[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Shoreline Situation Report Coastal Zone I MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Information Center 4 41fb 41. /* A -.-.T;;1.7 7T -aw --A r "'z - Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atornspheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 48 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 100 of the QH 301 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE'SCIENCE -V852 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 no. 100 1975 Shoreline Situation Report MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared by: Natalie J. Whitcomb Martha A. Patton Margaret H. Peoples Gary L. Anderson Carl H. Hobbs III U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA CO@A'SIAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 Project Supervisors: ftqP"tY Of COC Llbrazv Robert J. Byrne John M. Zeigler Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program' NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Con@ortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 48 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 100 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shorelands components 5 1.1 Purposes and goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 3: Bulkhead near Coach Point, photograph 15 FIGURE 4: Wilton Point, photograph 15 FIGURE 5: Jackson Creek, Deltaville, aerial photograph 15 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDER 3 FIGURE 6: Stingray Point, aerial photograph 15 2.1 Approach to the problem 4 FIGURE 7: Bluff at Grey's Point, photograph 15 2.2 Characteristics of the shorelands included FIGURE 8: Rappahannock River near Urbanna, photograph 16 in the study 4 FIGURE 9: Urbanna Creek jetty, aerial photograph 16 FIGURE 10: Parrotts Creek, photograph 16 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION 9 FIGURE 11: Parrotts Creek, photograph 16 3.1 The shorelands of Middlesex County 10 FIGURE 12: McKans Bay, photograph 16 3.2 Shoreline erosion 10 TABLE 1: Shorelands physiography 13 3.3 Potential shorelands use 11 TABLE 2: Public, leased, and condemned shellfishing grounds 14 TABLE 3: Segment and subsegment summaries 24 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND SEGMENT MAPS 23 MAPS 1A-E: 17 4.1 Table of segment summaries 24 MAPS 2A-C: 36 4.2 Segment and subsegment descriptions 26 MAPS 3A-C: 39 Segment 1 26 MAPS 4A-C: 42 Segment 2 28 MAPS 5A-C: 45 Segment 3 30 MAPS 6A-C: 48 Segment 4 31 MAPS 7A-C: 51 S egment 5 32 MAPS 8A-C: 54 Segment 6 34 MAPS 9A-C: 57 4.3 Segment and subsegment maps 36 MAPS 1OA-C: 60 MAPS 11A-C: 63 I I I I I I CHAPTER1 I I INTRODUCTION I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 CHPATER 1 Recreation may be most useful at a higher governmental level. INTRODUCTION Transportation The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally Waste disposal chosen to place, as much as possible, the regula- 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Extraction of living and non-living tory decision processes at the county level. The It is the objective of this report to supply resources Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter 2.1, Title an assessment, and at least a partial integration, Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve 62.1, Code of Virginia), for example, provides for of those important shoreland parameters and char- various ecological functions. the establishment of County Boards to act on ap- acteristics which will aid the planners and the The role of planners and managers is to opti- plications for alterations of wetlands. Thus, our managers of the shorelands in making the best de- mize the utilization of the shorelands and to min- focus at the county level is intended to interface cisions for the utilization of this limited and imize the conflicts arising from competing demands. with and to support the existing or pending county very valuable resource. The report gives partic- Furthermore, once a particular use has been decided regulatory mechanisms concerning activities in the ular attention to the problem of shore erosion and upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the shorelands zone. to recommendations concerning the alleviation of planners and the users want that selected use to the impact of this problem. In addition wehave operate in the most effective manner. A park 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tried to include in our assessment some of the po- planner, for example, wants the allotted space to This report was prepared with funds provided tential uses of the shoreline, particularly with fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that by the Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) respect to recreational use, since such informa- the results of our work are useful to the planner program of the National Science Foundation admin- tion could be of considerable value in the way a in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- istered through the Chesapeake Research Consortium particular segment of coast is perceived by poten- cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- (CRC), Inc. The publication funds were provided tial users. ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, through the Coastal Zone Management act of the The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- if the use were a residential development, we would Commonwealth of Virginia. Gaynor Williams and aration of the report is that the use of shore- hope our work would be useful in specifying the Dennis Owen assisted with data reduction and prep- lands should be planned rather than haphazardly shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses aration. Ken Thornberry and Bill Jenkins prepared developed in response to the short term pressures likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In the photographs. Beth Marshall typed the manu- and interests. Careful planning could reduce the summary our objective is to provide a useful tool script. We thank the numerous other persons in conflicts which may be expected to arise between for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, both Virginia and Maryland who have criticized competing interests. Shoreland utilization in the shorelands of the Commonwealth. and commented upon our methods and ideas. many areas of the country, and indeed in some Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such informally, at all levels from the private owner of that the very elements which attracted people to shoreland property to county governments, to the shore have been destroyed by the lack of planning districts and to the state and federal planning and forethought. agency level. We feel our results will be useful The major man-induced uses of the shorelands at all these levels. Since the most basic level of are: comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county -- Residential, commercial, or industrial or city level, we have executed our report on that development level although we realize some of the information 2 I I I I I I C A 2 I I I APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED I I I I I I I I I 1 3 CHAPTER 2 the subsegment. Segments are a grouping of.@@ @se - be considered as being composed of three inter- APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED ments. The boundaries for segments also were se- acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the lected on physiographic units such as necks or shore and the nearshore. A graphic classifica- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, tion based on these three elements has been de- In the preparation of this report the authors the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- vised so that the types for each of the three ele'- utilized existing information wherever possible. line segments. ments portrayed side by side on a map may provide For example, for such elements as water quality The format of presentation in the report follows the opportunity to examine joint relationships characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- a sequence from general summary statements for the among the elements. As an example, the applica- ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and tion of the system permits the user to determine or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each miles of high bluff shoreland interfac ing with tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing marsh in the shore zone. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not this format was to allow selective use of the report For each subsegment there are two length mea- available, so we performed the field work and de- since some users' needs will adequately be met with surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- the summary overview of the county while others will line, and the fastland-shore interface. The' two- lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed require the detailed discussion of particular sub- interface lengths differ most when the shore zone heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore line of each county and cataloged the slides for 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED IN interface when it differs from the shoreline. The easy access at VIMS, where they remain available THE STUDY fastland-shore interface length is the base for for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma- The characteristics which are included in this the fastland statistics. terials, along with existing conventional aerial report are listed below followed by a discussion of Definitions: photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, our treatment of each. Shore Zone for the desired elements. We conducted field in- a) Shorelands physiographic classification This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is spection ovcr much of the shoreline, particularly b) Shorelands use classification a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- at those locations where office analysis left c) Shorelands ownership classification land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the questions unresolved. In some cases we took addi- d) Zoning break in slope between the relatively steeper shore- tional photographs along with the field visits to e) Water quality face and the less steep nearshore zone. The approx- document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses imate landward limit is a contour line representing The basic shoreline unit considered is called g) Potential shore uses one and a half times the mean tide range above mean a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred h) Distribution of marshes low water (refer to Figure 1 ). In operation with feet to several thousand feet in length. The end i) Flood hazard levels topographic maps the inner fringe of the marsh sym- points of the subsegments were generally chosen on j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds bols is taken as the landward limit. physiographic consideration such as changes in the k) Beach quality The physiographic character of the marshes has character of erosion or deposition. In those cases also been separated into three types (see Figure 2). where a radical change in land use occurred, the a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification: Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 feet in point of change was taken as a boundary point of The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may width and which runs in a band parallel to the 4 shore. Extensive marsh is that which has extensive Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; yards respectively. The class limits were set at acreage projecting into an estuary or river. An with or without cliff half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side ernbayed marsh is a marsh which occupies a reentrant Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- or drowned creek valley. The purpose in delineating relief; with or without cliff shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, intermediate these marsh types is that the effectiveness of the Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. various functions of the marsh will, in part, be relief; with or without cliff The following definitions have no legal signif- determined by type of exposure to the estuarine High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; icance and were constructed for our classifica- system. A fringe marsh may, for example, have maxi- with or without cliff. tion purposes: mum value as a buffer to wave erosion,of the fast- Two specially classified exceptions are sand Narrow, 12-ft. (3-7 m) isobath located <400 land. An extensive marsh, on the other hand, is dunes and areas of artificial fill. yards from shore likely a more efficient transporter of detritus and Nearshore Zone Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- other food chain materials due to its greater drain- The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone 1,400 yards from shore age density than an embayed marsh. The central to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller Wide, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards point is that planners, in the light of ongoing and tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- Subclasses: with or without bars future research, will desire to weight various erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the with or without tidal flats functions of marshes and the phyoiographic delinea- maximum depth of significant sand transport by waves with or without submerged tion aids their decision making by denoting where in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the distinct vegetation the various types exist. drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at The classification used is: the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone includes any -*-FA STLAND-4SHOR NEARSHORE Beach tidal flats. Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- a Range Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statistical along shores study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater con- 12' Extensive marsh tour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate Figure An illust@ratio@nof @the d@ef@@ inition of the Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley or charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines of three components of the shorelands. reentrant Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahannock, Artificially stabilized and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard deviations FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE MARSH MARSH MARSH Fastland Zone for each of the separate regions and for the entire 77", 715 r The zone extending from the landward limit of combined system were calculated and compared. Al- the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast though the distributions were non-normal, they were land is relatively stable and is the site of most generally comparable, allowing the data for the en- material development or construction. The physio- tire combined system to determine the class limits. FASTLAND I FASTILAND graphic classification of the fastland is based The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan- upon the average slope of the land within 400 feet dard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. The determine general, serviceable class limits, these Figure 2 A generalized illustration of the three general classification is: calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 different marsh types. 5 b) Shorelands Use Classification: environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild- c) Shorelands ownership Classification: Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation The shorelands ownership classification used Residential grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel- has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- Includes all forms of residential use with the opment. tal, with the governmental further divided into exception of farm and other isolated dwellings. federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- In general, a residential area consists of four or Agricultural cation of the classification is restricted to fast- more residential buildings adjacent to one another. Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership Schools, churches, and isolated businesses may be other agricultural areas. extends to mean low water. All bottoms below mean included in a residential area. low water are in State ownership. Unmanaged Commercial Includes all open or wooded lands not included d) Water Quality: Includes buildings, parking areas, and other in other classifications: The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or land directly related to retail and wholesale trade a) Open: brush land, dune areas, waste- unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments and business. This category includes small indus- lands; less than 40% tree cover. are taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of try and other anomalous areas within the general b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from commercial context. Marinasare considered com- The shoreland use classification applies to water samples collected in the various tidewater mercial shore use. the general usage of the fastland area to an ar- shellfishing areas. The Bureau attempts to visit bitrary distance of half mile from the shore or each area at least once a month. Industrial beach zone or to some less distant, logical bar- The ratings are defined primarily in regard to Includes all industrial and associated areas. rier. In multi-usage areas one must make a sub- number of coliform bacteria. For a rating of sat- Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, jective selection as to the primary or controlling isfactory the maximum limit is an MPN (Most Prob- power plants, railyards. type of usage. able Number) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any count Government Shore Zone above these limits results in an unsatisfactory Includes lands whose usage is specifically Bathing rating, and, from the Bureau's standpoint, results. controlled, restricted, or regulated by governmen- Boat launching in restricting the waters from the taking of shell- tal organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort Story. Bird watching fish for direct sale to the consumer. Waterfowl hunting There are instances, however, when the total Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal M11N Includes designated outdoor recreation lands and Nearshore Zone does not exceed 211, and other conditions are ac- miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf courses, Pound net fishing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating tennis clubs, amusement parks, public beaches, race Shellfishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be tracks, cemeteries, parks. Sport fishing permitted to remain open pending an improvement Extraction of non-living resources in conditions. Preserved Boating Although these limits are somewhat more strin- Includes lands preserved or regulated for Water sports gent than those used in rating recreational waters 6 (see Virginia State Water Control Board, Water existing structures are inadequate, we have given of Marine Science, 1969, and in other VIMB publi- Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- cations. used here because the Bureau of Shellfish Sanita- thermore, recommendations are given for defenses tion provides the best areawi-de coverage avail- in those areas where none currently exist. The i) Flood Hazard Levels: able at this time. In general, any waters fitting primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the the satisfactory or intermediate categories would ness with secondary consideration to cost. whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still be acceptable for water recreation. incomplete. However, the United States Army Corps g) Potential Shore Uses: of Engineers has prepared reports for a number of e) Zoning: We placed particular attention in our study on localities which were used in this report. Two In cases where zoning regulations have been evaluating the recreational potential of the shore tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray established the existing information pertaining zone. We included this factor in the considera- the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is to the shorelands has been included in the report. tion of shoreline defenses for areas of high rec- that flood with an average recurrence time of reational potential. Furthermore, we gave con- about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses: sideration to the development of artificial indicates it to have an elevation of approximately The following ratings are used for shore beaches if this method were technically feasible 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake erosion: at a particular site. Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es- slight or none - less than 1 foot per year tablished for land planning purposes which is moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year h) Distribution of Marshes: placed at the highest probable flood level. severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year The acreage and physiographic type of the The locations with moderate and severe ratings are marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti- j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds: further specified as being critical or noncritical. mates of acreages were obtained from topographic The data in this report show the leased and The erosion is considered critical if buildings, maps and should be considered only as approxima- public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir- roads, or other such structures are endangered. tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands ginia State Water Control Board publication The degree of erosion was determined by several are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of means. In most locations the long term trend was Marine Science under the authorization of the Virginia: Public, leased and condemned," November determined using map comparisons of shoreline po- Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar sitions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In 62.1-13-4). These surveys include detailed acre- reports. Since the condemnation areas change with addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's and ages of the grass species composition within indi- time they are not to be taken as definitive. How- recent years were utilized for an assessment of vidual marsh systems. The material in this report ever, some insight to the conditions at the date more recent conditions. Finally, in those areas is provided to indicate the Physiographic types of of the report are available by a comparison be- experiencing severe erosion field inspections and marshes and to serve as a rough guide on acreages tween the shellfish grounds maps and the water interviews were held with local inhabitants. until detailed surveys are completed. Addi- quality maps for which water quality standards The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated tional information of the wetlands characteris- for shellfish were used. as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- tics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: tive visits were made to monitor the effective- Interim Report by Marvin L. Wass and Thomas D. ness of recent installations. In instances where Wright, SRA.MSOE Report No. 10, Virginia Institute 7 k) Beach Quality: Beach quality is a subjective judgment based on such considerations as the nature of the beach material, the length and width of the beach area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the beach setting. I I I I I I CHAPTER 3 1 1 PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION I I I I I I I I I 1 9 1 CHAPTER 3 Thirty-three percent of the shoreline of this may be two or more feet above the normal high PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF county is comprised of beaches. Most of the tide level. Because of the high water, the wave MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA beaches are fairly wide and very clean. There action is concentrated on the higher fastland, are only two beaches in the county to which the above the natural buffer provided by the beach 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY general public has access. One is located next or marsh. In addition to wave height, the direc- Middlesex County is bounded on the north by the to the Norris Bridge (Segment 3) and the other is tion at which waves impinge upon the shoreline Rappahannock River, on the east by the Chesapeake located on Stingray Point (Subsegment 5A). controls the long shore transport of material. Bay, and on the south by the Piankatank River. The fastland in Middlesex County is mainly The transport of material along a beach is, in The shorelands reflect the countyts p-redominantly used for agricultural purposes or small housing theory, the greatest when the waves break at an rural character in that they are relatively un- developments. Many of these small housing devel- angle of forty-five degrees (to the shoreline). developed. Deltaville and Urbanna are the only opments are chiefly comprised of second or summer The overall erosion situation of any particu- fairly large population centers located on the homes. Most of Middlesex County's population is lar segment may vary from year to year depending shore. The shorelands in these areas are subject dependent upon agriculture or shellfishing as a upon the frequency and intensity of the wave to somewhat heavy use throughout most of the year. source of income. Thus, the development of the action and the mean sea level. The overall trend The fastland of Middlesex County ranges from county should be controlled so that the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay is that of a rising low shore to high shore with some areas of artifi- quality in the Rappahannock and Piarkatank Rivers sea level. Although the yearly rate of subsi- cial fill (see Table 1). The artificial fill is is not damaged. dence is low, through time this trend can be mainly used to fill in behind bulkheading for cos- significant. metic purposes. Because 75% of the shoreline is 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY Beaches and marshes are natural barriers a- low or moderately low shore, flooding can be a The pattern of erosion of Middlesex County's gainst the erosion of the fastland. The beaches problem during times of abnormally high water. shoreline is as irregular as the shoreline itself. absorb the incident wave energy and therefore Most of the heavy flooding occurs during northeast The primary cause of erosion in the Chesapeake inhibit or retard the erosion of the fastland. storms which occur during the fall, winter, and Bay system is wave action generated by local winds. As beach material is attained from the erosion spring. The northeast winds of these storms pile The height and growth of waves is controlled by of the fastland, either at the sit-e or at an up- up water along Stingray Point and in the mouthes four factors: The overwater distance across which drift site, the shape and size of any particular of the Piankatank and Rappahannock Rivers. In the wind blows (the fetch), the velocity of the beach may change through time. Middlesex County, the upper portions of the rivers, tidal marshes wind, the duration of time that the wind blows, according to an unpublished VIMS study of the protect the fastland from severe flooding. and the depth of the water. The weather patterns historical patterns and rates of shoreline re- Tidal marshes, including fringe, embayed, and affecting the Chesapeake Bay area are such that treat in Tidewater Virginia, ranks 16th among extensive marshes, comprise 67% of the county's the maximum winds occur during storms and frontal the Tidewater counties in loss of acres per mile shoreline (a tidal marsh inventory for Middlesex passages. The northeast storms that occur during of shoreline for the hundred years ending in is forthcoming). All marsh areas should be pre- the fall, winter, and spring attack the Chesapeake 1950. The net loss, as an aggregate, is 1,230 served due to their ecological assets, and flood Bay's western shore. The winds and low barometric acres or an average yearly retreat of 0.8 feet. and erosion protection qualities. This is espe- pressure associated with these "northeasters" af- The minimum estimated volume of the loss is cially true for Dragon Swamp which is still a fect the erosion situation by piling water up 24,582,000 cubic yards. The greatest amount of relatively unspoiled area of wetlands. along the Bay's western shore. This storm surge erosion has occurred near Stingray Point in the 10 eastern section of the county where the average The Deltaville waterfront along the Rappahan- because most of the residents depend on the water erosion rate has been 6.1 feet per year. Here nock River, and that near Grinels have suffered or the land as a source of income, most of the the shore is exposed to the long fetches and heavy severe erosion. This area has now been fairly land is already used for agricultural purposes. wave action of the Chesapeake Bay. well stabilized by the use of bulkheads and The shore and nearshore areas could support In addition to its open exposure, the fastland groins. more recreational use. There are, for example, material, sands and gravels with some clay, offers The beaches along the Rappahannock River in only four campgrounds and two public beaches in little resistance to the waves. Residential de- the vacinity of Urbanna have been severely eroded the county. After considerations such as fresh velopment of the shoreline has brought an increased in the past. This problem has been intensified water supply, sewage treatment or disposal, awareness of the severity of the erosion problem. by the starvation of the beaches due to the drainage, and soil analysis have been taken into Solutions to the problem have primarily been ap- Urbanna Creek jetty. Thus, despite the numerous account, it is possible that more campgrounds proved on an individual basis. Now, sections of shore protective structures in this area, the could be developed on the upper Piankatank River. this area are fairly well stabilized and protected beaches are nonexistant. The Rappahannock River has possibilities for with bulkheads, riprap, and groins. Attendant Some undercutting of bluffs is occurring west other public beaches along its shoreline. How- with this has been the disappearance of the beach of Grey's Point and in an area east of Bayport. ever, any beaches should include adequate parking along other sections of the shoreline, as sediment These are both relatively unpopulated areas and facilities and, if possible, bath houses. The sources have been withdrawn from the littoral despite the fact that trees are falling down utility of the public beach in Segment 3, near system. The early implementation of an overall these bluffs, no structures are endangered. the Grey's Point campground, might be enhanced plan with a unified approach to shoreline protec- Elsewhere in the county, no particularly se- by the inclusion of bath houses, restrooms, and tion might have prevented some of the secondary vere erosion occurs. All the areas of moderate parking facilities. or man-made problems. The best that can reason- erosion have been fairly well stabilized. Some residential development could be under- ably be expected is to attempt to retain or re- Shoreline erosion is considered a major prob- taken along the Piankatank River in Segments 5 establish the beaches which exist. Two possible lem only in the county's developed or developing and 6 and along the Rappahannock River in Segment courses of action are (1) replenishment with a areas. Here man's presence has led to the recog- 1. However, such development should be planned program of general beach nourishment and (2) site nition of the problem and, in some cases, to its so as not to cause significant detrimental impact specifically designed structures to trap moving aggravation. Elsewhere in Middlesex there are on the local environment. sands. A combination of these two actions, al- no major structures endangered by erosion and the Dragon Swamp, discussed in Subsegment 6B, is though more expensive, might be significantly problem is not considered critical. If the prob- a remarkably well preserved marshland area. beneficial to justify the increased cost. Groin lems of shoreline erosion are addressed before Canoeing trips, nature walks through the marsh, systems are of limited value here as they depend new development begins and an area plan of shore and bird watcher tours could be organized to on the littoral transport of sand along the shore. protection is adopted, the aggravated erosion take advantage of this very valuable area. How- With the supply areas withdrawn from the system witnessed in other areas might be prevented. ever, the marshes should be left as undisturbed and the resulting decrease in littoral transport, as possible. groins would be only partially successful at re- 3.3 POTENTIAL SHORELANDS USE Although there is room for further development taining existing beaches. Re-establishment of Fifty percent of the shorelands in Middlesex in the county, none should be undertaken without the beaches will entail a detailed study of the County are unmanaged; however, development would careful planning. Middlesex County's greatest area and a unified solution. be difficult due to lack of easy access. Also, attractions are its quiet, rural atmosphere, and I clean beaches. Despite pressures to develop and I consume the county's shorelands, these features should be preserved. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 12 1 TABLE 1. MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES se and wnership lassifi- FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE ation 10, op 0 0 Fq 3q @4 0 r E-1 H H Q Q F-1 E-1 0 0 pq F-i -:4 E-j r=4 P-4 0 0 il P@ H' Fq rRlq pq A4 0 00 EMI P@ H 0 0 IF--,I E-1 pol pq 0 P4 Subsegment m :E@ F-1 :54 w M -:4 P:4 PCI @ A A N u, -4 p:11 1A 0.9 3.2 0.7 1.8 3.5 0.7 0.9 1.7 3.4 0.2 1.7 4.0 0.7 6.6 6.6 5.1 1B 10.0 21.6 3.6 6.2 4.7 13.6 4.2 0.2 12.2 3.2 3.0 9.1 7.3 21.1 3.9 41 .4 41. 4 22 .7 2A 4.7 12.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 8.5 2.9 1.4 9.7 0.9 0.3 4.9 0.2 1.5 14.0 20.6 20.6 14.8 2B 5.6 7.0 0.4 1.0 7.3 1.5 1.6 6.5 1.1 2.4 0.9 2.8 6.9 13.0 13.0 11.4 2C 1.6 2.5 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 6.4 1.8 0.5 7.2 0.4 0.7 o.6 1.0 3.4 4.8 10.6 10.6 9.5 3 12.4 12.1 5.4 11.7 2.5 1.8 3.2 8.2 8.8 1.4 3.3 11.0 24.5 24.5 24.6 4 16.9 14.2 5.8 5.9 20.2 1.5 4.6 8.7 23.1 5.5 5.3 7.1 3.3 14.1 8.3 4.1 36.9 36.9 40.9 5A 11.0 1.0 5.1 0.9 0.4 3.6 6.o 2.3 0.2 2.4 7.1 1.5 11.0 11.0 11.0 .5B 8.3 14.5 1.9 5.7 10.5 1.8 5.5 19.4 1.4 6.1 2.1 4.0 12.5 24.7 24.7 23.5 6A 4.9 5.1 0.2 1.8 5.3 0.9 1.7 5.6 3.1 1.9 3.0 4.7 0.6 10.2 10.2 9.7 6B 4.0 8.4 1.0 0.2 1.0 3.5 6.2 1.6 1.0 2.7 2.4 0.2 2.5 8.5 13.6 13.6 13.3 SUBTOTAL 80.3 100.7 17.3 12.0 2.8 32.8 92.8 24.2 8.4 28.3 92.4 27.9 12.2 43.4 9.9 2.4 50.7 97.3 9.3 213.1 213.1 186.5 % of SHORELINE 18% 50% 13% 4% 15% 70% 21% 9% 100%, % of FASTLAND 38% 47% 8% 6% 1% 20% 5% 1% 24% 46% 4% 100% 100% us 0 e wr a la a n er t d sh sl 0 lp fi n S s gm t ub \een 13 TABLE 2. PUBLIC, LEASED, AND CONDEMNED SHELLFISHING GROUNDS, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Leased Ground Condemned Ground Public Ground Body of Water Number of Tracts Acreage Area Number Estimated Acreage Estimated Acreage Rappahannock River 454 10,523.9 51&53 1,045 Hunting Creek 4 8.5 Broad Creek 12 101.8 38 81 Sturgeon Creek 19 141.6 Bush Park Creek 3 125.0 Mill Creek 21 142.8 Locklies Creek 30 217.9 Meachim Creek 14 62.3 Whiting Creek 1 7.7 Mud Creek 20 46.0 Urbanna Creek 2@ 129.1 42 297 Robinson Creek 24 140.3 Lagrange Creek 24 203.3 Weeks Creek 7 122.2 Parrotts Creek 7 148.7 Chesapeake Bay 1 2.2 Fishing Bay 8 12.9 Healys Creek 3 35.4 Jacksons Creek 53 87.0 Piankatank River 229 1,551.5 Wilton Creek 8 69.2 Piankatank River and Vacinity 14,112.2 Rappahannock River and Corrotoman River 55,185.1* Total 945 13,879.3 1,423.0 69,297.3 This value includes the approximately 10,000 acres of additional public ground as provided in Section 28.1-144 of the Code of Virginia. FIGURE 3: Bulkhead located NW of Coach Point along the Piankatank Shores. The bulkhead is subject to flooding during high tide. FIGURE 4: Wilton Point on the Piankatank River, Subsegment 6A. FIGURE 5: Jackson Creek in Subsegment 5A. The b*-' heavily developed shoreline is typical of the Deltaville area. FIGURE 6: An overview of Stingray Point, Subsegment 5A. FIGURE 7: Bluffs along Grey's Point in Segment 3. Note the slumping that'is occurring. FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 -7- FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 15 x, ^74t AA, 7m; "Air FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 8: The Rappahannock River along Urbanna in Subsegment 2C. The beaches here are vir- tually nonexistant. -F-7- 7 Mq "A, N54 FIGURE 9: The Urbanna Creek jetty located in Subsegment 2C. . ... .... . . FIGURE 10: Parrotts Creek located in Subseg- ment 1B. w FIGURE 11: Parrotts Creek near Mill Stone Tianding. FIGURE 12: McKans Bay near the Middlesex Essex county line. Note the slumping of the bluffs in the foreground. FIGURE 11 FIGURE 12 16 76'\30' 1 A MAP 1A 1B MIDDLESEX COUNTY BRIDGE VE 3 4v 2 A 2B 370 tk 760 4 4410 Q Q co PIANKA B E ou SEGMENT LOCATION MAP 1 AMcKANS BAY 1 BPUNCH BOWL PT. TO GOOSE PT. 2A LAGRANGE CREEK 2B RO:INSON CREEK 2C UR ANNA CREEK 3BAILEY PT. TO GREYS PT. 4GREYS PT. TO STINGRBY PT. 5A JACKSON CREEK 5B STORE PT. TO WILTON PT. 6A WILTON PT. TO COACH PT. 6B COACH PT. TO DRAGON SWAMP 76'\45' 379-"30' 17 3 0,.,"4 5'- 76 '\30' 1A MAP 1B 1B 0 0 MIDDLESEX COUNTY 0 0 0 BRIDGE f? VE 0 0 0 2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2B 0 0 0 0 Ik 2C 0 0 -@o 0 0 37 0 0 4, 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 4@ G 4,,V Q& 41 CO& N 0-0-,0-0-0- @-0-0-0-0 SHORELANDS TYPES 6 B FASTLAND G@- ouccs.T Low Shore I X Low Shore SHORE with Bluff Beach Moderately Low Shore -A Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Moderately Low Shore Extensive Marsh with Bluff L.A..L.JLJ Embayed Marsh Moderately High Shore A--&--A--.A NEARSHORE High Shore Narrow 0-0-0-0 High Shore Intermediate 0 0 0 0 with Bluff Wide 9 9 0 0 Artificial Fill Artificially Stabilized -A- -A- -A- -A- -/6-\45 3 7.%--3 0' 18 37 0,1"45' 76'\30' 1A MAP 1C 1B MIDDLESEX COUNTY 81VER BRIDGE 1 Arf @@l R @S 4u Iw I U@ 2A 3 I C I w I @RS ]A- Iw IRSI- A I A@I A I A U IU V) I RIS. IA 3@ Iw Iw IA Iw Iw 2C IRS Iw1R 1w - IA IA Iw i;@@ I A I R SICS, W lu 1A IA IA IA wIRS IRS A I A 1A Iw 37o 1 IW 1RS'1W IWM 1A IV, I A I 4 IAKd 1w IRS Iw 'C 76* Iw C /,I A 1 A1 w I A I A 45 1 A IRS IRS IA IRS 1w IA IW IA IA 1w Iw Iw IRC 1w 1A IA ]A kl'v G 441o Q J, I A Iw ]A I wIRS w I ]A 1W I R'S IRS IA ]A I A PIANKA con I w IRS IRS I w I @w 6B FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP JLO USE Agricultural A Commercial C Recreational RC Residential RS Boat Ramp Unmanaged Marina Unwooded U Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private R @Cj IRS (6.\45 3 791-'3 0' 19 3 7 OZ45 76'\30' 1A MAP 1D 1B MIDDLESEX COUNTY .. ............ . BRIDGE 1 RIVE .. .. ..... .. 2A 2 B C, 2 C . . . . . . . . . . 370 4.5-' 76* 45 G 4410 Q /V cou IANKI (41;"), % \,z SHELLFISH GROUNDS 6 WATER QUALITY 0 CF Sv WASTE DISCHARGES WATER QUALITY GL SHELLFISH (OYSTER) GR OU.NDS Satisfactory S Public Grounds Intermediate I Leased Grounds Unsatisfactory U Condemnation Areas WASTE DISCHARGE Domestic Industrial 16-\45 3 7 943 0' 20 3 7 @Z45' 76 -\,30' 1 A MAP 1E 1B MIDDLESEX COUNTY BRIDGE 2 2 RIVER BG R'G 2A 3 4u 2B ct@y BG"' /B 2C -rd 9S@ e B BG. BG BG BG-R-B@ 370 .5'. ! 4 fz 8',R-BG R 760 B IL G G 4@ B GB 4410 BG, G B BG- B RPIANKA 6B 6 -TER GLOUCES EROSION AND SHORELINE STRUCTURE x EROSION SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES Severe Riprap R Severe, Critical Groins G Moderate Bulkheads B Slight or No Change No Symbol or Seawall Accretional + + + + ZB,B 160\45' 3 7,q,"3 0 21 I I I C A ER 4 1 1 1 4.1 TABLE OF SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES I 1 4.2 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGIVIENT DESCRIPTIONS I I 1 4.3 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGIVIENT MAPS I I I I I I 1@ I 11 23 1 TABLE 3 1 SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, MIDDLESEX COUNTY VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS T)[PE SHORELANDS _USE OWNERSHIP FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION POTENTIAL USE N NT 1A FASTLAND: Low shore 14%, moderately low FASTLAND: Commercial 2%, residential Private. Low, noncritical No data. Good. Beaches Severe, noncritical from east of Bayport to Route 648; Low. Ac cess to the shore is very McKANS BAY shore 48%, moderately high shore 117@, 25%, unmanaged, wooded 61%, and un- for most of the are wide, moderate, noncritical from Route 648 to Punchbowl limited. 5.1 miles and high shore 27%. managed, unwooded 12%. segment; critical, clean, and Point. Punchbowl Point is accreting. All shore pro- (fastland- SHORE: Beach 69%, fringe marsh 14%, and SHORE: Bathing and private use, huw- for the shucking sandy. tective structures appear to be effective. 6.6 mi.) artificially stabilized 17%. ever most of the shoreline is unused. house near the NEARSHORE: Intermediate 33% and wide NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, county line. 67%. fishifig, waterfowl hunting, and com- mercial shellfishing. 1B FASTLAND: Low shore 24%, moderately low FASTIAND: Agricultural 22?@, residen- Private. Low, noncritical Intermediate in Fair. Beaches Moderate, noncritical along the Rappahannock River, Low. Most of the property in this PUNCHBOWL shore 52%, moderately high shore 9%, and tial 18%, unmanaged, wooded 51%, and for most of the Mud and Parrotts are clean and slight or no change within Mud, Parrotts, Harry George, subsegment is being used for agri- POINT TO high shore 15%. unmanaged, unwooded 9%. subsegment; mod- Creeks as of sandy, but and Weeks Creeks. Punchbowl Point and Smokey Point are cultural purposes. GOOSE POINT SHORE* Beach 21%, fringe @iarsh 60%, em- SHORE: Bathing and private use. erate ' critical January, 1975. rather narrow accreting. All shore protective structures appear to 22.7 miles bayed marsh 18%y and artificially stabi- NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, in the vacinity be effective. (fastland- lized 1%. fishing, waterfowl hunting, and com- of Water View. 41.4 mi.) NEARSHORE: Narrow 66%, intermediate mercial shellfishing. 17%, and wide 16%. 2A FASTLAND: Low shore 23%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 24%, commer- Private. Low, noncritical. Unsatisfactory as Fair. Beaches Moderate, noncritical along Balls Point; slight or no Moderate. Some residential devel- LAGRANGE CREEK shore 59%, moderately high shore 10%, cial 1%, residential 7%, and un- of January, 1975. along the change within the creek. All shore protective struc- opment could be undertaken. 14.8 miles and high shore 8%. managed, wooded 68%. mouth of La- tures appear to be effective. (fastland- SHORE: Beach 14%, fringe marsh 57%, em- SHORE: Some bathing and fishing. grange Creek 20.6 mi.) bayed marsh 20%, and artificially stabi- NTARSHORE: Boatingy water sports, and are clean and lized 9%. fishing. sandy, but NEARSHORE: Shallow 88%, intermediate rather narrow. 9%, and wide 3%. 2B FASTLAND: lowshore 43%, moderately'low FASTLAND: Agz@icultural 18%, commer- Private. Low, noncriticai, Unsatisfactory as Fair to poor. Moderate to slight or no change in Robinson Creek. Moderate. Some development could ROBINSON CREEK shore 54%, and artificial fill 3%. cial 7%, residential 22%, and un- except critical of January, 1975. Beaches along Severe along the Rappahannock River. Most of the pro- takeplace along Robinson Creek. 11.4 miles SHORE: Beach 9%, fringe marsh 64%; em- managed, wooded 45%. near Remlick the mouth of tective structures are fairly effective. Along the (fastiand- bayed marsh 13%, and artificially sta- SHORE: Bathing and private use. Wharf and Urbanna Robinson Creek Urbanna waterfronti-some of the bulkheading needs 13.0 mi.) bilized 14%. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, Creek jetty. are clean and repairing. NEARSHORE: Shallow 86% and intermediate fishing, and commercial shellfishing. sandyp but nar- 15%. row. Along the Rappahannock River beaches are exceedingl@ narrow and muddy. 2C FASTIAND: Low shore 15%, moderately low FASTIAN D: Agricultural 7%, commercial Private. Low, noncritical, Condemned as of Fair to poor. Slight or no change. Accretion is occurring around Moderate. Some developing could URBANNA CREEK shore 24%, moderately high shore 385, 6%, recreational 9%, residential 32%, except critical August.18, 1961. Most of the the Urbanna Creek jetty. All the shore protective take place along the creek, but 5.9 miles high shore 19%, and artificial fill 4%. and unmanaged, wooded 45%. near the Urbanna beaches are structures are in good repair and are effective. access to the shoreline is rather (fastland- SHORE: Beach 9%, fringe marsh 67%, em- SHORE: Bathing, private use, and com- Creek jetty. narrow and mud- limited. 10.6 mi.) bayed marsh 19%, and artificially sta- mercial use. dy. Near the bilized 5%. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, creek's mouth NEARSHORE: Shallow 95% and intermediate and fishing. there are some 5%. fairly wide, sandy beaches. 3 FASTLAND: Low shore 51% and moderately FASTLAND: Agricultural 36%, recrea- Private. Low, noncritical. -Intermediate in Good. Beaches Moderate, noncritical. All existing shore protective Low. Most of the shoreline is BAILEY POINT low shore 49%. tional. 6%, residential 13%, and un- Whiting and Mea-, are clean, structures are effective. The bluffs on Greys Point presently being used for agricul- to GREYS POINT SHORE: Beach 22%, fringe marsh 48%, managed, wooded 45%. chim Creeks as of sandy, and and those east of Meachim Creek (off Route 645) may tural purposes. L>4.6 miles extensive marsh 10%, and artificially SHORE: Bathing and private use. January, 1975. wide. need some protection in the future. '(fastland- stabilized 13%. NEARSHORE: Boatingi water sports, The Rappahannock 24.5 mi.) NEARSHORE: Intermediate 100%. fishing, and commercial shellfishing. River below Ur- banns Creek as far as Whiting Creek was condemned March 20, 1963. 24 Table 3 (continued' SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELARDS USE OWNERSHIP -FLOOD HAZARD WATER QUALITY BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT 4 FASTLAND: Low shore 46%, moderately low FASTIAND: Agricultural 19%, commer- Private. Mo@erate, non- Intermediate in Good. Beaches Moderate, noncritical from Greys Point to Bush Park Moderate. The shoreline in this GREYS POINT to shore 38%, and moderately high shore 16%. cial 9%, residential 38%, unmanaged, critical, except Locklies, Mill, are clean, Creek. Severe, noncritical from east of Woods Creek subsegment is already fairly heavily STINGRAY POINT SHORE: Beach 14%, fringe marsh 50%, em- wooded 22%, and unmanaged, unwooded critical from Bush Park, and sandy, and to Stingray Point. Accretion is occurring southeast developed. Deltaville should be 40.9 miles bayed marsh 4%o, extensive marsh 11%, and 11%. Deltaville to Sturgeon Creeks as fairly wide. of Norris Bridge at the end of Route 631. All shore zoned to control the development of (fastland- artificially stabilized 21%. SHORE: Bathing, private use, and Stingray Point. of January, 1975. protective structures that are in good repair are the coastal zone. 36.9 mi.) NEARSHORE: Narrow 68%, intermediate commercial use. Satisfactory in effective. 16%, and wide NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, Broad Creek as of waterfowl hunting, and commercial January, 1975. shellfishing. 5A FASTLAND: Low shore 100%. FASTLAND: Commercial 21%, residential Private. High, critical. Satisfactory as of Good to poor. Severe, noncritical from Stingray Point to the end of Low. This area is already fairly JACKSON CREEK SHORE: Beach 9%, fringe marsh 46%, am- 65%, and unmanaged, wooded 14%. Most of the January, 1975. Along the Rap- Route 680. Accretion is occurring east of the mouth heavily developed. 11.0 miles bayed marsh 8%, extensive march 4%, and SHORE: Bathing, private use, and structures are pahannock Rix- of Jackson Creek. All shore protective structures in (fastland- artificially stabilized 33%. commercial use. located on or be- er, beaches are this subsegment appear to be effective. 11.0 mi. NEARSHORE: Narrow 71%, intermediate NFARSHORE: Boating, water sports, low the 5-foot wide, clean, 27%, and wide 2%. fishing, and commercial shellfishing. contour. and sandy. In Jackson Creek, beaches are narrow and muddy. 5B FASTLAND: Low shore 34%, moderately low FASTIAND: Agricultural 25%, commer- Private. Moderate, critical Satisfactory as Good. Beaches Moderate, non,:-itical on Horse Point, Glebe Neck, and Moderate. More residential or STOVE POINT to shore 58%, and artificial fill 8%. cial 9%, residential 16%, and un- from Stove Point of January, 1975. are fairly Wilton Point. Fishing Point and Bland Point are second homes could be built in this WILTON POINT SHORE: Beach 24%, fringe march 45%, em- managed, wooded 50%. to Fishing Point; Healy Creek was wide, clean, accreting. A.1 shore protective structures appear to area. 23.5 miles bayed marsh 8%, and artificially stabi- SHORE: Bathing, private use, and Low, noncritical, condemned April and sandy. be effective. (fastland- lized 23%. commercial use. from Fishing 28, 1972. 24.7 mi.) NEARSHORE: Narrow 93% and intermediate NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, Point to Wilton 7%. fishing, and commercial shellfishing. Point. 6A EASTLAND: Low shore 48%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 19%, residen- Private. Low, noncritical Satisfactory as Fair. The few Slight or no change to moderate. All shore protective Moderate. Some residential devel- WILTON POINT shore 50% 'and moderately high shore 2%. tial 29%, and unmanaged, wooded 46%. for all of the of January, 1975. beaches in this structures appear to be effective. oping could be done. to COACH POINT SHORE: Beach 19%, fringe march 54%, em- SHORE: Bathing and private use. subsegment, ex- subsegment are 9.7 miles bayed marsh 9%, and artificially stabi- NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, cept critical for clean and (fas tland- lized 18%. fishingg waterfowl hunting, and com- the Piankatank sandy, but very 10.2 mi.) NEARSHORE: Narrow 64% and intermediate mercial shellfishing. Shores develop- narrow. 36%. ment. 6B FASTIAND@' Low shore 29%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agri-cultural 18%, commer- Private. Low, noncritical Intermediate as Poor. There Slight or no change. Coach Point is accreting. All Low. Much ofthis areais wetlands COACH POINT to shore 63%, moderately high shore 7%, and cial 1%, residential 18%, and un- for all of the of Januaryq 1975. are very few shore protective structures are effective except some and should be left undisturbed. DRAGON SWAMP high shore 1%. managed, wooded 63%. subsegment, ex- beaches in this bulkheading northwest of Coach Point along the 13.3 miles SHORE: Beach 8%, fringe marsh 26%, em- SHORE: Some bathing and hunting. cept critical for subsegment. Piankatank Shores development. This bulkhead is low (fastland- bayed marsh 46%,.extensive marsh 12%, NFARSHORE: Boating, canoeing, water the Pi-ankatank They are very and subject to washover during high tides. 13.6 mi.) and artificially stabilized 8%. sports, fishing, and waterfowl Shores develop- narrow and com- NEARSHORE: Shallow 100%. hunting. ment. posed of very fine sand to mud. 25 McKANS BAY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PUNCHBOWL POINT TO GOOSE POINT, SUBSEGMENT 1A (Map 2) EROSION RATE: Severe from just east of Bayport to the end of Route 648; moderate from the end MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA of Route 648 to Punchbowl Point. Historically, SUBSEGMENT 1B (Maps 2, 3, and 4) EXTENT: 27,000 feet (5.1 mi.) of shoreline from the erosion rate in this subsegment has been the Essex County line to Punchbowl. Point on the 2.0 to 6.0 feet per year. Punchbowl. Point is Rappahannock River. The subsegment includes accreting at a rate of 1.9 feet per year. EXTENT: 120,000 feet (22.7 mi.) of shoreline 35,000 feet (6.6 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. from Punchbowl Point to Goose Point on the SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 2 bulk- Rappahannock River. This subsegment includes SHORELANDS TYPE heads and 41 groins. Some of the groins off 218,800 feet (41.4 mi.) of fastland. FASTLAND: Low shore 14% (0.9 mi.), moderately Route 648 are in a bad state of repair and not low shore 48% (3.2 mi.), moderately high shore very effective. Those in good repair are ef- SHORELANDS TYPE 11% (0-7 mi.), and high shore 27% (1-8 mi.). fective. FASTLAND: Low shore 24% (10.0 mi.), moder- SHORE: Beach 69% (3-5 mi.), fringe marsh 14% ately low shore 52% (21.6 mi. ), moderately (0-7 mi.), and artificially stabilized 17% Suggested Action: Repair and maintenance of high shore 9% (3.6 mi.), and high shore 15% (0.9 mi.). all structures should be undertaken. The bank (6.2 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate 33% (1-7 mi.) and wide east of Bayport is being undercut and may need SHORE: Beach 21% (4-7 mi - ), fringe marsh 60% 67% (3-4 mi.). some protection. (13.6 mi.), embayed marsh 18% (4.2 mi.), and artificially stabilized 1% (0.2 mi. ). 11 SHORELANDS USE OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 20 privately NEARSHORE: Narrow 66% (12.2 mi.), intermedi- FASTLAND: Commercial 2% (0.2 mi.), residential owned piers and several privately owned ramps. ate 17% (3.2 mi.), and wide 16% (3-0 mi.) 25% (1-7 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 61% (4-0 mi.), POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Access to the SHORELANDS USE and unmanaged, unwooded 12% (0-7 mi.). shore in this area is limited. FASTLAND: Agricultural 22% (9-1 mi.), resi- SHORE: Bathing and private use in populated dential 18% (7-3 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 51% areas, but most of the shore in this subsegment MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), MORATTICO (21.2 mi.), and unmanaged, unwooded 9% (3-9 is unused. Quadr., 1968. mi.). NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHURCH VIEW SHORE: Bathing and private use. waterfowl hunting, and commercial shellfishing. Quadr., 1968; Pr. 1973. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom consists of fine USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), URBANNA waterfowl hunting, and commercial shellfishing. sand which grades into mud. It slopes gently Quadr.9 1968. to a channel which averages twenty feet in C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom is composed of hard depth. RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, sand and slopes to a channel that averages 1971. twenty feet in depth. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend from PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-1A/537-560. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend is the county line to Bayport is N to S. The 1 fetch from the NE is 2 to 3 nm, E is 4 to 5 nm, SSE to NNW. The fetch from the NNE is 2-@@- to and SE is 1 to 2 nm. The shoreline trend from Ground-VIMS 14Jul75 MS-IA/81-84. 3 nm, ENE is 2 nm, and ESE is 3 nm. Bayport to Punchbowl Point is E to W. The fetch from the NW is 2 to 11 rim, N is 3 nm, OWNERSHIP: Private. and NE is 2_1 nm. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for most of the OWNERSHIP: Private. subsegment. Moderate, critical in the vicin- ity of Water View. Here, there are some FLOOD HAZARD: low, noncritical. The majority of structures located on and below the 5-foot the structures are above the 20-foot contour. contour. Critical for the shucking house near Butylo WATER QUALITY: Intermediate in Mud Creek and in Essex County. Parrotts Creek as of January, 1975. WATER QUALITY: No data. BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches are clean and BEACH QUALITY: Good. The beaches are clean, sandy although somewhat narrow. composed of hard sand, and fairly wide. 26 PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical along the Rappahannock River. Slight or no change within Mud Creek, Parrotts Creek, Harry George Creek, and Weeks Creek. Historically, the erosion rate has been about 1.8 feet per year. Accre- tion is occurring on Punchbowl Point and Smokey Point at a rate of 0.7 to 1.9 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 3 bulk- heads, 3 groins, and 1 section of riprap in this subsegment. All of these structures ap- pear to be effective. Suggested Action: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 31 privately owned piers and a public landing on Parrotts Creek. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Most of the property in this subsegment is used for agri- cultural purposes. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHURCH VIEW Quadr., 1968; Pr. 1973. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), URBANNA Quadr., 1968. C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, 1971. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21]Way75 MB-lB/500-536. Ground-VIMS 14Jul75 MS-1B/67-80. 27 LAGRANGE CREEK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 5 bulk- ROBINSON CREEK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT 2A (Map 4) heads, 23 groins, and 1 section of riprap. All SUBSEGMENT 2B (Maps 4 and 5) structures appear to be effective. EXTENT: 78,000 feet (14.8 mi.) of shoreline on Suggested Action: None. EXTENT: 60, 000 f eet (11 .4 mi. ) of shoreline on Lagrange Creek from Goose Point to Balls Point. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 39 piers in Robinson Creek from Balls Point to the Urbanna The subsegment includes 108,600 feet (20.6 mi.) this subsegment. Creek jetty. This subsegment includes 68,600 of fastland. feet (13.0 mi.) of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. If under- SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 23% (4.7 mi.), moderately taken with care, there could be some residen- FASTLAND: Low shore 43% (5-6 mi.), moderately low shore 59% (12.1 mi.), moderately high shore tial development. low shore 54% (7-0 mi.), and artificial fill 10% (2.0 mi.), and high shore 8% (1.8 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min Ser. (Topo.), CHURCH VIEW 3% (0-4 mi.). SHORE: Beach 14% (2.0 mi.), fringe marsh 57% Quadr., 1968,*Pr. 1973. SHORE: Beach 9% (1.0 mi.), fringe marsh 64% (8-5 mi.), embayed marsh 20% (2.9 mi.), and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), URBANNA (7-3 mi.), embayed marsh 13% (1-5 mi.), and artificially stabilized 9% (1-4 mi.). Quadr., 1968. artificially stabilized 14% (1.6 mi.). NEARSHORE: Shallow 88% (9-7 mi.), intermediate C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK NEARSHORE: Shallow 86% (6.5 mi.) and interme- 9% (0.9 mi.), and wide 3% (0-3 mi.). The bot- RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, diate 15% (1.1 mi.). tom of the creek is muddy. 1971. SHORELANDS USE SHORELANDS USE PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 M-2A/470-499. FASTLAND: Agricultural 18% (2.4 mi.), com- FASTIAND: Agricultural 24% (4-9 mi.), commer- mercial 7% (0.9 mi.), residential 22% (2.8 cial 1% (0.2 mi.), residential 7% (1-5 mi.), mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 45% (4.8 mi.). and unmanaged, wooded 68% (14.0 mi.). SHORE: Bathing and private use. SHORE: Some bathing and fishing. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, and fishing. and commercial shellfishing. OFFSHORE BOTTOM: None. OFFSHORE BOTTOM: In the Rappahannock River, the bottom is composed of hard sand and slopes WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend from gently to a channel that averages 30 feet in Goose Point to Long Point is NE to SW. The depth. fetch from the E is 2 rim, SE is 5 nm, and S is nm. From Cedar Point to Balls Point the WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend along shoreline trend is SE to NW. The fetch from Balls Point is NE to SW. The fetch from the the N is L E is 2 nin, and from the SE is 3-1 nm. From 2 nm, NE is 3 nm, and E is 3 rim. 2 Remlick Wharf to the Urbanna Creek jetty, the OWNERSHIP: Private. shoreline trend is SE to NW. The fetch from FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. the N is 5 to 6 nm, NE is 2 nm, and E is 3 nm. OWNERSHIP: Private. WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory as of January,.1975. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, critical near the Urbanna BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The beaches along the mouth Creek jetty and Remlick Wharf where some struc- of Lagrange Creek are clean and sandy, but tures are located below the 5-foot contour. somewhat narrow. WATER QUALITY: Unsatisfactory as of January, PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION 1975. EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical along Balls Point and slight or no change in Lagrange Creek. BEACH QUALITY: Fair to poor. Most of the beaches Historically, the erosion rate in this subseg- are narrow but are composed of hard, clean, ment has been about 0.7 feet per year. sand. They are poor along the Urbanna water- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. front. Here the beaches are exceedingly narrow 28 and muddy. URBANNA CREEK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Extensive rip- SUBSEGMENT 2C (Map 5) rapping and bulkheading runs from the Urbanna PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Creek jetty to just northwest of the Route EROSION RATE: Moderate along Balls Point, 227 bridge over Urbanna Creek. All bulkheading slight or no change in Robinson Creek, and se- EXTENT: 50,000 feet (9.5 mi.) of shoreline on and riprap appears to be effective. vere along the Urbanna waterfront. Historically, Urbanna Creek from the Urbanna Creek jetty to the erosion rate has been 2.0 to 3.3 feet per Bailey Point. This subsegment includes 56,000 Suggested Action: None. year. feet (10.6 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 39 piers, a SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Remlick Wharf is SHORELANDS TYPE public landing, and 2 bridges in this subseg- bulkheaded. There is extensive bulkheading and FASTLAND: Low shore 15% (1.6 mi.), moderately ment. riprap, and 17 groins along the Urbanna water- low shore 24% (2-5 mi.), moderately high shore front. Most of the groins are fairly effective. 38% (4-0 mi.), hi@h shore 19% (2-0 mi.), and POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. Some de- However, some of the bulkheading is in a bad artificial fill 4 (0.5 mi.). veloping could be done along Urbanna Creek, state of repair and the banks in these areas SHORE: Beach 9% (0.8 mi.), fringe marsh 67% however access is rather limited to some are beginning to slump. (6-4 mi.), embayed marsh 19% (1.8 mi.), and areas of the shoreline. Suggested Action: Repair or replace the exist- artificially stabilized 5% (0-5 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Mi-n.Ser. (Topo. ), URBANNA ing bulkheading. NEARSHORE: Shallow 95% (7.2 mi.) and interme- Quadr., 1968. diate 5% (0.4 mi.). The bottom of Urbanna USGS, 7.5 Min-Ser. (Topo.), SALUDA Quadr., OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 22 piers and Creek is muddy. 1965, Pr. 1973. the Urbanna Creek jetty. SHORELANDS USE C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK FASTLAND: Agricultural 7% (0-7 mi.), commer- RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, POTENTIAI, USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. The Urbanna cial 6% (0.6 mi.), recreational 9% (1.0 mi.), 1971. area is already quite heavily developed, but residential 32% (3-4 mi.), and unmanaged, some development could take place along Robin- wooded 45% (4.8 mi.). PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-2C/436-454. son Creek. SHORE: Some bathing, private use, and commer- Ground-VIMS 14Ju175 YIS-2C/47-61. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), URBANNA cial use (marinas). Quadr., 1968. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, and fishing. C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK OFFSHORE BOTTOM: None. RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, 1971. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: None. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-2B/455-469. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, critical near the Urbanna Ground-VIMS 14Jul75 MS-2B/62-66. Creek jetty where some structures are located lower than the 5-foot contour. WATER QUALITY: Condemned as of August 18, 1961. BEACH QUALITY: Fair to Door. Most of the beaches are narrow and muddy. However, there are a few fairly wide, clean, sandy beaches near the mouth of the creek. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. Accretion is occurring around the Urbanna Creek jetty. Historically, this area has been accreting at a rate of 1.6 feet per year. Bailey Point has been eroding at a rate of 0.9 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. 29 BAILEY POINT TO GREYS POINT, March 21, 1972). MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA BEACH QUALITY: Good. The beaches are fairly SEGMENT 3 (Maps 5 and 6) wide and composed of hard, clean sand. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EXTENT: 130,000 feet (24.6 mi.) of shoreline from EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, Bailey Point to Greys Point on the Rappahannock noncritical. Historically, this segment has River. This segment includes 129,600 feet been eroding at a rate of 1.0 to 2.0 feet per (24.5 mi.) of fastland. year. There is accretion occurring southeast of Rosegill Lake at a rate of 1.0 to 1.9 feet SHORELANDS TYPE per year. FASTLAND: Low shore 51% (12.4 mi.)*and moder- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. ately low shore 49% (12.1 mi.). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 8 bulk- SHORE: Beach 22% (5-4 mi.), fringe marsh 48% heads, 93 groins, and a section of riprap. All (11.7 mi.), embayed marsh 10% (1.8 mi.), exten- existing structures are effective. sive marsh 10% (2.5 mi.), and artificially stabillized 13% (3.2 mi.). Suggested Action: The bluffs on Greys Point NEARSHORE: Intermediate 100% (8.2 mi.). and those east of Meachim Creek (off Route 645) are slumping badly and need some protection. SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 36% (8.8 mi ), recrea- OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 58 piers, a tional 6% (1-4 mi.), residential 13@@ (3.3 mi.), public landing, and Norris Bridge, which joins and umanaged, wooded 45% 01.0 mi.). Middlesex and Lancaster Counties. SHORE: Bathing and private-use. A public beach is located in this segment, just west of POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Most of the Norris Bridge. shoreline in this segment is already been used NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, and for agricultural purposes. commercial shellfishing. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), URBANNA OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom is composed of hard Quadr., 1968. sand with some eel grass beds. It slopes to a USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SALUDA Quadr., channel averaging 20 feet in depth with some 1965, Pr. 1973. shoals. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON Quadr.@ WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend from 1964, Pr. 1973. C&GS, #605-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK Bailey Point to Burhans Wharf is SE to NW. The RIVER, Corrotoman River to Fredericksburg, fetch from the N is 5 nm and from the NE is 2 1971. nm. The shoreline trend from Burhans Wharf to C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK Greys Point is E to W. The fetch from the NW RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great is 2-1 to 8 nm, N is 2 to 5-2i nm, and NE is 2 to Wicomico Rivers, 1973. 2 31 nm. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21MaY75 MS-3/373-435- OWNERSHIP: Private. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. All structures Ground-VIMS 1Jul75 NS-3/34-38; 220ct73 MS-3/39-46. are located above the 10-foot contour. WATER QUALITY: Intermediate in Whiting and Mea- chim Creeks as of January, 1975. The Rappa- hannock River below Urbanna Creek as far as Whiting Creek was condemned for shellfishing as of March 20, 1963 (continued condemned, 30 GREYS POINT TO STINGRAY POINT, WATER QUALITY: Intermediate in Locklies and Mill MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA Creeks as of January, 1975. Intermediate in Bush Park Creek and Sturgeon Creek as of Jan- SEGMENT 4 (Maps 6, 7, and 8) uary, 1975. Satisfactory in Broad Creek as of January, 1975. EXTENT: 216,000 feet (40.9 mi.) of shoreline from BEACH QUALITY: Good. The beaches are fairly Greys Point to Stingray Point on the Rappahan- wide and composed of hard, clean sand. nock River. This segment includes 195,000 feet (36.9 mi.) of fastland. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical from SHORELANDS TYPE Greys Point to Bush Park Creek. Severe, non- FASTLAND: Low shore 46% (16.9 mi.), moderately critical from east of Woods Creek to Stingray low shore 38% (14.2 mi.), and moderately high Point. Historically, the erosion rate has shore 16% (5.8 mi.). been 1.0 to 3.0 feet per year in this area. SHORE: Beach 14% (5.9 mi.), fringe marsh 50% Accretion is occurring just southeast of Norris (20.2 mi *), embayed marsh 4% (1-5 mi.), exten- Bridge and at the end of Route 631 at a rate sive marsh 11% (4.6 mi.), and artificially sta- of 1.0 to 1.5 feet per year. bilized 21% (8-7 mi.). ENDANGER=) STRUCTURES: None. NEARSHORE: Narrow 6.8% (23.1 mi.), intermediate SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 25 16% (5-5 mi.), and wide 16% (5-3 mi.). bulkheads, 189 groins, and 7 sections of rip- rap. All the structures that are in good re- SHOREIANDS USE pair are effective. Some of the groins east FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (7-1 mi.), commer- of Sturgeon Creek are in bad repair and are, cial 9% (3-3 mi *), residential 38% (14.1 mi.), therefore, ineffective. unmanaged, wooded 22% (8-3 mi.), and unmanaged, unwooded 11% (4-1 mi.). Suggested Action: Repair the existing groins SHORE: Bathing, private use, and commercial use which are deteriorating. (marinas). NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 194 piers, waterfowl hunting, and commercial shellfishing. several public landings, 2 private landings, and breakwaters which are located at the mouths OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom is composed of hard of Bush Park Creek, Woods Creek, Hunting Creek, sand and slopes to a channel that averages 50 Sturgeon Creek, and Broad Creek. feet in depth. There are some oyster rocks in the vacinity of Greys Point and a spoil dump POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. Deltaville off the Parrott Islands. should be zoned so as to control and contain WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend, from the development of the coastal zone. Greys Point to Mill Creek is SSE to NNW. The MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON Quadr., 2 1 1964, Pr. 1973. fetch from the NNE is 1-1 to 2-2 nm, from the ENE is 212 to 312 nm, from the ESE is 2 to 5 nm, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE and 27 nm at Greys Point. The shoreline trend Quadr., 1964. from Mill Creek to Stingray Point is ESE to C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK WNW. The fetch from the NNW is 2-1 to 411F nm, RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great 2 from the NNE is 3 nm, 3 nm at Stingray Point, Wicomico Rivers, 1973. from the ENE is 6 nm to Bush Park Creek, and 25 to 30 nm beyond the creek. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 TvB-4/260-372. OWNERSHIP: Private. Ground-VIMS 1Jul75 IAS-4/26-35. FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical from Deltaville to Stingray Point. 31 JACKSON CREEK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION STOVE POINT TO WILTON POINT, SUBSEGMENT 5A (Map 8) EROSION RATE: Severe from Stingray Point to MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA the end of Route 680. Historically, Stingray Point is eroding at a rate of 6.1 feet per SUBSEGMENT 5B (Maps 8 and 9) EXTENT: 58,000 feet (11.0 mi.) of shoreline from year. East of the mouth of Jackson Creek Stingray Point to Stove Point on the Piankatank accretion is occurring at a rate of 2.4 feet River. This subsegment includes 58,000 feet per year. EXTENT: 124,000 feet (23.5 mi.) of shoreline (11.0 mi.) of fastland. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. from Stove Point to Wilton Point on the SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 15 Piankatank River. The subsegment includes SHORELANDS TYPE bulkheads, 98 groins, and 7 sections of rip- 130,400 feet (24.7 mi.) of fastland. FASTLAND: This subsegment is 100% low shore rap. All of these structures appear to be 01.0 mi.). effective. SHORELAUDS TYPE SHORE: Beach Vo (1.0 mi.), fringe marsh 46% FASTIAND: Low shore 34% (8-3 mi.), moderately (5-1 mi.), embayed marsh 8% (0.9 mi.), exten- Suggested Action: None. low shore 58% (14.5 mi.), and artificial fill sive marsh 4% (0-4 mi.), and artificially sta- 8% (1.9 mi.). bilized 33% (3.6 mi.). OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 108 piers, 3 SHORE: Beach 24% (5-7 mi.), fringe marsh 45% NEARSHORE: Narrow 71% (6.0 mi.), intermediate breakwaters, and a seawall enclosing a swim- (10.5 mi.), embayed marsh 8% (1.8 mi.), and 27% (2-3 mi.), and wide 2% (0.2 mi.). ming area which is located southwest of Sting- artificially stabilized 23% (5-5 mi.). ray Point. NEARSHORE: Narrow 93% (19.4 mi.) and interme- SHORELANDS USE POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. This area is diate 7% (1-4 mi.). FASTLAND: Commercial 21% (2-4 mi.), residen- already fairly heavily developed. SHORELANDS USE tial 65% (7.1 Mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 14% FASTLAND: Agricultural 25% (6.1 mi.), commer- (1-5 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE cial 9% (2.1 mi.), residential 16% (4-0 mi.), SHORE: Bathing, private use., and commercial use Quadr., 1964. and unmanaged, wooded 50% (12.5 mi.). (marinas). C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK SHORE: Bathing, private use, and comercial NEARSHCRE: Boating, water sports, fishing, and RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great use (marinas). commercial shellfishing. Wicomico Rivers, 1973. NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom is hard and sandy PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-5095-259. and commercial shellfishing. with eel grass beds. It slopes to a wide chan- OFFSHORE BOTTOM: The bottom is composed of hard nel that averages 20 feet in depth. Ground-VIM 1Jul77 MS-507-25. sand. It slopes to a wide channel which WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend from averages 20 feet in depth. Stingray Point to Jackson Creek is NE to SW. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trend of The fetch from the E is 1.9 run, from the SE is Stove Point Neck is N to S. The fetch from 22 nm, and from the S is 212 to 3-1 nm. The 1 2 the SW is nm, from the W is 1-21 to 3-2L nm, shoreline trend from Jackson Creek to Stove 1 Point is N to S. The fetch from the NE is 44 and from the NW is to 1 nm. The shoreline nm, E is 20 nm, and SE is 2 nm. trend from Fishing Point to Horse Point is E to W. The fetch from the SE is 1 to 3 nm, from the S is 1 to 2 nm, and from the SW is OWNERSHIP: Private. 2 1 nm. The shoreline trend of Glebe Neck is FLOOD HAZARD: High, critical. Most of the struc- NNE to SSW. The fetch from the ENE is -21 to 1 nm, from the ESE is -21 to 1 nm, and from tures in this subsegment are located on or be- '. 1 low the 5-foot contour. the SSE is -@5- nm. WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory as of January, 1975. OWNERSHIP: Private. BEACH QUALITY: Good. to poor. Along the Rappahan- FLOOD HAZARD: Moderate, critical, from Stove nock River the beaches are fairly wide and com- Point to Fishing Point. Low, noncritical, posed of clean, hard sand. In Jackson Creek from Fishing Point to Wilton Point. the beaches are narrow and muddy. 32 WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory as of January, 1975. Healy Creek was condemned as of April 28, 1972. BEACH QUALITY: Good. The beaches are clean, sandy, and fairly wide. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical on Horse Point, Glebe Neck, and Wilton Point. Histori- cally, the erosion rate has been 1.0 to 2.0 feet per year. Fishing Point and Bland Point are accreting at an historical rate of 0.7 to 1.0 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 18 bulkheads, 101 groins, and 3 sections of rip- rap. All of these structures appear to be effective. Suggested Action: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 93 piers and 2 breakwaters in this subsegment. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. More res- idential or second homes could be built in this area. -MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), DELTAVILLE Quadr., 1964. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON Quadr., 1964, Pr. 1973. C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great Wicomico Rivers, 1975. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-5B/85-194. Ground-VIMS 1Jul75 MS-5B/10-16. 33 WILTON POINT TO COACH POINT, ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. COACH POINT TO DRAGON SWAMP, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 11 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, VIRGINIA bulkheads, 13 groins, and 1 section of riprap. SUBSEGMENT 6A (Maps 9 and 10) All these structures appear to be effective. SUBSEGMENT 6B (Maps 10 and 11) EXTENT: 51,000 feet (9-7 mi.) of shoreline from Suggested Action: None. EXTENT: 70,000 feet (13.3 mi.) of shoreline from Wilton Point to Coach Point on the Piankatank OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 39 piers and Coach Point on the Piankatank River to the River. This subsegment includes 54,000 feet the Twigg Bridge which joins Middlesex and Route 17 bridge over Dragon Swamp. This sub- (10.2 mi.) of fastland. Mathews Counties. segment includes 72,000 feet (13.6 mi.) of SHORETiANDS TYPE POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Moderate. Some of fastland. FASTLAND: Low shore 48% (4-9 mi.), moderately this subsegment could be used for residential SHORELANDS TYPE low shore 50% (5-1 mi.), and moderately high development. FASTLAND: Low shore 29% (4-0 mi.), moderately shore 2% (0.2 mi.). low shore 63% (8.4 mi. ), moderately high shore SHORE: Beach 19% (1.8 mi.), fringe marsh 54% MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON 7% (1 - 0 mi - ), and high shore 1% (0. 2 mi.). (5-3 mi.), embayed marsh 9% (0.9 mi.), and Quadr., 1964, Pr. 1973. SHORE: Beach 8% (1.0 mi.), fringe marsh 26% artificially stabilized 18% (1-7 mi.). C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK (3-5 mi *), embayed marsh 46% (6.2 mi.), exten- NEARSHORE: Narrow 64% (5.6 mi.) and interme- RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great sive marsh 12% (1.6 mi.), and artificially diate 36% (3-1 mi.). The bottom is muddy and Wicomico Rivers, 1973. stabilized 8% 0.0 mi.). the narrow channel averages 5 feet in depth. NEARSHORE: The nearshore in this subsegment PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-6A/35-84. is 100% shallow (2.7 mi.). The bottom is mud- SHORELANDS USE dy and there is no marked channel. FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (1.9 mi.), residen- Ground-VIMB 1Jul75 MS-6A/7-9. tial 29% (3-0 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 46% SHORELANDS USE (4-7 mi.). FASTLAND: Agricultural 18% (2-4 mi.), commer- SHORE: Bathing and private use. cial 1% (0.2 mi.), residential 18% (2-5 mi.), NEARSHORE: Boating, water sports, fishing, and unmanaged, wooded 63% (8-5 mi.). waterfowl hunting, and commercial shellfishing. SHORE: Some bathing and hunting. NEARSHORE: Boating, canoeing, water sports, OFFSHORE BOTTOM: None. fishing, and waterfowl hunting. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The fetch is limited to OFFSHORE BOTTOM: None. to 1 nm in each direction. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The fetch is limited to OWNERSHIP: Private. -21 to 1 nm in each direction. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, critical at the Piankatank OWNERSHIP: Private. Shores development. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, critical at the Piankatank WATER QUALITY: Satisfactory as of January, 1975. Shores development on Coach Point. BEACH QUALITY: Fair. The few beaches in this WATER QUALITY: Intermediate as of January, 1975. subsegment are very narrow but clean and sandy. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The few beaches in this PRESENT-SHORE EROSION SITUATION subsegment are located near Coach Point. EROSION RATE: Moderate from Wilton Point to These are very narrow and composed of very Doctor Point and slight or no change from fine sand to mud. Doctor Point to Coach Point. The historical rate of erosion from Wilton Point to Doctor PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Point has been 1.0 to 1.3 feet per year and EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. Coach from Doctor Point to Coach Point, 0.7 feet Point has been accreting at a rate of .0.8 feet per year. per year. 34 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are 7 bulkheads and 5 groins. The low bulkheading northwest of Coach Point in the Piankatank Shores development is subject to washover during high tides. Suggested Action: None at the present time. It may be necessary at some time to replace the bulkheading that is located northwest of Coach Point in the Piankatank Shores develop- ment. OTHER S14ORE STRUCTURES: There are 57 piers in this subsegment. POTENTIAL USE ENHANCEMENT: Low. Much of this subsegment is wetlands and should be left un- distrubed. Some nature tours could be taken through Dragon Swamp which is still a rela- tively unspoiled area. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WILTON Quadr., 1964, Pr. 1973. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SALUDA Quadr., 1965, Pr. 1973. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SHACKLEFORDS Quadr., 1965. C&GS, #534-SC, 1:40,000 scale, RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER ENTRANCE, Piankatank and Great Wicomico Rivers, 1973. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 21May75 MS-6B/1-34. Ground-VIMS 1Jul75 MS-6B/1-8. 35 v V4 760 40' MA W 'K 3 Jones p t- TOPOG' RAPF -A ..,5egrnen Seg SUW uj A 00, MC KAN& BAY (OK V@) V 7 0 Op L) 021 5- 37'0 45' 3 1 1, --@u w k@ 760140 36 7601 40' % 3 Jones Pt A oe SH Y) v S e FASTLAND Low. Shi Moderat Moderat AV -High Sh SHORE 'Beacb, IA Fringe N Embaye x /08 -NEARSHO MC@ KANS -BA Y Interme 4 0 Wide 7-4. n. 0. 102 .0 0 0 ...690 37'0 45' N 0 1 MILE 760140 37 76T40' 00 000 Jones "000 pt: STLAN FA "o, u _USE 4 Agri X com . ......T Resi _Unm ;o, 1)3 U V@ OWNERS Priv d -mo, MC KAN& .-B A Y. Slig QS@ A k-fl Acc -cl-I (v C@v X/4 370 45 S WU w 760140 38 760 40' 760 37'30" 19 MI Ross Pt L v t m WO I u C@ 640 6@ C. 10 Ir 3d' 'A BM ,B -Cemls, \x M 3 Ch- 104 ti .17 0 It 76014d 760 137,30!, 39 760140' 760 37'30u YK 96 'AA 11@ v f-A LVI %-IC-AllJV4 InT med T UL,- U@)/ Irr =L@, 37 42j @'B M C e In s:,231@@ u 3 n693 33 it Z@jl -- -------- 1 MILE @@@76* @40@ 760 3T'3d' 40 760t4O 760 37'30" 0 04 Ix Ross Pt iN vi@w' 1A A r 1A it I/,- yv icu A A4 91 Residenti R Un u w 370 INERS Priv ii 1A d 25 1A :lw 1A 1A /IBM 693 33 ]A Z 1A 1 A 0 1@A 76014d 760 137'3d' 41 760 35' Fie X88 Tur t 30 %N ao @-20' 0 INK5 Eu Hy t 1B, 2A, B vis 7-1@@, C-eek u n B( LE 0 37 W 3T x X3 v '01 N N., BM i9o 0 1 MIL T66f 35. 42 760135' 4 0 X88 Tur 01 t ------ K 0 IN@ E 6M 0 20, D LA NDS ie ""ItIII nts 1B 2A, 2B reek am @fiore zo 7 a W1 qu 3TO 2- 3do ts c Fri 6037 w If Ext Emb a h Queen 4" X.32 5 D. ----------- @ NMN&'�4v V 613 n 7 MILE 760135- 43 7601 35' 1 A A" 1A X q 1A 70, g//M X bef A N\I 214 1 A L,3 "I, A Turtle 1A IA Z -vr N 1A 1A Revis Creek 1 A 370 K N 1A V.. 371 LA P'. to. 1A 30 1A 83' 1A (637) SE OIL Vb- Agri WwQueen 1 A 'C6m (tv Sol IA --- - - ---------- dpit N 1A A IA 1A I MILE- 760135' 44 760135 760 32'30" v 2B yi, nna: Pt Cb lo@ly TO an 602 & iRosegi 7) ,lLanding St i jx 370 ...... -2C 37 1 30' Sa 11 -e:p L 39 N.) I x v ---80 Ugh Sc @x- 90 641 <70@ )3 80 m 90 629 7601 35' 760132'30" 45 760135' 7=603e 30" 1611 v 615 -.0 ma: y Pb Ch Jill FAST es F L V2 If I @osegill Rr, E ff 0 0 JxLg--- SHOF 0 E g% Y, F 370 37, /11,1@ fill E 30' E 0 al NEAF 60 39 0 91- N, 0 0 33X I V/ A INY, 82 00) idhe Se OM 14MA S yp" 0- N/ r-all.. co, dio. 93 629) 80 7 If 7601 35' 760 32'30" 46 76035 1 760 32'30" 90 T 1 M, na ey Pt FAE Ch 8 (W2) 4;k Oosegi I I F@ -rm 'Landing St i 2@, A@ 1 W 132 r J1 Y"ag--- 1A Y-& Olt ------- 3H 1\0 37 30 7; u Sall La noin -e:p @@-3 9 y X @3 MW v ddles ]A xe AM 9 1A 33 1A rA u-j 80 uu 11A 90 F- 7601 35' 760132'30" 47 760 30, 760 127'30 11 P p Axxo,c to ... ..... .. .. it \,jt X3@ IL - fiI @ )) 29 r K It It - = AL -vm H um it Air N X1 0 A OC Lo( 30 m kk it 50, 645 X9 37 #11 wmw 5M armani 7 T ng a r 370 J1 35' n e It 4 em 0 Syringa. mu er 63 -f6o 30 6 7660 27'3d' 48 7601 30, 760 27'30 so p P A I)A Oi o.".. N-i-o-o 44%6.. it It it X35 it it Ir", 645 29 7 u It 30 H u Y Air Lock. 30 N 983 L7 7 @-j B h 0 37 T ng ll\j r 370 30 60 I e C Sy 110 0 1 uitv 12, 760130 a 760 27'30" 49 so' 760 27'30" A Ar Ar 0 C B vv 0- ... ....... 0 it A I u -e \v n A -f Th U A A 1 r\ f64@5 29 A 7 11-11 v 30 t 1A -IL If H u 0 1A D6 IT' 3 A 1A 3 5 -'l A, LOCKI -1A 130 M lw x 9 57 A 37 BM ar4, TE, ng A 3 37" al ai-- 1A 11 30 6 Grwte-,Ch &0 a ri e @Ce N IA n Sy 0 Accie a] itv 63 760 130 760 27'30" 50 7601 25' LOCK . ........ Loc It 5 30 Ott.:: 's. A. eek L 001cl, 10 32 Rpgr "nt > % 370 /0 75 New Mill Creek Aff Wk 99r, Pond 2" -JL-J 46 L 50 It 50 It 7 ick@ 40 d- ji 83 .4 X44 u s j 5/ it I It X4' 60 80 Ha 43 46 0 1 MILE 760 2@ 51 7601 25' 3 LOC Lockli s 30 ar-ro cl =21 FAS 0 0 ..*.*I \0@ 2 Rego t W SHC ,Nl. /0 370 35' le 626 NEA A/? 0---0 LL7Z icko @ond 53 83 0 50 It @7 X44 CrIji ;0 @45 '-80 .it Ha 6 BM 46 0 1 MILE @76025- 52 7601 25, LOCLI 30 Lockli s FASTL ar-rotr d .. ..... USE .V 2 x ow 370 0- 35, < 44,/M I I @rqek % ERO !..I@T:T' A 46 v 50 1A Tw 50 ikil --J77 1 icks' 1A pond A IA 1A/ 53 IA 83 0 lw A 1A 1 A A 57/ 1 vv V// JA. A r% o 1 A 1 A 80 vlA .- I BM ha 0 1 MILE A 10 IA A A 760 2t@ 53 760 20' MAP 8A STINGRAY POINT TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 14@ Segments 4, 5A, 513 Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . Ile C) ..... . tit ay 0 - 6 It gow t P- k\ 33) a i Jl= 10 6 1102 5-, 7 1102 i@*eek rk ft 2 370, 370 32 32 /// IQ 3d 3d, 5A@ ishing @.P int F I S H I N G A Y 15BI AV 4@1 oint c 1 61 Cherry Poi -R I V Ai 0 I'MiLE, L 760120' 760 20' .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ..... A. zling nt L) 33 'Vve a ..0 6 Philip BM Ch oiio@i A 4. 0 0 kil 0 J 0 . . . ...... 0 0 e 0 if rk 0 0 0 If 370 370 0- 32, 0 // IQ 32, 30 3d' 0 0 5A ng 0 0 0 *. . . . . . . . MAP 8B 0 o . I .." I :#. A. 0-0-0 0 STINGRAY POINT FISHING SHORELANDS TYPE P A Y 0 0 Segments 4, 5A 513 FASTLAND 5B@ 0 Low Shore 0 .10. Low Shore 0 0 with Bluff 4 Moderately Cow Shore L 0 ModerateArLow Shore with a(Uff -0 int SHORE 0 0 BeaZh Froge Marsh [IIJ11111111111111111111 Vtensive Marsh Embayed Marsh Artifi ially Stabilized -A- -A- -A- I Ic NE@ARSHORE Cherry Narrow 0-0-0-9 Intermediate 0 0 0 I V E Wide 0 0 0 1 MILE, 7601 20' 7'60120' 14 ... ...... W 110 9 A 4. A 1) rr I/; a, . A in S @' 5 6M JW 33 1A I a 10 6 1W 1A - i I/ B- v 1A vv /1 W 1A A 1vv 1 W + + 1102 ";2 1 WI/ rk 1/ 15 370 370 1 A 32' 32' 3dI 3d' A 5A! @ishing .---P@int MAP 8C STINGRAY POINT FISHING FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, E@OSION ::F@ B A Y Segments 4, 5.A, 5B USE 15BI Agricultural A Cz Commercial Recreational /RC RS Residentia@/ Unmanaged Wooeed W t oin OWNERS Priv7e + EROS100 +A;:@ S Ivere ht or No Change No Symbol ;ig /Accretional + + + + Che Poi -R I V 0 1 MiLE 7601 20, 111111 11101 M, 7601 25' ol 45 fi wilt 33 C 629) 7 on 3) 40 80--/ n630 60 t- fit 370 top 32' B 0 (Horse 5 B 40 Ginney t co ers -Whar P)OT@ Flat 40 A ZO Be=y C7 A ron- 6 A D tor 0 G 3011 It a 628 629 25 / 2= Su@se 11and Ld 10 0 3 0 1 MILE Cobbs-Creek Ebenezer C h @76025' 57 760 125, 45 11 it Wilton 11 v It 47- 2 It on it '4 630 -0 0 l@13 0 370 -40 32' 30, 72 AU IN 0 0 p, 5B 0 y np 40 F perts'- t M A 0 Ginney harf N\ IN 0 Flat DOCTOR POINT 0 0 0 40 P0 SHOREL 0 \\11/11/t Berkley @gme e m e 4 )3. n@ S 0 ro 0 0 e 0 0 at 74 rtifi tj !6A 0 p lp 0 SHO E eac 603 o 0 ba 0 629 t4 0 628 ifici lly 0 .0 @i tf A 1-110 liand 4' 0 ypr 20 c : term diate bit 38 0 1 MILE T Cobbs-Creek Ebenez (&- Ch @76- 25 1 58 760125' A 45 fi wilto 1A, 6 1 A @1@1 t-A- I A 1 A a ch 628) 11 - -x 35 70- 47:1 A AMA 1 A on Un A JVV 33 60 630 -0 V-- 1 A A 1 w 1 A 1 w /,// 0 A _7 32'1 C-1 30, rse 5B 1 A 1 A S/ --X\ 40 Ginney A1.4 ha A A 1 A F1 1 A c /R0 40 P N ND POINT Berklley 1A =ROS lror(L pt 1 A tor @6A 3 Oil Y 1A 629 a e B EROS N Piland UA vpr s," 0 g t Change o Sy. bol /@AA c, + + 38 'r, ath 0 1 MILE 1 Cobbs-Creek Ebenezer Ch (,r- - -- I Ch A 76-125' 59 760 32 30 A--j 760 30' 50 , @71 40 4 20V 29 \v/ 0 c) A Ar ,i6x 16 ...... . . . . T /0 C) 18 -7) V E 0 b b xnae-on Point Piankatank res 370 mPgrounds (114 -30 0, Woo ck 32' 30' Fairfield LJ Landing Ueep -Riands 01- t me- I a N111 El OKI 10 0 1Q@71 606 0 1 MILE): L- - @-Ny @d I) r-c1W 7601 32'30' 760130' 60 7601321 3164 760 30' x 9111 // fl nv 10 0; A JV 0 z '31 x zs 0 fm R r V E 6B I -Ana-erson %\ Point ankatank hores Sep/ me a hpg Lnds I \A 0 W 0 k 32' \0 3d') -/0 C/o Fairf. Landir@641 6 10 Ahand@,@, Dee 0 e IZ U @,N @6P 7 e. (%06 0 1 MILE 7601 32-'30' 7601 30' 61 76013213dl 760 .30' /I v 1A -IR 'lA '611A lk 7 u 0 A 3 _71 1A 4x" X6 1A. /0 r - v -R @.j V E F 0 6 B 1w - -Ancer Point'- .6 Piankatank es N D,, OS110 _p g r o _u 370 a nds X, ek ,32' //j/ N-/O 30, @c tr@h' @_c jFaidiedd Landing n ana 67 @:D 00 Ll p -Blwnds,,-z@ D-ee t 7 A 17 f ;;r2 A 10 X 43 7 e. 0 1 MILE (606 7601 32'30' 760 30' 62 760 37'30' 760135, -7 40 egmen =ze ub N 2 370 ) X 35, 30 lp ')Z8 6 J. 10 J@ X38 C) ST 0 ;-od' D Iv- 00 Al, 111 x12l) OU 0 j li x' rll\ 1 IM III mlu( "7 @y III/f r) I vl@ I 76037 130's 760135' 14- 63 760 37'30' 760 35' @40 r-Y C-D FA 30 @2 re re 80 ig 370, co QQ X2.) X24 X h ye s @77 1001/ X38 C) Nj AV -0 q (:@-X 12 \0 X113 .0 117X 1 1 MILE A M 760137'3d' 760135, 64 760 37'30' no 135' j o 50 F V&P 30 40 1A 20 20 370 1 /A e. q ;-:zz 2\/0 @ Ar /C X@83 6 to 38 /71 V@ U N BU Q-X121 0 X113 vrr@ I MLE V @- RiVdl,@ 0) 7IT37 30's 760135' 65 041 3 6668 00002 4762