Shoreline Situation Report Gloucester County, Virginia Gary F

College of William and Mary W&M ScholarWorks

Reports

1976 Shoreline Situation Report Gloucester County, Virginia Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Gaynor B. Williams Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Margaret H. Peoples Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Lee Weishar Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Anderson, G. F., Williams, G. B., Peoples, M. H., Weishar, L., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1976) Shoreline Situation Report Gloucester County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 83. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V55Q86

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]. Authors Gary F. Anderson, Gaynor B. Williams, Margaret H. Peoples, Lee Weishar, Robert J. Byrne, and Carl H. Hobbs III

This report is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/748 Shoreline Situation Report GLOUCESTER 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 Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158 ·5001

Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 17

Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Numb1:H 83 of the

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

Prepa~ed by:

Gary L. Anderson Gaynor B. Williams Margaret H. Peoples Lee Weishar

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

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 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE PAGE

CHAPrER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shorelands Components 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh TYPeS 5 1.2 Aclalowledgements 2 FIGURE 3 : Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck 13 FIGURE 4: Sarah Creek Overview 13 CHAPrER 2 : APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 5: Dead End Canals on Severn River 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 6: Bray Shore Development Overview 13 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 7: Fox Creek 14 FIGURE 8: Groins Near Sarah Creek 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY 9 FIGURE 9: Ri.prap on Jenkins Neck 14 3.1 The Shorelands of Gloucester County 10 FIGURE 10: Concrete Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck 14 3,2 Shoreline Erosion 10 TABLE 1: Gloucester County Shorelands Physiography 15 3.3 Potential Shorelands Use 11 TABLE 2: Gloucester County Subsegment Summary 24

CHAPrER 4: SUMMARIES, DESCRIPI'IONS, AND SEGMENT MAPS 23 MAPS 1A-E: Gloucester County Summary Maps 17 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 24 MAPS 2A-C: Purtan Island 39 MAPS Capahosic 4,2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 26 3A-C: 42 MAPS Catlett Islands Segment 26 4A-C: 45 MAPS 5A-C : Gloucester Point Segment 2 28 48 Segment 3 31 MAPS 6A-C: Guinea Neck 51 MAPS 7A-C: Guinea Marshes Segment 4 34 54 Robins Neck Segment 5 36 MAPS 8A-C : 57 MAPS 9A-C : Ware River Segment 6 38 60 MAPS 10A-C: North River 4. 3 · Segment and Subsegment Maps 39 63 MAl?S 11A-C: Lower Piankatank River 66 MAPS 12A-C: Upper Piankatank River 69 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1 ., CHAPI'ER 1 Transportation chosen to place, as much as possi ble, t he regul a INTRODUCTION Waste disposal tor y decision processes at the county level. The Extraction of living and non- living resources Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter 2.1 , Title 1 .1 PORPOS:ES .AND GOALS Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 62. 1, Code of Vi rginia) , for example, provides for It is the ob j ective of this report to supply an various ecological functions. the establishment of County Boards t o act on ap assessment, and at least a partial i ntegration, of The role of planners and managers is to optimize plications for al terations of wetlands . 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 teri stics which will aid the planners and the man the conflicts arising from competing dema11ds. Fur wi th 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 mechanisms 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 want that selected use to attention to the problem of shore erosion and to operate in the most effective manner. A park plan 1 . 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS recommendations concerning the alleviation of the ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful This report was 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 work are useful to the planner in (RANN) 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 consi derable value in the way a particular configuration of the shore zone. Al ternately, if of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and segment of coast is percei ved by potential users. the use were a residential development, we would Atmospheric Administration, Grant Number 04-5- The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep hope our work would be useful in specifying the ·1 58-50001 • Beth Marshall typed the manuscri pt. 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 with theed 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 who have, with conflicts which may be expected to arise between the shorelands of the Commonwealth . their suggestions and comments , assisted our competing interests . Shoreland utilization i n 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 governments, to that the very elements which attracted people to planning districts and to the state and federal t he 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, we have executed our report on that _...:--Residential, commercial, or industrial level although we realize some of the information development may be most useful at a higher governmental level. Recreation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally

2 CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered

, CHAPrER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping of subseg be considered as being composed of three inter APPROACH USED AND EL:EMENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se acting physiographic elements: the fastlands , the lected on physiographic units such as necks or shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification 2 . 1 APPROACH TO THE PROBL"Elo 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 may provide the oppor For example, for such elements as water quality The format of presentation in the report follows 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, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and system permits the user to determine miles of high or federal agencies . Much 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 allow selective use of the report Definitions : available, so we performed the field work and de since some users ' needs will adequately be met with Shore Zone veloped classification schemes . In order to ana the summary overview of the county while 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 seaward limit of the shore zone is the mm photography. We photographed the entire shore break in slope between the relatively steeper line of each county and cataloged the slides for 2, 2 CHARA.CTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED IN shoreface and the less steep nearshore 3one . The easy access at VIMS, where they remain available THE STUDY approximate landward limit is a contour line rep for use . We then analyzed these photographic ma The characteristics which are included in this resent ing 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. We conducted field in a) Shorelands physiographic classification of the marsh symbols is taken as the landward spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification limit, at those locations where office analysis left c) Shorelands ownership 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) Water 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 width and which runs in a band parallel to The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex a subsegment , which may range from a few hundred h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projecting 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 which occupies a points of the subsegments were generally chosen on j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds reentrant or drowned creek valley. The purpose in physiographic consideration such as changes in the k) 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 where a radical change in land use occurred, the a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification: v1ill, in part, be determined by type of exposure point of change was taken as a boundary point of The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for

4 example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave Two specially classified excepti ons 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 trans Nearshore Zone yards f'rom 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 (MLW datum) 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 Wide, 12-ft. (3 . 7 m) isobath > 1, 400 yards light of ongoing and future research, will desire erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the Subclasses: with or without bars to weight various functions of marshes and the maximum depth of s i gnificant sand transport by wi th or wi thout tidal flat s physiographic delineation aids their decision waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis with or without submerged making by denoting where the various types exist. tinct drop-off into the river channels begins veget ation The classification used is : roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone Beach includes any tidal flats. Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statisti along shores cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater 4-FASTLANC>-4sHORal• NEARSHORE------· I I Extensive marsh I I contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate 1 I Einbayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines ;;>?77>~1 : I ---~------MLW+l.11 TIO lt ontt or reentrant of Chesape~e Bay and the James, York, Rappahan -----::.::-.:-:.=..:-:.:-..:.:-:..:--=-~-=.._:M~L:W__ _:. - 12' Ar tifici ally s tabilized nock, and Potomac Rivers . Means and standard de Fas tland Zone viations for each of the separate regions and for Figure 1 The zone extending from the landward limit of the entire combined system were calculated and An illustration of the definition of the t hree components of the shorelands. the shore zone is t ermed t he fastland. The f ast compared . Al though the distributions were non land is relatively stable and is the s i te of most normal, they were generally comparable, allowing 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 I NGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE upon the average slope of the land within 400 feet The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan MARSH MARSH MARSH ( 122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. The dard deviation of 1 , 003 yards. As our aim was to gener al classification is : determine general, serviceable class limits, these Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; with calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 or without cliff yards respectively. The class limits were set at

Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft . (6-12 m) of half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side FASTLAND FASTLANO relief; with or without cliff of the mean . Using this procedure a narrow near Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft . (12- 18 m) of shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme r elief; with or without cliff diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. Figure 2 High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; The following definitions have no legal signif A generalized illustratjon of the three different marsh tYPes. with or without cliff. icance ru1d were constructed for our classification

5 b) Shorelands Use Classification: environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild c) Shorelands Ownership Classification: Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation The shorelands ownership classification used Residential grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel has two main subdivisions, private and governmen Includes all forms of residential use with the opment . tal, with the governmental further divided into exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. federal, state, county, and town 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 agricultural areas. extends to mean low water. All bottoms below mean included in a residential area. low water are in State ownership . 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 wholesale trade a) Open: brush land, dune areas, waste- 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) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from commercial context. Marinas are considered com The shoreland use classification applies to the water 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. In 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 MPN (Most Prob power plants, railyards. usage. able Number) 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 la.:().ds 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 ., Camp Peary, Fort Story. Bird watching fish for direct sale to the consumer. Waterfowl hunting There are instances, however, when the total Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN 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 will 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 somewhat more strin Includes lands preserved or regulated for Water sports gent than those used in rating recreational waters

6 (see Virginia State Water Control Board, Water existing structures are inadequate, we have given of Marine Science, 1969 , and i n other VIMS publ i Qualit y 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 where none currently exist. The i ) Flood Hazard Levels : able at this time. In general, any waters fit primary emphasis is placed on expected effective The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the ting the satisfactory or intermediate categories ness with secondary consideration to cost. whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in would be acceptable for water recreation. complete. However, the United States Army Corps g) Potential Shore Uses : of Engineers has prepared r eports for a number of e) Zoning: We placed particular attention in our study on localities which were used in this report. Two In cases where 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. We included this 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 with 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 following 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 fe~t per year The acreage and physiographic type of the The locations with moderate and severe ratings are marshes in each subsegment are listed. These esti j) Shellfish Leases .and Public Grounds: further specifi ed as being critical or noncriti cal. mates of acreages were obtained from topographic The data in this report show the leased and The erosion is considered critical if buildings, maps and should be consider ed only as approxima public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir roads, or other such structures are endangered. tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands gi nia State Wat er Cont rol Board publication The degree of erosion was determined by several are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealt h of means . In most locati ons t he l ong term trend was Marine Science under the authorization of the Virginia: Public, leased and condemned ," November determined using map comparisons of shoreline po Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar s i tions between the 1850 1 s and the 1940' s . In 62.1-13. 4) . These surveys include detailed acre reports. Since the condemnation areas change with addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930 1 s ages of the grass species composition within indi time they are not to be taken as definitive. How and recent years were utilized for an assessment vidual marsh systems . The material in this report ever, some insight to the conditions at the date of more recent conditions. Finally, in those areas is provided to indicate the physiographic types of of the report are availabl e by a comparison be experiencing severe erosion field inspections and marshes and to serve as a rough guide on acreages tween the shellfish grounds maps and the water interviews wer e held with local inhabitants. until detailed surveys are completed. Addi- quality maps for which water quality standards The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated tional information of the wetlands characteristics for shellfish were used. as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: tive visits were made to monitor the effective Interim Report by Marvin L. Wass and Thomas D. ness of recent installations. In instances where Wright, SRAMSOE Report No . 10, Virginia Institute

7 k) Beach Quality: Beach quality is a subjective judgment based on such considerations as the nature of the beach material, the length and width of the beach area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the beach setting.

8 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation

9 GHAPrER 3 have a high incidence of this type of development . rates of erosion reveals a difference in the PRff>ENT SHORELANDS SITUATION Other uses include seven public marinas, three full range of erosion rate for t he two areas. The OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA time boat yards, numerous seafood processing plants, highest rate, 4.4 feet per year, was recorded and twenty-nine public landings and access sites. along a portion of the Bay shore while the maxi 3. 1 THE SHORELANDS OF GLOUCff>TER COUNTY The marinas and boat yards provide a base for the mum along the York shore was 1. 9 feet per year. Gloucester County, comprising 257,0 square extensive commercial and recreational fishing ac Several reasons account for this disparity in miles, is the southernmost of the three Chesapeake tivities which occur along the county's nearshore rates yet similarity in areal losses. At this

11 11 Bay fronting counties of the middle peninsula • and offshore areas. point we will discuss the processes in shore Its York River, Piankatank River, and Chesapeake Little direct use is made of the wetlands ex erosion. Bay shorelands are incised by numerous tidal riv cept for extensive waterfowl hunting. This type ers and creeks. Altogether, there are 296 . 4 miles of use is acceptable as long as the marshes are 3 . 21 Processes of Shore Erosion of shoreline in the county. The major portion of not damaged . They should be preserved due to their Waves 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 Chesapeake Bay 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 low The beaches in the county are used primarily by four factors: the over water distance across shore are those along the York River from the for private recreation. One 200-foot section of which the wind blows, known 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 3A) . Along this area much of the fastland public use. This is the only public beach in the depth of the water. is classified as moderately low shore with bluffs Gloucester County. Due to the weather patterns affecting the r anging in height from 20 to 40 feet . The rest The nearshore and offshore zones receive inten Chesapeake Bay area, maximum winds occur during of the shore zone is composed of beaches. Most sive use by water sport enthusiasts, commer cial storms and frontal passages . The winds of north of the beaches occur in the form of narrow, fringe and sport fishennen, and heavy commercial and east stonns during the tall, winter, and spring beaches. There are only three beaches that have naval ship traffic. generate waves which attack the western shore of the potential for medium to high density recrea the Bay. The winds and low barometric pressure tional purposes. These are found, just southeast 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION IN GLOUCff>TER COUNTY near the Bay mouth have an indirect effect on of Fox Creek, around Gloucester Point, and on The magnitude of shore erosion in Gloucester erosion by forcing additional water into the Bay . lower Jenkins Neck, around Sandy Point. County varies from slight or no change to severe. This storm surge or "wind 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, wooded lands. Thirty-five percent is acres of land from its shoreline in the last one example, the severe northeast storm of March, us ed as agricultural fields . The remaining shore hundred year s. This indicates a loss of four 1962 caused water elevations in Norfolk Harbor, lands consist of residential use (18%), commercial acres per mile of shoreline in the last century. Virginia, to reach an elevation approximat ely six use ( 12%), 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 water levels occur, the wave driven or multir1e 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 York River lost 442 acres while the Bay fastland, above the natural buffer zone or beach. area and particularly the shore of Sarah Creek shore lost 437 acres . However, a review of the In addition to the height of the waves , the

10 direction at which they impinge upon the shore 3,22 The Chesap~ake 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 Gloucester' s shoreline has influenced the Point to the Guinea Marshes is basically east to beach is greatest when the waves brealc on the pattern of erosion. Those areas which directly west. Its shoreline is also characterized by shoreline at an angle of forty-five degrees. border on the Chesapealce Bay or Mobjack Bay have extensive marshes or low cliffs f r onted by fringe The erosional behavior of any particular seg undergone the most severe erosion. In general, marsh or beach. The York 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 ret reat of one foot per year to Y,ear depending upon the frequency and the Windmill Point, and portions of Ware Neck are the year with 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 was 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 two 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 West 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 was in these marshland areas. Yearly variati ons of 0.15 feet per year ar e not ceptible to erosion. The limited supply of sand uncommon. Although t hese differences are small, has prevented adequate buffering beaches from 3, 24 The Piankatank River Shore they can be signi ficant when translated to hori forming. This is particularly t:t'U.e between Wind Gloucester County also borders on a portion of zontal distances across a gently sloping shore. mill P0int and Four Point Marsh. The beach there the Piankatank River. Although fetches are The role played by beaches in the physical is extremely thin and narrow, due to the limited limited, moderate erosi on has occurred along this processes of the coastli ne merits reiteration: supply of sand available from the eroding fast por tion. Erosion along this section is primarily beaches are natur al 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 configuration of any tion are higher than the York River portion. How carries trees wit h 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 them as they fall. In ad the accumulation of sand adjusts to changing con by accounting for the similarity in acreage lost. dit ion, rain runoff over the face of these cliffs ditions. By and l arge, the natural maintenance carries away large amounts of the cliff material. of Virginia' s Chesapealce Bay beaches is attained 3.23 The York River Shore The percentage of sand in this eroded cliff ma at the expense 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 low protection necessary to hinder erosion during either at that site or from an up-drift site. A cliffs with either fringe marsh or narrow beaches times of abnormally high water. problem along the Bay shore in Gloucester County at the toe. The limited fetches allow only storms is the very low topography and resulting small from the northwest through the southeast to di 3. 3 POTENTIAL SHORELANDS USE sedi ment supply from the fastlands. rectly attack the shoreh.ne during conditions of One of the dominating influences on the growth elevated water levels. Although the marshes and of Gloucester County has been the George P. Cole beaches of this section have undergone erosion, man Bridge. Its existance has allowed ready ac the rates are generally less than one foot per cess by Gloucester and other middle peninsula

11 residents to the job market of the lower peninsula. lawns 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 conti nue 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 F. 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 which 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 iltlpact . control structures (Figure 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 s ~ers 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 . What 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. Expansion of the "T" end of An ever increasing problem is the deterioration the pier would more adequately meet this demand . of the water quali~y. 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 1E ),. and the bottom drops off dramatically very close Related actions such as over-fertilization of to the shore. The swimming area should be

12 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 ca11als have not caused an increase in boat ~se 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 shorelin~.

FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6

13 FIGURE 7: The Fox Creek area has the potential of bei ng 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, riprap 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 stonn 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 storms.

FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10

14 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHOR ELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES)

Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLANDS USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use and ownership cl assifi- . cation FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE I

>-I !:ii H H E-t ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~!:ii~ r:r:t ~~ H ~ ~ 0 H ~~ :> H~ E-t H i H ~ ~s E-! 0 E-! ~ s H OH H 0 E-! c!> f:,:1 t:I:~ r:r:t HH Sil:: :::, E-! Cl) it:I:~ II! ~t:I: ~H 0 0 i !:ii i~ Cl) lI! 0 ~ lI! lt:i:: !:ii j;: H~ ! s ~ E-! ~~ !ti A S: I A ~ 0 § H < Subsegment 0 lI! 00 § f5 ~ ~ t H c!) 0 E-! H cn ::S H :a H 9:: ~ H ;s:: 0I c!) Sil:: Cl) ss ~; i~ ~~ ~~ ~ < I ~ ~ r re 1A 3,8 3, 9 7 ,7 7 ,7 0 . 4 7 , 3 7 ,7 7 ,7 1B 6,3 6,3 4,0 2, 3 6 . 3 6 , 3 6 , 3 2A 25,0 4,0 4, 5 2 . 6 20 . 2 1. 7 9, 3 13 . 5 2.9 12 . 6 29.0 29 .0 2B 14, 2 17 , 4 12 . 9 4, 5 14 , 2 3 ,8 5, 6 3,8 22 . 2 31.6 31.6 20 1.1 3 ,7 3, 2 0 .8 0 .8 0 . 6 1.4 2.8 0 , 4 4, 4 4 ,4 0 . 4 4 ,8 3A 0 , 5 1 .o 0,4 1.1 0 . 3 1.2 0 . 1 0 , 2 1.2 1.3 0 . 2 1.5 3B 21.9 2.9 14, 3 4, 7 3,7 0,9 16 . 6 4, 4 21. 9 21.9 30 12. 1 9,2 0 , 5 1 • 2 1.2 2 . 4 4,7 5. 1 2, 3 12. 1 12. 1 4A 26 .8 0 . 2 26.6 1.5 25 , 3 12. 1 4,0 10 ,7 26 .8 26 .8 4B 64 ,8 5, 9 51 , 2 4 , 9 2 .0 0 ,8 10. 1 5,6 25 ,9 1. 9 1.4 9,7 25 , 9 64 .8 64 ,8 5A 32 ,7 28 .8 2 , 5 1.4 3, 4 4 , 5 13 , 1 3, 3 16. 3 · 32 .7 32 ,7 5B 28 , 4 25. 1 2. 1 1. 2 1 • 1 4,9 14 . 2 0 , 9 13 . 3' 28 , 4 28 .4 6 24 . 1 0 . 6 4. 1 1.1 24, 1 3 , 4 0 . 2 2 , 4 13, 5 0 . 6 2, 9 11 .8 28 .8 28 .8

SUJ3TOTAL 236 ,7 0.6 50 ,0 9. 1 27 , 4 160. 3 46,5 49 , 1 13 . 1 29 , 6 36 , 9 31 .8 103.0 2 . 9 0 .6 2 .0 54 ,8 133 . 1 295.8 0 . 6 296 ,4

% of SHORELINE BO% 0 17% 3% 9% 54% 16% 17% 4% 10% 12% 11% 35% 1% 0 1% 18% 45% 100% 0 100%

15 76° 30' MAP 1A ~~~~~UC ESTER COUNTY BRIDGE

\ 6 \ \ 37° \ \ 30 1

2 10

NORTH R RIV£ 58

3 9 5A

~'i-r} -" -.J 48 ~o~ ~ 4 ~~

' 4A ' '

// = Segment Boundary 37° 1 / = Subsegment Boundary 7 15 37° 15 1 SEGMENT AND MAP LOCATIONS

I A POROPOTANK RIVER 38 IB POROPOTANK BAY TO SE PURTON SAY 2A PURTON SAY TO BLUNDERING POINT 3A 2S BLUNDERING POINT TO S EXTENT CARMINES l ' OG 2C CARMINES ISLAND TO COLEMAN BRIDGE 3A COLEMAN BRIDGE TO SARAH CREEK 3S SARAH CREEK TO CUBA ISLAND " 4A JEN KINS NECK TO NORTHERN GUINEA NECK 4B SEVERN RIVER SA WARE RIVER 58 NORTH RIVER 6 PIANKATAN K RIVER

SCALE IN MILES 0 2 4

76° 30 76° 30• MAP 18 GLOUCESTER COUNTY BRIDGE .._,_,.•

\ \ 6 \ \ \

NORTH Rtv£R 58 18

_.. (P

SHORELANDS TYPES

37 FASTLAND 3C 15° Low Shore Low Shore with Bluff 38 Moderately Low Shore I I g I I 3A Moderately Low Shore with Bluff • • JI • • SHORE " Beach Fringe Marsh rn 111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh i'/////////// Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 SCALE IN MILES Wide •••• 0 2 3 76° 30'

MAP 1C GLOUCESTER COUNTY

BRIDGE +-f--+t

l W

\ \ 6 \ 37° \ \ 30'

37° 30'

1A lW

NORTH RIVER lW ' 58 I A ,.. 1W l R·s~'-, 18 JAi, ' - l C 1 RS - ' ~l - ' '\ IW /!{s? ' '\ , I W • ..... - , 1~::::::..-.--., - ~ , , 1 RS I , - IA 1W .... , ' ' - -0 ' ' , I RS l W WARE ~\ IA ' IRS IA RIVER \ ' \ 1A \ 2A \ lA ' ' ' '\ \ \ 4A

37° FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION . 1 15 37° USE 15' Agricultural A 2C Commercial C Government G 38 Recreational RC 3A Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded u " Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 State 3 County 4 EROSION Severe Moderate II I I I II SCALE IN MILES O 2 3 4 Slight or No Change No Symbol 76° 30 MAP 10 GLOUCESTER COUNTY

BRIDGE +-t--+

\ 6 \ \ 37° \ \ 30°

NORTH Rtv£R ' 58 ' 18 ' ' ' ' ' ' "' ~'0' ,, ~\ I\) ..,_. \ 0 ' '\ 2A \ ' ' ' \ \ \ 4A

37° 15°

37° 3C 15° 2C MARINAS AND WASTE DISCHARGES 38 Marinas With Ramps ... 3A Marinas Without Ramp •

Public Boat Landings II Sewage Disposal •

SCALE IN MILES 0 2

76° 30 76 0 30'

GLOUCESTER COUNTY BRIDGE 1 MAP 1E

I \ \ - 6 \ ''

ORTH N RIVER 58 18 5A

37° 15 1 37° 3C 1 15 2C \\'\\~' SHELLFISH AR EAS 38

Public Grounds 3A

Leased Grounds

Condemnation Areas "

0 2 3 4

760 30 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps

2'3 TABLE 2. SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA

SHORELANDS TYPE S'IORELAlIDS USE FLOOD l!.A ZARr o'IATER Ol'ALITY BEACH )UALITY Plilli fillT SHORE:I..I;;1-; SITUATION POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT 1A FASTLA!lD : Low shore near mouth (5~) and FASTLAfID : llnman~edt wooded (95t) Private. High, noncritical, Unsatisfactory. ~o beaches. Moderate, noncritical, 1. 2 feet per year. There are no POROPCY.I'ANK moderately low shore near headwaters a~d agricultural (5%J . Minimal . Marshes should be pre near mouth, low, shol'e protective structures . served. Low-density housing could RIVER (50%) . SHORE: '!."aterfowl hunting a~d !>Ublic 40,650 feet noncritical, ir. the be developed arou..~d and above the SHORE: Entirely embayed marsh . recreation. upper portions . (7.7mi. ) RIVER : narrow, meandering tidal river. RIVER : Connnercial fishing. Tanyard La~ding area. Channel depths are 6 to 13 feet. 1B FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. FAST LAND : Unmanaged, '.'lood ed . Private. High. noncritical. Unsatisfactory. 1.o beaches . Uoderate, noncr:ltical. POROPOTANK SHORE: Entirely extensive marsh. SHORE: Waterfowl hunting. Minimal . The area should be left in BAY TO NEARSHORE : Poropotank Bay is interme its natural state. The area is not NEARSHORE : Commercial and sport suitable for development due to the SOUTHEAST diate, the rest of the subsegment is fishing, shellfishing, and hunti!lg. EDGE OF narrow. high flood hazard a~d -the lowness of PURTAN BAY the shore and fastland . 33, 100 feet (6. 3 mi. )

2A FASTLAND : Moderately low shore (s6i(). FASTLA!ID : Agricultural (47,t) , un Private. Low. noncritical, l'nsatisfactory. Poor to good . Sli~ht or no change to moderate, noncritical (1 . 5 ft/ Moderate. The area will probably PURTAN BAY v:i th a 10 to 20- i'oot cliff ( 14%) . man~ed, wooded (43"';) , and residential TO BLUNDERING for most of the '.!oat beaches yr. ). There are numerous sets of shore protective continue to develop with riverfront, SHORE: Embayed marsh (69%), beach (16%) . ( 10%) . subsegment. Mod POINT fringe marsh (9%) , and artificially are narrow, structures in this subsegment, most in the form of bulk residential communities . SHORE: Private recreation. erate, critical, thin, and cov heading and groins. Most protect residences along the 153,1 20 feet stabilized (6%) . NEARSHORE : Sport and commercial (29. 0 mi.) at mouths of Jones ered with shell York River shore. Those in the cr eeks protect marinas NEARSHORE : Intermediate width. fishing and shellfishing and various and !'ox Creeks . CREEKS : Narrow and shallow. fragments . SE and seafood plants. Most of the protective structures water sports. of Fcx Creek are effective. CREEKS : Private and public recrea there is a tion and commercial shellfishing. good, clean. Pox Creek is used as a private and wide, and rela commercial boat access to a rnarina tively thick. locat ed near the mouth. sand beach. 2B FASTLAND : Moderately low shore (55%) FASTLAND : Unmana~ed , wooded (70<£) , Private. BLUNDERING Low, noncritical Unsatisfactory. no beaches. Slight or no change. There i6 300 feet of bulkhead Minimal . Any development should be and low shore (45%) . agricultural (18%) . and residential for most of the POWT TO SHORE: Fringe marsh (4~), extensive (12%) . on south Carmines Island. It is deteriorated and is restricted to higher parts of the SOUTH EXTE2>1T subsegment. ,,lod ineffective. fastland. The Catlett Islands marsh (45%), and embayed marsh (14~) . SHORE: Private recreation, boat erate, critical in OF CARMIHFS IU~ARSHORE : Intermediate width. access, and waterfowl hunting. should remain undeveloped , LANDING a~d around Carmines CREEKS : Narrow (400 f t. ), shallow. !IEARSHORE : Sport and commercial Landing. 167,000 feet tidal creeks, with muddy bottoms. fishing, shellfishing, water sports, (31 . 6 mi . ) and waterfowl hunting. CREEKS : Private and commercial boat access, some crabbing.

2C PASTLAND : Moderately low shore (77%) FASTLAl:D : Residential (92%) and Private a~d CARMINES High, critical for ''nsatisfactory. Poor except for Slight or no change (0 . 6 ft/yr. ). This is a significant Low . !Jost of the shoreline is and low shore (23%) . governmental (8%) . State. lowlands at Glou ISLANDS TO SHORE: Beach (66%), fringe marsh (17%), the beach at amount considering a 20 to 30-foot cliff is eroding. already developed as a residential SHORE : Private recreation and cester Point. Low, Gloucester There are eight sets of shore protective structures, area. THE G.P. and artificially stabilized (17%) . scientific experiments . COLE',!AN noncritical else Point, which is most of whi ch are groins and bulkheads. There are two l!EARSHORE : l'lide to narrow. IIBARSHORE : Sport and commercial where . BRIDGE fair. rock jetties. fishing, water sports, shellfishing, The jetties on the VIMS shoreline are ineffective. 25,200 feet and waterfowl hunting. (4. 8 mi.) They should be re-established and should be made higher. The effectiveness of the rest of the structures vary, depending on the local supply of eand. 3A FASTLAND : Moderately low shore with FASTLAND : Residential (80~), state Private 90~ '..loderate, critical Intennediate. Poor to good . Slight or no change due to the numerous applications of GEORGE P. bluff (67"6) and low shore (33~). (10%), a~d commercial (10~) . Minimal. Present use by the state a~d State at bridge. Low . shore protective structures (usually bulkheads with or (Vll,lS) and by residences preclude COLEJ.!A.N SHORE: Artificially stabilized (73%) SHORE: Private and public recreation. 10%. noncritical else BRIDGE TO and beach (27%) . without groins) . /.lost bulkheads are effective except much other use. However, the pub NEARSHORE : Fishing, shell±'ishing, where . those that were poorly constructed. The only groins lic beach near the bridge could SARAH 'S CREEK tlEARSHORE : Narrow near bridge. intenne water sports, sci entific experiments s,ooo feet diate off the creek entrance. that are effective are those that are being fed by an support additional recreational associated with VII~, and ss access offshore bar. (1.5 mi.) to Sarah Creek. use, if properly planned. 3B PASTWID : Low shore. FASTWID: Residential (76"'), u..~ Private. Sarah Creek is mod Intermediate. Fair. Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. There Potential for public recreation is SARAH CREEK SHORE: Fringe marsh (65%) , artificially managed, wooded (2oo;) , and commercial erate, critical. TO stabilized (2~), and beach (13%) . (4%) . are many installations of bulkheads and groins in Sarah low. There is room for some addi From Sarah Creek to Creek. All the structures are moderately effective CUJ3A ISLAND NEARSHORE : Intermediate. SHORE: Private recreation. tional residential development, Gaines Point, low. being mainly inhibited by a sufficient supply of sand. especially in Sarah Creek. Any 115,600 feet CREEKS : Wide . Dendri tic, na1Tow, 6-foot :IBARSFIORE: Shellfishing, commercial critical. Between (21.9 mi.) channel nu1s through most of the sub and sport fishing, and waterfowl changes should be executed with the Gaines Point and total environment in mind. segment. hunting. :,laintained channel proVides Cuba Isla~d, high. access to Sarah Creek. critical. CREEK : Access to the York River for privat e and commerci al boats .

24 TABLE 2 ( con'd.)

"HOR:.LA:IDS USF. '.l\','NERSHIP FLOOL ~ZARD ·:/ATER QUALITY BF.ACH QUALITY PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATI0t1 POTENTIAL l.JSE ENHANCEMENT 3C l'ASTWID : Low shore. PASTf,AND : ,;esidenti~ (42'"b) . agricul.- 'r:!.vate . ':igh. critical c?:tennediate. Fair. ; oderate. critical, from Sandy Point to the mouth of Minimal, due to the low contour of CUBA ISLA:ID SHORE: Beach 176"). embayed marsh (10;1l) , tural (,~). and unmanaged, wooded along the York the Perrin River. Slight or no change elsewhere in the the fastland, the high flood haze.rd . TO 11\STr.:RN artificially stabilized (10 '.) , and fringe ( 1~). River shore. :.!od subsegment. There is 6,400 feet of bulkheading l'lith or and the moderate erosion rate. !iXTENT OF marsh (4 ') . SHORe' : Some swirnining areas . ere.te. critical without groins. Those st:nictures in good repair are JE::t:1::s :; ::·:r 'ARSHORE : Intennediate 1·,'ith tidal 'iEA.lt:P, •RE : ~om:nercial and sport along the Perrin effective. 64,000 feet flats . fishing, boating, water soorts, and River. (12. 1 mi . ) ehellfishing.

4A "AJ'!'!.A;~: Low shore. PASTuA!!D : Agricultural f45~) , -m- Private. High . critical. llnsatisf'actory. Poor. Slight or no change for moat of the subsegment. On Low . The lowness of the fastland JE~1Y.H1S 1/ECi, SHORE: Rxtensive marsh ( 99··4) and fringe mana$ed, wooded (40''), and residential Jenkins !leek at the end of Route 646 there is moderate, prohibits residential development, TO NORTHERN beach (1-.;) . (i 5.<'.) . critical erosion. There is severe, noncritical erosion and the lack of good beaches limit s GU I!lE.4 :Ji•: ;K m:ARSH"IRL: ·.:1de (9,1-') and intermediate SHOR"': ;;at•erfowl hunting. at a marsh on John \'lee t Creek. There are no protective the recreat ional potent ial. 141,600 feet (6%) . :IBARSHORE: ':ornmercial and sport structures . (26 .8 mi.) fishing, and shellfishing.

4B FASTLA:ID: Low shore. FASTMIID : Agricultural ( 4~), ~ Private. High . critical. Unsatisfactory. Poor. No data available for the Severn River. There is mod This area ha.a a prime potential for SEVERN RIVrJR SHORE: Fringe marsh (791), beach (9t), man8Red , wooded ( 401') \ residential erate, noncritical erosion from Turtle Neck Point residential development. However, 342 .000 feet embayed marsh (~) . extensive marsh ('~<) , ( 15;·.J , commercial (""J , and recrea- north to the end of the subsegment. There is about any developments should be care (64 .a mi.) and artiflcially stabilized 11,Z) . tional (2~). 6,000 feet of bulkheading, mostly at Saddlera Neok, fully planned. The marshes should lllsA!lSHORE : Narrow along tho Severn River SHORl~ : '.'laterfowl hunting. and a f1;1•1 scattered groins. r.!ost at:ructures are mod always be preserved, River, intermediate along the '.,'.objack NEARS '!ORE: .::ommercial and sport erately effective. Bay . fishing , shellfi shing, and water sports.

5A PASTLA.'lD : Lav, shore. PASTLAND : 1Jrunanl!j$ed . wooded (50"Z) , Private. High. noncritical Satisfactory. Poor. Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. The There ia room for additional res //AR RIV":R SHOR£: Fringe marsh (88f.) . embayed agricultural (40%), and residential along the mouth of western ohore of Ware Neck experiences the most ero idential development. However, it 172,400 feet marsh (8%) , and artificially stabilized (10%) . the river. Migh . sion. Here, rates range from 1 . 4 to 3-3 feet per should be restricted to the higher (32 . 7 mi . ) (4"'.) . SHORE: •::a terfowl hunting. critical at Jarvie year. There ia 7, 400 feet of bulkheading, some with fastland. All marshes should be RIVER : tlarrow from Jarvis Point to :,are RIVER: Commercial and sport fishing, Point and Baileys. groins. All structures seem moderately effective. left in thei1• natural state. Nook Point and off Roanes Wharf; intenne water sports, and shellfishing. Moderate, noncrit diate east of the mouth of Wilson <'reek. ical for the rest CREEK : Broad , shallow, dendritic, tidal of the subsegment. creek.

5B PASTLAllD: Low shore. PASTLA:ID: Agricultural ( 5Q%), un Private. High, critical Intermediate. No beaches. Slight or none to moderate, noncritical. There is Additional housing development will NORTH RIVER SHORE: Fringe marsh (88\b) , embayed managed, wooded (47%) , and residen along eastern bulkheading, most of it with groins and some rip continue but should be restricted 150,000 feet marsh (8%) , and artificial ly stabilized tial (3%) . front of Ware rapping. All structures appear effective. to the higher fastland. All marshes (28. 4 mi . ) (4%) . SHORE: Private access and recrea Neck, moderate, should be left in their natural RIVER : Intermediate to Lone Point; nar tion. noncritical for state. row from Lone Point to Belleville <'reek . RIVE!l: \'later sports, sport fishing, the rest of the and commercial shellfishing. subsegment.

6 PASTLA1/D : Low shore {84%) , low shore PASTLAND : Agricultural ( 47!/6) , un Private. Moderate, oritical Intermediate. Poor. Slight or no change except for some places between Marshes should be left 1n their PIAN'KATANK with bluff (2%), and moderately low man~cd, wooded (41\lb), residential from the segment•a French and Perry Creeks, where it is moderate, non natural state. The higher ground RIVER shore with bluff ( 14'16) . ( 10%} 1 and recreational (2't) . start to Blanda critical. The only area of protective structures i s propert ies oan be developed . 152,000 feet SHORE: Fringe marsh (83%) . embayed SHORE: Private recreat ion. Wharf. Low, non- some bulkheading southeast of Anderson Point. (28.8 mi . ) marsh (12%) , beach (4%), and artificially RIVER : '.'later sports, sport fishing, critice.l elsewhere. stabilized (1%) . and commercial shellfishing. RIVER : llarrow from the segment start to Cooper Point. From there the river has average depths of less than 4 feet .

25 POROPOTANK RIVER, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA and above could be developed with low density POROPOTANK BAY TO SOUTHEAST EDGE OF PURTAN BAY, SUBSEGMEl\lT 1A (Maps 2A, 2B, and 2C) housing. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAPS : USGS, 7. 5 Min .Ser. (Topo.), GRESSIT Quadr. , SUBSEGMF.NT 1B (Maps 2A, 2B, and 2C) EXTENT : 40,650 feet (7 ,7 mi., 265 ac. ) from the 1965 . headwaters of the Poropotank River to its C&GS, #495, 1 : 40,000 scale, YORK RIVER, Yorktown to West Point, 1973, EXTENT : 33,100 feet (6 , 3 mi . ) from the Poropo mouth. ta.nk Bay to the southeast edge of Purtan Bay, including Adams Creek. SHORELANDS TYPE PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-1A/255-276 , FASTLAND : Low shore 50% (3 .8 mi . ), near its SHORELANDS TYPE mouth and moderately low shore 50% (3 . 9 mi , ), FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. near the headwaters. SHORE : Extensive marsh. SHORE : Entirely embayed marsh (237 acres) . NEARSHORE : Poropotank Bay is inte1mediate, RIVER : Narrow (400 ft . ), meandering, tidal the remainder of the subsegment is narrow. river. Depths range from 6 to 13 feet in the channel. The channel entrance is marked with SHOR.ELANDS USE buoys . FASTLAND : Unmanaged, wooded . SHORE : Waterfowl hunting. SHORELANDS USE NEARSHORE : Commercial and sport fishing, FASTLAN.]j : Unmanaged , wooded 95% (7 , 3 mi . ) shellfishing, and hunti ng. and agricultural 5% (0. 4 mi . ) . SHORE : Waterfowl hunting and boat launching OFFSHORE : The York River Channel lies less than (Miller and Tanya.rd public landings) . 200 yar ds offshore of Purtan Island. The RIVER : Commercial fishing, channel maintains depths of 32 feet throughout its extent along this subsegment . It is marked OWNERSHIP : Private. with lighted and regular buoys .

FLOOD HAZARD : High, noncritical near t;he mouth, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The shorel ine trend is low, noncritical in the upper portions . from NW to SE. Fetches are from the NW - 5,7 miles, W - 1.7 miles~ SW - 1.0 miles, and S - WATER QUALITY : Unsatisfactory. 1. 7 miles.

BEACH QUALI TY: There are no beaches in this sub OWNERSHIP : Private. segment. FLOOD HAZARD : Hi gh, noncritical. PRESENT SHORE EROS I ON SI TUATION EROSION RATE : Moderate, noncri tical, 1.2 feet WATER QUALITY : Unsatisfactory. per year. The area of marshes at the mouth of Poropotank River and around Morris Bay have BEACH QUALITY : There are no beaches in this sub lost approximately 11 acres in the last 100 segment. years. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : None . EROSION RATE : Moderate, noncritical. Histori cally the areas most affected have been the Suggested Action: None . marshes of Purtan Island and around West 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. ENDANGER.ED STRUCTURES : None . POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Minimal. The marshes SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : None . should be preserved and maintained in their natural state. The area around Tanya.rd Landing

26 Suggested Action: None .

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

POTENTIAL USE ENRANCEXII.IENT : The area should be preserved in its natural state. The lowness of the shore and irrunediate fastland and the high flood hazard would put houses in jeopardy if they were to be established.

MAPS : USGS, 7, 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), GRESSIT, Quadr., 1965. C&GS , #495, 1 :40,000 scale, YORK RIVER , Yorktown to West Point, 1973.

PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-1B/246- 254.

27 PURTAN BAY TO BLUNDERING POINT, along this portion of the creek. Channel en SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : There are numer GLOUCJiSTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA trance is flanked by two small marsh covered ous sets of shore protective structures in spits . this subsegment . These are associated with SUBSEGMENT 2A the small residential developments which occur (Maps 2A, 2B, 2C , 3A , 3B, 30, and 4A , 4B , 4C) SHORELANDS USE along the York River portions of the shoreline. FASTLAND : Agricultural 47% (13, 6 mi . ), un At Almondsville there is approximately 500 feet managed, wooded 43% (12 . 5 mi . ), and residen of ineffecti ve bulkhead due to poor construc EXTENT : 153,120 feet (29,0 mi . ) from Purtan Bay tial 10% (2 ,9 mi , ) . tion. One quarter mile north of Fox Creek to Blundering Point which includes Purtan (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, (2 .8 mi.), Sandy (1.6 mi.), Jones (3 .6 mi . ), shellfishing and various other water sports. protecting the marina facilities, and jetties 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 FASTLAND : Moderately low shore 86% (25,0 mi.) boats use the creek for berthing and as access feet of bulkheading of moderate to poor effec with the remaining 4 miles of shoreline along to a commercial shellfish operation. Fox tiveness . Some of this is in a deteriorating the York River backed by rn to 20-foot cliffs . Creek is used for private and commercial boat condition and being flanked. Associated with SHORE : Embaied marsh 69% (20.0 mi . ), beach access to a marina located near the mouth. these emplacements is 2,700 feet of concrete 16% (4. 6 mi . ), fringe marsh 9% (2.6 mi ,), and bulkheading at Clay Bank. This is working artificially stabilized 6% (1 , 7 mi . ) . OFFSHORE : The York River Channel lies directly fairly well but could use weep holes and pos NEARSHORE : Intermediate. Along the York River offshore. The channel is marked by lighted sibly additional toe protection. Along the the shelf is shallow but drops off quickly to and unlighted buoys . Depths range from 30 to northern peninsula of Aberdeen Creek there is deeper water at the 6-foot contour. Bottom 44 feet . numerous tugboats and small frei ghters approximately 900 feet of effective bulkheading. mat erial is primarily a sandy- mud . use the channel as access to West Point . Within Aberdeen Creek there is approximately CREEKS : The creeks are generally shallow, nar 300 feet of bulkheading preventing boat wake row, dendritic, embayed marsh, tidal creeks. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The shoreline is oriented erosion. Between Gum Point and Aberdeen Creek Purtan Creek: 93 acres of marsh, shallow, mud rrw to SE. Fetches are from the NE - 8 miles, there is 1,800 feet of bulkheading and 7 groins . dy bottomed, with forested fastland. E - 2 miles, SE - 2t miles, and S - 7 miles . For the most part this seems effective but Leigh Creek : 17 acres of marsh, shallow, mud there are signs of flanking towards the north dy bottomed, with northwest fastland forested OWNERSHIP : Private. end . Between Gum Point and Blundering Point and southeast fastland being agricultural there is one installation of approximately 800 f ields . FLOOD HAZARD : Low, noncritical except for the feet of good to fairly effective bulkheading Bland Creek : 80 acres of marsh, shallow, mud residences near the mouth of Jones Creek and with 22 groins . Just north of Jones Creek dy bottomed, embayed marsh with forested fast the buildings at the mouth of Fox Creek which there is about 500 feet of effective bulkhead. land. are moderate, critical. Purtan Bay: Shallow, with a maximum depth of Suggested Action: Repair deteriorated bulk 4 feet . The above mentioned three creeks drain WATER QUALITY : Unsatisfactory. heads and those that are being flanked to stop into this bay. further erosion. In several areas elsewhere in Fox Creek : 60 acres of marsh, shallow, muddy BEACH QUALITY : Poor to good . Most of the beaches the subsegment , the establishment of a marsh bottomed, embayed mar sh, Fastland is forested are narrow and thin. Also, the nearshore zone grass planting program could be implemented . in portions, other portions are agricultural contains many areas of broken shell fragments If this were a well planned program it could, fields . which warrant; caution when beaches are used for in many areas, be more effective than struc Sandy Creek: 47 acres of marsh, shallow, muddy swimming or crabbing. However, there is one tures. bottomed, embayed marsh with forested fastland . beach which exists immediately southeast of Fox Jones Creek : 228 acres of marsh, shallow, mud Creek that is excellent. It is wide for an OTHER SHORE STRUCTURJiS : There are 77 piers and dy bottomed, embayed marsh creek with fastland upper river beach, clean, and relatively thick. docks of various lengths within this subseg used for agriculture. ment . Aberdeen Creek: 68 acres of marsh. Upper PRJiSENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION branches are shallow, muddy bottomed, embayed EROSION RATE : Historically the rate ranges POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : This subsegment will marsh creeks. Lower portion is 700 feet wide from slight or no change (0. 4 ft/yr. ) to mod probably continue to develop with riverfront, with a marked and maintained channel. Con erate, noncrjtical (1 ,5 ft/yr. ) . residential communities , With this continued trolling depth is 6 feet . Fringe marsh occurs ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . pressure will arise the demand for shore

28 protecti on and r ecreational beaches. Prefer BLUNDERI NG POINT TO SOUTH EXTENT OF CARMINES I SLANDS FLOOD HAZARD : Low, noncritical except for struc ably, the measures taken to control the ero GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA tures in and around Cannines Landing which are sion problem should be approached through a moderate , critical. comprehensive plan rather than individual, SUBSEGM.El\TT 2B (Maps 4A, 4B, 40, and 5A , 5B, 5C) stop-gap, measures. As for the beaches, they WATER QUALITY : Unsatisfactory. have limited potential for recreational use . However, several areas could be enhanced EXTENT : Approximately 167,000 feet (31 , 6 mi . ) of BEACH QUALITY : There ar e no beaches in this sub through beach nourishment . shoreline. from Blundering Point to the south segment . erly extent of Carnu.nes I slands. MAPS : USGS, 7 , 5 Min .Ser. (Topo . ), GRESSIT Quadr. , PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION 1965, SHORELANDS TYPE EROSION RATE : Slight or no change . Histori USGS, 7,5 Min . Ser. (Topo . ) , WILLIAMSBURG FASTLAND : Moderately low shore 55% (17 , 4 mi , ) cally the rate of shoreline retreat is approx Quadr., 1965 , and and low shore, behind the Catlett and Carmines imately 0 ,7 feet per year. The area most af USGS , 7 , 5 Min .Ser. (Topo . ), CLAY BANK 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 which 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 Yorktown to West Point, 1973, (4 , 5mi.). Creek and Cedarbush Creek has lost approxi NEARSHORE : Intermediate with extensive mud mately 33 acr es in the same time span. PHOTOS : Aerial- VIMS GL- 2A/197- 245 , flats surrounding the Catlett and Carmines ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . Islands. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Ther e is ap CREEKS : Approximately 400 feet wide, shallow , proximat ely 300 f eet of ol d bulkhead on south tidal creeks, with muddy bottoms . Carmines Island. It is i n a deteriorating condition and is completely ineffective . SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND : Unmanaged, wooded 70% (22 , 2 mi . ), Suggested Action: None. agricultural 18% (5,6 mi .), and residential 12% ( 3 • 8 mi. ) . OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are 42 piers along' SHORE : Private recreation, boat access, and the shore of this subsegment. A foot bridge waterfowl hunting. spans a small branch of upper Timberneck Creek. NEARSHORE : Sport and commercial fishing, shellfishing, water sports, and waterfowl POTENT IAL USE ENHANC:EMENT : 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 ment there would caus e 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 We tlands Law of 1972, channel assume a moderate slope from the river shelf to the bottom of the channel, Depths MAPS : USGS , 7 , 5 Min .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 scal e , YORK RIVER, as noted on C&GS chart# 495 , The channel is Yorktown to West Point, 1973 . used extensively by large naval ships , freight ers i n transit to West Poi nt and numerous pri PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL- 2B/132-196 . vate and naval tugs .

WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The basic orientation of the shoreline is NW to SE. Fetches are from the W - 4 miles, SW - 2 miles , and S - 2t miles .

OWNERSHIP : Private.

29 CARMINES ISLA.N])S TO GEORGE P. COLEMAN BRIDGE, is floored by muddy- sand and affords good PHOTOS : Aerial -VIMS 150ct73 GL-20/90; GLOUCESTER COUNTY , VI RGINIA swimming only at high water. 06Nov73 GL-2C/1 12-134, SUBSEGMENT 20 (Maps 5A, 5B , and 5C) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE : Slight or no change. Histori cally, the rate has been 0 . 6 feet per year. EXTENT : Approximately 25 , 200 feet (4.8 mi . ) from Although this is not high, it i s significant the southeast edge of Carmines Islands to the when consideri ng that a 20 to 30-foot high George P. Coleman Bridge. cliff is being eroded. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : There are eight FASTLAND : Moderately low shor e 77% (3. 7 mi.) sets of shore protective structures within this and low shore 23% (1 . 1 mi . ). subsegment. They are either bulkhead or bulk SHORE : Beach 66% (3. 2 mi . ), fringe marsh 17% head and groin installations . With the excep (0.8 mi . ), and ar tificially stabilized 17% tion of the jetties at the inlet to the VIMS (0.8 mi . ) . marina, all structures are effective. NEARSHORE : Wide to narrow with sandy-mud bot tom sediments on the shelf. The 12-foot con Suggested Action: The two jetties at the en tour is less than 50 feet from the shore at trance to the VIMS marina should be heightened. the George P. Col eman Bridge. Sand is overflowing the top of the jetty and partially blocking the inlet. Elsewhere, a SHORELANDS USE policy of reducing the slope of the cliffs FASTLAND : Residential 92% (4. 4 mi.) and gov behind stabilized areas should be implemented. errunental, state, 8% (0.8 mi . ). Also, building structures closer than a pre SHORE : Private recreation and scientific ex determined distance (determined by the erosion periments at the Virgi nia Insti tute of Marine rate) would be discouraged. To not follow Science at Gloucester Point. this policy would lead to endangered structures NEABSHORE : Water sports, sport and commercial due to erosion. f i shi ng, shellfishing, and waterfowl hunti ng. Between county Routes 1303 and 1305 a section of the shoreline has been dredged immediately OFFSHORE : The York River Channel l i es 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 conunercial and naval ships . bulkhead, should be stopped. It leads to ac Also, numerous tugboats and their tows t r affic celerated erosion, creates a settling basin this channel. which deteriorates the water quality and leads to continued maintenance problems , WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The general shoreline trend i s N to NE and S to SE. Fetches are OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are 22 piers in from t he NW - 1.8 miles, W - 2. 2 miles, SW - this subsegment. 1 .4 miles, and S - 1. 4 miles . POTENTIAL USE ENRANCEMENT : Low . Most of the OWNERSHIP : Private and State. shoreline is already developed to a maximum as a residential area. FLOOD HAZARD : Low , noncritical except for the lowlands at Gloucester Point which are high, MAPS : USGS , 7 , 5 Min .Ser. (Topo . ), ACHILLES critical. Quadr. , 1965 . USGS, 7 , 5 Min .Ser. (Topo . ), CLAY BANK WATER QUALITY : Unsatisfactory. Quadr., 1965 . USGS, 7 , 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), YORKTOWN 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 Poi nt i s a medium width, Yorktown to West Point, 1973 , clean, sand beach. Here, the nearshore zone

30 GEORGE P. COLEMAN BRIDGE TO SARAH CREEK, PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Where this relationship does not exist, the GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA EROSION RATE : Slight or no change . In the groins have not been effecti ve. past this subsegment has experienced shoreline SUBSEGMENT 3A (Maps 5A, 5B, and 50) 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 would require a compre stopped due to extensive applications of shore hensive study of the area. The resul tant plan EXTENT : 8,000 feet (1 . 5 mi . ) from the George P. line defense structures. would require a unified solution shared by all Coleman Bridge to Sarah Creek. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. property owners. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Approximately 70% SHORELANDS TYPE of the shoreline in thj_s subsegment is pro OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are twelve piers FASTLAND : Moderately low shore with bluff 67% tected by structures. The primary type of along this subsegment. Three are state owned, (1 . 0 mi.) and low shore 33% (0. 5 mi.). structure is bulkheading, with or without the rest are private. Two of the state owned SHORE : Beach 27% (o . 4 mi.) baclced by artifi groins . The proliferation of structures along piers service research vessels associated with cial stabilization 73% ( 1. 1 mi.) . this subsegment have been effective in halting the marine laboratory. NEARSHORE : Narrow near the bridge, reaching the retreat of the shoreline. However, sev intermediate off the creek entrance. eral installations of bulkheading have failed POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : For most of the sub due to improper construction techniques . In segment, present use by the Virginia Institute SHOREL.AfIDS USE several cases the lack of tongue and groove of Mari ne Science and by residential use pre FASTLAND : Residential 80% ( 1 . 2 mi . ) , state sheet pile and filter cloth has led to leaching empt any a l ternate use of the shorelands. The owned marine research facility 10% (0.2 mi . ), of fastland material through the buDchead. In area with the greatest use potential is that and commercial -io% ( O. 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 structure below beach and the new ramp facilities have already recreation is limited to two, 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 Waterview, 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. was 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 swimming shellfishing, water sports (boating, swimming, This subsegment has a limited amount of sand except near the commercial pier at the end of skiing, etc.), and scientific experiments available to maintai n its beaches. Prior to the point. In t his area the current s can be associated with the Virginia Institute of the construction of the bulkheading, sand was extremely swift and the nearshor e bottom drops Marine Science. The nearshore is also used as supplied from the eroding fastland. Much of off close to the shore. Therefore, life an access to Sarah Creek and its ' tributaries . this source has now been eliminated. There guarding facilities should be instituted as fore, the beaches are forced to maintain them this area will experi ence an ever increasing OFFSHORE : The channel is approximately 400 yards selves with existing beach sand and rely on the heavy use. from the shore, except near the bridge, where transport of sand to the shore from the off the channel l i es very close to the shore. The shore bars . The limited knowledge of bar MAPS : USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo. ) , ACHILLES York River Channel experiences heavy use by transport indicates that this amount is small. Quadr. , 1965, commercial and mi litary ships. Also, vertical structures tend to eliminate USGS, 7,5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAY BANK sand in front of them unless there is a wide, Quadr. , 1965. OWNERSHIP : Private 90% and State 10%. high, beach with continued input of sand from USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), POQUOSON WEST 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 . ), YORKTOWN of the subsegment adjacent to the bridge. storms . This overtopping leads to turbulence Quadr. , 1965 , Pr. 1970, Elsewhere the flood hazard is low, noncritical. generated at the base of the bulkhead which C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE removes the sand to an offshore bar. BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, WATER QUALITY : Intermediate. The numerous groins along this subsegment 1971 . are, with few exceptions, not effective. Their BEACH QUALITY : Poor to good, The section of primary functi on has been to lock an existing PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-3A/73-90 , beach near the bridge is good, the rest of the beach in place. In those areas where they have length of the subsegment has thin, narrow, been effective there appears to be a relation beaches . ship of that area to an offshore bar which is apparently feeding some sand to the beach.

31 SARAH CREEK TO CUBA ISLAND, BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches are of moder PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 150ct73 GL-3B/44- 74, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA ate width and thickness but offer little pro tection during high water and storm conditions. SUBSEGMENT 3B (Maps 5A, 5B, 5C, and 6A, 6B, 6C) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE : Slight or no change to moder EXTENT : 115,600 feet (21,9 mi,) from Sarah Creek ate, noncritical. The central section is the to Cuba Island. Sarah Creek is included in most severely affected with a rate of 1,4 feet the subsegment . per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None, SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 21 FASTLAND : Entirel y low shore. bulkhead installations within Sarah Creek. SHORE: Fringe marsh 65% (14. 2 mi . ), artifi Around Quarter Point there is extensive bulk cially stabilized 22% (4 , 9 mi.), and beach 13% heading with one groin application. On the (2.8 mi . ). east side of Gaines Point there are 26 groins . NEARSHORE : Intermediate, shallow 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 two main branches. of groins and bulkheads . All the installa tions are moderately effective being mainly SHORELANDS ·usE inhibited by a sufficient supply of sand. FASTLAND : Residential 76% (16,6 mi,), un managed, wooded 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 NEARSHORE : Shellfishing, waterfowl 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 subsegment . CREEK : Access for private and commercial boats to and from the York River. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are 86 piers in this subsegment. OFFSHORE: The main York River Channel lies 1,760 yards off the entrance to Sarah Creek. The POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Potential development channel is 800 yards wide and approximately 50 for public use is low in this subsegment. How 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 creel{ to changes facilitating waterfront during the appropriate seasons . residence. These being oriented in providing access to personal boats . These changes, in WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : Basic orientation of the the form of dredged channels, bulkheads , piers, shore is E to W. Fetches are from the SW - etc. , should be executed with the total envi 3t miles, S - 2f miles, SE - 3t miles and E - ronment in mind. Specifics on these consider 22 miles. ations are available from the Gloucester County Wetlands Board, the Virginia Institute of OWNERSHIP : Private. Marine Science, and the Corps of Engineers .

FLOOD HAZARD: Sarah Creek is moderate, critical. MAPS : USGS, 7 , 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ) , ACHILLES The section between Sarah Creek and Gaines Quadr. , 1965 , Point is low, critical and between Gaines USGS , 7, 5 Min .Ser. (Topo . ), POQUOSON WEST Point and Cuba Island is high, critical, Quadr. , 1965, Pr. 1970, C&GS, #494, 1: 40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE WATER QUALITY: Intermediate. BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, 1971 .

32 CUBA ISLAND TO EASTERN EXTENT OF J ENKINS NECK, Perrin River is a rather broad beach, and the shoreline paral lel to the last 1,200 feet of GLOUCESTER COUNTY , VIRGINIA Route 646 on Jenki ns Neck has a very broad and SUBSEGMENT 3C (Maps 6A, 6B, 6C , and 7A, 7B, 7C) ni ce beach.

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXTENT : 64,000 feet (12.1 mi . ) of shoreline from EROSION RATE : Moderate, critical (1.9 ft/yr. ) Cuba Island to the eastern extent of Jenkins 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 Jenkins Neck . subsegment, there is slight to no erosion. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : Residences a l ong the SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline from Sandy Point to the sand spit FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. are endangered. SHORE: Narrow, fringe beach 76% (9. 2 mi . ), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : There is 6,400 embayed marsh near the headwater s of the Per feet of bulkheading and/or groins, mostly lo rin River 10% (1.2 mi . ), fringe marsh around cated along Jenkins Neck, which experiences Cuba Island 4% (0. 5 mi.), and arti ficially winds and seas f~om the Bay. Those bulkheads stabilized (bulkheads and/or groins) 10% (1.2 which are in good repair are effecti ve. The mi . ). others are not effective primarily due to poor NEARSHORE : Intermedi ate with tidal flats. construction techniques or old age . Several groins are flanked or were never properly ti.ed SHORELANDS USE to existing bulkheads. FASTLAND : Residential (along the fastland shore interface) 42% (5 . 1 mi . ), agricultur al Suggested Action: The broken or ol d bulkheads 39% (4. 7 mi . ), and unmanaged, wooded 19% (2. 3 should be repaired and the flanked groi ns mi . ). should be properly tied to the bulkheads or SHORE : Some small beaches are used as swim the bank. In other areas consideration should ming areas. be given to using shorter groins or a sill. NEARSHORE : Boati ng, water sports, commercial The sill arrangement could be implemented with and sport f i shing, and shellfishing. or without groins.

OFFSHORE : The York River Channel, about 2,000 OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are approximately yards offshore, has depths of at least 32 feet . 43 pi ers. The channel is marked by lighted and regular buoys . POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Minimal. Due to the low contour of the fastland, special emphasis WIND ANTI SEA EXPOSURE : The shoreline in this in any residential building must be given the subsegment trends E to W. 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. growth of the present residential use is con sider ed best. OWNERSHIP : Private. MAPS : USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), ACHILLES FLOOD HAZARD : High, critical. Along the York Quadr., 1965 . Ri ver shoreline interface, many residences are C&GS, #494, 1:40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE below the 5-foot contour. Moderate , critical BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, along the Perrin River, where dwellings are 1971. general ly above the 5-foot contour. PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 150ct73 GL- 3C/1 1-43. WATER QUALITY : Intermediate.

BEACH QUALITY : Fair. Most of the beaches are narrow. The spit to the east of the mouth of

'3 '3 JENKINS NECK TO ~JORTHERN GUINEA NECK , narrow, fringe beaches in front of some parts SEVER.l"V RIVER , GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGI NIA of the marshes. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 4B SUBSEGMENT 4A (Maps 7A, 7B, 7C) PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION (Maps 6A , 6B, 6C, 7A, 7B, 7C, and BA, SB , BC) EROSION RATE : Erosi on 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 Jenkins Neck EXTENT : 342,200 feet (64 .8 mi . ) of shor el ine from the eastern extent of Jenkins Neck to the at the end of Route 646 has moderate, critical from t he mouth of the Severn River ext ending Severn Triangulation on Guinea Neck . Includ (1.1 fr/yr. ) erosion. There is severe, non to a point half-way between Ware River Point ing John West Creek, Blevins Creek, and Browns critical erosion at the marsh beginning at the and Windmill Point, on the Mobjack Bay. In Bay. Not i ncluded in the subsegment measure east mouth of John West Creek and extending cluding the numerous creeks flowing into the ment are the Great Island Marshes (17,200 ft . ), south 3,400 feet . Historically, erosion here Severn River. Hog Island (6,400 ft.), and Guinea Marshes has been 4, 4 feet per year. Island at Little Monday Creek (15,800 ft . ) . ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: Several residences on SHORELANDS TYPE Jenki ns Neck at the end of Route 646 are en FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. SHORELANDS TYPE dangered. SHORE : Fringe marsh 79% (51 . 2 mi . ) , beach 9% FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : None . (5 , 9 mi . ), embayed marsh 8% (4, 9 mi . ), exten SHORE : Extensive marsh ~~th ,,100 feet of sive marsh 3% (2.0 mi . ) , and artificially fringe beach. Suggested Action: Bulkheading with an over stabi l i zed 1% ( 0 .8 mi.) . NEARSHORE : Intermediate at Jenkins Neck and wash stone apron would halt the erosion at the NEARSHORE : Narrow along the Severn River, i n at the northern one-fifth of the subsegment. endangered sites . tennediate along the Mobjack Bay. Elsewhere, wide with tidal flats . OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are three piers on SHORELANDS USE SHORELANDS USE Jenkins Neck, at the end of Route 646 , and FASTLAND : Agricultural 40% (25 , 9 mi . ), un FASTLAND : Agricultural 45% (12 .1 mi.), un three piers on Browns Bay, 2,000 feet west of managed, wooded 40% (25 , 9 mi . ), resi dential managed , wooded 40% (10 , 7 mi . ), and residen the mouth of Blevins Creek. 15% (9. 7 mi . ), cormnercial 3% (1,9 mi . ), and tial 15% (4.0 mi , ) . recreati onal 2% (1 , 4 mi . ). SHORE: Waterfowl hunting. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Low . The lowness of SHORE : Water fowl hunting. NEARSHORE : Commercial and sport fishi ng, and the land makes residential development hazard NEARSHORE : Conunercial and sport f i shing, shellfi shi ng . ous, and its lack of suitable beaches prohibits shell fishing, and water sports . any recreati onal development. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The shoreline i n this WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE:· The shoreline trend is subsegment trends NNW to SSE. Fetches at Bush MAPS : USGS, 7 , 5 Min . Ser. (Topo . ), ACHILLES NW to SE on t he Mobjack Bay. The Severn River Point are ESE - unl imited across the Chesapeake Quadr. , 1965 . trends W to E with tributari es combini ng at Bay, E - 3, 4 miles, N - 4, 5 miles, and SE - 1.6 USGS, 7, 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ) , NEW POINT Saddl er s Neck f r om various directions. Fetches miles . Except where offshore islands protect COMFORT Quadr., 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, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, 2 . 6 miles, and SE - unlimited across the Bay. t he 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 mil es, WNW - 1.7 mi les, and SSW - 1,9 miles. PHOTOS : Aerial- VIMS 1 50ct73 GL-4A/1-10; miles, and NE - 2.8 miles. At War e River 06Nov73 GL-4A/3 16-328. Point, fetches are SE - unlimited across the OWNERSHIP : Private. Bay, E - 2 . 9 miles, NE - 1. 9 miles, N - 2 , 3 miles, and NW - 2.0 miles. The fetch at Stump FLOOD HAZARD : High, critical. This is a low Point is E - 5,2 miles . mar sh area, most residences are l ocated below t he 5-foot contour. Wi th the exposur e of this OWNERSHIP : Private. subsegment to t he Chesapeake Bay, the flood hazard is very hi gh. FLOOD HAZARD : High, critical. This is a l ow area and many residences , especially on Sad WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. dlers Neck, are below the 5-foot contour.

BEACH QUALITY : Poor . The only beaches ar e those WATER QUALITY: Unsatis fact ory.

34 BEACH QUALITY : Poor. There is some narrow beach This practice should be stopped. Marsh areas PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-4B/329-437 ; in front of Four Point Marsh, and fringe beach have many beneficial effects on the shorelands. 07Dec73 GL-4B/446-452. at Mud 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-induced 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 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . areas exposes the fastland to the direct forces SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Bulkheading of erosive agents and flood waters. (about 4,000 ft . ) , located primarily on Sad In several instances the material used to dlers Neck , combined with some groins in backfill a bulkhead and cover the existing places . All structures are moderately effec marsh was dredged from immediately in front of tive except at Stump Point where 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 Stump source, the marsh. Second, the resultant Point is incomplete and not properly con dredged hole leads to deterioration of the structed. However, i n this area construction nearshore waters. These deep holes act as should be restricted. Other types of struc traps for sediment and biologic detritus . tures should be used for the retaining of fill This produces an anaerobic environment which to prevent additional damage to the marshes. does not allow the growth of organisms and Consideration should be given to the use of which can be very odoriferous at low tide. gabions in place of vertical wooden bulk Third, this practice can also lead to a quick head.ing. deterioration of the retaining structure, The supportive material for toe protection of the OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES : There are numerous piers retaining wall is not adequate, resulting in and boatramps in this subsegment. bulkhead collapse. The increase in developmental pressures and POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : This area has become water 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 which should be outlined in individual facilities for each residence by light of this developmental pressure. dredged canals and channel s , a properly de Of primary importance is the high flood haz signed and accessed marina with fastland boat ard which exists for all of the immediate storage should be implemented. Studies have waterfront fastland and, in several instances , shown 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 stonn- induced sive than in-water storage. flooding. Therefore, owners should be aware If water access is necessary from a property, that housing which develops below the 5-foot piers should be constructed to deep water rath contour in these areas have a high probability er than dredging a channel. of being flooded. With the increased development has come a MAPS : USGS , 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ) , ACHILLES growing pressure to use the shore and near Quadr. , 1 96 5 . 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 with resultant filling of the marsh,

'35 WARE RIVER , GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA shore experiences moderate to severe erosion, NORTH RIVER , GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 5A (Maps SA , SB, SC , and 9A , 9B, 90) ranging from 1, 4 feet per year to 3. 3 feet per year. SUBSEGMENT 5B (Maps 9A, 9B, 90, and 10A, 10B, 10C) ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None . SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : There is 7,400 EXTENT : 172,400 feet (32 .7 mi . ) of shoreline on EXTENT : 150, 000 feet (28,4 mi , ) of shoreline the Ware River, including Wilson Creek. feet of bulkheading, some with groins. Most structures are moderately effective to effec from the tip of Ware Neck to the headwaters of the Nort h River. SHORELANDS TYPE tive. FASTLAND : Entirely low shore. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE : Fringe marsh 88% (28.8 mi.), embayed Suggested Action: Very few areas withi~ this subsegment are experiencing severe erosion. FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. marsh 8% (2 . 5 mi.), and artificially stabi SHORE : Fringe marsh 88% (25 .1 mi,), embayed lized marsh 4% (1 . 4 mi . ) Many erosion sites, now bulkheaded, could have been remedied through an intensive marsh grass marsh 7% (2. 1 mi . ), and artificially stabi NEARSHORE : Narrow from Jarvis Point to Ware lized 4% (1.2 mi . ) . Neck Point and off Roa.nee Wharf. East of the planting program. Water access should be provided through the RIVER : Intennediate to Lone Point, narrow mouth of Wilson Creek is intermediate. from Lone Point to Belleville Creek. Shallow CREEK: Wilson Creek and the upper portions construction of piers to deep water instead of dredging canals or boat basins into the fast from there to the subsegment end at the head of the Ware River are broad, shal low, dendri wat er s of the North River. tic pattern, tidal creeks. land. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: Piers and landings. SHORELANDS USE SHORELANTIS USE FASTLANTI : Agricultural 50% ( 14. 2 mi . ) , un FASTLAND : Unmanaged, wooded 50% (16, 3 mi . ), POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : Additi onal development managed, wooded 47% (13 . 3 mi,), and residen agricultural 40% (13 .1 mi . ), and residential tial 3% (0 .9 mi.). 10% (3. 3 mi.) . or housing within the subsegment shoul d be re stricted to the higher fastland. Housing SHORE : Private access for water related activ SHORE : Waterfowl hunting. ities such as fishing, swimming , and boating NEARSHORE : Commercial and sport fishing, should be constructed in a location which does not infringe upon the existing marshes . and private recreation on sections of the beach. water sports, and shellfishing. RIVER~ Water sports, sportfi shi ng, and com mercial shellfishing. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : ~he shoreline trend is MAPS : USGS, 7 . 5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ACHILLES Quadr., 1965. N to s. The fetch at Jarvis Point is SE - WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The shoreline trend is N unl imited across the Chesapeake Bay. Fetches USGS, 7 . 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), WARE NECK Quadr., 1965, to s, with two 90° bends in the river. Fetches at Windmill Point are E - 3. 4 miles, SE - 6.0 at Ware Neck Point are SE - unlimited, N - 3,2 miles. C&GS, #494, 1 : 40 ,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Mobjack Bay and York Ri ver Entrance, mil es, E - 3, 6 miles, and S - 2.1 miles. The fetch at Elmington is ESE - 3. 2 miles. OWNERSHIP : Pr ivate. 1971, OWNERSHI P: Private. FLOOD HAZARD : High, noncritical along the mouth PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 06Nov73 GL-5A/438-445; 07Dec73 GL-5A/453-507. of t he War e River. Moderate, noncritical FLOOD HAZARD : Hi gh, cri tical along the east ern a long the War e River, except at Jarvis Point front of Ware Neck, as many residences here and at Baileys, where it is high, critical. are below the 5-foot contour. Elsewhere in the subsegment it i s moderate, noncritical. WATER QUALITY : Satisfactory. WATER QUALITY : Intennediate. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beach is a narrow, fringe beach between Jarvis Point and Ware · BEACH QUALITY : There are no beaches in this sub Neck Point. segment.

PRESENT SHORE EROS I ON SITUATION PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE : Slight or no change to severe, EROSION RATE : Slight or none to moderate, noncrit ical. The erosion rate vari es thr ough noncritical. There are several areas of moder out the subsegment, the majority of it being ate erosion ( 1. 1 ft/yr.) around Silver Creek, ei ther s light or moder ate, noncr itical. Of and between Belleville Creek and Back Creek. particular not e is War e Neck, whose western ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : Bulkheading, sev eral thousand feet with groins, and some rip rapping. All structures appear effective in protecting the shoreline.

Suggested Action: For those persons desiring access to the water, piers to deep water 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 tne shoreline of this subsegment.

POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT : 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.

MAPS : USGS , 7 . 5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), ACHILLES Quadr., 1965. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo . ), WARE NECK Quadr., 1965 . C&GS, #494, 1: 40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, 1971,

PHOTOS : Aerial-VIMS 07Dec73 GL-5B/544-552.

37 PIANKATANK RIVER, SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES : There is some GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA effective bulkheading southeast of Anderson Point. SEGMENT 6 (Maps 11A, 11B, 110, and 12A, 12B, 120) Suggested Action: Encourage 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 creeks. protective, marsh barrier.

SHORELANDS TYPE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers FASTLAND: Low 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.) . POTENTIAL USE ENHA..l'1C:EMENT: Marshes should be SHORE: Fringe marsh 83% (24,1 mi .), embayed left in their natural state. The higher ground marsh 12% (3,4 mi,), beach 4% (1 . 1 mi.), and properties can be developed. However, reduc artificially stabilized 1% (0,2 mi.). tion of cliff slope would greatly improve dra RIVER: Narrow from the segment start to Cooper drainage and reduce rain induced, run-off ero Point, from there the river becomes shallow, sion. averaging 6-foot depths to Anderson Point, then 4-foot or less to the segment end. MAPS : USGS, 7,5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON, Quadr., 1964, SHORELANDS USE USGS, 7. 5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SALUDA, Quadr. , FASTLAND : Agricultural 47% (13 , 5 mi . ), un 1965, managed, wooded 41% (11 .8 mi . ), residential C&GS, #494, 1 :40,000 scale, CHESAPEAKE 10% (2,9 mi,), and recreati onal 2% (0. 6 mi.) . BAY, Mobjack Bay and York River Entrance, SHORE : Private recreation. 1971 . RIVER: Watersports, sport fishing, and com mercial shellfishing. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 10Sep73 GL-6/91-111. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE : The shoreline trends NW to SE. The fetch at the segment start is NW - 3. 2 miles. The fetch at Elands Wharf is NW - 1.5 miles.

OWNERSHIP: Private.

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

WATER QUALITY : Satisfactory.

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

PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE : Slight or no change, except for isolated points between French Creek and Ferry Creek, where it is moderate, noncritical (1 . 1 ft/yr.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES : None.

38 I I I "'- \ l .._ " \ ... \ *- \. , - + ', ...... ' I ,~,'

\ \ ' //

I I ,, /

I /I

~ ' ' "" ".' "" "" ' "" ' "" ' 2A "" ' "" ' ' '\ "" \ '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l MI LE ().' _v_ . 6., \ 1 76° 42 3011 ='~-;~.... . :·-; . ·. ,..__·

' ..

;;I

.t,. 0 1 11 76 42 30

.....

- '

.I 8 /

: '

1A .f'

~ ' "' ' ' "' . "' ' "' ' "' ' 2A w "' ' ' 1 "' tr)~·. ' \ "' \ II I I I I I : \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 76° 421 30 11 ~J\~ BM / ' {, .',.9,5 I. , : J, . --- I -:~ '

. II,, \

" ,, \\ \\ II "\I II.,, ·~-1, ,,,,.-r, . ,,-- --

\ - V ~) ~·

/. II • . l -,,.II II JS /I" If ·II" r / , l ..0

l \ .~-- ) 2A

' 37° ' 22' ~ - 11 "" 30 \ \ \ \ : i, \ ,o I_. 'l f '

-~ I / ·~ '•, /ft!.'. . .;\' _··~til ;;7···

\ .' it ~~

I 1

.Jo '

I MILE ,"==:===::===3 ,- ~ .. BM I ·' r95, . ./ ...... ·- } " ·:~.

•~ \

\r • q II II"

0 '\ ' \ ~o \ 0 \

0 . ~ 2A 0 ~o ,,- 0 \ \

0 JO / J \ - , Ja " ' 0 37° ' 22' "" cl~ 37° ~ 0 30" ' "I., 22 ' ,,6 \ 3011 \ I \ M ' 0 ,o ..... • )? • \ h h II ii \ 0 ... ,o ... I .. ' .... . 0 ...... 0 ..

0 ~ 'v -,' :-... BM ~ ·r,' 95 ) . ' /

"I' \\

t I r, , - · 1A . · ...J ~\ 7J ,_ B ~-~·nd , J.. . ·'---\J_. >,,/t;} ., ,, /' r - - f . "\ /~..1 :t j . , . .. . . - . ·-: .

"11 II II "\I . . . ~,,' ' ,,-.< · 1A .,.-- - .

· 1RS / > ' ( 1W ...... ~' - \ ,:.. '- . 1RS,.. · '- "'...-':l., •••·.. · ' . .,, ,,-..· All mondsv11le J8 C,'t :' . " ~ e , '!lltnond ;( , 1A ' 1A ·~ ,--- 1RS ~ ~- ' ' "o \_ ' \ r ~ 1W /®> . 2A

37° ' 22' ~ 37° 30" \ II 22' II 11 .. ~ 30 \ •II II 11 ...... II I• 1() 1/ \ ff ( \ I II // If \ • • IJ. O • O ~o .I - 0 ( MAP3C CAPAHOSIC e_ 1RS~,. FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION .. 'I•• -·~' Segment 2A //··· USE Agricultural A Residential RS Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Moderate 1111111 Slight or No Change No Symbol

I e===r: ·......

76° 35'

.. '.S ., "..., ~-'; • '·"'- I , ~-' ·-, ;:.· 1· ..,o .... \ " \ \ ,· ' \ ,o. . I ' ' "'o ~, , \ ) v"o ', \,,_ --- ' 35 '~~: 633 ' ' ~\ . \ / ' ' \ ' \ / '/ ' ,. , , ' \ ,. ' .Jo \ _... I l ' \ \.-- I ' I ' \ / I ' • 37 \ I .Js \ \ '~ I /i"' J I ..,o \\ ,o 'I (!

\ '! \~, I zO ''1

.. ~

I 2A

Blunde~{fp/

' {-

.. ~!..... + MAP 4A CATLETT ISLANDS ' ''·\ TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE ' o' Segments 2A and 28

"-' // = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary "" ' \ \ \ 37° \ 17 1 11 30 \

4> ./' ' ...... p...... _ ...... - ~-- 4> 0 " ' I MILE

76° 35' \ ( JS \r--- \ ,,,f""" "'"'"' ---,.,,. .. .,,,._ \ """~::::-::::-;:::j \ , , \ , , I \ I \\.- ...- - \ I I \ / ..,o \ .ss \

·~

q • , , ',•.I/ ·. Z5 <:~·:• ..I . . ~ "· ·V,, .

0 / JZ 0 ?(· 2A ft ) • 0 I.. 0

0 • 0 • • • '" MAP 48 s • ' ETT ISLAND CATL TYPES 0 SHOR ELANDS

Segments' 2A' and 28 0 FASTLAND 1 I Low Shore Shore Moderately Low I I g 1 I

SHO::ach :~;;I;;;:; ;·I: 1:;;;:1';;;'. Fringe Marsh /'/////////// 0 Extensive Marsh ~ d Marsh · _,_ _,_ \ 0 ;~i~i~i~1y Stabilized -4.. -'- NEARSHORE - 0 0 0 O Intermediate • • • • Wide

\ 76° 35' \

\,- \ /? " '\ \\ ,, ' ' ' \ I ( \ • ..>o ",, \r---- ,, ' ' \ \ / ' 1A \ ' ,, \ \ ", , ' "\ \ ,, , '\ .Jo \ / " \.- ...... I \ "\ I \ 'I / " \ \ I I \ ', 1W I /i"' / \. ,;. ,o t),, )t( 1W1 ' ,, \ I' .... \ . '~~1A l \1 ·~ _('

~ 1W /I/ ../ (< I' E 2A 'o 1A • ,). "' :.. · \\ " ~ u ",, "'~ 1R$!:, I ''" /

Blunde~{f 20 _ p/ f'· .,,,.,, ... 1w_.... ,,~- -- , ~ : r ' 0 "" ' ~ 1A "" ' + "" ' MAP 4C "' CATLETT ISLANDS FASTLAND "USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments' 2A and 28 USE Agricultural A Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 37° EROSION 1 17 11 Moderate II I I I II \ 30 "-'- Slight or No Change No Symbol \'\ 28 \ ""

l 0 I MILE I / 1!> As ,. ,, / ' ,, ~J

" V ,! ,...~ ....., ,/ ,,,, // l "- .p 'I .. I ' ,t ,o

..,o ,, .. I" 11•1 ;;.::: ! ; \\ \\ <+ ;J 11 .. II !1 - o-' • • .. . ..\I'

. ;.., .f·••••• 70·. "' ... <:fl-~•• :1 (- 38

28 2C -~------. --- GLot, -.cc.: - ~§.T£r, l'OR1:.> ~ Co "' Co'-...... _.._ .... ------0 I MILE

37° 15° 76 30' 48 15 '\, MAP ·s8 ", V> \~ / ,, (!J GLOUCESTER POINT £,J:;.;, SHORELANDS TYPES X:; , ",. ~ Segments 28, 2C, 3A, and 38 FASTLAND Low Shore I I Moderately Low Shore I I II I I Moderately Low Shore with Bluff I I II I I .. i;f' SHORE Beach :-:-·.··.·=·=··.. =·: ··.·: -:-;.;

0 0 • • 0 0 .38 0 0 0

28 2C 0

- ..------£.Louc 0 0 -~STE: YORI(- -A_ Co Co---. 3A ------____..,.., , I 0 I MILE

1 37° l!'\ 76° 301 49 76° 301

I~ '\ '\ \ · / MAP 5 C \J> \ ·~ ~» : • * '\ GLOUCESTER POINT J: / '\ ~ FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION ',-..._ Segments 28, 2C, 3~. and 38 1i ' USE Agricultural A Commercial C Government G Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded u · ., Wooded w 1A 1A~ OWNERSHIP ~~ ·• Private 1 1 ~ 1A· ~-· _-:.?' 30 State (,-.....,::< • 3

-..,.,,. ..ill) . -,.__ ~ >:"'~' ,{ · I,.',,.,·,._ ~ ·<'

;,I . - . ~ :4~ f' !iii) ~ ,: ~•:,.,;:.:. ... .

,/ 28 2C

3A ------I '2' 0 l MILE

1 - 37° 15 76 30' 50 76° 251 1

'48 48

SEVERN

• I

:~ (~ . I •.. .• • / I

/iJ ,-_,;.'!) / '3C

38 0 I MILE Caucus l

48 48

SEVERN

o.;/. --• - . v /" 0

0 ./. ..., ~~ /.,· ->\.:.~.· gSe "'"I~. . · ~ ) · , Segments 38, 3C. and 48 ,;f;., ~"-. / FASTLAND 0 .-.,~\. Low Shore I I SHORE ,)?'-~ Beach -~7 nlllll II IIIIIII IIIIIIII //////////// '/' f --r l f ) / 01

• • • • • • . I 3C

1ottl<-

• l • '1 0 l MILE

76° 251 76° 25°

I '48 48

SEVERN

Memorial i Cedar c~l ~int NE. C \,;; l I ' . ,,, •• , , , I ·scsSS1 ( l';~-d ---- 1"~ 1., 8vJa1ter

Segments 38, 3C, and 48 USE Agricultural A Commercial C Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded U Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private County

) 13C

l 1 0 I MLLE

76° 25' MAP 7A GUINEA MARSHES TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE ' '\ Segments 3C, 4A, and 48 48

' ::~::::~{-f/(ii ·:·: ·;;. :·;_·;;;:?:~· ... .:, Rock Point Long Creek ·.~·~···:· ..

"' ·,.•,,

i '•,,,.•. ,,,~ j

4A. Point ,l 3C RIVER

r I 0 l MILE MAP78 EA MARSHES GUIN TYPES SHORELANDS d 48 Segme· nts 3C, 4A, an FASTLAND 48 Low Shore I I I - !

SHORE :-:.·.. ·.-:-:-:-:-.·:········ Beach h //////////// Extensive Mar~ d -'- _,_ _,_ _,_ Artificially Stab1hze NEARSHORE O O O o Intermediate • • • • Wide

V1 I.J1

• • •

• • • 0 o, 0 0 0 I 4A

3C RIVER

0 MAP 7C GUINEA MARSHES ' FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION " Segments 3C, 4A, and 48

USE 48 ' Agricultural A Commercial C Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged Unwooded U Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private 1 :·•·· ...:{:::·~ .',• County 4 Rock Point EROSION Long Creek ·,:·~-;-·.. Severe 1A Moderate I II I I II Slight or No Change No Symbol

·'.···

- ./ ;: ~. ,·····~-: ~ 1A .lb :;: c.,' '·.. ~; . ,· 1A 4A

\Jl 0\ /

\ ( 1W /

Guinea

o,o,i tA 011- /:·:, G"reat Isla n d Guinea Marshes

3C RIVER

0 I MILE 76° 271 3011 5A

I I --J I I I 48 I I

...... ,,.... Ware River / / r:~1;:$:~~-;;.::..;-~~~fz:·,. ..~···lo· ·~. .6\Point / / / \~;t

Dead ~~~Jt(_:) \ (, '11··;\ '-..? 0 )' ~tf F~,u/r 'f'oir£t Ma:f,~l:.

37° y + ~,j:~~'< )48 !~'. / ~l,t\ , 20' / / '--,o i' \ ~ >ti~ ~ '.~ - \';~:.se~en Cedfr ·.;,,;::i· Point Caucus

Bryant Bay

~ ....-:, · ~$. tump SEVERN '.:."' !Point

..... 48 --o/ l MILE B u tler Crtelc t 0 76° 27 1 3011

57 ' 5A

I - ~,\ ".,,J, ~~'\; ,, ( , ~ 48

e I ::-(\ tv s \, 0

.,, ' ,, (< I I ~ y' \ / I I 0-0-0-0 0 0 O

37° 20'

SEVERN 48 0

~8 76° 271 3011 5A MAP 8C ROBINS NECK FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segment 48 USE A RC RS e w I IV s

37° 1W,, , 20' / .._,,o/

SE VERN

48 {; 1 ' 0 I MILE 76° 271 3011

59 ' 760 27' 30"

\ I .J ,o \ \ \ II \: t;::;:~1./ \ IQ • ,,. --=-~ II

\I \ Point

I I \ I

~,1--i 0~~ ~\~ ~:;p

=-s egment Boundary - Subsegment Boundary

.,, - .(

. - (''\ r-=-~J~~~~i;Al.,g:~__u. ,t ' -- ./ ? , "\ __.).. J ~ -'=lN _:f:~::i~ ~..: ... ) ·1 I '. I" 1;, • "II ' r-"-1r~ ·l~," \ )i ~ , '1 I II 1 MILE - ') \ \~1i..,r ~"'I\ ' , r..... o ! 0 I ~ I ~~~ 760 22' 30"

60 76° 27 1 3011 :, \ 1,1' 0 - ,o Ill Ill" ,,,. - - NI"' ,,, \ o 11 • I, It 0 ,,,lj/"' ,.,,,/// 0 . ' -=:. .e 0 ,'o _; \ ,., 1111 ~11 1111, '= _-] /

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

·1 I 1/ ,, , Ii I / \ •' -,: 0 l MILE ) 76° 22' 3011

61 76° 271 3011 1A ., \ 'ft <-l ,o 7;;'-.. ~/ II It • II :' • LI fru\ 1A ~\ ,.';,-<.~. 1R·s---~ -~ 1A ·. 1W - J Union Zion , • "' //"' J, Ch l\t s~'·H~ t Y-. 1w"'' . . t ,..--C 1RSt / . --· 1 - - • ·- - , • Sin~fptoh • _/ ::~!1C ..,.,,C'em ~f3S"" .',/ :: ·· Schley (..:.. ,o Y 1W -:.. Z:1RS ,~~'1 1 ·~ .. . . / '--t' ,rr,';x "' . . . - 11 / 1, \ : • "/ 9 ~ -\ . •).'1RS · 4 .)~I;_~'y @j;;..· . . . - -,~~Cems '/,. F\ 1W I ;;· ~.,. I/ .,s) ) ~ .. ~ ) Jarvi!. ;::,-··:- • . ) Po1ot ··' . .,, I MAP 9C WARE RIVER 70 5A 22' FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 301 Segments 5A and 58 . USE Agricultural A Commercial C Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 EROSION Severe Moderate I I I I I I I Slight or No Change No Symbol .,, t·,; %, 1W ",- ~? 1W <~~ ~

76° 22' 3011

62 76° 27'3011

I~ 1!> i \ ,o \ \

.L - - .

20'

= Segment Boundary II ,,,, = Subsegment Boundary / o-1, \ ,,~ -~ ,:: \~,o JI: / @ fl I I/ JI II I, U'I If:::::: \ ,,.JI.====~= -=-=.11 II J I II ~!, II ~"~.· 11 II \ I, \ II II II ,,' II \ II 4------41 11 (\).;'. ' II ';r=. ~I /r ;;~ . II II Cem ll \ Ji-\\ I ... ,, I C,rad.!3,,/,: .. . .·\ ... •·'... ( I I \ / l \ ..... '---N 0 T ii --- ...... __ . ·I. ---- ____ ..__ ~ ls, I I • --- ,o -- ~I;;"= -' ~ j <;... .. :E=c.l .• .\ JV". • -- ·ll_JLO ' · / ' • " ii ~'s ·o ...._ IS VI/ " /' -.._ I I, ": • L . • • L.= /, . . I II II I II <...... ,.// ,, ~:i___ - I ' 0 I MILE 76° 27' 30"

63 '\ MtZon~ \ I I(> ,,,.--.. '-_.,_ MAP 108 '""-. ,_s so~NORTH '-··- \ 5A and 58 -- ,o Low Shore Low Shore -~ .....J ,o . • with Bluff r .Gem I I II I I

Beach Fringe Marsh n111111111111111111111 1 Embayed Marsh ~ Artificially Stabilized I / (J / / ,o :1 '620' 0 0 I /'i:-,.- =ir~-~-=- ,, I \ I I =-.J I I \ \ I I II \ C \ 4::~==::;====41 \ I I I

0 R 1' ' 37° II --.. 25 1

---- .... ______,,_, ___ - '\, ------,o

/ / ...... / I {

} @> i fl' " I I MI LE J 1k I 0 f'. ~!'<. ! ~~~:,,.. 76° 27 1 3011

64 76° 27'30" .~ \ bl/ *" "MAP 1oc··",/~ · tO /1 \ r::.· -- .. ~.~ 1A0 v NORTH RIVER .. /.-,/ ,~r---. '--- \ zO 0 ~ · ~ ~ 1A ;. I ~• .._ " FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION - "'----=_.,-. \ I , j/ ·. io @ ..-·· / - 1A '" _,,,,,...= Segments 5A and 5B~ Nort!~ ~"'EmmnusCh ~ USE ' 1A ~ " Agricultural A Recreational RC Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded w

OWNERSHIP II II Ii Private 1 II ,~ '0-11 ,: () County 4 /II 1:, EROSION t, / II · J Moderate I I I I I II t/ Ii Slight or No Change No Symbol "' ,, I ,~"' I ,l ~n > \ \ eek '\ I

·~·

0 R ]' ' 37° ll --- 25 1 1A ------i ' . ------\.., 101w . 1RS. 1A ""' f , · 1A -- / -- . -==·• I . \ • 4. . . ' . / ' " I" 1RS .,. / /g /~ / r· :1RS 1A ~~ // I, -- ~-1~:- 1A ( ~,. 1A N .. - 1W " 1A Q ·5 I 1W . ;¥ ,, '> -.... ,. 'i, t .. ti " ! @) 1W II ==~ . {, Ii I - I L •J 1 MILE ~ 1h,

76° 27 1 30"

65 ~~~-..-~-----~ - ----~-----~-----~------~-----~-----~-- ---~-----

,, " J .~

•

~o 0 J,' "' ' ----RIVE 'R- ---.... 6 ()'\ ( ' '\ . )

"' I

\ '

. (. '\

1 -- _, ;

66 ) u

Low Shore with Bluff Moderately Low Shore I • P SHORE Fringe Marsh n111111111 11 11111111111

\ ·\ '

\-.

67 Private 1 ,. EROSION :;, Slight or No Change

--.:~.ft~\ -

•• .....I: i·21 I/ " I .,," I I 1W ·~

'----RIVER-- -...... 6 Anderson Point ·e11RS.

~ -0 \ • 1W · · •• 1RS··

~ \ /o ~ .. ~ ...... O Freeport ~F!,~· \ 0 /1A •, \ ' 1W 10 @) / 1A.) . ·\ 1A / --= '" \ ' I I ~ 1 ~w/)·~ ." - I & '• '• ~.w,:j)e'I' - 1-l~.:;:;;..J , / \ ~=~ - 76° 27' 30"

. ~ ,1....

/ ...... I ," I ' I I I I I I I ~ ~er,l

, II

76° 27' 30"

69 I I JI I

1 1 U •

Beach Fringe Marsh m111111111111111111111 / ...... Embayed Marsh ~ I .. "' I ' NEARS HORE I ' Narrow 0-0-0-0 ' Intermediate o o o o I .... I "' --..... I -- -- I ·t~ ,o '\' ;< I I .. ~~17,;...... ~ ~ ~er-l

l MILE

76° 271 3011

70 76° 27° 3000

! .

A RC RS w

Private 1 County 4 EROSION I /" ," I ' I I I ------I --- ' I I ~ ~ei<~ley ~ lar\d I

76° 27° 3000