W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1978

Shoreline Situation Report Northumberland County

Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Margaret H. Peoples 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 Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Morgan, L. C., Owen, D. W., Peoples, M. H., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1978) Shoreline Situation Report Northumberland County. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 161. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5DX59

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 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-7-158-44041

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 161 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1978 Shoreline Situation Report NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

Prepared by: Lynne Morgan Dennis W. Owen Margaret H. Peoples

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 No. 04-7-158-44041

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 161 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE. William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1978 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: Reedville 12 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4: Creek South of Taskmakers Creek 12 FIGURE 5: Smith Point 12 FIGURE 6: Vir-Mar Beach 12 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 7: Marshalls Beach 12 FIGURE 8: Cordreys Beach 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 9: Mouth of Rogers Creek 13 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 10: Mouth of Hull Creek 13 FIGURE 11: Toward Corbin Pond 13 FIGURE 12: Bay Quarter Neck 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF NORTHUMBERLAND 9 FIGURE 13: Bay Quarter Neck 14 FIGURE 14: Lewisetta 14 3.1 The Shorelands of Northumberland 10 FIGURE 15: Mouth of Judith Sound 14 3.2 Shoreline Erosion 10 FIGURE 16: East Bank of Lodge Creek 14 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 11

TABLE 1: Northumberland County Shorelands Physiography 20 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF NORTHUMBERLAND 21 TABLE 2: Northumberland County Subsegment Summaries 22

4.1 Segment and Subsegment Summaries 22 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions MAPS lA-E: Northumberland County Summary Maps 15 Segment 1 27 MAPS 2A-C: Fleets Bay Quadr. 51 Segment 2 28 MAPS 3A-C: Fleets Bay and Reedville Quads. 54 Segment 3 29 MAPS 4A-C: Reedville Quadr. 57 Segment 4 30 MAPS 5A-C: Reedville, Lancaster, Burgess and Heathsville Quads. 60 Segment 5 31 MAPS 6A-C: Reedville Quadr. 63 Segment 6 32 MAPS 7A-C: Reedville and Burgess Quads. 66 Segment 7 33 MAPS 8A-C: Burgess Quadr. 69 Segment 8 38 MAPS 9A-C: Burgess and Heathsville Quads. 72 Segment 9 40 MAPS lOA-C: Heathsville Quadr. 75 Segment 10 43 MAPS llA-C: Heathsville, St. George Island, Lottsburg, and Segment 11 44 Kinsale Quads. 78 Segment 12 45 MAPS 12A-C: St. George Island, Kinsale, and Lottsburg Quads. 81 Segment 13 46 MAPS 13A-C: Kinsale and Lottsburg Quads. 84 Segment 14 47 Segment 15 48 S egme_n_t~l~6 49 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 51 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1 CHAPTER 1 The role of planners and managers is to optimize 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 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 Corrnnonwealth 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 recorrnnendations 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 surrnnary 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 Corrnnonwealth. 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 of the shoreline. planning districts and to the state and federal 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 planning 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 Corrnnonwealth 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 62.1, 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 pend­ ing county regulatory mechanisms concerning activi­ Residential, corrnnercial, 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 information 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 informa­ 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 performed 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. vJe 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 example, the application of the making by denoting where the various types exist. the character of erosion or deposition. In those system permits 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 termed 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 format 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. +-FASTLANo---.1.sHOR~• NEARSHORE~~~~~~~- general commercial context. Marinas are consid­ 1 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 ,.,;,;;,;,;,~II roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone I---~------MLW+l.5 Tide Range Industrial includes any tidal flats. --·.. -;;..;-;:.:::-~-:_:-:._:-:_:-:_-:.:-=-=--~M:L~W=---= -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 shorelands 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 .

.,,,. \/ .,,,,...... 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 calculated 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 procedure 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 following 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 critica'r-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 number 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 fonnal 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 in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Public, leased and condemned,"

7 CHAPTER 3 Present ShoreJands Situation

9 CHAPTER 3 sections of the Potomac River (Figure 6). The re­ 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION IN NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY maining three percent of the fastland is made up of isolated commercial, industrial, and recrea­ The primary cause of erosion in the Chesapeake PRESENT SHORELANDS SITUATION tional areas. These commercial and industrial Bay system is wave action generated by local OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA areas are marinas and other water related facili­ winds. The height and growth of waves is con­ ties, including the fish rendering plants on Cock­ trolled by four factors: the overwater distance rell Creek, The menhaden fleet is based on the across which the wind blows (the fetch), the ve­ 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY peninsula on the east side of Cockrell Creek. locity of the wind, the duration of time that the There are numerous boat yards along the Great Wi­ wind blows, and the depth of the water. Maximum Northumberland County, located at the mouth of comico River. winds occur in the Chesapeake Bay area during the Potomac River, is the northernmost Bay front­ storms and frontal passages. Northeast storms ing county in Virginia. Its bounds are Indian The nearshore and offshore zones receive inten­ which occur during the fall, winter and spring Creek on the south, the Chesapeake Bay on the east, sive use by water sport enthusiasts, commercial generate waves which attack the western shore of and the West Yeocomico River on the west. Numer­ and sport fishermen, and heavy commercial traffic. the Bay. The winds and low barometric pressure ous tidal rivers and creeks incise the county's The numerous creeks and rivers are used for a va­ associated with these "northeasters" have an in­ shorelands. Altogether, there are 438.4 miles of riety of water sports and some commercial ship­ direct effect on erosion by forcing additional shoreline in the county. The 1,560 acres of wet­ ping. water into the Bay, This "storm surge" may be lands, including fringe, embayed, and extensive two or more feet above the normal tide level. marshes, comprise eighty-five percent of the shore According ·to the State Water Control Board, When such high water levels occur, the wave in­ zone. (For a more detailed discussion, see "North­ the waters of Northumberland County generally duced erosion is concentrated higher on the fast­ umberland County Tidal Marsh Inventory", Virginia have good water quality. (i,~·, meeting the 305 land, above the natural buffer zone. Institute of Marine Science, 1975.) Ten percent (b)(l)(B) criteria, which states that "navigable of the shoreline is beach and the remaining five water shall be of the quality to provide for the Besides the height of the waves, the d~rection percent is artificially stabilized, There are sev­ protection and propagation· of a balanced popula­ at which they impinge upon the shore controls the eral notable beaches in the county located along tion of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow magnitude of long shore transport. In theory, the Potomac River. Smith Point has very wide and recreational activities in and on the water.") the transport of material along the beach is clean beaches, as does the area west of Hog Island. The several areas with water quality problems are greatest when the waves break on the shoreline Some of the extensive groin fields employed along Cockrell, Indian and Dymer Creeks, and the Great at an angle of forty-five degrees. the Potomac River have trapped sizeable fillets of Wicomico River, all tributaries of the Chesapeake sand, sometimes covering the entire groin. There Bay. These problems are the result of a variety The erosional behavior of any particular seg­ are no public beaches in the county, though the of causes; past and present municipal discharges ment of shoreline may be expected to vary from public has access to the beach at Horn Harbor into Cockrell, Indian and Dymer Creeks, past dis­ year to year depending upon the frequency and the Campground. charges from menhaden rendering plants into Cock­ intensity of storms. Also, since the long term rell Creek, and a natural oxygen depletion during trend is for a relative rise in sea level (0,01 The fastland of Northumberland County ranges late summer in the Great Wicomico River. Several feet per year), the rate of change for any sec­ from low shore to high shore with bluffs, with areas in the county are closed to the taking of tion of shoreline is ever changing. For example, several areas of dunes and artificial fill. Basi­ shellfish. many areas over the past 100 years have had long cally the entire Bay and Potomac River fronting periods of erosion followed by years of accre­ shorelands are low shore, with some dunes located Much of the Bay and Potomac River fronting tion. Though the net change for the area may be at Smith Point. Bluffs are located along the heads shoreline in Northumberland County has elevations very small, the figure would not be a true indi­ of several tributaries. The numerous creeks and of 5 feet and less. Such areas are very suscepti­ cation of the rate of change for any particular rivers located in the county have varied shorelands ble to flooding during periods of abnormally high year. It is important to remember that the rate types, though the majority of the lands continue to water. Structures in several areas are endangered of change (either loss or gain) is not constant. be low shore. by flood waters and coincident wind induced wave run-up. The roles played by marshes and beaches in the The rural nature of the county is easily seen by physical processes of the coastline are important the amount of unused and agricultural land along in the overall protection of the fastland from the shore. Basically, undeveloped land accounts erosion. Both are natural buffers which serve to for seventy-seven percent of the fastland. Resi­ absorb incident wave energy and thereby inhibit dential use comprises twenty-one percent of the erosion of the fastland. Beaches may change their shorelands. The two centers of development are configuration hour by hour, depending upon the Lewisetta (at the mouth of the Coan River) and conditions. The natural maintenance of beaches· Reedville (along Cockrell Creek). Much residen­ is attained at the expense of erosion of the tial strip development has occurred along several fastland, either at the site or up-drift.

10 Man's activities along the shoreline can have Creek (Segment 11) has an historical average ero­ 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS a significant impact upon the natural processes of sion rate of 5.7 feet per year. However, this erosion and accretion that constantly take place. section is being developed for residential pur­ Northumberland County has areas of high inten­ 'lbe stabilization of one area can have an adverse poses and the shoreline has been mostly artifi­ sity use and many areas which are totally unused. impact on both nearby sites and sites downdrift. cially stabilized. Several areas between stabi­ Most development has occurred along several creeks For example, a structure in front of a cliff re­ lized sections are continuing to erode. One sec­ and along several portions of the Potomac River. moves a sediment source from the system, possibly tion of bulkhead is failing and scouring is occur­ Much of the residential development is for second starving a beach downstream. Also, an incorrectly ring (Figures 12 and 13). or vacation homes. Almost all of the Chesapeake engineered and emplaced structure can increase ero­ Bay shorelands and much of the Potomac River sion downstream and possibly endanger other struc­ Though most significant erosion is due to wind shorelands are unused or are used for agriculture. tures. Any shore protective structure should be generated waves, another type of erosion prevalent The past development trends along the county's designed and emplaced by professionals. Where along Northumberland County's shoreline is due to shorelands are the result of a combination of fac­ feasible, an area wide system of protection is rain runoff. In a rural county where so much tors which continue to limit growth in the county preferred to individual efforts. shoreland is used for agriculture, it is common­ and along its shorelands. place to see the fields plowed as close to the Shoreline erosion is a significant problem shore as possible. It was noted during field in­ Most of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline and the along much of the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Riv­ vestigations that several fields were plowed per­ Potomac River shoreline have severe historical er shorelands of Northumberland County. Accord­ pendicular to the shoreline with no buffer zone erosion rates, one area having lost over ten feet ing to "Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia" between the field and the shore (Figure 11). Such per year. These high rates are mainly due to the (VIMS, 1977), Northumber.land County ranks 2nd plowing invites rain runoff erosion and is a prime direct exposure of the shoreline to wind induced among the Tidewater counties in loss of acres of non-point sediment source to the river. Along a wave attacks during storms. While residential shoreline for the past hundred years. 'lbe net highly active shoreline such as found in Northum­ areas along the Potomac River have been mostly loss is 3,270 acres, or an average erosion rate berland County, a green zone should be instituted artificially stabilized, erosion is continuing of 1.1 feet per year. The estimated volume of in front of all fields. 'lbe green zone should be along the unused sections of shoreline. material lost to erosion during the past 100 years relatively wide and be planted in grasses that is 38,075,000 cubic yards. will hold the soil. Such buffer zones would great­ Concurrent with the severe erosion along the ly diminish the losses of material from rain run­ Bay and Potomac River is the high flood hazard Most areas directly bordering either the Chesa­ off. for most of these areas. Flooding in these sec­ peake Bay or the Potomac River have moderate to tions is aggravated by wind induced waves during severe erosion rates. (Map 1 shows the histori­ A variety of structures have been employed storms. Wave run-up during periods of elevated cal erosion for Northumberland County.) Overall, along Northumberland County's shoreline in an ef­ water levels can cause extensive damage to struc­ the Potomac River portion has eroded an average of fort to combat the severe erosion. There are ap­ tures located significant distances inland •. Since 1.5 feet per year, as compared to 1.0 feet per proximately 23.2 miles of protective structures most of the affected shorelands have elevations year along the Bay. in the county, many of which are located along the of 5 to 10 feet, large portions of land can be Bay and Potomac River shorelands. The most preva­ inundated by flood waters. Several areas on the Bay have historical ero­ lent protective structures are groins, used in sion rates greater than five feet per year. The conjunction with either bulkhead or riprap. Most Existing conditions in some areas restrict the section of shoreline from Bluff Point to Jarvis structures have been effective at halting erosion. amount and type of development which can take Point (Segment 2) has an average erosion rate of However, some groin systems have not been success­ place. The dunes found along Smith Point are 5.2 feet per year. Further north, the shoreline ful at trapping buffer beaches, and several areas unique physiographic features which should be pre­ between Harveys and Towles Creeks (Segment 6) has of bulkhead have failed and are being flanked. served. They not only offer flood protection but been eroding at an average rate of 7.1 feet per also serve as habitats for numerous forms of wild­ year. The shoreline from Taskmakers Creek to near Most shoreline structures have been located a life. Eighty-five percent of the shoreline is Smith Point (Subsegments 8A and 8B) has eroded at sufficient distance inland not to be endangered wetlands, either embayed, extensive, or fringe an average rate of 6.1 feet per year. These areas by erosion. However, two houses at the mouth of marsh. These areas are important erosion and are mostly used for agriculture or are unmanaged Hull Creek have been severely damaged by erosion flood control agents and also serve important woods. No structures are endangered. and by flood forces (Figure 10). Several other ecological functions. Wetlands are protected by houses along the shoreline of Northumberland Coun­ the Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 and should not Two sections of shoreline along the Potomac ty, though not innninently endangered, will be af­ be disturbed where ever possible. The presence River have very high average erosion rates. From fected by erosion in the next ten to fifteen years of marshes restrict access to the shoreline and Balls Creek to Cod Creek (Segments 11 and 12), if the shoreline is not stabilized. thus tend to limit development •. the shoreline has eroded at an average rate of 10.6 feet per year. This area is urunanaged woods. The adjacent shoreline from Cod Creek to Presley

11 FIGURE 3: Reedville, Subsegment 7F. The tip of the pen­ insula would be flooded during times of abnormally high water, damaging or destroying the structures. Cockrell Creek has high bacteriological counts due to septic tank leachate around Reedville.

FIGURE 4 : Creek south of Taskmakers Creek, Subsegment BA. Erosion along this section of the Chesapeake Bay can be a serious problem. The house has been protected by rubble riprap. Erosion had been quite evident until the shoreline was stabilized.

FIGURE 5 : Smith Point, Subsegment 8B. This site has excellent sand beaches and shows evidence of dune formation.

FIGURE 6: Vir-Mar Beach, Segment 10. The groins have been effective in trapping buffer beaches . However, erosion is continuing along many bluff areas of the shoreline.

Figure 3 Figure. 4 FIGURE 7: Marshall s Beach, Segment 11, ground view. The groins have been very successful in trapping sand. Beach material is coming from the eroding bluffs a l ong thi s section of shoreline .

Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

12 FIGURE 8: Cordreys Beach, Segment 11. The two new sections of bulkhead and groins need to be backfilled. Notice the evidence of past erosion.

FIGURE 9: Mouth of Rogers Creek, Segment 11 . The variety of structures here tends to be self- defeating. Note the different angles which the groins approach the shoreline. A simplified, but well-engineered, plan of shoreline prot ection would probably be more effective.

Figure 8 Figure 9

FIGURE 10 : Mouth of Hull Creek, Segment 11. These two houses, damaged by continued erosion, have been abandoned.

FIGURE 11: Toward Corbin Pond, Segment 11. Continued erosion of the agricultural lands also causes pollution of the water, as fertilizers and insecticides are washed into the r i ver.

Figure 10 Figure 11

13 Figu re 12 Figure 13 Figure 14

FIGURE 12: Bay Quarter Neck, Segment 11, ground view. The bul khead has failed and the area behind is eroding.

FIGURE 13: Bay Quarter Neck, Segment 11. Aerial view of Figure 12. Notice the erosion behind the failed bulkhead.

FIGURE 14: Lewisetta, Segment 13. Various shore pro­ tection structures here include riprap, bul khead, and groins. The groins have been buil t of concrete cul­ verts, cinder blocks, and wood.

FIGURE 15: Mouth of Judith Sound, Segment 13. This area has been artificially stabilized using bulkhead and groins. Both have been effective. Notice the strip development along the shoreline.

FIGURE 16: Eas t bank of Lodge Creek, Segment 15. This is a large marina facility for such a rural area. FIGURE 15 FtGURE 16

14 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

MAP~ /J

SEGMENT AND MAP INDEX

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

1 HEAD OF INDIAN CREEK TO BLUFF POINT 2 BLUFF POINT TO JARVIS POINT 3 DIVIDING CREEK 4 HUGHLETT POINT TO DAMERON MARSH 5 DAMERON MARSH TO MOUTH OF Mill CREEK 6 MOUTH OF Mill CREEK TO MOUTH OF GREAT WICOMICO RIVER 7A MOUTH OF GREAT WICOMICO ~IVER TO ROGUE POINT 78 ROGUE POINT TO EAGLE POINT 7C EAGLE POINT TO BETZE LANDING 70 BETZE LANDING TO GLEBE POINT 7E GLEBE POINT TO HAYNIE POINT 7F HAYNIE POINT TO FLEET POINT 00 SA FLEET POINT TO THE MOUTH OWENS POND 88 MOUTH OF OWENS POND TO SMITH POINT

9A SMITH POINT TO PEACHTREE POINT

98 PEACHTREE POINT TO HEAD OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER 9C HEAD OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER TO KING POINT

90 KING POINT TO SMITH POINT 10 SMITH POINT TO MOUTH OF CUBITT CREEK

11 CUBITT CREEK TO GREAT POINT

..... 12 GREAT POINT TO HONEST POINT J1 13 HONEST POINT TO HOG ISLAND 14 HOG ISLAND TO BARN POINT 10 15 BARN POINT TO MUNDY POINT

16 MUNDY POINT TO COUNTY LINE 76°

45'

88

/ 1

2 4 37° 45' 390 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

MAP 18 76° 30'

14 SHORELANDS TYPES 0 0 FASTLAND 0 Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore I I I 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 iA High Shore High Shore • • • 11 with Bluff • • • 380 Dune ~ 00 SHORE Beach :-:-·.•:•:•:•:• =·: ·: •:•:•:-: Fringe Marsh flllllllllllllllllllllll Extensive Marsh //////////ll Embayed Marsh ~ 0 11 Artificially Stabilized NEAR SHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide •••• 10

76° 7C 0

45'

0 88

8A 0 4 / 1

2 5 4 I 37° 45' NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY /~1lJ! 15 MAP 1C ///1w'1w;w,1w·~:s1:t;1w / 1W ~- 1/ 76° 1w!lRS IRS lAfRs f'"fRsfiw lAl]~tlRS 16 lA/W11r1R~- J'RS,...._ • rjw IC_ - 1wllRS \ -lC .J. ( lRS, IRS - IRS IRS, IRS , 1 Al(>., 11'A?1;.fi A 1 A 1 A\ 14 1A IRS IC'),..\ IRS 1Rs1i'Rs~i):>lA l 1~.,.:_.lRS lRS IRS IRS lA I lA lR~ lA lA lAlA 1A \AA FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION lRSi\ l)Rs1._1RS lA\ 'L1w lA rlRS 1A/W·1W lRS ~ lA IJRS'J lA/~,~ lA 'AlW. lRSJ~ 1 USE 1A - :'iA).iRslRS \lRS lRS 1W lA lA. - l1RS iRS ( ------Agricultural A lA/W•l RS- ·1 RS 1. C 1 RS - 13 lR~ -.-r'lRS- Commercial C lRS1lRS11C lC..- I ~ IR~~ Industrial lW~lRS IRS lRS lRS lU lA)\ $:lRSS"1'1RS1 lRS Recreational RC 1 i, 12 lW,}/.S;1_w./'1w v- C l~S 1l_ Residential RS lWlA/W'l~_Sl~- JAlR-S~lW l~Ww/ 1w1!tlAJWilA_ /lA lE_S~ Unmanaged )A/W U1A lAlW!.!..,WJlRSIU - Unwooded u IW lRS lW 1~- lW lA/W 1A/W 1,.!.,~~\ Wooded w 1 A2 r"''lR S lAltlRS / 11 OWNERSHIP 1W IRS I Private 1 RS lRS 1 1-J»V,. 00 '-1A/W~1A lA/W>"-, lA \ lW~lW1 W .-,,;.-1W l A lA 1wr 1w Boat Ramp lA/W IA \ Marina ~t 1 A/ ~lR ~ lA/W~Jl~~--· s.~l 1A l_~S\ 11 lA/W lA lAlRS lRS 1A '( IRS ,t 1W 1 A/W1w\ 1 A lRS 1w!(._l1tw lA/W~w~fRslJlW .lRS lA/W lA/WY,w lW lW lA iRs iw-s·~: 70 lA/WjlW 1W~~8~v 1W1._ 1W lW 1w~J.w11TY... lW)_ lW lW~_lA ~W 1w1 1W lA 1W lR·s 10 lW, lC 1Al 1RS~1A/Wt 7E IRS 76° IA~ lA/W 1W lWI _ ..L\J 7C lRS ~iW 11 "1\~ lrn IA. lRC 1W 1W l}W, ,:::J 1W -i°RC IW "IRS lR~...._ lll(_l1A 1W •lA/WlRS l~W \ 1w}1w IA/~ 1~1w'1w 1A/~~1RS IRS 9C lW~L'~,lA\1~.S 1W lA/W 1!§~ 1W/ fW~\.IRS lRS 1W r:}.lA/W -" lW'-,'\ IRS 11(,l,A /'R,S 45' · lRC. lRS,lW lW IW ~W IRS 78 "----:,wJ~fi'wlAj~wlA/~ 98 ,!A/W:fi.s'£J,A'A 1J 90 1W~1~• lRC IW lA/W ~~_lA/W I lW IW ~~ lW lA/W...,lRS" ~lA/W IRS/ IRS~\ IRS 'Z:"'IA/W IRS I IW jlRs, !"\J.W l~~J la. IA/W ~,s . 1wt.Zi'~ IJ(R,(S IRStA/W 1W IRs'flRS--i.,-1.;JJt ICucllJWnRS IW _ ._ IA.f._W IW IRS UlRS \ J: ' I 7A l~IC' IRS~ 7F IA~b.- i°A '1RtlW1RS '- IRS • IA lA IA/W IA!jifs ·- ~.... I If "- 1wnw.. 1Aiw ./"IA° 1A / IA/W/IRS•IRSIJRS.s... IA IA lA r;i,,,, 'IW:lRS/i ti'>:"' IA lW~IW IA/~•IRS IWJ I IA~,~~/W ~IA 1).f.1w ,A,. IRS IA 1 1w~'f}wlA/W~~Al.. 4._J 1AJISRS'IA/WIA/WLr1w ')J /.(J~A 1_8:S·· ~ 10 1 ]IRS ~ IA/wr ... -~IA / IA wS'-· IA,!RSIIA/W ,JI 11 iw IA/W"'\:'. 'iAr-. '1Rstw 1 .., l'IRS 1w._1Afiw::;....., 1w 5 IA11cvw ~A/Vf>iw\ )#'4.IRS,tOl,A,IRS 9A- IAIRS ~ - .~w/:',J.RS/tl"'~ •... 1;-.1Rj1gs,.r ~~~~~ A IRS 1't11AA~l'l.A_, IW IC IRS ~IA/W1w1yW IAO~ 'll,. / IRS L IA --- ~ IW IA ...... ·1wnA1c•IA IW ,. IRS lA~AlW2,!A 1 3 IA (_1A 1w~,~A ~~iRs' 6 ic Rs 1c1A 1~~1~~-:;_,Rs IA IA IA~~IA IA~·-." IC_..'lA IA 1W !~

IA IA IRS IW~ IWl,t. IA IA/wJIRs-iRSIRjlA/W 1wt1A ), lA~IW)ljV 1;:"iw 1 ~ ,A - -:1. IW Zi- IA IA IWIA IW /1 1A IA ~lW YA, 1wj)A IW 8A _AlW,JWillW IW 1l.R$ ~IA lJ.Y //\'# •~ lAIA '-I~~~ IW. !W · 1 t/iJ~~W 1w·JRS 1-~ riAIW L.\-i"'R¥Rs IRS~ • \1w C::JRS IRS[, IW ~- lW ~IWf 4 'IIJIA lA°'lA,O""A lfi$J 1A..._1A JW IA lW ~is'~Rs 1w11w.1f.A / '1A1IRS l~IW~f W'.Y, w 4""J 1 IW IW IW- 2 &1;-wl o 2 s 4 --- I 37° 45' 380 I

76° 16 30'

14

SHELLFISH GROUNDS AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE

Public Grounds ~

Leased Areas E3 13 Condemation Areas ~ 12

• Sewage Discharge 11 • Industrial Discharge

00

11 •

I-' 00

10

7C

45'

10 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY A . 15 MAP 1E 16 30'

14

EROSION AND SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES

Rubble Riprap R 00 Bulkhead B Groins G Sill S

EROSION Severe Moderate I I I I I I I Moderate, Critical 1111111 Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + +

76°

45'

/ 1 2 ·- - I I- 4 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY SHOR ELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY AND FASTLAND USE (STATUTE MILES)

Physiographic SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE TOTAL MILES and use . classifi- cation FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE A . µ:) A ~ ~ § µ:) § G~H...:I ~B...:I i::ci ::c: i::ci µ:) ...:i ~ ~ I ~ ::,.-, ::,.-, ::c: µ:) ~ ~ ...:I ~ ~ .. .. µ:) ~ ...:I µ;i ...:I E-1 ~~ ~~ ~~ µ:) H j ~ < 0 H A A µ;i µ:) A H H H E-1 µ:) ~ µ;i ~ H 0 ~H ~~ H. N :> t.) ~ :::> E-i 0 E-1 ::c: ::c:...:i t.J H A H rz z t5 Ul i::ci Ul µ;i H ::c: ::a Ul H...:I 13 ~ E-1 ~ µ:) Ul ~ ~H t.) µ:) Ul µ:) A µ:) ~ Ul ~ ffi ::c: µ:) ::c: t5 ::c: z ::c: ~ I ~ µ;i µ;i H i::Q Ul µ;i Ul µ;i µ:) H H E-1 H...:I µ:) ~ rz z ~ ffi rz E-1 ...:I ~~ ~~ ~= ~G ~= c., ~ G~ E-1 < ~ E-1 A rz t.) Ul ~ Ul 0 ::c: OH §~ OH H ::cl HH µ;i z H ~ § µ;i ::c: < A~ ...:1 oo ...:I ;::E::...:1 ;::E:: ::c: Ul ::c: i::ci ~iµ;i • H t.) H Ul ~ Subsegment ~~ ::S: ~ ffi ::c: ~ffi ::s: ~~ ~i !i i ::s: ~ ~ rz I I 1 0.1 24.5 0.6 1.8 20.7 0.2 2.8 C R E E K 7.6 0.2 0.3 7.0 9.5 26.1 24.6 2 1.3 2.0 0.7 0.4 1.0 1.3 0.2 1.1 2.7 1.3 3 0.3 33.4 1.0 1.6 32.1 0.1 0.5 C R E E K 16.7 5.5 0.4 11.1 35.3 33.7 4 11.6 1.3 7.9 6.1 1.0 3.7 3.7 7.9 15.3 11.6 5 12.9 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.8 0.3 12.8 1. 9 1.3 2.0 7.8 0.3 0.7 7.1 16.3 15.9 6 0.3 0.2 14.8 0.4 o.a 2.2 13.0 0.3 2.3 6.2 0.1 2.2 0.4 6.8 16.3 15.7 7A 6.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 2.1 4.8 0.5 RIVER 2.7 0.1 1.2 3.9 7.5 7.9 7B 3.7 0.1 5.5 0.3 3.4 5.1 0.4 1.4 13.7 0.9 RIVER 0.5 2.8 14.8 16.4 18.1 7C 2.7 7.8 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.3 7.8 4.6 RIVER 0.8 1.8 10.4 12.7 13.0 7D 0.2 1. 7 5.9 0.1 4.2 3.4 0.4 11. 7 2.0 RIVER 2.3 0.2 1.6 1.1 10.3 14.1 15.5 7E 0.1 4.1 0.4 7.3 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.9 9.9 1.4 RIVER 4.3 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.4 7.3 12.7 14.2 7F 0.1 34.4 1.1 3.9 1.4 27.7 1.3 RIVER 10.0 2.0 1.3 0.5 11.1 0.4 10.3 34.3 35.6 BA 13.1 0.4 0.9 3.2 8.5 0.3 2.8 3.5 3.6 6.4 12.9 13.5 8B 1.0 5.4 0.5 0.1 3.1 4.2 0.3 2.7 0.6 1.5 o.A 5.0 7.7 6.9 9A 22.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 19.6 1. 7 RIVER 8.5 0.3 4.9 9.7 23.1 23.4 9B 0.1 15.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.8 11.1 1.0 RIVER 3.1 4.5 8.6 14.1 16.2 9C 15.6 0.4 0.1 0.5 11. 7 1.4 RIVER 6.7 0.3 0.1 2.3 6.6 13.7 16.0 9D 9.3 1.9 0.3 0.8 8.8 1.1 RIVER 4.8 0.1 0.6 5.7 11.0 11.2 10 0.5 0.9 3.8 3.3 3.0 5.5 0.4 6.6 1.2 1. 7 4.3 0.4 2.1 8.9 8.5 11 0.1 0.2 19.4 2.9 13.6 3.8 3.8 1.0 1.4 0.6 2.3 5.4 32.8 4.9 3.8 1.3 17.7 11.1 18.0 45.4 46.8 12 8.4 3.4 7.0 2.3 5.8 0.3 2.9 0.8 1.1 3.1 19.7 4.9 1.4 10.6 0.5 0.3 5.7 0.3 13.5 28.8 30.9 13 23.0 1.9 0.5 2.1 1.3 17.9 1. 7 2.3 2.6 12.3 0.4 7.7 5.0 25.3 25.4 14 4.7 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 4.1 2.3 1. 7 1.0 4.1 5.0 15 0.1 9.5 6.1 10.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 3.1 1.2 20.5 1.2 RIVER 10.8 0.6 0.2 11.5 3.9 26.0 27.0 16 3.8 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.2 6.8 0.4 RIVER 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.2 4.7 7.7 8.1

TOTAL 1. 7 2.2 304.7 26.3 61.8 7.6 19.5 2.6 18.3 1.3 23.2 44.3 324.0 32.5 14.4 0.4 30.2 8.1 147.2 5.5 2.1 3.3 94.4 2.4 191.1 438.4 446.0

% of FASTLAND 1% 1% 68% 6% 14% 2% 4% 1% 4% 1% 33% 1% 1% 1% 21% 1% 43% 100'7..

% of SHORELINE 5% 10% 74% 8% 3% 1% 7% 2% 100%

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

21 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA

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

1 FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% and low FASTLAND: Agricultural 31%, commer­ High, critical. Many structures Unsatisfactory. In­ Fair. The fastland Slight or no change. There are approximately Several of the wooded areas along HEAD OF INDIAN shore 99%. cial< 1%, recreational 1%, residential are below 5-foot elevations and dian Creek is con­ in this segment has 3,000 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline Barnes Creek have potential for be­ CREEK TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, beach 28%, and unmanaged, wooded 39%. are subject to flooding during demned for the taking narrow, strip beaches in this segment. Some structures may be for coming low intensity recreational BLUFF POINT 7%, fringe marsh 79%, embayed marsh 1%, SHORE: Some private recreational use periods of abnormally high water. of shellfish due to fronting it. erosion protection, though the majority is for parks. Elsewhere in the segment ·26 .1 miles and extensive marsh 11%. but mostly unused. past and present point cosmetic purposes. There are approximately there seems to be little land avail­ (24.6 miles CREEK: Indian Creek has depths of 16 CREEK: Some commercial traffic; sport source pollutants. 3,000 feet of bulkhead in the segment. All able or suitable for alternate use. of fastland) feet at the entrance graduating to 2 feet boating and fishing. structures appear to be effective. at the head.

2 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 14% and unman­ High, noncritical. The entire Satisfactory. The Good to fair. Thougl Severe, noncritical. Th.is segment has an his­ Low. The Bluff Point area could be BLUFF POINT TO SHORE: Beach 73% and extensive marsh aged, wooded 86%. segment has elevations of less Chesapeake Bay is ex­ most of the beaches torical erosion rate of 5.2 feet per year. developed as a low intensity recrea­ JARVIS POINT 27%. SHORE: Some recreational use but most­ than 5 feet and is exposed to periencing good water in this segment are There are no endangered or shore protective tional park. Elsewhere the existing 2.7 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 13%, intermediate 37%, ly unused. direct wind and wave attacks quality. Some non­ narrow, Jarvis Point structures. agricultural use seems best suited (1.3 miles and wide 50%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. from the Chesapeake Bay. There point source pollution and one half mile for the area. of fastland) are no endangered structures. does exist, but this south has wide, is readily flushed vegetated beaches. into the Bay.

3 FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% and low FASTLAND: Agricultural 50%, commer­ Moderate to high, critical. Satisfactory to unsat­ Fair. There are sev Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. The present rural agricultural DIVIDING CREEK shore 99%. cial< 1%, residential 16%, unmanaged, Though areas near the creek head isfactory. According eral narrow, strip Several areas at the mouth of Dividing Creek usage will probably continue for 35. 3 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, beach unwooded 1%, and unmanaged, wooded 33%. have elevations of at least 10 to the State Water beaches in this seg­ have historical erosion rates of 1.4 to 2.9 this segment. There are few alter­ (34.0 miles 4%, fringe marsh 91%, embayed marsh <1%, SHORE: Some private recreational use, feet, some structures are below Control Board this ment. feet per year. One section of shoreline near nate demands for the shoreline at of fast land) and extensive marsh 1%. but mostly unused. 5-foot elevations. These struc­ area has good water Hughlett Point has been accreting at a rate of the present time. CREEK: Dividing Creek has depths of 14 CREEK: Sport boating and fishing. tures are vulnerable to flooding quality. However, the 1.5 feet per year. There are 5,200 feet of feet in the approach, graduating to 6 during periods of abnormally Bureau of Shellfish artificially stabilized shoreline in the seg­ feet at the head. high water. Sanitation has con­ ment. Most structures at the creek mouth are demned two portions of for erosion control, while those along the the creek for the tak­ interior shorelines are for cosmetic purposes. ing of shellfish due to animal pollution.

4 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 32% and unman- High, critical. The entire seg­ The Chesapeake Bay and Fair. Though most Moderate to severe, noncritical. Most of the Low. The area is rural in nature HUGHLETT POINT SHORE: Beach 9%, fringe marsh 52%, and aged, wooded 68%. ment is subject to flooding. Small Coastal Basins of the Bay shoreline shoreline has a moderate erosion rate. The and seems best suited for such low TO extensive marsh 39%. SHORE: Mostly unused. The structures along the shore­ are generally of good has beaches, they shoreline between Ball and Cloverdale Creeks intensity use. DAMERON MARSH NEARSHORE: Intermediate 7% and wide 24%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in the line at Dameron Marsh and Ball water quality. Some are usually narrow is er.oding at an historical rate of 3.0 feet 15.3 miles The remainder of the nearshore zone is Bay, sport boating and fishing closer Creek would be endangered by non-point pollution and often vegetated. per year. There are no endangered or shore (11.6 miles located along the creeks in this segment. to shore. flood waters. may exist, but this is Beaches fronting protective structures. of fastland) readily flushed into areas of extensive the Bay system. marsh are often fairly wide.

5 FASTLAND: Low shore 81%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 49%, commer­ Low to high, critical. The ma­ The Chesapeake Bay and Fair. The few There is little or no erosion in this segment. Low. There seems to be little pres­ DA1'1ERON MARSH bluff 1%, moderately low shore 37., mod­ cial 2'7., residential 5%, and unmanaged, jority of the shorelands along Small Coastal Basins beaches located at There are no endangered or shore protective sure for a change in the present TO MOUTH OF erately high shore 4%, and high shore wooded 447•• Mill Creek are high enough to generally have good the mouth of Mill structures. agricultural use of the shorelands. MILL CREEK 11'7.. SHORE: Some private use in front of resist inundation by flood wa­ water quality. Some Creek are narrow and 16.3 miles SHORE: Beach 2%, fringe marsh 78%, em­ residences, but mostly unused. ters. However, several resi­ non-point source pol­ vegetated. (15.7 miles bayed marsh 12%, and extensive marsh 8%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in the dences near Dameron Marsh are lution may exist, but of fastland) NEARSHORE: Intermediate 12'7.. The re­ Bay, sport boating and fishing in the below 5-foot elevations and this is readily mainder of the nearshore zone is located creek and Bay. would be endangered by flooding. flushed into the Bay along Mill Creek. system.

6 FASTLAND: Artificial fill 2%, low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 39%, commer­ Low to moderate, critical. Much Generally good. Some Fair to good. The Slight to severe, noncritical. Erosion is gen Low. The present agricultural use NOUTH OF 94'7., low shore with bluff 3'7., and dunes cial< 1%, residential 14%, unmanaged, of the shoreline has elevations seasonal agricultural majority of the erally confined to the areas directly fronting of the shorelands seems best suited NILL CREEK 17•• unwooded 2%, and unmanaged, wooded of 10 to 15 feet and would not runoff may occur in beaches are narrow the Chesapeake Bay. The spits at the mouths for the segment. There is little TO MOUTH OF SHORE: Artificially stabilized 4'7., beach 43'7.. be flooded. However, several areas, but this would and often vegetated. of Harveys and Cranes Creeks are accreting. demand for alternate development at THE GREAT 14'7., fringe marsh 80%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Private recreational use. structures in the segment are be readily flushed The mouths of the The area between Harveys and Cranes Creeks has the present time. WICONICO 2%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in the at or below the 5-foot contour into the Bay system. creeks in the seg­ an historical erosion rate of 3.4 to 7.1 feet RIVER NEARSHORE: Intermediate 14%. The re­ Bay, sport boating and fishing in the a~d would be flooded during ment have fairly per year. There are approximately 4,000 feet 16.3 miles mainder of the nearshore zone is located creeks and Bay. abnormally high waters. wide, clean beaches. of bulkhead, several sections of which are (15. 7 miles along the creeks in this segment. fronted by groin fields. All structures ap­ of fastland) pear to be effective.

22 TABLE 2 (cont'd)

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

7A FASTLAND: Low shore 80%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 35%, connner­ Low. The majority of the sub­ The Great Wicomico Fair to good. Slight to moderate, noncritical. Erosion in Low. The agricultural use of the MOUTH OF bluff 10%, and moderately low shore 10%. cial 1%, residential 15%, and unman­ segment has elevations of at River's sub-surface Beaches from the the Sandy Point area is due to a combination subsegment seems best for the pres­ GREAT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, beach aged, unwooded 49%. least 10 feet and is not sub­ waters experience an mouth of the river of refracted wave energy from the southeast ent time. There appears to be lit­ WICOMICO 27%, fringe marsh 65%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Some private recreational use, ject to flooding. oxygen depletion dur­ to Shell Creek are and direct waves from the northeast and north­ tle competition for any available RIVER TO rt.. but mostly unused. ing the late sunnner generally good. west. There are approximately 300 feet of shoreline. ROGUE POINT RIVER: This section of the Great Wicom­ RIVER: Some commercial traffic, but months. This condi­ effective bulkhead in the subsegment. 7 .5 miles ico River has depths of at least 18 feet. mostly sport boating and fishing. tion appears to be a (7. 9 miles natural phenomenon. of fastland) The river does not meet the 305(b)(l)(B) report.

7B FASTLAND: Low shore 20%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 3%, residen­ Low, noncritical. With eleva­ The Great Wicomico Poor to fair. Most Slight to moderate, noncritical. Most of the Moderate. The area from Rogue Point ROGUE POINT bluff 1%, moderately low shore 30%, mod­ tial 15%, and unmanaged, wooded 82%. tions of ten to thirty feet River's sub-surface beaches are of fair river-fronting shoreline is experiencing mod­ to Tipers Creek will probably con­ TO erately low shore with bluff 2%, moder-. SHORE: Some private recreational use, along the shoreline, the sub­ waters experience an width, though often erate erosion, while.the area at the base of tinue to be developed for residen­ EAGLE POINT I ately high shore 19%, and high shore 28%. but mostly unused. segment is not subject to oxygen depletion dur­ vegetated. the bridge has been accreting. There are ap­ tial purposes. The Glebe Point area 16.4 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, beach RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. flooding. ing the late sunnner proximately 2,000 feet of effective bulkhead could be developed as a public rec­ (18 .1 miles 9%, fringe marsh 84%, and embayed marsh months. This condi­ in the subsegment. reational park. of fas tland) 5%. tion appears to be a RIVER: This subsegment of the Great natural phenomenon. Wicomico River has average depths of 12 The river does not feet. meet the 305(b)(l)(B) report.

7C FASTLAND: Low shore 21%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 6%, residen­ Low. The elevation of the Unsatisfactory. The Poor. Eagle Point Slight or no change. Some erosion may occur Low. Although there is much unused EAGLE POINT shore 60%, moderately low shore with tial 14%, and unmanaged, wooded 80%. shoreline protects the subseg­ upper portion of the has narrow, strip due to downhill rain runoff and boat traffic land in this area that could be TO bluff 1%, moderately high shore with SHORE: Some private recreational use, ment against flooding. Great Wicomico River beaches. on the river. There are no endangered or developed, there is little pressure BETZ LANDING bluff 9%, and high shore 9%. but mostly unused. is closed to the tak­ shore protective structures. for such development. 12. 7 miles SHORE: Beach 2%, fringe marsh 62%, and RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. ing of shellfish. (13.0 miles embayed marsh 36%. of fastland) RIVER: Narrow and shallow. Low. There seems to be little 7D FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1%, low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 15%, connner­ Low to moderate, noncritical. Unsatisfactory. This There are no beaches Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. pressure for development along this BETZ LANDING ll't, moderately low shore 38%, moderate­ cial 1%, recreational 11%, residen­ The majority of the shoreline portion of the Great in this subsegment. I The area from Betts Mill Creek to Glebe Point section of the Great Wicomico River TO ly low shore with bluff 170, moderately tial 7%, and unmanaged, wooded 66%. has sufficient height to with­ Wicomico River is has an historical erosion rate of 2.4 feet GLEllE POINT high shore 27"/o, and high shore 2270. SHORE: Glebe Point is used for com­ stand flooding. However, sev­ closed to the taking per year. However much of this area is now 14. 1 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 370, mercial and recreational purposes. eral structures at Glebe Point of shellfish. artificially stabilized. There are approxi­ would be flooded during periods (15. 5 miles fringe marsh 83%, and embayed marsh 14%. The remainder of the subsegment is mately 2,000 feet of effective bulkhead in of fastland) RIVER: Too narrow and shallow for mostly unused. of abnormally high waters. the subsegment. classification. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing.

7E FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1%, low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 30%, connner­ Low to moderate, critical. Unsatisfactory. The Poor to fair. Most Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. Though some sections of the GLEllE POINT 29%, low shore with bluff 3%, moderately cial 2%, recreational 6%, residential Glebe Point has elevations of Great Wicomico River of the subsegment Glebe Point has been accreting at an average subsegment could be developed for TO low shore 5l'X-, moderately low shore with 8%, unmanaged, wooded 51%. A gravel 5 feet or less. Many struc­ does not meet the has narrow, vege­ historical rate of 1.3 feet per year. The residential use, there appears to tures here would be flooded HAYNIE POINT bluff 3%, moderately high shore 8%, and pit at the head of Warehouse Creek 30S(b)(l)(B) criteria. tated beaches, with bluffs at Blackwells and those west of Ware­ be little pressure for any substan­ 1.2. 7 miles high shore 5%. comprises less than 1% of the shore- during periods of abnormally the exception of house Creek to Haynie Point have historical cial change in the present shore (14.2 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 4%, I lands use. high water. the campground at erosion rates of 1.0 to 1.2 feet per year. use. of fostland) beach 7%, fringe marsh 78%, and embayed SHORE: Some recreational and commer­ Horn Harbor, which There are approximately 2,800 feet of arti­ marsh 11%. cial use around Glebe Point and rec­ has a wide clean ficially stabilized shoreline in the subseg­ RIVER: The Great Wicomico River has reational use at the mouth of Horn beach. ment, most of which appear to be effective. average depths of 12 feet from Glebe Harbor. Point to Collins Point, and 18 feet from RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Collins Point to Haynie Point. Low to moderate, critical. Low. It appears that most of the 7F FASTLAND: Artificial fill <17o, low FASTLAND: Agricultural 28%, connner­ Unsatisfactory. Cock­ Poor to fair. The Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Haynie Point, the tip of the shoreline will eventually be devel­ HAYNIE POINT shore 97%, and low shore with bluff 3%. cial 6%, industrial 4%, recreational rell Creek suffers beaches in this The entire river-fronting shoreline has an Reedville peninsula and sev­ oped for residential or commercial TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 11%, 1%, residential 31%, unmanaged, un­ from high bacteriolog­ subsegment are nar­ average historical erosion rate of 2.0 to 2.7 eral other areas are subject purposes. FLEET POINT beach 4%, fringe marsh 81%, and embayed wooded 1%, and unmanaged, wooded 29%. ical counts due to row and often inter feet per year. There are approximately to inundation during periods 34.3 miles marsh 4%. SHORE: Commercial use (marinas and leachate from septic spaced with fringe 20,500 feet of artificially stabilized shore­ of abnormally high water. (35.6 miles RIVER: This portion of the river has fish processing plants) and some tanks around Reedville marsh. line in the subsegment. Groins are used in Several structures at Reedville of fastland) average depths of 17 feet. The main private recreational use. The Great Wicomico conjunction with bulkhead or riprap in sev­ branch of Cockrell Creek has depths of RIVER: Connnercial shipping and sport would be flooded during such River does not meet eral areas. Most stabilization appears to 12 feet to Reedville. boating and fishing. storms. the 30S(b)(l)(B) be effective. criteria.

23 TABLE 2(cont'd)

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

8A FASTLAND: Low shore 97% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 26%, residen- Moderate to severe, critical. Satisfactory. The Fair to good. There Moderate to severe, .noncritical. The marsh Low to moderate. Several wooded FLEET POINT with bluff 3%. tial 27%, and unmanaged, wooded 47%. Some structures at Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay has are several areas of area at Fleet Point has an historical accre­ sections of Owens Pond could be TO THE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 7%, beach SHORE: Private recreational use at Beach and along Bull Neck are good water quality. wide, clean beaches tion rate of 1.6 feet per year. The Bay developed as low intensity recrea­ MOUTH OF 25%, fringe marsh 66%, and embayed marsh Chesapeake Beach and near Fleet Point. close to the shore and would be Any pollutants enter­ in this subsegment. shoreline from Fleet Point to Chesapeake Beach tional parks. The beach between OWENS POND 2%. The remainder of the shore is mostly endangered by flooding. ing the creeks would has an average historical erosion rate o·f 3.4 Taskmakers Creek and Chesapeake 12. 9 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 22%. The re- unused. be readily flushed to 6.1 feet per year. There are approximately Beach could make a good public (13. 5 miles mainder of the nearshore zone is located NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. into the Bay system. 4,900 feet of effective stabilization in the beach area. of fastland) along the creeks in the subsegment. subsegment. Groins are used in conjunction with riprap or bulkhead along many sections of the shoreline.

8B FASTLAND: Dunes 15%, low shore 78%, and FASTLAND: Agricultural 21%, residen- Moderate, noncritical. All Satisfactory. The Fair to good. The Moderate to severe, noncritical. Most of the Moderate. The dune area at Smith MOUTH OF low shore with bluff 7%. tial 6%, and unmanaged, wooded 73%. structures in the subsegment Chesapeake Bay has beaches at Smith shoreline has an average historical erosion Point should be preserved. This OWENS POND SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, beach SHORE: Some private recreational use, are located at or above 10-foot good water quality. Point are fairly rate of 6.1 feet per year. The area just area could be used as a low inten­ TO 40%, fringe marsh 55%, and embayed marsh but mostly unused. elevations. Most flooding wide with vegetated south of Smith Point has been accreting at sity recreational park. SMITH POINT 4%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping and would occur at Smith Point. dunes behind. an average rate of 1.2 feet per year. There 7.7 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 35% and wide 8%. fishing, and sport boating and fish­ are approximately 100 feet of riprap and 300 (6.9 miles The remaining shoreline is located along ing. feet of groin fields in the subsegment. Some of fastland) Gaskin Pond. of the groins are only marginally effective at trapping sand.

9A FASTLAND: Low shore 96% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 37%, commer­ Low. The majority of the shore­ No data. This section Poor. There are No data. Erosion along this portion of the Low. There seems to be little de­ SMITH POINT with bluff 4%. cial 1%, residential 21%, and unman­ line has elevations of at least is not specifically only fringe beaches river would be due to rain runoff and boat mand for alternate use in this TO PEACHTREE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, beach aged, wooded 41%. 10 feet. mentioned in the Vir­ in this subsegment. wakes. There are approximately 200 feet of subsegment. POINT 5%, fringe marsh 85%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Some private recreational and ginia State Water Con­ riprap and 3,300 feet of bulkhead in this sub­ 23.1 miles 7%. agricultural use, but mostly unused. trol Board's 305(b) segment. These structures are for cosmetic (23.4 miles RIVER: This portion of the Little Wicom­ RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Report. It is thus purposes rather than for erosion control. of fastland) ico River and Bridge Creek have average assumed that the Lit­ depths of 6 feet. Slough Creek and Rock tle Wicomico River Hole are generally shallow with depths meets the 305(b)(l)(B) of 2 to 3 feet. criteria.

9B FASTLAND: Artificial fill <1%, low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 19%, residen­ Low. The majority of the shore­ No data. The Little Poor. There are No data. Erosion along this portion of the Low. The shoreland along the navi­ PEACHTREE 94%, low shore with bluff 5%, and moder­ tial 28%, and unmanaged, wooded 53%. line in this subsegment has Wicomico River is not only narrow, strip river would be due to rain runoff and boat gable portion of the river and POINT TO ately low shore 1%. SHORE: Some private recreational use, elevations of at least 10 feet. mentioned in the Vir­ beaches in this wakes. There are approximately 1,200 feet creeks have already been developed HEAD OF SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, beach but mostly unused, ginia State Water Con­ subsegment. of bulkhead in the subsegment. Two sections for residential use. Little alter­ LITTLE 13%, fringe marsh 78%, and embayed marsh RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. trol Board's 305(b) are for retaining fill. nate use seems likely for the un­ WICOMICO 7%. Report. It is assumed used sections of the subsegment. RIVER RIVER: The Little Wicomico River has that the river meets 14.1 miles depths of 6 feet to Willis Creek, and the 305(b)(l)(B) (16.2 miles depths of 2 to 4 feet at the head. criteria. of fastland)

9C FASTLAND: Low shore 97% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 42%, commer­ Low. The majority of the shore­ No data. The Little Poor. There are No data. Several bluff areas are eroding due Low. Any substantial change in the HEAD OF with bluff 3%. cial 2%, industrial 1%, residential line has elevations of at least Wicomico River is not only fringe beaches to rain runoff and boat wakes. There are ap­ shore use would be at the sacrifice LITTLE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, beacn 14%, and unmanaged, wooded 41%. 10 feet. mentioned in the Vir­ in this subsegment. proximately 700 feet of artificially stabi­ of the agricultural lands. No area WICOMICO 4%, fringe marsh 85%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Private recreational use and ginia State Water Con­ lized shoreline in the subsegment, of which in the subsegment appears to be RIVER TO 10%. some commercial use (marinas). trol Board's 305(b) 50 feet is riprap. All structures appear to suitable for public recreational KING POINT RIVER: The main stream of the river has RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Report. It is assumed be effective. use. 13, 7 miles average depths of 6 feet. that the river meets (16.0 miles the 305 (b) (1) (B) of fastland) criteria.

9D FASTLAND: Low shore 83% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 43%, commer­ Low. The majority of the shore­ No data. The Little Poor to fair. There No data. The bluffs at the east side of the Low. The only section in the sub­ KING POINT TO with bluff 17%. cial 1%, residential 6%, and unman­ line has elevations of at least Wicomico River is not are several beaches mouth of Ellyson Creek are eroding due to rain segment which could become a rec­ MOUTH OF SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, beacr aged, wooded 50%. 10 feet. mentioned in the Vir­ of fair width near runoff and boat wakes. There are approxi­ reational area is from the old LITTLE 7%, fringe marsh 80%, and embayed marsh SHORE: Some private recreational and ginia State Water Con­ the riverward end of mately 1,200 feet of riprap and 500 feet of river entrance to the new channel WICOMICO 10%. agricultural use, but mostly unused. trol Board's 305(b) the entrance chan­ bulkhead in the subsegment. All structures at Smith Point. However, access RIVER RIVER: The main bodies of the river and RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Report. It is assumed nel. appear to be effective. to this area is difficult. 11.0 miles Ellyson Creek have controlling depths of that the river meets (11.2 miles 6 feet. the 305(b) (1) (B) of fastland) criteria.

10 FASTLAND: Artificial fill 6%, dunes FASTLAND: Agricultural 20%, residen­ Low. The majority of the shore­ This segment generally Fair to good. Much Severe, noncritical. Smith Point has been ac­ Low. Some continued residential MOUTH OF 10%, low shore 45%, and low shore with tial 50%, unmanaged, unwooded 5%, and line has elevations of at least meets the State Water sand has been creting at an average rate of 1.2 feet per development is possible for several LITTLE bluff 39%. unmanaged, wooded 25%. 10 feet. Control Board's 305(b) trapped by the ex­ year. The remaining shoreline has an average areas of the segment. There ap­ WICOMICO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 34%, SHORE: Mostly private recreational (1) (B) criteria. tensive groin fields erosion rate of 3.1 to 4.9 feet per year. pears to be no areas suitable for RIVER TO beach 61%, and embayed marsh 5%. use. employed along the There are approximately 15,900 feet of artifi­ alternate development. CUBITT CREEK NEARSHORE: Intermediate 72% and wide NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic in the shore. cially stabilized shoreline. Groins have been 8.9 miles 14%. The remainder of the nearshore river channel, sport boating and fish­ used with bulkhead and riprap in many areas. (8.5 miles zone is located along Flag Pond. ing closer to shore. There are two areas of experimental sills of of fastland) sand bags being used to control the erosion.

24 TABLE 2 (cont'd)

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

11 FASTLAND: Artificial fill<:'. 1%, dunes FASTLAND: Agricultural 38%, residen­ Moderate to high, critical. This segment generally Poor to good. There Severe, critical and noncritical. This seg­ Low. The river-fronting shoreline, CUBITT CREEK <::1%, low shore 41%, low shore with bluff tial 24%, and unmanaged, wooded 38%. Much of the shoreline has meets the State Water are some wide, clear ment has an historical average erosion rate of being extremely vulnerable to ero­ TO 6%, moderately low shore 29%, moderately SHORE: Some private recreational and elevations of only 5 feet and Control Board's 305 beaches in the seg­ 3.1 to 10.6 feet per year for the river-front­ sion, would be costly to stabilize GREAT POINT low shore with bluff 8%, moderately high agricultural use, but mostly unused. many structures are built on {b)(l){B) criteria. ment. ing shoreline. Several agricultural fields and develop. Cod Creek is in the ·45.4 miles shore with bluff 2%, high shore 3%, and NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport or below this contour. are experiencing erosion due to rain runoff process of being developed for res­ (46.8 miles high shore with bluff 1%. boating and fishing in the river. and boat wakes. Two houses at the mouth of idential purposes. Elsewhere in of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 5%, Sport boating and fishing in the Hull Creek have been severely damaged by ero­ the segment there seems to be lit­ beach 12%, fringe marsh 72%, and embayed creeks. sion and flood forces. Several other struc­ tle alternate shore use potential. marsh 11%. tures in this segment are endangered by con­ NEARSHORE: Intermediate 8% and wide 3%. tinued erosion. There are approximately The remainder of the nearshore zone is 12,200 feet of artificially stabilized shore­ located along the creeks in the segment. line in the segment. Most of the structures are groins or a combination of groins with bulkhead or riprap. Most appear to be effec­ tive.

12 FASTLAND: Low shore 27%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 34%, commer­ Low to high, critical. The This segment generally Poor to good. The Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. Low. There seems to be no immedi­ GREAT POINT bluff 11%, moderately low shore 23%, cial 2%, industrial 1%, residential areas near the mouth of Coan meets the State Water only good beaches The section of shoreline from Walnut Point to ate need for public recreational TO moderately low shore with bluff 7%, mod­ 18%, unmanaged, unwooded 1%, and un­ River and between Great and Control Board's 305 in this segment are Great Point have historical average erosion facilities in this section of the HONEST POINT erately high shore 19%, moderately high managed, wooded 44%. Walnut Points are susceptible (b)(l){B) criteria. from Balls Creek to rates of 2.5 to 10.6 feet per year. Honest county. Little change in the rural 28.8 miles shore with bluff 1%, high shore 9%, and SHORE: Some commercial use (marinas) to flooding during periods of Walnut Point. The Point has an average erosion rate of 4.0 feet nature of the shorelands is for­ (30.9 miles high shore with bluff 3%. and private recreational use, but abnormally high water. Several beaches along the per year. Rain runoff and boat wakes also af­ seen. of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 4%, mostly unused. structures at the river mouth Coan River are nar­ fect portions of the shoreline. There are ap­ beach 11%, fringe marsh 68%, and embayed NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. would be endangered by such row and often vege­ proximately 2,000 feet of riprap and 3,600 marsh 17%. storms. tated. feet of bulkhead in the segment. Several NEARSHORE: Intermediate 5%. The Coan areas of bulkhead have groins fronting the River has average depths of 12 feet at structures. the mouth, with depths of at least 6 feet along the main stream of the river.

13 FASTLAND: Low shore 90%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 49%, commer­ High, critical. Honest Point This segment generally Poor to good. Most Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. Low. Large sections of the shore­ HONEST POINT bluff 8%, and moderately low shore 2%. cial 1%, residential 30%, and unman­ and Travis Point have eleva­ meets the State Water of the shoreline on The Lewisetta area has an average erosion line have already been developed TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8%, aged, wooded 20%. tions of less than 5 feet and Control Board's 305 Travis Point has rate of 2.0 to 3.7 feet per year" There are for residential and commercial pur­ HOG ISLAND beach 5%, fringe marsh 71%, embayed SHORE: Private recreational and are subject to flooding. All (b)(l){B) criteria. good beaches which approximately 11,200 feet of artificially poses. The rural nature of the 25.3 miles marsh 7%, and extensive marsh 9%. agricultural use. Some portions, structures at these areas would have been trapped stabilized shoreline in the segment. Most area would preclude the necessity (25.4 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 10%. The re­ especially at the head of the creeks, be flooded during periods of by the groin fields structures appear to be effective. of a public recreational park. of fastland) mainder of the segment is located along are unused. abnormally high water. Elsewhere, there The Glebe and Kingscote Creek, which NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. are only narrow, have average depths of 6 feet. strip beaches.

14 FASTLAND: -Low shore 94% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 46%, residen­ Moderate, critical. The Hog This segment generally Fair to good. The Moderate to severe, noncritical. Historical Low. Any major change in the use HOG ISLAND TO with bluff 6%. tial 34%, and unmanaged, wooded 20%. Island marshes and fastland meets the State Water beaches west of Hog average erosion rates for the segment are: of the shorelands would be at the BARN POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 34%, SHORE: Private recreational and have elevations of 5 feet or Control Board's 305 Island have good Hog Island to Rt. 680 - 2.7 feet per year, sacrifice of the agricultural 4.1 miles beach 39%, fringe marsh 7%, embayed agricultural use. less and are susceptible to {b){l)(B) criteria. width and clean west of Rt. 680 to Thicket Point - 3.7 feet lands. (5.0 miles marsh 6%, and extensive marsh 14%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping and flooding. Several structures sand. Some of the per year, and Thicket Point to Barn Point - of fastland) NEARSHORE: Intermediate 100%. fishing in the Potomac River, sport in this area would be endan­ groins in front of 2.0 feet per year. There are approximately boating and fishing closer to shore. gered by flooding during the residential sec 7,300 feet of groin fields in the segment. periods of abnormally high tions have trapped These structures are sometimes used in con­ water. good fillets of junction with bulkhead or riprap. sand.

15 FASTLAND: Artificial fill< 1%, low FASTLAND: Agricultural 40%, commer­ Low to moderate, noncritical. This segment generally Poor to fair. Ther No data. Erosion in this segment would be Low. The majority of the shore­ BARN POINT TO shore 35%, low shore with bluff 23%, cial 2%, industrial 1%, residential The majority of the shoreline meets the State Water There are several due to r·ain runoff or boat wakes. There are lands are already used for agri­ MUNDY POINT moderately low shore 37%, moderately low 43%, and unmanaged, wooded 14%. has elevations of at least 10 Control Board's 305(b) areas of good approximately 16,500 feet of artificially cultural and residential purposes. 26.0 miles shore with bluff 1%, moderately high SHORE: Mostly private recreational feet and is not subject to (l)(B) criteria. The beaches which have stabilized shoreline, several hundred feet of Any alternate development would be (27 .O miles shore 1%, and high shore 3%. and agricultural use. The head of flooding. The marina facili­ Bureau of Shellfish been trapped by the which is riprap and the remainder bulkhead. at the sacrifice of the agricul­ of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 12%, Mill Creek is unused, woods. ties on Pea Neck and Mundy Sanitation has closed groins in the seg­ Groins have been used in several areas near tural lands. beach 5%, fringe marsh 79%, and embayed RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Point could be flooded during Lodge Creek to the ment. the river mouth, often in conjunction with marsh 4'7o. periods of abnormally high taking of shellfish. bulkhead. RIVER: The South Yeocomico River has water. depths of 12 feet. Lodge and Mill Creeks have depths of 6 to 3 feet.

16 FASTLAND: Low shore 47%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 18%, indus­ Low, noncritical. The majority This segment generally Fair to good. Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. There seems to be little MUNDY POINT shore 33%, moderately low shore with trial 2%, residential 20%, unmanaged, of the shoreline has elevations meets the State Water Cedar and Oyster Wilkins Point to Mundy Point has an histori­ pressure for any alternate use in TO THE bluff 4%, moderately high shore 5%, and unwooded 2%, and unmanaged, wooded of at least 10 feet and is not Control Board's 305{b) Shell Points have cal average erosion rate of 2.3 feet per the shorelands of this segment. COUNTY LINE high shore 11%. 58%. subject to flooding. (l)(B) criteria. The fairly wide, clean year. There are approximately 600 feet of 7. 7 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, SHORE: Some private recreational use, Bureau of Shellfish beaches. bulkhead, 450 feet of groin fields and 150 (8 .1 miles beach 3%, fringe marsh 88%, and embayed but mostly unused. Sanitation has closed feet of riprap in the segment. All struc­ of fastland) marsh 6%. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Hampton Hall Branch tures appear to be effective. RIVER: The West Yeocomico River has to the taking of denths of 6 feet. shellfish.

25 SEGMENT 1 treatmcr.t r:,L-lGL ,vas compiE::tea in April 1975 and is meeting permit limitations. However, HEAD OF INDIAN CREEK TO BLUFF POINT some problems still exist due to leachate from faulty septic tanks, wastes from menhaden ren­ Map 2 dering plants, and late summer stratification of fresh and tidal waters.

EXTENT: 137,800 feet (26.1 mi.) of shoreline from BEACH QUALITY: The segment has narrow, strip the head of Indian Creek to Bluff Point, includ­ beaches fronting the fastland. The beaches ing Arthur Cove, and Bells, Henrys and Barnes fronting marshes are fairly wide and have fine Creeks. The segment also contains 130,100 feet white sand. (24.6 mi.) of fastland. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORELANDS TYPE EROSION RATE: There appears to be little or FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% (0.1 mi.) and low no erosion in this segment. shore 99% (24.5 mi.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.6 mi.), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ beach 7% (1.8 mi.), fringe marsh 79% (20.7 mi.), imately 3,000 feet of bulkhead in this segment. embayed marsh 1% (0.2 mi.), and extensive marsh Though some structures may be for erosion pro­ 11% (2.8 mi.). tection, most seem to be for cosmetic purposes. CREEK: Indian Creek has depths of 16 feet at All seem to be effective. the approach, grading to shoals of 2 feet at the head. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and several boat ramps in the segment. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 31% (7.6 mi.), commer­ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: cial <1% (0.2 mi.), recreational 1% (0.3 mi.), The majority of the shoreline in this seg­ residential 28% (7.0 mi.), and unmanaged, ment is already used for residential and agri­ wooded 39% (9.5 mi.). cultural purposes. Although thirty-nine per­ SHORE: Some private recreational use, but most­ cent of the fastland is unused, access to these ly unused. areas is difficult. Also, with average eleva­ CREEK: Some connnercial traffic in the main tions of 5 feet, flooding would be an ever­ stream, but mostly sport boating and fishing. present danger to new shoreline development.

WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Indian Creek trends basi­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: cally N - Sat the head, then NW - SE. Most of Several areas on Barnes Creek have the po­ the creek's shoreline is open to unlimited tential of becoming low intensity recreational fetches from the southeast. Bluff Point is ex­ parks. These areas are mostly wooded, with posed to fetches across the Chesapeake Bay from several sections having extensive marshlands. the north through the east and south quadrants. Such parks could include nature trails along the shoreline and picnic areas. OWNERSHIP: Private. Elsewhere in the segment, there seems to be little land that is available or suitable for FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Many structures any alternate use. are below 5-foot elevations and are subject to flooding during periods of abnormally high wa­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FLEETS BAY ter. Quadr., 1968. N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. Indian Creek is scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith currently condemned for the taking of shellfish. Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. In the past, Indian Creek has experienced water quality problems due to domestic sewage dis­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-1/1-69. charges from the Town of Kilmarnock. A sewage

27 SEGMENT 2 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. According BLUFF POINT TO JARVIS POINT to a published VIMS report, this segment has an historical erosion rate of 5.2 feet per year. Map 2 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES:. None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.

EXTENT: 14,200 feet (2.7 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. Bluff Point to Jarvis Point, along the Chesa­ peake Bay. The segment includes 6,600 feet SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: (1.3 mi.) of fastland. The extremely low elevation of the fastland and its concomitant severe flood hazard would SHORELANDS TYPE limit the amount and type of shore use in the FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. segment. Also, with such a severe erosion rate, SHORE: Beach 73% (2.0 mi.) and extensive marsh no formal use of the adjacent fastland could be 2 7% ( 0 • 7 mi. ) • accomplished without an extensive shore protec­ NEARSHORE: Narrow 13%, intermediate 37%, and tion effort. wide 50%. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: SHORELANDS USE As stated in Segment 1, the Bluff Point area FASTLAND: Agricultural 14% (0.2 mi.) and un­ could be developed for a low intensity recrea­ managed, wooded 86% (1.1 mi.). tional park. Elsewhere, the existing agricul­ SHORE: Some recreational use such as waterfowl tural use seems best suited for the area. hunting in the marshes and sun-bathing, but mostly unused. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FLEETS BAY NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. Quadr., 1968. N.o.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this seg­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith ment trends basically SSE - NNW. The entire Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. segment is exposed to long fetches across the Bay. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-2/70-91.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical. The entire seg­ ment has elevations of less than 5 feet and is exposed to direct wind and wave attacks from the Chesapeake Bay. There are no structures in the segment.

WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. According to the State Water Control Board (305(b)Report), the Chesapeake Bay is experiencing good water quality. Some non-point source pollution may exist due to agricultural rain runoff. How­ ever, this would be washed into the Bay system and quickly dissipated.

BEACH QUALITY: Good to fair. Though most beaches in the segment are fair, Jarvis Point and a half mile stretch south of the Point have beaches of good width, though often with vege­ tation.

28 SEGMENT 3 BEACH QUALITY: Fair. There are several strip beaches in this segment. DIVIDING CREEK PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Maps 2 and 3 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. According to a published VIMS re­ port, several areas at the mouth of Dividing EXTENT: 186,500 feet (35.3 mi.) of shoreline along Creek have historical erosion rates of 1.4 to Dividing Creek, from Jarvis Point to Hughlett 2.9 feet per year. One section of shoreline Point, including Jarvis, Prentise, and Lawrence near Hughlett Point has been accreting at a Creeks. The segment also contains 179,800 feet rate of 1.5 feet per year. (34.0 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ SHORELANDS TYPE imately 5,200 feet of artificially stabilized FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% (0.3 mi.) and low shoreline in the segment, most of which is bulk­ shore 99% (33.7 mi.). head. There are several areas of riprap and SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (1.0 mi.), several groin fields in the segment. Most beach 4% (1.6 mi.), fringe marsh 91% (32.1 mi.), structures at the creek mouth are for erosion embayed marsh< 1% (0.1 mi.), and extensive marsh control, while those along the interior shore­ 1% ( 0. 5 mi.) • lines are for cosmetic purposes. All struc­ CREEK: Dividing Creek has depths of 14 feet in tures appear to be effective. the approach, grading to depths of 6 feet at the head. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, boat ramps and boat sheds in the segment. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 50% (16.7 mi.), commer­ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: cial <1% ( 0.1 mi.), residential 1670 (5.5 mi.), The Dividing Creek shorelands are predomi­ unmanaged, unwooded 1% (0.4 mi.), and unmanaged, nately rural in nature. Residential develop­ wooded 33% (11.1 mi.). ment has located directly along the shoreline, SHORE: Some private recreational use, but most­ with agriculture or woods behind. However, ly unused. much of the shoreland is vulnerable to flood­ CREEK: Sport boating and fishing. ing, especially near the mouth of the creek. Such flood prone areas are not considered to WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Dividing Creek trends basi­ have a prime development potential. cally N - Sat the head, then NW - SE. The en­ trance of the creek is exposed to long fetches ALTERNATE SHORE USE: across the Bay from the east and southeast. Low. The present rural agricultural usage will probably continue for this segment. There OWNERSHIP: Private. are few alternate demands for the shoreline at the present time. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to high, critical. Though areas near the creek head have average eleva­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FLEETS BAY tions of 10 feet, some structures along the Quadr., 1968, shoreline are below 5-foot elevations. These USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE structures are vulnerable to flood damage dur­ Quadr., 1968. ing periods of abnormally high water. N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. According to the Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. State Water Control Board, this area does not meet 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. The Department of PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-3/92-214. Health has condemned two portions of the creek for the taking of shellfish due to animal pol­ lution.

29 SEGMENT 4 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate to severe, noncritical. HUGHLETT POINT TO DAMERON MARSH Most of the shoreline in the segment has a mod­ erate erosion rate. However, the shoreline be­ Maps 2 and 3 tween Ball and Cloverdale Creeks has been erod­ ing at an historical rate of 3.0 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 80,700 feet (15.3 mi.) of shoreline from SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. Hughlett Point to Dameron Marsh, including In­ gram Cove, Ball and Cloverdale Creeks. The OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers segment also contains 61,400 feet (11.6 mi.) of in the segment. fastland. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SHORELANDS TYPE The fastland in this segment is very low, FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. with elevations of no more than 5 feet and is SHORE: Beach 9% (1.3 mi.), fringe marsh 52% subject to flooding. The extensive marsh sys­ (7.9 mi.), and extensive marsh 39% (6.1 mi.). tems and agricultural use limit alternate NEARSHORE: Intermediate 7% and wide 24%. The development of some portions of the segment. remainder of the nearshore zone is located along the creeks in this segment. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The area is rural in nature and seems SHORELANDS USE best suited for such low intensity use. FASTLAND: Agricultural 32% (3.7 mi.) and unman­ aged, wooded 68% (7.9 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FLEETS BAY SHORE: Mostly unused. Quadr., 1968, NEARSHORE: Conunercial shipping in the Bay; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE sport boating and fishing closer to shore. Quadr., 1968. N.O.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: This segment trends basi­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith cally S - N; the creeks trend E - W. The seg­ Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. ment is exposed to long fetches across the Bay from the northeast through the southeast quad­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-4/215-260. rants.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. The entire segment is subject to flooding. The structures along the shoreline at Dameron Marsh and Ball Creek would be endangered by the flood waters.

WATER QUALITY: The Chesapeake Bay and the small coastal basins are generally of good water qual­ ity. Some non-point source pollution may exist due to agricultural runoff, but this is readily flushed into the Bay system. Ball Creek is cur­ rently condemned for the taking of shellfish.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair. Though most of the Bay­ fronting shoreline has beaches, they are usu­ ally narrow and often vegetated. The beaches f~onting areas of extensive marsh are often fairly wide.

30 SEGMENT 5 BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The few beaches located at the.mouth of Mill Creek are narrow and vege­ DAMERON MARSH TO MOUTH OF MILL CREEK tated.

Maps 3 and 4 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: There is little or no erosion in this area. EXTENT: 86,200 feet (16.3 mi.) of shoreline from ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. Dameron Marsh to the mouth of Mill Creek, in­ SHORE ·PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. cluding Mill Creek. The segment also contains 84,000 feet (15. 7 mi.') of fastland. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and boat sheds in the segment. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 81% (12.9 mi.), low shore SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.), moderately low shore The Mill Creek shorelands are rural in na­ 3% (0.4 mi.), moderately high shore 4% (0.6 ture, ninety-three percent of the land being mi.), and high shore 11% (1.8 mi.). either agricultural or wooded. Due to the re­ SHORE: Beach 2% (0.3 mi.), fringe marsh 78% moteness of the area from any major residential (12.8 mi.), embayed marsh 12% (1.9 mi.), and center; there seems to be little pressure for extensive marsh 8% (1.3 mi.). development of the segment. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 12%. The remainder of the shoreline is Mill Creek. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As stated previously, there seems to SHORELANDS USE be little pressure for a change in the present FASTLAND: Agricultural 49% (7.8 mi.), connner­ agricultural use of the shorelands. cial 2% (0.3 mi.), residential 5% (0.7 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 44% (7.1 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FLEETS BAY SHORE: Mostly unused, with some private use in Quadr., 1968, front of residences. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE NEARSHORE: Connnercial shipping in the Bay, Quadr., 1968. sport boating and fishing in the creek and Bay. N.o.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Mill Creek and D~eron Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. Marsh trend basically E - w. The remainder of the segment lies in a N - S direction. The PHOIOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-5/261-266; · shoreline fronting the Bay is exposed to long 15Mar77 NL-5/267-332. fetches from the north through the south quad­ rants. Mill Creek is not exposed to direct wind or wave actions.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low to high, critical. Basically, the shorelands of Mill Creek have sufficient height to resist inundation by flood waters. However, several residences at the creek mouth near Dameron Marsh are below 5-foot elevations and would be endangered by flooding.

WATER QUALITY: The Chesapeake Bay and the Small Coastal Basins generally have good water qual­ ity. Some non-point·source pollution may exist due to·agricultural runoff.

31 SEGMENT 6 this would be readily flushed into the Bay sys­ tem. MOUTH OF MILL CREEK TO MOUTH OF GREAT WICOMICO RIVER BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The majority of the beaches are narrow and often vegetated. The Map 4 mouths of the creeks in the segment have fairly wide, clean beaches.

EXTENT: 86,000 feet (16.3 mi.) of shoreline from PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION the mouth of Mill Creek to the mouth of the EROSION RATE: Slight to severe, noncritical. Great Wicomico River, including Harveys, Towles Erosion is generally confined to those areas and Cranes Creeks.. The segment also contains directly fronting the Chesapeake Bay. The 83,000 feet (15.7 mi.) of fastland. spits at the mouth of Harveys and Cranes Creeks are accreting. The area from Harveys to Cranes SHORELANDS TYPE Creek has an historical erosion rate of from FASTLAND: Artificial fill 2% (0.3 mi.), low 3.4 to 7.1 feet per year. The other Bay-front­ shore 94% (14.8 mi.), low shore with bluff 3% ing shorelands have moderate erosion rates. (0.4 mi.), and dunes 1% (0.2 mi.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 4% (0.8 mi.), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ beach 14% (2.2 mi.), fringe marsh 80% (13.0 imately 4,000 feet of bulkhead in the segment, mi.), and embayed marsh 2% (0.3 mi.). several sections of which are fronted by groin NEARSHORE: Intermediate 14%. The remainder of fields. Two areas of bulkhead have rubble rip­ the nearshore zone is located along the creeks rap protecting the base of the structures. All in this segment. structures appear to be effective.

SHORELANDS USE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The marina on Towles FASTLAND: Agricultural 39% (6.2 mi.), connner­ Creek has covered docks for approximately 25 cial<1% (O.lmi.), residential 14% (2.2mi.), boats and open slips for 12 additional boats. unmanaged, unwooded 2% (0.4 mi.), and unmanaged, There are several other piers and boat ramps wooded 43% (6.8 mi.). in the segment. SHORE: Mostly private recreational use. NEARSHORE: Connnercial shipping in the Bay, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: sport boating and fishing on the creeks and Bay. The area is predominantly used for agricul­ ture, with the exception of Sandy Point, which WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The Bay-fronting shoreline is a residential development. The eroding Bay trends N - s. The creeks run in a E - W direc­ shoreline would be expensive to develop. tion. The creeks are relatively protected from wind induced wave actions, although the Bay­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: fronting shoreline is exposed to long fetches Low. The present agricultural use of the from the north through the south quadrants. shorelands seems best suited for the segment. There is little demand for alternate develop­ OWNERSHIP: Private. ment at the present time.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. Much of MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE the shoreline has elevations of 10 to 15 feet, Quadr., 1968. and would not be endangered by flooding. How­ N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 ever, several structures in the segment, espe­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith cially at Sandy Point, are located at or below Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. the 5-foot contour. These structures would be endangered by abnormally high flood waters. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Mar77 NL-6/333-344; 350-406; WATER QUALITY: Generally good. Some seasonal 27Apr76 NL-6/345~349. agricultural runoff may occur in areas, but

32 SUBSEGMENT 7A BEACH QUALITY: Fair tq good. Beaches from the SUBSEGMENT 7B mouth of the river to Shell Creek are generally MOUTH OF GREAT WICOMICO RIVER TO ROGUE POINT good. ROGUE POINT TO EAGLE POINT

Map 4 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Maps 4 and 5 EROSION RATE: Slight to moderate, noncritical. Erosion in the Sandy Point area is due to a EXTENT: 39,700 feet (7.5 mi.) of shoreline from combination of refracted wave energy from the EXTENT: 86,600 feet (16.4 mi.) of shoreline from the mouth of the Great Wicomico River to Rogue southeast and direct waves from the northwest Rogue Point to Eagle Point, along the Great Point, including Shell, Gougher and Penny Creeks. and northeast. These waves are especially sig­ Wicomico River, including Barrett, Tipers and The subsegment also contains 41,500 feet (7.9 nificant during periods of elevated water lev­ Balls Creeks. The subsegment also contains mi.) of fastland. els, as they overtop the narrow shore buffer 95,500 feet (18.1 mi.) of fastland. \ zone and directly attack the fastland. Erosion SHORELANDS TYPE is also a result of the great amount of boat SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 80% (6.3 mi.), low shore traffic along the river. FASTLAND: Low shore 20% (3.7 mi.), low shore with bluff 10% (0.8 mi.), and moderately low ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. with bluff 1% (O.l mi.), moderately low shore shore 10% (0.8 mi.). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ 30% (5.5 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.1 mi.), imately 300 feet of bulkhead in the subsegment. 2% (0.3 mi.), moderately high shore 19% (3.4 beach 27% (2.1 mi.), fringe marsh 65% (4.8 mi.), All structures appear to be effective. llli.), and high shore 28% (5.1 mi.). and embayed marsh 7% (0.5 mi.). SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.4 mi.), RIVER: This section of the Great Wicomico Riv­ OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers beach 9% (1.4 mi.), fringe marsh 84% (13.7 er has depths of at least 18 feet. and several boat ramps in the subsegment. mi.), and embayed marsh '5% (0.9 mi.). RIVER: This subsegment of the Great Wicomico SHORELANDS USE SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: River has average depths of 12 feet. The FASTLAND: Agricultural 35% (2.7 mi.), connner­ The existing use of Sandy Point for residen­ creeks included in the subsegment are naviga­ cial 1% (0.1 mi.), residential 15% (1.2 mi.), tial purposes would limit other development ble for small craft only. and unmanaged, unwooded 49% (3.9 mi.). there. Elsewhere in the subsegment, the shore­ SHORE: Some private recreational use, but most­ lands are used predominantly for agriculture, SHORELANDS USE ly unused. with several scattered residential areas. The FASTLAND: Agricultural 3% (0.5 mi.), residen­ RIVER: Some connnercial traffic, but mostly present use, combined with the actively erod­ tial 15% (2.8 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 82% sport boating and fishing. ing shoreline along much of the subsegment, (14.8 mi.). limits the amount and type of development. SHORE: Some private recreational use, but WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ mostly unused. cally SE - NW in this subsegment. The subseg­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. ment is not directly exposed to fetches across Low. The agricultural use of the subsegment the Bay, though waves from the very long SSE seems best for the present time. There appears WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The subsegment trends fetch refract into the Sandy Point area. Local to be little competition for any available basically E - W. Barrett Creek runs NW - SE, fetches on the Great Wicomico River are: Sandy shoreline. Tipers and Balls Creeks run NE - SW. Some Point NW - 2.7 miles, and NE - 1.5 miles. areas are subject to local fetches of less MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE than 1 nautical mile from the northeast, east, OWNERSHIP: Private. Quadr., 1968. and west. N.o.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the subseg­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith OWNERSHIP: Private. ment has elevations of at least 10 feet and is Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. not subject to flooding. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. With elevations PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Mar77 NL-7A/407-447. of ten to thirty feet along the shoreline, the WATER QUALITY: According to the State Water Con­ subsegment is not subject to flooding. trol Board's "305(b)Report", the Great Wicomico River's sub-surface waters experience an oxygen WATER QUALITY: According to the State Water Con­ depletion during the late sunnner months, ren­ trol Board's "305(b)Report", the Great Wicomico dering millions of oyster larvae innnobile. This River's sub-surface waters experience an oxygen condition appears to be a natural phenomenon. depletion during the late sunnner months, ren­ Presently, the Great Wicomico River does not dering millions of oyst_er larvae immobile. meet the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. This condition appears to be a natural phenomenon.

33 Presently, the Great Wicomico River does not PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Mar77 NL-7B/448-476. SUBSEGMENT 7C meet the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. EAGLE POINT TO BETZ LANDING BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. Most beaches are of fair width, though often vegetated. Map 5

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight to moderate, noncritical. EXTENT: 67,200 feet (12.7 mi.) of shoreline along Most of the river-fronting shoreline is experi­ the Great Wicomico River from Eagle Point to encing moderate erosion, while the area at the Betz Landing, including Bush Mill Stream. The base of the bridge has been accreting. Most subsegment also contains 68,900 feet (13.0 mi.) erosion is due to local wind induced waves dur­ of fastland. ing periods of elevated water levels. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ FASTLAND: Low shore 21% (2. 7 mi.), moderately imately 2,000 feet of bulkhead in the subseg­ low shore 60% (7.8 mi.), moderately low shore ment. All structures appear to be effective. with bluff 1% (O.l mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 9% (1.2 mi.), and high shore 9% OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers (1.2 mi.). in the subsegment. SHORE: Beach 2% (0.3 mi.), fringe marsh 62% (7.8 mi.), and embayed marsh 36% (4.6 mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: RIVER: Narrow and shallow. Much of the shoreland east of the bridge, especially Barrett Creek, is gradually being SHORELANDS USE developed for residential purposes. The remain­ FASTLAND: Agricultural 6% (0.8 mi.), residen­ ing shorelands are wooded, often having bluffs tial 14% (1.8 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 80% along the shoreline. These areas would be dif­ (10.4 mi.). ficult to develop and access to the shore would SHORE: Some private recreational and agricul­ be limited. Also, the river-fronting shoreline tural use, but mostly unused. has an historical erosion rate of 1.4 to 1.8 RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. feet per year. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this sub­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: segment trends basically SE - NW, then E - W. Moderate. The area from Rogue Point to Ti­ The area is not exposed to significant wind or pers Creek will probably continue to be devel­ wave actions. oped for residential purposes. The remaining shorelands will probably continue to be basi­ OWNERSHIP: Private. cally unused woods. However, that section of shoreland just east of the Glebe Point Bridge FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The elevation of the shore­ could be developed as a public park, with camp­ line protects the subsegment against flooding. ing and picnicking facilities and hiking trails. There is enough space for adequate parking fa­ WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. The upper section cilities and the section is close to the major of the Great Wicomico River is closed to the route of transportation through the area. taking of shellfish, according to the State Department of Shellfish Sanitation MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE Quadr., 1968, BEACH QUALITY: Poor. Eagle Point has narrow, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LANCASTER strip beaches. Quadr., 1968. N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. Some site Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. specific erosion may occur due to downhill rain runoff and boat traffic on the river.

34 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SUB~EGMENT 7D subsegment. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. BETZ LANDING TO GLEBE POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers in EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, the subsegment. Map 5 noncritical. The area from Betts Mill Creek to Glebe Point has an average historical ero­ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: sion rate of 2.4 feet per year. However, much The fastland in this subsegment is rural in EXTENT: 74,400 feet (14.1 mi.) of shoreline along of this area is now artificially stabilized. nature, eighty percent being wooded. Generally, the Great Wicomico River, from Betz Landing to The only sections actively eroding are several most areas along the shore are unaccessible from Glebe Point, including Blackwells and Betts bluff areas near Betts Mill Creek. the interior roads. Also, the shallow depths of Mill Creeks. The subsegment also contains ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the river in much of the subsegment would pro­ 81,800 feet (15.5 mi.) of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ hibit all but very small craft from using the imately 2,000 feet of effective bulkhead in the waterway. SHORELANDS TYPE subsegment. FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% (0.2 mi.), low ALTERNATE SHORE USE: shore 11% (1.7 mi.), moderately low shore 38% OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers, Low. Though there is much unused land in (5.9 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 1% boat sheds, and boat ramps in the subsegment._ this area that could be developed, there is lit­ (0.1 mi.), moderately high shore 27% (4.2 mi.), tle pressure for such development. Little and high shore 22% (3.4 mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: change in the use of the shoreline seems evident SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.4 mi.), The upper reaches of the Great Wicomico for the near future. fringe marsh 83% (11.7 mi.), and embayed marsh River are predominantly woods with little ac­ 14% (2.0 mi.). cess to the shoreline. Glebe Point is already MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE RIVER: This portion of the river is navigable developed for residential and commercial use. Quadr., 1968, only by small craft. As already stated, several sections with USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LANCASTER bluffs along the shoreline are actively erod­ Quadr., 1968. SHORELANDS USE ing. N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 FASTLAND: Agricultural 15% (2.3 mi.), commer­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith cial 1% (0.2 mi.), recreational 11% (1.6 mi.), ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. residential 7% (1.1 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded Low. There seems to be little further pres­ 66% (10.3mi.). sure for development along this section of the PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 15Mar77 NL-7C/477-492; SHORE: Mostly unused, except at Glebe Point, Great Wicomico River. 28Mar77 NL-7C/493-521. which is used for commercial and recreational purposes, and Camp Kittamaqund, which is used MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LANCASTER for recreational purposes. Quadr., 1968, RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE Quadr., 1968, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HEATHSVILLE cally W - E. This area is not exposed to wind Quadr., 1968. or wave actions. N.o.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith OWNERSHIP: Private. Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. Most PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar77 NL-7D/522-559. sections of the shoreline in this subsegment are of sufficient height to withstand flood waters. However, several structures at Glebe Point are endangered by flood waters during periods of abnormally-high water.

WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. This section of the Great Wicomico River is closed to the tak­ ing of shellfish.

BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in the

35 SUBSEGMENT 7E WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. According to the N.o.s., 1112225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 State Water Control Board's 305(b)Report the scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith GLEBE POINT TO HAYNIE POINT Great Wicomico River's subsurface waters expe­ Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. rience an oxygen depletion during the late sum­ Maps 4 and 5 mer months, rendering millions of oyster larvae PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar.77 NL-7E/560-598. immobile. This condition appears to be a natu­ ral phenomenon. Presently, the river does not Ground-VIMS 20Apr77 NL-7E/ 19- 38. EXTENT: 67,100 feet (12.7 mi.) of shoreline along meet the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. the Great Wicomico River, from Glebe Point to Haynie Point, including Coles and Warehouse BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. The campground near Creeks, and Horn Harbor. The subsegment also Horn Harbor has a wide, clean beach. The re­ contains 74,800 feet (14.2 mi.) of fastland. mainder of the beaches in the subsegment are narrow and often vegetated. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Artificial fill 1% (0.1 mi.), low PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION shore 29% (4.1 mi.), low shore with bluff 3% EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, (0.4 mi.), moderately low shore 51% (7.3 mi.), noncritical. Glebe Point is accreting at an moderately low shore with bluff 3% (0.5 mi.), average historical rate of 1.3 feet per year. moderately high shore 8% (1.1 mi.), and high The bluffs at Blackwells and those west of Ware­ shore 5% (0.7 mi.). house Creek to Haynie Point have historical ero­ SHORE: Artificlally stabilized 4% (0.5 mi.), sion rates of 1.0 to 1.2 feet per year. beach 7% (0.9 mi.), fringe marsh 78% (9.9 mi.), ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. and embayed marsh 11% (1.4 mi.). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ RIVER: The Great Wicomico River, from Glebe imately 2,800 feet of artificially stabilized Point to Collins Point has average depths of shoreline in this subsegment, 300 feet of which 12 feet. From Collins Point to Haynie Point is riprap and the remainder bulkhead. The camp­ the river depth is about 18 feet. ground near Horn Harbor is protected by several groins, and one area of bulkhead is fronted by . SHORELANDS USE a groin field. All structures appear to beef­ FASTLAND: Agricultural 30% (4.3 mi.), commer­ fective, except for part of the bulkhead near cial 2% (0.2 mi.), recreational 6% (0.9 mi.), Haynie Point, which is in danger of failing. residential 8% (1.1 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 51% (7.3 mi.). A gravel pit at the head of Ware­ OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, house Creek comprises less than 1% of the shore­ boat sheds and boat ramps in the subsegment. lands use. The boat yard at Glebe Point has a marine rail­ SHORE: Mostly unused. Some recreational and way and several piers. commercial use around Glebe Point and recrea­ tional use near the mouth of Horn Harbor. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Glebe Point and several other sections of this subsegment are already developed for resi­ WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ dential and commercial purposes, which limits cally W - E, then NW - SE in the subsegment. other shore uses. The moderate erosion which The shoreline is exposed to local fetches of 2 is occurring along much of the river-fronting to 3 miles. shoreline limits the use of those areas unless protective measures are taken. OWNERSHIP: Private. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. Most Low. Though some residential development is areas of the subsegment have elevations of possible for sections of the subsegment, there greater than 10 feet, with the exception of seems to be little pressure for any substantial Glebe Point which has elevations of 5 feet or change in the present shore use. less. Many structures are below the 5-foot contour here and would be flooded during peri­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE ods of abnormally high water. Quadr., 1968.

36 SUBSEGMENT 7F Reedville would be vulnerable to flood damage along the creeks far other development. It during such storms. appears that most of the shoreline will even­ HAYNIE POINT TO FLEET POINT tually be developed for residential or commer­ WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. Cockrell Creek cial purposes. Care·· should be taken · to ensure Maps 4 and 6 suffers from high bacteriological counts due to against pollutants .entering the'water and leachate from septic tanks around Reedville. further dantaging the ecology of this·· section The creek also suffers from low dissolved oxy­ of the river. EXTENT: 181,100 feet (34.3 mi.) of shoreline along gen values, which are mainly attributable to the Great Wicomico River from Haynie Point to thick bottom sediments resulting from past men­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE Fleet Point, including Whays, Reason and Cock­ haden rendering plants. The Great Wicomico Quadr., 1968. rell Creeks. The subsegment also contains River's sub-surface waters experience an oxygen N.O.S., 4F12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 188,200 feet (35.6 mi.) of fastland. depletion during the late summer months. scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. SHORELANDS TYPE BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. The beaches in this FASTLAND: Artificial fill <1% (O.l mi.), low subsegment are usually narrow and are often PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar77 NL-7F/599-762. shore 97% (34.4 mi.), and low shore with bluff inter spaced with fringe marsh.· 3% (1.1 mi.). Ground-VIMS 20Apr77 NL-7F/ 83- 86. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 11% (3.9 mi.), PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION beach 4% (1.4 mi.), fringe marsh 81% (27.7 mi.), EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, and embayed marsh 4% (1.3 mi.). noncritical. The entire river-fronting shore­ RIVER: The Great Wicomico River has depths of line has an historical average erosion rate of 17 feet or more at the entrance extending 5 2.0 to 2.7 feet per year. Erosion also occurs miles upstream. The main branch of Cockrell along some unprotected portions of Whays and .Creek has depths of 12 feet to Reedville. Cockrell Creeks due to rain runoff and boat wakes. SHORELANDS USE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. FASTLAND: Agricultural 28% (10.0 mi.), commer­ SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ cial 6% (2.0 mi.), industrial 4% (1.3 mi.), rec­ imately 20,500 feet of artificially stabilized reational 1% (0.5 mi.), residential 31% (11.1 shoreline in the subsegment, several thousand. mi.), unmanaged, unwooded 1% (0.4 mi.), and un­ feet of which are either riprap or groin fields managed, wooded 29% (10.3 mi.). and the remainder bulkhead. Groins·are also SHORE: Commercial use (marinas and fish process­ used in conjunction with bulkhead or riprap ing plants) and some private recreational use in along several sections.of the shoreline. Most the residential areas. structures appear to be effective at combatting RIVER: Commercial shipping and sport boating erosion or holding fill. However, some bulk­ and fishing. head at several dilapidated industrial sites on Cockrell Creek no longer serve any erosion con­ WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The river trends basically trol purpose. NW - SE in the subsegment. Whays, Reason, and Cockrell Creeks all trend S - N from the mouth OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There·are many piers, to head. Most of the river-fronting shoreline boat sheds and boat ramps in the subsegment, in this subsegment is exposed to unlimited most of which are located along Whays and fetches across the Bay from the southeast. Lo­ Cockrells Creeks. cal fetches of less than a mile from the west and north affect many areas. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Approximately seventy percent of the shore­ OWNERSHIP: Private. lands in this subsegment are already used for a variety of purposes, limiting alternate use. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. Although These activities are mostly centered on Cock­ most areas have sufficient elevations to resist rell and Whays Creeks, though development is flooding, Haynie Point, the tip of the Reedville taking place along all reaches of shoreline. peninsula, and several other areas in the sub­ segment are subject to inundation during periods ALTERNATE SHORE USE: of abnormally high water. Several structures at Low. '11lere is little available shoreland

37 SUBSEGMENT 8A areas of wide clean beaches in this subsegment. SUBSEGMENT 8B

FLEET POINT TO THE MOUTH OF OWENS POND PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION MOUTH OF OWENS POND TO SMITH POINT EROSION RATE: Moderate to severe, noncritical. Maps 6 and 7 The marsh area at Fleet Point has an historical Maps 6 and 7 accretion rate of 1.6 feet per year. The Bay shoreline from Fleet Point to Chesapeake Beach EXTENT: 68,500 feet (12.9 mi.) of shoreline along has a severe average historical erosion rate of EXTENT: 40,600 feet (7.7 mi.) of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay from Fleet Point to the mouth 3.4 to 6.1 feet per year. However, much of this the Chesapeake Bay from the mouth of Owens Pond of Owens Pond, including Task.makers Creek and shoreline has been artificially stabilized. to Smith Point, including Gaskin Pond. The Owens Pond. The subsegment also includes 71,400 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. subsegment also includes 36,400 feet (6.9 mi.) feet (13.5 mi.) of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ of fastland. imately 4,900 feet of artificially stabilized SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in the subsegment, most of which is SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 97% (13.1 mi.) and low riprap or groin fields. Groins are used in con­ FASTLAND: Dunes 15% (1.0 mi.), low shore 78% shore with bluff 3% (0.4 mi.). junction with riprap or bulkhead along many sec­ (5.4 mi.), and low shore with bluff 7% (0 .• 5 SHORE: Artificially stabilized 7% (0.9 mi.), tions of the shoreline. All structures appear mi.). beach 25% (3.2 mi.), fringe marsh 66% (8.5 mi.), to be effective. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.1 mi.), and embayed marsh 2% (0.3 mi.). beach 40% (3.1 mi.), fringe marsh 55% (4.2 NEARSHORE: Intermediate 22%. The remainder of OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There·are numerous piers mi.), and embayed marsh 4% (0.3 mi.). the nearshore zone is located along the creeks in the subsegment. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 35% and wide 8%. The in the subsegment. remaining shoreline is located on Gaskin Pond. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SHORELANDS USE Much of the Bay-fronting shoreline has al­ SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 26% (3.5 mi.), residen­ ready been developed for residential purposes. FASTLAND: Agricultural 21% (1.5 mi.), residen­ tial 27% (3.6 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 47% Overcrowded residential development would tend tial 6% (0.4 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 73% (6.4 mi.). to despoil the natural beautY. of the shore. (5.0 mi.). SHORE: Private recreational use at Chesapeake Another factor limiting the development of the SHORE: Mostly unused, some-private recreation Beach and near Fleet Point; elsewhere, mostly shorelands here is the severe erosion along un­ at the residential areas. unused. protected stretches of the shoreline. Any NEARSHORE: Connnercial shipping and fishing, NEARSHORE: Connnercial shipping and fishing, shoreland development would first have to en­ and sport boating and fishing. and pleasure boating and fishing. sure against this force of nature. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The·subsegment trends WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: basicaily SW - NE. The shoreline is exposed cally SW - NE in the subsegment. Long fetches Low to moderate. Most areas along the Bay to fetches from the NE through the S quadrants. from the NE through the SE quadrants affect the have already been developed. However, several Bay-fronting shoreline. wooded sections of Owens Pond could be developed OWNERSHIP: Private. as recreational parks, with picnic facilities OWNERSHIP-.: Private. and hiking trails. Also, the beach between FLOOD HAZARD: Mo'derate, noncritical. All strti'c­ Taskmakers Creek and Chesapeake Beach could tures in the-subsegment are located at eleva­ FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to severe, critical. Most make a good public beach. Both facilities and tions of around 10 feet or greater. Most residences are above 10-foot elevations and are ample parking would have to be provided for flooding would occur at Smith Point. thus not susceptible to flooding. However, such a recreational beach. some structures at Chesapeake Beach and along WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. The Chesapeake Bay Bull Neck are close to the shore and would be MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE has good water quality. endangered by flooding. Quadr., 1968. N.O.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The beaches at WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. The Chesapeake Bay scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Smith Point are fairly wide with vegetated . has good water quality. Any pollutants enter­ Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. dunes behind. ing the creeks would be readily flushed into the Bay system. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-BA/763-792. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate to severe, noncritical. BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. There are several Ground-VIMS 11Nov74 NL-8A/ 15- 17. Most of the shoreline has an historical average

38 erosion rate of 6.1 feet per year. The area just south of Smith Point has been accreting at an average rate of 1.2 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 400 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in the subsegment, 100 feet of which is riprap and the remainder is groins. There is a riprap jetty at the mouth of the Little Wicom­ ico River. All riprap appears to be effective. Some of the groins are only marginally effective at trapping sand.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : None.

SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This subsegment has a valuable dune area near Smith Point, which should not be destroyed. This section of land is also fairly narrow, which would limit development. The half mile strip of land at the mouth of Owens Pond is very low and susceptible to flooding. Much of the remaining shoreland is interspaced with lakes near the shore, which limits the amount of Bay­ fronting shoreline available for development.

ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. The dune area at Smith Point should be preserved. The area could be used as a low density park; however, care should be taken to ensure that the dune system remains undamaged.

MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE Quadr • , 1968, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BURGESS Quadr., 1968. N.O.S., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973.

PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 27Apr76 NL-SB/793-827.

39 SUBSEGMENT 9A beaches in this subsegment. SUBSEGMENT 9B

SMITH POINT TO PEACHTREE POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PEACHTREE POINT TO EROSION RATE: No data. Erosion along this HEAD OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER Map 7 portion of the river would be due to rain run­ off and boat wakes. Maps 7 and 8 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 121,800 feet (23.1 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ the Little Wicomico River from Smith Point to imately 3,500 feet of artificially stabilized EXTENT: 74,700 feet (14.1 mi.) of shoreline from Peachtree Point, including Rock Hole, Slough, shoreline in the subsegment, 200 feet of which Peachtree Point to the head of the Little Wi­ Sharps and Bridge Creeks. The subsegment also is rubble riprap and the remainder bulkhead. comico River, including Back, Cod, Sloop and contains 123,600 feet (23.4 mi.) of fastland. These structures, though effective, are mainly Willis Creeks and Hansons Cove. The subseg­ for cosmetic purposes rather than for erosion ment also includes 85,400 feet (16.2 mi.) of SHORELANDS TYPE control. fastland. FASTLAND: Low shore 96% (22.4 mi.) and low shore with bluff 4% (1.0 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The two marinas located SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.7 mi.), along Slough Creek have open and covered slips FASTLAND: Artificial fil1<1% (0.1 mi.), low beach 5% (1.1 mi.), fringe marsh 85% (19.6 mi.), and several launching ramps. There are numer­ shore 94% (15.1 mi.), low shore with bluff 5% and embayed marsh 7% (1.7 mi.). ous piers along the remainder of the shoreline. (0.8 mi.), and moderately low shore 1% (0.2 RIVER: The Little Wicomico River has control­ A ferry dock is located at Sunnybank. mi.). ling depths of 6 feet at the entrance channel SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.2 mi.), and for a distance of approximately four miles SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: beach 13% (1.8 mi.), fringe marsh 78% (11.1 · upstream. Bridge Creek has controlling depths More than one-fifth of the shoreline is al­ mi.), and embayed marsh 7% (1.0 mi.). of 6 feet along the majority of the·creek. ready used for residential development. The RIVER: The Little Wicomico River has depths Slough Creek and Rock Hole are generally shal­ eastern bank of Rock Hole is a narrow strip of of 6 feet to Willis Creek, and depths of 2 low, with average depths of 2 to 3 feet. land bordering on the Chesapeake Bay. The low to 4 feet at the head. elevation and the presence of valuable dunes SHORELANDS USE along this stretch of land limit the area's use SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 37% (8.5 mi.), connner­ potential. Along other sections of the subseg­ FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (3.1 mi.), resi­ cial 1% (0.3 mi.), residential 21% (4.9 mi.), ment, the agricultural lands would have to be dential 28% (4.5 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded and unmanaged, wooded 41% (23.4 mi.). sacrificed for development. 53% (8.6 mi.). SHORE: Some private recreational and connnercial SHORE: Some private recreational use, hut use, but mostly unused. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: mostly unused. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Low. As stated in Subsegment 8B, the strip RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. of land at Smith Point should be preserved in WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The main stream trends in its natural state, both for its beauty and its WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The inain stream of the an E - W direction and the creeks run N - S. flood control characteristics. There seems to river trends basically E - W, then SE - NW The Little Wicomico River is not exposed to be little alternate shore use suitable for the toward the head. The creeks included in the direct wind induced wave attacks. subsegment. subsegment trend NE - SW. The Little Wicom­ ico River is not exposed to significant wind OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BURGESS induced wave actions. Quadr., 1968, FLOOD HAZARD: Low. TI-ie majority of the subseg­ USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), REEDVILLE OWNERSHIP: Private. ment has elevations of at least 10 feet along Quadr., 1968. the·shoreline. N.O.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shore­ scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith line has elevations of at least 10 feet. WATER QUALITY: No data. This section is not spe­ Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. cifically mentioned.in the Virginia State Water WATER QUALITY: No data. The Little Wicomico Control Board's 305(b)Report. It is thus as­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar77 NL-9A/828-884. River is not mentioned in the Virginia State swned that the Little Wicomico River meets the Water Control Board's 305(b)Report. It is 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. assumed that the river meets the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only fringe

40 BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, strip SUBSEGMENT 9C show that several bluff areas are eroding due beaches in this subsegment. to a combination of rain runoff and boat wakes. HEAD OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER TO KING POINT In at least one area, agricultural fields have PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION been plowed perpendicular to the shoreline, EROSION RATE: No data. Erosion along this por­ Maps 7 and 8 which greatly increases rain runoff erosion. tion of the river would be due to rain runoff Also, it was noted that several fields do not and boat wakes. have adequate "green zones" between the field ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 72,800 feet (13.7 mi.) of shoreline from and the shoreline. These vegetated buffer SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approxi­ the head of the Little Wicomico River to King zones are necessary to lessen the erosion rate mately 1,200 feet of effective bulkhead in the Point, including Sawmill and Spring Coves, and and the concurrent agricultural runoff pollu­ subsegment. Two sections are for retaining fill, Spences and Bridgemans Creeks. The subsegment tion of the nearby waters. while the remainder appears to be for cosmetic also contains 84,500 feet (16.0 mi.) of fast­ ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. purposes rather than for erosion control. land. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 700 feet of artificially stabilized OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in the subsegment, 50 feet of which and boat sheds as well as a concrete boat ramp FASTLAND: Low shore 97% (15.6 mi.) and low is rubble riprap and the remainder bulkhead. in the subsegment. shore with bluff 3% (0.4 mi.). All structures appear to be effective. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.1 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: beach 4% (0.5 mi.), fringe marsh 85% (11.7 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, This subsegment is predominantly rural in na­ and embayed marsh 10% (1.4 mi.). several boat ramps, and two marine railways in ture, seventy-two percent of the shorelands are RIVER: Too narrow and shallow for classifica­ this subsegment. either being used for agriculture or are wooded. tion. The main stream of the river has depths The remaining twenty-eight percent of the shore­ of about 6 feet. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: lands are residential areas. Much of the resi­ This subsegm~nt is predominantly rural, with dential development has taken place along the SHORELANDS USE eighty-three percent of the shorelands either river-fronting shoreline from Willis Creek to FASTLAND: Agricultural 42% (6.7 mi.), connner­ used for agriculture or are unused woods. Res­ Peachtree Point. The present use would limit cial 2% (0.3 mi.), industrial 1% (O.l mi.), idential development and several marine rail­ other development in the subsegment. The unused residential 14% (2.3 mi.), and unmanaged, ways are located along the river from Spring shorelands near the head of the river do not wooded 41% (6.6 mi.). Cove to King Point. The shallow waters at the have good access to the river channel and are SHORE: Private recreational use and some com­ head of the river are not very conducive to thus not prime targets for water-related devel­ mercial use (marinas). residential development; however, some

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. Field investigations

41 SUBSEGMENT 9D PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The shoreline appears KING POINT TO MOUTH OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER mostly stable, except at the east side of the mouth of Ellyson Creek. There, rain runoff Maps 7 and 8 and boat wakes are eroding a low bluff area. The situation is worsened by the incorrect plowing of the agricultural field at the shore. EXTENT: 58,200 feet (11.0 mi.) of shoreline from Correct contour plowing plus a "green zone" King Point to the mouth of the Little Wicomico buffer between the field and shore would do River, including Ellyson Creek. The subsegment much to alleviate the erosion. also contains 59,200 feet (11.2 mi.) of fast- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. land. · SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 1,700 feet of artificially stabilized SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in the subsegment, 1,200 feet of FASTLAND: Low shore 83% (9.3 mi.) and low shore which is rubble riprap and the remainder is with bluff 17% (1.9 mi.). bulkhead. All structures appear effective. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.3 mi.), beach 7% (0.8 mi.), fringe marsh 80% (8.8 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, and embayed marsh 10% (1.1 mi.). several boat sheds, and a ferry dock in the RIVER: The main bodies of the Little Wicomico subsegment. River and Ellyson Creek have controlling depths of 6 feet. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Ninety-three percent of the shorelands in SHORELANDS USE this subsegment are either woods or are used FASTLAND: Agricultural 43% (4.8 mi.), connner­ for agriculture. Any development would be at cial 1% (0.1 mi.), residential 6% (0.6 mi.), the sacrifice of these areas. Existing devel­ and unmanaged, wooded 50% (5.7 mi.). opment indicates a tendency toward construction SHORE: Some pr~vate recreational and agricul­ near the inland roads rather than the shore­ tural use, but mostly unused. line. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing, ALTERNATE SHORE USE: WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The river·trends basically Low, The river-fronting shorelands are used W - E in this subsegment. Ellyson Creek runs for agriculture. The only section in the sub­ from NW - SE. The subsegment is not exposed to segment which could become a park would be the significant wind .or wave actions. area from the old river entrance to the new channel at Smith Point. However, access to OWNERSHIP: Private. this area is limited.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shoreline MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BURGESS has elevations of 10 feet and is not subject to Quadr., 1968. flooding. N.o.s., #12225 (formerly 1223), 1:80,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Wolf Trap to Smith WATER QUALITY: No data. The Little Wicomico Riv­ Point, VA, 25th ed., 1973. er is not mentioned in the State Water Control Board's 305(b)Report. Therefore, it is assumed PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 30Nov76 NL-9D/1013-1052. that the river meets the 305(b)(l)(B) criteria.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. The beaches in this subsegment are narrow and often interspaced with fringing marsh. There are several beaches of fair width near the riverward end of the channel entrance. However, access is difficult.

42 SEGMENT 10 sand has been trapped by the extensive groin N.O.S., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 systems employed along the shore. scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to MOUTH OF LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. TO MOUTH OF CUBITT CREEK PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. The shore­ PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 30Nov76 NL-10/1053-1195. Maps 7, 8, and 9 line near Smith Point has been accreting at an historical average rate of 1.2 feet per year. Ground-VIMS 6Nov74 NL-10/ 1- 14. The remaining shoreline has a severe historical EXTENT: 47,300 feet (8.9 mi.) of shoreline along average erosion rate of 3.1 to 4.9 feet per the Potomac River from the mouth of the Little year. Wicomico River to the mouth of Cubitt Creek. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Most residential The segment also includes 44,700 feet (8.5 mi.) areas have been artificially stabilized. of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 15,900 feet of artificially stabilized SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in this segment. Groins have been FASTLAND: Artificial fill 6% (0.5 mi.), dunes employed with both bulkheads and riprap in many 10% (0.9 mi.), low shore 45% (3.8 mi.), and low areas.~ There are two areas where experimental shore with bluff 39% (3.3 mi.). · sand bag sills have been used to control the SHORE: Artificially stabilized 34% (3.0 mi.), erosion. Most structures appear to be effec­ beach 61% (5.5 mi.), and embayed marsh 5% (0.4 tive in halting erosion. However, several mi.). groins have been flanked in some areas and are NEARSHORE: Intermediate 72% and wide 14%. The in danger of failing. remainder of the nearshore zone is located along Flag Pond. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are no piers in the segment. The only structures along the shore­ SHORELANDS USE line are a wooden ramp, a private hauling ramp, FASTLAND: Agricultural 20% (1.7 mi.), residen­ and several platforms over the beach. tial 50% (4.3 mi.), unmanaged, unwooded 5% (0.4 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 25% (8.5 mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SHORE: Mostly private recreational use. Approximately fifty percent of the shorelands NEARSHORE: CollD11ercial traffic in the river in the segment have already been developed for channel, sport boating and fishing closer to residential purposes. This is mainly strip de­ shore. velopment, usually only affecting the one to two hundred feet of land adjacent to the shore. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ Agricultural fields and wooded lands back such cally SE - NW in this segment. This portion of areas. These residential areas are mostly sec­ the river is exposed to fetches across the Bay ond or vacation homes. from the northeast and east, and to significant Almost the entire shoreline has a severe ero­ fetches from the northwest along the Potomac sion rate, and undeveloped areas are still erod­ River. ing. Adequate protection of the shoreline is a necessary prerequisite to any construction along OWNERSHIP: Private. most of this shoreline.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shoreline ALTERNATE SHORE USE: has elevations of at least 10 feet and is not Low. Some continued residential development subject to flooding. is possible for several areas of the segment. However, the rural nature of the shorelands will WATER QUALITY: This segment generally meets the probably remain unchanged. There are no areas State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ suitable for other alternate development. teria. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min~Ser. (Topo.), BURGESS BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. Most of the shore­ Quadr., 1968. line has nice wide and clean beaches. Much

43 SEGMENT 11 flooded during periods of abnormally high wa­ creeks in the segment are mostly unnavigable, ter. which would tend to limit water-related devel­ CUBITT CREEK TO GREAT POINT opment. WATER QUALITY: This segment generally meets the Maps 9 and 10 State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ ALTERNATE SHORE USE: teria. Low. Bay Quarter Neck and the Cod Creek area are being developed for residential pur­ EXTENT: 239,800 feet (45.4 mi.) of shoreline along BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. There are many good poses. Much of Hull Neck, especially along the Potomac River from Cubitt Creek to Great wide and clean beaches in the segment. the river, is already developed. Elsewhere Point, including Cubitt, Hull, Presley, and Cod in the segment, the shorelands are either used Creeks. The segment also contains 247,000 feet PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION for agriculture or are unused. The rural na­ (46.8 mi.) of fastland. EROSION RATE: Severe, critical and noncriti­ ture of the area would make a public recrea­ cal. This Segment has an historical average tional park unnecessary. SHORELANDS TYPE erosion rate of 3.1 to 10.6 feet per year for FASTLAND: Artificial fili <1% (0.1 mi.), dunes the river-fronting shoreline. However, forty­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BURGESS < 1% (0.2 mi.), low shore 41% (19.4 mi.), low five percent of this shoreline has been stabi­ Quadr., 1968, shore with bluff 6% (2.9 mi.), moderately low lized. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HEATHSVILLE shore 29% (13.6 mi.), moderately low shore with Several agricultural fields along the shore­ Quadr., 1968. bluff 8% (3.8 mi.), moderately high shore 8% line are actively eroding. These areas do not N.O.S., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 (3.8 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 2% have adequate buffer zones (green zones) be­ scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to (1.0 mi.), high shore 3% (1.4 mi.), -and high tween the plowed fields and the shore. Also, Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. shore with bluff 1% (0.6 mi.). several fields have been plowed perpendicular SHORE: Artificially stabilized 5% (2.3 mi.), rather than parallel to shore. This aids both PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 30Nov76 NL-11/1196-1482. beach 12% (5.4 mi.), fringe marsh 72% (32,8 wave and rain runoff erosion. (Scouring along mi.), and embayed marsh 11% (4.9 mi.). several fields gives evidence of the rain run­ Ground-VIMS 20Apr77 NL-11/ 39- 66. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 8% and wide 3%. The off erosion.) remainder of the nearshore zone is located ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: Two houses at the mouth along the creeks in the segment. of Hull Creek have been severely damaged by erosion and flood forces. Several other struc­ SHORELANDS USE tures in this segment are endangered by contin­ FASTLAND: Agricultural 38% (17.7 mi.), residen­ ued erosion. tial 24% (11.1 mi.), and umnanaged, wooded 38% SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ (18.0 mi.). imately 12,200 feet of artificially stabilized SHORE: Some private recreational and agricul­ shoreline in the segment, most of which is tural use, but mostly unused. groin fields or a combination of groins and NEARSHORE: Cormnercial traffic, sport boating bulkhead or riprap. Stabilized areas on the and fishing along the river. Sport boating and creeks are usually bulkhead. While most struc­ fishing in the creeks. tures appear to be effective, many areas be­ tween stabilized sections have accelerated ero­ WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The river shoreline in this sion rates which threaten the integrity of the segment trends basically SE - NW. The creeks structures. Also, several groin fields, espe­ run N - S from the mouth to the head. The riv­ cially at Cordreys Beach, have been ineffective er-fronting shoreline is exposed to fetches at trapping buffer beaches. across the Bay from the northeast and east, and also to significant fetches from the northwest, OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers along the Potomac River. in the segment, most of which are located along the creeks. OWNERSHIP: Private. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to high, critical. Much of The entire river-fronting shoreline has a the shoreline has elevations of only 5 feet and severe historical erosion rate. Any new d~el­ is susceptible to flooding. Many structures are opment along this section of shoreline would on or below the 5-foot contour and could be have to cope with this problem. Also, the

44 SEGMENT 12 structures at the river mouth are located at SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: elevations of less than 5 feet and are endan­ The Potomac river-fronting sboreline has a GREAT POINT TO HONEST POINT gered. moderate to severe erosion rate. This area is presently used for agriculture. Walnut Point Maps 10 and 11 WATER QUALITY: This segment generally meets the is unused. Most of the land near the mouth of State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ the Coan River is already used, either for agri­ teria. culture, residences, or industry. Existing use EXTENT: 151,800 feet (28.8 mi.) of shoreline along here would limit other types of development. the c·oan River, from Great Point to Honest Point. BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. The only good The majority of unused land is located along The segment also includes 163,200 feet (30.9 mi.) beaches in this segment are from Balls Creek the head of the river. The moderately high to of fastland. to Walnut Point. Most of this area has fairly high bluffs found along the shoreline in these wide beaches with clean sand. The beaches areas would hamper any formal use of the land. SHORELANDS TYPE along the Coan River are usually narrow and FASTLAND: Low shore 27% (8.4 mi.), low shore are often vegetated. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: with bluff 11% (3.4 mi.), moderately low shore Low. There seems to be no innnediate need 23% (7.0 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION for any type of public recreational facilities 7% (2.3 mi.), moderately high shore 19% (5.8 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe~ in this section of the county. Though some mi.), moderately high shore with bluff 1% (0.3 noncritical. The majority of shoreline erosion continued isolated development in areas of the mi.), high shore 9% (2.9 mi.), and high shore in this segment has centered along the Potomac segment is possible, little change in the rural with bluff 3% (0.8 mi.). River fronting shoreline. The section from Wal­ nature of the shorelands is foreseen. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 4% (1.1 mi.), nut Point to Great Point have historical average beach 11% (3.1 mi.), fringe marsh 68% (19.7 erosion rates of 2.5 to 10.6 feet per year. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HEATHSVILLE mi.), and embayed marsh 17% (4. 9 mi.). Honest Point has an average erosion rate of 4.0 Quadr., 1968. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 5%. The Coan River feet per year. Erosion is also a problem for N.O.S., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 has average depths of 12 feet at the mouth, much of the shoreline from Boathouse Pond to scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to with depths of at least 6 feet along the main Walnut Point. Rain runoff and boat wakes at­ Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. stream of the river to Nokomis. tack the vulnerable bluffs along this section of shoreline and are causing slight to moderate PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 30Nov76 NL-12/1483-1649, SHORELANDS USE erosion. Several agricultural fields near the 1Dec76 NL-12/1650-1664. FASTLAND: Agricultural 34% (10.6 mi.), connner­ shoreline in this area have not left a buffer cial 2% (0.5 mi.), industrial 1% (0.3 mi.), zone of vegetated land between the fields and Ground-VIMS 20Apr77 NL-12/ 67- 70. residential 18% (5.7 mi.), unmanaged, unwooded the shore. One field is plowed perpendicular 1% (0.3 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 44% (13.5 to the shoreline. Such farming techniques con­ mi.). tribute to rain runoff erosion and the result­ SHORE: Some connnercial use at the several ma­ ing water pollution from fertilizers, insecti­ rinas and private recreational use in front of cides and herbicides. residences; elsewhere, mostly unused. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 5,600 feet of artificially stabilized WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ shoreline in the segment, 2,000 feet of which cally E - Win the segment. The Coan River is riprap and the remainder bulkhead. Several trends basically NNE - SSW through several me­ areas of bulkhead have groins fronting the anders. Fetches at Walnut Point are NE - 7.1 structures. A bulkhead at the mouth of Balls nm and ENE - 8.3 nm. Creek has separated from the fastland and now gives little erosion protection. A cosmetic OWNERSHIP: Private. bulkhead at Walnut Point is dilapidated. Else­ where, all structures appear to be effective. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to high, critical. Most of the shorelands along the Coan River.have elevations OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There-are numerous private of 10 to 70 feet-and are-not vulnerable to piers and boat sheds along the Coan River. Sev­ flooding. However, the areas near the mouth of eral marinas near Honest Point and Stevens Point the river and between Great and Walnut Points have open slips for numerous boats. The marina are highly susceptible to inundation during at Stevens Point has a marine railway. periods of abnormally high water. Several

45 SEGMENT 13 BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. Most of the shore­ USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. GEORGE line on Travis Point in Judith Sound has good ISLAND Quadr., 1968, PI 1973, HONEST POINT TO HOG ISLAND beaches that have been trapped by the groins USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LOTTSBURG there. Elsewhere, there are only narrow strip Quadr., 1968. Maps 11 and 12 beaches. N.O.S., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. EXTENT: 133,600 feet (25. 3 mi.) of shoreline from EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe, Honest Point to Hog Island, including The Glebe, noncritical. The Lewisetta section of Travis PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 1Dec76 NL-13/1665-1680, Wrights Cove, Kingscote Creek and Judith Sound. Point has an historical average erosion rate of 28Mar77 NL-13/1681-1741. The segment also contains 134,300 feet (25.4 mi.) 2.0 to 3.7 feet per year. However, this area of fastland. is mostly artificially stabilized and erosion Ground-VIMS 20Apr77 NL-13/ 71- 82. is not a present problem. SHORELANDS TYPE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. FASTLAND: Low shore 90% (23.0 mi.), low shore SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ with bluff 8% (1.9 mi.), and moderately low imately 11,200 feet of artificially stabilized shore 2% (0.5 mi.). shoreline in this segment, most of which is SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8% (2.1 mi.), bulkhead. There are several small areas of rip­ beach 5% (1.3 mi.), fringe marsh 71% (17.9 mi.), rap along the shore and many groins at Travis embayed marsh 7% ( 1. 7 mi.) , and extensive marsh Point. An old bulkhead at Cowart has separated 9% (2. 3 mi.) • from the fastland and offers little erosion pro­ NEARSHORE: Intermediate 10%. The remainder of tection. Elsewhere in the segment, most struc­ the nearshore zone is located along The Glebe tures appear to be effective. and Kingscote Creek, which have average depths 'Of 6 feet. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are many piers and boat sheds in the residential subdivisions along ·sHORELANDS USE The Glebe. The marinas on Travis Point have FASTLAND: · Agricultural 49% (12.3 mi~), connner­ open slips for many boats and have several boat cial 1% (0.4 mi.), residential 30% (7.7 mi.), ramps. and unmanaged, wooded 20% (5.0 mi.). SHORE: Private recreational and agricultural SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: use. Some portions, especially at the head of The Travis Point area and much of the shore­ the creeks, are unused. line along the north bank of The Glebe are al­ NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. ready developed for residential purposes. A total of thirty percent of the shorelands in . WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi­ this segment are used for residences, either cally S- N. The Glebe trends E - W, and Kings­ sunnner homes or primary dwellings. Almost fif­ cote Creek runs SE - NW. Travis Point is ex­ ty percent of the shorelands are used for agri­ posed to fetches from the N - 7.7 nm, and NE - culture. There are generally only isolated 6.0 nm across the Potomac River, and from the sections of unmanaged woods along the shoreline, east across the Bay. much of which is found at the head of the creeks. Therefore, there is a limited supply of unused OWNERSHIP: Private. land available for development in this area.

FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical, Honest Point and ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Travis.Point, with elevations of less than 5 Low. Large sections of the shorelands have feet, are susceptible to flooding. All struc­ already been developed for residential and com­ tures at these areas would be flooded during mercial purposes. The rural nature of the area abnormally high water. would preclude the necessity of establishing a public recreational park along the shoreline • .· WATER QUALITY: This segment generally meets the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HEATHSVILLE . teria. Quadr., 1968,

46 SEGMENT 14 of the groins in front of residential sections N.o.s., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 have trapped nice fillets of sand. scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeak~ Bay to HOG ISLAND TO BARN POINT Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Maps 12 and 13 EROSION RATE: Moderate to severe, noncritical. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar77 NL-14/1742-1782. Historical average erosion rates for the area are: EXTENT: 21,800 feet (4.1 mi.) of shoreline along the Potomac River from Hog Island to Barn Point. Hog Island to Rt. 680 - 2.7 ft/yr. The segment includes 26,600 feet (5.0 mi.) of West of Rt. 680 to Thicket Pt. - 3.7 ft/yr. fast land. Thicket Pt. to Barn Pt. - 2.0 ft/yr.

SHORELANDS TYPE Erosion is continuing in some areas of the seg­ FASTLAND: Low shore 94% (4.7 mi.) and low shore ment, but most sections have been artificially with bluff 6% (0,3 mi.). stabilized. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 34% (1.4 mi.), ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. beach 39% (1.6 mi.), fringe marsh 7% (0.3 mi.), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ embayed marsh 6% (0.2 mi,), and extensive marsh imately 7,300 feet of groin fields in the seg­ 14% (0.6 mi.). ment. These structures are sometimes used in NEARSHORE: Intermediate 100%. conjunction with bulkhead or·riprap. Half of the groins have been effective in trapping sig­ SHORELA,NDS USE nificant amounts of sand. A groin field east FASTLAND: Agricultural 46% (2.3 mi.), residen­ of Thicket Point is ineffective, and erosion is tial 34% (1.7 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 20% continuing along this area of shoreline. (i.O mi.). SHORE: Mostly private recreational and agricul­ OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers tural use. and a boat ramp in the segment. NEARSHORE: Connnercial shipping and fishing in the Potomac River channel, sport boating and SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: fishing closer to shore. The river-fronting shorelands from near Route 680 to Barn Point are almost entirely used for WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends ESE - residential purposes. The Cherry Point Neck WNW from Hog Island to Thicket Point, then E - shorelands are agricultural areas. The only un­ W from Thicket Point to Barn Point. Fetches at used lands in the segment are very small stretches Thicket Point are N - 7.0 nm, NE - 6.6 nm, and of woods along the shore and behind several ponds. east across the Bay. The present shore use would limit the amount and type of other development. OWNERSHIP: Private. Another limiting factor in shore development would be the vulnerability of unused sections of FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical. Much of the shoreline to erosion. With moderate to severe shoreline has elevations of 10 feet and are not erosion rates along the entire segment, any other susceptible to floods. However, the Hog Island user of the area would have to first stabilize marshes and fastland have elevations of 5 feet the shoreline. or less and are moderately susceptible to flood­ ing. Several structures are located at 5-foot ALTERNATE SHORE USE: elevations and would be endangered during peri­ Low. Any major change in the use of the seg­ ods of abnormally high water. ment would be at the sacrifice of the agricul­ / tural areas. There appears to be little need for WATER QUALITY: This segment generally meets the such a change for the foreseeable future. State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ teria. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. GEORGE ISLAND Quadr., 1968, BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The beaches west of USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE Hog Island have good width and clean sand. Some Quadr., 1968.

47 SEGMENT 15 BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. There are several PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 28Mar77 NL-15/1783-1815, areas with nice beaches in t~e segment. How­ 1Dec76 NL-15/1816-1889. BARN POINT TO MUNDY POINT ever, the beaches are very small and are usu­ ally trapped by groins. Map 13 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. Though there may be EXTENT: 137,100 feet (26.0 mi.) of shoreline along some isolated erosion due to rain runoff and the South Yeocomico River from Barn Point to boat wakes, the shorelands in this segment ap­ Mundy Point, including Lodge and Mill Creeks. pear to be mostly stable. The subsegment also contains 142,500 feet (27.0 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. mi.) of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ imately 16,500 feet of artificially stabilized SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline in the segment, several hundred feet FASTLAND: Artificial fill< 1% (0.1 mi.), low of which is rubble riprap and the remainder shore 35% (9.5 mi.), low shore with bluff 23% bulkhead. Groins have been employed in several (6.1 mi.), moderately low shore 37% (10.1 mi.), areas near the river mouth, often in conjunction moderately low shore with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.), with bulkhead. Though most structures seem to moderately high shore 1% (0.2 mi.), and high be effective, some groin fields have been unsuc­ shore 3% (0.8 mi.). cessful at trapping buffer beaches. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 12% (3.l'mi.), beach 5% (1.2 mi.), fringe marsh 79% (20.5 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and embayed marsh 4% (1.2 mi.). and boat sheds, and several boat ramps and ma­ RIVER: The South Yeocomico River has average rine railways in the segment. depths of 12 feet. Lodge and Mill Creeks have depths of 6 feet grading to 3 feet. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Half of the shorelands of Mill and Lodge SHORELANDS USE Creeks border on unnavigable waters, which FASTLAND: Agricultural 40% (10.8 mi.), connner­ would limit development in these areas. Eighty­ cial 2% (0.6 mi.), industrial 1% (0.2 mi.), six percent of the fastland in this segment is residential 43% (11.5 mi.), and unmanaged, already either formally developed or is used wooded 14% (3. 9 mi.). for agriculture. Most unused land is located SHORE: Mostly private recreational and agricul­ along the shallow creek heads. tural use. The head of Mill Creek is unused woods. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Low. As is true for most areas along the shorelands of Northumberland County, the major­ WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The South Yeocomico River ity of usable land is already consumed, either trends basically N - s. The fetch at Mundy for residences or agriculture. The unused areas Point is NE - 7.5 nm. generally have untenable elevations, poor ac­ cess, and shallow water. Such conditions are OWNERSHIP: Private. not conducive to development unless all other lands in the vicinity are totally and intensely FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. The developed. majority of the shoreline has elevations of at least 10 feet and is not subject to flooding. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE The marina facilities on Pea Neck and Mundy Quadr., 1968, Point could be flooded during periods of abnor­ USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Tbpo.), LOTTSBURG mally high water. Quadr., 1968. N.O.s., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 WATER QUALITY: Lodge Creek is closed to the taking scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to of shellfish, however it does meet the State Wa­ Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973. ter Control Board's 305 (b )(l)(B) criteria. ·

48 SEGMENT 16 this segment are at Cedar and Oyster Shell Point. These beaches, though fairly wide and MUNDY POINT TO THE COUNTY LINE clean, are not large enough for any public rec­ reational usage. Map 13 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, EXTENT: 40,500 feet (7.7 mi.) of shoreline along noncritical. The only area of historical ero­ the West Yeocomico River from Mundy Point to the sion in the segment is from Wilkins Creek to Northumberland - Westmoreland County line at the Mundy Point, which has an average rate of 2.3 head of Hampton Hall Branch. The segment also feet per year. No data is available for much contains 42,900 feet (8.1 mi.) of fastland. of the segment, though field investigations in­

'• dicate no appreciable erosion is occurring. SHORELANDS TYPE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. FASTLAND: Low shore 47% (3.8 mi.), moderately SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx­ low shore 33% (2.7 mi.), moderately low shore imately 1,300 feet of artificially stabilized with bluff 4% (0.3 mi.), moderately high shore shoreline in the segment, of which 600 feet is 5% (0.4 mi.), and high shore 11% (0.9 mi.). bulkhead, 450 feet is groin fields, and 150 SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.3 mi.), feet is riprap. All structures appear to be beach 3% (0.2 mi.), fringe marsh 88% (6.8 mi.), effective. and embayed marsh 6% (0.4 mi.). RIVER: The West Yeocomico River has average OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers depths of 6 feet. Hampton Hall Branch is very in the segment. narrow and shallow. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: SHORELANDS USE Most of Hampton Hall Branch is very narrow FASTLAND: Agricultural 18% (1.5 mi.), indus­ and shallow, and is unnavigable. Those shore­ trial 2% (0.1 mi.), residential 20% (1.6 mi.), lands bordering the West Yeocomico River are urnnanaged, unwooded 2% (0.2 mi.), and urnnanaged, mostly already used for agriculture and resi­ wooded 58% (4.7 mi.). dences. This is also true of Wilkins Creek. SHORE: Some private recreational use, but most­ ly unused. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. Low. The only area of largely undeveloped land is along Hampton Hall Branch. However, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The West Yeocomico River high elevations along the shoreline, shallow trends basically E - W, and Hq.111pton Hall Branch water and little access to the land limit the runs NE - SW. The fetch at Long Point is NE - uses of the area. Since there are other lands 8.0 nm. However, the narrowness of the river in the county more suitable for development, would diminish the effects of any wind generated there seems to be little pressure for any large waves in this area. changes in the present shorelands use.

OWNERSHIP: Private. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE Quadr., 1968. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of N.o.s., #12233 (formerly 557), 1:40,000 the shoreline has elevations of at least 10 feet scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to and would not be subject to flooding. Piney Point, VA-MD, 18th ed., 1973.

WATER QUALITY: Hampton Hall Branch is closed to PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 1Dec76 NL-16/1890-1918. the taking of shellfish, although it meets the State Water Control Board's 305(b)(l)(B) cri­ teria.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The only beaches in

49 •

•. ~

'·---~:· :··· (\._,\ 3 \::)_.\ ,I

.2

'37° 42' _.,,,:, /'•,, : '.'. ~ :., 30" ._:-/' ~-, \ ,, ,,,, \-., ·:·:.:,._. ___ . ,,, :' ::: .:-.... ·.: \ : •.-,-

'•,'-, _/i:; ,.

\

Barnes Creek

1

Grog Island

76° 20' • 0 4. 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 2

0

37° 0 37° 42' 30" u, • N> •

.. ).

' ~ '/~:;:•~'} ~d/; ~ .;: :.::;.

Barnes ~:\ •

';., @ Cre,;~i\\~tt,,1

0 ir~/.:iiiff ;": • FASTLAND O· Low Shore 0 0 7 Artificial Fill ·SHORE :-:-·.··.-:.:-:-:.: •:•:•:•:•; J Beach Fringe Marsh rlllllllllllllllllllllli Extensive Marsh //////////// Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized '1 NEARSHORE ,,/1 ~r ~ ,. Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate O O O 0 Rones Bay Wide Grog •••• Island

76° 20' ,·. 4 I. '.i

I r3I ' I • I' .

I J

J i

. 1370 42 1 3d' VI . w)

Barnes Creek

,,,.,.· ·- ~luff Pointi

\ I.

A Commercial C I/ '-"*--I/ Industrial I ,ti Recreational RC • Residential RS

~!(9,' Unmanaged ,,, ·~" Unwooded u I Wooded w OWNERSHIP :i Private 1 EROSION ~rn-- , r Severe \" ,· Moderate ill I \ll I Accretional .: --) / Slight or No Change Grog v Island .. - -..;.J 76° 20' .-

-... -5.. ____ \ ~-----.. __

:MAP 3A -~ -.------d:h~_E}"S BAY AND QUADS. --· --. REEDVIL.LE_,_ .-~------~---~·------. Segments 4 and 5 -TOPOGRAPHY ANDCl.JL Tl.JAE --·- --· ·- . ·----- .,.. ··- -

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

·-~-----· -··-·----- 37° ' 47'

• A ~'-~.:::::- )) I/ I/ //

'\\\ ()a \\

76° 20'

54 76° 20'

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 •· • •• • • • •

·-5------.. • \.----.\.~ • • MAP38 FLEETS BAY AND REEDVILLE QUADS . ------·- • Segments 4 and 5 - . ------~~ ' - -- • SHOR ELANDS TYPES FASTLAND Low Shore I Low Shore with Bluff . I SHORE 0 Beach :-:-·.··.·=·=·:-:-: •:•:•:•:-: 4 Fringe Marsh n1111111111111111111111 • Extensive Marsh //////////h Embayed Marsh ~ _ Artificial~J~tabilized ~ ...... • NEARSHORE Intermediate 0 0 0 0 37° • '. 47' • Wide ••••

55 76° 20'

····--.()

(\ - . '/Y5-~'._/

.._ -!!:!: : ~/ ~ .:' ,,;;...... - .... / .. ,/·· ( \,

-s......

\----\ ____ . __ ... 1W I ! \ MAP 3C _f~~~T§ ~y .!\NP 8EEDVILLE QUADS~ Segments Aind5 •.·. FASTLA~D USE, OWNER~HIP, E.ROSIOt•i USE Agricultural A Unmanaged Wood~d w OWNERSHIP Private 1 4 ---,------_EROSION --· Severe - Moderate 1111111 ---·· Slight or No Change No Symbol -- --

76° 20'

56 I/ ~e~,J -.. ·-c:\-----~-- ,;· ~C, --J7n\. . (_/"-·.)'' \; . . .. ,.I • • 'Y - "~-/'~ (' -•• ;s-,1.: .. •

----i, ) ·11 . ;,'\, -- ---~~ ,'{) III \ 11 •' \_ -, • I, Shiloh

I\ \ .. >~em \ \ :kwells ''.

\ (( ,cem · '~Picn; Ir, . \ Are .\I Ferry ''.\ ,1 Point ti WICOMICO ,, /Rogue " / ~oint Collins 7E

: Haynie Point 7F

/ @)_·.

30

0 ' 0 0 " \

37° 50 1

Lil CX)

Low Shore i Low Shore f with Bluff I I g I I

I a I I 0 •A 4 la 0

Beach :-:-·.··.· =·=· :- :. : •:. =· :•:•: O· Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 ~

0

0

Narrow lnter!Tiediate _,Ill\\\. .\ \ \ \ \\ . , ___ ..., __._.,, 30

37° 50 1

76° 20' 76° 22' 3011

37° 52 1 30"

. Eagle ·Point 7E GREAT 78 ,, C

:)7·.·

60 76° 22' 3011

37° 52 1 3011

/) Ir.·•'-•; j

:/

Low Shore i Moaerately Low Shore I I g I ~ Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I u I ~ Moderately High Shore A 6 6 A• I c High Shore SHORE • • Beach :-:-·.··.·:-:-:-:-: ·:·:-:-:-: "'"'fci?!J Fringe Marsh m11111111111111111111 i ii''"- Embayed Marsh ~ ~.. Artificially Stabilized ·NEARSHORE- 0-0-0-0 \)'

61 76° 22' 3011

37° 52 1 3011

11A 1A -~ ...... 1RS

" 1RS Agricultural A Commercial C Recreational RC (;i 7E Residential RS GREAT Unmanaged w 1W 1 1W 1A ~ ,"' · 1A (, . 1RS ,

1W

1W::-, ' . 1W ( 1W.I ,~_, . '1W \. ~ . ' --~, J

62 76° 15°

·:·Cem

IO Owens .j Pond F 88

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

~~ " "'"' \, ~ ·~~­ \~1 Gem~~ \I ' ·\) II :· // i}· 37° 37 ~50' 15' 15 1

Cockrell Point BA 7F

76° 15'

63 76° 15 1

,.. 0

0 MAP68 REEDVILLE QUADR. 0 Subse9-~ents 7F, BA and 88 88 SHORELANDS TYPES 0 FASTLAND Low Shore 0 Low Shore with Bluff SHORE 0 Beach :-:-·.·:· =·:. :. :. : ·!.:. :-:-: Fringe Marsh n1111111111111111111111 Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE 0 Narrow 0-0-0-0 I' 37° Intermediate 0 0 0 0 ',\ 37 1 1!5 I 15

0

0

0 0 \ 0

0 8A 7F

0

0

0 0 76° 15 1

64 76° 15 1

88

:no 37 15 1 15 1

8A

76° 15 1

65 76° 15 1 ,:' ;}:-'- ,_. ,' .,..,.' ,_./ \ .. '-~. __ -.,.- ../'".

·',, 10 "

Flood Pt Greenfield Point King Peachtree Pt Bamboo Point Island

···p

37 ~2· 52 1 30'' 3011

\ ---··

88

~-- 1:, Bell Swamp

76° 15 1

66 76° 15·' \ __ 0 \ ,_)' \ 0 \. \ <\ • 10 • • • go· •

•

37 521 11 0 30

Bridge Neck 0 I .' J •_J~··..·. .\j ~·'\ 0 ~ . - . \ j • •• ----·· .. ,/ Sill. ODO 0 Fringe Marsh flllllllllllllllllllllll

Embayed Marsh ~ \.\ II II 0 . Artificially Stabilized ...._ ..,_ ..,_ ..,_ II 88 ii Ii Ii NEARSHORE ii •ntermediate 0 0 0 0 Bell __-:'-'/ol~ ·. tt Wide •••• :.~;)?~~ '~

67 76° 15'

37 52 1 3011

76° 15'

68 76° 11'30"

MAP8A BURGESS QUADR. Segment and Subsegments. 98, 9C, 90 and 10 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary

10

37° 55'

Ha. nJJ,ons. - (iO'IJe

76° 17 1 301

69 -----~---~~-.-- ~------

0 0 MAP88 BURGESS QUADR. Segment and Subsegments 98, 9C, 9D and 10 --· ·------· SHORELANDS TYPES FASTLAND 0 Low Shore 0 Low Shore with Bluff -- . Dune ~ Artificial Fill I I I I I SHORE Beach :-:-·.·:•:•:··.. =·: •: •:•:•:•: 0 10 Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized Sill ---- DODOO NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Wide ••••

37° 37° 551

0

0 (\ 76° 17 1 301

70 MAP8C - ·--· ------BURGESS QUAD. Segment and Subsegments 98, 9C, 9D and 10 ------~- -··--- ·------·------FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION USE Agricultural A Commercial C Industrial Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded u 10 Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 · ·'1W

.\0 ' EROSION Severe Slight or No Change No Symbol

9.

1A:~II 37° , . II. 3 55' 1W · 11 • " II 1A ,\' '' II 1A II '\.1W Ii --· II p's, !1W :ill 11 (;ove I! · 1RS.""'· . /; 1w_ -~-=-- ::/I 1A 7 1A · 1W 1A 1W Hanflons_ 98 t:ove ,, 1W 76° 17° 30°

71 76° 22' 3011

{'

11

10

-..J N

"'0

II II 11 \\ \\ \\ iii\. II \\ ' ¢ \\\ r'\,·"":': MAP9A \\ ·.. . BLIRGESS AND HEATHSVILLE QUADS.[.· ·~ ., , i, . Segments 10 and 11

.; 'roPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE I 37

lJ~- ,,: ~ /.\,< "'\. 55' 1 . . . · l604J,,, • " ~~ B d Gravel ,, = Segment oun ary , Pits / = Subsegment Boundary; /,,"' """'"<>,e"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"'{ .. "';)r, ===-,\··a2 Ed.wardsville. '

II II II

r .. 76° 22' 30"

0 0 0 11

0 0

0 0 0 10

0 0

f" ' "'0 Q{ ::_::, ~:,i-?; \\ \\ o __) r ;·· \\ \\ <" \ ,/ \\ \\ II <'o

37 55' Low Shore Low Shore .::::.::::.:::-.::::-.::::.:::::,_~, with Bluff Moderately Low Shore I I g I I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I I I I Moderately High Shore A A A A "''•S' Moderately High Shore '"'~'.">· It 3- , ·, . . with Bluff A 4 4 4 =""'=- .~-I/ Dune II :,·lJ~t~:~~1 ~ II i.:SHORE :-:•\•:• =· :• :. =·: •: ·=· :•:•: n111111111111111111111 1 ~ ..,__._ ...... /..... '- I ,,J

76° 22' 3011 76° 22' 30" r -

11

10

1A 1W .#o \ P-0 II II II 1A ~1 II II 1A ~1 II II II II ·:, \_ \. II ---·. 1116II II .1W II II ~'O 1W ·,. -,,_ \ ' IQ- • :\.. \\ \\ ..J \\ \\ ~ ..J ~ I) .::, II II II 20 ~.. :. "°o \\,, \I \\ \~ ';!.

:. 1A '\}? 1'· • - 1Wi \\ !1·11 - \\ ;\)\ \\ Gravel ' , \\ 1 \\ Pit \\ ..~. \\ \I\\ ·.. ~..:::=.-:::0 \\ \\ r,,· . I . . BURGESS AND HEATHSVILLE QUADS. ';'\'1 : ''\ .. , Segments 10 and 11 ·

.FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION ~ 37 USE 55' Agricultural A RS w

1

No Symbol =~""' II II II

r .. 76° 251

11

-...J u, 37° 57' 3011

co·i:~(;.:i··. , .:. ,·.·· :,<.··.'.'>

' . :. \ ,·' .>:

rr.;;=-.~·'.·.··.I;.,:-. - , . ~ .. · fl . . ' .· .•.. If • ' .

76° 25 1 76° 251

\ \ . \ \ ' • " ... ••

• 11

0

0 0

37° 37° 57' 57° 11 30 3011

21 Neck

Low Shore with Bluff 7 Moderately Low Shore with Bluff ,: "i Dune ·~SHORE .

o /',' Beach · Fringe Marsh rt1 II 11111111111111111 II

, ~ 0 Embayed Marsh ~ . ~ ~ Artificially Stabilized ...... ,_ ..,_ ..,_ , ·~ NEARSHORE 11

37° 57' 11 30 '·

76° 25 1 _' 38 ----..J • I,:. t r:r~===j::: · oo' .~==~-\u=·::.. Lewisetta J. Travis/ Pt

Gtebe

~~est . ~ -s,Pt ' ~ .&'

Walnut Pt

Stevens Pt

._., •":=:-=i,..;:::::::::.c

··-:-.. : \··>)-~::=

I I/ II It Ii II

/.

•:\ :H ~,l'-?r:-;.;: 76° 301 \\ /j1 '~i J'' ---- _.-. b,,J~'~- • l ) --~,~- l // / ,·-. ' -- 7 // lszi:t I I. - - -,-.II,.._.~--, '::::Y 7F1 1~·=· @====ii~ ; /I l // .,,,, // // 15 1J // \ //" // 0 \ 38° t" oo'· 0

0

0

IG

High Shore High Shore with Bluff • SHORE - Beach Fringe Marsh nI I1111111111111111111 I Embayed Marsh ~ Extensive Marsh //////////ll NEARSHORE Intermediate 0 0 r A 4 4 4:

76° 301 I 5

' ' ~=~===1A~--,,--===a1::i '1A. -- ~~----~---r----. 38° 1 oo' \. ;1RS. oo' \ /0 1A , 1C > 'I;,,.. ;,. Tr<1v,.,,/ Pt

. . 1A -.

00 0

76° 30' 76° 301 .~

.. •

I I Lrhicket Pt (_J-,' .:~)(~. ( ..... 14 /, ! ~ [[10 ' • -~~---~~~r~~ II II II II II /' ,· II I. II 1.-· II II /',, II II II II II II Ii" II II II II II ·II II 1- PO I\\N T NECK II II II II II II IS 'k__

::::...... V

MAP 12A 380 ST. GEORGE ISLAND, KINSALE oo' AND LOTTSBURG QUADS. Segments 13 and 14 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary 76° 301

.. ;-- _Jf~ • : .~ /t I I I I

0 14 0 0

I/ 0 0

@ 0 0 0 0

NECK ' Jud~th .,):s:Wlf 13 \ Sound"'···· ...... ,

MAP 128 38° ST. GEORGE ISLAND, KINSALE oo' AND LOTTSBURG QUADS. Segments 13 and 14 SHORELANDS TYPES

FASTLAND Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff SHORE Beach •···· ········. ·.· .. ······: Fringe Marsh nllllllllll lllllllllf II Extensive Marsh //////////// Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized NEAR SHORE Intermediate 0 0 0 0

76° 301 76° 301

;.::::~ . ....

w00

MAP 12C 38° ST. GEORGE ISLAND, KINSALE oo' AND LOTTSBERG QUADS. Segments 13 and 14 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION

USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Severe Moderate I I I I I I I Slight or No Change No Symbol

76° 301 76° 35'

84 76° 35' _O 0 _ Q _141), I Thic1iet Point

Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore I I D I I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I • I I High Shore • • •

:.:.·.·:•:•:•:.:-: ·:•:•:· ..·-: flllllllllllllllllllllll ~

0-0-0-0 0 0 0 0 I ~~_,--__,____,__,l---. ~ ' iT

76° 35'

85 f '\

390 oo'

86