[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
coastal ZO"e information center Shoreline Situation Report PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 77777777@ 4-A t *4 tv lKTA --4 ;41 IWA t lk n t I t an 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.04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 47 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 114 of the lot QH 301 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE .V852 no.1 14 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 c.2 1976 ShorE PRINCE GEORGE C THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA FEDERAL SERVICES CENTER SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE SC' 29405-2413 Proje PROPERTY Of CSC Library Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research 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 PAGE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 FIGURE 1: Shoreland Component FIGURE 2 : Marsh Types 1.1 Purposes and Goals 2 FIGURE 3: Hopewell Yacht Club 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 4: City Point FIGURE 5: Hopewell Industrial FIGURE 6: Jordan Point CHAPTER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 7: Jordan Point Marina FIGURE 8: Brandon Point 2.1 Approach to the Problem 4 FIGURE 9: Brandon Point 2.2 Characteristics of the Shorelands Included 4 FIGURE 10: Fort Powhatan FIGURE !I: Fort Powhatan CHAPTER 3: PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION OF PRINCE GEORGE 9 3.1 The Shorelands of Prince George 10 TABLE 1: Prince George Count 3.2 Shore Erosion in Prince George 10 TABLE 2: Prince George Count 3.3 Shore Use Limitations 10 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARIES AND MAPS OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 19 MAPS IA-D: Prince George Summary MAPS 2A-C: Appomattox River 4.1 Segment and Subsegment Summaries 20 MAPS 3A-C: Hopewell 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 21 MAPS 4A-C: Jordan Point Subsegment 1A 21- MAPS 5A-C Powell Creek Subsegment IB 21 mAPS 6A-C: Flowerdew Hunderd Subsegment 2A 22 MAPS 7A-C: Wards Creek Subsegment 2B 23 MAPS 6A-C: Brandon Subsegment 3A 24 MAPS '.)A-. C: Upper Chippokos Creek Subsegment 3B 24 Subsegment 3C 25 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps 26 0 a 0 1 I CHAPTER 1 0 Introduction 0 0 11 I I 1 1 CHAPTER I Furthermore, once a particular use has been de- 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cided upon for a given segment of shoreland, both INTRODUCTION the planners and the users want that selected use This report was prepared with funds provided to operate in the most effective manner. A park by the Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) planner, for example, wants the allotted space to program of the National Science Foundation, 1.1 PURPOSES AND GOALS fulfill the design most efficiently. We hope that grants GI 34869 and GI 38973, administered through the results of our work are useful to the planner the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC), Inc. It is the objective of this report to supply an in designing the beach by pointing out the techni- Additional funding was provided through provisions assessment, and at least a partial integration, of cal feasibility of altering or enhancing the pres- of the Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583, those important shoreland parameters and character- ent configuration of the shore zone. Alternately, as administered in the Commonwealth of-Virginia istics which will aid the planners and the managers if the use were a residential development, we under grant number 04-5-158-50001. of the shorelands in making the best decisions for would hope our work would be useful in specifying the utilization of this limited and very valuable the shore erosion problem and by indicating de- Beth Marshall typed the many drafts. Ken resource. The report gives particular attention fenses likely to succeed in containing the erosion. Thornberry and Bill Jenkins prepared the photo- to the problem of shore erosion and to recommenda- In summary our objective is to provide a useful graphs. The Offices of Planning in Prince George tions concerning the alleviation of the impact of tool for enlightened utilization of a limited re- County and the City of Petersburg contributed this problem. In addition, we have tried to in- source, the shorelands of the Commonwealth. information and local knowledge. We also thank clude in our assessment a discussion of those fac- the numerous other persons who have assisted us tors which might significantly limit development Shorelands planning occurs, either formally or with their comments, criticisms, ideas, and in- of the shoreline and, in some instances, a discus- informally, at all levels from the private owner formation. sion of some of the potential or alternate uses of of shoreland property to county governments, to the shoreline, particularly with respect to recrea- planning districts and to the state and federal tional use, since such information could aid poten- alzencv level. We feel our results will be usefull tial users in the perception of a segment of the at all these levels. Since the most basic level shoreline. of comprehensive planning and zoning is at the county or city level, we have executed our report The basic advocacy of the authors in the prep- on that level although we realize some of the in- aration of the report is that the use of shorelands formation may be most useful at a higher govern- should be planned rather than haphazardly developed mental level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has in response to the short term pressures and inter- traditionally chosen to place as much as possible, ests. Careful planning could reduce the conflicts the regulatory decision processes at the county which may be expected to arise between competing level. The Virginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Chapter interests. Shoreland utilization in many areas of 2.1, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia), for.example the country, and indeed in some places in Virginia, provides for the establishment of County Boards to has proceeded in a manner such that the very ele- act on applications for alterations of wetlands. ments which attracted people to the shore have been Thus, our focus at the county level is intended to destroyed by the lack of planning and forethought. interface with and to support the existing or pending county regulatory mechanisms concerning C@ The major man-induced uses of the shorelands activities in the shorelands zone. are: Residential, commercial, or industrial development Recreation Transportation Waste disposal Extraction of living and non-living resources Aside from the above uses, the shorelands serve various ecological functions. The role of planners and managers is to optimize the utilization of the shorelands and to minimize the conflicts arising from competing demands. 2 IN a 0 I CHAPTER 2 9 Approach Used and Elements Considered 0 0 a 0 6 1 3 CHAPTER 2 of the report since some users' needs will ade- Definitions: quately be met with the summary overview of the Shore Zone APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED county while others will require the detailed dis- cussion of particular subsegments. This is the zone of beaches and marshes. It is a buffer zone between the water body and the fast- 2.1 APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM land. The seaward limit of the shore zone is the 2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORELANDS INCLUDED break in slope between the relatively steeper In the preparation of this report the authors IN THE STUDY shoreface and the less steep nearshore zone. The utilized existing information whereverpossible. approximate landward limit is a contour line rep- For example, for such elements as water quality The characteristics which are included in this resenting one and a half times the mean tide characteristics, zoning regulations, or flood haz- report are listed below followed by a discussion range above mean low water (refer to Figure 1). ard, we reviewed relevant reports by local, state, of our treatment of each. In operation with topographic maps the inner or federal agencies. Much of the desired informa- a) Shorelands physiographic classification fringe of the marsh symbols is taken as the land- tion, particularly with respect to erosional char- b) Shorelands use classification ward limit. acteristics, shoreland types, and use was not c) Shorelands ownership classification available, so we performed the field work and de- d) Zoning The physiographic character of the marshes has veloped classification schemes. In order to ana- e) Water quality also been separated into three types (see Figure lyze successfully the shoreline behavior we placed f) Shore erosion and shoreline defenses 2). Fringe marsh is that which is less than 400 heavy reliance on low altitude, oblique, color, 35 g) Limitations to shore use and potential feet in width and which runs in a band parallel to mm photography. We photographed the entire shore- or alternate shore uses the shore. Extensive marsh is that which has ex- line of each county and cataloged the slides for h) Distribution of marshes tensive acreage projecting into an estuary or easy access at VIMS, where they remain available i) Flood hazard levels river. An embayed marsh is a marsh which occupies for use. We then analyzed these photographic ma- j) Shellfish leases and public shellfish a reentrant drowned creek valley. The purpose terials, along with existing conventional aerial -grounds in delineating these marsh types is that the ef- photography and topographic and hydrographic maps, k) Beach quality fectiveness of the various functions of the marsh for the desired elements. We conducted field in- will, in part, be determined by type of exposure spection over much of the shoreline, particularly a) Shorelands Physiographic Classification to the estuarine system. A fringe marsh may, for at those locations where office analysis left example, have maximum value as a buffer to wave questions unanswered. In some cases we took addi- The shorelands of the Chesapeake Bay System may erosion of the fastland. An extensive marsh, on tional photographs along with the field visits to be considered as being composed of three inter- the other hand, is likely a more efficient trans- document the effectiveness of shoreline defenses. acting physiographic elements: the fastlands, the porter of detritus and other food chain materials shore and the nearshore. A graphic classification due to its greater drainage density than an em- The basic shoreline unit considered is called based on these three elements has been devised so bayed marsh. The central point is that planners, a subsegment, which may range from a few hundred that the types for each of the three elements por- in the light of ongoing and future research, will feet to several thousand feet in length. The end trayed side by side on a map may provide the op- desire to weight various functions of marshes and points of the subsegments were generally chosen portunity to examine joint relationships among the the physiographic delineation aids their decision on physiographic consideration such as changes in elements. As an example, the application of the making by denoting where the various types exist. the character of erosion or deposition. In those system permits the user to determine miles of high The classification used is: cases where a radical change in land use occurred, bluff shoreland interfacing with marsh in the shore Beach the point of change was taken as a boundary point zone. Marsh of the subsegment. Segments are groups of sub- Fringe marsh, < 400 ft. (122 m) in width segments. The boundaries for segments also were For each subsegment there are two length mea- along shores selected on physiographic units such as necks or surements, the shore-nearshore interface or shore- Extensive marsh peninsulas between major tidal creeks. Finally, line, and the fastland-shore interface. The two Embayed marsh, occupying a drowned valley the county itself is considered as a sum of shore- interface lengths differ most when the shore zone or reentrant line segments. is embayed or extensive marsh. On the subsegment Artificially stabilized maps, a dotted line represents the fastland-shore The format of presentation in the report fol- interface when it differs from the shoreline. The Fastland Zone lows a sequence from general summary statements fastland-shore interface length is the base for for the county (Chapter 3) to tabular segment the fastland statistics. The zone extending from the landward limit of summaries and finally detailed descriptions and the shore zone is termed the fastland. The fast- maps for each subsegment (Chapter 4). The purpose land is relatively stable and is the site of most in choosing this format was to allow selective use material development or construction. The 4 physiographic classification of the fastland is purposes: b) Shorelands Use Classification based upon the average slope of the land within Narrow, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath located < 400 400 feet (122 m) of the fastland - shore boundary. yards from shore Fastland Zone The general classification is: Intermediate, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath 400- Low shore, 20 ft. (6 m) or less of relief; 1,400 yards from shore Residential with or without cliff Wide, 12-ft. (3.7 m) isobath > 1,400 yards Moderately low shore, 20-40 ft. (6-12 m) of from shore Includes all forms of residential use with the relief; with or without cliff exception of farms and other isolated dwellings. Moderately high shore, 40-60 ft. (12-18 m) of Subclasses: with or without bars In general, a residential area consists of four relief; with or without cliff with or without tidal flats or more residential buildings adjacent to one High shore, 60 ft. (18 m) or more of relief; with or without submerged another. Schools, churches, and isolated busi- with or without cliff. vegetation nesses may be included in a residential area. Two specially classified exceptions are sand dunes and areas of artificial fill. Nearshore Zone Commercial Includes buildings, parking areas, and other The nearshore zone extends from the shore zone land directly related to retail and wholesale to the 12-foot (MLW datum) contour. In the smaller trade and business. This category includes small tidal rivers the 6-foot depth is taken as the ref- D-4SHOR NEARSHORE industry and other anomalous areas within the erence depth. The 12-foot depth is probably the. -*--FASTLAN general commercial context. Marinas are consid- maximum depth of significant sand transport by ered commercial shore use. waves in the Chesapeake Bay area. Also, the dis- tinct drop-off into the river channels begins -MLW+ 1.5 Tide Range Industrial roughly at the 12-foot depth. The nearshore zone MLW includes any tidal flats. 12' Includes all industrial and associated areas. The class limits for the nearshore zone classi- Figure Examples: warehouses, refineries, shipyards, fications were chosen following a simple statisti- power plants, railyards. cal study. The distance to the 12-foot underwater A profile of the three shorelands types. contour (isobath) was measured on the appropriate charts at one-mile intervals along the shorelines Governmental of Chesapeake Bay and the James, York, Rappahan- nock, and Potomac Rivers. Means and standard de- Includes lands whose usage is specifically viations for each of the separate regions and for controlled, restricted, or regulated by govern- the entire combined system were calculated and mental organizations: e.g., Camp Peary, Fort compared. Although the distributions were non- FRINGE EMBAYED EXTENSIVE Story. Where applicable, the Governmental use normal, they were generally comparable, allowing MARSH MARSH MARSH category is modified to indicate the specific character of the use, e.g. , residential, direct the data for the entire combined system to deter- mine the class limits. military, and so forth. The calculated mean was 919 yards with a stand- ard deviation of 1,003 yards. As our aim was to Recreational and Other Public Open Spaces determine general, serviceable class limits, these calculated numbers were rounded to 900 and 1,000 FASTLAND FASTLAND Includes designated outdoor recreation lands yards respectively. The class limits were set at and miscellaneous open spaces. Examples: golf half the standard deviation (500 yards) each side courses, tennis clubs, amusement parks, public of the mean. Using this procedure a narrow near- Figure 2 beaches, race tracks, cemeteries, parks. shore zone is one 0-400 yards in width, interme- diate 400-1,400, and wide greater than 1,400. A plan view of the three marsh types. Preserved The following definitions have no legal signif- icance and were constructed for our classification Includes lands preserved or regulated for 5 environmental reasons, such as wildlife or wild- federal, state, county, and town or city. Appli- f) Shore Erosion and Shoreline Defenses fowl sanctuaries, fish and shellfish conservation cation of the classification is restricted to grounds, or other uses that would preclude devel- fastlands alone since the Virginia fastlands The following ratings are used for shore opment. ownership extends to mean low water. All bottoms erosion: below mean low water are in State ownership. slight or none - less than 1 foot per year moderate - I to 3 feet per year Agricultural severe - - greater than 3 feet per year d) Water Quality The locations with moderate and severe ratings Includes fields, pastures, croplands, and other are further specified as being critical or non- agricultural areas. The water quality sections of this report are critical. The erosion is considered critical if based upon data abstracted from Virginia State buildings, roads, or other such structures are Water Control Board's publication Water Quality endangered. Unmanaged Standards (November, 1974) and Water Quality Inventory (305 (b) Report) (April, 1976). The degree of erosion was determined by several Includes all open or wooded lands not included means. In most locations the long term trend was in other classifications: Additionally, where applicable, Virginia Bu- determined using map comparisons of shoreline po- a) Open: brush land, dune areas, wastelands; reau of Shellfish Sanitation data is used to as- sitions between the 1850's and the 1940's. In less than 40% tree cover. sign ratings of satisfactory, intermediate, or addition, aerial photographs of the late 1930's b) Wooded: more than 40% tree cover. unsatisfactory. These ratings are defined pri- and recent years were utilized for an assessment The shoreland use classification applies to the marily in regard to number of coliform bacteria. of more recent conditions. Finally, in those general usage of the f-astiand area to an arbitrary -For a rating of satisfactory the maximum limit is areas experiencing severe erosion field inspec- distance of half mile from the shore or beach zone an MPN (Most Probable Number) of 70 per 100 ml. tions and interviews were held with local inhab- or to some less distant, logical barrier. In The upper limit for fecal coliforms is an MPN of itants. multi-usage areas one must make a subjective se- 23. Usually any count above these limits results lection as to the primary or controlling type of in an unsatisfactory rating, and, from the Bu- The existing shoreline defenses were evaluated usage. For simplicity and convenience, managed reau's standpoint, results in restricting the as to their effectiveness. In some cases repeti- woodlands are classified as "unmanaged, wooded" waters from the taking of shellfish for direct tive visits were made to monitor the effective- areas. sale to the consumer. ness of recent installations. In instances where existing structures are inadequate, we have given There are instances however, when the total recommendations for alternate approaches. Fur- Shore Zone coliform MPN may exceed 70, although the fecal MPN thermore, recommendations are given for defenses does not exceed 23, and other conditions are ac- in those areas where none currently exist. The Bathing ceptable. In these cases an intermediate rating primary emphasis is placed on expected effective- Boat launching may be assigned temporarily, and the area will be ness with secondary consideration to cost. Bird watching permitted to remain open pending an improvement in Waterfowl hunting conditions. g) Limitations to Shore Use and Potential or Although the shellfish standards are somewhat Alternate Shore Uses. Nearshore Zone more stringent than most of the other water quality standards, they are included because of the eco- In this section we point out specific factors Pound net fishing nomic and ecological impacts of shellfish ground which may impose significant limits on the type Shellfishing closures. Special care should be taken not to en- or extent of shoreline development. This may Sport fishing danger the water quality in existing "satisfactory" result in a restatement of other factors from Extraction of non-living resources areas. elsewhere in the report, e.g., flood hazard or Boating erosion, or this may be a discussion of some Water sports other factor pertaining to the particular area. e) Zoning Also we have placed particular attention on c) Shorelands Ownership Classification in cases where zoning regulations have been 'the recreational potential of the shore zone. established the existing information pertaining The possible development of artificial beach, The shorelands ownership classification used to the shorelands has been included in the re- erosion protection, etc. , influence the evalua- has two main subdivisions, private and governmen- port. tion of an area's potential. Similarly, poten- tal, with the governmental further divided into tial alternate shore uses are occasionally noted. 6 h) Distribution of Marshes November, 1971, and as periodically updated in other similar reports. Since the condemnation The acreage and physiographic type of the areas change with time they are not to be taken marshes in each subsegment is listed. These esti- as definitive. However, some insight to the mates of acreages were obtained from topographic conditions at the date of the report are avail- maps and should be considered only as approxima- able by a comparison between the shellfish tions. Detailed county inventories of the wetlands grounds maps and the water quality maps for are being conducted by the Virginia Institute of which water quality standards for shellfish Marine Science under the authorization of the Vir- were used. ginia Wetlands Act of 1972 (Code of Virginia 62.1- 13.4). These surveys include detailed acreages of the grass species composition within individual k) Beach Quality marsh systems. In Shoreline Situation Reports of counties that have had marsh inventories, the Beach quality is a subjective judgment based marsh number is indicated, thus allowing the user upon considerations such as the nature of the of the Shoreline Situation Report to key back to beach material, the length and width of the beach the formal marsh inventory for additional data. area, and the general aesthetic appeal of the The independent material in this report is pro- beach setting. vided to indicate the physiographic type of marsh land and to serve as a rough guide to marsh dis- tribution, pending a formal inventory. Additional information on wetlands characteristics may be found in Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No 3, by G.M. Silberhorn, G.M. Dawes, and T.A. Barn , Jr., SRAMSOE No. 46, 1974, and in other VIMS publications. i) Flood Hazard Levels The assessment of tidal flooding hazard for the whole of the Virginia tidal shoreland is still in- complete. However, the United States Army Corps of Enginners has prepared reports for a number of localities which were used in this report. Two tidal flood levels are customarily used to portray the hazard. The Intermediate Regional Flood is that flood with an average recurrence time of about 100 years. An analysis of past tidal floods indicates it to have an elevation of approximately 8 feet above mean water level in the Chesapeake Bay area. The Standard Project Flood level is established for land planning purposes which is placed at the highest probable flood level. j) Shellfish Leases and Public Grounds The data in this report show the leased and 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," 7 0 -6 0 CHAPTER 3 Present Shorelands Situation 0 1 a 0 i 0 0 1 9 CHAPTER 3 has much industry (chemical plants) and large ur- Although parts of Prince George, especially ban residential areas. In contrast, the shore- around Hopewell, have substantial lengths of arti- PRESENT SHORELINE SITUATION lands of the remaining county are largely agricul- ficial stabilization, they serve more for commer- tural and wooded. From Jordan Point to the head cial or cosmetic purposes than for shore protec- OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA of Upper Chippokes Creek, ninety-six percent of tion. These areas include several marinas and the fastlands are either wooded or agricultural. much of the shoreline fronting the Hopewell chem- The-other four percent of the shorelands are di- ical plants. These structures for the most part vided among commercial, industrial, recreational, seem to be effective. 3.1 THE SHORELANDS OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY and residential use. Most areas of erosion are located along the Prince George County is located on the south According to the Virginia State Water Control relatively undeveloped eastern two-thirds of the bank of the James River between Upper Chippokes Board's Water Quality Inventory, (305 (b) Report) county. Shoreline stabilization is not urgent in Creek and the Appomattox River. This geographical (April, 1976), the Appomattox River in this area these areas, as erosion is not critical. Where area also contains the City of Hopewell (Subseg- sometimes contains very high fecal coliform counts. stabilization is necessary, an area wide plan of ments IB and 2A) and parts of the City of Peters- The James River has water quality degradation from protection is usually desirable, as individual burg (Subsegment 1A), which is on the Appomattox numerous discharges both in the area and further costs are reduced and the chances for aggravated River. The shorelands reflect a wide diversity of upstream. One area of particular concern is erosion downdrift are lessened. Professional uses, from large agricultural and wooded areas to Bailey Creek near Hopewell. Discharges here have advice on structure design and implementation is sections of high intensity industrial and residen- created extensive sludge deposits which create a imperative for any shore protection device. tial use. high oxygen demand in the area. Due to these conditions, the creek hosts undesirable species Most erosion in Prince George probably can be There are 111.9 miles of measured fastland and of aquatic life. controlled with natural means such as vegetation. 92.5 miles of shoreline in the Prince George County Marsh grasses have proven to be excellent energy - L J_ @J area. The shorelands physiography ranges from low In 1974, it was discovered that a toxic pesti- buffers along the shore, and upland vegetation shore to high shore, with seventy-three percent cide ingredient, KEPONE, -was being discharged into with a dense root system is an excellent buffer being classified as either low or moderately low the James River from a chemical plant in Hopewell. to rain runoff erosion. shore (see Table 1). Flooding is not a serious The entire river was closed to the harvesting of threat to most areas of the shoreline, as eleva- finfish and shellfish in December, 1975. At the In summary, shoreline erosion is not a criti- tions average greater than 10 feet. Only in a present time, the James River is open to t1,,a tak- cal problem for most of Prince George County and few isolated areas in the county are structures ing of seed oysters. can be controlled with ordinary, well conceived endangered by flood waters. methods. Areas with moderate erosion are usually not developed, so shore stabilization is not Tidal marshes, including fringe, embayed, and urgent. Where protection is necessary, proper extensive marshes, comprise eighty percent of the 3.2 SHORE EROSION IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY design and implementation is most important. county's shoreline (a tidal marsh inventory for Prince George is forthcoming). The marsh areas, Shoreline erosion is not a significant problem especially embayed and extensive marshes, should for most of Prince George County. Due to the be preserved, as they are important flood and limited fetches, wind generated waves are gener- 3.3 SHORE USE LIMITATIONS erosion control agents and as they are valuable ally not very large along the meandering portion wildlife habitats. The beaches, which comprise of the river. Historical average erosion rates The geographical area of Prince George County eighteen percent of the shoreline, are poor, thin are slight to moderate, the highest rate being is composed of the County, the City of Hopewell, strips, often with vegetation. only two percent 2.4 feet per year at Flowerdew Hundred. No struc- and part of the City of Petersburg. In general, of the shore is artificially stabilized. tures are endangered in the county. the development potential of the area is very limited for both the rural and urban sections, The geographic area of Prince George County, Erosion in Prince George is caused by a number though for differing reasons. The high intensity especially along the Appomattox River, has several of factors. During periods of abnormally high use of the urban areas and the large agricultural uses. The majority of the shorelands here are water, waves can overtop the protecting fringe of holdings of several landowners in the rural areas owned by the federal government (Fort Lee Military marsh or beach. This storm surge, which can be as presently control most of the shorelands. Reservation and the Federal Reformatory). The much as two feet above normal high tide levels, shorelands in Petersburg have industry (various allows wind generated waves to attack the vulner- The Peters burg-Hupewell area along the Appomat- minin- operations and a Sewage Treatment Plant), able fastland. Downhill rain runoff also affects tox River and parts of the James River (Subseg- commerce (railroad lines), recreation (proposed some areas of the shoreline, though this is not a ments IA. 1B, and part of 2A) are characterized public park), and agriculture. The City of Hopewell major cause of erosion. by zones of intensive use. This section includes 10 the Fort Lee Military Reservation, the Hopewell chemical plants, large urban residential areas, sand and gravel mining operations, and several marinas. Less than ten percent of the area is unused. There are several possible alternate uses for parts of this section of shoreline. The land adja- cent to the 1-95 bridge in Petersburg is owned by the city. Proposed plans call for the development of a public recreational park which would include docks for ferry boats, picnic areas, a railroad museum, and tours through various historical homes. Another possible recreational site would be along the headwaters of Cabin Creek in Hopewell. This wooded area could be used for various low intensity activities such as hiking, picnicking, and camping. The site is located near a housing development and not far from the urban residential area of City Point. Such "nature parks" are much needed near areas of high density population buildup. In contrast with the highly developed shoreline of the cities of Hopewell and Petersburg, the shorelands of the county of Prince George are largely agricultural and unused. However, alter- nate shore uses are very limited for this area also. The Jordan Point section, which is near Hope- well and on the major route between Hopewell and Williamsburg, has a marina, an airport, and a country club. The present use precludes alternate development here. Most of the remaining shore- lands are contained within several large estates, "Brandon", "Flowerdew Hundred", "Willow Hill", and "Upper Brandon". These estates, which have sur- vived from the 1800's, directly control the use of much of the shorelands. These rural-agricul- tural sections of the county will probably remain relatively unchanged. W!, .. . . ..................... .. ..... ....... .4 F I U R Ez3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 'At, L a"I On vg",t"-O@A la, _Fla FIGURE 3: Bulkheading at Hopewell Yacht Club. This TO structure will probably become ineffective in the future. W FIGURE 4: View of City Point shoreline. FIGURE 5: Industry along Hopewell's shoreline. The ship is docked at the Allied Chemical Company pier. FIGURE 6: Jordan Point Marina and bridge. Note the sand-filled barges acting as breakwaters. FIGURE 7: Barge acting as a breakwater, Jordan Point Marina. w @,O 'm 1w 11, FIGIJ RE 6 FIGURE 7 12 ...... ....... . nr FIGURE 8: Aerial view of Brandon Point. This area has nice sandy beaches of fair width, though often littered with debris. FIGURE 9: Ground view of Brandon Point. Note debris on beach. 77, lkx.@ .... .... .4@ "-M A 0 01, 'A' -UMV@ M AN \ n, x- W FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 7- 1 011 FIGURE 10: Aerial view at Fort Powhatan. The K shoreline has elevations of 50 feet in most areas here. 0, FIGURE 11: View from the bluffs at Fort Powhatan. M, %w The groin serves little purpose, and the retaining wall at the cliff base seems ineffective. M V V -W!aW, -mW -M g c, III W1 Q q 9 9 V FIGU RE 10 FIGURE 11 13 7701 15 PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BRIDGE MAP 1A SEGMENT LOCATIO I APETERSBURG TO HOPEWELL = Segment Boundary 18 CITY OF HOPEWELL 2A CITY POINT TO JORDAN PO = Subsegment Boundary 2B JORDAN POINT TO WINDMIL 3A WINDMILL POINT TO KENN 3B KENNON MARSH 3C UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK 1 B 2A RI VEI? 2B 1A HOPEWELL '-A k MAP 3 _[MAP 4 370 15' -MAP 5 MAP 2 MAP MAP 6, PETERSBURG SCAL9 Or kftgl 1 0 1 a 3 4 7 7J'-l 5 @A' 14 770115, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BRIDGE @,` MAP 1B SHORELANDS TYPES FASTLAND SHORE Low Shore Be Moderately Low Shore Fri Moderately Low Shore Ext with Bluff Em Moderately High Shore A A A" Ar 1 B v4 mes High Shore m m m NEARS Na 0 0@- Int 0-,,.,, 0@_0@0 Z.1", \2A RIVER2B Wi -0-0@0z 0 0 \ : 0 0900/1 L 0 0- 0 0 0 0-0 0-0,0-0- 0 Z.%.. 0 'b 0 1A ........ ..... . 0 0 3A c; HOPEWELL 0 0 0 0 0 370 PETERSBURG 3CALE OF MILES 1 0 1 3 4 770 15, 15 770115' PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY FASTLAND BRIDGE MAP 1C USE Agricultu Commer Industria MARINAS Governff Recreati Boat Ramp Residen Marina Unmana Wood OWNERSHIP Private Federal Town 2A RI VER2B city 2G IRS IW IRS IC IRS Ic IRS 11 2G IRC IA A IA 1A 11 /IRS (11@@ IRS 3A 1+ ]A IW IRS W-IW IA 1W A@ IA HOPEWELL 1W 1W 3-11".1 jW IA I& IA 11 W I, @-, Y IRS IW IA 1W 1W A' I I 1W I W IRS 1W 1W 1 W4 Vq I I I W IW Ic I W 1W 1W I IRS I W I A 370 1 W I W IRS I 1W 15' 1 A 1W 5RC 11 1W III c I W 1W @A PETERSBURG SCALE OF MILES 0-- a 3 4 770 15' IC I @RCI A IRS IW W I @W, 16 770 11!5, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BRIDGE @, --- @-% MAP 1D SHORELINE EROSION PROTECTIVE @STRUCTL PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES Bulkhead 8 WASTE DISCHARUGES Groin G Riprap R ERO R/B 2A RI VE -R2B 1A 3 HOPEWELL 09 B/ 370 15' PETERSBURG SCALE OF MILES 0 3 4 770 15' 17 TABLE 1. PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY, FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP (STATUTE MILES) Physiographic, SHORELANDS PHYSIOGRAPHY FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP TOTAL MILES use and ownership classifi- FASTLAND SHORE NEARSHORE cation W z >4 @4 44 !@ W P@ W R E-4 E-4 @4 E-4 cn Pq @-q @4 Do F-1 E--l @4 <4 @4 44 H R W. u U) <@ 5 @4 @-4 PQ W cn W -I) > El :3: 0 r_@ r:) Pq P@ P p4 H 04 P4 @-q P @D co 0 Subsegment 0 m > ce. W 0 @-4 -e4 @4 $1 ['X4 P4 44 5.0 2.6 0.2 7.8 7.5 IA 3.4 0.7 1.5 2.2 0.2 0.2 7.1 0.5 0.1 Z- v 3.1 0.6 0.9 IB 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.6 o.4 3.4 o.4 3.6 0.7 4.7 4.7 4.5 2A 2.3 12.9 0.9 7.5 0.9 0.6 4.1 4.6 0.7 1.2 3.1 1.9 4.9 0.5 3.1 0.2 13.0 23.4 0.2 23.6 10.2 2B 7.2 11.9 2.6 7.5 0.4 7.5 15.7 1.1 2.0 2.4 4.7 2.6 7.4 0.9 1.1 0.3 1.0 18.9 29.6 29.6 26.3 3A 5.1 17.4 1.7 0.7 4.8 17.3 1.4 1.3 4.7 3.2 4.2 20.7 24.9 24.9 24.8 3B 4.1 o.4 4.3 1.3 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.7 3C 7.2 8.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 3.1 10.4 0.9 2.3 7.2 10.0 17.2 17.2 14.5 TOTAL MILES 29.3 53.0 8.9 20.3 0.4 1.8 16.4 48.1 6.8 19.3 11.4 12.5 5.7 25.3 1.4 2.6 9.1 1.4 7.7 0.2 64.2 108.9 2.6 0.2 0.2 111.9 92.5 % of FASTLAND 26% 47% 8% 18% 0 23% 1% 2% 8% 1% 7% 0 57% 97% 2% 0 0 100% % of SHORELINE 2% 187. 52% 7% 21% 12% 14% 6% 100% 18 I I 0 I CHAPTER 4 4.1 Table of Subsegment Summaries 0 4.2 Segment and Subsegment Descriptions 4.3 Segment and Subsegment Maps I 0 1 I 0 19 1 TABLE 2. SHORELINE SITUATION REPORT SUBSEGMENT SUMMARIES, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBSEGMENT SHORELANDS TYPE SHORELANDS USE _ OWNERSHIP ZONING FLOOD HAZARD BEACH QUALITY SHORE EROSION SITUATION ALTERNATE SHORE USE 1A FASTLAND: Low shore 44%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agri cu Itural 6%, commercial Private 61%, Mostly agricul- Low. This area is There are no The area appears stable. A marina near Petersburg has Low. The area of most growth PETERSBURG TO shore 9%, moderately high shore 19%, and 1%, governmental 34%, industrial 40%, federal 34%, tural, some in- not exposed to beaches in this approximately 1,000 feet of effective bulkhead. potential is a parcel of city HOPEWELL high shore 28%. recreational 7%, and unmanaged, wooded and city 5%. dustrial and direct storm subsegment. owned property near the 1-95 7.5 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3%, 12%. recreational. effects. bridge. (7.8 miles fringe marsh 94%, and embayed marsh 3%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the of fastland) RIVER: The Appomattox River is narrow marshes, but mostly unused. and shallow, with controlling depths of RIVER: Commercial shipping and 5 feet in 1971. pleasure boating. 1B FASTIAND: Moderately low shore 34%, FASTLAND: Commeraial 8%, residential Private. Residential. Low. The entire There are no Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. The Moderate. Most of the subsegment, CITY OF moderately high shore 34%, and high 76%, and unmanaged, wooded 16%. subsegment has beaches in this historical erosion rate from Cabin Creek to Hopewell being included in the urban area of HOPEWELL shore 32%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the elevations of 20 subsegment. city limits is 2.0 feet per year. There is approxi- Hopewell, is already used exten- 4.5 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 13%@ marshes. feet. mately 3,000 feet of bulkhead in the subsegment, most sively. The Cabin Creek area is a (4.7 miles fringe marsh 78%, and embayed marsh 8%. RIVER: Commercial shipping and of which is effective. possible site for future low in- of fastland) RIVER: The Appomattox River is narrow pleasure boating, tensity recreational development. and shallow, having controlling depths of 5 feet in 1971. ?A FASTLAND: Low shore 9%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 8%, industrial Private and Agricultural in Low, noncritical. Poor. The sub- Slight or no change. The industrial park between Low. The extensive residential and CITY POINT TO shore 55%, moderately high shore 4%, 21%, recreational 2%, residential 13%, some county. the county. Hope- The majority of segment has Bailey Creek and City Point has effective bulkheading industrial use of the land near JORDAN POINT and high shore 32%. unmanaged, open 1%, and unmanaged, well is zoned the subsegment has narrow, strip and rubble riprap. Hopewell precludes further develop- 10.2 miles SHORE: Artificially stabilized 9%, wooded 55%. residential and elevations of 10 beaches. ment there. Any construction near (23.6 miles beach 6%, fringe marsh 45%, and embayed SHORE: Mostly unused. industrial. feet. Jordon Point would sacrifice the of fastland) marsh 40%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping and agricultural lands. NEARSHORE: Narrow 7%, intermediate 12%, pleasure boating. and wide 30%. The remainder of the subseement is located along R@il@y Creek. 2B FASTLAND: Low shore 24%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 25%, commer- Private. Agricultural, Low. The majority Fair. Most Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Flower- Low. Most development will proba- JORDAN POINT shore 40%, moderately high shore 9%, cial 3%, industrial 4%, recreational residential, some of the subsegment beaches are of dew Hundred has an historical erosion rate of 2.4 feet bly continue to center on the well TO WINDMILL high shore 26%, and high shore with 1%, residential 3%, and unmanaged, industrial and has elevations of moderate width per year. Jordan Point Marina has several sand-filled used inland motor routes. POINT bluff 1%. wooded 64%. business. 20 feet. with some barges which serve as breakwaters, and some effective 26.3 miles SHORE: Beach 28%, fringe marsh 8%, em- SHORE: Mostly unused, except for the vegetation. bulkheading. (29.6 miles bayed marsh 60%, and extensive marsh 4%. marina at Jordan Point. of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow TI., intermediate 18%, NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, and wide 10%. The remainder of the sport boating and fishing. subsegment is located along the creeks. 3A FASTLAND: Low shore 20%, moderately low FASTLAND: Agricultural 17% and un- Private. Agricultural and Low to moderate, Poor. The sub- Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. An area Low. Most of the subsegment is in- WINDMILL shore 70%, moderately high shore 7%, and managed, wooded 83%. some industrial. noncritical. segment has near Wards Creek has an effective bulkhead and one cluded in three large estates; POINT TO high shore 3%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in Parts of Flowerdew narrow, strip groin. Flowerdew Hundred, Willow Hill, and KENNON MARSH SHORE: Beach 19%, fringe marsh 5%, em- the marshes. Hundred and Upper beaches, often Upper Brandon. These are privately 24.8 miles bayed marsh 70%, and extensive marsh 6%. NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping, Brandon are sus- vegetated. owned and would directly control (24.9 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 19% and intermediate sport boating, fishing, and other ceptible to any development there. of fastland) 13%. The remainder of the subsegment water related activities. flooding. is located along the creeks. 3B FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. Private. Agricultural. Low to moderate, Poor. The few Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. Kennon Low. Two large estates actively KENNON MARSH SHORE: Beach 9% and extensive marsh SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the noncritical. Fast- areas of beach Marsh has an historical erosion rate of 1.6 feet per control the use of the subsegment. 4.7 miles 91%. marsh, but mostly unused. land flooding oc- are narrow and year on its eastern side, and an accretion rate of 0.7 (4.1 miles NEARSHORE: Narrow 28% and intermediate NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping and curs around often vege- feet per year on its western side. There are no of fastland) 72%. pleasure boating. Brandon Point. tated. shore protective structures. 3C FASTLAND: Low shore 42%, moderately low FASTLAND* Agricultural 42% and Private. Agricultural. Low, noncritical. Poor. The sub- Slight or no change to moderate, noncritical. His- Low. The agricultural lands along UPPER shore 50%, moderately high shore 3%, and unmanaged, wooded 58%. Most of the fast- segment has torical erosion rates along the river and in the creek the river are controlled by a large CHIPPOKES high shore 5%. SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the land has eleva- narrow, strip mouth range from 1.1 to 1.4 feet per year. Brandon has estate and will probably remain un- CREEK SHORE: Artificially stabilized < 1%, marshes. tions of at least beaches. approximately 400 feet of effective bulkhead. changed. An area nearthe creek 14.5 miles beach 21%, fringe marsh 6%, and embayed NEARSHORE: Commercial shipping on 10 feet and is headwaters is suitable for low (17.2 miles marsh 73%. the river, sport boating and fishing not subject to intensity recreational use. of fastland) NEARSHORE: Narrow 16%. Upper Chippokes on the creek. flooding. Creek contains the remaining shoreline. 20 SUBSEGMENT 1A PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION SUBSEGMENT 1B EROSION RATE: No data. The area appears stable. PETERSBURG TO HOPEWELL ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. CITY OF HOPEWELL SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- (Maps 2 and 3) mately 1,000 feet of bulkheading at a marina one (Map 3) mile north of the Petersburg City limits. EXTENT: 39,400 feet (7.5 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers EXTENT: 24,000 feet (4.5 mi.) of shoreline from the 1-95 bridge at Petersburg to the Hopewell and a boat ramp at the Appomattox Small Boat the westward extent of Hopewell City limits City limits. The subsegment also includes Harbor. east to the end of Hopewell's water boundary 41,200 feet (7.8 mi.) of fastland. (3,400 feet southwest of City Point) . The SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Approximately thirty-four subsegment also includes 24,600 feet (4.7 mi.) SHOREL&NDS TYPE percent of the shorelands in this subsegment of fastland. FASTLAND: Low shore 44% (3.4 mi.), moderately are included in the Fort Lee Military Reserva- low shore 9% (0.7 mi.), moderately high shore tion. These lands are federally owned and con- SHOREL&NDS TYPE 19% (1.5 mi.), and high shore 28% (2.2 mi.). trolled, which would preclude any development. FASTLAND: Moderately low shore 34% (1.6 mi.), SHORE: Artificially stabilized 3% (0.2 mi.), An additional forty percent of the shorelands moderately high shore 34% (1.6 mi.), and high fringe marsh 94% (7.1 mi.), and embayed marsh are actively mined for sand and gravel. No shore 32% (1.5 mi.). 3% (0.2 mi.). development seems probable here until the mining SHORE: Artificially stabilized 13% (0.6 mi.), RIVER: The Appomattox River is too narrow and operations are complete. The remaining sections fringe marsh 787. (3.4 mi.), and embayed marsh shallow for classification, having controlling of the shorelands are used for agriculture, some 8% (0.4 mi.). depths of 5 feet in 1971. industry (Petersburg Sewage Treatment Plant), RIVER: The Appomattox River is too narrow and recreation. Though construction near the for classification, having controlling depths SHORELANDS USE 1-95 bridge seems probable, development else- of 5 feet to Petersburg in 1971. FASTIAND: Agricultural 6% (0.5 mi.), commercial where in the subsegment is unlikely. 1% (0.1 mi.), governmental (Fort Lee Military SHORELANDS USE Reservation and the Federal Reformatory) 34% ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. The area with the most FASTLAND: Commercial 8% (0.4 mi.), residen- (2.6 mi.), industrial 40% (3.1 mi.), recrea- growth potential is a parcel of city owned prop- tial 76% (3.6 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 16% tional 7% (0.6 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 12% erty near the 1-95 bridge. The City of Peters- (0.7 mi.). (0.9 mi.). burg is considering plans for a public park SHORE: Private use and some waterfowl hunting SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, which would include a boat basin for ferry boat in the marshes. but mostly unused. tours, a museum, various historic homes, and RIVER: Commercial shipping and pleasure RIVER: Commercial shipping and pleasure other facilities. Elsewhere, there is little boating. boating. alternate use potential. SHORELINE TREND- The shoreline trends basically SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOPEWELL, Va. E - W in this subsegment. NNE - SSW. Fetches are negligible due to the Quadr., 1969; narrowness of the river and the numerous marsh USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.). CHESTER, Va. OWNERSHIP: Private. islands. Quadr., 1969; USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), PETERSBURG, Va. ZONING: Residential. OWNERSHIP: Private 61%, federal 34%, and city 5%. Quadr.., 1969. C&GS, #531, 1:20,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The entire sub- ZONING: Mostly agricultural for the federally Jordan Point to Richmond, 1971. segment has elevations of at least 20 feet, owned lands. There is some industrial and with the exception of the mouth of Cabin Creek. recreational zoning in Petersburg. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-lA/107-114. BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- FLOOD HAZARD: Low. This area is not exposed to segment. direct storm effects. Any flooding would be the result of heavy upstream rains. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, BEACH QUALITY: There are no beaches in this sub- noncritical. The historical erosion rate from segment. Cabin Creek to Hopewell City limits is 2.0 feet per year. 21 ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. SUBSEGMENT 2A southeast of City Point. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- mately 3,000 feet of bulkheading in this subseg- CITY POINT TO JORDAN POINT BEACH QUALITY: Poor. This subsegment has narrow, ment, the majority of which is found at the strip beaches. Hopewell Yacht Club. Most of the structure is (Maps 3 and 4) effective, though several sections are in need PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION of repair. EROSION RATE: Slight or no change. EXTENT: 54,200 feet (10.2 mi.) of shoreline from ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: The Hopewell Yacht Club the end of Hopewell City water to Jordan Point. SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is an area facilities include a boat ramp, marine railway, The subsegment also includes 124,600 feet of effective riprap and bulkheading at.the in- approximately 44 covered slips, and 19 uncov- (23.6 mi.) of fastland. dustrial park between Bailey Creek and City ered slips. Point. SHORELANDS TYPE SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: All of the shorelands in FASTLAND: Low shore 9% (2.3 mi.), moderately OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are two large this subsegment have elevations of over 20 feet, low shore 55% (12.9 mi.), moderately high shore piers in this subsegment. with the majority of lands being over 40 feet. 4% (0.9 mi.), and high shore 32% (7.5 mi.). This height reduces the availability of the SHORE: Artificially stabilized 9% (0.9 mi.), SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The Hopewell section of shorelands for water related development pur- beach 6% (0.6 mi.), fringe marsh 45% (4.6 mi.), this subsegment (to Bailey Creek) is already poses. Much of this subsegment is already used and embayed marsh 40% (4.1 mi.). extensively used for private residences and extensively, the eastern portion being included NOTE: The figure for embayed marsh does industrial plants. Little other development in the urban area of Hopewell. Here, little not include 72,000 feet along Bailey Creek is possible for these areas. The Jordan Point additional development could occur. The west- where the water becomes too narrow and section is a very thin strip of land beside ern third of the subsegment is largely wooded, shallow to be included in the shoreline the road. The Jordan Point Country Club just though a residential development is located in measurement. southwest of Jordan Point controls one-half the fastland just west of Cabin Creek. NEARSHORE: Narrow 7%, intermediate 12%, and mile of shoreline. No development is proba- wide 30%. The remainder of the shoreline is ble for either area. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Moderate. Some of the wooded located along Bailey Creek, which is too nar- lands in the western sector of the subsegment row and shallow for classification. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. No residential or could be developed for low intensity recrea- recreational development is very likely near tional activities such as picnicking, hiking, SHORELANDS USE Bailey Creek because of offensive odors and camping. One possible location for such a FASTLAND: Agricultural 8% (1.9 mi.), indus- caused by contamination of the water. The facility would be along the shore of Cabin Creek. trial 21% (4.9 mi.), recreational 2% (0.5 mi.), level lands between Bailey Creek and Jordan other sites in the subsegment could have some residential 13% (3.1 mi.), unmanaged, open 1% Point are used extensively for agriculture. residential development in places. (0.2 mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 55% (13.0 mi.). The area is probably best left as it is. SHORE: Mostly unused. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOPEWELL, Va. NEARSHORE: Commercial barges to the industrial MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WESTOVER, Va. Quadr., 1969. plants at Hopewell and pleasure boating. Quadr., 1965; C&GS, #531, 1:20,000 scale, JANES RIVER, USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), HOPEWELL, Va. Jordan Point to Richmond, 1971. SHORELINE TREND: This subsegment trends NW - SE Quadr., 1969. from City Point to Bailey Creek, then SW - NE C&GS, #531, 1:20,000 scale, JANES RIVER, PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS l2Jul74 PG-lB/91-106. from Bailey Creek to Jordan Point. The fetch Jordan Point to Richmond, 1971; at City Point is NNE - 3.0 nm, ESE - 4.7 nm, C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, Ground-VIMS IODec75 PG-lB/45- 60. and WSW - 1.7 nm. Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. OWNERSHIP: Private and some county. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-2A/67-90. ZONING: Agricultural in the county. The City Ground-VIMS 10Dec75 PC-2A/61-63. Point area is residential, and the southeast- ern section of Hopewell is industrial. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of the subsegment has elevations of at least 10 feet, with the exception of some storage tanks 22 SUBSEGNENT 2B width with some vegetation. Quadr., 1965. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, JORDAN POINT TO WINDMILL POINT PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, (Maps 4, 5 and 6) noncritical. The area experiencing most change PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-2B/38-66. is Flowerdew Hundred, which has an average ero- sion rate of 2.4 feet per year. Ground-VIMS 1ODec75 PG-2B/32-44; EXTENT: 139,000 feet (26.3 mi.) of shoreline from ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. 64-72. Jordan Point to Windmill Point. The subsegment SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is a small also includes 156,000 feet (29.6 mi.) of fast- area of effective bulkheading at Jordan Point land. Marina. Several sand filled barges off Jordan Point serve as effective breakwaters. SHORELANDS TYPE FASTLAND: Low shore 24% (7.2 mi.), moderately OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers low shore 40% (11.9 mi.), moderately high shore located in the subsegment. Structures at Jor- 9% (2.6 mi.), high shore 26% (7.5 mi.), and dan Point include a marine railway, concrete high shore with bluff 1% (0.4 mi.). boat ramp, and numerous covered slips. SHORE: Beach 28% (7.5 mi.), fringe marsh 8% (2.0 mi.), embayed marsh 60% (15.7 mi.), and SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Sixty-four percent of the extensive marsh 4% (1.1 mi.). shoreline in this subsegment is embayed or ex- NEARSHORE: Narrow 9%, intermediate 18%, and tensive marsh. These areas are protected by the wide 10%. The remainder of the subsegment is Virginia Wetlands Act of 19721 which strictly located along the creeks. controls any planned alteration of tidal marsh areas. Development behind marshes is possible, SHORELANDS USE though access to the water would be limited and FASTLAND: Agricultural 25% (7.4 mi.), commer- difficult. Several areas along the shoreline, cial 3% (0.9 mi.), industrial 4% (1.1 mi.), mainly around Jordan Point, have already been recreational 1% (0.3 mi.), residential 3% (1.0 developed. The marina and airport at Jordan mi.), and unmanaged, wooded 64% (18.9 mi.). Point would prohibit other building in that SHORE: Little used except for the marina at area. The Beechwood Manor subdivision does Jordan Point. Some waterfowl hunting in the have room for expansion if necessary. The rest marshes. of the subsegment is characterized by high or NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing, and other moderately high elevations near the shoreline. water related activities. Commercial shipping The inland plains are generally used for agri- to Hopewell and Richmond. culture. The Flowerdew Hundred area is one of several large parcels of land owned by individ- SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trend is basically uals in the county. Development in these sec- W - E from Jordan Point to Windmill Point. The tions would depend directly upon the wishes of fetch at Jordan Point is WSW - 1.7 nm, and at these landowners. For the present time, these Coggins Point W - 1.9 nm. The fetches at Wind- lands are largely used for agriculture. mill Point are WNW - 3.5 nm and SSE - 2.2 nm. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. This subsegment is OWNERSHIP: Private. largely rural - agricultural in nature. Devel- opment will probably continue to center on the ZONING: Jordan Point is zoned for business. The well used inland motor routes through the county. rest of the subsegment is zoned for agricul- Isolated residential development is possible in tural, residential, and some industrial use. areas along the shore. It is expected, however, that the shorelands will remain primarily in FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of their present rural state for the near future. the shorelands have elevations of at least 20 feet. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), WESTOVER, Va. Quadr., 1965; BEACH QUALITY- Fair. Most beaches are of moderate USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, Va. 23 SUBSEGMENT 3A occurring, neither causing substantial changes SUBSEGMENT 3B in the shoreline. WINDMILL POINT TO KENNON MARSH ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. KENNON MARSH SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is an area (Maps 6 and 7) of effective bulkheading and one groin located (Maps 7 and 8) north of Wards Creek. EXTENT: 130,800 feet (24.8 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There are several piers EXTENT: 241600 feet (4.7 mi.) of shoreline from Windmill Point to Kennon Marsh, including Wards in the subsegment. Kennon Marsh to Brandon Point. This subsegment Creek and Flowerdew Hundred Creek. The subseg- also includes 21,600 feet (4.1 mi.) of fastland. ment also includes 131,800 feet (24.9 mi.) of SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: Most of the lands in this fastland. subsegment are the property of three large es- SHORELANDS TYPE tates: Flowerdew Hundred, Willow Hill, and FASTLAND: Entirely low shore. SHORELANDS TYPE Upper Brandon. Alternate uses of the areas SHORE: Beach 9% (0.4 mi. and extensive marsh FASTLAND: Low shore 20% (5.1 mi.), moderately would depend upon the wishes of the owners. 91% (4.3 mi.). low shore 70% (17.4 mi.), moderately high shore The rural wooded - agricultural usage of this NEARSHORE: Narrow 28% and intermediate 72%. 7% (1.7 mi.), and high shore 3% (0.7 mi.). subsegment, with the concurrent lack of access SHORE: Beach 19% (4.8 mi.), fringe marsh 5% would further hinder any development along the SHORELANDS USE (1.3 mi.), embayed marsh 70% (17.3 mi.), and shoreline. FASTLAND: Entirely agricultural. extensive marsh 6% (1.4 mi.). SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marsh, NEARSHORE: Narrow 19% and intermediate 13%. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Development along but mainly unused. The remainder of the subsegment is located most of the shorelands would depend directly NEARSHORE: Commercial and pleasure boating. along the creeks. upon the wishes of the several landowners in this subsegment. It is expected that the SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends basically SHORELANDS USE shorelands here will remain in much their NW - SE. The fetch at Kennon Marsh is SE FASTLAND: Agricultural 17% (4.2 mi.) and un- present state. 3.6 nm and SW - 3.3 nm. managed, wooded 83% (20.7 mi.). SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, OWNERSHIP: Private. NEARSHORE: Sport boating, fishing and other Va. Quadr., 1965; water related activities. Commercial shipping USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SAVEDGE, Va. ZONING: Agricultural. to Hopewell and Richmond. Quadr., 1966. C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JANES RIVER, FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trends first NW - Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. Fastland flooding occurs around Brandon Point SE, then SW - NE. Fetches at the mouth of where elevations are 5 feet or less. The re- Wards Creek are NE - 3.6 nm and NW - 1.5 nm. PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-3A/16-37. mainder of the subsegment has elevations of at least 10 feet and is not subject to flooding. OWNERSHIP: Private. Ground-VIMS 1ODec75 PG-3A/11-31. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. The few areas of beach are ZONING: Agricultural and some industrial. narrow and often vegetated. FLOOD HAZARD: Low to moderate, noncritical. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION Areas subject to flooding include parts of EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, Flowerdew Hundred and land near Upper Brandon. noncritical. There is an average erosion rate Most other areas have elevations greater than of 1.6 feet per year on the eastern side of 10 feet and are not susceptible to flooding. Kennon Marsh, and an accretion rate of 0.7 feet per year on the western side. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. There are only narrow, ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. strip beaches in this subsegment, often vege- SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: None. tated. OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: None. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The extensive marsh area noncritical. There is both erosion and accretion comprising Kennon Marsh would limit development 24 behind in the fastland. The marsh should be SUBSEGMENT 3C head appear stable, erosion elsewhere ranges preserved. This subsegment is actively used from 1.1 to 1.4 feet per year. for agricultural purposes, being part of two UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK ENDANGERED STRUCTURES: None. large estates. Any development would be at SHORE PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES: There is approxi- the sacrifice of the agriculture. (Maps 8 and 9) mately 400 feet of effective bulkheading at Brandon. ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Two large estates actively control the use of this subsegment. EXTENT: 76,800 feet (14.5 mi.) of shoreline from OTHER SHORE STRUCTURES: There is a pier at Bran- No change in the present agricultural use is Brandon Point to the headwaters of Upper Chip- don and a boat landing near the head waters of forseen for the near future. pokes Creek. The fastland extent is 91,000 Upper Chippokes Creek. feet (17.2 mi.). MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CHARLES CITY, SHORE USE LIMITATIONS: The fastlands of this sub- Va. Quadr., 1965; SHORELANDS TYPE segment are divided between agricultural and USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. FASTLAND: Low shore 42% (7.2 mi.), moderately wooded lands. Generally, the agricultural Quadr., 1965. low shore 50% (8.5 mi.), moderately high shore areas are located from the mouth of Upper Chip- C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, 3% (0.6 mi.), and high shore 5% (0.9 mi.). pokes Creek north to Brandon. The shorelands Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. SHORE: Artificially stabilized less than 1%, of the creek are entirely unmanaged, wooded. beach 21% (3.1 mi.), fringe marsh 6% (0.9 mi.), As in the preceeding subsegment, the agricul- PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-3B/5-15. and embayed marsh 73% (10.4 mi.). tural lands are part of a large estate, "Bran- NEARSHORE: Narrow 16%. The remainder of the don", and their use is therefore controlled by Ground-VIMS l0D-_c75 PG-3B/1-10. subsegment is located along Upper Chippokes the estate. The wooded lands along Upper Chip- Creek, which has controlling depths of 2 to 5 pokes Creek are fronted by large areas of em- feet. bayed marsh (seventy-three percent of the shoreline is embayed marsh). The shorelands SHORELANDS USE along the creek have very limited access, there FASTLAND: Agricultural 42% (7.2 mi.) and un- being only dirt roads to the area. managed, wooded 58% (10.0 mi.). SHORE: Some waterfowl hunting in the marshes, ALTERNATE SHORE USE: Low. Little change in the but mostly unused. present shore use seems probable. The agricul- RIVER: Commercial shipping and pleasure tural lands are controlled by a large estate boating. and will most likely remain unchanged. The CREEK: Sport fishing and other water related lack of access to the creek shorelands, plus activities. the presence of embayed marsh along the shore- line, make development unlikely here. A low SHORELINE TREND: The shoreline trend is basically intensity recreational facility near the head- NE - SW in this subsegment. The fetch at Chip- waters of Upper Chippokes Creek is a possibil- pokes Point is SE - 5.6 nm. ity. This area is near a paved road, and the wooded nature of the land plus the embayed OWNERSHIP: Private. marsh areas would be ideal for nature walks, picnicking, and other such recreational uses. ZONING: Agricultural. MAPS: USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), BRANDON, Va. FLOOD HAZARD: Low, noncritical. The majority of Quadr., 1965; the subsegment has elevations of at least 10 USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), CLAREMONT, Va. feet. only the marsh areas are subject to Quadr., 1966; flooding. USGS, 7.5 Min.Ser. (Topo.), SAVEDGE, Va. Quadr., 1966. BEACH QUALITY: Poor. This subsegment has narrow, C&GS, #530, 1:40,000 scale, JAMES RIVER, strip beaches. Jamestown Island to Jordan Point, 1971. PRESENT SHORE EROSION SITUATION PHOTOS: Aerial-VIMS 12Jul74 PG-3C/1-4; EROSION RATE: Slight or no change to moderate, PG-3B/5-8. noncritical. While the areas near the creek Ground-VIMS IODec75 PG-3B/1-10. 25 77.0 22' 30" wa D, 7@. <T"::" 5 50 a -Ce Bithesda Q46 - p.0 Cat.-IsLand "0 G i I I i m s Island g U 0 MAP 2A@.' APPOMATTOX RIVER TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE sac Creek Subsegment 1A I E@f'a n d = Segment Boundary A.- Radio = Subsegment Boundary Toyvvr@ Z' T CY Airft Bo4)t R a rr,i ROAD _j 7 CO 4V co. M 161inlop High ch U) ater 1A @ 'A C,, 'A C,, 'k @@'q S/Al Z OR Sand Toll, Sewa Dispo, I ',ade, ParK -diQ To\@ 0 0 .W: 0 Gr p I'* 14 4 Pit 0 N I 95 0 v ---G-ravbl t v Z Ik I-- "I a cN. 50 :j 'w '-- Sand t1d G"r el I// cli- Pits 11 95 0 (n 20 \I1A I wit 1000 0 1000 2or).-, 3r,,',::) 5000 D@00 FEE7 30", dh W W W 77o 22' 3*0" Disposal 5 a ge-- Y-91sposal em- MAP 2B c 6a 0 Betbesd APPOMATTOX RIVER SHORELANDS TYPES T @4)6 Subsegment 1A port FASTLAND Low Shore _j Cat lstancdl Moderately Low Shore I _j J N. 0 Moderately High Shore A A A -A High Shore Gilli ms Island '20 e 9 bo 'A o SHORE 3; Fringe Marsh 0 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh 1A Artificially Stabilized J- -A- _L_ Sac Creek Island Gravel Radio 'Pit 0 Towef A; T 0 j Boai Rarnp@ ROAD 6 lip 45@ C9 C 0 _j Cem Dunlop" Hi h C Sch 0 'A7 Water lank/ 1A "2 JE_ JQ San r,.R, 0, a ga Sewag Dispo, N a Radio Tower (WSSV) p 0 G'r 0 .4 Pit 6, 4* 5') 95 0 qv@ 0 Gravel@ t" _v dpit Sand Lid GraZel \"I,'/ 9/ Jr i sch- Pits X, 4C ?.0 711 3 @'o N fA L- C 20 V % 1A i mitE on o`A8J( AV 1770 22' 30 77o 22' 3 0" C@ 5 7 )1--gisposal Cem M A P 2 C @20) @Bethesd 1APPOMATTOX RIVER 2G/ FASTLA.ND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION I t Subsegment A USE Agricultural A Cat Island X Commercial C io Industrial 1 g-F G i I ms Island Government G is 0 1 10 10 Recreational RIC 0 Residential RS Unmanaged Wooded W Bac Creek 2G OWNERSHIP 11% Island Private 1 Federal 2 Town 5 City 5 Radic Fower 4;_ .-j" tzROSION Slight or No Change No Symbol 6 co 1A 'U4 Boaf Ramp ROAD ? -2 0 : 1A 1W .4v 00 ( ) U ii'Dunio"'I cem,/ P High C Sch 1W /6 0 > 41111"' GV_ Wa er / .. ' \ T,t A a n k// JQ Sand I-da, Tollgat 1. Sewag Dispo I 11RC/C I S, Y 4 T6 ga -a r, Radio Tower (WSSM Ila 114 '31 . 11,; /': 0 : G.r" 0 ro q pit ,1RS 95 0 1.'. L) -G-rav, t" JA_\ V r _z a_ 0 z aPA d I 50 @_ M Sand 'and Gr4Zel lk Jr Hig ch- Pits As 1A, j CO 20 _41 5 - - ...... Di I MILE 15 RC- o ho ta I F ---- =T C il)ccl: C i@ M 77* 22 30" Ab 770 20' I Ph! C;fv \5tan > Sa p.t 1 B V T,1131 F I", IA 5 U, E w V 111' Ran ee@ Ili -D 00sp,tal rT :1 EPP S st w 0. 1. 1 1 f-,;4 1B. 'Clit, @a If 41 cl I t [email protected] -6 0. -ft, Mallonee t',l Field < wz H,VEP -Jl ITY -1)", c Ja-., sch f)l RAt t wMATORY H 0 P B *-,F,,L JZ 0 70. G), rl.JACK$011@1 Sil 0 lo Awet Radi T 74 MAP 3A (WH P) cn KCT HOPEWELL In TOPOGRAPHY AND CUL URE 0 Subsegments 1A, 1B, and 2A jA i ihS -h Segment Boundary 41 A Subsegment Boundary qgton > -ld Inaw,trial Waste Poncib Five,,Vorks FORT 1, FV 36 -Ari wl 2 IIATARY RESERVATION i5on 0 1000 T--l -T- -71--J@ -@o 770 20' 29 770 20' u Light H 5 Riverniont.. Tidal Flat 0 Y's X1 F, 1)N City t C 01 900 4 0 %SWd 0 0 Light Sa pit nd p, 0 1,0 1B 0 -a- 0 0 A 0 1W 0 Hospital Y Z M t A 1B. z 1@ tolty Z@ q Ql@ h 0 1-4 01 7 t 10 JL -j-, - , , , ( @@ --, 0.-I@ -0-, I , - -1 10 11,1ei Fi0d MAP 3B. f,C1TY,-3i, po C .4; 0,@MATORY H F D[ RAL R F I HOPEWELL jt. ;Z &, ;i L , 5@ 0 1,-i 'tio SHORELANDS TYP ES 0, F 1. 1 Q-m@ , ubsegments 1A, 113, and 2A ;Rad@io T er T. H -@- 1) 1nd I 1@ r@,.,% S r- '74 i4i -sm; 'T, 93 ST FASTLAND jo Ir o Low Shore % 344f !ndustria Moderately Low Shore I 1 -1 Moderately High Shore A A A A 5S@, , " \@ "Odii 1, igh 94 High Shore W'" < SHORE @.QAsT Artificially Stabilized Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh L 6- Id Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE S lndu@itrial Kpi*,Od Narrow 0-0-0-0 A Dis % d s 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 Wide 0 0 0 0 v- 36 D zl F, Ik V A T .@-Kre @eafi@Yp @,t S 11LITARY- RE, ION i coo 0 1000 2000 97 77o 20' 30 77o 20' L ig Rivernimit - City 0@ @@%ar%d (:Z@ //",6 Sandi", ia pit 2G 1B 1 C 0 @Ran 1R& H ORS 1RS Hospital 1w, Q CPP1 Qq CultetwO Sch RS,,, 1 B.- 26: z _BM ,1 '42, VA 4 L 8 BM J_ z thl@, Fw1d h MAP 3 C C, Y C D[ PAL PFLG,@MATOk@ H0PF!W'8L F HOPEWELL-,. 4@ FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Radio Tpwer. 70 T < H II In dI MHAP) .74 of I itrllonf SO;, JY Subsegments 1A, 1B, and 2A 0 c.) V @_J USE j 0 Agricultural A d, Industrial I .-V B Q4' Residential RS 0'.V j;;irh Sch Unmanaged C)A,'@l P C . Wooded W ,xt c. r,tne artne POAD rl % OWNERSHIP % 60 it Private N "'a Federal 2 @Id EROSION Moderate ndustri A Slight or No Change No Symbol @Kg"Aqw A j, r l< Waste Pa + + Accretiona I + + V FORT 1W 9 1, E sa A@ R E S 41LITAR '/E R VA T I ON 11 t. to 1000 0 1000 SP 77o 20' 31 -----F770 12' 30" L 7 -ERpp 9 slpnd 4"? a rdin arnso --/0 Point- 77 E 0 Jordan air Point .............. .. ....... . 23 Light Indian 2A Hopewell Airfield . . . . . . . . . . enA. Jordan Point k Country Club N:. ?0 Be Oct 5- 7 .1 V, . 43 0 AA F4i, A 79 644 2B M -Y" B M tv t Gravel 126 r, 0 Y 15 P 4 A MA 132 Gr G JORDAN POINT@ Pj) It APHY AND CULTURE TOPOGR A Subsegments 2A a IN, M nd 2BI BN J 14 = Segment Boundary 4.. = Subsegment Boundar y 136 C651 S) 120 erri,@ Ce 12 Y erch t H PON, Ch '137 125 -N cp .130 Harrison Grove 54 Irving c 20 W 50 *47 -j 6 -/-4-0 T 641 0 0 Ask 770 12' 30" -Eppes Isl" a rnsc, 10 P0* 4141 E 0 0 Jordan PDlnt -@o 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . -F --T 0 @;23 @b 0. "Light 0 2 A Hopewell n9la i'v Airfield P 0 en Jordan Point Country C 0 -:4 0 60 p 6U 2 B X//5 % 56 7 BM 10 9 af. 126 Grav, P MAP 4B 0 JORDAN POiNT SHORELANDS TYPES, SUbsegments 2A and 2 t-ASTLAND '0 Low Shore BM Moderately Low Shore kr4 A A A Moderately High Shore ou VIP High Shore C) C@X` 117 SHORE Beach 641 Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh BM' 120 Embayed Marsh *M@@ @1@ V Artificially Stabilized 12 NEARSHORE ereft Ch Narrow 0-0-0-0 125 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 30 Wide 54 C Cer-n-, 120 50 47 /00 136 V, 140 64 -n 770 12' 30- 112' 30"' S 3 a a m so P0, 771!7 U. E "!!!!:.7!!.. 77777 ............ ... . ....... . . . ........... ............ . ... .. ..... ..... .. . ....;2 B, 0 0(ort 4. Poin@t A 1RC/C 3 01-ight ---- --- ... . ........ lCopeweli .............. ... 2A irfield B -4U en@ Jordan Point 1RC Country Club 1A, ... ...... ')iw w. Be A N .1R 1 A ca 0-- M, 64 2 B V 115,' 'i w 41 ,V-P V /Y /00 & MAP C JORDAN POINT,\@,,@@q FASTLAND USE OWNERSHIP, EROSION V 4"' N & Subsegments 2A and 2B A/Al A USE Agricultural A 3M Commercial C -M4 @30 Recreational RC UP 1. IVV L7 Residential RS (64@ Unmanaged 1A Unwooded U 641 655 Wooded W N BM (OWNERSHIP Z/ 16 Private ern Bf EROSION 12 Moderate I I I I I I I -eh 125 Slight or No Change No Symbol 4 130 fi4r@ison Grove /?d 54 @ng "o - D\ 50 4 7, ----------- @136 2 0 5000 7000 F@EET 000 .1010 1401 -14. 0- 644 77- 12' _30-_ 996 dbk Am qw 'w 770 10' .a 05 0 /0 J0 37 0 u L 30 45. @'to- N @oerkeley 10 \30 0 Halft4so - -10 .4 '.A Westover Landing '2 20 In" West2 2@1- '.'O@e@ 2 BucklE Poi 2B Maycocks Point 3@ Coggins Poin -?0 6, w ..... ...... ........... ..... ........ . 11 V\@ 0 14 7 11 0 Eplbtnk- 64 Ln '0 Point C? 69 /4 ---,) It lo Al 60 Z 50 ,lit r"el Pits:, 44 50 90 109 7, 10 27 MA 0 POWELL CREEK TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE/. 0 7 ubsegrnent2B)@,@,', S V 10 Segment Boundary @r,' 7 Subsegment Boundary "00 -5 Al Jill 126 1 ca@ 7 50 0 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 FEET 00, 770 10' 770 10' 40 30 it 0 A 30 45 _e- "0 10 Ha@Nson 21 Westover Landing @10 In "e@ 2\@ Buckk Poi 2B MaycPkv--- 0 0 BMW 0 '0 C 0 C) oggil. p0ii 0 ......... ... ........... ... J0 N, 3 N, 0 14 o Z4 4 Lo C7, N 69 C@ 50 50 k - 1(jl\- 50 9 69 '0 -MAP 5 POWELL CREEI,@/,," li7 SHORELANDS TYPES bo Subsegment 2B" N 0 'N' FASTLAND 0 Low Shore 0 Moderately Low Shore Moderately Low Shore 10- 50 with Bluff Moderately High Shore A A A High Shore f7 7 SHORE Beach @6, Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh .,50, _i@i@ NEARSHORE 7 Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 Wide 50 .0A 0-",A 0 1 MILE i 000 0 i 000 20fjO 3000 400 6000 7000 FEET 14 ------ - 0-- 1100L 770 10' da w w IMF 77o 10' 30 MAP 5C K POWELL CREEI 30 z FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, ER08ION io Subsegment 2B \v- Agricultural A x Industriai Residential RS Unmanaged ?@?L Westover Wooded W OWNERSHIP 70 'West2-- --AOvei 2 Private 2 Buckl( EROSION Poi Moderate Slight or No Change No Symboi 2B Maycocks coggi Pckn id.. 1 A 'lw@ S ..... . .... .. ............ . . 1RS .. .... .. . 1W 1 A 1A, /0 r 0 1 W Z@ 0 LI) 111 1 :74 j P-0 I mt i W" L69 1A /4 A RXI '0 I/A V 50 [bj 12 Y09 1w, 127 10 1w@/ W-- 1w// 120 1W 10 n A V77 1w\ A -IUU 1AS .1w, tpw/ @p :)o 0 I MILE i 00C 0 i 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 00 a". 770 10' 77o 05'@ 50 .30 f 40 1 \\ . 10 61 36 V o.. 40 Olds pt 50 It 11 /0 Hous it 40 115 -A 5 1fIT 50 ILI I co /0 Wharf 10 4L- ope Thue rs u Int 17 2B o A 'o 1 20 q;" thasset p 3A F I o\w e CaT_p / r d e w, .4 14 14 40 1 1'/ IA6 o cj Ift H u n d-r-e d \0 c@ it 40 ,40, U) 00 -b MAP 6A It FLOWERDEW HUNDRED TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegments 2B and 3A Segment Boundary E.- PO Subsegment Boundary, ')@- \@k - NN\ o L:@Jh t 3 A 0 X v v \'@x Fort /o 69 tA gh o '0 3M Ail i6 60 56 0 4 o 50 15- k 50 VF 7 0 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 50 00 6000 7000 FEET 00) @Z V I 614 -100N 5' Ak AIL low qW 77* 05' "W, MAP 6B\'. 'to .;0 11@ FLOWERDEW HUNDRED /7 61 SHORELANDS TYPES' Olds '40 Subsegments 2B and 3A pt It FASTLAND Hous -50 Low Shore _j 40 F_/ 5 Moderately Low Shore _jj Moderately High Shore A A A A I Co SHORE Wfrarf Beach Fringe Marsh 1`11111111111111111111111 Extensive Marsh Embayed Marsh OPL, -NEARSHORE rs -u Narrow 0-0-0-0 0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0__0 0 0 0 It 0 0 20 N, t assett/',)j, 1/ 3 A @'Camp 0 0- F I o w e r d e 3 4) ,f' r N 0 t6 0 Z@ 110 H u n d- r -e 0 'o 11.1 6039 6 40 tilt,\ lilt it lilt tj)l lilt 0 I 40 it II A\ it 9 0 1 V N. ,!it 0 "o V@ 0 N 0 PO V\31 0 ht@ 0 639 3A j 0 639 0 V 0 /0 _,o/ C@> - M o/ 0 -so 4 It J 65- so 50 1 Z, 1 7 0. 1-11LE ------ ------- 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FELT /00 < 614, _100-\ \ A0\ 1 7@7-. 05' 770 05'_ Q, MAP 6C <0 A 10 61 I-LUVVERDEW HUNDRED FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION -40 Olds pt Subsegments 2B and 3A?6@ /0 USE Hous 50 Agricultural A 4 iI, IL - 0 1-15 Unmanaged 50 Wooded W I Co W4-,a r f OWNERSHIP Private EROSION Moderate Slight or No Change No Symbol 0 PC, rs nt 2B A 0 1A 10 .4. 20 V 1RS: 3A a S S e @tj, 1 @Capn@, 7, F I o\w e r d e\ -30 "1 1@ , , to w i"A'6 14 G) I F(,, N A 0 1A,, C@ Cj H -e- 639 46 -u- n d r; 40 A 4@0 % --@40 f L 1A 9 A ........... 0 1W .30- 0, p 0 fi( [email protected] t 639 1 rW@ @,@@5 3 A: J-1 //)I h-Y- 0 V Fort, hatan Q) 69 1W F CA .0 10 0 (V M @-A 56 "o 1W 0 --- ---- _4 f 0 50 41 6,3 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 40CO 5000 6000 7000 FEET too Al Ak -N 614 x ;7@. 05' >1 ( zz,@ Ak AML Ah Am Am 770 02' 30" 3B.: /0 H, a, 3A Weyanok@\ 13 77'- 23, Upper B randon -o n *@6 24 Xrnsen 3A loe z x - 20 A 20 @o Io 22 20 20 MAP 7A c WARDS CREEK. A A TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegments 3A and 3B. ?0 lz@) Wi I low Hill Iz Segment Boundary 13M -1b 18" Subsegment Boundary A --------- - 14 14 116 o o 653 loo, sm 6 0 jo 50 69 11)80 0 3 @74 B T Co 70 X. 71- 611 0 1 v,LE 2 3 7 i 000 0 1000 200 3000 4C,'O 11000 6000 77o 02' 30" L@770 OT 30 3B 0. 0 .... Weyanok@\ 3A OZ 8 11-00' 0 i3 0 2, Upper A1% Brandon 10 0 P==@ 0 6 0 N 0 -1P o 'bo 4 0 '1011 24 3A 0 0-'0 0 653 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 '.0 22 20 20 -10 N 0 '@'Z Villow '30- % Hill A 'k BM 70 Oil M 14 @6 11) 14 o 0 AP 7B 653 WARDS CREEK BM 6 SHORELANDS TYPES A\@ Subsegments 3A and 3B T, 5 FASTLAND Low Shore L I I I I Moderately Low Shore Moderately High Shore A---A--A,-A 50 High Shore SHORE 5C Beach \j Fringe Marsh Extensive Marsh 0 A Embayed Marsh -A I, t Artificially Stabilized -A- -A- NEARSHORE B T I Narrow 0-0-0-0 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 @10 611 0 MILE 653 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 @.@-,O F@ET 4 770 02' 30" Z\2,y? 77' 02' 30" 3B\l K /0 3A 1A Vleyanoke 8 'D @3 Upper Brandoll 1A 1 W 1A en 1, n' .24 3A 20 12 1W, ;'n x x 1W 20 '0 RO 22 1A 110 Wi I low 30 1W 'Pill (r"\'lR S BM 18 -10 1-90 90 653 -1W n65 3 MAP 7C WARDS CREEK all 6 FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION1@ Subsegments 3A and 3B USE Agricultural A Unmanaged ed W Wood 6 OWNERSHIP 130 Private 1W EROSION Moderate I I I 71 Slight or No Change No Symbol Accretional + + + + W 1A '-7 @01 IAC X70 770 I MILE 2 40(lr' 3B V Kc 12 ov Ma-rsh MAP 8A BRANDON S= TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegments 3B and 3C N Segment Boundary Subsegment Boundary 0 BM 3B Tidal Flat a,\@ws Ight 'kandon Point to 21 3C 653 -0 ..e m "to N C:@ \4 7 ilt ran 30 611 Ticlakhats h 10 S ?4 30 Chippokes P' int 0 0.,7 3 C Tidal F at 3(0) - 77o ANk Ask Alk AM Isk Ak AN, An 77- 1 MILE E-i 0 ED 0 '0 MAP 8B BRANDON 0 S H 0 R'E'L A 1 T P 2 :S `:'j b s e p-n e n -'s 3 8 a n'- 3 FA-STLAND Low Shom X illy Var @Aoderate Low Shcrc -ate'y i0h Nicide X C-pach @-A Fringe Marsh H! III! I", WIN:IVIII, /,4 !@-x`ensivcklarsh Embavsd kl,@v@h Arti cia!ly t3bilize: NEMRSHWE t,.a, - r r, v i 0 Irte-me-44 i @a t c - 0 0 lot,, 3B k-n Point 0 .3C @2, 0 11, Cer @4 f-a rt'i 'n V zo 0 'A Ch,C,okes P6int P Tic3i i 3 770 w. 77o 1 MILE 2 401.1 3B MAP 8C BRANDON FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Subsegments 313 and 3C USE Agricultural A Kenm@v Ma rq Residential H "0 Unmanaged Wooded A" OWNERSHIP Private EROSION Moderate ifillil Slight or No Change No Sy'11"01 _1w 1 A 1A Fob 3 B Tidal ON Flat D @'40@ (@A\ @ ight Brandon Point 1RS 10 @3C 21 653 C em IC 1 R S M 4 30 '@Iranqon a., Tida:Flats \'1A A C o Ile ... . . ... 1W@ 1A -Aippokes i n t 3 C Ti daIFlat 3.' 1W 77o Ab 77o,Q2' 30" 4@ J -CC 3C 0 IL 7:@ -j 0 cc 0 44/ /7 4- 3C MAP 9A UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK TOPOGRAPHY AND CULTURE Subsegment 3C = Segment Boundary = Subsegment Boundary 2 :000 0 1000 5001) FEET 77- 02' 30" 77o -92'. 30-1 50 3 3 G COI 0 z 14 1 o T -j- ............... 10 L\j J), 5 Co 3C. MAP 9B UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK SHORELANDS TYPES Subsegment 3C FASTLAND Low Shore Moderately Low Shore Moderately High Shore A A A A High Shore SHORE Beach Fringe Marsh Embayed Marsh NEARSHORE No Data 7 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 02 30!' lift .-"77-_92'. 30" 1W 2 50 -30 40 411 3-C L C-D 0 @qv 7T 1 VV -7 44/ .1w . . .. ...... . 50 3C. MAP 9C UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK FASTLAND USE, OWNERSHIP, EROSION Subsegment 3C USE Unmanaged Wooded W OWNERSHIP Private EROSION Slight or No Change No Symbol 0 1 MILE 11000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 77- 02' 30!' 3 6668 00002 5108 4