GL' > Shoreline Situation Report I SCd 2 GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA "" '" Prepared by: Gary L. Anderson Gaynor 6: Williams Margaret H. Peoples Lee Weishar Project Supervisors: Robert 'J. Byrne Carl H. Hobbs, Ill Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research ~ppliedto National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 17 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 83 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAFTER 1 : INTRCD'JCTIOT$ FIGURE Shorelands Components 1.1 Purposes and Goals FIGURE Marsh Types 1 .2 Acknoviledgements FIGURE Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck FIGURE Sarah Creek Overvievi CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USD AND ELFNENTS CONSIDERD FIGURE Dead &d Canals on Severn River 2.1 Approach to the Problem FIGURE Bray Shore Development Overview 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included FIGURE Fox Creek FIGURE Groins Near Sarah Creek CHAFPER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY FIGURE Riprap on Jenkins Neck 3.1 The Shorelands of Gloucester County FIGURE Concrete Bulkhead on Jenkins Neck 3.2 Shoreline Erosion TABLE 1: Gloucester County Shorelands Physiography 3.3 Potential Shorelands Use TABLE 2: Gloucester County Subsegment Summary CHAFTER 4: SIJIVdARIES, DESCRIFTICNS, AND SEGMENT MAPS LUPS 1A-E: Glouces ter County Swnmary ?laps 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries MAPS 2A-C: Purtan Island EL4X 3A-C: 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions Capahosic NAPS 4A-C: Catlett Islands Segment 1 NAIAPS 5A-6: Segment 2 Glouces t er Point IrlAE 6A-C: Segment 3 Guinea Neck Segment 4 MAPS 7A-C: Guinea Marshes MAX 8A-C: Segment 5 Robins Neck MAPS 9A-C: Segment 6 \'lare River ?ME ICA-C: 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps North River NAPS 11A-C: Lower Piankatank River bfiX 12A-C: Upper Piankatank River CHAPTER 1 Introduction -- Transportation chosen to place, as much as possible, the regula- -- Waste disposal tory decision processes at the county level. The -- Extraction of living and non-living resources Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (~ha.~ter2.1, Title 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example, provides for It is the objective of this report to supply an various ecological functions. the establishment of County Boards to act on ap- assessment, and at least a partial integration, of The role of planners and managers is to optimize plications for alterations of vretlands. Thus, our those important shoreland parameters and charac- the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize focus at the county level is intended to interface teristics vihich will aid the planners and the man- the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- with and to support the existing or pending county agers of the shorelands in making the best deci- thermore, once a particular use has been decided regulatory mechanism concerning activities in the sions for the utilization of this limited and very upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the shorelands zone. valuable resource. The report gives particular planners and the users vrant that selected u.se to attention to the problem of shore erosion and to operate in the most effective manner. A park plan- 1 .2 ACKNOVffiEDGEm3NTS recommendations concerning the alleviation of the ner, for example, wants the allotted space to ful- This report vras prepared with funds provided by impact of this problem. In addition we have tried fill the design most efficiently. We hope that the the Research Applied to National Needs Program to include in our assessment some of the potential results of our worlc are useful to the planner in (RAW) of the National Science Foundation through uses of the shoreline, particularly with respect designing the beach by pointing out the technical the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. and with to recreational use, since such information could feasibility of altering or enhancing the present funds provided to the Commonwealth by the Office be of considerable value in the vray a particular configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, if of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and segment of coast is perceived by potential users. the use viers a residential development, we rould Atmospheric Administration, Grant Number 04-5- The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- hope our vrork \"rould be useful in specifying the 158-50001. Beth Marshdl typed the manuscript. aration of the report is that the use of shore- shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses Bill Jenkins and Ken Thornberry prepared the lands should be planned rather than haphazardly likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In photographs. Dennis Owen assisted ?nth the ed- developed in response to the short term pressures summary our objective is to provide a useful tool iting and layout. We also thank the several and interests. Careful planning could reduce the for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, persons in Virginia and Maryland ?rho have, with conflicts ~"rhichmay be expected to arise between the shorelands of s the Commonvrealth. their suggestions and comments, assisted our competing interests. Shoreland utilization in Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or work. many areas of the country, and indeed in some informally, at all levels from the private owner places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such of shoreland property to county goverments, to that the very elements which attracted people to planning districts and to the state and federal the shore have been destroyed by the lack of plan- agency level. We feel our results will be useful ning and forethought. at all these levels. Since the most basic level of The major man-induced uses of the shorelands comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county are : or city level, me have executed our report on that --'Residential, commercial, or industrial level although ?re realize some of the information development may be most useful at a higher governmental level. -- Recreation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally CHAPTER 2 Approach Used and Elements Considered CHArnER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping or subseg- be considered as being composed of three inter- APPROACH USED AND ELlBTEMTS COIVSIDERED -rnents. The boundaries for segments also viere se- acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the lected on physiographic units such as neclrs or shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEH peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, based on these three elements has been devised so In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- that the types for each of the three elements por- utilized existing information wherever possible. line segments. trayed side by side on a map nlay provide the oppor- For example, for such elements as viater quality The format of presentation in the report follovrs tunity to examine joint relationships among the characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- a sequence from general summary statements for the elements. As an example, the application of the ard, vre reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and system pennits the user to determine miles of high or federal agencies. lbch of the desired informa- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing shore zone. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allovi selective use of the report Definitions: available, so vie performed the field vrork and de- since some users' needs will adequately be met rnth Shore Zone veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- the sununary overvieri of the county rr?nile others will This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub- a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. land. The seavrard limit of the shore zone is the mm photography. \Ve photographed the entire shore- break in slope betvieen the relatively steeper line of each cowlty and cataloged the slides for 2.2 CHAFACTERISTICS OF THE SHOREZANDS INCLUDED IN shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The easy access at VINE, where they remain available THE STUDY approximate landward limit is a contour line rep- for use. Qle then analyzed these photographic ma- The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide range terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion above mean low water, (refer to Figure 1 ) . In photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, of our treatment of each. operation with topographic maps the inner fringe for the desired elements. Vle conducted field in- a) Shorelands physiographic classification of the marsh symbols is taken as the landviard spection over much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification limit. at those locations vihere office analysis left c) Shorelands ovinership classification The physiographic character of the marshes has questions unresolved. In some cases we took addi- d) Zoning also been separated into three types (see Figure tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Vlater quality 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses feet in vbdth and which runs in a bald parallel to The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses the shore.