W&M ScholarWorks
Reports
1-1-1978
Shoreline Situation Report Westmoreland County
Lynne Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Nancy M. Sturm Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports
Part of the Marine Biology Commons
Recommended Citation Morgan, L., Owen, D. W., & Sturm, N. M. (1978) Shoreline Situation Report Westmoreland County. Special Reports in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering (SRAMSOE) No. 162. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-83yk-3e50
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report 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. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies C for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish a reentrant or drowned creek valley. The purp,ose terials, along with existing conventional aerial grounds in delineating these marsh types is that the ef photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, k) Beach quality fectiveness of the various functions of the marsh for the desired elements. We conducted field in will, in part, be determined by type of exposure spection over much of the shoreline, particularly a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for at those locations where office analysis left example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, on tional photographs along with the field visits to _, be considered as being composed of three inter the other hand, is likely a more efficient trans document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the porter of detritus and other food chain materials shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification due to its greater drainage density than an em The basic shoreline unit considered is called based on these three elements has been devised so bayed marsh. The central point is that planners, a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred that the types for each of the three elements por in the light of ongoing and future research, will ( ' feet to several thousand feet in length. The end trayed side by side on a map may provide the op desire to weight various functions of marshes and points of the subsegments were generally chosen portunity to examine joint relationships among the the physiographic delineation aids their decision on physiographic consideration such as changes in elements. As an exam.ple, the application of the making by denoting where the various types exist. the character of erosion or deposition. In those system permits the user to determine miles of high The classification used is: cases where a radical change in land use occurred, bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the shore Beach the point of change was taken as a boundary point zone. Marsh ( ' of the subsegment. Segments are groups of sub Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width segments. The boundaries for segments also'""'were For each subsegment there are two length mea along shores selected on physiographic units such as necks or surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore Extensive i:narsh peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley the county itself is considered as a sum of shore interface lengths differ most when the shore zone or reentrant line segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment Artificially stabilized ( maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore The- format of presentation in the report fol interface when it differs from the shoreline, The F1:tstland Zone lows a sequence from general summary statements fastland-shore interface length is the base for for the county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment the fastland statistics. The zone extending from the landward limit of summaries and finally detailed descriptions and the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast maps for each subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose land is relatively stable and is the site of most in choosing this format was to allow selective use material development or construction. The
4 C physiographic classification of the fastland is purposes: b) Shorelands Use Classification based upon the average slope of the land within Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located< 400 400 feet (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. yards from shore Fastland Zone The general classification is: Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; 1,--400 yards from shore Residential with or without cliff Wide, 12-ft. (3.7m) isobath >1,400 yards Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of from shore Includes all forms of residential use with the relief; with or without cliff exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of Subclasses: with or without bars In general, a residential area consists of four relief; with or without cliff with or without tidal flats or more residential buildings adjacent to one High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; with or without submerged another. Schools, churches, and isolated busi with or without cliff. vegetation nesses may be included in a residential area. Two specially classified exceptions are sand dunes and areas of artificial fill. Commercia.l Nearshore Zone Includes buildings, parking areas, and other The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone land directly related to retail and wholesale to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller trade and business. This category includes small tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref industry and other anomalous areas within the erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the. +-FASTLAND~SHOR~~ NEARSHORE~--~------~-'ll» general commercial context. Marinas are consid I I maximum depth of significant sand transport by I I ered commercial shore use. waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis I I tinct drop-off into the river channels begins . »77?>~.. 'I : roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone ------MLW+l.5 Tide Ran9~. Industrial -- ·• ------MLW I includes any tidal flats. 1 --= 12 Includes all industrial and associated areas. The class limits for the nearshore zone classi Figure 1 Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, fications were chosen following a simple statisti power plants, railyards. cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater A profile of the three shorelands types. contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines Governmental of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahan nock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard de Includes lands whose usage is specifically viations for each of the separate regions and for controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern the entire combined system were calculated and mental organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort compared. Although the distributions were non FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE Story. Where applicable, the Governmental use normal, they were generally comparable, allowing MARSH MARSH MARSH category is modified to indicate the specific the data for the entire combined system to deter character of the use, e.g., residential, direct mine the class limits. military, and so forth .
•1,,, ,\/ ,,\1,, ·"'· The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stand ard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to Recreational and Other Public Open Spaces determine general, serviceable class limits, these calculated numbers were rounded to. 900 and 1,000 FASTLAND FASTLAND Includes designated outdoor recreation lands yards respectively. The class limits were set at and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public of the mean. Using this.procedure a narrow near Figure 2 beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. A plan view of the three marsh types. Preserved. The fo.llowing definitions have no legal. signif icance and.were constructed for otir classification Includes lands preserved or regulated for
5 (
environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation cation of the classification is restricted to grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel fastlands alone since the Virginia fastlands The following ratings are used for shore opment. ownership extends to mean low water. All bottoms erosion: below mean low water are in State ownership. slight or none - less than 1 foot per year moderate - 1 to 3 feet per year Agricultural severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year d) Water Quality The locations with moderate and severe ratings Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and other are further specified as being critical or non agricultural areas. The water quality sections of this report are critical. The erosion is considered critica'r-if C based upon data abstracted from Virginia State buildings, roads, or other such structures are Water Control Board's publication Water Quality endangered. Unmanaged Standards (November, 1974) and Water Quality Inventory (305 (b) Report) (April, 1976). The degree of erosion was determined by several Includes all open or wooded lands not included means, In most locations the long term trend was in other classifications: Additionally, where applicable, Virginia Bu determined using map comparisons of shoreline po a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; reau of Shellfish Sanitation data is used to as sitions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In less than 40% tree cover. sign ratings of satisfactory, intermediate, or addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. unsatisfactory. These ratings are defined pri and recent years were utilized for an assessment The shoreland use classification applies to the marily in regard to number of coliform bacteria. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those general usage of the fastland area to an arbitrary For a rating of satisfactory the maximum limit is areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec distance of half mile from the shore or beach zone an MPN (Most Probable Number) of 70 per 100 ml. tions and interviews were held with local inhab ( or to some less distant, logical barrier. In The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of itants. multi-usage areas one must make a subjective se 23. Usually any count above these limits results lection as to the primary or controlling type of in an unsatisfactory rating, and, from the Bu The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated usage. For simplicity and convenience, managed reau's standpoint, results in restricting the as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti woodlands are classified as "unmanaged, wooded" waters from the taking of shellfish for direct tive visits were made to monitor the effective areas. sale to the consumer. ness of recent installations. In instances where existing structures are inadequate, we have given There are instances however, when the total recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur Shore Zone coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN thermore, recommendations are given for defenses does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac in those areas where none currently exist. The Bathing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating primary emphasis is placed on expected effective Boat launching may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be ness with secondary consideration to cost. Bird watching permitted to remain open pending an improvement in Waterfowl hunting conditions. g) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or Although the shellfish standards are somewhat Alternate Shore Uses Nearshore Zone more stringent than most of the other water quality standards, they are included because of the eco In this section we point out specific factors Pound net fishing nomic and ecological impacts of shellfish ground which may impose significant limits on the type Shel lf ishing closures. Special care should be taken not to en or extent of shoreline development. This may Sport fishing danger the water quality in existing "satisfactory" result in a restatement of other factors from Extraction of non-living resources areas. elsewhere in the report, e.g., flood hazard or Boating erosion, or this may be a discussion of some Water sports other factor pertaining to the particular area. e) Zoning Also we have placed particular attention on c) Shorelands Ownership Classification In cases where zoning regulations have been the recreational potential of the shore zone. established the existing information pertaining The possible development of artificial beach, The shorelands ownership classification used to the shorelands has been included in the re erosion protection, etc., influence the evalua has two main subdivisions, private and governmen port. tion of an area's potential. Similarly, poten tal, with the governmental further divided into tial alternate shore uses are occasionally noted.
6 ( h) Distribution of Marshes November, 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar reports. Since the condemnation The acreage and physiographic type of the areas change with time they are not to be taken marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti as definitive. However, some insight to the mates of acreages were obtained from topographic conditions at the date of the report are avail maps and should be considered only as approxima able by a comparison between the shellfish tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands grounds maps and the water quality maps for are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of which water quality standards for shellfish Marine Science under the authorization of the Vir were used. ginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 62.1- 13.4). These surveys include detailed acreages of the grass species composition within individual k) Beach Quality marsh systems. In Shoreline Situation Reports of counties that have had marsh inventories, the Beach quality is a subjective judgment based marsh number is indicated, thus allowing the user upon considerations such as the nature of the of the Shoreline Situation Report to key back to beach material, the length and width of the beach the formal marsh inventory for additional data. area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the The independent material in this report is pro beach setting. vided to indicate the physiographic type of marsh land and to serve as a rough guide to marsh dis tribution, pending a formal inventory .. Additional information on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other VIMS publications:
i) Flood Hazard Levels
The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in complete. However, the United States Army Corps (. of Enginners has prepared reports for a number of localities which were used in this report. Two tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is that flood with an average recurrence time of about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods I ' indicates it to have an elevation of approximately ·8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake· Bay area. ·The Standard Project Flood level is established for land planriingpurposes which is placed at the highest prbbable flood level.
j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds
The data in this report show the leased and public shellfish grounds as ·portrayed in the Vir ginia State Water Control Board publication "Shellfish growing areas iri the Commonwealth of Virginia: Public, leased. and condemned,"
7 (
(
C
C
( -
(
\_ __ _
( <
( i ' CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation
('
( \ > ·.. · .
r'
9 C
CHAPTER 3 for commercial and industrial purposes. The re 3.2 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION maining shorelands are either used for agriculture PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY or are unmanaged, wooded or open areas. There are Shorel:!,ne ero.§ion is not gen~rally a problem C several public areas along this section of the Po along the Rappahannock River section of Westmore tomac River: Westmoreland State Park, George Wash land County. The only area showing an historical 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY ington National Monument Park, and several county erosion trend is from Peedee Creek west to Leeds owned areas for boat launching. All of these pub town, which has an historical erosion rate of from Westmoreland County has shorelands on both the lic sites are used for recreational purposes. 0.6 to 1.2 feet per year. Erosion is due to the Potomac and the Rappahannock Rivers. The county river currents in the meanders and to downhill is bounded on the Potomac River by Northumberland Flooding is generally not a problem along the rain runoff. The river current is fastest on the County to the east and by King George County to Westmoreland section of the Rappahannock River, as outside bends of the meander, causing erosion to the west. On the Rappahannock River, Westmoreland shoreline elevations are usually greater than 10 those bends while the inside bends accrete. Along County is bounded by King George County to the west feet. The shoreline from Brockenbrough Creek to bluff areas, rain runoff causes weathering of the and Richmond County to the east. The shorelands just west of Peedee Creek has elevations of around cliff face, which causes the bluff to slump. along the two rivers differ in both physiographic 5 feet and could be flooded. However, no struc Trees on or near the bluff eventually are under and use classification. tures would be endangered. Many sections of shore mined and fall, carrying with them large amounts line on the Potomac River are susceptible to flood of sediments trapped in their root systems. Down Westmoreland has 30.9 measured miles of shore ing which would endanger numerous structures. Most hill rain runoff can be abated by planting grasses line along the Rappahannock River, 29.2 measured of the residential development along Westmoreland's or other surface-rooted vegetation on the affected miles of fastland. While eighty-two percent of the shoreline has taken place along the low-lying area. fastland is low shore, fifteen percent is high shorelands. ( shore. The entire shore is marsh, either fringe, Along the Potomac River, erosion is not so easy embayed, or extens.ive. Development has not been The Rappahannock River generally has good water to describe, as the magnitude of the processes active along the Rappahannock River shoreline of quality, according to the Virginia State Water Con vary from area to area and time to time. Gener the county, as ninety-eight percent of the shore trol Board's 305(b)(l)(B) Report. As the main ally, erosion is primarily due to waves attacking lands are either used for agriculture or are stream of the Potomac River is in Maryland, the the shore. The height and growth of waves is de wooded. One percent of the shorelands are used report does not include data on its water quality. pendent upon four major factors: the overwater ( ' for residential purposes and one percent are The tributary creeks are owned by Virginia. Though distance across which the wind blows (the fetch), county owned boat ramp areas. many of the creeks have good water quality, several the velocity of the wind, the duration of time areas do not meet the state water quality stan that the wind blows, and the depth of the water. Along the Potomac River, Westmoreland County has dards. Among areas currently not meeting water Downhill rain runoff is also an important erosion 221.3 measured miles of shoreline, 267.7 measured quality standards are the lower portion of Lower agent along the Potomac River. miles of fastland. The shorelands range from low Machodoc Creek, part of Nomini Creek, part of Mat shore to high shore with bluff, with seventy-seven tox Creek, all of Popes Creek and Monroe Bay, and According to Byrne and Anderson (1977, Shore percent being low shore. Only six percent of the part of Rosier Creek. These areas are all closed line Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, Special Report shorelands are high shore. The remaining seventeen to the taking of shellfish. For a more accurate Number 111 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean En percent range from low shore with bluff to moder description of shellfish closures, refer to Map lE, gineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, ately high shore, with twelve percent being moder page 19. 102 pages), the Potomac River shoreline in West ately low shore. moreland County has retreated 1.3 feet per year, averaged along the entire shoreline length for the Marshes, including fringe, embayed, and exten past 100 years. In all, Westmoreland County has sive marshes, account for seventy-six percent of lost 1,167 acres by erosion during the past cen the shoreline (a tidal marsh inventory for West tury. Recent field investigations show that ero moreland County is forthcoming). Sixteen percent sion is a continuing problem along many sections of the shoreline is beach and eight percent is of the county's shoreline. \ ' artificially stabilized. The most critical area of erosion in Westmore The Potomac River portion of Westmoreland County, land County is probably at Colonial Beach. Though though still primarily rural, has several areas of most of the shoreline has been artificially stabi population concentration, the largest being the lized, several areas are experiencing continued Town of Colonial Beach. Twenty-five percent of the erosion. Along the southern section of the town, shorelands are used for residential purposes, two south of the concrete seawall and groins, erosion percent for recreation, and less than two percent has already destroyed the boat ramp and a section
10 of Irving Avenue is endangered. Rubble has been 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS dumped along the shoreline, but erosion is continu ing. Several other small sections of Colonial There are many factors which tend to determine Beach's shoreline are eroding, though no structures development patterns along a section of shoreline; are endangered. Elsewhere in the county, erosion the flood hazard, erosion rate, physiographic con is continuing especially along areas used for agri siderations such as fastland, shore, and nearshore culture. No structures are endangered. type, existing development in the vicinity, and the availability of inland access, to name a few. An There are approximately 17.3 miles of artifi area with high bluffs along the shore would not be cially stabilized shoreline along the Potomac River as appealing to most people as an area with easy in Westmoreland County, including bulkhead, riprap, access to the water. Likewise, an area that is and groins. Groins have been used in conjunction relatively stable is preferable to one with active with bulkhead in several locations. Though most erosion. This section is a discussion of these structures in the county appear to be effective, factors as they apply to Westmoreland County. some groins have not been able to capture buffer beaches. Along the Rappahannock River, eighty-two percent of the shorelands are low shore. Several sections are prone to flooding during periods of abnormally high water. There are no existing population cen ters in this part of the county. As the shorelands are generally used for agriculture or are wooded, development would be at the sacrifice of these lands. A major limiting factor is the lack of good inland access from the shore. Construction of roads to the shoreline would be a costly proposi tion. Though some isolated construction will con I tinue to take place, no strong pressure to develop this sec~ion of the shoreline is evident at present.
The Potomac River shorelands of Westmoreland County differ greatly from the Rappahannock River portion. The majority (77%) of the shorelands are low shore, several sections of which are suscepti ble to flooding. However, twenty-five percent of the shorelands are either already used for residen tial purposes or are in the process of being so developed. These developments are usually strips of houses along the shore, most of which are prob ably second or vacation homes. The Town of Colo nial Beach is located along the shore. There are several areas for public recreation. However, as the residential sections of the county expand, there will be a need for more public recreation areas, especially open space for parks. Despite the apparent residential buildup, the .county is still basically rural, as the housing developments .are usually backed by agricultural lands. It is expected that some continued strip development will .occur near existing residential areas, but that the overall use patterns will remain nearly constant.
11 (
FIGURE 3: Lynch Point area, Segment 3. Notice the eroding shoreline. The entire area has been bulk headed since the photograph was taken.
FIGURE 4: Bottom Creek overview, Segment 4. The rip rap jetties at the creek mouth seem to be effective at keeping the creek entrance open. Notice the sand build up at the landward end of the long jetty.
(
FIGURE 3 FIGIJRE 4 (
( . FIGURE 5: Mouth of Gardner Creek, Segment 4. The pen insula has average elevations of five feet. Abnormally high water could cause flooding here, damaging the structures. Notice the fillets of sand trapped by the groin system.
FIGURE 6: Marina at Ragged Point Beach, Segment 4. The dredged and bulkheaded opening to the marina is fairly recent. Notice the sand beaches along the shoreline.
FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 (
12 Ml>,: ..-~ ...
FIGURE 7: Island off of Matthews Point, Subsegment 8B. Man-made from dredge spoil, the island has been shifting in recent years. The arrow points to a boat house, which once had alongside depths of 9 feet. The house is mostly over water now.
FIGURE 8: Horsehead Cliffs, Segment 9. The cliffs reach elevations up to 150 feet. Erosion due to down hill rain runoff is a problem in this area.
FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8
FIGURES 9 and 10: Near Church Point, Segment 10. These agricultural areas experience continuing erosion; how ever it would be a very costly proposition to try to stabilize them.
FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10
13 (
FIGURE 11: Along the south bank of Mattox Creek, Seg ment 11. This new housing development is not typical of most along Westmoreland's shoreline, as the devel opment extends inland for several thousand feet instead C of concentrating along the shoreline. Notice the wide sand beach.
FIGURE 12: South of Monroe Bay, Segment 11. Erosion is very evident here, as stabilized areas protrude into the water. (
FIGURE 13: Colonial Beach, Segment 12. The shore line is protected by concrete slabs acting as a sea wall.
FIGURE 14: Colonial Beach, Segment 12, ground view. ( The bluff in the foreground is eroding due to down hill rain runoff. The groins are of concrete bags.
FIGURE 15: Colonial Beach, Segment 12, ground view. Closeup of concrete bag groins and concrete slab sea FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 wall. ('
(
FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15
14
( WE·STMORELAND COUNTY / _,,,./ _,,.. MAP1A ,,.,,,. _,,.,· / / ..-,v·_,,
.-.;) o..,.. 0 ~ -v 0 9 ""':.-L- ~-j:) 1A ...... _...... ______! / I COUNTY AND MAP LOCATION MAP I // = Segment Boundary j .,/ = Subsegment Boundary I fc-1 I.Tl ( lA BROCKENBROUGH CREEK -LINE CREEK i lB 'LINE CREEK-BRISTOL MINE RUN I <. 2A HAMPTON HALL BRANCH-HORN POINT I ·.2B .HORN PO INT-LYNCH POI NT -~ 88 3 LYNCH POINT-BONUM CREEK 4 BONUM CREEK-RAGGED POINT i 5 RAGGED POINT-GRAPEVINE POINT l 7 6 LOWER .MACHODOC CREEK
7WEATHERALL CREEK-KINGCOPSICO POINT ~ 8A NOMINI BAY ( 88 NOMINI CREEK 9 HAULOVER INLET-POPES CREEK LANDING _./ ) 10 POPES CREEK LANDING-CHURCH POINT .r r·-"' 11 CHURCH POINT-HEAD OF MONROE BAY I 12 COLONIAL BEACH °L 13 GOLDMAN CREEK-HEAD OF ROSIER c·REEK."'\. '· i 'l \ i. \ \.. "\ ) / ( --- \...._./ ·---
2A WESTMORELAND COUNTY ,..,,.,\. _,..r-· MAP1B ,,,.,,·" _,,· i .....-,.,/.,,, ·"" -.!~ 0 i\ I v· G"'- 0 10 ~o ~/ ~~ 0 -~ ~~ (f .-:-:··.-:->:-: _,.,._,. Fringe Marsh fll!llllllllillllllllll r_, Extensive Marsh //////////// L ""\ Embayed Marsh ~ ·, NEARSHORE ( · Narrow 0-0-0-0 { 4 lntermediat& o o o o l Wide • • e • t. \ \.. "\ ) 0 / ( --· l ·-../ ·- 0 3 0
2A
.~. ,....,_ ,-.,\ -·, ~ ,-.. /""', l ·' . ,;
WESTMORELAND COUNTY /,.·'"\. .// / MAP1C ,,,,,..,,. /./ .,....., / ,~~i v·J f. i 18 oc. .itr~~ ~~' 12
IRS 10
1W ~;....i... IA 0~ .,,..0
9 ~ L- , -- «'~ ,' 1A t-:.".. \ ~1~-._,______! '' r I SHORELANDS USE I I Boat Ramp ~ j Marina ..... I -....J I OWNERSHIP • ( Private i 1 I Federal 2 {. State I 3 -~ 88 County 4 USE Agricultural A 7 Commercial C Industrial I Recreational RC RS Residential 5 Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w
4 / 3
2A WESTMORELAND COUNTY /,.,·~. ,,,./ ,/ MAP1D _,,/'" ,,,· / -l~i ....-,../"' i' v· 18 oc'f. '('tt~~
~~~ ii>-
10
-"V o...... 0~ '9("'1
-,;:)...... _,..,~ 9 ,- . I ~ \."'~'"..< 1A ' ' ' ' ' ' ,' f-----·-·-·, (') ,,," r .,. I I EROSION Severe { I-' Moderate I I I I I I I / 00 I Slight or No Change l\lo Symbol i Accretion al + + + + I
>'t..,. 88 l l 7
~- ( ._,,J) 5 r·_,,.r l L '"'\ ·, \ i l 4 l. \ \..,
""\ \ -- / (I 'l ,...-·"'~·----· \ - 3 .:::-- ...... ' ,, 2A +K" "" "*><
';~
,-, -~ -1 '"\ WESTMORELAND COUNTY ,,.,.,.-·\ .,.,,,./ MAP1E ,,.,,/ _.,,,· / .,..., / :-l~i v·-' i"' 18 ~ocf.
'('~~ . ??~ i~
10
~::A 0~. -s;"C" 9 ~k ,,• .... ~ I t".... :.;, ' 1A \ \ \ ' ' \ ' f------, -> ,' . r I•.· ' / SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS I Public Grounds ~ I Leased Areas 1:~:::~ j
..... Condemned Areas rz2ZI I \D ( SEWAGE DISCHARGES i Domestic • I
>-~ 88 > l 7 j. ( r~ ) 5 r·...;· t L.°"·, \ i l 4 t. \ \.." \ I / ( ----\ .l ...... ·-"" ·- 3
2A TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE AND OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) c··
SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES
FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE
A i::,::i A A r:,:.. r:,:.. i::,::i 0 ::i:: r:,:.. A ~~ 0 :::i 0 0 t...:i H t...:i t...:i r:Q ::i:: r:Q ;:,.., i::,::i t...:i t...:i ~ E-1 t...:i I ( ' t...:i r:,:.. ;:,.., ;:,.., ::i:: ;:,.., ::i:: i::,::i r:,:.. t...:iA t...:i t...:i ;;g ~
lA 18.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 6.4 8.3 3.2 5.7 14.0 0.3 0.2 5.3 19.5 0.3 17.9 19.8 lB 5.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.3 1.4 4.3 0.6 8.1 7.0 1.6 5.0 4.3 9.3 13.0 9.4 2A 4.1 6.3 1.3 0.3 0.7 8.4 1.3 2.2 0.5 1.6 7.3 11.6 10.7 11. 7 i(2B 20.2 1.3 1.9 12.4 1.3 1. 7 1.6 0.3 0.2 8.0 9.6 0.. 6 20.3 16.9 20.3 3 10 .• 4 2.4 2.6 0.1 0.4 · 5.5 2.7 1.9 5.5 0.4 10.4 5.5 10.4 ,'(4 27.9 2.4 2.8 16.1 2.5 4.7 23.8 28.0 I. . I 8.6 0.1 6.1 13.3 28.0 5 3~8 1. 7 0.5 1.3 0.1 2.3 2.8 0.9 3.8 3.5 3.8 6 34.2 1.5 1.3 19.0 2.9 0.5 14.2 0.2 14.8 5.0 34.2 24.7 34.2 7 9.3 0.7 2.6 5.1 0.1 0.7 2.6 1.0 2.4 0.1 1.1 5.8 9.3 9.2 9.3 BA 31.5 0.2 6.3 0.2 0.9 3.9 0.7 6.5 24.0 4.7 2.9 1. 9 0.3 4.0 22.5 0.1 3.6 13.7 3.1 42.9 0.1 38.8 43.0 8B 15.5 15.2 0.3 2.6 3.3 0.8 0.1 21.4 6.1 13.1 0.3 4.9 18.7 36.9 28.4 36.9 9 2.1 0.6 0.1 4.2 4.4 1.3 6.4 0.2 2.7 5.2 0.4 0.5 1.6 8.8 10.9 0.5 7.9 11.4 10 8.0 2.4 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.7 4.5 5.0 3.0 6.5 3.2 0.2 3.1 9.8 3.0 0.1 12.3 13.0 11 25.5 0.3 2.4 0.7 0.2 1.3 3.Q 11.4 10.4 1.5 8.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.7 9.3 0.9 29.0 0.1 26.1 29.1 12 6.6 0.6 2.4 3.0 1.8 0.1 1.6 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 6.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 13 7.0 0.7 1. 7 0.4 0.4 3.1 2.3 0.9 1.9 0.1 0.2 2.6 4.6 9.2 0.2 6.2 9.4
( ' TOTAL 230.1 4.3 33.3 0.9 7.5 0.1 14.5 6.0 17.3 34.5 139.3 46.3 14.9 26.8 23.5 6.4 103.6 1. 6 0.6 4.7 66.4 115.2 5.0 292.3 3.0 0.5 0.8 252.2 296. 9 \
% OF FASTLAND 78% 1% 11% 1% 2% <1% 5% 2% 35% 1% 1% 1% 22% 39% 2% 98% 1% 1% 1% 100%
% OF SHORE 7% 14% 55% 18% 6% 11% 9% 3% 100% (
*NOTE: Artificial fill comprises less than 1% of the total fastland measurement.
20 ( ( ·.· ...
CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries
( ' 4D2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps
' ~.. · ·:· . ...
( . ;.
( .
(.
( .
( -,
21 .
( I. (
TABLE 2. SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, WESTMORELAND COUNTY VIRGINIA
SEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SIIORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD IIAZJ\RD WATER QUALITY BEACH.QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION.· ALTERNATE SHORE USE
lA FASTLAND: Low shore 94%, moderately low FASTLA~'D: Agricultural 71 7 , recrea- Private 987 Low to moderate. Good. The Rappahan There are no beaches Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. As this area is still basi BROCKENBROUGH shore 2%, high shore 3%, and high shore tional 17, residential <1 7 , and unman- and noncritical. TI1e nock River generally in this subsegment. The area from Pccdee Creek to Leedstown has a cally rural in nature, there seems CREEK TO with bluff 1%. aged, wooded 277. countv 27. only stretch of has good water quali moderate historical erosion rate. little demand for public recrea~ LINE CREEK SHORE: Fringe marsh 36%, embayed marsh SHORE: Nostlv unused. shoreline st1scep ty. tional facilities. 17.9 miles 46%, and extensive marsh 18%. NEARSHORE: Some commercial traffic, tihle to flooding (19.8 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 32%. sport boating and fishing. is from Brocken of fast land) hrough Creek to C just west of Peedee Creek.
]B FASTLAND: Low shore 57%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 54'' and unman- Private. Low, noncritical. Good. The Rappahan There are no beaches Slight or no change. There are no endangered Low. Due to the rural nature of LINE CREEK bluff 2%, moderately low shore with bluff aged, wooded 467. The majoritv of nock River generally in this subsegment. or shore protective structures. this area, there seems little demand TO BRISTOL 1%, moderately high shore with bluff <1%, SHORE: Mostlv unused. tl1e shoreline has has good water quali for public recreational facilities. MINE RUN high shore 24%, and high shore with bluff NEARSHORE: Some commercial traffic, elevations of at ty. 13.0 miles 15%. sport boating and fishing. least 20 feet, and (' (9 .4 miles SHORE: Fringe marsh 33%, embayed marsh is not st1hject to of fastland) 4%, and extensive marsh 63%. flooding. NEARSHORE: Narrow 54% and intermediate 12%.
2A FASTLAND: Low shore 35%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 19°1 , commer Private. Low, noncritical. Good. The West Yeo Poor. There are only Slight or no change. There are approximately Moderate. The Kinsale area will HAMPTON HALL shore 54%, and moderately high shore 11%. cial 5"/, residential 14""/, and unman The entire s11bseg comico River generally narrow, strip beaches 1,600 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline probably expand in the future, BRANCH TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 117°' aged, wooded 627. ment has. eleva has good water quali in this subsegment. in the subsegment, most of which is for cos bringing about the need for recrea HORN POINT beach 7%, fringe marsh 78%, and embayed SHORE: Some private recreational use, tions of at least ty. metic purposes. tional facilities such as launching 10.7 miles marsh 12%. but mostly unused. 10 feet and is not ramps and picnic areas. (11.7 miles NEARSHORE: The West Yeocomico River has NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, subject to flood of fastland) average depths of 6 to 10 feet. and shellfishing. ing.
2B FASTLAND: Artificial fill <1% and low FASTLA~'D: Agricultural 8%, commer Private. Moderate to high, The Yeocomico River Poor to good. The No data; the area appears to be stable. The Moderate. Due to the increase in HORN POINT TO shore 99%. cial 1%, recreational 1%, resirjential critical. The ma has good water quality areas just north of Lynch Point spit is accreting at an average residential buildup, there is a need LYNCH POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8%, 39%, unmanaged, ;,oode-:l 477, and unn,an jority of the with some excellent Horn Point and at annual rate of 1.9 feet per year. There are for public recreational facilities 16. 9 miles beach 11%, fringe marsh 73%, and embayed aged, unwooded 3%. s~oreline is sus shellfish grounds. Lynch Point have wide approximately 6,800 feet of artificially such as launching ramps, picnic ·. (20. 3 miles marsh 8%. SHORE: Some recreational use, hut ceptible to flood beaches with some stabilized shoreline in the subsegment, most areas, and other open space sites. ·· of fastland) NEARSHORE: Intermediate 10%. mostly unused. ing. Some struc vegetation. of which is for retaining fill. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, tures on the North and shellfishing. west Yeocomico Riv er and at L,·nch Point are huil t below 5-foot eleva tions and could be flooded.
3 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 25", residen Private. Low to moderate, Good. The Potomac Good. Almost the Moderate, noncritical. The shoreline from Low. As this section of shoreline LYNCH POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 43%, tial 18%, unmanaged, wooded 537, and critical. The River generally has entire length of Lynch Point to Bonum Creek has been eroding is still basically rural, there TO beach 48%, fringe marsh 1%, and embayed unmanaged, unwooded 47. Lynch Point and good.water quality. shoreline has a wide, at an average historical rate of 2.7 feet per seems little demand for public rec BONUM CREEK marsh 8%. .SHORE: Some private recreational use, Sandy Point areas clean beach. year. Most of the shoreline is now artifi reational facilities • 5. 5 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate. but mostly unused. could be flooded cially stabilized. (10.4 miles NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic, sport during abnormally of fastland) boating and fishing. high water, inun dating all the structures located along the shore line.
4 FASTLAND: Artificial fill <1% and low FASTIJIND: Agricultura.J 317, .indus-. Private. Mode.rate to high, Good. The Potomac Poor to good. Ragged Moderate to severe, noncriticaf. The shoreline Low. There seems to be little de BONUM CREEK shore 100%. trial <1%, ·residential 227, and unman· critic al. Numerous River, Bonum, Jackson, Point Beach has a from Bonum Creek.to Jackson Creek is experienc- mand to change the predominantly TO SHORE: Artificially stabilized 10%, aged, wooded 47%. structures on the and Gardner Creeks all wide clean beach with ing an average annual retreat of 4.2 feet per rural nature of the segment. RAGGED POINT beach 12%, fringe marsh 68%, and embayed· SHORE: Private recreational use along north hank of Gard- have excellent water some vegetation. year; from Jackson Creek to Cherry Grove Creek 23.8 miles marsh 10%. the residential areas. ner Creek and along quality. 1.5 feet per year; and from Cherry Grove Creek (2&.0 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 20%. NEARSHORE: Some commercial traffic, Ragged Point P,each to Ragged Point 2.8 feet per year. Groins of fastland) sp.ort boating, ·fishing, and shell would be inundated have been used in conjunction with bulkhead fishing. during abnormally along several stretches of 13horeline to stop high water. the retreat.
t I I
22 ( (
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE Ij HATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE ( SEGMENT OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD 5 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Residential 75% and unman Private. Low, noncritical. I Satisfactory. The Poor. There are only Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. Moderate. As this segment and the. RAGGED POINT SHORE: Artificially stabilized 49%, aged, wooded 25%. The majority of Potomac River gener narrow, strip beaches The shoreline along Ragged Point Beach and from surrounding areas are fairly heavily TO GRAPEVINE beach 14%, fringe marsh 36%, and embayed SHORE: Mostly private recreational the shoreline has ally has good water in the segment. Coles Point to Grapevine Point have average developed, there is a need for pub- POINT marsh <1%. use. elevations of at quality. historical erosion rates of 3.4 feet and 3.6 lie recreational facilities. 3.5 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 64%. NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport boat least 10 to 15 feet per year respectively. There are approxi- (3. 8 miles ing and fishing. feet arid is not mately 9,100 feet of artificially stabilized of fastland) subject to flood shoreline in the segment. ing.
6 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 427., commer Private. Low to moderate, Poor to fair. The Poor to fair. Some Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. Moderate. There is already a great LOWER SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6%, cial <1%, residential 437., and unman noncritical. A lower portion of the groin fields have The shoreline from Branson Cove to Grannys deal of residential activity along MACHODOC beach 5%, fringe marsh 77%, and embayed aged, wooded 157.. few isolated areas Lower Nachodoc Creek trapped good fillets Bar has been experiencing an average histori this shoreline. There is a need for CREEK marsh 12%. SHORE: Mostly unused. (Grannys Bar, Nar is currently tlosed to of sand. cal retreat of 4.9 feet per year. There are public recreational facilities such 24. 7 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2%. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. rows Beach and the taking of shell approximately 7,900 feet of artificially sta as camping and hiking areas, and (34.2 miles Drum Bay) have fish. bilized shoreline, most of which is effective. launching ramps. of fastland) structures built below 5-foot eleva tions and could be flooded during ab normally high water.
7 FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Agricultural 25%, recrea Private. Low, noncritical. Satisfactory. This Poor to good. There Moderate, noncritical. This section of shore Moderate. A well maintained public WEATHERALL SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8%, tional <1%, residential 11%, and un The majority of portion of the Potomac are several wide, line has an average historical erosion rate of recreational park that blends with CREEK TO beach 28%, fringe marsh 55%, embayed managed, wooded 62%. the shoreline has River generally has clean beaches in the 2.7 feet per year. There are approximately the rural surroundings of the area KINGCOPSICO marsh 1%, and extensive marsh 8%. SHORE: Mostly unused. elevations of 10 excellent water quali segment. 3,700 feet of artificially stabilized shore is possible here. POINT NEARSHORE: Narrow 28% and intermediate NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport boat to 15 feet and is ty. line in the segment, most of which is effec 9.2 miles 11%. ing and fishing. not subject to tive. (9.3 miles flooding. of fastland)
8A FASTLAND: Low shore 73%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 52%, recrea Private 99% Noderate to high, Satisfactory. Nomini Fair. The beach at Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. As this area is still basi NOMINI BAY bluff <1%, moderately low shore 15%, tional <1%, residential 8%, unmanaged, and critical. Several Bay has good water Hhite Point is wide The area of highest erosion is from Kingcopsi cally rural, there seems little de 38.8 miles moderately low shore with bluff <1%, wooded 32%, and unmanaged, unwooded county <1%. areas in North quality and some ex with good vegetation. co Point to White Point Spit, which is expe mand for recreational facilities. (43.0 miles moderately high shore 2%, and high shore 7%. Prong and Buckner cellent shellfish Groins along White riencing an average historical retreat of 2.8 of fastland) 9%. SHORE: Mostly unused. Creek could be grounds. Point Spit are help feet per year. The groin field at White Point SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, flooded during ab ing maintain a beach. Spit has trapped good fillets of sand. beach 17%, fringe marsh 62%, embayed and shel:lfishing. normally high wa marsh 12%, and extensive marsh 7%. ter, endangering NEARSHORE: Narrow 5%, intermediate <1%, several structures. and wide 10%.
8B FASTLAND: Low shore 42%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 36%, indus Private. Low, noncritical. Unsatisfactory. The Poor. There is only Slight or no change. The shoreline appears to Low. There appears to be little de NOMINI CREEK shore 41%, moderately low shore with trial < 1%, residential 13%, and un The majority of lower portion of Nom a small section of be stable. There are approximately 4,300 feet mand for public recreational facili 28.4 miles bluff 1%, moderately high shore 7%, and managed, wooded 51%. the shoreline has ini Creek is currently narrow, strip beach of artificially stabilized shoreline in the ties in this area. (36. 9 miles high shore 9%. SHORE: Mostly unused. elevations of 20 closed to the taking in the subsegment. subsegment, most of which is for cosmetic pur of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. to 40 feet and is of shellfish. poses. beach <1%, fringe marsh 75%, and embayed not subject to marsh 22%. flooding. NEARSHORE: Nomini Creek has depths of 3 to 10 feet.
9 FASTLAND: Low shore 19%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 4%, recrea Private 96% Low, noncritical. Satisfactory. The Fair. This segment Slight or no change to .severe, noncritical. Low. The Westmoreland State Park HAULOVER bluff 5%, moderately high shore 1%, high tional 4%, residential 14%, and un and The majority of Potomac River gener has fairly wide, The Mount Airy Triangulation area has an aver is located in this segment, provid INLET TO shore 37%, and high shore with bluff managed, wooded 78%. state 4%. the shoreline is ally has good water clean beaches. age historical erosion rate of 2.1 feet per ing a variety of recreational facili POPES CREEK 38%. SHORE: The Westmoreland State Park fronted by bluff quality. year; Clifton Hill area 1. 7 feet per year; ties for the general public. LANDING SHORE: Artificially stabilized 16%, provides recreational facilities for and is not subject Nomini Cliffs 1.5 feet per year; and Horsehead 7 .9 miles beach 81%, and embayed marsh 3%. the public. to flooding. Cliffs to Church Point 3.5 feet per year. (11. 4 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 34% and intermediate NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport There are approximately 6,900 feet of wooden (', of fastland) 66%. boating and fishing. bulkhead used in conjunction with groins in the segment. The groins appear to be effective in trapping sand.
23 I TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
( SEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE Sl!ORELANDS USE OHNERSIIIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE.EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 1------+------+------+------+------ir------j------j------~~--~-----+------·- 10 FASTLAND: Low shore 62%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 50'/, recrea Private 76%, Low, noncritical. Popes Creek is cur Poor to fair. The Severe, noncritical. The entire river-fronting Low. The George Washington National POPES CREEK bluff 19%, moderately low shore 157.-, mod tional 25%, residential 1%, and un federal 23%, The majority of rently closed for the majority of the shoreline has an average historical erosion Monument Park provides recreational LANDING TO erately low shore with bluff 2%, and mod managed, wooded 247. and the shoreline has taking of shellfish. shoreline has nar rate of 3.5 feet per year. There is approxi- lfacilities for the public. There CHURCH POINT erately high shore 2%. SHORE: The George Hashington National county <1%. elevations of 10 The Potomac River row, strip beaches. mately 200 feet of wooden bulkhead at the mout seems little demand to alter any of 12 .3 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1%, Monument Park provides a variety of feet and is not generally has good of Popes Creek. This structure has now been the remaining shoreline. (13 .O miles beach 22%, fringe marsh 37%, and embayed recreational facilities for the gen subject to flood water quality. flanked and is basically ineffective at of fastland) marsh 41%. eral public. ing. stopping erosion. ( NEARSHORE: Narrow 24%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport boating and fishing.
11 FASTLAND: Low shore 87%, low shore with FASTLAND: Agricultural 277., commer Private 99% Low, noncritical Unsatisfactory. The Fair to good. The There is no significant erosion in this area. Low. Because of the poor water CHURCH POINT bluff 1%, moderately low shore 8%, mod cial< 1%, industrial < 1%, recreational and for most of the lower portion of Mat majority of the seg Sebastian Point and Paynes Point have average quality, there seems little desire TO HEAD OF erately high shore 3%, and high shore 1%. <1%, residential 377, unmanaged, county <17. segment. The tox Creek and all of ment has only nar historical accretion rates of 1.6 and 0.4 feet for public recreational facilities MONROE BAY SHORE: .Artificially stabilized 5%, wooded 32%, and unmanaged, unwooded Sebastian Point Nonroe Bay are closed row, strip beaches. per year respectively. in the area. 26 .1 miles beach 12%, fringe marsh 44%, and embayed 3%. area could be for the taking of The area between (29 .1 miles marsh 39%. SHORE: Some limited public recrea flooded during shellfish. Church Point and of fastland) NEARSHORE: Wide 6%. Mattox Creek has tional use at the marina and private periods of abnor Sheep Point has a average depths of 3 to 5 feet and Monroe use along the residential sections. mally high water, very wide, clean Bay has depths to 7 feet. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. endangering the beach. structures built there.
12 FASTLAND: Low shore 91% and low shore FASTLAND: Agricultural 6%, commer- Private. High, critical. Unsatisfactory for Fair. Gum Bar Point Slight or no change. Most of the shoreline Low. The entire segment is already COLONIAL with bluff 9%. cial 7%, and residential 87%. Several sections Monroe Bay, which is has a wide, clean has been artificially stabilized, effectively used. BEACH SHORE: Artificially stabilized 33%, SHORE: Commercial use (marinas) and of Colonial Beach closed for the taking beach with vegeta combatting any erosion. This stabilization 7 .2 miles beach 41%, fringe marsh 25%, and embayed private recreational use. have elevations of shellfish. The tion. Several other includes a variety of structures such as con (7. 2 miles marsh 1%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, sport below 7 feet and Potomac River gener areas in the segment crete bulkhead, wooden bulkhead, stone riprap, of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 22%, intermediate 30%, boating and fishing. could be flooded ally has good water have fairly wide and groins. and wide 12%. during periods of quality. beaches. abnormally high water.
13 FASTLAND: Low shore 75%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 20%, indus Private 98% Low, noncritical Satisfactory. Rosier Poor. The majority Slight or no change, noncritical. The area Moderate. A well maintained public GOLDMAN CREEK shore 7%, and moderately high shore 18%. trial 1%, recreational 2%, residential and for most of the Creek generally has of the segment has appears to be stable. There are approximately recreational park is possible in TO HEAD OF SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6%, 28%, and unmanaged, wooded 49%. county 2%. segment. Some good water quality. only narrow, strip 2,000 feet of artificially stabilized shore this segment. ROSIER CREEK beach 6%, fringe marsh 50%, and embayed SHORE: Some private recreational use, structures at the beaches. line in the segment, most of which is for 6.2 miles marsh 38%. but mostly unused. mouth of Goldman cosmetic purposes or for retaining fill. (9.4 miles NEARSHORE: Intermediate 15%. Rosier NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. Creek are built of fastland) Creek has average depths of 3 feet. below 5-foot eleva tions and could be inundated during periods of abnor C mally high water •
.
24 ( SUBSEGMENT lA BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub SUBSEGMENT lB segment. BROCKENBROUGH CREEK TO LINE CREEK LINE CREEK TO BRISTOL MINE RUN PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION ( Map 2 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, Map 3· noncritical. The area from Peedee Creek west to Leedstown has an average historical erosion EXTENT: 94,600 feet (17.9 mi.) of shoreline along rate of 1.2 feet per year. The Leedstown area EXTENT: 68,500 feet (13.0 mi.) of shoreline along the Rappahannock River, from Brockenbrough Creek has an average rate of 0.6 feet per year. the Rappahannock River from Line Creek to Bris to Line Creek, including Peedee Creek. The sub SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. tol Mine Run, including Troy Creek. The sub segment has a fastland measurement of 104,600 segment also contains 49,400 feet (9.4 mi.) of feet (19.8 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are a few piers and fastland. a boat landing in the subsegment. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 94% (18.6 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of this subsegment has FASTLAND: Low shore 57% (5.4 mi.), low shore low shore 2% (0.4 mi.), high shore 3% (0.6 mi.), either very low shore, with the possibility of with bluff 2% (0.2 mi.), moderately low shore and high shore with bluff 1% (0.2 mi.). flooding, or bluffs along the shoreline making with bluff 1% (0.1 mi.), moderately high shore SHORE: Fringe marsh 36% (6.4 mi.), embayed access to the water difficult. Much of the low with bluff <1% ( 0.1 mi.), high shore 24% (2.3 marsh 46% (8.3 mi.), and extensive marsh 18% shore is fronted by marsh systems, which should mi.), and high shore with bluff 15% (1.4 mi.). (3.2 mi.). be left in their natural state. The entire sub SHORE: Fringe marsh 33% (4.3 mi.), embayed NEARSHORE: Narrow 32%. The remainder of the segment is already actively used for agricul marsh 4% (0.6 mi.), and extensive marsh 63% nearshore zone is located along creeks which tural purposes, and any development would be at (8. 1 mi.). are too narrow and shallow for classification. the sacrifice of these farmlands. NEARSHORE: Narrow 54% and intermediate 12%. The remainder of the nearshore zone is located SHORELANDS USE ALTERNATE SHORE USE: As there is no major connnu along Troy Creek and the many marsh creeks FASTLAND: Agricultural 71% (14.0 mi.), recrea nity in the area and since the area is still which are too narrow and shallow for classifi tional 1% (0.3 mi.), resid€ntial <1% (0.2 mi.), very rural, there is little demand for public cation. and unmanaged, wooded 27% (5.3 mi.). recreational facilities. Any development would ( SHORE: Some water related activities at the have_ to_ensure the maintenance of the marshes SHORELANDS USE campground at Leestown, but mostly unused. and the good water quality of this subsegment. FASTLAND: Agricultural 54% (5.0 mi.) and un NEARSHORE: Connnercial traffic to Fredericks managed, wooded 46% (4.3 mi.). burg, sport boating and fishing. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHAMPLAIN SHORE: Mostly unused.· Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; NEARSHORE: Some commercial traffic to Freder WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends basi USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LORETTO icksburg,. sport boating and fishing. cally SE - NW, through a series of large mean Quadr., 1968, pr. 1972. ders. There are no significant fetches affect NOS# 12237 (605-SC), 1:40,000 scale, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The main portion of the ing this area. RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to subsegment trends basically S - N. There are Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975. no significant fetches affecting this area. OWNERSHIP: Private 98% and county 2%. PHOTOS:. Aerial-VIMS 19Jul77 WM-lA/868-917. OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to.moderate, noncritical. The majority of the shor·eline has elevations of at FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of · least 10 feet. The stretch of shoreline from the shoreline has elevations exceeding 20 feet Brockenbrough Creek to just west of Peedee and is not subject to flooding. The fastland Creek is _very low, with average elevations of behind Drakes Marsh is fairly low and could be 5 feet.,· arid could be flooded during abnormally flooded during periods of abnormally high ( \ high water. water.
WATER QUALITY: This· portion.of the Rappahannock WATER QUALITY: This portion of the Rappahannock River generally has good water quality. Some River generally has good water quality, al pollution does.exist due to rain runoff from though some pollution does exist due to soil the agricultural fields. To combat this soil erosion of the agricultural fields. erosion, a vegetated buffer zone of reasonable width should be left along the shoreline. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this
2.5 (
subsegment.
PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. ( ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None.
OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None.
SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore line is fronted by cliffs ranging from 20 feet to 100 feet high, limiting access to the water. A great amount of the land is still heavily wooded, and combined with the fact that there are no major highways in the area, development of the shoreline would be a costly proposition.
ALTERNATE SHORE USE: The only portion of the sub segment that is easily accessible is behind Drakes Marsh. This area is already used for agricultural purposes. Due to the rural nature of the area there is little demand for public recreational facilities at present. Any resi dential development would have to take care to maintain the marshes and the good water quality of the subsegment.
MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), LORETTO Quadr., 1968, pr. 1972; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK Quadr., 1968. NOS# 12237 (605-SC), J:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, VA, 12th ed., 1975.
PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 19Jul77 WM-lB/801-876.
( .
26 ( SUBSEGMENT 2A imately 1,600 feet of artificially stabilized SUBSEGMENT 2B shoreline in the subsegment, most of which is HAMPTON HALL BRANCH TO HORN POINT for retaining fill or cosmetic purposes. HORN POINT TO LYNCH POINT
( Map 4 OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers Maps 4 and 5 and boat sheds in the subsegment. Two bridges are also located in the subsegment, one in Hamp EXTENT: 56,800 feet (10.7 mi.) of shoreline along ton Hall Branch and the other in Kin.sale Branch. EXTENT: 89,500 feet (16.9 mi.) of shoreline along the West Yeocomico River, from the head of Hamp the Yeocomico River from Horn Point to Lynch ton Hall Branch to Horn Point. The subsegment SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline of Hampton Point, including the Northwest Yeocomico River. also includes 61,500 feet (11.7 mi.) of fastland. Hall Branch has elevations of up to 50 feet, The subsegment also contains 107,200 feet which makes access to the water difficult. Most (20.3 mi.) of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE of the fastland behind the shore zone is used FASTLAND: Low shore 35% (4.1 mi.), moderately for agricultural purposes. The fastland along SHORELANDS TYPE low shore 54% (6.3 mi.), and moderately high the West Yeocomico River is basically unused, FASTLAND: Artificial fill <1% (0.1 mi.) and shore 11% (1.3 mi.). wooded lands, with a few scattered residences. low shore 99% (20.2 mi.). ( ' SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.3 mi.), This area has potential for future development, SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8% (1.3 mi.), beach 7% (0.7 mi.), fringe marsh 78% (8.4 mi.), although it seems that most development will beach 11% (1.9 mi.), fringe marsh 73% (12.4 and embayed marsh 12% (1.3 mi.). center around Kin.sale. mi.), and embayed marsh 8% (1.3 mi.). NEARSHORE: The West Yeocomico River has average NEARSHORE: Intermediate 10%. The remainder depths of 6 to 10 feet. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. The Kin.sale area of the nearshore zone is too narrow and shal will probably expand in the future, bringing low for classification. SHORELANDS USE about the need for public recreational facili FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (2.2 mi.), commer ties such as launching ramps and picnic areas. SHORELANDS USE cial 5% (0.5 mi.), residential 14% (1.6 mi.), To retain the overall natural beauty of the FASTLAND: Agricultural 8% (1.6 mi.), commer and unmanaged, wooded 62% (7.3 mi.). area, the remainder of the shoreline would be cial 1% (0.3 mi.), recreational 1% (0.2 mi.), SHORE: Some private recreational and commercial best left rural. residential 39% (8.0 mi.), unmanaged, wooded use (marina), but mostly unused. 47% (9.6 mi.), and unmanaged, unwooded 3% NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and shell MAPS: USG_S_, 7. 5 Min. Ser. (Topo.), KT!:'.JSALE (0. 6 mi.). fishing. Quadr., 1968. SHORE: Some public recreational use at the NOS# 12233 (557), 1:40,000 scale, marina and campground, but mostly unused. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Hampton Hall Branch trends POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to Piney NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and shell basically SW - NE, while the remainder of the Point, VA and MD, 18th ed., 1973. fishing. subsegment runs generally W - E. The shoreline (' in this subsegment is not exposed to any signif PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 1Dec76 WM-2A/001-47. WIND AND·SEA EXPOSURE: The Northwest Yeocomico icant fetches. River trends basically NW - SE. The remainder of the subsegment runs SW - NE. Fetches at OWNERSHIP: Private. Horn Point are NE - 10 nautical miles and E - unlimited across the Bay. FLOOD HAZARD: Low; noncritical. The entire shore line has elevations of 10 feet or higher and is OWNERSHIP: Private. not prone to flooding. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to high, critical. The WATER QUALITY: The West Yeocomico River generally majority of the shoreline has elevations of 10 has good water quality. Some non-point source feet or less. Some structures in the North pollution may exist due to agricultural runoff. west Yeocomico River and at Lynch Point are built below 5-foot elevations and could be BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, strip flooded during periods of abnormally high wa beaches ·in this subsegment. · ter.
PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION WAT.ER QUALITY: The Yeocomico River has good wa EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. ter quality with some excellent shellfishing ., ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. grounds in the area • SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES:' There are approx-
27 (
BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. Most of the subseg ment has narrow, strip beaches. The areas just north of Horn Point and at Lynch Point have wide beaches with some vegetation.
PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: No data for most of the subseg ment, although it appears to be stable. The spit at Lynch Point is accreting at an average historical rate of 1.9 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx imately 6,800 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in the subsegment, most of which is for retaining fill or for cosmetic purposes. ( ' OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several private piers in the subsegment. The marinas have tie up slips and launching ramps.
SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the shoreline along the east bank of the Northwest Yeocomico River around to Lynch Point is already developed. Some new residential development is taking place along White Point Creek. The remainder of the subsegment is mostly wooded. Any new develop ment should take care to maintain the good water quality of the river • .~· .: ;. ·.· . ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. Due to the in crease in residential buildup there is a need for public recreational facilities such as a launching ramp and picnic areas. The remainder of the subsegment is best left in its natural state to preserve the rural beauty of the area.
MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE Quadr., 1968. NOS# 12233 (557), 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to Piney Point, VA and MD, 18th ed., 1973.
PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 1Dec76 WM-2B/48-81; 22Dec76 WM-2B/82-115.
(
·-·~
28 SEGMENT 3 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. The LYNCH POINT TO BONUM CREEK shoreline from Lynch Point to Bonum Creek had been eroding at an average historical rate of ( Maps 5 and 6 2.7 feet per year. However, much of this area has now been artificially stabilized. The spit at Lynch Point has an historical accretion rate EXTENT: 28,900 feet (5.5 mi.) of shoreline along of 1.9 feet per year. the Potomac River, from Lynch Point to Bonum ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. Creek. The segment also includes 55,100 feet SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Most of the shore (10.4 mi.) of fastland. line from Lynch Point to Sandy Point is artifi cially stabilized with bulkhead or riprap. Pre SHORELANDS TYPE vious attempts to stabilize the Lynch Point area FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. have failed and a considerable amount of erosion SHORE: Artificially stabilized 43% (2.4 mi.), took place before the next structure could be beach 48% (2.6 mi.), fringe marsh 1% (O.l mi.), installed. Groins have been used in conjunction / . \ and embayed marsh 8% (0.4 mi.). with bulkhead along the Sandy Point area. Most NEARSHORE: Intermediate. of these structures have been successful in trapping sand and combatting erosion. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 25% (2.7 mi.), residen OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers tial 18% (1.9 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 53% (5.5 in the segment. mi.), and unmanaged, unwooded 4% (0.4 mi.). SHORE: Some private recreational use, but SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline from just mostly unused. north of Lynch Point to Sandy Point already has NEARSHORE: Conunercial traffic in the shipping strip development along it. The Lynch Point lanes, sport boating and fishing. area itself is highly susceptible to flooding. The remainder of the shoreline, from Sandy Point WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline from Lynch to Bonum Creek, is used for agriculture or is Point to Sandy Point trends basically SSE - NNW, unused. The wooded, unused areas have potential and from Sandy Point to Bonum Creek the trend for residential buildup, although clearing ac is SE - NW. Fetches at Lynch Point are E - 11 cess roads and building lots would probably be nautical miles and NE - 9 nautical miles. The a costly proposition. fetch at Sandy Point is E - 9 nautical miles. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As this section of OWNERSHIP: Private. shoreline is still rural, there seems to be little demand for public recreational facili FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, critical. The ties. Any major development should take care Lynch Point and Sandy Point areas have eleva to retain the natural beauty of the area, as tions of 5 feet or less, and would be flooded well as the good water quality. during periods of abnormally high water, along with the numerous structures built on the MA.PS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE ·shoreline. · The remainder of the shoreline has Quadr., 1968. elevations of at least 10 feet and is not sub- NOS# 12233 (557), 1:40,000 scale, ject to flooding. POTOMA.C RIVER, Chesapeake Bay to Piney Point, VA and MD, 18th ed., 1973. WATER QUALITY: The Potomac River generally has excellent water quality. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 22Dec76 WM-3/116-214 •.
BEACH QUALITY: Good. Almost the entire length of shoreline in this segment is fronted by wide, clean beaches,
29 (.
SE_GMENT_.4 good water quality. Bonum., Jackson and Gardner USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PINEY POINT Creeks have excellent water quality and contain Quadr., 1968. BONUM CREEK TO RAGGED POINT extensive shellfishing grounds. NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar Map 6 BEACH QUALITY: Poor to good. The southern section Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. ( of the segment has only narrow, strip beaches. Ragged Poirit Beach has a wide, clean beach with PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-4/215-274. EXTENT: 125,700 feet (23.8 mi.) of shoreline along some vegetation behind. the Potomac River from Bonum Creek to Ragged Point, including Bonum, Jackson and Gardner PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Creeks. The segment has a fastland measurement EROSION RATE: Moderate to severe, noncritical. (. of 148,100 feet (28.0 mi.). The shoreline from Bonum Creek to Jackson Creek has an average historical retreat of 4.2 feet SHORELANDS TYPE per year; from Jackson Creek to Cherry Grove FASTLAND: Artificial fill < 1% (0. 1 mi.) and Creek, 1.5 feet per year; and from Cherry Grove low shore 99.7% (27.9 mi.). Creek to Ragged Point, 2.8 feet per year. Al ( ·.. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 10% (2.4 mi.), most the entire shoreline from Gardner Creek to beach 12% (2.8 mi.), fringe marsh 68% (16.1 Long Pond has now been artificially stabilized, mi.), and embayed marsh 10% (2.5 mi.). effectively combatting the erosion. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 20%. The remainder of ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. the nearshore zone is too narrow and shallow SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx for classification. imately 12,900 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in the segment. Most of the bulkhead SHORELANDS USE located in the creeks is for retaining fill or FASTLAND: Agricultural 31% (8.6 mi.), indus for cosmetic purposes. Groins have been used trial <1% (0.1 mi.), residential 22% (6.1 mi.), in conjunction with bulkhead in several areas and unmanaged, woo~ed 47% (13.3 mi.). along the river-fronting shoreline. These SHORE: Private recreational use along the resi structures have been effective in trapping sand. dential areas. NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic in the shipping OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two riprap jet lanes, sport boating, fishing and shellfishing ties at the mouth of Bonum Creek, and numerous closer to shore and in the creeks. piers throughout the rest of the segment.
WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The river-fronting shore SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline from Gardner line trends basically SSE - NNW. Bonum and Creek to Ragged Point is already used for resi Jackson Creeks run SW - NE from the head to the dential purposes. The majority of the remaining mouth, and Gardner Creek runs W - E. Fetches shoreline is farmed, and any development here at Ragged Point are E - 4 nautical miles and would be at the sacrifice of these agricultural SE - unlimited through the mouth of the Potomac lands. Small scale development could take place River •. in some areas, however, care must be taken to maintain the excellent water quality of this ( . OWNERSHIP: Private. area.
FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to high, critical. Several ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The northern half of areas on the north bank of Gardner Creek and the segment is already developed. The shore along Ragged Point Beach have elevations of 5 line from Bonum Creek to Gardner Creek should feet or less. Numerous structures located in probably be left in its natural, rural state these areas would be inundated during periods to maintain a good balance with the rest of of abnormally high water. The remainder of the the segment. segment has elevations of at least 10 feet and is not subject to flooding. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), KINSALE Quadr., 1968; WATER QUALITY: The.Potomac River generally has
30
( f·" SEGMENT 5 now been az:t~fici~lly stabilized. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. RAGGED POINT TO GRAPEVINE POINT SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx imately '9,100 feet of wooden bulkhead in the Maps 6 and 7 segment. In several sections groins have been used in conjunction with the bulkhead, and have been fairly successful in trapping sand. EXTENT: 18,700 feet (3.5 mi.) of shoreline along the Potomac River from Ragged Point to Grapevine OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers Point. The segment also includes 19,800 feet located in the segment. (3.8 mi.) of fastland. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The Potomac River-fronting SHORELANDS TYPE shoreline is already used for strip residential FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. development. Any further development would re SHORE: Artificially stabilized 49% (1. 7 mi.), quire the sacrifice of the few remaining unde (' beach 14% (0.5 mi.), fringe marsh 36% (1.3 mi.), veloped wooded areas of the segment. and embayed marsh <1% ( 0.1 mi.). NEARSHORE: Narrow 64%. The remainder of the ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. As this segment nearshore zone is located in Blackbeard Pond, and the surrounding areas are fairly heavily which is too narrow and shallow for classifi developed, there could be a need for public re cation. lated facilities such as picnic areas and launch- . ing ramps. Care should be taken to maintain the SHORELANDS USE good water quality of the area. FAS TLAND : Resident ia1 7 5% (2 • 8 mi. ) and unman - aged, wooded 25% (0.9 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PINEY POINT SHORE: Mostly private recreational use. Quadr., 1968; NEARSHORE: Commercial amf'sport boating and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. CLEMENTS fishing. lSLAND Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline in this seg POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar ment trends basically E - W. The fetches at Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. Ragged Point are N - 5 nautical miles and SE - unlimited through the mouth of the Potomac. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-5/275-293.
OWNERSHIP: Private.
FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of the shoreline has elevations of at least 10 to 15 feet and is not subject to flooding. \ \ WATER QUALITY: . The Potomac River generally has good water quality.
BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, strip beaches in·the segl!lent •
. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION . . EROSION RATE:· ·slight·or no change·to severe, noncritical. The areas of shoreline along Rag ged Point Beach and. from Coles Point to Grape~. vine Point had averige historical erosion rates ·of 3.4. and 3~6.feet per' year respectively. ~owever, most of this stretch of shoreline has
31 (
SEGMENT 6 some groin fields have trapped good fillets of sand. LOWER MACHODOC CREEK PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION ( Map 7 EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. The shoreline from Branson Cove to Grannys Bar has experienced an average annual EXTENT: 130,400 feet (24.7 mi.) of shoreline along retreat of 4.9 feet per year. However, most of Lower Machodoc Creek from Grapevine Point to this area is now artificially stabilized. The Weatherall Creek, including all the creeks and remainder of the shoreline appears to be stable. coves located in Lower Machodoc Creek. The seg ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. ment has a fastland measurement of 180,700 feet SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx (34.2 mi.). imately 7,900 feet of artificially stabilized shoreline in the segment. There are several SHORELANDS TYPE groin fields included in this measurement, most FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. of which have been effective in trapping sand. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6% (1.5 mi.), beach 5% (1.3 mi.), fringe marsh 77% (19.0 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and embayed marsh 12% (2.9 mi.). and boat sheds in this segment, and some pri NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2%. The remainder of vately owned boat ramps. the nearshore zone along Lower Machodoc Creek is too narrow and shallow for classification. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore ( line is already used for residential purposes SHORELANDS USE or is farmed. Any new development in this area FASTLAND: Agricultural 42% (14.2 mi.), commer should take care not to add any pollutants to cial <1% (0.2 mi.), residential 43% (14.8 mi.), the water. and unmanaged, wooded 15% (5.0 mi.). SHORE: Some private recreational use and lim ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. There is already ited public use at the marina, but mostly un a great deal of residential activity along the used. shoreline, and any new communities would be at NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. the sacrifice of the agricultural lands. Pub lic recreational facilities, i.e., picnic areas, WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Lower Machodoc Creek trends launching ramps and playing fields, are neces basically N - S. The fetch at Grapevi~e Point sary in such a populated area. is NW - 9 nautical miles. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. CLEMENTS OWNERSHIP: Private. ISLAND Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser._ (Topo.), MACHODOC FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. The Quadr., 1968. NOS//: 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, majority of the segment has elevations of at ( . least 10 feet and is·not susceptible to flood POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar ing. A few isolated areas (Grannys Bar, Nar Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. rows Beach and Drum Bay) have structures built below 5-foot elevations that could be flooded PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-6/294-371. during periods of abnormally high water.
WATER QUALITY: Poor to fair. The majority of Lower Machodoc Creek has good water quality. However, the lower portion is currently closed
}.· . .: to the taking of shellfish.
. BEACH QUALITY: Poor to fair. Most of the shore line has only narrow, strip beaches, although
32
( SEGMENT 7 section of shoreline has an average historical erosion rate of 2.7 feet per year. However, WEATHERALL CREEK TO KINGCOPSICO POINT several areas of shoreline have now been arti ficially stabilized. r- \ Maps 7 and 8 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx imately 3,700 feet of artificially stabilized EXTENT: 48,800 feet (9.2 mi.) of shoreline along shoreline in the segment, most of which appears the Potomac River from Weatherall Creek to King to be effective. There are several groin fields copsico Point, including Cabin Point Creek. The included in this measurement, the majority of segment has a fastland measurement of 49,100 which seem to be trapping good fillets of sand. feet (9. 3 mi.) . OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers in SHORELANDS TYPE the segment. FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 8% (0.7 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline along Weath- beach 28% (2.6 mi.), fringe marsh 55% (5.1 mi.), . erall Creek and from Herring Pond to Kingcop embayed marsh 1% (0.1 mi.), and extensive marsh sico Point is already developed for residential 8% (O. 7 mi.) . purposes. Most of the remaining shoreline is NEARSHORE: Narrow 28% and intermediate 11%. farmed, and any construction here would be at The rest of the shoreline is located in Cabin the sacrifice of the agricultural fields. The Point Creek, which is too narrow and shallow for portion of land to the west of Bettys Pond is classification. unused at present, and should probably remain so if the rural nature of the area is to be SHORELANDS USE maintained. FASTLAND: Agricultural 25% (2.4 mi.), recrea tional <1% (0.1 mi.), residential 11% (1.1 mi.), ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. Although the Mach and unmanaged, wooded 62% (5.8 mi.). odoc Neck area appears to be mostly rural, there SHORE: Private recreational use in the popu is some residential development in the section. Jated areas, but mostly unused. A well maintained public recreational park that NEARSHORE: Commercial and sport boating and blends in with the rural surroundings of the fishing. area is possible here.
WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline of this seg MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. CLEMENTS ment trends basically SE - NW from Weatherall ISLAND Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. Creek to Herring Pond, then E - W to Kingcopsico NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, Point. The fetch at Kingcopsico Point is E - 8 POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar nautical miles. There is also a significant Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. fetch from the northwest down the Potomac River. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS17May77 WM-7/372-395. OWNERSHIP: Private.
FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical.. The majority of the shoreline has elevations of 10 to 15 feet and is not subject to flooding.
WATER QUALITY: Good. This portion of the Potomac .River ge·nerally has excellent water quality.
BEACH QUAL1TY: Fair to good. There are several areas with wide; clean beaches in the segment.
PRE$ENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderat·e, noncritical. This
33 (
SUBSEGMENT SA OWNERSHIP: Private 99% and county <1%. public recreational facilities.
NOMINI BAY FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate to high, critical. Al MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ST. CLEMENTS though the majority of the ~horeline is fronted ISLAND Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; Map 8 with 15 to 20-foot elevations, several areas, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), STRATFORD HALL C especially in North Prong and Buckner Creek, Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973. have only 5-foot elevations. These areas could NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, EXTENT: 205,200 feet (38.8 mi.) of shoreline in be flooded during periods of abnormally high POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar Nomini Bay from Kingcopsico Point to Icehouse water, endangering several structures located Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. Point and from Matthews Point to Haulover Inlet. along the shoreline. The shoreline measurement includes North Prong PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-SA/396-416; and Buckner Creek on the east side of the Bay, WATER QUALITY: The water quality in this area is 525-561. and Smarts, Poor Jack, Currioman and Harbor good, with some excellent shellfishing grounds Creeks and Hollis Marsh Island on the west side. located in Nomini Bay and its tributaries. The subsegment has a fastland measurement of 226,900 feet (43.0 mi.). BEACH QUALITY: Fair. Most of the subsegment has narrow, strip beaches. The beach at White ( ', SHORELANDS TYPE Point is wide with good vegetation. Several FASTLAND: Low shore 73% (31.5 mi.), low shore groins along White Point Spit are helping to with bluff <1% (0.2 mi.), moderately low shore maintain the beach. 15% (6.3 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff <1% (0.2 mi.), moderately high shore 2% (0.9 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION mi.), and high shore 9% (3.9 mi.). EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.7 mi.), noncritical. The shoreline from Kingcopsico beach 17% (6.5 mi.), fringe marsh 62% (24.0 Point to the beginning of White Point Spit has mi.), embayed marsh 12% (4.7 mi.), and exten an average annual retreat of 2.8 feet per year. sive marsh 7% (2.9 mi.). Several other areas in Currioman Bay have ero NEARSHORE: Narrow 5%, intermediate <1%, and sion rates of 1.0 to 2.3 feet per year, while wide 10%. The rest of the shoreline is located some sections have accretion rates of up to on the several creeks in the subsegment. 1.7 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORELANDS USE SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are several FASTLAND: Agricultural 52% (22.5 mi.), recrea areas of bulkhead used in conjunction with tional <1% (0.1 mi.), residential 8% (3.6 mi.), groins for retaining fill and trapping sand. unmanaged, wooded 32% (13.7 mi.), and unmanaged, The groin field at White Point Spit has trapped unwooded 7% (3. 1 mi.). good fillets of sand. SHORE: Some private recreational use and pub lic use of the Currioman Landing, but mostly OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a riprap jetty unused. at White Point, and numerous piers located NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and shell throughout the subsegment. fishing. SHORE US.E LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The subsegment trends ba lands in this subsegment are used for agricul sically NE - SW from Kingcopsico Point to Ice tural purposes, and development here would be house Point, then ESE - WNW from Matthews Point at the sacrifice of these farmlands.· White to Haulover Inlet. The fetch at Smarts Creek Point Spit, North Prong, and Buckner Creek is NE - 8 nautical miles. The spit fronting areas are prone to flooding. The fastland be North Prong and Buckner Creek is exposed to sig hind Currioman Bay shoreline has very high nificant fetches from the northwest down the elevations and is wooded, making construction Potomac River. Hollis Marsh protects most of here a costly proposition. the shoreline within Currioman Bay from winds and waves from the northeast. · ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As this area is still basically rural, there seems little demand for
34 SUBSEGMENT 8B SHORE PROTECTIVE. STRUCTURES: There are approx imately 4,300 feet of artificial stabilization NOMINI CREEK in the subsegment, most of which is for retain ing fill or for cosmetic purposes. Maps 8 and 9 OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers and boat sheds located in the subsegment. EXTENT: 150,200 feet (28.4 mi.) of shoreline along Nomini Creek, including all its tributaries. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the east The subsegment contains 194,800 feet (36.9 mi.) bank of the creek is used for agricultural pur of fastland. poses, with some scattered residential develop ment. The lower portion of the creek has very SHORELANDS TYPE high elevations and is mostly wooded. The creek FASTLAND: Low shore 42% (15.5 mi.), moderately is fairly heavily polluted, thus losing much of low shore 41% (15.2 mi.), moderately low shore the water related value of the area. with bluff 1% (0.3 mi.), moderately high shore 7% (2.6 mi.), and high shore 9% (3.3 mi.). ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low~ There appears to be SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.8 mi.), little demand for public related facilities in beach <1% (0.1 mi.), fringe marsh 75% (21.4 this area._ Any new development should take mi.), and embayed marsh 22% (6.1 mi.). care not to further pollute the creek. NEARSHORE: Nomini Creek has average depths of 3 to 10 feet. MAPS: USGS, 7. 5 Min. Ser. (Topo.), ST. CLEMENTS ISLAND Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; SHORELANDS USE USGS, 7. 5 Min. Ser. (Topo.) , MACHODOC FASTLAND: Agricultural 36% (13.1 mi.), indus Quadr., 1968. trial <1% (0.3 mi.), residential 13% (4.9 mi.), NOS1fo 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, and unmanaged, wooded 51% (18.7 mi.). POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar SHORE: Some private recreational use, but most Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. ly unused. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM~8B/417-524.
WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: Nomini Creek trends basi cally N - S through a series of large meanders. There are no significant fetches affecting this area.
OWNERSHIP: Private.
FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of the shoreline has 20 to 40-foot elevations and is not subject to flooding.
WATER QUALITY: Poor. The lower portion of Nomini Creek is currently closed to the taking of shell fish.
BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There is only a small sec~ tion ·. of narrow,- s_trip beach in the subsegme_nt.
PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or.no change. The shore line along Nomini Cr~ek·appears to be stable • .·. ENI>ANGE.RED STRUGTUR.ES: None.
35 (
SEGMENT 9 noncritical. Average historical erosion rates for the segment are: the Mount Airy triangula HAULOVER INLET TO POPES CREEK LANDING tion area 2.1 feet per year; Clifton Hill area 1. 7 feet per year; Nomini Cliffs 1. 5 feet per ( Maps 8, 10, and 11 year; and Horsehead Cliffs to Church Point 3.5 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 42,000 feet (7.9 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx the Potomac River from Haulover Inlet to Popes imately 6,900 feet of artificially stabilized Creek Landing. The segment also includes shoreline in the segment, most of which is 60,100 feet (11.4 mi.) of fastland. wooden bulkhead used in conjunction with groins. The groins appear to be effective at trapping SHORELANDS TYPE sand. FASTLAND: Low shore 19% (2.1 mi.), low shore with bluff 5% (0.6 mi.), moderately high shore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a boat ramp at 1% (0 .1 mi.), high shore 37% (4. 2 mi.), and the Westmoreland State Park, and several piers ( high shore with bluff 38% (4.4 mi.). throughout the rest of the segment. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 16% (1.3 mi.), beach 81% (6.4 mi.), and embayed marsh 3% (0.2 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Approximately twenty-one mi.). percent (1.7 mi.) of the shoreline is used by NEARSHORE: Narrow 34% and intermediate 66%. the Westmoreland State Park. The majority of the remaining shoreline is wooded and has high SHORELANDS USE cliffs, making access to the water difficult. FASTLAND: Agricultural 4% (0.4 mi.), recrea The few low lying areas are already developed. tional 4% (0.5 mi.), residential 14% (1.6 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 78% (8.8 mi.). ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The Westmoreland State SHORE: The Westmoreland State Park provides a Park is located in this segment, providing a variety of shoreline activities for the public. variety of recreational facilities for many sur ( . The remainder of the shoreline is mostly unused. ~ounding connnunities. NEARSHORE: Connnercial traffic in the shipping lanes, sport boating and fishing closer to MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), STRATFORD HALL shore. Quadr., 1968, pr. 1973; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), COLONIAL BEACH WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline of this seg SOUTH Quadr., 1968. ment trends basically E - W. The entire shore NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, line is exposed to a significant fetch from the POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar northwest down the Potomac River. Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971.
OWNERSHIP: Private 96% and state .4%. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-9/562-627. ( FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of the shoreline. is fronted by bluffs and is not susceptible to flooding.
WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. This portion of the Potomac River generally has excellent water quality.
BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. This segment has fairly wide, clean beaches.
PRESENT S.HORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE:. Slight or no change to severe,
36 SEGMENT 10 shoreline has only narrow, strip beaches.
POPES CREEK LANDING TO CHURCH POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Severe, noncritical. The entire Maps 11 and 12 river-fronting shoreline has an average histori cal erosion rate of 3.5 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 65,100 feet (12.3 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi the Potomac River from Popes Creek Landing to mately 200 feet of wooden bulkhead located at Church Point, including Popes Creek. The seg the mouth of Popes Creek. This structure has ment contains 68,500 feet (13.0 mi.) of fastland. now been flanked and is basically ineffective at stopping erosion. Some fallen trees are act SHORELANDS TYPE ing as groins in this area and are effectively FASTLAND: Low shore 62% (8.0 mi.), low shore trapping sand. with bluff 19% (2.4 mi.), moderately low shore 15% (2.0 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are a few piers in 2% (0.3 mi.), and moderately high shore 2% (0.2 Popes Creek. mi.). SHORE: Artificially stabilized <1% ( 0.1 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Twenty-five percent of the beach 22% (2.7 mi.), fringe marsh 37% (4.5 mi.), segment is a national park, eliminating any and embayed marsh 41% (5.0 mi.). other development there. The shoreline of Popes NEARSHORE: Narrow 24%. The remainder of the Creek looses much of its water related value be nearshore zone is too narrow and shallow for cause of the poor water quality there. There classification. are also some large marsh ,systems in Popes Creek, which should be left in their natural state as a SHORELANDS USE habitat for fish and wildlife. FASTLAND: Agricultural 50% (6. 5 mi.), recrea ( . tional 25% (3.2 mi.), residential 1% (0.2 mi.), ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. George Washington Na and unmanaged, wooded 24 % ( 3. 1 mi. ) • ti.anal Monument Park provides recreational fa SHORE: The George Washington National Monument cili.ties for the public. There seems to be Park provides some recreational activities along little demand to alter any of the remaining the shoreline for the public. The remainder of shoreline at present. the shoreline is mostly unused. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. Connner MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), COLONIAL BEACH cial traffic in the shipping lanes. SOUTH Quadr., 1968. NOSi/= 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, WIND AND SBA EXPOSURE: The shoreline of this seg POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar ment trends basically SE - NW. Fetches at Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. Church Point are NE - 9 nautical miles and N - 8 nautical miles. . PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-10/628-654.
OWNERSHIP: Private 76%, federal 23%, and county <1%.
FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of the shoreline is fronted by 10-foot elevations and is not subject to flooding.
WATER QUALITY: The Potomac River generally has good water quality. Popes Creek, however, is currently closed to the taking of shellfish.
· BEACH QUALITY: Poor to ·fair. The majority of the.
37 (
SEGMENT 11 into Monroe Bay, and although a secondary treat ment plant was installed in June 1976, the wa CHURCH POINT TO HEAD OF MONROE BAY ter quality does not meet the Virginia Depart ment of Health standards for the marketing of ( Maps 12 and 13 shellfish.
BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The majority of the EXTENT: 138,000 feet (26.1 mi.) of shoreline from segment has only narrow, strip beaches. The Church Point to the head of Monroe Bay, includ area between Church Point and Sheep Point has a ing Mattox Creek. The segment also contains very wide, clean beach. ( 154,100 feet (29.1 mi.) of fastland. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORELANDS TYPE EROSION RATE: There is no significant erosion FASTLAND: Low shore 87% (25.5 mi.), low shore in this area. Sebastian Point and Paynes Point with bluff 1% (0.3 mi.), moderately low shore have average historical accretion rates of 1.6 8% (2.4 mi.), moderately high shore 3% (0.7 mi.), and 0.4 feet per year.respectively. and high shore 1% (0.2 mi.). ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 5% (1.3 mi.), SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx beach 12% (3. 0 mi.) , fringe marsh 44% (11. 4 mi.), imately 6,900 feet of artificial stabilization and embayed marsh 39% (10.4 mi.). in the segment, most of which is for cosmetic NEARSHORE: Wide 6%. Mattox Creek has average purposes or for retaining fill. depths of 3 to 5 feet, and Monroe Bay has depths to 7 feet. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, boat sheds and private boat ramps throughout SHORELANDS USE the segment. FASTLAND: Agricultural 27% (8.0 mi.), connner cial <1% (0.1 mi.), industrial <1% (0.1 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The majority of the shore recreational <1% (0.1 mi._), residential 37% line is already used for residential and agri (10.7 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 32% (9.3 mi.), and cultural purposes. Much of the water related unmanaged, unwooded 3% (0.9 mi.). value of the area is lost because of the poor SHORE: Some limited public recreational use at water quality. Any new development must take the marina, and private use along the residen care not to further degrade the water. tial sections. The remainder of the shoreline is mostly unused. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Because of the poor ( NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. water quality there seems little desire for public recreational facilities in the area. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE:. Mattox Creek trends basi cally E - W. The shoreline from Paynes Point MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), ROLLINS FORK to the head of Monroe Bay trends S - N. Fetches Quadr., 1968; at Paynes Point are NE - 6 nautical miles and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), COLONIAL BEACH ( E - 18 nautical miles. SOUTH Quadr., 1968; USGS, 7 . 5 Mi_n. Ser • (Topo . ) , COLONIAL BEACH OWNERSHIP: Private 99% and county <1%. NORTH Quadr., 1968. - NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical with the exception POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar of the Seba~tian Point area, where numerous Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. structures. are buil~ below 5-foot elevations and would-be flooded during abnormally high water. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-11/655-724.
WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory. The lower portion of Mattox Creek and all of Monroe Bay are closed to the taking of shellfish. The Town of Colo nial Beach sewage treatment plant discharges
38 SEGMENT 12 areas of the segment have fairly wide beaches.
COLONIAL BEACH PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. Most. of Map 13 the shoreline has been artificially stabilized, effectively combatting any erosion. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. EXTENT: 38,200 feet (7.2 mi.) of shoreline along SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are approx the Potomac River, from the head of Monroe Bay imately 12,700 feet of artificially stabilized to just east of Goldman Creek. The segment also shoreline in the segment. Colonial Beach em contains 38,300 feet (7.2 mi.) of fastland. ploys a variety of structures, including con crete bulkhead, wood~n bulkhead, stone riprap, SHORELANDS TYPE and groins. Most structures appear to beef FASTLAND: Low shore 91% (6.6 mi.) and low shore fective. with bluff 9% (0.6 mi.). SHORE: Artificially stabilized 33% (2 .4 mi.), OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers, beach 41% (3.0 mi.), fringe marsh 25% (1.8 mi.), boat sheds, and boat ramps throughout the seg and embayed marsh 1% ( 0. 1 mi. ) • ment. NEARSHORE: Narrow 22%, intermediate 30%, and wide 12%. The remainder of the nearshore zone_ SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The entire shoreline is is too narrow and shallow for ~lassification. already actively used for residential, commer cial, and agricultural purposes. Any new de SHORELANDS USE velopment would be at the sacrifice of the FASTLAND: Agricultural 6% (0.5 mi.), commercial farmlands, destroying the only rural section 7% (0.5 mi.), and residential 87% (6.3 mi.). of the segment. SHORE: Commercial use at the marinas, and pri vate recreational use along the residential ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. As already stated, areas. the entire segment is used. NEARSHORE: Commercial traffic in the shipping lanes, sport boating and fishing closer to shore. :MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.),. COLONIAL BEACH SOUTH Quadr., 1968; WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline of this seg USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), COLONIAL BEACH ment trends basically N - S from the head of Mon NORTH Quadr., 1968. roe Bay to Gum Bar Point, then S - N to White NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, Point, then SE - NW from White Point to Bluff .. POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar Point. Fetches at White Point are E - 6 nauti Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. cal miles and NE - 3 nautical miles. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-12/725-780. OWNERSHIP: Private. Ground-VIMS 26Jul77 WM-98/ 1- 31. FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Several sections of Colonial Beach have elevations below 7 feet and could be flooded during periods of abnormally high water.
WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory for Monroe Bay, · which i~ closed for the marketing of shellfish due to sewage discharge from the Town of Colo nial Beach. The Potomac River generally has good water quality.
BEACH QUALITY: Fair. Gum Bar Point has a wide, clean beach with vegetation. Several other •· 39 (
SEGMENT 13 appears to be stable. ENDANGERED STRUCWRES: None. GOLDMAN CREEK TO HEAD OF ROSIER CREEK SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCWRES: There are approx imately 2,000 feet of artificially stabilized Map 13 shoreline in the segment, most of which is for C cosmetic purposes or for ~retaining fill.
EXTENT: 32,800 feet (6.2 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers Goldman Creek to the county line at the head of and boat sheds in Rosier Creek. Rosier Creek. The segment also includes 49,800 feet (9.4 mi.) of fastland. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Although this segment does have potential for further development, it SHORELANDS TYPE should be controlled so as not to degrade the FASTLAND: Low shore 75% (7.0 mi.), moderately rural atmosphere. low shore 7% (0.7 mi.), and moderately high shore 18% (1.7 mi.). ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. A well maintained SHORE: Artificially stabilized 6% (0.4 mi.), public recreational park is possible in this ( beach 6% (0.4 mi.), fringe marsh 50% (3.1 mi.), segment, serving Colonial Beach and other com and embayed marsh 38% (2.3 mi.). munities. This would also enh~nce the rural NEARSHORE: Intermediate 15%. Rosier Creek has nature of the area. average depths of 3 feet. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), COLONIAL BEACH SHORELANDS USE NORTH Quadr., 1968; ( FASTLAND: Agricultural 20% (1.9 mi.), indus USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DAHLGREN trial 1% (0.1 mi.), recreational 2% (0.2 mi.), Quadr., 1968. . residential 28% (2.6 mi.), and unmanaged, NOS# 12286 (558), 1:40,000 scale, wooded 49% (4.6 mi.). POTOMAC RIVER, Piney Point to Lower Cedar SHORE: Some private recreational use along the Point, VA and MD, 13th ed., 1971. residential sections, but mostly unused. NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 17May77 WM-13/781-800.
WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline of this seg ment trends basically NE - SW. The fetch at the mouth of Goldman Creek is NE - 4 nautical miles. There is also a significant fetch from the north down the Potomac River.
OWNERSHIP: Private 98% and county 2%.
FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. · The majority of the shoreline has elevations of 10 feet or more and is not subject to flooding. Some struc tures at the mouth of Goldman Creek are built below 5-foot elevations and might be inundated during periods of abnormally high water.
WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory. Rosier Creek gen erally has good water quality.
BEACH QUALITY: ·. ·Poor. The majority of the segment
·.. : . : has only narrow, strip beaches •.
PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: . Slight or no change. The. area
40 0 /l II i // II II XIS II II II II JI II ,e //Leedstown / D/11 .· •,. • • i • •!3 I (6.17) --...:::~:::_ BM
p p 1A -IO ·# IO 0 co 4. r<') 0 C
\\ \\ \\ \\ I) ~./ II ~ ·---~·..:...... 77° 57' 30"
41 (
77° 571 3011
/ ( I I ;
X /5 (
I Q,\•···... o,;o · .. ~ .·~ ~
~·"'
'-- ··---
ll) ----
0 (X) I")
(-
42 770 57' 30" ,~ ./ .1 1A j 1A ~ 1A XIS 1A 1A
.!A 1A
1A 1A
1A
1A ··-~ ...... __ .,.._
,., 1A I>
p p 1A 4 .q 0 . 4. (X) I') 0 C -~
II 770 57' 30"
43 (
(
(
( .
•• / / / ! {.: /'• (I ( I I ·.. ;i, : I ,,_I //) ·/ ,: I WESTMORELAND CO 0 -.:!:'", / J·1.\. .· /- - - - ESSEX co--_,... ,
-fN )
- .,,,------· - - ---
44 ,, .. .. :,, ~-,· c~c- .. , , , \ ~· , -·i\\" \~· <' ·:. ,-'' ,' . '~ , \· .,'\ l.{r '" ,,,, . ,
\ -,~f>:(~:)~),t~;~~"-- .~\f/ \ .,' /- " 1 • )~r MA. P 3 B·- ~:~f..?.:';··i.'.~.~.~ ..~«.;.-.-~.·.·-.\>\,_, ,... f)) ·.~.· ... _ ·~DRAKES MARSH~~~'.2'-(_ . '\·===c_,·~
. ___)JiAPPAHANNOC~ RIVER,~j?Ji\ /;\ )Su_b§}~_g_ment1A.~ri.9_.18.~' 11 \ ,··.1;SHORELANDS TYPES :;:~:'. \ -FASTLAND \ Low Shore \ Low Shore I with Bluff \ Moderately Low Shore I with Bluff R U u I \ Moderateiy High Shore ·, > A:A A\'·. I with Bluff ~ )~ High Shore 1111 - .~-:~I' High Shore --- ·<,'(G, IIII ~-:,to~· . ; with Bluff M ~'/·,:· _· ....- ·':;:,_. ,, , ,..· !)\!SHORE -c~Z:!/';/ 0 f 1111111111 i 111 1111 " \\ Fringe Marsh ! ii! 7·" \ J, ! :. I \, Extensive Marsh ////////,//// :' ) 1i I Embayed Marsh ~ '..,-:.::C::-)) o• 1NEARSHORE I Narrow 0-0-0-0
_,11.J.... Intermediate 0 0 0
..,.!.!,. ~ o~v-. ·~ li1 /~~·.·, ',• ~' sr ~ :· . . . •/,/.' . "··.
,,,..·-<..~. •.,f- -r'' ·\ {~~ ·~ " ;,, 1%90 '(fl // ·::::;~ trJ l'\, - ~ 8 \' ;/ J ,;?
·.\ ·so '(fl~! \ \-. i' 8~ fi /' t:l I +:" I(") Vl 38° 380 / \ i'1 -"-- II cf 07' ·. j, ' ::8 01' 30" ;'/''·~=·,' 0 ~"'"'=""=~===~1====="'==\: 30" .··', /i' \··\• i 36" ,". J ,_.,/ '·, '---.,,__;. ··-...... /"',____ ·\.
w {' "' \ /
::;·::.. __.::,.._ - / , •s,~ J // , <::, -"'"'"'?{,""'~ // // .• 36 ~"'=~;;- // ~-/· ... • - ~!I .. // C, w \' 0 // // I/ _/ ~ // I/ · "::,., . ~"-.. <",s " ', :___ ' '"...... ''i ·,'\_ ------<' 1n ),_~ -~~~=::::~==~~~-~- ~····' ·...,i{~ / ' '"" ,,-~:(' I 2 0 ~..,, ·,·;1-~"·.\0 =~"':'C ,,- , ·/\ ( ''' ;)UY I( 11 ' em.. :· ~· · .' v,.,,.1!:-,~ ~•-""/. \\ .. ·· ·. ······-'· . n . ~-ii ----- .,~~' 77°102' 30" , ( (_(_-. . . •,./~ . . \~!', ( ( <( ~ ( ca D co. TMOR ELAN- __ --. ------,...., W_E~-EXCOESS t;• '=- • o, ------ II --=_<\>;:II .../ - ,fl'~ I\ II --- 11 // /' I\ II .. · II I/ J; I/ II I/ II II II I/ ., II II JI . II 1,. ·// I/ if II // II II I/ ' "'--,.."': ,,!I II II 1, II ---- . . ,.,,: - / 7 .----. (--•, 46 ( \ \ fll ---·;..... (\J \ I \ I ( ~· I .....,~ I t:i.; I 0 ....>, r.l >, "'O .._ C II II r.l :::, II "'O 0 II <(. If § ~ -,ri" 0 C C C\I II CD O.> . en II -c-11II II . cQ) 5i ~ Q)•I~ E ~- . p"'lh E . 11"° 0) .Cl 0). II Q) :::, (/) (/) "''" ' IIIt en. II \l II II ..0 - ::, ',,.!I"' ·,_ CJ)\\.. ' >~- _ \ ~ ....---, .. / 47 76°135 1 I ",0 "- ...0 , ~ 00 '\I } 0 . l ~ILE 76° I 351 ! -~ 76°135 1 .• ~·.·----. . ?' ,r,··'.\~--~ ~<·-11.~ ;-;-'i1 ' ' - ·.;1•:.·>·-_.'.,;:>..,/\,· VJ 0\ / ";1/,.._--.=j ~-- 'tj;,,o '·.~;'7,fc~~j ' ,.) (' i,/ • \ 1i\ ~ - . --·J:>o . 1· • I! 11 A. i ', / };J;j:;;;.~~~icsl / , · /\.\ · I .~"' 11 ·v 1 ---::,,, 'lf \_. If• 'i\ •·-·.~,~"{iiv'"'{en~(f . , "---- . '\ / ' ..., \~ S:, S:, ,...'i·...•. -..:·· .. ---·;r:.,';-'.,,.-.. ·-~ 1 . .M· AP 4CK. S:, I · · ·rr !,; ,; ,. S:, r :~\ .': ·J,:;~ST YEOCOMICO ~IVER '°s )2c_.1·-. ---,--POTOMAC RIVEf31:~--- ( \ Subsegments2A an9 28'. FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP~ \ '· USE Agricultural . A Commercial C Recreational .- RC Residential ,,,__ RS w 1 \~ \: \ \ i ,.;. _·, \ , \ . __L_ 'y\ -~-G,r1ve~~\x[ 't; \~;:_/')}/·\;::~~~:::._' ' ~. (' ' -=-::::~~J'/' ,, +="\0 ~: ,! 0 I MILE 76° I 35 1 / ···;' 76°1 32' 30" 1S -"'-· ·~W'- "II fl 11, 11. -f~\. I !.- ... ~. · .• /, 38° II 38° II '.~.. -'"!I ( 4 II 05' \\ 05' ~ - I \\ - \I '_ .... -"'M! s ·,,J \I ~· II () \\ .., ' . -9' - TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE \ .....~ ~" /': -:) .; ~~~ ....;j 0 .:'~ C'- 0 \ 1- . / l 2 0 76°132' 30" ..-<. .~, "· ,, ·, 1 0 0 0 0 0 .;'.l.\;~.. ~~\-:.:~~t~;..,.. 0 .,,,,..,...,~,,,,\,,· 1? 0 Q 0 39° 3901 0 05' I. 05 1 0 s ...iii... - (). SANDY POINT NECK 3 •.· () POTOMAC RIVER . f\ Segment 28 and 3, ' ==· :o r·.-/. ':'";/},<~·· ~r.SHORELANDS TYPES ) ...,,,·; •\\ . ·- . A 0/ . FASTLAND . . ,' /\ 0 Low Shore \. \.Jl 0 f-1 SHORE Artificially Stabilized ..J,.. ..A- ....,_ ....,_ 0 Beach :-·.. ·.··.-:: ·.: :··.·:-:-;-: Fringe Marsh f I I!I Ill Illlillllllllll 0 Embayed Marsh <'- NEARSHORE ~ (' Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 1- lntermediatE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 Q:. ·-~- ·- '-...... :! .;_,.J._ l 2 0 1 MILE . ,x: i<':;,ji L..------~.L_ 11 76°132' 30 76°1 32' 30" 1w1··. . . .· t:J -S) IS 1Wf~. ;;_.iW.t .'' .I -"Y-· ~.• · . ~ -- 3901 38° .. ..i.,.. ·•05' ;;; •. - a.t, (', -4. / 05' 1 .·-~-: 1w( W' s .....ol' • ' ' •• ,' - 1-- . . ·.·..·.· CO --- -"RJV .··ocO ),!l ER--- ,,.-" yi. ·... ; _/ -- I 2 0 ------~~~· . ·.... · ..., . , .:,,!:IJI 76°132' 30" ~. ·"' ,., ,.....,. ·, ,--....., 76°135 1 I 0 5 't1 // // velx ,,IJ :1MAP ~-- 6A. - :,it/,'/; -::.:.:.:::::,.7 !COLES .NECK iPbTOMAC RIVER 1TOPQGRAPHY AND CUL Tl){t!= · iSegments 3, 4 and 5 I '"'" ·~, -~ ~~.. ...,.., ..... ,,.,..,"·"""'"'""_.,,.,,,-..,..-~,.,-,~, " - ..,~ --• ·~ ·-~~. -~, -i. // = Segment Boundary (I) (') ; ,,/ = Subsegment Boundary ' 4 ' -,:; Gravelx ,, Pit 3 ·--1- 1071 3d' i.;, l.,,) /\ ( 'S ( ~' \ 1\. ow·.,·,'i,.:(~--- J) / ·.r ;) U' t1 'l ~ .~ '·./ h-9-0\." ·( ··"'·".?o 1, h,v,y ~ /· I -f',:,' .. .::·_) •,;r'?' '-,, 3 ,,,. --""'~ -~-~20)'' \...... -~,./ ~o'- ," -, "-·-·~-. 76°1351 .. ..·· . ·..~ 76°135 1 I 2 0 I ======3 ~\ I/ // yel~ ',f MAP68 . :>jt // . :::::.:::::;:::.. )COLES NECtS · !POTOMAC RIVER 0 . .. Segments 3, 4 and 5 0 ;SHORELANDS TYPES FASTLAND 0 -z Artificial Fill ro I 0 4 Low Shore ,:: ··,o Ji SHORE Gravel~ ...... A.. ..A.. ..A.. Pit Artificially Stabilized 0 Beach :-:.·.. ·.-: >-:-:··.-:-:-:-: _____Fringe Marsh f 11!11111111 i 1111111111 P Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE ~ O; Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 m· iQi. 3d' ::o VI .i::,,, ..o· ,! /\ 0. ( '-','j () 0 \i,,!; 0 ' /·: '· 6 ) .·.·.?> ' <"\) ~.- ~s::,,.....~. ~~.-~,~@~ ·/--•20~-- .·- '-,"\. ~ 0 • LW '~:~~~ ,;,;;, ... . . ' . '· ~~>l!"i\'li"!ii ~::.±:.···· .~ I t' ;) ,...._ i r- '\ 76°135 1 I 2 0 ..·... 5 - . ':: ' -...-,----·- ----~------,--~·--- ~R~ged Pt IMAP•\I_. --·-·---- 6C-·-· · ICOLES NECK ·. !POTOMAC RIVER !Segments 3, 4 anc:t ~ [FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP :USE -i. Agricultural A ©· {) 4 Industrial I " Recreational RC Gravelx Residential RS Pit Unmanaged Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 3 07 1 3d' V1 V1 l (· 1w\~ .,, ,- ' /\ .,- \ ·_ ,--~- •. ' ' ' !' -..-~(-' r. .J I ) ·--1r,w ) <: ' 1_ I /· }:' -~:""/ .../ 0' . f 'j·· t/ -~,"~·. ·,_,,------....__so'-- 76°1351 76°140 1 I i: 0 I MILE ~ " "~~ "" ,) //" // // if fl // //. // // I; ;I {) ~ ,/\Ci 7 .• /; <'o ~ X/8 ~ 0'. ~ 0 C N 70 ~~ 0 0 16 0 \ •'11 •• ~;:.,::=:: I.JI °' // = = 38° / oi 11 '\\ 30 \I":. :, '~ .Ii Jcole //" 5 ' :~·-0 M A (/J -·~-:-, (/J ..._ J"'''~,e~ :8 -·~·,.. .ts \) •1 .. /. {' ,• C \"r',~ .1,. .. '. ~-, /': ( 1 fl· : ~ '/ '(l I ·~~ ·/ ' -.',::. ~' I/ ~ '1 .~. , -~ 76° ,, ---, ·-..,,, ~. ··1 76°140 1 I I O I MILE o--o ~ o"' o ~· 0 0 <') 0 '// ./o // 7 , 0 ' // II I/ // // ~'l // 0 // ; // ·11 It // \ !/ <'o // 0 !; X/8 I/ ~'$ // 0 // vp // I/ ... '11, /1,\ \ 0 0 "s, "'\\ \\ 0 -"' \\ ' s, ~ "'\\ 70 0 C N ~ C 0 ¢~ 0 "'"' "'\\ ll I°? ~ 0 0 MAP 78 ~,;-4... ~ LOWER MACHODOC CREEo~...10~/.· 0 6 . =====POTOMAC RIVE~ J·. t:2 Segments 5, 6 and 7 , . - !'==""' SHORELANDS TYPES :·11 ~ \.::::::::: VI FASTLAND .rr==== " Low Shore SHORE 38° oi Artificially Stabilized -A.- ·...L. -'- 30 11 Beach :-:.·.. ·.. :-:.:-:.:·:·:·:-:-: Fringe Marsh . !! I! 11111111i1111111111 Extensive Marsh ////////,//,//' Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE ~ 1·--" 0-0-0-0 '"·, 0 0 0 0 'S. M A (/) --·b (]J ..... ··-·--:.·.cc-,- :s is._ .. \ ,/Ii // II ,,11 (Irr., ' ' 'J ' // §:: "0 '. (/ 76°140 1 :: ! 76°140 1 I 2 0 1 MILE if' 1A 1Wi // . ,,5 // · It /! 1WI ··t ~ ~"\. -- ''. I 1 · 'n • ~ 1wt,,., . ' 7 ,1RS~j-~)-~-~ . ,,.... ., . . •.,. ,j,"'/ ' ' ·.1.!1RS " --- c,f/_"':•"'•-• [!,---- ~ \ -----.___ - 1A -- 15 <'o II () • . 0 ~ Coles Pomt} / X/8 ~ ,:cCem ""'1RS~ 0 10 . 1c·~y~. ·· 1RS •• - ~II' ! • 15 ~ 11RS, ~~ ~~<' ~ !'/\ J'..... 70. l 0 C . 1R/S)·.' :: ~~ 0 .,1RS,t}{_..·J·, ~-~. 0 :.'/\ . :. -=., .6 WR~\ . ' ·::::=== IJl 00 ·USE Agricultural A 38° Commercial C oi Recreational RC 11 30 Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded w 1A OWNERSHIP Private 1 ,'1,F iA' -~ -() "'~~ G 1A ""'"'< 0 "' M A ~r:'.·D 0 C "'• (/} '1':, (/) 1AJ( 1~~~~~~~}~ '""v~-/ 7\ ·"';::!, r":, '~.J . 1A \~_i:'\A" is .. ) 1A.,/· <'' :1A''\ir.,C '7.., ''-eh:!"',1 I ~ \.. _'1A -·~:('~":~/; ··., . 1W . _ ~ • 1A r-"""J\..r--..-1 . '.· c--· .,; •. ~ '""" 760 45' 9\ MAP8A NOMINI BAY POTOMAC RIVER TOPOGRAPH Y. AND CULTURE·- •. ~e~ ':!~_'}~S .~.r1 d Subsegm~~.!~.]~~-~ ..· ·.·. . 8~L~§.-?.QSL~ // = Segment Boundary / = Subsegment Boundary ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ II II II ~===;~=~~:=~:=~,a D / /(, / / -. ""'"'"';,, . // Ceda~ •::::::::::,!/11 • lslan(( . \.J 0 1 MILE 88 .. ·55 ( :-; 0' -~ ·__ 76° 45' ( 59 ( ·-~-,,---,------,------76° 45' I ------~--!------_:__------~ 0 MAP88 ( NOMINI BAY RIVER 38 POTOMAC_· . ·10' Segments and Subsegments 7,8A, 88 and 9 . -·- ·-···- -- SHORELANDS TYPES - FASTlAND 0 -0-0-0 low Shore o-- ' - low Shore / ,7 with Bluff 0 Moderately Low Shore u II I u I C Moderately Low Shore ' 0 with Bluff I e u • I ,/ Moderately High Shore It,. tt,, I),. ,0, 0 High Shore • • • High Shore 8A/ ( with Bluff 0 SHORE . - " • Artificially Stabilized I Beach-· :-:-· .. ·.·:. :-·.. :- : ··. ·:-:-:-: 0 Fringe Marsh 111! 1111111 Ii 1111 I! II I I ;·· Hollis Extensive Marsh //////////// 0 Embayed Marsh ~ NEARSHORE 0 I Narrow 0-0-0- I lntermediat8 0 0 0 ( • /0 "' "' Wide "'\\ 0 \\ • • • II II II 0 II ,\ ~----· --- • • -M ~ -~ -It-({ D • /~ J ·~~~-==, • • ul ii • if. :C::===:!J I II II II ,:;;,,,.. 1;===:::::- 11 ;i. Gravel :: Pit II Ii II II \I \\ 88 , 0 .• \\,, 76. 0 45' 60 760 45' MAP8C NOMINI BAY POTOMAC RIVER 38 10' S eg ments.. and Subs_egm~nts---- 7, 8~2§_~P ~i::i-g__ §) ------·-·FASTLAND USE, OWNERSl:i! _ USE Agricultural __ __!. 7 Recreational RC Residential RS ('. Unmanaged Unwooded u Wooded w OWNERSHIP Private 1 8.A county 4 ,;-- fl// "\\ 1A '\r If ,, \\Z. ,, ""\\0 " ''2 ..ff ''m\\ 1A '~ \\ ll-1 ""'\\;o \\- -::::::~~ \\ ,\\ "",,,. \\\ \\ ( 1A \\ II II II 1A ~"--;- -~:-;···,1a D / •,. 1\f../ / /s ""'"'"';/ • II fl. Ceda~ "::::::::::::c!J lslan V W 1A \ ' . 0 1W 1w 88 76° 45' 61 C ( ~ I ,, \ l j 62 ( . i I ' -0 ;$'"'· : I rt) j',./_, C\l c---, J ) V 0 U) I'- :--"' -I .,Q ~ .. -I .j, "0 1 ,/ . .,/ . 0 - = CD IO 0 rt) 0 r<) 63 76° l42 1 30 11 1\i \ ! ~\ .1A_1 ·------·-c--<...;:~-1R--ceS,...._-M;~~E- -_,,-~~->~----·-C-~u-o;s-fe-· ,~,. . )){& I 1 ./., 4 ...' ,,-,'"".·· .._ ·,.· ·· . 1· · --~ .. · 1R_S\ / . TI , _;ir\;,~~ \";,, • I ;, ,i ~---, ··. 1 { • • · • ~=""\ / dr/i')i/,.>,"\. // ii II{ · . . ~ "':~•-Y~ 8 . ·'··--~~, -~~ ~~ -·- ·:.tR\ /1 ·t'::> (~_. '\ t,.,, ; ~ti:;") ~ > ('; __ I .~'{Tr::::::--~1w.~.~.:~.- '/''ts. · , •//.,,>' - • i .·· .g>->, ·III/· ,;Y1wj~ .?o '··/i~7 I '-..._\11. i"' >~" r-, O'I -,--'v"'._ ~-""\, \J -I:'- \ ) ,: ! '\ \ I ( / \"-'1_·,~_\J 38° 38° ' ~- 1 05 os'I: "":?'~, L--· 11 -~so~j . 30 3011i I/ ~'~ I, 1 --- :l ·.--·-~-~.(~ ~ I/• - 56·~ · "lj;,, I/ .. -- - -- . r-:;. /; ;,, . ,USE 6 .\~~@ :f:'' Agricultural A J · · ~-· Industrial I Residential RS ...., ·"'· ·"\ 76° 50 1 ./ ( 65 ( 750 so' ( 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 O-o ---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- ·~., : :, } I/ 0 0 !l 750 ~o· 66 (