[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone information Center Shoreline Situation Report SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA PON"- 01 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 Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001 Chesaoeake Research Consortium Report Number 50 QH Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engine;ring Number 112 of the 301 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE .v852 no-1 12 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 c.2 1976 Shor SURRY C US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICE CENTER 2834 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 Pr Property of CSC Library Supported by the National Science Foundation, Resear NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and Gi 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, C Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by thE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad Chesapeake Re Special Report in Applied Marine Science and VIRGINIA INS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland Components 5 1 . 1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 2: Marsh Types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 3: Hog Island State Waterfowl Refuge 13 FIGURE 4: Chippokes State Park 13 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 5: Between Broad Swamp and Wakefield 13 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 6: Pleasant Point 13 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands 4 FIGURE 7: Beach at Guildford Heights 14 FIGURE 8: Scotland 14 CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF SURRY COUNTY 9 FIGURE 9: Sunken Meadow Aerial Photo 14 3.1 The Shorelands of Surry County 10 FIGURE 10: Sunken Meadow Ground Photo 14 3.2 Shoreline Erosion in Surry County 11 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 12 TABLE 1: Surry County Shorelands Physiography 19 TABLE 2: Surry County Subsegment Summaries 22 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES, SUMMARY TABLES, MAPS OF SURRY COUNTY 21 4.1 Segment and Subsegment Summary Tables 22 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 24 MAPS 1A-D: Surry County Summary Maps 15 Subsegment 1A 24 MAPS 2A-C: Lawnes Creek 33 Subsegment 1B 24 MAPS 3A-C: Hog Island 36 Subsegment 2A 26 MAPS 4A-C: Cobham Bay 39 Subsegment 2B 26 MAPS 5A-C: Swanns Point 42 Subsegment 3A 28 MAPS 6A-C: Sunken Meadow 45 Subsegment 3B 28 MAPS 7A-C: Upper Chippokes-Creek 48 Subsegment 3C 29 Segment 4 30 Segment 5 32 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 33 I I I CHAPTER 1 I INTRODUCTION I I 0 I i I I 1 4 CHAPTER 1 are: at all these levels. Since the most basic level INTRODUCTION Residential, commercial, or industrial of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the 1 development county or city level, we have executed our report 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS Recreation on that level although we realize some of the in- It is the objective of this report to supply Transportation formation may be most useful at a higher govern- an assessment, and at least a partial integration, Waste disposal mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has ' 4 of those important shoreland parameters and char- Extraction of living and non-living traditionally chosen to place as much as possible@ acteristics which will aid the planners and the resources the regulatory decision processes at the county managers of the shorelands in making the best de- Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter cisions for the utilization of this limited and various ecological functions. 2.1 , Title 62.1 , Code of Virginia), for example very valuable resource. The report gives particu- The role of planners and managers is to optimize provides for the establishment of County Boards lar attention to the problem of shore erosion and the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize to act on applications for alterations of wetlands. to recommendations concerning the alleviation of the conflicts arising from competing demands. Fur- Thus, our focus at the county level is intended the impact of this problem. In addition, we have thermore, once a particular use has been decided to interface with and to support the existing or Luied to include in our assessment a discussion upon for a given segment of shoreland, both the pending county regulatory mechanisms concerning of those factors which might significantly limit planners and the users want that selected use to activities in the shorelands zone. development of the shoreline and, in some in- operate in the most effective manner. A park stances, a discussion of some of the potential or planner, for example, wants the allotted space to 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS alternate uses of the shoreline, particularly with fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that This report was prepared with funds provided respect to recreational use, since such informa- the results of our work are useful to the planner by the Research Applied to National Needs Program tion could aid potential users in the perception in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- (RANN) of the National Science Foundation through of a segment of the shoreline. cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. The The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, report was published with funds provided to the aration of the report is that the use of shore- if the use were a residential development, we would Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone lands should be planned rather than haphazardly hope our work would be useful in specifying the Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric developed in response to the short term pressures shore erosion problem and by indicating defenses Administration, Grant Number 04-5-158-50001. and interests. Careful planning could reduce the likely to succeed in containing the erosion. In Beth Marshall typed the manuscript. Bill Jenkins conflicts which may be expected to arise between summary our objective is to provide a useful tool and Ken Thornberry prepared the photographs. competing interests. Shoreland utilization in for enlightened utilization of a limited resource, Lynne Rogers assisted with data reduction. We many areas of the country, and indeed in some the shorelands of the Commonwealth. would like to thank the numerous other persons places in Virginia, has proceeded in a manner such Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or in Virginia and Maryland that have assisted our that the very elements which attracted people to informally, at all levels from the private owner work with their suggestions and criticisms of the shore have been destroyed by the lack of of shoreland property to county governments, to our ideas and methods. planning and forethought. planning districts and to the state and federal The major man-induced uses of the shorelands agency level. We feel our results will be useful 2 I I 0 CHAPTER 2 I APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED I I I I 1 3 CHAPTER 2 point of change was taken as a boundary point of a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED the subsegment. Segments are groups of su@bsee The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may ments. The boundaries for segments also were se- be considered as being composed of three inter- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM lected on physiographic units such as necks or acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the In the preparation of this report the authors peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, shore and the nearshore. A graphic classifica- utilized existing information wherever possible. the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- tion based on these three elements has been de- For example, for such elements as water quality line segments. vised so that the types for each of the three ele- characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- The format of presentation in the report follows ments portrayed side by side on a map may provide ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, a sequence from general summary statements for the the opportunity to examine joint relationships or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa- county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment summaries and among the elements. As an example, the applica- tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- finally detailed descriptions and maps for each tion of the system permits the user to determine acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose in choosing miles of high bluff shoreland interfacing with available, so we performed the field work and de- this format was to allow selective use of the report marsh in the shore zone. veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- since some users' needs will adequately be met with For each subsegment there are two length mea- lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed the r-j_-niary overview of the county while others will surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 require the detailed discussion of particular sub- line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- segments. interface lengths differ most when the shore zone line of each county and cataloged the slides for is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment easy access at VIMS, where they remain available 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED IN maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma- THE STUDY interface when it differs from the shoreline. The terials, along with existing conventional aerial The characteristics which are included in this fastland-shore interface length is the base for photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, report are listed below followed by a discussion of the fastland statistics. for the desired elements. We conducted field in- our treatment of each. Definitions: spection over much of the shoreline, particularly a) Shorelands physiographic classification Shore Zone at those locations where office analysis left b) Shorelands use classification This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi- c) Shorelands ownership classification a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- tional photographs along with the field visits to d) Zoning land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. e) Water quality break in slope between the relatively steeper shore- The basic shoreline unit considered is called f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses face and the less steep nearshore zone. The approx- a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred g) Limitations to shore use and potential or imate landward limit is a contour line representing feet to several thousand feet in length. The end alternate shore uses one and a half times the mean tide range above mean points of the subsegments were generally chosen on h) Distribution of marshes low water (refer to Figure 1). In operation with physiographic consideration such as changes in the i) Flood hazard lcvels topographic maps 'he inner fringe of the marsh sym- X@ U _L U _L character of erosion or deposition. In those cases j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish grounds bols is taken as the landward limit. where a radical change in land use occurred, the k) Beach quality 4 The physiographic character of the marshes has physiographic classification of the fastland is The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stan- also been separated into three types (see Figure based upon the average slope of the land within dard deviation of 1 @ 003 yards. As our aim was to 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 400 feet (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. determine general, serviceable class limits, these feet in width and which runs in a band parallel to The general classification is: calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex- Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; with yards respectively. The class limits were set at tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or riv- or without cliff half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side er. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies a Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- reentrant or drowned creek valley. The purpose in relief; with or without cliff shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, intermediate delineating these marsh types is that the effec- Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. tiveness of the various functions of the marsh will, relief; with or without cliff The following definitions have no legal signif- in part, be determined by type of exposure to the High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; icance and were constructed for our classifica- estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for example, with or without cliff. tion purposes: have maximum value as a buffer to wave erosion of Two specially classified exceptions are sand Narrow, 12-ft. (3-7 m) isobath located <400 the fastland. An extensive marsh, on the other dunes and areas of artificial fill. yards from shore hand, is likely a more efficient transporter of Nearshore Zone Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- detritus and other food chain materials due to its The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone 1,400 yards from shore greater drainage density than an embayed marsh. to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller Wide, 12-ft. (3-7 m) isobath >1,400 yards The central point is that planners, in the light tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- Subclasses: with or without bars of ongoing and future research, will desire to erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the with or without tidal flats weight various functions of marshes and the phys- maximum depth of significant sand transport by waves with or without submerged iographic delineation aids their decision making in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the distinct vegetation by denoting where the various types exist. drop-off into the river channels begins roughly at @*-FASTLAND_4SHOR NEARSHORE The classification used is: the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone includes any Beach tidal flats. Marsh The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- -MLW+ 1.5 Tide Range Fringe marsh, <'400 ft. (122 m) in width fications were chosen following a simple statistica .1 FIGURE 1 MLW -12 along shores study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater con- A profile of the three shorelands components. Extensive marsh tour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE MARSH MARSH MARSH Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines of or reentrant Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard deviations Artificially stabilized Fastland Zone for each of the separate regions and for the entire The zone extending from the landward limit of combined system were calculated and compared. A2- FASTLAND I . I FASTLAND 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- FIGURE 2 -MMILW + 1. 5T 1@d 7RE material development or construction. The tire combined system to determine the class limits. A plan view of the three marsh types. 5 b) Shorelands Use Classification environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild- Boating Fastland Zone fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation Water sports Residential grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel- Includes all forms of residential use with the opment. c) Shorelands ownership Classification exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. The shorelands ownership classification used In general, a residential area consists of four or Agricultural has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- more residential buildings adjacent to one another. Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and tal, with the governmental further divided into Schools, churches, and isolated businesses may be other agricultural areas. federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- included in a residential area. cation of the classification is restricted to fast- Unmanaged lands alone since the Virginia fastlands ownership Commercial Includes all open or wooded lands not in- extends to mean low water. All bottoms below mean Includes buildings, parking areas, and other cluded in other classifications: low water are in State ownership. land directly related to retail and wholesale trade a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; and business. This category includes small indus- I -Less than 40% tree cover. d) Water Quality try and other anomalous areas within the general b '17ooded: more than 40% tree cover. The ratings of satisfactory, intermediate or commercial context. Marinas are considered com- The shoreland use classification applies to unsatisfactory assigned to the various subsegments mercial shore use. the general usage of the fastland area to an ar- are taken from a listing at the Virginia Bureau of bitrary distance of half mile from the shore or Shellfish Sanitation, based on information from Industrial beach zone or to some less distant, logical bar- water samples collected in the various tidewater Includes all industrial and associated areas. rier. In multi-usage areas one must make a sub- shellfishing areas. The Bureau attempts to visit Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, jective selection as to the primary or controlling each area at least once a month. power plants, railyards. type of usage. For simplicity and convenience, The ratings are defined primarily in regard to managed woodlands are classified as "unmanaged, number of coliform bacteria. For a rating of sat- Government wooded" areas. isfactory the maximum limit is an MPN (Most Prob- Includes lands whose usage is specifically able Number) of 70 per 100 ml. The upper limit for controlled, restricted, or regulated by gove = en- Shore Zone fecal coliforms is an MPN of 23. Usually any count tal organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort Story. Bathing above these limits results in an unsatisfactory Boat launching rating, and, from the Bureau's standpoint, results Recreation and Other Public Open Spaces Bird watching in restricting the waters from the taking of shell- Includes designated outdoor recreation lands Waterfowl hunting fish for direct sale to the consumer. and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf There are instances however, when the total courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public Nearshore Zone coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. Pound net fishing does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- Shellfishing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating Preserved Sport fishing may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be Includes lands preserved or regulated for Extraction of non-living resources permitted to remain open pending an improvement 6 in conditions. inhabitants. Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia Although these limits are somewhat more strin- The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated 62.1-13-4). These surveys include detailed acre- gent than those used in rating recreational waters as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- ages of the grass species composition within indi- (see Virginia State Water Control Board, Water tive visits were made to monitor the effective- vidual marsh systems. In Shoreline Situation Quality Standards 1946, amended 1970), they are ness of recent installations. In instances where Reports of counties that have had marsh inventories, used here because the Bureau of Shellfish Sanita- existing structures are inadequate, we have given the marsh number is indicated, thus allowing the tion provides the best areawide coverage available recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- user of the Shoreline Situation Report to key back at this time. In general, any waters fitting the thermore, recommendations are given for defenses to the formal marsh inventory for additional data. satisfactory or intermediate categories would be in those areas where none curre6tly exist. The The independent material in this report is provided acceptable for water recreation. primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- to indicate the physiographic type of marsh land ness with secondary consideration to cost. and to serve as a rough guide to marsh distribution, e) Zoning pending a formal inventory. Additional information In cases where zoning regulations have been 9) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal established the existing information pertaining to A.-Iternate Shore Uses Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 3, by the shorelands has been included in the report. in this section we point out specific factors G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. Dawes, and T.A. Barnard, Jr., which may impose significant limits on the type or SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other V.I.M.S. publica- f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses extent of shoreline development. This may result tions. The following ratings are used for shore in a restatement of other factors from elsewhere erosion: in the report, e.g., flood hazard or erosion, or i) Flood Hazard Levels slight or none - less than 1 foot per year this may be a discussion of some other factor The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the moderate - - - - 1 to 3 feet per year pertaining to the particular area. whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in- severe - - - - - greater than 3 feet per year Also we have placed particular attention on complete. However, the United States Army Corps The locations with moderate and severe ratings the recreational potential of the shore zone. The of Engineers has prepared reports for a number of are further specified as being critical or non- possible development of artificial beach, erosion localities which were used in this report. Two critical. The erosion is considered critical if protection, etc., influence the evaluation of an tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray buildings, roads, or other such structures are areals potential. Similarly, potential alternate the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is endangered. shore uses are occasionally noted. that flood with an average recurrence time of The degree of erosion was determined by several about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods means. In most locations the long term trend was h) Distribution of Marshes indicates it to have an elevation of approximately determined using map comparisons of shoreline The acreage and physiographic type of the 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake positions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti- Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is es- addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's mates of acreages were obtained from topographic tablished for land planning purposes which is and recent -ears were Utili @@rl for assessment maps and should be considered only as approxima- placed au Ulle hign.est probable flood level. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec- are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds tions and interviews were held with local Marine Science under the authorization of the The data in this report show the leased and 7 public shellfish grounds as portrayed in the Vir- ginia State Water Control Board publication "Shellfish growing areas in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Public, leased and condemned," November 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar reports. Since the condemnation areas change with time they are not to be taken as definitive. How- ever, some insight to the conditions at the date of the report are available by a comparison be- tween the shellfish grounds maps and the water quality maps for which water quality standards for shellfish were used. k) Beach Quality Beach quality is a subjective judgriienL based upon considerations such as the nature of the beach material, the length and width of the beach area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the beach setting. 8 a 0 6 CHAPTER 3 a PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION 6 1 0 1 I I 0 I I 9 1 @ CHAPTER 3 normal water levels endanger structures which are Scotland is privately owned residential property. PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF built along the shore zone at Sunken Meadow and at The privately owned beaches at Sloop Point and SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA Sloop Point. Tidal marshes protect the fastland Sunken Meadow charge for public admission. They in the creeks from severe flooding. Surry County's are widely used during the summer months. 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF SURRY COUNTY shore does not receive the full force of either The fastland in Surry County is used for vari- Surry County, located on the south side of the type of storm, as it is located approximately 20 ous activities. Agriculture plays an important James River, is bounded by Lawnes Creek on the south miles above the mouth of the James and 50 miles part in the county's economics and controls thir- (17.5 miles above the mouth) and by Upper Chippokes below the fall line in Richmond. teen percent of the fastland. The Hog Island Creek on the north (38.5 miles above the mouth). Only forty-two percent of Surry's shorelands State Waterfowl Refuge, Chippokes State Park, and The shorelands reflect the county's predominantly border on the James River. The rest of the shore numerous smaller sites along the shoreline are rural character in that they are relatively unde- is along creeks, the larger ones being Upper and preserved areas which comprise eighteen percent veloped. The only residential developments on the Lower Chippokes Creek, lawnes Creek, and Grays of the fastland. Six percent of the shorelands shore are at Scotland, Claremont, Sloop Point, and Creek. Tidal marshes, including fringe, embayed, are residential areas, mainly used for second or Sunken Meadow, which are for summer vacation resi- and extensive marshes, comprise sixty percent of summer vacation homes. Fifty-eight percent Pf dences. Very few areas of the shore are used ex- the co-,L-_.-@s shoreline (a tidal marsh inventory the fastlands are wooded areas. Development tensively for most of the year. for Su--,-,,, Sounty is forthcoming). Tidal marshes along the shoreline in Surry County is generally The fastland of Surry County ranges from low benefit the area by offering flood and erosion restricted to the areas directly bordering on shore to high shore with several areas of artifi- protection and by their many ecological assets. the James River. Most creek areas are relatively cial fill (see Table 1). Arti-ficial fill has been During floods, marshes act much like sponges, untouched. used to fill in behind bulkheading on the beach at absorbing water and lessening the impact of the No data is available from the Bureau of Shell- Sunken Meadow. The areas at Sunken Meadow which water on the vulnerable fastland behind. Like- fish Sanitation since Surry County is in a tran- have been filled now support buildings or trailers. wise, the marshes absorb much wave energy hitting sition zone between salt water and fresh water. Thirty-four percent of the fastlands have moder- the shoreline. As stated in Chapter 2, the marshes, Low salinity levels here are not conducive to ately high to high bluffs on the shore. This fig- especially extensive marshes, act as transporters shellfish propogation. ure does not include those areas where bluffs occur of detritus and other food chain materials, making The Water Quality Inventory (305 (B) Report) further than 400 feet into the fastland. Most of them prime habitats for waterfowl and other animals by the Virginia State Water Control Board (April, the shoreline of the county is backed by bluffs. which choose the marsh areas for their homes. The 1976) indicates that while the water quality in Fifty-two percent of the fastlands are either low marsh areas, which are vital for the continued this section is generally good, seasonal and shore or moderately low shore. The areas of low existence of many animals, should be preserved in sectional problems do exist. The only major dis- shore are subject to flooding during periods of their natural state. charger in the county is the Virginia Electric and abnormally high water. Most of the flooding occurs Beaches comprise thirty-eight percent of Surry Power Company power plant on Hog Island. However, during northeast storms which affect the Chesapeake County's shoreline. Most of the beaches are fairly conditions upstream probably have a greater effect Bay area during the fall, winter, and spring months. wide, though most have limited use and are littered on the water quality in Surry County. Flooding can also be caused by severe upstream with fallen trees and driftwood. There are three There are numerous dischargers into the river rains, as in the case of the Camille and Agnes beaches in the county that are actively used, two in Richmond, Hopewell, and Petersburg which ad- storms of 1969 and 1972 respectively. Higher than of which have public admission. The beach at versely affect the water quality. Flood waters 10 cause sewer overflows in Richmond, allowing oxi- water. Being so far from the mouth, the James from the affected area. The fetch allows winds dizable organics and bacteria to enter the James River at Surry County is not wide enough nor to be significantly more powerful here, therefore River. In late 1975, the James River below Rich- straight enough to have a really significant causing waves hitting the shore to be more power- mond was closed to all shellfish and finfish har- fetch. The exception here is at Eastover, which ful and thus more erosive. The entire area has vesting due to chemical contamination. At the pre- is directly south of the mouth of the Chickahominy bluffs along the shoreline which are generally sent time, the river is open to the taking of seed River (this area will be discussed later). With- composed of easily erodable shell material, clay, oysters. out a significant fetch, erosive wave action is and sand. minimized for most of the county. However, storms Eastover and other areas with wooded bluffs 3.2 SHORELINE EROSION IN SURRY COUNTY in the Bay do affect the county's shorelands. along the shoreline are also adversely affected As in all the counties in Virginia bordering During severe storms, the water level rises. This by rain runoff. Rain waters erode the bluffs, major rivers or the Bay, the shorelands of Surry storm surge may be two or more feet above the nor- undermining the trees and eventually causing them County are continually being eroded. This never- mal high tide level. This rise in water level is to fall. The trees carry with them large amounts ending process of erosion and accretion is depend- enough to neutralize the natural buffer provided of soil trapped in their root systems. This fur- ent upon many variables such as the location of the by the beach or marsh, allowing waves to attack ther complicates the ergsion problems of a given county, the physiography of its shorelands, the the higher fastland behind. area. depth and width of the water body, and man's use of Heavy upstream rains and ensuing high water Beaches and marshes are natural barriers the shorelands. The many combinations of these and levels also are responsible for some erosion. As against the erosion of the fastland. The size other factors determine whether any given area on in the case of severe storms, the higher water and shape of any particular beach or marsh changes the shoreline will erode or accrete and at what levels associated with flood waters allow wave through time, due to storm actions, erosion pat-_ rate. actions to erode the vulnerable cliff material terns, and man's intervention. Beaches rely on Surry County is located along the James River, behind the buffer zone. the erosion of the fastland for a continuous sup- its eastern boundary being 17.5 miles above the According to an unpublished VIMS report, erosion ply of sand in the littoral drift. Storms which river's mouth and its western boundary 38.5 miles in Surry County averages from 1.0 to 2.8 feet per cause severe erosion in one area can help to build above the mouth. From the fall line in Richmond, year, depending upon the location of the area and the beaches downdrift. However, stabilization the eastern boundary is 60.5 miles and the western the frequency and intensity of storm generated of an eroding area can cut off the sand supply boundary is 39.5 miles. For a point of reference, wave action. The area of greatest erosion is downstream and starve the beaches there. Proper Scotland Wharf is 27 miles above the mouth and 51 Eastover, encompassing an area from Sunken Meadow design and construction of the shore protective miles below the fall line. The county's shore is to the Pipsico Boy Scout Reservation. Over the structures can minimize any detrimental effects affected by storms occurring in the Chesapeake Bay last 100 years, this area has lost an average of from the emplacement. Only 2% (0-7 miles) of and by heavy rains occurring above the fall line. 11.8 feet per year. As stated earlier, most of Surry's 66.0 miles of shoreline have been sta- A primary cause of erosion of the fastland is the James River at Surry County is too narrow bilized. Most areas suffering from erosion are waves generated by local winds. The height and with too many bends to allow a long fetch. At unmanaged, wooded. The problem is thus not crit- growth of waves is controlled by four factors: Eastover, though, the fetch from the north-north- ical and the areas need no protection. In cases The overwater distance across which the wind blows east is 3.8 nautical miles. This long fetch comes of erosion where stabilization seems to be the (the fetch), the velocity of the wind, the duration from the mouth of the Chickahominy River located answer, an area wide plan of shore protection of time that the wind blows, and the depth of the on the north bank of the James directly across should be adopted. Individual costs are reduced and the chances for aggravated erosion nearby are water quality. Guildford Heights (0.6 miles), Scotland (0.8 reatly lessened with such a plan. Before considering the merits vs. disadvantages miles), and Cobhan Kiarf (0.6 miles). These Shoreline erosion in most of Surry County is not of any given area, one has to have an "ideal" with areas total 3.3 miles and represent 12% of the a serious problem. The erosion rate in most areas which to compare. This ideal land on the shore, river-fronting shoreline. Very little additional is slight to moderate. Problems arising from ero- though different to everyone, has certain qualities development can occur in these -cesidential com- sion are usually the result of a lack of planning which most potential shore dwellers would probably munities, since most river-fronting property is on the part of the developer or individual who agree upon. It would have elevations of from 10 to already used. Thus, 12.7 miles (46%) of Surry buys shorefront property. Planning ahead can Sol-@re 20 feet (to protect against flooding), be stable County's shoreline on the James Ri-ver is not many problems before they become critical. For with a nice, wide, sandy beach, and have access to available for development. instance, many people want to build overlooking the deep water (at least 6-foot depths within 100 feet The rest of the river shoreline in Surry water. However, building near the edge of a cliff of shore). Ideally, the land would have good ac- County is almost totally unused, the exception is not advisable, as erosion will soon force relo- cess (a paved road nearby), and would not be close being those areas used for agriculture. There cation. Likewise, building on areas where eleva- to any potential contaminants (industrial plants, are several reasons for the present undeveloped tions are less than 7 feet is inviting damages gravel pits, sewage outfalls, etc.). In considering state of the shorelipe., Almost the entire shore- from flood waLei-s. Good, @-urffffion sense in building -the pot,,@nt-.*Lal for develo ne has to weigh each line in Surry County bordering the river has un- L L _L near the shoreline is imperative if one is to en4oy advantaC,- and disadvantage of an area and make a stable bluffs. Downhill rain runoff continually onels investment. decision on those factors which are most important erodes these areas, often undermining trees which to him. Our discussion in this section will be of eventually fall and complicate the erosion prob- 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS those factors in a given area which we feel could lem. T@oost of the unused areas suffer from mod- Along any given stretch of shoreline, many fac- limit development there. erate crj,@,ion, with one section having severe tors can limit or restrict the area's use. Some There are approximately 27.3 miles of river- erosioi-.L )--- 1-1.3 feet per year. Also, there, is restricting factors are: fronting shoreline in Surry County, representing no Food eooe-,@-_ t@) r-ost iuyased sections of the 1. The elevation of the shorelands. High forty-two percent of the total shoreline. This shoreline. bluff areas are easily eroded, low lands section of the county should have the most value A.-@ E. -ssul@-, of thpse processes, development are subject to flooding. for potential developers, since it has beaches and on the shoreline -would be costly. Slopestabili- 2. The exposure of the shorelands. An area usually good access to deep water. A total of 7.71 zation and manipuia-tion of surface drainage will exposed to severe storm actions can be miles of the river shoreline, including Hog Island be necessary prior to developmaent near the edge easily eroded and flooded. State Waterfowl Refuge, Chippokes State Park, and of highe2 sliara!@u-ids. 3. The existing use of the shorelarids. Many four smaller areas, are preserved, either for his- areas are preserveo@, which prohibits devel- torical or for ecological purposes. Other sections opment. Adjacent industrial plants would in Surry where development would be prohibited are inhibit residential usage. the Surry Nuclear Power Plant (0.8 miles) and the 4. Other factors. There are other contribut- Pipsico Boy Scout Reservation (1.3 miles). ing factors to an area's use or nonuse. The shorelands of Surry County also support sum- These include access, water navigability, mer - recreational communities. These areas include area geology, zoning regulations, and Sunken Meadow (0-7 miles), Sloop Point (0.6 miles), 12 FIGURE 3: Beach and marsh at Hog Island State Waterfowl Refuge. The entire area is preserved. FIGURE 4: Beach at Chippokes State Park. A sand bar has formed at the mouth of the creek. 7M, FIGURE 5: Bluffs between Broad Swamp and Wake- field. The bluffs here, as in most of Surry, are 4@ continually eroding. Rain runoff, wind and wave ",N"D actions all contribute to this problem. h FIGURE 6: A marina and several private residences are located at Pleasant Point at the mouth of Crouch Creek. FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 M IN @ a., 'Z 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 13 'N Irew agooc f 0 ggt, AS4 "n UP, AMO, VIM -W '44 1-1 7-@ FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 7. FIGURE 7:. Creek on beach at Guildford Heights. The beaches here are nourished by the erosion of the bluffs behind. FIGURE 8: The piers at Scotland reflect the heavy summer va I WE! 11, cation residential usage of this area. Most houses are built on the bluffs along the shoreline. X\ v At V, FIGURE 9: Beach and stream at Sunken Meadow. N"N . . . . . . The trailers are placed on artificial fill behind a wooden bulkhead. Flooding from storm induced rious problem here. waves poses a se FIGURE 10: Ground view of trailers at Sunken Meadow. The bulkhead has been repaired in sev- eral places. ......... . FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 @711 14 770 00, 760 145' SURRY C MAP 5 VID 15' 90 0? 19?0 MAP 6 3 C 3B 2B MAP 3 iB 3 H G ISLAND IdA MAP 5 68AYS COBHAM BAY c PO 1.s 0* 1A MAP 21 7rloo, 760 14e MAP 7 15 770 100, 760 45' SURRY COUNT MAP 1B 5 IC Yr 57 ?C@ CS CC 0 -0- FASTLAND 0? fo@ C,,@ 0- Low S 0, Low S 0-0, 3C with 0'@01 4 Moder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moderc, 0 0 0 0 3B with 0-.0 Moder 2B 1B C.- 0 0 Moder 0 3A 0.: 0 with 0 ISLAND ..0 2AG ..0 High S 0 0 ..0 0 High S 0 0 with 0 m C08HA 0 Dune BAY Artifici SHORE Beach Fringe C141PPO Extens Embay Artificie 1A NEARS Na Int Wi 7rloo, 760 145' 16 77000, 760 45 SURRY COU MAP 1C 5 370 57 ??fit a4*6-S 0@ SCS4. FASTLAND VRO G G N XV .\,44 \ \t, \9-"\ c u 4 '91t e-@ 3 C C 19 N-tl 3B NQL 1B 2B /3 A -00 @Lcj -\ P,-c H GISLAND N \SIVLY 5,? 9@ \4 N144 -\9. @ I a 2A Cf?. '\ P. (30L -44 P' N-44 s IN 6H N4 \-44 \9.5 \\ \,44 N4 COBHAM N,44 N-41 N-44 SAY N4 N-41 \,14 N,44 Not, \,o \4 P. N NVL5 '59-cCNr- \\ N-41 N Is NIO N'S 0 c)Hqlppo 04 1A N 71@00' 760 145' LC 98 0 - @Nl N 17 770 100, 760 45' SURRY COUN MAP 1D BTO 57 0 leo EROSION AN B J,B 4 3C EROSION Sev 3B Sew 2B 1B Mod Mod 3A Slig G m AND B/R/G 2A Z Acc B J R COBHA M SHORELINE BAY B B R R G C C,4,ppoKfS 1A -7rloo' 760 145' TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SURRY COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE AND OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Ownership, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLA-NDS USE OWNERSHIP TOTALMIIES use and physio- graphic FASTLANDS SHORE NEARSHORE classifi- cation Pq P:4 Pq 13:4 F-4 @9: @D 9 ME 0 @-q 0 Fq Pq Pq 0 E-1 Pq r-1 Fq Fq Eq F-@l Pq Pq 0 Pq" @::) " N E-i Pq p (D E--l P q 0 H P Fq Pi E-i 0 Pq " Fq Pq Pli E-1 Pi E-A P:4 W W m P-4" C@ Pq P r4 r4 Fq 41 Pq r-q W, Pq @]:i Pq Pri H Pq Pq E-4 rel 0 P 0 E @ P 0 2 0 00 E-4 rel 0 lr 0 m @11 " H PC; &1 0 9 Pi E-4 @3@ Subsegment P@ F-q U) @-q U) U) Pq W' F-@ 0 F--l P-1 Pi Pq - U) 1A 1.8 5.9 0.3 0.2 1.7 1.5 2.4 0.4 0.4 7.2 8.0 5.8 8.0 1B 12.1 2.3 1.1 0.1 6.5 1.9 0.3 3.2 5.0 0.6 10.2 4.7 5.3 10.2 8.4 15.5 2A 2.4 3.6 1.9 .0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5 4.1 1.6 3.0 0.5 3.4 5.5 3.0 6.6 8.5 2B 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.7 0.8 4.7 0.5 1.2 3.1 1.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 3.6 1.1 4.7 4.7 3A o.6 2.8 0.1 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 7.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 6.2 6.6 8.9 6.6 3B 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 3C 1.1 3.9 0.5 0.7 6.0 4.7 1.3 2.2 8.2 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 14.4 0.3 16.9 11.7 16. 9 4 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.2 8.4 0.3 8.3 o.6 2.2 6.3 0.8 2.4 0.4 2.6 2.1 5.1 12.6 9.3 12.6 5 1.3 1.1 0.3 1.7 0.8 5.0 2.2 2.7 4.1 1.6 0.6 2.5 0.3 0.8 6.6 10.2 9.0 10.2 TOTAL 0.1 22.9 21.2 5.3 5.4 9.3 1.4 19.1 0.7 24.9 10.1 26.0 4.3 4.6 12.9 10.3 10.8 0.2 1.3 14.8 2.7 5.3 49.0 0.5 70.3 14.3 66.0 84.6 % of FASTLAND 0 27% 25% 6% 6% 11% 2% 23% 13% 0 1% 18% 3% 6% 58% 1% 83% 17% 100% % of SHORELINE 2% 38% 15% 39% 6% 7% 19% 16% 100% \ p@ g y r c s a 1 c p a a u 0 h s t s c *fi- on gm t Subseen 19 6 a 0 CHAPTER 4 6 0 .4.1 TABLE OF SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES 0 4.2 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS 0 4.3 SEGMENT AND SUBSEGMENT MAPS 0 0 I 21 I TARLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARY FOR SUMMARY FOR SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELADS TYPE SHORELANDS USES OWNERSHIP ZONING FLOOD HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION 1A FASTLAND: Low shore 22% moderately low FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 89%. Private Agricultural - Low. The area has at Poor. The only This area appears to be stable. There are no LAWRES CREEK shore 74%, and moderately low shore with industria 6%, and agricultural 5%. rural residential. least 20-foot eleva- beach in this sub- endangered or protective structures. 5.8 miles bluff 4%. SHORE: Soort fishing and waterfowl tions throughout. segment is at the (8.0 miles SHORE: Batch 3%, fringe marsh 36%. hunting. mouth of the creek of fastland) embayed marsh 25%, and extensive marsh CREEK: Sport fishing. where access is 42%. limited. CREEK: Lawnes Creek has 2-foot depths at its mouth. 1B FASTLAND: Low shor 78%, moderately low FASTLANDS: Industrial 4%, preserved State 66% Agricultural - Low, noncritical, ex- Fair. Bqcaches here Moderate, nonqcritqica HOG ISLAND shore 15%, and moderately low shore with 66%, and mananaged, wooded 30%. and Private rural residential cept at the Hog Is- are less than 20 rate from qHog Island 8.4 miles bluff 7%. SHORE: Approximately 30,000 feet of 34%. and some indus- land State q'q,q'qlaterfqowl feet wide with fine feet per year. Thor (15.5 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1%, shoreline is preserved (Hog Island trial. Refuge where it is grained sand. ineffective bulkhead of fastland) beach 77%, and extensive marsh 22%. Waterfowl Refuge) and about 2,000 feet moderate to high, west side of Hog Isl NEARSHORE: Narrow 3%, intermediate 38%, is industrial. The remaining shore- noncritical. For two riprqap jetties and a and wide 59%. line has limited low intensity structures at the located at the Surry recreational usage. Surry Nuclear Plant NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping in there is a high, the channel and some sport fishing. critical flood hazard. 2A FASTLAND: Low shore 28%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 19%, preserved Private 65% Agricultural - Low, except moderate There are no beaches The area at the mouth of Lower Chippokes Low. 62% fo the shoreline is em- LOWER CHIPPOKES shore 43%, moderately low shore with 35%, residential 6%, and unmanaged, and State rural residential. for the marsh areas. along Lower Chip- Creek is accreting. The rest of the creek bayed marsh and should be left in CREEK bluff 23%, moderately high shore 2%, wooded 40%. 35% pokes Creek. appears stable. There are no endangered its natural state. The west side 6.6 miles moderately high shore with bluff 2%, and SHORE: Fishing and waterfowl hunting or protective structres. of the creek is chippokes Planta (8.5 miles high shore with bluff 2%. in the marsh areas. tion State Park where development of fastland) SHORE: Fringe marsh 78% and embayed CREEK: Fishing. is prohibited. Most of the marsh 62%. remaining shoreline has limited CREEK: Average depths range from 2 to access. 5 feet. 2B FASTTAND: Low shore 20%, moderately low FASTLANJD: Agricultural 38%, preserved Private 75% Agricultural, Low to moderate. Good to fair. Moderate, noncritical. There are two effec- Low. The majority of the shore- COBHAM BAY shore 10%, moderately low shore with 25%, residential 12%, and unmanaged, and State with some vaca- Several homes to the Beaches are gen- tive wooden groins just east of the mouth of line is either restricted or 4.7 miles bluff 17%, moderately high shore with wooded 25%. 25%. tion residential east of Blizzards erally 15 to 25 feet Blizzards Creek. At Cobham Warf, there are extensively used. The remaining (4.7 miles bluff 57%. and high shore with b1liff SHORE: Some sun bathing and walking. and a small pre- Creek have a moderate wide and have fine, three sections of wooden bulkheading portion is zoned as agricultural of fastland) 17%. ITEARSHORE: Fishing, boating, and served historical critical flood hazard white sand. totaling 175 feet which are ineffective. and rural residential. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% and other water sports. area. beach 99%. NEARSHORE: Narrow 10%, intermediate 25%, and wide 65%. 3A FASTLAND: Low shore 9%, moderately low FASTLAND: Commercial 2%, residential Private. Mostly agricul- Low. The creek is Fair. There are Moderate, noncritical. Erosion at the mouth Low. The land at the creek mouth TIMBERNECK shore 45%, moderatoly low shore with 5%, and unmanaged, wooded 93%. tural, some vaca- protected from fairly narrow of the creek average 1.1 feet per year on both sides is already developed. CREEK AND bluff 1%, moderately high shore 29%, SHORE: Some fishing and waterfowl tion recreational. severe storm effects. beaches at the historically. There is an 800-foot bulkhead The rest of the subsegment is CROUCH CREEK and high shore 18%. hunting in the marshes. mouth of the creek. and three groins at Pleasant Point, and a unused and probably should remain 8.9 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing. 200-foot bulkhead on the opposite side of so. (6.6 miles beach 3%, fringe marsh 12%, and embayed CREEK: T,lostly waterfowl hunting. the creek. All structures appear to be of fastland) marsh 83%. effective. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2%. CREEK: Very narrow and shallow. 3B FASTLAND: Low shore 16%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 25%, residen- Private. Mostly vacation Low. Most areas Good to fair. Moderate, noncritical. Most of the erosion None. The Scotland are is SCOTLAND shore 35%, moderately low shore with tial 50%, unmanaged, wooded 12%, and residential, some have at least 10- Beaches are 10 to in this area is caused by downhill rain run- already extensively used. 1.6 miles bluff 21%, moderately high shore 7%, and unmanaged, open 12%. business and foot elevations. 30 feet wide with off, which results in the slumping of ex- (1.6 miles moderately high shore with bluff 21%. SHORE: The Scotland Ferry Wharf is agricultural. fine grained sand. posed cliff material. There is about 300 of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 9% and in this subseqgment. The remaining Beaches have some feet of rubble riprap and 250 feet of wooden beach 91%. shoreline is used for bathing and vegetation. bulkheading. There are also 7 groins along NEARSHORE: Intermediate 72% and wide fishing. the beach which appear to be effective. 28%. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating. 22 TABLE 2 (con't). SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE OWNERSHIP ZONING FLOOD HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USES 3C FASTLAND: Low shore 6%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 11%, commer- Private. Mostly agricul- Low. The entire area Poor. Beaches are Erosion from Swanns Point to the mouth of Low. The marsh areas along Grays GRAYS CREEK shore 23%, moderately low shore with cial less than 1%, recreational less tural - rural has elevations of at thin and partially Grays Creek has averaged 1.1 feet per year. Creek should be preserved and used 11.7 miles bluff 3%, moderately high shore 4%, mod- than 1%, residential less than 1%, residential, with least 10 feet. covered with No data is available for Grays Creek. There for low intensity recreational (16.9 miles erately high shore with bluff 36%, and unmanaged, wooded 85%, and unmanaged, some vacation vegetation. is about 200 feet of bulkheading at Grays purposes such as nature trails and of fastland) high shore with bluff 28%. open 2%. residential. Creek Marina. bird watching. SHORE: Artificially stabilized, less SHORE: Bathing and recreational than 1%, beach 11%, fringe marsh 19%, purposes. There is some waterfowl and embayed marsh 70%. hunting in the marshes. NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2% and wide NEARSHORE: Boating and fishing. 7%. The rest of Grays Creek is too narrow and shallow for classification. 4 FASTLAND: Artificial fill less than FASTLAND: Agricultural 19%, preserved Private. Mostly agricul- Low, noncritical for Fair to good. Slight or no change to severe, noncritical. Low. The unused areas of this sub- SWANNS POINT 1%, low shore 19%, moderately low shore 3%, recreational 21%, residential 17%, tural - rural most of the subseg- Sunken Meadow and The shoreline between Pipsico Boy Scout Reser- segment should remain in their TO SLOOP POINT 4%, moderately high shore 7%, moderately and unmanaged, wooded 40%. residential. ment. Sunken Meadow Sloop Point have vation and Sunken Meadow has an erosion rate natural state, but are well suited 9.3 miles high shore with bluff 2%, high shore SHORE: Bathing, fishing, and Some urban resi- and Sloop Point have good wide, sandy of 11.8 feet per year. No structures are for low density recreational use (12.6 miles 1%, and high shore with bluff 66%. walking. dential and vaca- a moderate, critical beaches. endangered. At Sunken Meadow, about 1,600 such as nature walks, picnicking, of fastland) SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, NEARSHORE: Boating, fishing, and tion - residen- flood hazard. feet of wooden bulkhead has been erected to and possibly camping. beach 90%, and embayed marsh 7%. other water related sports. tial. There are retain artificial fill which seems effective. NEARSHORE: Narrow 23%, intermediate three areas that The stream to Sunken Meadow has wooden bulk- 68%, and wide are historic heading extending into jetties. Some of the preservation bulkhead is failing and the jetties are districts. ineffective. 5 FASTLAND: Low shore 13%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 24%, indus- Pl--vate. Agricultural - Low, noncritical to Good to fair. Sloop Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Low. UpperChippokes Creek is UPPER shore 11%, moderately low shore with trial 4%, residential 8%, and rural residen- moderate, critical. Point has a good The area east of the creek mouth has an largely unused except for sport CHIPPOKES bluff 3%, moderately high shore 17%, unmanaged, wooded 64%. tial. Several structures at beach. Most others erosion rate of 1.0 to 1.2 feet per year. hunting and fishing. Any develop- CREEK moderately high shore with bluff 8%, and SHORE: Bathing, fishing, and uome Sloop Point are below are thin. There are no protective structures. ment here should be in harmony 9.0 miles high shore with bluff 48%. waterfowl hunting in the marshes. 10-foot elevations with the natural surroundings.. (10.2 miles SHORE: Beach 25%, fringe marsh 29%, NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and have a moderate, The area is best suited for low of fastland) and embayed marsh 46%. and other water related sports. critical flood intensity recreational usage. NEARSHORE: Narrow 18% and intermediate CREEK: Sport fishing. hazard. 6%. The rest of the subsegment is creek, which is too shallow for classification. 23 SUBSEGMENT 1A SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Development along Lawnes SUBSEGMENT 1B LAWNES CREEK, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA Creek is limited by several factors. Sixty- HOG ISLAND, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA seven percent of the shoreline.is either em- Maps 2 and 3 bayed or extensive marsh. These areas should Map 3 not be destroyed. Also, Lawnes Creek is too shallow for most boats to use. Without good EXTENT: 30,800 feet (5.8 mi.) of shoreline along access to the river, this area loses much of EXTENT: 44,600 feet (8.4 mi.) of shoreline from the west side of Lawnes Creek. The subsegment its water-related residential value. Hunnicut Creek to Bayse Point. The subsegment also contains 42,400 feet (8.0 mi.) of fastland. also includes 81,600 feet (15.5 mi.) of fast- ALTERNATE USES: The Lawnes Creek shorelands in land. (Hog Island State Waterfowl Refuge SHORELANDS TYPE Surry are probably best left in their natural contains 54,000 feet of fastland.) FASTLAND: Low shore 22% (1.8 mi.), moderately state. Possible uses for the area include low shore 74% (5.9 mi.), and moderately low hunting, fishing, and low intensity recreational SHORELANDS, TYPE shore with bluff 4% (0-3 mi.). activities such as hiking, canoeing, and camping. FASTLAND: Low shore 78% (12.1 mi. ), moderately SHORE: Beach 3% (0.2 mi.), fringe marsh 30% low shore 15% (2-3 mi. ), and moderately low (1-7 mi.), embayed marsh 25% (1.5 mi.), and MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BACONS CASTLE shore with bluff 7% (1-1 mi.). extensive marsh 42% (2-4 mi.). Quadr., 1969. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (0.1 mi.), CREEK: Lawnes Creek is shallow at its mouth, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLAND beach 77% (6-5 mi.), and extensive marsh 22% with a depth of 2 feet. Sections of the creek Quadr., 1965, photorevised 1972. (1.9 mi.). have depths of 5 to 9 feet. C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, NEARSHORE: Narrow 3% (0-3 mi.), intermediate SHORELANDS USE Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1972. 38% (3.2 mi.), and wide 59% (5-0 mi.). FASTLAND: Unmanaged, wooded 89% (7.2 mi.), PHOTOS: ',,To VIMS photos. SHORELANDS USE industrial 6% (0.4 mi.), and agricultural 5% FASTLAND: Industrial 4% (0.6 mi.), preserved (0.4 mi.). The industrial usage is comprised 66% (10.2 mi. ), and urunanaged, wooded 30% of the gravel pit operations near the head of (4.7 mi.). The 10.2 miles of fastland pre- the creek. served in the Hog Island State Waterfowl Refuge SHORE: Some fishing and waterfowl hunting in is an estimated figure for the numerous islands the marshes. and peninsulas. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing. SHORE: Approximately 30,000 feet of shoreline is included in the Hog Island State Waterfowl SHORELINE TREND: The creek shoreline trends Refuge. This area is preserved. Of the re- basically N - S in this subsegment. maining 14,600 feet, about 2,000 feet is used for industrial purposes by the Surry Nuclear OWNERSHIP: Private. Power Plant. The rest of the shoreline has limited use for bathing and other low intensity ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. recreational purposes. NEARSHORE: Some sport boating. The channel, FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The area is not subject to which lies about 0.5 nautical miles offshore large waves or other direct storm effects. With of Hog Point and about 1.8 nautical miles off- elevations of at least 20 feet throughout the shore of Bayse Point, is used by various ships subsegment, this area is not susceptible to headed for ports along the upper James River. flooding. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends first BEACH QUALITY: The only beach in the subsegment is basically S - N, then NNE - SSW. The fetch at located at the mouth of the creek. This beach Walnut Point is ESE - 8.8 nautical miles. is fairly wide, but access is very poor. OWNERSHIP: State - 66% and private 34%. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: The area appears stable. ZONING: Mostly agricultural - rural residential, ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. some industrial (Surry Nuclear Power Plant). SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical, except for the OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. Hog Island State Waterfowl Refuge, where it is 24 moderate to high, noncritical. For two struc- tures at the intake for the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, there is a high, critical flood hazard. BEACH QUALITY- Fair. Beaches in the subsegment characteristically are less than 20 feet in width and have a fine grain size. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Most of the shoreline from Wal- nut Point to Bayse Point is undergoing moderate, noncritical erosion. The area of greatest change is between Hog Point and Walnut Point, where the historical erosion rate is 2.8 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Along the west side of Hog Island, there is about 100 feet of bulkheading with groins. This structure has been flanked and is now ineffective. There are two rubble riprap jetties at the mouth of the outfall of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant further upstream. Along the sides of the outfall is a cement bag bulkhead. These structures are effective. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Hog Island is a preserved area, and as such, no development can take place. The Surry Nuclear Power I'lazit is lo- cated to the south of the Wildlife Refuge. This area also has a very limited development potential. The rest of the subsegment does not have good access. The only road is Route 650, which is from 0.5 to 1.0 miles inland. Any house or development would have to build its own road. ALTERNATE USES: The only section of this subseg- ment which might be subject to development is south of the power plant. This area is best left in its natural state. Any number of low intensity recreational uses including hiking, camping, and picnicking could be employed here. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLAND Quadr., 1965, photorevised 1972. C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Nye-wport- News to Jamesto-wfi Island, 1972. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-1B/1-32 Ground-VIM 6Nov 75 SU-1B/64-72. 25 SUBSEGMENT 2A SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline of Lower SUBSEGMENT 2B LOWER CHIPPOKES CREEK, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA Chippokes Creek is sixty-two percent embayed COBHAM BAY, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA marsh. Marsh areas should be preserved whenever Map 3 possible, as they are an invaluable resource. Maps 3 and 4 The west side of the creek is Chippokes Planta- tion State Park where development is prohibited. EXTENT: 34,800 feet (6.6 mi.) of shoreline. The Most of the other land available for development EXTENT: 25,000 feet (4.7 mi.) of shoreline from subsegment also contains 45,000 feet (8-5 mi.) has no good access. Lower Chippokes Creek to Pleasant Point. This of fastland. subsegment also contains 25,000 feet (4-7 mi.) ALTERNATE USES: Chippokes Plantation State Park of fastland. SHORELANDS TYPE is used for low intensity recreational purposes FASTLAND: Low shore 28% (2-4 mi.), moderately such as nature walks. Though some development SHORELANDS TYPE low shore 43% (3.6 mi.), moderately low shore is possible for the south side of the creek, FASTLAND: Low shore 20% (1.0 mi.), moderately with bluff 23% (1-9 mi.), moderately high shore most of the areas should remain in their natural low shore 10% (0.5 mi.), moderately low shore 2% (0.2 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff state if possible. with bluff 17% (0.8 mi.), moderately high shore 2% (0.2 mi.), and high shore with bluff 2% with bluff 37% (1-7 mi.), and high shore with (0.2 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLAND bluff 17% (0.8 mi.). SHORE: Fringe marsh 38% (2.5 mi.) and embayed Quadr., 1965, photorevised 1972. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 1% (less than marsh 62% (4.1 mi.). C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, 0.1 mi.) and beach 99% (4-7 mi.). CREEK: Lower Chippokes Creek is too narrow Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1972. NEARSHORE: Narrow 10% (0-5 mi.), intermediate and shallow for classification. Average depths 25% (1.2 mi.), and wide 65% (3-1 mi.). range from 2 to 5 feet. PHOTOS: Aer@a!-VDIS 23July7 A qTT_0A/33-, 8. SHORELANDS USE SHORELANDS USE FASTLAND: Agricultural 38% (1-7 mi.), preserved FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (1.6 mi.), preserved 25% (1.2 mi.), residential 12% (0.6 mi.), and 35% (3-0 mi.), residential 6% (0-5 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 25% (1.2 mi.). unmanaged, wooded 40% (3-4 mi.). SHORE: Some sun bathing and walking. SHORE: Fishing and waterfowl hunting in the NEARSHORE: Fishing, boating, and other water marsh areas. sports. CREEK: Mainly fishing. WIND AND SEA EXPOSURE: The shoreline trends SHORELINE TREND: The creek trends mainly N - S. basically E - W in this subsegment. The fetch OWNERSHIP: Private 65% and state 35%. is NE - 6.5 nautical miles. OWNERSHIP: Private 75% and state 25%. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. ZONING: Mostly agricultural, with some vacation FLOOD HAZARD: Low, except moderate for the marsh residential and a small, preserved historical areas. area. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches along Lower FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate. Most flooding Chippokes Creek. would occur in the low lands along the several creeks in the subsegment. Several houses to SHORE EROSION SITUATION the east of Blizzards Creek have a moderate, EROSION RATE: The area at the mouth of Lower critical flood hazard. Chippokes Creek is accreting. No data is avail- able for the rest of the creek, though it ap- BEACH QUALITY: Good to fair. Beaches in this pears to be stable. subsegment are generally 15 to 25 feet wide ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. and consist of fine, white sand. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. SHORE EROSION SITUATION OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a boat ramp at EROSION RATE: The entire subsegment is the trailer park along the creek. 26 undergoing moderate, noncritical erosion. The historical erosion rate here is 1.1 feet per year. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There are two effective wooden groins just east of the mouth of Blizzards Creek. At Cobham Wharf, there are three sections of wooden bulkhead totaling about 175 feet, which are mostly ineffective at stopping erosion. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are a few piers, a boat ramp, and a marine railway in the subseg- ment. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Except for areas around creek mouths, the entire subsegment is charac- terized by bluffs along the shore. These bluffs are subject to wind and wave erosion, as well as weathering from downhill rain run- off. The Pleasant Point and Cobham Wharf areas are already developed with vacation homes. The state-owned and preserved Chippokes Plantation State Park occupies the land from College Run Creek to Lower Chippokes Creek. ALTERNATE USES: The only part of the subsegment's shoreline which is not restricted or already extensively used is located between Cobham Wharf and College Run Creek. This portion of the subsegment has elevations of 40 to 60 feet and is presently zoned and used primarily for agriculture and rural residences. This use seems best for the area. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOG ISLAND Quadr., 1965, photorevised 1972. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SURRY Quadr., 1565. C&GS, #529, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Newport News to Jamestown Island, 1972. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-2B/39-73. Ground-VIMS 6Nov 75 SU-2B/51-63. 27 SUBSEGMENT 3A at the mouth of the creek averages 1.1 feet SUBSEGMENT 3B TIMBER NECK CREEK AND CROUCH CREEK, per year historically. ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SCOTLAND, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: At Pleasant Point, Maps 4 and 5 Map 4 there is 800 feet of bulkhead and 3 effective groins. On the other side of the creek is 200 feet of bulkhead. All bulkheading seems to be EXTENT: There is 8,600 feet (1 .6 mi.) of shore- EXTENT: There is 47,000 feet (8.9 mi.) of shore- effective. line from Timber Neck Creek to Grays Creek. line in this subsegment and 34,600 feet (6.6 The subsegment also contains 8,600 feet (1.6 mi.) of fastland. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are 5 piers and an mi.) of fastland. alongside dock at the mouth of the creek. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 9% (0.6 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Except for the creek mouth, FASTLAND: Low shore 16% (0-3 mi.), moderately low shore 43% (2.8 mi.), moderately low shore the entire shoreline of the subsegment is em- low shore 35% (0.6 mi.), moderately low shore with bluff 1% (0.1 mi.), moderately high shore bayed marsh. Overwhelmingly, the fastland is with bluff 21% (0-3 mi.), moderately high shore 29% (1.9 mi.), and high shore 18% (1.2 mi.). unused, wooded. Also, the creek is too shallow 7% (0.1 mi.), and moderately high shore with SHORE: Artificially stabilized 2% (0.2 mi.), for any extensive boat usage. bluff 21% (0-3 mi.). beach 3% (0.2 mi.), fringe marsh 12% (1.0 mi.), SHORE- Artificially stabilized 9% (0.1 mi.) and embayed marsh 83% (7-5 mi.). ALTERNATE USES: The land at the creek mouth on and beach 91% (1-5 mi.). NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2% (0.2 mi.). both sides is already developed. The rest of NEARSHORE: Intermediate 72% (1.2 mi.) and wide CREEK- Very shallow and -narrow. No depths are the subsegment is unused and probably should 28% (0-5 mi.). recorded on any topographic maps or C&GS charts. remain so. SHORELANDS USE SHORELANDS USE MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SURRY Quadr., FASTLAND: Agricultural 25% (0.4 mi.), residen- FASTLAND: Commercial 2% (0.1 mi.), residential 1965. tial 50% (0.8 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 12% (0.2 5% (0.3 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 93% (6.2 C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, mi.), and unmanaged, open 12% (0.2 mi.). mi.). Jamestown Island to Jordon Point, 1971. SHORE: The Scotland Ferry Wharf is in this SHORE: Some fishing and waterfowl hunting in subsegment. The rest of the shoreline is used the marshes. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-3A/74-78. for bathing and fishing. NEARSHORE: Boating and fishing. NEARSHORE: Sport fishing and boating. CREEK: Mostly waterfowl hunting. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trend is basically E - W in this subsegment. N - S in this subsegment. OWNERSHIP: Private. OWNERSHIP: Private. ZONING: Mostly vacation residential, some busi- ZONING: Mostly agricultural, some vacation ness and agricultural. recreational. FLOOD HAZARD: Low. Most of the subsegment has FLOOD HAZARD: Low. The area is not subject to elevations of at least 10 feet and is not sus- large waves or other direct storm effects. ceptible to flooding. With elevations of at least 10 feet throughout BEACH QUALITY: Good to fair. Beaches in this the subsegment, the area is not susceptible to flooding. subsegment average from 30 feet wide at the ferry dock to 10 feet at Camp Waters. The BEACH QUALITY: The only areas of beach are at sand is fine grained. Some vegetation is found the mouth of the creek. The beaches are fairly on the beaches. narrow (15 to 20 feet wide) and nice white sand. SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. The SHORE EROSION SITUATION historical erosion rate for this area is 1.1 EROSION RATE: Moderate, noncritical. Erosion feet per year. Most erosion in this subsegment 28 is caused by downhill rain runoff, which results SUBSEGMENT 3C little or no recreational use. in the slumping of exposed cliff material. GRAYS CREEK, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SHORE EROSION SITUATION SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is about 300 Map 5 EROSION RATE: Erosion from Swanns Point to feet of rubble riprap and 250 feet of wooden the mouth of Grays Creek has averaged 1.1 feet bulkhead. There are also 7 groins along the per year. No data is available for Grays Creek, beach, which for the most part, are effective. EXTENT: There is 62,000 feet (11.7 mi.) of shore- though erosion here appears minimal. line along Grays Creek. The subsegment contains ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is one boat ramp 89,000 feet (16.9 mi.) of fastland. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: Grays Creek Marina (cement bag), one private marine railway and has about 200 feet of bulkheading retaining fill. alongside piers. SHORELANDS TYPE It seems effective. FASTLAND: Low shore 6% (1.1 mi.), moderately SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the Scotland area low shore 23% (3-9 mi.), moderately low shore OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers of Surry County is zoned for vacation - residen- with bluff 3% (0-5 mi.), moderately high shore at the marina on Grays Creek and another pier tial use. Approximately sixty-one percent of 4% (0-7 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff toward the creek head. the shorelands are presently developed for such 36% (6.0 mi.), and high shore with bluff 28% purposes. Very limited other development is (4-7 mi.). SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The shoreline of Grays possible in this area. To the east of Grays SHORE: Artificially stabilized, less than 1%, Creek is predominantly embayed marsh (70%). Creek, the shorelands are used for agriculture. beach 11% (1-3 mi.), fringe marsh 19% (2.2 mi.), These marsh areas should be left in their This area suffers from moderate erosion of the and embayed marsh 70% (8.2 mi.). natural state. The remaining shorelands of 20 to 30 foot bluff on the shoreline. Further NEARSHORE: Intermediate 2% (0.2 mi.) and wide Grays Creek are fringe marsh backed by 30 to development here would be at the sacrifice of 7% (0.9 mi.). The rest of Grays Creek is too 60 foot bluffs. These areas are not considered the agriculture. To the east of Scotland is narrow and shallow for classification. prime targets for development. The shoreline Camp Chanco, a church-owned recreational facil- from the creek mouth to south of Swanns Point ity. The development potential here is also SHORELANDS USE is characterized by fringe marsh and fringe limited. FASTLAND: Agricultural 11% (1.8 mi.), commer- beach backed by 60 to 70 foot bluffs. Though cial less than 1% (0.1 mi.), recreational less any large scale development is not considered ALTERNATE SHORE USES: None. In an area such as than 1% (0.1 mi.), residential less than 1% feasible for this area, some individual resi- Scotland, where almost all available land is (0.2 mi.), unmanaged, wooded 85% (14.4 mi.), dences could be built. The Swanns Point area already actively used, there are few, if any, and unmanaged, open 2% (0-3 mi.). is embayed marsh encircling several pieces of alternatives to the existing use. This sub- SHORE: Bathing and recreational purposes. low fastland. The fastland here is below 5 segment is probably best left as it is. Minor There is some waterfowl hunting in the marshes. feet and is not suited for development. adjustments with regard to space allocations NEARSHORE: Boating and fishing. to the various types of use, are always a pos- ALTERNATE USES: Grays Creek is a relatively un- sibility. SHORELINE TREND: The creek trends basically NE - spoiled area. Because of its great value as a SW in this subsegment. habitat for aquatic life and its use as a MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SURRY Quadr., flood and erosion control agent, the marsh 1965. OWNERSHIP: Private. lands found here should remain in their natural C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, state. This area is well suited for such low Jamestown Island to Jordon Point, 1971. ZONING: Mostly agricultural - rural residential, intensity recreational purposes as bird watch- some vacation residential. ing, hiking, and nature walks. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-3B/79-93. Ground-VIMS 6Nov 75 SU-3B/27-50. FLOOD HAZARD: The majority of this subsegment is MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SURRY Quadr., creek, therefore it is not subject to large 1965. waves or similar storm effects. With eleva- C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, tions of at least 10 feet throughout the sub- Jamestown Island to Jordon Point, 1971, segment, this area is not susceptible to flooding. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-3C/94-101. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The only beaches in the sub- segment are from Haystack Gut to Swanns Point. This area has thin strip beaches which are partially covered with vegetation. They are of 29 SEGMENT 4 all below the 10-foot contour and is susceptible of the bluffs adds to the problem. As rain SWANNS POINT TO SLOOP POINT, to flooding. No structures are endangered here. waters erode the cliffs, they undermine the Further west at Sunken Meadow, the flood hazard trees, eventually causing them to fall. When SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA is moderate, critical. Structures and numerous they do fall, the trees carry with them huge Maps 5 and 6 trailers have been placed along the beach behind amounts of soil trapped in the root systems. bulkheading with fill. This stabilized area The last factor in this area's high erosion averages only 2 feet in height, with the normal rate is the length of the fetch and thus, the EXTENT: 49,000 feet (9-3 mi.) of shoreline from tide range extending to the bulkhead. Flood strength of the wind generated waves reaching the Swanns Point to Sloop Point. The segment also waters here would overtop -this structure and shoreline. The mouth of the Chickahominy River contains 66,600 feet (12.6 mi.) of fastland. possibly cause severe damage to the trailers is on the north side of the James, directly and other buildings behind. To the northwest, northeast from this reach. Thus the fetch af- SHORELANDS TYPE at Sloop Point, many structures are on a beach fecting the area is very long (3.8 nm). Storm FASTIAND: Artificial fill - less than 1% zone below the 10 foot contour. The flood haz- winds and waves are able to be more powerful (0.1 mi.), low shore 19% (2-3 mi.), moderately ard for this area ranges from low to moderate, and damaging than is usually the case for an low shore 4% (0-5 mi.), moderately high shore critical. Several structures here are within 5 area this far from the mouth of a river. The 7% (0.8 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff feet of the water, with normal high tide levels wind and waves undercut the cliff base, causing 2% (0-3 mi.), high shore 1% (0.2 mi.), and high extending even closer. Since the flood levels slumping of the face and undermining trees. shore with bluff 66% (8-4 mi.). for the James River this far from the mouth are This process quickly eats away the cliff face. SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0-3 mi.), not very high, the flood hazard here would be ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: No houses are endangered beach 90% (8-3 mi.), and embayed marsh 7% moderate, critical. Even limited flooding at the present time. (0.6 mi.). could cause damage to some buildings. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: All protective structures in the segment are found at Sunken NEARSHORE Narrow 93% rfd. _L itermediate 68% (6-3 mi.), and wide 9% (0.8 mi.). BEACH QUALITY: Fair to good. The eroding cliffs Meadow. Two areas of artificial fill are bulk- throughout this segment offer a good supply of headed. About 1,600 feet of wooden bulkhead SHORELANDS USE sand to nourish the beaches in the area. Though has been erected to retain the fill here. Both FASTLAND: Agricultural 19% (2-4 mi.), preserved most of the beaches average from 10 to 15 feet installations seem to be effective. The stream 3% (0-4 mi.), recreational 21% (2.6 mi.), resi- wide, they are often vegetated or lack enough to Sunken Meadow Pond has wooden bulkheading dential 17% (2.1 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded good access to be good beaches. There are two along its banks, extending as jetties into the 40% (5-1 mi.). good beaches in this segment. Sunken Meadow is river. Several areas of the structure along SHORE: Bathing, fishing, and walking. There a popular recreational area. It has beaches the creek are failing, and the jetties seem are many recreational activities on the beaches from 15 to 40 feet wide with medium grained partially ineffective, as the channel is silting in this segment, especially at Sunken Meadow white sand. Sloop Point also has good beaches, in. Beach. though they are privately owned and are not for NEARSHORE: Sport boating and fishing, bathing, public use. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are many piers and and other water related sports. SHORE EROSION SITUATION 4 boat ramps in this segment. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to severe, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: This segment has large E - W, then SE - NW. The fetch at Sunken Mead- noncritical. Several areas in this segment have areas of greatly used shoreline and large areas ow Beach is NE - 3.8 nautical miles. historical erosion rates of from 1.1 to 1.7 feet of totally unused shoreline. Basically, most per year. No structures are endangered in these of the actively used shoreline is located close OWNERSHIP: Private. areas. The greatest change in the shoreline has to Claremont. There are three main residential occurred between the Pipsico Boy Scout Reserva- areas; all used for summer vacation residences. ZONING: Predominantly agricultural - rural resi- tion and the creek at Sunken Meadow. Here, the These are Sloop Point, Sunken Meadow, and Guild- dential. Wakefield is zoned for urban residen- erosion rate has averaged 11.8 feet per year. ford Heights, which account for 17% of the total tial and the Sunken Meadow area is zoned for This high erosion rate is the result of three shoreline in the segment. Various other uses vacation - residential. There are three areas basic interrelated actions. First, the composi- of the shorelands include three historically along the shoreline that are historic preserva- tion of the bluffs along the shoreline makes preserved areas, the Pipsico Boy Scout Reserva- tion districts. them easily eroded. The base of the bluffs is tion, and several areas used for recreation. a combination of shell material and loosely A total of 41% of this segment's shorelands are FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical for most of the packed clay. The next stratuin is of clay and actively used. Here, other development is un- segment. There are several areas in this seg- sand, and the top layer is sand. Second, bluffs likely and, in several cases, prohibited. Not ment that are exposed to possible inundation are always exposed to erosion due to downhill included in this figure are those lands used by flood waters. The land at Swanns Point is rain runoff. In this area, the wooded nature for agriculture, a total of 19% of the shorelands. 30 A combined total of 60% of the shorelands are basically unavailable for development. The remaining 40% of the fastlands are unused, wooded areas. These areas are characterized by high, erodable bluffs on the shoreline, sev- eral miles of which have severe erosion (-11.8 feet per year). These wooded areas do not seem suited for continued vacation-residential devel- opment. Besides being unstable areas, they do not offer good access to the water. Also, the beaches here are only fair. ALTERNATE USES: The unused areas of this segment should remain in their natural undisturbed state where possible. These lands, especially those bordering the three historically preserved areas, are well suited for low density recrea- tional use. Activities appropriate here would include nature walks, hiking, picnicking, and possibly camping. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SURRY Quadr., 1965. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAREMONT Quadr., 1966. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Jamestown Island to Jordon Point, 1971. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-4/102-148. Ground-VIMS 6Nov 75 SU-4/08-26. 31 SEGMENT 5 to flood damage. However, the James River here fishing. This area is good f or any low UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK, SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA is a relatively low energy water body, which density usage such as a campground, nature greatly decreases the chances for flooding. walks, or picnicking. Any development should Maps 6 and 7 be in harmony with the natural surroundings. BEACH QUALITY- Good to fair. The beaches around Sloop Point are wide and sandy. They are much MAPS: USGS, 7.5 IVLin.Ser. (Topo. ), CLAREMONT EXTENT: 47,600 feet (9.0 mi.) of shoreline from us'ed for recreational purposes. Generally, the Quadr., 1966. Sloop Point to the head of Upper Chippokes closer the beaches are to Upper Chippokes Creek, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SAVEDGE Creek. The segment has 53,600 feet (10.2 mi.) the thinner they are and the less attractive Quadr., 1966. of fastland. they become for recreational use. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Jamestown Island to Jordon Point, 1971. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE EROSION SITUATION FASTLAND: Low shore 13% (1-3 mi.), moderately EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 23July74 SU-5/149-156. low shore 11% (1.1 mi.), moderately low shore noncritical. The creek shoreline and most of Ground-VIMS 6Nov 75 SU-5/01-07. with bluff 3% (0-3 mi.), moderately high shore the river-fronting shoreline are generally 17% (1.7 mi.), moderately high shore with bluff stable. The only areas of noticeable erosion 8% (0.8 mi.), and high shore with bluff 48% are just east of the creek mouth. Here, the (5-0 mi.). historical erosion rates average from 1.0 to SHORE: Beach 25% (2.2 mi.), fringe marsh 29% 1.2 feet per year. No structures are endan- (2-7 mi.), and embayed marsh 46% (4.1 mi.). gered by this shoreline retreat. NEARSHORE: Narrow 18% (1.6 mi.) and interme- ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. A_;ale 'fa (0.6 mi.). The resL of the segment's SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. _L U U/0 shoreline is on Upper Chippokes Creek, which is too narrow and shallow for classification. The OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are numerous piers creek has 6 foot depths near its mouth, but is throughout the segment. generally much more shallow toward the head. SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Seventy-six percent of SHORELANDS USE this segment's shoreline is located in Upper FASTLAND: Agricultural 24% (2-5 mi.), indus- Chippokes Creek. The vast majority of the trial 4% (0.3 mi.), residential 8% (0.8 mi.)q shoreline here is embayed marsh, which should and unmanaged, wooded 64% (6.6 mi.). be preserved. The shorelands of this segment SHORE: Bathing and fishing. Some waterfowl can be characterized as having bluffs on the hunting in the marsh areas of Upper Chippokes shoreline. Seventy-three percent of the fast- Creek. land is either moderately high or high shore. NEARSHORE: Some sport boating, fishing, and The major exception is the Sloop Point area, other water sports. which is already developed for vacation-resi- CREEK: Mainly sport fishing. dences. These bluff areas have development SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically limitations due to the height, rain runoff erosion vulnerability, and lack of good access. E - W in the segment. The creek trends NE - SW. Also, the land fronting the James just east of the creek mouth is undergoing moderate erosion OWNERSHIP: Private. of from 1.0 to 1.2 feet per year. Any housing here would have to be set back from the bluffs. ZONING: Agricultural - rural residential. There would be no easy access to the water along this stretch of shoreline. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical to moderate, crit- In conclusion, the undeveloped lands in ical. Most of this segment's shoreline that is this segment are not considered prime targets exposed to the river has high bluffs. Only for development. Some single-family housing marshes along the creek would be flooded. Two is possible, though larger scale developmexiL structures west of'Sloop Point and several is considered not feasible at the present time. structures at Sloop Point have a moderate, crit- ical flood hazard. These structures are all ALTERNATE SHORE USES: Upper Chippokes Creek is well below the I foot contour and are subject largely unused except for sport hunting and 32 4W W W W W W 760140' 5)L V.- Uj 30 LU -j 30 70 Q@ It 7411- 30 Hi (n -],@3 t 0 Ar If 50 30 < 6/ 40 1 A @0 0 Rushmere Shores 68 676 Grave p t i 4 686 G f,.a v e 28 Gra P 00 if ij Q -'11 50 Burni @111 Sri ge ( ;i '. 11 \\ . I 4@ V8 MAP 2A 37"' 370 1 LAWNES CREEKeysBeach 5 0 5 7) TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE grit Seqment 1A 676 q T, 50 Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary Holly Point SO 4e A F)rst vel Hill, Ch Cem . Bayview I,--- Rushmere 1@@- BM77 Jones F -50 4, 01, Vi- -0 AP 50 & 7 Burwell Bay BM 0 72 0 S1 de "0 1 7 0 1 MILE, 76-140' 760 40' 1Q, if 5/ -4 C) 30 LU 70 30 if 4 7 1/ 30 / 60 R /Z 0 > If 20 it 711 61 4 1A Rushmere Shores 68 Grav@l Pit 4 'R686 Gea, a--f Gr P4 28 If it 50 Burnt Kill B id 4 ,-so -10 MAP 2B 370 LAWNES CREEK ileys Beach 5 370 5 SHORELANDS TYPES Lignt '676 "Segment A FASTLAND 50 Low Shore I I Moderately Low Shore I i a i -j Moderately Low Shore A, Q, with Bluff L.A.Aju SO SHORE Fringe Marsh V Extensive Marsh First Ernbayed Marsh Cern, Bayvie@ it RushMere @C, -50 EIM 77 Jones F A ,k, 60 0, N CV -0 50 if 7 if 11 !1 . . . Burwell Bay BM 10 @I . ,ij XX 72 S1 de A 7 0 I MILE 760 40 ML 4ft 41p 4w 76-140' 1W C, L 5 41 1W 1W Jill 30 70 30 1W z 50 7,* 74 30 1W 1 W Q/ lk@ @30 IV) Ld 0 11W z 50 1W 3: 30 5/ 1W 1A @0 1W 10 Rushmere 2" Shores 68 676 Gravel" P; t 1A 1W, 1A @iw, 42 @0686 @'GPavel t 1A Gra -1 p1ji // ;If if if J0 M , 11 Burnt Mill r d 50 Bridge 4j4 50 628 -10 370 'Y Baileys Beach 370 56 5 MAP 2C 30 CREEK V 676 FASTLAND' USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 50 -\segment 1A 0 USE Agricultural A 6 45 JP Industrial I SO Unmanaged Wooded W ern@.,, OWNERSHIP F)rst ve Hill@, Ch Private Cern ,'@. B., EROSION Rushmere it@@ 13M7 Slight or No Change No Symbol -50--\ A, 50 A b 4/j) so 70 Burwell Bay SM 0 72 % St de 0 1 MILE 7 EE@ 760140- (@6 @//4 76T42 . 30'. MAP 3A HOG ISLAND TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE og Point 1B Segments 1A, 113, 2A and 213 Segment Boundary @,Hog I Subsegment Boundary Hornewooo 6 /Y 0 Ho@ \2 N HOG N rl F S TA T E NV F 0 L R E Hog 3. 4111d 1 ...... .... ...... eek 370 11 Ab 370 10 10 Drewry Point .F 1B -77 J 2A "L N It 2 35 9 41 B ys Point, 3+ j Hunnieut Creel, 60 32 @cl J-S 1A Lawnes Point 41/ @@frailer 11 P.Irk 0 2c .35 -36 z c@ "11ji \q7 3! (Tj 0, 0 1 kLE 766J42'30" AD db W W W W MAP 3B HOG ISLAND 0< 0 SHORELANDS TYPES @TV Point TB 0 0 Segments 1A, 113, 2A@ and 213 FASTLAND 0 Low Shore Moderately Low Shore Hornewoo@ 0 Moderately Low Shore with Bluff 0 Moderately High Shore A A A A0 Moderately High Shore A A A /Y 0 -A with Bluff 0 SHORE 0 Beach 0 Hog 2 Fringe Marsh nimmimiIIIIIIIIII 6 0 Extensive Marsh X N Embayed Marsh 0 V E F 0 1, -,r, 0 t E F Ul' STA E Artificially Stabilized NEARSHORE Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 "V Wide 0 0 0 0 0 47 & 370 370 10 3' 10 DrewriWoi 01B V J 2% A R@ N V, 2B 35 0 9 B ys oi 37 30 U Creek 60 0 35 1A 1: Lawnes Point Her iTp .a, k .33 X 35 Z .@j 35 W n65O 0 7 0 1 kLE 76142 30, 76942'30'1 MAP 3C HOG ISLAND FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION ea Poirt TB Segments 1A, 113, 2A, and 2B USE Hog I Agricultural A Industrial I 3PR HOMPWO04 Preserved PR Unmanaged ;PR Wooded W N 3PR OWNERSHIP A/ 1 0 Private State 3 3P EROSION Hog 2 Moderate Slight or No Change No Symbol HOG 3PR 3PR N Accretional + + + S T T i@, F 0 N 1, R EF 'ell 3PR "Nol::1. 3PR e N .3PR Hog 3 3PR 3PR 'i W. ------ eek 370 370 10 J, 1 'VV 10 .1 Drewry Poirill- :1W '1W 1B co 3PR 1W 1W1 1W 1W 2A Z: /@ -' ".@ @.,- - ' N G R, -Z' 'lw@ 1W 2B 3 S 1 W 1 W I W, - /0 @w 1W 9 1w- 1W B ys 0 37 1W.. 1W 1W 1W @iw- 1W Creek 1W Hunni.Iqvt '1W 3RC OAT C9-1- 60 Z 1W 1W 32,' t I'+//, 1W 3RC' 1AI v 1A 1w: 3 R C" :1 W, Lawnes Point @@Trailer IlPark 1A 3RCq 20 1 W:!: 1A 1W 35 1@1@3 R C "6 "A.13R PC :1W 1 A -3RC '\0j @:j A @V/ 1W co LL iv e 2 0 1 AILE 76142'30 Ah d1k 3B 3A 2 B "1 -,140 Ste NN 13 13 1@6 90 10 61 C)o 370 lo' 80 K A, 7r.0\47'3d' 39 7650\47' W" MA COBH 3B SHOR'EL/ Segments 2 NEARSHORE FASTLAND Narrow 0-0-0-0 Low Shore 4JI 0 0 0 0 4@ 3A Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Low Shore 0 ....... Wide 0 0 0 0 with Bluff 0", Moderately Lo 2B --7 with Bluff 0 1140 C Moderately Hi@ 0 Moderately HiC with Bluff P 0 0 High Shore R-0@,i, 0 High Shore 60 ........ 0 with Bluff 0 "c' - SHORE N 0 Beach Fringe Marsh a13 1\ cblsl),@, 4 SO Embayed Mar "o) RIP Artificially Sta W 9 0 90 17,q 370 C 70 @C- 10, (V 80 W 1 kLE '50 7r,0\47'30' 40 -7 6. 0\47 3d 3B FASTLM Se 3A, USE AC Cc 1RS/RC1.@ IV v kS 14\ 2 B I - R( city 1RS Z3C . R( K-,lR,-S,4G U 1RS l 1w lw w 1A @l - III,,, ,(I I//, OWNE Ita I R S C-41 1w Pr 0 VV V/ A St 11 V V. "I lRb@ x 1w/ ERO x -jil 14 A\tA m 11 1 V V a3/ f lvv N- 1 A si 13 ) A( 4 1 M, @AkAf W lw- Qlw A N -2 -)1w w vv@ IA lw- 90 R S w -70, 37c) 10' 10, C., 80 -P f r J w" \% 1 0 P to 760@47' 30 41 7601 50, @@Abancloneci 370 Rier 12, Dillard Wharf 30' Tidal n. Flat G rra ve QD N Q timp Lions --Z MAP 5 =@@ 1[ FJ33'@ J\ @Alt 61 q SWANNS POIN I AHLA S3 OU TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 9U \j NIX A 8dy 4Atf' N Segments 3B, 3C and 4,- \j A@,T@7,T \\: I , i , @ , @ \\ , Segment Boundary f Subsegment Boundar 611 y 10 103 00- 0 A p 83 -,z -7@ 'Grays @nd, k i For go Y@ 0 86 ZU i i 76015d 42 7601 50' Q budoned 0 0 0 0 370 0 0 0 0 0 30, 0 .... Tidal;:* vi@ 0 Four Mile 0 Urave - 80 80 \@j aml: \@90 Y/ ;IiZ7 6 it -60 rv Al\@@ (50 A 1 711, C", - I , R@ATION @v )AN @12 M 100 89 MAP 5B o;- k_.., @SWANNS POINT AREA\, 618 C, U, SHORELANDS TYPES,,--, j, Segments 313, 3C, and 4 FASTLAND /SHORE Low Shore Beach Low Shore Fringe Marsh fill with Bluff Embayed Marsh 4i Moderately Low Shore I I U 1 11, - I I\,- Artificially Stabilized _L_ -A- -A- -A- Moderately Low Shore NEARSHORE with Bluff IA[-- D AMJ Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Moderately High Shore A A A A ide 0 10 !w Moderately High Shore A A &.A V with Bluff High Shore _3nc@ High Shore with Bluff i1th Fort 4, 76015d 43 7601 50' Abandoned 111111 ///j 370 )fPier \\\ - //// \@11 /'/I 12' Dillard Wharf 30, . @@ - @@% @,z i I--- it _@e & - 92 L '1@11 w T i d a 1111 1A asant o 1A- 6 1RC Gra@b 1W 1A 'lee X( I VV 1A Aiw),) v 6 VV, IVV Camp L 'jo 1A 7 IV ju V) t RClik" q t // ,@\ , 1R U 610 1 A 80 90- Boy', 1 jKSER _2 VAT MAH bU@ Yl100 SWANNS POINT AREA-` 80' Cl) I V V FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Segments 3B, 3C and 4 6 USE I M, Agricultural A -1y\ 1\ 811 0 Commercial C VV 'Y Recreational RC RS Residential 5Y@@ 50 1 VVJ Unmanaged k Wooded W 1 \(V 1A W@ OWNERSHIP X Private 1 R C EROSION do g I VV Severe I rv VV Moderate A No Symbol,7 /-7 Slight or No Change 1w, 1 W Accretional + + + + Landi R, 1HU 1A,, ith Fort e e 26 86 ,D 0 76OT5d 44 10 760 5;@30" _711. , @dy pbtrtt c anor Dancir F ' ' s u TOPOG Se I ol 0 Edu don /00 96 //0 ake le e 0 Aaz Q@9 m Light(D 88 95 /0 370 30 VIOO o tGr el xpit k C@ BM SO 0 P, Dzk 1 5 0 45 76 0 @ @.d 0 (1y C nt anor @>o 0 Danci 0 0 SUNKE U, SHORE @0 0 0 Segme FASTLAND BM (0 112.: Low Shore Edu tWn oun Moderately Lc 0 Moderately Lo with Bluff 0 /00 '5, 96 Moderately Hi //0 ake. 0 Moderately Hi with Bluff v 0 0 High Shore 0 High Shore 646 with Bluff 0 SHORE Beach "k @o Fringe Marsh 0 Embaye '0 Light( Artificial m 88 0 NE 98 370 0 12' 30 '00 @Gr el Fit \CP 0 B m 3 SO @Js 0 M LE 76 F5 30' 46 760 F5@73o,- 1R @a d A 1A dy n anor 1w FASTLA 1RS 1 w Point X USE -lR Ag -50@ 0 L-jw 1RS CO 1RS 1R W Re FAu tjol i w 1 S Re Un 1 RS, 1w OWNEF JRS'l 00 ak e :,_- @-, @-@ Pri 1 A//. ff@s EROSIC Se @1RS/C mc 1w mc Sli '-lKZj/ o /00 1w 1RS U6O9 i w 1A,to 1w 1w 1 R S N 1RS/RC. 370 w 30 iRS\--7," 00 0 1w Nplt X 1w 1R Ot CP lw- CD u BM 3 0 10 0 In 1 MILE L 760157'30" Pj @d 47 770 2 30' 30 30 ip 50 69 A 50 X31 MAP 7A UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK 50 TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE 1\A Segment 5 -0 3, s Johhson .p@nd i ng t Segment Boundary V/,/ Subsegment Boundary 70 x7l 10' v V C, 653 @v r4 76 10 X 80 7 1 Cem '70- 5" Salem h az IV, 370 12' 30 -7 -70- 50 SO F*@nt 50 ',X 71 ijravei a 0 N J-7 10 " @69 77+2'30' 48 770 2" 30 (-j fN 49 'A MAP 7B 3, UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK 41., SHORELANDS TYPES /Segment 5 A Johnsons Landing N FASTLAND T p Go Low Shore V 70 Moderately Low Shore A Moderately Low Shore r with Bluff Moderately High Shore A A A Moderately High Shore A A A A with Bluff High Shore EL --- in--M High Shore with Bluff SHORE Fringe Marsh Hill 1111111111111111111 "0 Cern Ernbayed Marsh 70 5 Salem h v X.- \j 370 167 h! A 12' 30 3 68 70 50 SO 50 21 rn Pit.- \S-j Lrj'/@\- Gravel 77D 2'30 49 770 2930 .4 3') 69 A 80 50 \V 131 MAP 7C UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK 00, 50 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION 30 J,oh6Sons Segment 5 -'00@@ /ding USE k' Agricultural A z 6 Industrial Unmanaged 1 W Wooded W V OWNERSHIP 653 Private 4@ -3 50 M 76 EROSION T, Slight or No Change No Symbol 1w, "00 10 Cem 71 -'90 I DI 70 7 5' 611 '70 SaleM 0 '/6 1A 13 68 V \-7 50 50 22 P@in@ (A ---------- 50 C) A Jif. Q, @X 71 1w V 1 Gravel 16/ VV x% ("0 1 w \",J/> 1A 0 7701 2'30 50 3 6668 00002 4994