Shoreline Situation Report Prince William County, Virginia

W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1976

Lynne M. Rogers 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 Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Rogers, L. M., Owen, D. W., Peoples, M. H., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1976) Shoreline Situation Report Prince William County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 119. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5Q73F

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 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA /

Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to 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 Admif"!istration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 CZM-NOAA Grant No. 04-6:.158-44037 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 119 of the.

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1976 Shoreline Situation Report PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Prepared by:

Lynne M. Rogers Dennis W. Owen Margaret H. Peoples

Project Supervisors:

Robert J. Byrne Carl H. Hobbs Ill

Supported by the Na~ional Science Foundation, Research Applied to 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. 04-5-158-50001 CZM-NOAA Grant No. 04-6-158-44037 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 119 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE' William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virg inia 23062 1976 •·.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE PAGE

CHAPTER l : INTRODUCTION l FIGURE 1: Shoreland Components 5 FIGURE 2: Marsh Types 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 3: Marina on Neabsco Creek 12 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4 : Bayside Park Shoreline 12 FIGURE 5: Freestone Point 12 FIGURE 6: Marsh on Quantico Creek 12 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 7: VEPCO Substation on Possum Point 13 FIGURE 8: VEPCO Substation on Possum Point 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 9: North end of Chopawamsic Island 13 2.2 Characteristics of the Shoreline 4 FIGURE 10: South end of Chopawamsic Island 13

CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELANDS SITUATION 9 TABLE 1: Prince William Shorelands Physiography 20 3.1 The Shorelands of Prince William 10 TABLE 2: Prince William Subsegment Summaries 22 3.2 Shore Erosion Situation 10 3.3 Alternate Shore Use 11

MAPS lA-E: Prince William County 15 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS 21 MAPS 2A-C: Occoquan River 31 MAPS 3A-C : Occoquan Bay 34 4.1 Subsegment Summaries 22 MAPS 4A-C: Potomac River 37 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 24 MAPS SA-C : Quantico 40 Subsegment lA 24 Subsegment lB 24 Subsegment 2A 25 Subsegment 2B 26 Subsegment 3A 27 Subsegment 3B 28 Segment 4 28 Subsegm~nt SA 29 Subsegment SB 30 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1 CHAPTER 1 the conflicts arising from competing demands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Furthermore, once a particular use has been de INTRODUCTION cided upon for a given segment of shoreland, both This report has been prepared and published the planners and the users want that selected use with funds provided to the Commonwealth by the to operate in the most effective manner. A park Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic planner, for example, wants the allotted space to and Atmospheric Administration, grant number 04-5- 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that 158-50001. The Shoreline Situation Report series the results of our work are useful to the planner was originally developed in the Wetlands/Edges It is the objective of this report to supply an in designing the beach by pointing out the techni Program of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., assessment, and at least a partial integration, of cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres as supported by the Research Applied to National those important shoreland parameters and character ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, Needs (RANN) program of the National Science Foun istics which will aid the planners and the managers if the use were a residential development, we dation. The completion of this report would have of the shorelands in making the best decisions for would hope our work would be useful in specifying been impossible without the expert services of the utilization· of this limited and very valuable the shore erosion problem and by indicating de Beth Marshall, who typed several drafts of the resource. The report gives particular attention fenses likely to succeed in containing the erosion. manuscript, Bill Jenkins, who prepared the photo to the problem of shore erosion and to recommenda In summary our objective is to provide a useful graphs, and Sam White, who piloted the aircraft tions concerning the alleviation of the impact of tool for enlightened utilization of a limited re on the several photo acquisition and reconnaissance this problem. In addition, we have tried to in source, the shorelands of the Commonwealth. flights. Also we thank the numerous other persons clude in our assessment a discussion of those fac who, through their direct aid, criticisms, and tors which might significantly limit development Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or suggestions, have assisted our work. of the shoreline and, in some instances, a discus informally, at all levels from the private owner sion of some of the potential or alternate uses of of shoreland property to county governments, to the shoreline, particularly with respect to recrea planning districts and to the state and federal tional use, since such information could aid poten agency level. We feel our results will be useful tial users in the perception of a segment of the at all these levels. Since the most basic level shoreline. of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county or city level, we have executed our report The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep on that level although we realize some of the in aration of the report is that the use of shorelands formation may be most useful at a higher govern should be planned rather than haphazardly developed mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has in response to the short term pressures and inter traditionally chosen to .place as much as possible, ests. Careful planning could reduce the conflicts the regulatory decision processes at the county which may be expected to arise between competing level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter interests. Shoreland utilization in many areas of 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example the country, and indeed in some places in Virginia, provides for the establishment of County Boards to has proceeded in a manner such that the very ele act on applications for alterations of wetlands. ments which attracted people to the shore have been Thus, our focus at the county level is intended to destroyed by the lack of planning and forethought. interface with and to support the existing or pending county regulatory mechanisms concerning The major man-induced uses of the shorelands activities in the shorelands zone. are: Residential, conunercial, or industrial development Recreation Transportation Waste disposal Extraction of living and non-living resources Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve various ecological functions.

The role of planners and managers is to optimize the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize

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. We photographed the entire shore or alternate shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex line of each county and cataloged the slides for h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or easy access at VIMS, where they remain available i) Flood hazard levels river. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish a reentrant or drowned creek valley . The purpose terials, along with existing conventional aerial grounds in delineating these marsh types is that the ef photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, k) Beach quality fectiveness of the various functions of the marsh for the desired elements. We conducted f ield 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 marsh 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----.J.sHOR~~~------NEARSHORE------general commercial context. Marinas are consid 1 I maximum depth of significant sand transport by I ered commercial shore use. waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis I I tinct drop-off into the river channels begins ,»>7>~1: roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone I---~------MLW+t.!I Tldo Ran9e Industrial - ---.::.-.:-:.:-:...:-:.::-_:-::.:-~-=-=-=-:-~M~L~W--._=. includes any tidal flats. -12' Includes all industrial and associated areas. The class limits for the nearshore zone classi Figure 1 Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, fications were chosen following a simple statisti power plants, railyards . cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater A profile of the three shoralands types. contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines Governmental of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahan nock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard de Includes lands whose usage is specifically viations for each of the separate regions and for controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern the entire combined system were calculated and mental organizations : e.g., Camp Peary, Fort compared. Although the distributions were non FRINGE EMBAYEO EXTENSIVE Story. Where applicable, the Governmental use normal, they were generally comparable, allowing MARSH MARSH MARSH category is modified to indicate the spe~ific 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 FASTLANO FASTLANO 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 club~, amusement parks, publi~ 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 l 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 criticaf""°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 pl aced particular attention on c) Shorel ands Ownership Classification In cases where zoning regulations have been the recreational potential of the shore zone. established the existing information pertaining The possibl e development of artificial beach, The shorel ands ownership classification used to the shorelands has been included in the re erosion protection, etc., influence the evalua has two main subdivisions, private and goverrunen port. tion of an area's potential. Similarly, poten tal, with the governmental further divided into tial alternate shore uses are occasional ly noted.

6 h) Distribution of Marshes November, 1971, and as periodical ly 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 shel lfish 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 wi thin 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 formal inventory. Additional information on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M . Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other VIMS publications. i) Flood Hazard Levels

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

9 CHAPTER 3 Board' s Water Qualit y Inventory (305(b) Report) 3. 2 SHORELINE ERO SION (April, 1976) , several creeks i n Prince William PRESENT SHORELANDS SITUATION County are experiencing water quality probl ems. Al t hough there i s no avail able historical ero Neabsco Creek is sterile due to a chlorine over sion data for Prince Wil liam Count y, recent i n dose several years ago. Discharges into several vesti gations indicate few areas of significant other creeks do not meet the State Water Control retreat. Erosion is generall y restri cted to sites 3. 1 THE SHORELINES OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Board's Embayment Standards. along the Potomac River and near the mouthes of sever al creeks. Onl y at Chopawamsic Island does Prince Wi lliam County i s located on the Potomac No data is included in the Virginia 305(b) Re erosi on seem to be both significant and critical. River approximately sixty- eight river-miles from port on the water quality of the Potomac River, .the mouth at Smith Point. The county is bounded since the Maryland state line lies just offshore Several factors influence the location and on the south by Stafford County (Chopawamsic Creek), of the Virginia-owned lands. rate of erosion for any section of shoreline. and on the north by Fairfax County (Occoquan Creek). Along a major river such as the Potomac, a pri The several major creeks along the shoreline are Prince William County has a variety of users of mary cause of erosion is wind generated waves. Chopawamsic Creek, Quantico Creek, Powells Creek, its shoreline. Various governments, both local In bluff areas, waves attack the exposed cliff and Neabsco Creek. and national , control thirty-five percent of the base. This process eventuall y undercuts the base fastland. Included in these lands are a local of the cl iff, causing the upper portion to slump. There is a total of 57.4 miles of measured park, a National Wildlife Refuge, lands for a pro The he:l.ght and growth of waves is controlled by shoreline and 44. 7 miles of measured fastland in posed regional sewage treatment plant, and various four factors: The overwater distance across which Prince William County. The fastland ranges from military reservations. The privately owned lands the wind blows (the fetch), the velocity of the low to high shore, with sixty-eight percent being are used for commercial, industrial, and residen wind, the duration of time that the wind blows, either low or moderately low shore (see Table 1). tial purposes. Forty-two percent of the shore and the depth of the water. Prince Will iam County Generally, t he fastl ands along the creeks tend to lands are unmanaged, wooded. is af fected by storms out of the northeast and have greater elevations than those al ong the Po southeast. Fetches during northeasters range from tomac River. There are several areas of bl uffs 2.5 t o 6.6 nautical mil es and during southeasters along the s horeline. from 3.5 to 10 .0 nautical miles. The southern end of Chopawamsic Isl and, having a fetch of 10. 0 nau Almost seventy percent of the shorel ine of tical mi l es from the southeast, has moderate ero Prince Will iam County is comprised of marshes, sion. Only pil ings remain from an earlier attempt three quarters of which is embayed and extensive at bulkheading thi s section (see Figure 10). marsh. According to the Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory, (V i rgini a Institute of Ma A house on the norther n end of Chopawarnsic Is rine Science, May , 1975), there are approximatel y land is in eminent danger from continued erosion 900 acres of tidal marshes in the count y, most of of the cliff face. Aside from wave actions at the which are located a l ong the creeks. These areas, cli ff base, the house is endangered by weathering protected by the Virginia Wet l ands Act of 1972, of the cli f f due t o downhill rain r unof f (see are spawning grounds and habitats for various Figure 9). Weathering from downhill rain runoff fishes and wildlife, and serve to reduce the ero is a major source of erosion in Prince Wi lliam, sive energy of winds and waves . affecting bl uffs bo t h along the Potomac River and al ong the numerous inland creeks. Rai n runoff Beaches compri se t went y percent of t he county ' s washes away exposed cl iff sediment s, eventually s horeline. Generally, Prince William County has undermi ning t rees located al ong the cliff. When t hin , s t rip beaches which are of t en vegetat ed. the t r ees fall, they car ry wi th t hem l arge amounts There are several areas which do have fair t o good of soil t rapped i n thei r root systems, f urther beaches , t hese being mainly at Neabsco and around compounding the eros ion problem. Freestone Point . Many areas which would be vulner able to erosion The r emaining ten percent of the s hore is arti have been artificially stabi l ized, either with ficially s tabi lized, usually bulkhead. Mos t of bulkheadi ng or r iprap. These include Shipping these str uctures are for cosmetic or commercial Point (bulkhead), many parts of the Quantico Ma purposes rather than for shore protection. rine Corps School shoreline (bulkhead and riprap), and Chopawamsic I sland (bulkhead) . Except for According to the Vi rginia State Water Control parts of Chopawamsic Isl and, these structures are

10 effective and erosion has abated. 3.3 ALTERNATE SHORE USE Vill age on Powells Creek would make a nice public park with nature trails, camping areas, and picnic In general, erosion in Prince William County is Alternate shore uses for the shorelands of grounds. Other wooded lands generally do not have not a significant or critical problem. Many areas Prince William County are limited by both physical adequate access for public use and severe topog suffering from erosion are not presently used and geography and man. Man ' s control and use of the raphy (high or moderately high bluffs along the therefore erosion protection is not urgent. Where shoreline, be it residential, industrial, commer shore) lessens any potential water related use. some type of erosion protection is deemed neces cial, or governmental, has a great impact not only sary by the landowner, an important first step is on those particular sections but also on the adja to seek professional advice and guidance. A well cent shorelands. Present use of an area has much conceived and implemented protective structure impact on the philosophy of use and development of should abate erosion and cause few, if any, ill neighboring shorelands. Similarly, the physical effects to neighboring property. In areas where geography of the area, its vulnerability to ero several adjoining landowners have an erosion prob sion and flooding, its topography and its proxim lem, a joint approach to the problem not only ity to marshes contribute to the desirability of gives better protection but also lessens individ various land uses. Also, the development policy ual costs. In no case, however, should the land of the county and its zoning regulations act to owner buil d a protective structure without profes stimulate or prohibit development in certain areas sional advice and guidance. of the county.

Prince William County' s land devel opment policy for 1974-1980 includes a variety of existing and potential uses for the shorelands (Existing U.S. Military Reservations are not subject to any county development plans.). Industry is expected to be l ocated between Quantico Creek and Powells Creek (The Vepco substation is already operating at the mouth of Quantico Creek). Residential and commercial areas should eventuall y locate all along the interior of the fastl and, concentrating along Belmont Bay and the Occoquan River. Only isolated areas from Neabsco Creek to Occoquan River are set aside for agricultural use, commu nity facil ities, or as critical environment areas (The creek shorel ines are critical environment areas). Some commercial areas are to be l ocated along Neabsco Creek and at Occoquan.

There are few public recreational areas in the county. The county has public boat landings a l ong several creeks. The Veterans Memorial Park is lo cated on seventy-eight acres along Marumsco Creek and is owned by Prince William County. The park has facilities for low intensity recreational uses. There is a wildlife refuge (Department of the In terior) situated from Farm Creek to the mouth of Neabsco Creek. These lands wil l probably support some l ow intensity recreational usage. No other sites have been set aside for public recreation, though several areas could be so developed. A section in front of River Bend Estates on the Oc coquan River coul d be easily developed as a picnic area, with boat access to the river. Also, an area of wooded l and and marsh near Georgetown

11 FIGURE 3: Marina faciliti es on Neabsco Creek, north of the rai lroad bridge (Subsegment 2B) .

FIGURE 4 : The Bayside Park shoreline (Subsegment 2A) . Many of the structures are below e l evati ons of ten feet and coul d be suscepti ble to flooding.

FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5: Bluffs and beach at Freestone Point (Sub segment 2B). The bluffs are composed primarily of rock and can withstand most erosive forces. The beach on the left side of the photo is one of the nicest in the county.

FIGURE 6 : Embayed marsh fronting new development on Quantico Creek (Segment 4). Residential buildups be hind valuable marsh areas are environmentally sound if proper precautions are taken to ensure there are no harmful effects on the marsh system.

FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6

12 FIGURE 7: Vulnerabl e bluffs north of the VEPCO sub station (Subsegment 3B). The bluffs will probably continue to erode at a slight to moderate rate until the area is artificially stabilized.

FIGURE 8: VEPCO substation on Possum Point (Subseg ment 3B). The bulkhead is vertical steel sheet pile back-filled with a stone and sand aggregate.

FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9: North end of Chopawamsic Island (Subseg ment 5A). The house in the foreground is endangered by continued erosion of the bluff. Two sets of bulk head seem to be ineffective in combatting the erosion problem. Downhill rain runoff is also a major factor in the erosion of the cliff.

FIGURE 10: South end of Chopawamsic Island (Subseg ment 5A). The bulkheading of this area has failed, leaving the cliffs exposed to wind generated waves from the southeast.

FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10

13 77° IS'

2 ,,41 vi 1/4 o 1A PRINCE WILLIAM I - - SCALE IN MILES- - COUNTY • BRIDGE

MAP 2

MAP 3

MAP 1A

// = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary 3 SEGMENT LOCATION MAP

lA OC

A MAP 5 59

• 77° 151 t I 3A Vt 1/4 0 1A I - - PRINCE WILLIAM SCALE IN MILES- - COUNTY • BRIDGE )=:=(

38° 40' 18

• • • 2A • • • • • • •

• • • 3A 0 \ 0 f\J1AP 18 \ 0 0 SHOR'ELANDS TYPES I 0 I 0 FASTLAND cl Low Shone 0/ ef 3 8 Moderatel~f Low Shore I I D I I / 0 Moderate~, Low Shore I 0 with Bluff I I u I I I Moderatelv High Shore 6 A 6 6 I High Shorei High Shorn~ • • • with Bluff SHORE • • • 0 Beach 0 Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 0

0 Extensive Marsh //////////h'

0 Embayed Marsh ~ 0 Artificially Stabilized 0 SA NEARSHORE 0 Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide SB ••••

• 77° ,,. 2 I- 5,... 1/2- 1/4 0 1A PRINCE WILLIAM SCALE IN MILES- - COUNTY • BRIDGE ):::=(

38° 401 18

4 fv1AP 1C SHORELINE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES

Rubble R iprap R

Bulkhead 8 Groin G

5A Boat Ramp ~ Marina • 5B 0 77° 151 2 I- 3/4 1/2- 1/4 0 1A PRINCE WILLIAM SCALE IN MILES- - 1w COUNTY .. 1W BRIDGE >==< ,w

IW 38° 1 40 1W IW 18

11 lRS IA lA- ~ 1RS 2M ~ 4 RC ~ ~

IRS ~

IA ~"' 1RS

2l!\ 11 IR S

l W lW 5W I RS

1W 2E3

IW ~ (X) lW

IW 1W

lW 1W

IW 3A

IW lW 1w lW 11 1W IW lW MAP 10 lW lW FAS:TLAND USE, OWNERSHIP lW 38 USE 38'"""', Agricultural A 3?, \ Commercial C Industrial I / \ ' , __ , Military M Preserved · PR 2M 2M Recreational RC Residential RS 2M Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 SA Federal 2 County 4 Town 5 City 5 SB 77° 1!5' 2 1- 314 V2- 1/4 0 1A !PRINCE WILLIAM SCALE IN MILES- - COUNTY • BRIDGE }:=(

38° 1 40 18

MAP 1E

38 EXISTING ZONING MAP Agricultural C:::: J Business vam Industrial Re:sidential Residential Planned Community -n1,.,.1.,...,11,...,,,11 Governmental Marsh

58 I TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SHOR ELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE AND OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES)

Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use , and owner ship classifi- SHORE NEARSHORE cation FASTLAND A r:il A A µc, 0 r:il A !3: ~ 0 ...:I ~ 8 ...:11:t:l r:il :::> !3: ~ H ~ >,f µc, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r:il ~ t A 0 ~ A A f;n~ r:il H i:,::i 0 oS ~~ :> A ~ ~ H ~ @ ::C: ...:I UH A H u P:: H ~ ~ ~ i:,::i Ii@ H ~ !3: (/) (/) l:t:l H...:1 r:il ti) !3: P:: H ~ < r:il < ...:I ~ffi µc, H ::c: z :x: I (/) r:il A ~ ~ ~ ~ ...:I r:il I (/) H l'%l ~~ r:il i:,::i r:il (/) i:.::r rxl :::> ~ :> E-1 ~ ~ ~ ::c: u ~ ffi ~ ffi ~ (/) Subsegment A !3: A@ A c., ffi ffi t=l I :> u (/) H :::> ~ 0 ~@ H H H ~ s s 0 ~ ~ ~ i P:: ij H < ::c: p.. p.. µ. µc, (/) ...:I Cl) ~3 ~ (/) ~~ ::c: ::c: !3: §~ l:t:l ~; !~ ~i I H !3: u 8 H ~ ~ :::> :::> 8 u l A 1.4 0. 4 0.6 1. 3 0. 1 0. 9 RIVER 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.3 2.3 2. 3 2.3 1B 1. 9 0. 8 0. 2 0. 2 0.6 1. 7 0.3 0.2 1. 0 R I V E R 1. 2 0.6 0. 2 1.1 1. 9 1. 2 3.1 3.8 2A 7. 7 0. 2 1. 3 0.5 1. 1 6.4 5.5 4.0 1. 8 0.4 1. 5 0. 5 1. 2 2.5 4.1 3.3 0.5 7. 9 14. 8 2B 1. 2 1. 2 1. 6 1. 2 0.3 0.2 1.1 2.3 6. 2 1. 1 0. 6 0.2 0.2 4 . 4 4 . 0 0.3 1. 1 5.4 9.8 3A 2. 0 1. 7 1. 3 1. 2 0.4 0.1 2. 2 1. 9 2.6 1.3 1.1 1. 0 0. 5 5.2 6. 7 6. 7 6.8 3B 0. 3 0.4 0 . 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 1. 9 0. 1 2.5 0.9 1. 8 2.7 2. 7 2. 5 4 1. 0 6.1 0. 3 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 2. 8 2.7 3.4 1. 9 C R E E K 2.8 2.3 1.1 3. 4 6.9 2.8 9.6 11. 1 SA 0. 6 2. 7 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 1. 0 1. 6 2.8 0.5 0. 5 2. 8 3.4 3.6 5B 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.5 C REEK 3.6 3.6 3.6 -2. 7

TOTAL 16.2 14. 3 0.4 6.9 5.5 1. 8 5.8 11. 7 10.4 20.8 8.8 4.8 1.6 6. 2 1.1 12.2 5.2 1. 5 0. 5 5.2 0.2 18. 7 29 . 1 13. 7 0.8 1.1 44.7 57.4

'7o of FASTLAND 36% 32% 1% 15% 12% 4% 2'7o 27'7o 12% 3'7o 1% 12% 1% 42'7o 65% 31'7o 2'Yo 2% 100%

'7o of SHORELINE 10% 20% 18'Yo 36% 15% 8% 3'7o ll'Yo 100'70

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 SUMMARIES, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA

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

lA FASTLAND: Moderately low shore 59%, mod FASTLAND: Collll\ercial 20%, industrial Private. Business and Low. This area is Poor. The only No data. The area appears stable. There are Low. The present use of the shore OCCOQUAN erately high shore 16%, and high shore 18%, residential 47%, and unmanaged, residential. relatively protected beach is located approximately 6,800 feet of bulkheading located line restricts alternate develop- RIVER DAM 25%. wooded 15%. from storm winds and under the I-95 at the several marinas in this subsegment. ment. TO THE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 56%, SHORE: Commercial use (marinas). waves. The Occoquan bridge. I-95 BRIDGE beach 5%, and fringe marsh 39%. RIVER: Mostly unused except by River Dam protects the 2.3 miles RIVER: Narrow and shallow. marina traffic. area from upland rains (2. 3 miles of fastland)

1B FASTLAND: Low shore 62%, moderately high FAS'ILAND: Residential 19%, unmanaged, Federal 39% Government, busi Low to moderate. The Fair to poor. The No data. The area appears stable. There are The unmanaged, wooded area located I-95 BRIDGE shore 26%, high shore 6%, and high shore unwooded 7'4, unmanaged, wooded 35%, and private ness, residential majority of the shore beaches in this sub approximately 2,000 feet of effective rubble in front of River Bend Estates has TO DEEPHOLE with bluff 6%. and governmental (transmitting and 61%. and industrial. line has elevations of segment are wide and riprap located at the Military Reservation, the possibility of becoming a low POINr SHORE : Artificially stabilized L4%, receiving station) 39%. 10 feet. Part of the often vegetated. and 800 feet of cosmetic bulkheading northwest intensity recreational area. 3.8 miles beach 46%, fringe marsh 9%, embayed SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the Military Reservation of the Route l bridge. (3. l miles marsh 6%, and extensive marsh 25%. marshes, but mostly unused. is subject to flooding of fastland) RIVER: The Occoquan River had con RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. during periods of ab trolling depths of 4 feet in 1971. normally high water.

2A FASTLAND: Low shore 97% and moderately FASTLANO: Industrial 5%, preserved Private 52%, Agricultural, busi Low to moderate, crit Poor. The Feather No data. The area appears stable. There are Low. This subsegment already has a DEEPIIOLE low shore 3'7• • 19%, recreational 7%, residential f ederal 42%, ness, industrial ical. Many structures stone Shores area approximately 3,600 feet of rubble riprap county owned recreational park and a POINT TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 9%, 15%, unmanaged, wooded 32%, and and county and governmental. at Bayside Park are has narrow, strip located from Dee1>hole Point to the mouth of wildlife refuge along the shoreline. rfHE MOUTH OF beach 3%, fringe marsh 8%, embayed ma1:sh governmental (U.S. Government Trans 6'7• . below the 10-foot con beaches which are Marumsco Creek. Bayside Park and Featherstone Little alternate use seems necessary NE.ABSCO CREEK 43%, and extensive marsh 37%. mitting and Receiving Station) 22%. tour, and are subject often vegetated. Shores have approximately 3,400 feet of bulk for the unused, wooded lands located 14.8 miles NEARSHORE: Wide 2 7%. The remainder of SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the to flooding during Various other areas heading and several groins. The marina north in the subsegment. (7.9 miles the subsegment is located along Marumsco marshes, but mostly unused. periods of abnormally have small, pocket of Featherstone Shores has approximately 300 of fastland) and Farm Creeks. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. high water. beaches. feet of cosmetic bulkheading.

2B FASTLAND: Low shore 22%, moderately low FASTLAND: Commercial 12%, industrial Private 73%, ~gricultural, resi- Low. All structures Poor to good. The No data. The majority of the subsegment Low. Although 54% of the shoreline 1-blJTlt OF shore 22%, moderately high shore 29%, 3%, residential 4%, and unmanaged, city 21%, ~ent1al, and busi- are above 10-foot beaches between appears to be stable with the exception of is presently unused, development ~soo CREEK high shore 22'7,, and high shore with bluff wooded 81'7• . and county ~ess. elevations. Only the Neabsco and Freestone Freestone Point. These bluffs are experienc here would be costly because of the lro FREESTONE 5%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the 6%. marsh areas are sub Point are narrow and ing minor erosion due to downhill rain runoff lack of access to the ares. POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, marshes, but mostly unused. ject to flooding. often vegetated . and undercutting of the cliff base. There are 9.8 miles beach 11%, fringe marsh 24%, and embayed NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. Neabsco and Freestone approximately 1,200 feet of stabilized shore, (5.4 miles marsh 63%. Point have wide, the majority of which is located at the marina pf fastland) NEARSHORE: Wide 11%. The remainder of clean beaches. 011 the south bank of the creek. the subsegment is located along Neabsco Creek.

3A FASTLAND: Low shore 31%, moderately low FASTLAND: Industrial 15%, residential Private. Industrial, agri Low. The majority Wair to good. There No data. The area appears stable. There is Low. Two areas have development FREESTONE shore 26%, moderately high sho1:e 20%, 8%, and unmanaged, wooded 77%. cultural, and resi of the subsegment has are long stretches one groin in the subsegment, which appears to potential, although any construction POINT TO high shore 18%, and high shore with bluff SHORE: Some waterfowl hu11ting in the dential. elevations of 20 feet of wide, clean be effective. should ensure against adding pollu OOCKPIT POINT 5%. marshes, bathing and strolling along and over. beaches in this sub tants to the waters. A low inten 6.8 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, the beaches. segment. sity recreational park would be (6. 7 miles beach 32%, fringe marsh 27%, and embayed NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. possible alo11g the shorelands near of fastland} marsh 38%. Georgetown Village. NEARSHORE: Narrow 18% and wide 16%. The remainder of the subsegment is located along Powells Creek.

Low. The majority of Poor to fair. There No data. The majority of the area appears Low. For the 66% of the shorelands 3B FASTLAND: Low shore 10%, moderately low FASTLAND: Industrial 34% and un Private. lrndustrial. the subsegment has are several areas stable. The bluffs north of the power plant which are presently unused, develop OOCKPIT POINT shore 14%, moderately high shore 26%, managed, wooded 66%. elevations of at least with fairly wide are experiencing erosion due to downhill rain ment depends upon access across the TO high shore 277., and high shore with bluff SHORE : Mostly unused. 20 feet. beaches in this sub runoff and undercutting of the base by wind railroad tracks. POSSUM POINT 23%. NEARSRORE: Sport boating and fishing. segment. and wave actions. There are approximately 2.5 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 22%, 3,000 feet of stabilization at the substation (2.7 miles beach 75%, and embayed marsh 3%. site near Possum Point. of fastland) l'IEARSHORE: Narrow.

22 TABLE 2 (Can't.).

SUBSEGMEIIT SIIORELANDS TYPB SllORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP ZONII(; FLOOD HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE

4 FASTLAND : Low shore 10%, moderately low FASTLAND: Industrial 24%, residential Federal 297. Agricultural and Low. The majority of Poor. There are No data. The majority of the area appears Low. The area near the town of QUANTIOO shore 63%, moderately low shore with 12%, unmanaged, wooded 35%, and and private conrnercia l. the segment has only narrow, strip stable although several bluff areas are Dumfries could be developed as a CREEK bluff 3%, moderately high shore 14%, governmental (Quantico Marine Corps 7ll . elevations of 20 feet beaches in this experiencing minor erosion due to downhill low intensity recreational park. ll. l miles high shore 8%, and high shore with bluff School) 291.. and is not subject to segment. rain runoff. There are approximately 1,800 Other alternate uses for this seg (9.8 miles 3%. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the floocling. feet of effective bulkheading in this subseg ment are limited due to exisLing of fastland) SHORE : Artificially stabilized 3%, marshes, bathing and strolling along ment. use and owne rship. beach 25%, fringe ma rsh 24%, entbayed the beaches. marsh 30%, and extensive marsh 17%. CREEK: Some sport boating and fishing. CREEK: Quantico Creek is too narrow and shallow for classification.

5A FASTLAND: Low shore 17%, moderately low FASTLAND: Residential 16% and govern Federal 84% Governmental and Low. The majority of Poor. The subseg No data. The area appears stable with the Low. The present use and ownership SHIPPING shore 80%, and moderately low shore with mental (U.S . Narine Corps facilities and private agricultural. the area has elevations ment has narrow, exception of sections of Chopawamsic Island. of this subsegment precludes alter POIIIT TO bluff 3%. and airstation) 84%. 16%. of at least 20 feet and strip beaches. The bluffs here are experiencing minor erosion nate development. COUNTY LINE SHORE: Artificially stabilized 40%, SHORE: Mostly unused except for is not subject to due to downhill rain runoff and undercutting 3.6 miles beach 40%, embayed marsh 10%, and exten access to boat docks. flooding. of the cliff base. One house on the north end (3. 4 miles sive marsh 10,.,. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing . of the island is endangered by erosion. of fastl and) NEARSHORE: Narrow 2n. and intermediate 44%. The remainder of the subsegment is located along the marsh creek and the sheltered side of Chopawamsic I sland.

5B FAS'fLAND: Low shore 42%, moderately low FASTLAND: Entirely governmental (U . S. Federal. Government Military Low. The majority of There are no beaches No data. The area appears stable. There are None. The present government CHOPAWAMSIC shore 16%, moderately high shore 21%, Marine Corps Base). Reservation. the shoreline has in this subsegment. no endangered or shore protective structures. ownership and use of this subseg CREEK and high shore 21%. SHORE: Mostly unused. elevations of at least ment prohibits alternate develop 2. 7 miles SHORE: Fringe marsh 461. and embayed CREEK: Sport boating and fishing. 10 feet. Onl y the ment. (3. 7 miles marsh 54%. marshes are subject to of fastland) CREEK : The entire subsegment is located flooding. along Chopawamsic Cr eek, which is too narrow and shallow for classification.

23 SUBSEGMENT lA approximately 6,800 feet of bulkheading in this SUBSEGMENT lB subsegment, located at several marinas and OCCX>QUAN RIVER DAM TO I-95 BRIDGE along most of the Occoquan shoreline. All I-95 BRIDGE TO DEEPHOLE POINT structures seem to be effective. (Map 2) (Maps 2 and 3) OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and boat docks located at the marinas in this EXTENT: 12,200 feet (2.3 mi.) of shoreline from subsegment. EXTENT: 20,000 feet (3.8 mi.) of shoreline on the Occoquan River Dam to the I-95 bridge. the Occoquan River, from the I-95 bridge to This subsegment also has 12,200 feet (2.3 mi.) SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shorelands in this Deephole Point. The subsegment also includes of fastland. subsegment are actively utilized. Little or 16,200 feet (3.1 mi.) of fastland. no new development (besides isolated struc SHORELANDS TYPE tures) could take place here. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Moderately low shore 59% (1.4 mi.), FASTLAND: Low shore 62% (1.9 mi.), moderately moderately high shore 16% (0.4 mi.), and high ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The present use of high shore 26% (0.8 mi.), high shore 6% (0.2 shore 25% (0.6 mi.). the shorelands prevents development of alter mi.), and high shore with bluff 6% (0.2 mi.). SHORE: Artificially stabilized 56% (1.3 mi.), nate uses. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 14% (0.6 mi.), beach 5% (0.1 mi.), and fringe marsh 39% (0.9 beach 46% (1. 7 mi.), fringe marsh 9% (0.3 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), OCCOQUAN, Va. mi.), embayed marsh 6% (0.2 mi.), and exten RIVER: The entire subsegment is located along Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971; sive marsh 25% (1.0 mi.). the Occoquan River, which is too narrow and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FORT BELVOIR, RIVER: The Occoquan River has a dredged chan shallow for classification. Va. Quadr., 1965, pr. 1971. nel which had controlling depths of 4 feet in C&GS, #560, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, 1971. SHORELANDS USE Mattawoman Creek to Georgetown, 1971. FASTLAND: Commercial 20% (0.5 mi.), industrial SHORELANDS USE 18% (0.4 mi.), residential 47% (1.1 mi.), and PHOTOS: Aerial-Vll1S 9Sep76 PW-lA/223-245. FASTLAND: Residential 19% (0.6 mi.), un unmanaged, wooded 15% (0.3 mi.). managed, unwooded 7% (0.2 mi,), unmanaged, SHORE: Commercial use (marinas). wooded 35% (1.1 mi.), and governmental (U.S. RIVER: Some sport boating but mostly unused. Government Transmitting and Receiving Station) 39% (1.2 mi.). SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically SHORE: Mostly unused, some waterfowl hunting KW - SE in this subsegment. in the marshes. RIVER: Sport boating and fishing. OWNERSHIP: Entirely private. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically ZONING: Business and residential. NW - SE in this subsegment. The fetch at Deephole Point is SE - 3.5 nautical miles. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The shorelands along this sec tion of the Occoquan River are relatively pro OWNERSHIP: Federal 39% and private 61%. tected from storm winds and waves. Though some structures near Occoquan are below 10-foot ele ZONING: Governmental, business, residential, and vations, none seem endangered by flood waters. industrial. The Occoquan River Dam protects the area from flooding due to upland rains. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate. Most areas of the shoreline have elevations of at least 10 BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beach is located feet. However, part of the U.S. Military under the I-95 bridge. Reservation south of Taylors Point is suscep tible to flooding during periods of abnormally SHORE EROSION SITUATION high water. EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to be stable. BEACH QUALITY: Fair to poor. The beaches in ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. this subsegment are fairly wide and often SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are vegetated, Of the 1. 7 miles of beach, 1.2

24 miles are located along the shoreline of the SUBSEGMENT 2A during periods of abnormally high water. Other U.S. Military Reservation, thereby restricting structures in the subsegment are above eleva public access and usage. DEEPHOLE POINT TO THE MOUTH OF NEABSCO CREEK tions of ten feet and are not'.susceptible to flooding. SHORE EROSION SITUATION (Maps 2 and 3) EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The Featherstone Shores area has narrow, strip beaches which are often be stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT : 78,000 feet (14.8 mi.) of shoreline from vegetated. Various other areas have small SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx Deephole Point to the mouth of Neabsco Creek, pocket beaches. imately 2,000 feet of effective rubble riprap including Marumsco and Farm Creeks. The sub located along the shoreline of the Military segment also includes 41,800 feet (7.9 mi.) of SHORE EROSION SITUATION Reservation. Northwest of the Route 1 bridge, fast land. EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to there are approximately 800 feet of effective be stable. bulkhead. This structure is mainly for cos SHORELANDS TYPE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. metic purposes as erosion is not a significant FASTLAND: Low shore 97/o (7.7 mi.) and moder SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx imately 3,600 feet of~ffective rubble riprap problem here. ately low shore 3% (0.2 mi. ). SHORE: Artificially stabilized 9% (1.3 mi. ), from Deephole Point to the mouth of Marumsco OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a boat ramp ad beach 3% (0.5 mi.), fringe marsh 8% (1. 1 mi.), Creek. Bayside Park and Featherstone Shores joining the bulkhead at the Route 1 bridge, and embayed marsh 43% (6.4 mi.), and extensive have approximately 3,400 feet of bulkhead, most a pier at the northern boundary of the Military marsh 37% (5.5 mi.). of which appears to be effective. There are Reservation. NEARSHORE: Wide 27%. The remainder of the also several groins along this section of subsegment is located along Marumsco and Farm shoreline. The marina just north of Feather SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Thirty-nine percent of Creeks. stone Shores has approximately 300 feet of the shorelands in this subsegment are part of bulkhead which is mainly for commercial pur a U.S. Military Reservation. No development, SHORELANDS USE poses, except by the government is possible for this FASTLAND: Industrial 5% (0.4 mi.), preserved area. The area from the I -95 bridge t o the 19% (1.5 mi.), recreational 7% (0.5 mi.), resi OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are docking facili government owned lands is heavily utilized in dential 15% ( 1. 2 mi.) , unmanaged, wooded 32% ties and a boat ramp at the marina as well as the interior, but the shorelands are largely (2.5 mi.), and governmental (U.S. Government numerous piers along the shoreline. unused. These shorelands are zoned for busi Transmitting and Receiving Station) 22% (1.8 ness and some residential use. mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shorelands in this SHORE : Mostly unused, some waterfowl hunting subsegment are already used for a variety of ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The unmanaged, unwooded in the marshes. purposes. Twenty-two percent of the lands are area located in front of the River Bend Es NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. included in the U.S. Military Reservation. tates has possibility for becoming a low in The 78-acre Veterans Memorial Park on the west tensity recreational area. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically side'of Marumsco Creek is owned and operated E - W, then N - Sin this subsegment. The by the county and comprises seven percent of MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FORT BELVOIR, fetch at the mouth of Marumsco Creek is SE - the shorelands. A wildlife refuge, owned by Va. Quadr., 1965, pr. 1971. 4 nautical miles, and at the mouth of Farm the U.S. Department of the Interior, is located C&GS, #560, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Creek SE - 3.5 nautical miles. at the mouth of Neabsco Creek and contains Mattawoman Creek to Georgetown, 1971. nineteen percent of tne fastland. Other uses, OWNERSHIP: Private 52%, federal 42%, and county including residential and industrial sites, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 9Sep76 PW-lB/192-222. 6%. make up twenty percent of the fastland. Thus, sixty-eight percent of the subsegment's fast ZONING: This subsegment is zoned variously for lands are utilized for some purpose. The re agricultural, business, industrial, and govern maining thirty-two percent is unmanaged, mental use. wooded. These unused areas are fronted by tidal marshes, which are protected by the FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972. only area susceptible to flooding, aside from the tidal marshes, is the Bayside Park section. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. This subsegment al Many structures here are below the 10-foot ready has a county owned recreational park and contour, several of which might be inundated a wildlife refuge along the hhoreline. Little

25 alternate use seems necessary for the unused, SUBSEGMENT 2B SHORE EROSION SITUATION wooded lands located in the subsegment. EROSION RATE: No data. Most of the subseg MOUTH OF NEABSCO CREEK TO FREESTONE POINI' ment appears to be stabl e. The bl uffs at MAPS : USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), OCCOQUAN, Va. Freestone Point are experiencing minor erosion Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971; (Maps 3 and 4) due to downhill rain runoff and undercutting USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), FORT BELVOIR, of the cliff base. Va. Quadr., 1965, pr. 1971; ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANI'ICO, Va. EXTENI': 52,000 feet (9.8 mi.) of shoreline from SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971; the northern bank of Neabsco Creek to Freestone imately 1,200 feet of artificially stabilized USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), INDIAN HEAD, Point (including the creek). The subsegment shore in this subsegment. The majority of this Va. Quadr., 1966. also includes 28,600 feet (5.4 mi.) of fast is located at the marina facilities on the C&GS, #560, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, land. south bank of the creek. This bulkheading is Mattawoman Creek to Georgetown, 1971. mainly for cosmetic purposes rather than for SIIORELANDS TYPE erosion protection. There is approximately PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 9Sep76 PW-2A/153-191. FASTLAND: Low shore 22% (1.2 mi.), moderately 50 feet of rubble riprap on the east side of low shore 22% (1.2 mi.), moderately high shore the bridge, which appears to be effective. 29% (1.6 mi . ), high shore 22% (1.2 mi.), and high shore with bluff 5% (0.3 mi . ). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several boat SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.2 mi.), ramps and numerous piers in this subsegment, beach 11% (1.1 mi.), fringe marsh 24% (2.3 most of which are located at the marina facili mi.), and embayed marsh 63% (6.2 mi.). ties. NEARSHORE : Wide 11%. The remainder of the subsegment is located along Neabsco Creek, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS : Nineteen percent of the which is too narrow and shallow for classifi shorelands are already used for conunercial, cation. industrial, and residential purposes. The District of Columbia owns 1.1 miles of fast SHORELANDS USE land just west of the railroad crossing which FASTLAND: Commercial 12% (0.6 mi.), industrial is presently wooded. The sanitary district 3% (0.2 mi.), residential 4% (0.2 mi.), and owns 0.3 miles of fastland on the creek which unmanaged, wooded 81% (4.4 mi.). is to be the site of a joint sewage treatment SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, plant in the near future. The remaining but mostly unused. fifty-four percent are unmanaged, wooded, NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. which are generally located along the bluffs inland of the shoreline. Access to these SHORELINE TREND: Neabsco Creek trends basically areas is difficult. NW - SE. The fetch at Freestone Point is NE - 2.5 nautical miles. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: For the 54% of the shore line which is presently unused, development, OWNERSHIP: Private 73%, city 21%, and county 6%. though possible, would be costly.

ZONING: Mostly agricultural and residential, with MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), INDIAN HEAD, some business. Va. Quadr., 1966; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANTICO, Va. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. All structures are above 10- Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. foot e l evations. Only the marsh areas are C&GS, #560, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, susceptible to flooding. Mattawoman Creek to Georgetown, 1971.

BEACH QUALITY : Poor to good. The beaches are PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-2B/132-146. located from the rail road bridge at Neabsco to 9Sep76 PW-2B/147-152. Freestone Point, most of which are narrow and often vegetated. The beaches at Neabsco and Freestone Point are fairl y wide and clean.

26 SUBSEGMENT 3A SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is one groin C&GS, #559, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, in the subsegment which appears to be effective. Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, FREESTONE POINT TO COCKPIT POINT 1971. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is one large fishing (Map 4) pier and a boat house on the beach. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-3A/95-131. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This subsegment is vari EXTENT: 36,000 feet (6.8 mi.) of shoreline from ously zoned for industrial, residential, and Freestone Point to Cockpit Point, including agricultural use. Basically, Powells Creek is Powells Creek. The subsegment also includes zoned for agriculture, while the shoreline bor 35,200 feet (6.7 mi.) of fastland. dering the Potomac River is residential north of the creek and industrial south of the creek. SHORELANDS TYPE The section from Freestone Point to the FASTLAND: Low shore 31% (2.1 mi.), moderately mouth of Powells Creek, though zoned for resi low shore 26% (1.7 mi.), moderately high shore dential use, is mostly unused. Future devel 20% (1. 3 mi.), high shore 18% (1.2 mi.), and opment here is a possibility. The shorelands high shore with bluff 5% (0.4 mi.). of Powells Creek are entirely wooded except SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.1 mi.), for an apartment complex behind the marsh at beach 32% (2.2 mi.), fringe marsh 27% (1.9 the head of the creek. According to a pub mi.), and embayed marsh 38% (2.6 mi.). lished VIMS report, Prince William County Tidal NEARSHORE: Narrow 18% and wide 16%. The re Marsh Inventory, there are 123 acres of marsh mainder of the subsegment is located along in this subsegment. This marsh should be pre Powells Creek which is too narrow and shallow served as it is valuable as a nursery and for classification. spawning area for some fishes, and as a habitat for other fishes and wildlife. It also serves SHORELANDS USE to cushion the energy of erosive and flood FASTLAND: Industrial 15% (1.0 mi.), residen forces attacking the fastland. The fastland tial 8% (0.5 mi.), and urunanaged, wooded 77% along the creek rapidly increases to elevations (5. 2 mi.). of 100 feet. There are no roads to the shore SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, lands. bathing and strolling along the beaches. The shorelands from the south side of the NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. creek mouth to Cockpit Point are zoned for in dustry. Most of this section has limited SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically widths of usable land, as a railroad is situ NE - SW then NW - SE. The fetch at Cockpit ated less than 300 feet inland along much of Point is NE - 6.6 nautical miles. the shoreline. The Cockpit Point area has elevations of less than 10 feet and parts are OWNERSHIP: Entirely private. susceptible to flooding.

ZONING: Industrial, agricultural, and residential. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. There are two areas in the subsegment which could be developed for FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the subseg- residential use. However, any development ment has elevations of 20 feet and over. Only should ensure against adding pollutants to the the marsh areas are subject to flooding. nearby waters. Though no area seems suitable for a full scale recreational development, a BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. There are long l ow intensity recreational park a l ong the stretches of wide, clean beaches in this sub shorelands near Georgetown Vil lage is possible. segment. MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), INDIAN HEAD, SHORE EROSION SITUATION Va. Quadr., 1966; EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANTICO, Va. be stable. Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None.

27 SUBSEGMENT 3B bulkheading at the substation site near Possum SEGMENT 4 Point. This stabilization appears to be effec COCKPIT POINT TO POSSUM POINT tive. QUANTICO CREEK

(Maps 4 and 5) OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a large pier at (Maps 4 and 5) the substation site.

EXTENT: 13,400 feet (2.5 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This subsegment is zoned EXTENT: 58,400 feet (11.1 mi.) of shoreline along the Potomac River from Cockpit Point to Possum for industrial use. The Vepco Power Station, Quantico Creek, from Possum Point to Shipping Point. The subsegment also includes 14,000 located near Possum Point, is the only indus Point. The segment also includes 51,000 feet feet (2.7 mi.) of fastland. trial site at the present time. However, the (9.8 mi.) of fastland. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad SHORELANDS TYPE line, located 50 to 100 feet inland, severely SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 10% (0.3 mi.), moderately limits shorelands access and development. FASTLAND: Low shore 10% (1.0 mi.), moderately low shore 14% (0.4 mi.), moderately high shore low shore 63% (6.1 mi.), moderately low shore 26% (0. 7 mi.), high shore 27/o (O. 7 mi.), and ALTERNATE SHORE USE: For the 66% of the shore with bluff 3% (0.3 mi.), moderately high shore high shore with bluff 23% (0.6 mi.). lands which are presently unused, development 14% (1.3 mi.), high shore 8% (0.8 mi.), and SHORE: Artificially stabilized 22% (0.6 mi.), depends upon access across the railroad tracks. high shore with bluff 3% (0.3 mi.) . beach 75% (1. 9 mi.), and embayed marsh 3% (O.l SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.3 mi.), mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANTICO, Va. beach 25% (2.8 mi.), fringe marsh 24% (2. 7 NEARSHORE: Narrow. Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. mi.), embayed marsh 30% (3.4 mi.), and exten C&GS, #559, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, sive marsh 17% (1.9 mi.). SHORELANDS USE Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, CREEK: The entire segment is located along FASTLAND: Industrial 34% (0.9 mi.) and un 1971. Quantico Creek, which is too narrow and shal managed, wooded 66% (1.8 mi.). low for classification. SHORE: Mostly unused. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-3B/69-94. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Industrial 24% (2.3 mi.), residen SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically tial 12% (1.1 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 35% (3.4 NE - SW in this subsegment. The fetch at Pos mi.), and governmental (Quantico Marine Corps stnn Point is NE - 4.4 nautical miles. School) 29% (2.8 mi . ). SHORE: Waterfowl hunting in the marshes, OWNERSHIP: Entirely private. bathing and strolling along the beach areas. CREEK: Some sport fishing and boating. ZONING: Industrial. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the subseg SE - 1'1-1 in this segment, ment has elevations of at least 20 feet and is not subject to flooding. OWNERSHIP: Federal 29% and private 71%.

BEA.CH QUALITY: Poor to fair. There are several ZONING: Mostly agricultural with some cormnercial. areas with fairly wide beaches in this subseg ment. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the segment has elevations of at least 20 feet and is not SHORE EROSION SITUATION subject to flooding. EROSION RATE: No historical data. The bluff area north of the power plant is experiencing BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, erosion due to downhill rain runoff, and under strip beaches in this segment. cutting of the cliff base by wind and wave actions. SHORE EROSION SITUATION ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. EROSION RATE: No historical data. The area SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx appears to be stabl£, although several bluff imatel:r 3,000 feet of rubble riprap and areas are experiencing minor erosion due to

28 downhill rain runoff. SUBSEGMENT SA This is due to downhill rain runoff and wind ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. and wave actions at the base of the cliff. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx SHIPPING POINT TO COUNTY LINE ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: One house on the north imately 1,800 feet of effective bulkheading in ern end of Chopawamsic Isl and is endangered by this segment. (Map 5) erosion. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approx OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several private imate ly 7,600 feet of artificial stabilization, piers and the Richmond, Fredericksburg and EXTENT: 19,000 feet (3.6 mi.) of shoreline from the majority of which is at the H.Q. Battalion Potomac Railroad bridge in this segment. Shipping Po i nt to the county line, including Boat Dock. Stabilization at the southern end Chopawamsic Isl and. The subsegment also in of Chopawamsic Island is now totally ineffec SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Quantico Creek has areas cludes 17,800 feet (3.4 mi.) of fastland. tive. The entire airfield area is artificial of high intensity use and other areas totally f i ll. Prior to t he construction of the air unused. The north side of the creek mouth is SHORELANDS TYPE field in the early 1930 1 s, the mouth of Chopa used for industrial purposes, being the site of FASTLAND: Low shore 17% (0.6 mi.), moderately wamsic Creek was coincident with the county an electric substation. The south side of the low shore 80% (2.7 mi.), and moderately low line. creek mouth is part of the Quantico Marine shore with bluff 3% (O.l mi.). Corps l and and, though mostly unused, is not SHORE: Artificially stabilized 40% (1.4 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two large available for private development. Quantico beach 40% (1. 4 mi.), embayed marsh 10% (0.4 piers at the boat dock, with several boat Creek has a total of 242 acres of marsh land, mi.), and extensive marsh 10% (0.4 mi.). slips. mostly located at the head of the creek. These NEARSHORE: Narrow 27% and intermediate 44%. marshes are valuable as spawning and nursery The remainder of the subsegment is located SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: All of the subsegment, grounds for many fish species, and as habitats along the marsh creek and the sheltered side with the exception of Chopawamsic Island, is for other fish and wildlife. of Chopawamsic Island. included in the Quantico Marine Corps School, Several areas near the head of Quantico Creek which is federally owned. Chopawamsic Island are being developed for residential purposes. SHORELANDS USE is privately owned and is used for residential These sub-developments should ensure against FASTLAND : Residential 16% (0.5 mi.) and govern purposes. Little or no other development is damaging the marshes and adding pollutants to mental (U.S. Marine Corps facilities and air possible for this subsegment. the creek. station) 84% (2.8 mi.). SHORE: Mostly unused except for access to boat ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The present use and ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The only areas avail docks. ownership of this subsegment precludes alter able for development are located along the up NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. nate development. per portion of Quantico Creek. However, much of this area is already used for residential SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically MAPS : USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANTICO , Va. purposes. Aside from the several subdivisions NE - SW in this subsegment. The fetch at Ship Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. along the shoreline, the town of Dumfries is ping Point.is NE - 4.9 nautical miles. The ·c&GS, #559, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, located at the head of the creek, behind the fetch at the southern end of Chopawamsic Island Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, marsh, limiting further development. is SSE - 10.0 nautical miles. 1971. The wooded area near the town of Dumfries coul d be developed as a low intensity recrea OWNERSHIP: Federal 84% and private 16%. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-SA/12-32. tional park, with such activities as picnick i ng, hiking and camping. Other alternate uses ZO NI NG: Governmental and some agricultural. for this segment seem very limited due to existing use and ownership. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The majority of the s ubseg ment has narrow, strip beaches. MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), QUANTICO, Va . Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the subseg C&GS, #559, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, ment has elevations of at least 20 feet and is Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, not subject to flooding. 1971. SHORE EROSION SITUATION PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-4/33-68. EROSION RATE : No historical data. Recent studies show that the majority of the subseg ment is stable, although sections of Chopawam sic Island are experiencing moderate erosion.

29 SUBSEGMENI' 5B interests.

CHOPAWAMSIC CREEK ALTERNATE SHORE USE: None. The present govern ment ownership and use of this subsegment (Map 5) prohibits alternate development. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), QUANI'ICO, Va. EXTENT: 14,400 feet (2. 7 mi.) of shoreline along Quadr., 1966, pr. 1971. the northern bank of Chopawamsic Creek. The C&GS, #559, 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, subsegment also includes 19,200 feet (3.7 mi.) Lower Cedar Point to Mattawoman Creek, of fastland. 1971.

SHORELANDS TYPE PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 26Jul76 PW-5B/l-ll. FASTLAND: Low shore 42% (1.5 mi.), moderately low shore 16% (0.6 mi.), moderately high shore 21% (0.8 mi.), and high shore 21% (0.8 mi.). SHORE: Fringe marsh 46% (1.2 mi.) and embayed marsh 54% (1,5 mi.). CREEK: The entire subsegment is located along Chopawamsic Creek, which is too narrow and shallow for classification.

SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Entirely governmental (U.S. Marine Corps School). SHORE: Mostly unused. CREEK: Sport boating and fishing,

SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically E - Win this subsegment,

OWNERSHIP: Federal.

ZONING: Government Military Reservation.

FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The majority of the shoreline has elevations of at least 10 feet. Only the marsh areas are subject to flooding.

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

SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears to be stable. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.

OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None.

SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This subsegment is en tirely owned by the federal government. No lands are available for development by private

30 18

BELMONT BAY

31 I ~ ..

I I B I ~ • 4 A :~ • -t -~' - 38° -- 401 ;.~.·.·:•:,: ·:· :•: ·: ·:. ; ..·,: -~m~ m11111111111111111111 1 //////////// ~ }},I

BELMONT BAY

I I

32 Agricultural A - - Industrial Military Recreational Residential Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 Federal 2 County 4 EROSION ~ No Data - ·--

BELMONT BAY

I I

33 77° 15 1 1/) ~~ / 7) / , I ::!.,1 )\....1 18;( Q.. - ··-~ ·~ ~~:: ~. -~.·· .> I ,>: • ·, Bayside ~ I ,,t,.. Park I I I I I I B A y I I I

I I 380 ( 37'

•\ ....\ ' I I

77° 151

34 1 77° 15 18;< Sandy I Point I -- I

' \ .\ CO ... 1 • I o ) . ' • . l'j ..._ :?11• I 1 ~~' ~.J/ <; ,,. ~ OCCOQUAN BA y / j; ·me / <' • I U •A N 'B A y ,rJ11MJ..1 SHORELANDS TYPES4 _ 1i \ ·.:. I I ( 'Jt I Subsegments 18, 2A, and 28 ~ l~ m,1-~~"'W ./ I • .. I FASTLAND 1 I l \11~ ~ ~J 1Xc. Low Shore I .--;e ae. ',, '5 Low Shore • 380 350 ~ 1 p " 1'' ~~~\: ~ with Bluff -( 37' Moderately Low Shore I • II • • I Moderately High Shore 4 4 4\ \ Moderately High Shore • I with Bluff 4 4 4 \ High Shore • I 1 SHORE . - \ " " "'r,rn,'<§.: Beach • '\ \ • 2A J e\z >"} • iil1t ~\~ ~ \~ / • ,, ,, t \g ,, / g~I "cP • ,,;J><:t,

,, ,,<;,.~c; • ; ., / ; • ,, / ;

; / • ; / ( / 28 , / ·I ,, ; / •1 77° 15

35 77° 15'

Sandy Point

CCOQUAN \ •

A Commercial C Industrial I

Preserved PR 3eo Residential RS 37'

Unmanaged I Wooded \ I :m,\\r:..~ 1 OWNERSHIP Private \ Federal ' County \ I \ 2A ' J,:, I i\~ @,t ~\~ I ~ll"11>'1 ,;/. I / I / i\g / I

. '

77° 15 1

36 I I I ,I I

77° ,~·

37 \: I I Q 3 • 3!S' -• 4 -A • -- • Beach • Fringe Marsh fllllllllllllllllllllll1 Extensive Marsh //////////// • Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized • NEARS HORE 0 I \ I 0 I

38 38 351

I I I I I I

4 38

77° 151

39 \ 77° 11' 30"

77° 17 1 3011

40 I I I I • • y 4 A A • -

0 ..

0 77° 11'30"

, 41 - SA

•

770 11 ' 30"

42 '