[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.


                                                                   2









                 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.




                                                                   3











                   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







                                           0

                                                                       J\














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










                        I


















                                          1@11
                                      - @I


    -4
                                                          I









                         Figure 3. Delineating docks and piers
                                           1@









                                                                      I









                    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


                                                       2









            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


                                                       4









            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


                                                      5









              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


                                                        6









            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 -



                                                      7









              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.



                                                         8










             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.






                                                        9






                                                 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.]



                                 
 


                                                                                                                                      I

                            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.





















                                                            A







                                                       CIO

                                                             B                          0     1     2      3

                                                                                               KILOMETERS


                                                                                             'P, Ak

                                                                                                 7Z

                                                                                                    C,)





                                                           E
                                                                                                           7Z




                                                                IF




                                                                         G


                                                        tp



                                                              VIRGINIA
                                                         NORTH CAROLINA
                                                                                      A OPP

                                                Figure 1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Transects, established ig5s.

                                                                          268












                                                                                                   41




                         Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
                              Trends on Back Bay, Va.

            FREQUENCY
        100




         80-




         60-




         40




         20


                                                                    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


                                                  0



	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


                                                        55










                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



                                                            56









               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.






                                                          57











                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.





                                                          58











               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


                                                           59









               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.






                                                        60











               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



                                                         61









               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.










                                                         62










                         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.







                                                          63










               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.


                                                        64













               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.





                                                          65










              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















                                 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


                                      Vb






                                                                                             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

                                                          1








              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.


                                                            2








               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.

                                                            3








             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.



                                                           4








              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


                                                             5









             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

                                                           6








               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.

               <Add Poquoson and Hampton Comprehensive Plan info.>>

               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.























                                                              7









             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.




                                                          8








              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.


              <Add 1989,1994 VOP reco's>>

              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.





                                                            9









             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

             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).
             'Sensitive Land and Aquatic Resources

             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.).

                                                          10









               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

                                                         12









              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)



                                                          13









                 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).






































                                                           14









               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



                                                            15








              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

              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 (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).













                                                          16









              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

                                                          17









              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).






















                                                            18









              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



                                                          19









              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

              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 (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).
















                                                           20









              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


                                                          21









             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).






















                                                           22





N









               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

               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 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

                                                           23









              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


                                                            24








              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.


              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.























                                                           25











             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

                                                         26








               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).

























                                                             27









             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.



                                                         28









               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

               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 (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).















                                                           29









             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



                                                          30








               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

               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 (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

                                                           31









             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).















                                                          32










               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.

                                                          33









              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.

              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).






















                                                            34









              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

                                                          35








             NOAA-National Ocean Service charts show a sounding of 1 ft. at the mouth of Hodges
             Cove.


             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 (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).























                                                         36









               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



                                                          37









              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

              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.

              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).



                                                           38









               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).






















                                                           39









             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

                                                         40








              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

              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 (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)


                                                            41








                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



                           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).






































                                                       42








               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

                                                            43









             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

             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.

             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)

                                                           44









                  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).
























                                                             45









             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



                                                         46








               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

               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 (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).















                                                           47









             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


                                                          48











              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

              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 except in the event of a freshwater release from Harwoods Mill
              reservoir 'Over the spillway.

              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).












                                                           49











            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.





                                                      50










               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).

               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 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 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.

                                                           51









             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 characteristicï¿½ 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)


                                                         52






                  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).





































                                                           53









             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).

             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 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

                                                         54









               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

               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 (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).














                                                            55









             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

                                                            56











               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

               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.

               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).










                                                              57











             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).

             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 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.


                                                         58









               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

               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 (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).














                                                             59




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.


                                                            2







           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.



                                                            3








          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,


                                                          4







           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.



                                                           5








          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.


                                                           6







           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.


                                                             7








          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.




























                                                          8








           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.




                                                         9








          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


                                                           10







          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




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?






















































                                                   15




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


                                                            17







          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.


                                                           18








           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.

































                                                          19








          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



                                                        20







           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).


























                                                           21









         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.




































                                                    22









           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




                                                           23







          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.
























                                                        24







            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).

            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




                                                              25







           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



                                                             26







           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).


































                                                          27









          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.













                                                           28








           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



                                                          29







          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.





                                                           30



                                                           ..                                                    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


                                                          31







          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


                                                            32







           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.



                                                             33







          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.






















                                                        34









           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.










                                                           35








          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


                                                           36







            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).











                                                             37








          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).

          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 #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.



                                                           38







            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



                                                              39







         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).










































                                                      40








           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).

           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 #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



                                                           41







          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).

















                                                            42









           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


                                                          43








          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).































                                                           44







           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).

           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 #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.



                                                           45








          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).






















                                                          46









           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




                                                          47








          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.

          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


                                                            48







          survey. Based on observed conditions, it would appear that (appropriate erosion control
          recommendation).















































                                                    49










          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.











                                                          50









           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.



                                                          51








          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


























































                                                         52









           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.



                                                        53








         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


























































                                                        54









           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.


                                                         55








          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


























































                                                        56









           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.



                                                         57




 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

          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 the York River).

          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??



                                                            60







           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

           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.

           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



















                                                           61









          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.


                                                         62










           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)



                                                           63








                 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).




































                                                           64









           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.





                                                           65








          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


                                                           66







            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).























                                                             67








          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.


                                                         68








            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).
















                                                             69









          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.


                                                          70







           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.




                                                           71












                                                                                                                               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