Shoreline Situation Report WESTMORELAND COUNTY Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant Nos. 04-7-158-44041 and 04-8-M01-309 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 162 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1978 Shoreline Situation Report WESTMORELAND COUNTY ( Prepared by: Lynne Morgan Dennis W. Owen Nancy M. Sturm (. Project Supervisors: Robert J. Byrne Carl H. Hobbs, Ill ( . · Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant Nos. 04-7-158-44041 and 04-8-M01-309 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 162 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE . \ . William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1978 ( TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland Components 5 FIGURE 2: Marsh Types 5 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 3: Lynch Point 12 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4: Bottom Creek 12 FIGURE 5: Gardner Creek 12 ( .... FIGURE 6: Ragged Point Beach 12 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 7: Island off Matthews Point 13 FIGURE 8: Horsehead Cliffs 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 9: Near Church Point 13 I 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 10: Near Church Point 13 I FIGURE 11: Mattox Creek I 14 ( FIGURE 12: South of Monroe Bay 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF WESTMORELAND 9 FIGURE 13: Colonial Beach 14 FIGURE 14: Colonial Beach 14 3.1 The Shorelands of Westmoreland 10 FIGURE 15: Colonial Beach 14 3.2 Present Shore Erosion s-ituation 10 I 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 11 I TABLE 1: Westmoreland County Shor elands Physiography 20 TABLE 2: Westmoreland County Subsegment Sunnnaries 22 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF WESTMORELAND- 21 4.1 Segment and Subsegment Sununaries 22 MAPS . lA-E: Westmoreland County Sunnnary Maps 15 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions :MA.PS 2A-C: Peedee Creek Area 41 ( \ Segment 1 25 MAPS .J.A-C~ Drakes Marsh 44 Segment 2 27 MAPS 4A-C: West Yeocomico River 47 Segment 3 2~ MAPS 5A-C: Sandy Point Neck 50 Segment 4 30 MAPS 6A-C: Coles Neck 53 Segment_ 5-- 31 MAPS 7A-C: Low Machodoc Creek 56 Segment 6 32 MAPS 8A-C: Nomini Bay 59 Segment 7 33 MAPS 9A-C: Nomini Creek· 62 Segment 8 34 MAPS lOA-C: Stratford Hall 65 Segment 9 36 MAPS llA~G: Popes Creek 68 Segment 10 37 MAPS 12A-C: Mattox Creek 71 Segment 11 38 MAI'S- 13A_;C: Colonial Beach 74 Segment 12 39 (; Segment 13 40 4.3. Segment and Subsegment Maps 41 ( /.-". I ( CHAPTER 1 Introduction (. (: ( . l . ( ' . ) ( CHAPTER 1 .. The role of planners and managers is to optimize 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize INTRODUCTION the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur­ This report has been prepared and published with thermore, once a particular use has been decided funds provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmo­ planners and the users want that selected use to spheric Administration, grant numbers 04-7-158-44041 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS operate in the most effective manner. A park plan­ and 04-8-MOl-309. The Shoreline Situation Report ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful­ series was originally developed in the Wetlands/ It is the objective of this report to supply an fill the design most efficiently. We hope that the Edges Program of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, assessment, and at least a partial integration, of results of our work are useful to the planner in Inc., as supported by the Research Applied to Na­ those important shoreland parameters and character­ designing the beach by pointing out the technical tional Needs (RANN) program of the National Science istics which will aid the planners and the managers feasibility of altering or enhancing the present Foundation. The completion of this report would of the shorelands in making the best decisions for configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, if have been impossible without the expert services of the utilization of this limited and very valuable the use were a residential development, we would Beth Marshall, who typed several drafts of the manu­ resource. The report gives particular attention to hope our work would be use.ful in specifying the script, Bill Jenkins and Ken Thornberry, who pre­ / the problem of shore erosion and to recommendations shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses pared the photographs, and Sam White, who piloted concerning the alleviation of the impact of this likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In the aircraft on the many photo acquisition and re­ problem. In addition, we have tried to include in summary our objective is to provide a useful tool connaissance flights. Also we thank the numerous our assessment a discussion of those factors which for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, other persons who, through their direct aid, criti­ might significantly limit development of the shore­ the shorelands of the Commonwealth. cisms, and suggestions, have assisted our work. I line and, in some instances, a discussion of some of the potential or alternate uses of the shoreline, Shorelands planning occurs, ~ither formally or particularly with respect to recreational use, since informally, at all levels from the private owner such information could aid potential users in the of shoreland property to county governments, to perception of a segment of the shoreline. planning districts and to the state and federal agency level. We feel our results will be useful The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep­ at all these levels. Since the most basic level aration of the report is that the use of shorelands of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the should be planned rather than haphazardly developed county or city level, we have executed our report in response to the short term pressures and inter­ on that level although we realize some of the in­ ests. Careful planning could reduce the conflicts formation may be most useful at a higher govern­ which may be expected to arise between competing mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has interests. Shoreland utilization in many areas of traditionally chosen to place as much as possible, ( ' the country, and indeed in some places in Virginia, the regulatory decision processes at the county has proceeded in a manner such that the very ele­ level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter ments which attracted people to the shore have been 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example, destroyed by the lack of planning and forethought. provides for the establishment of County Boards to act on applications for alterations of wetlands. The major man-induced uses of the shorelands Thus, our focus at the county level is intended to ( ' are: interface with and to support the existing or pend­ ing county regulatory mechanisms concerning activi­ Residential, commercial, or industrial ties in the shorelands zone. development Recreation Transportation ( \ Waste disposal Extraction of living and non-living resources Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve various ecological functions. C 2 ( ( ( ' . CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered ( .. ( . ( . ( ·. 3 CHAPTER 2 of the report since some users' needs will ade­ Definitions: quately be met with the summary overview of the Shore Zone APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED county while others will require the detailed dis­ cussion of particular subsegments. This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is ( a buffer zone between the water body and the fast­ 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED break in slope between the relatively steeper In the preparation of this report the authors IN THE STUDY shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The utilized existing information wherever possible. approximate landward limit is a contour line rep­ For example, for such elements as water quality The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide C characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz­ report are listed below followed by a discussion range above mean low water (refer to Figure 1). ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, of our treatment of each. In operation with topographic maps the inner or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa­ a) Shorelands physiographic classification fringe of the marsh symbols is taken as the land­ tion, particularly with respect to erosional char­ b) Shorelands use classification ward limit. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not c) Shorelands ownership classification available, so we performed the field work and de­ d) Zoning The physiographic character of the marshes has ( veloped classification schemes. In order to ana­ e) Water quality also been separated into three types (see Figure lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 g) Limitations to shore use and potential feet in width and which runs in a band parallel to mm photography. 'We photographed the entire shore­ or alternate shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex­ line of each county and cataloged the slides for h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or easy access at VIMS, where they remain available i) Flood hazard levels river.