Coastal land use planning and management in Prince William County a guidebook

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

GOASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION

COASTAL LAND USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

A GUIDE BOOK

a's TRIC,

HT REGIONAL RESOURCES DIVISION A P R I L 1979
393
V8
N6
1979 m4m

COASTAL ZONE
INFORA,11ATION CENTER

COASTAL LAND USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN PRINCE WILLIAM
COUNTY: A GUIDEBOOK

Prepared by
Regional Resources Division
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
Falls Church, Virginia

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
Prepared for 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
Virginia office of Commerce and Resources CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413
Richmond, Virginia

c:7,
7F

"Preparation of this report was financed through a grant from the Virginia office of Commerce and Resources.
Grant funds originated from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended."

PREFACE

Coastal areas such as the Potomac estuary, its tributaries, and adjacent lands, are in critical
need of public attention. Coastal estuaries are the most biologically productive areas on earth,
playing a vital role in the life cycle of a tremendous variety of fish, waterfowl, and wildlife.
Coastal waters provide significant opportunities for recreational activities such as boating,
water skiing, and swimming. gowever, these values are being increasingly threatened by man's
activities. Pollution from urban development has degraded the quality of coastal waters, reducing
their value for habitat and for outdoor recreation. Private shoreline development is rapidly re-
ducing opportunities for public access to the shoreline.

The federal government'and the State of Virginia have recognized the need for special manage-
ment of coastal areas through the development of coastal resources management programs designed to
balance man's activities in coastal areas with the protection of valuable coastal resources. A
major objective of Virginia's program is the development of a State-local cooperative effort to
minimize the adverse impacts of man's activities on coastal waters.

Prince William County has already affirmed the importance of coastal resources through the
establishment of a local wetlands board under the Virginia Wetlands Law to protect the County's
valuable coastal marshes. This guidebook is an attempt to provide information which would enable
Prince William County to extend this philosophy to a more comprehensive protection of its coastal
resources. Land use planning and management guidelines and standards are suggested for critical
environmental areas such as beaches, bluffs, and wetlands, as well as for shorelands adjacent to
these areas, The information contained in this report should be useful not only to local planners,
but also to landowners in the County's coastal zone who wish to learn more about this unique environ-
mental area.

The recommendations in this report have been developed by the staff of the Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission (NVPDC) under contract with the Virginia Office of Commerce and
Resources. Nothing in this report should be construed as representing the adopted policies of the
NVPDC unless so stated in an adopted Resolution of said Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER II: COASTAL LAND USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Preservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wetlands & Bottomlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bluffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 19
Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * , 21
Hillsides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Development Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CHAPTER III: INVENTORY OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY . . . . . . 53
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Segment 1: 1-95 Bridge to Marumsco Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Segment 2: Marumsco Creek to Freestone Point . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Segment 3: Freestone Point to Cockpit Point . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Segment 4: Cockpit Point to Shipping Point . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Segment 5: Shipping Pdint to Chopawamsic Creek . . . . . . . . . . 63
Summary of Chapters II and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

CHAPTER IV: STATE AND FEDERAL COASTAL POLICIESi PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN NAVIGABLE WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS . . . 86
USACE Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters . . ..... . . . . . 86
Virginia Marine Resources Commission Subaqueous 88
Bottomland Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Virginia Wetlands Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
State Water Control Board Regulations and Programs . . . . . . . . . 92
Summary of State and Federal Shoreline Permits . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Coastal Resources Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Federal Coastal Zone Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . 97

CHAPTER V: SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Shoreline Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Shoreline Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

APPENDIX I: COMMON MARINE RESOURCES OF THE POTOMAC RIVER NEAR PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 106

APPENDIX II: GEORGIA MOUNTAINS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SLOPE REGULATIONS 107

APPENDIX III: VIP&SU FERTILIZER APPLICATION GUIDE 109

APPENDIX IV: CONTENTS OF A WETLANDS APPLICATION 112

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

1 Some Pollutants Found in Urban Runoff and Their Impacts 6

2 Maximum Land Clearance Slope Guidelines 23

3 Minimum Lot Size Slope Guidelines 23

4 Fairfax County Tree Selection Guide 29

5 Prince William County Coastal Soils 42

6 Urban BMP Guidelines 43

7 Site-Specific Guidelines for Minimizing Runoff Pollution 47
Loading's From Urban Development

8 Land Area in Prince William County Coastal Zone by Segment 54

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1 Natural Coastal Watershed 4

2 Effects of Urban Development on Coastal Watershed 5

3 VIMS Wetland Type Delineations 10

4 Typical Rock Riprap Structure 18

5 Summary of Governmental Regulations for Coastal Prince 87
William County

6 Generalized Diagram of Shoreline Permit Application Review 94
Procedures

LIST OF MAPS

Map Number Title Page

1 Prince William County Coastal Zone 2
2 Segment 1: Natural Resources 66
3 Segment 1: Soil Suitability Zones 67
4 Segment 1: Existing Land Use 68
5 Segment 1: Proposed Land Use 69
6 Segment 2: Natural Resources 70
7 Segment 2: Soil Suitability Zones 71
8 Segment 2: Existing Land Use 72
9 Segment 2: Proposed Land Use 73
10 Seg-ment 3: Natural Resources 74
11 Segment 3: Soil Suitability Zones 75
12 Segment 3: Existing Land Use 76
13 Segment 3: Proposed Land Use 77
14 Segment 4: Natural Resources 78
15 Segment 4: Soil Suitability Zones 79
16 Segment 4: Existing Land Use 80
17 Segment 4: Proposed Land Use 81
18 Segment 5: Natural Resources 82
19 Segment 5: Soil Suitability Zones 83
20 Segment 5: Existing Land Use 84
21 Segment 5: Proposed Land Use 85

Coastal Land Use Planning and Management in Prince William
County: A Guidebook

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this guidebook is to provide information and technical assistance to land use
planners and others involved in land development activities in Prince William County's coastal zone.
The boundary of the coastal zone in Prince William County, shown on Map 1, roughly follows 1-95 and
is based on both the natural and man-made characteristics of the area. The coastal zone comprises a
total of approcimately 18,180 acres.

Prince William County's shoreline is classified as a coastal area because it adjoins the
Potomac Estuary, which forms part of the Chesapeake Day estuarine system. An estuary is a
semi-enclosed coastal water body with an open connection to the sea and a measurable quantity of
salt in its waters. Estuaries are highly productive natural systems, functioning as a "trap" for
life-sustaininq nutrients and providing essential spawning and nursery grounds for a large number of
commercial and sport fish and shellfish (A listing of fish and shellfish species common to the
Prince William coastal area is provided in Appendix I).

The confined characteristic of estuaries which makes them nutrient-rich also makes them
especially vulnerable to pollution, since pollutants can be "trapped" in the estuary just as are
nutrients. Therefore, development adjacent to estuarine waters requires special management. The
State and Federal governments have recognized this need through the institution of coastal resources
management programs designed to balance man's use of coastal areas with the unique needs of the
fragile coastal ecosystem.

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program is designed to provide a cooperative
State-local effort to manage coastal land and water resources. This management effort can be
divided into two major approaches: 1) the protection of critical environmental areas; and 2) the
control of development and uses of shorelands to minimize the adverse impacts of runoff on coastal
waters,

Critical environmental areas in the Prince William County coastal.zone include wetlands, tidal
flats, nearshore shallows, bluffs, and beaches. Chapter III discusses the general location of these
resources within the County's coastal zone. Wetlands and nearshore shallows are currently
protected by permitting programs administered by local, State and Federal agencies. Tidal flats and
beaches are protected only by Federal permitting programs. These programs are discussed further in
Chapter IV,

-1-

Map I

Prince William County Coastal Zone

"NOR
0 S A
N,
,k;-, WE
1
011
N

44 @)

t, 1 4,

X., k
X

@2-

Because of its direct drainage into coastal waters, land development adjoining the tidal
streams and coastal waters in Prince William County has the potential to damage the marine
environment unless carefully planned to minimize the polluting effects of runoff. Figures 1 and 2
illustrate the impacts of land development in coastal watersheds. The uncontrolled runoff of
sediments, nutrients, bacteria and heavy metals can cause turbidity and depressed oxygen levels in
the estuary, which in the past have resulted in periodic fish kills and the closure of shellfish
grounds in the Upper Potomac. Typical pollutants and their impacts on water quality are summarized
in Table 1. Such adverse impacts of land use on the estuarine environment can be reduced through
proper land use planning and management techniques.

Chapter 11 of this guidebook outlines a series of land use planning and management guidelines
and standards which, if implemented, can minimize the adverse impacts of man's activities on tidal
waters. These guidelines and techniques are based on the most recent scientific, planning, and
engineering information available. As our knowledge of coastal problems and solutions increases,
this guidebook should be updated accordingly.

The greatest control over land use in the shorelands rests with local government, in
cooperation with individual landowners. Many of the environmental guidelines and standards
recommended herein are already in use in Prince William County, such as local erosion and
sedimentation control. Others, such as the urban runoff controls, can be effectively incorporated
into the existing structures of development planning and management in the County.

The most important goal of all those involved in the use of the County's coastal zone should be
the consideration of coastal lands and waters as a single natural system. In order to understand
the system and its important land/water interactions, existing natural and man-made resources of the
coastal zone must be identified and analyzed. A generalized analysis for Prince William County's
coastal zone is provided in Chapter III. Resources and development constraints of individual sites
should be evaluated on a site-specific basis.

-3-

EVAPO-19AW,PIRWIDN (Li N o
V6646TAXMW

"N'
A,
hi
5TA.6
QUI40fr-

WA.-TER 'TABLE

wlm@
PKWA&F, CC WooNDWA40Z

FIGURE 1. NATURAL COASTAL WATERSHED SYSTEM
0

vblt(T 1"ONFbi"I

Vot LOTION
14DTS @CAPS-.
jol rl- :rwfthseb ROCA) leowilic"
RAI
LO@St RU I'l OrF CLAIN
AhD It AfAc-mil If I -Zi-S-0 -rows
10 JWr-A-lrj) OYER)WI-11-11AWN:
6N
VAiti"In"

fbutnuD m(m?.
))AJIA6c Tb
I IAII I Nt; U M-

FIGURE 2. EFFECTS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ON COASFAL WAI-EjjSIIEDS

Table 1.
SOME POLLUTANTS FOUND IN URBAN RUNOFF AND THEIR IMPACTS

TOXIC
SEDIMENT In urban areas, excessive sediment comes SUBSTANCES A variety of toxic substances, including
primarily from construction activities and pesticides and heavy metals such as lead,
the erosion of stream channels after rain- zinc, manganese and cadmium, are often
storms. Soil erosion from construction sites found in urban runoff. The origins of such
can range from 5 to 100 tons/acre/year. materials are not well understood. How-
This sediment can remain suspended in ever, there does seem to. be some
streams long after construction is com- correlation with impervious areas subject to
pleted. The sheer volume of sediment large amounts of vehicular traffic such as
decreases flow capacity in drainageways, large shopping mall parking lots and heavily
takes up storage volume in reservoirs, and traveled highways. High concentrations of
covers aquatic plants and spawning areas these toxic materials can result in fish kills.
essential for fish survival. Sediment parti- OXYGEN-
cles may also have other pollutants attached DEMANDING
to them, such as nutrients, pesticides or SUBSTANCES Organic matter requires oxygen to decom-
other oxygen demanding material. pose. Excessive amounts of decomposing
matter results in oxygen depletion in
NUTRIENTS Nutrients found in urban runoff come from a receiving waters. In extremi cases discolor-
variety of sources, and contaminate receiv- ation, gas formation and odors may result.
ing waters in a number of ways. Nutrients Thc3c conditions can be caused by excessive
in runoff originate from such varied sources nutrients in runoff, septic tank discharges
as airborne pollutants, fertilizer wash-off and sewer overflows carried to receiving
from lawns, and decomposition of fallen streams.
leaves and other material. High concentra-
tions of nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to PETROLEUM
excessive algae growth in receiving waters. SUBSTANCES Petroleum substances, particularly gasoline,
As these organisms die off and decay, oil and grease@ are found in urban storm
depletion of dissolved oxygen and subsequent runof I. These substances wash off roads,
fish kills can result. highways and parking lots. They destroy
aquatic organisms by adhering to thern or by
BACTERIA Significant bacteria levels as measured by coating the habitat of the organisms and
fecal coli form are found in urban runoff. At cutting off the supply of oxygen. Excessive
the present time their origin is not com- amounts of these substances also detract
pletely understood. Major source are from the aesthetic quality of receiving
thought to be animal and bird droppings, waters.
sewer leakage and septic tank overflows.
Contamination of this sort presents a CHLORIDES Chlorides are also assumed to be present in
potential health hazard for water contact area storm runoff during seasonal periods.
recreation and water supply operations They originate in substances used to melt
unless purification steps are taken. snow and ice on area roadways. Application
of these materials in excessive amounts can
kill aquatic organisms and increase oxygen
demands on receiving waters.

SOURCE: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Water Resources Planning
Board, "The Water Monitor", Vol. III, No. 1, February 1979.

-6-

CHAPTER II
Introduction LAND USE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

The planning and management of coastal resources can be aided by the classification of coastal
areas into three broad use categories based on development suitability:

� Preservation areas: These include critical environmental areas, such as wetlands,
beaches, and bluffs, which constitute highly productive unique, fragile or vulnerable
natural habitats or areas of particular scenic or historical importance. It is
recommended that these areas be preserved without development and protected from
degradation due to direct use or to external sources.

� Conservation areas: These are defined as areas marginally suitable for development which
possess important, but noncritical ecological significance. These areas, which include
drainageways, floodplains, hillsides, and woodlands, usually serve as a buffer between
preservation and development areas. Development in these areas, because of erosion,
flooding and/or drainage problems, poses potential hazards to public health and safety
and may require periodic outlays of public and private funds for erosion and/or flood
prevention and reparation. For these reasons, development should be carefully controlled
in these areas.

0 Development areas: These are the remaining areas which are comparatively suitable for
development and which possess less important ecological, recreational, and historical
values than the previous two categories. A variety of land use activities may be
appropriate in these areas, depending on site-specific conditionsL Special precautions
are suggested, however, to minimize the impacts of development on the sedimentation and
pollution of the estuary.

This type of approach to coastal resources management has been taken by localities in the North
Carolina (24) and Florida (12) coastal programs, among others, and is a widely recognized
environmental planning tool.

The land use planning and management guidelines discussed below are designed to assist those
involved in coastal land use decisions in effecting a balance between the many competing uses of
this significant area of Prince William county. These guidelines are grouped by resource type into
the three categories outlined above. A land use planning and management approach which draws on a
combination of guidelines from all three categories will result in the most comprehensive,
ecologically sound, and cost effective coastal resources management program for the County.

-7-

Preservation Areas

1. Wetlands and Bottomlands.

Background. Three interrelated wetland systems, are found along the Prince William County
shoreline: nearshore shallows or bottomlands, tidal flats, and vegetated wetlands.

The shallow bottomlands, which are located below the low tide limit, are vegetated by
aquatic perennials and bethic algae and are vital to fish and shellfish as spawning,
nursery and feeding grounds. Uses of these bottomlands are controlled by the State
through a permitting system administered by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (Code
of Virqinia, 62.1-3).

From the low tide limits to near sea level are found tidal flats, also referred to as
nonvegetated wetlands. While appearing to be lifeless, these flats are among the most
valuable of coastal habitats. Nonvegetated wetlands or flats are important nursery and
feeding grounds for fishes and shellfish, providing abundant food and shallow water refuge
from predators for sensitive juvenile fishes, shedding blue crab, etc. Primary
productivity is high due to the abundant supply of light and the year-round productivity
of the nonvascular plants, i.e., bottom-dwelling algae and phytoplankton, found in these
intertidal areas. In addition, relatively high levels of nutrient storage and cycling
occur in the intertidal zone, since it is particularly conducive to direct exchanges among
water, sediments, the atmosphere and aquatic life. Tidal flats constitute the primary
feeding grounds of shorebirds and many waterfowl, making them prime areas of interest for
birdwatchers. Finally, nonvegetated wetlands provide some degree of erosion protection to
the shoreline and adjacent vegetated wetlands (29).

Above the tidal flats are found vegetated wetlands or marshlands which produce the
organic matter basic to the important estuarine food web. Marshes provide food and/or
habitat at some stage in the life cycle of 90-95% of Virginia's commercial and sport
fishes, as well as waterfowl and various wildlife species such as raccoon, muskrat and

vegetation changes inorganic nutrients in runoff into organic material, stored in their
otter (36). Wetlands also provide water quality protection to the estuary. Wetiand

leaves and in their remains, which are trapped by the marsh root system to form peat.
Wetlands also reduce the speed of runoff and streamflow, allowing sediment to settle out
before reaching the estuary. In addition, wetlands provide flood'and erosion protection
to adjacent dry land areas, referred to as fastlands. One acre of marsh can absorb or
hold 300,000 gallons of water (30). This water retention capability enhances the
stability of the coastal water system by retaining water in dry periods and holding it

-8-

back during floods. Wetland vegetation also serves as a buffer that protects the
shoreline from the eroding forces of tides and storms.

Because of these important public benefits and their sensitivity to alteration by
man, tidal wetlands in Virginia are protected and managed through the 1972 Virginia
Wetlands Law (Virginia Code, 62.1), administered by the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission and local wetlands boards. The Virginia Code defines wetlands as "all land
lying between and contiguous to mean low water and an elevation above mean low water equal
to the factor 1.5 times the mean tide range. . ." and upon which grow specific kinds of
vegetation (Virginia Code, 62.1-13.2(f)). For management purposes, the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS) has classified Virginia's wetlands by type and grouped them into
five classifications according to the estimated total environmental value of an acre of
each type.

Of the twelve types of wetlands in Virginia, only four are found in Prince William
County: Types VI, VII, IX and XI. These comprise approximately 900 acres of wetlands.
Three acres, or less than 1% of the County's wetlands are classified as Type VI. Type VII
comprises 31 acres or 3%. The 54 acres of Type IX make up another 6%, leaving the
remaining 812 acres, or 90%, as Type XI wetland. Further information about these wetland
types is provided in the wetland summaries in Figure 3.

Types VII and XI which constitute 843 acres, or 93% of Prince William County
wetlands! are in Group One, the highest of the five wetlands evaluation groups established
by VIMS. According to VIMS, Group One marshes have the highest values in productivity and
wildfowl/wildlife utility and are closely associated with fish spawning and nursery areas.
They are also given high values as erosion inhibitors, are important to the shellfish
industry, and are valued as natural shoreline stabilizers. VIMS recommends that Group One
marshes be preserved.

The Type VI marshland, which has been assigned a Group Two classification, is of only
slightly lesser value than Group One marshes. VIMS cites the lower ranking of Group Two
marshes as being due to a less readily available source of nutrients for the marine
environment, since the higher elevations of these marshes result in less tidal action to
flush nutrient-rich detritus into adjacent waterways. Group Two marshes are assigned very
high values in water quality and coastal flood protection. VIMS recommends that these
marshes also be preserved, although it would be better to alter Group Two marshes than
Group One marshes.

The final marsh type found in the County, Type IX, which constitutes only 6% of the
County's wetlands, is classified in the Group Three category. The yellow pond lily marsh
is not considered to be a significant contribution to the food web, but it does have high

-9-

FIGURE 3

SUMMARY OF PRINCE
WILLIAM COUNTY WETLAND TYPES

TYPE XI. FRESHWATER MIXED COMMUNITY

BUTTONBUSH YELLO W POND LILY
BIG CORDGRASS TYPE IX
TYPE V ARROW ARLIM and
PICKEREL WEED
WILD RICE TYPE VII
CATTAIL TYPE VI SMARTWEED
and WATERDOCK
SWAMP MILKWEED SEDGES

Dominant vegetation: No single species covers more than 50% of the site.
Associated vegetation: Bulrushes, sedges, waterdock, smartweeds, ferns, pickeral weed, arrow arum,
wildrice, beggar's ticks, rice cutgrass.

Growth habit: Heterogeneous mixutre of plants.
Physiographic position: From submerged to the upper limits of the wetlands.
Average density: Highly variable.
Annual production and 3 to 5 tons per acre. Ditritus of species such as arrow arum, pickerel
detritus availability: weed and yellow pond lily would be available in the intertidal zone.
Waterfowl and wildlife A highly valuable marsh for a broad diversity in wildlife species. Plant
utility: species such as smartweeds, waterdock, wildrice and others are prime water-
fowl and sora rail foods. waters adjacent.to these type marshes are also
known as spawning & nursery grounds for striped bass, shad and river herring.
Potential erosion buffer: Shoreline erosion protection provided by this type of marsh is equivalent
to type VII, arrow arum - pickerel weed community.

_10-

FIGURE 3 (continued)

Water quality control: This ranks somewhat higher as a sediment trap and flood deterrent than an
arrow arum - pickerel weed community. The presence of the stiffer, more
resilient grasses, sedges and rushes and peaty substratum increases the
ability of this type of community over a Type VIII marsh as an assimilator
of sediments and flood waters.

SUMMARY: These are very valuable marshes and the aim should be to keep them in
a natural state. This type of marsh would be ranked equivalent to a
saltmarsh cordgrass marsh (Type I) and an arrow arum-pickerel weed
(Type VII) marsh.

FIGURE 3 (continued)

TYPE VII. ARROW ARUM PICKEREL WEED COMMUNITY

ARROW ARUM

PICKEREL WEED

Dominant vegetation: Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth.) Pickerel week (Pontederia
cordata L.)
Associated vegetation: Sedges, smartweeds, bulrushes, ferns, cattails, pond lily.

or heart'shaped leaves. Clumps 2 to 6 feet tall, average height 3 feet.
Growth habit: Many broad leaved clumps growing from a thick, cylindrical rhizome; arrow

Physiographic position: On tidal mud flats from mean sea level to about mean high tide in low
salinity or freshwater marshes.
Average density: I or 2 clumps per 10 square feet.
Annual production and 2 to 4 tons per acre. Detritus readily available to the marine food web
detritus availability: because of daily tide fluxes. In the fall of the year these species de-
compose quite rapidly and completely except for the root stock.
Waterfowl and wildlife Seeds and shoots of both species are eaten by ducks. Arrow arum seeds
float after the pod decays and are readily available for wood ducks.
Often associated with confirmed spawning and nursery areas for herring
and shad.
Potential erosion buffer: Although this community type lacks the vast network of rhizomes, roots
and.peat substratum typical of a saltmarsh cordgrass community, this
marsh/water interface vegetation is often the only vegetative buffer to
shoreline erosion in freshwater areas. The substratum in a marsh such
as this is typically soft, unstable mud. After the vegetation has decayed
in the winter time, the mud flats are highly susceptible to erosion due to

712-

FIGURE 3 (continued)

Water quality control Slows the flow of flood waters, causing some suspended sediment to
and flood buffer: settle out.

SUMMARY: Under natural conditions, the marsh of this type is relatively stable
but it is highly sensitive to development and activities such as excessive
boat traffic. Because of its many attributes, this marsh ranks similar to
that of Type I.

-13-

FIGURE 3 (continued)

TYPE VI. CATTAIL COMMUNITY
zi:

NARROW- LEAVED CATTAIL 'j
Typho angustifolla

COMMON CATTAIL
rypha lalifolia

Dominant vegetation: Narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia L.)

Assoc
pickerel weed, smartweed, other fresh or brackish water plants.
iated vegetation: Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia L.), sedges, bulrushes, arrow arum,

Growth habit: Characteristic "wiener on a stick" fruiting heads, long straplike leaves,
somewhat blunted tips, 4 to 6 feet tall.
Phsiographic position: Very wet sites, sometimes in standing water, often at the margin of marsh
and uplands. Does well in seepage areas resulting from upland runoff.
Average density: 2 to 6 stalks per square foot.
Annual production and 2 to 4 tons per acre. Detritus usually not readily accessible to the
marine environment.

Waterfowl and wildlife Provides habitat for certain birds; roots consumed by muskrats.
utility:
Potential erosion buffer: Because of its preferred habitat and its characteristic shallow root
system, Type VI is only a minor buffer to erosion.
Water quality control- Its usual habitat along the upland margins in soft muddy areas ranks this
and flood buffer: marsh type.high as a sediment trap despite its shallow rooted condition.
Very few species will grow in these areas either because of the stagnant
condition of the substratum or because they are inhibited by toxin release
of the cattail roots or a combination of the two factors.

SUMMARY: Because of its value as a wildlife food and habitat, its function as a
A--

sediment trap, its relatively high production and the usual soft substratum,
U
this type of marsh community should not be indiscriminately use' as a
development site. As far as overall value is concerned it compares with
a salt meadow marsh (Type II).

-14-

FIGURE 3 (continued)

TYPE IX YELLOW POND LILY COMMUNITY

YELLOW POPIO LILY
N"PAor 00"ena

Dominant vegetation: Yellow pond lily, spatter-dock (Nuphar luteum (L. Sibthrop and Smith

Associated vegetation; Pickerel weed, arrow arum.
Growth habit: Saucer shaped leaves with a narrow notch, floating on water; large,
leathery yellow flower. 2 to 4 feet high from submerged root stalk.
Physiographic position: Submerged except for floating leaves at high tide. Found in freshwater areas.
Average density: One plant (cluster of leaves) for every 3 to 5 square feet.
Annual production and @ to 1 ton per acre; detritus readily available but not a significant
detritus availability: contributor to the food chain.
Waterfowl utility: Excellent cover and attachment site for aquatic animals and algae. Feeding
territory for aquatic birds and fish.
Potential erosion buffer: While lacking the stiffness of grasses and sedges, these plants do reduce
wave action from wind and boats. This has been noted in freshwater streams
and boat channels.
Water quality control Although not a direct assimilator of sediments and flood waters, the flow
and flood buffer: of flood water is slowed somewhat and sediments can settle out. This function
is minimal because the community is submerged completely in flood conditions.

SUMMARY: Destruction of the community would result in a decrease in number and
diversity of aquatic animal life in the immediate area. The greatest value
the community has is its habitat for aquatic biota. This type should be
ranked with or slightly higher than a Type III (black needlerush) marsh.

values for wildlife and waterfowl. The Group Three marsh is thus of less total value than
Group One and Two marshes, and, if altered, would cause less total harm to the estuary
than altering the wetlands assigned to the two preceding groups.

VIMS also suggests two general guidelines which can be used along with the wetlands
evaluation system to make decisions on wetlands use:

1. Any marsh 2 feet or more in average width is considered to have significant
values as an erosion deterrent and a sediment trap; and

2. Depending on marsh type and viability, any marsh greater than 0.1 acre may have
significant values in terms of productivity, detritus availability, and wildlife
habitat. Depending on its location, it may also have value as an erosion buffer
(36).

In Prince William County, the local Wetlands Board is responsible for granting or
denying permits for activities in wetlands (See Chapter IV for further information on the
Board and its duties).

Man's activities in wetlands and bottomlands threaten the health and, in some cases,
the continued existence of these areas. Dredging or filling activities may cause direct
alteration of wetlands and bottomlands in the immediate vicinity, as well as indirect
alterations to areas removed from the activity by changing current, sediment deposition,
and erosion patterns. Dredging in these areas reduces primary productivity, eliminates
fish and wildlife feeding grounds, and deposits sediments which may deplete the available
Oxygen supply. Filling of these areas effectively removes them from the aquatic system.

Construction of bulkheads, groins, breakwaters, docks and piers may cause particular
harm to nonvegetated wetlands through scouring or sedimentation. Improperly designed
bulkheads, for example, may result in erosion at the base of the bulkhead, altering the
intertidal habitat (29).

Activities upstream from wetlands, which are outside the jurisdiction of the Wetlands
Board, can also have an impact on the health of wetlands. Excess siltation or nutrient
input from upland runoff can upset the wetlands system by altering water levels and
dissolved oxygen concentrations. This problem is especially significant in embayed
wetlands, such as those found at the mouths of the County's coastal streams, since
flushing time is slower than in less confined wetlands. In addition, tidal wetlands can
be harmed by either an increase or decrease in freshwater flow, which can be caused by
increased runoff or the addition of upstream impoundments.

-16-

Guidelines. To assist local wetlands boards in executing their permitting
responsibilities, the state has developed guidelines (17,36) for activities in and
immediately adjacent to wetlands. Information on these guidelines can be obtained from
the Prince William County Wetlands Board, which is discussed further in Chapter V. The
following general guidelines may serve as a starting point for persons contemplating
activities which may affect wetlands (6):

1. There should generally be no excavation in wetlands.
Rationale: Excavation may disrupt the natural functions of wetlands by
eliminating vegetation, disrupting natural water flows, destroying the marshy
soil layers, and facilitating the drying out of wetlands. Excavation should be
permitted only when required for essential public purposes (e.g., mosquito
control, wildlife enhancement) and should be limited to a small percentage (10%)
of the area.

2. There should generally be no land clearance, grading or removal of natural
vegetation in wetlands.
Rationale: Vegetation is the driving force of productivity in vegetated
wetlands. Loss of vegetation will reduce productivity, resulting in a loss of
nutrients to the estuarine system.

3. There should generally be no filling of wetlands.
Rationale: The soil cover would eliminate the wetlands, change elevation, alter
the water regime, and generally disrupt wetland functions.
4. 'There should generally be no solid-fill roads or other structures in wetlands.
Rationale: Solid-fill obstructs water flow through wetlands, disrupting the
delivery of freshwater and nutrients to the estuary and upsetting the salinity
balance in the wetlands.

5. Shoreline defense structures (e.g., bulkheads), where necessary, should be built
shoreward of wetlands, above the annual flood mark, and should be designed to be
permeable to groundwater and runoff.
Rationale: By definition, wetlands that should be undisturbed lie below this
level. In addition, solid structures such as bulkheads that extend into water
areas often adversely alter water circulation, increase scouring of the bottom,
and preempt tidal marsh and tidal flat habitat areas. Permeable structures
allow the free supply of fresh water and water-borne nutrients to wetlands and
promote better drainage of the adjacent shorelands, so as to reduce erosion.
Rock riprap (see Figure 4) is often the easiest and least costly shoreline
protection measure and is both highly permeable and conducive to the

-17-

establishment of aquatic life. Another example is gabions, which are often used
for lining stream channels. Gabions (5) are wire baskets, filled with rock and
lined together to form a wall or channel lining.

FIGURE 4. TYPICAL ROCK RIPRAP STRUCTURE

Timbet Pile to Guide Floats
C, '00, 1 1

Polystyrene Floats
Armor Stone
M-S-L.
Zi-
E? 7
C) ";",y 2
Slone
vwying 14'
Sizes
C10--
@d

Cast Concrete To -'@@De@qed Channel Bottont

6. As a rule, discharge or release of pollutants into wetlands should be minimized.
Rationale; Although wetlands have a certain capacity to absorb Iand naturally
treat nutrients and other pollutants from stormwater runoff (27), research has
not established the capacity of each wetland type to assimilate these
pollutants. Additions of nutrients to the tidal marshes of an estuary such as
the Potomac, which is already rich in nutrients, may have a relatively minor
impact, but this cannot be assured. Studies have shown that additions of
organic nitrogen to estuaries and marshes significantly stimulates plant growth
(34,35). Higher natural Productivity means higher respiration rates in the
water, decreasing oxygen concentration levels and possibly resulting in fish
kills, particularly in summer months when oxygen concentration naturally drops
very low at night (13). Research continues concerning the limits of acceptable
estuarine nutrient pollution (27), but algal blooms and fish kills which have
occurred in the Potomac make it apparent that such limits have already been
exceeded on occasion in this region. In addition, the specific effects of
excess nutrients may be obscured by toxic pollutants, which may diminish
biological activity and reduce the diversity of life in the wetland and estuary
systems(33). Therefore, it is advisable to minimize the introduction of
pollutants into wetland systems, particularly sediment and toxic pollutants
wi-Lich may impair LI-le natural nutrient treatr-Ltent capacity of these areas.

Guidelines for activities upstream of wetlands are designed to regulate the two key
natural processes that can threaten the health of wetlands: runoff and erosion. Adverse
impacts on wetlands resulting from the acceleration of these processes due to man's
activities can be controlled through both structural and nonstructural measures. An
overall guideline to be followed for development in coastal watersheds is to maintain
runoff and erosion levels at or near the natural level. Specific guidelines and standards
which can be utilized to achieve this overall objective are discussed later in this
report.

2. Bluffs

Background. Bluffs, which are areas of high elevation adjacent to the estuary,
provide both environmental and aesthetic benefits to man. Similar to wetlands, bluffs
protect inland areas from flooding. Bluffs also have high scenic potential because of the
vistas afforded by their elevation. This often makes them desirable sites for residential
development. However, bluffs are sensitive environmental areas because of their
vulnerability to erosion.

The effects of erosion make bluffs dynamic natural features. Rainfall runoff, soil
seepage, and tidal action all contribute to the erosion of bluffs and subsequent retreat
of the shoreline. Man may contribute to this erosion through the action of boat wakes and
by directing or augmenting runoff, although the impacts of the former are usually minor
unless boat traffic is intense. Since bluff erosion is a natural process, guidelines
pertaining to bluffs concern human safety more than they do the impact of man on the
natural system.

Guidelines. The following guidelines are suggested for bluff preservation:

1. Control man's impact on bluff erosion by:

a) Requiring slow or no wake zones in areas of high boat traffic adjacent to
bluffs; and

b) Encouraging the use of runoff controls on urban and agricultural land
adjacent to bluffs (See Development Areas section below for recommended
controls).

2. Minimize future losses of property due to highly eroding bluffs (i.e., rates of
1 foot per year or greater) by requiring a setback of structures beyond the
thirty-year bluff recession line, or requiring movable structures or structural

_19-

protection for existing buildings within the 30-year setback zone; and

3. Minimize losses to existing property owners by encouraging a unified landowner
approach to shoreline erosion control (See Chapter V for sources of technical
assistance for shoreline stabilization).

Implementation. The first guideline, which deals with the control of boat
traffic is not under local control. Implementation of this recommendation requires
action by the State of Virginia and/or Maryland.

Implementation of guidelines l(b) and 2, encouraging the use of runoff controls
and regulating bluff development, can be accomplished at the local level through
special local zoning and subdivision requirements. Such requirements for guideline
l(b) might take the form of runoff control techniques which are incorporated into a
Public Facilities Manual. Fairfax County has taken this approach (11).

Implementation of the third guideline, which concerns shoreline erosion, can be
accomplished through cooperative local, State, and federal efforts. Local agencies,
such as the Planning office and the Soil and Water Conservation District Office, can
provide educational materials and technical assistance to landowners with shoreline
erosion problems. These efforts should be accompanied by State*or federal technical
and financial assistance programs.

3. Beaches

Background. A beach is an unconsolidated, sloping area contiguous to the shore and
composed of sand, gravel, or cobbles which results from wave and current action. Beaches
in Prince William County occur next to bluffs or vegetated shorelines. Under normal
conditions, the amount of sand or other material that makes up the beach is in careful
balance with the current and tidal action of the Potomac River. Beaches act as dynamic
shoreline protection structures, breaking the impact of waves and currents. Disruption of
the natural balance of movement between beach and bottom materials through the
construction of groins and jetties, etc., can accelerate shoreline erosion and result in
the loss of beaches and subsequent erosion of fastlands. Beaches of good size and quality
have long been valued for their recreation use.

Guidelines. The following guidelines are suggested for the identification and
preservation of high quality beaches:

1. Beaches in Prince William County should be analyzed for their recreational
potential, erosion control capabilities, and other values mentioned above.

-20-

Beach areas suitable for recreational access should be prioritized for possible
public access acquisition.

2. Bulkheads, jetties, groins and other structural protection techniques should be
avoided. Structures along the shoreline block the movement of sand and sediment
materials necessary to replenish sand losses from storms. The beach may then
become unstable and eventually disappear.

Implementation. In order to prevent the degradation or destruction of the high
quality beaches, local acquisition of shoreland public access areas adjacent to such high
quality beaches may be desirable at some point, particularly as Potomac River water
quality improves to a level to allow public swimming. Coastal zone segment resource
inventories that can help identify the location of County beach areas are presented in
Chapter III.

State and federal shoreline permitting agencies should take the lead in promoting
non-structural shoreline stabilization measures over structural measures to the greatest
extcnt possiblc. Structural approaches, where necessary prctect priv-
Y J- - @ U @V@@V @@
investments, should be coordinated with neighboring shoreline landowners. Local building
inspectors can also work with shoreline landowners in developing the least ecologically
damaging shoreline defense measures. A State-sponsored training program on shoreline
protection would be very beneficial to building officials in coastal jurisdictions.

Conservation Areas

1. Hillsides

Background. Careful control of development on hillsides, defined here as areas with
8% slope or greater, is necessary to minimize the adverse impacts of ground disturbance,
which include loss of slope and soil stability and accelerated erosion. Removal of
vegetation from hillsides deprives the soil of the stabilizing effect of plant root
systems and eliminates the water recycling benefits of plant transpiration. on slopes
with no vegetation and exposed soils, new watercourses are readily formed, creating
gullies which significantly increase the rate of erosion. Increasing the amount of paved
surfaces on hillsides not only alters the natural drainage pattern, but also increases
runoff and allows less precipitation to recharge groundwater.resources. Such increased
runoff and erosion contribute to sedimentation in downstream waterways, wetlands,
embayments, and the Potomac estuary.

It has been demonstrated that erosion increases rapidly with the steepness of the
slope. One study (9) indicates that the rate of erosion is proportional to the 1.35 power

-21-

greater than from a 4% slope, and 5 times greater than from an 8% slope (9). Therefore,
of the slope. This means, for example, that the erosion from a 25% slope can be 12 times

guidelines which have been developed for the wise use of hillsides are closely tied to
variations in the steepness of the slope.

Guidelines. The regulation of hillside development is more sophisticated than in
other critical environmental areas. Approaches to hillside regulations fall into three
major categories (30): (1) slope-density provisions, which decrease allowable development
densities as slope increases; (2) soil-overlay provisions, which assign use and density
based on soil characteristics; and (3) the "guiding principles" approach, containing few
specific standards, but rather specific policies to form the basis of individual project
evaluations. Grading and erosion controls, discussed in the Development Areas Section
below, are important supplements to any of these approaches.

Slope-density provisions are perhaps the most common form of hillside development
regulation. Since most commercial and industrial land uses are not suited to hillsides
due to the necessity for extensive grading and filling, these provisions focus on
residential development. Such provisions generally take two forms: 1) requirements that
certain percentages of a site remain in a natural state; or 2) limitations on the number
of dwelling units allowed per acre. The severity of these restrictions varies among
geographic areas, depending upon the range of slopes encountered.

Several examples of slope-density guidelines are provided in Reference (30). An
example of the first approach to these guidelines, based on open space quotas, is
summarized in Table 2.

An example of slope-density provisions based on lot size, developed by the Georgia
Mountains Planning & Development Commission, are illustrated in Table 3. These provisions
cover a very wide range of slopes, as might be expected in a mountainous region. Although
the severe slopes at the upper range of Table 3 are unlikely to be encountered in the
Prince William coastal zone, it indicates the full spectrum of considerations necessary in
hillside regulation. The final column of Table 3 also gives maximum allowable land
clearance. This thus represents a combination of the two types of slope-density
guidelines. The full text of the Georgia Mountains PDC slope regulations is provided in
Appendix II.

The second major approach to hillside regulation, the soil-overlay approach, is
recommended for use in Prince William County. The availability of a complete soil survey
for the County provides a rational basis for the development of regulations that reflect
the varying sensitivities of sloped lands to erosion, runoff, and mass movement. This
makes the regulations more easily understandable to developers and landowners, and

-22-

Table 2
Maximum Land Clearance Slope Guidelines

@Iope % of Land Left in Natural State

10 - 15% 25
25 - 20% 40
20 - 25% 55
25 - 30% 70
30%+ 85

SOURCE: Reference (3).

Table 3

Minimum Lot Size Slope Guidelines
Topography, Minimum Minimum minimum Ground Surface
Slope Area, Average Average to Remain in its
Average (sq.ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Natural State
(no cut or fill)
0-12% 15,000 60 90 50%
10-15% 18,000 80 100 60%
15-20% 22,000 80 11.0 65%
20-25% 28,000 100 120 70%
25-30% 35,000 100 150 75%
30-35% 44,000 120 175 .80%
35-40% 54,000 1.50 200 85%
40-50% 65,000 175 250 95%
50-70% 85,000 200 300 95%
70-100% Not less than five(5) acres. 95%
Over 100% No lot development permitted. 100%

SOURCE: Reference (33).

-23-

therefore easier to administer by the local planning office. In addition, soil overlay
provisions apply to the entire planning area, not just the hillsides, resulting in a more
comprehensive approach to environmental management.

This approach relies on soil overlay maps, which represent soil groupings based on
development suitability. For example, McHenry County, Illinois, has "Soil Overlay
Regulations" which are added to the requirements of the existing zoning categories (30).
A "Steep Soils Overlay District" has been established for areas with problem soil types
and slopes greater than 12 percent. Other localities which have adopted a similar
approach include Mine Hill, New Jersey, and Orange County, New York (30). An initial
application of such an approach to the soils in Prince William County's coastal zone is
provided on page 39 in the Development Areas section. This approach groups the County's
coastal soils into four broad development suitability zones: unsuitable, low
density/conservation, medium density, and hiqh/low density. The low density/conservation
zone roughly corresponds to the "Steep Soils Overlay District" of McHenry County,
Illinois.

Implementation. Soil overlay zones are not meant to establish strict management
boundaries, but to identify similar management areas which can provide guidance for
individual land use decisions in the coastal zone. While the zoning ordinance provides a
mechanism for local governments to implement such overlay districts., a more detailed
analysis of soil and slope conditions would be necessary in order to establish accurate
boundaries for each zone. minimum lot size, grading and clearance restrictions, and other
appropriate development requirements for each overlay zone could then be incorporated into
the zoning ordinance.

2. Waterways

Background. Surface water drainageways, as integral. parts of the hydrologic cycle,
provide many public benefits in their natural state, including the transport of overland
flow from upland areas for groundwater recharge and reservoir replenishment and the
support of fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife. Development in upstream areas can result
in increased runoff, accelerating the rate of stream flow, which may result in streambank
erosion and a loss of shading vegetation. This not only increases the sediment load to
the downstream receiving body, such as the estuary or wetlands, but increases water
temperatures. Heated runoff from impervious surfaces further elevates water temperatures,
which may have adverse effects on aquatic life sensitive to temperature changes.

Development also results in increased stormwater runoff, causing sedimentation and be
minimized through urban stormwater and nonpoint pollution management programs, discussed
in the Development Areas section of this report.

-24-

Guidelines. Several additional approaches to stream protection are outlined here.
These approaches are designed not only to protect waterways from the adverse impacts of
development mentioned above, but also to address the flooding impacts of streams on
adjacent development areas. Typical stream protection regulations instituted by local
governments provide for the establishment of a buffer zone along watercourses, usually
extending 50 to 150 feet on either side of the stream, within which development and land
disturbing activities are strictly limited. The buffer zone may be a fixed distance from
mid-stream, or may "float" according to the character of adjacent areas. The former
approach is easier to implement and administer, while the latter allows the inclusion of
adjacent sensitive environmental. areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes.

The following example of a fixed buffer, which would prohibit tree cutting, grading,
filling, and construction in the following buffer areas, has been recommended by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (28):

Water Body Buffer width

lakes.over 50 acres 300 feet
lakes 50 acres and less 200 feet
navigable streams 100 feet
all other streams 50 feet

other criteria which have been suggested for stream buffers, based on open space
considerations, include:

1. Preserve between 200 feet (18) and 300 feet (16) on either side of all watercourses.
A 200 foot buffer provides about 24 acres of recreation area per mile of stream
corridor (2).

2. Preserve a 1-50-foot buffer on each side of a stream and, for major streams, plan
development of a 4000-foot wide corridor (1).

3. Require developers to preserve and/or donate 10% of their gross acreage to open space
use, preferably in flood plain and shoreline areas (32).

A more scientific approach to stream buffer zones is based on sediment control
considerations. From a sediment control standpoint, particularly during construction
activities, a buffer zone acts as a backup measure to such traditional sediment control
measures as detention basins and burlap fences. The State of Virginia and most of its
localities have not yet taken this approach. For example, stream protection measures in

-25-

stream bank stabilization with rock riprap or vegetation.
the Northern Virginia region concentrate instead on structural control measures such as

Buffer zone requirements, where they exist in other States (e.g., North Carolina),
are usually based on limiting visible siltation to the first 25% of the buffer zone. This
type of regulation has been shown to be difficult to implement, because of the difficulty
in'estimating ahead of time the width of buffer zone necessary to limit visible siltation
to the performance standard (9). The City of Raleigh, North Carolina, therefore, has
adopted the following formula for buffer zone width calculations (25):

W = 1.7K(LS)ML
where W = necessary width of buffer zone;
K = erodibility factor of the soils;
LS = soil loss factor based on the length and degree of the slopes;
M = an adjustment factor for the month of the year; and
L = length of the slope.

Experience with the formula has reportedly been satisfactory, with the normal range of the
buffer zone width from 5 to 75 feet (9). The narrowest buffer zones occur in areas with
gentle slopes and fairly stable soils. These narrow buffers, while perhaps accomplishing
sediment control, do not contribute significantly to other stream valley protection
objectives, such as the preservation of open space and wildlife habitat. A comprehensive
stream protection policy would combine these approaches by establishing a minimum buffer
width for open space concerns and applying the formula on an individual project basis to
determine the desirability of expanding the buffer beyond this minimum.

The advantage of setting up a buffer zone, whether fixed, floating, or a combination
thereof, is that it establishes a special management area, within which permitted uses and
alterations may be identified by local government. Permitted uses typically include
recreation, conservation, and non-tillage agricultural operations. Alterations that are
restricted include dredging, filling and dumping in or adjacent to streams. An example of
regulated uses for stream protection from Napa County, California include (30):

(1) Depositing or removing any material within a watercourse;
(2) Excavating within a watercourse;
(3) Planting or removing any vegetation within a watercourse;
(4) Constructing, altering or removing any structure within, upon, or across a
watercourse; and
(5) Altering any embankment within a watercourse.

Implementation. Stream protection ordinances have been enacted in localities in
severT1 states which incorporate a buffer zone within which restrictions are applied to

-26-

most uses and alterations. Special use permits are required for uses and alterations in
the buffer zone.

Private septic tank systems are currently prohibited by the State Health Department
within 50 feet of waterways or water bodies. However, local health officials and
scientific studies acknowledge, that although 50 feet is generally sufficient to achieve
necessary reductions in coliform bacteria, it is probably not wide enough to remove
nutrients, particularl-y nitrates. A 100-150 foot buffer is tile suggested minimum for
removal of nutrients, and a 300-foot zone is advisable (30).

3. Woodlands

Background. The many public benefits of woodlands makes them appropriate areas for
conservation or careful development. These benefits include: wildlife habitat, soil
stabilization, runoff moderation, noise buffer, absorption of certain air pollutants, and
microcl-imate moderation. Mature forests in Virginia take 50 years to develop. Rapid,
severe and widespread disturbance by man of woodlands can alter erosion rates, soil
composition, and pl-ant and animal diversity. Near heavily urbanized areas the
unavailability of seed from scattered trees may impair the restoration of severely
disturbed forests. Preserving stands of trees for natural reseeding is therefore an
overall guideline to be followed in heavily developing areas.

The removal of forest vegetation has been shown to dramatically increase the runoff
of nutrients to streams (5). Undisturbed forests efficiently retain and recycle nutrients
from rainfall through transpiration and soil uptake. A 1967 study (4) by Bormann and
Likens found that undisturbed forestlands lose only 7.2 lbs per acre per year of calcium
(and equally small amounts of other nutrients), while devegetated watersheds experienced
3- to 15-fold increases in the loss of mineral nutrients.

Large tree species have traditionally been valued for their shading ability and tile
commercial value of their wood products, but ecological studies a1so show that understory
trees, such as dogwood, play an important role in nutrient cycling, by acting as nutrient
"pumps" which counter the downward movement of nutrients in soil to keep them in
circulation between microorganisms and the active upper layers of litter and soil (22).
In addition to the wildlife values of a diverse woodland, this factor is important in the
sel.ection of a woodl.and conservation strategy.

Guidelines. Guidelines for the use and management of woodlands should be based on

-27-

the ecological functions of woodlands. Guidelines for the removal or retention of trees
with respect to tree function involve (30):

1. The condition of the woodlands: disease, decay.
2. The necessity to remove trees to construct public facilities and utilities.
3. Topography and susceptibility of soils to erosion.
4. Amount of existing woodland in the neighborhood.
5. The presence of "landmark" trees whose preservation is desirable and will not
unreasonably interfere with the property's use.

The Fairfax County tree preservation ordinance provides a guide for the selection of trees
to be retained by developers, which is shown in Table 4. This tree selection guide
incorporates some ecological considerations. A comprehensive tree selection chart is
included which indicates the characteristics of various species found in Northern
Virginia.

Implementation. A tree preservation ordinance, such as the one enforced in Fairfax
County, is the most common implementation mechanism for woodland protection. many of
these ordinances are based on a somewhat arbitrary preservation standard of saving a
certain number of trees per acre. Similar to wetlands, woodland types vary in value and
in sensitivity to disturbance by man. For this reason, the environmental performance
approach discussed above, which is based on ecological functions, is recommended. Such an
approach may take the form of an ordinance requiring a special permit, certain
requirements in PUD ordinances, or a special provision of the subdivision ordinance.
4. Wildlife - I -

Background. The extent and quality of habitat is the primary determinant of wildlife
populations. The major habitat components are food, cover, and water, which must all be
present within a species' daily cruising radius. Some species, such as the cottontail
rabbit, may have a cruising radius of only one or two acres, while others, like quail,
ran(Je over an area of 20-40 acres (3).

The quality of habitat depends largely on the nature and distribution of vegetation,
which is controlled by ].and use practices. Thus, man's primary impact on wildlife is not
through hunting, trapping and fishing, but through modification of vegetation. man's land
use activities can either improve or degrade the quality of wildlife habitat.

Orban sprawl reduces wildlife range. Continued highway construction results in
increasing tolls of both large and small wildlife species. Tile contamination of water-
courses by human and industrial wastes and nonpoint pollution adversely affects fish and

-28-

Table 4

zxcernz frc@m: Fa_Jrfax County 1.978 ?ubli c FarJ 1 es Manua* , Voll. 3:
Tree Praservaz._4on -and Planting, Cha;D-tar 3-1

Preservation of trees in areas to @ie disturbed

Guide for selection of trees to he retained

1. Proposed development - Consider the mature height and spread of
the trees to insure they will not interfAire with proposed
structures and overhead utilities. Consider the-roof develop-
ment characteristics to insure they will not*cause Interference
with walls, walks, drives, patios, and other paved surfaces or
affect water and sewer lines, septic systems,.or 'underground
drainage systems.

2. High use areas - Consider the proposed use of the developed
area. Select trees which exhibit a tolerance to air pol-
lution if a large amount oil air pollution will be present
(see Tree Selection Chart). Select trees which are suitable
for buf'ierlrrg or screening if noise or objectionable views are
going to be a problem. (Evergreens provide better buffering
and screening than deciduous trees.) Select trees which can
tolerate de-icing salts if there is a chance these will be
used. (See 7ree Selection Chart).

3. Landfills - Consider the proximity to landfills. Gases gen-
erated can travel underground for a considerable distance to
kill trees.

4. Life span - Preference should be given to trees with long life
span.

5. Resistance to disease and insects - Trees that are known to
be resistant to attacks by disease or insects should be given
preference to those known to be susceptible.

Esthetic value - Consideration should @e given to fliowering
habits, autumn foliage, bark and crown characteristics, and
type of fruit.

Wildlife value - Leave trees which provide a good source of
food, cover and nesting sites for wildlife. Example: Oaks,
Hickories, and Dcg@,cods have a high food value.

Tolerance to sudden exposure - Consider'the tolerance of the
trees to the new environmental conditions such as increased
direct sunlight, increased radiant heat from proposed buildings
and pavement, and increased wind. Trees with a strong tap or
fibruous root systern should be given priority over -those with
a weak root system. (See 7ree Selection Chart).

A,opearance - Trees with a well-develo 'Ped crown should generally
be given pre:ference over those with misshapen crowns or trunks,
those with a small crown at the top of a tall trunk or those with
narrow, V-shaped crotches. Those trees which are op-en grown us-
ually possess better form than those which are grown in the woods.

Table 4 (continued)

10. Water table - Consideration should be given to the effect of
grading on the water table and its accompanying effect on trees
retained. Grades that are lowered will cause the water tabl,-!
to drop which will reduce the ground water available to the
trees.

Il. Grading - Consideration must be given to the proximity of
proposed grading to'the trees retained. Grading shall not
take 'olace within the drip line of these trees unless approved
by the Director.

12. Outstanding specimens - Trees of impressive size or shape, of
historical significance, or rare species should be preserved
if possible.

13. Other trees - Consideration should be given to other trees grow-
ing In the immediate area. Example: Virginia Pine, which would
not be of particular value if crowing with hardwoods, would in-
crease in value if this were the only tree species present on
the site; trees standing alone are of higher value than those
in a wooded situation.

14. Comfort - Consider the location of the trees to be retained in
relation to the planned use of the site. Trees provide relief
from summer heat and strong winds.

MM M M

saw m W m Wm m mm

Table 4, (cont-inued)

TREE SELECTION CF-I-RT
IA

;m
00 :1- 3
VI Ln > >
0

0
0
z

0 (U
0
0 0 0
Botanical Nam/Common Name 0
Abies concolor/White Fir M x I S I
Acer ainnala/Amur Maple M x S 7 7
Acer 'olatanoi6es/Norway Maple m S T T T I S T*,
Acer pseudoplatanus/Sycamre Maple Om I T T
Acer rubrum/Red Maple MW S S S. T C*I
Acer sac--harinum/Silver Maple MW S S 7 S I
Acer saccharum/Sugar Maple M S I T T
Aesculus hippocastanum/Horsechestnut m I T
Arnelanchier canadensis/Serviceberry M S T S I T

Betula nigra/River Birch W S S
Betula pendula/European White Birch MW x S I S T I
Betula populifolia/Gray Birch D x I I S

Carpinus carol iniana/Ameri can Hornbeam Om S S T
Carya species/Hickory sp. DM D I S
Catalpa species/Catalpa sp. M I S S I
Celtis occidentalis/Hackberry DW x D T
Carcis canadensis/Redbud M S I S S T
Cornus florida/Flowering Docrqood M S T T T
Crataegus phaeno 'pyrum/
Washington Hawthorne DM D I C*

Elaeagnus augustifolia/Russian olive x T T T

Fagus grandifolia/Ame-rican Beech DM S S S
Fraxinus americana/White Ash MW I S S
Fraxinus pennsylvanica/Green Ash mw x I I S S I

Gingko biloba/Gingko DM x I T S S S C*,
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis/
Thornless Honeylocust DM x I T S T

Ilex opaca/American Holly M I I T T P

Juglans nigra/Slack Walnut D S T I
Juniperus virginiana/Eastern Redcedar DM x D I T T

Koelreuteria paniculare/Goldenraintree Om -X I

Laris laricina/Larch MW S T S S

Table 4 (continued)

Q 6J
j
0 AW
0 0 >-
V) (A > 0 >
>.
AA V 0
@66
C Ij
6. W C < <
C 0 0
M .61 V)

A.J Ln
0 -a
0 r- - X
0 0 >- 0
Botanical Name/Corrmn Name = 0-
Ti-quidambar styraciflua7-weetgum MW - -S S S T
Liriodendron "-ullpfera/Tulippoplar M D S T

Magnolia grand if lora/Southern Magnolia DM
Macnolia soulanceana/Saucer Magnolia M T
Macnolia stellata/Star Macnolia M S
Malus species/Crebapple M, S I S S S T

Nyssa sylvatica/Slack Gum DW S I T T

Oxydendran arboreum/Sourwocd T

PaLlIOWnia tomentosa/Royal Paulownia D.M S S
Phellodendron amurense/Amur Cork Tree DM x S
Picea abies/Norway Spruce M x S S T
tQ Picea alauca/White Spruce M S 5 1 T I S
Plcea pungens glauca/
Colorado Blue S oruce M D T T T S S
Pinus echinata/Shortleaf Pine DM x D S
Pinus nigra/AL-strian Pine M x D T S S I S
Pinus resinosa/Red Pine D D 5 T T
Pinus strobus/Whi-le Pine M x S S S S S S
Pinus sylvestris/Scotch Pine D x S I S S
Pinus thunbe rg i i /J apanese Black Pine -M x T
'inus taeda/Lablolly Pine DW 5 S
Pinus virginiana/Virginia Pine Dw x I I S S
Populus arandidentata/Bictocth Aspe-n 0H I T S I
Populus celtoides;Easte,n Cottonwdod MW S I S I
Platanus occidentalis/Sycamore MW S T
Prunus serotina/Black Cherry M 5 T S
Prunus serrulata'Kwanzan/Kwanzan Cherry M S T T
Pseudotsuga r7enziesii/Douglas Fir M D S I T S
Pyrus calleryana Bradford/Bradford Pear M x I I T

Quer-cus, alba/White Oak Dm D T I S I
Quercus coccinea/scarlet Oak om D T S I
quercus faicata/Southern Red Oak DM x D I
qUercus montana/Chestnut Oak DM x D T I
QUercus palustris/Pin Oak DW, I T S S I
QUercus phellos/Willow Oak ow I T I
Quercus, rubra (borealis)'/Red Oak DM I T T T I
qUercus stellata/Post Oak om x I
QUercus velutina/Black Oak DM D I

Table (continued)

Q >

)K
0
Botanical Name/Cor=n Nam
Robinia pseucoacacia/Black Locust DM x S I T S I S

Salix babylonica/Weeping Willow M S T S S T
Sassafras albidum/Sassafras DM x D
Scphora japonica/Japanese Pagodatree Dh x S
Sorbus americana/Mountainash M S I S S T C*

Taxodium distichum/Bald Cypress MW I
Thuja occ! den ta I i s/Arborvi tae MW I T T T I
Tilia americana/Anerican Linden M, I S I S T
7ilia cordata/Lit-leleaf Linden 14 1 S T S T S P
7suga canadensis/Canadian Hemlock M S S S T

Uimus americana/American Elm M I S S T
Ulmus fulva/Slippery Elm W 1 7

Zalkova ser-aca/Jaoanese Zelkova S

KEY

Moisture Reculrements

I MW Moist to Wet Soil
I M Moist Soil
L11) OM Dry to Moist Soil
D Dry Soil
DW Dry to Wet Soil

Withstands Drv or Poor Sterile Soil

X - Does Withstand

T@oes of Root System

S - Shallow Lateral Root
I - Intermediate wit', Wide Spreading Deep Lateral Roots
0 - Deep Penetrating or Tap Root

Tolerance to De-Icinc Salts

T - Tolerant
I - Intermediate Tolerance
S - Sensitive

Sensitivi ty to Air Pollution

T - Tolerant
I - Intermediate
S - Sensitive
I - Intermediate or Tolerant depending upon reference source
Sensitive or Intermedlate depending upon reference source
Generally Tolerant of parking lot conditions

VDH L T Aooroved Trees

T - Approved as Tailored Tree for Strips 61 and over
C - Approved as Col umnar Tree for Strt;s 81 and over
P - Approved as Pyramidal Tree for Stri;s 12' and over
- A Variety of the Species has been Approved

wildlife populations. Dredqing and filling of marshes for residential, recreational, or
other uses further reduces wildlife habitat areas. Among farming practices which have the
most serious adverse effect upon wildlife are- 1) the use of chemical pesticides, which
have taken a great toll on song and game birds and small. animals; 2) channelization of
streams for improved drainage, which reduces stream valley corridor habitats; and 3)
clearing of woodland habitat arid reduced field vegetation borders which has accompanied
the trend toward increased large-scale farming operations. Land use practices which favor
wildlife are suggested below.

Guidelines. Although the focus of this guidebook has primarily been toward urban
development, there are certain farming practices especially favorable to wildlife which
should be mentioned here, both for the professional and "backyard" farmer. Most farm
crops, particularly corn, small grains and soybeans, are used for food and cover, to some
extent, on a seasonal basis by wildlife. Late harvest and spring tillage, rather than
tillage in t:he fall extend the period in which wildlife can utilize crops and crop
residues. The addition of new crops and crop rotation provide diversification of food and
cover. Fencing livestock out of woodlots conserves wildlife food and cover arid also
prevents excess soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Vegetated turning strips at field
borders, shrubby fence rows, and windbreaks provide wildlife nesting cover.

Residential development can also contribute to the quality of wildlife habitat if
properly designed. Cluster development, which allows the maintenan@e of natural
vegetation areas, furnishes acceptable habitat for many songbirds, as well as quail,
squirrels and rabbits. Dedication of stream valleys and floodplains to open space use not
only provides recreational amenities, but promotes the establishment of open space
corridors through which wildlife can travel to seek food, cover and water. In addition,
the local game warden and the State Wildlife Commission can provide landowners with
information and advice on planting materials which can improve wildlife habitat on
individual properties.

Development Areas

Background. This section focuses on areas that are generally suitable for urban
development and measures which can be taken to minimize the impact of development in these
areas on coastal water resources. Urban development results in wastewater discharges, septic
tank effluents, sedimentation from construction activities, and an increase in total rainfall
runoff. These changes to the natural system can result in both water quality and flooding
problems, which not only effect man's health, safety arid welfare, but also threaten the health
of the marine environment, which in Prince William County consists of the Potomac estuary,
adjacent tidal marshe's, and' the aquatic and terrestial life they support.

-34-

Rainfall. or stormwater runoff is referred to as a nonpoint source of water pollution,
since it does not originate from a single source such as a wastewater treatment plant discharge
and thus is more difficult to control. Typical urban development can cause the following
changes in the factors affecting natural stormwater runoff (33):

a) an increase in impermeable surfaces, and consequent elimination of natural surface
areas which retain precipitation;
b) a decrease in soil porosity due to compaction, which reduces infiltration of
rainfall;
c) construction of improved channels and storm sewers to transport the excess surface
water, which affects the rate and timing of rainfall runoff; and
d) a decrease in vegetation, and consequent reduction in transpiration and interception
of precipitation by plant systems.

Usually one urban change affects several of these factors. For example, paving reduces the
permeability of a natural surface, reduces vegetation and infiltration, thereby increasing peak
rates and volumes of runoff while reducing the amount of water that seeps into the soil for
groundwater recharge. Figure I in Chapter I illustrates this point.

While the impacts of excessive nutrient pollutants from point sources of water pollution,
primarily wastewater treatment plants, on eutrophication in the Potomac estuary are well
documented (39), the relative contribution of nonpoint sources to this problem has not been
well researched. As higher levels of wastewater treatment are implemented within the region
and urbanization continues, urban runoff will undoubtedly become an increasingly significant
source of water pollution in the estuary and adjacent embayments.

Guidelines. The land use/water quality guidelines suggested below for development in
coastal watersheds are divided into two sections: (A) general guidelines for the County's land
use planning and management efforts in this area; and (B) site-specific guidelines for
developers and individual landowners.

A. General guidelines. The following are general guidelines which can assist the County
in developinq and implementing land use plans and policies for the coastal zone:

1. Use the small watershed as a basic planning unit. The watershed is a basic
topographic unit which includes distinct land/water relationships. The elements of
these relationships - slopes, soils, drainage patterns, ground cover - should be
inventoried as a basis for understanding the potential water quality impacts of land
use changes.

2. Adapt the basic pattern and density of major urban development (100 acres

-35-

or more) to the geophysical. characteristics of the watershed. Necessary information
on the characteristics of Proposed urban development includ'es:

a) Percent of impervious cover (pavement, rooftops). For example, the
following figures have been developed by NVPDC for the Occoquan Basin (19):

Land Use Effective % Impervious*

Estate Residential (0.1-0.2 Du/ac) 3-4%
Low Density Residential (0.5 Du/ac) 7%
Low Density Residential (1.0 Du/ac) 124,
Low Density Residential (2.0 Du/ac) 18%
Medium Density Residential (4.0 Du/ac) 28%
medium Density/Townhouse (6.0 Du/ac) 34%
Townhouse (10 Du/ac) 40%
Townhouse (15 Du/ac) 46%
Garden Apartments (20-25 Du/ac) 50 - 60%
High-rise Residential ( >25 Du/ac) 60 - 75%
Institutional 40%
Commercial-/Of f ice 90 - 95%
industrial 65 - 90%

Impervious cover directly connected to stormwater drainageway

b) Disturbed acreage. The following relationships between residential lot
size and the maximum percentage of a site which should be disturbed have
been suggested in Reference (31):

Residential lot size % of Site Disturbed

5 acres 5
2 acres 10
1 acre 15
1/2 acre 25
1/4 acre 50
1/8 acre 75

3. Guide urban development into higher order watersheds. Higher order
watersheds (i.e., downstream watersheds) generally have more stable streamflows than
upstream areas. Urban development in these other areas may increase problems related
to erosion, sedimentation, and flash floods (1). Urban development located near the
mouth of a watershed, i.e., in higher order watersheds, often has less total impact

-36-

on downstream channel segments; e.g., channel enlargement, sedimentation, water
quality degradation (7).

4. Guide urban development into the hiqher elevations of the watershed (ridges
and plateaus) rather than stream valleys. Development away from waterways,
particularly on moderate slopes, not only minimizes adverse water quality impacts on
streams, but also protects development from flooding problems (9).

5. Encourage compact development in or adjacent to existing services. This not
only lessens pressure to develop environmentally sensitive areas, but allows a more
efficient and cost-effective provision of public services (26).

6. Control nonpoint source pollution through land use planning and management.
Studies of nonpoint pollution in the Northern Virginia area (21) have resulted in the
development of the following land use/nonpoint pollution relationships which can be
used in the implementation of nonpoint pollution control measures for tile Prince
William County coastal zone:

a) For nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic matter (biochemical oxygen
demand), annual nonpoint pollution loadings (lbs/acre/year) from
almost all urban land uses were considerably higher than loadings from
forestland, pasture land, and minimum tillacle cropland; moreover, the
urban land uses with the highest levels of impervious ground cover
(e.g., pavement, rooftops) exhibited the highest annual loading rates,
which in some cases, were equivalent to loading rates from
conventional tillage cropland.

b) For heavy metals such as lead and zinc, annual nonpoint pollution
loadings from urban land uses were considerably higher than loadings
from rural-agricultural land uses, with the most highly impervious
land uses exhibiting the highest loading rates, and vice versa.

c) A significant percentage of the plant nutrient loadings from all urban
land uses was consistently unattached to sediment (i.e., found in a
dissolved form), with the mean sediment-borne load in urban runoff
ranging from 27%-42% of the total load for nitrogen and 45%-69% of the
total load for phosphorus; the high quantities of dissolved loadings
are significant from a nonpoint pollution management standpoint since
this portion will generally not be removed by typical stormwater
detention ponds.

-37-

d) A relatively small percentage of the lead loadings from all urban land
uses was consistently unattached to sediment, with the mean
sediment-borne load in urban runoff ranging from 85%-94% of the total
load; the high quantities of suspended lead loadings suggest that
stormwater detention ponds should be rather effective at reducing lead
loadings in urban runoff.

e) Periodic analyses of pollutant loadings in rainfall revealed that air
pollution is an important source of nonpoint pollution loadings and
that atmospheric contributions of plant nutrients do not appear to be
dependent on land use; however, since highly impervious urban land
uses will convert larger amounts of rainfall to runoff than will urban
land uses of lesser imperviousness, the significance of atmospheric
loadings was found to vary from one land use to the next, ranging from
30%-90% for nitrogen, from 15%-50% for phosphorus, and from 5%-10% for
lead.

f) A comparison of "population per acrO and nonpoint pollution "loading
rates per acre" for high density and medium density residential land
uses indicates that the high density land uses exhibit lower "per
capita" loading rates for plant nutrients. However, since an acre of
high density residential development exhibits higher plant nutrient
loadings than an acre of medium density residential development,
comparisons of the two densities are best made on a case-by-case basis
that should consider; (a) whether or not the same control population
is to be supported by the two land use patterns, and (b) the amount of
open space preserved by the two conditions.

The NVPDC studies also identified the following relationships between surface
runoff and soil types:

1. As the density of residential households increases from about one per acre
(single family detached) to greater than 22 per acre (high-rise
residential), the volume of surface runoff increases about four times for
silt loam soils, five times for loam soils, and seven times for sandy loam
soils. Thus, on a per capita basis, the impact of high density residential
land use on runoff volume is less than for low density residential land use
assuming a constant number of people are to be accommodated within a given
watershed.

2. Similar findings were made in respect to total nitrogen, total phosphorus,

-38-

chemical oxygen demand (COD), and extractable lead runoff pollutant loads.
For soils with a loam texture, about three times as much nitrogen, four
times as much phosphorus, six times as much COD, and nine times the
extractable lead annual runoff pollutants load per acre come from high-rise
residential. developments as from large lot single-family detached
developments. on a per capita basis, loadings from the denser residential
categories were lower than those associated with lower density residential
developments.

3. Suburban shopping center and central business district types of development
contribute the greatest per acre annual loads of nitroqen, phosphorus, COD
and lead and the greatest per acre annual runoff volume of urban land uses.

4. For both runoff volumes and runoff j?ollutant loads, the soil texture is an
important variable with looser, more porous soils releasing significantly
less runoff and pollution loads than less porous soils for the land uses
with moderate to low percentages of imperviousness.

Nonpoint pollution problems in the County's coastal zone can be addressed by both
structural and nonstructural control strategies. The more traditional, structural control
measures, including construction of stormwater detention and treatment facilities, land surface
maintenance programs, etc., are also the more costly of the two general control strategies.
While the need for structural controls may not be eliminated by the implementation of
nonstructural strategies such as improved land use management, such a need can be reduced,
along with its associated costs.

Nonstructural land use guidelines, which can minimize post-development runoff volumes and
related pollutant loadings in stabilized urban watersheds, have been incorporated into a
Soil Overlay Zone system mentioned above. This generalized soil classification system, which
can be of assistance to local planners during master planning and site plan review, is
described below.

Soil overlay zones. For the purposes of the soil overlay approach, the soils found
in the County's coastal zone have been grouped into four broad suitability zones:
unsuitable, low density/conservation, medium density, and high/low density. 'I'llese
groupings should be reviewed by local planners and soil experts and revised, if necessary.

1. Unsuitable. These areas include tidal marshes and floodplain soils. Flooding
problems and poor drainage make these areas unsuitable for urban development.
Recommended uses: conservation; low-density recreation such as bird watching,
fishing, and hunting.

-39-

2. Low density/Conservation zone. These areas are characterized by steep soils
and/or soils of high runoff potential that would maximize nonpoint pollution
runoff loadings from urban development. This category generally corresponds to
the "Steep Slope overlay District" of McHenry County, Illinois, discussed above,
with slopes generally excessive.
Recommended uses: Conservation, low-intensity recreation. If conservation uses
are not possible, the placement of large-lot (2-10 acre lots) residential land
uses in these areas is advisable to minimize the amount of impervious surface
area, encourage the maintenance of tree cover, and minimize the amount of
fertilized lawn area. Medium density residential development (1-5 dwelling
units/acre) in these areas may require excessive expenditures for erosion and
runoff pollution control facilities.

3. Medium density zone. These areas contain soils characterized by moderate
permeability and moderate slopes (usually less than 8%), resulting in high soil
moisture storage capacities.
Recommended uses: Medium density residential development (1-5 dwelling
units/acre) in these areas would minimize the washoff of pollutants from
residential lawn surfaces. Medium density residential development generally has
a higher percentage of its total land area in lawn surfaces than other land
uses. Significant dissolved nutrient loadings have been identified in runoff
from residential lawns. Since these pollutant loadings are not associated with
sediment, they cannot be effectively controlled by stormwater detention and
storage measures, which are capable only of trapping sediment and suspended
pollutant loadings. Very costly physical-chemical treatment facilities may be
required to remove the significant percentages of nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings that are dissolved in runoff from residential areas. By designating
areas with the most permeable soils for urban land uses characterized by high
percentages (60% - 85%) of landscaped lawn surfaces, washoff of dissolved plant
nutrients from lawn surfaces during storm events can be minimized by the natural
filtration and storage capacity of the permeable soils. On the other hand, the
placement of medium density residential development on relatively impermeable
land surfaces can be expected to maximize runoff pollution loadings from the
fertilized lawn areas.

4. High Density/Low Density Zone. These areas contain soils characterized by poor
permeability and slopes generally less than 8%.
Recommended uses: Highly impervious land uses (40% or more impervious) should
be encouraged to locate in sewered areas of these zones to minimize
post-development increases in runoff volumes associated with highly impervious

-40-

urban development and to preserve the more permeable soils with high moisture
storage capabilities for medium density residential land uses. In unsewered
areas within this zone, however, poor permeability conditions are likely to
limit urban development to low density residential land uses (1 dwelling
unit/acre or less).

Table 5 groups Prince William County coastal soils into these 4 zones.
Their general location in the County's coastal zone is illustrated on maps for
subsections of the coastal zone presented in Chapter III.

Implementation. Application of the Soil Overlay Zone technique to future updates in tile
comprehensive plan for the County's coastal areas will facilitate the implementation of these
guidelines. Such nonstructural. control strategies may not be able to reduce pollutant loads to
lire-development conditions, and, therefore, they should be supplemented by the implementation
of structural "best management practices" (BMP's).

Urban BMP's for controlling nonpoint pollution can be subdivided into three categories:

1. VOLUME CONTROLS: BMP's that channel a specified volume of runoff and dissolved as
well as suspended pollutant loadings into the soil profile where pollutant removal
can occur throuqh physical, chemical and biological processes.

2. DISCHARGE OR DETENTION CONTROLS: BMP's that store stormwater and rely upon solids
settling processes to remove sediment and sediment-related pollutant loadings.

3. SOURCE CONTROLS: Maintenance programs that minimize the accumulation and exposure of
pollutants on the land surface and in the atmosphere during dry weather periods.

Examples of these types of control measures, along with recommended implementation guidelines,
are provided in Table 6.

Many of these urban BMP's are quite similar to controls typically required for local
stormwater management programs. For example, computer modelling studies (10) by the Northern
Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) have shown that, with minor design modifications,
traditional stormwater detention ponds can achieve the following pollutant reduction rates for
urban land uses:

a) Large-Lot Single Family 20%-30% reductions in annual phosphorus
Residential: loadings; 50%-80% reddctions in annual
lead loadings.

-41-

Table 5

SOIL OVERLAY ZONES
Prince William County Soils
` 1 1
ZONE FIELD NO. NAME ZONE FIELD NO. NAME

Unsuitable 1 Mixed aluvial land Medium Density 44B,C Metapeake fine sandy laom,
3 Congaree silt loam gently sloping-sloping
4 Congaree fine sandy loam 45B,C Matapeake sails
5 Wehadkee silt loam 54B,C Sassafras fine sandy loam, gently
6 Local colluvial land sloping-sloping
8 Worsham silt loam 60B,C Appling fine sandy loam, gently
20 Meadowville silt loam sloping - sloping
89 Tidal marsh 83B Galestown loamy
Low Density 16C Beltsville loams,permeable gently sloping
Conservation substratum 87B,C Wickham loam, gently sloping -
35C,D,E Watt shaly silt loam, sloping- sloping
steep High/Low 16B, 37B Beltsville loams, gently
3BC Beltsville fine sandy loam, Density sloping
sloping 38B Beltsville fine sandy loam
44C,D,E Matapeake fine sandy loam, w/fragipan
sloping-steep 49B Lunt soils, gently sloping
45D,E Matapeake soils 53 Lenoir silt loam
46B Mattalies silt loam 05 Elkton silt loam
47 Dragston fine sandy loam 97 Altavista silt loam
49C.E Lunt soils, sloping-moderately 144B Rusten-Beltsville gravelly fine
Steep sandy loams
51A,B Keyport silt loam 197D Altavista-like soils with
61B,C,D,E Loamy & gravelly sediments, fragipan
steep-sloping 460B Appling-Glenelg soils
63C,D,E Louisburg sandy loam, sloping-
steep
65B Colfax fine sandy loam
84 Fallsington fine sanyd loam
121D,E Manor-Louisburg loams, sloping-
steep
144C,D,E Ruston-Belsville gravelly fine
sandy loams
161C,D,E Silty and Clayey sediments
197C Altavista-like soils with frag-
ipan, sloping
460D,E Appling-Gleneg soils, moderately
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - steep-steep - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I As shown in "Interim Soil Survey Report, Prince William County, Virginia, " U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service w/VPI-SU, July 1976 and discussed in "Soils of Prince William County," Report No. 8, Prince William County with
VPI-SU Agronomy Department and Soil Conservation Service, n.d.

-42-

Table 6

URBAN "BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (IMP) GUIDELINES

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE PROPOSED GUIDELINES

1. VOLUME CONTROLS 1. Encourage the utilization of volume controls
wherever soil conditions are acceeptable.
A. Control measures that artificially increase 2. Volume controls should be designed to control
stormwater infiltration at the source post-development increases in runoff volumes
1. Dutch drain from 10-year design storm.
2. Porous pavement 3. Stormwater management ordinances or policies
3. Turf grids that cover the provision of volume controls
B. Control measures that artificially increase should be adopted by participating jurisdictions.
stormwater infiltration after preliminary
concentrations
1. Seepage lilt
2. Swale storage with seepage pit
3. Rooftop storage with outlet to seepage
pit
4. Stormwater detention pond with seepage
pit

II. DISCHARGE C0NTOLS 1. To Increase stormwater detention time and annual
sediment capture rates, utilize one of the following
A. On-line storage ponds design criterion for onsite detention storage
1. Onsite Detention Ponds facilities:
2. Offsite Retention Ponds a. Release rates should be based on pre-development
peak runoff from 2-year design storm event;
D. Off-line storage plus stormwater treatment storage volume should be based on comparison of
1. Land application of stormwater during. post-development runoff from 10-year design
non-storm periods storm event and pre-development runoff from
2. Physical-chemical treatment 2-year design storm event.
b. Release rates should be based on pre-development
peak runoff from 2-year design storm event and
10-year design storm event, storage volume should
be based on comparison of pre- and post-development
runoff front the 10-year design storm event.
2. Encourage the use of innovative outlet structure de-
signs to increase trap efficiency of on-line detention
storage facilities (e.g., perforated riser pipes).

-43-

Table 6
(con't)
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROPOSED GUIDELI

II. DISCHARGE CONTROLS (continued) 3. Encourage the installation of prototype stormwater
treatment facilities through:
a. Federal demonstration projects
o USEPA "Clean Lakes" Programs (Section 314 of
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments)
o USEPA Research Grants
b. Site plan review negotiations
4. Stormwater management ordinances or policies that
cover the provision of discharge controls should be
adopted by participating jurisdictions.

III. SOURCE CONTROLS 1. To reduce loadings from fertilized lawn surfaces,
incorporate the following soil permeability guidelines
A. Nonstructural Control Measures into local site plan review and master planning
1. Land use controls to achieve reductions programs:
in runoff volumes and loading rates a. Encourage the placement of medium density resi-
a. Soil permeability guidelines for dential land uses on the least permeable soils
site plan review and master planning b. Encourage the placement of highly impervious land
b. Consideration of density tradeoffs uses on the least permeable soils
(i.e., growth centers with rela- c. If areas with soils of low permeablity are not
tively high net densities will suited to highly impervious land uses, encourage
generally produce lower nonpoint conservation or large-lot single family land uses
pollution loading rates per capita
than sprawling land use pattern 2. To reduce per capita loadings, consider the use of
with relatively low not densities) residential clustering techniques during the develop-
during master plan preparation ment of local master plans
2. Improved fertilizer and pesticide manage- 3. Encourage the adoption of improved plant chemical
ment practices to minimize the accumulation management practices
of potential pollutants on pervious surfaces 4. Develop local urban cleanliness programs
a. public education programs 5. Develop programs for improved cleaning and maintenance
b. Improved management guidelines for of paved areas and drainage facilities
plant chemical applications to public
lands (e.g., require use of slow-
release fertilizers)
c. incentives or disincentives for improved
plant chemical management practices
on private property (e.g., restrictions
on use of high-nitrogen fertilizer;
incentives for the use of slow-release
fertilizers). -44-

Table 6

(con't)

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACHCES PROPOSED GUIDELINES

SOURCE CONTROLS (continued)

3. Urban Cleanliness Measures
a. Public education programs
o Anti-litter
o Management of domestic pet'wastes
b. Economic incentive programs
o Recycling of automobile waste
materials (e.g., used oil)

D. Structural Control Measures
1. Improved cleaning and maintenance
programs fors
a. Streets
b. Parking lots
c. Urban drainageways and drainage
structures

-45-

b) Medium Density Single 25%-45% reductions in annual phosphorus
Family Residential: loadings; 50%-75% reductions in annual
lead loadings.

c) Townhouse/Garden Apt.: 30%-50% reductions in annual phosphorus
loadings; 45%-70% reductions in annual
lead loadings.

d) Shopping Center: 30%-50% reductions in annual phosphorus
loadings; 50%-75% reductions in annual
lead loadings.

Detention ponds that capture the "first flush" of nonpoint pollution loadings and provide the
maximum amount of offline detention can be expected to provide pollutant removal rates that are
somewhat higher. Likewise, "volume" controls (e.g., seepage pits, Dutch drains) that reduce
the amount of runoff from the urban land use can generally be expected to provide higher
removal rates since these measures are capable of removing both dissolved and sediment-borne
loadings. However, comparisons of estimated BMP efficiencies with runoff pollution loading
rate increases resulting from urban development suggest that most BMP's will not be able to
prevent urban loadings from exceeding predevelopment conditions (8). This affirms the
recommendation that the implementation of the land use planning and management guidelines
outlined herein are an important supplement to traditional structural control techniques.

More detailed information on the engineering aspects of urban BMP's can be obtained from
the State "Urban Best Management Practices Handbook" (38). Further information on the relative
efficiencies and cost effectiveness of these measures has been developed by the NVPDC as part
of the Occoquan Basin Management Program (10).

B. Site-Specific Guidelines. measures can be taken by developers and individual land-
owners to reduce adverse impacts on coastal waters at the site design, site
preparation, and site occupancy stages of development. Table 7 indicates
considerations of natural conditions during site selection and design to minimize
post-development runoff pollution loadings. The most damaging impact of site
preparation is erosion resulting from construction activities. Typical erosion rates
from construction sites as compared to other land uses is given below (9):

Land Use Sediment Produced (Tons/sq.mi./yr.)

Forest 9-50
Urban/Suburban 50-100
Farmland 1,000-5,000
Denuded construction sites 25,000-50,000

-46-

Table 7

SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR MINIMIZING RUNOFF POLLUTION

LOADINGS FROM URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Recommended Land Uses for Areas Exhibiting Specified Physical Features

Soil Permeabilit Land Slope

Land Use
Category Slow(<2 in/hr) Moderate(2-6 in/hr) Severe(15%+) Stee.-(7-15%) Moderate (<7%

.1-.2 DUA x x x

.2-.5 DUA x x x

.5 DUA x x x

1 DUA x x x

2 DUA x x

2-4 DUA x x

4-8 DUA x

B-12 DUA x x x

12-16 DUA x x x

High Rise
Residential x x

Co,rdnercial x

Forest
Conser-vation x x x

Recommended for townhouse/garden apartment projects with impervious ground
cover percentages less than 40%.

-47-

Developers and landowners contemplating any land-disturbing activities must comply with
the County sediment and erosion control ordinance, which requires a permit for such
activities and specifies acceptable erosion and sediment control measures.

Pollution resulting from stabilized urban areas can also be managed. Studies by the
NVPDC and the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab have shown that significant nutrient
loadings can be attributed to fertilized lawn surfaces (21). Much of the problem is the
result of improper'timing and rates of fertilizer application. Contrary to popular belief
and the advertising of fertilizer retailers, the best time to apply fertilizer is in the
fall, before the first frost. This allows the fertilizer time to soak into the soil all
winter. The high saturation of soils during most of the Spring when fertilizer use is
highest will reduce the absorption of fertilizer applied at this time. A light
application in the Spring--half the manufacturer's recommended amount--will promote
moderate growth and reduce the incidence of d'isease. In addition, homeowners should be
encouraged to choose fertilizers with high percentages of slow-release nitrogen. The
slow-release nitrogen is preferable from a nonpoint pollution control standpoint because
it is less susceptible to being washed away and thus contributing to the eutrophication of
the estuary. Slow-release fertilizers also save labor, since fewer applications are
required.

Recommended fertilizer applications vary according to grass type and soil
composition, but a general rule of thumb for both the establishment and maintenance of
lawns is two pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet of lawn area. For example, that
would be approximately 30 to 40 pounds of 5-10-5, 6-12-6, or 5-10-10 fertilizer per 1,000
square feet. It
These measures will not only improve water quality, but will assure maximum
effectiveness of the fertilizers while achieving cost-savings for the homeowner.
Homeowners may obtain advice on lawns and gardens from the local extension agent of the
Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University (VPI&SU) Cooperative Extension
Service. VPI&SU offers a free soil test which determines individual site lime and
fertilizer needs. Appendix III provides a more detailed fertilizer guide for typical
turfgrass of Prince William County, as recommended by the VPI&SU Extension Division.

-48-

References of Chapter 11

I - Atlanta Regional Conunission, "Chattahooche Corridor Study," Atlanta: ARC, 1972.

2. Baltimore Regional Planning Council, "A Plan and Program for the Acquisition and Development of
Open Space in the Baltimore Region. Part I: Goals, Objectives, and Standards," Baltimore: RPC,
1969.

3. Barick, Frank B., and T. Stuart Critcher, Wildlife and Land Use Plannin with Particular
Reference to Coastal Counties, Interagency Wildlife Coordination Section, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, April 1975.

4. Bormann, F. If. and G.E. Likens, "Nutrient Cycling," Science, Vol. 155, 1967, pp. 424-429.

5. Burroughs, Max A., "Gabions: economical, environmentally compatible bank control," Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, January 1979.

6. Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual for the Conservation of Coastal
Zone Resources, The Conservation Foundation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1977.

7. Coughlin, Robert E. and Hammer, Thomas R. Stream Quality Preservation Through Planned Urban
Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1973.

8. DeFalco, Paul, Jr., "The Estuary, Septictank of the megalopolis," Estuaries, G.H. Lauff, ed.,
Pub. No. 83, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1967,
pp. 701-703.

9. Elfers, Karl and Maynard M. Hufschmidt, Open Space and Urban Water Management, Phase 1: Goals
and Criteria, and Phase II, Case Studies and Findings, Water Resources Research Institute,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, January 1975 and December 1976.

10. , "Estimated Pollutant Removal Rates for Typical Urban 'Best Management Practices'
(BMP's) for Controlling Nonpoint Pollution," interim report prepared for the Metropolitan
Washington Water Resources Planning Board, February 1979.

ll* Fairfax County 1978 Public Facilities Manual, Vols. 1, 2, and 3.

12. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Coastal Zone Management- Atlas, Tallahassee,
Florida, 1972.

13. Frankenberg, D. and C. W. Westerfield, "Oxygen demand & oxygen depletion capacity of sediments
from Wassaw Sound, Georgia," Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science, Vol. 26, 1968, pp. 160-172.

-49-

14. Georgia Mountains Planning and Development Commission, Georgia Mountains Areawide Land
Development Policies and Procedures Manual, Gainesville, Georgia, January, 1974.

15. Hobbie, John E. and B. J. Copeland, "Effects of Control of Nutrients on Estuarine Ecosystems,"
and Schubel, J. R. and R. H. Meade, "Man's Impact on Estuarine Sedimentation," Estuarine
Pollution Control & Assessment, Vol. I, Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

16. Institute for Environmental Studies, Regional Science Research Institute and U.S. Geological
Survey, The Plan and Program for the Brandywine, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1968.

17. Marcellus, Kenneth, George Davis and Gene M. Silberhorn, "Local Management of Wetlands;
Environmental Considerations," Special Report No. 35, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Va., June 1973.

18. McHarg, Ian, Design With Nature, Gardin City: Doubleday & Co., 1969.

19. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Assessments of Water Quality Management
Strategies with the Occoquan Basin Computer Model," prepared for the Occoquan Technical Review
Committee, January 1979.

20. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Occoquan Basin Nonpoint Pollution Management
Program," December 1978 (Rev.)

21. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and VPI & SU, "Occoquan/Four Mile Run Nonpoint
Source Correlation Study," prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning
Board, July 1978; and Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Summary Edition of the Occoquan
Quarterly: 1973-1976, Vol IV, No. 4, Spring 1976.

22. Odum, E. P., Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1971.

23. Odum H. T. and K. C. Ewel, eds., "Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling and conser-
vation," Annual Report to the National Science Foundation (RANN) and the Rockerfeller Foundation,
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1974.

24. Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, and North Carolina Coastal Manage-
ment Program, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development, State of North Carolina
Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, D.C., U:S. Dept.
of of Commerce, August 1978.

-50-

25. Raleigh, City of; Wake County, and Wake Soil and Water Conservation District, "Standards and
Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control," Raleigh, N.C.: City of Raleigh, October
1972, with revisions 1.973, 1974.

26. Real Estate Research Institute, The Costs of Sprawl, prepared for the Council on Environmental
Quality, HUD, and EPA, Washington, April 1974.

27. Smith, J. N., The Decline of Galveston Bay, the Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1972.

28. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, "Floodland and Shoreland Development Guide,"
Waukesha: SWRPC, 1968.

29. Theberge, Louise and Conald F. Boesch, "Values and Management Strategies for Nonvegetated Tidal
Wetlands," Special Scientific Report No. 90, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloncester
Point, Va., December 1978.

30. Thurow, Charles, William Toner and Duncan Erley, Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A
Practical Guide for Local Administrators, Planning Advisory Service Report Nos. 307, 308,
American Society of Planning Officials, June 1975.

31. Tourbier, Joachim, et.al-. "The Cristina Basin: The Protection of Water Resources as a Basis for
Planning in Developing Areas," Water Resources Center, University of Del-aware, Newark, 1973.

32. Tulare County Planning Department and Grunwald, Crawford Associates, "Environmental Resources
Management Element," Hanford, California: Tulare County Planning Department, 1972.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Preventive Approaches to Stormwater Management," EPA
440/9-77-001, Water Planning Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.,
January 1977.

34. Valiela, I. and J. M. Teal, "Nutrient limitation in salt marsh vegetation," Ecology of Malophytes
(11. J. Reimold and W. Ii. Queen, eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1973.

35. Valiela, I., J. M. Teal, and C. D. Van Raalte, "Nutrient and sewage sludge enrichment experiments
in a salt marsh ecosystem," INTECOL Symposium on Physiological Ecology of Plants & Animals in
Extreme Environments, Dubrovnik, 1972.

36. Virginia Institute of Marine science, "Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Guidelines for Activities
Affecting Virginia Wetlands," Interim Report No. 3, Gloucester Point, Va., June 1974.

-51-

37. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "Shoreline Situation Report; Prince William County,
Virginia," Gloucester Point, Va., 1976.

38. Virginia State Water Control Board, "Urban Best Management Practices Handbook," Richmond, Va.,
May 1979.

39. Water Resources Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, "Metropolitan
Washington Water Quality Management Plan," Washington, D.C., March 1978.

-52-

CHAPTER III

COASTAL RESOURCES OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

Introduction

An essential- part of coastal resources planning and management is an inventory of existing
resources in the coastal zone, both natural and man-made. This chapter presents such an inventory
for Prince William County's coastal zone. While this inventory attempts to be comprehensive,
available information is usually somewhat generalized, and should be supplemented by site-specific
determinations when making individual land use decisions.

To simplify the presentation, the coastal zone has been divided into 5 segments, based on
natural divisions of the shoreline such as creeks and points of land. For each segment, information
is provided on the characteristics of both the shoreline and the fastlands, including both natural
and man-made coastal resources. The approximate land area of each segment is shown in Table 8. For
wetlands, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) Site and Type number from the State
wetlands inventory program is Indicated to assist in management decisions concerning these regulated
areas. All resource information is illustrated on a series of maps for each segment, which include
natural features, existing land use, future land use, and soil suitability zones. The soil
suitability classifications have been defined previously in Chapter II.

The resource inventory must be supplemented by the land use planning and management guidelines
provided in Chapter II. These guidelines are designed to assist in making land use decisions
concerning the County's coastal resources. In order to facilitate cross-referencing, the resource
types identified in this chapter correspond to the resource categories discussed in Chapter 11.

SEGMENT 1: 1-95 Bridge to Marumsco Creek
A. Characteristics of Shoreline. (See Map 2.)

1. Natural Resources
a) Wetlands. The total area of wetlands in Segment I is 87 acres. Individual
wetland sites are as follows:
(1) Occoquan River at Woodbridge. Area: 5 acres; VIMS SITE #: 23; VIMS TYPE
Ix This is a low, embayed marsh dominated by pickerel weed, arrow arum
and yellow pond lily, which includes some areas of tidal flats.
(2) Occoquan River. Area: 26 acres; VIMS SITE It: 24; VIMS TYPE #: XI
This is a pocket marsh of high elevation, dominated by hibiscus and
jewel weed with a fringe of pickerel weed.
(3) Conrad Island. Area: 2 acres; vims SITE It: 22; VIMS TYPE #: VII

-53-

Table 8

Land Area in Prince William County Coastal Zone By Segment

Segment Shoreline Boundaries Approximate Acr eage

1 1-95 Bridge to Marumsco Creek 1945

2 Marumsco Cree k to Freestone Point 3382

3 Freestone Point to Cockpit Point 4868

4 Cockpit Point to Shipping Point 4649

5 Shipping Point to Chopawamsic Creek 3334

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL COASTAL ZONE 18,178

-54-

A small fringing marsh is found here, dominated by the pickerel
weed-arrow arum community of the island.
(4) Marumsco Creek. Area: 55 acres; VIMS SITE It: 21; TYPE #: XI
A creek marsh with pickerel weed and pond lily is located along the
creek channels. VIMS reports evidence of some channelization.

b) Beaches. (Total length: 2 miles)
Beaches in Segment 1 are of fair to poor quality for recreation use. These
beaches are fairly wide and often vegetated. Of the 2 miles of beach within
Segment 1, 0.1 mile is under the 1-95 bridge and 1.4 miles are within the U.S.
Military Reservation, thus restricting public access and usage.

c) Bluffs. (Total length: 0.2 miles)
The short distance of bluff in this segment is located adjacent to 26 acres
of wetlands, making preservation especially important.

2. Man-made Resources. Approximately 45% of the shoreline in segment 1 i's in federal
ownership. Man-made features of the shoreline include:
a) Shore Protection Structures. (Total length: 1.9 miles)
There are about 5,600 feet of effective rubble rip rap along the shoreline
of the Military Reservation.

b) Shorefront Recreational Facilities.
There is a boat ramp at the Route I bridge and a 78-acre Veterans Memorial
Park on the west side ot Marumsco Creek, owned and operated by the County.

B. Characteristics of Fastlands

1. Natural Pesour-ce-s
a) soils and Slopes. (See Map 3.)
The major remaining undeveloped area, north of the Military Reservation and
east of Woodbridge, contains moderate slopes with varying moisture storage
capabilities which can support a mixture of medium density and high density land
uses. While current zoning in this area (see Land Use below) proposes such a
mixture, the zoning pattern does not appear to be entirely compatible with the
soil suitabilities for nonpoint pollution management within this area. Nonpoint
pollution control considerations seem to indicate that more of this land might
be programmed for medium density residential uses and less for industrial. and
townhouse uses, within market limitations.

-55-

b) Vegetation and Wildlife. (See Map 2.)
Because of the built-up nature of this segment, the only significant
vegetation and wildlife habitat area is found at the mouth of Marumsco Creek.
It is recommended that the existing conservation use of this area be maintained.

c) Waterways. (See Map 2.)
Occoquan Creek, Belmont Bay, and Marumsco Creek are the most significant
water bodies in this segment. While most areas of the shoreline have elevations
of at least 10 feet msl, part of the Military reservation south of Taylors Point
is susceptible to flooding during periods of abnormally high water. Further
intense urban development above Marumsco Creek may threaten the embayed wetlands
at its mouth. Nonpoint pollution control measures which might be instituted to
minimize the addition of nutrients and other pollutants to this area from future
development are discussed in Chapter II.

2. Man-made Resources (See Maps 4 and 5.)
a) Land use
Most of the segment is programmed for urban or governmental use.
Townhouse, apartment, and heavy industrial land uses are zoned for the major
undeveloped area, north of the Military Reservation. Conservation-Park/Public
Use dominates in the area adjacent to Marumsco Creek.

b) Developments of Regional Benefit/Key Facilities
The U.S. Military Reservation at Deephole Point is the primary non-local
land use in this segment. If a State Coastal Resources Management Program is
established, land use decisions at federal installations would be required to be
consistent with coastal land use plans and policies.

SEGMENT 2: Marumsco Creek to Freestone Point
A. Characteristics of Shoreline (See Map 6.)

1. Natural Resources
a) Wetlands. The total area of wetlands in Segment 2 is approximately 333 acres.
Individual wetland sites are as follows:
(1) Upper Farm Creek. Area: 36 acres; VIMS SITE #: 20; VIMS TYPE #: XI
This is a creek marsh, crossed by a dirt road, but a culvert allows
some tidal flushing.
(2) Lower Farm Creek. Area: 7 acres; VIMS SITE #: 19; VIMS TYPE #: XI
This is a pocket marsh, containing a pickerel weed fringe with other
species landward.
(3) Occoquan Bay. Area: 61 acres; VIMS SITE #: 18; VIMS TYPE #: XI

-56-

A large fringing marsh is found here; cattails dominate its interior.
(4) Neabsco Creek. Area: 229 acres; VIMS SITE It: 17; VIMS TYPE It: XI
Neabsco Creek contains a large creek marsh which consists of a mixed
freshwater marsh community.

b) Beaches. (Total length: 1.6 miles)
Beach quality is poor to good for recreational use. Narrow, strip beaches,
often vegetated, are found near Featherstone Shore and from the railroad bridge
at Neabsco to Freestone Point. Small pocket beaches occur in several areas near
Bayside Park and south of Featherstone. The beaches at Neabsco and Firestone
Point, however, are fairly wide and clean.

c) Bluffs. (Total length: 0.3 miles)
Bluffs in this segment are found at Freestone Point. This area is
experiencing some minor erosion due to rainfall runoff and undercutting of the
cliff base by wave action from the Potomac, but the rocky composition of these
bluffs apparently allows them to withstand major erosive forces.

2. Man-made Resources.. Approximately 61% of Segment 2 shoreline is in private
ownership, with 25% in federal ownership and 15% owned by the County. Man-made
features of the shoreline include:

a) Shore Protection Structures. (Total length: 1.5 miles)
There are approximately 3,600 feet of effective rubble riprap from Deephole
Point to the mouth of Marumsco Creek. Bayside Park and Featherstone Shores have
about 3,400 feet of bulkhead, most of which VIMS has judged to be effective.
This area also contains several groins. The marina just north of Featherstone
Shores has approximately 300 feet of bulkhead, mainly for commercial purposes.
Another 1200 feet of hulkheadinq, primarily serving a cosmetic rather than
erosion control function, is found at the marina facilities on the south bank of
Marumsco Creek. The railroad bridge is stabilized on the east side by an
additional 50 feet of rubble riprap.

b) Shorefront Recreational-Facilities.
Docking facilities, boat ramps and piers are found at Bayside Park,
Featherstone shores, and Neabsco.

B. Characteristics of Fastlands

1. Natural Resources.
a) Soils and Slopes. (See Map 7)

-57-

Extreme slopes are associated with the minor stream valleys draining into
the north side of Neabsco Creek. Additional severe slope conditions occur along
the southern bank, near Neabsco and extending to Freestone Point. The portion
of this segement which is most suitable for intensive urban development, to the
west of Belmont Bay, is already almost entirely devoted to urban land uses.
Conflicting land use zoning and suitability appears to occur, however, in the
upper portion of the Farm Creek marsh system, which is programmed for heavy
industrial use. While the remainder of the segment is primarily classified in
the low density soil suitability zone, much of this land is committed or
programmed for medium and high intensity urban land uses.

b) Vegetation and Wildlife. (See Map 6.)
Extensive woodlands are found in the hilly areas on either side of Neabsco
Creek, to the south of existing urban development in the Marumsco Woods area.
These forested areas are predominantly hardwood, with scattered pine and mixed
pine-hardwood areas. Large expanses of wetlands occur in the Neabsco Creek
system and to the east of the railroad tracks along Farm Creek. Both the forest
lands and wetlands represent significant wildlife habitats, between them
supporting such important hunting species as deer, wild turkey, quail, rabbit,
squirrel, and fur-bearing mammals, such as the otter.

c) Waterways. (See Map 6.)
Belmont Bay and Neabsco Creek are the most significant water bodies in this
segment. The only area susceptible to flooding, aside from the tidal marshes,
is the Bayside Park area. According to the VIMS Shoreline survey (37), many
structures here are below the 10-foot msl contour line, several of which might
be inundated during periods of abnormally high water. The extensive Neabsco
Creek wetlands system provides both flood protection and water quality benefits
in its present state, including the filtering of effluent from a sewage
treatment plant on its southern shore.

2. Man-made Resources
(See Maps 8 and 9)
a) Land use.
Most of the upper portion of Segment 2 is presently in urban development,
including commercial, medium density residential, and townhouse land uses. A
section to the northwest of Neabsco Creek is zoned for a similar mixture of
urban uses. much of the southern bank of Neabsco Creek is committed to medium
density residential development, with some commercial land uses existing at
Neabsco. Plans for a large public park in the historical Freestone Point area
are currently being developed.

-58-

b) Developments of Reqional Benefit
There are no developments of greater than local significance in this
segment.

SEGMENT 3: Freestone Point to Cockpit Point
A. Characteristics of Shoreline. (See Map 10.)

1. Natural Resources
a) Wetlands. The total area of wetlands in segment 3 is approximately 212 acres.
Individual wetlands locations are as follows:
(1) Powell's Creek. Area: 1-23 acres; VIMS SITE It: 16; VIMS TYPE #: XI
A large creek marsh is found at the mouth of Powell's Creek, the
lowest downstream portions of which are dominated by pickerel weed and
yellow pond lily. Wild rice and pickerel weed dominate the interior of the
marsh, while the uplands and woody swamp are bordered by cattails, hibiscus
and smartweeds. This marsh is a valuable fish nursery and spawning area as
well as a wildlife habitat.
(2) Powell's Creek. Area: 89 acres
A fringe marsh extends along either side of the mouth of Powell's
Creek.

b) Beaches. (Length: 2.2 miles)
There are beaches of fair to good quality for recreational use along tjie
Potomac shore in this segment, with some long stretches of wide, clean beaches.

c) Bluffs. (Length: 0.34 mile)
The small bluff area in this segment is located adjacent to the fringe
marsh on Powell's Creek.

2. Man-made Resources. Ownership of Segment 3 shoreline is completely private.
a) Shore Protection Structures. (Length: 0.2 mile)
There is one groin located along a beach area which VIMS has judged to be
effective.

b) Shorefront Recreational Facilities.
There is one large fishing pier and a boathouse on the Potomac beach.

B. Characteristics of Fastlands

1. Natural Resources.
a) Soils and Slopes. (See Map 11.)
Much of the area bordering Powell's Creek is characterized by soil and

-59-

slope conditions which are unsuitable for urban development. The majority of
the developed land in this segment is most suitable for low density residential
development or conservation uses, with small scattered areas also suitable for
medium or high density development. Access to much of this area is hindered by
steep slope conditions which may reduce the feasibility of higher density urban
development in this segment.

b) Vegetation and Wildlife (See Map 10.)
The majority of the segment (77%) is in unmanaged woodlands. There is some
waterfowl hunting in the marshy areas of Powell's Creek. Bald eagles are found
along the coast with small fur-bearing mammals such as muskrats, otters and
beavers inhabiting the waterway areas. Turkey and deer are also commonly found
in this segment. Existing wildlife habitats may be threatened by intensive
urban development in this area.

c) Waterways (See Map 10.)
Powell's Creek is the major water body in this segment. The land rises
rapidly from the coast and is not subject to flooding in most of this segment,
except for the marshy areas around the mouth of Powell's Creek. Sport boating
and fishing are common in this area.

2. Man-made Resources.
a) Land Use. (See Maps 12 and 13.)
Approximately one-half of the shoreline of this segment is zoned for
industrial use while the northern shore is designated for parkland. Much of the
land area in the interior of the segment is currently devoted to sinqle family
or townhouse developments. Large areas remain uncommitted, with most of the
committed areas designated for single family homes and townhouses.

b) Developments of Regional Benefits/Key Facilities
A future public park at Freestone Point is planned for this segment.

SEGMENT 4: Cockpit Point to Shipping Point
A. Characteristics of Shorelands. (See Map 14.)

1. Natural Resources
a) Wetlands . Segment 4 contains a total of 242 acres of wetlands. Individual
sites include:
(1) Lower Quantico Creek. Area: 4 acres; VIMS SITE #: 8; VIMS TYPE #: XI
This is a spit marsh with diverse, high marsh flora, such as hibiscus
and water hemp, and a pickerel weed fringe.

-60-

(2) Middle Quantico Creek. Area: 17 acres; VIMS SITE It. 9; VIMS TYPE #: XI
This site contains a large pocket marsh of low elevation which is
dominated by pickerel weed and yellow pond lily, with other species along
the landward border.
(3) Middle Quantico Creek. Area; 3 acres; VIMS SITE It: 10; VTMS TYPE It: XI
A low elevation spit marsh which is dominated by pickerel weed and
pond lily, is also found midway tip Quantico Creek.
(4) Upper Quantico Creek. Area: 109 acres; VIMS SITE It: 11; VIMS TYPE #: XI
A large, fringing marsh with yellow pond lily extends onto tidal flats
in Upper Quantico Creek while pickerel weed and wild rice dominate the
interior of this wetlands site.
(5) Upper Quantico Creek. Area: 106 acres; VTMS SITE: 4: 12; VIMS TYPE #: XI
A large creek marsh with yellow pond lily is located along the
channels and the entire lower section of Upper Quantico Creek. Pickerel
weed and wild rice dominate the interior of this site.
(6) Middle Quantico Creek. Area; I acre; VIMS SITE It: 13; VIMS TYPE #: VI
This is a small pocket marsh dominated by cattails.
(7) Middle Quantico Creek. Area: 1 acre; VIMS SITE #: 14; VIMS TYPE It: XI
An additional small pocket marsh which is dominated by cattails and
reed grass is found in the middle section of Quantico Creek. The reed
grass indicates that the marsh has been disturbed, probably by fill.
(8) Middle Quantico Creek. Area: I acre; VIMS SITE It: 15; VIMS TYPE ff: XI
This site contains a small fringing marsh with pickerel weed along the
water channel and marsh hibiscus dominating the interior.

b) Beaches. (Length: 4.7 miles)
Beaches in Segment 4 are fair to poor quality for recreation use. There
are several beach areas in the northern part of this segment that are fairly
wide, but most of the beaches in the segment are narrow, strip beaches.

c) Bluffs. (Length: 0.9 miles)
Bluffs in this segment are located along the Potomac shore. The bluffs
north of the VEPCO substation at Possum Point are experiencing slight to
moderate erosion, due primarily to downhill rain and wave actions. Another
small bluff area is found at Possum Nose, just south of Cockpit Point.

2. Man-made Resources. Segment 4 shoreline is seventy-seven percent in private
ownership and twenty-three percent in Federal ownership. Man-made shoreline features
are as follows:
a) Shore Protection Structures. (Length: 0.9 miles)

-61-

VEPCO substation and 1800 feet of bulkheading in Quantico Creek, primarily for
There are 3000 feet of stabilization structures near Possum Point for the

individual residential land uses.

b) Shorefront Recreation Facilities.
There are several private-piers in this segment and a large pier at the
substation site, but no developed public access sites.

B. Characteristics of Fastlands

1. Natural Resources.
a) Soils and Slopes (See Map 15.)
Much of the land in this segment is classified as most suitable for low
density use. The presence of steep slopes in the segment, especially within the
Cherry Hill area, may limit access to developable areas. There are also many
marshy areas around Quantico Creek. Further urban development inland from the
marsh system should include nonpoint pollution and stormwater management
controls.

b) Vegetation and Wildlife (See Map 14.)
Approximately one-half of this segment is wooded and undeveloped. This
segment is inhabited by small fur-bearing mammals, turkey, and deer, and is
frequented by the bald eagle. The Cherry Hill area, flanked by marshlands and
the estuarine system and representing the largest, privately-owned undeveloped
area in the Prince William coastal zone, provides significant opportunity for
public, low-intensity outdoor recreational uses.

c) Waterways (See Map 14.)
Quantico Creek is the major body of water in this segment. The majority of
the shoreline in this segment is characterized by average elevations of 20 feet
msl, minimizing flooding potential.

2. Man-made Resources. (See Maps 16 and 17.)
a) Land use.
The shoreline of the northern portion of this segment is currently either'
in industrial use or zoned for industrial use. A VEPCO power station is the
major existing industrial site and is located along the southern shore of this
segment. Some single family and townhouse developments exist in the segment
interior. While there are some areas zoned for single family use, large areas
of this segment remain uncommitted to development. Land use on the south side
of Quantico Creek is dominated by the Quantico Marine Corps Base.

-62-

b) Developments of Regional Benefit/Key Facilities
A VEPCO power plant substation is located near Possum Point. The Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad line runs along the Potomac shoreline.

SEGMENT 5: Shipping Point to Chopawamsic Creek
A. Characteristics of Shorelands. (See Map 18.)

1. Natural Resources
a) Wetlands. The total area of wetlands in Segment 5 is 115 acres. Individual
wetland sites include:
(1) Chopawamsic Creek. Area: 27 acres; VIMS SITE ff: 1; VIMS TYPE #: VII
Numerous low elevation marsh islands which are primarily mudflats
during the winter, lie in this area along the Prince William/Stafford
County line.
(2) Upper Chopawamsic Creek. Area: 28 acres; VIMS SITE It: 3; VIMS TYPE It: IX
A creek marsh of low elevation is located along the southern boundary
of the Marine Corps Base with cattails found along the landward border.
(3) Chopawamsic Creek. Area: 19 acres; VIMS SITE 11: 3; VIMS TYPE #: XI
A pond lily and pickerel weed fringe is found near the mouth of the
creek. with other marsh species found along the landward edge.
(4) Chopawamsic Creek. Area: 32 acres; VIMS SITE It: 4; VIMS TYPE It: XI
A fringing marsh extends just northwest of the Marine Corps Air
Station, with a large number of cattails in the higher elevations.
(5) Chopawamsic island. Area: 4 acres; VIMS SITE It: 5; VIMS TYPE It: XI
A freshwater high marsh is found on the northern end of the island,
dominated by hibiscus.
(6) Quantico. Area: 2 acres; VIMS SITE #: 6; VIMS TYPE It: VI
This marsh, located across from Chopawamsic Island and north of the
air strip, has been disturbed, with the lower portion largely filled.
(7) Lower Quantico Creek. Area: 3 acres; VIMS SITE It: 7; VIMS TYPE #: VII
A low elevation marsh, adjacent to the Quantico Creek railroad bridge,
is dominated by pickerel weed and water hemp.

b) Beaches. (Length: 1.44 miles)
The beach areas in this segment, scattered along the Potomac shore, are of
poor quality.

c) Bluffs. (Length: 0.1 mile)
The small bluff area in this segment is located adjacent to a fringe marsh
area along Chopawamsic Creek.

-63-

2. Man-made Resources. Only eight percent of Segment 5 is in private ownership. The
remainder is in federal ownership in the Quantico Marine Corps Base. Man-made
shoreline features include:
(Length: 1.44 miles)
a) Shore Protection Structures.
Stabilization structures are located along the Potomac shore at the town of
Quantico. Stabilization on Chopawamsic Island has failed to halt the moderate
erosion occurring at its southern end.

b) Shorefront Recreational Facilities
There are two large piers at the Headquarters Battalion Boat Dock with
several boat slips.

B. Characteristics of Fastlands

1. Natural Resources.
a) Soils and Slopes (See Map 19.)
Soil and slope conditions are mixed in this segment, with the low density
soil suitability zone predominating as it has in other segments. Principle
unsuitable areas are found along the major creeks and stream valleys.

b) Vegetation and Wildlife (See Map 18.)
The majority of this segment is in mature hardwoods, comprising an
extensive habitat area which is broken up only occasionally by Marine Corps Base
facilities. Chopawamsic Creek's extensive marsh system also supports a variety
of bird, waterfowl, and wildlife species.

c) Waterways (See Map 18.)
Chopawamsic Creek and the Potomac River constitute the principle waterways
in this segment. Public access to these waterways is limited by federal
government ownership of the entire shoreline.

2. Man-made Resources
a) Land use. (See maps 20 and 21.)
WI-th the exception of Chopawamsic Island and the Town of Quantico, the
entire segment is in military use, precluding private development for the
forseeable future.

b) Developments of Regional Benefit
The Quantico Marine Corps Base is a major military installation from a
national perspective.

-64-

Summary of Chapters II and III.

The inventory of coastal resources in Prince William County indicates both problems and oppor-
I
tunities for those planning for and using the land and water resources of the County's coastal zone.
Problems, such as increased nonpoint pollution and the degradation of wetlands, are likely to arise
as development pressure continues to be experienced in proximity to the area's critical
environmental resources. The soil suitability maps shown in Chapter III illustrate the natural
constraints to land development in much of the County's undeveloped coastal zone. The extensive
marshes and forest lands remaining in the coastal zone provide significant opportunities for the
establishment of public open space and recreational areas to serve the growing number of residents
of the County.

Chapter II provides suggestions for maximizing the using of the County's coastal resources
while causing the least damage to natural coastal systems. A balanced land use planning and
management program is offered which combines both structural and nonstructural measures to minimize
land development impacts on the natural environment, while minimizing the costs associated with
implementing such measures. The success of such a program requires the cooperation of government
officials, land developers, and individual landowners in the coastal zone.

-65-

MAP 2

SEGMENT h NATURAL RESOURCES

WOODBRIDGE
7-
HIM

T--

U.S. MILITAR
21 RESERVATION

-66-

MAP 3

SEGMENT 1; SOIL SUITABILITY ZONES

X.:

WOODOR I DGE

VAY
A U

-67-

MAP 4

L E G E H D SEGMENT 1: EXISTING LAND USE
Single fainily

T@nhous.

Aparto..t
a3Coriservation Park
EDNblic Facility
Mconnxircial/offica
tl.a@y l.d.3tri.l

tal zone li.it

-Sanitary dfst.bo@nd.
001JOR I OGE

:bx, x.

r4v..

-Z

-68-

MAP 5

L I GN 0
CIE] sl 1-ily SEGMENT 1: PROPOSED LAND USE

C.. S., t iP., i'.
Mf.bli,
mc.

11'.it

_.._ssnlt.ry

14,

............

% I.- xi

01
Vj

ITJ

............

-69-

MAP 6

SEGMENT 2: NATURAL RESOURCES

0 2

thIIt"-d feet

LEGEND

m Hard,@ds
Hard-d pines

Pi "e
We,,:,,ds

Beaches

-fts

95
to

ull

4 -

..............
E!

.................
..................
. .. .........

Cc CO-',
C
t'i' / --

V"
NEAB

:-X.

-70-

MAP 7

SEGMENT 2- SOIL SUITABILHY ZONES

-Ul
4F
&

H
'ARSCO
E
Ao n

-71-

MAP 8

SEGMENT 2: EXISTING LAND USE

L f G E H 0
singi. family

T-nhou,.

Apartment

Conse,vation Park

P.bll@ Facility

litavy Industrial

---Coastal zone limit

ound.
_.-S..itary dist.b

its

..........

-72-

MAP 9

SEGMENT 2: PROPOSED LAND USE

L F G 1 0
ED

Ap t t
UJJ (o-e-ml- Pat k . .....
Publi, f-Ility
. ... .......
.. ...........
irtd,.sl,f.l

1.4 t

-73-

MAP 10
SEGMENT 3: NATURAL RESOURCES

gill
Qn-
d
'z oi-UM"I'*.';@.-

-cj

_71 .... ....

110i u 'I
Po"" Is
t3 C
Creek
by-. -P y
iz -:4@
N
6'-'rk'

C,
rz, k'O `4
11 ZI.
-za
V.
C'k.. f!
%
'zp

VLW

a
0- op@\

a@ tU
V 0,L4
011

43
sS
0 . "zr.
Y" %P,3

..............

....... ...

-74-

MAP 11

SEGMENT 3; SOIL SUITABILITY ZONES

NY
<r

.. A.-

;P@o

L11

CIA$-

...........
.............

. . . . . . . . . . .

IES

-75-

MAP 12

SEGMENT 3: EXISTING LAND USE

..............

............. ..

Po,ve

Cr
L-ek

-76-

MAP 13
SEGMENT 3: PROPOSED LAND USE

... . ......

Polve/
cle
ck

...........
. . . . ...... . . . ..........

. ... . . . . . . .
A.

-77-

MAP 14
SEGMENT 4: NATURAL RESOURCES
t
H",

..v vi

kN a. tit 10 - It"

CAI

Cc ..30
,q is@
@.c
,@4

s
g
- v6l@l fi, t",

10
114

N.
cr

q,*
&I
f- 5-
C.,

c, SlilPPING POINT

QUAN ICO

-78-

MAP 15

SEGMENT 4; SOIL SUITABILITY ZONES

PR 'E
W: I AM
FOR E ST
cpll
yo

I V-;,
m WiNGLE

................

.. ............ 0-

Al
SHIPPING
110

QUANTICO
40

-79-

MAP 16

SEGMENT 4: EXISTING LAND USE

...... ... ...

-7

P
OSSUM POINT

j
SHIPPING POINT

QUAN T I C 0

-80-

rTl

L'i
r-m

0 10 0 IE 701 0 0

MAP 18

SEGMENT 5: NATURAL RESOURCES

@ ph

IF
N.V
.3 v 'wp
d
c. Vtf r
Y n'

..........
...... j7p
4'c ea
i::@ i::@ iii i::i:::] i::: 2 @::i cli(

...........

. ........ .

-82-

MAP 19

SEGMENT 5; SOIL SUITABILITY ZONES

0
N",

z..............
0 2
L
tl,@-nd f-t

l(GFH0

H I L I TARY
RESERVATION
-dl,- d-lity

h I gh/l - d.., I ty

--c-t.1 M.1t

-83-

MAP 2 0

SEGMENT 5: EXISTING LAND USE

N 16
J;

'o 7
, -f 1@\' -\, I I ,
@7

0
CHOPAWAMSIC
f ISLAND

L E G E N

f
Single

Townho
C"OPalva
1l)S ic
Apartm
7@\
Conser

Pub) ic

Coalmer

Heavy

Coasta

Sani ta

-84-

MAP 21

SEGMENT 5: PROPOSED LAND USE

-I,\-

CHOPAWAMS
ISLAND

fil-
7

L E G I
Sing

own

c
M Apar

Cons

Pub)

[=ill- 11cav

---Coas

-Sa"i

-85-

CHAPTER IV.

STATE & FEDERAL POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS

A myriad of federal, state, and local governmental regu lations apply to development
in coastal Prince William County. Figure 5 summarizes existing regulations and provides
an illustration of the interrelationships of the various levels of governmental juris-
dictions in different portions of the coastal zone. These regulations are discussed in
separate sections by subject area below.

A. Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters, including Wetlands

1. USACE Permits for activities in navigable waters

A permit is required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for any
structure or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. As presently
administered, permits are required at mean high tide level or lower, which
includes wetlands. The permit decision is based upon an evaluation of the
probable impact of the proposed activity on the public interest, according to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines issued under Section 404(b)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The benefits
expected from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. For further information and technical assistance from the Corps
concerning this program, see Chapter V.

-86-

F t(;o RE 5.

SIMMARY OF GOVEMMI'MIM, REGULATIONS FOR COASTAL PRINCE W11.1.1AM COUNTY

FEDERAL

VIRGINIA --A MARYLAND AREA OF' JURISDICTION

LOCAL

OVUM DG

1k
..:1, -TIPAL MI

Federal/State Water & Air Pollution Federal Permits for Activities J'n DEVELOPMENT 11EIGULATIONS
Pegulations Navigable Waters
Federal Floodplain Insurance Regulations State Permit for DicroachmenL on
Local Zoning & Subdivision Regulations State-owned Bottomlands
Local Building Permit Local/State Wetlands Permit
State Health Dept. Septic Tank Permit Local Zoning & Subdivision Regulations
Local Building Permit
State Health Dept. Septic Tank Porml.t

-87-

2. Virginia Marine Resources Commission: Subaqueous Bottomlands Permits

Section 62.1-3 of the Code of Virginia directs the marine Resources Commission to
control all non-exempted uses of state-owned bottomlands through the issuance of permits.
This section limits the extent of private property rights on Virginia's shorelines to
mean low water and declares all other subaqueous land to be the property of the
Commonwealth.

The Potomac River is an exception to State ownership below mean low water,
because, under the Potomac River Compact of 1958, Virginia recognized Maryland as
the owner of the Potomac River to the mean low water mark. The boundary adopted
in the 1958 Compact was officially established by the Mathews-Nelson Survey of 1928.
Although the boundary runs adjacent to the shoreline of the Potomac proper, the 1928
survey concluded that the line should not follow the indentations of creeks and bays,
but should run from headland to headland. Any activities in the bays and creeks
in Prince William's coastal zone are under the jurisdiction of Virginia, while
activities beyond the mean low water mark of the Potomac shoreline fall under
Maryland jurisdiction.

Uses which are regulated by the Virginia marine Resources Commission under
Section 62.1-3 include many activities for which federal permits are required, as
discussed above, such as mixing the placement of wharves, bulkheads, dredging and
fill by shoreline landowners. Among exempted activities are the placement of certain
private piers for non-COMmercial use by landowners, uses of subaqueous beds for
commercial fishing, and uses incident to the construction and maintenance of approved
navigation and flood control projects.

In granting or denying a permit, the Commission considers factors similar to
the public interest review conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers for federal
permits. These factors include:

- consideration of the environmental quality goals contained in
Article XI of the State Constitution
- the effects of the proposed project on reasonable and permissible
uses of state waters and state-owned bottomlands
- the effects upon marine and fisheries resources of the Commonwealth
- the effects upon wetlands of the Commonwealth
- effects upon adjacent or nearby properties

_88-

- water quality standards established by the State Water Control
Board
- anticipated public and private benefits

Prior to granting or denying any permit for a boatyard or marina for commercial use,
however, the owner or other applicant must present a plan for sewage treatment or
disposal facilities which is approved by the State Department of Health.

-89-

3. Virginia Wetlands Act

Section 62.1-13 of the Code of Virginia, known as the Virginia wetlands iaw,
was enacted by the General Assembly in 1972 in recognition of the valuable and
irreplaceable nature of the State's wetlands. This law prohibits any regulated
activity in tidal wetlands without a proper permit. Tidal wetlands are defined
as those lands lying between and contiguous to mean low water and 1.5 times the
mean tidal range, upon which certain specified vegetation grows.

Virginia's wetlands jurisdiction differs from federal jurisdiction over wetlands.
The federal jurisdiction extends to all areas regularly inundated by water, which
include tidal and freshwater marshlands, both vegetated and non-vegetated. Federal,
State and local authority along vegetated shorelines is summarized in the illustration
below.

'0 FEDERAL FwPCAA 1912" R a HA 1899"
0 STATE Witillands Low Subogueous Low
o LOCAL Conventiotiol a Walloni:13 ZoninQ

Limit of the
Torritoiriol
I Wo M11W 1.5X SeGOMI.)
Moon
Mt.W Tide
Rollo*
Vootitolud Wellond Non-Vootito led (INTER MAL FLMS Sh-H.W.

1)plondti Wationdr. Sutloqueous Lands

fo(jefol Wulot flult.,lion C,nlici ALI A-unkitatili, ol W/2
Hl.w ai.d li.it- ALI ul IU'JU

Source: "Report of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources to the Governor and the
-----A4-- -T-J-i-
General Asse-IlLbly of Virginia
Senate Document No. 8, prepared by the Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program, October 1978.
_90-

The Virginia Wetlands Act allows localities to manage their wetlands through
the adoption of a specified zoning ordinance which provides for the appointment of
a local wetlands board to administer the permit program. All decisions by the local
board are reviewed by the Commissioner of Marine Resources and are subject to
modification or reversal by the Marine Resources Conunission. Appeals can be made
through the Commission and the Court.

Prince William County established a local wetlands board after the passage of
the 1972 Act. This board was recently reconstituted by the County Board of Supervisors.
Further information about the board is provided in Chapter V. The Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS) has developed guidelines for use by wetlands boards in
making permit decisions, entitled "Local- Management of Wetlands: Environmental
Considerations." An excerpt from this publication which outlines the typical
contents of an application for a wetlands permit is reproduced in Appendix IV.

-91-

B. State Water Control Board Regulations and Programs

1. Water Quality Assurance

The State Water Control Board (SWCB) is responsible for the issuance of water
quality assurance "401" certificates for pollution discharges into navigable waters,
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, This certifi-
cate, which is tatamount to a permit, certifies that the proposed activity will
comply with applicable state water quality control laws.

2. Industrial Discharge Permit Program

Under Section 62.1-44.16 of the Code, a permit is required from the SWCB for the
discharge of industrial wastes to State waters. A permit will not be issued until
approved treatment or control facilities are provided for a potential polluting
activity.

3. Permits for Other Wastes

Section 62.1-44.17 provides a similar SWCB certification program for discharge
or control facilities for "other wastes", defined as decayed wood, sawdust, shavings,
bark, lime, garbage, refuse, ashes, offal, tar, oil, chemicals, and other substances,
except industrial wastes and sewage.

4. Sewage Discharge Regulations

Article 4 of Title 62.1 of the Code places all sewage systems and sewage treatment
facilities under the joint supervision of the SWCB and the State Health Department.
The Health Department is responsible for the issuance of permits for septic tank
systems, while the SWCB is given authority to issue permits prescribing the terms
under which any pollution discharges may be made into sewerage systems and sewage
treatment facilities.

C. Summary of State and Federal Shoreline Permits

As indicated in the sections above, there are many overlapping and sometimes duplicative
permitting requirements operating in Virginia's coastal areas. Several steps have been
taken to simplify and streamline the shoreline permitting process in Virginia. In 1977 the
State Water Control Board and the Marine Resources Commission developed a consolidated
permit application, which has recently evolved into a joint locai_-state@federall permit
application. In addition, monthly meetings have been instituted between representatives

-92-

of State and federal permitting agencies to review pending applications, allowing a
substantial reduction in processing time for many projects. This process is summarized
in the accompanying diagram. State and federal permitting agencies continue to work
on further measures to streamline shoreline permitting.

-93-

Figure 6.

GENERALIZED Dkn@GRAM
OF
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES
INCLUDING
JOINT STATE/FEDERAL PROJECT REVIEW

JOINT PERMI
APPI-ICATION

MARINE RESOURCES =1MISSION STAFF
. ASSIGNS JDiNT PROCESSING NUMBER
.D(STRIBUTES COPIES OF APPLICAT)ON

LOCAL WETLANDS
BOARD
WETLAI`CS
PROCESS
S7@':,-,E HEALTH D=-L STATE VIRGIN.A INSTITUTE! IN.FORIP,,,,TI@O@N7
SCI@"P@l CO @@S
CONTROL BOARD of MARI N
- 1: - - - - - - - - - --
S.E.%-:TAERY FE& ZLaUTV ECOLDGIC---- C@ VCOR VK-C PIK
SANITATION CEITTIRCLTION PROCESS ASSESS.-,-.--NT 1-0:-Z-Y. P,-ax- @@a]

......... --------

MARINE RESWCES
- COMMISSION ARMY CORPS
w
TLAIIIVS Xxj EOLJS Z IRS
t OF ENGINEEE
PERM.IT PROCESS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DRE65:1- Z7,0 FILLMAVIGAS@-E
waTERnAY ALTER-'TION PERMIT PF--K-ZSSES

STATE FSwS 5 EPA 0
111@2;?y 'So xi-r- 1@ -
AND LDCA1- ADVISORY 4LD, Ii AD RY1 I R
I I NOTICE
AD@PRCVALLS r CO REVE RFVIE,.,,,, RE rw I

> JOINT
STATE/FEDERAL
!S PROJECT PEVEW

_A9BRE=T1ONS
CORPS SSE t@-- d
es-
DECISION COE
ro
@pS us &-I C@" W Ev--l-
Ep- L- . ., @-- Aq,-"
Fews V E FW, OV W4146 5-
"r, N-4 M- vr,@ S--
POC
P@, r., C4@
irGrND ID s:- "@. 15..@-
FEDERAL ,OS $,.,. W@ C@,,, fi-d
------------- VC0 -1-
VMRC PERMIT A
-LC ..r-c L-'-@ I-
P@. V.

APPLCANT
MAY COMMENCE
PROJECT

SOURCE: Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program, "Rep 'ort of the
Secretary of Commerce and Resources to the Governor & the
General Assembly Regarding Senate Joint Resolution No. 62,"
Senate Document No. 8, Richmond, October 1978.
M R
F__L
A
D

INSTI @F
@@l N
M
LE-CU
LR
w=_
t "_A
PE

NOUN Mm@fmmoe

D. Coastal Resources Management Programs

Both the State arid federal governments have become involved in coastal resources
planning and management in recognition of the unique and valuable resources of the coastal
zone arid the intensity of competition for use of these resources. Tile federal government,
in enacting the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, amended in 1976, established
a framework and financial. incentives for states to take primary responsibility for the
planning and management of coastal land and water resources. Through its Wetlands Act
and regulations over state fisheries and shellfish grounds, tire CoRmlonwealth was already
involved in coastal resources management. Virginia has been able to increase its knowledge
of the state's coastal management problems through participation in the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Program.

1. Federal Coastal Zone Management Program

The federal proqram, instituted by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1-972,
is administered by tile Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in the Department
of Commerce. OCZM provides funding assistance to participating states for
planning and implementing a coastal zone management program, which must adhere
to federal guidelines designed to encourage the states to exercise their full
authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone, which should include
unified policies, criteria, standards, and processes for dealing with land and
water use decisions of more than local significance.

Although OCZM allows State programs to be planned and implemented through its
chosen agencies, including local governments, the Act requires some degree of State
involvement in the control of coastal land and water uses. This is significant
since many uses covered under the Act have traditionally been overseen exclusively
by local government. The Act outlines three alternative techniques for achieving
State involvement: 1) direct state land use and water use planning and regulation;
2) state standards arid guidelines for local implementation; or 3) state review of
all plans, projects, or regulations to ensure consistency with tile management program.
OCZM gives states wide latitude within these alternatives to establish specific
mariagement arrangements with local governments.

Since the program lacks federal regulatory powers, its success depends oil tile
voluntary participation of states. Three types of federal grants are offered to

-95-

encourage coastal states to implement comprehensive management programs: program
development grants; implementation grants for federally approved programs; and
grants to establish estuarine sanctuaries. All 34 eligible states and territories
have participated in the program development stage.

-96-

2. Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program

The Virginia Office of Commerce and Resources (OCR) has just completed the final
year of its four year program development phase under funding from the federal Office
of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). In September 1977 the OCR published its recommenda-
tions for a comprehensive coastal resources management program, "Proposals for
Coastal Resources Management in Virginia," which were designed both to address the
specific needs of Virginia's coastal areas and to meet f ederal program approval require-
ments. During the 1978 General Assembly session coastal legislation was introduced
which would be necessary to implement certain portions of the program. These bills
were carried over to the 1979 legislative session, where greatly amended versions were
defeated.

A lack of executive or legislative branch action to allow implementation of
several key portions of the proposed management program has resulted in a termination
by OCZM of Virginia's participation in the federal grant program for coastal planning
and implementation as of March 31, 1979. This action does not preclude the State
from continuing the coastal program on its own and seeking federal program approval.
at a later date, but it does eliminate the immediate financial incentive for the State
to continue program development activities, which may hamper future attempts to gain
legislative and executive branch support for the program.

The focus of the proposed program is on coastal "edges", where land and tidal
waters meet. The State's coastal resources have been inventoried, and problems
with their use and management have been identified. OCR has also enumerated the
precepts of the program, as follows:

1. The historic, economic, cultural, environmental, and aesthetic
heritage and values of Tidewater as we know it are worthy of
our guardianship for future generations. Our decisions about
these resources will be based upon these values as well as upon
scientific fact.

2. The Commonwealth's coastal, estuarine, and marine environments
are extremely valuable, productive, and fragile, and therefore
require careful and protective stewardship by all Virginians.

-97-

3. Increasing and competing demands for the use of our coastal
lands and waters have depleted and endangered some of our
coastal resources.

4. A Coastal Resources Management Program must be prepared and
implemented on the basis that it will benefit the citizens
whom it will affect.

5. Public understanding of the use and value of our coastal
resources and public participation in the management of these
resources is essential to the proper implementation and success
of Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program.

6. Local involvement in decisions about coastal resources engenders
a greater sense of public responsibility for the use of those
resources.

7. All interests in Tidewater--agricultural, commercial, industrial,
and environmental, as well as those of the individual citizen--
deserve consideration when decisions are made about the use and
allocation of coastal resources.

B. In addition to individual and local interests, some decisions
about land and water uses in the coastal zone must be based
upon national, interstate, state, and regional interests.

9. The state government must assert its authority and assume greater
responsibility for protecting the public interest in coastal
lands and waters, in an improved partnership with local governments.

10. The local, state, and federal governments share the responsibility
for managing coastal resources; their exercise of authority must
be complementary.

11. The state and local governments are accountable to the public
for their policies and how they carry out those policies with
respect to coastal land and water management.

-98-

12. Coastal Resources Management is a continuing planning and management
effort; the methods, procedures, and techniques will continue to
evolve an(] improve.

In addition, four major issues have been identified as in need of legislative
consideration for implementation of the program: 1) mechanisms for regulation of
land uses having effects on the marine environment ("primarily" non-point pollution impacts)
and for protecting geographic areas of particular concern; 2) shoreline permitting
of minor projects; 3) major projects permit review; and 4) State organization and
authority to implement the program.

Further development of the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program will
undoubtedly involve these basic elements and a resolution of existing conflicts
within the State concerning management approaches to these issues.

_99-

CHAPTER V.

SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

A. Shoreline Permitting

Shoreline permit programs have been developed by state and federal governments to
protect the public interest in preserving wetlands, maintaining water quality, protecting
fish and wildlife, maintaining navigable waterways, preventing health hazards, insuring
adequate construction standards, and controlling private use of public property. Most
permit programs also recognize social and economic impacts of shoreline projects on the
community and the rights of neighboring property owners and provide a mechanism for public
input to the permit process.

Waterfront property owners, develo pers and local officials often experience confusion,
frustration and costly delays in obtaining permits for activities along and adjacent to the
shoreline. As discussed in Chapter IV, permitting agencies are working to develop a more
efficient shoreline permitting system. The list below indicates those agencies which should
be contacted when shoreline alterations are contemplated. These agencies will not only
provide the necessary permit application materials and instructions, but will assist the
applicant in assessing any technical problems associated with the application-

FEDERAL AGENCY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Baltimore District

Title of Permits

(1) Individual Department of the Army permits for a) Activities in Navigable
Waters ("Section 10 Permit"); and b) Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material
into the Waters of the United States ("Section 404 Permit").

(2) General permits for certain categories of activities which have only minimal
individual and cumulative impact on the environment. No individual permit
must be obtained for activities within these categories. The Baltimore
District, which serves Prince William County, has general permits in effect
for periodic maintenance dredging and certain structures for small boats
(i.e., private piers of less than 40 feet which do not extend beyond the
5' depth contour).

-100-

Address:

Regulatory Functions Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Phone Number- (301.) 962-3477

STATE AGENCIES

1. Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

Title of Permit: Subaqueous permit for activities affecting State-owned bottomlands

Address:

Virginia Marine Resources Commission
P.O. Box 756
2401 West Avenue
Newport News, Virginia 23607

Phone Number: (804) 245-2811 .

2. Virginia institute of Marine Science (VIMS)

Advisory role only: Subaqueous laws direct VMRC to consult with interested state
agencies, including VIMSr on permit applications. The primary concern of
the Institute is the effect of the project on marine and estuarine environments.
While VIMS does not issue permits, it encourages persons contemplating shore-
line works to consult with it prior to submitting an application.

Address:

Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Glouchester Point, Virginia 23062

Phone Number: (804) 642-211.1

LOCAL AGENCY

Prince William COUDty Wetlands Board

_101-

Title of Permit: Wetlands permit for activities affecting tidal wetlands

Address:

Prince William County Wetlands Board
c/o office of Comprehensive Planning
9300-B Peabody Street
Manassas, Virginia 22110

1979 Membership:

Jeffrey Tyrrell, Chairman
W. Shepard Elmore
Dr. George Garrigan
Alan Dent
H. Ewing Wall

Phone Number (Planning office): (703) 368-9171, Ext. 430

B. Shoreline Erosion

Shoreline erosion, which is a naturally occurring process involving streamflow, tidal
action, runoff and wind, is defined as a problem when it conflicts with man's use of shore-
front property. The productions of shoreline erosion--sand, silt, and clay--contribute
to sedimentation of the Potomac Estuary and the Chesapeake Bay system. The principal
concern of shoreline property owners is the economic impacts of property losses due to shore-
line erosion, and costly structural control measures are often constructed in an attempt to
halt natural erosion processes.

The construction of shoreline erosion control structures and other human activities
may accelerate shoreline erosion. All shoreline erosion control structures have either a
short or long term impact on adjacent shorelines. Groins and jetties, for example, interrupt
the flow of sand and sediments along the shoreline and may cause "starvation" of the banks
downstream, increasing erosion rates downstream. The best coastal engineering designs
attempt to achieve site specific erosion abatement while minimizing adverse erosion impacts
on adjacent shorelines.

While the Prince William County coastal zone has no areas experiencing critical erosion,
defined by the State as greater than 2 feet/year with endangered property improvements,
certain areas of the shoreline are. iindpraoing moderate erosion which ma threaten human
y
property. The following list provides sources of technical assistance for property owners

-102-

experiencing loss of property due to shoreline erosion.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)- Baltimore District

The construction of any shoreline erosion control structures below mean high
water fall under the permitting program of the USACE. Any persons contemplating a
project within this area should contact the Baltimore District office for the
necessary permit application materials. in addition, the Corps is authorized by
the 1974 Water Resources Development Act to provide technical assistance to any
authorized agency of the State and its subdivisions.

Address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Phone Number: (301.) 962-3477

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)

A more local federal source of information on shoreline erosion can be found
at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. CERC is the Corps' national research center on
coastal engineering, where studies are undertaken on the effectiveness of tradi-
tional and innovative shoreline stabilization techniques.

Address:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coastal Engineering Research Center
Kingman Building
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060

Phone Number: (703) 325-7518

STATE AGENCIES

1. Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (VSWCC)

-103-

Article 2.2 of the Code of Virginia (Shore Erosion Control) recognizes shore
erosion as a significant problem in the State and directs State resources to address
the problem. Section 21-11.18 of this Article invests the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Commission with the responsibility to coordinate shore erosion control programs
of all State agencies and institutions and to secure the cooperation of federal
agencies in protecting shorefront property from erosion. However, the Commission
was authorized only one shore erosion engineer to carry out these responsibilities.
Requests for shoreline erosion control assistance may be made through the local
soil and water conservation district or through the State office.

Address:

Technical Services office
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
830 East Main Street, Suite 800
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Phone Number: (804) 786-2064

2. Virginia I stitute of Marine Science (VIMS)

VIMS offers technical advisory services to shorefront property owners on
shoreline erosion as well as other coastal problems. A staff person who is
-nn t-n ;@n
experienced in structural control measures is available for consultati-11
landowner or local government staff.

Address:

Virginia Institute ofMarine Science
Glouchester Point, Virginia 23062

Phone Number: (804) 642-2111

LOCAL AGENCY

Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District

While the mandate of local soil and water conservation districts is primarily
to address the problem of upland erosion, the local district can provide advice on
shoreline erosion and assist the shorefront property owner in locating further
technical assistance if necessary.

-104-

-1
I
I Address:
Prince William Soil & Water Conservation District
8088 Sudley Road
I Manassas, Virginia 22110
Phone Number: (703) 361-1710
1
1
1
1
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I

-105-
1

APPENDIX I

COMMON MARINE RESOURCES OF THE
POTOMAC RIVER ALONG PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

alewife
American eel
Atlantic silverside (from Cockpit Point downstream)
bay anchovy
blue crabs (summer)
carp
catfish (brown bullhead, white and channel)
chad

croaker
herrings (in Occoquan Creek)
hogehoker
.uvenile bluefish (from just above Quantico Creek downstream)
largemouth bass
sea nettle
spot
striped bass (summer)
sunfish
* weakfish
* white perch (March-early June; in tidal embayments of Occoquan, Neabsco,
Powell & Quantico Creeks)
winter jellyfish
yellow perch

Fish species which rely on Potomac estuary areas along Prince William County
for spawning grounds and/or nursery areas.

Source: Lippson, Alice Jane, ed., The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources,
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1973.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Water Resources Planning Board,
The Water Monitor, Vol. II, No. 4, September, 1978.

_106-

APPENDIX II.

Section 808. Minimum Lot Size Based on Slope. The following table shall

be used to determine the minimum lot Size which shall be permitted. In

using said table, interpolation shall be permitted.

Topography, Minimum Minimum Minimum Ground Surface
Slope Area, Average Average to Remain in its
Average (Sq. Ft.) Width. (Ft.) Depth (Ft.) Natural State
(No cut or fill)

0-10% 15,000 60 90 50%
10-15% 18,000 80 100 60%
15-20% 22,000 80 110 65%
20-25% 28,000 100 120 70%
25-30% 35,000 100 150 75%
30-35% 44,000 120 175 80%
35-40% 54,000 150 200 85%
40-50% 65,000 175 250 90%
50-70% 85,000 200 300 95%
70-100% Not less than five (5) acres. 95%
Over 100% No lot development permitted. 100%

808.1. The subdivider shall submit a "Slope Map" with the tentative

map, showing by color or shading the areas of the tract

lying within each slope category. No such map need be sub-

mitted if the average slope of the entire tract is ten

percent (10%) or less.

Section 809. Lot Sizes Based on Type and Improvements Required.

809.1. Definitions. Hillside areas: A "Hillside Area" as referred

to herein is defined as one with an average slope of 15% or more.

The standards under Section 810 (General regulations and design)

apply to all hillside areas with the added provision that areas with

a cross slope of 40% or greater are considered to be extremely rugged

and the development of this terrain is limited to lot size types

IV as deflned below:

. . . (a) Lots being served by community sewer systems may be

granted variances, as is appropriate, for lot size on

each slope/lot size gradient.
...(b) Slooe alterations shall not exceed five (504) percent of

the total lot size on any lot having an average slope

greater than 15%. Such alterations should be only for

grading site Improvements.
(c) Type III* - Lot area 20,000 feet to one acre: In this

classification are subdivisions in which 80% of all

lots have an area of 20,000 square feet or over and the

average area of all lots is 20,000 square feet or over.

(d) Type IV - Lot area one acre or over' Eighty percent

or the lots in this classification shall be one acre or

over, and the average area of all lots in the subdivision
C10
shall be one acre or over.

*20% of the lots in any hillside subdivision (not
Including lots at end of cul-de-sac) may have a reduced
frontage provided that such reduction is not below the
requirements of the next least restrictive type or
classification of subdivision.

Source: "Georgia Mountains Areawide Land Development Standards",
Georgia Mountains Areawide Land Development Policies
and Procedures Manual, Georgia mountains Planning and Dev-
elopment Commission, Gainesville, Georgia, March 1974.

Appendix III.

GENERAL TURFGRASS FERTILIZATION GUIDE 5-10-5 fertilizer per 1,000 square feet and work this in
Soil tests are a guide for liming and fertilization. The with 4 to 6 inches of surface soil. When soils are very in-
following general recommendations should be adjusted fertile it mav be desirable to plow in or mix 25 pounds of
as indicated by a soil test. 0-20-0 or 15 pounds of 0-30-15 fertilizer per 1,000
Fertilizer rates are in pounds per 1,000 sq. ft. Equi- square feet with 6 inches of soil.
valent amounts of similar analysis materials may be sub- Maintenance: Maintenance fertilization should be ad-
stituted for any fertilizer listed below. justed depending upon the availability of nitrogen in the
Establishment: Before seeding, apply 50 pounds of a fertilizer used.

FERTILIZER PROGRAMS FOR MAINTAINING KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS AND FESCUE

Program 1. Readily Available Nitrogen thoroughly immediately following application. Do not
These programs include fertilizers in which 50% or apply more than the suggested rate in a single appli-
less of the nitrogen is slowly available. The slowly avail- cation.
able portion is listed on the fertilizer bag as water insol- 2. The December application can be omitted under some
uble nitrogen (WIN). Nitrogen not specifically claimed conditions, such as soils that are not subject to fast
as win can be assumed to be readily available. leaching and when grass is making satisfactory
growth.
These comments apply to Programs 1-a and 1-b: 3. If inadequate fertilizer was applied in late fall, 1/2 to
3/4 lb. of actual N may be applied in spring if turf
1. Resdily available sources of nitrogen may cause color and growth indicate a need.
burning if applied at heavy rates or not watered in

Program 1-a.
Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Aug. 15 to Sept. 15 1 to 1/2 lbs. 8 to 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
4 to 6 lbs. 25-4-7*
Oct. 1 to Nov. 15 1 1/2 lbs. 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
6 lbs. 25-4-7*
December 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 8 to 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
4 to 6 lbs. 25-4-7*
May 20 to June 30 0 to 1/2 lb. 0 to 4 lbs. 12-41-8 OR
0 to 2 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
0 to 2 lbs. 25-4-7*

Program 1-b
Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Aug. 15 to Sept. 15 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 3 to 4 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate OR
5 to 7 lbs. ammonium nitrate lime OR
6 to 9 lbs. nitrate of soda OR
2 1/2 to 3 lbs. urea
Oct. 1 to Nov. 15 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 10 to 15 lbs. 10-10-10 or equivalent
Dec. 1 to Dec. 15 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 3 to 4 1/2 ammonium nitrate OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate lime OR
6 to 9 lbs. nitrate of soda OR
2 1/2 to 3 lbs. urea
May 20 to June 30 0 to 1/2 lb. 0 to 1 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate OR
0 to 2 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate lime OR
0 to 3 lbs. nitrate of soda OR
0 to 1 1/2 lbs. urea
* This hypothetical fertilizer analysis is given as an illustration to group a great quality of speciality turf fertilizers that contain high
nitrogen, low phosphate, and medium potash levels.
Source: VPI&SU, "A Handbook of Agronomy", Publication #600, Blacksburg reprint June 1976.

Program 2. Slowly Available Nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. from a quickly available source may
Fertilizers in which 50% or more of the nitrogen is be applied in late November or December.
water insoluble (70% or more of the total nitrogen de- 2. If the soil is low in phosphate or potash it may be de-
rived from urea formaldehyde). sirable to apply enough additional nutrient(s) to bring
Comments: the total applied for the year to 3 lbs. Fall application
1. If needed to improve color, 1 lb. of actual nitrogen is preferred.

Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Aug. 15 to Oct. 1 3 to 4 lbs. 25 to 33 lbs. of 12-4-8 OR
15 to 20 lbs. of 20-10-10 OR
8 to 10 lbs. of
urea-formalde,hyde (38-0-0)
PLUS 4 to 8 lbs. of 0-25-25 or
equivalent.
May 20 to June 30 0 to 1 1/2 lbs. 0 to 4 lbs. of urea-formaldehyde OR
0 to 12 lbs. of 12-4-8 OR
0 to 7 1/2 lbs. of 20-10- 10

FERTILIZER PROGRAMS FOR MAINTAINING BERMUDAGRASS AND ZOYSIAGRASS
Program 3. Readily Available Nitrogen 2. The July application should not be applied on zoysia-
These programs include fertilizers in which 50% or grass and may be omitted on bermudagrass turf if
less of the nitrogen is slowly available. The slowly avail- growth and color are satisfactory.
able portion is listed on the fertilizer bag as water insol- 3. If the above amounts of phosphate and potash are in
uble nitrogen (WIN). Nitrogen not specifically claimed excess of needs, apply nitrogen alone for the March,
as WIN can be assumed to be readily available. May, and/or June applications.
The following comments apply to Programs 3-a and 4. Nitrogen should be omitted for the fall application on
3-b. zoysiagrass and on bermudagrass if not overseeded.
1. Readily available sources of nitrogen may cause However, the phosphate and potash should be applied
burning, especially in hot weather, if applied at heavy durin the fall if these elements are not applied on a
rates or not watered in thoroughly after application. continuous basis or if a soil test indicates that either
Do not exceed suggested rate in a single application. element is low.

Program 3-a.
Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Sept. 1 to Oct. 15 0 to 1 1/2 lbs. If overseeded:
or after overseeding 8 to 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
4 to 6 lbs. 25-4-7*
If not over-seeded:
0 to 6 lbs. 0-25-25
March 1 to April 1 1 1/2 lbs. 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
6 lbs. 25-4-7*
May 1 to June 1 1 1/2 lbs. 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
6 lbs. 25-4-7*
July 1 to Aug. 1 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 8 to 12 lbs. 12-4-8 OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. 20-10-10 OR
4 to 6 lbs. 25-4-7*

*This hypothetical fertilizer analysis is given as an illustration to group a great quantity of speciality turf fertilizers that contain high
nitrogen, low phosphate, and medium potash levels.

Program 3-b.

Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application Per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Oct. 1 to Oct. 15 0 to 1 1/2 lbs. If overseeded:
or after overseeding 10 to 15 lbs. 10-10-10 OR
10 to 15 lbs. 5-10-10
If not overseeded:
0 to 6 lbs. 0-25-25
March 1 to April 1 1 1/2 lbs. 15 lbs. 10-10-10 OR
15 lbs. 10-5-5
May 1 to June 1 1 1/2 lbs. 4 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate OR
7 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate lime OR
9 lbs. nitrate of soda OR
3 1/2 lbs. urea
July 1 to Aug. 1 1 to 1 1/2 lbs. 3 to 4 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate OR
5 to 7 1/2 lbs. ammonium nitrate lime OR
6 to 9 lbs. nitrate of soda OR
2 1/2 to 3 1/2 lbs. urea

Program 4. Slowly Available Nitrogen 2. Phosphate and potash applications should not ex-
Fertilizers in which 50% or more of the nitrogen is ceed 1 1/2 to 3 lbs. per year depending on the level in
water insoluble (70% or more of the total nitrogen de- the soil. The fall application is most important and
rived from urea-formaldehyde). may be the only application of these nutrients needed.
Comments: 3. When using a complete fertilizer make certain that the
1. If needed to improve color of overseeded grass, 1 lb. water insoluble nitrogen content is 50% or more of
of actual nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. from a quickly the total nitrogen. Otherwise, use Program 3-a.
available source may be applied in winter between 4. Unless overseeded, nitrogen should not be applied
November and February. during fall.

Nitrogen Needed
Time of Application per 1000 Sq. Ft. Fertilizer Example-per 1000 Sq. Ft.
Sept. 1 to Oct. 15 0 to 3 lbs. If overseeded:
or after overseeding 25 lbs. of 12-4-8 OR
15 lbs. of 20-10-10 OR
8 lbs. urea-formaldehyde
PLUS 4 to 8 lbs. 0-25-25
If not overseeded:
4 to 8 lbs. 0-25-25 or equivalent
March I to April 15 4 lbs. 33 lbs.of 12-4-8 OR
20 lbs. of 20-10-10 OR
10 lbs. urea-formaldehyde
PLUS 4 to 8 lbs. of
0-25-25 or equivalent
Lime: Apply enough to obtain and maintain a pH of
between 6.0 and 6.5.
Recommended height of cut for turfgrass:
Grass Mowing Height
Bluegrass 1 1/2 to 2"
Tall fescue 2 to 2 1/2"
Creeping red fescue 2 to 2 1/2"
Bermudagrass 1/2 to 1"
Zoysia 3/4 tp 1"
Reference: VIP&SU Ext. Div. Pub. 311

APPENDIX IV

CONTENTS OF A WETLAND APPLICATION

Content Welands Act Requirement VIMS Recommendation Amplification

Identification Name and address of applicant Telephone numbers, home and
business.

Location Map showing wetlands affected A general vicinity map showing
and location of work thereon. the location of the project,
state roads leading to the
vicinity and county or local
roads leading to the project.
Where a project is difficult
to locate on the ground, an
additional enlarged sketch of
the immediate vicinity, with
directions, is helpful.

Detail Map drawn to appropriate and For new channels:
uniform scale showing the Slope of bank.
area of wetland affected, with Depth of existing channel
the location of the work there- to which new channel is
on, indicating the area of to be connected.
existing and proposed fill and Whether channel is dead-end
excavation, especially th lo- or will have water flow-
cation, width, depth, and ing through.
length of any proposed Bank erosion control meas-
channel and the disposal area ures.
all existing and proposed
structures; sewage collection For spoil disposal:
and treatment facilities, util- Height of berm.
ity installations, roadways, Width of berm at top and
on adjacent uplands, and the at bottom.
type of equipment to be used Spillway detail or other
and the means of equipment de-watering technique.
access to teh activity site; Distance of toe of berm
the names and addresses of from existing marsh.
owners of record of adjactent Erosion control during op-
land and known claimants of eration and revegetating
water rights in or adjacent to detail.
the wetland of whom th appli-
cant has notice; an estimate of For bulkheads, groins, jetties,
cost; the primary purpose of the ect.
project; any secondary purposes Precise dimensions - height,
of the project, including length, width, depth to
further projects; the public be sunk, distances apart.

APPENDIX IV (continued)

Wetlands Act Requirement VIMS Recommended Amplification

benefit to be derived from Construction materials and
the proposed project; a details - deadmen; end-
complete description of wall construction.
measures to be taken during
and after the alteration to For upland development:
reduce determental off-site
effects; the completion date Drainage system and pollutant
of the proposed work, project controls.
or structure and such ad- Density of use--number of
ditional materials and docu- houses, apartments, people
mentation as the Wetlands involved in commercial
Board may deem necessary. operations, number of
boats in marina.
For everything:

Land elevations and water
depths.

SOURCE: Marcellus, Kenneth L., Georg e M. Dawes and Gene M.
Silberhorn, "Local Management of Wetlands:
Environmental Considerations," Special Report No. 35,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, Virginia, June 1973.

@41.r

i@AL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

DATE DUE

F-

No. 2333 PRINTED H U S A

I fil mil ifif ril 11111 lill 115111110011114111101 fill

3 6668 14107 8149