GL' > Shoreline Situation Report I SCd 2 GLOUCESTER COUNTY, "" '"

Prepared by:

Gary L. Anderson Gaynor 6: Williams Margaret H. Peoples Lee Weishar

Project Supervisors: Robert 'J. Byrne Carl H. Hobbs, Ill

Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research ~ppliedto National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001

Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 17

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 83 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE PAGE

CHAFTER 1 : INTRCD'JCTIOT$ FIGURE Shorelands Components 1.1 Purposes and Goals FIGURE Marsh Types 1 .2 Acknoviledgements FIGURE Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck FIGURE Sarah Creek Overvievi CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USD AND ELFNENTS CONSIDERD FIGURE Dead &d Canals on Severn River 2.1 Approach to the Problem FIGURE Bray Shore Development Overview 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included FIGURE Fox Creek FIGURE Groins Near Sarah Creek CHAFPER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY FIGURE Riprap on Jenkins Neck 3.1 The Shorelands of Gloucester County FIGURE Concrete Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck 3.2 Shoreline Erosion TABLE 1: Gloucester County Shorelands Physiography 3.3 Potential Shorelands Use TABLE 2: Gloucester County Subsegment Summary

CHAFTER 4: SIJIVdARIES, DESCRIFTICNS, AND SEGMENT MAPS LUPS 1A-E: Glouces ter County Swnmary ?laps 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries MAPS 2A-C: Purtan Island EL4X 3A-C: 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions Capahosic NAPS 4A-C: Catlett Islands Segment 1 NAIAPS 5A-6: Segment 2 Glouces t er Point IrlAE 6A-C: Segment 3 Guinea Neck Segment 4 MAPS 7A-C: Guinea Marshes MAX 8A-C: Segment 5 Robins Neck MAPS 9A-C: Segment 6 \'lare River ?ME ICA-C: 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps North River NAPS 11A-C: Lower bfiX 12A-C: Upper Piankatank River CHAPTER 1 Introduction -- Transportation chosen to place, as much as possible, the regula- -- Waste disposal tory decision processes at the county level. The -- Extraction of living and non-living resources Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (~ha.~ter2.1, Title 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example, provides for It is the objective of this report to supply an various ecological functions. the establishment of County Boards to act on ap- assessment, and at least a partial integration, of The role of planners and managers is to optimize plications for alterations of vretlands. Thus, our those important shoreland parameters and charac- the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize focus at the county level is intended to interface teristics vihich will aid the planners and the man- the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- with and to support the existing or pending county agers of the shorelands in making the best deci- thermore, once a particular use has been decided regulatory mechanism concerning activities in the sions for the utilization of this limited and very upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the shorelands zone. valuable resource. The report gives particular planners and the users vrant that selected u.se to attention to the problem of shore erosion and to operate in the most effective manner. A park plan- 1 .2 ACKNOVffiEDGEm3NTS recommendations concerning the alleviation of the ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful- This report vras prepared with funds provided by impact of this problem. In addition we have tried fill the design most efficiently. We hope that the the Research Applied to National Needs Program to include in our assessment some of the potential results of our worlc are useful to the planner in (RAW) of the National Science Foundation through uses of the shoreline, particularly with respect designing the beach by pointing out the technical the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. and with to recreational use, since such information could feasibility of altering or enhancing the present funds provided to the Commonwealth by the Office be of considerable value in the vray a particular configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, if of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and segment of coast is perceived by potential users. the use viers a residential development, we rould Atmospheric Administration, Grant Number 04-5- The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- hope our vrork \"rould be useful in specifying the 158-50001. Beth Marshdl typed the manuscript. aration of the report is that the use of shore- shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses Bill Jenkins and Ken Thornberry prepared the lands should be planned rather than haphazardly likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In photographs. Dennis Owen assisted ?nth the ed- developed in response to the short term pressures summary our objective is to provide a useful tool iting and layout. We also thank the several and interests. Careful planning could reduce the for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, persons in Virginia and Maryland ?rho have, with conflicts ~"rhichmay be expected to arise between the shorelands of s the Commonvrealth. their suggestions and comments, assisted our competing interests. Shoreland utilization in Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or work. many areas of the country, and indeed in some informally, at all levels from the private owner places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such of shoreland property to county goverments, to that the very elements which attracted people to planning districts and to the state and federal the shore have been destroyed by the lack of plan- agency level. We feel our results will be useful ning and forethought. at all these levels. Since the most basic level of The major man-induced uses of the shorelands comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county are : or city level, me have executed our report on that --'Residential, commercial, or industrial level although ?re realize some of the information development may be most useful at a higher governmental level. -- Recreation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered CHArnER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping or subseg- be considered as being composed of three inter- APPROACH USED AND ELlBTEMTS COIVSIDERED -rnents. The boundaries for segments also viere se- acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the lected on physiographic units such as neclrs or shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEH peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, based on these three elements has been devised so In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- that the types for each of the three elements por- utilized existing information wherever possible. line segments. trayed side by side on a map nlay provide the oppor- For example, for such elements as viater quality The format of presentation in the report follovrs tunity to examine joint relationships among the characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- a sequence from general summary statements for the elements. As an example, the application of the ard, vre reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and system pennits the user to determine miles of high or federal agencies. lbch of the desired informa- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing shore zone. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allovi selective use of the report Definitions: available, so vie performed the field vrork and de- since some users' needs will adequately be met rnth Shore Zone veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- the sununary overvieri of the county rr?nile others will This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub- a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. land. The seavrard limit of the shore zone is the mm photography. \Ve photographed the entire shore- break in slope betvieen the relatively steeper line of each cowlty and cataloged the slides for 2.2 CHAFACTERISTICS OF THE SHOREZANDS INCLUDED IN shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The easy access at VINE, where they remain available THE STUDY approximate landward limit is a contour line rep- for use. Qle then analyzed these photographic ma- The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide range terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion above mean low water, (refer to Figure 1 ) . In photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, of our treatment of each. operation with topographic maps the inner fringe for the desired elements. Vle conducted field in- a) Shorelands physiographic classification of the marsh symbols is taken as the landviard spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification limit. at those locations vihere office analysis left c) Shorelands ovinership classification The physiographic character of the marshes has questions unresolved. In some cases we took addi- d) Zoning also been separated into three types (see Figure tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Vlater quality 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses feet in vbdth and which runs in a bald parallel to The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that v?nich has ex- a subsegment, vihich may range from a fevr hundred h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projectilig into an estuary or riv- feet to several thousand feet in length. The end i) Flood hazard levels er. An embayed marsh is a marsh vi'nich occupies a points of the subsegments vrere generally chosen on j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds reentrani or drovrned creek valley. The purpose in physiographic consideration such as changes in the I<) Beach quality delineating these marsh types is that the effec- character of erosion or deposition. In those cases tiveness of the various functions of the marsh vil~erea radical change in land u.se occurred, the a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification: will, in part, be deteilnined by type of exposure point of change was taken as a boundary point of The shorela-nds of the Chese.pealce Bay System may to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave Tivo specially classified exceptions are sand purposes : erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, on dunes and areas of artificial fill. Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located < 400 the other hand, is likely a more efficient tr&- Nearshore Zone yards from shore porter of detritus and other food chain materials The nearshore zone extends from -the shore zone Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- due to its greater drainage density than an embayed to the 12-foot (35~1datum) contour. In the smaller 1,400 yards from shore marsh. The central point is that planners, in the tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards light of ongoing and future research, vrill desire erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the Subclasses: with or vrithout bars to weight various functions of marshes and the maxirnm depth of significant sand transport by with or vrithout tidal flats physiographic delineation aids their decision waves in the Chesa.peake Bay area. Also, the dis- vrith or without submerged making by denoting where the various types exist. tinct drop-off into the river channels beg& vegetation The classification used is: roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone Beach includes any tidal flats. Marsh l'he class limits for the nearshore zone classi- Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in vridth fications were chosen follovnng a simple statisti- along shores cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater Extensive marsh I contour (isobath) mas measured on the appropriate I &bayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines ------MLW+I.I) 116, Range or reentrant of Ohesapea$e Bay and the James, York, Rappahan- 12' Artificially stabilized nock, and Potornac Rivers. Means and standard de- Fastland Zone viations for each of the separate regions and for Figure 1 The zone extending from the landvrard limit of the entire combined system were calculated and An illustration of the definition of the three components of the shorelands. the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast- compared. Although the distributions were non- land is relatively stable and is the site of most normal, they were generally comparable, allovring material development or construction. The physio- the data for the entire combined system to deter- graphic classification of the fastland is based mine the class limits. FR l NGE I EMBAYED I EXTENSIVE upon the average slope of the land vrithin 400 feet The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan- MARS n I MARSH MARSH I (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. The I dard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to I general classification is: determine general, serviceable class limits, these Lovr shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 or vrithout cliff yards respectively. The class limits set at Moderately lovr shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 of m) half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side FASTLAND I FASTLAND relief; with or vrithout oliff of the mean. Using this procedure a na.rrolZr near- Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme- relief; with or iriithout oliff diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. Figure 2 High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; l'he follovring definitions have no legal signif- A generalized illustration of the three different marsh types. !"nth or vrithout cliff. - ~ -icance and vrerc constructed for our classification b) Shorelands Use Classification: environmental reasons, such as wildlife or 'nld- c) Shorelands Ovmership Classification: Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation The shorelands ovmership classification used Residential grounds, or other uses that ivould preclude devel- has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- Includes all forms of residential use vrith the opment. tal, vnth the govermental further divided into exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. federal, state, county, and tom or city. Appli- In general, a residential area consists of four or Agricultural cation of the classification is restricted to fast- more residential buildings adjacent to one another. Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and other lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership Schools, churches, and isolated businesses may be wricultural areas. extends to mean low water. All bottoms belovr mean included in a residential area. lor7 water are in State omership. Unmanaged Commercial Includes all open or wooded lands not included d) Water Quality: Includes buildings, parking areas, and other in other classifications: The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or land directly related to retail and vrholesale trade a) Open: brush land, dune areas, viaste- unsatisfactory assigned to the various sugsegments and business. This category includes small indus- lands; less than 40% tree cover. are taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of try and other anomalous areas within the general b) \'loaded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from commercial context. Marinas are considered com- The shoreland use classification applies to the vrater samples collected in the various tidewater mercial shore use. general usage of the fastland area to an arbitrary shellfishing areas. The Bureau attempts to visit distance of half mile from the shore or beach zone each area at least once a month. Industrial or to some less distant, logical barrier. Ln The ratings are defined primarily in regard to Includes all industrial and associated areas. multi-usage areas one must make a subjective se- number of coliform bact'eria. For a rating of sat- Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, lection as to the primary or controlling type of isfactory the maximum limit is an AG'N (~ostProb- power plants, railyards usage. able umber) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any count Government Shore Zone above these limits results in an unsatisfactory Includes laqds whose usage is specifically con- Bathing rating, and, from the Bureau's standpoint, results trolled, restricted, or regulated by governmental Boat launching in restricting the waters from the taking of shell- organizations: e.g., , Fort Story. Bird vratching fish for direct sale to the consumer. Vlat erf ot7rl hunting There are instances, however, vhen the total Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces coliform WNmay exceed 70, although the fecal TN Includes designated outdoor recreation lands Nearshore Zone does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf Pound net fishing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public Shellfishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area 1vi.11 be beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. Sport fishing permitted to remain open pending an improvement , Extraction of non-living resources in conditions. Preserved Boating Although these limits are somevihat more strin- Includes lands preserved or regulated for Water sports gent than those used in rating recreational waters (see Virginia State \'later Control Board, \'later existing structures are inadequate, we have given of Marine Science, 1969, and in other VIIS publi- Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- cations. used here because the Bureau of Shellfish Sanita- thermore, recommendations are given for defenses tion provides the best areawide coverage avail- in those areas vrhere none currently exist. The i) Flood Hazard Levels: able at this time. In general, any waters fit- primary emphasis is placed on expected effeotive- The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the ting the satisfactory or intermediate categories ness vrith secondary consideration to cost. vrholc of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in- vrould be acceptable for viater recreation. complete. However, the Army Corps g) Potential Shore Uses: of Ehgineers has prepared reports for a number of e) Zoning: We placed particular attention in our study on localities vrhich were used in this report. Tvio In cases vrhere zoning regulations have been evaluating the recreational potential of the shore tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray established the existing information pertaining zone. \'Ye incl~tdedthis factor in the considera- the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is to the shorelands has been included in the report. tion of shoreline defenses for areas of high rec- that flood vdth an average recurrence time of reational potential. Furthermore, we gave con- about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses: sideration to the development of artificial beaches indicates it to have an elevation of approximately The follovring ratings are used for shore if this method were technically feasible at a 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake erosion: particular site. Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es- slight or none - less than 1 foot per year tablished for land planning purposes which is moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year h) Distribution of Marshes: placed at the highest possible flood level. severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year The acreage and physiographic type of the The locations rrith moderate and severe ratings are marshes in each subsegment are listed. These esti- j) Shellfish Leases .and Public Grounds: further specified as being critical or noncritical. mates of acreages rriere obtained from topographic The data in this

' of shoreline in the county. The major portion of not damaged. They shou.ld be preserved due to their i'faves generated by local winds are the domi- the shore zone, 87%, is comprised of wetlands in- ecological assets and their flood and erosion pro- nant agent of erosion in the sys- cluding fringe, embayed, and extensive marsh. The tection qualities. tem. The growth and height of waves is controlled only segments of the shore not considered lovi The beaches in the county are used primarily by four factors: the over vrater distance across shore are those along the York River from the for private recreation. One 200-foot section of vrhich the rend blows, linoim as the fetch; the ve- Poropotank River to Sarah Creek (segments 1A beach at Gloucester Point has been designated for locity of the wind; the duration of the wind; and through ?A). Along this area much of the fastland public use. This is the only public beach in the depth of the vrater. is classified as moderately lovr shore vrith bluffs Gloucester County. Due to the vreather patterns affecting the ranging in height from 20 to 40 feet. The rest The nearshore and offshore zones receive inten- Chesapeake Bay area, maximum vdnds occur during of the shore zone is composed of beaches. most sive use by water sport enthusiasts, commercial storms and frontal passages. The winds of north- of the beaches occur in the form of narrow, fringe and sport fishermen, and heavy commercial and east storms during the fall, winter, and spring beaches. There are only three beaches that have naval ship traffic. generate vraves ir?nich attack the western shore of thepotential for medium to high density recrea- the Bay. The vdnds and lor./ barometric pressure tional purposes. These are found, just southeast 3.2 SHOREJINE EROSION IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY near the Bay mouth have an indirect effect on of Fox Creek, around Gloucester Point, and on The magnitu.de of shore erosion in Gloucester erosion by forcing additional vrater into /the Bay. lower Jenkins Neck, around Sandy Point. County varies from slight or no change to severe. This storm surge or lfvrind tide" may be two or The fastland zone consists primarily of un- Historically, Gloucester County has lost 1,153 more feet above the normal tide level. For managed, vrooded lands. Thirty-five percent is acres of land from its shoreline in the last one example, the severe northeast storm of March, used as agricultural fields. The remaining shore- hundred years. This indicates a loss of four 1962 caused vrater elevations in Norfolk Harbor, lands consist of residential use (la$), commercial acres per mile of shoreline in the last century. Virginia, to reach an elevation approximately six use (I$), and recreational use (1%). This loss has been almost equally divided between feet above usual spring high tide levels. When The predominant shorelands use is for singular the Chesapeake Bay fronting shoreline and the York similar high levels occur, the rave driven or multiple unit residential developments. These River shoreline. During different but equal time erosional action is concentrated higher on the occur throughout the county. The Gloucester Point spans, the Yorlr River lost 442 acres vrhile the Ba.y fastland, above the natural buffer zone or beach. area and particularly the shore of Sarah Creek shore lost 437 acres. Hovrever, a revievr of the In addition to the height of the vraves, the direction at which they impinge upon t'ne shore 3.22 The Chesapeake Bay Shore year with the maximum being 1.5 feet per year. controls the magnitude of long shore transport. The extremely irregular shape of the Bay por- The orientation of the area from Gloucester In theory, the transport of material along the tion of Glcu.cester's shoreline has influenced the Point to the Guinea Fdarshes is basically east to beach is greatest when the waves break on the pattern of erosion. Those areas vlnich directly viest. Its shoreline is also characterized by shoreline at an angle of forty-five degrees. border on the Chesapeake Bay or Uobjack Bay have extensive marshes or lovi cliffs fronted by fringe The erosional behavior of any particular seg- undergone the most severe erosion. In general, marsh or beach. The Yorlc River portion generally ment of shoreline may be expected to vary from Hog Island to Rock Point, Turtle Neck Point to has an average rate of retreat of one foot per year to year depending upon the frequency and the \'Iindmill Point, and portions of Ware Neck are the year vrith a maximum rate of 1.9 feet per year. intensity of storms. Also, similar variances may areas which have experienced the most severe ero- A rate of retreat '?as not assigned to the Guinea arise from differences in mean sea level eleva- sion. Rates of retreat in these sections center Marsh Islands due to their extremely irregular tions. The long term (decades) trend is for a around tvio feet per year with a maximum rate of pattern of shoreline retreat. However, seventy- relative rise in sea level. In the lower Chesa- 4.4 feet per year near John Vest Creek. The three percent of the areal loss for this section peake Bay the trend is about 0.01 feet per year. exposure of these areas makes them extremely sus- vras in these marshland areas. Yearly variations of 0.15 feet per year are not ceptible to erosion. The limited supply of sand uncommon. Although these differences are small, has prevented adequate buffering beaches from 3.24 The Piankatank River Shore they can be significant when translated to hori- forming. This is particularly tme between Wind- Gloucester County also borders on a portion of zontal distances across a gently sloping shore. mill Pqint and Pour Point Nfarsh. The beach there the Piankatank River. Although fetches are ? The role played by beaches in the physical is extremely thin and narrow, du.e to the limited limited, moderate erosion has occurred along this processes of the coastline merits reiteration: sv.pply of sand available from the eroding fast- portion. Erosion along this section is primarily beaches are natural land forms which serve to ab- land. the result of waves undercutting the cliffs during sorb incident wave energy thereby inhibiting ero- In general, the rates of retreat for this sec- abnormally high water. The resultant slumping sion of the fastland. The configura.tion of any tion are higher than the York River portion. Hovr- carries trees &-nth it, which in turn, pull addi- beach may change hour by hour or day by day as ever, they are restricted to smaller areas there- tional material with the; as they fall. In ad- the accumulation of sand adjusts to changing con- by accounting for the similarity in acreage lost. dition, rain runoff over the face of these cliffs ditions. By and large, the natural maintenance carries away large amounts of the cliff material. of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay beaches is attained 3.23 The York River Shore The percentage of sand in this eroded cliff ma- at the expeiise of erosion of the fastland. For The York River shoreline above Gloucester Point terial is small which results in narrow, thin any particular segment of shoreline, the beach is basically oriented northwest - southeast. Its beaches. These small beaches do not provide the sand is derived from erosion of the fastland, shorelands are basically extensive marsh or lovr protection necessary to hinder erosion during either at that site or from an up-drift site. A cliffs with either fringe rnarsh or narrow beaches times of abnormally high viater. problem along the Bay shore in Gloucester County at the toe. The limited fetches allovr only stom is the very lovi topography and resulting small from the northvies-t through the southeast to di- 3.3 POTENTIAL SHORELANDS USE sediment supply from the fastlands rectly attack the shoreline during conditions of One of the dominating influences on the grcvith elevated viater levels. Although the marshes and of Gloucester County has been the George P. Cole- beaches of this section have vndergonc erosion, man Bridge. Its existance has allowed rea.dy ac- the rates are generally less than one foot per cess by Gloucester and other middle peninsula residents to the job market of the lower peninsula. lavms and over use of pesticides also contribute designated by ropes and signs which would act to In turn it has allowed residents of the lower pen- to the degradation of the water quality. Local- deter infringement by boaters as well.

insula the ability to move to Gloucester and still ized reduction in water quality is typified by ' This discussion is aimed at increasing the commute to work. The shorelands of Gloucester actions such as those illustrated in Figure 5. awareness of potential shorelands residents and County have received the brunt of this influx. This type of dredging creates an unproductive bot- users of some of the problems they now face and Waterfront property is at a premium. This pres- tom due to the lack of circulation within the will continue to face. To insure clean water, sure which has led to medium density development lower sections of the canal. adequate beaches, and public access, certain along portions of Gloucester's shoreline, can be Flooding of the low lying areas is also a very steps need to be taken, these steps are: expected to increase, particularly in light of the real hazard along most of Gloucester's shoreline. 1. development of shore oriented public removal of the toll from the George E. Coleman Aside from the physical damage to structures, it recreational facilities, Bridge. leads to the introduction of chemical and sewage 2. exploration of alternate sewage treatment Attendant with the population increase has been wastes into the nearshore waters. systems for the low lying residential an increase in the use of the shorelands for both An acute problem which faces all residents, areas, private recreation and commercial purposes. The present and future, is the lack of adequate public 3. acquisition of professional advice con- increased shore use has led to an awareness of shorelands recreational facilities. The Gloucester cerning wetlands and erosion, and the problems of erosion. Erosion is a natural Point area now encompasses the sum total of such 4. development of a coastal management plan phenomenon, however in many cases, the rate at facilities. Although the area is small, it has the which would insure for future generations vihich it occurs is accelerated by man's actions. potential of being expanded. Parking can be ex- the maximum use of shorelands with minimum This stems not only from improper use of erosion panded to the earthworks near the bridge. Past environmental impact. control structures (l"igure 3) but also unwise road building activities in this area have created development practices. There are no patent an- a stagnant pond. In the light of direct public swers in erosion control. In many areas the re- benefit, it could be filled to expand the parking moval of ground cover leads to an increase in the facilities. erosion rate by increasing the rain runoff over Although the persistent jellyfish problem makes the cliff face. \'!hat is needed is professional summer long swimming less than desirable, the pic- advice and in most cases a plan which suits the nic potential is still high. One or two picnic needs of a particular section of shoreline. shelters could be constructed. The recent rejuve- Erosion is but one of several problems which nation of the fishing pier has increased the pub- face the users of Gloucester County's shoreline. lic use of the area. EZpansion of the 'IT" end of An ever increasing problem is the deterioration the pier would more adequately meet this demand. of the water quality. Increasing residential and Swimming should be restricted to areas away commercial development and the lack of adequate from the wharf at the end of the point. This sewage treatment facilities have led to several point area has extremely strong tidal currents closures of shellfish grounds (Figure 4, Map IE)<. and the bottom drops off dramatically very close Related actions such as over-fertilization of to the shore. Tile swimming area should be FIGURE 3: Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck. This type of construction is not substantial enough to resist wave forces and can accelerate the local erosion rate.

FIGURE 4: Commercial and residential pollutants have closed Sarah Creek to shellfishing. Planning should be instituted to prevent the degradation of water quality in this and other creeks.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 5: Dredged dead end canals like these on the Severn River are generally discouraged. The canals have not caused an increase in boat use because extensive flats are located between them and the river channel. Dead end canals can also produce biological deserts on their bottoms. This is a result of lack of circulation in the lower water layers.

FIGURE 6: Intensive developments such as this can lead to a degradation of the water quality. Septic fields are only marginally effective and are easily flooded. The flood hazard is high for most of Gloucester's shoreline.

FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7: The Fox Creelc area has the potential of being a good shore oriented public recreational , .. facility. An area such as this could be developed publicly or privately to meet the county's growing recreational demand.

FIGURE 8: Groins have been much overused and mis- used. Less expensive and more effective alterna- tives are being developed which have application to certain portions of Gloucester's eroding shore.

FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9: When used properly, nprap revetments can be very effective at slowing erosion. Proper application includes the use of filter cloth and adequate size stone. The stones should be placed rather than dumped on the shoreline.

FIGURE 10: Vertical retaining structures also need careful consideration in design and emplace- ment. In most areas, waves reflected off the wall during storm elevated water levels scour out any protective beach that once fronted the wall. If the walls lack adequate penetration, under- cutting can collapse the structure during severe stom.

FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10

14

I SCALE IN MILES I Low Shore with Bluff I 3B Moderately Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 3A with Bluff SHORE

Beach .'...... -...... "... '.'...... : ISS Fringe Marsh ~llllllllllll~lllllllll Extensive Marsh ///////////I Embayed Marsh Artificially Stabilized AIAI NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 00 0 0 SCALE IN MILES Wide @@.

, m°lzior Commercial C Government G I 3B Recreational RC 3A Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded U Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 State 3 County 4 EROSION Severe Moderate SCALE IN MILES Slight or No Change NO Symbol 7~~130' Public Boat Landings k. I

Sewage Disposal @ . ,

1 SCALE IN MILES 76O130'

CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps TABLE 2. SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA

STJBSEG!.!F:X SHORLTAImS 'TYPE SHORUTI41KG lJ55 0'2n1LXSHIP FLOOD HAZAFW RE4CH QUALITY PREP22 SH0RELII:E S1TUATIO:I PO'TBITIAL USE EmllCBJEXT I FASTIhlm: 1.~7shore near mouth (50:;) rn x,tsTi,Alm: unmanaged, T;oo~~~(95::) Frivate. IIigii, noncritical, a beaches. :.!oderate, noncritical, 1.2 feet per year. There are no ISinimal. !,!arjhes should be pre- moderately 10.n shore near headixters and agricultural (55). near mouth, lo';,, shore ~rotectivestl'zcturss. served. Lo7i-densit). housing could 1'103 SHORE: ':laterfor1 hunting amd public noacritieal, in the be developed around mid above the Ahtirely embayed marsh. recreation. upper portions. Tanyard Landing area. ::arrow, meandering tidal river. RIVER: Comercia1 fishing. ChBmel depths are 6 to 13 feet.

FASTL4IID: Rrtirely law shore. FASTL4tm: Unnaneged, ,>:ooded. Private. High, noncritical. Unsatisfactory. ISnimal. The area should be left ii SHORE: Rltirely extensive marsh. SHORE: liatcrf 0'1h,,nting. its natural state. The area is not ImkRSHORE: Porapotank Bay is inteme- 1:ELWHOF.E: Comercia1 and sport suitable far development due to the diate, the rest of the subsegment is fishing, shellfishing, and hunting. nigh flood hazard and the lo!,.ness 0: DBllPrn,. the shore and fastland. PUBTAII BAY 33,100 feet I (6.3 mi.) I 2A i.;lSTwm: l.!aderately lo?, shore (86;), FASTL41m: Agricultiiral (473). lm- Pri'late. Lor, noncritical, Poor to good. Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical (1.5 ft/ tioderate. The area id11 probably PllRTAil BAY with a 10 to 20-foot cliff (14:). mana ed, wooded (43!), and residenti; for most of the riost beaches yr.). There are numerous sets of shore protective continue to develop mtl riverfront, TO BLT3mmI::G SRORE: hbbayed marsh (69::), beach (l~;;), (i0:~<7. subsegment. ::od- are narro.~, stl~ioturesin this subsegment, most in the farm of bull- residential commities. POIlir fringe marsh (93, and artificially SBO'~~Private recreation. erete, critical, thin, a21d cov- heading and groins. l~lastprotect residences along the 153,120 feet stabilized (6$). llE4FSHORE: Sport and comercia1 at months of Jones erea riith shell YorX River shore. Those in t'ne creeks protect marinas (29.0 mi.) IIF.4WHORE: Intermediate vidth. fishing 8nd shellfishing md various and Fox Creeke. fragments. SE and seafood glants. t:ost of the protective striictures CFXEE: Narmn and shallow. Dter sports. of Fnx Creek are effective. CREEKS: Private and public recrea- thex is a

tion and comercial shellfishine.- ~ ~~~ good, clean, Fox Creck ia used as a private and wide, and rela- comercial boat access to a narina tivelv thick. located the mouth. near smld beach. ' I I 2B I F~1SnUUID: iloderatelv low shore 155<1. FAsTldla: Unmana ed, wooded (70$), Private. 10:~. noncritical Unsatisfactory. I!o beaches. Slight oar no change. There ie 300 feet of bulkhead Minimal. & development should be and 10.n shore (45$)." agricultural (la$?, and residential for moat of the an south Carmines island. It is deteriorated and is restricted to higher parts of the SHOHE: Fringe marsh (403), extensive (122).. . subsegment. ::od- ineffective. fastland. The Catlett Islands marsh (45$), and embayed marsh (14$). SHORE: Private recreation, boat erate, critical in should remain undevelaoed. tIE4RSHORE: Intelmediate 'width. access, and !waterfowl hunting. and around Carmines CREEXS: liarran (400 ft. ), shallow, IV.4RSHOHE: Spo3.t and comercial 167,000 feet tidal creeks, with muddy bottoms. fishing, shellfishing, rater sports, 1 (31.6 mi.) and iiaterfojvl hunting. ORtlEXS: Private and comercial boat access, sore crabbing.

2C 5'ASTmlm: 1,laderately lox,? shore (775) FASTWID: Residential (92:) and Private and High, critical for Poor except for Slight or no change (0.6 ft/yr.). This is a significan low. Xost of the shoreline is CA~6IlirS and low shore (2'33). governmental (a;<). State. lonlarlds at Glou- the bcac;~at mount considerips a 20 to 30-foot cliff is eroding. already developed as a residential ISIdlm TO SHORE: Beech (66$), fringe marsh (17$), SHORE: Private recreation and cester Point. La;7, Gloucestcr There are eight sets of shore pmtective structures, area. I THE G.P. 1 and artificiallv stabilized 117:). ~cientificexpcliments. noncritical else- Point, which is mast of which are groins and bulkheads. There are two COLE,IAI: IIR4TLSHORE: Wide to nsrroT. IWWSHORE: Sport and cosraercial -nInere. fair. rock jetties. BRIPGE fishing, rater sports, shellfishing, The jetties on the V11.3 shoreline are ineffective. 25,200 feet and mterfonl hunting. They should be re-established and should be made higher (4.8 mi.) The effeotiveness of the rest of the structures vav. depending on the local supply of sand.

3A FhSTLAlID: liloderatcly lo.$#shore vdth FASTWD: Residential (an;), state Flivate 93:: :.!oderate, critical Intermediate. Poor to good. Slight or no change due to the numerous applications of ?animal. Present use by the state GEORGE P. bluff (67$) and 107, shore (331). (103, and comercia1 (105). and State at bridge. Ion, shore protective stmctures (usually bulkheads wPth or (YC,~)and by residences preclude comn SHORE: ~~tifici~ll~stabilized (79) SHORE: Private and public recreation 10% nonc1iti~alelse- ~.,%thoutgl.~in~). ::ost bulkhead^ are effective except much other use. Howver, the pub- BRIDGE TO and beach (273). IE.4RSHOP.E: Fishing, shellfishing, those that liere poorly canstmcted. The only grains lio beach near the bridge could SARAH'S CRm lIE4RSHORE: Itarroi,, near bridge, inteme- ;;ate7 sports, scientific experiments that are effective are those that are being fed by an support additional recreational 8,000 feet diate off the creek entrance. ~~sociatcdwith VI!9, and es access offshore bar. use, if properly planned. (1.5 mi.) to Sarah Creek.

FASTL4IID: La,, shore. FASTLAlrD: Residential (7G$), mi- Private. Sara Creek is nod- Intermediate. Fair. Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. There Potential for public recreation is SIIOHE: Fringe marsh (65:;). artificially managed, !iaoded (203, w?d eomercisl erate, critical. are many installations of bulklneads and grains in Sara 1017. There is room for same addi- Stabilized (222), and beaoh (132). (45). FTOX Sarah Creek to Creek. All the struotures are ifioderately effective tional residential development,

IIEAWHORE: Intermediate. SHORE:~~~~ I?iuate- ~~ r~creati-~ ~~ nn. Oai,les~ ~ Point.~ , --Inn. , being mainly inhibited by a sufficient supply of sand. especially in Oarah Creek. hly ~115,600feet I CREES: 17ide. Dendritic, namon. 6-foot! IRAFSNORE: Shellfishine.-, comercia1 1 I c2tice.l. Eetvoen I rhanees should be executca ~Vththe (21 .? mi.) channel luns through most' of the hub- and sport fishing, and .+,aterfovl GaineS Point and total environment in mznd. segment. hunting. Maintained charrnel provides Cuba Island, high, access to Sarah Creek. critical. CREFX: Access to the Yo1.2 River for I I private and comercia1 boats. / TABLE 2 (con'd.)

SH0Riz4:IDS USE BF.4CH QUALITY PRSEFT SHORLXIIIE SITUATIO11 POTB?TIAL LEE ENHAIICBlF3PP

3C 3LSTIAlm: lor, shore. PASTMm: Hesidential (42,<), agricul Private. High, critical Intermediate. !:oderate, critical, from Sandy Point to toe mouth or ilininal, due to the lor, centour of cmA IsIL41iT SHORE: Beaoh (76:), embayed marsh (TO;), turd (393, and mauaged, Y;OO~~~ Siveralong shore.the York !!od- the l'errin River. Slight or no change elshere in the the fastland, the high flood hazarr To EhSTwlI artifioialqr stabilized (lo;;), and fringe (1 9;;). I subsegment. There is 6,400 feet of bulkheading with or and the moderate erosion rate. E

Ilo data available for the Sevem River. There is mod- This area has a prime potential foz erate, noncritical erosion from Turtle lieck Point residential development. Hauieuer,

~~ ,.., ~ - - north to the end of the subsegment. There is about any developments should be care- 1 (61.8 mi.) land Hrtificialli stabilized (15)...... 6,000 feet of bulklneading, mostly at Saddlers lleck, filly planned. Tne marshes should ilE4RSHORF: llarrori along the Sevcm River SHORE: Slaterfo.?l hunting. and a fen scattered groins. I.!ost structures are mad- alivays be preserved. River, intermediate along the :.lobjack Im4FSHOR2: Comercia1 and sport eratelg effeotive. IBay. I fishing, shellfishing, and mter 1

5A FASTWID: Low shore. FASTWn: Umana ed, viaoaea (50$), Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. The There is room for additional res- WARE RIVER SHORE: Fringe marsh (as$), embayrd agricultural (4037, and residential along the mouth of ivestcrn shore of Vare lieck cxperienoes the mast era- idential development. However, it 172,400 feet marsh (a$), and artificially stabilized (I@%), the river. Hi&.-. sion. Here, rates range from 1.4 to 5.3 feet per should be restricted to the higher (32.7 mi.) (4%). SHORE: Vatel'foiil hunting. critical at Jariis year. There is 7,400 feet of bulkheading, some ~~thfastland. All marshes should be RIYER: ilarrori from Jalvis Point to Ware RIVER: Conmercial aid sport fishing, Point and Baileys. groins. All stmotures seem moderately effective. left in their natural state. Heck Point and off Roanes lvlliarf; inteme- mter sports, and shellfishing. loderate, noncrit- diste east of the mouth of Vlilaon Creek. ical for the rest CREW.: Broad, shallov, aendritic, tidal of the subsegment. creek.

58 BASTLtllm: Lou+ share. FASTLPJID: Agricultural (50%), un- Private. High, critical Intermediate. 110 beaches. Slight or none to moderate, noncritical. There is Additional housing development will AORTH RIVEZl SHORE: Fringe marsh (88$), embayed managed, wooded (47/:), and residen- along eastern bullrheading, most of it with groins and some rip- continue but should be restricted 150,000 feet mamh (8/9), and artifioially stabilized tial (34). front of Ware rapping. All structures appear effective. to the higher fastland. A11 marahe (28.4 mi.) (46). SIIORE: Private access and recrea- Ileck, moderate, should be left in their natural RIYER: Intermediate to Lane Point; nar- tion. Doncritical for state. rw:, from Lone Point to Bclleville Creek. RIVER: !'later spol%s, sport fishing, the rest of tile and comercia1 shellfishing. subsegment.

6 BMTMm: Low share (84$), low shore FASTL4lID: Agricultural (47$), un- Private. !Saderate,critieal Poor. Slight or no change except for some places between ."~l\til~? ~h.>ll.ll lei: it. ?:1C:I' PIAlWATA'4m: with bluff (2$), and moderately lor, managed, moded (41$), residential from the segment's Brench and Ferry Creeks, where it is moderate, non- 1 A.'ic ipicr &l\?-nl RIVER Shore with bluff (145). (la%), and recreational (25). start to Blands critical. The only area of protective structures is !,l.o:.e!.Li,:, ?:,I, bc

FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical near the mouth, !"[IW AID SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is low, noncritical in the upper portions. from IJJ'f to SE. Fetches are from the N'/ - 5.7 miles, \V - I .7 miles, SV - 1.0 miles, and S - \'lATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. 1.7 miles. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- O!'/NERSHIP: Private. segment . FLOOD WZARD: High, noncritical. PRESEN~SHORE EROSION SITUhTlON EROSIOIV RATE: Ikfoderate, noncritical, 1.2 feet WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfa.ctory. per year. The area of marshes at the mouth of Poropotank River and around l~IorrisBay have BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- lost approximately 11 acres in the last 100 segment years. . ENDANGERED STRUCTUE1ES: None. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATIOPI SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : None. EROSION RATE: ldoderate, noncritical. Histori- cally the areas most affected have been the Suggested Action: None. marshes of Purtan Island and around i'iest End. Here, the York River portions of the shore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two piers at have been eroding at a rate of approximately Tanyard Landing. 2.2 feet per year. EPTDAPJGERFD STRUCTURE3 : None. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEJENT : Minimal. The marshes SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : None. should be preserved and maintained in their natural state. The area around Tanyard Landing Suggested Action: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is one pier at West End.

POTENTIAL USE ENHANCHdENT: The area shou.ld be preserved in its natural state. The lovrness of the shore and immediate fastland and the high flood hazard would put houses in jeopardy if they were to be established.

: USGS , 7.5 1,lin.Ser. (ToPo. ), GRESSIT, Quadr., 1965. C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, Yorlctovm to !"lest Point, 1973.

PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-1~/246-254. PURTAN BAY TO BLKlfDERING POINT, along this portion of the creek. Channel en- SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are numer- GLOUCESTER COUIWY, VIRGINIA trance is flarked by tvio small marsh covered ous sets of shore protective structures in spits. this subsegment. These are associated with SUBS EGMEITt 2A the small residential developments vihich occur (?laps 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4A, 4B, 4C) SHOPSIdJJDS USE along the York River portions of the shoreline. PASTLAFm: Agricultural 47% (1 3.6 mi. ), wl- At Almonclsville there is approximately 500 feet managed, r-iooded 43% (12.5 mi.), and residen- of ineffective bulkhead due to poor construc- EXTENT: 153,120 feet (29.0 mi.) from R~.rtanBay tial 10% (2.9 mi.). tion. One quarter mile north of Pox Creek to Blundering Point vihich includes firtaa (2.6 SHORE: Private recreation. there are 5 groins of moderate effectiveness. mi.) Leigh (1.3 mi. ), Bland (4.4 mi. ), Fox NEARSHORE: Sport and commercial fishing and At Fox Creek there is extensive bulkheading, shellfishing aiid vari0u.s other viater sports. protecting the marina facilities, md jetties (2.8 mi. ), Sandy I 6 I., Jones (3.6 mi. ), and Aberdeen (4.2 mi. ) tidal creeks. CREEKS: Private recreation and commercial on the sides of the entrance of the creek. shellfishing. There is a public landing in Most of this is in a deteriorating condition SHORELANDS TYPE Aberdeen Creek and numerous commercial fishing allowing leaching. At Capahosic there is 2,300 boats use the creek for berthing and as access feet of bulkheading of moderate to poor effec- FASTLAND: Idoderately 10~1shore 86% (25.0 mi. ) with the remaining 4 miles of shoreline along to a comrnercial shellfish operation. Pox tiveness. Some of this is in a deteriorating the Yorlc River backed by 10 to 20-foot cliffs. Creek is used for private and commercial boat condition and being flanked. Associated 1-rith SHORE: anba ed marsh 69% (20.0 mi. ), beach a.ccess to a marina. located near the mouth. these emplacements is 2,700 feet of concrete 16% (4.6 fi.7, fringe marsh 9% (2.6 mi.), and bulkheading at Clay Bank. This is working artificially stabilized 6% (1.7 mi. ). OPFSHORF: The York River Charnel lies directly fairly v~ellbut could use weep holes and pos- NEARSHORE: Intermediate. Along the Yorlc River offshore. The charvlel is marlced by lighted sibly additional toe protection. Along the the shelf is shallovi but drops off quickly to and unliglitecl buoys. Depths range from 30 to northern peninsula of Aberdeen Creek there is deeper at the 6-foot contour. Bottom 44 feet. I.Iumerous tugboats aznd small freighters approximately 900 feet of effective bulkheading. material is primarily a sandy-mud. use the channel as access to West Point. Within Aberdeen Creek there is approximately CRFEKS: The creeks are generally shallow, nar- 300 feet of bulkheading preventing boat wake row, dendritic, embayed marsh, tidal creeks. WIht AAM) SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline is oriented erosion. Between Gum Point and Aberdeen Creek Purtan Creek: 93 acres of marsh, shallow, mud- Ii'# to SE. Fetches are from the NE - 8 miles, there is 1,800 feet of bulkheading and 7 groins. dy bottomed, vrith forested fastland. E - 2 miles, SE - 26 miles, and S - 7 miles. For the most part this seems effective but Leigh Creek: 17 acres of marsh, shallov~,mud- there are signs of flanking toviards the north dy bottomed, northwest fastland forested OvTiVERSHIP: Private . end. Betvieen Gum Point and Blundering Point and southeast fastland being agricultural there is one installation of approximately 800 fields. FLOOD HAZARD: Lov1, noncritical except for the feet of good to fairly effective bulkheading : 80 acres of marsh, shallow, mud- residences near the mouth of Jones Creek and irrith 22 groins. Just north of Jones Creek dy bottomed, embayed marsh forested fast- the buildings at the mouth of Fox Creek vihich there is about 500 feet of effective bulkhead. land. are moderate, critical. Purtan Bay: Shallovi, with a maximurn depth of Suggested Action: Repair deteriorated bulk- 4 feet. The above mentioned three creeks drain WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. heads and those tha.t are being flanked to stop into this bay. further erosion. In several areas elsevlhere in Fox Creek: 60 acres of marsh, shallovi, muddy BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. Idost of the beaches the subsegment, the establishment of a marsh bottomed, embayed marsh. Pastland is forested are narrorri and thin. Also, the nearshore %one grass planting program could be implemented . in portions, other portions are agricultural contains many areas of broken shell fragments If this rriere a vie11 planned program it could, fields. vihich warrant caution vihen beaches are used for in many areas, be more effective than struc- : 47 acres of marsh, shallovr, muddy svrimming or crabbing. However, there is one tures . bottomed, embayed marsh forested fastland. beach rvhich exists irrnediately southeast of Pox Jones Creek: 228 acres of marsh, shallow, mud- Creek that is excellent. It is vdde for an OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 77 piers and dy bottomed, embayed marsh creek with fastland upper river bea.ch, clean, and relatively thick. doclrs of various lengths vrithin this subseg- used for agriculture. ment . Aberdeen Creek: 68 acres of marsh. Upper PRESEIVT SHORE EROSIO3I SITUATIO>I branches are shallow, muddy bottomed, embayed EROSION RATE: Historically the rate ranges POTENTIAL USE lXHANCmmVT: This subsegment will marsh creeks. Lower portion is 700 feet from slight oy no change (0.4 ft/yr.) to mod- probably continue to develop with riverfront, vrith a marlced and maintained channel. Con- erate, noncritical (1.5 ft/yz-.). residential cornmunities. With this continued trolling depth is 6 feet. Fringe marsh occurs EIDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. pressure will arise the demand for shore protection and recreational beaches. Prefer- BLUIDERING POIITT TO SOUTH EXTENT OF CAFBIINES ISLANDS FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical except for struc- ably, the measures taken to control the ero- GLOUCESTER COUIJTY, VIRGI3TiA tu-res in and around Carmines Landing which are sion problem should be approached throv-gh a moderate, critical. comprehensive plan rather than individual, SUBSEGliIEtJT 2B (lryaps 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5A, 5B, 56) stop-gap, measures. As for the beaches, they ':/ATE3 QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. have limited potential for recreational use. However, several areas could be enhanced EXTENT: Approximately 167,000 feet (31.6 mi. ) of BELCH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- through beach nourishment. shoreline, from Blundering Point to the south- segment . erly extent of Carmines Islands. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 1Jin.Ser. (Topo.), GRESSIT Quadr., PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION 1965, SHORi%MIDS TYPE EROSIOtJ RATE: Slight or no change. Histori- USGS , 7.5 Kn. Ser. (Topo . ) , \'/ILLIA?;EBURG PASTLMJD: fdodera.tely low shore 55% (17.4 mi. ) cally the rate of shoreline retreat is approx- Quadr., 1965, and and lovi shore, behind the Catlett and Carmines imately 0.7 feet per year. The area most af- USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAY BAIW Islands, 45% (14.2 mi,). fected by erosion has been the Catlett Islands Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. SHORE: Extensive marsh 45% (14.2 mi.), fringe 'flich have lost approximately 56 acres in the C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, marsh 40% (12.9 mi. ) , and embayed marsh 14% last 100 years. Also the shore between Carter Yorktovin to \'lest Point, 1973. (4.5 mi.). Creek and Cedarbush Creek has lost approxi- NEARSHORE: Intermediate r&th extensive mud mately 33 acres in the same time span. PHOTOS : Aerial-VINE GL-2A/1 97-245. flats surrounding the Catlett and Carmines ENDANGERET STRUCTURES : None. Islands. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is ap- CREEKS: Approximately 400 feet \vide, sllallovr, proximately 300 feet of old bulkhead on south tidal creeks, \,nth muddy bottoms. Carmines Island. it is in a deteriorating condition and is completely ineffective. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Umnanaged, wooded 70% (22.2 mi. ) , Su-ggested Action: None. agricultural 18% (5.6 mi. ), and residential \ 12% (3.8 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 42 piers along SHORF: Private recreation, boat access, and the shore of this subsegment. A foot bridge waterfov~lhunting. spans a small branch of upper Timbemeck Creelc. NEARSHORE: Sport and commercial fishing, shellfishing, \"rater sports, and vraterf ovrl POTENTIAL USE ENHANCBKEIJT : Any development in hunting. this subsegment shouid be restricted to the CREEKS: Private and commercial boat access higher portions of the fastland. The Catlett and crabbing. Islands should be left undeveloped. Develop- rnent there vrould cause damage to the ecologi- OFFSHORE: The York River Channel lies approxi- cally valuable marsh which is protected by the mately one mile offshore. The sides of the Virginia Vletlands Law of 1972. channel assume a moderate slope from the river shelf to the bottom of the channel. Depths NAPS: USGS, 7.5 F8in.Ser. (Topo.), CLAY BANK range from 30 feet to 60 feet in the channel. Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1972. The central portion of the channel is restricted C&GS, #495, 1 :40,000 scale, YORX RIVER, as noted on CX:GS chart # 495. The channel is Yorktovm to \'lest Point, 1973. used extensively by large naval ships, freight- ers in transit to West Point and numerous pri- vate and naval tugs.

I'IIND AID SEA EXPOSURE: The basic orientation of the shoreline is XV/ to SE. Petches are from the V - 4 riles, ST/ - 2 nules, and S - 2+ miles.

O\'n?EFEHIP: Private . CARldINES ISLANDS TO GEORGE P. C0LI";I:MJ BRIDGE, is floored by muddy-sand and affords good sviimming only at high water. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGTvlEiJT 2C (Maps 5A, 5B, and 5~) PREZ5IT SHORE EROSION S ITUATIOI'I EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. Histori- cally, the rate has been 0.6 feet per year. EXTEltT : Approximately 25,200 feet (4.8 mi. ) from Although this is not high, it is significant the southeast edge of Carnlines Islands to the when considering that a 20 to 30-foot high George P. Coleman Briclge. cliff is being eroded. ENDANGERED STRUCTUXE : None. SHORELAIDS TYPE SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTUTLFS: There are eight FASTLAND: Tkloderately lo\.! shore 77% (3.7 mi.) sets of shore protective structures fvrithin this and lovi shore 23% (1 .I ini . ) . subsegment. They are either bulkhead or bulk- SHORE: Beach 66% (3.2 mi.), fringe marsh 17% head and groin installations. \'lith the excep- (0.8 mi.), and artificially stabilized 17% tion of the jetties at the inlet to the VItE (0.8 mi.). marina, all structures are effective. NEARSHORE: 'Vlide to narro!v vhth sandy-rud bot- tom sediments on the shelf. The 12-foot con- Svggested Action: The two jetties at the en- tour is less than 50 feet from the shore at trance to the VIIE marina should be heightened. the George P. Coleman Bridge. Sand is overfloviing the top of the jetty and partially bloclring the inlet. Elsev~here, a SHOREIiAIuOS USE policy of reducing the slope of the cliffs FASTLAI\m: Residential 92% (4.4 mi.) and gov- behind stabilized areas should be implemented. ernmental, state, 8% (0.8 mi.). Also, building structures closer than a pre- SHOm: Private recreation and scientific ex- detemined distance (determined by the erosion periments at the Virginia Institute of Marine rate) ~~oulclbe discouraged. To not follovr Science at Gloucester Point. this policy mould lead to eildangered structures NEARSHORE: \'later sports, sport and commercial du.e to erosion. fishing, shellfishing, and vaterfoVrl hunting. Betmeen county Routes 1303 and 1305 a section of the shoreline has been dredged immediately OFFSHORE: The York River Channel lies offshore adjacent to the shore. This type of action, with depths ranging from 33 to 73 feet. It is be it in front of a beach or in front of a used extensively by commercial and naval ships. bulkhead, should be stopped. It leads to ac- Also, numerous tugboats and their tows traffic celerated erosion, creates a settling basin this channel. v~llichdeteriorates the mater quality and leads to continued maintenance problems. I'IIND ANE SEA EXPOSURE: The general shoreline trend is N to nTE and S to SE. Fetches are OTI-IER SHORE STRUCTURE: There are 22 piem in from the Nl'l - I .8 miles, \'I - 2.2 miles, SW - this subsegn~ent. 1.4 miles, and S - 1.4 miles. POTEl,TTIAL USE EI'JHli.lCEJHlilF$PP:Low. LIost of the O\rfiI"JI'IERSHIP: Private and State. shoreline is already developed to a maximurn as a resideiltial area. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical except for the lov~landsat Gloucester Point v~hichare high, IJAPS: USGS, 7.5 idin.Ser. (ToPo.), ACHILLB critical. Quadr., 1965. USGS, 7.5 itin.Ser. (Topo.), CLAY BANK \7ATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. Quadr., 1965. USGS, 7.5 1Jin.Ser. (Topo. ), YORKTOi:II\i BEACH QUALITY: All the beaches except those at Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. Gloucester Point are narrow and thin. The C&GS, #495, 1:40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, beach at Gloucester Point is a lnedium vridth, Yorkto!.in to \'lest Point, 1973. clean, sand beach. Here, the nearshore zone GEORGE P. COLEMN BRIDGE TO SARAH CREEK, PRESEIFP SHORE EROSION SITUATION \"here this relationship does not exist, the EROSION FATE: Slight or no change. In the groins have not been effective. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA past this subsegment has experienced shoreline SWSEGItlEITT 3A (l,laps 5A, 5B, and 5~) retreat of approximately 1 foot per year. EX- Suggested Action: To provide adequate beaches cept in a few sections this retreat has been along this subsegment 'iould require a compre- stopped due to extensive applications of shore- hensive study of the area. The resultant plan EXTENT: 8,000 feet (1.5 mi.) from the George P. line defense structures. viould require a unified solution shared by all Coleman Bridge to Sarah Creel<. EMDANGEREX STRUCTURE : None. property orrmers. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Approximately 70% SHORELANDS TYPE of the shoreline in this subsegment is pro- OTHER SHORE STRUCTURE?: There are twelve piers FASTLAND: Moderately low shore with bluff 67% tected by structu.res. The primary type of along this subsegment. Three are state ovmed, (1.0 mi.) and low shore 33% (0.5 mi.). strvctv-re is bulkheading, vrith or viithout the rest are private. Tvio of the state owned SHORE: Beach 27% (0.4 mi. ) backed by artifi- groins. The proliferation of structures along piers se-mice research vessels associated vrith cial stabilization 73% (I. I mi. ). this su-bsegment have been effective in halting the marine laboratory. NEARSHORE: Narrovi near the bridge, reaching the retreat of the shoreline. sev- intermediate off the creek entrance. eral installations of bulkheading have failed POTENTIAL USF ENHANCBrnITl': Por most of the sub- due to improper construction techniques. In segment, present use by the Virginia Institute SHORELANDS USE several cases the lack of tongue and groove of IbIarine Science and by residential use pre- FASTLAND: Residential 80% (1.2 mi. ) , state sheet pile and filter cloth has led to leaching empt any alternate use of the shorelands. The owned marine research facility 10% (0.2 mi. ), of fastland material through the bulkhead. In area vrith the greatest use potential is that and commercial 10% (0.1 mi.). two instances concrete bulkheads failed due to near the bridge. Here, the extended public SHORE: Private and public recreation. Public inadequate penetration of the strz~cturebelovi beach and the new ramp facilities have already recreation is limited to tvro, small, public the erosion envelope of the beach. In one greatly increased the recreational usage of beaches. One is near the bridge and the other, case severe leaching occurred during the Decem- this area. However, present parking facili- called Vlaterview, is located approximately ber, 1974 storm. The other concrete bulkhead ties should be upgraded, particularly due to half way between the bridge and Sarah Creek. vias overtopped, undercut, and almost completely the great number of vehicles with trailers. NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport fishing and destroyed. The nearshore is generally good for s\vimming shellfishing viater sports (boating, svrimming, This subsegment has a limited amount of sand except near the commercial pier at the end of skiing, etc. ), and scientific experiments available to maintain its beaches. Prior to the point. In this area the currents can be associated with the Virginia Institute of the construction of the bullrheading, sand vias extremely swift and the nearshore bottom drops marine Science. The nearshore is also used as supplied from the eroding fastland. Iriuch of off close to the shore. Therefore, life- an access to Sarah Creek and its' tributaries. this source has novr been eliminated. There- guarding facilities 'should be instituted as fore, the beaches are forced to maintain them- this area will experience an ever increasing OFFSHORE: The cha-nnel is approximately 400 yards selves existing beach sand and rely on the heavy use. from the shore, except near the bridge, rz?nere transport of sand to the shore from the off- the channel lies very close to the shore. The shore bars. The limited knoviledge of bar MAIS: USGS, 7.5 IJin.Ser. (Topo.), ACHILLES Yorlc River Channel experiences heavy u.se by trarnsport indica.tes that this mount is small. Qvadr. , 1965. commercial and military ships. Also, vertical structures tend to eliminate USGS, 7.5 1Tin.Ser. (~o~o.),CLAY BANK sand in front of them unless there is a Quadr., 1965. OI'JNERSHIP: Private 90% and State 10%. high, beach with continued input of sand from USGS, 7.5 1Jin.Ser. (ToPo.), POQUOSON littoral transport. As the beaches are neither Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical for the portions wide nor high they may be overtopped during USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo.), YORKTOYIN of the subsegment adjacent to the bridge. storms. This overtopping leads to turbulence Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. Elsevhere the flood hazard is low, noncritical. generated at the base of the bullrhead v?nich C&GS, #494, 1 :40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE removes -the sand to an offshore bar. BAY, ?rlobjack Bay and Yorlc River Entrance, \'IATW QUALITY: Intermediate. The numerous groins along this subsegment 1971. are, viith few exceptions, not effective. Their BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. The section of primary function has been to lock an existing PHOTOS : Aerial-VIhE 06Nov73 ~L-3~/73-90. beach near the bridge is good, the rest of the beach in place. In those areas ~riherethey hase length of the subsegment has thin, narrovi, been effective there appears to be a relation- beaches. ship of that area to a;n offshore bar which is apparently feeding some sand to the beach. SARAH CREEK TO CUBA ISLAND, BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches are of moder- PHOTOS : Aerial-VIE 150ct73 GL-3B/44-74. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA ate 'iidth and thichess but offer little pro- tection during high vrater and storm conditions. SUBSEGMENT 3B (laps 5A, 5B, 5C, and 6A, 6B, 6~) PRESENT SHORE EROSIOD SITUATIOH EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moder- EXTENT: 115,600 feet (21.9 mi. ) from Sarah Creek ate, noncFitical. The central section is the to Cuba Island. Sarah Creek is included in most severely affected ~~ritha rate of 1.4 feet the subsegment. per year. ENDANGERiX STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORF PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 21 FASTLAND: Entirely lovr shore. bulkhead installations within Sarah Creek. SHORE: Pringe marsh 65% (14.2 mi.), artifi- Around Quarter Point there is extensive bullr- cially stabilized 22% (4.9 nu. ), and beach 13% heading vdth one groin application. On the (2.8 mi.). east side of Gaines Point there are 26 groins. NEARSHORE: Intermediate, shallovi flats. In the middle section of the subsegment off of CREEK: Wide, dendritic, with a narrow 6-foot county Route 642 there are three installations channel through most of the tvio main branches. of groins a~dbullrheads. All the installa- tions are moderately effective being mainly SHORELANnS ~SE inhibited by a sufficient supply of sand. FASTLAND: Residential 76% (16.6 mi.), un- managed, rvooded 20% (4.4 mi.), and commercial Suggested Action: Serious consideration 4% (0.9 mi.). should be given to an overall plan for erosion SHORE: Private recreation. control in this subsegment. As most of the NFXRSHORE: Shellfishing, vraterf ovrl hunting, sand comes from local sources of erosion, fur- and commercial and sport fishing. Lighted ther reduction of input by installation of and maintained channel provides access to bulkheads could seriously affect the nature of Sarah Creek. the beaches throughout the svbsegnlent . CREEK: Access for private and commercial boats to and from the York River. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 86 piers in this subsegment. OPPSHORE: The main York River Channel lies 1,760 yards off the entrance to Sarah Creek. The POTFLTTIAL USE EXHANO~vI~T: Potential development channel is 800 yards wide and approximately 50 for public use is low in this subsegment. Hovi- feet deep. There is heavy commercial and ever, additional residential development, par- military shipping plying this channel. Also, ticularly in Sarah Creek, is going to subject heavy commercial and sport fishing occurs the creek to changes facilitating vraterfront during the appropriate seasons. residence. These being oriented in providing access to personal boats. These changes, in WlND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Basic orientation of the the form of dredged channels, bulkheads, piers, shore is E to Vl. Fetches are from the ST1 - etc., should be executed viith the total envi- 1 3% miles, S - 2z miles, SE - 3$ miles and E - ronment in ruind. Specifics on these consider- 22 miles. ations are avails-ble from the Gloucester County Wetlands Board, the Virginia Institute of OYlNERSHIP: Private. T,larine Science, and the Corps of Engineers.

FLOOD HAZARD: Sarah Greek is moderate, critical. F1W: USGS, 7.5 bIin.Ser. (ToPo.), ACHILLES The section betrreen Sarah Creek and Gaines Quadr., 1965. Point is lovi, critical and between Gaines USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo.), POQUOSON \"IEST Point and Cuba Island is high, critical. Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1970. C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHEjAPE4KE VIATER QUALITY: Intermediate. BAY, and York River Emtrance, 1971. CUBA ISLANE TO EASTEFOV EXTEKP OF JENKINS NECK, Perrin River is a rather broad beach, and the shoreline parallel to the last 1,200 feet of GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA Route 646 on Jenkins Neck has a very broad and SUESEGl

PREEisJT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXTENT: 64,000 feet (12.1 mi.) of shoreline from EROSIODJ RATE: IAoclerate, critical (I. 9 ft/~r.) Cuba Island to the eastern extent of Jenlcins from Sandy Point to the sand beach spit at the Neck, including the Perrin River and the creek mouth of the Perrin River. Elsewhere in the between the Perrin River and Jenlcins Neclc. subsegment, there is slight to no erosion. ENDANGEREE STRUCTURES : Residences along the SHORFLANDS TYPE shoreline from Sandy Point to the sand spit FASTLAID: Ektirely lov! shore. are endangered. SHORE: Narrox.r, fringe beach 76% (9.2 mi. ), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is 6,400 embayed marsh near the headwaters of the Per- feet of bulkheading and/or groins, mostly lo- rin River 10% 1 2 m.), fringe marsh around cated along Je-nkins >Teck, xrhich experiences Cuba Island 4% (0.5 mi. ), and artificially vrinds and seas from the Bay. Those bulkheads stabilized (bulkheads and/or groins) 10% (1.2 vinich are in good repair are effective. The mi.). others are not effective primarily due to poor NEARSHORE: Intermediate with tidal flats. construction techniques or old age. Several groins are flanked or viere never properly tied SHORELAIKJS USE to existing bullrheads . FASTLAND: Residential (along the fastland- shore interface) 42% (5.1 . agricultural Suggested Action: The broken or old bulkheads 39% (4.7 mi. ) , and managed, wooded 19% (2.3 should be repaired and the flanked groins mi.). should be properly tied to the bulkheads or SHORE: Some small beaches are used as s~~rim- the banlc. In other areas consideration should ming areas. be given to using shorter groins or a sill. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, commercial The sill arrangement cou.ld be implemented \"nth and sport fishing, and shellfishing. or vrith0u.t groins.

OFFSHORE: The York River Channel, ab0v.t 2,000 OTHER SHORF STRUCTUXE: There are approximately yards offshore, has depths of at least 32 feet. 43 piers. The channel is marked by lighted and reg'-lar buoys . POTENTIAL USE EI$HAltCE3IETVT : FrTinimal. Due to the l~\~ic0ntou.r of t'ne fastland, specia.1 emphasis WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this ~ ~ in any residential building rnu.st be given the subsegment trends E to 1'1. Fetches at midpoint high flood hazard and, on Jenkins Neck, the of the section are S - 1.7 miles, SE - un- moderate erosion threat. Generally, moderate limited, and ESE - unlimited. grovsth of the present residential use is con- sidered best. O\TN'JNERSHIP: Private. IJAIAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ACHILLES FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Along the York Quadr., 1965. River shoreline interface, many residences are C&GS , #494, 1 : 40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE below the 5-foot colltour. 1*1oderate, critical BAY, Idobjaclc Bay and Yorlc River Ektrance, along the Perrin River, where dviellings are 1971. generally above the 5-foot contour. , PHOTOS : Aerial-VIblS 150ct73 GL-3~/11-43. \"lA"JAT QUALITY: Intermediate.

BEACH QUALITY: Fair. Most of the beaches are narrow. The spit to the east of the mouth of JENKINS NECK TO NORTHERN-GUINEA NECK, narroiri, fringe beaches in front of some parts Smm-RIVER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA of the marshes. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGITENT 4B SUBSEGMEIU 4A (1~1aps7A, 7B, 7C) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION (idraps 6A, 6B, 6C, 7A, 7B, 7C, and8A, 8B, 8~) EROSION RATE: Erosion ranges from slight or none to moderate, critical and noncritical, to EXTENT: 141,600 feet (26.8 mi.) of shoreline severe, noncritical. The area on Jenlrins Neck EXTENT: 342,200 feet (64.8 mi.) of shoreline from the eastern extent of Jenkins Neck to the at the end of Route 646 has moderate, critical from the mouth of the Severn Iliver extending Severn Triangulation on Guinea Neck. Includ- (1.1 fr/yr. ) erosion. There is severe, non- to a point half-v~ay between Ware River Point ing John ':Jest Creek, Blevins Creek, and Broisrns critical erosion at the marsh beginning at the and \'lindr~ullPoint, on the Llob jack Bay. In- Bay. Not included in the subsegment measure- east mouth of John Viest Creek amd extending cluding the numerous creeks flowing into the ment are the Great Island IiIarshes (17,200 ft. ), sout'n 3,400 feet. Historically, erosion here Severn River. Hog Island (6,400 ft. ) , and Guinea lvTarshes has been 4.4 feet per year. Island at Little Monday Creelr (1 5,800 ft.). EPDANGERET STRUCTURES: Several residences on SHORELAIDS TYPE Jenlrins Neck at the end of Route 646 are en- FASTLMsJD: hhtirely low shore. SHORELANDS TYPE dangered. SHORE: Fringe marsh 79% (51.2 mi. ), beach 9% FASTLAND: Entirely 1ox.i shore. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE : None. (5.9 mi.), embayed marsh 8% (4.9 mi.), exten- SHORE: Extensive marsh vsith ;,I00 feet of sive marsh 3% (2.0 mi.), and artificially fringe beach. Suggested Action: Bullrheading viith an over- stabilized 1% (0.8 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate at Jenkins Neck and 'lash stone apron viould halt the erosion at the NEARSHORE: Narrow along the Seve~nRiver, in- at the northern one-fifth of the subsegment. endangered sites. termediate along the Idobjack Bay. Elsewhere, isride isiith tidal flats. OTHm SHORE STRUCTUIIES: There are three piers on SHORELANDS USE SHORELANDS USE Jenkins Neck, at the end of Route 646, and FASTLANE : Agricultural 40% (25.9 mi. ) , un- FASTLAITD: Agricultural 45% (12.1 mi. ), un- three piers on Brovms Bay, 2,000 feet viest of managea, wooded 40% (25.9 mi. ), residential managed, vrooded 40% (10.7 mi. ), and residen- the mouth of Blevins Creelr. 15% (9.7 mi.), commercial 3% (1.9 mi.), and tial 15% (4.0 mi.). recreational 2% (1.4 mi.). SHORE: Vlaterfovil hunting. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEI~~$T:TJOF.~. The loizmess of SHORE: Wa.terfovrl hunting. NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport fishing, and the land makes residential development hazard- NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport fishing, shellfishing. ous, and its lack of suitable beaches prohibits shellfishing, and vlater sports. any recreational development. VJIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this \'[INTI AND SEA EXPOSURE: ' The shoreline trend is subsegment trends N1D7J to SSE. Fetches at Bush MAE: USE, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo. ), ACHlLLES ?Or[ to SE on the Mobjack Bay. The Severn River Point are ESE - unlimited across the Chesapeake Quadr., 1965. trends \'I to to 'iith tributaries combining at Bay, E - 3.4 miles, N - 4.5 miles, and SE - 1.6 USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (~opo.), NETT POINT Saddlers Neck from various directions. Fetches miles. Except '$here offshore islands protect COIE?ORT aladr., 1964. at Seven Cedar Point are ESE - unlimited a- the mainland, there are unlimited fetches from C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE cross the Chesapeake Bay, E - 3.0 miles, NE - the east, across the Chesapeake Bay, in almost BAY, ?Jobjack Bay and York River Entrance, 2.6 miles, and SE - unlimited across the Bay. the entire subsegment. Fetches at Hog Island 1971. Fetches at Long Creek marsh at the beginning are E - unlimited, SE - unlimited, SSE - 4.2 of the subsegment are N - 3.3 miles, VJIW - 1.7 miles, and SSW - 1.9 miles. PHOTOS: Aerial-VINE 150ct73 GL-4~/1-10; miles, and NE - 2.8 miles. At Ware River 06Nov73 GL-4A/316-328. Point, fetches are SE - unlimited across the O\'TNERSHIP: Private . Bay, E - 2.9 miles, NE - 1.9 miles, N - 2.3 miles, and NVi - 2.0 miles. The fetch at Stump FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. This is a lox.? Point is E - 5.2 miles. marsh area, most residences are located below the 5-foot contour. With the exposure of this OVfNEFSHIP : Private. subsegment to the Chesapeake Bay, the flood hazard is very high. FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. This is a low area and many residences, especially on Sad- WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. dlers Neck, are belovr the 5-foot contour.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beaches are those WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There is some narrow beach This practice should be stopped. TJarsh areas PHOTOS : Aerial-VINS 06Nov73 GL-4B/329-437 ; in front of Four Point Narsh, and fringe beach have many beneficial effects on the shorelands. 07Dec73 GL-4B/446-452. at PVIu.d Point and northeast of Long Creek mouth. Besides being a valuable ecological asset, marshes play an important part in flood protec- PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION tion. The sponge-like ability of marshes to EROSION RATE: No data available for the Sev- absorb water, especially extensive marshes, ern River. There is moderate, noncritical does much to protect nearby residences in the erosion from Turtle Neck Point, at the mouth event of a large storm-indv-ced flood. The of the Severn River, to the end of the subseg- marsh is also a valuable erosion control agent. ment. The rate varies from 1.0 to 2.3 feet This is particularly true of the interior per year in this area. marshes both embayed and fringe. Filling these ENDANGEREX STRUCTURES : None. areas exposes the fastland to the direct forces SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Bulkheading of erosive agents and Ylood ',aters. (about 4,000 ft.), located primarily on Sad- In several instances the material used to dlers Neck, combined viith some groins in backfill a bulkhead and cover the existing places. All structures are moderately effec- marsh v!as dredged from immediately in front of tive except at Stump Point vrhere bulkheading the bulkhead. This is an unacceptable practice is ineffective. for several reasons. First, the fill is used to cover an extremely valuable natural re- Suggested Action: The bulkheading at Stum~, source, the marsh. Second, the resultant Point is incomplete and not properly con- dredged hole leads to deterioration of the structed. However, in this area construction nearshore raters. These deep holes act as should be restricted. Other types of stmc- traps for sediment and biologic detritus. tures should be used for the retailling of fill This produces an anaerobic environment vahich to prevent additional damage to the marshes. does not allow the growth of organisms and Consideration should be given to the use of vihich can be very odoriferous at low tide. gabions in place of vertical vrooden bulk- Third, this practice can also lead to a quick heading. deterioration of the retaining stm.cture. The supportive material for toe protection of the OTHER SHORE STRUCTDXE : There are numerous piers retaining is not adequ-ate, resulting in and boatramps in this subsegment. bulkhead collapse . The increase in developmental pressures and POTENTIAL USE ENHANCB+lIIENT: This area has become viater sports activities will lead to more boats a prime area for residential development in and the need for more service facilities to the past few years. There are several serious support them. Therefore, instead of providing considerations vi'nich should be outlined in individual facilities for each residence by light of this developmental pressure. dredged canals and channels, a properly de- Of primary importance is the high flood haz- signed and accessed marina vrith fastland boat ard vtnich exists for all of the immediate storage should be implemented. Studies have waterfront fastland and, in several instances, shorn that this type of marina is less envi- for major portions of the necks. Robins Neck, ronmentally damaging, provides quicker transfer Saddlers Neck, and the Cod Point area are par- time from storage to water and is less expen- ticularly low and susceptible to storm-induced sive than in-vnter storage. flooding. Therefore, ovrners should be aware If vrater access is necessary from a property, that housing vahich develops below the 5-foot piers should be constructed to deep rath- contour in these areas have a high probability er than dredging a channel. of being flooded. With the increased development has come a rlL4,IAPS: USGS, 7.5 T!lin.Ser. (~opo.),ACHILLES groviing pressure to use the shore and near- Quadr., 1965. shore areas for recreational purposes. This C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE has resulted in the construction of numerous BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, dredged boatslips and the bulkheading of the 1971. shore vrith resultant filling of the marsh. VIARE RIVER, GLOUCESTER CO~J!PY, VIRGINIA shore experiences moderate to severe erosion, ITORTH RIVER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA ranging from 1.4 feet per year to 3.3 feet per SUBSEG!,fENT 5A (maps BA, 8B, 8C, and 9A, 9B, 9~) SUBSEGPqlENT 5B (hlaps 9A, 9B, 9C, and IOA, IOB, 1 0~) year. EIEIANGERFD STRUCTURES : None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURF;S: There is 7,400 EXTENT: 172,400 feet (32.7 mi. ) of shoreline on EXTENT: 150,000 feet (28.4 mi. ) of shoreline feet of bullrheading, some ~6thgroins. Most the Ware River, including \'/ilson Creek. from the tip of \"/are Neck to the headviaters of structures are moderately effective to effec- the North River. SHORELANDS TYPE tive. FASTLAID: Entirely lovi shore. SHORELABDS T!PE Suggested Action: Very few areas within this SHORE: Fringe marsh 88% (28.8 mi. ) , ernbayed FASTLAND: Entirely lovr shore. su-bsegment are experiencing severe erosion. marsh 8% (2.5 mi. ), and artificially stabi- SHORE: Fringe marsh 88% (25.1 mi. ), embayed hlany erosion sites, novi bvlkheaded, could have lized marsh 4% (I .4 mi.) marsh 7% (2. I ) and artificially stabi- been remedied through an intensive marsh grass . NEARSHORE: Narrovr from Jarvis Point to \'lare lized 4% (1.2 mi.). planting program. Neck Point and off Roanes Yharf. East of the RIVER: Intermediate to Lone Point, narrow \'later access should be provided through the mouth of Wilson Creek is intermedia.te. from Lone Point to Belleville Creek. Shallovi construction of piers to deep vmter instead of CREEK: Ylilson Creek and the upper portions from there to the subsegment end at the head- dredging canals or boat basins into the fast- of the Ware River are broad, shallcTi, dendri- waters of the North River. tic pattern, tidal creeks. land. SHORELANDS USE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Pieis and landings. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 50% (14.2 mi. ), un- FASTLAND: Unmanaged, iriooded 50% (1 6.3 mi. ) , managed, vrooded 47% (13.3 mi.), and residen- POTmTIAL USE E3WCHHIENT: Additional development agricultural 40% (1 3.1 mi. ) , and residential tial 3% (0.9 mi.). 10% (3.3 mi.). of housing 'rithin the subsegineilt should be re- SHORE: Private access for water related activ- SHORE: \"/aterfovil hunting. stricted to the higher fastlaad. Housing ities such as fishing, swimming, and boating should be constructed in a location vrhich does NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport fishing, and private recreation on sections of the beach. not infringe upon the existing marshes. water sports, and shellfishing. RIVER: Water sports, sportfishing, and com- mercial shellfishing. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURF: The shoreline trend is MAB: USGS, 7.5 ?fin.Ser. (ToPo.), ACHILLES Quadr. 1965. N to S. The fetch at Jarvis Point is SE - , \'/IND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is N USGS 7 5 iner(ToPo. ) \%ARENECK unlimited across the Chesapeake Bay. Fetches , , to S, vrith two 90' bends in the river. Fetches Quadr., 1965. at Vlindmill Point are E - 3.4 miles, SE - 6.0 at Ware Neck Point ake SE - unlimited, N - 3.2 CBcGS #494, 1 : 40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE miles. , miles, E - 3.6 miles, and S - 2.1 miles. The BAY, ?3TobjackBay and York River Entrance, fetch at Elmington is ESE - 3.2 miles. O\'fNBRSHIP: Private . 1971. O\'iTC3XSHIP: Private . FLOOD HAZARD: High, noncritical along the mouth of the Ware River. Moderate, noncritical FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical along the eastern along the \'lare River, except at Jarvis Point front of Ware Neck, as many residences here and at Bailep, vihere it is high, critical. are below the 5-foot contour. Elsewhere in the subsegment it is moderate, noncritical. \'/ATE3 QUALITY: Satisfactory. AhQUALITY: Intermediate. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beach is a narrovi, fringe beach betvieen Jarvis Point and Ware BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- Neck Point. segment .

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe, EROSION RATE: Slight or none to moderate, noncritical. The erosion rate varies through- noncritical. There are several areas of moder- out the subsegment, the majority of it being ate erosion (1 .I ft/yr.) around Silver Creek, either slight or moderate, noncritical. Of and between Belleville Creek and Back Creek. particular note is \'lare Neck, vrhose viestern ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Bulkheading, s ev- era1 thousand feet with groins, and some rip- rapping. All structures appear effective in protecting the shoreline.

Suggested Action: Por those persons desiring access to the water, piers to deep viater should be employed rather than dredged channels to shorefront. In several areas, landowners have removed portions of the protective fringe marsh. This practice is illegal and should be stopped as it leads to deterioration of the remaining marsh. It also reduces the erosion buffer and flood absorbent abilities of the marsh as well as reduces the marsh's input into the ecosystem.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers along the shoreline of this subsegment.

POTENTIAL USE E3iHANCEPtENT: Additional development of housing within the subsegment should be re- stricted to the higher fastland. The marshes should be preserved due to their valuable eco- logical assets and their flood protection and erosion control abilities.

NIAFS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo.), ACHILLES Quadr., 1965. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo.), \'lARE NECK Quadr., 1965. C&GS, #494, 1 :40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, blobjack Bay and York River Entrance, 1971.

PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 07Dec73 GL-5~/544-552. PIANKATAltK RIVER, SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is some effective bulkheading southeast of Anderson GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA Point. SEGMENT 6 (Maps IIA, IIB, IIC, and I,12B, 12~) Suggested Action: -3hcourags fringe marsh growth. Bulkheads should be built behind the EXTENT: 152,000 feet (28.8 mi. ) of shoreline along fringe marsh to prevent covering the natural, the Piankatank River and its creelrs. protective, marsh barrier.

SHORELANDS TYPE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers FASTLAnrD: Lorn shore 84% (24.1 mi. ) , low shore and several boat sheds. with bluff 2% (0.6 mi. ), and moderately low shore with bluff 14% (4.1 mi.). POTE?VTIAL USE EICIAltCE?dElVT: Marshes should be SHORE: Fringe marsh 83% (24.1 mi. ) , embayed left in their natural sta.te. The higher ground marsh 12% (3.4 mi.), beach 4% (1.1 mi. and properties can be developed. Hoviever, reduc- artificially stabilized 1% (0.2 mi.). tion of cliff slope viould greatly improve dra RIVER: Narrow from the segment start to Cooper drainage and reduce rain inducecl, mil-off ero- Point, from there the river becomes shalloiv, sion. averaging 6-foot depths to Anderson Point, then 4-foot or less to the segment end. 1:USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (ToPo.), WILTOIJ, Quadr., 1964. SHORELANDS USE USGS , 7.5 Biin.Ser. (ToPo. ), SALUDA, Quadr., FASTLAWE: Agricultural 47% (1 3.5 mi. ) , un- 1965. managed, vrooded 41% (11.8 mi. ), residential C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE 10(2.9 mi.), and recreational 2% (0.6 mi.). BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River ktrance, SHORE: Private recreation. 1971. RIVER: Viatsrsports, sport fishing, and com- mercial shellfishing. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIIB 10Sep73 GL-6/91-111.

WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends )TI to SE. The fetch at the segment start is NTTl - 3.2 miles. The fetch at Blands Wharf is NT"i - 1.5 miles.

O\'/NERSHIP: Private.

FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical from the segment's beginning to Blands Wharf. Many residences here are be1oi.1 the 5-foot contour. From Blands Wharf to the headwaters of the Pianlcatank River, the flood hazard is 1071, noncritical.

\rlATER QUALITY: Satisfactory.

BEACH QUALITY: Poor. Any beach that does exist is narrow, fringe beach.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXOSION RATE: Slight or no change, except for isolated points between French Creelc and Ferry Creek, where it is moderate, noncritical (1.1 ft/yr. ) . ENDANGERED STRUCTURE : None.