Regional shoreline element of comprehensive plans, Hampton Roads Planning District

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT Task 55
Shore Element - Comp Plans

REGIONAL SKORKINE ELEME".ff
OF
COMPREHENSIVE @PLANS`
HAMPTON -ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT
ONTERM, REPLO,

VOLUM E* I

PREPARED BY THE
HAMPTO-WROADS PLANNIMG DISTRIUCOMMISSION

'W POMP%

HA TON'ROADS
PLANNIN DISTRICr CoMmISSION

MAR'CH 1994

Sec'd. by Dept. of
En vironm ental Quality

MAR 4 1994

Public & Inter-
gDvernmental Affairs

REGIONAL SHORELINE ELEMENT
OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT
(INTERIM REPORT)

This report was produced, in part, through financial
assistance from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
pursuant to Contract No. 93-87 of March 2, 1993 and from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program Grant No.
NA270ZO312-01 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

Preparation of this report was included in the HRPDC Work
Program for FY 1992-93, approved by the Commiss ion at its
Executive Committee Meeting of March 18, 1992 and in the HRPDC
Work Program for FY 1993-94, approved by the Commission at its
Executive Committee Meeting of March 17, 1993.

Prepared by the Staff of the
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
in cooperation with staff from the
Cities, Counties and Towns of Hampton Roads

March 1994

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
22M, South Hobo= Avomue

@ --L
CL--a-lector, CC '.'5
41-10

INTRODUCTION

Hampton Roads is a region of nearly 3, 000 square miles, of
which 2,400 square miles is located in the Virginia Coastal Zone.
Ocean, Bay and major river shorelines amount to more than 1,370
miles. Hundreds of additional miles of shoreline can be found on
the tributaries to these major waterbodies. The Region is unique
in that it includes a variety of shoreline types - ocean, bay,
river, creek, and lake. These shorelines encompass the entire
range of shoreline types found in coastal Virginia. They include
sandy beaches, extensive and fringing tidal marshes, riverine
swamps and intensely developed, hardened shorelines. Topography
ranges from low, nearly flat shorelines to areas with steep bluffs.
The shorelines are affected by water energy levels ranging from
high wave energy along the ocean and bay shorelines to placid
backwaters on many of the tributaries.

The coastal resources, and in particular, the shorelines and
waterbodies of the Hampton Roads region are a major contributing
factor to the region's attractiveness and growth. As a result,
the region's shorelines and waterways are heavily used and pressure
for further development and use is increasing. Not only do the
region's shorelines and waterways serve the recreational needs of
the residents, but they also provide an important recreational
asset for other Virginians as well as residents of other states and
countries.

The shorelines present a tremendous opportunity for
commercial, industrial and residential development as well as
recreational activity. However, this opportunity is tempered by
the hazards presented to shoreline development by natural
processes. Many of the shorelines are subject to intense wave
action which causes erosion that may threaten existing and future
shoreline developments.

Shoreline Situation Reports, prepared by -the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science for much of the area during the late
1970s, documented a variety of then-existing shoreline
characteristics, including shoreline erosion, land ownership and
shoreline structures for both erosion protection and access. other
studies of the characteristics of specific shoreline reaches were
completed during the period from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
However, there was no consistent or comprehensive effort to update
the information contained in the Shoreline Situation Reports on a
regional basis during that period.

At project inception, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
in cooperation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation had recently completed an
analysis of shoreline erosion control structures on the major
tributaries (James, York, Rappahannock and Potomac) to the
Chesapeake Bay (Bank Erosion Study). That study did not address
private piers and docks, erosion conditions or conditions on the
remaining rivers and estuaries in the Hampton Roads region.

Waterway access studies conducted by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation - Division of Planning and Recreation
Resources, the HRPDC and the region's local governments have
focused historically on provision of additional public access to
the Bay and its tributaries. Prior to this project, there had been
no attempt to quantify the amount of existing private access to
these waterways. Also, there had been no attempt to determine the
impact of existing private access to the region's waterways on
water quality or critical aquatic resources.

Each of the region's local governments is required by law to
update its comprehensive plan on a five-year basis. In addition,
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations require that
local governments in coastal Virginia specifically address
shoreline erosion and private piers and docks in their
comprehensive plans. It was recognized at project inception that,
in the immediate future, each of the coastal communities in the
Hampton Roads region would be updating its comprehensive plan to
incorporate the CBPA planning requirements among others. Working
with the Hampton Roads Chesapeake Bay Committee and the cognizant
state agencies, the HRPDC staff determined that a regional project
to develop the required information on a cooperative,
comprehensive, and systematic basis would facilitate compliance
with the planning requirements, while reducing the local financial
and staff costs of doing so. It would also facilitate development
of locality or waterway specific shoreline management plans
addressing erosion and construction of waterfront structures.

In that context, a regional project was undertaken by the
staff of the HRPDC, in cooperation with staff from the region's
local governments, CBLAD and DEQ (VCRMP) , to achieve the following
objectives:

0 To doZ@ument shoreline characteristics, particularly
shoreline erosion and private waterfront -access, in a
uniform manner for the fourteen coastal communities in
the Hampton Roads region.

0 To facilitate compliance by the region's fourteen coastal
localities with the CBPA comprehensive planning
requirements in a cost-effective manner.

0 To continue development of a uniform, regional approach
to implementation of state and federal stormwater and
nonpoint source management programs.

0 To develop shoreline erosion control practices that are
integrated and compatible with stormwater and nonpoint
source management practices.

0 To develop cost-effective, reasonable approaches to
management of private waterfront access to minimize long-
term impacts on coastal water quality and aquatic

resources.

During the initial stages of the project, the objectives and
scope were expanded to address provision of public access to the
region's waterways in a comprehensive fashion. This element of the
study involved updating public access information contained in the
1988 study, The Waters of Southeastern Virginia, which addressed
public access for the localities of Southside Hampton Roads. The
information base and approach was expanded to encompass the
localities of the Peninsula portion of Hampton Roads as well.

With respect to shoreline erosion control structures and
private access facilities, the study built upon the field work
undertaken in the Bank Erosion Study. That information base was
expanded to include an inventory of shoreline erosion structures
and private waterfront access structures, particularly piers and
docks, throughout the Hampton Roads region. Shoreline videotape
of the region's entire shoreline was obtained for use in this
effort. In addition, the study has collected information on proper
design and construction of waterfront structure.

The study involved the following major elements:

0 Inventory of Shoreline Conditions, including aquatic
resources, water quality, erosion rates and the presence
of erosion control and access structures.

0 Pier and Dock Density Standards, including analysis of
perceived problems associated with the presence of piers
and docks, legal approaches to regulation of piers and
docks and development of a methodology for determining
appropriate standards for such structures.

0 Public Access, inclu ding inventory of existing
facilities, projected demand for access, impacts
associated with access facilities and recommendations for
future access.

0 Shoreline Management, including recommendations on a
waterbody-specific and reach-specific basis addressing
shoreline erosion as well as private and public access.
General policy recommendations addressing legal and
educational issues that are applicable throughout the
region are also addressed.

This project was coordinated through the Hampton Roads
Chesapeake Bay Committee. Other local government staff were
involved where appropriate. In addition, work activities have been
coordinated with staff from the following state agencies -
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Divisions of Soil and Water Conservation and Planning and
Recreation Resources and Department of Environmental Quality
(formerly the State Water Control Board and the Virginia Council

on the Environment). Certain elements of the Inventory phase of
the project were undertaken by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science under contract to the HRPDC.

This interim report documents the current status of the
project. It describes the methodology used in inventorying
shoreline structures, public access, erosion conditions, water
quality and other environmental resources and management options.
Generally, the study process has proceeded from development and
analysis of general information applicable to the entire region to
analysis of site-specific information for waterbodies and reaches
within an individual locality. York County serves as a prototype
for locality-specific analysis and management recommendations.
That approach is reflected in the organization and content of this
Interim Report.

This Interim Report is organized into two Volumes. Both
Volumes contain an outline of the ultimate scope of the Volume.
The outlines are annotated to some degree to assist the reviewer
in visualizing the eventual scope and content of the Volume. The
two volumes of this report include:

0 Volume I. This Volume addresses general study issues
such as methodology as well as information and
recommendations that are universally applicable
throughout the region. This Volume contains the
following information:

Methodological approaches, information sources and
study issues.

Inventory of environmental resources, including
water quality conditions and discussion of their
role and importance in developing shoreline
management options.

Inventory of physical conditions and discussion of
their role and importance in developing shoreline
management options.

Inventory of management options for shoreline
erosion control.

Overview of public and private access issues and
inventory of access facilities. Criteria for the
siting of various types of public and private access
facilities are also addressed.

Preliminary discussion of perceived problems
associated with private waterfront access facilities
such as piers and docks, legal issues associated
with management of such facilities and management
options.

Volume Il. This Volume will address water system
specific issues and will be organized so that individual
water system sections are stand-alone documents. The
discussion, contained in the Interim Report Volume II,
is the prototype for the balance of Volume II, which
ultimately will address each locality in the region.
Each water system and its components will be addressed
in the same fashion to include inventory documentation,
analysis and recommendations. It should be reviewed in
conjunction with Volume I.

Documentation of water system and reach-specific
information and shoreline characteristics for York
County. York County serves as the prototype
locality for this project. York County and HRPDC
staff are presently working to develop specific
management options for the County's shoreline.

Final documentation produced through this project will include
the two volume report, map series for each waterbody and shoreline
video. Volume I will be provided to all localities and the grantor
agencies. Additionally, it will serve as the overall project
documentation. Each locality will receive copies of that portion
of Volume II (report, video and maps) which addresses water systems
which lie within or adjacent to the locality. Because many water
systems fall in more than one locality, the documentation of water
system characteristics will be provided to all localities adjoining
or containing the system. Finally, the grantor agencie's will each
receive final copies of the Volume II package for York County as
an example of the work completed for each locality.

This interim report thoroughly documents the current status
of this project. Activities which are underway but not documented
in this report include review of shoreline inventory maps and video
by the remaining participating localities and development of final
inventory maps for. the region. (It should be noted that in several
instances, local governments have identified potential enforcement
issues during review of the video and accompanying working maps.)
It can be expected that considerable additional information will
be finalized in the coming weeks. Staff from the Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department and the Department of Environmental
Quality are invi t ed/ encouraged to review and comment on this
interim material.

Comprehensive Shoreline Management Plan
Erosion Outline

Macro Document

1. Erosion Control Background
A. Literature Review
1. Coastal Erosion
2. Large Tidal Waterbody Erosion - Chesapeake Bay and Major Tributaries
3. Small Tidal Rivers and Creeks
B. The Erosion Process
1. Physical Factors Involved in the erosion process
11. Erosion Control and Water Quality
111. Erosion Control Law and Legislation
A. In Virginia
B. Elsewhere
IV. Erosion Control and Government Status and Current Trends
A. Local Government and Erosion Control
1. Local Wetlands Boards
2. Chesapeake Bay Boards
B. State Government
C. Federal Government
D. Other Agencies involved in Erosion Control
1. Virginia Institute of Marine Science
2. Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS)
3. US Army Corps of Engineers
V. Methods for Implementing Appropriate Erosion Control Measures
A. Traditional approaches
1. Land Use, Zoning, and Special Districts
B. Environmental Issues
1. Trade off between reduction in Sediment Loadings and disruption Sediment
Transport Dynamics
C. Legal Issues - Property Rights versus Public Interest
VI. Erosion Control Methods
A. Background and Definitions
1. Marsh Enhancement
2. Shoreline Enhancement
3. Offshore Structures
4. Perpendicular Structures and Sand Traps
5. Linear Structures - Revetments, Bulkheads, and Seawalls
B. Applicability to Hampton Roads Shoreline
VII. Methodology
A. Shoreline Inventory for Erosion Control Structures and Access Points/ Areas
B. Erosion Control Recommendation

Inventory of Existing Erosion Control Structures
and
Public and Private Access Facilities

A Revised Methodology for Video Interpretation

At the point of project inception, it was expected that the Hampton Roads Planning
District Conunission would follow the original guidelines and protocols for video based
delineation used in previous shoreline studies. A delineation protocol was prepared for
HRPDC use by the Center for Coastal Management and Policy, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, the College of William & Mary. (A copy of CMAP's Analytical Protocols for
Delineating Shoreline Structures is attached.)

HRPDC staff were briefed and provided a training session by CMAP staff. The protocol
as developed is fairly straight forward and easy to understand. The delineation required
only a VCR, a set of stable base maps, several pencils of varying colors, and an ample
amount of time. Past shoreline studies undertaken by VIMS had used this protocol to
record the same data and information that the HRPDC was looking to update or create for
those areas previously undocumented.

To achieve maximum utility of the updated information, the HRPDC planned on using
the same map scale as the previous studies, the USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Series. In
relatively short order it was discovered that a) it was impossible to record the level of data
present on the videotape to the USGS maps without significant data loss or generalization,
and b) that the level of detail provided by the USGS maps would not be. sufficient for local
planning needs.

At its April, 1993 meeting. the Hampton Roads Chesapeake Bay Conu-nittee, through
whom this project is coordinated, recommended that the map scale of the USGS
Quadrangle was insufficient for their needs as well. HRPDC staff was supplied with copies
of local planimetric maps or other maps as deemed appropriate by the local government.
Several localities, lacking planimetric or other appropriate maps, opted to have shoreline
information recorded on the USGS Quadrangles.

Actual recording of information on study area maps, as stated above, is quite simple.
While watching the videotape with the corresponding map, the recorder first orients
himself and begins to record the position of shoreline structures. In the case of shoreline
hardening, the recorder would mark a beginning and end point along the shoreline and
then place the appropriate code (from the following table) adjacent to the shoreline and
between the beginning and ending marks. If the information to be recorded is a pier or
dock, the recorder would place a point at the approximate position of the pier or dock on
the map and code the point to the landward side of the shoreline.

Shoreline Structure Codes

Code Structure Type(s)
Number

1 Riprap Revetment
2 Bulkhead (or seawall)
3 jetty

4 Groin Field

5 Breakwater(s) and Bulkhead

6 Breakwater(s) and Groin Field

7 Breakwater(s)
8 Bulkhead, Breakwater(s), and Groin Field

9 Groin Field and Bulkhead

10 Groin Field and Riprap Revetment
11 Groin Field, Bulkhead, and Riprap Revetment
12 Marina Facility
13 Bulkhead and Riprap Revetment
14 Wharfs (Structures parallel to the shore.)
15 Piers or Docks (Structure perpendicular to the shore.)

16 Abandoned or Failed Piers, Docks, or Wharfs

17 Piers or Docks with Covered Structures (e.g. boathouses)

18 No Structures on the Shore -Shoreline Erosional or Unstable

19 Piers or Docks with Failed Covered Structures

20 Miscellaneous - Sills, Tires, Concrete Blocks, Old Failed Structures

21 Closure Line (for use with Arc/ Info only.)

22 No Structures - Shoreline Stable or Accretionary
23 No Aerial Coverage - Creeks, Ponds, and Lakes

24 Boat Ramp
25 vf Boat Ramp and Pier
26 Vf IBoat Ramp and Pier with Covered Structure

27 Unused Code

28 Unused Code

29 Unused Code

30 Industrial or Commercial Pier, Dock, or Wharf

ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS FOR DELINEATING SHORELINE STRUCTURES

Prepared for the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
By the Center for Coastal Management and Policy
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Introduction

The following document outlines standard procedures to be followed for delineating
shoreline structures from videography onto a stable-base map medium. Ile intent is to prepare
a dataset for transfer into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Since GIS databases are
spatially oriented, drafting information from video to base maps prepares the delineated data for
inclusion in an automated system which is managed, to some degree, by spatial coordinates.

This exercise is considered phase 2 in a multi-phase process to build the GIS database.
Phase 1 is to acquire the aerial video coverage. This phase is being conducted by the Center for
Coastal Management and Policy (CMAP). Phase 3, which addresses the digitizing process, will
be presented in a separate document at a later date.

The steps to be followed are being designed to generate a GIS database with maximum
utility for shoreline management. It is important that the database be easily expandable as
additional management needs are presented in the future. Change detection analyses may also
be desirable from a management perspective. Since similar databases have been developed
previously in 1985 and 1990, a foundation for change detection studies has already been
established. Therefore, it is in the best interest of this project to design the 1093 database for
the Planning District Commission to be compatible with the existing GIS coverages.

Equipment/Supplies

Previous coordination meetings between CMAP and the HRPDC have determined that the
HRPDC currently operates the PC version of Arc/Info and has some digitizing device interfaced
with a host computer for digital data entry. This will be important for Phase 3. The various
coding levels presented here have been designed to be compatible with existing Arc/Info GIS
coverages.

To perform the delineation of shoreline structures a color television monitor and a video
cassette recorder (VCR) will be required. A remote control is handy, but not critical. The
delineations will be drafted directly on the stable-base topographic maps. A large work space
will be desirable. USGS topographic maps have been reproduced onto stable-base mylar
material. This is the best material for a digitizing medium as it is resistant to stretching,
shrinking, and other distortions. The reproductions were copied from original mylar maps to
minimize accumulated distortions from multiple generations.

The drafting tools are simply standard lead pencils with fine points. The mylar material
of the map may be brownish in color. A contrast color pencil may be preferred. Colored pencils
are not really necessary, however, if this activity is expected to be repeated in future. years, color
pencils can be used to contrast different years of data collection. When selecting the drafting
pencil, clarity is the most important consideration. Often the individual who drafts the maps is
not the same individual who will digitize the maps. The delineation can become very confusing
for the digitizer if the markings are not distinct.

Delineation Process

The delineation of shoreline structures is performed while viewing the video. Features
common to the topographic base maps and the film should be used to geographically place the
structures on the maps. These include, but are not limited to: buildings, road networks, creeks
and tributaries, ponds or lakes, and occasionally piers. The general shape of the shoreline will
be a tremendous help in areas where shoreline change is minimum.

Auxiliary data will prove to be very useful when available. Since the video is not static,
it will be necessary to fast forward and reverse the tape frequently. A set of oblique slides
shown concurrently can minimize some of this. A set of oblique slides from the 1970's was used
for the Bank Erosion Study. These are available at VIMS, but cannot be removed from the
campus. A working area with monitor and VCR can be provided if staff of the HRPDC choose
to use the slides. The base maps used for the Bank Erosion Study have been provided by
CNIAP. This map set encompasses only the primary riverways. The river reaches, discussed
below, can be delineated from these maps.

There will be two levels delineated on the mylar base maps to create the database. The
first, and most complicated, is the delineation of the shoreline structures. Various structural
types, and combinations of structural types are identified in Table 1. The structures have been
identified and combined based on their individual and combined functions for erosion control.
Each has a unique code which will be used for identifying the structures in the GIS. The
structural breakdown is based upon the database format used by CMAP in developing the Bank
Erosion Study for the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Several'elements have been
added here to address the needs of this particular project. These include all elements referring
to docks or piers, wharfs and boathouses which were not delineated as part of the Bank Erosion
Study. The second level .is the delineation of the river reaches. The reaches were originally
delineated to represent process similar sections of the shore defined by comparing historic NOS
charts with the earliest topographic maps. Although today the reaches have limited utility
geomorphically, they have since become a valuable database management tool. Ile reaches can
be queried to request all the shoreline structures identified within the reach. It is a convenient
way to subdivide the shoreline into analytically manageable sections. This is how the Bank
Erosion Study and several other digital databases available at CMAP are internally managed.
The river reaches are already plotted on topographic maps which have been provided by CMAP.

The mylar base maps can be overlaid onto topographic maps and the reaches can be traced with
a pencil. Using a different pencil color from the structural delineation may be helpful. On the
topographic maps supplied, the reaches are identified by long pencil lines extending seaward from
the shoreline. They will usually have a number on either side of the line representing the reach
number (Figure 1). The reach number should not be altered. They are reference numbers which
apply to several existing shoreline databases. Most of these previous surveys examined the
primary shorelines rather than the small tributaries and creeks. Some tributaries and creeks do
have reach numbers assigned, which do not appear on these maps. Many. creeks have been
labelled with a #23 code which indicates no aerial coverage. Since this study will be looking at
shoreline within tributaries and creeks, reaches numbers may be desirable. The Shoreline
Situation Report series should be consulted for reach numbers which apply to creeks and
tributaries. Generally, the reach number applies to the entire watershed of the creek. It may be
desirable for the HRPDC to subdivide these creek reaches. The HRPDC may choose to separate
one side of the creek from the other. This is one way to manage the data. If so, it is
recommended that CMAP be consulted prior to doing so. When defining reaches, it is most
important not to repeat reach numbers already labelled for other creeks.

Most structural and all river reaches delineated have a start and end point on the shoreline.
A small tic line perpendicular to the shore marks the beginning and the end of the delineation
of the structural items. Tic marks which represent the reaches should be somewhat longer to
avoid confusion (Figure 2). The code should be clear ly written in between the tic marks.

Structures such as piers, or piers with boathouses are points on the shore. Since they do
not extend parallel to the coast like bulkheads or rip rap revetments, they cannot be delineated
with tics marking the start and end points. They should be identified as single points and clearly
labelled with the appropriate code from Table I (Figure 3). Small creeks in residential areas may
have more piers than can be reasonab ly plotted within the map space. A separate drawing off
to the side expanding the creek dimensions may be helpful. When digitizing, the operator can
use the capabilities of Arc/Info to enlarge the digital image and plot the piers directly on the
screen. It is important, however, that the digitizer be.clearly aware of the number and general
placement of the piers.

No deviations from the coding system outlined in Table 1 should be made. If the need
to code or delineate an item that does not fit any of the coded elements in the table, additional
codes can be added. Codes cannot be more than two digit characters.

It will prove to be extremely useful in the future if progress in this effort is carefully
tracked. At a minimum, each map should be identified with the name(s) of the individuals
responsible for drafting the delineations. It may be several years before funding becomes
available for Phase 3; the transfer of this database into digital format. In the event that questions
arise, the digitizer will be able to query records for personnel contacts on this project.

Table 1. SHORELINE STRUCTURES AND CODES

CODE STRUCTURE TYPE(S)

0 boundary (for use with Arc/Info only)
1 riprap
2 bulkhead
3 jetty
4 groin field
7 breakwaters
9 groin field and bulkhead
10 groin field and riprap
11 groin field, bulkhead, and riprap
12 marina facility
13 bulkhead and riprap
14 wharfs (structures parallel to the shore)
15 piers/docks (structures perpendicular to the shore)
16 abandoned or failed docks, piers and wharfs
17 docks or piers with covered structures (e.g. boathouses)
18 no structures on the shore - shoreline erosional/unstable
19 docks or piers with failed covered structures
20 miscellaneous - sills, tires, concrete blocks, old failed structures
21 closure line (for use with Arc/Info only)
22 no structures - stable or accretional shore
23 no aerial coverage - creeks/ponds/lakes
24 boat ramp

REACH BOUNDARIES

shoreline

Figure 1. Delineating and Coding Reach Boundaries

REACH BOUNDARIES

Figure 2. Delineations of Structures and River Reaches
,e@

1@11
- @I

-4
I

Figure 3. Delineating docks and piers
1@

Preliminary Methodology for Applying Erosion Control Recommendations
to Reaches based on Erosion Rate or Wave Energy Categories

Existing methods for determining appropriate erosion control techniques rely on a large
set of parameters. These parameters include, but are not limited to the following:

1.) Average Fetch Length, 8.) Offshore Topography,
2.) Longest Fetch Length, 9.) Shore Topography,
3.) Shoreline Orientation, 10.) Marsh Existence and Condition,
4.) Shoreline Geometry, 11.) Bank Height,
5.) Boat Traffic and Wake, 12.) Current Patterns,
6.) Bank Composition, 13.) Nearshore Vegetation,
7.) Soils, 14.) Shoreline Slope.

Ultimately, what the interaction of these dynamic parameters yield at a given point is
an erosion rate. By developing a decision model based on an easily measured, quantifiable
item, the determination of the appropriate shoreline protection measure is simplified.
Erosion rates are already available for much of the Hampton Roads shoreline, albeit at the
reach level.

Many studies have previously categorized erosion rates as low, medium, and high. The
erosion rate classification scheme developed in Shoreline Situation Reports has been widely
accepted and used.

Erosion C@@o Erosion Rate
Slight or None (Low) Less than one foot per year.
Moderate Between one foot and three feet per year.
Severe Greater than three feet per year.

Preliminaly Erosion Control Recommendations

Based on the ease of use allowed by the categorization of erosion rates, the following
preliminary recommendations are based on the same scheme.

If erosion is less than one foot per year the preferred option is to do nothing. This
can be modified to allow for low impact options such as beach/ marsh enhancement
measures including marsh revegetation, beach nourishment., bank grading, tree
removal, etc.

If erosion rate is greater than one foot per year, but less than three feet per year, a
moderate response is dictated. This response can include breakwaters, underwater

sills, marsh toe protection, or a combination of these methods and the "softer"
methods described above.

If the erosion rate is greater than three feet per year a stronger response is necessary
to protect the shoreline. Appropriate measures would include stone revetments
(rip-rap), bulkheads, and breakwaters. Due to the tendency of these structures to
severely alter the existing sediment transport, caution must be exercised in their
application.

There are however some problems associated with this approach. Primarily, no
scientific literature links erosion control techniques with associated erosion rates.
Secondarily, in the few cases that imply a relationship between structure types and erosion
rate, no definitive thresholds from one category to the next have been established.

Other Approaches Considered

Wave Energy

A similar scheme examined was based on wave energy work done by the Shoreline
Erosion Advisory Service. Their work does link wave energy classes with specific design
criteria for hardened structures. Their wave energy classes are identical to the erosion rate
classes developed by VIMS. SEAS reports their data over reaches and subreaches which
makes their methodology enticing.

Comprehensive Decision Model or Matrix

The highest aspiration of this project was to develop a decision model or matrix that
included ranges of all involved natural processes, human activities, land use, and other
relevant information. Given the complexity of the equation and the limited time allotted
for completion this effort has been set aside.

No one of these approaches has been settled upon, nor have they been finalized.
Rese arch continues to find the best method(s) possible.

Issues and Problems Raised in the Course of Development of the Methodologies

Issue 1 - Map Scale

As stated above, the map scale issue was the first of several assumption made in the
preliminary phases of this project. The USGS 1:24,000 scale maps were unsuited for the
level of detail expected by the localities from this study. Map information of less than
certain distances could not be recorded due to scale considerations. It was determined that
locally available planimetrics would be better suited for this task. Not only did this prove
to be so, it was also easier to orient videotape to maps, thus making placement of on-
ground structures more accurate. Several local maps also included property lines which
assisted in the placement of beginning/ ending lines for segments of hardened shoreline.
Many erosion control structures, although not all, began or terminated at a property line.

Due to the increase in the shear number of maps and the ability to create high quality,
detailed documentation of existing conditions, video interpretation time was significantly
increased.

Issue 2 - Accuracy and Consistency of Existing Data

This project was designed to build upon, not recreate, much of the shoreline work that
has been done throughout Hampton Roads in the past three decades. Much of the work
had been done by a single entity, VIMS, and in scoping discussions much weight was
placed on the misperseption that data collected in past studies was consistent with that of
the more recent studies. In the course of time, reach boundaries and identifying numbers
have shifted, changed, or been deleted. These processes are necessary given the knowledge
obtained, but they create roadblocks to the historical component of the analysis.

The basic study unit for shoreline projects is the reach. Shoreline r 'eaches were first
designated for Hampton Roads waterbodies in Shoreline Erosion in Tidatiater Virginia (Byrne
& Anderson, VIMS, 1978). It was anticipated that these reaches were consistent throughout
the ongoing shoreline work by VIMS. Comparing the Shoreline Situation Reports and
Shoreline Erosion in Tide7t)ater Virginia discrepancies were often noted. Reach definitions
used in the Bank Erosion Study also differed from past work, as did essential information
such as reach lengths.

Due to these inconsistencies, staff found it necessary to develop a hybrid set of reach
definitions, relying most heavily upon the definitions found in Shoreline Erosion in Tide7vater
Virginia and those found on the working maps produced for the Bank Erosion Study. Much
time has again been added in an effort to rectify these inconsistencies and make best use
of available information.

Issue 3 - Ambiguity of Reach Level Recommendations

After the compilation of much data and in the course of the literature' review,
deficiencies in reach level recommendations, specifically for erosion management, were
revealed. Throughout the literature, erosion control options are shown to be dependant
on site specific parameters, often changing over frontages of less than five hundred feet.
Rarely does a reach measure less than 1,000 feet and often exceeds 20,000 feet. Therefore,
recommendations for a shoreline erosion control technique or method made on averaged
or generalized. reach conditions may, or may not, be appropriate for any given site within
thatreach.

EROSION CONTROL

The shorelines of Virginia stretch over 5,000 miles of beaches, bays and
tributaries. In these areas, nature's relentless effort to strike a dynamic equilibrium
between land and water constantly occurs in what can be and frequently is a zone
of high energy. Shoreline erosion is a gradual process, but with increased
development and human activity, the effects of erosion become an increasingly
important problem. It is interesting to note, however, that erosion is not perceived
to be a problem until a property owner decides to build along a stretch of naturally
eroding shoreline. Traditionally, this conflict between man and nature results in the
implementation of some form of engineered structure, ignoring the probability that
anything built on or near the shore usually increases the rate of erosion (Kaufman &
Pilkey, Jr.: 19 1 ). By identifying naturally eroding areas during the local
comprehensive planning process, incompatible land uses and unsound post-
development measures can be prevented and the need for future shoreline
hardening efforts may be reduced (CBLAD 1989: VI-59). The desire is to satisfy a
community's development plans without risking property or life, while
simultaneously protecting its ecological resources (Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Erosion Study 1990:11).

Because the installation of shoreline erosion control structures can disrupt natural
forces and drive shorelines away from the equilibrium state they seek, it is
important to consider all possible alternatives when selecting an erosion control
option. The final choice should be one that is most appropriate for a given
situation and environmentally sensitive to problems such as increased'downstream
erosion and negative effects on water quality. With the exception of areas
experiencing severe erosion, there are a number of options that allow safe and
continued development of an eroding shoreline. Proper building setbacks, for
example, can protect shoreline development from erosion during the structure's
lifetime. However, if setbacks provide inadequate protection for existing or future
shoreline development, an erosion control option must be chosen (CBLAD,
1 989:VI-62). The choice of sound erosion control alternatives requires trade-offs
among many advantages and disadvantages. It is important to analyze numerous
site-specific characteristics to gauge the applicability of each option, and carefully
consider the positive and negative consequences associated with the final control
choice. In some cases the implementation of these structures can cause erosion to
occur on adjacent property or elsewhere in the system. The cumulative effects of
an extensively hardened shoreline can have a severe effect on the natural shoreline
processes. Unnecessary structural change to the shoreline should and can be
avoided through sound management decisions on the local 1 6 single alternative
Aevf@o
will apply in every case and each has to be considered on its own merits.

EROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES

There are three basic alternatives which can be used to address an erosion
problem: do nothing, relocate endangered structures, or consider the use of
structural or non-structural measures to halt erosion (Low Cost Shore Protection
198 1, p. 19).

When faced with an erosion problem, the first reaction is to take immediate action.
In some cases erosion may be caused by temporary factors, therefore, it may be
advisable to wait for the erosion rate to slow before taking any action. The "do-
nothing" option is cost free and does not hinder the natural equilibrium processes
of erosion and accretion; However, when structures exist on-site or erosion is
exacerbated from off-site forces, other options must be considered. If undeveloped
land or inexpensive structures are threatened, it is advisable to estimate the losses
involved in the "no action" alternative before structural action is considered (Low
Cost Shore Protection 198 1, p. 19). This option is especially applicable to
situations where development incorporated adequate setbacks and other site
design considerations to allow for naturally occurring erosion from on-site and off-
site sources (CBLAD 1 989:VI-63). To avoid future problems from historical erosion
rates, site design should consider this criteria before construction.

If adequate setbacks do not exist, relocation becomes a possible option when
structures are affected by "critical erosion". Before investing in shore protection,
physical relocation of your house or other structure should be considered (Low
Cost Shore Protection 198 1, p. 19). This option does not interfere with natural
shoreline processes and once buildings are relocated, no control structures must be
maintained; However, relocation may not be financially feasible or structurally
possible and like the "do-nothing" option, does not control erosion. . If the "do
nothingoor relocation options are not:possible solutions, more intensive measures
must be taken to mitigate the problem.

NON-STRUCTURAL AND STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES

There are a variety of proven methods available today, both structural and non-
structural, that are effective in solving an erosion problem. However, the success
of each option is dependent upon a number of site specific factors and design
considerations, therefore it is recommended that all possible alternatives be
considered before selecting the most applicable choice.

Nonstructural erosion control measurer@

Along lower energy shorelines, it is often impractical to implement erosion control
measures, particularly in areas where erosion has not yet reached catastrophic

proportions. In these cases, it may be possible to counteract erosion by non-
structural means. Structural mechanisms can exacerbate erosion by starving the
littoral transport of sediment to downstream shorelines and can deflect wave
energy to adjacent properties.

Vegetation -

Often referred to as a "soft barrier", the use of vegetation, where appropriate, is a
preferable method of erosion control because of its ability to adapt to changing
levels of erosive force (CBLAD 1989, p.VI-63). When properly applied, this method
is generally a cost effective and easy approach to stabilize an eroding sediment
bank where no marsh exists or to enhance existing areas of marsh. The proper
planting of various species of vegetation along an eroding shore can curb erosion
and tends to preserve the shoreline equilibrium. The marsh plants ability to
establish dense root systems, trap and accumulate sediments, and baffle wave
energy allows vegetation to act as a buffer against erosive forces (VMRC p. 7). In
addition, "vegetation is especially effective in allowing wetlands to migrate with
fluctuations in sea level (CBLAD 1989, p.VI-63)".

Vegetation serves as an effective buffer to areas experiencing low wave energy,
but the use of vegetation is limited in a number of situations. Site specific
characteristics such as climate, soil properties, wave exposure, and salinity regimes
greatly reduce the applicability of this option (Low Cost Shore Protection 198 1,
p.61). Fertilization may be necessary to aid in the proper growth and ground cover
of a soft barrier. Due to topography, it is often necessary to grade the bank back
to create an adequate slope for vegetation to grow. Vegetative barriers need to be
maintained more frequently and the replacement of dead or diseased plants is
necessary. In addition, it is important to understand the intended use of the shore
when considering the placement of vegetation. "Pedestrian and vehicular traffic
will quickly destroy vegetation if proper access points are not provided" (CBLAD
1989 p. VI-63).

Though vegetation may provide adequate stabilization in shorelines experiencing
low wave energy, in areas of extremely high tides and high wave energy,
vegetation, alone, may not be effective in combatting shoreline erosion. It may be
necessary to use vegetation in conjunction with structural control measures
depending on site characteristics. Either as a substitute for, or supplement to,
structural measures, vegetation should initially be considered because of the low
costs of implementation and the limited adverse effects on the natural state of the
shoreline.

Beach Nourishment -

This is another "soft barrier" option which involves the replacement of sand on a
highly erosive beach. Sand replenishment projects are especially useful when
undertaken for the creation and preservation of recreational beaches (CBLAD
1 989:VI-63). Because nourishment does not control erosion, it may be appropriate
to implement in conjunction with structural control options if the site allows for
such action. Replaced beaches usually succumb to existing erosive forces, and
because it is only a temporary solution at best and is expensive to implement and
maintain, beach nourishment is generally 'unattractive to the average homeowner.

Tree Cutting and Trimming & Bank Grading:

Taken from "Shoreline Erosion Control Guidelines" SEAS/DCR

Trees and shrubs may be cut or trimmed to reduce the weight bearing on eroding
banks or allow sunlight to promote wetlands vegetation growth. The Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Ordinance provides guidelines on vegetation removal in the RPA
and buffer area.

If bank grading is determined to be necessary for shoreline erosion control, banks
should be graded to a 50% or 2:1 (horizontal/vertical) slope or flatter. Slope
lengths greater than 75 feet may require runoff controls, as discussed in Chapter 6
of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Handbook. Slopes steeper than 50% (2:1)
will require an engineering analysis certifying slope stability. Land disturbance in
the RPA or buffer area may require a plan of development, as specified in the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. Bank revegetation is required following
tree removal and bank grading activities.

A bluff slope may be flattened to enhance- its stability when adequate room exists
at the top and it does not interfere with the desired land use. Freshly excavated
slopes should be planted to prevent erosion due to surface runoff. It may be
necessary to build a revetment or bulkhead at the toe of the slope -to protect
against wave action(LCSP).

STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES

The use of permanent erosion control structures generally tend to drive shorelines
away from their natural state of equilibrium, but there are situations in which non-
structural methods cannot mitigate an eroding shoreline . And while the placement
of these structures may reduce the sustained nutrient and sediment input into
adjacent waters, it is necessary to understand that ground preparation, installation
and maintenance of these structures can have equally damaging effects on
adjacent living resources" (VMRC p.7). On site, wetlands and shoreline vegetation

can be adversely effected due to placement and construction of erosion control
structures. Off site, because the natural shoreline processes such as the littoral
transport system are disrupted, natural resources downdrift can also suffer-.
Furthermore, negative impacts to water quality can result from their use and the
potential for increased erosion from improperly placed and constructed structures
exists, making the use of permanent structures as a final option something which
should be seriously considered.

Structural methods can be very effective in shielding land from various wave
aw-
energy climates and erosion situations. Minimum design criteria hT provided for a
number of these control structures by the Department of Conservation and
Recreation's Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service. This design criteria was
developed based on tidal range and anticipated wave energy at the shoreline for
reaches throughout the Tidewater area. These reaches were taken from the
Shoreline Situation Reports (Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia) and were
divided into high, medium and low wave energy categories based on anticipated
average storm conditions (SEAS). The wave energy categories, adopted by SEAS,
are as follows. A low energy wave is considered to be one foot or less, a medium
energy wave is around two feet, and a high energy wave is greater than two feet.
This regime especially applies to areas confined to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. Other examples such as the Corp of Engineers erosion control
guidelines consider wave energy as coastal in nature, therefore design
considerations are for higher energy shorelines. The differing schools of thought
are not clearly reflected in the literature.

It is important to remember that all structures built parallel to the shoreline will
ultimately fail, so careful design and maintenance are critical to extend the life of
the structure (CBLAD 1989, VI-65). Structures can be broken down into three
categories:

On-shore: Seawalls. bulkheads and revetments -

Seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments are structures placed parallel; or nearly
parallel, to the shoreline to separate a land area from a water area There are no
precise distinctions between the three structures, except that they are used to
separate land and water, and often the same type of structure in different localities
will bear a different name(Shore Protection Manual 1984, Volume 1, p. 5-2). For
the purpose of this study, the main distinction lies in the structure/s intended
purpose.

Bulkheads and Seawalls:

Seawalls are often incorrectly referred to as the same structure as a bulkhead. In
general, seawalls are designed to resist the full force of the waves. They are often

concrete structures of massive size with a primary purpose to protect the
backshore areas from high waves and strong currents sucil thaeJr3'-' limited to (found
in) coastal environments. Due to their size, they are only needed in areas where
large waves occur.

Bulkheads are effective in preventing erosion along particular shoreline segments.
These structure are vertical retaining walls embedded below the base of the
shoreline, held in place by landward tie-backs and backfilled with gravel, soil, or
similar material to bring the upland level with the top of the bulkhead(CBLAD
1 989,p.VI-66). The primary purpose of a bulkhead is to retain and prevent sliding
of soil, with a secondary purpose to protect the land and upland areas from erosion
and low wave energy. Generally, bulkheads are smaller and less expensive
retaining walls used to protect the land immediately behind them from minimal
wave action while Seawalls are designed to withstand the full force of waves such
as is found in a coastal environment (VM RC p. 17). Bulkheads are not designed to
absorb oncoming wave energy, but "tend to transfer the wave energy laterally
along the face of the structure or vertically up and down (VIVI RC p. 18). " This
reflected wave energy can cause "flanking" to occur around the structure and
exacerbate erosion on adjacent properties. Their vertical faces may reflect wave
energy upward and downward, causing increased scour in front of the structure. If
a beach is to be retained adjacent to a bulkhead, additional structures, such as
groins or breakwaters, may be required (Low Cost Shore Protection 19??:20)). The
use of bulkheads can cause erosion to occur in areas further down the shoreline.
Downdrift beaches that were previously nourished by the natural erosion of land
upstream can be "starved" of sediment present in the longshore transport system
with the placement of/a bulkhead and cause unnecessary erosion doWnshore.

As with other erosion control structures, the applicability of a bulkhead is
dependent upon many factors. Where severe wave action is present, a bulkhead
alone, would not be adequate to protect the shoreline. Bulkheads may also serve
as moorings for boats and wharves for cargo transfer as well as other situations
which would require the need for adequate water' depths directly at the shore.

Revetments -

A revetment is comprised of wave absorbing materials of varying sizes such as
rocks (riprap) or concrete blocks strategically placed on a graded slope to protect
the shoreline against wave energy. Riprap is comprised of stone that is hard
enough to withstand exposure to wave climate, weathering and other erosive
forces. The use of riprap revetments as an erosion control option is preferred over
the use of a bulkhead "due in part to their ability to absorb and dissipate wave
energy, thereby reducing the transfer of these erosive forces to adjoining property"
(VIVIRC p.1 1). In addition, the open spaces between the armor material can
provide "suitable habitat for marine organisms and in some cases trap enough

sediment to support wetland vegetation.

The proper function of a revetment is dependent upon the stability of the graded
soil and its ability to support an adequate slope, therefore, design considerations
must be suited to differing bank compositions. "Revetments should be used when
natural vegetation cannot withstand the erosion forces of particularly dynamic and
high energy shorelines" (CBLAD 1989, VI-66). The proper design of riprap
structures is dependent upon specific site characteristics such as varying wave
climates which determine the adequate size of the armor material. Like a bulkhead,
revetments protect only the immediate shoreline. *{Protective structures for low
energy climates are discussed in detail in U.S. Army, Corp of Engineers (198 1).)

(Chesapeake Bay orientation) The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
has this to say about revetments and bulkheads:

"The construction of revetments and bulkheads behind wetlands is
often viewed as an environmentally sensitive solution to shoreline
erosion problems. In fact, revetments and bulkheads may actually
cause wetland destruction due to increased wave energy created by
the placement of permanent barriers that abruptly stop and reflect
wave action. In addition, bulkheads and revetments prevent plants
from migrating landward on a gently sloping bank where sea levels
rise. A marsh toe revetment (i.e., a revetment constructed at the
base of the marsh rather than behind the marsh), however, can
provide protection against erosion while still allowing for the natural
migration of wetlands. While bulkheads and revetments can be
effective at halting bankland shoreline erosion, they cut off the supply
of sediment to the littoral system, once available to replenish beaches
naturally" (CBLAD 1989, p.VI-68).

(Coastal orientation) According to a book entitled Managing Shoreline Erosion by
The National Research Council, "Properly engineered seawalls and revetments can
protect the land behind them without causing adverse effects to the fronting
beaches. Coastal armoring (e.g., a riprap or seawall) neither adds to nor removes
sand from the sediment system but may be responsible for the redistribution of
sand and can prevent sand from entering the system. Although armoring can
cause additional localized scour during storms, both in front of and at the ends of
the armoring, there are no factual data to support claims that armoring causes
profile steepening, increased longshore transport, transport of sand to a substantial
distance offshore, or delayed poststorm recovery"

Near-shore: Groins and jetties -

Groins -

A groin is a structure that is constructed perpendicular (or nearly so) to the
shoreline and extending seaward whose sole purpose is to protect the shoreline
from erosion by trapping sand moving in the littoral transport system. Either singly
or in a "groin field", the structure collects the longshore material on the updrift side
of a "cell" until filled where it then bypasses the structure and continues to feed
sediment to downdrift areas. The resulting sediment buildup creates a buffer
which acts as a protective barrier for the upland areas. This buffer absorbs the
attack of erosive forces and prevents further erosion of the shoreline by raising the
elevation of the nearshore area and may actually build a sand beach by accretion
processes in the nearshore zone.

In choosing to implement a groin system, "it is important to evaluate the net
direction and amount of longshore sediment transport" (LCSP). The effectiveness
of a groin is dependent upon the presence of an adequate amount of material in the
longshore transport zone. Without an adequate amount of material in the system,
the formation of the protective buffer is hindered and the structure cannot function
to its potential.

One problem that is seen with the use of this type of control option is the potential
to negatively impact adjacent shorelines. Because of this, "it is often
recommended to position groins away from property lines (Shoreline Development
BMP's P.25). With the construction of a groin field, the sand that is trapped
updrift of the groins greatly improves the shoreline but a consequence of this
buildup is the resulting sand deprivation of downstream shorelines. The sand that
is trapped in a groin field can no longer feed areas downdrift of the structure,
thereby starving the littoral buildup process and increasing the rate of erosion.
Because of this, it is recommended that the design height should match the beach
profile and that each cell is partly filled with material to reduce the need for the
material from the longshore current. In this way the areas downdrift are not
"starved" of sediment that normally flows in the littoral transport system. In
addition, this type of structure may hinder freedom of shoreline travel.

Jetties -

Jetties are structures which may appear similar to a groin, but whose primary
purpose is to "stabilize the position of the navigation channel, to shield vessels
from wave forces, and to control the movement of sand along the adjacent
beaches so as to minimize the movement of sand into the channel" (Shore
Protection Manual 1984, p. 1 -24). They are placed perpendicular to the shoreline' to
allow sedimentation on the updrift side, thereby preventing the shoaling of a
channel. They can also reduce wave height in a channel, but like groins, can
prevent the transverse movement of sediment and exacerbate erosion downstream
in the process.

Off -shore: Breakwaters

Breakwaters -

In contrast to bulkheads and revetments, breakwaters are structures constructed
parallel to and channelward of a shoreline rather than directly on shore (Low Cost
Shore Protection 19??:23). They are barriers designed for the purpose of
attenuating incoming wave energy by reducing the height and thereby reducing the
erosive power of the waves before reaching the shoreline. Breakwaters may be
composed of-a single structure or a series of structures separated by gaps; thus,
"they provide substantial protection to the shoreline without completely stopping
longshore sand transport" (Managing Coastal Erosion p.60). They can be flowing
breakwaters which filter energy from the incoming waves as they pass through the
device, thereby reducing wave energy reaching a shoreline or harbor. As a result
of the decrease in wave energy, the ability of the waves to transport sediments
decreases and sand from the littoral transport system accumulates in areas behind
the structure. The high energy environment that breakwaters are applicable to
warrants materials capable of withstanding differing wave climates.

This option usually applies to erosion problems over a large segment of the
shoreline. Because of the high costs associated with construction, breakwaters
have been limited to use in navigational purposes and harbor protection. As with
groins, breakwaters have the ability to disrupt the supply of sand to downstream.
Downdrift beaches are deprived of normal sediment supplies and as a result may
experience increased erosion rates. Because of this, the partial nourishment of the
areas behind the breakwaters can help to minimize this disruption in the natural
processes by allowing sand to insure the littoral transport of sand when the
structure is at capacity. It is important that adequate materials exist in the littoral
transport system to support the use of a breakwater.

Submerged sill -

A submerged sill is a low, detached structure constructed nearshore and parallel to
the shoreline for the purpose of building up an existing beach by trapping and
retaining sand in the littoral zone. Because a sill acts like a natural bar, it is more
effective when constructed at or near the mean low water line and low enough to
allow wave overtopping. They are usually constructed of sandbags, but may be
constructed of riprap, gabion baskets, concrete, or timber. Gabion baskets are
containers filled with stone, brick, shells or other material to give it a heavy weight
suitable for use in constructing revetments or groins.

12 1 Y
Bibilliography

Ben-nan, Marcia R., Cad H. Hershner. Comprehensive Coastal Invento[y Prog ram and
The Tidal Rivers Invento[y Project Final RepLort Center for Coastal Management
and Policy, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, Virginia.
February, 1993.

Byrne, RJ. and G.L. Anderson. Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, Special
Report on Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 111 of the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, 1978.

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Local Assistance Manual. November
1989.

Hardaway, Scott C, Jr., John Posenau. George R, Thomas, and Joseph C. Baurner.
Shoreline Erosion Assessment Software (SEASware) RepQrt, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Gloucester Point, Virginia. November 1992.

Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, and J.-H. Li. "Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Study:
Headland Breal@omters and Pocket Beaches For Shoreline Erosion Control',
Final Report Joint commonwealth Programs Addressing Shore Erosion in
Virginia. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering.
March 1991.

Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, J.B. Glover, J.B. Smithson, M.R. Berman, and AK
Kenne, Bank Erosion Study, Special Report in Applied Marine Science and
Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, April
1992.

Hobbs, C.H., G.L. Anderson, M.A. Patton and R Rosen. Shoreline Situation Report:
James Cily Countj& Virginia Gloucester Point, 1975.

Hobbs, C.H., G.L. Anderson, M.A. Patton and R. Rosen. Shoreline Situation RepQrt:
York Counjy. Virginia. Gloucester Point, 1975.

Hobbs, C.H., G.L. Anderson, R.J. Byrne and J.M. Zeigler. Shoreline Situation RepQrt:
City of Hampton, Virginia. Gloucester Point, 1975.

Kaufman, Wallace and Pilkey, Orrin H., Jr., The Beaches Are Moving: The Drowning
of Arnerica's Shoreline. Duke University Press: Durham, North Carolina. 1983.

Marine Resouroes Commission, Shoreline Development BMPs: Best Management
Practices for Shoreline Development Activities W-iich Encroach In, On, or Over
Vrain4s Tidal Wetlands, Coastal Prima[y-Sand Dunes and Beaches, and
Submerged Lands, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News,
Virginia.

National Research Council, Committee on Coastal Erosion Zone Management Water
Science and Technology Board, Marine Board and the Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems, Managing Coastal Erosign, National
Acaden-fy Press: Washington, D.C. 1990.

Owen, Dennis W., Lynne M. Rogers, and Margaret H. Peoples. Shoreline Situation
RepQrt:- Cities of Chesapeake, NoLolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia. Gloucester
Point,1976.

Owen, Dennis W, G.B. V\Alliams, Margaret H. Peoples, Cad H. Hobbs, and Gary L.
Anderson. Shoreline Situation Repgrt: Isle of Wght County.Vugbia. Gloucester
Point, 1975.

Owen, Dennis W, Lynne Morgan, and Nancy Sturm. Shoreline Situation Repgrt: City
of Vrainia Beach. Gloucester Point, 1978.

Patton, Peter C. and Kent, James M., A Moveable Shore: The Fate of the Connecticu
Coast. Duke University Press: Durham and London, 1992.

Pilkey, Orrin H.Jr., William J. Neal, Onin H. Pilkey, Sr., and Stanley R. Riggs. From
Currituck to Calabash: Livina With North Carolina's Barrier Islands Duke
University Press: Durham, North Carolina, 1978.

Rogers, Lynne M., Dennis W. Owen and Margaret H. Peoples. Shoreline Situation
Repgrt: Cfty of Suffolk, Virgbia. Gloucester Point,1976.

U.S. Am-ry Corps of Engineers Baltimore and Norfolk Districts, "Chesapeake Bay
Shoreline Erosion Study', October 1990.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Low Cost Shore Protection ... A Property Owner's
Guide', Engineer District, Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Low Cost Shore Protection ... A Guide for Local
Government Officials", Engineer District, Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Am-ry Corps of Engineers, "Low Cost Shore Protection: Final Report on the
Shoreline Erosion Control Demonsration Program!', Engineer District, Norfolk,
Virginia.

U.S. AnTy Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Shore
Protection Manual, Vols 1 & 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1973.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Shore Protection Guidelines, The National Shoreline
Study, Washington, D.C. August 1971.

U.S. Arrrry Corps of Engineers, Shore Management Guidelines, The National Shoreline
Study, Washington, D.C. August 1971.

U.S. Army Engineer Division, National Shoreline Study: Regional Inventory Report,
North Atlantic Region Vols I & 11, Corp of Engineers: New York, N.Y. 1971.

Ward, Larry G., Peter S. Rosen, William J. Neal, Orrin H. Pilkey, Jr., Orrin H. Pilkey,
Sr., Gary L. Anderson, and Stephen J. Howie, Living with Chesapeake Bay and
Virginia's Ocean Shores. Duke University Press: Durham and London, 1989.

Shore Erosion Control: A Guide for Waterfront Property Owners in the Chesapeake
Bay Area

I. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WATERQUALITY CONDITIONS

<<This section was already sent for review on 2/1/94.>>

Note: Elements A and B will be included in the general
information "macro document.

A. 1992 305(b)- Report
1. Hampton Roads Water Quality Assessment Index
a. York River Basin
b. James River Basin
C. Chowan River and Dismal SwamP Basins
d. Chespeake Bay and Small Coastal Rivers Basins

No t e Su m m a r i e s a r e i n c 1 u d e d i n
SysteM/Subarea/Waterbody?"Mainstem Segment/Descriptions

B. 1993. Nonpoint Source Pollution Water-shed Assessment
Report
1. Hampton Roads Watershed Assessment Index
a. York River Basin
b. James River Basin
c. Chowan River and Dismal Swamp Basins
d. Chespeake Bay and Small Coastal Rivers Basins
2. Map of PDC NPS Priorities (Comprehensive)

N o t e S um m a r i e s- a re i nclud e d i n
System/Subarea/Water body /Mainstem Segment/Reach Descriptions

II. SENSITIVE LAND AND A0UATIC RESOURCES

Note: Elements A-G will be included in the general
information macro document. Specific locations are
delineated on m a p s a n d described i n
System/Subarea/Waterbody/Mainstem Segment Descriptions.

A. Wetlands (Tidal/Nontidal)
B. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
1. Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries
2. Back Bay
C. Spawning Grounds
D. Nursery Areas
E. Shellfish Growing Areas
F. Commercially- and Recreationally- Important Finfish and
Shellfish (non-oyster or clam) Areas
G. Protected Areas and Estuarine Reserves

III. PHYSICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELINE

A. Bathymetry
B. Flushing Characterisitics
C. Current Patterns

Note: Items A-C are discussed generally in the "macro
do cumen t- " Specific information, including areas where
dredging Would be required to develop shoreline access
facilities, is found in the Subarea/Water body /Mainstem Segment

Descriptions.

III. PUBLIC AND PR TVATE WATER ACCESS

A. General Introduction, Overview of the Hampton Roads
Region, Problem Identification, and General State
Recommendations -for Improving Public: Access to the
Region's Water Resources

B. Strategies -for Impoving Water Access

1. Land Use Controls
a Privately-Owned I-and
Traditional Zoning
Development Proffers
Overlay Zoning
Specia1 Districts
PUD
TDR
b) PUblicly-Owned Land

2. Land Acquisition Techniques
,R) Fee--Simple AqUisition
b) Conservation Easements
c) Land Banl,:.ing
d) Land Trusts

State and Federal Programs

4. Cooperative Agreements

<<Information on Items 1-4 to be taken and updated from the
1987 PDC study, The Waters of Southeastern Virg.in.ia.>>

B. Siting and Design* Criteria for Water Access Facilities
and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas To Reduce
Potentially-Adverse Impacts to Water Quality
<<This secti-on was already sent for review on' 2/1/94.>>

1. Water Access Facilities (Boat Access)
a. Marinas and COMMUnity Facilities for Boat
Mooring
b. Boat Ramps
C. Canoe Put-In/Take-Out Points

2. Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas (Shoreline
Pedestrian Access Areas)
EA . Beachfront
b. Fishing Areas
C. Other Shoreline Recreation Areas

C. Summary of Existing Water Access Facilities and Water-
Enhanced Recreation Areas., Demand Analysis by
Jurisdiction, Existing Proposals and Other
Recommendations for Improved Pubic

1. Existing Water Access Facilities (Boat Access)
a. Marinas and Community Facilities for Boat
Mooring
b. Boat Ramps
c. Canoe PUt-In/Take-Out Points

2. Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas (Shoreline
Pedestrian Access Facilities)
a. Swimming Beaches
b. Fishing Areas
C. Other Shoreline Recreation Areas

3. Public Access Demand Analysis by Jurisdiction

4. Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas
and Future Needs Assessment
a) Local
b) State
c) Other Recommendations

Note: Tables and matrices showing existing and proposed
public and private water access and recreation areas by
jurisdiction,as well as jurisictional demand analysis, will
be included in the general information "macro document;"
however, specific information for items 1-4 above will be in
the System/Subarea/Waterbody/Mainstem Segment descriptions.

D. Private Pier and Dock Density Standards

Issues to be addressed in this section include:

1. Problem Identification
2. Legal Discussion of Nonconsumptive Riparian Rights
in Virginia: The Balance Between Private and
Public Use of Waterways
2. Review of Existing Regulatory Framework in Virginia
as it Relates to Private Pier and Dock Density
4. Discussion of Existing Private Pier and Dock
Densities in Project Study Area
5. Discussion of Existing and Future Land Use, Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances by Jurisdiction as it
Relates to Pier and Dock Density
6. Review of Density Control Standards/Waterway
Management Plans Used by Other States
7. Recommendations for Density Standards and Water Use
Compatibility and/or Waterway Management Plans by
Waterbody and Jurisdiction
B. Recommended Changes to Existing Regu1atory
Framework

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTINS WATER OUALITY CONDITIONS

The following discussion and ' data on existing water. quality
conditions within the project Study area were taken verbatim from
two sources: (1) The Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1992
3-5 b) Renort to EPA and Congress and -the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation's 1993 Virginia Nonpoint Source
Pollution Watershed Assessment Report. Changes made to this
discussion and/or data, based on HRPDC staff review and updating
of information, are marked in [I. No additional water quality
monitoring was @_-onducted by the HRPDC to augment data found in
these reports.

A. The Virainia Water Quality-Assessment for 1992 (305(b) Report)

General

The Virginia Water OUalit,' Assessment for 1992 (305(b) RetDort)
describes Surface water quality conditions for the project study
area during -the time period Of July 1, 1989 through June 7_50, 1991.
One of the primary purposes of this State-wide assessment is to
determine how well the waters of Virginia meet the goals of the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA) for swimmable and -fishable waters.
[The next Virginia Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report) will
be completed in 1994.1

The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) General Standard (VR680-.
21-01.2) states that all surface waters 5hal-1 be maintained to
SLIpport recreational use and the propagation and growth of all
aquatic life reasonably_expected to inhabit them. As defined for
this report, these two uses correspond to the swimmable and
fishable goals of the CWA. respectively. By protecting these two
uses, it is assumed that other, usually less restrictive uses, such
as industrial water supply, irrigation, and navigation, are also
protected. Surface waters may a-lso be designated for use as public
water supplies. These waters must meet Virginia's-numeric public
water supply standards, in addition to the state-wide surface water
quality standards. Appendix contains the citrrent Virginia
water quality standards adopted by the VWCB which are applicable
to the project Study area (VWCB General Standards V%eo-21-01,
VR690-21-02, VR660-21-o:3, VR68o-21-04, VR680-21-05, VR690-21-07 and
VP6eO-21-0e).

Numeric and narrative water quality standards have been established
for the protection of the recreational and aquatic life uses.* To
meet the recreational use, and thus the CWA swimmable goal, the
waterbody must meet the state fecal coliform bacteria standard.
The primary method Virginia uses to assess the fishable Status Of
its waters is to compare monitoring data to state numeric standards
for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and temperature (see Appendix _).
other information, both monitored and evaluated. is also used to
assess Support of the fishable goal, including Measures of
nutrients and toxicants.
I

The VWCB is also responsible for classifying waterbodies as either
eff luent limited or water quality limited- segments. [Ef f lUent
limited classifications apply to stream segments where water

quality standards will be met by compliance with effluent limits
contained in a waste discharge facility's Virginia Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit -from the VWCB. In
other words, these segment will meet water quality standards is BPT
(best practicable technology) and BAT (best available technology)
treatment levels are applied to Municipal and industrial
discharges '. respectively. Effluent limits are established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and are generally
applicable on the basis of facility type. Water quality limited
classifications apply to stream segments where water quality
standards wi 11 not be (net by compl iance with ef f luent 1 imits alone.
More stringent treatment requirements will be necessary in order
to achieve water quality standards in these segments. In other
words, water quality standards will not be met after --Application
of BPT and BAT levels of treatment and, therefore, require, higher
effluent removal levels (HRPDC, 1993: 12; HRWQA, 1978:7).]

The analysis of surface water quality conducted for the -3*05(b)
Report is based on two different categories of information:
monitoring data and evaluations. VWCB monitoring data come
primarily from the analysis of water column samples, with fish
tissue and sediment samples, and other imformation also employed.
In the absence of monitoring data, an evaluation has been made,
where possible.. of the attainment of the CWA fishable and swimmable
goals.

Monitorinq Data

Monitorinq data collected by the VWCB at amb ient water quality
monitoring (AW011) stations. are composed primarily of the
measurement of four conventional Pollutant parameters: dissolved
ox,ygen (DO), pH., temperature, and fecal coliform bacteria. In
addition to these, other types of monitoring data were used to
assess whether Virginia's waters met the CWA fishable goal.
Concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, fish
tissue, and sediment samples were analyzed at a Subset of the AWOM
stations and reported. Surveys of macroinvertebrate benthic
organisms provided direct information on the health of these
aquatic COMMUnities. Fish/shellfish consumption advis 'ories provide
further information used in the assessments. If none of the
monitoring data used to assess all or a portion of a waterbody
indicated impairment, a waterbody (or portion) was considered to
fully Support the CWA fishable goal. If one parameter indicated
partial support, while the others indicated no impairment, the
waterbody was judged to be partially supporting of the fishable
goal. If any one parameter indicated non-support, that waterbody
was judged as non-SUpporting of the CWA fishable goal. Fecal
coliform bacteria counts were the only monitoring data employed to
assess support of the CWA swimmable goal.

[Based on telephone conversations with a VWCB official, a
determination of which portions of each waterbody segment (in
square miles) support, partial ly-SLIpport or do not Support the
fishable, swimmable and shellfish goals of the Clean Water Act is
based on the following: how much area of each segment violates the
state water quality standards, the total acreage of shellfish bed
closures based on current VDH notices, -the total area Of public

swimming areas closed by VDH based on fecal coliform bacteria
standard violations, violoation data -for DO, pH, temperature and
fecal coliforms collected from AWGIM and biological monitoring
stations, and from the total area closed to fishing based on VDH
bans. Best professional judgement and relevant water quality
studies are also used in making these determinations.]

Described below is each type of monitoring data used to assess the
fishable and swimmable goals:

Fecal Coliform Bacteria:

Fecal coliform bacteria limit--- are intended to protect human
health. These bacteria dwell in the intestines of humans and other
warm blooded animals in large numbers and can be used as indicators
of the presence of improperly treated --lewage. This type of
indicator organism is employed because more virulent organisms are
very difficult to detect and Count in the aquatic environment. The
presence of fecal coliform bacteria does not mean pathogens are
present. It does mean -that contamination by warm blooded animals
exists and that there is a potential for pathogen contamination.
While high fecal coliform bacterial counts can -indicate improperly
treated human wastes, there are many other sources Of these
organisms. Fecal coliform bacteria live in the intestines of all
warm blooded animals, including livestock (cattle, swine, Poultry)
and wildlife (deer, ducks). Their presence does not in itself
present a hazard, only a warning of potential hazard.

Virginia water quality standards set a bacteria standard for all
state waters other than shellfish waters. This --standard .. is
intended to keep -the state's waters safe for primary contact
recreation, including swimming. Bacteria levels are the primary
ME-?aSUre for determining whether or not, a waterbody meets the
swimmable goal of the CWA. Whether or not any waterbody is clean
enough for swimming is determined by the Virginia Deparment of
Health (VDH) and local health authorities. The. VWCB sampling
program is not used by the VDH -for setting swimming restrictions.

The VWCB adopted revisions to the -fecal coliform bacteria standard
in November 1987 that have improved the state's ability to
determine compliance and to institute enforcement actions. The
revised standard contains both instantaneous and average maximum
values. An,/ sample containing more than 10C)o fecal coliform
bacgeria cells per 100 ail of water at any time violates the
instantaneous standard. A geometric mean of two or more samples
collected within a 30-day period that exceeds 200 cells per 100 ml
of smaple is a violation of the average maxiMUM standard.

To be -fully supporting of the swimmable goal, the bacteria standard
Must be met in at least 90% of the samples collected. A waterbody,
or a portion of a waterbody, partially supports the CWA goal if the
violation rate for the standard is in the range of 11%-25%. if
more than 25% of the samples exceed the standard, the waterbody (or
portion) is assessed as not,SUpporting the swimmable goal.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO):

DO is necessary for the survival of a diverse assemblage of aquatic
life. Fish and other aquatic organisms use DO for respiration by
extracting it from the water. When oxygen levels are depressed due
to the introduction of oxygen-conSUMing wastes, many naturally
occurrinq species may decline in numbers or disappear from the
affected area.

DO concentrations in water column samples were compared to
Virginia's water quality standard. The standard is intended to
maintain Sufficiently high oxygen levels in streams to Sustain f ish
and other aquatic organisms, and to avoid aesthetic degradation.
Cold water fish (e.g. , trout) require higher oxygen levels than
warm water fish (e.g., bass) so the DO standard requires a higher
level of oxygen in mountain streams compared to streams in the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain.

To be considered fully Supporting of the fishable goal, the
standard for DO must be met in at least .9(.-)% of the samples
collected. A waterbody, or a portion of a waterbody, partially
Supports the CWA goal if the violation rate for the standard is
between 11%-25%. If more than 25% of the samples exceed the
standard, the waterbody (or portion) is assessed as not supporting
the fishable goal.

pH:

Acidity or alkalinity of a waterbody is meaSU red as pH. The pH
scale ranges f rom zero (highly acidic) -to 14 (highly basic) A. plH
of 7 is neutral . Aquatic life can SUrVlVe over, only a limited
range of the pH scale around -the neutral point of 7. Waters that
are either too basic or too acidic are harmful to aquatic life, so
both a pH maximum standard and pH minimum standard are needed.
Waters with a pH near 6.0' (mildly acidic) or near 9.5 (mildly
basic) will Support some species of aquatic life,. but they are
generally regarded as impoverished, unproductive h 'abitats. Waters
a little more acidic or basic than this may be lethal.

Like the DO standard, the pH standard varies with geographic
location. For example, in hard water areas underlain by carbonate
rock (e.g. , limestone) , the pH maximum is higher than in other
areas with softer, naturally more acidic waters (e.g. swampy
areas).

To be considered fully Supporting of the fishable goal, the
standard for pH Must have been met in at least 90% of the samples
collected. A waterbody, or a portion of a waterbody, partially
Supports the CWA goal if the violation rate for the standard is
between 11%-25%. If more than 25% of the samples exceed the
standard, the waterbody (or portion) is assessed as not supporting
the fishable goal.

Temperature:

Temperature standards are established also with the primary purpose
of protecting aquatic life. Like the DO and pH standards,

temperature standards are habitat specific. The maximum Allowable
temperature is lower in trout streams And higher in streams that
support A warm water fishery. Sustained temperature Much above the
maximum values given in -the standards would be very detrimental to
aqL@tatiC life in" that particular habitat.

To be considered fully Supporting of the fishable goal, the
standard for temperature Must have been met in at least 9(--)",. of the
samples collected. A waterbody, or a portion of a waterbody,
partially Supports the CWA goal if the violation rate for the
standard is between 11%-25%. If more than 25% of the samples
exceed the standard, the waterbody (or portion) is assessed as not
Supporting the fishable goal.

Toxicants:

Substances that are toxic in aquatic environments include heavy
metals and certain organic and inorganic Substances. Elevated
concentrations of these Substances in the water Column, in the
tissues Of living organisms .. and in sediments can have adverse
effects on aquatic life. Toxicants can also affect human health,
resulting in the need for advisories or bans on fishing or
shellfishing, swimming, or other recreational USeS, and in
restrictions on the use of drinking Water supplies. The usefulness
of a Water supply for agriculture can also be impaired due to the
presence of toxic Substances at elevated levels.

Concentrations of toxic substances in Water Column samples
collected at AWQM stations were compared to -the appropriate
Virginia water quality standards, Virginia chronic criteria for
the protection of Aquatic life, and to EPA acute and chronic
criteria. In surface public water Supply segments, toxics levels
were compared to the Virginia drinking Water standards.

Determining the status of each waterbody in terms of its Support
of designated uses And the CWA fishable goal is ' more difficult
using toxicant data than -for the conventional pollutants. In
addition, Virginia had not adopted water quality stand-Ards for most
toxic SUbstancees at the time this report was being prepared, and
there had been no criteria developed for sediment concentrations.
Unlike the assessment of the conventional pollutants, exceedence
rates were riot used to determine goal support. Rather, toxics data
were assessed in combination with discharger information,
historical data (if Any existed) , and staff knowledge of other
information regarding tOXiC pollution within the waterbody.

Biological Surveys:

The VWCP, supports a. biological sampling program to monitor the
benthic macroinvertebrate Communities in -the rivers and estuaries
within the state. Denthic communities can provide a practical
means for evaluating impacts on water quality, as standards or
criteria do not exist for many pollutants. In addition, they
integrate the effects of different pollutants, thus providing a
measure of the aggregate impact.

Begining in Fall 1990, the VWCB adopted EPA's Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol II for use in conducting macroinvertebrate benthic
surveys. Using this protocol,communities were characterized as
nonimpaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired. In
assessing the degree of support of the CWA fishable goal within a
waterbody, these three categories directly corresponded to fully
supporting, partially supporting, and not supporting, respectively,
this goal . I

Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Restrictions:

The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has the regulator
authority for issuing advisories and restrictions on the
consumption of finfish. A fishing restriction allows sport fishing
within the affected area, but the taking of fish for human
consumption is prohibited. A health advisory warns of the
dangerous levels of contamination found in fish tissues in an
affected area, but does not prohibit consumption. Under health
advisories, the population at risk and a safe maximum consumption
rate may be specified. In accordance with EPA guidance,
waterbodies were considered to be fully Supporting of the CWA
fishable goal if no advisories or restrictions were in effect.
Waterbodies that have received health advisories warning against
fish consumption were considered to be partially supporting
Waterbodies receiving a fishgin restriction were considered not
supporting.

The VDH Bureau of Toxic Substances information has five health
advisories and one restriction currentiv in effect for fish
consumption. [The following advisories are in affect for the
Hampton Roads region]:

a) Kepone in the Lower James River

From 1966 through 1975 Allied Chemical Company and its subsidiary
Life Science Products, Inc. produced a persistant chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticide called Kepone. During production, an
estimated 90,720 kg of Kepone was released to the environment
through atmospheric emissions, wastewater discharges, and bulk-
disposal of off-specification batches. The James River and its
tributaries from Richmond to Newport News were contaminated with
Kpone. In 1975, the entire James River from Hopewell to the
Chesapeake Bay, including all tributaries,was closed to the taking
of any shellfish and/or finfish because Of Kepone. From 1975
through 1988 various Kepone bans were in place. In 1988, all James
River fishing bans due to Kepone were allowed to expire as Kepone
levels in fish remained below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) action level. This area is currently under a health
advisory, covering 113 miles of the mainstem James River and an
undetermined number of tributary miles.

From the onset of the contamination problem through the present,
the VWCB has continually monitored Kepone levels in the James
River. The major areas of concern were Kepone levels in the water
Column, finfish, and bed sediment of the James River and its
tributaries, and in the groundwater in Hopewell. After continuous
non-detectable results, water column monitoring was discontinued

in 1981. Kepone 1evels in finfish, groundwater, and sediment have decreased since the onset of the problem. Continued monitoring
will provide the state with an up-to-date portrayal of Kepone
levels throughout the contaminated reach of the river. )Specific
waterbodies affected by this health adivisory within the project
study area have been noted in the System/Waterbody/Reach
descriptions section of this report.]

b) Dioxin in the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers

A health advisory has been issued for the Blackwater River from
Sandy Landing to the confluence with the Nottoway River at the
North Carolina border, and for the Nottoway River from the General
Vaughn Bridge (U.S. 258) to the North Carolina border. Those
fishing in these areas are advised due to limit or discontinue
consumption of bottom-feeding specoes die tp dioxin contamination.
[Specific waterbodies affected by this health advisory within the
project study area have been noted in the System/Waterbody/Reach
descriptions section of this report.)

The VDH also desiqnates areas as condemned for the takinq of
shellfish. These condemned areas include buffer zones surrounding

Evaluative Data

Virginia's AWOM Network cannot cover all waters of the State. It
concentrates on major tributaries and known problem areas. In
addition, sampling stations are located only in mid-channel. As
a result, assessments based solely on monitoring data fail to
consider many waters of the state. To increase the assessment
coverage and to provide a more accurate portrayal of water quality,
assessment coverage was based on monitoring data and evaluative
information such as knowledged and professional judgement of VWCB
staff, using VWCB information on the location of point sources,
known permit compliance problems, and other information including
records of fish kills or toxic spills and certain land use
information. NPS pollution information was provided by DCR-DSW.

Two volunteer citizen's monitoring networks, overseen by the Izaak
Walton League of America and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
(ACB), also provided data that were used to evaluate use support
of waterbodies in which data were collected. This 305(b) Report
is the first in which such volunteer-collected data were considered
when making water quality assessments. Parsameters tested on a
weekly basis are air and water temperature, secchi disk depth,
total depth, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, ammonia,
precipitation, field observations of water conditions and color
weather, and general conditions of the site. Benthic
macroinvertebrate populations and physical stream charateristic
assessments are also conducted.

[The ACB Citizen's Monitoring Program has 100 monitoring sites in
Virginia, with 92 of those sites located along tidal waterways.
Currently, there are 17 active monitoring sites within the project
study area, as well as 11 inactive sites. The active sites are
located as follows: Lynnhaven River - Virginia Beach (Hermitage
Point, Ferebee Cove, Hebden Cove, Wolfsnare Creek and Sawpen
Point); Seashore State Park - Virginia Beach (Whitehill Lake and
64th Street Boat Ramp); Elizabeth River - Norfolk, Portsmouth,
Chesapeake (Great Bridge, New Mill, Jordan Bridge and Huntsman);\
York County (Thoroughfare Creek, Queen's Creek and Levy Pier);
James City County (Taskinas Creek and Croaker Landing); and, Isle
of Wight County(Smithfield) (ACB(a),1994).

The ACB Citizen's Water Quality Monitoring Program has also
recently begun nutrient sampling of orthophosphorus, ammonia,
nitrite and nitrate at nearshore sites to document the relationship
between nutrient levels and the presence of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV). This effort is being undertaken to determine if
there are any differences between mid-channel and near-shore water
quality conditions. In general, preliminary findings have shown
no significant differences; however, in one instance, pollutants
were detected in the near-shore area that were not detected at mid-
channel stations (ACB(b),1993). Within the project study area,
there is one monitoring station located along Goodwin Island in
York COunty. Data has been collected from this site since April
1992 (ACB(a),1994). VWCB officials are hopeful that continued
near-shore monitoring and data collection will augment their mid-
channel AWGM program to create a more comprehensive picture of
water quality conditions in the Commonwealth.]

[Table __ is an index of all river basins, subbasins (hydrologic
units) and segements assessed in the 1992 Virginia Water Quality
Assessment (305(b) Report) which fall within the project study
area. Water quality information for each river basins, subbasin
and segment hass been included in the << System-Waterbody-Reach
Descriptions>> section of the report.]

B. The 1993 Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed
Assessment Report

In March 1993, the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation published a
revised nonpoint source pollution watershed assessment report, in
compliance with Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. It is inteded
to provide a comparative evaluation of the state's waters, on a
watershed basis, to assist in targeting NPS pollution protection
activities. This report serves as revision to the Virginia NPS
Assessment Report dated May 1,1989. It should be considered and
utilized as a subcomponent of the Virginia Water Quality Assessment
for 1992 (305(b) Report).

Data for this report were collected to address the NPS potential
from three major land use categories: agricultural, urban and
forestry. Figure __ shows the overall NPS pollution priorities for
the Hampton Roads PDC as identified in March 1993.

[Table - is an index of all river basins, subbasins (hydrologic
units) and watersheds assessed in the 1993 Nonpoint Source
Pollution Watershed Assessment Report which fall within the project
study area. Water quality information for each river basins,
subbasin and watershed has been included in the << System-
Waterbody-Reach Descriptions>> section of this report.]

HAMPTON ROADS WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT INDEX

The following index of river basins, subbasins (hydroloc units
and segments contains the information applicable to the project
study area:

1. York River Basin

HUC02080107 York River Subbasin

Segment 107-08R: T h e Phil Bates Creek Waterbody
Segment 107-07E: TheYork River-West Point Waterbody
Segment 107-06E: The York River-Glouceswater Waterbody
Segment 107-05L: The Waller Mill Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 107-04L: The Bigler Millpond Waterbody
Segment 107-03L: The Beaverdam Pond Waterbody
Segment 107-02L: The Jones Millpond Waterbody
Segment 107-01L: T he Cheatham Lake Waterbody

2. James River Basin

HUC020680206 James RiverSubasin from the Fall Line to Hampton
Roads

Segment 206-13L: The Little Creek Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 206-11E: The Chickahominy River Waterbody
Segment 206-10R: The Tributaries on the South Bank of the James
River #4 Waterbody
Segment 206-09E: The James River-Williamsburg Area Waterbody
Segment 206-08E: The James River-Jamestown Island Waterbody
Segment 2106-07L: The Skiffes:: Creek Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 206-06E: The Skiffes Creek Waterbody
Segment 206-5L: The Lee Hall Reservoir (Newport News Reservoir)
Segment 206-04E: The James River-Mulberry Island Waterbody
Segment 206-03E: The Pagan River Waterbody
Segment 206-02E: The Chuckatuck Creek Waterbody
Segment 206-01E. The James River-Newport News Shipyard Waterbody

HUC 020080208: Hampton Roads. Nansemond River and Elizabeth River
Subbasin

Segment 208-20L: The Speights Run Lake Waterbody
segment 208-19L: The Lake Kilby Waterbody
Segment 208-18L: The Lake Cahoon Waterbody
Segment 208-17L: The Lake Meade Waterbody
Segament 208-16L: T he Lake Prince Waterbody
Segment 208-15L The Lake Burnt Mills Waterbody
Segment 208-14L: The Western Branch Reservoir-Waterbody
Segment 208-13E:The Nansemond River Waterbody
segment 208-12E: The Streeter Creek and Hoffler Creek Waterbody
Segment 208-11E: The Southern Branch Elizabeth River-Great Bridge
Waterbody
Segment 208-10E: The Southern Branch of Elizabeth River-Naval
Shipyard Waterbody
Segment 208-09L: The Lake Taylor Waterbody
Segment 208-0BE: The Eastern Branch Elizabeth River Waterbody
Segment 208-07E: The Elizabeth River-Berkley Waterbody

Segment 208-06E: The Western Branch of the Elizabeth River
Waterbody
Segment 208-05E: The Elizabeth River-Lamberts Point Waterbody
Segment 208-04E: The Lafayette River Waterbody
Segment 208-03E: The Masons Creek Waterbody
Segment 208-02E: The Elizabeth River-Craney Island Waterbody
Segment 208-01E: The James River-Hampton Roads Waterbody

3. Chowan River and Dismal Swamp Basins

HUC 03010201: Nottoway River Subbasin

Segment 201-01R: The Nottoway River Waterbody

HUC 03010202: Blackwater River Subbasin

Segment 202-02R: The Blackwater River-Burdette Waterbody
Segment 202-01R: The Blackwater River-Below Franklin Waterbody

HUC 03010203: Somerton Creek Subbasin

Segment 403-01R: The Somerton Creek Waterbody

HUC 03010205: Dismal Swamp, Northwest River, North Landin River
and Back Bay Subbasin

Segment 205-07L: The Lake Drummond and Great Dismal Swamp Refuge
Waterbody
Segment 205-06R: The Northwest River Waterbody
Segment 205-05R: The North Landin River Waterbody
Segment 205-04L The Stumpy Waterbody
Segment 205-03E: The Back Bay Waterbody
Segment 205-02E: The Lake Tecumseh and Red Wing Lake (Dam Neck
Area)
Segment 205-01C: The Coastal Shoreline from Red Wing Lake to the
Virainia/North Carolina Line Waterbody

4. Chesapeake Bay and Small Coastal Rivers Basins

HUC 02080101 Mainstem Open Bay

Segment 101-05E Mouth of the James River
Segment 101-03CE Southwestern Portion of the Chesapeake Bay
Segment 101-04BE Mouth of the Chesapeake Bay
Segment 101-04AE Southern Portion of the Chesapeake Bay
Segment 101-02BE Mouth of the York River

HUC 02080108: Lower Western Shore Tributaries

Segment 108-01E: The Poquoson River Waterbody
Segment 108-02L: The Harwoods Mill Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 108-03E: The Plum Tree Island Waterbody
Segment 108-04E: The Back River Waterbody
Segment 108-05R: The Brick Kiln Creek Waterbody
Segment 108-06L: The Big Bethel Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 108-07R: The New Market Creek Waterbody
Segment 108-08E: The Little Creek (Channel and Inlet) Waterbody

Segment 108-09L: The Lake Whitehurst Waterbody
Segment 108-10L: The Little Creek Reservoir-Amphibious Base
Waterbody
Segment 108-11L: The Lake Lawson Reservoir Waterbody
Segment 108-12L: The Lake Bradford Waterbody

Segment 108-l3L: The Lake Smith Waterbody
Segment 108-14L: The Mount Trashmore Lake Waterbody
Segment 108-15L: The Lake Joyce Waterbody
Segment 108-16E: The Lynnhaven River Waterbody
Segment 108-17E: The Broad Bay and Linkhorn Bay Waterbody
Segment 108-18E: The Owl's Creek Waterbody
Segment 108-19C: The Coastal Shoreline at Virinia Beach Waterbody

TABLE

HAMPTON ROADS NONPOINT SOURCE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT INDEX

The following index of river basins, subbasins (hydrologic units)
and watersheds contains the information applicable to the project
study area:

1. York River Basin

HUC 02080107: York River Subbasin

Watershed F01
Watershed F02

2. James River Basin

HUC 020800206: James River Subbasin from the Fall Line to Hampton
Roads

Watershed G03
Watershed G04
Watershed G05

HUC 02080208: Hampton Roads, Nansemond River, and Elizabeth River
SUbbasin

Watershed G01
Watershed G02

3. Chowan River and Dismal Swamp Basins

HUC 03010201: Nottoway River Subbasin

Watershed K13
Watershed K14
Watershed K16

HUC 03010202: Blackwater River Subbasin

Watershed K08
Watershed K09
Watershed K10
Watershed K11

HUC 03010203: Somerton Creek Subbasin

Watershed K06
Watershed K07

HUC 03010205: Dismal Swap, Northwest River, and Back. Bay Subbasin

Watershed K01
Watershed K02
Watershed K03
Watershed K04
Watershed K05

4. Small Coastal Rivers

HUC 02080108: Lower Western Shore Tributaries

Watershed C09
Watershed C10

N o n o n t S o u r c e P o I u t o n P r o r e s
o r t h e H o m p t o n R o a d s P I a n n n g D s t r c t

I H @ d r o I og i c U n i t s
C lo u n t 0 U n d a r i e s
U S G S @ a I e r s h e d s

IM H i g h P r i o r i t y
E3 M e d P r i o r i t y
L o v P r i o r i t y

Data Sources: Virgini , G;?qrSopkic leformitiorittsystem,lifirGIS) Dotobise
U . t 1 -.14 .000 is ad r 4 it e Naps
C;Soi.,r,:,ti,ng"Nps"p"o,ll;llon ControISA?encies
A 9 r I u I u r a I E-n 9 i n a e r i IT g D i ptS . If P I It S U

VA DEPT OF CONSERVATION
AND RECREATION

tu t)A

TABLE I

WATER QUALITY CONDITION BY RIVER BRANCH

SEGMENT/ MAIN WESTERN EASTERN SOUTHERN
PARAMETER STEM BRANCH BRANCH BRANCH
D01 MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL
BOD2 MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL
CHL'X3 GOOD GOOD MARGINAL
FEC COL 14 POOR POOR POOR POOR
TN5 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
TP6 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
ARSENIC GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
CADMIUM MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL
CHROMIUM GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
COPPER POOR POOR POOR POOR
LEAD POOR POOR POOR POOR'
MERCURY POOR MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL
NICKEL POOR POOR POOR POOR
ZINC MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL MARGINAL
PNAH7 GOOD NO DATA NO DATA POOR
TBT8 LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED
I DATA DATA DATA DATA

NOTES:
1 Dissolved Oxygen
2 Biological Oxygen Demand - 5 day
3 Chlorophyl'a'
4 Fecal Coliform
5 Total Nitrogen
6 Total Phosphorus
7 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
8 Tributyltin

Source: HRWQA, Comprehensive Elizabeth Rive r Water Quality Management
Plan: Preliminary Management Recommendations, 1986.

References Cited:

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bav.
(a) Data obtained on Virainia Citizen's Monitorin Proaram.
Richmond, VA: January 3, 1994.
(b) Presentation by Marcy Judd on ACB Citizen Monitoring
Program at "Virginia's Coastal Partners: Exchanging
Grant Results" conference. Williamsburg, VA: November
16, 1993.

Hampton Roads Plannina District Commission. Environmental
Manaoement Program for the Hampton Roads Portion of the
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Watershed. Chesapeake, VA:
HRPDC, February 1993.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Hampton Roads Water Quality
Manacipment Plan -- Public Hearin Draft. Section A. Virginia
Beach, VA: HRWQA, June 1978.

Southeastern Virainia Planning District Commission. Elizabeth
River Basin Environmental Manaement Program. With
Appendices. Chesapeake, VA: SVPDC, 1989.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
Soil and Water Conservation. Virinia Nonpoint Source
Pollution Watershed Assessment Report. Richmond, VA: DCR,
March 1993.

Virginia Water Control Board. Virginia Water Quality Assessment
for 1992 305(b) Report to EPA and Congress. Information
Bulletin #588. Volumes I and II. Richmond, VA: VWCB, April
1992.

"State Water Quality Standards." Richmond, VA: VWCB,
1989, rev. 1990.

SENSITIVE LAND AND AUATIC RESOURCE AREAS

The presence of living resources in sensitive land and aquatic
ecosystems, such as finfish and shellfish, wildlife, plant
communities and benthic and planktonic communities, is closely
linked to water quality conditions. Because of this relationship,
living resources are good indicators of the overall health of an
ecosystem arid are continuously monitored by the scientific
community and marine resource managers. Such monitoring in the
waterways in and around the Hampton Roads region has generally
determined that poor water quality conditions have brought about
declines in critical habitat areas and, therefore, living resources
that were once abundant. As a signatory of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement and its subsequent amendments and directives regarding
restoration of historic living resource areas in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, the Commonwealth of Virginia has committed itself to
halting a decline in water quality conditions. Local governments
in the Hampton Roads region have also made similar commitments for
other sensitive land arid aquatic resource areas outside of the Day
watershed.

While many natural and human factors played a role in this
documented decline in water quality and, subsequently, in the
decrease in the numbers arid amount of living resources and their
habitats, much of the problem has been attributed to the
development of shoreline areas. Arguments have been made that the
increased development of these areas, and the hardening of
shoreline reaches and continuously-increasing densities of private
and public access points into adjacent waterways that occurs along
with such development, are having negative impacts on water
quality. Evidence to support this argument includes loss of
critical aquatic habitats of arid commercial significance
which has directly resulted from physical alteration associated.
with improper or unnecessary placement of shoreline structures for
erosion control and water access purposes, as well from unpermitted
disposal of fill material. Evidence of a lesser noted degree, but
no less significant, is water quality degradation associated with
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution inputs from water use activities
and surrounding land uses. It is important and, recommended,
therefore, that sensitive aquatic resource areas be identified and
considered in the site planning and review process of undeveloped
areas, in order to avoid future conflicts between land and water
uses arid further loss Of living resources.

The purpose of this section is to describe and inventory critical
land arid auatic habitat areas in the project study area that might
be adversely affected by point arid nonpoint source pollution inputs
and improper siting of shoreline Stuctures and water access
facilities. Seven types of senitive land and aquatic resources
and hiabitat have been identified to the extent that information was
available: tidal and nontidal wetlands, submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds, spawning grounds, nursery areas, shellfish
growing areas (oyster, clam and blue crab), commercially and
recreationally-important finfish and shellfish (non-oyster or clam)
areas, and protected areas and estuarine research reserves.

To assist in this effort, a series of maps entitled the
Environmental Sensitivity Map Atlas for the Commonwealth of
Virginia prepared by the Virginia Institute for Marine Science
(VIMS) for the National Oceanin and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) was used in part. This atlas was developed to provide
direction for U.S. Coast Guard oil spill response teams with
regards to environmentally-sensitive coastal regions of the
Chesapeake Bay. the maps depict the location and spatial
distribution of habitats for various marine biota and other
sensitive aquatic resource areas. However, all of this data was
not included for the purposes of this study. The atlas is
available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) in White
Marsh, VA (Gloucester County) and has recently been converted to
digital format by VIMS for inclusion in a GIS database. Posters
were also developed for the U.S. Coast Guard Oil Spill Response
Unit which show environmentally-sensitive areas by season
throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its tirbutaries, A set of these
posters has veen included with this report. Previous water quality
studies, prepared by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission and the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency, as well as
other published reports were also used in this analysis.

A. Wetlands

Wetlands are transitional areas between land and water-based
environmental communities. In general wetlands are characterized
by undrained wet soils, vegetation that is adapted to growing in
water or saturated soils, adn a periodic covering of shallow water.
Tidal wetlands, which are usually vegetated marshes or nonveetated
mudflates, are found along creeks, rivers and bays that are affected
by the lunar tide. Nontidal wetlands occur along freshwater
streams or lakes, in flood plains or in areas of poor drainage
(SVPDC(a), 1989: 114; SVPDC(b), 1989: 25).

One of the most important values of both tidal and nontidal
wetlands is their ability to filter runoff form upland areas before
it reaches open water. In doing this, wetlands reduce the adverse
effects of NPS pollution by removing and retaining nutrients,
breaking down chemicals and organic wastes, and reducing sediment
loads. However, the ability of wetlands to perform a pollution
control function is limited. Once the limit is exceeded, the
productivity of wetlands and their ability to support dependent
organisms will deteriorate. This is most likely to occur when
stormwater runoff has been concentrated into channels that
accelerate the flow of runoff into wetlands. Toxicants in runoff,
such as farm or hoe use hervicides, many also damage wetland areas
(SVPDC(a), 1989: 115; SVPDC(b), 1989: 26).

Tidal Wetlands

Tidal wetlands can be categorized into marsh types. The Virginia
Institute for Marine Science (VIMS) has classified twelve different
common marsh types, basede on vegetational comparison. These marsh
types have been evaluated according to certain values and are
recorded in the VIMS study, Guidelines for Activities Affecting
Virginia Marshes Silberhorn, Dawes and Barnard, 1974). The
following is a brief outline of the wetland types and their
evaluation as found in the publication.

It is recognized that most wetland areas, with the exception of the
relatively monospecific cordgrass marshes of the Eastern Shore, are
not homogenously vegetated. most marshes, are, however, dominated
by a major plant. By providing the resource manager with the
primary values of each community type and the means of
identification, a useful and covenient tool can be used for
weighing the relative importance of each marsh parcel. In
Varginia, many wetlands managemnet problems involve only a few
communities permits the resource manager to evaluate both complete
marshes and subareas with a marsh (Silberhorn, 1974: 2;
Silberhorn, Dawes and Barnard, 1974: 3).

Each marsh type may be valuated in accordance with five general
values. These are: 1) production and detritus availability; 2)
waterfowl and wildlife utilization; 3) erosion buffer; 4) water
quality control; and 5) flood buffer.

1) Production and Detritus Availability

Previous VIMS reports have discussed the detai1s of marsh

production and the role of detritus which results when the plant

material is washed into the water column. the term "detritus"
refers to plant material which decays in the aquatic system and
forms the basis of a major marine food web. The term "production"
refers to the amount of plant material which is procuced by the
various types of marsh plants. Vegetative production of the major
species has been measured and marshes have been rated in accordance
with their average levels of producvity. If the production is
readily available to the marine food web as detritus, a wetlands
system is even more important one of equal productivity where
little detritus results. Availability of detritus is generally a
function of marsh elevation and total flushing, with detritus more

available to the aquatic environment in the lower, well-flushed
marshes (Silberhorn, 1974: 2)

2) Waterfowl and Wildlife Utilization

Long before marshes were discovered to be detritus producers, they
were known as habitats for various mammals. and marsh birds and as
food Sources for migratory waterfowl. Some marsh types, especially
mized freshwater marshes, are mor valuable because of diversity

of the vegetation found there (Silberhorn, 1974: 2). Because of
the highly productive nature of tidal marshes, many species of
aquatic organisms use the waters adjacent to marshes as nurseries.
Various species of marine birds, migratory waterfowl and mammals
also depend on marsh systems for cover and breeding grounds, and
may depend on both marshes and adjacent tidal flats for feeding
areas (SVPDC(a), 1989: 115; SVPDC(b), l989: 26).

3) Erosion Buffer

Erosion is a common coastal problem. Marshes can erode, but some,
particularly the more saline types, erode much more slowly then do
adjacent shores which are unprotected by marsh. The buffering
uality is derived from the ability of the vegetation to absorb or
dissipate wave energy or to establish a dense root system which
stabilizes the soil. Generally, freshwater species are less
effective than saltwater in this regard (Silberhorn. 1974: 3)

4) Water Quality Control

The dense growth of some marshes acts as a filter, trapping upland
sediment before it reaches waterways and thus, protecting
shellfish beds and navigation channels from siltation. Marshes can
also filter out sediments that are already in the water column.
The ability of marshes to filter sediments and maintain water
clarity is of particular importance to the maintenance of clam and
oyster production.Excessive sedimentation can reduce the basic
food supply of shellfish through reduction of the photic zone where
algae grows. It can also kill finfish and shellfish by clogging
their gills. Additionally, marshes can assimilate and degrade
pollutants through complex, chemical processes. Research has shown
that marshes may act as a natural treatment system that is
comparable to artificial tertiary treatment of sewage (Silberhorn,

1974: 3).

5) Flood Buffer

The peat substratatum of some marshes acts as a giant sponge in
receiving and releasing water. This characteristic is an effective
buffer against coastal flooding, the effectiveness of which is a
function of marsh type and size (Silberhorn, 1974: 3).

Research and marsh inventory work conducted by VIMS indicate that
10 species of marsh vegetation tend to dominate many marshes, the
dominant plant depending on water salinity, marsh elevation, soil
type and other factors. The term "dominant" is construed to mean
that at least 50% of thie vegetated surface of a marsh is covered
by a single species. Braclish and freshwater marshes often have
no cleaerly dominant specis of vegetation. These marshes are
considered to be highly value in environmental terms (Silberhorn,
Dawes and Barnard, 1974: 4).

Marsh Types and Their Environmental Contributions

Type I: Saltmarsh Cordgrass Community

0 Average yield 4 tons per acre per annum.
0 Optimum availability of detritius to the marine environment.
0 Roots and rhizomes eaten by waterfowl and stems used in
muskrat lodge construction. Also serves as nesting material
for various birds.
0 Deterrent to shoreline
0 Serves as sediment trap and assimilates flood waters.

Type II: Saltmeadow Community

0 Yields 1-3 tons per Acre per annum.
0 Food (seeds) and nesting areas for birds.
0 Effective erosion deLerrent.
0 Assimilate flood waters.
0 Filters sediments and waste material.

Type III: Black Needlerush Community

0 Provides, 3-5 tons per acre per year.
0 Highly resistant to erosion.
0 Traps suspended sediments but riot as effective as Type II.
0 Somewhat effective in absorbing flood waters.

Type IV: Saltbush Community

0 About or less than 2 tons per acre per annum.
0 Nesting area for small birds and habitat for a variety of
wildlife.
0 Effective trap for flotsam.

Type V: Big Cordgrass Community

0 Yields 3-6 tons per acre per annum.
0 Detritus less available than from Type I.

0 Habitat for small animals and used for muskrat lodges.
0 Effective erosion buffer.
0 Flood water assimilation.

Type VI: Cattail COMMUnity

0 2-4 tons per acre per annum.
0 Habitat -for birds and utilized by muskrats.
0 Traps U pland sediments.

Ty pe VII: Arrow Arum--Pickerel Weed Community

0 2-4 tons per acre per annum.
0 DetritUs readily available to marine environment.
0 Seeds eaten by wood dUcks.
0 Fragility necessitates preservation.

Type vIII: Reed GrASS COMmunity

0 4-6 -tons per acre per year.
0 Little ValUe to wildlife eXcept for cover.
0 Invades marshes and competes with more desirable species.
0 Deters, erosion on disturbed sites.

Type IX: Yellow Pond Lily Community

0 Less than 1 ton per acre per annUM.
0 Cover and attachment site for aquatic animals And algae.
0 Feeding territory for fish.

Type X: Saltwort Community

0 Less than .5 tons per acre.
0 Little value to aquatic or marsh --animals.

Type XI; Freshwater Mixed Community

0 Yields 3-5 tons per Acre annUally.
0 High diversity of wildlife.
0 High diversity of wildlife foods.
0 Often associated with -fish spawning and nursery grounds.
0 Ranks high as a sediment trap and -flood deterrent.

Type XII: Brackish Water Mixed Community

0 Provides 3-4 tons per- acre annually.
0 Wide variety of wildlife foods and habitat.
0 Deterrent to shoreline erosion.
0 Serves as sediment trap and assimilates flood watErs.
0 Known spawning and nursery grounds for fish.

Evaluation of Wetland Types

For management' purposes, the twelve types of wetlands identified
above are grouped into five classifications below, based on the
estimated total environmental value of an acre of each type
(Silberhorn, 1974: 6,7).

GrOUP One: Saltmarsh cordgrass (Type 1)
Arrow Arum-Pickerel Weed (Type VII)
Freshwater Mixed (Type XI)
Brackish Water Mixed (Type XII)

Group One marshes, have the highest value in productivity and
wildfowl and wildlife utility and are, closely associated with fish
spawning and nurser,,, areas. They also have high values as erosion
inhibitors, important to the shellfish industry and Valued as
n a tUal shoreline stabilizers. Group One marshes should be
preserved.

Group Two. Big cordgrass (Type V)
Saltmeadow (Type II)
Cattail (Type VI)

Group Two marshes are of only slightly lesser value -than Group One
marshes. The major difference is that detritUS produced in these
marshes is less readily available to the marine environment due to
higher elevations and consequently less: tidal action to flush the
detritus into adjacent waterways. Group Two, marshes have very h 4 gh
values in protection water qUality and acting as buffers against
coastal -flooding. These marshes should also be preserved, but if
development in wetlands is considered to be justified it Would be
better -to alter Group Two marshes than Group One marshes.

Group Three: Yellow Pond lily (Type ix)
Black NeedleruSh (Type III)

The two marshes in the Group Three category are quite dissimilar
in properties. The yellow pond lily marsh is not a significant
contributor to the food web but it does. have high Values to
wildlife and waterfowl. Black needlerUsh has a, high produCtiVitY
factor but a low detritUS availability Value. Black. needlerush has
little wildlife value but it ranks high an erosion and -flood
buffer. Group Three marshes are important though their total value
is less than Group Once and Two marshes. If development in wetlands
is considered necessary, it Would be better to alter Group Three
marshes than Groups One or Two.

Group Four; Saltbush (Type IV)

The saltbush community is:) valued primarily for the diversity and
bird nesting area it adds to -the marsh ecosystem. To a lesser
extent it also acts as an erosion buffer. Group Four MarSheS
should not be unnecessarily disturbed but it would be better to
concentrate necessary development in marshes rather than
diStUrb any of Group One through Group Three marshes.

Group Five: Saltwort (Type X)
Reegrass (Type VIII)

Based on present information, Group Five marshes have few values
of any significance. While Group Five marshes should riot be
unreasonably disturbed, it is preferable to develop in these
marshes than in any other types.

Tidal wetlands (marshes) within the project study area were
inventoried by VIMS for the following jurisdictions: York County
and Poquoson (1974), Hampton (1975), Newport News and Fort Eustis
(1977), James City County and Williamsburg (1980), Isle of Wight
County (1981), Norfolk (1987), Portsmouth (1989), Virginia Beach:
North Landing River and Tributaries (1976); Lynnhaven River, Lake
Rudee and Their Tributaries (1979); and, Back Bay and Tributaries
(1989), Chesapeake (1991), and Suffolk (1991). These inventories
were used in the Environmental Sensitivity Index to show the
location of extensive and fringe tidal marshes and tidal flats.
VIMS is currently updating and digitizing the inventories into a
GIS system using recent aerial photography; completed information
was not available for use at the time of this study. Because tidal
marsh inventories are available in local government planning
offices, it was decided that replication of their location on the
maps included with this report would not be undertaken; however,
these inventories were used in staff analyses during the course of
this study.

Nontidal Wetlands

Although nontidal wetlands normally do not have the productive
value of tidal marshes, they do provide valuable fish and wildlife
habitats. Many species of freshwater fish feed in nontidal
wetlands or upon wetland produced food. Nontidal wetlands are also
used as spawning and nursery grounds by a number of fish species.
Even nontidal wetlands that are only seasonally flooded can be
important breeding and foraging grounds for some freshwater species
of fish. It has also been shown that detritus originating in
bottomland hardwood forests can be important to the food chain of
estuarine organisms. Nontidal wetlands are also essential
breeding, nesting, feeding and shelter habitats for many species
of waterfowl, mammals, reptiles and amphibians (SVPDC(a), 1989;
115; SVPDC(b), 1989: 26).

An inventory of nontidal, wetlands was completed in 1973 by the
USF&WS. This inventory, known as the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) maps, identifies both tidal and nontidal wetlands areas, but
field verification has noted inaccurate data. The USF&WS has
recently updated these maps and drafts are currently being field
verified. It is anticipated that the new NWI maps will become
available, in map form and in digitized data in Fall 1994.

B. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Beds

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV),commonly called sea grasses
is comprised of rooted and unrooted underwater flowering plants
that have colonized primarily soft sediments in coastal, estuarine,
and freshwater habitats. Seagrasses are typically defined as the
approximately 60 species of marine angiosperms; however,
representatives of the several hundred species of freshwater h

macrophytes are often found in estuarine habitats (Dennison, Orth,
Moore, Stevenson, Carter, Kollar, Bergstrom, and Batiuk, 1993:86)

During the last two decades, there has been an increasing
recognition of the importance of SAV in coastal and estuarine
ecosystems. wetlands, SAV is vitally important to aquatic
ecosystems because it serves as cover, food source, spawning ground
and nursery areato many species of finfish.. shellfish And other
invertebrates. It also serves to maintain water clarity by
filtering, trapping and stabilizing sediments, thereby reducing
water turbidity, acts as a nutrient buffer by accumulating large
quantities of nitrogen -..And phosphorus, and provides an important
Source of dissolved oxygen "DO). SAV also serves as the primary
food source -for many species of magratory water fowl (SVPDC(a),
1989. 116; SVPDC(b), 1989:-26).

SAV has declined in many areas along the East Coast of the United
States. Declines in waters of Virginia are well known, the
Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac River, -and Back Bay are. just a few
examples. Declines in SAV vary with the waterbody and. are thought
to be inflUenced by diseaSe, runoff -from Urban and rural areas,
changes in salinity,turbidity, weather and various natural
occurrences (Schwab, Settle, Halstead and Ewell. 1990: 265).

SAV requires water that is relatively clear so -that there may be
sufficient sunlight for photosynthesis to Occur.
thought to be one of the major factors in the nonexistence or
drastic decline of SAV beds in many of Hampton Roads' waterbodies.
Nutrients are considered to be NPS pollutants . when they exist in
excess. Although nutrients are esential -to the growth of SAW, the
excessive quantities, of nutrients often found in Urban and
agricultural runoff promote algal blooms which cloud the water and
limit the ability of SAW to photosynthesize. Excessive sediment
loads from agricultural and urban runoff compound the problem by
combining with algal blooms to further prevent the penetration of
sunlight. Without sufficient light, SAV eventually dies and
primary aquatic habitat is, eliminated (SVPDC(a), 1989. 116;
SVPDC(b), 1909: 29)

Boat traffic also creates or exacerbates turbidity by increasing
the physical energy in a waterway. Propeller wash and wakes
suspend sediments and keep them in Suspension for longer durations'.
This turbidity impacts the ecology of shallow marsh areas by
reducing sunlight necessary for growth of Submerged grasses,
disturbIng larval settlement, and affecting -food supplies. of marsh
organisms. Along wi t h this, pollutants resulting from the
operation of boats include spilled petroleum products, non-
biodegradable lit-ter, and sanitary waste. Consequently, boating is generally recognized as a nonpoint source of pollution. EPA and

VMRC have concluded that although the impact from individual boats
may be negligible, the cummulative impact in many cases may
generate significant localized water quality problems (CBLAD, 1989:
VI-80).

SAV Type and Distribution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed:

In the Chesapeake Bay, seagrasses in saline regions and freshwater
angiosperms that have colonized lower-salinty portions of the Bay
constitute a diverse community of SAV, consisting of approximately
twenty species. These plants have historically been one of the
major factors contributing to the high productivity of the Bay,
especially the abundasnce of waterfowl (Dennison, Orth, Moore,
Steveson, Carter, Kollar, Bergstrom, and Batiuk , 1993: 86).
However, continued deteoration of water quality in the Bay and its
tributaries due to poorly treated sewage, NPS pollution from urban
and rural areas, and industrial discharges has caused SAV to
decline in the Bay (VCRMP (a), Fall 1992:2).

Scientists estimate that, prior to 1960, the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries probably supported over 243,000 hectares (600,000
acres) of sea grasses. By 1978, the total acreage had decreased
to approximately 16,200 hectares (40,000 acres,) or about 1/15th
the acreage historically supported in the Bay. By 1992, the annual
survey identified approximately 25,920 hectares (64,000 acres) of
SAV in the Bay, which ws a 54% increase over the 1978 survey
(VCRMP(a), Fall 1992:2).

A variety of factors may have contibuted to this improvement.
Since 1978, most sewage treatment facilities have been upgrade to
remove abouth 85% of organic pollutants before flows are discharged
into the Bay. Prior to 1978, most wastewater treatment plants
removed only about 50% of the pollutants (VCRMP (a), Fall 1992:2).

In 1983, Virginia also began a program to control nonpoint source
pollution from agricultural lands. Administered by the Department
of Conservation and Recreation, the program annually enlists
hundreds of farmers in cropland and animal waste Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The BMP programs are designed to prevent erosion
and the transport of sediments, nutrients, and toxic chemicals
associated with pesticide use into surface waters (VCRMP(a), Fall
1992:2).

In January 1988, a ban on phosphorus in laundry detergents sold in
Virginia went into effect. Stricter controls also were placed on
the kinds and amounts of chemicals that can be discharged into
Virginia's waterways. The decade of the 1980s also was noted for
less rainfall than historically normal, resulting in less runoff
into the Chesapeake Bay and, thus, fewer sediments and nutrients
in Bay waters that limit SAV growth and survival (VCRMP(a), Fall
1992:2).

Also contributing to the SAV comeback has been the work of VIM's
SAV Program. This program was established at the College of
William and Mary in 1984 to (1) investigate the processes that
limit the survival of SAV in the Chesepeake Bay, (2) annually map
from aerial photography SAV growth in the Bay, and (3) conduct

replanting and seeding of SAV in the Bay and its tributaries
(VCRMP(a), Fall 1992: 2).

Since 1984, the program has been investigating the subtle
relationships between SAV growth and survival, and environmental
conditions. In addition, VIMS has investigated the various factors
the regulate both the timing and rate of SAV seed germination.
The program has transplanted the seeded approximately 75 acres of
SAV around the Bay since 1984 with mixed results (VCRMP(a), Fall
1992: 2).

Most recently in 1989, the multi-state Chesapeake Bay Executive
Council adopted the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Policy and Implementation Plan. The plan highlighted the need to
develop SAV habitat requirements and the need for Bay-wide goals
for SAV distribution and species deversity (VCRMP(a), Fall 1992:
3). This is discussed further in the subsectiion on SAV target
restoration efforts.

SAV Monitoring Efforts

Living resources monitoring programs are being increasingly
recognized as critical in contributing to our understanding of
fluctuations in the abundance of these resources. In the
Chesapeake Bay, monitoring of SAV has been recognized as necessary
to assess the sucess of the Bay cleanup efforts. The baywide
decline of SAV in the 1960's and 1970's, followed by a relatively
rapid annual change from 1984 through 1990, supports the suggestion
that SAV may be good barometer of the overall health of the Bay.
This is believed to be so because the plants depend upon the
availability of light, wich in turn is affected by the amount of
sediments (suspended solids) and nutrients in the water. In turn,
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has begun to focus more attention on
SAV as an general indicator of water quality conditions in the Bay
(VIMS(a), 1991: 1; VCRMP(a), FAll 1991:3).

More specifically, the habitat requirements of SAV are used to
characterize the water quality of the Cheapeake Bay, because of its
widespread distribution in the Bay, important ecological role, and
sensitivity to water quality parameters. SAV is particularly
crucial as an indicator of water clarity and nutrient levels,
because habitat requirements developed for various species of
birds, fish, and shellfish in the Bay do not incorporate these
conditions. The habitat requirements of these other organisms
focus on chemical parameters (e.g. dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity,
toxic compounds, and temperature). This is evident in that many
of the restoration goals of birds, fish, and shellfish of human
harvesting activities. In contrast, SAV restoration goals can be
linked solely to environmental quality, thus providing for more
direct assessment of restoration progress (Dennison, Orth, Moore,
Stevenson, Carter, Kollar, Bergstrom, and Batiuk, 1993: 87).

SAV communities in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries have been
photographed and mapped, and the areas of the beds were digitized
into a GIS system in 1978, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1990.
The lower Bay was mapped and digitized in 1980 and 1981. The bay

shoreline was photographed in 1988 but was not mapped. Sections
of the lower Bay were mapped and digitized in 1971 and 1974
(VIMS(a), 1991: 1).

Types of SAV Monitored

Data obtained on current SAV distribution encompasses 19 taxa from
10 vascular macrophyte families and 3 taxa from 1 freshwater
macrophytic algal family, the Characeae, but excludes all other
algae, both benthic and planktonic, which occur in the Chesapeake
Bay and tributaries (VIMS(a), 1991: 2)

Ten species of submerged aquatic vegetation, exclusive of the

algae, are commonly found in the Bay and its tributaries. Zostera
marina (eelgrass) is dominant in the lower reaches of the Bay.
Myriophyllum spicataum (Eurasian Watermilfoil), Potamogeton
pectinatus (sago pondweed) Potamogeton perfoliatus (redhead
grass), Zannichellia palustris (horried pondweed), Vallisneria
americana (wild celery), Elodea cnadensis (common elodea),
Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) and Najas guadalupensis (southern
naiad) are less tolerant of high salinities. and are found in the
middle and upper reaches of the Bay. Ruppia maritima (widgeon
grass) is tolerant of wide range of salinites and is found from
the Bay mouth to the Susquehanna Flats. Approximately twelve other
species are only occasionally found and, when present, occur
primarily in the middle and upper reaches of the Bay and the tidal
rivers. Hydrilla verticilata (hydrilla), a recently introduced
species, presently dominates SAV beds in the tidal freshwater
reaches of the Potomac River (VIMS(a), 1991: 2).

Crown Density

In addition to delineating SAV bed boundaries, an estimate of
percent cover within each bed is made visually in comparison with
an enlarged Crown Density Scale similar to those develoded for
estimating forest tree crown cover from aerial photography.

The Crown Density Scale used for determining density of SAV beds
is as follows (VIMS(a), 1991. 10, 11):

Class 1 -- Very sparse, 0-10% Class 3 -- Moderate, 40-70%
Class 2 -- Sparse, 10-40% Class 4 -- Dense, 70-100%

SAV Distribution Data

SAV bed distribution is based on zones in the Chesapeake Bay.
There are three zones: Upper, Middle and Lower. The project stutdy
area falls within the Lower Bay zone. In addition to the project
study area, the Lower Bay zone also contains portions of the
Rappahannock. River, the south shore of the Potomac rivrr at its
confluence with the Bay, that portion of the Bay south of Tangier
Island, as well as the whole of the Virginia portion of the Eastern
Shore (VIMS(a), 1991: viii). For delineation of SAV distribution
patterns, the Day is divided into 21 major sections. The Lower Bay
zone is comprised of Sections 14-21 (VIMS(a), 1991: x). The
project study area is included in Sections 19-21 which are
described below (VIMS(a), 1991: 7,9):

Section 19 York River -- all areas along the north shore from
Clay Bank to the Guinea Marsh area and south of a
line bisecting the large shoal area around the
Guinea Marsh area, and along the south shore to
include the north shore of Goodwin Island.

Section 20 Lower Western Shore --- includes all areas south of
Goodwin Island to Broad Bay off Lynnhaven Inlet,
excluding the James River.

Section 21 James River -- all SAV in the James River including
the Chickahominy River.

SAV Data Mapping

SAV data is mapped on USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles with
corresponding code numbers. The project study area is contained
on 25 quandrangles which are coded as follows (VIMS(a), 1991: 7,9):

#120 - Toano, VA #147 - Hampton, VA
#121 - Gressit, VA #148 - Benns Church, VA
#127 - Brandon, VA #149 - Newport News South. VA
#128 - Norge, VA #150 - Norfolk North, VA
#129 - Williamsburg, VA #151 Little Creek, VA
#130- Clay Bank, VA #152 Cape Henry, VA
#137 - Surry, VA #153 Chuckatuck, VA
#138 - Hog Island, VA #154 Bowers Hill, VA
#139 - Yorktown, VA #155 Norfolk South, VA
#140 - Poquoson West, VA #156 Kempsville, VA
#141 - Poquoson East, VA #157 Princess Anne, VA
#145 Mulberry Island, VA
#146 Newport News North, VA

General Summary of SAV Distribution in 1991

The most recent inventory of SAV distribution in the Chesapeake
Bay was conducted by VIMS in 1999 and had not been published at the
time of this study. Therefore, the data used, for this study comes
from the 1991 inventory, which was published in December 1992. The
following is a general summary of the 1991 inventory data with some
comparisons to recent historical data.

<<Note: PDC staff was recently made aware that the 1992 Inventory
has just been published and this data will be added to the final
study report.>>

In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay had 25,623 hectares (63,314.4 acres)
of SAY. compared to 264,296 hectares (60,035.4 acre) in 1990 and
24,138 hectares (59,645 acres) in 1989. The general distribution
of SAV within the Bay in 1991 was as follows: (1) Upper Bay Zone -
2,158 hectares (5,332.4 acres) or 8.4%; (2) Middle Bay Zone -
11,664 hectares (28,821.7 acres) or 45.5%; end (3) Lower Bay Zone -
11,802 hectares (29,162.7 acres) or 46.1% (VIMS(b), 1991; 20).
Comparisons to 1990 data for these zones showed 2,353, hectares
(5,814.3 acres) or 10%. 11,328 hectares (27,991.5 acres) or 47%,
and 10,632 hectares (26,271.7 acres) or 44% occurring in the Upper,

Middle, and Lower Bay zones, respectively (VIMS(a), 1990:22).
Thus over the past three years, there has been an increase in SAV
throughout the Bay in all three monitoring zones; however, the
presence of SAV in the Lower Bay Zone constituted the greatest
percentage of the overall distribution of SAV in the Bay in 1991,
as compared to 1990 when the Middle Bay Zone had the greatest percentage.

Comparing 1991 data in the Lower Bay Zone with recent historicl
data, the distribution and abundance of SAV beds was almost
identical to conditions in 1990 and 1989, with a slight increase
in one area. In 1991, 48% (5.720 hectares or 14,134.1 acres) of
SAV in this zone was found along the Lower Eastern Shore, compared
to 45% (4,829 hectares or 11,932.5 acres) in 1990. Thirty-nine
percent of the SAV mapped in the Lower Bay Zone ws found along the
western shore of the Bay, particularly in Mobjack Bay, in the Lower
York River and along the Lower Western Shore, specifically in the
Back River and Drum Flats area adjacent to Plum Tree Island; this
is compared to 40% in 1990. Less than 2.5% of the SAV mapped in
1991 in the Lower Bay Zone was found in the James River, the same
as in 1990 and a decrease from 1989 (VIMS (b), 1992: 37; VIMS (a),
1991: 40). Within the project study area of the Lower Bay Zone in
both 1990 and 1991, SAV beds were concentrated in the nearshore
areas of York County and the Cities of Pogoson, Hampton and
Virginia Beach.

Detailed 1991 SAV Data by Section Compared with Recent Historical
Data

Section 19 (York River), which is partially comprised of areas
outside of the project study area, contained approximately 804
hectares (325.4 acres) of SAV in 1991, an increase from 791
hectares (1,954.6 acres) in 1990. Seventy-eight percent of the
total coverage of this section was classified as dense (class 4),
while 2% was moderately dense (class 3), 19.8% was sparse (class
2), and less than 1% was sparse (class 1). Dense beds, consisting
of both Z. marina and R. maritima, were located principally along
the north shore from Gloucester Point to the mouth of the river.
SAV beds were absent upstream of Gloucester Point on the north
shore, except for one small bed of Z. marina near Gloucester Point;
a result of VIMS transplanting efforts using seeds in 1990. Except
for one large bed located on the north side of the Goodwin Islands
and a smaller bed adjacent to the Coast Guard Station, the south
shore was unvegetated in 1991 (VIMS(b),1992:60).

There were 2,006 hectares (4,956.9 acres) on SAV mapped in 1991 in
Section 20 (Lowere Western Shore), also an increase from
approximately 1,797 hectares (4,440.4 acres) mapped in 1990 and
from 1,670 hectares (4,126.57 acres) reported in 1989. Ground
truth surveys reported both Z. marina and R. maritima. Forty-one
percent of the total coverage in Section 20 was mapped as dense
(class 4), 28% as moderate (class 3), 17% as sparse (class 2), and
14% as very sparse (class 1) in 1991. In 1990 and 1989 60% of the
total coverage in this section remained dense. SAV was mapped in
Broad Bay, Back River, the mouth of the Poquoson River off Pasture
and Hunts Neck, Drum Island Flats, Poquoson Flats, adjacent to Crab
Neck just south of Goodwin Island, and on the south side of Goodwin

Island. No SAV was present in the southwest and northwest branches
of Back River, or in the Poquoson River, Chisman Creek, and Back
Creek (VIMS (b), 1992: 64,65; VIMS (a),1991:65).

There were 2.74 hectares (6.8 acres) of SAV mapped in Section 21
(Mainstem James River) in 1991, compared to 2.73 hectares (6.745
acres) in 1990 and 4 hectares (9.88 acres) in 1989. This
moderately dense bed, located at the mouth of Hampton Creek
(Hampton River) and adjacent to the Veteran's Hospital, had no ground
truthing in 1991, but has been reported to consist predominantly
of Z. marina in previous ground surveys (VIMS (a),1990:x,17;
VIMS(b),1991:65).

A comparison of SAV bed data in the project study area from 1989
to 1991 is shown in Tables ___ and ___. SAV beds as mapped by VIMS
on reduced topographic quadrangle sheets in the 1991 Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay have been reproduced on
the maps attached to this study.

SAV Restoration Targeting Efforts in the Chesapeake Bay and its
Tributaries and Continuing Research on Water Quality Levels
Necessary for SAV Survival

After the establishment of the SAV Program at VIMS in 1984, VIMS
found that attempts to establish SAV in the middle and upper
reaches of the York and Rappahannock Rivers met with little
success. SAV transplanted in the Fall was well established by the
Spring; however, monitoring in June indicated reduced growth and
vigor. This pattern was observed for several years leading VIMS
to conclude that spring and summer water quality levels in these
river areas still are inadequate to support longterm SAV survival
(VCRMP (a), Fall 1992:2).

The time and efforts invested in attempting to re-establish SAV in
the York and Rappahannock Rivers demonstrated the need to establish
water quality conditions necessary for SAV to survive; and, in
response to the Cheaspeake Bay Program Executive Council's SAV
policy and commitments, a working group of scientists began
compiling data that related specific levels of water quality to
SAV survival. Scientists also established criteria for SAV growth
and targeted SAV restoration goals throughout the Bay region. The
results of these efforts are contained in the December 1992 report
entitled Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and
Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis (Chesapeake Bay)
(VCRMP(a), Fall 1992:3).

Data for the report was complied from four study sites--the mouth
of the York River, the upper Potomac River, upper Chesapeake Bay
at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, and the Choptank River on
the Delmarva Peninsula. These study areas represent regions where
in the past ten years there has been constant monitoring of water
quality and SAV growth, density, and distribution (VCRMP (a), Fall
1992:3).

Scientists related the growth of sea grasses to five water quality
conditions: (1) light attenuation, (2) total suspended solids
(floating matter in the water), (3) chlorophyll and the presence

SAV Distribution in Project Area
of Lower Bay Zone by Section - 19894991

Area (hectares) Area (acres)
Section 1991 1990 1989 1991 1990 1989
19 York River 803.53 790.87 676.89 1,985.52 1,954.24 1,672.60
20 Lower Western Shore 2,005.75 1,796.84 1,670.08 4,956.21 4,439.99 4,126.77
21 James River 2.74 2.73 3.86 6.77 6.75 9.54

Lower Bay Zone Total 11,801.72 10,626.58 10,169.17 29,160.27 26,258.23 25,128.02
Cheapeake Bay Total 25,623.47 24,295.79 24,137.61 63,315.59 60,034.90 59,644.03

Source: Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay - 1990, 1991.
VIMS, 1990: 29; 1991: 26.

SAV Distribution in the Project Area of Lower Bay Zone
by Topographic Quadrangle - 19894"1

Area (in hectares) Area (in acres)
Code Quadrangle 1991 1990 1989 11"1 1990 1989
120 Toano, VA ... ... ... ... ...
121 Gressit, VA ... ... ...
127 Brandon, VA
128 Norge, VA ... 0** ...
129 Williamsburg, VA ... ... ... ... ...
130 Clay Bank, VA 0 1.48 0 3.66
137 Surry, VA ... ... ... ...
138 Hog Island, VA '@l '5-8 ...
139 Yorktown, VA 0* 1.75 4.15 3.9
140 Poquoson West, VA 554.65 540.4 411.99 1,370.54 1,337.63 1,018.03
141 Poquoson East, VA 1,151.47 1,007.92 994.84 2,845.28 2,489.53 2,45825
144 Bacons Castle ... ... ... ... ...
145 Mulberry Island ... ... ...
146 Newport News South, VA ... ... ... ...
147 Hampton, VA 381.24 342.1 304.06 942.04 845.08 761.33
148 Benns Church, VA ... ... ... ... ...
149 Newport News South, VA ... 0 0 0 0
150 Norfolk North, VA ... 0 0 0 0
151 Little Creek, VA 0 0 0 0 0
152 Cape Henry, VA 23.66 28.31 36.47 58.46 70 90.12
153 Chuckatuck, VA ... ... ... ... ... ...
154 Bowers Hill, VA ... ... ... ... ...
155 Norfolk South, VA ... ... ... ... ...
156 Kempsville, VA ... ... ...
157 Princess Anne, VA '0 0.73 0 0 1.8 0

Notes: ... Indicates quadrangle not photographed and assumed to have no SAV.
0 Indicates quadrangle photographed and no SAV noted.
Indicates area was photographed in 1987 and 1989, and was known to have SAV both years
but was not mapped because SAV beds were too narrow and obscured by shoreline at
124,000 scale. Ground truthing in 1987 revealed narrow beds fringing the shoreline of small
tributaries of the Chickahominy River (area was not photographed in 1990).
Indicates SAV beds not detected from aerial photography but from ground truthing only.

Source: Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay, 1990,1991.
VIMS, 1990:26-28; 1991:24,25).

of nutrients, (4) dissolved inorganic nitrogen and (5) dissolved
inorganic phosphorus (VCRMP(a), Fall 1992:3).

Varying salinity ranges determine to what degree these conditions
affect the plants. For example, scientists found that plants in
the upper Bay, in tidal fresh waters, require less light for
survival than those in the lower Bay(higher saline) waters.
Plants in tidal freshwater areas also can survive consistently high
concentrations of nitrogen; plants in the lower Bay, in higher
salinity ares, require greater amounts of light and cannot
tolerate high nitrogen levels. Nitrogen, a typical component of
lawn and garden fertilizers, is a nutrient that promotes growth of
algae in Bay tributaries. Algae prevents sunlight from reaching
the sea grasses, which die from lack of sunlight (VCRMP(a), Fall
1992:3).

These differences in salinity ranges, added to the diversity of the
SAV communities within the Bay, led the study group to identify
separate habitat requirements for each of the four salinity regimes
within the Bay. The Technical Synthesis also established a set of
restoration "targets" for SAV distribution throughout the
Chesapeake Bay. Using a geographic overlay of the Chesapeake Bay,
which delineates actual and potential SAV habitats, the study group
established three tiers or areas for re-establishing SAV. Each
tier is based upon different water quality conditions (VCRMP(a),
Fall 1992:3).

The three tier targets are (1) restoration of SAV to areas
currently or previously inhabited by SAV as mapped through regional
and baywide aerial surveys from 1971 through 1990; (2) restoration
of SAV to all shallow water areas delineated as existing or
potential SAV habitat down to the one meter depth contour or
approximately 3 feet of water; and (3) restoration of SAV to all
shallow water areas delineated as existing or potential SAV habitat
down to the two meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range
(Batiuk, Richard A., Robert J. Orth, Kenneth A Moore, William C.
Dennison, J. Court Stevenson, Lorie W. Staver, Virginia Carter,
Nancy B. Rybicki, R. Edward Hickman, Stan Kollar, Steven Bieber and
Patsy Heasly, 1992: 112,117). The second and third tiers were
established to provide management agencies with quantitative
measures of progress in SAV distribution in response to
improvements, such as current reductions in nutrient loadings,
whereas potential areas in the 6-foot range will require additional
reductions in the loading (nutrient) rates (VCRMP(a), Fall 1992:
3). Table __, Figutes __,__&__, and Tables __ & __ show the
Chesapeake Bay SAV habitat requirements for one meter and two meter
restoration and Tier I and Tier III restoration target areas and
target status, respectively.

The Technical Synthesis represents the first comprehensive effort
to link requirements for a living resource with water quality
restoration targets. This habitat requirement approach is
different from the traditional so-called "dose and response method"
wherein different levels of toxicity are applied to determine the
tolerance level of living organisms. As a result of this research,
the 1992 Chesapeake Bay Agreement Amendments declare that it is now
possible to demonstrate a link between water quality conditions and

specific to results from a single study area. Tidal fresh ity conditions that suport SAV survival

oligohaline SAV habitat requirements are based on upper
Chesapeake Bay and upper Potomac River studies (Chap- This type of analysis (referred to as correspondence analy-
ter V). Mesohaline and polyhaline SAV habitat require- sis) was strengthened by factors common to each of the
ments are based on Choptank River and York River studies case studies. Field data was collected over several years
(Chapter V). (almost a decade in the Potomac River) in varying meteo-

Table IV-1. Chesapeake Bay SAV Habitat Requirements.

SAV Habitat Requirements For One Meter Restoration' SAV Habitat Requirements
Habitat Requirements Which Effect For Two Meter
Water Column/Leaf Surface Light Attenuation Restoration
Light" Total Dissolved Dissolved Light3
Attenuation Suspended Chlorophyll Inorganic Inorganic Critical Attenuation Critical
Salinity Coefficient Solids a Nitrogen Phosphorus Life Coefficient Life
Regime (m. ) (mg/1) (ug/l) (mg/1) (mg/1) Period (m. ) Period

Tidal Fresh <15 <15 -- <0.02 April- <0.8 April -
October October

Oligohaline <2 <15 <15 -- <0.02 April- <0.8 April -
October October

Mesohaline 1.5 <15 <15 -- <0.01 April- <0.8 April -
October October

Polyhaline 1.5 <15 <15 <0.15 <0.02 March- <0.8 March -
November November

1. The SAV habitat requirements are applied as median values over the April-October critical life period for tidal fresh, oligohaline, and mesohaline salinity
regimes. Forpolyhaline salinity regimes, the SAV habitat requirements are applied as median values from combined March-May and September-November
data. Light attenuation coefficient should be applied as the primary habitat requirement; the remaining habitat requirements should be applied to help
explain regional or site specific causes of water column and leaf surface light attenuation which can be directly managed.
2. Tidal fresh=<0.5ppt; oligohaline=0.5-5ppt; masohaline=>5-18ppt; and, polyhaline=>18ppt.
3. For determination of Secchi depth habitat requirements, apply the conversion factor Secchi depth=1.45/light attenuation coefficient.

27
CSC.SAV.12/92

Source: Tech Syn, 1992

Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Targets

Chesapeake Bay Program Segments

CBI Erl
WT1
W172 CB2

Wr3

U
rTA
WT4 ET3

WV7r6 CB3 EM
WT7 EE1

wra

TF2 C94
US

TFI

EE2 ET6
RET2 @ETI ET7
LEI
ET8

ET9

TF3 LE2 ETI 0

CBS EM

RED

TF4

LE3

RER CB6
CB7

LE4

TF5
RET5 WE4

CB8

LE5**

Figure VI-2. Chesapeake Bay Program segmentation scheme used to report the SAV distribution restoration targets.

113
CSCSAV.IZW

SAV Technical Synthesis

Table VI-3. Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Tier I and Tier III Targets by Chesapeake Bay Program Segment

Tier 1 1990 SAV Distribution as Tier Ell 1990 SAV Distribution as
1990 SAV SAV Restoration a Percentage of the SAV Restoration a Percentage of the
CBP Distribution Target Tier I SAV Target Tier M SAV
Seginent (Hectares) (Hectares) Restoration Target (Hectares) Restoration Target

CBI 1780 3101 57% 6975 26%
CB2 19 139 14% 3086 <1%
CB3 36 817 4% 3426 1%
CB4 5 103 5% 3496 <1%
CB5 4981 6309 79% 15083 33%
C136 511 783 65% 2923 17%
CB7 3112 4624 67% 11803 26%
C138 29 86 34% 1928 2%
0 24 0% 1836 0%
vM 87 353 25% 3056 3%
W",

NM 3 349 <1% 839 4%
W4 0 0 0% 1061 0%
W175 0 53 0% 1452 0%
W1176 0 240 0% 838 0%
vM 0 189 0% 883 0%
WT8 0 78 0% 1970 0%
TFI 0 6 0% 890 0%
RETI 0 16 0% 959 0%
LEI 0 132 0% 2653 0%
TF2 1642 3098 53% 8304 20%
RM 1367 1847 74% 7443 18%
LE2 51 282 18% 18012 4%
TO 0 0 0% 3293 0%
RET3 0 0 - 5928 0%
LE3 401 1714 23% 9342 4%
TF4 0 0 - 1614 0%
RET4 0 0 - 2915 0%
LE4 79 309 26% 4822 2%
WE4 4192 5902 71% 12529 33%
TO 0 0 - 5780 0%
RET5 0 13 0% 4987 0%
LE5 3 16 19% 13841 <1%
ETI 0 7 0% 1207 0%
M 364 467 78% 2967 12%
IM 39 167 24% 1515 3%
EV 33 1506 2% 5812 <1%
ET5 0 191 0% 3009 0%
ET6 0 0 - 4082 0%
EV 0 0 - 2648 0%
ET8 103 271 38% 3763 3%
ET9 128 363 35% 2044 6%
ETIO 0 0 - 495 0%
EEI 391 2474 16% 8815 4%
EE2 188 3646 5% 11648 2%
EE3 4849 6350 76% 35686 14%

TOTAIS 24393 46025 53% 247658 10%

114
CSCSAV.IM

SAV Technical Synthesis

Table V114. Chesapeake Bay SAV Density Restoration Targets Status by Chesapeake Bay Program Segments.

1990 SAV Distribution
1990 SAV Distribution Tier I within 70-100% Density
1990 SAV (and%) within 70-100% SAV Restoration Category as Percentage
CBP Distribution Density Category Target of Tier I SAV
Segment (Hectares) (Hectares) (Hectares) Restoration Target

CBI 1780 84 (5%) 3101 3%
CB2 19 0 (0)% 139 0%
C133 36 <1 (I %) 817 1 %
CB4 5 0 (0%) 103 0%
CB5 4981 1512 (30%) 6309 24%
CB6 511 303 (59%) 783 39%
CB7 3112 1412 (45%) 4624 31%
C138 29 < 1 (1%) 86 1 %
Wri 0 0 0 24 0%
WT2 87 27 (31%) 353 8%
WT3 3 0 (0%) 349 0%
W174 0 0 0 0 0%
Wr5 0 0 0 53 0%
WT6 0 0 0 240 0%
vM 0 0 0 189 0%
WI`8 0 0 0 78 0%
TFI 0 0 0 6 0%
RETI 0 0 0 16 0%
LEI 0 0 0 132 0%
TF2 1642 1187 (72%) 3098 38%
RET'2 1367 824 (60%) 1847 45%
LE2 51 5 (10%) 282 2%
TF3 0 0 0 0
RET3 0 0 0 0 -
LE3 401 50 (13%) 1714 3%
TF4 0 0 0 0 -
RET4 0 0 0 0 -
LE4 79 60 (76%) 309 19%
WE4 4192 2635 (63%) 5902 45%
TF5 0 0 0 0
RET5 0 0 0 13 0%
LE5 3 3 (100%) 16 19%
Fri 0 0 0 7 0%
ET2 364 0 (0%) 467 0%
ET3 39 0 (0%) 167 0%
ET4 33 1 (3%) 1506 1 %
ET5 0 0 0 191 0%
ET6 0 0 0 0 0%
0 0 0 0 0%
ET8 103 0 (0%) 271 0%
ET9 128 53 (41%) 363 15%
ETIO 0 0 0 0 0%
EEI 391 5 (M) 2474 1 %
EE2 188 33 (18%) 3646 1 %
EE3 4849 3047 (63%) 6350 48%

TOTALS 24393 11243 (46%) 46025 24%

CSCSAV.IZW

--7-7

the survival and health of critically important SAV (VCRMP(a), Fall
1992:3,B).

In 1989, the Chesapeake Bay Commission's Executive Council agreed
to a policy calling for a net gain in SAV distribution, abundance
and species diversity, and to set restoration goals in the future
(Blankenship, October 1993:6). With the Chesapeake Bay cleanup
effort entering its second decade, the Executive Council approved
a series of directives in September 1993 in an attempt to further
stem nutrient pollution, reduce toxics, set goals for the
restoration of Bay grasses, and the opening of rivers for spawning
fish. The following directive related to SAV restoration was
issued:

"Therefore, to further our commitments made in the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, we the undersigned:

o Agree to work to restore SAV to their historical levels.

o Further agree to an intermim SAV restoration goal of
114,000 acres Baywide as documented through regional and
Baywide aerial surveys from 1971 through 1990. At the
current rate of recovery, this acreage will be achieved
by 2005.

o Direct that a further target level be developed for the
restoration of SAV to all shallow water areas delineated
as existing or potential SAV habitat down to the 1 meter
depth contour."

As a member of the Executive Council, the Commonwealth of Virginia
was a signatory to this directive and ,as such, has agreed to do
its part in meeting these restoration targets. Local governments
in Tidewater Virginia should, therefore, take the target
restoration areas into consideration during the site planning and
review process for future development of shoreline ares in order
to avoid potential conflicts between land and water uses and these
critical aquatic habitats.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Back Bay Basin:

General

SAV is an important part of a healthy Back Bay ecosystem. SAV
helps to stabilize sediments that enter the system and to deter
shoreline erosion, as well as perform many of the same functions
cited earlier in the general discussion of SAV. In Back Bay, the
added physical characteristics of the plants within the aquatic
environment allow for a greater diversity of wildlife species, when
compared to habitats not supporting SAV (Schwab, Settle, Halstead
and Ewell, 1990:265).

In general, growth patterns of SAV in Back Bay have followed a
pattern of introduction, colonization, stabilizaton, depletion,
and decline. This cycle has been observed over the last century
for several different species of SAV. In the history of the Bay,
no species has ever substantially repopulated after its initial

decline (HRPDC, 1992).

Vegetation sampling transects in Back Bay were established in 1958
and surveys have been conducted annually except for the years 1979,
1981-82, and 1985-86. The survey originally included measures of
volume; however, in 1974 the volume measurement was deleted. Since
then, only SAV species and their frequencies have been recorded.
Sampling has generally occurred during the September -to November
period. Frequency and species composition are determined through
collection of bottom samples taken at 500--foot interva1s along
eight transect lines with modified oyster tongs (Schwab, Settle,
Halstead and Ewell, 1990: 265).

Prior to the establishment of the transects in 1958 and the first
data collection effort between then and 1965, little quantitative
data were available. The natural closing of the Currituck Sound
Inlet in 1830 changed Back Bay from a saltwater estuary to a
brackish/freshwater ecosystem. In 1951 the U.S. Army Corns of
Engineers reported that, during 1923-24, SAV noticeably began to
disappear. In August of 1956 it was reported that SAV was very
scarce in Back Bay, having undergone a 95% decline from 1955.
However, while there was considerable interest in the Back Bay
ecosystem, no large scale surveys were undertaken until 1958
(Schwab, Settle, Halsted and Ewell, 1990: 265).

In 1958 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the states
of Virginia and North Carolina began an extensive survey of the
Back Bay/Currituck Sound ecosystems. The survey on vegetation,

waterfowl, fish and environmental parameters from 1958 through

1964, resulted in four volumes of data, (also known as the Back
Bay-Currituck Sound Data Report), little of which has been
published. Data reported here for 1958 through 1964 were taken
from that report. The data available after 1964 have been gathered
from VDGIF Annual Pittman-Robertson Reports ( S c h w a b Settle,
Halstead and Ewell, l990: 265).

Findings
SAV monitoring in Back Bay has shown two periods of' high frequency
and two of decline during the period of 1954-1990. The Back Bay-
Currituck Sound Data Report covered a seven year period. This
period documented SAV frequency in 1958 at 51%, followed by a peak
at 81% in 1962 and then a drop to 14% in 1964. The dominant SAV
species during -five years of the survey period was southern naiad
(Najas guadalupensis). In 1963, naiad was the second most common
species and, by 1964, had nearly disappeared from the transects

(Schwab, Settle, Halstead and Ewell,1990:265).

In hopes of reversing water quality declines in Back Bay, the City
of Virginia Beach operated a salt water pumping facility at Little
Island Coast Guard Station from 1964 to 1987 that discharged
seawater into the Shipps Bay subregion of Back Bay. Increasing the
average salinity of the Bay from 0.7 ppt to 3 ppt was expected to
increase water clarity an d to stimulate SAV growth without
significantly impacting the feshwater species inhabiting the Bay.
However, the average baywide salinity remained well below the
stated goal (HRPDC, 1992).

The years 1965 and 1966 had the lowest frequencies (12%) recorded
for the Bay prior to 1984. A new species, Eurasian milfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), was noted in small trace amounts for the
first time in 1966 and occurred on 12% of the survey points in
1967. Over the following decade, the new grass had spread across
the entire Bay. It flourished in areas not thought to be able to
support plant life and grew so dense that it had to be cut back in
areas of regular boat traffic (HRPDC, 1992).

SAV frequency dropped from 72% in 1978 to 50% in 1980; milfoil was
present on 44% of the points surveyed, and remained the most common
SAV species encountered (Schwab, Settle, Halstead and Ewell, 1990:
265,266). In 1983, due to a few pumping interruptions and low
rainfall, the average baywide salinity increased to 1.5-1.8 ppt.
Due to the circulation patterns of the Bay, however, the average
monthly salinity in North and Shipps Bays was nearly 3ppt and a
daily high of 6.42 ppt was recorded in North Bay. While this
appears high, average salinity after a storm overwash event often
reached 22.5 ppt. Due to a lack of demonstrated positive effects
on the Bay's resources, the pumping of saltwater into the Bay
ceased in August 1987 (HRPDC, 1992).

The survey was again conducted in 1983 and the frequency of aquatic
vegetation had dropped to 14%, with only scattered stands and
colonies of milfoil remaining in the eastern expanses of the Bay.
In 1984 the Bay was nearly void of SAV species with only 8% of the
points having any vegetation present. However, in Buck Island Bay,
Major cove and Horse Island Creek, areas not surveyed by the
transects, good growths of milfoil, wildcelery (Vallisneria
americana) and muskgrass (Chara spp.) were noted (Schwab, Settle,
Halstead and Ewell, 1990:266).

The decline of vegetation in Back Bay through the mid 1980's
paralleled the experience of Eurasian milfoil in the Chesapeake Bay
only a few years prior. the decline in Eurasian milfoil in the
Chesapeake Bay was attributed to the effects of two diseases:
Northeast Disease and Lake Venice Disease. Northeast Disease is
believed to be produced by a virus, a virus-like particle, or a
toxin produced within and released by an infected plant. Lake
Venice Disease modifies the celluar structure of the leaf surface
which subsequently allows extensive algal buildup to occur on the
leaf surface. This buildup reduces the ability of the plant to
photosynthesize, eventually stopping transpiration and smothering
the plant. Both diseases have been identified in Back Bay (HRPDC,
1992).

In 1986 an attempt to introduce hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
to Back Bay was undertaken in hopes of establishing some SAV in the
system. Hydrilla is an exotic species (as is milfoil) and first
appeared in the United States in the 1960s. Though hydrilla is
considered a nuisance species by some due to its growth habit of
forming surface mats, it can increase carrying capacity for both
waterfowl and fish (Schwab, Settle, Halstead and Ewell, 1990:266).
This attempt was relatively unsuccessful because of problems with
waterfowl eating the new plantings. When seedlings were
subsequently placed in crab pots to keep them from being eaten by
waterfowl, they were not able to adequately establish themselves

and flourish.

In 1987 the survey was conducted during 8 of the 12 months in an
attempt to determine if SAV frequencies fluctuated from month to
month. In July of 1987 the SAV frequency was 5%, the November
frequency was 1%, and the June 1988 survey had a coverage of 4%.
The 1% reading in November was the lowest for the 12 month period.
Milfoil was the predominant species present, with wildcelery and
sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) present in only trace
amounts. During the 1988 survey period, the frequency of SAV
increased over 1987 by 3%; however, the 1989 and 1990 distributions
were 1% and 0% respectively, representing a 50% decline from 1980
(Schwab, Settle, Halstead and Ewell, 1990:266).

In conclusion, current research has proposed another hypothesis to
explain the decline of SAV along the East Coast. In response to
elevated nutrient levels from surrounding land uses, particularly
nitrogen, SAV tends to grow so fast that stems become fragile and
crumble readily under their own weight, causing the plants to break
off near their roots and die. these "corpses" can be seen commonly
in Back Bay and south into the North Carolina Sounds (HPRDC, 1993).

Figures __ and __ show the SAV transects in Back Bay that are used
for sampling and the SAV frequency trends in Back Bay from 1958
through 1990, respectively. Due to the lack of SAV reported in
1990 transect sampling, distribution of SAV beds in Back Bay is not
shown on the maps attached to this study.

CIO

B 0 1 2 3

KILOMETERS

'P, Ak

C,)

E
7Z

VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
A OPP

Figure 1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Transects, established ig5s.

268

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Trends on Back Bay, Va.

FREQUENCY
100

80-

60-

OT ONOT
KFF NMI-, I
58 60 65 70 75 so as 90
YEAR Id.

Figure 2. Frequency of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation on Back Bay, Va. 1958-1990.
C
N@ IA JkLOTE

C. Spawning Grounds

Spawning grounds are those areas in which the eggs of finfish and
shellfish are released and larval development occurs. In most
species, spawning by the female and the subsequent fertilization
of the eggs by the male occur in the same location. In a few
species, such as the blue crab, fertilization occurs prior to egg
release and the female migrates to the spawning grounds. Most
species of marine finfish common to Hampton Roads spawn and spend
most of their lives in the open ocean, but enter estuaries during
the summer to feed. Estuarine species of finfish spend their
entire lives in estuaries but may migrate to the Chesapeake Bay or
the downstream areas of tributaries to spawn. The larvae of both
marine and estuarine species are transported from their respective
spawning grounds by tides, winds and currents to nursery areas in
the upper reaches of tidal estuaries (SVPDC(a),1989:116;
SVPDC(b),1989:29).

A number of anadromous and semi-anadromous fish species spawn in
the waters of the Hampton Roads region. Anadromous fish spend
their adult lives in the Atlantic Ocean, but migrate to freshwater
estuaries during the spring and early summer to spawn. Anadromous
fish common to the Hampton Roads region include American shad,
alewife, blueback herring and striped bass. Semi-anadromous fish,
such as the white perch, yellow perch and several species of
catfish, live in brackish water estuaries and migrate to freshwater
to spawn (SVPDC(a),1989:116;SVPDC(b),1989:29).

NPS pollution can adversely affect the success of estuarine and
marine spawners in several ways. First, the entire spawning
process may be impossible if spawning adults are unable to find
suitable spawning habitat as a result of dissolved oxygen (DO)
depletion from NPS-induced nutrient enrichment. Second, the
survival of fertilized eggs and newly hatched larvae requires a
proper balance of a number of environmental conditions including
sunlight, oxygen, water agitation, salt and chemicals, and water
temperature. NPS pollution can disrupt this balance and prevent
the hatching of eggs or the survival of larvae (SVPDC(a),1989:
117;SPVDC(b),1989:29).

For example, low DO concentrations resulting from nutrient
enrichment may harm egg and larval development, or may alter
phytoplankton communities, thus affecting the type and amount of
zooplankton available as food to larvae. Surges of freshwater
runoff into estuaries during major storm events may also disrupt,
in the short term, the delicate balance required for successful
spawning by lowering salinity to levels that threaten the survival
of eggs and larvae. A third way in which NPS pollution can affect
spawning success is by the introduction of toxic contaminants such
as pesticides, heavy metals and organic chemicals. Toxics in
runoff can be lethal to newly hatched larvae or can induce
sublethal effects including changes in swimming, feeding or
predator avoidance (SVPDC(a),1989:117;SVPDC(b),1989:29,30).

As mentioned above, many species of marine fish common to the
waterways of the Hampton Roads region spawn in the open ocean.
However, several estuarine species which are year long residents

of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries spawn in the lower
Chesapeake Bay/Hampton Roads/lower James River area. Some of these
species are resident to these waters, while others migrate from
upstream tributaries. Estuarine species include bay anchovy,
gobies, killifish, silverside and hogchoker. Although not
commercially important, these fish are important forage species for
marine finfish that enter estuaries during the summer to feed. The
exact locations of the spawning areas for these fish will depend
on a number of factors including salinity, water temperature, and
bottom characteristics. At least two species of forage fish depend
on abandoned shells for spawning. The killifish spawns during the
spring tide, depositing its eggs in shells above the normal high
tide line. The eggs then hatch during the next month's spring
tide. Gobies spawn from May to October by forming nests and laying
eggs in dead oyster shells. Males then gurard the nest until the
eggs hatch. The interdependence of fish reproduction and SAV is
illustrated by the silverside. Silversides spawn in the early
spring. their eggs have adhesive filaments which attach themselves
to grasses where they remain until they are hatched (SVPDC)(a),
1989:117).

Table __ summarizes the general environmental conditions for and
the environmental constraints to successful spawning of anadromous
and semi-anadromous fish found in Southeastern Virginia. The
Environmental Sensitivity Map Atlas for the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the seasonal Chesapeake Bay Environmentally Sensitive
Areas maps attempt to show the location of spawning areas and/or
nursery areas in the waterways of Hampton Roads. VIMS has recently
digitized these areas by U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle sheets
into a GIS database. These areas have been replicated for the
project study area on the maps attached to this report. However,
because of the variability in location due to fluctuating water
quality conditions over time, it is recommended that the atlas and
maps be used as general guides.

The blue crab spawns in an area along the south side of the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay. Spawning occurs from mid-spring through
summer. Juvenile crabs are dispersed throughout the Bay. As
adults, the females mate only once, as soft crabs during the final
shedding of their shells. A female will carry the sperm throughout
the winter and use it the following summer to fertilize her eggs.
After mating, which occurs in lte summer and fall, the females
move toward the lower Bay, but the males remain distributed
throughout the tributaries (SVPDC(a),1989:117;Cronin,1993:9).

In terms of fisheries management, scientific reports presented to
the chesapeake Bay Commission in November 1993 stated that, if
salinity is below 20ppt, blue crab larvae will not survive. Thus,
harvesting egg-bearing females from up-Bay locations will have no
impact on spawning stock. However, the number of spawning crabs
is not known, nor whether the quantity of spawning has any effect
on the future stock. Scientists have also not determined the
"prudent minimum" size of spawning stock that should be left so as
not to overfish crabs. It has been recommended by scientists that
Maryland and Virginia set a "prudent minimum" for the spawning
population, which will serve as an estimate until more is known
about how the spawning stock affects future populations (Cronin,

TABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SPAWNING OF COMMON ANADROMOUS
AND SEMI-ANADROMOUS FISH IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

Species Temperature (*C) and Spawning Areas Spawning Environment
Salinity Conditions Season Constraintsi

Anadromous

Alewife Water temperature: Large rivers, small Late March Usually spawn
minimum 10.5; peak 18; streams and ponds over through April sluggish water 15-
maximum 29-31. detritus-covered bottom with spawning 30 cm deep. T
Salinity: with vegetation; lasting only a greatest spawnil
Freshwater to salinities sometimes at depths few days for activity occurs at
less than 0.5 ppt. about 3 m. Usually each spawning night.
ascend streams further group.
than blueback herring.
American Shad Water temperature: Primarily in tidal-fresh April - May Currents less thl
minimum 8; peak 17; water of rivers with Mid-May and 0.3 or greats
(Spawning generally areas of extensive flats; July than 0.9 m sec-1;
occurs at 12-2 1 *C). also over sand or pebbly depths of 0- 9- 12
Salinity: bottom; often near m; eggs absent
Tidal -freshwater to mouths of creeks. less than 5 ppi
0.5 ppt. oxygen.

Blueback Herring Water temperature: Fresh and brackish rivers April - May Areas of relative
minimum 14; peak 21-26; and tributaries, never wide and deel
maximum 27. far above tidewater; ingress with swift
Salinity: Freshtobrackish over bottoms of clean flow.
waters. swept sand and gravel
to boulders.

Striped Bass Water temperature: Large rivers and the S p a w n i n g A minimu
minimum 11; peak 14-19; upper portion of the occurs from the current of 30 c
maximum 23. Bay; spawning is beginning of sec-1 is needed to
Salinity: concentrated within the April through keep eggs ir
Freshwater to salinity less first river kilometer mid-June. suspension
than 3 ppt. above salt water. optimal curr nt,
are 1 - 2 m S:C_l
Maximum surviva
of eggs befor
water hardening
occurs at about 1
ppt salinity.

"91
it Iro

119

TABLE 1 (Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SPAWNING OF COMMON ANADROMOUS
AND SEMI-ANADROMOUS FISH IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

Species Temperature (*C) and Spawning Areas Spawning Environmental
Salinity Conditions Season Constraints

Semi-Anadromous

White Perch Water temperature: Fresh, tidal fresh, or Late March to A sudden drop in
minimum 7.2-10; slightly brackish water early June: temperature of
peak 11-16; in rivers, tributary eggs are not 2.2 to 2.80C may
t maximum about 20, streams, and shallow released all at kill eggs.
Salinity: coves. once, and
Freshwater to 4 ppt. ovulation may
continue for 10
to 21 days.

Yel low Perch Water temperature: Tidal or non-tidal S p a w n i n g Significant growth
minimum 5; peak 8.5-11; portions of rivers near occurs from reduction at 2.0
maximum 23. shore, over substrates of the end of ppm dissolved
Salinity: sand, rock, gravel or February to oxygen.
Freshwater to 2.5 ppt. rubble; typically at April, with
depths of 1.5 to 3 m. peak activity in
mid-March.

White Catfish Water temperature: Still or running water; Late May No information
peak about 21. nests usually built near
Salinity: Freshwater. sand or gravel banks.
Brown Bullhead Water temperature: Sluggish, weedy, muddy Early April to Spawning occurs
peak 21-25. streams and lakes; nests A u g u s t in early morning
Salinity: occur in shelter of logs, throughout to early
Freshwater. rocks, or vegetation. the range. afternoon. Eggs
exposed to
sunlight have poor
hatching success.
Channel Catfish Water temperature: Nests occur in weedy March through Growth reduction
minimum 21; peak 27; areas near lake shores, July, possibly at less than 3.5
maximum 29. in protected sites, small September; ppm dissolved
Salinity: streams, sometimes in s o m e t i m e s oxygen.
Freshwater to 2ppt. very swift water. have two
s p a w n i n g
peaks per
season.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change Appendix C
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: EPA, 1985).

120

1993: 9.10). To protect spawing blue crabs near the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay, a 130-square mile "crab sancturay" has been
designated in Section 28.2-709 of the Code of Virginia in which
harvests are prohibited between June 1 and September 15. The
Environmental Sensitivity Map Atlas for the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the seasonal Chesapeake Bay Environmentally Sensitive
Areas maps also show the general vicinity of blue crab habitat
(spring summer, fall only). These areas have been replicated for
the project study on maps attached to this report.

D. Nursery Areas

Nursery areas are those aquatic habitats where the inital growth
and development of finfish and shellfish occur. Nursery areas for
finfish are usually shallow, have organic bottom types and, as
previously mentioned, are often dependent on SAV beds or wetlands
for nourishment. Fish larvae of marine species are produced in the
open ocean and are transported by tides, winds and currents to
nursery grounds in less saline, upstream areas of tidal rivers,
creeks and bays. The larvae of estuarine species of finfish and
the bluecrab may remain in the Chesapeake Bay or be -transported
from the Bay or the downstream portions of its tributaries to
upstream nurseries. The larvae of anadromous and semi-anadromous
fish are transported in the opposite direction from the freshwater
headwaters of estuaries to nursery areas in more saline, downstream
areas. Freshwater fish usually nurse their young in nests found
along the shoreline. The locations of nursery areas for individual
species of finfish are determined by salinity levels and the
presence of food sources (SVPDC(a) . 1989: 121; SVPDC(b) @ 19B9: 30).

In the case of shellfish species such as the commercial ly-important
eastern oyster and hard clam, nursery areas are located in already
established shellfish beds. Oyster larvae are intially found
floating in the open ocean or estuaries (pelagic) but eventually
attach themselves to hard substrate, usually existing oyster shell.
Hard claffi larvae are also initially pelagic, but, during the later
stages of the larval stage, they alternate between a planktonic and
benthic existence occasionally attaching t-hemselves to firm
substrate. By the time they reach the juvenile stage, they have
burrowed permanently in soft substrate (SVPDC(a)p. 1989: 121;
SVPDC(b)p 1989: 30).

Nursery areas have been identifed as critical habitat because the
early life stages of shellfish and finfish are more sensitive to
the adverse affects of NPS pollution than adult organisms. NPS
pollution may adversely affect nursery areas in the following ways
(SVPDC(a), 1989: 121; SVPDC(b)p 1989; 30,31):

0 Nutrient enrichment may cause algal bloops which may
depress DO levels and/or cause the disappearance of SAV
beds.

0 Toxics carried in runoff may have lethal or sublethal
affects on juvenile populations.

0 Wetlands loss due to runoff may lead to the disappearance
of suitable nursery habitat.

0 Turbidity resulting from excessive sediment loads in
runoff may cause a rise in water temperature to a point
that threatens juvenile populations.

0 Sediment suspended in turbid water may clog the gills of
juvenile fish or the gills of invertebrates that are
their food sources.

0 Excessive quantities of freshwater runoff may decrease
salinity levels to a point where Juvenile populations are
threatened.

It is impossible to identify specific locations of estuarine and
marine fish nurseries in specific waterbodies because schools of
juveniles relocate frequently in response to a number of factor
salininty, temperature.. time of day, food supply ans
including d
oxygen levels. Also, the juveniles of many species migrate
gradually downstream as they mature. In general, however, the
nursery areas of most species are associated wiith certain
ecological zones defined by sanility levels. These zones and their
corresponding salinity ranges are as follows: polyhaline (16.5 -
30.0 ppt), mesohaline (3.0 - 16.5 ppt), oligohaline (0.5 - 3.0 ppt)
and freshwater (less than 0.5 ppt). Salinity regimes migrate with
the tides, freshwater inflow and weather conditions (SVPDC, 1989:
1.22).

The Environmental Sensitivity Man Atlas for the Commonwealth of
Virainia and the seasonal Chesapeake Bay Environmentally Sensitive
Areas maps attempt to show the location of spawning areas and/or
nursery areas in Virginia's watprways. VIMS has recently digitized
these areas by U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle sheets into a SIB
database. However, as with spawning areas, because of the
variability in the location of these areas due to fluctuating water
quality conditions over time, it is recommended that the atlas and
maps be used as general guides.

E. Shellfish Growing Areas

General

The Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP) Manual defines shellfish as "all edible
molluscan shellfish species of oysters, clams and mussels."
Commercially important shellfish species harvested in the waters
of the Hampton Roads region include the eastern oyster and the hard
clam. Virginia's tidal waters also produce significant quantities
of surf clams and soft shell clams (SVPDC(a), 1989: 122; SVPDC(b),
1989: 31; VWCB, 1980: A-1).

The oysters found in Virginia's tidal waters are the molluscan
shellfish species of Crassostrea virginica. Shellfish are immobile
bottom dwellers that are generally found in densely populated beds.
Oyster beds are found on firm bottom surfaces in relatively shallow
(less than 8-10 meters) water with relatively low salinity. A firm
substrate is required to support the massive and heavy clusters of
oysters found in a bed (SVPDC(a), 1989: 122; SVPDC(b), 1989: 31;
VWCB, 1980: A-1).

Unlike the oyster which attaches itself to hard bottom surfaces,
the mature clam burrows in penetrable bottom sediment. Hard clams
require slightly higher salinities than the oyster and can be found
anywhere from intertidal mudflats to a depth of 10 meters or more.
Hard clams, especially juveniles, are important food sources for
a number of fish, crabs, waterfowl and marine birds (SVPDC(a),
1989: 122; SVPDC(b), 1989: 31).

For centuries, the shellfish industry has held a position of high
esteem in Virginia. Because the industry represents a way of life,
its survival has become an important issue among the public and at
all levels of government. It is strongly felt that the oyster
industry in Virginia may be close to extinction, however.
Beginning in about 1960, the Virginia oyster harvest dropped
dramatically to about a tenth of its historic average catch.
Recent additional declines have had further negative affects on the
industry (VCRMP(b), 1991:1). See Figure__ for historical trends
in Virginia's oyster harvest.

Statistics available from the Virginia Department of Health's
Division of Shellfish Sanitation (VDH-DSS) during Spring 1991
indicate a net loss of 6,039 acres of shellfish waters for 1989-
1991. In 1989, 344 acres were opened; 2,247 acres were closed.
In 1990, 1,663 acres were opened, but 5,772 were closed. This
increase in the number of acres open to harvesting in 1990 was
partially a result of the adoption of more stringent standards
during the year (VCRMP(b), 1991: 1).

According to studies conducted by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shellfish harvests in the mid-
Atlantic region, including Virginia, are limited as a consequence
of poor water quality by (in descending order) (1) sewage treatment
plants, (2) boating, (3) urban runoff, (4) wildlife, (5) industrial
discharges, (6) agricultural runoff, and (7) failing shoreline
septic systems. Each of these, including other factors which have

been shown to contribute to poor water quality, are examined in
more detail below (VCRMP (b), 1991:1-3).

(1) Sewage Treatment
The Commonwealth of Virginia has made significant advances to
improve and upgrade municipal sewage treatment facilities. Every
city and town in the state has or is nearing completion of
facilities that treat wastewate to the secondary leve. Secondary
treatment is a biological process that removes approximately 85%
of pollutants and is a fedral requirment under the federal Clean
Water Act (CWA). With the exeception of the City of Franklin, the
Hampton Roads Sanitaiton District (HRSD) is responsible for
wastewater treatment in Hampton Roads. All HRSD facilities use
secondary treatment or beyond

But, While the Commonwealth meets the requirment of the CWA, it
may fall short of maintaining water clean enough to grow and
harvest sheelfish. In other words, there may be fewer highly
polluted waters but, at the same time, there are few waters
sufficiently pristine for sheelfish harvesting. Even worse than
sewage treatment, setbacks are created by other, more widespread
pollution sources. Most significant of these is nonpoint source
pollution.

(2) Urban Runoff -- Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution

During the 1980's all small sewage treatment systems in the
Lynnhaven are of Virginia Beach, for example were taken off line
and connected to the HRSD regional wastewater treatment facility
Sewage treatment was upgraded and discharges were removed from the
inlet: but, there was no subsquent improvement in shellfish
waters. The reason for this was determined to be NPS pollution
from residential and commercial developments in the drainage area.
The overall surbanization which brough about development of new
shopping ceters, parking lots, and roads, is creating urban runoff
which degrades water quality.

To counteract this, the Commonwealth is implementing the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act which requires counties, cities and towns to
designate shoreline preservation areas that include vegetative
buffer zones between development and the receiving water.
Conceptually, these buffer zones act as filter strips, trapping NPS
pollutants in runoff and, thereby, reducing NPS pollution entering
the Bay and its tributes

(3) Boating and Marinal

The significance of sewage discharge from boats has been
controvesial naitonwide. The VDH-DSS, as a matter of policy,
condemns shellfish waters within a minimum of one-quater mile from
an operating maria (which is defined as any mooring designed for
ten or more boays that provides marine services). The size of the
codemnation area increases proportianally with the number of slips
at the marina

The disposal of human wastes from recreational and commercial

vessels directly of into the Bay and its tributaries is widespread.
and constitutes an ongoing and significant problem. On any given
weekend during the boating season , as many as 6,000 vessels are out
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. By the most
conservative estimate providfed by the VDH, these vessels discharge
a minimum of 20,000 gallons of raw sewage overboard each day. A
raw sewage spili of this magnitude from any other source would
create a great amount of public concern; however, since
recreational boats are dispersed throughout the Bay, individual
discharges of raw sewage do not receive the same level of
attention.

State agencies, on the other hand, have long recognized that
pollution from boayting is a major factor in the depletion of oxygen
from the bay, Such pollution has been linked to the loss of
habitat for fish and animmal species dependent on the Bay,
especially SAV beds, and the closure of shellfish beds. It also
poses a health threat to swimmers, fishermen and others who may be
in contact with waters containing raw sewage.

Regulations adopted by the VDH require that adequate onshore
sanitary facilities -- a dump station for portale toilets and pump-
out facilites for boats with holding tanks -- be provided at each
marina or other place wher boats are moored. As of January 1990
there were900 marinas or places where boats were moored. Of this
number, 773 were covered by Virginia regulations. Approximately
50% of the latter, which did not have a vaiance or alternative
sewage disposal equipment, were out of compliance with current
regulations.

An additional concern is reelated to the fact that a number of toxic
substances such as oil gas anti-freeze an dantifoulant paints are
essential for vewssel maintenance. To the degree these substances
reach the water, they represent a serious potential threat to
shellfish and other living resources. This issue is discussed in
more detail in the Private and Public Water Access" section,
"Siting and Design of Water Access Facilities Subsection on
marinas and recreational boating of this study;

The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, to which the Commonwealth of
Virginia is a signee, includes the commitment to eliminate
pollutant discharges from recrational boats as one of its water
quality objectives.

(4) Waterfowl

Suprising to many people, the presence of large numbers of
waterfowl, such a migrating ducks and geese, result in the closure
of hundreds of acreas of productive shellfish waters annally.
Waterfowl related closures have occured along the Potomac and
Rapphahannock Rivers and areas surrounding Tantie4r Island in the
Chesapeake Bay. It is believed that the contribution of waterfowl
to shellfish closures would not present a problem, however, if the
decline of other productive waters was not so exstensive.

(5) Idustrial Pollution

According to a National Atmospheric Administration
(NDAA) survey entitled The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on
the East Coast of the United States. some 50,000 acres of shellfish
development (in adition to effects from sewage treatment plants
and urban runoff). Industrial discharges are of particular concern
to public health officials becaruse of the potential effects of
toxics and heavy metals. Although pretreatment of industrial
wstes is required before conveyance to a wastewater treatment
"pass through" both treatments systems and end up in the Bay
pollution form seafood, poultry, and meat processing plants
continues to be a problem in Virginia.

(6) Agricultural Runoff

According to the Virginia Department of Conservaton and
Recreation's (DCR) revised 1989 Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment Report, some 489 square miles of estuarine waters were
affected by agricultural runoff during 1989. The Department's 1993
update of that report states that agriculture accounts for
approximately 30% of Virginia's land use and, while this percentage
is significantly lower than the national average, agricultural
activities consitute a significant source of NPS pollution in the
Commonwealth. The 1992 305(b) Virginia Water Quality Assesment
reports that crops and pasture land and other agricultural
activities were the largest quality standards for designated uses in
Virginias's rivers. Sources of contamination included elevated
levels of fecal coliform bacteria from animal wastes, nutrients and
organic chemical from fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy siltation
and sedimentation.

The DCR has made significant progress enlisting farmers to
implement Best Management Practives (BMPs) to conserve, manage, and
control erosion, sedientation, nutrients, fertilizer application
and animal wastes. It is felt at the state and federal level,
however, that the volunteer program may not be enough. A panel
convene by the Chesapeake Bay Program to study NPS pollution has
contributors of nutrient loading in the Bay.

(7) Shoreline Sanitation

Between 1984 and 1989, the Department of Housing and Community
Development's (DHCD) Residential Shoreline Sanitation program
provided approximately $150,000 each year either to repair or
install new sanitary facilities in productive shellfish areas
identified as threatened by fecal coliform contamination. The
shoreline sanitation program was highly successful in re-opening
several thousand acres of productive shellfish grounds. As time
progressed, however, the "easy" cleanup was completed, and it
became increasingly difficult to find ways to re-open additional
grounds. The program ended in 1989.

Beginning in FY 1990, the DHCD began the statewide Indoor Plumbing
Initiative. The program has an annual budget of $2.5 million.
Approximately $1.2 million of these funds have gone to Tidewater
locations for installation of new indoor plumbing, indluding
sanitary septic systems. A measure of the need for the Indoor
Plumbing Initiative is reflected in the total first year requests,
which totaled $8.4 million, in contrast to available funds of $2.5
million.

(8) Pollutation Growth and Development

Population growth within and migration to Tidewater Virginia has
and is continuing to increase at a rapid rate. Increased
population brings a host of competinq intersts and pressures for
development, such as new residential and commercial development
expanded highway systems ann recreational developments including,
marinas. As these uses increase in density, it Will become even
more difficult to maintain shoreline water quality at a level that
will support Virginia's shellfish industry.

In conclusion, therefore, the decline of shellfish harvests in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is attributable to several
factors, including overharvesting, shellfish mortatility from
diseases and predation, and increased closures due to NPS
pollution. For this reason, in 1991, the Virginia Coastal
Resources. Management Program in coordination with the
Commonwealth's Shellfish Enhancement Taskforce (SENTAF) undertook
a project to determine whether Virginia has an effective process
for preventing, identifying, and remediating Water quality problems
that result in closure of shellfish grounds. The study is being
Undertaken by VIMS staff in close conjunction With SENTAF. VIMS
staff will analyze the legal, regulatory and administrative
structures currently in place for the purpose of managing the Water
quality of productive and potentially productive shellfish grounds.
From this information, it was anticipated that staff would identify
what options, including their associated costs, are available to
the Commonwealth to improve shellfish Waters (VMRC(b), 1991: 1).

Despite preliminary recommendations from VIMS scientists and VMRC
oyster management specialists that public shellfish beds in the
Chesapeake Bay be closed to recover, VMRC decided not to impose a
moratorium. Instead, VMRC opted in November 1993 for new
restrictions and a sharply curtailed public oyster grounds
harvesting season, opening October 15 and ending December 31.
VMRC also capped 1993 harvests for James River, the last major
public oyster ground in Virginia's portion of the Bay, at 6,000
bushels; this number representes a fraction of the 1992 record-low
catch of 46,000 bushels, two-thirds of which came from public
oyster grounds. In addition, VMRC restricted the length of tongs
used to harvest oysters, a measure aimed at protecting oysters in
deepter water, and required that harvesting on private grounds (ACB,
1993: 3). Enforcement of this decision has been met with much
controversy from watermen and the VMRC has been asked to revisit
the length of the harvesting season.

In an attempt to colonize oyster larvae and ultimately produce more
young oysters or seed, oyster management specialisists at VMRC have
recently begun constructing reefs made of oyster shells and
ordinary marine construction materials in the Piankitank River, and
the next project will be done in the James River. In the past,
shells have been placed in the water to give oyster larvae a hard
substrate to which they can attach, develop shells, and live out
their lives. But, in 1993 shells were hauled to the Piankitank
River and dumped in large piles to simulate the reefs that once
filled the Bay. Historically, those reefs were built as larvae
colonized the tops of existing oysters. Colonists repor-ted oyster
reefs in the Bay that would reach above water surface during low
tides; ships sometimes ran aground on them. Since that tim
commercial and harvesting dredges have leveled most of the bed:,,
oysters were overharvested,-the Bay became more polluted, and the
diseases MSX and dermo devastated the remaining population
(Blankenship(b), 1993: 1).

The reef re-establishment experiment in the Piankatank and the
James Rivers is expected to help scientists and fisheries managers
learn whether reefs provide a habitat that significantly improves
oyster survival. It is thought that oysters which can grow higher
on a reef may have a competitive advantage over those on the river
floor; there may be more food and water conditions are different.
An oyster filters large amounts of water, consuming algae as it
does. Oysters on the bottom filter more silt than those higher in
the water column; therefore, in effect, they have to work harder
to get the same amount of food. In addition, water closer to the
surface is influenced by rainfall so it may be cleaner than bottom
water. Water near the surface is also slightly less-salty, which
may give oysters an edge against the diseases which require higher
salinity concentrations than oysters to survive. Temperatures are
also warmer nearer the surface (Blankenship(b), November 1993: 3).

Answers from this experiment are not expected for at least one
year. Once colonizedr the reef will become a sanct@iary which will
not be harvested, though some young oysters may be used to seed
other areas. By leaving the oysters alone, scie*n* 'tists from VMRC
and VIMS are also hoping to see if the oysters develop any
resistance to MSX and dermo (Blankenship(b), November 1993: 3).

R ulation and Classification of Shellfish Waters

While there are several state agencies which hold responsibility
for shellfish resource management, the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VMRC) and the Virginia Department of Health-Division
of Shellfish Sanitation (VDH-DSS) share the bulk of this
responsibility.

The VMRC has been designated by the Virginia General Assembly as
the lead agency for shellfish resources. It accomplishes its
mission through (1) fisheries management, (2) habitat protection,
and (3) law enforcement.

In 1892 the General Assembly passed an act to protect the oyster
industry of the Commonwealth. This act provided for a survey of
shellfish growing waters where oysters grew natUrally and were

considered the best for oyster culture. The survey was conducted
in 1984 by Lt. James E. Baylor and it delineated public shellfish
grounds that cannot be leased by private interests. This survey
became known as the "Baylor Survey" or "Baylor Grounds." Public
clamming grounds are not considered Baylor Grounds.

Areas which are not included in the Baylor Survey are also
considered public grounds; however, portions of these areas can be
leased from the Commonwealth by private individuals or corporations
for which a certain rent is charged per acre. Leases are granted
through VMRC for 20-year periods with the option or renewing.
Therefore, through a system of public and private oyster culture,
there is dual management of suaqueous bottomlands in the
Commonwealth.

The VMRC is also the lead agency for replenishment activites, such
as placement of shell to provide cultch for oysters. Within Baylor
Grounds, certain areas have also been restricted to the public for
harvesting where oyster larvae is being cultivated under the
supervision of VMRC. Seed form these areas is then taken to other
areas within the Baylor Grounds and planted as cultch. Private
lease holders may also obtain seed from these restricted areas for
re-establishment in leased beds (Nielson, 1991).

The VMRC, in most cases, sets the time and size of the harvest for
each major species and issues licenses. The nature of the harvest
regulations varies from species to species, with elements of the
instances. For example, only certain types of gear are permitted
for the harvest of oysters and clams (Nielson, 1991).

VMRC Marine Patrol Officers monitor fishing activities to ensure
compliance with regulations. In addition, they oversee the harvest
of shellfish from shellfish condemnation areas. Shellfish stock
from these areas may be moved, or relayed, to clean waters or may
be transported to an approved depuration facility. Relayed
shellfish must remain in the clean waters for a specified period,
with the duration longer during cool weather. In 1991, there were
no facilities in Virginia for the controlled cleansing, or
depuration, of shellfish, although several other states have
plants, especially for clams (Neilson, 1991).

It is responsbility of the VDH-DSS to ensure that shellfish
taken from Virginai waters (pulbic grounds and leased beds) are
safe for human consumption. Because Virginia shellfish are
transported to other states, FDA regulations apply and high water
quality standards are set by the NSSP (Nielson and Wilson, 1991).

The NSSp Manual of Operations provides standards and guidance for
the VDH-DSS in carrying out its responsbilities for proper
classification of shellfish waters. Continous data collection on
shellfish growing area water quality and shoreline studies of
actual and potential waste sources provide the background and basis
for VDH-DDS determinations of proper classification of these waters
(VWCB, 1980: A-2).

The four types of classifications identified in the NSSP Manual of
Operations are (VWCB, 1980: A-2):

1 Approved-- areas from which shellfish may be taken for direct
marketing at all times;

2. Conditionally approved -- areas in which the sanitary quality
of that area may be affected by seasonal population,
occasional sewage treatment plant operation malfunctions, or
a dock. or harbor facility. Direct harvesting
is allowed predictable conditions. Closing occurs when
criteria are not met. ( i.e. following a rainfall

Restricted -- areas which a sanitary survey indicates a
limited degree of pollution which would make it unsafe to
harvest shellfish for direct marketing. Shellfish from such
areas must be relayed to approved areas for depuration or
placed in purification tanks for specified periods of time.

4. Prohibited--areas which the sanitary survey indicates that
dangerous numbers of pathogenic microorganisms or other
contaminansts which might reach these areas, and the taking
shellfish from these areas for direct marketing, relaying or
depuration is prohibited.

As a point of claification, when areas are referred to as being
"shellfish condemnation areas," such areas may consist of both
restricted and prohibited classifactions. In n area which has
been classified s "restricted", it is unlawful for any person,
firm, or corporation to take shellfish for any purpose,excepts by
permit granted by the VMRC. In an area which has been classified
as "prohibited"-- which, in addition to being areas where water
quality has historically been extremely poor, now also includes a
specified radius around the outfall of any sewage or wastewater
treatment facility-- it shall be unlawful for any perosn, firm or
corportaion to take shellfish for any purpose. Condemnation areas
for which condemnation notices are on record with the VDH-DSS are
considered to be permanent or, inother words, are condemended on
a year-round, as opposed to seasonal, basis. Approximately every
six months, VDH re-evaluates the status of such condemnation areas.
Seasonal condemnation areas are delineated only around specified
marina facilities.

For resource conservation reasons and becaruse the public oyster
harvest in Virginia is at an all time low, the VMRC voted in
December 1994 to suspend th state's oyster season beginning
December 31. The season normally lasts from October 15 to March
31. VMRC officials were concerned that further harvests would
dangerously deplete the remaining stocks. Closing a fishery is a
last resort to restoring a resource.

In addition, the VMRC has the authority to establish Shellfish
Management Areas and to regulate the harvest of clams from those
areas.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Seafood Growing Waters

In general, conditions which can cause adverse effects on oyster
culture are predators, microbe parasites, floods, drought, fungi,
water impoundments, thermal effects, and discharges of sewage and
other wastes (uncluding toxic substances, silt, nutrients,
insecticides, and herbicides). Sewage, or other pollutants reaching
such growing areas must be treated, diluted, or aged that it
will be of ngligible public health significance. This implies an
element of time and distance to permit the mixing of waste with the
receiving waters so that dilution or dispersion occurs (VWCB, 1980:
A-1).

More specifically, oysters and hard clams are particularly
susceptible to NPS pollution because they are immobile and unable
to escape unfavorable water quality conditions. Sediment carried
in runoff can blanket and suffocate oyster and clam beds. Sediment
may also eliminate the hard, clean surfaces required for the
attachment of oyster larvae. In addition, excessive nutrient loads
in runoff may significantly lower DO levels. Low DO can severely
stress shellfish populations, thus lowering disease resistance and
reproductive success. In cases of sustained DO depletion, entire
beds may be eliminated (SVPDC(a)m 1989. 122; SVPDC(b), 1989: 31).

Shellfish may also be susceptible to toxics contained in NPS
pollution. Contamination of bed sediments and overlying water by
toxics can adversely affect the physiological processes of
shellfish and possibly make them unfit for human consumption.
Frequent freshwater discharge from stormwater runoff is another
limiting factor to the survival of shellfish populations. Such
discharges, may result in long term reduction in salinity levels
which could either eliminat shellfish populations or lower their
resistance to disease and predation. Finally, shellfish may ingest
and concentrate bacteria contained in urbin runoff that is harmful
to humans when consumed.Bacterial contamination and the automatic
condemnation of shellfish grounds near marinas and point sources
discharges are the reasons why many portions of waterways in the
Hampton Roads region are closed to shellfish harvesting (SVPDC(a),
1989: 123; SVPDC(b), 1989: 31,32).

In order for shellfish to be harvested for direct marketing, the
waters must not only be of high quality, but there also must be
limited potential for water quality pollution. For example, in
harbors such as Hampton Roads, areas adjacent to anchorage are
closed because vessels Could anchor there and while anchored,
could dishcharge sewage overboard. Although the anchorage may be
used infrequently, there is always the possibility that it will be
used and that water quality will be impacted. While some may
object that these precautions are not needed, it is typical Of
public health officials to be very Cautious and to guard againist
all possible avenues for disease (Nielson and Wilson, 1991)

Degraded water quality can mean contamination with fecal matter or
pollution of a chemical nature. Both can be the cause of
shellfish closure, but in practice, most condemnations and closures
are due to fecal contamination. The mean fecal coliform count of
approved growing waters must be no higher than 14 MPN per 1000

milliliters of water; MPN (most probable number) is a statistical
estimate of number of fecal coliform organisms in the water using
the results of laboratory incubations. When the numbers are
greater than 14, this "red flag" indicates the possible presence
of disease-causing organisms (Nielson and Wilson, 1991).

Considerable judgment plays an important role in the evaluation of
sources of actual or potential pollution to a shellfish growing
area. Effectiveness and reliability of treatment, distances of
pollutants from shellfish areas, the effects of winds, runoff,
stream flow, and tidal currents are important aspects of
consideration. It must be recognized that all receiving waters are
not equally efficient form the standpoint of dilution, dispersion,
salinity, etc. and bacteriological standards are not indicative of
relative safety. Each estuary receiving pollution must be
considered as a seperate case. Any variation in the pollution
source will affect the sanitary quality will rapidly reflect any
deterioration in the quality of their environment but are slower
to reflect improvement (VWCB,1980: A-3).

Shellfish growing areas near marinas, wharves, docks, beaches, and
population centers are often subject to potential pollution hazards
from small amounts of fresh sewage which are not ordinarily
revealed by the bacteriological examination. It is also evident
that the presence of people in an area creates certain pollution
problems. This often is referred to as the effects of "people
activity" and it is associated with increased runoff, sewage
disposal problems, recreation facilities, and other related
conditions which result form population expansions, all of which
inadvertently affect the quality of adjacent shellfish growing
waters. While intermittent in nature, the effect of pollution from
these activities are, nontheless, potential threats to the
sanitary quality of shellfish for direct marketing (VWCB, 1980: A-
3,5).

In order to assure that shellfish harvested for direct marketing
and possible consumption as a raw product are safe, it is often
necessary to establish a "buffer or safety zone" around known or
potential sources of pollution. Sources of pollution around which
the establishment of a "safety zone" might be required are: sewage
treatment plants, industrial waste discharges, marinas, docks,
wharves, harbors, shipping channels, areas receiving animal
discharges, recreational areas, and those areas subject to "people
activity." In addition, toxic materials, heavy metals,
radionuclides, etc. from industrial waste require safety zones
around such discharges as shellfish readily assimilate these
materials (VWCB,1980: A-3-5).

These "safety zones"allow for the mixing and diluting of the
pollutants, give time for bacterial die-off and provide time for
control agencies to take action to prevent shellfish harvesting
from adjacent areas should a variance in established conditions
make it necessary to do so. The pollution source is the dominant
factor in determining the need for or the size of such a "safety
zone" and is dependent upon a predetermined level of quantity and
quality. The need for such zones is not determined by

bacteriological values alone but is based on a thorough evaluation
of the overall situation. These zones coincide with the
"prohibited areas" discussed previously. All of these evaluations
are conducted in accordance with the requirements found in the NNSP
Manual of Operations as administered by VDH-DSS (VWCB,1980:A-3-
5).

Shellfish Condemnation Areas in Hampton Roads

In the waterways of the Hampton Roads region, several types of
shellfish condemnation areas can be identified. First, much of the
waterbody called Hampton Roads on the Bay side of Newport News
Point is closed due to vessel traffic and anchorages for commercial
freighters. Second, areas with heavy industrial activity and/or
industrial discharges are closed. Third, parts of the James River,
especially along the Newport News shoreline, are closed due to the
discharges from large wastewater treatment plants, as is a portion
of the lower York River. As with anchorages, the condemned areas
around sewage treatment plant outfalls exist more because of the
potential for problems than due to degraded water quality (Nielson
and Wilson, 1991).

Most of the remaining closures are within smaller systems.
Although some are closed in their entirety, many others have
condemnation zones only in the upper reaches (e.g. the Nansemond,
Poquoson and Back Rivers). In general, this is due to physical
factors. Because a large portion of the drainage basin usually
lies above the head of the tide, the freeflowing river delivers
most of the freshwater entering the estuary along with all the
associated pollutants. When the river flow reaches the tidal
portion of the river, there is a decrease in water velocity due to
the tides and the broad channels. This combination of sluggish
water movement and large pollutant loads in river flow results in
degraded water quality in many upstream segments of larger systems.
Water quality often improves downstream, where tidal currents are
stronger and large volumes of water are available to dilute the
pollutants. An esacerbating factor is the presence of towns and
cities at the head of tide (e.g. Richmond, Petersburg,
Fredericksburg, Smithfield, and Suffolk). These population centers
produce watewaters and urban runoff, both of which can
significantly degrade water quality at this vulnerable location
(Nielson and Wilson, 1991).

A list of permanent shellfish condemnation areas within the project
study area as of October 15,1993 follows, cateforized by locality
and waterbody. These areas have also been shown on the maps
attached to this report. Table is a current list of the marina
facilities necessitating seasonal shellfish condemnations each year
between April 1 and October 31. These are facilities that
otherwise do not warrant automatic condemnation and are not
monitored under the regular VDH-DSS process, but which have been
identified as having the potential for fecal coliform bacteria
contamination. In using this information, it is important to
remember that these areas will change over time and updated
information should be obatined from the VDH-DSS.

. ...........
.................. ...
...... ......
0 0 K::*:CO
. ................ X. HELLf1SH:..:..:..:AR.EX::: ONDENINATI N:.::
............................

.. .. ... . ..........
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
6 York River and Wormley Creek (see 6A & 6B below) (see 6A & 6B below)
6A York River and Wormley Creek 10/12/93
6B York River 10/12/93
35 York River: Queen Creek 5/11/92
39 York River at Cheatarn Annex 5/11/92
40 York River at Naval Weapons Station 4/27/89
79 York River: Carter Creek 4/27/89
87 York River: Skimino Creek 7/12/93
130 York River: Indian Field Creek 11/27/91
134 York River: King and Felgates Creeks 11/27/91
137 Poquoson River 7/6/93
151 Back Creek 7/6/92
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

It shall be unlawf ul f or any person, f irm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

... ........... .. . . ..
.........
A ....
Number Affected Area Cond .e.. mnation Status Effective Date
23 James River: Opposite Fort Eustis 3/30/89
67 James River: Opposite Tribell Shoal Channel 4/27/89
69 Upper James River 4/27/89
73 York River: Ware Creek 4/27/89
166 lYork River- Taskinas Creek 4/27/89
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(* *) = It shall be unlawful f or any person, f irm or coporation to take shellf ish f rorn this area f or any
purpose.

........... .. .... ........................... ....... ........
. . .... ......
P
Et-*L.-*' R
.............
...... UQUOS
F19W." DEMNAT
VY
.............
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
21 Back River 7/9/93
137 Poquoson River 7/6/93
Notes:
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

Winw,
..... $Nam's ii-i"Wti E W 10*
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
7 Hampton Roads (see 7A-7E below) (see 7A-7E below)
7A Hampton Roads 10/8/93
713-7E Hampton Roads 1018/93
21 Back River 7/9193
158 113ack River: Long and Grunland Creeks 9/7/90
Notes-
M = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(**) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

.. .... ..................... . ... ... ... ..............
X
. ............ . ...... ...
.. ............
U I .....
SH. U.
..........
......... .......
.......... ....
DEMN
. .........
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
7 Hampton Roads (see 7A-7E below) (see 7A-7E below)
7A Hampton Roads 10/8/93
713-7E Hampton Roads 10/8/93
23 James River: Opposite Fort Eustis 3/30/89
34 Warwick and James Rivers (see 34A & 34B below) (see 34A & 34B below)
34A Warwick and James Rivers 10/11/93
34B Warwick and James Rivers 10/1/93
183 James River: Swash Hole 12/6/91
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(**) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

.................... ......... .. .. .. .. ......... . ......... .......... ................... ........-. ..... . .
..........-.............
....... ... ... . ... .... ...... . . .. ............... .... ...........
...... . ... .
. . .. ...
MNA..,IQN:'-'*" VIRGINIA . ..... ...... .
.. ... NDE
... ......
.A.. 0
... . ...
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
17 Little Creek 8/24/90
25 Lynnhaven, Broad and Linkhom Bays and Tributaries 12/30/92
60 Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek (see 60A & 60B below) (see 60A & 60B below)
60A Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek 10/12/93
60B Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek 10/12/93
74 Rudee Inlet 4/27/89
162 Atlantic Ocean 4/27/89
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(* *) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

. ..... ..............
........... .. ... ..... . . . .
@--ARE
.. .... ....... ATid.
NDEMN IESA E ...... ......
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
7 Hampton Roads (see 7A-7E below) (see 7A-7E below)
7A Hampton Roads 10/8/93
7B-7E Hampton Roads 10/8/93
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
7 Hampton Roads (see 7A-7E below) (see 7A-7E below)
7A Hampton Roads 10/8/93
7B-7E Hampton Roads 10/8/93
17 Little Creek 8/24/90
60 Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek (see 60A & 60B below) (see 60A & 60B below)
60A Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek 10/12/93
60B Chesapeake Bay: Adjoining Little Creek 10/12/93
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(* *) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

............... ........ . . ..... ..........
. ...................
........... ............ . ........... .. ..... ..
I X
.RT To
ARE
ONDEM
ION M
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
7 Hampton Roads (see 7A-7E below) (see 7A-7E below)
7A Hampton Roads 10/8/93
713-7E Hampton Roads 10/8/93
19 Hoffler Creek 4/27/89
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(**) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

AT (0@N*@..'..*,..,:..,.-.,.",@.**-..'..*'..'...,..,...i..$',
ONKMN UFF'Lk.:.
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
8 Nansemond River 10/14/92
18 Streeter Creek 4/27/89
19 Hoffler Creek 4/27/89
46 Nansemond River: Bennett's Creek 9/24/93
77 Nansemond River: Knotts Creek 4/27/89
80 Chuckatuck Creek 10/12/93
182 Nansemond River: Bleakhorn Creek 9/24/93
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

(**) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

. . ....... . ...................... . ............ . . . . . . . ......... ............. ..........
.......... .... ... ..
.......... ........ X
*@:::: .* ': ............
'j:
H ....
............
--LF "A
EA::.@:r NbtMN 1.0
W Q. UNTY:.:
EL .1. AT G.Fid
Number Affected Area Condemnation Status Effective Date
64 Pagan River and Jones Creek 11/19/92
69 Upper James River 4/27/89
80 Chuckatuck Creek 10/12/93
164 Kings and Ballard Marsh Creeks 8/31/93
Notes:
(*) = It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose, except by permit granted by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as provided
in Section 28.1-179 of the Code of Virginia.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or coporation to take shellfish from this area for any
purpose.

MARINA FACILITIES NECESSITATING SEASONAL SHELLFISH CONDEMNATIONS
BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND OCTOBER 31
AS OF 11/16/93

Wildey Marina --Chisman Creek, York County
Thomas Marina --Chisman Creek, York County
Belvin Boat Builders -- The Thorofare, York County
Poquoson Marina--White House Cove,Poquoson
Rens Road Pier (Public Ramp and Pier) --White House Cove,poquoson
York Haven Marina --White House Cove, Poquoson
Messick Point Public Landing -- Back River, Poquoson
W. Haywood Forrest Seafood Co. -- Back River., Poquoson
Poquoson Yacht Club--Back River, Poquoson
Back River Seafood--Back River, Poquoson
Bill's Fish Deck --- Back River, Poquoson
Digg's Seafood --- Back River, Poquoson
Bill Forrest Seafood -- Back. River, Poquoson
Salt Ponds on the Bay Marina-- Salt Ponds, Hampton
Southall Landings Condominium -- Salt Ponds., Hampton
Marina Cove Boat Basin--Back River/Harris River, Hampton
Dandy Haven Marina--Wallace Creek, Hampton
B. J. Wallace Marina--Wallace Creek, Hampton
Back River Marina--Wallace Creek, Hampton

Shellfish Management Areas in Hampton Roads

In January 1994, the VMRC issued regulations re-designating the
York, Poquoson and Back River Shellfish Management Areas and
provisions to control the harvest of hard clams from those areas
in order to protect and promote the resource. These regulations
became effective on 1/1/94. Lawful season for the harvest of
clams by patent tong from these areas shall be January 1 through
March 31. A shell planting area in the Back River will be closed
at the end of the 1994 season for evaluation by the VMRC Fisheries
Management Division. Shellfish Management Areas and shellfish seed
beds within the project study area have been repicated on maps
attached to this report.

Conclusion

The Mid-Atlantic region had led the nation in oyster and clam
landings until the early 1980's. Since then, due to a number of
natural and human-induced factors, watermen have been forced out
of business or have switched to other types of seafood to harvest.
Market deamnd has been met by increased imports and increased Gulf
Coast production.

The SENTAF believes that it is a worthwhile objective to seek ways
to minimize the impacts of water quality degradation. What has
been concluded from case studies in Tidewater Virginia is that
shellfish bioaccumulate pollutants from the water in which they
live. In most instances, they concentrate these pollutants
toelevated levels. Consequently, the shellfish growing waters must
be very clean, and current water quality standards and shellfish
harvesting regulations reflect that fact.

Chemical contamination can be a problem, as seen with oysters
harvested in the Elizabeth River, But much more common are
shellfish bed closures due to fecal contamination. The numbers of
bacteria and viruses in fecal matter are extremely large:
therefore, small sources can impact rather large volumes of water.
The case studies have also showm that point source controls can
produce measurable and significant improvements in water quality,
but NPS pollution inputs from surrounding land uses continue to
cause declines in water quality. Until ways are found to address
those issues, the benefits of current point source controls will
be limited.

The results of case studies in lynnhaven bay, a once plentiful
shellfish growing area, could construed to be a harbinger of
what future conditions will be. Although the water quality impacts
of urban runoff preclude direct harvesting of shellfish much of
the time, the waters of that system are not grossly polluted.
Shellfish culture remains a viable activity, at least form the
biological perspective if not economically. The relaying of claims
in cages has been efficient and cost-effective, but comparable
techniques are needed for oysters, Controlled purification and
depuration piants also warrant attention, in part because consumers
appear willing to pay a premium for a product known to be of high
quality (Neilson and Wilson, 1991).

F. Commercially- and Recreationally- Important Finfish and
Shellfish (non-oyster or clam) Areas

Finfish

Depending on where they are located, commercially- and
recreationally-important finfish species may be reguiated by a
number of agencies. States are responsible for managing fish
stocks within their coastal waters, which extend three miles
offshore. On the Altlantic Coast, there are 17 management
jurisdictions, which include 15 states, the District of Columbia,
and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. All of these
jurisdictions are members of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC), which provides a forum for cooperative
developed management plans for the following species: striped
bass, bluefish, weakfish, spotted sea trout, summer flounder,
Atlantic menhaden, American shad/river herring, red drum, croaker,
spot, sturgeon,winter flounder and Spanish mackerel. State
bass (blankenship(c),1993:4,5).

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department
of Commerce, has regulatory and enforcement authority for fisheries
in the United States "exclusive economic zone (EEZ)," which
extends from 3 to 200 miles off coast. This zone was created
by the Magnuson Act in 1976 to protect fish stocks from foreign
fishing fleets. The Act also created Regional Fishery Management
Councils, composed of citizens and state representatives, which
develop management plans for fish species in those waters. There
Atlantic, and New England (Blankenship(c), 1993: 4).

Nationwide, the commercial harvest in the EEZ exceeds the near
shore harvest, according to figures from the NMFS. About 2.8
million metric tons of fish are harvested annually in those waters,
compared with 1.8 million metric tons within 3 miles of the coast
(Blankenship(c),1993: 4).

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, there was an estimated 8,500
working watermen and 900,000 sports fishermen in 1991. In 1980,
the commercial catch for saltwater food fish inthe Commonwealth
amounted to 28.1 million pounds: in 1990 that total plummeted to
11.6 million pounds, more than a 50% drop in ten years.
Recreational totals took a similar downturn, The losses were
mainly in weakfish, or sea trout, and flounder. In 1980 sports
fishermen caught an estimated 10 million flounder: by 1990 the
catch plummeted to 1.3 million. The estimated cash value
(dockside) of fish and shellfish landings in 1980 was just under
$65 million; in 1990 it was $73 million (VCRMP (C),1991:4,5).

As stocks have decreased, the market value of fishes, particularly
shellfish (including oysters), has increased. Some Virginia Marine
resource Commission (VMRC) officials believe that law enforcement
statistics can be used as a barometer of the fishing industry.
That is, as stocks of the resource are reduced and competition for

those stocks increases, there will likely be more code violations
by watermen trying to make a living and sports fisherman seeking
a good catch. In recent years, approximately 1,500 summonses have
been written annually by Marine Patrol Officers. For finish, it
was for exceeding the daily bag limit and undersized fish. Another
view is that, as the resource diminishes, fewer persons will opt
to "work" the water, thus there will be fewer potential violations,
even with the added finfish regulations (VCRMP (c), 1991:4,5).

Fisheries staff at the VMRC have the difficult task of maintaining
the viability of the Commonwealth's fishing industry while
preserving and maintaining the spawning stock of critical species.
In the past, this has been accomplished through various management
measures such as size restrictions, fish quotas, daily catch
limits, season limits, and guidelines and restrictions on gear,
such as minimum mesh size for fishing nets. Concern regarding
reduced numbers of critical fish species has reached the point,
however, that within the next few years, it is estimated that there
will be management plans in place and restrictions enforced for
the Commonwealth (VCRMP (c), 1991: 4,5).

The extent to which fishing pressures, loss of habitat and
biological factors have affected various fish species still is not
completely understood. VMRC staff recommended and the Commission approved a
first-time fishing season and gear restrictions for American shad;
minimum size limits and daily bag limits for Spanish mackerel and
king mackerel; and on flounder catches. In 1991, VMRC fisheries
staff were working with the State of Maryland to produce Chesapeake
bay-wide management plans for summer flounder, eel, spot and
croaker. In addition, management plans are scheduled for red drum,
black drum, tautog, and Spanish and king mackerel (VCRMP (c), 1991:
4).

Shellfish (non-oyster or clam)

The ASMFC has developed management plans that can be adopted on a
voluntary basis for the following shellfish species: hard clam,
interstate shellfish transport, lobster and northern shrimp.
Management plans for interstate shellfish transport have also been
developed by ASMRC. VMRC officals feel that the Virginia
shellfishe industry will survive with the surge in off-bottom
culture and aquaculture (moving and culturing shellfish in clean
water cages), but it will be smaller than the finfish industry and
will consist of fewer people. Of the approximately 1,500 summonses
written annually by Marine patrol officers for shellfish harvesting
violations, most citations were written for oyster cull violations
(too many small oysters and too much oyster shell on board) and
exceeding crab dredging catch limits (VCRMP9c),1991:5).

Report form scientists to the Chesapeake Bay Commission presented
facts about the history and status of blue crabs in the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries at September and November 1993 meetings of
the Commission. The blue crab has become the largest single
commercial fishery in the Chesapeake Bay, partly beacuse of
controls on or declines in other fisheries. It is also the single
controls on or declines in other fisheries. It is also the single
largest recreational fishery in the Bay in both the number of
people participating and pounds caught. Soft crabs, in particular,
are becoming an exteremely important component of the crab fishery
(Jensen, 1993: 9).

Commercial landings of blue crabs in recent years have been 75-
100 million pounds Bay-wide, representing 200-300 tons of crabs at
a $40-$50 million crabbers. recreational crabbing represents 30%-
50% of the total commercial harvest. In the Commonwealth of
Virgina, the 1992 crab catch was valued at $9 million, down from
$16 million in 1990 and the total number caught in 1992 was 40%
below the 1991 total catch (Cronin, 1993: 8; Jensen, 1993: 9).

Blue crab harvests varied in regular cycles through the early years
of the 20th century, a period when there was far less harvest
pressure. Peaks and crashes occurre and continue to occur
frequently. Each time there is a crash, concern is raised and
governmental panels are convened; however, when the harvest goes
up, the concerns dissappears. What is of greatest concern recently,
however, is that even thought the catch has again gone up, the catch
per unit of effort has been going steadily down. As a result,
crabbers are using more pots and better gear, and recreational
crabbing is increased (Cronin, 1993: 9).

With commercial fishermen turning to blue crabs as other comercial
species decline, and a growing regional population adding to the
recreational demand, fisheries officials have become concerned that
fishing pressure may becoem great enough to affect the blue crab
spawining stock (Blankenship(d), 1993: 6).

Management Options

Until very recently, neither the states nor the federal government
had the authority to impose restrictions a particular state's
harvest without legislation. However, recognizing the severity of
the problem that the depleted fishing industry currently faces, and
the lack of progress from non-unified management programs across
state boundaries, Congress passed the "Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act" in November 1993. This bill requires
states to enact any management palns developed by the ASMFC,
including those previously mentioned, most of which have never been
fully implemented. The legislation is aimed at managing fish
stocks, from their spawning grounds through their migratiory routes,
"to ensure that no species is fished beyond sustainavle levels and
that no jurisdiction's actions impact a particular species to the
detriment of fishermen elsewhere." Under the law, the ASMFC has
90 days to determine a schedule by which states must come into
compliance with existing ASMFC management plans. ASMRC could give
states up to a year from the end of the 90-day period to comply
with the plans. The law requires the ASMFC to hold public hearings

before adopting a plan (Blankenship(e), 1994: 3).

This move alters a traditional area of state authority, where
states control the stocks within three miles of their coast.
However, while the bill was supported by most coastal states,
Virginia strongly opposed it over concerns about costs, potential
lack of public input, and the increased federal authority that
might result from the legislation (Blankenship(e), 19c?4z 3).

Proponents of the Act argued that interjurisdictional fisheries,
or those commercially- or recreational ly-valuable fish sipecies that
migrate across state line, must be cooperatively managed to prevent
the actions of a single state to adversely affect a resource it
shares with others. A case in point is weakfish. Spawning stock
of weakf ish, or sea trout, are by some estimates at 5% of their
historic levels. While many states have acted to curb harvests,
North Carolina has only enacted minimal measures (Blankenship(a),
199-7; 1,4).

It was also felt by proponents of the legislation that this added
tool would also be important for the protection and restoration of
many Chesapeake Bay fish populations, including striped bass,
weakfish, summer flounder, shad, river herring, spot, croaker, and
other species. which migrate along the Atlantic Coast, spending
only a portion of the lives in the Bay. Since the Chesapeake Bay
serves as spawning and nursery ground for many of the Atlantic
Coast migratory species, VMRC officials felt most coastal states
would benefit greatly from a strict regulation of Virginia's
fisheries. Lower fishing mortality rates in the Bay would allow
for much higher rates of fishing elsewhere along the coast
(Blankenship(c), 1993; 4).

Scientists have recommended that the blue crab fishery be managed
Bay-wide to protect potential breeding females while allowing the
maximum harvest of adult males-and spent or surplus females. The
winter dredge fishery comprises about 20% of the gravid (pregnant)
adult females harvested Bay-wide (Cronin, 1993: 9.).
.* I
To date, Maryland and Virginia have not managed the crab in a
unified way. The two states are, however, moving individually to
restrict harvest of blue crabs in an effort to stabilize fishing
pressure on blue crabs and to head off what some fear could be a
future crisis. By enacting restrictions now, state officials hpe
to maintain a healthy, harvestable population and to avoid'
population crashes like those that resulted in moratoriums on
striped bass and shad in the Bay. Maryland's plan, adopted in
December 1993 by a panel convened under the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, calls for a series of regulatory and legislative
changes that would cap the blue crab harvest at existing levels
(Blankenship(g)s 1994: 4). Also in June, the VMRC approved the
first measure in a package of proposals designed to protect the
blue crab from excessive commercial harvest in Virginia's portion
of the Bay. In December 1993@ the VMRC adopted a pair of measures
aimed at reducing fishing pressure on the blue crab as part of an
effort to comply with a Baywide managemenet plan.

To stablize the catch, Maryland's panel adopted a number of
measures, most of which must either go through the state's
regulatory approval process of be enacted by its General Assembly.
For commercial fishermen, the plan would limit the number of crabs
per licensee; restrict commercial crabbing to certain hours of the
day; establish a minimum separation distance between trotlines and
crab traps; limit the number of commercial licenses to the current
number; require commercial crab pots to have an opening to allow
small crabs to escape; and license soft-shell crab shredding
operations. For recreational crabbing, the plan would require for
the first time a minimum age for obtaining licenses; limiting
trotline lengths; limiting recreational traps and rings on a per
person basis, restricting crabbing hours; limiting the number and
design of potd that land owners can have; and limiting catches on
a per person/per boat/per day basis (Clankenship(d), 1993: 6).

In Virginia, VMRC drew up proposal to limit the number of crab
dredges allowed to work in Virgina waters, prohibit crab potters
from working during certain times of the day and during certain
seasons, and ask the General Assembly to restrict the use of wide
dredges that rake crabs out of the mud and scar Bay and river
bottoms (Blankenship(d), 1993: 1,6).

In December 1993, the VMEC approved mearuses that would limit the
number of people participating in the blue crab dredge fishery and
backed a proposal that would lower the daily dredge catch limit
per boat. Under the new regulation, only those watermen who are
licensed when the season concludes at the end of March 1994 will
be allowed to participate in the 1994-95 season, which begins
December 31. No new dredge licenses will be issued until the
number of people with licences declines to 225; a number that will
then serve as a cap. The VMRC staff has recommended that any
licenses that become available later be distrubuted by lottery.
A second measure which was adapted reduced the daily dredge catch
limit and is expected to spread the catch season out longer,
increase the value of the catch, and possibly reduce the crab
harvest. Some scientists feel however that neither of these
actions are comprehensive enought to cap the fishery but were a
good start. The VMRC put off action on a proposal that would have
curbed the peeler pot crab fishery by limiting the number of pots per
fisherman.(Blackenship(f), 1994: 10).

Beginning in January 1994, Virginia required watemen toinstall
escape holes in their crab pots so crabs smaller than the legal
limit can escape. This requirement followed a May 1993 VMRC action
to limit recreational crabbers to five pots. Other proposals are
currently being developed for review. In general, however, VMRC
Commissioners feel that the commercial crab fishery in Virginia is
going to undergo much regulatoru scrutiny (Blankenship(d), 1993"
1,6).

Officials are optimistic that the proposals could trigger a quick
recovery for the blue crab. It is also felt that the interstate
Chesapeake Bay Commission can play a unique role in advocating mor
unified management, with management objectives addressign
economis, harvest size, population size and Bay culture. A
prudent spawning stock needs to be preserved, with the remaining

crabs used efficiently. To a reasonable degree, regulation should
be uniform. Finally, science and data surveys necessary for good
management must be supported (Cronin, 1993: 9).

Examples of how efforts are being made, at the local level, to help
the ailing fishing and seafood industry can be found in the Cities
of Poquoson and Newport News. Because small work boats are being
pushed out of other places on the Peninsula and in an effort to
save its struggling seafood industry, the City of Poqoson is
considering large public inbestments over the course of the next
few years to build a "home" for area watermen. A committee had
been formed by the Poquoson City Councit to study the City's
seafood industry and to discess the feasiblility of dredging a
channel to Back Creek to make it eaiser for Chesapeake Bay boats
to maneuver into the city's deafood industry hub, as well as
potentially drawing more watermen to the port. Unlike the City of
Hampton and other areas, where downtown developement has driven out
much of the seafood industry, Poquoson wants to encourage watermen
and small work boats to use its port. By investing there, Poquoson also
hopes to attract other water-related or water-enhanced businesses
to the port area (Andes, 1993). The City of Newport News is using
federal grants to expand its Seafood Industrial Park and to set up
a loan program for businesses there that want to expand. The grant
money is meant to help create jobs for people put out of work by
cuts in defense spending (Goldstein, 1993).

In location of commercially- and recreationally-important finfish
and blue crab areas is documented in the Environmental Sensitivity
Map Atlas for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the seasonal
Chesapeake Bay Environmentally Sensitive Areas maps. However, as
with spawning and nursery grounds, because of the variablitity in
the location of these areas due to fluctuating water quality
conditions over time, it is recommended that the atlas and maps be
used as general guides. Virginia also maintains a blue crab
sanctuary at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to protect against
dredging during the spawning season.

G. PROTECTED LAND AREAS AND ESTRARINE RESEARCH RESERVES

Cerain lands within the project study area have been designated
as "protected areas." These areas are protected by federal and/or
state law, or private interests. Such areas include fereral-and
state-owned parks, refuges and wildlife management areas with
valuable coastal wildlife habitats or other imformation natural and
cultural resources.

Section 315 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
established the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(originally called the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program) as a
federal/state coopeative venture. Federal matching grants are
made available to coastal states to develope and manage a national
system of estyarine research reserves which are representative of
the various regions and estuarine types in the United States. In
addition, annual grants for research and education projects are
available. The goal of the program is to protect area of
representatives estuaries, includung valuable wetland habitat, for
use as natural field laboratories. National Estuaine Research
Reserve are established to: 1.) provide opportunities for long-
term estuarine research and monitoring; 2.) provide opportunities
for estuarine education and interpretation; 3.) provide a basis for
more informed coastal management decisions; and 4.) promote public
awareness, understanding, and appreciatinon of estuarine ecosystems
and their relationships to the encironment as a whole (USDC/VIMS,
1991: 1).

The State of Maryland and Virginia are developing and
administering indibidual reserves in the Chesapeake Bay National
Estuarine Research System (CBNERRS). The Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) within the College of William
and Mary has been designated as the lead agency for Virgina.
Virginia proposed a multi-component program for the CBNERRS in
Virginia of reserves that will initially consist of four
representative sites in the York River. Two of these reserves are
located within the project study area: Goodwin Islands (at the
mouth of the York River, representing polyhaline conditions) and
Taskinas Creek (in the transition zone of the York River,
representing oligohaline conditions)(USDC/VIMS, 1991: 1).

The Goodwin Island site is located in York County, in the
southwestern portion of Mobjack Bay on the lower westen shore of
the Chesapeake Bay. Landowners include the College of William and
Mary and the Commonwealth of Virgina. The College recieved the
Goodwin Islands as a gift, thus enabling VIMS to use the appraised
value of the property as state match for acquisition and
development awards (USDC/VIMS, 1991: 1).

The Taskinas Creek site is located in James City County on the
south shore of the York River. It is owned and managed by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), through
the Division of State Parks. A memorandum of understanding between
VIMS and DCR, acknowledging long-term use of the Taskinas Creek
reserve for resource management, researh, and education has been
signed (USDC/VIMS, 1991: 2).

References Cited:

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. "VMRC Says No to Oyster
Moratorium But Caps Harvest." Bay-Journal. Vol. 3, No. S.
Baltimore, MD: ACB, November 1993.

Andes, Jennifer. "Poquoson Wants to Become 'Home' to Area
Watermen." Daily Press. Tuesday, December 14, 1993.

Batiuk, Richard A., Robert J. Orth, Kenneth A. Moore, William C.
Dennison, J. Court Stevenson, Lorie W. Staver, Virginia
Carter, Nancy B. Rybicki, R. Edward Hickman, Stan Kollar,
Steven Bieber and Patsy Heasly. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Habitat Requirements and Restoration Taroets: A Technical
Synthesis (Chesapeake Bay). CBP/TRS 83/92. Annapolis, MD:
ChesapeaKe Bay Program, December 1992.

Blankenship, Karl.
-(a) "Executive Council Outlines Restoration Objectives for
Bay. 11 Pay__Iournal. Vol. 3, No. 7. Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, October 1993.
(b) "Scientists Hope Reefs Will Improve Odds for Bay's
Oysters." Bay Journal. Vol. 3, No. E3. Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, November 1993.
(a) "Legislation Aims to Coordinate Atlantic Coast Fish
Manaaement." Bay Journal. Vol. 3, No. 6. Alliance for
the Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, September 1993 ,
(d) "Maryland, Virginia Move to Restrict Blue Crab Harvests..
Bay Journal. Vol. 3, No. 5. Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay. Baltimore, MD; ACB, July-August, 1993.
(e) "Congress Approves Bill to Protect Migra.tory Fish." gay-
Journal. Vol. 3, No. 10. Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, January-February, 1994.
(f) "Virginia Moves to Restrict Blue Crab Dredging." Bav
Journal. Vol. 3, No-.. 10. Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, January-February, 1994.
Sign Onto Maryland Action Plan to S
(g) "Divergent Groups Pave
Oysters." Bay Journal. Vol. 39 No. 1 0 Alliance for
the Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore, MD: ACB, January-
February, 1994.

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Local Assistance
Manual. Richmond, VA: CBLAD, November-1969.

Cronin, Dr. L. Eugene. "Blue Crab Management: Def ining the
Commission's Involvement." Presentation made to the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. Chesapeake Bay Commission Minutes
Baltimore, MD. November 18-19, 1993.

Soldstein, Jonathan. "Seafood Park Gets Federal Aid." DailX
Press. Wednesday, October 13, 1993.

Hampton 'Roads Planning District Commission. "Albemarle-Pamlico
Profile: Back Bay. " Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.
Chesapeake, VA: HRPDC, 1992.

Jensen, W.P. "Issues Regarding the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab:
Status of Crab Populations and Proposed Initiatives in
Maryland and Virginia." Presentation made to the Chesapeake
Bay Commission. Chesapeake Bay Commission Minutes - Boiling
Springs, PA. September 9-10, 1993.

Neilson, Bruce. "Management of Shellfish and Water Quality in
Virginia." Paper presented at SENTAF Workshop on Water
Quality and the Shellfish, July 16, 1991.

Neilson, Bruce and Nancy Wilson. Man Versus Molluiscs: -Case
Studies -of Water Quality Problems and How They Affect
Shellfish and Shellfish Harvestina. Virginia Institute for
Marine Science. Gloucester Pt., VA: VIMS, July 1991.

Schwab, Donald, Fairfax H. Settle, Otto Halstead and Richard L.
Ewell. "SAV Trends in Back Bay." U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. Proceedinas of the Back Bay Ecological Symposium.
Virginia Beach, VA: November 2-3, 1990. Ed. by Harold S.
Marshall and Mitchell D. Norman. Norfolkq VA: ODU, Dept. of
Biological Sciences, July 1991.

Silberhorn, Gene M. York CoUnty and Town of Poguoson Tidal Marsh
Inventory. Special Report No. 53 in Applied Marine Science
and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Insitute of Marine Science.
Gloucester, Pt. VA: VIMS, 1974.

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commssion and Hampton Roads
Water Quality Agency.
(a) Elizabeth River Bg1sin Environmental Management Plan:
Aggendices. -Chesapmakey VA: SVPDC, HRWQA, May 1969-
(b) Regional Stormwater Management Strategy for Southeastern
Virginia. Chesapeakey VA: SVPDC, May 1969.

United States Department of Commerce and Virginia Institute of
Marine Science. Final Environmental Imt3act Statement and
Final Manac3ement Plan: Che@peake Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve System in Virginia. Washington,
DC/Gloucester Point, VA: USDC/VIMS2 January 1971.

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program.
(a) "Re-Establishing Submerged Aquatic Vegetation."
Newsletter, No. 7. Richmond, VA: VCRMP, Fall 1992.
(b) "Improving Virginia's Shellfish Waters." Newsletter, No.
2. Richmond, VA: VCRMP, Spring 1991.
(a) "Virginia Marine Resources Commission - An Overview."
Newsletter, No. 4. Richmond, VA: VCRMPp Fall 1991.

Virginia Institute for Marine Science:
(a) Orth, Robert J., Judith F. Nowak, Adam A. Frisch, Kevin
P. Kiley and Jennifer R. Whiting. Distribution of
Submeroed Anuatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1990. Gloucester
Point, VA: VIMS, September 1991.
(b) Orth, Robert J. , Judith F. Nowak, Gary F. Anderson, Kevin
P. Kiley and Jennifer R. Whiting. Distribution of
Submerged Anuatic Verjetation in the Chesapeake Bay

PHYSICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELINE:
Bathymetry, Flushing Characteristics and Current Patterns

A. Bathymetry

Bathyryietry is the measurement of water depth. Bathymetric data for
this study was obtained from the most recent (1990) NOAA-National
Ocean Service charts. which show "soundings in feet at mean lower-
low water." Soundings were taken for the mainstem tributaries but,
in most cases, not for the smaller waterways such as creeks within
the tributary watersheds. Therefore, the available data obtained
from these charts for the project Study area is not all-inclusive
and, thus, limits physical analysis in off-mainstem waterways.
Bathymetric data is important for the siting and design of both
shoreline erosion control structures arid water access facilities,
and the latter, in particular, are generally sited in off-mainstem
areas. For the purposes Of future water access facility planning
it is also important to identify areas which may require dredging
in order to gain adequatet access to channels, as well as to
identify areas in which dredging will not be necessary. In some
cases, U.S.G.S Topographic Quadrangle sheets show off-mainstem
Soundings and this data was relied upon where available; however,
this information is current only to the most recent quadrangle
photorevision date. More comprehensive bathymetric data is
available from NOAA at a considerable expense.

<<PDC staff will be meeting will DCR-SEAS staff during March in an
attempt to create unofficial bathymetric data in off-mainstem
waterways where no data currently exists, based on prior knowledge
of general stream conditions and other parameters normally used to
determine appropriate shoreline erosion control structure
options.>>

B. Flushing Characteristics

Flushing characteristics refer to the movement of water and its
constituents into and out of a particular waterbody or larger
system. Another term for this is circulation, and it is an
important factor in determining the dispersion and transport of
waste waters and other pollutants into or out of waterways
(Neilson,1976:14).General information on flushing
characteristics is available for the larger coastal basins and
tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay in the Hampton Roads Water
Quality Management Plan, which was developed by the Hampton Roads
Water Quality Agency during the 1970's and early 1980's. Flushing
characteristics of the smaller tributaries, which are included in
the watersheds of these larger systems, can be inferred from this
data as it is the best available published information. Studies
to better qualify flushing characteristics of these smaller
tributaries are currently being conducted by the Virginia Institute
for Marine Science (VIMS) , but results have not been published to
date.

For free flowing streams and rivers, the general path of a
pollutant can be predicted easily, but for estuaries, the
circulation patterns can be very complex since addtional factors

come into play. When there is either a very small tidal range or
a large freshwater flow, the flow of freshwater controls the
dispersion and transport of materials. When freshwater flow is
small and/or tide range is large, tidal flushing predominates
(Neilson, 1976: 1).In a freeflowing river, biological oxygen
demanding (BOD) substances discharged to the waterway are carried
downstream.The oxygen demand is exerted as the material is
transported away from the source, resulting in decreased dissolved
oxygen (DO)levels.Eventually, the rate of oxygen utilization
decreases and natural reaeration is able to replenish the DO more
rapidly than it is consumed. The result is an so-called "oxygen
sag." It in a tidal river or estuary, polluants are transported
upstream as well as downstream from a discharge point.
Consequently, impacts are felt upstream as well as downstream of
the discharge. The extent of the upstream transport increases when
freshwater flows are small and tidal mixina plays a major role in
dispersing the waste (Neilson and Ferry: 1978: 10).

Lower Western and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal
Basins: Back and Poquoson Rivers, Little Creek Harbor and
Lynnhaven Bay

The Small Coastal Basins portion of Hampton Roads, as defined in
the Hamiton Roads Water Quality Management Plan, includes the Back
and Poquoson Rivers on the Virginia Peninsula and the Little Creek
Harbor and the Lynnhaven Bay system on the southern shore of the
Chesapeake Bay, as shown in Figure . For the lower portion of
the Chesapeake Bay, the mean tidal range is on the order of 75
centimeters (cm) and the spring tide range is roughly 90 cm. While
these ranges are not especially large, they are of sufficient
magnitude to promote mixing. For example, during periods of low
runoff, even Hampton Roads proper tends to be well-mixed (Neilson,
1976: 1,14). A waterbody that is well-mixed, however, does not
necessarily mean that it is also well-flushed.

None of the four basins is large in drainage area. Because the
sediments of the Coastal Plain are unconsolidated, they erode
easily. Therefore, the coastal rivers have dendritic patterns and
the tidal influence extends to reaches that are far upriver. In
addition, many of the tributaries of the coastal rivers are dammed
for water supply reservoirs. The Big Bethel Reservoir on the Back
River, the Harwood's Mill Reservoir on the Poquoson River and the
Little Creek Reservoir, Lake Whitehurst, Lake Lawson and Lake Smith
in the Little Creek basin all impound water for use by the nearby
urban areas. Since much of the freshwater from upland runoff which
comes down the tributaries is diverted for this purpose, only
during periods with abundant rainfall is there any flow over the
spillways. Thus, for some branches of these estuaries, freshwater
flow may be non-existent during parts of the year. At these times,
the concentration of salt will increase as the small volume of
freshwater is mixed with the saltier Bay-derived water (Neilson,
1976: 14,15).

In general, when tidal mixing is strong, the longitudinal salinity
gradient is mild (less than one part per thousand per kilometer),
vertical stratification is often nearly eliminated and variations
in salinity during the tidal cycle are not great. Historical slack

water data for the Back River show how the salinity varies with
distance upriver. The longitudinal salinity gradient is on the
order of 1 ppt for every 2 kilometers: The Back. River channel
is only about 4 meters (m) deep and surface to bottom differences
were usually less than one ppt. If this salinity gradient were to
apply to the entire river, then freshwater would be reached 35 to
40 kM Upriver. However, most arms of these eStUaries are much
shorter than this and, therefore, one Must aSSUme that all of the
open areas have brackish waters and only in the very small rills
far Upriver is freshwater found (Neilson, 1976. 15)

The data for the Poquoson River show very similar characteristics.
Little Creek Harbor also is generally similar.. but since it is
smaller in area and has a smaller drainage basin, salinity
variations are even smaller than those seen in the Back River.
This is due in part to a location close to the MOUth Of the
Chesapeake Bay and, therefore, a greater influence Of the Atlantic
Ocean. Furthermore, the saltier sea water is able. to enter Little
Creek more easily because Of the greater depth, Historical water
qUality Studies conducted in this basin have shown that, in
general. the upper 4 or 5 m of the water COlUMn Are well-mixed with
only minor variations (around 1/2 Ppt) within the harbor. The
salinity concentrations at greater depths, 5-9 m, were Usually 3-
5 ppt greater than those measured in the upper layer (Neilson,
1976: 17,19).

The Lynnhaven System, with its numeroUS branches and several bays,
is more complex. Generally, the Eastern and Western Branches of
Lynnhaven Bay behave in a manner similar to the Back River.
Longitudinal salinity gradients comparable to that in the Back
River Occur up both branches. Broad Day also has a longitudinal
gradient since the northwestern p0rtion is influenced by the waters
flowing thrOUgh Long Creek. Linkhorn Bay, on the other hand, is
far enough removed from Lynnhaven Inlet so that the tidal range is
only one-half that which 'occurs at Lynnhaven Inlet, and the
exchange of waters between Linkhorn Bay and Chesapeake Bay is not
rapid or great (Neilson, 1976: 19).

In addition to tidal circulation, there can be a net non-tidal
circulation due to density of gradients - However, since most of
these rivers are shallow, vertical stratification is normally weak
and the gravitational circulation will be weak, too. Only Little
Creek Harbor, with depths of 7-9 m, shows strong vertical salinity
stratification. For this case, there would be a net flow of salty
water into the harbor near -the bottom and a net flow of fresher
water Out Of the harbor near the Surface. This, circulation pattern
will greatly increase flUshing and remove pollutants from the area
(Neilson, 1976: 22).

In general waterbodies with characteristics Such as those
described above are able to assimilate wastewaters primarily by
dispersion and mixing of these wastewaters thrOUgh0Ut the
water-body. Since freshwater -flow is small, there is no driving
force to Push the wastewaters thrOUgh and Out Of the system.
Rather. transport occurs due to tidal exchange. Therefore, the
residence time of a Substance within the system may be long and on
the order of weeks. Therefore.these eStUaries have a very limited

capacity to assimilate wastewaters without serious degradation of
water quality.

Mainstream Tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay: York and James Rivers

Because of their size, the York and James River behave in a manner
more similar to that of free lowing streams and rivers than that
of the Small Coastal Basins just described. While tidal flushing
occurs in these estuaries, there is also a large volume of
fresh-water which flows downstream from their headwaters.
Therefore, these tributaries have more capacity to assimilate

wastewaters without serious degradation to water quality. It is
also felt that in some cases and based on the orientation of
smaller tributaries to these mainsream tributaries the rate of
water flow in the mainstem is such that water flowing into or out
of the smaller tributaries is somewhat stymied, and while mixing
may occur at the moths of these small tributaries, it is felt
that flushing of these tributaries generally does not occur at a
high rate.

Water quality studies conducted on the York river which are
reported in the Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan found Plan found

that, owing to a combination of thermal and salinity stratification
in the reach between the Mouth of the York River 'and the Coleman
Bridge, DO concentration below the surface layer in the deep waters
of the river tends to be critically low during the summer months.
Studies have determines these below standard DO levels 'to be caused
by a "tidal prism effect," and that this is a natural phenomena for
which no solution is knoown at the present time. The tidal prism
for the York River is very large and has been calculated to be certain
the order of 4 billion Cubic feet at the Mouth and I billion cubic
feet at- West Point. This clearly indicates that an enormous volume
of water is available at each flood tide to dilute and carry away
the few wastewater streams which are discharged to the river.
materials discharged to the river (Sturm and Neilson., 1977)
8,16,17).

It is also felt that the reason that nutrient enrichment and
eutrophication is not a problem in the York River- is probably
because tidal mixing and dilution Eire very great. This tidal
flushing does not guarantee, however, that algal levels and
nutrient concentrations will always be small, since nutrients can
be stored in sediments and released at later times. In fact,in
many instances, the recycling of nutrients in an area represent's
a greater flow than that through the segment. In turn, BOD is low
given the huge tidal prism available for diluting the few and
relatively small loadings which the river receives In summary,
it appears that aspects of the physical environment in the York
River, such as mixing and transport of dissolved substanced
throughout the water column, are controlling the low DO conditions
which contribute to poor water quality conditions more than
external inputs Of oxygen demanding material (Sturm and Neilson,)
1977: 17-19).

Water quality Studies-, conducted on the James River, as part of the
Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan, have shown that
salinities are greatest near the mouth, of course, since the ocean

is the source of nearly all of the salt. Near Old Point Comfort,
the salinty at the surface ranges from 16-18 ppt in the spring to
21 or 22 ppt in late summer. Bottom salinites vary in the range
of 24-28 ppt. Vertical stratification is usually reasonably strong
at the mouth since the river is very deep there, and there has been
little opportunity for the denser salt water to be mixed with the
freshwater. Stratification throughout the rest of the estuary
varies in response to freshwater runoff and tides (Neilson and
Ferry, 1978: 4). The dominant flow to the James River during ebb
tide is down the natural channel south of Middle Ground ( Neilson
and Sturm, 1978: 15).

The estuarine portion of the James River has characteristics such
different from the tidal riverine reaches. Tidal currents are
strong and enoromous volumes of water are available to dilute
wastes. Consequently, DO levels usually are good even though BOD
discharges can be large. In the James River 3-C Report (Planning
Bulletin 217-B), for the reach between the Chickahominy River and
Mulberry Island, it was notes that waste discharges are limited.
However, DO sags did occur occasionally due to nonpoint loadings,
with marsh inputs suspeected as being the major component of these
loads. Below Mulberry Island, sevel large waste discharges exist.
but the strength of the tidal action combined with the massive
amount of dillution water available result in a rather steady DO
level after the natural background variations due to changes in
temperature and salinity are removed. In summary, then, although
large volumes of wastewaters are discharged to the estuarine
portion of the James River, the natural assimilation capacity of
the river is great and DO levels are generally well above water
quality standards (Neilson and Ferry, 1978: 16,17).

South Shore James River Tributaries: Elizabeth, Nasemond and
Pagan Rivers

Water quality studies conducted for the Elizabeth River, as part
of the Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan, showed the
water mass between the Lafayette River and the Southern Branch to
be nearly homogenous. This indicated that tidal mixing was strong
and that materials discharged to the river would be widely
dispersed throughout the system. However, since the longitudinal
salinty gradient was weak, gravitation circulation was limited and
the dominant mechanism for removing material from the system was
the tidal exchange. Since only a small fraction of the water is
exchanged on any given tide, the residence times for the system are
long. Flushing is poor in the upper reaches of the river. As a
result, materials discharged near the mouth of the river are
removed from the system relatively rapidly. Materials discharged
further upstream were dispered relatively rapidly, but were removed
from the system. Observations made by engineers over the years
lend support to this argument by indicating that the residence time
of pollutants has increased (or the flushing time has decreased)
as a result of construction of the Craney Island dredge spoil
disposal area. Since the dominant flow of the James River during
ebb tide is down the natural channel south of Middle Ground, it is
likely that tidal exchange was greater before the dikes at Craney

Island were built. The presence of the disoosal area has, - in
effect, lengthened the river, thereby increasing the distance and
time over which a pollutant must travel to leave the system
(Neilson and Sturm, 1978: 12-15).

The Nansemond River is a small tributary of the James River,
entering Hampton Roads at an angle along the southern shore.
Freshwater f low to the river is not great because the drainage area
is small and nearly two-thirds of this drainage area is upstream
of water supply reservoirs which impound much of the runoff.
Consequently, brackish waters often reach all th* way 'upstream to
downtown Suffolk and there is little stratification in the water
column. During winter and spring, the freshwater runoff usually
increases, resulting in some salinity stratification and a
downriver migration of the brackish water. The rapid narrowing of
the river channel from the mouth towards the headwaters results in
a reflection of the tidal wave and an increase in the mean tidal
range. The range near the mouth is only 0.85 m (2.B ft) but
increases to 1.16 m (3.8 ft) at the head. There also is a phase
lag of about one hour between the river mouth and the head. Tidal
currents are reasonably uniform throughout the estuary (Kilch and
Neilson, 1977: 1-4).

The Pagan River is a small estuary which enters the south side of
the James River at an angle. Tidal circulation rather than
freshwater runoff generally controls the physical characteristics
of the river. The tide range is around 90 am (3 ft.) and tidal
currents exceed 0.3 meters per second (I ft.7sec.). Since the
river is only about 17 km (10.5 mi.) long, the tidal wave
propagates the length of. the river in a mattei- of minutes. Yet,
water quality in the Pagan River is quite poor, due to waste
discharges from meat packaging plants, poorly treated waste waters
and BOD. It is believed that the base freshwater flow to the river
is small so that pollutants are flushed through the system and out
into the James River very:s'lowly. A pronounced sag in DO levels
with distance upriver from the mouth indicates that the point
source loadings of BOD have an observable impact on water quality.
Water quality is sufficiently poor in the upper.reaches of the
river (Rosenbaum and Neilson, 1977: 1-21).

Just as assimilation of municipal and industrial wastewater is
driven primarily by the flushing characteristics or circlation
patterns of a particular waterbodyl so is assimilation 'of wa te
discharge from marine vessels. The Commonwealth of Virginia is
currently seeking to develop a policy which would regulate':he
dischargeof waste from vessels within state waters. Specifically,
the policy will delineate areas within the Chesapeake Bay where
discharge of vessel waste shall be prohibited.. Authority for such
designations comes from Sections 312(f)(3) and (f)(4) of the
federal Clean Water Act. The act establishes a framework fo*r
states to apply to the EPA for the authority to prohibit all sewage
discharge from vessels equipped with Marine Sanitation Devices
(MSDs).

As defined by the U.S. Coast Guard, MSDs fall into three primary
categories based on their characteristics of operation. Type III
devices are by far the most prolific and least costly of the three

types. They usually consist of A holding tank which retains the
waste on board and must be periodically pumped-out at an on-shore
pump-out. facility. Dischcharge from a Type III MSD is permitted only
in waters Unrestricted for discharge of waste.

The EPA has generally found the existence of adequate pump-out
facilities on a partiCUlar waterbody to be the most crucial factor
in approving discharge prohibitions,that is to say, that discharge
of wastes from a Type III MSD into state waters is Unnecessary
given the presence of pump-out facilities in the area. State
health law now requires that all marinas built after a certain date
be equipped with pump-out facilities. In the opposite respect,
while the exisstence of environmentally-sensitive areas within a
waterbody may merit its designation as a "no discharge zone," the
waterbody may be excluded from being designated due to lack of
available pump-out facilities within a reasonable travel distance
(assumed to be a 3-mile radius).

A State-commissioned study is currently underway to develop a
standard methodology for delineating appropriate no discharge zones
in state waters. As one component in the development of this
methodology, a simplified formula to derive flushing
classifications for specific estuaries (poorly flushed, moderately
flushed or highly flushed)will be employed. It is anticipated
that this methodology, if or when applied to waterbodies in Hampton
Roads outside of the commissioned study area, will provide flushing
characteristics that can be used to better qualify the information
provided in the historical water quality studies referred to above.

Flushing characteristics are also a primary factor in determining
the most appropriate location and design of marina facilities.
Poorly-flushed marina basins and entrance channels and dead-end
segments can contribute to degradation of water quality by
increasing the residence time of certain point and nonpoint sources
of pollutants generated by activities associated with marinas.

C. Current Patterns

Current patterns refer to the direction and velocity which flood
and ebb tides move within a tidal stream or other waterbody, as
well as the velocity at which free-flowing streams move. In tidal
areas, slack current times are times at which the current has
stopped setting in a given direction and is about to begin to set
in the opposite direction. Offshore, where the current is rotary
and flows continually with the direction of flow changing through
all points of the compass during the tidal period, slack water
denotes the time of minimum current. Beginning with the slack
water before flood, the current increases in speed until the
strength or maximum speed of the flood current is reached; it then
decreases until the following slack water or slack before ebb.
The ebb current now begins, increases to a maximum speed, and then
decreases to the next slack. There are usually four slacks and
four maximums each day. The terms flood and ebb do not in all
cases clearly indicate the direction of the current. The relation
of current to tide is not constant, but varies from place to place,
and the time of slack water does not generally coincide with the
time of high or low water, nor does the time of maximum speed of

the current usually coincide with the time of most rapid change in
the vertical height of the tide(Geis, 1993:247-249). Daily
current predictions, as well as velocity of current at any time,
can be obtained from current tables and diagrams in a boater's
almanac.

Current pattern information is important for predicting erosional
activity along a shoreline and for the proper location and design
of both erosion control structures and water-access facilities.
For that part of the project study area which is located in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, the current patterns for all waterbodies
downstream of surface water impoundments are based on the tidal
cycle of the Bay. Those waterbodies outside of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed which flow into North Carolina may or may not be wind-
influenced by the Albemarle-Currituck-Pamlico Sound estuarine
system. For the purposes of this study, waterbody- and reach-
specific current patterns were obtained from the Hampton Roads
Water Quality Management Plan and the most recent
charts/maps.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC WATER ACCESS

In trod UC ti on

The Chesapeake Bay and several smaller bays, and estuaries in
Virginia cover almost 2,40(--) square miles. Combined with Virgnia's
115-mile Atlantic Coast, they provide over 5,300 miles of shoreline
and collectively represent one of the state's most important
resources. In spite of this abundance, public access to tidal
waters for water-based and water-enhanced recreational uses is
somewhat restricted and is very restricted to the general public.
It is estimated that less than 1% of the shores are in Public
ownership, and Much of this pUblicly-owned waterfront consists of
marshlands and/or tidal flats that have limited recreational
potential (VDCR(a), 1989: 153).

The coastal landscapes of the Hampton Roads region, in particular,
and the natural areas that they harbor provide for a UniQUe quality
of life and many opportunities to recreate. This is evidenced in
that this region is one of the fastest growing areas in the United
States, and in -the fact that a large share of Virginia's seasonal
tourist and recreational revenues are generated within this region.
Rapid Population growth has resulted in greater participation in
water-based recreation, and a corresponding demand for additional
public water access and water-enhanced facilities where private
access to the water is not available. Use demands also stem from
the seasonal tourist population.

According to the draft 199Z Virainia Outdoor Plan, developed by the
Virginia Department of fConservation and Recreations's (VD.CR)
Division of Planning and Recreation Resources, the most Popular
recreational activities in the region are boating, walking and
biking for pleasure, and beach use. Based on this, the draft plan
identifies the most pressing recreational needs for the Hampton
Roads region as being additional boating facilities and public
access points (VDCR(b), 1993). However, due to the concentration
of new development along the region's shorelines and the escalation
of the value of waterfront property, local governments have found
it increasingly difficult to meet identified public water access
needs.

At the same time, the region's local governments, along with state
and federal agencies, have committed themselves to halting a
decline in water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Day watershed
and other sensitive ecosystems. Poor water quality conditions have
brought about Subsequent declines in living resources that were
once abundant. While other factors have played a role in this
decline, arguments have been made that the increased development
of shoreline areas is having negative water quality impacts.
Shoreline areas are being developed at a rapid rate in respon-_e-_t.o_,,,
the region's year-round and seasonal Population influxes. As
y-they
areas have been and continue to be developed, the densi@-@-of
private water access points continues to rise.

One of the purposes of this Study has been to explore the validity
of a proposed argument that an unlimited array of piers and docks
for private water access should be discouraged because of the

impacts that these Structures and their associated activities have
on water quality, while central access points should be encouraged
in areas best suited for those uses. The rationale behind this
argument is that there is a greater Opportunity for water resource
management in areas where rights to water access have been
concentrated, in contrast with private access points dotting 'the
shoreline. Under such a scenario, potential degradation to water
resources associated with construction and maintenance of water
access facilties and their- related water-based recrational
activities, Such as boat operation, maintenance and storage. can
be controlled to a greater extent than on the individual- lot level . I

In general, because any type of water access facility has the
potential to impact or be impacted by the surrounding environment,
whether private or public, development of Such facilities Must take
into account a number of environmental, social and economic issues.
Many of these issues are Addressed through federal, state and local
reQL11,=ktOry procedures, while other non-regulated issues can be
resolved through the careful siting and design of water access
projects.

Therefore ', there are some basic conflicts that need to be addressed
in future public and private water access planning. On the one
hand, a need for additional public water access has been identified
because of the lack of publicly-owned waterfront property in the
region; while demand for additional public access has increased,
the supply of areas which can be used for this purpose has
decreased. One of the major initiatives of the 1987 Cheasapeake
Bay Agreement involves the improvement of public access to the
tidal waters of the Day. It is hoped that this commitment w ,ill
earmark substantial resources 'for the future improvement of water-
dependent and water-enhanced recreational opportunities in the
coming years. However, whereas there is a demonstrated need to
develop Additional boating facilities, public water access points
and areas which encourage water"enhanced recreational activities,
there are also many existing resources within the region which can
be enhanced to better meet current and projected recreational
needs. In addition, upon review of parks and recreation planning
literature in Virginia, it is also -Apparent that in the course of
trying to meet the demand for public water access facilities,
little if any mention is made of the potential conflict between the
improper siting, potential ly-conf licting water uses, and use
intensity of these facilities in relation to potential water
resource degredation, and this should be a very important
consideration.

On the other hand, where private access is made available through
ownership of waterfront property as more s.horeline areas are
developed, there is concern about the uncontrolled density of piers
and docks and the effect that such density has Lin the water quality
conditions and overall carry ing-CapaCi ty Of a particular waterbody .
A potential solution lies in limiting the supply of private access
points and, instead, concentrating them in shoreline areas which
have been identified as best-suited for such uses. Another option
is to develop a standard for determining the appropriate density
of piers and docks for a given waterbody. However, as pier and
dock density is tied to density of land use as prescribed in local

zoning ordinances, it is important to consider that any density
regulations or density standards that might be developed Must be
rooted in land, use planning, which is Current!,,, the domain of local
governments and their appointed entities, Such -is local wetlands
boards and planning commissions, as opposed to the state or federal
government.

The dilemma with which land use planners are faced is how to
increase, or maintain through modification, the same opportunities
for both public and private water access, respectively, while at
the same time not contributing further to declines, in wafer quality
and living marine resources use conflicts.
In order to achieve these goals, the application of a broad mix of
strateoies will be necessary. This can include identification of
appropriate shoreline areas for specified uses ', various land use
controls, land acquisition techniques, state and federal
assistance. existing facility enhancement, development programs and
cooperative agreements for joint facility U,-=@E- between federal,
state, local entities and the private sector-, And potentially
expanding state and local legal authority to control the siting and
density of public and private water-access facilities.

In its conclusion, The 19eg Virginia Outdoor Pl 'an recommends the
following actions that will be required at all levels of government
and in the private sector to provide adequate public access to the
region's water resources (VDCR, 1989: 154). In prioritizing such
actions, potential impacts to water quality and catalysts of water
use conflicts should be avoided.

0 Each Tidewater locality should carefully evaluate waterfront
parcels and determine their potential for future boating
access. Mutiple use Of space should be considered whenever
practical.

0 Local governments should look for opportunities to encourage
private enterprise to develop quality marinas, dry storage
facilities, and fee landings.

0 The state agencies involved in regulating marine re5ourcL-5
SOUld develop a methodology for complete coordination in areas
of health, sport fisheries, commercial fisheries, water
qUality,,safety, and law enforcement.

0 The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)
needs to accelerate its program of providing high capacity
boat access sites in Tidewater.

0 The VDGIF and local governments should develop a priority
system for improving and, in some cases, expanding existing
facilitie5.

0 The VDCR should encourage the development of water access
opportunities in all waterfront parks in which the Department
assists with acquisition and/or development.

0 The VDCR should coordinate with local, state,and federal
agencies to develop and expedite plans which would lead to
more acces to tidal water resources.

0 The VDCR should aCQUire land for one or more major state parks
which could provide access to the Bay or the state's major
river resources.

0 The National Park. Service should assist the state in
identifying and obtaining the use of recreational boating
access on federal properties, as an element of multiple use
management.

0 The Virginia Association of Marine Industries should assist
marina operators in expanding or streamlining their operations
to achieve maximum benefit and provide Optimum levels Of
service to recreational boaters while enSUring environmental
safeguards and water quality.

0 The Department of Transportation., the VDGIF, and Tidewater
localities should jointly explore the feasibility of adding
pedestrian walkways beneath (or -Attached to) new bridges, for
use by fishermen.

0 Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the private
sector should attempt to retrofit existing water access points
with portable water SUPPlies and appropriate sanitary
facilities. All future sites should incorporate these
features into development plans.This would be another
important step in the effort to improve the water quality of
the Commonwealth.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING WATER ACCESS

This chapter identifies and briefly describes a number of strategies that local
governments can use to improve water access. These strategies have been divided
into four categories: land use controls, land acquisition techniques, state and
federal programsand cooperative agreements for joint use.

LAND USE CONTROLS

A number of traditional and innovative land use controls.can be implemented
by local governments to promote public shoreline access. These strategies can be
used to control development on privately owned land, or on publicly owned land to
be sold, leased or donated for private development.

PRIVATELY OWNED LAND

Under a local government's "police powers" to regulate the use of privately
owned land, a number of techniques exist to encourage public shoreline access.
These techniques follow.

Traditional Zoning

In re 'cog.nizing that ttie.waterfront is a. unique area deserving special
treatment, a local government may adopt a "waterfront zone." as part of its existing
zoning ordinance. This zoning classification would regulate waterfront
development by specifying permitted as-of-right and conditional shoreline uses,.
and by establishing design and siting criteria that are appropriate to waterfront
development. It could also be employed to insure that physical and/or visual water
access opportunities are maintained or created. Because of the environmental
sensitivity of shoreline areas, a locality may also want to consider the inclusion of
performance standards in a waterfront zoning classification. .. Performance
standards permit land use activities up to the point at which they begin to interfere
with or harm environmental processes.

Waterfront zoning would be most effective if implemented in conjunction
with the adoption of special waterfront planning areas. These planning areas
would be incorporated into the city or county comprehensive plan and would be
subject to area-specific goals, objectives and policies established by the community
to govern waterfront development.

F7a2

Concessions from Developers

Developers of waterfront properties can be encouraged to provide water
access through the following techniques:

Open Space Dedication Requirement. In some Southeastern Virginia
-localities, as a condition for approval of a final subdivision plat, a city or
county may require a developer to reserve or dedicate land for parks,
schools or similar public uses. If a proposed subdivision is located on the
water, an open..space. dedication ..requirement -may be used to acquire
and develop a water access site.

Rezoning Negotiations. During rezoning negotiations, a developer of a
waterfront site may be encouraged by a locality to provide water access
as a condition for the desired rezoning.

Density Bonuses. Zoning ordinances might be revised to allow the
granting of development bonuses to developers who provide some type
of public benefit. For example, a waterfront developer who incorporates
public waterfront access into his project would be allowed an increase in
the project's floor area ratio or in the number of allowable units per acre.

Overlay Zoning

Overlay zoning offers an alternative to the sometimes static nature of
traditional zoning. Overlay zones "float" over a community and are placed in-
-specific locations, such as waterfront areas, when they are needed. These zones are
not intended to replace existing zoning. Instead, they impose additional regulatory
provisions to strengthen existing zoning. If current zoning is outdated or
inefficient, it would be better to undertake a comprehensive rezoning than to apply
an overlay zone. In a waterfront area, overlay zoning is typically used to promote
public access to the water, improve scenic and aesthetic controls', and encourage
compatibility among shoreline uses.

Special Districts

Special districts are sub-units of local government which are created to provide
services to or to govern the development of a specified area. These districts are
Jormed when the needs of-an-area cannot-be adequately met by local governmental
processes. Created through state enabling legislation, special districts often have
powers similar to those held by local governments, including eminent domain,
taxation powers, and controls over planning and urban design. Special districts
have specific boundaries and the powers granted to the appointed or elected
officials of the district apply only within these boundaries. In waterfront areas, the
special district is often used to address a variety of community issues including

public shoreline access. Other issues might include economic development, historic
preservation, recreation, and open space conservation.

Planned Unit Development

A strategy that is particularly effective in preserving waterfront open space
.-and creating water access opportunities is planned unit development (PUD). PUDis
a land use control technique in which subdivision and zoning regulations apply to
an entire project area rather than to individual lots. Through the PUD approach,
development density criteria are applied to the whole. project area rather than to
specific parcels. This allows a PUD designer to cluster development and maximize
areas available forthe development of public facilities and the preservation of open
space. In a waterfront setting, PUD can be used to preserve environmentally critical
shoreline areas, and to leave shoreline open for the development of waterfront
parks and/or boat access facilities.

Transfer of Development Rights

Another method for preserving waterfront open space is through the transfer
of development rights (TDR). The TDR process allows a property owner to transfer
(sell) his development rights to a developer of another site. That developer would
then be allowed to increase the density or size of his development. The advantage
to this approach is..that the-loss of.clevelopment potential clue.to. governmental
action does not result in financial loss to the property@ 'owner. Like PUD, this
technique could be used to preserve the shoreline environment and improve public
water access. Before TDR can beimplemented, however, a city or county ordinance
must be adopted which delineates eligible transfer and receiving properties, and
clearly defines the restrictions and criteria guiding the process.

PUBLICLY OWNED LAND

If a locality decides to sell, lease or donate waterfront property to a private
developer, there are two ways that it can insure that the property-is developed in
such a manner that public physical and visual access to the water is maintained or
created. First, any land transfer agreement between public and private entities
could include stipulations that dictate the amount, location and types of public
access to be provided; any design criteria to be used in the development of water
access facilities; and any waterfront property that is to remain in public ownership.
Second, where land. is. disposed of through. a competitive @bicl process, the use of -a
Request for Proposals (RFP) can be effective in exacting development concessions.
An RFP can stipulate that, for a proposal to be considered, it must meet certain
water access and facility design criteria.

LAND ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES

This section identifies and briefly describes a variety of techniques that can be
used by local governments to acquire waterfront land for the purpose of
developing water access facilities.

FEE-SIMPLE ACQUISITION

Fee simple acquisition is the assumption of complete ownership of land
through outright purchase, gift, condemnation or purchase. with donated funds.
Unless land is acquired through donation, this is the most expensive way of
acquiringland. It does assure, however, that a locality will have full control over the
use of the purchased land.

One variation of fee-simple acquisition is a purchase/leaseback arrangement.
Under this arrangement, a local government will purchase land and lease it back to
a private interest which will develop it. There are several advantages to this
approach. First, the local government can defray acquisition costs with revenues
from the leaseback arrangement. Second, the costs of improvements are assumed
by the developer. Finally, and most important in the context of waterfront access, a
local government can attach stipulations to the lease requiring that the developer
provide public benefits, including physical and visual access.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

A conservation easement is-a technique by which certain rights to the use of
land are-granted, through sale or donation, by a landowner to a public agency or a
conservation organization. Private property ownership is retained by the
landowner. Only those rights which he specifically agrees to forego are transferred
to the recipient of the easement. An easement is signed and recorded like other
deeds and is a covenant running with the property title. The State Open Space Land
Act of 1966 enables all public landholding bodies in Virginia to use conservation
easements. The 1988 Virginia General Assembly passed a bill creating the Virginia
Conservation Easement Act. This Act enables private, tax-exempt eonservation
organizations to acquire conservation easements.

@An waterfront areas, conservation easements are used to protect
environmentally critical shoreline, to provide public access to or along the shoreline,
and/or to. provide.visual access by restricting building heights or- creating setbacks.
Conservation easements benefit property owners by providing tax breaks and
assurances that land will remain perpetually undeveloped. They can provide public
benefits by achieving conservation and water access objectives without having to
commit funds for fee-simple land acquisition.

LAND BANKING

Land banking is the public purchase of land which is held in reserve for resale
or future public development. Land banking can be used by a locality as a hedge
against predicted inflation in land values, to control the pattern of private
development orto obtain optimum locations for future public facilities. Largescale
land banking is generally -impractical for most localities because it requires large
capital outlays, is often politically unpopular and takes property off the tax rolls.
Small scale land banking, however, is more feasible in that it can provide specific
sites forfuture public water access facilities, and.itcan allow localitiesto control and
attach appropriate deed restrictions and covenants to the eventual disposition of
public waterfront land for private development.

LAND TRUSTS

Land trusts are similar to land banks. The principal difference is that land is
acquired for conservation only, without intentions for eventual resale or
development. Limited public waterfront access can often be developed on land
held for. conservation purposes. Land trusts are usually established by state
governments or private nonprofit organizations. The primary role of many private
land trusts is to pre-acquire conservation land for conveyance to public agencies. In
this way, private land trusts can offset the limited land acquisition funding capacity
of the public sector. . The.,.creation of land trusts by local governments is not
common, but it may be worth investigating. The prime disadvantage in establishing
a public land trust is finding a dependable, long term funding source. Many public
trusts are funded by periodic bond authorizations. Other potential sources include.
-general funds, recreation user fees and rental fees from environmentally
appropriate uses of land trust properties.

STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

A number of state, federal and joint state/f ederal programs exist which can be
used to develop local water access facilities. Some of these programs were created
specifically to provide water access. others were devised to achieve other
objectives, but water access may be realized as a secondary benefit.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Prograrm

The Federal Aid in. Sport Fish Restoration Program has been the ..principal
source of public funds for the development of water access facilities. This program
diverts the federal excise taxes on fishing tackle, motorboat fuel taxes and impart
duties on tackle and boats to state fishery agencies for the development of sport
fisheries and b'oat access projects. The Sport Fish Restoration Program is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at the federal level. At the
state level, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VGIF) receives program
funds from the FWS, combines them with fishing license revenues and then provides

grants to eliglible recipients for Federally approved projects. A variety of water
access projects can be approved for funding as long as they promote state fishery
management objectives. These projects might include boat ramps, docking and
marina facilities, breakwaters, restrooms, parking areas and maintenance of
existing facilities. Eligible recipients include other state agencies, county or
municipal governments, universities or private organizations.

Sport Fish Restoration funds are provided as a 75% reimbursement for
completed projects. This means that the VGIF must fund 100% of a project up-
front. The VGIF has indicated that chances--for.-,acceptance of a. project into the
program will be greatly enhanced if a local recipient rather than the State provides
the 25% share not covered by Sport Fish Restoration funding. The VGIF is also more
inclined to consider sites that are readily available and do not have to be acquired
by the State.

The development of a number of boat ramp facilities in Southeastern Virginia
was made possible by the Sport Fish Restoration Program. For a proposed boat
ramp to be accepted into the program, it must meet certain VGIF siting and design
criteria (See Table 6). In addition, once a proposed boat ramp site has been
accepted into the program, the VGIF reserves the right to conduct all design and
construction activities. The locality will be responsible for maintaining and
operating the ramp.

Virginia Board on Conservation and Development of Pub I ic;BeachesGrant.Prog ram

The Virginia Board on Conservation and Development of PublicBeaches was
:created under the Public Beach Conservation and Development Act of 1980 to
conserve, protect, improve, maintain and develop public beaches for the benefit,
use and enjoyment of the citizens of the Commonwealth. In keeping with this
mandate, the Board administers a grant program to provide local governments with
up to 50% fund assistance for erosion abatement projects on public beaches. A
public beach is defined by the Act as a sandy beach located ona tidal shoreline
suitable for bathing and open to indefinite public use. To qualify for a beach
development grant, a local government must have an erosion advisory commission.

Projects funded by this program often provide water access as well as erosion
control benefits. For example, the City of Norfolk recently applied for a beach
development grant to construct elevated beach accessways over the dunes to the
Chesapeake Bay beachfront. -This project will serve-the dual purpose.of protecting
the fragile dune system and increasing beach access opportunities. Other eligible
erosion control projects may serve to protect beachfront recreational facilities
and/orto ensure.adequate beachwidth for beachfront recreational activities.

State Scenic Rivers Program

The Scenic Rivers Program is administered by the Virginia Division of Parks and
Recreation (VDPR) of the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. The
purpose of this program is to identify and protect those rivers or streams whose
scenic beauty, historic importance and natural free-flowing characteristics make
them resources of particular statewide importance. Although the VDPR has
conducted a number of preliminary assessments of potential scenic rivers, formal
designation of a river must be initiated by.the city or county in which that river is
located.

Enabling legislation for this program was passed in 1970 in the form of the
Scenic Rivers Act (Title 10, Chapter 15 of the Code of Virginia).. Although this Act
does not contain specific provisions for the development of water access, it does
include provisions which promote preservation of a river's recreation, scenic,
historic and biological resources. In addition, the Act prohibits the construction of
any structure which impedesthe natural flow of a scenic river without authorization
from the General Assembly. It also authorizes the Director of the Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources, or other administering agency, to acquire,
through gift or purchase but not through eminent domain, any property which is
necessary or desirable for the protection of a scenic river. This provision could lead
to the acquisition of property that is suitable for water access facilities.

Legislation to include a portion of the North Landing River and several of its
tributaries in the Virginia Scenic Rivers System was passed by the 1988 General
...Assembly. This is the f irst time a Southeastern Virginia waterway has been granted
State Scenic River status. A portion of the Blackwater River has been found to
qualify for inclusion in the system, but no action has been taken.

Virginia Outdoors Fund

The Virginia Outdoors Fund (VOF) is administered by the VDPR and is a
supplemental source of funding for the acquisition and development bf recreation
lands at the state and local levels. The VOF is comprised of state funds appropriated
by the General Assembly, and funds allocated to the State from the National Park
Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). At least 50% of the LWCF
allocation must go to local projects. For individual local projects, the VDPR may
allocate up to 50%. fund assistance through the VOF.- The -remainder of the projectis
cost is the responsibility of the local government.

Because of 'decreasing Federal LWCF allocations, VOF allocations to localities
are able to finance only a small portion of local recreation needs. At one time, the
LWCF was the single most important source of funding for the acquisition and
clevelopment of recreational facilities. The Fund has provided almost $3 billion in
assistance to state and local governments nationwide since 1965. However, federal

budget cuts since 1980 have led to a severe decrease in LWCF appropriations. For
example, in 1979, Virginia received $7.5 million from the LWCF. By 1986, the State s
LWCF allocation had declined to $723,000. Nonetheless, if a proposed water access
facility is consistent with VDPR's policies and criteria, a VOF grant is worth pursuing.

Virginia Outdoors Foundation

The Virginia Outdoors Foundation is a private entity established under state
char-ter by the General Assembly in 1966. The Foundation, which is housed in the
Virginia Division of.Historic Landmarks, is.authorized to-solicit and accept gifts of
money, securities, property or property easements in order to preserve open space
resources. Since its inception, the Foundation has solicited easements on over
30,000 acres of open space and protects another 4,000 acres through fee-simple
ownership. In many instances, waterfront property or water access easements have
been acquired by the Foundation. A locality might further its conservation and
water access objectives by informing the Foundation of acquisition opportunities
within its jurisdiction.

Virginia Department of Transportation Programs

There are several Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) programs
which might either directly or indirectly provide water access opportunities. These
programs are as follows:

0 The VDOT, the VDPR and the VGIF have initiated a cooperative
agreement aimed at-increasing public access to rivers, streams and
estuaries. Potential bridge replacement and road realignment projects
are screened by all three agencies to determine the feasibility and
desirability of incorporating water access into the project.

0 State enabling legislation permits the VDOT to construct fishing piers or
attach fishing structures to bridges in conjunction with bridge
construction projects. However, the costs associated with such projects
must be borne by others.

0 The@VDOT administers a Recreation Acce"ss Fund which is used to provide
road or bikeway access to public recreation sites or to the major
attractions within such sites. Although this program does not directly
provide water access, it-may be used to construct roads or bikeways to
waterfront recreation areas, or to water access facilities within
recreation areas.

The VDOT will often allow the development of water access facilities on
VDOT owned waterfront property. Before such development -occurs,
however, a local government would have to apply for and be granted a
VDOT special use permit.

Chesapeake Bay Youth Conservation Corps.Program
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program is to
improve the waters and the environment of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
through conservation projects that employ youth, with an.emphasis on the
employment of the economical ly-disadvantaged. Through this program, which is
administered by the VDPR, a total of $300,000 in grant funds is made available
annually to eligible recipients and projects for the hiring of YCC workers. Eligible
recipients include all political subdivisions in the Tidewater area. For a project to be
eligible for funding, it must provide a direct benefit to the waters and environment
of the Bay. Eligible projects generally involve such activities as erosion control,
shoreline stabilization and clearance of clumpsites. Consideration will be given,
however, to projects which incorporate the development of water access facilities
into these activities.

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement

The Chesapeake Bay.Agreement was signed in 1987 by the States of Virginia,
Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia andthe*. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This Agreement consists of a number of initiatives which
constitute a ten year plan for cleaning up the Bay. One of these initiatives calls
upon the participating governments to improve and expand public access
opportunities to the Bay. Commitments contained in this initiative include (1) the
preparation of an inventory, by December 1988, of the States'existing and potential
water access sites, and (2) the development of a strategy, by December 1990, which
would encourage state and federal governments to secure additional tidal
shorefront along the Bay and its tributaries. In response to these commitments, the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources has directed the VDPR
to begin working with local governments to compile an inventory of Water access
sites. This study should provide the information necessary to complete the
Southeastern Virginia portion of this 'Inventory. The VDPR has also proposed a
public access grant program which would make available $5 million per year in
grants to Tidewater localities for the purpose of constructing or developing
additional- b-oat-launching,fishingi- swimming and-sunbathing facilities. it i's
proposed that participating localities would be required to provide 25% of each
project's cost.

Coastal Resources Management Grant Program

Coastal Resource Management (CRM) grants are allocated to state
governments through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Coastal Resource Management. The CRM grant program is authorized by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The purpose of the CRM grant program
-is to provide funding to state, regional and local governments for coastal resource
planning and technical assistance. For a state to qualify for CRM grants, it must
establish a coastal resource management program that is approved by the Secretary
of Commerce. In Virginia, this. program is.-the Virginia- Coastal Resources
Management Program (VCRMP) administered by the Virginia Council on the
Environment (VCOE). One of the stated goals of the VCRMP is "to provide and
increase public recreational access to coastal waters and shorefront lands."23

The VCOE has committed to allocating up to one-half of federal CRM f unds to
the 44 localities and nine planning district commissions (PDCs) in the Tidewater
area. The remaining funds are used to assist state agency bay and coastal activities.
There are two sources of CRM funding available to local governments and PDCs
through the VCRMP - basic formula grants and competitive grants. The basic
formula grants are allocated to the PDCs primarily for providing technical assistance
to local governments. The competitive grants are available to both local
governments and PDCs and may be used for a variety of planning projects including
those dealing with-water access improvement. The conduct of this water access
study was'm*ade possible through a VCRMP competitive gra-irit.vAn, addition, several
of the Southeastern Virginia localities bordering the* Chesapeake Bay or its
tributaries are currently engaged in CRM projects funded by compet itive''grants.

Design Arts Program

The Design Arts Program is administered by the Nation.al Endowment for the
Arts and is authorized by the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities
Act of 1965. The aim of this program is to encourage communities to integrate art
into the design of public places through the collaboration of design professionals
and visual artists. Funds are therefore used to select appropriate designers and
artists and to support the integrated design/art process. The City of Norfolk applied
for; but did not receive, a Design Arts Grant for a proposed waterfront park on the
abandoned Lambert's Point-Landfill on the Elizabeth River.

Miscellaneous Federal -Programs

There are other federal grant programs that represen 't potential indirect
funding sources for water access facilities. These programs, which are targeted at
other problems (e.g. water quality, community development, etc.), may fund water
access facilities if they are consistent with grant regulations and contribute to
-overall program goals. Funding sources fitting into this 'category include
Community Development Block Grants and Urban Development Action Grants.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Nearly twenty percent of the region's ocean and bay beaches, as well as other
shoreline areas with significant recreational potential, are closed to public
recreation by virtue of their control by the military. Similarly, other public entities
and private.. corporations own large undeveloped or under-used shoreline areas.
Joint use of such areas would greatly enhance the region's ability to satisfy resident
and tourist demand for water-oriented recreation.

Cooperative agreements between local governments and the state or federal
government or the private sector represent a vehicle for achieving joint facility use.
At the present time, 0.2 miles of military-controlled beaches have been opened for
public recreation through such agreements. Similar agreements have permitted
long-term public use of military lands for other forms of public recreation and for
various public services including education, fire training and youth homes. Camping
and other outdoor recreation opportunities have been made available to the Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar groups through cooperative agreements with the
military. The private sector has participated in similar agreements for joint use of
waterfront lands. In other communities, long-term recreational use of public lands
earmarked for development has been achieved. Similarly, land being held for
future development has been used for recreational purposes through agreements
between the local government and..the.private developer. Southeastern Virginia
does not have a conserted ongoing program, under the auspices-.-of.-lanclowners or
the pubic, to obtain joint use agreements.

-Joint use agreements cover the terms of the shared use of lands. These terms
include lease costs, security, nature of facilities provided, duration of agreement
and time restrictions on joint use. For example, the U.S. Army permits weekend
summertime use of only a portion of.the Fort Story beach and may close the beach
to avoid potential conflict with training activities. Agreements with the private
sector have provided for public use only during special events. * Lease costs are
generally minimal. Obviously any agreement must be "tailored".to the specific
circumstances.

- - : The use of cooperative agreements may enable the locality to meet additional
recreational needs in a cost-effective manner. This is especially true for shoreline
access facilities which are not capital intensive. They may enhance community
goodwill toward major- shoreline. landowners. Unfortunately, the cooperative
agreement approach may require protracted negotiations with landowners. Time
restrictions on joint use and short durations due to planned development will tend
to preclude this approach from being a long-term solution, on a site-specific basis,
to the community's recreation needs.

The Siting and Design of Water Access Facilities and Water-
Enhanced Recreation Areas to Reduce Potentially Adverse Impacts to
the Shoreline and Nearshore Marine Environment

Water-dependent recreational activities fall into two categories.
The first category contains -those activities -that are dependent on
boat access I.-)oints (marinas and other community faci 1 i ties for I:)oat
mooring, ramps and canoe PUt-in/tak'.e-OUtS ) , including boat
fishing, power boating, waterskiing, sailing --And canoeing. The
second category contains those activities that depend on access to
and use of the shoreline, and includes beach swimming, surfing and
shore f ishing. This category also includes passive activities
which might not require, but are generally enhanced by shoreline
access, such as Sunbathing, wildlife observation, environmental
education, sight-seeing and picnicing; these are also referred to
as "water-enhanced recreation activities."

All of these activities have the potential to impact or be impacted
by the surrounding environment. Any alteration to or change in the
physiographic features of the shoreline and surrounding water-ways
to accommodate -these activities may also result in public detriment
due to a loss of natural resource VAlUeS, such as marine and
wildlife habitat and aesthetic quality. Many of the potential
problems associated with Such changes are addressed through
federal, state and local regulatory proCedUres, while other non-
regulated issues can be resolved through Careful siting and design.

The purpose of this section is to discuss the potentially adver-_:-'e
impacts to natural shoreline features and the nearshore marine
environment and water quality associated with the development Of
water access facilties or water-enhanced recreation areas in order
to meet public demands for increased recreational opportunities.
While regulatory agencies SUCh EkS -the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) are
ultimately responsible for reviewing water-dependent facilities and
issuing use permits, it Would benefit local planners, wetlands
boards and project developers to become familiar with -these
potential impacts before projects are first Submitted and reviewed
at the local level. It is also important to become familiar with
the review criteria and guidelines for the siting and design of
these facilities that -these agencies use when issuing permits.
Therefore, this section also provides an overview of the existing
regulations governing water-access facility development, along with
the criteria and guidelines used by the Corps, V111RC and other state-
regulatory agencies. Some additional siting and design criteria
are also proposed.

This section is divided into separate discussions for boat access
facilities .(marinas, boat ramps and canoe put-in/take-OUt points)
and shoreline pedestrian access areas (beachfront, fishing aregs
and other shoreline recreation areas).

A. Boat Access Facilities

1. Marinas and Community Facilities for Boat Mooring

a) General

For the purposes of standardization, the definition of marinas and
community facilities for boat mooring found in the Virginia Marine
Resources (VMRC) Regulation VR 450-01-C-)047 entitled, "Criteria -for
the Sitina of Marinas or Community Facilities for Boat Mooring."
is used here. This definition states that:

Marina means any iris ta 11 ation operating under public or
private ownership, which provides dockage or moorage for boats
(axclusive of paddle Or row boats) and provides, through sale,
rental or fee basis, any equipment, supply or service (fuel,
electricity or water) -for the convenience of the public or its
leasee, renters or users of its facilities. Other places
where boats are moored meat-is any installation operating under
public or private ownership which provides dockage, moorage
or mooring for boats (exclusive of paddle or row boats) either
on a free rental or fee basis or for the convenience of the
public.

For the purposes of this discussion, "other places where boats are
(noored " and 11community f aci I ity for b o-z-a t moo r in a r e
interchangable.
st-ely-frianaQed, marinas provide p 1. Ublic socia i
Although generally privc
benefits, such as major access points to recreational waters and
focal points for the development of restaurants, shops, and
residential communities (NCDEHNR(a) , 1990, 1). Marinas also
provide an economic asset to local Communities through employment
and tax revenues. Another positive feature of marinas and
community facilities is that they provide for the concentration of
boating activities, storage, and access, as opposed to many
scattered private piers and docks along a shoreline, (Chmura and
Ross, 1978: 3,4).

On the other hand, because of the severe and complex potential
adverse impacts to the sensitive coastal environment associated
with their improper siting and design, marinas and other places
where boats are moored have been the subjects of a vast amount of
water quality literature moreso than any other type of water access
I ion also have 'the potential
facility. Their construction arid operac
for severe environmental impacts. These impacts can include loss
Of upland, wetland or benthic habitat due to dredging or filling
activities, decline in water quality due to increased stormwate`r
rUnoff, discharges from boats or bottom paint dissolution, and
degradation of aesthetic Values (SVPDC(a), 11@88: 44). In addition,
automatic shellfish Cl(:)SL(rf--S May result and -the character of the
waterbody can be permanently changed (VMRC(a): :7.).

While each of these variables is discussed in more detail futher
in this section as they are affected by siting, design and

construction, the cleneral impacts associated with this type of
shoreline development can be categoriZed into habitat loss, basin
and near shore water quality impacts, and aesthetic (visual)
pollution (Chmura and Ross, 1?78: 4).

Habitat Loss:

To provide protection for its facilities and safe moorings for
boats, most marinas are located on calm.. sheltered shorelines. A t
one time, tidal marshes were preferred sites for marinas because
they exist on sheltered shorelines :Arid were regarded as wastelands.
People now recognize that tidal marshes are important marine
ecosystems which provide valuable wildlife habitat and nursery
grounds for many species. If a -tidal marsh is removed or covered
over -to make room for a marina, this important marine habitat is
lost. Loss of marsh vegetation production can be estimated, but
adeQuately estimating the loss of values associated with marsh
COMMUnities is nearl,/ impossible. Once altered, natural habitat
cannot be returned -to its original condit-ion. A marina can,
however, provide an artificial habitat with its own unique
environment (ChMUra arid Ross, 1973; 4).

Water Quality Impacts:

Many Studies have shown that marinas- can have undesirable effects
on water quality. Several parameters used to m(-:?aSUr_e water quality
conditions can be significantly affected by p0llUtion Sources
associated with marin,--ms, and other boat moor-ing* -facilities. They
include turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO) , nutrients, bacteria,
metals, and hydrocarbon-.. Of these, the key parameter of concern
is DO. DO is important because aquatic organisms need it to exist
Ruse oxygen conditions
ind beC. affect water chemistry. Anaerobic
conditions (anoxia) are undesirable, because they increase the
toxicity of some compounds. Anoxia also enhances the release of
nutrients and some heavy metals from sediments. DO concentrations.
in marinas respond to inputs Of oxygen-demanding substances -from
boat discharges, stormwater runoff and other nonpoint source---, and
entrained sediments (NCDEHNR(a), 19c?'): 11).

The introduction of nonpoint Source Pollutants into marina basins
and Surrounding nearshore waters via stormwater runoff is a
particular problem. T 1-i econstruction of land-based marina
facilities may necessitate the removal of natural vegetative cover
-And
its replacement with impervious surfaces Such as building
rooftops .. pavement and parking lots, which reduces available area
for stormwater infiltration and causes increased surface runoff.
This runoff can carry a variety of nonpoint Source pollutants,
inClUdinq sediment, pesticides, oil and other road dirt, and heavy
metals and ..nutrients, which are all capable of degrading water
quality (ChMUra Arid Ross, 1978: 4).

While water quality impacts associated with marina facilities have
been well-doCUmentc,?d and are discussed in more detail in the next
section, the types and e.-,tent of such impacts are not well-
documented across the range of marina locations, designs and
operating procedures. The State of North Carolina has attempted
to address this information gap in recent Studies. Findings and

recommendations from these studies, Which should be taken into
consideration by project reviewers and local wetlands boards, are
also presented in the next SUbsection.

In addition, in order to better plan for the future development of
shoreline areas, project reviewers need a good existing Water
quality database and effEctive planning tools to assist in
evaluating the actual effects that all aspects of a proposed marina
or other place where boats are moored can have on water quality
(ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 4). While the Commonwealth of Virginia is
required to provide a detailed SUMMAry of existing surface Water
quality conditions to EPA and Congress every two years under the
federal Clean Water Act 305(b) program, this data is provided at
a scale and in a manner that does not allow for site specific
analys when used by local government planners, Wetlands boards,
and state and federal permitting agencies to review existing Water
quality conditions and assess potential impairments to Water
quality associated With marina facility proposals.

Aesthetics:

The coastal zone is regarded aS a valuable aesthetic resource.
The presence of a marina may change the shoreline's aesthetic value
by introducing sights, Sounds, and smells foreign to the natural
environment. Poorly maintained marinas may further degrade
aesthetic Values. Both aesthetic considerations and alterations
to the aesthetic environment are difficult to quantify. However.,
it may be assumed that a marina Situated on a pristine shoreline
will have a negative effect on aesthetic value, While one placed
on a developed Or Urban waterfront may actually improve the
appearance and environmental quality of that shoreline area (ChMUra
and Ross, 1978: 5).

In conclusion, the significance of these various impacts will not
be-the same for every, marina or other type of facility Where boats
are moored. The extent of adverse impacts to natural shoreline
features and the nearshore marine environment associated With
marina facilities is a function of many interrelated, project-
specific variables. They include the degree of dredging and
filling activities, existing hydrologic conditions (e.g., flushing
rates basin and ambient (adjacent) water depths, and wave
heights), site orientation, existing Water quality, upland soil
conditions and shoreline features, the presence of sensitive plant
and animal communities, the size and design of a marina, the types
of services offered, the cumulative environmental impacts of other
shoreline uses, and the existing uSes and navigation patterns of
the adjacent waterbody (SVPDC (a) , 1988: 44). The following
discussion takes a closer- look at these variables and at the
overall impacts to Water quality that can result from improper
siting, design, construction and operation practices.

b) Summary of Marina and Boating Activities Which Can Result in
Water Quality, Ecological and Other Potentially-Adverse
Environmental Impacts

For baseline information on potentially adverse Water quality
impacts that may result from improper marina siting, design,

construction. operation and maintenance, practi(--(-:?s, as well as -from
various activities associated with recreational boating, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides an excellent
resource with its-. IL785 Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. It is
strongly recommended -that this handbook be consulted during initial
review of marina facility proposals. Table _, reprinted from the
handbook, demonstrates clearly that the effect of a marina on
Surrounding water quality is determined by many factors.

A .1990 report based on a study conducted bN/ the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural' Resources, Division
of Environmental Management also provides an excellent assessment
of the water quality Of selected coastal marinas. As part of that
study@ however, methodologies were also develoiDed for evaluating
the water quality impacts of various types of marina proposals
which can be useful 'to marina project plan reviewers in Hampi '-on
Roads. Much of the discussion on siting and desian considerations
that follows later has been extracted from that report //,
Based on a review of available literature, the primary Sources of
pc) 11 Lt t i on in a n d around m a r _J n i=_k -facilities and the va r J ous
activities activities associated with recreational boating that
have the potential to degrade water quality can be narrowed to
include dredging, sanitary waste discharges, nonpoint Source
pollution runoff, and boat operation, marli-la use and maintenance
activities (NCDEHNR(a), 199C). 1,3; ChMUra and Ross, 197B; Miliken
And Lee. 1990).

Dredging:

The waters of many marinas are not deep enough to accommodate.al.1
recreational craft, and sites are often dredged during -their
initial construction. The most common dredging practices in
marinas, however, are "spot" and maintenance dredging to remove
sediments from small problem areas in boat channels or near docks
(Chmura and Ross, 1978.- 6).

A wealth of literature has been published regarding the effects of
dredging and dredge material disposal on water qu 'ality, but most
of these Studies are concerned with the dredging of rivers and
large boat harbors, rather than small, recreational ly-oriented
marinas. For this reas'on, the specific effects of marina-related
dredging are difficult -to define and often misrepresented (Chmura
and Ross. 1.978: 6).

In general, what is known is that dredging during marina
construction and subsequent' maintenance resuspends sediment,
resulting in increased turbidity and the release of pollutants Such
as bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, oil and
grease, hydrogen Sulfide, methane, organic acids, and nutrients.
Marina sediments also contain oxygen-demanding substances. and
dredging often results in temporary DO reductions in the water
Column (NCDEHrJR(a), 1990: 1,3). Dredging may also alter marina
and ambient waters by disrupting and removing bottom habitat and
causing the buildup of sediments and subsequent burial of benthic
or bottom-dwelling organisms where dredae spoils are deposited, as
well as creating 'stagnant deepwater areas and altering water
circulation patterns (Chmura and Ross, 1978: 7).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

Water Quality Ecological Other

lb
Impact Source
10 4@ %W 0 0
0
Considerations 0 -b WZ 4*17 llx@
Marina Location S S S S1 SISIS SISISIS S S S S
Marine all* & Services is S S S
Dredging S S S is S SISI S S S S S S S S
$poll Disposal S S is S- I S S S S S S S S S S
1:4111.9 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
Gradl.9 & Clearing C C I C C C C
Hydrological Modification D D D D D D D D D D D
structure* D D D D D D D
Point Weet*.*I*r Dlecharge D DIDID D D D D D
kon-point source Runoff D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Boat Op*,nllon E E E I E E E E E
Boat Discharges E E E E I E
$pill* 0 0 0 010 0 0
Boal Maintenance 1 0 0 0 01
1.1110F - - E - _ E
0 0

Pr imary Environmental Solutions
S = Environmentally Sound Marina Site Selection
D = Design of Marina with Environmental Considerations
C = Environmentally Guided Marina Construction Techniques
0 = Proper qj)ojLt-io-n and Maintenance of Marina Systems and Boats
E = 111force"Ient of Rules and Regulations and Education of Marina
Users in the Environmental Impacts or The-177H-ions

Figure 1-1. Environmental impacts, sources and primary solutions.

Therefore, both the act of dredging and the disposal of dredge
spoils may adversely Affect the marine environment. The severity
of this effect is not always the same and is (dependent upon the
dredging method Used and the characteristics of the bottom
sediment and its inhabitants (ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 7) The
following discuSSion presents research findings on the
relationships between. dredging activities and impacts on the marine
environment ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 7,8):

i) TUrbidity

Most investigators conClUde that the temporary increase in the
turbidity of nearshore waters attributed to dredging activities
does riot represent a significant impact on the marine environment.
This conclusion is probably made in part because increases in
tUrbidity generally OCCUr in localized areas which can be. avoided
by pelagic (oceanic) species and periodic.. high levels of
tUrbidity are natUral in eStUarine systems.

ii) Temporary RedUCtion of Oxygen Content

One StUdy, fOUnd that dUring the dredging of a tidal waterway, the
oxygen content was redUced to levels ranging between 16% and 33%
below normal. It was proposed that this redUCtion was due to the
oxidation of reSuSpended sediments and --A decrease in the amount off
light available for oxygen-prodUcing photosynthesis by local flora.

(iii) Burial of Organisms

Some bUrrowing organisms may withstand bUrial by up to 21 cm.of
sediment when dredge spoils are deposited within the waterway,but
those benthic species which are sessile (permanently attached to
the substrate, e.g., oysters) may be easily killed by such burial.

iv) DisrUption and Removal of Bottom Sediments and Change in
Benthic Community Characteristics

StUdies of bottom COMMUnities within a boat harbor in SOUthern
California for three years after its construction, which included
initial dredging of adjacent Upland areas, found that within one
year, the soft, gray, clay bottom had been coloznied by COMMunities
similar to those existing in other portions of the same waterbody.
Some marine biologists have noted the possibility that, in an
eStUary SUbject to repeated dredging, bottom COMMUnities may become
modified into a relatively resistant community. A stUdy of
dredging in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Georgia supports
this, where in a muddy bottom area, the benthic community was
completely removed by hydrAulic dredging. However, little change
in the sediment composition occurred and. within two months, the
dredged area supported a benthic COMMUnity similar to the original.

V) Creation of Stagnant Water Conditions

There is a possiblity for water stagnation in marinas with dead-
end.. finger or Venetian canals. This type of marina development
is common in the SOUtheastern U.S..

vi) General Water QualitY

A Study Of the effect of dredging in a tidal salt marsh estuarine
environment of the Atlantic intracoastal Coastal Waterway which
analyzed DO, chemical and BOD, pH, Suspended sediment
concentration, mercury, iron, and phosphate in the water from the
surrounding area before, during, and after dredging indicated that
there was no significant change in water quality attributable to
the dredging (ChMUra and Ross.. 1978: 8).

vii) Dredge Spoil Disposal

The effects of dredge spoils disposal on the environment is
relative to the nature of the sediments (whether or not they
contain toxic substances) and the selection of the dump site. When
open-water sites are selected the benthic habitat may be
drasitically altered and large VOlUMeS of sediment may be
resuspended in the water column. Disposal in wetlands can destroy
these ValUable habitats, and disposal on upland areas may Cause
pollution of- groundwater depening on the nature of the sediments.
as well as alter topographic features and upland vegetation to the
detriment of native wildlife.

A Study of the diffusion of heavy metals into water from Polluted
and unpolluted dredge spoils revealed that reduced iron (which is
Soluble) was oxidized to iron hydroxide (insoluble) in suspended
sediments during dredging. The presence of hydroxide encouraged.
the precipitation of heavy metals out of solution and allowed them
to concentrate in sediments deposited on a salt marsh. As
conditions favoring a redUCtion reaction again increased. the
trapped metals became Soluble :And were released into overlying
waters. On the basis of this and other phases of that study, the
following Conclusions were drawn;

0 In natural and relatively unpollUted areas dredging has no
significant effect on water quality whether diked or undiked
(dredge spoil) confinement techniques,: are used.

0 In polluted marine areas, the water quality impairment caused
by dredging does not necessarily bear any simple relation to
the composition of the sediments to be dredged.

0 The length of time which water mixed with other dredge spoil
is allowed to stay in the spoil area will greatly influence
the, quality of the effluent from the spoil bank.

0 The dredging of polluted sediments does not necessarily impair
water quality in estuarine environments.

In point of fact, dredging does not always have -adverse impacts.
It may help to improve Circulation in choked inlets, increase the
availability of food to fish and shellfish, and help to flush and
dilute polluted waters. Dredge spoils are sometimes Suitable as
sand and gravel for construction or Tor use in creating artificial
habitat. Dredge materials have Successfully been used to build
salt marshes and to create islands suitable- for colonization by
important bird species (ChMUrA and Ross, 1978: 9).

In conclusion. marina designers may reduce or eliminate the need
for and cost of dredging by good planning. For example, slips for
boats. of deep draft should be built in the naturally deeper waters
of the marina, and piers and docks should be extended as far as
possible into deep water, without POSing a hazard to navigation
routes, to minimize the need for dredging around them. if
maintenance dredging is expected, the plans must include a choice
of sites for the drying and disposal of dredge spoil. The spoil
may be spread on the surface of parking lots or storage areas. or
even used to recreate marsh Communities, along or adjacent to the
marina shoreline. When dredging Must be done, it should be planned
to prevent dead-end channels or finger canals and restricted
inlets. Flushing Should be enCOUraged by increasing the width and
depth of tine marina channels or canals Out into navigable waters-,,
but not deeper than the main channel (ChMura and Ross, 1978: 9).

In addition, bottom community and sediment characteristics should
be taken into account and dredging activities timed so As not to
conflict with critical periods in the life cycles of important
animal species. Special consideration should be given to the
reproductive cycle of -Any commercially- and recreationally-
important finfish and shellfish within -the proposed area. Proper
timing can also help to reduce the impact of oxygen reduction by,
dredging in colder months. when oxygen concentrations are not
critical (ChMUra and Ross', 1978: 9). Refer -to the seasonal
Chesapeake Bay Environmentally-Sensitive Area maps attached to this
report -to identify critical finfish and shellfish habitats and
anadromous finfish spawning and nursery areas.

Most report which discuss the effects of dredging generally stress
the need for more research before accurate predictions can be made
regarding the effects of dredging at a specific site. It must be
emphasized, therefore that the impact of dredging on coastal and
estuarine environments is site-specific. This means that the
results Of Studies in one area may be quite different from those
in another. Therefore, conclusions drawn from Studies Of the
effects of dredging on a given coastal or eStUarine area cannot be
applied to predict the effects in another without a degree of
uncertainty (ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 9)

Sanitary Waste Discharges:

Sanitary waste can enter marinas from shoreside facilities arid boat
discharges. Sewage inputs would be expected to increase bacteria,
biological oxygen demand (DOD) and nutrients, and to lower DO in
marinas. (NCDEHR(a),1990: 3) . Concerns regarding the high
potential for fecal contamination Trom boat discharges were the
impetus behind the Virginia Department of Health's (VDH) policy for
establishing shellfish buffer Zones around marinas and automatic
closure of shellfish areas Surrounding marinas. This is discussed
later in this section as it relates to regulatory requirements and
also in the section on sensitive aquatic resources (shellfish).

The federal Clean Water Act requires recreational boats to be
equipped with approved Type III marine sanitation devices (holding
tanks) or portable toilets for sewage, because the discharge of
untreated sewage by boaters is prohibited under federal law in all

areas, within the navigable waters of the U.S. Despite these
federal laws, and even though Virginia law requires all new marinas
to have on-site, sanifary -facilities, dockside pump-out facilities
and sewage dump Stations. boaters still discharge treated waste
legally and untreated waste illegally into coastal waters. The
discharge of -these sanitary wastes from boats may impact water
quality by locally increasing biological oxygen demand (BOD) and
by introducting microbial pathogens into the environment (Miliken
and Lee, 1990: 1).

i) BOD

BOD is a measure of the dissolved oxygen (DO) required to decompose
the organic matter in the water by' aerobic processes. When the
loading of organic matter increases, -the BOD increases, and there
is a Subsequent reduction in the DO available for respiration by
aquaitic organisms. Although the volume of wastewater discharged
from recreational boats is small, the organics in this wastewater
are concentrated, and therefore the BOD is much hiqher than that
of raw or even treated municipal sewage. Sewage discharged from
recreational boats will, thus, increase the BOD in the vicinty of
the boats. When 'this occurs in poorly-flushed waterbodies. the DO
concentrations of the water may decrease. In temper-cite regions,
such as Hampton Roads, the effect of boat sewage on DO levels is
exacerbated because the peak of the boating season coincides with
the highest water temperatures and, -thus, the lowest solubilities
of oxygen in seawater and the highest rates of metabolism of marine
organisms (Miliken and the, 1990 1)
For any given waterbody, it is possible to predict the impact of
BOD loading by boats by estimating the amount of BOD discharged
from recreational boats. into the water, the volume qot the
waterbody, the -flushing rate, and the ambient DO. The estimated
boat BOD loading can then be combined with sediment oxygen demand
(SOD) to provide an estimate of the total oxygen depletion in the
waterbody (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 1). An example of an equation
used to determine an oxygen mass balance over one tidal cycle is
provided in EPA's Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook.

ii) Pathogens

A potentially serious problem resulting from the discharge of
sewage from recreational boats is the introduction of disease-
carrying microorganisms from fecal matter into the coastal
environment. Humans are put at risk either by swimming in polluted
waters or by eating shellfish (raw or partially cooked, taken from
polluted waters. The major disease-carrying agents are bacteria
and viruses, and the most common serious ailment is acute
gastroenteritis. Other water-borne diseases that can be attributed
to sewage Pollution include hepatitis, typhoid, and cholera
(Miliken and Lee, 1990: 1).

While there have been no Studies which directly link. the discharge
of boat sewage to disease incidence, numerous studies have found
elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria where there are
concentrations of recreational boats. Studies have shown.. however,
that coliform levels increase in the water column and in shell-fish

in direct relation to the -lumber of boats in an area. To
compensate for this problem, the Virginia Department of
Health automatically closes waters toshellfish harvesting within
a certain radius Of a marina or other boat mooring facility
depending on the number of slips at the facility.This is
discussed in more detail later in the section on regulatory
requirements.

Based on similar information and related Studies, Congress recently
determined that there is currently an inadequate number of pumpout
stations and waste facilities (dump stations) for boaters
to properly dispose of their sewage. Therefore, an interim rule
was passed by Conrgress in JUly 1993 Linder the Clean Vessel Act
Program to provide funds t o states for th e constructio n ,
renovation, operation,and maintenance of pumpout and dump stations
to improve water quality. Section 5604 of the Act authorizes the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make grants to coastal states for
conducting survey of the Status Of exisiting facilities and need
Tor additional facilities, and developing plans for the provision
of facilities and to all. states for constructing/ renovating
pump-out and dump stations and for implementing associated education
programs (Vol. 58. No.129. Federal Register. 36619. July 8. 1993

Nonpoint Source Runoff

As mentioned Previously, upland area and natural vegtation is usually replacec w i t h impervious surfaces during marina
construction. This allows for an increase in stormwater runoff
which carries nonpoint source pollutants into marina basins and
coastal waters. These nonpoint Source Pollutants can include
sediment, bacteria oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients,
detergents, and pesticides. Stormwater runoff also tends to
transport oxygen-demanding substances into receiving waters,
resulting in reduced DO. With proper design, nonpoint source
Pollutants in runoff reaching marinas can be minimized (NCDEHNR(a),
1990: 3).

Retaining as much marshland as possible along the water margin of
a marina will provide, a natural buffer to stormwater runoff and
prevent the release- of untreated runoff directly into marina and
coastal waters. A 1976 NOAA report, "Coastal Facility Guidelines"
suggests the following:

0 drainage systems should be designed to regulate the
release of water back into the environment;

0 stormdrain outfall sites should be chosen so that
effluents return into well-flushed waters such as the
mouth of-a marina or adjacent open coastal water; and

0 the volume of water entering storm drains should be
reduced by minimizing the amount of impervious Cover at
the site.

Acceptable alternetives to impervious cover are crushed stones or
shells. If a marina is designed with qas much porous land surface
and vegetative cover as Possible., storm water runoff and its impact

may be significantly reduceed.

A well-landscaped and well-kept marina is also an important
consideration for enhancing or maintaining the aesthetic quality
of the area. Ill-kept marinas may discourage business And create
safety hazards, making poor economic sense for the marina operator
Investments in Attractive, low-inqput, native vegetation can be
returned several times Over in good will a n d sales income.
Therefore, both the marina Operator and plan reviewers should be
concerned with pride. Planning and maintenance of marinas. A good
reference which discusses landscaping in marinas is marinas: A

Working Guide to Their Development and Design by Donald Adie

Boat Operation and Marina Use

i) Boat Operation

Water quality degradation from boating activities is generally
localized and makes a relatively small contribution to the overall
pollutant loads entering coastal waters. However, marinas are
often located near env i ronmen tally sensitive areas, increasing the
likelihood that boating Activities Could introduce. nonpoint source
pollutants to these areas (NCDEHNR(a), 1990. 3). Nonpoint source
Pollutants from boat operation include exhaust and unburned fuel,
engine lubricants, and lead. Hydrocarbons can also be released in
exhaust and bilge water.

Pollution associated with boat engines and their exhaust is a
primary concern. Reports on boat engine Pollution have focused on
the effects of two-cycle outboard engines. Because two-cycle
engines accomplish fuel intake and exhaust in the same cycle, they
tend to release unburned fuel along with the exhaust gases. Older
engines, manufactured prior to about 1972, drain excess fuel from
the crankcase directly into the water while newer engines have
scavenger devices to recycle this lost fuel. Two-cycle engines
also have lubricant oil mixed in with the fuel, and this oil is
released into the water along with the unburned fuel. There are
over 100 hydrocarbon compounds in gasoline, as well as additives
Such as lead, while lubricant oils contain elements such as zinc,
Sulfur, and phosphorus (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 5).

The most obvious effects of Pollutants from marine engines include
odor, an off taste in fish, and toxic effects on marine organisms.
Estimates vary as to the exact thresholds of these effects.
Outboard motor exhaust water in high concen trations can exhibit
toxic effects on various species Of fish and wildlife. The nature
and degree of these effects varies by species. For example, the
lighter" , more ref ined petroleum products, such as diesel oil, are
taken up more quickly by shellfish than are the heavy more viscous

refined products. Other studies have found that gill tissue damage
in mussels occurred more quickly -than in oysters because the
oysters were able to close their shells and exclude hydrocarbons
while the mussels were not able to do so Miliken and Lee, 1990:
5; Chmura and Ross, 1978: 19).

Although normal levels of outboard motor usage have not been shown
to have a toxic effect on aquatic communities, toxic effects have

been demonstrated from sustained low concentrations of petroleum

in estuaries. Table 2 indicates the concetrarions of the concentration
hydrocarbons considered toxic to various types of marine organisms.
Concentrations in excess of these toxic levels occur in the water
column and sediment in many Urbanized estuaries and elevated
hydrocarbon levels also Occur in marina sediments. Petroleum Petroleum
hydrocarbon pollution from boats may thus contribute to already
toxic concentrations of hydrocarbons in the water column and
sediments and increased long terrm effects. However, researchers have

discovered that in one boating harbor, concentrations of aromatic
hydrocarbons, probably from petroleum fuels, actually decreased
during the boating season. It Was suggested t h a t these
hydrocarbons (night be removed from the water by evaporation, or
possibly degraded biologically or photochemically during the summer
Mililken and Lee, 1990, Chmura and Ross, 1978: 1920).

Little can be done to reduce the impact of boat motor emission
other than reducing boating pressure. Results of boat motor-
exhaust studies suggest that threshold guidelines cannot be
generalized, and any management of motorboat Use must consider each
waterway individually by reviewing the use and characteristics of
each sytsem (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 5).

Another Source of pollution associated with boating activity is
petroleum from the discharge of oily bilge water. Once discharged
into the water, petroleum hydrocarbons may concentrate at the
Surfacec. remain suspended in the water column, or settle to the
bottom.Many of these hydrocarbon Compounds will not persist for
very long because of their immiscibility of vio1atility o r
bioderadability, or because of the effects of weathering.

However petroleum and particularly lead components from gasoline from gasoline
additives that sink reach the bottom sediments may persist for
several years (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 5).

ii) Marina Activities

Marinas often provide fuel. docks as one of their boater services.
Fuel docks may also be a Source of po11ution through Small but
numerous Spills of gas and diesel fuel . Oil spills can be
minimized by equipping fuel pumps with back -pressure., automatic-
5hUtOff nozzles, which prevent fuel overflow. Constant maintenance
of Pumps, hoses and other fueling equipment by careful
attendants will also help reduce Spills- Similarly , sloppy
maiintenance practices may also contribute to the Pollution of
marina waters. For example , when docks and other shoreline

structures are painted, care should be taken to keep paint from
dripping into the water.Spray painting,, in particular., should be
avoided where it may come in contact with marina waters and become
toxic to marine organisms Chumra and Ross, 1978: 14).

As marinas are the center of boat-related activities, they are also
centers of the noise and disturbance associated with these
activities. Boat engines contribute to noise but this disturbance
is limited to brief periods when boats leave or enter the marina.
Another noise typically associated with marinas is the incessant
clang of sailboat rigging which can be remedied with tie-downs.
Noise levels from outboard motors. can reach not high. but annoying

Table 3. Estimated Toxic Concentrations of Soluble Aromatic Fractions of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
for Marine Organismsa

Class of organisms Toxic concentration (ppm)

Larvae (aU species) 0.1-1.0
Swimming crustaceans 1-10
Bottom-dwel.ling crustaceans 1-10
Other bottom-dwelling organisms (worms, etc.) 1-10
Snails 1-100

Finflsh 5-50

Bivalves 5-50

Flora 10-100

aUnited Nations, 1982.
Source: U.S. Environnwntal Protection Agency. 1985. Coastal Marinas Assessrnent Handbook. Region IV EPA.
Atlanta, Georgia.

levels. Since Sound travels easily across the water, marina
operators should show consideration for neighbors as well as
Customers by posting and enforcing rules against Unecessary noise
(Chmura and Ross, 19-78: 14).

Boat Maintenance Activities

Regular and seasonal maintenance of boats involves washing,
draining bilge water, sanding and painting, and engine and hull
repairs. All of these activities may have minor, but potentially
adverse, effects on the marine environment.

i) Washing

The amount of detergent introduced into marina waters when washing
boats may be small, but it can cause increased nutrient levels and
eventually cause a decrease in DO concentrations. Reductions in
nutrient loads to marina and ndarshore waters can be minimized if
phosphorOUS-free detergents are used. In addition, washing of
boats should occur, when possible, on land where runoff is directed
into a sanitary sewer system rather than to a stormdrain which
discharges directly and without pre-treatment into the marina
basin.

ii) Draining Bilge Water

Individual boat owners can reduce the amount of petroleum
pollutants introduced into the marina when emptying bilge water.
In fact, EPA and Coast Guard reQUlations prohibit the discharge of
any oil or oily waste that Causes a visible film or sheen on -the
surface of the water. This form of oil Pollution can be controlled
by the use Of Oil filtration devices on boat bilge pumps, or
devices such as oil-absorbent pads placed in the bilge to soak up
fuel and oil before bilge water is discharged. Though Pollution
by visible oil may be controlled, some petroleum Compounds may be
dissolved in bilge water and transferred unnoticed to the marine
environment.

iii) Painting and Hull Repairs

Antifouling paints are used on boat hulls to prevent fouling by
marine organisms. Active ingredients in these paints may also have
toxic effects on non-target organisms. Copper and organotin
compounds are the most common active ingredients in antifouling
paints. Other toxic compounds, Such as merCUryq arsenic, - and
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), are no longer approved for use
due to their toxicity Miliken and Lee, 1990: 6).

Elevated copper concentrations have been found in the marine
environment in the vicinty of shipyards where hull scraping ah-d
painting occur. Scientists have considered the risk from the
metals to be minimal, however, while vessels are at sea due to the
high dilution capacity of the ocean (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 6).

TribUtylins (TBTs) are a class of organic tins that have been used
recently as the biocides in antifouling paints. There are two
classes of TBT paints: conventional (also called free

association) , which I each con tinOUS I y f rom -the pain ted surf ace,
and copolymer, which are released at a controlled, slower rate.
Due to the rapid leaching of TBT from boat hulls into -the water,
elevated levels of TBT and its breakdown products have been found
in the water, in sediment, and in organisms where there are
concentrations of recreational boats. Recreational boats were the
main users of TBT paints until use of TBT was recently regulated
(see below). A 1?87 Survey found that ?7% of TBT use was on boats
of 65 feet or less and 1?3% of this use was on recreational boats
(Miliken and Lee, 1??0: 6).

Unlike copper, TBT degrades quickly in seawater. TBT is removed
from the water Column by adsorption to lipids and particulate
matter, metabolism by plants and',animals ` and photolysis. Within
the water column, the primary means of degradation in the presence
of light appears to be debUtylation by planktonic algae, especially
diatoms, while in the absense of light degradation is primarily by
bacteria. Due to its lipophilic (fatty/waxy) properties, TBT tends
to concentrate in the Surface microlayer, where it has been found
at Lip to 27 times subsurface concentrations. Once TBT adsorbs to
particulates and sinks into the sediment, it tends to concentrate
and degrade slowly (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 6,7).

TBT has been reported to Cause acute and chronic toxicity in marine
organisms, especially bivalves and small crustaceans such as
copepod zooplankton. Significant declines in oyster and clan.
Populations occurred in areas where there were concentrations o-r
boats using TBT paints, and these POPUlationt* recovered quickly
after TBT was banned. Bivalves are especially susceptible because
of their limited ability to metabolize the compound -and because
they are found in nearly anoxic sediments that lack -the bacteria
necessary to degrade TBT. Sublethal effects have also been noted
for a variety of fish species (Miliken and Lee, 1990: 7).

High levels of biOaCCUMUlation of TBT have also been reported.
Bacteria and phytoplankton bioaccumulate TBT at concentrations of
600 to 30, c)()C) t i me s: the exposure concentration, while
bdoaccumulations levels as high as 4,oo(:) times have been reported
for bivalves. Despite the high biOaCCUMUlation rate by shellfish,
however, there are no indications that human consumption of
shellfish contaminated with TBT is of concern (Miliken and Lee,
1990: 7).

The use of TBT antifOUling paints is now restricted in the United
States by the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act Of v9ee.
This act bans the use of organotin paints on all boats of less than
25 meters, except for those with aluminum hulls, and limits the use
of anitfOUling paints on other vessels to those paints that are
certified by EPA as re-lea=tsing less -than 4 micrograms per square
centimeter per day into the water. In 1990, at least 13 states had
also enacted their own legislation regulating the use of TBT paints
(Miliken and Lee, 1990: 7). The Commonwealth of Virginia has
adopted the above-stated federal legislation.

c) Siting, Design and Construction Considerations to Minimize
Impacts to the Shoreline and Nearshore Marine Environment

This section provides marina siting and design guidelines and other
recommendations that can be used project developers, plan reviewers
and wetlands boards to help minimize the potential for negative
impacts to the marine environment and water quality as discussed
above.

Initial site selection is very important. From a water quality
perspective, desirable site features include favorable hydrographic
characteristics, access to dredge spoil sites and access to Public
waste disposal systems.
@@i) Siting
When building a new marina or expanding an old one, the optimal
choice of a location would be a protected area of shoreline that
does not include tidal marsh areas. This option is of ten not
available, however. Guidelines for marina development in a marsh
environment include (ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 5):

0 using dredge spoil -from the marsh to establish new productive
marshes elsewhere;

0 providing adequate f lushing to promote water circulation,
which cycles nutrients and prevents eutrophication;

0 providing contact areas within the marina so f ou I ing
Communities, an organic food source, can prosper and multiply;
and,

0 controlling water quali'ty so that estuarine species can thrive
in the marina.

Fouling Communities may actually complement neighboring salt marsh
systems by serving as an important food supplement for.juvenile and
adult finish, particularly at seasons when marsh nutrient export
is lowest. It has been suggested that although fOUling Communities
in marinas contribute to biological production, they may not
adequately replace other Valuable components of tidal marsh
ecosystems. It is,also felt that mammal and waterfowl populations
would rest in., or make extensive use of, marinas. Some wildlife
species, such as mallard ducks, which have adapted to human
presence, may be able to utilize marina areas. In order to
maintain fish and wildlife habitat, as much marsh area as possible
should be retained at the marina site (ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 5).

ii) Design

Marina design is another important factor. Marina size, shape,
depth, and orientation influence water Circulation, and hence the
fate of Pollutants.

Areas with favorable hydrologic f eatures require minimal
modification. In general, modification of an area's natural
ar qUalit
flushing characteristics increases the potential for watL y
impacts. Flushing has been shown to have a major influence on
marina water quality, because flushing disperses Pollutants and
reaerates the water column. Marinas with better natural flushing
ability tend to have fewer water quality problems; therefore, sites
with high tidal amplitude or flow and high flushing rates are
preferred (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: 3).

EPA's Coastal Marina Assessment Handbook states that precise
information on flushing and circulation usually is not readily
available during the marina site selection and design process.
However, methods exist for providing estimates of expected -flushing
capability (EPA(b), 1985; 4-3).

The method chosen to estimate expected flushing from a marina site
depends upon the hydrographic characteristics of the siting
location. Marinas anticipated to be located within a confined area,
with one or two relatively narrow openings Would have flushing
characteristics considerably different from marinas located
directly on larger estuaries or bays or along river shorelines.
Two openings may improve flushing in semi-enclosed marina basins.
Two lock-controlled marinas on Hilton Head, SC Use inlet and outlet
wiers and pipes located at opposite ends of the marina to flush the
basin by natural tidal forces. Other methods that may be used to
enhance circulation and reduce the potential for buildup of
Pollutants include tide gates or one-way valves, creating a tidal
prism and entrance channel design. Where possible, however,
flushing should be accomplished through basin* design without the
assistance of mechanical devices because they may be costly and
will require maintenance (EPA(b), 19B5: 5-B).

Open marinas located on existing channels will generally have the
Same flushing rate as the channel. Semi-enclosed marinas or
marinas with dredged basins should be designed to.maximize tidal
exchange and mixing within the marina.

A classification system based on "segments" was developed by North
Carolina in its aforementioned Study to distinguish between
different marina configurations (Figure i ). "One-segment" refers
to a marina whose long axis is parallel to the shoreline. "Two-
segment" marinas consist of distinct basin and channel segments.
A marina whose longest dimension is perpendicular to the shoreline.,
such as a finger canal, is considered to contain two or more
segments depending on the length to width ratio (Figure
(NCDEHNR(a)5 199C): 3,4).

Flushing efficiency is inversely proportional to the number of
segments. For example, one-segment marinas should not flush as
well as marinas in open water. Two-segment marinas should not
flush as well as one-segment designs. For two-segment marinas,
design and placement of the entrance channel also affects water
circUla@ion (Figure lip Wide channels are recommended over narrow
2-3)
ones, as are channels whose depth increases away from the basin
toward the adjacent waterway. Structural elements such as
bulV:.heads and breakwaters can significantly alter siltation and

MARINA TYPE

"Open Water"

Ambient

Basin "One-Segment"

Ambient

Basin

"Two-Segment"
W W W -V
Channel
4; 4;. *`4;

Ambient

Figure 2. Classification of marina designs and segments.

ONE-SEGMENT

100 ft.

WIDE BASIN

400 ft.

100 ft.

THREE-SEGMENT

LONG BASIN

Alt t t ;P47-
;NP
400 ft.

Figure 10. One and three-segment configurations.
:;@1710(

High Flushing

@77

4;-4

Low Flushing

Figur e 5. Channel variations for two segment marinas.

water circulation patternsi., If bulkheads are necessary for certain
projects, they should be minimized and placed so that water mixinq
is not restricted. Man-made structures such as creosote- or salt-
treated plilings can also leach preservatives or antifOLkling
Compounds into marina waters, therby affecting water quality and
non-target marine organisms. (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: 6). This is
discussed in more detail later in this section.

Because of these cons i dera tions., EPA recommends the following
design f eatUres thought to promote f lushing. (see a4Eis--F@@
--& ,::') (NCDEHNR (a) , 11?90: 6 - I
, EPA(b), 19B5: 5-7,8):

0 basin depths that are not deeper than the open water or
channels to which the basin is connected and never deeper than
the marina access channel;

0 basin and channel depths that gradually increase toward open
wa t e r

0 two openings at opposite ends of the marina to establish
flowthrouqh currents;

0 single entrances that are centered in rectangular basins
rather than at one corner to minimizza stagnant areas",

0 basins with few vertical walls and gently rounded corners or
circular or oval shaped; and,

0 even bottom contours, gently sloping toward the entrance with
no pockets or depressions.

The flushing potential of several marina basin confiQLtrations is
illustrated in Figure541_11,

Flushing rates for the region's waterbodies have been analyzed and
described in the <<Section on Waterbody Descriptions>> where data
was available. Data is generally available for the major
tributaries and creeks within the Bay watershed but is scarce for
smaller waterbodies. Because of limited data availability,
flushing rates Could not be determined for all waterbodies within
the project study area.

EPA concluded that further data collection would be needed to
understand interactions between marina design, flushing, and
resultant water quality, since there had been only limited field
verification of expected relationships (NCDEHNR(a)q 1990: 6). The
North Carolina report attempted to investigate water quality at
several marinas to correlate siting and design features with water
quality data. That information is Summarized below.

iii) Inter-actions Between Marina Design, Flushing and Resulan t
Water Quality

Because dissolved oxygen (DO) has been identified as the key water
quality parameter of concern in marina siting and design, the North
Carolina Study attempted to confirm this relationship- Several
characteristics of marina location and desian'related to water DO

High Flushing

W v
t.4;

Breakwater

.4;- Low Flushing

Figure 4. Basin and entrance configuration.

CONCEPTUAL MARINA CONFiGURATICNS

RECTANGULAR BASIN
ASYMNIETRICAL SINGLE ENTRANCE
MODERATE FLUSHING POTENTIAL

RECTANGULAR BASIN
TWO-CHANNEL ENTRANCE
GOOD FLUSHING POTENTIAL

POO TYPE DEVELOPMENT MARINA
ASYMMETRICAL ENTRANCE
POOR FLUSHING POTENTIAL

RECTANGULAR BASIN
SINGLE SYMMETRICAL ENTRANCE
GOOD FLUSHING POTENTIAL

FINGER CANAL
POOR FLUSHING POTENTIAL

Figure 5-1. Comparison of the flushing potential of several
marina confiqurations, (SCCC, 1983).

Increasing Depth

Good Flushing

Stagnant Conditions

Poor Flushing

Figure 3. Marina bottom contours and flushing potential.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Stagnant Conditions

AWPA Recommended Treatment Levels (pcf)

CCA-C, ACZA
or ACA Creosote
Lumber
Above ground 0.25 8
Soil contact and freshwater use 0.40 10
Permanent wood foundation 0.60 NR
Salt water use 2.50, 25

Piles
Land or freshwater use
and foundations 0 -'80 12
Salt water 2.5 (0 to .5 inches) 20
&.1.5 (.5-to 2 inches)

NR= Not recommended

conditions were also observed in the North Carolina Study.
Primari ly , the study f OUnd that f eatures which promote f lushing
were associated with better DO.

Two factors related to marina siting that seemed to influence the
observed DO were tidal amplitude and proximity to an inlet. Low
wave amplitude areas showed the greatest tendency to stratify and
to become anoxic, and to decrease marina flushing potential.
Differences between basin and ambient (adjacent waterway) DO Were
minimal at marinas located close to inlets. Marinas farther away
from inlets showed areater DO depletion. Results of this study
Suggest that higher tidal amplitude and siting near inlets
optimizes DO conditions by enhancing marina flushing (NCDEHNR(a),
1990; 20).

Marina design also appeared to be important. Theoretically, any
design that impedes flushing would favor stagnation and the
accumulation of oxygen-demanding Substances in a marina basin,
resulting in depleted DO. The Study found that marina basins which
were deeper than adjacent waters had significantly less DO than
ambient or adjacent water. EPA recommends that marina bottoms
should be no more than one foot deeper than ambient waters.
Ideally, basins should be no deeper than ambient water depth to
promote flushing. Channel design also appeared to be important.
Water qLk,-XlitY monitoring showed that marinas with long, narrow, and
shallow channels had low.DO (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: '20).

The study also showed that deep basins and narrow, shallow channels
restricted water movement out of the basin. Results Supported
basin depth and channel depth and width as design components that
influence marina flushing, and hence water quality. In addition,
the Study showed that flushing was reduced when wind was blowing
directly into the marina channel; therefore, orientation is also
an important design feature (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: 20).

The types and quantities of Pollution entering a marina are also
directly related to marina siting and design. Point source
discharges of wastewater and stormwater would be an obvious Source
of pollution. Nonpoint source runoff can also affect many water
qua I i ty parameters, including DO, suspended solids, fecal
califorms, and nutrients. Most marinas receive some type of
freshwater drainage. In fact, many marinas are designed to capture
runoff from surrounding areas. In these cases, marinas may not be
an original Source, but rather a point of entry for exogenOUS
pollutants to the estuary. Some marinas also receive marsh
drainage which Would be expected to lower DO (NCDEHNR(a), 1990:
20).

The study results Supported earlier ob5ervati ons that hydrologi c
modification seems to have a much greater effect on DO than boat
activity. Although boats are a potential source of oxygen-
demanding wastes, the number or types of boats present in a marina
had no noticeable effect on DO. Because monitoring waste
discharges from boats is difficult, however, regulatory emphasis
Must be placed on proper operation of marine sanitation devices and
disposal facilities'. Boat maintenance activities, however, are a
potential Source of hydrocarbons, t0XiC Substances, and other

pollutants (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: 20).

In conclusion, DO modeling efforts by North Carolina were used to
develop methodoligies for reviewing marina permits. Modelling
showed that the most important siting factor to consider is the
major influence of sediment Oxygen demand (SOD) on marina DO. SOD
can strongly inf lUence oxygen conditions in a water column;
therefore, SOD is an important component of models that predict
oxygen concentrations. SOD rates are highly site specific and are
influenced by substrate composition. sediment oraanic content, and
other environmental factors Such as 'temperature. Although sediment
resuspension can cause temporary DO reductions, properly conducted
sediment removal may help mitigate long term depletion of water
column DO in cases where shallow, organic-rich sediments have been
deposited over sand. Because dredging has been associated with
numerous deleterious effects, however, dredging plans should
include Careful evaluation of benefits versus possible
environmental damage (NCDEHNR(a), 199C_): 22). This highlights the
importance of obtaining accurate Values Of SOD to estimate the DO
content of a proposed marina.

Modelling efforts also showed that the discharge of sewage from
boats had a negligible impact on DO for many situations.
Therefore, except for Situations with numerous slips in a poorly-
flushed marina, the number of boats should not be a critical factor
with respect to DO. SOD and flushing characteristics are far more
important. Finally, marina shape was shown to have a significant
impact on DO; increasing the number of segments-in a marina design
(finger canal shape) decreased the basin DO (NCDEHNR(a), 1990: 32).

Use of Bulkheads, Breakwaters, Piers, Wharves, and Docks in Marina
Design and Construction

The use of bulkheading, breakwaters, piers, wharves and docks in
marina design and construction has also been shown to influence
water quality conditions within a marina basin an-d in nearshore
waters. While a discussion of the design and use of bulkheads and
breakwaters has been developed in <<the section*.of this report
related to shoreline erosion control structures>>, it.is necessary
to include similar information on these structures here as it
relates to marina design and construction.

Bulkheads:

Bulkheads are vertical, walled structures built parallel to'the
shoreline to protect it from erosion or to provide boat docking
convenience. Bulkheads are usually constructed of stone, concrete,
sheet metal, or wood. The most severe effects of bulkheads occur
when they are constructed within or along the shores of wetlands
and used to hold fill deposited on the wetland. As we I I as
preventing free water circulation to any wetland behind it, a
bulkhead can also prevent the natural seepage of groundwater into
adjacent waterways. The vertical face of a bulkhead protects the
upland by taking the brunt of wave energy, but in doing so, it
creates reflection waves which disturb sediments. Reflected waves
may also result in increased marina maintenance costs and
discomfort for pleasure boaters (ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 10).

One study found that bulkheads which protrude too far out into the
water may increase predation on migrating fish species because
shallow water, which is required for protection from large
predators, is absent. Vertical structures which replace shallow
water habitat may have similar effects on other animals adapted to
shallow water (ChMUra and Ross, 197B: 10).

Bulkheads are expensive to build and for that reason should be kept
to a minimum. If erosion on the marina waterfront is a problem,
a sloping riprap wall with underlying filter cloth is the
preferable form of shore protection. Riprap walls can be less
expensive., provide more Surface area for -the growth of fouling
Communities, and create habitat. Problems of Scouring and wave
ref I ection are I ess severe wi th ri prap because wa 11 surf aces are
irregular and sloping. Since the structure is not solid, it also
allows seepage of groundwater into the marina. Sloping riprap
walls do r4qUire more space than vertical bulkheads, which can
result in space limitations and certain marina services (e.g.,
travel lift wells) may preclude their use (ChMUra and Ross, 1978:
10) .

If bulkheads or riprap walls are deemed necesary, they should be
located behind all marshland end as far upland as possible with
access over wetlands on piers. Features Such as "weepholes" in
bulkheads will allow water to pass through. Where there are deep
waters, Young fish or other animals which require shallow water may
be subject to increased predation. T lie re f o re, it has been
SUggested that bulkheads be placed at a water 1OVel where they will
be wetted more than one foot deep approximately 10% or less of the
time during critical migration periods (ChMUra and Ross, 19713: 11)..

Breakwaters:

Breakwaters are linear structures which extend out into the water
and provide sheltered conditions for craft and marina facilities
by dissipating wave energy. They may be composed of a wide variety
of materials and constructed to either sit on the bottom (fixed
position) or float on the Surface (movable). Since breakwaters
provide for calm water, they may also increase the amount of
shoreline available for salt marsh building. The fouling
commmunities which grow on breakwaters can add to the biological
productivity Of the area and attract fish.

In contrast, Studies at Marina Del Ray found that a breakwater
constructed around the marina entrance accumulated organic debris.
The breakdown of this material resulted in the depletion of DO in
the bottom water, which harmed the benthic fauna. Certainly,
breakwaters can be traps for larger floating debris which becomes
an aestheti.c problem as well. Breakwaters can also act a barriers
for migrating fish and culverts installed in breakwaters to aid
fish passage might not be readily used (ChMUra and Ross, 197B.- 11) .

Breakwaters can also interrupt longshore currents and the movement
of sediments. Many researchers mention that solid (surface to
bottom) breakwaters, which restrict the opening for water
circulation within a marina, will alter sedimentation patterns and
the natural flushing which can help remove pollutants from marina

waters. However, the impact Of Such a disturbance is difficult to
measure and probably unique -to each marina (ChMUra and Ross, 197B:
11) . I
A floating breakwater can be a cheaper and more environmentally-
sound alternative to the common, solid breakwater, although it does
not provide the same degree of protection. These may be
constructed from a variety of materials; one example might be the
use of attached, floating tires. The floating breakwater is
preferred for shore protection because it allows free passage of
fish, does not alter Current and sediment patterns, and therefore
does not have -the adverse effects of a solid breakwater (Chmura and
Ross, 197E3: 12).

When solid breakwaters are used, their location Must be planned
with consideration of natural current and sediment flow, wave
patterns, and overall f lUshing characteristics of the marina basin.
Modelling studies are useful in this regard and may be used to plan
for adequate flushing of new marinas, or to remedy problems at
existing ones. From modelling work already studied, it has been
Suggested that breakwaters include as many openings as possible to
maximize wave protection while allowinq adequate water flow and
fish passage. Sloping riprap type breakwaters are preferable to
vertical structures because irregular surfaces provide protective
habitat for small fish passing around the Structure and are more
effective in dissipating wave energy (Chmura and Ross, 1978; 12).

An example of a creative alternative to trad'itional breakwater
design is being used at a project at Jamestown Settlement in James
City County, VA. This project involved the design of a new mooring
facility for the replicas of historic ships and includes the use
of two, rUbble-MOUnd breakwaters, one of which is to be planted
with trees, shrubs and grasses native to the area. The new
breakwaters will be constructed of riprap and stone and will
repl ace the original concrete breakwater, as well as provide a
Visual barrier which will help in the educational mission of the
Jamestown Settlement (Glenn and Sadler Associates, Inc., 199:1.).

Piers, Docks and Wharves:

Piers, docks and wharves can have detrimental effects on water
quality by blocking light and water flow. As happens with
bulkheads and breakwaters '. water flow within the marina basin may
be altered, especially if piers are Supported by closed (solid)
bases. In Virginia, open-pile piers are generally required in 'both
marina and private, non-commercial pier construction.

Wood is a major component of many piers, pilings and docks. The
use Of wood in marine related construction has always been
complicated by the actions of marine borers in addition to the
normal decay processes of bacteria and fungi. There are two main
groups of marine boreres: shipworms (mollusks) and gribbles
(crustaceans). In Virginia the primary concern is with shipworms
and, to a much lesser extent, the bribble. The distribution of
these organisms is highly dependent on water temperature and
salinity. Although generally more common in high salinity areas,
they can penetrate well into estuaries particularly during periods

of drouaht when salinity levels are unusually high (Priest.. 1994:
7).

In order to protect wooden structures, treatments have been
developed that make the wood unpalatable to these organisms as well
as bacteria and fungi. The two most commonly encountered
treatments are creosoted and salt-treated. In these processes, the
wood is preSSUre-treated with creosote, a coal tar distillate, or
one of several inorganic salt solutions. There are several levels
of treatment depending on the intended use. These treatment levels
are expressed in terms of -the pounds of preservative retained per
cubi c foot of wood (pcf ) . Table provides-: the levels of
treatment recommended by the AmericanT4ood Preservers Association
for different uses of wooden piles and lumber that Would typically
apply to Virginia (Priest, 1994: 7).

The uptake of these preservatives is greatest in the sapwood with
considerably lesser amounts absorbed by the heartwood.
Consequently, it is important to seal and/or cover the tops of
pilings and treat all cut surfaces with additional preservative to
prevent the deterioration of the wood from the inside Out. The
useful life of the structure can also be increased by minimizing
the direct exposure of the heartwood to shipt-jorms (Priest, 1994:
7).

To be effective, these preservatives Must also be of a poisonous
nature and of low water Solubility, which results in a slow
leaching rate. Most Studies have concentrated on the effectiveness
of preservatives, but not on the environmental effects. A report
published by a wood products company which diSCUsses'the toxicit,/
of creosote to non-target organisms stated that, although
laboratory tests found that creosote was moderately toxic by EPA
standards, toxic effects to selected fish species under normal
field conditions were not explored (ChMUra and Ross, 1976: 12).

The effects of docks, piers and wharves can be minimized if they
are constructed high enough above marshes and open water areas to.
a-llow light to reach the Surface. These structures should also
extend out far enough to reach adequate water depths so that
dredging will not be required for boat acces. Floating docks and
pile/timber piers will have the least effect on water circulation
and, therefore, should be used in preference to solid structures
(ChMUra and Ross, 1978: 13). In Virginia, the VRMC design
guidelines for pier and dock structures also recommends the same.

Because these structures provide additional Substrate for the
growth of fouling comMUF1 i ties, marina operators should avoid
painting the underwater Surfaces with anti-fOUling paints. Further
studies on -the environmental effects of wood preservatives are
necessary but, until results are availablLs, their use should not
be banned. Meanwhile, prudent use of long-lasting materials Such
be encouraged. For example, when creosote preservatives are used,
a highly refined variety is preferred. Numerically higher creosote
grades have a higher tar content and leach faster. A newer and
LtiLreasingly popular colorless preservatice (CCA salt) leaches more
slowly and is estimated to be effective for approximately 50 years.
Metal, fiberglass, or concrete can be used for docks, piles and

SHELLF1

ROOKERY
AREA

ESTUARY

8" LLFISH
CITY

Desirablo and Undesirablo Marina Sit** A and 8

piers, but historical use patterns, lower cost, ease of handling
and availability have made wood the preferred material for marina
use (ChMUra and Ross, 1?78: 1,3).

Docks are most commonly kept afloat with plastic foam logs or
billets. Metal barrels, fiberglass tanks and reinforced concrete
(foam or air filled) chambers are less commonly used. Many marina
owners seem to prefer the use of the more expensive petroleum-
resistant polystyrene foam over the expanded bead foam, because
the former lasts longer, does not absorb water, resists burrowing
by marine animals, and does not break apart easily. Since the
latter breaks up more easily with resulting white beads floating
off and accumulating along the shore or being swallowed by marine
organisms, it is recommended that the former be used where it is
to be exposed under docks. There has been little research on the
environmental effects of various flotation materials (Chmura and
Ross, 197e: 1:7).

d) Regulatory Requirements

Because of the potential severity and complexities of the
environmental impacts associated with marinas and other mooring
facilities, this type of shoreline development is Subject to strict
regulatory procedures at the federal, state and local levels.

The Commonwealth of -Virginia is historically a key shellfish
prodUcing state. Current shellfish leasing practices encourage the
acquisition of shellfish leases by developers in order to eliminate
or reduce opposition to seasonal shellfish Closures which may
result from the siting of marina facilities (VMRC(a):-. :25).

In order to protect the public health, the Virginia Department of
Health, Division of Shell-fish Sanitation (VDH-DSS) has established
a policy which requires the establishment of buffer zones around
boating facilities within which-shellfish cannot be harvested for
direct marketing during the months of April through October. These
buffer zones are as follows (VMRC(a): 3):

0-50 slips 1/B mile in all directions
51-100 slips 1/4 mile in all directions
> 100 slips 1/2 mile in all directions

As a resu I t of this policy, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DELI) , also as a matter of policy, considers
it a violation of water quality standards if a proposed faci-lity
will result in a seasonal shellfish Closure. The Virginia Marine
Resources Commission (VMRC) is required by law to give due
consideration to water quality standards established by DEG and to
enf orce the. shel 1 f ish closures establ ished by the VDH-DSS (VMRC (a)
3).

In addition, a comprehensive siting review process for marinas and
other boat mooring facilities requiring permits from VMRC is
necessary to insure that permit decisions comply with Statutory
requirements and the legislative mandate that the Commonwealth's
natural resources be maintained and conserved for present and
future generations. All public and private interests are carefully

considered in this review. As the size, density, complexity and
range of services offered by a proposed facility increase, so must
the detail in design and implementation of best management
practices in its siting, construction and operation. Minimizing
adverse environmental impacts Must be the ultimate goal in all
phases of planning, site construction and operation. Furthermore,
the acquisition of shellfish leases which may be affected by a
seasonal shellfish closure around a proposed facility will be given
no weight and, absent mitigating Circumstances, will be viewed as
a negative factor by VMRC in its evaluation of the facility
(VMRC(a):'4).

Since Community marina or dockage facilities significantly increase
the value of the upland property they are intended to serve, VMRC
has a long standing policy that such facilities are classified as
commercial in nature. Accordingly, only non-commercial, private
piers placed by individual owners of riparian lands in the waters
adjacent to such riparian lands are considered Statutorily exempt
from public interest review (VIIRC(a): 4).

Depending on the nature, scope, and potential deleterious effects
of a marina project, therefore, the following federal, state and
local permits may be required (SVPDC(a), 198e: 44,45):

0 A federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
for the discharge of dredged or fill materials in navigable
waters, their tributaries and adjacent wetlands <<add
applicable nationwide and regional permit-#'s>>.

0 A Water Protection Permi t from the DEO * certi f y ing that . no
adverse water qual ity impacts wi I I be required. bef ore a perm
is granted. This permit require water quality monitoring for
DO, temperature, and pH for both Surface and bottom waters.
All new or expanding marinas are also required to have eithe r
pumpout or dumpout facilities, depending on the marina size,
as part of this permit application (VDCR(c), 1.993: 5-13).

0 A state permit from the VMRC for all non-e@ empt activities
affecting State-owned subaqueous lands. Also, before a permit
can be granted for the development of a marina, VMRC requires
each facility using Subaqueous land to provide a Virginia
Department of Health (VDH) approved permit for all sanitary
and sewage facilities (VDCR(c), 1993: 5-13,14).

0 A state or local permit is required for any activities which
alter vegetated or nonvegetated tidal wetlands. This permit
is obtained from local authorities when a locality has adopted
a State-approved wetlands ordinance and established a wetlands
board.' The permit is processed through VMRC when a locality
has elected not to adopted an ordinance establishing 'a
wetlands board. In Hampton Roads, the Cities of Chesapeake,
Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk., Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk,
Virginia Beach and Williamsburg, and the Counties of Isle of
Wight, James City and York have wetlands boards. The City of
Franklin and Southampton County do not have tidal wetlands and
are, therefore, not subject to the permitting process under
state law. Local government development activity on publicly-

owned land is also exempt from this permitting requirement.

0 The Virginia Sanitary Regulation--, for Marinas and Boat
Moorings of the VDH require all marinas and other places where
boats are moored to have a permit to operate. In order to
obtain the permit to operate, the establishment must have on-
site sanitary facilities, PUMPOUt facilities and a sewage dump
station. There are special provisions for facilities which
do not allow boats with installed toilets to use their mooring
facilities. The VDH approved permit may not be issued until
the requirements of the on-site sewage regulations and/or the
Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations have been met
(VDH, 1990; VDCR(c), 1993: 5-14).

0 At the local level, a marina developer will, in most cases,
have to obtain a rezoning and/or a conditional use permit and
an erosion and sediment control permit before a building
permit is issued.

In addition, if a marina project is located within a locally-
designated Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, a water quality impact
assessment (WOIA) Must be conducted because the activity will be
Occurring within an RPA. Also, various best management practices
for marina siting and operation might be encouraged or required
under federal and state nonpoint source control programs.

In conclusion, the intensive development of the region's shoreline
has eliminated many suitable locations for marina development,
particularly in the more urbanized localities. As a result, sites
proposed for marinas are often environmental ly-marginal and do not
satisfactorily meet the criteria necefsary to obtain federal, state
or local permit approval. Table _q is a check. list of siting
criteria which will be considered by VMRC in determining whether,
and upon what condition, to issue any permit for a marina or other
type of boat mooring facility. -Use of this checklist b7x/ local plan
reviewers and wetlands boards when deliberating the issuance of a
local permits is encouraged. In additioni VMRC may consider other
factors relevant to a specific project or applicat@on.

Table is a more comprehensive synthesis of criteria used by
VMRC and other federal, state'and local authorities in evaluating
the siting and design in marina development proposals in Virginia.
Many of these criteria will be considered by VMRC, in particular,,
during the Public interest review of each application for
recreational marinas or community facilities for boat mooring. In
addition to those gUidelines proposed in the above discussion,
these criteria should be given consideration early in the process
of siting and design of any marina facility (SVPDC(a), 1989:
45,47,48).

VMRC will also require the applicant to demonstrate how appropriate
BMPs will be incorporated into both the upland development plan
associated with the facility as well as the Erosion and Sediment
(E84S) Control Plan required by local government in order to reduce
the discharge of nonpoint Source Pollutants into State waters.
VMRC may also require, as a condition of any permit issued, that
BMP structures be completed before any slips can be Occupied and

that the permittee cooperate fully with local governmental agencies
in complying with the E&S Plan, including maintenance of any
required BMP structures. An appropriate surety bond or Letter of
credit may be required to ensure proper installation, stabilization
and maintenance of any vegetative or structural measures (VMRC(a);
6).

TABLE

CRITERIA DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLE

Water Depth Greater than 3 ft. at mean low water. Less than 3 ft. at mean low water.

Salinity Unsuitable for shellfish growth. Suitable for shellfish growth.

Water Quality Closed for direct marketing of Approved, conditionally approved,
shellfish. Little or no potential for or seasonally approved for
future productivity. shellfish harvesting.

Designated Shellfish No private leases or public ground Private leases or public oyster
Grounds within affected area. No potential ground in proximity.
for future productivity.

Maximum Wave Height Less than 1 ft. Greater than 1 ft.

Current Less than 1 knot. Greater than I knot.

Dredging Does not require frequent Requires frequent dredging; no
maintenance; suitable site for all suitable site for dredged material.
dredged material.

Flushing Rate Adequate to maintain water quality. Inadequate to maintain water
quality.

Proximity to Natural or Less than 50 ft. to navigable Greater than 50 ft. to navigable
Improved Channel channel. water depths.

Threatened or Absent; project will not affect. Present as defined in existing
Endangered Species regulations, or project has potential
to affect habitat.

Adjacent Wetlands Suitable buffer to be maintained. Cannot maintain suitable buffer.

Navigation and Safety Navigation not impeded. Waterbody difficult to navigate or
presently overcrowded conditions
exist.

Existing Use of Site Not presently used for waterskiing, Presently used for waierskiing,
fishing, swimming or other crabbing, fishing, swimming or other
recreational use. poentially conflicting iises.

Submerged Aquatic Absent. Present.
Vegetation

Shoreline Stabilization Shoreline protected by natural or Bulkheading required.
planted vegetation or riprap.

Erosion Control No artifical structures needed. Groins and/or jetties necessary-
Structures

Finfish Habitat Usage Unimportant area for spawning or Important spawning and nusery
nursery for any commercially or area.
recreationally valuable species.

Source: Virginia Marine Resources Commission. "Criteria for the Siting of Marinas or Community
Facilities for Boat Mooring." VR 450-01-0047.

TABLE
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF MARINAS
AND OTHER BOAT MOORING FACILITIES

Location

0 The need for a marina facility should be clearly
demonstrated.

0 The physical dimensions and characteristics of a waterway
(i.e., depth, Current, -tide range, fetch, suface area `
f lUshing rate) should be compatible with the size and
design of a marina and the type of vessels it will berth.
For example, a shallow cove or basin is not an
appropriate site for a deep draft sailboat marina.

0 Convex shorelines at the Mouths of waterways are
preferred locations. Also, deep water sites are
preferred over sites where dredging is required.

0 All marinas should be located in areas with good natural
flushing to minimiZe the bUild-Up Of organic material and
other pollutants on the bottom.

0 Vessel movement in and Out Of a facility should not
in-fringe on the riparian waters of adjacent properties..
existing physical or Visual access, or interfer e with
navigation on the receiving waterway*.

0 The additional vessels drawn to a waterway by a new
facility should not exceed the carrying capacity of that
waterway. Carrying capacity is based on the number of
water access rights that would be granted to private
riparian property owners along a waterway.

0 Marinas should be sited away from areas of very high
natural resource value (e.g., productive or actively-
worked shellfish areas, submerged aquatic vegetation
communities,, finfish spawning and nursery areas, and
areas frequented by endangered species).

0 The transfer of control of shellfish leases in order to
accommodate marina development is generally unacceptable.

0 Projects that, by their Cumulative impact, will result
in dense concentrations of boats in one area will be
critically evaluated as to their impacts on natural
resources; however, in densely - populated areas,
concentration of slips in a single facility may be
i USti f ied to prevent disturbance at undeveloped
shorelines.

0 The site should be served by public water and sewer
services.

0 A marina should be compatible with adjacent land and
water uses.

Design

0 The dredging of access channels and basins should be
limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for
navigation and should avoid sensitive areas Such as
wetlands, she I If ish grounds and I:-:. U m b e r g e d aquatic
vegetation beds. Where channels and basins are
necessary, dead-end or finger canals and restricted
inlets should be avoided and depths of basins and
channels should not exceed ambient (adjacent waterway)
depth.

0 Dredged areas should be no more than one foot deeper than
controlling depths in the waterway (ambient) and should
be connected to natural channels of similar depth. Where
possible, depths of basins and channels should not exceed
ambient depth.

0 An upland or deep water site should be clearly defined
and designated -for construction and maintenance dredge
spoils.

0 Structures. should not extend more than one-third the
distance across a waterway and should not impede existing
navigation.

0 If a site contains tidal wetlands, all structures except
those needed for access ShOUld be located landward or
channelward of wetland vegetation. The dredging or
-An -Absolute.
filling of wetlands should always be kept to L L
minimum.

0 Piers and wharves crossing vegetated wetlands and
submerged aquatic vegetation areas should be limited to
the minimum necessary-for water access.

0 Where vegetated areas are crossed, the height of the pier
above the Substrate should be equal to one foot less than
its width with a three -foot minimum requirqd.

0 All structures should be open-pile or floating.

0 For community piers and marina 'facilities which are
appurtenances to residential developments, the number of
slips will not necessarily be predicated by the number
Of units on the property.

0 Slips for deep draft boats should be built in the
naturally deeper waters of the marina.

0 Site specific stormwater management BMPs are required,
Such as buffer strips, grassed swales, wet detention
ponds and permeable parking Surfaces.

0 Sanitary facilities and PUMPOUt facilities convenient to
marina users should accompany development plans.

0 All fuel facilities Must incorporate automatic shUtOff
valves and must have spill continqency plans.

0 Methods of insuring aqainst the discharge of wastes, gray
water, bilge wastes and the USER of TBT paints shall be
provided.

0 Marinas Must have Sufficient upland area to provide all
necessary parking, stormwater management BMPs, -fuel, and
sanitary facilities without fillinq wetlands or
subaqueous bottoms.

0 A solid waste disposal and recovery plan with facilitied
marina user access Must aCCOMpally marina development
plans.

0 Facilities incorporating boat maintenance operations
shall include plans for the efficient collection and
removal of sand blasting material, paint chips and other
by-products Of maintenance operations.

0 Design of breakwaters should permit adequate water
circulation within the facility.

0 Dry storage facilities are encouraged to minimiZe
environmental impacts.

Sources:
(1) SVPDC(a), 19Be: 47-4e.
(2) Existing VMRC regulations.
(3) VMRC(b), 1979 (rev. 1966): 8,9.
(4) "Wetlands Guidelines." VIMS/VNRC.
(5) COE, EPA, FWS, and NMFS permit evaluation criteria.

2. Boat Ramps

Like marina development, the construction and operation. of boat
ramp facilities is likely to have an adverse impact on the
shoreline environment. In general, however, boat ramp impacts are
much less significant than marina impacts. This is because boat
ramp facilities are generally smaller in scale, accommodate less
noxiOUS uses and usually require less encroachment on subaqueous
land. Boat ramp development is subject to the same federal COE,
State subaqueous, state/local wetlands, and Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area requirements described above for marinas
(SVPDC(a), 198e: 46).

As with marina development, there is a scarcity of shoreline that
is both environmental ly-suitable for boat ramp development and
located in an area where boat ramp access is deficient. The
Virginia Departmnet of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has
developed criteria to assist in the identification Of Suitable
landing sites and to ensure the proper design and construction of
boat ramps. These criteria are listed in Table . It has been
suggested that localities work with the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and the VDGIF to identify ends of public
rights-of-way adjacent to shoreline areas that may be developed as
boat ramp launch sites (SVPDC(a) , 1988: 46). Such areas have been
identified as potential public access points on <<the maps attached
to this report>>.

TABLE
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF BOAT RAMPS

Location

1. Primary consideration should be given to sites in areas
where the demand for boat ramp facilities exceeds the
supply.

Sites should be at least three to five acres in size with
two or more acres Suitable for parking.

3. Water depth should be minimum of two feet at the end of
the ramp at mean low water.

4. Avoid sites with excessive siltation or erosion.

5. Sites requiring extensive dredging or filling should be
avoided.

6. Sites should be Close to a public road to avoid the
expense of access road construction.

Design

1. Build ramps at a slope of eleven to thirteen percent with
lane widths between twelve and sixteen feet.

In. Ramps constructed on flowinq rivers should enter the
4.
river at an angle to facilitate boat launching and red-uce
siltation.

71. Extend the ramp to a depth of five feet, install riprap
at the end ofthe ramp or increase the sl ope for the last
ten to fifteen feet of7the ramp to protect the end of the
ramp.

4. Provide about thirty-five car-trailer spaces for each
launching lane. Each car-trailer space should be ten
feet wide and forty feet long, and the parking lot should
provide adequate maneuvering room.

5. If two launch lanes are constructed, build a pier between
the two to serve both lanes and to insure -that one user
cannot tie up both lanes.

6. Support facilities should include litter receptables,
restrooms, and handicapped access.

Sources:
(1) SVPDC(a), 198e: 49.
(2) Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 19B6.

:5. Canoe Put-In/Take-Out Points

Because the development of canoe put-in/take-OUt points does not
normally involve filling or dredging activities, encroachment on
subaqueous land or -the alteration of wetlands, the permits
discussed in the previous sections are Usually not required. Many
existing informal canoe access points are located next to bridge
crossings on land owned by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT). The VDOT does not encourage the use of
these locations for water access, but will. not prohibit access
unless negligent use occurs. Should a locality wish to develop a
formal canoe access point on VDOT-owned land, a special use permit
must be obtained from the VDOT (SVF'DC(,R), 1988: 50).

Compared to marinas and boat ramps, canoe access points have few
adverse environmental impacts, require little in the way of
construction and maintenance work, and are relatively inexpensive
to develop (SVPDC(a), 19e8: 50). Table contains siting and
design criteria for canoe access points.

TABLE
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF
CANOE PUT-IN/TAKE-OUT FACILITIES

Location

1. Facility should be on a waterway that is suitable for
canoeing and along a stretch of that waterway that is
deficient in canoe access opportunities.

2. Access point should be within a short portage of parking
area.

3. Facility should not be located on water that is too
shallow, has an extrefm-3 drop-off, has severe currents,
has underwater obstructions, or where large boat traffic:
is frequent.

Desicin

1. Approach to waterway should not be too steep and should
be clear of brush. If banks are steep, consideration
should be given to reconstrUctinq the bank through
grading and possible the installation of steps.

2. Site should provide adequate and safe parking, preferably.
in an off-road location.

3. Site should have picnic tables, litter repceptables,
--i information kios[--*. and
restrooms, handicapped access, ai
signs which designate the site as a canoe access
facility.

Source: SVPDC(a), 1988: 51).

B. Shoreline Pedestrian Access Areas

1. Beachfront

In Hampton Roads, nearly all of the unrestricted beachfront has
been developed for public beach use. There are, however, extensive
segments of restricted and closed beaches which are suitable for
development as public beaches. Should these beaches ever become
available for public USe, there are a number of factors which Must
be considered in their development (SVPDC(a), 1988: 51).

Public beaches require extensive Support facilities. These
facilities include restrooms, showers, drinking fountains, litter
receptacles, handicapped access, rental equipment and food
concessions, as well ;_RS lifeguard facilities. Public beach
development may also require the construction of facilities that
impact or alter the primary dune system. Such facilities might
include access roads to the beach site, parking lots, and
pedestrian and/or emergency vehicle access points to the waterfront
through the dune line. The State, in recognizing the environmental
importance o f coastal primary dunes, has promulgated strict
development guidelines and permitting procedures for activities
which alter dunes. Under State enabling legislation, a locality
which has a State-approved wetlands ordinance and a wetlands board
may adopt a primary sand dunes ordinance and entrust its wetlands
board with the permitting process. In Hampton Roads, the Cities
of Hampton, Norfolk and Virginia Beach have local ly-administered
sand dune permitting programs. It should be noted, however, that
local government activity on publicly-owned or leased property is
exempt from the permitting requirements (SVPDC(a), 19-88: 51,52).

2. Fishing Areas

Development of a fishing area might be as simple as opening up a
stretch of publicly-owned shoreline to fishing or as extensive as
constructing an open-water pier. For the most part, the
development of fishing areas is not as heavily regulated as the
development of other water access facilities. The 'development of
shoreline fishing areas is not subject to federal COE, state
subaqueous or state/local wetlands permits unless dredging or
filling of wetlands or subaqueous land is required. The
construction of noncommercial fishing piers does not require a
wetlands permit or a subaqueous permit from VMRC, but may require
a federal COE permit. VMRC does retain the right to review all
noncommercial fishing pier proposals for obstacles to navigation.
The construction of commercial fishing piers, however, is Subject
to all three permitting procedures (SVPDC(a), 1988: 57.). Table
lists suggested guidelines for siting and designing fishing
facilities

TABLE
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN OF FISHING FACILITIES

Location

1. Facility should be lcoated on a waterbody with a
productive fishery and acceptable water quality.

2. Consideration should be given to potential conflicts with
adjacent land use and other water activities.

3. A shore fishing area should be free of obstructions such
as steep banks, dense brush or low hanging tree limbs.
Also, the wate'r fronting a fishing area should be of
Sufficient depth and devoid of underwater obstructions
that would interfere with fishing.

4. Consideration should be given to incorporating fishing
facilities into water-related construction projects. For
example. catwalks and platforms can be built into bridae
projects, or fishinq areas can be developed in areas
adjacent to bridge approaches. Safety considerations
Must be integral to the location and design of such
-kreas may also be developed at park
facilities. Fishing . I
sites, next to boat ramp launching areas, on breakwaters,
along bulkheading projects or at highway waysides.
Adequate space for safe parking Must exist or be easily
provided.

Design

1. Support facilities appropriate to fishing areas include
parking areas, restrooms, handicapped access, drinking
fountains, litter receptacles, picnic tables, fish
cleaning facilities,"and boat rental, bait and food
concessions.

2. Fishing structures should be of barrie r7free design to
afford fishing opportunities -for the widest range of
participants.

3. Piers should be of open-pile construction, and piers
constructed over vegetated wetlands should be high enough
to prevent loss of existing vegetation through shading.

Sources:
(1) Existing VMRC Regulations.
(2) SVPDC(a), 19BB: 5:3.

3. Other Shoreline Recreation Areas

BeaCUSe these shoreline facilities accommodate recreational
activities that do not require direct access to the water, their
development generally has minimal impact on the marine enviornment.
It may be desirable at some facilities, however, to construct
elevated walkways and/or observation platforms over wetlands or
open water for nature observation or to provide scenic vistas.
Construction of such facilities by a local government may require
a federal COE and/or a state Subaqueous permit, but not a
state/local wetlands permit (SVPDC(a), 19E33: 52). Guidelines for
the siting and design of shoreline facilities that do not provide
boat access and are unsuitable for swimming or fishing are found
in Table

TABLE
GUIDELINES FOR THE SITING AND DESIGN
OF SHORELINE RECREATION AREAS

(Includes areas that provide waterfront access but do not provide
boat access and are not physically or environmental ly-SUitable for
swimming or fishing.)

Location

1. Site should offer special qualities that will attract
public usc-kqe (e.g., scenic vistas or nature observation) .

2. Public access to the shoreline (either pedestrian or
visual) should be incorporated whenever possible into
public and private waterfront development projects. Such
projects might include waterfront retail, office,
residential or mixed use developments, marinas, public
Design parks, and highways.

1. Conflicts between public shoreline access facilities and
adjacent uses might be mitigated by design techniques
Such as grade separation, landscaping and natural
buffering, and fences.

Recreational facilities that might be included in public
shoreline areas include piers and observation decks,
telescopes, playgrounds, amphitheatres. walkways or bike
paths along the waterfront and picnic' tables. Support
facilities might include parking areas, handicapped
access, park benches, food concessions, restrooms and
litter receptacles. Facilities should be barrier-free.

3. Publicly-accessible waterfront in downtown areas should
be well lit, patrolled frequently by law enforcement
personnel and designed so as to provide an overall sense
Of Security.

SOUrce: SVPDC(a), 1988: 54.

rt
I'D
_cL :2 -n 0 n rt ;n nx;urD z
D) @u 0 @D fD n @u :T Ill 3 0
w cri in a 0 0 0 Ul 3 0 n - 1
rt ::r . rt @: in E 0 W -0 a -1 _+@
a$ P_ in a) n rt a) C rD %B 0
t, t:j < 0 j< t:I M D in x j-t rt* :D
1'.1x __q C4 I fo -i z r 0 T D z 1 0 in @u :3
ID P. P-0 rv0 IDn fEl C j-D I'D .0 I'D :T C :T :3 1., @: r+ n P. o m Ino n - 1., 1+
rD n < < < .-i < @u -lal L130 fin. rt !-I 'In 03 0 Ill 0 111 & n in '--I r+ al cr in -I ra P. CL
:3 r+ P. P. ;n a 1-10 p. -1 D) UI Fl- 9j 0 n 03 P. ru < rD rt. -I m ID in j rt in b 1
(I I,. M in - F-- in li-. in rt- :)& o in m :1 0 < .1;7 P- 1 P. a: -I rt- !: :T - :) rD
B 0 :E P. rt. aj :) rr 0 :1 z I- u) - -i .. 0 z @u !10 w 69 Ou 0 <
Ill :) :3 @u '0 P. @u, :3 D
0 I-L 0 fo W W < !b n :3 U
3 0 cc) r+ P. -0
0 3 -@o w 0 0 -r:k P. 0 in
17+ Or. _h _@o rt :K 1 n < I ra co IDD rt, < @u
k) 0 C4 o 0 0 177) al :x 0 0 I'D -1 . 0 1 !b ro 7 1+ a) P. -0 j.0 U) U-)
UI in 41 in a rL, 0
lk- U) -4, -h 0 D @u in ru @u
r+ -+, Ul rt- n -1 .(J 3 @u
-n < = . -
W co a :3 iD _.q ro 0 o :r> 4 :T .n 0 in rt :3
ft 0 o 0 a) ri- :3 :r Q) 4. :3 rD G)
C: 1-t @u ro P rt
0 0 ro P. 0 0 o w 0 C: in 0 irr rn < @u
0 D fn :1 @q @u -1 con m IJI ro !D 0
0 Cr) :E fo
aj z in MD rt in 0 '1 :3 < 0 -.0 @E 0 -4, n
n.A f,,j o
o -130 1j CL fo In 173 rt
:6 in - -n w :
:T :3 :3 @D O_ 3 M 0 ;n -
ro -0 a < z r-) rt Il rt
r+ U) ,
J@u cu ;rj in up 0 0 r :T Ill :T 0 n
0 @u 5u w 71 !b <
0 P. E I ro -n
0 ro 1.11ID rt rD :E z 1.6 P. ro
ro a w in 0
;n 0 3 !b CL CL 0 fo r in in in (D ro 11) ro rt -I M :1 n
rt- r+ I rn n in ro in @u .0 c
H. lu D :3 - I,_ rt r+ H. 0- ID
ro @n T @n 0:3 rt in z in o :1 < :n 3
4@. P. l< * Ill M
n in P. ro 3r+ C: , r.) 7 9) 3 < r- Cr
:T rl- @u co 0 M F- ro
Eu o tz, I-) n n ro
:3 m r1l co n j I'D < r+ ro 1 0 0 ro I
n I =r 'I CL -n0 D :T 1-+ !)) 5: :1 r+ :3 C4 LA a
:3 0 aj I'D B Ill I n Z P. -j
c w 0 @u :3 D D ro <
r-t- @u
n :3 in .u 0 <
CL N CL (+
I'D Ul CI- rt- :3 r+ It! 1 0 1 < ro
0 H. CL P. -0 r-T ID -.0 ;n CL rD
0 . 0 '10 D :) _ M !11
:3 -@O r 0 3 0 :x r+ EU
< (D T P.0 _0 n , 0 P' -3 to in !b < 0
< 1.4 :r :D H. ;n !11 1 0
< fo 1 --1 in
0 !v ;n 'D fD '. in 0 @j
in r+
r+ in @u In -4, w
a) i.D
n n @u ru rD !n _T ;n
< rt w 0 ::r in in -n _0 C4 P.
0 0 0 03m rD 0 0 0 aA 0
0 < C: r_" -0 0 -7 ro I", C. a 0
in @u :) & 11) :1
:)7 tz, -1 D co CL 7..' :3 . E 11) C
,-n n n n r n0 < ri- :3,
-I < rD 3
@u ;:n ro 0 . !I) o j
I'D . lr
C-1 n ;In in 71 n- z
5: 91 B C-J rD w in @u 9
73 T in ID 03
0 rt -P,
n :r I- -i < 9 -.0 Z 7 _0
D n coal @u
& 0 1- ID G. 0 0
0 -1 n _H Tj -i IZI I- D) _j n
Lo :1 a rt
cr P. ro ru _11 C-3 r+ z
z .0
fD cr C ft ro in n c @u
P. < I ro I- ra < C4 ou 0 Pi rt
I

rl- I-_ rr, 0 ID C. M
W -1 C: tZI z @u _T
X _@Cl CO oj :3 Z W @u
0 r- 10
I Ill D :1 ID
0

1 C.? 9 -_:r

Virginia Department of Health. "Commonwealth of Virginia Sanitary
Regulations for Marinas and Boat Moorings." Richmond, VA:
VDH, October 1, 191?0.

VirQinia Institute of Marine Science. "Wetlands Guidelines,." in
cooperation with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
(a) "Criteria for the Siting of Marina or Community
Facilities for Boat Mooring." (VR 450-01-0047) . 1983.
(b) "Subaqueous Guidelines: Guidelines for the Permittina
of Activities Which Encroach In, On or Over the Submerged
Lands of the Commonwealth of Virginia." Effective June
26., 1979, revised March 1986.

Additional Sources of Information:

American Boat Builders and Repairers Association. Boat Yard and
Marina Operators' KRIIUal. ABB84RA, 1987.

Boaters Committed to.Protecting Virginia's Waterways. "Don't Pass
the Bucket: Brina It Ashore." Brochure.

Caine, Edsel A. "Potential Effect of Floating Dock Communities on
a South Carolina Estuary." University of South Carolina at,
Beaufort. Beaufort, SC: USC, January 1987.

Coastal Technology, Inc. A Guidebook for Marina- Owners and
Operators on"the Installation and Oneration of SewaQe Pum
.P2_Ut
Stations. Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural
Resources -Boating Administration. Virginia Beach, VA: Cl-,
Inc., February 1990.

Community & Environmental Defense Services. "Protecting the
Environment & Waterfront Residents From the Effects of Boating
Facilities." Maryland Line, MD: C&EDS, undated.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Office of
Planning and Coordination/Coastal Management. Mod-el Municipal
Harbor Manaaement Plan. Hartford, CN: CAM, April 1995.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Division of Water Resources. Marina ReQUlations. March 29,
1990.

Gibson, George R. , Jr. and Karen M. Arnold-. "Use of Marine
Sanitation Devices in Maryland Waters: Report of a Survey of
Boaters and Marina Operators." University of Maryland -
Natural Resources Management Program. College Park, MD: UM,
December 1, 1987.

Hershner, Carl . "Marina Sitinas from the Scientific Advisor's
Viewpoint." Paper presented at the Chesapeake Bay Research
Conference. Williamsburg, VA. March 20-21, 19B6.

Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program
"Recreational Boat Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay: Time for
Action." Report to the Chesapeake Executive Council. Draft.
October 29, 1990 (January 8, l991).

Local Wetlands Ordinances.

Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission. "Issue Paper I;
Marinas and Other Boating Facilities." Draft. Saluda, VA:
MPPDC, November 1, 1989.

Nison, Scott W., Candace A. Oviatt and Sharon L. Northby. "Ecology
of Small Boat Marinas." Marine Technical Report Series No.
5. University of Rhode Island - Graduate School of
Oceanography Sea Grant. Kingston, RI: URI, 1973.

Spaulding, Malcolm L. "Modeling Of Circulation and Dispersion in
Coastal Lagoons." University of Rhose Island - Ocean
Engineering. Kingston, RI. URI, undated.

Spaulding, Malcolm L. and J Craig Swanson. "Marina Boat Carrying
Capacity: An Assessment and Comparison of Methodologies."
Applied Science. Associates, Inc. Narragansett, RI: ASA, Inc,
undated.

Strand, Ivar E. and George R. Gibson. "The Use of Pump-out
Facilities by Recreational Boaters in Maryland." Estuaries.
Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 282-286. September 1990.

United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency. "Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters." (840-B-92-002) Office of
Water. Washington, DC: USEPA, January 1993.

CONTROLLING THE DENSITY OF PIERS AND DOCKS

As the Hampton Roads region has E;xperienced rapid develooment of
Umber of
its vast shoreline area, an increase in the n' piers and
docks for private access to adjacent waterways has simultaneously
Occurred. Under Virginia riparian law, every riparian owner is
entitled to access the water adjacent to his property. However.,
there is a perceived problem that uncontrolled densities of piers
and docks is contributing to water quality problems. This
perception stems from the various water-dependent activities
associated with the use of piers and docks, such as boat operation,
maintenance, storage and, in particular, discharge of bilge water
and wastewater, that have the potential to degrade water quality.
Local Qovernmer'its have the Opportunity to control the densities of
private piers and docks, and thUS the activities and intensity of
water quality impact-s associated with them. through local land use
ordinances and mooring requirements. Examp"les of how such control
can be achieved include minimum shoreline frontage reQ.Lkirements and
clustering of water access rights and boat mooring in areas most
suited to that PLArp)OSe.

Before exercising these controls, however, the following isSLAL-S
should be considered:

0 Research is lacking as to whether or not there is a direct
correlation between the density of piers and docks in a
particular waterway and any water quality problems that are
occurring therein. Research has shown that the construction
practices and Materials used in the building of piers and
docks can have a negative impact on water quality, but little
if anything is mentioned regarding the Cumulative impact's of
many structures in a given area.

0 Current permitting requirements in Virginia for water access
-facilities include project review criteria that are stt"-ictly
related to the design, construction and location of such
facilities. While they encourage minimization of impacts -to
shoreline features arid subaqueous bottomlands, they do not to
impacts to water quality, per se. In addition,-construction
of piers and docks for private use is exempt from this.
permitting process, except for a cursory review by the state
for Public safety purposes to ensure that the location of such
a structure does not impede navigation in -the waterway, as
well as Any permits which might be required under the local
building code.

0 Non-conSUMpti.Ve uses of water by riparian property owners is
subi ec*t to Virginia riparian water law. At the same time,
shoreline frontaqe and access to the water is strictly tied
to local land Use regulation through zoning and subdivision
ordinances. Any proposals to restrict access are
intextricably linked to the existing framework of state and
local [email protected] and land use law, as well as private property
r4 ghts arid, as a result, might be politically undesirable.

0 Water access can also provide for participation in more
passive activities arid does not always involve boating.

0 Proposals to restrict access are only feasible in areas with
undeveloped shorelines.

0 Controlling the density of piers and docks to minimize
negative impacts to water quality will address only a small
part of a more comprehensive issue involving uncontrolled uses
of waterways. The uncontrolled uses which occur along
waterways in Virginia contribute to a hybrid problem Of user
conflicts, resulting in impacts to public safety, recreation,
and natural resources. Therefore, a hybrid Solution, such as
a waterway management plan, which might require expansion of
state and local regulatory authority, would be necessary to
balance recreational activities, protection of the environment
and increased safety on the water.

The following discussion attempts to identify the problem more
clearly. In addition, this section will discuss the legal
nonconsumptive rights of riparian owners and Public water users.
provide a review of the existing regulatory framework in Virginia
as it relates to private pier and dock density, discuss existing
private pier and dock densities within the project study area,
discuss existing and future land use, zoning and subdivision
ordinances by jurisdiction as it relates to pier and dock density
provide a review of density control standards and waterway
management plans, and identify areas in the existing regulatory
generic density standards and/or water use compatibility/waterway
managment plans, and identify areas in the existing regulatory
framework at the state and local level that could be changed to
better address this issue.

A. Piers and Docks vs. Water Quality

Research efforts to draw a correlation between the density of pier
and dock. structures in a particular waterway and water quality
problems which might be occurring therein have to date, not been
able to determine that Such a correlation exists. While
construction practices and materials used in building access
structures can potentially impact the immediate shoreline and
nearshore environment at the time Such structures are being built,
large numbers of these structures, in and of themselves, have not
been linked to specific water quality problems over time.

1. Pier and Dock Construction and Water Quality Impacts

A review of existing laws in Virginia governing the construction
of private piers and docks reveals that Such structures are
statutorily exempt from the state permitting process, only a review
of the project's impact on public safety and not water quality, per
se, is rrquired. Required nationwide or regional permits must be
obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers (AC0E), however, prior
to construction. In addition, each project is reviewed by federal
and state permitting agencies and local wetlands boards, on a case-
by-case basis, as opposed to a cummulative impact basis which would
take in-to consideration the project's impacts on other structures
already present in a given area.

Under Title 28.2-1203(A) of the Code of Virginia, related to

fisheries and habitat of tidal waters, it shall be unlawful for any
person to build, dump, trespass or encroach upon or over, or to

take or use any materials from the beds of the bays, ocean, rivers,
streams, or creeks which are the property of the Commonwealth,
unless such act is performed pursuant to a permit issued by the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) or is necessary for the
following:

o the construction of piers, docks, marine terminals, and port
facilities owned or leased by or to the State or any of its
Political Subdivisions; or

o the placement of private piers for non-commercial purposes by
owners of riparian lands in the waters opposite those lands `
provided that the piers do not extend beyond the navigation
line or private pier lines established by VMRC or the Corps.

However, Title 28.2-1204 and the Subaqueous Guidelines developed
by VMRC state that:

"while placement of open-pile private piers for non-
commercial purposes by owners:, of riparian lands in the
riparian waters opposite Such lands does not require a
VMRC permit, VMRC does require the submission of an
application on all piers in order that a determination
can be made by VMRC staff as to the nature of the
structure and its Status with regard to qualifying for
the statutory exemption as well as to determine that
such piers will notinterfere with navigation."

VMRC utilizes the following definitions to make a determination
regarding pier status:

0 a private pier is generally held to be an appurtenance to
riparian property constructed in the waters opposite said
property whose use is non-commercial by definition and
designed to provide navigable access and/or mooring for the
riparian owner;

0 non-commercial use means a pier which is for individual
property Owner use only., and does not support the sale of
goods or services; and,

0 Community piers are generally held to be an appurtenance to
riparian property for which ownership interest in the property
is divided between two or more property owners in the
adjoining Subdivision or parcel (this also includes dock
facilities associated with condominium-type dwellings because
the- increase the Value Of units offered for sale); community
piers are therefore, by definition, commercial.

The Subaqueous Guidlines further state that:

0 utilization of open-pile type structures for gaining access
to navigable waters is strongly favored Over construction of
solid fill structures;

D the constructuion material and design being used should
ensure stability and safety; and

0 any piers constructed over vegetated wetlands should be high
enough to prevent loss of existing vegetation through shading.

This is the only place where a reference is made to the project's
potential impact on the nearshore environment.

In addition, Title 2B.2-1302 authorizes that any application
received by VMRC for a water access structure that will occur in
a wetland to be forwarded to the local wetlands board for permit
issuance. The law provides that the following uses of and
activities in wetlands are permitted: the construction and
maintenance of non-commercial catwalks, piers, boathouses, boat
shelters, fences, duckblinds, wildlife management shelters,
footbridges, observation decks and shelters and other similar
structures provided that such structures are constructed on
pilings as to permit the reasonably unobstructed flow of the tide
and preserve the natural contour Of the wetlands; and, non-
commercial outdoor recreational activities, including boating,
hunting, fishing,, shellfishing, swimming, et als. provided that no
structure shall be constructed excepts as permitted above, as well
as other Outdoor recreational. activities, provided that they do not
impair the; natural functions or alter the natural contour Of the
wetlands.

Wetlands Guidelines developed by VMRC and the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS) state that:

"provided significant marine fisheries, wetlands and
wi,Idlife resources are not unreasonably or detrimentally
affected, alteration of'the shoreline for construction
of shoreline facilities may be justified to aain access
to navigable waters by: 1) commercial, industrial, and
recreational interests for which it has been clearly
demonstrated that waterfront facilities are required-, and
'2') owners of land adjacent to waters of navigable depth
or water which can be made navigable with on!'/ minimal
adverse impact on the environment."

The Wetlands GLAidelines go on to state that:

"Ut@ lization of open-pile type structures for gaining
access to adequate water depths is generally preferred
over the construction of solid Structures, dredging or
fillinq. The rationale for this is that construction of
solid Structures. or the conduct of dredging and filling
operations, often causes irretrievable loss of wetlands
through their direct displacement or by indirect effects
of sedimentation or altered water Currents. Open-pile
structures permit continued tidal flow over existing
wetlands and SUbtidal areas, avoid potential
sedimentation problems, future maintenance dredging, and
have less effect on existing water current patterns.
Also, channels, fills and structures*should be desiqned
to withstand the Maximum stresses of the marine
environment, e.g. wind and wave action and corrosion of
materials, and also to minimize the frequency of future
maintenance activities. The rationale for this is -that
shoreline alterations often change currents, affect
shoreline stability aa n dCause biolooical damaae.
Unsuccessful Structures or channels generate demands for
remedial action which can compound initial adverse
effects. Designs which minimize the dredging frequency
in channels are particularly important. Dredging
destroys or displaces bottom-dwelling organisms of Value
to the a(qUatiC food web and, while such organisms can be
expected to recolonize a dr"edge area after a period of
time, too frequent dredging can inhibit recolonization."

Where VMRC and/6r wetlands board is not given authority to
re(.ILIlatE?,. construction or piers and docks through a permittin g
proces--, SUCh C@onstrLtCtion does require a nationwide or reaionat
Corp@5 permit. For installation of private, non-commercial piers
and mooring'piles in certain navigable waters of the U.S., Regional
Permit ORP) #17 must be obtained (if located in Broad Bay i'n
Virginia Beach, RP Must be obtained) . These are considered
non-reporting activities by the Corps, provided that all of the
permit conditions are met. The intent is to allow the open-pile
structures (piers and mooring piles) to be built in locations that
Would not individually or Cumulatively impact general navigation.
This regional permit applies to residential developments only, with
commercial and/or industrial development projects reviewed under

individual permit criteria. In addition, any all open-pile piers
associated with the construction or operation of new or expanded
Community, commercial or government facilities for recreational use
must apply for RP #19.

Other approvals which may be required include a permit from VMRC
to encroach on State-owned bottoms for the placement of isolated
mooring piles and a building permit from the appropriate County,
city or town. Finally, a water quality impact assessment (WQIA)
shall be required for any proposed development within the RPA. The
Purpose Of the WQIA is to identify the impacts of proposed
development on water quality and land in RPAs consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the
regulations and local programs, and to determine specific measures
for mitigation of those impacts. The specific content and
procedures for the WQIA is established by local governments.

For installation of private riparian and non-riparian moorings, a
permit must be obtained from VMRC because this activity falls
outside of those given Statutory exemptions. Concerning such
Structures, the Subaqueous Guidelines state that VMRC will normally
grant a permit request by a riparian owner for a single mooring to
be placed in accordance with the following general conditions:

0 Mooring buoys should not normally be located:

a) on private shellfish leases or designated Public
shellfish grounds
b) in submerged cable-crossing areas
C) in or near designated navigation channels
d) within 2000 feet of a public or commercial bathing beach
e) so as to interfere with the operation of or access
through any bridge
f) so as not to infringe on the riparian rights of adjacent
properties

o Moorings should be marked and maintained in accordance with
"Uniform State Waterway Marking System."
the

0 All permits granted by VMRC will contain a Stiplation that
the permitee agrees to remove said structure from State-
owned subaqueous bottomland within 90 days after written
notification by VMRC.

VMRC will. normally grant a permit request by a riparian owner,for
a single mooring to be placed in accordance with the general
conditions Outlined above and which is located within his riparian
waters. VMRC may also grant a permit requested by an individual
who does not own waterfront property for a single mooring buoy if
certain conditions are met. VMRC may also consider a permit
request for a group mooring under unusual circumstances.

For the installation maintenance and repair of mooring piles in
Broad Bay in Virginia Beach, RP #13 Must be obtained f rom the
Corps. In addition, for installation or construction of mooring
piles/dolphins, fender piles and camels (wooden floats serving as
Tenders alongside piers), RP #19 must be obtained from the Corps.

In order for the proposed activity to qualify for this regional
permit, the applicant Must obtain a permit (not a waiver) -from VMRC
and/or the local wetlands board before the proposed work may begin.
In the event the proposed project or any portion of the' project
receives a waiver (or is exempted through a grandfather clause),
the project would not qualify for this regional permit and an
individual Corps permit Would be required. Also, Nationwide Permit
(NP) #19 must be obtained if dredging of less than 25 cubic yards
is to Occur in the process of pier construction. When this is the
case, VMRC or local wetlands board approval is also required.

Finally, the Subaqueous Guidelines state that any local government
or state or -federal agency may recommend to VMRC that the placement
of moorings in the waters that fall within their political
jurisdiction be restricted in certain areas or that certain areas
be designated as mooring area5. However, the only purposes stated
for which Such a designation can be requested are to protect public
safety and welfare, recreational and commercial interests.

Therefore. with the exception of a brief statement in the
SL-,baqLteOLts* Guidelines and a general discussion foun *d in the
Wetlands Guidelines regarding water access structures and the
rationale behind the preferred use of open-pile piers, and the W01IA
reQUirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, there is
nothing within the existing federal, state and local regulatory
framework which speaks to the relationship between the co nstructio'-,
of piers and docks and their impacts to water quality Per se, nor
to the preferred density of such structures in a given waterway.
Where location is a concern, Such as review of project plans by the
State and local requests for designation of community moor *ing
areas, it stems from a Public safety, commercial recreational
interest.

To date, PDC staff research efforts have only found Studies on the
use Of piers, docks and wharves in the design and construction of
marina facilities to highlight potential water quality problems
associated With use of such -structures. These findings could be
transferred to the construction of private piers and docks. For
a discussion of these Study findings, refer to the section of this
report entitled, "The Siting and Design of Water Access Facilities
and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas to Reduce Potentially Adverse
Impacts to the Shoreline and Nearshore Marine Environment,
Subsection A.1.(c)(ii): Use of Bulkheads, Breakwaters, Piers,
Wharves, and Docks in Marina Design and Construction."

PDC staff will be attending a conference in March on Marine and
Estuarine Shallow Water Management, where research will. be
presented from other states on the evaluation of pier effects on
fish, impacts of Chromate-Copper-Arsenate (CCA)-Treated wood in
shallow water estuarine systems, and potential impacts of marina
construction on shallow water primary productivity and fishery
habitats in order to better address-this issue.

2. Pier and Dock Density and Related Water Quality Impacts

Rather than the actual presence of piers and docks in ;a waterway
being the Source of Water quality problems, a more signITICant
Source of Water pollution appears to be the uncontrolled -activities
that Occur in the vicinity Of Such structures and, in particular,
those Which are related to boating. It can be argued, therefore,
that the more piers and docks there are in a particular Waterway,
tile greater the potential for water quality problems to occur. The
question is whether or mot these activities can be better
controlled. at the individual lot level by the environmental!,/-
consious- boat owner or in J%area where boats are concentrated, SU ch
as private community or commercial marina facilities and other
mooring areas.

On the one hand, concentrating ;-Activities Which have the potential
-to CaLLSe water Pollution serves only to concentrate the pollutants
being discharged into one area. At the same time, concentration
of boatina activities in an area can better provide for Water
resource miariagement by controlling the activities which contribute
to Water qualtiy degradation. For example, for newly-permitted
marina facilities, PUMP-OUt facilities are now required and,
therefore, the dumping of bilge and Wastewater overboard is
diSCOUrgaged or not permitted. As well, the various- practices
involved in maintenance of boats, Such as painting and scraping,
can be better mangaged When Such activities are governed by a
facility's operation and use rules. However, under Current
Virginia law as cited above, community mooring areas can only be
desiqated by a JOC
al4ty for the purposes of protecting public
J_
safety and welfare, and recreational and commercial interests. . No
Specific authority is given that allows designation of such areas
for the Purposes Of controlling imp,--Acts to water qUality.

On -the other hand. scattered placement of piers and docks and
associated activites along a shoreline might provide for better
dispersal and diftution of Pollutants associated with boating
Activities which Could enter the water. However, if a waterwa,11 is
riot well-flushed, residence time of Pollutants in the water column
and entrapment in bottom sediments will be longer. This Could also
be the case if a community marina facility were located along a
waterway than is not ad L:at@-ly flushed. Since riparian rights to
E "K
8CCeSS tile Water Must be exercised on tile riparian parcel and in
the waterway adjacent to that parcel, and cannot be transferred to
another parcel or Waterway,, relocation of access to another
riparian parcel Mdre Suited to that purpose is not possible.
Therefore, it has not been determined which approach is the
preferred alternative to minimizing impacts to water quality.

Another issue is the determination of an adequate density of piers
and docks in a given Waterway. If density were to be tied, for
example, to tile carrying capacity of a particular waterwa,Y, the
carrying capacity Would be determined by that amount of water
access legally prescribed under Virginia riparian law. Since
Virqinia riparian law states that each riparian property is
t 4
en itled to one access point into the adjacent waterway. the number
of riparian parcels along a waterway Would be eqUiV@Rlent -to the
capacii-, of that waterway. There-fore, by law. each

riparian parcel owner would be entitled to access the water and the
number of riparian parcels allowed-along a given waterway will be
determined U'nder local land use zoning and Subdivision ordinances.

The number of access points in a given waterway is determined by
the development unit per acre density at which a given riparian
parcel is zoned. The riparian parcel can be subdivided according
to the density which the zoning allows. Subsequently, the number
of piers and docks legally allowed in a given waterway can be
reduced thrOUgh minimum shoreline width requirements placed in the
10C-Ekl Subdivision ordinance. In larger subdivisions, riparian
riqhts to access adjacent waters can also be stripped from
waterfront lots prior to sale and transferred to a central access
point, and deed restrictions can be placed on the lots which
prohibit lot purchasers from building water access Structures. I n
this case, the riparian owner can access the water adjacent to his
property from his land only, and for passive uses only, and more
water-intensiVe uses, Such as mooring of boats, can only Occur at
a central location. Lots can also be Clustered around central
access areas, with the same deed restrictions, leaving more open
space in the plan of development. Local subdivision ordinances
often provide credits to developers of large Subdivisions or
planned unit developments for areas dedicated to open space.
Another option is to hold shoreline areas in large developments in
common by the developer, to later be -transferred to ownership by
the property owners association, so that no individual lots can be
legally defined as riparian. In any case, these options will only
work in jurisdicitons with undeveloped 'shoreline areas and, in
particular, where large tracts of riparian land are available;
thus. they provide little OPPOtUnity for control of pier and dock
density in more developed areas.

In a preliminary conclusion, whether or not access to the water
occurs from individual riparian parcels or from a central location,
the potential will still exist for water pollution to occur,
although introduction of P011L(talltS to the water- might receive more
oversight at a central access area. In addition,,iaccess to the
water cannot be legally denied to riparian proper't ,, owners under
any circumstances unless so stated-in the deed tra sfer.
715-
A10

REGIONAL SHORELINE ELEMENT
OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING D-ISTRICT
(INTERM REPORT)

VOLUME - 11

PREPARED BY THE
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

AMPTON_RQADS
PLANNING DISTRIL-r COMMISSION

Oaf

MARCH 1994
H

Comprehensive Shoreline Management Plan
Systen-VSubarea Breakdown Outline

Findings and Recommendations Document

I. System Information
A. General Description and Location
B. Water Quality Data
C. Sensitive Lands and Aquatic Resources
D. Existing Water Access Facilities and Water Enhanced Recreation Areas
E. Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs
Assessment
F. System Shoreline Condition
1. Direct Frontage Shoreline
a. Shoreline Length
b. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline
c. Number of Piers and Docks
d. Pier and Dock Density
2. Total Shoreline Within the System
a. Shoreline Length
b. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline
c. Number of Piers and Docks
d. Pier and Dock Density
II. Subarea Information (Note: There may be several subareas pbr system)
A. General Description and Location
B. Water Quality Data
C. Sensitive Lands and Aquatic Resources
D. Existing Water Access Facilities and Water Enhanced Recreation Areas
E., Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs
Assessment
F. Subarea Shoreline Condition
1. Shoreline Length
2. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline
3. Number of Piers and Docks
4. Pier and Dock Density
111. Mainstern Segment (Note: There may be several mainstem. segments per subarea.)
A. General Description and Location
B. Water Quality Data
C. Sensitive Lands and Aquatic Resources
D. Existing Water Access Facilities and Water Enhanced Recreation Areas
E. Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs
Assessment
F. Mainstem Shoreline Condition (Note: Mainstem information may be one reach,
an overview of several reaches, or several separate reaches.)
1. Shoreline Length
2. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline

3. Number of Piers and Docks
4. Pier and Dock Density
5. Erosion Rate (Where Applicable and Available.)
6. Average Bank Height (Where Applicable and Available.)
7. Predominant Adjacent Land Use (Where Applicable.)
8. Erosion Control Recommendation (Where Applicable.)
G. Reach Infonnation (Note: There may be several reaches per mainstern segment.)
1. Shoreline Length
2. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline
3. Number of Piers and Docks
4. Pier and Dock Density
5. Erosion Rate (Where Available.)
6. Average Bank Height (Where Available.)
7. Predominant Adjacent Land Use
8. Erosion Control Recommendation
IV. Waterbody Information (Note: There may be several Waterbodies per subarea.)
A. General Description and Location
B. Water Quality Data
C. Sensitive Lands and Aquatic Resources
D. Existing Water Access Facilities and Water Enhanced Recreation Areas
E. Proposed -Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs
Assessment
F. Waterbody Shoreline Condition (Note: Tidal waterbody information may be one
reach, an overview of several reaches, or several separate reaches. Isolated
waterbody information may not be available or reported..
1. Shoreline Length
2. Percentage_ of Hardened Shoreline
3. Number of Piers and Docks
4. Pier and Dock Density
5. Erosion Rate (Where Applicable and Available.)
6. Average Bank Height (Where Applicable and Available.)
7. Predominant Adjacent Land Use (Where Applicable.)
8. Erosion Control Recommendation (Where Applicable.)
G. Reach Information (Note: There may be several reaches per mainstern segment.)
1. Shoreline Length
2. Percentage of Hardened Shoreline
3. Number of Piers and Docks
4. Pier and Dock Density
5. Erosion Rate (Where Available.)
6. Average Bank Height (Where Available.)
7. Predominant Adjacent Land Use
8. Erosion Control Recommendation

Relationships Between Data Levels

I. Hampton Roads Study Area
A. Large Water Systems (York River System, James River System, etc.)
1. Subareas - are defined by mainstream segments. There may be several
subareas per system.
a. Mainstem segments - designated stretches of shoreline along the
controlling body of water (System).
(1) Reach - the reach is the ultimate level of information in this report.
There may be several reaches within a mainstern segment.
(a) Site Specific Information - not available in this study.
b. Waterbodies - are connected via surface flow to the system and the
discharge point enters the system within the subarea.
(1) Reach - There may be several reaches per waterbody. In some
situations isolated waterbodies may not have information to the reach
level.
(a) Site Specific Information

SHORELINE INVENTORY DESCRIPTIONS -- METHODOLOBY

The following section Provioes a comprehensive inventory of
shoreline features, water quality, shoreline erosion control
structures, sensitive land and aquatic resources, and public and
private water access points for the project study area. This
inventory has been categorized according to the methodology below:

0 System
0 Subarea
Mainstem Segment
Waterbody
Reach

The System inventory includes all shoreline reaches, tributariesS
and other waterbodies with connected surface flow to the larger
tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay and has been categorized as
follows: York River (Ware Creek to Tue Point), Lower Western Shore
Chesapeake Bay (Sandbox to Old Point Comfort), James River (North
Shore - Chickahominy River to the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge/Tunnel)
(South Shore - Lawnes Creek to the Monitor-Merrimac Bridoe/Tunnel) ,
Hampton Roads (North Shore - Monitor-Merrimac Bridge/Tunnel to to
Old Point Comfort) (South Shore - Monitor Merrimac Bridge/Tunnel
to the Hampton Roads Bridge/Tunnel) , South Shore Chesapeake bay
(Willougby Spit to Cape Henry), and Non-Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(Atlantic Shore - Cape Henry to North Carolina Line, Albemarle-
Chesapeake Canal/North Landing River and Back Bay). A qualitative.
summary is provided for each System.

Por ease of analysis, each System is subdivided into Subareas. For
example, the York River System is subdivided into-three Subareas:
Subarea A: Ware Creek to Queens Creek; Subarea B: Queens Creek
to Coleman Bridge; Subarea C: Coleman Bridge to Tue Point. A
qualitative summary is provided for each Subarea.

For further ease of analysis, each Subarea is subdivided into three
categories: 1) mainstem segments, which comprise 'the shoreline of
the larger. system; 2) waterbodies, which include the smaller
tributaries to the larger system, and any lakes, ponds and
reservoirs within the subarea with connected surface flow to the
larger system; and 3) shoreline reaches as defined for the purposes
of this study; a reach may include an entire mainstem segment, an
entire waterbody, or any combination thereof and may cross Subarea
boundaries. A qualitative summary is provided for each category.

The rationale for selecting this methodology is that shoreline
management needs to occur on a comprehensive shoreline or water
area basis and riot be limited to jursidicitona'l boundaries. This
methodolgy provides for description and analysis of entire systems,
subareas, waterbodies, mainstem segments and reaches which can then
be compared categorically and across jurisdictional boundaries for
comprehensive planning purposes.

Tables are included which show shoreline conditions by Syst
Subarea, Waterbody and Reach. These tables also categorize d:mta
information by jurisdiction. Data quantified in these tables
include: total shoreline lengths, lengths and percentages of

hardened shoreline. numbers of piers and docks (this data also
includes marina facilities, with each facility counted as one
pier/dock--total numbers of SliDS at each marina facility is
included elsewhere in the report), pier and dock densities C)er
thousand feet of shoreline, bank heights and erosion rates.

<<NotL-: For the purposes of an interim product, only the York
County portion of the York River and Lower Western Shore Chesapeake
Bay Systems has been completed. Information on York County has
been included at all category levels, whereas information as it
pertains to other jurisdictions (e.g., James City County and the
Cities of Poquoson and Hampton) has only been included in the
System and Subarea summaries as applicable,X1

SYSTEM: LOWER WESTERN SHORE CHESAPEAKE BAY

General Description and Location

For the purposes of this study, the Lower Western Shore Chesapeake Bay System
encompasses the shoreline and all small coastal tributaries and other waterbodies
connected by surface flow to the Chesapeake Bay from the Sandbox at the confluence of
The Thorofare and the York River to Old Point Comfort at the confluence of Hampton
Roads and the Chesapeake Bay including: The Thorofare, Back Creek, Claxton Creek, Bay
Tree Creek, Chisman Creek, Cabin Creek, Goose Creek, Boathouse Creek, the Poquoson
River, Hodges Cove, Patricks Creek, Quarter March Creek, Harwoods Mill Reservoir,
Moores Creek, Lambs Creek, Roberts Creek, Lyons Creek, White House Cove, Bennett
Creek, Easton Cove, Easton Creek, Lloyd Bay, Sandy Bay, Fire Pine Creek, Gum Hammock
Creek, Thorofare Creek, the Back River, Northwest Branch Back River, Flat Gut, High
Cedar Creek, Bells Oyster Gut, Front Cove, Messick Creek, Back Cove, Long Creek, Fore
Landing Creek, Watts Creek, Topping Creek, Cedar Creek, Oxiord Run, Brick Kiln Creek,
Big Bethel Reservoir, Tabbs Creek, Southwest Branch Back River, Mill Creek, Newmarket
Creek, the Harris River, Wallace Creek, White Pond Swamp and Salt Ponds. This system
is located within the York River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay and Small Coastal Rivers
Basins and is within York County and the Cities of Poquoson, Hampton and Newport
News. A centerline in the Poquoson River and in Lambs Creek forms the corporate
boundary between York County and the City of Poquoson. A centerline in the Back River,
the Northwest Branch Back River and Brick Kiln Creek forms the corporate boundary
between the Cities of Poquoson and Hampton.

Water Quality Data

Existing water quality data for this system is as follows:

HUC 02080101 Mainstern Openjay

The VWCB conducts monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem as part of the Federal-
Interstate Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The CBP Monitoring Program collects basic
water quality parameters and also monitors the status and trends in benthic,
phytoplankton, and zooplankton communities.

The water quality assessment performed here relied on four main sources of information.
The first major source of information was an examination of monitoring data in relation to
established water quality standards for Class 11, estuarine waters. DO values were
compared to the -minimum DO standard. Ammonia data were compared to the state.
criterion, which is calculated based on water temperature and pH. Fecal coliform bacteria
samples are not collected as part of the CBP Monitoring Program. Given the lack of

bacterial data for comparison against the standard, support of the CWA swimmable goal
was determined by best professional judgment.
The second major basis of this assessment was the use of information from the'Virginia
Department of Health on shellfish harvesting condemnation areas. These areas were
designated as partially supporting of the fishable goal.

The third major source of information for this assessment was an examination of the
distribution of SAV. There has been a general decline in distribution of SAV throughout
the Bay, which has resulted from declining water quality conditions. The Chesapeake Bay
Program has established the return of SAV populations as a measure of restoration of the
Bay and proposed a set of tiered goals. Tier I goals are the re-establishment of SAV
populations in areas in which the presence of SAV has been well documented at some time
in the past. For this assessment, areas of the Bay that have not achieved the Tier I goal have
been designated as partially supporting of the CWA goal for fishable waters.

The fourth major basis of this assessment was monitoring data analysis done as part of the
1991 re-evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction goals, henceforth referred to
as the 1991 re-evaluation analysis. The 1991 re-evaluation analysis involved an
examination of all water quality information collected as part of the CBP Monitoring
Program during the period of 1984 through 1990. For this 1991 re-evaluation analysis,
water quality of Chesapeake Bay segments was compared to other Bay segments, as well
as examined for recent trends. There are no standards or criteria established for most of
the parameters monitored by the CBP (e.g. nutrients, water clarity) and it is.difficult to use
this information for determining CWA goal status. Therefore, results were not used in
determining the CWA goal status; however, environmentally undesirable conditions or
trends are noted.

SegMent 101-03CE (Southwestern Portion of the Chesapeake Bay)

This segment encompasses 123 square miles of water located in the southwestern portion
of the Bay, from Mobjack Bay to Back River. The VWCB maintains 2 water quality stations
in this segment. Depths at these stations average approximately 5-7 meters. Salinities were
16-20 ppt, with slight stratification present.

Water quality in this segment was characterized by average levels of total nitrogen and
phosphorus and low levels of inorganic nutrients. Light levels were good. Chlorophyll
levels were generally not excessive, however there was a moderately increasing trend
during the period of 1984-1990. Bottom water DO levels were fairly good. There were no
significant inter-annual trends in total nitrogen, total phosphorus, water clarity or DO
during the period of 1984-1990.

The shallow water areas of this segment are potential habitat for SAV. Approximately 7
square miles of t1-ds segment are estimated to have had the documented presence of SAV
but do not have any SAV now. Because of this decline in SAV, 7 square mik!s of this
waterbody segment are considered to only partially meet the CWA goal for fishable
waters.

The DO standard was violated in 0.5% of the samples collected. The pH standard and the
ammonia criterion were not violated in any samples during this reporting period. All of
this segment was evaluated as fully supporting the CWA goal for swimmable waters.

In summary, 116 square miles of this segment fully support the CWA goal for fishable
waters, 7 square miles partially support the CWA goal for fishable waters, and all (123
square miles) of this segment fully support the CWA goal for swimmable waters.

HUC 02080108: Lower Western Shore Tributaries; SegInent 108-01E: The Poquoson River
Waterbody

Encompasses an area from The Thorofare near the York River to Lloyd Bay at Big Salt
Marsh, including The Thorofare, Back Creek, the Poquoson River, Chisman Creek, Patricks
Creek, Lambs Creek, Lyon Creek, Boathouse Creek, Lloyd Bay, and other associated
tributaries.

Citizen members of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay sampled two stations. The data
indicated no violations for DO, temperature, or pH.

Seven industrial facilities (mainly seafood processors) discharge to this waterbody.
Problems in the area can be attributed mainly to NPS pollutants.
The Poquoson River area is included in Wa tershed C10 (HUC 02080108) in the 1993
Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment. This 22 square mile
hydrologic unit includes the eastern Virginia mainland that drains into the Chesapeake Bay
south of the York River Basin, north of the Chowan River Basin, and excluding the James
River Basin. It encompasses part of York County and portions of the cities of Norfolk,
Virginia Beach, Poquoson, Hampton and Newport News. The primary tributaries in this
hydrologic unit are the Poquoson, Back and Lynnhaven Rivers.
Urban land uses dominate this watershed, as reflected in it being ranked in the top 5%
statewide for urban pollution potential. The watershed is rated low priority for both
agricultural and 0", contributions of nonpoint source pollution. Water quality data
for C10 exhibits elevated levels of bacteria and phosphorus which are partially attributable
to stormwater runoff from urban areas. Urban nonpoint sources are also considered
responsible for numerous shellfish condemnations in C10. This watershed is also an
important area for commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, and shellfish relaying grounds.

Watershed C10 has a final rank of High+ in Virginia's Overall Nonpoint Source Pollution
Priorities for 1993.

The CWA fishable goal for this waterbody, which covers 7.62 square miles of surface water,
is fully supported for 5.69 square miles and partially supported for 1.93 square miles. The
swimmable goal is fully supported for the entire waterbody.

Segment 108-02L: The Harwoods Mill Reservoir Waterhody

Located [west] of the Poquoson River, and encompasses an area from the headwaters near
Fort Eustis Boulevard to a dam at George Washington Memorial Highway (U.S. 17). The
reservoir is located in York County and owned and used by the City of Newport News as
a public water supply. Harwoods Mill covers a surface area of 300 acres and is classified
as mesotrophic. This waterbody was not assessed during the current reporting period for
its support of the CWA fishable and swimmable goals.
SegMent 108-04E: The Back River Waterbody

Encompasses an area from the headwaters of Back River and its tributaries to the
confluence with the Bay, including the Northwest Branch, Southwest Branch, Long Creek,
Grunland Creek, Harris River, Wallace Creek, and other surrounding tributaries.

Eight point sources (2 domestic, 6 industrial) discharge to this waterbody. Other influences
on the water quality of the area can be attributed to NPS pollutanis.

The Back River area is included in Watershed C10 (HUC 02080108) in the 1993 Virginia
Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment. Refer to the Poquoson River
Waterbody discussion above for information on Watershed C10.

The CWA fishable goal for this waterbody, which covers 10.03 square miles of surface
water, is fully supported for 8.20 square miles and partially supported for 1.83 square
miles. The swimmable goal is fully supported for the entire waterbody.

SegMent 108-05R: The Brick Kiln Creek Waterbody

Encompasses the area from the Lower Big Bethel Dam to the confluence with the
Northwest Branch of Back River, including the lower mainstern of Brick Kiln Creek, and
all associated tributaries. This waterbody is classified as effluent limited.

The VWCB maintains a AWQM station on Brick Kiln Creek at the Route 134 Bridge. There
were no violations above a 10% rate for temperature, DO or pH; however, the station.
exhibited a 42% violation rate of the fecal coliform bacteria standard.

Three industrial facilities discharge to Brick Kiln Creek and to an unnamed tributary.
However, the main influence on the water quality of this waterbody can be attributed to
NPS pollutants.

The CWA swimmable goal for this waterbody, which covers 11.30 river miles, is fully
supported for 7.30 river miles and unsupported for 4.00 river miles. The fishable goal is
fully supported for the entire waterbody.

SegMent 108-06L: The Big Bethel Reservoir Waterbody

Located [west] of the Northwest Branch of Back River and encompasses an area from the
headwaters of the upper Brick Kiln Creek down to the Lower Big Bethel Dam, including
associated tributaries and ponds. This reservoir is owned by the U.S. Army and is used by
the military as a public water supply. Big Bethel covers a surface area of 266 acres, and has
been classified as eutrophic. This waterbody was not assessed during the current reporting
period for its support of the CWA fishable and swimmable goals.

NOTE: Back Creek has also been included in HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin),
Segment 107-06E (The York River-Gloucester Waterbody) of the 1992 305(h) Virginia Water
Qualily Assessment Repor . Refer to the York River System discussion for this
information.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this system: extensive
tidal marshes, fringing tidal marshes, tidal flats, SAV beds, shellfish producing areas,
shellfish management areas, condemned shellfish areas, and two protected areas.

An inventory of tidal marshes in this system can be found in the following publications:
York Coun!y-Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh Inventory (1974) and Ci!y of Hampton Tidal
Marsh Inventory (1975). These inventories show that there were approximately - acres
of tidal marshes located within this system at the time the inventory was conducted.
Evaluation of wetland types, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type,
ranged from to' ; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value
and Group Five being of least value.

SAV beds were mapped fairly extensively in 1991 in this system along the Chesapeake Bay
face from Green Point on The Thorofare to York Point, off of Hunts and Pasture Necks at
the mouth of the Poquoson River, in Poquoson and Drum Island Flats, off of Plum Tree
Island, and in the Back River. Some nearshore areas in this system have been included in
the Ti er I Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Target and the entire system, with

the exception of the Chesapeake Bay beach face in Hampton, has been included in the Tier
III Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Target.

Shellfish producing areas can be found off the mouth of the Poquoson River, and in the
Chesapeake Bay off of Plum Tree Island south to Old Point Comfort in Hampton Roads.
The Poquoson and Back River Shellfish Management Areas were designated and became
effective on 1/1/94 to protect and promote the hard clam resource. There are several
Condernned Shellfish Areas throughout the system (#151, #137, #21 and #158) in many of
the smaller tributaries. There are 19 marina facilities within this system which necessitate
a seasonal shellfish condemnation between April 1 and October 31.

Anadromous finfish spawning and nursery areas are located ... ?
Commercially-and recreationally-important fishing areas can be found ... ? They
include ... ?

Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge in the City of Poquoson and Grandview Natural
Preserve are the only protected areas in this system. The Refuge is currently seeking to
expand its western boundary to include the Black Walnut Ridge area but the Poquoson
City Council has not reached agreement on the expansion.

Existing Water Access Facilities and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 18 water access facilities and water-enhanced recreation areas in this system,
including public boat launch areas, private/ comme@cial marina facilities, private boat
ramps, county-and city-owned parks, and natural areas with opportunities for nature
study. The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progam. Public Access Plan states that sailing is probably
more popular in this area than in other areas of the Chesapeake Bay. There is intense
pressure in the Cities of Poquoson and Hampton, in particular, to de 'velop additional
public water access sites. Many of the existing marina facilities in these localities are
operating at capacity and have waiting lists for berth space. During peak periods, some
locations on the Back River are congested.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan suggests that additional boating
sites are needed on the Poquoson River to relieve heavy boat traffic near the mouth of the
York River. Additional access is also neeaed on the Back River to disperse boat traffic and
to meet future demand from residents and visitors. It is also recommended that sites be
identified to provide additional recreational access on the Poquoson River, Back River, and
the beachfront area along the Bay in Hampton. The 1991 York County Comprehensive
Plan identifies expansion of existing recreation facilities and development of additional

water access facilities in this system. York County is also working with the business
community to encourage the development of public/private partnerships to meet
recreational needs in the County. In addition, this southeastern portion of York County
is the more populated area of the County and; therefore, experiences more public water
access and recreation demands from both county residents and visitors.

Shoreline Condition (Lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay System)

The York County portion of the Lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay System
(Thorofare to Old Point Comfort) contains 20.11 miles of direct shoreline frontage to the
Thorofare, Chesapeake Bay, or the Poquoson River. The average pier and dock density for
the direct frontage is 1.43 docks and piers per 1000 feet of shoreline and a total of 152 piers
and docks. Within this portion of the system, 19.77 percent of the shoreline is hardened.

The York County portion of the Lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay System
(Thorofare to Old Point Comfort) contains 96.93 miles of total shoreline. The average pier
and dock density for the total shoreline is 1.25 docks and piers per 1000 feet of shoreline
and a total of 639 piers and docks. Within this portion of the system, 14.87 percent of the
shoreline is hardened.

For ease of analysis, this system has been subdivided into five subareas as follows: 1)
Subarea A: Sandbox to York Point (The Thorofare); 2) Subarea B: York Point to Sandy Bay
(Poquoson River); 3) Subarea C: @andy Bay to Plum Tree Point; 4) Subarea D: Plum Tree
Point to Northend Point (Back River), and 5) Subarea E: Northend Point to Old Point
Comfort.

SUBAREA A: SANDBOX TO YORK POINT (The Thorofare)

General Description and Location

For the purposes of this study, this subarea has been delineated as beginning at Sandbox
at the confluence of The Thorofare and the York River, then south along western shoreline
of The Thorofare to York Point on the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. The major tributaries to
The Thorofare in this subarea include Back Creek, Claxton Creek and Bay Tree Creek. This
subarea is located entirely withinYork County.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080101 (Mainstem Open Bay), Segment 101-03CE (Southwestern
Portion of the Chesapeake Bay), HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries),
Segment 108-01E (The Poquoson River Waterbody). Refer to the York River System
discussion for information on HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The
York River-Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this subarea: fringing
tidal marshes, tidal flats, SAV beds, and a condemned shellfish area.

This subarea is partially within the Goodwin Island-Back Creek and partially within the
Poquoson River Area-Chisman Creek Areas of the York Coun!y and Town of Poquoson
Tidal Marsh Inventory. The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately
356 acres of tidal marsh present in this subarea at the time the inventory was conducted.
Evaluation of wetland types in this subarea, based on total envirom-nental value of an acre
of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Three; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974:
33-40).

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 adjacent to Crab Neck just south of Goodwin Island from
the mouth of Claxton Creek to York Point. No SAV beds were mapped in Back or Claxton
Creeks. Much of this subarea has been included in the Tier I-Tier III Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration Targets.

Commercially- and recreationally-important fishing grounds?
There are seafood processing plants (commercial fisheries) located in this system.

There is one shellfish condemnation area is this subarea: #151. There is one marina facility
within this system which necessitates a seasonal shellfish condernnation between April 1
and October 31.

Existing Water Access Points and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 4 water access and water-enhanced recreation areas located in this subarea. They
include one public boat ramp at a county-owned park and 3 private/ commercial marinas
(one with a boat ramp).

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1991 York County Comprehensive Plan has identified one site which could be
developed into a public boat launch area. The County is also working with the business
community to enhance an existing county-owned park area through development of a
public/private partnership. The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan
identifies one potential public access site. The Plan also suggests that the large tidal
marshes along the tidal creeks in York County could be made more accessible for activities
such as nature study and environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could
also be identified in these same areas.

Shoreline Condition (Subarea A - Thorofare to York Point)

Subarea A contains 6.17 miles of direct shoreline frontage and 16 piers and docks. The
average pier and dock density in the subarea is 0.49 piers and docks per 1000 linear feet of
shoreline. Within the subarea 20.86 percent of the shoreline is hardened. Subarea A also
contains the associated non-direct shoreline waterbodies of Back Creek, Claxton Creek, and
Bay Tree Creek.

For the purposes of analysis, this subarea is subdivided into three categories: 1)
waterbodies, which include the smaller tributaries of the York River, and any lakes, ponds
and reservoirs within the subarea with connected surface flow to the York River; 2)
mainstern segments, which comprise the southern shoreline of the York River between
identified waterbodies; and 3) shoreline reaches as defined for the purposes of this study;
a reach may include an entire waterbody, a mainstem segment, or any combination thereof
and may c ross subarea boundaries.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: SANDBOX TO BACK CREEK (Reach 112)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at Sandbox on the western shore
of Thorofare at its confluence with the York River then south along the western shoreline
of the Thorofare to Back Creek.

Water Quality Data

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes and a seasonal shellfish condemnation area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 3.9 acres of tidal marsh
located in this segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Subdivided acreage of
tidal marshes were: 1.4 acres at Sandbox and 2.5 on the western shoreline of The
Thorofare. Evaluation of wetland types in this segment, based on total environmental
value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One
being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 33-40).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this segment in 1991. However, a small nearshore area
around the halfway point in this segment has been included in the Tier I Target for
Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration and the entire segment h 'as been included
in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter
depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

There is one marina facility located in this waterbody which necessitates a seasonal
shellfish bed closure between April 1 and October 31 of 1/8 mile and covering
approximately 6 acres: Belvin Marine.

There is one seafood processing facility (commercial fishery) located in this subarea.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is one commercial marina and boat repair facility located in this segment just inside
the Sandbox: Belvin Marine (203 Belvin Ln.).

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

No additional public water access and recreation areas have been proposed in this
segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps shows soundings of
1-13 feet from the shoreline out to the main channel in The Thorofare.

Flushing Rates

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics of the Lower Western
and southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it can be inferred that this
segment is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 112)

Reach 112 contains 6,600 feet of shoreline and 15 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.14 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 112
is 1.70 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is.(landuse). 45.45
percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on
observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: BACK CREEK (Reach 111)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is one of two major tributaries to The Thorofare and enters along its west
side.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody). Refer also to the York River System discussion for
information on HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes and a condemned shellfish area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 21 acres of tidal marsh
present in this waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The marshes of Back
Creek are mainly small cove and fringing marshes, except for the 10 acre pocket marsh at
the headwaters of the creek. This marsh is mostly vegetated* by highly productive
saltmarsh cordgrass, a highly value marsh type. Evaluation of wetland types in this
waterbody, based on total environ -mental value of an acre of each type, was Group One;
this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of
least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 33-35).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this waterbody in 1991. An area at the mouth of Back
Creek has been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration and all of Back Creek has been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake
Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth
range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #151, which includes all of Back Creek, went into effect
7/6/92. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose,
except by a VMRC permit.

There is one seafood processing facility (commercial fishery) for scallops located in this
waterbody: Seaford Scallops (at the end of Shirley Rd.).

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are 4 water access facilities located in this waterbody. There is one county-owned
public boat landing located on the north shore of Back Creek at Back Creek Park (Goodwin
Neck Rd.). There are 2 private/ commercial marinas located on the north shor e* of Back
Creek: Seaford Yacht Club and Mills Marina (Goodwin Neck Rd). Mills marina also has
a boat ramp. Seaford Scallops operates a seafood processing facility and wharf on the
south shore of Back Creek (at the end of Shirley Rd).

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

Back Creek Park provides opportunities for pier and bank fishing and picnicking.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1991 York Coun!y Comprehensive Plan identifies a VDOT right of way at the end of
Shirley Rd. adjacent to the Seaford Scallops wharf that could be transferred to the county
for development of an additional public boat launch area closer to the mouth of Back
Creek. The bathymetry of this area is of sufficient depth for this purpose. This site could
also provide opportunities for pier and bank fishing. The access road to this site would
need improvement. The County is also working with the Amoco Oil Refinery to develop
an interpretive boardwalk over a marsh area located on refinery property which would
connect to Back Creek Park. The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Public Access Plan suggests that the
large tidal marsh areas along tidal creeks in the County, such as Back Creek, could be made
more accessible for activities such-as nature study and environmental education; additional
canoe put-in/take-out points could also be developed in these marshes.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts 'and USGS topographic maps shows soundings of
1-10 ft. in this waterbody, with the greater depths at the mouth of the creek near the
Seaford Scallops wharf.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics of the Lower Western
and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it can be inferred that this
waterbody is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Back Creek - Reach 111)

Back Cree k contains 54,400 feet of shoreline and 63 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.16 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for Back Creek
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 8.82 percent
of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed
conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: CLAXTON CREEK (Reach 110)

This waterbody is one of two major tributaries to The Thorofare and enters on the south
side.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 220 acres of tidal marsh in Claxton Creek
and including an area along The Thorofare east of and adjacent to mouth of Claxton Creek
at Green Point at the time the inventory was conducted. Claxton Creek marsh is best
described as a shallow bay with a ragged, marshy shoreline. Characteristically, the
shoreline margins are vegetated with saltmarsh cordgrass. The higher areas of the marsh
are dominated by black needlerush with associated patches of saltgrass meadow. The
marsh is in a largely untouched natural state. The numerous crab pots that were observed
in the creek at the time indicated that the area is a productive blue crab habitat. Evaluation
of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each
type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 33,36).

No SA 'V beds were mapped in Claxton Creek in 1991. However, this entire waterbody has
been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjarn Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such a.s Claxton
Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 1-6
ft. in this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Claxton Creek - Reach 110)

Claxton Creek contains 30,000 feet of shoreline and 1 pier or dock (]@ier and Dock
Density = 0.03 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 110
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 1.33 percent
of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed
conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: GREEN POINT TO BAY TREE CREEK (Reach 109)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at Green Tree Point on the
southwestern shore of The Thorofare then southeast along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline
to Bay Tree Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody), and HUC 02080101 (Mainstem Open Bay), Segment 101-
03CE (Southwestern Portion of the Chesapeake Bay).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes and SAV beds.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 1.5 acres of tidal marsh located along this
segment in the Bay Tree Point area at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation
of wetland types in this segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each
type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 40).

Extensive SAV beds were mapped along this segment in 1991. This segment has bee
included in the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the _67foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

None.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-2 ft. soundings
waterward of the tidal marsh system.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics of the Lower Western
and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it might be inferred that this
waterbody is not well-flushed. However, because this segment lies along the shoreline of
the mainstern open bay, flushing along this segment is likely to occur at a more rapid rate
than in the inland coastal creeks and rivers included in this basin.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 109)

Reach 109 contains 12,800 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for
reach 109 is 3.90 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in
Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three
feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No
shoreline hardening had occurred within this reach prior to the aerial survey. Based on
observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: BAY TREE CREEK (Reach 108)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is the only tributary to the mainstem open Chesapeake Bay in this subarea
and is comprised of an extensive marsh system.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080101 (Mainstem Open Bay), Segment 101-03CE (Southwestern
Portion of the Chesapeake Bay).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes and tidal flats.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 100 acres of tidal marsh located in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Bay Tree Creek is mostly vegetated
by black needlerush. The substratum here is mainly sand which is the typical soil type
associated with black needlerush communities. There is a residential area at the
headwaters of the creek with dredged channels and spoil deposits on the surface of a
marsh peninsula. Evaluation of wetland types in this wateibody, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group Three; this is out of five groups,
with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn,
1974:37,40).

SAV beds were mapped at the mouth of Bay Tree Creek in 1991. This entire waterbody has
been included in the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such as Bay
Tree Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show soundings of 1-2 ft. in this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Bay Tree Creek - Reach 108)

Bay Tree Creek contains 27,600 feet of shoreline and four piers and docks (Pier and
Dock Density = 0.14 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach
108 is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tideivater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 1.45 percent
of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed
conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: BAY TREE CREEK TO YORK POINT (Reach 107)

General Description and Location

This mainstem. segment has been delineated from the mouth of Bay Tree Creek then south
along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline to York Point at the mouth of Chisman Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080101 (Mainstem Open Bay), Segment 101-03CE (Southwestern
Portion of the Chesapeake Bay).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes and SAV beds.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 11.5 acres of tidal marsh located in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this
segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group Three; this
is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least
value (Silberhorn, 1974:40).

Extensive SAV beds were mapped in the nearshore areas of this segment 'in 1991. This
segment has been included in the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show soundings of 1-3 ft. waterward of the marsh
system.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics of the Lower Western
and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it might be inferred that this
segment is not well-flushed. However, because this segment lies along the shoreline of the
mainstern open bay, flushing along this segment is likely to occur at a more rapid rate than
in the inland coastal creeks and rivers included in this basin.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 107)

Reach 107 contains 6,600 feet of shoreline and 1 pier or dock (Pier and Dock Density
0.15 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 107 is 2.20 feet
per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in
Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 12.12 percent of the
reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed
conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

SUBAREA B: YORK POINT TO SANDY BAY (Poquoson River)

General Description and Location

For the purposes of this study, this subarea has been delineated as beginning at York Point
at the mouth of Chisman Creek then west and south along the shoreline of Chisman Creek
and the Poquoson River mainstem. to the northern boundary of Plum Tree Island at Big Salt
Marsh on Sandy Bay. The major tributaries and other waterbodies in this subarea include:
Cabin Creek, Chisman Creek mainstem, Goose Creek, Boathouse Creek, the Poquoson
River mainstem, Hodges Cove, Patrick's Creek, Quarter March Creek, Moore's Creek,
Lamb's Creek, Robert's Creek, Lyons Creek, White House Cove, Bennett Creek mainstem,
Floyds Bay, Easton Cove, Lloyd Bay and Sandy Bay. This subarea is located partially in
York County and partially in the City of Poquoson; Lamb's Creek form the corporate
boundary between these two jurisdictions.

Water Quality Data

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this subarea: fringing
tidal marshes, extensive tidal marshes, tidal flats, SAV beds, shellfish producing areas, a
shellfish management area for hard clams, a conaemned shellfish area, and a protected
area.

This subarea is partially within the Poquoson River Area of the York Coun!y and Town of
Poq-uoson Tidal Marsh Invento1y. The Poquoson River area of the tidal marsh inventory
is divided into three parts: 1) Chisman Creek Area; 2) Poquoson River Proper; and 3)
Bennett Creek Area. The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 348
acres of tidal marsh located in this subarea at the time the inventory was conducted.
Evaluation of wetland types in this subarea, based on total environmental value of an acre
of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Four; this is out of five groups, with Group
One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 37-57).

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 at York Point along the nearshore area to the mouth of
Cabin Creek, along the nearshore area west of Cabin Creek, off Pasture and Hunts Necks,
at the mouth of Chisman Creek between Ship Point and Hodges Cove, at the mouth of
Lyons Creek, at the mouth of Bennett Creek, in the nearshore areas of Cow and Plum Tree
Islands at the mouth of Sandy and Lloyd Bays, and offshore in Drum Island Flats and

Poquoson Flats. No SAV was mapped in the Poquoson River mainstern or Chisman Creek
mainstem. A large percentage of this subarea has been included in the Tier I an d Tier III
Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Targets.

There is one shellfish condemnation area in this subarea (#137) and includes Cabin Creek,
a large portion of the Chisman Creek mainstem, Goose Creek, Patricks Creek, the
Poquoson River Mainstem, including Quarter March Creek and Moores Creek, Lambs
Creek, part of Robert's Creek, Lyons Creek, White House Cove, the headwaters of Bennett
Creek, and Easton Cove. There are also three marina facilities and public boat landings
within this subarea which necessitate seasonal shellfish condemnations between April 1
and October 31.

The Poquoson River Shellfish Management Area was redesignated on 1/1/94 to better
protect and promote the hard clam resource. Each boat or vessel engaged in the harvesting
of clams by patent tong from this management area must first obtain a permit from a
Marine Patrol Officer. The lawful season for the harvest of clams by patent tong from this
management area is January 1 through March 31, between sunrise and 2 p.m. only.

Plum Tree Island is a national wildlife refuge owned by the federal government and is a
protected area.

Commercially- and Recreationally-Important Finfishing Grounds?
There are seafood processing plants (commercial fisheries) in this subarea.

Existing Water Access Facilities and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 12 water access and water-enhanced recreation areas located in this system. They
include 2 public boat ramps, 2 private/ commercial boat ramps, 7 marinas (3 with boat
ramps), and one county-owned park.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam Public Access Plan states that sailing is probably more
popular in this area than in other areas of the Bay. The plan suggests that additional
boating sites are needed on the Poquoson River to relieve heavy boat traffic near the mouth
of the York River and to meet future demand from a growing number of residents and
visitors in this area. The plan identifies four potential public water access and recreation
areas in this subarea. It also suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in
York County could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be developed in these

marsh systems. <<Add Poquoson and Hampton Comprehensive Plan info and VOP
info ... >>

Shoreline Condition (Subarea B - Poquoson River)

The York County Portion of Subarea B contains 13.94 miles of direct shoreline frontage
and 136 piers and docks. The average pier and dock density in the subarea is 1.85 piers and
docks per 1000 linear feet of shoreline. Within the subarea 19.29 percent of the shoreline
is hardened. The York County portion of Subarea B also contains the associated non-direct
shoreline waterbodies of Cabin Creek, Goose Creek, Boatho U*se Creek, Chisman Creek,
Hodges Cove, Patricks Creek, Quarter March Creek, Moores Creek, and the western
shoreline of Lambs Creek. Two nameless creeks are also included.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: YORK POINT TO CABIN CREEK

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated from York Point at the mouth of Chisman
Creek the west along the Chisman Creek shoreline to the Cabin Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes and SAV beds.

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 at York Point and along the nearshore area to the mouth
of Cabin Creek. This same area has been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay
SAV Distribution Restoration and the entire segment has been included in the Tier III
Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth
contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a 2-ft. sounding waterward of the marsh
system.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics of the Lower Western
and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it might be inferred that this
segment is not well-flushed. However, because this segment lies along the shoreline of the
mouth of a large coastal river, flushing along this segment is likely to occur at a more rapid
rate than in the inland coastal creeks and rivers included in this basin.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 106)

Reach 106 contains 7,200 feet of shoreline and 46 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.36 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 106
is 0.90 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
residential. 80.56 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. It should be noted that most of this reach consists of canals dug perpindicular to
the shoreline. These canals are highly protected to prevent sedimentation. Based on
observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: CABIN CREEK (Reach 104)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is enters the Chisman Creek mainstem from the north at the mouth of
Chisman Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes and SAV beds.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 37 acres of tidal marsh located in and near
this waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Saltmarsh cordgrass usually
occupies the intertidal marsh edge habitat. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody,
based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group Three; this is out
of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value
(Silberhorn, 1974: 37,40).

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 in the nearshore areas east and west of the mouth of Cabin
Creek. This same area has been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration. This same area and all of Cabin Creek have been included in the
Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter
depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condenniation Area #137, which includes almost all of Cabin Creek, went into
effect 7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any
purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such as Cabin
Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show soundings of 3-5 ft. in this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Cabin Creek - Reach 104)

The erosion rate
for reach 104 is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
in Shoreline Erosion in Tideivater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be
three feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within
this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred within this reach prior to the
aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

WATERBODY: CHISMAN CREEK (Reach 101), GOOSE CREEK (Reach 103), AND
BOATHOUSE CREEK (Reach 102)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is a major tributary to the Poquoson River and enters it from the
northwest. Goose Creek is a tributary to the Chisman Creek mainstem and enters it from
the north. Boathouse Creek is a tributary to the Chisman Creek mainstem and enters it
from the south.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody). Chisman Creek is a Superfund site and, while the
cleanup process has been completed, it remains on the Superfund list for continued
pollution monitoring.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes, tidal flats and SAV beds.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 53 acres of tidal marshes
in this waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Subdivided acreage of tidal
marsh were: 1.5 acres in Evergreen Shores, 3.1 acres in Goose Creek, 41.09 acres in the
Chisman Creek mainstem, and 6.83 acres in Boathouse Creek. The marshes of the Chisman
Creek mainstem are mainly small cove, pocket and fringing marshes dominated by
saltmarsh cordgrass. Several of the small coves at the headwaters of Chisman Creek have
been dredged and spoil has been piled on the marsh. Evaluation of wetland types in this
waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, ranged from Group
One to Group Three; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 37-44).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this waterbody in 1991. All of Chisman Creek and its
tributaries have been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes Chisman Creek and Goose Creek, but
not Boathouse Creek, went into effect 7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful
to take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit. There are 2 marina facilities
on Chisman Creek which necessitate a collective seasonal shellfish bed closure between

April 1 and October 31 covering approximately 40 acres: Thomas Marina and Wildey
Marina.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are 4 private/ commercial marina facilities located on Chisman Creek: Thomas
Marina (Presson Rd.), Wildey Marina (Crockett Rd.), Sn-dth's Marine Railway (Railway Rd.)
and Chisman Creek Marina (Railway Rd.).

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such as
Chisman, Goose and Boathouse Creeks, could be made more accessible for activities such
as nature study and environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also
be identified.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS, topographic maps show soundings of 4-
11 ft. in the Chisman Creek mainstem, and 3-4 ft. soundings in Goose and Boathouse
Creeks.

Flushi ng Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Chisman Creek Mainstem Shoreline - Reach 101)

Chisman Creek Mainstern Shoreline includes all shoreline found within the confines of
Chisman Creek with the exception of the shoreline contained in Boathouse Creek and
Goose Creek. Chisman Creek contains 108,000 feet of shoreline and 185 piers and docks
(Pier and Dock Density = 1.71 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate

for reach 101 is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
in Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be
four feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shorelin' e within
this reach is (landuse). 22.62 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of
the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Goose Creek - Reach 103)

Goose Creek contains 30,200 feet of shoreline and 83 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 2.75 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 103
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 31.79 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Boathouse Creek - Reach 102)

Boathouse Creek contains 20,400 feet of shoreline and 22 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.08 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 102
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia'Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be three feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 8.82 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: BOATHOUSE CREEK TO HODGES COVE

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Boathouse Creek
then east along the Chisman Creek shoreline to Ship Point then south along the Poquoson
River mainstern to Hodges Cove.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes and SAV beds.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 3 acres of tidal marsh
located in this segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Subdivided acreages of
tidal marsh were: 2.8 near and at Ship Point and .5 acres along the Poquoson River
mainstern near Hodges Cove. Evaluation of wetland types in this segment, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups,
with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn,
1974: 39,44-46).

Two SAV beds were mapped in 1991 along this segment. This entire segment has been
included in the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6 -foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Fut ure Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a 2-ft. sounding waterward of the marsh
system.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 100 - Ship Point to Hodges Cove)

Reach 100 contains 4,600 feet of shoreline and 3 piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
65 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 100 is 1.80 feet
per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in
Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is (landuse).
30.43 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: HODGES COVE (Reach 99)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is a tributary to the Poquoson River and enters it from west.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 4.3 acres of tidal marshes
in this waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The Hodges Cove area is
stressed by development as is evidenced by artificial canals and deposits of spoil on the
marsh surface. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups,
with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn,
1974: 38,45-46).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this waterbody in 1991. However, this entire
waterbody has been included in the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a sounding of 1 ft. at the mouth of Hodges
Cove.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Hodges Cove - Reach 99)

Hodges Cove contains 17,400 feet of shoreline and 20 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.15 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 99
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 16.09 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: HODGES COVE TO PATRICKS CREEK (Reaches 98,97,96,
and 95)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Hodges Cove
then south along the Poquoson River shoreline to the mouth of Patricks Creek, including
Howard's Landing and several unnamed tributaries east of and near Patrick's Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 7.8 acres of tidal marsh
located in this segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland
types in this segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was
Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group
Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 39,44-46).

No SAV beds were mapped in 1991 along this segment. Some nearshore areas in this
segment have been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration and the entire segment has 'been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake
Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth
range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment. However, there are many state-ownedright of ways ending along this
segment which could be considered for development of public access areas to the
Poquoson River mainstem.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 2-5
ft. along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 98 - Hodges Cove to approx. Howards Landing)

Reach 98 contains 2,600 feet of shoreline and six piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
2.31 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosibn rate for reach 98 is
05 @/z
unavailable.
WA W42 =/@T Wh
reach is (landuse). 53.85 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the
aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 97 - Mainstem Face along Howards Landing)

Reach 97 contains 5,000 feet of shoreline and ten piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
2.00 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 97 is one foot
per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in
Tide7vater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is (landus e).
24.00 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 96 - Mainstern Face from nameless point north of Howards
Landing to nameless creek)

Reach 96 contains 2,400 feet of shoreline and four piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.67 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).

The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred within this reach prior to the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 95 - nameless creek)

Reach 95 contains 5,200 feet of shoreline and seven piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.35 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 95
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 3.85 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: PATRICKS CREEK (Reaches 94,93, and 92)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is a tributary to the Poquoson River mainstern and enters it from west.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 20 acres of tidal marshes in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this
waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One;
this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of
least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 45,47-48).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this waterbody in 1991. However, this entire
waterbody has been included in the Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condernnation Area #137, which includes all of Patricks Creek, went into effect
7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose,
except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan

suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such as Patricks
Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.

Bathyrnetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 2-4
ft. in this waterbody.
Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (North Shore of Patricks Creek from nameless creek to northward
bend - Reach 94)

Reach 94 contains 4,800 feet of shoreline and eight piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.67 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).

gW111W1"1 The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 12.50 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Patricks Creek Mainstern - Reach 93)

Reach 93 contains 24,800 feet of shoreline and 12 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 0.48 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 93
is 1.8 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 2.42 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Unnamed Cove on the South Shore of. Patricks Creek to Patrick.
Creek Mouth - Reach 92)

Reach 92 contains 3,400 feet of shoreline and two piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 0.59 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).
/A " x X

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: PATRICKS CREEK TO QUARTER MARCH CREEK (Reaches
91, 90, 89, and 88)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Patricks Creek
then south along the Poquoson River shoreline to the mouth of Quarter March Creek,
including an unnamed tributary between Patricks Creek and Quarter March Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 4.65 acres of tidal marsh located in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this
segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, ranged from Group
One to Group Three; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 45,48).

No SAV beds were mapped in 1991 along this segment. However, the entire segment has
been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the -6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes all this segment and the Poquoson
River mainstern to the south, went into effect 7/ 6/ 93. This is a restricted area where it is
unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 4-6
ft. along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 91 - Mainstern Face between Patricks Creek and nameless
point)

Reach 91 contains 1,800 feet of shoreline and two piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.11 piers/docks per thousand feet of shoreline). Reach 91 is accreting at one
foot per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Scienci@ in Shoreline Erosion in
Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is (landuse).
22.22 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 90 - Mainstern Face along Piney Point Estates)

Reach 90 contains 1,200 feet of shoreline and two piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1. 67 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 90
is one foot per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). Fifty percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 89 - Nameless Creek between Quarter March Creek and
Piney Point Estates)

Reach 89 contains 5,400 feet of shoreline and 11 piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
2.04 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 89 is zero feet
per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in
Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is (landuse).
37.04 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 88 - Mainstern Shoreline between nameless creek and
Quarter March Creek)

Reach 88 contains 2,400 feet of shoreline and ten piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
4.17 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).

The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is (landuse).
33.33 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: QUARTER MARCH CREEK (Reach 87)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is a tributary to the Poquoson River mainstern and enters it from west.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 12.2 acres of tidal marshes in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this
waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One;
this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of
least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 45,48-49).

There were no SAV beds mapped in this waterbody in 1991. However, this entire
waterbody has been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes all of Quarter March Creek, went into
effect 7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any
purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody but there is a large
number of private piers and docks.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a sounding of 6 ft. at the mouth of this
waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Quarter March Creek - Reach 87)

Reach 87 contains 20,400 feet of shoreline and eleven piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 2.04 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 87
is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tideivater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 22.55 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions,: it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: QUARTER MARCH CREEK TO HARWOODS MILL
RESERVOIR (Reach 86)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Quarter March
Creek then south along the Poquoson River shoreline then west along the north shore of
the Poquoson River to the spillway at Harwoods Mill Reservoir at U.S. Rt. 17.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 60.3 acres of tidal marsh located in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. The largest marsh on the Poquoson
River is located in this segment at the upper end of the river, just below the Harwoods Mill
Reservoir spillway and U.S. Rt. 17. This is a mixed brackish water marsh community of 56
acres. Evaluation of wetland types in this segment, based on totalenvironmental. value of
an acre of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Three; this is out of five groups,
with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn,
1974: 38,45,49).
No SA'V beds were mapped in 1991 alon g this segment. However, the entire segment has
been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes all this segment and the Poquoson
River mainstem, went into effect 7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to
take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is a (private/public) boat landing located at the end of Lindsay Landing Lane.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment. However, a canoe put-in/take-out area could be developed adjacent to
the U.S. Rt. 17 to access the large marsh system below the spillway at Harwoods Mill
Reservoir.
Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 1-2
ft. along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 86)

Reach 86 contains 17,200 feet of shoreline and 24 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.40 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 86
is 1.80 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 9.30 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: HARWOODS MILL RESERVOIR

General Description and Location

This waterbody is located in York County but is owned and operated by the City of
Newport News as a drinking water supply. It is connected by surface flow to the
Poquoson River via a spillway.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108L (The
Harwoods Mill Reservoir Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody:
Wow, wetland communities and wooded parkland which serves as a watershed
protection buffer area for the reservoir.

Existing Water Access Facilities

The City of Newport News Park operates a boat rental and boat launch facility on
Harwoods Mill Reservoir for canoes, paddleboats and small boats propelled by electric
motor only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

The City of Newport News Park, which surrounds Harwoods Mill Reservoir, provides
opportunities for hiking, biking, fitness trails, and nature study.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of additional public water access or
recreation areas in this waterbody.

Bathymetry

USGS topographic maps show a sounding of 20 ft. near the dam.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: HARWOODS MILL RESERVOIR TO MOORES CREEK
(Reaches 85 and 84)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the spillway at Harwoods Mill
Reservoir then east along the south shore of the Poquoson River mainstern to Moores
Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 61.68 acres of tidal marsh located in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. The largest marsh on the Poquoson
River is located in this segment at the upper end of the river, just below the Harwoods Mill
Reservoir spillway and U.S. Rt. 17. This is a mixed brackish water marsh community of 56
acres. Other marshes along this segment consist of fringe and pocket marshes. Evaluation
of wetland types in this segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each
type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 38,45,49).

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is one county-owned/DGIF public boat landing located on the Poquoson River near
the mouth of Moores Creek at the end of Rt. 600 (Tide Mill Rd.): Rodgers A. Smith (a/ k/ a
Tide Mill Landing). Because of a limited number of public boat landings in the northern
portion of York County, this facility is currently experiencing overcrowding.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

Opportunities for nature study exist at the Rodgers A. Smith public boat landing area.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment. However, improvements could be made to the Rodgers A. Smith public
boat landing to increase access and reduce current launch waiting time. A Canoe put-
in/ take-out area could be developed adjacent to the U.S. Rt. 17 to access the large marsh
system below the spillway at Harwoods Mill Reservoir.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 1-2
ft. along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristic� of the Lower Western
and Southern Shore Chesapeake Bay Small Coastal Basins, it might be inferred that this
segment is not well-flushed except in the event of a freshwater release from Harwoods Mill
reservoir over the spillway.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 85 - Poquoson River Headwaters to Unnamed Point)

Reach 85 contains 14,000 feet of shoreline and three piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 0.21 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).

The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 1.43 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 84 - Unnamed Point to Moores Creek)

Reach 8'4 contains 1,600 feet of shoreline and two piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.25 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 84
is 1.40 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be five feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred within this reach prior to the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: MOORES CREEK (Reach 83)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is a tributary to the Poquoson River mainstern and enters it from the south.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes and tidal flats.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 17.83 acres of tidal marshes in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The Moores Creek area is stressed by
development, which is evidenced by artificial canals and deposits of spoil on the marsh
surface. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental
value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One
being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 45,48-49).

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes all of Moores Creek, went into effect
7/ 6/ 93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose,
except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody but there are several
private piers and docks.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Prog2:am Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such a's Moores
Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a sounding of 1 ft. at the mouth of this
waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Moores Creek - Reach 83)

Moores Creek contains 14,800 feet of shoreline and twelve piers and docks (Pier and
Dock Density = 1.20 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline).

The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 2.70 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: MOORES CREEK TO LAMBS CREEK (Reach 82)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Moores Creek
then north along the western shoreline of the Poquoson River mainstem at Calthrop Neck
to Lambs Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody). The ACB Citizen's Monitoring Program has one inactive
monitoring station (#14)
along this segment.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 6.63 acres of tidal marsh located in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this
segment, based on total environmental value of an acre of each typ@!, was Group One; this
is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least
value (Silberhorn, 1974: 45,50).

No SAV beds were mapped in 1991 along this segment. However, a small nearshore area
near the mouth of Lambs Creek has been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay
SAV Distribution Restoration and the entire segment has been included in the Tier III
Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth
contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #137, which includes a portion of this segment along the
Poquoson River mainstem from Moores Creek to a point just south of the tip of Calthrop
Neck, went into effect 7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish
for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

None.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and R&reation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of 1-2
ft. along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 82)

Reach 82 contains 13,600 feet of shoreline and 24 piers and docks (Fier and Dock
Density = 1.76 piers/ docks per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 82
is 1.70'feet per year as reported by the, Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be four feet by
the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline within this reach is
(landuse). 5.88 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: LAMBS CREEK

General Description and Location

A centerline in this waterbody forms the corporate boundary between York County and
the City of Poquoson. It is a tributary to the Poquoson River mainstern and enters it from
the south.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080108 (Lower Western Shore Tributaries), Segment 108-01E
(The Poquoson River Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing
tidal marshes and tidal flats.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 9.2 acres of tidal marshes in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The Lambs Creek area is stressed by
development, which is evidenced by artificial canals and deposits of spoil on the marsh
surface, as well a many private piers and docks. Evaluation of wetland types in this
waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One.-
this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of
least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 38,45,50).

Shellfish Condernnation Area #137, which includes all of Lambs Creek, went into effect
7/6/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose,
except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody but there are many
private piers and docks.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

None.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for development of public water access or recreation areas
in this waterbody. However, the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam Public Access Plan
suggests that the large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County, such as Lambs
Creek, could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. Canoe put-in/take-out points could also be identified.
Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a sounding of three feet. at the mouth of this
waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Lambs Creek Western Shore - Reach 81)

The western shore of Lambs Creek contains 19,200 feet of shoieline and 23 piers and
docks (Pier and Dock Density = 1.20 piers/docks per thousand. feet of shoreline). The
erosion rate for reach 81 is zero feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported
to be three feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to the shoreline
within this reach is (landuse). 12.50 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the
time of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate
erosion control recommendation).

I
I MAINSTEM SEGMENT: LAMBS CREEK TO ROBERTS CREEK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 60
I

I
WATERBODY: ROBERTS CREEK I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1

61
I
- I

I
I MAINSTEM SEGMENT: ROBERTS CREEK TO LYONS CREEK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

62
1
I

I
WATERBODY: LYONS CREEK I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I I
-- I
I
I
I
I
.1
63 1
.I

.1
I MAINSTEM SEGMENT: LYONS CREEK TO WHITE HOUSE COVE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 64
I -

I
WATERBODY: VMITE HOUSE COVE I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
65 '1
I

I
I WATERBODY: BENNETT CREEK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

66
1
I ,

I
WATERBODY: EASTON COVE I
. I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I.
-- I
I
I
I
I
.1
67 1
.I

I
I MAINSTEM SEGMENT: EASTON COVE TO MARSH ISLAND
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1

68
I
I

I
WATERBODY: LLOYD BAY I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1

69
I
- I

I
I WATERBODY: SANDY BAY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

70
1
I

SYSTEM: YORK RIVER

General Location and Description

For the purposes of this study, the York River System encompasses the York River mainstern and
southern shoreline from Ware Creek to the mouth of the York River at Tue Point, including all
southern shore tributaries and other waterbodies with connected surface flow to the York River
as follows: Ware Creek, France and Cow Swamps, Taskinas Creek, Skimino Creek, Barlow's Pond,
Old Mill Pond, Skimino Pond, Powell Lake, Carter Creek, Bigler Mill Pond, Beaverdam Pond,
Queen Creek, Cheatham Pond, Jones Pond, Queens Lake, Waller Mill Reservoir, King Creek,
Penniman Lake, Felgates Creek, Black Swamp, Lee Pond, Indian Field Creek, Yorktown Creek,
Wormley Creek and Wormley Pond. The extensive marsh system that comprises the Goodwin
Island complex is also included. This system is located within a subbasin of the York River Basin
and the Chesapeake Bay and Small Coastal Rivers Basins. A portion of James City and York
Counties is included in this system. A large percentage of the shoreline in this system is owned
by the federal government.

Water Quality Data

Existing water quality data for this system is as follows:

HUC 02080107: York River Subbasin

This hydrologic unit includes the York River watershed from the confluence of the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers at West Point to its mouth at the Chesapeake Bay. A portion of the mainstern
of the York River is water quality limited and the tributaries are effluent limited.

The York River has been designated as nutrient enriched waters in the estuarine portion of the
river from West Point to the mouth of the York River (Tue Marsh Light), including all tributaries
that enter the estuarine portion of the river.

SegMent 107-07E: The York River-West Point Waterbody

Consists of the mainstem and tributaries from the confluence of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey
Rivers at West Point to river mile 22.4 just below the Poropotank River, including the York River
mainstem, Goalders Creek, Bakers Creek, Hockley Creek, Poropotank River, and all surrounding
tributaries. The waterbody is classified as water quality limited.

The VWCB has 2 AWQM stations in the upper reaches of the York River. Neither station
exhibited any violations of the standards for temperature or pH. Theviolation rate for DO at one
station was below 10 %. The other station indicated a violation rate for the DO standard of 11 %.
No fecal coliform bacteria data were collected. Citizen members of the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay sampled one additional station. Their data indicated no violations for Do,
temperature, or pH.

Shellfish condemnations on the upper York River near the confluence with the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers can be attributed to the buffer zones surrounding the Town of West Point's STP
and Chesapeake Corporation, as well as from NPS pollutants. One industrial facility discharges
to this segment.

The CWA fishable goal for this waterbody, which covers 13.07 square miles of surface water, is
fully supported for 5.99 square miles and partially supported for 7.08 square miles. The
swimmable goal is fully supported for the entire waterbody.

SegMent 107-06E: The York River-Gloucester Waterbody

Encompasses an area from river mile 22.4, just below the Poropotank River, to the confluence with
the Chesapeake Bay at Sandy Point and Tue Point, including the York River, Taskinas Creek,
Adams Creek, Bland Creek, Purtan Bay, Carter Creek (Powell Lake), Queens Creek, King Creek,
Felgates Creek, Jones Creek, Timberneck Creek, Wormley Creek, Back Creek, and other
surrounding tributaries. This waterbody is classified as effluent limited.

The VWCB maintains 2 ambient stations and one Core station on the mainstern of the York River.
Neither AWQM station indicated violation rates over 10% for the standards during the two-year
reporting period prior to April 1992. Water column samples indicated the presence of copper
above the detection lin-dt but below the criteria level. Sediment samples taken at the Core station
.indicated no significant concentrations of metals. Fish tissue samples contained arsenic at
concentrations above the EPA trigger value. Citizen members of the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay sampled six additional stations. Their data indicated no violations for DO, temperature, or
pH.

Shellfish condemnations on the York River are related to the buffer zones surrounding the
discharges from HRSD-York River STP and Cheatham Annex STP on the mainstern while the
closures on Carter Creek and its tributaries are related to discharges from Camp Peary.
Additionally, 10 industrial facilities discharge to the mainstern and various tributaries to the York
River. NPS pollutants also influence water quality in the area.
The York River Mainstern - Sandbox to Coleman Bridge System is included in Watershed F01
(HUC 02080107 - York River Subbasin) in the 1993 Virginia Noppoint Source Pollution Watershed
Assessment. Forestry and agriculture are the primary land uses in the York River subbasin;
however, portions of the subbasin are intensively urbanized. In fact, although agriculture and
forestry nonpoint sources affect water quality, urban sources are probably the most significant
sources of nonpoint pollution in this subbasin. Monitoring data in the 305(b) report also indicates
a possible problem with metal contan-dnation. Biological data is not available for this watershed.
Watershed F01 has a high priority rating for urban pollution potential, and has a final rank of
High+ in Virginia's Overall Nonpoint Source Pollution Priorities for 1993.

The CWA fishable goal for this waterbody, which covers 50.78 square miles of surface water', is
fully supported for 43.41 square miles and partially supported for 7.37 square miles. The
swimmable goal is fully supported for the entire waterbody.

SegMent 107-08R: The Phil Bates Creek Waterbody

Contains Phil Bates Creek and Ware Creek, and totals 16.0 river miles. There are no point source
discharges to this segment. The only discharger in this segment, an industrial facility, discharges
to France Swamp, a tributary to Ware Creek.

Data from one AWQM station on Phil Bates Creek, at State Route 600, are used to assess water
quality for this segment. This station exhibited no water quality problems during this reporting
period. The total 16.0 river miles fully support the CWA fishable/ swimmable goals.

SegMent 107-04L: The Bigler Millpond Waterbody

Located at Camp Peary and includes the drainage from this area to the dam at the York River.
The millpond covers 121 acres, and is owned and used by Camp Peary. No known point sources
discharge to this segment. The millpond is designated as eutrophic. This waterbody was not
assessed during the current reporting period for support of the CWA fishable and swimmable
goal.

Seg!nent 107-03L: The Beaverdam Pond Waterbody

Located to the south of Bigler Millpond and includes the drainage from the surrounding area to
-the confluence with the York River. The pond covers 51 acres. Like Bigler Millpond, this pond
is owned and used by Camp Peary. No known point sources discharge to this segment. The
millpond is designated as eutrophic. This waterbody was not assessed during the current
reporting period for support of the CWA fishable and swimmable goal.

Segment 107-05L: The Waller Mill Reservoir Waterbody

Encompasses an area from the confluence of the tributary to Queens Creek at Route 132 to the
dam at Waller Mill Road, including Waller Mill Reservoir and the tributary at the end of Queens
Creek. The reservoir covers 315 acres and is classified as mesotrophic. Waller Mill Reservoir is
used as a public water supply reservoir for the City of Williamsburg. One industrial facility
discharges to the tributary Queens Creek. NPS pollutants also impact water quality. This
waterbody was not assessed during the current reporting period for support of the CWA fishable
and swimmable goal.

Segment 107-01L: The Cheatham Lake Waterbody

Encompasses the drainage area surrounding the lake, to the confluence with Queens Creek at the
Cheatham Lake Dam. The lake covers 108 acres, and is owned and used by the U.S. Navy. No
point sources discharge to this segment. The lake is designated as eutrophic. This waterbody was
not assessed during the current reporting period for support of the CWA fishable and swimmable
goal.

SegMent 107-02L: The Tones Millpond Waterbody

Includes the drainage surrounding the lake, to the confluence with a tributary to Queens Creek
at the Jones Millpond Dam. The millpond covers 65.2 acres. No data are available for this
millpond to determine its classification. The millpond is owned and used by the U.S. Navy. No
point sources discharge to this segment. This waterbody was not assessed during the current
reporting period for support of the CWA fishable and swimmable goal.

HUC 02080101 Mainstem Open Bay

The VWCB conducts monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem as part of the Federal-Interstate
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). The CBP Monitoring Program collects basic water quality
parameters and also monitors the status and trends in benthic, phytoplankton, and zooplankton
communities.

The water quality assessment performed here relied on four main sources of information. The
first major source of information was an examination of monitoring data in relation to established
water quality standards for Class II, estuarine waters. DO values were compared to the minimum
DO standard. Ammonia data were compared to the state criterion, which is calculated based on
water temperature and pH. Fecal coliform bacteria samples are not collected as part of the CBP
Monitoring Program. Given the lack of bacterial data for comparison against the standard,
support of the CWA swimmable goal was determined by best professional judgment.

The second major basis of this assessment was the use of information from the Virginia
Department of Health on shellfish harvesting condemnation areas. These areas were designated
as partially supporting of the fishable goal.

The third major source of information for this assessment was an examination of the distribution
of SAV. There has been a general decline in distribution of SAV throughout the Bay, which has
resulted from declining water quality conditions. The Chesapeake Bay Program has established
the return of SAV populations as a measure of restoration of the Bay and proposed a set of tiered
goals. Tier I goals are the re-establishment of SAV populations in areas in which the presence of
SAV has been well documented at some time in the past. For this assessment, areas of the Bay that
have not achieved the Tier I goal have been designated as partially supporting of the CWA goal
for fishable waters.

The fourth major basis of this assessment was monitoring data analysis done as part of the 1991
re-evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction goals, henceforth referred to as the 1991
re-evaluation analysis. The 1991 re-evaluation analysis involved an examination of all water
quality information collected as part of the CBP Monitoring Program during the period of 1984
through 1990. For this 1991 re-evaluation analysis, water quality of Chesapeake Bay segments was
compared to other Bay segments, as well as examined for recent trends. There are no standards
or criteria established for most of the parameters monitored by the CBP (e.g. nutrients, water
clarity) and it is difficult to use this information for determining CWA goal status. Therefore,

results were not used in determining the CWA goal status; however, environmentally undesirable
conditions or trends are noted.

Seginent 101-03CE (Southwestern Portion of the Chesapeake Bay)

This segment encompasses 123 square miles of water located in the southwestern portion of the
Bay, from Mobjack Bay to Back River. The VWCB maintains 2 water quality stations in this
segment. Depths at these stations average approximately 5-7 meters. Salinities were 16-20 ppt,
with slight stratification present.

Water quality in this segment was characterized by average levels of total nitrogen and
phosphorus and low levels of inorganic nutrients. Light levels were good. Chlorophyll levels
were generally not excessive, however there was a moderately increasing trend during the period
of 1984-1990. Bottom water DO levels were fairly good. There were no significant inter-annual
trends in total nitrogen, total phosphorus, water clarity or DO during the period of 1984-1990.

The shallow water areas of this segment are potential habitat for SAV. Approximately 7 square
miles of this segment are estimated to have had the documented presence of SAV but do not have
any SAV now. Because of this decline in SAV, 7 square miles of this waterbody segment are
considered to only partially meet the CWA goal for fishable waters.

The DO standard was violated in 0.5% of the samples collected. The pH standard and the
ammonia criterion were not violated in any samples during this reporting period. All of this
segment was evaluated as fully supporting the CWA goal for swimmable waters. i I

In summary, 116 square miles of this segment fully support the CWA goal for fishable waters, 7
square miles partially support the CWA goal for fishable waters, and all (123 square miles) of this
segment fully support the CWA goal for swimmable waters.

SegMent 101-02BE (Mouth of the York River)

This segment encompasses 10 square miles of water located off the mouth of the York River. The
VWCB maintains one water quality monitoring station, where the average depth is 14 meters.
This station is also monitored for status and trends of phytoplankton and zooplankton
communities. Salinities were in the 19-25 ppt range and salinity stratification ranged from 1-5 ppt
difference between surface and bottom water.

Water quality in this segment was characterized by about average levels of total nitrogen and
phosphorus and low levels of inorganic nutrients. Light levels were good and chlorophyll levels
were generally not excessive. Bottom water DO levels were poor. There were no significant inter-
annual trends in total nitrogen, total phosphorus, water clarity, DO, or chlorophyll observed for
the period of 1984-1990. Biological monitoring in this segment indicated no adverse effects due
to water quality.

The DO standard was violated by 18.5% of the monitoring observations. The standard for pH was
violated by 1.4% of the monitoring observations. The ammonia criterion was not violated in any
samples during this reporting period. All of this segment was evaluated as fully supporting the
CWA goal for swimmable waters.

In summary, all 10 square miles of this segment partially support the CWA goal for fishable
waters and fully support the CWA goal for swimmable waters.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this system: extensive tidal
marshes, fringing tidal marshes, tidal flats, freshwater marshes and swamps, submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds, shellfish producing areas, condemned shellfish areas, anadromous finfish
spawning and nursery areas, commercially- and recreationally-important finfishing areas, habitats
and rookeries for birds of special concern, protected areas and estuarine research reserves.

An inventory of tidal marshes in this system can be found in the following publications: James
City Coun1y Tidal Marsh Inventory (1980) and York County-Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh
Inventory (1974). These inventories show that, at time of publication, there were approximately
2,345 acres of tidal marshes located within this system. Evaluation of wetland types, based on
total environmental value of an acre of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Two; this is
.out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value.

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 in this system, primarily surrounding the Goodwin Islands
complex. Some nearshore areas in this system have been included in the Tier I Chesapeake Bay
SAV Distribution Restoration Target and the entire system has been included in the Tier III
Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Target.

Shellfish producing areas can be found in. the York River mainstern just east of the Coleman
Bridge to the mouth of the river. There are several Condemned Shellfish Areas throughout the
system (#6, #35, #39, #40, #73, #79, #87, #130, #134 and #166) surrounding wastewater discharge
outfalls and military access piers, as well as in many of the smaller tributaries to the York River
mainstem.

Anadromous finfish spawning and nursery grounds are located west of the Coleman Bridge in
the several of the smaller tributaries to the York River mainstem. Species which use these areas
during the Fall season include: white perch, striped bass and other species. Commercially- and
recreationally-important fishing areas can be found ..... They include: ....... American bald eagle
and heron habitats and rookies have also been observed in this system.

Protected land areas in this system include federal and state lands comprising the Colonial
National Historic Park and Parkway and York River State Park. There are @ estuarine research
reserves in this system which are part of the National Estuarine Research Reserves System; one
is located at York River State Park and the other is located in the Goodwin Islands.

Existing Water Access Facilities and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 16 water access facilities and water-enhanced recreation areas located. in this system.
These include 2 public boat landings, several private boat landings, several restricted landings for
military personnel only, 3 private/ commercial marina facilities, a public beach, and several scenic
overlooks and canoe put/in-take-out areas along the Colonial Parkway. Water-enhanced
recreation areas at county, state and federal-owned parks include opportunities for pier and bank
fishing, canoeing, swimming, hiking, biking, picnicking, camping and environmental education.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

In general, there are few opportunities for boating access upstream of the Coleman Bridge. The
1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan suggests that the large tidal marshes along the
tidal creeks in this system could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education; additional canoe put-in/ take-out areas could also be developed in these
marshes. However, the large presence of military facilities in this system lin-dts, if not precludes,
additional development of public access and recreation areas along many of these tidal creeks,
even in the upper reaches which lie outside of the boundaries of these facilities. York County is
not pursuing development of these upstrearn areas for recreational purposes. The Chesapeake
Bay Program Public Access Plan also suggests that agreements that would make recreational
boating opportunities available in the Cheatham Pond Wilderness area should be considered; this
area is currently owned by the National Park Service with cooperative management by the U.S.
Navy. There is a possibility that the Cheatham Pond Wilderness area might be transferred or
leased to York County at a later date for development of additional recreational uses.

Some areas along the National Park Service's Colonial Parkway are emerging as recreational
destinations in their own right. The 1993 Colonial National Historic Park Master Plan states that
such use of these areas has been detern-dned to be compatible with the parkway purpose, but
actions will be taken to give better support to recreation. Using "limits of acceptable change"
principles, the Park Service will detern-dne optimal levels of recreational use consistent with public
health, resource protection, and desired visitor experiences. On the basis of 'Study results, actions
will be initiated to protect natural resources while better accommodating visitors at designated
areas. If studies reveal unacceptable impacts, actions may be taken for better management of
public use e.g. limiting parking. The Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan also suggests
that further analysis of the lands along the Colonial Parkway be made to determine if water access
can be enhanced by providing additional parking areas and recreational opportunities.

The Colonial National Historic Park Master Plan identifies specific means by which the National
Park Service will seek to strengthen the Colonial National Historic Park's goals of conservation
and visitor understanding and enjoyment, such as improving visitor.awareness to distinguish it
from other attractions in the area through improved signage and educational kiosks,
establishment of recreational bikeways and walking/jogging trails in the Park and along the
Parkway corridor in conjunction with state and local programs, protection of land and scenic
vistas, management of specific properties, and management of cultural and natural resources.

The 1991 York Counjy Comprehensive Plan has identified additional sites for water access
facilities or enhancement of existing recreation areas in this system. The 1993 Yorktown Master
Plan identifies public improvement projects along the Yorktown Waterfront area, in particular.
York County is also working with the business community to encourage the development of
public/ private partnerships to meet recreational needs in the County.

<<Add 1991 James City Comprehensive Plan information ... >>

Shoreline Condition (System)

The York River System, within York County, contains 99.87 miles of shoreline and 97 piers
and docks. These figures represent the immedite York River shoreline within York County and
that of the major tributaries. The average pier and dock density is 0.18 piers and docks per 1000
linear feet of shoreline. Within the system 9.84 percent of the shoreline is hardened.

For ease of analysis, this system has been subdivided into three subareas as follows: 1) Subarea
A: Ware Creek to Queens Creek; 2) Subarea B: Queens Creek to the Coleman Bridge; 3) Subarea
C: Coleman Bridge to Tue Point.

SUBAREA A: WARE CREEK TO QUEENS CREEK

General Description and Location

For the purposes of this study, this subarea has been delineated as beginning at and including
Ware Creek, which forms the corporate boundary between New Kent and James City Counties,
then east along the York River mainstern to the mouth of Queens Creek at the U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary. The major tributaries to the York River mainstern in this subarea
include: France Swamps, Cow Swamp, Bird Swamp, Taskinas Creek, Skimino Creek and Carter
Creek. Other waterbodies in this subarea include: Lake Norvell, Barlow's Pond, Old Mill Pond,
Skimino Pond, Lake Powell, Bigler Mill Pond, Beaverdam Pond and Richardson Mill Pond. This
subarea is located partially in York County and predominantly in James City County; Skimino
Creek forms the corporate boundary between these two counties. A large percentage of the
shoreline in this system is owned by the federal or state government.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-07E (The York River-West
Point Waterbody), Segment 107-08R (The Phil Bates Creek Waterbody), Segment 107-06E (The
York River-Gloucester Waterbody), Segment 107-04L (The Bigler Mill Pond Waterbody) and
Segment 107-03L (The Beaverdam Pond Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this subarea: extensive tidal
marshes, fringing tidal marshes, freshwater marshes and swamps, anadromous finfish spawning
and nursery areas, shellfish condernnation areas, habitats and rookeries for birds of special
concern, a protected area, and an estuarine research reserve site.

Tidal marshes in this subarea have been inventoried in the York River-Ware Creek, the York
River-Taskinas Creek, and the York River-Skimino Creek Areas of the Tames City County Tidal
Marsh Inventor and in the Skimino Creek-Carter Creek, York River Shoreline: Carter Creek to
Queens Creek and Queens Creek Areas of the York County-Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh
Inventory. At the time these inventories were conducted there were approximately 1,085 acres
of tidal marsh in this subarea. Evaluation of wetland types, based on total environmental value
of an acre of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Two; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest yalue and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974:.13-20;
Moore, 1980: 84-98).

In 1991 there were no SAV beds mapped in this subarea. However, this entire subarea has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

There are 4 shellfish condernnation areas in this subarea: #73, #79, #87 and #166. Anadromous
finfish species which use this subarea for spawning and nursery grounds during the Fall season
include: white perch, striped bass and other species. Commercially- and recreationally-important
fishing areas can be found ..... They include: ....... American bald eagle and heron habitats and
rookies have also been observed in this system.

York River State Park is the only protected area in this subarea. An estuarine research reserve,
which is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserves System, is located at York River State
Park.

Existing Water Access Points and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 5 water access and water-enhanced recreation areas located in this system. They
include: a public boat ramp, opportunities for pier and bank fishing, hiking, picnicking and
nature study at Croaker Landing at York River State Park on the York River and Taskinas Creek;
a (private/public) landing (Sycamore Landing) on the York River; and, 3 camping areas along the
upper reaches of Skimino Creek below Old Mill and Barlow's Ponds. In addition, there are several
water access points, boat landings, piers and mooring areas in this subarea which are restricted
to military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Despite the many miles of tidal shoreline in this subarea, public access to the water, especially for
recreational boating, is limited. The York River north of York River State Park is lightly used for
recreation as no public access exists above Croaker Landing at York River State Park. A number
of residential development proposals have been prepared in recent years in the northern portion
of James City County. The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam Public Access Plan suggests that any
future public or private development should afford public recreational access for boating, fishing,
nature study, and other forms of water-dependent recreation. The plan also suggests that the
large tidal marshes along the tidal creeks in York County could be made more accessible for
activities such as nature study and environmental education; canoe put-in/fake-out areas could
also be identified. James City County has applied for a federal permit to impound Ware Creek
to create a reservoir that would serve as a drinking water supply for the County; to date, no
pern-dt has been issued. Public water access and water-enhanced recreation activities have been
included in the reservoir project proposal. Need 1989 and 1994 VOP reco's....

Shoreline Condition (Subarea A)

Subarea A of the York River System contains 5.68 miles of mainstern shoreline within York
County. Within the York County portion of the subarea there are no piers and docks and no
shoreline hardening had occurred prior to the aerial survey.

For the purposes of analysis, this subarea is subdivided into three categories: 1) waterbodies,
which include the smaller tributaries of the York River, and any lakes, ponds and reservoirs

within the subarea with connected surface flow to the York River; 2) mainstern segments, which
comprise the southern shoreline of the York River between identified waterbodies; and 3)
shoreline reaches as defined for the purposes of this study; a reach may include an entire
waterbody, a mainstem segment, or any combination thereof and may cross subarea boundaries.

I
I WATERBODY: WARE CREEK, FRANCE SWAMP AND COW SWAMP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 12
I

I
MAINSTEM SEGMENT: WARE CREEK TO TASKINAS CREEK I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II @
i
I
I
I
I
.I
13 1
.I

WATERBODY: TASKINAS CREEK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 14
I

WATERBODY: LAKE NORVELL

General Description

Looks like a residential lake for the Riverview Plantation subdivision ... is it connected by
surface flow to York River?

I
I MAINSTEM SEGMENT: TASKINAS CREEK TO SKIMINO CREEK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1 16
I

WATERBODY: SKIMINO CREEK, BARLOW'S POND, OLD MILL POND AND SKIMINO
POND

General Location and Description

Skimino Creek forms the corporate boundary between James City and York Counties. Barlow's
Pond is located on Skimino Creek and is the first impoundment upstream from the mouth of the
creek. Old Mill Pond is also located on Skimino Creek and is the second impoundment upstream
from the mouth of the creek. Both of these ponds are privately-owned. The U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary is located on both sides of the mouth of Skimino creek to a point
approximately halfway between the mouth of the creek and Barlow's Pond. Skimino Pond is
connected to Skin-dno Creek via a spillway and is located within the boundary of U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary in York County.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

.The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing tidal
marshes, a condemned shellfish area, finfish nursery grounds and habitat for birds of special
concern.

The tidal marsh inventory for this waterbody shows that there were 458.6 acres of tidal marsh in
Skimino Creek at the time the inventory was conducted. The Skimino Creek tidal marsh system
extends some distance upstream from the mouth of the creek along the York River shoreline, as
well as downstream from the mouth of the creek along the York River shoreline to the spillway
at Lake Powell. Subdivided acreage of tidal marshes were: 220 acres in York County and 238.6
acres in James City County. The creek has been stressed very little by human activity, primarily
because it is partially located in a military reservation, which limits access and development.
Skimino Creek is typical of the large creek marshes along the southern shoreline of the York River.
Like these others, Skin-dno Creek presents an interesting gradation of marsh types, due primarily
to salinity, from its head to its mouth. Tlie creek is generally of low elevation and supports large
stands of saltmarsh cordgrass, particularly along the lower one-third of its length. The higher
areas in this wetlands system are largely dominated by saltmeadow grass cornmunities. In the
upper part of the creek, where salinity levels are lower, the dominant plant community is typically
mixed freshwater with such species as big cordgrass, cattails and arrow arum. There is a large
network of mosquito ditches which criss-cross through the lower end of the marsh system; most
of these ditches are fringed with saltmarsh cordgrass. This practice, how ever, is considered
ineffectual in controlling mosquito populations, many of which come from the adjacent I 0*w
woodlands and not the tidal marshes. The entire creek system also presents an excellent, natural
area for wildlife. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental

value of an acre of each type, range from Group One to Group Two; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 13,14;
Moore, 1980: 87-90).
No SAV beds were mapped in this waterbody in 1991. However, this entire waterbo'dy has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #87, which includes that part of Skimino Creek below Barlow's
Pond, went into effect 7/12/93. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for
any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

According to surveys made by the Department of Ichthyology at VIMS, the Skimino Creek marsh
system is a valuable nursery ground for white perch and striped bass. Nesting pairs of American
bald eagles have also been observed in tall loblolly pines along the upland marsh boundary of the
marsh.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. <<Video shows a marina
facility/pier/mooring area at the western border of Camp Peary on Skimino Creek>>. Restricted
access along that portion of the Skimino Creek shoreline that is adjacent to U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

That portion of the Skimino Creek shoreline that is adjacent to U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp
Peary is a restricted area for military personnel only. There are 3 campgrounds located in York
County along the upper reaches of Skimino Creek: Camp Skin-dno is located just below Old Mill
Pond on Rt. 602; KOA Campground is located just below Barlow's Pond on Rt. 785 and, Colonial
Campground is also located off of Rt. 785 along a tributary to Skimino Creek.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of the classified nature of federal operations at Camp Peary, future development of public
water access and recreation areas in this portion of Skimino Creek, as well as the upper reaches
of the creek, is not likely. Public water access points might be identified along Old Mill and
Barlow's Ponds but uncertainty of pond ownership could hamper this effort.

Bathymetry

Bathymetric data for Skimino, Creek is not available on NOAA- National Ocean Service charts or
USGS topographic maps. USGS topographic maps show a 9 ft. sounding in Barlow's Pond, a 22
ft. sounding in Old Mill Pond and a 4 ft. sounding in Skimino Pond.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Skin-dno Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Skimino Creek)

The York County portion of Skimino Creek contains 11.74 miles of shoreline and 1 pier.
The average pier and dock density is 0.02 piers and docks per 1000 linear feet of shoreline. No
shoreline hardening had occurred within this portion of Skimino Creek prior to the aerial survey.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: SKIMINO CREEK TO CARTER CREEK (Reach 11)

General Description

This mainstem segment begins at the mouth of Skimino Creek then continues east along the York
River shoreline to the mouth of Carter Creek. This segment is adjacent to the U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary. Data available for this segment is limited because of the classified
nature of federal operations at Camp Peary.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

Sensitive land and aquatic resources found in this segment include: fringing tidal marshes. The
tidal marsh inventory for this segment shows that there were .75 acres of tidal marsh in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Portions of this fringing marsh have been
eroded by wave action and large peat blocks are commonly found strewn in the water near the
marsh. Evaluation of wetland types in this marsh, based on total environmental value of an acre
.of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value
and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 13,14).

No SAV beds were mapped in 1991 in this segment. However, this entire segment has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this segment. Restricted access in this
segment is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of classified federal operations at the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary, future
development of public water access facilities and recreation areas is not likely.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-15 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward of the tidal marsh system to the main channel. At this point in the York
River, the main channel is very close to the Gloucester County shoreline and has an depth range
of 22-40 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstem segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 11)

Reach 11 contains 10,000 feet of shoreline and has no piers or docks. The erosion rate for
reach 11 is 2.2 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be ten feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had
occurred within reach 11 prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would
appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: LAKE POWELL

General Description

Located within the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary. Data available for this waterbody is
limited because of the classified nature of federal operations at Camp Peary.

Bathymetry

USGS topographic maps show a 6 ft. sounding in Lake Powell.

WATERBODY: CARTER CREEK

General Description and Location

Carter Creek is located almost entirely within the boundary of the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp
Peary, except for uppermost portion of the creek located the west side of Rt. 604. Data available
for this waterbody is limited because of the classified nature of federal operations at Camp Peary.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

Data on sensitive land and aquatic resources in this waterbody limited due to accessibility
problems. However, the tidal marsh inventory for this area does state that Carter Creek has been
altered by a dam at the mouth, but otherwise remains a natural system with 183 acres tidal marsh
present at the time the inventory was conducted. The dam limits this system as a fish nursery area
when the gates are closed. Evaluation of wetland types, based on total environmental value of
an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest
value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 13,14).

No SAV beds were mapped in 1991 in this waterbody. However, this entire waterbody has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #79 includes the lower portion of Carter Creek and went into effect
4/27/89. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by
a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. Restricted access in this
waterbody within the boundary of Camp Peary is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhance&Recreation Areas

That portion of this waterbody within the boundary of Camp Peary is a restricted area for military
personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of classified federal operations at the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary, future
development of public water access and recreation areas is not likely. York County is not
pursuing development of water access or recreation areas along that portion of this waterbody
outside the boundary of Camp Peary because of proximity to Camp Peary.

Bathymetry

Bathymetric data for Carter Creek is not available on NOAA-National Ocean Service charts or
USGS topographic maps.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Carter Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Carter Creek)

Carter Creek contains 13.64 miles of shoreline and 1 pier. The average pier and dock
density is 0.01 piers and docks per 1000 linear feet of shoreline. No shoreline hardening had
.occurred within Carter Creek prior to the aerial survey.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: CARTER CREEK TO QUEENS CREEK (Reaches 12,13,14, and 15)

General Description and Location

This segment begins at the mouth of Carter Creek then east along the York River shoreline to
Queens Creek. This shoreline area is adjacent to the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary. Data
availability for this area is limited at best because of the classified nature of federal operations at
Camp Peary.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody), and Segment 107-07E (The York River-West Point Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this mainstern segment: fringing
tidal marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that this segment contained nearly 3 miles of discontinuous
fringing marshes, comprising 33 acres, at the time the inventory was conducted. Subidivided
acreages of tidal marsh were: 6.25 acres along the York River shoreline east of Carter Creek, 20
acres between the York River and Bigler Mill Pond, 4.7 acres near the airstrip at Camp Peary, and
2 acres along the York River shoreline near Queens Creek. The largest of these marshes is the
extensive fringe between the York River and Bigler Mill Pond. This marsh is typical of the large
fringing marshes along this section of the York River. These marshes have developed a distinct
zonation pattern of Spartina communities. The intertidal area is usually vegetated by a narrow
band of saltmarsh cordgrass. The higher elevations are typically dominated by stands of big
cordgrass. In many cases, the saltmarsh cordgrass fringe has been eroded away, leaving large
blocks of peat in the intertidal zone and overhanging margins of peat near the mean high tide line.
In these areas, the remaining big cordgrass communities function as the sole natural shoreline
defense against erosion. Because of limited accessibility to the marsh area near the airstrip, the
vegetation could not be adequately determined. Evaluation of wetland types, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, range from Group One to Group Two; this is out of
five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value
(Silberhorn, 1974; 15-20).

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. Restricted access in this
segment is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of classified federal operations at the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary, future
development of public water access and recreation areas is not likely.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-17 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward from the tidal marsh system to the main channel. At this point in the York
River, the main channel is very close to the Gloucester County shoreline with a depth range of 20-
40 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

.Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 12)

Reach 12 begins at the mouth of Carter Creek and extends to Bigler Mill Point. Reach 12
contains 7,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for reach 12 is 2.6 feet per
year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater
Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 10 feet by the same source. The
predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred
within reach 12 prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that
(appropriate erosion control recornmendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reach 13)

Reach 13 begins at Bigler Mill Point and extends to Beaverdam Pond. Reach 13 contains
2,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for reach 13 is 0.9 feet per year as
reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tide7vater Virginia, 1978.
The average bank height is reported to be 5 feet by the same source. The predominant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred within reach 13 prior to

the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

Shoreline Condition (Reaches 14 and 15)

Reaches 14 and 15 extend from Beaverdarn Pond to the mouth of Queen Creek. Reaches
14 and 15 contain 11,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for reaches 14
and 15 is 1.11 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in TiMvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 10 feet by the same
source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had
occurred within reaches 14 or 15 prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it
would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: BIGLER MILL POND AND BEAVERDAM POND

General Description and Location

Bigler Mill Pond and Beaverdam Pond are located within the boundary of the U.S. Naval
Reservation-Camp Peary. Data available for this waterbody is limited because of the classified
nature of federal operations at Camp Peary.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-04L (The Bigler Millpond
Waterbody) and Segment 107-03L (The Beaverdam Pond Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

Data on sensitive land and aquatic resources in this waterbody is not available due to accessibility
problems.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. Restricted access in this
waterbody is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of classified federal operations at the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary, future
development of public water access and recreation areas is not likely.

Bathymetry

USGS topographic maps show a 7 ft. sounding in Bigler Mill Pond and a 4 ft. sounding in
Beaverdam Pond.

SUBAREA B: QUEENS CREEK TO THE COLEMAN BRIDGE

General Location and Description

For the purposes of this study, this subarea has been delineated as beginning at and including
Queens Creek then east along the York River shoreline to the Coleman Bridge at Yorktown. The
major tributaries to the York River mainstern in this subarea include: King Creek, Felgates Creek,
Indian Field Creek, Ballard Creek and Yorktown Creek. Other waterbodies in this subarea
include: Waller Mill Reservoir, Queens Lake, Jones Pond, Cheatham Pond, Penniman Lake, Ponds
#10 and #12 at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Lee Pond and Roosevelt Pond. This subarea is
predominantly located in York County and partially in the City of Williamsburg. A large
percentage of the shoreline in this subarea is owned by the federal governinent.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody), Segment 107-05L (The Waller Mill Reservoir Waterbody), Segment 107-
01L (The Cheatham Lake Waterbody), and Segment 107-02L (The Jones Millpond Waterbody).
The ACB Citizen's Monitoring Program maintains one active monitoring station (#15) on Queens
Creek.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive aquatic resources are present in this subarea: extensive tidal marshes,
fringing tidal marshes, anadromous finfish spawning and nursery areas, condemned shellfish
areas, habitats and rookeries for birds of special concern, and two protected areas.

This subarea is partially within the York River-Queens Creek Area of the Tames Ci!Y Coun!y Tidal
Marsh Inventory and partially within the Queens Creek, King Creek-Felgate Creek, and Indian
Field Creek-Yorktown Creek Areas of the York Coun!y-Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh InvenLory.
There were approximately 950 acres of tidal wetlands in this subarea at the'time the inventories
were conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this system, based on total ienvironmental value
of an acre of each type, range from Group One to Group Two; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Moore, 1980: 86;
Silberhorn, 1974: 19-28).

There were no SAV beds mapped in 1991 in this subarea. However, two small nearshore areas
have been included in the Tier I Chesapeake Bay SAV Restoration Distribution Target and the
entire system has been included in the Tier III Chesapeake Bay Restoration Target.

There are 5 shellfish condemnation areas in this subarea: #40, #130, #134, #39 and #35.
Anadromous finfish species which use this subarea for spawning and nursery grounds during the
Fall season include: white perch, striped bass and other species. Commercially- and

recreationally-important fishing areas can be found ..... They include: ....... American bald eagle
habitats and rookies have also been observed in the area.

The Colonial Parkway and Colonial National Historic Park are the only protected areas in this
subarea.

Existing Water Access Points and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 7? water access points and water-enhanced recreation areas located in this system. They
include: opportunities for hiking, biking and nature study at a county-owned park, a restricted
boat landings/ piers/ mooring area at the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary, the U.S. Naval
Weapons Pier-Cheatham Annex and the U.S. Naval Weapons Center for use by military personnel
only, 4 scenic overlooks along the Colonial National Historical Parkway, and a
private/ commercial marina facility. The Colonial National Historic Parkway and Park are open
to the public and provide areas for camping, picnicking and parking, as well as canoe put-in/ take-
out areas. In general, however, there are few opportunities for boating access upstream of the
Coleman Bridge.

Proposed Public Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan suggests that agreements that would make
.recreational boating, beach swimming and camping opportunities available at Cheatham Pond
Wilderness Area should be considered. The plan also suggests that further analysis of the lands
along the Colonial Parkway be made to determine if water access can be enhanced by providing
additional parking areas and recreational opportunities. The plan also suggests that the large tidal
marshes along the tidal creeks in York County could be made more accessible for activities such
as nature study and environmental education; canoe put-in/take-out areas could also be
identified.

Shoreline Condition (Subarea B)

Subarea B contains 8.33 miles of mainstem shoreline and four piers and docks. The average
pier and dock density in the subarea is 0.09 piers and docks per 1000 linear feet of shoreline.
Within the subarea 48.86 percent of the shoreline is hardened.

For the purposes of analysis, this subarea is subdivided into three categories: 1) waterbodies,
which include the smaller tributaries of the York River, and any lakes, ponds and reservoirs
within the subarea with connected surface flow to the York River; 2) mainstem segments, which
comprise the southern shoreline of the York River between identified waterbodies; and 3)
shoreline reaches as defined for the purposes of this study; a reach may include an entire
waterbody, a mainstern segment, or any combination thereof and may cross subarea boundaries.

.. I
WATERBODY: QUEENS CREEK, HARING SWAMP, JONES POND AND, CHEATHAM
POND

General Location and Description

Queens Creek is one of the larger tributaries to the York River and its shoreline comes under
several jurisdictions. The north shore of Queens Creek, from the mouth to a point upstream
where it intersects Rt. 132 is owned by the U.S. Naval Reservation-Camp Peary. The north shore
from Rt. 132 west to the City of Williamsburg's Waller Mill Reservoir is owned by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. Haring Swamp is a tributary to Queens Creek and is located entirely
within Camp Peary. The south shore of Queens Creek, from the mouth to just east of Queens
Lake, consists of parkland owned by York County and the National Park Service. The south shore
from the county park western boundary to the dam at Waller Mill Reservoir is partially in York
County, partially in the City of Williamsburg, and partially adjacent to lands owned by the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Queens Lake is surrounded by a residential area. Waller Mill
Reservoir and its surrounding open space protection area is located on Queens Creek near its
headwaters in York County; the reservoir is owned and operated by the City of Williamsburg as
a drinking water supply. The headwaters of Queens Creek above the reservoir are located in York
County, Jones Pond is located within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and is connected by surface
flow to Queens Creek. Cheatham Pond is adjacent to land owned by the National Park Service
and the U.S. Naval Supply Center-Cheatham Annex near the mouth of Queens Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The Yo rk River-
Gloucester Waterbody), Segment 107-,01L (The Cheatham Lake Waterbody), and Segment 107-02L
(The Jones Millpond Waterbody). The ACB Citizen's Monitoring Program maintains one active
monitoring station (#15) on Queens Creek.

Sensitive'Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: extensive tidal
marshes, fringing tidal marshes, a shellfish condemnation area, a fish nursery area, habitat for
birds of special concern, and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventories for this waterbody show that there were approximately 552 acres of
tidal marsh in Queens Creek at the time the inventories were conducted. Subdivided acreages of
tidal marsh were: 528 acres (York County) and 24.4 acres along lands owned by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. Queens Creek Marsh is the largest wetland system of marsh creek in
York County. Some parts of the marsh have been disturbed by the digging of mosquito ditches,
heavy military vehicles and erosion caused by boat traffic between the Queen's Lake Marina and
the mouth of the creek. The system is mainly a grass dominated brackish water marsh with
abundant stands of saltmarsh cordgrass through the lower reaches of the marsh system. In the
lower saline areas, and at higher elevations farther upstream, big cordgrass and saltbushes

predominate. At the upper reaches of the creek, near the Rte. 132 bridge, the dominant vegetation
is largely arrow arum, indicating freshwater conditions. Further development is expected along
these upper reaches of the creek on land owned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. This
is a highly productive marsh which is also regarded as a major fish nursery area. Evaluation of
wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type,
ranged from Group One to Group Two; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of
highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 19-23; Moore, 1980: 84-86).

No SAV beds were mapped in this waterbody in 1991. However, this entire waterbody has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #35 includes a portion of Queens Creek upstream from the mouth
and Cheatham Pond to an area upstream of Queens Lake and went into effect 5/11/92. Both #39
and #35 are restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by a
VMRC permit.

The Colonial National Historic Park and Parkway are protected areas. American bald eagle
habitats and rookies have been observed along the Colonial Parkway.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are 2 water access facilities located in this waterbody. There is a private marina on Queens
Creek at Queens Lake (Queens Lake Marina Corp.) and a restricted landing (Hawtree Landing)
at Camp Peary for use by military personnel only. Siltation at the mouth of Queens Creek makes
navigation difficult except at high tide.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There county-owned New Quarter Park is located on Queens Creek, which provides opp ortunities
for hiking, biking and picnicking, and has restroorn facilities. The Colonial'Parkway is adjacent
to New Quarter Park on the south side.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The National Park Service also owns the Cheatham Pond Wilderness Area (Cheatham Pond Tract)
along Queens Creek between New Quarter Park and Cheatham Annex and adjacent to the
Colonial National Historical Parkway. The Colonial National Historic Park Master Plan states that
both York County and the U.S. Navy have asked the National Park Service to consider their needs
for long-term use of the Cheatham Pond Wilderness Area (Cheatham, Pond Tract). The National
Park Service will not enter into any agreements or initiate development at the Cheatham Pond
area until all necessary natural and cultural resource mitigation is completed. As an initial step,
the National Park Service has developed the following management objectives for the tract to
define the range of options available for future management of the area: protect and manage

natural and cultural resources; ensure protection of the adjacent Colonial Parkway; accommodate
U.S. Navy security needs; and, provide for compatible recreational uses. The following options
have been considered for future management of the Cheatham Pond area:

a. As at present, continue ownership by the National Park Service with cooperative
management by the Navy.

b. Return of ownership to the Navy. The Navy has requested consideration of this
option because it needs a rustic bivouac area, a security buffer for the adjacent naval
supply center, and more recreational facilities for military personnel.

C. Transfer of the tract by an act of Congress to York County, which owns and operates
New Quarter Park. This park adjoins the Cheatham Pond area tract on the west.
The County Administrator has requested transfer of the tract to the County to meet
the growing demand for outdoor recreation. The county would plan to build a boat
launching ramp and allow low-intensity recreation on the site. The Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Planning and Recreational
Resources supports this request, citing the 1989 Virginia Outdoors Plan which refers
to a major need for more recreation in this vicinity.

d. Leasing of the property to York County.

e. Management of the tract by York County, the Navy, and the National Park Service,
with ownership remaining with the Park Service. The Navy would manage the
(roughly) eastern part of the property and York County would manage the
(roughly) western part. The Park Service would continue to manage the part closest
to the Colonial Parkway.

The final National Park Service recommendation-in the Master Plan for management of this area
is that the tract be divided into parcels (Option .E above), with long-term leases or long-term
management agreements with both the Navy and York County. The Master Plan further
recommends that the Navy, York County, and the National Park Service work together to develop
boundaries and operating procedures that would meet the needs of all parties, including specific
provisions for protection of natural and cultural resources.

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Program Public Access Plan suggests that agreements that would make
recreational boating opportunities available at Cheatham Pond Wilderness Area should be
considered. The plan has identified this tract as a potential boat ramp, swimming beach and
camping area.

The Public Access Plan also suggests that further analysis of the lands along the Colonial Parkway
be made to determine if water-enhanced activities can be improved by providing additional
parking areas and recreational opportunities.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation proposes to build an office park along lands recently
acquired at the headwaters of Queen Creek just below Waller Mill Reservoir, west of Rt. 132.
Potential passive recreation areas and boardwalks over the marsh could be incorporated into the
plan of development for this area.

Bathymetry

Bathymetric data for this waterbody is available on NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and
USGS topographic maps. Soundings in Queens Creek range from 3-4 ft. at the mouth, from 5-9
ft. between Cheatham Pond and Hawtree Landing, from 3-5 ft. between Hawtree Landing and
below the dam at Waller Mill Reservoir, and 6 ft. at Queens Lake Marina. USGS topographic
maps show soundings of 10 ft. in Queens Lake, 21 ft. in Jones Pond, and 8 ft. in Cheatham Pond.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Queens Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Queen's Creek)

Queen's Creek contains 15.15 miles of shoreline and no piers or docks. Within the
waterbody no shoreline hardening had occurred prior to the aerial survey.

WATERBODY: WALLER MILL RESERVOIR

General Description and Location

Waller Mill Reservoir is an impoundment on Queens Creek and is located in York County. It is
owned and operated by the City of Williamsburg as a drinking water supply. The land area
surrounding the reservoir is an open space protection area for the reservoir and consists primarily
of upland woodland.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-05L (The Waller Mill
Reservoir Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

<<Nontidal wetlands... Watershed Protection Area ..... ??>>

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is a boat ramp for car-top boats only. Paddle boating and pier and bank fishing are also
available.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

Biking, hiking and fitness trails, picnic areas and playgrounds are available.

Proposed Water Access and Recreation. Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The City of Williamsburg has proposed the development of a golf course within the open space
reservoir protection area surrounding the reservoir. Water quality problems in the reservoir could
result from intensive landscape maintenance practices associated with golf course operation.

Bathymetry

USGS topographic maps show a 35 ft. sounding near the dam.

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: QUEENS CREEK TO PENNIMAN SPIT (Reach 16) and PENNIMAN
SPIT (Reach 17)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Queens Creek then east
along the York River shoreline to Penniman Spit at the mouth of King and Felgates Creeks,
including the U.S. Naval Supply Center Pier-Cheatham Annex. The shoreline in this segment is
owned by the U.S. Naval Supply Center-Cheatham Annex.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources that are present in this segment: fringing tidal
marshes.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 8.83 acres of tidal marsh in this segment at the
time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, are Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group
One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 22-23).

No SAV beds were mapped in this segment in 1991. However, a small nearshore area at
Penniman Spit has been included in the Tier I Chesapeake Bay Restoration Distribution Target.
This entire segment has been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #39 has been delineated around the U.S. Naval Supply Center Pier-
Cheatham Annex and went into effect 5/11/92. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to
take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this segment. Restricted access in this
segment is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of the nature of federal operations along this segment, the development of public water
access or recreation areas is unlikely.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-9 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward from the tidal marsh system to the main channel. At this point in the York
River, the main channel is located in the central portion of the river with a depth range of 20-53
ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 16)

Reach 16 contains 12,000 feet of shoreline and has two piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 0.17 per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 16 is 1.9 feet per year as
reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978.
The average bank height is reported to be 20 feet by the same source. The predominant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). Fifty percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time
of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recon-Lmendation)-

Shoreline Condition (Penniman Spit)

Reach 17 contains 4,500 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for reach
17 is 0.00 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion
in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 3 feet by the same source.
No shoreline hardening had occurred on Penniman Spit prior to the aerial survey. Based on
observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: KING CREEK (Reach 18)

General Location and Description

This is one of the larger tributaries to the York River. King Creek converges with Felgates Creek
to the south at Penniman Spit. The headwaters of King Creek form the western boundary of the
U.S. Naval Weapons Station and the shoreline is characterized by steep slopes. A small tributary
in the headwaters has been impounded for use by Water Country Water Park. Along the south
shore of King Creek within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Ponds #10 and #12 are connected by
surface flow to King Creek.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing tidal
marshes, nursery areas for finfish, a condemned shellfish area, and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 180 acres of tidal marsh located in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The King Creek Marsh is classified as a
brackish water marsh, with no one plant community dominating. However, rather large stands
of saltmarsh cordgrass predominate towards the mouth of the creek where more saline conditions
exist. A marsh conununity that is noticeably absent or infrequent in King Creek Marsh is black
needlerush; typically, this saline rush is one of the typical components of a mixed brackish water
marsh. King Creek remains largely undisturbed due to the efforts of environmental managers at
the U.S. Naval Weapons Supply Center-Ch,eatham Annex, the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and
the National Park Service. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total
environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 21-23).

Shellfish Condemnation Area #134 includes both King and Felgates Creeks and went into' effect
11/27/91. This is a restricted area were it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by
VMRC permit.

Kings Creek is considered to be a nursery area for striped bass, white perch and other specie*s.

The Colonial National Historic Park and Parkway are adjacent to the south shore of King Creek
east to its confluence with Felgates Creek and are protected areas.
Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no water access facilities located in this waterbody. There might be canoe put-in/take-
out areas at Colonial National Historic Park at Ringfield Plantation? There is a
marina/mooring facility/pier at the mouth of King Creek inside Penniman Spit adjacent to
Cheatham Annex for use by military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

The Ringfield picnic area in Colonial National Historic Park is located along the south shore of
King Creek at its confluence with Felgates Creek, adjacent to the Colonial National Historical
Parkway.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progam Public Access Plan suggests that further analysis of the lands
along the Parkway be made to determine if water-enhanced activities can be improved by
providing additional parking areas and recreational opportunities. The 1993 Colonial National
Historic Park Master Plan states that the Ringfield picnic area, which is not visible from the
.Parkway, is underused and suggests that access to the shoreline from this area may be too
restrictive. The Master Plan also suggests that the Ringfield plantation site could become a major
interpretive feature in the future. To ensure its availability for interpretation, needed stabilization
work will be done, and the exposed foundation protected from the elements and from casual
visitor use.

Bathymetry

NOAA-N'ational Ocean Service charts show a sounding of 2 ft. at the mouth of King Creek at
Penniman Spit.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that King Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 18)

King's Creek c ontains 51,000 feet of shoreline and 1 pier (Pier and Dock Density = 0.02 per
thousand feet of shoreline). The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No

shoreline hardening had occurred within King's Creek prior to the aerial survey. Based on
observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: FELGATES CREEK (Reach 19)

General Description and Location

This is one of the larger tributaries to the York River. Felgates Creek converges with King Creek
to the north at Penniman Spit. Black Swamp and Lee Pond are located at the headwaters of
Felgates Creek within the boundary of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. The Colonial National
Historical Parkway is adjacent to mouth of Felgates Creek. This waterbody is located entirely
within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station within York County and is closed to the public.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

Sensitive land and aquatic resources found in this waterbody include: fringing tidal marshes,
nursery areas for finfish and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 150 acres of tidal marsh located in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Felgate Creek branches into three prongs
approximately 1.75 miles from its very narrow mouth. From the mouth to the general area where
the creek divides, the marsh vegetation is largely dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass. For the most
part, the marshes of the three branches where the creek divides are commonly made up of big
cordgrass, cattails, sedge and saltmarsh bulrush. Evaluation of wetland types M" this waterbody,
based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five
groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn,
1974/- 21,25).

Shellfish Condemnation Area #134 includes both Felgates and King Creeks and went into effect
11/27/91. This is a restricted area were it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by
VMRC permit.

Felgates Creek is considered to be a nursery area for striped bass, white perch and other species.

The Colonial National Historical Parkway and Park are protected areas.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities in this waterbody. Restricted access area are for military
personnel only.
Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only. Camping is permitted in this area.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Needs Assessment

Since the shoreline of Felgates Creek is a restricted area for military personnel only, future
development of public water access and recreation areas is not likely.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a 9 ft. sounding at the mouth of Felgates Creek at
Penniman Spit.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Felgates Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 19)

Felgate's Creek contains 64,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The predominant
land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred within Felgate's
Creek prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate
.erosion control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: FELGATES CREEK TO INDIAN FIELD CREEK

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at Poley Point at the mouth of King and
Felgates Creek then east along the York River shoreline to Indian Field Creek. The Colonial
Parkway is located along the shoreline of this segment.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

No sensitive land and aquatic resources found in this segment, other than Park-way which is a
protected area. Bellfield Plantation is also included in this protected area.

No SAV beds were mapped in this mainstem segment in 1991. However, this entire segment has
been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the
2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this segment.

Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are two scenic overlook areas with picnic tables located in this segment along the Colonial
Parkway.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bay Progjam. Public Access Plan suggests that further analysis of the lands
along the Parkway be made to determine if water-enhanced activities can be improved by
providing additional parking areas and recreational opportunities.

Bathyrnetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 2-17 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward to the main channel. At this point in the York River, the main channel is
located in the central portion of the river with a depth range of 19-50 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition
FELAGTES CREEK TO SANDY POINT (Reach 20)

Reach 20 contains 10,000 feet of shoreline and has 1 pier (Pier and Dock Density = 0.1 per
thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 20 is 1.5 feet per year as reported by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezi7ater Virginia, 1978. The average
bank height is reported to be 25 feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to
this reach is (landuse). 85 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial
survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: INDIAN FIELD CREEK (Reach 21)

General Description and Location

This waterbody is located within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station in York County and is closed
to the public.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody include: fringing
tidal marshes, nursery areas for fish, and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 12.8 acres of tidal marshes located in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. The fringing marshes in Indian Field Creek
are dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass. This marsh system is also regarded as a nursery area for
fish. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre
of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value
and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 27,28).

Shellfish Condemnation Area #130 includes all of Indian Field Creek and went into effect
11/27/91. This is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except
by a VMRC permit.

The Colonial Parkway crosses the mouth of this waterbody and is a protected area.

Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. <<Video shows a
marina/mooring facility/pier on the south shore.>> Restricted access areas are for military
personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Since the shoreline of Indian Field Creek is a restricted area for military personnel only, future
development of public recreation areas is not likely. The Colonial National Historic Parkway is
located along the mouth of this waterbody. The 1993 Colonial National Historic Park Master Plan
states that the Indian Field Creek overflow parking will be improved or removed.

Bathymetry

No bathymetric data is available for this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Indian Field Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 21)

Indian Field Creek contains 24,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The
.predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). No shoreline hardening had occurred
within Indian Field Creek prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would
appear that (appropriate erosion control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: INDIAN FIELD CREEK TO BALLARD CREEK

General Description and Location

This mainstem segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Indian 1--iel d Creek then
east along the York River shoreline to Ballard Creek, including Sandy and Stony Points, and the
U.S. Naval Weapons Station Pier. The Colonial Parkway is adjacent to this shoreline segment.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: fringing tidal
marshes and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were approximately 4 acres of tidal marsh in this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Subdivided acreage of tidal marsh were: 1.4
acres at Sandy Point, .5 acres east of Sandy Point and 2.2 acres near and at the Naval Weapons
Pier. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental value of an
acre of each type, ranged from Group One to Group Two; this is out of five groups, with Group
One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 28).

No SAV beds were mapped in this segment in 1991. However, this entire Segment has-been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

The Colonial Parkway is a protected area.'

Existing Water Access Facilities

At Sandy Point overlook along the Colonial Parkway, canoe access is available. Restricted access
at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center Pier is lin-dted to military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are two scenic overlook areas with picnic tables located along the Colonial Parkway; one
is at Sandy Point and one at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center Pier. . I
Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Bathyrnetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-17 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward of the tidal marsh system to the main channel. At this point in the York
River, the main channel is located in the central portion of the river with a depth range of 23-66

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition
SANDY POINT (Reach 22)

Reach 22 contains 1,000 feet of shoreline and has no piers or docks. The erosion rate for
Sandy Point is 0 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline
Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 25 feet by the same
source. No shoreline hardening had occurred on Sandy Point prior to the aerial survey. Based
on observed conditions, Sandy Point (spit) has eroded considerably. The severe erosion
experienced on the spit may have rendered protection measures infeasible.

SANDY POINT TO STONEY POINT (Reach 2-3)

Reach 23 contains 9,000 feet of shoreline and no piers or docks. The erosion rate for reach
23 is 0.00 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion
in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 9 feet by the same source.
The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 33.3 percent of the reach's shoreline
was hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that
(appropriate erosion control recommendation).

STONEY POINT TO YORKTOWN CREEK (Reach 24)

Reach 24 contains 7,500 feet of shoreline and has 1 pier (Pier and Dock Density = 0.13 per
thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 24 is 0.7 feet per year as reported by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The average
bank height is reported to be 40 feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to
this reach is (landuse). 53.33 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of the aerial

survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

WATERBODY: ROOSEVELT POND

General Description and Location

This waterbody is located within the boundary of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station and is
connected by surface flow to the York River. Because of restricted access, data availability is
limited for this waterbody.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

Data on sensitive land and aquatic resources in this waterbody is not available due to accessibility
problems.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. Restricted access in this
.waterbody is for military personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

This is a restricted area for military personnel only.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because of federal operations at the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, future development of public
water access and recreation areas in this waterbody is not likely.

Bathymetry

There is no bathymetric data available for this waterbody.

WATERBODY: BALLARD CREEK

General Description and Location

This waterbody is located partially within the Colonial National Historic Park and Parkway and
forms the southern boundary of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: freshwater
pocket marshes and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there was one acre of tidal marsh located in this waterbody
at the time the inventory was conducted. Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based
on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group Two; this is out of five groups,
with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974; 28).

The Colonial National Historic Park and Parkway are adjacent to and crosses this waterbody and
are protected areas.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody. Restricted access along the
north shore is for military personnel only.
I I
Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

The restricted area along the north shore is for use by military personnel only. The southern
shoreline adjacent to Colonial National Historic Park is open to the public.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Because one shore of this waterbody is adjacent to a military facility, the development of public
water access and recreation areas is unlikely.

Bathymetry

No bathymetric data is available for this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Ballard Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: BALLARD CREEK TO YORKTOWN CREEK

General Description and Location

This mainstem segment has been delineated as beginning at Ballard Creek then continues east
along the York River shoreline and York River Cliffs to Yorktown Creek. The shoreline of this
segment is adjacent to Colonial National Historic Park.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

<<Yorktown Cliffs Area ... >>

There were no SAV beds mapped in this mainstem segment in 1991. However, a portion of this
segment has been included in the Tier I Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration
and the entire segment has been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Colonial National Historical Park is a protected area.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this segment.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Facilities

This segment is located within the Colonial National Historic Park which i's open to the public.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1993 Yorktown Master Plan recommends constructing a walkway to connect the Yorktown
Victory Center to the Yorktown Waterfront at the Watermen's Museum.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show 1-10 ft. soundings in this
segment waterward to the main channel. At this point in the York River, the main channel is
located relatively close to the York County shoreline as the York River mainstern becomes
narrower and has a depth range of 23-73 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.
Current Patterns

WATERBODY: YORKTOWN CREEK

General Description and Location

This waterbody is located just east of the Coleman Bridge within the Colonial National Historic
Park.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: a creek marsh
and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 34.7 acres of creek marsh located in this
waterbody at the time the inventory was conducted. Yorktown Creek is classified as a mixed
brackish water marsh. Nearly all of the upper reach of the marsh is dominated by cattails. This
type of vegetation is typical of low freshwater marshy areas in which stagnant water has
.accumulated from upland seepage; dense stands of cattails may indicate high loads of nutrients.
Cattail marshes are often found adjacent to tilled cropland.

The Colonial National Historic Park is adjacent to this waterbody and is a protected area.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this waterbody.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

Colonial National Historic Park, which is adjacent to this waterbody, is opento the public.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1993 Yorktown Master Plan recommends constructing a walkway to connect the Yorktown
Victory Center to the Yorktown Waterfront at the Watermen's Museum. This walkway would
cross the Yorktown Creek
marsh system.

Bathymetry

No bathymetric data is available for this waterbody.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Yorktown Creek is not well-flushed.
Current Patterns

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: YORKTOWN CREEK TO COLEMAN BRIDGE

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the mouth of Yorktown Creek then
east along the York River shoreline to the Coleman Bridge at Yorktown.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: tidal flats and
beach.

This entire segment has been included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution
Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities located in this segment. <<Video shows a pier/mooring
facility at the Watermen's Museum?>>

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

The Watermen's Museum at the foot of the Coleman Bridge is open to the public. <<Any public
beach frontage along this segment?>>

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1993 Yorktown Master Plan has recommends that the proposed fiverwalk along the
Yorktown Waterfront be extended under the Coleman Bridge to the Waterman's Museum.

Bathymetry

The segment is located adjacent to the main channel of the York River and, therefore, beyond the
immediate beach area, the water depth increases rapidly. NOAA-National Ocean Service charts
show 28-73 ft. soundings in the channel along this segment.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

I
I Current Patterns
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 58
I -

SUBAREA C: COLEMAN BRIDGE TO TUE POINT

General Description and Location

For the purposes of this study, this subarea has been delineated as beginning on the east side of
the Coleman Bridge at Yorktown then east along the York River shoreline to Tue Point at
Goodwin Island at the mouth of the York River and its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay,
including the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Pier, the HRSD Wastewater Treatment
Facility, and the Amoco Oil Refinery Pier. Worn-dey Creek is the only major tributary to the York
River mainstern in this subarea. The only other waterbody in this subarea is Wormley Pond. A
large percentage of this shoreline is owned by the federal government.

Water Quality Data

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive aquatic resources are present in this subarea: extensive tidal marshes,
.fringing tidal marshes, tidal flats, SAV beds, shellfish producing areas, a condemned shellfish area,
a protected area and an estuarine research reserve.

This subarea is within the Wormley Creek and Goodwin Island-Back Creek Areas of the York
County-Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh InventoLy. At the time the inventory was conducted
there were approximately 311 acres of tidal wetlands in this system. Evaluation of wetland types
in this system, based on total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this
is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value
(Silberhor'n, 1974: 29-36).

SAV beds were mapped in 1991 just east of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Pier and
at Sandbox at the confluence of The Thorofare and the York River. Some, near shore areas,
particularly at the mouth of Wormley Creek, have been included in the Tier I SAV Restoration
Distribution Target. The entire subarea has been included in the Tier III Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration Target.

The York River mainstem from the Coleman Bridge east to the Mouth of the York River is a
shellfish producing area. There is one shellfish condemnation area in this subarea: #6 (#6A &
#6B).

Nursery/Spawning Areas (Summer)??
Commercial- and Recreationally-Important Finish Areas??

The Colonial National Historic Park is the only protected area in this subarea. An estuarine
research reserve, which is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserves System, is located at
Goodwin Island.
Existing Water Access Points and Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are 5 water access points and water-enhanced recreation areas located in this system. They
include one public boat ramp, one public beach, one public park, and 2 private/ commercial
marina facilities.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

Shoreline Condition (Subarea C)

Subarea C contains 8.75 miles of mainstern York River shoreline and 13 piers and docks.
The average pier and dock density in the subarea is 0.28 piers and docks per 1000 linear feet of
shoreline. Within the subarea 44.59 percent of the shoreline is hardened.

For the purposes of analysis, this subarea is subdivided into three categories: 1) waterbodies,
which include the smaller tributaries of the York River, and any lakes, ponds and reservoirs
within the subarea with connected surface flow to the York River; 2) mainstern segments, which
comprise the southern shoreline of the York River between identified waterbodies; and 3)
shoreline reaches as defined for the purposes of this study; a reach may include an entire
waterbody, a mainstem segment, or any combination thereof and may cross subarea boundar

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: COLEMAN BRIDGE TO WORMLEY CREEK

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the east side of the foot of the
Coleman Bridge then east along the York River shoreline to Wormley Creek, including the
Yorktown Beach and Waterfront Area, the Colonial National Historic Park and Point of Rocks,
and the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Pier. With the exception of the Yorktown
Waterfront Area and a small residential subdivision (Moore House) located just to the west of the
U.S. Coast Guard Pier, the shoreline within this segment is owned by the federal government.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this mainstem. include: a beach
area, an SAV bed, shellfish producing areas, a condemned shellfish area, and a protected area.
There is a beach located along the Yorktown Waterfront that requires continual replenishment
efforts due to high erosion rates.

There was a small SAV bed mapped in 1991 just east of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training
Center Pier. Most of the nearshore areas in this mainstem. segment have been *included in the Tier
I Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration and the entire segment has been
included in the Tier III Target for Chesapeake Bay SAV Distribution Restoration Distribution
down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

A shellfish producing area extends from the east side of the Coleman Bridge to the mouth of the
'York River along the central portion of theYork River mainstem. Shellfish Condemnation Area
#6, which has been delineated as #6A and #6B, includes that part of this segment east of the U.S.
Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Pier to Worn-dey Creek and went into effect 10/ 12/ 93. This
segment is included in #6A and is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any
purpose, except by VMRC permit.

Colonial National Historic Park is adjacent to Yorktown's east side and is a protected area.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is one public beach on the York River located at the Yorktown Waterfront where swinuning,
fishing and picnicking is currently permitted. There is a mooring area for boat just beyond the
swimming area near the existing breakwater structure.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

Water Street in Yorktown is a popular walking area adjacent to the York River. Colonial National
Historic Park provides opportunities for picnicking and hiking.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1993 Yorktown Master Plan provides for major public improvements to the Yorktown
Waterfront Area which would enhance existing public water access and recreation areas and
establish new area for these purposes. A public wharf would be constructed near the foot of the
Coleman Bridge with a riverwalk/ boardwalk extending east to the existing public beach area.
The riverwalk would also be extended under the Coleman Bridge along the shoreline in front of
the Waterman's Museum.

The 1991 York Counly Comprehensive Plan has identified this same area for additional public
access through a proposed boat landing and fishing pier. In February 1994, the County applied
for necessary improvements to the public beach area through creation of a new breakwater and
modification of existing breakwaters for the purposes of beach replenishment, as well as riprap
toe reinforcement at the base of the Yorktown Seawall.

The 1993 Colonial National Historic Park Master Plan states that legislation is needed to make it
legally possible for the National Park Service to transfer to York County the sewer systems for the
Moore House Subdivision and Yorktown. The Park Service feels that such a transfer would be
in the public interest, because York County could manage and maintain those c ommunity sewer
systems more effectively.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of .5-16 feet
waterward from the shoreline to the main channel in the York River. The 'channel is very close
to the shoreline along this mainstern segment with soundings ranging from 20-83 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition
YORKTOWN CREEK TO WORMLEY CREEK (Reaches 25 and 26)

Reach 25 begins at the mouth of Yorktown Creek and ends at the eastern edge of the USGS
Yorktown quadrangle (7.5 minute series). Reach 26 begins at the western edge of the USGS
Poquoson West Quadrangle (7.5 minute series) and ends at the mouth of Wormley Creek. These
reaches together contain 16,000 feet of shoreline and has 5 piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
= 0.31 per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for these combined reaches is 1.31 feet per
year as reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater
Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is reported to be 36.56 feet by the same source. The
predominant land use adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 68.75 percent of the reach's shoreline was
hardened at the time of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that
(appropriate erosion control recommendation).

WATERBODY: WORMLEY CREEK AND WORMLEY POND

General Description and Location

Wormley Creek consists of a main branch and a western branch. Wormley Pond is an
impoundment in the headwaters of the western branch. The north shoreline of the western branch
is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center. Wormley Pond is entirely within the
Colonial National Historic Park. The south shoreline of the western branch is partially adjacent
to the Colonial National Historic Park and partially adjacent to a residential subdivision. The
main branch of Wormley Creek is surrounded by a residential subdivision.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody). The ACB Citizen's Monitoring Program has one inactive monitoring
station (#20) located in Wormley Creek.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this waterbody: fringing tidal
marshes, tidal flats and a protected area.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that Worn-dey Creek contained 12.81 acres of pocket and fringe
marshes at the time the inventory was conducted. The steep banks of the creek allow very few
areas for marshes to develop except near the upper reaches of branches and in small coves.
Narrow fringing marshes of saltmarsh cordgrass, varying from 3 to 20-feef wide, are found
throughout the creek. The largest of these extends continuously for more than a mile along the
northern shoreline of the west branch. All of the marshes in Wormley Creek, however small, are
nevertheless Type I marshes, which are highly valued as detritus contributors to the marine food
web and deterrents to shoreline erosion. Evaluation of wetland types in this system, based on
total environmental value of an acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with
Group One being of highest value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 29-32).

There were no SAV beds mapped in 1991 in Wormley Creek. However, an area at the mouth of
the creek has been included in the Tier I Target for SAV Distribution Restoration and the entire
creek has been included in the Tier III Target for SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-
meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

Shellfish Condemnation Area #6, which has been delineated as #6A and #6B, includes this entire
waterbody and went into effect 10/12/93. Worn-dey Creek is included in #6A and is a restricted
area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC permit.

The Colonial National Historic Park, adjacent to Worn-fley Pond and the western branch of
Wormley Creek, is the only protected area adjacent to this waterbody.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are 3 water access facilities located in this waterbody. There is a county-owned public boat
landing (Old Wormley Creek Landing) located at the end of Old Wormley Creek Rd. There are
two private/commercial marina facilities located on Wormley Creek mainstem: Worn-dey Creek
Marina Corp. (Waterview Rd) and Marlbank Cove Marina (?). There is a dockside pumping
station at Wormley Creek Marina Corp.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are opportunities for pier and bank fishing and picnicking, at the Old Wormley Creek
public landing; restrooms and handicapped access are also available. The Colonial National
Historic Park, which is open to the public, is adjacent Wormley Pond and the western branch of
Wormley Creek.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

The 1990 Chesapeake Bqy Proglarn Public Access Plan suggests that the large tidal marshes along
the tidal creeks could be made more accessible for activities such as nature study and
environmental education. The steep slopes along Worn-dey Creek preclude development of canoe
put-in/take-out areas.

Bathyrnetry

USGS topographic sheets show soundings of 1-5 ft. at the mouth of Worn-dey Creek, 1-5 ft. in the
main branch of Wormley Creek and 1-3 ft in the western branch. There is no bathymetric data
available for Wormley Pond.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that Worn-dey Creek is not well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition
NORTH AND SOUTH SHORELINE OF WESTERN BRANCH - MAINBODY (Reach 27)

Reach 27 contains 8,900 feet of shoreline and 19 piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
2.13 per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 27 is (X) feet per year as reported
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Sizoreline Erosion in Tideuiater Virginia, 1978. The

average bank height is reported to be (X) feet by the same source. The predominant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). X percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time of
the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
recommendation).

NORTH AND SOUTH SHORELINE OF WESTERN BRANCH - HEADWATERS (Reach 28)

Reach 28 contains 10,000 feet of shoreline and has x piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
X per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 28 is 0.0 feet per year as reported
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978. The
average bank height is reported to be five feet by the same source. The predorrunant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 30 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time
of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

WORMLEY CREEK SHORELINE (Reach 29)

Reach 29 contains 35,200 feet of shoreline and has 58 piers and docks (Pier and Dock
Density = 1.65 per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 29 is (X) feet per year as
reported by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia, 1978.
The average bank height is reported to be (X) feet by the same source. The predominant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 13.07 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time
of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: WORMLEY CREEK TO SANDBOX (Reach 30)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at Wormley Creek then east along the
York River shoreline to the Sandbox at the confluence of The Thorofare and the York River,
including the Amoco Oil Refinery and Pier, the jettied-HRSD/ Virginia Power wastewater
discharge outfall area, and Goodwin Neck Estates.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody).

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present along this segment: fringing tidal
marshes, an SAV bed, and shellfish growing areas.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 5.4 acres of tidal marsh located along this
segment at the time the inventory was conducted. Subdivided acreages of tidal marsh were: 1
acre between the mouth of Worn-dey Creek and the west jetty at the Amoco Oil Refinery, 3 acres
located on either side of the Amoco Oil Refinery Pier, and 1.4 acres located at Sand Box.
Evaluation of wetland types in this mainstern segment, based on total environmental value of an
acre of each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest
value and Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 29-35).

One SAV bed was mapped in 1991 just west of Sandbox. The nearshore areas near the mouth of
Worn-dey Creek and around the Amoco Oil Refinery Pier have been included in the Tier I Target
for SAV Distribution Restoration. This entire mainstern segment has been included in the Tier III
Target for SAV Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth
range.

The central portion of York River mainstem from the Coleman Bridge east to the mouth of the
York River is a shellfish producing area. Shellfish Condemnation Area #6, which has been
delineated as #6A and #6B, includes this entire waterbody and went into effect 10/12/93. #6A
is a restricted area where it is unlawful to take shellfish for any purpose, except by a VMRC
permit. #6B is a 500-yard "buffer/safety zone" surrounding an HRSD discharge outfall; this is a
prohibited area where it is unlawful to take shellfish from this area for any purpose.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There is restricted access at the HRSD/Virginia Power jetty and Amoco Oil Refinery pier for
personnel only.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are no recreation areas in this segment.
Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for potential public water access or recreation areas in this
segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic sheets show 1-1.8 ft. soundings
waterward from the shoreline and tidal marsh system to the main channel of the York River.
Along this segment, the main channel is closer to the York County shoreline with soundings of
20-83 ft.

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstem segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

Shoreline Condition (Reach 30)

Reach 30 contains 18,200 feet of shoreline and has 8 piers and docks (Pier and Dock Density
0.44 per thousand feet of shoreline). The erosion rate for reach 30 is 3.5 feet per year as reported
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tidezvater Virginia, 1978. The
average bank height is reported to be 10 feet by the same source. The predominant land use
adjacent to this reach is (landuse). 52.75 percent of the reach's shoreline was hardened at the time
of the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion
control recommendation).

MAINSTEM SEGMENT: SANDBOX TO TUE POINT - GOODWIN ISLAND SHORELINE
(Reaches 31, 32, and 33)

General Description and Location

This mainstern segment has been delineated as beginning at the western tip of the Goodwin
Islands at the confluence of The Thorofare and the York River then east along the York River
shoreline to the western tip of the Goodwin Islands at Tue Point at the mouth of the York River
and its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. This segment consists of an extensive marsh island
complex.

Water Quality Data

Refer to above for HUC 02080107 (York River Subbasin), Segment 107-06E (The York River-
Gloucester Waterbody), HUC 02080101 (Mainstern Open Bay), Segment 101-03CE (Southwestern
Portion of the Chesapeake Bay) and Segment 101-02BE (Mouth of York River). The ACB Citizen's
Monitoring Program maintains one active monitoring station (#136) at Goodwin Island along The
Thorofare; this station has also been included in the ACB nutrient-sampling program.

Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

The following sensitive land and aquatic resources are present in this segment: extensive tidal
marshes, fringing tidal marshes, tidal flats, SAV beds, shellfish producing areas, and an estuarine
research reserve.

The tidal marsh inventory shows that there were 293 acres of tidal marsh in the' Goodwin Islands
marsh system at the time the inventory was conducted. The low archipelago of marsh islands in
the Goodwin Group is also referred to as the Toe Marshes. Much of Goodwin Island proper is
fastland vegetated with pine and other upland vegetation. The intertidal areas of Goodwin Island
and the associated marsh islands are vegetated 'mainly with tall form saltmarsh cordgrass. The
marshes of this system are very valuable to the estuarine environment and an effort should be
made to preserve them. The waters surrounding these islands are well-known clamming areas.
Several different species of waterfowl and marsh birds have been observed here in large numbers.
Evaluation of wetland types in this waterbody, based on total environmental value of an acre of
each type, was Group One; this is out of five groups, with Group One being of highest value and
Group Five being of least value (Silberhorn, 1974: 33-36).

SAV beds were extensively mapped in 1991 in nearshore areas of the Goodwin Islands and this
segment has been included in both the Tier I and Tier III Targets for Chesapeake Bay SAV
Distribution Restoration down to the 2-meter depth contour or in the 6-foot depth range.

The central portion of the York River from the Coleman Bridge to the mouth of the York River at
its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay is a shellfish producing area.

The Goodwin Islands are the site of an estuarine research reserve which is part of the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Existing Water Access Facilities

There are no public water access facilities along this segment. However, small recreational
craftsmen frequent this area.

Existing Water-Enhanced Recreation Areas

There are no formal recreational areas along this segment but this marsh system does provide
opportunities for nature study if accessed by boat.

Proposed Public Water Access and Recreation Areas and Future Needs Assessment

There are no existing proposals for potential public water access or recreation areas in this
segment.

Bathymetry

NOAA-National Ocean Service charts and USGS topographic maps show soundings of .5-17 ft.
waterward of the tidal marsh system to the main channel of the York River. Along this mainstern
segment, the channel is located in the central portion of the York River with soundings of 19-67

Flushing Characteristics

Based on the previous general discussion of flushing characteristics in the York River and its
smaller tributaries, it can be inferred that this mainstern segment is well-flushed.

Current Patterns

GOODWIN ISLAND SHORELINE (Reaches 31,32, and 33)

The Goodwin Islands contains 12,000 feet of York River shoreline and no piers or docks.
The erosion rate for the Goodwin Islands is 0.0 feet per year as reported by the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science in Shoreline Erosion in Tideivater Virginia, 1978. The average bank height is
reported to be 3.3 feet by the same source. The predominant land use adjacent to this reach is
open space. As stated above, the Goodwin Islands are an established estuarine research reserve
and part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. No shoreline hardening had
occurred on the Goodwin Islands prior to the aerial survey. Based on observed conditions, it
would appear that no erosion control structures are neccesary.

York County Shoreline Condition By System and Subarea
Total P&D
Shoreline Hardened Shoreline No. of Density Bank
Length Length Percentage Miles of Piers & per Height Erosion rate
System Subarea Reach Name (feet) (feet) Hardened Shoreline Docks 1000, (feet) (ft/year)
LWSCB, Subarea A 107 York Point to Bay Tree Creek 6,600 800 12.12% 1.25 1 0.15 3.00 2.20
LWSCB Subarea A 109 Bay Tree Creek to Green Point 12,800 0 0.00% 2. 0 0.00 3.00 3.90
LWSCB Subarea A 112 Mouth of Back Creek to Sand Box 13,200 6,000 45.45% 2.50 15 1.14 5.00 1.70

13,600 800 5.88% 24 1.76 4.00 1.70
LWSCB Subarea B 84 Southern Mouth of Moores Creek to Unnamed Point (Mainstern face along Sn-dth Landing) 1,600 0 0.00% 0.30 2 1.25 5.00 1.40
LWSCB, Subarea B 85 South Shore of the Poquoson River from Unnamed Point to Headwaters 14,000 200 1.43% 2.65 3 0.21
LWSCB Subarea B 86 North Shore of the Poquoson River from Headwaters to Quarter March Creek 17,200 1,600 9.30% 3.261 24 1.40 5.00 1.80
LWSCB Subarea B 88 Mouth of Quarter March Creek to Nameless creek 2,400 800 33.33% 0.45 10 4.17
LWSCB, Subarea B 90 Poquoson River Mainstern along Piney Point Estates 1,200 600 50.00% 0.23 2 1.67 5.00 1.00
LWSCB Subarea B 91 Mainstern Face between ? Point and Mouth of Patricks Creek 1,800 400 22.22% 0.34 2 1.11 5.00 -1.00
LWSCB Subarea B 96 Mainstern face from nameless creek to nameless point 2,400 0 0.00% 0.45 4 1.67
LWSCB Subarea B 97 Mainstern Face along Howards Landing 5,000 1,200 24.00% 0.95 10 2.00 5.00 1.00
LWSCB Subarea B 98 Howards Landing to Mouth of Hodges Cove 2,600 1,400 53.85% 0.49 1 6 2.31
LWSCB Subarea B 100 Mouth of Hodges Cove to Ship Point 4,600 1,400 30.43% 0.87: 3 0.65 5.00 1.80
LWSCB Subarea B 106 Cabin Creek to York Point (Canals at Mouth of Chisman Creek and floquoson River) 7,200 5,800 80.56% 1.36 46 6.39 3.00 0.90
'N"
14,200,
7 'T 9.29 85

Direct
J IL@4
-!Poquq?qrV
Mal,
e
Y,
. ... .... .
LWSCB, LWSCB Waterbody 81 Lambs Creek Headwaters to Mouth 19,200 Z400 lZ50% 3.641 23 1.20 3.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 83 Moores Creek 14,800 400 Z70% 2.801 12 0.81
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 87 Quarter March Creek 20,400 4,600 22-55% 3.86, 34 1.67 5.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB, Waterbody 89 Nameless creek between Quarter March Creek and Piney Point Estates 5,400 2,000 37.04% 1.02 11 2.04 4.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 92 South Shore of Patricks Creek - Unnamed Cove 3,400 0 0.00% 0.64' 2 0.59
LWSCB, LWSCB Waterbody 93 Mainstem Patricks Creek 24,800 600 Z42% 4.70. 12 0.48 4.00 1.80
LWSCB LWSCB, Waterbody 94 North Shore of Patricks Creek to nameless creek 4,800 600 12.50% 0.91 8 1.67
LWSCB, LWSCB Waterbody 95 nameless creek 5,200 200 3.85% 0.98 7 1.35 4.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 99 Hodges Cove 17,400 2,800 16.09% 3.30 20 1.15 4.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB, Waterbody 101 Chisman Creek (Mainstem.) 108,200 24,480 22.62% 20.49 185 1.71 4.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 102 Boathouse Creek 20,400 11800 8.82% 3.86 22 1.08 3.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB; Waterbody 103 Goose Creek 30,200 9,600 31.79% 5.72 83 2.75 4.00 0.00
LWSCB, LWSCB, Waterbody 104 Cabin Creek 19,400 0 0.00% 3.67 0 0.00 3.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody 108 Bay Tree Creek 27,600 400 1.45% 5.23 4 0.14 3.00 0.00
LWSCB, LWSCB Waterbody 110 Claxton Creek 30,000 400 1.33% 5.681 1 0.03 3.00 0.00
LWSCB LWSCB Waterbody ill Back Creek 54,400 4,800 8.82% 10.30 1 63 1.16 4.00 0.00
die@ Total -55,080 i"
511,fM @,,76,080

I OF 2 YORK COUNTY DATA YC3RKDA-rA.XLB Ilk 3/2/94 It' 1 0:54 PM

York County Shoreline Condition By System and Subarea
Total P&D
Shoreline Hardened Shoreline No. of Density Bank
Length Length Percentage Miles of 1Piers & per Height Erosion rate
System Subarea Reach Name (feet) (feet) Hardened Shoreline Docks 1000, (feet) (ft/year)
York River Subarea A 11 Skimino Creek to Carter Creek 10,000 0 0.00% 1.99 0 0.00 10.00 2.20
York River Subarea A 12 Mouth of Carter Creek to Bigler Mill Point 7,000 0 0.00% 1.33 0 0.00 10.00 2.60
York River Subarea A 13 Bigler Mill Point to Beaverdam Pond 2,000 0 0.00% 0.38 0 0.00 5.00 0.90
York River Subarea A 14/15 Beaverclam Pond to Queens Creek 11,000 0 0.00% 2.08 0 0.00 10.00 1.11
Su ba-r-ea- -A--To-taf %'.--5-
j@Cj 7
66 ()o
York River Subarea B 16 Mouth of Queens Cree 50.00"%" 2. -T" 2 0.17 20.00
k to Penniman Spit 12,000 6,000 27 1.90
York River Subarea B 17 Penniman Spit 4,500 0 0.00% 0.85 0 0.00 3.00 0.00
York River Subarea B 20 PoIey Point to Sandy Point 10,000 8,500 85.00% 1.89 1 0.10 25.00 1.50
York River Subarea B 22 Sandy Point 1,000 0 0.00% 0.19 0 0.00 3.00 0.00
York River Subarea B 23 Sandy Point to Stony Point 9,000 3,000 33.33% 1.70 0 0.00 9.00 0.00
York River Subarea B 24 Stony Point to Yorktown Creek 7,500 4,000 53.33% 1.42 1 0.13
Su&iei-B-T-Obil 8.33 4 0.09
York River S barea C 25/26 Mouth of Yorktown Creek to Wormley Creek 16,000 11,000 68.75% 3.03 5 0.31 36.56 1.32
York River Subarea C 30 Wormley Creek to Sandbox 18,200 9,600 52.75% 3.45 8 0.44 10.00 3.50
York River Subarea C 31 York River Face of Large Goodwin IsIand 4,000 0 0.00% 0.76 0 0.00 4.00 0.00
York River Subarea C 32 York River Face of Intermediate Goodwin Island 6,000 0 0.00% 1.14 0 0.00 3.00 0.00
York River Subarea C 33 York River Face of Tue Point Island 2,000 0 0.00% 0.38 0 0.00 3.00 0.00
SFubarea C-T-o-tal- 20,6W 44.59 8.75 13 0.28
Direct Shoreline Frontage (York River) 120,21W 4Z100 35.02% 22.77 17: 0.14-
York River York Waterbody 11.1 Skimino Creek 62,000 0 0.00% 11.74 1 0.02
York River York Waterbody 12.1 Carter Creek 72,000 0 0.00% 13.64 1 0.01
York River York Waterbody 16.1 Queens Creek 80,000 0 0.00% 15.15 0 0.00
York River York Waterbody 18 King Creek 51,000 0 0.00% 9.66 1 0.02
York River York Waterbody 19 Felgates Creek 64,000 0 0.00% 12.12 0 0.00
York River York Waterbody 21 Indian Field Creek 24,000 0 0.00% 4.55 0 0.00
York River York Waterbody 27 North & South shoreline of West Branch (mouth) 8,900 Z200 24.72% 1.69 19 2.13
York River York Waterbody 28 North & South shoreline of West Branch (headwaters) 10,000 3,000 30.00% 1.89 0 0.00 5.00 0.00
York River York Waterbody 29 Worn-dey Creek Shoreline 35,200 4,600 13.07% 6.67 58 1.65
York River Wate-6-0&@W-T-0-tff- 407,100 9,8W 2.41% 77. 0.20
York River System Total 527,300 51,900 9.84% 99.87 97: 0.18
4
Lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay System Total 511,M 76,080 14.870/a 96.93 .639
York County Waterbodies (indirect) Shoreline Total 812,700 64,M 7.98% 153.92-1 .567 ----070
ork County Direct Sho reline Frontage Total 226,400 63,100 27.87% 42-89 169 @A.75
York Cowity Grand Total 1,039,100 127,980 IZ32% 196.80 736 0.71

2 or 2 1P YORK COUNTY DATA YORKDATA.XLS Rk 3/2/94 10:54 PM

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111496 9