W of 0 Chesapeake Bay 300 Baltimore-Washington Pkwy Baltimore City $480 NW corner in vicinity of 0 Baltimore Harbor $480 Reisterstown Rd. (Patapsco River) Baltimore 966 Mason-Dixon Line near Stiltz, 0 Chesapeake Bay 966 Pa., on Middletown Rd. Calvert 168 Sunderland at jct Rte 4 & 262 0 Chesapeake Bay 168 Caroline 79 3 mi. W of Henderson, 0 Chesapeake Bay 79 N side of Bee Tree Rd. Carroll /1120 4 mi. NW of Manchester, 260 Patapsco River nr Marriottsville 858 0.6 mi. NW of Wentz Cecil 535 0.25 mi. S of Rock Springs 0 Chesapeake Bay 535 Charles 235 near Bolton, 4.5 mi. WNW of 0 Potomac River 235 Waldorf Dorchester 57 Johnson Road, 2.5 mi. E of 0 Chesapeake Bay 57 Williamsburg Frederick 1895 South Mountain, 2 mi. NW of 200 Potomac River at Monocacy 1695 Wolfsville River Garrett 3360 Hoye Crest on Backbone Mt., on 960 Potomac River at Bloomington 2400 the Md.-W.Va. border* Harford 803 Slate Ridge, 0.4 mi. E of 0 Chesapeake Bay 803 Whiteford Howard 873 1.5 mi. NW of Long Corner 20 Patapsco River 853 Kent 102 2.25 mi. W of Coleman 0 Chesapeake Bay 102 Montgomery /880 ~0.2 mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Author: Darrin L. Lowery Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation 5264 Blackwalnut Point Road, P.O. Box 180 Tilghman, MD 21671 2003 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Atlantic shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses all of the lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and shorelines associated with the back barrier island bays. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Atlantic Ocean to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes which hinder site visibility and limit archaeological interpretations. Summaries of these natural processes are presented in this report. The primary goal of the project was to locate, identify, and record any archaeological sites or remains along the Atlantic seashore that are threatened by shoreline erosion. The project also served as a test of a prehistoric site predictive/settlement model that has been utilized during other archaeological surveys along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines and within the interior sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. The prehistoric site predictive/settlement model is presented in detail using archaeological examples from Maryland and Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Late Pleistocene Uplift, Chesapeake Bay Entrance
    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles Virginia Institute of Marine Science 2-1965 Possible late Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay entrance W. Harrison RJ Malloy GA Rusnak J Terasmae Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Geology Commons VOLUME 73 NUMBER 2 THE JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY March 1965 POSSIBLE LATE PLEISTOCENE UPLIFT CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTRANCE1 W. HARRISON,2 R. J. MALLOY,3 GENE A. RUSNAK,4 AND J. TERASMAE5 ABSTRACT Paleontological and lithological studies of engineering borings and boring logs indicate that a buried, subaerial erosion surface of Pliocene (?)-Pleistocene age cuts across clastic sediments of pre-Yorktownian Miocene age in the subsurface and subbottom of the lower Chesapeake Bay area. When the bore-hole data are coupled with the results of subbottom echo profiling and piledriving records, it is possible to construct accurate cross sections of the buried Miocene-Pleistocene contact. The cross sections show "lows" in the erosion surface that may be correlated with the buried channels of the Pleistocene Elizabeth, James, York, and Susquehanna river valleys. Probable channel depths below mean low water at control points are: 100 feet (Elizabeth River, beneath Tunnel no. 1), 155 feet (James River, at Hampton Roads Tunnel), 120 feet (York River, at Yorktown), 158 feet (Susquehanna River, off Cape Charles City), and 160 feet (Susquehanna River, at Fisherman Island, Cape Charles). The channel depths of what is believed to be the buried Susquehanna River valley are less than expected when placed on a curve showing the expectable gradients of that stream during the time of the most-recent, maximum lowering of sea level (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA the Birthplace of a Nation
    VIRGINIA The Birthplace of a Nation Created for free use in the public domain American Philatelic Society ©2010 • www.stamps.org Financial support for the development of these album pages provided by Mystic Stamp Company America’s Leading Stamp Dealer and proud of its support of the American Philatelic Society www.MysticStamp.com, 800-433-7811 Virginia Discovered The history of Virginia begins long before the Englishmen set foot in the New World. The land had been inhabited by Native Americans for several thousand years. The Algonquian, Iroquoian, Siouan all resided along the Central Atlantic coast. After the discovery of the New World, England, the Dutch Republic, France, Portugal, and Spain all attempted to establish New World colonies. A Spanish exploration party had come to the lower Chesapeake Bay region of Virginia about 1560 and met the Native Americans living on the Virginia Peninsula. The first English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607. Jamestown Exposition Issue Jamestown Exposition Issue Founding of Jamestown, 1607 Captain John Smith 1907 • Scott 329 1580–1631 1907 • Scott 328 Jamestown was founded in 1607 by a group of 104 English “gentlemen” who were sent by King James I to John Smith is remembered as the leader of the first English search for gold and a water route to the Orient. Disease, settlement in Virginia. Having endured the four month famine, and attacks from the Algonquians, took a toll on journey (from December 1606 to April 1607) to the New the initial population. However, with the determination World, the colonists only survived because of Smith’s “He of John Smith and the trading with Powhatan (chief of who does not work, will not eat” policy.
    [Show full text]